Fixed Wing Flight Model (dev branch)

[oukej 2910]

i assume he's busy with completing marksman dlc right stuff now.

As much as i appreciate the additional work on that plane, i find it a bit futile/waste of time tbh, because it won't solve the big problems the flightmodel has. If the flightmodel gets fixed, the configs will surely have to be adjusted again, so all the time that went into adjustements before that are obsolete then.

Repairing the flightmodel (yes i certainly would argue that it's broken) should be top priority over config changes.

It's purpose was mainly to test what can be achieved in the current simulation. If we can get closer to the real thing. I know you may say that nothing less than an overhaul would help. Please understand that that isn't really a feasible option for us at the moment. But let's not give up.

Could we please gather some more feedback based on the test A-164? Can we still make it better?

Can we at least make it an example, point of reference to pinpoint (in short bulletpoints;)) what are the most obvious deficiencies in the simulation?

[x3kj 1247]

Could we please gather some more feedback based on the test A-164? Can we still make it better?

Can we at least make it an example, point of reference to pinpoint (in short bulletpoints;)) what are the most obvious deficiencies in the simulation?

Deficiencies of the simulation as in flight model, or the "per vehicle simulation" aka the config? Everything i see wrong is a nature of the flightmodel. The rest (speed/ acceleration characteristics) are more or less preference/gameplay thing, since the map is fairly (compared to real flightsims) limited to have realworld performance i think...

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Deficiencies of the simulation as in flight model, or the "per vehicle simulation" aka the config? Everything i see wrong is a nature of the flightmodel. The rest (speed/ acceleration characteristics) are more or less preference/gameplay thing, since the map is fairly (compared to real flightsims) limited to have realworld performance i think...

Not entirely out of scope for their real life counter parts, so speed and what not in this case, could be realistic. Yak-130/131, A-10(what ever, wipe out <.<), and L-159 Alca, all have decent speeds that are not over powered for any terrains. Everything else is spot on. It's mainly the Flight Model. I wouldn't loose sleep over it just yet, since i'm already over eager for the Marksman DLC, in which case i'll be occupied on the ground, and rarely in vehicles. The flight model is definitely something that can be looked at more in depth on the side for the Expansion.

[EricJ 759]

It's purpose was mainly to test what can be achieved in the current simulation. If we can get closer to the real thing. I know you may say that nothing less than an overhaul would help. Please understand that that isn't really a feasible option for us at the moment. But let's not give up.

Could we please gather some more feedback based on the test A-164? Can we still make it better?

Can we at least make it an example, point of reference to pinpoint (in short bulletpoints;)) what are the most obvious deficiencies in the simulation?

As said, the size of the terrains, so you can't get a good estimate pf performance since the "biggest" (Altis) is like only 20 kilometers so you're not going to get a good feel of everything. Overall I haven't touched the jets in a bit either, been busy on the ground.

[oukej 2910]

Deficiencies of the simulation as in flight model, or the "per vehicle simulation" aka the config?

General simulation. The test configuration of Wipeout was mainly to test how much of authenticity can we get just by tweaking the properties.

I know some of the issues have been identified several times already, but let's just put it on this one example in a way - what it does X what it should do.

[five_seven5-7 56]

as I said before, pass your config to vanilla for a flying tank is great. Maybe increasing the hit points wouldn't do no harm since the pilots needs to be closer to the action due to the problems described earlier ("Titanium Bathtub").

[x3kj 1247]

Not entirely out of scope for their real life counter parts, so speed and what not in this case, could be realistic. Yak-130/131, A-10(what ever, wipe out <.<), and L-159 Alca, all have decent speeds that are not over powered for any terrains.

Yes for the 3 planes currently it's not so relevant. However if we take landing and starting into account... you propably need at least half of altis mainland for a proper landing descent with real performance for example. I'm just saying that this should be all taken into consideration. And lets not forget that you are basically glued to 1km heigth max if you want to see anything on the ground that is not just directly below, if you dont have a super computer.

Lastly... the fewest of us are real pilots so it all comes down to feeling. Especially since there are no extra tools for flight performance analysis mid or after flight, so it's not even possible to effectively compare it to any realworld reference.

So the only thing that can be said is "feels good/feels bad" which is mostly down to personal flavor...

Edited April 7, 2015 by Fennek

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Yes for the 3 planes currently it's not so relevant. However if we take landing and starting into account... you propably need at least half of altis mainland for a proper landing descent with real performance for example. I'm just saying that this should be all taken into consideration. And lets not forget that you are basically glued to 1km heigth max if you want to see anything on the ground that is not just directly below, if you dont have a super computer.

Lastly... the fewest of us are real pilots so it all comes down to feeling. Especially since there are no extra tools for flight performance analysis mid-flight, so it's not even possible to effectively compare it to any realworld reference.

So the only thing that can be said is "feels good/feels bad" which is mostly down to personal flavor...

True... All the most reason i hope proper view distance technology makes it into Arma 4. =P

[the_demongod 31]

Yes for the 3 planes currently it's not so relevant. However if we take landing and starting into account... you propably need at least half of altis mainland for a proper landing descent with real performance for example. I'm just saying that this should be all taken into consideration. And lets not forget that you are basically glued to 1km heigth max if you want to see anything on the ground that is not just directly below, if you dont have a super computer.

Lastly... the fewest of us are real pilots so it all comes down to feeling. Especially since there are no extra tools for flight performance analysis mid or after flight, so it's not even possible to effectively compare it to any realworld reference.

So the only thing that can be said is "feels good/feels bad" which is mostly down to personal flavor...

That's true, probably the best improvement to flying in the game would be proper multithreading and hardware usage so we could crank the settings and actually see things. I wish we could import Altis into DCS so we could get a better taste of the scale. It's really hard to tell when you're flying around in unrealistic planes with a 1km view distance...

[x3kj 1247]

All the most reason i hope proper view distance technology makes it into Arma 4. =P

what is "proper view distance technology" ... basically all you can do is reduce object count, or polygoncount... Maybe a "selective" object viewdistance (big objects displayed over longer distances then smaller ones) would help, but introduces a pletora of new problems (tank thinks he is in cover, but is not for the enemy for example...)

[Chairborne 2594]

Big objects and buildings already work that way, but i guess that could be amplified.

Another big problem is when you do gun runs and the game lags annoyingly because of how fast it has to render objects as you close in to the ground.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

what is "proper view distance technology" ... basically all you can do is reduce object count, or polygoncount... Maybe a "selective" object viewdistance (big objects displayed over longer distances then smaller ones) would help, but introduces a pletora of new problems (tank thinks he is in cover, but is not for the enemy for example...)

Well, better view distance technology means something other than circular fog view distance restrictions. Adding Arma 4 on the end of it implied apart of the joke where we will never see that with Arma 3... WAIT, Wait, wait, sorry, we have with the Cosmos Engine Wizardry, but the thing with that is, you only see over the horizon after you climb a few thousands of feet. But anyhow... Sub pixel rendering, i looked it up awhile ago, something like that would help. But yes, as Chairborne mentioned, buildings already do that, but maybe if it were improved with sub-pixel rendering. I dare not mention a company that uses a similar engine that does this well, but if BIS were to, look into similar ways of implementing better view distance, that would be only part of a step in the right direction... But the Flight Model itself, i think should just be left alone till there is time to work on it. As of now, i see the Dev's with their hands full.

[x3kj 1247]

I guess as a bit more realistical and doable approach for the limited viewdistance would be ultra-low-LOD's for everything as large as a vehicle. By that i mean the simplest possible geometrical shape - for example for middle eastern style houses a simple box, and all the textures for those ultra-low-LOD objects on as few large textures as possible ("texture catalog" basically). The lowest LOD of the merkava still has 290 triangles for example, a very primitive LOD could have just 30 triangles (the highest merkava LOD has 13.5k triangles)

Edited April 7, 2015 by Fennek

[EricJ 759]

Yes for the 3 planes currently it's not so relevant. However if we take landing and starting into account... you propably need at least half of altis mainland for a proper landing descent with real performance for example. I'm just saying that this should be all taken into consideration. And lets not forget that you are basically glued to 1km heigth max if you want to see anything on the ground that is not just directly below, if you dont have a super computer.

Lastly... the fewest of us are real pilots so it all comes down to feeling. Especially since there are no extra tools for flight performance analysis mid or after flight, so it's not even possible to effectively compare it to any realworld reference.

So the only thing that can be said is "feels good/feels bad" which is mostly down to personal flavor...

Quite a lot of space to make a landing, I usually line up around Neochori and land all the time. Practice but as said we all have our own preferences.

[sjaba 19]

If we could just get the near

complete lack of horizontal component of lift

fixed it would help a lot on the feel.

Arma being what it is i dont expect anything close to a flight sim, but you do expect basic features like horizontal movment to be implemented.

The Helicopter DLC which for me is a great bonus as an airhead infact also adds a bit to the frustration that the fixed wing is so poorly implemented when it comes to flight physics.

For me this is the main and outmost important thing about fixed wing that should be fixed.

The wish list is of course long, but most of it will be fixed from the community, just give it some time :)

BTW: is this test config still workable...its been a few patches since this was released ?

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=334622056

Edited April 10, 2015 by Sjaba

[carlostex 38]

Could we please gather some more feedback based on the test A-164? Can we still make it better?

Like i mentioned in my Wipeout thread i came up with this formula to calculate better hitpoint values for the Gatling cannon.

Taking a further look into the vanilla config and looking at what the GM6 Lynx AP round can do, the values i came up with are far from being unrealistic or game breaking. I think it does better simulate an AP/HEI combat mix.

One step further maybe we could have the ability to change the gun loadout while the plane is on ground, with an AP/HEI mix like i suggested and a more pure HEI loadout with reduced hit values to maybe half what the AP mix can do but with increased indirectHit values to make more sense against infantry.

As far as Flight model, i have no idea what to suggest as i'm not a config expert, but i'm hoping something could be done.

[oukej 2910]

in regards to the near complete lack of horizontal component of lift (ie: no turning when banked) is pretty ugly right now.

Wait, we do have that :) You can check the basic Wipeout - it turns when banked. Maybe not enough, but I believe the lift vector itself is quite right. We can tweak the components and individual forces, but that's a different story :)

BTW: is this test config still workable...its been a few patches since this was released ?

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=334622056

It is. There hasn't been any change in the FM since then.

What you can look out for is changes in

- surface's effectiveness decreasing with lower lift / speed

- stronger rudder response

- decreased elevator effectiveness

- somewhat observable adverse forces

- different thrust

Btw, it has way too much nose drop tendency. I may try to take a look at it once more. Feedback is still welcome! (Does it turn too little? Does it have too much X tendency here or there? Not enough lift? Responsiveness in this or that speed? )

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

Wait, we do have that :) You can check the basic Wipeout - it turns when banked. Maybe not enough, but I believe the lift vector itself is quite right. We can tweak the components and individual forces, but that's a different story :)

It is. There hasn't been any change in the FM since then.

What you can look out for is changes in

- surface's effectiveness decreasing with lower lift / speed

- stronger rudder response

- decreased elevator effectiveness

- somewhat observable adverse forces

- different thrust

Btw, it has way too much nose drop tendency. I may try to take a look at it once more. Feedback is still welcome! (Does it turn too little? Does it have too much X tendency here or there? Not enough lift? Responsiveness in this or that speed? )

Any chance we can get Trust sorted in a way that you dont need to constantly hold down a key to maintain a level of speed.

Probably more complicated than it sounds.

[sjaba 19]

One thing i have noticed lately is that I struggle taking off from airfields I would have no problems with before. Not sure when this change occurred, but I could swear this was not a problem one year ago 😉 For instance taking off from the NE airport on Altis has become very difficult recently. Its like the plane has become "heavier" so I cant get enough lift/ speed to do a safe take off. Its possible, but tricky. I remember taking off from this particular airfield earlier without any issue.

Try it and see what I mean..if lucky you should just be able to get lift before the end of the runway( flaps, down, wheel brake on..max throttle and of you go)..but before it would get lift before the end of the runway.

Not saying that its in any way " realistic"to even try taking off from these kinds of runways ( grass, gravel) but the point is something must have changed.

It just brings up the question why we have 6 airports, but only one with tarmac?? I mean the A10 was in deed made for these gravel/ dusty conditions, hence the engines on top, but still I find it problematic when making missions.

Note this was without the config fix. I will try that and see if I notice any difference.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I got a question. Google Earth, has a hidden flight sim, and the program itself wasn't that big of a download. But how could something like Google Earth, have such a high fidelity flight sim hidden in it, yet the program doesn't take up that much space? And to be more on topic with what i mean, is that the flight model we have now, for fixed wing that is... Seems to be more of a hassle to configure now, than it would be to try and get it fixed, or implemented to a proper version of which. I understand that would probably take time, and resources to get working, but having been able to be on a plane these last few days, and feeling how it banks, and glides, i don't think Arma 3's Fixed Wing Flight Model even, deserves less than a proper one.

[x3kj 1247]

yet the program doesn't take up that much space?

Because code does not take up much space... assetts (textures+ models) do alot.

[moondawg 12]

Hi Oukej, thanks for at least trying to improve the fixed wing flight characteristics of A3

I was just recently aware of your efforts, and tried it out the A10 FM addon today. I have no real life experience in this, but am an avid flightsimmer, with many hours in DCS A10.

First off, I have no rudder authority at all, not that i can notice anyway. I know my rudder pedal works, because I can turn when taxiing on the ground.

That the airframe now turns slightly when banked is great, but it requires very little backstick to maintain level turn. So little that level turns are really hard to do, esp. with no rudder.

Thats about it, as I understand there are severe limits on how complex this can be simulated, but at least the feel is much better than vanilla FM.

Another thing that's bothering me, but probably not in the scope of this project, is that the engine sounds "Lose rpm" when losing speed, when the throttle is in a fixed position.

[the_demongod 31]

First off, I have no rudder authority at all, not that i can notice anyway.

I've noticed this occasionally too. Try restarting your game a few times. You'll know when it's fixed, there is actually highly improved rudder authority in his flight model, it just doesn't work sometimes.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Fixed: Countermeasure always considered successful for airplanes even when it shouldn't be

Great, now just throw back in single mode while your at it. =D

[enex 11]

Great, now just throw back in single mode while your at it. =D

Yep.I remember gameplay decision behind it - that in real aircraft you have this mode on but I personally know

for a fact that A-10 has console where you can configure number, time, sequence of flares, so I'm curious

about their gameplay decision.

---------- Post added at 15:38 ---------- Previous post was at 15:29 ----------

The giveaway will be no green display when you press the NV button ! Although annoying it probably isn't a high priority bug.

This was pretty revealing to me as I'm perfectionist and I would love to see all bugs fixed.