deepfried

the xbox 360 control scheme has been broken since alpha. Still broken. Please fix it. As it stands at the moment its not possible to fly with analogue collective on the 360 pad, it should be, as it worked just fine in ARMA 2. Helicopter controls, Analogue collective, when bound to an analogue input on the 360 pad such as stick or triggers, correctly recognises full input values of 100 and -100, but in game that only translates to about half collective. This should be a simple fix, its been outstanding for years, please fix it.

So far as I can see xpadder just maps keyboard and mouse input to the controller, so how will that change the way arma scales analogue input? I can calibrate all day but as long as arma interprets 100% analogue input as 60% collective I don't see how anything but a fix on the arma side will help.

I have now, but I have little faith they will fix it. I'm pretty sure I raised this in alpha, and probably again in beta. The annoying thing is, this would probably take the right developer half an hour to fix.

Thanks for the suggestion, will it make ARMA 3 unable to recognise the controller as an xbox 360 controller? otherwise I don't think this can help. ARMA 3 seems to be hard coded to scale full analogue input from the 360 controller as less than 100% collective. So I guess the only way round that is if ARMA doesn't see it as a 360 controller, then maybe I can configure it as a generic.

ToH was far from perfect, to be frank I wouldn't be happy with a straight untweaked implementation of the flight model from ToH... even if they did do exactly that it would only cover one helicopter the ah6/ah9, the others in Arma 3 were not in ToH. As for how they handle right now in dev build... its WIP and changing every few days, so its not like they're done with it yet. I'll say though that where it is now is a big improvement from the initial advanced flight model release, I even managed to autorotation land a mi48 yesterday after getting the engine destroyed, thats a first for me in Arma even though I first started trying to get that to work right back in the original Armed Assault.

Seems to be working fine now

Thank god for that, its unplayable at the moment.

I really like the Kajman now but the mh9 feels weird on the cyclic at very low speeds, in fact i'm not even sure I can get it to hover, it seems to slide all over the place like its sitting on top of a dome of ice (could be i'm just a bad pilot).

No not exactly but they do give you a much better idea where the bullet will land, that's the whole point, you don't have to be perfectly aligned with the sight to make a shot as you would have to be with iron sights. Look at this youtube clip: and specifically look at where the reticule is on the target, it moves very little on the target despite moving at lot relative to the iron sight as the camera is moved around.

I have a problem with v1 running on dev branch, following the correct start up procedure (per the PDF and some youtube vids) the engines don't actually start up and the hud doesn't turn on. I also get an error message at seemingly a random point in the startup procedure saying something about an undefined variable in ac10_fuelstate and it gives a path to some sqf file. Any ideas? Edit: I have tried re-downloading the archive from a different mirror but still have the same problem. No other mods running.

I find myself having to switch between dev branch and stable a bit lately, is there anyway to have both versions installed at once? Ideally with separate steam icons. Its quite irritating to have to download 1gb of data every time I want to switch.

First impressions: Its a big improvement on the old flight model, I picked it up instantly but then I've played ToH so I guess I have the advantage there. There are some problems, I've noticed that the rudder is way too effective when moving at speed, when going 200kph I don't expect full rudder to spin the chopper around. I'm flying with auto-trim and an xbox 360 controller. The mi-48 seems underpowered and has a habit of dropping out of the sky when you slow to a halt, so much so that this is suicide if you attempt it at low altitude - that might be realistic I don't know. Edit: after flying it a bit more I find I actually like the mi-48, it feels really heavy so you have to be really on the ball with the collective when coming to a halt - but if you are then it handles fine and is quite stable, just takes getting used to I suppose. Mh-9 seems fine. i guess this was the easiest port as the mh-9 is basically the Light from ToH, though thankfully the ground effect is much less savage than in ToH. Ah-9 like a heavier mh-9, torque effects are more pronounced, collective is less sensitive. Busted the tail rotor the first 2 times I tried to take off thinking it would be like the mh-9. The Uh-80 flies like a charm, piece of cake. Can glide round the map without even touching the collective, extremely stable so only minor control inputs needed. Hellcat, flies a lot like the mh-9 except less skittish, no problems yet. Ah-99, I don't like attack choppers at the best of times but i can manage this ok, seems a bit sensitive on the roll but a bit sluggish on the collective - might be intentional, but I'd expect an attack chopper like this to have more power.

I'm trying to work out how to get my copilot to operate the weapons, he has access to the targeting systems and I (as pilot) do not, but picking out targets and ordering him to fire does nothing. Specifically i'm trying to complete the BAF scenario B07 Wildcat, where you have to provide CAS, I need to either be able to operate the gun myself or somehow get the copilot to do it.

Yes, the engine does not utilise all of the avaliable CPU cores fully, this is because most important stuff gets done in a single thread, so once that single core is maxed you have a performance bottleneck, nevermind what the other cores are doing and nevermind what the GPUs are doing. Am I excusing this or saying it trivial or acceptable? No, I'm just saying that this is where the performance issue lies at the moment and until BIS have a solution (if ever) we're stuck with it. However, you can mitigate the problem by setting a much shorter object draw distance and turning down object detail a notch ~ simple quick fix to plaster over the cracks whilst BIS work on it.

Given what happens to many games when the developers "streamline" the game, I'd say the fear is far from irrational. Though I do admit Arma's UI is unnecessarily clunky and unintuitive, however you have to bear in mind there are so many controls and interfaces to be managed, and a universal scroll menu might just be the simplest solution.

You've just got to manage your speed on the approach, you should start killing your speed about 1-1.5km out, come in with the nose up and the collective down (so you don't gain height) until you've bleed off enough speed then level off, approach the final 100m at 50kmh, then tip the nose up slightly as you come in and gently release the collective to neutral. It helps a LOT though if you have analogue collective control, and its 10x easier in 3rd person.

What are you even talking about? all they are saying is that the main feature of the alpha is the editor... not the main feature of the finished product. You're speaking as if the Arma 3 Alpha is the final game.

Nope, actually they are extremely easy, too easy, the flight model is very simplistic and arcadey. For the final game we will be getting the Take on helicopters flight model which is much more realistic and about 30x harder. Edit: Actual tip: use a 360 controller, map collective to the shoulder buttons, analogue collective to the triggers, and cyclic to the left thumb stick, use the right thumb stick for freelook. The collective on the shoulder buttons gives you "sticky" collective adjustment great for hovering and taking out targets, the analogue collective on the triggers allows you fine a responsive collective control when manoeuvring over terrain, allowing you to pull of some impossible feats. Note I do not recommend this control scheme for the ToH flight model, only the current placeholder Arma 3 model.

Exact same problem, steam bundle version. help appreciated.

I'd start with Arma 3 unless you have a burning desire to get into the meaty clan stuff right now. Arma 3 is still in alpha so it will take a couple of years to mature to near the level that Arma 2 is at at the moment (with mods etc), but that said I imagine most people will be shifting over to Arma 3 over the next several months.

The hsim folder goes into the ToH folder, you'll know if its working as the changes are very noticeable. E.g. my paths: E:\Steam\steamapps\common\take on helicopters\Hsim\Air_US_H\Helicopters_Light\Light-GenHeli600-DesktopSim.xml E:\Steam\steamapps\common\take on helicopters\Hsim\Air_US_H\Helicopters_Medium\Medium-GenHeli600-DesktopSim.xml

Load up the editor without any AI at all and experiment with your graphics settings. I think you'll find that AI has much less of an impact on frame rate than you think, as I suppose its handled in separate threads.

Yeah you really don't need the massive GPU power you're packing there, the bottleneck is the CPU handling all the objects in a single thread, so if you have object detail and view distance up high you're going to f**k your frame rate no matter what GPU you have.

Odd, the handling of the light is much better, I can actually land it without it trying to kill me and over all I feel more in control, however the handling of the medium seems to of become way more sensitive to the point where I'm see-sawing. The default model for the medium is actually a lot better for me, perhaps that's just down to the fact that I'm using a controller and having a more sensitive cyclic just isn't good on a thumb stick.

I think this could only be a good thing, the current model works in a purely utilitarian sense but is very simplistic and allows you to fly in a way that simply shouldn't be possible, the ToH model on the other hand is a definite step up in detail and simulation but it still has problems which actually make it harder to fly than irl (by all accounts). Seems to me this could be a very good thing indeed.