Fix ArmA choppers now!

[Serclaes 0]

The only things i really miss are torque and in-ground-effects.

I mean, who really needs a dropping left side due to high speed or a helicopter trapped in the own downwind. It would surely be nice to have, but nothing i couldn't live without.

But that rail like behaviour feels too simple. When i play with the collective i need to change cyclic and rudder. That would feel good.

Effects of weight vs. engine power would certainly add some nice aspects. At least you wouldnt fly with a littlebird like you do now.

I've heard about that "never to exceed" speed, but what exactly happens? The helicopter is so fast that the left side just "stalls" and the helicopter turns over?

[[aps]gnat 28]

I've seen some #%@^* amazing shit pulled with a turbine powered civilian chopper during a little local Air Show a year or so ago ..... what the ArmA choppers can do is almost comparable.

[max power 21]

I've heard about that "never to exceed" speed, but what exactly happens? The helicopter is so fast that the left side just "stalls" and the helicopter turns over?

The helicopter starts to vibrate a lot, becomes difficult to control, and you risk a boom strike, afaik. It's not just that the retreating blades are stalling but also that the advancing blades are becoming transonic.

[john_mcclane 0]

The title of this topic should be changed to: "I need to learn to fly ArmA choppers now!"

A lot of people are quite satisfied with the flight model. Instead of complaining and making unrealistic demands to change it, why not just practice more and be happy with what we have?

It's not bad at all, and is quite enjoyable with a joystick/gamepad. It is more than adequate for this game (emphasis on the word "game").

Just my 2 cents worth.

[hailstorm 4]

i'm quite a good pilot, thank you, but that dosen't mean i agree with how the flight model works. just because someone says 'the FM is bad' doesn't automatically mean the poster does not know how to fly.

i'll admit it's better than most, but it's undeniable there are problems with it that can easily be fixed - some addon makers have managed to make far more accurate FM's for their aircraft - and all that's being asked is for BIS to emlpoy the same tweaks to get the vanilla choppers up to standard.

until you try to line up your rockets on a stationary tank from 100m away with the useless 'tail-rotor authority', it's hard to understand how bugged some aspects of the helicopter FM are.

[=jps=sgtrock 4]

Personally, I still say I could live with the flight model if the landing/crash model was improved a bit. Military choppers simply shouldn't be this fragile on landing.

[dslyecxi 23]

until you try to line up your rockets on a stationary tank from 100m away with the useless 'tail-rotor authority', it's hard to understand how bugged some aspects of the helicopter FM are.

Two things.

One, yes, I would like to see the tail rotor be as responsive as some claim it to be in reality. Do I have personal experience with helos, or can I claim to know what can be done with the tail rotor at speed? No, I don't, so I will defer to people with that experience.

Two, your example is either using a lot of hyperbole or is showing how your tactical usage of helicopters is less than ideal. If you're firing FFARs from <100m on a tank, you have committed a gross tactical misjudgment and should expect to get yourself blown out of the sky. 100m is spitting distance for a rifleman - an FFAR can strike from many times that distance, and when helos are employed to the the max of their combat efficiency, taking advantage of their capabilities, they should be firing FFARs from much, much farther than 100m.

[hailstorm 4]

Two things.

One, yes, I would like to see the tail rotor be as responsive as some claim it to be in reality. Do I have personal experience with helos, or can I claim to know what can be done with the tail rotor at speed? No, I don't, so I will defer to people with that experience.

Two, your example is either using a lot of hyperbole or is showing how your tactical usage of helicopters is less than ideal. If you're firing FFARs from <100m on a tank, you have committed a gross tactical misjudgment and should expect to get yourself blown out of the sky. 100m is spitting distance for a rifleman - an FFAR can strike from many times that distance, and when helos are employed to the the max of their combat efficiency, taking advantage of their capabilities, they should be firing FFARs from much, much farther than 100m.

don't get me wrong, of course it's a bad tactical flying, but the point is that i was just merely pointing out a situation (placing a reference point, i.e. rocket aimpoint, onto a specific spot on the ground) that normally would be quite easy to do, but is in much harder to replicate with the current flight model.

the trouble in this case is not with it's responsibility so much, but the fact that over a certain speed, it changes into a new profile where it only slews the nose several degrees to the side while not actually changing flightpath - in the same manner the aircraft used to behave before the 1.14 patch. while the forces involved in a helicopter moving at speed are slightly different than a plane and rudder, the overall effect is somewhat similar.

[max power 21]

i'm quite a good pilot, thank you, but that dosen't mean i agree with how the flight model works. just because someone says 'the FM is bad' doesn't automatically mean the poster does not know how to fly.

i'll admit it's better than most, but it's undeniable there are problems with it that can easily be fixed - some addon makers have managed to make far more accurate FM's for their aircraft - and all that's being asked is for BIS to emlpoy the same tweaks to get the vanilla choppers up to standard.

until you try to line up your rockets on a stationary tank from 100m away with the useless 'tail-rotor authority', it's hard to understand how bugged some aspects of the helicopter FM are.

As you have said this perhaps isn't a realistic situation for you but this hypothetical scenario you've created doesn't seem to point toward your earlier statement that you know how to fly. This is, of course, a bit of a continuum, but the scenario you paint sounds a bit novice.

At what speed did you want to have tail rotor authority? If you're making an attack pass at 180 km/h, even with a realistic flight model I don't think you're going to get much deflection. The tail rotor authority is far from useless by my measure, but the limits of the helicopter must be respected. Yaw authority somewhat less than realistic, but this scenario you've painted looks like you're demanding something a little outside of what is realistic for helicopters.

And lastly, why do you assume these fixes are easy to make?

[subs17 9]

In real helicopters the tail rotor use is constant at all speeds you have to constantly adjust tail rotor particularly if you're flying with a crosswind.

[hailstorm 4]

As you have said this perhaps isn't a realistic situation for you but this hypothetical scenario you've created doesn't seem to point toward your earlier statement that you know how to fly. This is, of course, a bit of a continuum, but the scenario you paint sounds a bit novice.

i don't see how a hypothetical situation has any bearing to do with my actual flying skill; as to how you make that assumption, i wouldn't have a clue.

At what speed did you want to have tail rotor authority? If you're making an attack pass at 180 km/h, even with a realistic flight model I don't think you're going to get much deflection. The tail rotor authority is far from useless by my measure, but the limits of the helicopter must be respected. Yaw authority somewhat less than realistic, but this scenario you've painted looks like you're demanding something a little outside of what is realistic for helicopters.

at what speed do i want tail rotor authority?

short answer: all speeds. just like in real life.

long answer: a helicopter will never lose full control over tail rotor authority; if the pilot pushes the pedals, that tail rotor will still be giving the same amount of turning force that it would when the helicopter is stationary. the reason there is a diminished effect at speed is because, at high speed, air resistance and other factors come into play and begin to effect the turning power the tail rotor has. there is no 'absolute' speed above which the tail rotor above becomes a mere 'deflection' tool., which is all i've really tried to say.

it's more an inverse relation between turning ability and velocity - low velocity, high turning ability; high velocity, low turning ability. the aircraft will still turn: but the rate at which it will is decreased.

if somehow you still believe what i'm saying is outside the limits of what helicopters can do in real life, watch this video. you can't do the maneuvers at the end without having enough tail rotor authority to keep the nose of the aircraft pointed into (or deliberately out of) the direction of travel.

And lastly, why do you assume these fixes are easy to make?

i somehow do not recall saying the fix was 'easy', although, i didn't say it was hard, either. i'm not a coder; i can't make that assumption. i say it's possible, for a few reasons:

- a similar change has already been introduced into fixed-wing aircraft in 1.14, and even if that fix were literally carbon-copied into the helicopter FM it would be an improvement (and perhaps with a few value tweaks be a complete fix).

- there are mod-makers like RockofSL who have shown it's possible to implement it into helicopters - the Mi-24 he's worked on appears (

) to have rotor authority at much higher speeds, shown by how it was able to fly sideways at a fairly significant speed. as it is, the you can only currently fly sideways under the same speed where the tail rotor can turn the aircraft.

[whisper 0]

Not sure taking the Lynx as a base for chopper agility demonstration is the best way to go

There are very few better flyers than this beast

So I wouldn't expect to get the ability for sliding like you get in your demo vid.

Perhaps even RKSL Hind vid demo is a lil bit over the top in depicting Hind sideways capacity.

But yeah, tail rotor lose authority way too fast.

Which still makes for a better FM than OFP if you ask me.

[Inkslinger 1]

Ive seen video of the AH-64, RAH-66, and the AH-1 doing Side and Reverse at high speed. In all three tests the choppers where flying at speed forward then turned to the side held it.

Also as others have pointed out the autocenter is the main cause of all this. I just done some tests and successfuly flew the cobra sideways at speed. Reverse at speed isnt going to be easy as once you get to a certain speed the chopper automatically will try and turn to autocenter. this is how I first found a way to fly it sideways, once it starts to turn around hold rudder in opposite dir. and viola. also from a dead stop going to the side and start holding the rudder when it tries to center itself.

final evaluation is Autocenter however good is the main culprit in the rudder dynamics. it would be nice to have the option of disabling the autocenter.

[max power 21]

Loss of authority doesn't mean loss of force.  And I know why it becomes harder to deflect the aircraft at higher airspeeds.  Control authority just means the ability to make the aircraft change angles in relation to its track.  Whether or not the aircraft skids or completes a turn or whatever depends on lots of other factors.  So, tail rotor authority doesn't have much to do with changing the track of the aircraft, but more about how fast you can make the fuselage change angles, and to what extent.

The hypothetical situation bares as the only evidence to your flying skill that we have.  I think that you should give us a more realistic situation for you when you're making an analogy like that, so that it's easier to agree with you.  If you give a situation where the pilot is clearly a bonehead, then no one wants to agree with that.  Dsl seemed to have the same concern but worded his post much more neutrally.  If I am not wrong about that, then it seems that you're implying something that you did not intend.  If I am, then I guess I'm out to lunch.

You did say that some fixes were easy.  You said, "it's undeniable there are problems with it that can easily be fixed".  By that I took you to mean that the tail rotor authority was easily changed.  What problems do you think would be easily fixed, then?

It is true that slipping an aircraft will usually have the secondary effect of changing its track (in the b2, for instance, I would be very, very surprised if slipping the aircraft had any secondary effect other than decreasing lift on the retreating side, causing the aircraft to bank).  And the tail rotor does cause a very, very small track change up to 80 km/h in the ah-1z, but my question is, what use are rudder turns in arma helicopters anyways?  I'm not implying that they have no use, but they are certainly not something that I find myself wanting very badly.

[hailstorm 4]

you're right, when an aircraft turns, lots of factors are involved - but you still need to consider what effects they would have.

aerodynamics is always a fickle subject - one has to consider the combined effects of all variables before an accurate assessment of end vectors, etc. can be made. taking one action, and failing to consider all secondary effects (eg. the new angle the thrust of the rotor points at, or the air resistance on the side of the aircraft, etc) is not the best idea. i'm not accusing you plaintiff1 of doing that, it's just food for thought.

personally don't know about the B2, but i'd hazard a guess that side air friction is defiantly minimal, but the changing thrust line would also have to be considered (yes, it would also bank unless the pilot specifically counters that). maybe it doesn't turn using yaw. maybe it does. personally i'd be more inclined to put my money on the latter.

ok, well, for an actual experience, let's say you line up a fast attack run, low level to reduce ground fire. you approach your target, let's say a tank in this case, and then realise it has moved, or is on the move. you cannot change the pitch, as that would cause you to a) change your speed, and b) possibly change altitude. so, you just have to be patient and wait till the aimpoint settles on the same horizontal plane as your target. it's at this point you attempt to use the tail rotor to adjust you aim to the side, to make up for the movement of the target, but the nose moves 5 degrees to the side, and then stops. the helicopter keeps flying in the exact same direction it was previously flying, even though, you know, it's pointing somewhere else. obviously it's not as simple as that, but that's the general gist of it. obviously this is a rocket tactic - guided missiles or cannon usually just employ the stand-off ranged pop-up attack, which really doesn't require the tail rotor in that case.

nonetheless, even IF you have no basis of my actual flying experience, it still is not right to take this or any other 'hypothetical' situation as evidence.

right. forgot i wrote the line about things being 'easily fixed'. my bad.

i guess i could go on about uses, but it all boils down to mobility - and being a helicopter, why not? if you personally don't think think you would have much use for it, that's your decision, but me, i'd prefer to have the full range of actual possibilities open to me, and have the choice as to which of these i use in my tactics. from a realistic point of view, should it really be excluded? just like increased survivability and tweaks to lift etc. it's all about improving things in a realistic manner.

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]...i'm not accusing you plaintiff1 of doing that, it's just food for thought.

I was simply clarifying my use of the term 'control authority'.

Quote[/b] ]personally don't know about the B2, but i'd hazard a guess that side air friction is defiantly minimal, but the changing thrust line would also have to be considered (yes, it would also bank unless the pilot specifically counters that). maybe it doesn't turn using yaw. maybe it does. personally i'd be more inclined to put my money on the latter.

I don't think so.  I don't have any real experience flying tailless / blended fuselage aircraft.  I think that fuselages on aircraft act as sails do on sailboats in a turn.  It's not the drag so much as the low pressure force on the retreating side of the fuselage that is the main component of a rudder turn.  With a flying wing, you have no such structures to induce any aerodynamic forces.  Thrust is also a big component of turning but I think that yawing to turn in a tailless aircraft would be grossly inefficient and probably quite dangerous.

Quote[/b] ]

ok, well, for an actual experience, let's say you line up a fast attack run, low level to reduce ground fire. you approach your target, let's say a tank in this case, and then realise it has moved, or is on the move. you cannot change the pitch, as that would cause you to a) change your speed, and b) possibly change altitude. so, you just have to be patient and wait till the aimpoint settles on the same horizontal plane as your target. it's at this point you attempt to use the tail rotor to adjust you aim to the side, to make up for the movement of the target, but the nose moves 5 degrees to the side, and then stops. the helicopter keeps flying in the exact same direction it was previously flying, even though, you know, it's pointing somewhere else. obviously it's not as simple as that, but that's the general gist of it. obviously this is a rocket tactic - guided missiles or cannon usually just employ the stand-off ranged pop-up attack, which really doesn't require the tail rotor in that case.

It would be nice to be able to do coordinated turns but I think that turning by using the tail rotor only would bog you down in drag.  For the purposes of the game, are you flying with a joystick or a mouse?  I find the helicopters to be quite flexible in terms of changing pitch and cyclic so as not to affect my altitude, and I find that they don't lose much speed until you get the nose quite high.  I would like to have more control authority if it's realistic, but I don't see that happening.  Banking to get your rockets on target is a bit finicky, though, to say the least!

Quote[/b] ]

nonetheless, even IF you have no basis of my actual flying experience, it still is not right to take this or any other 'hypothetical' situation as evidence.

To be clear, I was warning you that your post sounded novice and that it 'paints a picture'.  I wasn't implying that I was building a portfolio about you based on that paragraph.

Quote[/b] ]i guess i could go on about uses, but it all boils down to mobility - and being a helicopter, why not? if you personally don't think think you would have much use for it, that's your decision, but me, i'd prefer to have the full range of actual possibilities open to me, and have the choice as to which of these i use in my tactics. from a realistic point of view, should it really be excluded? just like increased survivability and tweaks to lift etc. it's all about improving things in a realistic manner.

It should be if it's prohibitively work intensive to make these changes.  To make a rkslesque ballast system for each aircraft and to test it and tune it would be over the top, don't you think?  I think that the way ArmA handles damage, that the way to increase crash survivability means you have to increase armour values and such for aircraft, meaning you're changing the way AI interact with the helicopter in terms of weapon choices.  This means you have to retune the AI, and test to make sure nothing else is broken.  Or, you have to redo some of the helicopter flight simulation or physics in general, which I have no knowledge of what so ever.  From my very limited understanding of how ArmA works, I think that, based on this and BI's focus on ArmA 2, you're not likely to see the changes that you seek.

Don't get me wrong, if I learnt that ArmA's simulation was like freaking longbow 2 tomorrow, I would do a back flip in my home office.  The point of my earlier post was to clarify what I meant by control authority, and to find out more about what you meant.