Project Reality Forums

Alright the SA-3 is a medium ranged sam and on these maps would beable to lock up a target across the map and take it down. Now heres the thing to make this seem a little more feasible instead of having the system lock on across the screen without even seeing the target use more tactical sams( IE: SA-6,8,9,13,15 and maybe roland) and manpads ( IE: SA-7,14,16,1. Iraq doesnt have most of these sams but if you stick with the plot of game being Middle east alliance thing going then you can get away with putting in some bad *** systems like sa-13, 15 and Roland.

2 Ways of doing radar system

1st way is that the commander has a radar tower that transmits the location of enemy planes every 5 secs or so to anyone who is in a SAM system. If it is destoryed then it doesnt work. This feature will give the SAM commander situational awareness.

2nd way is that you have the similar radar as BF1942 DC where the radar goes around but make the range double of what the range was, so slewing to the target is more realistic. Make the lock on range a good distance, but make the missile lose lots of energy at its max range so it teaches the gunners to wait for plane to get closer so the missile has more energy as in real combat. For longer ranged sams (SA-15) make the lock on range out of visual range(moderately) so it makes airplanes more vunerable.
The beneifit to this radar guided systems in game vs IR sams would be tracking the plane would be easy, so as long as you keep it in the screen you are good , the bad is you need to continually track the plane inorder for it to hit, if you unlock then the missile should become dumb or self destruct as in real life.

For IR guided sam make a small box have to slew over the target for a few secs as in game now but make the view beable to change from unzoomed wide field of view to narrow zoomed field of view. *Remeber a radar can be equipped on these systems usually for used for range only.
Ingame benefits for IR guided is the fire and forget, after lock on you can fire it and run.

Hoped you enjoyed your class and i tried to relate how sams work very very basically as compared to real life. I can get much more indepth on how to relate how sams and AAA work in real life if need be. Contact me

you make good points but i think that the range should still stay a little short just so that every plane isnt knocked out of the sky within 5 seconds of its taking off.

Good piont...But is still thing the sam's are still tit's...i much prefer a tank for those pesky choppers

The anti-air weapons in BF2 are shit! Aircraft dominate the playing field, due mainly to the fact that there is no real threat provided as the game stands. Increasing the lock and track distance would force people to play in a realistic manner, infantry would still be required to knock out the SAM site, or at least engage the SAM site before the airforce can provide effective support in an area. As it is, aircraft can cruise around the map pummeling everything that moves without hinderance ( enemy aircraft aside, they are usualy pummeling the other side, regardless of what their team is trying to acheive ), dogfighting is fairly pointless due to the fact that air to air missiles are shit too.

if the other side uses their SAMs, even the **** ones in bf2, it keeps the enemy aircraft dodging and dropping flares, which makes then alot more harmless.

Ever since 1.03 I have found ground based sams are completely unable to hit fast movers, I mean completely. Playing wake 2007 the other day the planes completely ignored me while I shot stinger after stinger at them with not a single hit. To add insult to injury one even flew directly at me in a straight line, this would mean a missle would require no deflection angle to hit, and yet enither of the pair of stingers I shot scored a hit, leaving me to be killed by the planes machine gun.

{GD}Snake13 wrote:Ever since 1.03 I have found ground based sams are completely unable to hit fast movers, I mean completely.

I've had the same problem... It's very annoying, that aircraft dominates that much!

Especially, when you're (like me) into ground battles, and like infantry-based fights!

Raaschou wrote:I've had the same problem... It's very annoying, that aircraft dominates that much!

Especially, when you're (like me) into ground battles, and like infantry-based fights!

It's not only on the planes, you don't even hit the helos. And the only thing the pilot has to do is jink one foot to a side. That's enough to make the rocket go missing by 10m.

Heh, i love being a pilot , but i must admit that i wish the AA in this game could at least pose a threat as its boring not having to worry about enemy AA sites, takes all the trill out of an intense air combat.

I also agree that the Air-to-Air missles in this game are worthless as well, BF2s missiles have to get closer than gun range in real life to lock on!

FlyBoy wrote:Heh, i love being a pilot , but i must admit that i wish the AA in this game could at least pose a threat as its boring not having to worry about enemy AA sites, takes all the trill out of an intense air combat.

I also agree that the Air-to-Air missles in this game are worthless as well, BF2s missiles have to get closer than gun range in real life to lock on!

Then how about removing the visual and alarm message you get when beeing tracked by a IR missle? In Reallife you don't get a warning, only when tracked by a radar missile. The only defense against missles yould be throwing countermeasures everytime after an attack like real pilots do. Or at least being warned by a teammate on ground that somebody is throwing rockets at you. If a plane shows up on the map behind you you surely know you are beeing shot at, too. Btw... there should be enough countermeasures for the pilot for this case. Not just 1 or 2 every minute.

@ DevTeam: Would that be possible?? Would add mooooooooooooore realism

would there be a warning once the missile is in the air regardless of its guidance package? either way the alarm would have to stay in there for missiles fired by other aircraft since most of those use radar right?

i do think that removing the warning is an okay idea but then i think it might tilt the playing field drastically in the other direction. choppers especially would become ripe for the slaughter. maybe just having the missiles more effective on their manouverablity and tracking side would work just as well.

BrokenArrow wrote:would there be a warning once the missile is in the air regardless of its guidance package? either way the alarm would have to stay in there for missiles fired by other aircraft since most of those use radar right?

i do think that removing the warning is an okay idea but then i think it might tilt the playing field drastically in the other direction. choppers especially would become ripe for the slaughter. maybe just having the missiles more effective on their manouverablity and tracking side would work just as well.

The missiles on the planes look like IR guided to me. Have a look at a recorderfile to be sure though. Looks like the chinese planes carry the PL-8 SRAAM ( what i could find in google ). I have to take a closer look at the missiles on the other planes. http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/airlaunched/pl8.asp

Actually it's the warning you get when you are hit by the radar cone of a plane ( radar station ) or a radarguided missile. Since IR isn't active you will never get a warning. That's why sole planes get shot more often when they have no wingman watching out for incoming IR aa missiles.

good to know, i wasnt sure if the missile could be picked up on radar without it emitting a signal of its own. IRL arent most AAMs guided through radar? that way (at least for the US and other equipped nations) the missiles can be guided in part by an AWACS (i think thats it) bird?

For BVR kills radar pretty much is the only viable solution barring those old rockets with the multi-kiloton warheads. There's the older semi-active homing AIM-7 Sparrow that need a constant lock from the aircraft. Then there's fire and forget missles like the AIM-120 that after a certain distance can update targeting info with their onboard radar or use a data link from either an AWACS or launch aircraft for more accurate guidance.

Not sure if it uses the aircraft's own radar but there is a way to detect incoming IR threats to a point. There are some aircraft based systems with laser turrets that can target and blind seeker heads on IR missles.

Tacamo wrote:For BVR kills radar pretty much is the only viable solution barring those old rockets with the multi-kiloton warheads. There's the older semi-active homing AIM-7 Sparrow that need a constant lock from the aircraft. Then there's fire and forget missles like the AIM-120 that after a certain distance can update targeting info with their onboard radar or use a data link from either an AWACS or launch aircraft for more accurate guidance.

Not sure if it uses the aircraft's own radar but there is a way to detect incoming IR threats to a point. There are some aircraft based systems with laser turrets that can target and blind seeker heads on IR missles.

You mean something like laser ams ( laser anti missile system) ? Sounds more like scifi. The only such kind of offensive defense i know is located on helicopters ( Black Hawk and Apache ) I read it sends something like stroboscopic pulses to distract an IR warhead ( i guess by blinding it so it can't see the target like you said ). But it does not locate incoming missles.

I don't think there is anything that can really locate small incoming missiles, it may work on the bigger ones like the AIM-54 Phoenix ( with almost 4 m it's car sized ).

Hell, if it was up to me, aircraft would be removed altogether.

There's no way to accurately portray air-to-ground or air-to-air combat in BF2. The maps are too small and the aircraft (in real life) are way too fast.

Anti Aircraft weaponry can't be accurately portrayed either. If a plane was flying as low and as slow a they do in BF2 then they wouldn't stand a chance against a SAM battery, let alone more than one.

They should completely remove aircraft from the game and substitute the "artillery" barrage with a precision air strike.

I'm sure many would disagree though, as flying is a popular pasttime in battlefield games.

you would be 100% correct in your last assumption

BrokenArrow wrote:you would be 100% correct in your last assumption

Nah, flying in BF42 was fun, because the airspeed was ok. And you had aaa to defend yourself, and it was effective!!! Over here not even the tunguska does any damage with the flak guns not to mention the crappy aa rockets.

I don't have a problem if the planes in PRMM go missing. The only air vehicles that should stay are the transport helos. And maybe 1 attack chopper depending on the map.

Or PRMM should really make the jets faster and less maneuverable like in RL so the pilots would really have to work a bit to score a hit.

im sure many would disagree with him, obviously not everyone, but many.


AA just needs to be improved, planes effectiveness at low levels needs to be tuned down. thats what the problem is, theyre too good when theyre only 100 ft off the deck.

I wouldn't mind most planes removed, but as it has already been said, flying is popular...

But as Enforcer said, the planes should be much harder to fly, much faster, and the Anti-Air defences should be much stronger... As IRL!!

And on todays real battlefield, ground- and air-combat often doesn't mix... Mostly, only attack- and transport-helicopters are used, when infantry or armour enters battle...