[K^2]

QUOTE (Zeichef @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 07:25)

I didn't read the whole thread so maybe someone said it before... Tail-rotor damage was present in IV also. You could lose your tail rotor but the helo was still flyable though the rotation was really random and sloppy. You could also lose your entire tail, at which point the helo is barely flyable and spins out of control and you have to land wherever possible. While I can say it's not at all realistic this way (I'm an aviation freak), it's GTA so I don't think people will appreciate the flight model being realisticaly brutal and unforgiving...

I briefly mentioned it in the opening post. The perfectly realistic thing would be to enter auto-rotation. The reason you need the tail rotor is because of the torque on the main rotor, which is passed through the engine onto the body of the helicopter. In event of the tail rotor failure, the pilot must shut down the engine, the clutch connecting engine to the main rotor disengages, and the torque on the body becomes minimal. Of course, the main rotor loses power, but you can enter auto-rotation to land safely without power.

So what I would suggest is that if your tail rotor is destroyed, whether by itself or along with the tail, simply cut the heli's power, forcing the player to descend. I'd make that descend a bit softer and more controlled than real auto-rotation, but having the heli continue flight after losing tail rotor is way too unrealistic. This seems like a good compromise between gameplay and realism.

[Racecarlock]

See, I wouldn't mind realistic flight physics because I've played Flight Simulator X and I know that even realistic flight is still 37 tons and flavors of fun. So it would be a form of realism that doesn't actively interfere with gameplay, which is my problem with fuel and hunger, both of which I've seen requested.

[MrAfro77]

If aircrafts in GTA V control anything like they do in BF3 and have similar control schemes then I will love it

[azali10]

Well, we don't want this to become a flight simulator do we? Flight is only one small aspect of the game. Its a sandbox game, these games are about accessibility. I should be ale to fly planes after a few minutes of getting the hang of it, not repeated practice. Flight should be pretty easy unless you turn up the difficulty or somthing.

[K^2]

QUOTE (azali10 @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 14:15)

Well, we don't want this to become a flight simulator do we? Flight is only one small aspect of the game. Its a sandbox game, these games are about accessibility. I should be ale to fly planes after a few minutes of getting the hang of it, not repeated practice. Flight should be pretty easy unless you turn up the difficulty or somthing.

If you read the opening post carefully, that's really what I want to achieve. Realistic physics with simplified controls. It should make flight easy to pick up, yet feel very real, even if you have experience with the real deal. I feel that most games fall flat in that regard. The airplanes either feel like they are on rails (Saints Row) or like they are floating (San Andreas). Either one leaves a lot of room for improvement, though, I do by far prefer the SA physics over SR physics.

On the other end of the spectrum you have flight sims. But they aren't difficult because of the physics. They are primarily difficult because of the controls. Even if you forget the navigation and fine tuning the engine, you have to worry about ailerons, elevators, rudder, trims on all of the above, flaps, and landing gear. All of which alter the flight dynamics, so the moment you adjust one, you have to adjust nearly all the others. And that's fine for a flight sim, because that's how the real airplane flies, and I do enjoy that, and would be happy enough if that's how GTA worked. But I also realize that it's not necessary and a lot of people would be turned off by it.

Hence my suggestions on the controls. Auto-rudder is an obvious one. Even Flight Simulator X allowed that option. Another is auto-trim and auto-throttle so that neutral position of controls maintains altitude and air speed. Flaps can come down with the landing gear. Suddenly, you are down to same controls you've had in San Andreas. All you need to do to perform a landing now is point the nose a bit up to reduce air speed, and then pull back on the throttle to descend. So easy, you'll be able to get a hang of it in minutes, and yet the physics can be that of a descent flight sim.

[A320]

Something like GTA:SA wouldn't be bad at all. It wasn't hard to control aircraft and every aircraft had a different feeling.

[koothara]

As a PC gamer i hate planes.It is almost impossible for me to complete flying school with keyboard and mouse.Planes in SA are designed with joystick in mind.GTA 4 did the right thing. For those ho loves planes there might be optional flying missions in GTA 5.

[K^2]

Planes in SA are as easy to fly on PC as they are on PS2. I've completed the game on both platforms with no more trouble on one than another.

If you have no experience flying with keyboard, I have doubts about your claims of being a PC gamer. It only takes a bit of practice before it comes natural to you.

But that aside, yes, flight should be made optional, as mentioned a number of times in this and other threads. You not willing to take time to learn to fly isn't a good enough reason not to include planes at all.

[LC 44]

I love flying.


I hated how in Gta iv you could go to the airport, but you couldn't do anything there.


I miss going into the airport terminal like in Vice city.

[GTA4L1fe]

I hope that they will make the flying physics realistic this time. Like it is very hard to land a plane because it really is in real life. But as with everything else, nothing is difficult when you get the hang of it. It would be awesome if the landing gears broke or the wheels exploded depending on how hard you hit the runway.

I wish that they will include big planes like the size of a Boeing 747. It looks like they will be adding a plane based on the Hercules, so I'll be happy with that size.

Make the flying optional. The worst thing is forcing players that aren't interesting in flying. They'll probably end up complaining about the physics.

[Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian]

QUOTE (koothara @ Tuesday, May 1 2012, 07:43)

As a PC gamer i hate planes.It is almost impossible for me to complete flying school with keyboard and mouse.Planes in SA are designed with joystick in mind.GTA 4 did the right thing. For those ho loves planes there might be optional flying missions in GTA 5.

I have to disagree. I played GTA:SA on my computer 3 times and I can say that the flying school was really simple. I got gold in every test. If you've trouble iwth the flying school then I think you're not a PC gamer.

This post has been edited by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian on Saturday, Jun 2 2012, 15:56

[SmC12]

QUOTE (K^2 @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 20:23)

QUOTE (azali10 @ Monday, Apr 30 2012, 14:15) Well, we don't want this to become a flight simulator do we? Flight is only one small aspect of the game. Its a sandbox game, these games are about accessibility. I should be ale to fly planes after a few minutes of getting the hang of it, not repeated practice. Flight should be pretty easy unless you turn up the difficulty or somthing. If you read the opening post carefully, that's really what I want to achieve. Realistic physics with simplified controls. It should make flight easy to pick up, yet feel very real, even if you have experience with the real deal. I feel that most games fall flat in that regard. The airplanes either feel like they are on rails (Saints Row) or like they are floating (San Andreas). Either one leaves a lot of room for improvement, though, I do by far prefer the SA physics over SR physics. On the other end of the spectrum you have flight sims. But they aren't difficult because of the physics. They are primarily difficult because of the controls. Even if you forget the navigation and fine tuning the engine, you have to worry about ailerons, elevators, rudder, trims on all of the above, flaps, and landing gear. All of which alter the flight dynamics, so the moment you adjust one, you have to adjust nearly all the others. And that's fine for a flight sim, because that's how the real airplane flies, and I do enjoy that, and would be happy enough if that's how GTA worked. But I also realize that it's not necessary and a lot of people would be turned off by it. Hence my suggestions on the controls. Auto-rudder is an obvious one. Even Flight Simulator X allowed that option. Another is auto-trim and auto-throttle so that neutral position of controls maintains altitude and air speed. Flaps can come down with the landing gear. Suddenly, you are down to same controls you've had in San Andreas. All you need to do to perform a landing now is point the nose a bit up to reduce air speed, and then pull back on the throttle to descend. So easy, you'll be able to get a hang of it in minutes, and yet the physics can be that of a descent flight sim.

This would be the most ideal option which suits all players. When I want to calculate descent speeds and fine tune my ailerons I'll load up FSX. But if they're going to have planes included in the game I don't see why they need to do a half-assed job. It doesn't have to be simulator realism, but at least make it feel like an aircraft should. I was quite satisfied with the helicopters in GTA IV. It was much easier to control than it would be in real life, but at the same time the physics felt decent, the heli's had proper weight to them and it wasn't just a case of lift off, point in a direction and fly - although the option to do that was still possible.

The same thing should apply to aircraft in the game. You should be able to fly them realistically if you want, but at the same time make the controls easy enough for anyone to pick up. The auto rudder and flaps is a must, as well as the throttle, especially on console. But if I bank in a plane it shouldn't feel so easy and weightless like in SA, it should feel like I'm trying to turn a huge piece of metal in mid-air. In general I think GTA has done a decent job in regards to flying, but with just a few tweaks to the physics I think the experience could be alot more satisfying and realistic, whilst still being easy for non-experienced players.

Landing and takeoffs are something I get really annoyed at in games like Saints Row. The plane just flops down like there's nothing too it. It's as if I wasn't just travelling at the speed of sound to suddenly grind to a hault in the space of a few seconds. And when taking off it just lifts off the ground like a helicopter. It doesn't feel heavy, there are no flight dynamics to the aircraft at all. I shouldn't be able to take off going accross the runway.

I think it has a lot to do with the engine the games use, but here's hoping Rockstar have finally cracked it in regards to flying. The GTA world is always a beautiful one, but it's just not satisfying when it feels like your flying a plane made of paper.

[Dr Pepper 94]

Ahh i love FSX!!! but i dont think it should be like that in GTA V, because "ordinary people" wouldn't have a chance flying those planes.

[Celticfang]

Not read the whole post, just the OP, but....

As somebody who has bought a fair amount of payware for FSX, I do have one idea I'd like to add.

Auto pilot with 4 basic functions.

A. Altitude Hold, you have 3 altitudes, Low, medium, high. The plane holds at that altitude until you turn it off or move the controls

B. Heading hold, i.e. the plane follows a certain heading

C. Waypoints: The plane auto flies to a certain waypoint or displays the path to it on the screen

D. Auto land. You are approaching an airport in (say) an AT-400, you hit a button and a cutscene plays, the plane lands from cinematic view and the game resumes with you off the runway.

[Dr Pepper 94]

sadly i dont think the map is gonna be so big, that it will contain autopilot on the planes..

[Inelastic]

I'm a glider pilot, and I think it would be interesting if they included gliders (sailplanes) in the game, to add another challenge. Imagine making use of the mountains for lift, and trying and stay up for as long as possible, as well as having competitions, etc.

In terms of the flight dynamics, I also agree that they ought to be made more realistic. A successful landing should be more of a challenge.

I liked the flying school in SA. I think that should be brought back, and once completed, you wouldn't get a wanted level when entering airports, and can also do flying missions, such as search and rescue, commercial passenger transport, cargo, etc.

[fatal1ty619]

I don't have many suggestions for controls, I'm sure R* will make it sound. I want to address the damage model. The RAGE model allows extreme deformity, as seen in cars and helicopters. But, I want to see somewhere in the area between IV and Rigs of Rods. I love Rigs of Rods, because (mainly the Antonov 12) the planes can sustain serious damage, such as one or more blown engines, deformities from intense speed and G-forces, and heavy landings, and are still capable of flight. I love that I will fly around, just trying to inflict as much damage as possible, while staying aloft. Although they couldn't fly with such damage in real life, the way that forces are acting against the plane after sustaining damage are quite realistic. That is what I would like to see in V.

[btbwuh]

I don't think the flaps, ILS etc. is necessary. I'm training to be a pilot so it's fine for me either way but I don't think most GTA players are bothered with details like that. I think if you want an awesome flying experience then play Microsoft's Flight Simulator X.

[GreenReign]

I would like it if you could take on a job as a commercial pilot somehow, I think that would be cool.

[LV426_]

Some really good ideas!

How about not being able to exit the plane straight away? Making you plan ahead. I can't remember how long it takes usually in SA but it'd be great if it took a dozen or so seconds to exit a plane to add 'a bit' of realism and to also give you a 'oh sh*t' moment when you realise you won't make it out in time.

Maybe the bigger the plane the longer it takes.