Project Reality Forums

I still don't understand how it is that some aircraft like A-10 and helicopters have a much higher chance of their flares attracting and defeating missiles than regular fighter jets. Regular fighters stand almost no chance while helicopter flares work quite well.

DogACTUAL wrote:I still don't understand how it is that some aircraft like A-10 and helicopters have a much higher chance of their flares attracting and defeating missiles than regular fighter jets. Regular fighters stand almost no chance while helicopter flares work quite well.

probably factors like speed, distance and angle to the missile on launch/hit

I tested it once and angle and distance were controlled for. I shot AA missiles at F-16 and A-10 under the same conditions (both flying away from AA climbing roughly 50 degrees with flares between AA and jet). A-10 flares worked much better, especially when only locking flares instead of jet.

AFAIK no one really knows how the locking mechanic works in detail because we don't have access to the source code.
-PR engine can only process 4 heat sources at once.
-->does this rule apply to each vehicle or to some sort of box around the vehicle?
-->What's the shape of the missiles "radar" cone?
-->Update intervall/time?
- Missiles always goes for the closes heat source.
-->Missile has some sort of max. g value so it can't do 90° turns.
-->Random number generator? is there a chance that the missile hits the jet even if there are mutliple flares in the air?

...lot's of unanswered questions

I really hope RNG is used to determine factors such as Damage, and not something as important as which target to pick. There should be reliability in target acquisition, use RNG to see if there was enough damage dealt to the aircraft.

The best kind of RNG: Nondeterminism

About AA rockets

I can say I know a lot about russian technic and I will tell you this.
SU-25 is plane with two motors and it can fly with just one of them. So AA rockets (static,handled,mobile) are more then effective in this game. Ok for choppers, but planes are something special. For example su-25 has two motors so there is more chance for surviving (I am telling for all cas). CAS will be good if you make it survive at least one rocket, so after that plane starts smoking (for an example left/right motor on SU-25). That from me. HAVE A GG

GAJAN wrote:About AA rockets

I can say I know a lot about russian technic and I will tell you this.
SU-25 is plane with two motors and it can fly with just one of them. So AA rockets (static,handled,mobile) are more then effective in this game. Ok for choppers, but planes are something special. For example su-25 has two motors so there is more chance for surviving (I am telling for all cas). CAS will be good if you make it survive at least one rocket, so after that plane starts smoking (for an example left/right motor on SU-25). That from me. HAVE A GG

Provided the rocket only damages the engine (that's how it still is/used to be, IIRC I've been hit many times in A-10 with one engine smoking), but aircraft have literally no armor and the rocket blast and shrapnel can go through the airframe causing a ton of damage. Right now the problem is the fact that AA is almost impossible to evade and that is what should be addressed.

Many military jets (and even many commercial) can fly on only one of their engines, why the Navy has insisted for so long on having two in its jets for decades encase one goes out the aircraft can still land back on the carrier instead of being forced to ditch in the sea and they where rather reluctant on having to only go with one engine for the F-35C (which they had to, to have a common design for all versions, but accepted it due to increased engine reliability and cost).

But if an AA missile hits a jet, it is pretty unlikely all that missile is going to do is just knock out one of the engines, as the shrapnel is designed to do internal damage all over the aircraft to the hydraulics, fuel lines and so on leaving the entire aircraft crippled, not just one system, and also the aircraft is likely to be structurally compromised as well.



Although yes it depends on what type of missile we are talking about as some don't even have a proximity fuse with shrapnel warhead on them and rely largely on the kinetic energy they inflict on the target (like the Rapier missile).


But going back to your main point about jets being able to fly on just one engine, it should be noted that once they are down to one engine they become combat ineffective, with most likely having to dump all their ordinance they are carrying just to keep airborne and would be flying at a significantly reduced speed from having 1/2 their power gone and having to lug around a dead engine, so they wouldn't be able to strike targets and all they could hope for is to get back to a freindly airbase if they are lucky.


As terms of what we could do ingame with the BF2 engine, using python we may be able to give a % chance of an engine failure after taking xxx amount of damage, similar to how we track vehicles, but dunno if we could make it so that aircraft with two engines could stay airborne at reduced speed on just one (with still a % chance of both engines failing), but you would have to talk to our python coders about that and may require the jet to be coded with two engines which may require a second networkable and many of our jets don't have any free networkables to spare. I also seem to recall that the python disabling code doesn't work on engines in MP (does in SP) but ye, you would have to talk to a python coder about that for more details but I remember dbzao doing similar code for choppers where tail rotors could fail and the chopper would spin out of control if they did, but it only worked in SP and not MP so was abandoned.