Wow...planes need to be fixed...

[BirdKiller]

Re: Wow...planes need to be fixed...

The J-10 overpowers every single plane in maneuvering and missle guidance.

The F/A-18 is a good rival to the J-10, these two can dogfight for the entire round with no victor, assuming the pilots are good.

The F-35 has nothing on the J-10 and the missle guidance can't even hit a Su-34.

The F-35B can easily shoot down Su-34; You just need to either improve your air combat skills or play Gulf of Oman more.

The F-18 is still horrible compared to the J-10 and the missles don't guide much better than the F-35

Read my first comment and I think Chris already addressed about these AA missiles, how they're all the same regardless of the aircrafts.

The Mig-29 missle guidance is better than the F-35 and the F-18 but still can maneuver better than the J-10.

THIS IS COMPLETE BS, Mig-29 being able to manuever better than the J-10? That comment implies you are more relying on your senses than facts! Again, this missile guidance is also BS. This statement alone provides how savvy you are in the world of BF2 aircrafts.

AAs are impossible to dodge...even with a J10. You can do whatever you want to try and avoid them and if you look at the trail of it...it does crazy loopty loops and still gets you.

Again reinforces that you are not a competent pilot, even an average pilot can dodge STA missiles.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Wow...planes need to be fixed...

It was never an issue pre-1.2 because missiles of any kind almost never hit any jet, neither the J-10 nor the F35B, or even the bombers.

This was an anomaly which is either lags fault, or pilots fault. Proper lock, and enough distance made almost ANY missile track the jet. I usually had a problem with the first launched missile, but only because I shot as soon as the lock was created, and sometimes moments before.

Missiles had a 0.3 second delay between tracking, and thats pretty damn much. If you shot from too close, they never had a chance to reaqcuire the lock and thus missed. If there was a lock, its a solid tracking.

I know this because I still have the Demo, which essentially is pre-1.2, just a little less effective.

I'd been directly behind the F-15 with the Su-34 on OCS and he was flying straight and nearly level (he was rearming), and I spammed all 4 missiles at him and with no flares and no effort to dodge them whatsoever, they all inexplicably missed.

To understand what is wrong, you need to have a look at the figures.

One, missile shot angle and position of the launcher. Two, missile track delay time. Three, missile lock angle.

So when youre too close to the jet, and you spam the missiles, even with the lock, what happens is, the missiles fly forward, but when the 0.3 seconds have passed, they dont have the jet in their lock-view anymore and just miss.

To dumb it down, you probably had an issue with wrong missile use technique.

The only thing different between now and then is that the J-10, and to a degree the F-18, still retains the pre-1.2 evasiveness while the rest of the jets have the 1.2+ missile magnetism.

Theres no magic to what is wrong with jets now. Its not the missiles fault. I urge you to do a little research and start connecting all the dots.

Whats wrong now is the odd hitboxes of certain jets, combined with heatsources being inside the body. So when the missile gets close enough, it loses the heatsource out of its field of view and wanders off. Then we have the "bounce off" anomaly, which is explained by the angles of the hitbox mesh. J10 has this odd angle, while F35B is basically a 90 degree wall.

To prove it, Blades has shown a video of his missile shot method against J10s, when upon being locked on, J10s turn to left/right and pull up. The missile steers into them and upon impact it crashes into the jets hitbox side at 90 degree angle. Another proof is the damage caused by such an impact. The missiles have splash damage, so when the missile hits J10 into its side, it gets a full load of splash damage. J10 leaves the scene with dark smoke.

This can be explained by reduced missile lock angle which now is 45 degrees. It used to be 90, in 1.2 and pre 1.2 anyway. What happened before is that missiles maneuverability didnt support the lock angle creating an equality, then (1.2) missiles lock angle and maneuverbaility supported each other enough to create equality. Now, the missile lock view doest support the maneuverability in certain cases and you get a miss for some jets, and no misses for others. F35B heatsource is just in the rear of the jet, and hitbox mesh is flat as a wall. Missiles have no problems in seeing, nor hitting the jet.

IMO they need to make all fighter jets as elusive as the F-18 when it comes to ATA

This would mean that the hitbox meshes and heatsource placement should be changed. Every heatsource for every plane should be set into the rear of the plane where the exhaust is. And the jets of the same class (fighters/bombers) should have an equally sized hitbox mesh in the REAR.

but keep STA as deadly as it is now just give it a longer range, at least somewhere close to as long as the bombing reticle on the jets shows up.

Which is 375 metres. Heres a little map I dug up, when I took flying in BF2 pretty seriously back in the day. (below). I figured the distance of the AA is in metres, I had my doubts back then, but I still made one. Now tell me that AA should be with a 375 metre distance coverage, and in the same time have the 100 lethality? Bombing reticle is 375 metres aswell.

I would think a better balancer would just be to make the bombing reticle cover 75% the distance the AA does, OR scrap the AA from the bombing HUD totally.

That way ATA kills will take skill, but you won't be totally screwed on the ground should your team be devoid of any good pilots.

Ive already more or less finished developing a more skill based ATA system. A perfect skill based ATA system is demonstrated in WarRock.

[Thirdeyez]

Re: Wow...planes need to be fixed...

I miss old school flying, I mean yes it was a little un-modern..but it was much more fun.
Before you had to get on a guys tail and pummel him with cannons, then wait for that precious second you were close enough and level enough with him to fire missles. Yes using cannons was a bit WW2 like, but you really had to dog fight people for quite some time.
Now its like "oh crap a lock on me" then you have a very very very small window of chance of not getting hit, if its a J-10 that window is almost not every possible to use.
All a person has to do with little or no skill is wait till he has a lock and spam all six missles, usually this works..unless you encounter one of the very few super pilots.
IMO A2A shouldnt have been touched, S2A was what people were mad about.
Since the change planes have flying has consisted of any moron being an ace in the J-10. Yeah I know its unreal, but alot of Bf2 is unreal..but if you liked flying it made it soooooooooooooo much fun to knwo the only way those missles would hit you is if you got your self in a situation...now there like magnets..unless your in a J-10...

S2A, is ok, mounted sites could use some help..there mostly targets for planes.
A2A..well I guess its more real..more fun..not really IMO....
ah well, I miss Cannon wars were you had to time your missles "perfectly"

[BirdKiller]

Re: Wow...planes need to be fixed...

Can you provide a link to this Blade's video?

[iflabs]

Re: Wow...planes need to be fixed...

So, because you can't own with them, they need to be fixed.

Dude, STFU.

Are you by any chance from THE Evil clan that plays JO:TR too?

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Wow...planes need to be fixed...

Can you provide a link to this Blade's video?

Jesus, I knew someone would ask for it. I dont have it bookmarked but Ill try to find it.

Frack it, the guys got 1500 posts, theres no way I can find it. Give it a go and PM him. Hell reply to you for sure.

[BirdKiller]

Re: Wow...planes need to be fixed...

Thanks, I will soon, it's a pleasure learning more about BF2 :)

[The Soup Nazi]

Re: Wow...planes need to be fixed...

I like to think of the F-35 vs. the J-10 kind of like the Scout vs. the AWP in Counter-Strike. If you want good, clean kills and to be respected for them, use the Scout. If you just want to point-whore, use the AWP. When two snipers in CS meet, the Scout has to make a headshot first or he will die to the AWP in one shot- much the same as if the F-35 is not able to take down an unwary J-10 pilot upon first encounter.

[CDN-SMOKEJUMPER]

Re: Wow...planes need to be fixed...

The 1.4 patch better fix the planes/aa/missle balance.

The J-10 overpowers every single plane in maneuvering and missle guidance.
The F-35 has nothing on the J-10 and the missle guidance can't even hit a Su-34.

The F-18 is still horrible compared to the J-10 and the missles don't guide much better than the F-35

The Mig-29 missle guidance is better than the F-35 and the F-18 but still can maneuver better than the J-10.

AAs are impossible to dodge...even with a J10. You can do whatever you want to try and avoid them and if you look at the trail of it...it does crazy loopty loops and still gets you.

Examples: I am in a F35 behind a J-10...I lock on my missles, press Joystick button 2 three times...J-10 is flying over their runway and makes a normal non-chalant turn to the right, all my missles seem to get fooled by this and fly off to the left.

Example 2: In F35 and a J-10 is on my behind and i do crazy *** maneuvers, up then a swirl down, then a hard turn to the right while barrel rolling and i still get hit twice with a missle with ease. dead.

Example 3: In F35 and am right on a Su-34's ***. I shoot 2 missles predicting that slow plane like that can't dodge them, but man was i wrong. The missles completely miss even though i was going straight up with the Su-34 and he made no turn. He ends up getting on my ***, shoots 2 missles...once again i do maneuvers but end up dieing anyway.

What i am getting at is unless your in a J-10 its impossible to have a big round or "own". If your in a J-10 and your a great pilot...u can go 20-0 or 30-1 or 2 easy. If your in a F-35 your lucky to go 5-5.

And plz don't try and pull of this **** like I am a horrible pilot. I am good, i can hold off J-10s for ever but end up dieing anyway because they are TOO good. Just check my aviator scores.

I went 48 and 1 in an F-35 last night on Wake, it would have been higher but I got disconnected.

I shot down the J-10's and pinned them to the ground. 600 rounds of ammo is very handy.

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: Wow...planes need to be fixed...

This was an anomaly which is either lags fault, or pilots fault. Proper lock, and enough distance made almost ANY missile track the jet. I usually had a problem with the first launched missile, but only because I shot as soon as the lock was created, and sometimes moments before.

Well lag was a big factor, yes, because my understanding is that in single player the missiles tracked with amazing success even back in the days of 1.0. It's when you got online that missiles didn't work anymore. They fixed up the missiles (although the missles that would orbit an oil platform waiting for a jet to fly by to track it was a bit on the BS side if you ask me ) which revealed the problem with the hitboxes we see now. The hitbox discrepancy between the J-10 and F35B was never marked as a major issue pre-1.2, at least in all the times I've been on these forums, PBF, and GFAQs I never once saw a 'J-10 is overpowered' topic until the missiles were revamped, rather the complaints were that aircraft in general were impossible to hit with missiles. That it only became a real issue once the missiles were fixed tells me that all of the missiles sucked pre-1.2, at least online, so the hitbox problem was never brought to the light. Now that the missiles work, we can see that the hitboxes are borked, at least on the F35B and the MiG-29.

To dumb it down, you probably had an issue with wrong missile use technique.

While I very much appreciate you 'dumbing it down' for lil' ol' me, I also understand when missiles should have hit and shouldn't. I wasn't very close to him, he wasn't turning, banking, rolling, flipping, looping, or even making an even moderate attempt at dodging, but rather flying straight at a slightly downward angle towards the airstrip, and I was straight behind him for a decent amount of time - long enough for him to have deployed flares and have them dissipate - at ~150m or so (don't know the exact figure but I wasn't so close I was smelling his exhaust but I was close enough to be able to hit him with guns, which I was doing while shooting missiles). Another instance was when I was on Oman in the MiG chasing an enemy F35B near the Essex, and while all my missiles were missing him (although he was banking and climbing slightly at the time), I heard the lockon warning from the Essex and rather than deploy flares, I just continued to follow the F35 in the bank and see if the missiles would hit. He fired four at me, all of which missed me, and one of which hit (and killed ) the F35. The same thing in 1.3 would kill me easily in that MiG, as it should.

Theres no magic to what is wrong with jets now. Its not the missiles fault. I urge you to do a little research and start connecting all the dots.

Yes, I've been on this forum and PBF enough to see the hundreds of J-10 vs. F35B topics, and I've seen that thread here (metallica posted one, although someone else posted one before him I believe) where it showed the rear collision meshes for the different jets and how the F35's is huge compared to the J-10 and Typhoon, so yes, I've done a little research. The fact that the collision meshes haven't been changed since the release of the game but the jet vs. jet imbalance wasn't really brought to the forefront like it is now until they fixed the missile tracking is what I was getting at with my other post.

This would mean that the hitbox meshes and heatsource placement should be changed. Every heatsource for every plane should be set into the rear of the plane where the exhaust is. And the jets of the same class (fighters/bombers) should have an equally sized hitbox mesh in the REAR.

Yes, I agree, and it's another one of those, 'what the hell was DICE thinking' things I believe. Kind of the 'why do medics get assault rifles' thing, I guess. :hmm:

Which is 375 metres. Heres a little map I dug up, when I took flying in BF2 pretty seriously back in the day. (below). I figured the distance of the AA is in metres, I had my doubts back then, but I still made one. Now tell me that AA should be with a 375 metre distance coverage, and in the same time have the 100 lethality? Bombing reticle is 375 metres aswell.

I would think a better balancer would just be to make the bombing reticle cover 75% the distance the AA does, OR scrap the AA from the bombing HUD totally.

Well, increasing AA range was just a suggestion, but not the best one if for no other reason than that helicopters would be screwed if it were any larger. What I was getting at was that the range that an AA can start locking on to a jet should be at least as far as the jet can see the manned AA site on the HUD, just for balancing purposes. Your suggestions would be better all around, though.

Ive already more or less finished developing a more skill based ATA system. A perfect skill based ATA system is demonstrated in WarRock.

Can't say I've ever played (or even heard of :p ) WarRock, but I do miss the unguided AA in BF1942 to a degree. Although, with how fast jets fly in BF2 it'd be almost impossible to hit them with enough Flak to be able to take them down, it'd almost be preferable than to rely on a missile tracking system. The Essex guns are good, though, if you happen to know where the jet will be coming from, because at least for the jet to be able to destroy the Essex guns it has to be flying straight at it, which means it runs the risk of being torn up by the Phalanx. But the good pilots either avoid the Essex or they know by heart where the guns are and can start laying into them from 400m off so they don't stand much of a chance, but that's neither here nor there, I suppose.

~Wolfgang

[BirdKiller]

Re: Wow...planes need to be fixed...

Wolfgang, it's 8:05 A.M. in the morning, how the hell did you manage to respond like that?

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Wow...planes need to be fixed...

Well lag was a big factor, yes, because my understanding is that in single player the missiles tracked with amazing success even back in the days of 1.0. It's when you got online that missiles didn't work anymore.

Correct, but you also have to understand that in SP the missiles dont have to deal with lag nor ping difference. From my experience, the higher the ping, the lower the hit-capability (in pre 1.2).

They fixed up the missiles (although the missles that would orbit an oil platform waiting for a jet to fly by to track it was a bit on the BS side if you ask me ) which revealed the problem with the hitboxes we see now. The hitbox discrepancy between the J-10 and F35B was never marked as a major issue pre-1.2, at least in all the times I've been on these forums

Back then it was easy to say that missiles didnt hit because they didnt maneuver as well as the jets :) .

Pre 1.2- Missiles tracked all jets in an equal manner, but werent good enough to overcome the superior turn speed by all jets. Balance in equality.
1.2- Missiles tracked all jets in an equal manner. Because the lock angle and maneuverability supported each other.
1.3- 50% reduction in lock angle creates a situation where missiles track some jets better than others.

Imagine a TV missile screen, reduce it by half. The closer you get to the target, the harder it is to reaqcuire the target. STA and ATA missiles work like automated TV missiles.

PBF, and GFAQs I never once saw a 'J-10 is overpowered' topic until the missiles were revamped, rather the complaints were that aircraft in general were impossible to hit with missiles. That it only became a real issue once the missiles were fixed tells me that all of the missiles sucked pre-1.2, at least online, so the hitbox problem was never brought to the light. Now that the missiles work, we can see that the hitboxes are borked, at least on the F35B and the MiG-29.

Correct. The situation where all missiles work equally for all jets has been compromised. And the reasons to why they dont work the same have been revealed because the issues didnt exists with 90 degree lock angle.

While I very much appreciate you 'dumbing it down' for lil' ol' me, I also understand when missiles should have hit and shouldn't.

Sorry, I didnt mean that in an offensive manner.

I wasn't very close to him, he wasn't turning, banking, rolling, flipping, looping, or even making an even moderate attempt at dodging, but rather flying straight at a slightly downward angle towards the airstrip, and I was straight behind him for a decent amount of time - long enough for him to have deployed flares and have them dissipate - at ~150m or so (don't know the exact figure but I wasn't so close I was smelling his exhaust but I was close enough to be able to hit him with guns, which I was doing while shooting missiles).

I guess heres the key to your troublechild. 0.3 seconds of delay was enough. When theres a proper distance between you and the target, the missiles didnt miss. I still believe you were unlucky. If you are right behind Su-34 with F35B, at gun angle and shoot the guns into irs exhaust pipes, you are lower compared to him than you think. Now when you shoot the missiles, the missiles are even more lower, they drop a foot or two upon releasing. Now apply 0.3 seconds lock delay for missiles, and the speed of the dogfight and you have a missile that relocks to the target when its out of its lock angle. And even if it reaqcuired the target it was already at an angle towards the heatsource when the maneuverability of the missile wasnt enough to turn into the heatsource. And you had a missing missile. Ive had the same thing happen to me, both in MP and SP.

Another instance was when I was on Oman in the MiG chasing an enemy F35B near the Essex, and while all my missiles were missing him (although he was banking and climbing slightly at the time), I heard the lockon warning from the Essex and rather than deploy flares, I just continued to follow the F35 in the bank and see if the missiles would hit. He fired four at me, all of which missed me, and one of which hit (and killed ) the F35. The same thing in 1.3 would kill me easily in that MiG, as it should.

Yup, but missiles didnt gain magical strenght back then, nor do they now. I guess what happened was probably him being in the wrong part of the turn.

In BF2, depending on the altitude and speed, the turn isnt always a complete circle. For example it was easier to land missiles into a plane that was going upwards, or downwards, from a vertical loop.

Yes, I've been on this forum and PBF enough to see the hundreds of J-10 vs. F35B topics, and I've seen that thread here (metallica posted one, although someone else posted one before him I believe) where it showed the rear collision meshes for the different jets and how the F35's is huge compared to the J-10 and Typhoon, so yes, I've done a little research. The fact that the collision meshes haven't been changed since the release of the game but the jet vs. jet imbalance wasn't really brought to the forefront like it is now until they fixed the missile tracking is what I was getting at with my other post.

You can blame the missiles lock angle for the imbalancies. Fix lock angle back to 90, and youll have missiles that do wild sh!t, teamkill like little devils and track all jets without mercy

Yes, I agree, and it's another one of those, 'what the hell was DICE thinking' things I believe. Kind of the 'why do medics get assault rifles' thing, I guess. :hmm:

Its a complex and big game. This issue didnt exist in their betatesting because as far as they were concerned, missiles had a less than 100% hit probability for a turning jet, thus making auto-tracking weapon less effective. They had it perfect, in theory. And then the whiners came along...

Can't say I've ever played (or even heard of :p ) WarRock, but I do miss the unguided AA in BF1942 to a degree.

Heres how it works in WarRock. You have this small radar bar on your screen. You track a jet and lock on to him by keeping him in the HUD area. Now when the bar is filled, you shoot the missile and you have to keep the jet in the HUD. Aslong as you do, the missile hits, 100%.

Ive tried to duplicate this in BF2 with the means I had. And the only thing that came close was increasing the lock time to 2 seconds and missile relock time to 0.5 seconds. And boy, this was a significant increase in demand for skills in a dogfight.

Although, with how fast jets fly in BF2 it'd be almost impossible to hit them with enough Flak to be able to take them down.

Flak cannons with ammunition that detonates on the altitude of the jet, theres such ammunition in real life too. So you hit the jet with splash damage.

Wolfgang, it's 8:05 A.M. in the morning, how the hell did you manage to respond like that?

Its evening for me and it shows 9:12 for me aswell. Different timezones

[CDN-SMOKEJUMPER]

Re: Wow...planes need to be fixed...

I know where all the emplacements are and if some fool is silly enough to light me up I circle around and shoot him up from the opposite direction.

[BirdKiller]

Re: Wow...planes need to be fixed...

Its evening for me and it shows 9:12 for me aswell. Different timezones

Heh, it's 12:33 A.M., just browsing around the forums between TBF2 and GFAQS. Can't really play any full screen games just incase a certain personal issue comes up to my attention >_>; And World of Warcraft is in offline mode right now.

[jakswan]

Re: Wow...planes need to be fixed...

I'd bet a lot of money that 1.4 will be the last patch for BF2.

Besides everyone is going to play infantry only from now on, I think it's best just to look for something else.

He says trying not to even look at 2142.