Helicopter CG

[LeftSkidLow 1]

MadDogX,

Are these FS pilots or real pilots. No real pilot will sit back and ignore unnatural flight characteristics.

That's a "Who cares how it gets there as long as it gets there" mentality, lol

I'm rated in rotorcraft irl, and while I agree the characteristics are unnatural I can ignore it, not because of the "as long as it gets there" mentality, but because I have figured out how to get the helicopter to do exactly what I want it to do with practice. Thats what flying helicopters are about, you have to get a feel for the aircraft and make the adjustments necessary to get the aircraft to respond how you want. Thats why helicopter pilots could fly any helicopter. For example a Bell 206 has a counter clockwise rotor system, and most helicopters are this way so thats what I'm used to, but if you put me in an A-Star with a clockwise rotor system, I could still fly it despite torque acting the opposite direction because I just make adjustments as necessary to get the aircraft where I need it. So I look at flying in ArmA sort of as like flying a different type of helicopter, there are a few things that bug me but I can live with it.

[NeMeSiS 11]

This may be a war simulator, but any sim can only go so far when it comes to realism.

ArmA is NOT a simulator (nor OFP), it's a war sandbox that tries to do too much and ends up not doing any of it very well. If you want a helicopter simulator you should consider FSX, the upcoming Lock On v1.2 or the old but worthy Jane's Longbow 2.

Awesome, but those are flight simulators, ArmA is a combined arms game which tries to be reasonable realistic. Im not going to the FSX forums to complain about the car physics in their game..

Ofcourse i would love more realism, but you just cant have everything..

[bravo 6 0]

@LeftSkidLow, i must disagree with your theory..

following your theory we could go back to version 1.0 and let the flying simulation be as it was. And get used to it. (NOT)

We should walk foward.. like vortex3d said before

Quote[/b] ]"Who's side are you on son, don't you love this game. How about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come in for the BIG WIN!"

Improvement into realism all the way

[vortex3d 0]

LeftSkidLow,

Adapting to a situation does not justify it. Is like a boxer accepting getting punched with metal gloves.

I will personally pay you $2000 American to show me a rotorcraft that can do a 360-deg roll from a hover with the CG being above the main rotor.

What's that supposed to be some kind of SICK JOKE?

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I will personally pay you $2000 American to show me a rotorcraft that can do a 360-deg roll from a hover with the CG being above the main rotor.

You paying cash or cheque?

Seriously, even in the real world physics there is a difference between the actual CofG and the “apparent†CofG. In researching the Lynx I’ve made recently I’ve come across various Helicopters that appear to pivot from above their rotors when flying aerobatics. This is due to the loss of lift, blade design, speed, inertia and even air pressure.

But in ArmA, the reason the Helos pivot from a place above or below the apparent CofG is due to the game engine. It’s sometimes necessary to force the CofG outside of the model’s geometry to make it handle properly. In Rel 1.0 the helos rolled when you applied rudder. In 1.2 they fixed that by changing the CofG and in the case of some helos this meant positioning of the CofG was well above the “logical CofGâ€.

They’ve done this, this is at least how I’ve improved handling; by using the ‘Autocenter = 1’ command in named properties in the GEO LoD. Mass still has an effect but uses the 0,0,0 coordinate of the model as the CofG instead of the actual one defined in the GEO LoD. Moving the model around the 0,0,0 point changes the handling significantly.

So now you know, the game engine does NOT follow real world physics and to fix it, so I’m told, represents a mammoth task that BIS just doesn’t have the resources for. Believe me I really wish they did. So as annoying as it is we’re going to have to live with it for a while or maybe permanently.

[vortex3d 0]

INNOCENT&CLUELESS,

You missed the point. LockOn is a Combat Flight Sim not a Combined Arms Sim. When you eject, you don't risk getting shot by the enemy or having to find your way back to friendly territory. Fun when flying, but that's about it.

[LeftSkidLow 1]

LeftSkidLow,

Adapting to a situation does not justify it. Is like a boxer accepting getting punched with metal gloves.

I will personally pay you $2000 American to show me a rotorcraft that can do a 360-deg roll from a hover with the CG being above the main rotor.

What's that supposed to be some kind of SICK JOKE?

I can show you a helicopter do a backflip from a hover for $799, and being that you said from a hover, initiating a roll would be definitely be possible if not safer, because there is no tail boom to worry about cutting when you yank aft cyclic in a flip, just left or right cyclic in a roll. CG above the rotorhead, can't do that, though I'm not 100% convinced yet that the CG is above the rotorhead in ArmA, I have to experiment a bit more.

4:00 min mark.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

This may be a war simulator, but any sim can only go so far when it comes to realism.

ArmA is NOT a simulator (nor OFP), it's a war sandbox that tries to do too much and ends up not doing any of it very well.

Vs. those who don't try at all?

Operation Flashpoint / Armed Assault and World War II Online are the only games attempting it and they have set the standard. Every other game either fails miserably (e.g., Soldner) or is content to provide mere playing FIELDS.

I don't see how you can say that OFP/Arma ends up not doing any of it very well, when they are the best in the business.

Who does it better? No one.

[vortex3d 0]

RockofSL,

Thanks for that intelligent reply.

It's a shame that it wasn't well thought out since it changes the expected response from the controls. That rocking swing motion has me extremely disappointed since I mainly play the role of air support.

It should have been as fundamental as shooting a gun. Let's just blame the engine limitations and be done with it. It's cheaper for BIS too.

:P

[LeftSkidLow 1]

OK just did some experimenting by going into command view and setting the cursor on the rotorhead to watch for movement, the center of rotation is maybe 1 or 2 ft at the absolute most above the rotorhead on the MH6, that is wrong and could probably be fixed easily but I don't think it is such a big problem that people could blame it on crashing, loss of control, etc.

[vortex3d 0]

LeftSkidLow,

The BO-105's video clearly shows the CG shift as the speed increased. Compare its behaviour during takeoff & hover-taxi to full speed flight.

BTW, that did not showed me a roll, that was a 360-deg loop which can be acheived with enough speed, altitude and skill.

[LeftSkidLow 1]

Did you even watch the entire video or read my post? He does a loop from an OGE hover, if it can do a loop there is absolutely no reason that he couldn't invert the aircraft 360 degrees and recover from any direction. Flipping over backwards like that would be the most dangerous as I already said because there is the possibility of cutting off your tailboom if you are too agressive on the cyclic. The only difference in a roll would be that as you build up airspeed coming out the bottom you would problem weathervane

[max power 21]

Plaintiff1,

LOL, and you sound clueless as to what I mean. It's ok I don't expect much intelligence after your previous replies.

If that's true it's because you didn't express yourself clearly. That reply was sort of all over the place and it didn't seem to have a clear point. First you were talking about physics and then about gameplay and post processing.

Nice flamebait, though. You must be a hit at parties!

[vortex3d 0]

LeftSkidLow,

Out of ground effect is NOT what i was reffering to. I've seen that done with the AH-64s too. I'm taking about a 360-deg roll in IGE as in the game.

[max power 21]

LeftSkidLow,

Out of ground effect is NOT what i was reffering to. I've seen that done with the AH-64s too. I'm taking about a 360-deg roll in IGE as in the game.

There's no ground effect in arma.

[vortex3d 0]

plaintiff1,

Ground affect in the game really translates to low enough altitude (Depending on the aircraft).

OMG, I do know how to draw pictures too. Thats seems to convey the message better to the cavemen.

[frederf 0]

Whoever says helicopters move about their CG don't understand physics.

When moving very fast with a lot of air pressure related forces on the surfaces of the body... do you think the body cares much if %1 of all the forces acting on it are from weight?

Without air a body will move according to it's CG, it's true. But there is air where helicopters fly. The faster air moves over the body the less the CG position matters and the center of movement will shift toward a point defined by aerodynamics.

At 99999999mph the body doesn't give a sh*t where the CG is located since the weight is insignificant versus the aerodynamic forces. At 0mph the CG rules. In between (where most of us fly) means the center of rotation is a weighted combination of the CG and the C of Aero.

[max power 21]

plaintiff1,

Ground affect in the game really translates to low enough altitude (Depending on the aircraft).

OMG, I do know how to draw pictures too. Thats seems to convey the message better to the cavemen.

No, there is no simulation for ground effect in arma.

I can see you're missing the point. The point is that when you're talking about envelopes like IGE and at 0 IAS vs. VNE, the resulting argument isn't meaningful because ArmA doesn't simulate the conditions you are describing. You can expect that ArmA's choppers will simulate sort of a mix of those envelopes and sort of simulate them not at all.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

Quote[/b] ]INNOCENT&CLUELESS,

You missed the point. LockOn is a Combat Flight Sim not a Combined Arms Sim. When you eject, you don't risk getting shot by the enemy or having to find your way back to friendly territory. Fun when flying, but that's about it.

Is my English that bad?

Quote[/b] ]

Lockon Black Shark + ArmA engine integrated

MINUS!

everything that we have to throw away to reach 40 FPS again

I meant LockOn + ArmA = Combined Arms Sim

but if devs tune it to performance then we might have ArmA again

[vortex3d 0]

All,

Look at MS-FSX's helicopter flight, not exactly RL but fundamemtally closer than ArmA. Even OFP didn't suffer from this problem.

Before it gets more ridiculous, I think is safe to say ArmA left out an important aspect of helicopter flight that we now have to swallow or go into denial about. This is the best they did with the given engine.

[vortex3d 0]

INNOCENT&CLUELESS,

Indeed. I see what you mean now.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

And maybe someone noticed: in LockOn there are suddenly ground units, AI controlled, but absolute perfect animated.

[Beagle 684]

The Behavior of ground units combat in Lock On ist very, very basic.

Ground units are there as Targets, exepts SAMs and AAA.

Compared to Lock On the ArmA units are absolutely clever.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

Beagle, I agree with you 100%.

I just want to show how beneficial it would be for BI to copy some parts of other games.

I assume that LockOn has a perfect damage model.

Easy to adapt to ground units.

LockOn has at least similar good textured ground units as in ArmA.

Only the interior is missing.

You thought I COMPARE LockOn with ArmA? Not at all, just some features.

[bravo 6 0]

Notice something odd? the chopper swivels from a pivot located above the main rotors. This pivot is supposed to be the Center Of Gravity (CG). I fly choppers in real life and I have never seen the CG there, LOL.

BIS has heard this stuff before and they haven't changed it yet. I'm not sure they're going to suddenly decide to change it one day.

Agree with vortex3d.

@plaintiff1 Sure they have and they didnt't change yet, but that doesn't mean they woun't change it in future...

If they want a realistic simulation game they better change as veterans suggest ortherwise they will never fulfill their ambition's and wishes.

Quote[/b] ]Fixed: Helicopter center of rotation is now center of mass, not rotor mast.

source

@vortex3d:

Does this means we have good new for 1.08?

edit: can't wait to hear the Veterans (real life pilots) opinion about this subject.