Project Reality Forums

CopyCat wrote:Take your time and test/play with Russian RPG, I promise you - you'll find more effective than IDF's HAT.

Russian HAT available for several factions and insurgency in PR, learning how to use it and the distance counting (even with ironsights) will make you above decent shooter with HAT. Guided missiles will be no problem after that - Trust me, I was trained by the best HAT shooter since 0.9 +/-

/CC

Are you serious? lol

Souls Of Mischief wrote:Are you serious? lol

Yeah he is. He literally doesn't miss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Steeps5 wrote:Yeah he is. He literally doesn't miss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Erm... so do I and a bunch of others. Guided HAT is piss poor easy.

Great research, interesting to see a plot of each impact vs the crosshairs. I'm lazy but would love to browse through something like this for each weapon.

What are you guys even complaining about. Why can't the PR devs just give it proper ballistics so we can go off the optic rather then guess.

lgm wrote:If they aren't going to bother doing it properly, give them Metis-M or something.

Metis-M can't be fired from the shoulder.

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:Metis-M can't be fired from the shoulder.

Its still man portable, just like the kornet. But wait, that would require to much teamwork!
You can mount it anywhere. Including on ledges etc. I don't see how it isn't a good weapon to give them.


There is really nothing wrong with giving them a RPG-7v2, provided they're given a PGO sight that actually works.

We have these though?

Mikemonster wrote:We have these though?

Apparently it doesn't matter though because the other factions shoulder launched ATGM's do the same damage to most targets. I don't see why they should not be given a Metis-M or similar, maybe its beyond 'streamlined'.

Further, the Russian faction in PR is out of date and is plenty of years due for a update. Its probably never going to happen, BF2 is showing its age.

Good point, noted.

Edit: Considering the philosophies/doctrines that resulted in the RPG rather than a guided missile, shouldn't each Russian squad have a HAT, not a LAT available? (If that isn't implemented already).

Mikemonster wrote:Good point, noted.

Edit: Considering the philosophies/doctrines that resulted in the RPG rather than a guided missile, shouldn't each Russian squad have a HAT, not a LAT available? (If that isn't implemented already).

Anti tank riflemen in the Russian army probably carry a few types of rounds with them. But this would unbalance PR.

What I think would be fair would to give them a Metis-M. Either let them hold it in their hands, its quite possible to support it on your shoulder given its light weight or make the soldier prone in order to use it. Both would be fine with no possible unbalance.

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Eddie Baker;1843687']Metis-M can't be fired from the shoulder.[/quote]

[quote="izoiva""]Metis allows to shoot from the shoulder.
AT-13 / 9K115 Metis (M) | Russian Military Analysis

"The system allows delivery of fire in the prone position from organized and deployed sites, firing from the standing foxhole position as well from the shoulder, and carrying the ATGM system in packs, with pack No. 1 containing the launcher and missile in the firing attitude and pack No. 2 accommodating two Metis-M missiles."

[/quote]

9K115-2 Metis-M - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcqZDaHB ... age#t=357s

izoiva wrote:9K115-2 Metis-M - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

??????????????? ???????? ???????? "?????" ? "?????-?" - YouTube

According to our Russian MA, it can't. And the point in the video to which you linked, the launcher is not unsupported by the tripod or another object.

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:According to our Russian MA, it can't. And the point in the video to which you linked, the launcher is not unsupported by the tripod or another object.

I'm starting to question the legitimacy of your Russian MA. You can support it any way you want. Its a tube with a missile.

If you can support it, then you can carry it. There is no recoil, its a tube launched weapon.

lgm wrote:I'm starting to question the legitimacy of your Russian MA. You can support it any way you want. Its a tube with a missile.

Internet has information, must be real.

[R-DEV]Spush wrote:Internet has information, must be real.

There are no sensors under the metis that do not allow it to fire in a upright position.

Cite your source if you're going to counter my argument.


I should also mention, it is used in a shoulder launched position in ArmA2, including PR:ArmA2. So obviously they saw no wrong in letting it be launched from the shoulder. Multiple articles online say it can be and there is no reason why it cannot be if the operator is skilled.

I think it should replace the current Russian HAT. The RPG-7 is to dynamic of a weapon for dedicated 2 HAT role in PR:BF2 since it would most likely be used on the squad level with the warhead PG-7VR.


I'm not being ungrateful for what has been provided, if I had 3dsmax installed I would model it-but I'm not a very skilled modeller. Its basically a tube with simple geometry and plain textures.

lgm wrote:I should also mention, it is used in a shoulder launched position in ArmA2, including PR:ArmA2. So obviously they saw no wrong in letting it be launched from the shoulder.

Vanilla ArmA2 also has the US Army armed with FN SCARs as standard issue. They do things for variety, and do things for gameplay balance even more than PR BF2 does. It might not remain fired from the shoulder in PR:ArmA2.

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:Vanilla ArmA2 also has the US Army armed with FN SCARs as standard issue. They do things for variety, and do things for gameplay balance even more than PR BF2 does. It might not remain fired from the shoulder in PR:ArmA2.

Weapon choice has nothing to do with weapon utility. The metis can be fired from a upright position. Its a very powerful weapon.

Why are you so against having it fired from a upright position? A soldier will do what its needed to defeat the enemy. It weighs 10 kilograms. I could easily lift that for about 30 seconds if the situation begged of it.


Plus, ArmA2 is nowhere near balanced.

lgm wrote:Why are you so against having it fired from a upright position? A soldier will do what its needed to defeat the enemy. It weighs 10 kilograms. I could easily lift that for about 30 seconds if the situation begged of it.

Because as far as our sources tell us, its unrealistic. Its also "possible" (not saying what your saying is mind you) to fire off two M60s at the same time but you don't see us doing that ingame now do you?

If you can find a bunch of solid sources that supports this weapon being fired from the shoulder and it being used in common practice by soldiers then we will certainly consider it, but I trust someone who's provided us with very good data for years on this kinda thing more than what you've presented so far.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:Because as far as our sources tell us, its unrealistic. Its also "possible" (not saying what your saying is mind you) to fire off two M60s at the same time but you don't see us doing that ingame now do you?

If you can find a bunch of solid sources that supports this weapon being fired from the shoulder and it being used in common practice by soldiers then we will certainly consider it, but I trust someone who's provided us with very good data for years on this kinda thing more than what you've presented so far.

Then please fix the PGO-7's ballistics or give them a Metis-M, which requires no ballistic model that isn't already present in PR.

A weapon is what you make of it, if the situation came where I would need to hold a Metis-M to kill a tank which intends to murder my buddies I'd so it regardless of standard procedure.

If you want I could also provide you a source to tell you the PGO-7 ingame is a kit trap.


Here it is,

http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wo ... etis.shtml
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wo ... is_m.shtml

Both have cited primary sources and mention it can be fired mounted on rubble or while standing.

Wikipedia also mentions them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K115-2_Metis-M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K115_Metis

All info is cited. Do you still disagree? And those wikipedia articles source actual printed sources, not just internet sources.