Project Reality Forums

GRAV wrote:It would be good to good to see a map with the british army on a city map and a map set in the afgan mountains and caves would be good i think.

The British forces aren't completed yet, and thus there are not so many maps with them. More are to come, however, and eventually they will take over Al Basrah.

on another note concerning British...I hope they are being developed further, as I am not happy with their current modeling. You did much better with the Insurgents.

erm....... insurgents are modeled by DICE not the pr team , we all know that pr cant do that aamount of job (j/k )

modeling people is harder than you think. In fact its a nightmare for an average modeler.

I think the Brits in PR are okay, and they'll be improved on a later date.

I'm still quite new to PR, but simply loves the game- I love what the devs have aimed for, and to a great extend accomblished.

However, knowing that it has been discussed before, I have some input to chopper flying...

I did some year ago try a one hour instructor flight in a heli. Of course it wasn't an apache - but in general choppers are unstable, some do have hoover help, but in general the pilot can never let go of the controls, or the chopper will crash.

My point with this is that even in an apache, the pilot is basically just a bus driver for the gunner, with no controls of the weapon systems at all - I think this would be a really cool change in PR, and it would force the apache pilots to concentrate on helping the gunner to be successfull.

Another point of the helis is that their physics change, with their ground speed. When moving forward, the entire rotor acts like a wing, and the chopper get a move plane-like responsiveness, when hoovering, the heli has to be kept in balance, with feather-like adjustments to the controls. Another thing is that the rotation of the roter as to be countered by the pedals, and when hoovering closer to the ground, the rear rotor force required to keep the chopper heading stable have to be increased. vBF2, and BFV both introduced a vanilla-approach to chopper flying, which isn't very realistic, and even worse made chopper flying a no brainer, everyone, even without a joystick/pad had to be able to be the hot-shot rambo-style chopper pilot he wanted. I would love the chopper physics to be remade!


My two cents


/Uffe

Uffe wrote:I'm still quite new to PR, but simply loves the game- I love what the devs have aimed for, and to a great extend accomblished.

However, knowing that it has been discussed before, I have some input to chopper flying...

I did some year ago try a one hour instructor flight in a heli. Of course it wasn't an apache - but in general choppers are unstable, some do have hoover help, but in general the pilot can never let go of the controls, or the chopper will crash.

My point with this is that even in an apache, the pilot is basically just a bus driver for the gunner, with no controls of the weapon systems at all - I think this would be a really cool change in PR, and it would force the apache pilots to concentrate on helping the gunner to be successfull.

Another point of the helis is that their physics change, with their ground speed. When moving forward, the entire rotor acts like a wing, and the chopper get a move plane-like responsiveness, when hoovering, the heli has to be kept in balance, with feather-like adjustments to the controls. Another thing is that the rotation of the roter as to be countered by the pedals, and when hoovering closer to the ground, the rear rotor force required to keep the chopper heading stable have to be increased. vBF2, and BFV both introduced a vanilla-approach to chopper flying, which isn't very realistic, and even worse made chopper flying a no brainer, everyone, even without a joystick/pad had to be able to be the hot-shot rambo-style chopper pilot he wanted. I would love the chopper physics to be remade!


My two cents


/Uffe

Yep, known issue. Loads of threads suggesting various changes to choppers. We'll just have to wait and see what the Devs make of it. Good post, though, seems thought-trough and you seem to know your business (unlike many others).

Oh, and welcome to the forums!

Hope these haven't been suggested already but sorry it'll take me weeks to read through all suggestions.

OK.....What about a realistic fatigue system? eg. at the start of a round your are full of energy and as you progress through the round you get more and more tired depending on how much action you see and how much you run around during the round.
This would encourage using vehicles wisely, more tactics and formations as you move around the map IMO.
eg. squads wouldn't just run to the next flag to cap it, they would pull back to their vehicle that they stashed before they entered a potential battle zone.
Or they would walk to the next flag in formation, covering each other on the way and they might get a spotter to move to a high location to check out their intended path.
(the existing fatigue bar/system could be used,[the one that depletes when you run] just mod'd to decrese and increase a lot slower? Or maybe not increase at all)

And....How about placing mines under the ground so they would not be visible to tanks and vehicles? Obviously you couldn't put them under sealed roads just dirt and grass.

This would maybe open up the opportunity to have a mine sweeper/clearer class.(or not)

WHAT DO YOU THINK DEV'S ???????

jmull wrote:Hope these haven't been suggested already but sorry it'll take me weeks to read through all suggestions.

OK.....What about a realistic fatigue system? eg. at the start of a round your are full of energy and as you progress through the round you get more and more tired depending on how much action you see and how much you run around during the round.
This would encourage using vehicles wisely, more tactics and formations as you move around the map IMO.
eg. squads wouldn't just run to the next flag to cap it, they would pull back to their vehicle that they stashed before they entered a potential battle zone.
Or they would walk to the next flag in formation, covering each other on the way and they might get a spotter to move to a high location to check out their intended path.
(the existing fatigue bar/system could be used,[the one that depletes when you run] just mod'd to decrese and increase a lot slower? Or maybe not increase at all)

And....How about placing mines under the ground so they would not be visible to tanks and vehicles? Obviously you couldn't put them under sealed roads just dirt and grass.

This would maybe open up the opportunity to have a mine sweeper/clearer class.(or not)

WHAT DO YOU THINK DEV'S ???????

I think something along the lines of the fatigue system has been suggested, but I'm not quite sure. Anyway, it probably wouldn't really bring much to PR in terms of gameplay, with people dying and respawning.

The "hiding mines" bit has been suggested before. Yes, they should be hidden better. But, hey, look at it this way: they can be used to lure vehicles straight into your ambush.

- The ability for the air sentry in the tanks to go hatches down to crew command.
- The option for players to have ironsights when their class spawns them with scopes. Scopes suck for CQB, and shooting from the hip is just a bad go.
- A command icon for Position of Observation. (I enjoy directing arty for the commander with binos) Thus if the commander were to give me an order of that nature with and icon (say and eye or something) I think it would add to the game.
- And on that note, the squad leader that calls in the fire mission should get some credit. If not kills teamwork points of some kind.
- The ability to deploy claymores with tripwires.
- Trip flares. (useful for establishing a defense.

- And now my most contestable idea I'm sure, but I think I'll suggest it anyways. Several ideas have I've read about here have been shot down as they are not plausible with current manpower restrictions. In comes my suggestion. Could we free up some players from the more menial defensive tasks with bots? They would be employed sparingly, and only in static positions such as guard towers at main bases. "North VCP" in "Al Basrah" comes to mind. They could man emplaced weapons at bases, or simply have a rifle and binos. With a little effort perhaps they could be coded to spot enemies within a certain (reasonable) radius. Deployment could be handled with some scripted para drop after a server side scaleable period such as 5 minutes of inactivity at a flag.

The mix of Human and AI players was handled quite well to my enjoyment in Operation Flashpoint: Resistences, Capture the Island (CTI) scenarios. I don't know if this is possible w/ BF but it's certainly worth exploring. I hope this is not another issue of EA hardcoding something, like the VOIP.

Forseen critical points:

Positive: Would free up human players from menial defense tasks while still offering attacking or special ops players degree of challange and realism, rather than sprinting to a known unoccupied position.

Negative: May not be possible due to "hardcoding."


Please discuss

Going down into tanks: has been suggested before. Tanks will be reviewed at a later date, so let's wait and see

Ironsight option: That would require two models of every gun with a scope, meaning a lot of work. Also, how should we be able to select them? Using the unlocks system? We don't have access to that. And really, it's no big deal. It's not like you have a huge-*** zoom on the scopes.

OP (observation post) icon: Love the idea. Don't know whether it can be done, though.

Points for calling in fire missions: Points don't matter in PR, thus there's no point in that.

Clays with trip wires: Were removed for a reason: excessive TKing and whoring. If it wasn't for the inbred n00biness of a lot of players, I'd love to see them return.

Trip flares: Love the idea. Would be great for ambushes. Really lets your team know where there's enemies.

Bots: I think it's possible, but would probably create lag hell.



A very good first post, I must say. Welcome to the forums, my good man!

trip flares would be super awesome

super balance twixt trip clays and not trip clays

can you imagine in lMao Valley if it was a little darker, the americans waiting for an inevitable counterattack, the engineer stroking his claymore clacker, the guy on the gun emplacement jittery as hell as the front man of the first squad steps over it, sees a huge red flash and then all hell breaks loose...

It'd be awesome.

i would like to be able to lean up againts a wall and peek around the corner

Impossible in the BF2 engine, unfortunately.

I noticed you guys are adding UH-1Y venoms on the Wiki Site. I want to say thats one of the best and most psyching ideas.
However, I noticed it was under the transport Helis.

I wonder if it'd be possible to attach rocket pods and/or m240Ds on the racks above the Huey skids. This and having door mounted m240s for crewmembers to operate. This would be the gun ship version, but it could have room for 4 passengers (The UH-1Ys have increased capacity as well as speed and maneuverability).
So granted, you could have a transport UH-1Y Venom, and a Gunship version. The GunShip will encourage team work and squads because it'll have room for several people. All people operating the guns need to be in the same squad/pilot & crew kits.

Or, if this sounds unbalanced, just have the Venom with rockets and door mounted m240s or just rockets.

If you could implement that, that'd be awesome!
Thanks, and keep up the kickass work!

oooh nice can't wait:



Don't even start about the fast roping

Teh_Mac wrote:I noticed you guys are adding UH-1Y venoms on the Wiki Site. I want to say thats one of the best and most psyching ideas.
However, I noticed it was under the transport Helis.

I wonder if it'd be possible to attach rocket pods and/or m240Ds on the racks above the Huey skids. This and having door mounted m240s for crewmembers to operate. This would be the gun ship version, but it could have room for 4 passengers (The UH-1Ys have increased capacity as well as speed and maneuverability).
So granted, you could have a transport UH-1Y Venom, and a Gunship version. The GunShip will encourage team work and squads because it'll have room for several people. All people operating the guns need to be in the same squad/pilot & crew kits.

Or, if this sounds unbalanced, just have the Venom with rockets and door mounted m240s or just rockets.

If you could implement that, that'd be awesome!
Thanks, and keep up the kickass work!

Definitely realistic, yes. Neat? Yes. Needed? Not really. They already have the AH-1Z gunship, and thus the UH-1Y is unnecessary. IMO, it's probably just as good to keep it as a transport. Also, the "slick" version looks much hotter.

it would be kool to see this on a carrier map, say, to replace the Little bird and just have that, the BlackHawk and the Cobra
and the little bird would be for land based maps?

overall it would be kool to have 2 different air fleets
Naval: Huey, Blackhawk (naval skin), Cobra
Land: Blackhawk (army skin), Lil bird, apache (perhaps?)

just to add a little variety to the air fleet

Actually, the LB would be for Special Operations oriented maps, as SF are the ones that use it.

KP wrote:Definitely realistic, yes. Neat? Yes. Needed? Not really. They already have the AH-1Z gunship, and thus the UH-1Y is unnecessary. IMO, it's probably just as good to keep it as a transport. Also, the "slick" version looks much hotter.

Well in that case, can you please please consider for a future update, small rocket pods on the wings, and m240s door mounted??

That way, it'd be a transport, but it'd have support from the rockets, and it could be a good ground support, as most Hueys (even slicks) are once they've dumped their crew.
Please reconsider.
Thanks.

Also, one little question, when will we be able to see the UH-1Y in action?