Skyguard *Guessguard* needs increased bulletspeed.

Projectile speed on Skyguard is fine if its meant to be point-defense AA vehicle.

On the other hand if it is supposed to be aircraft-hunter that can cover entire region then sure, it needs a projectile speed buff.

Really. The thrusters don't generate an upwards force? Tell me then, how do PS2 aircraft "take off" from a dead halt? Yes, they use their thrusters, because it certainly isn't lift generated by a forward velocity. When my Reaver is sitting on the ground and I press "space", doesn't that generate enough force to push my aircraft up?

Even then, it's not like PS2 aircraft can even really rely on their "wings" to create enough lift anyhow. Those stubby little things are more akin to the weapon pylons on an attack helicopter rather than the wing of a fixed-wing aircraft. Far too small to generate sufficient lift to keep a boxy Reaver in the air.

Except the coefficients completely fall apart because your aircraft is able to move forward without flying into jello (which I assume is the amount of air resistance you would need to bring your aircraft to a halt). What is going on is a selective coefficient of friction, which makes absolutely no sense.

And if the solution is, "there is some magic do-hickey that obliterates the laws of physics" then that's not much of a defense either. Air brakes simple can't do what aircraft in PS2 do, and there is no reasonable explanation as to how an aircraft can come so quickly to a halt. As usual, the fallback answer of the uninformed boils down to "nanites".

Okay, because you apparently don't understand how aircraft can come to a complete halt in empty air, let's consider our typical landing strip.

Most aircraft today have safe landing speeds of anywhere from 195 KPH to 370 KPH. A Concord, for example, has a landing speed of 300 KPH. So if a Concord were to decelerate from 300 KPH to essentially 0, how much distance would it cover (and for this we're going to have increased friction because the Concord is also in contact with the ground)?

Well runways that are considered appropriate for Concords are about 2,000m in length. Which suggests that the Concord might need as much as 1,500m to stop. And again, that includes significant friction on the ground.

In PS2 aircraft can start their deceleration from 320+ KPH at their top speed. Given how this is faster than the Concord's landing speed and how there is no friction coming from the ground, for a PS2 aircraft to decelerate to 0 it ought to take somewhere near 1.5km for that to happen. Maybe give or take 500m or so.

But what is the distance that a PS2 ESF can go from 320+ KPH to 0? Certainly a lot more than 1.5km (which would be about 20% of the continent).

That's the wonky physics I'm talking about.

Again, because PS2 aircraft can decelerate and change vectors in an incredibly unrealistic way under our universal laws of physics, this makes leading PS2 aircraft much more difficult.

In the real world and in other well-made flight sims, you can predict where an aircraft might travel in the immediate future because its path options are extremely limited under the laws of physics. A real aircraft can't come to a sudden halt, nor can it significantly alter its vector in a short amount of time. This means that someone manning an AA weapon has a much smaller area to consider when attempting to predict where an aircraft will be at any given time. You can more or less guess where the aircraft is going to be because there's not a whole lot an aircraft can do to change its vector in a short amount of time.



But in PS2 aircraft have much more freedom in what they can do in a shorter period of time, whether that is to rapidly decelerate, lose or gain altitude, or move within a plane parallel to the ground (or a combination of all three). This creates a much larger area where the aircraft might be at any given time. And in turn this makes it more difficult for AAA to lead targets.

Wow... I don't even... When you take off you apply full power to overcome gravity, when you wanna hover, you apply some power to balance gravitational acceleration. What is there not to understand? Thrusters generate VARIABLE upward force depending on the task. When hovering, your thrusters generate the force of gravity but the opposite direction. When ascending - they generate more force, when descending they generate less force.

Yes, it's a design flaw, however we should be past that - not many people wonder about flight mechanics when playing PS2, so it's irrelevant. I was speaking of coefficients just for sci-fi-fantasy matter.

No, it's not the solution. Solution is interesting gameplay. The game is not based around meeting all RL physics laws.

I understand physics quite well to realize how and what happens. I never disagreed with you that ESFs should break longer etc. You want flight simulation plus perfect design and you choose bad game for it.

Yes, it does make AA leading harder, but it's not hard. And using "wonky" physics to go into hover against flak is a death wish. So flying away is what helps. However forward flight is very predictable for AA to lead.... So I don't understand how ANYONE can complain about how difficult it is to use skyguard...

Don't even reply with some irrelevant question regarding thrustrers' work. Point me to where I'm wrong in text I wrote. I don't respect such strawman-ish argumentation.

Skyguards had a much faster bullet velocity and they were projecting a AA bubble 7 hexes wide with it, it might have had something to do with the fact you rarely saw a plane in the sky during this time period. Believe it was known as the great infantry grace period or something like that to those ditch diggers.

Then it was pulled back and lowered the damage drop off range to around where it is today, and they've been fine with it for over a year and a half now.

I know you think it's a good idea but I'm saying its been tried, tested, and changed as result of it blowing everything out of the air too easily.

Ah, so now you admit that PS2 doesn't have real physics and instead follows its own wonky rules.

Good for you. The first step is admitting that you're wrong.

I mean if your position is that it's okay for PS2 aircraft to follow these crazy rules of "physics", then you must also admit that it is more difficult for AAA to lead aircraft in PS2 than in a game where aircraft are much more limited by actual physical constraints.

And that is the crux of the matter. Nothing much more to discuss. Our point then is a matter of disagreement over degrees... you believe that despite the additional difficulty that AAA has in leading PS2's ridiculously silly aircraft that it is okay. And I believe that it is not okay.

I will say though that it's utterly ridiculous when PS2 pilots can bend the laws of physics to their wills... and yet still complain when they are shot down from inside a very short flak range. I suppose because in their twisted world AA is only supposed to be a "deterrent" (they don't even know how to use the word, really) and not harm their beautiful sky chariots.

Can you please tell us atmospheric composition for Auraxium and surface gravity, so we can talk about physics without looking like imbeciles? Because, you know, aircrafts designed for Mars atmosphere look and handle much more "unrealistically" than ESFs in Planetside2. You can download X-Plane and try for yourself.

Also, you'd probably be interested to know that modern aircrafts brake by using reverse thrust of the engines. Wheel brakes are mostly for taxiing. Carrier-based aircrafts are the notable exception, they don't have reverse thrust, but they can land on a dime using carrier-based braking system.

If you want to compare PS2 ESFs to something from the real world, compare them to attack helicopters. Ka-50 "Black Shark" has top speed of 315 kph, but brakes in the air pretty well.

Oh how cute, you take ONE SENTENCE outta context.

I never said that PS2 had perfect physics. NEVER. "Pilot bend laws of physics"... who bends anything? There is a given set of rules. Game rules. Which make decent sense. Deterrent? Of course it's a deterrent if you fight skilled pilot (and still endanger him greatly). That's how it's supposed to be.

GOOD JOB ON IGNORING most of my text. Also you're a coward that can't admit all the "thrusters pointing down ESF must go up no matter what derp" nonsense he wrote. You may have read something about classic planes but you FAIL AT BASIC PHYSICS so I suggest you take up physics classes before drawing more silly pictures. Maybe then your brains won't fail leading as you would better understand the developed flight model ingame.

Exactly! But you know - he has problems with imagination, so unless ingame it in fact HAS REVERSE thrusters, he'd keep on writing same stuff again and again how it's wrong and shouldn't behave like that.

We know for sure that the atmospheric conditions of PS2 aren't anywhere near what you would need to slow down an aircraft in the way it currently works. This is because nothing else feels so terribly sluggish, and to top it off if there was indeed such crazy air resistance then surely having aircraft travel even at 320+ KPH would be impossible?

Ah yes. Air brakes. Which I totally mention in my previous responses, and which I state could obviously not produce such pronounced effects (even "futuristic" air brakes).

The entire principle of helicopter lift is quite different from how VTOLs work. Helicopters essentially just generate top-lift and tilt to either direct that lift slightly forward or backwards. When a helicopter wants to "stop", it instead tilts up, which generates force in the opposite direction of its original heading.

To my knowledge helicopters don't actually employ air brakes, but I might be wrong about specific models. They just do this:



And of course going from 315 KPH to 0 still takes quite more time than in PS2.

If you have "changed" any of the laws of physics from what they are, then you have bent the laws of physics. Piltos in PS2 greatly benefit from this false physics.

As for "deterrence", a true deterrence would kill aircraft within its effective range with exceptional efficiency... as well as give pilots a clear warning that if they enter a zone they will die.

A system that tickles aircraft and politely encourages them to possibly leave is no deterrence.

Whatever you say, strawman.
You wouldn't tickle if you bothered to get better. L2P, lazy.

Oh really? How about bullets and tank rounds?

Nothing is impossible for the aircraft that uses The Will of Vanu to generate lift. Really, it's just depends on how powerful the engines are.

Air brakes is a totally different device. Let me google that for you. PS2 ESFs don't have air brakes.
And when it comes to the reverse thrust, you are wrong. Even WW2 era aircrafts could produce reverse thrust equal to the amount of normal thrust they were capable of, meaning the stopping distance is in fact shorter than acceleration distance.

Same ****, bro, just looks different.

Ka-50 is capable of 3.5G bro. Want me to do the numbers for you?
I'm pretty sure The Will of Vanu is equally strong as turboshaft that was designed in 1980s.

I guess you should immediately report this offender to your local physics law enforcement officer.

I have had zero problems hitting and killing aircraft with a Skyguard. The very best pilots can get away, sure, but when you force them away they aren't killing stuff on the ground much anymore.

If anything needs to be fixed with the Skyguard its needing 1200 deterrence ribbons for the Directive.

Sorry but that's just BS. Skyguard rounds travel at 400 m/s, which isn't a lot, but it's still 1440 km/h, while ESFs fly at 350 (with afterburners) maximum. That doesn't qualify as "outrunning", even if you put quotes around it.

Also, 3 or more Skyguards/Burstermaxes will already lock down the airspace in any fight that doesn't have very obvious entrance/exit routes for ESFs and Liberators, what do you want more? (I personally want a complete A2G overhaul but that's another story)

Haha mate, great post That heli.

I'm just laughing at how you got your nonsense handed back to you. You're not only failing basic physics, you don't even know what you write about...

Lel

Lead better besides that I don't expect too kill things in sight range which would be silly the closer they get the worst they'll get. Risk vs Reward.

As I've discussed in other posts, like here, that I do feel that most projectiles travel far too slowly to make any sense, and I would in fact support buffing projectile speeds.

That being said, tanks and infantry move about as fast as you would expect tanks and infantry to go, so using those as a baseline things "feel" more or less correct. That's why the suggestion that we're moving through a jello atmosphere is absurd.

Oh yes... the old "nanites" argument. Essentially when someone says that as a response, it is a non-answer which essentially means "I don't know how it could possibly work but I need a cop-out excuse".

ESF's don't have anything that would explain how they can stop. They don't have air brakes or any real equivalent of it. They just stop in mid air. Even if they were to rely on some sort of stopping mechanism, it still is quite beyond the range of reason (other than the "I don't know what I'm talking about so NANITES" excuse).

But going from a high velocity to a dead standstill takes time, and certainly instantly decelerating from 350 KPH to 0 would leave you with pieces of a helicopter. I would assume (though I've yet to find data) that such deceleration would take time and would generally start from a lower speed to begin with (just as how aircraft tend not to land at their top speeds).

Yes... what you have is something that has a relatively low velocity and a relatively low mass. This means that its momentum isn't particularly strong, making it relatively easy to change its direction. I don't understand why this would be shocking to you at all from a physics standpoint.

In fact you've highlighted the problem with ESFs right there. ESFs have a much higher velocity and mass yet they can pull off maneuvers in that video. If you can't understand why that doesn't make sense, you should probably go back and review the relationship between momentum, velocity, and mass.

What I like more is your non-answer and hilarious attempt to appeal to the "last man replying wins" fallacy with a post that's not even yours, which of course backfired in the most funny way possible when ColonelChingles actually came back and made a reply to the post you're cheering on.

And if his past post history is any indication, ColonelChingles is anything but "failing basic physics" and the "don't even know what you write about" type.


In any case, as with all "real life vs PS2" debates, I'd say that gameplay should triumph over realism any day. But of course, the line of fine gameplay is often poorly drawn.

As far as I can see though, the problem here in this thread is whether people are willing admit that PS2 is not a simulator, and a lot of gameplay mechanics basically boils down to "a wizard nanites did it" rather than real life physics or military technology.

And if the butter traction of ground vehicles, crazy-flying VTOL aircraft with WW1 biplane airspeeds, hilariously slow projectile speed (especially for magnetic weapons), stupidly ineffective energy weapons, Napoleonic engagement ranges, pre-WW2 AFV designs, a complete lack of indirect fire support weapons and countless other things along the line aren't convincing you, I honestly don't know if anything in the world could.

I'll just facepalm and move on.
Good luck guys, have a nice physics discussion.

No backfiring. Not in my eyes. Colonel replied in his classic manner of calling future parameters nanites (that's what people would say about planes before planes existed btw) because he can't see out of box. All RL technologies that have come during recent years were Nanites to him, no doubt.

Tell me, why Colonel ignored most of my text? He posted a silly picture with thrusters giving a push up. He couldn't realize that Thrusters will have just enough power to nulify gravity. This was his main point of how the physics in game are wrong. But he couldn't defend. It showed that he's very limited in his own understanding.

His other arguments? Either stuff taken out of context, strawmen or "his feeling how stuff wouldn't behave like this". Speaking of RC heli - it's scalable. Find materials good enough to withstand higher forces...

So yeah, you can defend him, but I doubt you've read the discussion and you're definitely not being objective.