jets are just so unrealistic

[Chris_Redfield]

yes there is. Drop only applies at 150+ meters so it doesnt really matter with AR's but its there.

Ive tested the most accurate ARs out in range and theres no bullet drop at the range I could hit my target (around 250 metres) consistently. ARs have a pretty substantial cone of fire, which makes the testing unreliable at best though. However, theres no indication to bullet drop. So I dont know where you get your number from.

Nope, a modern tank can take a tank round toi ts main armor without "dying"

In the Gulf War, the standard was 1 hit 1 kill against the Russian T-72s and T-80s, and naturally the much older T-55s. Theres even an urban legend, or perhaps even a documented event (I couldnt find links to it), when a SABOT round fired from an American tank penetrated a T-72 and killed a T-80 behind it.

It takes 2 shots to kill a tank, if you aim at the front (aswell as rear) treads. In real life, that would simply immobilize the tanks. Semi-realistic?

Yes. Tracks represent a weak spot on modern tanks. Blowing off the tracks is not possible with the BF2 engine

:rofl:

One shot kills on tanks would get messy, we are talking about ballance issues now...

Hold on. You were saying tanks survived more than 1 shot in real life? Now youre talking about realism being sacrificed to balance?! So which is it?! Can you make the difference yourself?

I´ll say what you were thinking all along- in BF2, the realism has been sacrificed for gameplay balance. Thats how things worked out. Theres no semi-realistic things consisting of 10% realism and 90% arcade. Theres just a lot of references to RL, but all of it balanced for obvious gameplay reasons.

Th ricochet part is a feature, but the one shot kill that occurs coz the shell hits the tank twice is a glitch.

Its not a glitch. If the tanks round is able to give X ammount of damage, and is able to ricochet, then ricochetting it off tanks hull is a feature and not a glitch. Otherwise tanks rounds would be designed the same way ATGM missiles in BF2 are. That blow up upon hitting the target. But its all semi-realistic, right?

Not possible with the BF2 engine. Treads only represent a weak spot in a tank. Just like the rear armor...

So, while its not realistic, and is completely fictional, its still semi-realistic? :laugh:

BF2 game is not designed for jets to land to repair, its designed for jets to waste as little time on rearms/repairs as the scaled down battle would suggest, making the game semi-realistic.

So now the jets are semi-realistic? Or, because of jets being unrealistic, and having no need to repair or rearm on the ground, this makes the game semi-realistic?

That makes a lot of sense.

That makes munitions caried by jets somewhat realistic, but they are working in a kinda retarded way so that doesnt really help.

How exactly are they working in a retarded way, or in a more retarded way than other things in BF2?

2142 is way more arcadish than BF2....

Its not. It has firearms, tanks, solid infantry gameplay and hovercrafts flying using realistic propulsion. Making it a completely semi-realistic game. :rofl:

And were exactly have i said that?

In every second post you make.

Represents a place where your squad rallies before an attack.

Yeah, Im sure the folks at Normandy would have wanted some of those "rally points" so they could respawn. Would cut down greatly on the casualty rates, dont you think?

What is so unrealistic about cars that bring supplies around? Better than to have it parachuted down.

In real world, both are used. However, supply trucks dont magically give you the ability to construct whole bunkers. But thats part of reality I have no knowledge about.

OHHH!! So building a bunker is not realistic? Are you completely retarded or just socially?

Who said anything about making bunkers? I said, making bunkers with a shovel. A magical tool that spawns sandbags! Its cool of you to defend this magic for realism. I must be socially retarded by your standards :laugh:

Reinforcements anyone?

Yup. Those people in Iraq sure need this kind of realistic reinforcements. :laugh:

It is made to be as realistic as the BF2 engine will allow. But a sh!tload of changes has to be made to not kill the gameplay.

Corrected.

Lol, is metal "better" than indie rock coz more ppl listen to metal??

Stating oppinions as facts much...?

You know. Having 30 people support your claim that ArmA is awesome, against having me saying that only 30 people playing ArmA means the game is bad... against an average of 200K players online at any given time, for all PC FPS games, says a lot about our credibility, doesnt it?

Believe me, tanks function closer to their real life counterparts than jets...

Do they? Are you a tank operator? Tank supports infantry. In BF2, tanks park their way out and rape infantry. In real life, a tank without infantry support is dead. In BF2, a tank without infantry support, ends the round at 50-0.

Coz it doesnt work like its real life counterpart at all?

You mean like tanks, right? :laugh:

You do realize that that chart only proves my point? Look at the time it take to do a loop(or was it a turn?) at 300 meters and at 800 meters and look at the difference between AB/no AB. Jets to get more manuevrability when in thin air...?

Wrong. The way vertical loops were measured, was-

Flying in a straight fashion at maximum NOAB or 800KPH speed and then pulling the stick pack, recording the maximum elevation point. Since with lower speed, the reaction to controls gets worse, the 1/3 of the half-cycle is dragged out. As such, elevating at low thrust is bad. This didnt prove any of your points. Vertical drag disproves your point. As the jets turn loop radius gets bigger with higher speed while it comes down from the peak. Also, the vertical downward loops are substantially bigger because of the same reasons.

What you should be looking at, is horizontal turn radius. And while I only have one set of values recorded, flying at 400, 800 and both maximum NOAB and AB speeds were tested and the 400 KPH turn radii were substantially smaller than those of higher speeds.

So jets can take super sharp turns when flying really fast in thin air..? Did you drop out of the school too early or something??

Comprehension skills clearly arent your thing. I said that in thin air, flying really fast, the jets make dragged out turns, huge, as a matter of fact. They do make tighter roll motions, but only because of the high speed the air air is passing the wings.

APC's with TOW launchers are capable of killing or severely damaging a MBT.

Correct. However, in BF2, it would take 2 TOW shots to kill a tank if shot in the treads, and 3 shots to kill it. In real life, APC cannon would only scratch the surface of the tank... talk about realism, huh? :laugh:

Thats the players fault, not the game.

Indeed, because in real life, battlefield is littered with flags you must capture. I guess thats what Rommel did. He ordered his armor to cap flags in Poland!

Coz jes are far more unrealistic than the rest of the game?

How so? Youve yet to explain how. How are they any less realistic than the already unrealistic armor and infantry combat.

Im not calling BF2 a "semi-realistic" game because tanks blow up when shot into treads.

LOL

Semi-realistic?

Yes. Tracks represent a weak spot on modern tanks. Blowing off the tracks is not possible with the BF2 engine

:laugh:

[imported_Erol]

woah chris. woah.

[Nicfurious29]

^^^^What he said. Chill out Chris.

Anyways.....the one thing I find annoying with planes in BF2 is there uncanny ability to see a big circle around enemy vehicles. This is a huge flaw. I can live with the arcadish mechanics (after all its about fun) but those circles have got to go. That alone makes the planes extremely unrealistic.

[Chris_Redfield]

^^^^What he said. Chill out Chris.

Im calm as a cucumber. Everything is peachy.

[waaah_wah]

Ive tested the most accurate ARs out in range and theres no bullet drop at the range I could hit my target (around 250 metres) consistently. ARs have a pretty substantial cone of fire, which makes the testing unreliable at best though. However, theres no indication to bullet drop. So I dont know where you get your number from.

So your now claiming that there is no bullet drop in Bf2...?

In the Gulf War, the standard was 1 hit 1 kill against the Russian T-72s and T-80s, and naturally the much older T-55s. Theres even an urban legend, or perhaps even a documented event (I couldnt find links to it), when a SABOT round fired from an American tank penetrated a T-72 and killed a T-80 behind it.

From Wikipedia:

"During a reported test conducted by the Russian military in 1999 the T-90 was exposed to a variety of RPG, ATGM and APFSDS munitions. When equipped with Kontakt-5 ERA the T-90 could not be penetrated with any of the APFSDS or ATGM used during the trial and outperformed a T-80U which also took part"

:rofl:


Hold on. You were saying tanks survived more than 1 shot in real life? Now youre talking about realism being sacrificed to balance?! So which is it?! Can you make the difference yourself?

I´ll say what you were thinking all along- in BF2, the realism has been sacrificed for gameplay balance. Thats how things worked out. Theres no semi-realistic things consisting of 10% realism and 90% arcade. Theres just a lot of references to RL, but all of it balanced for obvious gameplay reasons.

Yes, im saying that tanks have survived more than 1 shots. Please, show me a game where something didnt get removed or balanced out...

Its not a glitch. If the tanks round is able to give X ammount of damage, and is able to ricochet, then ricochetting it off tanks hull is a feature and not a glitch.

If you are able to fall though walls and be revived, then wall glitching is a feature and not a glitch. If we use your logic ofcource...

Otherwise tanks rounds would be designed the same way ATGM missiles in BF2 are. That blow up upon hitting the target. But its all semi-realistic, right?

Tank rounds fly at a much higher velocity incase you didnt know.

So, while its not realistic, and is completely fictional, its still semi-realistic? :laugh:

Treads being a weak spot in modern MBT's in fictional? Yeah...

So now the jets are semi-realistic? Or, because of jets being unrealistic, and having no need to repair or rearm on the ground, this makes the game semi-realistic?

Chris you have started to argue with yourself now. Did you know that YOU wrote that about jets being semi realistic? :rofl: Nice one.

That makes a lot of sense.

Well, you wrote it... It should make sense to you. You kinda owned yourself now:laugh:

How exactly are they working in a retarded way, or in a more retarded way than other things in BF2?

Already explained that

Its not. It has firearms, tanks, solid infantry gameplay and hovercrafts flying using realistic propulsion. Making it a completely semi-realistic game. :rofl:

Just being set in the future make it less realistic than Bf2.

In every second post you make.

Find me a couple of quotes then. Should be so hard since i "spam it in every second post"

Yeah, Im sure the folks at Normandy would have wanted some of those "rally points" so they could respawn. Would cut down greatly on the casualty rates, dont you think?

In real world, both are used. However, supply trucks dont magically give you the ability to construct whole bunkers. But thats part of reality I have no knowledge about.

Who said anything about making bunkers? I said, making bunkers with a shovel. A magical tool that spawns sandbags! Its cool of you to defend this magic for realism. I must be socially retarded by your standards :laugh:

Yup. Those people in Iraq sure need this kind of realistic reinforcements. :laugh:

God you are retarded... Its quite sad really.

Here is a quote from a PR DEV

There, go ahead and debate it all you want but those are the facts/my opinion (if that makes any sense:p). On a little side note, this is one argurment that really pisses me off to no extent:

"you've taken the fun out of the game to make it more realistic, if it was realistic you wouldn't respawn on a rallypoint or drive a tank without training, it's still a game and should be fun"

The twats that write that stuff need to realise that they are ranting on about absolute realism. Which has nothing to do with the relative/teamwork orientated realism that Project Reality is about (something that [R-Dev]eggman thought me about:)). It's suppose to be something different, a military game that has a pace to it for once, where teamwork reigns over spawning every ten seconds to "own teh n00bs". Might be their idea of "fun", but definitely not mine.

I really think I speak for the majority of this community when I say "you embarrass yourself".



all the best, Jaymz

Btw, the "twats" part applies to you Chris.

Corrected.

Not really


You know. Having 30 people support your claim that ArmA is awesome, against having me saying that only 30 people playing ArmA means the game is bad... against an average of 200K players online at any given time, for all PC FPS games, says a lot about our credibility, doesnt it?

ArmA is not made for the masses and neither is PR. The fact that most ppl dont like slow paced games, doenst make those games "bad". Saying that ArmA suycks coz not that many ppl play it, is just as retarded as saying that "The Libertines" suck just coz more ppl listen to "Metallica". But im sure it makes perfect sence to you

Do they? Are you a tank operator? Tank supports infantry. In BF2, tanks park their way out and rape infantry. In real life, a tank without infantry support is dead. In BF2, a tank without infantry support, ends the round at 50-0.

Only if it wont get countered. Tell me, how many tanks did the US loose in Iraq in the last 2 years?


Wrong. The way vertical loops were measured, was-

Flying in a straight fashion at maximum NOAB or 800KPH speed and then pulling the stick pack, recording the maximum elevation point. Since with lower speed, the reaction to controls gets worse, the 1/3 of the half-cycle is dragged out. As such, elevating at low thrust is bad. This didnt prove any of your points. Vertical drag disproves your point. As the jets turn loop radius gets bigger with higher speed while it comes down from the peak. Also, the vertical downward loops are substantially bigger because of the same reasons.

What you should be looking at, is horizontal turn radius. And while I only have one set of values recorded, flying at 400, 800 and both maximum NOAB and AB speeds were tested and the 400 KPH turn radii were substantially smaller than those of higher speeds.

So that explains why jets take sharper and quicker turns in thin air and a fast speed, than when in "thick air" and at a lower speed...?

Comprehension skills clearly arent your thing.

You know, you shouldt really be talking about "comprehension skills"

I said that in thin air, flying really fast, the jets make dragged out turns, huge, as a matter of fact. They do make tighter roll motions, but only because of the high speed the air air is passing the wings.

:laugh::laugh:You can make a split S turn in almost less than a second when you are really high with the F35. Try to do that when you are on lower altitudes and lower speeds.

Correct. However, in BF2, it would take 2 TOW shots to kill a tank if shot in the treads, and 3 shots to kill it.

You only need 2 shots.

In real life, APC cannon would only scratch the surface of the tank... talk about realism, huh? :laugh:

Depends on where it hits.

Indeed, because in real life, battlefield is littered with flags you must capture. I guess thats what Rommel did. He ordered his armor to cap flags in Poland!

And dont flags represent strategic points on the map...?

How so? Youve yet to explain how. How are they any less realistic than the already unrealistic armor and infantry combat.

Already explained

LOL

You have yet again quoted yourself. Maybe i should just leave and let you have a nice little discussion with yourself? Coz you obviously have problems with split personality (or w/e its called in english), you cant even agree with yourself ffs

:laugh:

I kinda like the fact that you quote yourself and just answer with a "LOL".:laugh:

[camper.]

^^^^What he said. Chill out Chris.

Anyways.....the one thing I find annoying with planes in BF2 is there uncanny ability to see a big circle around enemy vehicles. This is a huge flaw. I can live with the arcadish mechanics (after all its about fun) but those circles have got to go. That alone makes the planes extremely unrealistic.

If an A10 pilot can identify "orange rockets" from 12k feet, then why would an F-35 have any issue with seeing huge circles around enemy vehicles? Ground radar is not that bad. The only issue I see is with light vehicles which get enough flak as it is, and with a DPV or FAV, you're just as likely to die from small arms fire.

[Nicfurious29]

^^^^Are you listening to yourself?? Why would an F35 have issues seeing a huge circles around enemy vehicles? I suppose seeing big boxes marked with X's on friendly vehicles is acceptable as well.

[Skaggy]

Take the boxes away from jeeps and AA, but keep them for everything else. That's probably as balanced and realistic as you're likely to get.

[waaah_wah]

^^Lol 666 posts

[camper.]

^^^^Are you listening to yourself?? Why would an F35 have issues seeing a huge circles around enemy vehicles? I suppose seeing big boxes marked with X's on friendly vehicles is acceptable as well.

Maybe you can make a patch for BF2 that'll provide a better arcade equivalent to radar and ground intelligence, eh?

Oh, thought not.

[Nicfurious29]

Actually its not difficult to accomplish. And what we are talking about is not radar. Theres no radar on earth that is enables the pilot to see a giant circle around an object.

I just think it makes flying the planes even less skillful. I think that was what the OP was getting at. While BF2 pretty much dumbed down modern warfare, they put an extra dunce cap on operating planes.