Nothke 0 Posted March 8, 2009 Was there takeoff weight counted in OFP and ARMA? If not, it would be nice to include in ARMA2, it's quite easy, just few calculations. And in ARMA2 trailers, as seen, you have C-130 planes, so if you load it too much, you might need more runway lenght! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cultivator 0 Posted March 9, 2009 Yeah... In Il2 Sturmovik its well done... when you have a lot of weapons loaded ... you need much more fuel while flying... and you are not as fast as possible without weapons.... But its an only Fly-Simulation.... Regards -rF- Cultivator Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nigelwow 10 Posted April 17, 2009 if you have a group of 11 people in your mh-60 it would weigh alot more than when it is empty Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S!fkaIaC 10 Posted April 20, 2009 Only if every item in ArmA 2 MUST have a parameter + value for weight it is possible to do it the right way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted April 20, 2009 OFP and ArmA had no simulation for changing vehicle weights what-so-ever. IL2 had the aircraft weight decrease as fuel decreased but sometimes it would not take the weight off for dropping bombs. I wonder if they fixed that bug. It was annoying to take off in a fighter with bomb racks and bomb something and then think you're going to do some dogfighting only to find your aircraft feeble. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jorge.PT 10 Posted April 20, 2009 I like the idea to have weight in everything on this game, it would mean there is physics in it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted April 20, 2009 Everything has mass in ArmA (2?) and everything has a center of gravity and whatever else, its mass just does not change according to what you put in vehicles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baff1 0 Posted April 21, 2009 All the fat guys sitting on the right hand side of the Huey, all the thin guys on the left. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jorge.PT 10 Posted April 21, 2009 Everything has mass in ArmA (2?) and everything has a center of gravity and whatever else, its mass just does not change according to what you put in vehicles. But if you don't have gravity, you don't have weight = no acceleration and no physics in it.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S!fkaIaC 10 Posted April 21, 2009 Jorge, the thing is that BIS always had "mass", but not properly simulated. As far as I remember it was even possible to define "mass" per "section" of an vehicle. But the problem is that the flight characteristics nor any other vehicle behavior changes with its changing weight due to cargo-fuel-ammo. For example when you drop bombs the plane goes up, something that I never experienced in ArmA. If you load a truck up to its limit you should have problems to climb a hill with that. Not in ArmA. A Mi8/17 with the max amount of unguided rockets and internal fuel tanks should behave like a fat cow and improve the more rockets fired/fuel consumed - but not in ArmA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zerst0ren 0 Posted April 22, 2009 Haha yeah sure since there's no parameter like "mass" in the engine at all, I hardly doubt it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted April 22, 2009 Haha yeah sure since there's no parameter like "mass" in the engine at all, I hardly doubt it. You've never looked at a model in the O2 Model editor, have you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sidhellfire 0 Posted April 22, 2009 He didn't ever think before posting. Check his latests posts inspired by "I have wise nothing to say, but I'll say it anyway" credo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) But if you don't have gravity, you don't have weight = no acceleration and no physics in it.... I think it's quite obvious that ArmA had a simulation for gravity. And regarding mass, mass is assigned per vertex and can be tweaked so that not only is there correct mass for the units, but here is also correct mass distribution. You can affect the handling of vehicles quite a lot by playing with the mass distribution, especially aircraft. If the mass distribution is far from the centre of gravity, out at the extents of the aircraft, the aircraft becomes less manoeuverable due to some kind of simulation of angular inertia. If you compact all the mass into a small area near the centre, the vehicle becomes more responsive to changes in attitude. Edited April 22, 2009 by Max Power Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jorge.PT 10 Posted April 22, 2009 hmmm if there is mass and gravity in arma, why do you see tanks flying? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S!fkaIaC 10 Posted April 22, 2009 Because BIS f... it up. If I got it right, they made mistakes so that the virtual mass of one tank was much higher then the other. But dunno if I got it right since I do not know the workaround BIS used to simulate mass. So speaking, BMP2 had an excellent takeoff weight in early versions of ArmA 1 :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted April 22, 2009 hmmm if there is mass and gravity in arma, why do you see tanks flying? I wouldn't say I'm an expert on the ArmA engine, but I believe the flying tank problem is caused by bugs in the collision system, specifically when tanks lag out while rolling over solid things like rocks. If their geometry gets stuck and the physics cycle catches up to them at the wrong moment, the collision detection forces them upward (out of the rock). This would account for flipped and jumping tanks. That's my theory anyway. :cool: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zerst0ren 0 Posted April 22, 2009 Because BIS f... it up. If I got it right, they made mistakes so that the virtual mass of one tank was much higher then the other. But dunno if I got it right since I do not know the workaround BIS used to simulate mass.So speaking, BMP2 had an excellent takeoff weight in early versions of ArmA 1 :D You think that's funny? It's a tragedy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S!fkaIaC 10 Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) You never played BMP-soccer with ArmA? Man you missed something! Flipping tanks usually caused more loss in a mission then enemy fire. Very often you found your AI tanks upside-down close to a rock like an unlucky turtle. Edited April 22, 2009 by S!fkaIaC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Creation 10 Posted April 22, 2009 Well apparently he vehicles blow up to the amount of ammunition and fuel they have in their current situations, therefore i could be entirely possible to add weight however if it only makes slight difference i would rather disregard it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted April 22, 2009 I think it is as MadDog says. This is a flaw with the collision detection system. It seems like they have it detecting collisions infrequently in order to save on processor cycles. Whatever the cause, the collision detection system isn't really the same thing as Mass or Gravity, and has nothing at all to do with take off weight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S!fkaIaC 10 Posted April 22, 2009 Detecting a collision "to late" is one thing and most probably the root cause for all those fuzzy effects. the virtual mass decides on collision who flips away and how far. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted April 23, 2009 No, we already know that the mass and gravity sims seem adequate. What is left is the energy of the collisions. Obviously, if something is 'clipping' something else and shouldn't be, the engine seems to generate a force to push whatever it is out of 'clipping'. This seems to add a lot of energy to the simulation, causing whatever it is to fly away. The same thing seems to happen with the motorcycles when they are flipped over. They seem to penetrate the ground, then they have energy added to the rebound and end up doing whatever acrobatics they do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S!fkaIaC 10 Posted April 24, 2009 Oh, so the energy for the "reflection" of a collision is not derived from parameters like "speed" and "direction" of the collision plus some data describing the "material" and its ability to absorb a part of the energy e.t.c.? It is rather a fixed amount of "energy" that just pushes out? Like the tanks on the famous bridges when sinking into the street? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted April 24, 2009 In normal collisions the engine seems to keep track of what kind of energy is being transferred. Over a certain threshold, damage occurs to vehicles and passengers. Also, massive vehicles can push light vehicles out of the way, but not the other way around. You can even roll over vehicles with a high c of g if they are involved in a sidewards impact. Under normal circumstances, the collision model seems sensible. It's under certain special circumstances which I don't really know much about (perhaps it's over jagged surfaces with no roadway LOD) shit goes crazy sometimes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites