Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

phunkmaz

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    47

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by phunkmaz

  1. Posted

    Alright, the BTT feels much better now! It's not perfect but it handels like a plane should do.

     

    But i may found a bug and hope someone can replicate and/or confirm it. It looks like the analog axes, mapped twice or more to the same output, multiply their strenght. For example:

     

    I mapped the rudder-axis to my pedal + to the pitch-trim wheel on my throttle-unit for ground-handling. Now if i push them both together in the desired direction the input is twice that strong as usual. Basicly thats not bad because the rudder input for the M-900 in the air and the BTT on the ground is way to weak. But wouldn't it be better if we could get more global input without multiplying the input?

     

    Cheers

    Matze

     

    PS: Please excuse my english, it's not my main language but i try to describe the things i see and that are floating around in my brain as good as i can :)

     

    Edit: Found the answer to my question or a simple workaround. It was the two different axes for the rudder. They don't multiply the strenght but cut them down to 50%.

  2. Posted

    Haven't flown the VTOL yet but regarding the Caesar BTT and all the other fixed wings: The FM hasn't changed. It still feels unrealistic, unnatural and not right in many aspects. A simple example:

     

    What i would expect: Banking a straight flying plane to the left or right -> The plane starts slipping to the roll-direction and also starts to pull its nose slightly down (if it is trimmed neutral).

    What i actualy get: The plane just keeps flying its old straight direction. That's it. No Side-slip. A fundamental part of flight-physics not existing.

     

    What i would expect: In a final approach i lower the flaps to full, plane decelerates, i raise the throttle to maintain a clean approach-speed.

    What i actualy get: Doesn't matter if i lower flaps to half or full, they have no effect. It's also almost impossible to maintain a speed. Throttle (i have the Warthog HOTAS Throttle Unit) is to imprecisely.

     

    What i would expect: I push my throttle to 25% (Throttle (Analog)) -> Plane starts accellerating slightly.

    What i actualy get: Throttle-Axis starts at 50%, have to push it to 100% that it even starts rolling. Most of the time i'm instantly at 100km/h and more.

     

    Speaking for myself, i don't want a complex FM like in X-Plane, DCS or even WT Sim-Mode. It just should feel more intuitive and natural. Even a Fly-By-Wire controlled plane wouldn't do what we actually have in A3.

    And it doesn't matter if i use mouse/keyboard or my full simulator-setup, the result is the same.

     

    And please, don't think that Auto-Rudder whould do the magic. It doesn't change the FM but the way you control the plane with mouse/keyboard. The result with stick, throttle and rudder whould be the same.

     

    Cheers

    • Like 3

  4. Posted

    I think yes since it is part of the config:

    class RotorLibHelicopterProperties: RotorLibHelicopterProperties {
RTDconfig = "A3\Air_F\Heli_Light_01\Light-GenHeli600-DesktopSim.xml";
starterTime = 5;
throttleOffToIdle = 8;
throttleIdleToOff = 12;
throttleIdleToFull = 4;
throttleFullToIdle = 13;
autoHoverCorrection = {0, 2.880000, 0};
maxTorque = 700;
maxMainRotorStress = 50000;
maxTailRotorStress = 4000;
retreatBladeStallWarningSpeed = 76.536003;
};

  7. Posted

    First, many thanks for the modification. Now it feels much better and even closer to the nice flight characteristics in A2. But i made another observation for myself. If i go into a straight forward movement and then bank to the left or right i would expect the helicopter to do a "not too" slight turn in that direction since the banking initiates a change of the CoG. You can observe the same thing with the planes in A3. While flying straight bank full left or right and watch how they still fly straight in that direction. In A2 it felt much more realistic than in A3 now. Test it by yourself and post your opinion.

  12. Posted

    I agree partly, what i really hate is blowing up when hitting water, i would atleast like a chance to survive an emergency crash landing on the water.

    We've all seen a plane try and land in the Hudson, with survivors.

    Thats exactly what i've tried to do with the C130. BIS should fix that :rolleyes:

  13. Posted

    Thats actually not voice synthesis. Voice synthesis is a way to reproduce a human voice using synthesizers and FM but at the moment it isn't possible to recreate a 100% real sounding voice. I guess for the voice in your video they used the same system that's been used for MS Sam but with the difference that they have a larger voice-sound database (500-700MB sounds per voice). I think with a professional created voice database you can produce natural sounding and dynamic speech. In my opinion that could be the future.

  19. Posted

    I'm not a script pro but the first think i learned was to keep a clean code style. I think that looks better:

    // Aufgaben
tskZiel4 = player createSimpleTask ["Point Delta erreichen"];
tskZiel4 setSimpleTaskDescription ["Erreichen Sie Point Delta!","Point Delta erreichen","Point Delta"];
if (Ziel4) then {
tskZiel4 setTaskState "Succeeded";
} else {
tskZiel4 setTaskState "Created";
tskZiel4 setSimpleTaskDestination (getMarkerPos "6");
player setCurrentTask tskZiel4;
};

tskZiel3 = player createSimpleTask ["Störsender zerstören"];
tskZiel3 setSimpleTaskDescription ["Zerstören Sie den Störsender!","Störsender zerstören","Störsender"];
if (Ziel3) then	{
tskZiel3 setTaskState "Succeeded";
} else {
tskZiel3 setTaskState "Created";
tskZiel3 setSimpleTaskDestination (getMarkerPos "5");
player setCurrentTask tskZiel3;
};

tskZiel2 = player createSimpleTask ["Strassensperre zerstören"];
tskZiel2 setSimpleTaskDescription ["Zerstören Sie die Strassenperre!","Strassensperre zerstören","Strassensperre"];
if (Ziel2) then	{
tskZiel2 setTaskState "Succeeded";
} else {
tskZiel2 setTaskState "Created";
tskZiel2 setSimpleTaskDestination (getMarkerPos "4");
player setCurrentTask tskZiel2;
};

tskZiel1 = player createSimpleTask ["Sammelpunkt erreichen"];
tskZiel1 setSimpleTaskDescription ["Erreichen Sie den Sammelpunkt an der Absprungzone!","Sammelpunkt erreichen","Sammelpunkt"];
if (Ziel1) then	{
tskZiel1 setTaskState "Succeeded";
} else {
tskZiel1 setTaskState "Created";
tskZiel1 setSimpleTaskDestination (getMarkerPos "3");
player setCurrentTask tskZiel1;
};

  20. Posted

    ... What i do see, in this thread and all the others, are lots and lots of fans saying "this is a good game BUT it just needs XXXXXXX to make it a Great game." and that's just the way it should be. That's good healthy feedback. That's what forums are for. ...

    100% Signed! BTW there are lots of peps telling other to play BF2, Steel Beats, Flight Simulator or whatever. The point is, we don't wan't to play other games/sims. We just would like to see some aspects/features of other games in A2.

  23. Posted

    I hope, but I am afraid it is rather the survival of the fattest.

    Since I do not have insight to BIS I am not sure if BIS does not see the need to do significant improvement on engine functionality and quality or if they simply never had nuff money to make large steps.

    Doesn't matter, fact is that the first product that can somehow compete with ArmA 2 will blow BIS from the market if they continue like that.

    I can not imagine a future without BIS :cool:

    Sad but true. :(

  24. Posted

    I'd like to see interiors for the existing tanks and proper system modeling for their weaponry. Oh, and more interaction with vehicles (seat belts, turn signals, usable doors and tailgates, winches and trailers (VBS2?), ...). ATM all vehicles are kind of DTU's (Disposable Transportation Units). I think it's better to fine-tune the current vehicles instead of adding more and more useless units to dump them in the next roadside ditch.

×