Little note about the FM from the devs

[Hawkeye60]

Many here could learn a thing or two, please be humble and communicate others with the respect you yourself would like to earn. For you it maybe a simple fix because you "think so" (and there is a lot of those "I think" in this thread), but as a dev they have something called quality assurance.

 

Just so you know, there already was a real Gazelle pilot in these forums and he was not of the sort who bragged about it. Yet he got called out by immature armchair pro`s who had nothing but their own belief, and gave up. You don`t need to repeat the story. Think over what you say and to who you say it. Hope we can bring the tone of this discussion to a level which is a little above current.

THIS!!!!

 

:thumbup:

[BitMaster]

Has this been addressed yet or fixed ?

 

I still dont have the Gazelle and will hold back if it is not up to Mi-8 standard.

 

 

now my 2 cents regarding a 10sec inverted flight with a full scale Helicopter:

 

I dont know ANYTHING about the real Gazelle but I do know what it takes swashplate travel wise on a 1.6m rotor diameter R/C Heli....and I honestly doubt that the Gazelle has enough travel from -5° <--> +15° pitch. Also it would be challenging to make composite blades THAT strong that they would NOT cut the tail off, given that "Real" blades are 5 to 10 time longer than R/C blades. but I might be totally wrong.

[Whisper]

So now we're fixated on an fm abuse way outside the normal flight enveloppe that has no applicable use? Great, the gaz fm will be top notch when it won't fly inverted for too long! Thank you, forum experts!

[Flagrum]

So now we're fixated on an fm abuse way outside the normal flight enveloppe that has no applicable use? Great, the gaz fm will be top notch when it won't fly inverted for too long! Thank you, forum experts!

The thing is, to enter such an abnormal condition, the aircraft was close to the edges of the normal envelope at least once at some point in time, before it eventually left it. And at that point the FM should probably have reacted in a way that would make the end result impossible - or at least far less probable (i.e. stable?).

[cichlidfan]

So now we're fixated on an fm abuse way outside the normal flight enveloppe that has no applicable use? Great, the gaz fm will be top notch when it won't fly inverted for too long! Thank you, forum experts!

 

If the FM lets you do impossible things then there are aspects of the FM that are certainly not "close to the real thing".

[Whisper]

I can do impossible things in many DCS (and any sim for that matter) aircraft. I don't see the logic in trying to fix things outside of normal flight enveloppe, that will not help the actual FM.

If Poly do like BST did, ie make the chopper break in some way, before reaching the odd behavior, what do we get? The SAME FM, with conditions hidden behind barrier that hide you the issues. Will you stop complaining? Obviously, since you can't test. But.... that's the same FM (just a physics change that make something break). We glorify BST, but maybe they also have hidden some hideous FM issues by making the blades go away on UH1 when you test the FM too much....

 

If I have to point out a problem in Gaz FM, I'd point out the extra stability when not touching the cyclic (though the fact that we play with perfect centered non moving, ie, unreal, cyclic, certainly doesn't help the chopper depart from stability). I'd point out the complete lack of backblowing torque effect. Is that real? I'd point out the very little, if not absent, effect of 1 axis on the other 2 (at least, zero effect on cyclic) like I've read EVERY helicopter book outline. I'll point out the VRS.

Maintaining long negative G ? It's impressive, it looks bad, but I don't care much, if that get fixed, that won't make the FM any better to me.

We need to look, first, at the issues of the FM inside the normal flight envelop. And you gotta admit that the Gaz is pretty damn good in this, apart from a few points that I (and I may have missed some, ofc, I don't pretend to be an expert at all) listed above, and that makes the gaz feel too on rails to me.

Though, I tend to not see the cyclic stability on takeoff as much important, because I play with a VERY loose stick that will not stay stable on takeoff anyway. That issue may be more visible for Warthog users, for example.

[GGTharos]

And is breaking the aircraft the wrong solution in this case?

[Whisper]

And is breaking the aircraft the wrong solution in this case?

 

That's not the point I was making, but please keep getting fixated on this and let's resolve this most important and absolutely shameful issue.

People are making reports on other, normal flight envelop issues, but the one most talked about is the extreme ecample of something nobody would do anyway, like fixing this would make the chopper perfect. No, fixing normal behavior is more important imho

[GGTharos]

I agree, in-envelope behavior should be fixed first - but sometimes fixing other things can be done at the same time. Not always, but some times.

[cichlidfan]

No, fixing normal behavior is more important imho

 

That still points to the issue of the FM not being recognized as having significant problems by the folks that created it.

[Flagrum]

I don't see the logic in trying to fix things outside of normal flight enveloppe, that will not help the actual FM.

The logic is, that if stuff like this happens, it could be very possible that the issue is based on problems within the normal envelope.

 

I am not suggesting that the fix should be "IF outside-of-envelope THEN helo-explode". But when the formula, the curve of the flight parameters, converges with the documented flight envelope, and then just continues as if nothing is wrong, is not good enough. Some logarithmical or exponential factor is perhaps just a tiny bit off. And if corrected, the curve of the flight parameter will not just cross the limits of the normal flight envelope and just continue, but degrade in a way that seem physically plausible - and eventually result in physically sound reactions like loss of control and or overstraining the airframe.

 

No, this will not lead to a 100% accurate flight modell, neither within nor without the normal envelope. But it get's closer to 100% than just saying "ok, we ignore everything outside the normal envelope". Imo it is not important if the airframe breaks because the sim calculated "force = x" or "force = x + y" as long as it breaks whenever "x" is clearly out of bounds.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Flagrum

[ben1101]

I feel that this thread is out of hand now, becoming a deconstruction of how people choose to try and communicate a dissatisfaction that hasn't really been adequately addressed. Miscommunication is rife.

 

As TripRodriguez said, will the developer at least acknowledge these legitimate concerns regarding the FM? That would allay the concerns of the community that feel this issue.

 

Both the Huey and Mi8 feel like dynamic systems when flying, with the appropriate interactions of controls and environment which is what actual helicopters feel like (I have 32 hours IRL helicopter 6-R22 26-H300 and countless in X-Plane). Personally I don't enjoy flying the Gaz the way it is. I really wana love it.

 

Regarding the assessment of IRL Gaz pilots if they have communicated that the current FM is accurate, I wonder what flight hardware and experience with sims they have - whether they have properly calibrated gear with at least a VR rig (as the perception of heli flying on a monitor is terrible compared to VR).

 

Well thats my take, and I feel strongly enough that I actually wrote this.

 

Kumbaya~!

[Rabb]

Some things about how Gazelle behaves in flight and how she feels or reacts don't feel right to me.

 

I am no real life helicopter pilot, so my observation is based only on Mi-8, UH-1H, Ka-50 and my knowledge. I am aware that each aircraft is different, but mechanical/engineering principles are the same. Even with the lowest weight possible, Gazelle handles extremely tricky.

 

Please note high-G turn:

 

or these turns at 80 degree bank or more:

 

or a turn and a nod to the audience. The nod was performed with no altitude loss and with very slow (like inertia induced and comparable to Mi-8 in DCS) and small forward movement:

 

I find it quite difficult to simulate those in Gazelle.

 

And, even loaded fully, constant changes in altitude require collective to be operated like a cyclic in a hover, ie. with constant input. One moment, at one setting, helicopter is in descent, and the next it climbs. Or vice versa.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Rabb

[FragBum]

Some things about how Gazelle behaves in flight and how she feels or reacts don't feel right to me.

 

I am no real life helicopter pilot, so my observation is based only on Mi-8, UH-1H, Ka-50 and my knowledge. I am aware that each aircraft is different, but mechanical/engineering principles are the same. Even with the lowest weight possible, Gazelle handles extremely tricky.

 

Please note high-G turn:

 

or these turns at 80 degree bank or more:

 

or a turn and a nod to the audience. The nod was performed with no altitude loss and with very slow (like inertia induced and comparable to Mi-8 in DCS) and small forward movement:

 

I find it quite difficult to simulate those in Gazelle.

 

And, even loaded fully, constant changes in altitude require collective to be operated like a cyclic in a hover, ie. with constant input. One moment, at one setting, helicopter is in descent, and the next it climbs. Or vice versa.

 

I thought that's how you were meant to fly the Gazelle. ;)

[FragBum]

I mean I think I've got it. ;)

[Rabb]

I have watched your video very carefully, FragBum, and I don't understand what you've got...

 

Maneuvers, motion, angles and a whole lot of things I have shown in videos is almost (or even completely) impossible to reproduce with this Gazelle we have in DCS.

 

On a side notice, I have yet to see a helicopter which requires constant collective work during all stages of flight and a totally unresponsive and unauthorative collective during level flight.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Rabb

[FragBum]

I have watched your video very carefully, FragBum, and I don't understand what you've got...

 

 

Clearly I don't get shyt! :) I was just flaffing about,.. :megalol:

 

 

Maneuvers, motion, angles and a whole lot of things I have shown in videos is almost (or even completely) impossible to reproduce with this Gazelle we have in DCS.

 

I don't see that, but WTF do I know. ;)

 

On a side notice, I have yet to see a helicopter which requires constant collective work during all stages of flight and a totally unresponsive and unauthorative collective during level flight.

 

I don't see that, even in the Huey, but WTF do I know. ;)

 

Look I think the Gazelle is under powered with 40something % fuel loading plus crew etc, however at 30% fuel and less with AP off in "instant action" and no enemies/friendlies in NTTR, the Gazelle seems fairly responsive. YMMV.

[Holbeach]

Can you do this in a real Gazelle? (No).

 

I bought a new set of pedals to replace my twist grip, so I devised this little mission to get some practice and found out I could now fly the Gazelle without using the cyclic or trim.The idea is to destroy the building in the store compound, without using weapons or cyclic/trim. This is the short version, which normally involves another compound with 4 buildings and a landing back at base. Only collective and pedals are used. This mission can also be flown with the stick disconnected and the SAS and gyro turned off.

 

 

..

Edited May 27, 2017 by Holbeach
Added text to make the point clearer.

[Rabb]

@FragBum:

Got that! :megalol:

~S~

 

@Holbeach:

Actually, no.

This is Soko Gazelle (Yugoslav license built), flown by current Hungarian civlian owner:

 

They have a bunch of great helicopter flight videos on their Youtube channel.

 

Their Gazelle is in light civilian edition, true, and Soko/Yugoslav Malyutka-armed Gazelles are (probably) lighter than Sa-342Ms which have more powerful engine on the other hand. But, I believe they should be at least comparable to Sa-342Ls...

 

Not so in current Polychop's edition.

 

Yugoslav Gazelle start-up, Hungarian edition ;) :

 

UK Gazelle flight:

 

Unfortunately, I have still to find a good video which shows collective use in Gazelle and its authority...

Edited May 23, 2017 by Rabb

[dimitriov]

Seriously dude you're saying that it may behave the same... 2.1 T for the M version, 1.1T for this one, not same rotor, not same turbine, not same aerodynamism...

 

That simply a whole different helicopter. The only common point is the name.

 

It's exactly like comparing the UH-1 first version with it's venom twin turbine last gen counter-part thinking that as long as it's the same name, it's the same on everything with few differences.

[myHelljumper]

He is just highlighting that this is not the same helicopter....

[Fredo_69]

He is just highlighting that this is not the same helicopter....

BUT.... .. . the laws of physics - are the same!

[FragBum]

Can you do this in a real Gazelle?

 

 

 

..

 

There is a building in the NTTR map that spontaneously combusts when you land on it a tad hard same as the stacks of bricks at the construction sites. :music_whistling:

 

I'm guessing when you say no stick it's got some form of centre detent, I can't do that if I let go of the stick it's all over no centre detent. :)

[Esac_mirmidon]

I can do exactly the same with the Ka-50.

 

Flying hands off from the cyclic from the ground starting with a good hover trim. This means the KA-50 AFM is also a fake?

 

You know what it means an AFCS? How it works? What is 3 Channel Attitude hold autopilot?

 

Try do the same in a Gazelle with both trimmers off and the AFCS off.

 

I really encourage anybody to do the same with AFCS on with the KA-50 and be the first to say that the AFM is wrong or call the Ka-50 AFM with the same adjetives like the Gazelle because you can fly it hands off from the cyclic ALSO.

 

PD: This doesnt mean the Gazelle FM is perfect at all.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Holbeach if you have the Ka-50 please try do the same with AFCS on.

 

You can fly it also hands off the cyclic. This means:

 

1.- AFCS working as intended.

2.- Ka-50 AFM is the same "fake" as the Gazelle.

 

I choose option 1. Modern helicopters with modern AFCS can fly hands of the cyclic / colective / pedals. This is a feature of the AFCS. Not magic.

 

PD: https://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/docs_wsw/RUB_114/tile_110/3023-S-00-Rev-0-EN.pdf ( 2.4 LEVEL OF AUTOMATION )

 

Hint: take a look at the helicopters list in the first page: AS 341/AS 342

Edited May 24, 2017 by Esac_mirmidon