Cobra Vs. UH60 -- Controls.

[Radic 0]

Hi ThudBlunderQ8 - great to hear from someone like yourself!!

I get your point (and RockofSL's friend's similar point) about OFP being relatively easy - but apart from the wierd collective which does more or less what it's supposed to but not... quite properly - do you feel that the general OFP flight model reasonably realistically demonstrates helo flight??

My personal experience is theoretical stuff (being an aviation mechanic), a little stick time in a Squirrel flying course/speed/height and a little maneouvering just with the cyclic, - and quite a bit of chatting with a commercial helo pilot from New Zealand who did some work in the hangar here where I work (he's also a mechanic - and married to a lady helo pilot would you believe :-) )

My basic contention is that all the obvious faults of the ArmA flight model notwithstanding - such as porked CG, porked tailrotor yaw/roll coupling, porked yaw rate/sensitivity, porked and incorrect/excessively sluggish collective and annoyingly difficult cyclic lag - they had everything one could need in this type of game plus just a damned decent representation of helicopter flying already in OFP - so I personally would just like that ported across or at least the option to have it according to personal preference.

And back to the actual thread topic - I haven't been able to try the Cobra as of course I'm only using the demo at this stage - but all the faults listed above notwithstanding, something to remember with relation to the maneouverability of the Cobra is that there will be a drastic reduction of maneouverability at higher speed and it could well be quite easy to be attempting tight turns at a speed that is well above what the sensation imparted from the visual representation might make you feel is the case. In short I'd guess that any hard turning etc. needs to be taking place at not more than maybe 110 knots or so - this ties in with monty67t's observations - so if you try to turn the wee beast and it doesn't want to go, take a look at the speedo reading - I'd guess you'll be somewhere above 150 (heck, the maneouvering speed may actually need to be lower than 90! )

[max power 21]

Dosnt mean he could make the ingame helecopters fly like that :P

Training dosnt mean they become super mean at the stick, just means they will land alive more often than not.

No, what it does mean is that comparing our experiences to that video is meaningless, which is my point.

My OFP doesn't automatically follow terrain - at a CONSTANT AIRSPEED I have to use collective control (which doesn't work correctly in OFP either BTW - but near enough and better than ArmA) to maintain a fixed height above terrain.

Well, your OFP is either not the same OFP as everyone else's, or your ability to judge what the helicopter is doing is severely impared. In OFP, if you fly 'up a hill', you can even hear the engine rpms drop, the same way if you 'load' the rotors by telling the helicopter to climb via BIS's universal throttle/collective control. If you fly 'off of a cliff', the engine rpms will increase, and if the cliff is steep enough, you will no longer have any control over any of the helicopter's flight controls until it gets back to within the alititude range that it feels comfortable in. The helicopter doesn't stay fixed at a given altitude as if it was on legs... but it will attempt to stay at a certain altitude as if it was perched on mushy springs. So it might even crash into a hill if it's steep enough and you're going fast enough, but not without trying really hard not too. Try flying towards a hill that is higher than your altitude and leaving the controls alone. Chances are the helicopter will climb over the hill with no input.

[frederf 0]

Quote[/b] ]No, what it does mean is that comparing our experiences to that video is meaningless, which is my point.

It's not meaningless. A knowledgeable person can get information out of it. I'm licensed in small fixed wing planes, not rotary, but I have flown, I do know physics.

I could name three things that should improve most people's flying experience:

1. Little more responsive lift control

2. Ability to set control sensitivity (1st and 2nd order mapping)

3. More airplane-like fast forward flight (with yaw authority, bank-n-turn flight)

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]No, what it does mean is that comparing our experiences to that video is meaningless, which is my point.

It's not meaningless. A knowledgeable person can get information out of it. I'm licensed in small fixed wing planes, not rotary, but I have flown, I do know physics.

I could name three things that should improve most people's flying experience:

1. Little more responsive lift control

2. Ability to set control sensitivity (1st and 2nd order mapping)

3. More airplane-like fast forward flight (with yaw authority, bank-n-turn flight)

I've also flown fixed wing and glider aircraft, U-control and radio control models since I was a child. I have spent a great deal of time studying critical and scientific thinking, and have done a little bit of the principles of aeronautics in my spare time. Trust me, very little can be gleaned from those videos. You can get impressions on what you think you're seeing, but you think you're seeing one thing and I think I'm seeing something else. It would be much more telling if we could see the instruments... the reason aircraft have instruments is because that human perception is inaccurate and, in some cases, completely flawed.

[Radic 0]

Dosnt mean he could make the ingame helecopters fly like that :P

Training dosnt mean they become super mean at the stick, just means they will land alive more often than not.

No, what it does mean is that comparing our experiences to that video is meaningless, which is my point.

My OFP doesn't automatically follow terrain - at a CONSTANT AIRSPEED I have to use collective control (which doesn't work correctly in OFP either BTW - but near enough and better than ArmA) to maintain a fixed height above terrain.

Well, your OFP is either not the same OFP as everyone else's, or your ability to judge what the helicopter is doing is severely impared.  In OFP, if you fly 'up a hill', you can even hear the engine rpms drop, the same way if you 'load' the rotors by telling the helicopter to climb via BIS's universal throttle/collective control.  If you fly 'off of a cliff', the engine rpms will increase, and if the cliff is steep enough, you will no longer have any control over any of the helicopter's flight controls until it gets back to within the alititude range that it feels comfortable in.  The helicopter doesn't stay fixed at a given altitude as if it was on legs... but it will attempt to stay at a certain altitude as if it was perched on mushy springs.  So it might even crash into a hill if it's steep enough and you're going fast enough, but not without trying really hard not too.  Try flying towards a hill that is higher than your altitude and leaving the controls alone.  Chances are the helicopter will climb over the hill with no input.

- no, if I fly toward a hill - or some trees at a fixed "collective" setting and at a constant airspeed (which in OFP - without an artificial horizon instrument or VSI is how you know you're flying "straight and level" ) - then I will crash!!

In my OFP the engine pitch / rotor load sound doesn't alter unless I do something to make it do so....

In fact... - I just popped off to the desktop, fired up OFP and CONFIRMED this!!! (did a classic CFIT into gently rising terrain at constant airspeed / AOA / no control input changes - then did same into a cliff).

Maybe you're either unconsciously flying it or have auto-hover turned on??

[killaalf 0]

- no, if I fly toward a hill - or some trees at a fixed "collective" setting and at a constant airspeed (which in OFP - without an artificial horizon instrument or VSI) is how you know you're flying "straight and level" - then I will crash!!

In my OFP the engine pitch / rotor load sound doesn't alter unless I do something to make it do so....

In fact... - I just popped off to the desktop, fired up OFP and CONFIRMED this!!! (did a classic CFIT into gently rising terrain at constant airspeed / AOA / no control input changes - then did same into a cliff).

Maybe you're either unconsciously flying it or have auto-hover turned on??

Same here, if I don't increase collective I crash into the hill every time. IIRC, there is a difference in the flight model when using a joystick vs. mouse/keyboard - I'm using a Cougar HOTAS with CH rudder pedals myself so maybe that's the reason?

[celery 8]

Plaintiff, how the heck does your flying and academic hobbies change the fact that your argument is totally off? In fact I'm shocked that you can say something like that when you are engaging in such "high brow" stuff. A pilot in a helicopter video may be experienced, but he will cuss at the same problems as we do when he plays chopper pilot in ArmA. Experience is irrelevant when raw physics are involved. The flight model in ArmA is better than in OFP in that not every noob wants to take the chopper in a multiplayer game, but still it needs some work because now it's just pseudo-realistic, making some things that should be a piece of cake more difficult than they are.

[Radic 0]

Dosnt mean he could make the ingame helecopters fly like that :P

Training dosnt mean they become super mean at the stick, just means they will land alive more often than not.

No, what it does mean is that comparing our experiences to that video is meaningless, which is my point.

My OFP doesn't automatically follow terrain - at a CONSTANT AIRSPEED I have to use collective control (which doesn't work correctly in OFP either BTW - but near enough and better than ArmA) to maintain a fixed height above terrain.

Well, your OFP is either not the same OFP as everyone else's, or your ability to judge what the helicopter is doing is severely impared.  In OFP, if you fly 'up a hill', you can even hear the engine rpms drop, the same way if you 'load' the rotors by telling the helicopter to climb via BIS's universal throttle/collective control.  If you fly 'off of a cliff', the engine rpms will increase, and if the cliff is steep enough, you will no longer have any control over any of the helicopter's flight controls until it gets back to within the alititude range that it feels comfortable in.  The helicopter doesn't stay fixed at a given altitude as if it was on legs... but it will attempt to stay at a certain altitude as if it was perched on mushy springs.  So it might even crash into a hill if it's steep enough and you're going fast enough, but not without trying really hard not too.  Try flying towards a hill that is higher than your altitude and leaving the controls alone.  Chances are the helicopter will climb over the hill with no input.

I've just re read this post and I'm afraid I'm going to revisit it with regard to the comment about "flying up a hill" etc. etc. - specifically I need to point out that you don't appear to understand how a helicopter actually flies (I didn't pick this up at first but whilst re reading that post it jumped out and grabbed me) - this has led you to a few misconceptions - particualrly highlighted by this terrain following business. I'll try to explain:

When you operate the cyclic control of a chopper you are very fundamentally NOT doing the same as in a fixed wing aircraft - in simple terms the relationship between cyclic forward  and cyclic back vs aircraft reaction is much more complicated than in a fixed wing aircraft.  

In detail - you are not altering the whole aircraft's AOA - in a helo you are tilting the rotor disc and changing the lift/thrust vectors - so yes, if you ease back the cyclic a bit you change the rotor angle to be more horizontal - the thrust vector changes more to lift and the whole aircraft will rise - and vice versa - and the amount of vertical speed increase/decrease will not have the same sort of direct relationship to nose angle that stick forward/back has in a fixed wing - in general the amount of change in vertical speed is much greater in relation to the change in nose pitch than with a fixed wing aircraft.

To maintain level flight as you bring the cyclic back, you need to reduce collective (forward speed here will be decreasing) and to maintain level flight as you push forward on the cyclic you need to increase collective (forward speed here will be increasing).

IRL you're also having to use the power control to offset increased/decreased load on the rotor as you increase/decrease the collective pitch - and then you're also using the pedals to compensate for increased/decreased torque thru the rotor system that results from the combination of what you're doing with the collective pitch and power controls!!

[max power 21]

Plaintiff, how the heck does your flying and academic hobbies change the fact that your argument is totally off? In fact I'm shocked that you can say something like that when you are engaging in such "high brow" stuff. A pilot in a helicopter video may be experienced, but he will cuss at the same problems as we do when he plays chopper pilot in ArmA. Experience is irrelevant when raw physics are involved. The flight model in ArmA is better than in OFP in that not every noob wants to take the chopper in a multiplayer game, but still it needs some work because now it's just pseudo-realistic, making some things that should be a piece of cake more difficult than they are.

What is it that you think that I am arguing? I'm just saying that no real information can be gleaned from the video. You seem to be thinking that I am saying that the flight model in ArmA is realistic. This is not what I'm saying, nor have I ever said that.

[max power 21]

I've just re read this post and I'm afraid I'm going to revisit it with regard to the comment about "flying up a hill" etc. etc. - specifically I need to point out that you don't appear to understand how a helicopter actually flies (I didn't pick this up at first but whilst re reading that post it jumped out and grabbed me) - this has led you to a few misconceptions - particualrly highlighted by this terrain following business. I'll try to explain:

When you operate the cyclic control of a chopper you are very fundamentally NOT doing the same as in a fixed wing aircraft - in simple terms the relationship between cyclic forward and cyclic back vs aircraft reaction is much more complicated than in a fixed wing aircraft.

In detail - you are not altering the whole aircraft's AOA - in a helo you are tilting the rotor disc and changing the lift/thrust vectors - so yes, if you ease back the cyclic a bit you change the rotor angle to be more horizontal - the thrust vector changes more to lift and the whole aircraft will rise - and vice versa - and the amount of vertical speed increase/decrease will not have the same sort of direct relationship to nose angle that stick forward/back has in a fixed wing - in general the amount of change in vertical speed is much greater in relation to the change in nose pitch than with a fixed wing aircraft.

To maintain level flight as you bring the cyclic back, you need to reduce collective (forward speed here will be decreasing) and to maintain level flight as you push forward on the cyclic you need to increase collective (forward speed here will be increasing).

IRL you're also having to use the power control to offset increased/decreased load on the rotor as you increase/decrease the collective pitch - and then you're also using the pedals to compensate for increased/decreased torque thru the rotor system that results from the combination of what you're doing with the collective pitch and power controls!!

What you're discribing may be true on some helicopters but more commonly, I believe, cyclic and collective control is achieved by manipulating the swash plate... by tilting the swash plate for cyclic and raising and lowering it up the rotor shaft for collective control. This either manipulates the angle of incidence of the rotating airfoil collectively, all at once (as in collective control) or differently at different points during the rotation of the rotors. The problems of a rotating wing are indeed manifold and complicated, not the least of which are the strange effects of gyroscopic precession! I am not an expert on rotary wing aircraft, but I dare say I know more about it than 80% of the people on this forum.

I was using the terms 'flying up a hill' to describe the behaviour in OFP, not in real life. This terrain following behaviour is already a well established behaviour and I'm not quite sure what the problem is with your perception of what is happening, Radic, but you seem to perceive OFP's behaviour a lot differently than most people. Furthermore, attempting to explain the way OFP works with real life examples is idealist at best, and more accurately a total lost cause.

You seem to be speaking with an authority that I'm not sure you posess, Radic. You're not going to convince me that the helicopters in OFP behave differently than I have known them to behave since 2001, I'm sorry. If you are flying into a hill when you are attempting to have the helicopter follow the terrain, try flying at a lower airspeed and have the helicopter climb up that huge mountain on kolgujev. I have explioted the OFP helicopter's tendency to climb hills many times when playing the ground attack 2 mission, as the helicopter will stand higher on high ground than it will lower down, allowing me to bounce the hind that lurks behind the convoy. Also, try gaining a lot of forward speed and fly out over a piece of land where the ground drops out from under you as vertically as possible. I think you will find that the helicopter not only wants to follow the ground down, but that your controls will freeze up.

[celery 8]

Plaintiff, how the heck does your flying and academic hobbies change the fact that your argument is totally off? In fact I'm shocked that you can say something like that when you are engaging in such "high brow" stuff. A pilot in a helicopter video may be experienced, but he will cuss at the same problems as we do when he plays chopper pilot in ArmA. Experience is irrelevant when raw physics are involved. The flight model in ArmA is better than in OFP in that not every noob wants to take the chopper in a multiplayer game, but still it needs some work because now it's just pseudo-realistic, making some things that should be a piece of cake more difficult than they are.

What is it that you think that I am arguing? I'm just saying that no real information can be gleaned from the video. You seem to be thinking that I am saying that the flight model in ArmA is realistic. This is not what I'm saying, nor have I ever said that.

You seek to dispute the things that argue against ArmA's flight model, like it is the best anyone has ever done and nothing should be changed. I get the image that you want to say those things in the video are very well possible with hundreds of flying hours with the ArmA flight model:

Comments on the AH-1S video vs ArmA AH-1W:

1. Recoil from the chin turret pushing the helo is cool.

2. Very small inputs from the real pilot, most of us are doing far more extreme stuff. I wish there was a non-linearity setting for the joystick in ArmA... the really useful part of the joystick range is so small in ArmA that it's hard to operate in.

3. Pull-up stops are far easier in real life than ArmA. In ArmA you have to point the nose at the sky to get the thing to stop in your lifetime.

4. Throttle seems way more responsive in real life. This is probably the biggest difference between real life and ArmA. Pulling the power in ArmA takes forever and has really weird behavior, in the video it seemed that they had much more direct control over their rotor thrust.

5. In the video the AH-1 easily flies like a fixed wing aircraft with bank-n'-pull-up turns. In ArmA such turns are a struggle.

6. In the video, the pilot is a trained, professional military aviator who was trained by another professional military aviator over the course of hundreds of hours in flight and on the ground studying and practicing the theory, mechanics and techniques of airborne warfare.

[max power 21]

I'm sorry but your assumption is not correct. I was attempting to illustrate that that video is not to be used as evidence towards what flying a real helicopter is like compared to our experiences with the arma flight model. Trained professionals can make anything look easy. Not all race drivers are geniuses, but I don't think that I would let a 15 year old take my car to the track. Likewise, not all pilots are Eric Hartmann, but I think that his level of expertise dwarfs ours by an order of magnitude. Implicitly, once you ascertain how it is to fly a real helicopter, you would then argue to change ArmA's flight model accordingly. I'm not arguing against changing the flight model, I'm arguing against using bad evidence to create bad arguments. I regret that you got the wrong idea.

[ThudBlunderQ8 0]

Hi again,

Radic, yes - I think the OFP representation was good enough as a start but needs significant tweaking to make it more representative while still being player-friendly enough not to put people off. I find ArmA less user-friendly than it could be at the moment - it's as if BI have tried a different route toward the target and are still a similar distance away from that ideal goal as they were with OFP. Good on 'em for trying though - let's hope they can be persuaded to keep fixing and patching.

OFPs terrain-matching altitude keeping was probably a useful "fix" to allow us mere mortals to keep flying in-game. My one big wish is that collective authority be altered to allow the aircraft to break out of this game-enhanced "steady state" when required. Particularly so when trying to initiate a descent; a helicopter is basically a flying-rotor-disc, plus a fuselage and a counter-torque system slung underneath. Take away the power that keeps that rotor spinning at the correct RPM and you immediately get a change in vector for the whole system due to the mass of the aircraft. Although the onset of the descent can be delayed by changing the vector of forward-directed kinetic energy into upwards by flaring, the height gain is minimal and the aforementioned delay measured in (very few) seconds. The ability to rapidly descend is essential when trying to evade ground defences/ enemy air in OFP, ArmA and real life. ArmA is slightly better than OFP, but still not close enough to be good enough. In my opinion.

I noticed one contributor making reference to gyroscopic precession as a major factor in helicopter aerodynamics. Well, it was taught as THE primary principle of flight in the States for many years, but is now largely discounted there and elsewhere as being by far less significant than induced flow/ autorotational flow through the disc in terms of how the helicopter behaves. What works on the scale of flying models is often not applicable to the full size beastie (something to do with some bloke called Reynolds whose number's come up. Oh, and that gravitational constant...).

Back to the theme - I appreciate people wanting a simulation to be realistic, but there comes a point where it gets too hard to be a game any more. BI made a good stab in OFP at a helicopter flying model, but fell short (in my opinion) mainly for the reason given above. If people want something more severe then go for a specific simulation programme; in an all-arms simulator, BI need to produce a compromise that takes out the years of training and leaves behind a working version of the bare bones. Hey, I was a Forward Air Controller AND an Air Observation Post (artillery spotter) instructor back in the military, but when I play ArmA all I want to do to call in fast air or arty is click on the map and say "shoot here, please". Anything more complex might be more real, but not much fun when I've got a whole battle to win. Anyway, I'm more of a frustrated infantryman at heart so that's the part of the game I personally prefer to spend my time in. For me, flying in a sim is a bit of a busman's holiday, if you are familiar with the expression.

If I may, I'd like to add an article by Nick Lappos (ex-Chief Test Pilot for Sikorski, project manager for their now-defunct Commanche RAH66) taken from Heliops Magazine June 2006. Should show you in good layman's language what the simulator-writers are trying to model:

"Hovering a helicopter is about the most difficult thing normal people are ever asked to do, mostly because of the incredible instability of the craft, and the severe penalty exacted on those who make a mistake! We all know that of course, but few of us can accurately explain to the uninitiated why this is so. To help you explain to that adoring member of the opposite sex who looks at you in wonder and asks, pie-eyed, “How ever do you fly a helicopter?†– here is a brief discussion:

FIRST – They gave us the wrong controls. We need to hold position, but they gave us a stick that controls the rate of change of our speed! Like golf though, we don’t get to change the tools. The cyclic controls the direction of the rotor force, and nothing else. The rotor produces the rotor thrust, a force that is directed mostly upward, but which can be tilted at your command when you move the cyclic. This rotor tilt directs part of the thrust fore-and-aft or laterally and therefore causes the helicopter to accelerate in that direction.

SECOND – Acceleration control? But I want to hold position! We are trying to hold position, of course, but the controls only command acceleration, so the best we can do is adjust the rate of change of the speed. We don’t control position, we don’t even control velocity; we control acceleration with the cyclic. This makes the aircraft seem like some headstrong beast trying to escape in any direction at ever increasing speed.

THIRD – Precise speed control means accurate timing of the attitude we command. To control position, we must alternately start and stop velocity – sort of “beeping†the machine toward our target. Since we control acceleration and not velocity, we must change the attitude precisely and then keep a count in our heads of how long we hold an attitude change. That way we control how much acceleration we have asked for, a subconscious “one potato, two potato…†each time we need to coax the machine back to where it belongs. While working the most difficult eye-hand co-ordination task imaginable, we have to book-keep in our heads how much acceleration we will permit (how long we hold the attitude tilt) to get a speed chane, then remove the acceleration to keep the speed constant.

FOURTH – Like George Bush says, being in charge is “hardâ€. As the workload increases, this ability to precisely hold attitude displacement while “counting†is a measure of intelligence (brain throughput, in computer lingo). During the repositioning manoeuvre, we must decide when to tilt the rotor back the other way to stop the speed and get back to zero as we slide into the new desired position. In other words, while juggling all our hands and feet, we must decide when is just the right time to take the acceleration out to level the attitude and let the machine slide softly up to the exact hover point. The way a helicopter pilot deftly adds acceleration (nose-down) then removes it, alloing a constant speed, then removes the acceleration with a nose-up, all the while holding altitude, heading, throttle and even chewing gum is a marvel!

FIFTH – Flying is about half of what we do at any given time. We are flying a machine, so while we are making all of the precise judgments and control inputs for the position task, we must also talk on the radio, keep an eye on the gauges, watch for obstructions, clear traffic, make excuses to our instructor and also dance with this unruly partner while trying to look as if we know what we are doing!

How can we compare this hover task to some normal things people do? Imagine a car radio where the volume knob controls neither the volume, nor the rate of change of the volume, but the acceleration of the volume change! I guess you could give that knob to the average person, but first put in some earplugs. Imagine a car that was steered by a control that pivoted the front tyres, but which didn’t tell you where the tyres were pointed; you had to figure that out by watching which way the car turned. NOW imagine that this new car control didn’t control the direction of the tyres, but rather the rate of change of that direction! Imagine parallel parking in that car – or rather, imagine the insurance rates!

A good hover can only be held by a pilot who judges and precisely controls hover-attitude (that acceleration) within about 1/5 of a degree. How precise is that? For a rotor disk about the size of a Robinson R22, that means we have to precisely hold the rotor disk within about plus or minus 10mm! This task of holding position while grasping an acceleration control is nearly impossible, so it is little wonder that it takes helicopter pilots a few hours to get the hang of it. The truly impossible would take a little longer, of course!"

Now anyone who can fly to that kind of precision using a mouse or an untrimmed, stand-alone joystick gets my banana!

PS has anyone tried running landings with a heli in ArmA yet? I haven't, but I know it used to cause all sorts of grief in OFP. Hmm - p'raps I'll just sneak off and give it a go now before I get on with the ironing...

[max power 21]

It's always a pleasure to read your posts, ThudBlunderQ8. I mentioned gyroscopic precession because I am under the impression that the cyclic works at 90 degrees to waht one would intuitively expect.. so instead of increasing lift at the rear of the helicopter to pitch nose down, you increase the lift of the retreating rotors. I didn't know that precession was taught as the primary force of helicopter flight.. that knowledge level well over mine. I just thought that it affected how the controls worked!

Here's a video of what I mean: http://travel.howstuffworks.com/mpeg/heli-precession.mpg

[whisper 0]

ThudBlunder, did you try to alter the values for you collective so that the stick is more responsive? I didn't myself (I'm not aware enough that this is an issue ), but perhaps it could half-fix the issue.

Uless ofc the max collective value is too low anyway

[ThudBlunderQ8 0]

Plaintiff:

That one's easy: remember there's nothing to stop the blades from travelling upwards, just the droop-stops (and I suppose the swashplate-connected control rods) to stop them moving downwards. As the head turns, putting the max uplift in the 90 degree position means that's where the blades are sent upwards at max rate. They're still travelling up as they pass that point. They then reach their highest point in the 6 o'clock position - exactly where you want them to be to achieve an overall forward tilt of the disc. Not precession, just acceleration.

Whisper:

No, I didn't 'cos I don't know how! However, I suspect that the game engine has this collective-lever limitation built-in as other correspondents on the OFP threads (far more computer savvy than me...) also reported this "feature". Many thanks for the suggestion though.

Still haven't got around to trying those running landings - ironing's not finished and the dog does need his walk(s) every day too. Real life - ain't it a bind?

[evil koala 6]

Running landings and take-offs are not modeled in ArmA. Nor are they really nessessary since aircraft weight, ground effect and translational lift are also not modeled. You cant even autorotate..

With that said, I feel the ArmA flight model is far superior to OFP's. Its definately not simulation quality, but I'm glad to see that BIS appear to be heading in that direction.

[ThudBlunderQ8 0]

Thanks Evil K - shame, 'cos although they might not be necessary they'd make ops with the larger helis (I'm sure someone, if not BI, has Chinooks and Halos in the pipeline..) a lot easier. When you say aircraft weight, or mass, isn't modelled, do you mean as a variable according to fuel and payload? I'm sure there must be some mass in there to achieve the physics, wacky though they might be at the moment. I don't really miss autorotation or any of the other factors you mention (plus inflow roll, flapping to equality, overpitching and definitely NOT vortex ring...) as they don't really form a valid part of a battlefield sim, in my opinion. It makes me smile to see people eject from a non-Kamov heli, but I can live with it!

[max power 21]

Yeah, I was reading about the flap and lag hinges just yesterday, and the stiffer, materials based solution to uneven lift. That's an interesting fact and much less esoteric than precession, thanks!

[evil koala 6]

Yeah, when I said weight, I meant changing weights of fuel, weapons and cargo loads. And I mentioned tranlational lift and ground effect because, as I'm sure you are aware, without those, running landings and take-offs are a moot point.. The whole reason for doing them is when your hot, high, humid, and/or heavy and dont have hover capability. So you use a the advantage of ground effect and translational lift to get you airborne or back on the ground.

Though they are fun to practice.. Its a shame there are no simulators that really model them. FS9/X kinda does, but not very well.

[Jinef 2]

Hi ThudBlunder. Remember our little document we sent to bis?

Good to know your back on the scene.

[wamingo 1]

... if I don't increase collective I crash into the hill every time. IIRC, there is a difference in the flight model when using a joystick vs. mouse/keyboard - I'm using a Cougar HOTAS with CH rudder pedals myself so maybe that's the reason?

Perhaps that is why. At least with keyboard in ofp helo's follow terrain like on springs. I don't have a joystick so can someone confirm this difference? I know there was an ackward difference when flying a plane. But then, the plane controls in ofp with keyboard was hopeless..

I hope there's no difference like this between stick and keyb/mouse in arma?

[LeftSkidLow 1]

While we are at it lets add mast bumping!!!!!!!!!!!

Not!! lets not get too carried away guys, a very basic flight model is what we have and it works out for everyone, whether you are longline pilot with 12,0000 hours or you are using a $5 keyboard from office max. Though autorotations would be cool if kept very basic.

[Radic 0]

Plaintiff:  "I was using the terms 'flying up a hill' to describe the behaviour in OFP, not in real life.  This terrain following behaviour is already a well established behaviour and I'm not quite sure what the problem is with your perception of what is happening, Radic, but you seem to perceive OFP's behaviour a lot differently than most people.  Furthermore, attempting to explain the way OFP works with real life examples is idealist at best, and more accurately a total lost cause."

I actually once again - as i did when you first made this allusion - actually take exception to those sorts of statements as in my experience there is no such "well established behaviour" etc. etc. - I don't understand why you attack me on this - I am seeing what's actually happening for crying out loud!! - ie. in MY OFP, there is NO tendency for the helicopters to follow the terrain as you're describing.  The behaviour of the flight model makes it very easy to follow slight to moderate terrain manually with tiny corrections of the cyclic - steeper terrain takes additional "collective" - and level flight WILL result in flying into rising ground!.

The whole thing behaves EXACTLY the way that Squirrel did when I flew it on the Cyclic - it is indeed a very interesting experience/sensation - hard to describe but if you want to see what it was like then fly a helicopter in OFP  

MY OFP collective works sort of correctly - the big fault with it is that it proportionally simply seems to set height above the initial datum - I'm not sure whether that's the takoff point or an arbitrary "sea level" - that's why I refer to it as an incorrect "height setting control" rather than the correct "lift control" that it should be.

The comments about keyboard controls behaving differently to joystick are intersting....

In short:   if it set my helicopter to a steady state over level ground - ie. a certain height + a certain forward speed - then I can maintain that situation using the cyclic alone - ie. if speed decreases then the height will also be increasing - this means a slight cyclic forward correction is necessary to re establish that original "cruise" (and vice versa) - anyway, with all going correctly and I'm "cruising" straight and level at fixed altitude and fixed speed, collective set and fixed and no corrections even required on the cyclic.... IF THE TERRAIN STARTS TO RISE THEN I WILL EVENTUALLY FLY INTO THE GROUND!!!!   This is absolutely what I'd expect in real life and there is no sign of the aircraft trying to rise of it's own accord.

(ummm - actually IRL there would be a ground effect "lift bubble" type thing at some point but I won't overcomplicate things)

Likewise, if I'm flying over high ground and it suddenly drops away as I come over a scarpment etc. - I continue to fly straight and level just as I expect would be the case IRL - so I really have no idea what you're on about!!

As far as "professing authority" - I have never professed any authority on the subject - I'm merely pushing my personal view on the subject to be best of my knowledge and experience - ie. 20 years as an aviation mechanic, talking at various times to helicopter pilots, riding in helicopters and about 3 hours flying a Squirrel helicopter on the cyclic (collective and power fixed and locked).  In broad terms it takes no authority to have an idea how a helicopter should generally be able to behave and be manipulated (what I call the "flight dynamics").

I stand by what I've said all along - ArmA has the helo model almost completely WRONG - this is interpreted by many people as being more "realistic" simply because it's so difficult to handle - which is WRONG - and yet in OFP the overall dynamic of helicopter flight (the incorrect cyclic notwithstanding) is very close to correct and certainly is completely successful in giving the player about the best simulated experience of helicopter control and flight that can be achieved at a computer desk - but BIS have abandoned it!!!  And that really annoys and dismays me.

At the very least I'd like the option of OFP type flight - then those of us into "Arcade" flying can have our fun whilst you "fidelity hogs" can pump your egos by learning to ballance on a board on a greased beachball if you like - ie. each to taste.

Have a nice day  

P.S. - and BTW it took me about 3 hours of stick time to reasonably comfortably land the ArmA MI17 on rooftops (about 10 minutes for the Uh60) - so it's not like I can't fly the rotten things in ArmA - but at the same time it drives me spare just how WRONG it all is!!

[whisper 0]

That's very strange, radic, because in my OFP, choppers definitely follow terrain by trying keep a constant altitude above ground without collective change by the player. It is not a fast enough terrain following to keep up with terrain changes at low altiture/high speed flying, but there's definitely an auto-altitude change. And that is out of any ground effect possibility (either too high or too fast, and still happening).

Anyway, I did further tests yesterday.

I found mouse settings that gave me a very enjoyable flying experience with Cobra, unfortunately it requires to change sensitivity to something not really compatible with infantry fighting.

And, I finally observed this tendancy to bank on pedal usage, which is not really correct imho.