Project Reality Forums

Have you noticed on almost every 4km there are 2 IDENTICAL air fields.
Except Silent eagle to my knowledge.

This is not a suggestion but but i want to ask the community,

Would you rather have the attacking force have a make shift Base.

Example* On kashan when the US Army is invading the runway would not be a real runway but on built like Bulldozers came in and quickly set it up so the jets could land.

I also know sometimes they can take and abandon one, but when have you ever seen 2 Military Air fields 4km that close, and other wise abandon?

Symetrical warfare, this is part of that.

You could say use 2 diffrent sets of statics for the main bases, but that would usually mean a load of extra textures etc would need to be loaded for a part of the map that A) no1 will actually fight over B) will only spend significant time in if you are an Air asset operator.

Best to put all the performance impacting stuff in the areas where they'll give the best bang for buck, Silent Eagle is how it is because of that imo, since hte airfields are part of the direct gameplay.

Saying that, there are a few subtle differences mappers can put in to bases to differentiate them without significant performance impact, and that point should be taken on for any subsequent maps to aid immersion. However I can tell you with 100% certainty that we're not going to go back and change the airfields on kashan etc just so they look a bit different to eachother

Im not saying make the bases look different, im saying make them out of stuff that an attacking force would bring, Like sand bags and Tents, and Camo tents.

When the US was taking back the pacific they build dirt Runways for there bombers to land. And that was after they retook the island.

Im not also saying go back and change it im just wondering what people would think of that.

You should look at the airfields much more closely as they are hardly identical on Kashan or Qinling.

Granted that yes, they are very similar but no where near identical, Qinling even has two separate plane stand and taxiway models, one for each base.

ledo1222 wrote:Would you rather have the attacking force have a make shift Base.

Example* On kashan when the US Army is invading the runway would not be a real runway but on built like Bulldozers came in and quickly set it up so the jets could land.

Modern day fighter jets would never take off or land on anything that wasn't solid concrete. It would be very unrealistic for a fighter jet to take off from a dirt runway.

The only "make shift airbase" that would be some what realistic would be the use of a strait, flat, long section of road with no obstacles next to it but really there are going to be very few roads that fit that bill for anything other than STOVL aircraft which have very short take-off and landing requirements (hence the name, STOVL )

ledo1222 wrote:I also know sometimes they can take and abandon one, but when have you ever seen 2 Military Air fields 4km that close, and other wise abandon?

No but we have to work in the constraints of BF2 which is the maximum sized map is 4km and as such, if we want both sides to have jets, we need airbases within 4km of each other, which yes dose suck since that is unrealistic and we know it but having jets on the battlefield outweighs the unrealistic side we feel.



Also don't worry, newer maps will address these issues more



EDIT:

ledo1222 wrote:When the US was taking back the pacific they build dirt Runways for there bombers to land. And that was after they retook the island.

WW2 aircraft didn't need to get up to such high speeds as modern fighter jets do to take-off.

I know there not that 'IDENTICAL" jezz Brah.

But i could see how i was coming off there.

So i can see maps with Jets in the layout cant have that kind of a base. What about other layouts like Helis and tracked vehicles, That would work or would the tanks sink Mr Rhino?

Im only asking because im trying to take up mapping and 4km i will try to do.

ledo1222 wrote:So i can see maps with Jets in the layout cant have that kind of a base. What about other layouts like Helis and tracked vehicles, That would work or would the tanks sink Mr Rhino?

We already have plenty of maps like that

you should try and phrase your inquiries more clearly mate

if you want to know if you can make a main base that looks hastily constructed, then the answer is yes

a couple of bases that i've made on subequent WiP maps feature a few things you mention, tents for example on Forest fire.

you can make whatever kind of main bases you fancy, as long as you take on board the point that if its not in combat its not worth a significant amount of detail imo, it just has to look nice and be functional.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:you can make whatever kind of main bases you fancy, as long as you take on board the point that if its not in combat its not worth a significant amount of detail imo, it just has to look nice and be functional.

I wouldn't agree with that, as a main base is the first place the player is likley to spawn in and is critical to getting the player immersed in the game. The more detail, the better. But ye you don't want to go over the top to the point where your compromising performance but when your away from the main base and its out of your VD, you wont need to be rendering any of it so its not going to have an impact on performance, the only impact its going to have is on how much of the players memory is used which as long as you don't go over that limit to the point the player CTDs, your pretty much ok.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote: WW2 aircraft didn't need to get up to such high speeds as modern fighter jets do to take-off.

they're also not as heavy.

@op: you're probably talking about those dirt runways lined with metal grating as support right? Those dont work for fighter jets. it would kick up FOD and destroy the engines. Those are only meant for support aircraft like C130s and similar crafts on supply runs, they have more wheels to distribute weight on and use propellers which tend not to suck as much debris into themselves. their wings also provide more lift.

fighter jet's are designed for speed, not lift. you probably know the forces acting on a plane so to keep it brief, There can be no lift without drag, but with drag you lose speed. Fighter jets are designed to use propulsion to keep themselves up rather than the little bit of lift that their short wingspan can provide. this on landing they are going much faster than say planes with a large wing span. this requires them to have a smooth landing surface like tarmack rather than dirt or other things we might use to construct a temporary runway. too much vibration and bumping around at those speeds while tear your plane apart.

Also if i recall those plates need to be checked every few landings to ensure none of them came loose. It's a stretch to build and constantly check a 1500-2000m runway built for a c130. lets remember the minimum landing distance for something like an FA18 is over 3000m.

@rhino: i dont think it makes much of a difference for immersion if they are both identical. at no point in the game will you be looking at both of them and be able to compare. Now you could say what about looking at the map? well for those of us that care seeing two separate airfields so close to each other breaks immersion already.l

Bringerof_D wrote:@rhino: i dont think it makes much of a difference for immersion if they are both identical. at no point in the game will you be looking at both of them and be able to compare. Now you could say what about looking at the map? well for those of us that care seeing two separate airfields so close to each other breaks immersion already.l

No you misunderstood my point. You could have both main bases being identical and yes you could still archive good immersion in both as like you said, the player is unlikely to see both mains in the same round unless he gets team switched, although it is still much more immersive if they are both unique.

My point was on the detail of the main base was critical to immersion.

Fuzzhead and I use to argue about this point for years with him saying it was pointless spending any time on the main base's detail when it never comes into combat and then ARMA2 came out, he played it and afterwards his first comments where something along the lines of "wow, I never realized how immersive a main could be until after playing ARMA2 with sitting on that carrier deck with all the activity on it and the escorting ships around etc, it really set the scene for me" and he hasn't argued on the value of the main's detail since with me

Immersion is a very powerful force and it really makes the difference between a good game and a great game.