Helicopters in AA

[craigsa 0]

Quote[/b] ]I fly helicopters in real life also and  agree with you 100%. It's actually kind of fun flying in 1.02 now that we are in control of the aircraft and not the other way around. I haven't noticed the power increase with forward cyclic, I'll have to check that out. I know this is pushing it, but I wish there were a way to correctly fly out of a tail rotor failure, either cut the throttle and do an auto or get airspeed and fly out of it. Also would be nice to do running landings in the UH-60 without taking a ton of damage.

We have here a 17 year old "expert helicopter pilot" who barely got out of high school.

Mind telling us how are helicopters handling "realistic" in ARMA?  

I must admit that there is an improvement in 1.02 over 1.00, but far from enjoyable.  

Other than flying around, and landing, theres not much you can do with a chopper.  

Being accurate with a chopper and hitting something while flying is close to impossible.  (Using mouse and keyboard).  

And because of that, the helicopter is in control of you.  

Conclusion: OFP helicopter handling was better than ARMA, and more fun.  

Fighting against a chopper in ARMA is close to impossible, so you can forget that in MP.

Is anyone able to dogfight in the "camel dogfight" MP map?  To me its impossible to fly and hit anything at the same time.  

The new patch really cut down any hope for me that this game will be improved for the better.  So I decided that I won't "get used" to this new interface like most of you here, and just let it go instead.

OFP was ugly, but OFP had a solid gameplay you could actually enjoy.  ARMA on the other hand is like the bottom of a sinking ship, just broken.  

So If I want to play a good coop, CTF, or CTI, OFP's the game for me.

Got to absolutely agree with you mate, 3 of us played last night for hours and there is no way air battle are going to be any fun. Looks like its land or maybe sea all the way. For air- OFP !!

Again, i also agree with someone who said with half of us saying we want OFP flying and the rest asking pilots about what we need, how the hell are BIS ever going to know what works and what doesn't ?

[blackdog~ 0]

1.02 has still not addressed the issue of helicopters sucking fully.

While they are easier to fly, they still are impossible to use effectively.

I'd take the old school OFP flight physics -- hell - I'd take BF2's flight physics -- over the ones in ArmA any day.

One of the things I'm not understanding is the way that one can so easily flip and roll helicopters... what is up with that?

Also, low speed maneuvering seems very unrealistic to me. I'm not a helicopter pilot but it just doesn't seem right. It's hard to explain....

Edit: Example video... http://www.surfacezero.com/span/unnatural.wmv -- helicopters just don't do these kind of things...

[Jigsaw 0]

Edit: Example video... http://www.surfacezero.com/span/unnatural.wmv -- helicopters just don't do these kind of things...

If it's any consolation to you: pilots don't do these kinds of things either, at least if they are sane, they don't. Of course the cartwheel on the rotor ist complete bollocks, but why in the world would someone wanna do that in the first place?

Other than that the things that could be seen in the video can be done with a real helicopter. The main fault with the flight model ist, that the axis of rotation is too high. It should be within the body of the chopper and not be attached to the rotor.

[Megahurt 0]

Just spent the evening flying chopper threw afgahnistan in ofp. Tried AA again with patch. Im back to ofp. Too bad they just couldnt give you the fight model from ofp as an option.

I hate the new bird.

[kueppcera 0]

i loved the handling of choppers in OFP, hated ArmA's chopper flight model BEFORE 1.02 and now i'm in love again!

You BIS guys did a great job - to me the reworked flight model feels even better than the OFP's chopper behaviour. It's more challenging, but feels more realistic to me (i'm not a pilot, i didn't even sit in a heli myself), so this is just my 2 cents...

Before 1.02 i ignored flying choppers in ArmA and concentrated on infantry fight, unpatiently waiting for the patch to arrive - now it's big fun to fire up the editor, place some grunts on the map and using the Littlebird to hunt them...

Great job BIS!

[craigsa 0]

For all the wanna be pilots: Maybe go and buy a simulator - Flight Sim x or FS 2004. Not being fuuny or anything but....

[Journeyman 0]

I hear a lot of talk about diminished tail rotor effectiveness at high speeds or the total loss of etc. Tail rotor effectiveness will obviously change at high speeds but I was never aware that it would become ineffective! This would not make sense as the whole chopper not just the tail is subject to aerodynamic forces and ‘wind resistance’ thus this’ wind vein’ effect of the small rudder assembly is not as impossible to overcome as some of you make out. Also given the important task that the tail rotor has in keeping the aircraft from being spun around by its own rotors it needs to be fairly powerful in itself. I’ve also heard stories of how pilots can use hard rudder at speeds to make braking turns and fast 360s etc.

I’m not a RL pilot and don’t in any way make out to be, but I’ve clocked up a fair amount of sim hours on various different chopper software! I’ve never not been able to use the rudder pedals effectively at high speeds in any helo sims that I’ve tried and I though I’d put it to the test in Microsoft’s latest flight sim FSX.

In this short video that I made you can see me making a hard right on the pedals in the bell JetRanger at over 100Knots. Then a cockpit view of me doing the same manoeuvres in the Apache first to the left then to the right. The red number on the left of the HUD is the airspeed in Knots (KIAS). In both instances I only used pedals (tail rotor) and did not move the cyclic, I was also on full collective (throttle) throughout. The effect seems to be what I would expect and that is of forcing the chopper to fly side on into the wind. The effect on killing speed is amazing although this would probably be quite uncomfortable if you were a RL pilot!

FSX High Speed Rudder Turns  .. (Right click and Save target as)

[zen2k 0]

For all the wanna be pilots: Maybe go and buy a simulator - Flight Sim x or FS 2004. Not being fuuny or anything but....

I have those sims. I'll also get Black Shark when it's released. I was a huge fan of the Jane's Longbow series also.

Instead of asking for it to be totally dumbed down for you, why not step up to the plate and accept the challenge?

They surely don't need to go the BF series route. You want to talk about unnatural? They're helicopters, not UFOs.

BIS is on the right track with this flight model. It's nit-pickable for sure, but the avionics aren't there like they would be on a more dedicated helo sim, so consider yourself lucky there.

That said, I'm really happy there's a combined arms sim like ArmA that's going to let me take advantage of all the analog axes on my Cougar. OFP failed horribly at this. (due to the control code, not the FM) The BF series does not even warrant a mention in this regard.

I think the mousers will do just fine, also. They may even have more precision in certain instances, but they'll be missing out on the analog 'feel' of at least two axes using the keys.

[feersum.endjinn 6]

Since people just love to link their MSFS videos here... Is this what you consider pinnacle of flight model simulation?

I could understand posting videos from X-Plane or such but MSFS isn't really that good source for comparison because sometimes its flight model breaks down horribly.

http://junk.kegetys.net/Super_Learjet.avi

http://junk.kegetys.net/MSFS-physics.avi

Videos courtesy of Kegetys.

[Romolus 0]

The thing that completely did it for me was to set all the sensitivity values to 1.00000. Before there were all kinds of dead-zones on the joystick even without any set dead-zones or axis-shaping in the joystick control panel for the Cougar.

By setting it all to 1 all the dead-zones are gone and with some very little axis-shaping the level of control is just great now. (Flying with joystick, throttle and pedals.)

The tail rotor could be a bit more effective at higher speed to just get the nose a bit left or right for aiming (not to change the flight-path), but with the precise control I get now it's workable to get the nose where I want even at higher speed.

Thanks to everyone who was involved for making helicopters a joy to fly again!

PS

Even with mouse and keyboard the level of control is fine. You can land on a dime and get the nose everywhere for aiming rockets.Of course it's not as easy as in OFP where you could just screw around on the controls and get away with it. Now it needs a bit practice but it's all doable. Just get your head around how basic physics work and you'll see that it makes much more sense now than in OFP.

[whisper 0]

I didn't change my sensitivity, so I may miss easier flying, but I tested long yesterday, and imho, in single player at least, helo flight model looks perfectly fine. The thing is that, at last, it's challenging, and on top of it, feels rather right (unlike BF2 which is somewhat challenging, but feels completely off).

The issue may rise in MP, because it'll be 10x easier for a BMP2 to down a Cobra, than for a Cobra to down a BMP2 with rockets. All this because rudder has zero impact at high speed. Perhaps they shoudl give a tiny bit of effect when using rudder @ high speed, I don't know. But challenge of flying it may dissapear.

Perhaps I shoud 1st try changing sensitivities

[Jigsaw 0]

For all the wanna be pilots: Maybe go and buy a simulator - Flight Sim x or FS 2004. Not being fuuny or anything but....

For all the wanna be arcade players: maybe go buy a shoot'em up - Battlefield 2 or Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter. Not being funny or anything but....

Sorry for being sarcastic, but in the end Armed Assault is meant to be a combat SIMULATOR, thus needing a flight model that is at least resembling reality, like simulators are supposed to. That's what ArmA does with the 1.02 flight model.

If a rather realistic vehicle behavior is not your cup of tea, then you bought the wrong game and you would be better of with some of the more simplistic and user friendly titles out there. In other words: you are barking up the wrong tree.

[FeedFish 0]

Not a RL pilot either, but as an aircraft technician, I can tell you that at higher speeds, the rudder in a helo does lose the ability to TURN the aircraft. At higher speeds, it is designed to allow coordinated turns , just like an aircraft, only at low speed does it allow the aircraft to spin on its axis.

You have to remember that at higher speeds, it has to overcome all the wind resistance on its fuselage PLUS the effect of TORQUE from the main rotor head. BTW, there is a reason that the tail rotor is actually called the "ANTI TORQUE ROTOR". and not the RUDDER ROTOR.

[Iron Eddie 0]

Not a RL pilot either, but as an aircraft technician, I can tell you that at higher speeds, the rudder in a helo does lose the ability to TURN the aircraft. At higher speeds, it is designed to allow coordinated turns , just like an aircraft, only at low speed does it allow the aircraft to spin on its axis.

You have to remember that at higher speeds, it has to overcome all the wind resistance on its fuselage PLUS the effect of TORQUE from the main rotor head. BTW, there is a reason that the tail rotor is actually called the "ANTI TORQUE ROTOR". and not the RUDDER ROTOR.

Nice post, did not know that yet ... Makes me liking the FM even more. 1.0 was OK for me too. Needs some training but more fun, even as pilot with logistic tasks mainly...

Just watched a BO 105 doing very amazing stuff in the air ... <- Video posted somewhere around here.

Wonder how the pilot could accomplish that ....

[xnodunitx 0]

Lots of training and a fully articulated rotor system probably,they can do alot more than not fully articulated ones..

[craigsa 0]

Instead of asking for it to be totally dumbed down for you, why not step up to the plate and accept the challenge?

I am up for any challenge. This is not what we signed up for. This is the exact reason i never bought Fligh Sim X

[craigsa 0]

For all the wanna be pilots: Maybe go and buy a simulator - Flight Sim x or FS 2004. Not being fuuny or anything but....

For all the wanna be arcade players: maybe go buy a shoot'em up - Battlefield 2 or Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter. Not being funny or anything but....

Sorry for being sarcastic, but in the end Armed Assault is meant to be a combat SIMULATOR, thus needing a flight model that is at least resembling reality, like simulators are supposed to. That's what ArmA does with the 1.02 flight model.

If a rather realistic vehicle behavior is not your cup of tea, then you bought the wrong game and you would be better of with some of the more simplistic and user friendly titles out there. In other words: you are barking up the wrong tree.

Good humour there - not !!

I dont play those games by the way

[Maddmatt 1]

The old flight model is gone for good, BIS made the game a bit more realistic - get used to it. It's still not a full blown simulation anyway. If you suck at flying choppers then just practice - if you don't like flying choppers then do something else.

Many of the posts here show that people like the new flight model, and when you consider that it's the unhappy people that tend to be far more vocal then it looks like the majority is happy with the new flight model.

If you prefer your games easy then there are plenty of those games around like the Battlefield series.

Seriously, practice. Once you get used to it you will be happy.

Besides, it keeps the unexperienced players from turning into killing machines when they take to the skies.

[whisper 0]

Still, the question of ground vec vs chopper effectiveness in MP may be a real issue, independantly of the level of realism you want, guys.

[Jigsaw 0]

I am up for any challenge. This is not what we signed up for. This is the exact reason i never bought Fligh Sim X

So, what did you sign up for? Just for your information: I wasn't kidding when I said that ArmA is a simulation and that you want it not to be one.

Quote[/b] ]Good humour there - not !!

I dont play those games by the way

I also wasn't kidding when I recommended Battlefield 2 and Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter, because they obviously are the type of game that you want, but that ArmA is not.

[Maddmatt 1]

Still, the question of ground vec vs chopper effectiveness in MP may be a real issue, independantly of the level of realism you want, guys.

Same as real life. Unprotected tanks are sitting ducks. But AA soldiers and vehicles even it up. That's why teamwork is important - you can't have everyone doing the same thing.

[whisper 0]

Sure, but at the moment, the power is more to the ground vehicles than to the chopper, tbh (I'm talking MP, ofc, where a BMP2 can reliably hit your aircraft) because rocket aiming is very inefficient.

I'm far from saying "chopper are overpowered!!!"

[Stealth3 0]

Quote[/b] ]The old flight model is gone for good, BIS made the game a bit more realistic - get used to it. It's still not a full blown simulation anyway. If you suck at flying choppers then just practice - if you don't like flying choppers then do something else.

I bet they lost a lot of customers in the process too

And lets get real here, you all think that BIS tried to simulate realistic chopper behavion. Well they didn't because the chopper behavior its no more realistic then the OFP one, no matter how much it fakes it.

Now think about it. Why would they try to simulate realistic chopper behavior and totally leave out the other vehicles such as tanks, cars, etc. They are as arcadish as you can get. It doesn't make any sense.

You had a point if they at least made the harrior take off like in real life.

Everybody says that the behavior is "realistic" because at high speed you you lose the effectiveness of the tail rotor. Well true, but thats only a small fraction of the whole story.

There are so many things that are wrong and you can't do in real life, but you can with the ARMA flight dynamics.

And saying "well you don't have to fly that way" doesn't change anything, because its there to begin with.

There are 3 types of combat in ARMA - Sea, Air and Land.

So far you can only argue the land is "realistic" other than that they are as arcadish as you can get.

They might be going in the right direction with the flight dynamics, but so far they are bad. Doing something "realistic" yet half finished is worst then doing it arcadish and having it look "realistic"

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Stealth3, you seem to keep accusing the majority of people who are pro-ArmA flight model of not supporting their claims, but I have yet to see you give any evidence to support what you say yourself. Wether or not it is more realistic, the flight model in ArmA is still an improvement over OFP. I'd also like to point out that initially the majority of the community requested that BIS improve the flight model in ArmA. They did, and now half of those people are complaining and saying they'd prefer if it were the same as OFP's. This has lead me to the conclusion that these people simply cannot make up their minds no matter what, and thus it'd be a waste of time for anyone to try to appease them. If you ask BIS to do something don't be picky about it.

[Journeyman 0]

Since people just love to link their MSFS videos here... Is this what you consider pinnacle of flight model simulation?

I could understand posting videos from X-Plane or such but MSFS isn't really that good source for comparison because sometimes its flight model breaks down horribly.

Sure FSX isn’t perfect and has its fair share of issues as did FS2004 and I was aware of those funny moments, I’ve experienced some of them myself mostly in FS2004.

When the flight model breaks down it is usually a result of attempting something which wasn’t expected of it, taking off at ridiculous high speeds etc, but I know MS are working on many of these issues and are promising a patch for early 2007.

Also when the physics goes wrong it is very obvious and you cannot compare something that is obviously programmed into the sim with an occasional glitch in the sim mechanics. I’m not bragging about FSX, only using it as a comparison to ArmA as I don’t have the real deal to play with!

If you are into real life low and fast though you can watch this short video for a thrill courtesy of alexisparkinn.com!  

The Crazy Boys!