AIM-90 are just to dam good. (Air to Air)

[Oddsodz]

Standard procedure for deploying countermeasures is usually to pop flares and/or chaff and then perform a major evasive manoeuvre, you're not supposed to just pop them and then think everything will be fine and dandy...

Oh dear. Looks like somebody did not read all the posts in this thread.

[Kim Jong ill]

Oh dear looks like some noob pilot is looking for a way out of a situation he shouldn't be in, in real life flares don't go shooting out. You deploy them then manoeuvre, if someone has got the jump on you and you don't have time to flare AND manoeuvre then too bad. You're lucky enough to even get a warning that you're being locked onto, in RL you don't know an IR missile is targeting you until either you see it or your aircraft has equipment to detect it's launch.

Fact is at close ranges flares are even less effective then they are in game, especically against advance AAMs like the AIM-9X and the R-73. There are always going to be problems with air combat in PR because that combat theatres are simple too small. In the case of PR it's real so learn to deal with it, if it ain't fun then don't play the game.

Edit - One more thing; if you were being engaged at ranges this close in RL your optimum reaction wouldn't be to pop flares, it would be to eject before you die in a fireball of death.

[Hunt3r]

Oh dear looks like some noob pilot is looking for a way out of a situation he shouldn't be in, in real life flares don't go shooting out. You deploy them then manoeuvre, if someone has got the jump on you and you don't have time to flare AND manoeuvre then too bad. You're lucky enough to even get a warning that you're being locked onto, in RL you don't know an IR missile is targeting you until either you see it or your aircraft has equipment to detect it's launch.

Fact is at close ranges flares are even less effective then they are in game, especically against advance AAMs like the AIM-9X and the R-73. There are always going to be problems with air combat in PR because that combat theatres are simple too small. In the case of PR it's real so learn to deal with it, if it ain't fun then don't play the game.

Edit - One more thing; if you were being engaged at ranges this close in RL your optimum reaction wouldn't be to pop flares, it would be to eject before you die in a fireball of death.

Oh dear god someone hasn't heard of RWR before.

[Kim Jong ill]

Are you kidding me? A RWR is a radar warning receiver, I guess they didn't teach you in wannabe pilot school that IR missiles don't need radar to launch. Oh and by the way, modern aircraft have a TWS which is more comprehensive then a RWR but of course you know this?

A Su-35 can sneak up to you using EOTS at ranges up to 40kms and then fire an IR guided R-27 into your fat arse without so much as a warning unless you have a missile launch detection system.

[Hunt3r]

Then you get Bitchin' Betty screaming at you, as you pop flares, and kinematically evade it....

[Kim Jong ill]

Oh dear looks like some noob pilot is looking for a way out of a situation he shouldn't be in, in real life flares don't go shooting out. You deploy them then manoeuvre, if someone has got the jump on you and you don't have time to flare AND manoeuvre then too bad. You're lucky enough to even get a warning that you're being locked onto, in RL you don't know an IR missile is targeting you until either you see it or your aircraft has equipment to detect it's launch.

Fact is at close ranges flares are even less effective then they are in game, especically against advance AAMs like the AIM-9X and the R-73. There are always going to be problems with air combat in PR because that combat theatres are simple too small. In the case of PR it's real so learn to deal with it, if it ain't fun then don't play the game.

Edit - One more thing; if you were being engaged at ranges this close in RL your optimum reaction wouldn't be to pop flares, it would be to eject before you die in a fireball of death.

It seems that you were too busy being a smart arse that you didn't read my post in it's entirety. In ranges found in PR even with all the technology in the world you would at best have time to eject before you aircraft explodes in a fiery ball.

[Hunt3r]

It seems that you were too busy being a smart arse that you didn't read my post in it's entirety. In ranges found in PR even with all the technology in the world you would at best have time to eject before you aircraft explodes in a fiery ball.

Yes, but we scale the distances and stuff down so that suddenly you can save your sorry arse with some flares and hard turns.

IMO, having PRSP's bot planes being the basis for the flight model for the normal jets would be great for dogfights, especially with unlimited flares. AAVs would have a tough time though...

Anyhow, if you really wanted semi-realistic aerial combat (Well, at least closer then PR's aerial combat.), then just find out exactly what the very best the BF2 engine can offer in dogfights.

CA mod.

[Kim Jong ill]

Everything in PR is not meant to be taken literally.

Armies do not engage each other from staging areas 4km away from each other.

Planes are not restricted to 16 km^2 to fly in.

If you want PR to take planes realistically, they shouldn't be in the air in the first place. If it's not to be taken literally, why not make it more fun and complex than "enemy plane! Spam fire button and pray!"?

I've already addressed your first point in prior posts, in regard to your second post I'd honestly rather not have jets in PR at all TBH. I'd must rather an AI system controlled by officer requests to provide interdiction, CAS and CAP then the current system in game but no doubt that would be beyond the BF2 engine.

[Saobh]

Guys, take 2 steps back and refocus your conversation the elements of this thread then getting into a heated & personal "what he said she said" fest.

[Drunkenup]

Look, the short range missiles in PR are IR guided, and in most aircraft requiring a signature lock by maneuvering for a good tone and lock. The previous suggestion to allow AIM-9s (and I'm assuming their R-73 counterpart) to allow kill in two shots, NOW, I would support, this, only if the damage varies between the aircraft it is shot at, leaving very high damage on dedicated fighters, F-16, Eurofighter, and MiG-29, allowing seconds and very high bleed speed to blow up. And higher with Attack aircraft (A-10, SU-25, Tornado, SU-30MKK), 3/4s damage, with a relatively high bleed speed, allowing the aircraft to escape, but not survive to complete another sortie, requiring a immediate landing. Give or take the damage given to Tornado GR4 and the Flanker.

My other idea to enhance air to air combat is to make IR seeking missiles to be locked on by targeting the enemy aircraft in the middle crosshairs (I mean, within that small less than a centimeter box) for a few seconds to allow lock, and reduce missile spam that people do in hopes the splash damage will finish the aircraft by having a firerate cap on the missiles. Make missiles less agile as well, allowing them to be outmaneuvered, and a lower velocity. Now, the Radar guided missiles, the R-77 and AIM-120 AMRAAM are a different story, basically what we have now, but seek far longer. Have those fly at a lower velocity, achieve far more damage, 100% if hit, then killed (as the R-77 and AMRAAM have far larger warheads than their short range IR seeking brothers). Less Maneuverable, same firerate cap. This may seem ridiculous, but I'd like to see the integration of Chaffs to be used against those radar seeking missiles, firing off a different button toggle.

[Hunt3r]

This may seem ridiculous, but I'd like to see the integration of Chaffs to be used against those radar seeking missiles, firing off a different button toggle.

Would be a great idea, but there can only be two types of "heat targets" in PR. Currently there's one from GLTDs and others, the other is embedded on aircraft. The BF2 engine only allows two. If there wasn't a cap on it, then it would be interesting to see how SEAD would work.

Chaff would still just be a retextured flare and achieve the exact same effect, in the BF2 engine.

Anyhow, it's going to be tough revising aerial combat to be more realistic and fun.

[Drunkenup]

Would be a great idea, but there can only be two types of "heat targets" in PR. Currently there's one from GLTDs and others, the other is embedded on aircraft. The BF2 engine only allows two. If there wasn't a cap on it, then it would be interesting to see how SEAD would work.

Chaff would still just be a retextured flare and achieve the exact same effect, in the BF2 engine.

Anyhow, it's going to be tough revising aerial combat to be more realistic and fun.

Wait, so a third seek isn't possible? Damn. I was planning to post a proof of concept within the next month or so showcasing realistic physics. Doesn't necessary have to be a heat target?

[Hunt3r]

Wait, so a third seek isn't possible? Damn. I was planning to post a proof of concept within the next month or so showcasing realistic physics. Doesn't necessary have to be a heat target?

Heat targets are what allows aircraft to be targeted in this game. The way to sort of simulate this is to have specific ranges or times that the missiles will continue to fly until it either disappears or explodes, and also different lock ranges. Additionally, giving it a radar HUD that will show aircraft heat targets only, that would lock and fire using the AMRAAAMs.

It doesn't need a heat target, but this means you have to shoot it down with guns.

[Drunkenup]

Heat targets are what allows aircraft to be targeted in this game. The way to sort of simulate this is to have specific ranges or times that the missiles will continue to fly until it either disappears or explodes, and also different lock ranges. Additionally, giving it a radar HUD that will show aircraft heat targets only, that would lock and fire using the AMRAAAMs.

It doesn't need a heat target, but this means you have to shoot it down with guns.

I think if we recoded everything so that we could have a certain weapon seek a certain aircraft with a certain object deviating it, then I think it might work. Rather than a heat object, the thing attached to the vehicle would be something that indicates that its "there" and at a certain range. I'll see if I can get somebody to help me. Plan was to originally integrate a separate tone or HUD contact for the seeking of radar intercepting missiles like the AMRAAM, as well as a separate chaff button. I'll see if its possible, I'll have to ask someone.

[DeltaFart]

I always thought the reason IR guided was so effective now was because teh guidance system also picks up the heat of friction from the air and fuselage(at least I heard this somewhere awhile ago)

[Alex6714]

I think if we recoded everything so that we could have a certain weapon seek a certain aircraft with a certain object deviating it, then I think it might work. Rather than a heat object, the thing attached to the vehicle would be something that indicates that its "there" and at a certain range. I'll see if I can get somebody to help me. Plan was to originally integrate a separate tone or HUD contact for the seeking of radar intercepting missiles like the AMRAAM, as well as a separate chaff button. I'll see if its possible, I'll have to ask someone.

System seems to be highly hardcoded.. I very much doubt its possible, unless mosquill comes along and divides it by 0.

[Oddsodz]

Lets not over complicate things here. As some of you may know. The DEV team don't have anybody working on Jets right now. So for the sake of making it a relative easy job to fix/change. May I suggest that we lower the destructive force of the AIM-9 (ok I got the name right I think) so that it takes 2 Missiles to kill a jet. And not just 1.

What I am trying to achieve is a scenario where luck is not the key factor (IE: Who sees who 1st) on how an enemy jet is killed. I Wish to see skill in flying be the key factor.


I Also would not be opposed to different jet caricaturists like what vBF2 patch 1.41 had with the F-35B and the J-10. The J-10 could out turn the F-35B. But the F-35B could out run the J-10 in a straight line at 820 vBF2 hight.

As seen in this video. This Video was made when vBF2 was at patch 1.42. Not 1.50

[Drunkenup]

Lets not over complicate things here. As some of you may know. The DEV team don't have anybody working on Jets right now. So for the sake of making it a relative easy job to fix/change. May I suggest that we lower the destructive force of the AIM-9 (ok I got the name right I think) so that it takes 2 Missiles to kill a jet. And not just 1.

What I am trying to achieve is a scenario where luck is not the key factor (IE: Who sees who 1st) on how an enemy jet is killed. I Wish to see skill in flying be the key factor.


I Also would not be opposed to different jet caricaturists like what vBF2 patch 1.41 had with the F-35B and the J-10. The J-10 could out turn the F-35B. But the F-35B could out run the J-10 in a straight line at 820 vBF2 hight.

As seen in this video. this Video was when vBF2 was at patch 1.42. Not 1.50

IMO, only as low for the aircraft struck to give a short time to get back to base/eject. The AIM-9 and the R-27 (AA-11) would be lowered as much to attack aircraft like the Tornado, Warthog, Flanker, and Frogfoot (more or less for the Tornado and Flanker) to let the aircraft return to base with 80% health lost, with a relatively slow bleed allowing the aircraft to live for a good few minutes. The Short AAMs in PR have a relatively light warhead, so I wouldn't expect a explosion as big as a AMRAAM.