Page MenuHomeFeedback Tracker

The community's definite suggestion for better heli immersion and guided weapon FCS
Reviewed, WishlistPublic


As we all know, the underlying game mechanics of piloting and fighting in aircrafts have not been changed since the first arma game, formerly known as ofp cwc.
The topic of improving the helicopter and aircraft aspect of arma has lead to the most heated but unfruitful discussions on the forum. To end this frustration, i have decided to write a sophisticated elaboration about this issue, which is hopefully backed by all of you. You are free to use the thread for feedback, which will be incorperated into the front post and eventually find it's way into the very basic abstract, that you are reading here.

Please have a look here for info and discussion.

Here is a very basic abstract of the topic:

<b>To the devs</b>
Please see this effort as an expression of appreciation for the great work you are doing, which is arma 3. The game is coming along splendidly and it's obvious that arma 3 is going to be the most polished arma title to date. However, as some aspects have been greatly improved, it's getting more obvious that some aspects haven't received any love regarding gameplay depth and fidelity of simulation since the original flashpoint. This topic is about one of theese...

<b>Gameplay and realism and the AI</b>
When i was drafting this little review, i was planning to conclude every paragraph with an evaluation about realism, gameplay depth and accessibility. However while writing, it appeared to me that this would not be necessary: All suggestion that are listed here root from the initial desire for more realism and more authenticity, but each of them would be directly beneficial for gameplay depth experienced by novice and expert players alike. Furthermore none of the suggestion would seriously hinder accessibility, as the underlying mechanics are already used by other mainstream shooters and simulators. However the fine line between realistic simulation and authentic game experience could always be tuned through config work by the devs themselves or modders.
Please also note, that the following suggestions would only need minor tweaks for AI-crew behavior (see points 2.c and 2.d).

<b>Shortcomings of the current implementation</b>
Helis are no challenge to fight with and the lack of even a basic form of FCS makes spamming ATGMs unsatisfying easy and highly unrealistic ("tab-lock issue").
The UI for helicopters is un-coherent and un-immersive ("dull white diamond").
There is absolutely no need for the crew to interpret sensor data, or make decisions, due to absurdly accurate combat awareness of the aircraft ("magical radar issue") .
For the same reason, there is absolutely no need for JTACs or some other form of FAC.
Completely ignoring the mechanics of semi-active guidance, the implementation is once again unrealistic and prevents accessible, yet challenging gameplay mechanics.

<b>Detailed suggestions</b>
Please take your time to read the detailed explenations in the link. I gave my best, to make it as short as possible. Also feel free to discuss things you don't like or things you would like to see added.

Make the GUI for helis and jets coherent and realistic. Kill the dull, white diamond. It is a really bad substitute for proper HUD/HMD.
Make use of render-to-texture as a gameplay mechanic, it could be so much more than just eye-candy.
Bring back the old ofp-style radar view.
Have IFF only for friendly units!!! This would be realistic and would make target identification a gameplay mechanic and make JTAC and overall FAC meaningful!
Seperate "calling" a target and locking the FCS on it. "Calling" a target could still be instant, but locking would require the aircraft to be aimed at the target and would need a short amount of time.
Incorperate audio-feedback.
Implement different mechanics for different types of missile guidance.
Consider making most ATGMs semi-active. This is realistic and would add great gameplay mechanics.

<b>Thank you for your time!</b>


Legacy ID
Feature Request
Additional Information

Please note: The idea behind this effort is <b>not</b> to make aircrafts and advanced fcs the main focus of development for arma. We all love arma for it's diversity and we don't want other important aspect of the game to be neglected. This is about drafting possible and wanted improvments. In the end, the devs alone will decide how to allocate their resources. They know what they are doing. They are the devs!


Event Timeline

There are a very large number of changes, so older changes are hidden. Show Older Changes
fbiss added a subscriber: fbiss.May 7 2016, 2:57 PM
fbiss added a comment.Jun 26 2013, 8:22 AM

Modders did a great job in Arma2, I am happy to wait for them in this.

LOWCZ added a subscriber: LOWCZ.May 7 2016, 2:57 PM
Surfer added a subscriber: Surfer.May 7 2016, 2:57 PM

Well put! Upvoted!

Watch this before you vote:
It explains the Comanche's ability to lock on in seconds then fire the missle and go back down to hiding again. It also explains the Comanche's radar which is realistic. :)

The ticket you made directly contradicts the real life Comanche helicopter.

progamer, the link you provided is nothing more than an advertisment for the commanche project, which is - by the way - cancelled since years.

no offense, but you simply don't seem to know much about military technology or technology in general. in arma 3 the "commanche" is equipped with DAGR. these missiles don't lock on. they are laser homing.

i don't even know where to start, i don't know what you do not understand. please read the wikipedia articles about the technology. don't watch silly infomercials.
but yes, spotting, identifying and attacking a target with modern atgms and sighting devices is a fast and relatively easy process.
i guess in your stupid video the are referring to the AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire, which ironically is not as straight forward to fire as more simple missiles.
well, and as mentioned before the arma version of the commance is equipped with the DAGR, which is not unrealistic because it is a very modern / near futuristic weapon. and as i said a thousand times. it is SALH!!!!! semi (!) activ. it needs guidance during the flight. the guidance can be done by the gunner of the helicopter or another unit, for example a jtac with laser-marker.

Right, so implement this, and as an enemy I'll just turn on my laser designator, so no enemy helicopter can fire...

Mulle, i and probably every other thinking man, don't know what you mean. Please explain your thoughts. Thank you.

As far as i know the "AGM-114L" is the only atgm in service today that tracks the target autonomously. This thing is complex, expensive and needs proper programming before launch. All other AGM-114-Variants and all other Helicopter-launched atgms in service today and development are manual or semic-active, which means, that they need guidance or are laser homing.

If i've forgotten some type of missile please feel free to correct me.

If they make it just fly towards lasers, you can just turn on your laser marker and aim it into the ground, and enemy helicopters will hit nothing.

Mulle, do you really think the engineers of military high technology are that stupid? The laser is coded of course! There are many ways of ciphering an visual signal. Easiest way would be pulsing.
So of course the missile will follow the laser, it is programmed to follow.

Of course there are counter-technologies. But because the laser is coded, you would need to decipher the code or use brute force. I'm not sure, but i think variants of the T-80 tank have a system that "blinds" weapons systems by extremely big amounts of infrared-light emitted from two special flood lights.

So every system has advantages and disadvantages. Of course you can't simulate every aspect of atgm, counter-atgm-systems and electronic warfare. In the end the devs have to decide how far they want to go in the simulation to strike good gameplay balance.

No offense, but if you really know so little about the topic, just ask me or other people on the forum who have decent knowledge about the subject.
Unfortunately there are no explanatory videos on youtube, so the best source would be wikipedia, if you want to learn about this technology by yourself.

For example.
Navigation and communications
The helicopter had a global positioning system, a radar altimeter and an attitude heading reference system (AHRS) from Northrop Grumman (formerly Litton).
It was equipped with an identification friend or foe (IFF) interrogator and a dual jam resistant VHF-FM / UHF-AM Have Quick tactical communications system.

Fire control and observation
The Comanche was equipped with a suite of passive sensors and a computer-aided Northrop Grumman mission planning system, which carried out sensor data fusion, high-speed analysis and correlation of the sensor data. Northrop Grumman TASS (target acquisition system software) functions included automatic target tracking and target threat management.

The cockpit was fitted with a pilot's night-vision system from Lockheed Martin and the pilots had a wide field of view (35° × 52°) Kaiser Electronics helmet-integrated display sighting system (HIDSS). HIDSS employed active matrix liquid crystal display (AMLCD) technology. The targets were designated and the weapons fired from collective and sidestick control push buttons.

People who work with this machine sad: click and engage. Simple thing.
But in game we have everithing to make it bit more complicated - just details in designating.

Byku added a subscriber: Byku.May 7 2016, 2:57 PM
Byku added a comment.Jun 27 2013, 6:13 PM

My few cents.
About missiles:
Mi-48 - anti-tank rockets(skalpel?) would be laser guided and radar guided(by clicking on stuff and then it would lock on target[tab would go]), unguided rockets will be controlled by the pilot
AH-99 - all rockets controlled by the gunner, furthermore DAGR's would be guided ONLY by laser(and it would work like that also in KA-60... or OC-30? OK-30? don't remember :P - which would need the copilot to control the laser), as they are in real life. It would balance the sheer amount of them to MI-48 having only 8, and would give the possibility to accurately target without the cooperation with the pilot, and it be more interesting and realistic.

About countermeasures:

  • the helicopter should detect all missiles that are currently in the air(or at least the pilot should receive a warning if the helicopter doesn't have a radar[AH/MH-9 or any transport helicopter in RL])
  • if they are ir guided you mostly don't know if it is targeting you or the helicopter near you(it is important to decide by the radar trajectory to calculate where it is going... although today's system can predict the trajectory of the missile, so i'm not sure about that :P)
  • you don't detect the ir locking mechanism
  • you CAN defend from ir locking mechanism by dumping flares as precaution(awesome!)
  • you can detect LASER warning(so we need laser guided missiles - [^])
  • to defend from laser guided missile you need to outmanoeuvre it
  • for RADAR guided - detects both locking and missile - then it is needed to dispense chaffs(for ARMA's sake I wouldn't mind that flares and chaffs would be dispensed at the same time)

It would be so much more interesting to fly as the pilot!

About the radar: The only idea i have now is to disable the difference between occupied enemy vehicle and unoccupied enemy vehicle and maybe increase refresh rate(5 sec anyone?)

Indeed modern and probably future attack helicopters have many sophisticated computer systems that help the crew in a significant way and make many tasks relatively easy!

For those who might fear the idea behind this ticket is to make target acquisition in arma more complex than it would be in real life, fear not!
there could definitely be targeting systems and corresponding weapon system , that would allow you cycling through targets by a push of a button and engaging by the push of another one.

still - and that is important - it would still be different from the current implementation in arma. please read the ticket carefully - it is NOT about making things unrealistic difficult for gameplay or balance!
the main idea behind the ticket is to make arma more realistic and immersive. i also tried to explain, that this added realism could in fact help with gameplay and balance.

helicopters and jets would still be kings and queens of the modern battlefield.

@Byku: Yes, that would make sense.

We start to get into the little Details now, but there is nothing wrong with it, i guess.

I would just like to highlight a part of the ticket, that hasn't been discussed much:
The proper HUD-implementation. I think that is very important. At the moment it feels like you communicate with the "game", because this white osd is a game overlay. If you would transfer the target acquisition and locking on target to the simulated HUD of the helicopter itself it would be much more realistic and immersive immediately.
In this regard (and ONLY in this regard!!!) even the battlefield series, has a more "authentic" feel to the helicopters:

*edit* also imagine how cool (and realistic) it would be using the pip-feature for target identification, like in reality. On the HUD you would have just a green marker around the potential target without any info about unit type.
Your screen in the cockpit would then show a life-video-feed of the helicopters targeting-system (for example: FLIR), basically giving you a zoomed-in view of the target.

Byku added a comment.Jun 27 2013, 6:12 PM

I totally agree with that, BF's HUD is MUCH MUCH better that Arma's. I hope they've got something hidden for us about this. What's important is not to just only say "to make something better" but also give our ideas how to do it, because saying "fix it" is easier than saying "how to fix it".

BF HUD. You mean helmet hud? But in BF we dont see the helmet at all. Just simple spherical interface. In BF it just are buty stuff. ArmA need something worked and pragmatic. Making HUD for Helmet, not for Helicopter. And suddenly we get real helmet, not just formal pilot suits. But this issue need own ticket.

i didn't think of that. good idea with the helmets.

The "Radar" HUD at the top of the screen should be removed, and PiP radars should be used.

Thus, if an aircraft does not have a PiP radar screen, no radar!

I know the devs are trying to balance the game, but "balance" shouldn't mean that everything is exactly the same. It means you should have trade-offs and the like.

fraczek added a subscriber: fraczek.May 7 2016, 2:57 PM

Reiterating a devil's advocate voice from way back in Arma2 discussion on the same topic (IMHO I dislike the radar, but...):

  1. Dealing with AI and aproximations of communication with AI.

How will you make the targetting work with you piloting a two seat attack chopper and AI gunner? Right clicking on two pixel wide almost invisible target in your zoomed out pilot's view? Pressing 2 and selecting from counterintuitive list praying that the NME SPAAG half a click away shooting at you is the one at the top of the list, instead of the SPAAG three clicks away that's not a threat? When with human gunner he would scan and tell you in voice, or you could tell him target the SPAAG that's shooting at us from 3 o'clock.

  1. AWACS and Link 16 systems (mentioned). You are not alone on the battlefield. There is friendly intel from well behind the combat zone (AWACS), complex radio nets etc. However, what if you are indeed alone (custom missions - last heli standing scenarios etc)? Script way of disabling the "AWACS".
  1. Longbow radar. Apparently it can do basic IFF and identify type of vehicle (perhaps down to "it's a BMP-X not BRADLEY therefore it's NME). Updated to AESA type radar (as in AH-64E) makes it usable while remaining stealthy.
  1. PiP is very resource hungry, most people have it turned off. How would that work with proposed PiP radar only?

Some rough ideas:

  1. Bring back the old radar from A2 Vanilla (before Operation Arrowhead) - vis first image on . It aproximated more human-human communication with AI gunner instead of full 360 picture, but weigh it that only the targets in (and perhaps a bit around) the gunner's view are IFFd. Keep the 360 radar for AESA equipped vehicles (and them only), update it perhaps less frequently?
  1. Remove the radar in Multiplayer altogether. Would at least force players to cooperate, AND please most of the PvP crowd at the same time. Though it would make AI gunning choppers almost useless.

I think, radar can be made without any PiP. Actually, there is already on cockpit just need to bring it in life.

fraczek, you made soem good points.

The old ofp-style radar-view could be useful for "communicating" with an AI-Gunner. The limited IFF and perhaps less frequent updates are good considerations also.

For me it would be very important that assigning a target to your gunner and locking the target isn't the same thing, as it is now. More or less...

I could imagine using some sort of stripped down ofp-style radar without or with limited IFF and limited refresh to call out targets for the gunner.

But archiving lock on target would be another thing. Consider that locking targets is only possible within a certain degree in front of the helicopter and would take some time. perhaps only some milliseconds.
Of course semi-active missiles would not need lock-on, but would be guided by gunner.

*edit* yes, i'm also quite sure, that radar on the actual mfd in the cockpit could be done without pip. well it would be some kind of pip, but not render-to-texture.

Upvoted! would like to see something like MMA for Arma 2.

I totaly agree and upvote! Although radar exist in AH64d longbow and can aquire targets on ground and air I do think that this radar is a bit oversimplified...I dont expect terrain cluter and simulation of radio vawes but something should be done with it but I think we should keep it for attack helis lik mi48 and comanche and ditch it for transport helis. It is not hard to think that in 2035 many attack helis will have radar as standard feature since longbow and eurocopter have today. Overall some changes should be made to target lock on system... But I dont agree that only gunner should have control over DAGR missles or any guided missle or weapon cuz that not true... you guys think 15 milion dolar machine would not have any case one crew mamber dies other can only abort mission.. offcourse not. Both pilots can use all weapons!

Bottom line both crew mambers are trained airman in helicopter and both can fly as well as shot and think best option is to keep radar as it is with maybe some changes to make it more realistic but to make targets painted by JTAC stand out on radar  and definatly get rid of option to lock on vehicles who is red when enamy is in it and grey when its not cuz some kind of transponder is needed for such a thing and if vehicles are locked for one team you can use that system only then... grey vehicles stay grey even if they have enamy or friendly in them it is up for ground troops or heli crew to figure out who is in vehicle.Basicly RADAR CANT KNOW WHICH VEHICLE IS EMPTY AND WHICH ONE IS NOT.

I like the idea of a slightly more dificult target aqusition, just not too over the top, just edits based on the missile types and how the lock and track, haha, we don't want it so complicated that it's hard to get into.

Up voted ! IMHO i belive they should trade off balance for realism , balance is something the mission maker has to take care of . I also dont worry about flying or targeting being made more difficult due to realism since modern and future systems are made with ergonomics and ease of use in mind . So proper guidance , targeting and IFF should be in. I also wanted to note that the current IR vision cannot "see" deep in the fog which is false (correct me if i am wrong). This could be a game changer with the new fog technology...having fog at low altitude.

my thoughts are this:

is SP, where the AI is the gunner, you use the target menu (2,#) to "aim" a guided weapon, so the AI cares out the targeting (and post fire guidence if needed) as though they are a player.

if you lose LOS on a laser weapon then it flies stright foreward etc.

if its MP it works more like ARMA 2, where the gunner has to do the correct things

even i and many others refer to the problem of easy target acquisition as "tab lock issue" i want to make clear again, that pressing tab to toggle through targets is not the problem!

tab to toggle targets and some form of target overview a.k.a. "radar" a.k.a. "link16" is a good way of calling targets for your human or AI gunner. the main problem of current implementation is, that "calling" a target and locking the target is more or less the same thing, because there is nor real "locking". it is just choosing the target and firing away. in reality and even in every other flightsim - be it hardcore sim or arcade sim - you would need some sort of firing solution, requiring the sighting devices of the craft and/or the missile being aimed a the target and waiting for the computer fcs-systems to give some sort of confirmation for lock.
and that is only for autonomous missiles. manual or semi active missiles would require the gunner to manually direct the misisile to target in some way. of course before firing a semi-active missile the pilot could use tab to "call" the target for ai or human gunner.

AD2001 added a comment.Jul 2 2013, 5:21 PM

Why couldn't autonomous missiles be used?

of course, "autonomous" missiles could also be used in arma 3.
it is just that in reality nearly all heli-based atgms are semi-active. still missiles with radar transceivers would be possible, yes!

cychou added a subscriber: cychou.May 7 2016, 2:57 PM
cychou added a comment.Jul 6 2013, 9:05 PM

Thats sad how BIS continue the same errors with Arma 3, while ACE team resolved all these features issues 5 years ago (since arma 1) they could have take all the ACE popular features into consideration...

Whatever, unrealistic features of vanila version will be solved with ACE 3 mod..

no. ace-mod did not manage to have functional cockpit, proper HUD and the system was not compatible with AI gunner. some aspects of the mods made the control scheme of arma even more clunky.

to clarify: i really appreciate the great efforts of the talented people behind ace and other great mods like mando-missile, but a proper implementation is what we need!

imagine what the modders could do, if there was a basic implementation of HUD, functional cockpit and proper FCS. they could push the system to hyper-realism, if they wanted, while still maintaining appealing GUI and control schemes;)

cychou added a comment.Jul 6 2013, 9:53 PM

What ACE couldn't do was due to engine limitation

control scheme even more clunky ? for example ?

BIS is not really going to push A3 to hyper realism. Only ACE will. but it will only support equipments currently in service. not the futuristic stuffs.

don't get me wrong. i'm a big fan of ace:)

if i remember correctly, the implementation of heli FCS in ace was realistic and good, but the way you changed the attack profile of the hellfire for example was a bit "complicated" because it didn't use the buttons you were used from arma vanilla but had it's own system on top of it. (with this mfds that would pop up)
i guess it was the best they could do and it was far from bad!
let's not discuss ace here. ace was good:)

let's focus on a proper FCS with nice HUD right out of the arma 3 vanilla box;)

don't expect too much from BIS on vanila A3.

my hopes are still high :P

have a look here please.

i'm going to incorperate the thread into this ticket soon. please feel free to criticize and give feedback in the forum!

Totally agree, the target acquisition part definitely needs to be fixed for the helicopters. However, the HUD for vehicles needs to be fixed in general, they're all very ugly.

if you want to try to press a mess of keyboard buttons and cam views just to pull the trigger on 1 tank then go ahead, but leave TAB for me

falconx1, please read the ticket carefully. you could still press tab for calling targets. only that you would need to "lock" on that target before firing.
please read this:

also feel free to give feedback in the thread.

i rewrote the ticket. the basic ideas and suggestion should be the same.
Feel free to discuss things you don't like or things you would like to see added in the forum.

implement please

Hey about the IFF:

The last proper flight sim i played a lot was F/A-18 Korea. It implemented IFF like this:

You have radar (that's not on the HUD, but a separate radar instrument panel), and you can select targets on that radar. You press a button to query IFF, if it's friendly it'll emit a tone, if it's not you don't get a response.

I believe logic behind that was that every every friendly unit is fit with an IFF transponder, and if another friendly queries that transponder on a specific frequency, it'll reply.

Sounds good for Arma?

EDIT: The radar had three modes you could toggle: Air to Air, Air to Ground, Air to Sea.

AD2001 added a comment.Jul 9 2013, 5:18 PM

Sounds good.

Btw, bump!

personally i think in armas 2035 scenario your suggestion would be a bit to oldschool from a realism-aspect. even today there are systems like link16, which give decent awareness of friendly movement and even hostile movement, if the hostile target is somehow tracked by a unit with appropriate capabilities.
so, i think IFF for friendlies could be automatic. for hostiles on the other hand no IFF at all (with exceptions) as stated in the ticket.


I wouldn't know about that! That was the last proper flight sim i've played, and it released in 1998 or something. So it is possible and likely that these days it's very different.

The system you describe sounds like it does the querying automatically and keeps a track of it. Correct?

yes, either automatically querying, or you could think of it as a combination of GPS and "link16", where positions of friendly units are constantly updated via datalink and then combined with the sensor readouts of the radar.
to be honest, i don't really care, because for armas future scenario there are so many "realistic" (thinkable) possibilities. even today it would be hard to say, what would be the "realistic" version, because every complex system could be jammed or disturbed by a high-tech enemy (electronic warfare). then there would be back-up systems. perhaps these could get jammed to. arma can't model everything, so at some point one would have to decide, what would be most beneficial for gameplay and how difficult is it to implement.

i don't think this is the right place to discuss such complex matter.

but feel free to post your suggestion in the thread at the forum:
if other's like your idea, i will somehow incorperate this into the front post / ticket.

Sure, will do. Might post vids, have to dig up the game image first :P

Byku added a comment.Jul 11 2013, 11:28 PM

With new beta update... the flares in MI-48 are very weak, and hardly save the helicopter. Very often it is impossible to save yourself from a missile 1 KM away. It's a BIT better with comanche.


"How will you make the targetting work with you piloting a two seat attack chopper and AI gunner? Right clicking on two pixel wide almost invisible target in your zoomed out pilot's view? Pressing 2 and selecting from counterintuitive list praying that the NME SPAAG half a click away shooting at you is the one at the top of the list, instead of the SPAAG three clicks away that's not a threat? When with human gunner he would scan and tell you in voice, or you could tell him target the SPAAG that's shooting at us from 3 o'clock."

An idea I had to deal with this problem was to have numbers show above each target in the world when opening the target list. Whether the target list should just show a number as well, allowing you to select the target at 3'o clock near, easily but without being told exactly what that target was, or if the list should also identify what the targets are (i.e. 1. SPAAG, 2. APC) is a question that comes down to how much information would the gunner/pilot be provided with about the targets by the systems in the real helos. The list could only show numbers for some targets and further details for others, depending on which have been scanned by the helos targetting systems, etc.

Whilst it might seem unrealistic to some people as obviously in real life you don't have numbers floating in the sky above targets, it seems to me like a reasonable way to make up for the lack of real-life senses and ability to easily and quickly tell a human colleague which target to shoot, as you describe.


We need this for ArmA 3.

Byku added a comment.Jul 17 2013, 12:44 PM

Were the skalpel missiles always laser guided? I've discovered in today's dev patch that they can be laser guided.

what do you mean with laser-guided? "lock" on laser designation (laser homing), or manual guidance by the gunner (beam-riding)?
i can't test it myself right now.

Byku added a comment.Jul 17 2013, 5:20 PM

Manual guidance. When you didn't lock on anything you can guide them(beam-riding as you said)

It's the same with the missiles on the Kamysh.

o.k. so now we have magic missiles that are active-radar-homing and can also be manually guided. that is a bit strange. let's hope that is not final, but just the devs starting to work and experimenting with missile guidance.

to clarify:

active (radar) homing: fire and forget. missile tracks target by itself.
semi active (laser) homing: missile locks on laser designation. (helicopters own laser target or laser by fac/jtac)
beam riding: missile tries to stay in a beam or "path" that is projected from the aircraft. the beam is manually targeted by the gunner.

why would someone vote this ticket down?
guys, if you don't like aspects of the suggested changes, leave your feedback please!

Great writeup!

Thumps up!

Amazing structure to your write-up! It details many problems I have seen, and many I never even noticed!

Please excuse any potential mis-use of the nomenclature, as some of this is new to me.

I myself have found lots of frustration in "dumb" ATGM's. When playing as a gunner for the Mi-48, I considered it a "game-over" scenario when I ran out of ammunition for the auto-cannon and guided/homing/FaF missiles. When using "aimed" missiles, the gunner is completely at the random whim of the pilot, and because of this it is completely impossible to line up a shot in a single-player setting. Similar problems occur with the "Ghost-hawk" gunship, as the pilot seems to prefer turning on the side opposite of the player/gunner. When the Ghost-hawk does maneuver in a manner beneficial to the player, velocity is not matched and the targets-of-opportunity speed past the player's FOV.

I have also found it immersion breaking to have vehicles that cannot possibly be in the LOS (either by weather conditions/draw-distance or by mere geography) be "called out/identified" from rather extreme distances. I have also observed that the pilot does not take waypoints into consideration for specifying targets, either. I have experienced helicopters engaging targets on the other side of the map (targets that are supposed to be engaged later on in the mission), instead of targets near a surrounding waypoint (a "search and destroy" waypoint, for example), simply because the targets being currently engaged are closer.

Cameras are currently a mess with both the Mi-48 and the Blackfoot. Both ships have their cameras placed "in" the auto-turrets. This isn't so much a problem with the Mi-48, but the Blackfoot suffers miserably as the muzzle-flash occupies the entire screen. This makes FLIR-WH an incredibly useless tool, as with every shot fired a brilliant flash of white obscures the entire screen, causing headaches and other (more serious) potential health concerns. FLIR-BH also suffers from the same flash problems, but it is not as prone to causing headaches.

Lastly, I have noticed that vehicles do not undergo a kind of "encumbrance", unlike human character models. A Ghost-hawk filled with passengers operates in the same manner as an emptied Ghost-hawk. I feel that adding weapon weights would possibly be going "overboard" with the flight model, but cargo like personnel should be considered.

Please forgive me if you have mentioned any of these, as there was a *lot* of things you covered in your original ticket! Thank you for taking your time to read this, and please go on ahead and modify your ticket if anything I provided was helpful!

Bohemia added a subscriber: Bohemia.May 7 2016, 2:57 PM

The cameras in the blackfoot has been fixed now so that not only do they cause the bright flashing but are also zoomed in to be of use in targetting from a distance.

thanks for the positive feedback!

@captainwacky: you are right with your first point. the ticket has this issue covered indirectly:
see point 4. "various improvments":
"Unguided weaponry should be controlled by the pilot and / or the possibilities of sharing workload between pilot and gunner should be further improved, so that control over individual weapons systems can be shared."
with this either the pilot itself would fire the unguided rockets, or the gunner could take over flight controls to aim and fire unguided rockets.
concerning the "ghost hawk" this is an AI problem and i don't want to cover it here. in previous arma titles behavior of such helicopters was already better, so i guess we will still see improvments here. alternatively try the "loiter" waypoint. this should force the helicopter to circle around a area. did not test it myself though.

your second point is partly covered. should the whole "magic radar" aspects be reworked, AI would have to use their "normal" senses to identify targets and would loose their magic spotting abilities. the aspect of engaging at will is an AI issue again. that is simply how the arma AI works at the moment. it is very aggressive and attacks everything it sees. AI would definitely need some ROE (rules of engagements). you could however use scripting to stop undesired behavior of AI in your missions.

atm i can't really say anything to your third point. i check this out, the next time, i start arma. if it is that bad, i would assume it is still WIP, but i will give it a try.
*edit* oh, i just read the above post: it is already fixed! thx for the info, nod!

added weight for cargo helicopters is a very good idea. i would like to hear some more feedback, if this is indeed realistic, but common sense tells me, that their should be noticeable differences.
feedback please:)

Fuel adds weight as well. In combination with fuel and weapons you would alter-

Rate of acceleration, deceleration, and top speed. Power required from collective to ascend, possibly consistently raising it pending weight.

Effect the rate of pitching the nose up, gain a boost in pitching down, slow the rate of roll, cause listing if payload is unbalanced.

It would also potentially cause damage to the rotor system itself. There is a reason why in all of these airshows with attack helicopters pefroming acrobatics such as loops, none of them have any weaponry and likely even have a small amount of fuel.

You also do not see chinooks flying backwards and demonstrating their turning ability while loaded with a full compliment of passengers.

Concur. Fuel, passengers and cargo stores should effect weight and balance of the aircraft. This should effect the torque (power available) of the engines and transmissions and the way the aircraft handles and flies. More weight = less power available and less maneuverability.

o.k. when i update next time, i will Incorporate the suggestion to add effects of weight and weight distribution, as well as more sophisticated countermeasure behavior (see forum thread).
i think especially the weight thing should be lower priority though. definitely nice to have, but other things are more important. i hope you agree.

thanks for the feedback. check back soon!

I'm not saying its a necessity to incorporate weight and balance, but it would definitely add to the realism. You are already limited to what each aircraft can carry. I have a separate ticket already for more realistic countermeasures.

i updated "Various improvments" in the forum front page with cargo weight and counter-measures simulation.

Maffa added a subscriber: Maffa.May 7 2016, 2:57 PM
Maffa added a comment.Aug 5 2013, 5:52 PM

i totally second this and other attempts to make veichles more realistic. Being a sim plane entusiast myself, i recognize that veichles are a great force multiplier and even thought we cannot ask to apply DCS level sims in ARMA, we must at least introduce things to give it more realism while power them down a little (while making them more interesting and as realistic as time effort and game engine limits allow to) by having the player to manage some more systems:

  • Use PiP for Mavericks and other video fed weaponry
  • Multi-waypoints for aerial veichles: this is basic stuff. When you plan an aerial mission you have several waypoints to cover in sequence, including those for backup plans (like secondary airstrips, for instance). You should be able to program a very basic flight path and have a navigation sequencer you can run up and down (prev waypoint, next waypoint)
  • AA and AG radars where only active radar (i.e. lockons) (as well as user defined waypoints and friendlies) and/or major heat sources (i.e. engines) would be shown. There is no such thing as an anti personel radar, either you have an IR scanner with an operator using it or you dont. As simplicistic as they can be, it would be a great step towards realism

i feel that the first three points in my list arent really in topic, so i think i will open a ticket myself and see the feedback


Agree with all that, except I'm not sure about using PiP for anything as that cripples my framerates so I leave it disabled. If they can fix it so it doesn't do that then great but otherwise I'd hate to see it REQUIRED to use certain weapons as then I wouldn't have the option to disable it and would have to put up with awful frame rates.

Maffa added a comment.Aug 5 2013, 4:20 PM

@doveman: of course, all my suggestions dont make any account of feasibility (even though i dont think having veichles starting slower would be impossibile task) ... i dont know if having waypoint navigation is an easy or impossible thing to include. If PiP maverick or any other suggestion i made cripple low/mid spec frames they should be ignored...

I remap buttons, IF YOU DONT REMAP AND DONT KNOW ABOUT THE REMAPPING ABILITIES OF ARMA, you are doing it wrong, I can fly and kill targets, swap targets to empty targets, with a keyboard and mouse, just because its hard to do or figure out means it has to be changed, LEARN IT

Maffa added a comment.Aug 5 2013, 5:53 PM

uhm, what is this remapping rant really about?

JohnnieConcrete, i think i speak for everyone here, when i say, that i don't know what the hell you are talking about!
yes, you can remap the controls in arma. what has that to do, with the ticket?
may it be, that you just did not read the ticket?

@doveman: please see the detailed suggestions in the link: render-to-texture would be beneficial, but you could still use "toggle optics" to get the flir/tv in full screen. so everything would still work even when render-to-texture is disabled.

There is a command that boots you out of the optics screen or renders it inmovable so you could essentially simulate the loss of these systems.. buuuut thats getting into complex territory.

Sorry I just realised I posted on the wrong ticket, Sorry, Forgive me, please don't smite me. Took me long enough but I only just checked my emails.

Maffa added a comment.Aug 8 2013, 1:27 PM

go in peace, johnnie :D

gutsnav added a subscriber: gutsnav.May 7 2016, 2:57 PM

I love Battlefield three and four's vehicle HUDs and fire control systems. They give so much information that we sometimes need in Arma (don't really need it in Battlefield). Like an ammunition counter, compass bearings, gun elevation, showing where the guns are pointed, warning lights, state of the weapons, and a bunch of really neat stuff.

gibonez added a subscriber: gibonez.May 7 2016, 2:57 PM

Great great great suggestion.

Go back to the original version of attack helicopters (AH-99) that had the gunner in the front seat. Every attack helicopter that I'm aware of, has the pilot in the rear seat and most protected position. Why you ask? What good is a gunner if the pilot has been shot?

oukej added a comment.Aug 28 2015, 8:55 AM

gunner in the front seat

It's unusual, but it's the case in e.g. Comanche or Eurocopter Tiger. The WSO has also the flight controls.

And we see that the US Army scrapped that program. That could've been one of the reasons.