Fly-any-helicopter! (Jury-rigging a helo flight model)

[Cally]

Anti-fly-any-plane folk please ignore this blashpemy, but I'm intrigued by the thought of creating flyable "helicopters" in Falcon...

Yes, I know you can't fly them currently--and I'm not suggesting mad code edits. But I also know that the (rather creative) Harrier flight model is practically halfway there: ever flown a Harrier with full-flaps at low throttle and altitude?

I profoundly doubt you could replace actual F4 helicopters with something flyable. Instead I'm thinking you'd create a new "plane" and give it a helicopter flight model, 3D model, and weapon loadout.

But I'm a newbie (especially to flight-model editting). So I'm interested in some expert thoughts!

-Cal
P.S. Why? Well, I happen to love hopping around from flight to flight in a campaign (in AF anyway)--and I think adding helicopters to that would be FUN--simple as that! No one is going to build a new multi-aircraft Falcon, so why not give this a try?

[ccc]

tho unrealistic, yes you can have a [NEW aircraft] using [harrier FM] and [helicopter 3d model], plus adquate weapon load. it will be quite arcadish..the terrain is for fast jet sim, not for slow-mover.. it looks plain, nowhere to hide and shoot.

[Cally]

OK, glad to hear I'm not totally off-base. But you raise a good point regarding the terrain, which brings me to something even further outside my ken in the world of F4 editing: ground clutter. You could make low-alt flying interesting with a) terrain lumpiness or b) clutter objects.

Adding terrain mesh lumpines: probably very hard and wasteful. But would it be possible to populate an F4 map with clutter objects: trees/huts/etc. and somehow "give" them a very small bubble/de-agg factor with respect to the player? If you could do it, it would presumably have minimal performance impact (as you'd only see the clutter at very close distances/low altitudes). No idea whether it would overload the object database...

Way beyond my limited F4 knowledge but perhaps one of y'all out there knows...

[Sherlock]

OK, glad to hear I'm not totally off-base. But you raise a good point regarding the terrain, which brings me to something even further outside my ken in the world of F4 editing: ground clutter. You could make low-alt flying interesting with a) terrain lumpiness or b) clutter objects.

Adding terrain mesh lumpines: probably very hard and wasteful. But would it be possible to populate an F4 map with clutter objects: trees/huts/etc. and somehow "give" them a very small bubble/de-agg factor with respect to the player? If you could do it, it would presumably have minimal performance impact (as you'd only see the clutter at very close distances/low altitudes). No idea whether it would overload the object database...

Way beyond my limited F4 knowledge but perhaps one of y'all out there knows...

There is only one deagg (bubble) distance setting in F4 code. It's primarily for deagg of planes/ground vehicles/ships. I do know there is another deagg type operation that occurs with respect to the terrain (fartiles?) where they shift to more refined images. Don't know very much about that though.

[ccc]

he probaby means the LOD switching distance..nearest LOD1 use most populated model, and lower ones with much less populated model. imho, not a good idea...

btw check this thread..
http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/show ... p?t=137299

and, i suggest buy dedicated helo sim..save time and energy.

[T_Rex]

Yeah, I looked at this years ago, and found the issues to be basically insurmountable.

But, then I suck, so you could easily improve on my efforts. I had a Harrier model that could fly at 60kts and still be relatively stable, but it couldn't hover and had a turn radius the size of Seoul.

G'luck.

[Cally]

OK, thanks for all the clarifications--great info!

--Sherlock: That makes sense. It was probably hoping too much that the bubble could also influenced by the object. The 2nd value you mention must also be a single constant as well, so dry hole there too most likely.

--CCC: LOD's, now there's a reasonable tack! Don't know if anyone here has played the old Steel Beasts tanksim, but it had a workable, low-tech approach to forests: a solid mass at far/low LOD's, individual trees up close.

Ha-ha--touche! Find me a dedicated helicopter sim with a campaign world half as good as F4's and I'll take you up on it!

--T_Rex: Great! I'd like to ping you to hear more about your FM sometime. I don't know how far you can push a FM, but I do know that I was very surprised by the Harrier pseudo-VSTOL performance... (Then there's the mysterious "mrstee*" flight models out there too).

Will have to decide what to try first: a) FM or b) terrain. Even as standalone solutions they could provide some fun & interest. I'll do some digging (and ask questions) about both and see what happens.

Ideas & suggested links (e.g. terrain modelling & FM editing) welcome! Thanks all - Cal.

[ccc]

--CCC: LOD's, now there's a reasonable tack! Don't know if anyone here has played the old Steel Beasts tanksim, but it had a workable, low-tech approach to forests: a solid mass at far/low LOD's, individual trees up close.

the idea has been discussed long time ago. no good.

actually solid mass forest has been done in Electronic Arts's LHX sim.. or game.. such mass can not be placed on slope /hill properly.. i mean in falcon terrain.

[T_Rex]

If the question is, which to figure out first - FM or terrain? Do terrain.

It isn't necessarily "easier" but it is far more rewarding in a feedback sense.

IMHO.