Project Reality Forums

Ah my bad Rhino's got the right harrier after all:

"In the Falklands War in 1982, 10 Harrier GR.3s of No. 1 Squadron operated from the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes"





EDIT: Some pics of the GR3 on Hermes as proof:

AWEEEEESOME!!!!! Thank you Rhino!!!!
Reeeeeeally Love those staffs you made!!!!!!!

Cant wait for next test events!

Those jets, especially the Harrier, look ace. I find those rotatable wheels interesting as well. Also good to hear something from that cargoship (Eyl still in production?).

I wonder how infantry combat will be like as the focus of development appears to be primarily on aircraft.

Wakain wrote:Those jets, especially the Harrier, look ace. I find those rotatable wheels interesting as well. Also good to hear something from that cargoship (Eyl still in production?).

I wonder how infantry combat will be like as the focus of development appears to be primarily on aircraft.

Ah that video brings back memories of that round lol the dieing, oh the dieing.

This looks really good right now, need more open betas plox

Realy fu. cool stuff !!! Cant wait. When the gameplay in PR 1.0 will not became action shit, but more teamwork, teamplay and taktik like.

Fu. i will have no real live anymore.
Oh sorry i sad the fu. fu. word again. I am fu.ing sorry for that. Oh fuc.k.

this is fantastic!
all i can say really

The aircraft engine response becomes an issue as the PR runways are so much shorter than IRL.

Cheers for all the kind comments guys

Stealthgato wrote:Regarding that magic brake thing, would it also end the aircraft falling like they are feathers when the crew bails out?

Sorry but this only affects the jets when they are on the ground, in fact the same loss of momentum you get in the air when bailing out still happens on the ground, but just nothing like as drastic as what it was before, but still pretty drastic

Still looking into a way to fix that, looks really dumb when a ZPU4 shoots down a jet up close and it suddenly stops in mid air once its destroyed

YankeeSamurai wrote:Awesome update, keep up the good work! In some ways, it seems like PR:F is going to be a proving ground for a lot of potential 1.0 content, like those chopper wheels for example.

Yep that's the idea

40mmrain wrote:will we be able to do rolling takeoffs, that will allow for shorter warmups on maps with runways?

REal apaches do this, would work nicely on kashan, iron eagle, etc.

[quote=""'[R-CON"]Jafar Ironclad;1818627']40mmrain: Pilots will likely be able to do rolling takeoffs, although you won't be making the same inputs you would in a real helo (I.E. if you leave the stick forward as you put in full throttle, you'll nose-plant as you get airborne). This won't effect warm-up time, but will let you lift off with more energy.[/quote]

Ye, it doesn't help much with getting off the ground any sooner but as Jafar siad, it helps you get forward momentum while getting off the ground

Camp Bastion will be the best place to do this since it has its helicopter runway just for this
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f196-p ... rbase.html

Also Jafar afaik pilots in r/l do taxi with the stick, just they don't shove it down 100% forward to move forwards, just a little
But I may be wrong on that.

[quote="ubermensche""]Also: Will the Atlantic Conveyor have some sort of defense against the Exocets or is it just one big sitting duck?[/quote]

[quote=""'[R-CON"]Jafar Ironclad;1818627']Ubermensche: The AC's only defense is air cover. Even if it had AA guns, the Exocet's range is pretty massive, and you can't shoot down the missile. Brit air superiority pilots are encouraged to screen the vessel while it is still active. This was much like in the real war; preventing the Argentinians from obtaining/manufacturing additional exocet missiles was a big freaking deal to the Brits, since they couldn't really defend against them once launched.[/quote]

Ye as Jafar said, the Atlantic Conveyor has no defences, mainly because it had no defences in r/l because there was controversy over whether arming auxiliaries was legal before it was sent to the Falklands as the AC was being converted to take harriers and choppers.

The only thing that could have possibly saved it would have been Chaff Launchers anyways, which was in fact the thing that caused its doom when the two frigates the missiles locked onto originally fired there chaff to confuse the missiles, but after they missed the frigates, they found the AC, this documentary explains it quite well
20th Century Battlefields - Falklands War - YouTube

[quote="dunem666""]The textures on the Harriers are totally wrong. They never got painted in woodland colours and all of them stayed grey as the colour of the sky.

Even more so the harrier with that skin wont ever be seen on a carrier as its not a sea harrier.

otherwise nice work, ill come play when released.[/quote]

There where two types of Harriers used in the Falklands War, the Fleet Air Arms (FFA, the Royal Navy's Air Force) Sea Harrier FRS1, which is a fighter aircraft, and the Royal Air Force (RAF) Harrier GR3 which is a ground attack aircraft. Unfortunately we don't have the proper models for either model so we are using a reskinned GR9 for both, with the Sea Harrier being in the low viability grey and the Harrier GR3 being in its normal (for back then) 80s style camo paint, which the Vulcan, Chinook CH1 and many other RAF aircraft from back then used.





Note both the Sea Harriers and Harrier GR3s on the same deck. While the GR3 didn't play as much as a pivotal role as the Sea Harrier, it was the main ground support aircraft of the war for the troops on the ground (although Sea Harriers did a bit of bombing too, mainly at the start of the war on Stanley)

And just to make you happy you can see both the Sea Harriers and a Harrier GR3 in this shot here

Walmarx wrote:I have no experience with actual fighter aircraft at all, but I was under the impression that the engine delay was realistic. It would seem like one would need to gradually increase the fuel flow into a jet engine; pumping instantly to 100% fuel flow from 15% seems like a bad idea.

Jet engines can respond quite quickly, much more quickly than what we have ingame currently. For carrier aircraft its a massive design requirement for them to have good engine response times because its so important in order for them to get back in the air if they miss the deck, or to correct there height during the decent etc.

Wakain wrote:I wonder how infantry combat will be like as the focus of development appears to be primarily on aircraft.

Infantry combat is quite a big focus, just not got much to show on it right now, although have shown a bit of infantry stuff recently, SUIT scope, new Arg player skins etc
Can catch up on the old news here: https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f562-p ... dates.html

PLODDITHANLEY wrote:The aircraft engine response becomes an issue as the PR runways are so much shorter than IRL.

Indeed, main reason we are testing this out on PR:F is due to it having a much longer runway of iirc, around 1.25kms where normal runways ingame are around 800ms so if players are having problems here with it then we may need to look into this more, but as Jafar said eventually we plan on also changing engine response times.

A bit off-topic, but is there any chance of getting co-op support in PR:F eventually?

Hummm, I'm no expert on SP support, and if anyone was going to make that happen it wouldn't be me but I think the size of the map and bots having to fly outside the minimap area back to base may seriously affect how the bots behave and may mean SP isn't possible at all but would need one of the SP to confirm that.

hobbnob wrote:I couldn't disagree with this any more tbh, by the time you've realised you could overshoot the runway it's too late to put the power to max because nothing actually happens.

In case you don't understand: it's not the acceleration of the aircraft, but when the player puts the power up it takes the aircraft 5-10 seconds to actually respond, this really needs to be instant before we can start using aircraft realistically

stop being a bad pilot, then, and use your burners. Burners cause a near instant response.

Very nice...

But when you say base defence "MIM-23 Hawk Heavy Anit-Air SAM System", you imply base attack as well. I'm completely fine with that, but currently base combat is forbidden on most servers. (and of cource the 'out of border'-protection around the enemy base as well as the "invisible forcewall" over bases to prevent mortar and bomb attacks)
So do you want the battle to be able to move to the bases? I mean, the layout of all the bases (except INS) are all isolated and prepared for an attack. Why not expand the game and alow protection of the base as another aspect of the game? Anyway, great work, looking forward to try it

The Falklands is set up considerably differently from all other maps in PR currently, mainly due to its size and keeping with historical accuracy.

The first major difference is each side has tow main bases, its "airbase", being a carrier or an airbase, then its island bases on the island where ground troops, vehicles and in the case of Argentina, choppers and light aircraft spawn. These land bases are well in the area of where both players and jets go, but also where both heavily bombed by aircraft in r/l, despite their heavy air defences. This I also don't mind myself seeing ingame if players attack them, but if they attack them, they should be prepared for the high chance of getting shot down, with most likely little reward.

Now not only this but due to the size of the map and the "airbases" being outside of the minimap borders, I've had to disable combat zones in order for players to walk on the airbase/carrier and fly outside the map border to the Falklands. I would have liked to put a dome of death for each side to stop each side flying to each others mains, as in reality, both where well out of the range of the aircraft from either side. But I can't do that since we can't simulate fuel in the aircraft in PR (+ due to the scale would be super small amount to do that anyways) and I don't have any combat zones to make a dome of death with.

As such I've put some very heavy air defences on the air bases, even more so than at the land bases, which even include radars (which now I think about it I should have mentioned in the OP of this highlight but will another time in detail) and with any luck the commander will be manning the "ATC" at all times, which the AA defences are linked to directly.

TBH I would prefer if server admins didn't get in the way of not being able to bomb the mains and instead just let the players deal with it themselves, as they have the tools to stop it and its realistic

The issue remains with how terribly boring sitting on an AA gun is, incessantly.

Though, with commanders being more useful, and having their AA in base, along with larger servers in the 1.0 release, these are steps towards fixing this.

When waiting for only one of the two jets on the map to show up that have a 20min spawn time it is for sure. in PR:F jets are far more regular, but ye sitting in one of the island mains on an AA will probably be quite boring and most people wont be sitting in them unless being attacked by a jet, which is the main purpose of them, but they are also a massive deterrent for the pilot just knowing they are there and they might possibly be manned.

Nice work.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:When waiting for only one of the two jets on the map to show up that have a 20min spawn time it is for sure. in PR:F jets are far more regular, but ye sitting in one of the island mains on an AA will probably be quite boring and most people wont be sitting in them unless being attacked by a jet, which is the main purpose of them, but they are also a massive deterrent for the pilot just knowing they are there and they might possibly be manned.

warm up times could be shortened compared to deployable AA, meaning you wouldnt need to be sitting on the AA for 20 minutes in anticipation

Though I agree with the deterrent, I'm always quite reluctant to fly close to the german or russian airfields if theyre in play due to all the big static guns

40mmrain wrote:warm up times could be shortened compared to deployable AA, meaning you wouldnt need to be sitting on the AA for 20 minutes in anticipation

Though I agree with the deterrent, I'm always quite reluctant to fly close to the german or russian airfields if theyre in play due to all the big static guns

Ye, the delay to use times on these are only 3secs long on the island bases, and no delay timer on the airbase defences versions currently, although they may get a little one in the future.

And thous ZPU-4 AA guns on Silent Eagle are also dotted all over the Falklands (and had there range improved since), especially at the main bases and then mixed in with the MIM-23 and the vBF2 stationary AA so if you though SE was bad for main base AA cover, then your not going to want to venture anywhere near the AA hot spots on the Falklands