Still odd this is open.
Mar 16 2018
Mar 15 2018
May 10 2016
The ~800km/h is the critical limit when the plane is doing high attack angle. Otherwise you can get ~700km/h on sea level when flying without any weapons or ammo, just with flares.
Add typical loadout and A-10 cruising speed is around 550km/h, what drops in combat quickly to around 400-500km/h range when manoeuvring and wanted to do CAS with the cannon.
A-10C isn't fast plane at all. And answer isn't "fly slower" as you can't be stupid to believe that players in multiplayer would fly slower so the plane would behave more realistic by that way, they go and push acceleration button to stay in max speed almost all the time.
Sure, isn't anykind simulator but doesn't make it fun to play when vehicles used in action game doesn't even be different enough from others but too similar ones.
But the co-axial rotor design doesn't make helicopter a stable one what doesn't require a "HOTAS". Yes, it is way more stable than typical design but only when controlled. And the trimming and autopilot is the ones what makes those very pleasant to fly as you can really take your hand off from stick in good situation.
The GAU-8 Avenger in A-10 (what A-164 is "modernized") doesn't have a such impact as you wish for against modern MBT.
That 30mm, even firing a AP (DU) doesn't mean it just opens MBT like a tin can.
Here are the "official specs"
Accuracy: 80% of rounds fired at 4,000 feet (1,200 m) range hit within a 40 feet (12 m) diameter circle
PGU-14/B API Armor Piercing Incendiary (DU)
PGU-13/B HEI High explosive incendiary
69 mm at 500 meters
38 mm at 1,000 meters
The default combat-mix for the GAU-8 is 4:1. So 1 is a HEI and then next 4 are AP. So in one second it fires about a 45 AP and 15 HEI.
So if you want anywhere realistic usage, the cannon doesn't penetrate MBT front or side armors as they are too thick and modern top armors are way over 70mm as well. So only place is the rear armor what is just about 20-30mm typically. So engine block and rear armor are the places where to shoot and you get the MBT disabled for that place pretty easily.
So cannon should lose a lot of its power against MBT like T-100 and force pilot to use missiles and bombs against those if not possible to attack behind.
The cannon is of course very effective to any APC, truck or other vehicles.
And just compare to BMP-1
Of course these are values from ahead but typical 30 degree attack angle doesn't change situation so much on modern MBT.
So lower the cannon effectiveness against MBT's in game and guide them to use missiles against them. Cannon only to "any other target" what is less armored than MBT.
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.
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.
"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.
"...Illiterate demagogues who don't know shit about physics yet argue."
Say a person who doesn't know that Center of Mass and Center of Gravity are not same thing and can exist in different positions. :D
You have been given examples from engineers, examples from simulators and you don't believe, even your own linked videos agrees what people have been trying to say that rotating axis is too low and those videos are against you but you just don't see that.
Now with a added code the CoM can be moved up and what happens? Suddenly ARMA 3 helicopter flight modeling starts behave closer to reality by look and feel and gives at some manner a same kind feedback as top simulators.
Yet you are still arguing it is wrong and it shouldn't be so, even when it gives correct results in this game what is thing what is wanted by many with limitations of game engine.
Of course if developers could apply dozens of laws to flight modeling, results would be helicopters rotate around rotor main head in most cases, and you would not yet to be happy at all because you don't want to believe that helicopters don't fly like fixed wings.
@antigoon78 Moderator "MadDogX" just a while ago informed us about new function in game (1.02 version) what you can test in editor. You can change Center of Mass (CoM) altitude as you like:
I found next settings a good start (giving just about 30s with each listed helicopter):
For AH-9 Pawnee between (too high input what causes very rapid helicopter movements)
ah9 setCenterOfMass [[0,0,1.4],0];
ah9 setCenterOfMass [[0,0,1.6],0];
mi48 setCenterOfMass [[0,0,3.9],0];
ah99 setCenterOfMass [[0,0,2.5],0];
uh80 setCenterOfMass [[0,0,2.8],0];
po30 setCenterOfMass [[0,0,1.9],0];
And if you find your maintenance crew books (I btw happen to have own operator handbook for Apache D model) you can find out that your memory did serve you that rotating axis is above the fuselag in most cases.
As you said, helicopters are strange beasts as their physics doesn't follow the basic logic what can be found from physics books but because they combine them very curious manner it can make even experienced physics teacher not to know how they actually behave. That's why there are totally own lines for aviation engineers to study helicopters flight modeling as it is radically different from airplanes. And for people who wants to be helicopter pilots it is totally own requirements from previous flight experience and licenses.
And I believe you mean differences like these from DCS and other simulators when compared to ARMA 3:
The ARMA 3 default CoM is just way too low on every helicopter. When you raise them with couple meters you get much more realistic flight experience even with the ARMA 3's very simple flight modeling.
To teach some people the physics of helicopter flight modeling could take a year
but they still wouldn't learn if they are not ready to forgot helicopters don't behave like airplanes or follow basic laws of physics as is because rotating rotor etc.
And as a reminder, in helicopters (and airplanes etc) Center of Mass is always somewhere in fuselag and below main rotor. But Center of Gravity (CoG) does shift and can even exist outside of fuselag few meters. And when it comes to helicopters, Center of Mass can even be located above the main rotor and flight characteristics would not change. The difference between helicopters and fixed wings are so dramatic that someone needs to forget almost all about physics to learn how helicopters behave. It is no wonder why it toke much longer to finally get helicopters flying from first prototypes as the rotating rotor was just too complex by its physics.
"Whatever "strange" they are, they still obey basic laws of physics. Human perception and intuition, on the other hand, are faulty, and don't work well in complex matters. For example, rotation + motion can easily be confused for rotation around another axis - which is what happening now ;)"
First of all, there is no intuition. Second, the perception is correct even with helicopter when you fly it, when you are as passanger and when you are watching it. Once you just accept that helicopters don't fly like fixed wings and helicopters are not freely flying objects but like big swings. Just imagine a long string from main rotor up to air from where the helicopter is hanging and combined it with tens of tons weight rotating, high speeds and dozens of other laws applied different ways in different positions and maneuvers and you start understanding why helicopters don't rotate around center of mass and it is just illusion to believe they always do.
Helicopters should rarely explode, even after rough landing people survive. It is only when you lose rotor blades so you can not autorotate and you drop like a rock from sky when pilots and passangers die.
There are tickets for helicopter damage modeling to be lowered so they don't explode if just touching a tree or ground. As it is just so wrong that even on high speed tires touch ground gently and whole thing explode like someone would have pressed detonator while C4 attached to helicopter.
There is "fake" 6 DOF like in MH/AH-9. But it is buggy and very hard to use as when you finally zoom view (with a key) the game still moves view based un-zoomed levels causing player to tense neck trying to do as small head movements as possible to keep view steady.
Haven't even tried TrackIR in other vehicles than helicopters because it is useless as infantry or less useful in cars.
But they need to fix it so that when a player zooms view, the TrackIR inputs are damped so view doesn't shake and move so radically from every small head movement what isn't visible when not zooming view.
I don't know does the Co-Pilot or others see player character movement in cockpit, but the 3 DOF seem to be limitation to character animations, what is not a problem in simulators as you don't see/look the character animations and there can be 6 DOF thats why.
"KA-56" would not make factions identical. It would make OPFOR more different from BLUFOR as it is focusing for attack power, while maintaining well the current roadmaps and designs.
The problem actually is currently in ground vehicles. Like BLUFOR has same turrets in many vehicles as OPFOR and same turrets are used then in many vehicles as well, what makes them very same kind. Even having a turret from Tunguska attached to OPFOR AA vehicle would have been more interesting than the current designs.
But mods will fix that probably fairly quickly. At least there is a change someone would present a new helicopters for both sides.
PO-30 "Orca" is for transportation what has just small amount of unguided rockets and 6.5mm gatling gun (what has no use as it is too accurate and has too small caliber) and it is meant to be only for transportation and possibility to suppress enemy AA vehicle if suddenly such pops up front. There is a normal camo-variant and then there is black for "black-ops" missions.
Mi-48 "Kajman" is non-existing attack/transport helicopter what Kamov would never manufacture. Its main weapon is the 30mm gatling gun what is as well non-existent design. For secondary armament it has Scalpel unguided rockets (non-existent AFAIK) and Skyfire ATGM missiles.
Russia has abandoned the Mi-24 kind design where transport helicopter is used as attack helicopter. But for some reasons (probably because Mi-24 is so famous) BIS developers added a 8 person cargo space inside it. Mi-24 rarely fly with infantry inside and most times they are empty or on more un-common missions it is filled with extra-rockets and missiles for crew to load on mission area.
It as well includes a Kamov design contra-rotating rotor what gives better maneuverability, lift and speed than traditional rotor design with a tail rotor.
The picture in ticket is a illustration of the future Kamov design of Russia future helicopter plans, as Russia is focusing to update the helicopter fleet with newer doctrine in three steps. Finally transport helicopter is responsible for troop transportation and attack helicopter is responsible to support them.
The Mi-48 in game is clearly wanted to be Russian origin, but on 2035 Russia will have totally different plans than what Mi-48 presents.
It is not just about "game balance" that east side (OPFOR) needs a KA-56 kind helicopter by amounts, but because Mi-48 doesn't fit to future and its combination, even being interesting, is out of focus.
Even when today Kamov say they are searching contracts where buyer can have customization for helicopters, Mi-48 design just doesn't make a sense in current changes in doctrine on any east country.
The KA-56 would be a real attack helicopter on east side: Having a 16 Optically guided missiles (like Vikhr), 40x 80mm unguided rockets and 30mm autocannon (maybe dual) or 12.7mm gatling gun in rotating head and air/ground search radar top of the mast, pilots sitting side by side instead in tandem.
Mi-48 could be given even to independents if really a must.
If wanted to compare helicopters,
KA-56 would not be like AH-99 as it is not trying to be a "stealth helicopter" but a actual attack helicopter.
Even todays radar the AH-99 would shine on radar like Christmas tree in night. You can not hide the main rotor at all and even todays radars can pick up the air disturbances what rotors cause, so having a radar reflecting design and plating doesn't help against radars and you would need to counter them only by flying behind terrain and other objects what actually blocks the radar waves.
And KA-56 would not yet have a A-A missiles like what AH-99 has, while attaching a pair of IGLA-M to its wing tips wouldn't be bad addition ;)
AH-9 is used for attack and it has just rockets and miniguns, more firepower than what the Orca has.
MH-9 is used for transporting over a squad (6+2).
Orca is more like MH-9 but with weapons for emergency defense.
Then there is AH-99 what is more than what the Mi-48 is. Guided rockets and autocannon, anti-air missiles and more agile and it is alone more effective than Mi-48 with its only benefit of its AT missiles what has just more penetration than AH-99 rockets but still not much.
BLUFOR has then ghosthawk what is a bonus.
OPFOR is missing one helicopter class totally and KA-56 would fit to that category.
"Sukhoi Su-25KM Scorpion (counterpart of the A-10c for opfor, or the devs could ''make'' a new one like they did with the Mi-48 Kajman, which is a total succes)"
I wouldn't say Mi-48 is total success. It does look "fancy" but its flight modeling is just so terrible what it should be. There are own tickets like http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12722 what takes it.
If the OPFOR is going to get non-existing vehicles, at least they should be some how realistically behaving or having reason to exist.
Like if Mi-48 would have wanted to make correctly, it would look more like Russian current helicopter plans for future like KA-56 http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_En-sxfOkXP8/S-wcaUWOAAI/AAAAAAAAFoo/51yIXvUVfCc/s400/ka58_flying.jpg
That would be what Mi-48 should have been and called it directly as KA-48 instead KA-58, so it would have been a "first step" for it. A counter part for AH-99 but with much bigger punch, speed and agility.
Armata is the Russian universal Platform plan. A one platform what is used with MBT, SPAAG, SAM, Artillery etc. And now suddenly NATO got those.
When showing the ARMA 3 for players who knows military stuff well in reality buyt but nothing about ARMA, they don't like at all that NATO side has same turrets and designs in ARMA 3. But they do like that many vehicles are realistic and exiting ones even (like AMV-7).
So if they add new fighters etc. They should do them for more realistic counter parts as just changing a single feature takes about 10 years to get it fielded. So if today is something taken in service, it will be next 40-50 years in service with a few upgrades like F-22 and Sukhoi PAK FA.
The fuselag design can be kept "classic" but the armament and gear is the thing what would make them interesting. Like add a Vikhr missiles to ground attack aircraft like Su-25 (multiple benefits for them).
Larger aircraft's like C-130 feels little "dumb" but can bring interesting missions.
Just run top of the airport control tower (four floors) and the character is dying there. If a soldier runs 100m it is already dead in this game because stamina is gone :D
If camera could be shifted in X and Y axis so you can move it a side so vehicle is in any corner of view. Then the reticle in 3rd person view would be awesome.
It use to be there so you enabled free look pressing twice Alt button and then moving mouse so you could look different way. Then you just used joystick to fly and you could fire well.
@DarkSideSixOfficial: "In real life, you can pop one flare. Skilled pilots use flares in a hot zone. Why penalize game play as if it's something like an RPG, when it is a Simulator. This is simply a broken mechanic, that needs to be fixed. There will still be an option for burst flares, but the single flare needs fixing, so i don't really see the problem."
ARMA is not a simulator, it is a infantry game with a complex functionality without huge aids as common military shooters are.
If we would want a simulator, then it would matter a lot from what direction do you fire your missile and from what range. As flares and chaffs ain't 100% sure like they are in ARMA, no where close.
In ARMA there is example no actualy "No Escape Zone" what is area from where you can not any more evade missile with any evasive action. Flares and chaffs turns to be very ineffective against most air defense systems in many situations.
But for improved and nice gameplay, ARMA 3 should have a combination of requirement of pilot to use flares/chaffs and then evasive actions to avoid missile being hit. So hard that you are forced to stop your attack run and start escaping. It would be a huge game changer if players flying should start thinking what kind a A-A unit is targeting or firing at them, from what direction, from what distance and even need to drop their payload to gain speed and agility to improve escape changes. To have situations where SPAAG is used against low flying targets while SAM would be for long range targets. And in game we would talk about SPAAG being used 2-4km range and SAM for 6-15km range.
SEAD missions would be totally own missions types for gamers from usual CAS and CAP missions.
We can not get anything close to simulator levels in ARMA 3 and it isn't bad thing as there are great simulators already. All what is needed is that BIS tries to fix clear problems and game balance breakers like this flare system being perfect and impossible to be used with single flare only.
How about just switching the flaring function button from burst/single to low/fast?
Meaning that in low setting players can just push once and it fires a single flare. Keep it pushed and it shoots one flare per second.
Switch to fast mode and it fires flare every 300ms as long the button is pressed.
We can not have programmable flaring system where player can choose to fire flares from which side, how many in burst, time between flares and all kind different combinations (left, left, right, left, right, right, both, left, right, both) etc.
Isn't there a binding for flare amount but it isn't working?
It is silly that you are forced to have only burst amount what makes AA missile firing too hard as AI will burst flares in that moment when missile is fired instead flaring when starting a attack run and leaving the hotzone.
Human pilots can not do that and it makes them too easy to shoot down once flares are gone.
At least players should be allowed to do more realistic flare launching by allowing them to choose to launch them individually, so one attack run can take just 8-10 flares instead one missile taking 10.
Yes, all Anti-Tank missiles and rockets are HEAT weapons in game.
APDSFS shells in MBT cannon or autocannon (20mm or creater) use kinetic energy for penetration.
AT is for "Anti-Tank" what means weapon is designed to be used against IFV or MBT (any tracked armored fighting vehicle).
I think it should be a Anti Personnel missile.
HE and AP difference is that HE is just high explosive what is used against soft targets and lightly armored vehicles where its high explosive payload cause shockwave to destroy/kill.
AP is only used against infantry where in explosion it release fragments what kill or injure infantry at further distance than HE shockwave does.
Anti Personnel would be more effective killing/injuring infantry at larger area than HE is. But HE is more effective when there are structures like walls as it blows them and cause spalling behind the wall.
It does not make sense that a missile launcher like Titan Compact would have a Armor Piercing because AP effect is using pure kinetic energy to punch trough armor and missiles does not have that kind velocities to come even close.
Missiles what are against armored vehicles should be HEAT meaning when they explode the melted copper stream is directed to armor and it push trough the armor because high pressure.
HEAT capability to penetrate armor doesn't change with distance but stay same.
Kinetic (AP) capability to penetrate armor is directly tied to distance so longer distance = less penetration
HE capability is same as with HEAT, it stay same.
And same thing is with Anti-Personnel rockets and missiles that their effect stay same.
The Titan Compact launcher does not have HE missiles, only Anti-Air, Anti-Tank and Anti-Personnel.
You can check how it works for infantry, it kills everyone in 10-15 meter radius while AT missile does nothing because the HEAT warhead is directed directly ahead where the missile hits.
Welcome back the SACLOS missiles what can not be broke off other way than moving behind smoke screen so operator guides missile to miss.
So yes, modern smoke screens reflect lasers and blocks thermal view so you can not meter distance from that area or see trough with TVS.
Still it is own question how should those missiles work in game once they lose lock? Usual way is that they just keep direction where the target lock was so if you don't move you are hit somewhere.
Then other case is with missiles what use radar as it is not blocked so easily (some smokescreens use aluminium what distorts laser and radar) but then again some missiles guidance you can not block than visually hide if they are beam raiders, radio controlled or with wire.
How is in game Skalpel ATGM missile even guided? Shouldn't it be a radio controlled?
Yes it needs lots of balancing. But for gameplay reasons HE should not do much damage to APC, even when reality you can disable one with just 1-2 well aimed shots (AP going trough without problems etc).
I would accept that APC is disabled with a 4-5 shots, while every vehicle suffering instruments damages.
Of course the HE is very effective in reality, but for gameplay reasons I would as well lower the area of effect to 3-4 meters because game doesn't offer realistic cover in most places.
What comes to gatling guns and miniguns in game, they should have wider spread and more effective for killing, even 1-2 shots should be dangerous to even get close at you.
But for counter then more effective weapons, at least countering tools like flares should be lowered, as we are talking about 2030 era AA/ATGM weapons what should already have technology to avoid most countermeasure like flares.
If weapons damages would be boosted closer to realistic effect, would it make ARMA 3 out of the devs vision of simpler and fun but still deep infantry gaming?
20mm HE should not do much damage to APC or IFV. Have you tried to use AP?
It is true that 20mm HE doesn't have wide splash area and HE rockets seem to as well have small area of effect.
Especially if soldiers are crawling you need to get almost direct hits to kill them.
HE round idea is that it explode on impact and fragments, heat and shock wave causes damage. They are meant for soft targets only like unarmored cars and infantry.
Many APC has protection against 12.7mm AP rounds and 20mm AP round can penetrate APC but MBT (all expect rear armor) or even some IFV front armor is too thick for penetration (multiple shots to same position of IFV armor and it goes trough).
T-72 could be cooked off because ammunition were stored on floor unprotected. So you penetrated the armor and caused fire inside compartment you had change to cause shells to explode and then whole turret could fly off. It is famous for T-72 from media but it rarely happened and when did crew had time to get out safely.
Same thing is today with Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams if you hit to correct location, but damages are severely limited because special blow doors what causes the explosion to expand outside instead inside (as long arrow did not penetrate ammo rack when loader is loading and door is open at that moment.
It is just false believe that when an MBT is shot it blows up, or even that APC always blows up.
Firing a APFSDS to APC most likely does nothing than arrow just penetrate the thin armor without even causing severe spalling to injure crew, infantry or gear.
Instead HE shell can be more serious as it blows the whole armor edge causing severe spalling on large area injuring or killing crew and infantry.
HEAT again penetrates more likely well (especially tandem) and the copper spreads well inside as well.
Fuel trucks and other (like HEMTT) unarmored would blow up with HE easily but again APFSDS would just penetrate like hot knife on butter doing little if at all damage unless you hit directly to critical part (like engine block).
It is different story when APFSDS is fired against MBT or other heavily armored vehicle as just hitting them does not cause severe damage unless you get penetration and then hit something critical behind armor. More likely causing just leak of somekind, possible fire if something.
The suggestions from Logitech engineers is for Force Feedback settings:
Overall Effects Strength and Damber Effect Strength is set over 100% (102-104% example) so you get them to react correctly.
Normal helicopters can not change yaw on high speeds (like over 50-80km/h) as the engine does not have enough power for anti-torque rotor, drag is too big and anti-torque rotor doesn't get enough air.
There are few different designs like co-axial in Mi-48 (in game) what use Kamov invented design what removes the anti-torque rotor. Such helicopter (like KA-50, KA-52 and KA-50-2) can do full turn on _any speed_. They can fly 330km/h and change yaw but because drag they lose speed quickly to 180-220km/h range and they as well have small roll effect same time (change yaw to left at very high speed = speed is lost and helicopter rolls ~10 degrees to left). At high speeds like 180-200km/h they can do a flat turn without roll effect and maintain the speed if wanted with small roll toward original heading or simply start funneling to left by changing pitch down toward target and then do a small roll to left. Co-axial designs allows very fast turnings but they are not so sharp as helicopters with anti-torque rotor so pilot needs to little "smooth" the pedal release.
With helicopters what have the fantail they are capable to do quick turns in hover and accurate. They are capable to fly sideways fast like 150-180km/h but they are inferior to do flat turns on high speeds (like >80km/h) as the anti-torque rotor does not get air so well as does typical anti-torque rotor as air wash over the duct. The fantail has much better throughput when compared to typical ones why helicopters with it can fly sideways faster and controls are sharper and of course anti-torque rotor is protected from b bushes, trees, branches way better what is very important for recon helicopter what flies very low and in tight spaces.
What comes to helicopter fin, it is used to fly on high speeds as helicopters start acting like fixed wing (pull up and you fly up etc) at about speeds over ~50km/h and if you want to turn, you roll to turning side and then you pull up.
The tail is not there for stabilize the helicopter in flight other than just be there to give more power for anti-torque rotor. Ailerons are used to give better control in higher speeds as the anti-torque rotor isn't enough for it.
And there is change in pitch when you change yaw in higher speeds, western and easter helicopters usually rotate different directions and in westerns it is when you change yaw to left small negative pitch (down) is applied but when you change pitch to right a small positive pitch is applied (etc). The helicopter flight is very "unstable" because massive forces generated by main rotor and it overthrows other forces.
But helicopters flight modeling is totally different from fixed wings, as the main rotor has all the power what is directed in different manners to fly the whole thing. The main force is the centrifugal force and the forces what are generated are those two forces directed in different manner to get whole vehicle generate lift, change pitch, yaw, roll etc. It is a huge gyroscope with huge forces and the fuselag has little to do flight modeling as everything is in the main rotor (there is no difference of center of gravity etc).
ARMA 3 (nor take on helicopters) does not simulate any of the common helicopter flight models like retreating blade, retreating blade stall, advancing blade, vortex ring etc etc so we are very limited to get good helicopter flight modeling in game.
In short listing:
AH-99 in game should be able to change yaw around 80-120km/h speeds but lose air speed but capable to maintain speed and accelerate to 160-180km/h with sharp turning capability at that moments. Be able to fly sideways 160-180km/h but once returning to flight heading turning back is impossible without small maneuvers and easily roll around but have weak ascend rate.
Mi-48 should be able to do yaw change at any speed but lose air speed quickly (huge cabin) but be very stable to fly and be able to do funneling easily and have superior ascend rate, yaw change and top speed.
AH-9/MH-9 should be agile and fast but low sideway flight but avarage yaw change rate on high speed.
PO-30 would be more like AH-99 but having higher speed and ascend rate.
UH-80 to have high speed, high ascend rate but low yaw speed and capable to yaw at little higher speeds than AH-99 or PO-30.
AG-99, PO-30 and Mi-48 should have in game better yaw control on sideway flying but only Mi-48 have yaw good control trough all speeds.
Up voting as those are serious problems what cause player to fight against game rules.
The blades would trim the branches but not the actual tree itself. So there should be small possibilities to just touch trees and that just damage blades so your flight capabilities are lowered. Even touching those branches cause helicopter to explode and everyone die.
"and using a more realistic Flight simulation for the planes would help that"
As far I know, ARMA 3 engine has same limits as does ARMA 2 engine, we have same physics rules what is shared between all aircrafts (helicopters, jets, UAV etc).
Isn't the typical preloading problem in multiplayer servers only?
As loading same mission in single player follows your settings of drawing distance and loading it to multiplayer game loads a game own drawing distance what is limited to that 1.2Km on every player.
It is problematic that you want to play more realistic designed missions where helicopters engage targets at their max from 4-10km range (depending weapons) and IT can engage fighters from 20-30km range only to see that there is either a limitation of locking/firing ranges or then visual range locks in multiplayer what renders all such missions impossible.
0.77.109561 (D-15) version includes (1-2 versions back it was implemented) that all helicopters can now turn 20 degree at any max speed but Mi-48 is still kept unfair position even more now compared to others.
Thanks, fixed it :D
I was tired at writing moment so it just was accurate ;)
This is required thing. It should not be too accurate as the helmet reticle system is not there to pinpoint accuracy but to guide locking and searching.
So give it a 3-5 degree accuracy so both, pilot and co-pilot can turn head and aim with weapons.
2035 I think it would be typical that even simple miniguns/autocannons would have a small flexibility down (+10/-25 degree) and turning (+/-5 degree) what would allow them to fly over while firing at target without flying toward the target.
A targeting systems in Mi-28 (Mi-48 vehicle in game) would have cannon rotated toward target and then fired or aimed well by gunner.
Locking should happen in same manner that you look target and radar/FLIR system helps firing computer to pick that target first for locking.
Yes, it would make multiplayer games more common where a single person fly attack helicopter and fires missiles and cannon around, but that is why they are there, it is possible. But even with TrackIR system (FreeTrack, FreeTrackNoIR) looking around you don't fly and fire so well because it is too heavy multitasking and you want gunner to help you.
Oh and while on it (30 days left for release), it is stupid that if weapons are fixed that pilot does not see the aiming point while wearing TrackIR system as the HUD is integrated to pilot helmet causing serious pilots to have disadvantage over those who don't use any TrackIR systems.
Yep, you need bigger hole from where to shoot than where you just see trough, bullets really fly from lower than your aimpoint. Throw away optics and especially don't shoot trough reflex sight on optics but use iron sights at that moment.
And when you are "slicing the pie", you are not suppose to be near corner but standing about 1.5-2m from it if just possible.
There is still a small bug like the guard posts hatches have invisible barrier. But are they simulated that there would be a armored glass? (I don't think so)
Anyways, bullets does not fly trough them what makes them safe way to observe enemy movements without risk being shot.
It has same fuselag, same main rotor design etc, engine update and software updates didn't help :)
Well... it is fictional so why not ;)
Funny, it felt like it was realistic. As RAH-66 problem was that it had way too low lift and got almost no lift when having full armament (6 Hellfires + cannon or 6 stingers + cannon or 24 Hydra 70 rockets + cannon) with pilot and gunner on board, barely got up on air without armament and even then had low lift capabilities.
@MadDogX "For example, setting it to [0, 0.5, 1] on the A/MH-9 results in more realistic pitching/rolling behaviour."
I can confirm that setting for vehicle does dramatically change the feeling of helicopter behavior. It clearly isn't anymore like flying a "paper" with odd input dampening but it gives feeling like more weight is added to helicopter.
I found next settings a good start (giving just about 30s with each listed helicopter):
(For those who don't know how to test settings, I have named each helicopter model with its own name like "ah9" or "ah99" and then given the execution code as whole line is)
For AH-9 Pawnee between (too high input what causes very rapid helicopter movements)
ah9 setCenterOfMass [[0,0,1.4],0];
ah9 setCenterOfMass [[0,0,1.6],0];
mi48 setCenterOfMass [[0,0,3.9],0];
ah99 setCenterOfMass [[0,0,2.5],0];
uh80 setCenterOfMass [[0,0,2.8],0];
po30 setCenterOfMass [[0,0,1.9],0];
It is wonderful to have a change to test different center of mass (!= COG) and even ARMA 3 has so simple flight modeling (considering game engine age etc) the raised rotating axis made huge difference for flight modeling on helicopters.
I strongly suggest to make default COM on each helicopter higher so everyone could enjoy from more realistic feeling flying a helicopter.
Tomorrow I might have time to test more and find a more pleasing values for each helicopter what at least I am starting to use in every mission because improved realism.
@DarkWanderer it is just sad that you have not yet learned that helicopters are not freely moving vehicles (6 axis) but they have much more greater force what you don't count above the COG. Helicopter simulators renders the rotating axis in most cases above the fuselag, even when COG is below rotor head because dozens of other physics what you don't want to include.
You don't want to count in thrust, velocity, drag etc what cause helicopter not to rotate around COG always.
You don't neither want to accept the fact that in helicopters COG moves all the time and it doesn't change the helicopter flight characteristics even if the COG is placed above the rotor (like upside down flying or if you would move fuselag above rotor) and the helicopter flies same manner but requires only pilot only to mirror every control input (when you want down you raise collective, when you want to roll right you move cyclic to left, when you want to pitch forward you pull cyclic).
Can you spot the thing? Rotating Axis isn't in center of mass or where the center of gravity at given moment is. Do you know why?
Your opinion was that BIS made great flight modeling for Mi-48 in ARMA 3 because rotating axis is almost center of fuselag, what translates DCS, X-plane 10, Flight Simulator 10 and many other have done helicopters totally wrong by your believes because they behave totally different as you say.
From science point of view, you are not accepting problem here what even a simple helicopter game decade (Gunship!) ago fixed without any complex physical modeling like modern helicopter simulators applies and doing so simply placing a fixed rotating axis on rotor head where it is in most cases and it gave better flight experience.
ARMA 3 flight modeling is a single virtual point in game space what is moved like basic physics book is told to happen in space, without considering all the forces what should be affecting to that "point".
Even in your videos helicopter behaves like I have told and given examples from helicopter simulators. Remember, I am not saying that helicopter does not never rotate around center of gravity or center of mass.
You really argue helicopters should rotate around the middle axis of their fuselag while it is done only in ARMA 3 all the time.
First, I take scientific evidence seriously and your video only support this ticked as it shows pendulum like effect in helicopter where the fuselag hangs from rotor and swings from the hanging point.
And I don't know how you can claim that the original post has only _one_ helicopter, as there is two.
Yes, you are not aviator. You can't correct wrong physics assumptions because you don't know how helicopters should act. You can not just take a one laws of physics and say "This is so" as there are so many that you should spend few years understand them.
This ticket is about ARMA 3 to get a more realistic helicopter physics with its very limited flight modeling. This is not request that BIS should design a more complex flight modeling to achieve the better feeling, simply just adjusting the current wrong modeling, what even older and simpler flight games have fixed and has basic flight modeling closer very complex simulators.
If you understand the ticked, I don't claim that CG (Center of Gravity) is in main rotor, only that the rotating should happen from there with ARMA 3 very simplified flight modeling to achieve a better feeling for flight from its current very arcade and wrong kind flight modeling.
The mockups shows from two helicopters where is the pivot in game (red dot) and its motions (arrows) and where it should be (green dot) and its motions (green arrows).
And you have already voted with your assumptions that helicopter will rotate around CG and it would be somewhere middle of fuselag, and it is wrong by helicopter physics because there are lots of other forces than just the fuselag mass and they are the ones what makes flying possible and every time those one of those forces is increased or decreased, other force is effected by that and new cause is created.
As CG can be anywhere in or outside of helicopter, and helicopter could fly. CG only transfers the hanging point line from center of mast to other point, this way limiting the cyclic controls effectiveness, forcing pilot to apply extra cyclic.
The mockups show you the CG in game models and where pivot should be by ARMA 3 current flight modeling, without requiring to rewrite the game engine.
And you know very well that Mi-48 does not exist so your demands are worthless. from that part.
And I have given links to videos comparing ARMA 3 and various other helicopter simulators (and even old arcade game). Others have as well given links to videos what shows the helicopters pivoting from above the fuselag from main rotor and even your own video shows it as well if you just would look carefully enough and not just stare theoretical CG point and forget that there is a huge, many times heavier rotating and tilting disk above fuselag.
You don't even seem to have ever flied any of helicopters in ARMA 3 as you would already have found their flight model being wrong.
Question: Do you really claim that ARMA 3 follows the correct physics, that BIS has just managed to model laws of physics correctly, but then ED has just typed something pure speculative to their simulator? http://youtu.be/bC1MgXnqMnI & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3LJ5R-Zi3U
As you said, you are not aviator. You don't know how it feels to sit in helicopter. Or how a flying helicopter reacts to your inputs. Or how you need to give input to helicopter reactions. ED has managed to get it well, BIS did not. Even BIS TOH "simulator" is so wrong by many basic modelings.
I just don't fully understand why people are against correct modeling when in current ARMA 3 modeling it is like the hinge and rod from pendulum are what swings around the mass.
It would make flying harder, require player to understand more about helicopter flying than the current modeling.
If you just wanted to vote idea up just change your vote to support it, no need to link more videos how the rotation axis is above the ones what is in game. :)
Can someone down voters explain why AH-9 should fly like it is on ball and the turn axis is even little bit below the fuselag bottom?
Even you DarkWanderer should see something wrong in its modeling?
"Fri13, I'm not knowledgable enough in this area to know if what you are claiming is accurate, but the way you need to present this kind of claim is with evidence, resources and a sound argument. Saying what you have and supplying a couple of pictures conveys the idea of what you're after quite well, but it doesn't explain whether it's accurate or, approaching from another angle, whether it's a greater benefit to gameplay."
The picture was for developers because they know their modeling is wrong, not for community. I need to upload video somehow (or ask someone to upload it as I don't have accounts any such services) to present it to community.
And for gameplay it makes it harder to fly and transmit better "feeling" (as what you can now in games get) how helicopters should behave in ARMA 3 even with its very simple flight modeling. There have been arcade games trying to give the correct experience in less features than what ARMA 3 supports and they have succeeded to transmit msot common flight models to kids. Flying in ARMA 3 with helicopter is still like trying to fly a broom and believe it is a helicopter weighting few tons.
It is not about requesting full/complex flight modeling for each helicopter but simply to get the basics correct what eventually helps most chair pilots to do more sensitive adjustments. As far I know the flight modeling in ARMA 3 is shared between all aircrafts and thats why helicopters act like fixed wings but if there is possibility to even get the small thing (rotational point) changed from middle of the model to above (top) swashplate it would help a lot in basics.
Edit: Friend uploaded file behalf of me so all who thinks ARMA 3 flight modeling is realistic and against that the axis point would be transferred up can see more clearly how simulators and even arcade action game model helicopter rotation.
"Which tools? Screenshot, proof? Otherwise it's just talks."
Example X-Plane 10 (Oh, you didn't know manufacturers use it too to design and test aircrafts and that flight schools use it in teachings as well?)
Oh and it is childish to yell "Screenshots or nothing happened"
""I feel it should be that way" is a great argument, no doubt. Unfortunately, feelings do change nothing here, it's pure physics."
You claim that helicopter always rotates around Z axis because torque. Can you please explain how the torque from Y axis is transmitted to Z axis? Pure physics states helicopter is a big pendulum and middle of helicopter fuselag is not the point what stay still and everything turns around it.
And sorry, feeling directly tells you how helicopter behaves in different situations if you ever have flied helicopter in your life (or you have any senses), not the physics book. There is difference knowing the path than walking the path, if you get the drift.
"I don't defend any simulator. I'm saying you've got wrong assumptions. And in both simulators and in reality helicopter fly like they should - adhering to the physics I've described."
In reality and in simulators helicopters torque is not in Z axis as you claim or it does not rotate around middle of fuselag in most cases but like I presented in the mockup the Z axis being too low and should be above.
In real life helicopters don't roll around fuselag as you try to proof that ARMA III does it very well.
"Nope, it's you who fails here. Because newtonian physics apply to any macroscopic body. It's not even aerodynamics, it's basic physics you fail at."
I already told that laws of physics are not the problem, you are just applying them as helicopter would be fixed wing from WW2 era.
"Different flight model, yes. Non-newtonian physics, no."
Good you have understood that :)
Now you need to learn to apply the laws of physics differently and understand that helicopters don't fly like fixed wings and that fuselag does not generate torque in Z axis.
"Do you think this picture proves me wrong? Nope."
Well answered, you even failed to see there is a problem but instead you would have pointed it out, you didn't seem to even see it. And even with that problem, it does point you wrong.
"First of all, the first personal attack was yours. You claimed that I have no knowledge in the area."
First of all I said (and I quote):
"I do believe you do have at least basic knowledge of huge differences between fixed wings being below or top of fuselage and how they do reflect flight model.
And if you really argue that rotation is always middle of the mass, then you don't know anything about flight modeling"
No read it again. I say that I believe you have at least (at LEAST) basic knowledge of area with an example. I am not denying it as you claim.
But then I said that IF you really argue that torque is generated by Z axis and helicopters always rotate middle of the mass, then you don't know anything about flight modeling.
As you claim (and I quote)
"When torque from the rotor is applied, the helicopter is rotated around the center of mass, not some artificial point "below the rotors". That's base physics.
And the center of mass certainly can't be so high, the current position is actually a pretty good representation."
You need to proof that torque is applied to middle of the fuselag, what you can not because fuselag does not generate any torque at Z axis as you claim.
The torque is applied to Y axis middle of the rotor pole is, it is not on Z axis and it is not middle of the fuselag. Torque from rotor causes fuselag to change its yaw and thats why helicopters have anti-torque rotor (aka tail rotor) to allow pilot to keep heading by adjusting anti-torque rotor pitch correctly with anti-torque pedals.
You did not even understand how gravitational force with countering lift force from rotational motion where is bernoulli's principle applied in such way to generate as strong lift trough whole blade (to some point like until descent rate exceeds the airspeed or downwash).
With few basic helicopter flight models you have failed to understand that helicopter does not rotate around the middle of fuselag point what you insist continually and claim it generates torque as torque is on Y axis http://i.imgur.com/fyQf1lF.jpg
I did not start personal attacks, I only said that if you claim something against laws of physics, then you don't know anything about flight modeling. You have made claims what are against laws of physics and you started personal attacks (what you could have left out) because you were incapable to even proof that helicopter fuselag rotates around Z axis because it generates the torque.
You sir made claim that "sun rotates around earth" and you got mad because other person pointed that "earth rotates around sun".
Edit: I reviewed TOH as it has been a while I tested it and I correct myself that it has very flawed helicopter flight modeling. Over half of the most common modelings don't exist in it as they do in other simulators.
Aww.... Still you try to offend me by saying I don't want ARMA 3 to be a simulator, failing in it because I have told it is not a simulator, not that I would not want it to be a little more realistic in gameplay manner. And instead you would try to make arguments, you do Ad Hominem.
Just like in this ticket again, instead to make helicopters in ARMA III little better, you just want to do personal attacks.
Because you have nothing else to add this ticket, what if you would do as you promised to do yourself and not to react anything what I write?
There is NOTHING what I don't already know in the URL you added. Do you want to express your hurting feelings more?
Maybe you like to express your knowledge of helicopter flight dynamics and how they are perfect in ARMA III?
To add here, I am aware of laws of physics so you have nothing to add here.
But you fail here to apply those laws of physics to helicopter as you believe rotating wings behave exactly with same manner as fixed aircraft.
Different design, different flight model.
You claim that helicopter fuselag generates torque and thats why whole aircraft rotates around center of mass => Center of fuselag.
Tell what is wrong in this: http://i.imgur.com/NKF2TfA.png (just imagine helicopter is not co-axial)
ps. When you call someone manipulative troll, be careful as some people would find it very offensive. As you are one doing personal attacks like very experienced person on that area.
Then you must be so great as tools what world biggest airplane manufacturers use to model their planes, shows that the rotating axis is not middle of the helicopter body as you think, but above it below rotors.
I can not argue with you what you can even feel and see when you are in flying helicopter as it is against what you say.
I am back flying helicopter on next week and I must just be in other world as I can even feel instead just see that the middle of fuselag is not the turning axis as you claim.
You say you have played DCS:BS(2) but still you can not even in it see that what you say, is against it. In ARMA helicopters fly as you say, but on simulators and reality helicopters don't fly in that manner. Which one you want now to defend, ARMA or simulators and reality? As both can not be correct.
So you compare your experience of fixed wings to rotating aircraft and you believe they have same physics and even between WW2 era and helicopter? Only at some situations and rare cases it is so but I will get videos for you when I get home and have time. As once you fly helicopters, you do notice their flight model is totally different and you can not just jump between them and believe exactly same rules applies.
I do believe you do have at least basic knowledge of huge differences between fixed wings being below or top of fuselage and how they do reflect flight model.
And if you really argue that rotation is always middle of the mass, then you don't know anything about flight modeling as it isnt basic physics without drag, torgue and dozens of other physic laws. And developers knows it, they modeled same way as I suggest their helicopter game, so why not now on arma3?
ARMA 2/3 use fixed camera point to middle where the helicopter turns.
All simulators gives you free movement but allows you to as well have a fixed camera point.
In simulators helicopters DOES NOT rotate around the center of mass than in very rare cases (like you are in perfect hover and from there you roll or pitch) but once you are flying the mass isn't the center point.
If you would have played those simulators, you would know that helicopters don't rotate around center airframe like in ARMA. When you fly or you do small collective changes in hover, you swing below rotor position.
Your opinion is other if you want to claim that ARMA has better physics for helicopters than those simulators I mentioned ;)
In some few cases helicopter rotates by its center position, but in most cases when moving it does not but more below the rotors. Basic physics with gravity, air resistance and dragging point with mass.
The current rotation point being middle of the model only works when helicopter moves from hover position to any direction (yawn, pitch or roll) but when it is moving, it is unrealistic in many situations and mostly the point being little up would be better.
If you play DCS: Black Shark, DCS: Huey or X-Plane 10 you can see that helicopters physics is not that you rotate around middle point like in ARMA 3 but above it and below rotor when you are moving.
Mockup is from Mi-48 helicopter but same thing is with all helicopters, the point is too low.
Almost any situation where the helicopter touch ground in nice slide (like in 5 degree) without rolling around or hitting any obstacles. Or when in higher speeds and rotor or fuselag even touch any tree branch and suddenly whole helicopter explodes.
I think huge problem is that trees are like made from steel or rocks. Helicopter fuselag touching them cause it to blow at that place.
Helicopters gets destroyed too easily and crew killed when they should have survived easily.
Helicopters take too easily damage from ground and obstacles like trees. You only need to touch a leaf of the tree and helicopter does lose engines, main rotor and hull is damaged.
Even main rotor hitting trees branches would not so easily destroy it but probably damage it. And tail rotor should be well protected in PO-30 and AH-99 so they don't get damaged easily with even touching ground.
Now it is impossible to even avoid tree by touching its tip with hull what cause helicopter to blow up.
I suggest the main rotor and tail rotor are made damaged from trees and poles, but hull does not get damaged easily than with enough force to ground.
Even when barely touching ground in speed with wheels what have large springs to take pretty heavy weight cause helicopter to blow in that place.
It is yet to see...
Maybe in ARMA 4 they have little more than the basic thing (front, rear, sides etc) simulated.
Of course it would be nice to have advanced simulation (range, angle, location, amount) even when it would not be as technical as in Steel Beast.
Still this being duplicate I add this here.
The stealth against radars doesn't work on helicopters. AH-99 (Blackfoot) (aka RAH-66 Comanche) isn't better in stealth than PO-30 (Orca), Mi-48 (Kajman) and so on.
The helicopter rotors generate a airflow what is a huge blob on radar, it is like a 50x50x50 cubic meter sized giant would try to sneak at you.
It doesn't matter do you have wheels in or out as they are not visible on radar.
When comparing a helicopter hulls etc in radar when they are not flying, AH-99 (RAH-66) has 1/3 of the radar signature what is example from AH-64 Apache. But once you start your engines, your radar signature is not possible to be minimized.
That is one reason why RAH-66 was never placed to production as the stealth characteristics didn't work as radars picks it anyways.
But gears needs to be get up as when you are flying at very low level of trees and so on, you don't want your gear to hit them.
I would take vehicle to pull and push jets from hangars instead any reverse thrusting. Even if it would be harder to do and come later in patch.
Developers probably are searching way to get only unique ARMA 3 games in LAN so you can not do the typical trick with friends to place steam offline, copying steam game to other computer and log in with your account and place it offline as well, with all computers until all are offline and then you have as many computers playing co-op in LAN.
I just don't get it why it really needs to be so that LAN and local co-op are not thought to be common things as they are the most social ways to play games, not the multiplayer. And studios does all kind things to force friends to buy own copies etc.
Yes, ARMA 3 is not simulator but just a military game what have some realistic and semi-realistic behaviors.
I would be happy game in mind when MANPAD is capable to be fired at target 4-5km ranges.
But A-A missiles could have even up to 15km range, as it is long flight time and target can do maneuvers and flare/chaff to get lock off.
15km in game is huge distance, but in main island it is not actually so long distance.
Finally on one vanilla map it is possible to have a beyond visuals combat between jets and have space to do dog fight "in own space" and it would be as well possible to execute well played CAS or SEAD missions without everyone flying around "same space" shooting everything what moves.
Fighters and helicopters pilots should feel MANPAD threat and especially if enemy gets air superiority some part of the island that you just don't go there so easily and stay there long.
But I would not take realistic A-A missiles ranges, as both sides would have missiles capable to fly around the map (Easter side having maybe about 4x longer ranges what NATO has).
Some SAM should have nice range although like 15-20km so they would be very serious deal breaker and would require SEAD missions, special force strikes etc to take them out before jets can step on arena.
Even this is resolved, flying with helicopters in game is way too easy. Flying a fixed wing planes are far more easier than flying helicopters, and flying fixed wings isn't so easy as many could believe (those who want to compare driving a car etc).
Helicopters can not be flied without continually controlling disk and keeping it in controls. You can keep hand off from controls for about 3-4 seconds until helicopter starts losing its balance and you crash.
Take on Helicopters game isn't even good simulation, it doesn't include even half of the physics what helicopters does have and yet some people say it is hard.
I do agree with "Dr Death" that flying helicopter in ARMA 3 should be difficult to learn and challenging to master so player should really learn to fly them and even when flying in combat conditions they would have hard time to do complex things.
It doesn't mean ARMA 3 needs to come a simulator but it would raise the gaming challenge and enjoyment rate when you can success in difficult task easier.
Currently example Mi-48 is so bad that it makes almost cry.
Not so much kicking for AH-64 (just firing single rocket, but firing 1-2 bursts with 30mm).
It can look "a lot" in full zoom on targeting system monitors but still those stabilization systems manages to keep kickback low.
Sure the thing would vibrate a very little but not much,
Firing few shots or lower rate of fire isn't a problem. And missiles don't cause any shake as they are first released before they rocket motor is ignited.
When looking Mi-24 what is heavy and heavily armed, it does get little wave if firing lots of rockets at once or when firing longer bursts of 30mm dual cannons what are tied to fuselag. But because that the cannons are more accurate on longer range as well as they don't shake as much on lower rate of fire.
Here is a Mi-28 firing its autocannon and seen trough TV.
Mi-24P example with GSh-30K twin-barrel cannon (30x165mm) what fires 300 or 2000-2600RPM 385-405g weighting shells.
You can see on that video both firing rates for autocannon.
If firing in slow rate, rockets and cannon isn't a problem but higher firing rate the helicopter nose should point little down for a firing moment.
With Mi-48 (Mi-28 + Mi-24 + KA-52) the rotating turret would cause the helicopter as well turn sideways on other direction where it is firing.
But currently the Mi-48 doesn't include anykind FCS as firing from move cause gunner to calculate dynamic lead by visually what is so wrong.
As now already FCS causes while firing cannon helicopter do so some adjusting to flight so it stay steady, and because Mi-48 is a twin-rotor helicopter it would not suffer from turning while firing even when on high speed.
Still the video what OP posted is probably from max zoom what is about from 1.5-3km range and that "violent" shaking is really "nothing".
Does this ticket include the coloring of interiors as well? As green in Mi-48 has been obsolete color on Russian helicopters since KA-50 and modernized versions as the green isn't dim when using NV goggles and since then they have used black/dark grey colored interiors (Mi-28 being older developed and still some of them use "russian green/blue").
Those nice 3D cockpits suffer when HUD's use other than vehicle native targeting systems and markings, yes it requires more work and research but immersion wears off fast when suddenly you have game own UI markings everhwhere.
The stealth against radars doesn't work on helicopters. AH-99 (Blackfoot) (aka RAH-66 Comanche) isn't better in stealth than PO-30 (Orca), Mi-48 (Kajman) and so on.
The helicopter rotors generate a airflow what is a huge blob on radar, it is like a 50x50x50 cubic meter sized giant would try to sneak at you. No matter how you paint or design surface to reflect radar waves, you are very big object.
It doesn't matter do you have wheels in or out as they are not visible on radar when you are flying.
When comparing a helicopter hulls etc in radar when they are not flying, AH-99 (RAH-66) has 1/3 of the radar signature what is example from AH-64 Apache. But once you start your engines, your radar signature is not possible to be minimized.
That is one reason why RAH-66 was never placed to production as the stealth characteristics didn't work as radars picked it anyways.
So don't even think your "Stealth cover" is blown because gears are out.
But gears needs to be get up as when you are flying at very low level of trees and so on, you don't want your gear to hit them.
And Russians changed their minds from Mi-24 retracting wheels to permanent like in Mi-28 for clever reason, what I don't anymore remember :/
I don't like at all that gears are working automatically, as I want to choose when lower them and when I just hover lower.
For multiplayer reasons it should be only for commander, so we don't see players sitting alone somewhere as gunners and firing all weapons and then when enemy returns fire popping smoke, jumping to driver seat and driving other location.
(Even better if the player can not jump to driver seat without getting first out and then back in in vehicles where there are no passage to driver location).
@ 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.
"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?
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.
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.
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?
@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."
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
Compared example to Bo and KA-52
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.
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.
Why people believe Comanche was very agile helicopter when it couldn't fly with normal weapon loadout and even without weapons it was not capable to hover well or maneuver safely? In few tests it proofed to be capable what were required but snap-turn etc were difficult and hard to do well.
There is nothing weird on mortars and MG in bicycles, as they are not mounted but just attached at them for transportation and you deattach them for use. It is very normal and difference is that mortar teams and squads can move by bicycles instead needing a motorized vehicles.
Who would use these? Special ops would not use as it is better to do a parachute drop and move on ground if wanted to be stealth. Recon snipers would not as they would be spotted right away.
Flying at night would be very risky, landing on wanted spot is even more trickier on wind than can be believed.
If in future we can have technology to make those immune to winds, allow flier to maneuver them quickly to avoid enemy bullets and so on, military would still not use them as you can not even get three person to fly them in such manner to location where they all need to land.
Sorry but this vehicle request sounds more like it would belong to Call of Duty.
I agree. I came same conclusion few days back when ordering infantry and started to feel bad from their commands "Move back" etc.
I wish that the scale would be:
It would be nicer to command and get information in more logical and expected
ranges than "Move to that rock 52 meters from here".
"If I remember correctly, now, once you set the route,
if you want to add more points in the middle of it,
you have to set more waypoints at the end of the route,
and then move all the middle waypoints according to your new desired route.
So I like your idea of clicking CTRL to add more waypoints in the middle."
You can place waypoints any point of existing waypoints. You only need to know what is the next waypoint number and you get that information by double clicking the waypoint, check the number and then simply double click new waypoint to wanted position, select the next waypoint number and new created one comes before it.
Yes, it is pain to suddenly need to do 10 new waypoints middle of existing one or at begin as you need to change the waypoint number but easier than moving all waypoints and adding new to end.
"but there are a couple of military helicopters today with Vne >190kts (352kph) and even over 216kts (400kph) and there have even been a couple of helicopters that have been proven to fly >400kph in level flight (modified Lynx) not just over short distances but over 15km and 25km distances of sustained level flight."
Yes but those were special editions with upgraded engines, lightened fuselage and otherwise edited for speed record.
Instead Mi-24 (A-10) still maintains the speed record for attack helicopters of 368km/h on extended range and can get 330-350km/h speed depending weapons load and does it carry infantry or not.
Still every helicopter in ARMA III reach high speed way too fast, they as well turn and bank way too fast.
And it is as well little weird that all the reticles point to direct flight direction causing that player can not fly helicopter slowly forward and fire weapons without gaining huge acceleration.
Example in ARMA II the problem with KA-50 and KA-52 were that helicopter is capable to "hover" while staying in different directions or banking heavily. But it is not capable to work that way in it as it gains quickly speed.
And if talking about 2035 year attack helicopters like KA-60 it should have helmet aiming for minigun so player could just look freely littlebit different directions (20 degree to side and up directions, 35-45 degree to down what would give a pilot/gunner change to aim little better. Of course AH-9 should have static weapons and rely to its agility and light attacks.
If helicopters would accelerate, turn, bank and take off slower I think it would make them more believable than just easy and fast transport.
Now it is just too easy to do 360kph > 0kph deacceleration to do a infantry drop and then leave the zone after few seconds quickly accelerating to max speed to flee from situation.
@mwnciboo "The one thing I was thinking about last night, was the Player / AI models. A Human being can move from A to B whilst their torso faces another direction."
The my idea what I linked would give that possibility. Now human player can hold look button (Alt) when aiming and gets about 20 degree free aiming zone independent from moving direction but is limited to walking. But gets about 270 degree free when not aiming and just turning head while even running.
In that my idea the waypoint speed would allow player to edit a group moving from waypoint A to B in "Limited" speed and give custom direction to each soldier in group and they would aim, walk sideways or at least run while keeping eye of the ordered direction, like right now with the script "Look at" parameter and playing around with objects what to look, just to make it simpler.
I need search a ticket for that and if not to add one, about widening the degree what is possible to aim while walking from 20 degree, lets say to 190 degree as it is not so easy in urban areas to do watch to flanks when walking.
We have the animation when player does corner watch to left side (Ctrl+A) and character moves weapon stock from right shoulder to left shoulder to give a better aim. As now everyone are right handed soldiers and no one use weapon on left hand than in that special stance position so aiming to flanks when walking in high stance is impossible.
There should be animation where soldier swap weapon hand when walking forward or kneeling (and swapping kneel) to allow aiming to right flank from heading 340 degree to 90-100 degree. When weapon would be kept on current position on left hand, aiming heading would be from 20 degree to 260 degree covering the left flank. It would force player to knowledge the demand to swap weapon sides with stance and allow a AI group move in tight formation where each soldier is covering correct flanks while still moving forward slowly.
I know for many people it is difficult task to fire swapping weapon side but for personal experience I know it can be learned to fire as well on either side.
In urban combat it would be huge benefit to have possibility swap weapon side from right to left depending corner and direction where aiming when walking. For game it shouldn't be more than just mirroring the animations of model skeleton and disallowing some special tasks like aiming a attached grenade launcher as reticle is on left side of weapon.
It would give some other problems for animations like clearing jam or reloading etc but I think those could be done by swapping weapon for that moment to right hand and then back to left after completed.
I have binded Alt+E and Alt+Q to infantry turn functions so I can turn character without mouse. And when I hold Alt, I have that 20 degree free look zone. So I can sidestep, turn and move back/forward, but it isn't perfect as turning character moves the whole body not just legs, even in the 20 degree zone. I need to add a ticket for that so when turning the character with keys, aim doesn't move unless you hit that 20 degree free aiming limit.
@mwnciboo "that Rotate Waypoint direction kind of reminds me of the Gun orientation in "Frozen Synapse" which is an excellent Isometric type Tron-esque Tactical Game."
It could be "enough" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66OFxFcvP1Q#t=345s) to have a small display on corner where to rotate the direction or on map a arch to rotate it just on horizontal direction. It just would require that map (or at least building) is loaded so player gets the 3D model of the space.
If I now remember correctly, player could with press and hold mouse button rotate that view to get AI then spot/keep an eye vertical position as well.
I find it way better that player is allowed to record routes even with just pressing button to store "position + heading" in game world and AI would move to follow those spots.
As it would work on open environment and in very tight locations like urban environment or just simple "farm" where is few buildings.
My military training was expertise to the urban combat and I really like the urban combat tactics and all other close combats but not so much about open environment and forest combat so I understand the complexity and danger of clearing even a house with few rooms, not to mention of few buildings or whole street in city.
My dream would come from these macro recording what game then stores per building and when player clicks building (object) there is a list of all stored macros, what player can rename as wanted.
As you mentioned the AI behavior of 25/75 percentage error rate etc. I would like to try minimize it by my planning as you do as well know that AI can not be as flexible and tactically smart what human is. But we (mission designers) could help AI to achieve much better tactical behavior.
For open spaces I would take something like this: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9421 (My idea, sorry for promoting it as I feel shamed doing so but...) as AI could do just fine in most situations with that feature.
"Equally will the AI understand the concept of Defender and Attacker, or will both teams Room-Clear towards each other?"
Like you said, how does AI know which one is attacking and which one defending a building?
I wouldn't even give that for AI, even if giving them now a waypoint "Hold" and other "Move". I would love to make in each building in my mission a good spots what I would then use and follow the macro.
And to even mention my dream, it would be possible by player to play the macro with a "ghost(s)" like in car racing games when racing against your own record to record more paths, locations and directions to get a multiple.
Think about situation where you plan entry to building with a seven soldier squad, first at outside you position soldiers to starting locations. Then you start planning by choosing one soldier and recording a macro for that building by moving itself. You chose positions, your stance, direction where you look (not just horizontally but vertically as well because game allows to tell all that in 3D space).
Once you have gone trough your entry tactics with first soldier, you stop the recording and you take control of the other soldier and you select macro again and you start recording again in "ghosting" mode, where you can see previously used soldier being controlled by AI and playing your orders and you can now record your second soldier positions simultaneously.
Think about recording all 7 soldiers in ghosting mode?
You would see their timing and actions so you get very complex tactics done where example one covers the window while every one moves at it and croach below it and then get up after passing it.
Macro would as well include all hand signals so you could get soldiers to line up next to wall and give signals when point can continue and start slowly sweeping corner or prepare to entry trough door etc.
It could even be possible to make a soldier do quick spotting around corner from different heights just showing enemy his head second or two and avoid easy headshot from enemy around corner and that just by recording different stances and positions.
Eventually, AI would became terrifying enemy if you could teach your urban tactics to use against you :D
Maybe that is one thing what many didn't get when some players used days planning their missions polishing routes and timings in Rainbow Six games (1-3).
Every building would require a accurate waypointing to get these. It isn't after all so big job if there isn't too many different buildings. Like place 1-3 points on both side of doors and every point gives 2 different directions, one for preparation direction and other for entry direction. One on front of door, two on either side. Then get AI somehow to move in tight formation quickly trough door covering different directions, firing on the move without stopping.
Then check which side the AI is and select correct direction rule, causing AI to move first next to door to preparation point with direction of middle of door, open door and move trough it to correct entry point firing on move and when gets to entry point on other side taking correct direction for a second.
Yes, it sounds easy and simple but it isn't.
Do we require dozens of different tactics? I would say no, just 3-4 is enough. Few different clearing tactics and then different manner based the tactical move order (careless, aware, combat etc). If AI is ordered to clear room "combat" AI will throw a grenade first or go almost guns blazing inside, was there a person in or not. If AI is ordered to clear room aware, they move little slower and lowered position. If "careless" mode is selected then AI will stand and walk in normal manner.
Of course I would love to see a recording scripting for this kind things. Where I could just press a shortcut (like Ctrl+F12) in editor preview to start macro recording and stop it. And while recording I could press a shortcut (like Ctrl+left button) what generates waypoint to that position and stores the direction where I was watching.
Then after macro is stopped, it would ask a path name and it is stored for that building as list. I could run few different routes and positions, headings etc to get a 4-7 man squad full route to building. The stored paths could be grouped so all recorded macros (every one presenting different route etc) is in one element.
In editor then I could click the waypoint attached to building and select a the element I want to assign the squad to perform. And of course edited the macro elements to sync the positions.
This would allow to make very pretty entrances to buildings and if players can import/export them, they could be shared among community and even developers could copy them to official game based community voting etc.
I tested once a 5 building clearing on same street and then passing one street between block with 4 soldiers. I came only to conclusion it was better to do with 4 ungroupped soldiers and design every single one a route with speed, stance, timer and sync them together. Result was not so great but it was way better than ordering group to enter building.
I was amazed by the animations and stance positions in ARMA III the feeling how character is possible to be controlled when compared to ARMA 2 and when I entered to first building I got dreams of possibility to get good working building clearing done. Not to do else than learning in ARMA 2/3 editing that it is pain to get even character to choose any pre-made positions in buildings with waypoints.
I don't even remember accurately anymore about Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield editing possibilities, but in its editor player could rotate the waypoint direction in small 3D view where I was suppose to look. It gave lots of possibilities to avoid AI turning back at enemy or blindspot in room.
In ARMA 2 there was a macro recording capability for helicopters to do a infantry rope landing etc, but recording worked (as far I know) only for helicopters and not well with ground units.
"While the tank has a stabilized maingun (two-plane), in practice it can only fire accurately when the vehicle is at rest."
T-54/55, T-62 (upgrade of T-55), T-64, T-72, T-80 (upgrade of T-64) and T-90 (upgrade of T-72) all have 2 axis stabilization.
T-54/55 can fire accurately from move, but problem is it doesn't have any kind CFS metered distance and is required to do optically.
Same thing was with T-62, T-64 and T-72 first variants but were leter given laser metering.
Example T-72 had excellent stabilization system and better was developed only by West Germans for Leopard 2 (using same technology as Russians used) but problem was that it was not until T-72A that they got laser metering (only distance, not dynamic lead).
But one of the rare features in T-72 was that it had calculator for distance and depending turret rotation it changed the calculated distance continually. It didn't work well if on ice or otherwise slippery terrain where tracks got slipping.
And reason why T-tanks were "inaccurate" were because CCCP trusted more for HEAT shells than APSDFS-T as western world, they got much better penetration but because slow speed and higher trajectory, they were more inaccurate than APSDFS-T shells whats flightpath was more direct and distance to target was less meaningful at long ranges (> 1.7-2.0km) and was easier to hit moving target because high speed.
Example T-72 could as Leopard 2 hit target without problems between 0-1000m as gunner needed just to place reticle on target and fire, but for longer distances the slow HEAT shell and high trajectory gave penalty.
On rough terrain T-tanks problem is the low minus elevation what causes cannon to be freezed when platform quickly pulls up.
Example T-72 can rotate its turret quickly, but stabilization kicks in only when speed is lowered enough (if correctly now remembering, it was 7.2 degree per second).
And one rare feature on that time was T-72 had a partial H&K feature, where commander could take control of turret and rotate cannon to his viewpoint, but commander could not fire cannon nor vertical direction wasn't changed, so gunner needed to aim up/down and fire cannon.
Who knows what vehicles at year 2035 would be used, I bet in 20 years all T-72
models would be latest ones what are out there and T-90S would look more like from a museum as "Armata" (T-99) would be in use, supported by BMP-T etc.
When it comes to ARMA flight modeling and joystick inputs, there is no good reasons to use any HOTAS (cheap or top notch) to fly anything as both are so terrible.
Of course it would be nice to have throttle working correctly in full axis.
Can be from 300m to 2000+ depending gear. The lower range comes in resolution as old gear isnt so sharp always but in this case there is no range as you are not depending from IR lamp to lighten area.