View Full Version : Plane and Helicopter handling
1988MAtej
Jun 4 2011, 20:40
I'm curious what's BIS plans on making Aaircraft handling more realistic. The current Arma 2 system is a joke. I'm a big fan of plane simulators and hope to see some improvements
Maybe, if more tech from TOH is utilized but I wouldn't bet on it too much, Arma is moreso a jack of all trades kind of thing.
ArmAriffic
Jun 4 2011, 21:42
http://forums.bistudio.com/forumdisplay.php?f=109
Dunno about planes though
I'm curious as to what is going to be translated from TOH to ArmA3.
Demonized
Jun 4 2011, 23:34
i hope they keep air vehicles handling the same as it is now, easy arcadish, with some simulation usable for anyone, including noobs or non sim guys.
then they can earn extra cash on for example let TOH owners use that flight control in Arma3 instead of the default one, do same for fixed wing with a TOP game or something.
It would be great for those really into sim flying to actually being able to bring that iinto the mainstream of Arma3.
I for one would easy buy TOH if it allowed me to pilot a heli like a real strong sim in arma3.
I think that flying in ArmA should be as realistic as they can possibly make it without sacrificing other aspects of the game. Hell, I believe that they should make EVERYTHING as realistic and with as much fidelity as they possibly can, be it driving, ballistics, flying or running around. Flying should require a lot of skill, same with driving and sniping. This would discourage the infamous "Airborne Medic Sniper Pilot" that crashes into everything. It would discourage these people who are not dedicated to learning and make them find out what they are best at/have the most fun doing and do it/get better at it. It would encourage people specializing in certain fields; granted this happens a lot now, but I believe that the balance between jack of all trades and specialists would shift.
Demonized
Jun 5 2011, 00:15
@<hidden>
what you are saying will also discourage much of the paying customer base of Arma since they like the specops AT medic pilot role.
I am not sure, in fact i do truly believe that Arma3 cannot survive on hardcore sim players alone, this is too much of a niche, but allowing the option to be bought if desired would not impact this, in fact it may draw even more potential players to the game, those that only wish to fly, and fly sim only not the current arcady simulation.
I think flying should be a skill. As of right now everyone can pick it up within a few minutes of practice. I would like to see flight mechanics and gameplay similar to microsoft flight simulator.
Steakslim
Jun 5 2011, 00:40
Anyone may be able to pick it up. But only a few can really use them well, and this shows at times. If you play on some clan servers you'll notice the same select few are often pilots, usually because they are dependable on not getting shotdown/crashing/mid air collision with other aircraft at base/can make hasty landings without autohover.
However I'm all for adding more difficulty/realism to the flight model. It'll create a bigger, better gap between the mediocre and the exceptional pilots, and keep the former from being able to brag their way into a pilot slot with their BF2 l337 flying skyllz
[APS]Gnat
Jun 5 2011, 01:58
Anyone may be able to pick it up. But only a few can really use them well
Yeh, and if ArmA3 can force a little more of that across all areas of gameplay, but not too much otherwise people will be pissed and annoyed with trying to play with different stuff.
ie, each vehicle or weapon type needs time to get used to, so people can skill up a little.
For aircraft I think a little more simulation, turning cirlces, mass vs airflow, proper stalls, proper damped undercarriage, even thrust vectoring, would be nice for raising the bar a bit.
I think flying should be a skill. As of right now everyone can pick it up within a few minutes of practice. I would like to see flight mechanics and gameplay similar to microsoft flight simulator.MS flight Simulator isn not a good option to start with...the flight model in FSX is not much better as the one in ArmA2... and in some aspects it's even worse.
MS flight Simulator isn not a good option to start with...the flight model in FSX is not much better as the one in ArmA2... and in some aspects it's even worse.
In what areas is it worse? According to actual pilots FSX is very realistic.....
In what areas is it worse? According to actual pilots FSX is very realistic.....FSX is only near realistic with payware addons..the stock aircraft are far off...747's can perform endless loopings and Helos are untrimmable and uncontrolable etc.
The main problem is that FSX is no flgutb simulator..its an instrument and cockpit simulator with a excel sheet based "flight model" that fails outside of normal general aviation flight parameters. FSX does not even know what airflow is or what a stall does.
In fact you can't stall the stock planes...they all fly on rails.
FSX is only near realistic with payware addons..the stock aircraft are far off...747's can perform endless loopings and Helos are untrimmable and uncontrolable etc.
The main problem is that FSX is no flgutb simulator..its an instrument and cockpit simulator with a excel sheet based "flight model" that fails outside of normal general aviation flight parameters. FSX does not even know what airflow is or what a stal does.
In fact you can't stall the stock planes...they all fly on rails.
You must have a different FSX than I have. My FSX takes into account wind. I have managed to stall a plane (on purpose :D). The helicopters are flyable (they are similar to arma 2's helicopters, just more complicated). So I really do not know where you are getting this from.
---------- Post added at 02:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 AM ----------
FSX is only near realistic with payware addons..the stock aircraft are far off...747's can perform endless loopings and Helos are untrimmable and uncontrolable etc.
The main problem is that FSX is no flgutb simulator..its an instrument and cockpit simulator with a excel sheet based "flight model" that fails outside of normal general aviation flight parameters. FSX does not even know what airflow is or what a stal does.
In fact you can't stall the stock planes...they all fly on rails.
Wait... Just remembered something... You do have all of your difficulty options turned to realistic right? Cause on the lower difficulties you would experience that...
You must have a different FSX than I have. My FSX takes into account wind. I have managed to stall a plane (on purpose :D). The helicopters are flyable (they are similar to arma 2's helicopters, just more complicated). So I really do not know where you are getting this from.
---------- Post added at 02:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 AM ----------
Wait... Just remembered something... You do have all of your difficulty options turned to realistic right? Cause on the lower difficulties you would experience that...Yes I have but i Simply have tried out DCS, X-Plane and IL-2...FSX is weak in al aspects exept Instrument simulation...it's a cockpit and IFR simulation with very weak FM...the helo FM is the weakest part of it....and only a handfull of payware planes for FSX perform really in a en velop that can be labeled "real".
Yes I have but i Simply have tried out DCS, X-Plane and IL-2...FSX is weak in al aspects exept Instrument simulation...it's a cockpit and IFR simulation with very weak FM...the helo FM is the weakest part of it....and only a handfull of payware planes for FSX perform really in a en velop that can be labeled "real".
If you have no real piloting experience than you cannot say it is worse or better than another simulator. I suggested FSX because of the good reviews by actual pilots.
If you have no real piloting experience than you cannot say it is worse or better than another simulator. I suggested FSX because of the good reviews by actual pilots.I have real piloting experience...in so far that I leased me a plane and a flight instructor once for a few hours and three flights of 1 hour each just because I wanted to know...the plane was a Do-27 and it did not flew on rails like the one I have in FSX... I performed manouvers up to 3g so not only left and right.
As soon as you have the stick in your hands and you're airborne you stop calling FSX "real". Its good for instrument trainign but far from real flight performance...the weak points are stalls of any kind, low speed handling, high speed handling and tailslides and "falling leaf" behaviour.
No simulator (as of yet or to my knowledge) is perfect... You have options, and you must choose one.
@<hidden>
what you are saying will also discourage much of the paying customer base of Arma since they like the specops AT medic pilot role.
I am not sure, in fact i do truly believe that Arma3 cannot survive on hardcore sim players alone, this is too much of a niche, but allowing the option to be bought if desired would not impact this, in fact it may draw even more potential players to the game, those that only wish to fly, and fly sim only not the current arcady simulation.
If people truly wanted to learn how to fly, they will. It's a learned skill. If they REALLY want to fill the medic sniper pilot role, they should train themselves. I fly ArmA more than DCS and X plane because of one very important thing, combined arms. You don't have people who are just flying, you have people on the ground, you have people in your cargo; REAL people, not just bots. Because ArmA is a simulator, I don't see why BIS can't pull all the stops and go all out.
I think flying should be a skill. As of right now everyone can pick it up within a few minutes of practice. I would like to see flight mechanics and gameplay similar to microsoft flight simulator.
FSX is a terrible helicopter flight sim. It's essentially on par with ArmA now, save for the landing gear/wheels working and switches being flippable.
Anyone may be able to pick it up. But only a few can really use them well, and this shows at times. If you play on some clan servers you'll notice the same select few are often pilots, usually because they are dependable on not getting shotdown/crashing/mid air collision with other aircraft at base/can make hasty landings without autohover.
However I'm all for adding more difficulty/realism to the flight model. It'll create a bigger, better gap between the mediocre and the exceptional pilots, and keep the former from being able to brag their way into a pilot slot with their BF2 l337 flying skyllz
Exactly, and that goes for everything else.
Gnat;1945835']Yeh, and if ArmA3 can force a little more of that across all areas of gameplay, but not too much otherwise people will be pissed and annoyed with trying to play with different stuff.
ie, each vehicle or weapon type needs time to get used to, so people can skill up a little.
If BIS took that approach, nothing would get done. ArmA 3 is a completely new game, and they should treat it as such. I think BIS should push the boundaries. Frankly, people should adapt to the game, not the game be dumbed down to match the people. Think of it like exercise, if you don't step outside your comfort zone, you won't get better.
For aircraft I think a little more simulation, turning cirlces, mass vs airflow, proper stalls, proper damped undercarriage, even thrust vectoring, would be nice for raising the bar a bit.
Mass vs airflow sounds like a very tall order, unless you're talking about wind effecting flight, which I think is imperative. Along with the speed indicators reading air speed, not ground speed.
Gravity, aerodynamic, weather, and the statistic of the aerial vehicles are very demanding to program out in case for the simulation. I really hope that ARMA3 focus on the environment to match the real world's physics before manipulating the configuration of vehicles.
Judging by past quotes and such, I think it's safe to say that BIS doesn't want to make flying exclusive for flightbuffs. They want it accessible.
Though, I do think there are things that could be improved, which wouldn't make flying harder. Like working CCIP and non-absolute throttle - at least for planes.
[APS]Gnat
Jun 5 2011, 10:45
LOL
Actually, thinking about it now I'd prefer;
- gravity and bombing
- multiple gun turrets
- true Copilot
- REAL Weapons Officer position
fixed BEFORE they fix the flight model ;)
Proper crash simulation - not just a huge explosion. Especially for helicopters, to see the rotors come apart would be amazing. If they were hit by a stinger then the huge explosion would fit the scene there.
I think flying should be a skill. As of right now everyone can pick it up within a few minutes of practice. I would like to see flight mechanics and gameplay similar to microsoft flight simulator.
Flying is already a skill. Sure, everyone can pick up an aircraft and start flying but the vast majority doesn't know the finer tricks or even some basic things. Do you really want to make flying roles unplayable for most of the time? Considering that a very big portion of wannabe pilots in Arma 2 today somehow always manage to screw up landings and basic air-to-air tactics, cranking up the technical simulation will seriously limit the practical possibilities in mission making.
ProfTournesol
Jun 5 2011, 10:53
I think flying should be a skill. As of right now everyone can pick it up within a few minutes of practice. I would like to see flight mechanics and gameplay similar to microsoft flight simulator.
God no. This game isn't about those kind of simulation. It could be better (or more realistic as Gnat suggestions), but it must remain easy.
[FRL]Myke
Jun 5 2011, 11:19
I think the best approach would be to have difficulty options. So people can chose if they would prefer a simplified handling or the complex behaviour.
In MP, server would dictate the setting, allowing clients to have the complex behaviour if they want (and simplified is set on server) but the other way around, if server is set to complex, simplified would be overridden.
Hope you get the point.
IMHO this is the only way to cover all needs. Server owners that prefer realistic settings can set it accordingly while servers for "casual gamers" can stick with the simplified setting, not pissing off the players.
metalcraze
Jun 5 2011, 11:31
BIS should include both simplified and advanced flight physics.
Simplified can be used in more "casual" missions while advanced may be used by clans that have dedicated pilots (and a lot of clans do) because usually those are people who play serious flight sims and it will only be fitting.
But BIS should totally remove that auto-hover thing regardless.
BIS should include both simplified and advanced flight physics.
Simplified can be used in more "casual" missions while advanced may be used by clans that have dedicated pilots (and a lot of clans do) because usually those are people who play serious flight sims and it will only be fitting.
But BIS should totally remove that auto-hover thing regardless.But Helos have autohover these days...!!!
metalcraze
Jun 5 2011, 12:29
Helos do not have autohover at 300 km/h
Flying is already a skill. Sure, everyone can pick up an aircraft and start flying but the vast majority doesn't know the finer tricks or even some basic things.
Very true, and it can sometimes take even some time, I remember introducing a CSS friend to Arma2 via demo, trying to get him to pilot a helo, showed it and explained to him how the basics worked but he always had difficulty with nose planting or side dipping..
Personally I love a good challenge, the more difficult the object is to become better with the more it is rewarding for the effort, piloting in say crysis feels very dull compared to arma2's more free and less 'friendly' flight model.
Beagles right, helicopters do have autohover and in fact some have various hover modes.
SASrecon
Jun 5 2011, 16:45
I would love to see some kind of module for more realistic flying/simulation of certain parts of the game (ot: and a bonus would be some sliders which allow more user-friendly interactions with modules, as opposed to setting variables with script e.g. different weather types can be adjusted more easily by adjusting certain sliders) and this module could have a slider which allows mission designers choose if the pilot role should be played by a skilled player who requires more advanced vehicle interactions and play a more important role in the mission or just has a very simple transport role for example in a mp mission like berzerk where many pilots tend to ditch/eject from their vehicle after reaching their destination and the heli just respawns.
Perhaps the mission designer can even let the player decide, so for example players who aren't up for joining a clan but want a challenge of just taxi-ing teammates from respawn to action with a more twitchy flight model, however with the current model imho this role becomes boring quite quickly.
Just an idea which has probably been mentioned but from my pov, it would definitely not hurt the game and maybe even enhance ArmA's aspect of the 'jack of all trades' with regards to simulation but not for a small hardcore niche nor a playerbase who wants some bf-style fun who end up killing their passangers due to the beloved fly in and eject over enemy tactic or just because some noobie thinks that instead of practicing in the editor they think it's a good idea to practice flying with a chopper full of infantry :rolleyes:
BobcatBob
Jun 5 2011, 17:14
You know how BIS can make the game more realistic and difficult without alienating ANYBODY?
1.On top of all of the other difficulties make a difficulty called SIMULATION, so ultra-realistic fans like myself can enjoy, (make all difficulty options 100% configurable anyway (serverside) or if necesary a mission author (some scenarios may require certain options that arenot in vehicles outside of sim-uber-realism mode.
One difficulty options could be auto-start where in a vehicle that requires any sort of complex start up, would be automatically performed by the players avatar in real-time so some CAS/QRF response times could be accurate w/o someone having to memorize a 10minute start up sequence. (the player would just hit the start-up function from the popup menu) maybe a quickstart option as well so some parts may be skipped like pre-flight checks if you are in a real hurry (maybe a 10% chance of any systems failing if you do this)
2.BIS should make good in-depth training missions for normal and sim modes.
Judging by past quotes and such, I think it's safe to say that BIS doesn't want to make flying exclusive for flightbuffs. They want it accessible.
It will still be accessible to people who care enough to practice. I wouldn't be nearly as good as I am now without my HOURS UPON HOURS doing nothing but flying around in the editor. Like I keep saying; if someone is truely intent on learning to fly, nothing will stop them. Humans are capable of great things, never underestimate peoples' ability to learn and adapt. The only people it would really discourage are the people who hop in and fly off and jump out at the AO, that's not a bad thing.
Proper crash simulation - not just a huge explosion. Especially for helicopters, to see the rotors come apart would be amazing. If they were hit by a stinger then the huge explosion would fit the scene there.
FUCKING THIS!!! Nothing pisses me off more than miscalculating, having a minor rotor strike and exploding.
Flying is already a skill. Sure, everyone can pick up an aircraft and start flying but the vast majority doesn't know the finer tricks or even some basic things. Do you really want to make flying roles unplayable for most of the time? Considering that a very big portion of wannabe pilots in Arma 2 today somehow always manage to screw up landings and basic air-to-air tactics, cranking up the technical simulation will seriously limit the practical possibilities in mission making.
God no. This game isn't about those kind of simulation. It could be better (or more realistic as Gnat suggestions), but it must remain easy.
They won't be unplayable for people who actually care wand want to learn. YES, the learning curve will be steeper, but saying people will NOT learn is ludicrous.
Myke;1946133']I think the best approach would be to have difficulty options. So people can chose if they would prefer a simplified handling or the complex behaviour.
In MP, server would dictate the setting, allowing clients to have the complex behaviour if they want (and simplified is set on server) but the other way around, if server is set to complex, simplified would be overridden.
Hope you get the point.
IMHO this is the only way to cover all needs. Server owners that prefer realistic settings can set it accordingly while servers for "casual gamers" can stick with the simplified setting, not pissing off the players.
BIS should include both simplified and advanced flight physics.
Simplified can be used in more "casual" missions while advanced may be used by clans that have dedicated pilots (and a lot of clans do) because usually those are people who play serious flight sims and it will only be fitting.
But BIS should totally remove that auto-hover thing regardless.
Not only does that make unnecessary work for BIS but when people who are used to flying the easy setting go on multiplayer servers with the HARD setting, they'll think they can fly and fail miserably.
Having difficulties that completely change the game WILL split the community and alienate people. Having those settings will do more harm than good. People are not idiots, generally at least, they are capable of learning new skills. And if the tutorials for the new, more difficult, features are any good, people will know what to do and how to do it.
TlDr:
People will learn. Making the difficulty optional will make WAAAAAAY more work for BIS and split the community.
They won't be unplayable for people who actually care wand want to learn. YES, the learning curve will be steeper, but saying people will NOT learn is ludicrous.
People who are good or excellent pilots are a small minority at this moment. That number can only go down and the number of players able to fly at all will plummet when more simulation aspects are brought along. Yes, some people will still be able to operate aircraft well, but they will be such a small minority that mission designers simply cannot rely on the presence of a pilot able to do a critical task even in a fraction of played games, even less so in PVP missions where air superiority matters. I have played in large scale PVP tournaments and it's telling that even guys who are considered (by themselves and others) to be hotshot pilots will do stupid mistakes (crashing into trees, too hard landings, bad paradrops), costing lives and very often turning the tide of the battle in the enemy's favor.
ProfTournesol
Jun 5 2011, 17:42
They won't be unplayable for people who actually care wand want to learn. YES, the learning curve will be steeper, but saying people will NOT learn is ludicrous.
God, i didn't say that, stop making smart comment please. I just don't want flying to be much harder than today.
DMarkwick
Jun 5 2011, 17:46
Proper crash simulation - not just a huge explosion. Especially for helicopters, to see the rotors come apart would be amazing. If they were hit by a stinger then the huge explosion would fit the scene there.
This could possibly be solved simply by BIS implementing PhysX in a way that exposes its functionality via scripting.
That way, a modder could intercept a crashing helo and instead of the usual crash/explode/death that always happens, perhaps the helo body could be subject to PhysX animation instead. This would allow for survivable crashes.
You're blowing things out of proportion. People will still be able to fly, increasing the difficulty is not going to magically kill the community. And missions without 20 pilot slots would be a change for the more realistic because 9 times out of 10, in real life, people drive (Or even ruck march) the 6 - 12 miles (10 - 20 km) to the AO, they don't usually fly.
It's a win win.
---------- Post added at 10:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 AM ----------
God, i didn't say that, stop making smart comment please. I just don't want flying to be much harder than today.
Why not push the boundaries of your ability? You WILL get better and you'll look back at the "old days" or go and play OA and realize how piss easy it can be.
And for the record, I want BIS to work on all simulations equally. Cars and tanks are just as important as, if not more important than, aircraft.
Edit: and it was directed at both of you.
ProfTournesol
Jun 5 2011, 17:56
Why not push the boundaries of your ability? You WILL get better and you'll look back at the "old days" or go and play OA and realize how piss easy it can be.
Nevermind.
The best products in our days are the ones that let the consumer have options. Perhaps it is a good idea to make each area of the game (infantry, flying or armor) adjustable. Let the player decide what he wants to be - a hardcore pilot or arcade master. We already have some small level of that in the game when setting up the difficulty. Lets take it to the next level.
Each MP server can also pre-set certain conditions to the game. I know it's more work for the developers, but this should make the Arma an iconic customization game. With it's editor is almost there, but to end all the debates over who's tank is better or simulator vs arcade, just let the players set it up themselves.
CMB Unit 01
Jun 6 2011, 11:00
I think it'd be nice to have an everything simulator. I don't think BIS should hold themselves back if they're trying to go for higher realism. If anything, it'll attract a lot of people from different communities. People who play sim-games like DCS will be interested in playing Arma because of increased flight immersion. If driving simulation is improved, then people from communities that play the likes of rFactor will be interested as well.
So yes, I would agree that realism should be pushed for. As far as gaining accessibility to this level of realism is concerned, it would require BIS to make appropriately in-depth tutorials, and a lot of practice by the player. I'm not saying I'm the greatest of pilots, but I'm certainly not the worst. My in-game piloting ability has been gained from practice. Arma shouldn't be a game you can just jump on and be instantly good at. That's not what it's supposed to be (from what I gather :p).
elvinjones
Jun 6 2011, 17:28
I also play simulators, and think it would be great to have more realism in the air.
But as some have pointed out, the maps are too small to feel very immersed in high speed aircraft, so until Arma has bigger maps, simulation should have proportionately less importance.
Air is still Battlefield like in that you capture some air base and fly out from 500 or 1500 meters from behind a firefight.
But as some have pointed out, the maps are too small to feel very immersed in high speed aircraft, so until Arma has bigger maps, simulation should have proportionately less importance.
Air is still Battlefield like in that you capture some air base and fly out from 500 or 1500 meters from behind a firefight.
You do realize that Lemnos is a solid 4.5x the size of any other Vanilla map, right?
The best products in our days are the ones that let the consumer have options. Perhaps it is a good idea to make each area of the game (infantry, flying or armor) adjustable. Let the player decide what he wants to be - a hardcore pilot or arcade master. We already have some small level of that in the game when setting up the difficulty. Lets take it to the next level.
Each MP server can also pre-set certain conditions to the game. I know it's more work for the developers, but this should make the Arma an iconic customization game. With it's editor is almost there, but to end all the debates over who's tank is better or simulator vs arcade, just let the players set it up themselves.
ArmA is not, repeat NOT, an arcade game. And adding a lesser functionality WILL detract from the overall gameplay. No, I'm not talking about splitting the community (It'll happen if you get your wish.) but I'm talking about the resources BIS has to put into adding the option. It's going to cut down on the quality of other areas. I do NOT want to see the overall gameplay of ArmA 3 suffer because of, what is effectively, a crutch for people who don't want to better themselves. (Like the obese person in in the super-market who uses the scooter so they don't have to walk to get their twinkies and icecream, that then complains about how they're fat.) :mad:
DMarkwick
Jun 6 2011, 19:38
It's gotta be a game first, with options to ramp up the reality. That's just the way it's got to be.
Game's got to sell, and as long as the options/moddability are there, it'll all be good :)
Flying should be a point and click on the map affair and NOE flight and a dramatic spiraling landing under fire should be quick-time-evented automatically into the gameplay.
Wait.. what?
It's gotta be a game first, with options to ramp up the reality. That's just the way it's got to be.
Game's got to sell, and as long as the options/moddability are there, it'll all be good :)
The game WILL sell, even if the options aren't there. Adding the option to dumb things down is WAY more work for BIS and splits the community. A lose - lose. ArmA is a SUMULATOR, BIS should treat it as such and be as realistic as they possibly can. Some people may not be cut out for flying, yes. But guess what? The same goes for real life too. ArmA is not JUST about flying. Flying is 1/3 of the overall gaming experience. I don't want to see ANY part of the game sacrificed for the sake of flying, or making things "easy".
Demonized
Jun 6 2011, 20:35
if pilots want full simulation in the flying they can buy TOH wich BIS will make compatible with Arma3 and players can fly with their TOH controls...............
This way, BIS gets to sell more games, Arma3 base is kept intact for everyone new and old, and the simmers gets their 247 buttons to fly with if desired.
Going the elitist way by force will hurt BIS financially and cut down the active player base, and is a bad move, Arma games is a very specific niche, its is far from the mainstream of global players, it needs to keep a level head, and the current way is a good middleground for sim and nonsim.
CMB Unit 01
Jun 6 2011, 21:30
Yes, but helicopters and planes are also a very specific niche. If there's only a few people that can fly them, that fits in with the idea that there aren't many available. Since infantry are the predominate units, then there will be fewer helicopters and planes.
If someone wants to learn how to fly a helicopter, they need to learn how to fly a helicopter. This sorts out the problem with public Domi where someone jumps on, steals a helicopter, and leaves it out in the field, leaving everyone else back at base, either having to wait for it to respawn, or trek out to the AO instead.
If they had to learn how to fly a helicopter, they'd have to devote their time to that, and so are a required asset for the team, since no one else knows how to use it. If you've spent all that time learning how to start up and fly it, then you'll want to make as much use out of it as possible, and not just dump it in the field, after the several minutes it takes to get the helicopter up in the air.
paecmaker
Jun 6 2011, 21:38
They should have like in IL 2 sturmovik. If you want to play like an arcade you can change the settings and controls and you can do that but you can also make it the other way.
Me, I think that the helicopter controls are kinda good, easy to learn but hard to master.
The people that want it to be as realistic as real plane simulations remember that those games have only one sort of playable vehicle and not like ARMA where you both take action as a foot soldier. Its all a balance act.
Macadam Cow
Jun 7 2011, 01:30
I'm still convinced the only way to increase the ArmA fanbase is to make ArmA more appealing to other simmers, not to others FPS gamers.
It's been stated before but if they improve the realism of aerial vehicles it will interest people from DCS, FSX,...If they improve the ground vehicles it will interest the - quite small - Steal Beast community, and so on.
ArmA will never be appealing for CoD/BF/MoH players, that's just not the the kind of fun they're looking for.
I do not agree with arcade controls. As everyone has already stated it is a SIM and should stay that way. The helicopters and planes should REQUIRE skill and devotion to use. It should be more like real life, where aerial assets require skilled pilots, and are not commonplace. By adding complexity and requiring a pilot to learn how to fly (like they would in any flying SIM or real life) you are preventing people from joining a server and leaving an aircraft out in the middle of no where or the wasting of assets.
CarlGustaffa
Jun 7 2011, 03:23
You do realize that Lemnos is a solid 4.5x the size of any other Vanilla map, right?
Based on what gridded map? Aren't all previous maps downsized from the real location?
Macadam Cow
Jun 7 2011, 04:04
IIRC the map should be 2.4 times bigger than Chernarus
EDIT : 2.4 times bigger than Takistan actually (http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1933790&postcount=31)
DMarkwick
Jun 7 2011, 09:17
The game WILL sell, even if the options aren't there. Adding the option to dumb things down is WAY more work for BIS and splits the community. A lose - lose. ArmA is a SUMULATOR, BIS should treat it as such and be as realistic as they possibly can. Some people may not be cut out for flying, yes. But guess what? The same goes for real life too. ArmA is not JUST about flying. Flying is 1/3 of the overall gaming experience. I don't want to see ANY part of the game sacrificed for the sake of flying, or making things "easy".
You're against even the option? I cannot fathom how you can label it a lose-lose. Let's get one thing absolutely correct: ArmA is a game first and foremost. I know there is a propensity for insisting that it's a simulator, but really, if you insist on that then you're talking about VBS2. And if you look for helicopter simulation then you look at DCS. I'm not suggesting I wish for dumbed down arcade heli flying only, but the idea is for helos to be useful, if you play as a pilot you can assume your avatar to be able to fly a helo.
ArmA3 has to sell to a mainly gaming crowd. Lets not forget we are the minority here, most people who will buy ArmA3 will just want to play a game. You don't have to like that fact, but there it is, and BIS have to sell to as wide a market as they can, but obviously without losing the central theme of the franchise, which is flexibility and customisation.
ArmA is this: a game that can easily be customised to be as realistic as possible with very few limitations. Quite frankly, I like that about it. Cutting out accessibility is one great way of losing members before they can get a grasp on it. Many people are happy playing the game right out of the box, and are then surprised and overjoyed when they discover what it really can be :)
IMO controls and flying is great now, just gte rid of that dam auto-corecting rudder :(!!!
IT SUCKS!!
NoRailgunner
Jun 7 2011, 10:31
Making such features optional eg "simulation mode" / "gaming mode" is the way to go. Including a server tag/sign for mp browser "SIM" and "Game". ;)
Kremator
Jun 7 2011, 10:36
Absolutely NOTHING wrong with the flying (and controls) at the moment. I know some people use joysticks but take it from me, you can have just as skilled a pilot with mouse and keyboard!
CarlGustaffa
Jun 7 2011, 12:17
IIRC the map should be 2.4 times bigger than Chernarus
EDIT : 2.4 times bigger than Takistan actually (http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1933790&postcount=31)
Ok, thanks. But Takistan is land mass only, while this is about 50% sea, so the covered land mass to play in appears to be somewhat similar, or 1.2 times Takistan landmass.
IMO controls and flying is great now, just gte rid of that dam auto-corecting rudder :(!!!
IT SUCKS!!
Why does it suck? Personally I'm glad I don't have to consider manual turn coordination - I don't expect skips and slips to be part of the flight model anyway, especially not slip drag or complaining passengers in long jets. Remember, the felt force of a slip/skip cannot be felt, nor do we have crosswind landings requiring crossed control approaches. Optional, fine. But removing it?
Ok, thanks. But Takistan is land mass only, while this is about 50% sea, so the covered land mass to play in appears to be somewhat similar, or 1.2 times Takistan landmass.
Using FSX go get a preview is deemed me that a single Missile Helicopter hovering in the middle of the island could dominate the whole battlefield when there is no change towards a realistic targeting method...lemnos provides no cover for tanks from a Helo at 50m altitude.
Tab-killing madness.
DMarkwick
Jun 7 2011, 13:21
Using FSX go get a preview is deemed me that a single Missile Helicopter hovering in the middle of the island could dominate the whole battlefield when there is no change towards a realistic targeting method...lemnos provides no cover for tanks from a Helo at 50m altitude.
Tab-killing madness.
Well... surely the same can be said if the helo? I'd be very doubtful of a helo's chances of dominating the island by simply hovering in the middle :D
HailStorm
Jun 7 2011, 14:50
Well... surely the same can be said if the helo? I'd be very doubtful of a helo's chances of dominating the island by simply hovering in the middle :D
Was (and still is) VERY possible with a Kamov and Vikhr missiles. Those things have a huge range and can also successfully attack air - the damn helicopter has basically NO counter except an infantry with a stinger with the luck to somehow get underneath it. After all this time I still think balance-wise it's completely broken.
Air physics are OK in 2 overall, what I'd like to see is a separation in the config values of thrust and max power - so a prop plane can have a high thrust value but overall a low max speed and a jet to have lower acceleration but higher top speed. (real life example - having the C-130 be able to fly out of the grass airfields on cherno but the jets not being able to)
I'd also like to be able to do a constant turn at full thrust without having the speed bleed all the way to stall - it shouldn't happen at max thrust, at least. with real air physics airspeed will only drop to a point where there is enough excess thrust from the engines to compensate for the increased drag created by the turn. The speed is different for most aircraft but it's usually a speed slightly higher than stall speed.
It would also be nice to get rid of the silly harrier version of autohover and have the F-35 version as the minimum standard across all vtol craft (assuming the harrier is even IN 3)
Well... surely the same can be said if the helo? I'd be very doubtful of a helo's chances of dominating the island by simply hovering in the middle :DIt can as it does right now in ArmA II as long as BI continues to not support any decent SAM systems and in turn making air units superweapons that siply tab-kill anything away with laser guided dumb-iron bombs and magic missiles that can go backwards or fly circles to get their target.
wolfbite
Jun 7 2011, 16:01
Crosswinds would be a very nice feature... and the rudders on both planes and helo's require a lot of adjusting..... I also agree on the max speed, max thrust and stall speeds need to be implemented seperately so you dont end up stalling from slight turns all the time...
Yes, but helicopters and planes are also a very specific niche. If there's only a few people that can fly them, that fits in with the idea that there aren't many available. Since infantry are the predominate units, then there will be fewer helicopters and planes.
If someone wants to learn how to fly a helicopter, they need to learn how to fly a helicopter. This sorts out the problem with public Domi where someone jumps on, steals a helicopter, and leaves it out in the field, leaving everyone else back at base, either having to wait for it to respawn, or trek out to the AO instead.
If they had to learn how to fly a helicopter, they'd have to devote their time to that, and so are a required asset for the team, since no one else knows how to use it. If you've spent all that time learning how to start up and fly it, then you'll want to make as much use out of it as possible, and not just dump it in the field, after the several minutes it takes to get the helicopter up in the air.
Pretty much this. I couldn't have put it better.
if pilots want full simulation in the flying they can buy TOH wich BIS will make compatible with Arma3 and players can fly with their TOH controls...............
This way, BIS gets to sell more games, Arma3 base is kept intact for everyone new and old, and the simmers gets their 247 buttons to fly with if desired.
Going the elitist way by force will hurt BIS financially and cut down the active player base, and is a bad move, Arma games is a very specific niche, its is far from the mainstream of global players, it needs to keep a level head, and the current way is a good middleground for sim and nonsim.
See, here's the thing, I play ArmA over DCS and X-plane (All amazing sims) because of the whole combined arms thing tat only ArmA offers. If you eject out of your Kamov or A-10 in DCS, you're a sitting duck on the ground that can't fight back. In X-plane the game just stops if you crash. In ArmA, you have REAL people in the back of your aircraft, you have REAL people on the ground that need fire support. They aren't some bot without any sort of spirit or drive. Just ones and zeros. And if you get shot down, the game changes completely. No other game/sim has that.
Also, I recall hearing that ArmA3 things will be compatible with ToH, not the other way around. And, even though I'm going to buy it, I think that it would be a VERY shitty thing for BIS to do if they only allowed for ArmA3 players to have realistic controls if they baught ToH.
Absolutely NOTHING wrong with the flying (and controls) at the moment. I know some people use joysticks but take it from me, you can have just as skilled a pilot with mouse and keyboard!
I use keyboard and mouse in ArmA, cant use my X-52 in it for some reason, feels weird.
You're against even the option? I cannot fathom how you can label it a lose-lose. Let's get one thing absolutely correct: ArmA is a game first and foremost. I know there is a propensity for insisting that it's a simulator, but really, if you insist on that then you're talking about VBS2. And if you look for helicopter simulation then you look at DCS. I'm not suggesting I wish for dumbed down arcade heli flying only, but the idea is for helos to be useful, if you play as a pilot you can assume your avatar to be able to fly a helo.
It IS, the community gets split and BIS has to dedicate time and resources to adding the option, taking away from other things. As I've said before, I play DCS. A lot. But I like ArmA better because of the Coop combined arms bit.
ArmA3 has to sell to a mainly gaming crowd. Lets not forget we are the minority here, most people who will buy ArmA3 will just want to play a game. You don't have to like that fact, but there it is, and BIS have to sell to as wide a market as they can, but obviously without losing the central theme of the franchise, which is flexibility and customisation.
ArmA is this: a game that can easily be customised to be as realistic as possible with very few limitations. Quite frankly, I like that about it. Cutting out accessibility is one great way of losing members before they can get a grasp on it. Many people are happy playing the game right out of the box, and are then surprised and overjoyed when they discover what it really can be :)
Chances are, the casual players are going to be doing infantry. If not, they're the hard core simmers who will enjoy the more realistic flight mechanics. I've never met one person that ever complained about being a terrible pilot. They always joke about it and say they'll "leave it to the pros".
Besides, flying is a niche croud anyways. Show me a good pilot in ArmA and I'll show you a person that flys simulators. Hell, I know people who are HARDCORE into FSX, X-plane and DCS, but don't fly in ArmA because it's too unrealistic. I also know people who are pilots in real life and don't fly because of it. :j:
ProfTournesol
Jun 7 2011, 18:51
Besides, flying is a niche croud anyways. Show me a good pilot in ArmA and I'll show you a person that flys simulators. Hell, I know people who are HARDCORE into FSX, X-plane and DCS, but don't fly in ArmA because it's too unrealistic. I also know people who are pilots in real life and don't fly because of it. :j:
That's exactly why i don't want it to happen.
DMarkwick
Jun 7 2011, 19:37
Also, I recall hearing that ArmA3 things will be compatible with ToH, not the other way around. And, even though I'm going to buy it, I think that it would be a VERY shitty thing for BIS to do if they only allowed for ArmA3 players to have realistic controls if they baught ToH.
Actually I like the sound of it. I seem to remember some rumour of work going into connecting DCS & VBS2, as I already have DCS I'd be up for that, but even if I didn't have DCS I would certainly buy it because of it. And if ToH is linked into ArmA3 for flight model purposes, then I will buy it because of that. I see it as extending my game via modules :) which is probably as good a way to do it as any. Lat's get a Steel Beasts analog into the game too :)
It IS, the community gets split and BIS has to dedicate time and resources to adding the option, taking away from other things. As I've said before, I play DCS. A lot. But I like ArmA better because of the Coop combined arms bit.
Chances are, the casual players are going to be doing infantry. If not, they're the hard core simmers who will enjoy the more realistic flight mechanics. I've never met one person that ever complained about being a terrible pilot. They always joke about it and say they'll "leave it to the pros".
Besides, flying is a niche croud anyways. Show me a good pilot in ArmA and I'll show you a person that flys simulators. Hell, I know people who are HARDCORE into FSX, X-plane and DCS, but don't fly in ArmA because it's too unrealistic. I also know people who are pilots in real life and don't fly because of it. :j:
Right. But I don't see any reasons not to option it, other than the time it takes BIS to do it. I certainly don't see how the community will be split because of it. Let's face it, if BIS are going to do ONE of those things, it's going to make it accessible rather than inaccessible. Let's turn it around and say we wish for the option to complicate it :)
Then let the server settings rule. I mean, when did you ever play a serious server where realism wasn't turned up? :)
logandog1240
Jul 4 2011, 09:40
honestly arma 3 should be as much of a total sim as possible, they have been trying to appeal to cod / bf fans when in reality look how many sales dcs a10 has, thats just 1 vehicle imagine attracting all those fans, but for all sim types
CarlGustaffa
Jul 4 2011, 10:37
Using FSX go get a preview
Excellent idea - starting up now :D
Kristian
Jul 4 2011, 11:17
honestly arma 3 should be as much of a total sim as possible, they have been trying to appeal to cod / bf fans when in reality look how many sales dcs a10 has, thats just 1 vehicle imagine attracting all those fans, but for all sim types
BIS doesn't have the time (I think) to fully simulate every vehicles to full simulation. Look how long it took the DCS team to make that ONE single plane. Now imagine BIS doing that to every single vehicle in their game. One can dream, but I'm happy with the helo and tank controls I have at the moment.
GossamerSolid
Jul 4 2011, 11:51
Yeah I don't want ultra realistic flight models in ArmA 3, because that'd probably prevent me from playing it. If I want to have to read a manual for 2 hours and buy a joystick to properly fly, I'd just go play IL-2, DCS, Flaming Cliffs, FSX or ToH.
honestly arma 3 should be as much of a total sim as possible, they have been trying to appeal to cod / bf fans when in reality look how many sales dcs a10 has, thats just 1 vehicle imagine attracting all those fans, but for all sim types
Not possible, at least right now. DCS simulates the air flowing over the lifting surfaces, and the whole aircraft for that matter. ;)
However, I believe that they should create a whole bunch of environmental effects that effect all vehicle simulations, like wind for example. If the wind is strong enough, it can blow a car off the road if it's going too fast. Perhaps a config value for the propensity for a vehicle's wind drift. Perhaps weight could play a major roll too.
Primarch
Jul 4 2011, 22:25
Not possible, at least right now. DCS simulates the air flowing over the lifting surfaces, and the whole aircraft for that matter. ;)
However, I believe that they should create a whole bunch of environmental effects that effect all vehicle simulations, like wind for example. If the wind is strong enough, it can blow a car off the road if it's going too fast. Perhaps a config value for the propensity for a vehicle's wind drift. Perhaps weight could play a major roll too.
Now that would be really awesome, I'd love to mess around with it.
Think of the custom map possibilities with some super wind and other variables that you can change!!
Hartmann
Jul 5 2011, 00:28
Airplanes function fine in Arma 2, they do what they're supposed to do and despite the model being simplistic it's not a big deal breaker.
Helicopters on the other hand are ridiculous, as their maneuverability is so god awfully limited once you get above 80kmph that it's just a total joke.
EvilNate
Jul 5 2011, 00:30
I think the current flight model is decent for being in a infantry simulator. If I could offer a improvement for ArmA flight, I would say allow a higher ceiling with better visibility. Then again, the maps are only so big...
10,000 meters (~32800 feet) (~7,800 short of the stratosphere.) is a VERY high ceiling for what ArmA is. Of course you can go higher, but your control surfaces lock up.
I think aircraft need more detail in order to make them fully functional on the Arma battlefield and also to bring balance to the sim.
Helicopters:
Western- Airspeed in knots, Altitude in feet.
Gunship- targetting requires ground stabilised image.
JSF
-requires a targetting pod view, TDC slew, ground stabilise and lock/lase for LGBs/mavericks. Could also use A/G radar with lock and CCRP delivery mode.
Requires CCIP sight as well for effective CAS operation for free fall bombs.
Requires airspeed in knots, altitude in feet.
A/A radar requires a scan pattern and modes TWS/STT plus expand view and range/ azimuth control.
All aircraft should have a flight planner for navigation to make them more effective on the Arma battlefield. You could also have a breifing room where flight planning is done and a data cartridge to load the flight plan onto or just an option on the map for this. You also need this NAV steerpoint information on the HUD.
Drone needs to fly higher, much higher needs a ground stailised image to lock on a point on the ground and lase.(current campaign missions only ULB is effective for A/G the UAV flys too fast too low so you cannot effectively shoot or look at anything.)
Realism can be scalable and trainning missions can be made to train people to fly and use weapons. Thats the fun of Arma as it does that so to expand that further a more realistic complexity won't ruin the game or put people off using it. If the devs make TOH compatible with A2/3 then it expands its possibilitys for mp/sp. Ideally if TOH is possible as a combination to A2/3 then it could allow a clickable cockpit which makes things even more fun for the pilot. Remove auto land or have a server option to turn it off for the jet aircraft.
---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------
To make the perfect battlefield would be the size of Falcon4s maps for Balkans and Korea theatres as thats the size of an actual battlefield. The most ideal campaign is a dynamic one like in Falcon 4. A Global map is the most prefered as it opens up alot of possiblitys for conflict between countrys.
i find the preview tkoh flight model easier to fly than arma2's because after a little practice it feels more intuitive and responsive. no need for flight manual or anything (especially if the option to auto trim is avaialble which i do not like using but it does make things much easier). like to see similar applied to fixed wing aircraft as well.
missiles capabilities and lock on procedure need to be made closer to actuality as well to give aircraft and their pilots skill a more authentic effect on combat. It's all about the people really - skill of the person on ground, in tank or in air should be an influencing factor in any battle. the thing is i hope BIS really evolve these elements of the game and closer replicate the aircraft and its pilots effects on the battlefield.
as is isn't really good enough for the next iteration of Arma. Everything should be evolved.
NoRailgunner
Jul 7 2011, 07:14
What about Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (Boeing) and Helmet Mounted Symbology System (BAE) for pilots?
What about some useable realtime datalinks for pilots/crew eg airborne radar, satellite, UAV and other info sharing from reconaissance by air, land and sea?
Liquidpinky
Jul 7 2011, 07:20
i find the preview tkoh flight model easier to fly than arma2's because after a little practice it feels more intuitive and responsive. no need for flight manual or anything (especially if the option to auto trim is avaialble which i do not like using but it does make things much easier). like to see similar applied to fixed wing aircraft as well.
missiles capabilities and lock on procedure need to be made closer to actuality as well to give aircraft and their pilots skill a more authentic effect on combat. It's all about the people really - skill of the person on ground, in tank or in air should be an influencing factor in any battle. the thing is i hope BIS really evolve these elements of the game and closer replicate the aircraft and its pilots effects on the battlefield.
as is isn't really good enough for the next iteration of Arma. Everything should be evolved.
The Take On flight model is pretty decent once you are used to it.
It allows for quicker landings and take offs as well, so it would be welcome for transport missions.
Anyone afraid of the ToH flight model most probably have not tried it out properly.
logandog1240
Jul 7 2011, 10:47
The Take On flight model is pretty decent once you are used to it.
It allows for quicker landings and take offs as well, so it would be welcome for transport missions.
Anyone afraid of the ToH flight model most probably have not tried it out properly.
honestly these guys saying arma 3 needs to keep flying the way it is, are holding it back from its true potential. It is a simulator and as such should SIMULATE real warfare as close as possible, not as close as you want it to. Helicopters like REAL helicopters, planes like REAL planes.
Liquidpinky
Jul 7 2011, 12:09
honestly these guys saying arma 3 needs to keep flying the way it is, are holding it back from its true potential. It is a simulator and as such should SIMULATE real warfare as close as possible, not as close as you want it to. Helicopters like REAL helicopters, planes like REAL planes.
I agree, and the crashes are more spectacular now as well depending on what breaks on the heli. The nay sayers should at least be up for spectating what looks more like a real life crash.
The flying will stay +/- the same as in Arma 2 when in lower difficulty settings. I think this has been confirmed.
_neo_
DMarkwick
Jul 7 2011, 12:21
The flying will stay +/- the same as in Arma 2 when in lower difficulty settings. I think this has been confirmed.
_neo_
yes it has certainly been heavily hinted :)
IMO the improved helo FM ought to be complemented by improved crash modeling i.e. more survivable crashes depending on circumstances. PhysX to the rescue? ;)
MD500Enthusiast
Nov 6 2011, 07:41
so to all the people that want this game to be super easy for a 5 year old child to shoot/drive/fly bunny hop all over the place, why not just make this game into metal slug the arcade game so it'll be easy for people to learn?
the only reason why you even play this game is for the realism and immersion, so why do you want to take that away from the game?
besides this game was made for the military to SIMULATE war, and helicopter flying, jet flying and vehicle driving is part of war. why do you only want ground infantry to be realistic or maybe you want bis to dumb that down too to attract players from bf3, MW3, counter strike etc and then what do we have? just another version of MW3 on a large map.
infact, why are you even playing this game in the first place?
make the game with adjustable realism, the people that want arcade will join an arcade server and the people that want to realism will play on realistic server. how is that dividing the community anyway? aren't we all playing the same game at the end of the day?
to all the mouse/keyboard pilots out there why not just get a joystick and pedals and learn to fly it PROPERLY. i mean you wouldn't play arma3 on as infantry with a nintendo controller would you? then why would you fly with a keyboard and mouse? don't make the rest of the community that wants this game to grow out of the stone age suffer because you lack the skill or the drive to learn how to operate a certain peice of machinery.
OnlyRazor
Nov 6 2011, 09:07
maybe you want bis to dumb that down too to attract players from bf3, MW3, counter strike etc and then what do we have? just another version of MW3 on a large map.
...
to all the mouse/keyboard pilots out there why not just get a joystick and pedals and learn to fly it PROPERLY. i mean you wouldn't play arma3 on as infantry with a nintendo controller would you? then why would you fly with a keyboard and mouse? don't make the rest of the community that wants this game to grow out of the stone age suffer because you lack the skill or the drive to learn how to operate a certain peice of machinery.
Can't tell if stupid or trolling.
First off, respect other players. Just because they play BF3 and CS and MW3 (debatable) doesn't make them morons.
Secondly, you don't need a joystick to fly properly. Since you seem to be a rivet counter, go back to your precious Steel Battalion with its $200 รผber joysticks :rolleyes:
Dragon01
Nov 6 2011, 09:21
To have a fully realistic flight experience, you need an (expensive) HOTAS, preferably with pedals. A joystick would suffice in most cases, but not in a high fidelity "study" sim. An option for mouse and keyboard players should be there, because not everybody is capable of learning a new, full flight system to play a game. There's a reason why most soldiers are not trained to fly helos or jets.
Of course, for those who want to use realistic flight model, there should be an option to enable it. Perhaps making it as accurate as in Falcon 4.0 or DCS would be too much for BI (though I'd still welcome it), but a TKoH model should be just fine.
MD500Enthusiast
Nov 6 2011, 09:23
Can't tell if stupid or trolling.
First off, respect other players. Just because they play BF3 and CS and MW3 (debatable) doesn't make them morons.
Secondly, you don't need a joystick to fly properly. Since you seem to be a rivet counter, go back to your precious Steel Battalion with its $200 รผber joysticks :rolleyes:
i never said anyone was a moron, please learn to read. when people play a more arcade like game it doesn't make them a "moron". not that it's any of your business but i happen to own all of those other games.
if arma 3 has toh flight dynamics then yes having a joystick and pedal is required to fly properly.
btw my flight setup is about 1000 dollars, not to gloat or show off but that is the kind dedication i have put into flying helos in a sim/game. i also happen to be a real life helicopter pilot, search youtube for md500enthusiast to find my flying videos.
it also seems i have stepped on your sensitive tail, did some of my points hit home?
NoRailgunner
Nov 6 2011, 09:34
@<hidden>
BIS games are not made for the military market. Just search for VBS2. ;)
Infact BIS created a niche between casual/mainstream shooter and die hard Supersim. All military games from BIS focus on infantry combat. It would be great if we can have a proper simulation for land vehicles (eg tanksim) and ships too in one game but thats wishful thinking....
Keep in mind not everyone has the time to spend XXX hours to learn+practice all the things just to operate a single vehicle/aircraft. Lets see where BIS will draw the line between "too easy/dumb" and "too time-consuming/negligible". :)
Imho you can't really enjoy to fly on default islands/maps with airplanes. With helicopters its possible somehow but if you see the latest ranges of real military surveillance, radar, SAM's etc it still feels unreal. Guess thats why BIS didn't made any attempt to integrate some functionality in their warfare buildings (AA radar, Arty radar).
MD500Enthusiast
Nov 6 2011, 09:45
point taken.
also look at it like this, how many sucessful games has there been for military boat, humvee, tank etc and compare that to the helo/airplane counterparts, there's much more interest in the aviation department from the general public.
anyway i just found out that the fm from toh will be in arma 3 so i'm a happy camper. I was also confused about the difference between flight model and flight dynamics but someone answered my post saying the helos in arma 3 will handle like in toh.
Dragon01
Nov 6 2011, 10:20
Lemnos is, IIRC, large enough (100x100km?) to enable a decent plane usage. Also, while some people may not consider learning how to fly a complicated plane flight model worthwhile, they could simply select a simplified model. IMHO, ArmAIII should offer an entire scope of difficulties/realism settings from "Tom Clancy's" to "Hardcore Simulator". And perhaps an easier, more intuitive method of customizing the difficulty (it took me a while to find the settings, which is a bad thing).
While ArmA series are not made for military market, VBS series (IIRC) differ mostly by including instructor tools and omitting things like campaign or single missions. You could most likely use AII+ACE2 with some custom content for actual training, though obviously VBS is better for this.
Lemnos is, IIRC, large enough (100x100km?) to enable a decent plane usage.
LOL! 10.000 km^2? no no no
The real island (land mass) is ~480 km^2. That is about 20 x 24 km.
That said, the game island is gonna be 3/4 of the real thing, so about 360km^2
RobertHammer
Nov 6 2011, 10:36
I liked to have a DLC with South Asia map from TKOH - it is nice big map , which should be great for mission makers and also for pilots
MD500Enthusiast
Nov 6 2011, 10:39
south asia map is kind of barren though.... and almost devoid of vegetation unlike the map i saw in the preview screen shots for arma3
I'd love to see one thing definately change about helo's and that is how they control, right now flying helicopters feels amazingly slow and sluggish, pilots handle flight sticks as they would an egg so any jostle will have effect but you don't see that so much here. I imagine this is primarily a balance between mouse and keyboard but with practice even mouse is viable as long as you have the control to barely push it.
The tradeoff for this of course is that keyboard flight becomes very jerky but if you have that kind of response you won't need the keyboard to push the extra power outside of pedals and climb.
metalcraze
Nov 6 2011, 15:34
IMHO, ArmAIII should offer an entire scope of difficulties/realism settings from "Tom Clancy's" to "Hardcore Simulator".
Kids today seem to think that "Tom Clancy's" games were always hollywoodish shit
Kids today seem to think that "Tom Clancy's" games were always hollywoodish shit
Yeah, like that Raven Shield Hollywood stuff! :rolleyes: :p
Yeah, like that Raven Shield Hollywood stuff! :rolleyes: :p
Why I fly with Mouse and Keyboard:
Because I can
Because I don't need additional expensive hardware
I can even fly DCS with that setup.
While a Joystick can be really great, it shouldn't be a requirement to fly stuff. And I really don't get those hardcore enthusiast with their "stfu ang get a Joystick" attitude. Because I dare to say that I'm propably better at flying stuff than some of them.
MD500Enthusiast
Nov 7 2011, 08:46
Why I fly with Mouse and Keyboard:
Because I can
Because I don't need additional expensive hardware
I can even fly DCS with that setup.
While a Joystick can be really great, it shouldn't be a requirement to fly stuff. And I really don't get those hardcore enthusiast with their "stfu ang get a Joystick" attitude. Because I dare to say that I'm propably better at flying stuff than some of them.
perhaps you could find me a real helicopter that currently exists which uses a keyboard and mouse as primary controls for the pilot. just as no car uses a mouse and keyboard for people to drive with. the manufacturers can make it like that because they can but they don't for a reason.
a flying games tries to replicate real flight for the users although there are some limitations such as know how, hardware, software, money and their intention for the game, otherwise why would it behave so similarly to the real thing?
i do not think joystick is a requirement for these games as many people don't have the means to purchase a decent setup, but when those said people want to hold back the potential of a new game to cater to their limited resources that's when i draw the line.
if people with mouse/keyboard are such fine pilots then why complain in the first place if you're able to fly just as well as another player with an expensive setup made for that particular type of flying? i am also not oppose to a realism slider so the people that can't afford to purchase the expensive gear can still use their mouse and keyboard and fly somewhat effectively.
if you just want to jump into a game and start spraying bullets everywhere there are games such as cod and bf that'll be perfect for you.
btw you can fly your dcs because it's easy to fly a coaxial rotor helicopter. try flying a dodosim 206 in fsx with full realism and tell me you can hover perfectly, fly your helo with a perfect normal/steep/shallow approach to a hover and land in the center of the H without struggling for 5 minutes and a smooth gentle touchdown or fly sideways at 20 knots without your nose yawing all over the place, it's hard to do that even with a decent setup. keyboard and mouse will only go so far, if you want a compelling flight experience or want your performance to exceed mediocrity you NEED at least a joystick.
to the argument of if we make helicopter realistic then we'd have to make everything else realistic and everything will be unbalanced, that's not entirely true. think how realistic infantry combat is in arma and compared to all the vehicles available. i dare say in a lot of games people spend equal amount of time on foot as they do in the vehicle. if it is at all possible to bring vehicle realism on par with infantry combat why hold back BiS from doing so, even if it's one type of vehicle at a time?
to those that make the argument well bis made this game to focus on infantry combat etc etc. so you don't want bis to make progress and evolve the game into something that can target a broader range of audience? you want only infantry combat to evolve so far ahead of the vehicle that by the time arma 200 comes out which will play in a holodeck environment that the vehicle still behave like in arma2?
perhaps you could find me a real helicopter that currently exists which uses a keyboard and mouse as primary controls for the pilot. just as no car uses a mouse and keyboard for people to drive with. the manufacturers can make it like that because they can't but they don't for a reason.
a flying games tries to replicate real flight for the users although there are some limitations such as know how, hardware, software, money and their intention for the game, otherwise why would it behave so similarly to the real thing?
i do not think joystick is a requirement for these games as many people don't have the means to purchase a decent setup, but when those said people want to hold back the potential of a new game to cater to their limited resources that's when i draw the line.
if people with mouse/keyboard are such fine pilots then why complain in the first place if you're able to fly just as well as another player with an expensive setup made for that particular type of flying? i am also not oppose to a realism slider so the people that can't afford to purchase the expensive gear can still use their mouse and keyboard and fly somewhat effectively.
if you just want to jump into a game and start spraying bullets everywhere there are games such as cod and bf that'll be perfect for you.
btw you can fly your dcs because it's easy to fly a coaxial rotor helicopter. try flying a dodosim 206 in fsx with full realism and tell me you can hover perfectly, fly your helo with a perfect normal/steep/shallow approach to a hover and land in the center of the H without struggling for 5 minutes and a smooth gentle touchdown or fly sideways at 20 knots without your nose yawing all over the place, it's hard to do that even with a decent setup. keyboard and mouse will only go so far, if you want a compelling flight experience or want your performance to exceed mediocrity you NEED at least a joystick.
to the argument of if we make helicopter realistic then we'd have to make everything else realistic and everything will be unbalanced, that's not entirely true. think how realistic infantry combat is in arma and compared to all the vehicles available. i dare say in a lot of games people spend equal amount of time on foot as they do in the vehicle. if it is at all possible to bring vehicle realism on par with infantry combat why hold back BiS from doing so, even if it's one type of vehicle at a time?
to those that make the argument well bis made this game to focus on infantry combat etc etc. so you don't want bis to make progress and evolve the game into something that can target a broader range of audience? you want only infantry combat to evolve so far ahead of the vehicle that by the time arma 200 comes out which will play in a holodeck environment that the vehicle still behave like in arma2?
I think you missunderstood my intention. I donยดt want to hold back a developer from creating something realistic! I welcome every step towards realism as long as they leave in the Option to fly the damn thing with M+K.
If you love joysticks so much, then you will gonna need a second one. Many tanks are controlled by two "sticks" IRL
MD500Enthusiast
Nov 7 2011, 11:58
i actually have two LOL. but that's the beauty of this game, i don't have to drive a tank if i dont' want to =, i do mostly transport chopper.
But you can if you wish to, and you are able to do it with M+K
It should be the same with Helis.
More realism is of course always welcome both in tanks and helis
CarlGustaffa
Nov 7 2011, 16:18
What if uber realism means it can't be used with M+K? Bringing down the realism to do it is one thing, but it has to be server controlled. Although I prefer being able to set minimum allowed realism for a certain part than completely dictate it. Which means that I can setup server to allow certain unrealistic aids, but you could bring that above server settings for yourself. But you couldn't go below it. It's what keeps me from playing Arma at anything except Expert these days, as pretty much all "Veteran" public servers I have tried still allows 3rd person and crosshairs, and I can't get rid of those crosshairs.
I really don't understand the claim of wanting to be realistic, but no way on getting the equipment. Joystick and more specifically pedals, we're not talking many hours at work to get those...
What I'm saying is that if it can be made playable with M+K, then by all means do it. But if it can't (on high realism setting), don't dumb it down to allow it.
NoRailgunner
Nov 7 2011, 16:54
Some players are quite good flying aircrafts with mouse + keyboard - why should they be forced to buy/use anything more to enjoy A3?
Just because few uberl33t flightsim-fans don't like to see those others good A2OA/A3 pilots who are using only their mouse+keyboard?
Do you really care if a player is using the (latest) hardware flightstick/controllers to fly an aircraft?
Or is it more important that the player is a good pilot?
I know for a fact that on hardcore flight simulators you can fly with M+K, but it will not be as easy as flying with a joystick....
---------- Post added at 06:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------
Some players are quite good flying aircrafts with mouse + keyboard - why should they be forced to buy/use anything more to enjoy A3?
Just because few uberl33t flightsim-fans don't like to see those others good A2OA/A3 pilots who are using only their mouse+keyboard?
Do you really care if a player is using the (latest) hardware flightstick/controllers to fly an aircraft?
Or is it more important that the player is a good pilot?
Why should pilots be forced with an arcade level simulation because people are unwilling to buy a joystick, or are unwilling to adjust their M+K setup to fly? You do know all vehicles are at arcade level simulation right now right? So people who fly good with M+K are only flying an arcade simulation, not the realistic simulations. This has nothing to do with the skill of the pilot. This has to do with making the aircraft more Realistic.
NoRailgunner
Nov 7 2011, 17:35
If a player can handle A3 aircrafts fine with his controllers he should be allowed to do it on any setting. No need to force or punish anyone just because few people have a strange problem with controllers or how good others are flying only with mouse + keyboard.
If you want to be good - you have to practice, no matter which controller you choose + use. If you want to be perfect/ace - you have to practice much more.
If a player can handle A3 aircrafts fine with his controllers he should be allowed to do it on any setting. No need to force or punish anyone just because few people have a strange problem with controllers or how good others are flying only with mouse + keyboard.
If you want to be good - you have to practice, no matter which controller you choose + use. If you want to be perfect/ace - you have to practice much more.
This!
Some players are quite good flying aircrafts with mouse + keyboard - why should they be forced to buy/use anything more to enjoy A3?
Just because few uberl33t flightsim-fans don't like to see those others good A2OA/A3 pilots who are using only their mouse+keyboard?
Do you really care if a player is using the (latest) hardware flightstick/controllers to fly an aircraft?
Or is it more important that the player is a good pilot?
I guess the point he is trying to make is a bit different, and you misinterpreted:
1. no one will deny the use of M+K setups. That for certain.
2 BUT, just like with TKOH, i find flying with a joystick much easier and worthy, especially on higher difficulty. I have tried it with my mouse and keyboard, i find it a lot harder especially when it comes to (re)adjusting.
So all in all, most of you want improved flight model, but want it developed around what? Mouse and keyboard? Surely, some might get to master flying with mouse and keyboard in TKOH just as well, but it's surely harder than in A2, and that is for a good reason.
I want a proper flight model. I don't care that it might be harder to master, or if the learning curve will be higher. Surely, it might mean that joystick might actually make sense now, but far from denying the use of mouse and keyboard setups.
ghost101
Nov 7 2011, 22:16
Ideally, I would love a fully developed simulation in all aspects of ArmA. But i don't think that's a realistic wish. I guess the development costs of producing vehicle simlevels anything close to something like MSFlightSim would be out of the question for BIS.
However, I would definitely like to see at least some effort in giving more of an impression of realism. at the moment, driving and flying seem far too cartoony when compared to infantry play - particularly flight. When I first played ArmA, I didn't appreciate being able to fly an F16 like a pro within the first 15 mins. there should definitely be a higher degree of skill and learning involved. I'm sure this could be done by selecting a few key flight attributes to simulate more fully; not a full sim, just some key aspects of flight which would make the whole experience more realistic and more challenging without attempting a full blown-sim (which I reckon would be impossible anyway, given BIS's limited budget)
MD500Enthusiast
Nov 8 2011, 02:16
Some players are quite good flying aircrafts with mouse + keyboard - why should they be forced to buy/use anything more to enjoy A3?
Just because few uberl33t flightsim-fans don't like to see those others good A2OA/A3 pilots who are using only their mouse+keyboard?
Do you really care if a player is using the (latest) hardware flightstick/controllers to fly an aircraft?
Or is it more important that the player is a good pilot?
you keep missing the point we're all trying to make here, either that or you don't even bother reading carefully before posting.
i'm saying if the helicopter flight model is realistic in the way that it would act the way a helicopter is supposed to then your mouse/keyboard setup wouldn't have a chance in hell of flying it properly. BiS has stated that they will use the ToH helicopter behaviors in Arma3 so good luck with your keyboard/mouse setup on expert mode. your teammates will be yelling and screaming bloody murder because you can't even take off without crashing.
i'm not saying ToH behaves like the real thing right now but BiS is working on it and it's a heck of a lot better than arma2 that's for sure.
you keep gloating how well you fly in arma2 etc, you might as well be saying you fly simcopter like a pro and you'll be able to fly a real helicopter.
you can fly in beginner mode with your mouse/keyboard all you want because in that mode helicopters in toh behave like they do in arma2. you can come to the forums and gloat about how a god's gift to the helicopter community you are, nobody cares. but when you want to play on expert mode with the big boys, please get a decent setup so you don't waste people's time by crashing over and over again because you can't compensate for torque, translating tendency, vortex ring state, transverse flow
etc etc with your keyboard and mouse setup.
also do you expect any game maker to make their game with same graphics engine year after year so nobody would be forced to buy new/better hardware to play their games? life is like a parade, it's constantly moving, if you want to stand stationary on the curb you're going get to left behind.
CarlGustaffa
Nov 8 2011, 06:25
If a player can handle A3 aircrafts fine with his controllers he should be allowed to do it on any setting.
This goes for anything related to difficulty. Player should be able to set his difficulty more difficult than what the server is setup to, but not lower.
Server: Simple Flight Model
Player: Simple or Advanced, it's his choice.
Server: Advanced Flight Model
Player: Advanced, he doesn't have a choice.
That would allow me to play on coop servers with crosshairs enabled since I could turn them off for myself, rather than be stuck on an expert servers with no people on it.
MD500Enthusiast
Nov 8 2011, 07:10
This goes for anything related to difficulty. Player should be able to set his difficulty more difficult than what the server is setup to, but not lower.
Server: Simple Flight Model
Player: Simple or Advanced, it's his choice.
Server: Advanced Flight Model
Player: Advanced, he doesn't have a choice.
That would allow me to play on coop servers with crosshairs enabled since I could turn them off for myself, rather than be stuck on an expert servers with no people on it.
that sounds good.
NoRailgunner
Nov 8 2011, 09:31
Well ok, we all agree that the A3 controller setup should be up to the player. Sorry for misinterpreting CarlGustaffa's :)
What if uber realism means it can't be used with M+K? ... don't dumb it down to allow it.Just curious why BIS should implement all/most of TOH flight features into A3? Why should people buy TOH (+DLC's) if they can have all/most of it in A3 anyway? ;)
MD500Enthusiast
Nov 8 2011, 09:37
civilian flying is quite a bit different than military flying. same argument could be said why would anyone buy arma3 when they can just buy toh? toh has ground units with guns and some combat ground vehicles and ah6 and huey with door gunners and rockets?
NoRailgunner
Nov 8 2011, 10:01
Well because
+ TOH is a little bit more focused on helicopter-sim/flight features than A3
+ A3 is a bit more of all-in-one milgame incl. land, air and sea combat and just can't have all of the sim features for every vehicle, aircraft or boat/ship.
MD500Enthusiast
Nov 8 2011, 10:15
exactly, because they're two different games with two distinct flavors that will cater to different people. also the fact that the two games will feature helicopter is all the excuse we helicopter enthusiasts need to buy the game. just like why people buy different title FPS just for the different and distinct flavors. just as why people enjoy eating different type of food, chinese, american, italian, german etc they all provide nourishment so why bother eating different foods when you can just eat one?
you keep missing the point we're all trying to make here, either that or you don't even bother reading carefully before posting.
i'm saying if the helicopter flight model is realistic in the way that it would act the way a helicopter is supposed to then your mouse/keyboard setup wouldn't have a chance in hell of flying it properly. BiS has stated that they will use the ToH helicopter behaviors in Arma3 so good luck with your keyboard/mouse setup on expert mode. your teammates will be yelling and screaming bloody murder because you can't even take off without crashing.
i'm not saying ToH behaves like the real thing right now but BiS is working on it and it's a heck of a lot better than arma2 that's for sure.
you keep gloating how well you fly in arma2 etc, you might as well be saying you fly simcopter like a pro and you'll be able to fly a real helicopter.
you can fly in beginner mode with your mouse/keyboard all you want because in that mode helicopters in toh behave like they do in arma2. you can come to the forums and gloat about how a god's gift to the helicopter community you are, nobody cares. but when you want to play on expert mode with the big boys, please get a decent setup so you don't waste people's time by crashing over and over again because you can't compensate for torque, translating tendency, vortex ring state, transverse flow
etc etc with your keyboard and mouse setup.
also do you expect any game maker to make their game with same graphics engine year after year so nobody would be forced to buy new/better hardware to play their games? life is like a parade, it's constantly moving, if you want to stand stationary on the curb you're going get to left behind.
I think you are the only one who wants to make a point here.
DCS is not my first fly sim, in fact I started with the old F/A 18 Hornet, guess what, I used my Mouse and Keyboard, to great success.
Combat flight simulator was another game I played. M+K worked just fine. And so on....
And BTW, ToH is also perfectly playable with M+K.
Oh, and all those games were played with max realism.
In fact the only game I ever saw where a Joystick would have been a good thing was the old Lock ON. It simply didnยดt have proper M+K support at all.
The input device doesnยดt matter at all, everything depends on how good you use it.
DMarkwick
Nov 8 2011, 13:35
The input device doesnยดt matter at all, everything depends on how good you use it.
That's what I keep telling her.
MD500Enthusiast
Nov 8 2011, 22:20
I think you are the only one who wants to make a point here.
DCS is not my first fly sim, in fact I started with the old F/A 18 Hornet, guess what, I used my Mouse and Keyboard, to great success.
Combat flight simulator was another game I played. M+K worked just fine. And so on....
And BTW, ToH is also perfectly playable with M+K.
Oh, and all those games were played with max realism.
In fact the only game I ever saw where a Joystick would have been a good thing was the old Lock ON. It simply didnยดt have proper M+K support at all.
The input device doesnยดt matter at all, everything depends on how good you use it.
This is getting nowhere, fixed wings are inherently easier to fly than helicopters by leaps and bounds. Toh still has an arcade like flight model which I hope bis will fix soon, and can you honestly tell me you can fly all the different helos in toh even though its still arcade like on expert smoothly without pressing autohover all the time? Please reread the effects of helicopter on a realistic setting where it will be next to impossible to counter and fly smoothly in my other post. Fyi I also played f18 hornet with k/m setup because that was the second game I ve ever played on my first pc, though I didn't play the game for long. as games get more and more true to life k/m setup just won't be sufficient anymore.
-Coulum-
Nov 9 2011, 00:07
Just curious why BIS should implement all/most of TOH flight features into A3? Why should people buy TOH (+DLC's) if they can have all/most of it in A3 anyway?
I think it would be really neat if BIS made TOH not only a standalone game but also an expansion to arma 3's flight. If you have just arma 3 you get the standard arcadish flying. If you bought both you would be able to use TOH features in arma 3. I would buy TOH in a second.
This logic of "making it feel like a sim but not to the point to make people angry" is absurd for me,either you do it right or you don't do it at all.
I'd like to see some real planes behaviour ... what you can sacrify is the part where you have to start the plane it's acceptable... but when it comes to the plane control it should feel REAL.
This logic of "making it feel like a sim but not to the point to make people angry" is absurd for me,either you do it right or you don't do it at all.
I'd like to see some real planes behaviour ... what you can sacrify is the part where you have to start the plane it's acceptable... but when it comes to the plane control it should feel REAL.
Sounds like a F-16 pilot have to relearn a whole lesson for a year to get a chance to fly F-35. But well, if there's an year to make player relearn the flying technique I'm up for such challence. (A game with no challence is no game at all)
Half of that time comes down to learning the instruments, cockpit layout and functions of said instruments..I don't see that happening though.
That said it would be amazing to see frame stress damage and other obstacles that would blot a player from using birds recklessly, as annoying as it can something be the engine overspeed in TKOH makes for a nice challenge to keep ones self in line whereas currently the worst you have to worry about is 'braking' and zooming up into the sky or turning and smacking belly first into an obststruction.
freeman83
Nov 9 2011, 17:00
Im just getting in to mil sims so im a bit of a noob, but coming from a background of sim racing and karting in rl, i wish i could use some of those skills in Arma2. Maybe rock crawling over ruff terrain could be fun. I wouldn't even mind if the flying was more sim like, the challenge is enjoyable and eventually succeeding is satisfying. That's just me though, i suppose BIS have got to think of the bigger picture in regards to target audience.
Probably so, well maybe..it depends on how they are thinking of reaching out, streaming the interface a bit more, perhaps chunk a key or two in combination with another or work on mowing down the action menu (like how salute went from action menu to \ in Arma)
Rock climbing and other ways to pass around terrain obstacles would be a great addition for sure! I hope that this is enforced in some of the under water features...but that is a discussion for another topic.. Mind you I'm not saying that BI should target US, I'm just suggesting that having tools and requirements to move around certain kinds of terrain and hidden areas so to speak would add a nice level of uniqueness. As it stands all hills can be accessed by walking up a slope rather than requiring any form of climbing equipment.
We know ARMA3 will have helicopter FM from ToH (in some form)
But what about planes? The fixed wing FM needs some work too...
Just as helicopters if you're going to add planes to the game you need to do it right. I personally find realistic flight models for fixed wing aircraft so much easier to use and line up strafing runs, compared to arma's flight model....
MD500Enthusiast
Nov 9 2011, 21:09
We know ARMA3 will have helicopter FM from ToH (in some form)
But what about planes? The fixed wing FM needs some work too...
yes that's true, but let's focus one thing at a time huh? i think they're up to their necks in figuring helicopters out atm. wait til arma 4 maybe they'll release take on fixed wing LOL.
Dragon01
Nov 10 2011, 00:06
I guess that certain things from helicopter flight model could be used for planes. Afterall, basic laws of physics are the same for both. Flight model would be very different, of course, but this should be much easier with heli model already in place.
Not to mention that helicopters start to handle a bit like planes at high speeds. Maybe this could be exploited, and only certain values would need tweaking.
Half of that time comes down to learning the instruments, cockpit layout and functions of said instruments..I don't see that happening though.
I heard that they at one point let some kids into an F-35 simulator and they figured it out fairly quickly. Modern planes are quite user-friendly. I guess that realistic instruments could be done in ArmA III. Something at the level of F/A-18 Super Hornet flight sim (which has rather minimal amount of instruments, most of which use electronic displays and are very easy to use). This this is an old flight sim (manual reads somewhat funny with all these "we couldn't simulate it because it's classified" function descriptions), I found it to be a nice balance between "Falcon 4.0" and "HAWX" flight styles.
Extended startup, of course, could be included for hardcore players (it's just a long check sequence, mostly consisting of flipping switches), but this isn't really important (and most players would turn it off anyway, since it's somewhat complicated and doesn't contribute to gameplay).
Tonci87
Nov 10 2011, 14:49
that's what i keep telling her.
:D lol
Macadam Cow
Nov 10 2011, 16:04
I'm going to repeat what I've already repeated in the past, sorry :/
Would you stop playing ArmA if it had an option to make helicopters as realistic as DCS: Blackshark ? No, but the DCS players would certainly come and play with us.
Would you stop playing ArmA if it had an option to make the airplane FM as realistic as Falcon 4 ? No, but the Falcon 4 players would certainly come and play with us.
And so on.
IMO, that's where ArmA should be heading to.
Do not force people who don't want such a level of realism to spend hours and hours learning how to start up the damn plane, just make it optional.
So everybody's happy :)
Vladplaya
Nov 10 2011, 21:47
Helicopter controls in ArmA2 are just too awkward imo. I can fly just fine, but I don't think that is even close to real life controls.
As arcadish Battlefield chopper controls are, they got the basics down pretty well, you can be much more agile and precise, but it still takes a lot of practice to be superb at flying, which is nice.
MD500Enthusiast
Nov 10 2011, 22:05
I'm going to repeat what I've already repeated in the past, sorry :/
IMO, that's where ArmA should be heading to.
Do not force people who don't want such a level of realism to spend hours and hours learning how to start up the damn plane, just make it optional.
So everybody's happy :)
5 minute startup for helis? i can take it or leave it. the intent is not have arma that needs 2 zillion keybinds for every vehicle, the objective is to make it so that the vehicles/aircrafts has the same behavior as the real ones so it's more convincing, it doesn't need to be true to life but it should at least fly/drive like how airplanes/helicopters/vehicles should. as far as the avionics? sure the attack helos/fixed wing could use some improvement so we're not just tab=god.
NodUnit
Nov 10 2011, 22:19
Helicopter controls in ArmA2 are just too awkward imo. I can fly just fine, but I don't think that is even close to real life controls.
As arcadish Battlefield chopper controls are, they got the basics down pretty well, you can be much more agile and precise, but it still takes a lot of practice to be superb at flying, which is nice.
Less the flight model and more the weight of the units, there are community addons with more agile helo's and I'm testing one right now..it is possible to have them be so responsive and agile that the slightest touch to the stick will change things rather than having to pull it by 20 or so degree's just to move.
Macadam Cow
Nov 11 2011, 00:20
tab=god.
THIS
this is something the ArmA serie definitely need to get rid of.
oh lol, did I spoke that loud :o
Bee8190
Nov 11 2011, 01:19
THIS
this is something the ArmA serie definitely need to get rid of.
oh lol, did I spoke that loud :o
I have to agree on thisone and truly hope tab/lock will be thing of the past when arma 3 arrives.
DarkOddity
Nov 11 2011, 02:52
I'm a huge fan of realistic flight simulation and I want to see it in ArmA3.
Here is how I feel about it, and allow me to refer to ToH real quick.
In ToH the difficulty of the flight engine for the helicopters is scaled up, from Rookie, to Trainee and finally to Expert. The higher up, the harder it gets, obviously.
Now, as some of you may or may not know there are some groups within the ArmA community that will only play on Expert, with max difficulty settings. These groups do this so they can strive to have the most realistic experience possible in the ArmA environment.
Now, with the difficulty settings in ArmA 2 to me as a helicopter enthusiast this seems quite unfair to me. I try to keep my play to these communities in order to get a realistic experience out of my game time in the form of teamwork. What I don't get however from playing on these types of servers is a more realistic flight experience.
Therefore in conclusion; I feel that it is only fair that the flight experience should scale up in difficulty with the infantry and vehicle combat. It makes perfect logical sense in my personal opinion.
Why? If you want to be a pilot in a 'hardcore' simulation ArmA3 group, you should have to be able to handle the hardcore requirements.
---------
As a side note on the same topic; people who are as into helos as I am will likely have noticed this: Hardcore sim groups in the ArmA community do not have as much respect for dedicated pilots as most, if not all of their members can easily fly a helo in ArmA2 with a keyboard and mouse as good or better than some people with a full flight sim setup.
Now I'm not saying easy is bad, but what I am trying to say is that blanketed simplicity however, is.
NoRailgunner
Nov 11 2011, 09:50
Pilots who fly helicopters and tried ToH said that they switched back to lower difficulty because the handling on expert is strange, feels less real and the overall ToH experience isn't fun anymore. Not everything which is labeled "hardcore"/"expert"/"mercenary" represents the real world. Sometimes its just the highest/max setting. ;)
MadDogX
Nov 11 2011, 11:59
I would like to see the TOH flight model in Arma3 simply because it is more challenging, and although it may not be simultastically accurate (yes, I just made that word up), it's much more realistic than the FM in Arma2.
Anyway, it still has time to mature - let's just hope that BIS listens to the feedback from the real world pilots hanging around in the TOH forum area. I don't expect it to achieve professional sim levels, but I think the FM in TOH could still go a long way, and the result could be a huge plus for Arma3.
ProfTournesol
Nov 11 2011, 12:08
Mmmm...hardcore helo sim gamers should stick to their hardcore games, and give us a break with ArmA3. A better FM in ArmA3, why not, but still accessible. Or only bound to the highest difficulty level.
Dragon01
Nov 11 2011, 13:39
IMHO, the best solution would be to have difficulties for flying, sailing and ground combat separate. So, an RL pilot could choose DCS-level flight, but average ground combat and sailing. Or perhaps difficulty shouldn't be done as "levels" at all, instead exposing the parameters to the player and showing a "realism percentage". Presets should be available, but the player should be encouraged to customize the settings. While it's partially done since OFP, the system needs to be more flexible, allow more options to be modified and have a better interface.
160thSOAR
Nov 14 2011, 01:18
I really hope they keep the flight model as-is. For me, flying transport is a big part of this game, and without it, I might quit for a few months. I will come back; to say I would quit for good would be a lie. But having to learn to fly DCS-style would really put me off.
You people argue that you don't like people leaving helicopters lying around because they're useless that way. Well let me tell you something: a helicopter lying in a charred heap on the ground is just as useless. So is one sitting on the ground because someone who doesn't know how to cold-start is sitting in the pilot's seat. The argument about people flying off in helicopters holds no water, I'm afraid, because putting in hardcore simulation will make helicopters more useless in other ways.
If you include this suggestion, helicopters are going to get shot down a lot more. You're going to have to do a lot more running to and from combat zones. You can do impossible things with ArmA2 helicopters that make them much less vulnerable than real-life helicopters. I know that real helicopters can't do anything near the types of maneuvers I can pull off in ArmA2, and I'm hardly an excellent pilot. I'm good, but I've flown with people who are truly awesome, and they're still head and shoulders above me.
You people also seem to think that ArmA2 is designed to be a perfect simulation of everything. Sorry, it's not. ArmA2 fulfills a niche between something like Battlefield and something like VBS. It's a lot closer to VBS, but it is not entirely sim-like. If you really want a sim, do you want to include real qualification tests to use weapons? (Actually, this might be kind of cool for some weapons, but a SOPMOD kit, not so much....) Maybe stay up 20 hours every day to simulate Ranger training? Or maybe only be able to drive, gun, or command an M2 Bradley during the entire time you play ArmA2? No? I didn't think so. But that is what you're asking for when you say "as much realism as possible, it's a SIMULATOR!" Everything can go too far.
ArmA2 aircraft are not as easy to fly as you seem to think. I spent about an hour just learning how to stay in the air for more than 30 seconds. Then I spent another hour learning basic flying. Then I spent 2 or so hours learning how to fly under fire after a debacle in multiplayer. And I've spent a lot more time than that learning more advanced maneuvers. I believe that I'm a pretty good pilot now, but I've put about 10 hours into it in SP, and have probably 70 or so hours logged in MP. That's a lot of time. I don't want to have to spent 10 times that to learn how to fly all over again.
As you might be able to tell from my username, I enjoy flying in this game. I don't think I'll be able to fly if this idea gets instituted, and I'm not happy about it. It would definitely put me off of this game. If I want realism, I would play TKOH or DCS. I don't really want that in ArmA3.
Gentlemen, I close my case for now. I understand that some people feel differently, but most of the people I've talked to in the game feel the same way that I do. I think I've forgotten a few things, so I might be editing this post later.
MD500Enthusiast
Nov 14 2011, 05:04
I really hope they keep the flight model as-is. For me, flying transport is a big part of this game, and without it, I might quit for a few months. I will come back; to say I would quit for good would be a lie. But having to learn to fly DCS-style would really put me off.
You people argue that you don't like people leaving helicopters lying around because they're useless that way. Well let me tell you something: a helicopter lying in a charred heap on the ground is just as useless. So is one sitting on the ground because someone who doesn't know how to cold-start is sitting in the pilot's seat. The argument about people flying off in helicopters holds no water, I'm afraid, because putting in hardcore simulation will make helicopters more useless in other ways.
If you include this suggestion, helicopters are going to get shot down a lot more. You're going to have to do a lot more running to and from combat zones. You can do impossible things with ArmA2 helicopters that make them much less vulnerable than real-life helicopters. I know that real helicopters can't do anything near the types of maneuvers I can pull off in ArmA2, and I'm hardly an excellent pilot. I'm good, but I've flown with people who are truly awesome, and they're still head and shoulders above me.
You people also seem to think that ArmA2 is designed to be a perfect simulation of everything. Sorry, it's not. ArmA2 fulfills a niche between something like Battlefield and something like VBS. It's a lot closer to VBS, but it is not entirely sim-like. If you really want a sim, do you want to include real qualification tests to use weapons? (Actually, this might be kind of cool for some weapons, but a SOPMOD kit, not so much....) Maybe stay up 20 hours every day to simulate Ranger training? Or maybe only be able to drive, gun, or command an M2 Bradley during the entire time you play ArmA2? No? I didn't think so. But that is what you're asking for when you say "as much realism as possible, it's a SIMULATOR!" Everything can go too far.
ArmA2 aircraft are not as easy to fly as you seem to think. I spent about an hour just learning how to stay in the air for more than 30 seconds. Then I spent another hour learning basic flying. Then I spent 2 or so hours learning how to fly under fire after a debacle in multiplayer. And I've spent a lot more time than that learning more advanced maneuvers. I believe that I'm a pretty good pilot now, but I've put about 10 hours into it in SP, and have probably 70 or so hours logged in MP. That's a lot of time. I don't want to have to spent 10 times that to learn how to fly all over again.
As you might be able to tell from my username, I enjoy flying in this game. I don't think I'll be able to fly if this idea gets instituted, and I'm not happy about it. It would definitely put me off of this game. If I want realism, I would play TKOH or DCS. I don't really want that in ArmA3.
Gentlemen, I close my case for now. I understand that some people feel differently, but most of the people I've talked to in the game feel the same way that I do. I think I've forgotten a few things, so I might be editing this post later.
choose arcade setting.
MadDogX
Nov 14 2011, 07:54
This topic seems to be yet another excellent proof for the phrase "you can't please everyone". For years people have been calling for a more realistic flight model in Arma games - so now BIS have finally created one and are thinking about including it in Arma3, but now another group of people goes "nooo, it will make flying too hard! Leave it out!"
:rolleyes:
In the end the ideal solution is the same as always: make it optional. And judging by what BIS have said on the topic so far, that seems to be exactly what they plan to do. Win-win.
That being said, I don't really understand the arguments from people who are opposed to this idea. At least for me, half the fun of any game is mastering its complexities, so as long as the learning curve is managable (which is definitely the case with the TOH FM), I don't see the problem with certain things being a little more difficult.
Tonci87
Nov 14 2011, 08:01
Did you try to fly DCS or ToH?
If you are a good pilot in Arma, then you wont have many problems. Yes it will be harder to stay in the air, but you learn it pretty fast.
NoRailgunner
Nov 14 2011, 09:01
BIS could make A3 flight experience better but still keep the advanced sim-gameplay for ToH. Win-Win-Win. ;)
Maybe its possible:
Those player who have both games (A3+ToH) installed could enjoy more sophisticated plane + helicoper handling and those who don't enjoy simply A3 improved flight experience. Just something that keep/increase the sales for ToH even if A3 is released. :)
ProfTournesol
Nov 14 2011, 11:19
BIS could make A3 flight experience better but still keep the advanced sim-gameplay for ToH. Win-Win-Win. ;)
Maybe its possible:
Those player who have both games (A3+ToH) installed could enjoy more sophisticated plane + helicoper handling and those who don't enjoy simply A3 improved flight experience. Just something that keep/increase the sales for ToH even if A3 is released. :)
Yep, having answered that survey (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=2054577#post2054577), i suspect something like this could happen, in VBS or in ArmA3 (or both).
Those player who have both games (A3+ToH) installed could enjoy more sophisticated plane + helicoper handling and those who don't enjoy simply A3 improved flight experience. Just something that keep/increase the sales for ToH even if A3 is released. :)
Err... no
I don't want to be forced to buy another bit of software to have realistic FM in A3.
And then what about multiplayer...? Some people using realistic FM against arcade style!?!?! I don't think that will work.
As has been stated before in many posts, the only way for this to work and the way BiS has indicated it will work is linked to difficulty setting.
Perhaps this thread can move on to other interesting things to argue about...
160thSOAR
Nov 14 2011, 12:07
I flew TKOH in the beta, and I could fly, but barely. It was fun though, seeing what I could do in a new environment. The thing is, even after playing for around 3 hours, I could still not take off without the help of the auto-hover. I'm not sure if I was doing something wrong, but I found the aircraft's performance so terrible that there would be no way to survive in a combat situation.
As for DCS, I don't even have enough keys on my keyboard to play it. That doesn't make me so happy.
Tab = God AA will also now far exceed the capabilities of realistic helicopters, turning them into big "shoot here" signs. If helicopters get a boost up to simulation levels, why should its AA counterpart not become more difficult to use as well?
Now that you bring it up, I think I might actually be able to keep a helicopter in the air. That's more than what I thought I'd be able to do. But the idea still has major problems.
Isn't the arcade/simulation option serverside?
Cripsis
Nov 14 2011, 12:33
Yep, having answered that survey (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=2054577#post2054577), i suspect something like this could happen, in VBS or in ArmA3 (or both).
Thanks for the link, I didn't know about the survey.
I feel that improvements to the authenticity of any flight model is always to be encouraged, however, myself I prefer my control systems to be very simplified.
I don't want to be spending many many hours training myself to play a game.
I just want to be able to boot up a game and go and get some action.
So for my personal playing preferences the more simplified the better.
I'm one of those enjoyed the original OpF model to the latter ones.
I very much hope that there will be options for idiot/weekend warrior pilots included.
I haven't tried TOH yet, although it is actually at the top of list of games to buy currently.
It sounds a bit too flight sim to hold my attention for very long... but helicopters and a BIS Seattle map holds a big lure for me, that added to a decent price of course.
After all it has long been my assertion that BIS make the best heli sims. At least for my tastes.
It should be noted by the hard core fans of course, that my second favourite helicopter piloting experiences are to be found in Novalgics Joint Operations, so exacting flight models is of less importance to me than being able to easily/immersively mimic the tactical uses of a helicopter in a battlefield enviroment.
I flew TKOH in the beta, and I could fly, but barely. It was fun though, seeing what I could do in a new environment. The thing is, even after playing for around 3 hours, I could still not take off without the help of the auto-hover. I'm not sure if I was doing something wrong, but I found the aircraft's performance so terrible that there would be no way to survive in a combat situation.
I'm sorry, but what is your point? While TKOH FM is not the best out there, it IS an obvious improvement over the A2 one. I would gladly welcome it for A3
...oh and btw, i only use a simple Logitech 3d pro (no fancy sim cockpits or expensive hardware) for both A2 and TKOH and i never had any issues/problems flying either...
Tab = God AA will also now far exceed the capabilities of realistic helicopters, turning them into big "shoot here" signs. If helicopters get a boost up to simulation levels, why should its AA counterpart not become more difficult to use as well?
This is for a completely separate topic...It has nothing to do with FM, but how all weapons system are simulated (the ones on board of the different vehicles and ground/handheld ones)
Isn't the arcade/simulation option serverside?
How would one know? It hasn't even been confirmed...
NodUnit
Nov 14 2011, 20:18
Tab = God AA will also now far exceed the capabilities of realistic helicopters, turning them into big "shoot here" signs. If helicopters get a boost up to simulation levels, why should its AA counterpart not become more difficult to use as well?
This post does not have to do with flight model per say so it's going into spoilers.
TAB works both ways, however creating a buffer zone in which at X ground level radar detection is less likely as opposed to say flying 200 or so feet in the air would make said AA weapons minus cannons, far less formidable.
Likewise and this is a key part in the flight model, more often than not online I see people piloting the cobras and apache's high in the air, I can't blame them seeing as the birds fly like brids, NOE requires a more fluid, responsive flight model, giving them this would give them a very high and realistic edge. If they remain under the radar blanket then unless spotted visually they shouldn't be detected as early.
Of course weapon system on the helicopters could use work as well, for example hellfire missile trajectory shouldn't be a dead on path that has a chance to smash into the ground, adding said trajectory would drasticly improve hit to kill ratio but at the same to avoid the helicopter becoming the 'god', unless equipped with radar, all targets should be attainable only through laser lock.
Cripsis
Nov 15 2011, 02:11
It seems to me that the comments expressed in virtually every ARMA3 thread illustrate a general divide between casual gamers and hardcore simulation fans. I think the best approch BIS can take to make ARMA3 appeal to the broadest possible audience is to provide seperate options that meet the expectations of casual and hardcore gamers. Basically the message I'm trying to get across is that I think it would benefit BIS to push in 2 opposite directions simultaneously.
^^This was tried before, and it never ended well.
MD500Enthusiast
Nov 15 2011, 03:48
^^This was tried before, and it never ended well.
when did BiS tried giving the end user the option to choose between realism and arcade except maybe hud vs no hud?
when did BiS tried giving the end user the option to choose between realism and arcade except maybe hud vs no hud?
I was talking about the concept "one game for all users".
Cripsis
Nov 15 2011, 04:29
^^This was tried before, and it never ended well.
Could you go into more detail please. I don't doubt you, I just want to learn about what happened so I can consider why it was unsuccessful.
I wasn't talking about Arma history, take a look at Rainbow Six & Ghost Recon - good examples of making it interesting for broader audience...
If you stretch it too much in order to please everyone, you lose core of the game. I'm not saying there shouldn't be difficulty options, btw. they are present in Arma, though, when online, they are set server side. I'm saying do not try to please everyone, it simply wont work out well IMO. There was a great article on this subject recently, I just can't find it atm...
CameronMcDonald
Nov 15 2011, 06:00
I wasn't talking about Arma history, take a look at Rainbow Six & Ghost Recon - good examples of making it interesting for broader audience...
If you stretch it too much in order to please everyone, you lose core of the game. I'm not saying there shouldn't be difficulty options, btw. they are present in Arma, though, when online, they are set server side. I'm saying do not try to please everyone, it simply wont work out well IMO. There was a great article on this subject recently, I just can't find it atm...
Don't forget what happened to OPERATION FLASHPOINT.
Don't forget what happened to OPERATION FLASHPOINT.
Yeah, but that was kind of expected since Codemasters worked on it.
Cripsis
Nov 15 2011, 06:18
I wasn't talking about Arma history, take a look at Rainbow Six & Ghost Recon - good examples of making it interesting for broader audience...
I understand the point you are trying to convey, but the big difference is that R6 and GR totally abandoned all elements of realistic gameplay.
If you stretch it too much in order to please everyone, you lose core of the game.
I don't agree, I think the core gameplay elements would remain, and the player would also have the power to select a level of realism that suits their preference.
There was a great article on this subject recently, I just can't find it atm...
If you happen to find that article again please post me a link because it sounds interesting.
Isn't the main objective of aircraft in ArmA is for them to perform well from a tactical standpoint, as opposed to getting into a nitty gritty flight model?
Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong please.
Isn't the main objective of aircraft in ArmA is for them to perform well from a tactical standpoint, as opposed to getting into a nitty gritty flight model?
Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong please.
While driving from A to B, you will eventually get there but you probably wouldn't mind if it was fun too, right? What I mean is, while it's not necessary to have realistic FM to get the job done, it would be welcomed. If nothing else - for fun!
MadDogX
Nov 15 2011, 08:02
Isn't the main objective of aircraft in ArmA is for them to perform well from a tactical standpoint, as opposed to getting into a nitty gritty flight model?
The "main objective of aircraft"? Where did you get that one from?
It has always been said that the primary focus of the game is infantry combat, so the infantry simulation gets the most "love", as it were. Aircraft physics in the current Arma games are merely "functional" because making them more realistic was not a primary concern - i.e. the cost/benefit ratio of developing a more realistic flight model for the Arma games was unfavorable.
However, now that BIS have a more realistic flight model ready to use, there is no practical reason why it shouldn't be included in their upcoming games.
NoRailgunner
Nov 15 2011, 08:18
All infantry fans do want the nitty gritty infantry handling.
All tanksim fans do want the nitty gritty vehicle handling.
All flightsim fans do want the nitty gritty aircraft handling.
...
:p
MadDogX the very practical reason could be sales/profit. Just because some fanboys get a wet dream doesn't mean that its practical or economically justifiable. Try to think as an company with bills, wages and salaries...
More people would decide to buy only one product if there is no big + significant difference to the other.
MadDogX
Nov 15 2011, 08:33
MadDogX the very practical reason could be sales/profit. Just because some fanboys get a wet dream doesn't mean that its practical or economically justifiable. Try to think as an company with bills, wages and salaries...
More people would decide to buy only one product if there is no big + significant difference to the other.
I saw this response coming a mile away. For me this is not a "practical reason" in the sense of whether or not it is possible, but a theoretical one. :)
Perhaps my usage of the words practical/theoretical in this context is wrong, but I don't really care. Fact is, multiple BIS devs have already stated their willingness to implement the TOH flight model into Arma3, and this possibility is being discussed at Bohemia. Before they said this, I too was skeptical of it ever happening, and you can check my post history on that. Now that the possibility is in the cards, however, I am all for it, and I couldn't case less about business concerns. Such things are for BIS to worry about, not me. ;)
Archosaurusrev
Nov 15 2011, 14:28
If the FM gets better, it will be useless without real MFDs with target pods and the like.
The main idea of the SU-25SM and A-10C for example are that he pilot can slew the target pod and acquire/lock targets. Flying CAS is now useless, with 1 seaters and planes at least.
Antigoon
Nov 15 2011, 15:18
Currently the Armaverse resides in that grey area between game and simulation. If you want it more "gamey" there are plenty of other options out there. If you want more"simulation"....hmm...not so many, atleast none that offer detailed ground and air combat in an open environment. So although I'm happy enough to play Arma as it is, I certainly wouldn't mind a shift in focus towards"simulation".
In my experience, things that are harder to master, ultimately give more satisfaction after "mastering" them. Only an (mine) opinion ofcourse.:o
Also, it simply feels more real, when it's more "real"!;)
NodUnit
Nov 15 2011, 16:38
If the FM gets better, it will be useless without real MFDs with target pods and the like.
The main idea of the SU-25SM and A-10C for example are that he pilot can slew the target pod and acquire/lock targets. Flying CAS is now useless, with 1 seaters and planes at least.
Well that is the purpose of render to texture which I believe was stated they were working on.
RTT is great for the cockpit situational awareness but at worst the birds can be suplimented with optics via 0 key as opposed to the cockpit zoom they get now. Of course the big issue is having the ability to slew the camera without effecting the aircraft course...so we'll just have to wait and see.
Archosaurusrev
Nov 15 2011, 16:49
Well that is the purpose of render to texture which I believe was stated they were working on.
RTT is great for the cockpit situational awareness but at worst the birds can be suplimented with optics via 0 key as opposed to the cockpit zoom they get now. Of course the big issue is having the ability to slew the camera without effecting the aircraft course...so we'll just have to wait and see.
Well, most if not all flightsims use Sensor Of Interest points for MFDs.
So, if RMFD is SOI, the TGP (If its set at RMFD.) can be slewed with for example , . - and รถ like in DCS:A-10C.
NodUnit
Nov 15 2011, 17:13
Oh that is interesting, I never really knew how the stuff worked, just that it did. Are you able to look around in the cockpit while 'tied' to the camera?
Archosaurusrev
Nov 15 2011, 17:46
Oh that is interesting, I never really knew how the stuff worked, just that it did. Are you able to look around in the cockpit while 'tied' to the camera?
Sure, as long as the view keys are separated from the slew buttons/you use track ir.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOZ18GNPI-c
Watch this and I think you get the idea. You just (In all the flight sims I have played.) need to make the MFD what the TGP is on the SOI then just slew it. It is not connected to head movement, the image is projected through the MFD/small screen on the SU-25.
DMarkwick
Nov 15 2011, 18:16
Problem is there's always more to be simulated. Give a realistic flight model and people complain that the instrumentation should also be simulated. Simulate the instrumentation and people say the weapons interface should be simulated. Simulate the weapons interface and people say the weapons should be simulated. Simulate the weapons and people say the targets should be simulated. Simulate the targets and people say the targets should have similar amounts of simulation to the aircraft in order to be "realistic"... never ends :)
At some point, gameplay has to take precedence. It has to play out of the box, for everyone, at a base level. Flight model could be modular for all I care, the most important thing is that helos etc can be used as helos in a realistic way, regardless of how complex the FM is. When all's said & done, I'd prefer more realistic tanks than helos, even though flight sims have always been my "thing" :)
I don't play ArmA for it's flight sim abilities is what I'm getting at ;) helos are there to augment the infantry sim part. That said, I'd accept any FM improvements with good cheer :)
ProfTournesol
Nov 15 2011, 18:19
Problem is there's always more to be simulated.
God, you know my wife :confused:
:D
DMarkwick
Nov 15 2011, 18:22
God, you know my wife :confused:
:D
I said simulated not stimulated.
;)
MadDogX
Nov 15 2011, 18:47
I said simulated not stimulated.
;)
I think he really meant "simulated".
:butbut:
OnlyRazor
Nov 15 2011, 22:28
Okay, I thing that's enough offtopic for now.
:p
In all seriousness, I concur, the aircraft interaction and such could still use some deal of improvement in the realism department. Possibly difficulty-conditioned, but still, it would be useful as long as it didn't interfere with gameplay to an extent where it would be a pain. There must be a balance between realism and entertainment.
It has always been said that the primary focus of the game is infantry combat, so the infantry simulation gets the most "love", as it were.
Uh, sources for this statement please. As I have said to everyone I have seen say this, I have yet to see any actual sources to back this up, and I believe it to be a assumption from people. As infantry may be the best simulated, it would make sense people would assume what you just said.
Dragon01
Nov 16 2011, 01:25
Problem is there's always more to be simulated.
This is not a problem at all, just future development perspectives (and we're not surrounded, we just have a wide target selection :)), which would get more and more feasible as computer capabilities progress. ArmAIII will have a realistic FM, ArmAIV could have instrumentation and weapon interface. Weapons are already done quite well, and since ArmA is a general-purpose simulation, targets would be simulated, because they'd also be playable. Of course, not everything at once, moderation is always important. ArmAIII should focus on FM, and either expansions or AIV might try to simulate even more.
At some point, gameplay has to take precedence. It has to play out of the box, for everyone, at a base level. Flight model could be modular for all I care, the most important thing is that helos etc can be used as helos in a realistic way, regardless of how complex the FM is. When all's said & done, I'd prefer more realistic tanks than helos, even though flight sims have always been my "thing"
Modular FM and flexible, easily customized difficulty level are the way to go. Tutorials and manual should also be improved. That way, it'll always "play out of the box".
MadDogX
Nov 16 2011, 06:14
Uh, sources for this statement please. As I have said to everyone I have seen say this, I have yet to see any actual sources to back this up, and I believe it to be a assumption from people. As infantry may be the best simulated, it would make sense people would assume what you just said.
I'm positive that a dev has said something along these lines before, not sure where though.
But even if it were purely an assumption, it isn't an unreasonable one. As you say yourself, infantry are the best simulated element in the Arma series, and as I pointed out earlier the vehicle simulation is pretty basic for the most part. The logical conclusion is that the infantry have so far been the primary focus of development, so I think it's safe to go with that until a dev contradicts it (which hasn't happened yet, to my knowledge).
NodUnit
Nov 16 2011, 14:46
Infantry has been the primary focus yes that much is obvious given how many updates they get, that said there is no doubt that there is expansion in mind with physX coming. While infantry are gaining ragdolls vehicles are also getting proper suspension and so on, RTT is another more vehicle priority focus unless we will be carrying mirrors into urban zones to look around corners without exposing ourselves to peek.
While it would be nice to have fully interactable cockpits, advanced weapon systems, tracking systems, dynamic arming capabilities, very complex damage model and so on I just don't see that happening as it takes a LOT of time, that said simply giving us the capability would do well enough. When you look at the effects that come out of the capabilities the pieces fall into place to making things more complex..think about it.
In OFP armor interiors were possible and did not interfere with the players sight other than what they were meant to, in Arma1 we saw that HDR caused intense issues when looking at the inside of the Stryker, and while HDR has been getting improvements we can still see, especially inside structures, that it would still interefere. Now what is another arguement for lack of vehicle love?..well what is the point they say. With RTT coupled with thermal imagery especially if (and I hope) environmental thermal takes a fairly high priority, we now have a purpose to have interiors where HDR would not screw with our eyes. It sounds useless but this increases immersion drasticly but also potential.
In the end we all want Arma to be something different, two most distinguished sides want it to remain as is, the other side wasn't mistress-like hardcore, obviously BI can't please either party to the fullest but by taking things 'easy' and providing us the knowledge and abilities to use the upgrades to further our agenda's, in a way they can please both.
But even if it were purely an assumption, it isn't an unreasonable one. As you say yourself, infantry are the best simulated element in the Arma series, and as I pointed out earlier the vehicle simulation is pretty basic for the most part. The logical conclusion is that the infantry have so far been the primary focus of development, so I think it's safe to go with that until a dev contradicts it (which hasn't happened yet, to my knowledge).
Or it's that making infantry realistic is the easiest aspect to simulate. Think about the things needed to be done to make infantry realistic in something like COD. Not much really... Now think about the things needed to be done to make arma have realistic vehicles...
A developer has not to my knowledge confirmed infantry is the main focus. And besides what else can you add to infantry to make it more realistic for a video game with today's technology. So even if it is the main focus, it shouldn't be anymore. As improvements to infantry are very minor and shouldn't take long at all. While vehicles are in need of huge improvements. And with arma 3 the larger improvements that we know about being made are really not infantry focused.
---------- Post added at 01:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 AM ----------
Infantry has been the primary focus yes that much is obvious given how many updates they get, that said there is no doubt that there is expansion in mind with physX coming. While infantry are gaining ragdolls vehicles are also getting proper suspension and so on, RTT is another more vehicle priority focus unless we will be carrying mirrors into urban zones to look around corners without exposing ourselves to peek.
While it would be nice to have fully interactable cockpits, advanced weapon systems, tracking systems, dynamic arming capabilities, very complex damage model and so on I just don't see that happening as it takes a LOT of time, that said simply giving us the capability would do well enough. When you look at the effects that come out of the capabilities the pieces fall into place to making things more complex..think about it.
In OFP armor interiors were possible and did not interfere with the players sight other than what they were meant to, in Arma1 we saw that HDR caused intense issues when looking at the inside of the Stryker, and while HDR has been getting improvements we can still see, especially inside structures, that it would still interefere. Now what is another arguement for lack of vehicle love?..well what is the point they say. With RTT coupled with thermal imagery especially if (and I hope) environmental thermal takes a fairly high priority, we now have a purpose to have interiors where HDR would not screw with our eyes. It sounds useless but this increases immersion drasticly but also potential.
In the end we all want Arma to be something different, two most distinguished sides want it to remain as is, the other side wasn't mistress-like hardcore, obviously BI can't please either party to the fullest but by taking things 'easy' and providing us the knowledge and abilities to use the upgrades to further our agenda's, in a way they can please both.
Which updates to infantry are you talking about? Give some examples that improved the infantry simulation please.
When a developer advertises a game in the mil-sim genre, there really is no excuse not to be trying to simulate more and more of the battlefield. It shouldn't be necessary to have to mod a mil-sim game to make it actually simulate what it was supposed to in the first place. IMHO if you're going to have vehicles in this game that is supposed to be realistic, don't make them arcade shit, or just don't add them.
NodUnit
Nov 17 2011, 03:21
Going through the lineage.. Infantry got the capability to jog with AT and AA weaponry in Arma1, roll, a new set of animations and some tweaking to action menu functions. What were previously accessed via AM in OFP became keys, \ to salute, , to sit and so on. Weapons also became 3D while vehicles remained relatively the same, the major addition being weapons mounted on wheeled vehicles from the beginning.
In Arma2 infantry gained the ability to use hang signals, cross over low obstacles, reload on the move, weapon sway, tweaked animation and response time, healing modules, capability to hear nearby infantry, leaning and a tweaked sound system. Infantry AI was tweaked to try and fit better into closer environments but they still need work.
OA added; multi optics, flash lights, lasers, thermal rifles, whisper commands and response, back packs, weapon ranging and tweaked grenades.
I'm not argueing that vehicles shouldn't be simulated with more depth, I fully agree but how far should that simulation go is the question, BI can't please everyone...personally I think that by not simulating, that the games potential is being held back..now obviously not everyone agree's so the next best option is to give us the capability.
That said I don't think vehicles will be getting as cold of a shoulder, on assumption that all features will be included..we've seen laser range finders on infantry weapons so let us assume this will be on vehicles..thermals are staying, physX will give vehicles more depth. If the flight model mirrors TKOH helicopters will be able to lose their rotors, taxi, have RTT screens which may have full camera functionality which would span helo, vehicle and fixed wing alike. Interactive cockpits I don't know about yet.. The damage system is getting at least a small tweak in that engines can be taken out like tires rather than 'killing' the enemy.. weapon trajectories are still out and I don't see them simulating the arc of AGM-114K's but still the stated above give us a variety of options..oh the things could be done...
Banshee
Nov 18 2011, 13:30
Well render to texture is allready working in TKOH.
So we actually have working mirrors, and in some missions the heavy helicopter (Merlin) gets a video picture displayed into the big MFD's. So that's also working like a charme. I bet that'll be included into Arma3.
NodUnit
Nov 18 2011, 17:20
It is in TKOH yes but the screen locks on to an indicated target and tracks it, or you see a screen locked on to you and displaying your distance to it. In order for it to work on an attack vehicle it needs to have user slew capabilities. Symbology isn't quite as difficult since it can be tailored on to the MPD.
Yet to use the FLIR camera in TKOH so I don't know if it follows the same 'lock to target' principle or if it slews. That said I have faith that BI will get this right should they choose to pursue it.
speedone
Feb 4 2013, 13:54
For me, more dedicated realism would be; you have to log in as a pilot if you want to be able to fly. A pilot can not take a heavy machine gun and two rocketlaunchers into the cockpit of an Apache... a pilot should only be able to carry a sidearm into a cockpit, nothing more. If he steps out, he can pick up other arms like anyone else, but not take it into the cockpit...
BlackMamb
Feb 4 2013, 14:35
This can easily be scripted in a mission/mod. You don't want to reduce the overall possibilities. Having only pilots able to fly is not a good thing to have as a general rule, however it can be in public servers, i guess.
For me, more dedicated realism would be; you have to log in as a pilot if you want to be able to fly. A pilot can not take a heavy machine gun and two rocketlaunchers into the cockpit of an Apache... a pilot should only be able to carry a sidearm into a cockpit, nothing more. If he steps out, he can pick up other arms like anyone else, but not take it into the cockpit...
There's room on the AH-1W cockpit to store a M4 carbine and same on the AH-64, UH-60 & UH-1N.
Chortles
Feb 9 2013, 19:56
For me, more dedicated realism would be; you have to log in as a pilot if you want to be able to fly. A pilot can not take a heavy machine gun and two rocketlaunchers into the cockpit of an Apache... a pilot should only be able to carry a sidearm into a cockpit, nothing more. If he steps out, he can pick up other arms like anyone else, but not take it into the cockpit...Aka "what speedone thinks is realistic."
BlackMamb's got the right perspective here -- you can script a mission this way just fine, but some guys' own mission ideas will specifically disagree, not least since "log in as a pilot" specifically implies a Battlefield-style class system.
There's room on the AH-1W cockpit to store a M4 carbine and same on the AH-64, UH-60 & UH-1N.I believe that "carry in your vehicle" was somewhat the point of carrying carbines in the early years?
P.S. Seeing as this thread wasn't updated for over a year until this month... yeah, 2012 definitely made me believe that "the BI devs focused on infantry simulation", if only because it seemed the most visibly changed at E3/Gamescom 2012 compared to helicopters or wheeled vehicles.
[EVO] Dan
Feb 9 2013, 20:01
Aka "what speedone thinks is realistic."
BlackMamb's got the right perspective here -- you can script a mission this way just fine, but some guys' own mission ideas will specifically disagree, not least since "log in as a pilot" specifically implies a Battlefield-style class system.
Maybe have a module that had to be placed in the editor (default off) that automatically made it so only pilots can fly and crew can only drive armored vehicles.
Laqueesha
Feb 9 2013, 20:02
There's room on the AH-1W cockpit to store a M4 carbine and same on the AH-64, UH-60 & UH-1N.
True that. Rotary-wing crewmen usually carry MP5s, whereas fixed-wing crewmen usually carry an M9.
Chortles
Feb 9 2013, 21:31
Dan;2292737']Maybe have a module that had to be placed in the editor (default off) that automatically made it so only pilots can fly and crew can only drive armored vehicles.Hence what I said about scripting a mission this way as opposed to being an Arma-wide universal rule. ;)
True that. Rotary-wing crewmen usually carry MP5s, whereas fixed-wing crewmen usually carry an M9.Interestingly enough the LWRCI UICW, the HK416C and the SCAR PDW (those two weren't made up just for Medal of Honor: Warfighter! :p) are both right in the same overall length ballpark as the collapsible-stock MP5 series and the HK53. The HK416C was rumored to be for the Brits, while the LWRCI description outright says that that the UICW was for "British Special Forces" but also "designed for use by tank and helicopter crew members, and others who need an extremely compact gun for operations in confined spaces." And of course, there's side-folding-stock style weapons such as the Colt Sub Compact Weapon or... well before that, the AKS-74U.
EDIT: Elaborate, Forsyth, that post was too vague.
Forsyth
Feb 10 2013, 06:21
Hopefully they will make the planes & helicopter's systems a bit more realistic but who knows.
Nathan1506
Feb 15 2013, 16:29
I think that flying in ArmA should be as realistic as they can possibly make it without sacrificing other aspects of the game. Hell, I believe that they should make EVERYTHING as realistic and with as much fidelity as they possibly can, be it driving, ballistics, flying or running around. Flying should require a lot of skill, same with driving and sniping. This would discourage the infamous "Airborne Medic Sniper Pilot" that crashes into everything. It would discourage these people who are not dedicated to learning and make them find out what they are best at/have the most fun doing and do it/get better at it. It would encourage people specializing in certain fields; granted this happens a lot now, but I believe that the balance between jack of all trades and specialists would shift.
While i agree partially, this would mean that those who arent great flight sim pilots would *never* be able to experience that part of the game. Atleast with the current system, non-pilots can still have their turn (be it online or in the armory)
NodUnit
Feb 15 2013, 22:41
If someone wants to pilot something badly enough then they will practice and get the hang of it. As much as I'd like everyone to be able to fly, I've seen people crash helicopters repeatedly in battlefield 3..and that is about as simple as you can get.
I'm curious what's BIS plans on making Aaircraft handling more realistic. The current Arma 2 system is a joke. I'm a big fan of plane simulators and hope to see some improvements
I totally agree with you. I really loved Operation Flashpoint. The only thing that annoyed me back then was the aircraft simulation part.
I find it surprising that while trying to be somewhat realistic they ultimately ended up making the flying of an aircraft (or even driving a land vehicle) harder than the real thing!
I'm saying that based on my experience of Falcon 4.0 Allied Assault, which has the reputation of being a realistic flight simulator. These birds are a charm to fly!
In Arma 2 (that I've just bought), even with a joystick, aircrafts are a nightmare to fly. Regarding Arma 2, I was extremely disappointed to see Bohemia made zero progress in all those years (at least for the air fighter).
I cross my fingers for Arma 3.
It's really simple to make arma 3 appealing to everyone helicopter complexity wise- it's called difficulty option.
The Amazing Flight Lizard
Feb 19 2013, 02:10
Actually, usually only the SOAR guys have MP5s.
Everything else, at least US Army-wise, we all have M4s. In fact, as a crew chief in an assault unit, I carried an M9, had an M4 with me, and also had an M240H on the aircraft's pintle mount, with an egress kit in a bag on the floor. All the egress kit really consisted of was a spare barrel, a stock, and a pistol grip trigger assembly, which can all be placed onb the gun to adapt it for running around on the ground. One thing it definitely lacked though was any kind of box mag to carry the ammo around in, since that box was actually part of the pintle mount assembly. So if you had to get out and go with it, you'd have to do your best Rambo impression and toss the remainder belt over your shoulder.
Another little thing we have is something called a COPS, or Clip-On Power Source for the NVGs. Because nobody wants to be running around on foot with their big ass helmet on their head, muffling all sound around them and generally killing situational awareness, HOWEVER, having something that allows us to use our NVGs without the helmet is a good thing, ESPECIALLY in an E&E (escape and evade) situation.
That being said, the main point of my post has to do with the flight model.
If we DO get the Take On Helicopters (which is nice, but SUPER sensitive) I'd hope we get more than the Light, Medium, and Heavy flight models, and get something more specific to the individual aircraft, at least with the ones that ship with the game.
For instance, a UH-60 has a piece of equipment calle an MMU, or Mechanical MIxing Unit on the hydraulic deck, which blends control inputs and a helicopters natural tendencies (translating tendency, gyroscopic procession, etc.) to make the anti torque pedals, really do more of directional control, than the anti-torque. In fact, as one of my old, crusty instructor pilots did to one of our newbies, in a Blackhawk, you can put your feet flat on the floor and yank up on the collective. That MMU, as well as other systems on the aircraft (SAS/FPS) will keep your nose pointed straight, after of course, a short, quick jerk to the right.
Basically I hope that if the guys look a little more into the aircraft that are being represented and understand that not all helicopters fit into the Light/Medium/Heavy model. Technology has come a long way since the infancy of helicopters. (The Apache still has to have anti-torque pedal applied *Nelson laugh*)
Karbiner
Feb 19 2013, 14:30
We can be quite sure they make the helicopters flyable with keyboards so no expert stuff from TOH where you really need rudders etc. And they have been flying with keyboards with every flying footage there is and it looks just as fast and arcadelike like A2.
You can fly TOH with kb/ mouse.
Chortles
Feb 20 2013, 08:47
Mind you in every instance of Arma 3 flying footage in 2012 they were showing the Arma 3 equivalent of the "Light Helicopter", complete with no overtly visible digital instruments or much in the way of automated/guided fire control...
GossamerSolid
Feb 20 2013, 10:58
We don't "need" the pro handling from TKoH necessarily, we just need obvious improvments added - why is it so hard to descend in a helicopter in this game? Sometimes you're just holding down on Z and it barely descends until you drop your speed to almost nothing. Needs to be way more responsive.
I want to be able to perform COBRA maneuver when flying the adequate plane !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK0_G2ZY264
This may have already been said. But I think in the future (arma 4+) BIS should partner with Eagle Dynamics for aircraft.
I can fly the A-10 in DCS pretty well. But in arma I have massive trouble flying due to the arcade flight model.
Maybe also include a "game" mode for people who want an easier time flying. But who comes to Arma cause it is easy?
On a somewhat related not, they should also partner with the people who make steel beasts.
Chortles
Feb 21 2013, 03:51
Unfortunately the devs have already made clear that development is infantry-centric and that they're operating "broad spectrum, shallow depth" when it comes to simulation.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.