Project Reality Forums

@fecht niko
You can usually take one of the AA vehicles with you even on maps with 3 tanks (3x2 players + 1x2 players).
That prevents CAS from attacking you or atleast you will trade a tank for a CAS jet.

Helicopter CAS is a whole different story (you were refering to Muttrah) it became so bad that the only thing preventing you from dying is an uncoordinated enemy team -.-

Yeah I don't see how that laser targeting change is a Nerf. It exposes you more but it'll make targeting way more accurate.

Just a question though. Is the targeting range increase for the jet or the GTLD? As in will jets be able to pick up lazes without diving? What's the max range gonna be?

Look forward to this anyway, sounds dope.

Range is map dependant. Not changed.

The nerf for CAS pilots is the vertical fog.

Can any DEV tell me the maximum vertical visibility on 4 km maps? And what is the maximum range of antiaircraft missiles?

bahiakof wrote:The nerf for CAS pilots is the vertical fog.

Can any DEV tell me the maximum vertical visibility on 4 km maps? And what is the maximum range of antiaircraft missiles?

Unless I'm wrong I don't think there is a "vertical" visibility. VD is set to X meters surrounding the character model in a sphere.

If memory serves the highest VD outside of Falklands is 1.3km and the missiles are supposed to match your vision range.

Frontliner wrote:Unless I'm wrong I don't think there is a "vertical" visibility. VD is set to X meters surrounding the character model in a sphere.

Actually not in a sphere, in a cube.

bahiakof wrote:The nerf for CAS pilots is the vertical fog.

Can any DEV tell me the maximum vertical visibility on 4 km maps? And what is the maximum range of antiaircraft missiles?

For any change in this sense it is necessary to remember how the AAv's are portrayed in the PR. While the cas can simply lock and shoot laser, the AAvs:

- The only method of search is visual even for those vehicles that have search radars like tunguska and type 95.
- Engaging with guns is done manually even for all AAvs who have radars for fire control like shilka, m163, tunguska, type
- IR missiles have a locking tone even if they are passive sensors.
- Some Saclos AAvs do not have missiles with agility sufficient to engage jets and neither IFF, like the stormer.
- No AAv in PR can effectively deny air space once something is lased at the best of hypotheses there will be a trade-off between a vehicle and the CAS.

On most maps AA range is entirely dependent on view distance.

If the default detection range of the AA is greater than the view distance of a given map, then usually on that specific map the effective detection range is restricted to view distance+one third of view distance (close approximation).
This is the same case for lases. So for example on a 900m view distance map the detection range of a normal AA emplacement (1500m default range) and lases would be around 1200m.

There are a few exceptions, for example kashan has all the detection ranges set to its real view distance, 1km.

Without view distance restrictions, they have following detection ranges:

Jet short range missile(infrared): 700m

Jet medium range missile (radar): 2km

R.530 (MirageIIIEA): 1000m

All AA emplacements (infrared): 1500m

Avenger, Type95, Fennek SWP : 1500m

2K22, Gopher :3km+ (possibly more)

Laser guided weapons (LGB,LGM): 3km+ (possibly more)

From my standpoint,

Jets in PR only exists for the sake of having them in the game, because they look cool and there is a public for it

They don't do any good for gameplay, immersion.... anything

Jets could be easily replaced by a commander called in JDAM strikes, or something similar to be used against MBTs

Or replaced by attack helicopters, which are great, fun to fly and gun, effective as hell when there is teamwork and can be fairly countered

Mostacho wrote:From my standpoint,

Jets in PR only exists for the sake of having them in the game, because they look cool and there is a public for it

They don't do any good for gameplay, immersion.... anything

Jets could be easily replaced by a commander called in JDAM strikes, or something similar to be used against MBTs

Or replaced by attack helicopters, which are great, fun to fly and gun, effective as hell when there is teamwork and can be fairly countered

Completely and absolutely disagree.

[R-DEV]AlonTavor wrote:Completely and absolutely disagree.

You have every right to

I know it sounds a bit extreme bud replacing jets with something else to fill the air support role would improve the overall gameplay for everyone except those whose like them.

I would pick gameplay over realism anyday, but still, air-to-air combat is one of the most unrealistic things in the game and even so gameplay wise is horrible, completely random and bugged.

But what bothers me the most is that your whole team depend on 1-2 guys,who do not always know what they are doing, but are the only ones that like flying, and if they happen to lose the dogfights your ground forces are left almost helpless, because all anti-aircrafts are often inefficient against jets and easily countered which makes it difficult to keep control of even a small airspace.

Even though there are very few people who fly, air assets ends up consuming many of the possibilities that could be worked on, regarding the maps layouts and game mechanics.

Having a ratio of 1 jet for 2 tanks for 16 inf on a 4km map is a bit to much for me. When it's not worse, no wonder why falklands became one of the most unpopular maps of the game.

Mostacho wrote:no wonder why falklands became one of the most unpopular maps of the game.

Falklands actually has more people playing infantry than other maps such as Kashan (as Rhino makes sure to remind anyone that mentions this). In my opinion people don't like Falklands precisely because there's more infantry and there's too many asset whores in our community.

Mostacho wrote:I know it sounds a bit extreme bud replacing jets with something else to fill the air support role would improve the overall gameplay for everyone except those whose like them.

Overall CAS is the Ultimate "Balancer" on maps. I've seen complete steam roll Kashan rounds been turned around by coordinated SLs and CAS squads.

Mostacho wrote:I would pick gameplay over realism anyday, but still, air-to-air combat is one of the most unrealistic things in the game and even so gameplay wise is horrible, completely random and bugged.

Yeah, Jet combat is a bit random, But would you rather we go back to the days where MiG-29 beat everything in ever situation?!?!

Mostacho wrote:But what bothers me the most is that your whole team depend on 1-2 guys,who do not always know what they are doing, but are the only ones that like flying, and if they happen to lose the dogfights your ground forces are left almost helpless, because all anti-aircrafts are often inefficient against jets and easily countered which makes it difficult to keep control of even a small airspace.

Thats not even true, You have Anti-Air Vehicles, AA kits, and AA emplacements all with the same Anti-Air missiles that the jets do, They have a skill curve to them, but are really strong and can take out CAS.

Mostacho wrote:Even though there are very few people who fly, air assets ends up consuming many of the possibilities that could be worked on, regarding the maps layouts and game mechanics.

Like what?

Mostacho wrote:Having a ratio of 1 jet for 2 tanks for 16 inf on a 4km map is a bit to much for me. When it's not worse, no wonder why falklands became one of the most unpopular maps of the game.

Not even the case, Falklands is still played more often the other maps in PR.

SShadowFox wrote:Falklands actually has more people playing infantry than other maps such as Kashan. In my opinion people don't like Falklands precisely because there's more infantry and there's too many asset whores in our community.

It is one of the maps with greater strategic depth, that by its useful area of combat and great distance of vision, it enables to conditions unpalatable in other maps, one of the most interesting maps for the use of combined arms (soon with frigate) , ´´unpopular`` only for a certain group of players who can only like 2 or 3 maps of the game ...

SShadowFox wrote:In my opinion people don't like Falklands precisely because there's more infantry and there's too many asset whores in our community.

You make it sound like Asset whores are the anti christ. Would you rather brain dead players who can't tell friend from foe who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn? What your saying is you dislike people who actually got good at a video game and have an ounce of skill in vehicles.

FFG wrote:Overall CAS is the Ultimate "Balancer" on maps. I've seen complete steam roll Kashan rounds been turned around by coordinated SLs and CAS squads.

That is what i call air support, i think it's cool mechanic,even encouraged to be kept some way different, i just do not like it the way it is provided by jets

FFG wrote:Yeah, Jet combat is a bit random, But would you rather we go back to the days where MiG-29 beat everything in ever situation?!?!

Hell no, as much i dont like it now it was worse before, also what I wrote has nothing to do with this.

FFG wrote:Thats not even true, You have Anti-Air Vehicles, AA kits, and AA emplacements all with the same Anti-Air missiles that the jets do, They have a skill curve to them, but are really strong and can take out CAS.

Yeah you do have then, what i said is that they are not that great and can be easily countered
This guy explained it better

blayas wrote:For any change in this sense it is necessary to remember how the AAv's are portrayed in the PR. While the cas can simply lock and shoot laser, the AAvs:
- The only method of search is visual even for those vehicles that have search radars like tunguska and type 95.
- Engaging with guns is done manually even for all AAvs who have radars for fire control like shilka, m163, tunguska, type
- IR missiles have a locking tone even if they are passive sensors.
- Some Saclos AAvs do not have missiles with agility sufficient to engage jets and neither IFF, like the stormer.
- No AAv in PR can effectively deny air space once something is lased at the best of hypotheses there will be a trade-off between a vehicle and the CAS.

FFG wrote:Like what?

Just different layouts and oposing factions other than CAS based, there is the alternative layouts, but I do not like the composition some have, I even think the STD layout is better in some cases, and the ones I like I do not get much the opportunity to play because most adms traditionally just set the STD layout. It is just my personal opinion

FFG wrote:Not even the case, Falklands is still played more often the other maps in PR.

I wish i had the good impression on falklands as some people raleted here, bud every time i played it, was a major CAS clusterfuck with 1/5 or more of the team flying around, while the rest of the infantry struggled to move aorund in such a big map. you are free to like it, and maybe in the server you play at is more popular than other maps, bud i still dare to afirm that Falklands is still "one of the most unpopular maps of the game" even were you play at

I do not like to criticize, and i really appreciate the work that developers put into the game, and damn it,falkslands must have taken a lot of work, as well as so many other things that the DEVs do. But I still think that there's so much more interresting things to be improved.

Maybe aerial combat just does not fit well with the engine the game runs on, maybe it really is not worth being the focus of things.

Main combat area on falklands is just as big as on a regular assetmap. Jets picking off infantry is only easy if the infantry sits on superfobs, if they stay mobile it is very hard to spot them from above. Best to just have a few people on the FOBs manning the emplacements while the rest is moving or spread out over the objective defending.

Commander JDAM instead of jets would be too OP if called in multiple times per round as there is no defense against it. FOBs could do nothing to prevent getting hit. That's why the area attack has a 30min loading phase.

On the other hand if JDAM would have a long loading phase it would be useless to repel armour steamrolling.
Player controlled jets are still the best thing because they can drop munitions with a higher frequency but can also be countered effectively by AA.

FFG wrote:You make it sound like Asset whores are the anti christ. Would you rather brain dead players who can't tell friend from foe who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn? What your saying is you dislike people who actually got good at a video game and have an ounce of skill in vehicles.

I do have I problem with that. If you're good in the asset then by all means go take it, that's not the problem. The problem is people that will consistently vote for maps that have lots of assets in them because apparently they got so good at assets that they forgot to get good at everything else.

SShadowFox wrote:I do have I problem with that. If you're good in the asset then by all means go take it, that's not the problem. The problem is people that will consistently vote for maps that have lots of assets in them because apparently they got so good at assets that they forgot to get good at everything else.

Thats not just asset whores, thats the community as a whole, admins put up bias mapvotes. Its not really an issue with CAS or Asset whores.

How will flares get adjusted in the next update?