Helicopter flight model from TakeOnHelis

[5LEvEN 11]

MPD's already exist and have since OFP, in Arma2 you can see virtually all modern helicopters have them but don't use max potential (mainly due to the amount of work for them).

You can even have multiple MPD's with selectable screens via scripting. Render to texture would be the case of working camera's like this

The ones in arma/ofp are not fully functional MPD's. You cannot change the screen, and it only displays the ADI (if I remember this correctly). Thats like saying the A-10A has had gauges this entire time, because it is modeled, and some work.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

The ones in arma/ofp are not fully functional MPD's. You cannot change the screen, and it only displays the ADI (if I remember this correctly).

It has been done.

Thats like saying the A-10A has had gauges this entire time, because it is modeled, and some work.

But... it does... :confused:

But this is off-topic.

[5LEvEN 11]

It has been done.

But... it does... :confused:

But this is off-topic.

In what mod where you able to change the MPD's? And on top of that was it even displaying useful images?

/off topic

The gauges in the A-10A in arma display incorrect data on most... That means it is not functional. Load up arma and look at them, I already have to double check my statement... :rolleyes: I don't consider something a feature, or functional unless it actually works. The gauges are present, but do not work.

/on topic

[Big Dawg KS 6]

And on top of that was it even displacing useful images?

I wouldn't know, I never really looked at them. :rolleyes: I usually don't use 1st person in vehicles...

[nodunit 397]

The ones in arma/ofp are not fully functional MPD's. You cannot change the screen, and it only displays the ADI (if I remember this correctly). Thats like saying the A-10A has had gauges this entire time, because it is modeled, and some work.

The fact that they cannot be changed does not mean they are not functional, you are provided the horizon and compass in the digital cockpits, and the Operation arrowhead longbow goes a step further by including digital altimeter techincly it should have more but eh those are the basics.

As for helpful, as said..direction of flight, angle to ground and altitude are all pretty helpful bits of information.

Unfortunately there are no mods that change the vehicles MPD's specificly due to certain...rules, but there are workarounds, most often aditional or different displays are part of community addons, there are some pretty amazing things you can do as well (this is an older WIP example on an addon)

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee200/NodUnit/Arma2%20and%20Operation%20Arrowhead/arma2oa2011-04-2712-42-34-75.jpg?t=1303926297 using helicopter radar to track vehicles both allied and enemy, tracking range can be adjusted between 10KM, 5km and 2.5km. Targets are displayed as class types, a reticle appears on the locked target and an X will replace it to display the hit via missile. Eventually range to target and missile distance will be tracked along with direction

Edited June 28, 2011 by NodUnit

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Instruments with z-fighting (appears that way) in sunrise and sunset conditions, making them unreadable.

Instruments where compass rose turns the opposite way.

Instruments where ADI shows double amount of bank, in the wrong direction.

Instruments that go crazy due to using radio altitude rather than barometric.

Instruments that are completely missing (like turn coordinator - ok, limited usability here).

And unlike MSFS, there is no way to try to make own instruments an easy way if you want to fix problems, or layout a panel differently. Not that I don't want big complex MFDs where appropriate, but also get the basics right. I expect a lot of these problems to be fixed with TKOH (most have already actually from what I can see), and I do hope attention to these details is brought over to Arma3.

[max power 21]

The animations for those instruments are defined in the model.cfg file, which becomes part of the p3d file during binarizing, if I understand it correctly. It seems like you would not be able to modify the instruments directly through config mods or otherwise.

[b00ce 160]

Instruments CAN be done right. Take RKSL's Lynx and Puma addons for example, every single instrument works and is accurate.

eo1kNmagy10

[gossamersolid 155]

I don't want ultra realistic flight controls in ArmA 3, I wouldn't mind an improved flight model (they've come a long way since OFP), but if I wanted to have to buy a joystick to fly a helicopter, I'd play take on helicopters, FSX or DCS: Blackshark... I play arma for the semi-realistic all in one package.

[Cyteless 10]

I don't want ultra realistic flight controls in ArmA 3, I wouldn't mind an improved flight model (they've come a long way since OFP), but if I wanted to have to buy a joystick to fly a helicopter, I'd play take on helicopters, FSX or DCS: Blackshark... I play arma for the semi-realistic all in one package.

From what I've played in TOH's community preview, there's really no need for a flight stick. I see no problem with TOH's features being implemented into Arma 3. It's not like it's anything overly complicated, just flick a few switches and boom, you're airborne.

[5LEvEN 11]

Instruments CAN be done right. Take RKSL's Lynx and Puma addons for example, every single instrument works and is accurate.

eo1kNmagy10

There are more then just gauges when you are talking about instruments. For example the MPD's... Which without RTT are not capable of being fully functional.

---------- Post added at 12:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 AM ----------

The fact that they cannot be changed does not mean they are not functional, you are provided the horizon and compass in the digital cockpits, and the Operation arrowhead longbow goes a step further by including digital altimeter techincly it should have more but eh those are the basics.

As for helpful, as said..direction of flight, angle to ground and altitude are all pretty helpful bits of information.

Unfortunately there are no mods that change the vehicles MPD's specificly due to certain...rules, but there are workarounds, most often aditional or different displays are part of community addons, there are some pretty amazing things you can do as well (this is an older WIP example on an addon)

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee200/NodUnit/Arma2%20and%20Operation%20Arrowhead/arma2oa2011-04-2712-42-34-75.jpg?t=1303926297 using helicopter radar to track vehicles both allied and enemy, tracking range can be adjusted between 10KM, 5km and 2.5km. Targets are displayed as class types, a reticle appears on the locked target and an X will replace it to display the hit via missile. Eventually range to target and missile distance will be tracked along with direction

Uh, I should of been more clear. Information that is not already indicated on the HUD. So for example a flight plan. I also meant in vanilla not with mods. Mods are great, but make finding multi player games difficult, as the server has to have those mods or enable them...

---------- Post added at 12:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 AM ----------

I don't want ultra realistic flight controls in ArmA 3, I wouldn't mind an improved flight model (they've come a long way since OFP), but if I wanted to have to buy a joystick to fly a helicopter, I'd play take on helicopters, FSX or DCS: Blackshark... I play arma for the semi-realistic all in one package.

You can fly FSX without a joystick. You can fly Take on helicopters without a joystick. I bet with a little work you could fly DCS without a joystick (you would have to change the controls that is all). Having a joystick just adds to the realism, it is not necessary....

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Considering the scope of ArmA 3, when you consider imlplementing any new feature you have to ask "what does it do for the gameplay?" IMO 100% functional & accurate instruments is not going to do a lot. I (and I would guess that most casual players) barely even notice the existing instruments in game. To me they are nothing but eye candy.

And as I've said many times before, aircraft are the part of the game that require the least amount of attention. I mean they're already very close to sim-level while the ground/naval aspect is so far behind...

Edited June 29, 2011 by Big Dawg KS

[5LEvEN 11]

Considering the scope of ArmA 3, when you consider imlplementing any new feature you have to ask "what does it do for the gameplay?" IMO 100% functional & accurate instruments is not going to do a lot. I (and I would guess that most casual players) barely even notice the existing instruments in game. To me they are nothing but eye candy.

And as I've said many times before, aircraft are the part of the game that require the least amount of attention. I mean they're already very close to sim-level while the ground/naval aspect is so far behind...

You have never played a flight simulator then.... Naval combat is not seen in arma.... Infantry combat is already up to par with current limitations, yes, minor improvements are needed... Soft skinned vehicles are already being improved with things like physx, and are not needing much more other than damage improvements, which every vehicle in arma needs. Armor and aircraft are still quite far from being a simulation.

Instruments are things like counter measures, gauges, MPD's and MFD's (and all that is displayed), HUD, and all controls are instruments in a real aircraft. I would hardly call those eye candy...

[Innomadic 10]

Aircraft close to sim level? Please...

[b00ce 160]

Flying around Takistan with the TKOH beta, I found it next to impossible to fly, keyboard & mouse and joystick. The issues were the ridiculously huge dead-zone with my X52 in the RV engine and the incremental throttle with keyboard. (what sucks is I don't have peddle controls using my HOTAS throttle and the mouse.) Ideally, the "thrust" would be handled like it is in ArmA now, with the option for analogue controls. Another thing I wouldn't miss is the torque effect, I know I have always said I wanted to see proper torque; but with the keyboard (What I'm sure 90% of the community, including myself, uses.) it was very difficult to fly, and right pedal with keyboard just counteracted it. The differential of lift was nice, however over-done and not conducive to flying with keyboard and mouse (or even joystick for that matter, due to the dead-zone issue).

Primarily what I want to see implemented in ArmA 3 would be, Ground Effect, Settling With Power (If I'm not mistaken was in TKOH, I only played around for a little while.), wind effecting aircraft, working suspension, rolling wheels for helicopters and wheel brakes. This with the same basic flight model of ArmA 2, letting PhysX do it's thing. Along with the time being taken to make the gauges all work like they should.

/2cents

[5LEvEN 11]

Flying around Takistan with the TKOH beta, I found it next to impossible to fly, keyboard & mouse and joystick. The issues were the ridiculously huge dead-zone with my X52 in the RV engine and the incremental throttle with keyboard. (what sucks is I don't have peddle controls using my HOTAS throttle and the mouse.) Ideally, the "thrust" would be handled like it is in ArmA now, with the option for analogue controls. Another thing I wouldn't miss is the torque effect, I know I have always said I wanted to see proper torque; but with the keyboard (What I'm sure 90% of the community, including myself, uses.) it was very difficult to fly, and right pedal with keyboard just counteracted it. The differential of lift was nice, however over-done and not conducive to flying with keyboard and mouse (or even joystick for that matter, due to the dead-zone issue).

I am using a x52 controller, and I did not have any problems with dead zones. I also tried mouse and key board same thing... I can fly without any problems with or without my joystick.

The thrust controls are not handled properly in arma 2... When the throttle is at 0 it should have no power, not put on speed breaks. It should also correspond to the position of the throttle. For example 50% on the throttle should equal 50% thrust. I have tried both analog and the increase and decrease thrust options for both of my joysticks, neither of them work proper.

When flying in take on choppers do NOT fly like most of you do in arma 2. Make the movements of the joystick or mouse smooth and small. Think ahead and plan ahead with your controls. If you try to fly like arma 2, then you will most likely spin out of control...

[b00ce 160]

I'm more than well aware of that. I fly a lot of other sims like both DCS games (Mostly Black Shark) and X-plane 9. However, with a keyboard and mouse setup, the way it's set up in ArmA now is perfect. How it's set up in TKOH is perfect for joysticks, and is REALLY nice with the throttle. (Though, after a while of playing, the throttle would bottom out at 50%, even though I had the collective to the floor.) Though, it did give me an opportunity to appreciate ground effect. lol

Also, maybe the joystick dead-zone is linked to the mouse dead-zone. I have mine maxed out. :p

[max power 21]

I have the same problem as b00ce, and apparently so does Leftskidlow and others.

[5LEvEN 11]

should post the issue over on the take on chopper forums, and dev-heaven.net Maybe somebody will know how to fix it, or the dev can fix it :)

[max power 21]

I posted it already, and people have voted on it.

[dmarkwick 261]

Considering the scope of ArmA 3, when you consider imlplementing any new feature you have to ask "what does it do for the gameplay?" IMO 100% functional & accurate instruments is not going to do a lot. I (and I would guess that most casual players) barely even notice the existing instruments in game. To me they are nothing but eye candy.

And as I've said many times before, aircraft are the part of the game that require the least amount of attention. I mean they're already very close to sim-level while the ground/naval aspect is so far behind...

I understand your concerns about placing too much emphasis on an element of the game outside of it's core interest.

But in the interests of expanding that core interest I think a helo FM is worth exploring, instrumentation and all. Of course, the other thing that goes hand-in-hand with improved helo modeling is improved tank/armour modeling. It can be said that helo warfare and tank warfare are two glaring weakpoints in ArmA, and yet both are necessary to the franchise for realistic infantry modeling.

I'm not too interested in fixed-wing modeling, IMO the ArmA worlds have always been just too small for effective simulation of those, IMO ArmA has always been a helo-sized theater.

[5LEvEN 11]

I understand your concerns about placing too much emphasis on an element of the game outside of it's core interest.

But in the interests of expanding that core interest I think a helo FM is worth exploring, instrumentation and all. Of course, the other thing that goes hand-in-hand with improved helo modeling is improved tank/armour modeling. It can be said that helo warfare and tank warfare are two glaring weakpoints in ArmA, and yet both are necessary to the franchise for realistic infantry modeling.

I'm not too interested in fixed-wing modeling, IMO the ArmA worlds have always been just too small for effective simulation of those, IMO ArmA has always been a helo-sized theater.

I agree with most...

Lemnos is supposed to be 2.5 times larger than takistan, so it is much more capable of fixed wing aircraft support, but is still a little small. If you make the tanks and helicopters realistic, but leave out the fixed wing aircraft, then you are putting the fixed wing aircraft at an advantage (if the fixed wing aircraft stay the same from arma 2). You have to go all out to not make anything unrealistic, or overpowered compared to real life. Helicopters having a realistic targeting system, while the current a-10a having the same targeting system would obviously make the a-10a much more easy to kill with. So you either have to remove fixed wing aircraft (c-130 could stay as it does not kill :) ) or make the fixed wing aircraft accurate as well...

[dmarkwick 261]

I agree with most...

Lemnos is supposed to be 2.5 times larger than takistan, so it is much more capable of fixed wing aircraft support, but is still a little small. If you make the tanks and helicopters realistic, but leave out the fixed wing aircraft, then you are putting the fixed wing aircraft at an advantage (if the fixed wing aircraft stay the same from arma 2). You have to go all out to not make anything unrealistic, or overpowered compared to real life. Helicopters having a realistic targeting system, while the current a-10a having the same targeting system would obviously make the a-10a much more easy to kill with. So you either have to remove fixed wing aircraft (c-130 could stay as it does not kill :) ) or make the fixed wing aircraft accurate as well...

I think that's more of a mission design/server setup issue myself. If the general consensus is an optional simulation model, or even a plugin/module option, then it's down to mission balance.

[5LEvEN 11]

I think that's more of a mission design/server setup issue myself. If the general consensus is an optional simulation model, or even a plugin/module option, then it's down to mission balance.

In order to keep it balanced in a mission, fixed wing attack aircraft would have to be taken out... Unless you're going to have it appear for a few moments for some air support then disappear....

/off topic

I would much rather see fixed wing attack aircraft gone and have armor and rotary aircraft properly simulated to be honest. As of right now the only realistic thing on the A-10 is the simple things like the ADI on the HUD and weapon load out, everything else is at best semi-realistic. I could make a new thread just for all the improvements it needs.

/on topic

[Mr. Charles 22]

If you improve one of the simulation aspects (helicopters) other fields of the simulation must also be changed, to get the game "balanced" again. The TAB-Lock-Fire must be abandoned and be replaced with the real designation, laze, lock, fire for instance.