An Answer to my Flight Model Question

[Fredo_69]

There is no source. It's an observation of how the helicopter behaves in game.

+1

[Fredo_69]

When I read all the fanboys defending the FM I come to think of H.C. Andersens "The emperors new clothes"!

:-o

[myHelljumper]

Uhm ...? The conclusion at the end of that video says "No VRS" after the helo landed perfectly fine. Maybe you've linked the wrong alternative facts video? ;.)

 

It's ironic and there is a VRS...

 

The only problem I see is that the VRS is too easy to recover right now, but there is one.

[Flagrum]

It's ironic and there is a VRS...

 

The only problem I see is that the VRS is too easy to recover right now, but there is one.

"Recoverable VRS" is no VRS - it is just a (unreasonable) quick descend. But iirc, this specific point was already discussed elsewhere exhaustively.

[Hawkeye60]

too bad we don't hear from the devs anymore, but it is understandable with the bashing and all . I hope to here again from them .

Very sad about this.

 

All so unnecessary and unproductive.

 

SIGH...................

[Pocket Sized]

I hope Polychop gets access to the full EFM toolkit in the future.

 

They do have full access though.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Pocket Sized

[dimitriov]

In fact the instructor did.

 

In fact ALAT now uses the DCS module in one of its squad. . .

[Raz_Specter]

IMHO the original flight model (baring some minor tweaks) was the best and hardest flight model. I spent hours and hours learning to fly this puppy and can say i mastered it. When the flight model was changed (due to people complaining in the forums) i got in the cockpit and it was such a disappointment that all my previous hard work was pointless.

 

if a real (model in question) pilot says that the flight model fly's like the real thing then the developers shouldn't change it.

 

its a challenge to master some airframes and such a sense of achievement to master it.

 

my to peneth.

 

Cheers Specter

[Scarecrow84]

 

A Huey pilot would wonder if he is drunk while piloting the DCS module...

 

And that's the same for the Gazelle. And for Mi-8. And (I suppose) for Kamov-50.

 

DCS FM are quite accurate, but they don't simulate many, many very important things for helicopters, simply because they can't, too hard to code, too expensive, too long, and by the way too much for a public use. Only real pilots will notice issues (real issues, not those imagined by people who use YT videos to learn how a helicopter behaves...).

 

 

I've heard a retired Army Huey pilot say the Huey module is spot on, actually. And he didn't just drop into a forum to say this and dodge any specific questions posed about the FM.

 

The gazelle flight model is not on the level of the Huey, not even close.

 

One of the Polychop guys talks in the interview about how the original FM (which he claims was something like 80% done, maybe more), could do front flips. He seemed to think this was really cute.

[myHelljumper]

In fact ALAT now uses the DCS module in one of its squad. . .

 

Did not want to say it as it might be under a NDA, but this is true.

 

So sure french pilots like to use a broken FM for training.

[Scarecrow84]

IMHO the original flight model (baring some minor tweaks) was the best and hardest flight model. I spent hours and hours learning to fly this puppy and can say i mastered it. When the flight model was changed (due to people complaining in the forums) i got in the cockpit and it was such a disappointment that all my previous hard work was pointless.

 

if a real (model in question) pilot says that the flight model fly's like the real thing then the developers shouldn't change it.

 

its a challenge to master some airframes and such a sense of achievement to master it.

 

my to peneth.

 

Cheers Specter

 

I agree, the original FM was better. It at least wasn't laggy and over-stable at the same time...

[Coxy_99]

I've heard a retired Army Huey pilot say the Huey module is spot on, actually. And he didn't just drop into a forum to say this and dodge any specific questions posed about the FM.

 

The gazelle flight model is not on the level of the Huey, not even close.

 

One of the Polychop guys talks in the interview about how the original FM (which he claims was something like 80% done, maybe more), could do front flips. He seemed to think this was really cute.

 

How can you compare the huey to the gazelle totally different choppers lol :thumbup: And may i add flight models, Thats like saying oh i flew the F-15 and its not on par with the SU-27 :)

 

Let the 3rd parties work there magic, So Polychop thank you for the Gazelle, Not everyone will be happy you cant please them all keep up the good work.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Coxy_99

[Pocket Sized]

My argument is not that the Gazelle doesn't fly like a Gazelle.

 

My argument is that the current FM is "script it from the ground up until it flies like a Gazelle," when it should be, "simulate the basic physics of a helicopter rotor, then tweak it until it flies like a Gazelle"

 

The current approach will lead to a reasonably believable FM with time, but I still believe that time would be better spent developing a physics based FM.

[myHelljumper]

My argument is not that the Gazelle doesn't fly like a Gazelle.

 

My argument is that the current FM is "script it from the ground up until it flies like a Gazelle," when it should be, "simulate the basic physics of a helicopter rotor, then tweak it until it flies like a Gazelle"

 

The current approach will lead to a reasonably believable FM with time, but I still believe that time would be better spent developing a physics based FM.

 

I really would like to know where you got this info.

[Pocket Sized]

How can you compare the huey to the gazelle totally different choppers lol :thumbup:

 

They're both still helicopters though. All helicopters are controlled by the same physical and aerodynamic phenomena.

[Scarecrow84]

How can you compare the huey to the gazelle totally different choppers lol :thumbup: And may i add flight models, Thats like saying oh i flew the F-15 and its not on par with the SU-27 :)

 

Of course they have different FMs but they operate on the same basic principles.

 

They shouldn't be as different as a helicopter from a moon lander.

[Pocket Sized]

I really would like to know where you got this info.

 

Again, it's an observation of how the helicopter behaves in game.

 

If a developer decides to intervene and prove me wrong I will happily redact all of my previous statements.

[Raz_Specter]

if it flys like a Gazelle who care how it got there!

 

 

This debate is pointless IMHO, if it barks like a dog, smells like a dog, looks like a dog then its a dog.

 

My final words.

[dimitriov]

Again, it's an observation of how the helicopter behaves in game.

 

If a developer decides to intervene and prove me wrong I will happily redact all of my previous statements.

 

Why would a dev waste his time answering such insulting question ?

 

Even if he proved you that you're wrong, you wouldn't believe him, so why ?

[Scarecrow84]

All one has to do is watch the online cockpit videos of the IRL Gazelle flying to see it does not fly like the real thing (or any other real helicopter). I explained this fact based evidence in painstaking detail, but most will just accept half hearted appeals to "authority" instead.

 

Was the gazelle squadron that is supposedly using the DCS module given this module by Polychop? Are we to expect them to bad-mouth a free piece of software?

 

Are they really using it for stick and rudder training purposes?

 

Do they refer to it as a non physics-based "toy" like the gaz pilot who chimed in before?

[dimitriov]

Read my previous answer, when we answer you the truth, you don't believe. So why wasting time ?

 

I'm done here, far too much time wasted in your company.

[NineLine]

Guys, I really dont want to lock this discussion, I know you need to vent and get your frustrations out, but understand we all want the same thing so try and be respectful of each others opinions...

[Pocket Sized]

Why would a dev waste his time answering such insulting question ?

 

Even if he proved you that you're wrong, you wouldn't believe him, so why ?

 

Yes, I would believe them, because the answer is completely objective.

 

As I've stated numerous times, I'm talking about the techniques used to create the flight model.

 

Now that that's out of the way, let's put the "constructive" back in "constructive criticism." My advice to polychop: Follow in the footsteps of Leatherneck and be open! Talk to the community about the flight model, how it was created, and how it can be improved. It's much easier for us to give relevant feedback when we know what exactly we're dealing with. Even if it costs some development time initially, good communication = happy community. Even though VEAO's first module release was less than perfect, many people (myself included) still look up to them because they're very transparent about their plans to improve it.

 

Of course, I don't know exactly what's going on behind the scenes, so there might be factors I'm not considering.

[EagleFox]

Nvm, not worth it. They did what they did and future will reflect on that.

Edited February 16, 2017 by EagleFox

[BronzeYardNo11]

good communication = happy community.

 

+1

 

It can't be that hard for the devs to make a weekly sticky on what's going on, right?

 

I think they're going for the Belsimtek approach: "lol what's a forum?"