Fixed Wing Flight Model (dev branch)

[roshnak 41]

It's possible to bind throttle and brakes separately if you use the analogue options. It still only uses half the throttle range if you do this, though.

[Deathstrike. 15]

@Deathstrike : The buzzard doesn't have after-burner, and it is a jet so it is realistic to don't be able to take off from ALL airfields.

I'm aware of the L-159's capabilities, but none of the aircraft feature an afterburner. This is from a gameplay perspective that is in reference mostly to the airfield south of the main Altis airstrip. Whereby in a North to South departure the runway drops off into a small gulley, the other two do not have a problem with this. The L-159 however really struggles in comparision to the two newer aircraft and cannot clear it with an acceptable safety margin. (Safe take-off speed for the L-159 in-game is just above 140 kph with full flap, the L-159 needs the entire length of the runway to reach this.) Though the other two aircraft are twin-engined compared to the L-159's single, they are not straight upgrades in terms of the aircraft's overall thrust to weight ratio. The HUD issues seem to point to how the L-159 was forgotten about with the new config values and changes to aircraft handling.

The A-164's nose droop was resolved in the latest dev branch update, and I don't believe BI needs or may not already have documentation on the two aircraft. It's just that ArmA's flight physics at the moment are not really aimed to replicate the full nature of what the actual aircraft are capable of, more that they want to have both visually and performance based differences between the three to separate each aircraft with its own strengths and weaknesses within BI's own scope. As they have done already with each factions core units.

I wouldn't go so far as to state that OFP had better flight handling, far from. But I don't come to ArmA from Benchmark Sims expecting a realistic flight model, instead I see that they just want to be able to field usable but not arcade'y aircraft for their combined arms environment as with all past ArmA titles. From that perspective the aircraft at the moment are acceptable I guess, but issues such as the amount of side slip you can create with the aircraft seem to be odd and make certain situations a pain to correct, especially with the poor HUD symbology or lack of instrumentation. (To which the altitude readout has always been in AGL, only ACE in ArmA2 added an ASL readout. Not BI.)

Edited March 25, 2014 by Deathstrike.

[John Kozak 14]

No it is not possible because the flight model is not working like a sim. In dcs A10 you can and you have a good flight model.

Yes it's possible. You don't need "great" flight model to have numbers comparable to those in reality. Lock On: Modern Air Combat (+Flaming Cliffs 1/2) has pretty primitive model for Su-27/MiG-29, yet it was widely regarded as quite accurate. Just because the "macro" numbers (max speed vs. altitude, lift/drag w.r.t. AoA, moments of inertia, engine thrust, etc.) are close to reality. At the same time, "micro" plane movements (example: spin behavior) are grossly incorrect, but the simulation is still considered pretty good.

See what is AFM? topic on Eagle Forums

Same can be done here. Not even at the LOMAC/LOFC level, but basic flight envelope can pretty well be modelled, given some motivation.

(maybe they'll do an "ArmA: Take on Planes" DLC?)

=> To have value close to the reality ( even if it is not good as a DCS ), is NOT POSSIBLE at the moment

You need to define what "close to the reality" you mean first.

Edited March 25, 2014 by DarkWanderer

[izaiak 1]

Will BIS benefit if community finds some documentation on A-10/Yak-130 aerodynamics? The planes are old enough for it to be available in public, so it's possible to try and base the dynamics on some real numbers.

You are talking about real flight model, you want the same aerodynamic i tell you it is NOT possible atm.

You talking about DCS , ok, even if it is primitive it is a sim, and at the moment it is NOT possible atm to have something real in arma because there are too many basics things missing.

So this is what i said, it is NOT possible at the moment there is not "basic flight envelope".

@Deathstrike : if you aware about performance, i don't understand why you want the L-159 taking off from more airfield. A fighter don't take off from grass strip.

Maybe i miss something :).

[John Kozak 14]

You are talking about real flight model, you want the same aerodynamic i tell you it is NOT possible atm

Did I state anywhere it's possible right now? I don't think so.

The whole point of this thread is discussion of possible engine improvements ;-) which are not that hard, in this case. But, indeed, time consuming.

Edited March 25, 2014 by DarkWanderer

[izaiak 1]

I agree, but BI have to do something, because many people complain about flight model and they can use their experience with TOH (as they said ... ).

Why there is no developer on this topic ? It could be interesting to speak with some of them, like other topic do.

Edited March 25, 2014 by izaiak

[Deathstrike. 15]

The grass fields in ArmA, particularly the southern and south-eastern ones are airfields for light aircraft. Meaning that they are or were maintained to a standard that allowed aircraft to operate from them, further that they were "smoothed" and the grass was kept at a level to not become FOD for the aircraft. (Though BIS could do with levelling them a bit more, I've flown in light aircraft from a nearby grass field and that wasn't quite as bumpy as the ones we have.) A feature for the bloc aircraft that the L-159's grandfather, the L-39 was apart of. Was that they had good rough field capabilities, all the better to be in places NATO may not expect them. And with its raised air intakes, there is nothing that I can see that inhibits the L-159 from operating on rough field as it can in ArmA.

And Izaiak, have you any proof that such things are impossible at the moment? As far as I'm aware BI are able to build upon their own engine as much as any other developer, so if they needed to I'm sure they could expand to accommodate a more realistic flight model. But I don't believe that is what they are after as I stated with my last reply.

[izaiak 1]

The proof : try to modify by your own files and see if you have something realist. If they don't do some change we will never be able to see something realistic.

We are talking about realism, so i don't see how a L-159 can IRL take off from a grass strip. As you said even if those runway are not flat enough (and i agree ) BI should adjust that. But allow a L-159 to take off from this kind of runway is for me definitely not realistic. We can't claim realistic things and non realistic things in the same times xD.

[John Kozak 14]

And Izaiak, have you any proof that such things are impossible at the moment? As far as I'm aware BI are able to build upon their own engine as much as any other developer, so if they needed to I'm sure they could expand to accommodate a more realistic flight model. But I don't believe that is what they are after as I stated with my last reply.

Well, I can say why he is right on that point. Proof is simple: take off in a plane, roll your aircraft 45 degrees left or right, release joystick/keyboard. Your plane would start pitching down turning in the direction of bank in real life. In ArmA, that's not the case.

EDIT: a small clarification: it's a proof that there's no proper modeling of aerodynamic forces as function of vertical and horizontal AoA. As another indicator, with 90 degrees roll and no input, aircraft will fly on ballistic trajectory - also not the case.

Edited March 25, 2014 by DarkWanderer

[izaiak 1]

I agree with you DarkWanderer, it is a good simple example. Hope things will move ... it is really sad because Aircrafts are an important of arma, and more over with Arma 3 and its bigger map !

Edit : The way to land or take off is improve with the A-164 but all other things stay bad. Any dev around here to give us some news? :)

Edited March 28, 2014 by izaiak

[kecske 46]

Landing gear indicators are broken on the CSAT jet:

Speaking of which, could you make those two column indicators to represent the fuel level? That's visible in Wipeout cockpit, but not here.

[izaiak 1]

For information, there is a mistake in the a-164 green is when landing gear are UP. IRL green mean the landing gear is DOWN.

[oukej 2911]

Well, I can say why he is right on that point. Proof is simple: take off in a plane, roll your aircraft 45 degrees left or right, release joystick/keyboard. Your plane would start pitching down turning in the direction of bank in real life. In ArmA, that's not the case.

This was one of the reasons Dr. Hladik added new parameters to planes' configuration. However there was not enough time to properly adjust the values (so it does not break more than improves, also considering usability of the plane for the AI) before the release of the new CAS planes into stable.

You should be able to see a little bit more "proper" behavior in this specific regard on the Wipeout, but as far as I can tell, the planes will still get some luv.

In Arma 2 this was achieved by some sort of auto-rudder, which was removed during the A3 development. That may have given you an impression that the behavior used to be better.

[John Kozak 14]

This was one of the reasons Dr. Hladik added new parameters to planes' configuration. However there was not enough time to properly adjust the values (so it does not break more than improves, also considering usability of the plane for the AI) before the release of the new CAS planes into stable.

You should be able to see a little bit more "proper" behavior in this specific regard on the Wipeout, but as far as I can tell, the planes will still get some luv.

In Arma 2 this was achieved by some sort of auto-rudder, which was removed during the A3 development. That may have given you an impression that the behavior used to be better.

Thanks for the information. I'm not saying the behavior was better in A2, however - the auto-rudder was not really a correct solution to those problems. It was merely masking one of them.

What I'm saying is that current model should be significantly improved, in my opinion. If new configuration parameters will solve those issues - that would be great. Although, I believe they are more tweaks to existing model and hence would not improve upon model's inherent drawbacks. You may prove me wrong by next release, though ☺

I can offer some basic insight into aerodynamics modeling, if you'd be interested.

Edited March 30, 2014 by DarkWanderer

[izaiak 1]

Lot of people are trying to improve the flight model. Some devs should come here to speak with people and to help them to increase the flight modelif they don't have the time to do it by themselves. Arma is a good game even if we have sames main problems since OFP.

With last update you increase some part of the flight model it is cool but main things needs to be done.

[RushHour 11]

When you Roll 90 and hold sideways, without using rudders, your aircraft should automatically slowly start to bank downward, due to gravity, and no lift element as your plane simply "Slices" through the air.

This isn´t correct.

An airplane wing will always produce lift (until you stall it)

Flip and airplane upside down and it will generate lift straight down (In Formula 1 this is called downforce which is just another word for lift)

Flip and airplane 90 degrees and you will produce lift that will pull your plane to the right. It won´t just magically stop functioning as a wing because you put it dead straight in the air. (the air could not care less if you are banked or not)

the wing is still shaped the same way as if you were flying straight with lift being generated on the top side of the wing.

Edited April 2, 2014 by RushHour

[izaiak 1]

This isn´t correct.

An airplane wing will always produce lift (until you stall it)

Flip and airplane upside down and it will generate lift straight down (In Formula 1 this is called downforce which is just another word for lift)

Flip and airplane 90 degrees and you will produce lift that will pull your plane to the right. It won´t just magically stop functioning as a wing because you put it dead straight in the air. (the air could not care less if you are banked or not)

the wing is still shaped the same way as if you were flying straight with lift being generated on the top side of the wing.

You are miss understating what he is saying. When you roll, the lift is positive but not on the vertical plan, so gravity is stronger than lift , so the nose go down. More over the upper wing has more lift than the other so it help you to turn.

In the game there are 0 of those effects and this is what he is saying ( if i'm well understanding him :p )

[Gutsnav 13]

Currently the planes in Arma 3 are like missiles with really big gyroscopes. You can turn left only by yawing or by rolling the aircraft and pulling up. It's really derpy. I mean I love Arma but it's worse than a flight simulator app on your phone ( I'm not even kidding. Seriously check it out).

---------- Post added at 18:54 ---------- Previous post was at 18:50 ----------

For information, there is a mistake in the a-164 green is when landing gear are UP. IRL green mean the landing gear is DOWN.

Actually in most aircraft it is green whenever the landing gear is locked, either up or down. It turns red when the gear is either moving or not functioning properly.

[roshnak 41]

Actually in most aircraft it is green whenever the landing gear is locked, either up or down. It turns red when the gear is either moving or not functioning properly.

In most military aircraft that I am aware of, the gear indicators are not illuminated when the landing gear are stowed, but I'm not an expert or anything.

[Gutsnav 13]

In most military aircraft that I am aware of, the gear indicators are not illuminated when the landing gear are stowed, but I'm not an expert or anything.

It may be different in some aircraft, but all the aircraft I've flown in the indicators turn green only when the landing gear is either locked or safely stowed. This is so you know if the gear are stuck, broken, or won't move. Happened to me once, tried to stow the gear and they wouldn't go up. Scary as hell but it's a good thing the indicators showed red. That would've ended terribly.

[derk yall 0]

Will there be at some point in the future implemented Stall sound warnings in addition to the text warning on the HUD?

[izaiak 1]

In most military aircraft that I am aware of, the gear indicators are not illuminated when the landing gear are stowed, but I'm not an expert or anything.

as gustnav said ,

Green = Landing gear down and locked

Red = Landing gear is moving ( up or down )

No light = Landing gear up.

[Bee8190 10]

The new pilot animation for the neophron cas plane is really quite nice :thump up:

(although the neck issue is still there) :p

[Laqueesha 474]

Will there be at some point in the future implemented Stall sound warnings in addition to the text warning on the HUD?

This would be good, a GPWS would be nice as well. Would make flying much more better. :)

[five_seven5-7 56]

You guys are asking for a DLC, the actual model its pretty reasonably for the game (show-off at mission, flyby low pass near players (Nicholas Cage in The Rock style :D). I find that its missing are the afterburners to gain burst of acceleration after a low speed bombardment, better lift coefficient in flaps and stall warning (beep and visual).