Project Reality Forums

Aircraft system:

The last time the aircraft where updated, physics and weapon wise, is around 0.7?
And in my opinion which is formed after quite some games of flying, the jets could use a overhaul, they're 'outdated' and don't feel as awesome as I and some others think they could be.

What I would like to see is a change in movement, counter measures and weapon systems to make them up to the awesome stuff like choppers/ground vehicles have gotten an overhaul and to make them last longer against each other to make it more chaotic for fighter jets.

What would be nice to see:

1: Aircraft slightly more agile.
2: Aircraft their engines tweaked.
3: Popping flares 2 at a time to left/right.
4: FLIR HUD added.
5: Missile system adjustment.
6: Cockpit view.

Reasons why:

1: Aircraft slightly more agile, when aircraft get ''slightly'' more agile (im not talking about straight 90* turns ) the aircraft respond bit sharper to locks making the pilot in pursuit also having to respond hard to follow him to keep the pressure on him. if the pursuer fails to keep up the tides can change and the hunter can become the hunted.

2: Aircraft engines tweaked, what I mean with this is that the down throttle is more sensitive. that way a jet can slow down in a bit quicker making overshoot tactics possible.

3: Popping flares 2 at a time to left/right, if this could be implemented it A) looks better and B) functions as an actually countermeasure instead of an aircraft pooping it out it also doesn't make it so you use up loads of flares but only 2 and more if really needed to counter.

4: Bombing HUD added, this could be eye candy but also functional for the pilot it A) makes the pilot see what he bombs and B) can be used for reconnaissance/spying on maps.
Im not asking for laser designating only the visual thing and the ability to lock on SOFLAM's from there.




5: Missile system adjustment, I personally think the locking-on enemy aircraft is to simplistic and should make it so that the attacking fighter has to lock on for some seconds before it can fire its missile so a solid lock is established to add on to that the long range radar ''circle'' where the enemy fighter has to be in in order to lock on would be bit smaller so the enemy aircraft has more space to manoeuvre and can get out of that radar unless the attacking aircraft anticipates making it also a battle of reflexes to keep him inside your radar range for the lock-on which takes a second or 3.

6: Cockpit view, you all are aware of the [cntrl] key where you can watch freely and during air combat this can be useful at looking for the enemies aircraft but it is still bit limited. In for example the F16 you can watch the back of the aircraft. In PR this is implemented but it could be more so you can really see to the back so the 2nd camera [C] Key can be deleted so you wont look from an invisible camera on the nose of the aircraft.



Good example of good view of the F16.
This pilot is able to see the rear if he looks like to the right and turns his eyes to the right which can be simulated like this in the Jets giving better awareness around the plane without looking from an invisible camera on the nose.
So for the last suggestion able to look bit more to the rear with the [cntrl] key.

Nice to see a well laid out and somewhat thought out post, looks like this moderating suggestions thing might be starting to pay off

arjan wrote:Aircraft system:

The last time the aircraft where updated, physics and weapon wise, is around 0.7?
And in my opinion which is formed after quite some games of flying, the jets could use a overhaul, they're 'outdated' and don't feel as awesome as I and some others think they could be.

What I would like to see is a change in movement, counter measures and weapon systems to make them up to the awesome stuff like choppers/ground vehicles have gotten an overhaul and to make them last longer against each other to make it more chaotic for fighter jets.

Indeed, all the devs agree there is a lot that can be improved with the jets and we do plan on doing an update of our aircraft some time in the future but right now we have bigger fish to fry

arjan wrote:1: Aircraft slightly more agile, when aircraft get ''slightly'' more agile (im not talking about straight 90* turns ) the aircraft respond bit sharper to locks making the pilot in pursuit also having to respond hard to follow him to keep the pressure on him. if the pursuer fails to keep up the tides can change and the hunter can become the hunted.

2: Aircraft engines tweaked, what I mean with this is that the down throttle is more sensitive. that way a jet can slow down in a bit quicker making overshoot tactics possible.

Yes, right now planes in PR are somewhat harder to fly ingame than they are in r/l for partly these reasons but also some other ones which we do plan to iron out in the future.

arjan wrote:3: Popping flares 2 at a time to left/right, if this could be implemented it A) looks better and B) functions as an actually countermeasure instead of an aircraft pooping it out it also doesn't make it so you use up loads of flares but only 2 and more if really needed to counter.

Ye our countermeasures do need some work and something we are looking into a bit at the moment but again, mainly something we plan to look into more in the future.

arjan wrote:4: Bombing HUD added, this could be eye candy but also functional for the pilot it A) makes the pilot see what he bombs and B) can be used for reconnaissance/spying on maps.
Im not asking for laser designating only the visual thing and the ability to lock on SOFLAM's from there.

Ye, this is also something we do also plan to try out as it seemed to work quite well in CA and hopefully will come with the big aircraft update some time in the future

arjan wrote:5: Missile system adjustment, I personally think the locking-on enemy aircraft is to simplistic and should make it so that the attacking fighter has to lock on for some seconds before it can fire its missile so a solid lock is established to add on to that the long range radar ''circle'' where the enemy fighter has to be in in order to lock on would be bit smaller so the enemy aircraft has more space to manoeuvre and can get out of that radar unless the attacking aircraft anticipates making it also a battle of reflexes to keep him inside your radar range for the lock-on which takes a second or 3.

Yes missile and other weapon locking really dose need to have "more skill" involved but there is only so much we can do there with the BF2 engine, but we will certainly look into these areas more in the future

arjan wrote:6: Cockpit view, you all are aware of the [cntrl] key where you can watch freely and during air combat this can be useful at looking for the enemies aircraft but it is still bit limited. In for example the F16 you can watch the back of the aircraft. In PR this is implemented but it could be more so you can really see to the back so the 2nd camera [C] Key can be deleted so you wont look from an invisible camera on the nose of the aircraft.



Good example of good view of the F16.
This pilot is able to see the rear if he looks like to the right and turns his eyes to the right which can be simulated like this in the Jets giving better awareness around the plane without looking from an invisible camera on the nose.
So for the last suggestion able to look bit more to the rear with the [cntrl] key.

Well tbh the ctrl key isn't a very good way of looking about. The HAT camera views are far better for looking about as you still can keep control of the plane, although that dose require you have a HAT switch on your joystick and you can program it correctly. When you have it up and running its very useful thou and means you can still fly while looking over to the right.

The problem with what you want, with looking really far back in the jets is that the jet models (especially the vBF2 jets) where not designed so you could look around in them very much, at all. The F-35B's cockpit for example doesn't even have the lower part of the cockpit even modelled

But ye taking a PR(/USI) jet for example, looking backwards in the cockpit model and a load of stuff is missing...


As such it would require we make pretty much new 1p models in order to do what you want, which isn't exactly an option for vBF2 jets etc but for new aircraft we make we do try to "future proof" them with making full cockpits where possible.

We also are planning on working on other ways to improve pilots view/immersion but this will most likley take some time to implement fully.

Cheers

from a fellow pilot. hooyah my good sir.

I plan on making quite a few updates to aircraft in PR in the future, but sadly at the moment I am very bogged down with school and other projects in PR, and updates like this will take quite a lot of work to implement.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:Nice to see a well laid out and somewhat thought out post, looks like this moderating suggestions thing might be starting to pay off

Your welcome


Such a great suggestion post. Aircraft TBH seems to be the most outdated thing in PR (Besides R-DEV's jokes OHWOOHHHHHHH). However, A few updates would be great, especially those found in Combined Arms.

Thank you for your reply rhino

We'll see what the future brings us!

I am impressed by your layout and discription ideas . . .

the ONE MAJOR over haul that needs and MUST be made one way or another is

" FLIGHT PHYSICS " the Bf2 Aircraft flight physics are 70% Under par from what actual flight physics are like . . Mainly on Take off and Landing operations. the developers of BF2 didnt incorporate any sort of Lift vectoring only Movment and speed vectoring. as in the aircraft moves in "A" direction and when it reaches Speed "B" Controls come alive to pitch the aircraft. In Reality Aircraft moves in direction "A" and at Speeds lower than "B" there is some controlability untill rotation speed "B" is met when it is safe to gain altitude. This is obvious to everyone whos flown with the BF2 engine.

One way to Sort of fix this could be " Test " coding normal aircraft with the F35 physics "hover abilities" but make the Hover and pitch abilities Reduced dirasticaly . . . Giving the Aircraft Pitch and roll abilities at slower airspeeds to allow for " FLARES " ( Just before an aircraft lands pitches up to Gain Lift and control its rate of decent down to the Runway. ) Ofcourse with the F35 movment capibilitys for pitch and roll would need to somhow be coded as a Secondary thrust vector to simulate the over pitch and bank capabilities. . . Has been discussed before Just commenting " OVERHAUL needs "

Being a pilot not " Military " i understand most of the basic flight charicteristics of aircraft and brainstorming the F35 movment capabilitys while in hover configuration "Not moving/flying " look like a promising Testing grounds for more Realistic Pitch and roll.

I totally support this suggestion as a fellow Fighter pilot since 0.6, Popping flares 2 at a time to left/right. would have been much cooler.

arjan wrote:Aircraft system:


5: Missile system adjustment, I personally think the locking-on enemy aircraft is to simplistic and should make it so that the attacking fighter has to lock on for some seconds before it can fire its missile so a solid lock is established to add on to that the long range radar ''circle'' where the enemy fighter has to be in in order to lock on would be bit smaller so the enemy aircraft has more space to manoeuvre and can get out of that radar unless the attacking aircraft anticipates making it also a battle of reflexes to keep him inside your radar range for the lock-on which takes a second or 3.

I agree, this also needs to be done for the other AA systems...

arjan wrote:Aircraft system:
5: Missile system adjustment, I personally think the locking-on enemy aircraft is to simplistic and should make it so that the attacking fighter has to lock on for some seconds before it can fire its missile so a solid lock is established to add on to that the long range radar ''circle'' where the enemy fighter has to be in in order to lock on would be bit smaller so the enemy aircraft has more space to manoeuvre and can get out of that radar unless the attacking aircraft anticipates making it also a battle of reflexes to keep him inside your radar range for the lock-on which takes a second or 3.

You'd actually be surprised what modern missiles can do with the systems they can be used with. I'm not a real pilot (yet- I plan to be as I love flying) but I do know (through the Superbug for fsx (it's the most realistic F/A-18E Super Hornet made for any simulator- google it)) that missiles have different times to lock on to an aircraft. Some missiles, though, do require way more time than others to establish the lock (like the AIM-120C AMRAAM), but on the trade off that they're usually a longer range missile. Weapons like the AIM-9x take a very short amount of time to lock (not instant, but not as long as 1 second), but are made for shorter ranges.

I do agree with you, though, since some of the times do seem off, and some of the ranges are backwards (wtf?). The AIM-9 seems to have a farther lock on range than the AIM-120 in game; that needs to be reversed. I'm also puzzled why the GRAW searching sound for the AIM-9 only starts when you actually start locking on, instead of a constant sound for the constant search the missile does.

I only hope to see

1)The sounds for the Blackhawk and Cow brought to PR standards.
2)Doorguns on the Hueys. If anything, the rocket Huey as that'll be more IRL (OH GOD,THE IRL!!!) perspective. A Huey can barely lift itself IRL, let alone it, 4 crewman, 2 HMGs or MMGs (whatever the Devs decide to put on it) and 4 packs (passengers).

If both of those are accomplished in the next few releases, I'll be a very happy PR camper (especially the 2nd one).

Redamare wrote:I am impressed by your layout and discription ideas . . .

the ONE MAJOR over haul that needs and MUST be made one way or another is

" FLIGHT PHYSICS " the Bf2 Aircraft flight physics are 70% Under par from what actual flight physics are like . . Mainly on Take off and Landing operations. the developers of BF2 didnt incorporate any sort of Lift vectoring only Movment and speed vectoring. as in the aircraft moves in "A" direction and when it reaches Speed "B" Controls come alive to pitch the aircraft. In Reality Aircraft moves in direction "A" and at Speeds lower than "B" there is some controlability untill rotation speed "B" is met when it is safe to gain altitude. This is obvious to everyone whos flown with the BF2 engine.

One way to Sort of fix this could be " Test " coding normal aircraft with the F35 physics "hover abilities" but make the Hover and pitch abilities Reduced dirasticaly . . . Giving the Aircraft Pitch and roll abilities at slower airspeeds to allow for " FLARES " ( Just before an aircraft lands pitches up to Gain Lift and control its rate of decent down to the Runway. ) Ofcourse with the F35 movment capibilitys for pitch and roll would need to somhow be coded as a Secondary thrust vector to simulate the over pitch and bank capabilities. . . Has been discussed before Just commenting " OVERHAUL needs "

Being a pilot not " Military " i understand most of the basic flight charicteristics of aircraft and brainstorming the F35 movment capabilitys while in hover configuration "Not moving/flying " look like a promising Testing grounds for more Realistic Pitch and roll.

Yes you are touching on one of the finer aspects of the bf2 engine in that coding "wings" essentially produce a set amount of lift after their parent object has reached a certain set speed.

The solution I plan on implementing but haven't yet relies on the fact that wings (and landing gears for that matter) are NOT networkable, so I can essentially stack as many as I want in one object. This will allow me to produce lift by having a summation of a bunch of coding wings which all activate at different speeds, to more closely represent actual physics.

You can trust me to improve it a lot and make it a lot more realistic, as IRL I am a student pilot and a college student in aerospace engineering.

[R-DEV]Sniperdog wrote:Yes you are touching on one of the finer aspects of the bf2 engine in that coding "wings" essentially produce a set amount of lift after their parent object has reached a certain set speed.

The solution I plan on implementing but haven't yet relies on the fact that wings (and landing gears for that matter) are NOT networkable, so I can essentially stack as many as I want in one object. This will allow me to produce lift by having a summation of a bunch of coding wings which all activate at different speeds, to more closely represent actual physics.

You can trust me to improve it a lot and make it a lot more realistic, as IRL I am a student pilot and a college student in aerospace engineering.

Nice where are you going? I see you are upstate Newyork.

Thank goodness at least as much that can be done is trying to be done and worked out but if its as simple as " the engine just isnt good enough " so be it there are many aspects of PR that cant be fufilled because of the Host games limitations and issues.

Redamare wrote:Nice where are you going? I see you are upstate Newyork.

I'm going to Syracuse.

I really like your suggestions!
You have my vote mate!

[R-DEV]Sniperdog wrote: The solution I plan on implementing but haven't yet relies on the fact that wings (and landing gears for that matter) are NOT networkable, so I can essentially stack as many as I want in one object. This will allow me to produce lift by having a summation of a bunch of coding wings which all activate at different speeds, to more closely represent actual physics.

Yes...

YESSSSS...

Thou art a genius sir.

[R-DEV]Sniperdog wrote: The solution I plan on implementing but haven't yet relies on the fact that wings (and landing gears for that matter) are NOT networkable, so I can essentially stack as many as I want in one object. This will allow me to produce lift by having a summation of a bunch of coding wings which all activate at different speeds, to more closely represent actual physics.

Probably a silly question, but won't this affect server load too, or is it purely client side? I can see this adding alot of strain on maps like Kashan if it does.

Blexie wrote:Probably a silly question, but won't this affect server load too, or is it purely client side? I can see this adding alot of strain on maps like Kashan if it does.

if an object is not networkable then it's client side, eg. the effects you see are client side but the information to produce the effects are server side, also things like breaking windows etc. are server side.

[R-DEV]Sniperdog wrote:a college student in aerospace engineering.

I'm definately getting out of the Marine Corps and away from MV-22s. No offense, but I hate aerospace engineers. They think they know everything about an aircraft, and most don't even know how to fix the damned thing they designed. The MV-22 has ruined my wanting to work on aircraft after I get out, as it is quite ridiculous to work on (even after it has had a MAJOR overhaul on how the layout was to make it EASIER for maintainers). My only advice for you is if you design it, take time to figure out how to change it. You'll be loved for it.

I like all the above suggestions, all would make a pilot's job a bit more complex/interesting, which is good. Still, I've never been quite sure about jets in PR in the first place; even four kilometer battlefields are far too small for them in real-life :/

Slightly related question: did Mosquil ever get that 3D vehicle HUD working for PR?