Valkyrie don't have the physics of a helicopter.

The intention of Carey and the design team was to create a helicopter, words of Carey and Marlon. This makes me extremely happy because I believe there's still hope for a helicopter in Planetside 2, but the Valk, it's not a helicopter.
These videos shows the LITTLEBIRD physics as Marlon said the Valk was based on it.

Simulator of Littlebird


What is wrong according to helicopter physics.
Valk maneuverability is like the liberator (slow)
Valk can't stop quickly as a helicopter to land.
Valk can't move to the laterals without pointing the nose to the side you want.
Valk should move foward fast pointing the nose gun down, like a helicopter!
Valk should turn using the keys E and D extremely fast! This is heart of a helicopter!
Valk should be slow to take off (could also be used for balance)
Valk should fly in low altitude without opening the landing gear.

Fonts in gifs or videos about how it should work.

Moving to the laterals without pointing the nose to the side you want. (Video of a rescue, sorry)
Gif


Video at 2:52


TR;DL> This video shows how ALL the physics listed above should word in game. Please watch.


Please fix valkyrie, this update makes me more worried because if you think this is a helicopter then this will happen: "we already have a helicopter in game, job done" and it's not a helicopter.

I'm pretty sure the Devs will listen to this thread and take a look at the pyshics, they already took they time of development to make a aircraft based on the littlebird. What is not making Valkyrie a helicopter, is the physics, only.

I don't think any of the aircraft (or the tanks for that matter) have "realistic" physics, even for weird futuristic VTOL-ish aircraft.

It would be nice if things handled like they feel like they should handle, but that's probably more due to the lack of reasonable physics in the game.

Oddly enough, aircraft in this game function sort of like spacecraft might in the future. Watch some videos of Star Citizen on Twitch or something, it's actually not that far off of flying an ESF, although you can strafe in 0g.

That may be true, but ESFs and all other aircraft in PS2 aren't spacecraft... they're flying within an atmosphere after all.

If anything gravity should be greater on Auraxis, as most ground-based weaponry like bullets and tank shells have incredible bullet drop, which normally is a sign of a planet that has much higher gravity or much thicker air than Earth.

They game doesn't have real physics, nor does it matter.

Air game is fine as it is. Valkyrie, after flying the ESFs for a dozen hours or so, feels like what I would expect a "Blackhawk" aircraft to act like given the flight model.

I'm not sure what the OP was expecting, but it should never have been actual helicopter physics.

It fills that role, but like ESF's and other aircraft are quite unlike anything we know, so is the Valkyrie also completely unlike reality.

Why is this surprising?

"Realish" arcade choppers are in Battlefield. Realistic Helicopters are in ARMA.

THIS... IS.... PLANETSIIIIIIDDDDDEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Um, Star Citizen is also a game and not based on real physics...

This argument is irrelevant and no constructive, the question here is not realism, the question here is a proper helicopter aircraft. If you think that way, good, but the devs don't.
Question answer for "So...what exactly is the valkrie supposed to be?"

Carey answer in the valkyrie thread.

Instead of raging, give valid arguments to help those that want a more rich gameplay, thank you.

Actually, it is based on Physics.

It's just 0G physics, which are different from earth atmosphere.

All vehicle movement is done by actual force on the actual position thrusters based upon their strength and the weight/size of the vehicle

#1: I wasn't raging. You quote my last line, which happens to be a joke reference from the move 300, and seriously overplay it.

#2: I'm open minded to changes in Valkyrie handling, but neither do I think it's terrible as is. I'm looking forward to seeing just how well I can fly it in live fire, as that will be the true test, but it feels responsive and maneuverable.

I think though, and this has been brought up in other threads, that having a semi-realistic flight model in PS2 makes it more accessible to people who are coming from outside of PS2.

In other words if you have experience flying helicopters in Battlefield or ARMA and then you hop into PS2, a more realistic flight model would allow for more players to take to the skies, lowering an artificially high barrier to entry. And I think in general that's a good thing, to have more players trying out different parts of PS2 (not to mention giving my Skyguard more targets to engage ).

Just imagine if driving in PS2 was as unrealistic as flying currently is. There would likely be a lot less people driving ground vehicles, because the system would be neither natural nor intuitive. This would be bad for the game.

PS2's unrealistic flight system suffers from the same problems. The moment that you implement a more realistic flight model, then aircraft will "click" for more people. Sure the air jockeys who have mastered such laughable tactics as "reverse thrust" might be left out, but there would be new tricks to learn, like the Pugachev Cobra (something that I enjoy doing a variant of in War Thunder):

I'm gonna be as nice about this as I can cause I kinda like you chingles...

but (*&$%^_)#@($*(&@$# OFF!!!!

Seriously though, I like PS2's air ballet.

I've played lots of jet games, and they're fun in their own way, but I've never enjoyed flying as much as I do in PS2.

Sure, it's hard to maybe get into, but honestly once you break yourself from real physics mentality it's not that hard.

I'd cry oceans of tears if they ruined my PS2 air game T.T

You lost me as soon as you tried to tie RL to the virtual world... a futursitic virtual world... on a another planet... where Earth physics may not exist... and people don't have to stop to go to the bathroom every couple of hours.

I played with the Valk a bit yesterday and the flight model was fun during forward motion, but the controls felt awkward and counter-intuitive during landing and slow speed maneuvering.

When trying to slow down to land I was holding the "S" key to kill forward motion, but there was some weird linking of the vertical thrust to forward motion that would propel the Valk forward causing an overshoot on the landing. I also noticed this when trying to ascend. In other words: I wanted to go straight up (maybe just with a slight bit of forward momentum, but the Valk wanted to enter near full forward flight unprovoked like I was holding down the "W" key. I think it would feel much more natural if they totally separated controls for vertical and horizontal thrust.

The other annoyance was trying to fly slow backwards. I'm not meaning an ESF "reverse" maneuver, just slowly backwards to adjust the landing. The Valk seems to need an insane amount of pitch up (30+deg) for very little backward motion which effectively leaves the pilot blind to ground obstacles. I would ask that tapping "S" after the craft has ceased forward motion engages a weak slow speed (10kph?) reverse thruster.

I did notice the airframes make a difference in the above problems. The "hover" air-frame is the best, but still awkward to land sometimes. Overshooting the landing, even by a little, with the "evasive" air-frame will probably require a full 180 of the aircraft to adjust the landing (unless of course you like staring at nothing but sky while moving 5kph backwards, I don't like the risk personally).

Other than those issues I can't wait to shoot one of these down with my Decimator on live.

It's really working weird because the physics is the same as the ESF, but nerfed a little bit, it's not at all a helicopter. This impasse between do it complete helicopter or do it complete jet goes to = Valkyrie physics. This makes it worse.

Ah sorry then, I thought you was raging I didn't get the 300 reference

We already do the Pugachev's Cobra though.

We have something that serves the same function as the Pugachev Cobra (namely to bleed airspeed), but we don't have a maneuver that works on the same physics as the Pugachev Cobra.

Arguably in the current hover-battling of the game you don't even need a combat maneuver like the Pugachev Cobra. It's useful for flying real aircraft because it allows someone who is being chased to get behind the chaser. This is largely because real aircraft have significant momentum and can't simply come to a halt or turn on a dime. Your only option is to reduce your speed and hope your opponent overshoots you.

PS2's toy aircraft can do all these unrealistic things, so if there is someone on your tail in PS2 the best way to "fight" them is to simply do a 180 flip in midair and start engaging them with your weapons. Or if you're feeling particularly generous you can do the "reverse thrust" and come to an immediate halt. Then it essentially becomes a silly side-strafing copy of infantry combat except in three dimensions instead of 2.

I think I speek for most pilots (PS2 pilots) when I say one of the things we like most about PS2 air physics is that we aren't so limited in engaging a tail.

What you perceive as "silly" we perceive as unique and fun.

If we want traditional dogfighting, I can go play Air Superiority in BF4, or War Thunder.

I don't. I want to dance in the air like a ballerina

A better air system would enhance air combat, not simplify it.

This is because most pilots like their unfair advantage against everyone who hasn't mastered these maneuvers.