Imagine my suprise when, whilst hovering, I attempted to spin round my helicopter on the spot, using only the tail rotor!
And then nose dived into the ground.
Please fix this nonsense. That's not fun to play. That's not realism. That is just broken.
- My OFP doesn't automatically follow terrain - at a CONSTANT AIRSPEED I have to use collective control (which doesn't work correctly in OFP either BTW - but near enough and better than ArmA) to maintain a fixed height above terrain.
Originally Posted by (wamingo @ Feb. 25 2007,14:02)
I think you're mistaking the way OFP helos will climb (airspeed decrease) when you pull back on the stick / raise the nose and conversely will descend (airspeed increase) when you push the stick forward / lower the nose - this means that you can follow terrain much like a normal plane using the cyclic and without messing with the collective (can leave it locked inplace with the friction adjuster) - and having ACTUALLY DONE THIS in a Squirrel helicopter in real life I can assure you that is indeed how helicopters behave in forward flight.
In ArmA this relationship / effect is NOT modelled correctly - in OFP it's represented quite decently.
And in fact the real thing - like most aircraft - DOES pretty much fly itself unless maneouvering at low speed - ie. hovering / taking off / landing. I was allowed several years ago to take the cyclic in a Squirrel for a few hours - we were island hopping so between takeoffs and landings I flew us to the next island in turn - the pilot initially took me thru climbing and descending using just the cyclic (as well as banking of course - but that's just like a normal plane in forward flight) - he was on the pedals of course tho didn't seem top be having to do much with them - and he left the collective and power control locked and didn't even touch it for the whole time. Once he'd got me used to the relationship between nose up / climbing / losing speed and nose down / descending / increasing airspeed then my task was to keep us at 2000 feet and on the correct heading.
As I KEEP on saying - harder does NOT mean more realistic!!! - people keep focussing on the fact that you cannot just immediately fly ArmA helos decently because of the ridiculous mushiness and calling this realistic - whilst ignoring the fact that the broader flight dynamics and control responses are pretty much completely screwed. ***I've got to say that the UH60 actually isn't too bad in ArmA tho the yaw control just isn't right and the collective is too soft - and maybe the MI17 really just is a total PIG to fly IRL
As I've said - you want to experience what flying a real helicopter is like - in relation to handling the aircraft and without having to learn the physical process of "flying" it (impossible in front of a PC as I've said before - so time shouldn't be wasted even trying) - then except for the collective control acting like a height lever rather than a lift control - OFP is the place to go.
Loss of yaw control with higher forward speed makes sense but it's too sudden in ArmA (in fact I'd suspect IRL that yaw would pretty much disappear in the direction of main rotor rotation but still be reasonably decent in the opposite direction as main rotor rotation?) - the effect is quite decently modelled in OFP so once again I have to say why didn't they just leave it be.
Oh, just as I posted I remembered hearing of a case in North Western Australia where an oil rig chopper - one of the big Sikorki's - S-76 perhaps?? ***- lost tail rotor drive - he was able to fly to an airfield and successfully land - but to do it he had to do a rolling landing (ie. much like a normal plane) at I think 120 knots or something like that? ***This gives an insight I guess into how forward airspeed takes load off - and possibly removes authority from - the tail rotor.
I'll add my two penn'orth if I may. Having been a happy OFP'er for 5 years, and having been flying helicopters since 1977 (instructing since 1984), I've had a chance to make a few observations on the heli-flying threads over on the older game's boards.
Lots of good points being made here. RofSLs mate (who, if he ever 'did time' at Odiham I will surely know - my first tour there was in 1978 and my last in 1998) has made most of the observations that I have found in 3 days-worth of play.
Putting it into context, ArmA (and OFP) was never really going to be sold as a helicopter flight simulator so why push it in that direction? Flying helicopters involves skills which take a few hundred hours to get firmly fixed in the long-term memory; no gamer is going to want to make that sort of time-investment just to make a sim workable. BI don't assume every user is an expert infantryman or tank driver, so they simplify the sim to make those roles accessible. Why shouldn't they simplify helicopter flying so that it gives just a semblance of reality?
To enable real-life heli skills to cross over to the sim, players would need to do some work of their own. For example, they would need to configure their controllers so that the stick could be manoeuvred by finger-and-thumb while the forearm rests on the "pilot's" thigh. In real life, any pilot trying to "stiff-arm" the controls will just go from one pilot-induced-oscillation (PIO, or porpoise...) to the next - to damp-out a fugoid you need a base-reference (such as a specific stick position relative to a given point on your leg...) that you can aim to return the control on completion of the applied correction. Most helis these days - certainly the Blackhawk and Cobra - have trim systems to reduce the pressure against the pilots' hand while holding the aircraft at a given datum - not possible with most game joysticks, I'm afraid (although I'm constantly moving the FOV switch when in-game in a vain attempt to trim. Some habits are hard to break). Collective and yaw controls can successfully be modelled using game joysticks, so they're not so much of an issue here. BI don't know what each individual player is using as a control set-up (I still use the mouse when playing on the laptop..) so how can they be expected to produce a "one-size-fits-all" solution?
Test pilots use a grading system for assessing the difficulty of a particular aircraft's handling, where 1 is "yer grandma could do it", 3 is "your standard, low-average, inexperienced Squadron pilot could do it" all the way up to 6 ("an uber-god TP can do it but he'll need spare underwear"). At the moment, my subjective assessment of the aircraft in ArmA is that the H60s and the Little Birds are 3, the Mi17 is 4 and the Cobra is 5 going on 6. Back on OFP, the difficulty on all types including community addons was never higher than 3.
As regards faults in the ArmA model, my subjective opinion is that the greatest failing on all types is their "collective lever" response. My current types are all relatively small (Bo105, EC135 and my favourite, the MD902), but 9 years and 3000+ hours on Chinooks did give me a feel for larger helicopters. In all these aircraft, if I'm in the cruise and I want to descend, then within a very few seconds of lowering the lever all the way to the bottom I'll have a rate-of-descent of at least 1800 fpm. In real world terms, if I want to see where the aircraft's trajectory in this sort of descent is taking me, I need to look just over the top of the coaming/instrument panel. In a 902 I need to be looking just above my toes on the pedals! However, in ArmA (and even more so in its predecessor), lowering the lever would give me time to undo my straps, run to the back of the aircraft, return to my seat and buckle-up once more before the aircraft has even thought about descending. Very frustrating.
Not sure what the cause of the vastly-exaggerated yaw-roll coupling on all ArmA types (but especially the Cobra) might be. Contrary to what one poster said, putting in yaw does have a secondary roll effect (easily and usually automatically compensated-for by the pilot). However, it's so extreme as to make the Cobra ridiculous at the moment. Someone has pointed out that the position of the aircraft C of G relative to the centre of lift (not always under "the" rotor hub - remember the Chinook...) seems wrong - I would suggest that the pendulum be made a lot longer by moving the CofG way down.
One last heli-related comment - one contributor suggested earlier that the Kamov heli doesn't yaw. Oh yes it does! Same system as is used (for pitch control! on the Chinook - differential collective. Anyone who saw the Helix demo at Redhill a few years ago will remember watching the aircraft fly along the crowd line at approx 50 kts, put in a bootful of pedal so that the aircraft yawed 90 degrees in about 3 seconds while maintaining ground track, then held that for another 3-5 seconds before resuming balanced flight. A Hokum that couldn't yaw would be totally ineffective as a fighting aircraft - bringing the gun to bear in hover flight wouldn't be possible.
Right, I need to get some sleep before tomorrow. Meanwhile, I look forward to many hours ArmA practice on shift, awaiting my next air-ambulance/ police heli callout. Life's not bad, really - eh?!
I don't quite get these yaw-roll coupling complaints. I don't seem to have this issue. Is it Cobra-specific for you guys?
Whisper / Kalbuth / MrK
ArmA3 / Planetside 2, member of MercenaryS
Planetside / ET:QW / Tribes Ascend, member of Formido Clan
Anyone who can tell me if the cobras agility is anywhere near accurate? I'm always having a realy hard time avoiding mountains in high speeds.. Say I'm flying with a speed of 200 and I want to fly through an S shaped canyon.. Even if I start turning 300 meters away I keep crashing into the wall.
So, at a speed of 200, whats the distance required to get to 0 speed with the cobra?
Hi ThudBlunderQ8 - great to hear from someone like yourself!!
I get your point (and RockofSL's friend's similar point) about OFP being relatively easy - but apart from the wierd collective which does more or less what it's supposed to but not... quite properly - do you feel that the general OFP flight model reasonably realistically demonstrates helo flight??
My personal experience is theoretical stuff (being an aviation mechanic), a little stick time in a Squirrel flying course/speed/height and a little maneouvering just with the cyclic, - and quite a bit of chatting with a commercial helo pilot from New Zealand who did some work in the hangar here where I work (he's also a mechanic - and married to a lady helo pilot would you believe :-) )
My basic contention is that all the obvious faults of the ArmA flight model notwithstanding - such as porked CG, porked tailrotor yaw/roll coupling, porked yaw rate/sensitivity, porked and incorrect/excessively sluggish collective and annoyingly difficult cyclic lag - they had everything one could need in this type of game plus just a damned decent representation of helicopter flying already in OFP - so I personally would just like that ported across or at least the option to have it according to personal preference.
And back to the actual thread topic - I haven't been able to try the Cobra as of course I'm only using the demo at this stage - but all the faults listed above notwithstanding, something to remember with relation to the maneouverability of the Cobra is that there will be a drastic reduction of maneouverability at higher speed and it could well be quite easy to be attempting tight turns at a speed that is well above what the sensation imparted from the visual representation might make you feel is the case. In short I'd guess that any hard turning etc. needs to be taking place at not more than maybe 110 knots or so - this ties in with monty67t's observations - so if you try to turn the wee beast and it doesn't want to go, take a look at the speedo reading - I'd guess you'll be somewhere above 150 (heck, the maneouvering speed may actually need to be lower than 90! )
No, what it does mean is that comparing our experiences to that video is meaningless, which is my point.
Originally Posted by (HellToupee @ Feb. 25 2007,07:14)
Well, your OFP is either not the same OFP as everyone else's, or your ability to judge what the helicopter is doing is severely impared. In OFP, if you fly 'up a hill', you can even hear the engine rpms drop, the same way if you 'load' the rotors by telling the helicopter to climb via BIS's universal throttle/collective control. If you fly 'off of a cliff', the engine rpms will increase, and if the cliff is steep enough, you will no longer have any control over any of the helicopter's flight controls until it gets back to within the alititude range that it feels comfortable in. The helicopter doesn't stay fixed at a given altitude as if it was on legs... but it will attempt to stay at a certain altitude as if it was perched on mushy springs. So it might even crash into a hill if it's steep enough and you're going fast enough, but not without trying really hard not too. Try flying towards a hill that is higher than your altitude and leaving the controls alone. Chances are the helicopter will climb over the hill with no input.
Originally Posted by (Radic @ Feb. 25 2007,10:12)
Please use the CWR2 CBT to help us provide a better experience.
It's not meaningless. A knowledgeable person can get information out of it. I'm licensed in small fixed wing planes, not rotary, but I have flown, I do know physics.
Originally Posted by [b
I could name three things that should improve most people's flying experience:
1. Little more responsive lift control
2. Ability to set control sensitivity (1st and 2nd order mapping)
3. More airplane-like fast forward flight (with yaw authority, bank-n-turn flight)
I've also flown fixed wing and glider aircraft, U-control and radio control models since I was a child. I have spent a great deal of time studying critical and scientific thinking, and have done a little bit of the principles of aeronautics in my spare time. Trust me, very little can be gleaned from those videos. You can get impressions on what you think you're seeing, but you think you're seeing one thing and I think I'm seeing something else. It would be much more telling if we could see the instruments... the reason aircraft have instruments is because that human perception is inaccurate and, in some cases, completely flawed.
Originally Posted by (Frederf @ Feb. 26 2007,09:47)
- no, if I fly toward a hill - or some trees at a fixed "collective" setting and at a constant airspeed (which in OFP - without an artificial horizon instrument or VSI is how you know you're flying "straight and level" ) - then I will crash!!
Originally Posted by (plaintiff1 @ Feb. 26 2007,06:51)
In my OFP the engine pitch / rotor load sound doesn't alter unless I do something to make it do so....
In fact... - I just popped off to the desktop, fired up OFP and CONFIRMED this!!! (did a classic CFIT into gently rising terrain at constant airspeed / AOA / no control input changes - then did same into a cliff).
Maybe you're either unconsciously flying it or have auto-hover turned on??