FAQ THREAD FOR v0.95 CHANGES

General discussion of the Project Reality: BF2 modification.
Post Reply
Rissien
Posts: 2661
Joined: 2008-11-07 22:40

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by Rissien »

I do have one question
Added temporary placeholder QBB88 Ironsights (China).

The new iron sights not finished on this one?
Image
MA3-USN Former

クラナド ァフターストーリー
Acemantura
Posts: 2463
Joined: 2007-08-18 06:50

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by Acemantura »

For Melee attacks, why does the first punch do nothing? Wouldn't it make more sense to have it do damage?
Zoddom
Posts: 1029
Joined: 2008-02-11 15:29

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by Zoddom »

killonsight95 wrote:Will CAS now be extremely hard due to not having accurate markers to fire onto? however i can now see the good point of having a spotter in a CAS squad for this change
And NOW the signal smokes are finally usefull!
Nitneuc wrote:I have a quick question also.
When you pick-up enemy rifleman kit, do you still get its "geometries" (helmet, kevlar...) just like it is since 0.85 or did you guys managed to fix this (thanks to new kits geo) ?
Thanks for answering.
ehm ... its not a bug, its a feature. srsly
CBCRonin
Posts: 31
Joined: 2010-10-04 18:16

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by CBCRonin »

Hunt3r wrote:Just wondering, why would the Spandrel and TOW Humvee have to wait around 7 seconds to launch their missiles? I understand that the Bradley IFV cannot keep it's TOWs ready to be fire once it stops due to the launcher design, but the TOW Humvee and Spandrel only need to be below a certain velocity to be able to launch their missiles, or am I mistaken?

My hope is for the Spandrel and TOW Humvee it just lets you launch as soon as the vehicle goes below a defined velocity, and the Bradley will begin to have the countdown timer to the launcher's readiness once it goes below the defined velocity. The max velocity at which one can move while not resetting the timer should be at about 6 mph.
I know that when the TOW was wire guided you certainly wouldn't want to fire on the move. We 11-H's used to dream of getting a wireless version... never thought it would kill my mos though :sad: (careful what you wish for I guess).

If the TUs are the same, and it looks as if they are, firing on the move would still be a bad idea. Getting a launch excursion, after hitting a road bump, might ruin your day.
Titan
Posts: 294
Joined: 2008-09-13 15:55

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by Titan »

Updated MEC BTR-60 passengers so they have people attempting to apprehend them while they travel ruggedly.


what does this mean?
Hunt3r
Posts: 1573
Joined: 2009-04-24 22:09

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by Hunt3r »

CBCRonin wrote:I know that when the TOW was wire guided you certainly wouldn't want to fire on the move. We 11-H's used to dream of getting a wireless version... never thought it would kill my mos though :sad: (careful what you wish for I guess).

If the TUs are the same, and it looks as if they are, firing on the move would still be a bad idea. Getting a launch excursion, after hitting a road bump, might ruin your day.
The maximum velocity that one is technically allowed to move at while guiding and firing the TOW is 6 mph, or about the pace one would run to run a mile in 10 minutes. It's not much, but it's enough for BF2, to prevent an inability to fire because the vehicle is parked on a slope or something.
Image
dtacs
Posts: 5512
Joined: 2008-12-07 23:30

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by dtacs »

Titan wrote:what does this mean?
I believe it means they now ride on the outside of the BTR, which is surprisingly more realistic as it takes a long time for soldiers to get out of the BTR-60 IRL, its a very impractical vehicle.
Ford_Jam
Posts: 458
Joined: 2009-06-19 01:06

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by Ford_Jam »

dtacs wrote:I believe it means they now ride on the outside of the BTR, which is surprisingly more realistic as it takes a long time for soldiers to get out of the BTR-60 IRL, its a very impractical vehicle.
Players can already travel on the outside,
I preceived it as the characters attempting to hold on to something or steady themselves as the vehicle goes over rough terrain.
nater
Posts: 489
Joined: 2009-01-07 19:35

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by nater »

Zoddom wrote: ehm ... its not a bug, its a feature. srsly
What really? I swear they said a while back (.75 maybe?) that due to the amount of kits, the Geometries glitched.
CBCRonin
Posts: 31
Joined: 2010-10-04 18:16

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by CBCRonin »

Hunt3r wrote:The maximum velocity that one is technically allowed to move at while guiding and firing the TOW is 6 mph, or about the pace one would run to run a mile in 10 minutes. It's not much, but it's enough for BF2, to prevent an inability to fire because the vehicle is parked on a slope or something.
I don't doubt you that it is possible... we used to talk about using it on the go even when it was wire guided (as well as using the back blast as a weapon, as the TOW at the time ['91-'95] was not allowed to be used directly against enemy ground troops).

Though this is "project reality", a number of decisions still seem to be based on game play (inex. TOW reload times :shock :) .

I'm sure the devs will judge how the new system works in online play and adjust accordingly.
Silly_Savage
Posts: 2094
Joined: 2007-08-05 19:23

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by Silly_Savage »

I have a quick question also.
When you pick-up enemy rifleman kit, do you still get its "geometries" (helmet, kevlar...) just like it is since 0.85 or did you guys managed to fix this (thanks to new kits geo) ?
Thanks for answering.
Still present, unfortunately.
Added temporary placeholder QBB88 Ironsights (China).

The new iron sights not finished on this one?
Nope.
For Melee attacks, why does the first punch do nothing? Wouldn't it make more sense to have it do damage?
It does do damage.
what does this mean?
They will ride on top of the vehicle now.
ehm ... its not a bug, its a feature. srsly
It is not a feature; it is a bug.
"Jafar, show me a sniper rifle." - Silly_Savage 2013
ComradeHX
Posts: 3294
Joined: 2009-06-23 17:58

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by ComradeHX »

Silly_Savage wrote: It is not a feature; it is a bug.
It makes sense realistically.

Because the bag contains all the gears instead of just a gun/lat/whatever.
goguapsy
Posts: 3688
Joined: 2009-06-06 19:12

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by goguapsy »

ComradeHX wrote:It makes sense realistically.

Because the bag contains all the gears instead of just a gun/lat/whatever.
+ we all know that a turban has more defensive points than a helmet.

XD Ok just playing with ya. While it does help a bit (saves you SOMETIMES, and is actually interesting when playing SF behind enemy lines and stuff, hide just showing your head out.)
Guys, when a new player comes, just answer his question and go on your merry way, instead of going berserk! It's THAT simple! :D

Image[/CENTER]
Wh33lman
Posts: 667
Joined: 2008-07-16 23:30

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by Wh33lman »

this is in coop:

Updated single player variant vehicles so they can only be driven by bots, but can be gunned by human players.

does this mean the 2 man deployment style tanks can no longer be driven by human players?
Conman51
Posts: 2628
Joined: 2008-05-03 00:27

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by Conman51 »

does the 3d marker rule apply to vehicles and mortars? because i remember you needed to see the 3d marker your SL placed to use mortars right
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog."
-Mark Twain



Image
Celestial1
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007-08-07 19:14

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by Celestial1 »

Conman51 wrote:does the 3d marker rule apply to vehicles and mortars? because i remember you needed to see the 3d marker your SL placed to use mortars right
To everything.

There's more information in the first post.
Rissien
Posts: 2661
Joined: 2008-11-07 22:40

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by Rissien »

Wh33lman wrote:this is in coop:

Updated single player variant vehicles so they can only be driven by bots, but can be gunned by human players.

does this mean the 2 man deployment style tanks can no longer be driven by human players?
Singleplayer varient vehicles are the solo ones where you are gunner and driver in one. Now you can only gun in them.
Image
MA3-USN Former

クラナド ァフターストーリー
ZephyrDark
Posts: 319
Joined: 2010-01-23 20:22

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by ZephyrDark »

I still have a question about this update:
Updated insurgency so caches are never close to each other (400m, 800m and 1200m for 1Km, 2Km and 4Km maps respectively). It will lower the distance in decrements of 50m if the number of objectives wasn't reached and try again (350m, 300m, etc).
It says if the number of objectives will be decremented by 50m everytime an objective is "not reached". Could a DEV elaborate?
|TG-31st|Blackpython


xambone
Posts: 548
Joined: 2010-04-20 16:58

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by xambone »

Q: There's an unarmed melee attack now? Sweet! Can I karate-chop people to death in one shot?
A: No, you need to get about 5-6 direct hits to kill will the unarmed melee. More than anything it'll be for role playing or severe desperation.


LOL @ severe desperation
Phantom2
Posts: 195
Joined: 2009-04-04 01:27

Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES

Post by Phantom2 »

I have 2 questions

Do Civilians get to do the unarmed melee? Do LAV-25s still get critical damage if you throw incendiaries on them? Because it's ridiculous I've killed many LAVs doing that when Armors aren't supposed to be affected by it.
Post Reply

Return to “PR:BF2 General Discussion”