Attack helos -- pilot = pilot, gunner = gunner

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-12-01 20:04

'[R-PUB wrote:GRB']Wow, first guess. You're right Beckwith.

Still a B name I guess.

Anyway i dont know exactly what it stands for but i think the most important thing to take away from the video is how the much sand or dirt is kicked up (that kind of thing really makes a difference in my opinion) by he gun and missiles.

Also, (if possible) how the missiles act in flight. It seemed to me like the hellfires would come down at an angle towards the target while the TOWs would head straight for it, but rolling as well on their way towards the target.

And, of course, the way the targetting screens look as mad max said.

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2005-12-01 21:45

So sorry dude! I do that all the time. I get you and Becks names mixed up too much...

Anyways, I'll leave that open for anyone who knows the answer.

I agree, I think we need more dust effects opposed to the flamey stuff.

You're absolutely right about the missile behavior.

HFs are generally used at much greater distances than the TOWs. Usually they are fired at pretty high altitudes as well. That distance allows the missile to basically arch up towards the sky, come back down for a more zeroed-in kill. This also allows the HFs to take out moving vehicles. It will gain altitude, make flight corrections based on the targets speed and direction. From there, it'll land a much more garenteed kill. This also allows the HF missiles to be fired at a very low altitude. The higher the altitude of the helicopter the less the missile has to go up to to any of this. Now IF the HF is used at a closer range, it wont do this. It will simply go in a straighter path. But because of the missiles speed, the hit gaurentee is drastically reduced at closer ranges. Thus, the need for TOWs.

But I really think that we should make the helicopters more realistic in this fashion. A forced target screen for the gunner with sights and weapon indications, Fire and Forget Hellfires and/or TOWs.

The missiles that are on the helicopters now aren't TOWs or HFs, they are EA Games Missiles. Realistically EAs missiles are seriously flawed. They are visually Hellfires, they fire like TOWs, but are controlled and guided like niether...

I highly doubt the addition of fire and forgets would make helos overpowered IF they are implemented properly. That means, like I said before, give them realistic limitations.

Limit the abilities of the actual Fire and Forget HF missiles realistically. To do so, we must make the missiles fast with a very wide turning radius. This will ensure that the missiles will have to be used realistically. (From a distance.)

TOWs should be controlled EXACTLY like the ground mounted TOWs. They wont be able to be controlled if the IR link between the missle and the camera is interrupted by an object. This will ensure that TOWs will have to be fired at VISUALLY accquired targets and not targets behind walls.

Ammo limitations will play a key role here. Once the helicopter is out of missiles, it will have to go back and re-arm.

Forcing aircraft to land to re-arm may be a function to limit the instantaneous reloading action. Or just simply increase the reload time.

All things aside, basically once you add in more realistic features to the helicopters, they'll have to be balanced realistically.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-12-01 22:37

Not a problem at all

.

Its good to see you know your stuff and i agree that if PR can implement everything as close to real life as possible balance will occur naturally or at least without much help. One thing that would help is not only how the weapons are used but how vehicles are placed on maps. I think everyone can agree on having some maps where there are only trnasport vehicles or none at all, but when vehicles capable of knocking each other around are used, use lots of 'em.

Say there's a map thats pretty wide open, each team should start with a good amount of tanks (if meant to be an armour map). One team (Team 1) could have fewer tanks than the other, but that team gets 2-3 attack choppers. on the other hand, the team with more tanks (team 2) gets say 1 mobile AA for every 3 tanks (again assuming there are A LOT of tanks). The way i see it, teamwork would be essential to winning. If any of Team 2's tanks go lonewolf, theyre toast. On the other hand, if the Team 1's choppers dont work together, Team 2's AA will chew them up. Making the weapons systems for the vehicles involved would make it that much more balanced in my opinion. But that's just me.

E7-JS · Post by **E7-JS** » 2005-12-01 23:34

Little bit off topic but i was shown theses earlier

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2005-12-02 00:06

Cool videos...

Any point behind them?

E7-JS · Post by **E7-JS** » 2005-12-02 00:33

Not really son just a glimpse into reality and since your all talking bout them.

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2005-12-02 01:27

Interesting thing about that helicopter, it seems to have a very aggressive pilot noticeable by the way they are using the FFARs.. They must be trying to take out infantry. It's in there pretty damn close doing some nasty manuvers.

*Notice how loud the missles and chaingun are! Thats from the ground!!*

I like how you can hear the chaingun fire first, then all the bullets hit the ground. Almost sounds like someone firing a machine gun after the helo fires its chain gun, but its not, those are the shells hittin the ground...

Its hard to make out what kind of helo that is, but it looks to me like an MI-24 Hind...Which is, odd at a time like this...

Can you verify anything about the helo, where it is, anything?

E7-JS · Post by **E7-JS** » 2005-12-02 02:16

I was told Apache's but one looks like a blackhawk varient

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-12-02 02:20

It looks to be a few different choppers making runs on a target, one looks like a smaller attack chopper and the other looks larger. So I'd say you're probably right E7. But thats just what it looks like to me.

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2005-12-02 02:54

Cool...I would of never guessed Apache. Very aggressive tactics they are using there.

Cool video though. Just goes to show how things should really sound!

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2005-12-02 03:12

'[R-PUB wrote:GRB']Its hard to make out what kind of helo that is, but it looks to me like an MI-24 Hind...Which is, odd at a time like this...

Can you verify anything about the helo, where it is, anything?

In the first video it's an MH-60L Direct Action Penetrator, aka AH-60L.

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2005-12-02 03:15

That thing looks like a big meanie!