Aircraft Rudders

[Hunin 0]

A dozen b1tchers - two saying thanks.

Amazing, guys.

[Gisen 0]

I am surprised but very happy at this news!

[noccie 0]

riiight. anyhow, suma and i have managed to come to an agreement - aircraft will now be able to use their rudders like they should. hopefully it'll work fairly well, but we'll see.

Bugtracker listing 0002723

Superb!

After having played alot of IL2 1946 between ofp and ArmA , i ended up being really disappointed with ArmA's flightmodel.

Mainly with the lack of true ruddereffects like has been pointed out here.

I Though of replying earlier in this thread but the only thing i could have suggested was that IL2 most likely has a decent flightmodel as it lives purely on that aspect. (and many RL pilots seem to fly it at fe. warbirdsofprey )

And if u compare our Camel to similar WW1 planes in IL2 the difference is glaringly obvious.

But fear of being ridiculed for suggesting that Suma have a look at IL2(a game ..what has that do do with real physics ) kept me from posting

Really looking forward to the next patch now, so a big thanks to HailStorm , Suma and everyone who voted for the bug in the bugtracker.

If the changes he makes affect helicopters in a positive way too it will be a complete hit as far as im concerned

[hailstorm 4]

ok, first off, i've posted here for two reasons. one, yes, i've read the forum rules, and i calculate it's exactly four months since the last post (currently 11:30 pm local Dec. 26), so it's within rules. secondly, since this is going to be about the same exact subject anyway, i think it's better to continue my thread, when most points have already been said thus avoiding having all the same stuff posted again.

after having a look at the new patch, i have to commend BIS on their work. yes, they did a LOT of stuff. i was never expecting the suggestions in this thread to have an effect on this patch, so i was surprised to see that the rudder effect has been put in.

unfortunately, the effect is so minimal that it's not noticible unless you're looking for it, and clearly also still ineffective in combat to the point of uselessness. so i've gone and done what i promised Suma what i would do ages ago - hire a plane and show him myself. all credits to him and the crew, they listened and tried to provide. but i think that they may not really understand how substantial the rudder effect is.

now, usually this is the part where i would post the link to my vid, plus accompaning explanations, but putfile is giving me huge problems and the vid isn't available at the time - i'm hoping to have it up here either tomorrow or the day after - so i'll save most of my explaining till i can post the video, since it would probably directly relate to that and it's pointless to post it twice.

so, in short - BIS, nice work putting the rudder effect in, but it needs to be much stronger - i'll link a vid soon that will explain it better.

P.S. also, a big thank you to all the people in this thread that supported my efforts in trying to make sure that BIS got their programming right. cheers guys!

[.kju 3240]

cool story

Way to go HailStorm!

[Spy17 1]

Yes good effort!

Thanks!

[Beagle 684]

This thread was silent much to long, because of that "promise" once done.

Yes indeed, the trouble ist still there, esspecially since it is so much fun the fly the EH-101 Merlin in FSX.

[hailstorm 4]

okay, putfile didn't work, so i signed up to youtube and stuck it there:

Youtube - Rudder Turning Demonstration

as you can see, and disproving claims by several people on this issue (including Suma at one point) it IS possible to turn - obviously, not the fastest means to turn an aircraft, but it does have a faster response to a change in flightpath than banking the aircraft first then pulling back (which was my whole point - it was too time/distance consuming and unrealistic to be doing this while making slight adjustments to a gun run).

a few things i'd like to point out in the video:

- the aircraft did initailly yaw WITHOUT a change in direction, but this effect only lasts less than a second (from 0:12 to 0:13) and THEN the aircraft begins turning - until i release the rudder. there was also almost zero 'snapping back' of the nose when i release the rudder, either.

both of these highlight an error with the current ArmA flight model - in real life, in powered aircraft, the flightpath is mostly directed by the airframe orientation + engine thrust, and not the airframe orientation being dictated by the flightpath.

i say 'mostly' because there is indeed a slight 'weathervane' effect by aircraft, but this is usually minor and easily overruled by flight controls and engine thrust, and not the highly exaggerated 'roll out from a turn and the nose goes crazy' effect we see in ArmA.

simple explanation - when the controls are released, the aircraft will fly straight where the nose is currently pointing (in a lateral sense).

- the aircraft's turn rate is the same rate with which the aircraft YAWS. As soon as I kick in rudder, the aircraft begins to twist, and keeps twisting at that rate till I release the rudder at 0:49 - which by now i have altered my flightpath by around 90 degrees. there was no 'slowing down' of the yaw rate when the aircraft's flightpath begins to change, which also needs to be adressed in the flight model.

- this particular aircraft conducted roughly a rate one turn using only it's rudder, displayed by the banked white aircraft symbol on the turn & bank co-ordinator. a rate one turn is defined as 180 degrees a minute. Although this video it does not reflect on the performance of any of the real aircraft ArmA currently depicts, it highlights the point that signifigant flightpath alterations can be done by seemingly 'minor' controls.

the aircraft i used was a Bellanca (American Champion Aircraft) 8KCAB 'Decathlon', which is an aerobatics-capable training aircraft. i point this out because it's tail surfaces are slightly larger than a conventional cessna or piper, and thus slightly more accurately depict how a combat aircraft with large rudders (like an A-10) would act under these circumstances. also worthy of note was the fact that this was done at cruise speed - and the effect was only slightly reduced at top speed, and at least double near stalling speed. again, not relative to any ArmA aircraft, but it does point out that it's useful (and possible) at any speed.

in addition, i've noticed a peculiar aspect of ArmA's flight model that i haden't noticed before - when the pilot banks his aircraft in-game, the program also automatically applies full rudder INTO the turn. try it yourself - do it while watching the external camera - this correctly sets the aircraft out of balance, even by the internal HUD instruments. what's interesting is that full opposite rudder (input by the player) now only points the rudder in it's usual position - straight back. there is just no way to physically put the rudder in the opposite direction, like a pilot would do in, say, a sideslip in real life. what's also wierd is that this neutral-rudder position also makes the aircraft perfectly balanced(! in the turn. so i've come up with a question. what exactly did BIS imagine rudders are for originally? it seems all it originally did was point the nose in a slightly different direction to the flightpath - no more, no less! even the whole slipping effect while turning was artificially induced - by the pilot himself, apparently! ArmA players are literally fighting the autopilot for ontrol of their vehicles - in a similar manner to autothrottle and vehicle steering. why?

i think what BIS should do about this particular point is remove the autorudder - the damn control should ONLY move when the PLAYER flying it WANTS it to. i don't mind them putting in slipping during turns, but only if the understand the physics behind it - why it happens, what causes it, etc., and in addition, the physics of the methods pilots use to rectify it. if they don't understand all that, then DON'T ADD IT. i'd rather an 'autopilot' that makes flying easier. i don't want one that gives me problems that shouldn't be there.

[Torval 0]

Most impressive!!! +1, rudder is worthless in ArmA. I would love more pronounced rudder effect on fixed wings and helis.

[Beagle 684]

Quod erat demonstrandum!

[andersson 285]

I am sure that you are not flying the aircraft in arma, you are telling an AI what to do.

Its quite obvious under certain circumstances, f.ex when you dive the AI/engine apply less throttle to keep the same speed. You can only tell the plane if you'd like to brake, or go slow, normal or fast. If you put your throttle (if you have a analog axis for that) on normal or slow its really obvious that you are not controlling the throttle. The analog throttle is a digital input to the game.

I have seen similar "AI-controll" things with the rudders, f.ex the airbrake on the A10 are a obvious and good example. And offcourse the siderudder in HailStorm's post.

So I suppose to fix this rudderthing is not easy for BIS. They probably have to change the whole controll-concept to make it as we want, its not that easy to just give the players full controlls over the rudders or throttle. They must find a way to get the AI to react better to our input.

I hope I'm wrong though..

[wamingo 1]

Yaw is broken altogether and the Flight Model with it.

Try flying with a player gunner in a cobra and you'll notice that when you yaw, the gunner can't turn the turret as freely. The product of an incomplete FM with more holes that swiss cheese.

But I think the best we can hope for is a complete FM overhaul in arma2.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Any hopes for the FM to be fixed in the final version of the 1.09 patch (or whatever the last/latest patch is supposed to be called) ?

[Beagle 684]

BUZZARD @ Jan. 02 2008,17:26)]Any hopes for the FM to be fixed in the final version of the 1.09 patch (or whatever the last/latest patch is supposed to be called) ?  

I dont think there is any hope for that.

[kuIoodporny 45]

BUZZARD @ Jan. 02 2008,17:26)]Any hopes for the FM to be fixed in the final version of the 1.09 patch (or whatever the last/latest patch is supposed to be called) ?  

I dont think there is any hope for that.

That's a shame

[frederf 0]

The automatically applied rudders are called "auto-coordination" which some autopilots do as well as MS Fight Simulator (difference being you can turn it off in MSFS). Clearly the ArmA flight model is mittens-pinned-to-jacket simple.

In the YouTube video I didn't get to see the ADI (or even if the aircraft HAD an ADI) so I can't tell if the wings were level. I realize that physically it is possible to turn an aircraft with the barn door at the back but in my 100 hours of flying a different aircraft I have noted that the flight path change when inputting rudder has been very minimal. I have the suspicion that because inputting rudder in a real aircraft tends to bank the aircraft and thus induce a turn that it would be easy to confuse the rudder for directly causing the turn.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Exactly, rudder on High WIng aircraft produces at significantly different effect then on Low Wing. Wings staying level during a rudder only action is not realistic.

MS spend years trying to make a Flight Simulator, BIS can't be expected to produce an ac sim that caters for the MANY types of aircraft in ArmA.

It isn't all bad, I can get every thing from a B52 to a Piper Warrior flyable (both humans and AI) in ArmA. Thats pretty cool when you think about it.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Hope they will fix that and improve AI standard flight skills.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Gnat @ Jan. 04 2008,02:38)]MS spend years trying to make a Flight Simulator, BIS can't be expected to produce an ac sim that caters for the MANY types of aircraft in ArmA.

It isn't all bad, I can get every thing from a B52 to a Piper Warrior flyable (both humans and AI) in ArmA. Thats pretty cool when you think about it.

I don't think anybody is really demanding MSFS-type flying in ArmA (well, maybe they do, but one has to be able to accept compromise since ArmA is a jack-of-all-trades-game) but the problem is, in OFP there already was a flight model that I think didn't garner as many complaints as the ArmA FM has garnered so far... Heck, if I'd be given a choice between a never-going-to-be-fixed ArmA flight model and OFP's FM, I'd take OFP's any day...

[Pennywise 0]

While the flight model in ArmA has improved some, I think there is still room for more improvement on aircraft in ArmA. I agree with many in this thread; the rudder just doesn't respond as you would expect it to. It's definitely not correct for the helis and planes that ArmA currently has. The tail rotor on the blackhawks and AH1s should respond more at higher speeds. Granted, I don't expect ArmA to take on high-speed acrobats. The game physics for that I assume would be quite complicated. However, you can't say that better aircraft physics would make aircraft more realistic and funner to use in game. Here are a few youtube videos of helis using the tail rotor at higher speeds:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=_5jvstlHASc&feature=related

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml5T-lIQ1h0

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=eLOXRQzkFCc&feature=related

Why anybody would say the tail rotor has little impact at higher speeds?

It's not just the rudder that made aircraft in ArmA significantly less capable than what it was in OFP. I can't seem to get autorotation working at all in ArmA. This worked very well in OFP. Furthermore, you can't assign the loadouts on aircraft like you could in OFP. Your limited to a small # of proxies, one of the predominate reasons we haven't converted the F18 over. That and I can't even get my joystick calibrated like it used to work in OFP. Throttle sliders don't work very well in ArmA Aircraft just are not as fun as they used to be in OFP.

If you wanted to get really critical, BIS could make fully articulated rotors work so you could fly upside down Anyways, thats not important, I would just like to see the the FM improved more and the ability to add better weapon loadouts like you could in OFP.

[LeftSkidLow 1]

Yeah the tail rotors need to be effective up to a higher speed, but still OFP flight model was shit, ArmA is way more fun to me.

Autorotation works in ArmA, but in most of the situations when you are under fire, you are either in a flight profile that wont work or take to long to recognize the engine failed. I have a mp mission that is made for auto practice, if you want I could host a server and help you out a bit.

Quote[/b] ]If you wanted to get really critical, BIS could make fully articulated rotors work so you could fly upside down Anyways, thats not important

Not sure what you mean by that, you can fly upside down in ArmA in all the helicopters right now. And not that it ArmA cares but all the rotorheads of the helicopters in ArmA are either fully articulated or rigid.

[Pennywise 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Not sure what you mean by that, you can fly upside down in ArmA in all the helicopters right now.

I know you can do loops and rolls, I was really referring to hovering in place. Anyways, I wasn't trying to say this was necessary or a must have, and it most definitely doesn't apply to 'real' helicopters. The only helis I'm aware of that can sustain inverted flight are remote control:

Quote[/b] ]

Autorotation works in ArmA, but in most of the situations when you are under fire, you are either in a flight profile that wont work or take to long to recognize the engine failed.

I've only tried it a few times and every attempt fails. It's most likely because I try to fly low to avoid the shilkas in evo

[hailstorm 4]

I have the suspicion that because inputting rudder in a real aircraft tends to bank the aircraft and thus induce a turn that it would be easy to confuse the rudder for directly causing the turn.

you're quite correct Frederf, using the rudder will have the secondary effect of roll on any aircraft, though the amount of effect is usually determined by how long the wings are, as opposed to wether they are high or low mounted on the fuselage. when filming the video i was holding a small amount of right aileron to keep my wings level. yes, the plane i was flying did not have an artificial horizon (AH) - it's a visual-flight-rules (VFR)-certified aircraft and does not require one - but you can easily see that i was pretty much upright for the entire rudder manuver, and there was not enough angle-of-bank to create such a fast turn by itself.

but back to the secondary effects. the reason i didn't mention it before is for two reasons: one, it's a relatively minor effect and, although it needs to be considered for real flight ops, it's really only needed to be coded in for a serious flight sim (which, as much as i think it would be great of BIS to implement, i don't believe anyone here is asking for) and since the ArmA FM does not consider the secondary effect for the OTHER flight controls, it shouldn't be worried about here.

i mean, if the FM can't handle the Primary effects of controls, do we need to ask questions about why it doesn't have the Secondary effects?

the reason i started this whole thread/bug report was, that as a pilot, not a gamer, i started playing this 'simulator', and although too late to report on OFP, i decided that it would be good if i gave BIS some feedback regarding things they may not know too much about - to help them improve their program. it was about me flying the ArmA aircraft around and coming to the conclusion that "in real life it's different" and i set about suggesting things to change; it wasn't me coming from battlefield 2 or LOMAC or something and going "this isn't the same - I WANT it the same!"

i'm trying to get BIS to improve their flight model in little pieces at a time - and i feel rudder authority was one of the bigger things that needed to be corrected.

yeah, sure, it's not FSX, but hey, i believe they should work to get important stuff like primary controls, etc. correct, before they strain themselves with complexities like icing, virga, ISA levels, fuel burnoff rates, etc. not that i'm ever going to ask those guys at BIS to implement such things, but i'm sure you all understand what i'm trying to say.

[NoRailgunner 0]

You read "combat simulator" and wish kind of good flight sim feeling in ArmA? Would be great "game" if developers could realize all kind of stuff close to realworld... but than you've got less customers. Kids want (easy) shooting, big sfx etc. working ppl. have not so much spare time left to learn all about "real flight sim"*.

Imho it's a walk on tightrope.

Maybe a short list of "absolute essential" ArmA-Air improvements finds a way?

(*Remember there are many people using different controller)

[hailstorm 4]

point taken, but i don't agree about the 'less customers' thing. the one thing that OFP and ArmA had above the other wargames on the markets on release day was by being more realistic than anything else on the market - would it be bad business sense to build on that and increase the realism? i doubt it.

i never expect ArmA (or any other game using this engine) at any stage have a high-fidelity flight model/operations procedure. i just said that. just a flying model that basically resembles real-world. and i think increasing the effect rudders have is a good start to that, that's all.