Supression Effect From Low Jet Flybys

[Archerchef]

After reading the heli suppression effect for insertions and landing, i think jets should be able to suppress infantry because of the noise of the engines. If they can do a low flyby, infantry should be suppressed for a few seconds. It's not a big change nor will it affect the gameplay alot, but it would be more realistic and feels "cool"

[Gore]

Could be cool, but I wouldn't like seeing low-flying jets as we all know what usually happens to them.

[Rudd]

I don't really see how this can be done without suppressing everyone at main etc when the jet is on the ground

[BroCop]

Well Rudd IMO that wouldnt be such a bad thing (besides in RL i'd think youd actually stay clear from the runaway)

[Rudd]

IRL people working next to a runway would wear ear protection

however we cannot cover 2k of a map with a realistically sized runway etc

thus, probably best to leave the supression out of the jets

[Acemantura]

What are you talking about rudd, it is a well known fact that runways are 100 meters long and 10 meters wide.

2 kilometers, pff.

As for the Idea, I like it but it really just seems frivolous to me to add something that usually wouldn't happen in real life and would cause more problems than solutions.

Cool though.

[Tim270]

Flares make the same sound as a bullet impact/ I think they suppress? I always drop them when touching down just to try and suppress anyone close.

[Lucke189]

How often does jets pass by over your head?

[Tim270]

Yeah, if a pilot flys that low over your head (away from the runway) more than once In a round then you have a problem.

[biggestbastian]

it does happen in real life but no for the effect that the engines would be so loud that it suppresses you. its called a show of force and its meant to do exactly what its called show what they can do but now that i think of it the B-1 can suppress the enemy but its unrealitist to have a B-1 on a bf2 sized map

[BloodBane611]

Punctuation will help make everything you write more readable. Use it, we'll all appreciate it.

I agree with Rudd on this one, with current map sizes it's impractical to make this work.

[Anhkhoa]

Punctuation will help make everything you write more readable. Use it, we'll all appreciate it.

I agree with Rudd on this one, with current map sizes it's impractical to make this work.

What do you have to such a ****? It's a valid suggestion, give the guy a chance.

[dtacs]

Yeah, if a pilot flys that low over your head (away from the runway) more than once In a round then you have a problem.

Of course it doesn't happen often but still it would be cool to add incase they did, from a bombing run or whatever.

[TomDackery]

He was talking to the guy above him, who used no punctuation at all.

I think thats what they were both referring to.

[Ninja2dan]

Has anyone here even been near a low-flying aircraft? Or know of the procedures during combat flight operations? Because from what I'm seeing, and no offense to anyone, but the suggestion and comments regarding it are based solely on what people see in movies or what they assume is reality.

The truth is that adding a feature like this is very unrealistic, let alone pointless. Ground forces are in no way going to be "suppressed" by an aircraft flying overhead, at least not from the engines alone. The exception to this is of course rotor-wing aircraft, for obvious reasons.


If you are on the ground and a jet-powered aircraft flies over, even at their minimal "safe" operation altitudes, the most you are going to get is a loud roar and a brief rumble similar to standing too close to a high-bass subwoofer. Nothing that is going to knock you on your *** or deafen your hearing. In fact, standing next to an LMG firing is going to be more "suppressive" than a low-flying aircraft.

Second, pilots are not going to be operating at such low altitudes that such an effect be necessary even on a small scale. There are too many obstacles and other risks involved. The pilots in PR are already flying at unrealistically low altitudes, they don't need to be flying any lower. And adding such an unrealistic effect would only encourage PR pilots to operate their aircraft in further unrealistic manner.


And I base this observation on my own personal experience. I have flown in plenty of jet aircraft myself, and have been on the ground with a large variety of aircraft flying at extremely low altitudes. I've had my headgear blown off by ******* pilots blasting their afterburners on the tarmac just to show off, and I've been less than 20m from jets on their takeoff rolls. So I know far too well how jet engines of all sizes effect ground personnel at various ranges, and I have never seen any sort of "suppression" effect as suggested.

Not to mention my house is less than a mile or two from a full-time AFB, with my house actually being directly under the approach path for the primary runway. Aircraft of all types (military and civilian) are flying at low-altitude over my house 24/7.

[dtacs]

Ninja2dan;1223664']Has anyone here even been near a low-flying aircraft? Or know of the procedures during combat flight operations? Because from what I'm seeing, and no offense to anyone, but the suggestion and comments regarding it are based solely on what people see in movies or what they assume is reality.

The truth is that adding a feature like this is very unrealistic, let alone pointless. Ground forces are in no way going to be "suppressed" by an aircraft flying overhead, at least not from the engines alone. The exception to this is of course rotor-wing aircraft, for obvious reasons.


If you are on the ground and a jet-powered aircraft flies over, even at their minimal "safe" operation altitudes, the most you are going to get is a loud roar and a brief rumble similar to standing too close to a high-bass subwoofer. Nothing that is going to knock you on your *** or deafen your hearing. In fact, standing next to an LMG firing is going to be more "suppressive" than a low-flying aircraft.

Second, pilots are not going to be operating at such low altitudes that such an effect be necessary even on a small scale. There are too many obstacles and other risks involved. The pilots in PR are already flying at unrealistically low altitudes, they don't need to be flying any lower. And adding such an unrealistic effect would only encourage PR pilots to operate their aircraft in further unrealistic manner.


And I base this observation on my own personal experience. I have flown in plenty of jet aircraft myself, and have been on the ground with a large variety of aircraft flying at extremely low altitudes. I've had my headgear blown off by ******* pilots blasting their afterburners on the tarmac just to show off, and I've been less than 20m from jets on their takeoff rolls. So I know far too well how jet engines of all sizes effect ground personnel at various ranges, and I have never seen any sort of "suppression" effect as suggested.

Not to mention my house is less than a mile or two from a full-time AFB, with my house actually being directly under the approach path for the primary runway. Aircraft of all types (military and civilian) are flying at low-altitude over my house 24/7.

ARMY MAN IRL HATH SPOKEN

It would be cool yes, but according to what he says its a nono.

Would it be realistic to have burning damage when standing behind an Abrams? In relevance to infantry being near one on Fallujah.

[Ninja2dan]

My comments were actually based more on experience as a GA pilot and one who has been on Air Bases more than I care to remember. My time in the Army was spent more with rotor-wing and large turbo-props than jet aircraft.


Regarding the heat given off by an Abrams engine, no it wouldn't be that high. Put it this way, when I was driving the M109A6 Paladin I was sitting right next to the engine. It was warm, loud as a *****, and the vibrations made you numb in places after a while, but I can't see the heat from any vehicle engine being enough to cause injury from standing nearby.

In fact, if you look at the Abrams and other similar vehicles, you'll probably see a small comm box that contains the crew intercom handset that is intended to be used by support infantry. I wouldn't dare sit on the engine compartment, but standing behind it shouldn't be too bad with hearing and eye protection.

[Elektro]

IRL people working next to a runway would wear ear protection

Easy fix, do it so the suppression only kicks in after the jet has hit the 1000kmh

[Sniperdog]

Not to mention my house is less than a mile or two from a full-time AFB, with my house actually being directly under the approach path for the primary runway. Aircraft of all types (military and civilian) are flying at low-altitude over my house 24/7.

Sleep much?