Posted 21 January 2009 - 05:55 PM Edited by K^2, 06 July 2009 - 04:03 AM.
All aircraft featured in the game should be pilotable vehicles. This includes large aircraft meant to create activity at the airports.
All missions requiring flight should be optional. These could be side missions, there could be an alternative mission that allows you to proceed with the story, or there should be alternative non-flying path through the mission itself. For example, a mission that requires you to reach a roof of certain building might allow you to take a helicopter or fight security in the stairwell.
If speeds of various aircraft must be scaled down to fit the scaled down city, they must be scaled down proportionally. Furthermore, accelerations must also be scaled down to give reasonable takeoff and landing distances for aircraft with ground roll.
Whether or not military is in the game otherwise, interceptors should be called in for pursuit of certain aircraft when wanted level is sufficiently high. Interceptors should allow player opportunity to land, but will engage if player attempts to escape.
e) Easy to fly aircraft.
Because increased realism is proposed for most aircraft, making them more difficult to fly, two aircraft types are proposed to make flying more accessible.
Ultralight powered glider. It should have a slow cruise speed, very slow stall speed, and short takeoff and landing rolls, while increased stability will make it more forgiving of control errors.
Blimp. While somewhat large, a blimp should take place of a simple aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing capabilities. While its slow speed and large size don't make it the best transport, it is a great vehicle for getting a birds view of the city without having to worry too much about crashing into something.
f) Air Traffic Control.
ATC chatter can be used to both add realism and as an opportunity to inject some humor into flying. A radio station with ATC chatter, similar to police chatter in police vehicles, should be available when flying.
a) Aerodynamics and handling.
General aerodynamic properties of an aircraft should be simulated. Thrust should be reduced, with lift and drag increased to allow for flight at slower speeds, as required by 1.c, while maintaining most flight characteristics, such as glide ratio.
Flaps are crucial for good simulation of flight. To simplify controls, flaps may deploy fully when landing gear is lowered, but retract partially when plane touches down. That will put flaps in takeoff position when taking off, landing position when landing, and clean configuration when in flight. Deployed flaps should further increase drag and lift, while also allowing higher angle of attack at lower pitch.
c) Navigational aids.
Most navaids are made redundant by presence of map with custom way points. However, highlighting of nearby air strips on radar, similar to SA, can be helpful, as well as marking nearby tall buildings, mountain peaks, etc.
d) Instrument Landing System.
ILS should automatically tune to highlighted air strip, and glide slope should be indicated as pair of intersecting lines over radar or as a separate instrument on the HUD.
e) Attitude Indicator.
Attempt to combine radar with attitude indicator in San Andreas was not entirely successful. While it works well enough to indicate bank, it does not display pitch very well. Instead HUD should be modified to work as Primary Flight Display of modern glass cockpit aircraft or the HUD of a military aircraft.
When in flight, unless a throttle/break key is pressed, throttle should adjust to provide thrust required to maintain altitude, but no greater than cruise setting. With throttle key pressed, engine should power up to full throttle. With break key is pressed, it should power down to idle. When on the ground, engine should power down to idle when no keys are pressed. Also on the ground, working similar to reverse gear for cars, reverse thrust should be available on all planes.
The self-correction of the helicopters should be scaled down to more realistic. Cyclic should allow helicopter to be put into any attitude, including inverted.
Collective should change the vertical thrust, as it mainly does already. However, it should also vary the torque.
Instead of simple yaw control, player should be able to adjust anti-torque. Pressing button/trigger should increment/decrement the amount of anti-torque applied, which should remain fixed once button is released. Change of collective should require an adjustment to be made.
d) Main rotor.
Collision of main rotor with any obstacle should destroy rotor.
e) Tail rotor.
Tail rotor should also receive damage. If tail rotor is destroyed by collision or enemy fire, helicopter's engine should shut down, putting helicopter into auto-rotation, allowing player to land safely.
f) Multiple Rotors.
Each rotor must provide its share of lift separately. Loss of one rotor should cost the aircraft both the thrust and the torque compensation provided by that rotor. If the two rotors share the mast, loss of one of the rotors should trigger auto-rotation, similar to that outlined in 3.e.
4. Military aircraft.
a) Types of aircraft.
1.a and 1.d require an interceptor. However, a gunship is also a must. A dedicated ground attack plane might also be useful, but interceptor could fulfill this role. A WWII fighter and bomber should be added for diversity.
List of weapons should be kept short. Generic 22 or 30mm cannon/Gatling gun, unguided rockets, heat seeker missile, and an unguided bomb.
Air-to-ground capability is a must for any military aircraft in GTA. Constantly Computed Impact Point should be evaluated and displayed for each of the weapons in 1.b with the exception of the heat seeker. To keep things simple, no aircraft should be equipped with both unguided rockets and bombs. Therefore, at most two distinct CCIP markers should be displayed at one time. One type of marker should be used for the cannon, and a different type of marker should be used for rockets or bombs.
Aresenal of a gunship must be representative of its role as a CAS or tank-Thomas the Tank Engine aircraft. Its weapons should be capable of considerable damage. Operating door guns are a must for gunships equipped with these. They should be operated by an allied AI passenger or another player in multiplayer game modes.
Each runway and taxiway should be properly marked and lit. Runway 69 was funny the first couple of times, but number that corresponds to orientation of a runway would be more useful. Last I checked, 690° is not a proper heading. Width and ILS markings should also be appropriate.
b) Wanted Level.
Airports should operate as general aviation airports for convenience. As such, one shouldn't be getting a wanted level for walking onto the ramp. And as unrealistic as it is, neither should it be given for driving on the runway. It's all in the name of fun.
c) Holding patterns, etc.
It should be left to the player whether to follow any of the regulations concerning approach and landing or not. Being knocked out of the sky by a 747 or equivalent should be sufficient punishment for not paying attention.
a) Vertical Takeoff and Landing capability.
Use of many aircraft types can be greatly extended by having VTOL aircraft take these roles. This section is intended to outline changes needed to flight dynamics and controls to accommodate VTOL-capable aircraft. Two classes are considered separately in sections 6.c and 6.d.
Transition requires an additional control input. Unlike flaps, transition cannot be linked to landing gear. If no open assignments are available, tap vs hold on existing control could be implemented. E.g., tap gear assignment button to lower/raise landing gear, press and hold gear assignment button to transition from vertical to horizontal flight.
c) VTOL Jets.
VTOL jets should follow all rules of part 2 in horizontal flight, and sections 3.a and 3.b in vertical flight. Flaps should automatically be adjusted in transition.
d) Tilt Rotor.
Tilt Rotor aircraft should follow all rules of part 2 as well as sections 3.d and 3.f in horizontal flight. In vertical flight, it must follow all rules of part 3. One exception must be made for the flaps. They shall not be linked to the landing gear operation. Instead, it should be linked to the angle of the rotor nacelles, and be adjusted automatically during transitions. In additions, nacelles should rotate to complete horizontal position only if the landing gear is raised. If landing gear is lowered, nacelles should remain slightly angled, so as to prevent collision between rotors and ground while on the runway.
Edit: 01/22/09 Added section 2.f on Throttle.
Edit: 06/06/09 Added sections 1.f Air Traffic Control, 3.f Multiple Rotors, 4.d Gunships, and part 6 VTOL.
- na89340qv0n34b09q340 and Len Lfc like this
Posted 21 January 2009 - 08:54 PM
Posted 21 January 2009 - 09:10 PM
Posted 21 January 2009 - 09:41 PM
|QUOTE (VinnyGouveia @ Jan 21 2009, 16:54)|
|If rockstar did all of what you said, it would be awesome. Another thing that is really needed is speed control, since in airplanes you have a throtle control, not an acceleration pedal.|
Throttle doesn't control the speed, though. Angle of attack does. Throttle controlls rate of ascent/descent.
Perhaps the best way to make it work is when you let go of throttle/break buttons, have the engine adjust itself to maintain altitude. If you press throttle button/trigger, it should gradualy power up to full throttle. Pressing break should gradualy power down to idle as well as apply breaks if landing gear is down. If plane is on the ground, engine should power down to idle when no keys are being held, but without applying the breaks.
It would be realistic to get rid of reverse on smaller planes as well, but that introduces difficulties you don't need. So it would be fair to pretend that all planes have reverse power setting. It can be achieved with variable step prop, so it isn't entirely unrealistic. It should work the same way it does already. If the plane is stopped or rolling backwards, break button should apply reverse throttle rather than breaking.
|QUOTE ("Mainland Marauder")|
|but on the other I'm thinking of this within the context of GTA and thinking of what a pain a little too much "realism" in flying would be, say, if you had a wanted level with police choppers or Hydras after you.|
But that is already how it worked in SA. And police chopers tried to chase you down with 3 or more stars as far back as GTA 3, regardless of whether you were flying or not.
What I'm proposing would actually take some of that pain away. Intercepors will give you time to land and deal with ground forces instead. This gives people with little flight experience a fighting chance on the ground. On the other hand, if you prefer your chances with heat seekers, that's your call. Either way, all it does is open up more options compared to SA.
Note, I'm not suggesting that interceptors should show up if you have 1 star. I'm thinking about it being a 4+ star thing. With their zeal to take you out of the sky increasing with 5 and 6 stars.
|Just look at all the trouble people had (and still have) with the pilot school in SA.|
And that's why flying missions should be optional.
The way it worked in SA was neither here nor there. People who don't like flying didn't enjoy it because it was forced on them. People who do, didn't like the way aircraft handled.
The best resolution to that is to make aircraft handlig a little more realistic, but at the same time, making flight completely optional.
Posted 21 January 2009 - 11:49 PM
|QUOTE (K^2 @ Jan 21 2009, 15:41)|
|The best resolution to that is to make aircraft handlig a little more realistic, but at the same time, making flight completely optional.|
I could get behind that. I'd just have to see it in practice and play. I've just got this visual of playing Microsoft Flight Simulator where I have guns and rockets being fired at me.
Posted 21 January 2009 - 11:57 PM
The flying school in San Andreas was great, but thinking back there's so much potential and so many ways to rectify it and tweak it to become a unique flying experience to cater for the novice flyers and the professional ones.
Posted 22 January 2009 - 12:00 AM
Posted 22 January 2009 - 12:02 AM
Posted 22 January 2009 - 12:13 AM
|QUOTE (Masterkraft @ Jan 21 2009, 18:02)|
|I've just had an epiphany; can you imagine the planes in a game with the same physics and graphics as IV? Jesus, I'd bust a nut and milm all over my controller.|
Yeah, I think this is why they held off on putting it in IV. Wanted to get it right the first time. People are complaining now, but they'd be complaining even more if they f*cked it up. Methinks what you know of flying in GTA before is old news.
I hope they bring back skydiving (and basejumping)
Posted 22 January 2009 - 12:29 AM
Posted 22 January 2009 - 02:20 AM
|QUOTE (K^2 @ Jan 21 2009, 12:55)|
Runway 69 was funny the first couple of times, but number that corresponds to orientation of a runway...Last I checked, 690° is not a proper heading.
but seriously nice post have a
I can't remember the name of the WW2 fighter that was in SA, but that was my fav plane in the game.
Anything that R* can do to balance realism with a fun-factor will be the best option IMO.
And the boat missions are the worst for me...always getting capsized.
Posted 22 January 2009 - 02:32 AM
|QUOTE (Mainland Marauder @ Jan 21 2009, 19:49)|
|I've just got this visual of playing Microsoft Flight Simulator where I have guns and rockets being fired at me.|
That's not necessarily wrong in itself. Sure, if you were simply planning to have a relaxing flight, or just trying to get to a location, and suddenly, there is an interceptor wing raining fire on you, it would suck royally. But if you had six stars and tanks were rolling on the street trying to turn your getaway car into a pancake, would such situation in the sky really be far off?
Basically, it should all be about balanced choices. That's what any sandbox game should be about, really. GTAIII wasn't balanced around airplanes, because the only plane in the game wasn't designed to fly. But it did fly, and there are a few missions near the end that you can beat with almost no challenge as long as you had the clipped wing Dodo mastered. That shouldn't happen. But neither should flying be made impossible by constant harassments in the air.
As for the game engine, Euphoria has nothing to do with planes. Neither is there anything really new in the physics engine that would cause difficulties. Putting planes into IV would not be any harder than into SA from physics/handling point of view. There might have been some limitations in graphics engine preventing fast airplanes. That's still no excuse not to put in Dodo, though, which shouldn't fly any faster than an attack helicopter. In fact, these types of planes tend to be quite a bit slower.
|being able to pilot private planes and enormous jets felt cumbersome and (dare I say) unrealistic.|
Flying Annihilator from IV is just about as unrealistic as flying a mid-sized commercial jet. The way I see it, if the plane is in the game, it is least realistic to make it simply a prop that just sits there or moves according to script. This is why I think that every single aircraft should be pilotable. That doesn't mean they should just sit there where you can easily grab one and fly around. But if you find a way to get to the cabin of a plane parked at a jet way and steal it, more power to you. If that gets you a few stars, so be it. But making it completely impossible is the most unrealistic thing of all.
Posted 26 January 2009 - 07:21 AM
Good topic It's just something which would add fun to the game
Posted 26 January 2009 - 09:48 PM
Posted 27 January 2009 - 06:51 PM
|QUOTE (The-Exploited @ Jan 26 2009, 03:21)|
|Wouldn't be a bad idea. I wouldn't go as far as ILS landing procedures and all that sort though. It should be simple like SA.|
Even in SA, have you tried landing an A400 during a sand storm? ILS glide slope isn't something you'd use a lot, and you are in no way forced to use it, but it would be nice to have it in the few rare cases when you cannot see where you are going.
|QUOTE (Spaghetti Cat)|
|I can't remember the name of the WW2 fighter that was in SA, but that was my fav plane in the game.|
Rustler. I liked to use it to get a whole bunch of stars, and then shoot down hydras. I was sort of thinking about it when I suggested that a WWII fighter and a bomber should be present in the game. The only complaint about Rustler is that it didn't handle quite like a military plane. I had a chance to brefly fly a trainer, T6 Texan, and it handles differently. You can feel that you are controlling something big and heavy, yet incredibly sensitive and maneuverable. With Rustler, the maneuverability was there, but the sense of it being a heavy war plane was gone. On simulators, that's the kind of feeling you get from stunt and racing planes. Of something light and maneuverable. I'm not really sure how to explain it beyond this.
Posted 29 January 2009 - 04:31 PM
Posted 30 January 2009 - 11:04 PM
FSX isn't entirely realistic either, by the way. Even when you go into advance settings and enable all of the realism features, such as the p-factors (with defaults, it is only a little more realistic than SA, despite far more realistic parameters) there are still a lot of ways in which a real airplane behaves differently. For example, there is a very dangerous condition of a flat spin. And while I did manage to put the plane (C172, mostly) into a simple spin, as much as I tried to do everything you aren't supposed to do in a spin, I could not put the plane into a condition which I could not rectify by simple application of rudder. Similarly, I don't think I ever managed to force settling with power on a helicopter, either. Though, I'm not as familiar with rotorcraft operation, so maybe I wasn't doing anything sufficiently wrong.
Posted 30 January 2009 - 11:17 PM
Well, most people cant fly 747's the first time they slide in the cockpit, espeically with the pressure of the Police on their asses.
And it should be really hard to obtain.
Like you need the keye's or something to start it up and get in, and jacking it is only possible during the boarding.
And it can shut off the engine if they notice you sometimes.
Posted 30 January 2009 - 11:45 PM
Edit: But yeah, at very least, a large airliner should feel like one. That would be sufficient to make it difficult to fly and even more difficult to land in one piece.
Posted 18 March 2009 - 06:36 AM
I can see this new generation of GTA's using the RAGE engine will follow the same path as the previous generation running the Renderware engine. By this I mean once they had the basic features down pat in 3 and Vice, they added heaps of novelty features in SA, like a wide variety of planes and boats. Hopefully now that Rockstar has the groundwork laid down in IV, they'll go about filling the next one with similar novelty features, taking full advantage of the new engine.
Posted 18 March 2009 - 10:13 AM
Posted 19 March 2009 - 02:17 AM Edited by K^2, 19 March 2009 - 02:22 AM.
Please, if you have a good, coherent argument for why planes should not be a part of GTA, I'm listening. Otherwise, there are plenty of topics for complaining.
Edit: Look, if you are simply annoyed by the fact that SA forced you to go through a flight school and then do several flight missions, I'm on your side. I don't think flying should be forced on a player. On the other hand, an option to fly has existed since GTA III, and has been much improved by VC and SA, because an option to fly makes a lot of sense in GTA setting.
Posted 19 March 2009 - 07:23 AM
In fact, I'd prefer that you not.
Posted 19 March 2009 - 04:54 PM
There are far too many posts on these forums of minority hopefuls who post humungous posts using as much jargon as possible to create an eliteist group on the boards who slag off people who may suggest even a slight alteration to their ideas. For example "Throttle doesn't control speed, AOA does"...
I am from an aviation background myself and as an air traffic controller I understand the terminology you have used. However, how many "outsiders" could read what you had posted and get a hold of what you suggested? Very few...
Now, with that in mind, take a look at you ideas from Rockstars perspective. They will NEVER implement them. Flying will stay and expand, I'm sure, but I am certain SA will be the limit to the flight models we can expect. Look at how much stick the new driving physics took (and still takes). At least the majority of the target audience can assosciate with realistic driving physics as most 18+ have driven a car, quad, go-kart etc.. I suppose some kids may use IV's physics to understand how cars handle better than they could use any previous installations.
Nobody, on the other hand, buys GTA to learn how to navigate point-to-point and land with a CAT IIIB approach. Driving is a relatively simple task once you get to grips with it. Cockily, you could claim flying is simple once you get "up there". Realistically, we both know it takes a lot of time to fly properly and it is for this reason Rockstar will not deviate from it's arcadey approach to the flight model.
These are my 2 cents, as much as you may have yours.
Posted 20 March 2009 - 06:16 AM
Yes, I use some aviation terminology. I don't want to write out a paragraph where a sentence would suffice. I don't even use them in a factually correct sense. In the same example you used, AoA does not actually directly control the air speed, they are related. But everyone who flies would get what I mean. This thread is not meant to be fully understood by everyone. The reasoning for why everything works the way it works aren't need to be understood by everyone. If I start a thread about the problems with a physics engine, I'll use physic jargon, and again, not everyone will understand, but that's the only way how we can talk about complex things.
I try to keep it light, however. It's aimed at people who know a little bit about flight sims, not necessarily actual pilots, ATCs, and aeronautical engineers.
What you seem to failed to notice, however, is that the actual ideas are aimed at keeping things simple. Anyone can start up MicroSoft Flight Simulator, load a C172, and perform a takeoff and enjoy a brief flight without knowing the first thing about ground effect, angle of attack, and what the Vx is. That doesn't mean however that the simulator shouldn't be simulating these things. Then again, same person tries to land and it ends badly. Why? Because MSFS isn't designed to keep controls simple.
Note, for example, that I suggest that ILS automatically tunes to the active runway of a nearest airport. User doesn't need to know how that happens or what ILS even is. All he sees are two lines that tell him if he's too high/low and too far right/left of the glideslope. He doesn't even need to know what glideslope is, just that these things guide him to landing. It would make landing easier, not harder. I also suggest that flaps automatically extend with landing gear. Again, makes landing easier. Automatic throttle is meant to make holding altitude easy, which would be good for low altitude flights.
Reason I make the thread technical is because the people who don't know how a plane flies will not be able to contribute much to the details of how to make flight easier even if I break it up into simpler terms. But there are plenty of things there that anyone can comment. Such as expansion of the fleet, availability of all planes, and things like that. And as we see from the comments, that's what people do. If they don't know how these things work, they just skip the technical ideas and comment on things they do understand and do care about.
Posted 20 March 2009 - 08:32 PM
Posted 21 March 2009 - 09:07 PM
If it is VC 2.0 then I hope they bring back the helicopter that lands on water, and the Apache-like 'copter.
Posted 21 March 2009 - 09:57 PM
Posted 21 March 2009 - 11:32 PM
Posted 22 March 2009 - 01:17 PM
I love aviation in GTA, especially SA.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users