optional alternative flight model

[vaaf_rup 0]

I'd echo that it's not so much that experienced pilots or sim geeks can't fly it, it's more that it's constantly irritating. e.g. my first flight experience:

OK, pull in some collective, bit of left pedal (or, in my case, left twist because there's no multi-controller support). Wait, nothing's happening. OK, bit more collective. Hmm, still nothing. Maybe something's wrong with my controller? Lots of collective - ah, there it goes. Mental note - large control inputs required. OK, touch forward on the cyclic. Hmm, nothing's happening. Oh wait, large control inputs remember? Bash cyclic forward, ah there we go. Pull in collective and pedal to compensate - oh wait, I'm going up. That shouldn't happen. Oh no - the collective is just an up/down control in this game! That sucks. OK, huge cyclic and collective inputs, no secondary effects, collective is just an up/down control, let's go fly. 10 meters - that's a bit high, I'm getting a nosebleed. Get back down with a little bunt. Oh, nothing's happening. That's right, use collective. Oh dear, this is dreadful. Off we go, cruising into the sun. Ooh, nice effects with the light flicker through the rotor. Shame they didn't put that much effort into the flight model! Flying to waypoint, bit of a hill coming up, back on the cyclic. BACK ON THE CYCLIC!!! Ah, remember, use the up/down lever. Hang on, it's not working. Oh right, use LOTS of up/down lever. That's better. The loadmaster can get those leaves out of the wheel struts.

Still, at least you can't pedal turn at 150 knots...

[rick rawlings 2]

Think you're having difficulty witht the flight model? I saw a video on the Military channel of a guy doing a landing in a hot LZ during Vietnam and he actually banged the tail rotor pylon into the ground when he flared. Real life, game, seems no one's completely happy with their flight model...

Rick

[klasodeth 0]

Nice post!

I think they dumbed it down for us mortals too.  I've flown small, piston, fixed wing craft (meaning little, old cesna), and I like to fly simulators.  I find the helis challenging yet pleasant to fly, but difficult to maneover precisely.  I would like to try out a simulator with the details that you mentioned... but have you seen the piloting on the JIP servers  There are some really good pilots and good guys out there, but oh my God, what you propose would almost necessarily result in piles of burning support vehicles and clusters of dead troops surrounding piles of torched, upside down helicopters.  I support the points you make, but the initial effect of it would make playing online quite frustrating to say the least!

Besides having the buffered 'easy' flight model Rune suggested, another way avoid the dreaded 'aircraft graveyard' scenrio would be to have a certification process, kind of like what America's Army has--only more involved.

In America's Army, snipers have to successfully pass a sniper training mission in order to be able to select the sniper role in multiplayer missions. A server keeps track of player accounts and their qualifications, so that for any given account, someone had to pass that training mission in order for that account to be eligible to select the sniper role.

For a similar system in Armed Assault, imagine having a series of single-player missions in which the player is required to perform specific maneuvers or accomplish specific goals with a helicopter. If the player is successful, the results can be logged and the player is then eligible to fly helicopters. As an effort to avoid problems with people getting their flight-sim junkie friends to pass the test for them, periodic recertification could be required. Perhaps statistics could be tracked, such as 'Mean Time Between Crashes', and if a player is spending too much time augering into the ground, the certification can be pulled until the player requalifies.

The obvious drawback to this arrangement is that a lot of programming would need to be done to support server-stored player accounts.

[frederf 0]

I've considered a script that runs on a server and records the names of pilots that crash with a timestamp and won't allow them to fly again until X time has passed.

Stats about how many times a player has gone down in a coop in the last 30 days would be a hilarious feature. Really shakes your confidence when you look up the pilot of your helo has 40 crashes this month.

[Bingo 0]

I would be all for flight certification. It doesn't stop the whoring of helis on pub servers, but would reduce the amount of crashes killing all on board.

Certification would, imho, be optional for a server. Whilst servers not running vehicle certification would attract a bad crowd (perhaps), it should be sortable in the browser (along with other filters)... only show me servers that have certification enabled.

Some may argue that this restricts the players ability to play as he or she sees fit on public servers, but I believe that this is better than the current "free for all" state of most MP FPS's out there currently.

[Rune 0]

In OFP you could go quite a long way, through scripting alone, towards making a system to prevent bad pilots from ruining other people's fun. But it requires saving and loading data in multiplayer, which currently does not work in ArmA

(except for using some sort of external tool and a process that could well break down with each ArmA patch)

If there was some scripting option like in OFP, you could do it in many ways, like the suggested certification-missions that you had to pass before flying online in missions that supported the system. Or you could use some direct performance based system of blocking players from acting as pilots if they crashed too much. You could even make a voting system, open only to passengers to rate their pilot, potentially grounding him based on that rating. You could also just make a simple hint that pops up as you board a helicopter, letting you know how many passengers have died flying with this pilot, on average, per hour of flying or something like that...

Obviously such a system would be a nicer and better integrated feature if it was developed as a 'real' feature of the game itself by BI, but they only need to open up a couple of commands for use in multiplayer to allow some form of community-made solution so for them that should be the easiest way to make their game much greater...

...Yet another reason to want saving in multiplayer to work in ArmA

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]

Been hearing many people online grumbling about the flight model on helicopters being too difficult - I DISAGREE!! They've also been stating that 1.06 will make it simple. NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

[WWS]WarWolf, where did you hear this information? I'm skeptical of any new information I get on 01/04- things like Gmail Paper and TiSP by google, and Project Reality's alleged arrest by the government of Britain for distributing defense secrets abound... If this is a serious post I would like to know the source of this statement.

[Beagle 684]

Btw.

The gros of members in this thread ist not talking about dumbing down the FM. We are talking about making it more real, just read the suggestions from the real life Pilots here, or at SimHQ.com...what else shall we exspect from a game that pretends itself more of a SIMULATION.

at present it has even come to attention of the casual helo Simmer that thare are quite a handfull of wrong flight charateristics.

To work around those can not be the right way.

[Jack-UK 0]

You said that 'u cant fly with keyboard and mouse' and thats completely incorrect. I have not once used a joystick with ArmA and i can fly helicopters and planes perfectly fine.

30 minutes practice is all you need. Its much more fun too, feels like there is more control in ArmA than OFP, its one of the Pro points of ArmA IMO.

[ArMoGaDoN 0]

Just wanted to say it out loud, didnt find this thread til afterwards.  Wasn't a joke thread, just heard folks grumbling online on servers that they found it too hard, text chat and teamspeak, and others answering them saying 'it'll be fixed / easier' in 106... Words that sent a chill through me as I'd hate for ArmA to be dumbed down, rather the opposite if possible as per most of the comments on this thread.  Sorry if not clear.  OFP got trashed after 1.92 when they put that stoopid 'MUST centre the view' thing in the code when u tried to use  the POV, I ended up just using 1.92 offline and never bothered much online after they screwed 1.94 up.  I dread a repeat of a similar disappointment yet again with a FM change-for-the-dumber or another POV nightmare. k?

[max power 21]

WarWolf @ April 02 2007,16:23)]Just wanted to say it out loud, didnt find this thread til afterwards. Wasn't a joke thread, just heard folks grumbling online on servers that they found it too hard, text chat and teamspeak, and others answering them saying 'it'll be fixed / easier' in 106... Words that sent a chill through me as I'd hate for ArmA to be dumbed down, rather the opposite if possible as per most of the comments on this thread. Sorry if not clear. OFP got trashed after 1.92 when they put that stoopid 'MUST centre the view' thing in the code when u tried to use the POV, I ended up just using 1.92 offline and never bothered much online after they screwed 1.94 up. I dread a repeat of a similar disappointment yet again with a FM change-for-the-dumber or another POV nightmare. k?

It sounds like those grumblings are just wishful thinking from people who were discouraged from actually taking some time to learn to fly. I haven't heard anything about the flight model changing in 1.06. Although this doesn't mean they're not going to change it, I wouldn't get alarmed about it until it's time to get alarmed about it, if you know what I mean.

[seba1976 98]

It sounds like those grumblings are just wishful thinking from people who were discouraged from actually taking some time to learn to fly.

Please allow me to step in.

Learn to fly? I'm sorry but what are you talking about? That would not be a legitimate efford put into control a real helicopter aircraft, it would be a needless struggle to regain control of air space in our beloved game/simulator.

There are two approaches to simulating flight in computer games. One is to simulate the machine itself. In those you yourself are put in front of the more or less accurately simulated cockpit of the aircraft, and let the truth be said: if you actually get to the virtual sky and do something - other than crashing - it's because it was not well simulated, or you're a real pilot - and even so there is the posibility of crashing because of lack of feedback from the machine.

The other way is to simulate what a real pilot would feel under flying conditions. The aircraft you have to control is overly simplified to compensate your lack of real training - which take years and millions of dolars invested in you by the military. This way what you are simulating is the experience of an experienced pilot, you are very aware that flying real aircrafts must be very much difficult, but once you're on the batlefield - or over it - you'll get very realistic feelings. In other words, by eliminating the very thing that differenciates you from a trained pilot, you can have a pleasant and rewarding experience.

OFP was so great at it, that took me away of Longbow and Enemy Engage and allowed me and many others the possibility of coming close to what real pilots feel under combat situations.

So to sum it up, you are not learning to fly by any means, you are only learning to know what to expect from your input controls in this new - and wrong - twist of ArmA. Right now Arma is not doing anything right, not the first approach, not the second. It is not simulating the real responses from the real helicopter aircrafts, but it is not allowing you to take to the skys as experienced pilots of real life would do it either.

Just my two cents, about the most dissapointing part of ArmA, in my opinion.

Cheers.

[DVD 0]

.....

OFP was so great at it, that took me away of Longbow and Enemy Engage and allowed me and many others the possibility of coming close to what real pilots feel under combat situations.

So to sum it up, you are not learning to fly by any means, you are only learning to know what to expect from your input controls in this new - and wrong - twist of ArmA. Right now Arma is not doing anything right, not the first approach, not the second. It is not simulating the real responses from the real helicopter aircrafts, but it is not allowing you to take to the skys as experienced pilots of real life would do it either.

Just my two cents, about the most dissapointing part of ArmA, in my opinion.

Cheers.

Thats it.

[Beagle 684]

Just my two cents, about the most dissapointing part of ArmA, in my opinion.

No, thats armoured vehicles. Specifically MBTs are the most disappointing.

Helos could be much better with just more tail rotor authority above 60km/h, more sentiven controls anyway, a higher turn rate with bank and aditional lift when pulling up...thats all. Maybe some transitional lift with speed increasing.

Oh... Ka-50 needs to get it's turreted gun, but that's all... no magic new UFO flight model at all.

The FM in Microsoft Flight Simulator X would be a nice benchmark that does not need to be touched but should be aimed at...this FM can't be named "dumbed" because it is close to real.

I dont understand this talking about dumbing down.

[max power 21]

Please allow me to step in.

Learn to fly? I'm sorry but what are you talking about? That would not be a legitimate efford put into control a real helicopter aircraft, it would be a needless struggle to regain control of air space in our beloved game/simulator.

Yes. Learn to fly... like, learn how to play helicopters in the game. .. Just like how people have to learn to shoot because the rifles are zeroed for 400 meters... or learn to drive, because I see people oversteering into buildings and trees and wrecking cars all the time.

In otherwords, learn to play the game.

If I'm getting your post correctly, you're arguing with my use of the word 'fly', which is categorically ridiculous.

[Beagle 684]

Please allow me to step in.

Learn to fly? I'm sorry but what are you talking about? That would not be a legitimate efford put into control a real helicopter aircraft, it would be a needless struggle to regain control of air space in our beloved game/simulator.

Yes.  Learn to fly... like, learn how to play helicopters in the game.   .. Just like how people have to learn to shoot because the rifles are zeroed for 400 meters... or learn to drive, because I see people oversteering into buildings and trees and wrecking cars all the time.

In otherwords, learn to play the game.

If I'm getting your post correctly, you're arguing with my use of the word 'fly', which is categorically ridiculous.

O.K. So why not just better and smoother controls...!

Something that allows you to aim your unguides rockets even at 150Km/h but keeping all the abilities that allready are in...well and transitional lift of course.

The current FM just needs tweaking to give helos more natural flight envelopes.

[seba1976 98]

No, thats armoured vehicles. Specifically MBTs are the most disappointing.

Well at least you can USE them

[madrussian 347]

Respecting everyone's opinions and all, I have to agree with a lot of folks here.  Current flight model very well may be OK...

but it's tough to tell right now because the flight controls are so screwy.

I don't know, maybe a big part of what's wrong has to do with how the camera reacts... the whole pendulum thing and how when you turn you can't completely see where you're going right away.

Maybe more rudder authority will help, maybe not.

One thing I can guarantee you though, currently you can make helos do things in the game that are IMPOSSIBLE in real life.  If you don't believe me, just move your joystick side to side quickly and watch that sucker swing away!!!  

Not sure what it will take exactly to fix things, but it's just... screwy right now.

So screwy I'd rather not "learn" it atm.

EDIT:

Should clarify I am talking helos here, fixed wings seems fine to me.  Also using 1.5, etc.

[seba1976 98]

Yes.  Learn to fly... like, learn how to play helicopters in the game.   .. Just like how people have to learn to shoot because the rifles are zeroed for 400 meters... or learn to drive, because I see people oversteering into buildings and trees and wrecking cars all the time.

In otherwords, learn to play the game.

And why should ArmA be made more difficult to "learn to play" it? To indulge in the false pride of saying: "I know how to 'fly' in ArmA"? It would still be an skill adquire by hours of practice, like any other skill, with no other reguard than the formation of an elite. Why do you want ArmA to be more difficult to play than OFP? It should be more rewarding, more compelling and more inmersive. I'm sure you do know that most people out there consider OFP "too difficult" already? Those people should be invited to ArmA and not taken away by making the game more difficult than what it is.

To me, the "realism" - what a word, ah? - is just about fine in OFP. The changes should be taken elsewhere, like teaching the AI to drive, or to advance tacticaly, for example.

[max power 21]

I didn't say it should be difficult.

[vaaf_rup 0]

And why should ArmA be made more difficult to "learn to play" it?

If we were talknig about Mega Chopper Combat Extreme on the Wii then I would agree with you. However this software is being marketed as a "combat simulation" and not as a "game".

The opinions here, from many people educated and experienced in real-world helicopter flight (which, by their own marketing, Bohemia is attempting to "simulate") is that the helicopters behave in a manner that does not truly simulate what a helicopter does when you apply control inputs.

It is not about harder/easier (in fact, real helos are in some respects easier to fly than even the best simulation) it is about whether or not the publisher actually wants to treat the helos as part of the simulation or whether they are intended just to be a "gamey" diversion.

Having spent a lot more time in ArmA since my initial post on the topic, I have of course learned to "play the game" better and can control the helos with a lot more precision. But I stand by my comments that the model leaves a lot to be desired as a "combat simulation". A decent simulation is one where a real-world operator is immediately at home without having to learn to compensate for the sim's deficiencies. I am a real-world helo operator and this was not the case with ArmA.

[max power 21]

Let's not let the term simulator run away with us. This is a piece of entertainment software.

[vaaf_rup 0]

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.

[4 IN 1 0]

so did they say that it would be the "flight,driving,sailing,shooting,screwing around simulators"

really why you ppl likes to playing words game all the time?

anyway what the control and FMs are wrong are everything that Beagle said, tweak it and it would fit every letters that a "combat simulators" should have mean, which is combat, and surely much more realistic then say, BF?

[azdood 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.