Project Reality Forums

NikovK wrote:I also strongly feel that the high-speed jet fighters should be removed and replaced with ground-attack aircraft like the A-10. This will also help with our AAA and SAM problem of jets being impossible to hit. Slow-moving attack aircraft are more vulnerable to SAM fire, granted that the cockpit is an armored bathtub on the A10...

I think it solves a lot of problems. The JSF and Harrier sound good; didn't the Marines use Harriers for a while? AV-8B's?

Yes they did, until the JSF was contracted. Im sure Harriers are still very much in service. The JSF has many technological advantages, however the AV-8 has one MAJOR advantage that im sure the marines are very proud of, it can take of AND land vertically. The JSF can only take of vertically, it cannot land vertically, it only haS short landing capability...

As far as the jets not being able to be hit by AA missles, thats simply the missles themselves not being fast and/or manuverable enough...But yea, i agree, this would be another issue that would be solved. Aircraft would be a little easier to take down.

Although you dont want to make them any more vulnerable than they already are...So its a good thing we got flares!

Man, the USMC won't be getting the JSF until the Air Farce get's all they want and after the Navy takes all the rest of the good ones. The USMC'll get the ones they broke in testing. Just watch.

NikovK wrote:I think it solves a lot of problems. The JSF and Harrier sound good; didn't the Marines use Harriers for a while? AV-8B's?

Yes, the Marines still use the AV-8B Harrier II. Their newest version is the AV-8B Harrier II Plus, which incorporates radar. Some of the newest also have additional rails for Sidewinders in front of the outrigger landing gears, leaving the underwing hardpoints freed up for more air-to-surface ordnance.

JSF is already in the game. From what I understand, there are going to be three versions of JSF. Conventional, Carrier and V/STOL. One for each service, I guess.

GRB wrote:True.

I just dont think that the BF2 engine is a "fighter friendly" game engine...Too many limitations.

I love fighter jets. But with every reason why i love them, i cannot do or have any of it with the fighters in BF2.

Flying 15,000ft in the clouds, actively switchin through different targets while cruising at a speed of 500-600mph is what i love about fighter jets. Dropping a guided ordinance from 2-3,000ft in the sky almost undetected is what i love about fighter jets. Engaging enemy fighters and climbing to 20,000ft for safe manuvers is what i love about fighter jets...Mainly what i love is to top out the engines and go 800mph, 900mph, and MACH+ and look over my shoulder and see the ground thousands of miles down seeping by...

Cant do any of that in BF2 man...I just think that BF2 actually degrades fighter jet glory...

Not too mention its totally unrealistic...

i dont care if its "unrealistic" certain things must be weigh in the amount they contribute to gameplay and its a MAJOR aspect of gameplay, i enjoy dog fighting and no many other people that do, if you dont want to do it fine but to suggest they should be removed alltogether is idiotic

Beckwith wrote:i dont care if its "unrealistic" certain things must be weigh in the amount they contribute to gameplay and its a MAJOR aspect of gameplay, i enjoy dog fighting and no many other people that do, if you dont want to do it fine but to suggest they should be removed alltogether is idiotic

Why the hostility?

Its just a suggestion. I think a poll would settle this nicely. Even so, its up to the developers. Wether or not they are up to the challange will determine what happens.

because your talking about removing an entire facet of gameplay, one i and many others happen to enjoy, this is the first time on these boards (to my knowledge) someone has actually discussed removing altogether one of the fundemental aspects of Battlefield gameplay, the greatness of the BattleField Franchise is that it is all encompassing armor, infantry, aircraft (both bombers and fighters), naval, artilery

The jets have to stay it's as simple as that. BF2 is a flawed product however the fact that it has freedom to play it your way, is not one of those flaws. You say the Jets are Just Props that have been modified? That's exactly what they are in RL. Jets didn't just appear they evolved from the prop plane. To say that they don't fly fast enough is a fair comment, but a little tweaking and that can be solved, it should also go someway to solving the problem of attacking ground targets with fighters, as they will bee travelling fast enough to make an attack of the like very difficult. Increasing the stall speed will also solve some of these problems, because pilots won't be able to come to almost a stop before losing control.

All the speeds of BF2 vehicles are slow, tanks in real life can reach decent speeds considering their size and wait. The problem is as someone mentioned the size of the maps. The maps simulate a battlefield by reducing land mass and therefor the speed of vehicles traversing that land mass.

PoE did an excellent job with the aircraft, because they seperated the fighter and the bomber into 2 distinct categories, Fighters fought for the skies and protected their bombers during sorties. The problem with current BF2 aircraft is due in part to real life events. More and more countries are looking to multi purpose jets, those that can defend themselves against older fighters and complete destruction of ground targets using high yield low weight ordinance.

Rather than remove the aircraft altogether, it would be better to introduce types more suitable to game play, unfortunately the game uses the Marines as a the standard unit, which means that they tend to use more multi purpose equipment to better deal with whatever threat they come up against. If the game was to bring the army back into the game and perhaps elements of the Airforce proper, then maps could be taylored for the kind of forces which would fight in those environments. This would allow for different variations of many aircraft, without infringing on the "REALISM". If folk would lay of the realism just a little bit and realise that there is only so much that can be made realistic without making the game worse rather than better, then introducing a plane used by the airforce and not the marines wouldn't be such a problem.

Use some imagination, just because it is marines fighting on the ground, doesn't mean it has to be marine aircraft defending the skies, how about we let the airforce defend the skies and let the grunts fight. It really isn't that much of a stretch is it?

In conclusion. Seperate the airforce capabilities, don't give them multi role capability. If it is designated as a fighter then boost the flight speed, reduce the stall speed and remove the ground attack ordinance. Bring back the A-10 and the Frogfoot and we are golden.

If people don't want tanks and jets and all that other good stuff, if all you want is street fighting and squad combat, then I have to say you purchased the wrong game. If it's a death match you want try Half LIfe or Quake they may be more to your liking.

Heydude235 wrote:I think they are fine. I like the way they reload i say keep it.

Doesn't fit into a realism mod. Even in OFP you have to land and taxi to the next supply truck.

on small map sizes that would be tricky and on a carrier unless theres some alternate control system itd be close to impossible

1. Aircraft should not be removed from the game, that is taking away a huge chunk of gameplay.

2. Aircraft handling and speed physics MUST be fixed. I can pull a 10+ G-Force turn in my jet, my jet remains intact. In real life, this puts huge stresses on airframes, and can only be held for a certain amount of time.

3. Pilot limitations. Ever knoticed how you seem to be able to pull a huge turn and the pilot doesn't even blink an eyelid!? In real-life, a pilot has to continually fight against g-forces, to keep blood in his head. I think that if sharp turns are held, the pilot should start seeing his screen turn red, then black, and make the controls unusuable. This would certanly add an heir of realism.

4. Reloads. Like many have mentioned, this is possibly the most unrealistic thing ever in BF2 jets. Do the ground crew chuck up the missiles and bombs and hope they will somehow stick to the plane, while it's travelling at 400mph plus? I thought not. Planes should be made to land, and stick on the air-strip / carrier for a certain amount of time, while the plane is reloaded. Landing aint that hard, especially on BF2.

5. More aspects to actual flying. Some of you will have played realistic flight simulators, or maybe even have flown a plane for real (like me ), and knoticed there is a hell of a lot more too it, than a bare window view, and a HUD. Much more aspects to flying need to be added, this would truely seperate the new guys, from the ones who know what they are doing.

6. A wider, more balanced range of aircraft, maybe? At the moment we have fighters and bomber jets, and attack and transport choppers. Maybe transport aircraft, like a C130, where troops can paruchute out the back (seen this being done, looks awesome), low-speed (well not that much lower speed) bombers, like A10's, and maybe a B52 (ok so that's maybe a lil' outta perspective).

Feeling strongly about aircraft, and their true reality, I know what serious issues BF2 aircraft raise, and yes for a reality mod, something needs to be done.

Thanks for hearing me out

DAWG wrote:If folk would lay of the realism just a little bit and realise that there is only so much that can be made realistic without making the game worse rather than better, then introducing a plane used by the airforce and not the marines wouldn't be such a problem.

Exactly.

I made a post addressing this exact issue a few months ago.

People are hiding behind the "realism" argument to make the game more fun for themselves, without thinking of anyone else. Using the argument 'realism' as your only argument is wrong. If you throw an idea like this around, there needs to be a little more ideas to back it than "its realistic".

One other thing.... we still haven't seen the capabilities of mappers to their full extent. First of all, BF2 maps are filled with ALOT of **** that doesnt necessarily need to be there... which can reduce framerates. If the mod team simplifies the maps just a little (especially open terrain maps, not talking city maps) they can probably increase the size if that's possible.

OFP is a great game and I love it. I also think the PR team can take alot of ideas that OFP had... but... they are completely different games, that's true. OFP is a simulator, BF2 is an arcade. There's a difference.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, people need to see PR for what it really is, a mod that promotes realistic gameplay -- not a mod that mimics the real world.

thank god you guys finnaly showed up i was starting to pull my hair out thinking i was the only one that realised this was a bad idea

Yep..

TFCS (task force common sense) has arrived. Hoorah!

Artnez.com wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again, people need to see PR for what it really is, a mod that promotes realistic gameplay -- not a mod that mimics the real world.

well then that's a whole new line of thinking for me. Thanks fer the tip. A subtle change, but just enough of one to make a HUGE difference.

Let's get rid of those damn Stinger Missile sites and put in SAMs and AAA.

When was the last time you saw a King Cobra rolling back and forth and changing altitude rapidly in order to dodge a stinger? NEVER.

Are there going to be Shilkas?

Artnez.com wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again, people need to see PR for what it really is, a mod that promotes realistic gameplay -- not a mod that mimics the real world.

Well, we're also trying to be as authentic as possible.

id say that PR is trying to find a happy medium. its impossible to put real life into a game (up to now anyway ) but PR needs to mimic real life with what weapons, vehicles and units it puts in, while at the same time perserving realistic play... BF2 does niether, thats why we need PR

'[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker']Well, we're also trying to be as authentic as possible.

Yea, sorry, I didnt mean to put words in your mouths... but I hope you guys got the idea.

I could say "this isnt realistic" about anything. That's easy. Just trying to say that the game is about a realistic experience as opposed to everything being top notch real world realism.

Ok, well if you refer back to my origninal post, i suggested 3 things.

With options 1 and 2 definatly out of the question, we are left with option 3. Making the Jets as realistic as possible, without breaking gameplay of course, and dealing with the consequences.

Its not that i disagree with ya Beckwith. I understand fully the complications of gameplay and such.

Obviously, I just simply have a totally different point of view on what good gameplay is. Which is why i thought removing the fighter jets and adding ground attack/bombers in would be a really awesome idea. Thats one of the biggest problems with trying to find good balance in gameplay, the fact that everyone has thier own point of view on what good gameplay is..

Artnez.com wrote:Yea, sorry, I didnt mean to put words in your mouths... but I hope you guys got the idea.

I could say "this isnt realistic" about anything. That's easy. Just trying to say that the game is about a realistic experience as opposed to everything being top notch real world realism.

Good point.

But one, such as me, would argue that the current fighter jets dont offer a "realistic experience"...

But i dont want to argue about it. What evers clever.

Something should be changed though. Anything. They are simply NOT acceptable as they are now.