Fix ArmA choppers now!

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

you really don't want 'simple' flight model.

Who are you to say what I want or not?! You're definitely not paying attention to this thread nor are judging what I want correctly - or you're doing it WRONG. What I want is the ability to CHOOSE. Not a question of ONLY having ONE FM OR the other. If you didn't understand plain english before, I don't think I could be more clearer in this statement now.

@W0lle: Whilst hopes are high that ArmA 2 may attain perfection, what I want is improvement on a product I already acquired. And your statements about FM modification being fluid is void when one considers that the current OFP FM is most probably FINAL. So it would just be a question of having the possibility of choosing THAT FM or another which may be as crazed as it is changing by patch to patch, but the OFP FM is a SOLID REFERENCE. So, if, having a choice amongst both FMs, someone decides to moan about the ArmA one - heck, be my guest. But at least give us a choice. As Sanctuary said, it wouldn't be IMPOSSIBLE - and I doubt it would take a month or so, heck, maybe not even a week. I guess we can all wait for a week later for ArmA 2 if the ArmA we all have already gets substantially better by allowing a choice between FMs.

@SS9 Heck, the Plane's FM... that's even worse... There's another example of how well it worked in OFP (taking into account what was possible) and how comparably messed up it is in ArmA... Again, and for that too, I'd like the ability to choose...

[Maddmatt 1]

BUZZARD @ April 29 2008,19:15)]

you really don't want 'simple' flight model.

Who are you to say what I want or not?! You're definitely not paying attention to this thread nor are judging what I want correctly - or you're doing it WRONG. What I want is the ability to CHOOSE. Not a question of ONLY having ONE FM OR the other. If you didn't understand plain english before, I don't think I could be more clearer in this statement now.

So you want the VBS2 simple flight model then? Did you even read the rest of his post?

The VBS2 flight model is nothing like the OFP flight model.

It seems like you are the one who doesn't understand plain English

The simple flight model in VBS2 is not eant to be used in a

game - it's to assist training. It's no fun for a game.

Quote[/b] ]As Sanctuary said, it wouldn't be IMPOSSIBLE

Of course it wouldn't be impossible to add a second flight model as an option. Just like it wouldn't be impossible to make an option to replace weapons with laser guns. But whether it's possible or not obviously isn't the problem. It would be a waste of development time.

Why spend time creating a dumbed down flight model for people who can't handle the current one when they could be creating a new feature or fixing bugs?

It's not even that much harder than the OFP flight model. It just doesn't hold your hand as much. What other options would you like to have for the game do things for you

Does it not hold your hand enough?

Surely there are things more worth debating than a chopper flight model that is too hard for some people? How about having the developers focus on another issue instead of a few people's lack of patience/skill

Instead of making other people spend time developing and testing something to hold your hand, spend a few minutes of your own time to learn how to handle something a little more challenging.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well I'm waiting that some of the devs drop some line like:

"We won't go back in development only to satisfy very few people needs. Actually we improving many things aswell as flight models and maneuverability for Arma 2. In business and of course software development every day counts. Within few days we will release an International Patch - it will be nice to read your feedback and suggestions."

[max power 21]

They really have said in various different ways over the course of the year that they're not going to be changing the flight model in any way except to make some tweaks. I believe in Suma's interview he said that drastic changes are not possible because they are too complex. The sense I get from them talking about ArmA 2 is that there will be some refinement in the simulation directly related to the tilt-rotor convertaplane simulation, and hopefully they will address some of the issues we've been talking about for a while at that point. Voicing your opinion that you would like to have a simpler flight model as an option, or what not, is perfectly fine, but it's not going to happen for ArmA. Hopefully they can improve the crash worthiness, though.. and the tail rotor authority if it's appropriate.

I don't know what to expect in terms of the fixed wing aircraft throttle control because I don't know how complex that change would be. They have not made any statements about whether or not it's even in the realm of possibilities, so I would assume it's not. It seems like it would be a fairly large module of code to cut out, but I am no programmer and I certainly have not seen arma's source code, nor do I really know how it works. I think that it's fair enough to complain about it, though, and also fair enough if that isn't a priority for BIS.

[hailstorm 4]

hmm... here's a question: when people are asking for more tail rotor authority, are they asking for more 'swing' when it's activated (and at higher speeds), or is it for TRA to affect flightpath, like the fixed-wing model now does?

or is it a case you want both?

[max power 21]

hmm... here's a question: when people are asking for more tail rotor authority, are they asking for more 'swing' when it's activated (and at higher speeds), or is it for TRA to affect flightpath, like the fixed-wing model now does?

or is it a case you want both?

I think they are asking for more swing so they can shoot the fixed weapons with more flexibility.. this is what I get out of it. I never actually considered that they might want to have more ability to rudder turns.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

BUZZARD @ April 29 2008,19:15)]

you really don't want 'simple' flight model.

Who are you to say what I want or not?! You're definitely not paying attention to this thread nor are judging what I want correctly - or you're doing it WRONG. What I want is the ability to CHOOSE. Not a question of ONLY having ONE FM OR the other. If you didn't understand plain english before, I don't think I could be more clearer in this statement now.

So you want the VBS2 simple flight model then? Did you even read the rest of his post?

The VBS2 flight model is nothing like the OFP flight model.

It seems like you are the one who doesn't understand plain English

The simple flight model in VBS2 is not eant to be used in a

game - it's to assist training. It's no fun for a game.

Quote[/b] ]As Sanctuary said, it wouldn't be IMPOSSIBLE

Of course it wouldn't be impossible to add a second flight model as an option. Just like it wouldn't be impossible to make an option to replace weapons with laser guns. But whether it's possible or not obviously isn't the problem. It would be a waste of development time.

Why spend time creating a dumbed down flight model for people who can't handle the current one when they could be creating a new feature or fixing bugs?

It's not even that much harder than the OFP flight model. It just doesn't hold your hand as much. What other options would you like to have for the game do things for you

Does it not hold your hand enough?

Surely there are things more worth debating than a chopper flight model that is too hard for some people? How about having the developers focus on another issue instead of a few people's lack of patience/skill

Instead of making other people spend time developing and testing something to hold your hand, spend a few minutes of your own time to learn how to handle something a little more challenging.

I must admit I do not know VBS's "simple" flight model but the fact that someone takes a choice away or presumes something on my behalf regarding my choices I find offensive, Madmatt. And what your definition of

Quote[/b] ]fun for a game

is may not be the same as for others - or do you presume to be a standard of your own?

As for what I'm astonished is that so many people defend BIS whilst others see that BIS broke something in ArmA that already had been fixed in OFP. And breaking that adage is something that can really ruin follow-ups to something that existed there before it. As we all know by now, ArmA wasn't a step FORWARD in every department with regards to OFP. In some perhaps it was, in others it remained the same (some bugs present in OFP made it into ArmA) whilst in some aspects, like the flight model, both for helicopter, but especially for planes, was a step BACKWARD. But, just not to ruin the experience for those that want something more, in your words, "challenging", I'm PRO-CHOICE. And I really don't know why it's so difficult to let everybody choose the ingredients of his own pizza, so to speak. Also, I think you may put too much faith in ArmA 2, for BIS proved to be able to repeat some mistakes whilst creating new ones, I wonder what the heck makes you think ArmA 2 will be the fulfillment of anything you hope for it to be?! I could almost hope that they screw up something you liked how it was in OFP and ArmA just to read your whining lines about your high-expectation ArmA 2... I'm of the oppinion they should fix ArmA up first so as to please amost everybody  (and that can best be achieved through giving CHOICES) and then present ArmA 2 with any completely new features. Otherwise I must admit ArmA-wise one can only feel like a lab rat.

[shinRaiden 0]

BUZZARD @ April 29 2008,19:43)]

BUZZARD @ April 29 2008,19:15)]

you really don't want 'simple' flight model.

Who are you to say what I want or not?! You're definitely not paying attention to this thread nor are judging what I want correctly - or you're doing it WRONG. What I want is the ability to CHOOSE. Not a question of ONLY having ONE FM OR the other. If you didn't understand plain english before, I don't think I could be more clearer in this statement now.

So you want the VBS2 simple flight model then? Did you even read the rest of his post?

The VBS2 flight model is nothing like the OFP flight model.

It seems like you are the one who doesn't understand plain English

The simple flight model in VBS2 is not eant to be used in a

game - it's to assist training. It's no fun for a game.

Quote[/b] ]As Sanctuary said, it wouldn't be IMPOSSIBLE

Of course it wouldn't be impossible to add a second flight model as an option. Just like it wouldn't be impossible to make an option to replace weapons with laser guns. But whether it's possible or not obviously isn't the problem. It would be a waste of development time.

Why spend time creating a dumbed down flight model for people who can't handle the current one when they could be creating a new feature or fixing bugs?

It's not even that much harder than the OFP flight model. It just doesn't hold your hand as much. What other options would you like to have for the game do things for you

Does it not hold your hand enough?

Surely there are things more worth debating than a chopper flight model that is too hard for some people? How about having the developers focus on another issue instead of a few people's lack of patience/skill

Instead of making other people spend time developing and testing something to hold your hand, spend a few minutes of your own time to learn how to handle something a little more challenging.

I must admit I do not know VBS's "simple" flight model but the fact that someone takes a choice away or presumes something on my behalf regarding my choices I find offensive, Madmatt. And what your definition of

Quote[/b] ]fun for a game

is may not be the same as for others - or do you presume to be a standard of your own?

As for what I'm astonished is that so many people defend BIS whilst others see that BIS broke something in ArmA that already had been fixed in OFP. And breaking that adage is something that can really ruin follow-ups to something that existed there before it. As we all know by now, ArmA wasn't a step FORWARD in every department with regards to OFP. In some perhaps it was, in others it remained the same (some bugs present in OFP made it into ArmA) whilst in some aspects, like the flight model, both for helicopter, but especially for planes, was a step BACKWARD. But, just not to ruin the experience for those that want something more, in your words, "challenging", I'm PRO-CHOICE. And I really don't know why it's so difficult to let everybody choose the ingredients of his own pizza, so to speak. Also, I think you may put too much faith in ArmA 2, for BIS proved to be able to repeat some mistakes whilst creating new ones, I wonder what the heck makes you think ArmA 2 will be the fulfillment of anything you hope for it to be?! I could almost hope that they screw up something you liked how it was in OFP and ArmA just to read your whining lines about your high-expectation ArmA 2...

So you insist on the the premise of a 'choice' even though the choice itself would in fact be several steps back from the the result you're presently not happy with? You can replicate it 90% by doing the following :

1 - create a helo on the mission.

2 - create a marker at the pos you want the helo to be at.

3 - create a scripted loop to setpos the helo at markerpos + (altitude variable).

4 - Expand on it by using the action menu to increment steps of setPos'ing the marker around.

Get the picture yet? To run with your pizza analogy, it is equivalent to putting you in a straight-jacket and pumping the pizza through a feeding tube. It has it's purpose, but I fail to see how porting that would make the community happier instead of madder.

My expectations are somewhat different than what you would assume, but I have never indicated that they were wildly enthusiastic. The only times that I've approached giddy fanyboyish is when observing a fundamental transition in training methodologies, to which in comparison imho little content widgets and sparklies are very small potatoes. My expectations however are tempered by an awareness of market realities, much of which is not privileged information, but what should be common knowledge to any obsessive gaming fanboy with an understanding of business commitments and capabilities.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

shinRaiden, the pizza analogy was just regarding Choices in general, not just related to any singular aspect of the game like the helicopter flight model. Meaning, everybody chooses how to play ArmA the way he likes it best, and it would be nice to have a choice amongst possible FM's as well (in this particular case, adding OFP's as an available option). And no, I couldn't quite imagine how set'posing helicopters on a map with variable altitude would have anything to do with the OFP helicopter FM, which AFAIK ArmA is not able to mimic "out of the box"... Would need a patch to provide it I guess...

[max power 21]

Is it appropriate to go to a pizza joint and order a hamburger with french fries?

[themaster303 22]

flightmodel of choppers are great. not more to say.

[Punisher5555 0]

I think the flight model for the game (and I mean "game") is just fine. They just need to fix the speed issue and the flimsyness issue.

Would I like to have it more realistic like FSX, sure, but this GAME is not meant for that.

My cred's on the subject: Former U.S. Army CW2. OH-58 A,C,D's and UH-60A,L's.

It is a game. Moderators please close the thread.

[Maddmatt 1]

BUZZARD @ April 30 2008,03:43)]I must admit I do not know VBS's "simple" flight model but the fact that someone takes a choice away or presumes something on my behalf regarding my choices I find offensive, Madmatt.

Well clearly it was not meant to be offensive. The VBS2 flight model isn't what anyone appears to be asking for, it's not hard to see that this is what he meant.

Seems you are being a bit too sensitive here.

Quote[/b] ]And what your definition of "fun for a game" is may not be the same as for others - or do you presume to be a standard of your own?

Well since some people find shooting zombies in a game fun, does that mean the BIS should make an option to turn people into zombies?

Adding options for everyone's possible "definition of fun for a game" just wont happen.

Quote[/b] ]As for what I'm astonished is that so many people defend BIS whilst others see that BIS broke something in ArmA that already had been fixed in OFP.

I gotta say, I find that statement pretty ridiculous. People aren't defending BIS here. They are defending the flight model and stating their objections to bringing back the old one.

Just because you don't like the change, doesn't mean they "broke" it. That's a pretty childish way to act about it. To me, it's an improvement.

Quote[/b] ]As we all know by now, ArmA wasn't a step FORWARD in every department with regards to OFP. In some perhaps it was, in others it remained the same (some bugs present in OFP made it into ArmA)

True, but how is that relevant to this thread? Now you're just posting pointless rants.

Quote[/b] ]whilst in some aspects, like the flight model, both for helicopter, but especially for planes, was a step BACKWARD.

Again, just because you don't like it is no reason to say something childish like that. It's pretty obvious by reading this thread that many people consider it an improvement. For me, and many others, it's a step forward.

Quote[/b] ]But, just not to ruin the experience for those that want something more, in your words, "challenging", I'm PRO-CHOICE. And I really don't know why it's so difficult...

Yes because adding new stuff is so easy

Seriously, only a few people have been vocal about bringing back the old flight model. No real indication that it's worth the time of the developers.

The whole point of games like ArmA isn't to dumb things down anyway.

Quote[/b] ]Also, I think you may put too much faith in ArmA 2, for BIS proved to be able to repeat some mistakes whilst creating new ones, I wonder what the heck makes you think ArmA 2 will be the fulfillment of anything you hope for it to be?!

What the hell are you on? Have you lost track of the topic?

More pointless ranting

Quote[/b] ]O'm of the oppinion they should fix ArmA up first...

Agreed on that. And that's what they seem to be doing with patches.

Quote[/b] ] (and that can best be achieved through giving CHOICES)

No. By fixing bugs and adding improvements. That includes choices where appropriate of course.

[max power 21]

Maddmatt speaks the truth.

[-Total- 0]

Hmmm....

I thought BIS should have made them alot harder to fly myself.

Engine torque effects, gyro effects, wind sheer, etc

[Binkowski 25]

i'm no pilot. but i do think that bis should improve the flight models considerably.

[max power 21]

i'm no pilot. but i do think that bis should improve the flight models considerably.

in what way?

[dslyecxi 23]

Quote[/b] ]In OFP I could make roll on landings at a much higher speed and faster decent rate and take absolutely no damage at all.

I seem to recall OFP causing your helo to explode if you landed at above 30kph. ArmA is an improvement in that respect.

As to the whole "VBS2 Simple Flight Model" thing, I would love to see the kind of riot that would erupt here if that ever showed up in a patch. Anyone who is getting starry-eyed and dreamy thinking about how VBS2 has some "secret alternative flight model" that's being withheld from the ArmA community is completely off their rocker. Anyone who thinks that that flight model 'option' is somehow validation that a more complex flight model could be created and be made 'optional' has no perspective on the realities of our situation with BIS/BIA/ArmA, their marketshare, target audiences, etc. You can wish for whatever you want, nobody should ever infringe upon that, but if you for one second honestly believe that you're going to get a significantly different flight model for ArmA or ArmA2 as a toggle option, I personally would say that you're deluding yourself. I would be stunned to see that happen in ArmA2. Absolutely stunned.

Suggesting individual, doable changes or tweaks is great, though. That does cause change to occur. Wishing for things that are simply out of the scope, though, is just wasting time.

[-Total- 0]

Good reply Dslyecxi (btw - never told ya, but your site rocks!!!

Comparatively, the flight model in OFP had almost no engine torque or gyro effect. While great for when it was released, the ability of the engine has grown and more realism can be implemented (ie ArmA)

While ArmA is still far from reality in the helo's, it was definitely a leap in the right direction

[kuIoodporny 45]

Maddmatt speaks the truth.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Quote[/b] ]And what your definition of "fun for a game" is may not be the same as for others - or do you presume to be a standard of your own?

Well since some people find shooting zombies in a game fun, does that mean the BIS should make an option to turn people into zombies?

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't BIS almost do exactly just that?    At least the textures were there...  

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]As for what I'm astonished is that so many people defend BIS whilst others see that BIS broke something in ArmA that already had been fixed in OFP.

I gotta say, I find that statement pretty ridiculous. People aren't defending BIS here. They are defending the flight model and stating their objections to bringing back the old one.

Just because you don't like the change, doesn't mean they "broke" it. That's a pretty childish way to act about it. To me, it's an improvement.

That's your point of view. Since this game has forcibly to opt on some sort of compromise since it will never be, nor ever has aimed to be, the ultimate helicopter flight simulation, it has to feature a flight model that will be serving it's purpouse regarding the gameplay. IMHO OFP got it right but in your oppinion ArmA's model is an improvement. In terms of serving gameplay it's just a divergence of oppinions then, so in order to please both of us, I'm pro choice, but you would deny that, wouldn't you?

Quote[/b] ]The whole point of games like ArmA isn't to dumb things down anyway.

Again, you're confounding things. I'm not trying to "dumb down" anything, I am just considering having the possibility of a different gameplay, and considering this is probably one of the best "sandbox" games out there, why shouldn't there be choices available, so as to please everyone?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ] (and that can best be achieved through giving CHOICES)

No. By fixing bugs and adding improvements. That includes choices where appropriate of course.

Again, a difference of oppinions. Whilst I am pro-choice and therefore trying to have options to please everyone, you are of a more restrictive oppinion defending only having your (and of some others too, but then again I'm not exactly alone defending my point of view either otherwise I'd be the only one complaining) so-called "improvements" - I must say I'm somewhat wary of what those could be. I'm all for fixing bugs as well though, of course... And then again, in the very end, you seem to agree with me - choices should be there. Why not regarding the flight model as well?  

[MehMan 0]

Because the flight model is fine, it needs some tweaking. There are only a few that want the on-rails OFP system back. There are many good pilots out there, so the problem probably doesn't lie with the flight model.

[Maddmatt 1]

While I agree choices are a good thing in general, some are not.

It wouldn't be fair in an MP game if some people would use the easy flight model to gain an advantage. Then all those that enjoy the harder one would have to switch to the easy one to keep up in PvP.

The other way would be to have the option server side like current difficulty settings. Then you will have some people choose a certain tournament/group to play with based on what flight model they play with. I don't think splitting the players up like this is a good thing.

ArmA has difficulty options that work like this already, but they don't change gameplay as dramatically as an alternate flight model would and wont cause MP groups to split up.

And there is also the time wasted that could have been used for something that more people care about.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

After flying in OfP for so many years, I truly enjoyed the new ArmA style.

The only thing I would like to see changed is the option to swap position back n fourth with an AI gunner, like you can in armored vehicles.

[maddogx 13]

After flying in OfP for so many years, I truly enjoyed the new ArmA style.

The only thing I would like to see changed is the option to swap position back n fourth with an AI gunner, like you can in armored vehicles.

The way I see it, swapping positions is only possible in ground vehicles because it is not very dangerous.

Somehow I can't imagine a Cobra pilot and gunner clambering over their seats to switch positions.