Amalka

ROFL, I would be fired twice already if I had been doing my job same way like the BIS does...

Lol, the servers are empty because all the players turned back to OFP already. You know, to wait 4 months for a patch 1.05 which MIGHT turn this joke into an enjoyable game (was actually promissed to be done already in each patch before) is simply too much even for Czechs and Germans... I loved BI for OFP/RES, now I hate them for ArmA co'z I feel cheated.

Well. I'm still testing but try to take M1, put there 6 T72 in a row on the airstrip in the distances of 500m and check the SABOT (KE) flight times. I'm still not finished yet but it seems that the initial speed and speed loss is far away from the reality. I'll make some serious post based on real numbers here later.

Lol, sorry but a single man with PK would shoot you down at once during your hoover beside the convoy. I know. But I wasn't showing combat tactics, I was showing maneuverability of the 1.02 controls. I suppose a few people got that. You didn't, obviously. Well, no, I'm just replying that you can't see any issue on the 1.02 flight model. Try to attack the convoy with FFAR's im MP against few people armed with PK's or sitting in BMP/T72 by the MG on the tower... You can't survive that. Still no issue? Come on, you need to minimize the time spent in the hot area, but with the todays flight model you need almost to hoover or fly below 50kmh to actually hit something with Hydra rockets. The choppers now in ArmA are a weapon only when carying guided rockets. With other weapon systems they are useless. Even AI shoots you down with the main tank canon when attacking with FFARs.

Lol, sorry but a single man with PK would shoot you down at once during your hoover beside the convoy.

Check your key-settings. Rudder (pedals) is always that at all speeds, they just loose effectiveness around 60-70 km/h which is the same thing as in real life. When a helicopter fly faster than 70km/h the cyclic makes the aircraft handle in the same way as a stick in a fixed wing aircraft. All I can say is: get used to it (no attitude intended) Â Shadow? Have you tried 1.02? Have you noticed the difference in the rudder behavior? And one more wrong thing. Rudder doesn't LOOSE it's effectiveness with the speed. It still generates the same amount of balancing force (is fixed to the main rotor shaft) regardless of the air speed. Only the force generated by the airflow around the chopper body and tail is getting stronger thus centering the body of the chopper in the flight direction. With what you say it would be possible to fly a chopper at speeds above 70km/h WITHOUT having a tail rotor... And ever noticed that Mi-17 for example doesn't have ANY fixed wing rudder? So why not to turn Mi-17 horizontaly using the pedals on the speeds exceeding 70? The truth is that the influence of pedals is getting weaker and weaker but even at high speeds they are still MOVING the chopper. In ArmA they dissappear completely around 60-70 and the only movement generated by pedals is limited to few degrees of deviation from the flight direction to the both sides. So in my opinion the rudder control resp. chopper reaction was in OFP better handled.

Ehm. Let me correct a bit your post.: Portable Stinger/Strela systems are using a passive IR (infrared) cameras to get lock on the target. There is absolutely NO WARNING ever possible to the locked chopper _BEFORE_ the launch of the missile. There is only a possible warning based on the rocket ignition detection which works when the Stinger is already on it's way. And the chopper still doesn't know if HE is the one who was locked by the Stinger, so if there are more choppers nearby, anyone can be the lucky one and all gets the same warning (only having a line of sight on the rocket). After the launch both "players", the target as well the missile, are using more different ways how to cheat the lock of the IR head and how to not be cheated. A basic and first way are Flares thrown out around the chopper to cover it's own heat signature with the one of the flares which might cause the missile to follow the flare heat instead of the chopper one. The second way are the evasive maneoevers of the target trying to "get out of the way callculated by the rocket computer". This works only rarely if not used together with flares. My remarks.: 1. In OFP as well as in the RL are the FM Stingers and Strelas having a contact fuze. Means if they miss the target (even for a few centimeters) they simply fly away and gets self destroyed after some period of time. In ArmA seems that the AA missiles are uncorrectly range fuzed (as for example significantly bigger AA Sidewinder missile). Watch the AA missiles in ArmA, they are always exploding behind the chopper only doing a slight (but vital) damage to the helo. It's even more clear shooting at the Little Birds. There you need even more missiles to down them (but should be clearly opposite). If the missile hit it means it does damage by impacting the chopper and doing another damage by blasting the steel pieces around. Such hit is always downing the target (light chopper). On the other hand, it's easier to miss lighter and more manouverable chopper, but if you miss, the missile DOESN'T explode! So this is completely wrong and was better designed in OFP. 2. the manoeveurability of a stinger/strela are somewhat limited, there is no way it could fly as in ArmA doing 90deg turns in 10 meters. Moreover all do have a MINIMAL possible range (around 200m, see Raytheon brochures on the web), so shoting at targets below this range is just wasting the gear as the missile doesn't have the necessary time to properly engage the target. So my wish would be following.: 1. equip most of the bigger choppers (AH-1, KA, BlackHawk, Mi-17) with standart rocket ignition detection systems which sends warning to the pilot 2. equip the same choppers with flares being activated either by the pilot (difficult, too little time to react) or better automatically by the detection system ment in point 1. (See Tiger in DVD BW CTI, exactly the same way. First you get warning sound after AA missile leaves the ground and then the chopper throws the flares. It's amazing at night! The Flares are limited, so you need to reload them in the same way as the main weapons so loitering above enemy ground after dropping all the flares (2-5 AA attacks) means almost 100% chance of being hit. 3. make the Stingers / Strelas back contact fuzing and do some hit/miss calculations like in OFP, the hit/miss ratio in OFP was IMHO very close to the RL, it was very hard to hit a hard manouvering and fast going target close to you. A frontal hit was nearly impossible (similar to RL). (I'm not counting now the minimal working distance, we are looking for fun, not for 100% realism). hit/miss calculation should be considering the use of flares. Flares dropped, less hit probability, flares not dropped, very probable hit... 4. make the AA not OPTICALY locked but sound locked as in RL. i.E you aim with the launcher at the target, you press the lock button, IR camera starts to look at the target and when it clearly distinguish the heat of the target against the sky it makes a steady beep. This is a signal to the operator that the missile is locked and can be launched. This X-Ray tracing and locking is really strange. 5. hit means a total damage to any light chopper (explodes on the spot or goes down immediatelly) and means very severe damage AH-1, KA-50 or Harrier. (there might be from just only slight damage if you are lucky, to loosing fuel damage, rotors damage, up to explosion on the spot.) 6. Stinger carries a significantly heavier payload compared to Strela, (check the web), so even the effects of both should be bit different. --- Another warning for being scanned by a radar and for being targeted by radar guided AA missile would be nice as well. However there are no radar guided missles in ArmA are they? (Maybe the ones carried by Harrier, I didn't check) The choppers in 1.02 were very improved, after fixing the two remaining bugs with tail rotor they will be really very convenient to fly as it was in OFP. But they are really weak. AA missile now means 100% hit, which on the other hand means only slight and survivable damage to Harrier and Little Birds but does mean vital damage to Cobra/KA, if you are lucky you can still survive the crash... So sorry for my long post and thanks for reading.

By default the controls are not setup in what I consider the very proper way. Unless you are using C / X keys for your tailrotor yaw, then you aren't pressing "Right Pedal" and "Left Pedal" controls but "Turn Right" and "Turn Left" instead. So when you get collective when you think you're supposed to only get yaw it's likely because of your controls. This isn't a new bug, this is how ArmA has been since 1.00. I can assure you that when I'm saying that PEDALS are not doing tailrotor yaw only but combined with cyclic movement as shown before on the cobra/blachkawh video, I'm aware of this strange setting. So I'm just confirming the others experience that NOW (1.02) the tail rotor (pedals) are newly somehow combined to cyclic. So just to turn the helos nose in the other direction when hoovering is not possible without balancing the strange bank movement with cyclic. After pressing x/c the choper doesn't turn horizontally but bank sideways as well.

Yep. That's weird. Again instead of fixing something a new bug arose... Now the pedals are not only controlling the tail rotor but together some cyclic as well. Really weird. But besides of that the flight model seems definitely more "playable" as before. On the other hand it still far away being perfect and realistic. But collective works imho OK (but still bit weak), MI-7 is now more "heavy" and so on. From this point of view I'm satisfied. So give us the proper tail rotor control (just the tail rotor), make it properly working loosing the force just slightly with the speed (depending of the helo type) and let us test again. It might work. But check this video, you'll still see quite lot uncommon moves for a chopper. Cobra, single mission, FFARs only, 50mb

Ehm, you call autocentering the steering wheel when the vehicle is stopped IMPROVED PHYSICS? I call that a stupidity.

Today's ArmA flight model (even slightly modified with 1.01) is very realistic ... to RC models. Where the bank seems almost fine, the pitch is like a 3Kg RC model not like 17t heavy Mi17. You can even make craziest things with Mi than with MH-6. To achieve the max possible bank you just need to move your stick a few degrees. Then, for the remaining path of the joystick there is no more space for the chopper to react. Just to hoover by hand (not using autohoover) is almost impossible. The time in which the choppers are gaining the speed is not in the relation to the time needed to loose the speed. (yes! there are exactly the same forces causing both, accelerate/decelerate). Just watch OFP choppers fly and land. Do the same with ArmA. Which flights are looking more realistic? Yeah, OFP ones... BTW: Why the f* BIS implemented a Harrier WITHOUT implementing its major function? I don't get that.

Try to set 640x480 with no anti-aliasing and low details. You'll be then able to even move in the woods... Sad to say that we all are experiencing the same problem. Maybe the game was intended to be published first in 2009?

Try to set 640x480 with no anti-aliasing and low details. You'll be then able to even move in the woods... Sad to say that we all are experiencing the same problem. Maybe the game was intended to be published first in 2009?

Ehm, the Harrier as it is now is definitly not a proper "dog fight" jet... And I'm not mentioning the missing vertical control system of the Harrier, it flies just as a conventional jet. So why they implemented Harrier I have really no idea. Let's wait some months for mods and patches...