Ever since 1.22 the game is insanely unstable. Everytime I try to play, I load the map once and as soon as I hit "join game" I either crash to the desktop, or my BF2 freezes and my computer reboots itself. This happens to everyone I play with aswell, and only since patch 1.22. Therefore, they made the game instable.Cyberwolf wrote:
"Fix Game stability!"
SOLUTION - Upgrade your 386
Hey guys I'm pretty sure that 1.3 was a rumor that just spread like wildfire.
Yes, I have seen a number of posts saying it was fake. I don't, I Won't, believe that EA is annoying enough to change the game again!
As for the guy who says BF2 freezes when he clicks join game. There used to be a bug where if you click the Auto Ready button (or whatever) it will cause it to crash..
good day
Yes, I have seen a number of posts saying it was fake. I don't, I Won't, believe that EA is annoying enough to change the game again!
As for the guy who says BF2 freezes when he clicks join game. There used to be a bug where if you click the Auto Ready button (or whatever) it will cause it to crash..
good day
And I'm equally sure that EA would spread rumours themselves. Go to the official BF2 website and look at the community update.
1.3 has been on the card for months as a pre-Armoured Fury patch.
1.3 has been on the card for months as a pre-Armoured Fury patch.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
im glad this is coming out. Constantly changing quad leaders is no good. Just when you get a good squad leader, he leaves and rejoins leaving some sniper noob as squad leader sitting in one place. This is a war sim, so I guess taking this out will make it more real.
bitching got this feature put into 1.3 in the first place ffs if u kill sumone an they come bak around 20 seconds later just trace em bak to the source.. an kill the leader if u guys cant do that u seriously are smaktards
Issues with stability are BIG in this patch, its the most unstable patch i've seen, random crashes to desktop on a 1200 pound machine, 2 or 3 times every 2 hours? Call that stability? And no, it never happened in a previous patch...so i would love to see them fix stability.
Ok, I just did that with a tennis ball outside.Spark wrote:
Now, you try jumping and throwing something over a wall or fence at the same time.
@2. Not always. Depends on caliber and entry point/direction of shot.eagles1106 wrote:
lol Spark and half the game still isnt realistic . Heres a short list I made.Some areas it isnt as realistic as we think, although not everything in a game can be fun if everything is realistic. Sorry for goin sort of off topic
1.M203's and grenades launchers in real life will only activate after 40 yards or so. Bf2-about 10 feet.
2.In real life a bullet to the face kills. Bf2-Some guns and pistols won't kill if taken a round to the face.
3.All planes in real life can hold so many more attachments. Bf2-2 bombs, guns and 6 missiles.
4.In real life snipers don't run kamikaze style into battle to throw claymores every where. Bf2-they do
5.In real life just about 1 missile will own any plane. Bf2-2 will (not much different but still)
6.In real life the f-35 would not be easily detected on radar. Bf2-it is and it sucks
@3. Lol...
2 bombs, 6 missiles and a fuel tank = 9 pylons.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18 wrote:
Nine pylons – 2 wingtip, 4 underwing, and 3 fusalage, carrying up to 13,700 lb (6,215 kg) of missiles, rockets, bombs, fuel tanks, and pods
As for the F-35:
A total of 8 bays/pylons. In the game the F-35 carries 2 bombs and 6 missiles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35 wrote:
-1x GAU-12/U 25 mm cannon. Mounted internally with 180 rounds in the F-35A, fitted as an external pod with 220 rounds in the F-35B/C
-In two bomb bays (current planned weapons for integration) - One AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-9X Sidewinder or AIM-132 ASRAAM internally on the inside of the bomb bay door and one air-to-air or air-to-ground weapon in each bomb bay. These could be AMRAAM, the Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) - up to 2,000 lb (910 kg), the Joint Stand off Weapon (JSOW), Small Diameter Bombs (SDB)- a maximum of 4 in each bay, the Brimstone anti-armor missiles, Cluster Munitions (WCMD) and High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM). The MBDA Meteor air to air missile is currently being adapted to fit internally in the missile spots and may be integrated into the F-35.
-At the expense of being more detectable by radar, more missiles, bombs and fuel tanks can be attached on four wing pylons and two wingtip positions. The latter can only take short-range air-to-air missiles, while the Storm Shadow and Joint Air to Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) cruise missiles can be carried in addition to the stores already integrated.
@6. The F-35 is still being built, so its real life combat capabilities are non existant. There are only theories and research to support that.
Last edited by mcminty (2006-04-27 02:26:09)
I signed the petition cause i think its strange they are planning to remove this feature from the game. I havent seen anyone complain about squadhopping ever so why make a big deal out of it when its not a problem and everyone is doing it since the beginning of the game. It doesnt make any sence to me anyways to remove it now.
I really think ea/dice should be concentration on fixing bugs.
Is there anyone here that can explain to me why squadhopping is a bad thing? Its unrealistic? Well so is getting shot in the head with a .50 cal and getting revived.
I really think ea/dice should be concentration on fixing bugs.
Is there anyone here that can explain to me why squadhopping is a bad thing? Its unrealistic? Well so is getting shot in the head with a .50 cal and getting revived.
Last edited by General-Echo (2006-04-27 02:59:34)
I think for some things it'll be good and for others it'll be bad.
For example, as the USMC on Wake Island. It'll make it even tougher to get a foothold, especially if the PLA side are half decent.
On the plus side it'll stop an entire side from spawning magically from a single squad leader who's gone to say one of the further flags in a map or somesuch.
For example, as the USMC on Wake Island. It'll make it even tougher to get a foothold, especially if the PLA side are half decent.
On the plus side it'll stop an entire side from spawning magically from a single squad leader who's gone to say one of the further flags in a map or somesuch.
I agree with Echo said,
but i think the problem is the Spawning in Squad leaders. indeed nobody complaint about it but its kinda crazy that people hop around to get the best spawn point just because they are lazy to walk. and i think also baseraping has something to do with it. because most people spawn directly at the Squad leader in the middle of the uncapable base and keep raping it as long if they are able to hop around squads
but i think the problem is the Spawning in Squad leaders. indeed nobody complaint about it but its kinda crazy that people hop around to get the best spawn point just because they are lazy to walk. and i think also baseraping has something to do with it. because most people spawn directly at the Squad leader in the middle of the uncapable base and keep raping it as long if they are able to hop around squads
I'm not too upset about the ability to squad-hop being removed. I do it myself sometimes, to save having to walk huge distances, but it's not essential so far as I'm concerned.
The only place I can think of this being a big issue is on Wake, where anyone who can get safely to the island as USMC is likely to make themselves a squad leader to get some back-up and try and get a foothold. Oh well.
What *does* annoy me, though, is that it probably means you can't cycle your squad leader either. When operating as a squad, I've always found it to be extraordinarily useful to have the current squad leader leave and rejoin whenever they got killed. That way someone else becomes leader, and you don't lose all the ground you've gained as a squad. If this feature is removed, it means that anyone who's a squad leader and wants to genuinely do what is best for their squad is going to have to sit back away from the action a bit and just be a spawn-point. Maybe giving some sniper fire as support or something, but it'd become so important that the Leader doesn't get killed that he really shouldn't be risking himself near combat.
We already have a Commander who shouldn't be doing anything but commanding, are we now going to get stuck with Squad Leaders who are going to hide in a corner with their cloning device churning out new soldiers for the war effort?
The only place I can think of this being a big issue is on Wake, where anyone who can get safely to the island as USMC is likely to make themselves a squad leader to get some back-up and try and get a foothold. Oh well.
What *does* annoy me, though, is that it probably means you can't cycle your squad leader either. When operating as a squad, I've always found it to be extraordinarily useful to have the current squad leader leave and rejoin whenever they got killed. That way someone else becomes leader, and you don't lose all the ground you've gained as a squad. If this feature is removed, it means that anyone who's a squad leader and wants to genuinely do what is best for their squad is going to have to sit back away from the action a bit and just be a spawn-point. Maybe giving some sniper fire as support or something, but it'd become so important that the Leader doesn't get killed that he really shouldn't be risking himself near combat.
We already have a Commander who shouldn't be doing anything but commanding, are we now going to get stuck with Squad Leaders who are going to hide in a corner with their cloning device churning out new soldiers for the war effort?
i like pizza
Heres some realism, for the people in the military, pilots, snipers, spec ops, etc. The 'Rambo' style gameplay we all have come to enjoy is not how a real battle situation works. A REAL battle situation is coordinated after days, possibly months of planning, is well organized and almost always well executed. So lets talk realism. Before a Cobra can attack a target, the pilot has to report the hostile activity up his command and his command determines how large of a threat it is, if and only if the threat is valid an authorization order to hit certain targets is sent back. Snipers, you think they just run around and shoot? First of all, for the most part there is no such thing as a rogue sniper, a sniper almost ALWAYS has a spotter, most of you know snipers sit for days with little to no movement observing enemy movement, then if they have a valid threat, it is sent up their chain of command and it eventually gets back down, then the sniper has to determine if a shot will comprimise his position, its all about risk. The same goes for fighter/attack pilots, they dont fly around bombing random targets, again an authorization is required to fire on a target. Anyway, complete realism in a video game is impossible. My whole take on the squad hopping is, that yes if a squad leader is killed in combat, the next person down the line takes command, and i think that should be how it is. But im no programmer, so ill say EA decides what stays and what goes. You want realistic go join the Army, they need lots of great soldiers. But remember, theres no respawn in RL. Take care all.Spark wrote:
This is meant to be a REALISTIC game. Now, you try jumping and throwing something over a wall or fence at the same time. Try prone jumping withour hurting yourself or taking 5 seconds. Try bunnyhopping.
Then you'd see why they want to get rid of it.
'Fix game stability'. I'm not sure what you mean. Can you give ma an example of the game 'being' unstable?
'Fix game lag'. This has nothing to do with the game, EA, or DICE. Check your internet connectiong first. Are you being throttled? Second, check where the server is based. If I play on a US server, I shouldn't be surprised to get lag. Third, check that there aren't lots of high-pingers on the server who drag everyone down.
I've never experienced the 'browser lock up and lag'.
Last edited by d3v1ldr1v3r13 (2006-04-27 04:45:59)
The worst part of all that info is, the fact that its actual capabilities are classified...even to military members. I do know that a majority of the Fighter and Attack Aircraft speeds shown on most websites and on fact sheets are innacurate. Mostly because we do not want everyone in the world to know its true capability. Hell i asked a F-16 pilot what hes pushed the bird too, i didnt get much of an answer, mostly just beat around the bush avoiding the question. The F-35 is still in its testing phase known as the X-35, and 'F' which obviously stand for Fighter, would be innacurate given its capabilities. It is whats known as a 'JSF' or Joint Strike Fighter, it has Air to Air capabilities, but mostly used for precision bombing and attack manuvers, similar to the A-10 Thunderbolt II. I dont know what kind of tag it will get as far as F for fighter, or A for attack, it may get both (F/A-35)! But I guess the world will never know until it becomes part of the US fleet. Also a cousin that the Air Force still has under development is the F-22 Raptor, this is a more common look. I cant tell you tech specs as far as differences because i just dont know. Either way, its a game its here for fun, and im shocked and happy its as accurate and realistic as it already is! Good day all, I hope I gave some good info for you.mcminty wrote:
Ok, I just did that with a tennis ball outside.Spark wrote:
Now, you try jumping and throwing something over a wall or fence at the same time.@2. Not always. Depends on caliber and entry point/direction of shot.eagles1106 wrote:
lol Spark and half the game still isnt realistic . Heres a short list I made.Some areas it isnt as realistic as we think, although not everything in a game can be fun if everything is realistic. Sorry for goin sort of off topic
1.M203's and grenades launchers in real life will only activate after 40 yards or so. Bf2-about 10 feet.
2.In real life a bullet to the face kills. Bf2-Some guns and pistols won't kill if taken a round to the face.
3.All planes in real life can hold so many more attachments. Bf2-2 bombs, guns and 6 missiles.
4.In real life snipers don't run kamikaze style into battle to throw claymores every where. Bf2-they do
5.In real life just about 1 missile will own any plane. Bf2-2 will (not much different but still)
6.In real life the f-35 would not be easily detected on radar. Bf2-it is and it sucks
@3. Lol...2 bombs, 6 missiles and a fuel tank = 9 pylons.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18 wrote:
Nine pylons – 2 wingtip, 4 underwing, and 3 fusalage, carrying up to 13,700 lb (6,215 kg) of missiles, rockets, bombs, fuel tanks, and pods
As for the F-35:A total of 8 bays/pylons. In the game the F-35 carries 2 bombs and 6 missiles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35 wrote:
-1x GAU-12/U 25 mm cannon. Mounted internally with 180 rounds in the F-35A, fitted as an external pod with 220 rounds in the F-35B/C
-In two bomb bays (current planned weapons for integration) - One AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-9X Sidewinder or AIM-132 ASRAAM internally on the inside of the bomb bay door and one air-to-air or air-to-ground weapon in each bomb bay. These could be AMRAAM, the Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) - up to 2,000 lb (910 kg), the Joint Stand off Weapon (JSOW), Small Diameter Bombs (SDB)- a maximum of 4 in each bay, the Brimstone anti-armor missiles, Cluster Munitions (WCMD) and High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM). The MBDA Meteor air to air missile is currently being adapted to fit internally in the missile spots and may be integrated into the F-35.
-At the expense of being more detectable by radar, more missiles, bombs and fuel tanks can be attached on four wing pylons and two wingtip positions. The latter can only take short-range air-to-air missiles, while the Storm Shadow and Joint Air to Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) cruise missiles can be carried in addition to the stores already integrated.
@6. The F-35 is still being built, so its real life combat capabilities are non existant. There are only theories and research to support that.
Where to start...
---------------
Also, the A-10 Thunderbolt does not do "precision bombing'.
---------------
At this moment, the aircraft is kown as the F-35, not the X-35. As a side note, the X-35 was Lockheed's designation for the JSF program, while X-32 was Boeing's. X means the aircraft is experimental, but when the government gives the contract to a company to produce it, the aircraft takes on its proper designation.
---------------
Google any USA Military Aircraft designation (F-16, A-10, C-130, KC-10, etc) and the 1st or 2nd link will be to www.fas.org, and it's military information. The second one may be www.af.mil, the Air Forces website. Reliable information. Note: The info from www.fas.org matched the info from www.af.mil.d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
The worst part of all that info is, the fact that its actual capabilities are classified...even to military members. I do know that a majority of the Fighter and Attack Aircraft speeds shown on most websites and on fact sheets are innacurate. Mostly because we do not want everyone in the world to know its true capability.
---------------
The F-15E Strike Eagle has the fighter designation, but:d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
The F-35 is still in its testing phase known as the X-35, and 'F' which obviously stand for Fighter, would be innacurate given its capabilities.It is whats known as a 'JSF' or Joint Strike Fighter, it has Air to Air capabilities, but mostly used for precision bombing and attack manuvers, similar to the A-10 Thunderbolt II.
The F-15E then, according to you, doesn't fit the requirements for being a fighter... maybe it should have the B designation, not F. While the F-35's primary role is "optimized for the air-to-ground role" (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm), its designation is still fighter.http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm wrote:
The F-15E is especially configured for the deep strike mission, venturing far behind enemy lines to attack high value targets with a variety of munitions.
Also, the A-10 Thunderbolt does not do "precision bombing'.
That is, close air support for ground operations. These planes are designed to loiter around the battlefield, under a ceiling of 1000 feet. They make quick runs with the machine guns, rockets and bombs. They do not engage in high-altitude precision bombing, such as the F-15E.http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10.htm wrote:
Primary Function.................A-10.................close air support
---------------
Its designation is Fighter. Go to http://www.jsf.mil/ . The main page shows "F-35 , Joint Strike Fighter Program".d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
I dont know what kind of tag it will get as far as F for fighter, or A for attack, it may get both (F/A-35)! But I guess the world will never know until it becomes part of the US fleet.
At this moment, the aircraft is kown as the F-35, not the X-35. As a side note, the X-35 was Lockheed's designation for the JSF program, while X-32 was Boeing's. X means the aircraft is experimental, but when the government gives the contract to a company to produce it, the aircraft takes on its proper designation.
---------------
Already knew there was more to the 2 aircraft...d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
Also a cousin that the Air Force still has under development is the F-22 Raptor, this is a more common look.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm wrote:
By using many of the same technologies developed for the F-22, the F-35 has the opportunity to capitalize on commonality and modularity to maximize affordability.
Seeing the continuous growth of the list in a matter of seconds, it would be very stupid of EA to just ignore this petition.
Yesterday it really showed that people don't even use the squadhopping to its full extent.
On Songhua Stalemate,I was circling over the US-base in the chinese transport-chopper at such an altitude that it was impossible to hit by any tank or apc,but NO ONE in my team thought about joining my squad so they can spawn high in the sky and just HALO-jump to take the US-base flag,despite my attempts to chat them into it.
On maps where there only are transport choppers(Mashtuur,Songhua,??) the transports are indestructable spawnpoints,if you do it right you can "beam" the whole team right behind enemy lines,the team can suddenly attack in unexpected numbers from virtually every position,etc...
I'm sure it is basic stuff in clanmatches,but on public servers it is still not used enough or it's not effectively used.
If people would use it more often and effectively on public servers the game would get some whole new dynamics.
I think it should stay,at least as server option,it's not that 32 people suddenly HALO-jump out of a chopper and that it is totally abused for baseraping all the time,there's really no need for changing it.
On Songhua Stalemate,I was circling over the US-base in the chinese transport-chopper at such an altitude that it was impossible to hit by any tank or apc,but NO ONE in my team thought about joining my squad so they can spawn high in the sky and just HALO-jump to take the US-base flag,despite my attempts to chat them into it.
On maps where there only are transport choppers(Mashtuur,Songhua,??) the transports are indestructable spawnpoints,if you do it right you can "beam" the whole team right behind enemy lines,the team can suddenly attack in unexpected numbers from virtually every position,etc...
I'm sure it is basic stuff in clanmatches,but on public servers it is still not used enough or it's not effectively used.
If people would use it more often and effectively on public servers the game would get some whole new dynamics.
I think it should stay,at least as server option,it's not that 32 people suddenly HALO-jump out of a chopper and that it is totally abused for baseraping all the time,there's really no need for changing it.
Wow you must think you just know it all. Like I said before, the real capabilities of OUR aircraft are classified even to its military members. Come on, you think we are just gonna give the enemy all our secrets on the net? And unlike what you had me sounding like, I didnt treat these people like they were stupid, like you seemed to try to do to me. And just for your information, if you were military, which obviously you are not, the aircraft is still experimental. And it is the X-35, so until I see it in production and on Aircraft carriers, active, not in TEST PHASE, but active, which its not, it does not get the F designation, now these people are not stupid for the most part, dont sit here and try to tell me that I am. So according to your little knowledge of our aircraft, you dont know that there is an F/A-15 as well. Next time you wanna make someone feel stupid about aircraft, make sure you ask an Air Force maintainer about the capabilities and different types of military aircraft. Look I see youre not from the states and you get your information from the internet, I see these aircraft on a daily basis, may not work on them all, and I have been in long enough to know that yes, look before you try arguing a point with an Airman in the Air Force, make sure you know someone high up in Lockheed or know someone who has flown these aircraft before. And no i dont believe that the information you supplied is wrong per say, I believe its innacurate and that the websites dont give you near what the aircraft is capable of. Nuff said, dont treat people like they are dumb, im sure they dont appreciate it.mcminty wrote:
Where to start...Google any USA Military Aircraft designation (F-16, A-10, C-130, KC-10, etc) and the 1st or 2nd link will be to www.fas.org, and it's military information. The second one may be www.af.mil, the Air Forces website. Reliable information. Note: The info from www.fas.org matched the info from www.af.mil.d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
The worst part of all that info is, the fact that its actual capabilities are classified...even to military members. I do know that a majority of the Fighter and Attack Aircraft speeds shown on most websites and on fact sheets are innacurate. Mostly because we do not want everyone in the world to know its true capability.
---------------The F-15E Strike Eagle has the fighter designation, but:d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
The F-35 is still in its testing phase known as the X-35, and 'F' which obviously stand for Fighter, would be innacurate given its capabilities.It is whats known as a 'JSF' or Joint Strike Fighter, it has Air to Air capabilities, but mostly used for precision bombing and attack manuvers, similar to the A-10 Thunderbolt II.The F-15E then, according to you, doesn't fit the requirements for being a fighter... maybe it should have the B designation, not F. While the F-35's primary role is "optimized for the air-to-ground role" (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm), its designation is still fighter.http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm wrote:
The F-15E is especially configured for the deep strike mission, venturing far behind enemy lines to attack high value targets with a variety of munitions.
Also, the A-10 Thunderbolt does not do "precision bombing'.That is, close air support for ground operations. These planes are designed to loiter around the battlefield, under a ceiling of 1000 feet. They make quick runs with the machine guns, rockets and bombs. They do not engage in high-altitude precision bombing, such as the F-15E.http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10.htm wrote:
Primary Function.................A-10.................close air support
---------------Its designation is Fighter. Go to http://www.jsf.mil/ . The main page shows "F-35 , Joint Strike Fighter Program".d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
I dont know what kind of tag it will get as far as F for fighter, or A for attack, it may get both (F/A-35)! But I guess the world will never know until it becomes part of the US fleet.
At this moment, the aircraft is kown as the F-35, not the X-35. As a side note, the X-35 was Lockheed's designation for the JSF program, while X-32 was Boeing's. X means the aircraft is experimental, but when the government gives the contract to a company to produce it, the aircraft takes on its proper designation.
---------------Already knew there was more to the 2 aircraft...d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
Also a cousin that the Air Force still has under development is the F-22 Raptor, this is a more common look.http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm wrote:
By using many of the same technologies developed for the F-22, the F-35 has the opportunity to capitalize on commonality and modularity to maximize affordability.
Last edited by d3v1ldr1v3r13 (2006-04-30 20:31:50)
I just cant believe you man telling ME how Americas Air Force fleet acts and is used...Thats just rich.... You know we are required to study this stuff in basic training, tech training, and my home station they even ask us to provide facts about any aircraft weekly, one of those whoever has the best or most interesting fact gets a holiday that type of thing. Im through with talking to the uninformed.mcminty wrote:
Where to start...Indeed
Also, the A-10 Thunderbolt does do "precision bombing'. (Lemme rephrase, is capable of)
---------------Its designation is Fighter. Go to http://www.jsf.mil/ . The main page shows "F-35 , Joint Strike Fighter Program".d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
I dont know what kind of tag it will get as far as F for fighter, or A for attack, it may get both (F/A-35)! But I guess the world will never know until it becomes part of the US fleet.
At this moment, the aircraft is kown as the F-35, not the X-35. As a side note, the X-35 was Lockheed's designation for the JSF program, while X-32 was Boeing's. X means the aircraft is experimental, but when the government gives the contract to a company to produce it, the aircraft takes on its proper designation. (There is no contract yet, the "X-35" is not in major production yet, still being flown and tested, it will be about another 2-3 years before it goes mass, and the site you posted is just an advertisement for its future works, all companies do that, even the company my father works for, Pratt and Whitney)
(Apparently you think im dumb, come join Americas Air Force before you act like you know it all)
---------------Already knew there was more to the 2 aircraft...(I think everyone does, again, stop treating people like they're stupid)d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
Also a cousin that the Air Force still has under development is the F-22 Raptor, this is a more common look.http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm wrote:
By using many of the same technologies developed for the F-22, the F-35 has the opportunity to capitalize on commonality and modularity to maximize affordability.
Last edited by d3v1ldr1v3r13 (2006-04-30 20:41:53)
Honestly d3v1ldr1v3r13, get over thinking you know everything because the aircraft is made in 'da USA'.
As my position to comment... I am in the AAFC, Australian Air Force Cadets. Yes, I want to be a pilot when I grow up, either military or commercial. With cadets I have stayed on a RAAF (air force) base for a week, living like a member of the RAAF.
In the Air Recocnition subject, which looks at various military/civil aircraft and the airforces that operate them, I scored 81 out fo 84, coming top the class. I know my aircraft.
Please, your continual belief in WRONG FACTS about the aircraft is just plain stupid. I looked at both US and RAAF's pages on the facts of the Aircraft's...thay all match. Geeze, I even went to Boeing's site... dam, it's the same.
When I was at the RAAF base I got to use an F/A-18 simulator. Yea, the one the real pilots use. The airspeeds (etc.) I got was also the same as what these sites tell me.
As for the F-35 problem...
lets go to www.jsf.mil What do I see?
That's 6 times the official site calls it the the aircraft the F-35.
Maybe at the base you could ASK the proper designation. If they say X-35, then ASK why www.jsf.mil sais otherwise.
Here you go mate, the F-35 in production, even one thats just rollen out of the factory http://www.airliners.net/discussions/mi … 6/#ID42804
And the article: http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/20 … mbled.html
One of the three pictures:
I think you said it rather well:
As my position to comment... I am in the AAFC, Australian Air Force Cadets. Yes, I want to be a pilot when I grow up, either military or commercial. With cadets I have stayed on a RAAF (air force) base for a week, living like a member of the RAAF.
In the Air Recocnition subject, which looks at various military/civil aircraft and the airforces that operate them, I scored 81 out fo 84, coming top the class. I know my aircraft.
Please, your continual belief in WRONG FACTS about the aircraft is just plain stupid. I looked at both US and RAAF's pages on the facts of the Aircraft's...thay all match. Geeze, I even went to Boeing's site... dam, it's the same.
When I was at the RAAF base I got to use an F/A-18 simulator. Yea, the one the real pilots use. The airspeeds (etc.) I got was also the same as what these sites tell me.
As for the F-35 problem...
lets go to www.jsf.mil What do I see?
That's 6 times the official site calls it the the aircraft the F-35.
Maybe at the base you could ASK the proper designation. If they say X-35, then ASK why www.jsf.mil sais otherwise.
Here you go mate, the F-35 in production, even one thats just rollen out of the factory http://www.airliners.net/discussions/mi … 6/#ID42804
And the article: http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/20 … mbled.html
One of the three pictures:
I think you said it rather well:
Im through with talking to the uninformed.
What are we talking about again? Oh yeah.
I think mcminty's right, btw.
I think mcminty's right, btw.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
The petition...Spark wrote:
What are we talking about again? Oh yeah.
I think mcminty's right, btw.
Come on d3v1ldr1v3r13, it's rebuttal time.
there are no rules on how a squad is "supposed to work". there is no manul that says you "can't" squad hop.. there is no set rule.. but people tend to cry and bitch because people are not playing the way you "want" them to.. there not playing "fair". its not an exploit its perfectly ok to switch squads. . and as long as everyone is allowed to squad hop it is fair play.. tell me after they fix your "exploit" as you say what else are you people going to bitch about.. you know theres something else you want "fixed" all you little bitches always want something changed. Why wanst this brought up months ago? it didnt seem to matter then, but it does now? you fucking guys just need something to bitch about becasuse you suck at the game. you need more rules and special treatment to make up for you lack of skill.
Its not an exploit people have been doing it from day one, yet now its an issue becuause people are done bitching about "dolphine diving" "c4 chucking" noob tubing, bunny hopping. You know what it really is they fixed all these so called "exploits" and people still suck.. and they think that "fixing" one more thing will get them that one more gold medal that you NEED.
how can it be an exploit when there is nothing techniqly wrong with the game?
exploits = the knowing and using of a world error in the game..
Or using a strat or world glitch ie ladder that should not be there, fake wall, a real error as an advantage.
Squad hoping was there from the begining there is nothing "wrong" with the game that "needs" to be fixed.
Its not an exploit people have been doing it from day one, yet now its an issue becuause people are done bitching about "dolphine diving" "c4 chucking" noob tubing, bunny hopping. You know what it really is they fixed all these so called "exploits" and people still suck.. and they think that "fixing" one more thing will get them that one more gold medal that you NEED.
how can it be an exploit when there is nothing techniqly wrong with the game?
exploits = the knowing and using of a world error in the game..
Or using a strat or world glitch ie ladder that should not be there, fake wall, a real error as an advantage.
Squad hoping was there from the begining there is nothing "wrong" with the game that "needs" to be fixed.
ahaha - some lame guy gave me negative karma because I supported the removal of squad hopping...bet he's still crying over not being able to bunny hop/dolphin dive/c4 chuck too
That's the most ridiculous comment I've ever heard. Simulators are meant to be realistic games. BF2 really amounts to nothing more than a really cool shooter.Spark wrote:
This is meant to be a REALISTIC game.
That being said, while squad hopping to generate a spawn point for the squad leader is fun, it is somewhat of an abuse of the system. However, I don't think it negatively affects gameplay for anyone enough to deserve a tweak, what with all the other bugs and issues in this game that need fixing. All this tweak will do is make it nominally more easy to wipe out squad incursions.