A-10 in ArmA way unrealistic

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

OK, ill go "improve" the FM and release an improved version when i'm done.

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

NO YOU WONT....LOL

You stay focused on the RKSL addons you started off

with...Darn sidemissions

[ShrubMiK 0]

I didn't find the A10 to be obviously unrealistic. Not saying I know exactly how it should handle, but when you look at total engine thrust and loaded weight and compare to the Harrier, you would expect the A10 to be a lot less nippy. And just look at it...the Harrier is not the most streamlined aircraft in the world, but the A10 makes it look like Twiggy!

Losing a lot speed in sharp turns does not seem unreasonable if you stop to think about the aerodynamics and physics involved. Generally if you want to maintain speed in a turn you either need to increase thrust or dive. And if you bank the wings a lot to achieve a sharp turn, your lift vector is no longer vertical so if you want to avoid inadvertantly diving (quite important when you are flying at extremely low altitude to start with ) you need to increase thrust and/or pull the nose up a little.

All this sort of stuff is a lot easier with a decent joystick including a throttle slider...can't say I find it at all difficult to keep the A10 in the air even with some quite violent manoevering.

Incidentally, 20 years ago I was working on Harriers. If you want to talk about unrealistic flight models you should have seen the official Harrier GR5 sim. Nice cockpit mockup, huge display screen...but the fact that by "clever" use of the autopilot you could trick it into either hovering upside down or climbing vertically at high speed forever was a bit of a worry Think yourselves lucky...

[RAKtheUndead 0]

Quote[/b] ]All this sort of stuff is a lot easier with a decent joystick including a throttle slider...can't say I find it at all difficult to keep the A10 in the air even with some quite violent manoevering.

Well, even with a throttle slider, one cannot adjust the thrust between any values other than 0%, 70% and 100%, unlike in OFP, where throttle sliders were taken to be analogue rather than digital, making it a lot easier to adjust speeds for different situations. That's something that needs to be fixed, at least.

[HamishUK 0]

Thats right its not a flight sim it is a Battle simulator which incorporates everything.

Except elements of realism when it comes down to the kit.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

NO YOU WONT....LOL

You stay focused on the RKSL addons you started off

with...Darn sidemissions  

Too late.  It only took 20 mins.  it actually took longer for me to write the read me.

A-10 FM Improvement Demonstrator

[max power 21]

Did you set up the a10 with any particular simulation in mind or did you just lighten it up some, Rock?

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Did you set up the a10 with any particular simulation in mind or did you just lighten it up some, Rock?

Its not inspired by any particular sim.  All I’ve done was make it more stable and trim it how I thought was best for ArmA.  

Trying to make aircraft in arma fly like other more able sims is just pointless.  All we can do is work with what we have.  There's no point dreaming up debates about which Sim's flight model is best.  ArmA’s engine has its limits but given some patience and a bit of skill you can make the aircraft far less frustrating to use and a tiny bit more realistic.

[max power 21]

Did you set up the a10 with any particular simulation in mind or did you just lighten it up some, Rock?

Its not inspired by any particular sim. All I’ve done was make it more stable and trim it how I thought was best for ArmA.

Trying to make aircraft in arma fly like other more able sims is just pointless. All we can do is work with what we have. There's no point dreaming up debates about which Sim's flight model is best. ArmA’s engine has its limits but given some patience and a bit of skill you can make the aircraft far less frustrating to use and a tiny bit more realistic.

I didn't mean another simulation, I meant, were you trying to simulate anything with it? Like, an a10 at any particular wing loading / power loading or where you simply making it more pleasant to fly?

edit: and I must add I use the word 'simulate' loosely. Of course you can't turn ArmA into an a10 simulator. I was just wondering what you had in mind when you made the changes.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I didn't mean another simulation, I meant, were you trying to simulate anything with it? Like, an a10 at any particular wing loading / power loading or where you simply making it more pleasant to fly?

edit: and I must add I use the word 'simulate' loosely. Of course you can't turn ArmA into an a10 simulator. I was just wondering what you had in mind when you made the changes.

I’ve already answered this:

Quote[/b] ]All I’ve done was make it more stable and trim it how I thought was best for ArmA.

To expand on that a bit. I considered the relative statistics of the plane, wing span, engine performance, operating speeds, control surface area and guessed at what might be a good compromise between ease of use and realism.

I’d love to be able to say there was a huge amount of complicated calculations involved but as I said earlier. It took me longer to write the readme.txt than it did to change the handling. I’ve done 30 ish aircraft now using this method. Each type with different handling. I’m confident that I can make most anything fly “reasonably†as expected, but it’s never going to be realistic.

I have 370+ flying hours on single and twin engine aircraft, I’m a qualified Aeronautical engineer so perhaps I’m more informed than most, but at the end of the day and with all honesty I went for what I thought would be the best compromise for both human and AI use.

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]I’ve already answered this.

No you didn't. I was essentially asking what you thought was best.

Quote[/b] ]at the end of the day and with all honesty I went for what I thought would be the best compromise for both human and AI use.

There's the answer I was after. Thanks.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Quote[/b] ]I’ve already answered this.

No you didn't.  I was essentially asking what you thought was best.

Quote[/b] ]at the end of the day and with all honesty I went for what I thought would be the best compromise for both human and AI use.

There's the answer I was after.  Thanks.

FFS you are pedantic. Its exactly the same meaning.

[max power 21]

What I think is best for arma is having vehicles that are balanced for human and AI use.

This sentence is somehow repeating itself?

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

What I think is best for arma is having vehicles that are balanced for human and AI use.

This sentence is somehow repeating itself?

Frankly I'm really not interested in your opinions.  There's rarely any original or valid content in them.  Yet you will spend hours picking at what people say and manipulating it to mean anything you want.  You really could be my mother inlaw.  You're not really called Joan are you?

All I’ve done was make it more stable and trim it howI thought  was best for ArmA.

I went for what I thought would be the best compromise…

see the obvious connection.  If I didn’t know you were an English speaker, I could maybe forgive that lack of comprehension but from past dealings with you I know you love to be overly literal and pedantic so I won’t.  

You are just trolling now, go away.

[max power 21]

I realize you have a problem with pedants, Rock, but I don't see how that applies here. What you think of me can also be filed under 'no one cares'.

The similarity between those two sentences are that they both have the word best in them. Obviously, what you think is best for ArmA may mean anything. This is why I asked. I don't think that a compromise between easier 'fliability' for players and for ai is necessarily the best thing. This information only gives me enough information to decide whether or not I wish to download it. Your tweak is obviously for the good of some people, but for those of us who have no problem flying, it's not necessary.

I was not criticizing you. I'm not sure how you managed to pick that up... or maybe that's just non-sequitor nonsense because you're feeling put upon because I asked you elaborate. All I was asking was for what specifications you were designing the new handling. Now that I have them from you, after much complaining and baying, I thank you. This is all that matters in the end. You may pursue the point further, but I don't see my further participation as necessary considering I have what I wanted.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I realize you have a problem with pedants, Rock, but I don't see how that applies here.  What you think of me can also be filed under 'no one cares'.

I also have a problem with arrogant, selfish and self aggrandising egotists.  I’ve also found that most people won’t speak out when they see them, but I’ve reached the point where I don’t care either. So I do.

The similarity between those two sentences are that they both have the word best in them.  Obviously, what you think is best for ArmA may mean anything….

Context is everything.  You chose to take it out of context and debate my choice of words which, lets face it.  Is pretty much par for you.

 

I was not criticizing you.  I'm not sure how you managed to pick that up... or maybe that's just non-sequitor nonsense because you're feeling put upon because I asked you elaborate.  

I’m not feeling “put up on†at all.  I have no problem people asking sensible, practical questions I just don’t like repeating myself.  Or people that attempt to pick holes in my words to make themselves feel just that tiny bit superior.  Or use nice complex words in the hope other people will think they are intelligent.

 

…Now that I have them from you, after much complaining and baying, I thank you.  This is all that matters in the end.  You may pursue the point further, but I don't see my further participation as necessary considering I have what I wanted.

Glad you got it.  I hope it makes you feel warm inside.  I’ll take great comfort from the fact you it you have it safe and sound.

Good night all.

[suma 8]

I tested it briefly and it seems to me the stall speeds are way too low now - with this FM the A10 now is able to take off and fly at 145 km/h (aprox. 80 kts) with no flaps extended. I guess the envelope change is perhaps a little too drastic?

In the same area, it seems to me the takeoff distance needed is now unrealistically short as well - which is perhaps caused by the same change?

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I tested it briefly and it seems to me the stall speeds are way too low now - with this FM the A10 now is able to take off and fly at 145 km/h (aprox. 80 kts) with no flaps extended. I guess the envelope change is perhaps a little too drastic?

In the same area, it seems to me the takeoff distance needed is now unrealistically short as well - which is perhaps caused by the same change?

Well that’s easy to fix. It only needs a value change in the config to get to back to the right stall speed. But to be honest the old one had a horrible tendency to stall even in basic maneuvers which was unrealistic for an aircraft designed to operate at slower speeds. The handling characteristics should remain the same even after tweaking the stall speed.

[subs17 9]

I tested it briefly and it seems to me the stall speeds are way too low now - with this FM the A10 now is able to take off and fly at 145 km/h (aprox. 80 kts) with no flaps extended. I guess the envelope change is perhaps a little too drastic?

In the same area, it seems to me the takeoff distance needed is now unrealistically short as well - which is perhaps caused by the same change?

What are the limitations in Arma regarding the aircraft? Is it possible to increase its complexity a bit and add weight/drag/thrust etc?

[subs17 9]

Thats right its not a flight sim it is a Battle simulator which incorporates everything.

Except elements of realism when it comes down to the kit.

I think its possible to mod most of the kit to a more realistc performance as Arma has the most potential for this out of all the other FPS games out there. The A-10 would take a fair bit of work though as you would have to add iron bombs etc And a working RWR.

[lugiahua 26]

anyone want to talk about the surviveability of A-10? I read the record that A-10s destoryed more than 5000 vehicle in combat and only a few loses. But in game, they got shot down by T72 and BMP like paper planes...

[NoRailgunner 0]

Ingame surviveability of A-10 depends on flight skills of player and mission design. Default AI pilots are not trained well and dont have any good flight and air combat skills. Would be great to see if they could handle different aircraft units in proper way from the start. For example targeting and releasing bombs (LGB) away from enemy AAA & vehicles.

[max power 21]

We're getting close to being able to use aircraft realistically but we're not there yet. Aircraft survivability has a lot to do with speed, altitude, weapons range, and accuracy. As it stands, for the most part, ArmA welcomes you to get too close to danger, whereas most attack operations would take place from a higher altitude / greater standoff.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

We're getting close to being able to use aircraft realistically but we're not there yet.  Aircraft survivability has a lot to do with speed, altitude, weapons range, and accuracy.  As it stands, for the most part, ArmA welcomes you to get too close to danger, whereas most attack operations would take place from a higher altitude / greater standoff.

Aircraft survivability is about tactics. As it is ArmA aircraft already take far more damage and still fly than is realistic.

The AI don't and can't use the aircraft properly. Rather than trying to chang ethe planes. The issue of how the AI use the aircraft should be looked at.

[max power 21]

I think that aircraft tactics are limited by the simulation. I find it much easier to use the aircraft in il2 effectively. In ArmA it feels more like you're fighting in a shoe-box.

The AI point is interesting. The AI do a lot of things that are incomprehensibly bad decisions... like slowing down over the target and seemingly flying as low as possible all the time, and always engaging at point blank range. I find that the limited size of the game world invites this behaviour in players too. You have to do a lot of tinkering with your display options to get a good environment to use aircraft in, and even then the crude simulation of aircraft systems fights with you.

I think that a more robust aircraft simulation would invite more tactical play.