Project Reality Forums

Yes they should El Vikingo. That's why I bought all hardware in parts (cheapest I could get) and put it together alone. Plus I have take max from my rig I can (overclocking and system optimazing). What I wanted to say was only that I buy new computer maybe in 2010 . What I can upgrade? Sound card and more ram only. It is on my list, but for now I have more important expenses. I'm glad what rig I have. Just telling ppl to go to shop and buy new hardware if your game will go worser then it was one version back piss me off
I say again, Im not against changes in view distance.
Cheers. Live in peace

I think view distance can be doubled on Al-basrah quite safely without it slowing down things noticeably. It would definitely be good for the cobras which currently suffer from RPG ownage if they want to hit anything accurately.

I set view distance to 10,000 (edge to edge viewing) and my framerate was still decent, so a view distance of 720 would be no problem. Also, this was with everything set to High, at 1280x1024, 4xAA and 8xAF.

'[-=IDSF=- wrote:SykloAG']I think view distance can be doubled on Al-basrah quite safely without it slowing down things noticeably. It would definitely be good for the cobras which currently suffer from RPG ownage if they want to hit anything accurately.

pff , how they can suffer ? 5 rpg launched , only one hit the cobra , and only hurt it (IRL one rpg and bye bye cobra) , they can easily back to the airport and repair

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:pff , how they can suffer ? 5 rpg launched , only one hit the cobra , and only hurt it (IRL one rpg and bye bye cobra) , they can easily back to the airport and repair

Ah, when in reality has a Cobra been hit by an RPG? IRL cobras hover far away from the hot zone, not 100m above it. Have you ever seen a Cobra or Apache operating on the battlefield? I have, and they were never vunerable to RPGs when I saw em. AAA sure, but not an RPG.

Damn, that thing just rips people apart, tears down walls - fuckin beautiful. Now I know some of you might say "thats sick!" you evil bloodthirsty *******, but destruction really is a thing of beauty when that same building was shooting at your position before.

Anyways, as things stand, cobras don't quite put the fear into insurgents as they should. Close but a longer draw distance would definitely make things better. Dont forget in RL there is also IR, heat imaging etc.

view distance would definately help the A-10 pilots acquire targets before moving into a vulnerable position (of the t-62!)

Hey [-=IDSF=-]SykloAG.. didn't know you were on the forums, great round lastnight with the A-10s on devfile al basrah!! sorry about my mic volume, nobody can ever hear me..

best squad, only us! http://screenshot.xfire.com/screenshot/ ... 8bb3b2.png
final scoreboard: http://screenshot.xfire.com/screenshot/ ... 739f0e.png

during the same round the USMC pushed the Insurgents all the way out of the 'city limits' to the palace! had to take a SS of the team moving in just before tickets ran out..
http://screenshot.xfire.com/screenshot/ ... 87bf2c.png

Heya JL, yeah that round was amazing!
Best fun I've had with an A-10! Had the Insurgents running scared!
Some great teamwork all round!
My favorite was the people with "the a10s are hacking!", "******* a10s!" LOL

See my post https://www.realitymod.com/forum/t18556 ... oting.html
- we really owe salad_shooter for his top notch work and dedication!

This thread is still up?

'[-=IDSF=- wrote:SykloAG']Ah, when in reality has a Cobra been hit by an RPG? IRL cobras hover far away from the hot zone, not 100m above it. Have you ever seen a Cobra or Apache operating on the battlefield? I have, and they were never vunerable to RPGs when I saw em. AAA sure, but not an RPG.

i hear of a lot of choopers downed by rpgs . and BTW, cobras need to be very far from a city , like 100 or 200 m (in game) and rpg need to lost altitude after 150 of 200 m , to make the system more "real".

'[-=IDSF=- wrote:SykloAG']
Anyways, as things stand, cobras don't quite put the fear into insurgents as they should. Close but a longer draw distance would definitely make things better. Dont forget in RL there is also IR, heat imaging etc.

would be cool to have litle boxes (like the ones in the bomber ) arround the vehicles (except the bikes ¬¬) before we can see them , to simulate the IR and those things that cant be doit bacouse engine limitations

People seem to forget the higher you, the harder you are to hit.


Best position:
100mtrs UP
150-200mtrs From Target.


Remember The Gunner Guns!

120 meters up
250 from target

If you have a good gunner
but i would prefer a larger view distance

Smitty4212 wrote:The attitude that those who can afford to constantly upgrade should have more say than those who can't, in regards to a modification for a game with very clear system requirements, can quite frankly go f' itself.

Sometimes this thing called 'life' can get in the way of you owning the latest and greatest in computer hardware, and it's quite annoying to hear A: 13 year old twits, who have never worked an honest day in their life but have everything paid for by their parents, and/or B: people otherwise more priviliged than most who can afford to stay on top of what's new hardware-wise, try to dictate to me what should and shouldn't go.

Paid for my computer all by myself.

I still say up the view distance on the maps by 50%, if people cant handle it they can turn the view distance down. You think its unfair? Let me once again bring up how low has an advantage right now in BF2.

wow I could only read like 9 pages of this, but no one seemed to point out the HUGE drop in frame rate between playing an empty map ran on your computer, and playing online with 64 other people.

If you can pull 60fps, you will probably only just get a playable rate on a 64 player. I know with an older setup I tested and tuned the settings on an empty server and was getting 50-80fps and could barely play in a real game.

Good point, I wouldn't mind if it was upped a bit because I like to play sniper, but you would have to do real world testing to see how it was. Also if people really suffered and had to turn down their settings, attendance on servers might drop, and the mods have a hard enough time as it is. USI and POE2 are good mods, but the popularity has slowly dwindled for those two until another release. Seems like a lot of good content and sounds will be all for nothing. Mods survive with fairly frequent releases, thats what DC and FH did for BF1942. If a mod takes many months for each release, it will die a slow death. CS for Half life had frequent updates also and was a huge success. History tells a lot I think that is why the BF2 mods have had a hard time, smaller teams with less content and less frequent updates. Sorry didn't mean to change the topic. I just enjoy PR and would like to see continued success.

Desertfox wrote:Paid for my computer all by myself.

I still say up the view distance on the maps by 50%, if people cant handle it they can turn the view distance down. You think its unfair? Let me once again bring up how low has an advantage right now in BF2.

I wasn't actually talking about you DF, 13 year old was just a stereotypical number. I don't know how old you are, or how you make your money, but the same still applies if you're 18 and don't have to pay for a thing, or get $500 every birthday. Either way, if you're 13 and paying for a computer by yourself, than obviously you have little real-world responsibilities like some other people do (car, housing, debt, life, etc.), which is why the statement that those who can afford to pay for the latest and greatest in hardware should have a greater say than those who can't is stupid.

And your second point is not valid. It's not an advantage when ANYONE can do it. It's nothing more than common sense here, DF: having low system specs and therefore using low settings is definitely NOT an 'advantage', because if you have high specs, you can still use low settings, eliminating whatever 'advantage' one can gain. The opposite is NOT true about view distances though, because only ONE side will be able to do it.

See the difference? Low settings gets you an advantage = anyone can do it. Increased view distance = only high end systems can make the most of it.

Read that again. You can't cry and complain when those people who are FORCED to use low settings would probably kill to have the hardware you guys have who can run everything using high settings.

Smitty4212 wrote:I wasn't actually talking about you DF, 13 year old was just a stereotypical number. I don't know how old you are, or how you make your money, but the same still applies if you're 18 and don't have to pay for a thing, or get $500 every birthday. Either way, if you're 13 and paying for a computer by yourself, than obviously you have little real-world responsibilities like some other people do (car, housing, debt, life, etc.), which is why the statement that those who can afford to pay for the latest and greatest in hardware should have a greater say than those who can't is stupid.

And your second point is not valid. It's not an advantage when ANYONE can do it. It's nothing more than common sense here, DF: having low system specs and therefore using low settings is definitely NOT an 'advantage', because if you have high specs, you can still use low settings, eliminating whatever 'advantage' one can gain. The opposite is NOT true about view distances though, because only ONE side will be able to do it.

See the difference? Low settings gets you an advantage = anyone can do it. Increased view distance = only high end systems can make the most of it.

Read that again. You can't cry and complain when those people who are FORCED to use low settings would probably kill to have the hardware you guys have who can run everything using high settings.

We can turn our settings down and they can also turn there view distance settings up it will just be a hit to there FPS.

Desertfox wrote:We can turn our settings down and they can also turn there view distance settings up it will just be a hit to there FPS.

Once again, you fail to see the flaw in your argument

low settings=no shadows=easy enemy spotted+no grass+no graphical lag

high settings=deep shadows blocking vision, player skins blending giving enemy camoflague, long grass hides enemy easier. Graphical lag.

One thing to consider is the development team themselves, they are all artists and they want their art to look/play as good as possible, pretty obvious the strain on a players machine will (rightly) increase.

Bring on the long view distances, if my machine can't handle it I have 2 choices, upgrade or go find another game. Either way I wouldn't expect the devs to compromise their work for me.

Desertfox wrote:We can turn our settings down and they can also turn there view distance settings up it will just be a hit to there FPS.

You'll learn, young one.

X fps = something playable, decent, etc.
Y fps = something worse

Low end system plays at X fps on low settings, Y fps on high settings.
High end system plays at X fps on low settings, X fps on high settings.

Low end system plays at Y fps with increased view, or plays at X fps on low settings.
High end system plays at X fps with increased view.

Do you see where you 'argument' is lacking? The low end system never has an advantage here, because whatever it can do (using low settings, and eliminating shadows, etc.) can be done by the higher end user if he wants, whereas whatever the higher end user can do, can't necessarily be done by the low end user. Now, don't get me wrong, I DO want an increase in view distance, however I think, for the sake of the community and by extension the future of the game, it has to be taken into account that not everyone has the hardware to support something like this, and certainly no one is going to want to play at a distinct disadvantage. Al Basrah won't be any fun to play if you can't fill up a server

You ALREADY play at a significant disadvantage. I have less FPS stutter, less load time, adjustable sensitivity mouse for flying/sniping, higher resolution to spot a target better further away, etc etc.

Stop using the 'my computer isn't as good as yours so we have to neuter the game to make it fair' bullshit because it simply wont ever be that way. Higher computers will ALWAYS have a significant advantage, period. If i can see you in game at 800m and you can only see me at 600m, who the hell cares? I'm not going to be shooting you (well I am with the sniper rifle but that's not the point) at that range and by the time we get close enough, you'd have seen me as well.

non argument me thinks and the big consideration is not the players systems but the servers themselves....the more they have to crunch distance wise the more powerful the server needs to be in theory.. i have an ubberish sysytem but i still lag in devfile when the server gets bogged down cause of my ping being in asia....i gotta live with that...no complaints here....your ping doubles you hardly motice...my ping doubles...oh ****..im pinging over 300!!