Helicopter flight model from TakeOnHelis

[Remon 10]

Sweet. But, like, what are the requirements (W7/DX11?), and how do you determine Arma2 owners (input valid serial or something)?

It seems like it needs Arma OA to run. That is, they import the flight model and all that stuff to Arma OA.

[max power 21]

It seems like it needs Arma OA to run. That is, they import the flight model and all that stuff to Arma OA.

On the contrary, I think it's using Operation Arrowhead's island, and they are giving us a helicopter, an engine, and maybe some missions to try out.

[subs17 9]

Judging from what the devs have been saying about the engine, I believe that should be possible. It would be funny if some 3rd party Arma2 mods were ported to TakOH, transforming it into Arma2.5 :D.

If they made the MP compatible for TOH and A3 then it opens up alot of possibiltys as a helicopter with 3d pit/6dof thats clickable makes it the ultimate helicopter for Arma.

In the future if they were to do the same for jets etc then it would be quite awesome. My view on such a mod is a virtual battlefield that has players using authentic aircraft with FMs supporting ground troops realistically making the most of the aircrafts ability. Imagine the AH64 in ACE 2 with a clickable pit for a start and working MFDs etc. For realistic combat to be reached does not require a study sim level of detail what it requires is basically something similar to lockon Flaming Cliffs but with clickable pit. The larger the map the better as it allows for more realistic missions. People often mention on other forums what it would be like if Lockons aircraft could be flown in Arma in MP and same could be said of tanks like steel beasts etc although over time A2/3s tanks could reach that level with mods etc. The 4th level is ships but I think that could be achieved with mods bringing them upto Dangerous Waters level of detail but with that requires even bigger maps. Ideally the ultimate FPS/Combat Combined Arms Simulator would have a Global map. Good news is its possible but with levels of detail only in campaign areas and the rest done by either payware or freeware addons. XSi was planning on doing this at some stage but their development is taking a while to reach the 1st release which is Global map, T38C and T6 with full UPT and IFF trainning programs. Its the opposite to BI as they are starting with Jet Combat simulation 1st and then working their way down to Helicopters, tanks, Ships FPS etc.

[Innomadic 10]

Wow...BIS...just...you're almost too generous...

"get the blackhawk mod"

URL? :)

Point...except that i downloaded that so long ago i really cant remember where i saw it...basically it contains a whole heap of Australian BlackHawks, 160th SOAR including Mogadishu specific textures and a couple of generic and SAR varients.

That's exactly the strawman / false interpretation of the I was talking about. Noone mentioned anything about cancelling each other out. What was said was there is a concern that the sims will effect each others' sales. Instead of maximizing profits by keeping the two separate, you're bleeding one into the other. Instead of buying two products to be satisfied, a certain kind of consumer must only buy one. This is significantly different than what you were talking about. Significantly. Moreover, you're characterizing all consumers as one kind of person, which I think is a false generalization.

No, there are several posts that question ToH's existance if A3 has the flight model...and i'd quote them if my body weren't dying on me (TaeKwonDo grading an hour ago)...maybe later i'll sift through and quote...

Edited June 17, 2011 by Innomadic

[Steakslim 1]

@Innomadic

Sounds like ADuke's helicopters unless i'm mistaken.

[Innomadic 10]

@Innomadic

Sounds like ADuke's helicopters unless i'm mistaken.

For FSX mate...i was originally referring to some footage for a EH101 in FSX that was hard as heck to fly, and that the BlackHawk mod was better.

http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?/topic/351-fsx-fs2004-australian-army-aviation-blackhawk-pack/

[Steakslim 1]

Oh my bad, didn't read closer :(

[metalcraze 290]

OK now that Take On preview is out - I really want its chopper physics in mah ArmA3

Turbulence, inertia, the need to properly control rotor etc = sweet

[Steakslim 1]

Indeed, I've been playing around with it and enjoy it. Even the simple startup procedure in the preview would be enough for ArmA3 (not too hard for the whiny ones, and just enough extra to keep maverick wannabe noobs from flying till they've learned it)

[dslyecxi 23]

As long as the current OA flight model is an option, I don't really care if the ToH one shows up as a different option in A3.

I would be completely against it being the only flight model, though. Compared to what you can do in the OA one, the ToH version is very... limited. There's more (much more) to it than that, but as long as the OA FM is available in A3, it's not worth arguing about any further. Those who like ToH-style FM can have that, those that don't can use the current FM. VBS2 already has this sort of FM precedence ('easy' vs 'advanced'), so it's not like it cannot be done.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I would be completely against it being the only flight model, though. Compared to what you can do in the OA one, the ToH version is very... limited. There's more (much more) to it than that, but as long as the OA FM is available in A3, it's not worth arguing about any further. Those who like ToH-style FM can have that, those that don't can use the current FM. VBS2 already has this sort of FM precedence ('easy' vs 'advanced'), so it's not like it cannot be done.

This.

If I have to use the TakOH flight model in ArmA 3 I'm going to cry... a lot...

Edited June 25, 2011 by Big Dawg KS

[WarriorM4 10]

Wonder who the 28 are that said no.This is a simulation people.:rolleyes:Not a dumped down FPS shooter.Please give us a better flight model.Helicopters are important in this series and I know I am not the only one that thinks in Arma they take forever to slow down and over speed way too fast and easily.Its very annoying if you fly other helicopter sims(FSX,EECH,X-Plane,DCS).I don't expect the model to be the same as those games but at least fix the overspeed,add more precision,physics,etc.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

This is a simulation people.

Everyone who disagrees with that perhaps? ArmA 3 is not (or shouldn't be) a flightsim even if TakOH is.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Big Dawg KS

[Defunkt 431]

As long as the current OA flight model is an option, I don't really care if the ToH one shows up as a different option in A3.

Nothing wrong with allowing options but the server should have the final say, ideally; 'basic', 'advanced' or 'either' (in the case of 'either' the client's preference would be used).

[metalcraze 290]

What Defunkt wrote

[max power 21]

Wonder who the 28 are that said no.This is a simulation people.:rolleyes:Not a dumped down FPS shooter.Please give us a better flight model.Helicopters are important in this series and I know I am not the only one that thinks in Arma they take forever to slow down and over speed way too fast and easily.Its very annoying if you fly other helicopter sims(FSX,EECH,X-Plane,DCS).I don't expect the model to be the same as those games but at least fix the overspeed,add more precision,physics,etc.

The people who don't want to join a MP server and have some numpty wait for a chopper to fill up and then find himself unable to take off without crashing, nevermind fly responsibly or land properly.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Max Power

[arigram 0]

My first reaction was similar: why not have the most realistic flight model hardcoded in a realistic combat simulator? Speaking against it made as much as sense as taking out other difficult yet realistic Arma mechanics.

Then I understood the practicality of being optional, since after all Arma's focus is still the infantry.

Then again, isn't one's lack of skill costing the virtual lives of a whole group, an important part of a true to life war simulation, whether is transport flying, grenade tossing or general fighting?

This might belong in another thread, as it is a suggestion, but what if a player required to earn his wings before being allowed by the game on the pilot seat?

Already you can block players from entering certain vehicles, there is a pilot class (although in Arma 3 it would be just a change of clothes) and there are flying tutorials, armory test flights and unlocking achievements.

Combine all that and you could have a system built in the game, where a vehicle's access anywhere is restricted to a player that has finished the relevant training mission(s) and/or drove the particular vehicle successfully in an Armory-like mission.

And that could work with all vehicles and even weapons, so tutorials are not just mere suggestions, but required training material for more advanced gameplay.

Of course, that also could be an option for game servers and doesn't have to be a "hard" denial of access of a vehicle, but can be translated as a small graphic next to a player's name or profile that represents their possession of a "driver's license to let other players know how skilled is that player and if they should trust him with their safety when being his passengers.

The "wings" could be bronze, silver, gold, etc according to the level of the training mission completed (simplified/advanced flight model, etc), their performance, the expertise on a particular vehicle and their logged hours.

So, yes, at first it looks like an arcade shooter's achievement/stat silly ego-boost, but in Arma can be used for practical, realistic purposes.

Edited June 25, 2011 by arigram

[b00ce 160]

I like it. America's Army has a similar system where you have to go through Basic and AIT before playing online. Hell, VBS:2 JCOVE has a similar mechanic.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Nothing wrong with allowing options but the server should have the final say, ideally; 'basic', 'advanced' or 'either' (in the case of 'either' the client's preference would be used).

Actually, the server should set the minimum toughness required for everything, and let the user choose harder ones if he wanted to, for all kinds of difficulty setting. If server has minimum setting on crosshairs, I can still remove them on my part. If the server has maximum setting on crosshairs, then I can't do anything about it.

But as for flight model, I'm split. Currently, why is it tougher to aim grenades or M203 at a target than it is to fly a frigging helicopter? That makes no sense. Learning to fly a helicopter doesn't take any practice at all, and I've played since OFP and I still can't aim my grenade throwing (had a practice session yesterday trying to throw grenades out of a door while hiding inside, to no avail while in real life you wouldn't think twice about it).

On the other hand I think this is (for most) still just a game, where missions have the potential to suddenly become unplayable because the chopper pilot had to eat dinner (or wash up if he is married :D). Why anyone would want to run a public server with this instead of granting access only to trusted pilots is beyond me. Forced TKOH flight dynamics will only lead to faster crashes and more frustration, not scare people off from trying - they still have to be forced off.

But again, I'm kinda split. What's keeping me from public multiplayer now is lack of servers that allows the mods I'm using (sound mods specifically), at the difficulty level I prefer. So I play alone on our own server. Notice how many one man servers there are out there? It's not the trend I would like to see.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

The people who don't want to join a MP server and have some numpty wait for a chopper to fill up and then find himself unable to take off without crashing, nevermind fly responsibly or land properly.

There's also the problem that having a sim-like flight model for helicopters and simplified controls for all other vehicles will horribly imbalance the game (if it can even achieve balance in the first place). ArmA 3 has a broader scope and thus less depth, which was exactly the point of TakOH being a seperate game (less breadth & more depth).

[SPC.Spets 21]

wow! now that I played the ToH demo, I hope NO! I cant even take off LOL

[Steakslim 1]

Is it really that hard?

[5LEvEN 11]

My first reaction was similar: why not have the most realistic flight model hardcoded in a realistic combat simulator? Speaking against it made as much as sense as taking out other difficult yet realistic Arma mechanics.

Then I understood the practicality of being optional, since after all Arma's focus is still the infantry.

Then again, isn't one's lack of skill costing the virtual lives of a whole group, an important part of a true to life war simulation, whether is transport flying, grenade tossing or general fighting?

This might belong in another thread, as it is a suggestion, but what if a player required to earn his wings before being allowed by the game on the pilot seat?

Already you can block players from entering certain vehicles, there is a pilot class (although in Arma 3 it would be just a change of clothes) and there are flying tutorials, armory test flights and unlocking achievements.

Combine all that and you could have a system built in the game, where a vehicle's access anywhere is restricted to a player that has finished the relevant training mission(s) and/or drove the particular vehicle successfully in an Armory-like mission.

And that could work with all vehicles and even weapons, so tutorials are not just mere suggestions, but required training material for more advanced gameplay.

Of course, that also could be an option for game servers and doesn't have to be a "hard" denial of access of a vehicle, but can be translated as a small graphic next to a player's name or profile that represents their possession of a "driver's license to let other players know how skilled is that player and if they should trust him with their safety when being his passengers.

The "wings" could be bronze, silver, gold, etc according to the level of the training mission completed (simplified/advanced flight model, etc), their performance, the expertise on a particular vehicle and their logged hours.

So, yes, at first it looks like an arcade shooter's achievement/stat silly ego-boost, but in Arma can be used for practical, realistic purposes.

Thats why you would want realistic flight... If the game requires a person to dedicate time to learn how to use and fly it, then you will never have a complete noob providing you with air assets or the join server and crash aircraft then leave problem...

Take an average mission (for me) from DCS A10C... It takes me roughly five minutes just to power up so I can taxi to the run way. After another two minutes I am finally up in the air. Then I usually have a minimum of a five minute flight just to be in TGP range, for target verification. After another ten minutes of verifying and prioritizing targets; I will plan (if necessary) and attack the enemy targets. So after roughly 25 minutes, I finally fire a weapon. So if the player has to do that, then the player will not want to crash it, and have to start over...

[Maio 293]

Thats why you would want realistic flight... If the game requires a person to dedicate time to learn how to use and fly it, then you will never have a complete noob providing you with air assets or the join server and crash aircraft then leave problem...

Take an average mission (for me) from DCS A10C... It takes me roughly five minutes just to power up so I can taxi to the run way. After another two minutes I am finally up in the air. Then I usually have a minimum of a five minute flight just to be in TGP range, for target verification. After another ten minutes of verifying and prioritizing targets; I will plan (if necessary) and attack the enemy targets. So after roughly 25 minutes, I finally fire a weapon. So if the player has to do that, then the player will not want to crash it, and have to start over...

You see there is a small problem , Arma 3 is not a flight sim :) . I have nothing against a pre flight check and some turbulence , but let's face it , Arma isn't even a proper infantry simulator , adding that level of detail to heli flying is going a bit to far .

Note that I have nothing against it , if they do decide do take heli flying to sim level , I won't complain .

[Alex72 1]

There's also the problem that having a sim-like flight model for helicopters and simplified controls for all other vehicles will horribly imbalance the game (if it can even achieve balance in the first place). ArmA 3 has a broader scope and thus less depth, which was exactly the point of TakOH being a seperate game (less breadth & more depth).

Agreeing with this.

I have DCS: Black Shark so its not that i cant or doesnt like realistic flight model. Its just that it would be weird with one deeply simulated part and not in the other areas.

Plus if ARMA had the depth of TOH then why whould people buy TOH? Sure other islands and missions, but as we all know we can make islands and missions.

Dont think that will happen, but you never know with BIS. :)