Lock-on Missiles (AA & Jets) - Page 6

Alex6714 · 2009-08-11, 16:35

At PR speeds, you may have it fine, but for people like me there is absolutely no way that my cannon hits will register. I have put rounds after rounds onto a flying jet from my cannons and they just don´t register. At least the missiles perform somewhat similar for most people.

Alex6714 · 2009-08-11, 16:40

Failnets today.

Elektro · 2009-08-11, 17:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemus

A jet IRL doesnt strafe for hours over an area with AAs. And doesnt make "epic doghfights" when its EWS is full of threats. It makes its bombing run fast and disapears faster.

Yes if it is possible they dont do that. But imagien that the Jets dont actually take off in a near by air base, but come from miles away and are there to cover their infantry and armour.

Assuming that the PR story line is 3rd world war then some things you just have to do

Praxxen · 2009-08-11, 17:03

I totally agree!

McBumLuv · 2009-08-11, 17:53

While I understand where you are coming from, Snazz, and that atm the use of AA holds none of the necessary strategies or knowledge and commmunication as they do IRL, it's not a problem with all guidance based missiles in general.

For one, aircraft can evade all AA just as easily as AA can operate say on Kashan training.

While changes such as increased VD, AG radar, AA radar, reduced flare efficiency and such require both AA and aircraft to change their tactics, you'll still not be able to get the same type of radar detection and such forcing players to use their radar sparingly and tactfully. However, you will make communication and cooperation more vital for both AA and Aircraft to operate without dying early on.

Nemus · 2009-08-11, 17:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elektro

Yes if it is possible they dont do that. But imagien that the Jets dont actually take off in a near by air base, but come from miles away and are there to cover their infantry and armour.

Assuming that the PR story line is 3rd world war then some things you just have to do

Have you read all my post?

I mean this part

Quote:

Maps in PR are too small to have a comparison with jets IRL.
I mean 4 km maps? IRL they are not enough even for a normal landing approach.

And this

Quote:

PR is not a simulator in every part of it. Infantry, tanks, jets etc. Many features are (and must be) simplified. Many assets are just "too big" for the maps. If we want them we must accept and their capability (or incapability) to do some things they appear unrealistic, easy, hard etc.

Now tell me which part is in disagreement with your post.

Elektro · 2009-08-11, 19:32

Quote:

Have you read all my post?

I mean this part

Maps in PR are too small to have a comparison with jets IRL.
I mean 4 km maps? IRL they are not enough even for a normal landing approach.

You can have loads of fun, by flying in the currently 4 by 4 km maps, and yes IRL you cant even land on it but on PR you can so thats just how it is. Why take away the fun? We cant have 100 by 100 km maps and 300 people on each team but thats just how it is

Quote:

And this

PR is not a simulator in every part of it. Infantry, tanks, jets etc. Many features are (and must be) simplified. Many assets are just "too big" for the maps. If we want them we must accept and their capability (or incapability) to do some things they appear unrealistic, easy, hard etc.

I dont see why a tank, or a plane is too big for kashan or quinling. Teamwork by lasing, working with AA squads diving into them when there is an enemy on ur back. Pretty much it takes allot of creativity and teamwork to fly and its great, and no we cant make it to perfection but if you want that then join the airforce.

Quote:

Now tell me which part is in disagreement with your post.

All i sayed was that in real life you have to deal with hard situations you say that planes are too big well gues what i disagree with you.

Nemus · 2009-08-11, 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elektro

You can have loads of fun, by flying in the currently 4 by 4 km maps, and yes IRL you cant even land on it but on PR you can so thats just how it is. Why take away the fun? We cant have 100 by 100 km maps and 300 people on each team but thats just how it is

Where exactly do you see that i am saying to remove jets or fun?

Quote:

Maps in PR are too small to have a comparison with jets IRL.
I mean 4 km maps? IRL they are not enough even for a normal landing approach.

I dont see why a tank, or a plane is too big for kashan or quinling. Teamwork by lasing, working with AA squads diving into them when there is an enemy on ur back. Pretty much it takes allot of creativity and teamwork to fly and its great, and no we cant make it to perfection but if you want that then join the airforce.

Did i asked for a simulation?

Quote:

If we want them we must accept and their capability (or incapability) to do some things they appear unrealistic, easy, hard etc.

All i sayed was that in real life you have to deal with hard situations you say that planes are too big well gues what i disagree with you.

Dont be confused by some videos on youtube showing a pilot against some Egyptians who where still with "four fingers" (Bf-109's favorite attack

) tactics. In a modern warfare an EWS blip means that sortly you may have a dozen missiles towards you fired with "buddy fire" (No warning).
You take advantage of you jet engine and bring the dogfight where the situation is at least balanced.
Of course in PR we cant have this. But we live with what we have.

Celestial1 · 2009-08-12, 02:28

Removing Lock-On munitions is not a solution, it simply doesn't fare well with gameplay.

Due to the high speed of jets, dumb-fired munitions (guns, dumb-rockets, etc) will not suffice; a jet flying past your view while at 800ft on Kashan will likely be in your view for less than 10 seconds. Many players don't grasp the concept of leading (they may understand it, but not have a firm understanding of HOW to utilize it). Not to mention, AA guns can be fired quickly and have a large supply of ammunition at hand to allow for lots of firing in a short span to get a wall of fire in front of the jet. Dumb-rockets would only be able to fire a few at a time (2 for stationary AA, 1 for a man-launched missle platform, and small number by any faction's AAV), which allows a lot less leniency for missing the first shot and allowing you to readjust.

Due to the high speed of jets combined with BF2's dodgy hit-detection, at times it can be very hard to hit the actual jet. The server will show you where the jet is 'supposed' to be, but it may not always be THERE (bad ping on both ends can contribute to this problem). You can fire, leading properly, at a jet on an attack run, but the actual jet's hitboxes may be a bit farther back and cause issues. How obvious this would be reflected in game is of course only determinable by testing, but how often due you 'miss' a moving infantry target with your rifle even though the shot should have hit dead on?

Removing Lock-on munitions will likely cause a lot of frustration for AA users, and will cause a lot of free-reign for the Pilots, as not many AA weapons could be used efficiently enough to take them down during a flight. Helicopter pilots, however, may fear dumb-fired Anti-Air munitions. With no lock and the helicopters much slower speed, it would be a very bad scenario to go into air-space that has not been checked. In this same token, the helicopter pilots could be a bit more 'stealthy' since the AA could no longer just look around in the sky and lock from over 800m away.

I think that instead of REMOVING lock-on munitions, that they should be tweaked to require a bit more skill and thought to use efficiently. For instance, removing the lock-HUD on some weapons (like some hand-held launchers) where it is realistic to do so (no more lock box; however, the lock on ranges would remain the same and the tone of lock would remain as well). This allows you to lock onto targets you can see visually as well as continue to hold the lock as they exit your viewdistance to fire off that final missle, but will make it less frequent that helicopter pilots will be locked from unseen ranges (no more 'aim here' marker for them to begin locking at obscene distances... they can still lock, but it is less likely they will just magically know where the helicopter is since they would have to rely on sound or previous visual sightings of the helicopter to determine where he should be).

Manning the AA would also require some skill, because you would also now have to judge whether or not you should fire based on visual cues rather than the HUD telling you "okay, now's a good time". Aircraft may pop flares when you are ready to fire, but if you are within visual distance of it you can judge whether you should fire or not depending on the flare-frequency (if they are just about to release flares or just have, it could be a good time to fire since the proximity detonation of the missle will likely occur even if it doesn't hit directly). Once they are out of visual range, you may still have a lock if you were following them while they left. If you still have a lock tone, there is a good chance you could hit the helicopter if you fire; however, you have NO notification of whether the aircraft is releasing flares, and you could waste a missle on nothingness.

And perhaps with AA that does have a HUD to indicate locks, that all non-locked targets would have no symbol surrounding them. This would work like the previous method except that when you are locked on to the target, you get a lock-on symbol over the aircraft (just like when you lock on now) but all the flares and other targets on screen will remain 'invisible' unless they are locked directly.

This would make AA more of a skill-based fair while still keeping the basic interface of 'Aim, Lock, Fire' but adding in 'Wait for break in flares' and other basic cues as to when to fire for the best hit chance possible.

Also, perhaps slightly smaller 'lock' areas on weaponry would be acceptable. Instead of the entire circle being able to lock onto the target, perhaps a smaller circle near the center would initiate the lock, and the outer circle would be the limits of the lock being maintained (this way, it would take a bit of aiming and keeping aim on the target to lock, but then after the lock has been established there is a bit of leniency in holding the lock, as it now has the target identified among other elements in the air).

I'm not sure how realistic most of this is, seeing as I've never been in the military or experienced the use of Anti-Air weaponry first hand, but I think it may help a bit with gameplay.

badmojo420 · 2009-08-12, 07:54

I kind of like the idea of having no hud for portable aa. But you couldn't do it with the limited ranges of those weapons in pr. The real range of the SA7 for example is 3700m now the range in game is under 500. Judging if an object is withing 3700m of you is pretty easy. So you don't really need a computer to tell you that in real life. But in a video game, judging if something is 400 or 600m away, is really hard. Especially when it's in the sky and moving. Maybe keep the distance to target, but put it at the bottom, instead of on the box like it is now.

2009-08-11, 16:35	#51
Alex6714 Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,896 United Kingdom	Re: Lock-on Missiles (AA & Jets) At PR speeds, you may have it fine, but for people like me there is absolutely no way that my cannon hits will register. I have put rounds after rounds onto a flying jet from my cannons and they just don´t register. At least the missiles perform somewhat similar for most people.
Alex6714 Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,896 United Kingdom

2009-08-11, 16:40	#52
Alex6714 Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,896 United Kingdom	Re: Lock-on Missiles (AA & Jets) Failnets today.
Alex6714 Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,896 United Kingdom

2009-08-11, 17:03	#54
Praxxen Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11 Sweden Location: Lil' Baghdad, Luleå	Re: Lock-on Missiles (AA & Jets) I totally agree!

2009-08-11, 17:53	#55
McBumLuv Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,506 Canada Location: St. Catharines, ON	Re: Lock-on Missiles (AA & Jets) While I understand where you are coming from, Snazz, and that atm the use of AA holds none of the necessary strategies or knowledge and commmunication as they do IRL, it's not a problem with all guidance based missiles in general. For one, aircraft can evade all AA just as easily as AA can operate say on Kashan training. While changes such as increased VD, AG radar, AA radar, reduced flare efficiency and such require both AA and aircraft to change their tactics, you'll still not be able to get the same type of radar detection and such forcing players to use their radar sparingly and tactfully. However, you will make communication and cooperation more vital for both AA and Aircraft to operate without dying early on.

2009-08-12, 02:28	#59
Celestial1 Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,110	Re: Lock-on Missiles (AA & Jets) Removing Lock-On munitions is not a solution, it simply doesn't fare well with gameplay. Due to the high speed of jets, dumb-fired munitions (guns, dumb-rockets, etc) will not suffice; a jet flying past your view while at 800ft on Kashan will likely be in your view for less than 10 seconds. Many players don't grasp the concept of leading (they may understand it, but not have a firm understanding of HOW to utilize it). Not to mention, AA guns can be fired quickly and have a large supply of ammunition at hand to allow for lots of firing in a short span to get a wall of fire in front of the jet. Dumb-rockets would only be able to fire a few at a time (2 for stationary AA, 1 for a man-launched missle platform, and small number by any faction's AAV), which allows a lot less leniency for missing the first shot and allowing you to readjust. Due to the high speed of jets combined with BF2's dodgy hit-detection, at times it can be very hard to hit the actual jet. The server will show you where the jet is 'supposed' to be, but it may not always be THERE (bad ping on both ends can contribute to this problem). You can fire, leading properly, at a jet on an attack run, but the actual jet's hitboxes may be a bit farther back and cause issues. How obvious this would be reflected in game is of course only determinable by testing, but how often due you 'miss' a moving infantry target with your rifle even though the shot should have hit dead on? Removing Lock-on munitions will likely cause a lot of frustration for AA users, and will cause a lot of free-reign for the Pilots, as not many AA weapons could be used efficiently enough to take them down during a flight. Helicopter pilots, however, may fear dumb-fired Anti-Air munitions. With no lock and the helicopters much slower speed, it would be a very bad scenario to go into air-space that has not been checked. In this same token, the helicopter pilots could be a bit more 'stealthy' since the AA could no longer just look around in the sky and lock from over 800m away. I think that instead of REMOVING lock-on munitions, that they should be tweaked to require a bit more skill and thought to use efficiently. For instance, removing the lock-HUD on some weapons (like some hand-held launchers) where it is realistic to do so (no more lock box; however, the lock on ranges would remain the same and the tone of lock would remain as well). This allows you to lock onto targets you can see visually as well as continue to hold the lock as they exit your viewdistance to fire off that final missle, but will make it less frequent that helicopter pilots will be locked from unseen ranges (no more 'aim here' marker for them to begin locking at obscene distances... they can still lock, but it is less likely they will just magically know where the helicopter is since they would have to rely on sound or previous visual sightings of the helicopter to determine where he should be). Manning the AA would also require some skill, because you would also now have to judge whether or not you should fire based on visual cues rather than the HUD telling you "okay, now's a good time". Aircraft may pop flares when you are ready to fire, but if you are within visual distance of it you can judge whether you should fire or not depending on the flare-frequency (if they are just about to release flares or just have, it could be a good time to fire since the proximity detonation of the missle will likely occur even if it doesn't hit directly). Once they are out of visual range, you may still have a lock if you were following them while they left. If you still have a lock tone, there is a good chance you could hit the helicopter if you fire; however, you have NO notification of whether the aircraft is releasing flares, and you could waste a missle on nothingness. And perhaps with AA that does have a HUD to indicate locks, that all non-locked targets would have no symbol surrounding them. This would work like the previous method except that when you are locked on to the target, you get a lock-on symbol over the aircraft (just like when you lock on now) but all the flares and other targets on screen will remain 'invisible' unless they are locked directly. This would make AA more of a skill-based fair while still keeping the basic interface of 'Aim, Lock, Fire' but adding in 'Wait for break in flares' and other basic cues as to when to fire for the best hit chance possible. Also, perhaps slightly smaller 'lock' areas on weaponry would be acceptable. Instead of the entire circle being able to lock onto the target, perhaps a smaller circle near the center would initiate the lock, and the outer circle would be the limits of the lock being maintained (this way, it would take a bit of aiming and keeping aim on the target to lock, but then after the lock has been established there is a bit of leniency in holding the lock, as it now has the target identified among other elements in the air). I'm not sure how realistic most of this is, seeing as I've never been in the military or experienced the use of Anti-Air weaponry first hand, but I think it may help a bit with gameplay.
Celestial1 Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,110

2009-08-12, 07:54	#60
badmojo420 Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,835 Canada Location: London, Ontario	Re: Lock-on Missiles (AA & Jets) I kind of like the idea of having no hud for portable aa. But you couldn't do it with the limited ranges of those weapons in pr. The real range of the SA7 for example is 3700m now the range in game is under 500. Judging if an object is withing 3700m of you is pretty easy. So you don't really need a computer to tell you that in real life. But in a video game, judging if something is 400 or 600m away, is really hard. Especially when it's in the sky and moving. Maybe keep the distance to target, but put it at the bottom, instead of on the box like it is now.