UH-80 Ghosthawk discussion

[pipyn1970 19]

Hi folks, i wanted to start a discussion on the above helicopter just to air my thoughts & invite other people to contribute also. I'm also hoping that maybe someone from BIS would like to leave a reply.

Anyways, here goes:

After getting my X-55 Rhino recently i thought i would learn to fly in the hope of being as good as some of the pilots i see on you tube. I know that there's a good HMD out there to fill the gaps where BIS has wained a bit with flying but with the above helicopter i want to fly with only the info from the cockpit. So after spending nearly a week as a (bad) pilot in the UH-80, i decided to question all sorts of things. I would like other people's ideas on the following please.

This is what i wish BIS had done with this helicopter:

1) The outermost MFD should be inter changeable between the screen that's its on now & a GPS/Map

2) Both monitors should be inter changeable between a working radar (like the Apache as it is 2035) & a monitor for a 360 degree nose camera. Both the pilot & CoPilot can access these as they want, The pilot might be watching the radar screen while the CoPilot is using the camera

3) The nose camera should be like the one used today on the Apache

4) Radar should pick up all ground & air vehicles & not just the manned ones

5) Hidden in the belly might be a few hydra's like the new S-97 config?

6) Passenger doors should slide open & close. The player closest to the door is the only person to open them. If a player is playing with a squad of AI then by default he would always sit by a door.

7) All the guages within the innermost MFD should be working so the pilot dont need to use a 3rd party mod.

8) The whole cockpit should have the same high standards as DCS so the pilot gets that realistic feel. If the current engine wont take that, then is it time to move towards an engine that could? This combat game is fantastic but at the same time it could be much better so combat flight enthuisast would want to come over.

10) With regards to the GPS/Map - Just like we saw on the Apache mod (sorry i can't remember who make it now), The pilot could press a few buttons on the MFD screen so he can plot his route, make WP's & place markers like for example wires! to remind him. As he's on the Map screen during flight the map would follow his position so there would be no need for the other GPS that people are forced to use while flying.

11) Maybe commanders could send a text message of an LZ to a screen on the cockpit like i saw on the DCS A10-C so the pilot or CoPilot has to type it in using a keypad?

12) Would be nice if control of the helicopter could be passed to the CoPilot & back

13) For people who love realistic game play & flight sims, it would of been nice to have a correct start up procedure. Now i know arma is not a flight sim but with something like that it would be amazing i think.

14) Wipers that work.

15) Would be nice if the UH-80 was equipted so people could make missions where they have to hunt Subs or it had a proper winch so the players could perform proper SAR missions as well as fast ropes that even AI could use.

16) Every helicopter from Nato should have different versions also like: a white U.N version

17) The Pilot or CoPilot must use the helicopter comms section to tune in to talk to ground units so he must have a list of frequencies & call signs with him.

Anyway folks thats my thoughts on the Ghosthawk. I would be interested in knowing everyone's thoughts.

I was also wandering if the guys at BIS cant make the vehicles like that or a bit like DCS, then how come a company haven't offered to make them & sell them to us? I think if they was good quality then i would buy them.

Why did BIS fail to give us a mert version of the Chinook or even U.N versions of all NATO helicopters? Why didn't BIS bring out proper SAM's & using the advanced "stealth" teck thats on this chopper to counter it a little?

Thanks for listening

[devilslayersbane 28]

Responses

1) Vanilla GPS can be brought up without MFD, on the side of your screen by default.

2) Not all gauges/radars on the built in hud work. It's a lot of work for details few would use.

3) The UH-80 has a nose camera? where is it?

4) Radar should do this already I believe

5) Unless you plan on getting rid of the XH-9 Family, this isn't going to happen most likely.

6) They do, if you know how to script, although AFAIK you can only limit it to the Pilot and Co-pilot

7) read number 2

8) read number 2, this isn't DCS. This isn't about vehicle simulation. It's infantry combat and combined arms.

10) I present number 2's response once again along with number 8's

11) As long as the commander is on the correct VOIP channel (side) then he can mark an LZ that everyone can see.

12) Already possible.

13) This isn't a flight sim. Get one or wait for BI to release ArmA 7 basic start-up DLC

14) Not-needed with current rain simulation

15) Fast ropes were tossed around for the Helicopter DLC, but ultimately dismissed. (I wanted it, too)

16) There's no UN Faction in Arma 3 vanilla. Adding that to the Vanilla game would be superfluous.

17) This is possible with a mod, Arma 3 still needs to have vanilla difficulties for a wider audience for the community to really grow.

As far as your list goes, you talk about DCS a lot. DCS is a simulator for Vehicle (mostly, if not completely Air vehicle) combat and logistics. The point of that game is for Helicopters and Jets to be simulated in a virtual environment where you're worrying about just about everything that a real pilot of these craft would worry about. Arma is different. Arma 3 is a combat/combined arms game where you have the freedom to be and do anything. It doesn't even need to be combat related. With that in mind, if you're looking for a aircraft simulation, you need to find one. Arma isn't it and it may never get there because it can A) turn off a lot of people from the game and B) limit the versatility and modability of the game. Every time BI makes changes to the game like some of the ones you're discussing, you have players that now have to adapt to something new and modders that have to do more to make full use of the vanilla features. That being said, every new installment does bring new features that add to the game. Making huge moves like these too quickly could potentially ruin the fanbase and the franchise.

As far as your afterthoughts go, BI's EULA for Arma 3 prevents 3rd party devs making mods for profit. The team that made Iron Fron: Liberation 1944 was a special agreement that BI made with them. I will again point out that Arma isn't DCS and vehicle's aren't the focus of Arma. Plus, the UN doesn't always stick with NATO gear. It doesn't have to. Proper SAMs and stealth also would require a lot of new simulation for missles and radar. It's a lot of work and who knows how many people will understand it.

Your ideas and thoughts have merit, but there has to be a way to make these features accessible or optional, otherwise you'll be turning away new players. Also note, that at no point are my words meant to flame-bait or be disrespectful. Just up-front and informative.

[pipyn1970 19]

What i was trying to say is if those guys can make an interactive Apache cockpit then why cant BIS make them that way. Yes in my view it would be nice to have the cockpits like DCS but i also understand they are 2 very different games. With regards to the camera, At the moment there aint one but i was just thinking out allowed that in 2035 maybe the next Blackhawk (Ghosthawk) might have one as helo's might end up wearing many hats in the future to cut down on running to many types of air frames. I got my idea's from watching video's on the S-97 (multi role helo). The radar i was talking about is the one on the monitor that's to the side of the console. That in my opinion is no good to man or beast as it serves no purpose. On that alone, BIS should of made it a proper radar. But maybe its somewhere on their road map for us. For someone like me who don't like all the "gamey" icons on the screen, it would of been nice to have all the info from the icons within the screens of the cockpit.

I know there's scripts out there that do loads for us but i've yet to see one where it gives the player an add action to open close the doors. Maybe ive not looked hard enough for it. Ive only come across how to keep them open.

I think it would be nice to be able to use the middle stick (no idea on how it could ever work in game thou) with sling loading or what ever it would be used for in real life.

There would be away in making the "realistic" cockpits optional, & thats the same way they did with the AFM. Within game settings you slimply turn them on or off.

I would prefer not to have the GPS floating on screen if im flying. I would prefer it within the map on the MFD but im odd like that.

I understand that a lot of my original thoughts were a big asking but i was just trying to think out aloud what would make the arma helo's better from the pilots point of view.

At the very least i would like to see all the helicopter's have decent info & working guages so we can do away with the screen icons.

Anyway thanks for your reply mate. I enjoyed your views.

[scooterperpetual 248]

What i was trying to say is if those guys can make an interactive Apache cockpit then why cant BIS make them that way. Yes in my view it would be nice to have the cockpits like DCS but i also understand they are 2 very different games. With regards to the camera, At the moment there aint one but i was just thinking out allowed that in 2035 maybe the next Blackhawk (Ghosthawk) might have one as helo's might end up wearing many hats in the future to cut down on running to many types of air frames. I got my idea's from watching video's on the S-97 (multi role helo). The radar i was talking about is the one on the monitor that's to the side of the console. That in my opinion is no good to man or beast as it serves no purpose. On that alone, BIS should of made it a proper radar. But maybe its somewhere on their road map for us. For someone like me who don't like all the "gamey" icons on the screen, it would of been nice to have all the info from the icons within the screens of the cockpit.

I know there's scripts out there that do loads for us but i've yet to see one where it gives the player an add action to open close the doors. Maybe ive not looked hard enough for it. Ive only come across how to keep them open.

I think it would be nice to be able to use the middle stick (no idea on how it could ever work in game thou) with sling loading or what ever it would be used for in real life.

There would be away in making the "realistic" cockpits optional, & thats the same way they did with the AFM. Within game settings you slimply turn them on or off.

I would prefer not to have the GPS floating on screen if im flying. I would prefer it within the map on the MFD but im odd like that.

I understand that a lot of my original thoughts were a big asking but i was just trying to think out aloud what would make the arma helo's better from the pilots point of view.

At the very least i would like to see all the helicopter's have decent info & working guages so we can do away with the screen icons.

Anyway thanks for your reply mate. I enjoyed your views.

Personally when I fly in Arma I dont want to go through start up sequences and all kinds of crazy stuff. There is the AFM which is more than enough for me and most of the time I dont even use that, but I am only 1 person. If I wanted a simulator I would go play DCS (Which I own) not Arma. As Devil said, this is a combined arms game, if they spent a ton of time making the cockpits in aircraft's a lot more realistic, then people that mainly used armor would want that for armor, then it would be for something else, and to have a game with good quality that simulates every vehicle, weapon, etc in detail would be crazy and would take too long.

[EricJ 761]

Amen to all of that. Granted they're improving functionality it's just not going to be DCS level, ever and like scooterperpetual said, even I don't do the actual startup sequence for the A-10C and quite frankly don't really care to. There's immersion and there's time to just go fly.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

The answer?

Money.

If BIS had an extra $200,000,000 lying around, I'm sure there would be a much better sim.

Given that everything you seen and experience when you double-click the Arma3.exe, cost time + money ... What existing content (which cost time + money) would you rather they have sacrificed in order to spend time + money on these UH-80 details?

In my opinion they got the balance about right, with what was provided adequate time to make what they had decent.

[nodunit 397]

Exactly the above, the reason a few guys were able to make an apache with interactable cockpit with so much fidelity and other features is because they did so in their spare time with no cost to them outside of from their weekends, you're talking about two very different development cycles with different requirements.

While they would need to ensure that the creation works 100% or at least 90% of the game, have it go back and forth between various teams and quality control, all we had to do was brainstorm about how ideas, weather it was possible, and weather or not the consequences were worth the feature.

For example, standard Arma cockpits come packed in their single p3d file, in order to get all of the 3D buttons, knobs, panels, and other details I wanted, I had to use a primary cockpit file with the buttons and faces required for the digital imagery, and another p3d to act as a proxy for the frame and other non unique components, something I am pretty sure BI would not do.

Secondly as scooper said, if they added this for heli's then people would want it for fixed wing and other ground vehicles, and I couldn't blame people, it would be very strange to see one component so madly detailed but everything else still holding the same functionality it did at least one game back. As an addon maker you don't have to care about making everything share the same fidelity outside of wether you want to or not, you just pick something and go about your merry way.

About the cockpit visual fidelity, I'm assuming you mean the amount of detail in a DCS cockpit vs ARma's. I don't think that would be possible outside of DLC when you consider that DCS tends to focus on one or two interiors or at least just a few aircraft while Arma games have far more, the amount of time spent on one cockpit wouldn't be cost effective for something such as Arma as it would be for DCS, you need to consider the differences between the games and their goals in cases like this.

Edited January 7, 2015 by NodUnit

[Gutsnav 13]

What if there was just an animation for actions instead of an interactive cockpit? Like when you started the engine the character would go through the motions of switching on the battery & stuff. Then it'd sort of make you feel like you were doing things, plus it'd look cool.

[roshnak 41]

There's not even a real (good) animation for getting into or out of vehicles.

[nodunit 397]

What if there was just an animation for actions instead of an interactive cockpit? Like when you started the engine the character would go through the motions of switching on the battery & stuff. Then it'd sort of make you feel like you were doing things, plus it'd look cool.

Well you would need custom animations for just about every helicopter considering their layout is different, right down to the simple concept of some having the power levers overhead vs to your side, not to mention battery, APU switches/toggles, starters, and anything else the aircraft may need depending on wether its start up procedure is more manual or automatic.

That is just the animation key points, we then need to consider every finger curl, wrist twist, slight lean and so on..in fact the only aircraft I have seen with anything pertaining to this is the OWP Mi-26 way back in OFP, and I doubt it didn't take very long. It's a nice idea but could have a horrible execution, the precision that would be required for one, and just about any shortcut would stick out.

Edited January 7, 2015 by NodUnit