Jump to content
FarlanderMiG

Helicopters and Jets

Recommended Posts

So, because this game is going to feature aerial combat too, i'm just wondering how realistic you guys are wanting the flight model to be.

 

I'm not expecting DCS: Mi-8/UH-1/A-10C (Digital Combat Simulator) realism, but can we expect to see a flight model like the one in Arma 3? (helicopters ofc... jet's suck in arma 3 still..)

I would really like to see helicopters VRS in this game :P Always fun to watch in arma 3 when people get too cocky on they "super-über pro skills landings". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to be able to auto-rotate, feel turbulence and create sand storms muahah.

 

A FM close to Arma 3's would be sweet, but I'd want it a little harder to maintain the steep learning curve PR's disgusting FM had to filter out the fng's who haven't practiced offline. With the large view distance already mentioned by the devs, more realistic speeds for helicopters and jets should be implemented; being able to use line of sight to land from km's out will be killer. Occulus Rift/SteamVR/TrackIR support would be sick for pilots as well; with TrackIR being implemented earlier, cos you know, it's already out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, not insanely complicated, yet filtering out those who aren't willing to learn and practice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a aviation guy, personally i would love to have it as realistic as possible :P, but i see how that might not be suitable for this game...

although i would be dissapointed if they made the fm so bad that there would not be any advantage of using a joystick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joysticks need to have an advantage. But it does also need to be accessible to most guys.

I'm down for an Arma style flight model for the Heli's, but as long as the helicopters don't just explode like they do in Arma 3... I'd like the hard landings to be a little more forgiving, as with clipping trees.

Essentially just remove the unnecessary explosions in the Arma 3 flight model and It'll be golden. As for jet combat, if it's not to the FC3 F-15C level I'll be disappointed :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just give us a bigger ceiling than the BF games. BF3s invisible molasses cloud was annoying as hell.

I am not a pilot real pilot, and I haven't pushed through the learning curve of DCS just yet, but I would like some reasonable simulation feel to it. Absolutely optimized for joystick. At least the fixed-wing craft. I always did like the feel of KB-Mouse for Helicopters in BF over the stick, but if purists insist, I will get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joysticks need to have an advantage. But it does also need to be accessible to most guys.

I'm down for an Arma style flight model for the Heli's, but as long as the helicopters don't just explode like they do in Arma 3... I'd like the hard landings to be a little more forgiving, as with clipping trees.

Essentially just remove the unnecessary explosions in the Arma 3 flight model and It'll be golden. As for jet combat, if it's not to the FC3 F-15C level I'll be disappointed :P

yes arma 3 helicopters are not made out of metals, they are made out of bloody explosives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to actually not be at a disadvantage for using Pedals and a Joystick. Happens quite often nowadays...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to actually not be at a disadvantage for using Pedals and a Joystick. Happens quite often nowadays...

 

Giving me War Thunder flash backs.

 

nO8rZ.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any preferred control scheme should be viable and shouldn't have any dis/advantages other than those inherent in the controllers themselves. While I still had one, I was using a 360 pad to fly in PR and ArmA, it was really challenging to get used to but pretty cool for a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes arma 3 helicopters are not made out of metals, they are made out of bloody explosives.

Tell me about it, even the 'new and realistic' flight modle has the stupid explosive heli's. At least they have all the cool stuff like vortex ring state etc :3

As for DCS style simulation, I want to be clear here. I DO NOT want the A-10 style of things, where every button has it's job and you need to have read 900 pages of manual to fly the thing, there is a time and place for that and it's not for this game - that stuff belongs in DCS in my opinion.

Make it like the simple Flaming Cliffs module (maybe even simplify the avionics down a little? Opinions?) and I'll be happy. I want to at least laugh at people who can't land properly :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of functions in the cockpit would we want, that separate us from the arcade, but dont require a 2 year degree?

I used to play a game called A-10 Attack! waaay back in the day on my Dad's old Mac. Was a great game. There were things to know about the plane, but I could have a ton of fun as a 10 year old fascinated with jets and tanks and stuff. I am sure older gents at the time had a blast hookin up on their appletalk after work or whatever.

 

So, In the A-10 there were different Hud settings based on the attack mode you wanted. there was 1 for AA, and 2 separate ground ones. I dont remember the difference cause I didnt know it then.

 

  • Extinguisher system
  • Proper ejection seat
  • Ability to customize loadout
  • Functional flaps
  • AI Ground control that gave you angle of approach readings
  • Waypoint systems on the system computer
  • IFF
  • Engines on and off. (not BF3 style)
  • ECM
  • Bombs, Mavericks, Rockets, GAU8, all that good stuff...
  • Chaff/Flares
  • Wing lights toggle.

I feel like these things implemented lightly give the feeling of operating a complex mechanism. A simulation-esqe.

Anyways, what other features make up what you are looking for in this compromise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naah, between ArmA and BF2PR chopper flight physics I prefer the BF2PR one. I can't explain exactly why though. There is just a feeling of weight and inertion, fluid movements while piloting chopper in BF2PR; and in ArmA choppers feels like being tightly fixated on air in one point and that point moves only strictly when u push the button(like on a rail). And also it irritates that when you want to land a chopper in ArmA you must upturn the choppers' nose almost 90 degrees upward to stop moving or slow down, which is crazy and then land straight down, nothing like smooth BF2pr landings(I wonder what would happen to passengers irl if pilot lands with 90 degrees up turnings everytime). In short ArmA flight physics bullshit, copy paste BF2PR physics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And also it irritates that when you want to land a chopper in ArmA you must upturn the choppers' nose almost 90 degrees upward to stop moving or slow down, which is crazy and then land straight down, nothing like smooth BF2pr landings(I wonder what would happen to passengers irl if pilot lands with 90 degrees up turnings everytime). In short ArmA flight physics bullshit, copy paste BF2PR physics.

That's how helicopters work, you drop the collective and raise the nose to slow down. What you're using is the Auto-hover feature, that attempts to get you into a hover the quickest way possible, without being concerned by an aggressive assent.

If you actually do it in the real way, you plan where you need to slow down and can actually slow into a hover without ever gaining any altitude at all, you can do it while losing altitude, it just needs a longer "braking" period. As for Skid landings, you can do those in Arma though you do pretty much have to do it with the realistic flight model and have to be gentle as shit.

As for what happens with a 90 degree breaking 'thing' then you'd get grumbly passengers, but it's entirely possible and realistic in the right scenario.

This is used in operations in Afghan/Iraq and even the Falklands at low level, to great effect.

 

So, In the A-10 there were different Hud settings based on the attack mode you wanted. there was 1 for AA, and 2 separate ground ones. I dont remember the difference cause I didnt know it then.

  • Extinguisher system
  • Proper ejection seat
  • Ability to customize loadout
  • Functional flaps
  • AI Ground control that gave you angle of approach readings
  • Waypoint systems on the system computer
  • IFF
  • Engines on and off. (not BF3 style)
  • ECM
  • Bombs, Mavericks, Rockets, GAU8, all that good stuff...
  • Chaff/Flares
  • Wing lights toggle.
I feel like these things implemented lightly give the feeling of operating a complex mechanism. A simulation-esqe.

Anyways, what other features make up what you are looking for in this compromise?

 

 

In the real A-10 there are a 4/5 HUD 'options', but then that's being pedantic and Bringing an unnescercerry degree of realism! As for your list, I do agree with most of it, but there are a few things I'd just remove/change.

An extinguisher system could be good, as long that in the event of an engine fire it will shut your Engine down (but maybe give the chance to re-light?). Number 2,3 and 4 are 100% definites for me.

AI Ground handlers wouldn't be used, I definitely wouldn't especially when aircraft like the A-10 and F-15/16 have AOA indicators on board and you can just run the velocity vector up the runway anyway. Unless you mean the PAPI/VASI lights? They should be in game, although they are just either on/off and don't need any AI or anything. So yeah PAPI's would be really necessary to a realistic approach/landing(especially combined with runway lighting for foggy maps or in storms).

Waypoints are cool, especially if you/squad leader/Co pilot can draw/whatever on the map and it updates the in-cockpit TAD map :3 Yes please!!

IFF? Yes, definitely need a REALISTIC indicator specific to that aircraft. The F-15 puts a X through the position locator for example. You can also read what aircraft it is below the radar, so that would be a cool feature to add.

8 is needed, 9 is probably not. ECM would be burnt through at about 20 miles easily, so unless we are going to be flying at distances greater than that then having jammers wouldn't help at all if they were realistic.

10, yes. We need to be able to laser designate using the China Hat switch (POV hat on most joysticks). If it's not doable by default I want a Laser designator up/down/left/right in the options so I can map it to my hotas please Devs! :D

11, yes don't even mind if it fires both at the same time.

12, Nice but I can live without it I guess. For night time maps, adjustable instrument lighting is a MUST however.

I can't think of anything else I can add, appart that if we use realistic missile ranges, the Aim-120B/C can fire 20 miles, and can even hit reliably if you use TWS mode and guide the missile into it's pitbull range.

Sorry for the long post haha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 In the real A-10 there are a 4/5 HUD 'options', but then that's being pedantic and Bringing an unnescercerry degree of realism! As for your list, I do agree with most of it, but there are a few things I'd just remove/change.

An extinguisher system could be good, as long that in the event of an engine fire it will shut your Engine down (but maybe give the chance to re-light?). Number 2,3 and 4 are 100% definites for me.

AI Ground handlers wouldn't be used, I definitely wouldn't especially when aircraft like the A-10 and F-15/16 have AOA indicators on board and you can just run the velocity vector up the runway anyway. Unless you mean the PAPI/VASI lights? They should be in game, although they are just either on/off and don't need any AI or anything. So yeah PAPI's would be really necessary to a realistic approach/landing(especially combined with runway lighting for foggy maps or in storms).

Waypoints are cool, especially if you/squad leader/Co pilot can draw/whatever on the map and it updates the in-cockpit TAD map :3 Yes please!!

IFF? Yes, definitely need a REALISTIC indicator specific to that aircraft. The F-15 puts a X through the position locator for example. You can also read what aircraft it is below the radar, so that would be a cool feature to add.

8 is needed, 9 is probably not. ECM would be burnt through at about 20 miles easily, so unless we are going to be flying at distances greater than that then having jammers wouldn't help at all if they were realistic.

10, yes. We need to be able to laser designate using the China Hat switch (POV hat on most joysticks). If it's not doable by default I want a Laser designator up/down/left/right in the options so I can map it to my hotas please Devs! :D

11, yes don't even mind if it fires both at the same time.

12, Nice but I can live without it I guess. For night time maps, adjustable instrument lighting is a MUST however.

I can't think of anything else I can add, appart that if we use realistic missile ranges, the Aim-120B/C can fire 20 miles, and can even hit reliably if you use TWS mode and guide the missile into it's pitbull range.

Sorry for the long post haha!

 i agree 100% on all of those! While i do not want it too realistic on other aspects, i do think it would be nice to have a pretty similar system to what is in dcs when it comes to using and managing the weapons (mfcd's). although i don't think we need it to be as complicated as in dcs.. we could for example remove all the advanced settings and such for the DSMS etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree 100% on all of those! While i do not want it too realistic on other aspects, i do think it would be nice to have a pretty similar system to what is in dcs when it comes to using and managing the weapons (mfcd's). although i don't think we need it to be as complicated as in dcs.. we could for example remove all the advanced settings and such for the DSMS etc.

Indeed having the DSMS/TAD/Targeting Pod/Primitive Radar(?) available through the MFCD's is all I think that you really need. I'd go as far to say that I wouldn't mind a standardised system between all US aircraft and the same for Russian aircraft. That'll save a bit of time in the assets department.

The one thing I would REALLY love, however is a 6DOF cockpit. That is something that I'm pretty sure Squad can achieve and would really immerse those in the game. It'd be even more awesome if you could lean outside the cockpit in a little bird and look behind you :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naah, between ArmA and BF2PR chopper flight physics I prefer the BF2PR one. I can't explain exactly why though. There is just a feeling of weight and inertion, fluid movements while piloting chopper in BF2PR; and in ArmA choppers feels like being tightly fixated on air in one point and that point moves only strictly when u push the button(like on a rail). And also it irritates that when you want to land a chopper in ArmA you must upturn the choppers' nose almost 90 degrees upward to stop moving or slow down, which is crazy and then land straight down, nothing like smooth BF2pr landings(I wonder what would happen to passengers irl if pilot lands with 90 degrees up turnings everytime). In short ArmA flight physics bullshit, copy paste BF2PR physics. 

 

BF2PR fm's is like mouse acceleration compared to 1:1, BF2PR being mouse acceleration. Probably my most hated aspect of PRBF2. Each to their own though, I don't like arcadey attempts at realism like seen in PR. The one thing I do like from PR is the steep learning curve for new pilots, you're pretty much guaranteed to get a decent pilot online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, not insanely complicated, yet filtering out those who aren't willing to learn and practice. 

 

Just put up training servers, like PR use too.

That way n00bs can practice, understand the game mechanics and controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just put up training servers, like PR use too.

That way n00bs can practice, understand the game mechanics and controls.

This never stopped the noobs trashing all the assets lol.

 

Anyway, I don't know if anybody has played IL2 Cliffs of Dover, but I like the startup procedures and watching your oil temp gauge before you can take off. Startup procedures are aircraft specific and you had to learn how to start each aircraft properly. If you did something wrong (like forget to open your radiators) your engine would fail shortly after takeoff. Its probably more on the simulation side of things, but i think at least using the temp gauge to tell when your aircraft is ready to take off would be cool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This never stopped the noobs trashing all the assets lol.

 

Anyway, I don't know if anybody has played IL2 Cliffs of Dover, but I like the startup procedures and watching your oil temp gauge before you can take off. Startup procedures are aircraft specific and you had to learn how to start each aircraft properly. If you did something wrong (like forget to open your radiators) your engine would fail shortly after takeoff. Its probably more on the simulation side of things, but i think at least using the temp gauge to tell when your aircraft is ready to take off would be cool

In modern jet aircraft (the most likely type we'll see in Squad), you do check your temps, but for different reasons. As long as everything is within the mins/max's then you're theoretically good to take off. Things get out of shape really quickly with a jet, so you don't have to sit on idle for 5 minutes to find out either.

And you can't really start the engines up wrong. In the A-10C for example, you turn the APU on, wait for it to spool, and assuming your fuel is 'on' you just push the throttle forward and the engine starts up automatically. Even in the F-86 you only have to hit the starter motor button and push the throttle up a notch when the RPM plateaus. The thing that takes the most time is the Nav alignments and warmind software up etc.

Essentially what I'm saying is, the main temperatures in a jet are the EGT's (Exhaust Gas Temp) and if these are wrong they demand an engine shutdown/restart. You don't have to sit and wait for your engine oil to warm as per the older prop aircraft (P-51/spitfire etc). While it'd be nice for the EGT and RPM to change with throttle settings or engine fires etc, I'm not sure what a temp gauge would bring to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its a good idea to have parked aircraft, in hangars, that need to taxi, and that need to be started manually. Just simply having to climb in, shut the lid, and turn the thing on will increase the sense of "I'm flying a real jet," as opposed to "I'm hopping on a rocket-motorcycle" in BF/Arcade games.

I dont think thats a serious development difference as well.

I think flaps are a comparatively simple addon that also make a big difference in the "I have to know how to fly this thing?" impression. Working Air-break animations would be sexy too :P

Other than that, realistic HUD representations, 2 options, ground and Air, Counter measures, and a good 10k ft ceiling.

A low-cloud cover map would be amazing and would make the fast movers rely on way-point targeting or laser designation instead of visual GPB deployment.

Anyways, I would rather wait a good while for a full-featured, well implemented flight module than something half baked.

 

Helis I think are necessary for the core game, at least some transports and a few attack like the Cobra and Little Bird.

Put Jets in the mix and you need bigger maps, and lots of dev time. I think if theres "an expansion pack" to be paid for additionally, it would be essentially this, done right, with maps and elements that support the implementation fully.

At this point, talking jets is kinda cart before the horse, though its fun :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with what you're saying, that'll help immersion a lot. Maybe a higher ceiling than 10k, but I guess that's dependent on what the game can handle (no I don't mind a lower res area outside of the main fighting area. though I don't know how well the game will be handling it, but maybe a few token out-of-map buildings would be nice.

Flaps are necessary for what I envision the flight model to be like, and for any modern aircraft, a comprehensive HUD is needed. Though I do think you'll need more than 2 options, as you need a Nav mode as well.

Assuming we will see the Aim-120 then are we going to be able to use the various radar acquisition modes. There are a lot in the F-15 alone, TWS, boresight, BVR, Auto-acquisition modes etc. What are we going to get the use of and what aren't we, because there are specific times and uses for all modes, you'd be adding a lot to the aircraft if you had them all but also making it a lot harder to model the systems.

At least adding the Aim-9 will be quite easy in comparison :P

Not to mention the Helmet mounted targeting system on some of the Russian aircraft (which we'll no doubt see as many countries operate them).

I'm like a kid in a candy shop thinking about even the helicopters. And I don't really like flying choppers! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see trans and logistic helos implemented long before any type of attack helo or jet. 

Yes, i hope transport helis will be i big part of this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×