Aircraft suggestions (PR and plane whores)

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-01-30 20:47

FlyBoy wrote:Oh come now, its not that much of a problem when planes are in the air and you are on the ground, most pilots arent very good so its not like you have much to worry about, but when you do run into a good pilot, like when i fly , thats when things can be a little hectic on the ground

It isn't that difficult to point at one of the marked ground targets and pull the trigger, hell even I can do that, I took a guy out of an FAV without destroying the FAV with a 4-5 round burst in a plane. Playing against any pilot who constantly looks at the ground for targets IS extremely annoying when you're trying to get into battle on the ground, especially with longer respawn times.

Resjah · Post by **Resjah** » 2006-01-30 20:51

'[R-PUB wrote:BrokenArrow']It isn't that difficult to point at one of the marked ground targets and pull the trigger, hell even I can do that, I took a guy out of an FAV without destroying the FAV with a 4-5 round burst in a plane. Playing against any pilot who constantly looks at the ground for targets IS extremely annoying when you're trying to get into battle on the ground, especially with longer respawn times.

well FAVs are weak so yeh they would be easier to take out, not all pilots can take out a tank or AA vehicle

with their guns, not to mention using their bombs with accuracy.

When you have an enemy pilot that keeps attacking you, tell your friendly pilot to get his A$$ in gear and give you some air cover

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-01-30 21:00

I just think it's far too easy for air to ground pilots at the moment. They need to fear mobile AA and AA missiles, and until then, for the sake of people wanting to duke it out in tanks, planes need to be more difficult to opperate. I spend more time looking for jets than I do other tanks.

Resjah · Post by **Resjah** » 2006-01-30 21:07

'[R-PUB wrote:BrokenArrow']I just think it's far too easy for air to ground pilots at the moment. They need to fear mobile AA and AA missiles, and until then, for the sake of people wanting to duke it out in tanks, planes need to be more difficult to opperate. I spend more time looking for jets than I do other tanks.

I fear AA

In PRMM its pretty effective, everytime i hear a lock on to my plane and i know its ground AA i always start to sweat a bit.

Which leads me to this, RL pilots have a lock on tone that tells them that a missile has locked on to them, but it isnt the same tone for everything, there is a different sounding tone for a AA ground vehicle lock than a Air to Air missile lock.

Implementing this in would be great

Why?! · Post by **Why?!** » 2006-01-31 02:30

angus wrote:Why?!, those missiles track like a rabid bloodhound. How are they affected by flares? Are they something a good pilot with curent or modified flares evade?
As mentioned, if this missile code were applied to SAMs, helicopters would have real problems. Any ideas how to help balance with out a nerf warhead or low ammo count?

Any news on the air to air mod you had mentioned?

1st Part:

Oh you are going to love this, when I had the missiles in superman mode, their behavior with flares was... interesting. If a plane dropped flares the missile would definitely go for it as vanilla missiles do. However after the missile had finished flying through the flare, it would re-engage the orignal target and proceed to kill it with 100% accuracy. Pretty great stuff

2nd Part:

I mentioned it before, the changes that I did actually had zero effect on a helo's vulnerability to missile attack. In fact the Tunguskas near perfect accuracy with its Iglas actually was a side effect of what I was doing with the A-A missiles. I actually did not change one thing for the Tunguska, it just sorta turned out that way. But again, I repeat, the changes I made have absolutely no effect on a helo's vulnerability. In theory anyway. BF2 can be pretty screwey with stuff like this.

Edit: I forgot to mention that in the real world (read: online), the missiles effectiveness was more on the border of 90% lethal. It was seriously almost impossible to dodge something like that.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-01-31 02:33

If we're going to use these I would hope (for the sake of those in the air!) that they become proximity detonated missiles.

angus · Post by **angus** » 2006-01-31 13:58

If proximity couldn't be implemented, could flares be given a collision mesh that the missile would hit and be destroyed. Maybe a new material that wouldn't damage anything but the missile.
Do the missiles actually have a FOV that it "sees" the plane? Or do they always know where it is? Could someone explain the details of how they work.

Why?! · Post by **Why?!** » 2006-02-01 00:36

angus wrote:If proximity couldn't be implemented, could flares be given a collision mesh that the missile would hit and be destroyed (1). Maybe a new material that wouldn't damage anything but the missile.
Do the missiles actually have a FOV that it "sees" the plane?(2) Or do they always know where it is? Could someone explain the details of how they work.

(1) Possibly. There might be some option on effects that will allow it to have a hitbox of sorts. I know there is an option for it to interact with other objects, but other objects cannot interact with the effect (if that makes any sense). Otherwise you could attach a model to the effect (even though this causes the editor to crash) and the effect will inherit the models properties.

(2) Yes, the missiles are assigned a FOV. The current BF2 tracking system based on personal expierience ingame and during modding(could be changed in upcoming patch for all I know) follows these steps:

Parent aircraft points nose at target aircraft, keeps nose on target for 1 second target lock delay.
Once lock is achieved, the missile locks onto the parent aircraft's target.
Upon launch the missile tracks the target assigned by the parent object as best as it can.
If the missile encounters interference (flares), the missile randomly (?) targets one of the new objects and chases the random selection.* Given the amount of flares dropped the missile has a 1 in 6 chance of maintaining orignal lock.
If the target ever leaves the FOV of the missile seeker head (45 degrees up and down by default), the missile will fly straight on its present course unless another target can be found. If another target is found, it will start to track it

*I've noticed that only flares or the heat pipes in some maps seem to be able to do this. If another plane flies by the missile does not seem to track it instead.

Resjah · Post by **Resjah** » 2006-02-06 21:22

Ok since Why?! is a PR contractor, i know who will fix the missiles, i have his small missile mod and it was excellant, but one thing that i cant belive i havent brought up earlier, is the aircrafts guns.

Ill use the F/A-18 for example. The F/A-18 has a 20 mm six-barrel gun, with 570 round loadout, and could fire about a 100 rounds per second. The pilot can only hold down the trigger to fire this gun for about 2-3 second bursts, otherwise he would melt the guns off. A one second burst is more enough to either destroy or severly disable a enemy aircraft, almost all flight systems get this part wrong, i do not know why

.

So my suggestion is that the devs greatly increase the guns rate of fire and damage, and also give the guns an extremely fast overheating bar.
Now, the pilot can switch between 4,000 spm or 6,000 spm, the 6,000 spm is mostly used for A/A, while the 4,000 spm is used for A/G, this reason for that is that it allows the pilot a bit more time to put more rounds into a pattern for a strafing run, if this could be implemented as well, it would be great.

Also, since it is more realistic it also gives the people on the ground a little bit safer area to work in, as the plane could no longer just unload their guns into their vehicles, the 20 mm gun can cause damage to most land vehicles, such as APC's,IFV's and other such lightly armored vehicles, it can cause some damage to MBT's but not a lot.

Another suggestion is a explanation and a suggestion for people that believe the little green boxes that point out ground vehicles should go and the planes should only be able to bomb targets if infantry highlight them with a laser designator. I believe EA introduced these little green boxes because it sorta simulates an aircrafts radar, ill use the F-16's radar for example. The F-16 uses the AN/APG-68 radar for its A/A and A/G roles, this radar works by emitting a pulse of electromagnetic radiation, then detecting reflected radiation. These returns are then analyzed and a bunch of information can be gathered from what bounced back, for example these return patterns can identify aircraft type,hieght,speed and even the direction its traveling.It does this all in real time.

Now after that explanation, on to why i believe EA put in these green boxes, the F-16's radar can also be configured for A/G roles, this can be used to drop guided, and unguided bombs onto targets, even those not visible to the naked eye. There are three main A/G radar modes, you have Ground Map(GM), Ground Moving target(GMT), and (SEA) for detecting waterborn crafts.

To detect ground targets, the radar acts in the same way as described above, anything that can generate a radar return, buildings, bridges, vehicles can be picked up on the pilots MFD(Multi Functioning display) seen HERE
Since EA obviously didnt want it to require too much skill to operate an aircraft, they created these little green boxes to simulate the radar picking up ground targets on the MFD. My suggestion to fixing them is to have different views for the radar, such as in real life, to be switched between.
The GM radar modes is used to detect stationary ground targets, building, bridges, or stationary vehicles, but if that stationary vehicle you locked up decides to move, you just lost your signal, the GMT is used for moving ground targets, so if you want to lock up the moving tank, better hope it doesnt stop, and i think the SEA is pretty self explanatory now.

I think these suggestions will work out for both the aviator and the ground pounder, you can see that making parts of the plane more realistic, solves a lot of current problems.

GD-Yankee · Post by **GD-Yankee** » 2006-02-07 00:22

i think da missiles on da planes should be a lil better, as a result i mainly use guns on a dogfight but it would be nice to c that plane blowin up wit ur missile

Why?! · Post by **Why?!** » 2006-02-07 02:00

FlyBoy wrote:*snip*

Sounds like another Falconeer. As big an aviation buff as I am I still would not know exactly the radar modes, functions, displays, and procedures of locking up targets if I did not play Falcon 4.0.

Edit: Off Topic, but I am looking to buy another sim, and I am split between Lock On: Modern Air Combat and IL-2 (with successors). Any simmers here have suggestions? I have heard very good feedback on both games, and am curious what the simmers here think.

Resjah · Post by **Resjah** » 2006-02-07 02:29

'[R-CON wrote:Why?!']Sounds like another Falconeer. As big an aviation buff as I am I still would not know exactly the radar modes, functions, displays, and procedures of locking up targets if I did not play Falcon 4.0.

Edit: Off Topic, but I am looking to buy another sim, and I am split between Lock On: Modern Air Combat and IL-2 (with successors). Any simmers here have suggestions? I have heard very good feedback on both games, and am curious what the simmers here think.

heh heh, falconeer all the way

Learned so much from it.

With respect to Lock On, since you probaly play Falcon a lot, if you started to play Lock On you would feel as if it was a bit simple compared to falcon, as it is not as techinal, for Lock on, all you need to kow is 1.how to turn fly 2. how to turn on your radar 3. how to switch between missiles and fire them 4. how to navigate 5. othe Misc. stuff like fuel, landing, radio. though the graphics are superb for a flight sim.

IL2 is a great flight sim for WW2 aircraft, i would recommend that if definatly, its not much different from other WW2 sims, like Pacific Fighters, or the old school CFS3

, but it was fun.

Anyway, back on topic, Why?!, make sure you get those missiles correct buddy

. and try to spread the word to the rest of the devs of implementing my ideas for the jets.

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-07 04:03

there are some problem at the moment to implement the full radar and targetting management as seen from the data we have on combat manuals of real jet fighters. We need to remember that in the real fight, we have a longer flight duration, more time for the pilot to prepare as they near the target zone. If you translate that to BF2 as it is, he'll be out of map bound before he even finish setting his radar tracking mode, and selecting his armament.

if there's a way to increase the upward blast from the bombs that would be usefull as well, right now i still see a lot of ppl dive bombing to extreme close range and pretty much released their bomb close to point blank. Larger upward blast will force them to increase the minimum safe distance when releasing the bombs. Pitty though we don't have the computer assisted bomb targetting system in BF2 to help us deliver the Mk-82s from longer range.

offtopic:
Falcon 4.0 was and will probably still be the best for jet flight sims for ages to come (especially with the upgrade mod that boost it's graphic and update some of the equipment). LockOn is fine as far as jet flight sims get, though before the patch it ate humongous amount of resource on the PC and still chug on a 9800 Pro. IL-2 is about as good as it gets in my oppinion in terms of WW2 flight sim, i particularly love their damage modelling system. Almost everything you can imagine on an aircraft part, can and will be damaged or destroyed by incoming fire. Even better that the dmg is actually VISIBLE and obvious if you take a good look on the target. My favourite is still perforating thoose stukas with my tomahawk's 8 machine guns. They don't dissintegrate or get chopped to pieces like they do when they are hit by cannon and heavy machine guns, but they become so full of holes that often the stuka's only operational part is the main engine and the pilot and the plane itself looks like a swiss cheese on close up.

Post by **Happy** » 2006-02-07 04:16

Zepheris Casull wrote: if there's a way to increase the upward blast from the bombs that would be usefull as well, right now i still see a lot of ppl dive bombing to extreme close range and pretty much released their bomb close to point blank. Larger upward blast will force them to increase the minimum safe distance when releasing the bombs.

That kills me too much as it is.

Resjah · Post by **Resjah** » 2006-02-07 04:52

Zepheris Casull wrote:there are some problem at the moment to implement the full radar and targetting management as seen from the data we have on combat manuals of real jet fighters. We need to remember that in the real fight, we have a longer flight duration, more time for the pilot to prepare as they near the target zone. If you translate that to BF2 as it is, he'll be out of map bound before he even finish setting his radar tracking mode, and selecting his armament.

if there's a way to increase the upward blast from the bombs that would be usefull as well, right now i still see a lot of ppl dive bombing to extreme close range and pretty much released their bomb close to point blank. Larger upward blast will force them to increase the minimum safe distance when releasing the bombs. Pitty though we don't have the computer assisted bomb targetting system in BF2 to help us deliver the Mk-82s from longer range.

well you see, you are thinking about it as if PRMM is Falcon, with all the buttons you would have to press yeh, it would be a no go for BF2 sized maps, you have to think of switching the radar modes, as switching weapons in a tank, you switch between GM as if you switch to HEAT, you switch to GMT as if you switch to SABOT, and you switch to SEA as if you switch to the Machine guns.

So it doesnt require that great deal amount of time to switch between radar modes, its really simple.

Now is this is implemented, it could allow the devs to make the bombs and such, more powerful, as it does require a bit more work on the pilots part to set up things, and pilots wont be able to spam their guns on ground targets or flags that much anymore unless its a legitimate strafing run of course if they also include the 6000 and 4000 spm.

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-07 05:58

ahh, i misunderstood the sentence before then. I suppose that should be fine indeed, i have one more question though, all the different radar modes and targetting is not really of much help without the addition of the MFD, which going back to my suggestion some time ago means we need a new cockpit render from a different point of view further back than we have currently.

It is possible to render the screen as an overlay i think to the current HUD, but that would eat a considerable part of the screen (less you shrink the radar a lot) and i am not sure where you can position it conviniently with the current HUD so that it doesn't block the pilot's vision.

btw, if i recall correctly, you can pretty much squezze out all 500 20mm rounds from the vulcan's ammo drum and still be fine. That pretty much means that you will run out of ammo in 5 second burst, but as far as i remember vulcan can handle it easily. Heck, i've seen a demonstration video of the phalanx firing a sustained burst longer than 8 seconds, i didn't count it exactly but the unit pretty much exhausted it's ammo drum in one continuous burst, or so i believe. Sure phalanx has a lower ROF but i am pretty certain the vulcan can do close to it.

4thRangerDiv. · Post by **4thRangerDiv.** » 2006-02-07 16:12

i just cant wait for 1.2 to come out and eliminate all those lame-*** dolphin diver. GOD I HATE THEM.

angus · Post by **angus** » 2006-02-07 17:21

Can the normally unused weapon keys (4 through 9) be remapped to include other things? Such as:
Flaps and Air brakes. Can the flight physics wings be controlled in an on off manner to approximate these. Would they be helpful in landings? Then the normal flight wings could be tweaked with less lift to make handling a bit more realistic. And low speed maneuvers harder.

Landing gear. Mostly for asthetic purposes.

Ground brakes.

Active radar on/off. Increase sensor range and at the same time increase the level of the heat target in the plane.

I would like to see aircraft hard to fly. The satisfaction of having to better yourself isn't present anymore. Remember back to the first time you could really fly a helicopter in DC, and put down a littlebird on the end of a crane. Difficulty should be enough that you get a sense of accomplishment after you put in the stick time to be good at it.

GD-Yankee · Post by **GD-Yankee** » 2006-02-07 17:55

off topic:
Lock on is more of a simple jet flight sim like flyboy said but it has some nice graphics in da other hand IL-2 is a really good WW2 sim, i have all of the IL-2 series so i would recommend it

Resjah · Post by **Resjah** » 2006-02-07 20:36

Zepheris Casull wrote:ahh, i misunderstood the sentence before then. I suppose that should be fine indeed, i have one more question though, all the different radar modes and targetting is not really of much help without the addition of the MFD, which going back to my suggestion some time ago means we need a new cockpit render from a different point of view further back than we have currently.

It is possible to render the screen as an overlay i think to the current HUD, but that would eat a considerable part of the screen (less you shrink the radar a lot) and i am not sure where you can position it conviniently with the current HUD so that it doesn't block the pilot's vision.

btw, if i recall correctly, you can pretty much squezze out all 500 20mm rounds from the vulcan's ammo drum and still be fine. That pretty much means that you will run out of ammo in 5 second burst, but as far as i remember vulcan can handle it easily. Heck, i've seen a demonstration video of the phalanx firing a sustained burst longer than 8 seconds, i didn't count it exactly but the unit pretty much exhausted it's ammo drum in one continuous burst, or so i believe. Sure phalanx has a lower ROF but i am pretty certain the vulcan can do close to it.

If the cockpit could be rendered to include an operational MFD, that would be great, and i hope it can be, but in the off chance that it cant, the switching between radar modes should be kept as it is now when you switch between A/A and A/G there would just be more variations to switch between, and the green boxes would stay but would only work with the type of radar mode described earlier.

Well, on my recent trip to tyndall AFB, near Panama city FL, i was able to talk with a couple of F-15C intructors, as Tyndall is a F-15C pilot training base, and is also home to one of the first F-22 squadrons, which i got to see

. Anyway, the instructor was telling me how the pilot should not hold down his fire trigger for the guns, otherwise the gun chamber would melt. I based what i said off of that, and i will trust the instructor

4thRangerDiv. wrote: i just cant wait for 1.2 to come out and eliminate all those lame-*** dolphin diver. GOD I HATE THEM.

and that deals with this topic because.....

angus wrote: Can the normally unused weapon keys (4 through 9) be remapped to include other things? Such as:
Flaps and Air brakes. Can the flight physics wings be controlled in an on off manner to approximate these. Would they be helpful in landings? Then the normal flight wings could be tweaked with less lift to make handling a bit more realistic. And low speed maneuvers harder.

Landing gear. Mostly for asthetic purposes.

Ground brakes.

Active radar on/off. Increase sensor range and at the same time increase the level of the heat target in the plane.

If ailerons, flaps, and stabilizers could be modeled into the game, you would see a whole different type of dogfighting that what goes on now, and i would love for this to happen. Devs, if there is anyway to make this happen please do so, as this would add so much more dimension to flying and fighting with aircraft than the little turn and loop stuff.