FAQ THREAD FOR v0.95 CHANGES
-
Rissien
- Posts: 2661
- Joined: 2008-11-07 22:40
Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES
I do have one question
Added temporary placeholder QBB88 Ironsights (China).
The new iron sights not finished on this one?
Added temporary placeholder QBB88 Ironsights (China).
The new iron sights not finished on this one?
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
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
And NOW the signal smokes are finally usefull!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
ehm ... its not a bug, its a feature. srslyNitneuc 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.
-
CBCRonin
- Posts: 31
- Joined: 2010-10-04 18:16
Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES
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 thoughHunt3r 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.
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
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
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.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(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.

-
dtacs
- Posts: 5512
- Joined: 2008-12-07 23:30
Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES
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.Titan wrote:what does this mean?
-
Ford_Jam
- Posts: 458
- Joined: 2009-06-19 01:06
Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES
Players can already travel on the outside,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.
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
What really? I swear they said a while back (.75 maybe?) that due to the amount of kits, the Geometries glitched.Zoddom wrote: ehm ... its not a bug, its a feature. srsly
-
CBCRonin
- Posts: 31
- Joined: 2010-10-04 18:16
Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES
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).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.
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
Still present, unfortunately.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.
Nope.Added temporary placeholder QBB88 Ironsights (China).
The new iron sights not finished on this one?
It does do damage.For Melee attacks, why does the first punch do nothing? Wouldn't it make more sense to have it do damage?
They will ride on top of the vehicle now.what does this mean?
It is not a feature; it is a bug.ehm ... its not a bug, its a feature. srsly
"Jafar, show me a sniper rifle." - Silly_Savage 2013
-
ComradeHX
- Posts: 3294
- Joined: 2009-06-23 17:58
Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES
It makes sense realistically.Silly_Savage wrote: It is not a feature; it is a bug.
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
+ we all know that a turban has more defensive points than a helmet.ComradeHX wrote:It makes sense realistically.
Because the bag contains all the gears instead of just a gun/lat/whatever.
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.)
-
Wh33lman
- Posts: 667
- Joined: 2008-07-16 23:30
Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES
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?
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
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
-
Celestial1
- Posts: 1124
- Joined: 2007-08-07 19:14
Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES
To everything.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
There's more information in the first post.
-
Rissien
- Posts: 2661
- Joined: 2008-11-07 22:40
Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES
Singleplayer varient vehicles are the solo ones where you are gunner and driver in one. Now you can only gun in them.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?
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
I still have a question about this update:
It says if the number of objectives will be decremented by 50m everytime an objective is "not reached". Could a DEV elaborate?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).
|TG-31st|Blackpython
-
xambone
- Posts: 548
- Joined: 2010-04-20 16:58
Re: FAQ THREAD FOR .95 CHANGES
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
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
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.
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.

<--



