Project Reality Forums

I almost forgot this aircraft , too bad he wasnt able to take off vertically and fly supersonic in a single mission. It would have been nice to see that bird over a battlefield lol

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino;706202']You sure it was a F-35b and not a F-35c or anything? Cos the F-35b is only 15m long, only a little bit larger than a Harrier.

Not sure, but they did have the F135 engine there.

Which is designed for the F35B, so I hear.

Found a pic

Maybe not THAT huge, but bigger than the one in Battlefield.

Polka wrote: Maybe not THAT huge, but bigger than the one in Battlefield.

Everything in BF2 is waaay out in scale. Apparently 1m isn't a metre, so it's impossible to get everything in scale. Would also mean every static in the game would need remaking, lest we have tanks towering above street lights

Harrod200 wrote:Everything in BF2 is waaay out in scale. Apparently 1m isn't a metre, so it's impossible to get everything in scale. Would also mean every static in the game would need remaking, lest we have tanks towering above street lights

I thought the problem was that the player models were out of scale not the meter.

The X-32 rocks it had a greater fuel capacity and was faster.

also the thrust vectoring made it really manuverable.

Hitperson wrote:The X-32 rocks it had a greater fuel capacity and was faster.

also the thrust vectoring made it really manuverable.

Yeah, but we all know it looked as fugly as the Nimrod.

Do people care about the aesthetics?? I mean would you rather have a decent plane which was fugly, or a slightly worse plane but looked nice...

Jordanb716 wrote:I thought the problem was that the player models were out of scale not the meter.

I think the player models are a symptom, not a cause.

TheScot666 wrote:Do people care about the aesthetics?? I mean would you rather have a decent plane which was fugly, or a slightly worse plane but looked nice...

Function over form every time thank you very much.

TheScot666 wrote:Do people care about the aesthetics?? I mean would you rather have a decent plane which was fugly, or a slightly worse plane but looked nice...

the X32 didn't do as well on a lot of tests where the F-35 did better. Overall the F-35 was the better aircraft.

Yeah was just saying, as Viper only said it looked fugly lol

jack2665 wrote:2008-2009 is when the U.S.A.F is replacing the F-16 with the F/A-22 so V1.0= F/A-22
and NO to the F-35 EWWWWWWWWW VBF2 yuck!

wrong. F-22 is replacing the F-15. JSF/F-35 = Replacing F-16. But thats not going to happen for a long time.

F22 is replacing the F117A (Already done) and F15Cs.

F35A is replacing F16s and possibly A10s around 2025, and possibly the F15E

F35B replaces F18C/D and AV8B for the USMC, Gr.9 (and tornado?) for UK

F35C replaces F18C/D for the USN.

Well, I am saying that a F-35 ingame would be awesome, it could be ingame with the Harrier as long as say, in the map breifing it says something like "a few months after blah blah landing.." or "it has been a year since the war began.." So the Harrier would be in 2009 for GB/US forces, and the F-35 would be in 2010 on.

Then say the Harrier would be on **** map, while the F-35B or F-35C would be on **** map, I saw that map being made "into the dragons mouth" or something like that... anyways, that would be perfect!

"It has been a bloody * months and America is determined to push further into Mainland China but reserves are comming from the *direction here* The ** Marine *** needs to take this beachhead so that they can push inland and cut off the reserves from attavcking the flank of the main force pushing towards *Chinese city name here*."
*edit*
Time line
Harrier--------------LightningII
20**------2010----------2011----
Muttrah--------Dragons Mouth----

Since Muttrah is a likley candidate for the Harrier and Dragons mouth would be a great map for the Lightning II, as it is USMC Assualt Ship(Essex class) based.

[R-PUB]Viper5 wrote:F22 is replacing the F117A (Already done) and F15Cs.

F35A is replacing F16s and possibly A10s around 2025, and possibly the F15E

F35B replaces F18C/D and AV8B for the USMC, Gr.9 (and tornado?) for UK

F35C replaces F18C/D for the USN.

They just upgraded the F-18 to the Super Hornet, the F-18 isnt going to where for a long time. Im sure you can read that anywhere. And how the hell will an air superiority fighter replace a stealth bomber(F117)? I think that role will go to the F35 instead.

[R-PUB]Viper5 wrote:F35B replaces F18C/D and AV8B for the USMC, Gr.9 (and tornado?) for UK

the F-35b is replacing for the Brits the Fleet Air Arm Harrier GR9 (Carrier based, the F-35b will come in with the 2 new aircraft carriers).

I don't think it will be replacing the RAF Harrier GR9 and defiantly not the Tornado GR4, I don't think that has a replacement as of yet.

The Tornado F3 is being currently replaced by the EF2000.

Anyone know if the F-35, like the Harrier, will be unable to carry a full payload, when launched from a non-carrier vessel, such as the USS Essex? I'm just wondering if they've improved upon this with the new design. I'm not sure about the US, but the carrier the F-35 has been earmarked for by the Royal Navy isn't due in service until 2014. This probably means no F-35 for the UK , unless someone comes up with a Queen Elizabeth class carrier for the game (which sounds like a mammoth task).

moj wrote:unless someone comes up with a Queen Elizabeth class carrier for the game (which sounds like a mammoth task).

I like mammoth tasks, or do I after muttrah?

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:I like mammoth tasks, or do I after muttrah?

If you ever come up with a QE carrier for PR, I will campaign to have you refered to by all as "Legendary Saint of Project Reality"

moj wrote:If you ever come up with a QE carrier for PR, I will campaign to have you refered to by all as "Legendary Saint of Project Reality"

If you can make the QE Carrier and the F-35B/C then I will campaign for your name to be second only to requim's!!!!

i still think they should have developed the YF23 instead of the F22 though.