optional alternative flight model

[seba1976 98]

Are you looking for sympathy, then?  I don't know if it's a shame that you don't like the flight model.  You tell me.  I certainly don't agree with your premise that the flight model isn't immersive, though.  If you don't feel like putting the effort in, don't fly.  When you feel like flying, play ofp.  And, by the way, we're talking about a very small number of hours to get used to the controls enough to  be able to function in an online environment, and then after that all you get is better from there.

Well you are either too young or too dumb. There was no real reason for an agresion like this. So, kid, I tried to keep this debate civilized enough, but apparently you don't give a damn about that. I've said this many times and I have exposed my reasons through and through. The main point being: we don't need a complicated flight model, we don't need having to strive to control helicopters because no mater what, you won't be having the real thing, and finally if we do get to manage the new flight model, it will not be easy after that, it will be always hard. I've also said that both demandings are legitimate, some people want it hard to learn, some don't want to have to learn a thing that's not real anyway, there was simply no need for that.

If you feel that you have all the truth and it bothers you that there may be people with other points of view or that enjoys different part of the game than you, and that they are just as part of the community as you are, then good luck to you, because it's gonna be a long run for you until you grow up.

Am I looking for simpathy? No, it is called accepting that other people may look at things different ways, and accepting that without thinking they're missing something you understand better than they do.

[Dallas 9]

Quote[/b] ] some don't want to have to learn a thing that's not real anyway, there was simply no need for that.

Real or not - Any game dictates you learn it's gameplay even CounterStrike. If you don't know the engine's limitations, the maps and dynamics, you'll suck at everything you play. You got to be willing to try.

This is not some MMORPG, where you can buy skills and stats on E-bay, here you got to put in your own work. With the patches anyone can operate an ArmA Helicopter or Jet and anyone is free to land using autohover or auto-pilot. This topic has been around for a little less than a month, instead of this neverending discussion you could have been a regular pilot ace by now.

I really like the way things are in missions these days. Pilots transport people around finding tremendous pleasure in being a team asset, delivering fire-teams safely. In OFP every hotdog and his son would crash and kill full teams, because they flew with blind confidence. ArmA provided gamers with a place where multiple skills are needed. If you can't muster up the effort, you're going to waste time and team efforts.

[max power 21]

Well you are either too young or too dumb. There was no real reason for an agresion like this. So, kid, I tried to keep this debate civilized enough, but apparently you don't give a damn about that. I've said this many times and I have exposed my reasons through and through. The main point being: we don't need a complicated flight model, we don't need having to strive to control helicopters because no mater what, you won't be having the real thing, and finally if we do get to manage the new flight model, it will not be easy after that, it will be always hard. I've also said that both demandings are legitimate, some people want it hard to learn, some don't want to have to learn a thing that's not real anyway, there was simply no need for that.

If you feel that you have all the truth and it bothers you that there may be people with other points of view or that enjoys different part of the game than you, and that they are just as part of the community as you are, then good luck to you, because it's gonna be a long run for you until you grow up.

Am I looking for simpathy? No, it is called accepting that other people may look at things different ways, and accepting that without thinking they're missing something you understand better than they do.

I asked if you were looking for sympathy because your rhetoric seemed to be an attempt to appeal to my emotions by illustrating that the current flight model was in some way shameful. If you're not going to qualify or clarify those appeals without getting all uppity you should probably just stop discussing it. You did expose your point of view, as I did mine. Not agreeing with you is not closing myself off to possibilities out of hand like you seem to be indicating. I've played OFP. Now that I've played ArmA there's no want or reason for me ever to play it again. I know what you are talking about and I don't think there's going to be any logical or emotional appeal that's going to convince me of otherwise. You have not 'bothered' me once, but nor have you stirred me to agree with you in any way as of yet either

[seba1976 98]

I asked if you were looking for sympathy because your rhetoric seemed to be an attempt to appeal to my emotions by illustrating that the current flight model was in some way shameful.  If you're not going to qualify or clarify those appeals without getting all uppity you should probably just stop discussing it.  You did expose your point of view, as I did mine.  Not agreeing with you is not closing myself off to possibilities out of hand like you seem to be indicating.  I've played OFP.  Now that I've played ArmA there's no want or reason for me ever to play it again.  I know what you are talking about and I don't think there's going to be any logical or emotional appeal that's going to convince me of otherwise.  You have not 'bothered' me once, but nor have you stirred me to agree with you in any way as of yet either

Fair enough. Just one more thing to clarify. The "Isn't that a shame?" was in response to Dallas, so that was not in response to any of your posts. And the... "unfortunate" situation was not that I don't like the new flight model - which I don't - but it was that many, many people that enjoyed flying in OFP is not doing that anymore because the way helicopters need to be handled in ArmA. Come on at least face that! The percentage of people that will be able to or want to fly a helicopter is very different now.

[vicefredav 0]

so from all the posts the only defense for this new flight model "too hard for you?? you don't like it? too bad...practice more, its really not hard at all for me, i can use the mouse and keyboard"

That still doesn't explain wtf is happening with the new flight model, the feeling is GONE!!! kaputski...not a 100% gone, but still. That "suspension of disbelief" that OFP offered is gone. I've seen people do some pretty weird things with choppers. they feel all hyper and sensitive with the sensitivity down, the rudder is out of whack at high speeds. They probably limited the choppers in OFP to make u believe. Since this engine can do more, they have to figure out what its limits are.

I'm sure even BI acknowledges this and is working on it coz its a new engine. So I understand but I guess the fans are determined. People can do amazing things in counterstrike with practice, it still feels arcady.

[4 IN 1 0]

maybe its because we 1.00 user have tired too hard to learn to fly these damn thing?

really i only think that the current flight model is only lacking something thats makes them both unrealistic and hard to fly

[seba1976 98]

so from all the posts the only defense for this new flight model "too hard for you?? you don't like it? too bad...practice more, its really not hard at all for me, i can use the mouse and keyboard"

That still doesn't explain wtf is happening with the new flight model, the feeling is GONE!!! kaputski...not a 100% gone, but still. That "suspension of disbelief" that OFP offered is gone. I've seen people do some pretty weird things with choppers. they feel all hyper and sensitive with the sensitivity down, the rudder is out of whack at high speeds. They probably limited the choppers in OFP to make u believe. Since this engine can do more, they have to figure out what its limits are.

I'm sure even BI acknowledges this and is working on it coz its a new engine. So I understand but I guess the fans are determined. People can do amazing things in counterstrike with practice, it still feels arcady.

I couldn't agree more. In my opinion, the problem is very complex and it's not only related to helicopters in the game, it is a tendency that could extend to any other platform, and it has to do with everything, from human pride to the future of BIS. We all want BIS to continue but not for emotional reasons, we want them to continue developing in the same line of OFP. I think as of now that's coming along very good in most aspects of ArmA, but there are many patchs to come and they're already crossing some red lights.

This counter argument that if its too hard for you go back to Flashpoint, or learn to use, it is not an argument at all. We are talking about what defined the very core of OFP. That old time feeling is gone. I was playing multiplayer the other night with some friends, in OFP, and my first reaction was "yak, what is wrong with the graphics", but then the action began and I forgot about it pretty quickly. I realized that even the shooting experience was very different. Supersonic blasts was still a feature I missed a lot, it is indeed inmersive in ArmA, but there was a lot more "suspension of disbelief" throughout the mission, plus it was a pleasure to shoot as as GI. Not so in ArmA.

Coming back to topic, I'll keep saying this all the time. Flight simulation has been done in two ways along the history of computers. One way is to simulate the machine and puting you in the cockpit. Usually you have to - at least - read a 200 pages manual and practice, practice, and practice. This aproach is apealing to some and in fact there a hundreds of dedicated communities and hundreds of flight simulators. I was part of this world years ago. This has 2 problems. One is my personal experience, and the other can be demonstrated. The personal experience is that once you get to the max level of simulation, it is just imposible to control the machine being simulated because you lack real feedback, like wind, G gorce, etc., and so the simulation has to be watered down to make it playable. The other problem is that learning to fly requires a lot of technical knowledge and training for years, specially flying under combat. So learning to fly a PC ultra realistic simulation means actually nothing more than being able to handle that thing you believe is an aircraft or whatever. It is not only posible but even easy, if you have the time and the will to put an efford into it.

The second approach is to make you feel (and hence the instantaneous and ultra accesible "suspension of disbelief") that you have trained for years, and so you can control the machine being simulated, and not only do the things the most basic combat pilot could do, but also being able to focus on the tactical aspects of gunship helicopters flight. Cover, flying NOE, Bop Up, Recon, etc. And to do that all you have to do is to Flashpoint the things up. They oversimplified all the platforms to compensate for the lack of military training of the players and the lack of real feedback from the environment. It was a success.

In ArmA they seems lost about what to do with helicopters. And is not that I wouldn't accept any change, if there were something to change or add, there was a thing that would have changed for the better all the platforms of the game. In the case of helicopters, it would reflect it as "avionics". Radar, FLIR, Jamming, target adquisition. The same goes for MBT, antiaircraft platforms, etc. With that being minimally incorporated in the game, we were all talking about the new possibilities of the engine, and not winning about what did they do to the flying envelope.

Cheers.

[max power 21]

This supposition that the flight model has lost something would only be valid as a blanket assessment of the flight model if it was agreed upon by a majority of users. Even forum users are only cranks and represent a small minority of game users. Some vocal people dislike it, some other vocal people like it. Noone can refute the argument that you think the flight model has lost some kind of 'feeling'. However, you also can't refute my opinion that it's actually gained a lot of feeling. Our suggestion that you should try and learn it is not only an attempt to refute your claims that the flight model is too hard to fly and therefore not worth a bother or lacking in some way. It is an attempt to share with you our enjoyment of the flight model and an attempt to try to motivate you to find enjoyment in it aswell. The way I found lots of enjoyment in it on top of the enjoyment of being challenged by it was to practice flying. This is the only advice I can give you. If you have practiced and still haven't found any enjoyment in it, or if you persist in resisting trying to find some enjoyment in it, then obviously our arguments or advice aren't worth a damn to you. I am not tryin to say that you should "go back to OFP LOSER therefore I'm right because the flight model rock LOL". That's misrepresenting what I'm saying. But if I'm not mistaken, you're saying, "I don't like the flightmodel because it doesn't seem to take the pilot out of flying, is tougher to control, and therefore doesn't simulate my person as an expert pilot. This means that it's less enjoyable to learn. It also means that I'm less free to make decisions such as how I want to fly with no practice. Therefore they should change it". I'm on your page, but I would be extremely unhappy if they changed it to make it less complicated- perhaps more unhappy than you are now. There would be no argument or advice you could give me to try and improve my enjoyment of a dumbed-down flightmodel. Giving myself psychomotor dysfunction my leisioning my brain is a little further than I'm willing to go to make the ofp FM more challenging. Practice, however, is a little more reasonable.

If this isn an impasse, then it is an impasse. I don't believe I'm making 'stupid' arguments or suggestions- suggestions such as, 'try to learn to live with it', because I also believe (and hope) that they are unwilling to deviate from the parameters of their design document very much.

[seba1976 98]

Please don't speak to me directly, if you are going to reffer to yourself as a group, specially a larger group. I mean things like "our best advice to you is...". I'm not the minority in this, you are. Most people is annoyed by the new handle of helicopters. Just as most people do not play flight sims. It is important to state clearly that most gamers would preffer the previous use of helicopters in the game.

Besides that, you have sum it up pretty well what I've said that I don't like about the new course BIS has given to flight in ArmA. Perhaps the only point you missed is that whatever they may have done to the FM, it is plain wrong, and unnecessary. We haven't discussed this and it is better that way, but at least someone should move the center of gravity down to the main rotor. Even the camera, when looking from the outside is showing where is the center of gravity now. But let's not talk about it because it was already discussed here before I came and there's nothing more to say.

Just tell me, what exactly do you enjoy of the new FM? Certainly you can do more acrobatics now, they seemed to have removed the limitations in bank and pitch, but apart from learning some acrobatics, what else can you do with that? What do you enjoy so much of the new FM?

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]

Please don't speak to me directly, if you are going to reffer to yourself as a group, specially a larger group. I mean things like "our best advice to you is...".

I was speaking just for the people who were saying the same thing in this thread. I think I have the character of what they were saying. If I am misrepresenting them, they can say something about it.

Quote[/b] ]

I'm not the minority in this, you are. Most people is annoyed by the new handle of helicopters. Just as most people do not play flight sims. It is important to state clearly that most gamers would preffer the previous use of helicopters in the game.

There is no way to prove that. I don't make any claims to the contrary but I certainly don't see any way you can substantiate that claim.

Quote[/b] ]

Besides that, you have sum it up pretty well what I've said that I don't like about the new course BIS has given to flight in ArmA. Perhaps the only point you missed is that whatever they may have done to the FM, it is plain wrong, and unnecessary.

Disagree 100% on both counts.

Quote[/b] ]

We haven't discussed this and it is better that way, but at least someone should move the center of gravity down to the main rotor. Even the camera, when looking from the outside is showing where is the center of gravity now. But let's not talk about it because it was already discussed here before I came and there's nothing more to say.

I think what you're talking about is the aerodynamic centre. Obviously the C of G is quite a bit further down than the main rotar! In my experience with this game, the centre of rotation is about at the top of the main rotor in all helicopters. The Kamov's is at level with the top of the rotor. I agree that if they aren't in a realistic position, they should be.

Quote[/b] ]

Just tell me, what exactly do you enjoy of the new FM? Certainly you can do more acrobatics now, they seemed to have removed the limitations in bank and pitch, but apart from learning some acrobatics, what else can you do with that? What do you enjoy so much of the new FM?

I find it much more fun to fly! Flying is more involved. Before it felt like the computer was doing all of the flying. It still feels like that to a large extent, but much less. To tell you the truth, I don't ever really do any aerobatics. Doing aerobatics is certainly not the main attraction of the FM! I guess I find the exact opposite of what you find, I find that I'm freer to do what I want, when I want to. I also find it more exciting because screwing up actually has some consequences now.

[Rune 0]

Overall I agree with what Plaintiff1 said in the previous post, I cannot echo the impression that a high proportion of players are unhappy about the overall changes in flight model from OFP to ArmA at all. Most people seem to be either happier with it or unhappy with a few very specific and fixable things - like the tail rotor 'power'. Or they have spent less than 2 hours flying helicopters in the more recent ArmA versions...

Other than that I feel the urge to sum up the discussion of rotation more clearly as I see it, because it seems the above post does not reach or use the correct conclusion.

If BIS were indeed to move some fixed rotation-point built into the 3D model of the helicopter to ANY other position other than the present one, it would HAVE TO BE - EXCLUSIVELY the best guess for the real life center of mass of the helicopter and nowhere else...the impression that the rotation occurs at a higher point is caused by the effects of gravity acting against lift of the rotor when the forces are not parallel. In fact, the present, dodgy, rotation modelling could be cause by the model CG being placed at the rotorhead from what I've seen, making it appear even higher up...

[seba1976 98]

Quote[/b] ]I was speaking just for the people who were saying the same thing in this thread.  I think I have the character of what they were saying.  If I am misrepresenting them, they can say something about it.

Respectfully... How can you speak for others in a forum? Their silence may be saying something. If you are into advices, here's one, speak for yourself.

Quote[/b] ]There is no way to prove that.  I don't make any claims to the contrary but I certainly don't see any way you can substantiate that claim.

Agreed, I could not prove you that the mayority of the people I've talked to do not like the new handle.

Quote[/b] ]Disagree 100% on both counts.

Do you disagree with the fact that the FM is wrong? Well... it is! What else can I say. It is not even a flight model. Please note that, strictly speaking, I wouldn't call the old simulation of helicopters in OFP to actually have a flight model either. That was not necessary. Anyone took the helicopters where they want it and that was it.

Quote[/b] ]I think what you're talking about is the aerodynamic centre.  Obviously the C of G is quite a bit further down than the main rotar!  In my experience with this game, the centre of rotation is about at the top of the main rotor in all helicopters.  The Kamov's is at level with the top of the rotor.  I agree that if they aren't in a realistic position, they should be.

I invited over to my place about 15 OFP vets along this last weeks, just to give it a try at ArmA. I didn't say anything but I give them a helicopter. They all said WTF. Then I began to fire questions at them like "do you like it more or what". No one liked it more than OFP. Some of them play choppers in MSFS. 10 out of 15 concluded that now they seemed to be hanging from a point above the main rotor. I told them to let go the mouse, stay in a hover, and apply full right input pressing the right key, while whatching from the outside, just behind the aircraft. The chopper made a perfect circle aroud the point where the camera was centered, exactly above the main rotor. You can do that too if you haven't already. You'll have the same results. Now, you'll have to allow me to indulge in the wrong terminology, I don't really know the difference between "center of gravity", "aerodynamic centre", and "center of rotation", sorry. But one thing I know. The camera is pointing at some imaginary center about a meter - at least - well above the main rotor, and we're pretty tighted up to that point. I can bet the day they'll right this wrong, the external view will be centered at some point that will be a piece of the helicopter, and you will be able to zoom in without loosing the lower part.

Quote[/b] ]I guess I find the exact opposite of what you find, I find that I'm freer to do what I want, when I want to.  I also find it more exciting because screwing up actually has some consequences now.

What's the fun in having to pay for the consequences of your screwing the things up? Before, it was easier to put the chopper exactly where you want it and when you want it. Now that's not always the case, since you have to struggle with a more difficult to control flying machine - where you have more chances of crewing up. So before, you had only to think where would it be good to have the chopper, and how to perform the attack, whereas now you have to add the struggle to actually position the plane were you want it - something that more often than before, doesn't happened because you screw up. Is that what you are referring as more funny, more free, and enjoyable? If that's it, then we have a very different idea of all those three things.

[seba1976 98]

the impression that the rotation occurs at a higher point is caused by the effects of gravity acting against lift of the rotor when the forces are not parallel. In fact, the present, dodgy, rotation modelling could be cause by the model CG being placed at the rotorhead from what I've seen, making it appear even higher up...

The impression is more like a pendulum, with the body of the chopper AND their main rotor at one extreme, and the center of rotation when banking left or right at the other. I'm not an expert and I will not claim anything like that. I can barelly claim having read some flight simulator manuals and having played some of them. As far as I know, an aircraft banks along it longitudinal axis. To me it is plain wrong that a hellicopter rotates along an axis that do not crosses it's body or the main rotor. I'm even eager to have some more knowlegded person to confirm or deny along which axis should a hellicopter rotate when banking while in a hover and in flight. My common sense, tells me it should be the main rotor, but I may be wrong.

[frederf 0]

First I'd like to say the FM in ArmA isn't perfect, is a whole lot better and more fun than the FM in OFP. No one should crash a helicopter in ArmA if you're honestly not trying anything stupid. I cannot understand why people think flying is so difficult now, but I digress.

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

First you have to understand (and recognize as distinct) the concepts of:

Center of gravity

Center of mass

Center of percussion

A leaf floating to the ground swaying back and forth rotates (banks) back and forth around an axis that is not even in the leaf!! There is no "common sense" way to find the axis around which the helicopter will bank. "Oh the helicopter should bank around an axis which is in the plane of and which goes through the rotor disk." and "The helicopter should bank around an axis which goes through the center of mass." are both very simple-minded arguments.

First you have to ask the question "Why does a helicopter bank at all"? Cyclic motion applies an uneven amount of lift across the rotor disk. The center of the torque generated is determined by the values of the lift on the left and right sides of the disk. If the values of lift are +A and -A then the torque is exactly in the plane of the rotor disk, but if they're +A and +1/2 A then it's in a different place. And then there's the rotor wash hitting the side of the helo body and the counter torque of the mass of the helo not in line with the center of lift.. and blah my head hurts.

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]Respectfully... How can you speak for others in a forum? Their silence may be saying something. If you are into advices, here's one, speak for yourself.

You can paraphrase what they have already said in this thread as a matter of public record. I am speaking for myself. Additionally, I'm paraphrasing what others have said who seem to agree with me.

Quote[/b] ]Do you disagree with the fact that the FM is wrong? Well... it is! What else can I say. It is not even a flight model. Please note that, strictly speaking, I wouldn't call the old simulation of helicopters in OFP to actually have a flight model either. That was not necessary. Anyone took the helicopters where they want it and that was it.

It's no more wrong than OFP. This is not a helicopter flight simulator.

Quote[/b] ]

The chopper made a perfect circle aroud the point where the camera was centered, exactly above the main rotor. You can do that too if you haven't already. You'll have the same results. Now, you'll have to allow me to indulge in the wrong terminology, I don't really know the difference between "center of gravity", "aerodynamic centre", and "center of rotation", sorry. But one thing I know. The camera is pointing at some imaginary center about a meter - at least - well above the main rotor, and we're pretty tighted up to that point. I can bet the day they'll right this wrong, the external view will be centered at some point that will be a piece of the helicopter, and you will be able to zoom in without loosing the lower part.

I've seen this. Some actual pilots on this thread, some of them blackhawk pilots, have said that the helicopter pivots at the main rotor under certain circumstances, and closer to the C of G under others.

Quote[/b] ]

What's the fun in having to pay for the consequences of your screwing the things up? Before, it was easier to put the chopper exactly where you want it and when you want it. Now that's not always the case, since you have to struggle with a more difficult to control flying machine - where you have more chances of crewing up. So before, you had only to think where would it be good to have the chopper, and how to perform the attack, whereas now you have to add the struggle to actually position the plane were you want it - something that more often than before, doesn't happened because you screw up. Is that what you are referring as more funny, more free, and enjoyable? If that's it, then we have a very different idea of all those three things.

Precisely. I'm not being aided or directed by the computer as much anymore. Flying is more involved. This is much the same as the traction control argument that professional drivers are having. Many of them feel that traction control actually takes control away. Undoubtedly is safer for John Q. Moron not to be lighting up his suburban everytime it rains. Surely, you're no stranger to challenge being exciting, though?

[Rune 0]

Warning - might be a boring read for some...

First you have to understand (and recognize as distinct) the concepts of:

Center of gravity

Center of mass

Center of percussion

Actually, as long as we are not talking about something overly fancy, like relativistic effects of rotation or the gravity field produced by the helicopter or consider the earths gravity field to be in-homogenous the "center of mass" is the same thing as "center of gravity", only "center of mass" is less ambiguous and more correct in most respects.

Quote[/b] ]

A leaf floating to the ground swaying back and forth rotates (banks) back and forth around an axis that is not even in the leaf!! There is no "common sense" way to find the axis around which the helicopter will bank. "Oh the helicopter should bank around an axis which is in the plane of and which goes through the rotor disk." and "The helicopter should bank around an axis which goes through the center of mass." are both very simple-minded arguments.

Yeah the good old Sir Isaac, poor simple-minded git(sarcasm) - I disagree since many people have a general idea about basic mechanics and their common sense as well as mine include that...

Quote[/b] ]First you have to ask the question "Why does a helicopter bank at all"? Cyclic motion applies an uneven amount of lift across the rotor disk. The center of the torque generated is determined by the values of the lift on the left and right sides of the disk. If the values of lift are +A and -A then the torque is exactly in the plane of the rotor disk, but if they're +A and +1/2 A then it's in a different place. And then there's the rotor wash hitting the side of the helo body and the counter torque of the mass of the helo not in line with the center of lift.. and blah my head hurts.

I am sorry, but it sounds like you got the basic physics wrong, the torque is never in the 'plane of the rotor disc' save for the unlikely case of the center of mass being in that plane also - in the rotorhead - no manned helicopter I've seen could possibly have that. What happens is that the +A and -A forces you are talking about effectively break up into seperate components. Some acting as torque against the moment of inertia to cause rotation, this is the portion perpedicular to the line passing the center of mass and the point at which the force acts on the helicopter. And then the remaining componet of translatory force that acts against the inertial mass of the helicopter to cause translatory motion.

I'm even eager to have some more knowlegded person to confirm or deny along which axis should a hellicopter rotate when banking while in a hover and in flight. My common sense, tells me it should be the main rotor, but I may be wrong.

Like said before anyone can claim to be anything so I can't expect anyone to trust me on this based on what I claim to be, but rather from my arguments and whatever knowledge I am displaying in the process. I do consider myself fairly decently schooled in the newtonian mechanics involved in the rotation discussion. If I didn't I would not have posted about it...I do not know nearly as much about aerodynamics though, BUT I DO KNOW that no possible content of aerodynamic science can overule or void the truth in newtonion mechanics, aerodynamics is a specialisation, not a different field as such....

It all comes down to how accurately you want to model something. If you break it down into increments where each increment makes the model match the real thing a little bit better you would have the first bits included in EVERY further increment going towards more complex models - you don't start over as you start to use aerodynamics, you ADD the effects by putting more detailed forces into the original(newtonian) model of motion. In essence, if you have three flight models of differing complexity and detail, say, "simplistic"(1), "slightly more advanced"(2) and "very detailed"(3):

(1) would consist of basic newtonian motion, including rotation about the center of mass. It would include the force of gravity and the forces exerted by the rotors corresponding to command inputs obviously.

(2) would consist of (1) possibly with more detail in the composition of the forces and add on some aerodynamic effects such as drag and tail-'fin'-forces.

(3) would consist of (2) and detail or add on even more of the more exotic aerodynamic forces involved in real flight, like the dynamic lift of the fuselage and rotor disc at speed, ground effect and so on.

- Through all of this, ALL motion would be most accurately modelled and described as a combination of rotation about the center of mass and translatory motion of the center of mass. Only reserveations are, one, that the center of mass of a real helicopter may change with fuel state, load and utimately with where the pilot is looking if you take explicit account of his nose being displaced from it original position And, two, that rotation may still APPEAR to be around other, un-fixed in terms of 3D model, points in practice because of the effect of counteracting forces or forces that break up into force vectors that mix translatory-motion inducing and torque-inducing forces - the percussion center effect mentioned. But the percussion center effect will not need to be explicitly programmed, it follows from the laws of motion, if the forces are detailed enough. In the end there is no sane way to model all this 'correctly' by picking another point of rotation than the center of mass - that is why I conclude that the rotation about the center of mass is just about the most basic thing to get right in any decent flight model. And it would be a bad mistake to build an 'improved' flight model on the wrong center of rotation - assuming still that the point of rotation is a fixed position that is part of the helicopter 3D model and assuming that BIS has contructed the flight model with some basis in real physics rather than approaching it from an 'animation' point of view

EDIT: By the way I have not really noticed all this center of rotation business from inside the helicopter...is everyone complainging about it sure it is not just a matter of where the camera is pointing from the outside views

[MisterXY 0]

Just don't add the shit Joint Operations flight characteristics to this Combat SIMULATOR! The new flight models fit very well in this SIMULATOR.

Old or simplified flight models =      

[mattxr 9]

What you think about the FM is just your Opionion. Its not fact, Your saying its BIS Fault, Now if it was a BIS fault everyone would be saying it was crap.. but the majority say its Good, Get Used to It, Learn it. Then you also will be happy..

[Rune 0]

I invited over to my place about 15 OFP vets along this last weeks, just to give it a try at ArmA. I didn't say anything but I give them a helicopter. They all said WTF. Then I began to fire questions at them like "do you like it more or what". No one liked it more than OFP. Some of them play choppers in MSFS.

This bit made me remember how little I liked the ArmA helicopters for the first couple of hours I was flying them. Maybe players with 0 to 2 hours of flying time in ArmA were somewhat overrepresented in your 'sample group' when you formed your impression about how many people genuinely and permanently dislike the ArmA helicopters ...anyway, just a thought.

[seba1976 98]

Well, I think I did my part. I would be repeating myself if I go on. Thanks everyone for your time.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Well, I haven't read the thread, but I must say that the Seagull in the demos released so far flies in a very similar manner (if not exactly the same) as in OFP, so maybe it should be possible to tweak stuff to equal the previous game's FM... But what do I know...

[BLSmith2112 0]

I personally think its easlier than OFP's... and a lot more flexible.

The only beef I have is disabled mouse imput. I see a target at my 1 o' clock and I want my gunner to lock on to it. Pressing 2' doesn't work since AI haven't noticed it yet to become a target.

Pressing Alt twice, holding F2 to select my unit, relocating the target, clicking, unselecting F2, then pressing Alt Twice again is just so much more crap to do than from OFP's system "See a target, right click, FIRE"

[Baff1 0]

I'd like to see the Russian attack helicopters machine gun pod aimed with the freelook.

Trackir uses would then have a gun targetting wherever they were looking, while the rest of us mere mortals could use the gunsight without flying into the floor.

[max power 21]

I don't think that the real gunpod on the kamov is aimed with the helmet. I think it's sensor guided. In fact, according to FAS, the targetting computer will turn the whole helicopter to keep the gun on target.

[frederf 0]

The Ka50 in game could probably do that with an invisible AI gunner so it would act pretty much exactly like the AH-1 chin gun. The invisible AI wouldn't have to be in the pilots group, just get passed fire/no-fire and target infos via how the player interacted with the helicopter.

i.e. pulling trigger tells AI to fire at current target, AI target always matches player target