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

[RealDCSpilot]

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.

 

You seem to have missed some lessons in business school, an around 60% vs 40% ratio is a pretty bad outcome for a product survey. This is not a vote where a majority of 51% wins. It simply shows that a product/company has serious issues and drastic steps + huge efforts are needed to fix the situation.

Edited October 7, 2020 by Alec Delorean

[Qiou87]

You seem to have missed some lessons in business school, an around 60% vs 40% ratio is a pretty bad outcome for a product survey. This is not a vote where a majority of 51% wins. It simply shows that a product/company has serious issues and drastic steps + huge efforts are needed to fix the situation.

 

You cannot begin to pretend to have valid results in a poll when the question is difficult to understand correctly. That is also something they also teach in business school (market analysis/market survey).

 

A good question would be "Given the history of DCS Gazelle, do you plan to buy the Kiowa Warrior?" and then maybe leave a choice like "Yes upon release", "Yes but probably later, after I am convinced it is the real deal" or "No way Jose".

 

And in any case, do not hope that a poll in a sub-forum will represent a representative portion of PC's potential clients. Many don't come here at all, others don't understand English, etc.

[RealDCSpilot]

I'm pretty sure most people who come here know exactly what this is about. Statistically we crossed the 10 participants line which did already hold the 60/40 ratio and now we are about reaching 100 participants with the same outcome, which becomes relevant to extrapolate an even more precise overview. A quality product will always show more than 95% happy existing and future customers.

Edited October 7, 2020 by Alec Delorean

[Fri13]

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.

 

We are discussing about quality here from Polychop to see how many is willing to take the risk to buy a another product from them based their experience with Gazelle. Not about that what can hypothetically be done as software simulation if money is not limiting factor.

 

You must keep the context in mind, DCS has option to have combat helicopters in its arsenal because it tries to be high quality in:

"Realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles, navy ships, world war two vehicles, trains and ships."

 

And we have already four helicopters (addition their variants) that are:

 

KA-50

Mi-8MTv2

UH-1H

SA342 <--- POLYCHOP

 

And more are coming, that are:

 

Mi-24P

OH-58D <--- POLYCHOP

AH-64

AH-1S

Bo-105 PAH1A1

 

Now, put that in the relative context.

What we have now is four, and three of them has very high quality. And one is not.

 

And if you follow this discussion, no one was talking about graphical quality or 3D modeling quality or sound quality or "fun factor" or anything like that for the decision to buy next Polychop product. Why so? Because those are not the problems!

 

One buys a helicopter because they want to fly a helicopter. Not a vehicle that looks like helicopter, sounds like helicopter, flies like a saucer.

And it is not about "You have FF enabled" or "Your input curves are wrong". But it is all about how Polychop has programmed their helicopter flight modeling.

 

And when one does have 1 of 4 in such state that it is not on the same quality as rest of the pack that already exist, it doesn't matter at all that how much money one needs to put to make a NASA hypothetical level simulator.

 

It is about what one should expect from one, as from others.

And here problem is that some people does not understand that some things are not the problems. Like the Joystick input system, it doesn't matter how sensitive ones joystick is or not, as problem is in the flight modeling that what kind input should be required for flying.

 

It means things like this:

 

 

Can anyone who thinks that changing a joystick, throttle and pedals input curves or input saturation solves the problem, explain how does it relate to that graphic?

 

Please, try to explain that how does it make a good purchase decision for the future if that kind major problem would exist in the coming product? Like are you happy that you can just go and set your joystick input 1/4th of the full scale so that you can fly something, regardless its flight modeling?

 

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...

 

Ah... the famous "river counting" argument.

 

Do you know what a "quality standard" mean?

 

Quality standards are defined as documents that provide requirements, specifications, guidelines, or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes, and services are fit for their purpose

 

Now how does that relate to this:

 

• Accurate and highly detailed six-degrees-freedom (6DOF) cockpit and external model
  
• Mouse interactive cockpit with authentic systems modeling
  
• Fully modeled weapon system including weapons sight and HOT 3
  
• Exciting and challenging campaign
  
• Interactive training missions
  
• AFM (Advanced Flight Model) that simulates all flight phases and characteristics of the Gazelle
  
• Inclusive flight manual
  
• Gazelle skins covering many countries
  

 

As you try to insult with personal attack with your "rivent counting" argument, it is better that this whole DCS World customer base has those "rivet counting" people because otherwise we would have a something from a GTA III because no one should be expecting quality for the Eagle Dynamics idea that what DCS World should be.

 

If you are personally ready to accept anything that just makes you experience fun, do not expect that it is same for everyone else. If you are happy that helicopter floats in the air totally unrealistic manner, then you can be happy but do not come making ad hominems for those who has higher quality expectations.

 

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.

 

Difference seems to be that you are not even willing to find out that is it accurate or not, and have a relative expectations that what kind quality level there should be. And it has nothing to do with the F-16 or F/A-18 so you can take those to their sub-forums.

We have already a three helicopters available that you can compare to. If you do, you would find such problems that is the root for the question; Do You consider buying Kiowa Warrior is worth the risk that same doesn't happen with it, as it is with Gazelle?

 

Looking evidences like this:

 

 

It is worrisome to look the controls input indicator.

Do not mistake the sensitivity to input positions. They are different things. If you do not understand what is the difference, look the image above about the Gazelle input positions at various speeds in level flight.

As in the Gazelle the problem is that it is basically a flat line compared to what it should be.

 

So just so you can understand, when just the airspeed alone changes - cyclic input position moves further and further from the center. Faster you want to fly, you need to raise collective more and more instead keeping it at example 25% of its full input scale.

 

I have two Huey Pilots in my squad, both say its close enough for a HOME COMPUTER SIM.

 

And that is a problem. It is a personal opinion in relative to "HOME PC SIM" where they are not any more right or wrong compared to a someone else who says this is "close enough":

 

 

And that has been the whole problem with the Polychop, that even if they have 10 real pilots in their advisor team, you need to give them the context that what DCS World is and what the DCS World customers are expecting, not that what they think is "close enough for a HOME COMPUTER SIM.".

 

One of the major differences is that Polychop should be very much responsible is that how are things tested and what expectations levels are given to the test people. A real pilot is lost in the PC simulators because you take almost everything out of their experience that is the physical feedback in their bodies when real aircraft is flown. Lack of G forces, sounds, vibrations, lighting changes etc etc. All those missing feedbacks makes it far more difficult to fly "a PC SIM".

 

Edit: Example if you give a real pilot to test a helicopter in simulation that they fly in reality, it is huge difference that do they fly it with kinds like this:

 

 

This:

 

 

Or do they even go to this kind:

 

ZERv6z_oLio

 

You can call people with names as "Rivet Counter", but it is an personal attack and rude.

But those people are the ones that are making more effort for give quality for us all.

 

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

 

"Close enough" is relative term. The above video is "close enough" for some, if they would get their favorite aircraft only in that form.

 

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....

 

Believe? It is not about "believe". It is very simple and logical situation as explained at the begin, 3 of 4 are setting a standard, one is far far behind from that standard. And the problems in the fourth one is not possible be ignored nor unsee, unless it is wanted to dismiss principles that makes the DCS World and reason to exist: QUALITY.

 

It is always one of the major challenges in every production, as when you gather a small group of people you can find out their standards and expectations and build upon that. But when you enlarge that target group, there will eventually be more of those who has lower standards and expectations than at the start. But it shouldn't matter to the founding group that should maintain their passion and will to keep up the high quality work, and if that is set as standard for others to participate, then it should be enforced instead allowed to slip "It is okay to be inaccurate...".

 

That is one of the core problems ED is currently facing, as there has been three major cases about severe quality problems.

 

1) T.1A Hawk

2) AV-8B Harrier

3) SA342 Gazelle

 

How much is because communication?

The developers idea what is "good enough"?

Vocal community for acceptance?

 

Two of three modules at this moment are in the danger zone that ED should really assist, one already fell through and required ED to take actions to protect their customers.

 

It is the challenge that Polychop is facing, as they need to show that they have increased the quality and improved methods and gained new skills to develop a helicopter simulator that meets the expected quality from DCS World modules.

 

That is the side that worries many DCS World customers, that does Gazelle case repeat itself, because it as well is ruling what to expect from the Gazelle flight modeling fixes afterwards.

Edited October 7, 2020 by Fri13
Added the HOTAS difference

[Fri13]

This thread is about as useful as church group at whore house.

 

Personal attacks are not needed here.

 

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.....

 

So, you like them?

 

Could the flight model use some work, a little, but it is still an outstanding module

 

Just a little? Is that just your opinion or is it based to documented evidence that its flight modeling is just "little" off?

 

When you fly the Gazelle with cyclic input staying constantly in the center, collective is not required to be moved through different maneuvers and pedals can be almost forgotten to exist, that it is "little work required"?

 

and the only damn module that has ever been able to get the sound of a fenestron tail rotor correct.

 

Well, we have only four helicopter modules in DCS World, and only ONE of them has it.... So your point is moot.

 

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,

 

So your purchase was based solely to the sound work Polychop has done. Isn't it great that Polychop did invest time to get sounds nice?

Example, there are people who were sold for the idea to use HOT missiles, or Mistrals...

Some were sold when they saw the graphics and idea to Co-pilot with a friend....

And among all those people, there are those who totally feel bad about their purchase because their expectations for flight modeling were based to standards that other DCS Modules has set.

And now they should be "sold" for Polychop next upcoming helicopter module, that can have the similar problems, because?.....

 

I really hope to see Polychop carry on the companies older product line.

 

Yes, I personally hope to see that from every studio really. The most modern ones are boring ones and the older ones offer more characteristic experiences to fly.

 

Keep up the great work Devs and forget the rest of the BS on this thread.

 

Personal insults are rude. They are not needed in any forum.

And if you think that Polychop has done great work with the Gazelle flight modeling then you should already be happy, right?

 

And if you know that Polychop has done great work with the Kiowa Warrior, then how have you come to that opinion?

 

Everyone is a pilot these days with an opinion.

 

Don't insult...

[Nightstalker]

The Kiowa is a day 1 purchase for me as long as the price is fair. The same for the Hind and any other helicopter that gets produced for DCS because I love helicopters and I want more companies to produce them.

 

Every purchase I make from ED, I'm taking a chance. When will it be finished? Will I enjoy it, will it drop in price 50% in a few months? Will there ever be a proper map to fly it on? The most important question above is "will I enjoy it?". Watching all of the videos made by the real world Kiowa pilot working on the project, I'm more comfortable with this purchase then I am on most of my other ED purchases.

[Fri13]

You cannot begin to pretend to have valid results in a poll when the question is difficult to understand correctly.

 

IMHO the question is very clear and simple to understand.

 

A good question would be "Given the history of DCS Gazelle, do you plan to buy the Kiowa Warrior?" and then maybe leave a choice like "Yes upon release", "Yes but probably later, after I am convinced it is the real deal" or "No way Jose".

 

Now you are making the question as definitive, instead considerable like the OP did.

 

The OP uses word "risk" that has a requirement to person have done the evaluation of their own about the subject. In this case the decision is to "buy" or "not to buy" and it is not tied to time, like yours.

 

It makes it simple for anyone to answer the offered three options: "Yes", "No" and "Maybe".

Worst thing one can do for the poll questions is to fill them with the predefined assumptions, like you did. Like what does "No way Jose" mean?

You have "Yes", "But" and "Probably" in the same sentence, with "After" and "Convinced" with very broad "the real deal". Like what answer is that?

 

If you are going to take a risk, you buy.

If you are not going to take a risk, you don't buy.

If you don't have a information that you need to make that decision, you have "Maybe" because you are interested to buy it.

 

The OP as well includes the requirement that person making the risk judgement already owns previous product, so this is not a question like yours is for general audience that doesn't mean the person answering for the poll should own the previous product, so they can come up and say "Yes Upon Release". You are as well lacking the choices for other kind scenarios that doesn't meet your set answers.

 

 

And in any case, do not hope that a poll in a sub-forum will represent a representative portion of PC's potential clients. Many don't come here at all, others don't understand English, etc.

 

Yes, we all know basics of statistics and polling.

But we as well know that one poll is more directive than no polls at all, in the context.

 

If you are going to say that specific poll is not valid because it doesn't represent everyones opinion, then it is already a moot point.

 

IMHO, every single studio should be required by the contract with ED, to have a daily/weekly representive in the official DCS World forum, in their corresponding sub-forum.

All the official announcements, plans, news and all should be first posted in the product sub-forum, that can be a "News" or a thread that is locked only for the community manager.

The studio should as well maintain a official FAQ in the forum, and direct people to that forum from all other channels (facebook, instagram, twitter, discord, ICQ, IRC what ever) so that customers and people are gathered to one main communication location that maintain its history, is close to all other DCS World and its modules.

 

As right now many studios are handling DCS World as an Unreal Engine from Epic Games, with understanding that people who are interested to flight simulations would come to their site, their discord etc and buy their product and they just use DCS World as a Unreal Engine to run just their aircraft simulation.

 

Instead they do not really take it like that every single studio is under the DCS World umbrella, the DCS World is the family, it is the product line that ED manages with each studio developing them contracted with the ED. Basically every player will enter to contract with the ED when they purchase the product, and ED has sub-contracted the various aircrafts to different studios to be produced in DCS World.

And it would be better when all effort that is in the DCS World context, is directed by each studio to this place. No one is denying that a studio should not have own web page and marketing material etc, but not to try pretend like they are using the DCS World to produce something, but that they are one of the many in the DCS World franchise and family, together with all others.

That is why they are called "modules" as each of them as standalone is nothing, but they connect to the DCS World itself and the users of DCS World gets that way more content to themselves.

[PickleMonster]

Now, put that in the relative context.

What we have now is four, and three of them has very high quality. And one is not.

 

Sure. "High Quality"

 

 

 

I've flown literally half a Ka-50 back to base so many times.

 

The HIP damage model seems to wax and wane between tissue paper and dense stalinium.

 

Both the HIP and Huey do actually have FM issues reported.

 

 

 

Polychop actually delivered a working MultiCrew (before it was broken beyond repair by DCS core code changes). People are still waiting for those features for the other helos.

 

 

 

All the modules in DCS have quirks. Yet all the modules in DCS are far better than anything I've flown in X-Plane 11 or Flight Simulator.

 

I'm happy with Gazelle as is, but welcome any improvements the PC team have learned from the KW. The Kiowa will be a day 1 purchase for me.

[Fri13]

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.

 

LOL

 

"On the rails" literally :-D

 

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.

 

The Gazelle is almost completely untouchable by the air.

It can be easy seen by anyone who changes the weather conditions from 0 m/s wind to something else. And it becomes even more obvious the higher wind values it is gone.

 

Like example missions attached:

 

HELO_Flight_Dynamics_Testing_Missions.zip

 

The missions include (as clients) the next helicopters:

 

Gazelle Minigun, M and L variants for various weights.

KA-50 with various weights.

Mi-8MTv2 with various weights + bonus version with 1000 kg extra on just one side.

MJ-6 as a free downloadble mod https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=267143 that is purpose to be a free basic Flight Modeling for other helicopter mods.

UH-1H with various weights.

 

Each unit name includes percentage of the weight, there are variations from 67% to 112%, to be tested behaviors.

 

Everyone testing those should open up the Control Indicator window to see what is the input they are giving for the each moment (that is not joystick position, but the input that joystick sends and what aircraft uses. So if someone sets a Y axis saturation to 35% then only 35% of the helicopter cyclic movement can be applied by using joystick maximum deflection).

 

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.

 

That is the problem some people has difficulty to gasp, that the "feeling" is not just "it is fun" or "I am bored" but a sign that something is off in the experience. Example if someone would be throwing same pebbles on the lake, and then picks up a another handful to be thrown but suddenly they do not have gravity effect or water doesn't effect at them, but they will fly like sidewinder missile before falling in the water with, or they will bounce from the water like a basket ball from backboard straight back.

 

When the Gazelle doesn't have the physics right like weight, aerodynamics, mass.... It already goes wrong in the core physics of the helicopter!

If we would have a space shooter with gravitational fields and impulse motors and all, it could be acceptable for lack of imaginary.

 

Like some of the major problems are like:

• The Gazelle maintains attitude when Cyclic is centered. That is totally wrong.
  
• The Gazelle doesn't really react to Collective position as blades AoA changes. That is totally wrong.
  
• The Gazelle doesn't react to Pedals input as Anti-Torque rotor is using more engine output. Again totally wrong.
  
• The Gazelle main rotor is not hanging the fuselage....
  

 

Flying with any other helicopter in the sample missions harder conditions causes severe challenges for the pilot depending the situation.

With Gazelle the pilot doesn't need to even care about weather conditions like wind speed, direction and type. The Gazelle will nicely stay in hover in stormy wind as long you have cyclic centered, regardless its weight. You can perform flat turns with just pedals, hands-off from the cyclic and collective, literally point the noise at wanted directions until you reach the altitude where the wind changes from 16 m/s closer to 32 m/s and anti-torque rotor effectiveness ends.

 

The KA-50 even has challenges in such scenarios where cyclic limitation can be reached to maintain a hover or flight. But Gazelle doesn't care about that because unlimited cyclic effectiveness.

Where other helicopters loses capability to turn in wind, Gazelle will happily perform rolls without challenges.

There is so slight, tiny amount of inertia or weight that it feels like it is in fraction of the percentages than in percentages. Like if the math was to have 0.85 as 85% effect, it is now like 0.085. Such that you can find "it is here" but it is very ineffective.

 

It is easy to put Gazelle fly a circus a forward speed, apply little cyclic to roll for wanted angle like 10 degree and return cyclic back to center. Correct the pitch attitude to neutral applying little cyclic and then return it back to center. Now you can take hands off and watch how a Gazelle will fly "loops" in a heavy 16-32 m/s wind forever while it is just gliding horizontally at the same altitude pushed by the wind, slowing down when facing the wind and accelerating when wind pushes away.

 

Try that with any other helicopter, and they will fall from the sky on the moment you let go the controls, any of them. Even KA-50 will come down as its Auto Pilot doesn't have any authority to overcome such a radical changes.

 

Heavy weighted helicopters are not capable to do it because they run out of control scale. Meaning like cyclic or pedals is in maximum deflection, or collective is at maximum.

But not the Gazelle.

 

So how can someone take a risk that Kiowa Warrior doesn't have any traits of such modeling?

It really requires that people will take risks and then start to present them that how does the helicopter behave relative to others.

 

IMHO the more extreme scenarios are excellent way to find out the troubles, as example all helicopters has limitations that is required not to be crossed, that limits when one can fly in challenging conditions or what are the attack, take-off and landing plans.

 

And this is serious matter, that example a carrier operating pilots knows very well, that at what speed and heading the wind relative to the carrier is. At what weight does the aircraft land on the carrier.

 

But for the helicopter pilots that this is like nitpicking? Sure we have own problems like still missing wake turbulence from the rotor wash etc. But nothing of those can be set as third parties problems but they are only for ED to solve and provide.

[Fri13]

Sure. "High Quality"

 

I've flown literally half a Ka-50 back to base so many times.

 

 

And you are comparing again the first DCS World module, that has not been improved for like 12-13 years what comes to damage modeling etc possibilities in modern hardware and software.

 

The HIP damage model seems to wax and wane between tissue paper and dense stalinium.

 

The damage modeling in DCS is lacking, all should know about it with little research and know that ED is adding new damage modeling later on.

 

But what does the damage modeling have to do with flight modeling behavior that is the main problem in Gazelle?

 

If you would like to talk about Gazelle damage modeling problems, my main problem would be that you can not respawn without first killing the pilots, as just crashing or slight damage doesn't allow respawning nor doesn't "eject" function work. So one needs to switch a slot, restart the mission or other means get pilots killed...

 

But that is just one of the minor problems, nothing to do with the flight modeling that is worrying so many as they want to fly an helicopter and not a something else.

 

Both the HIP and Huey do actually have FM issues reported.

 

And what does the Huey and Mi-8 problems have to do with the Gazelle problems?

Is there a common problem in the DCS itself that causes the Gazelle flight modeling being so bad?

Does Polychop now been working for ED to fix the problems so Huey and Hip gets things fixed?

 

 

So because that exist on other helicopters, it is a reason to Purchase a Kiowa Warrior without risks that its flight modeling is having similar problems as Gazelle?

 

Polychop actually delivered a working MultiCrew (before it was broken beyond repair by DCS core code changes). People are still waiting for those features for the other helos.

 

Yes... And this is again about how Gazelle flies even in single player (the main target audience of all customers for ED)?

 

All the modules in DCS have quirks. Yet all the modules in DCS are far better than anything I've flown in X-Plane 11 or Flight Simulator.

 

So, your argument really is that "because he too"?

And it doesn't matter how others does, if someone sets a standard and shows a quality that is all based to idea to improve as much as it possibly can, then it doesn't matter if someone else has lower requirement in their game.

 

It is not an argument that because X helicopter in a non-DCS game flies worse than Gazelle, that Gazelle is OK as is in DCS world where it is not up to quality of flight modeling!

 

I'm happy with Gazelle as is, but welcome any improvements the PC team have learned from the KW. The Kiowa will be a day 1 purchase for me.

 

So you are happy, but you can be happier?

At least you don't feel there is any risk involved as you do not recognize the major problems as you are happy as it is in current form.

[RealDCSpilot]

 

Ah, good find. Thanks.

[Extranajero]

I wasn't too excited by the Kiowa, I'm not really into glass cockpits that much.

I was going to buy it, but just for completeness really.

 

But now I think I'll buy 3 copies. One for me, and one each as tributes to the rivet counter Fri13 and Alec 'Back To The Future' Delorean for their commitment to obsession in flight simming :D

[Fri13]

as tributes to the rivet counter

 

I ain't a texture artist....

I don't either want things to just go "boom".

 

And I don't definitely want to fly a "tic tac".

[Devil 505]

Could the flight model use some work, a little, but it is still an outstanding module

 

Just a little? Is that just your opinion or is it based to documented evidence that its flight modeling is just "little" off?

 

When you fly the Gazelle with cyclic input staying constantly in the center, collective is not required to be moved through different maneuvers and pedals can be almost forgotten to exist, that it is "little work required"?

 

 

 

Well, we have only four helicopter modules in DCS World, and only ONE of them has it.... So your point is moot.

 

 

 

So your purchase was based solely to the sound work Polychop has done. Isn't it great that Polychop did invest time to get sounds nice?

Example, there are people who were sold for the idea to use HOT missiles, or Mistrals...

Some were sold when they saw the graphics and idea to Co-pilot with a friend....

And among all those people, there are those who totally feel bad about their purchase because their expectations for flight modeling were based to standards that other DCS Modules has set.

And now they should be "sold" for Polychop next upcoming helicopter module, that can have the similar problems, because?.....

 

 

 

Yes, I personally hope to see that from every studio really. The most modern ones are boring ones and the older ones offer more characteristic experiences to fly.

 

 

 

Personal insults are rude. They are not needed in any forum.

And if you think that Polychop has done great work with the Gazelle flight modeling then you should already be happy, right?

 

And if you know that Polychop has done great work with the Kiowa Warrior, then how have you come to that opinion?

 

 

 

Don't insult...

 

I remember my first beer!

[Baco]

What is rude is you trying to tell us what we should or should not enjoy.

 

You want more depth, more accuracy. Good for you. Dont buy it, but stop telling people what they should enjoy or want.

[RealDCSpilot]

You know that you are wrong if you take facts as personal attacks. You show that you are even more wrong if your only way of answering is personal attacks.

[Looney]

Day 1 buy for me, regardless of other people's opinion, I have my own and I will stick to it.

 

If you can do better, get behind a screen and start programming and let me see the results of your endeavors.

Did you fly the real thing in RL? Good for you, I didn't and with that in mind, I will fly the simulator in a way I see fit and not what other people think it should be like.

 

In my little spare time I try to enjoy what I'm doing rather than being sour and bitter about the things you have no control over in the first place.

 

Don't bother replying, my ignore list is getting quite long and as a result, the forums have become much more enjoyable for me.

[Fri13]

What is rude is you trying to tell us what we should or should not enjoy.

 

You want more depth, more accuracy. Good for you. Dont buy it, but stop telling people what they should enjoy or want.

 

You know that you are wrong if you take facts as personal attacks. You show that you are even more wrong if your only way of answering is personal attacks.

 

 

 

Are you writing to me?

[Gizmokev]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum.

 

Funny how it is always the same kids saying the same things over and over again......

[outlawal2]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum.

 

Funny how it is always the same kids saying the same things over and over again......

 

Funny how this is supposed to be a simulator where the aircraft actually SIMULATES the original. If that is not important to you then why are you here?

 

I have many games that I enjoy that are completely unrealistic and are just plain "fun" and I don't begrudge anyone that option. And for the record, if you enjoy playing DCS and the Gazelle is fun for you then great, and more power to you. Please enjoy it! But here, on the DCS forum, a platform dedicated to the accurate simulation of an airframe, I cannot recommend the Gazelle or any other offering from Polychop for the reasons already outlined.

 

I am not telling you what you should do or like, I am answering a question regarding whether I feel that Polychop has provided an accurate simulation of helicopter flight and my opinion is no. And I have real flight time in real helicopters and I have given my reasons above. I would think that some real world experience would be of interest to folks looking for an opinion but you may take my advice or leave it, your choice.

 

If you want an accurate simulation of helicopter flight, buy any of the other modules available. they are all very different from each other but I feel are fair representations of each and feel close enough to real helicopter dynamics. (Not the damage model, or any other unrelated items, just the FEEL of the flight model)

 

For all of you folks that enjoy the Gazelle, good for you. Please enjoy it as the whole point is to have fun and enjoy what we have.

Edited October 8, 2020 by outlawal2

[Gizmokev]

And I have real flight time in real helicopters and I have given my reasons above. I would think that some real world experience would be of interest to folks looking for an opinion but you may take my advice or leave it, your choice.

 

I too have IRL experience on Helos one of which was the Gazelle. Shall we play top trumps???

 

Have we not already beaten the crap out of this discussion many many many time before????

[outlawal2]

I too have IRL experience on Helos one of which was the Gazelle. Shall we play top trumps???

 

Have we not already beaten the crap out of this discussion many many many time before????

 

Yes it has, but people keep asking the questions and other people are still in disagreement.

You say you have actually flown the Gazelle? Now I am intrigued as I did not realize that, must have missed it.

 

So do you feel that the flight model is an accurate representation of the Gazelle flight characteristics? If yes please explain.

 

And what is your response to my statements regarding being on rails. Absolutely no way that you can let a helicopter fly pretty much on it's own for miles and miles requiring zero interaction to keep it EXACTLY on course. That is not realistic at all.

[Extranajero]

Absolutely no way that you can let a helicopter fly pretty much on it's own for miles and miles requiring zero interaction to keep it EXACTLY on course. That is not realistic at all.

 

Are we all flying the same Gazelle here ? the one I fly will crash if left hands off for any period of time.

You do realise it has SCAS don't you ?

[outlawal2]

Are we all flying the same Gazelle here ? the one I fly will crash if left hands off for any period of time.

You do realise it has SCAS don't you ?

 

And that is an interesting statement as (Yes I do realize that) but then you say that yours will crash if left hands off any period of time so what is your point regarding SCAS?

 

Based on your statement of SCAS that should SUPPORT the on rails aspect (Although still not 100% as wind and such will still affect the flight model but does not with the Gazelle.)

 

So your comment regarding SCAS makes no sense when trying to refute the on-rails aspect of the flight model...

 

These are the kinds of things that confuse the issue and pulls us further from the point at hand that SCAS or otherwise, the helicopter still does not behave properly.

 

And I didn't say take your hands off the controls completely, just set them with a bearing and altitude and make no adjustments and you will see that absolutely NOTHING affects your trajectory. Not wind, not the cushion, nothing. Again this is not realistic

Edited October 8, 2020 by outlawal2

[Extranajero]

I don't understand what you are saying. But don't bother to expand on my behalf, because I don't really care either