PR Aerospace Improvement: Airports and Runways for Jet Aircraft

[CAS_117]

I think you are really over-complicating this dude. It really just comes down to the fact that most people think you are playing manned lawn darts when landing as opposed to sinking into a bed, and until they decide otherwise, the lulz shall continue. A lot of it has to do with the "explanation" in the manual, most likely written by some guy who hasn't flown ingame once, but again, I can't be arsed. If you honestly can't land a plane in PR well watever. There's planes on what 2 maps that barely run?

On my own personal map I can land the J-10 on a carrier, and I am using the same type as in 0.85. The engine modifications are right there so if you wanna try it yourself plz do.

And warren you keep saying "We'. Well its really just a small minority of people who actually put any time into modifying anything. Again its easy to say "do this" and another thing to do it. Changing statics on a map means redoing lightmapping, which takes awhile from what I understand. But its unnecessary because making a jet slow down faster just comes down to TWO NUMBERS. This really isn't a huge problem.

[M.Warren]

Players want to use a theoretically practical landing approach to view their runway and obstacles. If you can land on a bunker and a carrier, that's great. But a majority of people are uncomfortable with landing and it's mostly in fear that they're going to crash into something they don't see or they'll overshoot the runway. The lack of adequate avionics is also another limiting factor that does not help the situation, nor is it helpful from inadequate engine thrust in emergency situations.

To be honest, I sympathize with the vast majority of players that have a certain style of flight. It just so happens that, this kind of flight style isn't supported in PR nor does anyone seem interested to accommodate for it. But in the same breath, nothing is wrong with people using steep approaches either.

I suppose it's a bad habit that needs to be broken. But I don't blame them for what they're doing either. Even if it's considered "the lulz".

It's also not surprising why no one wants to play the 2 maps that do offer aircraft. Simply because of the antics that result from improper use of aircraft so it never plays out as intended because there are 4 jet wrecks right outside the hanger bays.

But its unnecessary because making a jet slow down faster just comes down to TWO NUMBERS.

If you're going to be tweaking files, it'd be nice to see if some jet fighters remain aloft at speeds between 600-700 kmh on average. Usually Close Air Support Jets do about 500-600. Fighter bombers usually seem to do between 700-750kmh. I've noticed that aircraft that are in the range of 700-750kmh upon landing have a tendency to suck up a large portion of the runways and aren't capable of slowing down enough using the previously mentioned methods.

Of course, well see how the two number method works out if anyone implements it.

[CAS_117]

nothing is wrong with people using steep approaches either.

Except you crash.

Of course, well see how the two number method works out if anyone implements it.

Well if you wanna give it an official name... I don't think of it as a method as opposed to just "changing 2 numbers".

[bondsan]

This will be a long winded post

yep he's right

[Comptons]

I got a question. Can we have a realistic thrust control so that we dont need to keep holding the "W" key or any key you use for accelerate the plane and just leave at the porcentation you want? I mean right now we have to hold "W" full time beacuse if we dont the plane just falls down. We could do just like in plane simulators where you can leave the thrust to 50% or 20%, 100% etc any numer you want and it just stays as you left. It would be easier to land like this but i dont know if its hardcoded or not.

[CAS_117]

v/\(O_o)/\v I dunno. I haven't found a way of doing it. The obvious choices such as "ObjectTemplate.setAutomaticReset 0" not really working, I'm out of ideas.

[DkMick]

Aviation in PR doesn't interest me since I suck at it, but - props to M.Warren for putting so much effort into a constructive post. I hope it makes a difference if a difference is needed.

[Cobhris]

I agree with this. I want to see more jets and jet maps in PR in the future, and in order to incorporate them properly, they will need runways that can actually accommodate them without the pilot having to jump out to stop the plane from plowing into the far wall.

[thecoolj85]

way to much to read

[Kruder]

0.9 I foresee very few changes to aircraft, only ones being to nerf them even more in order to make them so useless there is an excuse to remove them. It is always "low priority" for aircraft (after 4 releases you would think something might have been done) and the assumption seems to be that *harder to land + nerf + uber aa = much much teamwork*.

Agree,also it is really absurd that main defences against jets should be jets ,not AAs,but in PR AA's are the backbone.On a decent round you have to deal with 7 or 8 platforms of AA,even after eliminating enemy jets.In other words 17 missiles ready to be fired on you in one sitting+friendly missiles which miss their target

Average life expectancy of a jet since 0.8 is 5-10 minutes.I gave up doing a scout run or search for enemy targets since 0.8 with jets,and even after getting a target grid,while continously dropping flares on your approach you still have a high chance to get killed.

In tank terms ,flying a jet would be like this:

2 turretless tanks without any zoom capability and with limited view against 2 tanks+4 tow hmws+4 tows+2 Hats,each being capable of killing you with one shot whit only firing towards the general direction of your tank,and all of them can hear your tank's engine the second you get in it to your tank, from their base.

So if you survive from all of these,get help from ground units,eliminate a few targets then what comes next?A really hard landing.It became absurdly hard.

The only improvement was removing armored AAVs from Kashan+making them 2 seaters and i think this has been done to avoid them being used against infantry,as a side effect it got a little better for jets.

[M.Warren]

For those that are curious, I have investigated CAS_117's statements. I can also confirm that they're true. You can in fact land the J-10. But the terminology here is what has become the vague factor. It seems that when people come to state that certain aircraft can "land" it does not involve adequate description on truly how well it's done. I would like to take this moment to verify the word "land" and "J-10" in the same sentence.

I will give the J-10 credit that it will land properly 4 out 5 times on average following the "Glide Slope" method. The biggest factor involved is not having your throttle high enough while on your approach. If you come in to land you'll have to aim much higher from the end of the runway it will not glide into the runway as normal aircraft should. Instead the technique you want to use while flying the J-10 is to fly over the point of the runway you wish to land on and essentially "drop" ontop of it. Which is a very unusual method.

To effectively land a J-10 it is no small feat. Even though it can be done it is not remotely as glorious or effortless as you would be capable of doing so with a F-16, Mig-29 or an EF2000. To be honest, the J-10 still remains to be flat-out sloppy. Simply put, everything you've learned in the generalization of flight characteristics for the other majority of fighter jets must be forgotten and learned anew.

In order to bring this into perspective the J-10 (upon the only landing approach possible; that being the "Glide Slope" method) handles like the following:

Map: "The Battle for Qinling"
Team: PLA (Chinese)
Jet Aircraft: J-10

Upon approach to the PLA main, I had decided to use the southernmost runway. I began my approach roughly at a distance of 1000+ meters away from the end of the runway. I also maintained an altitude of 200m. Upon approach I had reduced the throttle to 40% and roughly held it there (As the J-10 has a horrid tendency to bleed off airspeed at lower altitudes of at least 50-75 kmh. [It always has.])

Please take note... When you are landing the J-10 you must make smooth manuvers in advance to align yourself with the runway. Your J-10 will not react properly under last minute major corrections as you'll screw up... Also take note that you shouldn't rely on your rudders as little as possible. I know that it is frequently used in real piloting, however there is a strange side effect at times that involves the J-10 to "crab" sideways in a direction that is completely unrelated to your rudder inputs. Try to use your mouse or joystick to "roll" into alignment of the runway.

1. While your aircraft is descending you control the rate of descent by holding the crosshairs of your reticule between the artificial horizon.

2. If you are descending too fast, you increase your ascent +5º slightly to hold your altitude in order to allow you to get closer to the runway.

3. When you come to a point above and before the runway you tilt your nose to the neutral position n so it's between the artificial horizon and you'll continue your gradual descent. While doing so, monitor your air speed.

4. If you are descending too slow and you feel you're going to overshoot the runway, pitch the nose of your aircraft down slightly to increase your descent to -5º downward slope.

5. When you come to a point above and before the runway you tilt your nose back to the neutral position so it's between the artificial horizon and you'll continue your gradual descent. While doing so, monitor your air speed.

6. Repeat these steps as necessary to constantly keep your rate of descent under control. If this is done properly, then your aircraft will connect at a point that is slightly past the end of the runway where you have plenty of room for your rear landing gear to connect. Also make sure you wont land short of the runway or clip any fences/hesco barriers on your approach.

However, the most effective method in landing a J-10 is obviously the "Glide Slope" method. To be honest the "Glide Slope" method mentioned by CAS_117 is almost no different than my own method.

My usual method is by focusing on a point of the runway to come in contact with from a much shallower angle (Which works well on Kashan Desert due to a lack of obstructions.).

CAS' method is similar, however you fly at about 150-200 meters altitude above the runway on approach, then you reduce your throttle enough to a point where your aircraft begins a slight descent and you adjust your pitch accordingly to adjust your rate of descent or altitude hold while you are on approach. I do not advise trying to climb while doing this as climbing will be very sluggish and unresponsive. If you know you're going to crash, go full throttle and hit the afterburners and continue with your pull up. Hopefully you'll make it out allright.

There are 3 different methods i'm aware of in order to land:
1. Steep approach with a last minute flare.
<Note: This method does work, however... I do not recommend doing so with a J-10 or SU-30 or a Tornado. The F-16, Mig-29 and EF2000 handles this manuver well as they're agile enough to do so. Just keep in mind that some aircraft still handle better than others and you'll need to adjust accordingly.>

2. Shallow angle powered approach with a last minute engine cut-off slightly before or over the runway.
<Note: This is my usual method. Do not be fooled by the term "powered approach" to be gunning the engine. I usually approach the runway from a shallow angle and hold my engine throttle at 40% or at the rated speed for the aircraft. In example, on my approach I may fly the F-16 at about 35-40% (roughly) while maintaining a speed of about 650kmh-700kmh. I then cut the throttle slightly in advance over the runway and the jet touches down rather smoothly.>

3. Glide Slope powered approach with with last minute engine cut-off slight before or over the runway.
<Note: Similar to my above mentioned method. However this is done at an altitude of 100-200 meters over the runway and you regulate your engine throttle percentage, air speed indicator and constantly monitor your altimeter and artificial horizon. This method is effective but also requires you to be more skilled with aircraft interface. It will not help you if your are using a keyboard while trying to do this.>

In the end it ultimately comes down to several factors. Such as: Your own personal style, runway length and terrain/vegetation obstructions.

As for landings in general. I have 3 different perspectives on them too. Landings should have a value or a grade in which they are determined in relation to the length of the runway and how much of it was used. To make it easy, I'll break it down like this:

Excellent Landings: Use only 5/10ths or 6/10ths of a runway.
Average Landings: Use 7/10ths or 8/10ths of a runway.
Poor Landings: Use 9/10ths or 10/10ths of a runway and they risk the chance of falling off the end.

Most jets already use 525-550 meters of the runway (About 8/10ths or 9/10ths of the runway). The current runway length is about 600 meters long. If it's expanded to 800 meters, then we have an additional 200 meters to work with and accomodate for sloppy landings and also for larger aircraft such as Fighter Bombers that operate on a different scale in comparison to Jet Fighters.

If a runway was an additonal 200 meters long, this means we can land the SU-30 without any more alterations. The SU-30 constantly uses the entirety of the 600 meter (10/10ths of a runway) long runway and I usually find myself still doing about 200kmh before it comes to a stop... Into a fence.

If the runway hadn't ended at 600 meters the SU-30 should stop around 700 meters leaving another 100m left extra on an Excellent to Average landing (Meaning that a 800m long runway the SU-30 will land in the 7/10ths to 8/10ths average bracket which is good.). Now you're saying "well 100 meters extra is alot" yeah it is. But it'll run out of landing strip if people are making poor landings. Thus you'll be finding yourself using the whole 800 meters to stop if you're not careful, or falling off the end into the fence... But that's the way the cookie crumbles. If you can't stop in 800 meters with a Fighter Bomber, then you need to practice more.


Anyways... With all that said, I'll conclude most of this as such:

In other words, if the J-10 has truely reached it's final handling characteristics and they're here to stay... I'll say that a vast majority of players are going to be disappointed. The handling of the J-10 is enough to get the job done, but it is in no way even remotely refined to adequate expectations as it still does not perform equally effective as it's other Jet Fighter counterparts. Simply put... The PLA J-10 remains an under performer and is still in need of attention.

As for the PLA SU-30 Fighter Bomber... It remains a one-way ticket aircraft. I've tried the "Glide Slope" method, and I've even tried steep dives and my own method. Nothing works. It needs to be tweaked through the editor as it will continually overshoot the entire runway and crash into the hesco barrier/perimeter fence unless you make a last desperate move to bail out of the moving plane or switch to the gunner position for a swift halt.

This is where my continual reference for an elongated runway remains a practical alternative...

Although it may appear time consuming to fix the 2 maps with Airports or Runways, it'll easily throw a blanket over a large majority of issues as I've already stated. This is because it simply adds a large amount of available space and adequate runway length for aircraft to land almost regardless of whatever physical attributes or problems the aircraft might be facing.

It's unclear if the J-10 or SU-30 will ever be sufficiently resolved. It's also unclear as to how the other jets that haven't been introduced such as the F-15 (Strike Eagle), Q-5 (Fantan), and the SU-34 (Flanker) will perform either. They remain a mystery and quite potentially a fiasco waiting to happen. A whole new fleet of aircraft just waiting to be adorned the same fate as the SU-30 already has in game. This just isn't practical.

I'm just trying to save alot of problems ahead of time by simply increasing the length of the runway to 800-850 meters. It may result in alot of work to be done, but in the end it'll make things alot easier if this is implemented as a standardized guideline for all Jet Aircraft orientated maps in the future.

Until then, new releases and new game content will continue to pound back and utterly drown-out the future progression of certain Jet Aircraft and Airports. I've tried to warn people ahead of time, but it's just not sinking in... No matter how hard I try it seems at this rate, it may never get resolved fully.

I've done my part to warn people about these problems ahead of time. Apparently it was all in vain.

I apologize to the PR populace that are waiting for a chance to enjoy piloting in it's fullest extent. It seems I've failed you and we'll be waiting another 2 years for recognition.

[CAS_117]

Warren, I think you really need to work on your delivery. A good speaker makes his point in as few words as possible. I can guarantee you that most people do not have the time or energy to go through every single one of your posts. Please, I am sure you have a valid point, but I can't find it. There are just too many words for something as trivial as the jets in PR. And honestly, there are so many things wrong with the aircraft in PR other than the length of the runway that I don't even understand how you can commit such an inordinate effort on that one aspect.

Warren you want people to listen to you, I want to know what it is you are saying, and I am sure you have a valid point.

PLEASE TYPE LESS

I am not trying to offend I just want to be able to get a more clear understanding of what you are saying.

[Masaq]

I'm also tired of the "I've done my best to warn people, yadda yadda yadda" **** you tack onto every long rambling denouncement of any given aspect of PR.

If you've got something constructive and helpful to post, post it and leave the melodrama unposted. You make some very good points Warren, but you bury them in long rambling messes and end them with something that comes across like a very pointed, very deliberate insult both to other players and to the community as a whole.

[CAS_117]

Well criticism makes the mod better and Warren is doing us all a service by putting his thoughts into words. I mean I'm a big boy now, I don't mind critique. But its not what is being said its just that I can barely navigate through it to find the overall point.

[Alex6714]

What can I say, I can feel his frustration.

[ballard_44]

I'm all for anything that can improve PR, so fair play, Warren, but the jets in general are never really going to be worth improving until (and if ever) maps can be increased to 8km or bigger.

PR jets and 4km maps are only slightly better than BF2 jets and 2km maps.

The 'world' is just too small.

[Tirak]

I'm all for anything that can improve PR, so fair play, Warren, but the jets in general are never really going to be worth improving until (and if ever) maps can be increased to 8km or bigger.

PR jets and 4km maps are only slightly better than BF2 jets and 2km maps.

The 'world' is just too small.

I disagree. If someone is willing to fix jets, the Devs should let them. It is worth fixing because it is a part of PR.

[M.Warren]

Warren, I think you really need to work on your delivery. A good speaker makes his point in as few words as possible. etc.

The point I'm conveying has already been explained in the previous posts (the emphasis of 800 meter runways). The above mentioned post is simply a final statement from myself. Problem is that when people read, it appears that they're trying to perceive it as another complete topic which it is not. It's pretty much the same topic but refined further.

The statement consisted of me investigating your "Glide Slope" method. Although the method works, the J-10 is an under performer in comparison to other jets. The rudders do not operate well under low speed conditions and it forces you into making turns to straighten yourself up to the runway by "rolling" the aircraft into alignment. Even then, the J-10 still sucks up 7/8ths of the runway in order just to stop. If you land the J-10 about 75 meters or more into the runway by overshooting the end on your approach, you'll end up in the fence. There is little room for error and is still an unforgiving aircraft.

Simply put, even after reevaluating the J-10 and SU-30 under the singular method of "Glide Slope" landings. I've come to this conclusion; it's still trash.

There's my few words. I was trying to be as brief and polite as possible to articulate myself sufficiently all along, even in my expansive posts. There are just far too many circumstances that apply to a singular situation.

I'm also tired of the "I've done my best to warn people, yadda yadda yadda" **** you tack onto every long rambling denouncement of any given aspect of PR.

If you've got something constructive and helpful to post, post it and leave the melodrama unposted.

Well Masaq, it turns out that I've been waiting a long while for more Jet Aircraft to be placed into PR and/or the already existing types to be corrected. I'm sure a very few handful of others feel the same. It's clear that aircraft piloting is not your key interest and it isn't for everyone, thus your opinion is biased to whatever it may be and you are entitled to such an opinion.

I've tried time and time again to also offer suggestions over a broad array of situations, even if it isn't my particular interest in PR I had at least tried. From weapon deviation, vehicles, weapon animations, heavy anti-tank kits, armored units, etc. Don't belive me?

My first improvement list: PR v0.6 - v0.7
Project Reality Improvement Compilation

My second improvement list: PR v0.7 - v0.75
Project Reality v0.6 to v0.75 constructive criticism.

My third improvement list: PR v0.75 - v0.8
Project Reality v0.8 Improvement Compilation

Imagine waiting a course of 2 years and upon receiving the new v0.** build and the first thing you do is create a local server or join a dedicated training server to check if Jets had finally been fixed. But there's a point where grenade traps, new anti-aircraft vehicles, new animations, new factions, and the thing you're looking forward to the most that has also been around the longest still is unresolved and leaves you disappointed.

You make some very good points Warren, but you bury them in long rambling messes and end them with something that comes across like a very pointed, very deliberate insult both to other players and to the community as a whole.

If anyone has become offended by me attempting to construct an elaborate and in-depth analysis of why Jet Aircraft in PR have not been performing as necessary for the last 2 years let me know. I'll send you a personalized Private Message and apologize for my ill behavior.

[CAS_117]

Warren, when I didn't like the Jets in 0.6 I went and changed them. When I saw AA was messed up I went and changed that too. I think I made maybe a handful of short posts regarding why maybe, and then I did it. There comes a time however when you have to stop saying "Please do this" and say "I did this". Its not like its impossible I mean you seem like a pretty intelligent guy. If you honestly believe everything you are saying then getting to do it is a worthwhile experience. I'd volunteer to help you with it if you want.

[Mongolian_dude]

I wan't you back CAS. You made me smile and think naughty things.

...mongol...