Project Reality Forums

this is a great development

$kelet0r wrote:Is this map going to be an armour heavy Iraq (MEC) vs US (Marines) desert battle over mostly flat terrain?

hehe actually .. I have to recant what I said earlier. it's not all that flat.. there's a mountain range running north south.. having done a LOT of driving and flying around on this map.. we have more work to do in terms of balancing it. the travel times between CPs are weighted heavily against one side due to the mountain range. gonna do some work on it to sort it out.

@EGG This map sounds brilliant for armour (as it should be) but will infantry have a chance of surviing and suceeding atall???

The main aspects that affect this, i think are:
- infantry armour ratio
- number of infantry transport vehicles (jeeps/APCs)
- infantry cover, namely: ditches, trees, rugged terrain
Therefore can you comment on any of them, in relation to this map??

will the heavy +light at numbers be increased for this map?


i ask because hitting a tank with a rocket from 800m is a hell of a lot harder then a tank killing some infantry at 800m.

therefore will the anti vehicle classes be increased in numbers specifically for this map?

Lucid Nightmare wrote:Some prefer solo tanking. Especially when there is nothing to choose from except green gunners. I often annihilate many multicrew tankers while going solo.

Exaclty, better off alone than in bad company.

awesome, its time to get the landrovers out and do some SAS stuff

how about grass, does it draw grass too? its going to be stupid if it doesn't. infantry trying to hide in grass, while sniper shoots them from distance where he won't see grass.

but, anyways.. GREAT JOB!

Sniper rifle does render the grass while zoomed in doesn't it?

no

El_Vikingo wrote:Exaclty, better off alone than in bad company.

Except when a dumbass takes off alone when there's good company.

Very nice I know every one will be looking forward to this.

NavalLord wrote:I'm not upgrading because I don't want to spend $1000 on something I'm only going to use for a few more months. I'll stick with my crappy settings and horrible frame rates. It adds a touch of realism, that realism is doing every drug known to man while trying to fight a war

I went 3 months without playing PR until I built a new PC when my desktop was having graphics card issues last year (the original ATI AIW 9700 Pro graphics card died, then a ATI Radeon 9700 Pro replacement I brought off ebay died, then I was having problems with a Radeon 7500 replacement that I brought simply to make my PC usable when simply using Windows).

If you are going to build a new PC in a few months, then deal with your problems until you build it. Some of us would rather not hear about how you have will have to "suffer" for a few months when some of us had far more severe situations.

'[R-DEV wrote:eggman']frame rate / time in milliseconds between frames

Eggman, how do you get that to work in PR? I was able to use it when I played Vanilla Battefield 2, but considering that you removed the command console, I have no way of activating it.

Shining Arcanine wrote:I went 3 months without playing PR until I built a new PC when my desktop was having graphics card issues last year (the original ATI AIW 9700 Pro graphics card died, then a ATI Radeon 9700 Pro replacement I brought off ebay died, then I was having problems with a Radeon 7500 replacement that I brought simply to make my PC usable when simply using Windows).

If you are going to build a new PC in a few months, then deal with your problems until you build it. Some of us would rather not hear about how you have will have to "suffer" for a few months when some of us had far more severe situations.



Eggman, how do you get that to work in PR? I was able to use it when I played Vanilla Battefield 2, but considering that you removed the command console, I have no way of activating it.

The command console is still there, press #

Cool. Is there anyway to make the frame rates show up without having to type them in every game?

quick question

this map , with the same FOV of basrah , with the same amount of statics , will be more laggy than albasrah ?

there are very few statics on the map and thats intentional to enable longer engagement ranges and a large map size.

obviously a map with the same static density as Basrah but 4 times the size would have greater system requirements than Basrah.

I hope this map plays well on a variety of system specs as it's very light on statics .. mostly terrain. We're adding in a little bit more stuff (bit more statics, some trees and some decorative grass) and will see how it affects frame rates.

Basra has a lot of Statics, like I notice today, a stack of tires. now there was prob 2-3 of those stacks, time by 4 is 12 tire stacks, each stack is 5 tires (i think individual tires). Thats 60 tires on 4x map!

Are we going to be able to deploy smoke screens from our Tanks? I'm not talking about the Smoke Grenades, but the ability of the Abrams to lay down a trail of smoke behind it cover other tanks and obscure vision. Just make a really beefed up version of the current dust trails or something.

Teek wrote:Basra has a lot of Statics, like I notice today, a stack of tires. now there was prob 2-3 of those stacks, time by 4 is 12 tire stacks, each stack is 5 tires (i think individual tires). Thats 60 tires on 4x map!

no thats a seperate static called 'tyrestack' hehe.

***********
This is something to be very excited about, egg and others have done alot of work to make this a reality but it will very fun

this is a quick show, but it has changed and looks much better now:

ooo that looks good