J-10 will NOT be changed in 1.4

[ThIrD-EyE]

Re: J-10 will NOT be changed in 1.4

i would just liek to suggest that they DICE Canada and even DICE Sweden talk to airforce engineers and pilots in the U.S Airforce or other high profile elite airforces around the world. it may help them improve the jets possibly, because they will have someone overseeing changes to a jets flight characteristics. who better than the airforce could get this right? again, just a suggestion.

[motorboatJones]

Re: J-10 will NOT be changed in 1.4

Yeah...

"Weeks of weeks in review and retuning." not testing.....:laugh:

THOSE LAZY BASTARDS! I curse them to hell.

[SgT.uK]

Re: J-10 will NOT be changed in 1.4

im pretty much done with this game now, if they dont fix this huge issue after more than a month working on a patch and 2 beta test patches, my games going in the bin.

[Eternal-Souljah]

Re: J-10 will NOT be changed in 1.4

im pretty much done with this game now, if they dont fix this huge issue after more than a month working on a patch and 2 beta test patches, my games going in the bin.

You can give me your account and discs if you like .

Will you bother playing another game to replace your time for BF2?

[SgT.uK]

Re: J-10 will NOT be changed in 1.4

You can give me your account and discs if you like .

Will you bother playing another game to replace your time for BF2?

yeah you can, if i dont manage to sell it on ebay :)

[Bungalow_Bill]

Re: J-10 will NOT be changed in 1.4

LOL!

Looks like I was right after all Chris.. DICE really is that inept. You know how whenever we get in to a debate about balance changes I always run over how your often times more complicated solutions will leave DICE stumped. I can say with confidence now that my assumption was in fact correct.

Figures.. they spend *#)%ing weeks jerking off with this useless IO mode that nobody asked for and don't even bother resolving the single biggest balance issue in the entire game. It virtually ruins maps like Dragon Valley, Wake 2007 and Dalian Plant. To a lesser extent every map with a J-10 is effected in a negative fashion but the people who get the worst end of it are the people who are stupid or ignorant enough to find themselves in an F-35B when they feel like piloting. Unless that is they don't really care about getting shot down every single time a J-10 spots them.

Games like Teamfortress 2 and Quake Wars keep looking better and better every day. If DICE doesn't bother fixing at least the J-10 and these other glaring imbalances that have existed for over a year now by this next patch I personally vow to never buy another DICE product again. Consumer loyality and confidence is a valuable thing for a game developer to have and this latest announcement by DICE in combination with the other screw ups have all but eroded my faith in them as a competent developement team that actually cares about the quality of their product after they have your money.

[SJB]

Re: J-10 will NOT be changed in 1.4

harsh words there, but somewhat true

[Lt.Kris]

Re: J-10 will NOT be changed in 1.4

MAKE THE MISSLES ****ING HIT.

im done. dont really care that much about manuevaribility. Make the missles hit and I will kick PLAs *** in wake.

Yeah, at leat make them half useful, damn, so 1.4 is a waste of time. ****.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: J-10 will NOT be changed in 1.4

Your post more or less sums up what I believe and what I have figured out so far, with certain little issues.

I'm no expert programmer, but its obvious by looking at that chart, looking at those hitboxes......really, how hard is it?

No clue. The thing is, as I said again. They DONT KNOW what exactly in the hitbox is causing missiles to miss. I said, that it might aswell be a problem in netcode. In 1.3 theres a lot of this "missile clipping" AT missiles miss, TVGMs miss, AA missiles missing would be another logial issue, dont you think? The problem can be caused NOT ONLY by the hitbox mesh.

How can you change the J10 to make it even better, as Colin said? You would have to be retarded to make a mistake like that.

I guess they lowered the mass to see where it takes them. Lower the mass, and youll bring the response rate closer to F35B. Why do you think F35B is like a hornet? Because its light. Its light, therefore its more agile.

Those values are obvious.

Changing them isnt. While simple stuff like pitch can be simply changed via "elevator" changes, missile missing isnt that simple.

If youve got some time, try checking the files where jets values are. f you need help with finding those, ask away. Note that I have iterally no PC background, I cant even fix my PC from small issues. Trial and error method so far.

The mass is as you said, more mass makes it easier to keep speed in turns. Cut J10 mass to about 10000. Test it

Yeah, but what else does it do? Itll still keep the speed more than the F35B. Plus you have to reduce the afterburner timer to REALLY keep it down in turns. You reduce mass, you increase agility.

Turn dynamics in F35B case are these. You turn sharply, you drop to 850-900 immediately, when you use ABs, you regail your speed (1100-1200) over a little time. This is a direct influence of mass, since its so small, you lose speed, but you regain speed greatly aswell.

The "problem" with the J10 vs F35 is pitch rate. Lower the pitch rate, and alot of problems are solved:

Tried, changing the pitch rate is quite easy.

The max degrees and/or acceleration and/or rotational speed on the elevators of the J10 should be lowered, which would help lower its pitch. Test it

If I remember correctly, its been a week since I tampered with the files last time, J10s files are a little different. At last I couldnt find something that would change picth rate. Needless to say that if I can find these values in other planes, J10 is not a problem. I believe J10 needs more twaking than picth rate reduction.

*Pitch rate recution
*Afterburner reduction (from 15 to 8, provided that F35B AB timer will not be changed, if it will [which I hope will be from 10 to 13], then timer should be set to 10 seconds)
*Increase the time it takes to make a full roll (we leave the mass as it is to keep the little control delay)

The rudders and engines most likely shouldnt even have to be touched, which makes Colin's remark of changing the engines and torque etc very illogical.

Thing is, F35B has 4 engines, the way the jet is "constructed" in BF2 has almost no resemblance with real life. I can understand why altering jets to get specific results can be pisshard.

They are looking too hard, when the fix is really simple. Who knows, simply lowering the mass of the J10 alone might bring its maneuverability in line with the other jets.

Negative, itll make the J10 more agile, thus even better.

Basically the end result should be a jet somewhere in line with the Mig maneuverability, and the hitbox on the F35 should be lessened into a mirror image of the F15.

One problem- insufficient beta testing.

Thats what I think aswell. Which is what my goal is in tweaking it right now.

Both the J10 and F35 are then able to dodge missiles with the right maneuvers, J10 still has a slight edge in pitch rate and F35 still has slight edge in roll and afterburner sprint/speed

In order to counterbalance the disadvantage in pitch rate, which is the most important characteristic, other advantages should be big enough to create balance. Slight advantage in roll rate wont cut it. Balance in jets can be created by tweaking a lot of things, a little.

Looks like I was right after all Chris.. DICE really is that inept. You know how whenever we get in to a debate about balance changes I always run over how your often times more complicated solutions will leave DICE stumped. I can say with confidence now that my assumption was in fact correct.

:laugh: Indeed. But thing is, the changes I propose can be done in 10-15 minutes provided that you know what to change, and you have an idea roughly of how much the change should be. I guess lowering the pitch rate only for J10 is a minute work, but does it do enough?

So what your asking is that the community help them code etc, noone would do that though without getting a nice paycheck. Really if DICE has such coders as that employ some competent workers who know what to do.

Psssht! I work for a company that delivers DICE employees pizzas! I know things! Secret things...

[GbeTech]

Re: J-10 will NOT be changed in 1.4

It's like DICE are a bunch of untalented kids with great ambition and will to do great games, but just because they realize they can't do it they give up real fast.
Just make the F35 turn abit faster. That's all.

[Talus]

Re: J-10 will NOT be changed in 1.4

Well, while I certainly agree with your frustration guys, I do not agree with some of the things being said.

DICE have BUCKETS of talent...I haven't seen anybody else able to create a series of games YET that comes close to what Battlefield is doing.

I've sent a note to Colin and hopefully he'll be able to come up with an answer to 'why hasn't anything been changed?' rather than 'why wasn't this one change made?'

[colony]

Re: J-10 will NOT be changed in 1.4

They DONT KNOW what exactly in the hitbox is causing missiles to miss. I said, that it might aswell be a problem in netcode. In 1.3 theres a lot of this "missile clipping" AT missiles miss, TVGMs miss, AA missiles missing would be another logial issue, dont you think? The problem can be caused NOT ONLY by the hitbox mesh.

No, its purely hitbox. If it was a missile problem, it would happen to more than 1 jet. The F15 can dodge missiles, and its pitch is even worse than the F35, so that tosses that idea out the window. And once you compare hitboxes to the other jets, its quite easy to see why EVERY missile will hit the F35 unless fired at a ridiculous angle.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: J-10 will NOT be changed in 1.4

No, its purely hitbox. If it was a missile problem, it would happen to more than 1 jet. The F15 can dodge missiles, and its pitch is even worse than the F35, so that tosses that idea out the window. And once you compare hitboxes to the other jets, its quite easy to see why EVERY missile will hit the F35 unless fired at a ridiculous angle.

Would you have something similar to this in mind?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/Member_of_STARS/F35B-09.jpg

Then, think about it. If it was just 100% hitbox issue, then why did the missile **** in 1.2? And were more or less equal in pre-1.2? Desktob crashes, increasing in numbers of missile "hit detection" issues with AT and TVGM, this is not purely hitbox issue.

I personally think the size of the area on the rear of fighters/bombers should be equal in size.

[*FMJ*Power]

Re: J-10 will NOT be changed in 1.4

so i assume the beta tests were pointless.

you mean beta place holders???

[colony]

Re: J-10 will NOT be changed in 1.4

Would you have something similar to this in mind?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/Member_of_STARS/F35B-09.jpg

Then, think about it. If it was just 100% hitbox issue, then why did the missile **** in 1.2? And were more or less equal in pre-1.2? Desktob crashes, increasing in numbers of missile "hit detection" issues with AT and TVGM, this is not purely hitbox issue.

I personally think the size of the area on the rear of fighters/bombers should be equal in size.

Yes, that picture is exactly how it should look. If the mesh was made exactly like that, the F35 would be able to dodge missiles with proper maneuvers

Pre 1.2/present day the missiles yaw and pitch rate were pretty horrible.

In 1.3 right now, the pitch and yaw of missiles are 5 times better than they were in 1.12

3 compared to 15

Well, while I certainly agree with your frustration guys, I do not agree with some of the things being said.

DICE have BUCKETS of talent...I haven't seen anybody else able to create a series of games YET that comes close to what Battlefield is doing.

No, DICE Sweden has talent....DICE Canada just ruins it and makes DICE as a whole look bad. That is why I'm praying Canada doesnt lay a finger on 2142