Project Reality Forums

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino;1928177']PR:BF2 Community Modding - Project Reality Forums

Your more than welcome to fix them up yourself.

Well, the thing is, Rhino, that there was nothing to fix in these departments, so whoever did this changes just screwed up, badly.

M113 survived AP hit from tank, Puma took 30-40 rounds of AP to side armor from chinese APC without even starting to smoke.

the Puma in real life has stellar armour, it really should be shrugging off 30mm like a tank. ATGMs still take it to school, though. I'm all for realistic damage and armour values, though theyre not all that realistic. I still wonder why 14.5mm can damage a warrior and other IFVs.

http://www.psm-spz.com/fileadmin/data/d ... ection.pdf

says that front and flanks are protected well from "medium calibre", greater than 14.5mm. REfers to cannon calibres 20mm-30mm.

Everything was fine before except one-shot spots.

Make sure to also posts the spots where you hit the enemy. There are major differences between rear, side, front, turret and track armour. 3x 120mm AP hits vs front isn't the same as 3x 120mm hits at the rear of one vehicle for example.

Videos are also a very welcome way to provide us feedback, makes our developing progress much easier.

The Puma is a heavy APC as 40mm rain said already. Front and Side armor can withstand even 30mm rounds.
And yes in general the front armour of many APCs has increased, to simulate the reinforced armor & the angle of the front.

But yeah, we will take care and have a look at the given feedback.
Thanks for reporting.

[R-DEV]K4on wrote:Make sure to also posts the spots where you hit the enemy. There are major differences between rear, side, front, turret and track armour. 3x 120mm AP hits vs front isn't the same as 3x 120mm hits at the rear of one vehicle for example.

Videos are also a very welcome way to provide us feedback, makes our developing progress much easier.

The Puma is a heavy APC as 40mm rain said already. Front and Side armor can withstand even 30mm rounds.
And yes in general the front armour of many APCs has increased, to simulate the reinforced armor & the angle of the front.

But yeah, we will take care and have a look at the given feedback.
Thanks for reporting.

Yeah, Puma was always like that. About the hits:
-LAV-25 died only after 2 AP tank shells- 1 to the front, 1 to the turret
-a watch tower survived 2 direct HE tank shells
-multiple people survived direct HE and/ or AP tank shells
-multiple people survived HE tank shells detonating less than 5m away from them

In general, the armour damage system used to be pretty great in 0.98 and it'd be great to have it back, because it's completely broken now. Or at least give us info on how it currently "works" and we could help.

You know I can personally point out the same people bashing and ranting about 1.0 and telling how "perfect" 0.98 was..About anything. may it be sounds, models, textures, RPs, FOBs, increased player server compacity, improved physics, damage system, RPs again etc.

The worst part of it is that most of all negative feedback comes from the same people. And by negative I mean really non-constructive ranting which is annoying to read.

I do not vote for praising 1.0 but I personally want to read constructive feedback and I think Devs also would appreciate if you do your research before instead of posting wall of rage text.

I really suggest you to launch 0.97 again and compare the gameplay instead of living in your imagionary world.

I played a couple of rounds as Tank Gunner in 1.0 and 0.98. What I noticed is that Tank vs Tank is more "forgiving" as you don't instantly blow up after one shot but need to take 3 or even sometimes 4 in order to blow up. The same goes for Infantry combat now as Infantry can withstand couple of direct hits from rifle. The same goes for Grenadier launcher which doesn't wound everything in 15m area anymore but requires direct hit on the character in order to make him "wounded". Meanwhile I could easily blow up enemy MEC APCs with AP shells.

Stop comparing 1.0 to the game what you wasted your life on in order to learn all the glitches and bugs and enjoy new enchanced experience.

A complaint about the T-72 - it's off-road capabilities are downright terrible, it's getting bogged down by every single bump and it doesn't appear to have power on its actual tracks. On the screenshots below, the tank was completely immobile even though both tracks are clearly touching the ground (had many more situations like this):

http://i.imgur.com/v2WclOA.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0CL4ITU.jpg

Stealthgato wrote:A complaint about the T-72 - it's off-road capabilities are downright terrible, it's getting bogged down by every single bump and it doesn't appear to have power on its actual tracks. On the screenshots below, the tank was completely immobile even though both tracks are clearly touching the ground (had many more situations like this):

http://i.imgur.com/v2WclOA.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0CL4ITU.jpg

I'll never understand why people post this kind of stuff in feedback instead of bugs

a3dboy1 wrote:You know I can personally point out the same people bashing and ranting about 1.0 and telling how "perfect" 0.98 was..About anything. may it be sounds, models, textures, RPs, FOBs, increased player server compacity, improved physics, damage system, RPs again etc.

The worst part of it is that most of all negative feedback comes from the same people. And by negative I mean really non-constructive ranting which is annoying to read.

I do not vote for praising 1.0 but I personally want to read constructive feedback and I think Devs also would appreciate if you do your research before instead of posting wall of rage text.

I really suggest you to launch 0.97 again and compare the gameplay instead of living in your imagionary world.

How is it bashing if a couple of people point out that armored warfare was better in 0.9x?
PR 1.0 is a great release and I enjoy the shit out of it, but I really don't like some of these changes. It appears that either APFSDS damage against MBTs has been reduced greatly, or tanks simply are better armored than before. Either way, I don't like this change.

Yesterday I played on Marlin in the Leclerc and the T72 ate 3 AP shells (2x front, 1x side) and just drove off, then we managed to cut him off and finally blow him up with the 4th shell (side hit again). Just a couple of minutes later we got in a battle with the second T72, we've been spotted and hit first, but somehow managed to destroy him ... After a 40 seconds firefight that pretty much consisted of two tanks standing in front of each other, with no real way to retreat, shooting each other repeatedly.

It honestly felt like vanilla BF2 again. If PR was going the uber-realistic way MBTs would be destroyed on the first hit. All modern MBTs can penetrate each others armor with sabots, especially on ranges such as in PR. Now I think this would be game-breaking, but the damage model as in 0.9x felt pretty balanced. Two side hits or three to the front pretty much always destroyed an enemy tank. This gave an advantage to the crew who spotted and engaged enemy armor first but still allowed for some tactical maneuvers that could change the outcome of a tank battle. I haven't seen a single tank that got tracked or had a turret failure in 1.0 so far. I miss this, because now it just feels like tanks are sponges that will absorb everything until they finally blow up at some point.

I really do think you guys should consider going back to the 0.9x damage model because imo, armor vs. armor is less interesting now and it just doesn't feel right for a game such as PR.

1-hit one kill would not be game-breaking. It would simply mean that the people with better intel and tactics would win every time.

are there still any one hit one kill spots on tanks like they used to be in 0.9?

if you are speaking of the glass issue (like one-hitting the tank by shooting at the lights or at the camera) - no

Got killed as Tank by a BMP2 AT Rocket 2s after it took a AP Shell in the front.
The BMP2 was still operational after.

Quote Wikipedia:
"The BMP-2's armour is broadly similar to the original BMP-1. Its frontal and side armour is not effective against the most recent .50-calibre SLAP [Sabotted light anti-armour projectile] and the 25 mm cannon of the US M2 Bradley MICV or the British GKN Warrior IFV's 30 mm RARDEN."

What people don't take in to consideration is that HEAT rounds were made to ignite the ammunition in the AFV and not kill the crew per say. And if you were to be even more realistic then the SPG-9/2A28 wouldn't be able to destroy tanks since the caliber and grenades are way underpowered.

Alright time for me to report the Broken T-72

Okay i don't know if you intended to make it unable to climb, but it can't. Especially on Operation Marlin. I can not climb on it at with the T-72. Then not only that if i approach at the wrong angle at a base of a hill i can get stuck on that hill. Seriously broken as hell. Pardon me being a bit upset, but as someone who has spent countless hours in armor and in tanks in general. No let me correct that, i have spent 100s of hours in this game and 100s of hours in armor. And from what i remember the T-72 used to be able to climb rather well. Please fix that.

And as for tanks being quite, i agree. I can no longer listen to where a tank is. Actually scratch that i can only find a tank when i have a whole squad looking for it. This is while the tank and my squad are in a city. Example would be on the map Burning sands, I can get out of my driver seat to turn the engine off and listen for a tank that is two blocks away from me and moving and still not hear it. Please fix that.

Also AP rounds and HE rounds do not do enough damage. I took 2 AP rounds from an enemy tank and was not even smoking white. That is nonsense. The guy may have been using HE rounds but even then at 2 rounds in a should have been at least white smoke. I should mention i took the 2 rounds in the side armor. But either it could be the difference in the spots that are being hit. Please fix that. Which if it is i enjoy the new armor system, But wouldn't hitting someone in the turret do more damage than just hitting the front armor?

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino;1928177']PR:BF2 Community Modding - Project Reality Forums

Your more than welcome to fix them up yourself.

Great attitude . You are the DEV, it is your job, not his to maintain the quality of this mod.

What he means is that the devs are in short supply, so if you want to see fixes and such then jump on the bandwagon and help fix issues. Just because something worked in .98 doesn't mean you can instantly change back things when so many other changes have been implemented into vehicles.

You guys act like they are never going to fix things. They are working, just give the devs time and be patient. They have lives to live as well, not to mention other major issues beyond vehicle game play that is more urgent to the mod.

/end rant

Ratface wrote:What he means is that the devs are in short supply, so if you want to see fixes and such then jump on the bandwagon and help fix issues. Just because something worked in .98 doesn't mean you can instantly change back things when so many other changes have been implemented into vehicles.

You guys act like they are never going to fix things. They are working, just give the devs time and be patient. They have lives to live as well, not to mention other major issues beyond vehicle game play that is more urgent to the mod.

/end rant

Lol relax, it's a feedback thread. Gotta love this dev white knights...

Out of interest is there any reflection of that theory that I've heard kicking around about Sabot/AP rounds cleanly going into one side and out of the other side of a soft skinned or lightly armoured vehicle?

I.e. A 'vanilla' aluminium M113 takes a sabot shell from a T72, but receives no damage because it was shot in the rear compartment and the shell penetrated one side cleanly, passed through the [empty] compartment, penetrated the OTHER side, and carried straight on out into thin air beyond.

Obviously a fairly rare occurence, but if it has been represented (if it is even possible 'IRL') could that explain how certain APC's seem invulnerable?

In which case, if firing a Sabot shell is it possible to aim for the engine?