Project Reality Forums

Greetings ladies and gentlemen. I want to start off by saying that this is hopefully my final attempt to explain the inadequacies, shortcomings and oversights of Jet Aircraft, Airports and Runways in Project Reality. This compilation is specifically cited to engage, contront and ultimately eliminate the problems Jet Aircraft face and their pilots in Project Reality.

This will be a long winded post, and by doing so I hope by the end of my explanations, supporting data, and personal exhaustion that I am able to completely drive home the topic and principles on why jet aircraft are not performing as well as intended. This compilation is specifically cited for [R-DEV], [R-CON] and hardcore PR enthusiasts. Although this topic may range to many aspects of flight, the main concern is the problem faced particularly in a landing environment.

Table of Contents:
I. Available Jet Aircraft, Airports Runways and Their Difficulty
II. Relevant Data
III. Airports and Runway Limitations
IV. Indicators of Airport and Runway Inadequacies:
V. Conclusion

And so it begins...

____________________ START ____________________

I. Available Jet Aircraft, Airports Runways and Their Difficulty:
I want to make clear is that all Jet Aircraft, Airports and Runways have a difficulty factor. I am going to go to my best extent possible to bridge the gap of any confusion or possible doubt that you may have in relation to these Aircraft and Aerospace zones.

Airport and Runway Difficulty:
Easy: "Kashan Desert"
Medium: N/A
Hard: "The Battle for Qinling"

Aircraft Difficulty:
Very Easy: EF2000 (Typhoon)
Easy: F-16 (Fighting Falcon)
Medium: Mig-25 (Fulcrum), SU-25/39 (Frogfoot), A-10 (Warthog / Thunderbolt)
Hard: AV-8 (Harrier), GR4 (Tornado)
Very Hard: J-10, SU-34 (Flanker)

Unmentioned aircraft available: F-15 (Strike Eagle), Q-5 (Fantan), SU-37 (Super Flanker)
<Note: These aircraft are available via the standard BF2 expansions and should theoretically be available to PR but not introduced as of this time and/or no available maps to introduce them on.>

The reason why I wanted to point this out is that there is a lot of confusion between Jet Aircraft mechanics, limitations and pilot error. A large majority of people usually feel that if they crash a plane or make mistakes it is usually their fault. To be honest, in most cases it is pilot error.

However, there is also the fine line in determining when it is no longer pilot error and simply is the nature of the beast. This is EXACTLY what I am trying to point out. Not the problems of the pilots, but the problems in Jet Aircraft and their Airport environment. You can only do so much as a pilot until it is out of your hands. I've flown enough through countless hours of practice, testing and trial and error.

This is what I have determined.



II. Relevant Data:
First order of business is to revive and cite the problems I had previously mentioned in a thread of mine sometime ago that has been expanded on time and time again. Over a course of at least 2 years of experience and countless hours of piloting and flight testing I had come to certain conclusions.

Reason why I am posting them here and now is to specifically bring up the topic of Jet Aircraft and Airport miscalculations even after repeated releases of PR builds. If I recall correctly, at least 2 to 3 builds have been released even with this presented data.

My concern is that a topic as expansive as this cannot be simply "tossed into" my normal array of Project Reality Improvement Compilation lists. Thus, deserving it's own unique and specific thread for it's evaluation and (hopefully) resolution.


This quote was derived from this post link:
Project Reality v0.8 Improvement Compilation. Revision v3.0

4. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
It has come to my attention that there are several issues regarding aircraft on the "Battle for Qinling" map. It is quite apparent now that the problems resulting from aircraft handling or weight is not the issue, but more of an alternate matter. After continued research and repeated landing attempts it has now come down to the realization that the airfield runways presented on the British and Chinese teams are beyond inadequate. To constantly force our development team to tweak and refine the engine performance or handling of these crafts will not bring us the desired results we're looking for any longer.

With the long awaited introduction of the Fighter-Bomber class jets, there is a great necessity to reevaluate and redesign the airfield around these crafts. They are much larger, much faster and much heavier than our one seat fighter jets. These cumbersome Fighter-Bombers are a vital asset and clearly need custom tailored airfields for thier purpose.

Thus, I taken surveys of the aircraft length and brought up this proposition, without making them excessively long of course. Currently the airfields on the "Battle for Qinling" map are roughly 575 meters long. Adding another 225-275 meters on top of what we have now would bring them from 800-850 meters in length and provide just enough room for these exceptionally large Fighter-Bombers to land. Although in my own personal opinion these runways should be 1,000 meters in length for a more realistically sized airfield, we'll have to make due with 800-850 meters to keep map alterations to a minimum and a manageable size for vehicles to travel around them.

The existing problem is that it feels as if these runways were tailored to fit the Typhoon EF-2000 jet fighter... This jet is an exceptionally remarkable aircraft with almost unbeatable handling, power and ease of operation. To build airfields around this jet would be a folly as most aircraft cannot possibly compete against it's potential abilities. Thusly a majority of other aircraft will fall short of expectations and result in players referring to other aircraft as being "unmanageable, slow and lacking power" which would make sense. This is why the airfields need to be altered and expanded further.

Please take note, the GR4 Tornado is one of the smallest of it's class. The U.S. F-15 Strike Eagle and MEC SU-34 Flanker has not even been introduced into the modification yet and they are just as large as the Chinese SU-37. If we're to make preparations for their introduction, then airfield size MUST be increased. These scrawny 575 meter landing strips will not suffice by any means and will result in future build setbacks and negative player feedback. This cannot be allowed to occur.

For now, the GR4 Tornado has just enough abilities to land at the British airfield on the northern most runway. To attempt a landing on the southern runway would force most pilots to approach at a steep angle and result in crashing or causing damage to the vehicle on touchdown. However after rigorous testing, the Chinese SU-37 still cannot make a proper landing as the airfield is far too short. Even the best pilot may be able to land the aircraft, but will be unable to stop it in time to prevent it from crashing into the taxiways or perimeter fencing.

Also, airfields structured like the one seen on the Chinese team on the "Battle for Qinling" map can no longer be allowed to exist. There must be 2 runways that allow a pilot to take off into combat in one direction, and another runway that allows the aircraft to land in the opposite direction. On the other hand, the British teams vehicle spawn points at the main base is on the side furthest away from combat. This is not acceptable as it forces vehicles to have to go around the perimeter of the airfield to exit the area. This will proceed to make exiting a main base difficult if airfield runway size is increased.

To explain the most ideal airfield built would be as follows... Take the British main base / airfield set up and place it in the South Eastern (Bottom Right) corner of the map. Then make a near identical layout for the Chinese team (Of course the buildings and hangers will be different.), mirror and flip it over on the North Western (Top Left) corner of the map. Voila, better airfields and better results.

So to get back on the previous topic... The necessity to expand the length of these runways to facilitate proper landing of aircraft is becoming a significant and ongoing problem even from previous patches. These steps must be taken to provide adequate landing space.

Rules and Guidelines for all Airfield establishments:

A. All airfield establishments MUST have a runway that is at least a minimum of 800-850 meters long in length.
B. All airfield establishments MUST have a runway that allows Pilots to take off into combat. This runway also must be the closest to the aircraft spawn point.
C. All airfield establishments MUST have a runway that allows Pilots to land away from combat. This runway also must be the furthest from the aircraft spawn point.
D. All airfield establishments MUST NOT be obstructed by vegetation that endanger the aircraft's operation.
E. All airfield establishments MUST NOT be obstructed by geography that endanger the aircraft's operation.
F. All airfield establishments MUST NOT be obstructed by structures that endanger the aircraft's operation.
G. All airfield establishments MUST NOT force the Pilots to land the aircraft at an angle greater than 0° - 35° maximum.

Rules and Guidelines for Jet Aircraft units:

A. All jet aircraft MUST reach 100% throttle for a critical minimum of 1 full second before the aircraft begins rolling / taking off.
B. All jet aircraft MUST NOT exceed a critical maximum landing speed above 750 kmh.

Following these guidelines will provide a more practical and adequate means for landing aircraft.

The importance of aircraft being able to reach 100% throttle before rolling / take off will allow an efficient use of valuable runway space and provide sufficient engine power to be established prior to taking off. Also aircraft CANNOT ever be allowed to exceed a critical maximum landing speed above 750 meters. Any aircraft landing at speeds of 750kmh or more do not possess enough stopping power to slow the vehicle down to a halt in enough time before the aircraft will reach the end of the runway. Speeds of 750kmh or more usually result in the aircraft taking damage while landing or causing the aircraft to crash into the perimeter fencing surrounding the airfield itself.

To put things into perspective, the F-16 is estimated to land at 260-280 mph, which is the equivalent of landing at roughly 418-450 kmh. Currently aircraft in PR land from an average of 372-466mph or otherwise 600-750kmh. As you can see this is a rather fast landing and nearly almost double the realistic values.

On another note... Aircraft dating back to and before the WW2 era had a mechanical wing extension referred to as "flaps". These items allow aircraft to fly at a much slower speed with a greater amount of lift and control. Also "flaps" allow the aircraft to descend in altitude but at the same time allow the plane to keep it's nose level upon approach or in the event of an emergency the ability to pull up and accelerate out of harms way. Remember, the Battlefield 2 engine does not have the vital component of "flaps". So maps must be designed to facilitate an adequate landing approach with that in mind considering the limitations of the Battlefield 2 engine.

Anyways... The fact of the matter is, at this point and time Jet Piloting in PR is almost over the top. Even as a seasoned Pilot myself there are very rare occasions where even I cut it close to overshooting the runway and/or crashing into the perimeter fencing. Project Reality needs to provide better accommodations for airfields and runways. As even the most sloppy of acceptable landings should provide adequate room to land without worrying to crashing the aircraft into a wall. Last thing a Pilot should worry about is "Do I have enough room to land?" and allow him to concentrate more on getting his wheels on the ground as quickly and cleanly as possible. Then proceeding to conducting another sortie shortly thereafter.

Current Gameplay:
British Airfield - Start

Chinese Airfield - Start

Current Issue:
British Airfield - Short Runway Map (579m)
British Airfield - Short Runway View (579m)
British Airfield - Short Runway Binoculars (579m)

Chinese Airfield - Short Runway Map (577m)
Chinese Airfield - Short Runway View (577m)
Chinese Airfield - Short Runway Binoculars (577m)

Improved Solution:
British Airfield - Long Runway Map (799m)
British Airfield - Long Runway View (799m)
British Airfield - Long Runway Binoculars (799m)

Chinese Airfield - Long Runway Map (797m)
Chinese Airfield - Long Runway View (797m)
Chinese Airfield - Long Runway Binoculars (797m)

As you can see, a majority of the groundwork has been already been evaluated and a resolution has introduced.

1. Increase the runways from a standard 590 meters to a minimum of 800 to 850 meters long.
2. Remove and/or alter map geography to accommodate Jet Aircraft to land properly as stated above.

III. Airports and Runway Limitations -
The point I'm emphasizing is the limitations or insufficient qualities in the length of the runways, geography, and vegetation issues that are surrounding airports.

Now I can see where people may say "It's realistic to have difficult approaches on runways." however, the point is that we don't have the aircraft functionality to be enduring these kinds of situations. The conflict begins between the desire for realism, and the belated and inevitable realization that most aircraft simply cannot perform adequately under these conditions.

Even while flying in the training mode, I have repeatedly and successfully landed the Tornado and other aircraft before on the Kashan Training map. It's clear that Kashan desert offers little to no obstruction of the runways and almost all degrees of pilot error and aircraft limitation are not met.

My emphasis and repeated attempts to explain the necessity of elongating the runways an additional 150-250 meters (most preferably, the latter.) would provide an adequate amount of space for aircraft both present and future. The problem is that the runways currently in PR offer just enough space for the Mig-25, F-16 and EF2000 which is on the far left in ease of control and maneuverability. However, at the time when these runways were created, aircraft on the far right in difficulty in control and maneuverability such as Fighter-Bombers were not in mind (PR Build v0.7 - v0.75) Thus, we remain in a consistent situation of inadequate runway space that has been released time and time again without confrontation or remedy of the situation.

The problem is that the runways are just adequate enough to land the jets in the Very Easy, Easy, and Moderate category with barely just enough room to spare at times. The runways are insufficiently long, and not suited for larger or difficult aircraft in the Hard or Very Hard category.

In other words..

You are not going to land something that handles like THIS
<Note: This isn't fake. This is St. Maartin / Princess Juliana Airport.>


On something like THIS


Of course this may seem a bit out of proportion. But it must be realized that no matter what may be done, adequate runway size and space is a necessity in order to land certain aircraft. Even if this means modifying and already existing map. It must be done to support what aircraft need in Project Reality and it still remains unresolved at this time.

The only reason why people haven't complained about it sooner or in sufficient numbers is because:

1. There are only 2 maps in Project Reality that involves Jet Aircraft.
2. There are very few players that actually care about the proper use of Jet Aircraft.
3. The situation has been deemed "low priority" since the v0.7 build and on.
4. Thanks to the new short range AA missile system, the combat life expectancy of Jet Aircraft are about 5-10 minutes or less. This limits the influence of enemy air power in the skies to a level that no one notices anymore.
5. Most players do not train in the proper use in Jet Aircraft and crash the aircraft before it ever leaves the hangers or taxiway.
6. The landing issues are far too subtle to be determined by a beginner pilot. They blame themselves first for pilot error before they come to the realization that the aircraft does not perform properly and cannot be landed on certain runways. Thus, the necessity to increase the length of runways has been born.

IV. Indicators of Airport and Runway Inadequacies:
The below mentioned situations and results are in comparison to these factors:

Airport / Runway difficulty:
Hard: "The Battle for Qinling"

Jet Aircraft difficulty:
Hard: J-10

Now onto the landing approach... Keep in mind that these can be the results of a beginner pilot who is not familiar with proper landing techniques. Or. A veteran pilot who is trying to do his best to adjust his landing approach because of known landing factors and the limitations of the Airport and/or Runway.


1A. Situation - The pilot attempts to land at the very end of the runway so that he has enough time to slowdown to a stop.

1B. Result 1 - The pilot begins his approach. He attempts to "Flare" his aircraft by pulling up and pivoting the aircraft so that his rear landing gear will come in contact with the runway first. The jet aircraft does not respond as necessary and is unable to pull the nose up in time. The aircraft stalls and crashes before it reaches the runway.

1C. Result 2 - The pilot begins his approach. He attempts to "Flare" his aircraft by pulling up and pivoting the aircraft so that his rear landing gear will come in contact with the runway first. The jet aircraft does not respond as necessary and is unable to pull the nose up in time. The aircraft crashes directly into the runway.

1D. Result 3 - The pilot begins his approach. He does not attempt to "Flare" his aircraft by pulling up and pivoting the aircraft so that his rear landing gear will come in contact with the runway first. He instead flies directly towards the runway nose first. The aircraft touches down and drives it's front landing gear directly into the runway and it plunges beneath the surface of the runway itself. Now the aircraft is stuck in the runway and not too shortly thereafter it twirls violently out of control and explodes.


2A. Situation - The pilot attempts to land in the middle or slightly before the middle of the runway so that he avoids the possible problems as seen statements 1B-D above.

2B. Result 1 - The pilot has landed the aircraft properly, however there is not enough room to slow the aircraft down. The result is that he loses all the necessary runway space to stop and overshoots the runway ending up into the fence and destroying the aircraft.

2C. Result 2 - The pilot has landed the aircraft properly, however there is not enough room to slow the aircraft down. The result is that he loses all the necessary runway space to stop and overshoots the runway and dismounts from the aircraft. The pilot is then injured or dies in an attempt to sacrifice himself in order to save the Jet Aircraft and bring it to a halt.

2D. Result 3 - The pilot has landed the aircraft properly, however there is not enough room to slow the aircraft down. He then makes a desperate maneuver to save his own life and the aircraft by veering off the runway and into the adjacent grassy areas and/or taxiway ditches. Now the vehicle is stuck and will most likely be destroyed upon attempt to climb back onto the runway.



V. Conclusion -
Once again... I've repeatedly tried to explain these situations time and time again.

It's time to elongate the runway from the barely adequate length of 590meters, to a sufficient length of 800 to 850 meters long. This will easily throw a blanket over a large majority of issues Jet Aircraft face in the present, and most likely will resolve any further issues that may appear in the future for aircraft that has not yet been introduced.

Let's kill 2 birds with one stone here... Adjusting the engine values for aircraft is far too time consuming and tedious to be effective in the long run and will not be the solution for future problems as a whole.

This may have not been the most thorough of my posts, but there are a multitude of other things that apply to certain situations. I tried to keep it as generalized and to the point as possible while remaining to be sufficient in describing the nature of this issue. That's it really. I simply can't beat a dead horse any longer, the facts are on the table for all to see. Let's hope we see this resolution by the v0.9 build as a number of pilots including myself have remained unheard for a long, long time and patiently waiting for this day to come.

Patient bear can't be patient much longer.

____________________ END ____________________

That is all for now, thank you for reading.

I hate to give such a short answer to your pretty detailed post (yes I read all of it, well I got the jist of all the bits you mentioned), but I really suck at flying and have no trouble landing on Qinling. While the runways is a little harder work then Kashan obviously, if you approach from the opposite side of the map straight toward the Chinese runway it's pretty much from a jet flying perspective flat, all you have is a few trees in the way toward the end but you shouldn't be that low anyway. The British landing runway has plenty of room to flatten out your incoming angle before you hit the ground, and again has a easy enough to use runup (which is also a little safe given how no bugger is ever in the NW of the map).

Given the kinda lame flight physics at low velocity, it can be kinda annoying yeah, but if anything the dropping out of the sky at low speed effect is much more of a hindrance when it comes to this then runway length.

Either the runway should be lengthened or jets landing speed reduced (in real life you have flaps etc).

I have no idea why the theory is that jets should have to use the whole runway.

Another thing is that the view distance could be greatly increased on kashan, probably less so qinling as I understand many lag on there (although myself very little).

I also think that jets maneuverability should be increased somewhat (im not talking about vanilla here, only slight increases), do compensate for:

1) The lack of out of bounds time

2) The small size of maps

I have taken to only flying jets on combined arms maps now, because the helicopter situation is absolutely dismal.

What I find is the qinling situation is just terrible, not only can it be hard to land (eurofighter is fine, if all others were similar I wouldn´t have a problem with the landing) but the chinese aircraft are just a joke. They can be landed, but compared to the eurofighter/other jets .... They should be replaced by migs/frogfoots or whatever until they get fixed, because at the moment they aren´t even worthy of a 5 minute spawn time.


Of course you can´t expect much, this will just be passed over and in 0.9 I foresee very few changes to aircraft, only ones being to nerf them even more in order to make them so useless there is an excuse to remove them. It is always "low priority" for aircraft (after 4 releases you would think something might have been done) and the assumption seems to be that *harder to land + nerf + uber aa = much much teamwork*.

Warren, whilst as a veteran pilot i agree with your points, was this kind of dissertation post really necessary?

Its hardly as if you had multiple issues over a broad spectrum of problems, considering that your entire post only really boils down to lengthening the runways.

For the sake of mine and others' sanity, please learn some lessons in brevity for the future

AnRK also raises a good point, namely that the Su 30, J10 and Tornado are definitely landable on Qinling with some practice. Consequently, whilst the short runways are indeed an issue, they're hardly gamebreaking for any half decent pilot.

(Apologies, but if im to be really picky, its a MiG 29 on Kashan, not a MiG 25. Similarly, the chinese two seater on Qinling is the Su 30, not the Su 34 )

This post could have been summarized in four words: Lengthen the damn runways!

Other than that, the effort you put behind your posts is amazing, Warren.

its the SU-30mkk in fact

And ye, tbh I can not be f*cked to waste time on Qinling, the map is not very popular and in all honest should be replaced at some point once PR has some more maps to replace it with, which is currently more or less none. I would rather work on a map to replace Qinling than to work on improving it since the map isn't very good and really would need building from the base up with radically changing most of the map to make it good, ie, we are talking a Qinling v2. I would rather make a more realistic map.

All the Planes on both Qinling and Kashan are very landable, thou yes some are much harder than others but as they are landable, I dont want to be messing about with redesigning the entire top left hand corner of the map, modelling new runway models etc and redoing all the LMs etc to fix these problems.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:its the SU-30mkk in fact

And ye, tbh I can not be f*cked to waste time on Qinling, the map is not very popular and in all honest should be replaced at some point once PR has some more maps to replace it with, which is currently more or less none. I would rather work on a map to replace Qinling than to work on improving it since the map isn't very good and really would need building from the base up with radically changing most of the map to make it good, ie, we are talking a Qinling v2. I would rather make a more realistic map.

All the Planes on both Qinling and Kashan are very landable, thou yes some are much harder than others but as they are landable, I dont want to be messing about with redesigning the entire top left hand corner of the map, modelling new runway models etc and redoing all the LMs etc to fix these problems.

Go Rhino! GO!!!

You could do a simple change to all jets, simulate flaps by having the slow speed properties as the Eurofighter
(Or, similar to it)

Runways should be just fine if you do this.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:its the SU-30mkk in fact

And ye, tbh I can not be f*cked to waste time on Qinling, the map is not very popular and in all honest should be replaced at some point once PR has some more maps to replace it with, which is currently more or less none. I would rather work on a map to replace Qinling than to work on improving it since the map isn't very good and really would need building from the base up with radically changing most of the map to make it good, ie, we are talking a Qinling v2. I would rather make a more realistic map.

All the Planes on both Qinling and Kashan are very landable, thou yes some are much harder than others but as they are landable, I dont want to be messing about with redesigning the entire top left hand corner of the map, modelling new runway models etc and redoing all the LMs etc to fix these problems.

But I love qinling! Assets just need sorting our regarding many issues not suitable for this thread, but I think the map itself is great for combined arms.

helicopter situation is absolutely dismal

said the man, who made ~28-0 in attack huey on muttrah last night

DankE_SPB wrote:said the man, who made ~28-0 in attack huey on muttrah last night

I said on combined arms maps.

On muttrah they are fine. That was an awesome round, left the huey to get the cobra, and only got shot down near the end.

Although the reason we weren´t constantly spammed by AA and such was the termination of all those trucks at the start.

There are many more improvements I'd make to the jets before I looked at the runways. There are some inherent problems with jet combat that are next to impossible to fix with the Bf2 engine. However there is lots that can be done. I am going to try and fix some of these for 0.9, but the runways just arent that big a deal......

I think Warran has made some superb observations here.

I too agree that the performance of fixed wing aircraft and the facilities in place for their operation drastically need revising. I think the level of accuracy and detail that Warran has expressed makes it impossible to further over look this critical oversight.

After huge amounts of testing with air enthusiasts and a DEV or two, we concluded that landing certain aircraft or in certain areas is a 1:10 of relative success.



I think an area wich also needs stern attention would be the most obvious marginal observation; that wich is Attack Helicopters.
Now I suppose there are many of you that are now thinking "Zomg, chopper whore rant!", but this is far from the truth. I think that my frequenting of helicopters in PR gives me a quite in-depth insight into the situations.
-Let it be known that I am also a heavily enthusiastic AA, AAA and AAV crewman- and support the M.A.I.M movement (Moar-AAA-Implacements-on-Maps plzx!!!1!).


=======

What I percieve to be the most ironic shortcomming in the area of attack helicopters, is their inferiority in terms of viewability and observation.

In short, these highly advanced, long range, state of the art vehicles, sometimes boasting dozens of different optical and detection systems have 'poor eyesight'.

They suffer from the 'silhouette effect' in PR, where those that have the hight advantage suffer the range disadvantage, allowing to be seen far more easily than see their targets; most inverse to RL.
IRL, most modern attack helicopters encorperate long range, day-night, Infared systems that allow them to observe targets in complete secrecy.
Attack heilcopters being successfully engaged by infantry using top-attac


Furthermore, some helicopters have the distinct inability to look downwards.


Im not aware of the extent to wich RL attack helicopters can traverse down uppon targets, but some of those reflected in PR have problems viewing targets, even at what are considered 'irrationably low' alltitudes by PR standards. Even with the largest view distances, this problem is still evident and far too much time is spent correcting to engage a single, rusting, one-manned, last-generation Soviet-built Tank, obliviously crawling the desert floor with half a track.
Far from fire-n'-forget.

A simple suggestion would be to increase the vertical traverse on helicopters that suffer most from this issue.


======

Another oddity concerned is the wafer-thin armour presented.

Wiki- (not the most sound of resurce sights) mentions that the AH-64D "will remain flyable even after sustaining hits from 23 mm gunfire".
As it is, a few 50cal rounds seem to do the trick for a heavily armoured attack helicopter in PR. I believe a healty compromise would be a more sizable amounts of 50cal rounds to disable an attack helicopter.
Not too many rounds of course though, we still want MBTs to present some defense against careless pilots.

This infact seems to be the case for most aircraft in PR, even to vehicles such as the A-10 and F-15; both renowned for their sustainability while missing worrying ammounts of airframe, are subject to fatal abuse from a wandering recon car.



...mongol...

Forgotten Hope 2 has an airbrake system, maybe we could borrow that. Or maybe we can reintroduce the whole "reverse thrust" thing. I know it was taken out because aircraft could fly backwards, but that's the same as saying all helicopters should be removed because they can hover upside down.

Let's kill 2 birds with one stone here... Adjusting the engine values for aircraft is far too time consuming and tedious to be effective in the long run and will not be the solution for future problems as a whole.

Look warren not to be rude, but have you ever edited a tweak file in your life? It is one thing to talk about something, its another to do it. Why do you think I got on the PR team anyways? I stopped complaining about stuff and decided I was gonna go do something about it. Hell me and my buddy went on a local server and shot missiles at each other till we figured out what the hell was wrong with them.

Now this is how you solve the landing issues:

Su-30

Engine:

ObjectTemplate.setMinRotation 0/0/0
ObjectTemplate.setMaxRotation 0/0/5000
ObjectTemplate.setMaxSpeed 0/0/22 -> 0/0/70
ObjectTemplate.setAcceleration 0/0/150
ObjectTemplate.setInputToRoll PIThrottle
ObjectTemplate.setAutomaticReset 1
ObjectTemplate.restoreRotationOnExit 1
ObjectTemplate.setEngineType c_ETPlane
ObjectTemplate.setTorque 85
ObjectTemplate.setDifferential 112
ObjectTemplate.setGearUp 0.7
ObjectTemplate.setGearDown 0.3
ObjectTemplate.noPropellerEffectAtSpeed 125
ObjectTemplate.noPropellerEffectAtSpeed 125
ObjectTemplate.noEffectAtPerpSpeed 125
ObjectTemplate.defaultAngleOfAttack 0
ObjectTemplate.maxAngleOfAttack 35
ObjectTemplate.attackSpeed 20

GR-4 Engine Left:

ObjectTemplate.setMinRotation 0/0/0
ObjectTemplate.setMaxRotation 0/0/5000
ObjectTemplate.setMaxSpeed 0/0/25 -> 0/0/65
ObjectTemplate.setAcceleration 0/0/15 -> 0/0/75 (Here's the real problem.)
ObjectTemplate.setInputToRoll PIThrottle
ObjectTemplate.setAutomaticReset 1
ObjectTemplate.restoreRotationOnExit 1
ObjectTemplate.setEngineType c_ETPlane
ObjectTemplate.setTorque 100
ObjectTemplate.setDifferential 135
ObjectTemplate.setGearUp 0.7
ObjectTemplate.setGearDown 0.3
ObjectTemplate.noPropellerEffectAtSpeed 125
ObjectTemplate.noPropellerEffectAtSpeed 125
ObjectTemplate.noEffectAtPerpSpeed 125
ObjectTemplate.defaultAngleOfAttack 0
ObjectTemplate.maxAngleOfAttack 30
ObjectTemplate.attackSpeed 15

This will make these two land and take off a lot faster.

CAS saves the day.... I think.

CAS coded the jets so...

Guys let me ask you this. How exactly are you landing?

I coded em so that you had to use a glide path to land, that path changes from aircraft to aircraft. Now with MOST you can basically follow a -5 degree angle until you can't see the runway where you then go to +5 degree angle to flare your landing and look all professional.

I've done this with the J-10 (the issue with this guy is the suspension of the tricycle frames balancing but I can't be arsed.)
The Flanker
The GR4
Eurofighter (just happens to fly like a UFO)
F-16
Su-25

MiG-29 no it can come in pretty steep
A-10 needs more speed on landing since it stops pretty fast

I could get all technical, but basically if you flare, at almost any amount so your cockpit is above the horizon, you can adjust your sink rate to land like a feather. Yes even in the tornado and J-10. If you come in flat in a dive, then of course you are going to freaking splatter yourself all over the place. I could land the J-10 in 0.7 when it was even harder than now.

Honestly guys the planes in this little universe aren't hard to land at all. The planes have NO avionics, NO weather, NO wind, and BARLEY any aerodynamics. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO LOWER YOUR OWN LANDING GEAR. You can drop out of the sky like a bowling ball and if your rubber hits the ground before the metal does and you don't even get scratched. I landed the A-10 on a bunker once for petes sake.

I mean come on isn't this getting a bit carried away?

I can easily land all planes on Kashan desert, though I agree with Warren, It's FV(K!NG hard to land the Chinese planes on Quinling. There is very, very little room for error. You need to keep the speed at JUST the right settings else you'll drop like a rock or overshoot. You also need to stay at exactly the right height, and you must be coming in completely straight because by the time you see the runway it's too late to yaw into place. Even when you land, if you try adjusting yourself to be centered on the runway as you pull back to slow down, you'll get mixed results as the controls mess up deciding wehther to send you right or left because you've got forward momentum still, but are applying backwards force. Very few people know of this as well, which is a little but often fatal problem.

It's unfortunate that Quniling'll most likely be scrapped, though unless it got a redux like Archer I wouldn't see much potential in it. Though the next combined arms map made should realize the mistakes of its unsuccessful predecessor.

Dukemeister wrote:Warren, whilst as a veteran pilot i agree with your points, was this kind of dissertation post really necessary?

Its hardly as if you had multiple issues over a broad spectrum of problems, considering that your entire post only really boils down to lengthening the runways.

M.Warren wrote:This may have not been the most thorough of my posts, but there are a multitude of other things that apply to certain situations. I tried to keep it as generalized and to the point as possible while remaining to be sufficient in describing the nature of this issue.

It may seem a painfully long post, but this wasn't the first time it's been mentioned. This is the first time in a long, long while that it's gotten some much needed attention. The situation still persists.

Dukemeister wrote:(Apologies, but if im to be really picky, its a MiG 29 on Kashan, not a MiG 25. Similarly, the chinese two seater on Qinling is the Su 30, not the Su 34 )

I apologize for my lack of specific aircraft names. However, I try to spend more time seeing them in pieces than as their usual whole self.

________________________________________

Alex6714 wrote: But I love qinling! Assets just need sorting our regarding many issues not suitable for this thread, but I think the map itself is great for combined arms.

Unlike other users, however I do not mind if my threads spread over a multitude of topics. Many circumstances apply to a singular circumstance. The word I love the most is "Plurality".

Considering your abilities as a Helicopter pilot, I give you a large amount of due credit. By far some of the hardest aircraft to fly here and your abilities are noted. I assure you that your opinion is appreciated.

Feel free to speak your mind here.

________________________________________

CAS_117 wrote:Guys let me ask you this. How exactly are you landing?

CAS what you need to take into consideration is that people must see the runway. It becomes worse when the canopy obscures the view as well. It must be understood that there is a shortage of avionics. You cannot determine your rate of decent upon landing and it makes it worse when you cannot see what is below you. Also what the problem is, is the fact there is also a very annoying fence surrounding most of the bases.

I have dug up my old aircraft technician book I had as I am slightly rusty with avionics:

1. The Instrument Landing System otherwise known as ILS. This helps pilots determine their aircrafts orientation in relation to the runway. It can also tell him/her if they are too low, high, left or right upon approach. It is no surprise from time to time pilots in PR ask their Squad Leader "Hey, can you put a move marker on the end of the runway for me please?", it's simple sense. It helps them navigate, especially at times from a lack of view distance.

Picture - Instrument Landing System (ILS)

2. There is an instrument called the "Electronic Attitude Director Indicator" (EADI). This instrument appears like an artificial horizon, but it also has a visual aid integrated system that allows an aircraft to determine its height and attitude and glide slope. This is also assisted by the Instrument Landing System (ILS).

Picture - Electronic Attitude Director Indicator (EADI)

3. There is also another instrument called the "Electronic Horizontal Situation Indicator" (EHSI). This instrument appears like an overhead GPS system looking down on top of the the aircraft. It displays waypoints to help coordinate turns and send you towards your destination, even roughly align you with the runway.

Picture - Electronic Horizontal Situation Indicator (EHSI)

Simply put, what a majority of pilots are dealing with here are simulated realistic Jet Aircraft that have less avionics than a propeller driven aircraft had in World War Two. What makes it worse is imagine if you tried to land a U.S. Navy F4U Corsair tail dragger with a PR interface. It'd be hair-raising.

Imagine trying to do a glide slope when you can't even see over the front of the aircraft. Especially without sufficient instruments and avionics. Can it be landed? Yes. Is it hard too? Damn right.

CAS_117 wrote:I coded em so that you had to use a glide path to land, that path changes from aircraft to aircraft. Now with MOST you can basically follow a -5 degree angle until you can't see the runway where you then go to +5 degree angle to flare your landing and look all professional.

From the statement made, it appears that the use of "Glide Paths" have been standardized into the landing characteristics of aircraft. Whereas "Glide Paths" are not the standardized technique used by a large majority of players.

CAS_117 wrote:I could get all technical, but basically if you flare, at almost any amount so your cockpit is above the horizon, you can adjust your sink rate to land like a feather. Yes even in the tornado and J-10. If you come in flat in a dive, then of course you are going to freaking splatter yourself all over the place. I could land the J-10 in 0.7 when it was even harder than now.

Looks like we've finally found our problem.

A large majority of pilots (even though they are not here to present themselves, I have spent time in the training server simply watching them land) spend most of their time doing steep approaches to land in order to keep the runway and obstacles within view. Then upon nearing the runway, they pull up at the last minute and touch down. In most cases, this works. Also might I add, this is a technique even used by some pilots when they specifically want to nail the end of the runway when they know they have to make a high descent approach from obstacles and specifically when a short runway is being used. It's not surprising why players do this.

Get what I mean? Steep descent to avoid obstacles with a last minute flare to immediately get in contact with a very short runway to begin stopping. As you can see, we have 2 methods of landing. One being the PR idealistic way, and the other being the player idealistic way. In the end it's potato-potato and tomato-tomato. But it appears that the way the vast majority of players that want to fly it is apparently deemed the "wrong way" in the eyes of PR.

Do you see much gliding in this? The nose isn't up to allow a smooth descent of the aircraft. Instead the pilot depicted here is diving right towards the runway and will pull up at the last moment as necessary.


Now initially you may state "well that's absurd, they should be using glide paths" which is true. However, the factor that is not being taken into consideration is that when you are using glide paths you must be constantly using rudder inputs to keep yourself aligned. It just so happens that rudder inputs are sluggish beyond measure. Thus, the alternative is to roll your aircraft left or right in order to get the same result, however this has a greater chance of overshooting your intended alignment with the runway. This also becomes worse when you lose sight of the runway. This is why most players do steep approaches to runways because they can quickly and easily correct their alignment upon approach and view obstacles below.

To be honest, I wish I had more interface to fly aircraft. Such as flaps, spoilers and landing gear. Why? Because then I could actually slow down my aircraft further before touchdown and worry less about the typical PR stalling, loss of manuverability and being generally unable to abort a takeoff. Even though these systems may add to the complexity in the use of aircraft, but they serve their purpose and I would know what to call upon when I needed it. The other problem is that there is no amount of sense recognition when you are sitting in your computer seat. You cant feel the roll you're turning into, you can't feel that rising or descending feeling while you are going at lower speeds, you can't feel when your aircraft comes in contact with the ground, etc.

The next time you come in for a landing and you make a mistake, let me know how easy it is for you to put in full throttle and pull up before it's too late. Quite frankly in PR, when you are landing there is an understood and frequently overlooked factor known as the "Point of no return". Truth is; you either land it right, or you end up the gutter. There is no such thing as last minute landing abortions because aircraft in PR cannot perform such an action unless you see it coming way ahead of time, and by that time it's usually too late. There simply is no "wave off" when it comes to this.

Anyways... We're trying to make aircraft behave realistically as they should without the necessary flight interface/components or available avionics to do so. It's not surprising why people may be having difficulty, even if you try to dumb it down because realistically, no one can just hop into an aircraft and fly it either. All we're doing is putting the Jet Aircraft of PR in a situation it's not designed to perform well.

In my training of aircraft maintenance I had learned that aircraft aren't just "planes" or just an "air vehicle". I had learned instead that aircraft are a complex and finely tuned instrument that is calibrated and tweaked to the very physics of the reality we live in. PR is nowhere near capable of reproducing the effects of true flight because of the limitations of the BF2 engine and compromises and considerations must be made.

My emphasis on elongating the runway may take time and result to a Qinling V2. But if the runway was 800-850 meters long when it was first designed, there wouldn't have been an issue. Now we're here trying to clean up the problems we face. There is a saying for these sorts of things:

Measure twice, cut once.