I would like to note a few observations i have made aswell with the beta.

the helicopters dont have much difference, the strenght of the yaw of the "comanche" vs the "merlin" is pretty much none. even though realisticly, the comanche could rotate at really high airspeeds.

The airspeed of the merlin is pretty absurd aswell. i was able to do stable flight at 390 kph. stable sideways flight at 350kph. and burst speeds in excess of 450 kph.

The more realistic range of collective compared to arma 2 is nice. but all the choppers seems to handle mostly the same. and they are all really easy to fly due to the easy fly handling with the large amount of collective upwards you can apply.

The autorotation problem is a simple one, there is no clutch between the “engine/s” and the rotor system to allow the rotor to turn more freely from forward speed/rate of decent.

The clutch normally uses engine/s oil pressure and have an over-run future at beneath ~ <85% N1/N2 while above ~ >85% N1/N2 it would be completely locked.

At minimum practicable flying weight (pilot + ¼ tank of fuel) the main rotor of MD5#0e/f/ff WITH the engine OFF should be able to stay at ~ 470 rpm (main rotor) at minimum collective at ~ 65kts (mid point between maximum glide distance and minimum rate of decent), by the time you get up to maximum weight you should be applying some collective to act as a brake to keep the main rotor <520rpm, if I recall correctly, with a pilot, 1 passenger and maximum fuel there should be parity at 490rpm which is the normal operating speed of the rotor with the engine on.

Agreed with all points.

The AH/MH-6's feel like they handle like a blackhawk, IMO, before this update they were perfect.

Same with the RAH-66/AH-99, or just yaw speeds in general.

Nick Lappos, The chief test pilot (I.e he was the one who flew the damn thing every day) at Sikorsky during the FANTAIL and Comanche programs stated the following about the about the Comanche: "the fantail, which replaces a conventional tail rotor is powerful enough that a northbound Comanche traveling at 100 knots [185 kph] could be pointed east, west or south while the aircraft while the aircraft still travels north" and then goes on to explain this ability to point weapons independent of the aircraft's velocity was a important attribute in future air combat...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Titrv4u2HKY

The whole FM is pretty bad as it is, for almost all helicopters.
Seriously Arma 2 had better FMs
Everything has been simplified too much

Part of it i like, Ie slow speed crashes dont make them blow up anymore. But some of the things are just odd.

Holy crap... just tested AH-6... BLOODY HELL it's slow to inputs. What did You do? O.O It should be agile small helicopter!
The optics on mi-48 are overdone with the dirtiness. I wouldn't go to combat with such dirty optic.
Oh... and flying sideways is copy/paste - mi-48 and comanche. In real life comanche was awesome with that, being able to turn 90 degrees at over 150kmh. Mi-48 with coaxial would probably also be very good. I'm starting to think that they are changing things because "harder" means more realistic, while it isn't like that. TOH was easy, the choppers were predictable and agile. AH/MH-6 is horrible now.

I hit water at over 700km/h and lived (both of us guys did)

also u can swoop and smack an acp and send it flying a few 100 meters while u just take a glancing hit and keep rolling (maybe need crush PhysX)

u can also hit the ground at hi rates and not explode to damage or die sometime u can just bounce and keep moving also its lagy and its like moving through time lawl u get a glimps of movement every few secs (definantly need hella polish for realism)

Thank you for your feedback.

The helicopters are still somewhat WIP.
Will try to keep you informed about any changes.

Good to know that they are still WIP

Thanks for keeping us informed.
I'll gladly give feedback as soon as changes are made to them.

It seems that they slightly improved the collective and flight characteristics. It's (almost) like flying in ARMA 2. They still need to refine the physics to allow for "quickstops" when inserting troops into a zone/rooftop. And I was attempting running landings around 30 mph last night. The helicopters roll on their wheels but it's as if the brakes are applied immediately after touchdown. This will be good for landing on a slope and parking, but this should be user initiated by toggling with a key bind.

Quickstops are possible, but you need to set minimum collective quite a while before you can actually stop; this is the proper behavior of a helicopter, though.

Another important issue is the top speed: world record top helicopter speed is somewhere around 400 km/h, yet we can easily fly faster in Arma, and much, much faster when diving. Generally speaking, helicopters tend to accelerate a bit too much, and often reach impossible speeds.

What I meant to say is that the current flight model's physics don't allow you to do quick stops like they did in Arma 2. It seems like now when I attempt a quickstop in most aircraft I either "balloon" up or gain airspeed instead of bleeding off airspeed and altitude. The collective still needs refining.

Less time on missions, campaigns and balancing, let us the community handle that.
Priority should be on realistic vehicle characteristics......

Priority for this fix should be upgraded to "Major" this will be game breaking for many users such as myself.

Fully agree that the AH-9 and MH-9 felt absolutely great in Alpha. Loved flying those! I hope that the flight models of those in Alpha will make it back to the game as soon as possible.

At least some choppers should have more weight and inertia as well, it's now quite hard to kill your speed with nose up without gaining altitude a lot.

Agreed, flight model needs some serious work.

This general issue spreads across vehicle configurations (e.g. the xH-9 family low agility) and the flight model how it is simulated by the engine (what affects all helicopters in the same way - e.g. auto-rotations). It may be become pretty complicated and chaotic. I'd prefer to dedicate this ticket to the engine/physics-only impression.

Please, create separate bug reports for single issues (water crash, heli's configs (behaviors unique to the specific heli), damage...)

A little update:
Configurations of xH-9 family were adjusted. They should appear soon in the DEV build (hopefully tomorrow). Please, let us know what you think about the change, preferably in an separate thread about the xH-9 family.
Please note, that the behavior may change again and will need reconfiguration once any engine change to the flight model is introduced. We will always be happy for any feedback after such change is made.

---

Rotor blades are disappearing only on few helicopters (temporal/test) and the engine does not simulate the loss of rotor blades.

Taxiing is a nice to have, but the suspension will probably stay in the same state as it is now. Low importance compared to other issues. Some issues were already solved here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=882

Thank you very much for your feedback.

Ground taxi isn't necessary if you can properly air taxi and know how to properly navigate / aviate around an airfield. But it's definitely a nice thing to have and will add to the realism/immersion!

My summary/opinion about the choppers on the forums (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147740-Helicopter-physics-impressions-simplified&p=2437066&viewfull=1#post2437066):

I get the impression that you're trying to apply the schema of fixed-wing aircraft handling to choppers. I'm not sure if I'm right but that's the impression that I get. It just doesn't work, choppers can't be flown like jets, they're completely different kind of machines. However, I agree that controls of the choppers are really sluggish at this moment (the controls were great in the latest Alpha builds, I want them back so badly ). It feels so weird that if you keep your collective down to keep the lift at very minimum and tip the chopper back that 10 degrees, the thousands of kilograms weighing large block of metal starts to gain altitude! It feels like you're flying a sheet of paper rather than chopper.

I'm absolutely sure that it makes flying choppers much more difficult, because it's pretty much impossible to kill your speed and decrease your altitude at the same time with most of the choppers now – partially caused by the reasons mentioned by b101_uk. This causes a lot of issues to regular (or newbie) chopper pilots, because when they try to slow down to land, they tip their nose back and lower the collective, but – thanks to the flight model – they still end up skyrocketing to high altitude, then shot down by AA within 5 seconds. You have to make highly unrealistic maneuvers to make a fast insertion like doing circles, multiple U-turns and snaking, and sometimes it feels that you simply can't slow down (especially with PO-30 Orca), the speed can even increase when you turn.

How should it be improved then? In my opinion, there are four crucial fixes that should be made:

1. increasing the mass of choppers
2. increasing the amount of inertia of choppers (most of them feel like that they don't have it at all atm in stable build)
3. retrieving the responsiveness of controls that was present in the last (stable) Alpha builds, there was almost no input lag at all
4. fixing the inconsistency between the authority of different control methods and the ranges and linearity of some analogue axises (check b101_uk's post)

But what are the influences of these fixes to the newbies and regular pilots? How to avoid them crashing all the time then?

I believe that all those fixes would make it not only more realistic but also much easier to fly choppers, because if you want to slow down, you can do it without gaining altitude thus being able to approach your LZ faster and in cover, that would decrease the risk of getting shot down by AA remarkably, and on the other hand, the responsiveness of the controls allows you to make accurate corrections. Additionally, pilots should always be "one step forward" from the situation, so that you're kind of "realizing your plan" all the time instead of touching the controls first and then thinking. This could be taught to players with simple chopper training mission in the singleplayer included in the core game. It could contain simply exercises of basic handling of choppers, eg. hovering, taking off, proper landings and also some more theoretical stuff like that "always being one step forward" (like planning the flight route and LZ before taking off), fast and tactical insertions, how to avoid getting shot down by AA, eg. flying in cover and how to make autorotation in case of engine failure (well, it should be made possible by devs first ). Very simple to create (I can barely script and even I have done a mission like that!), but big influence to the players.

Edit: Thanks to Oukej for nice explanation!

@ Dennis :Ground taxiing could allow a pilot to guide a fast moving helicopter (countering the torque) to a flat bit of land because trying to land in a hover with a lost tail rotor is very very dangerous.

I understand that, you still have the ability to roll on a landing (slightly). Adding a parking brake that could be toggled would be a good thing so that you can do running take-offs and landings and also ground taxi.

@ Ezcoo, I disagree with a lot of the statements that you made. Have you flown a helicopter in real life? S-turns, "U-turns", and spiral approaches are used in real life. It depends on the type of zone and the profile that you have to use while shooting an approach to that zone. Who cares about making it "easier" for newbie pilots? Flying takes practice to master. A LOT of practice. If the devs were so kind to keep the flight dynamics similar to Arma2: OA, I'd be happy. That's probably the most realistic game/sim that I've played with regards to aircraft physics/dynamics and encountering enemy threats.

lawl quicksand but slower. Dayyum. But yes upvoted since its kinda silly they havent worked out propper helicopter physics with Physx

To be honest, implementation of PhysX is why some of you may perceive the behavior of helicopters in A3 as worse than in Operation Arrowhead. It's been a lot of readjustments and it is still in process. Your feedback is the most valuable.

A major change was introduced in the second Alpha update of the default branch and it was partly caused by me not liking how you could easily do aerobatic maneuvers with the helicopters and even fly upside down at least somehow. (But that was possible in A2:OA as well).

We are trying to find the best possible solution. Please understand, that it will always be a kind of a trade-off. Sadly, we can't simulate "all the things" ;) and we shouldn't probably even try to.

A new version with some adjustments in the flight model is about to land in the DEV branch. Please, let us know what you you think about it. Which behavior you think is better, which you find more enjoyable.

Thank you!

^fly helo's upside down? TO THE TEST LAB! no but i never was abble to do that simply the thing drops like a brick. Some features are realistic dolike barrle rolls but you need some skills since you get desorientated really easly. Thanks for.

As tip try combined the maneuverbility of some arma 2 helicopters with A3. Things as the littlebird are made to be agile as hell not like the A3 one where when you go in a 90 angle you are doomed.

@DennisModem, I agree with you that I'd like to see the same kind of flight dynamics than in A2:OA (well, TOH version actually but rather OA's flight model than A3's current one(s)). And yeah, those turns are used in real life (one could ask: why not?) but my point was that I believe that you have to do them currently even in situations where you wouldn't have to do them IRL.

It seems that fixing the flight models is hard due to engine design, so I'd be very happy if at least the inconsistency between the authority of different control methods and the ranges and linearity of some analogue axises could be fixed, and the responsiveness of controls that was present in the last (stable) Alpha builds could be retrieved. Those two would help _a lot_ really.

Thanks to oukej for nice explanation again! It always relieves your "pain" a little bit when you see comments from devs, so you can be sure that they're aware of your issue/opinion at least ^^

@oukej

I see where you're coming from but when you have a small, light helicopter which could currently roll into the ground from 100 or so meters and IRL you see helicopters doing stuff like
this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uYbx5H5e9Es#t=31s
this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Titrv4u2HKY
or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_Ycnk1FDWQ

Where you can see rather rapid turns at speed and rather quick stops without gaining/losing any altitude.

You can see why people bring up a discrepancy in the flight models when in game trying to stop or turn that quickly would either be impossible or result in the helicopter ending up in the side of a hill.

Please don´t bring up helicopters outfited for stunt flying, they can do maneuvers that military helicopters only can dream off.

@Ezcoo "I get the impression that you're trying to apply the schema of fixed-wing aircraft handling to choppers. I'm not sure if I'm right but that's the impression that I get. It just doesn't work, choppers can't be flown like jets, they're completely different kind of machines."

That is common believe. But when helicopter gets higher speed (over 60km/h) its flight characteristics gets changed to be more like fixed wing plane flying. When you pull stick back, you will gain altitude rapidly, when you push stick you dive down. And on high speeds you fly it more like fixed wing plane by rolling and pulling to do a turns.

@DennisModem "That's probably the most realistic game/sim that I've played with regards to aircraft physics/dynamics and encountering enemy threats."

Please....
http://www.x-plane.com/downloads/x-plane_10_demo/

ARMA 2 aircraft physics/dynamics were not so great. Lets example take KA-52 on ARMA II and Mi-48 now in Arma III.

Both should be very agile helicopters, have a ability turn around in high speeds but boths flight models are made so stiff that they are like two match sticks flying, you simply can not change yawn those helicopters as dual-rotor system would allow. Even with a cabin, Mi-48 the engines would pull amazing power ratio because dual-rotor system as tail rotor isn't consuming 20-30% of the engine torque and it isn't there making helicopter to rotate but the main rotors allows helicopter to yawn amazingly fast and on high speed without tilting helicopter anyways.

The flight physics in ARMA II are just simple, example Mi-24 in it didn't have any problems when rolling as wings generates 25% of the lift and when rolling to one side, the turning side wing lose lift and Mi-24 would roll harder than meant.
Still Mi-24 is fastest attack helicopter but in ARMA II it was slower than OPFOR helicopters. And Mi-24 rotors size and amount caused easily a ring vortex at low speeds as the blades sucked easily air and the wings caused air pocket between wings and rotor blades.

Example that was reason why one country (if I remember correctly, Pakistan) ordered mountain border patrols not to fly slower than 100kph because pilots from both sides of border tended to play mirrors and while flying at high altitude (thin air) at very low speed caused helicopter generate ring vortex and crash.

MH-9 has always felt too agile in highspeeds in ARMA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4MaOO-Zn4sc#t=43s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=enHmkFiMNbs#t=49s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0ajgeHb-bAQ#t=24s

Compared example to Bo and KA-52
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6Ngx65Tn2Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7vLHW6mcfYo#t=369s

Yes, MH-9 can fly well at medium speeds (<100km/h) but when you throw weapons or four men to carry its agility is very limited.

@Tonci87

The BO105 used in the first video has a reputation for being highly manuverable and is used by over 24 different militaries.

And i wouldn't call it a pipe dream:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yILBKZcQEIE

Despite being many times heavier than many helicopters, especially the MH-6 (The aircraft which a is the key focus here) it can still be quite agile.

Doesn´t matter if it is used by the military, Airshow stunt helicopters are usually heavily modified regarding weight and power and can´t be compared to military versions.

Not all airshow helicopters are heavily modified. The difference really comes that military helicopters are carrying easily ton or two extra weight of weapons and that pilots are not trying to do stunts as they are high risk maneuvers.

Military versions are very powerful and agile, example Mi-24 and KA-5x helicopters , of course airshow variants are empty and can start show even with half of fuel amount etc.

Still for many basic maneuvers military helicopters are capable to do them, from roll to yawn. But once you are flying, you have cargo (personnel or gear) you don't play around.

I would be very fine to get helicopters what deserves it a real agility (Mi-48 example) with risk that you will lose control if doing it wrong etc.
The experience flying helicopters or fighters in ARMA III should require skills, not to be designed to be flied like masters with WSAD+mouse combination. At least there should be difficulty setting then to enable/disable challenging air controls for those who are ready to push air vehicles to their maneuver limits and in "easy flightmodel" player could get up and fly but with dumped down controls like now, avoiding player to do a mistakes what cause craft to crash.

So if you want just to play easy, you can do it. But if wanted to train and learn more, there is the more challenging mode.

Not requiring physics and modeling like what X-Plane 10 has (most realistic ever in any simulator) but more something what even simulator games had 10 years ago.

I'm familiar with MSFS and it's helicopter-dedicated modifications, X-Plane and DCS family. Please understand, that we won't be implementing a full simulator-grade modeling into ARMA3 (like we did in a dedicated "Take On Helicopters" simulator game). This is not a purely design decision, whether we want it there or not. You can find more about this topic and rotorLib implementation on our forums.

(Regarding WSAD+mouse flying like masters - that is more of an issue of optimization of various input devices.)

Meanwhile, several other improvements have been made by our programmers to the flight model in Arma 3 (also with auto-rotation tweaks/repairs). Stay tuned, will keep you informed. And I will be looking for your feedback! ;) Thanks!

That's great to hear! Unfortunately I still believe that Arma 2 physics was superior to Arma 3. The little bird... it seems that it is a bit more agile... a bit... hardly noticeable...

Edit. Raoul1234 - not PhysX! Physics! As FM...

Good to hear oukej. And Byku controlls has nothing to with physx. Just saying arma 2 gravity was similar to the moons gravity.. Physx just ads to the behaviour of lods when getting a XX force aplied to them.

Overall feeling is still much the same as before the update.
The only difference I noticed (but I can't compare anymore) is that the Blackfoot seems to accelerate a bit more reasonably.

I also tried autorotations in the devbuild, but didn't notice any difference.
Thanks for keeping us in the loop, I'll wait for the next tweaks.

I think the current flight model in the latest dev build (as of last night) is dramatically better than it has been. However, the roll axis on most aircraft (the Ghosthawk in particular) is very slow. There is currently a ticket on that issue.

Unfortunately I agree with Cykyrios, although acceleration might seem a bit more reasonable. AH9 still is a slow, not-very-agile helicopter. Unfortunately they've messed up flares, especially in mi-48. It's 50/50 chance that they will work even from 1km away.

AH-9 controls are still way wrong. They were correct in the Alpha, but very unresponsive in the Beta.

Using joystick here all i had to do is change sensetivity on the axis witch for some reason allowed for better handling.

The revision with the tweaks is now in DEV build. Please, take a look. Thanks!

Holy crap, definitely step into right direction! I like that when you accelerate to the ground with full speed and you want to straight up the helicopter is not on rails anymore, it feels that there is momentum that is dragging it to the ground(although i don't feel it yet when turning around). Ah-9! Feels much better! Acceleration... oh so better BUT the choppers are a bit too slow, it's hard to get comanche to 250kmh. Btw. the spread of miniguns in AH-9 and OC-30 is definitely too low. OC-30 was perfect before! Ah-9... well was indeed horrible before but now it is a bit too extreme.

Edit. "although i don't feel it yet when turning around" - i feel it. Damn guys, did a good job. Sure it could be a bit better in some areas, but overall you're heading in good direction. Autorotation - works! Although you could give us a bit more randomization with those AA rockets, now the hit means 100% destruction. I suppose MI-48 could be more resistant to those rockets. The comanche with it's rear rotor should still be more agile in turning sideways, mi-48 should be a bit similar with that(coaxial-rotors)

Enjoying things thus far MUCH better, the comanches roll rate isn't bad, could be a pinch more but the yaw rate is nice and I could be mistaken but it feels as though you can push the nose down faster but pulling it up feels more draggy...nice touch if that is true.

Liking the acceleration MUCH better, actually able to fly with my joystick and not have to fight with it because the acceleration rate kinda tosses me all over the place and leaves a lacking of control.

Nice to see that speed is bled away fairly quickly with sharp turns now, coming to a halt with a 360

The roll rate is great for all but the AH-9 and Kastatka, they should definately be more agile, the kasatka as agile as the commanche at the least.

Overall very pleased with this new change.

It is much better now. The only thing that could be improved is a shorter delay between fully lowering the collective (pressing Y or Z) and the response of the helicopter. Now it seems to take a second before the helicopter starts to react.

Great improvement overall, very good job on that!

A few things, though:

• Collective is indeed to unresponsive. There is supposed to be a slight delay between input and reaction, but it is too high now (maybe somewhere halfway between now and before the update?).

• Acceleration is now much more sensible for all helicopters, but top speeds are too low (they were too high before, though). It is difficult to reach 200 km/h without collective input with just about any helicopter, and even collective up makes it difficult to reach 250 km/h (which should be possible for any helicopter, with more or less ease depending on the helicopter).

-Autorotations are back, yay! The only problem is the angle required to keep the blades spinning: pitching down even 5 degrees, even when descending, starts stalling the rotor. On the other hand, you can autorotate vertically (from a hover), which is impossible due to the Vortex Ring State. What you could do to simulate this would be to start stalling the rotor when the angle between the blades and your velocity nears 75-90 degrees.
Pitching down, especially with low airspeed, is actually the only way to start an autorotation. Then you have to establish a good attitude depending on your descent, usually between -5 degrees (down) to +10 degrees (up). Lower angles would indeed stall the rotor over time.
Another problem with autorotations is the low speed of the helicopters currently: it's difficult to keep a good forward velocity without stalling the rotor (but as I said, it's currently possible to autorotate with zero forward velocity).
Autorotation airspeed is usually around 65 to 85 knots (100-120 to 160 km/h), depending on the helicopters.

• Bleeding speed in tight turns is nice, but the effect seems to be exaggerated a bit: even in long turns, you lose a lot of forward velocity.

As I said before, great improvement overall, can't wait to see the next tweaks/fine-tuning!

Mi-48 yawn is too slow, it should have best yawn capability of all helicopters because twin rotors and removed tail rotor.

Now Mi-48 is like a train whats yawn isn't easily changed on high speeds.

Mi-48 has a cabin so it has higher surface but if now comparing it to KA-50/52 what is capable to do flat 360 turns in all speeds because twin rotor system (think about flying 300km/h and do 360 turns) and be capable to maintain sideway flying at ~220-250km/h.

So if something, Mi-48 could be given possibility to do flat 360 turns in speed of 180-200km/h and a fly sideways about speeds of 160km/h because cabin causing bigger surface limiting air speed.

As well Mi-48 accelerates still pretty fast but it should have a capability to aim low while not accelerating fast if pilot doesn't want because again twin rotor system.
As Twin rotor system should allow Mi-48 to perform "Funnel" where it can circle around target at very high speed and having aimed concentrated fire at a point target.

RAH-66 (in game AH-99) is as well a beast but still less agile when compared to twin-rotor systems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=g0R1ISQAmqk#t=156s

It should be capable to do 90 degree turn in 100 knots (185km/h) speed and fly sideways on 80 knots (150km/h).

What comes to MH/AH-9, it has too high yawn and roll but lagging on pitch at high dives (what is nice) but missing the "on rails" feeling what it should have so on higher (>60km/h) speeds it would fly like a airplane. Now you can fly on medium speed (80-100km/h) and do a full stop too easily pulling up without gaining almost any altitude. You should gain altitude quickly by pulling up and then get back down by pointing down.

AH/MH-9 is given too good control and speed is too much dampened on reactions like it is wanted to give ultimate air drop capability and same time ultimate agility almost on all speeds.

I can approach LZ at high speed (140km/h) and only 20m from LZ I can do a full stop and land very nicely.
It is like AH/MH-9 doesn't fly and have any inertia.

Are there done any big changes to other helicopters or just only for MH/AH-9 for now on last few and latest development versions?

Actually, having a coaxial rotor doesn't mean the helicopter can 360 at all speeds. At high speeds, the aerodynamics force the helicopter to the lowest-drag profile, which is facing forward. It would require a lot of power to overcome this.
Also, not having a tail rotor doesn't mean it's easier to turn: yaw is achieved by changing pitch independently on both rotors (same as cyclic input), which shouldn't be as powerful as an entire (albeit small) rotor. It does help with stability, though. The Ka-50 also has a tail rudder to help turning.

The Comanche's ability to fly sideways up to 100 knots from forward flight is a special feature, which probably gives a great power boost to the tail rotor.

"a coaxial rotor doesn't mean the helicopter can 360 at all speeds."

We never stated at all speeds, but it can turn on a completely 180 (Obviously it would be losing forward momentum) at higher speeds than a regular helicopter

"The Comanche's ability to fly sideways up to 100 knots from forward flight is a special feature, which probably gives a great power boost to the tail rotor."

It's not a 'special' feature, it's due to the higher power from the tail rotor due to it using a fenstron tail rotor or fantail which gives the aircraft a reduced noise profile and higher power for greater efficiency.

Either way, there's evidence above showing this, can we focus on improving this in game which it's already worse than a regular helicopter anyway.

If you would like i could even try and contact some local MD500 (Commercial MH6) pilots to ask their input about turning at speed if you REALLY want.

Actually it does, KA-50 and KA-52 can do 360 flat turn on all speeds. The coaxial desing is the power what allow it.
The stability is much better on coaxial rotor giving possibility to not "air fumble". The speed will decrease but still you can do flat turn.
And in conventional helicopter designs the tail rotor use a lot of main rotor power, and having only single rotor does't give maneuverability like coaxial (benefits in blades length, retreating blades effects, subsonic blade tips speeds etc).

The turning isn't as "sharp" on higher speeds but it is fast and stable.

And RH-66 can not do fly sideways as high speeds as KA-50 and KA-52 because the tail rotor does not have enough power for it without losing lift and for other direction it is even less powerful.

What is special in RH-66 is it being helicopter with tail rotor and capable for higher speed flat turns.

"We never stated at all speeds, but it can turn on a completely 180 (Obviously it would be losing forward momentum) at higher speeds than a regular helicopter"

Manufacturer and combat pilots say, of course you lose speed doing so but the purpose isn't to maintain full speed but having tactical advantage that you can actually turn and engage ground and air tragets without first slowing down.

And KA-5x having a fixed autocannon etc was not problem as it was very fast to turn whole fuselag toward enemy.

"It's not a 'special' feature, it's due to the higher power from the tail rotor due to it using a fenstron tail rotor or fantail which gives the aircraft a reduced noise profile and higher power for greater efficiency."

It still generates more noise because tail rotor and that tail rotor can catch up vortex ring as well losing whole helicopter controlling, what doesn't happen so easily with coaxial.

"Either way, there's evidence above showing this, can we focus on improving this in game which it's already worse than a regular helicopter anyway."

Aren't we doing it? ;)

Now helicopters (mentioned) has so small change to get anykind yawn control in higher speeds (>80-90km/h).

ps. what Mi-48 is trying to present here as I have not found anything like it IRL or is it just pure fictional combination?

"And RAH-66 can not do fly sideways as high speeds as KA-50 and KA-52 because the tail rotor does not have enough power for it without losing lift and for other direction it is even less powerful. "

See above, the test pilot at Sikorsky who flew the RAH-66 said it could turn 90 degrees and maintain it's original speed at 100 knots [185 kph] which is what i would call a 'high speed' considering the current speed to turn 90 degrees is about 60 kph :P

"It still generates more noise because tail rotor and that tail rotor can catch up vortex ring as well losing whole helicopter controlling, what doesn't happen so easily with coaxial."

I didn't say it generates no noise, just less noise due to it having more blades and being in an enclosed system.

As for Vortex ring state, i can't find any were that specifically states you can't get VRS in a coaxial system, the only info i've found is that tandem systems like the CH-47 have to slide out horizontally and that intermeshing rotors can get it but cancel each other out quickly.
Though from the above i doubt we'll ever see VRS in Arma, it's not really that important.

Mi-48 looks like a combo of a Havoc, Hind and Hokum.

As stated before by the devs, this isn't a proper flight sim so a lot if these things will not be incorporated. Latest dev build has shown great improvements in flight dynamics. You are now able to do quick stops and the aircraft is much more responsive to cyclic and collective inputs (minus the roll channel). Haven't had the opportunity to test the damage model when you're hit by an RPG and the rotors immediately stop and you just fall to the ground

@DennisModem

I'd say it's only a Havoc and a Hokum.

@ Scarecrow398 "See above, the test pilot at Sikorsky who flew the RAH-66 said it could turn 90 degrees and maintain it's original speed at 100 knots [185 kph] which is what i would call a 'high speed' considering the current speed to turn 90 degrees is about 60 kph :P"

As I already mentioned that 100 knots speed, it is lower than KA-50 and KA-52 what manages to pull it on all speed ranges, think about speed 300km/h and you do pedal turn and fire. ;-)

I didn't say that RAH-66 could not do high speed turn, just that it is incapable to do as high speeds as coaxial rotored attack helicopters.

"I didn't say it generates no noise, just less noise due to it having more blades and being in an enclosed system."

And I said it generates more noise than coaxial helicopters, still RAH-66 generating about half of normal helicopters because that enclosed tail rotor ;)

"As for Vortex ring state, i can't find any were that specifically states you can't get VRS in a coaxial system"

I didn't say it is impossible, just that it is less propable. The coaxial design allows helicopter to fly highger and on thinner air than normal design, having lower RPM and shorter/thinner blades.

@DennisModem "Mi-48 looks like a combo of a Havoc, Hind and Hokum."

Yes, but for what it really is based or is it just total fictional. It seems that the other side use more fictional vehicles but they are then made weaker/worse than NATO ones.

As now it has coaxial rotor system from KA-50/52, 8 person cabin from Mi-24 and otherwise Mi-28 crew cabin, engines and weaponary.

"You are now able to do quick stops and the aircraft is much more responsive to cyclic and collective inputs (minus the roll channel)."

You should not be able to do so fast stops with any helicopter from high speed (>60km/h) as once you get speed up, you are not anymore flying like helicopter but like a airplane. When you pull up you gain altitude like you would be flying airplane. When you pull down you get to deep dive. Normal helicopters (execluding now RAH-66) have problems in that because to turn, you need to roll and then change pitch like airplane to turn. On high speeds you can not stop helicopter so easily and it was better in Alpha where helicopters had the rail effect that you needed to slow down further distance to gain the possibility to stop faster later.

Now I can fly with MH/AH-9 160km/h and do a full stop on LZ only from 20m distance. It is so unrealistic.

@AD2001 "I'd say it's only a Havoc and a Hokum."

It has as well Mi-24 "Hind" with its 8 men cabin space.
Even than Mi-28 (Havoc) has 3 men cabin behind, they are used only to rescue pilots or transport VIP if required.

Ever get the feeling we'd save all this hassle if BI just had a pilot as a consultant?

@Scarecrow398

They did it okay in TOH, I don't know why can't they do it in Arma.

I recall somewhere a BI dev saying for TOH they brought in a physicist to help them put together all the info for each helicopter for RotorLib (Which isn't being included in A3, otherwise i guess they could port over the content for the relevant aircraft) and that it took around a month for each aircraft...

That could be why... particularly when they're in what is a closing deadline for when ever they have it set (i assume seeing they're now in Beta which is the final testing stage they're aiming for a sept-nov time frame).

And a Hind because it has the ability to carry passengers. The Havok and Hokum don't.

@ Fri13 - I'm very familiar with the way helicopters should handle as I have over 1,000 flight hours in them.

The Havoc can carry 3 passengers in a crew compartment behind the cockpit, it's accessed via a small door behind the weapons pylons.

In my opinion, chopper physics and behavior is much better in ARMA 3 than in Operation arrowhead. Main reason people are saying it was better in operation arrowhead is because as with everything, change is rarely welcome. People like what they are used to.

Arma 3 just needs a little tweaking and it will be great. Current model made flying feel very close to reality, but also made it playable and enjoyable.

Many people like what they are used to....ahhh...how true, the fact that people would argue that Operation Flashpoint had a more realistic flight model versus arma 2 is evidence enough.

Thank you very much for all your feedback!

I'll quickly try to - hopefully - answer some of the points raised.

Generally, (in my opinion;) the point here is not to simulate "all the things" but rather to keep the model as enjoyable as possible while retaining the major elements which provide the feeling of realism while flying the helicopters. The main question I have therefore is, is it fun for you to fly helicopters in ARMA 3? :)

Features unique to a single helicopter - that would require dedicated engine support - won't make into the game. Again, it's not about what we have no clue about or we wouldn't like. It's more about what's possible given the time and resources we have and it's also about priorities. "Tweaking this" can sadly also mean "not fixing that" :(

The configurations (speed, agility, weight) of individual helicopters might be a different story though. Please, create separate feedback tickets about individual helicopter (or family) and the behavior of it you think is or feels wrong.

That also somewhat includes collective responsiveness and speeds, but I hope we'll be able to do something about these soon.)

And then the "vertical auto-rotation" - I'm afraid it is a little trade-off, it is in a state similar to A2:OA, where it was less possible only because the helicopters got higher damage from impacts. Will see if anything can be done about that, but I'm afraid it's a part of the simplification of the flight model.

Unless you oppose I will close this issue as fixed (global game heli physics/flight model). And thank you again for the valuable feedback provided and for helping us improve the game!

just been testing autorotation since the APC Package, it's doable now.

Aircraft handle MUCH better in the latest dev build.

Closing.