After the Gazelle, buy another Polychop Helo worth the risk?

[Johnny Dioxin]

Well said.

[Viper1970]

Its funny, people complaining about the gazzelle have no idea how to fly a chopper IRL...

 

Every chopper pilot I know says its not perfect but hardlly THAT bad...

 

Then aggain armchair pilots wannabe think they are more hardcore than the real thing LOL..

 

Yes I will buy the Kiowa.

 

I enjoy the Gazelle for what it is.

 

 

+1 :thumbup:

 

First day buy!

[Fri13]

Its funny, people complaining about the gazzelle have no idea how to fly a chopper IRL...

 

So your argument is that if someone complain from Gazelle flight modeling, then they don't have any idea how to fly a helicopter in a real world.....

 

That is fallacy.....

 

As is your claim that every real pilot you know says that Gazelle is not "that bad"....is "no true Scotsman..."

 

Is the Gazelle as bad as a.... Sorry, tried to remember something totally awful, but point is that no. The gazelle ain't so bad.

 

But it ain't "so great" neither.

[Adam]

I'm on the wait and see. I tend not to buy as soon as things are released. (I do enough Beta testing for my day job - happy to let someone else do the work for my recreation).

 

If the reviews are good re the Kiowa, I'll have no problems buying it. If the reviews come back poor - I'll skip it and go for something else.

 

Or - if something else is released prior to - it will probably have my cash if it has good reviews.

 

I'm not an all-in, or all-out kinda bloke. I'm happy to let the dust settle and see what remains.

 

So for me it's a combination of the release date (if anything beats it that I'm interested in), and reviews from people who actually buy it and can give first hand experience of what it's like.

[enigma6584]

First day buy for me. Love the Gazelle.

[Syndrome]

In a real helicopter if you want to fly in 15 degree bank to right (to fly around an enemy) then you need to move cyclic to the right and HOLD it there. As long you are holding cyclic at right at proper amount (among all other collective and pedal adjustments to compensate different cyclic input) you have constant main rotor AoA (Angle of Attack) applied to overcome pendulum effect based your COG (Center of Gravity).

 

With Gazelle you start the banking by moving very very, very little the cyclic to the right until you reach 15 degree banking, and then you reset cyclic back to center. And now your Gazelle flies 15 degree bank without main rotor blades AoA change... from neutral.

 

Because complex three control adjustments that needs to move relative to each others, you must change each control positions through all flight. Constantly work with all three as their positions are required to change through all different changes in flight.

 

In Gazelle, nope, that is not needed at all. You can have all automations turned off (SAS and TRIM) and it will fly hands free basically forever. You can ramp collective from 25% to 80% and nothing really changes than you gained extra 20 km/h in level flight. To fly gazelle through hard maneuvers at various speeds from 80 km/h to 180 km/h, one doesn't need anything else than move cyclic very very very slightly, and this means hard maneuvers like making level turns in 15 meters radius etc.

 

The closest thing that comes to Gazelle flight modeling is F-35. Only thing that is different from it is that there is some pedal work required to do in hover. But otherwise Gazelle is like full automatic computerized aircraft. Known as "Flies like on rails".

 

When one throws away all the helicopter flying skills and knowledge, the Gazelle becomes fun and super simple. But you can not fly it with an expectation that you are flying a conventional helicopter. It will kill you because it is doing totally wrong things than what it should do.

 

And that is problem with upcoming Kiowa Warrior, as if it is true what released videos about it shows about, it is scary thing....

 

 

When's the last time you flew the Gazelle?

 

1. There is definitely a pendulum effect in flight. You cannot leave the stick centered in a bank turn without swinging to the other side (eg crashing into the ground).

2. You cannot just lean forward and center the stick and maintain speed. The Gazelle is front heavy so it naturally pitches forward and will either speed up or slow down to 65knots with zero stick deflection depending on whether you're starting from a hover or from a very high speed.

3. If you have FFB enabled, the inputs become quantized and twitchy as hell, and in that case yes you can center the stick deflected and get the input bugs you mentioned. Sounds like at least half your issue. It's a known input bug, not a flight model bug. The solution is to untick FFB under MISC options, and controls become completely analog, update properly based on current cyclic deflection, and are buttery smooth.

4. It also sounds like your pitch and roll might be over saturated. Adjust Pitch saturation to 40% and Roll to 25%, and then you will require proper large stick deflections for big aerobatic maneuvers.

 

Not saying that the Gazelle FM couldn't use some serious polishing and more nuance, but most of what you say above is either fixable with a little tweaking in the settings, or is no longer true.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Syndrome

[Fri13]

When's the last time you flew the Gazelle?[/Quote]

 

Does gazelle fly differently than all other traditional helicopters?

Gazelle wasn't specified, just claim was made that anyone who has any negative to say about gazelle doesn't know how to fly a helicopter in real world.

 

So do not try to move goal posts.

 

1. There is definitely a pendulum effect in flight. You cannot leave the stick centered in a bank turn without swinging to the other side (eg crashing into the ground).[/Quote]

 

I can.... So does others.

 

Gazelle flies so that you start a bank turn by moving joystick from center to wanted side, when wanted angle of turn is achieved you return joystick back to center and the Gazelle keeps flying in that banking turn hypothetically forever.

 

You keep your joystick centered to maintain the current attitude. So if you hover or you fly 200+ km/h you have joystick centered to maintain it.

 

2. You cannot just lean forward and center the stick and maintain speed. The Gazelle is front heavy so it naturally pitches forward and will either speed up or slow down to 65knots with zero stick deflection depending on whether you're starting from a hover or from a very high speed.[/Quote]

 

Yes you can... Haven't you even seen the video in this thread about officially US military documented control positions vs Gazelle control positions?

 

just 10 min forward for quick reference. You will find that exact same behavior by flying Gazelle itself in DCS.

 

3. If you have FFB enabled, the inputs become quantized and twitchy as hell, and in that case yes you can center the stick deflected and get the input bugs you mentioned. Sounds like at least half your issue.[/Quote]

 

Do not make assumptions that my configs are wrong as you don't know them.

Do not make claims that "your problem is that you have FF enabled".

 

It's a known input bug, not a flight model bug.[/Quote]

 

Irrelevant bug. As we have all the time been talking flight modeling problems, not FF implementation problems.

 

The solution is to untick FFB under MISC options, and controls become completely analog, update properly based on current cyclic deflection, and are buttery smooth.[/Quote]

 

Irrelevant, again. Solution is known and recognized by Polychop, flight modeling requires rewriting using new methods.

 

4. It also sounds like your pitch and roll might be over saturated. Adjust Pitch saturation to 40% and Roll to 25%, and then you will require proper large stick deflections for big aerobatic maneuvers.[/Quote]

 

Wrong. You never limit your cyclic scale. If you have 40 cm tall joystick then last things you need even more is adjust saturation.

And adjusting input scales doesn't change the fact that flight modeling is broken. You are not changing the fact that gazelle doesn't fly properly.

 

If in a real Gazelle a input at X moment is in -100—+100 scale at +50 and in DCS it is required to be 0, it doesn't matter how much you change your joystick curves or saturation as it is still wrong.

 

Not saying that the Gazelle FM couldn't use some serious polishing and more nuance, but most of what you say above is either fixable with a little tweaking in the settings, or is no longer true.

 

Totally true even on this moment, and your try to solve problems in Gazelle with irrelevant "fixes" doesn't change that.

 

It requires rewriting, nothing less.

[tobi]

I will decide that when the revisit of the gazelle is done

[Extranajero]

Does gazelle fly differently than all other traditional helicopters?

 

Have you flown any helicopter ? a simple yes or no will do

[Syndrome]

It requires rewriting, nothing less.

 

You could try the fixes above and realize you're mistaken and that the FM right now isn't the biggest issue, it's the input bugs, and that the FM isn't that different from the Huey with the fixes above. Or you can wait for months or longer until the input bugs are fixed and the FM is reworked. It's up to you.

 

Was just trying to let you know about a shortcut. I'm not going to argue with you over something that you can test for your self to see if it's true.

[BaD CrC]

If there is anything useful in this thread, it is the result of the poll. The community clearly don't give a damn about all the haters, trolls and "experts" rant.

[Fri13]

The community clearly don't give a damn about all the haters, trolls and "experts" rant.

 

......in your opinion, I may assume?

 

And who should care about this poll?

Those who want to belong to some group that agrees with their purchase decision so they can feel good?

[Fri13]

Have you flown any helicopter ? a simple yes or no will do

 

That is irrelevant, and you are moving goal posts about earlier made argument that those who say anything negative about Gazelle flight modeling can't have piloting experience in helicopters...

[Fri13]

You could try the fixes above and realize you're mistaken and that the FM right now isn't the biggest issue,

 

Again you are advising with irrelevant claims, and happen to be wrong about it.

 

it's the input bugs, and that the FM isn't that different from the Huey with the fixes above. Or you can wait for months or longer until the input bugs are fixed and the FM is reworked. It's up to you.

 

Totally different than Huey. Gazelle has flight modeling problems, not just input problems. Its main problem is its flight modeling.

That is why there are people people do not like its flight behavior and they are hoping to see that new flight modeling sooner or later.

 

But that is what worries as well people, they look the Kiowa Warrior flight videos now from Polychop and they see the same behavior in the flight modeling and input as Gazelle has.

 

Was just trying to let you know about a shortcut. I'm not going to argue with you over something that you can test for your self to see if it's true.

 

You are claiming that I wouldn't know already all you have claimed to "fix" Gazelle, but you don't seem to understand that your advice is not a solution or a fix. It isn't even helping the Gazelle.

 

It happens only after Polychop rewrites gazelle flight modeling. And that is coming, as you know. Question is, can they do it right this time, if Kiowa Warrior with similarly looking problems is using that exact method to rewrite later Gazelle flight modeling?

 

I am considering not to buy Kiowa Warrior, but I would hate to say later "Didn't I fear so....". And happy if they would get it even believable level.

[outlawal2]

Its funny, people complaining about the gazzelle have no idea how to fly a chopper IRL...

 

Every chopper pilot I know says its not perfect but hardlly THAT bad...

 

Then aggain armchair pilots wannabe think they are more hardcore than the real thing LOL..

 

Yes I will buy the Kiowa.

 

I enjoy the Gazelle for what it is.

 

 

Wrong Baco, I have flown helicopters in real life and the flight model of the Gazelle is simply WRONG. I gave up trying to debate the issues long ago as people refuse to listen, but I do step in periodically to point out that yes we are still here, and no the flight model is not correct... No matter how many times folks try to say otherwise.

 

And it is bad enough that I will not purchase or recommend Polychop products again.

Period.

[Fri13]

And it is bad enough that I will not purchase or recommend Polychop products again.

Period.

 

Shouldn't we give a Polychop a new change if Kiowa Warrior turns to be good, or at least acceptable? Hoping that they can then fix Gazelle too later?

 

I am willing to give a second chance, but not a third....

[outlawal2]

Shouldn't we give a Polychop a new change if Kiowa Warrior turns to be good, or at least acceptable? Hoping that they can then fix Gazelle too later?

 

I am willing to give a second chance, but not a third....

 

Absolutely! But not until AFTER Kiowa has been released and reviewed.

 

I won't be purchasing Kiowa until other folks that have voiced similar concerns about the flight model have reviewed it and given a thumbs up.

 

Nothing is ever set in stone, but I personally will require some serious progress in the flight model area to turn my opinion around.

 

If the Kiowa comes out and knocks it out of the park I will be the first in line to point it out and give them the rave reviews they deserve.

But not until it is proven. And until they fix their issues my opinion remains that I will stay away from Polychop and recommend others do as well.

Edited October 6, 2020 by outlawal2

[Fri13]

I won't be purchasing Kiowa until other folks that have voiced similar concerns about the flight model have reviewed it and given a thumbs up.

 

There is a possibility that there will be a long period of time where claims are made back and worth about something.

Like with Gazelle that it was so sweared to be totally authentic and realistic flight modeling, and people eventually turned around. Even the ex-pilots of Gazelle has turned their opinions because a major challenge is to evaluate something based different controls than real, and especially if all physical feedbacks are removed.

 

Like already there are some who says to be ex Kiowa Warrior pilots commenting in the Polychop youtube videos pointing out the errors and missing features, like example how overpowered the KW looks to be in videos and how rotor blades behaves wrong and lack of inertia and mass etc.

 

Something looks wrong in the videos, but it is not fair to give final judgement based to video only.

And if the KW the people has been flying is now like 6-8 months old, there is possibility for big changes... I at least hope so.

[Syndrome]

You are claiming that I wouldn't know already all you have claimed to "fix" Gazelle, but you don't seem to understand that your advice is not a solution or a fix. It isn't even helping the Gazelle.

 

The Gazelle is the first module I bought for DCS, and I've owned the Huey for almost as long. I have countless hours logged on each. I've experienced the issues you're talking about for most of the time I've owned it. Before i made the changes to the settings, the 2 choppers seemed like completely different flight models. The Gazelle was twitchy with seemingly binary inputs like a crappy Arma RC chopper, where the axes acted like buttons instead of analog controls, and it seemed to fly on rails. I've made the changes suggested by Polychop about a month ago and it completely changed my perception of the issues with the Gazelle flight model. There are still other issues with the flight model as many real pilots have suggested, but the ones you talked about all but disappeared after i made those input setting changes. Now the differences between the 2 FMs is mostly the masses, the relative TWR strength, the more dramatic inborn oscillations of Huey, the agility, and the possibility for VRS, which I've never be able to encounter in the Gazelle, and the Gazelle's apparent lack of sufficient inertia. Otherwise, the models and inputs behave very similarly.

 

There is a possibility that there will be a long period of time where claims are made back and worth about something. Like with Gazelle that it was so sweared to be totally authentic and realistic flight modeling, and people eventually turned around. Even the ex-pilots of Gazelle has turned their opinions because a major challenge is to evaluate something based different controls than real, and especially if all physical feedbacks are removed.

 

Yes, here I agree with you. I find the overly zealous marketing about "realism" for many DCS modules to be somewhat off putting especially when it is clearly at odds with RL experience or evidence.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Syndrome

[Fri13]

The Gazelle is the first module I bought for DCS, and I've owned the Huey for almost as long. I have countless hours logged on each. I've experienced the issues you're talking about for most of the time I've owned it. Before i made the changes to the settings, the 2 choppers seemed like completely different flight models. The Gazelle was twitchy with seemingly binary inputs like a crappy Arma RC chopper, where the axes acted like buttons instead of analog controls, and it seemed to fly on rails. I've made the changes suggested by Polychop about a month ago and it completely changed my perception of the issues with the Gazelle flight model. There are still other issues with the flight model as many real pilots have suggested, but the ones you talked about all but disappeared after i made those input setting changes. Now the differences between the 2 FMs is mostly the masses, the relative TWR strength, the more dramatic inborn oscillations of Huey, the agility, and the possibility for VRS, which I've never be able to encounter in the Gazelle, and the Gazelle's apparent lack of inertia. Otherwise, the models and inputs behave very similarly.

 

You keep talking about problem that I am not talking at all.

 

Axis curves or saturation values are not the problem, never has been the problem.

I am talking about the flight modeling reactions to inputs as for external forces as helicopter own physics.

 

A real helicopter has no curves, no saturation adjustments and such. The cyclic, collective and pedals has full scale to offer for the pilot.

 

Polychop suggestions for 40% and 25% for Y and X and -15% curve for collective are nothing more than trying to fix their unscalable flight modeling for those who has non-extended joysticks and no understanding how helicopters fly. I am not talking about "it is so sensitive to controls" or "it overreacts" as you only assume. You never need to use Gazelle inputs full potential because it doesn't get affected by proper elements.

 

Gazelle is a helicopter that is defying physics, not just "it has little higher power capability" kind mild error.

 

You limiting your cyclic pitch scale to 40% from 100% and to 25% from 100% doesn't make it correct or fix anything. You only just mapped your physical joystick movement scale to those percentages of the virtual cyclic movements. And not just that, you don't even have 1:1 ratio for pitch and roll but almost 1:2 ratio.

 

And regardless all that, what polychop could have done by itself by scaling down their input scale, the physics doesn't work on it as should.

[outlawal2]

I will expand on what FRI13 said..

 

The issue is a physics issue with their flight model.

An example is an experiment I tried with the Gazelle vs the Huey.. I found a long straight train track on one of the maps and flew the Gazelle about 50 feet above the tracks setting my heading exactly down the tracks and let it fly. Several minutes later and with zero input from me, the Gazelle was still heading exactly down the tracks as when I started. EXACTLY same heading and altitude etc. This is impossible and is an example of the "On Rails" (PUN WAS intended by the way) feel and response of the airframe.

 

Try that in the Huey and it is difficult to MAKE the damn thing hold a perfect heading / altitude for more than about 10 seconds and THIS is accurate. A helicopter IRL feels like an air hockey puck and any and all forces such as wind have a very noticeable effect on it. Running for days on end with no variation is not realistic and is a classic sign of scripting vs modeling.

 

 

Gazelle feels "SYNTHETIC" compared to any other module and does not feel realistic at all, and this has nothing to do with curves and everything to do with an incomplete flight model.

[Syndrome]

You keep talking about problem that I am not talking at all.

 

Axis curves or saturation values are not the problem, never has been the problem.

I am talking about the flight modeling reactions to inputs as for external forces as helicopter own physics.

 

A real helicopter has no curves, no saturation adjustments and such. The cyclic, collective and pedals has full scale to offer for the pilot.

 

Polychop suggestions for 40% and 25% for Y and X and -15% curve for collective are nothing more than trying to fix their unscalable flight modeling for those who has non-extended joysticks and no understanding how helicopters fly. I am not talking about "it is so sensitive to controls" or "it overreacts" as you only assume. You never need to use Gazelle inputs full potential because it doesn't get affected by proper elements.

 

Gazelle is a helicopter that is defying physics, not just "it has little higher power capability" kind mild error.

 

You limiting your cyclic pitch scale to 40% from 100% and to 25% from 100% doesn't make it correct or fix anything. You only just mapped your physical joystick movement scale to those percentages of the virtual cyclic movements. And not just that, you don't even have 1:1 ratio for pitch and roll but almost 1:2 ratio.

 

And regardless all that, what polychop could have done by itself by scaling down their input scale, the physics doesn't work on it as should.

 

The biggest changes in input is had from unchecking the box for Force Feedback in MISC options. This changes the input from binary buttons to analog. Not sure why.

 

The 40% and 25% saturation setting is a separate and lesser issue. It's optional and adds enough delay in the inputs to detect the miniscule inertia in the current FM, but it's not necessary.

 

Also, please stop lecturing me about what Polychop should do. I'm not Polychop. I'm just a random guy trying to help fellow simmers get by until they patch the FM.

 

The issue is a physics issue with their flight model.

An example is an experiment I tried with the Gazelle vs the Huey.. I found a long straight train track on one of the maps and flew the Gazelle about 50 feet above the tracks setting my heading exactly down the tracks and let it fly. Several minutes later and with zero input from me, the Gazelle was still heading exactly down the tracks as when I started. EXACTLY same heading and altitude etc. This is impossible and is an example of the "On Rails" (PUN WAS intended by the way) feel and response of the airframe.

 

Try that in the Huey and it is difficult to MAKE the damn thing hold a perfect heading / altitude for more than about 10 seconds and THIS is accurate. A helicopter IRL feels like an air hockey puck and any and all forces such as wind have a very noticeable effect on it. Running for days on end with no variation is not realistic and is a classic sign of scripting vs modeling.

 

Yup. Every helicopter pilot I've heard talk about it emphatically says that you need to keep hands and feet on the controls at all times, I kind of doubt that the Gazelle is the exception.

 

There is more than one issue with the Gazelle though. The input bugs are separate from the FM issues. You can fix the input bugs by altering the settings. This won't fix the FM issues that you mention unfortunately.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Syndrome

[Rick50]

Because this didn't happen after the Gazelle was released in 2016. We are still waiting.

 

 

Sure, sure.

 

So wait and see what others say about the Kiowa once it's released, right? Let others be the guineapigs, the "beta testers", the "early adopters" who take a risk. And if you still don't feel comfortable buyjng the Kiowa, then don't. Just do without.

[Devil 505]

This thread is about as useful as church group at whore house. I grew up flying in and being around the Gazelles, Alouette's, Lama's, A-350 A-STARS, 355 Twin Stars, Super Pumas, Pumas, Dauphins ect..... Could the flight model use some work, a little, but it is still an outstanding module and the only damn module that has ever been able to get the sound of a fenestron tail rotor correct. That was the first thing I noticed when it came to the sound of the aircraft. I was sold. Going from Aerospatiale, to American Eurocopter, now to Airbus Helicopters, I really hope to see Polychop carry on the companies older product line. Keep up the great work Devs and forget the rest of the BS on this thread. Everyone is a pilot these days with an opinion.

[Baco]

So your argument is that if someone complain from Gazelle flight modeling, then they don't have any idea how to fly a helicopter in a real world.....

 

That is fallacy.....

 

As is your claim that every real pilot you know says that Gazelle is not "that bad"....is "no true Scotsman..."

 

Is the Gazelle as bad as a.... Sorry, tried to remember something totally awful, but point is that no. The gazelle ain't so bad.

 

But it ain't "so great" neither.

 

Nobady is saying its Grate. Its a 60 USD "simulation" running on a House PC...

 

Some DCS players demand as tehy were teh Gobernment paying hundred of thousands in equipment.

 

 

And it has a lot to be fixed, YES...

Now can you fly missions in DCS and Enjoy it?

Yes if you are not counting rivets and looking for flaws...

 

Is it accurate? well I dont know and I will never ever know if the Hornet or the Viper or the Huey for that matter is Accurate. I have two Huey Pilots in my squad, both say its close enough for a HOME COMPUTER SIM.

 

And so is teh Gazelle, close enough... not perfect, not the best... and hopefully it will be tweaked to reflect better accuracy.

 

And yes you are entitled to belive its not enough.... but to dismiss it compelatly is nuts in mi oppinion. ;)

 

But to each his own....