Gazelle Flight Dynamics... Again.

[FragBum]

I will add that I do find the Gazelle fun to fly after taking some time to start getting used to it. That is not to say it doesn't need to be fixed if it is as incorrect as people are saying.

 

Agree officially it's fun to "fly" same as is the Huey.

 

YMMV :thumbup:

[104th_Money]

Ah yes Pedro, end of story it is!!! The elusive AA kill in the Gazelle. I was so mad at myself watching my SL Maverick knock down fighters left and right every other day while I spent 20 something hours hunting elusive prey. Finally got my first kill in, then it got easier from there but still not a sure thing every flight.

 

Now if you are on the 104th server and someone is running GCI in the observer slot, it makes it alot easier to know when fighters are tracking you from far so you can keep pushing or up close trying to hunt you down.

 

Its amazing to see some fighters just slow down and turn in full AB so stupidly trying to get a visual on you while you pedal turn, put the double greens on him, get tone and squeeze off a Mistral. I think the best thing of all is the SimMod message on the 104th server that says "Humiliation Kill" whenever a Gazelle splashes a fighter.

 

Damn it, going back to the Gazelle right now!!

[David OC]

I Agree to, the gazelle is lots of fun! The FM maybe a little out? Don't know, Ive only flown an R44 before. I do think it's very close from the

Ive seen and probably just needs a little polishing up in a few areas, there definitely not game stoppers, if you fly the chopper within IRL limits. I have full faith PC will polish up the Gazelle, you can tell it was a labor of love for them.

 

The way I see FM's, you can get them very close, then it's starts getting real hard and time consuming to move that little bit more forward. I can see why it takes so long for these hi tech sims to come out of beta.

 

I think PC have done a great job here so far for their first chopper and module in DCS and I wish Poly Chop the best going forward and hope they get everything sorted out soon. Looking forward to the BO-105, day one buy for me.

[Hawkeye60]

 

END OF STORY

Thank you!

 

I enjoyed this immensely!

 

Good shooting!

[FragBum]

I Agree to, the gazelle is lots of fun! The FM maybe a little out? Don't know, Ive only flown an R44 before. I do think it's very close from the

Ive seen and probably just needs a little polishing up in a few areas, there definitely not game stoppers, if you fly the chopper within IRL limits. I have full faith PC will polish up the Gazelle, you can tell it was a labor of love for them.

 

The way I see FM's, you can get them very close, then it's starts getting real hard and time consuming to move that little bit more forward. I can see why it takes so long for these hi tech sims to come out of beta.

 

I think PC have done a great job here so far for their first chopper and module in DCS and I wish Poly Chop the best going forward and hope they get everything sorted out soon. Looking forward to the BO-105, day one buy for me.

 

I thought about this little universe that is DCS, I'm actually very happy with the modules I have and it is a credit to all the developers involved.

 

Thanks Guys. :thumbup:

[=Pedro=]

Thank you!

 

I enjoyed this immensely!

 

Good shooting!

 

Check all of his series ;) He basically shows his amazing skills of controlling that helicopter to the limits.

[Scarecrow84]

I'm not seeing that at all, the Gazelle seems very responsive to input. all I am running is saturation at 90% for cyclic on Gazelle otherwise it a little to responsive for me, no other mods to cyclic input. (saturation for the Huey is at 100%)

 

All other inputs also seem instant for me so maybe there is some other factor affecting your Gazelle module.

 

Hmm, I really don't know why we see such a difference. Did you fly the original FM, from the first release?

 

I think a few other people share my impression...but who knows.

 

ZimmerDylan, I think we got in a non-argument over semantics. It's true that a good bit of subjectivity is factoring in when people get such different impressions.

 

In "theory", the FM is supposed to approximate an objective representation of how the thing flies, though. Not that it would ever "feel" exactly the same, of course, due to lack of acceleration forces, different control geometry, etc.

 

But, as the Huey shows us (IMO) a good approximation is pretty great.

[Zimmerdylan]

Scarecrow84

But, as the Huey shows us (IMO) a good approximation is pretty great.

 

I have to agree on this point. I will take the Huey over the Gazelle for fun flying every time. Many of the points made here about the Gazelle's handling are true and I find them to be a little annoying at times. But I always figure that everything gets worked out in it's time with DCS modules. I know that the Gazelle will eventually be as much a pleasure to fly as the Huey.

Does anyone remember the days when people were complaining daily about the terrible flight model in the Huey? And how no one thought that it would ever get straightened out because the module had been out for such and such a time period and it should be fixed by now? Now the Huey gets a lot of praise for it's flight model by most people who fly it. And even though there are still bugs with it (as in all DCS modules), It's a favorite for a lot of people.

I think the Gazelle will eventually go the same course. In the meantime, it is fun to fly and play with the weapons systems.

[=Pedro=]

I think the Gazelle will eventually go the same course. In the meantime, it is fun to fly and play with the weapons systems.

 

:thumbup:

[FragBum]

Hmm, I really don't know why we see such a difference. Did you fly the original FM, from the first release?

 

I think a few other people share my impression...but who knows.

 

ZimmerDylan, I think we got in a non-argument over semantics. It's true that a good bit of subjectivity is factoring in when people get such different impressions.

 

In "theory", the FM is supposed to approximate an objective representation of how the thing flies, though. Not that it would ever "feel" exactly the same, of course, due to lack of acceleration forces, different control geometry, etc.

 

But, as the Huey shows us (IMO) a good approximation is pretty great.

 

Not sure I was being a tad of a smart a#se when I got the Gazelle this time last year and to be honest I didn't really like the Gazelle I was in luv with the Huey. The Gazelle was this twitchy almost un controllable enigma of a contraption. Then one day I could almost fly it then latter I crashed it less often then I fell in luv with it too. :)

 

I have the Gazelle only in DCS 2.0.something but that's fine for me, been thinking of missions for the Gazelle and cat herding comes to mind it's that agile. :thumbup:

[FragBum]

Scarecrow84

But, as the Huey shows us (IMO) a good approximation is pretty great.

 

I have to agree on this point. I will take the Huey over the Gazelle for fun flying every time. Many of the points made here about the Gazelle's handling are true and I find them to be a little annoying at times. But I always figure that everything gets worked out in it's time with DCS modules. I know that the Gazelle will eventually be as much a pleasure to fly as the Huey.

Does anyone remember the days when people were complaining daily about the terrible flight model in the Huey? And how no one thought that it would ever get straightened out because the module had been out for such and such a time period and it should be fixed by now? Now the Huey gets a lot of praise for it's flight model by most people who fly it. And even though there are still bugs with it (as in all DCS modules), It's a favorite for a lot of people.

I think the Gazelle will eventually go the same course. In the meantime, it is fun to fly and play with the weapons systems.

 

++1

 

I actually find both the Huey and Gazelle to be great modules. :thumbup:

[TripRodriguez]

This might sound odd, but I'm excited to hear the almost universally loved Huey once had an unsatisfactory flight model. I'm a new member of the community and it was already great when I got here!

[ESAc_matador]

This might sound odd, but I'm excited to hear the almost universally loved Huey once had an unsatisfactory flight model. I'm a new member of the community and it was already great when I got here!

 

In fact was an "impossible" to fly FM. You simply couldnt hover. And took if I remember well about a year or more to start being as it is now.

[FragBum]

Okay there maybe something funny going on in turns, I thought about this and how I fly the Gazelle (well I mostly miss the ground so that's a start) whilst giving the Huey some love yesterday.

 

Depending on how you turn the Gazelle it doesn't always follow the turn, I mean it does in as much as doing the turn but the authority the tail has or should have doesn't seem to be there. I just tend to correct attitude going through the turn with pedal input (I learnt to fly the Huey first so it's automatic) I also think this effect isn't consistent but I'm not good enough to be sure.

 

Here is a short video, is this the effect we're talking about? at the point where the Gazelle starts to line up to the direction of travel I'm doing in excess of 100Klm/h more like 120 130 at a guess. I purposely do not correct this for a bit and I'm flying obliquely at about 45 degrees to direction of flight which after correcting attitude my IAS is 150Klm/H

 

Link here might be best to download then watch

 

Or have I totally missed something?

[TripRodriguez]

I do believe that is one of the major items that has been raised @FragBum .

 

There have been arguments that it's possible the Gazelle really does behave this strangely (by helicopter standards) due to it's flight control systems but the majority of folks aren't buying it.

 

@BigNewy has said on MANY occasions that we can expect PolyChop to improve the flight model so I take that as confirmation that the devs are aware that the FM needs attention. That's good enough for me.

 

I think the rest is largely frustration with PC being incommunicado for so long due to their "internal legal issues". If the PC devs were here participating in the discussions we would feel a lot better.

[Rogue Trooper]

There are indeed problems with the flight model.

Personally I loved the fist 2.0 release... that was a seriously taught mo fo straight outta the box with a nasty and sudden VRS if pushed too far to the limit. The only problem at release was the super fine cyclic (which I over came with hours of practise and I came to love).

 

I think Polychops gotta stop reacting to feedback too quickly and stick to their guns until proved wrong!

 

 

Slow clean development of the model is just fine with me.

 

 

Light weight choppers were never meant to be easy, especially the old ones. there is no modern flight comparison to the Gazelle.

 

 

By the way, a superb combat machine polychops! She truly puts me right there toe to toe!

Edited April 22, 2017 by Rogue Trooper

[FragBum]

It's not a deal breaker for me I fly for the fun of it and mostly (as can be seen) by the seat of my pants. It's just that I'm always on the pedals I didn't really notice it.

 

 

 

@Rotorhead11 You mean like when I break the tail assembly off. :music_whistling:

[FragBum]

Okay a bit experimentation doing the same sideways take off with the auto pilot off the Gazelle actually seems to windmill into the direction of travel. It's not a smooth transition when the nose comes around but hey it does come around.

 

Could it be the auto pilot was holding off bringing the nose around because it thinks I want to fly sideways?

 

It also seems to have a consistent well out about 4 times with AP on and with it off when I tried it.

[FragBum]

Call me slow but you can turn the "ÄP" off, holey smoking shyt it flies great.:thumbup:

 

oops i broke one,..:lol:

Edited April 22, 2017 by FragBum
oops

[Gizzy]

I found it takes quite a while to get into the 'groove'... and yes I used to knock off elements of the SAS and mess with axis saturations to get it to 'feel' what I thought was right.... and then after a while it all slotted into place and I realised there was no need, now I leave SAS on all the time, zero curves and no saturation on the axis... of course YMMV...

 

The birds happiest at 150 kph... spend a fair bit of time at this speed and very, very low keeping the speed in the turns whilst zipping in and out of stuff and you're soon get tuned in to the control inputs and then you'll find slower stuff is a breeze. It's not 100% but not far off...

[FragBum]

I found it takes quite a while to get into the 'groove'... and yes I used to knock off elements of the SAS and mess with axis saturations to get it to 'feel' what I thought was right.... and then after a while it all slotted into place and I realised there was no need, now I leave SAS on all the time, zero curves and no saturation on the axis... of course YMMV...

 

The birds happiest at 150 kph... spend a fair bit of time at this speed and very, very low keeping the speed in the turns whilst zipping in and out of stuff and you're soon get tuned in to the control inputs and then you'll find slower stuff is a breeze. It's not 100% but not far off...

 

Yep. :thumbup: Not sure on SAS/AP but still having fun with it off. :helpsmilie:

[Scarecrow84]

For the record, here is the answer a guy who claims to be a Gazelle pilot (Mickt) gave regarding the points I raised in the now closed thread about cyclic behavior ("An Answer to my Question..."):

 

Asset: "Can you maybe answer this guys question regarding stick position in fast flight: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...3&postcount=16"

 

Mickt: "without SAS fitted the heli goes faster the more the cyclic is moved forward and held in place, it will not return to centre. Power will also be reqd and an input from the pedals. All 3 controls have to be coordinated at all times."

 

So, there is something off about the cyclic control, unless the French Gazelle SAS, blades and sight somehow change it completely - in a way that makes it unlike helicopters in general.

 

Also, Mickt said:

 

"Not saying you do, but what is the point of picking holes in the module and expecting the devs to make it as realistic as possible if all you need is an arcade version which would probably be a lot cheaper.

No matter how hard the devs FM the gazelle or any other module, you will never have it work just like the real thing especially for £50."

 

The Huey was 50 bucks, wasn't it?

I am not trying to stir things up further, and if we have learned anything it's that complaining goes nowhere with getting things improved.

 

There is nothing wrong with approaching the module as a "toy" (Rotorhead11) or "arcade" version (mickt).

 

However, I think this shows that there are different attitudes at play here, and different expectations.

 

Maybe real pro heli pilots have less of an interest in hi fidelilty simulation because they can do the real thing? I don't know.

 

Just my two cents.

[TripRodriguez]

That quote to me begs the question due to the wording: What about with SAS fitted?

 

I don't think there is any question that DCS fans want the aircraft to behave as realistically as can be reasonably expected.

 

There are certainly plenty of DCS modules that have hit this mark, and proven that it is possible to satisfy us so that argument is irrelevant.

 

Either the SAS/AP in the SA-342 make it fly weird (we need a real pilot to tell us if that is the case) or PC have some work to do. @BigNewy 's comments seem to imply that it's been acknowledged that the Flight Model still needs work so now all we can really do is try to help gather information that will help PC satisfy us once they end the comms blackout.

[ESAc_matador]

For the record, here is the answer a guy who claims to be a Gazelle pilot (Mickt) gave regarding the points I raised in the now closed thread about cyclic behavior ("An Answer to my Question..."):

 

Asset: "Can you maybe answer this guys question regarding stick position in fast flight: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...3&postcount=16"

 

Mickt: "without SAS fitted the heli goes faster the more the cyclic is moved forward and held in place, it will not return to centre. Power will also be reqd and an input from the pedals. All 3 controls have to be coordinated at all times."

 

So, there is something off about the cyclic control, unless the French Gazelle SAS, blades and sight somehow change it completely - in a way that makes it unlike helicopters in general.

 

Also, Mickt said:

 

"Not saying you do, but what is the point of picking holes in the module and expecting the devs to make it as realistic as possible if all you need is an arcade version which would probably be a lot cheaper.

No matter how hard the devs FM the gazelle or any other module, you will never have it work just like the real thing especially for £50."

 

The Huey was 50 bucks, wasn't it?

I am not trying to stir things up further, and if we have learned anything it's that complaining goes nowhere with getting things improved.

 

There is nothing wrong with approaching the module as a "toy" (Rotorhead11) or "arcade" version (mickt).

 

However, I think this shows that there are different attitudes at play here, and different expectations.

 

Maybe real pro heli pilots have less of an interest in hi fidelilty simulation because they can do the real thing? I don't know.

 

Just my two cents.

 

He also says british gazelle doesnt have SAS, so he cant compare exactly.

[Bearfoot]

Also, Mickt said:

 

"Not saying you do, but what is the point of picking holes in the module and expecting the devs to make it as realistic as possible if all you need is an arcade version which would probably be a lot cheaper.

No matter how hard the devs FM the gazelle or any other module, you will never have it work just like the real thing especially for £50."

 

There is nothing wrong with approaching the module as a "toy" (Rotorhead11) or "arcade" version (mickt).

 

However, I think this shows that there are different attitudes at play here, and different expectations.

 

Maybe real pro heli pilots have less of an interest in hi fidelilty simulation because they can do the real thing? I don't know.

 

Just my two cents.

 

I will leave mickt to confirm/deny himself, but it seems you are either misreading what he says or I am misreading you.

 

Mickt was not saying the the Gazelle is an arcade simulation or that he wants an arcade simulation. He was saying that people who use the simulation go out of their way to induce or otherwise obsess about fringe aspects of the flight regime such VRS etc. are using the simulator like an arcade game and thus might as well as go for an arcade game, as, in real life, not only are VRS etc. never directly sought out but is so rare that he himself has never encountered VRS in all his years of flying.

 

We all want authentic high-fidelity helo simulations, otherwise we would not be here ...

 

Just my 2c