Speed bleeding while turning Fixed-Wing aircraft

[max power 21]

As far as I know it's impossible to stall an airplane wing that's say falling and pointing straight down at a really slow speed since the AoA is zero, as an odd example.

If you had sufficient control authority, it would be easy enough to do.

[frederf 0]

I meant that such a wing would not be in a stall state, not that it would be impossible for the pilot to change the situation and create a stall state.

[max power 21]

I see now!

[BLSmith2112 0]

Problem is..there is no such thing as thrust with ArmA planes.

It's just a speed setting...brake, slow, normal, fast.

There simply is no control over the engine RPM.

Exactly. I think it's considered by BIS more of a feature to implement it. Not so much a "bug".

BIS has got bigger fish to fry.

[hailstorm 4]

which i think is stupid. make a simulation, then call changes to anything non-realistic a 'feature request'. No, that's straight-out false advertising. now, i'm not saying BIS do this, but i think it's wrong for people to get the impression that these changes are mere 'cosmetic' or whatnot - and think there isn't a problem.

graphical errors like tank barrels poking through other models i can put up with, cartwheeling into the ground because i kept a 3G Banked turn with engines at Full throttle i cannot.

now, aircraft-weapon imbalances, etc. can all be changed by mod-makers, in fact, i cant wait till the community puts some real fighter jets in - but what can't be changed my mod-makers is the game engine that creates such a bad flight model it's past being funny, which is the reason this thread and bugtracker listing was made in the first place.

[BLSmith2112 0]

Well considering that theres no way I can even play the game anymore with my new pc. I could care less about this feature.

[subs17 9]

Problem is..there is no such thing as thrust with ArmA planes.

It's just a speed setting...brake, slow, normal, fast.

There simply is no control over the engine RPM.

Exactly. I think it's considered by BIS more of a feature to implement it. Not so much a "bug".

BIS has got bigger fish to fry.

What big fish? Bis has already mastered the FPS side of things maybe aircraft and tanks could be something they could improve on for Arma2. The battlefields is more complete if you have aircraft modelled more realistically.

[max power 21]

Problem is..there is no such thing as thrust with ArmA planes.

It's just a speed setting...brake, slow, normal, fast.

There simply is no control over the engine RPM.

Exactly. I think it's considered by BIS more of a feature to implement it. Not so much a "bug".

BIS has got bigger fish to fry.

What big fish? Bis has already mastered the FPS side of things maybe aircraft and tanks could be something they could improve on for Arma2. The battlefields is more complete if you have aircraft modelled more realistically.

Check the bugtracker. There's lots of stuff for them to do before they go pulling apart the flight model... and that's just the community bug list!

[celery 8]

The A-10 is rendered next to useless because of the bleeding issue, you reach stall speed after a fairly wide 180 degree turn. I don't know how they let that roll off the assembly line like that.

[snakefang 0]

The A-10 is rendered next to useless because of the bleeding issue, you reach stall speed after a fairly wide 180 degree turn. I don't know how they let that roll off the assembly line like that.

Ya, I agree, these things are next to useless due to that little fact, and if you dont hit the plane the right way you dont recover, and you simply, slowly crash into the ground while yanking the stick up yelling, "PULL UP YOU PIECE OF CRAP!" >_<

[Dallas 9]

The ArmA A10 is a pretty powerful tool. You just need to uterlize the map. You don't fly that tight, because you're never running out of map or hitting invisible no fly zones like in BF. Line up your runs to gain maximum speed before you like up your guns, denying opfor the chance to engage. Or dive straight from above.

Flying is so much fun in ArmA.

[hailstorm 4]

The ArmA A10 is a pretty powerful tool. You just need to uterlize the map. You don't fly that tight, because you're never running out of map or hitting invisible no fly zones like in BF. Line up your runs to gain maximum speed before you like up your guns, denying opfor the chance to engage. Or dive straight from above.

if only that the ArmA planes actually fly like they do in real life - Dallas, you're not wrong in what you're saying - pilots should take time to line up runs, but they should not have to take MORE time to counter an effect that shouldn't have been coded in (for certain situations) in the first place.

diving straight from above also causes problems - due to this effect most will pull out of the dive at a much slower speed than when they started yanking back on the stick - also quite wrong.

[subs17 9]

The ArmA A10 is a pretty powerful tool. You just need to uterlize the map. You don't fly that tight, because you're never running out of map or hitting invisible no fly zones like in BF. Line up your runs to gain maximum speed before you like up your guns, denying opfor the chance to engage. Or dive straight from above.

Flying is so much fun in ArmA.

No it is not half as powerful as it should be due to several reasons.

1/ object draw distance to allow the spotting and locking up of targets.(yes we are talking at least 10miles visual dsitance here)

2/ The aircraft FM doesn't allow for accurate control of the aircraft so proper straffing techniques are very difficult compared to what they should be. Smoother responses are required to allow accurate aiming at ground targets. vs a Shilka I should be able to ingress at 6miles and fire at 2.5miles to pick him off. Can't do that in Arma.

3/ Unrealistic weapons loadout. A-10s don't just carry Mavericks and rockets they also carry iron bombs, cluster bombs and they can drop paraflares etc. If it had a realistic loadout it would own just about anything and you would clock up massive kill ratios particularly if you use CBU97s against convoys.

BTW you should never dive straight from above or you'd get shot down by AAA IRL. The idea is to sit outside the AAA envelope and pick the tgts off.

[Jex =TE= 0]

I thought the A10 did own everything, alongside every other aircraft where all you have to do to lock a target up is press the TAB key. The only thing preventing quicker destruction is the fact you have to RTB and rearm - other than a next to useless SU34 AI, nothing shoots you down where the AI are concerned if you fly tactically.

Arma cannot handle large draw distances needed for a flight sim, lacks the flight model, doesn't have any avionics and a laughable HUD and targetting system. In fact, the only thing resembling the actual aircraft is the model. The inclusion of AC must therefore be incidental and I doubt we'll see any major change - however the speed bleed and the throttle need addressing. On my throttle, I seem to have two speed settings, full power or nothing. Choppers seem ok with the throttle but planes seem to suffer.

[celery 8]

Against real intelligence (players) it's 50/50 that you either stall and crash or get blown away before that happens. In multiplayer I have been unable to lock player controlled targets with the tab key.

[subs17 9]

Against real intelligence (players) it's 50/50 that you either stall and crash or get blown away before that happens. In multiplayer I have been unable to lock player controlled targets with the tab key.

Thats a major part of the problem I have with the gunship and aircraft weapons use. There needs to be an MFD with a seeker view for Mavericks where you can lock them manually onto a ground target and then fire. Someone mentioned such a feature did exist for the KA50 but has been since removed in a patch. For the A-10 to be effective it also needs a CCIP sight in the HUD for dropping bombs same for the other 2 aircraft. Some cool features that would make it even more fun to use would be a COH or HOC view which makes the tgts stand out really well and could also be used in the gunships. IMO its better and more challenging to actually have to locate the tgt visually and manually aim than it is to just push the TAB key to cycle tgts that cannot be seen.

[subs17 9]

I thought the A10 did own everything, alongside every other aircraft where all you have to do to lock a target up is press the TAB key. The only thing preventing quicker destruction is the fact you have to RTB and rearm - other than a next to useless SU34 AI, nothing shoots you down where the AI are concerned if you fly tactically.

Arma cannot handle large draw distances needed for a flight sim, lacks the flight model, doesn't have any avionics and a laughable HUD and targetting system. In fact, the only thing resembling the actual aircraft is the model. The inclusion of AC must therefore be incidental and I doubt we'll see any major change - however the speed bleed and the throttle need addressing. On my throttle, I seem to have two speed settings, full power or nothing. Choppers seem ok with the throttle but planes seem to suffer.

IRL the SU34 should be a much greater threat since it can carry the R77 AAM which is an active radar guided missile. As for A/G it doesn't just carry anti-ship missiles but also a much broader range of rockets and bombs which are deadly against ground targets. The A-10 dosen't really operate in Arma the way it does IRL as we already know its the draw distance etc You never know though since Bis has practically mastered FPS in a quite realistic manner then its possible that they might do something about it in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if they did theres alot of potential there for some decent battlefields if they decide to use the right people as advisors.

[Jex =TE= 0]

Against real intelligence (players) it's 50/50 that you either stall and crash or get blown away before that happens. In multiplayer I have been unable to lock player controlled targets with the tab key.

I did it earlier today - Cobra vs human controlled UAZ.

[Jex =TE= 0]

I thought the A10 did own everything, alongside every other aircraft where all you have to do to lock a target up is press the TAB key. The only thing preventing quicker destruction is the fact you have to RTB and rearm - other than a next to useless SU34 AI, nothing shoots you down where the AI are concerned if you fly tactically.

Arma cannot handle large draw distances needed for a flight sim, lacks the flight model, doesn't have any avionics and a laughable HUD and targetting system. In fact, the only thing resembling the actual aircraft is the model. The inclusion of AC must therefore be incidental and I doubt we'll see any major change - however the speed bleed and the throttle need addressing. On my throttle, I seem to have two speed settings, full power or nothing. Choppers seem ok with the throttle but planes seem to suffer.

IRL the SU34 should be a much greater threat since it can carry the R77 AAM which is an active radar guided missile. As for A/G it doesn't just carry anti-ship missiles but also a much broader range of rockets and bombs which are deadly against ground targets. The A-10 dosen't really operate in Arma the way it does IRL as we already know its the draw distance etc You never know though since Bis has practically mastered FPS in a quite realistic manner then its possible that they might do something about it in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if they did theres alot of potential there for some decent battlefields if they decide to use the right people as advisors.

Being an avid flight simmer I realise the realistic loadouts of these AC and the R77 would be fired before the Ac got onto the map. As for Bis mastering realistic FPS? I'm not sure about that claim as I'm not accustomed to getting stuck with bino's in hand, unable to pass sideways through doors, stuck animations, innacurate ballisitcs and a host of other unrealistic behaviours. Arma is a great game but I think there's a lot of work that is needed before we approach realism. Saying it's the most realistic sim we have (as i've read on differing forums) means nothing in any real terms if the next most realisitc sim has a banna gun firiing angry lemmings

[max power 21]

The A-10 is rendered next to useless because of the bleeding issue, you reach stall speed after a fairly wide 180 degree turn. I don't know how they let that roll off the assembly line like that.

LOL no it's not. PS, many fighters throughout history have rolled off assembly lines with worse energy retention performance than how ArmAs jets are modeled. If it falls out of the sky when you try to orbit in a ten meter circle for half an hour, maybe don't do that.

[hailstorm 4]

many fighters throughout history have rolled off assembly lines with worse energy retention performance than how ArmAs jets are modeled.

yes, true, IF we're talking aircraft designed on a shoestring budget - stuff like the wright flyer 1 and such - aircraft with such a hopeless power/weight ratio that they could not maintain a BANKED turn at LEVEL altitude. that was the years 1903-1914.

however, the A-10, AV-8B and SU-34 were designed in multi-million dollar scientific programs within the last 20 years - and this day and age even light Cessnas, Pipers, Champions, etc. can easily accelerate away from stalling speed while conducting a 30 degree 2G turn.

If it falls out of the sky when you try to orbit in a ten meter circle for half an hour, maybe don't do that.

yeah, but fast jets DON'T. granted, they won't fly in ten metre radii, but they won't slow down in low-speed hard turns neither. once again, this is about BIS going back and fixing their mistakes, not for players to adapt to something that's plainly wrong and let BIS get away with calling ArmA a 'Simulator'.

0002789: fixed-wing aircraft lose too much speed during turns.

[MehMan 0]

This, combined with the mouse autocentering is truly making life harder for mouse+keyboard flyers.

[Dallas 9]

I prefere keyboard and mouse. For some reason I can't get the precision I need with my Saitek Cyborg.

[subs17 9]

[quote name=Jex =TE=' date='Oct SU34 should be a much greater threat since it can carry the R77 AAM which is an active radar guided missile. As for A/G it doesn't just carry anti-ship missiles but also a much broader range of rockets and bombs which are deadly against ground

Being an avid flight simmer I realise the realistic loadouts of these AC and the R77 would be fired before the Ac got onto the map. As for Bis mastering realistic FPS? I'm not sure about that claim as I'm not accustomed to getting stuck with bino's in hand, unable to pass sideways through doors, stuck animations, innacurate ballisitcs and a host of other unrealistic behaviours. Arma is a great game but I think there's a lot of work that is needed before we approach realism. Saying it's the most realistic sim we have (as i've read on differing forums) means nothing in any real terms if the next most realisitc sim has a banna gun firiing angry lemmings

Those are minor they ain't show stoppers and overall Arma is far better than any other FPS with the exception of VBS.

[max power 21]

many fighters throughout history have rolled off assembly lines with worse energy retention performance than how ArmAs jets are modeled.

yes, true, IF we're talking aircraft designed on a shoestring budget - stuff like the wright flyer 1 and such - aircraft with such a hopeless power/weight ratio that they could not maintain a BANKED turn at LEVEL altitude. that was the years 1903-1914.

however, the A-10, AV-8B and SU-34 were designed in multi-million dollar scientific programs within the last 20 years - and this day and age even light Cessnas, Pipers, Champions, etc. can easily accelerate away from stalling speed while conducting a 30 degree 2G turn.

If it falls out of the sky when you try to orbit in a ten meter circle for half an hour, maybe don't do that.

yeah, but fast jets DON'T. granted, they won't fly in ten metre radii, but they won't slow down in low-speed hard turns neither. once again, this is about BIS going back and fixing their mistakes, not for players to adapt to something that's plainly wrong and let BIS get away with calling ArmA a 'Simulator'.

0002789: fixed-wing aircraft lose too much speed during turns.

I think you missed the point of my post.

First off, and on the periphery, barring even the cheap fighters. It's a matter of wing loading aerofoil cross section... and I'm not sure if the a10 will stall in a 2g turn in ArmA. This would take some study. I won't be caring to do that because I can use the a10 fine.

And ArmA is not a flight simulator... but that's not what I was arguing. I was arguing against the supposition that the jets in ArmA are useless, which is clearly false. They are quite effective, actually. This is all I was arguing.

Should the flight model be changed? I think it should be changed in ways that enhance realism without any cost in cpu cycles, and without straining BIS's resources very much. Having direct control over the throttle would be nice. At the end of the day, though, you simply are not going to find a super realistic flight simulator in ArmA at any time, regardless.