optional alternative flight model

[max power 21]

Well, it seems, at least on the face of it, that you lobbyists have got your alternative flight model... that alternative being manditory rather than optional. The blackhawk in the demo practically flies itself. I felt so disconnected from what the helicopter was actually doing that I nearly fell asleep at the controls! The helicopter doesn't need me, I'm just there to make it feel more comfortable. Allow me to indulge in a little bit of self quoting:

Quote[/b] ]

From my experience with the blackhawk so far, it seems to me that:

The player's view has moved up, making the helicopter appear to hover with a slight nose-down attitude.

The tail rotar authority has been increased at speed.

It takes a lot more deflection of the helicopter in order to inact any sort of response. Accelleration in any direction has been reduced along with any corresponding loss in altitude.

Subsequently, the blackhawk is harder to crash but also much harder to get it to do what you want it to.

This could all be false... it could be just that I don't fly the blackhawk enough, and in comparison to the other helicopters it seems sluggish. However, I'm pretty sure what I'm observing is fairly true and I don't like it. I can see how it would be helpful to others who have a harder time flying, though.

edit: The amount of deflection required to maneuver the helicopter now is completely insane. At least at this point, I'm highly disappointed.

[Rg 0]

Well, it seems, at least on the face of it, that you lobbyists have got your alternative flight model... that alternative being manditory rather than optional. The blackhawk in the demo practically flies itself. I felt so disconnected from what the helicopter was actually doing that I nearly fell asleep at the controls! The helicopter doesn't need me, I'm just there to make it feel more comfortable. Allow me to indulge in a little bit of self quoting:

Quote[/b] ]

From my experience with the blackhawk so far, it seems to me that:

The player's view has moved up, making the helicopter appear to hover with a slight nose-down attitude.

The tail rotar authority has been increased at speed.

It takes a lot more deflection of the helicopter in order to inact any sort of response. Accelleration in any direction has been reduced along with any corresponding loss in altitude.

Subsequently, the blackhawk is harder to crash but also much harder to get it to do what you want it to.

This could all be false... it could be just that I don't fly the blackhawk enough, and in comparison to the other helicopters it seems sluggish. However, I'm pretty sure what I'm observing is fairly true and I don't like it. I can see how it would be helpful to others who have a harder time flying, though.

edit: The amount of deflection required to maneuver the helicopter now is completely insane. At least at this point, I'm highly disappointed.

Your freaking me out. This is NOT what I want to hear and will really be pissed if the fm is dumbed down even more. Anybody else have comments? I fly the ah/mh-6 all the time so I would probably see a difference with that, but I rarely fly the bh, so I don't dont see a point in me downloading the demo.

[pokletu 0]

Well, you're probably not going to like it, I don't.

It's definately dumbed down from OFP. Pandering entirely to the mouse, no-joystick crowd.

I only skimmed this thread, but I see what a hot topic it's become.

In trying to adapt to maybe the way it's gonna stay, I pushed the joystick away, and tried to fly with just the mouse and keyboard. Yawing made fair, if unrealistic, sense, from a control-perspective, but it's very arcady. Since I'm an arrowkey user, and not a WASD guy, maybe, I found there's no handy way to change the cyclic pitch, so I had to reach back, grab the joystick, mid-flight, and use the throttle control anyway.

From my trial with it, it seems that for one to rely on this new, mouse-friendly flight model, they must also rely on the autohover, which I never needed(after getting experienced with it) in OFP, to make up for the combining of yaw and bank, and cyclic and collective pitch.

I hope that they change this, or at least make a toggle in the control options for mouse-only freindliness. I hope they didn't do the same kinda thing to the fixed-wingers!!

[max power 21]

Well, you're probably not going to like it, I don't.

It's definately dumbed down from OFP. Pandering entirely to the mouse, no-joystick crowd.

I only skimmed this thread, but I see what a hot topic it's become.

In trying to adapt to maybe the way it's gonna stay, I pushed the joystick away, and tried to fly with just the mouse and keyboard. Yawing made fair, if unrealistic, sense, from a control-perspective, but it's very arcady. Since I'm an arrowkey user, and not a WASD guy, maybe, I found there's no handy way to change the cyclic pitch, so I had to reach back, grab the joystick, mid-flight, and use the throttle control anyway.

From my trial with it, it seems that for one to rely on this new, mouse-friendly flight model, they must also rely on the autohover, which I never needed(after getting experienced with it) in OFP, to make up for the combining of yaw and bank, and cyclic and collective pitch.

I hope that they change this, or at least make a toggle in the control options for mouse-only freindliness. I hope they didn't do the same kinda thing to the fixed-wingers!!

All the fixed wing planes have completely automatic controls when it comes to throttle and thrust nozzles at this point anyways. At least the helicopters left something for the pilot to do. I would like completely seperated controls for hotas.. like they have the turn left and turn right options vs. bank left/right and left / right peddle.. I would *like* all control directions to be seperated from all others, optionally...

But that's besides the point. I thought ArmA's flight model was good enough. Now I'm not so sure. I guess I'll have to wait for the next patch to be sure.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

Quote[/b] ]

I would like completely seperated controls for hotas

One of the seldom moments where I agree 2000000%

[seba1976 98]

Well, you're probably not going to like it, I don't.

It's definately dumbed down from OFP.  Pandering entirely to the mouse, no-joystick crowd.

I only skimmed this thread, but I see what a hot topic it's become.

In trying to adapt to maybe the way it's gonna stay, I pushed the joystick away, and tried to fly with just the mouse and keyboard.  Yawing made fair, if unrealistic, sense, from a control-perspective, but it's very arcady.  Since I'm an arrowkey user, and not a WASD guy, maybe, I found there's no handy way to change the cyclic pitch, so I had to reach back, grab the joystick, mid-flight, and use the throttle control anyway.

From my trial with it, it seems that for one to rely on this new, mouse-friendly flight model, they must also rely on the autohover, which I never needed(after getting experienced with it) in OFP, to make up for the combining of yaw and bank, and cyclic and collective pitch.

I hope that they change this, or at least make a toggle in the control options for mouse-only freindliness.  I hope they didn't do the same kinda thing to the fixed-wingers!!  

All the fixed wing planes have completely automatic controls when it comes to throttle and thrust nozzles at this point anyways.  At least the helicopters left something for the pilot to do.  I would like completely seperated controls for hotas..  like they have the turn left and turn right options vs. bank left/right and left / right peddle.. I would *like* all control directions to be seperated from all others, optionally...

But that's besides the point.  I thought ArmA's flight model was good enough.  Now I'm not so sure.  I guess I'll have to wait for the next patch to be sure.

Seriously, why don't you just play a dedicated flight sim, and stop messing around with ArmA/OFP?

[max power 21]

Seriously, why don't you just play a dedicated flight sim, and stop messing around with ArmA/OFP?

Haha. I think the answer is so obvious that I don't even need to mention it.

[seba1976 98]

Seriously, why don't you just play a dedicated flight sim, and stop messing around with ArmA/OFP?

Haha.  I think the answer is so obvious that I don't even need to mention it.

OK, but I think I'm good with the obvious, and the question is still there.

[max power 21]

Seriously, why don't you just play a dedicated flight sim, and stop messing around with ArmA/OFP?

Haha. I think the answer is so obvious that I don't even need to mention it.

OK, but I think I'm good with the obvious, and the question is still there.

And there it will remain.

[Scrub 0]

All the fixed wing planes have completely automatic controls when it comes to throttle and thrust nozzles at this point anyways.  At least the helicopters left something for the pilot to do.  I would like completely seperated controls for hotas..  like they have the turn left and turn right options vs. bank left/right and left / right peddle.. I would *like* all control directions to be seperated from all others, optionally...

But that's besides the point.  I thought ArmA's flight model was good enough.  Now I'm not so sure.  I guess I'll have to wait for the next patch to be sure.

Solid agreement here. Options are good for everybody, and I'd like the option to require piloting skill to be gained through practice. This will allow the 'reality' loving servers to go all-out hardcore, and also for those on servers who want a more 'fun' based experience.

[max power 21]

All the fixed wing planes have completely automatic controls when it comes to throttle and thrust nozzles at this point anyways. At least the helicopters left something for the pilot to do. I would like completely seperated controls for hotas.. like they have the turn left and turn right options vs. bank left/right and left / right peddle.. I would *like* all control directions to be seperated from all others, optionally...

But that's besides the point. I thought ArmA's flight model was good enough. Now I'm not so sure. I guess I'll have to wait for the next patch to be sure.

Solid agreement here. Options are good for everybody, and I'd like the option to require piloting skill to be gained through practice. This will allow the 'reality' loving servers to go all-out hardcore, and also for those on servers who want a more 'fun' based experience.

It shouldn't have to be a server based option, just a control configuration. Right now, we have turn left/right control option for coordinated turns. For more control, we also have controls for the peddles and yoke seperate. They should have all controls like that!

[seba1976 98]

Quote[/b] ]

Seriously, why don't you just play a dedicated flight sim, and stop messing around with ArmA/OFP?

dude, stop your whining, and understand that there should be more to this game than mouse and keyboard flight controls.  This isn't bf1942.  ok?

BF series, any of them, offers the worst flying experience I have come to know. None of the three installments have the same FM, and none of them are natural nor easy to fly.

But you just don't get it, do you? Bah, anyway, I won't answer your childish insult, the 9 in your name probably refers to your age, the problems with forum anonymity. If you, and plantiff, and anyone else in here want to feel an ego boost after mastering the so called flying in this game, with your sticks and pedals, go and do it. I'm not interested in changing you approach to life, but what I've said has been added to the pile of negative reviews ArmA is getting, and BIS has surelly taken notice.

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]

Seriously, why don't you just play a dedicated flight sim, and stop messing around with ArmA/OFP?

dude, stop your whining, and understand that there should be more to this game than mouse and keyboard flight controls. This isn't bf1942. ok?

BF series, any of them, offers the worst flying experience I have come to know. None of the three installments have the same FM, and none of them are natural nor easy to fly.

But you just don't get it, do you? Bah, anyway, I won't answer your childish insult, the 9 in your name probably refers to your age, the problems with forum anonymity. If you, and plantiff, and anyone else in here want to feel an ego boost after mastering the so called flying in this game, with your sticks and pedals, go and do it. I'm not interested in changing you approach to life, but what I've said has been added to the pile of negative reviews ArmA is getting, and BIS has surelly taken notice.

How did I get lumped into that category? I just enjoy the flight model, okay?

[vicefredav 0]

about the choppers in 1.06 demo....very stable BUT, I talked to a Huey/Blackhawk pilot. He said it shouldn't fly this way at high speeds. You should be able to use the rudders fully at high speeds to counter drifting from winds. you can even turn the sucker sideways using ur tail rotor. Some flying techniques involve using the tail rotor to drift at high speeds without tilting the chopper to the right or left.

Someone on this board told me its not possible aerodynamically to do these things. I don't understand how this was possible in OFP but not here. They got everything right except for this. so it has nothing to do with training harder, its a major feature thats left out. I hate having to slow the chopper down to be able to use the rudder.

[max power 21]

about the choppers in 1.06 demo....very stable BUT, I talked to a Huey/Blackhawk pilot. He said it shouldn't fly this way at high speeds. You should be able to use the rudders fully at high speeds to counter drifting from winds. you can even turn the sucker sideways using ur tail rotor. Some flying techniques involve using the tail rotor to drift at high speeds without tilting the chopper to the right or left.

Someone on this board told me its not possible aerodynamically to do these things. I don't understand how this was possible in OFP but not here. They got everything right except for this. so it has nothing to do with training harder, its a major feature thats left out. I hate having to slow the chopper down to be able to use the rudder.

Well, they didn't get everything right except for the tail rotar thing, but they did may it pretty fun to fly. There are other pilots earlier on in this thread that do say it's not possible to turn the helicopter very much at high speed. From my experience with other aircraft I think it's safe to say that that is a fairly accurate. In 1.06, though, the tail rotar has much more authority.

I, personally enjoyed the less stable FM from 1.05, regardless of losing the tail rotar authority so quickly. You were able to slew quite a lot even at 150 km/h. I enjoy the increased tail rotar authority, but not the increased stability.

[Beagle 684]

II enjoy the increased tail rotar authority, but not the increased stability.

Why not...the most modern and modernized combat helicopter seem to have computer flight augmentation to reduce the pilots workload...the AH-64 for example was refittet with a electronic device to counter the Main Rotor Torque automatically.

In some respects a F-16 is less tricky to fly as a Cessna 172.

[4 IN 1 0]

what we are talking here is that the chopper doesnt seems to have the correct flight path when it should be, the points, it doesnt needs to be hard to fly with the FM is realistic, in many cases, it should have been quite enjoyable too, there are notthing wrong with the control in 1.05 FM, what is missing is the correct reaction that the chopper should have(ie. the turnning ratio, the way it turns, the collective etc.)

[Beagle 684]

Before this discussion can continue, we first need to have a look at what is changed in the next version.

Right now it's mostly pure speculation.

[Victor_S. 0]

I am getting used to the flight model, but I just want a cursor on screen. It is kind of difficult to see what I am doing with mouse if I dont have some sort of aimer. They should have an option to turn the cursor on.

[4 IN 1 0]

I am getting used to the flight model, but I just want a cursor on screen.  It is kind of difficult to see what I am doing with mouse if I dont have some sort of aimer.  They should have an option to turn the cursor on.

yep the mouse lock, 1 features that works very well in OFP and should have been move to ArmA

[max power 21]

II enjoy the increased tail rotar authority, but not the increased stability.

Why not...the most modern and modernized combat helicopter seem to have computer flight augmentation to reduce the pilots workload...the AH-64 for example was refittet with a electronic device to counter the Main Rotor Torque automatically.

In some respects a F-16 is less tricky to fly as a Cessna 172.

Right, but the way ArmA seems to do it with the Blackhawk is to make it so that you need insane rotor deflection in order to produce any accelleration. From a dead hover, I had the blackhawk facing at LEAST 60 degrees nose downward with full cyclic on... and it was still gaining altitude!

[seba1976 98]

what we are talking here is that the chopper doesnt seems to have the correct flight path when it should be, the points, it doesnt needs to be hard to fly with the FM is realistic, in many cases, it should have been quite enjoyable too, there are notthing wrong with the control in 1.05 FM, what is missing is the correct reaction that the chopper should have(ie. the turnning ratio, the way it turns, the collective etc.)

That's pretty close to say that BIS did it all wrong with  choppers in ArmA. And I agreed with that from the get go. It is just a question of evidence. It is just fishy that I could fly an Apache in Longbow 2 and a Comanche in Enemy Engaged - however difficult it might be - but I couldn't control helicopters in ArmA. That should be a walk in the park for me even if I do not share idea of implementing a realistic FM in Arma, and I never will.

Just to put and example, as far as my knowlegde goes (and it comes from flightsims and flight manuals, I'm bound to concede that), after a certain speed, a rotary wing aircraft behaves very similar to a fixed wing aircraft, when applying right or left stick, that is, it will bank and began turning. You can even pull back the stick to fly a more closed turn. Try that in ArmA. I still don't know how to turn this things without loosing almost all speed first.

As for the tail rotor authority, it is in the flight manuals (and modeled in simulator communities' accepted realistic helicopter simulators, that after a certain speed the tail rotor authority is indeed near zero for most hellicopters. Of course I cannot contradict a real pilot from a real BH if he says otherwise, but the manuals do say what it is modeled in those simulators.

I was thinking about how is going to take the Army the new FM. I don't know how far it goes with the use of VBS for training, to begin with. But I'm sure whatever they do it is mainly for infantry. So it is probably a good guess to say that some of them would take the pilot role sometimes, just for the sake of the excercise. With VBS1 it would be no problem because it was pretty accesible to anyone, but what are they gonna do now with this realistic wanabe FM? Will they bring real pilots just to help them out? Will they loose their time training future grunt infatry into this new FM? Or will BIS be smart and do not feature this change in the flight envelope of ArmA in VBS? I don't think the military will be interested in realistic FMs for training GIs.

Cheers.

[seba1976 98]

I am getting used to the flight model, but I just want a cursor on screen.  It is kind of difficult to see what I am doing with mouse if I dont have some sort of aimer.  They should have an option to turn the cursor on.

yep the mouse lock, 1 features that works very well in OFP and should have been move to ArmA

Completely agree with that. Designating targets is far more unrealistic and complicated now than it was in OFP, where at least you have a cursor to pin point targets.

EDIT: Damn typos.

[max power 21]

I was thinking about how is going to take the Army the new FM. I don't know how far it goes with the use of VBS for training, to begin with. But I'm sure whatever they do it is mainly for infantry. So it is probably a good guess to say that some of them would take the pilot role sometimes, just for the sake of the excercise. With VBS1 it would be no problem because it was pretty accesible to anyone, but what are they gonna do now with this realistic wanabe FM? Will they bring real pilots just to help them out? Will they loose their time training future grunt infatry into this new FM? Or will BIS be smart and do not feature this change in the flight envelope of ArmA in VBS? I don't think the military will be interested in realistic FMs for training GIs.

Cheers.

They said that they wanted this new flight model to be challenging so there's some cost to the extreme power weilded by the attack helicopters... By that logic, VBS2 shouldn't be so difficult to fly, because their purpose in that project isn't tayloring gameplay and balance.

[4 IN 1 0]

blah blah blah

stop compare them to a total chopper sim OK?

and i am not saying that they did everything wrong, from 1.00 to 1.06 they are trying all different kinds of FM so that they fit players taste, what they did wrong is that they listen to BS instead of making imporvements upon current control

in 1.00 and 1.01 the FM is terriable because the controls seems to connected together, you bank left your rudder turn left too and you nose drop too and then you crash, not knowing what the hell you did wrong and they also forgot that RL chopper pilot have things other then your dushborad to help them fly that damn thing, so we say its wrong and BI change it, in 1.02 its much better, but the control is still very sharp and leads to a easy death, then they change it in 1.04/1.05, now we realistic freaks are more happy with the FM now, some tweak needed, but can live with, then some ppl pop up and say: no no no! we want to old FM back~~~BI try it, and look what it is done

i dunno how many times i have said this but realistic FM doesnt mean it is hard to fly