Project Reality Forums

inb4banned wrote:If holding down a button that drastically reduces your DPI really stops the turret then you need to revert this change. This will now give a huge advantage to people with weird mice and it'll still be awkward for everybody else.

If changing DPI on the fly is really what you wanted to fight you've now made it a lot worse. While pretty much anybody could turn fast before, now only few will be able to counter acceleration.

I have one of those "weird mice" (a logitech mx518 ) and lowering the DPI doesn't change much. The only thing you can eliminate is the overtravel but the same can be achieved with a normal mouse by moving it less, which is not that hard to learn.

To be honest the old system was much easier to exploit. For example, setting the mouse to high dpi completely eliminated the slow turret speed of the BMP.

I - as a vehicle gunner whore - like the change.

So a few instances with limited exploitation of turret traverse justifies screwing up armor combat effectiveness in the entire game? It's horrible. I doubt the rare instances where DPI settings would gain a clear advantage or a tank shooting down a jet outweigh how the system was generally fine before. Never heard someone complain about it. IMO it definitely does not justify implementing a system that has such a huge unwanted side effect.

Geronimo wrote:I have one of those "weird mice" (a logitech mx518 ) and lowering the DPI doesn't change much. The only thing you can eliminate is the overtravel but the same can be achieved with a normal mouse by moving it less, which is not that hard to learn.

To be honest the old system was much easier to exploit. For example, setting the mouse to high dpi completely eliminated the slow turret speed of the BMP.

I - as a vehicle gunner whore - like the change.

MX518 doesn't have that button, ppl usually call it sniper button, you can set it in software to lower your DPI to 10% or whatever you want when you hold it down. If that does ineed immidiately stop the turret from overshooting then it's a big advantage only for specific people - not fair.

I think its fine to be slower and have a little bit of overtravel but right now the overtravel thing is too much. It should be nothing more than a couple of pixels left or right.

Why can't turret be controlled by both WASD and mouse?

Mouse for general imprecise movements(as it is now) but WASD will not have the "sliding" and adjust aim precisely, but slowly.

Seems even more realistic and is a good middleground.

Armchairman_Mao wrote:Why can't turret be controlled by both WASD and mouse?

Mouse for general imprecise movements(as it is now) but WASD will not have the "sliding" and adjust aim precisely, but slowly.

Seems even more realistic and is a good middleground.

It is not necessary, the devs are seeking a solution to the problem of inertia, which when solved will make this new system 1000x better than the old and unrealistic system.

blayas wrote:It is not necessary, the devs are seeking a solution to the problem of inertia, which when solved will make this new system 1000x better than the old and unrealistic system.

for now i think they should remove it and work internally, like they did with the choppers wheels.

Played on Saareema as a APC squad driver on us team. My gunner wasn't aware of the turrets I think but Why change it if it isn't broken?


Newer tanks and APC should not have that big of a acceleration. A squad member told me that the Abrams literally can stop on a dime.

I love driving than gunning but... it's ridiculous on how much the turret really turns.

I turned my mouse acceleration maxed out.... and I noticed to have more control of the turret. (Quicker).

Slower obviously when sensitivity is low... but a lot more precise.

Roque_THE_GAMER wrote:for now i think they should remove it and work internally, like they did with the choppers wheels.

I agree, turret traverse 'exploits' were nowhere near OP/gamebreaking enough to justify the current system. It should be temporarily removed again and only re-implemented once the turret lag/acceleration has been fixed.

I share your thoughts and concerns, please consider removing and/or adjusting the additionally added penalty.

Despite having the problem of inertia , it is still better than the old abusable 180?/ s towers.

and when the inertia is removed, and maintained only realistic speeds of rotation of the towers , will be that people will continue to complain because they can not be reckless with their vehicles simply turn their super towers ordering little teamwork?

blayas wrote:Despite having the problem of inertia , it is still better than the old abusable 180?/ s towers.

and when the inertia is removed, and maintained only realistic speeds of rotation of the towers , will be that people will continue to complain because they can not be reckless with their vehicles simply turn their super towers ordering little teamwork?

If DPI could be exploited thrust me "we" would have used it all the time. On the previous if you used High DPI you had the inertia effect and acceleration preventing you to be accurate.

This DPI abuse (wich didnt give you any real advantage) is just some lame excuses to nerf APC pls just be honest and say "APC are getting too much kills we nerfed them".

To reach 180/s traverse time you had to at least do one 360 before reaching the 180/s because of the inertia/acceleration and same before being able to stop the turret from turning. Making it completly use less in a "real combat scenario"

Message for the R-DEV : You must go back on this update. This is not realistic and it's unplayable. For example, an APC on Burning Sands won't be able to react to any infantery threat while inside the city, or if another APC come from the flank or behind.

Moreover, the momentum is way unrealistic too and has nothing in common with the real life APC's.

Finally, in reality the turret stays focused on its objective while the APC is rotating, while in PR the turret moves along ...

Wait why won't devs just make the turret rotation like how you would use the SPG-9???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was just thinking...

How about use the A D keys for turret transverse, speeds match IRL counterparts and there is balance across the board...

AND

Use the mouse for up and down movement of the gun, as it was in < 1.3.

Will this make everyone happy?

Raptor_Rico wrote:Finally, in reality the turret stays focused on its objective while the APC is rotating, while in PR the turret moves along ...

This can't be said enough. In PR with the old aiming system you're not as good off as in real life with all the stabilization/target aquisition systems and so on. Keeping it easily usable just ensures you're not completely useless.

viirusiiseli wrote:This can't be said enough. In PR with the old aiming system you're not as good off as in real life with all the stabilization/target aquisition systems and so on. Keeping it easily usable just ensures you're not completely useless.

It's actually not ``keep easily usable``, it comes to appreciate to features and realistic characteristics of each vehicle and for many other areas of the game (cof.. lat spam..cof), but they also include its limitations , starting with the towers traverse limits.

And if we think about it, many opinions are mixed and are complicated to comprender everyone's opinion , some argue realistic rotation + inertia , others only realistic rotation, and there are still those who prefer that the towers have the arcade handling ... . , and as already could see reading many reviews that most prefer as well as I that the towers have a realistic rotation and are only slightly uncomfortable with inertia , mainly because it not be something realistic!

A simple way to settle this, Lets to a vote devs!!

Great idea

so uh... here's an idea... what if we made it so non fire control vehicles have to control their turret via the wsad keys (ad-traverse, ws-pitch) while fire control vehicles allow the mouse to control turret traverse and pitch with out the sliding (although perhaps a limitation on traverse speed would be good)

This would make the non fire control vehicles (like the t-55) handle much more realistically, while more advanced vehicles (like the abrams) would have much finer aim control representing their more sophisticated systems.