#1.68 Update JETS PHYSICS Change for the worse

[Primaate 5]

#1.68 Update JET PHYSICS Change for the worse

WHY OH WHY have the physics for Neophrons (and other fixed-wing) changed???  Is it a glitch or unforeseen physics effects from 64bit upgrade? Please say it is so.....

 

The landing distances are ridiculously easy now but worse still, the takeoff is 450m (up from 350m) and thus--> Feres and Abdera strips are now gone as options for the Neos. (it took me hundreds of hrs to perfect Abdera):

 

BIS if you want to disillusion/lose your most ardent and loyal subscribers, just keep changing the way the game.

We love and play Arma for the challenge, complexity and realism that it offers not the typical easy and simple formats that the 'other games' offer. [COD/CS/BF et all are for plug and play 10yo]

 

PLEASE FIX/REVERSE THESE LAST AIRCRAFT CHANGES!

Edited March 24, 2017 by R0adki11
removed flame-baiting and inappropriate language

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Ive been getting reports of pilots unable to take-off  in the A-143 Buzzard on Tanoa main airport. I guess the take-off distance has been increased?

[tyson.anderson 0]

I agree with Primaate, I have been practising daily to try and land the Neo at all the airfields, but this is no longer a option since the new update 

[xxgetbuck123 945]

1 hour ago, Primaate said:

#1.68 Update JET PHYSICS Change for the worse

WHY OH WHY have the physics for Neophrons (and other fixed-wing) changed???  Is it a glitch or unforeseen physics effects from 64bit upgrade? Please say it is so.....

 

The reason the physics have changed is due to the increased immersion/realism that BI is going with when it comes to updating the jets and releasing the Jets DLC. Bringing jets out of a that full arcade mode and giving it a more semi-milsim feeling. 

[Truthy 0]

Personally I dislike the latest update with the jets, you felt a sense of entitlement when you can land a neo with red hull at feres runway. But now the neo takes the same if not less skill to land than the wipeout. They have taken away the skill cap of the neo and noobafied it.

[djotacon 190]

I'm feel very comfortable with the new update and dont like your rude post callin "NOOB" to everyone that dont have the same opinion about the physics of the planes.

 

I played  the original OFP on my old Athlon and Arma 2 on my old Core 2 and Arma 3 in my "new" AMD 8320 FX.

 

I have more than 3000+, 50 mission, 3 SP/COOP/MP mods, several scripts, manuals, guides related to Arma 3, obviously I'm not a "noob" and I like the new changes in the planes - probably will be more updates with more changes -

 

I think will be more useful to all that you avoid use "trash talking" to explain your ideas.

 

 

[pettka 694]

The planes improvements are in progress to hit Jets DLC, which means some things may be temporarily broken on the Dev-Branch. I'm not sure if the issue is on Dev-Branch, still thanks a lot for the feedback, we'll try to take a closer look on the take offs and landings.

[dragon01 902]

Jet fighters being able to take off from runways that would barely be able to support a Cessna is wrong. The real takeoff distance for Yak-130 is about 550m (at about 210km/h), while landing distance is usually about 750m (landing speed around 190km/h). That's a clean configuration, carrying weapons would increase those values. I don't know how many runways of this length you can find of Altis, but not all of them meet those criteria. I for one, welcome a more realistic approach to landing and takeoff speeds.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

9 hours ago, dragon01 said:

Jet fighters being able to take off from runways that would barely be able to support a Cessna is wrong. The real takeoff distance for Yak-130 is about 550m (at about 210km/h), while landing distance is usually about 750m (landing speed around 190km/h). That's a clean configuration, carrying weapons would increase those values. I don't know how many runways of this length you can find of Altis, but not all of them meet those criteria. I for one, welcome a more realistic approach to landing and takeoff speeds.

 

arma is not 1:1 scale, and IMO they shouldnt be tweaking the take-off/landing requirements at this stage in A3s life. I'm sure some missions/modes rely on airfields to support certain aircraft takeoff and this would effectively break them. I don't think jets should be able to take-off at Krya Nera/Abdera airstrip, but IMO the other ones on Altis and all the paved ones on Tanoa should support a-143 takeoff. JMO

[Primaate 5]

It's this simple:

a) Neos landing distance has been shortened from 265m (my best) to perhaps 200m now AND the landing gear is a lot tougher --> noobs love it now

b) Neos takeoff distance has been extended to over 450m (from 350m), effectively eliminating Feres and Abdera (also one other super secret spot I could go.. ) , in effect making the Neo weaker and more vulnerable..--> so noobs can defeat it now.

Prior to this change, it was a badge of honour to fly/land and fight in a Neo, now it's a sad joke.

 

IF this alteration is a view to things coming, then I'm guessing BIS is cha$ing the noob teen market, which will result in many veterans abandoning the fundamentally broken engine of ARMA  and its new annoying noob base of players. 

Golden rule of market placement, is knowing who your market actually is, for the long term.

 

IF however this is a physics aberration due to the 64bit update and soon fixed... I'll stop my whinging : )

Edited March 23, 2017 by Primaate
I'm OCD

[xxgetbuck123 945]

4 hours ago, Primaate said:

It's this simple:

a) Neos landing distance has been shortened from 265m (my best) to perhaps 200m now AND the landing gear is a lot tougher --> noobs love it now

b) Neos takeoff distance has been extended to over 450m (from 350m), effectively eliminating Feres and Abdera (also one other super secret spot I could go.. ) , in effect making the Neo weaker and more vulnerable..--> so noobs can defeat it now.

Prior to this change, it was a badge of honour to fly/land and fight in a Neo, now it's a sad joke.

 

IF this alteration is a view to things coming, then I'm guessing BIS is cha$ing the noob teen market, which will result in many veterans abandoning the fundamentally broken engine of ARMA  and its new annoying noob base of players. 

Golden rule of market placement, is knowing who your market actually is, for the long term.

 

IF however this is a physics aberration due to the 64bit update and soon fixed... I'll stop my whinging : )

 

From what I see you only want stuff changed because you can't land at certain spots and cause noobs?? You sound like the classic King of the Hill player who can't adapt to anything Bi does. Anyway...

 

1) Neos landing distance has been shortened from 265m (my best) to perhaps 200m now AND the landing gear is a lot tougher --> noobs love it now 

A) Higher landing speed = more landing distance.. also they actually added suspension now, prior there wasn't any proper suspension. -----> what aircraft landing gear are actually supposed to do

 

2) Neos takeoff distance has been extended to over 450m (from 350m), effectively eliminating Feres and Abdera (also one other super secret spot I could go.. ) , in effect making the Neo weaker and more vulnerable..-----> so noobs can defeat it now.

A) More takeoff speed = more takeoff distance needed... (Who cares if its your super secret spot). In other words it eliminates landing locations that the aircraft wouldn't be able to land at anyway? -----> maybe don't get 'defeated' by noobs in the first place?

 

Why not fly a different aircraft? From what I hear the Wipeout can land at those airfields ;) 

 

3) If this alteration is a view to things coming, then I'm guessing BIS is cha$ing the noob teen market.

A) Yea, didn't realise that adding more durable suspension (like aircraft have IRL) is making the game noob friendly.

 

4) Golden rule of market placement, is knowing who your market actually is, for the long term.

A) By that logic you're a complete noob yourself since you don't like these changes... Golden rule of calling people out, don't be apart of the group of people you're trying to call out.

 

5) IF however this is a physics aberration due to the 64bit update and soon fixed... I'll stop my whinging : )

A) You should just stop whining in the first place mate. You're so far the only person to raise high concern about the aircraft changes simply because you can't land at a 'super secret' airfield and keep getting made piss by noobs when you land somewhere else. 

 

 

[Primaate 5]

20 hours ago, xxgetbuck123 said:

 

From what I see you only want stuff changed because you can't land at certain spots and cause noobs?? You sound like the classic King of the Hill player who can't adapt to anything Bi does. Anyway...

 

1) Neos landing distance has been shortened from 265m (my best) to perhaps 200m now AND the landing gear is a lot tougher --> noobs love it now 

A) Higher landing speed = more landing distance.. also they actually added suspension now, prior there wasn't any proper suspension. -----> what aircraft landing gear are actually supposed to do

 

2) Neos takeoff distance has been extended to over 450m (from 350m), effectively eliminating Feres and Abdera (also one other super secret spot I could go.. ) , in effect making the Neo weaker and more vulnerable..-----> so noobs can defeat it now.

A) More takeoff speed = more takeoff distance needed... (Who cares if its your super secret spot). In other words it eliminates landing locations that the aircraft wouldn't be able to land at anyway? -----> maybe don't get 'defeated' by noobs in the first place?

 

Why not fly a different aircraft? From what I hear the Wipeout can land at those airfields ;) 

 

3) If this alteration is a view to things coming, then I'm guessing BIS is cha$ing the noob teen market.

A) Yea, didn't realise that adding more durable suspension (like aircraft have IRL) is making the game noob friendly.

 

4) Golden rule of market placement, is knowing who your market actually is, for the long term.

A) By that logic you're a complete noob yourself since you don't like these changes... Golden rule of calling people out, don't be apart of the group of people you're trying to call out.

 

5) IF however this is a physics aberration due to the 64bit update and soon fixed... I'll stop my whinging : )

A) You should just stop whining in the first place mate. You're so far the only person to raise high concern about the aircraft changes simply because you can't land at a 'super secret' airfield and keep getting made piss by noobs when you land somewhere else. 

 

 

Reading and Comprehension is so highly undervalued now; plz read and comprehend correctly because your interpretation is way off wrt intro,1), 2) and 4)

Without going into the semantics of this-

1) Shorter landing distance means 'beginners' can land Neos easier --> no skill required --> bad for Arma (in my humble opinion)

2) Incomprehensible logic...

3) Correct, well done.

4) Incomprehensible logic...

5) Of the 20+ Neo pilots (AU and US KotH) I fly with, all hate the changes and hence my concern initiated this thread and we just into 2nd week since #1.68, so lets see what transpires in time.

 

As for my conditional self- deprecation, your contextual response makes you the fool. (those English lessons didn't really stick eh?)

IF however you'd like to 'discuss' this further, I'm in SE Qld and happy to meet you for a 'face to face', mate.  ; )

[xxgetbuck123 945]

3 hours ago, Primaate said:

Reading and Comprehension is so highly undervalued now; plz read and comprehend correctly because your interpretation is way off wrt intro,1), 2) and 4)

Without going into the semantics of this-

1) Shorter landing distance means 'beginners' can land Neos easier --> no skill required --> bad for Arma (in my humble opinion)

2) Incomprehensible logic...

3) Correct, well done.

4) Incomprehensible logic...

5) Of the 20+ Neo pilots (AU and US KotH) I fly with, all hate the changes and hence my concern initiated this thread and we just into 2nd week since #1.68, so lets see what transpires in time.

 

As for my conditional self- deprecation, your contextual response makes you the fool. (those English lessons didn't really stick eh?)

IF however you'd like to 'discuss' this further, I'm in SE Qld and happy to meet you for a 'face to face', mate.  ; )

 

I agree, reading and comprehension is highly undervalued nowadays. With the increasing use of technology auto correcting our words and people looking at their phones all day its no wonder Australia's track record for education isn't the best in that sector. As for reading and comprehending your post, I believe I did that quite well. I answered all your 'views' with what I believe are valid answers.

 

Now, lets repeat the process from my last post and see how things go, shall we begin? 

 

1)Shorter landing distance means 'beginners' can land Neos easier --> no skill required --> bad for Arma (in my humble opinion)

A) Agree, shorter landing distance does mean it can be easier for the new guys, but then again not everyone wants to fly the humble Neophron. -----> I wouldn't say no skill is required, just a bit less of a learning curve -----> Means there more competition for you blokes as more people are able to fly the Neophron.

 

2) Incomprehensible logic...

A) Not too sure how making aircraft land at airfield they usually wouldn't be able to land at is 'incomprehensible logic'. Also higher landing speed does mean higher landing distance, if you can't comprehend that I'm not too sure whats wrong.

 

3) Correct, well done.

A) Thankyou for your feedback, I appreciate it. 

 

4) Incomprehensible logic...

A) Well, if BIS is making more 'mil-sim' and 'realistic' changes to their aircraft why are you complaining? If you're calling yourself a veteran of the game then you'd welcome these changes as BI are overhauling the way aircraft work for the better. It seems the only reason you're complaining about these changes is because they affect you and your KoTH buddies. 

 

5) Of the 20+ Neo pilots (AU and US KotH) I fly with, all hate the changes and hence my concern initiated this thread and we just into 2nd week since #1.68, so lets see what transpires in time.

A) Remember, King of the Hill is a gamemode made within the Arma 3 title. Arma 3 was NOT built to suit the needs of the King of the Hill gamemode. Why don't you and your pilot friends, instead of complaining, be good pilots and adapt to the new changes as pilots have been doing since the dawn of aviation. The Mil-sim community seems to be fine with these changes and are welcoming them with open arms, however the King of the Hill community despises such changes. As I always say and always will say, King of the Hill players never like any change, all they do is complain and cry because it effects how they play. 

 

Now, it seems you've gone and resorted to personal insults due to someone having a different opinion then you. 

 

1) As for my conditional self- deprecation, your contextual response makes you the fool. (those English lessons didn't really stick eh?)

A) I'm not too sure how I am the fool here. I've laid out my response in a very easy to read, structured and understanding manner that anyone should be able to comprehend, however it seems you cannot do that. To many people reading I think that makes you the fool not me. Also my English lessons did stick, I had a great English teacher back in the day. 

 

2) IF however you'd like to 'discuss' this further, I'm in SE Qld and happy to meet you for a 'face to face', mate.  ; )

Ahhhhhh yes, the classic "I can't convey my opinion over the internet very well and not to mention someone has responded to it in a way I don't like, maybe if I tell them we can meet 'face to face' that'll show them who's right" response. Why would I want to discuss it further with someone like you anyway, you clearly show a lack of structure to your responses and also resort to insults. I'd rather not waste my time discussing 'face to face' with you. Really living up to your name 'Primaate'. 

 

Cheers, mate. 

 

 

[senseichen 20]

@xxgetbuck123

Honestly, you can't undermine KoTH players and Primaate when you play a game mode where people who failed their physical shoot at predictable AI. Judging by your YouTube videos, I'd say your barely average as far as pilots go so definitely not the type to belittle others.

Your main argument is that KoTH players should adapt (to what I must ask?). Why don't the others adapt and actually learn how to land their Neophrons rather than having BIS make it easier.

 

 

[xxgetbuck123 945]

Just now, senseichen said:

@xxgetbuck123

Honestly, you can't undermine KoTH players and Primaate when you play a game mode where people who failed their physical shoot at predictable AI. Judging by your YouTube videos, I'd say your barely average as far as pilots go so definitely not the type to belittle others.

Your main argument is that KoTH players should adapt (to what I must ask?). Why don't the others adapt and actually learn how to land their Neophrons rather than having BIS make it easier.

 

 

 

1) Honestly, you can't undermine KoTH players and Primaate when you play a game mode where people who failed their physical shoot at predictable AI. Judging by your YouTube videos, I'd say your barely average as far as pilots go so definitely not the type to belittle others. 

A) Might I add its mainly only the KoTH jet community, everyone else seems fine, it's just the fly boys complain all the time, also I've played my fair share of KoTH back in the day and everynow and then so I know how it works. Also I agree, shooting predictable AI gets tedious over time and I much would prefer to verse humans, however obviously the engine cannot support the kinda stuff that Mil-sim communities would be after, maybe one day we can enjoy large scale Mil-sim experience versing other humans, but until then we will have to wait... In other words, we ADAPT with what we have. Also that's fine you if you think I'm barely average, there's still a lot of stuff you don't know about me when it comes to piloting ;) 

 

2) Your main argument is that KoTH players should adapt (to what I must ask?).

A) Yes, yes it is. The reason I argue this is, well Primaate making this thread in the first place and various other KoTH players complaining on the forums about the changes BI are implementing how it doesn't suit their KoTH agenda. When BI first introduced their various Jets changes that will be coming with the jets DLC all that was said from the KoTH people was, "How can I remove this, "This is going to make *insert vehicle* OP", "This is going to make it too complex", "new players will find it hard to learn the new stuff". I'm yet to see any Milsim community or players for that matter complain about these changes, its only KoTH pilots, hence I argue the point. Adapt to what you say, well everything that BI is adding/changing. As Primaate suggests with this thread is that he wants these changes to be reversed and gone (Obviously isn't adapting to this now is he? So that's one thing he can do) precisely why why I say adapt. Instead of crying about these changes, having a slight go at BI and people who oppose your opinion, you should ADAPT to these changes. Whats going to happen when the Jets DLC sensors/UI elements/everything Jets DLC get introduced, you going to cry that it get removed as well? Or are you going to ADAPT to these new changes and utilise them properly like good pilots do, they adapt to the situation at hand and think of ways to use new aircraft features and tactics? 

 

3) Why don't the others adapt and actually learn how to land their Neophrons rather than having BIS make it easier.

A) So you're suggesting that BI is not allowed to make any changes to anything cause it doesn't suit how you feel? BI are changing to flight model and aircraft for the up coming Jets DLC and as a result changing things to be more inline with real world flight (As much as they can anyway due to engine limitations and time constraints). BI are making the flight model more realistic / mil-sim which, surprise surprise is what the game is based around, immersion, realism, mil-sim, sandbox. Not arcade like you seem to think it is. 

[senseichen 20]

5 minutes ago, xxgetbuck123 said:

 

1) Honestly, you can't undermine KoTH players and Primaate when you play a game mode where people who failed their physical shoot at predictable AI. Judging by your YouTube videos, I'd say your barely average as far as pilots go so definitely not the type to belittle others. 

A) Might I add its mainly only the KoTH jet community, everyone else seems fine, it's just the fly boys complain all the time, also I've played my fair share of KoTH back in the day and everynow and then so I know how it works. Also I agree, shooting predictable AI gets tedious over time and I much would prefer to verse humans, however obviously the engine cannot support the kinda stuff that Mil-sim communities would be after, maybe one day we can enjoy large scale Mil-sim experience versing other humans, but until then we will have to wait... In other words, we ADAPT with what we have. Also that's fine you if you think I'm barely average, there's still a lot of stuff you don't know about me when it comes to piloting ;) 

 

2) Your main argument is that KoTH players should adapt (to what I must ask?).

A) Yes, yes it is. The reason I argue this is, well Primaate making this thread in the first place and various other KoTH players complaining on the forums about the changes BI are implementing how it doesn't suit their KoTH agenda. When BI first introduced their various Jets changes that will be coming with the jets DLC all that was said from the KoTH people was, "How can I remove this, "This is going to make *insert vehicle* OP", "This is going to make it too complex", "new players will find it hard to learn the new stuff". I'm yet to see any Milsim community or players for that matter complain about these changes, its only KoTH pilots, hence I argue the point. Adapt to what you say, well everything that BI is adding/changing. As Primaate suggests with this thread is that he wants these changes to be reversed and gone (Obviously isn't adapting to this now is he? So that's one thing he can do) precisely why why I say adapt. Instead of crying about these changes, having a slight go at BI and people who oppose your opinion, you should ADAPT to these changes. Whats going to happen when the Jets DLC sensors/UI elements/everything Jets DLC get introduced, you going to cry that it get removed as well? Or are you going to ADAPT to these new changes and utilise them properly like good pilots do, they adapt to the situation at hand and think of ways to use new aircraft features and tactics? 

 

3) Why don't the others adapt and actually learn how to land their Neophrons rather than having BIS make it easier.

A) So you're suggesting that BI is not allowed to make any changes to anything cause it doesn't suit how you feel? BI are changing to flight model and aircraft for the up coming Jets DLC and as a result changing things to be more inline with real world flight (As much as they can anyway due to engine limitations and time constraints). BI are making the flight model more realistic / mil-sim which, surprise surprise is what the game is based around, immersion, realism, mil-sim, sandbox. Not arcade like you seem to think it is. 

A) Might I add its mainly only the KoTH jet community, everyone else seems fine, it's just the fly boys complain all the time, also I've played my fair share of KoTH back in the day and everynow and then so I know how it works. Also I agree, shooting predictable AI gets tedious over time and I much would prefer to verse humans, however obviously the engine cannot support the kinda stuff that Mil-sim communities would be after, maybe one day we can enjoy large scale Mil-sim experience versing other humans, but until then we will have to wait... In other words, we ADAPT with what we have. Also that's fine you if you think I'm barely average, there's still a lot of stuff you don't know about me when it comes to piloting ;) 

I never said I failed to adapt, nor did Primaate.

As a Wipeout pilot (until DLC hits), these changes have barely changed anything for me. You should also avoid generalizing a community. You probably have only dealt with KoTH players who complain, but it's not a good representation of the big picture.

 

B) Yes, yes it is. The reason I argue this is, well Primaate making this thread in the first place and various other KoTH players complaining on the forums about the changes BI are implementing how it doesn't suit their KoTH agenda. When BI first introduced their various Jets changes that will be coming with the jets DLC all that was said from the KoTH people was, "How can I remove this, "This is going to make *insert vehicle* OP", "This is going to make it too complex", "new players will find it hard to learn the new stuff". I'm yet to see any Milsim community or players for that matter complain about these changes, its only KoTH pilots, hence I argue the point. Adapt to what you say, well everything that BI is adding/changing. As Primaate suggests with this thread is that he wants these changes to be reversed and gone (Obviously isn't adapting to this now is he? So that's one thing he can do) precisely why why I say adapt. Instead of crying about these changes, having a slight go at BI and people who oppose your opinion, you should ADAPT to these changes. Whats going to happen when the Jets DLC sensors/UI elements/everything Jets DLC get introduced, you going to cry that it get removed as well? Or are you going to ADAPT to these new changes and utilise them properly like good pilots do, they adapt to the situation at hand and think of ways to use new aircraft features and tactics? 

As said above, if you rarely play KoTH and only interact with a few players via BIS forums, of course you're going to think everyone hates change.

Even though I PREFER the old landing mechanics, the current system isn't that bad and landing will get its old skill back, if not more when hitpoints are introduced. So this is a case of preference, not adaption.

 

3) Why don't the others adapt and actually learn how to land their Neophrons rather than having BIS make it easier.

A) So you're suggesting that BI is not allowed to make any changes to anything cause it doesn't suit how you feel? BI are changing to flight model and aircraft for the up coming Jets DLC and as a result changing things to be more inline with real world flight (As much as they can anyway due to engine limitations and time constraints). BI are making the flight model more realistic / mil-sim which, surprise surprise is what the game is based around, immersion, realism, mil-sim, sandbox. Not arcade like you seem to think it is. 

I'm not saying they shouldn't change mechanics and this doesn't really affect me. Just others could have adapted.

Again, hitpoints will likely bring the skill back.

 

 

 

[target_practice 163]

I can already imagine how the KotH playerbase will react to tank FCS hitting main branch. No doubt the forums will be flooded with complaints of it being overpowered/unrealistic/noob-pandering etc etc.

 

Seriously, entitled KotH players need to come to the realisation that their beloved gamemode isn't the number-one priority for BIS.

Arma is a game first and mil-sim second, but its still designed around emulating the dynamics of real combat scenarios. That's what things like these and other changes from prior and upcoming Updates/DLC are all moving towards. Balance is at the discretion of the mission maker; if, for instance, things like FLIR or drones are out of place for a particular gamemode then the mission maker can remove or tweak them, simple. Its not BIS job to do this for them. This has been said many times already yet people still have difficulty accepting it for some reason.

[teabagginpeople 398]

Ha man if you are whinging now. What exactly are you gonna be like when your neo and wipeout buddies need to collaborate with aa forces on the ground just to keep you from getting wiped out. It'll Be crash landings you'll need to practice.

 

All these worries you have about landings now will be a distant fond memory. Because you'll be too busy watching your six for a jet smashing past you at 900 and doing rings around you before it sends you to hell. 

 

Arma sticks to its roots. from there it allows other game modes grow. If it panders too hard it becomes ridged chipping away at it's ability to grow new modes. 

 

Not pander to flavour of the months. Because the thing about the people that religiously play one mode. then try push that short sighted agenda to the root game. They end up a victim of their own ways when the inevitable new flavor of the month pops up.  And find themselves hypocritically scratching their heads at bis making changes to suit the new "dino" lego mod crew. 

 

It'll be a time of balancing for jets. To get it right for the introduction of the new fighter jet class. Let it evolve before having knee jerk reactions based only on what you see now.

[xxgetbuck123 945]

3 hours ago, senseichen said:

A) Might I add its mainly only the KoTH jet community, everyone else seems fine, it's just the fly boys complain all the time, also I've played my fair share of KoTH back in the day and everynow and then so I know how it works. Also I agree, shooting predictable AI gets tedious over time and I much would prefer to verse humans, however obviously the engine cannot support the kinda stuff that Mil-sim communities would be after, maybe one day we can enjoy large scale Mil-sim experience versing other humans, but until then we will have to wait... In other words, we ADAPT with what we have. Also that's fine you if you think I'm barely average, there's still a lot of stuff you don't know about me when it comes to piloting ;) 

I never said I failed to adapt, nor did Primaate.

As a Wipeout pilot (until DLC hits), these changes have barely changed anything for me. You should also avoid generalizing a community. You probably have only dealt with KoTH players who complain, but it's not a good representation of the big picture.

 

B) Yes, yes it is. The reason I argue this is, well Primaate making this thread in the first place and various other KoTH players complaining on the forums about the changes BI are implementing how it doesn't suit their KoTH agenda. When BI first introduced their various Jets changes that will be coming with the jets DLC all that was said from the KoTH people was, "How can I remove this, "This is going to make *insert vehicle* OP", "This is going to make it too complex", "new players will find it hard to learn the new stuff". I'm yet to see any Milsim community or players for that matter complain about these changes, its only KoTH pilots, hence I argue the point. Adapt to what you say, well everything that BI is adding/changing. As Primaate suggests with this thread is that he wants these changes to be reversed and gone (Obviously isn't adapting to this now is he? So that's one thing he can do) precisely why why I say adapt. Instead of crying about these changes, having a slight go at BI and people who oppose your opinion, you should ADAPT to these changes. Whats going to happen when the Jets DLC sensors/UI elements/everything Jets DLC get introduced, you going to cry that it get removed as well? Or are you going to ADAPT to these new changes and utilise them properly like good pilots do, they adapt to the situation at hand and think of ways to use new aircraft features and tactics? 

As said above, if you rarely play KoTH and only interact with a few players via BIS forums, of course you're going to think everyone hates change.

Even though I PREFER the old landing mechanics, the current system isn't that bad and landing will get its old skill back, if not more when hitpoints are introduced. So this is a case of preference, not adaption.

 

3) Why don't the others adapt and actually learn how to land their Neophrons rather than having BIS make it easier.

A) So you're suggesting that BI is not allowed to make any changes to anything cause it doesn't suit how you feel? BI are changing to flight model and aircraft for the up coming Jets DLC and as a result changing things to be more inline with real world flight (As much as they can anyway due to engine limitations and time constraints). BI are making the flight model more realistic / mil-sim which, surprise surprise is what the game is based around, immersion, realism, mil-sim, sandbox. Not arcade like you seem to think it is. 

I'm not saying they shouldn't change mechanics and this doesn't really affect me. Just others could have adapted.

Again, hitpoints will likely bring the skill back.

 

 

 

 

1) As a Wipeout pilot (until DLC hits), these changes have barely changed anything for me. You should also avoid generalizing a community. You probably have only dealt with KoTH players who complain, but it's not a good representation of the big picture.

A) I agree, I do generalise quite a lot and do apologise for any misconception, though I must say that I hardly ever hear any positive/support from the KoTH pilots for BI when new things come out, only negative. Hence my views, but point taken. 

 

2) As said above, if you rarely play KoTH and only interact with a few players via BIS forums, of course you're going to think everyone hates change. Even though I PREFER the old landing mechanics, the current system isn't that bad and landing will get its old skill back, if not more when hitpoints are introduced. So this is a case of preference, not adaption.

A) First part response just above. As for the mechanics, landing will always need skill, yea some people can do it but the question is how smoothly and efficient can they do it? Yes landing might be a bit easier but doesn't mean everyone is instantly going to just land perfectly everytime. I've been on Dev branch for a while now and the new hitpoints dont really affect a standard all good landing, what it does affect heavily is when you've been hit. Even a few AA round to the Aileron will result in the aircraft tipping one way, you'll only be flying on one aileron etc.. which makes landing a hell of a lot harder. Also if a rudder has been hit landing will be ten-fold harder, hence the need for the actual force feedback suspension, so you can slam the aircraft on the ground. Also now that you've bought it up I'm fully committed to this claim this landings in the future will be even harder (providing you've been hit) which ultimately makes it even less noob friendly cause if they get hit and suffer malfunctions there's a much less chance they'll land it all good. Ultimately that negates this who thread and landings will get harder not easier. 

 

3) I'm not saying they shouldn't change mechanics and this doesn't really affect me. Just others could have adapted. Again, hitpoints will likely bring the skill back.

A) That's why I'm arguing this point, it seems Primaate is only arguing it because he can't land his Neo at 'super secret' airports etc. Not because the system is broken, not because it breaks the game, but because he can't do something. And yes, like I said just above hitpoints will bring the skill back immensely, the good pilots will shine then. 

 

 

 

Also cheers for providing valid feedback to the discussion. I always appreciate when someone makes some valid claims in response and you did just that, unlike Primaate. So cheers for that.  

 

[bl4dekk 9]

This topic was opened to discuss a facility that is landing with neophron.

What I want to know:

1) Did you know that the (Yak 130) neophron should have smaller stall than the Wipeout (A10) ?
2) If so, why are you asking for more difficulty ? (Since it is much more difficult than it should be)
3) Does anyone know that an unarmed jet without ammunition on the A3 has the same stall as a fully armed jet?

Bohemia should ask a real-life pilot, to make it realistic.

Questions for developers {

Is it possible to implement a dynamic stall ?

Just using the weight would already be great.

Vs new = Vs old weight x √(new weight / old weight)

Why did they leave this error until today ?

I do not know if the person who opened the topic knows the information I'm going for below, but leaving it wrong causes people to believe in an error that ends up generating these discussions.

 

Better to keep what has changed, since I'm going to have to render the videos where the automatic landing crashes. xD

}

The wipeout stall and the neophron stall are incorrect since they have launched.

According to the yakovlev manufacturer of the yak-130, the recommended landing speed is 195km/h. And in game they stall WITH flaps with more than that speed.

you can see here : http://www.yak.ru/ENG/PROD/new_130.php

 

Yak 130 is designed to land in places with fragments that can damage your engines (BI implemented this animation) it means that it can land on smaller tracks.

 

 

I will check the yak 130 stall since on several sites it says to be 165km/h so I wanted to check it out (my calculations are not 100% correct)

I will show the calculation for the a10 in real life to prove the yak 130 since the a10 has more documents;

let's go math

 

Specifications of A-10 (Just what is needed for the stall calculation).

Spoiler

Wing area: 47.0 m²
Airfoil: NACA 6716 root, NACA 6713 tip
Max. takeoff weight: 23,000 kg (Mtow)
S = Wing area;
g = gravity (9,81);

---------------------------
W/S = Mtow.g / S;
W/S = 23000.9,81 / 47 = 4800.
---------------------------
ISA sea level

Temperature 15°C
Density = 1,22500 kg/m3
----------------------------

Vstall = Sqrt 2 / Density * W/S * 1/Cl max;

NACA 2412 AIRFOIL = Cl max 2,1.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740013521.pdf

 

 

Vstall = sqrt 2/1,22500 * 4800 * 1/2,1 = 61,088283865697 = 61 m/s = 219,6 km/h = 118,57 knots.

 

Seems to be correct 220km/h full load WITHOUT flaps. 

 

Ok, Let's go to the neophron (Yak-130).

Spoiler

Yak 130 Specs :

Mtow : 9 000 kg;
Wing area: 23.52 m²

W/S = 9000*9,81 / 23,52
W/S =3753

 

I searched a lot on the internet but I did not find the type of wing that the yak-130 uses, so I do not know the cl max, but the approximate calculation confers on the manufacturer's specification.

 

Vstall = Sqrt 2 / Density * W/S * 1/Cl max;

Vstall = Sqrt 2 / 1,22500* 3753 * 1 / 2,1;
Vstall = sqrt 2917.78425656
Vstall = 54.0165183676

Vstall = 54 m/s = 194km/h = 104 knots.

 

I do not know if they are flaps or not because I do not have the cl max but the account hit with the information of the manufacturer.

Conclusion :

But anyway it has less stall than the a10, so it is easier to land, not much but it is.

 

Please READ:

A10 makes curves more closed than yak-130 ?
NO!

 

Why is yak 130 like this ?
It is a middle ground between CAS jet and jet of superiority.

 

Who is harder to land in real life?
what do you think ? A jet that is used for training or a jet of attack?

 

Why do their stall look alike even the a10 carrying much more weight ?

The a10 has a larger wing, the larger the wing the less lane the airplane will require to land (the wing is not the only factor, the wing type also influences).

 

Example :

The construction project of the MiG 23 requested that it be able to reach sonic speed and be able to land in small tracks, so the engineers made that its wing was movable.

 

If you have seen any errors in the calculations please advise, if you have more information of yak-130 please let me know, if you have any questions let me know.

Thank you. :p

[jerminhu 25]

As a KOTH ace pilot, I welcome every change that makes this game more realistic. Period.