Project Reality Forums

so the main jet engine is also generating a good amount of upward thrust on top of the nozzles doing it

What main engine? It has only one engine with four main exhaust nozzles and a couple more on the wingtips nose and tail. All the thrust is generated by these nozzles.

For a lack of a better word i meant what you called the 'main nozzles'. I know the jet engine is not on the back like on some normal jets.
But yes thinking about it, it maybe doesn't make much difference then if the jet is angled upwards or not, since even the main nozzles would tilt anyway to generate lift, although maybe it still does help a bit.

I didn't claim that the takeoff is possible like this, all i said is it might need further investigation or the opinion of someone who worked with this jet, maybe something can be found on the web, before the possibility can be dismissed in its entirety.

Of course for the jets with bombs to take off like this is most likely not possible, but maybe the lighter ASF jets?

But what do i know, i have been wrong before and i am no expert by any means, the devs know probably much more about this then i do, but then again they were wrong before too.

PricelineNegotiator wrote:Can you release a hotfix to revert back to normal while you perfect these new physics?

Unfortunately no, but we can provide lessons(at a cost) and greif counselling.

[R-CON]LiamBai wrote:Unfortunately no, but we can provide lessons(at a cost) and greif counselling.

Riamu-Senpai teach me onegaeshimasu

viirusiiseli wrote:Jets cant turn while pulling up.

Losing control of the jet while turning normally.

Drag in doing barrel rolls, not realistic at all (watch any video of jets turning ever)

Pulling up is too drastic, every jet is a J10 now. The delay of it and the angle are not realistic or good in any way regarding gameplay

Overall, sad to say but a very prematurely released feature that shouldnt be live tested on game servers but use the testers you have for this purpose. Sadly, again, these premature features seem to be released now more often, like it is a custom.

This.

This is more than a reason enough to revert the changes. The jets start spinning randomly while doing normal turning in the air and sometimes its impossible to get them to stop spinning. Slow jets making sharp turns looks like something too sci-fi even for a Star Wars movie.
I like the idea of these new changes but they should be tested and refined before being released.

PricelineNegotiator wrote:Can you release a hotfix to revert back to normal while you perfect these new physics?

^Mad because he can't pull a Priceline anymore.

X-Alt wrote:^Mad because he can't pull a Priceline anymore.

What is pulling a Priceline? Being the best pilot in the game? That's still a title I hold, even with the new update.

But I appreciate your concern.

I respect the amount of work you have done, rPoXoTauJIo, but sometimes work has to be scrapped for the posterity of the community, until something more reasonable is available. This is part of your responsibility as a contributor, to evaluate your own work, and make judgements. Just because you're incredibly proud of it, and you've spent countless hours on the project, doesn't mean everyone else's opinion doesn't matter.

That's what the PR community is being told now: "Post your feedback on the current Project Reality release (including SinglePlayer)." We post our feedback and we are told that we are wrong, and that the new jet physics are the greatest thing ever made. You have not listened to the community. Locking two threads and taking the steam out of the discussion is a great way to tell the community to "fuck off, we're creating the game we want, you can get lost for all we care."

You know deep down that you should revert the physics until you have something more developed. Just do it and be done with it.

It would be so great if we could stop pulling this all the time into a 'you didn't care enough/you didn't test enough/you didn't research enough/you didn't ... enough' all the time and stay to feedback on jets.

The last thing we also need is others telling how we need to work as a team and how our RCONs should act. This might seem odd but we have always tried to make the game we wanted to make, cause that's how we all started. We modded this game , and then joined the team. And that's a cycle that will never end. We never make changes cause we want to please the playerbase. This is something you should really all remember.

Stating that we should revert cause you tell us to is pretty laughable. I think this comes from the fact that the turret changes of v1.3.5 were reverted. Now with every thing you don't like you want the same? too bad,not happening. That call was made as the team decided together with feedback that we should revert that. But notice how I say actual feedback. Not once did we care about people saying 'revert pls'. We try to move forward here, not backwards. Reverting is something we rarely do.

And if you continue this trend you can say bye bye to this forum as well as I'm tired of seeing our team being told what to do by people who contribute nothing themselves. That is NOT how this feedback thing works. Give your opinion, tell us your stories that happened ingame, and give us possible solutions to bugs/whatever. But telling us what to do is not something we appreciate or will allow.

DogACTUAL wrote:I didn't consider the load and reading up on jump jet it was always declared that is is vertical takeoff without any mention of the need to have little weight to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOVL

Read....

DogACTUAL wrote:With that said... Is gun ammo and two aim 9s really a full load(when ignoring the ground attack variants)? You said it can still carry a little amount of weapons.

IF combined with hardly any fuel in its tanks, then yes a Sea Harrier FRS.1 at least certainly can land vertically with 2x Sidewinders and Gunpods, since I've seen many examples of them bringing back their sidewinders during the Falklands war, one key example being when two Sea Harriers were forced to land on HMS Fearless, a Landing Platform Dock (ie, an assault ship with only a large helipad on the back) as a Chinook had blown away some bits of the metal matting airstrip at San Carlos making that runway they had oringally planned to use to refule unusable, and with too little fuel to make it back to the carriers, it was their only option to land on Fearless until the runway had been repaird: http://yellowairplane.com/Adventures/Fa ... ds_War.jpg

But the key thing above, is they had no fuel left, making it possible to bring back the 2x 85kg Sidewinders and 2x 100kg of cannons back, which is nothing like 1000lb bombs, which they can't bring back even with no fuel left. But the Harrier still MUST do a short take-off with even this small load, if carrying any significant amount of fuel, which they always do for any sortie.

DogACTUAL wrote:And when you are doing the takeoff of the side of the carrier you have over 200km/h speed displayed on the HUD which would make it over around 100 km/h for the real speed value.

Yes I wonder why do all these nations bother making STOVL carriers with runways when they don't need them...

Put it this way. The British Invincible Class has a 170m long runway, and that is with a Ski Jump at the end, and the US Essex Class has a 250m long runway, with no ski-jump and the Harriers always use this take-off (with very-odd training exceptions, with no weapons/fuel etc). Yes I'm sure they built their carriers with these long runways for no reason at all....

DogACTUAL wrote:Of course for the jets with bombs to take off like this is most likely not possible, but maybe the lighter ASF jets?

No... You seem to be missing the point that a full load of fuel on its own is too much for it to take off vertically, and you also don't realise that the "Lighter ASF" Sea Harrier also has a heavy radar in its nose that the GR.3 doesn't.

[R-DEV]Mineral wrote:snip

Apparently I cannot offer any criticism of the team or features without being threatened with a ban, and a developer adding hostility to a post that had none. Merry Christmas.

I'm not against the feature being implemented, it's just in its current state is not mature enough (as countless others have echoed), and as I suspect, will take a good amount of time before it is mature, and am suggesting a revert during that time period.

Edit: Anecdotal evidence is having someone in my squad in the F-15 on Khamisiyah, while I don't know the specifics, they suddenly entered a flat spin, which they very narrowly recovered from. The crew was veteran players, and were flabbergasted at what caused a flat spin to occur.

PricelineNegotiator wrote:Edit: Anecdotal evidence is having someone in my squad in the F-15 on Khamisiyah, while I don't know the specifics, they suddenly entered a flat spin, which they very narrowly recovered from. The crew was veteran players, and were flabbergasted at what caused a flat spin to occur.

But it happened in top gun (j/k)

Yes I wonder why do all these nations bother making STOVL carriers with runways when they don't need them...

Put it this way. The British Invincible Class has a 170m long runway, and that is with a Ski Jump at the end, and the US Essex Class has a 250m long runway, with no ski-jump and the Harriers always use this take-off (with very-odd training exceptions, with no weapons/fuel etc). Yes I'm sure they built their carriers with these long runways for no reason at all....

You don't have to roll your eyes at me since like i said in previous posts, that even if such a take off is possible no real pilot would do it because it is way too risky and is just asking to crash the jet into the water.

If i was a harrier pilot i would always use the runway of course.

My argument was just that it might barely be possible for the real harrier to take off like this under certain conditions (light load), but nobody would have tried it out for this exact reason, sorry if i didn't communicate that well enough.

Ingame it is different though, because you can replicate the takeoff reliably, for the conditions are always the same. But even ingame most people refuse to use the method, even after i explained it to them since they don't even want to risk the jet there.

I admit that i am a bit biased because i got attached to this takeoff method, it is very handy.
But if the takeoff is not authentic i am all for removing it of course.

You obviously did way more research and know a lot more about this topic than me like i already strongly suspected, so i have no right to lecture you lol.

I just wish you would apply the same uncompromising attitude for authenticity to some weapon characteristics and ballistics too, instead of making them grossly behave unlike their real counterparts.

DogACTUAL wrote: I just wish you would apply the same uncompromising attitude for authenticity to some weapon characteristics and ballistics too, instead of making them behave grossly unlike their real counterparts.

You can't recover from this meme tbh, one point for these kids

-snip-

- keep politics to the respective section please - Nate

I was specifically trained in memetic warfare, graduaded top of my class. But don't pull a strawman on me, i actually like the new flight model.

DogACTUAL wrote:I was specifically trained in memetic warfare, graduaded top of my class. But don't pull a strawman on me, i actually like the new flight model.

Is not my meme, is from Mats.

PricelineNegotiator wrote: Edit: Anecdotal evidence is having someone in my squad in the F-15 on Khamisiyah, while I don't know the specifics, they suddenly entered a flat spin, which they very narrowly recovered from. The crew was veteran players, and were flabbergasted at what caused a flat spin to occur.

Has happened to me on a couple of occasions with the F-15 too and I still have no idea why I have started spinning around. Two times I managed to get out of the spin somehow but the third I was spinning for 2 minutes before crashing.

PricelineNegotiator wrote:What is pulling a Priceline? Being the best pilot in the game? That's still a title I hold, even with the new update.

Then quit while your ahead old man.

Unfortunately that "revert" will never come because while the new features are extremely unfinished and not well executed, reverting back to the older physics model would be admitting that the DEVs did a boo-boo.

I hope at least this will be worked on urgently to fix the broken parts as fast as possible.

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Mineral;2153727']It would be so great if we could stop pulling this all the time into a 'you didn't care enough/you didn't test enough/you didn't research enough/you didn't ... enough' all the time[/quote]

People say that because unfinished products are constantly finding their way into the game, that the community sees could be fixed in the developmental stage. The community has a great deal of people interested in being testers and I think there's already quite a few testers in the team. So, it is not clearly visible to us why half-done features keep being implemented. It's not just about not liking something, it's bugs and gameplay breaking issues that do not need the whole community's feedback. Those issues just need the tester's feedback to be fixed.

As for giving feedback on the jet physics and whatever, I think you guys got a lot of that already so it should be fine

[R-DEV]Mineral wrote:And if you continue this trend you can say bye bye to this forum as well as I'm tired of seeing our team being told what to do by people who contribute nothing themselves.

You can see this is because people are irritated by the way you guys are working, it is feedback in its own form. Take it with a grain of salt and move on, why threaten everyone with a ban right away? Everyone apperciates the work you do including myself, a lot of people want to help and so on, no need to lash out just because you're getting some words on a forum.

[R-DEV]Mineral wrote:But telling us what to do is not something we appreciate or will allow.

When the community is giving feedback, this is essentially what everyone does in a way or easily strays to. They want to let you know what they think is the best option in their opinion, again, why is this being turned into such a problem?


[quote="PricelineNegotiator""]Being the best pilot in the game? That's still a title I hold, even with the new update.[/quote]

Unlike the turret change that was AIDS, the majority is in favor of the new flight model.

X-Alt wrote:Unlike the turret change that was AIDS, the majority is in favor of the new flight model.

You have no data to support this claim.

viirusiiseli wrote:snip

You can be second best, don't worry.