Fixed Wing Flight Model (dev branch)

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Yep.I remember gameplay decision behind it - that in real aircraft you have this mode on but I personally know

for a fact that A-10 has console where you can configure number, time, sequence of flares, so I'm curious

about their gameplay decision.

I know i know, but it still makes zero sense what so ever. in Modern aircraft, you can configure countermeasures as you've said. They can also use it singular, which is possible, but unavailable in Vanilla content. There's no reason for it not to be available, AI can use countermeasure just fine as in Arma 2, had the same feature. It's just another thing that worked fine, that's been watered down. I mean it's not something a lot of people will loose sleep over, i don't, you probably don't, but, it was nice to have, ya know?

[soulis6 24]

I know i know, but it still makes zero sense what so ever. in Modern aircraft, you can configure countermeasures as you've said. They can also use it singular, which is possible, but unavailable in Vanilla content. There's no reason for it not to be available, AI can use countermeasure just fine as in Arma 2, had the same feature. It's just another thing that worked fine, that's been watered down. I mean it's not something a lot of people will loose sleep over, i don't, you probably don't, but, it was nice to have, ya know?

Not to play devil's advocate too much, but I can think of one reason not to have it in:

For whatever reason, not knowing you had single-flare selected, hitting it once during the panic of a lock-on, and getting shot down because you thought you had multi-flare fire on.

I don't necessarily think it's going to happen all the time, but it will definitely happen, I still sometimes don't realize i'm on single fire for rifles instead of full auto until firing, and I've been playing since the beta. It's not a huge deal, but I personally would do one or the other: either burst mode all the time for flares, or have it always be single-fire so you can hold the button down if you need to dump a bunch.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Not to play devil's advocate too much, but I can think of one reason not to have it in:

For whatever reason, not knowing you had single-flare selected, hitting it once during the panic of a lock-on, and getting shot down because you thought you had multi-flare fire on.

I don't necessarily think it's going to happen all the time, but it will definitely happen, I still sometimes don't realize i'm on single fire for rifles instead of full auto until firing, and I've been playing since the beta. It's not a huge deal, but I personally would do one or the other: either burst mode all the time for flares, or have it always be single-fire so you can hold the button down if you need to dump a bunch.

Keep it how it is in Arma 2 then, as suggested many times, Burs by Default, and no one will ever complain, as most don't even know the different modes exist. Meaning that they wouldn't try to switch, meaning they wouldn't end up panic flaring. I mean, there really is, no logical reason, not to have it in. However, i like your idea. Holding it down, that's intuitive.

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

Keep it how it is in Arma 2 then, as suggested many times, Burs by Default, and no one will ever complain, as most don't even know the different modes exist. Meaning that they wouldn't try to switch, meaning they wouldn't end up panic flaring. I mean, there really is, no logical reason, not to have it in. However, i like your idea. Holding it down, that's intuitive.

Personally prefer old arma2 way. When I was low on flares I switched to single.

flare.

Not keen on holding down a flare key.. As a keyboard flyer I already have to hold a key down for trust so holding two keys trimming and a mouse while engaging. Feel like playing a game of twister. Slight exaggeration but you get my drift.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Personally prefer old arma2 way. When I was low on flares I switched to single.

flare.

Not keen on holding down a flare key.. As a keyboard flyer I already have to hold a key down for trust so holding two keys trimming and a mouse while engaging. Feel like playing a game of twister. Slight exaggeration but you get my drift.

Very good points as well. I did bring up a proposal awhile ago to have thrust bar, exactly like the one for the Heli AFM. Its realistic, works 100 times better than holding down "Q" all the damn time. The Q on my Keyboard is almost gone.

[das attorney 858]

Very good points as well. I did bring up a proposal awhile ago to have thrust bar, exactly like the one for the Heli AFM. Its realistic, works 100 times better than holding down "Q" all the damn time. The Q on my Keyboard is almost gone.

Dude, if you are trying to make it more realistic, then a "thrust bar" would be really bad. Let's accept that they can't physically make planes better ever. They're WWII planes at best in this engine.

Maybe we can focus on the stuff they can make good/believable?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Dude, if you are trying to make it more realistic, then a "thrust bar" would be really bad. Let's accept that they can't physically make planes better ever. They're WWII planes at best in this engine.

Maybe we can focus on the stuff they can make good/believable?

I don't think you understand what I mean, else you'd understand it is more realistic. What I mean by bar, is throttle control. Think about it this way. You have a throttle in an airplane. You raise the throttle 50%. The bar is now half full. Push the throttle forward more. Now it's at 80%. You see what I mean now? Hell, planes since the First World War worked this way. Planes since they see invented, had throttle control.

[das attorney 858]

I don't think you understand what I mean, else you'd understand it is more realistic. What I mean by bar, is throttle control. Think about it this way. You have a throttle in an airplane. You raise the throttle 50%. The bar is now half full. Push the throttle forward more. Now it's at 80%. You see what I mean now? Hell, planes since the First World War worked this way. Planes since they see invented, had throttle control.

Look man, You're going about this in a really bad way.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?167067-Fixed-Wing-Flight-Model-(dev-branch)&p=2924806#post2924806

In that post, you basically say that Google Browser Flight Sim is "High Fidelity" and then you're talking shit about what would be the "more realistic" way of flight control.

It's obvious you have no idea how BAD arma's flight model is and there is no point of trying to make a realistic model.. It is fine for getting a jet-shaped aircraft to cruise overhead and fire cool-missiles at shit, but Arma cannot simulate wind properly, let alone thermals, jetstreams or any other physical systems that REAL planes deal with. Plus, the game cannot simulate a body travelling at +1500kph correctly so there is another MASSIVE FUCKING PROBLEM in the face of "realism" and using jet aircraft.

No offence because I get that you are super-enthusiastic about Arma, but at least have some recognition for it's limitations and really you should be realistic about what can be done otherwise you are just saying "yeah buddy, this should be more realistic, and yeah guy, this should be more realistic and yeah...".

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Look man, You're going about this in a really bad way.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?167067-Fixed-Wing-Flight-Model-(dev-branch)&p=2924806#post2924806

In that post, you basically say that Google Browser Flight Sim is "High Fidelity" and then you're talking shit about what would be the "more realistic" way of flight control.

It's obvious you have no idea how BAD arma's flight model is and there is no point of trying to make a realistic model.. It is fine for getting a jet-shaped aircraft to cruise overhead and fire cool-missiles at shit, but Arma cannot simulate wind properly, let alone thermals, jetstreams or any other physical systems that REAL planes deal with. Plus, the game cannot simulate a body travelling at +1500kph correctly so there is another MASSIVE FUCKING PROBLEM in the face of "realism" and using jet aircraft.

No offence because I get that you are super-enthusiastic about Arma, but at least have some recognition for it's limitations and really you should be realistic about what can be done otherwise you are just saying "yeah buddy, this should be more realistic, and yeah guy, this should be more realistic and yeah...".

I guess you have a point. I like setting the bad really high. But given the limitations, I guess that bad is entirely out of reach. However, maybe it's not. The Helicopters AFM would have been thought of the same way, far too complex for Arma's limited scope, yet BIS were able to implement a realistic, or sorry, "authentic" flight model. The same can be done for aircraft, but what I was saying was leave it alone. No rush. But the planes don't need to be going super sonic, we have no super sonic craft in game anyway. Not sure if the Yak-131 can do that speed IRL but what I've seen from demonstrations/airshows, it's a subsonic aircraft, but still pretty nimble. So having a proper flight model would be 120% logical in this case. It is what Arma deserves, it's not as complex to fly a fixed wing with a realistic FM like a Rotary Wing. Two different beasts. But anyhow. That's enough for another thread entirely.

[John Kozak 14]

I know i know, but it still makes zero sense what so ever. in Modern aircraft, you can configure countermeasures as you've said. They can also use it singular, which is possible, but unavailable in Vanilla content. There's no reason for it not to be available, AI can use countermeasure just fine as in Arma 2, had the same feature. It's just another thing that worked fine, that's been watered down. I mean it's not something a lot of people will loose sleep over, i don't, you probably don't, but, it was nice to have, ya know?

Speaking of real aircraft, I don't know any real aircraft where countermeasures button is on throttle/collective. So that's why it's usually in burst/auto - to press it once and get the hands back to flying.

F-16 example, buttons are on panel:

[moondawg 12]

Speaking of real aircraft, I don't know any real aircraft where countermeasures button is on throttle/collective. So that's why it's usually in burst/auto - to press it once and get the hands back to flying.

Incorrect. Most Countermeasure equipped aircraft have a CM button on the stick. At least

for F16/ A10C it controls chaff/flares and ECM/jammer, and selects programs that are set up in the countermeasure panel.

[oukej 2910]

.... cannot simulate wind properly, let alone thermals, jetstreams or any other physical systems that REAL planes deal with. Plus, the game cannot simulate a body travelling at +1500kph correctly so there is another MASSIVE FUCKING PROBLEM in the face of "realism" and using jet aircraft

I'm sorry but I don't think not simulating thermals or surfaces' behavior in supersonic speeds makes Arma airplane simulation completely doomed. :) I wouldn't consider these things as vital, even dedicated games don't always simulate them. Of course it always depends on what is the goal gameplay - in Arma the airplane role is more about combined arms, having some authentic pros and cons on the battlefield. The challenges of flight itself should support this purpose. But I wouldn't call that "cool-missiles shooting" only ;)

[x3kj 1247]

It's obvious you have no idea how BAD arma's flight model is and there is no point of trying to make a realistic model.. It is fine for getting a jet-shaped aircraft to cruise overhead and fire cool-missiles at shit, but Arma cannot simulate wind properly, let alone thermals, jetstreams or any other physical systems that REAL planes deal with. Plus, the game cannot simulate a body travelling at +1500kph correctly so there is another MASSIVE FUCKING PROBLEM in the face of "realism" and using jet aircraft.

No offence because I get that you are super-enthusiastic about Arma, but at least have some recognition for it's limitations and really you should be realistic about what can be done

Dude, if you are trying to make it more realistic, then a "thrust bar" would be really bad. Let's accept that they can't physically make planes better ever. They're WWII planes at best in this engine.

Maybe we can focus on the stuff they can make good/believable?

Overreaction much? If you want realistic everything you need to perform a DNS simulation and have a quantum computer from the year 3653 that can compute it in realtime. A simulation (particulary a real time simulation) always has to make compromises and be simplified. And i think you're very much underestimating how much could be done. All those things you mentioned are, in the end, just forces and torques that increase/decrease based on certain conditions and parameters. I agree with oukej, you don't need the ones you mentioned to create a believable and satisfying flightmodel...

Edited April 23, 2015 by Fennek

[John Kozak 14]

Incorrect. Most Countermeasure equipped aircraft have a CM button on the stick. At least

for F16/ A10C it controls chaff/flares and ECM/jammer, and selects programs that are set up in the countermeasure panel.

Okay, correction accepted. I was completely wrong, looks like most military aircraft do indeed have it. Disregard my post above.

Edited April 23, 2015 by DarkWanderer

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Now that that's settled, when I was referring to throttle, I was explaining how thrust should be with Arma 3 jets. You hold "Q", and it raises your thrust. Hold "Z" and it lowers your thrust. This means it's like in a Real jet, the pilot moves hoes throttle how ever much power he wants his plane to put out. Now we don't have to hold "Q" the entire time. As for countermeasures, yeah, we figured that one out. A high fidelity FM for fixed wing? Ok look. We don't need DCS level flight model or FSX level Flight Model. We need someone that's at least realistic enough. None of that thermal, wind, temperature stuff, that's really not needed. Hell, give us a proper flight model, and the community will create a wind mod for it, like they did with heli's. I brought up Google Earth's hidden sim for the sole reason of showing that it isn't something that takes up a lot of space. I've spent time flying around with it a lot in past years, and it has banking effects, proper lift with flaps and gear drag and all of it. Now that I think of it, I don't remember wind effects. But I'm going to test it later today and fly the max speed the fastest plane in ArmA goes. Just to get a feel.

[x3kj 1247]

and the community will create a wind mod for it

you are overestimating modding capabilities...

I brought up Google Earth's hidden sim for the sole reason of showing that it isn't something that takes up a lot of space.

??? What does HDD space have to do with complexity/ efford it takes to create it?

[das attorney 858]

The way I see it, planes in Arma are there to fill a role and they do the job well enough but it is as much a simulation of flight as GTA is.

I'm aware that the flight model in this game is a compromise, because the primary focus of the game is infantry.

I went about my previous post wrong in mentioning things like thermals etc. Helicopters are fun in this game but the big problem for me is the jets. The flight model doesn't seem to simulate transonic and mach 1+ handling well at all so planes are best off being subsonic which is probably a good thing given that the map size is too small to bomb about at 700+mph. The view distance barely qualifies as VFR and weather makes zero difference on the handling. Also having 1 hit location limits the gameplay severely imo.

They're ok if you want to call in an airstrike or somesuch but planes simply don't handle how they should and along with tracked vehicles and boats are the weakest aspects of the game by a mile.

[metralla 19]

The only way to ARMA 3 advanced flight would only be reasonable for "aircraft close attack", Ejem: A10C, Su25T etc ... supersonic aircraft are not valid from my point of view. The speed of these "aircraft close attack" that adapt well to ARMA3 and helicopters. :couch:

Simply because the maps are not big enough and that the role of supersonic aircraft using arma3 not make much sense. :popup:

my view just ok :)

Edited April 23, 2015 by Metralla

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

you are overestimating modding capabilities...

??? What does HDD space have to do with complexity/ efford it takes to create it?

I use to underestimate modders, but don't worry. You have no idea. The day i think i've seen it all, someone comes out with a black magic, or something no ones done. Cosmos Engine? Yeah, still a mystery. With that alone, he solved an issue with view distance, because over a certain altitude, there is no view istance limit. You can land on the f***ing moon. How does he do that?! Ok, and then there is Laxemann's soundscape, the only mod to bring about THEE best audio technology to the Arma series, ever. His sounds bounce off the terrain and make it sound better than BF4, even though the sound no longer fit the guns. Imagine if they did.

Back on topic however... Idk where i was going with the Google Earth thing, honestly. But i wonder what would happen if BIS implemented a test Flight Model, that was at least realistic enough, and worked within the limitations of current aircraft in game. For example, the Max speed of the Yak-131 is 1050 kph. This means that if there were a realistic flight model in play, it wouldn't have much of a difference in terms of speeds really, i mean the To-199 goes that fast anyway if you dive. So Map size is not a factor. You guys remember the SU-34 Fullback in Arma 2? That went faster than the F-35, and Chernarus is smaller than Altis. Meaning that there is a faster jet in Arma 2, for a smaller map. Map size, is not a factor here. As for the basics, it's fine for now. But i still stand at all of Arma's assets getting a better makeover, not now, but eventually. A proper flight model will benefit Arma in the long run too. I don't expect the AFM to magically disappear in Arma 4, it's in Arma 3, and to do away with something so beneficial to the series, would be devastating. It's about making advances, not making it "Ahh, it gets in the air, it goes faster than rotary wing, that's good enough". It will eventually need to feel like a proper fixed wing craft.

As Das Attorney stated, that's just one part of the bunch. A lot of assets need love as well, tracked vehicles, and my new personal favorite, Naval assets. (Yes, i took the most un-touched part of the ArmA series under the watch of my Eagle Eye)

Edited April 23, 2015 by DarkSideSixOfficial

[x3kj 1247]

I use to underestimate modders, but don't worry. You have no idea. The day i think i've seen it all, someone comes out with a black magic, or something no ones done. Cosmos Engine? Yeah, still a mystery. With that alone, he solved an issue with view distance, because over a certain altitude, there is no view istance limit.

There's a difference between a possible workaround using script based solutions and trying to change hardcoded behaviour. You can't access the flightmodel at all via scripts. Similarly, you can't modify how vehicle physx work. You can modify their config values but not the underlaying equations. And that's what oukej did with the Wipeout experimental config. The flightmodel / simulation itself wasn't touched. Only the plane-specific parameters.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

There's a difference between a possible workaround using script based solutions and trying to change hardcoded behaviour. You can't access the flightmodel at all via scripts. Similarly, you can't modify how vehicle physx work. You can modify their config values but not the underlaying equations. And that's what oukej did with the Wipeout experimental config. The flightmodel / simulation itself wasn't touched. Only the plane-specific parameters.

I know that. But that's not what needs to be done. What needs to be modified is the Flight Model. Then the configs.

[chortles 263]

You either miss the point of oukej's reason for posting that experimental config or find said config a waste of time in the first place... which is it?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

You either miss the point of oukej's reason for posting that experimental config or find said config a waste of time in the first place... which is it?

I... Actually didn't test it out. I was caught up with the Marksman stuff so i payed no mind to much else at the time. Is that experimental config still available?

[chortles 263]

I... Actually didn't test it out. I was caught up with the Marksman stuff so i payed no mind to much else at the time. Is that experimental config still available?

Still here as "Wipeout Configuration Test ", oukej previously posted about what it's supposed to do.

[John Kozak 14]

Still here as "Wipeout Configuration Test ", oukej previously posted about what it's supposed to do.

Does it work with the current stable?