Polychop Talks Futures

You guys seen this?


Oh man…that helo is going to rock. If we could get an Apache…the whole hunter/killer thing would be my dream (the Ka-50 can be a stand-in though)…(and I suppose we could do the whole hunter/killer thing with the Gazelle and Ka-50…but those two aircraft don’t talk to each other do they - can the Gazelle designate for a Vikhr?)


Hunter/killer would be awesome. Not sure if Gazelle can designate for the jets now.
Ka-50 is probably not compatible with NATO laser codes, but more importantly, Vikhr is a beam riding missile, so any designating craft would need to be pretty much on top of the launching platform for the missile to capture the beam.

I am kind of worried about their statement that they are still unsure whether they will release it for DCS or another platform.

1 Like

Ah…that’s right. That makes sense. :+1:

1 Like

No, the HOT missiles are wire-guided, and the laser that is on the Gazelle is only used for ranging.


I hope Ollie and his pals can pull it off.
I talked to him some time ago (when Sven still was with them) and even was close to joining the team back then to help with some stuff but there was some misunderstanding between the guys and me so that never got anywhere.
I hear he has problems finding a coder, hope he can get that out of the way.
I am very excited for the BO105 and even drove a few 100km to get some photos for him and helped with some research on it. I want that project to succeed.
I admit I don’t care much about the Kiowa but I understand many people like it, and its capabilities are quite impressive.


A mast mounted FLIR is like icing on top of a collidable tree cake.


I have had to keep this a secret for over a year now. Phew at last an announcement. All you guys just want modern tech. Give me a stripped down 1968 era airframe and a single bungee mounted M60 with its ridiculously bad N2 droop :smiley:

The 99th had a mission script that allow the Gazelle to “laze and A/FAC”. Would be nice to include in more missions, as I too think it would be a nice fill in.

1 Like

IMO the great weakness in DCS will be the multicrew bit. This is something that really will plague any kind of attack helicopter, as anyone who flies the Ka-50 can attest. It’s very easy for the workload to result in burnout, and the more you do it, the more likely you are to make a mistake. The '58 doesn’t have quite the same level of problems that the '64 does in that regard, but the number of '58s lost to all causes is indicative that, despite appearances, it’s not a whole lot easier to fly and fight in.

In the later years, the '58s tended to be used as rapid response light gunships and some even went out with the MMS removed. The '58F upgrade was going to toss out the MMS in favor of a nose mounted designator and sight to better fit into this role and it was shaping up to be a really good upgrade til the brass decided to throw it out (more on that later). The '58F was also going to cut back on the weight and increase the power, which would have solved a lot of the problems that have plagued the '58 since its inception.

Big thing about the '58 though: a kick in the shin will blow it up. Throughout the GWOT, a lot of '58s came back that were completely shot to ■■■■ and they were having trouble keeping airframes in circulation. The US Army was in dire need of a light gunship and the only thing they had in reasonable quantity was the ‘58. Use what ya got, not what ya want n’ all that jazz. Also, the '58 doesn’t have any real crash resistance and with practically no armor to speak of, the crew is quite vulnerable. I don’t recall if the F was going to change any of that, but I think I had read about it incorporating some better crash-resistant seats. That was really needed because the airbag system wasn’t good for ■■■■.

So, back to retiring the airframe: the Army brass had decided, in their infinite wisdom, that ditching the '58 would save them X dollars. The problem is they didn’t think about where the mission would go; the '64 is a heavy sumbitch and expensive to boot, plus it’s way overkill for most of what they were using the '58 for. Now, sensible solution would be to get some armament going on the '60Ms (the M has a lot of fancy stuff to enable that) and balance the mission between the '64 and the '60, but the brass is scared ■■■■■■■■ that if anyone sees the '60 doing attack missions, the '64 will lose funding. Further, it means your '60 crews now have to train for an attack mission, in addition to all the other stuff they gotta do. What was supposed to save money has ended up costing them because they fudged their numbers to fit an agenda and now they’re paying for it. It doesn’t help that the Army backed out of the Firescout program which would have given them a UAV with similar capability as the '58.

TL;DR You lose out on too much doing attack/observation with just one seat. It can be done, but there’s a reason why these aircraft have two crew members to begin with.


I’m hoping the Tomcat and the like really re-enforce that as well. Two seats needed.

It’s funny, because the Gazelle multi-seat seemed to work really well. @BeachAV8R and I near the launch of the thing actually did a dual VR, dual-seat try out and it was fantastic. It felt surreal to be playing with someone in the same cockpit, sharing tasks (across 3000 miles real distance between BC Canada and NC USA) in a 3D world. Unbelievable stuff, only a few short years a go. His head-look in VR would literally be where he was looking, which helped us chat about where targets were. It felt really natural.

But then we didn’t do it again. Thinking about it, it is really odd, in that I looked so forward to it but as soon as it was here then it sort of got over-taken by events and not really gone back to. I feel guilty about this somewhat, as in we lust after these amazing toys for so long, they arrive after years of effort, and then if something else shiny comes along then they don’t get used. Maybe something to do with it being more fun flying rather than WEPs? Not sure.

Are people going to want to do the non-flying roles?

1 Like

For the type of MP flying I do with the 229th I can think of nothing better than taking someone up for the basic wings tasks sitting in the left seat. However I will probably be one of the minority and for the majority it will be a cool feature that is underused.
I suppose online squadrons who attempt to emulate RL will be the biggest beneficiaries whether in jets like the Tomcat and maybe one day an F15D and of course the rotorheads. I would imagine also that flying multi crew hueys and jets will be less nausea inducing than the Gazelle in VR, I mean it gets cramped in that bubble :smiley:

1 Like

It was weird, in that not being in control but sat in the thing going flat out on the deck just felt all sorts of wrong. I also remember VRS’ing it into the ground and killing us both and feeling extra guilty. It sort of reminded me of BF2 where we’d get a full six players in the helo and then the embarrassment of smacking it straight into a light pole shortly after take off - fratricide guilt in MP.

1 Like

The Gazelle is so out to lunch that there is no way I’d buy anything else from them without seeing that thing made plausible first. (Just my opinion of course. There are many here, mudspikers whose opinions I value, who think its me in fact who is out to lunch and that the Gazelle is nuts on. If true I still won’t buy it because apparently I can’t handle a realistic helicopter :yum: )

It certainly didn’t help that the Gazelle controls really oddly (for me, at least, I fly a desk). The pick-up and turn dynamics in the flight model feels alien enough that I might have just subconsciously avoided flying it. The frustration level of it (maybe the unpredictability of it?) felt pretty high when compared to the Shark, Hip or Huey (which I can drive pretty well).

Sorry,I’m a bit “Butt Hurt” with the statement [We’re not sure what sim this will be developed for]??? I mean seriously??? Why would a DCS third party developer make that statement on the DCS Forums?

1 Like

It really did.

Yes…I was freaking out when you were looking at me. And the Gazelle is uncomfortably tight…so I kept worrying that @fearlessfrog would start touching my knee.

I agree. I should probably sacrifice some of my X-Plane flying for online MP flying in DCS World. Of course, if X-Plane ever got some actual MP connectivity, an X-Plane fly-in would also be a ton of fun.


I can’t speak for the Gazelle in terms of how it handles multi-crew dynamics, but the AH-64 and OH-58D-F aren’t really comparable to it. The AH-64, for example, has a huge workload for the CPG in all models, even more so for the D and later. The A will have him doing stuff primarily related to weapons usage and navigation, while the D/E will (or should) put him in a far more information oriented role, especially if UAVs are in the picture. Plainly speaking, there is a lot for the CPG to be involved with, most of it little fiddly bits involving the mission that are difficult to carry out while flying the aircraft at the same time. The '58 is much the same way, though that will depend greatly on the mission it’s carrying out. A simple, straightforward gunship mission employing rockets and the .50 won’t leave much for the CP to do, but a complicated spotting/designation mission will require all hands on deck, especially as the threat level increases.

I don’t know what equipment the Gazelle comes with, but with the latest models of '64s and '58s, you’re looking at a lot of systems that have a lot of stuff to work with, a number of which can’t be exclusively managed from one crew station. For example, the pilot in the '64 can’t operate the TADS in a targeting fashion, so he can’t use the laser to guide SAL or friendly laser guided munitions. The A is even worse as all the missile controls are in the front seat and the rocket controls are all in the back seat. The '58 doesn’t have these same problems (though my memory wants to say that missiles can only be launched from the right hand seat, but I’m not 100% on that) but it tosses that into an airframe that is inherently less survivable.

Bottom line, not every situation is going to be the same, but in any scenario involving threats that can shoot down aircraft are going to make it that much more difficult for a single crew helicopter to survive in. With the '64, you’re looking at having to manage the CMWS, APR-39, AVR-2, and ACM at a minimum. The '58 doesn’t pack the ACM, but it does all the others, so it’s going to be a similar joyride to keep all that stuff working while trying to avoid being seen/hit. A word on attacking/targeting: both the '64 and the '58 don’t exactly have an easy button for the TADS and the MMS, so trying to get those to point at the right target and stay there is a full time job. Keeping in mind that the '58 doesn’t have a HMD, so there’s no “look-shoot” capability like with the Apache.


Woo hoo you will fit in here well. This forum seems to thrive on acronyms :slight_smile: Nice post BTW


I find that to be a common problem as well. I dont mind riding as the gunner, but often cant find a decent driver on SRS. And vice versa.

Multi-crew is great if you have a dedicated group.

1 Like