but the lav 25 model is very ... rustic for pr standards
are there any plans to remake this vehicle ?
of course is rare sight, few maps have the lav 25... but just look how different it is when compared to other vehicles .








Really? The LAV-25 is (gameplay wise) a completely different vehicle.Rudd wrote:it's age is one of the reasons we much prefer using our AAV7PA1![]()

The much bigger reason is realism. The LAV-25 in reality is more of a recon vehicle than an APC (in r/l in its normal config, can only carry 4 troops in the back, not even a squad ingame, we only had it holding 6 troops in the back before we had the AAV because we didn't have the AAV, and haven't got round to changing it yet) and in terms of reality, the AAV is used far more than the LAV-25 by the USMC. In a normal MEU battalion landing team there are around 4 LAV-25 and 12 AAVP7A1, which is a 1:3 ratio to give you a rough idea.'Xander[nl wrote:;1843706']Would be a real shame to leave out such a fine APC just because the model isn't as good. Half the players wouldn't even care about the graphics anyway.

been more or less phased out of service with the USMC afaik.ShockUnitBlack wrote:The LAV-AT and LAV-AD vehicles would be cool additions if a new model were ever to be made.
Meh, I updated the textures, just now, so it should look better; I contemplated whether or not to use the original 2k texture size (ie high res), but ended up re-sizing for optimization purposes.ShockUnitBlack wrote:The Stryker could do with a retexture.
what map is that on? I'm pretty sure we're using teh gopher MTLBStealthgato wrote:What about the terrabaful texture on the Russian Tunguska?
black gold.Rudd wrote:what map is that on? I'm pretty sure we're using teh gopher MTLB
http://i.imgur.com/A3Mvb.jpg[R-DEV]Spush wrote:It's not bad
Yeah because it's low-res. I'll look into it later.Stealthgato wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/WVeEo.jpg