Page MenuHomeFeedback Tracker

Physics A-164 aircraft is unrealistic
New, WishlistPublic


The new aircraft A-164 is too maneuverable compared to TO-199.
Empty weight A-10 Thunderbolt = 9176 kg
Empty weight Yak-130 = 4600 kg
If we consider that the A-164 has on board more weapons than TO-199, the difference in weight will be more. Because of this plane A-164 can not be more maneuverable than the TO-199. Maneuverability of A-164 looks a bit ridiculous and unrealistic.


Legacy ID
Game Physics
Additional Information

Event Timeline

tyler2 edited Steps To Reproduce. (Show Details)Mar 14 2014, 12:31 PM
tyler2 edited Additional Information. (Show Details)
tyler2 set Category to Game Physics.
tyler2 set Reproducibility to Always.
tyler2 set Severity to None.
tyler2 set Resolution to Open.
tyler2 set Legacy ID to 3159095636.May 7 2016, 6:09 PM
Jubeto added a subscriber: Jubeto.May 7 2016, 6:09 PM

I cannot say I'm in any way specialized in jets or disagreeing on your point assuming these real life counterparts are comparable with the existing ones in game. However when you perform plane maneuverability tests you have to take many things into consideration. One of these you did not was IAS/TAS thus making your youtube video pretty much obsolete. Please provide another one to prove your point.

p.s. Is it safe to assume the jets in game are supposed to be pretty much the same as these you mentioned?

tyler2 added a subscriber: tyler2.May 7 2016, 6:09 PM

In the game an airplane A-164 too fast "tangage", such a turn in the life of the aircraft is possible only with "thrust vectoring"
Watch the video where flies the A-10

That looks like it's the fixed wing flight model causing it.

It has very sensitive elevators and high elevator authority, so what? Both have nothing to do with turn rate, only initial turn rate is affected. Turn radius for the rl A-10 is as follows:

Sustained turn radius at 1500 meters/5000 feet with 6 mk82s
No flaps

            200 398 meter/1305 feet

less than 400 meters radius, speed is knots, not mph or kph. Instantaneous G-load at low speed is 2.34 G, an above 5 G at high speed.

The plane has a -very- good instantaneous turn rate and a mediocre sustained turn.

As such, the sensitive elevators and initial turn seems to be realistic. It should -not- turn worse than the neophron, especially at low speeds.


Edit: Tested, turns too tightly, but that can be tweaked. Slightly less elevator authority, slightly more aileron authority would be nice.

It does seem too sensitive to elevator input and makes it hard to get rounds on target with the gun.

coltti added a subscriber: coltti.May 7 2016, 6:09 PM

It is really hard to actually hit anything with a-164 since it is very wobbly and feels way too light like a damn paper plane. I dont mind it being well maneuverable but seriously now its a CAS aircraft and its really really hard to hit anything for example with the cannon it makes it seem very useless.

Fri13 added a subscriber: Fri13.May 7 2016, 6:09 PM
Fri13 added a comment.Mar 15 2014, 8:41 PM

The A-10 is famous from its maneuverability on low speeds and low altitudes. It has so huge wing area, wing aspect ratio and large ailerons that allows it to do crazy rolls and turns, but of course in full load even the pitch is hard to do but roll is easy.

In other hand, it is very slow plane. Not at all so fast as it is made in the game. It speed should be lowered dramatically (making a report for that). But with max load what in game it typically comes, its flight behavior is too stable by roll behavior.

And what comes to compare A-164 to the TO-199, it is "OK". As TO-199 is a copy of the famous Su-25 "Frogfoot" whats feature is high speed (can fly almost a one Mach) and good low-speed maneuverability too, but not so good in empty as A-10 in empty load.

Basing to half hour testing on TO-199, it is good modeling for ARMA 3 when compared to DCS simulator of Su-25A (what is more agile than Su-25T). But A-164 is way too fast and too agile in full load on pitch.

But TO-199 has too good negative pitch (push stick so nose go down) as it doesn't do well that kind maneuver. And for A-164 it is as well too easy with a full load if it was in the video in such load.

Fri13 added a comment.Mar 15 2014, 8:49 PM


"It is really hard to actually hit anything with a-164 since it is very wobbly and feels way too light like a damn paper plane. I dont mind it being well maneuverable but seriously now its a CAS aircraft and its really really hard to hit anything for example with the cannon it makes it seem very useless."

The A-10 is very agile and hard to control. It requires long attack runs and small control movements.

the A-10 is very agile. The To-199 is much faster when flying level. I think it's fair.

gutsnav added a subscriber: gutsnav.May 7 2016, 6:09 PM

If they did some calculations, then they could easily simulate an accurate flight model even for fictional aircraft. I've made a ticket to try & help get a better flight model: 0017881

A-164 in the game has a turning radius of about 230 meters.
TO-199 in the game has a turning radius of about 750 meters.
For comparison:
A-10 in the life of a radius of 350 meters.
YAK-130 in life is turning radius of 200 meters.
TO-199 but it would be fair to compare with the SU-25, its radius is 400 meters. I think all the players want to see the characteristics that should be closer to reality. Turning radius at the TO-199 is 750 meters. Does anyone of you know what plane was taken as an example?

Not sure about what flight model the To-199 was modeled after, but 750 m is a little excessive. It shouldn't be the same as the A-164, the last thing we want is Battlefield level congruence between the jets. Also, to be fair, the To-199 has a much much higher cruising speed, making it much harder to shoot with machine guns/cannons/small arms, so it's not like one plane is better or worse than the other.

Control of the aircraft A-164 uncomfortable, it behaves like a piece of paper. To-199 behaves as a passenger plane. Speed ​​of these aircraft in the game roughly correspond to the actual parameters of life. Maneuverability mismatch greatly. I am interested in more realistic characterization of arms, is publicly available for almost any weapons. I'm not asking you to do ACE, I beg you not to do Battlefield, worsening or improving real characteristics.

Fri13 added a comment.Apr 15 2014, 1:03 PM


TO-199 is from Su-25. And Su-25 doesn't have small turning radius when equipped with typical CAS load, and it has a very bad one if having 16 Vikhr missiles as that plane just doesn't turn fast, even when compared to A-10 in full load.

And A-164 should behave like airplane if it is imitating A-10 modernized version. As that plane is just laughable how wavering plane it is in typical CAS load.

Su-25 at full load in life unfolds within 400 meters! In the game "To-199" - 700 meters. I wrote about this above. Information on the Internet is enough to avoid mistakes in the game, especially in the simulator.

B00tsy added a subscriber: B00tsy.May 7 2016, 6:09 PM

The Wipeout is fine and fun(ArmA is not a flight sim). I only miss heavy breathing sounds when pulling a lot of Gs (immersion). Though it would be nice if flying would be more difficult then it is now. I would love to feel wind guts that would make aiming, landing and taking off more of a challenge.