Is there any way to...

[kestrel7e7 0]

Personally I think more realistic (but still simplified) flight dynamics would make flying easier for everyone.

[Balschoiw 0]

Noone is asking for a change in the flight dynamics or joystick interface, we are just asking for the removal of the unrealistic and uncontributative autocentre feature when using mouse+keyboard that makes steering an airframe or ground vehicle a joke.

[Yoma 0]

It´s a matter of fact that OFP´s input on vehicle controls was much more fluid and consistant compared to Arma´s input scheme. It´s a matter of the technique used by BIS.

If you like it, great, but the majority of Arma users seem to have problems with the new input mechanism as it´s not consistant, not fluid and relies on impulse steering with autocentre instead of fluid vector control that doesn´t force you to constantly repeat your inputs. Furthermore the "new" control scheme is responsible for loosing control of onboard cannons, like in the Kamov, something that was perfectly working in OFP now is not working in Arma because of that "invention". I personally think that BIS just ported over the X-Box controls to Arma and therefore we are facing that issues.

I totally agree on this. OFP had about the best vehicle control you can get with mouse and keyb.

The only thing that sucked bigtime was planes.

The rest simply felt TONS more fluid.

Why don't they make it a setting?

I also agree on the origin of this problem, it's most likely XBOX related. Damn Bill, you fucked up my game ;-)

[MehMan 0]

Woah, some people seem to miss the point Balschoiw is making. He doesn't want to change the flight model, he wants to change the controls!

We and lots of others like the flight model, but we don't like the controls that come with it, mainly the autocenter. I'd just like to turn my helo with my mouse without getting carpal tunnel syndrome.

[Thunnder Bunny 0]

Did anyone even try to compare how AI flew in ofp to ARMA?

OFP- straight line even when not attacking, flew out of range turned then more straight lines. easy pick'n for rpg take downs.

ARMA- choppers flow and bank and really seem to be thinking unless it's the ka-50

MI-17 -Blackhawk- have side gunners and the chopper pilot will help the gunner get good shots now. Even facing gunner towards enemy when holding position in mid air.

After watching cobras and apache's combat flying in Iraq, I see more of ARMA's flight characteristics than OFP's in the way they fly.

I can only recommend stick flight and practice. You'll be able to snake through the trees or soar far above ,should you choose to

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Did anyone even try to compare how AI flew in ofp to ARMA?

No, because it´s irrelevant for this thread.

Doh...

[frederf 0]

Noone is asking for a change in the flight dynamics or joystick interface, we are just asking for the removal of the unrealistic and uncontributative autocentre feature when using mouse+keyboard that makes steering an airframe or ground vehicle a joke.

Seconded.

<Insert picture of Scruffy from Futurama>

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]In what ways was OFP more realistic?

It kept the stick´s direction where it was set to and had no magic autocenter gadget that no real airframe has. Watch the tailfin of the camel inflight with mouse-keyboard and come in again.

The way OFP did it wasn't very realistic either. I think that that's a little bit of a stretch to make that claim. I think a stronger argument would have been that it's more intuitive the way ofp did it. Initially, I thought you were making a blanket statement. I'm not going to go back and confirm that, but this may mean you should watch your sentence structure. If indeed that is a more realistic way to pilot a helicopter with a mouse- that is, to point a reticle at something in the distance and have your helicopter fly after it-, it is one of the only ways in which OFP is more realistic than arma.

edit: Don't take this post as implicitly defending the autocenter function. It's been a long time since I piloted anything with a mouse and it will be a long time again until I do!

[DVD 0]

Armed Assault is not a simulation.

It is may 300% more realistic as other games, but fail in infinitely ways, to be a "combat simulator".

BI should think about what they want, for ArmA2.

Eighter a much more realistic game, like OFP was, with good compromises between realism and gameplay.

Or a die hard simulation.

ArmA1 isn't one of that both options.

In what ways was OFP more realistic?

I didn't said OFP was more realisic.

I said it was a more realistic game (as others).

ArmA want to be a combat simulator, not a game.

But if i see all this strange design errors in ArmA, i have the impression, that Bohemia ain't knows (or at leaste, some devs of BI) what they want.

I suggest, that Bi goes back and thinks again, why they did some details in OFP, and why they changed it in ArmA.

And is it worth to improve one thing, which worsened one other detail.

The best example is, how they simulate recoil in OFP and now in ArmA.

OFP was not perfect in this point, but much better than any other shooter.

ArmA in a big step back, in this point.

May its because it engine limits, but in this case, BI should realy think again, what they want.

A real combat sim (what ArmA want to be, but isn't), or a more realistic game (what OFP is, its more realistic as other games).

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]

I didn't said OFP was more realisic.

I said it was a more realistic game (as others).

You ever see that old startrek episode where the enterprise's crew tricks their robot captors into self destructing by feeding them a logical paradox? I think might be what you're trying to do to me. I'm on to you, and it's not going to work.

Quote[/b] ]

ArmA want to be a combat simulator, not a game.

But if i see all this strange design errors in ArmA, i have the impression, that Bohemia ain't knows (or at leaste, some devs of BI) what they want.

No, VBS2 wants to be a combat simulator. ArmA wants to be a simulation game... like il2 wants to be a simulation game... and OFP wanted to be a simulation game. Consumer software for the masses.

[DVD 0]

It's not a logical paradox, it's statment based on much experience, as OFP player/modder and ArmA player/modder.

Well i don't know how to point out it more easy, where the difference is between OFP and ArmA.

OFP was made to have fun.

Fun, which like no other game could perform befor.

Freedom of movement, and more realism, as UT & Co.

But it has compromise, when the engine limits the possibilitys.

ArmA looks like, BI wanted to improve everything, without any thoughts about their possibilitys.

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]

It's not a logical paradox, it's statment based on much experience, as OFP player/modder and ArmA player/modder.

You said that you didn't say that you said that ofp was more realistic than ArmA, you said that it was more realistic. To be more accurate, you said that it wasn't more realistic, it was a more realistic game. If that isn't a contradiction, then I'm missing some fantastic step in your reasoning.

[DVD 0]

What you may ain't understand is, i like to have a difference here.

There are so many people saw OFP as an simulation, which was wrong, it was a "more realistic game" and there are people today, which think ArmA is a simulation, and same like OFP it isn't.

The difference is OFP was never build to be a real sim, while ArmA want to be a sim, but fails because of it's engine limits, input limits and clueless of their devs (yes clueless, otherwise they had done some things better).

VBS2 is not much differend to ArmA, it ain't use normal maps, and got some more scripts and sounds, but everyone who i spoke to, who has VBS2, said all controles ect. are the same as in ArmA.

The "sim factor" is not really higher.

[max power 21]

What you may ain't understand is, i like to have a difference here.

There are so many people saw OFP as an simulation, which was

VBS2 is not much differend to ArmA, it ain't use normal maps, and got some more scripts and sounds, but everyone who i spoke to, who has VBS2, said all controles ect. are the same as in ArmA.

The "sim factor" is not really higher.

The difference you claim here is, in actuality, erroneous facts. Let's not forget the problems of definition either... also the irrelevant reasons.

At any rate, ArmA is a game. Suma calls is a 'piece of entertainment software'. Il2 is also a game, however it is almost universally agreed that that game is quite accurate in a number of aspects. ArmA isn't meant to train you for life in a real war in any way. It's not meant to teach you how to fire a firearm or fly a helicopter, or give you realistic numbers for you to study in a scientific way. It's meant to portray war for entertainment purposes. This is the fundamental difference, and ArmA is scaled, molded, and streamlined into this role. This is its sole purpose.

VBS2 has a lot that arma doesn't have, actually. This includes some vehicle interaction that's not in ArmA for teaching soldiers roadblock setup procedures, if I take their video correctly. It also has a more robust ballistics simulation, some real time scenario building stuff as well as AARs. ArmA doesn't try to teach you anything, nor does it give you any measure of feedback regarding how you have performed compared to a real life scenario.

Get off it. ArmA doesn't want to be a simulator, it wants to be a simulation game. It is itself a development of OFP:Elite. Whether or not it succeeds in being a fun game is up to the individual.

[Rune 0]

The people who have mastered the joystick are easy to spot online, they come ripping in low, do an aggressive yet controlled flare without ballooning up to a soft touchdown right where they wanted... can't say the same for even the better keyboard guys.

Have you ever seen a dog in a yard that keeps on barking aggressively every time someone walks past. Why does it do that when they just walk past. Well, maybe because it assumes it has caused the person to leave again. If so, the dog is barking because it has made a bad assumption, just like you have if you assume that flying well means someone is using a joystick ...so I must ask, have you asked all the people you see flying well what controls they use?

If you saw me flying online you might simply conclude that I was flying with a joystick, but I am actually flying with mouse and keyboard...and that is despite the fact that I have a high-quality HOTAS hooked up that I use, among other things, for flying planes in ArmA and helicopters in FSX, but never helicopters in ArmA - because I find the mouse + keyboard extremely good for flying helicopters in ArmA.

I can pick up or drop off people at the top of roofs, scafolding or smokestacks, if need be, and be in and out in less than a minute. I can fly consistently at 3m altitude between bushes, under bridges and under powerlines when flying NOE and I can fly max speed consistently under 20m when contour chasing. Slowing down without balloning and landing accurately is very very basic stuff compared to all that so don't tell me I couldn't possibly fly as well as the people who use sticks...just like the good joystick flyers don't want to be judged based on how I fly with a stick I don't want to be assumed to be using a stick just because YOU can't fly like that without one...

I AM, of course, affected by the 'impulse' movement with the mouse and it did take some getting used to coming from OFP, but I hardly notice it now. I am also somewhat limited by the on/off nature of keyboard keys, but the mouse + keyboard control setup is worth all that for me. When ever I do hard maneuvers like a roll, loop or hard break turn to slow down I use the keys for roll and pitch control and the mouse is used for the finer maneuvering. I also use keys to tie-over when I have to lift and center the mouse for a moment allowing me to fly much smoother circles with mouse and keyboard than I can with a joystick. I tested out flying with mouse and throttle controller because someone suggested this setup, but I found that the lack of access to the pitch and roll key-controls made it impractical for me...I would try putting that on the HOTAS throttle hat switch if it worked with ArmA, but sadly it doesn't at the moment.

About changing the impulse mouse control system, I don't neccesarily think it is a bad idea, but I would ONLY find it a benefit if it truely did not change the way the helicopters fly. I know people will think this is part of the flight model that should no be changed, but changing the controls CAN introduce problems on their own, like having controls in an extreme position at takeoff with no way of knowing where the cyclic is before you are in the air and opside down...A mouse has no natural center and this makes it a fundamentally different controller than either a joystick or the real life flight controls and people don't seem to appreciate that it could need special treatment to work well.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Rune looks like you're a good pilot in ArmA only few questions:

Do you fly with standard keyboard settings and if not which improvements you're using?

How much time you have spend with training?

thx.

[Rune 0]

I am using almost the default AWSD setup, if I remember it correctly, with A/D for roll, W/S for pitch Q/Z for collective and X/C for tail rotor. I did change one thing though, since at least the default I started with, had the A/D keys asssigned to something called 'Left Turn'/'Right Turn' or somesuch nonsense that combines tail rotor input with cyclic roll input, but I could not do anything useful with that setup. So I reassigned A/D to 'Bank Left'/'Bank Right' instead and that works out very nice

About time spent training I can't really say precisely, but I am pretty sure I have spent a good deal more than 20 hours of extremely risky flying and crashing offline mainly playing around with the littlebirds simply because I enjoy flying them so much and at least twice that flying online with passengers in Evolution in a much more conservative manner...