Project Reality Forums

Another option has been brought to my attention by a fellow member.

Tessenka_no_Mai suggests:

Be advised, This suggestion is under the assumption of not replacing fighters with bombers, instead ADDING them in on the same maps.

1- Make fighters more realistic, remove bombs from fighters so they are only capable of air to air combat, give ground attack planes bombs only and make more maps designed for figters.

OR

2- Make fighters more realistic, remove bombs from fighters so they are only capable of air to air combat, give ground attack planes bombs only but keep them in the maps they are in.

(If you would like to vote for one of these suggetions brought forth by Tessenka_no_Mai, please choose 1 OR 2.)

Use size=1000000 /size while you're at it. It has more of an effect than bold.

Anyway, as stated many times before, the Battlefield series is all about combined arms. The sooner you understand this, the easier it will be for you to play against fighter aircraft.

There is no way to mimic real life.

You keep writing about making "them more realistic". What you dont seem to understand is that realistic doesnt mean good all of the time. You want realistic? Fighters engage at extreme distances, which is impossible to render in the BF2 engine (go play OFP).

'Fine', you say, 'then remove them altogether'. If you do that, you are telling the people that love to fly (a large chunk of the BF2 community) that they can't play anymore.

The point is, you are more than willing to dumb down, or completely removet, fighters so that you can feel that you are playing a more realistic game.

All of the other points simply stem from your main point in the beginning.. removing fighters.

The only thing that I see here is someone giving vague suggestions such as 'make fighters more realistic'. Of course they're going to try to make the more realistic. Then you say, remove bombs. Well.. some multipurpose fighters actually do use bombs as far as I heard. So that contradicts.

So in closing:
- It's apparent the devs are focusing on realism. This is a reality mod. No need to remind them to make planes more realistic.
- Saying 'take away bombs' and 'make fighters more realistic' in the same paragraph makes no sense because it all depends on the fighter.
- Vague suggestions only spring up arguments because no one really knows what you're talking about.

Try giving specific advice. The suggestions you are giving really don't get anyone anywhere. Try doing some research and learning about how jet aircraft operate. The, come back and give some specs to show which planes you suggest should be added and how they should work.

The whole 'make it more realistic and remove bombs' thing doesnt really do much, imho.

EDIT: Isn't this like your 3rd thread regarding the same issue?

Votes only please. The first statement was exactly that, and it was bold...Maybe i DO need to use font size 10000000

FORUM

Definition

An online community where visitors may read and post topics of common interest.

Information

Forums can be a useful for anyone online, both in terms of reading the content and actively participating in the discussions.

Reading a forum's archives can be a good way to obtain a basic knowledge about a topic, and it also provides a historical perspective on trends and opinions.

Participation, whether as a member, moderator, or owner, can help one achieve recognition within a business community, and may even generate highly-qualified business leads. Forums differ, however, in their treatment of self-promotion; some disallow any hint of self-promotion, some are geared specifically towards self-promotion, and many fall somewhere in between, limiting URL's to an off-the-page member profile.

It is very important to read the terms and conditions of each particular forum for a basic guideline as to what is acceptable. Additionally, it is a good idea to read archived posts in order to see the guidelines in action. Failure to do so can have negative consequences, including tarnishing your site's reputation and getting permanently banned from the community.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This discussion is becoming very old. You have to understand that no-one is criticising you personaly for your beliefs, people have disagreed with your idea of how to fix the problem with aircraft in BF2. I, Artnez and Beckwith are not attacking you personaly as you have been heard to say. The fact is that these are forums and as such are open to free discussion, concerning topics which relate to BF2 and the Project Reality mod. The previous votes have clearly shown that most of the community want fighters left in the game and I agree with the points Artnez has made, saying fighters don't work and insisting they be removed or altered so as not to be realistic is counter productive to the argument you are using, which is that they are currently unrealistic. I am happy to listen to and comment on the views of other people and have them comment on my suggestions, ( whether or not they agree with me is irrelevant ) the point is to have a healthy debate and hopefully find a solution that best suits all players.

Now in defence of your topic, there is a way to make everyone happy. Either make more maps, ( which is by no means a simple task) specifically for aircraft, or instead of altering the current vehicles to be unrealistic, it would be more advantageous to incorporate other types of aircraft. The A-10 or Frogfoot, these are ground attack aircraft and are unsuited to dog fighting, however it would not be BATTLEFIELD without the option to dogfight, so I suggest introducing fighters which are just that, fighters and not multi role aircraft. The problem with this is that it involves modelling and skinning new aircraft as well as introducing them into the mod with corrected flight physics, a hell of a lot of work I think you will agree.

The development team here at PR are trying to be as authentic as possible, however within the engine of BF2 there are some very tight restrictions to what can and can not be accomplished. MOST people do not want fighters removed as was your first assumption and I credit you for developing your idea to at least include tweaking instead of removing, however I have to agree with Artnez again and ask that instead of making such open ended statements, instead you do a little research as we all do and suggest real alternatives to the problem.

No matter how many poles you post or how you make the options different, the outcome will always be the same, people like having the aircraft in the game. So instead of continuing to post pointless threads, promoting argument I suggest we close the thread as is and open a new thread entitled " WHAT TYPES OF AIRCRAFT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN THE GAME AND HOW CAN THE ENGINE BE BEST UTILISED TO ACHEIVE THIS GOAL. "

To close, I would ask you not to go off half cocked and start flaming people with differing opinions to your own and instead become a valuable member of this community. God knows you have enthusiasm and spirit, focused properly and backed up with hard facts, you may just find people are more reseptive to your idea and that some of them may be incorporated into the mod at some point down the line.

As for insisting that no-one post anything in this thread, I have to say that is ludicrous. The point of a pole such as this is to gage the mood and feeling of the community and have them comment on why and how they beleive the problem should be addressed. This is the free world after all not Germany at the height of the NAZI regime. I am aware that you have made a complaint concerning how you beleive you were treated in previous threads, concerning apparent flaming of your topic. This is simply not the case, at no point did anyone attack you personaly or make derogatory remarks concerning you, we simply posted OUR opinion. I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it. I ask you do the same with my opinions.

It was a simple request. I asked nicely....

It was an attempt to avoid postings such as yours. I dont want to have to have another thread of mine locked because of non-constructive criticism and arguing...

"No matter how many poles you post or how you make the options different, the outcome will always be the same, people like having the aircraft in the game. So instead of continuing to post pointless threads, promoting argument I suggest we close the thread as is and open a new thread entitled " WHAT TYPES OF AIRCRAFT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN THE GAME AND HOW CAN THE ENGINE BE BEST UTILISED TO ACHEIVE THIS GOAL. "

The idea wasnt to achieve a different outcome. The same outcome is what i had in mind. I gave MORE options, how could i be trying for the same outcome?? I just wanted to give the public more options and make it a little easier on the developers to make decisions. They approved it and said it would be a great idea. I went ahead and did it. Notice how youre the only one complaining, arguing and continuously being provokative??

Now please, VOTES and SUGGESTIONS only...

CobraPhantom, GRB and i spoke about this a few days ago after the debate on aircraft got pretty hot. We decided it might be best to put up a vote only forum, please respect that. If you do not like the topic being discussed, leave it alone.

I personaly have no problem with the question being asked. I personaly ask that I am allowed to have an opinion on the matter without being criticised simply for having that opinion. GRB's question is a good one at it's core and I have spent some time putting together a post which I hope will explain clearly what my own thoughts on the matter are. If opinions are to be suppressed, then I ask, what is the point of having open forums? I nor anyone else have attcked GRB in any way, I and others have voiced our own concerns over the subject matter and whether anyone puts credence in them is of no cosequence to me or the others involved. I really do believe that. I have personaly run and moderated forums and I am well aware of what constitutes flaming. My opinions have been written in a clear and adult manner, which I feel is being missed here.

I humbly submit this last post on the subject and I don't believe that it can be taken in anyway offensively, unless the reader is actively looking to be insulted by my explanation of how and why I feel the way I do about the solution to the aircraft problem. If indeed the moderators or DEVS feel that this final post is in anyway offensive ( IMO It is not offensive. However you have your own opinion ) then accept my humble apology, if indeed you feel it neccessary to ban me from the forums, because of my opinions, then know this, I will continue to support and play the mod regardless of the DEVS final decision. I am a reasonably intelligent and sensible adult, it is not my way to criticise ( or attack as has been suggested ) another human being without at least attempting to clearly define what it is I have a problem with.

It was not so long ago, that myself and Artnez had a simillarly heated debate concerning an entirely different topic, however we were mature enough to understand that we agreed on the point in principal, it was the implementation of a solution which we disagreed on. Having discussed the matter further we then came to an amecable compromise which we both felt was not entirely what either wanted but which was best for the purposes of the game and its players.

I ask only this, if indeed the powers that be deem any of my posts, suggestions or opinions to be derogatory or inflamatory and I am to recieve a repremand, strike or total ban, please do me the courtesy of telling me before hand what it was about my opinion or manner that was so offensive in the first place as to come to that point. As I stated it was never and will never be my purpose, to knowingly cause offense to anyone and if that is the case then I am truly sorry and would be gratefull, for my own growth as a person that these flaws be pointed out.

I appreciate you giving me the time and effort you are putting into the mod and allowing me to air my opinions and ideas. I have made a number of posts, which disagree in part or in whole with other peoples ideas, however I have never come accross such outright hostility by the original poster because I didn't agree with their opinion.

In fact I would be grateful, if anyone who feels strongly about my actions or opinions, please do PM me with those concerns and critiques. I assure you I will not take offense ( unless you do it in an offensive way obviously ) it is of interest to me that I be made aware of my behavioural deficiencies that I not make the same mistake again.

Personaly I can not believe that it has gone so far, that I feel I have to make a post justifying my beliefs and opinions in such a way and honestly hope that this whole fiasco can be resolved amicably and to the satisfaction of all involved.

Right on, DAWG. Right on, BrokenArrow. And, to a point, right on GRB

Let's all agree to disagree and see what the devs decide. They've definitely seen this and heard it from the testers, so I think the message got sent:

"Aircraft at the moment are unrealistic. Please do something to remedy this."

And GRB, please dont take my post as an attack on you or your ideas... it surely wasn't. I was simply pointing out that this has already been discussed previously and that the suggestions are too vague to do much of a purpose, because finding a perfect blend will be to take all of those suggestions and take what's good about each (except removing the aircraft of course).

Oh, and I was not aware of any discussions between BrokenArrow or GRB. I hope you can understand why I mentioned that it had already been discussed.

And lastly, GRB, DAWG has a point... saying "vote only" discussion is kind of crude on a discussion forum with so few members. Let's not silence opinions, k? There aren't any smacktards on this forum (yet), so we can all count on a friendly debate without going at each other's throats for having different views.

So back to the topic at hand...

I voted for option 6. I think one of the main problems with BF2 at moment is that the maps aren't geared towards realistic gameplay. A realism based map would go a long way for realistic gameplay even with vanilla BF2. And as far as changing the planes, I'm under the assumption that the devs are creating their own aircraft so changing vanilla aircraft shouldnt happen anyway

While I'd imagine air superiority fighters would only tangle with eachother in our Pacific theater and American and British ground forces would only land after strong air superiority, I respect that many enjoy playing fighters. I think that with some adjustments we can have a happy medium.

1. Speed loss in sharp turns; this spices up dogfights from tail-chasing all day.
2. Removal of iron bombs from "fighter" airframes... realistic F-15, Fulcrum, "That Chinese Saber Knockoff".
3. Reduction of fighter cannon power against heavy armor and extremely soft vehicles (boats).
4. Require landing to rearm/repair.
5. Drastically improved missile/AAV lethality, either through airplane limitations or missile improvements.
6. Flamethrowers.

NikovK wrote: 6. Flamethrowers.

Are those question marks or benzine fumes?

"Oh, and I was not aware of any discussions between BrokenArrow or GRB. I hope you can understand why I mentioned that it had already been discussed.

And lastly, GRB, DAWG has a point... saying "vote only" discussion is kind of crude on a discussion forum with so few members. Let's not silence opinions, k? There aren't any smacktards on this forum (yet), so we can all count on a friendly debate without going at each other's throats for having different views."

The discussion involved more than just BrokenArrow and I. A well trusted Developer and Moderator of the foums discussed this with us as well. The decision was made to create a thread which would minimize the non-constructive opinions about others opinions and non-constructive criticism...

To do so we needed a poll with more options, the words VOTE ONLY and a method in which users could still suggest other options...

You were given everything ya needed. Yet still, you all neglected to simply abide by a simple request.

Where's the love everybody?

Can't we just make it so that when an airplane goes out of boundries on some maps, that it doesnt give you "time until death" message?

Lol, why hasnt anyone else thought of this? This we way we have more area to cover for dogfights.

requiem wrote:Where's the love everybody?

I've been wondering that myself dude...

While we're at it, let's add Bunsen burners!

I could live with 20,000 pounds of ordnance strapped to the belly of every fighter plane if I still got my flamethrower.

1. kept the fighters but have ground atack as well. :d uh: