Project Reality Forums

40mmrain wrote:maybe im just good?

type 99s are no problem for the t90, one ATGM is an instant kill, and I seem to be able to survive hits from the chinese tanks.

The chinese APC has thermals making it better than the BTR, however. Maybe the russians could receive a BMP-3 on black gold's final release?

T90 can't survive a HAT 90% of the times, Type 98 can 90% of times, and I've survived ATGMs on Type 98 plenty of times, whereas on the T90 one is always enough to take it out. WZ551 with 30mm is better than BTR-80a, VN-3 is better than BRDM 14.5, Type 95 SPAAG is as good as Tunguska and the rest of the russian armor doesn't have a counterpart in the Chinese army in PR so it's not fair comparison.

40mmrain wrote:The chinese APC has thermals making it better than the BTR, however. Maybe the russians could receive a BMP-3 on black gold's final release?

During the beta it wasn't and issue.
The WZ551 has the advantage of thermals, but it only has a 25mm cannon, whereas the BTR80A has a 30mm cannon with a higher rate of fire.
The BRDM and VN3 are very simular in terms of armour and firepower, although the BRDM isnt as mobile and some of the passengers have to expose themselves on the outside of the vehicle.

They're very minor differences and don't change the outcome of the game that much. The outcome of the game really comes down to the team as a whole and the skill of the crewman.

The jets however aren't as balanced, although I did see examples of the MIGs having the upper hand at times. The AAVs were the real jet killers from what I saw.

Stealthgato wrote:T90 can't survive a HAT 90% of the times, Type 98 can 90% of times, and I've survived ATGMs on Type 98 plenty of times, whereas on the T90 one is always enough to take it out. WZ551 with 30mm is better than BTR-80a, VN-3 is better than BRDM 14.5, Type 95 SPAAG is as good as Tunguska and the rest of the russian armor doesn't have a counterpart in the Chinese army in PR so it's not fair comparison.

Im going to have to see some factual numbers here, really. I always felt as if my tank was superior when I was on the russian side. I have hit type 99s on the front armour with ATGMs and have had them tracked, rendering them completely defenseless for a minute or two while they get the turret warm again.

Yes, the russians dont really need a BMP, I merely suggested that under the impression both the chinese tanks and apcs were that much better, when they are not.

Jets also have a lot too less ammo
F16 in PR 16x Rounds F16 in RL~511
A10 has in PR about ~500? should have 1,174 rounds
...

Well, the F-16 should also carry 100 flares and A-10 should carry 360, since that's their max capacity in real life right?

In PR, due to the significantly shortened ranges at which aerial engagements occur, and the significantly shorter time required to RTB and rearm, this is one of those times where gameplay>realism.

But 160 rds is just useless...

Fukster wrote:That is not based on facts, i can fly mig on 3000 at silent eagle.

Never actually lost to eurofighter on silent eagle. And dont see any reason why ef would be superior.

U need to take those old planes to higher altitude to go "supersonic" and no its not a myth i got a video to show how to go supersonic.

So it works like this, u go high enough to get supersonic, then u dive down and vola u go a lot faster than any ef.

I would never change my mig to anything,i always prefer mig.

here is the video

[XFIRE]29adef[/XFIRE]

there is no point doing that, since if you do the same with the tornado, you will can reach over 6000 (!!!)

I DNA prefer the Mig on both Silent Eagle and Black Gold. Just because the enemy jet is faster doesn't mean it is harder to kill. It all comes down to who sees who first! Being slower allows you to maintain a steady distance behind your target as well and gives you more time to think through your attack and predict the enemies maneuvers. I find it rare to be outran by a jet unless of course you are in a Frog or A-10.

Hehe Someone are real funny, writing down: "Those who first came behind jet, will won the dogfight". No shit, 90% of the dog fights is to get behind the enm jet, other way around is try to evade them. Only thing that is a problem here, flares dont do much, couse the system isnt good, like u are poping little crackers behind u, like flares were to weak. But i think the higher number of flares around 60 will do the job, couse now, u are poping like a mad, but they just dont work, in the situation when they should.

I think flare system of jets, is only imbalance in the game, make dogfights short, and plane to agile.

I laugh when I see people people saying "dogfights are about who sees who first". Bullsh*t. I don't see anything hard in getting the enemy jet off your tail. You just need to know when to pop flares, make turns, barrels, when you should rapidly speed up and slow down etc. Its not just about spamming in mumble "AAAAAAAA HELP ME ENEMY JET ON MY TAIL!!!!111111". I survive 60% of dogfights when the enemy jet is behind me. The major reason when I loose a dogfight are 20mm cannon snipers. REMMEMBER! You need to pop flares all the time, i.e. 1 flare/5 seconds. If you only pop flares when you hear *BIP BIP BIP* its already too late. Doing that makes your enemy have far less oportunities to lock onto you.

ExNusquam wrote:Well, the F-16 should also carry 100 flares and A-10 should carry 360, since that's their max capacity in real life right?

i don't like this idea if i have a mig on my tail and i can't lose him. I would
probably pop a flare ( since i would have 100 flares) ever second and ask
for an AA canon over my base to be ready. and went i pass over my base ,
Boum the migs got shot.

alexpower15 wrote:i don't like this idea if i have a mig on my tail and i can't lose him. I would
probably pop a flare ( since i would have 100 flares) ever second and ask
for an AA canon over my base to be ready. and went i pass over my base ,
Boum the migs got shot.

1. Sarcasm...
2. Good luck doing that, because 75% of time you will be about 2-3 km from your main, so you will have to fly straight for ~20 seconds which will be the best oportunity for the jet on your tail to spam you with his cannon below his feet

ExNusquam wrote:Well, the F-16 should also carry 100 flares and A-10 should carry 360, since that's their max capacity in real life right?

In PR, due to the significantly shortened ranges at which aerial engagements occur, and the significantly shorter time required to RTB and rearm, this is one of those times where gameplay>realism.

The A-10c has 120 flares at default, and 240 chaff. The pilot can set up his own countermeasures program, in the [chaff] [flares] [interval] [cycles]. Chaff indicates the amount of chaff deployed per cycle, and flares the amount of flares deployed per cycle. Interval indicates the amount of time between cycles, reaching between .25 to 5 seconds, and cycles indicates the amount of cycles that will be done when you press the CMS on the HOTAS. Though this is only done when the CMSP is set to manual.

Honestly, I think the usefulness of SAM and AA missiles should be reduced, and thereby increasing the effectiveness of flares. Perhaps make them turn slower, as the missiles are used to intercept, not follow.

LongHairedHuman wrote:The A-10c has 120 flares at default, and 240 chaff. The pilot can set up his own countermeasures program, in the [chaff] [flares] [interval] [cycles]. Chaff indicates the amount of chaff deployed per cycle, and flares the amount of flares deployed per cycle. Interval indicates the amount of time between cycles, reaching between .25 to 5 seconds, and cycles indicates the amount of cycles that will be done when you press the CMS on the HOTAS. Though this is only done when the CMSP is set to manual.

Honestly, I think the usefulness of SAM and AA missiles should be reduced, and thereby increasing the effectiveness of flares. Perhaps make them turn slower, as the missiles are used to intercept, not follow.

Thanks for giving us a lesson on something that has nothing to do with the game.

SuperHornet wrote:Thanks for giving us a lesson on something that has nothing to do with the game.

I think he played a little too much DCS:A-10C...

SuperHornet wrote:Thanks for giving us a lesson on something that has nothing to do with the game.

SuperHornet wrote:Thanks for giving us a lesson on something that has nothing to do with the game.

You learn something new every day, and it was relevant as it regards countermeasure count, and the amount of flares that can be deployed at once.

And Yes, I played too much dcs A-10c, and blurt out semi-random A-10c facts out, if the oppertunity arises.

But back on topic please, I don't want to cause a derail, or I might blurt out random train facts.

OFF Topic: I'm confused, why LongHairedHuman uses the same avatar as Maverick?

SShadowFox wrote:OFF Topic: I'm confused, why LongHairedHuman uses the same avatar as Maverick?

They obviously got a deep faggish connection between each other

SShadowFox wrote:OFF Topic: I'm confused, why LongHairedHuman uses the same avatar as Maverick?

Chose it since most of my activities in PR involve flight.

Back On-topic, jets need an overhaul.