[JoshGTAfreak]

i don't want them to have planes it ain't grand theft aero u know.

[K^2]

So they shouldn't have helicopters either, right? Or guns. It's not Grand Theft Lethal Arms, either. The only thing you should be able to do is steal cars. That's what all the missions should be about. You'd go to your boss, he'll tell you which car to steal. You'd go and steal it. You'd never hunt for packages, deliver anything, and certainly wouldn't be roughing anyone up. That's not what the game is about. It's purely about stealing cars, and maybe an occasional bus. It says so in the title.

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.

This post has been edited by K^2 on Thursday, Mar 19 2009, 02:22

[Mainland Marauder]

If you don't want to talk about planes in GTA, you totally don't have to post here.

In fact, I'd prefer that you not.

[Superflexxx]

Although I would love Rockstar for putting aircraft into the next installment and making them fly more realistically.. it's never going to happen.

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.

[K^2]

Superflex, I think you misunderstood the point of this thread.

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.

[kareljanis]

i like ur ideas, would be good if GTA brought back planes

[Spaghetti Cat]

A good way to handle the flight school was how it was handled in IV. The cell phone had a tutorial feature that took you to the airport and you could fly the helicopter through a few simple way points. In neXt they could expand on this. Allow you to do a few missions that get progressively harder. Good way to learn some moves, and it doesn't even have to contribute to 100% completion.

If it is VC 2.0 then I hope they bring back the helicopter that lands on water, and the Apache-like 'copter.

[nerner]

I love the aircraft, wouldn't it be good if you could do what you could do in SA and fly between cities.

[AussieDude]

San Andreas was the best Flight Sim I had ever played, it out ranks FSX by a long way, wanna know why? It had a fully 3d enviroment with cars and pedestrians on the road! unlike most of the other FS games with 2d enviroments

[TyphoonJames]

K^2, you're a genius!

I love aviation in GTA, especially SA.

[reform]

Haha, K^2, I can tell you have played a few flight sims in your time!!

I completly agree with the original post.

[Booyacasha]

sounds really good but can anybody answere me this!
if you fly the plane into a building or staright into the ground or land it on the road...will R* be able to make these building explosions?? what about the building the plane like in 9/11 should go right through the building how will R* manage that??? please answere if you have an idea..

[reform]

I don't think R* will be making destructable environment mechanics on that scale in this console generation.

Most likely it'll just leave a black scorched patch on the impact zone, and the plane will completly disappear in the explosion.

[K^2]

Yeah, that'd be a bit too heavy on the engine. A few buildings like that can be simulated, but not an entire city. There are workarounds, but there are bound to be serious artifacts. There are also some gameplay concerns, which are probably even more serious. What are you going to do when you end up leveling the entire city? Or just one building that was critical to the story?

[bldrgnslyr]

its a great idea in terms of adding a whole new dimension to the series, but the chances of it happening are pretty slim for many reasons in which i cant be f*cked listing.

[visionist]

Bringing back pilotable large scale aircraft will be inpractical till the game features either multiple spread out cities or a city in the middle of a desert/forest with small landing strips out and about. Granted IV's Liberty City is supposed to be similar in size to SA's entire state, and so at least a Shamal should have been pilotable... Sitting there in the airport but you can't do anything with them.. very frustrating.

[Tuff Luv Capo]

QUOTE (JoshGTAfreak @ Mar 18 2009, 05:13)

i don't want them to have planes it ain't grand theft aero u know.

Every one of these topics is accompanied by one of these posts:

"This ain't Grand Theft Aero"
"This ain't Grand Theft Aqua"
"This ain't Grand Theft X Games"


GTA isn't just about being diverse and offering more than any other game, it's the skeleton of its very creation. Limiting the game to stealing cars and gun-fire would cease it's need to be carried on and recreated. Go play driver 3 if you don't want all of this "new-fangled" crap.

[K^2]

QUOTE (visionist @ Mar 28 2009, 08:38)

Bringing back pilotable large scale aircraft will be inpractical till the game features either multiple spread out cities or a city in the middle of a desert/forest with small landing strips out and about. Granted IV's Liberty City is supposed to be similar in size to SA's entire state, and so at least a Shamal should have been pilotable... Sitting there in the airport but you can't do anything with them.. very frustrating.

Personally, I don't see a reason not to make large planes pilotable either way. Granted, it'd be pointless, but once you have the core airplane code down, and the models for these planes are already there, what's the harm? It would be interesting to see what people come up with to try and steal one and what they'd do with them afterwards.

Something like a Dodo could have been useful even in IV. There are several places scattered around IV that you could use as an impromptu landing strip, and there are a bunch more places where you can perform an emergency landing if you don't expect that Dodo to fly ever again. Add to that the fact that a Dodo doesn't fly any faster than a Maverick and certainly no faster than an Annihilator, and there is no reason not to include it.

Just FYI:

Dodo = Cessna 152 - Cruise 105 knots.
Maverick = Bell 206 JetRanger - Cruise 115 knots.
Annihilator = UH 60 Black Hawk - Cruise 150 knots.

[epoxi]

In my opinion, SA nailed it: and I'm glad they kept planes out of IV because I would be disappointed. SA had the perfect size, geography, scaling and plot (i.e. based on an entire state with 3 separate cities) for airplanes...plus the game made you feel like a true pilot, while keeping flight an easy task at the same time.

[Epicohnoes!]

I was thinking about this earlier today.My idea is that the physics should be slightly improved to match that of the cars in GTA IV. But, you could also add a few new bells and whistles to GTA's aviatation. Like, maybeif you're flying too low, or are in a no-fly zone, the ATC will contact you telling you to shape it up. If you don't, they will assume you're a terrorist and give you a nice 4 Star.