Plane and Helicopter handling

[5LEvEN 11]

I do not agree with arcade controls. As everyone has already stated it is a SIM and should stay that way. The helicopters and planes should REQUIRE skill and devotion to use. It should be more like real life, where aerial assets require skilled pilots, and are not commonplace. By adding complexity and requiring a pilot to learn how to fly (like they would in any flying SIM or real life) you are preventing people from joining a server and leaving an aircraft out in the middle of no where or the wasting of assets.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

You do realize that Lemnos is a solid 4.5x the size of any other Vanilla map, right?

Based on what gridded map? Aren't all previous maps downsized from the real location?

[Macadam Cow 1]

IIRC the map should be 2.4 times bigger than Chernarus

EDIT : 2.4 times bigger than Takistan actually

Edited June 7, 2011 by Macadam Cow

[dmarkwick 261]

The game WILL sell, even if the options aren't there. Adding the option to dumb things down is WAY more work for BIS and splits the community. A lose - lose. ArmA is a SUMULATOR, BIS should treat it as such and be as realistic as they possibly can. Some people may not be cut out for flying, yes. But guess what? The same goes for real life too. ArmA is not JUST about flying. Flying is 1/3 of the overall gaming experience. I don't want to see ANY part of the game sacrificed for the sake of flying, or making things "easy".

You're against even the option? I cannot fathom how you can label it a lose-lose. Let's get one thing absolutely correct: ArmA is a game first and foremost. I know there is a propensity for insisting that it's a simulator, but really, if you insist on that then you're talking about VBS2. And if you look for helicopter simulation then you look at DCS. I'm not suggesting I wish for dumbed down arcade heli flying only, but the idea is for helos to be useful, if you play as a pilot you can assume your avatar to be able to fly a helo.

ArmA3 has to sell to a mainly gaming crowd. Lets not forget we are the minority here, most people who will buy ArmA3 will just want to play a game. You don't have to like that fact, but there it is, and BIS have to sell to as wide a market as they can, but obviously without losing the central theme of the franchise, which is flexibility and customisation.

ArmA is this: a game that can easily be customised to be as realistic as possible with very few limitations. Quite frankly, I like that about it. Cutting out accessibility is one great way of losing members before they can get a grasp on it. Many people are happy playing the game right out of the box, and are then surprised and overjoyed when they discover what it really can be :)

Edited June 7, 2011 by DMarkwick

[Tom1 10]

IMO controls and flying is great now, just gte rid of that dam auto-corecting rudder :(!!!

IT SUCKS!!

[NoRailgunner 0]

Making such features optional eg "simulation mode" / "gaming mode" is the way to go. Including a server tag/sign for mp browser "SIM" and "Game". ;)

[kremator 1064]

Absolutely NOTHING wrong with the flying (and controls) at the moment. I know some people use joysticks but take it from me, you can have just as skilled a pilot with mouse and keyboard!

[CarlGustaffa 4]

IIRC the map should be 2.4 times bigger than Chernarus

EDIT : 2.4 times bigger than Takistan actually

Ok, thanks. But Takistan is land mass only, while this is about 50% sea, so the covered land mass to play in appears to be somewhat similar, or 1.2 times Takistan landmass.

IMO controls and flying is great now, just gte rid of that dam auto-corecting rudder :(!!!

IT SUCKS!!

Why does it suck? Personally I'm glad I don't have to consider manual turn coordination - I don't expect skips and slips to be part of the flight model anyway, especially not slip drag or complaining passengers in long jets. Remember, the felt force of a slip/skip cannot be felt, nor do we have crosswind landings requiring crossed control approaches. Optional, fine. But removing it?

Edited June 7, 2011 by CarlGustaffa

[Beagle 684]

Ok, thanks. But Takistan is land mass only, while this is about 50% sea, so the covered land mass to play in appears to be somewhat similar, or 1.2 times Takistan landmass.

Using FSX go get a preview is deemed me that a single Missile Helicopter hovering in the middle of the island could dominate the whole battlefield when there is no change towards a realistic targeting method...lemnos provides no cover for tanks from a Helo at 50m altitude.

Tab-killing madness.

[dmarkwick 261]

Using FSX go get a preview is deemed me that a single Missile Helicopter hovering in the middle of the island could dominate the whole battlefield when there is no change towards a realistic targeting method...lemnos provides no cover for tanks from a Helo at 50m altitude.

Tab-killing madness.

Well... surely the same can be said if the helo? I'd be very doubtful of a helo's chances of dominating the island by simply hovering in the middle :D

[hailstorm 4]

Well... surely the same can be said if the helo? I'd be very doubtful of a helo's chances of dominating the island by simply hovering in the middle :D

Was (and still is) VERY possible with a Kamov and Vikhr missiles. Those things have a huge range and can also successfully attack air - the damn helicopter has basically NO counter except an infantry with a stinger with the luck to somehow get underneath it. After all this time I still think balance-wise it's completely broken.

Air physics are OK in 2 overall, what I'd like to see is a separation in the config values of thrust and max power - so a prop plane can have a high thrust value but overall a low max speed and a jet to have lower acceleration but higher top speed. (real life example - having the C-130 be able to fly out of the grass airfields on cherno but the jets not being able to)

I'd also like to be able to do a constant turn at full thrust without having the speed bleed all the way to stall - it shouldn't happen at max thrust, at least. with real air physics airspeed will only drop to a point where there is enough excess thrust from the engines to compensate for the increased drag created by the turn. The speed is different for most aircraft but it's usually a speed slightly higher than stall speed.

It would also be nice to get rid of the silly harrier version of autohover and have the F-35 version as the minimum standard across all vtol craft (assuming the harrier is even IN 3)

[Beagle 684]

Well... surely the same can be said if the helo? I'd be very doubtful of a helo's chances of dominating the island by simply hovering in the middle :D

It can as it does right now in ArmA II as long as BI continues to not support any decent SAM systems and in turn making air units superweapons that siply tab-kill anything away with laser guided dumb-iron bombs and magic missiles that can go backwards or fly circles to get their target.

[wolfbite 8]

Crosswinds would be a very nice feature... and the rudders on both planes and helo's require a lot of adjusting..... I also agree on the max speed, max thrust and stall speeds need to be implemented seperately so you dont end up stalling from slight turns all the time...

[b00ce 160]

Yes, but helicopters and planes are also a very specific niche. If there's only a few people that can fly them, that fits in with the idea that there aren't many available. Since infantry are the predominate units, then there will be fewer helicopters and planes.

If someone wants to learn how to fly a helicopter, they need to learn how to fly a helicopter. This sorts out the problem with public Domi where someone jumps on, steals a helicopter, and leaves it out in the field, leaving everyone else back at base, either having to wait for it to respawn, or trek out to the AO instead.

If they had to learn how to fly a helicopter, they'd have to devote their time to that, and so are a required asset for the team, since no one else knows how to use it. If you've spent all that time learning how to start up and fly it, then you'll want to make as much use out of it as possible, and not just dump it in the field, after the several minutes it takes to get the helicopter up in the air.

Pretty much this. I couldn't have put it better.

if pilots want full simulation in the flying they can buy TOH wich BIS will make compatible with Arma3 and players can fly with their TOH controls...............

This way, BIS gets to sell more games, Arma3 base is kept intact for everyone new and old, and the simmers gets their 247 buttons to fly with if desired.

Going the elitist way by force will hurt BIS financially and cut down the active player base, and is a bad move, Arma games is a very specific niche, its is far from the mainstream of global players, it needs to keep a level head, and the current way is a good middleground for sim and nonsim.

See, here's the thing, I play ArmA over DCS and X-plane (All amazing sims) because of the whole combined arms thing tat only ArmA offers. If you eject out of your Kamov or A-10 in DCS, you're a sitting duck on the ground that can't fight back. In X-plane the game just stops if you crash. In ArmA, you have REAL people in the back of your aircraft, you have REAL people on the ground that need fire support. They aren't some bot without any sort of spirit or drive. Just ones and zeros. And if you get shot down, the game changes completely. No other game/sim has that.

Also, I recall hearing that ArmA3 things will be compatible with ToH, not the other way around. And, even though I'm going to buy it, I think that it would be a VERY shitty thing for BIS to do if they only allowed for ArmA3 players to have realistic controls if they baught ToH.

Absolutely NOTHING wrong with the flying (and controls) at the moment. I know some people use joysticks but take it from me, you can have just as skilled a pilot with mouse and keyboard!

I use keyboard and mouse in ArmA, cant use my X-52 in it for some reason, feels weird.

You're against even the option? I cannot fathom how you can label it a lose-lose. Let's get one thing absolutely correct: ArmA is a game first and foremost. I know there is a propensity for insisting that it's a simulator, but really, if you insist on that then you're talking about VBS2. And if you look for helicopter simulation then you look at DCS. I'm not suggesting I wish for dumbed down arcade heli flying only, but the idea is for helos to be useful, if you play as a pilot you can assume your avatar to be able to fly a helo.

It IS, the community gets split and BIS has to dedicate time and resources to adding the option, taking away from other things. As I've said before, I play DCS. A lot. But I like ArmA better because of the Coop combined arms bit.

ArmA3 has to sell to a mainly gaming crowd. Lets not forget we are the minority here, most people who will buy ArmA3 will just want to play a game. You don't have to like that fact, but there it is, and BIS have to sell to as wide a market as they can, but obviously without losing the central theme of the franchise, which is flexibility and customisation.

ArmA is this: a game that can easily be customised to be as realistic as possible with very few limitations. Quite frankly, I like that about it. Cutting out accessibility is one great way of losing members before they can get a grasp on it. Many people are happy playing the game right out of the box, and are then surprised and overjoyed when they discover what it really can be :)

Chances are, the casual players are going to be doing infantry. If not, they're the hard core simmers who will enjoy the more realistic flight mechanics. I've never met one person that ever complained about being a terrible pilot. They always joke about it and say they'll "leave it to the pros".

Besides, flying is a niche croud anyways. Show me a good pilot in ArmA and I'll show you a person that flys simulators. Hell, I know people who are HARDCORE into FSX, X-plane and DCS, but don't fly in ArmA because it's too unrealistic. I also know people who are pilots in real life and don't fly because of it. :j:

[ProfTournesol 956]

Besides, flying is a niche croud anyways. Show me a good pilot in ArmA and I'll show you a person that flys simulators. Hell, I know people who are HARDCORE into FSX, X-plane and DCS, but don't fly in ArmA because it's too unrealistic. I also know people who are pilots in real life and don't fly because of it. :j:

That's exactly why i don't want it to happen.

[dmarkwick 261]

Also, I recall hearing that ArmA3 things will be compatible with ToH, not the other way around. And, even though I'm going to buy it, I think that it would be a VERY shitty thing for BIS to do if they only allowed for ArmA3 players to have realistic controls if they baught ToH.

Actually I like the sound of it. I seem to remember some rumour of work going into connecting DCS & VBS2, as I already have DCS I'd be up for that, but even if I didn't have DCS I would certainly buy it because of it. And if ToH is linked into ArmA3 for flight model purposes, then I will buy it because of that. I see it as extending my game via modules :) which is probably as good a way to do it as any. Lat's get a Steel Beasts analog into the game too :)

It IS, the community gets split and BIS has to dedicate time and resources to adding the option, taking away from other things. As I've said before, I play DCS. A lot. But I like ArmA better because of the Coop combined arms bit.

Chances are, the casual players are going to be doing infantry. If not, they're the hard core simmers who will enjoy the more realistic flight mechanics. I've never met one person that ever complained about being a terrible pilot. They always joke about it and say they'll "leave it to the pros".

Besides, flying is a niche croud anyways. Show me a good pilot in ArmA and I'll show you a person that flys simulators. Hell, I know people who are HARDCORE into FSX, X-plane and DCS, but don't fly in ArmA because it's too unrealistic. I also know people who are pilots in real life and don't fly because of it. :j:

Right. But I don't see any reasons not to option it, other than the time it takes BIS to do it. I certainly don't see how the community will be split because of it. Let's face it, if BIS are going to do ONE of those things, it's going to make it accessible rather than inaccessible. Let's turn it around and say we wish for the option to complicate it :)

Then let the server settings rule. I mean, when did you ever play a serious server where realism wasn't turned up? :)

Edited June 7, 2011 by DMarkwick

[logandog1240 10]

honestly arma 3 should be as much of a total sim as possible, they have been trying to appeal to cod / bf fans when in reality look how many sales dcs a10 has, thats just 1 vehicle imagine attracting all those fans, but for all sim types

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Using FSX go get a preview

Excellent idea - starting up now :D

[Kristian 47]

honestly arma 3 should be as much of a total sim as possible, they have been trying to appeal to cod / bf fans when in reality look how many sales dcs a10 has, thats just 1 vehicle imagine attracting all those fans, but for all sim types

BIS doesn't have the time (I think) to fully simulate every vehicles to full simulation. Look how long it took the DCS team to make that ONE single plane. Now imagine BIS doing that to every single vehicle in their game. One can dream, but I'm happy with the helo and tank controls I have at the moment.

[gossamersolid 155]

Yeah I don't want ultra realistic flight models in ArmA 3, because that'd probably prevent me from playing it. If I want to have to read a manual for 2 hours and buy a joystick to properly fly, I'd just go play IL-2, DCS, Flaming Cliffs, FSX or ToH.

[b00ce 160]

honestly arma 3 should be as much of a total sim as possible, they have been trying to appeal to cod / bf fans when in reality look how many sales dcs a10 has, thats just 1 vehicle imagine attracting all those fans, but for all sim types

Not possible, at least right now. DCS simulates the air flowing over the lifting surfaces, and the whole aircraft for that matter. ;)

However, I believe that they should create a whole bunch of environmental effects that effect all vehicle simulations, like wind for example. If the wind is strong enough, it can blow a car off the road if it's going too fast. Perhaps a config value for the propensity for a vehicle's wind drift. Perhaps weight could play a major roll too.

[Primarch 10]

Not possible, at least right now. DCS simulates the air flowing over the lifting surfaces, and the whole aircraft for that matter. ;)

However, I believe that they should create a whole bunch of environmental effects that effect all vehicle simulations, like wind for example. If the wind is strong enough, it can blow a car off the road if it's going too fast. Perhaps a config value for the propensity for a vehicle's wind drift. Perhaps weight could play a major roll too.

Now that would be really awesome, I'd love to mess around with it.

Think of the custom map possibilities with some super wind and other variables that you can change!!

[Hartmann 10]

Airplanes function fine in Arma 2, they do what they're supposed to do and despite the model being simplistic it's not a big deal breaker.

Helicopters on the other hand are ridiculous, as their maneuverability is so god awfully limited once you get above 80kmph that it's just a total joke.

[evilnate 0]

I think the current flight model is decent for being in a infantry simulator. If I could offer a improvement for ArmA flight, I would say allow a higher ceiling with better visibility. Then again, the maps are only so big...

[b00ce 160]

10,000 meters (~32800 feet) (~7,800 short of the stratosphere.) is a VERY high ceiling for what ArmA is. Of course you can go higher, but your control surfaces lock up.