Rockets Done Right: WWII Hawker Typhoon

[Traak]

This video shows footage from cameras in Hawker Typhoon ground attack planes.

This is a zillion times preferable to the PS1 hoverspam flying tanks.
Hawker Typhoon pt.2 - YouTube

Notice how the planes are not moving at zero mph at 10 feet of altitude. This is because they are CAPABLE OF BEING SHOT DOWN!

If they make planes in PS2 like this video, they would not suck.

Evidently, they are making them hoverdunce sleds once again, however. Do they really think making the planes hoverspecialneeds vehicles will make them more fun than what we see in this video?

Maybe if the pilots are retarded.

This video shows some 3rd-person air combat action that is so vastly superior to absolutely every single facet of PS1's plane "action" that it makes it look like a colored-shapes-in-the-holes game for severely retarded children in comparison.

WW2 dogfight with Spitfires and BF109 - YouTube

I don't agree with 3rd person mode, and the sound effects are Che-Appp, but this is air combat.

The vomit that was everything airborne in PS1 isn't even worthy to be called air combat.

To be done right, airplanes have to move fast, have very high ceilings, and be incapable of slow flight lest they stall and crash. They need to lose control input force as they go slower, i.e: the controls have almost no bearing on airplane movement because there is just not enough airspeed and thus force over the control surfaces to make the plane move rapidly in maneuver like it can at 350kph.

Making planes, once again, airborne wheelchairs for the unfathomably retarded is going to kill this game just like it did PS1, if it happens.

And, the game needs bigger distances, not 800 meters between bases or whatever. Make it like war, not like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Captain1nsaneo]

I'm glad you have such a positive attitude and have done so much research on what the devs have already said about how aircraft will handle.

[Squeegeez]

I lol'd at his comparison from WWII planes to hundreds of years in the future planes. Also his repeated mention of handicap people is adorable. Also, I didn't know airplanes killed PS1, huh you learn something new every day.

[Brusi]

But then what will all the retardid people do?

[FastAndFree]

But then what will all the retardid people do?

Start threads like this one

BADUMM-TSS

[Brusi]

aaaawwww shhhiiiit!

[StumpyTheOzzie]

AWWW!!!!11 You got TOLD!

I actually kind of agree a bit. Hope there's still plenty of AA going around though.

I hate fliers.

[foam]

I personally want something that looks and sounds like this strapped to aircraft
Orgues de staline - 1943 - YouTube

[Traak]

I personally want something that looks and sounds like this strapped to aircraft
Orgues de staline - 1943 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBvC2Wd-Jfw&feature=related)

The Nazis tried, unsuccessfully, to imitate those.

[FastAndFree]

Okay, I'll humor you. Here is an actual discussion.

If you really have read what the devs said about the new flight mechanics then why did you even make this thread.

They have stated that hovering will not be automatic anymore. The only reason hoverturreting was possible was because your aircraft could hover in place perfectly regardless of it's orientation. We do not know how exactly the new system will work but if it's anything like helicopters, where you need to be level to be stationary, then hoverturreting as we know it is gone. Good riddance.

The devs know that the flight system in Ps1 was terribad. They have said as much. I don't see any point to complain about it until we see the new one


Oh, and PS1 planes were very much capable of being shot down. ESPECIALLY while they were hoverturreting. I can only assume that you were trolling with that part

[Canaris]

Listen I didn't know how to broach this subject before on other threads but then this one came along,

Can I get a cash shop device that makes my Mosquito sound like a Stuka Dive Bomber pretty please?

StuKa Ju 87 siren (psychological effect) - YouTube

we all know how annoying the buzzing of Mosquitos are in real life, I think this would compliment the whole deal and add as the clip says a little Psychological effect to the game.

[Traak]

Yeah, that is unnerving, to hear that coming at you out of the blue, purple, orange, whatever color the sky is going to be.

[FastAndFree]

Oh also, while I would actually prefer to zoom over the battlefield at ludicrous speeds, that would make aircraft as untouchable as you seem to think they are. I don't think the people on the ground would very much appreciate that

[ringring]

"Rockets Done Right" is a great name4 for an air cav outfit :)

[Xaine]

Standard Trakk thread.

>Spout retarded opinion in an aggressive manner while randomly insulting everything within arms reach.

Jog on son, we ain't buying.

[Warborn]

I lol'd at his comparison from WWII planes to hundreds of years in the future planes. Also his repeated mention of handicap people is adorable. Also, I didn't know airplanes killed PS1, huh you learn something new every day.

I don't see how the comparison isn't appropriate, considering they will handle more like WW2 planes than even modern planes. It isn't like you'll be traveling Mach 3 and firing radar-guided missiles at airborne targets you can't even visualize.

[Squeegeez]

It was in comparison to the firing rockets, where in WWII they had limited rate of fire, payload, accuracy etc. As well, he does not want planes to hover, showing how WWII planes flew. Well in the future there could be hover. That's where my critisism was.

[BorisBlade]

BTW, i hear people saying that ps1 didnt do airplanes right, they are correct. PS1 didnt have planes at all, it had futuristic aircraft that were more like helicopters minus the props. Basically vastly advanced Harriers. They never claimed to be airplanes. So when you see what they really were, they played spot on to how they should.

If you want planes thats fine, i do too, but dont try to say that ps1 screwed up planes because thats not what they were. Honestly, its too bad we cant get both planes and chopper style vehicles separately.

However if you see what BF3 has for planes, you see why the hover parts are in PS, the BF3 planes are more of a meta game and just plain suck and dont fit into the game well at all. They do seem to be goin for more of a hybrid design with PS2. We'll have to see how it all pans out.

I also dont mind if they sit still and spam, thats an easy kill with my skyguard. Much, much harder to kill em if they do strafing runs at full speed. The tradeoff for camping or acting like a helicopter is you become flak bait.

[Whalenator]

@OP -
Not only do you forget to mention that this is the future, not only do you make multiple derogatory references to mentally handicapped persons, but you've also forgotten the important factors of viewdistance and game pace. They don't want to break old systems with the obviously already CPU-intensive gameplay and the distances between bases are short (and will stay that way to facilitate infantry combat).

@Boris(Above) -
Harriers are planes. :I

[Whalenator]

Also, not to double post or anything but keep in mind altitude must be kept low due to limited viewdistance (I can quote higby saying viewdistance is 1km)

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj203/Whalen207/twit.png

Say if a mossie approaches a skyguard, with the mossie at a "high altitude" (For a game) of 500m, it's a far different situation from a mossie approaching near sea level. Neither can see each other, neither can lock to each other -- It makes Air invunerable to AA.

[JHendy]

Honestly, its too bad we cant get both planes and chopper style vehicles separately.

This! THIS!! A thousand times this!

Being able to call in player-operated 'fast air' to strike ground targets as a platoon leader would be supremely lovely.

Higby... Please?

[Warborn]

I'm not sure they need to add a helicopter-style thing. They already have the liberator, after all. Fighters should be the planes, liberators the helicopters. If it isn't already setup like that, it could very easily be.

[Whalenator]

I'm not sure they need to add a helicopter-style thing. They already have the liberator, after all. Fighters should be the planes, liberators the helicopters. If it isn't already setup like that, it could very easily be.

That leaves the problem of how to take off.
Keep in mind they've already made the models for these craft, laid down the code framework and etched out the physics. I doubt they'll change flight mechanics now.

[Revanant]

So, I'm by no means a flight sim expert, but I've played my fair share of uncompromising aerial combat, including stints in both WW2 Online and Aces High.

To be done right, airplanes have to move fast, have very high ceilings, and be incapable of slow flight lest they stall and crash. They need to lose control input force as they go slower, i.e: the controls have almost no bearing on airplane movement because there is just not enough airspeed and thus force over the control surfaces to make the plane move rapidly in maneuver like it can at 350kph.

This is not how dogfighting works, in either games or real life. Some planes respond poorly to a loss of speed. Others excel--the Hawker Hurricane and A6M Zero were both slow planes that could turn on a dime. Similarly, high speeds don't automatically equate to rapid maneuverability or increased control.

Realistic, WW2-era dogfights are governed by two things--the strengths and limitations of the planes, and the battle to retain more energy/control than your opponent.

As a brief explanation--there were two major types of dogfighting in WW2--turn fights ("turn and burn") and altitude fights ("boom and zoom"). The turn fight is what people traditionally think of when it comes to dogfighting--you spend your time trying to outturn and outmaneuver your opponent and get on their six for a firing solution. Turn fights are generally characterized by a progressive loss of altitude and speed, since turning bleeds flight speed and energy--leaving a victorious plane typically moving "low and slow."

The "low and slow" plane is the perfect type of prey for a "Boom and Zoom" fighter. B'n'Z fighters are characterized by high top speeds, and usually had strong climb rates and good dive control. In real life, this was the preferred American style of air combat in WW2.The way it works is simple---a plane dives and makes a firing pass at a target from high altitude--and then just keeps going. The high speed of the initial pass is the plane's defense, as it quickly moves out of firing range from the initial target. The plane can then choose to climb again and make another pass from a safe distance--while your opponent is generally driven consistently lower and slower due to the maneuvering to get out of the way of your high speed, straight-line passes. Eventually, either you score hits and shoot the enemy plane down, or one of your wingmen does, with the target becoming ever easier to hit due to the progressive loss of speed and maneuvering capability they experience as they evade. A good Boom and Zoom pilot is able to dictate the terms of the fight, because their speed keeps them out of harms way and lets them choose when to disengage.

The test for how complex PS2's air combat model is will be how vehicles manage energy--is there a benefit to gaining altitude and diving, or do planes operate at a constant throttle speed regardless of direction or maneuvers? Additionally, do planes experience relative or absolute advantages (i.e. will I never be able to outrun or chase down a Mosquito in a Reaver?) In this, given that we know the Scythe is supposed to have unique maneuverability in all directions, and given the history of PS, I doubt we are going to see flight dynamics that depart from arcade. Which is fine, given that our weapons operate differently from the guns-only scenario of WW2.

A Reaver doesn't have to outmaneuver a Mosquito if it can shoot it down with missiles from 1K away and its armor/countermeasures can survive any return fire.

[Whalenator]

This isn't a dogfighting sim.
I have also played WWII Online and Aces High

(Holy fuck taking off in WWII is fucking impossible, had to manually set my yaw controls to automatically center and even then jesus h christ)

Literally I have my student's pilots license. While I'm not experienced, I know it's not that damn hard to get a plane off the ground. Even on a grass runway.

[IronMole]

McClane vs F35 - YouTube

Pfft.

[FastAndFree]

BTW, i hear people saying that ps1 didnt do airplanes right, they are correct. PS1 didnt have planes at all, it had futuristic aircraft that were more like helicopters minus the props. Basically vastly advanced Harriers. They never claimed to be airplanes. So when you see what they really were, they played spot on to how they should.

If you want planes thats fine, i do too, but dont try to say that ps1 screwed up planes because thats not what they were. Honestly, its too bad we cant get both planes and chopper style vehicles separately.


They didn't handle like helicopters either. I think the problem was that they had perfect stabilization not only without pilot input, but even in the face of it, say, aiming the nose straight down and still hovering all right

Conversely, look at Saints Row 3 and the helicopters/VTOLs.
They too had automatic stabilization (and in many ways the controls were even more arcadey than PS but read on) ), any time you let go of the controls they would hover just fine, BUT the basics were there just handled by the computer. If you wanted to go forward you only had to press forward. But what happened was the heli turned it's nose down and started to accelerate. If you wanted to strafe left you only had to press left, but what that did was roll the heli left a bit so it would strafe left.

But here comes the fun part - it properly reacted to unwanted changes in the helicopter's heading just the same! Granted this did not involve aiming, only bumping into buildings. - if you bumped into something with your right side the heli would rebound and roll left and then shoot left accordingly, until it could level out. If your tail boom caught up on something while descending your nose would turn down accelerating you forward straight into whatever was there.

Strangely none of this applied to altitude, everything was locked on the Z axis and you never changed altitude until you pressed the ascend or descend keys. Even if you accelerated at full capacity and your nose was all but pointing straight down you never dropped an inch. I guess to make it simpler

[Warborn]

Dogfighting is fun and is what people will think of when you tell them there's this game called Planetside 2 and you can fly fighter planes in it. They will be understandably disappointed if the game winds up having "dogfighting" as a euphemism for two aircraft hovering in place, strafing around, shooting their weapons at each other. While a very realistic sort of dogfighting system would be inappropriate, there are plenty of games like Crimson Skies or whatever which have cool dogfighting but are also really accessible to players who don't play flight sims. PS2 should do its utmost to try and replicate that level of fun, easy-to-pick-up dogfighting and stay as far away from hover-wars as it can. There is a reason why jets and airplanes aren't allowed to just hover around and shoot each other in all the popular games involving such vehicles.

That leaves the problem of how to take off.
Keep in mind they've already made the models for these craft, laid down the code framework and etched out the physics. I doubt they'll change flight mechanics now.

This isn't an issue. It would be a simple thing to retain VTOL for take-off/landing but require fighters to be constantly moving forward in order to fire their weapons, governed by the push of a button to switch from weaponless "landing mode" to full-speed "combat mode". Meanwhile, liberators would move more helicopter-like and have no such toggle. Requiring traditional aircraft take-offs involving runways would be unnecessarily complicated.

[Canaris]

As long as it nothing like BF helicopters

This is how I remember most people using them
Battlefield play 4 free helicopter flipped over - YouTube

[basti]

Also, not to double post or anything but keep in mind altitude must be kept low due to limited viewdistance (I can quote higby saying viewdistance is 1km)

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj203/Whalen207/twit.png

Say if a mossie approaches a skyguard, with the mossie at a "high altitude" (For a game) of 500m, it's a far different situation from a mossie approaching near sea level. Neither can see each other, neither can lock to each other -- It makes Air invunerable to AA.


Only if the planes fly far away from the AA, or quite high.

But if they are high, they cant attack the ground effectivly. And there wont be a actual Bomber in the game, not to mention the new physics engine for everything. Means no more 90° out of thy skys bombs, so flying super high wont help you trowing bombs.

[Knightwyvern]

No one has any idea of how the flight mechanics will feel/work, let's wait and see.

[FastAndFree]

As long as it nothing like BF helicopters

This is how I remember most people using them

You must be pulling my leg, that's the best part in battlefield!

[HoovesMcG]

Im not sure why everyone is getting their panties in a bunch. For one how can we even imagine what the FM on a reaver would be in real life. Im in the US Air Force, and i have yet to see any plane/helicopter that even comes close to the technology that a supposed Reaver has. And let me stop you before you say "the Osprey". Whilst amazing that thing is propeller driven and only hovers to land or take off. And when it does so it does it slowly.

I for one am not going to even try to adapt RL flight tactics to these new PS2 birds. But what i will do is learn what those things CAN do in a GAME, to beat any adversary.

[Traak]

My original post was primarily to point out how much fun can be had without planes being hoverrape machines.

We don't need people to severely retard the enjoyment of others gameplay by having hovering spam tanks.

[Traak]

Also, not to double post or anything but keep in mind altitude must be kept low due to limited viewdistance (I can quote higby saying viewdistance is 1km)

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj203/Whalen207/twit.png

Say if a mossie approaches a skyguard, with the mossie at a "high altitude" (For a game) of 500m, it's a far different situation from a mossie approaching near sea level. Neither can see each other, neither can lock to each other -- It makes Air invunerable to AA.

Akcherly, wasn't the view distance a rectangular box surrounding the player?

I could look at something staight-on and not see it, but turn so it was in the corner of my view, and it became visible because the corner of the "view box" was further from me than the front of my "view box".

It was like our sight distance had a flat ceiling, flat front and sides, and was basically a cube? Which cube was on the same plane as our eyes, so it tilted and rotated with our head.

I could see things in the top corner of my vision further than from the center.