stabilizers on abrams?

[ralfidude]

Not sure if its possible with the bf2 engine but the abrams is known very well for its main cannon stabilizers enabling it to shoot flawlessly while moving. Any way of incorporating that in PR?

[Jaymz]

Most tanks are and BF2 is very limited in that regard.

[Hotrod525]

No its impossible whit BF2, and it was already suggested so use SEARCH next time before ask for something

[BloodBane611]

Excellent job checking on this before hand. Way to go.

Seriously people, use the search function, it keeps this forum clear of random unnecessary threads.

[Xander[nl]]

Someone suggested using some sort of aimbot as stabalizer once. I thought it was a good idea, dunno if it could work.

[gazzthompson]

;578791']Someone suggested using some sort of aimbot as stabalizer once. I thought it was a good idea, dunno if it could work.

yea!!! then we could give all infantry wall hacks aswell?? ive heard of punk buster ?

[jerkzilla]

No its impossible whit BF2, and it was already suggested so use SEARCH next time before ask for something

Try using the 50. cal on the Land Rover while someone is driving it around.

[Xander[nl]]

yea!!! then we could give all infantry wall hacks aswell?? ive heard of punk buster ?

Uh, and what exactly is the link between using some sort of aimbot to simulate what a stabalizer would do IRL, and giving infantry wall hacks?

Don't get me wrong, I feel no need for using 1337 hax, if even possible, as a solution. I'm just referring to an earlier made suggestion.

[$kelet0r]

Try using the 50. cal on the Land Rover while someone is driving it around.

It's weird that it works so well on the rover - and then can't be transferred elsewhere. I had hoped that the Challenger being PR's own would have yielded a stabilised turret but no dice

[jerkzilla]

It's weird that it works so well on the rover - and then can't be transferred elsewhere. I had hoped that the Challenger being PR's own would have yielded a stabilised turret but no dice

Thing is, it's not completely stabilized, other such turrets behave similarly but not nearly as dramatic. Must be something fishy with it as the DEVs wrote very very little of it, on the public forum at least. Then again if the Challenger had it, it would have an unfair advantage over whatever tank confronted it.

[Jaymz]

If it were to come in, I'm sure we'd make each tanks stabilization unique in terms of relative realism. Just like the Optics on each piece of armor, the magnification levels on all of the gunners optics are different because we based them on real world info.

But my point still stands, stabilization is very tricky to do. Just ask MJ, him and I tried it out during 0.7 development.

[mammikoura]

;578813']Uh, and what exactly is the link between using some sort of aimbot to simulate what a stabalizer would do IRL, and giving infantry wall hacks?

the link between those 2 things is that if you ask mr punkbuster he is most likely going to ban you for both.

[Dunehunter]

Only if it's some out-off-game workaround, not if it's actually coded into PR.

[Wasteland]

Not necessarily dune. We can't implement TrackIR because Punkbuster will recognize it as a hack, even if it's integrated into PR.

[Dunehunter]

Bah, you proving me wrong seems to be becoming a habit Nevermind me then, sorry.

[kilroy0097]

Actually there is a solution for this already in the game I believe. I may be wrong. It would require a little inventive programing. Let me explain.

There is a lock system in the game for AA missiles. That lock obviously works for AA missiles to steer them towards a target. It tracks the entire time. If the vector of the missile exceeds a certain degree then it ceases to track and continues in a straight line from previous trajectory.

If such a tracking ability exists for missiles then it may be possible to have the gunner on a tank choose a target and then track automatically with the turret and gun elevation. Given the degree in error of the missile tracking the target a certain degree of error can be given to the tank turret aiming reticle as well. Meaning that it would keep the target in a certain box for tracking purposes but it would not fine tune the aiming. That would still have to be done by the player. However once targeted the turret would at least keep the aiming in the vicinity of the tank. If done in this way much like flares work to remove lock from missiles the smoke deployment could act in the same way removing target lock from the tank. At which point the player would have to re-initiate target lock and aiming procedure.

With the degree of error this would not be a hack or an aimbot type of situation. There is still error involved. Player skill is still needed. What is unneeded is the physical requirement to continuously track the target on the move.

This solution, if at all possible, may translate to more realism without compromising the need for player skill as well.

[101 bassdrive]

sounds cool, I have no idea if its somehow realistic, but Id like that.

[Outlawz7]

Sounds like, that gunners would just "lock-on" to another vehicle and the tank would automatically track it and fire, destroying it. Which makes armor even more over-powered as the gunner isn't required any sort of skill to shoot.

[nedlands1]

Actually there is a solution for this already in the game I believe. I may be wrong. It would require a little inventive programing. Let me explain.

There is a lock system in the game for AA missiles. That lock obviously works for AA missiles to steer them towards a target. It tracks the entire time. If the vector of the missile exceeds a certain degree then it ceases to track and continues in a straight line from previous trajectory.

If such a tracking ability exists for missiles then it may be possible to have the gunner on a tank choose a target and then track automatically with the turret and gun elevation. Given the degree in error of the missile tracking the target a certain degree of error can be given to the tank turret aiming reticle as well. Meaning that it would keep the target in a certain box for tracking purposes but it would not fine tune the aiming. That would still have to be done by the player. However once targeted the turret would at least keep the aiming in the vicinity of the tank. If done in this way much like flares work to remove lock from missiles the smoke deployment could act in the same way removing target lock from the tank. At which point the player would have to re-initiate target lock and aiming procedure.

Very interesting. So you could have an invisible laser target box which you shoot out onto a target (eg the ground or a tank) which sticks (not unlike the attack helicopter laser guided missile ones). The turret would follow this until you hit a kill switch to reset it. A minor problem I see with this is that you can't lead targets when locked unless you still have some control over the barrel with your mouse.

EDIT: read that bit pertaining to fine tuning your aim

[markonymous]

;578791']Someone suggested using some sort of aimbot as stabalizer once. I thought it was a good idea, dunno if it could work.

that would be me and i talked further with some guys who know this stuff they said it should be possible but it should also be possible to increase the stabilization. and also move the code from the abrams to the attack helis.

i also like the above stated idea.