Flight Simulation

[bravo 6 0]

As we all know Flight Simulation in ARMA was/is bad.

I hope BIS change the Flight Simulation for ARMA2.

I would really like to have a better and improved Flight Simulation in ARMA2 for each Air vehicles, giving a special touch into the game as a Ultimate Combat Simulator in every perspective. Ground, Air, and maybe sea.

I would like to say that the Flight Simulation in Lock On and in FSX are very interesting in a good way. Specially in Lock On.

As FSX might be too much to ask.. (maybe not).. but,

i would like to suggest to make a Flight Simulation similar to Lock On, because it would be more appreciated and enjoyed by all core fans out there, IMO.

Vote for a better and a Realistic Flight Simulation for ARMA2.

Hope BIS can make it as it should!

As Realistic as possible, instead crappy Flight Simulation like in ArmA.

[Heatseeker 0]

To have that you would need an incredibly large environment and draw distances, ever wondered why the non crappy flight sims have crappy ground detail?

Dont forget that the game has to acomodate fixed, rotary, infantry, armored, sea, etc in it.

I cant vote for a pure flight sim, i can vote for an overall improved vehicle simulation but expecting a full flight, naval and ground sims in one single package is unreasonable to ask for..

[bravo 6 0]

BIS want to be ambitious.. as they said.

I hope and i believe they still are since 2001.

I also believe and wait for an improved View Distance in hole general.

Thats why i ask this in a suggestion mode. Imagine how many people would join ARMA2 just for that purpose...

Lock On was recorded in a CD, 700mb. ARMA2 will be in a DVD.

Make use of that DVD in a special way and taste.

Yes, the ground has low details. Though they are really incredible from the air.

Like: i don't lag on ArmA while i fly with 3000m VD. All could be adjustable.

With the new engine for ARMA2 i have the feeling they would be able to make this work perfectly. (i don't know, i just say what i believe and hope).

BIS do what you should do, or what you said you would do

Don't disappoint me or the core Flight Simulator Fans.

BIS!

[ricnunes 0]

I also vote for an improved aircraft handling in ArmA2.

While I'm not asking for a hardcore flight sim (like Lock On or Falcon4 or Jane's Longbow2) I would like to see the aircraft in ArmA2 much more improved from what we have now (which is basically the same as in Operation Flashpoint).

Here's what I would like to see improved (regarding aircraft) in ArmA2:

1- For starters, I would like to see better avionics like a FLIR/Visual Targeting Systems similar to the real ones instead of that wierd radar system that we have now. Note that I'm not asking for the same detailed level of avionics that Jane's Apache Longbow 2 have (while I woudn't mind at all ), but I would like to see something that resembles a real FLIR system.

For aircraft like the Harrier, I would like to see something similar to a real radar (mayble similar to Jane's USAF).

2- Regarding flight models, I actually like the helicopter flight models very much as they are now so I don't ask for much improvements here but I do ask for a major improvement on fixed wing aircraft which IMO suck big time! I would like to see a proper throttle system in fixed wing aircraft and not the "digital one" that we have now (you either have full throttle or NO throttle).

3- I also would like to be able to arm and/or to change the aircraft weapons loadout at will instead of being limited to a "fixed" loadout which a particular aircraft version has. Also I would like to be able to arm an aircraft with more than one type of guided missiles such as for example 2xSidewinder and 4xLGBs in an Harrier or 8xHellfire, 2xRocket pods and 2xSidewinder in a Cobra Helicopter as they can carry in real life.

4- Please (when actually I beg), add countermeasure system to aircraft (which carry then in real like, of course) such as RWR (radar warning receivers), missile aproach warning systems and of course Flares and Chaff decoys to spoof enemy incoming missiles.

5- One other thing that I would like to see improved is the damage model of aircraft. I would like to see for example more diferent kind of damages on aircraft and improved survivibility on crash landings so that emergency landings become more survivable.

6- It would also be great to be able to fire a weapon while playing as a soldier which is transported inside a transport helo (such as a Backhawk).

[funnyguy1 0]

I cant vote for a pure flight sim, i can vote for an overall improved vehicle simulation but expecting a full flight, naval and ground sims in one single package is unreasonable to ask for..

To be honest, I don't care that much about planes, as (even with the viewdistances maxed to the limits) ofp/arma islands are too small for realistic missions with planes not just for airstrikes or CAS.

However, I have to disagree with you about the overall improoved vehicle simulation, as I can see absolutely no problems to create e.g. tank simulation 100% similar to SB in arma. It's just a matter of crappy mission design, default spotting/engagement ranges and ballistics. (remember the wip realistic tank firing addon and NWD rangefinder?), and lack of thermals/FLIR etc. etc.

More or less the same goes to helos, with the exception of flight model, it should be changed to even more realistic, but that's not a problem, since the one we have now isn't very bad.

I mean, what viewdistance you need to properly simulate tanks/APCs/helos? I think 15km is enough.

To me it's a matter of campaign/missions design. I agree though, that ArmA will never be a full flight/ground/naval sim.

[Inkompetent 0]

Ahh! Someone on the same track as myself!

40x40km is waaaay too small for use of airplanes, I totally agree on that.

Just as a reference, at cruising altitude and speed (let's say 25'000ft and 300kts) I will in one minutes flight time (about enough time to aquire ground targets on radar and sort them out from the ground clutter) cover a distance of 9km.

If we think it's silly to fly at 25'000ft at a 40km map we'll get down below the obvious air radar coverage and down to the "hard to hit" zone: 400ft.

If you don't want to get shot down by MANPADs or machinegun fire (assuming you don't fly an A-10 or Su-25 that are built to withstand normal machineguns) you'll probably have to fly 450kts, meaning you'll cover 13,5km a minute, and at that altitude you more or less can't target anything at all by radar. Possibly with Mavericks or visually, but more likely you'll need spotters on the ground or JSTARS high up to point you in the right direction to drop your bombs.

As a reference we can take the SA-6 radar guided surface to air missile. It is a 40 years old design and not unlikely to find in the hands of whatever rebels are in ArmA2. It has a horizontal range of 3-24km and vertical range between 150 and 40'000ft, having a speed of mach 2,8 (about 1700kts).

This reduces the aircraft to have 16km to operate at, assuming the SA-6 is stuck in a far away corner of the map.

And don't even get me started on the Patriots since they'd cover the entire map.

From the above it is easy (at least in my eyes) to see that fixed wing aircraft (aside from possibly a Cessna or alike) has no place in ArmA2. not until we get a map that is 500x500km or so.

As funnyguy1 wrote I think it is more important to focus on tanks, AFVs and rotary wing aircraft that do have a real place on a battlefield of this size and give them more real controls and use. Reactive armour, laser ranging and thermal imaging on tanks, buddy-lasing and -marking with helicopters for CAS missions, infra-sensors, rappeling, firing hand held weapons as a passenger and so on.

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Aircraft was never the main focus in OFP or ArmA. BIS have made them fine IMO. If you want a flight simulator, buy one. It's sort of like me asking for iron-sights in Quake.

Asking them to make them totally realistic is like asking President Bush to travel to the moon in the next few seconds: Futile and it's not needed. There's also so much about ArmA2 and today's hardware that prohibit BIS from adding aircraft as more than a minor addition to the ground combat.

[sbsmac 0]

It's very interesting that the 'poll of the month' on the website at http://www.bistudio.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 shows that 'helicopter pilot' is the most popular role ! Surely a big hint to BIS that focussing on this aspect of the game would be a good move

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Indeed improved helicopter simulation would be a good move, but fixed-wing fighter jets are a no no at today's technology stage.

[funnyguy1 0]

It's very interesting that the 'poll of the month' on the website at http://www.bistudio.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 shows that 'helicopter pilot' is the most popular role !  Surely a big hint to BIS that focussing on this aspect of the game would be a good move

Well, it's pretty cool, but on the other hand, it shows that ppl don't like to play as vehicle commanders/gunners. Would be better if they added the "tank commander/gunner" and "other vehicles" options.

Besides, I bet that people would play more as tank gunners/commanders if the tanks and missions with them were more realistic.

[opteryx 1562]

Well, it's pretty cool, but on the other hand, it shows that ppl don't like to play as vehicle commanders/gunners. Would be better if they added the "tank commander/gunner" and "other vehicles" options.

Besides, I bet that people would play more as tank gunners/commanders if the tanks and missions with them were more realistic.

Damn straight, if ArmA2 could do just half of what SteelBeasts does I'd be in heaven.

[hoz 0]

Closing, use aircraft wishes