Realist, Maybe, Balanced? You Decide.

[simba 0]

Quote[/b] ]And what bothers me the most out of

all of that is the Ka-50 pilot can be shot out, period.

Unless that glass was 6 feet thick, he should have

eventually died. The glass wasn't damaged at all, and

in a test with my friend, shooting the glass only does damage

to the over all aircraft, so it doesn't even register as glass and a pilot.

it is not realistic that the ka-50 can

sustain so many m107 rounds,

but your experimental conditions aren't either,

in RL you would be very lucky to touch the glass one time,

even with an automatic machinegun !

So at the end the game is realistic for this precise situation, however I was expecting better bullet penetration for Arma,

how it works now is nearly as bad as before, a cannon shell will destroy a wooden fence and dammage nothing behind,

a bullet will simply go trough.

I suppose now that when you do the model, and setup the fire geo lod, you can define parts of the model as being destroyed by anything, or define it as being destroyed only by shell or explosives.

there is nothing in the engine that calculates the penetration of the bullet taking into account the material thickness,the fracture toughness, bullet speed,...

The only solution I can see is to define for each bullet a penetrating value, when you do your fire lod in O2, you select the box that represents let's say the armored glass of the ka50, you'd give it a value wish would take into consideration the thickness and the material you imagine it is made of ( needs normalization ).

Imho this would make a much better penetration simulation, but BIS probably had it's reasons...

[nominesine 0]

Right now the controlled test is testing the glass structure of the aircraft. and the overall quality of armor on the engine. But I will also do a recording of them shooting me from the bottom and see who lasts how long.

Have you ever considered trying to enjoy the game?

[Whargod 0]

I'm with you on that one nominesine!

Like I said before, these are just test cases and don't actually happen in the game. Try the tests with the choppers flying around and a squad bearing down on you.

Also, why just pick on this one case? If you want to get technical, this game is ABSOLUTELY unrealistic! How many foot soldiers can climb out of a truck and into a helicopter and take off? Or after running the length of the island, take out two squads with a rifle at the objective?

Well, I know I can, but this isn't about me.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

ArmA is not realistic ATM but I think it has to go through improvements, you shouldn't make judgements upon a game being realistic until it's very last patch has rolled out - of course, bringing certain situations to attention might lead them to be corrected in a next patch...

Here's my "realism situation": I parked a Camel next to an AH-6 next to two M113s... I blew up the Camel with my M16, which in turn blew up the AH-6 and the two M113s... I mean, that the AH-6 would blow up I could still swallow, but the two M113s blowing up, that I couldn't understand...

Still, it made me laugh quite a bit, and I think that's important too!

[max power 21]

I, personally, think the game is realistic enough and well balanced enough. It certainly has its own character, and that character is a decent work of fiction on the subject of very small scale battles in the genre of videogames. It is quite an enjoyable game if you can un-nail yourself from the cross and forget how YOU think things SHOULD work. Trust me, I have my own opinions too, but this game as it is is very fun. I have never felt more confident that I am getting my money's worth out of my frivolous entertainment budget.

edit: I don't know.. interesting question. Could 14 he rockets going off simultaneously with several kg of fuel and 4000 bullets be dangerous to a nearby APC? It's probably never come up!

[Hostilian 11]

Quote[/b] ]IMHO there shouldn't be any "Balance" in a Military Sim either.

I dont think you would be playing the game for very long if you were the 'Poland' in your example. If you're getting raped by 3 times the amount of forces, superior tanks and shedloads of fighter bombers "every time you play one particular side" - you're not going to be a happy player.

You forget that this isn't JUST a military sim (some would argue that it's not at all).

You have players here who play -and compete in- Capture the flag tournaments (hardly very sim-like but fun and it must be Balanced).

You have players here that play CTI (Basically C&C in first person - and fecking brilliant) and I wouldnt describe it as military sim either. Yes it has some realistic tanks etc and tactics used may be 'as in the real world' but remember; Its a game, so it must be fun (and it is) and for that, balance is key!

You also have the Co-Op players - Surely, if anywhere, here is the area where 'military sim' fits in best. Here, balance is not as important, as there may be historical scenarios etc.

The other 99% play Evolution for some reason..

Please stop pidgeon-holing all players. This is not a military sim. It's more of a Military 'sandbox' with limitless possibilities.

#C

[Whargod 0]

I'm mainly a Co-Op player and I have no complaints from that side of things. It's great for that and the computer puts up a good fight most of the time.

Besides, I like being outnumbered and looking death in the face, it makes it more fun.

[frederf 0]

Quote[/b] ]it is not realistic that the ka-50 can

sustain so many m107 rounds,

but your experimental conditions aren't either,

in RL you would be very lucky to touch the glass one time,

even with an automatic machinegun !

Again, someone misses the point of the test. The test examines "What happens when a bullet tries to fly through the windscreen into the pilot." Using 1 M107 round that's on target is simply an easier way to test than firing 2000 0.50 cal rounds into the air and seeing what happens when the one round that hits hits. You extract the exact same information from the test, namely terminal effects. He's not testing the situation where the glass is hit, simply the effects of when it is hit.

And if you think that you have to be "very lucky" to shoot the glass on a helicopter, then you're delusional! The AI and players regularly hit aircraft glass with rifles, machine guns, and everything else! Trust me this comes up and comes up often. There wouldn't be 5 threads on this very topic if it didn't!

Quote[/b] ]Have you ever considered trying to enjoy the game?

T'is difficult to enjoy in a bloody heap after some Ak-74 sniped you out of an AH-1Z now is it? Isn't it fun to be a corpse!

Quote[/b] ]Like I said before, these are just test cases and don't actually happen in the game. Try the tests with the choppers flying around and a squad bearing down on you.

Also, why just pick on this one case? If you want to get technical, this game is ABSOLUTELY unrealistic! How many foot soldiers can climb out of a truck and into a helicopter and take off? Or after running the length of the island, take out two squads with a rifle at the objective?

Again, the test case is "bullet hits glass" and that most certainly happens in game. Are you suggesting that the damage modeling on helicopters is absolutely flawless if you never hit the helicopter or ignore the effects? That's like defending an M1A1 with 0.00001 armor by saying "Hey, just don't get hit!" or "Clowns sprung out of that BMP2 but I don't notice because I'm in a fire fight." Ridiculous.

He picks on this issue because it's:

1. Obviously biased toward the Ka-50 and eastern helicopters.

2. Is certainly fixable.

3. Effects his (and others' enjoyment of the game.

A soldier going from a truck driver to pilot is a widely accepted simplification of operator knowledge and makes up for the limited player base, finite AI, and patience of the player.

As far as running across the island and killing 2 squads. That's perfectly fine and correct.

Quote[/b] ]you shouldn't make judgements upon a game being realistic until it's very last patch has rolled out

What? Of course you judge a game by its current state. What utter poppycock. How would you know what to patch if you couldn't recognize what needs patching?

Quote[/b] ]I, personally, think the game is realistic enough and well balanced enough.

That's where the friction occurs. Some people think it's fine, some don't. He's one of those that don't. I disagree with his notion that balance should be built entirely into the equipment, but I do think that the damage modeling on the various helicopters in ArmA is significantly and game play-alteringly different from reality.

Quote[/b] ]I dont think you would be playing the game for very long if you were the 'Poland' in your example.

Even 100% realistic individual equipment would not produce a "Poland" scenario necessarily. The idea that "you can't make the equipment realistic then it'd be Poland 1939 all over again!" is a false one. The equipment has a natural balance to it so long as you don't make things really biased in the editor.

There are two very important myths which must be done away with:

Realism is not balanced.

Realism is the opposite of fun.

Oh crap I got so caught up defending the OP that I forgot to give my suggestions for changes to ArmA.

1. BIS should develop armored glass that is "caliber-selective" and/or able to degrade with damage.

2. Until #1 is done UH60, AH-1, Harrier, A-10, Mi-17, and KA-50 glass should be changed to the 100% armored type. MH-6 should remain the 0% armored type (right? isn't MH-6 plexiglass?).

3. AI should be changed to not shoot at the pilot when he's enclosed in an aircraft and also be less accurate against moving craft.

4. Armor levels of various helicopters should be examined and reevaluated to see if there are any obvious off values for armor.

5. A display of aircraft damage by component (like in tanks) should be added?

[Sevan 0]

the only reason most people like ArmA and OPF is because of realism over balance!

[USSRsniper 0]

Balance, if you want balance play your BF2.... Realism all the way!

[S-OS.bay 0]

sorry, i havent read all the posts, but i will just write my view on that thread now.

ArmA´s big point is that its kind of realism, or lets say: its more realistic than any other war game out there.

But as we know, VBS1 and 2 are the most realistic war-simulator on the market, but mainly for real army use.

So ArmA is just the computer game version of VBS-2, and since its a computer game it still should be fun, but there comes the point:

Is it fun to play an uneven game in PvP games?..is realism more or less fun?

This kind of questions can be answered just by everyones own kind of taste.

So its no sense to discuss about that, cause ArmA give us the chance to change everything in the game to give everyone the gameplay he wants.

If the M1A1 has more armour than T72, then just lower the armour of the M1A1 to the level of the T72.

If the BMP2 has rockets and the M113 not, then just disable the rockets.

and so on...

So you see, the missions-makers has all in their hands to make ArmA more balanced with the stuff and scripts that ArmA offers to us.

We can even use many kind of Addons already to fill the wholes of ArmA.

But since im mostly making missions for public games, i really have some problems in using the stuff which ArmA gives us, cause of the lack of Wood-Camo uniforms for the BLUFOR units.

RACS vs BLUFOR would be the only chance to make it more balanced for both sides, but so every side got the disadvantage of their shitty desert uniforms.

And RACS still have a bug in the overall scoring.

So PLEASE BIS give us the BDU uniforms for the BLUFOR units, just one and we would be happy!

EDIT: Arg, sorry, Frantic here, im just sitting at the PC of my brother and forgot to login with my account...sorry for that

[Mak 0]

To be very honest, in my opinion, the flight model in ArmA: Combat Operations does not accurately display a real flight model AT ALL. Helicopters aside, the flight model in the fixed wing aircraft in this simulation is no where close to "realistic". Not once have I experienced a black out, and not once have I seen these fixed wing aircraft measure up to half of what the real aircraft can do in real life, or vice versa. Took an A-10 up to just fool around and see what it's limitations were... My discovery was interesting. I found that flaps did not make hardly any difference in the flight model of the aircraft. Secondly when I was sure I had enough G's to experience a black out, or to even get close, the aircraft had trouble turning as it just slowed down in air speed. After gaining mach 1, I nosed down to experience a red out, and again nothing. I then pulled my CH Combatstick 568 to the back right position attempting to stall the aircraft. My A-10 kept doing off-centered barrel rolls until, not the plane, but I wanted to cease.

I tried the rudder, nothing, no response. Saw a slight yaw movement to the right and left, but overall, the aircraft did not change it's path or course.

Don't get me started on the extremely low ceiling or very limited flying altitude.

As for helicopters, I believe the flight model is drastically unrealistic. I understand this is a game, but it doesn't even measure up to any of the flight simulators out there. If BIS is developing this game for realism, why would you add unrealistic aircraft to ruin it?

[shataan 1]

Egads, THE worst examples of gameplay balancing= BF games and anything Novalogic made AFTER DF 2.

"Balance, if you want balance play your BF2.... Realism all the way!

the only reason most people like ArmA and OPF is because of realism over balance!"

I totally agree. Ya know, I hate the way alot of devs these days supposedly balance their games. Ya know what? I don`t play their games. Neither do I sit in their forums and whine about every teeny little bit of stuff done that I didn`t like.

I move on.... until I find a game more to my liking. Like... ArmA. There is a message here btw. :0)

[Whargod 0]

Regarding the flight model, do you want a flight simulator or an army sim? A flight sim would take most of the CPU power and leave nothing for the rest of the game. In terms of present day technology, it's a reasonable trade-off.

In 5 or 10 years, I believe there should be no reason not to have a fully implemented version of X-Plane riding inside an OFP-like game, but not today, it isn't going to happen.

[Mak 0]

Ender,

I'm not asking for a full fledge flight simulator in ArmA. I'm just saying if they aren't going to even make it "playable" and I really mean that, because the controls are terrible, well then they shouldn't have it in there at all. Helicopters I can see since they kinda float around and do their humble thing. But when they add fixed-wing aircraft into this game... it just doesn't make any sense! You can't do 10% of what you could in a real flight sim.

I think ArmA should be ground vehicles and infantry only. Maybe add some helicopters but definitely not fixed-wing aircraft... It's not needed and two, it just doesn't belong if they can't get the flight model moderately accurate. (Not to mention the controls).

[bobby budnick 0]

Ender,

I'm not asking for a full fledge flight simulator in ArmA. I'm just saying if they aren't going to even make it "playable" and I really mean that, because the controls are terrible, well then they shouldn't have it in there at all. Helicopters I can see since they kinda float around and do their humble thing. But when they add fixed-wing aircraft into this game... it just doesn't make any sense! You can't do 10% of what you could in a real flight sim.

I think ArmA should be ground vehicles and infantry only. Maybe add some helicopters but definitely not fixed-wing aircraft... It's not needed and two, it just doesn't belong if they can't get the flight model moderately accurate. (Not to mention the controls).

I totally agree with you. I also agree with Frederf's points. A few of us tried to bring up the point about the A-10 turning and stalling out and the crowd just jumped all over us. I would also rather see fixed wings removed from the game than the poor state they are in right now.

[max power 21]

To be very honest, in my opinion, the flight model in ArmA: Combat Operations does not accurately display a real flight model AT ALL. Helicopters aside, the flight model in the fixed wing aircraft in this simulation is no where close to "realistic". Not once have I experienced a black out, and not once have I seen these fixed wing aircraft measure up to half of what the real aircraft can do in real life, or vice versa. Took an A-10 up to just fool around and see what it's limitations were... My discovery was interesting. I found that flaps did not make hardly any difference in the flight model of the aircraft. Secondly when I was sure I had enough G's to experience a black out, or to even get close, the aircraft had trouble turning as it just slowed down in air speed. After gaining mach 1, I nosed down to experience a red out, and again nothing. I then pulled my CH Combatstick 568 to the back right position attempting to stall the aircraft. My A-10 kept doing off-centered barrel rolls until, not the plane, but I wanted to cease.

I tried the rudder, nothing, no response. Saw a slight yaw movement to the right and left, but overall, the aircraft did not change it's path or course.

Don't get me started on the extremely low ceiling or very limited flying altitude.

As for helicopters, I believe the flight model is drastically unrealistic. I understand this is a game, but it doesn't even measure up to any of the flight simulators out there. If BIS is developing this game for realism, why would you add unrealistic aircraft to ruin it?

LOL.

Blackouts aren't part of a flight model. That would be part of a person-model, wouldn't it?

Losing rudder authority as your speed climbs is realistic in that that phenomenon does occur.

Your complaint that this game, which isn't a flight simulator, can't compare to the level of simulation of a dedicated flight simulator is what inspired me to write this reply. What fun it must be to live in the world you live in!

There is nothing that is 100% true to life in this game. For instance, I don't know if you've driven a car lately... but cars don't slow down when you suddenly go from offroad to onroad.. depending ont he surface, they just get fucked up or slip or flip or all of the above. The flight model fits in well with the rest of the modelling.

[Mak 0]

I wasn't meaning to include blackouts into the flight model portion - your point is irrelevant.

Secondly the flight model is horse shit no matter what you try to argue.

Try taking up an A-10 or any fixed-wing aircraft for that matter and use right or left FULL RUDDER. You will notice a slight yawing motion and then nothing. It doesn't matter if you are going 200mph or 600mph.

You have failed to find where I make my point about where I stand on realism. As I said before, I understand Armed Assault is a simulation, maybe even a game, but I don't believe in the large variances in realism between vehicles and aircraft that it displays. How does the flight model fit in well with the rest of the modeling??

They have the infantry down to moving heads, arms, eyes, and even blinking motions. Yet, flaps and a landing gear have no affect on the flight dynamics for aircraft??? I can not believe you when you say the realism of the flight model compares well with the modeling for infantry and ballistics in this game.

So instead of laughing at my discoveries and opinions, why don't you make some REAL points about the REALism in this game.

And lastly, try out the aircraft for yourself, helicopters and fixed-wing and ask yourself how this compares to the modeling of the infantry. Hell, I can't even turn off my engine without exiting the aircraft or simply destroying it - If you don't see anything wrong with that, then you must be playing a different game, or are very misunderstood.

[frederf 0]

First of all Mak you are spouting about 75% rubbish.

Things you say which are wrong

1. Flaps/gear do not change flight model. They do, max speed and take off speed at the very least.

2. Rudder input should change flight path. It shouldn't. I'm a pilot, I've stepped on the rudder hard doing 120kts. The nose points 10 degrees maybe different in heading but the course is exactly the same. At 300 kts Falcon 4.0 gives you a few degrees of slip. More than ArmA but nothing drastic.

Yes the flight modeling isn't perfect, especially the fixed wing stuff. The only purpose of fixed wing in the game is really to support ground forces. Saying that g-force black/red-out isn't modeled is off base as it's beyond the scope of the extra part of the game. Aircraft are not the main focus of the game. There's a difference between "wrong" and "not included because it's outside the scope of the simulation."

What this has to do with the original topic is beyond me by the way.

I told you that HavocDemon would recieve a lot of flames for using the world "balance" and I was right. But it doesn't matter if the damage model is balanced or not... what really is the matter is it's not even realistic!

[max power 21]

You have failed to find where I make my point about where I stand on realism. As I said before, I understand Armed Assault is a simulation, maybe even a game, but I don't believe in the large variances in realism between vehicles and aircraft that it displays. How does the flight model fit in well with the rest of the modeling??

They have the infantry down to moving heads, arms, eyes, and even blinking motions. Yet, flaps and a landing gear have no affect on the flight dynamics for aircraft??? I can not believe you when you say the realism of the flight model compares well with the modeling for infantry and ballistics in this game.

So instead of laughing at my discoveries and opinions, why don't you make some REAL points about the REALism in this game.

And lastly, try out the aircraft for yourself, helicopters and fixed-wing and ask yourself how this compares to the modeling of the infantry. Hell, I can't even turn off my engine without exiting the aircraft or simply destroying it - If you don't see anything wrong with that, then you must be playing a different game, or are very misunderstood.

It fits in because it is simplified like everything else. Ballistics model? Simplified. Modelling of fatigue? Grossly simplified. Modelling of wounds? Grossly simplified. Modelling of body armour? Simplified beyond recognition. Modelling of vehicles systems? Nearly non existant. Modelling of penetration? Nearly non-existant. Modelling of infantry tactics? Grossly Simplified. Modelling of biopsychological features common to every soldier ie. supression vis a vis the will to live? Non-existant. Flight model? Are we surprised? Simplified, grossly so.

What does this get us? An economically viable product that is compatible with technology commonly available to the end consumer, and a very fun game.

And to be clear, your comparison with ArmA (which is more of an infantry simulator than anything) with a flight simulator, and expectation that it meet or exceed that stardard = LOL

Why not go whine on the Lomac forums about their failure to adequately simulate land war? Be sure to add lots of righteous indignation in that post too. Also discredit dissenting voices in feeble ways... as if the ownus is on me to disprove or somehow debunk your argument when you haven't actually made an argument worth looking at for me to debunk. Your premises are false, your logic is totally flawed, and many of your statements defy relevence.

[celery 8]

I play ArmA because the combat mechanics are more real than in other games. That means you die very easily, you can blend into the environment and staying alive while trying to be effective is a real challenge. Still I want balance in the game. I don't want every piece of equipment to be the same, but the vehicles on different sides should match each other a bit more closely. Instead of only T72, SLA should have T80 or T90 to match the heavy armor and firepower of the Abrams, and I'd like to see Bradley to be the counterpart of BMP. Having such an unbalanced collection of vehicles as right now heavily restricts how you can build a PvP mission without making it unfair for one side.

[simba 0]

Quote[/b] ]Again, someone misses the point of the test. The test examines "What happens when a bullet tries to fly through the windscreen into the pilot." Using 1 M107 round that's on target is simply an easier way to test than firing 2000 0.50 cal rounds into the air and seeing what happens when the one round that hits hits. You extract the exact same information from the test, namely terminal effects. He's not testing the situation where the glass is hit, simply the effects of when it is hit.

And if you think that you have to be "very lucky" to shoot the glass on a helicopter, then you're delusional! The AI and players regularly hit aircraft glass with rifles, machine guns, and everything else! Trust me this comes up and comes up often. There wouldn't be 5 threads on this very topic if it didn't!

I'm not sure I'm the one who miss the point,

I understand that he was testing the ka-50 glass resistance,

however it is not necessary to test something that won't happen MOST OF TIME.

ka-50 has a fixed cannon meaning that it's not designed

to hover close to the ground shooting "insurgents" like does american couterparts,

I don't recall being ever hit in the ka-50 windscreen in Arma and I pilot this chopper quite often.

Analysing the game piece by piece does not make any sense,

if the probability of an event is very low, it is less necessary to model it properly.

But if you don't mind to read my previous post until the end, you'd see we actually agree

it's just that I'm a step further

and yes I think hitting the small glass of a ka-50, flying at 200km/h, and quite far with a relatively low firing rate machinegun is hard.

So what do you propose then, a big physics engine mod from BIS or defining the windshield as penetrable ?

the first won't happen and second will be less realistic.

[frederf 0]

it is not necessary to test something that won't happen MOST OF TIME.

ka-50 has a fixed cannon meaning that it's not designed

to hover close to the ground shooting "insurgents" like does american couterparts,

I don't recall being ever hit in the ka-50 windscreen in Arma and I pilot this chopper quite often.

Analysing the game piece by piece does not make any sense,

So what do you propose then, a big physics engine mod from BIS or defining the windshield as penetrable ?

the first won't happen and second will be less realistic.

Selective quoting of sentences.

1. This test examines something that happens OFTEN. The frequency of "sniped out of cockpit" is not trivial.

2. The Ka50 only has a fixed cannon in ArmA. In real life it has a computer-slaved cannon mount.

3. Of course you don't recall taking a bullet in the Ka50's glass because the Ka50's glass is armored invincible. It's easy to forget a hit that didn't snipe you out. But it's easy to remember all the other snipe-outs that happen in the other aircraft.

4. I propose that BIS simply do with the other helicopters what it did with the Ka50... give it armored glass. Down the road all the details can be worked out like selective penetration and degradation of armor value over time. But right now just "round up" all the glass armors to invincible.

[recoill 0]

After a non useful first post on my behalf (sorry about that )

Then watching the videos on HavocDemon's first post again,

In particular the sections of the First Video

where it took 13 .50cal rounds to disable the UH - 60,

And 32 .50cal rounds to disable the MI - 17.

It didn't seem right that it took that many rounds to do the job especially on the MI - 17.

So i thought I'd do some experiments of my

own record the results and share them with the community.

After a few tests i hit the jackpot and found the Sweet Spot on both choppers.

Like a lot of things its all about Location,Location Location.

[kocrachon 2]

EDIT: bah need to redo the video, for some reason tis telling me it had an invalid ID.