a10 thunderbolt tank killer

Rg · Post by Rg » 2005-11-26 21:35

Sure, you like the flyover rearm/repair, because it’s easy and convenient, but why would such an unrealistic feature be in a reality mod?

Heydude235 · Post by **Heydude235** » 2005-11-26 21:35

Cerberus wrote:It's not a bomber, it's an attack aircraft

Well it a tank killer/bomber it takes out stuff on the ground. So what ever you want to call it.

Heydude235 · Post by **Heydude235** » 2005-11-26 21:36

Rg wrote:Sure, you like the flyover rearm/repair, because it’s easy and convenient, but why would such an unrealistic feature be in a reality mod?

Well maybe they should make a landing runway and a take off runway.

Post by **BlakeJr** » 2005-11-26 21:37

In my opinion all aircraft should have to land to arm and repair. We can't call this mod a realism mod unless we do that...

Rg · Post by Rg » 2005-11-26 21:39

I hope all you dev's agree on that and I hope it's possible to code.

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-11-26 21:41

its worth saying again the goal of this mod shouldnt be realism at all cost, but a MORE realistic expirience, i think its unfair to remove something that adds value to the gameplay because its "unrealistic" and that if it cant be used in a perfectly realistic manner it should be removed

DAWG · Post by **DAWG** » 2005-11-26 21:43

The only problem with planes in BF at the moment is that they are all multi purpose biotches. They can jink around taking out just about anything on the field and are fast enough and maneuverable enought to avoid most if not all ground based anti air implacements. Seperating the two classes into interceptors and ground attack aircarft would go a long way to remedying that problem, the fast birds wouldn't be attacking ground targets and the ground attackers would be cumbersome enough that they would be in danger of fixed implacements, unless the pilot flies smart. The problem with rearming is a big one, it makes aircraft endless, reducing the rearm height to a few feet would force pilots to land their aircraft as flying that low would certainly put them in danger of hitting stationary objects like hangers. BF needs it's planes, it is after all Battlefield 2 not counterstrike 2. I agree that in their current layout the aircraft in the game are ubber, especialy with a skilled pilot at the helm. Hopefully PR can address some of those problems and if not eradicate them, then can reduce the ubberness ( don't know if that's a word ) of aircraft to give some feeling of balance and realism to the air vehicles. The fire and forget missiles on helos need looked at also, currently you are better throwing stones than firing the rockets. I don't know if it's possible to increase the damage they do to light armor whilst maintaning there current effect on MBT's and the like.

DWM|SgtSwabs · Post by **DWM|SgtSwabs** » 2005-11-26 21:45

Well i like bombers and they should be in the mod because 1: They ARE used in real life. 2: If a good pilot is in one they can be a great asset to a team. And landing would be a good feature because if you cant land a craft then learn how! I can its dead easy and realistic but the PR guys would have to alter the cornering on the planes so that when you are on the ground you can turn around and take off again.

Post by **BlakeJr** » 2005-11-26 21:52

Sorry for the confusion here.
We merged the A10 threads, so just keep posting in this one.
Heydude, your new thread was not deleted it is right here!

A10 fans, keep it coming!

Edit: Btw, the A10 will eventually be reviewed, as the British military stuff has priority.

Heydude235 · Post by **Heydude235** » 2005-11-26 21:54

One thing is landing on a aircraft carrer. This might be hard maybe if you make the runway wider one side for take off. Then one for landing.

Rg · Post by Rg » 2005-11-26 21:58

'[R-PUB wrote:DAWG']ubberness ( don't know if that's a word )

It is now........*writes it down in my dictionary*

The biggest problem is how fast the planes can cover the entire map. How long does it take to fly from 1 side to the other, about 15 seconds? Obviously you can't make the planes go slower. It's just they don't work realistically in this game (Maps are too damn small). Making them land will be an improvement and having separate classes "interceptors and ground attack aircarft" would be cool. I'm just still not a fan. You guys continue to discuss, because I sure as hell am in the small minority on this issue.

Heydude235 · Post by **Heydude235** » 2005-11-26 22:03

Well maybe make a spwanable class called pilot. They have a parashute and take the spot of the spec ops. Only they can fly aircrafts such as helicopters or Planes. This would be great.

DAWG · Post by **DAWG** » 2005-11-26 22:04

Not really, most everyone has a problem of one sort or another with aircraft. It's the way in which the problem should be solved that causes the debate. It has been suggested that special maps are made to accomodate aircraft, which in my opinion serves everyone fairly well. I personaly would like to see what the largest map size would do to aircraft, I recently played on a much larger map with no boundaries as such and the aircraft were not so prevelant. If I had any talent at all when it comes to mapping in BF2 I would make a huge map, just to see what the difference would be. Certainly one of the major problems with aircraft is that they can zip from one target to another almost instantly because of the very small infantry based maps. Even the MBT's and APC's seem a little out of place on these teeny weeny maps.

Heydude235 wrote:Well maybe make a spwanable class called pilot. They have a parashute and take the spot of the spec ops. Only they can fly aircrafts such as helicopters or Planes. This would be great.

This idea has been suggested many times, it crops up in just about every thread which discusses aircraft in one form or another. I believe the devs are looking at different ways to implement the idea without making it so every n00by in the game races for the pilot kit at game start.

Heydude235 · Post by **Heydude235** » 2005-11-26 22:07

Well how big can maps be made. Is there a way to make them twice the size of a big one?

DAWG · Post by **DAWG** » 2005-11-26 22:12

256 / 512 / 1024. No idea what that means or how it relates to current official EA maps, but like I said recently I played on a custom map that was at least twice the size ( that's how it seemed ) of the nonsense released with the game.

Artnez · Post by **Artnez** » 2005-11-27 00:14

The maps are also about positioning. Alot of the large BF2 maps seem alot smaller because the retain is specifically designed to provide cover. It's like being a playground.

Silos, cranes, rivers, bridges, numerous cities, a few outputs.... all on one map! That makes it seem much smaller than it really is.

If any of you played Eastings for DC, you will know that Eastings is 1/2 - 3/4 the size of the BF2 maps... but it seems so much larger because the terrain is accurately portrayed.

BF2's mistake (among many others) is that they decided to make every map fun for as many people as possible. This failed, of course, as you see 90% of the community fighting on Karkand.

As far as the A-10 and all other aircraft... all that I ask is that they be more difficult to use. Turning off the nose cam was a great first step. Landing has to be difficult and must be learned. Firing and maneuvers should also be difficult.

At the moment, the infantry presense in PRMM increases the difficulty dramatically. The same must be done for all vehicles and aircraft -- as it would only be fair.

Also, keep in mind people, the A10 is one bad mutha. It's very well equipped to take out ground targets and drops a large payload in comparison to the current aircraft. This could cause some serious balancing issues.

Heydude235 · Post by **Heydude235** » 2005-11-27 02:32

Well i havent played dc for a long time. I never played that map. So i dont know. All i know is that when you play as infantry you have to move slow with your squad. Making sure its clear. This is why i like this mod. Rng dosent work. I cant wait to see some models of the a-10

Deagle · Post by **Deagle** » 2005-11-27 04:22

If you're going to go all out and make it so you have to land to re-arm/repair, then you will have to change some of the runways in BF2.

Think Clean Sweep. Can you honestly say that you can land the F-15, turn it around, re-arm, and then take off on the runways that are already there?? If you look at most runways in military zones, they don't have the plane shelter at the end of the runway.

Helicopters on the other hand should have to land to repair / rearm. They easy to land, so they should have to.

goodoldxelos · Post by **goodoldxelos** » 2005-12-01 00:02

'[R-PUB wrote:Artnez.com']
As far as the A-10 and all other aircraft... all that I ask is that they be more difficult to use. Turning off the nose cam was a great first step. Landing has to be difficult and must be learned. Firing and maneuvers should also be difficult.

At the moment, the infantry presense in PRMM increases the difficulty dramatically. The same must be done for all vehicles and aircraft -- as it would only be fair.

Also, keep in mind people, the A10 is one bad mutha. It's very well equipped to take out ground targets and drops a large payload in comparison to the current aircraft. This could cause some serious balancing issues.

Simple answer to flying planes the more aggressive menuvers the more energy you bleed. Though doing smart menuvers at the right time will bleed energy but not alot! I dont know if this is programmable but concentrate on just having a plane lose speed when it turns hard.

Post by **CodeRedFox** » 2005-12-01 00:56

I still to this day believe that if you just make the planes have to land to rearm all the problems go away...Also making all the planes have to turn out of a hanger to get to the runway would help big time

a10 thunderbolt tank killer

Do you think it's a good idea to add the a-10 in pr