Project Reality Forums

ma21212 wrote:Hey at least u got somethng ...thats not a ...weapon...i mean arabs got...a dagger....(but then again everything on the table can be used as a weapon...*imagines crazed commander attacking with a baseball bat*)

Its a scimitar, not a dagger

Tim270 wrote:Viking is not possible with the engine (having two parts linked together) and I doubt the mastiff is modeled anywhere. The vehicle has its role now though, in the base actually being used by the command.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:As Tim mentioned the Viking is not possible to do with the BF2 engine.

The Sultan is a dedicated ACV vehicle so it can't be used as an APC, although there is anouther CVR(T) much like the Sultan that is an APC though its much lower and not used much these days.

No Mastiff currently modelled and no plans to make one any time soon, and there are a few Warriors in Afghanistan currently afaik.

You didn't get the key word... signify. At the moment, Sangin would have Warriors roaming its plains but if you made this Sultan a real object APC McThingamybob which could Carry Personnel Armoredly then it would more accurately signify the transport troops are using in the stan at the moment.

ie. this would be a good placeholder to signify the Viking or Mastiff until models are made.

That's a welcome change, but I can't see having these ACVs as the appropriate commander vehicle in all maps. The USMC commander would be kind of silly if he'd insist on having an ACV on the deck.

sorry for the translation: automatic translation google

Well Well I understand your position, the more I have nothing to say, apparently we are communicating on different cultural level, what can I do to you.
I am sorry that there are so many of chauvinism and prejudice against my nation.

thanks

I am doing field training in idf reserve and work in command post, the way we place it alittle diferent : we put two m113 acvs side by side with about 10 meters between them and cover them with material and camuflage net

in the German army its done With 4 M113 and a lots of laptops and of course those US plastictents where no tape sticks

i have solved 9month in a CommandPost Company of the Panzerbrigade Oberpfalz
i will try to get some good pics for the german version of the M113

That's a welcome change, but I can't see having these ACVs as the appropriate commander vehicle in all maps. The USMC commander would be kind of silly if he'd insist on having an ACV on the deck.

We did discuss all of these things, and you have to decide whether you make a full command setup of vehicles, in many cases far more than 4 vehicles and masses of radio kit. The amount of work involved would make it a rediculous task, and at the end of the day, these ACV's in game are aesthetic, as we didnt like the old trailor.

Coupled with this, there are dozens of different command vehicles used by every nation, so which do you use? Do you make a new model for every faction, or do you use a bit of common sense and modify what you already have?

it would take alot of work and it has already been answered soz and thanks

btw any hope of when you can tell me about when the 0.9 is coming out?

superhunty123 wrote:You didn't get the key word... signify. At the moment, Sangin would have Warriors roaming its plains but if you made this Sultan a real object APC McThingamybob which could Carry Personnel Armoredly then it would more accurately signify the transport troops are using in the stan at the moment.

ie. this would be a good placeholder to signify the Viking or Mastiff until models are made.

We dont plan to have any APCs on Sangin currently, we may put a warrior or 2 on one layer but that's about it. most of the transport will be done via air transport like in r/l.

Int wrote:sorry for the translation: automatic translation google

Well Well I understand your position, the more I have nothing to say, apparently we are communicating on different cultural level, what can I do to you.
I am sorry that there are so many of chauvinism and prejudice against my nation.

thanks

dude you simply still dont get it do you... I'm just going to give up trying to explain it to you.

godofurmum2 wrote:so will you guys be opening up the apc at the back. with the interior showing or is that to much work? i don't mean that disrespectivly

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino;1176761']ye, like MD said its far too much work for very little gain and most people will soon realize that tent+vehicle = non-drivable vehicle as its a command post. If it was just the vehicle on its own I would agree with you.

I mean this is what the inside of the Sultan looks like, would take ages to model all of this, then doing it for each vehicle mehh

Int wrote:sorry for the translation: automatic translation google

Well Well I understand your position, the more I have nothing to say, apparently we are communicating on different cultural level, what can I do to you.
I am sorry that there are so many of chauvinism and prejudice against my nation.

thanks

It's just a stupid bottle anyways, get over it. 99% of the people won't see the damn thing anyways.

Int wrote:sorry for the translation: automatic translation google

Well Well I understand your position, the more I have nothing to say, apparently we are communicating on different cultural level, what can I do to you.
I am sorry that there are so many of chauvinism and prejudice against my nation.

thanks

You've made 4 posts, and from what I've seen all 4 of them are in this topic talking about this one little thing. As mentioned, it's all a bit of fun, the football has manchester united on it, I'm a liverpool fan, it dosen't bother me. I doubt all Americans like Baseball or read Playboy, I doubt that all Chinese have a buddha. In the end, it is purely something there to take some seriousness away from it and instead of it being as close to a hardcore simulator as possible with the engine, it's still just a game, with the occasional random easter egg.
Please don't take offence from one thing, if the DEV's were to remove everything in the game which migh possibly be taken as a stereotype then I get the feeling that voices and so-on would need to be removed aswell.

Now that thats out of my system, sorry for going off topic but I don't want people to feel offended by something that wasn't meant to offend, even if it isn't my doing.

I really like these, I think it'll add something to each base, rather than the same thing for each faction, they will have something original to show that that base is theirs (minus the vehicles, the soldiers and basically everything else).

Hmmmm, those are some pretty nifty models you got there. I like the various apparatus and faction specific clutter.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:and ye the commander is in a slightly venerable positions, but still him being in the main base will make it hard for any one to shoot him.

I like what was done to spiff everything up, but I feel somewhat skeptical if the Commander is now capable of being killed while he's performing his job. The Commander has a far more time consuming and complicated role as is already. (Assuming that multiple squads are actually engaging in strategic communication as intended. It can become hectic over communications at times.)

Additionally it makes me wonder where some of the Armoured Command Vehicles will be placed now. I suppose it'll seem silly to have an LAV-25 sitting on top of the U.S.S. Essex for those amphibious based maps like "Operation Barracuda", "Muttrah City" and "Jabal Al Burj".

So what accommodations will be made for the Commander so that the implementation of the ACV is in a practical manner?

• Will Commanders be able to just mount thier ACV after spawning at the main base?
• Will Commanders be forced to ride along in transportation to a destination in order to get into his ACV due to the layout of geographical and natural water barriers?
• Or will the USMC be the only faction to keep the standard BF2 UAV Trailer/Command Post while operating from the U.S.S. Essex only?

Hi. Remove the tower with the command post, add an antenna, please.

M.Warren wrote:Hmmmm, those are some pretty nifty models you got there. I like the various apparatus and faction specific clutter.



I like what was done to spiff everything up, but I feel somewhat skeptical if the Commander is now capable of being killed while he's performing his job. The Commander has a far more time consuming and complicated role as is already. (Assuming that multiple squads are actually engaging in strategic communication as intended. It can become hectic over communications at times.)

Additionally it makes me wonder where some of the Armoured Command Vehicles will be placed now. I suppose it'll seem silly to have an LAV-25 sitting on top of the U.S.S. Essex for those amphibious based maps like "Operation Barracuda", "Muttrah City" and "Jabal Al Burj".

So what accommodations will be made for the Commander so that the implementation of the ACV is in a practical manner?

• Will Commanders be able to just mount thier ACV after spawning at the main base?
• Will Commanders be forced to ride along in transportation to a destination in order to get into his ACV due to the layout of geographical and natural water barriers?
• Or will the USMC be the only faction to keep the standard BF2 UAV Trailer/Command Post while operating from the U.S.S. Essex only?

The commander is going to be no more vulnerable in this new ACV than he was in the vBF2 UAV trailer, depending on where it is placed in the main base mind you since the old vBF2 trailer could be blown up etc. The main reason it hardly ever happens is that most servers dont allow base raping. Same rules will apply here. Snipers may have a little more likelihood of being able to shoot out the commander now but to get a clear shot will be hard or impossible depending on the map and where and how the ACV is placed.

and for amphibious assault maps we will most likley be keeping the UAV trailer, for now

eeMole wrote:Hi. Remove the tower with the command post, add an antenna, please.

what tower?

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote: what tower?

seeing he mentioned antennas, i think he means the turret with MGs/cannons
btr-60 pu

ye, like I mentioned in the first place, current BTR-60 is a place holder for the BTR-60PU

nice!!!
+1 for replease BTR60 on BTR60PU

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:
and for amphibious assault maps we will most likley be keeping the UAV trailer, for now

just have a cabin!

Sweet, the Canadian LAV-3 is lookin' good! Ya need to add a hockey stick in there now.

No magazine, please. Its way TOO ridiculous.

Animal.Mother wrote:just have a cabin!

you could be the cabin boy!

your name wouldn't be shag by any chance?

Congratulations, even though they were pretty static, perhaps in future they can not move around the map and maybe not arise a new version of game hunting COMANDS posts