• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/
There's no way to combine anywhere near realistic aircraft with an infantry game like Red Orchestra.

Battlefield has you flying planes at far-below stall speed at crazy-low altitudes with enough missiles to sink medium-sized Caribbean islands. Real pilots fly in from hours away, drop their bombs on a spot and leave.
 
Upvote 0
Battlefield has you flying planes at far-below stall speed at crazy-low altitudes with enough missiles to sink medium-sized
The Frostbite Engine generation Battlefield games at least.

What should be looked at instead is Battlefield 1942, Battlefield:Vietnam and Battlefield 2.

In these games you did not get autorepaired, nor did you have infinite ammo.

If you were damaged or ran out of ammo, then you had to return to your airfield / helipad for repairs and rearm.
That was always the far better design than what BF3/4 have today - which is just way too casual and fast action focused.
 
Upvote 0
Even planes from Battlefield 1942 would be way too arcade-like compared to the meticulous attention to detail given to everything else. Planes carried 15 bombs and people flew them from third person at 30 ft in the air to hit anything. Not to mention they were taking off twenty seconds away from the battle. Real combat missions start hours away from the target, drop their bombs in one or two runs from at least a few hundreds of meters in the air, then go home (having possibly hit nothing. They also didn't try to hit infantry when they're less than 100m from each other in the jungle.

Bottom line, they can put planes in the game but realism-wise it's impossible for it to be anywhere near the standard of the rest of the game based on the size of the maps and the lengths of matches. There's a reason why realistic combat flight-sims tend to be just flight-sims.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0