Project Reality Forums

'= wrote:H[=Rissien;1288860']Guns on choppers are useful at times, its just when they arnt needed players act like retards and fire them off just because they can.

then make the gunner positions need a pilot kit ?!?!?!?

this would only allow 5 troops in the back , or remove one of the guns if possible. that seems to me like the only way to stop them from firing the guns, also firing the guns wont give you away as the chopper is louder.

I think that having a pilot kit to operate the guns is a good idea. Consider that in real life these guns are normally operated a designated gunner (with special training, sometimes they are also flight engineer). Perhaps if someone without a pilot's kit got on the gun, it would decrease accuracy as they lack the training to fire the guns from a fast moving target. I feel that the suppressing force of these guns (in hot areas) are never used, as there is no gunner as they come into the landing zone.
I remember once that a squad I was in got pickup from a chopper. Unknown to us there were enemies in the area. The gunner on the mini-gun (it was a blackhawk) suppressed the infantry after the pilot circled once. The pilot landed so the gunner could still fire. We managed to get to chopper and get out without a single casualty.

MadMax678 wrote:The only decent Infil/Exfil Transport Heli would have to be the Black Hawk.

it has both speed and defence, and can be used as a weapons platform with the two Gatling rape cannons on each side...


But yeah, a M249 or .50 would be lovely on the Chinook, i hate getting owned by a Taliban with a RPG behind us when i land...

I disagree wholeheartedly, The Blackhawk in game is a smoking piece of ****. Its coded badly with handling characteristics that are bipolar, miniguns are far ineffective and mostly give your position away, it is one of the slower helos, etc.

IMO, the best would have to be either the Huey or Chinook. Both fast, maneuverable, the latter being far resistant to small arms, the Huey being a relatively smaller helo, making it a small target.

'= wrote:H[=Rissien;1288860']Guns on choppers are useful at times, its just when they arnt needed players act like retards and fire them off just because they can.

seriously, I'm getting tired of this attitude

every time that I've fired a mounted weapon on a helo in defence of the aircraft with a legitimate target, I've received a nasty message from the pilot.

Come on guys, dickheads are dickheads, if its not with a mounted weapon its going to be with something else, so can we just get past that and try to stay realistic, otherwise we might as well take the 50cals off humvees.

[R-CON]Rudd wrote:Come on guys, dickheads are dickheads, if its not with a mounted weapon its going to be with something else, so can we just get past that and try to stay realistic, otherwise we might as well take the 50cals off humvees.

But the weapon doesn't sound as fast as BH's minigun...

And the whole "Steel Rain" idea is non-existent in a HMMVV's .50cal...



(Well TBH I believe everyone argues with you Rudd because of your reputation. A little "slip", even if it isn't wrong, is enough to be a reason to put a known person down. Most people think that gives them rep- power, because you've made a "mistake" -- I hope you understand what I mean, this is something I've observed IRL).

Rudd does have a point. It always seems to be the whole "How People Play over Realism" Its more realistic to have armed helicopters. If someone wants to use it for C.A.S its their problem, but it makes absolutely no sense to have unarmed helicopters if their armed in real life though.. If you guys are waiting on a M240 or other gun to arm it then I don't mind, but if your removing realistic aspects because some moron doesn't use something the way YOU guys want then I'd be disappointed.

I also agree with the idea of having a pilot kit to use some types of door guns or all door guns as it would give a few more roles to trans squads, where a "copilot" could be useful.

FuzzySquirrel wrote:Rudd does have a point. It always seems to be the whole "How People Play over Realism" Its more realistic to have armed helicopters. If someone want's to use it for C.A.S its their problem, but it makes absolutely no sense to have unarmed helicopters if their armed in real life thought.. If you guys are waiting on a M240 or other gun to arm it then I don't mind, but if your removing realistic aspects because some moron doesn't use something the way YOU guys want then I'd be disappointed.

i completely agree, the focus of the game should be realism over all. having a helo with no dfensive guns is as stupid as having a pilot without at least a pistol...oh wait thats in game too! IF it were realistic all helos would have guns and the pilots would have a pistol, AND a rifle as they do IRL. Then again the huey would be the slowest helo not one of the fastest, a little bird wouldnt be on a USMC map, the helo sounds would be changed, etc, etc you get my drift. I am indeed tired of the game being changed to someones personal preference over realism, especially when said person probably doesnt even have the knowledge to put the game in a realistic environment in the first place yet continues to change the game without the advice of military members. IMO nothing should be in game unless it is verified by a military member, instead of Wikipedia as some things seem to be.

I totally agree, if you want to make a realism mod than please make it as realistic as possible.
No Doorguns? Who would send a chopper without doorguns?!?

Ogopogo wrote:I think that having a pilot kit to operate the guns is a good idea.

It is, however if both positions (left and right) were pilot required then there would only be space for 5 infantry rather than a whole squad, which would defeat the purpose of having such a big chopper like the Chinook

If it was a requirement for the rear ramp gun, then it would be feesable.

...There are eight Seats

Sgt.BountyOrig wrote:...There are eight Seats

One pilot, two gunners, five infantry.

1 + 2 + 5 = 8

blackhatch46 wrote:i completely agree, the focus of the game should be realism over all. having a helo with no dfensive guns is as stupid as having a pilot without at least a pistol...oh wait thats in game too! IF it were realistic all helos would have guns and the pilots would have a pistol, AND a rifle as they do IRL. Then again the huey would be the slowest helo not one of the fastest, a little bird wouldnt be on a USMC map, the helo sounds would be changed, etc, etc you get my drift. I am indeed tired of the game being changed to someones personal preference over realism, especially when said person probably doesnt even have the knowledge to put the game in a realistic environment in the first place yet continues to change the game without the advice of military members. IMO nothing should be in game unless it is verified by a military member, instead of Wikipedia as some things seem to be.

They took out the pilot's guns because people were doing parachute drops for them, instead of only using them in case of an emergency. The devs didn't want the whole 'spec ops' thing going on. Also, you do know that they have military advisers, right? I think they might know a bit more than you.

TmanEd wrote: Also, you do know that they have military advisers, right? I think they might know a bit more than you.

Thats a non argument imo. They have plenty of military advisers. There are also plenty of equally informed or serving guys not on the team. The military advisers don´t have the final say on any decision, they just advise. You can see kiowa pilots clearly armed with M4s and Apache pilots armed with SA80s but they will never be in PR as such, just because someone doesn´t want them to, not because its not realistic.

TmanEd wrote:They took out the pilot's guns because people were doing parachute drops for them, instead of only using them in case of an emergency. The devs didn't want the whole 'spec ops' thing going on. Also, you do know that they have military advisers, right? I think they might know a bit more than you.

Removing the parachute would have been a better idea imo, there are 2 maps with jets, there are many many more with helicopters.

Alex6714 wrote:Thats a non argument imo. They have plenty of military advisers. There are also plenty of equally informed or serving guys not on the team. The military advisers don´t have the final say on any decision, they just advise. You can see kiowa pilots clearly armed with M4s and Apache pilots armed with SA80s but they will never be in PR as such, just because someone doesn´t want them to, not because its not realistic.

You have to fairly adjust realism and gameplay. If PR was entirely realistic, every player would have to do basic training, depending on which faction he is deploying for, he has to do paperwork, do written exams, and be deployed to whichever area he is sent to by an officer.


However, that all sounds terribly boring. But realistic. Dx PR Is roughly 70% realism and 30% gameplay. Small changes are added for gameplay sake, such as pilots not having weapons because a common tactic was to unrealistically jump out of choppers and parachute down, killing anyone nearby with the pistols, and then stealing their weapons. IIRC helicopters aren't used as parachute platforms.



It's not because "someone doesn't want them to", like you say. If someone says I don't like M4 carbines, they're not going to change it so that they just use an m16.

Dev1200 wrote:You have to fairly adjust realism and gameplay. If PR was entirely realistic, every player would have to do basic training, depending on which faction he is deploying for, he has to do paperwork, do written exams, and be deployed to whichever area he is sent to by an officer.


However, that all sounds terribly boring. But realistic. Dx PR Is roughly 70% realism and 30% gameplay. Small changes are added for gameplay sake, such as pilots not having weapons because a common tactic was to unrealistically jump out of choppers and parachute down, killing anyone nearby with the pistols, and then stealing their weapons. IIRC helicopters aren't used as parachute platforms.



It's not because "someone doesn't want them to", like you say. If someone says I don't like M4 carbines, they're not going to change it so that they just use an m16.

Of course, I understand that, don´t agree always but its something that has to be done sometimes.

I was simply pointing out that the common argument of "well there are military advisers I think they know more than you and everything is perfectly correct" is false and silly. Of course it makes some things as realistic as possible but its not an argument because in the end what goes into the game its whats considered best by a few people not only the military advisers.

The devs have been saying the same thing for over a year.


" We dont have a good Platform model "

Even though they have released tons of new vehicles no one has made time to design one of the most simple models in this Engine.

Not to be a jackass but come on i could design a platform with my eyes closed.

Not to be a jackass but come on i could design a platform with my eyes closed.

then do it...

if the work is done it'll most probably get added

Dev1200 wrote:You have to fairly adjust realism and gameplay. If PR was entirely realistic, every player would have to do basic training, depending on which faction he is deploying for, he has to do paperwork, do written exams, and be deployed to whichever area he is sent to by an officer.

Dont forget that he wouldnt be able just to switch factions somehow because US Army is the bestest and Insurgents suck because they dont have scopes and yes, you would have only 1 live.