Has module been abandoned by Devs?

[borchi_2b]

Having worked now for many years with real pilots as close as I did, one 64d pilot stated once to me, that if you ask 10 64d pilots how the aircraft should feel in a sim, you will get 10 different answers, included that not a single helicopter of the same build will fly the same way as the parked one right next to you.

 

You can find x pilot where ever you want, but for example, a croatian army pilot, that has actual stick time, tested it last week and he for example had the feeling it did not have enough power in the collective, lift. The others do not have that feeling. from its muscle memory the aircraft handelled in terms of the cyclic it handles like the real aircraft. You see different persons, same aircraft type, different opinions.

 

Now we as a dev sit there and have to make something out of the information given

[Yeti42]

How would you know, do you have any real world experience?

 

Yes!

[Dee-Jay]

Hi!

 

Having worked now for many years with real pilots as close as I did, one 64d pilot stated once to me, that if you ask 10 64d pilots how the aircraft should feel in a sim, you will get 10 different answers, included that not a single helicopter of the same build will fly the same way as the parked one right next to you.

 

This is also true. But we are not discussing about "details" and "feelings" here. It is much much much beyond that, and indisputably obvious even for people who never flew helicopters for real.

 

Well as a pilot DCS comes pretty damn close to the real thing. If DCS simulates turbulence properly and humidity we would see even better immersion. The issue with sins and IRL is there are no forces acting upon your body. So you are missing allot of input the aircraft would give you. Anyways it’s physics , it’s numbers, you absolutely can make a sim act exactly as it would IRL. It will never feel right because they can’t simulate forces acting on your body.

 

Yep. But when figures and FM are not good it is even worse.

 

That's a point but let's just turn this around - can any real world pilots confirm the Gazelle performs up to spec? So far I haven't seen that.

 

Torque effects, ground effect, Vortex ring state - all seems to be needing improvements. There's lots of videos around showing this - maybe you could confirm with a real pilot if it seems reasonable?

 

 

 

Can add those discussion with Fennec & Gazelle pilot (have to use a translator, sorry).

 

 

http://www.checksix-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=465&t=200331&p=1678174#p1678174

 

 

http://www.checksix-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=465&t=204955&p=1719152&hilit=gazelle#p1719152

 

 

http://www.checksix-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=465&t=206209&p=1742308&hilit=inertie#p1742308

 

Kind regards.

[tugais]

I don't get the need for starting (again) a new argument. Polychop already acknowledged their FM had to be rebuild and that they will do it after the Kiowa release. At this point you're just beating a dead horse.

 

From what I saw in the Barandus and the Casmo youtube videos, the Kiowa FM is as close as we can get from the real aircraft. Having two pilots with several decades of experience in total saying the FM is that good is reassuring regarding the future work on the Gazelle.

 

Give the team some slack - at least until the new FM is done and release.

Edited June 11, 2020 by tugais

[Dee-Jay]

Hi!

 

you're just beating a dead horse.

 

Not a "dead horse" as long as it is not on my hard drive ... World is plenty of promises. ;)

Besides ... I didn't bought he Kiowa. I bought the Gazelle.

 

Regards

Edited June 12, 2020 by Dee-Jay

[Sephyrius]

I don't get the need for starting (again) a new argument. Polychop already acknowledged their FM had to be rebuild and that they will do it after the Kiowa release. At this point you're just beating a dead horse.

 

From what I saw in the Barandus and the Casmo youtube videos, the Kiowa FM is as close as we can get from the real aircraft. Having two pilots with several decades of experience in total saying the FM is that good is reassuring regarding the future work on the Gazelle.

 

Give the team some slack - at least until the new FM is done and release.

 

"Now we will focus on finding ways to develop both the Gazelle and the new module in parallel."

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4045817&postcount=33

 

 

Since Sven already mentioned that pilots all have varying opinions, then why should we care about "two pilots say it's good" or "our pilot testers disagree with the forum ones" at all then?

 

It cuts both ways.

[Dee-Jay]

Just for the little story:

 

Some years ago, I've asked two of my best friends dinning at home, one is an M2000D pilot (one of them on the pic), the other one is M2000N (former AJet demonstrator now now in the French Patrouille de France, both are of course very experienced on M2000).

 

They are not really practicing PC flight simulation except in the past, wen we were young cadets, on LockOn flying upside down passing below the bridges just for the fun. I've asked them to fly a Mirage2000 in "another sim" seated in a SimPit with a HOTAS Cougar. I asked about their feeling/feedback about the way "it fly".

 

They both said: "Woaowhhh ... Amazing! ... this is really accurate!"

 

I didn't told them everything. I have actually conducted a test with them:

They didn't realised that they were flying an F-16 FLCS with just a M2000 3D cockpit.

 

I let you make your own conclusions.

 

 

Mine is: Asking a RL pilot for his feedback is not necessarily consistent if he is not doing it with a strong analytic method.

 

So, working with RL pilot can be a precious help and a huge potential feedback ... if ... only if, they in the right process and knows what and how to analyze.

In some cases (experienced also) they can be even wrong about figures ... and subjective feedback can be counterproductive.

 

So "it has been validated by RL pilots" ... basically, it can means anything and everything.

To my personal experience of the dev, the best combination is: engineer, mathematicians, pilot, and when you have a coder who is the four at the same time, it is even better.

 

Cheers!

Edited June 14, 2020 by Dee-Jay

[Eldur]

I think a big point is not only having an SME with lots of RL experience, but also with sim experience as well. I mean, those have been telling us "it's as real as it gets" 20 or even 30 years ago already. If they don't know what's possible today, they might be amazed by everything thinking "it's just a game anyway", especially when the system depth is there, but the flight physics aren't spot on.

 

But I concur, PC said they'll be working on the FM and from what I could see of Kiowa footage so far, it does look promising. Time will tell. And I'll most probably will get the KW even on day one to support the team. They can't improve themselves without our support and we have help each other as good as we can in this niche market to get good stuff going.

[Dee-Jay]

I think a big point is not only having an SME with lots of RL experience, but also with sim experience as well.

^ Precisely.

[LJQCN101]

I didn't told them everything. I have actually conducted a test with them:

They didn't realised that they were flying an F-16 FLCS with just a M2000 3D cockpit.

 

I did this to some (flanker family) pilots too, with the F-16 FLCS plus an artificial airspeed trimming law, and they said the same.

 

Also recalled the F-18 test pilot who made a wrong conclusion on the g-command system of F-16 FLCS. (https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/f-16-vs-f-18-a-navy-test-pilots-perspective.169261/)

 

Better for the pilot SME to know a little about aircraft stability and control so they can know the aircraft response when a certain input is given, using a quantitative figure such as how's the period/frequency of this oscillation etc. etc..

[Polychop Simulations]

There is a difference between letting a pilot play with a module and having them actively involved with the actual development. I honestly can’t comment on how this was done with the development of the Gazelle, I’ve only been part of Polychop for a year now, but I know what pilots like Barundus are doing for the development of the Kiowa module.

[Tokoyami]

Unpopular opinion: I don't care even if KW flies like the gazelle, still a day one purchase for me. Regardless of how people feel the gazelle should be vs what the module is, I've enjoyed flying it. It's a fun bird to mess around with.

 

I appreciate your honesty and (believe it or not) understand as I am an addict as well. Having said that, this is the problem with our fan base. If we continue to blindly support poor work product then that’s what we’ll continue to get. Unfinished modules that the devs claim the next, new module will provide resources to finish what we’ve already paid for.

 

People actually defend poor work product, shady practices and unkept promises here because they are scared to death their supplier will cut them off. Amazing psychology to watch.

[kotor633]

People actually defend poor work product, shady practices and unkept promises here because they are scared to death their supplier will cut them off. Amazing psychology to watch.

 

Too bad but true.

I had to find out again when it came to a discussion about the EF2000 in connection with early access. Here came the statement "I prefer to gamble with a half-finished module but the main thing is that I can gamble with it." Because otherwise you have to wait so long ... Where I personally think "This is your claim here? F*** quality, the main thing is that I get a product asap?" Funny, Heatblur and DEKA have proven that there is another way. I think it is a very good decision by Polychop that they will now also deliver a finished module.

[ngreenaway]

Thank you Tokoyami.i understand the principle youre coming from. For me, the two questions i ask myself with an EA module are "am i enjoying myself?" (An A380 sim could be super realistic and feature complete but would be as exciting as watching paint dry for me, also its possible for a module to be so realistic that it becomes too frustrating to feel like learning...like reading a book, you might know its a good story but if the first couple chapters are crap, do you still want to keep reading? Happened to me with James Clavell. I loved shogun, wathed the series a bunch of times, read the book even more times. Went to read "whirlwind ", should've enjoyed it- i love the middle east, enjoy clavells writing...got 1/4 thru the book and realized i didn't care at all aboutthe characters and was ambivalent to what happened to them. Never read a single page further of it)

Second thing i ask myself is "if the dev fell off the face of the earth, would i regret owning this module in its current state"

Because ive enjoyed the gazelle, and by all appearances KW will be an incremental improvement, im confident that ill find it money well spent

 

I think Laobi put it best in his EA disclaimer starting at the 7:33 mark in this video:

[Fri13]

What comes to Gazelle future, I just wait to see it's FM revisited with the new tools that were developed for Kiowa.

 

I again today went to fly gazelle, made a quick mission where I had first Mi-8. Then KA-50 and UH-1H as third. Then I took gazelle to flight.

 

KA-50 without any AP channels was super easy to fly, with AP channels active it is dream. Mi-8 is nice and easy, like driving a bus. Huey is little temperament at some maneuvers.

 

But Gazelle is nothing like all those others, even when all those others has very similar feeling.

 

And this was with a 45 cm extension (52 cm if counting to index finger grip height) on all (testing purposes).

 

I don't comment about Kiowa flight modeling, but gazelle just doesn't feel right based to any real experience on other helicopters or any DCS module. It is like riding a wild horse. And even then I more gladly to riding with a horse that wants to throw people off their backs...

 

It is extremely difficult to put finger on it what is wrong. As some moments it behaves as expected, and some it does not at all. It is like feeling how the flight modeling tables are switched from one to another.

 

And it must be so huge challenge to build that helicopter flight modeling that it is not simple task to go even searching cause for a problem. Why it is nice to hear Polychop has made a new kind method to write flight modeling.

 

The gazelle is nice to fly, it doesn't require it's FM to be as expected. And it is nice we got a three variants, sad that sniper variant got cancelled.

 

What comes to IRL gazelle pilots feedback, it needs to be put in context that what they are expecting from a simulator. Like some will approve things that some wouldn't accept at all. It is just their expectations. Like today many wouldn't accept simulators from 20 years back, even if signed by a real pilots.

 

It would be nice to fly a gazelle in reality, to get a touch to it's behavior and then compare it to DCS one.

 

But as long Polychop is ready to keep developing gazelle, all is good.

[ngreenaway]

KA-50 without any AP channels was super easy to fly, with AP channels active it is dream. Mi-8 is nice and easy, like driving a bus. Huey is little temperament at some maneuvers.

 

But Gazelle is nothing like all those others, even when all those others has very similar feeling.

 

 

initially i hated the gazelle. couldnt even get it to take off, id just touch the collective and the engine output would peg at 110% and then the whole thing would crash. turned out (and i couldnt surmise it so easily at the time cuz with the original vive, reading gauges was near impossible and i dont think VR zoom had been implemented yet. then i realized my collective slider was inverted. clicked the "invert axis" checkbox on axis tuning, and the helo flew like a dream after

 

the MI8, i can fly by instruments alone, sedately flipping switches and tuning radios at my leisure. Gazelle? i have to fly by watching outside the helo and not focus on instruments

 

they give two different experiences. gazelle is closest we have to a "little bird" and its fun to fly it like one, at rooftop level or down the streets

 

i really need to master gunnery with it tho. KA50 is pretty rock solid and steady as you acquire, pop up& fire and then drop back down. Gazelle? its like a 5 year old with ADHD hopped up on caffeine and tossed in a toy store

[RealDCSpilot]

Just for the little story:

 

Some years ago, I've asked two of my best friends dinning at home, one is an M2000D pilot (one of them on the pic), the other one is M2000N (former AJet demonstrator now now in the French Patrouille de France, both are of course very experienced on M2000).

 

They are not really practicing PC flight simulation except in the past, wen we were young cadets, on LockOn flying upside down passing below the bridges just for the fun. I've asked them to fly a Mirage2000 in "another sim" seated in a SimPit with a HOTAS Cougar. I asked about their feeling/feedback about the way "it fly".

 

They both said: "Woaowhhh ... Amazing! ... this is really accurate!"

 

I didn't told them everything. I have actually conducted a test with them:

They didn't realised that they were flying an F-16 FLCS with just a M2000 3D cockpit.

 

I let you make your own conclusions.

 

 

Mine is: Asking a RL pilot for his feedback is not necessarily consistent if he is not doing it with a strong analytic method.

 

So, working with RL pilot can be a precious help and a huge potential feedback ... if ... only if, they in the right process and knows what and how to analyze.

In some cases (experienced also) they can be even wrong about figures ... and subjective feedback can be counterproductive.

 

So "it has been validated by RL pilots" ... basically, it can means anything and everything.

To my personal experience of the dev, the best combination is: engineer, mathematicians, pilot, and when you have a coder who is the four at the same time, it is even better.

 

Cheers!

 

 

Great post, thanks!

[kotor633]

But I don't think one should always talk about an FM in need of improvement at Gazelle. What is currently in need of improvement with her is her damage model. That, for example, the possibilities (finally) are offered in the mission editor to provoke one or the other failure of a system. Here too, I hope Polychop will tighten the screws.

[RePhil]

I fly in BSD with a guy that is a retired RN SeaKing and GAZELLE pilot here is what he says about the Gazelle this is put here with his permission He flew the Westland British version so that's why he says there was no trimer hat as that version did not have it

"Ok guys here is my tuppence worth...The gazelle as it is is pretty close to the real thing. The reason the sat levels need adjusting are to take into account most of us fly with a short stick. The longer your stick (no puns please) the less sat level you need to apply due to the axis of movement being further away from the control point. Now I am not saying there aren't any issues with the FM as in flap back etc. but that's not the issue with why you may be struggling to control it...the gazelle IRL is a very responsive airframe to the inputs and when in a hover trimmed out it was literally micro movements to keep it stable.....so if your having issues find the sat levels to suit you...mine are as follows...70% on the y axis on pitch and roll (the cyclic) everything else is 100%. That for me is as accurate as I need it and I am using an ancient siatek cyborg 3d.......I have built my own collective to fly it because a throttle just doesn't feel right and I have a set of vkb yaw pedals... As for the trim function.....it never had a top hat trim.....it was the mag brake system.....push a button on the cyclic and it disengaged allowing free movement with no force to overcome. Disengage and it held the cyclic in position from which you would then apply constant micro adjustments...you never let go of the cyclic IRL because all helo require constant micro adjustments to keep it steady."

[RealDCSpilot]

Hmmm, so the real Gazelle's stick does have a huge dead zone and as soon as you are moving a couple millimeters out of it and hold there it goes into a continuous roll?? Why does it fly like by-wire instead of direct stick to main rotor? And the real collective can be moved like crazy fast without friction for instant jump starts? Why does everyone have to tinker extremely with control settings to make it even a bit flyable, while other DCS modules just work out of the box?

[FragBum]

@RePhil, thanks for that. Once I build my controls the Gaz and all other helis are great to fly with no saturation. :thumbup: :)

[Kirk66]

Hmm, I fly with a TMWH, stiff (blue) spring, 15cm extension. 100 % on all the axes. Gazelle flies just fine - it's not a Huey, but when I compare my stick movement to what is going on in the cockpit it seems to match up pretty close.

 

No problem lifting up to a stable hover, taxi, translation, etc. And I'm a retired F-4 WSO, not a helo driver...

 

Sure, you can't slam the stick around - but I've got a feeling that's how the real thing flies.

 

Vulture

[Dee-Jay]

Just for the little story:

 

Some years ago, I've asked two of my best friends dinning at home, one is an M2000D pilot (one of them on the pic), the other one is M2000N (former AJet demonstrator now now in the French Patrouille de France, both are of course very experienced on M2000).

 

They are not really practicing PC flight simulation except in the past, wen we were young cadets, on LockOn flying upside down passing below the bridges just for the fun. I've asked them to fly a Mirage2000 in "another sim" seated in a SimPit with a HOTAS Cougar. I asked about their feeling/feedback about the way "it fly".

 

They both said: "Woaowhhh ... Amazing! ... this is really accurate!"

 

I didn't told them everything. I have actually conducted a test with them:

They didn't realised that they were flying an F-16 FLCS with just a M2000 3D cockpit.

 

I let you make your own conclusions.

 

 

Mine is: Asking a RL pilot for his feedback is not necessarily consistent if he is not doing it with a strong analytic method.

 

So, working with RL pilot can be a precious help and a huge potential feedback ... if ... only if, they in the right process and knows what and how to analyze.

In some cases (experienced also) they can be even wrong about figures ... and subjective feedback can be counterproductive.

 

So "it has been validated by RL pilots" ... basically, it can means anything and everything.

To my personal experience of the dev, the best combination is: engineer, mathematicians, pilot, and when you have a coder who is the four at the same time, it is even better.

 

Cheers!

 

That could be another typical example: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.phpp=4433457&postcount=2

 

Something looking like:

"Try this, tell me what do you think."

"Its great! Awesome!"

"Okay, validated."

...

 

Mmmm...

[truebrit]

 

This may help some.