Fixed Wing Flight Model (dev branch)

[carlostex 38]

A-10 isn't in the game. The A-164 is. Which is the successor of the A-10, according to the official lore of the game. We can imagine it has improved ammo, it won't use the 50 years old (in the time of Arma 3) GAU-8 and its ammo, but a more modern one with more power to take out modern MBTs.

Why would anyone make the successor of a combat plane and then use the same armaments of the old one, even more when the old one have 50 years. Do the Abrams use a Sherman cannon? etc

That's not the point. The whole discussion came because the A-164 cannon is actually very weak when compared to the A-10. But that discussion shouldn't be here but rather in here:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?174581-The-A-164-WIPEOUT-Fixed-Wing-Aircraft

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

The Flight model is feeling, and looking good. So much smoother than it has ever been. I even felt great enhancements in the Buzzard, but to a realistic standard. I love it. The Tu-199 how ever, is by far more to my liking, because it looks at=s if it keeps up to its real life counterpart. (Yak-131). If you guys want to see it in action, I did a small Scenario test. Opfor base being attacked by NATO, you and a wingman are sent in to help, and than get out of the zone. The map I chose was a mod made Afghanistan map, due to the realistic size, and to show off the better flight model.

Edit: You can see towards the end of the video, the Counter measures shoot slightly up. I believe for the Yak-130 the flares shoot way up, just like how the Flares on the A-164 shoot down. Needs to be changed to where the flares shoot up more for the Tu-199.

Edited March 16, 2014 by DarkSideSixOfficial

[carlostex 38]

Take on Aircraft... That's what we need...

[Belbo 461]

Is it just me, or do the trim tabs need reworking?

The new planes tend to be pretty nose-heavy. That's what bothering me the most about them.

[xendance 3]

Is it just me, or do the trim tabs need reworking?

The new planes tend to be pretty nose-heavy. That's what bothering me the most about them.

No you aren't, this was mentioned few pages ago (by me) :D

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Take on Aircraft... That's what we need...

Ahaha, I agree. Though, idk how they would go about doing that. It would be interesting.

[Tonci87 163]

Is it just me, or do the trim tabs need reworking?

The new planes tend to be pretty nose-heavy. That's what bothering me the most about them.

Yeah it bothers me too. It makes gun runs feel weird and you can´t really hold altitude

[carlostex 38]

Ahaha, I agree. Though, idk how they would go about doing that. It would be interesting.

I would like to see them go lite sim way, just like the Strike Fighter 2 games by Thirdwire. We would need much bigger but less detailed terrains. Problem is, this wouldn't be so cool on a futuristic setting like Arma 3, but it could help advancing on the flight mechanics and simplified avionics, like believable air to air radar.

[izaiak 1]

@oukej : Thank you for you reply on the feedback tracker, so let me write here what i remember for basics problems.

I may forgot some because to be honest i was desperate to see any improvement. So thank you for the A3 community for you interest about air part of arma 3.

Also, we know that we won't have a DCS on arma, we just need more "basics" to have little bit of realism when we are flying in arma.

1) Throttle is not well working ( it is close to pushing a key to accelerate and another to decelerate ). A real axe with a precise control of throttle would be very nice.

2) The ability to separate engine / brakes / air-brakes. If you perform a landing on grass with a C-130 for special operation, you can't take-off because you are not able to have full throttle on brakes (in order to reduce the take of distance).

3) We are unable to taxi with heli and link to the 1) we are unable to use the power to well taxi with airplanes.

4) A BIG PROBLEM : you reference for the speed is GROUND SPEED. So when we have wind effect on helicopter and aircraft we came to wrong situations.

Example : Strong head wind at 180 km/H. Spawn in flight with your aircraft and reduce speed to 200km/h .

You will stall because the reference should be the IAS ( indicated air speed) and it is the GS ( ground speed). The game understand that you can't flight at 20 km/h . Ok but is is 20 km/h of GS so we are still flying IRL.

In heli strong cross wind, you should perform a flight at 0 km/h, but here the wind will push you and at a moment you will be forced to turn (the wind will come from the back) and you will have a speed of xxx km/h. IRL the move with the air mass, so there is no this kind of thing.

5) Maneuverability for helicopter and Airplanes could be improve. In fact with airplanes if you turn via ailerons you should turn due to the higher speed over the higher wing => more lift.

At the moment you can flight at 90° of turn, straight ahead.

About heli, i'm not the good one to speak about it but for real heli pilot it seems to be too arcade (really too arcade). Maybe more maneuverable ? I don't really know.

6) NO AMSL ! It is not possible to flight without AMSL altitude... Because At the moment all of your level flight depend of the surface below you. Over the sea you can easily maintain 2000m of level. Ok.

Above the north West of Altis it is not possible and it is a PAIN.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14194 [^]

7) HUD are not always well working. Information are not readable during the night without NVG or when you have sun in front of you.

Firing help on the hud are not where bombs or canon will hit the target.

8) Flaps have no effects on the stall speed.

9) Mass of the aircraft have no effects on landing distance, fuel consumption etc...

10) For FLIR the ability to have the dynamic view distance ( also on screen of the pilot, to see what the copilot is watching ).

But it is not flight model.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16434 [^]

At the moment it is all i remember and 1) to 7) are mains problems.

Thank you

Edit : with heli when engines are down, it is like you are IDLE so you have no control to perform a good autorotation ... Huge pain to try to tuch the ground alive in several examples.

Edited March 20, 2014 by izaiak

[gonza 8]

I can confirm the "reverse" flying is possible (although a bit tricky) and was wrong the same also in Operation Arrowhead :/ I can only put a "no promises" disclaimer here.

Oh, and yes, I guess this is the right place to post any feedback regarding the birds - thanks in advance as well as for the one already posted

For planes :

It must be cool add the weight of planes there is no weight filling (you can check Falcon BMS flight model for example you really fill the plane weight)

Improve radar system would be cool to.

I m Falcon BMS fan and I like to fly on it Hours and hours but in arma I never use planes because of the flight model and radar system (but I m a big fan of arma to ;) )

what a shame because arma planes are greatly modelised

For choppers:

Chopper control is really good but to slow it would be great to be able to slow down the speed quickly without gaining altitude (collective) and turn more quickly (pedal).

A simple modification cool be add a key to increase some control commands (shift for example) (for collective en pedal)

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1970

Quick stop without gain altitude in real life !

In combat, it is really important to be able to stop without gain altitude because you must stay under the radar coverage.

Edited March 20, 2014 by gonza

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

For planes :

It must be cool add the weight of planes there is no weight filling (you can check Falcon BMS flight model for example you really fill the plane weight)

Improve radar system would be cool to.

I m Falcon BMS fan and I like to fly on it Hours and hours but in arma I never use planes because of the flight model and radar system (but I m a big fan of arma to ;) )

what a shame because arma planes are greatly modelised

For choppers:

Chopper control is really good but to slow it would be great to be able to slow down the speed quickly without gaining altitude (collective) and turn more quickly (pedal).

A simple modification cool be add a key to increase some control commands (shift for example) (for collective en pedal)

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1970

Quick stop without gain altitude in real life !

In combat, it is really important to be able to stop without gain altitude because you must stay under the radar coverage.

I do it all the time, its called bleed something, i forgot. But you slow up, and as your HELO goes down, you lift (flare) ever so gradually. Also, this means you HAVE to plan ahead of time, or else you might A) smack into what ever terrain, or hill your masking behind, or B) gain altitude, and end up compromised or worse. If you want, i can make a video of this later.

[izaiak 1]

As darkside said, in arma you can reduce speed with helo without getting altitude.

If you are full throttle in tactical navigation just be IDLE and increase pitch to maintain your height. I don't see where is the problem with that.

But with helo, higher speed you go less control you have, it is working like an old airplane without electrical maneuver. Heli should react more than they are ATM.

[oukej 2910]

Just a quick note - please avoid discussing helicopter flight simulation in here and consider creating a new thread. (However I can't promise any further improvements (except rly major issues) in that field. You may also find some more information about the previous process in http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147740-Helicopter-physics-impressions-simplified or http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159764-Recent-Helo-Changes-Unflyable )

The thread creation may also apply to the Electronic Warfare (radarz n stuff) subject.

Thanks a lot guys and keep the feedback coming!

[RushHour 11]

I do it all the time, its called bleed something, i forgot. But you slow up, and as your HELO goes down, you lift (flare) ever so gradually. Also, this means you HAVE to plan ahead of time, or else you might A) smack into what ever terrain, or hill your masking behind, or B) gain altitude, and end up compromised or worse. If you want, i can make a video of this later.

Problem is you have to do that a full kilometer before you land. this is because Arma´s way of using the throttle and brake with keyboard.

In real life you can back the power instantly, in Arma you have this slow decrease of speed that just doesn´t happen in real life.

Give us a meter showing full throttle and no throttle and increase the speed at which you can manipulate this one to replicate real life.

It´s so bad i´ve seen people even turning the engine off in flight to make the chopper react more realistically.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Problem is you have to do that a full kilometer before you land. this is because Arma´s way of using the throttle and brake with keyboard.

In real life you can back the power instantly, in Arma you have this slow decrease of speed that just doesn´t happen in real life.

Give us a meter showing full throttle and no throttle and increase the speed at which you can manipulate this one to replicate real life.

It´s so bad i´ve seen people even turning the engine off in flight to make the chopper react more realistically.

Ill follow up on this with you on another thread.

---------- Post added at 14:04 ---------- Previous post was at 14:01 ----------

Just a quick note - please avoid discussing helicopter flight simulation in here and consider creating a new thread. (However I can't promise any further improvements (except rly major issues) in that field. You may also find some more information about the previous process in http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147740-Helicopter-physics-impressions-simplified or http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159764-Recent-Helo-Changes-Unflyable )

The thread creation may also apply to the Electronic Warfare (radarz n stuff) subject.

Thanks a lot guys and keep the feedback coming!

Ok no problem. =D

[Gutsnav 13]

Made a ticket to maybe help improvement of the flight model? http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=17881

It seems that you guys are already working on it, but remember to get the lift and turning speeds right. :P

[RushHour 11]

Anyone noticed how weak the Wipeout is when flying a little bit with an angle upwards? It´s like the engines doesn´t have enough power to maintain the speed with even relatively small degree-ascends.

Also the Russian plane seems to generate virtually no lift for an aircraft. Do a dive with both and it´s a bit scary pulling up with the Russian plane while the Wipeout turns on a dime.

I get that you have different abilities for the aircraft but not like this. Wipeout with no power just very little drag and lots of lift. The Russian with lots of power but very little lift (even though it´s travelling faster which means it should provide quite a lot more lift then the Wipeout)

Edited March 22, 2014 by RushHour

[barakokula31 10]

Anyone noticed how weak the Wipeout is when flying a little bit with an angle upwards? It´s like the engines doesn´t have enough power to maintain the speed with even relatively small degree-ascends.

Also the Russian plane seems to generate virtually no lift for an aircraft. Do a dive with both and it´s a bit scary pulling up with the Russian plane while the Wipeout turns on a dime.

I get that you have different abilities for the aircraft but not like this. Wipeout with no power just very little drag and lots of lift. The Russian with lots of power but very little lift (even though it´s travelling faster which means it should provide quite a lot more lift then the Wipeout)

It's not Russian!

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

It's not Russian!

Technically the Tu-199 (Yak-131) is Russian, based on a Russian made Air to Air/ Multi-role trainer platform, fitted for CAS. Yak (Yakovlev).

[kecske 46]

Are there any changes planned for the Buzzard? It'd be nice to have the same features all across the three planes.

[Deathstrike. 15]

The Buzzard is in need of some tender love and care even before the new BLUFOR/CSAT fixed wing aircraft were added. At the moment it cannot take-off from some airfields, has a hard to see HUD and when you can see it there are abnormalities for the roll indicator whilst the speed and altitude indicators roam free all around the HUD.

[izaiak 1]

Feedback : For an a-10, the a-164 is too maneuver. There is no pitch trim so the nose of the a-164 always goes down. Still height (AGL ) of reference rather than AMSL ! How can you still have that, in arma 2 we HAD AMSL as a reference. We are going backward here =/ .

@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.

+1 : The problem of HUD (to read information ) is for all aircraft unfortunately :( , they need to do something.

[John Kozak 14]

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.

[izaiak 1]

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.

The problem of arma 3 is even basic things are not into the the game. No real lift for each wing, not G / Stall effect, wrong speed reference, wrong throttle ( the throttle IRL is to set a % of power from the engine, in arma 3 it set a speed !!! ).

The we have a wrong basic flight model.

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

I think most of those point are not really hard for them, except create a "real" lift, and they need to do it to improve the game. Operation flashpoint was egal or better than arma 3 to flight ? :j: ;)

[RushHour 11]

Would be great to see a separation of the throttle and brakes. That way on runways you can put on full brakes, load up the engine pretty good and just release the brakes resulting in a shorter take-off.