Aircraft

Redneckman · Post by **Redneckman** » 2006-04-07 13:49

Ok, this has probally been discussed like a million times before, but I still want to tell you what I think about the aircraft in BF2.

1. Flying at very high altitudes makes ur plane un-controllable, and you get caught in like a "jetstream" and get carried way off the map, trying to fight your RETARDED aircraft that dosent want to fly, it wants to roll over like a dog and go sidewards and ahhh..... Sometimes i load it with C4 and when it acts like this, BAM!

2. The high altitude thing should be fixed, as pilots do and can fly at 50,000 feet IRL mission, and its so cheap that when you climb to avoid AA fire or a SAM (Surface to Air Missle), you get carried way the fuc* off the map!

3. The alititude and airspeed readouts are rediculous. It should be measured in actual feed, not like Fathoms or whatever it is, and air speed, in knots! (At least for American fighters.

4. Make it so you have to land to get ammo, and make it so pilots have to catch arrester cables on the carrier, and make it more REAL! (Not you PRMM, just like what BF2 needs to do) You cant take off without the help of a cat-lauch, and maybe it should be modeled too.

5. Switching from hover mode to flight mode in the JSF isnt like flipping a switch and magically going at 1000knts again, you need altitude and a gradual transition!

6. Fuel, the Afterburners on aircraft can burn for as long as you want, you just burn a shit load more fuel, and having afterbuner overheat is gay, how about running out of gas, you dont use like any, but when you use afterburner, it drains faster. And this could be made realistic, so you can fly for like 45 minutes on a full tank, but on afterburner, 20 minutes!

7. TBC, classes starting....

Doc · Post by **Doc** » 2006-04-07 22:12

The suggestions thread is that way.

Most of this has been discussed before. However, a fueling
system is a good idea.

mavit · Post by **mavit** » 2006-04-10 14:58

you could have a refueling plane like IRL with the long tube that flys around and you gotta but ya nose onit could be quite fun

Redneckman · Post by **Redneckman** » 2006-04-10 15:19

Thats a great idea

Resjah · Post by **Resjah** » 2006-04-10 15:22

Well your right when most of these suggestions have been talked about over many times. PR is looking into many of your suggestions as well as many others about aircraft so i think you can rest assured.

But, with the aircraft refueling bit, its not necessary. Most battles last about thirty minutes and aircraft in RL have more than enough fuel to last 30 minutes and most aircraft even carry fuel tanks if you havent noticed such as the F-18 and F-15 in-game.

If you want people to be able to use afterburners as long as their heart desires, then we would need realistic flight physics, a plane will not be handling that well at those speeds. BF2s flight physics are backwards, the faster you go the sharper turns you make which is entirely not true.

So the afterburners are limited with good reasons, to prevent people from zipping all over the place.

mavit · Post by **mavit** » 2006-04-10 21:17

true.....no doubt someone has said this but id realy like to see a bomber like a b52 like a huge *** mother bomber carrying 300 bombs.......slow and steady and a fart to handle but if you manage to make it to you target you can wipe it out...naturaly only used in the larger maps and battles since 16 player with a b52 wouldnt be too good..

Post by **NikovK** » 2006-04-10 21:38

There is a vertical ceiling to these maps of a few hundred meters, and not only do most of these high-performance aircraft fly WAY above that ceiling, but also the B52 would never fly this low to begin with. If we want carpet bombing, it should be called in by the commander. Personally I'd rather stick to ground attack aircraft (A-10 and whatnot) and helicopters. But fighter jocks and their God complexes...

Savage · Post by **Savage** » 2006-04-10 22:22

There is no ceiling if you fly straight up in a jet. I have flown over 50,000 feet in the air, my friend even flew over 100,000 in the air. It is controlable at those heights but only controllable at the angles of 80-100 degrees upwards.

Photobucket resized my pic but as you can see the altimeter is out of the box. The altitude reads exactly 50,469.

trogdor1289 · Post by **trogdor1289** » 2006-04-10 23:27

Yes but how would you bomb at this height it would be "bombs away" 3 seonds later "you have killed your whole team, you jackass" lol.

TII · Post by **TII** » 2006-04-11 16:18

Sustained periods of afterburner use can cause FTIT to rise above the operational limit, so in a way limited AB use is correct though it should take much much longer than it does now.

I'm still of the opinion that jets should be taken out, the helicopters are more than adequate for air support now, but they are lucky to make it to the target because of the jets.

mavit · Post by **mavit** » 2006-04-11 18:24

you could have a loose targeting system say there has to be 2 people init driver and a bomb er dude they open bomb doors get a map with some grid squares onit he tell pilot where to go he see the plane flying over the grid squares and hits bombs away button or sumthing

Arikara · Post by **Arikara** » 2006-04-11 19:36

TII wrote:Sustained periods of afterburner use can cause FTIT to rise above the operational limit, so in a way limited AB use is correct though it should take much much longer than it does now.

I'm still of the opinion that jets should be taken out, the helicopters are more than adequate for air support now, but they are lucky to make it to the target because of the jets.

If they took the jets out bye-bye PR for me. You can't have modern warfare without jets. Want this turned into BF2:MC?

TII · Post by **TII** » 2006-04-12 02:34

Arikara wrote:If they took the jets out bye-bye PR for me. You can't have modern warfare without jets. Want this turned into BF2:MC?

IMO the BF2 engine is not capable of running any type of simulation for a jet, period. The BF2 engine can not fit this in in any legitimate way no matter how hard you try to justify it. What we have now are a couple of UFOs flying around at 500kts making 15g turns all day long while dropping a few Mk82s. The maps are way too small and view distances too short and they always will be. For me it detracts from the attempted realism seeing a F-35 zipping between the trees like a crop duster bombing targets and whizzing over the Essex to fix and rearm itself.

Bottom line, you want a jet fix fire up Falcon4, Lomac, JF-18 or whatever you prefer and have at it. If DICE/EA hadn't included these stupid "aircraft" to start with this wouldn't even be an issue.

Resjah · Post by **Resjah** » 2006-04-12 02:46

TII wrote:IMO the BF2 engine is not capable of running any type of simulation for a jet, period. The BF2 engine can not fit this in in any legitimate way no matter how hard you try to justify it. What we have now are a couple of UFOs flying around at 500kts making 15g turns all day long while dropping a few Mk82s. The maps are way too small and view distances too short and they always will be. For me it detracts from the attempted realism seeing a F-35 zipping between the trees like a crop duster bombing targets and whizzing over the Essex to fix and rearm itself.

Bottom line, you want a jet fix fire up Falcon4, Lomac, JF-18 or whatever you prefer and have at it. If DICE/EA hadn't included these stupid "aircraft" to start with this wouldn't even be an issue.

Well I also play Falcon 4.0 and LOMAC but I still do enjoy flying in PR. Im not going to convince you to change your mind, but there is plenty of people that enjoy the full battle attribute of PR. If I wanted only realistic infantry combat, I would spend more of my time on Insurgency, dont get me wrong, ill be downloading that mod once it comes out, but I play PR because i have a choice of doing whatever I want.

So what If planes could never be as realistic as they are in Falcon, I can live with that, helicopters, tanks etc are also very complex machines whos range far exceeds 2km, which im told is the largest stable map a person can make. I would hate to deal in absolutes but as Akirara said,

If they took the jets out bye-bye PR for me.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-04-12 02:47

Here's an idea: get rid of fighter aircraft on maps where ground combat is the focus. Instead, give the MEC the Su-25 Frogfoot, the Brits would have a Harrier, the Marines would have a Harrier or a USAF A-10 Thunderbolt II, and I'm not sure what the PLA would get support from.

TII · Post by **TII** » 2006-04-12 02:52

'[R-PUB wrote:FlyBoy']Well I also play Falcon 4.0 and LOMAC but I still do enjoy flying in PR. Im not going to convince you to change your mind, but there is plenty of people that enjoy the full battle attribute of PR. If I wanted only realistic infantry combat, I would spend more of my time on Insurgency, dont get me wrong, ill be downloading that mod once it comes out, but I play PR because i have a choice of doing whatever I want.

So what If planes could never be as realistic as they are in Falcon, I can live with that, helicopters, tanks etc are also very complex machines whos range far exceeds 2km, which im told is the largest stable map a person can make. I would hate to deal in absolutes but as Akirara said,

I enjoy flying the aircraft in BF2, too. For awhile anyway. Until I feel bad for the poor sobs on the ground who are unable to shoot me down. And that is the difference between the helicopters and jets now. Helicopters are sitting ducks for anything with a gun, especially with the tanks and their zoomed in sights now. Jets on the other hand can only be shot down by another jet or by a lucky stinger operator.

I wouldn't mind jets so bad if we had A-10s and Su-25s and not frontline fighters.

Resjah · Post by **Resjah** » 2006-04-12 02:54

Cerberus wrote:Here's an idea: get rid of fighter aircraft on maps where ground combat is the focus. Instead, give the MEC the Su-25 Frogfoot, the Brits would have a Harrier, the Marines would have a Harrier or a USAF A-10 Thunderbolt II, and I'm not sure what the PLA would get support from.

Or have dedicated fighter Aircraft and dedicated ground attack aircraft.

For example:
US: A-10 & F16
UK: Harrier & Tornado
MEC: SU-25 & Mig29

as egg once said.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-04-12 02:59

Ahh, forgot about the Tornado! Brits definitely need that for CAS in PR

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-04-12 03:02

'[R-PUB wrote:FlyBoy']Or have dedicated fighter Aircraft and dedicated ground attack aircraft.

For example:
US: A-10 & F16
UK: Harrier & Tornado
MEC: SU-25 & Mig29

as egg once said.

I am board of the old planes, i am so facinated with the F-35 (USA+UK) and the BAE desinged Eurofighter Typhoon.

Anyway i would rarther let you lot fly because quite frankly i feel that my grunting skills need's close air suppor, of witch you lot are probably better, there is nothink better than a stupid AT teamate getting killed by a tank and a plane comeing in to save the rest of the squad.