Plane and Helicopter handling

[maddogx 13]

I said simulated not stimulated.

;)

I think he really meant "simulated".

:butbut:

[onlyrazor 11]

Okay, I thing that's enough offtopic for now.

:p

In all seriousness, I concur, the aircraft interaction and such could still use some deal of improvement in the realism department. Possibly difficulty-conditioned, but still, it would be useful as long as it didn't interfere with gameplay to an extent where it would be a pain. There must be a balance between realism and entertainment.

Edited November 15, 2011 by OnlyRazor

[5LEvEN 11]

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.

Uh, sources for this statement please. As I have said to everyone I have seen say this, I have yet to see any actual sources to back this up, and I believe it to be a assumption from people. As infantry may be the best simulated, it would make sense people would assume what you just said.

[dragon01 902]

Problem is there's always more to be simulated.

This is not a problem at all, just future development perspectives (and we're not surrounded, we just have a wide target selection :)), which would get more and more feasible as computer capabilities progress. ArmAIII will have a realistic FM, ArmAIV could have instrumentation and weapon interface. Weapons are already done quite well, and since ArmA is a general-purpose simulation, targets would be simulated, because they'd also be playable. Of course, not everything at once, moderation is always important. ArmAIII should focus on FM, and either expansions or AIV might try to simulate even more.

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"

Modular FM and flexible, easily customized difficulty level are the way to go. Tutorials and manual should also be improved. That way, it'll always "play out of the box".

[maddogx 13]

Uh, sources for this statement please. As I have said to everyone I have seen say this, I have yet to see any actual sources to back this up, and I believe it to be a assumption from people. As infantry may be the best simulated, it would make sense people would assume what you just said.

I'm positive that a dev has said something along these lines before, not sure where though.

But even if it were purely an assumption, it isn't an unreasonable one. As you say yourself, infantry are the best simulated element in the Arma series, and as I pointed out earlier the vehicle simulation is pretty basic for the most part. The logical conclusion is that the infantry have so far been the primary focus of development, so I think it's safe to go with that until a dev contradicts it (which hasn't happened yet, to my knowledge).

[nodunit 397]

Infantry has been the primary focus yes that much is obvious given how many updates they get, that said there is no doubt that there is expansion in mind with physX coming. While infantry are gaining ragdolls vehicles are also getting proper suspension and so on, RTT is another more vehicle priority focus unless we will be carrying mirrors into urban zones to look around corners without exposing ourselves to peek.

While it would be nice to have fully interactable cockpits, advanced weapon systems, tracking systems, dynamic arming capabilities, very complex damage model and so on I just don't see that happening as it takes a LOT of time, that said simply giving us the capability would do well enough. When you look at the effects that come out of the capabilities the pieces fall into place to making things more complex..think about it.

In OFP armor interiors were possible and did not interfere with the players sight other than what they were meant to, in Arma1 we saw that HDR caused intense issues when looking at the inside of the Stryker, and while HDR has been getting improvements we can still see, especially inside structures, that it would still interefere. Now what is another arguement for lack of vehicle love?..well what is the point they say. With RTT coupled with thermal imagery especially if (and I hope) environmental thermal takes a fairly high priority, we now have a purpose to have interiors where HDR would not screw with our eyes. It sounds useless but this increases immersion drasticly but also potential.

In the end we all want Arma to be something different, two most distinguished sides want it to remain as is, the other side wasn't mistress-like hardcore, obviously BI can't please either party to the fullest but by taking things 'easy' and providing us the knowledge and abilities to use the upgrades to further our agenda's, in a way they can please both.

Edited November 16, 2011 by NodUnit

[5LEvEN 11]

But even if it were purely an assumption, it isn't an unreasonable one. As you say yourself, infantry are the best simulated element in the Arma series, and as I pointed out earlier the vehicle simulation is pretty basic for the most part. The logical conclusion is that the infantry have so far been the primary focus of development, so I think it's safe to go with that until a dev contradicts it (which hasn't happened yet, to my knowledge).

Or it's that making infantry realistic is the easiest aspect to simulate. Think about the things needed to be done to make infantry realistic in something like COD. Not much really... Now think about the things needed to be done to make arma have realistic vehicles...

A developer has not to my knowledge confirmed infantry is the main focus. And besides what else can you add to infantry to make it more realistic for a video game with today's technology. So even if it is the main focus, it shouldn't be anymore. As improvements to infantry are very minor and shouldn't take long at all. While vehicles are in need of huge improvements. And with arma 3 the larger improvements that we know about being made are really not infantry focused.

---------- Post added at 01:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 AM ----------

Infantry has been the primary focus yes that much is obvious given how many updates they get, that said there is no doubt that there is expansion in mind with physX coming. While infantry are gaining ragdolls vehicles are also getting proper suspension and so on, RTT is another more vehicle priority focus unless we will be carrying mirrors into urban zones to look around corners without exposing ourselves to peek.

While it would be nice to have fully interactable cockpits, advanced weapon systems, tracking systems, dynamic arming capabilities, very complex damage model and so on I just don't see that happening as it takes a LOT of time, that said simply giving us the capability would do well enough. When you look at the effects that come out of the capabilities the pieces fall into place to making things more complex..think about it.

In OFP armor interiors were possible and did not interfere with the players sight other than what they were meant to, in Arma1 we saw that HDR caused intense issues when looking at the inside of the Stryker, and while HDR has been getting improvements we can still see, especially inside structures, that it would still interefere. Now what is another arguement for lack of vehicle love?..well what is the point they say. With RTT coupled with thermal imagery especially if (and I hope) environmental thermal takes a fairly high priority, we now have a purpose to have interiors where HDR would not screw with our eyes. It sounds useless but this increases immersion drasticly but also potential.

In the end we all want Arma to be something different, two most distinguished sides want it to remain as is, the other side wasn't mistress-like hardcore, obviously BI can't please either party to the fullest but by taking things 'easy' and providing us the knowledge and abilities to use the upgrades to further our agenda's, in a way they can please both.

Which updates to infantry are you talking about? Give some examples that improved the infantry simulation please.

When a developer advertises a game in the mil-sim genre, there really is no excuse not to be trying to simulate more and more of the battlefield. It shouldn't be necessary to have to mod a mil-sim game to make it actually simulate what it was supposed to in the first place. IMHO if you're going to have vehicles in this game that is supposed to be realistic, don't make them arcade shit, or just don't add them.

[nodunit 397]

Going through the lineage.. Infantry got the capability to jog with AT and AA weaponry in Arma1, roll, a new set of animations and some tweaking to action menu functions. What were previously accessed via AM in OFP became keys, \ to salute, , to sit and so on. Weapons also became 3D while vehicles remained relatively the same, the major addition being weapons mounted on wheeled vehicles from the beginning.

In Arma2 infantry gained the ability to use hang signals, cross over low obstacles, reload on the move, weapon sway, tweaked animation and response time, healing modules, capability to hear nearby infantry, leaning and a tweaked sound system. Infantry AI was tweaked to try and fit better into closer environments but they still need work.

OA added; multi optics, flash lights, lasers, thermal rifles, whisper commands and response, back packs, weapon ranging and tweaked grenades.

I'm not argueing that vehicles shouldn't be simulated with more depth, I fully agree but how far should that simulation go is the question, BI can't please everyone...personally I think that by not simulating, that the games potential is being held back..now obviously not everyone agree's so the next best option is to give us the capability.

That said I don't think vehicles will be getting as cold of a shoulder, on assumption that all features will be included..we've seen laser range finders on infantry weapons so let us assume this will be on vehicles..thermals are staying, physX will give vehicles more depth. If the flight model mirrors TKOH helicopters will be able to lose their rotors, taxi, have RTT screens which may have full camera functionality which would span helo, vehicle and fixed wing alike. Interactive cockpits I don't know about yet.. The damage system is getting at least a small tweak in that engines can be taken out like tires rather than 'killing' the enemy.. weapon trajectories are still out and I don't see them simulating the arc of AGM-114K's but still the stated above give us a variety of options..oh the things could be done...

Edited November 17, 2011 by NodUnit

[Banshee 9]

Well render to texture is allready working in TKOH.

So we actually have working mirrors, and in some missions the heavy helicopter (Merlin) gets a video picture displayed into the big MFD's. So that's also working like a charme. I bet that'll be included into Arma3.

[nodunit 397]

It is in TKOH yes but the screen locks on to an indicated target and tracks it, or you see a screen locked on to you and displaying your distance to it. In order for it to work on an attack vehicle it needs to have user slew capabilities. Symbology isn't quite as difficult since it can be tailored on to the MPD.

Yet to use the FLIR camera in TKOH so I don't know if it follows the same 'lock to target' principle or if it slews. That said I have faith that BI will get this right should they choose to pursue it.

[speedone 0]

For me, more dedicated realism would be; you have to log in as a pilot if you want to be able to fly. A pilot can not take a heavy machine gun and two rocketlaunchers into the cockpit of an Apache... a pilot should only be able to carry a sidearm into a cockpit, nothing more. If he steps out, he can pick up other arms like anyone else, but not take it into the cockpit...

[blackmamb 2]

This can easily be scripted in a mission/mod. You don't want to reduce the overall possibilities. Having only pilots able to fly is not a good thing to have as a general rule, however it can be in public servers, i guess.

[wipman 1]

For me, more dedicated realism would be; you have to log in as a pilot if you want to be able to fly. A pilot can not take a heavy machine gun and two rocketlaunchers into the cockpit of an Apache... a pilot should only be able to carry a sidearm into a cockpit, nothing more. If he steps out, he can pick up other arms like anyone else, but not take it into the cockpit...

There's room on the AH-1W cockpit to store a M4 carbine and same on the AH-64, UH-60 & UH-1N.

[chortles 263]

For me, more dedicated realism would be; you have to log in as a pilot if you want to be able to fly. A pilot can not take a heavy machine gun and two rocketlaunchers into the cockpit of an Apache... a pilot should only be able to carry a sidearm into a cockpit, nothing more. If he steps out, he can pick up other arms like anyone else, but not take it into the cockpit...

Aka "what speedone thinks is realistic."

BlackMamb's got the right perspective here -- you can script a mission this way just fine, but some guys' own mission ideas will specifically disagree, not least since "log in as a pilot" specifically implies a Battlefield-style class system.

There's room on the AH-1W cockpit to store a M4 carbine and same on the AH-64, UH-60 & UH-1N.

I believe that "carry in your vehicle" was somewhat the point of carrying carbines in the early years?

P.S. Seeing as this thread wasn't updated for over a year until this month... yeah, 2012 definitely made me believe that "the BI devs focused on infantry simulation", if only because it seemed the most visibly changed at E3/Gamescom 2012 compared to helicopters or wheeled vehicles.

[[evo] dan 79]

Aka "what speedone thinks is realistic."

BlackMamb's got the right perspective here -- you can script a mission this way just fine, but some guys' own mission ideas will specifically disagree, not least since "log in as a pilot" specifically implies a Battlefield-style class system.

Maybe have a module that had to be placed in the editor (default off) that automatically made it so only pilots can fly and crew can only drive armored vehicles.

[Laqueesha 474]

There's room on the AH-1W cockpit to store a M4 carbine and same on the AH-64, UH-60 & UH-1N.

True that. Rotary-wing crewmen usually carry MP5s, whereas fixed-wing crewmen usually carry an M9.

[chortles 263]

Dan;2292737']Maybe have a module that had to be placed in the editor (default off) that automatically made it so only pilots can fly and crew can only drive armored vehicles.

Hence what I said about scripting a mission this way as opposed to being an Arma-wide universal rule. ;)

True that. Rotary-wing crewmen usually carry MP5s' date=' whereas fixed-wing crewmen usually carry an M9.[/quote']Interestingly enough the LWRCI UICW, the HK416C and the SCAR PDW (those two weren't made up just for Medal of Honor: Warfighter! :p) are both right in the same overall length ballpark as the collapsible-stock MP5 series and the HK53. The HK416C was rumored to be for the Brits, while the LWRCI description outright says that that the UICW was for "British Special Forces" but also "designed for use by tank and helicopter crew members, and others who need an extremely compact gun for operations in confined spaces." And of course, there's side-folding-stock style weapons such as the Colt Sub Compact Weapon or... well before that, the AKS-74U.

EDIT: Elaborate, Forsyth, that post was too vague.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Chortles

[Forsyth 1]

Hopefully they will make the planes & helicopter's systems a bit more realistic but who knows.

[Nathan1506 1]

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.

While i agree partially, this would mean that those who arent great flight sim pilots would *never* be able to experience that part of the game. Atleast with the current system, non-pilots can still have their turn (be it online or in the armory)

[nodunit 397]

If someone wants to pilot something badly enough then they will practice and get the hang of it. As much as I'd like everyone to be able to fly, I've seen people crash helicopters repeatedly in battlefield 3..and that is about as simple as you can get.

[Phoque 1]

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

I totally agree with you. I really loved Operation Flashpoint. The only thing that annoyed me back then was the aircraft simulation part.

I find it surprising that while trying to be somewhat realistic they ultimately ended up making the flying of an aircraft (or even driving a land vehicle) harder than the real thing!

I'm saying that based on my experience of Falcon 4.0 Allied Assault, which has the reputation of being a realistic flight simulator. These birds are a charm to fly!

In Arma 2 (that I've just bought), even with a joystick, aircrafts are a nightmare to fly. Regarding Arma 2, I was extremely disappointed to see Bohemia made zero progress in all those years (at least for the air fighter).

I cross my fingers for Arma 3.

[samb 15]

It's really simple to make arma 3 appealing to everyone helicopter complexity wise- it's called difficulty option.

[the amazing flight lizard 9]

Actually, usually only the SOAR guys have MP5s.

Everything else, at least US Army-wise, we all have M4s. In fact, as a crew chief in an assault unit, I carried an M9, had an M4 with me, and also had an M240H on the aircraft's pintle mount, with an egress kit in a bag on the floor. All the egress kit really consisted of was a spare barrel, a stock, and a pistol grip trigger assembly, which can all be placed onb the gun to adapt it for running around on the ground. One thing it definitely lacked though was any kind of box mag to carry the ammo around in, since that box was actually part of the pintle mount assembly. So if you had to get out and go with it, you'd have to do your best Rambo impression and toss the remainder belt over your shoulder.

Another little thing we have is something called a COPS, or Clip-On Power Source for the NVGs. Because nobody wants to be running around on foot with their big ass helmet on their head, muffling all sound around them and generally killing situational awareness, HOWEVER, having something that allows us to use our NVGs without the helmet is a good thing, ESPECIALLY in an E&E (escape and evade) situation.

That being said, the main point of my post has to do with the flight model.

If we DO get the Take On Helicopters (which is nice, but SUPER sensitive) I'd hope we get more than the Light, Medium, and Heavy flight models, and get something more specific to the individual aircraft, at least with the ones that ship with the game.

For instance, a UH-60 has a piece of equipment calle an MMU, or Mechanical MIxing Unit on the hydraulic deck, which blends control inputs and a helicopters natural tendencies (translating tendency, gyroscopic procession, etc.) to make the anti torque pedals, really do more of directional control, than the anti-torque. In fact, as one of my old, crusty instructor pilots did to one of our newbies, in a Blackhawk, you can put your feet flat on the floor and yank up on the collective. That MMU, as well as other systems on the aircraft (SAS/FPS) will keep your nose pointed straight, after of course, a short, quick jerk to the right.

Basically I hope that if the guys look a little more into the aircraft that are being represented and understand that not all helicopters fit into the Light/Medium/Heavy model. Technology has come a long way since the infancy of helicopters. (The Apache still has to have anti-torque pedal applied *Nelson laugh*)

[karbiner 11]

We can be quite sure they make the helicopters flyable with keyboards so no expert stuff from TOH where you really need rudders etc. And they have been flying with keyboards with every flying footage there is and it looks just as fast and arcadelike like A2.

[samb 15]

You can fly TOH with kb/ mouse.