Chopper Flight Sim needs to be reconfigured

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

The originator of this thread is telling you that an arcadey game like WarRock even has better helo controls than ArmA 2.

I agree that ArmA's helo controls are crap.

B.I. DID (does?) have a real helicopter pilot providing feedback.

All they had to do was duplicate the helo flight model of the Desert Combat mod/BF2 and lots of people would have been happy. A.I. doesn't know how to fly like that? Just have it switch to a simpler model for A.I.

Even though DC/BF2's helo flight model was difficult to learn, I learned it in about 20 flight hours. Once you do, you can make the bird do anything you want, PLUS it looks and feels REALISTIC when you fly it.

I served in an Air Cavalry squadron for 3 years. Helicopters are much more capable than they are in ArmA 2.

Saying that the game is an infantry sim more than a vehicle sim really doesn't wash as an excuse when you're on the 5th version of the game and people have been begging for a more realistic flight model all along.

It suggests that, as in the area of physics and ragdolls, B.I. doesn't want to bother with giving us what we want.

The man's opinion probably mirrors that of many whose voices have been silenced by lack of listening.

[Alex72 1]

Anyone with a sane mind would understand that a game cant handle infantry simulation + aircraft simulation + tank simulation to 100%. There is no computer on the planet capable of doing this in the big world of ARMA2. And especially not with the graphics it has. At least not for now.

[nkenny 1051]

Anyone with a sane mind would understand that a game cant handle infantry simulation + aircraft simulation + tank simulation to 100%. There is no computer on the planet capable of doing this in the big world of ARMA2. And especially not with the graphics it has. At least not for now.

This is nonsense. Arma2 is in its current state a rather clunky infantry GAME. A team of clever game designers would easily be able to incorporate all elements of warfare with similar fidelity that arma manages to give infantry.

This is a matter of competence and inspiration, as well as having a market to reach. Admittedly we're not talking about 100% realism (whatever that means), but to a superior degree which Arma2 has managed? Please.

-K

[Inkompetent 0]

Indeed there are improvements to make that shouldn't be too hard. Like that making sharp turns (both in helicopters and airplanes) make you drop like a rock, or that helicopters can't pull up from a dive fast enough.

It's all in the algorithms used for the flight model. One doesn't need proper physics or aerodynamics to fake them. Not at the level of fedility ArmA has. Just improved algorithms for more sensible behaviour in the air.

[ProfTournesol 956]

@ Uziyahu--IDF : i understand your point of view, a more complex flight model may be more interesting on the long term, but as a more "casual" gamer i'm satisfied with this simplified model. Apart from the "crash in the tree too often" problem...

[horror1 10]

I agree that ArmA's helo controls are crap.

what is crap at helo controls?

just change ur keybinds

mouse up = nose down

mouse down = nose up

mouse left = roll left

mouse right = roll right

w = accelerate

s = deccelerate

a = pedal left

d = pedal right

nothing is easier than flying with mouse and keyboard in arma 2 :)

[lt_darkman 0]

Except a properly configured joystick and throttle ;)

Roll on analogue throttle/collective control in patch 1.03...

P

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

what is crap at helo controls?

nothing is easier than flying with mouse and keyboard in arma 2 :)

Until you try to use "rudder" (tail rotor) at speed and your helo BANKS, instead.

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 PM ----------

@ Uziyahu--IDF : i understand your point of view, a more complex flight model may be more interesting on the long term, but as a more "casual" gamer i'm satisfied with this simplified model. Apart from the "crash in the tree too often" problem...

The simplified model was better in OFP. At least the Blackhawk had its terrain-hugging computer. Now you have to constantly adjust the elevation, like you're flying an old news copter.

So make it an OPTION!

Not only do so many of you fail to think "outside the box", you don't even explore all of the possibilities INSIDE the box.

Not only is the BF2 flight model a lot harder, it is also more fun, once you master it. I'm not some paragon of hand-eye coordination. If *I* can do it, anybody can.

It's a moot point, now, just like it was a moot point after the release of ArmA 1. (Just like it'll be a moot point after the release of ArmA 3? In other words, that excuse fails to wash after the release of the next patch, much less the next installment of the franchise.)

I love the guys at B.I., but if your bread and butter is a mil-sim, you OWE it to yourself and to your fans to acquaint yourself with guns and helicopters. Otherwise, make a different game that doesn't demand realism.

I would be playing ArmA 2, right now, flaws and all, if I had a computer that could run it well.

[craigsa 0]

As I have said before, give us the option to have the old OFP flight model, surely they can add this to a patch or something? Give us the option to turn it on or off.

[Defunkt 431]

Until you try to use "rudder" (tail rotor) at speed and your helo BANKS, instead.

Left/Right Turn combines bank when in motion and otherwise pedal, I guess it's a feature. If you instead use the separate Bank Left/Right and Left/Right Pedal binds you'll never have such a problem.

The simplified model was better in OFP. At least the Blackhawk had its terrain-hugging computer.

Verifiable, non-anecdotal source please because you've been corrected on this before...

The UH-60M is currently deployed to Afghanistan with my old unit. The Mike model has updated alot of things, but it doesn't have anything like a terrain-hugging super computer. You can learn more about the Mike model here. http://www.sikorsky.com

The only reference I can find to nap-of-the-earth system in a Blackhawk is a "UH-60A RASCAL NASA-modified version for the Rotorcraft-Aircrew Systems Concepts Airborne Laboratory".

[Murklor 10]

what is crap at helo controls?

just change ur keybinds

mouse up = nose down

mouse down = nose up

mouse left = roll left

mouse right = roll right

w = accelerate

s = deccelerate

a = pedal left

d = pedal right

nothing is easier than flying with mouse and keyboard in arma 2 :)

Dont you mean w/s as collective throttle?

Having it as accelerate and deccelerate is pretty useless, since its just a preset movement up/down that is usefull only in autohover (but very digital, poor control).

[HOPEnSPIRIT 10]

Did Bohemia not patch the Helicopters in ArmA because they were to much Simulation and people couldn't fly them, deciding playablity was more important.

[Alex72 1]

This is nonsense. Arma2 is in its current state a rather clunky infantry GAME. A team of clever game designers would easily be able to incorporate all elements of warfare with similar fidelity that arma manages to give infantry.

-K

Good luck seeing this happen mate. Good luck indeed. That was my meaning with my comment. With the skills as it is now this would never happen. You can dream as much as you want saying "oh but if you assemble the smartest coders and gave them billions dollars etc etc", but that will never happen. Not in many years anyway.

Its coming slowly on the mil side however. Ive seen some images that im trying to hunt down again (maybe someone here seen it?). Some work with what i think was DCS (ED) getting their A-10 in together with infantry in some sort of sim. Strictly mil though and no armor so far. But who knows what can spawn out of it later on. So far theyve made us happy on the aircraft side. But i guess IF ever it will take many many years.

Alex

[furia 10]

I am becoming curious about this issue.

After reading some vehement posts with people so irritated with the flight model I would like to know what exactly do you mean? Compared with what?

What are the unacceptable issues that bother the people so much or that must be addressed right away to make it more real?

I have read about blackhawk having terraing following radar but as far as I know this is only installed on Pave Hawks. Other models just have the Radio Height Hold navigation mode that consist in mantaining the selected radio height your radio altimeter in your tail is reading. This works nice on flat surfaces like deserts or sea and so but not on mountain areas since the radio altimeter just reads what it is BELOW you not ahead from you.

Anyway I am very curious to know a bit more in detail what exactly should be changed that keeps so much people concerned because everybody talks about flight model but nobody gives details. I already mentioned one flight model issue on my previous post on this thread. Can you guys state what are the other specific issues that concern you so much?

[Pilot7893 10]

I'm having trouble finding where to download the demo, so I'll have to see just how the flight characteristics are. As long as it doesn't have the same stupid autohover feature games like Halo have, I'm fine with it.

[Steakslim 1]

I'm having trouble finding where to download the demo, so I'll have to see just how the flight characteristics are. As long as it doesn't have the same stupid autohover feature games like Halo have, I'm fine with it.

There is an auto hover, however it's a feature that is only activated if the person flying wishes to use it for their convenience on the fly.

[Pilot7893 10]

There is an auto hover, however it's a feature that is only activated if the person flying wishes to use it for their convenience on the fly.

So you can alternate between realistic flight dynamics and easy flight dynamics?

[Steakslim 1]

With a press of a button if you wish, it can be switched on and off as easily as turning ON CAPSLOCK AND SWITCHING IT off, or with the action menu. However the auto hover function litteraly is just that, a hover. All attempts to move while this is enabled will be faught in an attempt to level out to a stable hover, where the only real free control you have is to throttle up or down. So really the only thing it makes easy is for those who cannot hold a heli still in one spot, or cannot land very well.

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Given the apparent ease with which you can fly a helicopter successfully in arma 2 I would have thought that "terrain following radar" is pretty much redundant. Eyes, map and reflexes are all that are required. It is after all not a real Blackhawk. You're not going to instadie in real life if you mess it up...

I find the flight model is just the right balance of quick easy access and accurate simulation. Ok it would be nice to be able to have a little more realism on tap as an option but at the same time if you're having a game session with some mates and a few beers, you don't want to be pulled out of the sky by physics because you've done something a bit careless. All that said, I think the full analogue throttle will help matters when that arrives, all we need then is a seperate collective pitch control and it's pretty much all there.

[WallyJas 10]

Anyway I am very curious to know a bit more in detail what exactly should be changed that keeps so much people concerned because everybody talks about flight model but nobody gives details.

Hi guys, this is my first time on the BI forum and my first time playing ARMA ever! I am in the process of making the switch from Project Reality but it might take a while, my fingers are used to 4 years of BF2 key commands and they are putting up some resistance to learning new ways. :)

I too found the ARMA 2 UH-1Y flight model a little simple. I have only had about 30min worth of flying time in game but this is what I felt could be improved is:

- Start up / warm up period could be longer. Pressing the Q to start is nice, instead of the chopper auto starting when you get in, but I think it needs to take longer to warm up. Something between 30 - 60 sec I think is quite good.

- Too much torque on take off. The chopper seems to spring off the ground at takeoff which seems a little unrealistic to me. I would have expected it to be working to take the weight of the aircraft off the ground and to slowly gain the inertia to lift off into a hover and then take off.

- Lack of a 'pendulous' feeling. In a chopper the 'wing' is the rotor blades and the fuselage 'hangs' from this wing in flight but a single point, the rotor mast. Therefore I would like to see / feel a bit more of a hanging / pendulous feeling in the flight model.

Now I am now professional UH-1y pilot so I have no idea exactly how the Venom should handle. However I am a qualified private light aircraft pilot so I do have a little more experience than just flight sims. :)

Maybe the above points can be worked on?

I can see that alot of people are complaining about the flight models in here, can I suggest instead of complaining you learn how to change / tweak the flight model yourself. Is this possible in ARMA 2? I have had extensive experience at modding BF2 having worked on faction mods within Project Reality. I would be interested in having a go at working on the flight model if there was sufficient tutorials to explain how to tweak vehicle files in ARMA 2.

Cheers,

Wal