optional alternative flight model

[4 IN 1 0]

I'm pro for changing the flight model.

Being a retired Army helicopter pilot and OFP, ArmA fanatic I've found that the flight model in ArmA is far, very far from realistic to flying a helicopter. Currently there are NO games out there that even compare to the military flight simulators I've used.

That just being my two cents, any kind of change would be nice. I'm guessing most want an easier flight model, but hey whatever makes the community happy wins, thats what I say.

we know that, but the point is that how to make it better

realistic wise...

BTW i find no matter how easy the FM is idiots always crash into something and kill everyone onborad(i have tried many times in the "Flying loveboat" OFP that i just bearly ejected out of the chopper with a few ppl while others stuck with that idiot pilot and get killed in such way), so make it easier to fly dont really change the problem i think

[max power 21]

This is a piece of entertainment software.

... as are flight simulators, driving simulators, train simulators, fishing simulators etc. But simulators are not the same as games. Mario Kart is a game, not a go-kart simulator. Falcon 4 is a jet combat simulator, not a jet combat game.

Bohemia don't market ArmA as "A new game from the creators of operation Flashpoint". They market it as "A new COMBAT SIMULATION from the creators of operation Flashpoint". There is a difference and it is not just semantic.

Yes, it's true, simulation games are a subset of the concept of games.

But you're very wrong when you list any of those games as not being games.

[vaaf_rup 0]

[seba1976 98]

I didn't say it should be difficult.

Oh but you implied it nevertheless. Having to spend time in learning to control choppers imply a steeper learning curve and so a more difficult approach.

[baddo 0]

Maybe it could be fair to have "Arcade" and "Simulation" flight models in ArmA. For multiplayer it should be possible by the server admin or by the mission designer to say which flight model is used for all players, so that the playground is level for all participants. So that in a hardcore coop missions the persons who have extensively trained to be good pilots will get to put their skills into use, and be an important factor in the missions. Lose your pilot and you're screwed as so to speak...

[max power 21]

I didn't say it should be difficult.

Oh but you implied it nevertheless. Having to spend time in learning to control choppers imply a steeper learning curve and so a more difficult approach.

Nope, I said that people should learn to fly. I didn't make any statement as to whether or not it should be difficult, whether it is difficult, or anything.

[seba1976 98]

The point is, either you do it and do it right, or not do it at all. If you want it real, then make it real, but if you don't dare nor want to make it the most realistic flight sim out there, then don't bother people with this absolutely absurd flight model - many real pilots and others can prove that - this will render choppers useless for most of the people. "Why should I spend time learning to control an unrealistic flight model? And worst of all, when I finally get to the point of being able to flight and maybe hit things on the ground, it will always be hard - hard meaning, not pleasant."

There was this great balance within OFP that allowed many people to get this sort of feeling of actually having been there, whether it was on foot, or an APC, in a plane, or a helicopter. I understand that there was always people who disliked this aspect of Flashpoint, and it even ruined their experience with the game because they felt that the FM was overly implified, that MBTs didn't do that in real world, etc. I know that, and I respect those opinions, but it seems to me that what those people want is to put Falcon, Longbow, Dangerous Waters, and Steelbeasts, all together. This kind of struggle will always exist around multiplatform simulators - or games - like OFP and ArmA - and the people who just wanted an improved OFP and the ones of this last group, will never agree. The last word is luckily for the first group, a question of numbers. It is up to the developers and publishers to decide, and what they will take into account - if they want to stay making money and good games - is how many people will buy their product. Right now, you can bet that most of the people is worried about the difficult of flying helicopters in ArmA. So by breaking this implicit agreement of simulating experiences and not machines, BIS is letting down most - not everyone but MOST - of the people that trusted them and gave them their money. So please BIS listen to this, you are not giving one thing nor the other. Either continue to simulate military experiences like you did in OFP, or turn the page and start making a good simulation of a tank, an APC, a hellicopter, an sniper riffle, a naval fleet, etc, and god help you if you do.

Cheers.

[max power 21]

So you're saying that BIS are not free to make their product the way they like it? Interesting idea.

[seba1976 98]

I didn't say it should be difficult.

Oh but you implied it nevertheless. Having to spend time in learning to control choppers imply a steeper learning curve and so a more difficult approach.

Nope, I said that people should learn to fly.  I didn't make any statement as to whether or not it should be difficult, whether it is difficult, or anything.

The more you simulate a real helicopter, the more difficult it will be to learn to fly it.

EDIT: I forgot the word "difficult".

[seba1976 98]

So you're saying that BIS are not free to make their product the way they like it?  Interesting idea.

Nope, I'm not saying they are not free - though that's an overloaded word - I'm saying something they already know. If they want to stay in bussiness they should be very, very careful with the realism slider of ArmA. There are few developers of flight simulators, and much less publishers ready to publish them. It's a decision they have to take, and it has its consequences. It's a difficult decision because maybe you want to make a game but the market is unwilling to sell it. Is that lack of freedom? Maybe it is.

[Banzai! 0]

Are you sure ARMA's wobbly ass chopper flight model is more realistic? Harder doesn't mean more realistic.

[max power 21]

So you're saying that BIS are not free to make their product the way they like it? Interesting idea.

Nope, I'm not saying they are not free - though that's an overloaded word - I'm saying something they already know. If they want to stay in bussiness they should be very, very careful with the realism slider of ArmA. There are few developers of flight simulators, and much less publishers ready to publish them. It's a decision they have to take, and it has its consequences. It's a difficult decision because maybe you want to make a game but the market is unwilling to sell it. Is that lack of freedom? Maybe it is.

You were saying something about an implicit agreement...

Any ways, I'm not sure why your alarm bell is blasting off like this. I'm sure that atari has already agreed to publish them in the USA, and I'm quite certain they've already tried out the flight model.

Quote[/b] ]

Are you sure ARMA's wobbly ass chopper flight model is more realistic? Harder doesn't mean more realistic.

According to some pilots on this forum, helicopters are much more unstable, but they have cues other than visual that let them know what the helicopter is doing. I'd imagine that means that actual helicopter pilots are 'busier'. I'm not sure whether that's more difficult or not.

[Beagle 684]

According to some pilots on this forum, helicopters are much more unstable, but they have cues other than visual that let them know what the helicopter is doing.  I'd imagine that means that actual helicopter pilots are 'busier'.  I'm not sure whether that's more difficult or not.

So why don't you grab your joystick and fire up FSX (Microsoft Flight Simulater X) with flight model complexity at maximum, take a ride in the Bell Jet Ranger and learn that you can fly it much more precise and with higher agility than a little Bird in ArmA.

Of course it needs more input, but this input ist physically more predictable even to casual flight Sim Users.

In fact it is easier because it just simulates how helicopters fly, no more no less. The greater difficulty only comes with bad weather conditions.

As said before, the fidelity of FSX (which is still a bit simplified compared to RL) does not need to be reached but can be a refference that ist available to everyone interested.

[max power 21]

According to some pilots on this forum, helicopters are much more unstable, but they have cues other than visual that let them know what the helicopter is doing. I'd imagine that means that actual helicopter pilots are 'busier'. I'm not sure whether that's more difficult or not.

So why don't you grab your joystick and fire up FSX (Microsoft Flight Simulater X) with flight model complexity at maximum, take a ride in the Bell Jet Ranger and learn that you can fly it much more precise and with higher agility than a little Bird in ArmA.

Of course it needs more input, but this input ist physically more predictable even to casual flight Sim Users.

In fact it is easier because it just simulates how helicopters fly, no more no less. The greater difficulty only comes with bad weather conditions.

As said before, the fidelity of FSX (which is still a bit simplified compared to RL) does not need to be reached but can be a refference that ist available to everyone interested.

Unfortunately I don't own, nor do I wish to own, FSX.

[Wolfrug 0]

*Shrugs to himself* Won't involve myself too deeply with the debate here, and I can't claim to have read every post, but IMHO the ArmA flight model (twitchy and unreliable as it may be) seems to me a lot more responsive than the OFP one. In OFP it was literally HARD to crash a helo, and practically impossible to do even a quarter of the manouvers (including simple things like looping and flying upside down) in a plane that you can with ArmA. Admittedly it was easier to aim and to avoid dying, but hey...that's part of the fun!

I don't give a rat's ass about realism, really : it's very playable, it's fun, it's challenging, it responds (as long as you don't treat it as the "real thing"), and it's usable without fifty million buttons, a super-modern joystick, and about 5000 flight hours under your belt. I'm happy.

Kind regards,

Wolfrug

[4 IN 1 0]

ok just an idea here, what Arma lack of is the agility rgr, so BI should improve things in agility, i guess most ppl would agreed, what the problem about all the bullets flying around is about stability, is it too stable? or is it UFO like as in the 1.00 FM? should it turn OFP flying ship style, BF nail-tip standing style, or something every body ever tried b4?

[seba1976 98]

Are you sure ARMA's wobbly ass chopper flight model is more realistic? Harder doesn't mean more realistic.

I'm not sure if this question was directed to me, since it follows my post but didn't quote it, and plaintiff1 have answered already. But just in case:

Not at all. And that's the whole point. No matter how you try, you wont get the real deal. So what's the point in complicating the fly and putting people off helicopters? Just make it simple like OFP and you got a winner.

Helicopters in simulators like Longbow and MS Flight Simulator 9 and X are considered the closer PC simulation has gone to the real machines, and yet they are very different from each other and you cannot jump right on between them. Even though, real pilots say they're far from real. Virtual pilots lack feedback when they try to fly with complicated flight models. That's all.

[seba1976 98]

So you're saying that BIS are not free to make their product the way they like it?  Interesting idea.

Nope, I'm not saying they are not free - though that's an overloaded word - I'm saying something they already know. If they want to stay in bussiness they should be very, very careful with the realism slider of ArmA. There are few developers of flight simulators, and much less publishers ready to publish them. It's a decision they have to take, and it has its consequences. It's a difficult decision because maybe you want to make a game but the market is unwilling to sell it. Is that lack of freedom? Maybe it is.

You were saying something about an implicit agreement...

Any ways, I'm not sure why your alarm bell is blasting off like this.  I'm sure that atari has already agreed to publish them in the USA, and I'm quite certain they've already tried out the flight model.

The implicit agreement being that OFP simulates experiences and not machines. One of the two options to simulators. So what's with that?

And my alarm bell is blasting off like this because despite all we can say, what's done it's done, and it is unlikely that BIS return to anything so easily flyable as helicopters in Operation Flashpoint. They will go back and forth, back and forth, tweaking this and that, patch after patch, but honestly, I think my pilot career in OFP/ArmA series is over So yes, it is a personal cry that unfortunately represents many people.

They got a US publisher alright. The US publisher is not at all interested in the flight model, otherwise games with equally unrealistic yet complicated flight models like Battlefield Vietnam and Battlefield II would never got published. "The most realistic combat simulator ever" is appealing to people, but at the end, we have lost something. Few people will fly, use, and enjoy helicopters in ArmA, just as few people fly well in the Battlefield series.

[max power 21]

I see your point but I don't agree. Flying isn't that hard. If people don't want to spend 2-4 hours getting used to the controls, it's their loss. I find the flying much more rewarding in ArmA.

[Dallas 9]

Seriously it's not an impossible steep learning curve, but I do like in a game that claims to be a simulation rather than a shooter that people have to atleast make an effort.

[seba1976 98]

I see your point but I don't agree.  Flying isn't that hard.  If people don't want to spend 2-4 hours getting used to the controls, it's their loss.  I find the flying much more rewarding in ArmA.

If you see my point then I'm satisfied . No need for agreement.

[seba1976 98]

Seriously it's not an impossible steep learning curve, but I do like in a game that claims to be a simulation rather than a shooter that people have to atleast make an effort.

Of course it's not impossible, I know. I played Longbow II everyday years ago, but now I'm done with that. I understand your position, it's the same position of everyone that's into simulation.

The thing is about what you want from a game. At this point, I'm done with the efford. Real life is enough, you know. It is everyone's right to get experienced with flight simulation on a PC. It is my opinion that people should do themselves a favor and try MS Flight Simulator, Enemy Engaged, Lock On, or Longobow, and that OFP/ArmA should never go that way, but it is bound to be a biased opinion because I've already done that and I don't want to do anymore efford in a game. All I want is the game to be inmersive, that it would be able to produce a "suspension of disbelief". OFP was great at that, and ArmA too, except for flying. Isn't that a real shame?

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]OFP was great at that, and ArmA too, except for flying. Isn't that a real shame?

Are you looking for sympathy, then? I don't know if it's a shame that you don't like the flight model. You tell me. I certainly don't agree with your premise that the flight model isn't immersive, though. If you don't feel like putting the effort in, don't fly. When you feel like flying, play ofp. And, by the way, we're talking about a very small number of hours to get used to the controls enough to be able to function in an online environment, and then after that all you get is better from there.

[Maddmatt 1]

I never want the OFP flight model brought back. I'm sure the flight model in ArmA isn't like the real thing, but it is still an improvement.

It allows you to pull off more advanced maneuvers, could you flip a small chopper 360 degrees in OFP like you can in ArmA? In OFP when you tilted the choppers to the side a bit they still wouldn't move. It was hard to get them to move sideways properly. Now in ArmA the physics with choppers seem a lot better.

Only problems I see in ArmA flight model are that the collective and rudder seem a bit underpowered.

[Jack-UK 0]

I never want the OFP flight model brought back. I'm sure the flight model in ArmA isn't like the real thing, but it is still an improvement.

It allows you to pull off more advanced maneuvers, could you flip a small chopper 360 degrees in OFP like you can in ArmA? In OFP when you tilted the choppers to the side a bit they still wouldn't move. It was hard to get them to move sideways properly. Now in ArmA the physics with choppers seem a lot better.

Only problems I see in ArmA flight model are that the collective and rudder seem a bit underpowered.

What he said.

And anyone who finds it hard, seriously, how long have you tried to use the flight model? I can fly all choppers/planes fine with a keyboard and mouse. Sure, its not as ideal as a joystick with ubah featurez but its easy... If you want to get the best out of a flightmodel get a joystick. Or live with a mouse and keyboard which give you a decent functionality.

30 Minutes practise is all it takes.