RESEARCH - Non BIS made Helicopter Flight models, What do you want?

[suhsjake 1]

If the AI can fly it then its good with me.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

One of the reasons for posting a poll like this is to see if its worth investing my time on making a demonstrator and following the idea further.

Then my vote goes for the "challenging and difficult flight model" to see how it works.

A little warning, don't forget the "non flight freaks", there could be a lot of "discussions" if it's to difficult for them. ;)

MfG Lee :)

[cole 0]

Definitely the challenging and difficult one! I'm all for realism :)

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Ok, now I understand better the Group A and B. Didnt really make sense before.

Yeah that why i said "interesting if conflicting feedback" in the first post. You would have thought the guys that do this for a living would be supporting the more agile flight model. It seems to be more that they are pragmatic about it.

I think the flightmodel should reflect some load. Imo that is a "balls out sim" more than flying unloaded aircrafts. A middle ground is what I would like to see.

There will be some balance. IE the attack helicopters will be more agile and difficult to handle than the transports and so on. But I am looking at something a bit more dynamic than what I first thought of. A lot depends on if the game engine will support it... the testing continues

A little warning, don't forget the "non flight freaks", there could be a lot of "discussions" if it's to difficult for them. ;)

That's the benefit of this poll. They get a chance to speak up.

I'll be honest, I'm still on the fence over the whole issue. But the results on the poll so far are about the same split as the gamer test group. About 70% for a harder flight model.

[An Fiach 10]

I consider myself to be a lousy ArmA pilot though I crash less (sans enemy fire) than many I've seen. That being said, bring on the challenge.

[BigMorgan 11]

Based only on my experience in MSFS (with some of the better helicopter addons) it seems like heli's in Arma could use to lose energy/momentum a lot quicker, lose altitude a bit quicker when the cyclic is fully released/off, and be a bit more finicky to put in a hover.

That's my $0.02, sorry if this makes me a Google expert, but I would just LOOOOOVE to have the flight models match up with actual flight simulators more.

It would give me an advantage in MP over the BF2-master keyboard pilots :p

[.kju 3245]

Best would be to release dummy helos (without textures/features) that feature the

different FM to let people test and comment.

[Defunkt 431]

At the risk of labouring my point, I'm all for more-realistic personally (and if that means harder that's even better) but I am yet more concerned about the consistency of the simulated battlefield. How do you deal with the disparity in difficulty when setting up a UK vs RU encounter for instance? In spite of the way people are voting here I think in practice you'd hear "don't use the Huey, it has an overly-simplistic flight model" less often than "don't use the Puma, it flies like a dog". Without knowing how much more work is entailed (could the values for 'easy' be derived from 'hard' or vice versa?), both versions would serve all uses.

[SASrecon 0]

I'd love to see a more difficult flight model in ACE2 :rolleyes:

This would give the players seeking realism something to play with :)

Could you please explain how making a helicopter more sensitive and twitchy would make it harder to handle? imo it would make it easier...

[PuFu 4600]

I'd love to see a more difficult flight model in ACE2 :rolleyes:

This would give the players seeking realism something to play with :)

What in the name of world has this thread got to do with your post?

[Alex72 1]

Vote: More realistic flight model.

With more realistic flight model it also gets harder to master. That will ensure that only players that are into piloting will do it - and do it better than someone that doesnt train flying.

That should make the roles more distinctive. Wich is really what i want ARMA to be like. Too easy grabbing a sniper rifle for example. With wind and adjustable scopes it gets harder and only people really into sniping will train and get good at it.

I really enjoy missions where you have a designated pilot and everyone counts on him to deliver. Brings great immersion. To me at least. Instead of everyone being equally good at everything from start. Want to be good at a certain role? Then you have to train. :)

My 2 cents.

Alex

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

At the risk of labouring my point, I'm all for more-realistic personally (and if that means harder that's even better) but I am yet more concerned about the consistency of the simulated battlefield. How do you deal with the disparity in difficulty when setting up a UK vs RU encounter for instance?

I don't see an issue here. Following your argument toa logical conclusion, you seem to be advocating a "single flight model for all option". If you are talking about an issue of in game balance, then what is being discussed is no different than already exists.

AI controlled vs human. I've seen enough public MP games to know humans crash helicopters just as often as AI. Probably more! :eek:

All the BIS helicopters all handle differently. How is this any different than what is being proposed? Why would a further change to the flight model of some new helicopters be a concern? Because it would take people longer to adjust to the new flight model? The AI dont care. to be honest the AI seem happier with this (not that ive asked them) but they seem to crash less, be more effective in AA and AG engagements.

In fact we've just played a short 40 minute game with the new FM enabled Lynx, Apache and Pumas. Its the same test game we played last week with the old FM. The AI didn't crash the Puma once (which was a change). The AI flying the Apache managed to clear out a town on its own where previously it just spent 20 minutes circling saying it couldn't engage.

The one issue we had was getting the human controlled Forward Observer Lynx in to a hover. Its a culture shock because people are used to being so heavy handed with the Little birds et al that the increased sensitivity of the new Lynx FM at low speeds takes people by surprise.

All in all, its been a positive reinforcement of the current vote.

In spite of the way people are voting here I think in practice you'd hear "don't use the Huey, it has an overly-simplistic flight model" less often than "don't use the Puma, it flies like a dog". Without knowing how much more work is entailed (could the values for 'easy' be derived from 'hard' or vice versa?), both versions would serve all uses.

I don't know what group you play with but I hear that a lot within the 3 teams I play with:

"The V22 sucks donkey balls"

"This huey needs more power"

"Cobra flies like a brick"

All are often sung out across TS when I play with teams from both sides of the Atlantic. Infact its precisely those complaints about the lack of fidelity of the flight model that have +70% of gamers voting for a change.

As for "knowing how much more work is entailed", we aren't talking about a few config values. We're talking about a complete rework of geometry, configs and in some cases scripting.

Vote: More realistic flight model.

With more realistic flight model it also gets harder to master. That will ensure that only players that are into piloting will do it - and do it better than someone that doesnt train flying.

That should make the roles more distinctive. Wich is really what i want ARMA to be like. Too easy grabbing a sniper rifle for example. With wind and adjustable scopes it gets harder and only people really into sniping will train and get good at it.

I really enjoy missions where you have a designated pilot and everyone counts on him to deliver. Brings great immersion. To me at least. Instead of everyone being equally good at everything from start. Want to be good at a certain role? Then you have to train. :)

My 2 cents.

Alex

Totally agree.

Edited October 26, 2009 by RKSL-Rock

[Rg 0]

Voted for the challenge, but what role does JoystickSensitivity adjustments in your Player.profile play, since you can reduce or increase the "twitchiness"? For both A1/A2 I increased my X for sharper turning and reduced my Y for easier weapon aiming. Does this mean someone can just dramatically reduce the JoystickSensitivity to feel more like default arma or not really?

[Opticalsnare 12]

Well theres a bunch of config settings which can control how the aircraft flys how much power its got, how much it can turn etc stuff like that.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Voted for the challenge, but what role does JoystickSensitivity adjustments in your Player.profile play, since you can reduce or increase the "twitchiness"? For both A1/A2 I increased my X for sharper turning and reduced my Y for easier weapon aiming. Does this mean someone can just dramatically reduce the JoystickSensitivity to feel more like default arma or not really?

I honestly don't know. I hadn't even considered that as option. Id have to look into it.

But one immediate issue i see is if you were swap between a helo with an "improved FM" and a stock BIS aircraft then you would then be seriously handicapped in the stock helicopter... bit of a disadvantage imo.

Well theres a bunch of config settings which can control how the aircraft flys how much power its got, how much it can turn etc stuff like that.

The only config setting that affects class helicopter is the envelope command. The elevator sensitivity etc has no effect at all.

[Defunkt 431]

I probably should have qualified my position by explaining that I tend to evaluate everything in terms of player-vs-player scenarios. The balance I speak of isn't really an issue in Human-vs-AI games.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I probably should have qualified my position by explaining that I tend to evaluate everything in terms of player-vs-player scenarios. The balance I speak of isn't really an issue in Human-vs-AI games.

Well considering I am now working with several others on this (had a lot of interest in this poll and project) and the end results may have new resistance and opfor helos too.

But again I dont see an issue. I boils down to the same scenerio. If you want to fly, practice. Learn your aircraft and have fun doing it. If you dont like a challengin FM then use the BIS aircraft instead. They all do the same thing at the end of the day.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

I really enjoyed the Battlefield 2 helo flight model. It took me 20 total hours of stick time but eventually I learned how to make the bird do anything I wanted.

[PuFu 4600]

I really enjoyed the Battlefield 2 helo flight model. It took me 20 total hours of stick time but eventually I learned how to make the bird do anything I wanted.

:eek: BF2 FM has nothing to do with BIS games FM....no way near

[b00ce 160]

I really enjoyed the Battlefield 2 helo flight model. It took me 20 total hours of stick time but eventually I learned how to make the bird do anything I wanted.

Speaking of which. I suggest anybody who wants to fly period use BF controls. They are going to be as realistic (and easy) as any game will allow with a keyboard and mouse.

More to the point. I'm all for the harder flight model. The more realistic it is the better. This IS a simulator after all. :)

Looking forward to a release of the Puma, as allways. :p

[Daniel 0]

It would give me an advantage in MP over the BF2-master keyboard pilots :p

We keyboard (and mouse) pilots resent that remark!! :D

[andersson 285]

... to be honest the AI seem happier with this (not that ive asked them) but they seem to crash less, be more effective in AA and AG engagements.

In fact we've just played a short 40 minute game with the new FM enabled Lynx, Apache and Pumas. Its the same test game we played last week with the old FM. The AI didn't crash the Puma once (which was a change). The AI flying the Apache managed to clear out a town on its own where previously it just spent 20 minutes circling saying it couldn't engage.

For me this makes me 100% sure I would like to see your tweaked FM. Important as AI can make or brake missions.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

I think some of the disparity in votes come from people voting for the option that you labeled "balls-out realistic" and one wasn't, even tho option A agrees that "compromise" should be struck as the choppers fly like that in their regular operational use, transporting troops, etc, and that's what we do with them ingame most of the time anyways, everyone votes for empty-agile-helicopter realism anyways as it was labeled as "uber realism" and ofcourse, what kind of ArmA player do you want to be like if you don't want everything uber realistic.

If I'm understanding the poll correctly I believe more correct question to be asked would be Helo empty, airshow type of handling vs. Helo loaded, operational, doing what they're supposed to do type of handling. Apologies if I understood it wrong tho.

Another thing to look at is how much of the community would an addon exclude if it would be unusable for keyboard/mouse flyers and restricted to only joystick part of the flyboys. I'm fairly sure there are skilled KB/Mouse flyboys out there that would just have a slap in the face if it wasn't flyable with KB/Mouse. Even tho it might not be the same, it would be as if the game included lean, vertical lean and such, but was only available to people with headtracking or such.

Just my 2 cents.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I think some of the disparity in votes come from people voting for the option that you labeled "balls-out realistic" and one wasn't, even tho option A agrees that "compromise" should be struck as the choppers fly like that in their regular operational use, transporting troops, etc, and that's what we do with them ingame most of the time anyways, everyone votes for empty-agile-helicopter realism anyways as it was labeled as "uber realism" and ofcourse, what kind of ArmA player do you want to be like if you don't want everything uber realistic.

I think the poll questions are quite simple to understand. But I admit the subsequent discussion does muddy the water a bit.

The point of the exercise has been to gauge people's level of satisfaction with the current standard of flight model. I think, even though its early days, the majority want something more challenging to play with. More sim like and less BF2/Arcade. Since I posted this i've had several pretty indepth chats with people about what they want. People from both camps.

If I'm understanding the poll correctly I believe more correct question to be asked would be Helo empty, airshow type of handling vs. Helo loaded, operational, doing what they're supposed to do type of handling. Apologies if I understood it wrong tho.

You could put it like that but I think it gives the wrong impression of what im trying or even able to achieve. As I said in the very first post, "We can only change the sensitivity of the flight model - not totally rework it. Don't ask for or expect miracles".

The degree we are able to change the flight model is realistically quite limited. Using some crafty tricks i've developed I believe I can push it a bit more. But basically all i'm doing is increasing the sensitivity of the flight models on some aircraft to make them more responsive. So the real questions is what do people want?

The current (simplistic) FM

Or

A far more sensitive and challenging FM.

Well that's what the poll is for. I'll be honest I was on the fence when I made the first post. But tonight's results, conversations and MP tests have pushed me firmly over to the 'Sim' side.

Another thing to look at is how much of the community would an addon exclude if it would be unusable for keyboard/mouse flyers and restricted to only joystick part of the flyboys. I'm fairly sure there are skilled KB/Mouse flyboys out there that would just have a slap in the face if it wasn't flyable with KB/Mouse. Even tho it might not be the same, it would be as if the game included lean, vertical lean and such, but was only available to people with headtracking or such.

So you are saying that we shouldn't increase the FM sensitivity because it will exclude the less hardcore players? I don't buy that at all.

Nothing we are doing is going to bring MS Flight Sim standards or realism to ArmA2. The poll proves that the majority of people want more challenging aircraft to fly and fight with. But just because it inconveniences a minority is no excuse not to do it.

Using your Headtracking argument as an example; I played a MP game not so long a go with a guy who did not have TrackIR when i did. During a game I turned my head to see him hiding in a building and then shot him. He went postal on me because I was using TrackIR and could look around when he couldn't. He accused me of cheating, and conspiring to ruin his clan, assassinating Kennedy, faking the moon landings and many other things. Now he could have used free look to do exactly the same thing. But he didn't because it wasn't as easy to use as TrackIR. Does the fact that I had TrackIR and he didn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to use it? Why should we not take advantage of the features the game and our hardware affords us? There's nothing stopping him from going out and getting himself a TrackIR and getting the same degree of functionality as me.

The proposed Fm changes wont stop people using a keyboard and mouse to fly. It just means they wont get as much benefit from it as joystick users do. Where is the community splitting difference there? Its not different than Freelook and TrackIR in my opinion.

There are literally dozens of threads pleading for an FM improvement to something closer to a "simulation" standard on these forums. I can probably dig out a hundred emails and PMs begging us change the FM on all the BIS helos for people in arma1 and 2. What I am looking into wont make it impossible to use keyboard and mouse control, but to get the best out of it you are probably going to need a joystick.

But I've always made an effort with our addons to go with the majority community demand and recently there is to be a lot of demand for a more realistic FM. I just cant see a valid argument stop us trying to make one.

[b00ce 160]

Even though I'm a keyboard/ mouse user, I'd just like to point out the fact that NOBODY has to download these, if you don't like the flight model don't get it. I support RKSL's decision no matter what; because frankly, it's his, not ours. I admire the fact that he came forward and asked us our opinions, and is actually considering them. And to be honest, I'm looking forward to the more realistic flight-model. Get to it Rock!!! :p