Helicopters in AA

[Dallas 9]

Cool - now I can enjoy the Cobra.

[4 IN 1 0]

things BIS should try out:

1.reduce sensetivity(a lot, for keyborad) for bank left/rightand pitch(works for both plane and chopper)

2.increase sensetivity(a bit, for keyborad on plane) of pitching

3.gives us the RUDDERRRRRR(works only for chopper, xcrew realism on plane)

EDIT:

just an idea to BIS:

dont put all those things into a single "all control" config

everything should have their own set of control

do not, i repeat DO NOT try to simplify the control, it make matter worse, not better

adding a little bit auto centering on chopper wont do any bad on realism

[Amalka 0]

The missile locks on you and reaction times in a helo are too high to make evasive maneuvers. There may be a chance if you are 2 or km´s away when the missile is fired but Arma engagement ranges do not allow any evasive maneuvers.

On a sidenote, it´s very hard/almost impossible  to evade close-range AA missiles irl too.

I guess Arma just gets it right.

Something you could add to the wishlist is that we get a missile-lock-warning sound in helos and planes once an AA unit

locks on you. Another warning sound for active radar scanning AA tanks would be nice aswell. I don´t have much time this afternoon as I´m compiling some stuff for editors,so if you find time Universal to post at Wiki wishlist, go ahead :

Ehm. Let me correct a bit your post.:

Portable Stinger/Strela systems are using a passive IR (infrared) cameras to get lock on the target. There is absolutely NO WARNING ever possible to the locked chopper _BEFORE_ the launch of the missile. There is only a possible warning based on the rocket ignition detection which works when the Stinger is already on it's way. And the chopper still doesn't know if HE is the one who was locked by the Stinger, so if there are more choppers nearby, anyone can be the lucky one and all gets the same warning (only having a line of sight on the rocket).

After the launch both "players", the target as well the missile, are using more different ways how to cheat the lock of the IR head and how to not be cheated. A basic and first way are Flares thrown out around the chopper to cover it's own heat signature with the one of the flares which might cause the missile to follow the flare heat instead of the chopper one. The second way are the evasive maneoevers of the target trying to "get out of the way callculated by the rocket computer". This works only rarely if not used together with flares.

My remarks.:

1. In OFP as well as in the RL are the FM Stingers and Strelas having a contact fuze. Means if they miss the target (even for a few centimeters) they simply fly away and gets self destroyed after some period of time. In ArmA seems that the AA missiles are uncorrectly range fuzed (as for example significantly bigger AA Sidewinder missile). Watch the AA missiles in ArmA, they are always exploding behind the chopper only doing a slight (but vital) damage to the helo. It's even more clear shooting at the Little Birds. There you need even more missiles to down them (but should be clearly opposite). If the missile hit it means it does damage by impacting the chopper and doing another damage by blasting the steel pieces around. Such hit is always downing the target (light chopper). On the other hand, it's easier to miss lighter and more manouverable chopper, but if you miss, the missile DOESN'T explode! So this is completely wrong and was better designed in OFP.

2. the manoeveurability of a stinger/strela are somewhat limited, there is no way it could fly as in ArmA doing 90deg turns in 10 meters. Moreover all do have a MINIMAL possible range (around 200m, see Raytheon brochures on the web), so shoting at targets below this range is just wasting the gear as the missile doesn't have the necessary time to properly engage the target.

So my wish would be following.:

1. equip most of the bigger choppers (AH-1, KA, BlackHawk, Mi-17) with standart rocket ignition detection systems which sends warning to the pilot

2. equip the same choppers with flares being activated either by the pilot (difficult, too little time to react) or better automatically by the detection system ment in point 1. (See Tiger in DVD BW CTI, exactly the same way. First you get warning sound after AA missile leaves the ground and then the chopper throws the flares. It's amazing at night! The Flares are limited, so you need to reload them in the same way as the main weapons so loitering above enemy ground after dropping all the flares (2-5 AA attacks) means almost 100% chance of being hit.

3. make the Stingers / Strelas back contact fuzing and do some hit/miss calculations like in OFP, the hit/miss ratio in OFP was IMHO very close to the RL, it was very hard to hit a hard manouvering and fast going target close to you. A frontal hit was nearly impossible (similar to RL). (I'm not counting now the minimal working distance, we are looking for fun, not for 100% realism). hit/miss calculation should be considering the use of flares. Flares dropped, less hit probability, flares not dropped, very probable hit...

4. make the AA not OPTICALY locked but sound locked as in RL. i.E you aim with the launcher at the target, you press the lock button, IR camera starts to look at the target and when it clearly distinguish the heat of the target against the sky it makes a steady beep. This is a signal to the operator that the missile is locked and can be launched. This X-Ray tracing and locking is really strange.

5. hit means a total damage to any light chopper (explodes on the spot or goes down immediatelly) and means very severe damage AH-1, KA-50 or Harrier. (there might be from just only slight damage if you are lucky, to loosing fuel damage, rotors damage, up to explosion on the spot.)

6. Stinger carries a significantly heavier payload compared to Strela, (check the web), so even the effects of both should be bit different.

---

Another warning for being scanned by a radar and for being targeted by radar guided AA missile would be nice as well. However there are no radar guided missles in ArmA are they? (Maybe the ones carried by Harrier, I didn't check)

The choppers in 1.02 were very improved, after fixing the two remaining bugs with tail rotor they will be really very convenient to fly as it was in OFP. But they are really weak. AA missile now means 100% hit, which on the other hand means only slight and survivable damage to Harrier and Little Birds but does mean vital damage to Cobra/KA, if you are lucky you can still survive the crash...

So sorry for my long post and thanks for reading.

[Mr_Tea 0]

Bis should give us back the OFP/Res flightmodel.

It is fine for human and AI, works good for every plane and chopper.

Or atleast give us the control to setup the flightcontrols via the options menu, not only the key-bindings.

[maxqubit 1]

I still think the controls suck. The helicopters do fly like stones.

You crash into the ground manytimes, because the helicopter has no ground-effect

I'm a n00b here but does a chopper has this 'ground-effect' irl? You fly to a hill and it 'magically' flies over it??

If so, well i am really the n00b and have learned something.

If not, well i have to say that i felt this 'gound-effect' in Elite and OFP bizar, to say the least. I thought of it as 'tres arcade'.

I like the ArmA way, when i go for the top of a hill and just want to skim it, i don't want no ground-effect to 'correct' my intentional flypath.

Edit: I remember the 'fjord-like' coast on one of the OFP islands which was unflyable just because of this 'ground-effect'

[craigsa 0]

Yeah maybe there should be a realism slide. You the player can have either OFP like control of the air craft or FS2004 control for all the guys who like the current config. I just dont get why they had to go and design this wierd way of flying. You cannot tell me that people complained so much about the OFP/ Res model ?? Please BIS i am begging you. The game is awesome and near perfection but please fix the chopper problem. I am on my hands and knees begging.....christmas is comming....

[Garcia 0]

Would be nice to hear old Mike Beils opinion on how choppers are in ArmA. Now where is that bugger when we need him?

[Dudester 0]

Rudder Rudder just fix the Rudder! so it stays as a Rudder and does'nt switch to bank (left or right) at speeds of 60+

[shadow 6]

does a chopper has this 'ground-effect' irl? You fly to a hill and it 'magically' flies over it??

No, the "ground effect" is a air-cushion that make the downwash bounce back up into the rotors giving the aircraft some "free" lift. This only happens at very slow speed. Up to around 5kts I believe.

Its good that the old alt-hold is gone. It always gave me a false sense of security. Flying over a canyon meant the helo would fly down into it and up on the other side. Now you can fly in a straight line.

Quote[/b] ] I just dont get why they had to go and design this wierd way of flying.

This "weird" way of flying is pretty close to how a real helicopter works. Helicopters in OFP were cars with a spinning thing ontop.

Quote[/b] ]Rudder Rudder just fix the Rudder! so it stays as a Rudder and does'nt switch to bank (left or right) at speeds of 60+

Check your key-settings. Rudder (pedals) is always that at all speeds, they just loose effectiveness around 60-70 km/h which is the same thing as in real life. When a helicopter fly faster than 70km/h the cyclic makes the aircraft handle in the same way as a stick in a fixed wing aircraft.

All I can say is: get used to it (no attitude intended)

[ThePredator 0]

Well, if you fly slow and low, the ground effect will give you more buoyancy.

If you are fast, however, you just crash into the hills.

But the major issue with helicopters is turning. It's neither realistic nor effective.

If there is realism, you have to use collective, stick and pedals the same time every time. Which is not the current mode, so realism is far away.

And whoever said the rotor blades act like fixed wings at certain speed: They do already at zero speed in ArmA.

[Journeyman 0]

Although the Cobra is the only real helicopter that's being of any real challenge at the moment, this new flight engine is greatly improved over both the previous (buggy) one, and even OFP's.

Reading this thread is like watching the ball in a tennis match!

So BIS has amended the heli flight model and as a result has pleased some but pissed off others! Please can someone configure your controls as advised....

Quote[/b] ]If you're having any problems flying the helicopters with your keyboard/mouse, make sure that you have all the settings correctly placed. I'd recommend setting mouse left/right to bank left/right (NOT TURN left/right). Turn left/right is for lazy people who like to have their banking and rear-rotor movements tied together. It's highly unrecommended and makes the movements feel clumsy.

... Then make a flight video of the Cobra going through all the control inputs in sequence (as with my FSX and BlackAlphas physics videos), so that us ArmAless souls can get some idea of the changes to the FM?  

[Cam51 0]

As far as the Harrier goes.

Does any else have a problem with the throttle slider on your joystick being "ALL OR NOTHING". Meaning, that at the 50/50 line on your slider, you either have FULL throttle or NO throttle.

This makes the harrier taxi very "stop and go".

[Amalka 0]

Quote[/b] ]Rudder Rudder just fix the Rudder! so it stays as a Rudder and does'nt switch to bank (left or right) at speeds of 60+

Check your key-settings. Rudder (pedals) is always that at all speeds, they just loose effectiveness around 60-70 km/h which is the same thing as in real life. When a helicopter fly faster than 70km/h the cyclic makes the aircraft handle in the same way as a stick in a fixed wing aircraft.

All I can say is: get used to it (no attitude intended)  

Shadow? Have you tried 1.02? Have you noticed the difference in the rudder behavior?

And one more wrong thing. Rudder doesn't LOOSE it's effectiveness with the speed. It still generates the same amount of balancing force (is fixed to the main rotor shaft) regardless of the air speed. Only the force generated by the airflow around the chopper body and tail is getting stronger thus centering the body of the chopper in the flight direction. With what you say it would be possible to fly a chopper at speeds above 70km/h WITHOUT having a tail rotor...

And ever noticed that Mi-17 for example doesn't have ANY fixed wing rudder? So why not to turn Mi-17 horizontaly using the pedals on the speeds exceeding 70?

The truth is that the influence of pedals is getting weaker and weaker but even at high speeds they are still MOVING the chopper. In ArmA they dissappear completely around 60-70 and the only movement generated by pedals is limited to few degrees of deviation from the flight direction to the both sides. So in my opinion the rudder control resp. chopper reaction was in OFP better handled.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

does a chopper has this 'ground-effect' irl? You fly to a hill and it 'magically' flies over it??

No, the "ground effect" is a air-cushion that make the downwash bounce back up into the rotors giving the aircraft some "free" lift. This only happens at very slow speed. Up to around 5kts I believe.

Its good that the old alt-hold is gone. It always gave me a false sense of security. Flying over a canyon meant the helo would fly down into it and up on the other side. Now you can fly in a straight line.

Quote[/b] ] I just dont get why they had to go and design this wierd way of flying.

This "weird" way of flying is pretty close to how a real helicopter works. Helicopters in OFP were cars with a spinning thing ontop.

Quote[/b] ]Rudder Rudder just fix the Rudder! so it stays as a Rudder and does'nt switch to bank (left or right) at speeds of 60+

Check your key-settings. Rudder (pedals) is always that at all speeds, they just loose effectiveness around 60-70 km/h which is the same thing as in real life. When a helicopter fly faster than 70km/h the cyclic makes the aircraft handle in the same way as a stick in a fixed wing aircraft.

All I can say is: get used to it (no attitude intended)  

I agree. Everyone else, listen to Shadow! He knows more than you.

[shadow 6]

Rudder doesn't LOOSE it's effectiveness with the speed. It still generates the same amount of balancing force (is fixed to the main rotor shaft) regardless of the air speed. Only the force generated by the airflow around the chopper body and tail is getting stronger thus centering the body of the chopper in the flight direction. With what you say it would be possible to fly a chopper at speeds above 70km/h WITHOUT having a tail rotor...  

Thats alot of nitpicking

Flying a helicopter faster than 70km/h without a tailrotor isnt a problem. It works just fine though it will drift. The problem is when you fly slower than 70km/h when the tailrotor have a purpose.

Quote[/b] ]And ever noticed that Mi-17 for example doesn't have ANY fixed wing rudder? So why not to turn Mi-17 horizontaly using the pedals on the speeds exceeding 70?

I dont understand what you're trying to say here. Last I checked, helicopters dont rely on rudder.

Quote[/b] ]The truth is that the influence of pedals is getting weaker and weaker but even at high speeds they are still MOVING the chopper.

Yes, they can slightly push the tail a little bit to either side but not enough to turn the aircraft, only make it fly diagonal instead of straight.

Quote[/b] ]In ArmA they dissappear completely around 60-70 and the only movement generated by pedals is limited to few degrees of deviation from the flight direction to the both sides.

Which is reallistic enough.

[franze 196]

A few things to clarify:

The tail rotor exists to counter the yaw induced by the main rotor. Without it, as we all know, the body and the rotor would be spinning in opposite directions.

A tail rotor is not required to sustain flight. Standard procedure in the event of tail rotor failure is to gain speed, which in turn counters the yaw induced by the main rotor. The reason for doing this? Air resistance on the vertical stabilizer adds a force which inhibits yaw. Hence, even with a functional tail rotor, the pressure induced by airflow at 40+kts limits the effectiveness of yawing the aircraft with the tail rotor. By the time the aircraft reaches those speeds, cyclic and collective does most of the work.

*Disclaimer: I have not flown helicopters in ArmA or in RL.

[Nick667 0]

I fly some flying models, also choppers. With this point of view I can say that the flight model of AA is OK (in 1.02). Sure, it is not perfect or 100 % like irl but this is OK, it is a game and thus reality has to be adapted. Sure, there are also bugs but until now BIS is doing a great job in fixing those.

I also can fly the choppers in AA pretty well but yet have to get used to.

I hope BIS will not listen to just a (loud) minority used to simplified flight models and make the choppers just easier (more OFP or BF2 like).

Fix (real existing) bugs and inconsistencys in flight models of different chopper types instead.

You never can please everybody! So, a perfect solution could be a "realism slider", so everybody can adjust the flight model (e.g. auto-mixing or auto-stabilizer).

[DrBobcat 0]

Although the Cobra is the only real helicopter that's being of any real challenge at the moment, this new flight engine is greatly improved over both the previous (buggy) one, and even OFP's.

Reading this thread is like watching the ball in a tennis match!

So BIS has amended the heli flight model and as a result has pleased some but pissed off others! Please can someone configure your controls as advised....

Quote[/b] ]If you're having any problems flying the helicopters with your keyboard/mouse, make sure that you have all the settings correctly placed. I'd recommend setting mouse left/right to bank left/right (NOT TURN left/right). Turn left/right is for lazy people who like to have their banking and rear-rotor movements tied together. It's highly unrecommended and makes the movements feel clumsy.

... Then make a flight video of the Cobra going through all the control inputs in sequence (as with my FSX and BlackAlphas physics videos), so that us ArmAless souls can get some idea of the changes to the FM?  

I'm sorry but my performance in ArmA is so borderline right now that it would be impossible for me to make a video about it. However, I can take a screenshot or two and explain this is in much greater detail ....

My control scheme

W - Increase acceleration

S - Decrease acceleration

A,MouseLeft - banking left

D,MouseRight - banking right

X - rudder left

C - rudder right

Z,MouseDown - Nose down

Q,MouseUp - Nose up

Now for a while I took a break from OFP (given the cheater plagued multiplayer community and other stuff) and played BF2. Gasp! I know! Blasphemy! But it was fairly fun and defintely was a great waster of time until ArmA came out (I was waiting hands and knees for the game to finally arrive at my door). During my BF2 playing, I flew quite a bit of helicopters where, I felt, the controls (NOT THE PHYSICS) were very well layed out. Moving the mouse left/right banked the helicopter left/right. Moving the mouse up/down nosed the helicopter up/down. It was very comfortable and I felt as if I was in complete control of the helicopter!

However, ArmA did just that but it also took off the training wheels. No longer do I have the never-ending auto-height correction software loaded into the flight computer. No longer can a pilot go alone with a cobra and omgwtfpwn everything in sight (at least easily). You must begin to slow down well in advance but not nearly as bad as in OFP. It is quite possible to follow a road through a city, pull a hard pitch, and land the choppter right in the middle of the street between apartment buildings. In OFP, it would've taken me a few passes, I would have to creep in at around 15, and land from a dead hover, else slide around like a fish at an ice rink.

The turn left/right options are incredibly silly and I have no clue as to why they were even put in as a setting option. What it does is bank the direction you want AS WELL AS apply the rudder to that direction as well, causing a very strange diagnal slide sensation. It ends up doing the exact opposite of what it states it does - turning. Absolutely hilarious and just plain strange in my honest opinion. Like methamphetamines - just don't do it!

Now I haven't tried the controls on a joystick and probably never will only because I am doing perfectly fine with keyboard/mouse. But I do not think I can emphasize enough that everyone wishing to fly helicopters (or planes for that matter) must check their settings. Before I had a very strange sliding effect going on (turn left/right in action) and I was getting very frustrated, even in 1.02. After figuring out that little quibble, everything is great and I never want to pull myself away from the chopper seat!

- dRb

[Speedy15 0]

I would like to see an actual throttle and actually moving the collective. Copters such as the blackhawk are able to fly upside doing for short periods, such in a roll or loop.The only place i have seen this modeled accurately is in some RC copter simulations.

[Donnervogel 0]

you can roll and loop in Arma too, although a looping is very hard. An "

" isn't - well it's not a real one (oh yes and the landing is fucked up because it's hard to guess height from 3rd person - flying with keyboard/mouse btw)

[Garcia 0]

does a chopper has this 'ground-effect' irl? You fly to a hill and it 'magically' flies over it??

No, the "ground effect" is a air-cushion that make the downwash bounce back up into the rotors giving the aircraft some "free" lift. This only happens at very slow speed. Up to around 5kts I believe.

Its good that the old alt-hold is gone. It always gave me a false sense of security. Flying over a canyon meant the helo would fly down into it and up on the other side. Now you can fly in a straight line.

Quote[/b] ] I just dont get why they had to go and design this wierd way of flying.

This "weird" way of flying is pretty close to how a real helicopter works. Helicopters in OFP were cars with a spinning thing ontop.

Quote[/b] ]Rudder Rudder just fix the Rudder! so it stays as a Rudder and does'nt switch to bank (left or right) at speeds of 60+

Check your key-settings. Rudder (pedals) is always that at all speeds, they just loose effectiveness around 60-70 km/h which is the same thing as in real life. When a helicopter fly faster than 70km/h the cyclic makes the aircraft handle in the same way as a stick in a fixed wing aircraft.

All I can say is: get used to it (no attitude intended)  

Problem is, everybody is a helicopter pilot and a helicopter expert. Everybody knows how to fly a helicopter, everybody knows how it should feel to fly every helicopter in existance, and everybody knows how to design a helicopter. Just the same as everybody with a sick kid whines at the doctor because they are, of course, doctors themself That's why we should have had Mike Beil or some other chopper pilot here to tell us how it really is. Though it would probably not work anyway

[BlackScorpion 0]

Feels to me that we're just saying the same things over and over again...

I used to have my joystick on a kitchen chair (you know, the miniladders you use i.e. when changing ceiling lights), but due to lack of it it just sits on the right side. I can still use it, keyboard and mouse simultaneously (actually learned to use mouse with left hand so...), atleast to the extent 2 hands can be use.

And I got to agree, once more, about the chopper/plane flying. I've seen a chopper doing barrel roll, and making a sort of a somersault backwards. And from video, loops also.

[frederf 0]

Quote[/b] ]I can assure you that when I'm saying that PEDALS are not doing tail rotor yaw only but combined with cyclic movement as shown before on the cobra/blachhawk video, I'm aware of this strange setting.

So I'm just confirming the others experience that NOW (1.02) the tail rotor (pedals) are newly somehow combined to cyclic. So just to turn the helo's nose in the other direction when hovering is not possible without balancing the strange bank movement with cyclic. After pressing x/c the chopper doesn't turn horizontally but bank sideways as well.

My mistake. If what you are saying is true then that is different from 1.01 and 1.00 ArmA and definitely wrong. While it's true that it is possible for tail rotor thrust (primarily a yawing thrust/torque) can produce a rolling torque (secondary effect), that should only be because the sideways "push" is above or below the center of the helicopter... but if it seems like a combined tail-rotor/collective input just applying the "right pedal" then that's wrong.

Quote[/b] ]Portable Stinger/Strela systems are using a passive IR (infrared) cameras to get lock on the target. There is absolutely NO WARNING ever possible to the locked chopper _BEFORE_ the launch of the missile. + [extra comments about these missles]

EXCELLENT points! Everything is very spot on in that post you made and should be read by everyone here 10 times. People who want IR missiles to gives a give a lock warning have been playing too much Battlefield 2, because they don't IRL and shouldn't in-game. I do not know how WGL got their helicopter flares to spoof their IR signature against IR missiles and have a chance to confuse the seeker in the missle. I figure if you calculated the angle in the line of sight between the original target (helo) and the secondary target (flare) you could make a probability calculation for having the missile switch targets midflight.

Maybe have the probability go as 1 / sine(angle) where the angle is the separation visually between the two potential targets.

============

As far as tail rotors go, I'd like to make distinction between rudder and tail rotor. As far as I know no helicopter in ArmA has a rudder, most rely on tail rotor for their primary anti-main-rotor-torque.

Yaw tendencies are a result of 3 primary torques (twisting forces):

1. Main rotor - As the main rotor turns there is a twist on the main body of the helicopter because there is an air resistance on the blades of the rotor.

2. Tail rotor - Using a percentage of the engine's torque (so you can get more tail rotor thrust at high engine power, although you never change engine power in ArmA, you just turn the engine on and off and set the pitch of the main rotor blades for thrust) to thrust against the main rotor torque and also yaw the aircraft.

3. Slipstream torque - While going forward, there is a tendency for the wind of air over the body of the helicopter and the vertical stabilizer and make the helicopter face into the wind. This is just like throwing a dart at a dartboard (flying backward is unstable! Ever try throwing a dart backward?)

Slipstream centering torque is proportional to forward speed and to how far angularly you are from "flying straight."

Now when you are flying in ArmA, you should be able to step on the pedals and adjust the tail rotor torque. If the aircraft is set up nicely then while under hovering cyclic, the tail rotor is set to provide exactly the right amount of torque to exactly cancel the main rotor's torque when the pedals are centered.

Hovering

--------

Main rotor: Twisting aircraft to the right

Tail rotor: Twisting aircraft to the left

Slipstream: No twist, since 0 speed

Result: Not turning, facing straight ahead

Traveling forward, uncoordinated flight

-------

Main rotor: Twisting aircraft to the right

Tail rotor: 100% pedal to the left

Slipstream: As body of aircraft twists left, there builds up a twist to return it to center

Result: Aircraft flies forward, but is pointed to the left somewhat.

How you are able to point not where you're going is because the slipstream and the tail rotor are having a "fight." The slipstream gets stronger the more you are pointed different from the direction you are going.

In ArmA 1.01, flying the AH-1Z above 60km/h the slipstream goes from very weak (slow enough you can even spin around in circles as the tail rotor wins the fight easy) to suuuuuuper strong. It is very ON-OFF, this slipstream torque.

At 100 kmph and above the tail rotor is only able to make very small "pointings" away from the direction of flight, maybe +/-2 degrees.

In real life (it is argued) that the ramping up of the slipstream twist should be more gradual with speed and should not be so strong at a relatively slow speed so that you can only do +/-2 deg with the rudder. You should be able to fly along at 100kmph and point +/-10 degrees instead.

-------------------------

I'll have to test the ground effect more to be sure, but I think that it was huuuugely over exaggerated in OFP and is very close to right in ArmA. The ground effect cushion should die away with 1. forward collective (Toss a bouncy ball straight down and it bounces straight up, this is just like the air under the helicopter. If you bounce the ball down at an angle it will bounce farther away when it comes back up; thus loss of air cushion)and 2. forward speed (If you drop a ball straight down while moving, when it comes back up you will be gone, although the air pressure waves under the rotor are going the speed of sound (~500mph) so you have to move quite fast for this effect to be noticeable).

----------------

As it seems 1.02 has fixed a lot of the smoothness issues, my remaining two major concerns are tail rotor effectiveness for uncoordinated flight (TREUF) detailed above and how the rotor craft don't behave enough like airplanes at high speed (I'll leave that for another day).

[lee_h._oswald 0]

As I am no helicopter expert I'm trying to get used to the V1.02 steering.

After 2 hours of flying I must say, yes, it's ok for me. A bit more function on the tail rotor at higher speeds would make things easier but I think I can life without.

---

There are some things YOU can do wrong, if you also want to learn how to fly 1.02 helicopters.

1.) Do NOT take the Cobra for practice, it's the hardest to fly.

- Take the MH-6 (no weapons, no co-pilot, no commander view)

2.) Do NOT fly at viewdistances under ~2500m.

- setviewdistance=2500 for better overview

3.) Do NOT try to fly like in OFP.

- Well, this isn't OFP

4.) Do NOT try to fly a combat mission.

- Try to start, land, turn on a spot, hover, refuel while hovering, low flights up and down the runway(follow the runway markings), etc.

---

After some time you get a better feeling for the new "system". It's fun, try it!

MfG Lee

P.S. If you really HATE the 1.02 flight system, feel free to not respond on my reply.

[deanosbeano 0]

hate it ?.

i love it , even thos patch 1.02 has sucked the ass out of my pc performance. so far the helo has made up for it.

heres me having fun ,(tried to sow what key i was pressing ,but i aint no dyslexi).

mind you i am dyslexic tho .

loop de loops