Project Reality Forums

Ok, ever since BF1942 ive always wondered WHY combat jets were even introduced into the game. DC started it. They have no place in the game. The maps are much too small to correctly harness the true roles of these machines.

Every single combat jet that is portrayed in any of the BF series has been nothing more than modified propeller planes. By that i mean, the whole thing looks different, has many more features, and even handles slightly different, but one thing remains the same. THE SPEEDS.

Lets face it. The ONLY time a combat jet flys below 200mph is at take off and landing. I feel that the Jets ALL need a smack with the reality stick...

The jets in BF2 seem float around when compared to a real combat jet. The speeds need an increase. It is far too easy to slow down below stalling speeds and still maintain control over the aircraft..

Reloading the aircraft is even worse than the speed! All you have to do is buzz by the runway or aircraft carrier and youre fully loaded again. No need to land, no need to worry about anything, just buzz around killing things. Realistic? No way in hell..

Seriously, something has to be done about these jets, they have to be put back in thier place.

My position on jets in this game is still and always will be that jets do not belong in the game, period. Its rediculous to have these fighter jets that, IRL, fly at speeds well above the speed of sound or, even at cruising speed, is much too fast for BF2. Lets not forget that IRL, combat jets can engage targets MILES AWAY undetected, HAVE RADAR (big issue in BF2) and they have pilot limitations.

In BF2 none of this applies in any fashion. So i ask you, what are these vehicles really? To me, they are nothing more than modified PROP planes with heat seaking missles.

List of things the jets in BF2 DONT HAVE that they do IRL:

- RADAR!!!
- Much greater engagement distances. (farther target lock-on tone)
- MUCH, MUCH faster speeds
- LIMITATIONS ON MANUVERS
- They must land to reload ANYTHING...

Quite frankly, without any of that you dont even have the definition of a combat jet!! Youre left with a plane that has missles, flares and some cool beeping noises......

Did i mention you can kill tanks with the CANNONS ON ALL JETS?! That is by far THE most rediculous thing i have ever seen!! There are only a select few aircraft i know of that can destroy any armored vehicle with its cannon. An example is the A-10.

Ive literally destroyed more tanks with the JSF CANNON than i have with bombs....(it can hover, tanks dont know im behind them and before they can react to my first shot, the cannon wastes em!)

The jets in BF2 are by far THE most illogical thing i have ever seen in a FPS.

A few solutions:

1- Remove them completely.
2- Remove the high speed jets and add slower ones. (Such as the A-10, SU. Theyll still need a speed increase though.)
3- Simply make the jets realistic and deal with the consequences..

Even the super size me maps in Operation Flashpoint are still too small for any serious use of jets, at least in the dog fight sense. They're great for fast strikes and so on but they still overshoot most of the island in a few seconds... I'll make a short video or something of my going zoooom over Nogova.

I completely agree.

USMC gets Harrier
US Army gets Thunderbolt II
MEC and PLA get Frogfoot

Or maybe get rid of jets on most maps and put in a few FARPs

Agreed

A-10 is still a realistic idea, agreed, as their low-speed maneuverability is nothing short of amazing

Here be that vid from OFP. I decided to fly around most of the island to show people just how big they really are by the by. Also notice where i almost have an "OH Fphew..." moment haha. Oh and the music is Oasis - Fornicating in the Bushes (note, has naughty words in it!). The terrain streaming isn't the most advanced around, but then I don't think they expected people to reach such speeds when they were coding it originally. It's fixed in VBS1 and the XBOX version mind, and Armed Assault.

Anyhow... I think jets should be removed completetly, but just make some maps where they're more useful and able to be used, ie large maps with not a lot of things in it, such as a desert with a few small bunkers for the infantry to fight over and have quite a bit of armour for the jets to take care of.

Here's the link to that vid:
http://www.silent-thunder.co.uk/Flying%20Around.rar.

I'm using a Tornado GR4 by the way.

Cool. I've had OFP forever, and I've yet to fly a jet. Are they at all possible to land? I'm actually attempting to complete the campaigns now, so hopefulyl I'll get to one?

Indeed they are.... just don't hit the ground too fast or at too steep an angle other wise its cardboard box time for you! (if you're an OFP'er you'll understand)

ok this is one of those times when i for one feel the gameplay should trump the desire for total and absolute realism

i dont think they should be removed, i think they add a very large element to gameplay, one that i would be said to loose all together

I think they are fine. I like the way they reload i say keep it.

It's all a game play thing man. The jets are slower cause of the view distance. The view distance is low so machines like mine can keep up. The AA stops the lock on at view distance so you can't blow a jet out of the sky acroos the map.

In real life, EVERYONE would try not to die. But here we all run around without abandon. Kinda. PRMM makes me a bit more carefull, but still it's gameplay before "absolute" realism

I do agree on the A-10 going in. more realistic definitly. The harrier is still too fast though.

One thing I believe is necessary to change is the reloading of jets and helos. They really should have to actually land to be reloaded and repaired.
It is rather silly hanging 10 feet in the air hearing the "repair noises".
Not to mention the reloading of the jets... Wooosh and your ready to go.
No, force them to land.

Gameplay is definitly gonna be hard to balance with reality that's for darn sure.

If the maps were more jet friendly then it'd be much easier in general to make this more realistic but still have good gameplay. I think that's where (yes yet again) OFP shines. Because the area's are so massive pretty much everything can be entirely realistic but still fun because it's not all confined to tiny little areas. Seeing a combined assault in OFP is something to behold in all its impressive and scary (if it's the other sides!) glory! I'm actually scared of tanks as an infantryman in that game, and APC's, and even Humvee's with an M2 or Mk19 as I know i'm pretty much done for unless I can hide or get off a decent shot with my AT... assuming I have one, and assuming one will do!

Yes, gameplay is a factor here. Its very hard to balance something out when delt such limitations.

Which is why i think we should simply switch to a different type of jet. The JSF doesnt really have to go. Its just the MiG, SU, and F/A-18 that needs to be dropped. They are just too unrealistic given the limitations.

But i agree, we do need some jets. The total removal of them isnt the best solution. I just feel that the current mixture is a bit too arcadish.

Maybe JSF for Marines (not sure if the USMC uses the A-10, but if so, that would be a nice addition for maps without a carrier), Frogfoot for MEC, im not sure what the chinese have so some research might have to be done there. Ill see what i can dig up.

Its good to see that the majority agreed here. Gameplay is something that is very much important. But making the realism triumph in a benificial way to gameplay is even more important!

As far as landing goes. Yes, jets and helicopters NEED to be landed to re-arm and repair. This is a neccessity for a realistic atmosphere! What will end up happening however, is people will either not use the jets period, or, they will use all the ammo in them and then attempt to ditch them. OR youll have special ops players using up all the ammo, ditching the plane when its empty and parachuting down to safety...Its innevitable. Wether there is a solution or not is up to our many great minds..lol. Any ideas?

im saying leave the jets in dont take them out to do that would be to sacrifice to much in terms of what they add to gameplay

Beckwith wrote:im saying leave the jets in dont take them out to do that would be to sacrifice to much in terms of what they add to gameplay

Which jets?

Why not just replace the jets we have with different jets which are more suited to the role that is intended/portrayed??? Its not easy, no..But if the developers are up for the task i think it would be very benifitial in many ways...

what you guys are talking about is taking out all fighters i dont think that should be done

True.

I just dont think that the BF2 engine is a "fighter friendly" game engine...Too many limitations.

I love fighter jets. But with every reason why i love them, i cannot do or have any of it with the fighters in BF2.

Flying 15,000ft in the clouds, actively switchin through different targets while cruising at a speed of 500-600mph is what i love about fighter jets. Dropping a guided ordinance from 2-3,000ft in the sky almost undetected is what i love about fighter jets. Engaging enemy fighters and climbing to 20,000ft for safe manuvers is what i love about fighter jets...Mainly what i love is to top out the engines and go 800mph, 900mph, and MACH+ and look over my shoulder and see the ground thousands of miles down seeping by...

Cant do any of that in BF2 man...I just think that BF2 actually degrades fighter jet glory...

Not too mention its totally unrealistic...

I also strongly feel that the high-speed jet fighters should be removed and replaced with ground-attack aircraft like the A-10. This will also help with our AAA and SAM problem of jets being impossible to hit. Slow-moving attack aircraft are more vulnerable to SAM fire, granted that the cockpit is an armored bathtub on the A10...

I think it solves a lot of problems. The JSF and Harrier sound good; didn't the Marines use Harriers for a while? AV-8B's?