Project Reality Forums

creepinshadow24/7 wrote:Landing is unrealistic and way more dangerous, happened to me once, i landed and then a Dirtbike suicided into me, boom!

REALISM is the main point why this should be implemented

Yes it is unrealistic but the GAME will continue to be because of these phantom rotors. You will work hard on something that will not add much to gameplay because ,again, phantom rotors. With your scenario the only difference if fastropes were added is that the squad being transported wouldve died instead of the chopper and to be realistic it is normal helo pilot doctrine to avoid hot LZ. If it was realistic that drop shoudlve never happened, lack of intel is a pretty good reason not to drop on an "unknown" LZ.

Fast Roping in city maps like Al Basrah and that new map, fast roping into an area with trees, fast roping on top of buildings...there's lots of use for it I think. Plus if we had fast rops, pilots would be able to hover higher. A lot of pilots I've seen run into trouble when hovering low enough for people to drop off.

It's a cool idea, not an essential one I guess.

creepinshadow24/7 wrote:Well then also make them phantom rotors solid, that shouldn't be a problem i think.

not a problem if you dont mind remolding all the helicopters in game.

creepinshadow24/7 wrote:Well then also make them phantom rotors SOLID, that shouldn't be a problem i think.
Then a Fastrope system would make sense and make the game a lot more realistic.
The players are then practically forced to behave realistic!

You cant. Hardcode. I should have posted that earlier to make my post a little more reasonable I apologize but at least now you see why I am so opposed to your idea. Trust me I want fastropes as much as the next guy but as it is now it is huge undertaking for little or no gain. Project Reality's ultimate pinnacle is gameplay realism not realistic gameplay. Sig that motto if you like. Do it for the 0.7 hate horde.

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:No, this hasn't been suggested before, to my knowledge. You would have to talk to a coder to see if its possible, but I think it is an interesting work-around to the concept.

Kahuna, rappelling from helicopters has been around since the Vietnam and Malaysia conflicts; IIRC, fast-roping came onto the scene in in the 1970s. A former SF detachment commander I asked about it remembers it being invented by the Royal Marines SBS. I thought for sure it would have been an Australian invention, like bungee jumping, face-first rappelling and dwarf-tossing.

...and Quokka soccer, although that may just be specific to Western Australia.

Razick wrote:GOD!! why doesnt anyone ever see why fastropes are SO FUDGIN useless and illogical with the BF2 engine. Does anybody know why fastrope insertions exist? Because the helicopter is unable to touch down because of terrain. Why cant it touch down? Because the rotors would crash into shit!....well in BF2 you dont need to worry about the rotors because THEY DONT EXIST!!! if the body of the helo can fit then it is landable. You can thank EA/DICE for their shortcut solution to the promised fastropes.

the majority of the community has a loathsome outlook on people who admire fastroping, it's just a few people who think it would be a good idea.

Comunity blah blah blah there and blah blah blah there and ...

Hey come on, he has a point : It's far more dangerous to land directly than rappeling down and bugging out. It's a lot more secure, less harder, and much more true to real life tactics and reasonings.
I keep hearing people yelling that it's 1337 to a point that it looks sadisticly fun for them! This guy actually has an idea, is trying to suggest something that can be implemented and that has not been suggested already. Why do you guys have to always flame him or else for that?
If it's possible, realistic, and enough to keep for gameplay, then it may be interesting! Please, stop falming and let the Devs/Mods reply to or close the subject, it's their duty, not yours.

We need e-gor's clarification on this as he is the lead coder. He will most likely confirm that this is not possible because this has been tried by countless other people.

The way I'd like to see this, if it should be implemented, would be to only allow it when the chopper is at low altitude and airspeed (near-stationary), and for there to be a delay from the time you hit the exit key to when you exit and appear on the ground. You could have one position in the chopper that had you exit on the ground, and have everyone in the chopper go to this position and exit, one after another.

Whether it should be done, however, I don't know.

My two cents:

As a BH pilot almost exclusively on many maps, I'd never use 'em. Nor would I allow my passengers to use 'em.

Even if my rotorblades were solid and my LZs were therefore limited, I wouldn't use 'em.

Why? Because the idea of hovering 10-20m above the ground, or worse - 10-20m above a buildingtop, fills me with dread. The birds are big, slow, heavy and easy to kill; two .50 cal MGs can rip a BH apart within ten seconds. The AAA, less than that. An APC takes even less time, a tank virtually no time at all. Ditto for HAT, MANPAD and LAT kits, if used correctly.

So, what I - and most other competent pilots out there would continue to do - is simply continue dropping people off at flat, open LZs with good cover nearby such as trees, buildings, hills etc, well away from hostile contacts.

I don't give a monkey's if it takes infantry 5 minutes or more to get to a CP from my LZ. That's a GOOD thing; it allows them to place a rallypoint and get themselves sorted, scope out the area.

But I'm not taking my bird and hovering her directly where any bugger can see us!

[R-MOD]Masaq wrote:My two cents:

As a BH pilot almost exclusively on many maps, I'd never use 'em. Nor would I allow my passengers to use 'em.

Even if my rotorblades were solid and my LZs were therefore limited, I wouldn't use 'em.

Why? Because the idea of hovering 10-20m above the ground, or worse - 10-20m above a buildingtop, fills me with dread. The birds are big, slow, heavy and easy to kill; two .50 cal MGs can rip a BH apart within ten seconds. The AAA, less than that. An APC takes even less time, a tank virtually no time at all. Ditto for HAT, MANPAD and LAT kits, if used correctly.

So, what I - and most other competent pilots out there would continue to do - is simply continue dropping people off at flat, open LZs with good cover nearby such as trees, buildings, hills etc, well away from hostile contacts.

I don't give a monkey's if it takes infantry 5 minutes or more to get to a CP from my LZ. That's a GOOD thing; it allows them to place a rallypoint and get themselves sorted, scope out the area.

But I'm not taking my bird and hovering her directly where any bugger can see us!

Thank you thats what I was trying to say. No pilot in their right mind would want to hover for 10 sec no matter how important the drop is. Sure it may be possible to add fastropes but is their a need for them, no. Like I said people might use it once or twice but then the gimic of it will wear off quickly once the blackhawk eats about 5 rpgs. Not worth all the work.

Fastropes are cool, and I for one, as a transport pilot would love them if they were implemented.

I know, however, from previous posts that is it SEVERELY hardcoded and been suggested so many times; and I'm not fond of teleporting troops to the ground and slapping a realism name to it - Any tosspot can fly around, takes the better ones to know where and how to land.

Heskey wrote:Fastropes are cool, and I for one, as a transport pilot would love them if they were implemented.

I know, however, from previous posts that is it SEVERELY hardcoded and been suggested so many times; and I'm not fond of teleporting troops to the ground and slapping a realism name to it - Any tosspot can fly around, takes the better ones to know where and how to land.

They're definitely cool but in PR, not something I'd want to use - at least not on anyplace with even a slight chance of having someone nearby lol.

[R-MOD]Masaq wrote: So, what I - and most other competent pilots out there would continue to do - is simply continue dropping people off at flat, open LZs with good cover nearby such as trees, buildings, hills etc, well away from hostile contacts.

ditto, although if this were implemented only the good pilots would still exist due to the bad ones being shot down during a fast-rope maneuver, which is actually that fast as its quicker to land ad take off again.

Don't be so sure Nick; the idiots will still try and perfect it, lose a lot of points, and keep me from using a Blackhawk for 20 mins.

Heskey wrote:Don't be so sure Nick; the idiots will still try and perfect it, lose a lot of points, and keep me from using a Blackhawk for 20 mins.

Likewise. It's not very realistic in terms of mass transit of regular front-line troops, and it's unrealisitic to expect players to NOT try and use it if it ever gets implemented.

And using it would mean death for the pilots and the loss of an important asset for the team.

Even if it's possible using this newly suggested idea, I just don't see the merit in using it in-game.

If you would think logically, that if you bail out you drop 10-20m lower, you can also enter the hawk 10-20m lower, because that's where the exit points are. If you just drop them, you would fall and die. That's what I think atleast.