Request for Revert to 1.2 Flight Mechanics (All Vehicles and Anti Air Weapons)

[mat552]

I would feel a lot better about that if I knew what data you guys could actually track Jafar. How granular does it get?

[uberlamer]

So you actually need people on the ground now communicating with you?

I'm not talking about spotting the AAV with attack heli..

[DC_K]

It is the same situation with the HAT for a very long time and I rarely hear anyone complain about that.
...
Apart of that I noticed CAS dying more quickly (Jets) but to me it seems more like the case of reckless flying and not communicating.

You bring a good point with the "HATmobile". I haven't seen a tank get killed from a HAT head on since 1.3, so I believe that issue has already been addressed.. but personally speaking, I think a HAT mobile would be a lot easier to find and track than an mobile AA from the sky from the pilots perspective. At least now armor can try to evade HATs/TOWs with the wonderful smoke screen tanks get, which is something nice.. on the other hand in the case of flying aircraft, flares now seem useless.

I think we should give the update some more time for everyone to adapt to the changes, and see if its working or not in the long run. It's a good step to the right direction to eventually determine that and adjust from there. It's too early to tell.. Unfortunately, the devs can't please everyone.

[LiamBai]

Just had a jet round where I got locked a lot but didn't die once., probably due to flaring a ton.
My opinion is changing a little bit. Perhaps I was just getting insanely unlucky earlier. If what I saw today is how AA really is, I'm happy. I was scared of it, but it wasn't ridiculously OP.

[Anderson29]

i have always wondered...and if i have the dev's ears for just a thought of mine.

now i assume that the speed of the AA rockets is equal to its real life couter part?
if it is then why do we play with the choppers speed in game vs real life speed as the variable?

i would think if 1 is adjusted so should the other...like for instance if the choppers speed is decreased shouldnt the speed of the rocket decrease by the same ratio?

i understand we are looking for balance within a game using real life....umm attributes???i guess we could call them?

i wonder what the game would be like if all varibles (like velocity of all projectiles to the speed of all vehicles) were reduced to half or maybe .75 of their real life couter parts instead of true to life varibles....would this make the game with it's limited view distance and all other game engine limitations seem more realistic..even though not true to real life values?

its something to think about you know.. our view distance is scaled down...why not scale down everything else?

but perhaps this thought may need its own thread...

[Curry]

Not sure what your problem is but I dodge those locks like a boss

Curry.

[ComradeHX]

Muttrah City yesterday.5 people MEC squad rushed north city and killed all the USMC transport...with Handheld AA(1 shot every huey) (perhaps playing the game first will give you the actual impression of how things work)



Good luck spotting AA vehicle on maps like Shijia Valley.

The person who made those AA changes doesn't realise that theres no way for helicopters to evade AA now.
Helis are TOO slow.You cant just give AA .973 properties and make all helis slow and expect people to not complain.Then you add the fact that you have the 1.3 flares that stay up for 3 seconds (prior to old flares =6,7 secs) and only 42 of them.

Muttrah City today, I shot at choppers from MEC Fortress, only choppers who DIED were the ones who DIDN'T FLARE.

If a chopper is landing and it's not using its flares, it deserves to get shot.
If it decides to land in the open, it deserves to get shot.


Perhaps you need to play a few more years before commenting on these matters.

i have always wondered...and if i have the dev's ears for just a thought of mine.

now i assume that the speed of the AA rockets is equal to its real life couter part?
if it is then why do we play with the choppers speed in game vs real life speed as the variable?

i would think if 1 is adjusted so should the other...like for instance if the choppers speed is decreased shouldnt the speed of the rocket decrease by the same ratio?

i understand we are looking for balance within a game using real life....umm attributes???i guess we could call them?

i wonder what the game would be like if all varibles (like velocity of all projectiles to the speed of all vehicles) were reduced to half or maybe .75 of their real life couter parts instead of true to life varibles....would this make the game with it's limited view distance and all other game engine limitations seem more realistic..even though not true to real life values?

its something to think about you know.. our view distance is scaled down...why not scale down everything else?

but perhaps this thought may need its own thread...

IIRC 1 meter in PR isn't scaled to 1 meter IRL either.

[Brozef]

I don't think there is any problem with the current 1.3 cas.

[imuhim]

I do wish trans would at the very least get a speed buff, it's very frustrating on maps with carriers that are somewhat more aircraft dependent.

[ComradeHX]

I do wish trans would at the very least get a speed buff, it's very frustrating on maps with carriers that are somewhat more aircraft dependent.

I think trans could use different kinds of buff.

Maybe the ability to drop a repair station, or some smaller ammo crate...etc.

[sweedensniiperr]

I don't fly CAS. So I can't comment flight mechanics or flares.

I've played a few rounds and can easily say that CAS is still a force to reckon with.

[mries]

I never fly CAS or Trans and don't do a lot of AA. But two times in v1.3 (1 burning sands, 1 vadso) I picked up an AA kit quickly and shot really fast to the enemy Chinook and it hit both times even with flaring.
While the chinook is a big and slow asset I can understand it can be quickly hit, but in my opinion the trans choppers shouldn't be that easy to kill. Trans is already an underrated function which is very important in a battle, it should be more rewarding and not being a flying coffin, it destroys the fun of playing.
CAS is fine I guess, goodbye CAS whoring, welcome teamwork and tactics.

[mat552]

CAS is fine I guess, goodbye CAS whoring, welcome teamwork and tactics.

Well, again, you can't CAS whore by yourself. Flying around low enough to visually acquire targets on your own has always been a death sentence. It's always been safer to have the guys on the ground find stuff and vector you in.

The only difference is that now actually doing your job is probably a death sentence.

Anecdotally I'm 18/26 on kills/shots against things that fly with guns, including a couple that I felt really bad about because the missile ignored 12+ flares to hit an enemy out of my view range on a transverse or retreating (eg flares are directly in the path between me and the target) shot.

Perhaps it's time to reintroduce "lobbing" laser guided bombs from beyond visual range, a poor man's standoff weapon against an air defense grid that gives no quarter.

[Jacksonez__]

I don't think there is any problem with the current 1.3 cas.

Aha. It was yesterday on Saaremaa when I saw USMC CAS pilot with 66 kills and 0 deaths. Our CAS sure tried their best (they had good K/D also) and our manpads tried.. I guess.

It's up to pilot-gunner combination and good recon.

[Hulabi]

I've yet to be shot down by AA even once and I've flown trans for over 6 hours after 1.3. So I really don't know what this whole AA is OP debate is about, to me it seems pretty ineffective if anything.

[crazygamelover]

Didn't the devs just reduce the speed of choppers to emulate their real life counterparts? I don't see what the problem is for having more fair and realistic helicopter physics.

[sweedensniiperr]

The only difference is that now actually doing your job is probably a death sentence.

Just like a real pilot then.

[mat552]

Just like a real pilot then.

Depends on the platform, aircrew, and threat environment. Lifespan of an A-10 pilot in a shooting war in the Fulda Gap was expected to be about a week I think with the entire stock of A-10 airframes being depleted in about fourteen days, but then that was in a full spectrum force on force theater level engagement. The big threat for Syrian MiG-21 pilots isn't SAMs, it's having their base overrun or catching a belly full of 23mm on the way out (not to say there aren't rebels with SAMs mind you). I wouldn't particularly want to be a Ukrainian Mi-24 driver right now. On the other hand, I doubt you'd be able to talk with Blackhawk or Kiowa pilots from the sandbox who've accrued heaps of hours if it really was a job that was inherently fatal.

The big difference is that these things are in real life where weapons ranges under 1km is point blank "phonebooth fight" size. Missiles have flight times measured in up to tens of seconds and actually have physical limits to their turn rates and countermeasures have a fighting chance to distract a weapon already in the air. Well, they did. Late model AIM-9X and late block R-73s are terrifyingly good at discerning the real thing from CMS, but since nobody in PR uses these wunderwaffen, instead sticking with stuff like the 9M37 or FIM-92C, platforms should retain some level of defense through the use of active countermeasures. There's just no time to do it, you have to rely on preemptively flaring and hoping for the best.

On a different but parallel track, realism is a very malleable thing around here. True realism would actually be pretty boring and there are plenty of current and past examples of the development team choosing balance over anything resembling realism.

For yet another suggestion, I wouldn't mind seeing the overall lethality of all airborne assets reduced if that bought room to reduce the power of their counters. More FFARs, less Hellfires.

[X-Alt]

Depends on the platform, aircrew, and threat environment. Lifespan of an A-10 pilot in a shooting war in the Fulda Gap was expected to be about a week I think with the entire stock of A-10 airframes being depleted in about fourteen days, but then that was in a full spectrum force on force theater level engagement. The big threat for Syrian MiG-21 pilots isn't SAMs, it's having their base overrun or catching a belly full of 23mm on the way out (not to say there aren't rebels with SAMs mind you). I wouldn't particularly want to be a Ukrainian Mi-24 driver right now. On the other hand, I doubt you'd be able to talk with Blackhawk or Kiowa pilots from the sandbox who've accrued heaps of hours if it really was a job that was inherently fatal.

The big difference is that these things are in real life where weapons ranges under 1km is point blank "phonebooth fight" size. Missiles have flight times measured in up to tens of seconds and actually have physical limits to their turn rates and countermeasures have a fighting chance to distract a weapon already in the air. Well, they did. Late model AIM-9X and late block R-73s are terrifyingly good at discerning the real thing from CMS, but since nobody in PR uses these wunderwaffen, instead sticking with stuff like the 9M37 or FIM-92C, platforms should retain some level of defense through the use of active countermeasures. There's just no time to do it, you have to rely on preemptively flaring and hoping for the best.

On a different but parallel track, realism is a very malleable thing around here. True realism would actually be pretty boring and there are plenty of current and past examples of the development team choosing balance over anything resembling realism.

For yet another suggestion, I wouldn't mind seeing the overall lethality of all airborne assets reduced if that bought room to reduce the power of their counters. More FFARs, less Hellfires.

On the last bit, reliance on unguided rockets would make a gunship pilot's job a nightmare, considering that current MANPADs would rip them to shreds once they try to flee. Dive damage doesn't particularly help either.

[mat552]

The point would not be to only replace guided weapons with unguided once. More limitations on dedicated surface to air weapons in general would be part of that package.