Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Hunin

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    102

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Hunin

  1. Posted

    Hi Cutter.

    I use a X-52 and it is a great stick for ArmA ( as it is for every flying).

    I can talk you through everything you want to do, but I don't get what you mean exactly right now.

    Are you refering to the Saitek programming software or ingame mapping?

    Anyway - Here are some basic tips to get started.

    1. The spring tension on the X-52 is a bit weak and therefor you have to really be carefull not to make accidental ( small) movements - this can be really anoying in helicopters, as you have to compensate the movement.

    There's a real easy method to increase spring tension though.

    you can look at a video on how to do it - really easy.

    2. If you have done so you can leave all values in your arma config cfg at 1.00000 - volia; very precise and comfortable stick.

    If you don't want to do this tweak, you might wan't to set them

    to steps from 0.00000 to 1.00000 for fine controll (0.0000, 0.1000, 0.2000 [...] 1.0000).

    As for buttons - how do you want to set them up:

    In ArmA or via the controll software?

  5. Posted

    I wholeheartly agree.

    I just hate the low geometry resolution on the lower landsape settings ( and it can be even dangerous when you fly in 10 meters at about 1200 klicks per hour ).

    On the other hand the grass adds no real gameplay advantage and costs precious fps.

    Make the grass adjustable!

  6. Posted

    The problem with that aproach is, that it would cause what is allready happening on servers now - everyone thinks to be some kind of pilot and ( of course ) systimaticaly turns the maps helo and plane stock into a junkyard.

    I'd rather have it a switchable option on the server side, so you could have dedicated servers were dedicated pilots can deliver the kind of realism that ( IMO ) creates the real immersion.

  9. Posted

    As a former Army helicopter pilot I have been watching this thread and laughing the whole time. Would it not be easy just for you to google the answer? BIS has done a ok job. But it is just a game and it would take a super computer to correctly sim a helicopter. No game/sim has ever come close to the real thing. I will give you one example: ETL (Effective Translational Lift). Look it up. No game/sim has ever modeled that and that is a basic helicopter flight principle. BIS has done a ok job with using the pedals at slow speeds and using them to trim at high speeds.

    Valid points - but thats not what the topic is about ultimatly.

    It's about getting the maximum possibilitys out of the game by trying to give the ingame pilots the same means ( in terms of controll) that a real pilot has.

  10. Posted

    Inertia is the property of mass that resists forces acting upon it.. You can't really create that, per se..

    Anyways, the tail rotors are to counter the torque of the main rotor. By varying the angle of the blades, they can induce rotation in either direction, either by creating less counter torque or more.

    Don't you think your post contradicts itself?

  11. Posted

    Well since I've actually flown helicopters for half my life I believe I can give some advice on the situation.

    First of all, when a helicopter is in forward flight using your right or left pedals just to turn, (just pressing the x or c button to turn around) this would cause an instant stall. OR If you were flying in a MI24 Hind just applying too much pedal would cut your tail boom in half.

    Im not saying its impossible, usually the tail rotor is used to counter the main rotors natural torque. Usually when your hovering or in a slow low forward speed, like 15mph and 20 feet from the ground, you would yaw using the pedals.

    So BI is probly trying to simulate more accuratly what it would be like to fly a helicopter.(To me they are no where close, its more like flying a gyrocopter)

    Hopefully yall learned a little more bout helicopters.

    P.S. To many of you that think flight sim games for the computer are realistic and you think you know how to fly a helicopter now should go steal a helicopter and I'll visit ya in a hospital or your grave. The ONLY sim game that is anywhere close to flying an actual helicopter would be the flight simulators the military I've been in and helicopter schools use.

    So tail rotors are just to counter intertia ( through airpressure on the tailboom) ?

    I'm just sceptical because it is very common procedure to use the tailrot for creating inertia without banking ( and therefor loosing v.thrust).

    And because it is simply impossible to use yaw only in near hover situations.

    I don't want to implie that you have no real experience in helicopters - but I have the strong feeling that I missed your point.

  12. Posted

    Again this may be due to the fact that planes and helicopters use the same "mass inertia engine".

    In the planes if you bank to either side or produce a high AoA

    situation you can almost feel the non existend rotor loosing vertical thrust.

    Try performing a shallow High Yoyo and I'm shure you will see what I mean.

    At least the yaw should be easy to correct.

    I mean I dont expect them to build a complete. new energy modell for the planes but fixing the "concrete-rudders" will both benifit helos ( more realistic controll ) and planes ( at least the ability to aim properly ).

  13. Posted

    I think he didn't even read the posts.

    It was stated ten times ( directly and indirectly) that its not about turn but yaw.

    Fact is that the yaw in Arma is realistic.

    Its just the speed that is wrong ( as we can see on the planes wich have no rudder input at all).

    The problem here is that both helos and planes use the same basic FM in ArmA - but a plane does not yaw without automaticaly changing the direction of movement.

    If both use the same basic FM, it will be impossible to have both - realistic helo yaw ( ingame now ) and realistic plane yaw ( impossible because planes helo yaw right now ).

  15. Posted

    Your observations are correct.

    And to make a long story short: It's not a bug in ArmA.

    To explain it I first need to adress the orginial problem.

    The rudder authority is very restricted in high speeds.

    This means that you cannot quickly change your direction of motion .

    It is a misconception that the Ka-50 can turn on a dime.

    It can however yaw the nose very rapidly.

    How that?

    The helicopter moves into a certain direction with a given force.

    This force is generated by the collective.

    If the pilot steps onto the rudder he basicly cuts or adds power to the tail rotor ( or one of the 2 main rotors in case of the Blackshark).

    This yaws the fuselage because of the rotation force of the main rotor.

    So if a pilot yaws he does not automaticaly change the collective and therefor does not automaticaly change the direction of movement.

    From second 30 onwards you can see it pretty nicely in this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEULmkKbw0Y

    The whole process is a matter of engine power ( the Ka-50 having plenty of it) - but this kind of manouvering isn't only for double Rotor systems; I remember seeing a Bundeswehr UH Tiger

    doing exactly the same thing on the last ILA in Berlin.

    So BIS has it correct that in ARMA you move the fuselage in relation to the direction of movement, rather then the miracle

    rudder turn from OFP.

    The point where your angle of rudder authority decreases is the point were the airflow ( speed ) is a greater force then the power capabilitys of your tail rotor.

    Depending on Helo this point should be present at an average 270 km/h.

    I have the strong feeling that rudder and collective are not really seperated by the engine to enable mouse and keyboard users to "somehow" get into the air.

    But it is the same problem with the planes.

    They have zero rudder authority.

  16. Posted

    Your observations are correct.

    And to make a long story short: It's not a bug in ArmA.

    To explain it I first need to adress the orginial problem.

    The rudder authority is very restricted in high speeds.

    This means that you cannot quickly change your direction of motion .

    It is a misconception that the Ka-50 can turn on a dime.

    It can however yaw the nose very rapidly.

    How that?

    The helicopter moves into a certain direction with a given force.

    This force is generated by the collective.

    If the pilot steps onto the rudder he basicly cuts or adds power to the tail rotor ( or one of the 2 main rotors in case of the Blackshark).

    This yaws the fuselage because of the rotation force of the main rotor.

    So if a pilot yaws he does not automaticaly change the collective and therefor does not automaticaly change the direction of movement.

    From second 30 onwards you can see it pretty nicely in this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEULmkKbw0Y

    The whole process is a matter of engine power ( the Ka-50 having plenty of it) - but this kind of manouvering isn't only for double Rotor systems; I remember seeing a Bundeswehr UH Tiger

    doing exactly the same thing on the last ILA in Berlin.

    So BIS has it correct that in ARMA you move the fuselage in relation to the direction of movement, rather then the miracle

    rudder turn from OFP.

    The point where your angle of rudder authority decreases is the point were the airflow ( speed ) is a greater force then the power capabilitys of your tail rotor.

    Depending on Helo this point should be present at an average 270 km/h.

    I have the strong feeling that rudder and collective are not really seperated by the engine to enable mouse and keyboard users to "somehow" get into the air.

    But it is the same problem with the planes.

    They have zero rudder authority.

  17. Posted

    Name any manouver you saw a real AH-1 doing and tell me I can't do it in ArmA please.

    ( You do have a HOTAS do you?)

    PS

    Taking BF 'nam as an example for better flight physics sort of disqualifies you of talking about fm's.

    PPS

    The above sentence also applies to you statement about planes and lift.

    PPPS

    When was the last time you have been in military and "customized" your weapon?

  18. Posted

    They don't have the Su-34 - the plane we have in game belongs to the Russian Federation.

    I think if you follow the oilstate idea and see that they allready have the T-72 it might be logical that they at least upgrade their elite guard units with the T-90.

    This baby would not only fit into the games balancing ( T-90 beeing the russian tank on Abrams level) and the T-80 would not make much sense in such a small place like Sahrani.

  21. Posted

    Probably just blue-white-blue from inside to outside (or vise versa biggrin_o.gif).

    I agree that the SLA equipment is great multifunctional due to the way there are no insignias of any kind.

    My personal favorit for an SLA hind would probably be

    a paintsheme that the UHTs and Bo-105s of the german army wear- because it would fit the north-saharanian landscape perfectly.

  24. Posted

    Shadow, would be great to use this texture sets in a future version. Btw is one already planned?

    That DDR Version also sounds great.

    This one?

    img]http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/2571/3312vo6.jpg[/img]

    Vilas, sounds great about the polish versions. Are these the Mi-24D and Mi-24W (V)

    Was'n schöner Vogel!

    What a great looking bird you have there!

    It would perfectly suit those waiting for the BW mod releasing it's german stuff - a little "what if Germany had keept it's Hinds after 1990".....  notworthy.gif     inlove.gif

    BTW.

    I'm a texture artist myself  (done lot of stuff in flight simming for IL-2 and Lomac) and could help wherever you'd like assistance in terms of textures.

    The paintscheme above won't be hard to to; all I need is someone explaining me the basics of how textures work in OFP.

    Dont quote images please. -Shadow

  25. Posted

    Sounds great!

    Of course I don't want to distract you from polishing this beauty, but could you throw a word about the weapons loadouts?

    I suppose the two variants of each version only differ in weapon loadouts, right?

×