PR Not using older military gear

[Firepower01]

I understand the developers are trying to make this mod as accurate as possible; I can totally respect that and I think they've done an amazing job. However I've never understood why they refuse to add anything that's been phased out of the military.

There are tons of cool assets that we could be using if they weren't phased out, and honestly I don't see a problem with setting the date of a map a few years in the past if that's the excuse we need to use somewhat older gear. The Scorpion that were recently added to the Falklands comes to mind. Plus we also have fictional militaries in the game (MEC, Militia), so I don't see the problem in using slightly old assets.

Thoughts on this?

[ComradeHX]

Plenty of old stuff in PR.

All the good stuff(PPsh...etc.) are still in PR.

RusFed in PR is already using older generation of equipment.

[Steeps]

Well the title is Project Reality, hence why they want the factions as close to reality as possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rudd]

The falklands IS set in the time of the original conflict, slowly assets are being added for it to recreate that period of history...thus the scorpion and other older gear is being used.

in the main mod we don't add 'old' things because what's the point of putting the effort in for them when there are plenty of currently used assets we still have to make...

[Firepower01]

The falklands IS set in the time of the original conflict, slowly assets are being added for it to recreate that period of history...thus the scorpion and other older gear is being used.

in the main mod we don't add 'old' things because what's the point of putting the effort in for them when there are plenty of currently used assets we still have to make...

Well we could add the Scorpion for GB in current maps, and give them the Harrier. I'm aware they're both phased out but it'd still be cool to see them. Should totally re-add the green handgrip L85 too. Cause the black ones are ugly


I'm not necessarily asking for old stuff to be created instead of new stuff. But if it's already done I don't see why not just throw it in.

[Rudd]

Well we could add the Scorpion for GB in current maps, and give them the Harrier. I'm aware they're both phased out but it'd still be cool to see them. Should totally re-add the green handgrip L85 too. Cause the black ones are ugly

there isn't currently a map for the GB harrier, and we already have the eurofighter and tornado as well.

there also isn't anywhere the scorpion would be adding much more than a scimitar...so why not just stick with the more coordinated asset to the rest of the equipment, no reason to just add random older equipment in, we have a saxon model too...but we're not gonna just put that in.

having the green handgrip is actually a problem with optimization more than anything I think. Having it alongside the RIS would increase what the player has to load; for such a small detail I don't see the point - especially since the green handgrip is still featured on the LSW.

[Smiddey723]

Well we could add the Scorpion for GB in current maps, and give them the Harrier. I'm aware they're both phased out but it'd still be cool to see them. Should totally re-add the green handgrip L85 too. Cause the black ones are ugly

*Cough*

Rhino;1843082']

FV101 Scorpion CVR(T)
Most of you by now should be well acquainted with the FV107 Scimitar CVR(T) since its been in PR for a number of years now, but the Scorpion hasn't featured at all in that time since it was retired from the British Armed Forces in 1994. However a few Scorpions where used in the 1982 Falklands War with Two troops from B Squadron, Blues and Royals, along with the Scimitar.
The Scorpion and the Scimitar are from the same family of Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked), aka CVR(T) and are basically the same vehicle, with one major difference. the Scorpion has a 76mm cannon where the Scimitar has a 30mm cannon. There are other small differences between the two like the Scorpion has a different night sight and from its bigger, heavier cannon its slightly slower but other than that, they are pretty much the same thing.
Now your probably asking at this point as to why would we go and replace the Scimitar with something that has a bigger cannon when the Scimitar was already such a pain in the *** for the Argentine Infantry. Well while the Scimitar has a fully automatic 30mm cannon which has a rate of fire of 200 rounds per min, the Scorpion's 76mm cannon only has a rate of fire 6 rounds per min. So while its cannon packs a much bigger punch, its only going to be able to fire once every 10 seconds, which should give the infantry a much bigger chance to fight back, while also making it more effective vs other vehicles and deployables.

The Falklands is also not the only place you will see the Scorpion. Back in the day when the west was friends with Iran, Britain sold 300 FV101 Scorpion CVR(T)s to Iran and many of these still operate in the Iranian Armed Forces today, with them also producing there own version of the Scorpion now. As such we have made an MEC version of the Scorpion which you will hopefully see on a few maps in v1.0. It should also be noted that it is unlikely to be used on the same map with a Scimitar on the opposite side if anyone is worried about enemy identification, but not impossible if the mapper feels it can work. Since this is the Export model of the Scorpion its had its night sight removed, only leaving a bare plate where it should be to the right of the cannon.

[sweedensniiperr]

he's not talking about adding old stuff that's being fased out. he's talking about, "if it's still in use why not use it?"

For example: vehicle X is being fased out by Y army. It is now only used in 10% of operations done by Y. PR removes that vehicle from all maps. While it could be added to 10% OF MAP LAYERS.

A good example of this is the knife that the US Army use. I recall it was only set to a single type of knife for all kits in the US army because of the diversity of knives in the army. If I recall there's 3 knives for the US army. I don't know which numbers these are being used, but if they're all being used: knife 1 10% of soldier, knife 2 10%, knife 3 80%(again, i have not clue about numbers). The US army kits would then have 10% of their with knife 1.

Another example, which again, I don't have numbers for but it's still kind of relevant is the GB army's fasing from "old scopes" to ACOG. Some of GB's kits are still using the "old scope".

People like diversity. That's why I believe people also dislike factions like, taliban, militia russia. AKs and PKMs pretty much all the time. (I'm not complaining about this one AKs are being used by everyone).

[Mikemonster]

I don't understand a lot of the 'reality' arguments put forth for not having older equipment and vehicles when we play a lot of Iraq and Afghanistan maps, based on events nearly a decade ago (gawd we're getting old).

I understand the other reasons, and I can see why you'd want to stick to a standardised date for a map (i.e. both sides' equipment is of the same era). But what's wrong with a 1995 Fools Road layer, etc etc.

Don't get me wrong, I understand all of the reasons for optimisation, not wanting to work on old things if current equipment needs doing, etc.

But the 'chronological realism' arguments don't really make much sense. Not when considered next to the allowances everyone makes to allow unlikely events such as Israel vs Russia etc (I like these things, and enjoy PR as a 'sandbox' realism game which is great).

[ShockUnitBlack]

I've always seen PR as near-future.

[pedrooo14]

The weapons used by PR factions are the weapons used today, If there is a old conflict they use the weapons they use in those times, ike PR:V or PR:F. Or we should have M14 on Falluja just because its funny?
Its a realism based mod, go to play Black Ops if you are bored.

[Eddie Baker]

The weapons used by PR factions are the weapons used today, If there is a old conflict they use the weapons they use in those times, ike PR:V or PR:F. Or we should have M14 on Falluja just because its funny?

Uh . . .





And it's still in use, today. Looks a little bit different, though.



I agree with you on the rest of it, though.

[Rhino]

We can't shove a Scorpion and an IVECO Panther on the same map side by side, ie, mixing old and new equipment, that's just totally wrong especially when trying to get across the reality aspect.

I don't understand a lot of the 'reality' arguments put forth for not having older equipment and vehicles when we play a lot of Iraq and Afghanistan maps, based on events nearly a decade ago (gawd we're getting old).

Ye it kinda sucks how we have loads of new kit that wasn't around for the last Iraq war on Al Basrah but hopefully in time we will rectify that at some point in the future

I understand the other reasons, and I can see why you'd want to stick to a standardised date for a map (i.e. both sides' equipment is of the same era). But what's wrong with a 1995 Fools Road layer, etc etc.

The big problem with basing maps in the past is that you really need to base them on historical wars/battles/events. The only time, sticking to the Scorpion example, the UK used this in any wars was in the Falklands war (which we are putting it into) and the 1st Gulf War, which so far we don't have in PR. Other than that, we can't use it within the UK forces, other than for those two wars and only really where it fits.

Sure you can go on and make up "fictional historical events" but that is very dodgy ground IMO, especially when dealing with a mod called "Project Reality".

In the future, I hope more and more we will see old kit being shown where they should be but as for the OPs suggestion of mixing old kit in with new kit on maps set in the present/"future", that just isn't going to happen.

[Mikemonster]

Agree you shouldn't mix old kit with new kit. My point was really that it doesn't affect realism if you set an imaginary battle 15 years ago, much like Basrah and Fallujiah are 8ish years ago.

I always thought it was Project Reality because it attempted to make BF2 [more] realistic. This is different from making the battles given true to life, as we all know with the things we ignore (because they aren't a big deal) in each map.

I wasn't suggesting having a 'fictional historical event' just a '1997 era' layer.

This reminds me somewhat of Falcon 4.0, where the mod evolution took so long that they had to keep adding bits of new equipment (in this case SAMs and planes). The end result is a total mish-mash of different eras worth of stuff, in different campaigns etc.

I'm not a stickler for historical representation because I believe we can get near enough and ignore the rest very well. AV8B on Falklands, etc. No problem at all. It's not a big deal.

[ShockUnitBlack]

I'm cool with the inclusion of weapons and vehicles that are just entering service, like the Puma and Lynx Wildcat.

[ComradeHX]

If one wants to complain about new equipment; give RusFed forces digital flora before complaining.

[Rhino]

Agree you shouldn't mix old kit with new kit. My point was really that it doesn't affect realism if you set an imaginary battle 15 years ago, much like Basrah and Fallujiah are 8ish years ago.

I always thought it was Project Reality because it attempted to make BF2 [more] realistic. This is different from making the battles given true to life, as we all know with the things we ignore (because they aren't a big deal) in each map.

I wasn't suggesting having a 'fictional historical event' just a '1997 era' layer.

This reminds me somewhat of Falcon 4.0, where the mod evolution took so long that they had to keep adding bits of new equipment (in this case SAMs and planes). The end result is a total mish-mash of different eras worth of stuff, in different campaigns etc.

Ye, we can go down that route of fictional historical maps, nothing tooo bad with it, but IMO, we we are doing historical stuff, we should base it on r/l events.

I'm not a stickler for historical representation because I believe we can get near enough and ignore the rest very well. AV8B on Falklands, etc. No problem at all. It's not a big deal.

Well, technically its a Harrier GR9 re-skinned to look like a Sea Harrier FRS1 and Harrier GR3 as place holders but that comes into the same category of "Place Holders", in the same way as us still using the WMIK Land Rover just because we haven't got the Jackal ingame yet.

[Mikemonster]

Well, technically its a Harrier GR9 re-skinned to look like a Sea Harrier FRS1 and Harrier GR3 as place holders but that comes into the same category of "Place Holders", in the same way as us still using the WMIK Land Rover just because we haven't got the Jackal ingame yet.

You'll have to forgive my ignorance, I just presumed the Harrier was an original model from the USMC faction - not seen it up close. Only reason I mentioned it was because it was the first thing that came to mind (having read your Falklands threads ).

The WMIK Land Rover is a good example as well, as are all the placeholders! The players play the game with what's on the map.

Some people want inch by inch realism with the correct serial numbers on planes or tanks, but PR just isn't the right arena to present that (DCS:BS is, or another actual 'sim'). And if it was exactly modelled it would take away from the arcade nature of PR, which makes it so easy to hop in and out of (which is great).

With that in mind that's why I see PR as a really cool sandbox where you can just say 'ahh f00k it lets make a map where X fights Z'. Seeing as this is so flexible, I don't see why it can't be like this with dates of battles and equipment (as mentioned we already have an 8-year leeway with the Iraq maps).

I like the mixture of equipment and toys and don't see the placeholders affecting gameplay or enjoyment at the moment (ironically the complaints seem to indicate that people are impatient for the new toy!).

This isn't addressed at you Rhino, it's just my general opinion on the contradictions that people make to the 'Reality' of PR. People all ignore different contradictions and unrealistic aspects that are present simply because we are playing a computer game. The fact that these are present allows the game to exist, but it also means everyone disagrees on lots of things. They are also the mods greatest strengths.

[Heavy Death]

OP says; You had up to par model of now phased out models, why didnt you keep them? I have been wondering that myself aswell. AR15 without grips, M239 SAW, the SUSAT scopes, the weird old british APC i cant remember the name at all and lots of other stup that has been phased out of PR because it has been phased up IRL, so all maps have been updated with up to date weaponry.

We'd like to see some maps retain their original weaponry, like current USMC get the M21 but in 1.0 were getting the 111 something suppressed rifle, and will wave goodbye to M21 on USMC maps, but thats unneeded. One or two could still retain the old loadout, so it represents PR in the past, kinda.

Downside is more files which is bigger installer.

[Rhino]

Some people want inch by inch realism with the correct serial numbers on planes or tanks, but PR just isn't the right arena to present that (DCS:BS is, or another actual 'sim'). And if it was exactly modelled it would take away from the arcade nature of PR, which makes it so easy to hop in and out of (which is great).

Ye, the reason we haven't done this in PR is the only way we can do this in the current setup would be to clone the vehicles 5mb diffuse texture and have multiple clones of the same vehicle, costing loads of ram for the client of cloned textures, and from a coders POV, a total mess to keep all the files updated.

If it was something we could have, ie, them being dynamically made from a list of text files and it picking one from it for each vehicle spawned, then that would be awesome

OP says; You had up to par model of now phased out models, why didnt you keep them? I have been wondering that myself aswell. AR15 without grips, M239 SAW, the SUSAT scopes, the weird old british APC i cant remember the name at all and lots of other stup that has been phased out of PR because it has been phased up IRL, so all maps have been updated with up to date weaponry.

As I said above:

In the future, I hope more and more we will see old kit being shown where they should be but as for the OPs suggestion of mixing old kit in with new kit on maps set in the present/"future", that just isn't going to happen.