a suggestion about aircraft dogfights -1 reply

Please wait...

m249

.

50 XP

24th October 2005

0 Uploads

277 Posts

0 Threads

#21 13 years ago

ok so i read all the comments, but i still stand by my statement that dogfights should last a bit longer by making planes (especially bombers) more resistant




The Crimson Major

Veteran Lurker

50 XP

26th April 2004

0 Uploads

525 Posts

0 Threads

#22 13 years ago

Area specific damage is key. from MGs- wing hits and body hits are minimal. You have to hit an engiene or cockpit to take the plane down, even then it crashes, not blows up. From Cannons- A few hits from a cannon and bombers are ok, but one to a fighter and its down. No planes should ever completely explode in midair. They should always spiral and burn, with the rare partial explosion. And on bombers, you exit from inside the plane. There should always be a hatch. That makes it harder to get out, rather than fighters, where you can open the hatch and jump.




Kurb King

All my base are belong to n0e

50 XP

11th April 2005

0 Uploads

533 Posts

0 Threads

#23 13 years ago

I think in real life dog fights took longer because skilled/expirenced pilots would have to spend a lot of time manuvering on their opponent to get in a good position to shoot them down. As soon as they got on the enemys 6 o'clock and were in a good range they could heavly damage or disable the enemy plane with a few well placed bursts of fire, atleast for fighters and fighter bombers. As stated before area specific damage is the key, in the engine it would only take a shrot burst to really disrupt its operation. Damage to the wings and tail section would likely be able to take more shots and then the pilot could lose control of the plane. Airplanes do not have much armor at all, some planes had parts of the cockpit armored to protect pilot but other parts of a plane there was only a thin skin for the bullet to pass through before it damaged diffrent flight components, so I dont agree with making them more resilient to damage, but maybe certian parts of the plane.

What I would love to see is if one wing takes enought damage the plane will start a spin in one direction, if the other wing took enough damage it would spin in the other direction, a certian ammount of engine damage would cause the engine to cut out, maybe another section for the tail where pitch and yaw would be impeded. This with the possibility of killing the pilot but no catastrophic destruction of the whole plane unless it takes A LOT of damage.

Heavy bombers would be diffrent from fighters but still the same concept, can lose control if wings and tail are heavly damaged and maybe if 3 of 4 engines are damaged lose power with ability to kill crew members. I think this would make dog fights a little longer and a lot more indepth.




Jetro

There's a satchel on your tank

50 XP

6th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,473 Posts

0 Threads

#24 13 years ago
FlubberIts a Game....

A game in which dogfights are decided in seconds with planes that aren't meant to be peppered.:lookaround:




czech speacial forces

I pretend I'm cooler than AzH

50 XP

3rd September 2005

0 Uploads

3,369 Posts

0 Threads

#25 13 years ago

no i dount think it should be done. i read it took on average 4 30mm rounds from a me 262 (which had 4 30mm guns) to take down a b17. while it took, i think, 20 20mm rounds to take a b17 down. and it took 1 hit from a 30mm to take down a fighter. imo in game its very hard to line up the sights for longer than a second because the plane is moving evasivly.




bakarocket

Love makes the world go 'round

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

119 Posts

0 Threads

#26 13 years ago

MekstizzleThat is a bad idea.

Dogfights should be quick and decisive...

Yes. That's why their guns should be more powerful versus each other.

Seriously. Tactics over brute force would be awesome.




Commie

The elusive Member 132837.

50 XP

23rd December 2005

0 Uploads

1,850 Posts

0 Threads

#27 13 years ago

Anyone ever see that pic where the Brits used a Spitfire Mk.I as a test target for a Mk103? Blew the entire bloody tail off with one hit. But then again, Spitfires ain't that tough.




Dee-Jaý

Always 1 point ahead of you

50 XP

17th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,694 Posts

0 Threads

#28 13 years ago

Well no matter what stance the Devs take of plane resilience I think they should always take into account:

- Ground based AA must be effective ! We've experienced far to much air ownage in BF 2 already, just as back in BF 1942. So, it should be hard for pilots to dominate whole maps as they do sometimes. Then again, you don't want to make flying frustrating either, so one will have to find a clean balance.

- Aircraft Turret guns must be effective ! If you do have the luxury of having an MG turret armed by a player, he should have a fair chance of actually being an effective defence against small fighter aircraft.

So, I would suggest making:

Fighter air crafts especially vulnerable to small calibre MGs, as well as Flak cannons.

Bombers and heavy aircraft should be especially vulnerable to high calibre MGs.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#29 13 years ago

Lots of mobile AA would be good to prevent some pilots from memorizing the fixed locations and dive bombing them... MG42 knows what Im talking about.




Safe-Keeper

Aw, c'mon Cyan, it's quality!

50 XP

29th September 2004

0 Uploads

1,225 Posts

0 Threads

#30 13 years ago

Fighters and bombers could withstand more damage than they can in the movies, where they go down after only four hits or so. Google "Damaged B-17" and be amazed by what some of those buggers survived:eek:.