upvoted, i dont wanna fly into a building

what do you mean? wich seat should be in front? and wich one should be in the backside?

While never mentioned, some proof at 2:13 in that video, the guy in the back is writing something down on a piece of paper while the helicopter is turning.

Already been reviewed! Though why does it not have a priority? This is quite the bug for the Comanche?

The two development ones built had 2 identical cockpits, one for the co-pilot and one for the pilot.

In this video you can see the rear seated pilot flying along with both cyclic in view from the side, you can also see near the end from the other side that the rear pilot is also using the collective:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlRKt9nQoxo

it’s worth noting in the early days the rear one used normal mechanical controls while the front used fly-by-wire, which was a throwback to when they graphed a front cockpit onto an S-76 (image below), by having this setup they could make changes in one (front) while still having the rear unchanged thus there to take control in the event of a failure.

http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/images/images%20S-76/S76-21.jpg

You should also remember the RAH-66 was cancelled, only 2 were ever built and there was to be 7 versions built in all with slightly different configurations using what was learnt from the earlier ones, therefor the final design was never set so is open to interpretation, likewise given both had controls in the early ones and given conventional wisdom in comparative aircraft of mostly having the pilot at the back looking over the co-pilot, there is nothing wrong with how it is now.

Sniperwolf (nice name BTW, MGS 4 ever)
the helicopter turning can be done from the pedals, you can write something in a paper while you use your feets to steer the heli

@ Dr Death, the 90 degree angle of bank turn that they performed when breaking right CANNOT be performed by using yaw pedals alone. I say leave the pilot in the rear seat as it is now.

Eeeh, what? It's fine as it is. The pilot usually sits behind the gunner. And it's no different with the comanche.

Notice the green guy (pilot) with the hand on the stick, and the orange guy (copilot/gunner) resting his hand next to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlRKt9nQoxo

Reading a report on the helicopter, pilots alternated between front seat and back seat, meaning that having the pilot in the back isn't incorrect, and also makes it easier to fly.

Omg.
! In this helicopter pilot seat in front(both places are identical to control). To increase FOV of Recon! helicopter and fully disclose all the flying qualities of the machine.

Usual, AH pilot sit on top to be more protected from any damage and make emergency landing in the event of contact.

In this helicopter co-pilot make this landing in this case.

@Anachoretes

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTG6MV1zZHqsnsVH9rB58U77BPnlzgamtAkFHWU3m1ZTwMDZrRs

You can try to fly from both places right now - game give this opportunity. And see the difference. But top place don't have weapon contols. Now he dont.

Just need to make swap for default places and bring weapon control to the back\top sit.

AD2001

What what?

What what?

Point 11 and 24, 11 is the front seat and labeled as "Pilot's seat", 24 is the back seat and labeled as "WSO's seat".

Wait. If i sit "to pilot" or use moveIndriver i opened in the top seat.

Line drawings produced by 3rd party’s are NOT proof of any kind UNLIKE say an engineering drawing done by the manufacture, that’s like quoting Wikipedia entries as being a reliable and 100% fact and NOT riddled with inaccuracies, omissions or just dam right lies.

Simple information of the 2 built:
BOTH seats had for all instance and purposes identical controls/systems, permitting BOTH to pilot and operate weapons systems.

The project WAS cancelled and the remaining 5 prototypes there were supposed to be built weren’t thus final configuration of the aircraft was NEVER set.

Logic:
IF the RAH-66 program was ever resurrected they would start where they left off with at least another >10 years of additional knowledge along with advanced in metallurgy/composites, engines, systems along with the scaling and processing power increases, they would still have to build ALL the prototypes and they would still have to solve ALL the problems the RAH-66 had which contributed to its cancelation.

Likewise was RAH-66 program ever resurrected even IF they intended to reuse the airframe they would NOT be following the original military requirements from the 1990’s, they would use military requirements from >2013.

Therefor ANYONE wishing to portray a resurrected RAH-66 program that yielded some 22 years later #1 or 31 years AFTER the RAH-66 was cancelled #1 has a pretty free reign over IF they put the pilot at the back or the front IF they take the essence of the aircraft how it was when cancelled even IF the same basic airframe was used, also if the original has 2 identical cockpits with identical systems then you have the ability to remove some items from one while leaving them in the other which is radically different to adding something that was never there. (#1 based on year ~ 2035).

I say swap them, the front seat has a better view for flying and for shooting rockets.

This helicopter cannot safely be flown from the rear seat, as the primary pilot should be located in the front. Here is an interesting document on the Comanche pertaining to crew stations. Although both stations featured full flight controls, most of the "missions" (test flights, simulator missions) were piloted from the front seat.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA417885

AH use rear pilots for some reason. Helicopter for other purposes.

So from what information there is, it appears both seats have full pilot and full gunner functionality.

Then what we need is a "Swap controls" action.

possible within ArmA 3 engine, but to make it accurate, i think we should also need TOH flight physics and controls

That would be nice but I highly doubt it will happen (even though vbs2 has rotor lib so the idea that it takes too much processing power due to the other things is looking to not be quite so true)

It would be nice if aside from "Taking" control you could also "Give" control, or just swap between the two as Madoc mentioned. Ironicly I find myself flying the comanche in the front seat the most, likely due to the RTT MPD location.

then again, just alike most of the things that people want in Arma saga, the main problem would be the AI behaviour (wich somehow, its already worse than what it was in ArmA 2, besides what BIS said)

Yeah it is a bit of a shame, I would have happily taken the opportunity for underground structures even if it meant we can't use AI there.

Strangely enough the AI seemed okay in TKOH...there was a particular mission I recall where you had to follow a medium's smoke trail driven by AI, training for a parade if I recall correctly.. The AI was capable of altering altitude and kept a surprisingly smooth course...

Naturally a scripted event is different from an on the fly reaction but lets face it, we're not going to see AI engaging armored units from afar with missiles, or infantry groups and light armor with rockets specifically, hiding in the trees somewhere or sitting still when a laser target is presented (rather than fly right to the darn thing, so much fist shaking)

Also begs the question, if TKOH was so demanding then why does Take on Rearmed exist? Why bother putting forth the resources if something was going to run so badly...it doesn't. Buuut this is awfully OT...

because TOH AI when flying i think it wasn't using TOH controls but a pre-made path for the AI to follow, TOH rearmed its just an offitial mod (with several bugs)

Ohhh thats right, rotorlib was unique to the player...wait so then how does the AI have trouble with....I really wish they would just come out and say "We don't have the man power currently".

For people who enjoy the AH-99 this is a must for making it more realistic.

The only Comanche aircraft built had the ability to both pilot or be the gunner in both seats.

I doubt AI problems would stop this feature from being implemented because functionality for this already exists for when flying with AI

not really, the AI for ArmA 3 should be REDONE FROM SCRATCH.

It already has problems, i take it doesn't know when to use BUIS in scopes, dont know when to use IR laser, Co-pilot function its not working with AI, and the AI itself its bad balanced

We have got BIS in the past to acually fix/ make more realistic like AI only shooting a sniper at you inside an 800m circle but now they fixed it so they can engage you at the same ranges you would engage them.

In terms of piloting I think the AI just sees a target and wants to fly at and shoot it, indicative by how AI pilots will rush a laser painted target even if by CPG, making the CPG shake their fist in much fury.

But as I was saying the current AI would not prevent this important issue from being resolved.

Hopefully since this ticket is already reviewed but I changed it slightly to accurately reflect our finding in the matter, the devs will take another look at it.

I messaging Dwarden regarding the ticket being changed slightly.

There should be a button beside Monitor that allows you to edit the title and whatever else need be, not sure if the topic is too old or not though..

I did edit the title...

ProGamer, yes, the AI still is THAT bad, their accuracy is dead precise and they have no recoil (or that's what it seems like)

and dont get me started on the flying skills for the AI, i think its better if we let a DayZ kiddy use a chopper than the ArmA 3 AI

On a note about pilot and cpg using the same weapons. If it is anything like the AH-64 (and considering RAH-66 is the Delta's prodigy in a way) then they would be able to arm the weapon station from either cabin.

In the pilots case they have no dedicated aiming mechanism and must rely on the IHADSS to track with the gun. On board systems are in place to allow the pilot to either slave the gun with a marked laser, track identified sources or go full on manual.

That said, the pilot can use both optic systems in junction with the monocle to see before their eye WHERE and WHAT they are looking at..and if that fails, is undesired, they can use the MPD. And that is sort of where a problem could pop up if this system was used in Arma 3.

The PIP the pilot has currently is far too small to allow for attack, requiring a zoom in to see minute details as opposed to the CPG whose PIP in the MPD allow them to see with far more clarity due to larger screen space.

This has been resolved for now, in the latest dev build the seats were switched.

@ProGamer

This is not what the ticket is about (now).

BIS said they are pending changes in the inside model of the cockpit, but adding the take control option for each seat to take control of the others would be nice.

Tested AH-99 today. Pilot sit in front and have flying controls with manual fire ability. He have are big TV and no "optic mode" . Gunner sit in back and have weapon control and flying control by wire. He have smaller TV(but huge radar) and have access to "optic mode"

Why has arma even got this helicopter in it ? It's meant to be futuristic and real life this helicopter was canceled in 2004 by the us army and never has been put into Service!!!!! Haveing the apache would be more realistic

Because apache has been in every other game, this is an opportunity second.

Very nice but WHYYYYYY is the back seat STILL using the small screen after all this time? *head smashing against desk repeatedly*

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12164

Because you don't need it - you are gunner.

it doesn't matter how many times the apache has been there, if the AH-66 was not even producted, it was canceled, and not even a specified ver. was confirmed for production, it means BIS is most likely never gonna make a 100% realistic Comanche, i dont mind if they use a 60' upgraded prototype or a next gen apache, but the point is that the Comanche is just a paper mache model and a bunch of drawns, nothing is exactly "solid" enough like for BIS to make a vehicle out of it

BIS said they are still working on switch the cockpit textures for pilot and gunner.

BIS said also that Arma 3 was gonna get most of the VBS features, that you would be able to shot from passanger seat, that you could chose your own passanger seat, that it was gonna have TOH flight controls, etc. etc.

Why must you freak out? Seriously calm down, this was specified in the development Changelog:
"Crew of AH-99 is now trained to get in proper seats (some model changes to reflect this pending)"

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149636-Beta-Development-branch-changelog/page10

not freaking out, just starting to lose confidence on the dev team pretty fast.

@Anachoretes : You're right, as the gunner you have access to the whole of the optics, but this is more of a presentation problem. You have this new feature of PIP in the arma series and a perfectly functional, excellent demonstration in the front seat.

Yet the back seat is confusing for a myriad of reasons, it isn't the best of presentations for the functionality of the feature. Why not give both crew the same visual experience?

Oh, god they actually put the pilot seat in front now >:(

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO FLY IN THE FRONT SEAT... There's a fucking reason pilots are in the back seat. It's the same reason construction crane operators sit at the center of cranes and not on the arm. When you sit in the back seat, you're closer to the pivot point of the helicopter, and thus you can rotate around yourself.

"IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO FLY IN THE FRONT SEAT"

LOL

A) its not.

2. this helicopter had the pilot in the front seat for 8 years, so it obviously worked, and they kept it for a reason.

C) you can fly it from the backseat

D) front has a better view

side note:
even if the comanche was cancelled, that doesn't mean it won't ever get picked up again. there was solid development behind it, but electronics didn't keep up for the time. remember how far computers have come since 1996, heck since 2004.
futuristic game, so this is definitely a possibility. afterall, we get a AH-99, they had a RAH-66 - not the same helicopter.

It is the RAH-66, but in game it has a different name so BIS doesn't get sued by the vehicles manufacture. EA is already being sued for using weapons in their games with the real names, BIS wants to avoid legal problems. BIS probably got the go ahead from the manufacture of the HEMTT to use its name.

@ProGamer: what im saying is that a rah-66 is no more an ah-99 than an ah-1f is an ah-64: they sure do look similar, and are based on alot of the same features, design and shape, but this is 2035, and the rah-66 was cancelled in 2004. so as far as im concerned, this heli started production in 2021 after working out the kinks, and settling on the fact that the front seat has a better view, and both seats need controls for if/when the pilot dies

:D

AH-99 based on RAH-66 but the developers have room to maneuver because this is AH-99. Not RAH-66. I'm glad to have small TV but huge radar...if it will work.:)

Does anybody read? The screens and interiors of the pilot and gunner are still in the process of being switched around. The names of the vehicles are ONLY different because they aren't as big as a company as EA and dn't have endless funds to throw at lawyers to fight against the manufactures to be able to use the real names. http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-pulls-out-of-licensing-deals-with-arms-manufacturers-6408078
It costs money to get a license to use the weapons and vehicles names. How much money? We don't know but if EA is trying to stop paying then I guess its a decent amount.

Who you talking? Earth is spherical? No way!

Yea weird, always thought it was flat!

From the duplicate issue:

--------------------------------------------------

redstone (developer)
2013-08-16 09:41

According to this picture, we decided to change that. http://zarco-macross.wdfiles.com/local--files/wiki:boeing-sikorsky-rah-66-comanche/boeingrah66eb.jpg [^] (Community, thanks for it)

As pilot you can fire, just set manual fire on, as gunner you can take controls, too...

As a pilot you have to have great view... In AH99 you cannot have the seats like in AH64, MI24, becose in that examples is gunner seat higher then the pilot's.

Ya, that's what I was afraid of. I can't believe that BIS changed such a fundamental feature based on a random person posting a random picture. That picture is drawn by illustrator Mike Badrocke. It's NOT official. The real helicopter allows the same functionality from both seats.

The CIDS were designed by Interface Displays & Controls, Inc.

Directly from their documentation:

Oceanside, California — September 3, 2003 — Interface Displays & Controls, Inc.
(INTERFACE) was recently awarded a contract to design, engineer, and manufacture the Cockpit
Instrument Display System (CIDS) that will be installed on the RAH-66 COMANCHE—the U.S. Army's
new reconnaissance and attack helicopter, being developed by Boeing and Sikorsky.

The COMANCHE has two identical cockpits for the pilot and the co-pilot, which are sealed and have

positive pressure air systems for protection against chemical and biological warfare.

http://www.interfacedisplays.com/pdfs/pr_03-0903_sikorsky_CIDS.pdf

The only part of the view that's blocked from the pilot is what's below him, and he never needs to see what's below him when hovering still. And the view is equally blocked from the front seat.

As for taking control as gunner, it's not at all ideal. First of all, you cannot look up and down when in the current gunner seat. And second, in multiplayer you cannot take controls if there's another player in front, unless he releases controls.

And if he agrees to let you fly from the back seat, YOU still are the gunner too, so you now must fly AND control the weapon system at the same time. The front seat cannot take control of the weapon system when there's a player in the back, and he cannot control the turret from the front seat no matter what.

This needs to be changed back, or a duplicate helicopter with reversed seats needs to be added.

The comanche is completely useless now.
[Top down] Pilot in back (Almost positioned at the pivot point, and thus will rotate around himself): http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9403/gurw.png

[Top down] Pilot in front (Much farther away from the pivot point, and thus will move up or down or left and right, instead of rotating around himself): http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/794/bour.png

[Side] Pilot in back (Almost positioned at the pivot point, and thus will rotate around himself): http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/7545/1by8.png

[Side] Pilot in front (Much farther away from the pivot point, and thus will move up or down or left and right, instead of rotating around himself): http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2207/dea8.png

Why not have a take weapons control option too?

Isn't that manual fire?

Or are you suggesting a Take/Release weapon action that would allow you to swap between not only players but also AI pending their seat? Such as if you are CPG, you take the controls and want the AI to gun while you control the aircraft..