Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Spectrium · Post by **Spectrium** » 2014-10-10 21:07

I bet so many guy asked you this question but it's really hard to find in threads. ( for me

)

Question: What prevents you to add a bit more realistic trajectory to the game at least for armored units? Are there technical reasons or you just don't want to do it?

And Sorry if this is 1000th time you got asked about.

Raphavenger · Post by **Raphavenger** » 2014-10-11 20:32

Spectrium wrote:I bet so many guy asked you this question but it's really hard to find in threads. ( for me )

Question: What prevents you to add a bit more realistic trajectory to the game at least for armored units? Are there technical reasons or you just don't want to do it?

And Sorry if this is 1000th time you got asked about.

Depends on what you mean with ''realistic trajectory''.

I am not a dev, but everyone knows that the refractor 2 engine of bf2 is very old and has a lot of limitations. For example you can't put more than 8 people or so in a vehicle.

As you are talking about armored units I can't really see were you see a lack of realism, maybe be a bit more precise?

You should also not forget that the game play is designed to be realistic yet fun.
A military simulation however is generally far from fun.

Spectrium · Post by **Spectrium** » 2014-10-11 21:48

Trajectory i.e simply bullet drop.

Source of my hope is most of the armors' secondary mg trajectory, rpg protectile mechanics, smaw spotting tracer drops, wookie sniper mod mechanics etc. (So it brings me hope that it may exist in game. Even there is possibility for zeroing on iron sights) But that's why i am asking for the devs why they are not bringing it into the game technical or just it preffered so? I am talking that's possible, I'm just hoping.

Most of armored units sending their protectiles like lazer beams. This what i see as lack of realism. Also bringing bullet drop to infantry and armored units will rasp the arcade side of project reality into more intense firefights at especially mid and long ranges and different strategies. Which will bring more fun to the game than now. Because project reality's different strategy and tactics bring fun to the players.

Btw it's just a question. Not suggestion

Post by **Spec** » 2014-10-12 09:29

It might be the tracer problem, which results in tracers dropping way short of other bullets. Make the trajectory realistic for regular bullets, and the tracers will be nowhere near them. Make it realistic for tracers, and regular bullets end up being laser-like.

At least it's like that for small arms. It might be the same for vehicles.

Vehicles that only fire one type of ammunition - like grenades - tend to have more realistic values for that reason.

Spectrium · Post by **Spectrium** » 2014-10-12 11:51

That's really sad news. Because it would be nice to have such feature in a mod like project reality. It would change whole gameplay and appearance of the mod. I hope you will be find a way to make it work one day.

Post by **Rhino** » 2014-10-12 12:06

On top of the issues Spec had mentioned, there is also the issue that pretty much all modern MBTs have firing control systems where all the gunner needs to do is lase the target for a second to get its range etc and then the turret is elevated for the correct range in a split second, something we can't simulate in PR and making players have to guess how much they need to lob the projectile, or even a sort or ranger HUD would be more unrealistic than the pointing and shooting we have now, especially for the ranges tanks should over in PR.

Spectrium · Post by **Spectrium** » 2014-10-12 12:34

Deviation in project reality shows me only one truth about the mod. The mod is not about physical simulation but more based on slow paced teamwork gameplay. So why i am asking for trajectories both armor and infantry is not just for getting fun from that but also slow down assets in same mentality as deviation in rifles. At least armored units may have 1 or 2 second deviation after moving thier turrets. But nevermind I asked for trajectory and i got what I want. Thanks for the answers

matty1053 · Post by **matty1053** » 2014-10-13 16:05

Are you guys still working on features for PR:BF2?

Post by **Rudd** » 2014-10-13 16:08

matty1053 wrote:Are you guys still working on features for PR:BF2?

the PRBF2 team never stops tinkering, although tbh BF2 can only go so far, after so many years its harder to find stuff that we can mess with

Darman1138 · Post by **Darman1138** » 2014-10-13 20:57

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:the PRBF2 team never stops tinkering, although tbh BF2 can only go so far, after so many years its harder to find stuff that we can mess with

PR: Star Wars

CoLdFiRe88 · Post by **CoLdFiRe88** » 2014-10-14 13:41

Any plans for new factions? ISIS vs MEC maybe? or even better a Peshmerga force.

ElshanF · Post by **ElshanF** » 2014-10-14 13:58

How close are we from seeing the Falklands back in?

Post by **Rhino** » 2014-10-14 15:15

ElshanF wrote:How close are we from seeing the Falklands back in?

Still some work to do but sometime "Soon (TM)"

IWI-GALIL.556FA · Post by **IWI-GALIL.556FA** » 2014-10-14 15:41

LOL at the trademark

Post by **Mineral** » 2014-10-14 16:08

We share the TM with blizzard and Valve

We got full license on patient bear though.

matty1053 · Post by **matty1053** » 2014-10-15 01:02

CoLdFiRe88 wrote:Any plans for new factions? ISIS vs MEC maybe? or even better a Peshmerga force.

I think ISIS, if was a faction... would be very similar to the Syrian Rebels... just maybe new geometries and such

Post by **Rudd** » 2014-10-15 02:23

CoLdFiRe88 wrote:Any plans for new factions? ISIS vs MEC maybe? or even better a Peshmerga force.

I'd doubt it tbh, the mod is huge filesizewise already, I think the syrian stuff and insurgent stuff covers the kind of warfare out there atm. I remember the days we stuck to generic teamnames, really that might well have been more efficient than creating lots of separate teams; but retrospect is a cruel mistress.

fatalsushi83 · Post by **fatalsushi83** » 2014-10-15 05:27

OK, since there was a question about Falklands and Rhino kindly answered, I'll ask the other question everyone wants to know the answer to. How close is to completion is Normandy?

Post by **Arc_Shielder** » 2014-10-15 12:37

fatalsushi83 wrote:OK, since there was a question about Falklands and Rhino kindly answered, I'll ask the other question everyone wants to know the answer to. How close is to completion is Normandy?

I know you guys listen to this way too often but you will just have to be patient. I am simplifying the plans more and more as days go by. It will also depend of the time available for the team to work on their projects.

It is unclear for me to say what exactly will be in it and when. For that reason I am not going to create expectations.

We will gather a few bits and show a mini-update shortly.

fatalsushi83 · Post by **fatalsushi83** » 2014-10-16 04:00

I guess the answer is "longer than 'Soon (TM)'"

A fellow player was telling me yesterday that he's been having withdrawal symptoms and downloaded a pre-1.0 version to try to alleviate them. Anyway, really looking forward to it!

Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2

Re: Ask the [DEV]s a (?) - Part 2