AA vehicles and emplacements not really helpful

[Cossack]

How about implement ability to start locking beyond view distance, to at least give chance, because fixed wing is flying at realistic speeds, but map view range really do not reflect real view/lock range.

Because fixed wing is the real issue here, not the choppers.

[Brozef]

Or you guys can implement Desert Combat AA's and have the missiles only fly straight instead of lock on

[dalianplant[x64]]

How about implement ability to start locking beyond view distance, to at least give chance, because fixed wing is flying at realistic speeds, but map view range really do not reflect real view/lock range.

Because fixed wing is the real issue here, not the choppers.

Locking aircraft has always been working beyond view distance the difference is from the ground you can see further than from the air.Meaning you see the jet/heli's silouette at the edge of the view distance, but they dont see you.Thats already an advantage for always looking around AA's and you want to make it even more?Not to mention there is sometimes the thing happening when you get locked at like 1500 altitute above the AA when he is looking at your direction (with the AA operator not even knowing hes locking anything).If maybe some guy with knowledge explain how that thing happens idk.

[Mats391]

;2127320']Locking aircraft has always been working beyond view distance the difference is from the ground you can see further than from the air.Meaning you see the jet/heli's silouette at the edge of the view distance, but they dont see you.Thats already an advantage for always looking around AA's and you want to make it even more?Not to mention there is sometimes the thing happening when you get locked at like 1500 altitute above the AA when he is looking at your direction (with the AA operator not even knowing hes locking anything).If maybe some guy with knowledge explain how that thing happens idk.

In recent patches the lock distance got locked to the viewdistance of the map. The viewdistance might be higher than what you can actually see as you can only see things up to the fog distance.
E.g. Shijia Valley
Viewdistance: 650m
Fog distance: 630m
So AA here can lock in the 20m difference where you cannot physically see the aircraft. You will only be able to see the lockbox. We cannot actually have locking past viewdistance where the player will see what he locks at. This was in the past where you were looking towards an area waiting for aircraft to appear and the aircraft got lock warning before either knew of the others presence. This caused lots of false baserape claims.
As for AA being able to see silhouette before you can see ground, that is hardly an advantage as usually the AA position is well known you get already engaged BVR.

[viirusiiseli]

Viewdistance: 650m
Fog distance: 630m
So AA here can lock in the 20m difference where you cannot physically see the aircraft

Don't tell me you're serious? You trust whatever files you pulled those distances from far too much. In reality the difference is closer to 100-250m on a heavily fogged medium VD map like Shijia.

Looking up to the sky vs looking down from there causes massive view differences, not just 20m. Best example is Charlie's Point, where you can shoot a silhouetted boat with a ZPU-4 a grid or two before they see you.

[Mats391]

Don't tell me you're serious? You trust whatever files you pulled those distances from far too much. In reality the difference is closer to 100-250m on a heavily fogged medium VD map like Shijia.

Looking up to the sky vs looking down from there causes massive view differences, not just 20m. Best example is Charlie's Point, where you can shoot a silhouetted boat with a ZPU-4 a grid or two before they see you.

Not really sure what your point is as i no where said that you can see perfectly from 630m on wards. Solely gave example of why you might get locked past your actual view distance which is limited by fog. Your post actually just underlines that. As you say the fog becomes very hard to see through when it reaches around 75% at which you are only able to spot silhouettes.

[viirusiiseli]

Not really sure what your point is as i no where said that you can see perfectly from 630m on wards. Solely gave example of why you might get locked past your actual view distance which is limited by fog. Your post actually just underlines that. As you say the fog becomes very hard to see through when it reaches around 75% at which you are only able to spot silhouettes.

I just said that the difference is a lot larger than the 20m you mentioned. The actual view distance is <500m on shijia. The range you mentioned can only be achieved by looking at the sky, seeing silhouettes. AA looking into the sky has a far longer effective range than people on the ground or CAS, because they do not benefit from the fog as AA does.

[Mats391]

I just said that the difference is a lot larger than the 20m you mentioned. The actual view distance is <500m on shijia. The range you mentioned can only be achieved by looking at the sky, seeing silhouettes. AA looking into the sky has a far longer effective range than people on the ground or CAS, because they do not benefit from the fog as AA does.

Yea, but this is only on very foggy maps like Shijia or Burning Sands in last release. TBH i think those maps should not have CAS and AAVs on them. They would work better with no CAS at all or only one sided CAS.

[viirusiiseli]

They would work better with no CAS at all or only one sided CAS.

Just like maps that had CAS removed from them in 1.35 would work better with a CAS layer in the selection.

[Piipu]

Is the missile guidance governed by a script that can be accessed? And if yes, how to find it? I'd be interested to see the actual code, that'd be more helpful in figuring out how they work.

[rPoXoTauJIo]

None.
The problem with bf2 guided projectiles is that when they're locked, they ignore physics laws. So far only thing you can control is max turning rates, and it's speed(either via .acceleration&maxSpeed, or by adding engines and forceObjects)
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f388-pr-bf2-community-modding/141382-where-object-components-defined.html#post2127583

[Mats391]

Then there is also this:

What you lock on pretty much does not matter Best missile system 2005

[Danesh_italiano]

Mats391;2127668']Then there is also this:

What you lock on pretty much does not matter Best missile system 2005

And what about redirect system ? I not played much battlefield 2,but, i never saw the AA redirect in battlefield 2. 50% of my deaths is by AA redirected. And half of my deaths is for friendlys AAs.

[Jacksonez__]

Are flares different in PR than they are in BF2 vanilla? iirc the missiles were instantly guided for flares if a jet popped flares when e.g ground AA fired its SAM towards the jet.

Flares and AA system is a damn mystery in PR. I don't have BF2 installed so I could try but maybe if someone could? I just can't remember how the locking system and firing system was. Was it like you were not able to fire your AA (the ground launcher) if a jet popped flares, like the lock just disappeared?

Can you make it work like that in PR too? Instead of getting lock on flares, you don't get lock. The lock would just disappear? And if you shoot your AA anyways, the missiles would travel straight. I know it doesn't work like that in real life but I reckon it would fix some AA re-direct issues? Just remove the whole flare lock on.

[Mats391]

These are the differences between BF2 and PR missiles i see:
- BF2 has way higher directionBonus
- BF2 has lower turn rates
- BF2 has way lower maxDistLock

The last is most likely to be reason for no re-directs. It only looks for targets within 375m.

[blayas]

There is a lot more likely to re-engagement area, as it is part of the natural trajectory of the missile.

As can be seen, the flight following in parallel with flares put the jet directly on the re-engagement zone, although this happens sometimes with things that are kilometers of flares, flying this way increases susceptibility to re-engagement.

[ferrett]

AA missiles are very random indeed now in PR. It doesn't necessarily anymore matter how many AAs you launch at enemy aircraft simultaneously, it's only about luck. This leads to a situation where it doesn't really matter whether you fire a MANPAD, or spam 4-8 missiles with AAV. This makes AA missile physics more random, and in my opinion, inferior setup compared to older versions pre-1.0.

In some of the older PR versions, missiles had very high tendency to blow up on flares, which was in my opinion a lot better system. This added logic to the way the missiles worked and it required some skill to evade missiles. Basically you had to pop flares and get as far away from the flares as possible to get least amount of fragmentation from it, which made pilot reflexes critical. Now it doesn't matter what you do after popping the flares, it's all about luck as the missiles really never explode on flares, they either score a direct hit, or miss completely.

Back in the day, the more missiles you fired, the higher the chance was to kill the enemy aircraft. This was because the missiles blew up on flares very often, so only one missile rarely killed the enemy aircraft as it hit the flares. However, hitting two missiles on the flares gave twice the splash, making it more likely to kill enemy aircraft with AA emplacement. Let alone AAV, which has 4-8 missiles, the chance of killing enemy air asset was alot higher and directly proportionate to the amount of missiles you carry. This made AAVs very serious threat to low-flying jets, and especially to attack helicopters.

Now especially AAVs aren't the threat they used to be, which sucks in my opinion. You might now shoot 4 missiles at enemy aircraft and miss all because he is flaring, and then getting killed by that same attack heli. IRL AAVs would be very big threat to attack helicopters and basically attack helos would not be able to operate in the same area where there are AAVs, even if they would be armed with only short range heat-seeking missiles like Avenger and Tunguska are.

Now the best way to bring down enemy aircraft is lucky shot with MANPAD, which is the easiest way to obtain AA. No-one spends the time to build AA emplacement because the additional missile doesn't really matter anymore due to very random AA characteristics. Also AAV lack the fear factor they once had. I would say the old system was a lot better, it gave some sort of logic and predictability in to the fight.

Also air-to-air missile physics in dog fight are fucked up aswell. If you flare and make a fast turn right after getting locked, which IRL would be the best choice, seems to get you killed very likely in PR. For some reason flying directly forward or doing very slight maneuvers and flaring, seems to work best. IRL this tactic would be the best to get yourself killed by the missile as both your aircraft, and the countermeasures you are throwing, are very close to eachother making it very likely that the missile will hit either one of you and explode.

[chrisweb89]

0.98 flares and AA were the best in my opinion. The helicopters were faster and more manouverable, and they AA was more likely to proximity explode into flares.

[viirusiiseli]

0.98 flares and AA were the best in my opinion. The helicopters were faster and more manouverable, and they AA was more likely to proximity explode into flares.

+1

New helis are incredibly weak due to the speed alone, can't run away from AAs after doing a run especially with reduced flares. Only chance is trying to hover really high and make it count before getting AA'd.

Instead of 1.39 I'd rather go back to this tbh: