Helicopter flight model from TakeOnHelis

[maddogx 13]

Oh please, please do me a favor and get that huge stick out of your ass, then read my post again properly. And stop making such idiotic assumptions. I have nothing against them porting the TakOH flight model to Arma3. I think it's unlikely, but if it happens, it happens.

My real issue, as you may have noticed by my frequent capitalized usage of the word SIMULATOR, is the overuse of that term to justify... well, everything!

Soldiers should need to hydrate and subsequently take a piss because it's a SIMULATOR!

There shouldn't be any fictional vehicles or weapons because it's a SIMULATOR!

We need uber detailed reloading animations because it's a SIMULATOR!

That word is thrown around so much on these forums as a justification for feature requests, but the fact is that it's complete bullshit. As my post was intended to illustrate, I could use that logic to justify a request for just about anything. And you seem to be falling into the same trap.

Edited June 27, 2011 by MadDogX

[sethos 2]

Oh please, please do me a favor and get that huge stick out of your ass, then read my post again properly. And stop making such idiotic assumptions. I have nothing against them porting the TakOH flight model to Arma3. I think it's unlikely, but if it happens, it happens.

My real issue, as you may have noticed by my frequent capitalized usage of the word SIMULATOR, is the overuse of that term to justify... well, everything!

Soldiers should need to hydrate and subsequently take a piss because it's a SIMULATOR!

There shouldn't be any fictional vehicles or weapons because it's a SIMULATOR!

We need uber detailed reloading animations because it's a SIMULATOR!

That word is thrown around so much on these forums as a justification for feature requests, but the fact is that it's complete bullshit. As my post was intended to illustrate, I could use that logic to justify a request for just about anything. And you seem to be falling into the same trap.

You obviously don't have a clue, do you? You're basically just stretching the word simulator to the most hardcore degree so it sounds like you have an argument. There's varying degrees of simulation and there's also something called authenticity, they aren't always related. A simulation tries to mimic certain aspects of the real-life counter-part, it doesn't have to be the full monty but to a certain degree. You're just being completely pedantic and ignorant when talking about hydration and shit, talking about an authenticity factor and even the unrelated immersion factor.

A simulator just have to portray elements by using parameters of the real-world counterpart. It doesn't have to be a 1:1 portrayal to be labelled as a simulator, in that case, there wouldn't be a thing called simulation, it's all pseudo simulation. By that account, current flight models in ArmA are not even in that stratosphere as they mimic basically nothing - They are arcade models through and through, able to carry out feats that would and should crash a normal plane or helicopter. So when people call for simulation, they just call for the pseudo simulation aspect that would actually make stuff feel more realistic, instead of a complete arcade feel.

So stop all this drama shit, apply some logic and brainpower that bile you spew and we might all just get to move forward.

[Alex72 1]

Im sure the flight model will be updated in ARMA3 but i dont believe we get the same ones as in TOH simply because (as stated) TOH will lose a very strong (the biggest?) sales point if we do.

Even find it a but iffy to ask such a question tbh. Asking BIS to add strong elements from their other titles into ARMA... I hope for an updated flight model with some new tech like we usually get in each new ARMA title, and that will personally make me happy.

[maddogx 13]

Taking this to PM so as not to derail the thread any further.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

And if having more simulation aspects in a COMBAT SIMULATOR scares, you picked the wrong game. No matter how much you let those salty tears run down your rosy red cheeks, you're playing

a simulator and the engine it was built on was designed for actual military training. So whenever they can implement anything that adds to this simulation, they should.

Sethos you need a history lesson. While VBS is deisgned as training software, the engine is not designed as such and neither were any of the ArmA titles.

You see it all started with this thing called OFP; and back then it wasn't really considered a simulator. I don't like calling ArmA a sim (I would like to call it a sim-like game).

[sethos 2]

Sethos you need a history lesson. While VBS is deisgned as training software, the engine is not designed as such and neither were any of the ArmA titles.

You see it all started with this thing called OFP; and back then it wasn't really considered a simulator. I don't like calling ArmA a sim (I would like to call it a sim-like game).

http://www.armedassault.com/features.html

ArmA is a first person tactical military shooter with large elements of realism and simulation. This game features a blend of large-scale military conflict spread over large areas alongside the more closed quarters battle. The player will find himself thrust in the midst of an engaging and expanding storyline, fighting against smart, aggressive enemies who will continually provide a challenge over a massive landscape.

The game was always marketed as leaning towards simulation, google most of their games and you'll see simulation being used everywhere and with every iteration of the game, they move closer towards simulation.

That dog just ain't gonna hunt, sorry.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

ArmA is a first person tactical military shooter with large elements of realism and simulation.

Says it all.

Elements of simulation != training software. Not in any way does it imply that.

---------- Post added at 02:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 PM ----------

The game was always marketed as leaning towards simulation, google most of their games and you'll see simulation being used everywhere and with every iteration of the game, they move closer towards simulation.

I've been following this community and BIS long enough to know where the series came from and where it's heading. I realize that a vast amount of people refer to it as a simulator (and sometimes BIS sells it like that) but that does not make it a full-blown simulator or training software. I also know that with every new release BIS tries to make their games more appealing to more casual players, and it seems no different in this case. They aren't trying to turn ArmA into VBS; they are making a game.

[sethos 2]

Says it all.

Elements of simulation != training software. Not in any way does it imply that.

Oh puh-lease, don't you start that crap again. A simulator is a simulator, there's varying degrees but a simulator is a simulator. So anything that isn't mimicking everything real-life 1:1 can't be called a simulator? News flash then: Then simulation within games doesn't exist. It's a game based on infantry simulation with more loosely based peripheral military equipment that does simulation to a much less extend ( almost none ) but by heritage, by developer's own word of mouths and by game design it's a simulator, like it or not.

Some of you people have no clue what lies within the word simulation in gaming extend.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Sethos

[st_dux 26]

ArmA has always been an infantry simulator; it has never been a vehicle and/or aircraft simulator. The aircraft and vehicles are controllable to the extent that the result appears realistic from an infantry perspective while being accessible enough for direct control by a novice. If a more realistic (and thereby much more challenging) flight model is introduced, it is imperative that it be optional, lest the heart of the game (the infantry experience) be diminished.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

overly dramatic words

I have no idea what you are arguing about now. You were trying to tell me that ArmA was designed as training software; go find me one place where any credible source says that this is the case. BI Studios does not make training software, only BI Sim and BIA does.

[sethos 2]

I'm illiterate

No I didn't, said it was based off of.

Learn to read before you argue.

[dmarkwick 261]

Gentlemen, you can't argue in here, this is an internet forum.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

ArmA has always been an infantry simulator; it has never been a vehicle and/or aircraft simulator. The aircraft and vehicles are controllable to the extent that the result appears realistic from an infantry perspective while being accessible enough for direct control by a novice. If a more realistic (and thereby much more challenging) flight model is introduced, it is imperative that it be optional, lest the heart of the game (the infantry experience) be diminished.

This exactly. And if BIS increases the fidelity of one type of vehicle simulation without doing all of them then it would create inconsistancies (which is already somewhat of an issue). Let the heli-sim fanboys play their heli-sim game, and let ArmA be what it was designed to be.

---------- Post added at 02:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------

No I didn't, said it was based off of.

Based off of is still incorrect. VBS was a project that was derived from OFP and VBS2 from ArmA. ArmA 3 is not based off of anything but ArmA 2, which is based off of ArmA, which is based off of OFP:E, which is based off of OFP. None of these were ever designed for training.

Now quit your trolling.

[sethos 2]

Gentlemen, you can't argue in here, this is an internet forum.

Haha :D

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Guys, take it to the PM's and get back ontopic.

[5LEvEN 11]

ArmA has always been an infantry simulator; it has never been a vehicle and/or aircraft simulator. The aircraft and vehicles are controllable to the extent that the result appears realistic from an infantry perspective while being accessible enough for direct control by a novice. If a more realistic (and thereby much more challenging) flight model is introduced, it is imperative that it be optional, lest the heart of the game (the infantry experience) be diminished.

Infantry meaning the soldiers who fight on the ground.... Thus they are not using vehicles like aircraft or tanks for example, unless they are riding in them. Which means you have a pilot and/or crewman supporting the infantry. Making the vehicles simulated properly will not effect the infantry in a negative way. In fact it would help the infantry. If vehicles are simulated correctly then the infantry can get proper armor and CAS. As of right now pilots don't really need the infantry's eyes on the ground, but if it was simulated correctly it would be difficult locating and identifying targets without eyes on the ground. In other words the infantry would be much more valuable in helping pilots locate and destroy targets. It would also mean there would be a real job for the forward air controller. Adding simulation also means proper insertion to the AO. You can't have an infantry simulation with arcade vehicles, its not a simulation anymore if you do. You can, however, have an infantry simulation with properly simulated vehicles, or without vehicles. I am assuming you would rather have vehicles to transport and support you on the ground. Am I right? So in other words, if you want an infantry simulation with vehicles, the vehicles must be properly simulated.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I think some people here throw around the word simulation without fully understanding what it means (or assuming a specific context).

There are various levels of fidelity to which you can simulate something. Simulation is not a magic word that means everything must be 100% accurate to real life.

The vehicles in ArmA 2 are not arcadey (not by the standards set by most games at least), nor are they simulated with the fidelity you would expect from a dedicated sim. There should be a balance between what's good enough for the gameplay and what BIS can accomplish given their resources. And while BIS may have the more realistic flight model anyway, more is not always better IMO. There is no need for a high fidelity helicopter flight model in ArmA if you ask me, and if it's not needed it shouldn't be forced in.

[5LEvEN 11]

I agree, but also disagree. A simulation is not what most people think. It is far from perfect for one, and usually makes it seem as if it is proper, but is not. An example being the CBU's from DCS. Certain things must be properly simulated. For example a T-72 should be destroyed if hit by an AGM-65D. An M1A2 should not be destroyed by an RPG. You have to simulate damages to an extent as shown. In comparison to dedicated simulators like DCS, and FSX, Arma's flight model is arcade. In comparison to BF, Arma's flight model is more realistic. Arma's current flight model works, but is still arcade.

I consider it arcade because it is not a proper simulation. A proper simulation meaning, it has simulated everything to the extent that it seems realistic. For example DCS is a proper flight simulation, but it has not simulated infantry properly, because it would only need it for a forward air controller, which is minimal, and can be done without infantry simulation (no one is playing as infantry basically).

In arma's case it is more of a infantry simulation, but because there are real people flying aircraft for the infantry it requires a proper flight model. The flight model and controls affect the way the pilot does things, it effects it to the point where the pilot has to learn new techniques and the different flight model. I realize that you don't care for this, but the pilots do. Arma's flight model for me, is just not that fun to fly. It does not require the precision, attentiveness, and skill that the real thing does, thus it is boring to me.

Adding a realistic flight model would only affect the infantry in a negative way if an inexperienced pilot is flying, which I thought you wanted to avoid(?). If you want people on your server who don't crash the aircraft, and leave, then get a realistic flight model, and avionics. With those two things, you would be able to avoid things such as the crash and leave problem. Also you would have proper CAS, and transport. In a dedicated flight simulator, I can set up a flight plan, and follow it with precision. No more checking map, or place a way point with the Ctrl+LMB to go somewheres. Although at first it can seem more difficult to set-up and follow a flight plan in a dedicated simulator, trust me it is not. In my opinion it is much better.

I prefer the challenge the dedicated simulations offer. Which is why I would love to see that in arma. Yeah, I could go into DCS and give CAS to some AI, or FSX and transport some imaginary people, but that is just not the same as helping out REAL people. It is much more fun to know you are actually helping real people win a battle.

Also keep in mind, a lot of the things we would like to see are not needed. Just check the wishlist... If arma is an infantry simulation only then, anything dealing with vehicles being accurate outside of basic damage, basic models, and speed is out of the question. I personally think arma is more then just about the infantry...

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Adding a realistic flight model would only affect the infantry in a negative way if an inexperienced pilot is flying, which I thought you wanted to avoid(?).

Only the elitists want to avoid that. I'm not one.

I personally think arma is more then just about the infantry...

It's about combined arms. What that means is interactions between the different elements (aircraft, ground vehicles & infantry) that are appropriate. Changing the flight model does little for the interaction of aircraft and other elements.

Another thing that disappoints me is that the aircraft in ArmA 2 are already miles ahead of the ground vehicles in terms of simulation fidelity, and people keep asking for more improvements to aircraft. I don't think we need to further imbalance the game. The ground battles are IMO more important at this point. If you think flying is boring; have you tried tanking? Driving around? IMO it's much less satisfying at this point than flying.

I still think too many people here want ArmA to be a flight sim; and that's exactly what TakOH is supposed to be and people still aren't satisfied. I simply don't understand why people can never be satisfied...

Edited June 27, 2011 by Big Dawg KS

[5LEvEN 11]

It's about combined arms. What that means is interactions between the different elements (aircraft, ground vehicles & infantry) that are appropriate. Changing the flight model does little for the interaction of aircraft and other elements.

Another thing that disappoints me is that the aircraft in ArmA 2 are already miles ahead of the ground vehicles in terms of simulation fidelity, and people keep asking for more improvements to aircraft. I don't think we need to further imbalance the game. The ground battles are IMO more important at this point. If you think flying is boring; have you tried tanking? Driving around? IMO it's much less satisfying at this point than flying.

I still think too many people here want ArmA to be a flight sim; and that's exactly what TakOH is supposed to be and people still aren't satisfied. I simply don't understand why people can never be satisfied...

I have tried tanking, even more boring :( ...

I personally think arma should be in all-in-one simulator :D . The aircraft have realistic flight models, and avionics. The armor would have the equivelent (if I knew what it was I would name it, but I do not :o ). The soft skinned vehicles are already getting improvements (physx for example). The infantry already got it made compared to everyone else though, but still room for some minor improvements.

I think what every single flight simulator is missing is real people being helped. If I was transporting real people to and from battle it would be much more entertaining. If I was helping by providing CAS to real people, again it would be much more entertaining. I believe this is the reason why you see people from hard core flight simulators coming to this game, and wanting realism for the aircraft. I and others see the potential that arma has. If arma was an all-in-one simulator it would draw people from every other simulation, it would have a larger community, and make more money (good for the devs :) )....

[froggyluv 2130]

I doubt they'll implement the entire flight model or many would probably lose incentive to buy the seperate products. Personally I didn't find Take On all that difficult to fly in - just a little more patient upon takeoff, some turbulance, and certainly tougher landings.

Adding some of that as an option I wouldn't see as such a bad thing.

[Montanaro 0]

Does anyone here not give a damn about titles? "Arcade!" "NO! Realism!"

The game is what it is, I don't believe OFP ever minced words, it just gave you a sandbox and toys to play with. As long as ARMA continues to build upon the foundation of what OFP was, I'll be more than satisfied.

[subs17 9]

I doubt they'll implement the entire flight model or many would probably lose incentive to buy the seperate products. Personally I didn't find Take On all that difficult to fly in - just a little more patient upon takeoff, some turbulance, and certainly tougher landings.

Adding some of that as an option I wouldn't see as such a bad thing.

I agree the incentive should be for people to want to purchase TOH to make use of the Helicopter sim and the bonus is the ability to use it in MP with A2/3. With that you would want 6dof clickable pit and use of MFDs/HUD. BI could do the same for Jets as it is the targetting system is arcade for jets but a reasonable addon would allow for such features and increase the popularity of the Sim.(yes I consider Arma to be a battlefield simulation as someone has said the word sim is used although complexity is scalable when you use it to describe a sim) IMO a series of sims that have the MP compatiblity capability will make this very popular and could attract people who usually stick to other sim types.

---------- Post added at 02:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 PM ----------

Indeed! It's a SIMULATION! That must be the answer to all our problems!

BIS, please give Arma3 all the features of Silent Hunter, Steel Beasts, Flight Simulator X and also DCS:Black Shark - except not just for the KA-50,

Why? Because it's a SIMULATION!

All of thats possible if BIS decided to approach it with common MP compatibility. Another idea is to allow common MP with another sim like DCS only problem is that it is better to use A2/3 instead because once the pilot ejects he could go into FPS mode unlike DCS which involves shutting one program down or idling it and starting up a 2nd program with FPS mode.

---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:58 PM ----------

Infantry meaning the soldiers who fight on the ground.... Thus they are not using vehicles like aircraft or tanks for example, unless they are riding in them. Which means you have a pilot and/or crewman supporting the infantry. Making the vehicles simulated properly will not effect the infantry in a negative way. In fact it would help the infantry. If vehicles are simulated correctly then the infantry can get proper armor and CAS.

It would also mean there would be a real job for the forward air controller. Adding simulation also means proper insertion to the AO. You can't have an infantry simulation with arcade vehicles, its not a simulation anymore if you do. You can, however, have an infantry simulation with properly simulated vehicles, or without vehicles. I am assuming you would rather have vehicles to transport and support you on the ground. Am I right? So in other words, if you want an infantry simulation with vehicles, the vehicles must be properly simulated.

I agree for FAC to work more realistically then you would want the aircraft modelled better. Not so much the FM thats the problem now its a combination of issues. Look at the JSF it needs a clickable pit or at least a TGT pod view for LGBs. And a working radar, with a few features added to the aircraft it could imensely improve the CAS and Air support provided by aircraft. Like the boot camp JSF mission you cannot drop those bombs accurately as there is no CCIP sight in the HUD or tgt pod view for locking the enemy tank. These are not big issues all are probably already possible in A2. As for vehicles if they modeled it in more detail are we talking checking engine oil etc? Thats a possibility with mods like ACE2 there is that possibility I think.

[5LEvEN 11]

I agree for FAC to work more realistically then you would want the aircraft modelled better. Not so much the FM thats the problem now its a combination of issues. Look at the JSF it needs a clickable pit or at least a TGT pod view for LGBs. And a working radar, with a few features added to the aircraft it could imensely improve the CAS and Air support provided by aircraft. Like the boot camp JSF mission you cannot drop those bombs accurately as there is no CCIP sight in the HUD or tgt pod view for locking the enemy tank. These are not big issues all are probably already possible in A2. As for vehicles if they modeled it in more detail are we talking checking engine oil etc? Thats a possibility with mods like ACE2 there is that possibility I think.

True, but we have to start somewheres. A simple outline is you would need to add interactive cock pits (and higher resolution), MFD's and the info to go into them (TAD, TGP, TGT, DSMS, ect), interactive HUD, Auto pilot (fixed wing), counter measures, and a better flight model.

How can you add MFD's in arma 2? I thought you had to have RTT to add those(?).

[nodunit 397]

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