the arma engine isn't very good as a flight sim. it's worse for helicopters. the problem with it is that they try to put in everything and end up having everything at a mediocre level. it's good for simulators because it presumes the player is a certified pilot, soldier, whatever, but for a fun civilian verison where part of the challenges comes from learning how to master the controls, it's a real failure.
Well BIS devs already mentioned that this Take On Helicopters sim will be based on a considerably MODIFIED engine of ArmA3 (yes, based on ArmA3 which as we all know it wasn't released yet). The "modified part" of the engine is definitly because of features needed to realistically model helicopters - Since there's no need to model infantry or even perhaps ground vehicles, things like helicopter flight model/physics can be vastly improved without taking up to many PC resources (a thing that would almost certainly happen with ArmA)! I think we should wait and see how this Take On Helicopters sim will be in the end but saying that Take On Helicopters will not be good because it's based on ArmA engine is just plain wrong because any engine can be modified to do whatever the programmers what it to do (and even more effectivelly if the programmers are ones that made the engine, which is the case). Take an example: look at Combat-Helo project a sim that's being developed using an engine called "Leadwerks" which is an engine that was designed for FPS game but it's being used to develop a realistic helo sim. It's true that COmbat-Helo wasn't released yet but from what I've seen so far the devs of this sim are doing a great job and this with an engine that wasn't designed for helicopter sims!
By the way, I totally and completly disagree with you Johncage when you say that the ArmA engine as a flight sim is "worse for helicopters" - IMO, helicopter are FAR BETTER modeled in ArmA than for example fixed-wing aircraft (these ones yes, are crap) or any other vehicles (such as cars, tanks, boats, etc...) for that matter and IMO the helicopter flight model in ArmA is not that bad, I find it rather good and even better than some dedicated helicopter flight sim and games that I played in past such as the Comanche series (1, 2, 3 and 4) and Gunship! Is the ArmA helicopter flight model perfect? NO! Does it need improvements to be more realistic? definitly YES! But nevertheless the helicopter flight model in ArmA is far better than arcade (or the ones seen in arcade helicopter games) and is definitly nearer to simulation that arcade.
Resuming, I'm following this Take on Helicopters sim/project with a very high level of interest and I do have high hopes for this sim but of course I hope not to be wrong...
I wish they'd put the "black helicopter" missions in. I wouldn't mind piloting a few cattle mutilation flights.
Cheers!
Rick...
"We are extending ourselves in Space and Time not because of capitalism or socialism but in spite of them. The Right/Left Capitalist/Socialist establishments are psychologically unprepared for our emerging situation in Time and Space." - F. M. Esfandiary, Upwingers
I downloaded it but didnt install. Saw this in the Readme.txt:
Quote:
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ANY ORIGINAL VERSION OF ARMA2 OPERATION ARROWHEAD from 1.59 (including Steam version) - DirectX 10 February 2010 is required
So are all of us XP users SOL for TOH?
Long system spec sig follows:
PowerSpec G436 Lian Li ATX 205 MSI Z490 Plus Motherboard Intel Core i7 10700K 3.8 GHz 32 GB RAM DDR4 1600 Nvidia RTX3070
The requirements seem much lower than the ArmA 3 requirements posted recently.
OS – Windows 7 / Vista CPU – Intel Core i5 or AMD Athlon Phenom X4 or faster GPU – Nvidia Geforce GTX 260 or ATI Radeon HD 5770, shader Model 3 and 896 MB VRAM, or faster RAM – 2 GB HDD – 15 GB free space DVD – Dual Layer compatible DirectX® – 10
Judge, jury and executioner of Tricubic's art department.
... and IMO the helicopter flight model in ArmA is not that bad, I find it rather good and even better than some dedicated helicopter flight sim and games that I played in past such as the Comanche series (1, 2, 3 and 4) and Gunship!
Well concerning Comanche 3 at least, it's actually a common misconception that it uses a weak flight model, because it is modelling the Comanche after all - a helicopter that was said to be really easy to fly. I actually think, comparing to what I've read and seen, that the flight model in Comanche 3/Gold is quite accurate to the real Comanche's.
... and IMO the helicopter flight model in ArmA is not that bad, I find it rather good and even better than some dedicated helicopter flight sim and games that I played in past such as the Comanche series (1, 2, 3 and 4) and Gunship!
Well concerning Comanche 3 at least, it's actually a common misconception that it uses a weak flight model, because it is modelling the Comanche after all - a helicopter that was said to be really easy to fly. I actually think, comparing to what I've read and seen, that the flight model in Comanche 3/Gold is quite accurate to the real Comanche's.
I'm not saying that the Comanche 3 flight model was bad (or the Gunship! flight model for that matter)! Actually I enjoyed Comanche 3 very much including it's flight model. I'm just saying that the ArmA flight model is better than the flight models of Comanche 3 and Gunship! which are helicopter sims and of course better than the other Comanche games (1, 2 and 4) which are more lets say, "mainstream" helicopter games.
This is just to prove that it's feasable to make a realistic helicopter sim based on the ArmA engine...
I'm just saying that the ArmA flight model is better than the flight models of Comanche 3 and Gunship! which are helicopter sims and of course better than the other Comanche games (1, 2 and 4) which are more lets say, "mainstream" helicopter games.
But that's my point. Again only concerning C3/G - the ArmA flight model isn't better, as such, it's just modelling less complex helicopters meaning they are harder to fly and it seems that 'hardcore' simmers feel that the harder a helo is to fly, the more realistic it is. Which is of course total nonsense. If any sim today tried to model the Comanche 'realistically', it would get a lot of flak for being too arcadey because it's too easy to fly! So if TAKE ON Helicopters ended up trying to realistically model the Comanche, no doubt your viewpoint of it would shift to saying that the flight model's not that great after all.
But that's my point. Again only concerning C3/G - the ArmA flight model isn't better, as such, it's just modelling less complex helicopters meaning they are harder to fly and it seems that 'hardcore' simmers feel that the harder a helo is to fly, the more realistic it is. Which is of course total nonsense. If any sim today tried to model the Comanche 'realistically', it would get a lot of flak for being too arcadey because it's too easy to fly! So if TAKE ON Helicopters ended up trying to realistically model the Comanche, no doubt your viewpoint of it would shift to saying that the flight model's not that great after all.
My point when I say that the ArmA flight model is better than Comanche 3 is not because the helicopter(s) it models but because of certain manouvers that you can't make with the Comanche 3 flight model but can/could be done with the real Comanche helicopter, manouvers such as loppings, barrel rolls and simply putting your helicopter at near 90 degree nose up or down which are possible with the ArmA flight model but not possible with in Comanche 3 (where you could only place your helicopter in 45 degree nose up or down or something like that).
My point when I say that the ArmA flight model is better than Comanche 3 is not because the helicopter(s) it models but because of certain manouvers that you can't make with the Comanche 3 flight model but can/could be done with the real Comanche helicopter, manouvers such as loppings, barrel rolls and simply putting your helicopter at near 90 degree nose up or down which are possible with the ArmA flight model but not possible with in Comanche 3 (where you could only place your helicopter in 45 degree nose up or down or something like that).
Granted, the full complexity of the flight model is not explored in C3/G, but the real Comanche had several different control and flight model laws. There's really no need in C3/G to be able to do all the fancy aerobatic stuff - which arguably the real Comanche would have never utilized in combat anyhow. But I think that the flight model in C3/G represents very well, what the Comanche was designed for - low-level flight with the ability to weave in and out of trees, canyons, etc. Going by this I'm guessing that any helicopters in ArmA use just generic flight models and although you may be able to do some aerobatics, a Comanche in the game wouldn't have modelled low-level flight dynamics with any detail.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. It's just that there are a lot of common misconceptions as to how the real Comanche would have behaved, and there is a fundamental lack of understanding about its 'flight model', if you will. This is not your fault, and you are just one of many who has probably never cared enough for the Comanche to try and figure out how it would have functioned. But I say again, it IS a common misconception of how it would have worked - and it was unlike any other helicopter out there - still even today.
Granted, the full complexity of the flight model is not explored in C3/G, but the real Comanche had several different control and flight model laws. There's really no need in C3/G to be able to do all the fancy aerobatic stuff - which arguably the real Comanche would have never utilized in combat anyhow. But I think that the flight model in C3/G represents very well, what the Comanche was designed for - low-level flight with the ability to weave in and out of trees, canyons, etc. Going by this I'm guessing that any helicopters in ArmA use just generic flight models and although you may be able to do some aerobatics, a Comanche in the game wouldn't have modelled low-level flight dynamics with any detail.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. It's just that there are a lot of common misconceptions as to how the real Comanche would have behaved, and there is a fundamental lack of understanding about its 'flight model', if you will. This is not your fault, and you are just one of many who has probably never cared enough for the Comanche to try and figure out how it would have functioned. But I say again, it IS a common misconception of how it would have worked - and it was unlike any other helicopter out there - still even today.
Don't get me wrong but what is in fact a misconception is what you say about the Comanche that it's like some sort or an "alien spaceship" completly diferent of any helicopter but that's not true! Yes, the Comanche is capable of some impressive manouvers that are very hard to achive with other helicopters but nevertheless the Comanche is a HELICOPTER and even more the Comanche is a CONVENTIONAL helicopter (with main rotor and tail rotor) and therefore the basic rules of helicopter physics and flight model/dynamics are just as valid for the Comanche as it is for any other helicopter! Basically what difers from the Comanche from other helicopters are performance issues but the basic physics laws are the same.
Anyway, there isn't any manouver that you can't do in the Comanche3 sim that can't be done in ArmA but there are (realistic) manouvers that you can do with helicopters in ArmA that can't be done in Comanche3 therefore I still stand with what I inicially said: The ArmA helicopter flight model is superior to the Comanche3 helicopter flight model! Saying that the Comanche3 flight model isn't limited because it's limitations (in terms of manouvers) aren't used or rarelly used in combat is at least a wrong assumption - It's like making a racing sim (Formula 1 for example) where the player can't do a spin with the car on purpose because in the middle of the race the player isn't supposed to make spins, that doesn't make sence to me that's what I say...
Don't get me wrong but what is in fact a misconception is what you say about the Comanche that it's like some sort or an "alien spaceship" completly diferent of any helicopter but that's not true! Yes, the Comanche is capable of some impressive manouvers that are very hard to achive with other helicopters but nevertheless the Comanche is a HELICOPTER and even more the Comanche is a CONVENTIONAL helicopter (with main rotor and tail rotor) and therefore the basic rules of helicopter physics and flight model/dynamics are just as valid for the Comanche as it is for any other helicopter! Basically what difers from the Comanche from other helicopters are performance issues but the basic physics laws are the same.
Then simply put, you are one of those people who doesn't understand the Comanche. Whether that's because you don't care for the Comanche enough to find out or through ignorance, you are one of those people.
P.S. ufolev's video showcase is probably not the best representation of what the Comanche is about in C3/G, as he uses a MOUSE to fly!
Even if you use a joystick (and I used one to play Comanche 3) you can't do more than those manouvers in Comanche 3. In Comanche 3 the helicopter can't be put at a angle nose up or nose down highter than something like 45 degrees and the video posted by ufolev clearly shows that.
No definitly I don't understand the Comanche, he never complained or exposed "his" problems to me...
Anyway, either my English is plain bad or for some reason I didn't explain well or it's definitly not me the "ignorant"
Even if you use a joystick (and I used one to play Comanche 3) you can't do more than those manouvers in Comanche 3. In Comanche 3 the helicopter can't be put at a angle nose up or nose down highter than something like 45 degrees and the video posted by ufolev clearly shows that.
The fact that you can't put the nose over 45 degrees up or down says nothing about the flight model in C3/G. If you read what I said earlier, about the Comanche having different flight model/control laws you might, just might, have understood where this is coming from. Don't you think the REAL Comanche would have had a limit of 45 degrees up/down nose pitch to make low level flight tactics easier?
Originally Posted By: ricnunes
Anyway, either my English is plain bad or for some reason I didn't explain well or it's definitly not me the "ignorant"
In that case your English is bad or you didn't explain well.
The fact that you can't put the nose over 45 degrees up or down says nothing about the flight model in C3/G. If you read what I said earlier, about the Comanche having different flight model/control laws you might, just might, have understood where this is coming from.
Ok, now I see that we completly disagree with each other and here's exactly where I disagree with you: - I disagree that a flight model that isn't capable of putting ANY helicopter in 45 degrees up or down isn't limited or doesn't mean that's limited! Any flight model that models a modern helicopter that isn't capable of making manouvers with more than 45 degree nose up or down (such as the Comanche 3 flight model) is simply a LIMITED flight model. Period! - I also completly disagree about the part that "the Comanche have different flight model/control laws". This is simply NOT true! Any helicopter no matter how advanced it is, is run by the same basic flight model/control laws as any other helicopter. Don't confuse "perfomance" with "flight model/control laws".
Quote:
Don't you think the REAL Comanche would have had a limit of 45 degrees up/down nose pitch to make low level flight tactics easier?
Not by default! There could have been some sort of function(s) coupled with or belonging to the autopilot that could provide some sort of manouver limitation (just as there are others such as the Auto-Hover). But this would be an autopilot configuration or something similar which BTW should be easily overidden by the pilot in order to allow him to make more aggresive manouvers (more than 45 degrees up and down). Resuming in a NORMAL flight profile the Comanche would never have that limitation! If you watch some real footage about the Comanche you'll see that the helicopter does execute more and 45 degree up or down manouvers.
Quote:
In that case your English is bad or you didn't explain well.
Like everyone else in the world I also have my own limitations but not being able to explain myself well in English (which BTW, it isn't my first language but I'm 100% sure that I'm much better in your language than you are in mine) is definitly NOT on my limitations list...
Obviously normal helicopter limitations apply - to a point. All I'm going to say is this... once you wire an aircraft's flight control system up to a computer - you can dramatically shift what's limited and what's not. The Comanche was the only fly-by-wire helicopter in it's day - and still the only one to that extent - and look at how the flight characteristics of jet fighters have changed when you compare 'traditional' to FBW ones. Even though the Comanche was of a 'traditional' helicopter layout, it could do anything a co-axial helicopter could do - except the bit higher maximum speed.
Of course the Comanche does outside of 45 degree up/down maneuvers in videos you've seen - because that control law applied there is the 'aerobatic' one. A different one could be used when doing the low-level flight as I tried to explain, which would limit these unnecessary movements and abilities to go upside down, etc.
I don't know why you think you're right, and I don't believe that I have ever said I am right. But I'm guessing I have a lot more research under my belt than you, on the Comanche. Why can't you just believe it? Helicopter flight characteristics have changed over the last 50 years you know?
'Hardcore' simmers seem to think that the harder and more complex anything is, the more realistic it is.
the complexity arises from accurate representation of real world physical forces. arcade games won't model wind, sim games will.
so yes, in a word, more complex means more realistic.
and i laugh at the guy who said the commanche series and gunship! were sims. they are simply arcade helicopter games, nothing more. dcs black shark is a true sim.
the complexity arises from accurate representation of real world physical forces. arcade games won't model wind, sim games will.
so yes, in a word, more complex means more realistic.
I, for one, was talking about the actual cockpit and flight model. Who cares about wind? None of the early sims had wind.
Originally Posted By: johncage
and i laugh at the guy who said the commanche series and gunship! were sims. they are simply arcade helicopter games, nothing more. dcs black shark is a true sim.
If you're referring to me then you come across as a bit of a twonk. Of course the Comanche series and Gunship! are 'sims', even though I never said that GS! was one. It's easy, with hindsight, to say this IS a sim or that ISN'T a sim. With the complexity of sims nowadays one could say that Jane's Longbow 2 isn't even a sim - and it was THE best and most complex combat helicopter sim for well over 10 years. Now if you want to get into an argument over what are 'sims' and what are 'true sims', well that's another matter. In another 10 years time DCS: BS will look like an arcade game, and from what I've heard about it, some might say it is even today. As I stated much to the discontent of DCS: BS lovers when it first came out - that might seem more like a 'sim' to you because it is hard. It is hard, not because it is a complex sim, but because it models a more simplistic helicopter which in turn is harder to operate. If DCS accurately modelled the Comanche, for example, you'd be complaining that it's too easy, therefore it must be arcadey. You 'hardcore' guys kind of slit your own throats with your weak arguments. And don't get me wrong, I used to be up there with all you hardcore simmers - it's just that this is an endless argument and at the end of the day they're all just games for us to waste away our lives with.
I don't know why you think you're right, and I don't believe that I have ever said I am right. But I'm guessing I have a lot more research under my belt than you, on the Comanche. Why can't you just believe it? Helicopter flight characteristics have changed over the last 50 years you know?
What I'm right about is regarding the flight model of ArmA that while being far from being the "most realistic" for helicopter sims it's better and more realistic than the flight model of Comanche3 and you seem to disagree with this. So I posted reasons why I think that what I say is true, namely when you can't do with a flight model a certainly number of manouvers that the real helicopter do in real life this really proves that (Comanche3) flight model is in fact LIMITED. Just one last thing, because afer this I won't "beat the dead horse" again regarding this issue: - I'm 100% sure that if someone wanted to model a realistic Comanche flight model (with all flight functions and abilities), that same person would be much more sucessfull with the ArmA flight model than with Comanche3 one. Again with ArmA flight model you can make all possible manouvers and flight profiles that you have in Comanche3 but the opposite just cannot be done (I think this proves my point).
and i laugh at the guy who said the commanche series and gunship! were sims. they are simply arcade helicopter games, nothing more. dcs black shark is a true sim.
And I laugh at that comment of yours! I guess that for the first time in this thread I completly agree with Flyboy! I was going to put up an elaborate response to this comment of yours but Flyboy summed up pretty much what I wanted to say.
But I would really like to read your reasons why you say that Comanche3 and/or Gunship! are arcade games? Really, that one really made me laugh really loud
ricnunes - you've added some good contributions to the Combat-Helo thread where I also sometimes check-in. We hit it off pretty well in there I think so please don't take this argument in this forum personally. I just wanted to try and explain to you (and anyone else with your thoughts but too cowardly or too ill-informed to post) that perhaps NovaLogic made the C3/G flight model 'limited' for a reason. The reason being perhaps they wanted to model the low-level flight characteristics of the Comanche and not the rarely-used high-level aerobatic one. If they didn't intend to model it that way, then it doesn't matter as it is still a valid move on their part as it still matches at least one of the real Comanche's flight profiles and dynamics.
Now just a general observation of how the mindset of 'fans' of the genre has evolved for the worse... The word 'sim' has kind of become a bit of a dirty word over the recent years. If an infantry/flight/tank game is easy, then it's not a sim. If it's hard, then it must be a sim. As I said above, with hindsight it's easy to come over all high and proper and say 'my sim is better than your sim'. Remember, a lot of the time the sims people are comparing are 10 or more years apart with regards to release date. Newer sims should be more realistic, if they weren't, what a sorry state of affairs! Simulations are simply a genre, like first-person shooters and racing games. A genre of a game says more about the type of game it is and the perspective you play it from. If you play a crap FPS is it still not an FPS? If you play a rubbish racer is it not still a racing game? The fact that you play a game from the view of an aircraft's cockpit, for example, automatically makes it a sim - no matter how 'realistic' it is. The fact that a game even tries to implement certain flight controls and avionics makes it a sim, no matter how in-depth they are. Simple as that. From Tomahawk released in 1985, through Apache: Air Assault (2010 version) to the as-yet-to-be-released Combat-Helo - they are all sims whether you like it or not.
In all fairness the Comanche 3 flight modelling is pretty similar in being limited to Gunship 2000, LHX and pretty much every helicopter sim prior to Longbow. Tomahawk of course was an exception but IIRC it was the only heli sim to feature full aerobatic FM for at least 10 years.
So I guess that means Gunship, Gunship 2000, Thunderhawk, LHX, Apache Air Assault, Apache Longbow Assault, etc etc etc are just arcade games?
In all fairness the Comanche 3 flight modelling is pretty similar in being limited to Gunship 2000, LHX and pretty much every helicopter sim prior to Longbow. Tomahawk of course was an exception but IIRC it was the only heli sim to feature full aerobatic FM for at least 10 years.
So I guess that means Gunship, Gunship 2000, Thunderhawk, LHX, Apache Air Assault, Apache Longbow Assault, etc etc etc are just arcade games?
LOL
Mr "Bad Flower", I not sure if that question is regarding my posts but I believe it is, so here's my answer:
- No, it's doesn't mean that those games are arcade! Nothing like that and I NEVER SAID THAT, it just means precisely that those sims (at least most of them) have a limited flight model (compared to reality), period.
All those games that you posted (perhaps with the exception of Apache Air Assault and Apache Longbow Assault) are clearly sims and I guess that even Apache Air Assault and Apache Longbow Assault could somehow be considered simulations (I never played Apache Longbow Assault so I can't comment on this game).
For me a combat flight simulation (fixed wing or helicopter) is a game where the player must play with realistic tactics in order to win and the aircraft and it's weapon system try to model in a realitic level their real counterparts. For me an arcade flight game (fixed wing or helicopter) is a game where the player must kill ALL the HORDES or enemies (air, land and sea) present in the mission and in order to achive this the player usually have much more ammo and weapons than it would have in real life would have and usually the player's aircraft is like a flying SUPER-tank that can take up several hits even from missile and still fly as almost nothing as happened (usually there's a "health bar" present).
This is what is to me (trying to use as less words as possible) the diference between simulation and arcade...
Building on ArmA, Take On will surely have the best NPC/environment modelling ever. ArmA may have a somewhat superficial flight model (does it? compared to what?), but you haven't really flown CAS until the infantry scatters and runs for the woods or crawls for cover, or it dismounts and returns fire. I miss that high 'world' resolution in other seemingly more hardcore sims, where vehicles seem to run on rails and 'infantry' is five characters with AKs kneeling in the (often completely grass free, at that) field somewhere.
I can't wait to see what can be done in the civvy field. A car accident can actually be a car accident, with all its the butterfly-effect randomness. Hikers are actually injured game characters (if you want, injured by literally walking them off the cliff they will have fallen off of for the mission), not just a "wounded"-model with a timeout game condition. NPCs will see you, hear you, move and react.
There's no way that will end up being a 'light' sim, even if the flight model might be inferior to X-Plane or DCS:BS.
Don Quixote's misfortune is not his imagination, but Sancho Panza.
Hi guys, I'm a bit confused at what this is trying to be.
Is it an update for Arma Is it a Arcade flight game Is it a realistic sim with fully working switches and procedures.
Please don't think I'm trying to slag off this idea, that's far from the point, but I can't work out what it is going to be.
I've looked at the forums on it's website, and there do seem to be some promising comments from real heli pilots.
I would like to know, because I love helicopters and it's an area that we have sadly very few to choose from. Well I have Blackshark which is what I use for my heli fixes. I have been wishing for a fully realistic civilian heli sim for yrs
Would love to be able to do air Ambo work, or even charter pickups, underslung loads etc.
So have my dreams been answered, or is it looking like another sar game.
Hi guys, I'm a bit confused at what this is trying to be.
Is it an update for Arma Is it a Arcade flight game Is it a realistic sim with fully working switches and procedures.
Please don't think I'm trying to slag off this idea, that's far from the point, but I can't work out what it is going to be.
I've looked at the forums on it's website, and there do seem to be some promising comments from real heli pilots.
I would like to know, because I love helicopters and it's an area that we have sadly very few to choose from. Well I have Blackshark which is what I use for my heli fixes. I have been wishing for a fully realistic civilian heli sim for yrs
Would love to be able to do air Ambo work, or even charter pickups, underslung loads etc.
So have my dreams been answered, or is it looking like another sar game.
Womble
Have you tried the preview? Do you know the rest of the ArmA series? I think it's safe to say they are striving to make it as realistic as the rest of the series strives to be, the focus now being on the helos themselves, rather than the general 'infantry warfare' experience. Helos already are pretty good in ArmA2:OA, IMO. Not dedicated-study-sim-good, but they hold their own very well, even compared to actual flight sims. If they improve a little on that, I don't see how they could go wrong.
I don't see what clickability has to do with realism though. It's fun for startup procedures and general tinkering to see where the switches are and such, but after that, panning and zooming around the cockpit with a cursor hardly reflects the manner in which a pilot would fly his aircraft (I hope). It's funny that many flight simmers ask for clickable-everything, but no tactical-FPS player has ever asked for a clickable rifle, even though the same arguments in favor would apply.
And seriously now, SAR had the hardest flight model (aside maybe from BS) I've ever encountered. It's still the only helo game I've played where I actually checked the whind direction (with smoke and flags, no less) before landing - because it mattered. Others just let me plow in from wherever. And those coastguard decks really swayed, trees were collision enabled... Things many so-called realistic sims still grapple with. The ArmA engine has all that, practically on a per-branch level, plus individual AI, gameplay and other capabilities that most dedicated flight sims can still only dream of. I'm optimistic that even it the game itself falls short, the community will turn it into something great.
Don Quixote's misfortune is not his imagination, but Sancho Panza.
Nah, SAR was just a dirty arcade game because it didn't require a 20 minute startup procedure clickfest like in real life. Everybody and their mother knows real pilots click their switches.
Nah, SAR was just a dirty arcade game because it didn't require a 20 minute startup procedure clickfest like in real life. Everybody and their mother knows real pilots click their switches.
This is tongue-in-cheek right?
SAR1 and very challenging flight models (at least it felt like trying to balance on a ball - and it took time to kill momentum).
The Comanche had a wings level and cruise flight mode, but I'm pretty sure you had full authority most of the time. I don't know if there were bank or pitch angle limits while in this cruise mode (say, like an Airbus), but that's certainly possible. Not having full roll ability is annoying, but it's the pitch limits that are probably the most bothersome. Considering there is no benefit to flying high in CoG (visually-targeted no manpads), though, extreme pitch (and the ability to dive) I suppose has no value in the game.
Oh, and CoG has wind. And autorotation. And everything can be shot. It's just got no button/clickology and everything is scaled differently than in real life… assuming you can forgive the limited (coding or AFCS induced, for your imagination) flight model authority. Objects look bigger. Distances are smaller. That sort of kinda works within a game framework, though. It's so less boring than most flight sims, and yet it still requires real helo tactics in it to succeed. And with GlovePIE now it can have rudimentary attitude hold/ attitude command and cruise modes at will, dutch rolls from pitch and yaw, not to mention my newest scripts: a rudimentary VRS simulation from overly-rapid collective reduction while at very low trim states (near centered) for sufficient time (usually means you're hovering, though if you trick it you can get it to happen at around 40 or 50kts sometimes... keeps you on your toes). Oh and I can use pedals on it. I'm thinking of putting the cruise mode on the twist specifically and raw yaw on the pedals, but I haven't gotten around to that... and I like steering completely with my feet sometimes. Anyway, how'd we get on CoG in a TakeOn thread.? But I/we digress...
Are you guys saying Arma and TakeOn are worth checking out for their helos? Watching the helo and A-10 clips in Arma on YouTube, it looks seriously frigg'n lame to play and arcade as all hell. They seem able to fly around and blow stuff up like on rails and do so as if they're in god mode, or something. And it's hilarious hearing people do realistic style comms while doing it. I’ve never played either, though. I just watched the vids.
Last edited by Reticuli; 05/02/1207:49 PM.
The term "necroposting" was invented by a person with no social memory beyond a year. People with a similar hangup are those o.k. with the internet being transient vapor.
The flight models in the Arma series are quite "game"-y. This doesn't mean that they're not fun, but they are not realistic by any large stretch of the imagination. I don't think they are intended to be hi-fi, however, and the vehicles are just supplments to the core FPS action.
Take On Helos with Patch 1.04 or later has a MUCH better flight model and does a good job of replicating the complexities of helicopter flight. In my opinion, it is still missing some key components, but the overall package is quite good. I hope BIS continues to polish the dynamics as they continue development in this line.
I haven't tried Take On Hinds, but I assume it's got the same basic underlying helicopter flight dynamics model but with Hinds and guns and missiles and bombs.
Takeon Hinds is a bit of a throwback to ARMA. It's not easy to fly but the weapons employment is about as arcade as a sim can get. I recommend a pass. However, I really like ToH. They are just about to release 1.06 which will all nearly all of the ARMA content to be accessed by ToH.
- well said -
