Will Arma 3 be able to support Formation Flying

[M.Evans 10]

I have one simple question, will arma 3 be able to support close formation, or flying without rubberbanding. With this said will the game properly represent aircraft posistion. Everybody knows that arma 2 has bad flight dynamics, or not great for flying. Will arma 3 be a better flying simulation?

All information about aircraft is welcome.

[Nicholas 5]

I'm assuming it'll be the same as in ArmA II. But formation flying would be awesome.

[M.Evans 10]

ah, I dont understand, take on helicopters can support decently close formations. they should just port the ability, if the game gets formation flying, it would have every aspect of greatness.

[Firefox88 10]

Its in the game features, it will have the same physics and ToH. Hopefully that means fixed wing as well.

[PuFu 4600]

Its in the game features, it will have the same physics and ToH. Hopefully that means fixed wing as well.

just like tkoh indeed: that is without fixed wing (obviously, unless another library is introduced for those, but that is, in my humble opinion. far fetched)

[Echo38 1]

The fixed-wing flight model in Arma 2 is indeed far from realistic (though not entirely arcade, either), but it's able to support formation flying. It's the netcode that isn't able to handle formation flying, and the netcode is one of the things which is said to be improved in Arma 3. I myself would like to see almost nothing more than a super-realistic flight model in Arma 3, but this simply isn't going to happen. The market dynamics just don't support it, sadly. Realistic flight sims are the most complex type of game to make, and have just about the smallest market in gaming. High development costs + low sales = not a profitable venture, unless one already has the market cornered or something.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Echo38

[Amuro 10]

Realistic flight sims are the most complex type of game to make, and have just about the smallest market in gaming. High development costs + low sales = not a profitable venture, unless one already has the market cornered or something.

Yeah, there is one. DCS Word + DCS Combined Arms + Official DCS aircraft + 3rd party paid add-ons.

[4 IN 1 0]

Yeah, there is one. DCS Word + DCS Combined Arms + Official DCS aircraft + 3rd party paid add-ons.

You forgot about the patches of bug fix that they sell you so that you can play.:p

[HKFlash 9]

You forgot about the patches of bug fix that they sell you so that you can play.:p

The price to pay for hardcore flight sims.

[Echo38 1]

Like I said, "unless one already has the market cornered." Eagle Dynamics has a monopoly on the hardcore modern air combat sim; they can afford to develop DCS for for P.C., as I understand it, because at least one military pays them to make real flight simulators. That's where most of their money comes from. (It also means they can afford to be pricks to the customers--see Starforce DRM and said bug-fix wankery, which is really too bad, because there is not a more realistic flight sim on the P.C. than DCS.) Because DCS holds the market, there isn't really room for an independent developer to make another high-fidelity flight sim of modern aircraft.

This is even more true of the Second World War and the IL-2 series--just no room for another company to get their foot in the door, even though there are other companies that could do a better job of it. Well, there is one exception: DCS P-51D. ; )

Edited July 1, 2012 by Echo38

[Serclaes 0]

The fixed-wing flight model in Arma 2 is indeed far from realistic (though not entirely arcade, either), but it's able to support formation flying. It's the netcode that isn't able to handle formation flying, and the netcode is one of the things which is said to be improved in Arma 3. I myself would like to see almost nothing more than a super-realistic flight model in Arma 3, but this simply isn't going to happen. The market dynamics just don't support it, sadly. Realistic flight sims are the most complex type of game to make, and have just about the smallest market in gaming. High development costs + low sales = not a profitable venture, unless one already has the market cornered or something.

Please check out this video made by Sgt Ace / Atsche:

[4 IN 1 0]

The price to pay for hardcore flight sims.

O'Rly

*look at beta patch forum*

[M.Evans 10]

so when does that patch come out.

[Beagle 684]

The price to pay for hardcore flight sims.

Simpyl not true, and here is the proof.

[jibemorel 10]

so when does that patch come out.

It's 1.60, it has been realeased 6 months ago

[Blaze2132 10]

I feel like this got a bit off-topic... Or maybe I don't understand the subject.

[Amuro 10]

You forgot about the patches of bug fix that they sell you so that you can play.:p

I don't mind that at all.

---------- Post added at 03:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------

Simpyl not true, and here is the proof.

But it made me commit a crime, pirating the original Falcon 4 in order to install BMS since it requires the .exe. :(

Edited July 2, 2012 by Amuro

[Tonci87 163]

BTW what exactly is BMS ?

And more important, is it playable with M+K only?

Edited July 2, 2012 by Tonci87

[An-225 0]

I think, even though rubberbanding is a big issue, throttle control is more important in maintaining formation. Unless there's a serious change in how aircraft throttle is handled, whereby the player has control over the entire power range available to a real pilot, precise form flying is going to be very difficult. It's possible now, if you use autothrottle, but that removes the ability to fly formation at varying airspeeds...

[HKFlash 9]

Simpyl not true, and here is the proof.

Falcon 4.0? L.O.L.

Falcon 4.0 despite all the improvements made in that BMS version is still miles behind DCS. It has only one flyable, the flight model still sucks compared to ED's flightsim, you can't use ground units like in Combined Arms, the graphics are still behind, etc etc I could go on, but I won't waste more of my time.

[Echo38 1]

I think, even though rubberbanding is a big issue, throttle control is more important in maintaining formation. Unless there's a serious change in how aircraft throttle is handled, whereby the player has control over the entire power range available to a real pilot, precise form flying is going to be very difficult. It's possible now, if you use autothrottle, but that removes the ability to fly formation at varying airspeeds...

Last time I checked, you have the entire throttle range if you bind it to a joystick slider, although it feels a bit wonky because throwing the slider all the way back doesn't only put the throttle to idle, it also engages the spoilers/airbrakes.

[Amuro 10]

BTW what exactly is BMS ?

And more important, is it playable with M+K only?

It's a realistic F-16 sim by Benchmark Sims (BMS) based on Falcon 4.0 but with a brand new DX9 graphics engine, new 3D model and cockpit, etc. You'd be having a hard time controlling the jet with just K+B though.

Falcon 4.0? L.O.L.

Falcon 4.0 despite all the improvements made in that BMS version is still miles behind DCS. It has only one flyable, the flight model still sucks compared to ED's flightsim, you can't use ground units like in Combined Arms, the graphics are still behind, etc etc I could go on, but I won't waste more of my time.

Well, until there's a DCS: Viper with a complex dynamic campaign (which I doubt will ever happen since DCS' focus is dissimilar air combat), BMS 4.32 is the only option.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Amuro

[Echo38 1]

Falcon 4's flight model has always been balls. Almost as bad as Arma's, really, which is sad for Falcon because it was supposed to be super-realistic. To be fair, the avionics & systems are very impressive, but DCS does the same level of detail for those while also having very good flight physics.

I wouldn't say that DCS's focus is on dissimilar air combat. DCS is a series of study sims, and it happens that they've gone for some dissimilar aircraft. I don't think that the point was to model dissimilar aircraft; I think that the point was to model some of the developers' favorite aircraft which haven't ever been well-portrayed in a sim before, and it's just coincidence that they are dissimilar aircraft.

It's really a shame about the DRM that Eagle Dynamics has chosen to use for DCS, because the latter is the only proper "hardcore" military flight sim available for P.C.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Echo38

[rainbird 1]

Echo38: I think you might just be a little behind on the progression of Falcon 4's flight model (note this link is also very dated and doesn't contain the more recent improvements), since the release of BMS. Many consider its flight model to be better than DCS, but that's largely a matter of opinion I guess as most of us are not qualified aerodynamics experts. However, those few who are and have played both DCS and BMS say it is very accurate indeed.

I've noticed that most people who consider DCS to be "better" tend to make that judgement based on visual graphics. Falcon 4/BMS is still the best flight sim, imo.

Edited July 2, 2012 by rainbird

[HKFlash 9]

I've noticed that most people who consider DCS to be "better" tend to make that judgement based on visual graphics. Falcon 4/BMS is still the best flight sim, imo.

And DCS is the best flight sim imo.