Please don't forget helicopters advance physics

[Japo32 17]

... and I am afraid about that, because Dayz doesn't have such physics and ARMA Reforger is based on Dayz.

And more focus in ARMA4, please add advanced physics into planes, and extend the visibility beyond 12km. A plane with 2-4 km is totally "useless" (of course not, but it is not fun at all). Even I thought that ARMA4 would be bigger maps with procedural objects and textures as a possibility. 

 

And of course, the possibility of control with any axis joystick connected as in ARMA3. Or Mouse axis if anyone want to.

 

Thanks!

[Animal_Vader 7]

It´s Ok if you want to include console users, but PLEASE don´t step back in simulation.

[sarogahtyp 1108]

8 hours ago, Animal_Vader said:

It´s Ok if you want to include console users, but PLEASE don´t step back in simulation.

 

On the contrary, I hope that BI will make great progress on this point!

Because if you take a closer look at the physics scripting in Arma 3, you will sooner or later realize that the physics simulation in Arma 3 is a very optimized and thus unrealistic thing. There are reasons for exploding helicopters that have been rammed a bit by small quads. And there are reasons why these 60 ton tanks fly hundreds of meters through the air...

 

I assume very much that physics should get simulated better in AR and Arma 4 as well.

[superfish128 17]

On 6/3/2022 at 2:22 PM, Japo32 said:

... and I am afraid about that, because Dayz doesn't have such physics and ARMA Reforger is based on Dayz.

 

 

This is actually untrue, Reforger is the first game to be run by the enfusion engine. It's a common misconception though, but Dayz is still run by real virtuality engine, if you don't believe me look it up that's fine. Dayz only uses Enfusion for rendering and a couple minor things, but physics and the such are the same engine as Arma, also just a heads up for anyone else BI didn't develop Dayz standalone either, probably why helicopters are so different. Anyway jsut wanted to clear that up, I hope helicopters are done well as well, but we will see when they get here. I don't think there is anything to really worry about significantly. Arma 3 EA was worse than this

[dragon01 902]

Believe it or not, consoles being a consideration is actually a good thing for helos. The reason why? Analog sticks. One thing consoles have over a typical FPS-focused gaming PC is analog input, which you really can't do without in a realistically modeled helicopter, and only with great, great difficulty in a realistic fixed wing aircraft. Flying with a keyboard simply isn't flying. Gamepad isn't ideal, either, but there are actually people who use them for DCS. Mostly because they're so cheap compared to even an entry-level HOTAS and take up less space. A gamepad gives you a great number of analog axes to work with, meaning you can not only make analog elevators, ailerons, throttle and rudder, but you can even spare the other stick for the radar cursor, which would be far more comfortable and realistic than "TAB-lock" of previous ArmAs. This would also move the targeting pod camera, another thing that should be on a cockpit display and not a full-screen view that prevents you from flying the plane in a meaningful way.

 

IMO, BI should deprioritize, if not completely abandon, the idea of making aircraft viable to effectively fly via keyboard. This is a radical notion in this community, I know, but it's easy enough to get a USB gamepad for PC, and of course serious flyers typically already have a HOTAS, anyway. If they would take that step, only providing the bare minimum of functionality to users without analog axes, this would enable BI to spend all dev resources in the flight modeling department on the "AFM" for helos and planes, which, with analog input, are actually easier to fly than the silly thing we had in ArmA2. Also, by optimizing for analog input from the start, I believe a much better flight experience could be achieved, overall. I'm not asking for DCS-level FM modeling or anything like that, but merely for BI to approach the aircraft with a "simulation" mindset rather than "game" one. Performance documentation for many 80s era aircraft is freely available, and a flight model based on a lookup table that would be fed data from a real chart could be quite satisfying to fly. Downscaling airspeeds and weapon ranges is also unneeded even if the map is no larger than Altis, since with a 80s Cold War setting, BVR combat was very limited and pretty much only done by F-14 and MiG-25 (and even then, the Tomcat wouldn't always carry Phoenixes), with all the other restricted to SARH missiles. These aren't very good in BVR, so engagements would typically end up in a dogfight (which suits me fine, I like to get in close and personal 🙂). 

[sarogahtyp 1108]

8 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

One thing consoles have over a typical FPS-focused gaming PC is analog input

you have no clue bout how many pilots (and others) on PC are using Joysticks, Pedals, Thrust Controls, Steering Wheels or even Gamepads... and how well those are working also in Arma 3

[sarogahtyp 1108]

12 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

IMO, BI should deprioritize, if not completely abandon, the idea of making aircraft viable to effectively fly via keyboard.

Fortunately, that won't happen and never will.

[dragon01 902]

13 minutes ago, sarogahtyp said:

you have no clue bout how many pilots (and others) on PC are using Joysticks, Pedals, Thrust Controls, Steering Wheels ... and how well those are working also in Arma 3

I do, I have a 400$ Winwing HOTAS, and while I haven't used it for ArmA yet (not enough time lately), I did use my CH HOTAS since ArmA2. 🙂 However, many, many more people will not have these. This is why I said "FPS-oriented". Of course a flightsimmer will have all that hardware, but the FPS market is far, far larger than the hardcore flight sim one. The issue is not in support for those devices, but rather with lack of focus on analog controls. ArmA was always keyboard first, with analog axes tacked on later, and analog throttle for jets was only put in rather late, previously it was like Ace Combat. Reforger, IMO, should change that approach, focusing on analog controls for aircraft in particular, with keyboard support being tacked on just so that you can still sort-of use them if you don't have at least a gamepad.

2 minutes ago, sarogahtyp said:

Fortunately, that won't happen and never will.

I wouldn't be so sure. Helicopter AFM in ArmA3 is already hard to use via keyboard+mouse. Yes, you can probably manage it, if you practice a lot, but that's not what it's meant for. We want BI to move further in that direction, since now many players will be on console, with enough analog controls to make for a fun experience with a realistic flight model. 

[Japo32 17]

I am not saying that ARMA REFORGER removes the easy flying phisics. I want them to include BOTH as they are in ARMA3. Then User, or Servers, can force what they want. Always ADD never remove options that we have already.

I hate play 3rd person view, BUT I am glad, the 3rd view option is still there (I would like to have the option to oclude AI detection, when in 3rd view to not ruin the first person players our playability while in COOP mode)

[stburr91 1002]

5 hours ago, dragon01 said:

 

 

IMO, BI should deprioritize, if not completely abandon, the idea of making aircraft viable to effectively fly via keyboard.

 

Why would BI remove the capability to fly aircraft for virtually all of their player base? Frankly, that just defies logic.  

[dragon01 902]

6 hours ago, stburr91 said:

Why would BI remove the capability to fly aircraft for virtually all of their player base? Frankly, that just defies logic.  

Because the "keyboard first" approach limits what they can do with aircraft physics, plain and simple. Making it possible to be reasonably effective using non-analog inputs would essentially be holding the helo physics back. The only way to fly a helicopter with keyboard is with arcade physics, not anything realistic. And the problem with optional arcade physics is, they introduce different rules for different players. You want to avoid that in a multiplayer game.

 

Also, I haven't said it should be removed completely. It should be a backup option, acknowledged to be inferior, and given minimum support required to stay possible. Just like in TKOH, flying without analog inputs is possible, but not recommended, and that's not the way it's meant to be flown. The approach should be "gamepad/flightstick first" in this area, with realistic physics and limitations (so, no autohover in an 80s Huey, though an early Apache from that time might have it). Hopefully, growth in the console area will be sufficient to reprioritize it as such.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

It's in my honest belief that helicopters should use the Advanced Flight Model without the brutal punishment of vortex ring state and other phenomena, just to keep things simple and fun without taking away the simulation element. 

[dragon01 902]

VRS toggle should be kept, although it should be set server-side, of course. I'm pretty sure VRS as we have it in ArmA3 is exaggerated. In a real helo you have to try to get into VRS, settling with power is more common but easily countered through proper technique. However, this is just about the only thing that could be easily disabled. The rest of the difficulties are just helos being helos, controlling a highly dynamic machine such as that is never going to be super-easy.

[en3x 209]

On 6/6/2022 at 3:41 AM, superfish128 said:

 

This is actually untrue, Reforger is the first game to be run by the enfusion engine. It's a common misconception though, but Dayz is still run by real virtuality engine, if you don't believe me look it up that's fine. Dayz only uses Enfusion for rendering and a couple minor things, but physics and the such are the same engine as Arma, also just a heads up for anyone else BI didn't develop Dayz standalone either, probably why helicopters are so different. Anyway jsut wanted to clear that up, I hope helicopters are done well as well, but we will see when they get here. I don't think there is anything to really worry about significantly. Arma 3 EA was worse than this

 

I feel like it has more parts than just rendering. The animations and movement systems as well - you can jump while running, climb over obstacles stuff like that. Unable to have in Real virtuality engine.

[dragon01 902]

It might be hacked together for DayZ, like ArmA3, it pushes the boundaries of what that engine can be made to do, just in different ways. 

[Kristian 47]

DayZ uses at least rendering and player controller from Enfusion. At this point DayZ has some features even reforger doesn't have. For example when you turn your head in DayZ in freelook, the entire upper body rotates slightly with it, making it look really natural. Reforger simply turns the head, like in previous ArmA games. Also in DayZ, when you turn around in while prone the character can turn on their back, like in Ghost Recon Wildlands, which is really immersive and nice in my opinnion, but back to helicopters:

 

If I got what I wanted, it'd be something of a mix between squad and take on helicopters. I really like that Reforger has in-cockpit actions now in vehicles, but also quick start-ups (pressing R to start instead of looking for the ignition in a vehicles dashboard). ArmA 3 had really basic flight physics in normal mode. Can't speak for advanced flight model, but I think we should have a singular, universal mode in reforger, not multiple.

 

I also really, really wish we'd get walkable interiors in vehicles already. Walking inside a Ch-47 or an Mi-17 while in-flight would be really cool. I almost got exited when I realized you can climb in the back of trucks, but as soon as the truck moves you slide off. Top sad, I know.

 

Squad has simple, yet working and semi realistic flight controls, have a see:

Whereas A3 has "press this to move up and this to move down". A3 helicopters also respond instantly and sharply to user input, which is not the case with real helicopters. Fixed wing aircraft do react immediatly, rotary wing do not.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Quote

I also really, really wish we'd get walkable interiors in vehicles already.

Not many games can provide this kind of detail, and when they do it's because the feature set itself is fundamental to the focus of the game itself. Such a feature would mean the Arma series could definitely provide more immersion and also it could actually implement naval assets well, but, it'd have to be a focus. Only game i know that pulls this off is Star Citizen, where they've developed a "Physics Grid" system, where you can store physics grids inside other physics grids seamlessly, meaning you could walk around inside of an IFV that is driving around the cargo bay of a larger vessel. I don't see Arma ever possessing the capability unfortunately, and the amount of time to develop some a feature? They could make a few more Arma titles in the same timeframe probably.

[Kristian 47]

Quick disclaimer, before anybody goes on to read the reply I make, please be aware:

 

VBS is developed by Bohemia Interactive Studios, not Bohemia Interactive. They are two separate entities as of 2013

VBS has backing of military funding, so obviously they get focus on features militaries need to simulate

VBS is not a game

Arma will never be VBS

 

Videos pre-set to correct timestamp, if needed.

That being said, VBS has some dope stuff going on in regards to physics, walkable moving spaces and such.

 

EDIT: ADDED 25.6.2022

 

DayZ footage:

 

So its doable. in RV, in Enfusion, and in their Hybrids.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Kristian
Added additional videos showing VBS Helicopter footage

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

On 6/15/2022 at 3:34 PM, Kristian said:

I've seen videos of people walking in the back of a flying helicopter in VBS too, but recently this was made possible in DayZ too via modding:

 

So its doable. in RV, in Enfusion, and in their Hybrids.

I've never seen it done in RV, ever. I've seen it attempted with crude scripts, but that's the extent of it... however, those DayZ videos you posted are serious news to me, that looks actually feasible as a genuine feature if only the desync wasn't so noticeable. But that could actually be really amazing if BI make that standard for larger vehicles, we could see actual naval vessels, larger heli's and larger ground vehicles with the capacity to have people move within and on top of the interior spaces. How much work and how complex of a rabbit hole this could be though, is another story, and do the benefits outweigh the costs. Also how do you allow NPC's to also make use of these spaces without extensive advanced coding? 

[Kristian 47]

3 hours ago, CaptainAzimuth said:

I've never seen it done in RV, ever. I've seen it attempted with crude scripts, but that's the extent of it... however, those DayZ videos you posted are serious news to me, that looks actually feasible as a genuine feature if only the desync wasn't so noticeable. But that could actually be really amazing if BI make that standard for larger vehicles, we could see actual naval vessels, larger heli's and larger ground vehicles with the capacity to have people move within and on top of the interior spaces. How much work and how complex of a rabbit hole this could be though, is another story, and do the benefits outweigh the costs. Also how do you allow NPC's to also make use of these spaces without extensive advanced coding? 

 

My guess is that truck beds, helicopter interiors and such where "walkable interior" for players would be feasable, the AI would get in and sit in a specific seat as it currently is. Although I'm sure if vehicles supported this, some absolute madlad would propably make them work with AI jumping in and staying in until "get out" command is issued 😅

[Kristian 47]

Finally found it! It was older video than I thought so it took me a while. I'll add this to my previous link-collection too for future reference. So this is running on older version of VBS, running on a VBS variant of RV engine. It has apparently always been possible, but never a priority.

 

[devilslayersbane 28]

On 6/17/2022 at 11:45 AM, CaptainAzimuth said:

I've never seen it done in RV, ever. I've seen it attempted with crude scripts, but that's the extent of it... however, those DayZ videos you posted are serious news to me, that looks actually feasible as a genuine feature if only the desync wasn't so noticeable. But that could actually be really amazing if BI make that standard for larger vehicles, we could see actual naval vessels, larger heli's and larger ground vehicles with the capacity to have people move within and on top of the interior spaces. How much work and how complex of a rabbit hole this could be though, is another story, and do the benefits outweigh the costs. Also how do you allow NPC's to also make use of these spaces without extensive advanced coding? 

Well, if BI found a way to make navmesh's part of a model object similar to how the nav-paths-and-points of the RV engine work, it would be feasible. That being said, while I haven't looked into the navmesh generation for reforger, at least for dayZ it's a generation done after a terrain version has been finalized.

[Japo32 17]

I have seen that in the road map, the only physics included in it is the standard one. Of course we always will have DCS to have "real" physics, but it would be a shame (a disaster) that Bohemia would forget to include the advance physics in their helicopters, as well as they did a better job with their vehicles. 

Of course I understand that if you have to include something first, are the standard ones.. but a roadmap is a plan for all that it has to come, so it worries me a lot that the "advanced helicopter physics" are not included, because this is pinacle where ARMA4 will be.

https://gyazo.com/20dfdfa51a3d0833ea31d945d61e1421

[MrJazzy 0]

I really wish Arma 4 preserves advanced flight model. Also, more HOTAS recognition would be nice. The main problem in Arma 3 is some axes are defined as key modifiers. I.e. I try to bind something and it recognized as y axis + key, and won't work outside this boundaries. Arma 4 should allow modders to create DCS like aircraft with complex systems. And I wish view and object distance be improved.

[Gylden_Drage 2]

I would definitely love for A4 flight to feel like flying does on A3. 

 

and as others have mentioned in thread.   Please BI don't scale back on simulation just because were including console gamers.