Helicopter Feedback (Dev branch)

[Tonci87 163]

no one is saying hard for hard sake is worthy or asking for hardest levels of difficuly. far from it. but right now its pretty simplified to its bare bones. and there are characteritics of flying a heli that just arent modelled here. pretty fundamental things too. that i hope bis might consider looking at ( after bipods and weapoon resting of course :) )

That is true!

[gatordev 219]

no one is saying hard for hard sake is worthy or asking for hardest levels of difficuly. far from it. but right now its pretty simplified to its bare bones. and there are characteritics of flying a heli that just arent modelled here. pretty fundamental things too. that i hope bis might consider looking at ( after bipods and weapoon resting of course :) )

Very true. But I just caution asking for things to be modeled that don't really matter. A perfect example is Vortex Ring State. EECH had VRS modeled and it was horrid. It was WAY over modeled and as soon as you got near the supposed magic number that it was supposed to occur, down you went. It really doesn't work that way and it's actually pretty hard to get into in the bigger aircraft. But I understand what you're saying. It's not perfect, but it's still better than OFP and can be fun. For me, that's what I look for in this type of game.

many people think to know things .... But they are not at all xD

Wait, you're saying I cease to exist? Yikes, that's harsh!

[b00ce 160]

Very true. But I just caution asking for things to be modeled that don't really matter. A perfect example is Vortex Ring State. EECH had VRS modeled and it was horrid. It was WAY over modeled and as soon as you got near the supposed magic number that it was supposed to occur, down you went. It really doesn't work that way and it's actually pretty hard to get into in the bigger aircraft.

Yep, a big part of VRS is your power margin; if you're low, cool and light then you can just pull out with collective.

At the very least before VRS is even mentioned as a possible feature there needs to be a complete overhaul of the FM that takes account for aircraft weight, altitude, temperature, lift/drag from the rotor blades, rotor RPM, Engine power (Adjusted for ambient air temperature) and most importantly air speed with wind effecting the flight model. All this factors into the pilots power margin, the smaller it is the easier it is for things to badly. I don't think people realize the can of worms that they open when they start shouting "add all the things!", its easy to say "we want feature X, Y and Z, make it so" without realizing all of the other stuff that has to be added to make it work realistically. In a perfect world we would have a DCS level of fidelity, but this isn't a perfect world or DCS. ;)

And can we please get rolling wheels with proper shock absorbers? I'm not asking for brake lines getting shot out or struts exploding; I just want a cushy landing (That doesn't murderate the engine because my tail hit the ground with barely more force than a feather falling on the moon :confused:) with the possibility of doing a roll on without coming to an immediate and screeching halt.

[marcai 1]

And can we please get rolling wheels with proper shock absorbers? I'm not asking for brake lines getting shot out or struts exploding; I just want a cushy landing (That doesn't murderate the engine because my tail hit the ground with barely more force than a feather falling on the moon :confused:) with the possibility of doing a roll on without coming to an immediate and screeching halt.

Oh hell yes. Forget all of the fancy and hard-to-impliment stuff, some shock absobation on landing would be wonderful. On a related note, stopping the 'damaged' sound playing twice when taking damage would also be nice. I'm sure I can't be the only one to have issues with it playing once and playing to half way through a second time!

[gatordev 219]

And can we please get rolling wheels with proper shock absorbers? I'm not asking for brake lines getting shot out or struts exploding; I just want a cushy landing (That doesn't murderate the engine because my tail hit the ground with barely more force than a feather falling on the moon :confused:) with the possibility of doing a roll on without coming to an immediate and screeching halt.

Here here. Something I'd hoped was addressed from OFP in A1...and in A2...and in A3. Oh well.

[x3kj 1247]

Depends on your experience..and a lot of other things irl. By now we'd probably call the flight model in Arma 2 easy but there are people out there that have difficulty with the basic concept of pitching down means losing altitude without collective input, I've seen people say that DCS FM sucked and that Crysis (1) has the best flight model, and that was literally a gliding type model, battlefield 2..hell battlefield 3 had more environmental influence.

Propably because they just lack the technical knowledge and/or interest... The only thing you need to learn to play BF/CoD and voice your opinion about it somewhere, is reading, writing and playing a PC game... Not exactly a high entry barrier. And that's what their developers aim for.

A very short video tutorial about how the real/ game system works can work wonders for the people with lack of knowledge but interest in higher fidelity games. For the uninterested, unwilling to learn people it's just the wrong game anyway. There will always be those people, and trying to appeal to those is basically impossible unless you want to change your game radically to an arcade type game. That's what almost all games with higher fidelity then arcadish BF/Cod lack. Tutorials in Arma where and still are horrible in that respect if you ask me. I had to reload the helicopter tutorial 3 times (even though i knew perfectly well how to fly a2 helicopters and know how helicopters work in principle) to be able to read all the text info in time and still didnt manage to finish it because of beeing shot down despite emptying all countermeasure flares. No explanation is given how to use the function. Just how to activate (button). That's a big problem for players with no "simulator experience".

You can explain the basic principle of a helicopter in a video in 2-3min. Add another with the controlls - maybe another 3 min. Make it accessable ingame. Don't expect those people to close the game (after beeing frustrated with it), and to search for help on their own. Why am i even writing this? This should be common knowdlege for a game/product developer.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Fennek

[RushHour 11]

The difference is experience yes (as Nod said). An example would be me who has been simracing for many many years.

When i tried F1 2010 i simply could not drive it because it gave no feedback at all about the tires or the amount of grip i had through the wheel.

But a complete beginner in any form of racing would find F1 2010 to be absolutely stellar.

So a flight simmer trying Arma 3 would be appalled while the guy who´s been running Battlefield for the last year would love the model and think it´s very realistic.

In terms of technical knowledge or learning curve, make it an option. Problem solved.

But make a realistic model first as a base, then you dumb it down for the casual flight fan. that way the hardcore group gets what they want and the inexperienced guy gets an easy aircraft to fly that is fundamentally very good at it´s core (which probably creates an even better dumbed down model)

[twisted 128]

i think the inexperienced guy would actually find the more authentic flight model a bit easier to fly.

in arma/arma2 i wanted to enjoy the helicopter but found it tricky.

then i bought tkoh and was surprised at just how much more responsive the heli was despite the quirks that are true to flying helis (like how it turns a bit when raising or lowering collective or the feeling of momentum). this made flying MUCH easier for me. More intuitive, things happended closer to how i expeted it'd work (aka droppiing power means heli starts falling pretty damn fast). and much more responsive to input. now back to arma3 and it feels like flying in a goo that sort of smooths out my responses inside a gravity envelope around the helicopter.

i liketo fly in arm3 becuase altis and stratis look so lovely, but I'd really like the heli' flight model to be a bit truer to some of the fundamentals that'd in turn make them more responsive and intuitive to fly.

[timmo1982 10]

i think the inexperienced guy would actually find the more authentic flight model a bit easier to fly.

I agree, especially in regards to lowering the collective to go down which is pretty screwy in A3.

A novice helo flyer in A3 currently would lower collective, find they weren't really descending and go 'oh I guess I need to nose down with cyclic'....which would have the effect of increasing airspeed and make hitting the landing spot very difficult.

Increasing the effect of dropping collective is the one thing they could easily (?) change to really improve the helos in A3....currently helos feel like they 'want to fly' as opposed to reality where the blades are doing a heap of work to prevent it from falling out of the sky!

Edited April 14, 2014 by timmo1982
Incorrect as pointed out in B00ce's post below

[Sniperwolf572 758]

...currently helos feel like they 'want to fly' as opposed to reality where the blades are doing a heap of work to prevent it from falling out of the sky!

Very nicely put. While playing ToH, even with the most "newbie friendly" settings, I felt like I was flying a fragile bucket with a giant fan above my head that would crash at the first chance it got. While Arma provides me with safety and confidence in flying the helos because of that, even if the lift feels like slogging through a swamp. I understand the quirks of the Arma 3 helos and what to expect, and in general, it really feels like it doesn't want you to fail.

Flying any mission in ToH that provided a range of height, speed or whatever and also required following a tight path (like the Airshow missions or certain Taki missions) was me just hoping that the thing won't fall apart or drop because of my insane maneuvers.

[b00ce 160]

I agree, especially in regards to lowering the collective to go down which is pretty screwy in A3.

A novice helo flyer in A3 currently would lower collective, find they weren't really descending and go 'oh I guess I need to nose down with cyclic'....which would have the effect of increasing airspeed, increasing rotor speed and increasing lift.

Increasing the effect of dropping cyclic is the one thing they could easily (?) change to really improve the helos in A3....currently helos feel like they 'want to fly' as opposed to reality where the blades are doing a heap of work to prevent it from falling out of the sky!

Negatron Ghost rider; you're ruining peoples' primacy. When you dump collective, rotor RPM (Nr) will increase; when you nose down Nr will actually decrease. Once you start to flare and bleed your speed, Nr will shoot through the roof. More Nr does not effect lift nearly as much as blade angle of attack. (It plays a big role, but in your example the effect is negligible.) I agree though, we don't have enough collective authority when it comes to descending.

Despite having all of the DCS helicopters, I can't fly in ArmA with my Warthog stick. It doesn't feel right at all, the input is sluggish and returning to center doesn't work like it should. Using the throttle and pedals is awesome, but I have to use my mouse for cyclic. For me, this is the single largest issue with ArmA aircraft.

[gatordev 219]

b00ce, have you tried messing with stick sensitivity? I found the same issue you are having until I messed with stick sensitivity (and null zone) and it made it better. I had to do this in TKoH, as well, as it just didn't have the authority for my X45 out of the box that it should for something so nimble as a MD-500 (or even something like a S-76).

[timmo1982 10]

Thanks B00ce- I've amended my post. I also mistakenly put cyclic instead of collective in the second para.

[b00ce 160]

Helicopter damage handling improvements:

Reasonable protection from small arms

Added: Fuel hitpoints to helicopters

Engines better (reasonably) protected from small arms

I'm curious what "reasonable" protection would entail, since most of the aircraft hull is air wrapped with a thin sheet of aluminum.

Hopefully the fuel cells are "reasonably protected"; If the Blackhawk is any good base line for protection and survivability, the fuel cell should seal itself up to a 7.62mm on the bottom and take a .50cal to the side of the bladder without leaking.

The engines though, are considerably more fragile and in a lot of cases have less protection. All it takes is one lucky bullet (or even a screw, look up FOD) to turn an engine inside out. There is so much that can go wrong in an engine, the bullet doesn't even need to get inside the engine to do serious damage, it can miss the bulk of the engine and hit some other important part like what distributes the fuel to the injectors.

These are welcome changes, though. I'll have to do some testing.

[x3kj 1247]

I'm curious what "reasonable" protection would entail, since most of the aircraft hull is air wrapped with a thin sheet of aluminum.

Why would someone bother installing

that protects against up to 14.5mm on a helicopter if the rest of the helicopter is thin sheet of aluminium?

[kuIoodporny 45]

Why would someone bother installing

that protects against up to 14.5mm on a helicopter if the rest of the helicopter is thin sheet of aluminium?

Hull is aluminium, but key components incl. crew compartment are armored - expectably even more than the glass.

After changes, Pawnee/Hummingbird gets no armor at all. Helicopter is already hard to hit due to its small size, but you can damage it with pretty much anything. It's engine is small and thus really hard to hit with small projectiles, but can be broken with pretty much anything that succeeds hitting it.

Other helicopters in game are much more resistant though. Modern military transport helos and gunships use kevlar or other composites to provide protection against small arms for people inside and key components - usually 7.62x51 won't be enough to pierce crew, engine and fuel protection. .50 cal will easily pierce armoured glass, and damage anything it strikes - under condition you actually hit something (unlikely when helicopter is moving) and it's not Hamok.

For instance, Zafir shouldn't pierce Blackfoot's composite armour of hull and seats, but can potentially hurt or kill pilots depending on angle of impact on glass, or damage its tail rotor. If you plan to engage Hamok with such munitions, you'll probably have to put more lead on it that it can lift - 20mm is really the least I would consider using against it.

Explosive projectiles such as HEDP grenades, rockets and HE autocannon munitions are very dangerous, and AA missiles and 35mm FAPDS are deadly. This way, we get to state where one actually has to choose proper weapon to fight enemies effectively - rock, paper or scissors. ;)

PS. you can now also damage transmission shaft inside tail and disable tail rotor this way. That knowledge may be useful. ;)

[SirViver 10]

Why would someone bother installing

that protects against up to 14.5mm on a helicopter if the rest of the helicopter is thin sheet of aluminium?

Because glass is usually only present in the pilot cabin, which is an area that especially in combat helicopters does get and deserve some extra protection (a random bullet taking out the engine, or fuel, or tail rotor may still result in an overall salvageable situation instead of a total loss - a random bullet taking out the pilot probably... doesn't). The rest of the aircraft cannot be protected at the same level due to weight constraints.

e:f,b

[msy 22]

Hull is aluminium, but key components incl. crew compartment are armored - expectably even more than the glass.

After changes, Pawnee/Hummingbird gets no armor at all. Helicopter is already hard to hit due to its small size, but you can damage it with pretty much anything. It's engine is small and thus really hard to hit with small projectiles, but can be broken with pretty much anything that succeeds hitting it.

Other helicopters in game are much more resistant though. Modern military transport helos and gunships use kevlar or other composites to provide protection against small arms for people inside and key components - usually 7.62x51 won't be enough to pierce crew, engine and fuel protection. .50 cal will easily pierce armoured glass, and damage anything it strikes - under condition you actually hit something (unlikely when helicopter is moving) and it's not Hamok.

For instance, Zafir shouldn't pierce Blackfoot's composite armour of hull and seats, but can potentially hurt or kill pilots depending on angle of impact on glass, or damage its tail rotor. If you plan to engage Hamok with such munitions, you'll probably have to put more lead on it that it can lift - 20mm is really the least I would consider using against it.

Explosive projectiles such as HEDP grenades, rockets and HE autocannon munitions are very dangerous, and AA missiles and 35mm FAPDS are deadly. This way, we get to state where one actually has to choose proper weapon to fight enemies effectively - rock, paper or scissors. ;)

PS. you can now also damage transmission shaft inside tail and disable tail rotor this way. That knowledge may be useful. ;)

When will you start to set twin-engine config? In the game now damage any side of the engines means all power lost. I hope I can see the chopper can use the other one engine to make it back to base rather than crash the ground directly.

Second, If the engine is hurt will it lose part of power which will cause difficult manipulation.

---------- Post added at 01:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 AM ----------

When to fix the bad posture of dead crew in AH-99? they still rise their head.

[byku 13]

...

This sounds GREAT! Great job on that! :)

[kuIoodporny 45]

When will you start to set twin-engine config? In the game now damage any side of the engines means all power lost. I hope I can see the chopper can use the other one engine to make it back to base rather than crash the ground directly.

Second, If the engine is hurt will it lose part of power which will cause difficult manipulation.

---------- Post added at 01:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 AM ----------

When to fix the bad posture of dead crew in AH-99? they still rise their head.

Well, you should be positively surprised: when you kill one engine, it stops receiving damage for primary HitEngine hitpoint.

It's not perfect, since power is not reduced, but it should be much more comfortable to fly twin-engine helicopter knowing that.

Of course, you can always kill gearbox, transmission shaft or pierce both engines with single AP or explosive round. Your call.

[msy 22]

Well, you should be positively surprised: when you kill one engine, it stops receiving damage for primary HitEngine hitpoint.

It's not perfect, since power is not reduced, but it should be much more comfortable to fly twin-engine helicopter knowing that.

Of course, you can always kill gearbox, transmission shaft or pierce both engines with single AP or explosive round. Your call.

So, I use mk30 .50 HMG (OPFOR) to only hit one of the engines of MI-48 (face to face between 85m) then within 500 rounds the chopper explodes. Do you think it is normal?

[kuIoodporny 45]

It's Arma. Otherwise I doubt I would be able to put 500 rounds on flying helicopter before I die, or helicopter flies away.

[msy 22]

It's Arma. Otherwise I doubt I would be able to put 500 rounds on flying helicopter before I die, or helicopter flies away.

It is a ground test. And if I use APFSDS in BTR-K to hit the only one engine on the ground, within 30 rounds the chopper explodes.

Maybe you will say "I doubt I would be able to put 30 rounds on flying helicopter before I die, or helicopter flies away."

Then I use ZSU-39 to hit the only one engine of MI-48, then one hit the engine status is yellow, the next one hit the engine is red and the crews both eject. The distance is 500m.

But to ZSU-39, the best position to hit is rotors.

Anyway I know the VEHICLES has an HP value. Every hit will decrease the HP, if this won't get changed then any improvement won't make vehicle simulation up to date. The date maybe means some russian OL games you may know, some tank games and some plane games.

[kuIoodporny 45]

It is a ground test. And if I use APFSDS in BTR-K to hit the only one engine on the ground, within 30 rounds the chopper explodes.

Maybe you will say "I doubt I would be able to put 30 rounds on flying helicopter before I die, or helicopter flies away."

Then I use ZSU-39 to hit the only one engine of MI-48, then one hit the engine status is yellow, the next one hit the engine is red and the crews both eject. The distance is 500m.

But to ZSU-39, the best position to hit is rotors.

Anyway I know the VEHICLES has an HP value. Every hit will decrease the HP, if this won't get changed then any improvement won't make vehicle simulation up to date. The date maybe means some russian OL games you may know, some tank games and some plane games.

No, I say I doubt helicopter would be of any use after few 30mm APFSDS hits at all. Did you check how engine damage was behaving then? I'm curious, even if ground tests have little to do with practice.

35mm FAPDS pierces helicopter through, damages not only engine but also gearbox behind it. There's no way aircraft could stand more hits from such rounds, specifically designed to shatter and damage target in cone-shaped area, deadly against any lightly armored vehicle and complicated mechanisms.

I believe Arma could benefit from improvements in area of damage, but so far we have to deal with what engine is capable of.

[Tonci87 163]

but so far we have to deal with what engine is capable of.

We understand. It must be frustrating for you too. :239: