Project Reality Forums

ShockUnitBlack wrote:I like all the above suggestions, all would make a pilot's job a bit more complex/interesting, which is good. Still, I've never been quite sure about jets in PR in the first place; even four kilometer battlefields are far too small for them in real-life :/

Agreed on that front. I think helis work well but jets push it a bit far, maybe improved physics would help them suit the 4km battleground better, as well as no out of bounds penalty (haven't tried jetting in a while so I don't know whether this is still the case)

Slightly related question: did Mosquil ever get that 3D vehicle HUD working for PR?

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr ... d-hud.html

Mosquill is working on it outside of PR and its still WIP at the moment but if all goes well you may see it in PR in the future

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:Yes, right now planes in PR are somewhat harder to fly ingame than they are in r/l

O.O

So it meanz I can flyz F-16 in real lifez?! OH MAY GAWD!




On topic though. I have only flown a couple of times on UKWF (or MeRK...) training server. I found it pretty easy to "follow" an enemy plane... which also made it impossible to evade, no matter how daring are you flying between trees... Would increased agility change anything, other than making the turns, well, tighter?

(Now I see, tighter turns = less time to react :O !!)

goguapsy wrote:O.O

So it meanz I can flyz F-16 in real lifez?! OH MAY GAWD!




On topic though. I have only flown a couple of times on UKWF (or MeRK...) training server. I found it pretty easy to "follow" an enemy plane... which also made it impossible to evade, no matter how daring are you flying between trees... Would increased agility change anything, other than making the turns, well, tighter?

(Now I see, tighter turns = less time to react :O !!)

I think he means about the pitch and yaw and how you cant decelerate without losing all power

darkside12 wrote:I'm definately getting out of the Marine Corps and away from MV-22s. No offense, but I hate aerospace engineers. They think they know everything about an aircraft, and most don't even know how to fix the damned thing they designed. The MV-22 has ruined my wanting to work on aircraft after I get out, as it is quite ridiculous to work on (even after it has had a MAJOR overhaul on how the layout was to make it EASIER for maintainers). My only advice for you is if you design it, take time to figure out how to change it. You'll be loved for it.

lol I hate them too. I am studying it to understand engineering but hopefully not actually be one. I would much rather be a pilot, adviser, program manager or maybe even something related to programming once I'm in the active duty Air Force.

Being a pure engineer (especially in aerospace) is very dull unforgiving work.

That's not to say though that there aren't aircraft out with better more practical design. The MQ-1 and MQ-9 for example I have heard are very easy to repair and maintain (albeit a lot simpler).

[R-DEV]Sniperdog wrote:lol I hate them too. I am studying it to understand engineering but hopefully not actually be one. I would much rather be a pilot, adviser, program manager or maybe even something related to programming once I'm in the active duty Air Force.

Being a pure engineer (especially in aerospace) is very dull unforgiving work.

That's not to say though that there aren't aircraft out with better more practical design. The MQ-1 and MQ-9 for example I have heard are very easy to repair and maintain (albeit a lot simpler).

You don't have to tell me about dull and unforgiving. My uncle's an aerospace engineer for Lockheed Martin. Right now he's in the JSF program, and he works TONS of hours. But, he also makes tons of money.

Pilot would be good to have that degree for. Most of the MV-22 pilots in my unit have degrees in engineering, even though not all are in aerospace. And good luck in the USAF. The only thing I could say better than that would to launch in an F/A-18 of a Nimitz class carrier.

darkside12 wrote:The only thing I could say better than that would to launch in an F/A-18 of a Nimitz class carrier.

Or better still, a F-35C off a Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier?

Or yet better still IMO (although I'm bias ), a F-35C off a Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier?

darkside12 wrote:The only thing I could say better than that would to launch in an F/A-18 of a Nimitz class carrier.

How about an F/A-18e/f Super Hornet?

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:Or better still, a F-35C off a Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier?

Or yet better still IMO (although I'm bias ), a F-35C off a Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier?

Nice to see your no longer pushing the B model

Don't know if you have been watching but emals is back on track YouTube - Navy launches first aircraft using EMALS and here is another reason the QE should have Cats. Video: First Flight for Navy?s Killer Drone | Danger Room | Wired.com

ZAP44 wrote:Nice to see your no longer pushing the B model

I would still be pushing the B / STOVL model tbh if it wasn't for the bigger picture, which I mentioned in this topic in post #86: https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f22-mi ... ost1540689

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino;1540689']The reason why the F-35C was chosen over the F-35B was because this government felt that the F-35C met there new requirements more than the F-35B, but mainly because if our carrier was CATOBAR and we had CATOBAR aircraft too then we could work directly with the French (+ our other allies) and both our countries could save a heap of money overall by sharing recourse.
Anglo-French defence treaty: at a glance - Telegraph

David Cameron on the matter. YouTube - David Cameron on carriers

If it wasn't for the Anglo-French defence treaty, I would still say the F-35B makes more scene over the F-35C epically with the plan of buying fewer aircraft as previously planned as STOVL aircraft have a much higher sortie rate and are much more flexible than CATOBAR aircraft which both have been proven countless amounts of times in multiple conflicts with the harrier, as well as many other areas.

But anyways back on topic guys.


What I would really like to see is some well thought out ideas on how to make things work well ingame, like how we can give decent air to ground weapons directed via the pilot (although tbh we pretty much know how we plan on doing that as CA did it pretty well, there method just needs some improving) and on stuff like that

Its all well and good saying "you need to improve this and that" but the hard bit is actually how you go about archiving that to make it work both from a code perspective (which I know most of you guys can't help us with there) but also from the perspective of making w/e practical and usable ingame (which you guys should be able to help us with )

Cheers!

Killer2354 wrote:How about an F/A-18e/f Super Hornet?

I didn't specify a certain model. Shit, I'd rather launch of a carrier in a C-2. Being thrown off in a turbo prop off would be more of a rush than a jet IMO. But nothing beats helicopters. You can't turf the deck at 100 feet going 500 kts in a F/A-18. But I have ridden in an Osprey turfing New River at 75ish feet at 200 kts.

Mostly what I see is about jets. Is this a jet only suggestion thread? What I mentioned earlier seemed to be completely ignored, about sounds of certain helos being screwed up (Blackhawk, Cow) and the whole doorguns on the Hueys situation.

I thought of another thing today. Why is it that when you drop crates, you hear a winching sound? Why not make it sound like some poor crew chief pushing it out? You drop crates, and you hear a grunting and the sounds of rollers or something in that perspective. And when you rearm crates, you hear a ratcheting sound, like he's securing the load in the aircraft? It would sound more realistic, and more hilarious IMO.