Antonov: realistic, or flyable?

[Konyak-2 0]

Okay, most of you know about the Antonov I've been building, and how it´s size pushes the envelope in OFP flight physics. If I make the Geometry LOD the correct size, and weight, the plane will simply not turn enough in game to be fun to fly, and the AI can never use it properly. Also, due to it's 60 meter wingspan, taxiing is out, as it will stop on all trees and buildings.

Now, I had made a version that had a smaller geometry inside the plane, and that was a joy to fly, if a bit nimble for such a large bird, but the AI could land it, taxi it and it was cool to watch. On the down side, you could shoot through it, its wings would pass through trees and if there was two of them, the AI would park it inside the other one almost, as it thought it was in a much smaller plane.

Question is, which is more important? Flyable for AI and fun to fly for us humans too, but looking a little silly in some circumstances, or uber realistic with no AI ability but with correct collision and damage modeling?

Personally, I'd never bring myself to fly the realistic one

I am also having problems with control surfaces, and I suspect it may be because of them being so far outside the grid area, I will look better at that

Who ever said that BIG is BETTER

Konyak

[VipHeart 0]

You know.. there's an old game developers slogan saying "don't give a damn on realism"..

[Lansen 0]

Hi mate, I cant see why AI should be able to fly it proper since atleast what I think the plane is too big for OFP. But! it would sure as hell be nice to have in movies and maybe as objective, blow the plane

If you think about it that plane fly at high alt and needs hughe airstrips (doesnt it?) so I think its more suitable to have it realistic.

On the other hand it might be quite fun to glide across Nogova in such a large plane, maybe... I dont know.

Anyway. Good luck, your addon will be much appreciated no matter how you choose.

[Konyak-2 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lansen @ July 22 2002,14:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you think about it that plane fly at high alt and needs hughe airstrips (doesnt it?) so I think its more suitable to have it realistic.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, that sentance goes in a complete circle The fact that it does need long runways (2460 meters if I remember correctly), and that it doesn't make tight turns, is exactly why I shouldn't/can't have it too realistic for OFP.

I had to remodel parts of the plane to make it more texturable, so I am now pretty much at starting point, only I have sorted out all the problems hopefully Got the flaps working.. impressive to see flaps the size of cathedral doors come down

Konyak

[Gen.Carnage 0]

playability all the way man! what use will people have for a large plane if the hate flying it and cant let the ai fly it?

Try to balance it tho... dont make it just as agile as a jetfighter...:)

[KTottE 0]

I vote for realism. Make one active model with all the flight characteristics of a mountain =) and use that for cutscenes and stuff. Just flying straight ahead. Would look impressing to say the least.

Then you could have one inactive model, that would not be able to move, and would have an interior you could move around in. For cool hostage situations and the likes. Then, if you feel like it, you could have one take off/land model with the playable characteristics, and have scripted cutscenes whenever you take off/land using that model. No wait, I'm stupid, just have one static and one playable model, and use the playable when the plane's moving.

Then when the plane is on the ground you have the static model.

Does that sound like a plan?

Or did I just waste a whole lotta words on nothing?

[Antichrist 0]

I vote for realism as well. I mean now we only got small islands but in the future we are sure to get huge islands which are at least 100 * 100 km so we will need realistic Antonov.

Or you can release two versions of it one realsitc and the other one for the current OFP

[PSC 0]

Well, it's not easy to make a decision if we never had an own impression of what you said (*hint*, *hint*). But I think I tend to the realism side. Isn't there a way to make the plane a bit more agile whithout changing the Geometry LOD, only using the aileronSensitivity and elevatorSensitivity?

Anyways, if it is just too unflyable (even with a joystick), try to find a good compromise.

PSC

[Konyak-2 0]

Ok, this may sound ignert, but I've said it once and I'll say it again: I am a modeler, and CPP aint my speciality, so it is only in recent days, that I found that the sensitivity could be adjusted, and have added that into my cpp. After finding this, I realize that I could now probably make a full sized geometry that is flyable, BUT, it would still not be usable for AI. Here's why: AI uses a certain series of waypoints to make an approach that are built into the map. On Everon, for example, the first waypoint is a bit NE of Montignac, and the second waypoint is due east of Meux, pretty much inline with the runway. Third waypoint is the runway. Now, to make the landing possible, AI needs to hit first waypoint, then the second in succession, and that means he needs to make a turn that the real Antonov cannot make. As a result, AI will make endless turns, seeking to make the hit both waypoints in the right order. It never happens.

Right now, I have reached a point where AI can just about make the waypoints, and the flying isn't too jerky either, so I'm almost happy.

In the future we can make maps that have real runways, with proper aproach patterns that AI can use, and no trees near the runway so it has room to maneuver.

Right now, I think most will want to fly it and see the AI flying and landing it.. (pretty fun to watch with viewdistance at 2500 )

Thanks for all the input!

Konyak