that and progressive blackouts. Like the vision coning down and the like, lose hearing slowly.... It could possibly be done right?The Jets have now been deemed Illogical and Not realistic...
-
Noetheinner
- Posts: 370
- Joined: 2005-10-30 18:51
-
Artnez
- Posts: 634
- Joined: 2005-08-15 01:44
I agree, some things need to be changed. Personally, one of my biggest grips with planes in the BF series of games is the external cam view. This was removed in PRMM and I was very excited about that point.GRB wrote:Good point.
But one, such as me, would argue that the current fighter jets dont offer a "realistic experience"...
But i dont want to argue about it. What evers clever.
Something should be changed though. Anything. They are simply NOT acceptable as they are now.
Other than changing a few in-flight options, the speed etc, I dont think there's much room for change when it comes to planes.
I also agree that planes should land when reloading. At the same time, planes should have the max loadout. I dont know squat about planes and the last time I played a sim was years ago. What I do remember is that the planes had amrams, sidewinders and some other things.
I also like the feature in DC where the planes had a radar. I dont know how realistic that is, but it sure added to the dogfights and made it less WW2-like.
"Having the piss taken out of you is a small price to pay when others do your research. Thank you gentlemen." - Azametric(IRL)
-
Resjah
- Posts: 812
- Joined: 2005-08-24 02:33
If my name doesnt give it away already,I fly alot and i dont want planes to be taken out of the game.
Planes add a certain feel to the battlefield that if taken away would greatly change it, everyone knows the sense of safety they get when they hear the roar of a friendly jet flying by overhead, and the spine tingling shivers you get when a enemy jet is heading striaght for you.
I completly agree that the BF series is not the best place for planes but i still want them in the game. This is what i would suggest to make them slightly more realistic.
1.Of course have them land to rearm, but just because they are on the runway doesnt mean they should be rearmed, i once remember a topic of how planes should have fuel consumption, this isnt needed as most of the planes carry fuel tanks(if you ever noticed) which would give them enough fuel for a while. So when planes land they should have to taxi to the hangar (which shouldnt be too near from the actual runway) where the Devs could just model a couple of Misc.Repair items and the plane would have to be near it for a relative amount of time. so in short the planes should have to Land/taxi/repair/taxi/take-off.
2.Fighter aircraft are just that, fighter aircraft, so of course they should have more of a variety of air-to-air munitions than the strike aircraft. Fighter planes should carry 3 types of missiles,(depending on the plane) 2 AMRAAMS for beyond visual range,2 Sparrows for medium range, and 2 Sidewinders for close range.
3.Missile damage and tracking need to be far improved,right now in BF2, if two good pilots face each other it turns into Korean war dogfighting since their missiles are useless and they have to resort to guns with their jets. Missiles need to have higher speeds and better manuerverability and need to be Much more deadlier, 1 missile will completly make an enemy aircraft combat ineffective.The aircrafts Vulcan cannons should also be massivly more powerful against other aircraft.Missiles also need to have a proximity fuse, as they do not need a direct hit to take out a plane.
3.Radar. Radar needs to be implemented into the aircraft, as now its "i hope i run into that enemy plane first" kinda deal. Radar needs to be implemented and it needs to be determined by what missile you have armed. a fighterplanes radar is like this \/ with the bottom tip being the aircrafts nose, the longer ther range you have the radar set the thinner the azimuth scale, and when u find an enemy aircraft the radar should be set to STT(single target tracking) which provides the missile a better chance of hitting its target, and as the distance decreases the azimuth should increase in width.
4.Defensive measures.Planes dont just have flares for defensive measeures, they have chaff, and radar jamming equipment, all of these should be implemented, in order to not make flying too complicated for your average person, the jamming should be pretty simple it should just prevent the enemy from locking on you or getting a decent lock on you for a short period of time, I realize this is unrealistic but if we made it completly realistic with home on jam and other things it would be to hard to implement this in game so i think this is a good medium. With the jamming it should have an extremly long rearm time as to give AA a chance. Chaff should disrupt enemy radar guided missiles while flares disrupt heat seaking missiles.
5.Flight Characteristics.
For some strange reason in BF2 the faster you go the sharper your turns which is wrong and needs to be reversed. and a bunch of other things regarding their flight characteristics, if possible i would like to see, flaps,trim tabs, and elevators come into play.
6.Planes speeds.
I have been reading peoples posts of how aircraft are too fast for this game and thats true so i think you should scale the speeds, i know that the F-15 and F/A-18's best turning speed is between 340 and 360mph for dogfighting and perhaps just scale that down to perhaps 240 and 260. Another suggestion i have come up with is for planes, you should COMPLETLY remove out of bounds areas and have flags more widely spaced apart for your maps.
7.Airfields.
On your maps for PR, Airbases should be a completly seperate spawn FAR away from the actual battlezone as their is never a enemy airfield just down the street from your own. something like this
() -thats the airfield spawn
This space you see here is the Battlefield
()-other airfield
so they should be far away.Really far away if possible.
8.Bombs
Bombs need to be more accurate for the strike aircraft, that or guided munitions such as the JDAMs. I believe if some of my suggestions above are implemented players wont have a problem with a Strike plane bombing them as they know 1. the plane has to travel a while back to base and land,taxi etc etc, then come back 2. fighters should be able to keep them off. and i know you will implement more effective AA so guided munitions should not be a problem if implemented
I am sure i will have more suggestions about aircraft in the time to come but these 8 suggestions is something i would really like to see in PR and i believe they are a good solution for aircraft.
Planes add a certain feel to the battlefield that if taken away would greatly change it, everyone knows the sense of safety they get when they hear the roar of a friendly jet flying by overhead, and the spine tingling shivers you get when a enemy jet is heading striaght for you.
I completly agree that the BF series is not the best place for planes but i still want them in the game. This is what i would suggest to make them slightly more realistic.
1.Of course have them land to rearm, but just because they are on the runway doesnt mean they should be rearmed, i once remember a topic of how planes should have fuel consumption, this isnt needed as most of the planes carry fuel tanks(if you ever noticed) which would give them enough fuel for a while. So when planes land they should have to taxi to the hangar (which shouldnt be too near from the actual runway) where the Devs could just model a couple of Misc.Repair items and the plane would have to be near it for a relative amount of time. so in short the planes should have to Land/taxi/repair/taxi/take-off.
2.Fighter aircraft are just that, fighter aircraft, so of course they should have more of a variety of air-to-air munitions than the strike aircraft. Fighter planes should carry 3 types of missiles,(depending on the plane) 2 AMRAAMS for beyond visual range,2 Sparrows for medium range, and 2 Sidewinders for close range.
3.Missile damage and tracking need to be far improved,right now in BF2, if two good pilots face each other it turns into Korean war dogfighting since their missiles are useless and they have to resort to guns with their jets. Missiles need to have higher speeds and better manuerverability and need to be Much more deadlier, 1 missile will completly make an enemy aircraft combat ineffective.The aircrafts Vulcan cannons should also be massivly more powerful against other aircraft.Missiles also need to have a proximity fuse, as they do not need a direct hit to take out a plane.
3.Radar. Radar needs to be implemented into the aircraft, as now its "i hope i run into that enemy plane first" kinda deal. Radar needs to be implemented and it needs to be determined by what missile you have armed. a fighterplanes radar is like this \/ with the bottom tip being the aircrafts nose, the longer ther range you have the radar set the thinner the azimuth scale, and when u find an enemy aircraft the radar should be set to STT(single target tracking) which provides the missile a better chance of hitting its target, and as the distance decreases the azimuth should increase in width.
4.Defensive measures.Planes dont just have flares for defensive measeures, they have chaff, and radar jamming equipment, all of these should be implemented, in order to not make flying too complicated for your average person, the jamming should be pretty simple it should just prevent the enemy from locking on you or getting a decent lock on you for a short period of time, I realize this is unrealistic but if we made it completly realistic with home on jam and other things it would be to hard to implement this in game so i think this is a good medium. With the jamming it should have an extremly long rearm time as to give AA a chance. Chaff should disrupt enemy radar guided missiles while flares disrupt heat seaking missiles.
5.Flight Characteristics.
For some strange reason in BF2 the faster you go the sharper your turns which is wrong and needs to be reversed. and a bunch of other things regarding their flight characteristics, if possible i would like to see, flaps,trim tabs, and elevators come into play.
6.Planes speeds.
I have been reading peoples posts of how aircraft are too fast for this game and thats true so i think you should scale the speeds, i know that the F-15 and F/A-18's best turning speed is between 340 and 360mph for dogfighting and perhaps just scale that down to perhaps 240 and 260. Another suggestion i have come up with is for planes, you should COMPLETLY remove out of bounds areas and have flags more widely spaced apart for your maps.
7.Airfields.
On your maps for PR, Airbases should be a completly seperate spawn FAR away from the actual battlezone as their is never a enemy airfield just down the street from your own. something like this
() -thats the airfield spawn
This space you see here is the Battlefield
()-other airfield
so they should be far away.Really far away if possible.
8.Bombs
Bombs need to be more accurate for the strike aircraft, that or guided munitions such as the JDAMs. I believe if some of my suggestions above are implemented players wont have a problem with a Strike plane bombing them as they know 1. the plane has to travel a while back to base and land,taxi etc etc, then come back 2. fighters should be able to keep them off. and i know you will implement more effective AA so guided munitions should not be a problem if implemented
I am sure i will have more suggestions about aircraft in the time to come but these 8 suggestions is something i would really like to see in PR and i believe they are a good solution for aircraft.
Last edited by Resjah on 2005-11-08 04:17, edited 1 time in total.
-
BlakeJr
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 3400
- Joined: 2004-09-12 12:04
Don't know how hard it would be but somthing similar already happens to you when you get hurt. Your vision darkens at the edges and you get a kind of tunnel effect.Noetheinner wrote:just thought about this. Blackouts during high G manuvers.
That could possibly be modified to fit your suggestion.
Possibly...
{ pretty sig removed construction on new one has not begun }
... yet ...
-
Noetheinner
- Posts: 370
- Joined: 2005-10-30 18:51
-
Beckwith
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 2005-03-25 17:00
i for one am not a fan of the mulitrole jets in BF2 id rather see one with all bombs and one with more missiles, rather than one or 2 of each
and i do feel they can be worked on alot, i would love to see radar back, and honestly it should be extremely simple just code it the same way as the current UAV is, it would be nice if you could make it so the radar only picked up other aircraft
(i hated sniping an airfield only to be discovered by a pilot flying over it) if not thats ok ill take it as close as i can get it
GRB all i can say is remember its a community mod not how GRB wants things and remember the goal is to make something enjoyable for more people than just yourself, thats the impression you gave in you posts
and i do feel they can be worked on alot, i would love to see radar back, and honestly it should be extremely simple just code it the same way as the current UAV is, it would be nice if you could make it so the radar only picked up other aircraft
(i hated sniping an airfield only to be discovered by a pilot flying over it) if not thats ok ill take it as close as i can get it
GRB all i can say is remember its a community mod not how GRB wants things and remember the goal is to make something enjoyable for more people than just yourself, thats the impression you gave in you posts
-
GRB
- Posts: 475
- Joined: 2005-11-01 20:05
This is comming together nicely!
Great suggestions guys!
I agree, increase the speeds, yet scale them a little due to the limitations. One thing ide like to mention about the speeds however. The afterburner should make the jets almost uncontrolable. When Fighter jets go into after burn, they dont make ANY turns. If they do, it could be catastrophic. I think this should be portrayed by possibly inscreasing the afterburn speed so high that it wouldnt be wise to use it very long. This will also help kill the circle dog-fights that have haunted the BF series for so long.
Landing to re-arm is almost a neccessity. I mean, that is just common sense.
Lets also not forget about the UBER cannons on these jets. I know i mentioned it in my original post. The cannons on ALL the fighters in BF2 can destroy armored vehicles. Thats just flat out BULLDOOKIE! Thats a must fix. Pilots shouldnt even think of trying to shoot at ground targets with thier cannon.
The air to air missiles aren't TOO bad but theres a couple things i want to throw into the open.
An increase in the missiles agility may solve many problems. Lets face it, its not supposed to be easy to get away from these missiles. They should be VERY hard to shake. I think a good realism balance here would be perfect. For instance, IRL, if a fighter is tracked by any type of anti-aircraft weaponry both ends get warnings. The pilot must react on the spot to that warning or chances are, he's toast. AA missles travel much faster than most fighters. So flares should be VERY effective. At the same time, if the pilot does not have any flares, they should have only one other chance. Hit the afterburners and try to out run and out turn the missle. Realistic? Oh hell yea.
However, lets talk about flares. I know quite a bit about the aircrafts themselves, the loadouts, the speeds, the handling, etc. etc...But, i dont know how many flares a fighter contains. But i know for damn sure its not unlimited. Thus, they shouldnt be in the game.
As far as blackouts and such goes, im all for it. If its possible, no doubt! They could also be applied to helicopters. Helo pilots dont have to worry about it as much but they do have to watch what they do because certain manuvers can be stressful on them as well as the helicopter. I dont think the blackout effect should be as strong for helos though. Maybe just a fade around the edge..A fighters blackout should be slightly darker and last a little longer.
Lastly, RADAR. Each and every one of these fighters have radar IRL. Where is it in the game? The UAV IS a radar, why cant the fighters have it? Dont understand that move made by EA Games...Very illogical...
Im glad this discussion lead us here man! A few people got the wrong impression. I dont like the jets in BF for various reasons, but that doesnt mean i dont understand the importance of them to gameplay. Which is why i suggested REPLACING them with other aircraft, not totally removing them. I know a few people thought i was suggesting just removing the jets period. No way! I like to fly them occasionally myself. I just dont get the "realistic experience" with them...Maybe with some tweaking that will be different though.
What ever the developers choose to do, i hope they take into account that the fighter jets have always been very unrealistic throughout the BF series. Thus, you guys shouldnt be affraid to push the realism bar slightly higher on the jets because, well, no one ever has!!
"GRB all i can say is remember its a community mod not how GRB wants things and remember the goal is to make something enjoyable for more people than just yourself, thats the impression you gave in you posts"
Yes i know man! I wasnt implying that that is what HAD to be done or nothing could be done at all. Man i simply suggested it and a couple people took a liking to it so i discussed it with them, then you butted in and said, NO, YOU CANT REMOVE THE FIGHTERS, OMG!! So i was like, ok, so what should we do? Personally, i think you shouldnt be so judgemental about peoples posts. If you look back at my original post i suggested 3 different things....Not that ANY of my suggestions are anything close to a "demand" as you tell it to be...
I am very biased on the subject. I dont like the jets in the BF series. But that doesnt matter, nor does it mean it'll get me what i want... I simply through that in so people knew why i might argue a drastic change. Also I gave the suggestion because i was curious to see how the community would react. Some like it, some dont. Its tough. Maybe we need a poll?
Great suggestions guys!
I agree, increase the speeds, yet scale them a little due to the limitations. One thing ide like to mention about the speeds however. The afterburner should make the jets almost uncontrolable. When Fighter jets go into after burn, they dont make ANY turns. If they do, it could be catastrophic. I think this should be portrayed by possibly inscreasing the afterburn speed so high that it wouldnt be wise to use it very long. This will also help kill the circle dog-fights that have haunted the BF series for so long.
Landing to re-arm is almost a neccessity. I mean, that is just common sense.
Lets also not forget about the UBER cannons on these jets. I know i mentioned it in my original post. The cannons on ALL the fighters in BF2 can destroy armored vehicles. Thats just flat out BULLDOOKIE! Thats a must fix. Pilots shouldnt even think of trying to shoot at ground targets with thier cannon.
The air to air missiles aren't TOO bad but theres a couple things i want to throw into the open.
An increase in the missiles agility may solve many problems. Lets face it, its not supposed to be easy to get away from these missiles. They should be VERY hard to shake. I think a good realism balance here would be perfect. For instance, IRL, if a fighter is tracked by any type of anti-aircraft weaponry both ends get warnings. The pilot must react on the spot to that warning or chances are, he's toast. AA missles travel much faster than most fighters. So flares should be VERY effective. At the same time, if the pilot does not have any flares, they should have only one other chance. Hit the afterburners and try to out run and out turn the missle. Realistic? Oh hell yea.
However, lets talk about flares. I know quite a bit about the aircrafts themselves, the loadouts, the speeds, the handling, etc. etc...But, i dont know how many flares a fighter contains. But i know for damn sure its not unlimited. Thus, they shouldnt be in the game.
As far as blackouts and such goes, im all for it. If its possible, no doubt! They could also be applied to helicopters. Helo pilots dont have to worry about it as much but they do have to watch what they do because certain manuvers can be stressful on them as well as the helicopter. I dont think the blackout effect should be as strong for helos though. Maybe just a fade around the edge..A fighters blackout should be slightly darker and last a little longer.
Lastly, RADAR. Each and every one of these fighters have radar IRL. Where is it in the game? The UAV IS a radar, why cant the fighters have it? Dont understand that move made by EA Games...Very illogical...
Im glad this discussion lead us here man! A few people got the wrong impression. I dont like the jets in BF for various reasons, but that doesnt mean i dont understand the importance of them to gameplay. Which is why i suggested REPLACING them with other aircraft, not totally removing them. I know a few people thought i was suggesting just removing the jets period. No way! I like to fly them occasionally myself. I just dont get the "realistic experience" with them...Maybe with some tweaking that will be different though.
What ever the developers choose to do, i hope they take into account that the fighter jets have always been very unrealistic throughout the BF series. Thus, you guys shouldnt be affraid to push the realism bar slightly higher on the jets because, well, no one ever has!!
"GRB all i can say is remember its a community mod not how GRB wants things and remember the goal is to make something enjoyable for more people than just yourself, thats the impression you gave in you posts"
Yes i know man! I wasnt implying that that is what HAD to be done or nothing could be done at all. Man i simply suggested it and a couple people took a liking to it so i discussed it with them, then you butted in and said, NO, YOU CANT REMOVE THE FIGHTERS, OMG!! So i was like, ok, so what should we do? Personally, i think you shouldnt be so judgemental about peoples posts. If you look back at my original post i suggested 3 different things....Not that ANY of my suggestions are anything close to a "demand" as you tell it to be...
I am very biased on the subject. I dont like the jets in the BF series. But that doesnt matter, nor does it mean it'll get me what i want... I simply through that in so people knew why i might argue a drastic change. Also I gave the suggestion because i was curious to see how the community would react. Some like it, some dont. Its tough. Maybe we need a poll?
Last edited by GRB on 2005-11-08 05:30, edited 1 time in total.
[COLOR=silver]------[FONT=Lucida Console]|[/COLOR][/FONT]U.S. Department Of Defense - Latest[FONT=Lucida Console][COLOR=black] News|------[/FONT][/COLOR]
-
Beckwith
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 2005-03-25 17:00
i dont like tanks... that being said i havent made a single post sugesting there removal, in fact ive made a post or two defending there place in the game, you can even ask DAWG who iv played with for almost 8 months now i rarely fly, i do enjoy it ever now an then and know alot of guys who really love it
im just a BF purist
im just a BF purist
-
Artnez
- Posts: 634
- Joined: 2005-08-15 01:44
Speaking of rhode island... how hard is it to find a place over there and what's the average cost of the average 1-2 bedroom apartment/condo?Beckwith wrote:i dont like tanks... that being said i havent made a single post sugesting there removal, in fact ive made a post or two defending there place in the game, you can even ask DAWG who iv played with for almost 8 months now i rarely fly, i do enjoy it ever now an then and know alot of guys who really love it
im just a BF purist
"Having the piss taken out of you is a small price to pay when others do your research. Thank you gentlemen." - Azametric(IRL)
-
Beckwith
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: 2005-03-25 17:00
beats the shit outa me
depends on where your looking i live in one of the biggest beach/reasort towns in New England so its fairly pricey but other parts of the state are pretty cheap i would assume
just to give you an idea
http://www.projo.com/rentals/
the classifieds from the local paper
thread officially hijacked
depends on where your looking i live in one of the biggest beach/reasort towns in New England so its fairly pricey but other parts of the state are pretty cheap i would assume
just to give you an idea
http://www.projo.com/rentals/
the classifieds from the local paper
thread officially hijacked
Last edited by Beckwith on 2005-11-08 06:07, edited 1 time in total.
-
GRB
- Posts: 475
- Joined: 2005-11-01 20:05
I never said you did???Beckwith wrote:i dont like tanks... that being said i havent made a single post sugesting there removal, in fact ive made a post or two defending there place in the game, you can even ask DAWG who iv played with for almost 8 months now i rarely fly, i do enjoy it ever now an then and know alot of guys who really love it
im just a BF purist
Dude im confused!
[COLOR=silver]------[FONT=Lucida Console]|[/COLOR][/FONT]U.S. Department Of Defense - Latest[FONT=Lucida Console][COLOR=black] News|------[/FONT][/COLOR]
-
Figisaacnewton
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: 2004-11-23 05:27
My thoughts on this: As they are currently in normal BF2, jets are still overpowered, with the only thing that can reliabley take out a jet being a better jet pilot, which pretty much throws control of the air to the team who happens to have the best pilot.
If you step back and look at it, the implementation of jets in BF2 in nearly every circumstance is tottaly unrealistic. They go too slow, the physics model is all messed up, no radar, can't fly high, can't see shit... etc.
BF2 is not built for JETS. a 10s, slower things, lower flying anti tank things, yes, but jets... no.
I say this: Don't screw with the existing maps in terms of aircraft (despite the insanity of kubra damn that is a fully functioning airbase located in an area that will be flooded by a river in 2 years, not to mention the aircraft take off INTO A DAM... and all the other levels where you can look from one airfeild and see the enemy's...) as we still have those that enjoy the unrealistic jet combat that is currently represented.
Make new maps. 1 type of map has jets, one doesnt. the type that doesnt is a ground battle, or an amphib assault, or whatever.
the only one with jets would be something like dc no fly zone, but simplified so that the planes spawn in the air to simulate they are flying into the area, not taking off from inside the 2 sq mile zone of the level, and they just respawn there every 60 seconds or somethign after one fighter is shot down, and the map is basically built so the map is very devoid of detail (to conserver amount of cpu work) but, have realistically (or maybe half speed) jets, radar, etc, and have a real dog fight. no stupid 'jets' following each other at the speeds of a mustang in ww2 or something...
If you step back and look at it, the implementation of jets in BF2 in nearly every circumstance is tottaly unrealistic. They go too slow, the physics model is all messed up, no radar, can't fly high, can't see shit... etc.
BF2 is not built for JETS. a 10s, slower things, lower flying anti tank things, yes, but jets... no.
I say this: Don't screw with the existing maps in terms of aircraft (despite the insanity of kubra damn that is a fully functioning airbase located in an area that will be flooded by a river in 2 years, not to mention the aircraft take off INTO A DAM... and all the other levels where you can look from one airfeild and see the enemy's...) as we still have those that enjoy the unrealistic jet combat that is currently represented.
Make new maps. 1 type of map has jets, one doesnt. the type that doesnt is a ground battle, or an amphib assault, or whatever.
the only one with jets would be something like dc no fly zone, but simplified so that the planes spawn in the air to simulate they are flying into the area, not taking off from inside the 2 sq mile zone of the level, and they just respawn there every 60 seconds or somethign after one fighter is shot down, and the map is basically built so the map is very devoid of detail (to conserver amount of cpu work) but, have realistically (or maybe half speed) jets, radar, etc, and have a real dog fight. no stupid 'jets' following each other at the speeds of a mustang in ww2 or something...
-
GRB
- Posts: 475
- Joined: 2005-11-01 20:05
Figisaacnewton wrote:My thoughts on this: As they are currently in normal BF2, jets are still overpowered, with the only thing that can reliabley take out a jet being a better jet pilot, which pretty much throws control of the air to the team who happens to have the best pilot.
If you step back and look at it, the implementation of jets in BF2 in nearly every circumstance is tottaly unrealistic. They go too slow, the physics model is all messed up, no radar, can't fly high, can't see shit... etc.
BF2 is not built for JETS. a 10s, slower things, lower flying anti tank things, yes, but jets... no.
I say this: Don't screw with the existing maps in terms of aircraft (despite the insanity of kubra damn that is a fully functioning airbase located in an area that will be flooded by a river in 2 years, not to mention the aircraft take off INTO A DAM... and all the other levels where you can look from one airfeild and see the enemy's...) as we still have those that enjoy the unrealistic jet combat that is currently represented.
Make new maps. 1 type of map has jets, one doesnt. the type that doesnt is a ground battle, or an amphib assault, or whatever.
the only one with jets would be something like dc no fly zone, but simplified so that the planes spawn in the air to simulate they are flying into the area, not taking off from inside the 2 sq mile zone of the level, and they just respawn there every 60 seconds or somethign after one fighter is shot down, and the map is basically built so the map is very devoid of detail (to conserver amount of cpu work) but, have realistically (or maybe half speed) jets, radar, etc, and have a real dog fight. no stupid 'jets' following each other at the speeds of a mustang in ww2 or something...
Thats also a good suggestion. Im glad the majority of you agree that the jets are just totally illogical and ill-placed in BF2...
But the solution is probably not best done by removing or replacing...Maybe simply segregation via maps, as Fig mentioned will work?
-"not to mention the aircraft take off INTO A DAM"
Gotta love EA Games uncanning logic..The funniest part of that is, i think that was the map they showed in most of thier interviews and movies. So its basically thier "featured" map...Kind of ironic. Somtimes i just dont understand those knuckle heads..
Last edited by GRB on 2005-11-08 08:57, edited 1 time in total.
[COLOR=silver]------[FONT=Lucida Console]|[/COLOR][/FONT]U.S. Department Of Defense - Latest[FONT=Lucida Console][COLOR=black] News|------[/FONT][/COLOR]
-
mrfire8808
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 2005-11-07 21:19
Most of you guys are just trying to turn this into a flight simulator.. When really, its suppose to be a war simulator.
BF2 will always be there for you. But some of us would like a truly accurate war experience.
Fighter jets are useless, they dont help capture objectives at all, even if they are shooting down enemy bombers or other fighters. They dont even need to do that, we have AA missiles that if you know how to use them, work fine.
Bombers could be okay, but I never ever have felt "safe" when I hear one of my own jets fly over, because on a map with only bombers, somehow they still manage to dogfight instead of help with objectives. And having them land and reload will be even worse, its bascially just taking a player (or two) out of the game.
Infantry can take out other infantry 10 times faster than a bomber could, plus infantry wont have to go back to base to reload (this is assuming PR adds this land to reload stuff). Tanks? Well, sure, bomber might be able to do it faster.. But they arent getting shot, so why would they care? the next plane is taking off! Time to dogfight, yes!
Without planes, the mod would force teams to work more as one, instead of having a jet randomly explode the enemy tank and then dissapear for 5 minutes to dogfight.
Dice has looked at all the possibilities on jets, they are as good as they're going to get without taking away from gameplay.
So I say this; stop being so selfish. There will be PLENTY of mods that incorporate jets, and many that modify them to enhance the flying experience. Not to mention the game itself, BF2.
And befor someone calls me selfish for wanting to remove jets, take this into consideration.. On a full 32 player server, with 2 bombers, there will be 2-4 people flying them, and 28-30 people fighting on the ground.
Take what I said into thought. Jets may not be removed at all, or maybe only on some maps. But the people who want jets removed outnumber the people who want them 50 to 1, weither we complain about it or not.
BF2 will always be there for you. But some of us would like a truly accurate war experience.
Fighter jets are useless, they dont help capture objectives at all, even if they are shooting down enemy bombers or other fighters. They dont even need to do that, we have AA missiles that if you know how to use them, work fine.
Bombers could be okay, but I never ever have felt "safe" when I hear one of my own jets fly over, because on a map with only bombers, somehow they still manage to dogfight instead of help with objectives. And having them land and reload will be even worse, its bascially just taking a player (or two) out of the game.
Infantry can take out other infantry 10 times faster than a bomber could, plus infantry wont have to go back to base to reload (this is assuming PR adds this land to reload stuff). Tanks? Well, sure, bomber might be able to do it faster.. But they arent getting shot, so why would they care? the next plane is taking off! Time to dogfight, yes!
Without planes, the mod would force teams to work more as one, instead of having a jet randomly explode the enemy tank and then dissapear for 5 minutes to dogfight.
Dice has looked at all the possibilities on jets, they are as good as they're going to get without taking away from gameplay.
So I say this; stop being so selfish. There will be PLENTY of mods that incorporate jets, and many that modify them to enhance the flying experience. Not to mention the game itself, BF2.
And befor someone calls me selfish for wanting to remove jets, take this into consideration.. On a full 32 player server, with 2 bombers, there will be 2-4 people flying them, and 28-30 people fighting on the ground.
Take what I said into thought. Jets may not be removed at all, or maybe only on some maps. But the people who want jets removed outnumber the people who want them 50 to 1, weither we complain about it or not.
-
Tezzer05
- Posts: 44
- Joined: 2005-10-29 19:16
i think they should be removed and just add alot more helicopters or something. just make it more realistic. i for one hate the jets so i reckon they should be removed.
also jets are SERIOUSLY mis used. they are used for anti infantry etc instead of bombing other ground targets or targeting air vehiucles. often i find myself being bobmed as soon as i spawn by a jet dropping six of its bombs on my head. = /
PS heli's can also somehow take out tanks with their vulcans.
also jets are SERIOUSLY mis used. they are used for anti infantry etc instead of bombing other ground targets or targeting air vehiucles. often i find myself being bobmed as soon as i spawn by a jet dropping six of its bombs on my head. = /
PS heli's can also somehow take out tanks with their vulcans.
Last edited by Tezzer05 on 2005-11-08 21:04, edited 1 time in total.
-
Tezzer05
- Posts: 44
- Joined: 2005-10-29 19:16
where did you get that jet? the only one i got to fly was that green one thats impossible to fly and that does bombing runs for the americans in C&C Gens. what OFP is that?Mad Max wrote:Here be that vid from OFP. I decided to fly around most of the island to show people just how big they really are by the by. Also notice where i almost have an "OH Fphew..." moment haha. Oh and the music is Oasis - Fornicating in the Bushes (note, has naughty words in it!). The terrain streaming isn't the most advanced around, but then I don't think they expected people to reach such speeds when they were coding it originally. It's fixed in VBS1 and the XBOX version mind, and Armed Assault.
Anyhow... I think jets should be removed completetly, but just make some maps where they're more useful and able to be used, ie large maps with not a lot of things in it, such as a desert with a few small bunkers for the infantry to fight over and have quite a bit of armour for the jets to take care of.
Here's the link to that vid:
http://www.silent-thunder.co.uk/Flying%20Around.rar.
I'm using a Tornado GR4 by the way.
-
GRB
- Posts: 475
- Joined: 2005-11-01 20:05
Hmm...I dont know man.
I agree. I dislike the jets in BF2 period. I dont think they should have ever been attempted to be implemented..
However, thier complete removal may have a negative affect on the Project Reality mod itsself.
The point in any of the vehicles is to capture the widest range of players possible. Without jets in PR, the people who like them probably wont play. Thus, downloads on the PR mod goes down.
I suggested the replacement of the fighters with lower altitude bombers and ground attack planes thinking it would be a safe solution in regaurds to those that do like to fly airplanes. But i dont know.
Pretty much anything you do MIGHT have a negative affect on PR. Wether it be, replacing the fighters with ground attack planes, removing them completely, segregating maps for planes only, or just tweaking the ones already in the game to be more realistic...Regaurdless all possible options might have a negative affect. This is why i hate the jets in the BF series...They never fit right because of this obligation...
So regaurdless any option is risky. But each is worth a try..Maybe the removal of them should be tested? Beckwith is a tester, he's against this, if we can convince him, then we can convince the world!
I agree. I dislike the jets in BF2 period. I dont think they should have ever been attempted to be implemented..
However, thier complete removal may have a negative affect on the Project Reality mod itsself.
The point in any of the vehicles is to capture the widest range of players possible. Without jets in PR, the people who like them probably wont play. Thus, downloads on the PR mod goes down.
I suggested the replacement of the fighters with lower altitude bombers and ground attack planes thinking it would be a safe solution in regaurds to those that do like to fly airplanes. But i dont know.
Pretty much anything you do MIGHT have a negative affect on PR. Wether it be, replacing the fighters with ground attack planes, removing them completely, segregating maps for planes only, or just tweaking the ones already in the game to be more realistic...Regaurdless all possible options might have a negative affect. This is why i hate the jets in the BF series...They never fit right because of this obligation...
So regaurdless any option is risky. But each is worth a try..Maybe the removal of them should be tested? Beckwith is a tester, he's against this, if we can convince him, then we can convince the world!
[COLOR=silver]------[FONT=Lucida Console]|[/COLOR][/FONT]U.S. Department Of Defense - Latest[FONT=Lucida Console][COLOR=black] News|------[/FONT][/COLOR]
-
mrfire8808
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 2005-11-07 21:19
Well.. like I said, I guarntee more people want jets REMOVED then people want them to stay..
How many mods do you know that currently have jets removed? None, it would be a one of a kind move, unique, and probably very popular.
<Insert "Jets havent been removed from any mod because they are t3h t0t4l h4x 1337 pwnz0rz!" here>
How many mods do you know that currently have jets removed? None, it would be a one of a kind move, unique, and probably very popular.
<Insert "Jets havent been removed from any mod because they are t3h t0t4l h4x 1337 pwnz0rz!" here>
-
GRB
- Posts: 475
- Joined: 2005-11-01 20:05
Well that was my point from the beginning. The problem is, the PR developers are trying to keep the people that want the jets and the people that dont ADDED together as opposed to just tossing that side of the community out...mrfire8808 wrote:Well.. like I said, I guarntee more people want jets REMOVED then people want them to stay..
How many mods do you know that currently have jets removed? None, it would be a one of a kind move, unique, and probably very popular.
Thus, i suggested the replacement of the fighters with something that would fit a little better.
But i agree. I think they should definatly be removed. It would make more room for more helicopters or something. It very well might be possible that it could have a positive affect on PR too. Who knows, maybe it'll attract more people...It being the ONLY mod that has removed jets might get some more attention.
But if the jets are removed, something else has to come in to basically replace that aspect of gameplay...
I dont know. Do any of the developers have any thoughts on this?
Last edited by GRB on 2005-11-08 21:21, edited 1 time in total.
[COLOR=silver]------[FONT=Lucida Console]|[/COLOR][/FONT]U.S. Department Of Defense - Latest[FONT=Lucida Console][COLOR=black] News|------[/FONT][/COLOR]