Project Reality Forums

[R-CON]Desertfox wrote:Im just wondering, are you also against the way the tanks are set up?

no, IRL tanks have different jobs for each crewman in the tank.


but in PR tanks only have 2 man crews (usually) and your on the ground.

Tanks are different than gunships.

I think this is a good idea, i hate when im with a pilot shooting and he just does a rocket run out of the blue, the co-pilot should control all weapons besides the AA

Eddiereyes909 wrote:no, IRL tanks have different jobs for each crewman in the tank.


but in PR tanks only have 2 man crews (usually) and your on the ground.

Tanks are different than gunships.

And IRL, helicopters have different roles for each guy in the helicopter

.:iGi:.BLACKWIRE wrote:Tanks are fine.

If the tanks are fine, and this makes helicopters set up like the tanks then doesn't that mean the helicopters will be fine

still thinking that we need lockable missils on choppers.

Pilot - Flys

Gunner - Weapons system.

The way I see it.

Let me put it this way then. Does it make sense for a WWII propeller fighter plane to have a seperate gunner seat even though the gun only shoots forward? That the pilot aim the gun but have another dude pull the trigger instead?

How about a modern fighter plane. Beside having a seperate member to watch the radar, we add another crew member who's job is to hit that fire button whenever pilot manages to acquire air to air radar lock? Or manages to put the enemy plane into his gun sight?

Finally, does it make sense to you, for a infantry soldier to aim his rifle but requires another soldier to pull his trigger?

If the above 3 scenario made sense or sounded fun to you... I honestly live in a different plain of reality than yours.

We're not talking about a turret that has the freedom of rotation or a smart missle that can be steered. We're talking about dumb firing rockets that only goes forward according however the direction aircraft is oriented by the pilot.

The issue being discussed here has nothing similar to how tanks are being controlled in PR. More like would you like to have somebody aim the tank turret while the other person hit the fire button? It serves no purpose, and it's idiotic.

[R-CON]Desertfox wrote: If the tanks are fine, and this makes helicopters set up like the tanks then doesn't that mean the helicopters will be fine

In theory yes however in practice, no.

danshyu wrote:Let me put it this way then. Does it make sense for a WWII propeller fighter plane to have a seperate gunner seat even though the gun only shoots forward? That the pilot aim the gun but have another dude pull the trigger instead?

How about a modern fighter plane. Beside having a seperate member to watch the radar, we add another crew member who's job is to hit that fire button whenever pilot manages to acquire air to air radar lock? Or manages to put the enemy plane into his gun sight?

Finally, does it make sense to you, for a infantry soldier to aim his rifle but requires another soldier to pull his trigger?

If the above 3 scenario made sense or sounded fun to you... I honestly live in a different plain of reality than yours.

We're not talking about a turret that has the freedom of rotation or a smart missle that can be steered. We're talking about dumb firing rockets that only goes forward according however the direction aircraft is oriented by the pilot.

The issue being discussed here has nothing similar to how tanks are being controlled in PR. More like would you like to have somebody aim the tank turret while the other person hit the fire button? It serves no purpose, and it's idiotic.

exactly

danshyu wrote:Let me put it this way then. Does it make sense for a WWII propeller fighter plane to have a seperate gunner seat even though the gun only shoots forward? That the pilot aim the gun but have another dude pull the trigger instead?

How about a modern fighter plane. Beside having a seperate member to watch the radar, we add another crew member who's job is to hit that fire button whenever pilot manages to acquire air to air radar lock? Or manages to put the enemy plane into his gun sight?

Finally, does it make sense to you, for a infantry soldier to aim his rifle but requires another soldier to pull his trigger?

If the above 3 scenario made sense or sounded fun to you... I honestly live in a different plain of reality than yours.

We're not talking about a turret that has the freedom of rotation or a smart missle that can be steered. We're talking about dumb firing rockets that only goes forward according however the direction aircraft is oriented by the pilot.

The issue being discussed here has nothing similar to how tanks are being controlled in PR. More like would you like to have somebody aim the tank turret while the other person hit the fire button? It serves no purpose, and it's idiotic.

Easy there danshyu... we get your point, but there's no need to flame the idea.

The passion in danshyu is burning.

Well, this would bring down on the realism side in the way that the chopper would not be able to engage with Hydras and gunz at the same time, unlike RL. I seem to remember hearing it is more common that the pilot would have controll over them, in most situations.

...mongol...

good point mongol

[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude wrote:Well, this would bring down on the realism side in the way that the chopper would not be able to engage with Hydras and gunz at the same time, unlike RL. I seem to remember hearing it is more common that the pilot would have controll over them, in most situations.

...mongol...

Depending on the aircraft, it might not be able to engage with both cannon and rockets, at least not at some targets. The Cobra (with the exception of the Z model), because of the placement of the ordnance and cannon, must traverse the cannon to 0 degrees (straight ahead) when firing rockets or missiles or risk damage.

.

I am basing what I am about to say on my knowledge of the Apache which I was told from a pilot.

IRL, the pilot and the copilot can do any task in the helicopter (except the pilot might not be able to control the cannon, I can't remember). Eliminating the pilots ability to shoot the hydras would not only not make any sense, but it's not realistic. I RARELY see people soloing an attack chopper, and when I do, it's because no one is there to gun for him.

Sorry if I sounded like I was bashing the original idea.

But what I refered as idiotic is the example I provided. Which's the system of somebody aim the tank turret but requires another person to hit the fire button.

Only sencible thing that comes to mine mind is that pilot gains no score at all if theres no gunner with him.

Other than that, choppers are just fine.

Don't forget that a well organized heli crew (pilot + co-pilot) usually stays alive longer than a solo pilot
+ co-pilot controlling all weapon systems is very unrealistic

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:The Cobra (with the exception of the Z model),.

Funny, cuz we use that exact model
kekeddy-keke

Not to mention, whenever these choppers are employed in PR, there is almost always heavy armour resistance, making hydras as affective as a Kamikaze against a M1A2 on the back of a dolphin. Its suicide. Since its so damn easy to shoot down a full speeding atk chopper with the 120mm, the Pilot only wants to face the nose(and tail) at the armour to fire a TV and then GTFO ASAP, while the gunner does his thing.


...mongol...