Project Reality Forums

Posted: **2009-09-27 22:34**

My impression, as more and more versions of PR roll out, is that aircraft are not very high on the list of priorities. It seems strange to have only two maps in the entire game that feature jet fighters or bombers. Looking at the dev blogs and dev highlights, I can't find a single WIP map that feature jets.

Since jets are employed on a daily basis against insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, and any conventional battle anywhere in the world would rely heavily on aircraft, wouldn't it be fitting to include jets in future maps, and try to work on the way jets are used and how they handle in-game?

Slick.

Posted: **2009-09-27 22:36**

Insurgents are already having a hard enough time against BLUEFOR already... now you want em to fight Jets?

Posted: **2009-09-27 22:40**

The main problem with jets is the size of maps makes them unrealistic. The largest maps are only 4km square if I recall. A jet aircraft even operating at combat speeds would be over that in seconds IRL. I think personally fixed wing aircraft should be done away with and put back in game in the form of command assets. Then we add more variety to rotor wing aircraft.

Posted: **2009-09-27 22:50**

[R-MOD]Thermis wrote:The main problem with jets is the size of maps makes them unrealistic. The largest maps are only 4km square if I recall. A jet aircraft even operating at combat speeds would be over that in seconds IRL. I think personally fixed wing aircraft should be done away with and put back in game in the form of command assets. Then we add more variety to rotor wing aircraft.

best
post
ever

The maps are simply too small.

If you need a fixed wing aircraft-fix, play ArmA2 or a flight sim.

Posted: **2009-09-27 22:52**

Slick wrote:Looking at the dev blogs and dev highlights, I can't find a single WIP map that feature jets.

You can't have looked very hard tbh

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f196-p ... pdate.html

I can tell you now that like Thermis has said, the main problem with jets in PR is we need 4km+ maps. Maps of this size take a huge amount of time to make and pretty much every mapper is working on a 4km map currently. Not all feature jets but most do.

At the moment, jets are pretty much the highest priory on my current to do list, just probably not in the form you would expect

Posted: **2009-09-27 22:56**

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote: just probably not in the form you would expect

??

Posted: **2009-09-27 23:12**

Rhino, my apologies for missing that

I understand what you guys are aiming for with the future releases, and I understand the limitations of the engine and our maps, but I enjoy playing Kashan and Qinling with jets, despite all these limitations. I'm just sad they seem to be phased out.

And I have tried playing ArmA 2 with the aim of flying jets. But to be honest, I found that game to be as user friendly as MS-DOS in Multiplayer (bring on the arma-playing dos-geeks to flame me!)

slick.

Posted: **2009-09-27 23:16**

[quote=""'[R-MOD"]Thermis;1147402']The main problem with jets is the size of maps makes them unrealistic. The largest maps are only 4km square if I recall. A jet aircraft even operating at combat speeds would be over that in seconds IRL. I think personally fixed wing aircraft should be done away with and put back in game in the form of command assets. Then we add more variety to rotor wing aircraft.[/quote]

I dont understand this argument,so i'll repost what i've posted on another thread:

[quote="Kruder""]

Dont know how u find 4x4 km maps too small for jets(if realism involved POV,same argument could still be applied,because chopper equipment allows them to engage multiple moving targets up to 4-5 kms IRL)

If u find it too small that jets find each other too soon and shoot each other down,that is just wrong and doesnt happen that way...

If u are just bored while flying a jet because you fly out of the map too easily then just dont fly,i dont mind turning the jet opp. direction once in a while...

[/quote]

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino;1147408']You can't have looked very hard tbh

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f196-p ... pdate.html

One thing ,tbh it is just a map with a-10 against taliban instead of apaches/2 gunships,i really dont know how it'd effect the gameplay other than giving ppl even more reason to try to switch to Blufor,instead of Taliban.

Posted: **2009-09-27 23:18**

'[R-COM wrote:Scot;1147411']

??

oh no my plans have been revealed!

Posted: **2009-09-27 23:26**

The solution is to let the jet fly around outside the combat zone. If they fly outside, then the fighters could make a dogfight more realistic. Helos work fine without having to leave the combat zone, and CAS aircraft could have holding patterns that don't involve flying over AA all the time.

I think that it'd be nice to have better flight physics, but that's impossible in BF2.

Posted: **2009-09-27 23:29**

Meh, VD is also a very limiting factor for jets. Really, I'd love to see Seethed Waters included in PR, but it would then require the Variag, LPD, and Nimitz modeled.

But engagements are so unrealistic and limited in Jets with the small VD of 800-1000 meters. Then the flare system would have to be completely revamped, because it's currently really just odd when a single flare can completely distract a RADAR guided missile.

If you want, you should see what CA's done with Jets. It's a big improvement for sure. Of course the out of bounds area was removed for both Desert Rats and Seethed Waters, which extended the area of combat for them all. A2A and A2G radar was implemented, BVR missiles added, Bomb pods, Mavericks, and freelook were all made in it.

The real problem is that very few maps currently fit the bill for even allowing jets to operate moderately realistically in terms of accelaration and such. I'd say that as far as PR goes in 0.87, only Kashan would be usable (with it's ability to support a higher VD, unlike Quinling). Though for 4km maps, the out of ounds would be the first thing needed to be eliminated in order to support them better. 8km maps are possible, but they either have to be island ones (which incur the necessity for modeled carriers), or the terrain needs to be made out of statics, which would cause for even more work. Though I'm sure an 8x8 Desert map similar to Kashan wouldn't be quite as hard to create as a very detail 4x4 map.

EDIT: Fuuuuuuu- ninja'd by Hunt3r

BTW, it is possible to alter the physics of jets to make them more realistic (such as accelerating when descending and decelerating when ascending, rather than the reverse

), but it's still limited in other sense.

BTW, Rhino, would STOVL/VTOL be one of your priorities atm?

Just make it an engine that can swivel using the shift key, and make sure there's the frontal engine, too

Posted: **2009-09-27 23:56**

'[R-COM wrote:Scot;1147411']

??

epicness

Posted: **2009-09-28 00:21**

[R-MOD]Thermis wrote:The main problem with jets is the size of maps makes them unrealistic. The largest maps are only 4km square if I recall. A jet aircraft even operating at combat speeds would be over that in seconds IRL. I think personally fixed wing aircraft should be done away with and put back in game in the form of command assets. Then we add more variety to rotor wing aircraft.

You can never take jets away from battlefield. It's in the spirit of the game even though PR is completely different. People on big maps will definitely miss hearing that jet engine then a huge boom and smoke on an enemy position.

Posted: **2009-09-28 00:21**

McLuv wrote: BTW, Rhino, would STOVL/VTOL be one of your priorities atm?
Just make it an engine that can swivel using the shift key, and make sure there's the frontal engine, too

They made a Harrier, but it failed...Like major fail...Like facepalm fail...

You had to go up to like 1000 on VT and then engage frontal engines to not crash.

You can never take jets away from the battlefield. It's in the spirit of the game even though PR is completely different. People on 4km maps will definitely miss hearing that jet engine then a huge boom and smoke on an enemy position.

I lol'd at that pic, Scott.

Posted: **2009-09-28 00:24**

People should also consider that although the size of bf maps is way to small to support aircraft as they function irl, scaling can also be done to make things work better. One of the things we've done at CA is scale the engagement distances for AA, jets, helos, and tanks so that comparably they work as they should irl. It is a compromise but hey, we cant really do much to change the bf engine so this is what we have to do

Posted: **2009-09-28 00:28**

McLuv wrote:Meh, VD is also a very limiting factor for jets. Really, I'd love to see Seethed Waters included in PR, but it would then require the Variag, LPD, and Nimitz modeled.

But engagements are so unrealistic and limited in Jets with the small VD of 800-1000 meters. Then the flare system would have to be completely revamped, because it's currently really just odd when a single flare can completely distract a RADAR guided missile.

If you want, you should see what CA's done with Jets. It's a big improvement for sure. Of course the out of bounds area was removed for both Desert Rats and Seethed Waters, which extended the area of combat for them all. A2A and A2G radar was implemented, BVR missiles added, Bomb pods, Mavericks, and freelook were all made in it.

The real problem is that very few maps currently fit the bill for even allowing jets to operate moderately realistically in terms of accelaration and such. I'd say that as far as PR goes in 0.87, only Kashan would be usable (with it's ability to support a higher VD, unlike Quinling). Though for 4km maps, the out of ounds would be the first thing needed to be eliminated in order to support them better. 8km maps are possible, but they either have to be island ones (which incur the necessity for modeled carriers), or the terrain needs to be made out of statics, which would cause for even more work. Though I'm sure an 8x8 Desert map similar to Kashan wouldn't be quite as hard to create as a very detail 4x4 map.

EDIT: Fuuuuuuu- ninja'd by Hunt3r
BTW, it is possible to alter the physics of jets to make them more realistic (such as accelerating when descending and decelerating when ascending, rather than the reverse ), but it's still limited in other sense.

BTW, Rhino, would STOVL/VTOL be one of your priorities atm?
Just make it an engine that can swivel using the shift key, and make sure there's the frontal engine, too

Seethed waters would be epic in PR. Hell, that would be worth the time to port the carriers, because the infantry battles would be condensed into a pretty small island.

Posted: **2009-09-28 00:31**

Hunt3r wrote:Seethed waters would be epic in PR. Hell, that would be worth the time to port the carriers, because the infantry battles would be condensed into a pretty small island.

Infantry*Small Island/Jets=Mega rape.

Posted: **2009-09-28 00:33**

Hunt3r wrote:Seethed waters would be epic in PR. Hell, that would be worth the time to port the carriers, because the infantry battles would be condensed into a pretty small island.

It's not that small, mind you. It still covers about somewhere around 2x2 km. The only problem is that its not covering all 2x2 km, only a small noodle of land in that area

Posted: **2009-09-28 00:41**

McLuv wrote:It's not that small, mind you. It still covers about somewhere around 2x2 km. The only problem is that its not covering all 2x2 km, only a small noodle of land in that area

Still smaller then most.

I'd absolutely love to see targetting pods for the frogfoot and A-10 btw.

And just have good AA. If we have radar or something to that tune on the Linebacker and Tunguska, jets and helos won't dare get near until someone HATs it.

Posted: **2009-09-28 00:41**

Only map iv ever seen jet's work is Kashan and open maps,

They could work on operation archer, but then you would have to give the insurgent's lot of SA-7's or some thing better in which to counter them. And like many people have remarked, putting jet's on Archer would be like releasing a rabid fox into a hen house,

only air support you can get away with on insurgency maps are little birds with hydra's, any thing more then that would destroy the game mode.

What we do need is the zoom back on the Humves Trying to support the team using the 50cal now day's is becoming almost impossible, especially when your coming up against tec'ies.

if we got that MK 19 i think that would provide all the support we need and more.

Project Reality Forums

Aircraft and the future of PR

Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR

Re: Aircraft and the future of PR