optional alternative flight model

[vektorboson 8]

Quote[/b] ]LOL 4 pages and you can't get the point.

What there is to understand is that what you're asking has a very high price. Something it appears more than 50% in this thread is not willing to pay. The removal of the current flight-model in favour of the old.

That's not we is demanding; he is demanding _both_ FM in ArmA...

What he does not understand is, that it is not trivial to implement a FM. And to duplicate the old FM in the new physics-engine is certainly a heavy task.

It's a question of priorities, and it's nuts to implement an obsolete FM while there are more important issues.

One should instead adapt to the new behaviour; mankind wasn't as it is today, if it could not adapt to new situations...

[Maddmatt 1]

LOL 4 pages and you can't get the point.

Your one of these fanboys, who all the time think someone will shit on BI, only because he want some additional stuff, for more fun in the game?

4 pages of people explaining why your request is ridiculous and wont happen yet you are still making this request. What other point is there for me to get? Look at all the replies here. Old FM is gone, you will never see it again unless you go back to OFP. What is the point in it? Do you really find the new one that hard? The problems that will be caused by having 2 FMs to choose from have already been explained by other people here.

You call me a fanboy? That just shows how weak your argument is, if all you can do is call me a fanboy.

There are more important issues for the devs without pointless requests like this.

[memnoch 0]

That poll I started currently is 20:2 against having a new FM. I guess those guys lose!

[suma 8]

I guess it´s simply impossible engine-wise as the new flightmodel not just only is defined by the addon used but also the physics compartement of the engine itself is very different now. That´s why i think it´s not possible to have both flightmodels in one engine at the same time.

Basically you are correct.

Besides off what you wrote, maintaining two flight and control models would require a substantial amount of work (not everything "possible" is also "sensible"). Moreover, it would make further code maintenance harder, because any relevant changes would need to be implemented twice, each time in a different way, which would be quite error prone.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Basically you are correct.

There´s a saying in germany: "Even a blind hen finds some corn from time to time"

[suma 8]

Looking forward, we are preparing some more tweaks in the flight model, most notably in the area of tail rotor forces in the mid/high speed.

[rundll.exe 12]

@Bals, You baffle me sometimes with your pics lol

@Suma, sounds promising! However I would like to have a better rotor-collision detection (like the tail rotor, but now that you can lose your main rotor too)

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Looking forward, we are preparing some more tweaks in the flight model, most notably in the area of tail rotor forces in the mid/high speed.

Can u make it so, the targeting system can lock friendly units as well ( green and empty ) using tab.

Or atleast make it so we can use the mouse to target vehicles, like in ofp

[Maddmatt 1]

Looking forward, we are preparing some more tweaks in the flight model, most notably in the area of tail rotor forces in the mid/high speed.

That sounds good .

After a while some of these last few people will adapt and like the new flight model. Though there will always be the exceptions.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Or atleast make it so we can use the mouse to target vehicles, like in ofp

That would also be very high on my personal wishlist for vehicle handling.

[Maddmatt 1]

Quote[/b] ]Or atleast make it so we can use the mouse to target vehicles, like in ofp

That would also be very high on my personal wishlist for vehicle handling.

At the moment you can just use the target menu. Press 2 and then select your target. It is a bit slow of course.

[Balschoiw 0]

I just think that the method of cycling through targets (I do not often use the command menu 2->target selection as it simply takes too long) per TAB key is very insufficient, especially when you are already under fire and have to cycle through all the targets. If they sorted the TAB key by threats (AA first, Armour, regular vehicles, soft targets) it would be easier, but at best I´d like to have a free selection of visual targets, that means marking them with rightclick and fire. This also would feel more natural to me than cycling through targets via TAB or having to use several keys to actually get me on the target.

[rick rawlings 2]

The flight model now is not that difficult. I have a joystick and rudder pedals so I can do all kinds of fun stuff, but my buddy was able to adapt to the keyboard and mouse enough after about 5 min to be able to attack a convoy with 2 shilkas with me as a gunner. That's just with literally 5-10 minutes of practice.

As far as

Quote[/b] ]This also would feel more natural to me than cycling through targets via TAB or having to use several keys to actually get me on the target.

this goes.. targeting with the mouse would also allow you to skip the voice directions "target this, target that," as you cycle, which by the time it comes around to the shilka you are dead already if flying with an A.I. gunner

edit: I left the whole original quote at the top...

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Quote[/b] ]Or atleast make it so we can use the mouse to target vehicles, like in ofp

That would also be very high on my personal wishlist for vehicle handling.

At the moment you can just use the target menu. Press 2 and then select your target. It is a bit slow of course.

The problem is, that it only shows enemy vehicles. So if an enemy russian steal an m1a1, it will show up 'green' on the radar, and you CANNOT target the tank and therefore you cannot use missiles.

This is especially a visible issue when playing vehicle deathmatch - helicopters and planes can only be used when engaging with machinegun. And everybody knows how hard it is to kill a tank using you machinegun in ya harrier.

[Heatseeker 0]

Im starting to like the new flight model (since it was improved), the only helicopter i cant use and wont even bother with is the Kamov, its handling is just frutrating (turning in first person view i crash all the time). The cobra, littlebird, blackhawk and hip are ok, just have to practice my landings and stuff.

The biggest dificulty now is targeting and firing with rockets, the less stability makes it much harder to get a target, keep it lined up and take it out.

Im playing in veteran mode with mouse/keyboard, i dont know if veteran mode makes it harder.

The cobra is sweet in first person, we only need a mi-24 to balance it out..

Overall i like and welcome this new challenge now that it was tweaked.

[wamingo 1]

Well obviously we need cursor targetting back and fully working. Makes no sense not to have it. But I'm sure it'll be fixed - if we make sure BIS catches onto the issue

[peterj 0]

The cobra is sweet in first person, we only need a mi-24 to balance it out..

A good start would be if the Ka-50 was modeled accurately, so that the computer controlled cannon can lock on to targets, and the damage it does represents a 30 mm cannon.

[Radic 0]

Oddly enough, in the final analysis the ArmA helo FM is VERY similar to the OFP one - this I feel particularly when flying the Blackhawk.

The differences / errors as I see them:

1. Yaw (tailrotor) / roll coupling - just not right - this might have been fixed in 1.05 from what I'm reading??

2. Tailrotor authority not great enough - Suma has stated they're working on this - I'm VERY happy to hear that!!

3. Cyclic lag / slop - THIS is the biggie that bugs me - however I have to make it clear that the Blackhawk I have no problem with in this area so in effect I'm saying the cyclic lag in the MI17 is ridiculous - but even then, perhaps the real thing is just a total pig to fly???

With the Blackhawk if you improved the tailrotor authority and increased the collective's effect then it would fly and feel almost identical to OFP - which is good, because the OFP FM is pretty spot on.

[max power 21]

I love the currently flight model. It's not hard to fly at all.

[RogueRunner 0]

With the Blackhawk if you improved the tailrotor authority and increased the collective's effect then it would fly and feel almost identical to OFP - which is good, because the OFP FM is pretty spot on.

hehehe, spot on for a gaming perspective yes. Not even close to the real thing!! I should know

[Beagle 684]

The problems with the ArmA Flight model are absolutely obvious.

Infact it is harder to control the Helicopters in Arma as in a dedicatet hard core simulation.

The center of gravity is wrong..helicopters should roll near the CG That is a good piece below the rotor disc.

torque ist non existent in Arma but that's not the big problem. The big problem ist lack of yaw control, and that ArmA helicopter refuse to turn with Rudder input.

Just compare ArmA helicopter flight model with the modeling in FSX.

In ArmA you just feel retarded after that.

In fact it is much easier to control the Bell Jetranger in FSX than the AH-1 or even MH-6 In ArmA.

[EricM 0]

Do all the people complaining try to pilot with a Mouse, while the ones saying it's great use a Joystick ?

I kinda see a pattern, here...

Honestly, Arma model is nice and easy with a properly configured Joystick. Could be fine-tuned a little, of course, but we're not talking whole new flight model...

The Cobra-banking problem is now solved, and if you're in serious trouble you can set an "autohover" button on your joystick to save the day... (make it the same for on/off)

With that feature even a noob pilote like me can fly and land softly on almost any rooftop I want...

Edit : A flight model API to make third-party flight models available in Arma would kick ass though, for hard-core sim guys

[Radic 0]

With the Blackhawk if you improved the tailrotor authority and increased the collective's effect then it would fly and feel almost identical to OFP - which is good, because the OFP FM is pretty spot on.

hehehe, spot on for a gaming perspective yes. Not even close to the real thing!! I should know

Firstly I need to point out that as discussed in another thread here - my experience of the OFP helicopters does not include the totally unrealistic "terrain following" tendency that many others have reported. I found that I too could duplicate the bogus terrain following behaviour by using my shift key to increase height - but using my joystick throttle, the collective control works correctly. Those that have been experiencing that terrain following business due to incorrect control setup have been missing out BIG TIME!!

So when I say the FM is spot on I am speaking from the perspective that there is a very real difference between realistic BEHAVIOUR and realistic FEEL. It is impossible for these helicopter representations to FEEL like the real thing as we're in front of PC's not in cockpits in flight, but inasmuch as the helicopters can be made to do what the real things do and in pretty much the same way the real things do (ie. correct responses and relationships between the various controls - innacuracies such as not having to constantly ballance tailrotor against collective and power etc. notwithstanding) then that is the context in which I use comments such as "the FM in OFP is spot on" - yes, I mean spot on for a GAME.

My point is that the knocking of the OFP FM as being "the old flawed one" is ridiculous and misguided in light of the fact that the ArmA FM is - as I've said - actually virtually identical. All they did by comparison was: make cyclic a little sloppier (a LOT for the MI17), the collective a fair bit softer, build in a faulty yaw/roll coupling (that has been fixed I gather) and bugger the tailrotor authority (soon to be fixed I gather).

I actually went off initially in a big way about how crap the ArmA FM was - but I do admit that I was wrong - I had been flying the MI17 exclusively in the demo - then when I tried the Blackhawk I realised it was in fact prety much the same FM - or at least acheives the same result - excepting the obvious mistakes - which - hats off to BIS - are being sorted out.

[murderous 0]

Hello Gents,

Lets put this issue to rest once and for all, shall we?  BIS reps, listen up please.  I am a 1000+ hour UH-60 pilot in the US Army.  I have flown the Bell 206A and understand the aerodynamics/ physics of any US rotorcraft.  I believe I can offer any assistance in regards to flight handling characteristics of these helo's in ARMA.  I am going to settle 2 arguments I just saw on this thread here and now.  

1:  Tail rotor autority needs to taper off at 40-50 knots and be *almost* gone by 80.  At 50kts or greater all you can do is place the aircraft out of trim.  (A sideslip...but not past 25 degrees off direction of flight at 50 and decreasing up to 80.)

2:  The airframe will roll generally around the center of gravity.  It does not roll around the rotor system unless you're performing some sort of barrel roll.

[murderous 0]

Also, here are 2 things that are a definite no-go with the current model.

1: Collective pitch changes need to be modeled correctly. To be exact, when flying at 100knots and you reduce the collective to a full down position and provide aft cyclic to decelerate rapidly, the aicraft floats in the air entirely too easily. The rate of deceleration is good enough, but there should be more "gravity" pulling the aircraft down. I would say about 2 times as much as is currently modeled.

2: While flying in a canyon I reached 200 k/m's and hour. which is somewhere around 130knots maybe? I suddenly discovered, by smashing into the canyon wall, that the model eliminates your ability to turn at higher airspeeds. This data needs to be drastically modified for accuracy. The aircraft can pull hard turns all day long at sea level (which we are obviously at w/ Sahrani being an island.) The only thing that would change with airspeed would be turn radius.

There are several more quirks that really should be worked on that I would be happy to provide an opinion on. Hope this will help the overall accuracy of the sim. Overall, instead of wanting to revert to old, non realistic models, why don't we build this one to become the benchmark for others?

Murderous