Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Aviation

862 replies to this topic
TheShogunOfHarlem
  • TheShogunOfHarlem

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2009

#61

Posted 05 July 2009 - 05:56 PM Edited by TheShogunOfHarlem, 05 July 2009 - 06:25 PM.

QUOTE (DarrinPA @ Apr 8 2009, 01:50)
I'm a huge fan of the flying in SA and hope that they bring it back. I did not have any problems learning to fly. I 100% all the flying school tasks quite quickly. I would prefer a more difficult and true to life flying system but I know that other gamers had too many problems with flying in SA so it's best that they bring back that flying with the same difficulty as SA, well not much difficulty actually. Or they could have a few more "hidden" and rare planes that the more hardcore gamers could find and use. The simple plans could be used for missions and the difficult ones could be "un-needed" and just for fun. But I'd be happy with any planes, it makes the game much more fun. Even VC had fun missions with planes.

Really!?! Second only to driving school fly school was the biggest pain in the a$$ I had. Generally, all flying (of fixed wing aircraft) annoyed me SA. It was something that I really hoped that I would enjoy but it just didn't work. But generally in SA the physics of the vehicles (ground and fixed wing) were problematic to say the least. The biggest problem with flying was the planes gave way too easily to gravity even at full throttle. Keeping a plane level at any altitude basically was an impossibility.

Do get me wrong, I'm still open to to bringing back fixed wing aircraft. However they need to rework the physics completely. GTA 4 prettly much reworked the driving physics to a point that the care handle as realistically as possible. It's challenging in a more practical way. I think it would be a very bad idea to have the SA flying physics in any future GTA title. I'm open to more realism in the flying physics (which would eliminate the unrealistic pull of gravity that SA had) but the difficulty should be more practical. Struggling with flying physics is an unacceptable means of making flying difficult.

But before they bring back aircraft, I do think that they need ot rework the helicopter gunship physics. The Annihilator's mingun were practically useless.

Spaghetti Cat
  • Spaghetti Cat

    I Love Pony Farming

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2009

#62

Posted 05 July 2009 - 06:10 PM

QUOTE (TheShogunOfHarlem @ Jul 5 2009, 13:56)
Really!?! Sexond only to driving school fly school was the biggest pain in the a$$ I had...

Really?!? I grew up around planes, so flying wasn't an issue for me. The school I thought was a good introduction to the later flying missions. Although I agree with you about the funny physics, esp the full throttle, flying wasn't that hard in SA. I was just glad that there was a boat school, always have trouble with the boat missions in GTA.

I'd like to see an expanded tutorial in neXt, like there was for the six-axis tutorial. (Sorry don't know if it was in any of the other games.) Something that you could do anytime, and would not have to travel to the school/airport. That should help those who have a hard time with flying.

SanAndreasManiac
  • SanAndreasManiac

    Now I am become death, destroyer of the worlds

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2009

#63

Posted 05 July 2009 - 06:21 PM

QUOTE (TheShogunOfHarlem @ Jul 5 2009, 17:56)
Do get me wrong, I'm still open to to bringing back fixed wing aircraft. However they need to rework the physics completely. GTA 4 prettly much reworked the driving physics to a point that the care handle as realistically as possible. It's challenging in a more practical way. I think it would be a very bad idea to have the SA flying physics in any future GTA title. I'm open to more realism in the flying physics (which would eliminate the unrealistic pull of gravity that SA had) but the difficulty should be more practical. Struggling with flying physics is an unacceptable means of making flying difficult.

But before they bring back aircraft, I do think that they need ot rework the helicopter gunship physics. The Annihilator's mingun were practically useless.

Yeah, I agree with you, GTA V needs planes and helis with improved handing, but I haven't problems with the pull of gravity in SA, in fact, te most annoying thing about SA flights, was the extreme integrity of the planes, you crashes an AT400 into a building and both the plane and the building are still completely entire, no visible scracth, no broken pieces, do you know what I mean?

I am an Aviation Enthusiast, I love aiplanes, I pilot aircraft models, I love Flight Sims, and I profusely hope that there will be a very realistic flight metod.

TheShogunOfHarlem
  • TheShogunOfHarlem

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2009

#64

Posted 05 July 2009 - 06:24 PM

QUOTE (Spaghetti Cat @ Jul 5 2009, 18:10)
QUOTE (TheShogunOfHarlem @ Jul 5 2009, 13:56)
Really!?! Second only to driving school fly school was the biggest pain in the a$$ I had...

Really?!? I grew up around planes, so flying wasn't an issue for me. The school I thought was a good introduction to the later flying missions. Although I agree with you about the funny physics, esp the full throttle, flying wasn't that hard in SA. I was just glad that there was a boat school, always have trouble with the boat missions in GTA.

I'd like to see an expanded tutorial in neXt, like there was for the six-axis tutorial. (Sorry don't know if it was in any of the other games.) Something that you could do anytime, and would not have to travel to the school/airport. That should help those who have a hard time with flying.

I think I might have overstated my displeasure with flying school. It wasn't anywhere near as hard as some of the driving schools tutorials. I just generally had issues with the physics. Turning annoyed me and (like I mentioned before) keeping the plane level was frustrating. That one Mike Toreno mission (I can't recall) where you have to fly below the radar, UGH! I hated that mission. That and Zero's mission of killing Berkley's couriers pissed me off.

Spaghetti Cat
  • Spaghetti Cat

    I Love Pony Farming

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2009

#65

Posted 05 July 2009 - 06:46 PM

I believe it was called "Below the Radar" or something to that affect.

And the RC mission for Zero? I still have a PS2 controller-shaped hole in my wall! angry.gif

TheShogunOfHarlem
  • TheShogunOfHarlem

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2009

#66

Posted 05 July 2009 - 08:24 PM Edited by TheShogunOfHarlem, 06 July 2009 - 02:49 AM.

But back to Helicopters:
Before they bring back planes they should rework Helicopters first.
As I mentioned before, if there are Helicopter Gunships they REALLY need to make them more capable of combating ground and air targets. Maybe include a hover option.

Variants and Models: Hopefully we will have more helicopter models besides the two we had in GTA 4. (Both Civilian and Military) Some models I would like to see to start:
(Military/Civilian)
UH-60 Blackhawk/Sirosky S70
UH-1N Twin Huey/ Bell 212
CH-47 Chinook/and its civilian variant
CH-46 Sea Knight/ and its civilian variant
MH-6 Little Bird/ MD 500
OH-58 Kiowa/ Bell 206
Bell 222A
AH-64 Apache
AH-1Z Viper

I know there is much more than that. Plus there are countless numbers of variants of each of the individual models that listed. The military variants have different weapon placements that would make things interesting. This comes to my next topic...

Weapons Placements: GTA 4 had the Annihilator which was basically a Sirosky S70/UH-60 Blackhawk variant. It kind of looked like a Blackhawk DAP except that it was only armed with Miniguns. (that didn't at fire 6000 rpm)
In addition helicopter variants, of those I listed a number then have listed have numerous weapon placements and variants. An example would be the MH-60 DAP variant of the Blackhawk. A second variant type I would like to see would be helicopters with door gun turrets.
Some examples of door guns:



As for Gunships like Apaches and Cobras, I would like to have three weapon options. (Switch weapon from machine guns/unguided rockets/hellfire missiles) SA only allowed you to use machine guns and unguided rockets.

Damage/Crash physics: My only complaint is that I would like to see more done to make crashing a helicopter more realistic. It was kind of funny to see a copter's rotors completely disintergrate into a million pieces. But I was hoping to see a more realistic animation of a helicopter's rotor's being snapped off as it hits the ground. Like this. Or this. (from Blackhawk Down)

Second, I would like to see damage be factored more into the handling of the helicopter. If you take enough damage then you'll have a harder time keeping the copter in the air an in control.

Number of passengers: The one issue that Iíve always had with vehicle usage in GTA games is that you couldnít have more than four passengers. Many helicopters hold much more than just four so I would like to see that portrayed.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#67

Posted 06 July 2009 - 04:03 AM

QUOTE (TheShogunOfHarlem @ Jul 5 2009, 14:24)
I think I might have overstated my displeasure with flying school. It wasn't anywhere near as hard as some of the driving schools tutorials. I just generally had issues with the physics. Turning annoyed me and (like I mentioned before) keeping the plane level was frustrating. That one Mike Toreno mission (I can't recall) where you have to fly below the radar, UGH! I hated that mission. That and Zero's mission of killing Berkley's couriers pissed me off.

The problem is that in a real plane, you keep a plane in level flight by adjusting throttle. There is no mechanism in SA for that. You have just 3 fixed throttle powers, and using these to keep the plane level is more difficult than it needs to be. Your other option is to adjust the angle of attack so that your air speed matches the level flight at given throttle, but that is a very bad way to control a plane. This is the first thing they teach you not to do when you are learning to fly a fixed wing.

Section on throttle (2.f) attempts to address this issue. I believe, an auto-throttle that adjusts for level flight at given angle of attack is the best option. It would be very realistic, and would not require very complicated controls.

As far as damage goes, I think I've addressed most of the relevant points in part 3. As far as damage effecting handling, typically, on a helicopter, if it's bad enough to notice, it will probably shake something apart pretty fast, causing catastrophic failure.

I added a section on gunships. Primarily to mention door guns, because I do think these would be great to have. Anything else that should be there?

I'm not specifically mentioning any particular real world aircraft models in the OP, but I do like your selection. The only one I'm not entirely sure is having both the AH-1Z and AH-64. Seems a bit redundant.

Finally, I added an entire part on VTOL aircraft. San Andreas made a good use of Hydra. A return of Harrier or introduction of F-35B would be welcomed. For some diversity, a tilt rotor would be great too. Either the V-22 or BA609 would be fantastic.

TheShogunOfHarlem
  • TheShogunOfHarlem

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2009

#68

Posted 07 July 2009 - 05:25 AM Edited by TheShogunOfHarlem, 07 July 2009 - 05:54 AM.

QUOTE (K^2 @ Jul 6 2009, 04:03)
QUOTE (TheShogunOfHarlem @ Jul 5 2009, 14:24)
I think I might have overstated my displeasure with flying school. It wasn't anywhere near as hard as some of the driving schools tutorials. I just generally had issues with the physics. Turning annoyed me and (like I mentioned before) keeping the plane level was frustrating. That one Mike Toreno mission (I can't recall) where you have to fly below the radar, UGH! I hated that mission. That and Zero's mission of killing Berkley's couriers pissed me off.

The problem is that in a real plane, you keep a plane in level flight by adjusting throttle. There is no mechanism in SA for that. You have just 3 fixed throttle powers, and using these to keep the plane level is more difficult than it needs to be. Your other option is to adjust the angle of attack so that your air speed matches the level flight at given throttle, but that is a very bad way to control a plane. This is the first thing they teach you not to do when you are learning to fly a fixed wing.

Section on throttle (2.f) attempts to address this issue. I believe, an auto-throttle that adjusts for level flight at given angle of attack is the best option. It would be very realistic, and would not require very complicated controls.

As far as damage goes, I think I've addressed most of the relevant points in part 3. As far as damage effecting handling, typically, on a helicopter, if it's bad enough to notice, it will probably shake something apart pretty fast, causing catastrophic failure.

I added a section on gunships. Primarily to mention door guns, because I do think these would be great to have. Anything else that should be there?

I'm not specifically mentioning any particular real world aircraft models in the OP, but I do like your selection. The only one I'm not entirely sure is having both the AH-1Z and AH-64. Seems a bit redundant.

Finally, I added an entire part on VTOL aircraft. San Andreas made a good use of Hydra. A return of Harrier or introduction of F-35B would be welcomed. For some diversity, a tilt rotor would be great too. Either the V-22 or BA609 would be fantastic.

Have you played Ace Combat 6? That game seems to have the most realistic (or should I say more practical)physics as as far as flying goes. The controls work great. If R* can come close to those physics then they are on the right track.

I can see your point when it comes to having both a Cobra and an Apache. It is redundant, but if there are differences in handling or if there are pros and cons that either gunship has that might make you think about which one you will use in a mission, then it could work.

I like your ideas for damage.

QUOTE

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.


However, I do think that rotor damage/destruction should depend on what type of obstacle it encounters. If it is something that yields easily then the rotors should take damage. If it hits the ground/building or anything that won't give way, we get this problem. I just felt that the current rotor destruction from GTA 4 was unstatisfying.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#69

Posted 07 July 2009 - 12:12 PM

QUOTE (TheShogunOfHarlem @ Jul 7 2009, 01:25)
However, I do think that rotor damage/destruction should depend on what type of obstacle it encounters. If it is something that yields easily then the rotors should take damage. If it hits the ground/building or anything that won't give way, we get this problem. I just felt that the current rotor destruction from GTA 4 was unstatisfying.

Real rotor tends to get damaged really easily, but yes, for GTA, a little bit of liberty can be taken. It should be able to smash up some objects and merely take damage, rather than destruct.

And the problem that clip is showing is solved by autorotation, typically.

QUOTE
Have you played Ace Combat 6? That game seems to have the most realistic (or should I say more practical)physics as as far as flying goes. The controls work great. If R* can come close to those physics then they are on the right track.

Ace Combat 6? Realistic Physics? o.0

But for GTA-type game, this would be good enough for jet fighters. For slower planes, however, you have to deal with rather different dynamics. That's the main reason I suggested the auto-throttle. It would work equally well for a C152 and for F-22.

I was going to put together a brief demo of how the flight dynamics should work for a flight simulator with arcade controls. I might finish it one of these days.

TheShogunOfHarlem
  • TheShogunOfHarlem

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2009

#70

Posted 07 July 2009 - 04:04 PM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Jul 7 2009, 12:12)
QUOTE (TheShogunOfHarlem @ Jul 7 2009, 01:25)
However, I do think that rotor damage/destruction should depend on what type of obstacle it encounters. If it is something that yields easily then the rotors should take damage. If it hits the ground/building or anything that won't give way, we get this problem. I just felt that the current rotor destruction from GTA 4 was unstatisfying.

Real rotor tends to get damaged really easily, but yes, for GTA, a little bit of liberty can be taken. It should be able to smash up some objects and merely take damage, rather than destruct.

And the problem that clip is showing is solved by autorotation, typically.

QUOTE
Have you played Ace Combat 6? That game seems to have the most realistic (or should I say more practical)physics as as far as flying goes. The controls work great. If R* can come close to those physics then they are on the right track.

Ace Combat 6? Realistic Physics? o.0

But for GTA-type game, this would be good enough for jet fighters. For slower planes, however, you have to deal with rather different dynamics. That's the main reason I suggested the auto-throttle. It would work equally well for a C152 and for F-22.

I was going to put together a brief demo of how the flight dynamics should work for a flight simulator with arcade controls. I might finish it one of these days.

Yeah, I meant practical. Since I've never flew a plane I really have no frame of reference, so the point I was trying to make is that the control scheme was the best simulation of flying in a more simplified manner.

Another reason I put the Blackhawk Down and the COD 4 clips was to demonstrate a more realistic means of rotor destruction. The total disintergration of the rotor that we saw in GTA 4 was kind of disappointing.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#71

Posted 07 July 2009 - 07:06 PM Edited by K^2, 07 July 2009 - 07:09 PM.

I have never piloted a jet fighter either, but I can tell even by looking at the footage that simulation is bad. Critical AOA gets exceeded left and right, there is no ground effect, and I'm not even talking about Over-G which would kill the pilot instantly in some of these shots.

But as I said, for GTA, that's alright, as long as they implement auto-throttle. Flying a jet fighter balls to the wall makes sense, if you don't have to worry about fuel consumption. With a light prop plane, on the other hand, you want more control. Auto-throttle provides that control.

Yes, I completely agree that at very least, main rotor needs to be simulated with a few destructible segments on each blade. So that it doesn't just disintegrate suddenly and completely on impact. They don't make these things from glass.

TheShogunOfHarlem
  • TheShogunOfHarlem

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2009

#72

Posted 08 July 2009 - 05:22 AM

QUOTE
I added a section on gunships. Primarily to mention door guns, because I do think these would be great to have. Anything else that should be there?

One little addition. Door gun turrets should have different weapon types. An M-240, a minigun, a Browning .50 cal machine gun and a Mk 19 grenade launcher. (I loved using it in COD 4)

As for gunships, I think that the control scheme for switching weapons should be similar as it is when you are in a car in GTA 4. The X button (yes I use a 360) should be used to shuffle from Machine gun/rockets/hellfire missiles and the A button should be used to fire. The same mechanics can be used for fixed wing aircraft. I jus need to figure out how locking on targets should work. (The hydra's control scheme in that respect was too cumbersome to be practical)

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#73

Posted 08 July 2009 - 05:48 AM

I don't think having a high number of different weapons is a good idea. Yes, it's realistic, but it would become needlessly complicated. As long as the rate of fire differs, does it honestly matter which caliber rounds you are firing? But yes, the visual representation and rate of fire of the gun should be appropriate.

I really like the idea of switching weapons, rather than having different buttons for different ones. It is more realistic, and it would allow to have an AIM missile and an AGM missile on the same craft.

I don't think there is a need to differentiate between different types of AIM and AGM missiles. Yes, in real combat, you'd use a Sidewinder and a Slammer for completely different things. Not to mention that they use different guidance systems. But that's not something for GTA. I would suggest that all AIM and FIM missiles would be simple heat seekers, based on AIM-9 or FIM-92. All AGM missiles should be assumed to be optically guided, similar to AGM-65, and armed with HEAT warhead. Whether they make it look more like AGM-65 or AGM-114 is irrelevant. I suppose, for helicopters, a Hellfire would make more sense.

I don't have particularly good ideas on the lock. The lock mechanism for a heat seeker is extremely simple, but you really need a first person view for it to work right. AGM-65 has a separate targeting screen. Acquiring the target there is a rather complex task. Nothing even remotely similar to realistic acquisition of targets for optically guided missiles would be a reasonable choice for GTA.

TheShogunOfHarlem
  • TheShogunOfHarlem

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2009

#74

Posted 08 July 2009 - 06:10 AM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Jul 8 2009, 05:48)
I don't think having a high number of different weapons is a good idea. Yes, it's realistic, but it would become needlessly complicated. As long as the rate of fire differs, does it honestly matter which caliber rounds you are firing? But yes, the visual representation and rate of fire of the gun should be appropriate.

I really like the idea of switching weapons, rather than having different buttons for different ones. It is more realistic, and it would allow to have an AIM missile and an AGM missile on the same craft.

I don't think there is a need to differentiate between different types of AIM and AGM missiles. Yes, in real combat, you'd use a Sidewinder and a Slammer for completely different things. Not to mention that they use different guidance systems. But that's not something for GTA. I would suggest that all AIM and FIM missiles would be simple heat seekers, based on AIM-9 or FIM-92. All AGM missiles should be assumed to be optically guided, similar to AGM-65, and armed with HEAT warhead. Whether they make it look more like AGM-65 or AGM-114 is irrelevant. I suppose, for helicopters, a Hellfire would make more sense.

I don't have particularly good ideas on the lock. The lock mechanism for a heat seeker is extremely simple, but you really need a first person view for it to work right. AGM-65 has a separate targeting screen. Acquiring the target there is a rather complex task. Nothing even remotely similar to realistic acquisition of targets for optically guided missiles would be a reasonable choice for GTA.

I think having some variety is fun and can be practical. The ones listed are probably the only weapon option that I think are necessary for door gun turrets. Depending on the mission you can pick which helicopter has the right gun turrets for you. The caliber matters depending on what you might encounter. If you are dealing with light armor vehicles that are resistant to 7.62 mm rounds then a .50 BMG might be useful. If an IFV is resistant to .50 BMGs then a Mk 19 might be useful. In that respect it can matter.

The same goes for gunships. The rockets can be used for anti-personel and anti-IFV purposes while hellfires can be used for tanks and moving ground targets.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#75

Posted 08 July 2009 - 06:56 AM

I agree that you should have at least AGMs and Rockets (e.g. Hydra 70) on the gunship. That would give you your HEAT vs Shrapnel choice. I mean, you aren't going to fire guided missiles against infantry. And if you are firing on vehicles, you might as well use HEAT. Not like anyone is counting the ammo.

But as far as ballistic weapons go, GTA never made distinction between bullets based on their armor piercing, fragmenting, exploding, or incendiary capabilities. It's just a rate of fire and damage per bullet. I don't see why you'd need more for a door gun either.

IF R* decides to implement different ammo types with different capabilities for weapons in general, then yes, door guns should benefit from the same diversity. Otherwise, I don't really see a point.

TheShogunOfHarlem
  • TheShogunOfHarlem

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2009

#76

Posted 09 July 2009 - 03:48 AM Edited by TheShogunOfHarlem, 11 July 2009 - 12:12 AM.

QUOTE (K^2 @ Jul 8 2009, 06:56)
I agree that you should have at least AGMs and Rockets (e.g. Hydra 70) on the gunship. That would give you your HEAT vs Shrapnel choice. I mean, you aren't going to fire guided missiles against infantry. And if you are firing on vehicles, you might as well use HEAT. Not like anyone is counting the ammo.

But as far as ballistic weapons go, GTA never made distinction between bullets based on their armor piercing, fragmenting, exploding, or incendiary capabilities. It's just a rate of fire and damage per bullet. I don't see why you'd need more for a door gun either.

IF R* decides to implement different ammo types with different capabilities for weapons in general, then yes, door guns should benefit from the same diversity. Otherwise, I don't really see a point.

Well generally, my view on different ammo types is that they should go ahead and implement it. Specifically, with assault rifles, Light/General purpose machine guns, sniper rifles and heavy machine guns. Like you said, door gun turrets would also reap the benefits of this added perk but it wasn't really my intention to touch on the subject of ammo variants. I specifically meant to address the variations of miltary helicopter door guns. Some variations of Blackhawks have M-240s and other have miniguns. The only difference in this case is rate of fire. As for Helicopters that are equipped with M2 .50 cal and Mk 19, the only difference between those two guns (and the others) is that one fires heavy rounds (that can cause more damage) and the other has explosive rounds. (plus rate of fire) All those differences, (to some degree) are present in GTA 4.



TheShogunOfHarlem
  • TheShogunOfHarlem

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2009

#77

Posted 11 July 2009 - 12:19 AM

Another thing I would like to add regarding parachutes is having reserve chutes. Regarding planes, (and parachutes too) There should be altimeters that you you know what you elevation. Plus I think that if you are jumping from certain elevations (i.e. jumping from 40,000 feet) you be equipped with an oxygen masks. What you you think?

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#78

Posted 11 July 2009 - 01:40 AM

Avionics in general need an update. If I'm flying IFC, altitude and air speed aren't just something that is nice to have.

I think requiring an oxygen mask would be a tad too much, but if you just mean adding a visual representation of the mask to the character, sure, why not.

On the spare 'chutes, it all depends on whether you were planning to jump or not. If you are flying with a specific intention of jumping out of a perfectly good airplane, then yes, you are required to wear two parachutes, and it is generally a good idea to do so. But if you are flying a plane that requires you to wear a parachute (Like the SA's Rustler. Flying that thing without a parachute would be painful.) then you'd typically wear only one. That parachute already is your backup.

Personally, I'd make backup parachute available only when you are base jumping. I can't think of many GTA situations where you'd be jumping out of the plane that you are not piloting.

Spaghetti Cat
  • Spaghetti Cat

    I Love Pony Farming

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2009

#79

Posted 11 July 2009 - 01:52 AM

^^Whoa that would be cool...like a roman's taxi service for the sky! I understood why Brucie would only land/takeoff from certain places. But, it the do include a parachute in neXt, then it would be cool to have someone at an airport or something that would fly to a point in the city where you could jump out and chute to. Similar to that one mission in SA where you chuted into that drug dealers house up in the hills.

uNi
  • uNi

    Cyclop 9

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 May 2004
  • None

#80

Posted 11 July 2009 - 02:02 AM

Just fix it so the parachute "ammo" count can be higher than 1 and there you got you're spare chute. tounge.gif

TheShogunOfHarlem
  • TheShogunOfHarlem

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2009

#81

Posted 11 July 2009 - 02:25 AM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Jul 11 2009, 01:40)
Avionics in general need an update. If I'm flying IFC, altitude and air speed aren't just something that is nice to have.

I think requiring an oxygen mask would be a tad too much, but if you just mean adding a visual representation of the mask to the character, sure, why not.

On the spare 'chutes, it all depends on whether you were planning to jump or not. If you are flying with a specific intention of jumping out of a perfectly good airplane, then yes, you are required to wear two parachutes, and it is generally a good idea to do so. But if you are flying a plane that requires you to wear a parachute (Like the SA's Rustler. Flying that thing without a parachute would be painful.) then you'd typically wear only one. That parachute already is your backup.

Personally, I'd make backup parachute available only when you are base jumping. I can't think of many GTA situations where you'd be jumping out of the plane that you are not piloting.

To me it is one of those touches of realism that I'd like to see. In certain situation I do this that a breathing aid would be necessary. On other posts, people have mentioned tear gas and I think a gas mask would be a necessary countermesure if you are using it or if it is being used on you.

Another example of a useful application of breathing aids is scuba diving. If they brought back underwater swimming it would be a helpful measure in some underwater missions.

Now it is debatable whether or not an oxygen mask is necessary. I myself am mixed. It kind of goes along with my consciousness meter concept. Seeing as how jumping from certain altitudes require oxygen masks, (specifically HALO/HAHO jumps) To me it's a nice touch.

What made me think about reserve chutes is that one GTA SA mission where you had to take out a plane full of explosives. After completing that mission, you are supposed jump from the plane. My problem happped when I opened my chute too early and it was taking me way too long for me to reach the the surface. I cut my chute and tried to see if I still had the other in my inventory. I didn't and I fell all the way down. (I survived)

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#82

Posted 11 July 2009 - 08:23 AM

Yeah, if you are jumping off something, spare parachute would make sense. When you are bailing out, though, by exiting the vehicle, you should only get one 'chute.

Flying above certain altitudes also requires oxygen mask, and I've seen what hypoxia does to people. It's all part of FAA PP training. I just don't think that increasing complexity associated with character maintenance is a good idea. I did not like the idea of the main character having to eat, I'm not happy with the consciousness idea, and I don't think you should black out if you forgot to put on the oxygen mask. I'm perfectly fine with character just pulling one out from hammer space and putting it on. I just don't want to have to worry about it.

TheShogunOfHarlem
  • TheShogunOfHarlem

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2009

#83

Posted 15 July 2009 - 05:00 AM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Jul 11 2009, 08:23)
Yeah, if you are jumping off something, spare parachute would make sense. When you are bailing out, though, by exiting the vehicle, you should only get one 'chute.

Flying above certain altitudes also requires oxygen mask, and I've seen what hypoxia does to people. It's all part of FAA PP training. I just don't think that increasing complexity associated with character maintenance is a good idea. I did not like the idea of the main character having to eat, I'm not happy with the consciousness idea, and I don't think you should black out if you forgot to put on the oxygen mask. I'm perfectly fine with character just pulling one out from hammer space and putting it on. I just don't want to have to worry about it.

Bear in mind that the concept(s) I presented aren't ideas that completely stand behind. I think that if R* still continues to strive for realism that they should at least move with your suggestion for including an oxygen mask for HALO/HAHO drops. You reminded me how some applications of realism can aggravate you while playing.

The consciousness meter on the other hand is more of a personal desire to better incorporate an show different states of consciousness. As I see it, (as far as AIs go) it seems that if an AI is injured with blunt force they can be "killed" with relative ease. At the very least, I would like to see a system that is similar to the Metal Gear system. As for applying it to to a playable character, as I listed it in my OP I don't think so. It would have to be modified to avoid having to be a nuisance.

I do think that some level of damage should in some way should affect gameplay. As long as it is within reason of course.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#84

Posted 16 July 2009 - 11:27 PM Edited by K^2, 16 July 2009 - 11:42 PM.

Yes, having some sort of a state that is temporarily affected when you are hurt by a weapon or blunt force would only make sense. But it really needs to be temporary, it needs to go away whenever you go back to full health, and it should not deteriorate with passage of time or due to you running, driving, etc.

I'm all for realism, but it should not interfere with gameplay. Being able to go anywhere anytime is a big part of GTA gameplay. If something like hunger or some other character state prevents you from indefinitely exploring the map, it cripples gameplay. Going back a bit closer to the topic, for the same reason, it was ridiculous that you got stars for driving at the airport in IV. Sure, it is realistic, but it defeats the point of even having an airport in the first place.

TheShogunOfHarlem
  • TheShogunOfHarlem

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2009

#85

Posted 18 July 2009 - 06:02 PM

QUOTE (K^2 @ Jul 16 2009, 23:27)
Yes, having some sort of a state that is temporarily affected when you are hurt by a weapon or blunt force would only make sense. But it really needs to be temporary, it needs to go away whenever you go back to full health, and it should not deteriorate with passage of time or due to you running, driving, etc.

I'm all for realism, but it should not interfere with gameplay. Being able to go anywhere anytime is a big part of GTA gameplay. If something like hunger or some other character state prevents you from indefinitely exploring the map, it cripples gameplay. Going back a bit closer to the topic, for the same reason, it was ridiculous that you got stars for driving at the airport in IV. Sure, it is realistic, but it defeats the point of even having an airport in the first place.

That's basically what i was trying to imply in my OP in my other thread. I just never really got to fully explain it. The varying states of consciousness shouldn't really affect the playable character in the same way as any NPC/AIs for obvious reasons. It's more something that I would like to see in NPCs or AIs as a measure that I mentioned in other topics. Specifically, I would like to see more autonomy in missions, especially assassination/Most wanted/Vigilante missions. Basically i would like to add a bounty hunter element where you have the option of bringing in targets dead or alive. Portraying differnet states of consciousness would come into play in that respect.

But back to playable characters, the only way I would like to see consciousness come into play would only be in two ways:
1. Blunt force: In this case the effects are only temporary and very mild.
2. Being nearly dead: In this case the effect only bug you when you are running for extended periods of time and is more long term, unless you find a first aid kit.

Now, for multiplayer there should be a Hardcore mode that allows for more realistic damage to occur to you. (i.e. dismemberment)

damian001
  • damian001

    Vice City fanboy

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2003
  • None

#86

Posted 02 December 2009 - 03:28 PM

Sorry, I didn't read because about a quarter way through, the game strted to sound like Microsoft Flight Simulator. I prefer the flying from San Andreas

socal000
  • socal000

    The General Public's Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2008

#87

Posted 02 December 2009 - 04:52 PM

Great Ideas. And it's nice to actually have a real pilot posting some of these ideas. I've only done my solo, probably get my PP license next year. Anyway, these are great ideas, and I would really like see most if not all of these ideas in the next gta.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#88

Posted 02 December 2009 - 06:20 PM

QUOTE (damian001 @ Dec 2 2009, 11:28)
Sorry, I didn't read because about a quarter way through, the game strted to sound like Microsoft Flight Simulator. I prefer the flying from San Andreas

The idea is to try and make controls just as intuitive as in SA, while allowing for far more realistic physics. If you think some of these suggestions would make flying too complex, I'd like to know which ones exactly and why, so I can try and think of some fixes.

liam-aka-spidie
  • liam-aka-spidie

    TeC , Knows How To Party, In The City Of LC.

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2009

#89

Posted 02 January 2010 - 07:54 PM

I think you should buy FSX. Ok, maybe some of these ideas are wonderful but just a little bit over the top. I like your ideas and would want half of them myself. But Cmon, itss easy to pilot these days.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#90

Posted 03 January 2010 - 08:26 AM

Yes, and all of the people who think that driving should be realistic should go and buy Grand Turismo 5. You are making a lot of sense right now. This should be pushed further. Lets just replace all characters with lizard men and have them shoot ray guns at each other. I mean, if you want any sort of realism, there are other games out there.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users