Jet flight realism

[timothydw1]

I was a pilot in the US Navy in 1980's, and I have several complaints with your flight model that I would like you to look at.
1. There is no delay in jet engine acceleration, but rather a lag in throttle action. Older jets had more lag, newer jet engines have less. (Due to jet engine advances and the reduction of aircraft weight). In the game, the delay is WAAAAAAy too long. To be realistic, jet engines have about a 10% lag (about 1 to 2 seconds) depending on certain factors. Like altitude, speed, attitude, etc. The lag is in the thrust. A jet engine takes a few seconds to produce the thrust to overcome weight. (Thrust to weight ratio)
2. There are air brakes on all jets for fast deceleration and maneuverability. Not so on your model.
3. The flight dynamics are incorrect. Mainly the turn circle. In game, the faster you go, the faster you turn. This is incorrect. The turn circle changes with speed of the aircraft. The slower you go, the smaller diameter turn circle and the faster you turn, stall speed notwithstanding. The faster you go, the larger diameter your turn circle and the slower you make that circle. For example, An f-18 traveling 200 kts, can go from being the target of a mig-29 traveling at 300 kts to being on the mig,s tail rather quickly, with both jets in a max g turn. Acceleretion and deceleration are instanteous in flight, due to afterburners and air brakes, thus allowing the pilot to control the dynamics of any engagement. The maneuverability then becomes a test of the pilot fitness in order to combat g- forces, as well as the enemy. The faster you are moving when executing a turn, the harder it is to make that turn without blacking or reding out. But I dont expect this game to incorporate blackout and redout. But I would like the dynamics of the aircraft to be at least somewhat correct.
4.When taking off, the nose wheel steering is centered and disabled as not to allow steering during take-off. This is a safety feature so you dont fold up the nose wheel on take-off. Steering is done with the vertical stabilizers, and have no effect until you reach a certain speed.
5.Fighter Jets are not so easy to shoot down. Flares and chaff are VERY good at fooling AA missiles. In the game, AA misiles are WAY too accurate and reliable.

BF2 is a game and I expect this out of a game, But if realism is what your after, do more work on it.
I hope these suggestions get implemented, as I enjoy flying in bf2, but flying in PR suks. It is not realistic at all

[Rudd]

Hi man, welcome to the PR forums, thats a really detailed and well written list of improvements, its always great to see current or ex-servicemen on this forum helping to make the game more realistic.

5.Fighter Jets are not so easy to shoot down. Flares and chaff are VERY good at fooling AA missiles. In the game, AA misiles are WAY too accurate and reliable.

Its been a while since the jets and helos got significant love, ur suggestions sound good for gameplay also.

[aperson444]

I don't really think so about the AA Missiles. I play a lot with the SA-7 as a Anti-Air infantry, and it seems that it's very easy to miss with the AA Missile. No matter what. All the pilot needs to do is spin upwards (Which is pretty unrealistic). You don't even need to deploy flares. I think everything but that would be something nice to see changed. The AA system is fine as it is now, and may be a little underpowered.

[LithiumFox]

I don't really think so about the AA Missiles. I play a lot with the SA-7 as a Anti-Air infantry, and it seems that it's very easy to miss with the AA Missile. No matter what. All the pilot needs to do is spin upwards (Which is pretty unrealistic). You don't even need to deploy flares. I think everything but that would be something nice to see changed. The AA system is fine as it is now, and may be a little underpowered.

i'd rather believe the exserviceman.... XD

[McBumLuv]

I don't really think so about the AA Missiles. I play a lot with the SA-7 as a Anti-Air infantry, and it seems that it's very easy to miss with the AA Missile. No matter what. All the pilot needs to do is spin upwards (Which is pretty unrealistic). You don't even need to deploy flares. I think everything but that would be something nice to see changed. The AA system is fine as it is now, and may be a little underpowered.

MANPADs aren't supposed to effectively target Jets

I do agree, though, nearly all of the flight mechanics of the BF2 engine are unrealistic (Slowing down when dropping in altitude, yet speeding up when climbing).

Not sure how much is able to be done without visiting a new engine. You might want to talk to CAS_117, he's doing work with jets and he'd be the one in the know about what you can and can't code with them flight wise, I'd imagine.

[Snazz]

I would definately like to see more realism in this area, whatever is possible with the engine.

There's very split opinions on whether AA should be more or less effective, whether it's for realism or gameplay sake.

I enjoy flying in bf2, but flying in PR suks. It is not realistic at all

That's the only part I don't understand.

If it bothers you that PR flight is unrealistic how can you stand flying in BF2?

I don't really think so about the AA Missiles. I play a lot with the SA-7 as a Anti-Air infantry,

I think he's talking about air to air, not surface to air.

[Sparatan117]

I do agree, though, nearly all of the flight mechanics of the BF2 engine are unrealistic (Slowing down when dropping in altitude, yet speeding up when climbing).

I have to second that as far as Helicopters go. I've noticed in battlefield if your flying along in a helicopter and level out you stop flying and come to a hover, watch this video as he flys over mountain tops. He should be able to increase collective and continue flying smoothly over the mountains but ...well i'll shut up just watch (0:50)


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XM-riPdiX7g&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XM-riPdiX7g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[CAS_117]

yeah aircraft aren't getting more realistic till I make a new jet engine. As in not in PR.

[Spartan0189]

This guy was a pilot
He could teach us some stuff

Welcome to the PR forums, Although im not always flying a jet in PR, I think this request is pretty neat

[CAS_117]

Yup that's right, just ignore what I said.

[Zimmer]

Alot of text

BF2 engine isnt really good to planes. BF2 has it own ways of dealing with aircrafts and that is surely not a realistic way, but without alot of time some millions to try to convince EA to give PR the source code it will not happen.

[Sparatan117]

Yup that's right, just ignore what I said.

amazing what some people dont comprehend isnt it?

[timothydw1]

I was talking about SA AND AA missile reliability and accuracy. As for their effectiveness when they make contact, they are DEADLY. All of them.
In the game, you can take a number of hits before destruction. Realistically, one hit from any missile means sure destruction. Most aircraft can take a number of hits from aaa (anti aircraft artillary) before airframe failure. Especially f-15's, f-16's, f-18's and f-22's, because of their composite construction. Missiles are different in that there are so many different kinds of them, ie guidance systems, blast types and ranges, flight patterns, speed, range and so forth, that makes the mobile aa so deadly. The shoulder launched missiles, (sa-3 and sa-7) is a cheap version and is VERY unreliable against a fast moving target, and has about a 5 mile range. (It runs out of juice fast and never reaches its full speed). Your right about spinning up to avoid missiles, your actually putting yourself in the flight path of the missile that way. Flares and chaff along with quick maneuvers are the only way to avoid being shot down. The main difference between sa and aa is that the aa missile is already going fast when deployed, and needs not accelerate from zero. It finds you faster thus harder to avoid from a close range, speaking of IR missiles, if course. They have a smaller guidance window, thus making them easier to fool with flares. The real threat comes from medium and long range radar and milti-guided missiles. They're harder to avoid and are real smart. Normally outfitted with several types of guidance modes and types, they can switch automatically from one guidance system to another without loosing their target. If you fire chaff, they switch to ir, if you turn on your jammer, they switch to jammer homing, if you turn that off, they switch back to ir. Very hard to fool, but not always reliable. The more components you pack into a mach 3.5 rocket, the more components that are bound to fail.
And The reason I like to fly in bf2 is I know its a game and its for fun. In pr, I expect realism. But the model in bf2 does bug me.
Oh and by the way, the sa-7 is not aa. Its SA---SA is surface to air. AA is air to air (as in jet launched). You dont refer to surface launched missiles as anti-air, you refer to them as sam's. (Surface to air missiles)

[Alex6714]

I have to second that as far as Helicopters go. I've noticed in battlefield if your flying along in a helicopter and level out you stop flying and come to a hover, watch this video as he flys over mountain tops. He should be able to increase collective and continue flying smoothly over the mountains but ...well i'll shut up just watch (0:50)

That is mainly because I wanted to hover at the top to zoom in, however what you say is true, although this is before newer handling changes.

Also because most people (I am also guilty) just fly on 100% throttle because why not? There is no wearing out the engine, using up fuel, going overspeed so when you do come to hills like this, there is no extra throttle to increase.

[CAS_117]

In layman's terms AA = anti - air. And the lethiality of missiles in PR is basically random due to hitboxes and ping. I set the missiles to have 50-60m proximity fuzes in order to use a "Guantanamo Bay" approach.

[Kruder]

I was a pilot in the US Navy in 1980's,

Who wasnt/isnt?

[timothydw1]

Who wasnt/isnt?

Obviously you

[$kelet0r]

There shouldn't be jets in PR at all. End of. They cannot be implemented or used in any realistic fashion with the biggest map 4km by 4km and only being able to see approx 800m - replacing them with appropriate area attacks would be the way to go. Sadly we seem to be stuck with them...

[Alex6714]

Except they can be made better...

And there is no reason to keep 800m view distance, especially on kashan. The maps where you would have a hard time increasing it are maps where jets aren´t present.

Following that logic there shouldn´t be anything in PR since they can´t be implemented realistically, tanks, normal rifles where you can´t have realistic deviation (prone diving) etc