the current design of aircrafts needs major changes

shuo · 2014-02-23, 09:34 AM

problems

1, ambiguious aerodynamic and control model
Most of the flying and shooting games can be roughly divided into 2 categories: using "physical model" (in LO, IL2, or even MS FS and BF) or "direct control" (Ace Combat, or HAWX) . "physical model" means, anything you do is just a control to part of the aircraft itself, like you press a key which indicate "pull up", the direct effect is a state change of the elevator rudder on the tail, what's your plane going to do depends on the plane's speed, direction, Angle of attack, etc, and will be determined by an aerodynamic model. While in an "direct control", if you "pull up", the plane just pull toward the direction of its back, no matter what state it's in.
In PS2, it's kind of hybrid now, there is obviously some physical model, like if you lean forward and ascend in VTOL state, it will move forward, and, if you use afterburner, the direction your plane accelerate depends on the direction of the engine. But, if you are in a normal flying state, it's hardly to feel it, roll left 30 degree won't make the plane turn left even a bit, and the roll/pitch/yaw performance almost never changes no matter what flying state the plane is in. Most of the fancy maneuvers like High/Low-Yoyo, Immelmann Turn, Split-S, Barrel Roll, Scissors, etc, has no place to show in PS2. Now there are more physical model in VTOL (low speed) mode, so most air to air combat appears like helicopters shooting on each other.

2, No linear control of keyboard.
Due to the special nature of fly control, the response to input needs to be both subtle and rapid, means you can direct the plane's some control state to a certain proportion (like 30% of pitch performance in 0.2 second). So, this means the input should be translate into a certain real number varying over time rather than a binary state (full or nothing), see figures blow:

The red line indicates current control, the blue curve indicates a better model. The time "t0" could be used as an parameter of "keyboard sensitive of flying control".

3, Futile radar, map and HUD
It's hard to search enemies visually for a pilot who's in a faster-moving, half-closing cockpit, so the first mission of plane radar is search enemies and show them to the pilot - before the pilot see it by his own eyes. How ever the range of radar in PS2 is too short, no prewarnings when enemy approach. Besides, the map and HUD is not so usefull, see what a HUD looks like in reality or in other games:

So, the job of a HUD is to provide flying and combat information to the pilot, such as Speed, Altitude , Aspect of Angle, prediction of flying trajectory, aiming assistance, etc.

The 3rd image is from ACE COMBAT,see HUD (and map), the map indicates all radar visible enemies, as well as their directions, and it will automatically scale up or down according to the distance of current target. And, their is a big arrow in the HUD indicating the current target's direction. This HUD and map if very useful in a air-2-air fighting. Also, all the enemies in view is
tagged (otherwise can you specify them by your own eye?).

This image is from internet. Here the HUD even shows the target in a 3D style.
So, what does HUD in PS2 provides us? almost nothing.

4, AA Missiles as decoration.
The current AA Missile is totally useless. With long time of locking, only a little damage, in such a long time a missile using pilot can be shot down by a gun shooter of another fighter. Main fighters be killed by 3 missiles, bombers even more, so no one want to use A2A.
The problem is, what kind of missile do you want to design? Close range combat or long range suppression? Agile and quick or slow but powerful? Infrared-self guild or continuous radar guiding and semi-control? You need to have some design ideas first.

5, Exaggerating flares
Compared with A2A, the flares is too powerful. I understand the logic: G2A missiles makes great threat to planes, but such a buffed flare is not a good solution. see flares in reality:

They threw lots of flares in all direction and continuously, even so, this only provides them some possibility to avoid incoming missile, not a 8-second invisibility to missile!
To balance planes and G2A, just nerf G2A in speed, maximum flying range, tracking, and maneuverabilitys. And, more importantly, show missile trajectory in planes' radar map! This gives a chance to the pilot to avoid it.

=======================================

So, my suggestions:

1, Improve the aerodynamic model of planes, not flying as a UFO, but calculating lifting force, gravity, air resistance, and engine force all the time. Planes lose speed when climbing or turning, while gain speed when diving (if climb vertically without afterburner working, the plane eventually stalls); lose altitude when roll 90 degrees (and turn a bit even if not pull up), or even lose more when inverted; pull up should be much faster than pitch down as well as yaw left/right, etc. This makes a basis for energy-base dog fight, instead of a "helicopter shooting war".

2, Planes consumes fuel all the time, fuel with be recharged when return to plane resupply spot, together with ammo. Fuel is consumed even faster when afterburner is on (at least 10 times faster); afterburner not only consumes fuel but also gains heat for itself, when heat if full, it can't be activated until cool down. Afterburner creates extra infrared features which makes certain missiles easier to track it.

3, Set more types of missiles, like, radar guided VS infrared guided, A2A or A2G or G2A, short range VS long range, agile VS high damage, taking time to lock but self tracking after shoot VS

4, Add variable of "weight" to both aircrafts and part, weapons, ammo, etc. The more weight it carries, the more difficult it can maneuver, and the more fuel it consumes.

5, Separate the role of helicopters and fighter planes (Mosquito, Reaver, and Scythe) by 2 kind of engines: one can provide high speed, but consumes more fuel in VTOL mode (engine being vertical); one can provide greater force in low speed, as well as maintain altitude even in static state without afterburner for a long time, but can't achieve high speed, so can't enter a normal flying mode, only fly as a helicopter. The first one is fast, agile, can fly very high, but can't carry too much weight, and can't stay too long in a VTOL mode. Better to add a key to switch between VTOL mode and normal flying mode manually.

6, Add "radar" facility to some base, or towers, Nerf infantry AA weapons, but enhance them when they are in the Base Radar support range. This makes. In crease all anti-air missile (including A2A and G2A) weapon's tracking ability and locking range with a radar support. Also, add a optional radar part to Sunderer, and Galaxy (so Galaxy can perform like an AWACS), provide friendly fighter planes in range a better radar view, a faster lock on, and a better (radar based) missile tracking. But the mobile versions are not as powerful as a base version.

7, Electronic pod for Mosquito, Reaver, Scythe to replace current flare, 8 seconds invicible of missiles, or even more, but reduced when enemy have radar support, or even disrupt or attract enemy missile in a short range (to protect allies). This takes the second weapon slot.

8, Anti-radiation missile, lock on quickly, good power, mediate range, only attacks radar units.

See how many guns can be unlocked for infanty? Let's get more unlocking parts and weapons for aircrafts

AThreatToYou · 2014-02-23, 08:10 PM

On the flight model: To put it simply, No.

Way too much complication and development on simply one tiny corner of PS2's development. This game does not need a physical flight model, and I know for damn sure the servers could not handle that.

If we got this level of complication for the aircraft, I would like for a redesign of the tanks and a full damage model for them as well. Which we will never get. If you want to fly planes with that level of complication, play War Thunder.

Everything else I ignore

OCNSethy · 2014-02-23, 10:34 PM

I appreciate your work but as Pony has stated, the servers would have a heart attack.

I would just like some joystick support...

snafus · 2014-02-23, 10:36 PM

Flight mechanics are fine dude if you want a flight sim PS2 is not the game for you.

shuo · 2014-02-23, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

On the flight model: To put it simply, No.

Way too much complication and development on simply one tiny corner of PS2's development. This game does not need a physical flight model, and I know for damn sure the servers could not handle that.

If we got this level of complication for the aircraft, I would like for a redesign of the tanks and a full damage model for them as well. Which we will never get. If you want to fly planes with that level of complication, play War Thunder.

Everything else I ignore

I‘m not saying a FULL physical model, and there ALREADY exsit some in PS2 now. See the VTOL mode, you lean and ascend, then move, this kind of simple model don't consumes too much computation cost. so, climb or turn and decelerate, lean and turn, invert and drop, all this could be simply done without a burden of the server. I'm not asking a aerodynamic mode of LO, but at least, BF1942.

Besides, it's not only a problem of flying model, but also settings and control problems. PS2 is the only game I'v ever seen that planes can pitch down faster than pull up. Lack of linear control makes keyboard and joysticks hard to use, so only use mouse to control planes, that's inconvenient. See HAWX and ACE COMBAT, they don't have physical model at all, but still make fantastic air combat experience.

shuo · 2014-02-23, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by OCNSethy

I appreciate your work but as Pony has stated, the servers would have a heart attack.

I would just like some joystick support...

The joystick problem is a problem of linear control, just as I said in point 2. Now the plane control is unfriendly both to keyboard and joystick.

Stardouser · 2014-02-23, 11:38 PM

Need either have a flight model that's based on higher speed with stall speed and you fall if you go too slow. This would mean that you'd need higher damage bombs to drop since you can't hover, which is of course one of the reasons to do this.

Or, make hovering kind of like how it is in some games where you can do it, but there's still a stall speed and transitioning in and out of hover takes a few seconds.

shuo · 2014-02-24, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Need either have a flight model that's based on higher speed with stall speed and you fall if you go too slow. This would mean that you'd need higher damage bombs to drop since you can't hover, which is of course one of the reasons to do this.

Or, make hovering kind of like how it is in some games where you can do it, but there's still a stall speed and transitioning in and out of hover takes a few seconds.

Agreed. Hovering (chopper) vehicles have different experiences from normal planes, mixing them together reduced play points.

Dougnifico · 2014-02-25, 10:08 PM

I really want to just have a damned runway in the warpgates (and maybe some air bases for a new facility type) and have interceptors, strike fighters (think A-10), and bombers. You could also put in a heavy gunship. They key thing is that none of these vehicles would be able to hover.

Plaqueis · 2014-02-26, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by OCNSethy

I would just like some joystick support...

+1.

I'd give my left nut for X52 support (as i have one left over from my flightsim days, just collecting dust in closet)... no need for rudderpedals on top, the twisthandle would work just fine in this game i think

Emperor Newt · 2014-02-26, 11:18 AM

I cant really say much about the flight model, but the design of flares has bugged me for a long time. I think that a lot of the G2A balance ping-pong comes from how flares work. If flares would actually work like flares we could start balancing G2A launchers. As long as flares are granted invulnerability I cannot see the A2G/G2A relationship to ever work.

Plaqueis · 2014-02-26, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Emperor Newt

I cant really say much about the flight model, but the design of flares has bugged me for a long time. I think that a lot of the G2A balance ping-pong comes from how flares work. If flares would actually work like flares we could start balancing G2A launchers. As long as flares are granted invulnerability I cannot see the A2G/G2A relationship to ever work.

Ehh.. flares grant you couple seconds of time to get far enough to still have time to break the second lock by continuing the escape with afterburner, nothing else. And the AA guys job is done, the threat is gone. Flares are very far from 'granted invulnerability'. If you risk it a timy nit, you're pretty much always f**ked, there's almost always half a dozen guys sending the missiles after you. And since fully certed ESF dies to 2 missiles... well, you get the picture.

And no, i'm not a BR100 überpilot, just someone who plays mostly ground and flies every now and then.

EDIT: I had to add more regarding the topic; i have actually wondered since i joined, why did the devs make parts of the game futuristic (aircrafts that obey no laws of any physics, hovering tank, some other weapons), but left the core gameplay (almost all groundbased weapons) to the standard of what people had during Korean war..? In a space age mmorpg? There's no logic in that whatsoever in my opinion... i mean, if someone had suggested something like *insert all NC, most of TR and some of VS infantry and tank weapons here* to be a standard for any army in todays world, he/she would have been trialed for treason... everything is just so inaccurate and weak.

EDIT2: i mean think about it; people flying with rocketpacks, invisible people with cloaks, robots with people inside, the list goes on.. yet most of the handheld weapons are weak and inaccurate compared to something as old and popular as AK47... i just dont get it.

Emperor Newt · 2014-02-26, 05:45 PM

Maybe "invulnerable" isn't the right word, but the way they work (which basically make you "invulnerable" to lock-ons) is what is the problem. The only way G2A launchers can work with this is if there are enough of them around to make the pilot pay if he did not time his flare "invulnerability" timer correctly. Having flares work like actual flares would for one give pilots more options then: "get in, pop flare, get out, wait for the cooldown" by making it a more skillful decision when to use flares and also allow them to stay in the fight (and areas with AA) longer with consecutive flares. With the current design it's impossible to balance anything because the whole G2A/A2G mechanic is detached from each other as it is based around the single issue if the pilot manages to get out of sight before he can be locked on again. Which is bland, boring and stupid. For both sides.

Plaqueis · 2014-02-26, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Emperor Newt

Maybe "invulnerable" isn't the right word, but the way they work (which basically make you "invulnerable" to lock-ons) is what is the problem. The only way G2A launchers can work with this is if there are enough of them around to make the pilot pay if he did not time his flare "invulnerability" timer correctly. Having flares work like actual flares would for one give pilots more options then: "get in, pop flare, get out, wait for the cooldown" by making it a more skillful decision when to use flares and also allow them to stay in the fight (and areas with AA) longer with consecutive flares. With the current design it's impossible to balance anything because the whole G2A/A2G mechanic is detached from each other as it is based around the single issue if the pilot manages to get out of sight before he can be locked on again. Which is bland, boring and stupid. For both sides.

Just out of interest; do you fly in game?`

Just asking, my experience is just so different. I play maybe 70% of my time on ground, both infantry and tanks. Rest of the time, i fly. I have fully certed Scythe on my VS char with all the weapons possible (along with fully certed Lib with all the weapons possible, but thats not the case here i think), and almost fully certed Mossie with all the weapons possible on my TR char.

I find killing ESF's in the game almost too easy. Yes they have flares, so what? They have no option to avoid direct fire whatsoever. So, think of it this way; have 3 heavies from the PLATOON pack homing missiles, and 1-2 guys in Skyguards for example (assuming none of them are complete noobs, and preferrably are in comms). I'm betting not one aircraft will harrass you with that 5 guy team. Hell, 1 guy aims his lock-on and fires, the plane deploys flares. The other 2 wait and lock-on after the flares. If the plane is still too close, its dead. No need for the Skyguards, yet. Ofcourse you'll have few guys in their team on AT/AI duties too.. but still, a squadworth of guys will keep the skies completely clear for ages, its not even a challenge. It just requires teamwork.

And keep in mind, i'm not counting friendly planes/other people here at all.

bpostal · 2014-02-26, 06:46 PM

I absolutely hate flying. It is, hands down, the worst aspect of the game, with the mosquito (in my hour or so of experience with the Reaver and Scythe) being the clunkiest piece of shit to ever have the misfortune to leave the ground.

Any changes that could be suggested, such as the OP, would be great; although they're all quite over my head.