PR Aerospace Improvement: Airports and Runways for Jet Aircraft

[Alex6714]

Originally Posted by DankE_SPB

said the man, who made ~28-0 in attack huey on muttrah last night

I said on combined arms maps.

On muttrah they are fine. That was an awesome round, left the huey to get the cobra, and only got shot down near the end.

Although the reason we weren´t constantly spammed by AA and such was the termination of all those trucks at the start.

[[R-DEV]Drav]

There are many more improvements I'd make to the jets before I looked at the runways. There are some inherent problems with jet combat that are next to impossible to fix with the Bf2 engine. However there is lots that can be done. I am going to try and fix some of these for 0.9, but the runways just arent that big a deal......

[[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude]

I think Warran has made some superb observations here.

I too agree that the performance of fixed wing aircraft and the facilities in place for their operation drastically need revising. I think the level of accuracy and detail that Warran has expressed makes it impossible to further over look this critical oversight.

After huge amounts of testing with air enthusiasts and a DEV or two, we concluded that landing certain aircraft or in certain areas is a 1:10 of relative success.



I think an area wich also needs stern attention would be the most obvious marginal observation; that wich is Attack Helicopters.
Now I suppose there are many of you that are now thinking "Zomg, chopper whore rant!", but this is far from the truth. I think that my frequenting of helicopters in PR gives me a quite in-depth insight into the situations.
-Let it be known that I am also a heavily enthusiastic AA, AAA and AAV crewman- and support the M.A.I.M movement (Moar-AAA-Implacements-on-Maps plzx!!!1!).


=======

What I percieve to be the most ironic shortcomming in the area of attack helicopters, is their inferiority in terms of viewability and observation.

In short, these highly advanced, long range, state of the art vehicles, sometimes boasting dozens of different optical and detection systems have 'poor eyesight'.

They suffer from the 'silhouette effect' in PR, where those that have the hight advantage suffer the range disadvantage, allowing to be seen far more easily than see their targets; most inverse to RL.
IRL, most modern attack helicopters encorperate long range, day-night, Infared systems that allow them to observe targets in complete secrecy.
Attack heilcopters being successfully engaged by infantry using top-attac


Furthermore, some helicopters have the distinct inability to look downwards.


Im not aware of the extent to wich RL attack helicopters can traverse down uppon targets, but some of those reflected in PR have problems viewing targets, even at what are considered 'irrationably low' alltitudes by PR standards. Even with the largest view distances, this problem is still evident and far too much time is spent correcting to engage a single, rusting, one-manned, last-generation Soviet-built Tank, obliviously crawling the desert floor with half a track.
Far from fire-n'-forget.

A simple suggestion would be to increase the vertical traverse on helicopters that suffer most from this issue.


======

Another oddity concerned is the wafer-thin armour presented.

Wiki- (not the most sound of resurce sights) mentions that the AH-64D "will remain flyable even after sustaining hits from 23 mm gunfire".
As it is, a few 50cal rounds seem to do the trick for a heavily armoured attack helicopter in PR. I believe a healty compromise would be a more sizable amounts of 50cal rounds to disable an attack helicopter.
Not too many rounds of course though, we still want MBTs to present some defense against careless pilots.

This infact seems to be the case for most aircraft in PR, even to vehicles such as the A-10 and F-15; both renowned for their sustainability while missing worrying ammounts of airframe, are subject to fatal abuse from a wandering recon car.



...mongol...

[Tirak]

Forgotten Hope 2 has an airbrake system, maybe we could borrow that. Or maybe we can reintroduce the whole "reverse thrust" thing. I know it was taken out because aircraft could fly backwards, but that's the same as saying all helicopters should be removed because they can hover upside down.

[CAS_117]

Let's kill 2 birds with one stone here... Adjusting the engine values for aircraft is far too time consuming and tedious to be effective in the long run and will not be the solution for future problems as a whole.

Look warren not to be rude, but have you ever edited a tweak file in your life? It is one thing to talk about something, its another to do it. Why do you think I got on the PR team anyways? I stopped complaining about stuff and decided I was gonna go do something about it. Hell me and my buddy went on a local server and shot missiles at each other till we figured out what the hell was wrong with them.

Now this is how you solve the landing issues:

Su-30

Engine:

ObjectTemplate.setMinRotation 0/0/0
ObjectTemplate.setMaxRotation 0/0/5000
ObjectTemplate.setMaxSpeed 0/0/22 -> 0/0/70
ObjectTemplate.setAcceleration 0/0/150
ObjectTemplate.setInputToRoll PIThrottle
ObjectTemplate.setAutomaticReset 1
ObjectTemplate.restoreRotationOnExit 1
ObjectTemplate.setEngineType c_ETPlane
ObjectTemplate.setTorque 85
ObjectTemplate.setDifferential 112
ObjectTemplate.setGearUp 0.7
ObjectTemplate.setGearDown 0.3
ObjectTemplate.noPropellerEffectAtSpeed 125
ObjectTemplate.noPropellerEffectAtSpeed 125
ObjectTemplate.noEffectAtPerpSpeed 125
ObjectTemplate.defaultAngleOfAttack 0
ObjectTemplate.maxAngleOfAttack 35
ObjectTemplate.attackSpeed 20

GR-4 Engine Left:

ObjectTemplate.setMinRotation 0/0/0
ObjectTemplate.setMaxRotation 0/0/5000
ObjectTemplate.setMaxSpeed 0/0/25 -> 0/0/65
ObjectTemplate.setAcceleration 0/0/15 -> 0/0/75 (Here's the real problem.)
ObjectTemplate.setInputToRoll PIThrottle
ObjectTemplate.setAutomaticReset 1
ObjectTemplate.restoreRotationOnExit 1
ObjectTemplate.setEngineType c_ETPlane
ObjectTemplate.setTorque 100
ObjectTemplate.setDifferential 135
ObjectTemplate.setGearUp 0.7
ObjectTemplate.setGearDown 0.3
ObjectTemplate.noPropellerEffectAtSpeed 125
ObjectTemplate.noPropellerEffectAtSpeed 125
ObjectTemplate.noEffectAtPerpSpeed 125
ObjectTemplate.defaultAngleOfAttack 0
ObjectTemplate.maxAngleOfAttack 30
ObjectTemplate.attackSpeed 15

This will make these two land and take off a lot faster.

[Snowno]

CAS saves the day.... I think.

[[R-DEV]crazy11]

CAS coded the jets so...

[CAS_117]

Guys let me ask you this. How exactly are you landing?

I coded em so that you had to use a glide path to land, that path changes from aircraft to aircraft. Now with MOST you can basically follow a -5 degree angle until you can't see the runway where you then go to +5 degree angle to flare your landing and look all professional.

I've done this with the J-10 (the issue with this guy is the suspension of the tricycle frames balancing but I can't be arsed.)
The Flanker
The GR4
Eurofighter (just happens to fly like a UFO)
F-16
Su-25

MiG-29 no it can come in pretty steep
A-10 needs more speed on landing since it stops pretty fast

I could get all technical, but basically if you flare, at almost any amount so your cockpit is above the horizon, you can adjust your sink rate to land like a feather. Yes even in the tornado and J-10. If you come in flat in a dive, then of course you are going to freaking splatter yourself all over the place. I could land the J-10 in 0.7 when it was even harder than now.

Honestly guys the planes in this little universe aren't hard to land at all. The planes have NO avionics, NO weather, NO wind, and BARLEY any aerodynamics. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO LOWER YOUR OWN LANDING GEAR. You can drop out of the sky like a bowling ball and if your rubber hits the ground before the metal does and you don't even get scratched. I landed the A-10 on a bunker once for petes sake.

I mean come on isn't this getting a bit carried away?

[McBumLuv]

I can easily land all planes on Kashan desert, though I agree with Warren, It's FV(K!NG hard to land the Chinese planes on Quinling. There is very, very little room for error. You need to keep the speed at JUST the right settings else you'll drop like a rock or overshoot. You also need to stay at exactly the right height, and you must be coming in completely straight because by the time you see the runway it's too late to yaw into place. Even when you land, if you try adjusting yourself to be centered on the runway as you pull back to slow down, you'll get mixed results as the controls mess up deciding wehther to send you right or left because you've got forward momentum still, but are applying backwards force. Very few people know of this as well, which is a little but often fatal problem.

It's unfortunate that Quniling'll most likely be scrapped, though unless it got a redux like Archer I wouldn't see much potential in it. Though the next combined arms map made should realize the mistakes of its unsuccessful predecessor.

[M.Warren]

Originally Posted by Dukemeister

Warren, whilst as a veteran pilot i agree with your points, was this kind of dissertation post really necessary?

Its hardly as if you had multiple issues over a broad spectrum of problems, considering that your entire post only really boils down to lengthening the runways.

Originally Posted by M.Warren

This may have not been the most thorough of my posts, but there are a multitude of other things that apply to certain situations. I tried to keep it as generalized and to the point as possible while remaining to be sufficient in describing the nature of this issue.

It may seem a painfully long post, but this wasn't the first time it's been mentioned. This is the first time in a long, long while that it's gotten some much needed attention. The situation still persists.

Originally Posted by Dukemeister

(Apologies, but if im to be really picky, its a MiG 29 on Kashan, not a MiG 25. Similarly, the chinese two seater on Qinling is the Su 30, not the Su 34 )

I apologize for my lack of specific aircraft names. However, I try to spend more time seeing them in pieces than as their usual whole self.

________________________________________

Originally Posted by Alex6714

But I love qinling! Assets just need sorting our regarding many issues not suitable for this thread, but I think the map itself is great for combined arms.

Unlike other users, however I do not mind if my threads spread over a multitude of topics. Many circumstances apply to a singular circumstance. The word I love the most is "Plurality".

Considering your abilities as a Helicopter pilot, I give you a large amount of due credit. By far some of the hardest aircraft to fly here and your abilities are noted. I assure you that your opinion is appreciated.

Feel free to speak your mind here.

________________________________________

Originally Posted by CAS_117

Guys let me ask you this. How exactly are you landing?

CAS what you need to take into consideration is that people must see the runway. It becomes worse when the canopy obscures the view as well. It must be understood that there is a shortage of avionics. You cannot determine your rate of decent upon landing and it makes it worse when you cannot see what is below you. Also what the problem is, is the fact there is also a very annoying fence surrounding most of the bases.

I have dug up my old aircraft technician book I had as I am slightly rusty with avionics:

1. The Instrument Landing System otherwise known as ILS. This helps pilots determine their aircrafts orientation in relation to the runway. It can also tell him/her if they are too low, high, left or right upon approach. It is no surprise from time to time pilots in PR ask their Squad Leader "Hey, can you put a move marker on the end of the runway for me please?", it's simple sense. It helps them navigate, especially at times from a lack of view distance.

Picture - Instrument Landing System (ILS)

2. There is an instrument called the "Electronic Attitude Director Indicator" (EADI). This instrument appears like an artificial horizon, but it also has a visual aid integrated system that allows an aircraft to determine its height and attitude and glide slope. This is also assisted by the Instrument Landing System (ILS).

Picture - Electronic Attitude Director Indicator (EADI)

3. There is also another instrument called the "Electronic Horizontal Situation Indicator" (EHSI). This instrument appears like an overhead GPS system looking down on top of the the aircraft. It displays waypoints to help coordinate turns and send you towards your destination, even roughly align you with the runway.

Picture - Electronic Horizontal Situation Indicator (EHSI)

Simply put, what a majority of pilots are dealing with here are simulated realistic Jet Aircraft that have less avionics than a propeller driven aircraft had in World War Two. What makes it worse is imagine if you tried to land a U.S. Navy F4U Corsair tail dragger with a PR interface. It'd be hair-raising.

Imagine trying to do a glide slope when you can't even see over the front of the aircraft. Especially without sufficient instruments and avionics. Can it be landed? Yes. Is it hard too? Damn right.

Originally Posted by CAS_117

I coded em so that you had to use a glide path to land, that path changes from aircraft to aircraft. Now with MOST you can basically follow a -5 degree angle until you can't see the runway where you then go to +5 degree angle to flare your landing and look all professional.

From the statement made, it appears that the use of "Glide Paths" have been standardized into the landing characteristics of aircraft. Whereas "Glide Paths" are not the standardized technique used by a large majority of players.

Originally Posted by CAS_117

I could get all technical, but basically if you flare, at almost any amount so your cockpit is above the horizon, you can adjust your sink rate to land like a feather. Yes even in the tornado and J-10. If you come in flat in a dive, then of course you are going to freaking splatter yourself all over the place. I could land the J-10 in 0.7 when it was even harder than now.

Looks like we've finally found our problem.

A large majority of pilots (even though they are not here to present themselves, I have spent time in the training server simply watching them land) spend most of their time doing steep approaches to land in order to keep the runway and obstacles within view. Then upon nearing the runway, they pull up at the last minute and touch down. In most cases, this works. Also might I add, this is a technique even used by some pilots when they specifically want to nail the end of the runway when they know they have to make a high descent approach from obstacles and specifically when a short runway is being used. It's not surprising why players do this.

Get what I mean? Steep descent to avoid obstacles with a last minute flare to immediately get in contact with a very short runway to begin stopping. As you can see, we have 2 methods of landing. One being the PR idealistic way, and the other being the player idealistic way. In the end it's potato-potato and tomato-tomato. But it appears that the way the vast majority of players that want to fly it is apparently deemed the "wrong way" in the eyes of PR.

Do you see much gliding in this? The nose isn't up to allow a smooth descent of the aircraft. Instead the pilot depicted here is diving right towards the runway and will pull up at the last moment as necessary.


Now initially you may state "well that's absurd, they should be using glide paths" which is true. However, the factor that is not being taken into consideration is that when you are using glide paths you must be constantly using rudder inputs to keep yourself aligned. It just so happens that rudder inputs are sluggish beyond measure. Thus, the alternative is to roll your aircraft left or right in order to get the same result, however this has a greater chance of overshooting your intended alignment with the runway. This also becomes worse when you lose sight of the runway. This is why most players do steep approaches to runways because they can quickly and easily correct their alignment upon approach and view obstacles below.

To be honest, I wish I had more interface to fly aircraft. Such as flaps, spoilers and landing gear. Why? Because then I could actually slow down my aircraft further before touchdown and worry less about the typical PR stalling, loss of manuverability and being generally unable to abort a takeoff. Even though these systems may add to the complexity in the use of aircraft, but they serve their purpose and I would know what to call upon when I needed it. The other problem is that there is no amount of sense recognition when you are sitting in your computer seat. You cant feel the roll you're turning into, you can't feel that rising or descending feeling while you are going at lower speeds, you can't feel when your aircraft comes in contact with the ground, etc.

The next time you come in for a landing and you make a mistake, let me know how easy it is for you to put in full throttle and pull up before it's too late. Quite frankly in PR, when you are landing there is an understood and frequently overlooked factor known as the "Point of no return". Truth is; you either land it right, or you end up the gutter. There is no such thing as last minute landing abortions because aircraft in PR cannot perform such an action unless you see it coming way ahead of time, and by that time it's usually too late. There simply is no "wave off" when it comes to this.

Anyways... We're trying to make aircraft behave realistically as they should without the necessary flight interface/components or available avionics to do so. It's not surprising why people may be having difficulty, even if you try to dumb it down because realistically, no one can just hop into an aircraft and fly it either. All we're doing is putting the Jet Aircraft of PR in a situation it's not designed to perform well.

In my training of aircraft maintenance I had learned that aircraft aren't just "planes" or just an "air vehicle". I had learned instead that aircraft are a complex and finely tuned instrument that is calibrated and tweaked to the very physics of the reality we live in. PR is nowhere near capable of reproducing the effects of true flight because of the limitations of the BF2 engine and compromises and considerations must be made.

My emphasis on elongating the runway may take time and result to a Qinling V2. But if the runway was 800-850 meters long when it was first designed, there wouldn't have been an issue. Now we're here trying to clean up the problems we face. There is a saying for these sorts of things:

Measure twice, cut once.