Fixed Wing Flight Model (dev branch)

[sjaba 19]

Whoop whoop :)

 

[dragon01 902]

That's great. It might not be AFM, but if the physics are improved to the point of being reasonably realistic, well, that's the next best thing. I'd really like to see, besides the dynamics update, UI for AFM helicopter gauges reused in planes. Not only are they quite comfortable to use, they feature a lot of information that is not otherwise available (rise/sink rate, throttle position, compass heading since the recent updates).

[twistking 204]

also please consider incremental throttle controls for mouse+keyboard. i have a full hotas setup, but for arma i prefer not to change control setup while playing and the current flight model would work decently with keyboard, if there was a way to handle throttle without that annoying auto-throttle/auto-speedbrake, that's driving me crazy...

[five_seven5-7 56]

On 19/12/2016 at 10:52 AM, oukej said:

 

All Apex airplanes utilize the configuration properties that were introduced during post-release Arma 3 development. Wipeout, Buzzard, Neophron and the drone have a config update planned soon(tm).

 

Is it possible to separate the increase/decrease thrust from the speed brake? That auto thrust...

 

Use the Z and LShift like a analog slide position 0% 12.5% 25% 37.5% 50% 62.5% 75% 87.5% 100% (112.5% 125% 137.5%  150% after burner) and the speed brake as a bigger friction coef than the flapsFrictionCoef.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Quote

• Tweaked: Jets can now perform sharper turns 

Is this a general tweak, or is it in preparation for maybe some performance changes to jets as per Dynamic Loadout making it harder for a jet to turn based on weight?

[xxgetbuck123 945]

1 hour ago, darksidesixofficial said:

Is this a general tweak, or is it in preparation for maybe some performance changes to jets as per Dynamic Loadout making it harder for a jet to turn based on weight?

 

Flight models might have to get overhauled. 

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

40 minutes ago, xxgetbuck123 said:

 

Flight models might have to get overhauled. 

not necessarily. AFAIK, they were able to add weight to the Helicopters both AFM and SFM(standard), in regards to sling loading. So why couldn't the same be done to Fixed with fixed mounted munitions on the pylon with specific weight added to the aircraft? Though, i'm not sure if it's a great idea in terms of design, AI might not take too kindly to added weight and already slam into things on occasion. Though, i do agree that at some point, even though confirmed it's not happening, that Arma's Fixed Wing Flight model either be redesigned, or transitioned over to JSBSim.

[dragon01 902]

It should be possible to add weight based on loadout in the current FM. I hope they do that, it'd be a great leap towards realism.

[oukej 2910]

6 hours ago, darksidesixofficial said:

Is this a general tweak, or is it in preparation for maybe some performance changes to jets as per Dynamic Loadout making it harder for a jet to turn based on weight?

This only relates to the AI - they no longer fly towards the edge of map and they become more challenging and fun in dogfights.

 

2 hours ago, dragon01 said:

It should be possible to add weight based on loadout in the current FM. I hope they do that, it'd be a great leap towards realism.

It would make perfect sense but it's unlikely to happen. Currently not planned.

[xxgetbuck123 945]

5 hours ago, oukej said:

This only relates to the AI - they no longer fly towards the edge of map and they become more challenging and fun in dogfights.

 

So they no longer just full throttle and then go into a very shallow turn for the rest of the fight haha? AI jets always just ran from you, never actually engaged. 

[spookygnu 563]

15 hours ago, oukej said:

It would make perfect sense but it's unlikely to happen. Currently not planned.

 

Is this the general consensus about anything arma when it comes to developement? things making perfect sense but never get implimented. this just shows that resources are being wasted to get the finer details sorted for the game.

[oukej 2910]

6 minutes ago, spookygnu said:

Is this the general consensus about anything arma when it comes to developement? things making perfect sense but never get implimented. this just shows that resources are being wasted to get the finer details sorted for the game.

Should've expected that ;) Making perfect sense doesn't say anything about feasibility of implementation.

[spookygnu 563]

if the FM can be improved for the helis the way it has been, why not do something for the fixed wing instead of being concerned about radar effects etc. Everyone has been pleading for years for a much better FM than the current arcade style of flying. Lets be honest it is pretty poor for a mil-sim. I do feel like I am flying battlefield at times. So do many others by the sounds of it. 

 

I'm not begging for it, just reiterating a point that has never really been fully answered. 

[Callsign 128]

4 minutes ago, spookygnu said:

if the FM can be improved for the helis the way it has been, why not do something for the fixed wing instead of being concerned about radar effects etc. Everyone has been pleading for years for a much better FM than the current arcade style of flying. Lets be honest it is pretty poor for a mil-sim. I do feel like I am flying battlefield at times. So do many others by the sounds of it. 

 

I'm not begging for it, just reiterating a point that has never really been fully answered. 

Seriously, give the guy some slack. BIS have made a decision and your whining is unlikely to change their minds. Arma is not Battlefield and whilst I would also like to see an AFM that's just not going to happen at the moment. The radar, custom info and load out add far more depth to jet experience over an AFM.

[spookygnu 563]

I wasn't whining i was making point. 

 

By the sounds of it you neglected to read my last sentence too, so before you attack me, I was being inpartial, I wasn't attacking or yanking on chains, I was simply asking for a specific reason why the AFM "HAS NOT" been looked at yet or even attempted. 

 

Clearer answers get better responses. 

[Callsign 128]

I didn't miss anything, you can dress things up all you want, discussion about an AFM has been discussed many times before. Why would or should oukej waste time replying to every instance of requests for information? Just search the forums. I'd rather oukej was developing the game rather than replying to every little comment.

[oukej 2910]

I believe we've briefly explained the decision already. In short
- Helicopter AFM was feasible due to previous work on Take On Helicopters. It still took quite a lot of time and effort to make it work in Arma 3. Adding the libraries to airplanes (even if we used the connected libraries) would mean starting from scratch. We weren't sure we could make it for Jets DLC in time, there was a lot of questions and risks and it would have probably limited us to one feature/platform upgrade only.

- Improving targeting and radar was something the players wanted for ages. The technical aspect of it has been fully under our control. And it's something that can enhance the gameplay across the whole platform, not just airplanes.
Similarly to dynamic vehicle loadouts. And we were even able to improve the airplane damage model, HMD/HUD tech and few other things.
As much as I'd personally love a better flight model I'm fully confident in the decision we've made.

[spookygnu 563]

Thank you for that.

 

 

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Excellent insight. I've personally always wanted Dynamic loadouts, and this is can deal with if it means the FFM won't be overhauled.

[Jnr4817 215]

If the FM isn't going to be tweaked, can you at least fix the throttle issues when using a HOTAS or similar?

 

Thanks

[dragon01 902]

Indeed, maneuverability curve needs to be tweaked. I have recently tried a dogfight against a Wipeout (flying an AA Buzzard), and while AI certainly seems to work, high-speed turns should be much easier. I don't know what's the real G-limit of L-159, but the thing that limits high-speed maneuverability are G-limiters (and in their absence, structural concerns), not flight physics. Control surface effectiveness should grow with speed (actually on dynamic pressure, but in ArmA altitude and temperature range, other effects are minuscule) and only stop when G-loads become excessive.

[oukej 2910]

True. Can you pls try out the expansion aicrafts (VTOLs, drone, prop. plane) if these feel better? CAS airplanes don't utilize the improvements made during the post-release development.

[dragon01 902]

The prop plane seems rather sluggish overall, though it does seem to have better physics. I'm not seeing a significant increase in turn rate as speed increases, though it might be the G-limiter being set to a "reasonable" value, as opposed to 9-10G in military aircraft. As for VTOLs, it's difficult to gauge the low-speed flight model of something that starts acting like a helicopter in that flight regime. I suppose I could check with vectoring disabled, but they're not exactly nimble aircraft, either.

 

I hope you'll soon be able to implement the improvements on Buzzard. It should have a reasonably high G limit (and IIRC, it also has a G indicator on HUD, making it easier to gauge whether this is at play) and decent overall maneuverability.

[x3kj 1247]

the CAS planes and the Buzzard lose a lot of speed when turning. The wipeout has bad engine performance, the buzzard even more. So in a sustained turn, the buzzard will go down to 250kph. Set a single move point for an AI buzzard (so he circles around it), then hop in a buzzard as well and chase it (try getting and keeping it in your crosshair as if you want to use guns). You have trouble staying in the air and keep turning doing that.

 

Its nature of the flight model i say. When using high draconic forces in the config (they prevent "drifting"), you lose less speed during sharp turns- but also you won't experience high G for some reason (i'm using the gmeter animation source as reference). When using low draconic forces you can experience very high G in turns, but you lose enormous amounts of speed doing that, and you drift around excessively.

[dragon01 902]

I've tried dogfighting a Wipeout in a Buzzard. It was on my tail almost the whole time. A friggin' stealth A-10! It definitely shouldn't be able to outfly and outclimb a light trainer/attack plane like the Buzzard.

 

This is why I'm looking forward to Apex-style improvements for them. The flight model is significantly improved (for example, the plane is capable of making a turn by banking alone), but the existing planes are less than perfectly suited to showcasing it (Caesar BTT is a civilian prop plane, while VTOLs are lumbering cargo planes).

 

From what I've seen, AI aircraft behave pretty well. Flight model should be tweaked so that the player can achieve a similar performance.