I do not like flying ESF because of V-Thrust and Airbreak.

Trying to like the scythe, I'm just no good. Is it a Vtol? Is it a jet? Does this vehicle have an identity crisis or is it just 2 different flight models mashed into one?

During some outfit air drills, I realized why I hate flying ESF. Its V-Thrust and Analog Throttle Airbreak.. Holding W+Space for max speed is just lame. Proper air maneauvers are made useless (immelman) when you can literally turn on a dime with Analog Throttle airbreak. The ESFs don't keep momentum enough, im not saying they should handle like a galaxy, just that going from 200kph to 0 in 1 second is, imo, lame. The current Liberator physics are spot on, V-thrust does near nothing with the VTOL wings in flight mode (forward thrust). Airbreak is still apparent on the lib but no where near the level of ESF's.

There was the same thing in Battlefield 3, accessible by a 3rd party keybinder. Dice soon removed this air break feature from their game because it cheapened air combat. The easiest fix for this would be to CAP ESF's DECELERATION VALUE. Making them UNABLE to slow down faster than they do while holding S (regular break) would essentially make the analog throttle Airbreak useless.

I think the combination of v-thrust and Airbreak make air combat feel less like a simulation and more like an arcade game. I'd be interested to hear opinions from some people that main ESF, Do you like the Airbreak? Are Mossies/Reavers easier to control w/ VTOL that scythe?

Welcome to the club. Die hard STANDARD FLIGHT aircraft lovers like myself have wanted an NS SToL aircraft since the start of PS2. As you can see most of the normal aircraft pilots left this game like hell in a hand basket. Now the very few of us left are just sitting in our AA guns shooting down the minority of aircraft pilots who "just love" this kind of aircraft gameplay. It's strange that SOE has been catering to the minority (I'm too Leet4U bro, get gud crowd) than the vanished majority who wanted a normal aircraft to fly.


I've found that the airbreak with VTOL load out with AA Coyote missiles and the AI guns are the best ways to farm in this game. Not too much skill needed if you can flip your aircraft around in a 180 degree reverse and fly backwards while staying on target. It just destroys any meaning to air maneuvers during high altitude dogfights.... plus it's not exciting at all. Its just a cheap tactic.

It is kind of a crap shoot. I enjoy the feel of air power in this game, but do not enjoy the actual aspects of air combat. The ability to boost away and maintain firing capability while moving backwards means that there is little actual air dynamic, more infantry dynamic of anticipating movement and keeping aim on target. Traditional strafing runs and passing patterns can't exist because of the ability to simply stop, engage vertical, and afterburn vertical. It does make the gameplay unique, but it also makes the gameplay resemble space sims more than terrestrial sims.

That said, I have been getting used to it, and a good air to air fight is quite a cool thing to experience in the game.

I don't enjoy the bloody FoV in the vehicles, got no problem with flight mode

Having to drive/fly in 3PV is lame.

The analog throttle key is actually one and the same thing as holding down 's'. You just don't have to hold it down.
And then, why does everyone want to change the current ESFs instead of adding a new set of fighters that behave 'normal'?
After all, none of these current 3 have actual wings and it would be completely weird for the Scythe's model and whatnot to not be able to do what it does. IIRC in the beginning it was actually the only ESF that could pull the reverse maneuvers when the game actually still made each faction unique and not a copy-paste base with some cosmetic and a few numerical value changes, except the Magrider (yea, it's the ONLY thing in the entire game that's unique in it's own right compared within the game's concept per faction).
ESFs are more like jet propulsion aided helicopters rather than planes.
However i recently bought the max level racer frame on my Scythe and i gotta say, i'd like to see actual 'plane' type of fighters introduced. Be warned though: you will definitely have insane lags and stutters because of the speed they'd have to move at, render stuff around and load terrain etc. Current ESF speed values go between 200-380kmph. A real jet goes 700-1200+.

So my suggestion is that instead of commenting on the current ESFs and flying mechanics and wheter hating or loving them, why not discuss on how to add something new and balance it so it integrates well? Because i for one don't want current ESFs to go away as i like their concept and the models actually make sense for their type of behaviour.

PS: liberators, no they don't make sense, they're huge fat chunks of metal that can float upside-down in midair without falling

EDIT: to answer if the mossies' and reavers' VTOL is easier to control than the scythe - depends, the mossie is agile and can make use of the vertical thrust in different directions at faster reaction times and the VTOL isn't that strong; the reaver's VTOL is the strongest (insane actually) but you also fall like a brick when you stand still and are a lot more prone to go downwards rather than keep your flying altitude; the Scythe doesn't have such a powerful VTOL, but it is by far the most stable and easy to maneuver ESF, except for the reaction times where the mossie beats it quite easily - you just have to use these traits to their fullest

Even in 3d person it's still too narrow >.<

If this is your feels, avoid the Valkyrie at all costs. Valkyrie flight is a dance between VThrust, Analog Thrust, and long crying sessions, in my experience.

I enjoy the valkyrie due to its very dependence of V-thrust. It flies like a helicopter, which I am used to flying from previous games. the POWERFUL V-thrust is what sets this apart from the ESF's with their weak herpderp v-thrust.

I just want mosquitos to be redesigned as a full in fighter jet that flies at ~370 kph and -450 when engaged with afterburners. This would make things a lot more interesting and I could finally withstand those pesky super afterburner reverse manuever backflip circus act dodge all your bullets reavers...

I also believe the V-Thrust factor of ESF combat is a bad thing. I feel that it's what separates people from being able to FLY a ESF and actually FIGHT in a ESF, and therefore is what cuts out a big chunk of the players from engaging in the air-game.

That makes total sense, I like it for the same reason, lol.

I've been playing combat flight sims for over 10 years. I loved the air war in world war 2 online, where you could support the ground.
I"m not really excited about PS2's air combat.

Although a sci-fi game has the potential for very different flight mechanics based on different technological limitations, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me for that to be the justification behind how PS2's aircraft function; because if we were to truly imagine what a future battlefield would look like then most of these limitations on weapons and tactics of the ground based game wouldn't exist either. A lot of them are limitations put in to make things more interesting or playable, based largely on 20th century military dynamics, instead of really letting loose what a future battlefield would probably look. In a lot of ways, our current military hardware is a lot more deadly and feature rich than the PS2 weaponry. But it's not always the "funnest" form of warfare.
So it would actually make more sense for them to put expected limitations in the way air combat works for gameplay purposes, in the same way they did for designing the ground game.

Are their current air movement mechanics even based on any physics principles, or derived from an understandinging of aerodynamics? I could appreciate a sci-fi flight combat mechanism that was based on some kind of logic where they determine what these planes are capable of and why. But if they just do whatever you want, without any kind of logic behind it, then it's not very satisifying to fly and probably will result in one dimensional tactics.

The best tactics come out of real world limitations. That's why the best ground based tactical games always are based on real world principles and limitations. Fantasy shooter games without any sense of grounding in real world limitations end up being very bland, one dimensional, and boring by comparison.
The same is true of any air based combat game.

This game is set thousands of years in the future. What were you expecting?

Try less than 800.

And if aircraft get to be "futuristic", why are the tanks from WWI?

Umm, WWI tanks look very different from WWII tanks. Only the NC's tank looks like from WWII, and it's because they're technically terrorists without real official funding or technological advances (something like that), unlike the TR, so they have to salvage what they can = old looking everything.
Although the TR's MSW-R really looks like an AK-47...

Not look. Function.

PS2 tanks at best resemble something closer to the interwar (period between WWI and WWII) tanks. You can figure this based on their speed, stabilization, firepower, etc.

Take armor for instance. Only WWI tanks could be penetrated by AP HMGs, and by WWII shooting an HMG at a tank was a sure way to piss it off. Maaaaybe you could knock out a tread or important dohickey or something.

In 21st century warfare, HMGs can't really do anything to a tank. Most infantry-carried rocket launchers are also fairly useless against tanks. C4 might rattle the crew, but won't penetrate armor. Etc.

But in PS2? The Basilisk, the 20mm HMG of its time, can easily do damage to tanks even from the front. All these infantry tools that should be obsolete by 2800 are actually effective against tanks.

So the obvious thing is that in PS2 much of technology has reverted back to WWI days... aircraft should be included in that.

Because "balance" reasons. Although now, we are not discussing balance, we are talking about ESF functionality and feel

As for OP, well, I main ESF, and I never used the analog throttle airbreak, and I can fly and fight fine. The air game was not intended to be a good simulation, it, idk? But I like it as it is

Ok, SOE isn't going to beat War Thunder at their own game...

want that flight model? Play that game.

PS2's flight game is unqiue. Unmatched. Alone.

It's in SOE's best interest to remain unique. BF or War Thunder will handily beat them at "realistic" flight model

Additionally, once at max thrust, you don't have to hold 'W' at all. Just 'Space' and I don't even use max speed unless I need it, I just cruise (benefit of racer) and when ABing I use up and down vert thrust to adjust craft, not for a few measly KPH (besides, better to have flat profile fliying through obstacles than 30 degree angle).

Online air combat simulators go back to the days when you had to pay by the hour for dial-up internet access.
Someone is buying these 300 dollar joysticks that these companies put out for the PC.
There is a very significant demographic that a game like PS2 can appeal to with a well designed air game.
They crave this kind of gaming environment where their success in the air can have a real impact on real players on the ground, not just killing players in the air and bombing computer controlled targets.

So don't be so quick to dismiss their concerns and go tell them to play another game - Because that's just what they'll do.