jets are just so unrealistic

[imported_Rhino]

OK that's it, since so many people are speaking of this Project Reality, I'm gonna download and give it a try.

make sure you read the guide first before playing otherwise you will be totally lost, very diffrent from vbf2

http://guide.realitymod.com/index.php?title=User_Guide

PR aint for everyone but its always worth giving it a try then making up your mind if its for you, or not, first time I tried PR I hated it, but 2nd time I tried it I got alot more into it

[ThatEvilGuy]

make sure you read the guide first before playing otherwise you will be totally lost, very diffrent from vbf2

http://guide.realitymod.com/index.php?title=User_Guide

PR aint for everyone but its always worth giving it a try then making up your mind if its for you, or not, first time I tried PR I hated it, but 2nd time I tried it I got alot more into it

Thanks Rhino, I'll give it a try.

[USAF Thrifty]

why...just why...these arguments never go anywhere..

[waaah_wah]

Everything you listed above is what makes BF2 FUN, can you imagine having to land for each repair or rearming? that's crazy.


F35 flying faster at 800 meters is a good too, helps balance, helps you outrun those J-10 missles.

And I think the missles are too effective now, I thought they were the best at v1.0 where you actually had to have some skill to land them, time them correctly and align them properly against your enemy.

Works well in PR I even find it fun. Jets are there for support they are not the main "pwning force"

Wrong. BF2 is a complete arcade game set up in modern age. The fact that its weapons are drawn from what we may consider "real world" doesnt make it any more "realistic". If youre going to use the term "semi-realistic" to describe a complete arcade creation, youre bending facts to your liking.


How do 2 completely arcadeish things with realistic tendencies make a game semi-realistic? You just called sour cream an "alcoholic beverage" because of its 0.05% alcohol capacity.

How is bullet drop or the fact that tanks can take more shots to its front than rear "completely arcadeish"...?

Not only that. Its arguable, whether or not tanks take more damage to the front, than to the rear.

Count how many shells a tank can take to its fron armor and how many it can take to its rear armor...

You dont see tanks munition deflections killing tanks in less shots in real life.

Thats not a feature, its a glitch. Saying that is just about the same as asking if ppl can get in a building IRL so they can shoot out but no one can hit them...

You dont see tanks blowing up, just because you hit the treads.

Bf2 engine is not capable of letting you blow off the tracks just coz you hit there. It just does more damage and since tracks is a weak spot for tank IRL, it is "semi realistic".

You dont see tanks being piloted by one operator. As for bullet drop. The only accurate measurement we have, was made for sniper rifles.

Like i said, BF2 is not a simulator, things were simplified alot.

So... you got drunk off sour cream? No wonder youre calling PR as the "ULTIMATE BADAS5 BEST AWSUM BEST BEST BEST REALISTIC EXPERIENCE".

Rofl... ArmA is an awesome realistic experience. PR is as realistic as the Bf2 engine will aloow it to be.

Whoop the f*cking do, now theres a switch.

Yeah, because tanks are utterly realistic. Your friendy neighbourhood support player carries 30 shells of tank ammo with him, to resupply my Abrams on the go! SEMI-REALISTIC!!!!!!!:laugh:

It is semi realistic. Works better than force players to go back to base so someone elce could ressuply them. Dont get me wrong, i would love that. But many ppl wouldnt. So the ammo from support players is another part of the game that was simplified

:laugh:

Bending facts in order to prove a point. Bent facts become lies and fabrications.

Irony oh irony...

Bullsh!t. Both in RL and coincidentally in BF2, the slower a jet flies, the worse it maneuverability gets, which would imply that theres a somesort of physics system in place.

:laugh:Omfg... Havent you spend 1000+ hours in jets in Bf2?? Should think that you knew this kinda stuff. Fly a 35 at 400km/h and take a turn and fly it at 2000km/h and take a turn and see wich one will be tighter.

Also, the slower the jets go, the smaller their turn radius is.

Then why the **** dont ppl slow down when in a dogfight?? You loose alot of manuevrability when you slow down.

Physics 101. The thinner the air, the smaller the drag. Why do you think passenger cruisers fly at 10KM altitude? Or that Blackbirds maximum speed is in the upper region of the atmosphere?

That is correct, but then jets should loose manuevrability when you are higher up. But in Bf2 the opposite happens.

Sure it doesnt. Tell that to the persistent motherfvckers with 5:1 KDR in mobile STA.

Even if every static AA site on a map is manned it wont really bother jets that much. Static AA in Bf2 wasnt even created to be a jet killer like it is IRL.

Wow...:laugh:

Are you a bright one. Ive said it since the very beginning, that BF2 is an "arcade" game, which means the game is not realistic. You on the other hand are pressing the notion that its a "semi realistic shooter". :laugh:

Thats coz it is a semi realistic game. Almost every aspect of it works similar to how it works IRL, exept air assets.

Let me catch my breath.

The OP is saying, that jets are unrealistic ergo they suck and should be either ditched or remade. Youe supporting him while claiming PR is "da best" which also features an arcade form of jet aspect.

Like i said, pretty much every aspect of Bf2 works similar to how it works IRL, exept air assets. Air assets is the only aspect of BF2 wich is beyond unrealistic.

PR is not a flight sim, but the jets in PR work alot more similar to how they do IRL than in BF2.

Theres so much irony, hypocrisy and pure retardation in the air.

If there is retardation in the air arround you, you dont need to have 170 IQ to figure out where its coming from...

......

[camper.]

Works well in PR I even find it fun. Jets are there for support they are not the main "pwning force"

Which is as far from reality as you get nowadays...

[waaah_wah]

Which is as far from reality as you get nowadays...

Infantry and armor are still the main "pwning force" today.

[socomsniper]

actually, i think a 500lb JDAM is more effective than a 5.56mm bullet

[Chris_Redfield]

How is bullet drop or the fact that tanks can take more shots to its front than rear "completely arcadeish"...?

Bullet drops calculation is wrong, theres also no wind to affect the bullet. Theres no bullet drop for assault rifles.

And as I said, the fact that tanks take more damage to the front, than to the rear, is highly arguable. Ive been able to sink tanks just by 2 shots by firing to the front. In real life, unless were talking about Maus 2, firing a modern anti-tank round into the front of the tank would most probably kill it, or immobilize it just the same. In real life, tanks are operated by a crew of 3- 4 people and in real life, tanks have a whole lot different purpose than they have in BF2.

Semi-realistic? Semi would imply on "half".

Count how many shells a tank can take to its fron armor and how many it can take to its rear armor...

1 shell kills a tank if you shoot it at a specific spot at the front, and it deflects. In real life, tanks armor is designed to deflect the shots, or the explosion. Semi-realistic?

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?

Again, its arguable whether or not the tank takes more damage to the front hull part, than to the rear. You could test it, and its probably true, but the game itsself rarely awards that. The true, 100% working difference I found that you can rely on, on the field, is that the treats and deflection points work.

In any case. A SABOT round to the engine compartment, and the tank is toast. It takes, theoretically at least, 3 shots to kill a tank from the rear. Realism much?

Thats not a feature, its a glitch. Saying that is just about the same as asking if ppl can get in a building IRL so they can shoot out but no one can hit them...

Actually, tank rounds being able to ricochet is not a glitch, as ATGM rounds do not have the ability to do the same, nor do the TOW missiles. Whether or not DICE intended for it to ricochet on the hull of the tank is arguable, but the fact that they are a different kind of munition, coded to be capable of doing so, isnt.

Bf2 engine is not capable of letting you blow off the tracks just coz you hit there. It just does more damage and since tracks is a weak spot for tank IRL, it is "semi realistic".

How is blowing up the tanks, by severing the treads even remotely realistic? I dont see the logic. Explain it to me, wheres the "realistic" part in "semi realistic"? Because its simply retarded. In real life, tanks dont blow up, they become immobile at worst. IMMOBILE, not DEAD.

Here, let me give you an example of your own make-no-sense. BF2 engine is not designed to have radar guided missiles, so the heatseekers are designed after AIM-9. This makes the jets semi-realistic.

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.

Lack of realism does not make the game semi-realistic. Semi, as a word, would imply on a pretty substantial part of the aspect to be realistic. Not just vaguely based on real life, but straightforward- realistic.

Like i said, BF2 is not a simulator, things were simplified alot.

And this makes it semi-realistic?:laugh:

I would love to know what you think of BF2142 or UT2004 then, as their weapons systems and platforms are based on real life aswell.:laugh:

So... you got drunk off sour cream? No wonder youre calling PR as the "ULTIMATE BADAS5 BEST AWSUM BEST BEST BEST REALISTIC EXPERIENCE".

Rofl... ArmA is an awesome realistic experience. PR is as realistic as the Bf2 engine will aloow it to be.

It is? Rally points? Supply trucks? People deplying sh!t with magical shovels? Respawning vehicles? PR is not as realistic as BF2 engine allows it to be. PR has a lot of its aspects chosen to be what they are in order for the game to play out in a certain way. And ArmA is terribad. Im sure 30 people online would agree with you though.

Youre calling ArmA an "awesome realistic experience"? Its downright boring and dull. You have no idea what the word even means. Play airsoft, go to the army. Thats "awesome realistic experience". Videogames can, at best, only remotely emulate the feel of battle.

It is semi realistic. Works better than force players to go back to base so someone elce could ressuply them. Dont get me wrong, i would love that. But many ppl wouldnt. So the ammo from support players is another part of the game that was simplified

Waah, check this out

Lack of realism != semi-realism

How is the fact, that tanks operate, function and perform their task, completely different from their real life counterpart, making them realistic? Remember, semi-realistic would imply on a substantial part of the aspect to be based on real life. You only have the looks. Well, F35B looks like its real life counterpart, yet youre not calling it semi-realistic. F35B also has heatseeking missiles and flares, just like the real deal, and youre still arent calling it a semi-realistic jet. F35B also flies faster in thinner air, just like its real life counterpart, and... youre refusing to call it semi-realistic.

Why so selective and self-contradicting?

Irony oh irony...

Taunt, followed by no argument. I hit the sweetspot.:laugh:

Omfg... Havent you spend 1000+ hours in jets in Bf2?? Should think that you knew this kinda stuff. Fly a 35 at 400km/h and take a turn and fly it at 2000km/h and take a turn and see wich one will be tighter.

LOL. You are so clueless. :laugh:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/Member_of_STARS/Jetchartpart1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/Member_of_STARS/Jetchartpart2.jpg

Pay attention to the turn radius decrease with speed decrease. Ive also done substantial testing with speeds below, however, past 80% throttle, the decrease in maneuverability leaves the optimum zone.

This just proves that you know jack what youre arguing about.

Then why the **** dont ppl slow down when in a dogfight?? You loose alot of manuevrability when you slow down.

Actually I do. I fly at 80% throttle in a dogfight, using afterburners to level the speed. People dont fly slow, because the benefits are not critical enough, so they rely more on speed. Jets lose in maneuverability with slower speed, in the sense that their roll motion becomes affected. But their turn radius does decrease. Amusingly enough, both of these features actually take place in real life aswell.

That is correct, but then jets should loose manuevrability when you are higher up. But in Bf2 the opposite happens.

Wrong. The higher the jets go, the bigger the turn radius becomes. But with higher speed, the maneuverability itsself gets better. Just like in real life... :laugh:

Even if every static AA site on a map is manned it wont really bother jets that much. Static AA in Bf2 wasnt even created to be a jet killer like it is IRL.

So... now were going from "completely useless" to "doesnt bother that much"? STA sites require teamwork for coverage. Their map layout obviously suggests that you need to have 3 sites manned, to cover 90% of all of the map. In Oman, for example, you occupy 3 sites, on mainland, and youll cover everything up to MEC airfield. I think DICE gave us an obvious hint. And yes, multiple manned sites severely punish the jets. Both in their efficiency, and very often they just kill them. STA missiles somehow track and hit a whole lot better.

Thats coz it is a semi realistic game. Almost every aspect of it works similar to how it works IRL, exept air assets.

It doesnt even work remotely the same. You dont see APCs in real life being operated solo, roaming around the battlefield, taking on tanks. You dont see squads of infantry capturing flags. You dont see tanks roaming solo, operated by one man. Your "semi" part is a small percentage. BF2 is not a realistic game, and semi-realistic would imply that theres a pretty heavy ammount of realism. Fact of the matter is, only the looks of BF2 are similar to their real life counterpart.

Like i said, pretty much every aspect of Bf2 works similar to how it works IRL, exept air assets. Air assets is the only aspect of BF2 wich is beyond unrealistic.

Wrong. Air aspect in BF2 fits the BF2 whole, perfectly. Weve already established that many of air features have some ties to how things work in real life, so why use the word "beyond realistic" on jets, when the tanks, APCs, infantry gameplay and flag capturing is just as "beyond realistic"? The only things that do work out semi-realistically, are the buggies.

PR is not a flight sim, but the jets in PR work alot more similar to how they do IRL than in BF2.

So? If BF2 was a realistic game, your statement would have some ground. But even its gameplay dynamics dont have ties to realism, so youre comparing apples to clutches.

If there is retardation in the air arround you, you dont need to have 170 IQ to figure out where its coming from...

:laugh:

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

BF2... A semi realistic game...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXeceK-HdB0&eurl=http://www.totalgamingnetwork.com/main/showthread.php?t=139938&page=4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8lR9yayGhk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-HTZeTLP0s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykZKd3dC0M4

Yeah, a semi realistic game with little to no realism bar looks. Hahahaa

[WhardieJones]

China is unstoppable. BF2 got that part right.

[JustMe0171]

ok I have a gliders licencs which is not much but i've flown in many modern jets, not necessarily fighter jets, but jet engines. I know many people who fly jets in the airforce and people who do it for hobbies, i showed them bf2 and they agree that it is extremely unrealistic. Ea should fix jets or just get rid of theme. Although http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IL-2_Sturmovik_(game) ww 2 it is a lot more realistic...

anywayz..

^^^






WTF, like we didnt know it wasnt real? i sure heck am glad the armour, apc's, weapon accuracy and damage , parachuting all the BS is still accurate.

[buteonidae]

Ugh, arguments.

[Yoster]

Well yes, with small maps we are just not ready for real things, and with the altitude most people fly ingame, heads would be busting.

[ElFipso]

A thing I wanted to say:
BF2 is a game! Don't forget!
Sure it's not realistic. It's a game!
Got it?
;-)

[waaah_wah]

Bullet drops calculation is wrong, theres also no wind to affect the bullet. Theres no bullet drop for assault rifles.


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

And as I said, the fact that tanks take more damage to the front, than to the rear, is highly arguable. Ive been able to sink tanks just by 2 shots by firing to the front. In real life, unless were talking about Maus 2, firing a modern anti-tank round into the front of the tank would most probably kill it, or immobilize it just the same. In real life, tanks are operated by a crew of 3- 4 people and in real life, tanks have a whole lot different purpose than they have in BF2.

Semi-realistic? Semi would imply on "half".

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

1 shell kills a tank if you shoot it at a specific spot at the front, and it deflects. In real life, tanks armor is designed to deflect the shots, or the explosion. Semi-realistic?

Like i said, thats a glitch not a feature.

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

Again, its arguable whether or not the tank takes more damage to the front hull part, than to the rear. You could test it, and its probably true, but the game itsself rarely awards that. The true, 100% working difference I found that you can rely on, on the field, is that the treats and deflection points work.

Again, we are talking about a glitch...

In any case. A SABOT round to the engine compartment, and the tank is toast. It takes, theoretically at least, 3 shots to kill a tank from the rear. Realism much?

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

Actually, tank rounds being able to ricochet is not a glitch, as ATGM rounds do not have the ability to do the same, nor do the TOW missiles. Whether or not DICE intended for it to ricochet on the hull of the tank is arguable, but the fact that they are a different kind of munition, coded to be capable of doing so, isnt.

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

How is blowing up the tanks, by severing the treads even remotely realistic? I dont see the logic. Explain it to me, wheres the "realistic" part in "semi realistic"? Because its simply retarded. In real life, tanks dont blow up, they become immobile at worst. IMMOBILE, not DEAD.

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

Here, let me give you an example of your own make-no-sense. BF2 engine is not designed to have radar guided missiles, so the heatseekers are designed after AIM-9. This makes the jets semi-realistic.

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.

Lack of realism does not make the game semi-realistic. Semi, as a word, would imply on a pretty substantial part of the aspect to be realistic. Not just vaguely based on real life, but straightforward- realistic.

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

And this makes it semi-realistic?:laugh:

I would love to know what you think of BF2142 or UT2004 then, as their weapons systems and platforms are based on real life aswell.:laugh:

2142 is way more arcadish than BF2....

So... you got drunk off sour cream? No wonder youre calling PR as the "ULTIMATE BADAS5 BEST AWSUM BEST BEST BEST REALISTIC EXPERIENCE".

And were exactly have i said that?

It is? Rally points?

Represents a place where your squad rallies before an attack.

Supply trucks?

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

People deplying sh!t with magical shovels?

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

Respawning vehicles?

Reinforcements anyone?

PR is not as realistic as BF2 engine allows it to be. PR has a lot of its aspects chosen to be what they are in order for the game to play out in a certain way.

It is made to be as realistic as the BF2 engine will allow. But some changes has to be made to not kill the gameplay.

And ArmA is terribad. Im sure 30 people online would agree with you though.

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

Youre calling ArmA an "awesome realistic experience"? Its downright boring and dull. You have no idea what the word even means. Play airsoft, go to the army. Thats "awesome realistic experience". Videogames can, at best, only remotely emulate the feel of battle.

Stating oppinions as facts much...?

Waah, check this out

Lack of realism != semi-realism

How is the fact, that tanks operate, function and perform their task, completely different from their real life counterpart, making them realistic? Remember, semi-realistic would imply on a substantial part of the aspect to be based on real life. You only have the looks.

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

Well, F35B looks like its real life counterpart, yet youre not calling it semi-realistic. F35B also has heatseeking missiles and flares, just like the real deal, and youre still arent calling it a semi-realistic jet. F35B also flies faster in thinner air, just like its real life counterpart, and... youre refusing to call it semi-realistic.

Why so selective and self-contradicting?

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

Taunt, followed by no argument. I hit the sweetspot.:laugh:



LOL. You are so clueless. :laugh:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/Member_of_STARS/Jetchartpart1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/Member_of_STARS/Jetchartpart2.jpg

Pay attention to the turn radius decrease with speed decrease. Ive also done substantial testing with speeds below, however, past 80% throttle, the decrease in maneuverability leaves the optimum zone.

This just proves that you know jack what youre arguing about.

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...?

Actually I do. I fly at 80% throttle in a dogfight, using afterburners to level the speed. People dont fly slow, because the benefits are not critical enough, so they rely more on speed. Jets lose in maneuverability with slower speed, in the sense that their roll motion becomes affected. But their turn radius does decrease. Amusingly enough, both of these features actually take place in real life aswell.

Wrong. The higher the jets go, the bigger the turn radius becomes. But with higher speed, the maneuverability itsself gets better. Just like in real life... :laugh:

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??

So... now were going from "completely useless" to "doesnt bother that much"? STA sites require teamwork for coverage. Their map layout obviously suggests that you need to have 3 sites manned, to cover 90% of all of the map. In Oman, for example, you occupy 3 sites, on mainland, and youll cover everything up to MEC airfield. I think DICE gave us an obvious hint. And yes, multiple manned sites severely punish the jets. Both in their efficiency, and very often they just kill them. STA missiles somehow track and hit a whole lot better.

Ppl in STA is nothing more than a free kill in BF2.

It doesnt even work remotely the same. You dont see APCs in real life being operated solo, roaming around the battlefield, taking on tanks.

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

You dont see squads of infantry capturing flags. You dont see tanks roaming solo, operated by one man. Your "semi" part is a small percentage. BF2 is not a realistic game, and semi-realistic would imply that theres a pretty heavy ammount of realism. Fact of the matter is, only the looks of BF2 are similar to their real life counterpart.

Thats the players fault, not the game.

Wrong. Air aspect in BF2 fits the BF2 whole, perfectly. Weve already established that many of air features have some ties to how things work in real life, so why use the word "beyond realistic" on jets, when the tanks, APCs, infantry gameplay and flag capturing is just as "beyond realistic"? The only things that do work out semi-realistically, are the buggies.

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


:laugh:

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

Read on of my comments on that matter.

BF2... A semi realistic game...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXeceK-HdB0&eurl=http://www.totalgamingnetwork.com/main/showthread.php?t=139938&page=4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8lR9yayGhk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-HTZeTLP0s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykZKd3dC0M4

Yeah, a semi realistic game with little to no realism bar looks. Hahahaa

...........

[ElFipso]

The game's realism ends when you have your first respawn after getting killed.
You want the game to be realistic? Then load up a map, get on the carrier get tked by a jet/chopper whore. Quit the game and go to bed/read a book or whatever.
You were killed, you are dead, no more gaming for you tonight.
Try again tomorrow...

*attention! sarcasm ahead*
How much fun would we have if BF2 would be realistic?
First we should all study aviation, weaponry, medicine as well as get physically in shape for years (even if it was virtually). Let's say learn the games functions for 2 years.
Then we would be allowed to execute the function that was assigned to us.
-A pilot could never operate a tank, cause he is a pilot an knows crap about tanks and vice versa.
-You need the matching key for every vehicle.
-The gas stations make sense now.
-You need 1000 players to operate the carrier.
-reloading jets requires landing and takes the rest of the round.
-vehicles have to return to the main base to reload.
-chopper soloing impossible
-redlining impossible
-When you're wounded you need 30mins to use a field dressing
when you're severly wounded you need to be taken to the main base within 30mins to get medical help
-when you got killed you're dead and cannot respawn until the next round begins. You can take the remaining time to write a letter to your relatives.

some good points:
-you can pick up a claymore again if placed wrong
-you can pick up a mine again if placed wrong
-you can pick up C4 again if placed wrong

Just some points that came to my mind in 2 mins.

You want that?