mobile_medic 43 Posted November 19, 2014 bigger change with each tap (on regular throttle mapped to keyboard) would probably be better than what is going on now. It is so minuscule right now, that you can tap it over and over and have no change in throttle at all, at times. Other times, only every *other* tap creates a tiny amount of throttle adjustment. It seems you have to hold it down for any noticeable effect (which has a delayed start, and delayed end, and is unpredictable/not reliable as a result) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
faire 10 Posted November 20, 2014 What about the old way - having certain keys defined for certain values (0 - 25 - 50 - 75 - 100)? It worked like that in old flight sims and it worked reasonably well - especailly when it could be furter altered by current system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
armored_sheep 56 Posted November 20, 2014 There is no throttle control on Arma helicopters. Collective input does change pitch of the main rotor blades. Each helicopter has different values for main rotor and is performance depends on many factors (actual weight, speed). There is no other way how digital input (such as keybord) can be used for this. Speed of the collective pitch angle change depends on how long does one keeps the key pressed. I recommend users that use keyboard this way, to use the in-game GUI - vertical speed indicator with bar that represents collective setting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doveman 7 Posted November 20, 2014 There is no throttle control on Arma helicopters. Collective input does change pitch of the main rotor blades. Each helicopter has different values for main rotor and is performance depends on many factors (actual weight, speed). There is no other way how digital input (such as keybord) can be used for this. Speed of the collective pitch angle change depends on how long does one keeps the key pressed. I recommend users that use keyboard this way, to use the in-game GUI - vertical speed indicator with bar that represents collective setting. Still, maybe scroll wheel + key would be a nicer way to adjust collective and the speed of adjustment could be controlled by how fast the user scrolls it. I know it's still digital so the same could be done by allowing the user to control the speed of adjustment by tapping a key fast or slow but scroll wheel feels more comfortable and then the keys could be used for smaller adjustments when needed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oukej 2911 Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) maybe scroll wheel + key would be a nicer way to adjust collective Actually we've considered this as one possible use of Ctrl+MWheel (even though currently the coll. increase is too little to make it work even with simple mouse wheel). For now MWheel can't be used with a modifier, it is one of the things we have in our endless lists, but it all depends on the priorities and dedicating some one to actually do it. No matter how simple it may be. Here's a ticket (one of the first) rdy for your voting - http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=96 (contrary to popular belief, we do take the amount of votes into account ;)) Edited November 20, 2014 by oukej Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doveman 7 Posted November 20, 2014 Actually we've considered this as one possible use of Ctrl+MWheel (even though currently the coll. increase is too little to make it work even with simple mouse wheel). For now MWheel can't be used with a modifier, it is one of the things we have in our endless lists, but it all depends on the priorities and dedicating some one to actually do it. No matter how simple it may be. Here's a ticket (one of the first) rdy for your voting - http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=96 (contrary to popular belief, we do take the amount of votes into account ;)) Thanks. Looks like I've already voted for that ticket :) What do you mean by "even though currently the coll. increase is too little to make it work even with simple mouse wheel"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rebel12340 46 Posted November 22, 2014 (edited) After doing a bit of testing, I've noticed that the fuel consumption rate for the advanced flight model differs from that of the standard flight model quite substantially (for the NATO choppers, at least). Is there supposed to be such a big difference between the two? If so, why? Quick picture of what I recorded: http://prntscr.com/58v2jc (There's a typo in the screenshot. SFM = Standard Flight Model, not Advanced Flight Model.) Edited November 22, 2014 by Rebel12340 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b00ce 160 Posted November 22, 2014 After doing a bit of testing, I've noticed that the fuel consumption rate for the advanced flight model differs from that of the standard flight model quite substantially (for the NATO choppers, at least). Is there supposed to be such a big difference between the two? If so, why?Quick picture of what I recorded: http://prntscr.com/58v2jc Not sure if it matters within the confines of the engine, but was this done sitting on the ground or flying around? For the ghost hawk (Assuming it performs similarly to a real UH-60) should burn around 120-140 gallons per hour with 360 gallons of fuel (455-530 & 1360 liters respectively) flying at around 100 Kts at sea level. Sitting on the ground its closer to 80 gallons (300 Liters) per hour. NOTE: These numbers are approximate and depend on how much power is required for any given mode of flight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rebel12340 46 Posted November 22, 2014 Not sure if it matters within the confines of the engine, but was this done sitting on the ground or flying around?For the ghost hawk (Assuming it performs similarly to a real UH-60) should burn around 120-140 gallons per hour with 360 gallons of fuel (455-530 & 1360 liters respectively) flying at around 100 Kts at sea level. Sitting on the ground its closer to 80 gallons (300 Liters) per hour. NOTE: These numbers are approximate and depend on how much power is required for any given mode of flight. I did this by hovering in the air at ~50m, but I flew around in the hummingbird for the full ~40 minutes and there was no difference in how long the fuel lasted. My assumption is that fuel will decrease at a pre-defined rate, hence the "fuelConsumptionRate = x" value in the vehicle configs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gippo 38 Posted November 22, 2014 Dear BIS! As I see you are active in this topic, I dare to ask here: Are you planning making the collective and other AFM values (rotor / engine RPM) be able to set by script commands? Would be a big help for scripters IMO (for me too). I'm actually trying to make the Taru pod attach / detach script (without "attachto") and I want to sync every possible value. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
armored_sheep 56 Posted November 24, 2014 My assumption is that fuel will decrease at a pre-defined rate, hence the "fuelConsumptionRate = x" value in the vehicle configs. That is right. AFM does not simulate changes in fuel consumption based on actual turbine performance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rebel12340 46 Posted November 24, 2014 That is right. AFM does not simulate changes in fuel consumption based on actual turbine performance. Why does the fuel consumption rate differ between the advanced and standard flight models? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b00ce 160 Posted November 25, 2014 Why does the fuel consumption rate differ between the advanced and standard flight models? Because the rotorlib XML has fuel quantity values that probably override the standard FM ones. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rebel12340 46 Posted November 25, 2014 Because the rotorlib XML has fuel quantity values that probably override the standard FM ones. I guess what I meant to ask was, why were the values not configured to match one another? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oukej 2911 Posted November 25, 2014 Dear BIS!Are you planning making the collective and other AFM values (rotor / engine RPM) be able to set by script commands? Would be a big help for scripters IMO (for me too). Already there ;) https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/collectiveRTD https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setActualCollectiveRTD https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/rotorsRpmRTD https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/enginesRpmRTD https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setEngineRPMRTD https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setWantedRPMRTD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gippo 38 Posted November 25, 2014 Already there ;)https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/collectiveRTD https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setActualCollectiveRTD https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/rotorsRpmRTD https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/enginesRpmRTD https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setEngineRPMRTD https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setWantedRPMRTD OMG, I looked for them in the Arma 3 scripting commands page. Thank you so much!!! Question: can I add these commands as a "simple user" to the Arma 3 scripting commands page? You know... just to help others :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Imperator[TFD] 444 Posted November 26, 2014 This is not fully related to AFM but is definitely centered around helicopters: What design decisions were used to influence which helicopters have Helmet Mounted Displays and which do not? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oukej 2911 Posted November 26, 2014 Why does the fuel consumption rate differ between the advanced and standard flight models? It should be fixed and consistent in the next Dev. branch update (with an .exe update). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gippo 38 Posted November 28, 2014 Yet again... I need to ask: Are you planning to make the rotorlib SUBsettings (roughlanding, autotrim, wind, etc) forcable by the server? (which should be already possible) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oukej 2911 Posted November 28, 2014 Yet again... I need to ask:Are you planning to make the rotorlib SUBsettings (roughlanding, autotrim, wind, etc) forcable by the server? (which should be already possible) Not planned now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gippo 38 Posted November 28, 2014 Not planned now. That's too bad. Give the PVP missions some love. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lolipoyi 10 Posted November 29, 2014 I´ve read somewhere that apparently neither the Huron nor the Taru suffer from strees damage and also auto-trim does not fully disengage when the pertinent setting is disabled (on only this two new helicopters). Has anyone noticed it? Any official word I´ve missed or will it be updated once VRS comes into play? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jwmcclehelo 10 Posted November 29, 2014 It depends how you configure the cyclic axes in DCS and FSX. For example, in DCS, you have a choice of digital or analog response to your joystick. It seems many players do not know this, judging by the talking past each other. The next time someone brings up DCS, ask him/her if they set their joystick to keyboard commands or the "Axis Commands" feature. Using keyboard commands is flying digital, using "axis commands" is flying analog. Real helilcopter flight controls are analog. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
10t 12 Posted November 30, 2014 ...and also auto-trim does not fully disengage when the pertinent setting is disabled (on only this two new helicopters). Being dual-rotor (tandem/coaxial), you wouldn't expect either one to need anti-torque trim inputs, if that's what you're referring to. The rotor torques cancel each other out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lolipoyi 10 Posted November 30, 2014 I was referring primarily on cyclic trimming, should´ve stated it better. Here is a stream highlight from Patchwork that shows what I´m referring to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites