Helicopters in AA

[BlackAlpha 10]

Like I said before, just because they are not programmed correctly, does not mean that the flight model is screwed up. That's like saying that all the guns suck because the AI can't hit the player.

I guess that they didn't program the AI to use the new flight model correctly.

[Journeyman 0]

I guess that they didn't program the AI to use the new flight model correctly.

Then why change the flight model?  

[Pierrot 0]

Here's my movie:

http://www.uploading.com/files....mv.html

Nice video, BlackAlpha! Thanks a lot!

I see, the video cam is fixed to the chopper and you can't move it manually. It must be hard to lock on targets when you use guided missiles.

I guess actual video cams on Russian choppers are far more smarter than this. Not only movable freely, the video cam can track the same place regardless of movements of the chopper so that a pilot can select a target smoothly. (Of course the movement of chopper must be within a range of mechanical movement of the cam. the cam cannot look at 6 o'clock. )

[GaX 0]

... but my point is that just because you guys can't fly does not mean that it's impossible. I've clearly shown you guys that the choppers can be manouvrable. I've only played the game for a couple of days so I'm still a noob. Maybe in a couple of more days I'll be able to do everything perfectly in a chopper.

The fact that choppers can be manouvrable somehow doesn't mean they are not bugged....

In real life there is NO choppers that fly in that way and can't turn while going over 50-60 Mph...It's absolutely irreal, false, bugged ect...

....AND the fact you are learning to fly a bugged chopper doesn't mean that chopper is not bugged and the flight model is not absolutely irreal...

[Gimpster 0]

The only controler I have that is more percise then the engine is my realflight controler.  Using it though means I can only fly, not shoot as there just are not enough controls on it.  With this contorler I can feel the level of persion ArmA is reading and its not as high as my contoler can provide.

There are more then just two problems.  Those of you not seeing them are just not looking hard enough or don't have a contoler percise enough to notice them.

Problems:

1) The deadzones on the contoler are not configurable, nore are they uniform across all the different inputs.  (Solution: Give us the ability to configure, strength, range, deadzone for each axis.)

2) The contols have a delayed reaction to input.  (Solution: find and kill the interface lag issue.)

3) Engine RPM/Collective are a conbined control and they seem to be relitive not not directly controled.  (Solution: Most helocopters do not alter rotor head speed except in emergencies, only the pitch is altered to effect movment and altitude change while the engine remains at a constant speed called military power which is about 80%-90% of avalable full rpm called Emergency power.  Settings for this control need to be more user configurable to allow better mixing based on a single axis input.)

4) EngineRPM/Collective changes are slow to effect the flight of the helo.  (Solution: The rate or directness of change needs to Be increased and based on lift to weight/mass ratios)

5) We are unable to effectly aquire and engage targets at the optimal ranges of the modeled weapon systems.  (Solution: We need better modeled avionics system.)

6) Turning helos and the contols to do so are not effective or correct.  The tail rotor effect is incorrect, and uniform across all models and is somehow able to induce roll above 120kph. (Solution: The tail rotor needs to be more effective falling off at higher speed.  Its also needs to be design specific, a lighter helo like the Littlebird will have better tailrotor contol at higher speeds then a Blackhawk.  But the Blackhawls vertical and horizontal stabilizers will allow for a stronger weathervane effect and aircraft like tail control surface handeling at medium to high speed.)

The main point I am trying to make is that helicopers and fixed wing aircraft are not the same, they should not share a common physics base, they should not share a common control configuration set and each helo is unique based on its design.   A Littlebird is you basic helo, it has 5 basic controls, Cyclic(Pitch/Roll), Tail Rotor Pitch(Yaw), Throttle(Engine RPM/Rotor head speed for both main and tail) and Collective(Main rotor head pitch).  The Blackhawk has 7 basic controls some of which are mixed, it adds Rudder(Yaw) and Elevator(Pitch), both of which are mixed and linked to the existing input channals.

In ArmA the basic design is not modeled correctly and thus it will never act correctly without inducing incorrect physics to cover the design limitations of using a modified fixed wing physics and control package.

[BlackAlpha 10]

... but my point is that just because you guys can't fly does not mean that it's impossible. I've clearly shown you guys that the choppers can be manouvrable. I've only played the game for a couple of days so I'm still a noob. Maybe in a couple of more days I'll be able to do everything perfectly in a chopper.

The fact that choppers can be manouvrable somehow doesn't mean they are not bugged....

In real life there is NO choppers that fly in that way and can't turn while going over 50-60 Mph...It's absolutely irreal, false, bugged ect...

....AND the fact you are learning to fly a bugged chopper doesn't mean that chopper is not bugged and the flight model is not absolutely irreal...

You make it sound like the whole flight model is totally screwed up and it's impossible to fly but even with "all these bugs" it's perfectly possible to play with the choppers. That's why I made the videos to show that it's not that hard to play.

The choppers are as bugged as any other vehicle in ArmA. None of the vehicles handle like they would in real life. Are they all bugged? Probably not or am I wrong here too?

I just remembered that it's impossible to reload while walking. So that makes the infantry part also bugged which means that the whole game is bugged! This also means that OFP is totally bugged. Why did we even play that game? Oh, I remember. Even though it wasn't 100% realistic, it was still fun. Same thing with this game.

Like I said before, when more people will buy the game there will be more people flying choppers and then everyone will get used to the flight model. I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one that can fly with this "bugged" flight model and still have fun.

What people were saying first was: "Flight model is bugged. You can't fly properly!". Well, you can with a bit of practice. Just a bit! Now people are saying: "Flight model is bugged. It's not realistic enough!" That's true but why only demand to "fix" the chopper's flight model? What about all the other vehicles? That's what I'm wondering.

I'm pretty sure that they won't turn this into a helicopter sim or a tank sim or whatever sim. So that's why I find those kind of suggestions irrelevant. But that's just my opinion...

In my view there are only 2 bugs with this flight model. First bug is that the controls are too sensative. You don't notice it much when you use the mouse except when you try to aim at a long distance. With the joystick it's easy to notice.

The second bug is the rudder controls that become disabled when you reach a certain speed. This makes aiming hard. The max speed should be increased.

Finally what do you mean with "can't turn while going over 50-60 Mph"? You mean the rudder?

Red Kite, maybe to make the game more realistic. Or maybe to make it more challenging. Or maybe to just piss people of. Maybe all 3 of them.

[Left-Skid-Low 0]

I just tried armed assault and flew around for about 30 min and the flight model is alot more realistic than OFP was.

For what its worth I'm a rated helicopter and fixed wing pilot, and about most of the stuff I've read in this thread is misleading. I have a feeling there are other helicopter pilots that play this, probably with more experience than me and I'd be interested to see what they have to say also.

Anyway, my only real complaints are:

1. You lose all your tail rotor effectiveness after a certain airspeed, this may have been done to keep the helicopters from being overpowered by being extremely maneuverable. I think it would be best if there was some limited tail rotor effectiveness at higher airspeeds, and it would really help the problem people are having with aiming at their targets by letting them adjust their heading a few degrees.

2. There is a pretty big null zone (dead zone) in the fore and aft cyclic stick movements but none in left or right. I know why they did this, people flying around 10 ft off the ground at 100 knots would plow into the ground alot more if it wasn't there. Realistically speaking there shouldn't be a null zone in any of the cyclic movements but like its been said already, making it configurable would be great.

Quote[/b] ]4) EngineRPM/Collective changes are slow to effect the flight of the helo. (Solution: The rate or directness of change needs to Be increased and based on lift to weight/mass ratios)

Thats realistic, a turbine engine is known for being somewhat unresponsive when compared to a reciprocating, they take some time to spool up and down. So your collective movements need to be slower and you need to plan ahead a little bit.

Quote[/b] ] A Littlebird is you basic helo, it has 5 basic controls, Cyclic(Pitch/Roll), Tail Rotor Pitch(Yaw), Throttle(Engine RPM/Rotor head speed for both main and tail) and Collective(Main rotor head pitch). The Blackhawk has 7 basic controls some of which are mixed, it adds Rudder(Yaw) and Elevator(Pitch), both of which are mixed and linked to the existing input channals.

Thats not really correct, a pilot flying a UH-60 and pilot flying an MH-6 have their hands and feet on the same controls and they do the same things. The difference is in the UH-60 it has stability augmentation, stabilators, and all that other fancy crap controlled by a computer while an MH-6 is all pulleys, cables, push and pull rods, going directly to swash plates. Well the only added control for the pilot would be an additional throttle in the UH-60 since its a twin.

[Gimpster 0]

BlackAlpha, You are funny.

I am not sure any of the issues in the helo flight model are bugs or design flaws that are working as intended. There are however more then just two issues. Yes the current physics are useable, yes all areas of the physics seems to have some oddities.

Helicopters unfortunatly need more percision to be really effective then they currently have. Pitch and Roll both seem to have a 10% deadzone before input is reconised and then the input and corasponding effect on the helicopter is very notchy. Pitch and Roll seem to be limited to 5 degree incriments. This makes stable hovering much more diffacult then it needs to be.

It also takes more pitch and roll to effect directional flight and speed change then it should. This coupled with the high rate of speed gain from that movment makes things very diffacult. Why does the tail rotor induce roll over 100kph?

Why does the engine change RPM when I fly even if I don't move the throttle/collective? Hell the engine/rotor RPM should remain constant at 80% until i hit th elast 20% of the range of my throttle/collective control as lift is primarily from adjusting rotor head pitch not speed. The base physics may be dam good but the way the control systems are implimented is masking them. Until the correct control systems are in place we will not know how good or flawed the true physics are.

[BlackAlpha 10]

I agree with you about the hover thing. That's the only thing in my opinion that can make flying very hard.

[Hostilian 11]

Hmmmm. Not too sure about flying choppers yet (though only got ArmA this morning). It just doesnt feel right... Strafing is a nightmare!!

I was under the impression that for forward flight, the nose of a chopper points toward the ground - yet its altitude can stay the same (with the correct pitch/power; whatever). This allows you to strafe without flying into the ground.

However, in ArmA (in its current implementation) if you point a chopper toward the ground, you are gonna fly into it. This (I think) defeats the purpose of flying helicopters in ArmA as pretty much everything they shoot at is below them..

Basically, they behave like planes (Which I believe is true to a point at higher airspeeds).

Is this by design?

#C

[Journeyman 0]

The main problem as I can see it, apart from the poor controls, is the way that the flight model doesn't account for weight/mass/inertia/momentum. A choppers tail cannot just suddenly move up or down in a twitch as shown in those videos! Even small choppers have some mass and this all translates to inertia and momentum. In other words: more gradual and more sluggish responses from control input and less of this sudden twitching as if they were made of Styrofoam!

[Gimpster 0]

(Clap, clap, clap)

Exactly, input is depayed and then notchy followed by rapid movment. Result is unstable and twitchy contol. If you are very careful and slow with your inputs it feels nice but its hard to work around the inteface issues.

[GaX 0]

... but my point is that just because you guys can't fly does not mean that it's impossible. I've clearly shown you guys that the choppers can be manouvrable. I've only played the game for a couple of days so I'm still a noob. Maybe in a couple of more days I'll be able to do everything perfectly in a chopper.

The fact that choppers can be manouvrable somehow doesn't mean they are not bugged....

In real life there is NO choppers that fly in that way and can't turn while going over 50-60 Mph...It's absolutely irreal, false, bugged ect...

....AND the fact you are learning to fly a bugged chopper doesn't mean that chopper is not bugged and the flight model is not absolutely irreal...

You make it sound like the whole flight model is totally screwed up and it's impossible to fly but even with "all these bugs" it's perfectly possible to play with the choppers. That's why I made the videos to show that it's not that hard to play.

In my view there are only 2 bugs with this flight model.

First bug is that the controls are too sensative. You don't notice it much when you use the mouse except when you try to aim at a long distance. With the joystick it's easy to notice.

The second bug is the rudder controls that become disabled when you reach a certain speed. This makes aiming hard. The max speed should be increased.

Finally what do you mean with "can't turn while going over 50-60 Mph"? You mean the rudder?

Yeah, when i say that flying model is bugged and irreal i refer mainly to the rudder....so we agree about this...

The rudder control should work ALWAYS....even at high speed and with the same sensivity when you fly slow...

I think that changing the rudder control, all flight model could work fine...aiming should be more accurate, easy and smooth and AI should not crash or turn arounds anymore...

[Gimpster 0]

Gax that is not exactly true. As speed increases you will loose the ability to use the tail rotor to turn the helis. The rate at which the tail rotor looses effectivness is a complex equasion but helis like the littlebird which are slower lighter will retain more functionality of the tail rotor then a faster larger heli will like the blackhawk. Even fixed wing aircraft loose the effectivness of their rudder at high speed. At speed a heli is not unlike a fixed wing aircraft. Right now the effectivness just drops off too quickly and at a uniform rate for all helis.

[pwablo 0]

Quote by Left-Skid-Low

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, my only real complaints are:

1. You lose all your tail rotor effectiveness after a certain airspeed, this may have been done to keep the helicopters from being overpowered by being extremely maneuverable. I think it would be best if there was some limited tail rotor effectiveness at higher airspeeds, and it would really help the problem people are having with aiming at their targets by letting them adjust their heading a few degrees.

2. There is a pretty big null zone (dead zone) in the fore and aft cyclic stick movements but none in left or right. I know why they did this, people flying around 10 ft off the ground at 100 knots would plow into the ground alot more if it wasn't there. Realistically speaking there shouldn't be a null zone in any of the cyclic movements but like its been said already, making it configurable would be great.

I agree with point 1 totally, but in point 2, I have to say that the dead zone in the pitch input and the lack of authority on the cyclic and collective, inhibits players from flying around at 10ft. off the ground.

IMO half the fun that was had in the OFP model, was the ablity to fly low and fast, hug the terrain, and zip in and out of valleys, to evade detection and pop up where the enemy least expect it.

The current model just does not offer the same degree of flexibility for this style of flying. And thats a real shame.

Cheers

[4 IN 1 0]

Quote by Left-Skid-Low

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, my only real complaints are:

1. You lose all your tail rotor effectiveness after a certain airspeed, this may have been done to keep the helicopters from being overpowered by being extremely maneuverable. I think it would be best if there was some limited tail rotor effectiveness at higher airspeeds, and it would really help the problem people are having with aiming at their targets by letting them adjust their heading a few degrees.

2. There is a pretty big null zone (dead zone) in the fore and aft cyclic stick movements but none in left or right. I know why they did this, people flying around 10 ft off the ground at 100 knots would plow into the ground alot more if it wasn't there. Realistically speaking there shouldn't be a null zone in any of the cyclic movements but like its been said already, making it configurable would be great.

I agree with point 1 totally, but in point 2, I have to say that the dead zone in the pitch input and the lack of authority on the cyclic and collective, inhibits players from flying around at 10ft. off the ground.

IMO half the fun that was had in the OFP model, was the ablity to fly low and fast, hug the terrain, and zip in and out of valleys, to evade detection and pop up where the enemy least expect it.

The current model just does not offer the same degree of flexibility for this style of flying. And thats a real shame.

Cheers

thats one problem that arma had, even a little gound fellowing effect would be a huge change(realistic not, but atless give you the feeling of under control so you could foucs on other things), with the current control(too sharpen on pitch roll & turn, while the always have a feeling of underpower when trying to fly higher)

[Left-Skid-Low 0]

Quote by Left-Skid-Low

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, my only real complaints are:

1. You lose all your tail rotor effectiveness after a certain airspeed, this may have been done to keep the helicopters from being overpowered by being extremely maneuverable. I think it would be best if there was some limited tail rotor effectiveness at higher airspeeds, and it would really help the problem people are having with aiming at their targets by letting them adjust their heading a few degrees.

2. There is a pretty big null zone (dead zone) in the fore and aft cyclic stick movements but none in left or right. I know why they did this, people flying around 10 ft off the ground at 100 knots would plow into the ground alot more if it wasn't there. Realistically speaking there shouldn't be a null zone in any of the cyclic movements but like its been said already, making it configurable would be great.

I agree with point 1 totally, but in point 2, I have to say that the dead zone in the pitch input and the lack of authority on the cyclic and collective, inhibits players from flying around at 10ft. off the ground.

IMO half the fun that was had in the OFP model, was the ablity to fly low and fast, hug the terrain, and zip in and out of valleys, to evade detection and pop up where the enemy least expect it.

The current model just does not offer the same degree of flexibility for this style of flying. And thats a real shame.

Cheers

thats one problem that arma had, even a little gound fellowing effect would be a huge change(realistic not, but atless give you the feeling of under control so you could foucs on other things), with the current control(too sharpen on pitch roll & turn, while the always have a feeling of underpower when trying to fly higher)

Well I surely don't want the ground following thing back in ArmA and I agree that the nullzone in the fore and aft cyclic movements will make it more difficult for players including myself. I do think that BIS thought it would help players out, maybe it does more so with a keyboard and mouse? I don't know, but I do know I'm using a stick and that makes it really suck to try and fly NOE.

Basically the left and right cyclic movements should be the same as the fore and aft in sensitivity and null zones, unless you want to get really technically about center of gravity, translating tendency, and all that other crap ArmA doesn't need.

[funnyguy1 0]

IMO half the fun that was had in the OFP model, was the ablity to fly low and fast, hug the terrain, and zip in and out of valleys, to evade detection and pop up where the enemy least expect it.

The current model just does not offer the same degree of flexibility for this style of flying. And thats a real shame.

So, re saying you want to go back to the old "ground following" thingy?

[Scrub 0]

I'd say just make it a bit more possible manually, like L-S-L was saying. I just practiced with all the helos earlier today, and the one that seems most playable is the UH-60. Still had NOE issues though, actually I never had success with anything lower that terrain following. Not sure if the 'Bird is capable of NOE in real life though. Anyone with experience?

[mattxr 9]

Now comon guys i went into ArmA for the first time today and went straight into the editor and flew a helicopter and i even recorded it. Its not hard. I didn't even crash until the end of the video when i went into a hill lol.. ITS EASY!

[max power 21]

Gax that is not exactly true. As speed increases you will loose the ability to use the tail rotor to turn the helis. The rate at which the tail rotor looses effectivness is a complex equasion but helis like the littlebird which are slower lighter will retain more functionality of the tail rotor then a faster larger heli will like the blackhawk. Even fixed wing aircraft loose the effectivness of their rudder at high speed. At speed a heli is not unlike a fixed wing aircraft. Right now the effectivness just drops off too quickly and at a uniform rate for all helis.

To clarify, control authority has little to do with weight or size. It has to do with the surface area of the stabilizer vs. the surface area / deflection angle of the control surface, and the type of actuation of that control surface, and all of this compared to the length of the tail from the center of gravity. The faster you go, the more the vertical stabilizer will work to keep the craft from yawing, and the harder the tail rotor will need to work to induce yaw.

I guess that unless BIS decides to change the way helicopters fly, that we'll all have to fly slower when we're engaging with the fixed armament.

I comment on aerodynamics because I have nothing else to add. I wish I had a copy of the game to critique!

edit: Scrub, are you sure what you're trying to do is NOE? Flying at top speed, trying to emulate every nook and cranny on the surface isn't really NOE flying, for instance.

[Scrub 0]

I started with terrain folowing, altitude ~75, speed medium-high, just kept to the average shape of the land - and got pretty good at it.  Went to Nap Of the Earth, speed <100, more like 50-60,  altitude <60 using rows of trees, small hills and groups of buildings to mask my movement.  The throttle on my Seitek X35T is my cyclic, the input was not responsive enough, and many times felt like the helo was on a bungie cord that was about to snap.  Very 'soft' input to what my complete lack of experience tells me is possible, due to other movements and dynamics in the blackhawk's FM.  Just not yet connecting the dots in the flight envelope.:)    Fun trying though. Would have taken out 3 buildings IRL once  

[Crimson_Raptor 0]

I'd have to say in comparision with the original Flashpoint, the fact that you can plug in a USB joystick and fly extremely easily, it's gets an A+ from me. Besides, the community will vertainly add more helicopters and jets to make more unique flight characteristics, like for an AH-64 Apache or Mi-24 Hind. I just can't wait until we can get some real air battles in the sky. Currently I'd love to see some MiG-29 Fulcrums flying the "crimson raptor skies."

[Eidron 0]

I tried flying the Mi17 earlier. It went crazy on me and started twirling about in the sky till it crashed, Lol.

[Crimson_Raptor 0]

I still haven't gotten the bots to use the Mi17 Hip-H (I call it the Mi-17 "hippo" ).

Anyone else been sucessful? Do they just use their rockets against infantry only? Not against Humvees or Tanks or Buldings?