Personal ArmedA Review

[Stealth3 0]

By saying helicopter control system, he obviosly didn't mean the BUTTONS you use to fly the copter as they can be custom changed. He meant the way the helicopter handles, and thats the same as the physics.

[DrBobcat 0]

I interpreted that part of the review as an exception - the other helicopters behaving (relatively) correct while the Mi17 being particularly incorrect.

But that's just me...

- dRb

[swtx 42]

Very informative, I give it an A+

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Thanks for the positive feedback, lads.

And yeah, I was talking about controls vs physics, but any constructive criticism is good.

[Scrub 0]

Yay this is my 2nd custom title! lol (just noticed that bit.)

Very nice. I agree with everything you wrote except the controls. IMHO I believe the rudder needs to be more effective in the harrier, and the helos need to not hang so much at a 45 degree angle at speed (translation into a turn) but that's my beef. Very well done

Would you be willing to compare this review against a newly patched ArmA and report any changes you notice? That would be a welcome piece of news.

[max power 21]

By saying helicopter control system, he obviosly didn't mean the BUTTONS you use to fly the copter as they can be custom changed. He meant the way the helicopter handles, and thats the same as the physics.

LOL you're so screwed up, buddy. Obviously trolling? I dunno. He said the flight model for helicopters is good on the whole, but he didn't like the way the mi-17 flew. Difficult to understand? I didn't think so... but I guess... So let's spell it out. There's a difference between rules and properties. The flight model is a set of rules that interprets certain properties that each helicopter has. Some properties of the helicopters are the same, in that they are able to fly, and some are different, like their weight and control sensitivity. He likes the RULES and probably the PROPERTIES for some helicopters, but not the PROPERTIES of the mi-17.

[BraTTy 0]

Nice review , just jealous I'm not playing it yet

[Stealth3 0]

By saying helicopter control system, he obviosly didn't mean the BUTTONS you use to fly the copter as they can be custom changed. He meant the way the helicopter handles, and thats the same as the physics.

LOL you're so screwed up, buddy. Obviously trolling? I dunno. He said the flight model for helicopters is good on the whole, but he didn't like the way the mi-17 flew. Difficult to understand? I didn't think so... but I guess... So let's spell it out. There's a difference between rules and properties. The flight model is a set of rules that interprets certain properties that each helicopter has. Some properties of the helicopters are the same, in that they are able to fly, and some are different, like their weight and control sensitivity. He likes the RULES and probably the PROPERTIES for some helicopters, but not the PROPERTIES of the mi-17.

Correction, he said the physics are wrong, and there are enough videos to prove that.

ARMA is just a game. It doesn't have a sophisticated code for each helicopter in the game. In fact the codes are similar with few irrelevant changes. So is not the MI-17 thats the problem, is the way the air dynamics is coded. This is seen in every chopper, but because of the size of the MI-17, it makes it more obvious.

But let me make it simple for you.

Take the function f(x): x^2+2x-4/x^3+x+5

Locally it looks completely different from 1/x, very different, but globaly its similar to 1/x. In fact, very similar. Same concepts with the air dynamics in ARMA.

[Yarrow 0]

f(x): x^2+2x-4/x^3+x+5 similar to 1/x? Dont get it. Excuse me, I am very tired, but I would say that the value of the two functions are very different. Since 1/x is a small value, f(x) would produce a big difference.. blććh, i go bed nau, aj em slipiiiii..

[Stealth3 0]

Graph the functions then get back to me. You will see what I mean. Different locally, similar globally

[Yarrow 0]

hmm.. you mean similar because they both have the same asymptotes? because they still behave differently (look differently as well since f(x) is of higher order or whats it called in english). when x->inf => f(x)=inf, 1/x=0. Although they both are NaN when x->0. please explain the similar part, it has been a couple of years since i took calculus.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

...I'm confused.

@Scrub - sure, I've got the patch on my USB right now, when I return home tomorrow I'll have a squiz.

[max power 21]

Correction, he said the physics are wrong, and there are enough videos to prove that.

ARMA is just a game. It doesn't have a sophisticated code for each helicopter in the game. In fact the codes are similar with few irrelevant changes. So is not the MI-17 thats the problem, is the way the air dynamics is coded. This is seen in every chopper, but because of the size of the MI-17, it makes it more obvious.

But let me make it simple for you.

Take the function f(x): x^2+2x-4/x^3+x+5

Locally it looks completely different from 1/x, very different, but globaly its similar to 1/x. In fact, very similar. Same concepts with the air dynamics in ARMA.

You're hanging on semantics and highschool math... :/

Nice try. He said he liked the flying but there were 2 problems with flying in general, and he didn't like how the mi17 was set up because its flight characteristics were counter intuitive. He didn't say anything about the complexity or realism of the flight model. Kthnx.

[Stealth3 0]

What I meant with the function is to give an example and make a point. Like I said, they don't look similar locally (with small values), but globally (with large values) they become identical. Everything else but the x^2/x^3 becomes insignificant. Therefore the larger the value, the more identical to 1/x.

Anyway the point is that in ARMA, the choppers look different, but the way they act is very very similar because of the code that they share. Unfortunately this is true with planes and choppers.

So saying the physics are wrong for the MI-17 and right for everything else is just not right.

But like I said, I doubt the physics are realistic for the choppers. They don't act right and it seems they share the same (or very identical) code as the planes.

But feel free to show some videos that disprove all the other videos about the choppers so far.

[robert(uk) 0]

lol I love that smiley. Been waiting to use it for ages...

[max power 21]

What I meant with the function is to give an example and make a point. Like I said, they don't look similar locally (with small values), but globally (with large values) they become identical. Everything else but the x^2/x^3 becomes insignificant. Therefore the larger the value, the more identical to 1/x.

Anyway the point is that in ARMA, the choppers look different, but the way they act is very very similar because of the code that they share. Unfortunately this is true with planes and choppers.

So saying the physics are wrong for the MI-17 and right for everything else is just not right.

But like I said, I doubt the physics are realistic for the choppers. They don't act right and it seems they share the same (or very identical) code as the planes.

But feel free to show some videos that disprove all the other videos about the choppers so far.

We can do this all week

He said that he doesn't like the properties of the mi17. I'm not sure that your intimate knowlegde of parabolic curves is translating well into a knowledge of how programming works. If it's possible to tweak helicopter handling by reassigning weight distribution per vertex in order to get more realistic feeling values, and the other helicopters feel right, then it's the values that are the problem Forget about end behaviour, we're talking about mathmatics but not necessarily about parabolic functions. I think you're forcing an application that's not analogous to the problem. The flight model isn't a simulation, and that's all there is to that. The reviewer said the helicopters are fun to fly and they aren't that hard, but that the hip feels too agile. That's all there is to that. He didn't contradict himself, and no amount of hammering on grade school math is going to show that he did.

[Stealth3 0]

Whatever plaintiff. Theres one way to solve this, and that is for the Cameron to clear it for us.

[yarex 0]

What I meant with the function is to give an example and make a point. Like I said, they don't look similar locally (with small values), but globally (with large values) they become identical. Everything else but the x^2/x^3 becomes insignificant. Therefore the larger the value, the more identical to 1/x.

Anyway the point is that in ARMA, the choppers look different, but the way they act is very very similar because of the code that they share. Unfortunately this is true with planes and choppers.

So saying the physics are wrong for the MI-17 and right for everything else is just not right.

But like I said, I doubt the physics are realistic for the choppers. They don't act right and it seems they share the same (or very identical) code as the planes.

But feel free to show some videos that disprove all the other videos about the choppers so far.

We can do this all week

He said that he doesn't like the properties of the mi17. I'm not sure that your intimate knowlegde of parabolic curves is translating well into a knowledge of how programming works. If it's possible to tweak helicopter handling by reassigning weight distribution per vertex in order to get more realistic feeling values, and the other helicopters feel right, then it's the values that are the problem Forget about end behaviour, we're talking about mathmatics but not necessarily about parabolic functions. I think you're forcing an application that's not analogous to the problem. The flight model isn't a simulation, and that's all there is to that. The reviewer said the helicopters are fun to fly and they aren't that hard, but that the hip feels too agile. That's all there is to that. He didn't contradict himself, and no amount of hammering on grade school math is going to show that he did.

I'd really like to now, who from you people that are complaining about realism of helicopters actually ever flew with some of them that he knows how it really should behave in the air.

You can't expect that game sucha arma is will cover every aspect of reality as others simulators that are more specialized do.

Not today and not on todays hardware, but maybe in arma 3,4 who knows.

Arma offers so many different things that its really on limits that todays home computers can handle. And am talking not just about graphics, but about complexity of the whole world. None other single game can offer you that freedom.

[Stealth3 0]

It doesn't matter what ARMA has to offer as long as you don't enjoy it now does it? And 95% of the people don't enjoy flying in arma because of the flawed dynamics. That says it all. And that goes for any game.

[max power 21]

I don't know if many people would enjoy flying a realistic helicopter simulation at any rate.

[Maddmatt 1]

I don't know if many people would enjoy flying a realistic helicopter simulation at any rate.

Man are you serious???

[max power 21]

Not many people enjoy flying a realistic fixed wing aircraft simulator, either. If they were popular, il2 would be much more popular. Of course I'm serious.

[Maddmatt 1]

Not many people enjoy flying a realistic fixed wing aircraft simulator, either. If they were popular, il2 would be much more popular. Of course I'm serious.

Well you're wrong. Sure more people play Battlefield 2 since it's simple. Lock-On was popular enough to have 2 expansions (one of which was a helicopter sim). There is Falcon 4, the new MS Flight Sim X. Also you can buy many addons for Flight Sim 2004 and now Flight Sim X is also getting addons. They make money otherwise they wouldn't be made.

Same goes for Race Sims.

[max power 21]

LOL, yes, flightsims have a following. I didn't say they didn't make any money. Do they make Halo money though? Your argument is ridiculous because you're putting words into my mouth. People play BF2 because it's an FPS. The helicopters in BF2 are designed the way they are because it is an FPS. This is also an FPS, and must be accessable to an FPS crowd, not an FSX crowd. I'm not saying that subsets of the FSX crowd are not also in the FPS crowd, but this game is about inclusion, not exclusion. Kthnx.

[Maddmatt 1]

LOL, yes, flightsims have a following. I didn't say they didn't make any money. Do they make Halo money though? Your argument is ridiculous because you're putting words into my mouth. People play BF2 because it's an FPS. The helicopters in BF2 are designed the way they are because it is an FPS. This is also an FPS, and must be accessable to an FPS crowd, not an FSX crowd. I'm not saying that subsets of the FSX crowd are not also in the FPS crowd, but this game is about inclusion, not exclusion. Kthnx.

Well ArmA doesn't make "Halo money" either. It's more realistic than most FPS games and that is one reason is isn't as popular. Sure making ArmA chopper handling as realistic as a sim would be too much, but it's nice if it's atleast semi-realistic (like what it's suppose to be according to interviews). I haven't played ArmA so I don't know what the heli control is actually like.

Besides, difficulty settings are the best way to increase the appeal of the game to more people. So those who don't like the handling to be realistic can turn settings down.