Plane and Helicopter handling

[1988MAtej 10]

I'm curious what's BIS plans on making Aaircraft handling more realistic. The current Arma 2 system is a joke. I'm a big fan of plane simulators and hope to see some improvements

[nodunit 397]

Maybe, if more tech from TOH is utilized but I wouldn't bet on it too much, Arma is moreso a jack of all trades kind of thing.

[ArmAriffic 10]

http://forums.bistudio.com/forumdisplay.php?f=109

Dunno about planes though

[b00ce 160]

I'm curious as to what is going to be translated from TOH to ArmA3.

[demonized 20]

i hope they keep air vehicles handling the same as it is now, easy arcadish, with some simulation usable for anyone, including noobs or non sim guys.

then they can earn extra cash on for example let TOH owners use that flight control in Arma3 instead of the default one, do same for fixed wing with a TOP game or something.

It would be great for those really into sim flying to actually being able to bring that iinto the mainstream of Arma3.

I for one would easy buy TOH if it allowed me to pilot a heli like a real strong sim in arma3.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Demonized

[b00ce 160]

I think that flying in ArmA should be as realistic as they can possibly make it without sacrificing other aspects of the game. Hell, I believe that they should make EVERYTHING as realistic and with as much fidelity as they possibly can, be it driving, ballistics, flying or running around. Flying should require a lot of skill, same with driving and sniping. This would discourage the infamous "Airborne Medic Sniper Pilot" that crashes into everything. It would discourage these people who are not dedicated to learning and make them find out what they are best at/have the most fun doing and do it/get better at it. It would encourage people specializing in certain fields; granted this happens a lot now, but I believe that the balance between jack of all trades and specialists would shift.

[demonized 20]

@b00ce

what you are saying will also discourage much of the paying customer base of Arma since they like the specops AT medic pilot role.

I am not sure, in fact i do truly believe that Arma3 cannot survive on hardcore sim players alone, this is too much of a niche, but allowing the option to be bought if desired would not impact this, in fact it may draw even more potential players to the game, those that only wish to fly, and fly sim only not the current arcady simulation.

[5LEvEN 11]

I think flying should be a skill. As of right now everyone can pick it up within a few minutes of practice. I would like to see flight mechanics and gameplay similar to microsoft flight simulator.

[Steakslim 1]

Anyone may be able to pick it up. But only a few can really use them well, and this shows at times. If you play on some clan servers you'll notice the same select few are often pilots, usually because they are dependable on not getting shotdown/crashing/mid air collision with other aircraft at base/can make hasty landings without autohover.

However I'm all for adding more difficulty/realism to the flight model. It'll create a bigger, better gap between the mediocre and the exceptional pilots, and keep the former from being able to brag their way into a pilot slot with their BF2 l337 flying skyllz

[[aps]gnat 28]

Anyone may be able to pick it up. But only a few can really use them well

Yeh, and if ArmA3 can force a little more of that across all areas of gameplay, but not too much otherwise people will be pissed and annoyed with trying to play with different stuff.

ie, each vehicle or weapon type needs time to get used to, so people can skill up a little.

For aircraft I think a little more simulation, turning cirlces, mass vs airflow, proper stalls, proper damped undercarriage, even thrust vectoring, would be nice for raising the bar a bit.

[Beagle 684]

I think flying should be a skill. As of right now everyone can pick it up within a few minutes of practice. I would like to see flight mechanics and gameplay similar to microsoft flight simulator.

MS flight Simulator isn not a good option to start with...the flight model in FSX is not much better as the one in ArmA2... and in some aspects it's even worse.

[5LEvEN 11]

MS flight Simulator isn not a good option to start with...the flight model in FSX is not much better as the one in ArmA2... and in some aspects it's even worse.

In what areas is it worse? According to actual pilots FSX is very realistic.....

[Beagle 684]

In what areas is it worse? According to actual pilots FSX is very realistic.....

FSX is only near realistic with payware addons..the stock aircraft are far off...747's can perform endless loopings and Helos are untrimmable and uncontrolable etc.

The main problem is that FSX is no flgutb simulator..its an instrument and cockpit simulator with a excel sheet based "flight model" that fails outside of normal general aviation flight parameters. FSX does not even know what airflow is or what a stall does.

In fact you can't stall the stock planes...they all fly on rails.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Beagle

[5LEvEN 11]

FSX is only near realistic with payware addons..the stock aircraft are far off...747's can perform endless loopings and Helos are untrimmable and uncontrolable etc.

The main problem is that FSX is no flgutb simulator..its an instrument and cockpit simulator with a excel sheet based "flight model" that fails outside of normal general aviation flight parameters. FSX does not even know what airflow is or what a stal does.

In fact you can't stall the stock planes...they all fly on rails.

You must have a different FSX than I have. My FSX takes into account wind. I have managed to stall a plane (on purpose :D). The helicopters are flyable (they are similar to arma 2's helicopters, just more complicated). So I really do not know where you are getting this from.

---------- Post added at 02:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 AM ----------

FSX is only near realistic with payware addons..the stock aircraft are far off...747's can perform endless loopings and Helos are untrimmable and uncontrolable etc.

The main problem is that FSX is no flgutb simulator..its an instrument and cockpit simulator with a excel sheet based "flight model" that fails outside of normal general aviation flight parameters. FSX does not even know what airflow is or what a stal does.

In fact you can't stall the stock planes...they all fly on rails.

Wait... Just remembered something... You do have all of your difficulty options turned to realistic right? Cause on the lower difficulties you would experience that...

[Beagle 684]

You must have a different FSX than I have. My FSX takes into account wind. I have managed to stall a plane (on purpose :D). The helicopters are flyable (they are similar to arma 2's helicopters, just more complicated). So I really do not know where you are getting this from.

---------- Post added at 02:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 AM ----------

Wait... Just remembered something... You do have all of your difficulty options turned to realistic right? Cause on the lower difficulties you would experience that...

Yes I have but i Simply have tried out DCS, X-Plane and IL-2...FSX is weak in al aspects exept Instrument simulation...it's a cockpit and IFR simulation with very weak FM...the helo FM is the weakest part of it....and only a handfull of payware planes for FSX perform really in a en velop that can be labeled "real".

[5LEvEN 11]

Yes I have but i Simply have tried out DCS, X-Plane and IL-2...FSX is weak in al aspects exept Instrument simulation...it's a cockpit and IFR simulation with very weak FM...the helo FM is the weakest part of it....and only a handfull of payware planes for FSX perform really in a en velop that can be labeled "real".

If you have no real piloting experience than you cannot say it is worse or better than another simulator. I suggested FSX because of the good reviews by actual pilots.

[Beagle 684]

If you have no real piloting experience than you cannot say it is worse or better than another simulator. I suggested FSX because of the good reviews by actual pilots.

I have real piloting experience...in so far that I leased me a plane and a flight instructor once for a few hours and three flights of 1 hour each just because I wanted to know...the plane was a Do-27 and it did not flew on rails like the one I have in FSX... I performed manouvers up to 3g so not only left and right.

As soon as you have the stick in your hands and you're airborne you stop calling FSX "real". Its good for instrument trainign but far from real flight performance...the weak points are stalls of any kind, low speed handling, high speed handling and tailslides and "falling leaf" behaviour.

[5LEvEN 11]

No simulator (as of yet or to my knowledge) is perfect... You have options, and you must choose one.

[b00ce 160]

@b00ce

what you are saying will also discourage much of the paying customer base of Arma since they like the specops AT medic pilot role.

I am not sure, in fact i do truly believe that Arma3 cannot survive on hardcore sim players alone, this is too much of a niche, but allowing the option to be bought if desired would not impact this, in fact it may draw even more potential players to the game, those that only wish to fly, and fly sim only not the current arcady simulation.

If people truly wanted to learn how to fly, they will. It's a learned skill. If they REALLY want to fill the medic sniper pilot role, they should train themselves. I fly ArmA more than DCS and X plane because of one very important thing, combined arms. You don't have people who are just flying, you have people on the ground, you have people in your cargo; REAL people, not just bots. Because ArmA is a simulator, I don't see why BIS can't pull all the stops and go all out.

I think flying should be a skill. As of right now everyone can pick it up within a few minutes of practice. I would like to see flight mechanics and gameplay similar to microsoft flight simulator.

FSX is a terrible helicopter flight sim. It's essentially on par with ArmA now, save for the landing gear/wheels working and switches being flippable.

Anyone may be able to pick it up. But only a few can really use them well, and this shows at times. If you play on some clan servers you'll notice the same select few are often pilots, usually because they are dependable on not getting shotdown/crashing/mid air collision with other aircraft at base/can make hasty landings without autohover.

However I'm all for adding more difficulty/realism to the flight model. It'll create a bigger, better gap between the mediocre and the exceptional pilots, and keep the former from being able to brag their way into a pilot slot with their BF2 l337 flying skyllz

Exactly, and that goes for everything else.

Gnat;1945835']Yeh' date=' and if ArmA3 can force a little more of that across all areas of gameplay, but not too much otherwise people will be pissed and annoyed with trying to play with different stuff.

ie, each vehicle or weapon type needs time to get used to, so people can skill up a little.[/quote']

If BIS took that approach, nothing would get done. ArmA 3 is a completely new game, and they should treat it as such. I think BIS should push the boundaries. Frankly, people should adapt to the game, not the game be dumbed down to match the people. Think of it like exercise, if you don't step outside your comfort zone, you won't get better.

For aircraft I think a little more simulation, turning cirlces, mass vs airflow, proper stalls, proper damped undercarriage, even thrust vectoring, would be nice for raising the bar a bit.

Mass vs airflow sounds like a very tall order, unless you're talking about wind effecting flight, which I think is imperative. Along with the speed indicators reading air speed, not ground speed.

Edited June 5, 2011 by b00ce

[5LEvEN 11]

^Basically this...

[dysta 10]

Gravity, aerodynamic, weather, and the statistic of the aerial vehicles are very demanding to program out in case for the simulation. I really hope that ARMA3 focus on the environment to match the real world's physics before manipulating the configuration of vehicles.

[wamingo 1]

Judging by past quotes and such, I think it's safe to say that BIS doesn't want to make flying exclusive for flightbuffs. They want it accessible.

Though, I do think there are things that could be improved, which wouldn't make flying harder. Like working CCIP and non-absolute throttle - at least for planes.

[[aps]gnat 28]

LOL

Actually, thinking about it now I'd prefer;

- gravity and bombing

- multiple gun turrets

- true Copilot

- REAL Weapons Officer position

fixed BEFORE they fix the flight model ;)

[rye1 21]

Proper crash simulation - not just a huge explosion. Especially for helicopters, to see the rotors come apart would be amazing. If they were hit by a stinger then the huge explosion would fit the scene there.

[celery 8]

I think flying should be a skill. As of right now everyone can pick it up within a few minutes of practice. I would like to see flight mechanics and gameplay similar to microsoft flight simulator.

Flying is already a skill. Sure, everyone can pick up an aircraft and start flying but the vast majority doesn't know the finer tricks or even some basic things. Do you really want to make flying roles unplayable for most of the time? Considering that a very big portion of wannabe pilots in Arma 2 today somehow always manage to screw up landings and basic air-to-air tactics, cranking up the technical simulation will seriously limit the practical possibilities in mission making.