I’m almost finished with the campaign, but I’ve also had a lot of problems with triggers. I’ve had to manually advance the campaign a few times. It’s a great campaign and I’ve really enjoyed all the missions, so I usually give each one a couple of shots before I go to the next. FARP behavior has been frustrating, especially with only four missiles on the rails! You have to make each shot count. In a later mission, the target area altitude is too high for a hover shot, forcing you to make running shots, which definitely makes me wish I had a live copilot! Running in and controlling the missile at the same time was not pretty!
Regarding flight model, I have a lot of time in both single-engine skids and multi-engine wheeled helos. I think the Gazelle model is generally pretty good. It is sensitive and has a complex autopilot. I think most people that complain about it being touchy or hard to fly compared with the Huey don’t appreciate how much of a difference SAS and autopilot can make, or how much finesse it takes on the cyclic. I agree, it has a bit of snap when you take weight off the skids, but that’s also a matter of automatically feeding in the right amount of pedal as you bring in collective. I have a stick extension and still fly with mostly just pressure on the cyclic, definitely not big deflections back and forth.
Anyway, long post aside, as a helo bubba, I think the Gazelle is darn good and well worth the money.
I am now having issues with the campaign as well. This is the problem with a trigger based system instead of a results based system. In the mission I’ve become stuck on, I have now flown 3 times and dying repeatedly at 00:45 I really don’t get what they want me to do. “Avoid city: CHECK”. “Fly low: CHECK”. “Don’t let 3 Mi28s find and Kill you”: HOW!? In Falcon I can tell when the situation is unwinnable and go home with my tail between my legs. Yes, I will get a bad result but the war will progress and I never have to hear the same dialog repeated over and over.
And this is where I tell the campaign designer, “Up Yours!” and edit my logbook.
Ow, that is indeed rather annoying. I’ve tried it three times now too but just can’t be bothered to edit the logbook. I’ll just wait until it’s out of beta.
These aren’t mentioned in the latest DCS 2.1.1 update list but according to the forum they were included. I flew it a little this evening but couldn’t see much difference. More testing tomorrow.
Corrected Auto-Hover
Corrected Vortex effect
Corrected damaged Horizontal Stabilizer effect
Added NADIR polar coordinates entering procedure, to create a new waypoint with azimuth(degrees) and distance(m) from your current position.
To do so :
Press “POL 0 n”
n, from 1 to 9, is the number of the waypoint you want to store the new point in
If the point n already has coordinates, azimuth(upper line) and distance(bottom line) from your current position are displayed
If then you Press Enter you access edit mode to change azimuth and distance (usual edit procedure with down arrow to swap the edited flashing line)
After you edited, press Enter again to validate, the new point n will have the azimuth and distance you edited.
Added a txt file in Doc folder to explain the NADIR new functions
I’m glad you liked the campaign - I know Nicolas put a lot of effort into it and he’s very proud of it. He didn’t make it to be easy, he wanted it to be a challenge, only to be attempted once the virtual pilot was well-rehearsed in it’s systems operation.He put a lot of effort into it.
I’m pretty sure he mntioned triggers etc being broken by DCS World patches. In their current situation, I don’t know if Sven (borchi_2b) is working on the model or not. He did say it would have updates - but not if he was doing them.
I haven’t spoken to either of them for a long time now. I was supposed to be helping out with the Bo-105 campaign, but I’ve heard zip, so I’m wondering what’s happening with that, too. Maybe I got sacked and no-one bothered to let me know!
Voices - all the English ones are me, except the ones my wife did. I didn’t test cos I didn’t know it well enough and had other stuff to do (such as the M2k - which is actually still ongoing), though I got the briefings and files.
Some people didn’t like the Meatboy 1 voice, but to be honest I just did what I was asked to do, and they liked it, so…
Fortunately, I got to chat to the guys in the Polychop team on Skype. Nice bunch.
I’ve had a blast with the whole campaign and can definitely recommend the Gazelle to anyone who enjoys rotary wing. I know a lot of people initially complained that the flight model was twitchy and unrealistic, but I just don’t think they appreciate what effect a strong automatic flight control system can have on the way an aircraft flies. You have to learn how to fly the AFCS, which can have different tendencies than basic helicopter physics.
I’m hoping they continue to tweak the multi-crew aspect. I am looking forward to when the left seat pilot can manipulate all of the switches and CBs, including those on the right side of the A/C (especially NADIR). It’s still a blast, though! Flicking off the NVDs to try and nail a HOT shot when my right seat pilot’s airwork is a little rusty and there are rounds coming your way is a hoot.
It is hopelessly fubar’d atm. The trim system is all messed up, post-October '17 patch. The force trim often trims opposite as does the “coolie hat” trim. And neither bug is consistent. I couldn’t even begin to file a bug report because I have no idea what I would write. They just need to sell the module to Belsimtek for pennies on the dollar and walk away.
Yeah, the four-way trim is broken. I don’t have a FFB stick, so I generally don’t use the beeper trim, either, but just hold pressure against the stick. The altitude hold still works, though, so I use that for long transits, and hover hold for HOT shots. I still really like the Gazelle but would love for any improvements! I really want an option to rip the doors off, too.
To continue to beat up on this poor little chopper:
I posted what I hoped was an honest issue with the helicopter’s performance at /DCS/Ploychop. But what do I know? I am not a helicopter pilot. Here is what I wrote:
“Start up in the desert at a moderately high altitude spot. Arm with enough HOTs and fuel to be at max takeoff weight. Lift into a hover and note power required. Now gently accelerate forward to whatever speed that roughly 90% collective (bottom of yellow torque) will hold; probably something around 200 kph. Now roll into a turn either direction with at least 45 degrees of bank. Apply a little bottom rudder to keep the nose down (yes, I am aware that this is not proper technique). Try to concentrate on a constant altitude but don’t change the collective. Note after a sustained turn of several rotations that you are maintaining 200 kph with the same power setting. In fact I GAIN about 5 - 10 kph. I won’t do the math here but basic trigonometry says that the lift vector (the hypotenuse) will need to be much longer in order to maintain altitude (VCL). And this goes without even getting into sources of added drag like my bottom rudder.”
I was being delicate. I get the airspeed gain every time. In other words, less power is needed to fly in a steady-state steep turn than is required to fly in steady-state straight and level flight. It is more magic carpet than helicopter. The fellow who has taken over at Polychop seems thoughtful and patient. I don’t envy him for the work he has taken on to make this model better. He (“Borchi”) replied thusly:
Thanks,
I will test this with our internal testbed and the DCS 2.1 version to see what is going on.
The following should be similar to any helicopter out there
Bank Angle -------- Increase in Tr (%)
0 —
15 — 3.6
30 — 15.4
45 — 41.4
60 — 100
[resource US Army aviation]
The percentages shown are not a direct torque percentage, but the percentage of torque increase required based on aircraft torque to maintain straight and level flight. That is, if indicated cruise torque is 48% and a turn to 60 degrees is initiated, a torque increase of 48% (96% torque indicated) is required to maintain airspeed and altitude.
And later…
@smokin hole:
I had some talks yesterday to an us army pilot and a royal army pilot about these numbers.
It was a very interesting talk to bth and how they approached these numbers from different perspectives. We even talked about stuff lick musing and such, but at some point we have to understand that DCS is a game/simulations even with its own limits and there is now way that real life will be simulated to 100%. For that you would have to start a simulator engine from sratch and make a concept what you want to simulate in which detail.
Still we add details in the fm as soon we have solved values and aspects of how to include the intel
I am starting to doubt myself. Maybe I am completely out of my depth when it comes to helicopters. The ones I have flown were quite predictable. Once past translation they all flew pretty much like airplanes and seemed to comply with similar laws of physics. Well anyway, I thought it was an interesting discussion–especially as he highlights limitations of the DCS engine under the bonnet. Developers wisely avoid FM discussions with users. But “Borchi” dives right in. A trait I appreciate and now I guiltily feel that I’ve sent him off on a tangent when in fact the helicopter is already behaving correctly and the issue is with me, not it.
Well, it might not be behaving exactly as a real Gazelle would, but you should maybe ask yourself, is it close enough that I feel like I am flying a good approximation of a Gazelle? That is a question that only the individual can answer of course.
I have flown in a real Gazelle (a long time ago) but I obviously couldn’t state that the DCS version is or isn’t realistic. For general flying, tactics involved in the employment of the weapons systems, etc etc, it feels pretty good to me. I’m not a test pilot or engineer though, so I apply the power that I need to do the maneuver, I’m not really all that interested in the numbers as I am usually too busy having fun with the flying .
In addition to performance, the behavior of the helicopter is also a problem for me. It’s just too difficult. Forward flight requires my complete concentration. My Align T-Rex 250 is easier! My buddy’s Rotorway (now sold ) was downright snooze-worthy in comparison. The Gazelle was the first helicopter in the world to be certified for single pilot IFR. That fact makes my struggle with the module all the more humbling. But you flew it and that’s the kind of input I needed. I have hit a limit in my ability to fly DCS. And this helicopter is it.
.
) was downright snooze-worthy in comparison. The Gazelle was the first helicopter in the world to be certified for single pilot IFR. That fact makes my struggle with the module all the more humbling. But you flew it and that’s the kind of input I needed. I have hit a limit in my ability to fly DCS. And this helicopter is it.