Cykyrios

I may also create a second ticket about the general helicopter physics, as I believe the latest tweaks still aren't quite there, although the improvement is already great. But, for instance, bleeding speed is now a bit exaggerated, and allows for A/MH-9s to stop within 50 meters at full speed (about 150 km/h - top speeds are another topic I'd like to bring back).

My guess is that, in the same way damage was "weighted" on a character's body, it is still weighted on vehicles hitboxes, which means that when you hit a part of the vehicle, the damage will spread to nearby hitpoints. This is obviously wrong, and could probably be fixed in the same way it was for soldiers.

Coaxial rotors yaw through cyclic pitch changes, and they also use a rudder to better maneuver at high speeds. This doesn't mean they can yaw faster than helicopters with a tail rotor, though, as those use the full power of that rotor to turn (even if it's smaller). But I agree some tweaks are still needed for some helicopters, while the general flight model has been greatly improved. I would simply like autorotations to be slightly more accurate, but having them back is already a good thing.

It does depend on the helicopter. The Blackfoot, for instance, is able to detect missiles and missile lock prior to launch. The CH-49 Mohawk is only able to detect launched missiles. The MH-9 and AH-9 still can't detect anything, though. Oh, and we still need an audible warning for both lock and missiles... pretty please? :P A fast-paced and high-pitched beep for missile lock, and continuous, maybe slightly higher-pitched beep for launched missiles should do the trick.

This helicopter is too arcadey! :P The latest devbuild solved many issues in the flight model, created a few minor ones (speed in general is now too low, but acceleration is very good). Autorotations are back (in a slightly unnatural way, though), which is very very good, although AA missiles usually render them useless, as they always seem to destroy the main rotor (along with just about every hitpoint of any helicopter, actually). Agility of helicopters such as the MH-9 is also back, hooray!

While helicopters should be able to lose speed and altitude at the same time, there is no magic brake! At a 10 degrees pitch up attitude with collective all the way down, it takes about 7 seconds for a Ka-50 to slow down from 250 to 200 km/h. Now imagine you want to land: that'll take another 25-30s at least, unless you start flaring (which won't allow you to lose altitude as quickly). Descent rate is about 3 to 6 m/s (watch this video, from DCS Ka-50: ).Now of course, this is from a simulator, and I entered a vortex ring state twice in this video (also, terrible piloting...). Arma's collective is weird due to its auto altitude hold (kinda), but otherwise does its job well, maybe needing a tiny bit more responsiveness. However, descending while in hover would already be fast enough to enter a VRS in real life, so descending faster in Arma would be unrealistic, since VRS is not simulated. Also, holding collective down from a long distance still allows you to lose some speed and altitude, but you have to take into account that starting a descent at 300+ km/h just isn't gonna work (again, my only experience with real life is simulators, such as DCS Ka-50 and some X-Plane demo). I still agree helicopters tend to gain speed/altitude too easily in that case, as pitching up 10 degrees is impossible without gaining altitude until you get below 150 km/h or so. Responsiveness of helicopters, as stated previously, is too low in the Beta, and was much better in the Alpha. When flying with the mouse or a joystick, it should also be even slightly higher than in the Alpha for quick inputs. Then of course, there is the speed issue: world record helicopter speed is around 400 km/h. Faster speeds mean the blades of the rotor start losing lift, because they spin in the vacuum they create momentarily by moving the air. Most helicopters have a top speed of around 250 to 350 km/h. Acceleration is also a big issue, as has now been repeated enough: helicopters don't accelerate that fast, even with full collective and an aggressive pitch down attitude. (which, by the way, slows the rotor down due to the high stress in the blades, eventually leading the rotor to stall in some extreme situations). From DCS Ka-50 Black Shark again, my fastest acceleration in a level flight is around 7 seconds to accelerate from 100 to 200 km/h; in Arma 3, it takes about as much, or even less, to get from 0 to 200. Again, I'm not asking for a realistic flight model - that would make inexperimented pilots run away - but I still want some realism to be added to helicopters, and a decent flight model helps a lot.

The only thing that comes to my mind being more difficult because of the unrealistic flight model is rotation, actually: yaw (only for the MH-9/AH-9), and especially roll, for all helicopters, is way too unresponsive. In real life, if you were to quickly tilt the stick to the left, the helicopter would bank pretty quickly. In Arma, however, things take a looong time, which makes adjusting attitude difficult (and makes it almost impossible to dodge/break/maneuver). Adding simulation of vortex ring state or anything that Max Power said would most definitely add more difficulty, which isn't a bad thing as the current flight model is really easy to fly (compared to real life/simulators, and even just considered on its own). Ah, one thing from real life that would make it easier: bringing autorotations back! It's been around 2 months that they're broken now, I would really appreciate them to be fixed.

What I do is I play as one of the passengers, and teamswitch to the helicopter to get altitude. That, or you can teleport yourself up there, though this isn't as interesting.

Only passengers ("cargo") can eject from helicopters (and I also noticed there are only 4 parachutes in the Hummingbird, when it can hold 6 passengers :P ). By the way, I just noticed in the devbuild that it is not possible to get the AI to open their inventory while seating in passenger seats (tried in the Ghosthawk), while it is possible in the stable build. Anyone care to confirm? Edit: Can't open AI inventory in stable build either, though I'm sure I could at some point... it was in the Mohawk as an independant team.

Actually, to better pilot a helicopter, you should choose the linear curve, along with zero deadzone (though to each his own). This allows you to have better control, especially during a hover, than the first curve, which will often cause you to over-correct your attitude and lose control over your hover.

Momentum != utterly slow MH-9. The Mohawk is much more responsive (about as much as the MH-9 was before, actually) than the current MH-9. Momentum has nothing to do with it, Bohemia just modified the FM of the bird, and it now turns like a cow, as some would say. I filed a ticket dealing with helicopter physics in general in Beta, and I mentioned that as well: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9786

Quick question: where are the new animals/new content described in the latest spotrep? Can't find them anywhere in the editor, do they have to be spawned through their classname?

Well of course new engines features are very unlikely, that would require a lot of work for not that noticeable a result (probably). But games features do not necessarily require new engine features; and there are still lots (and I mean lots) of features the game lacks, that will hopefully be added/tweaked during the Beta.

I have to say I completely agree with Byku: they're deriving from the path of milsim to the path of "selling as much as we can to military fans", turning Arma into a generic but highly moddable game. Come on! What other game is there that accurately (more or less) simulates all these aspects of warfare? I have only started playing the Arma series from Operation Arrowhead, and had high expectations for Arma 3, what with all the promises the devs made... and having that crushed is not cool at all. From Tuesday on, the "Alpha excuse" will no longer be an excuse, even though the only change from Alpha to Beta is content, which means there is no actual change to the core game. So either we'll see the game improved during the Beta, or we'll have a game that is not what Arma is supposed to be.

I don't get how some people can like the devbuild FM better than the previous one... sure, it's a problem of personal preference, but that thing is so flawed... To sum some things up: - Autorotations are gone since 0.58, and still aren't back - AH-9/MH-9 is "less twitchy", to the extent that the CH-49 is more responsive to ALL inputs - damage model is very very bad - collective is... special, but I don't mind it in Arma And also, a link to this ticket: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9786 Take a look at the video as well. I for one am not asking for th ToH FM, as it would probably be too restrictive in Arma 3 (only a few people would be able to fly helicopters), but at least making the current one behave properly would be a good thing.

Sure is less twitchy... so much actually, that the CH-49 is more responsive. Overall, I'd say the helicopter physics haven't been improved, and autorotations are still impossible (since 0.60, but were possible before that). Let me link to this ticket about helicopter physics (includes a video): http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9786 The new helicopters (and alpha ones as well), despite their handling, are awesome, though.

Actually, the "proper" way out of a tail rotor spin is not to "rock out", but to hold collective down to slow rotation, and then get some speed. At low altitudes, it's possible in Arma to just get higher, though. And landing without a tail rotor should be done through autorotation, as it's an "easy way" to land, and it stops the spinning entirely. Speaking of which, autorotations are broken since version 0.60, any hope to see them fixed soon? :P

This is another issue I believe exists in the game: the lack of an option to choose from speakers/headphones/<add your speaker configuration>. But I still strongly believe a headphones option, at least, should be added, as most multiplayer missions require vocal communication, which is usually done using a headphones-mounted microphone.

While this post is not about the current changes to the sounds of the game, it deals with the sound engine, and how sound is handled. The way sound is implemented currently is (very roughly): - generate sound - calculate distance, and thus delay, to the player, to play the sound properly, including the environment (or is it taken into account?) - and most importantly, once the sound reaches the player, it is "positioned" somewhere between the Left and Right channels to be played back by your speakers/headphones. This last point is the part that concerns me: if you are 100-200 meters away from a hovering helicopter, directly to your right, ALL the sound will come from the right speaker. While this isn't much of a problem with speakers, it is extremely uncomfortable (and unrealistic) when wearing headphones, since your left ear will hear absolutely nothing. Which brings me to the following suggestion: implementing some form of binaural play back. Instead of "positioning" the sound somewhere in the Left-Right channels, each speaker (or channel, maybe?) should be handled individually, so that both ears hear something properly (which relies on the speed of sound (already in the game) and some filtering to simulate the skull and ears themselves relative to the source of the sound). The basis of binaural playback is that as in real life, both ears should hear the sound, unless it is very low and close to only one ear (such as whispering). In Arma, with mostly gunfire and engines as sound sources, there is no doubt sounds are loud enough. I believe this is a "simple" way to implement binaural sound into a game, as it is not possible to record sounds directly with 2 microphones to cover all the possible situations. For an example of 2-microphones binaural recording, please listen to the " " on YouTube, or simply search for the word "binaural".This example is a great way to understand how stereo is far enough to estimate the direction and distance of sounds, in the same way we have 2 ears and not 4+ as in surround systems. I'd like to know the devs' and other players' opinions about this system, and if there could be a chance to have it in the game in the future. Thanks for reading.