Plane and Helicopter handling

[PuFu 4591]

I flew TKOH in the beta, and I could fly, but barely. It was fun though, seeing what I could do in a new environment. The thing is, even after playing for around 3 hours, I could still not take off without the help of the auto-hover. I'm not sure if I was doing something wrong, but I found the aircraft's performance so terrible that there would be no way to survive in a combat situation.

I'm sorry, but what is your point? While TKOH FM is not the best out there, it IS an obvious improvement over the A2 one. I would gladly welcome it for A3

...oh and btw, i only use a simple Logitech 3d pro (no fancy sim cockpits or expensive hardware) for both A2 and TKOH and i never had any issues/problems flying either...

Tab = God AA will also now far exceed the capabilities of realistic helicopters, turning them into big "shoot here" signs. If helicopters get a boost up to simulation levels, why should its AA counterpart not become more difficult to use as well?

This is for a completely separate topic...It has nothing to do with FM, but how all weapons system are simulated (the ones on board of the different vehicles and ground/handheld ones)

Isn't the arcade/simulation option serverside?

How would one know? It hasn't even been confirmed...

[nodunit 397]

Tab = God AA will also now far exceed the capabilities of realistic helicopters, turning them into big "shoot here" signs. If helicopters get a boost up to simulation levels, why should its AA counterpart not become more difficult to use as well?

This post does not have to do with flight model per say so it's going into spoilers.

TAB works both ways, however creating a buffer zone in which at X ground level radar detection is less likely as opposed to say flying 200 or so feet in the air would make said AA weapons minus cannons, far less formidable.

Likewise and this is a key part in the flight model, more often than not online I see people piloting the cobras and apache's high in the air, I can't blame them seeing as the birds fly like brids, NOE requires a more fluid, responsive flight model, giving them this would give them a very high and realistic edge. If they remain under the radar blanket then unless spotted visually they shouldn't be detected as early.

Of course weapon system on the helicopters could use work as well, for example hellfire missile trajectory shouldn't be a dead on path that has a chance to smash into the ground, adding said trajectory would drasticly improve hit to kill ratio but at the same to avoid the helicopter becoming the 'god', unless equipped with radar, all targets should be attainable only through laser lock.

[Cripsis 10]

It seems to me that the comments expressed in virtually every ARMA3 thread illustrate a general divide between casual gamers and hardcore simulation fans. I think the best approch BIS can take to make ARMA3 appeal to the broadest possible audience is to provide seperate options that meet the expectations of casual and hardcore gamers. Basically the message I'm trying to get across is that I think it would benefit BIS to push in 2 opposite directions simultaneously.

[Minoza 11]

^^This was tried before, and it never ended well.

[MD500Enthusiast 10]

^^This was tried before, and it never ended well.

when did BiS tried giving the end user the option to choose between realism and arcade except maybe hud vs no hud?

[Minoza 11]

when did BiS tried giving the end user the option to choose between realism and arcade except maybe hud vs no hud?

I was talking about the concept "one game for all users".

[Cripsis 10]

^^This was tried before, and it never ended well.

Could you go into more detail please. I don't doubt you, I just want to learn about what happened so I can consider why it was unsuccessful.

[Minoza 11]

I wasn't talking about Arma history, take a look at Rainbow Six & Ghost Recon - good examples of making it interesting for broader audience...

If you stretch it too much in order to please everyone, you lose core of the game. I'm not saying there shouldn't be difficulty options, btw. they are present in Arma, though, when online, they are set server side. I'm saying do not try to please everyone, it simply wont work out well IMO. There was a great article on this subject recently, I just can't find it atm...

Edited November 15, 2011 by Minoza

[CameronMcDonald 146]

I wasn't talking about Arma history, take a look at Rainbow Six & Ghost Recon - good examples of making it interesting for broader audience...

If you stretch it too much in order to please everyone, you lose core of the game. I'm not saying there shouldn't be difficulty options, btw. they are present in Arma, though, when online, they are set server side. I'm saying do not try to please everyone, it simply wont work out well IMO. There was a great article on this subject recently, I just can't find it atm...

Don't forget what happened to OPERATION FLASHPOINT.

[Minoza 11]

Don't forget what happened to OPERATION FLASHPOINT.

Yeah, but that was kind of expected since Codemasters worked on it.

[Cripsis 10]

I wasn't talking about Arma history, take a look at Rainbow Six & Ghost Recon - good examples of making it interesting for broader audience...

I understand the point you are trying to convey, but the big difference is that R6 and GR totally abandoned all elements of realistic gameplay.

If you stretch it too much in order to please everyone, you lose core of the game.

I don't agree, I think the core gameplay elements would remain, and the player would also have the power to select a level of realism that suits their preference.

There was a great article on this subject recently, I just can't find it atm...

If you happen to find that article again please post me a link because it sounds interesting.

[lb8068 10]

Isn't the main objective of aircraft in ArmA is for them to perform well from a tactical standpoint, as opposed to getting into a nitty gritty flight model?

Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong please.

[Minoza 11]

Isn't the main objective of aircraft in ArmA is for them to perform well from a tactical standpoint, as opposed to getting into a nitty gritty flight model?

Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong please.

While driving from A to B, you will eventually get there but you probably wouldn't mind if it was fun too, right? What I mean is, while it's not necessary to have realistic FM to get the job done, it would be welcomed. If nothing else - for fun!

[maddogx 13]

Isn't the main objective of aircraft in ArmA is for them to perform well from a tactical standpoint, as opposed to getting into a nitty gritty flight model?

The "main objective of aircraft"? Where did you get that one from?

It has always been said that the primary focus of the game is infantry combat, so the infantry simulation gets the most "love", as it were. Aircraft physics in the current Arma games are merely "functional" because making them more realistic was not a primary concern - i.e. the cost/benefit ratio of developing a more realistic flight model for the Arma games was unfavorable.

However, now that BIS have a more realistic flight model ready to use, there is no practical reason why it shouldn't be included in their upcoming games.

[NoRailgunner 0]

All infantry fans do want the nitty gritty infantry handling.

All tanksim fans do want the nitty gritty vehicle handling.

All flightsim fans do want the nitty gritty aircraft handling.

...

:p

MadDogX the very practical reason could be sales/profit. Just because some fanboys get a wet dream doesn't mean that its practical or economically justifiable. Try to think as an company with bills, wages and salaries...

More people would decide to buy only one product if there is no big + significant difference to the other.

[maddogx 13]

MadDogX the very practical reason could be sales/profit. Just because some fanboys get a wet dream doesn't mean that its practical or economically justifiable. Try to think as an company with bills, wages and salaries...

More people would decide to buy only one product if there is no big + significant difference to the other.

I saw this response coming a mile away. For me this is not a "practical reason" in the sense of whether or not it is possible, but a theoretical one. :)

Perhaps my usage of the words practical/theoretical in this context is wrong, but I don't really care. Fact is, multiple BIS devs have already stated their willingness to implement the TOH flight model into Arma3, and this possibility is being discussed at Bohemia. Before they said this, I too was skeptical of it ever happening, and you can check my post history on that. Now that the possibility is in the cards, however, I am all for it, and I couldn't case less about business concerns. Such things are for BIS to worry about, not me. ;)

[Archosaurusrev 12]

If the FM gets better, it will be useless without real MFDs with target pods and the like.

The main idea of the SU-25SM and A-10C for example are that he pilot can slew the target pod and acquire/lock targets. Flying CAS is now useless, with 1 seaters and planes at least.

[Antigoon 10]

Currently the Armaverse resides in that grey area between game and simulation. If you want it more "gamey" there are plenty of other options out there. If you want more"simulation"....hmm...not so many, atleast none that offer detailed ground and air combat in an open environment. So although I'm happy enough to play Arma as it is, I certainly wouldn't mind a shift in focus towards"simulation".

In my experience, things that are harder to master, ultimately give more satisfaction after "mastering" them. Only an (mine) opinion ofcourse.:o

Also, it simply feels more real, when it's more "real"!;)

[nodunit 397]

If the FM gets better, it will be useless without real MFDs with target pods and the like.

The main idea of the SU-25SM and A-10C for example are that he pilot can slew the target pod and acquire/lock targets. Flying CAS is now useless, with 1 seaters and planes at least.

Well that is the purpose of render to texture which I believe was stated they were working on.

RTT is great for the cockpit situational awareness but at worst the birds can be suplimented with optics via 0 key as opposed to the cockpit zoom they get now. Of course the big issue is having the ability to slew the camera without effecting the aircraft course...so we'll just have to wait and see.

[Archosaurusrev 12]

Well that is the purpose of render to texture which I believe was stated they were working on.

RTT is great for the cockpit situational awareness but at worst the birds can be suplimented with optics via 0 key as opposed to the cockpit zoom they get now. Of course the big issue is having the ability to slew the camera without effecting the aircraft course...so we'll just have to wait and see.

Well, most if not all flightsims use Sensor Of Interest points for MFDs.

So, if RMFD is SOI, the TGP (If its set at RMFD.) can be slewed with for example , . - and ö like in DCS:A-10C.

[nodunit 397]

Oh that is interesting, I never really knew how the stuff worked, just that it did. Are you able to look around in the cockpit while 'tied' to the camera?

[Archosaurusrev 12]

Oh that is interesting, I never really knew how the stuff worked, just that it did. Are you able to look around in the cockpit while 'tied' to the camera?

Sure, as long as the view keys are separated from the slew buttons/you use track ir.

Watch this and I think you get the idea. You just (In all the flight sims I have played.) need to make the MFD what the TGP is on the SOI then just slew it. It is not connected to head movement, the image is projected through the MFD/small screen on the SU-25.

[dmarkwick 261]

Problem is there's always more to be simulated. Give a realistic flight model and people complain that the instrumentation should also be simulated. Simulate the instrumentation and people say the weapons interface should be simulated. Simulate the weapons interface and people say the weapons should be simulated. Simulate the weapons and people say the targets should be simulated. Simulate the targets and people say the targets should have similar amounts of simulation to the aircraft in order to be "realistic"... never ends :)

At some point, gameplay has to take precedence. It has to play out of the box, for everyone, at a base level. Flight model could be modular for all I care, the most important thing is that helos etc can be used as helos in a realistic way, regardless of how complex the FM is. When all's said & done, I'd prefer more realistic tanks than helos, even though flight sims have always been my "thing" :)

I don't play ArmA for it's flight sim abilities is what I'm getting at ;) helos are there to augment the infantry sim part. That said, I'd accept any FM improvements with good cheer :)

[ProfTournesol 956]

Problem is there's always more to be simulated.

God, you know my wife :confused:

:D

[dmarkwick 261]

God, you know my wife :confused:

:D

I said simulated not stimulated.

;)