Project Reality Forums

Okay, this is a very radical idea and i don't know if it would even work with the engine, but i think these changes would lead to more realistic and better gameplay.

What i propose is to make aa missiles, flares and missile warning systems behave more realistic, which would also lead to more advanced tactics in air combat and close air support.

A) Aircraft no longer warns the pilot when being locked by infrared seeking missiles and while the missile is in flight. Same for MCLOS and SACLOS aa.
(An optional addition to this that might lead to balancing issues: Aircraft that has systems for launch and IR signature detection of the missile's heat signature still gets warned after the missile is launched)

B) Aircraft warns the pilot of being locked and engaged by radar guided missiles, no difference in the warning wether missile was launched or not.
(An optional addition to this that might lead to balancing issues: Only do this for aircraft that has radar wave detection systems, which almost all aircraft will have and only differentiate between lock and incoming missile if systems to detect lauched missiles exist.)

C) If possible, have flares and chaffs be deployed by seperate keys, if not then just deploy both when using countermeasures.

D) Make flares that are deployed after the IR missile launched more effective then they are now, make getting hit by aa in that scenario less random. Maybe reduce flares for balance. Don't do the same for chaffs since radar guided missiles would have almost no chance otherwise since their lock can be detected, maybe even make chaffs less effective.

E) If no countermeasures are deployed, make aa much more likely than it is now to hit the aircraft. This gives the pilot incentive to preemptively use them and forces him to rtb more often.

F) Make radar guided aa be able to detect and lock aircraft way past view distance to reflect their long range capabilities and to give them an advantage for being easily detectable, my recommendation is view distance + 500m. Maybe even increase their hit probability.

I think all of those changes would make dogfighting, close air support and aa roles more tactical and engaging, making it way less random then it is now and would give more incentive to think ahead and use countermeasures and missiles in more interesting ways.

Yea the maps in PR are 1000x1000.
There is no sense to make this in such small maps.

This is by the far worst idea for CAS

Flight models should be changed aswell then, otherwise some might be too op.

Iceman11 wrote:Yea the maps in PR are 1000x1000.
There is no sense to make this in such small maps.

This is by the far worst idea for CAS

There are no 1k maps with aircraft and 2k maps have no radar guided aa of any sort.
The range of radar guided aa would also only be extended by 500m which is not that much for the biggest maps.
Please explain what your point is in more detailed fashion, thanks.

SkyEmperor wrote:Flight models should be changed aswell then, otherwise some might be too op.

What do you mean? Since this would be applied to every aircraft, that would mean none of them would get any more advantages than they have right now over the other ones.

Can we get Flint from World in Conflit Modern Warfare??

Yeah, would be nice if the missiles were capable of adjusting their way to intercept their target instead of going straight for it, i don't think the engine is capable of that though.

Gerfand wrote:Can we get Flint from World in Conflit Modern Warfare??

Yet both wic and bf2 using python as scripting server-side language, we dont have that much control over networkable objects. Unfortunately, even if we would, bf2 engine performance falls far behind wic, not to mention larger map sizes(wic has maps of 0.5km, we have 4km(and falklands ) and required accuracy for fps aswell deny any ability for us to have something similar.

On a side point, prism and flint both have in common that they running in main thread, and there's great article available in internets to read more about it

DogACTUAL wrote:What do you mean? Since this would be applied to every aircraft, that would mean none of them would get any more advantages than they have right now over the other ones.

Some jets turn better. I don't see how you can have an actual dogfight on PR.

BECAUSE THIS IS 300 YEAR OLD GAME. IS IT NOW EASIER FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND?
How would you model chaffs in game huh? They aren't even there for spoofing radar missiles. THEY ARE FOR BREAKING RADAR LOCK. Since we don't have radars in this game and surely can't be done, then why bother. Pleas in future if you are gonna be writing suggestions like this read a book or two. Things aren't remotely close like you think they are. Ignorant...

SkyEmperor wrote:Some jets turn better. I don't see how you can have an actual dogfight on PR.

The turn rate of the jets has nothing to do with the changes i proposed. Again, since all jets would get the same treatment, that would mean the difference in performance between them would stay as it is now.
Talking about the turn rate is justified, but that's an entirely seperate issue.

Iceman11 wrote:BECAUSE THIS IS 300 YEAR OLD GAME. IS IT NOW EASIER FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND?
How would you model chaffs in game huh? They aren't even there for spoofing radar missiles. THEY ARE FOR BREAKING RADAR LOCK. Since we don't have radars in this game and surely can't be done, then why bother. Pleas in future if you are gonna be writing suggestions like this read a book or two. Things aren't remotely close like you think they are. Ignorant...

I suggest you read closely through my original post and pay attention.

The chaffs would just function as the flares do now, they would just have a different visual effect and instead would only work on radar guided missiles.

It might very well be possible to assign the flares and chaffs to only work on the specific missile types they are supposed to counter.
Now say that isn't possible, then you just have both chaffs and flares visual effects when you deploy countermeasures so you can justify that it counteracts both missile types and you assign different values to the missiles depending on their type, like hit propability or if they trigger the warning system.

Effectively there would be no radar of course, but you would just put the missiles into two different categories, depending on if they are infrared seeking or radar guided and just use the same lock and tracking system that the engine is utilizing now.

Did you know that there are radar guided missiles right now in PR? They are the long range missiles on the jets and there will also be the addition of a radar guided anti ship missile in the next update. Like i said, they will have no actual radar screen or anything like that, they will just lock on like the infrared seeking missile. It is just about showing the difference between them, mainly that one can be detected while the other can not be.

As far as I know, there's only one kind of AA missile in the game, with various forms of it having different speeds/turn rates and the lock cones and time varying. The result is that a flare that affects "long range" missiles necessarily does the same thing to "short range" ones too, and vica versa.

Adding chaff would only add unnecessary complexity and confusion with no benefit due to the limitations.

[R-CON]LiamBai wrote:Adding chaff would only add unnecessary complexity and confusion with no benefit due to the limitations.

Yes. No need to continue this thread.

[R-CON]LiamBai wrote:As far as I know, there's only one kind of AA missile in the game, with various forms of it having different speeds/turn rates and the lock cones and time varying. The result is that a flare that affects "long range" missiles necessarily does the same thing to "short range" ones too, and vica versa.

Adding chaff would only add unnecessary complexity and confusion with no benefit due to the limitations.

Yes. And i propose to make the various forms even more different from each other, mainly that one of them doesn't trigger a lock warning in the jet.

Concerning the flares, like i said, if it is not possible for the missiles to differentiate between flares and chaffs, just keep the 'flares' and add another visual effect for the chaffs when they are deployed. Just cosmetics so it is understandable how the 'flares' would actually go about countering an AMRAAM. That way you can explain how the countermeasures counter both types of missiles.

Now only assign different values to the missiles, depending on the type they are to represent ingame, like turn rate, hit propability and how effectively they are stopped by the CM like i laid out in my original post. And stop heatseekers from triggering a missile warning, although that one might be difficult since you said both of the missile types work the same from a code perspective, but a workaround might very well be possible, maybe use the code from the laser guided missiles.

Again all of this to essentially drive home the difference between heatseekers and radar guided missiles, so there are different tactics of using them and countering them.

If you know how heatseekers work it is pretty laughable that their lock can be detected, let's make that more authentic, i thought PR was all about that.

DogACTUAL wrote:Yes. And i propose to make the various forms even more different from each other, mainly that one of them doesn't trigger a lock warning in the jet.

You've misunderstood the point of my post. Both missiles are the same thing, and if an aircraft receives lock warning being targeted by one, it will get a lock warning from the other too.

DogACTUAL wrote:Now only assign different values to the missiles, depending on the type they are to represent ingame, like turn rate, hit propability and how effectively they are stopped by the CM like i laid out in my original post. And stop heatseekers from triggering a missile warning, although that one might be difficult since you said both of the missile types work the same from a code perspective, but a workaround might very well be possible, maybe use the code from the laser guided missiles.

Well, if somebody wanted to add in chaff effects I wouldn't complain, but that's a lot of work for no benefit really. If it's something you're passionate about feel free to start animating(or modelling or however it would be done, idk).

Also "hit probability" is controlled primarily by the jet and missile vectors and well as some fun engine-internal collision detection code(that I don't understand, and idk if anyone on the team does). Realistically in the PR the latter is the limiting factor, and I don't think anybody hates themselves enough right now to try to change that.

Liam is correct, there are only two/three forms of "targets" in the BF2 engine, "Heat" targets, which AA missiles lock onto, "Laser" targets which mostly air to ground weapons lock onto, and finally "Unique" targets, that CLOS missiles use to identify what the player who fired them is pointing/clicking at.

Due to EA/DICEs amazing coding of the BF2 engine, it isn't possible for us to add any more types of target objects to the engine

As such, it isn't possible for aircraft to tell the difference between IR and Radar guided missiles, they are in code terms, all "heat-seeking" missiles.

Thanks, like i said i suspected that the engine might not allow it because i figured if it was possible why didn't they already do it?
What about removing the missile warning generally though, would it be possible? Not to suggest implementing this for obvious reasons.
Just curious, because atgmgs used to trigger a warning signal in armored vehicles too in vanilla.

Also, does that mean that you will be able to use laser guided weapons on the frigate too instead of the anti ship missile since it has a laser target on it?

DogACTUAL wrote:Also, does that mean that you will be able to use laser guided weapons on the frigate too instead of the anti ship missile since it has a laser target on it?

Luckily the Argentinians didn't have/use any Laser Guided Bombs/Missiles during the war, which means the Laser Target is free for the Exocet to use

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:Luckily the Argentinians didn't have/use any Laser Guided Bombs/Missiles during the war, which means the Laser Target is free for the Exocet to use

You can still rekt Frigate with dumb or retarded.