Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, WarEagle751 said:

It will probably be something that is added after 1.0, but is not a necessity. If not added by OWI, then it will probably be added by mods. I hope this gives you a better understanding of what where aircraft stand in Squad. 

I'm aware of where they stand and the possibility of them being added. Having followed the game since the KS I wasn't at all surprised that they most likely wouldn't be added(considering the time of certain updates and where the game stands now), or that it would fall onto modders to add them(like they did first with helicopters). I was simply questioning the reasoning as one of the devs mentioned flight time. 

Edited by Chompster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Chompster said:

Surely this isn't a reason against adding jets right? I mean who really cares about this? This isn't DCS or another simulator where people expect to fly for hours. As Fatal said, let jets do their thing above the battle and occasionally come in for some rocket runs or to drop some bombs and then let them **** about over head.

 

I know there are other, more serious issues, preventing them from being added. But just saying that I really hope "jets wouldn't be believable in squad" isn't being used as reason to not add them.

I was just speculating on how a player controlled Jet would be implemented, given the limited air space.

 

Yes there are alot of other barriers and difficult engine advances that would have to be overcome. Likley I'm sure some aspiring modders will be early attemps... just like the Helicopter mod is out right now and you can test it out for yourself to see some of the things dev team will have to put hard work into (terrain/overgrowth rendering, LOD optimization, vehicle physics, gameplay balance, etc etc) for implementing air vehicles, priority being transport helicopters for us at the moment :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldnt  say 2  jets fly outside the map boundaries. Just have the small windows of the battle ground they they could buzz.. Have a fogyy haze out of the landscape. .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Chompster said:

Surely this isn't a reason against adding jets right? I mean who really cares about this? This isn't DCS or another simulator where people expect to fly for hours. As Fatal said, let jets do their thing above the battle and occasionally come in for some rocket runs or to drop some bombs and then let them **** about over head.

Maps are too small for jets. It's a really simple fact. Besides I don't see a reason why anyone would be against the devs taking their time to implement bigger maps so that air assets won't have to make a 180 degree turn every 30 seconds. Everyone would benefit from bigger and more immersive 8km maps (biggest ones are only 4km atm: https://squad.gamepedia.com/Gorodok)

 

20 hours ago, Chompster said:

Where was this said?

http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/33555-air-assets/?do=findComment&comment=333984

Scroll up in this thread you'll see the official response I linked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, CptDirty said:

Maps are too small for jets. It's a really simple fact. Besides I don't see a reason why anyone would be against the devs taking their time to implement bigger maps so that air assets won't have to make a 180 degree turn every 30 seconds. Everyone would benefit from bigger and more immersive 8km maps (biggest ones are only 4km atm: https://squad.gamepedia.com/Gorodok)

 

http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/33555-air-assets/?do=findComment&comment=333984

Scroll up in this thread you'll see the official response I linked.

A10's only go 500:  correction 439miles per hour....same as a p51 Mustang....:)  Maps not too small for it....

 

Correction: 

The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II is a single-seat, twin turbofan engine, straight wing jet aircraft developed by Fairchild-Republic for the United States Air Force. Wikipedia
 
Top speed: 439 mph
Unit cost: 11,800,000–11,800,000 USD (1994)
Engine type: General Electric TF34
Edited by XRobinson
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@XRobinson

"It typically flies at a relatively low speed of 300 knots (350 mph; 560 km/h), which makes it a better platform for the ground-attack role than fast fighter-bombers, which often have difficulty targeting small, slow-moving targets.[51]"

 

So 4km x 4km = 16km2 map. Simple math dictates that the diagonal is 5.65km across. 560kmh typical speed covers 5.65km in 36.32 seconds:

http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bike/speed_distance_time_calc.html

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/speed-distance-time-calculator.php

 

So question still stands, does 30 seconds (at BEST) constitute a good enough time between 180 degree turns? Would we be better off when maps double in size and be able to achieve 60 seconds flight time (at BEST) without turns instead?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CptDirty said:

@XRobinson

"It typically flies at a relatively low speed of 300 knots (350 mph; 560 km/h), which makes it a better platform for the ground-attack role than fast fighter-bombers, which often have difficulty targeting small, slow-moving targets.[51]"

 

So 4km x 4km = 16km2 map. Simple math dictates that the diagonal is 5.65km across. 560kmh typical speed covers 5.65km in 36.32 seconds:

http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bike/speed_distance_time_calc.html

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/speed-distance-time-calculator.php

 

So question still stands, does 30 seconds (at BEST) constitute a good enough time between 180 degree turns? Would we be better off when maps double in size and be able to achieve 60 seconds flight time (at BEST) without turns instead?

 

 

Have to test your theory, but I think yes 30 seconds is a lifetime flying jets even slow ones like the A 10...  or slow bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2018 at 3:46 PM, CptDirty said:

Maps are too small for jets. It's a really simple fact. Besides I don't see a reason why anyone would be against the devs taking their time to implement bigger maps so that air assets won't have to make a 180 degree turn every 30 seconds. Everyone would benefit from bigger and more immersive 8km maps (biggest ones are only 4km atm: https://squad.gamepedia.com/Gorodok)

Or they could just fly slower? again, who is playing squad expecting DCS or 100% real life equivalent? they don't have to fly at their real life speeds. Make them a bit slow so it takes a little longer, but even then 30 seconds is are decent amount of time for the time of "realism" squad is trying to depicst in my opinion. They could also expand the background terrain and place the airstrips further away. This is both an easier and a more realistic expectation, than them making maps bigger.

 

Quote

 

http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/33555-air-assets/?do=findComment&comment=333984

Scroll up in this thread you'll see the official response I linked.

 

If you're referring to the video you linked in that thread, and maybe I didn't watch far enough, but that doesnt answer that the devs have confirmed aircraft will be in eventually(which is what I asking for where it was said).

Edited by Chompster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Chompster said:

that doesnt answer that the devs have confirmed aircraft will be in eventually

It answers that the devs are not focusing on player controller aircraft....o.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×