Project Reality Forums

Well if the other guy wasn´t doing it anymore, I am going to remove most of the trails, or at least make them alot thinner.

Alex m8, if you can't contact specter for any reason, i suggest you try to make the effect a bit like this:

YouTube - PR RPG Test 1

(Maybe try to make the smoke from the backblast a bit less, not too much though, a rpg kicks up a lot of smoke irl)

Ryan3215 wrote:Well, it shouldnt be too hard to improve. All you have to change is:

Great, then we'll expect your completed work on our desk by friday?

LOL, Im not expecting this to be changed soon, just something for the DEVs or CONs to look into. If I could mod I would have done it by now.

Ryan3215 wrote:Well, it shouldnt be too hard to improve. All you have to change is:
- Decrease/Get rid of the smoke trail
- Increase rocket speed, thus decreasign the ammount of arc
- Add backblast effects
- Add large smoke/dust cloud upon impact (and mabey more damage as well)

Well smoke trail is easy to get rid of. I have just done that, increasing rocket speed, well I will have a look but I expect this to a a few lines in the tweak file, as for the arc the same I guess but more complicated.

And adding a large cloud on impact is not difficult, just a little bit time consuming.

If I am not mistakes, the arc will be decreased if you speed up the projectile. I think there is some kind of physics involved, but im no expert on the BF2 engine.

During training exercises with the M136, we used a sub-caliber kit which allows a modifed tube to fire single-shot 9mm rounds. The 9mm rounds used are tracers, and have been altered to have similar ballistics to that of the live rocket. This allows soldiers to practice use of the sights as well as becoming familiar with the basic operation of the launcher. Not only is this method safer for training, but also a lot more cost-effective.

The reason I mention this is because some here are asking about the trajectory or arc of the rocket itself. The 9mm sub-cal rounds should give you an idea of how far it fires or what kind of trajectory it has. It's not a laser, and the arc drops off pretty quickly at range. I'm having trouble finding which of my old manuals showed a diagram of the actual M136 trajectory, but I know one exists. If anyone has a US Army FM 23-25 laying around, might want to look there since I can't seem to locate mine.

IF the smoke trails were removed, then the backblast would have to be added (which I fear many players would hate). From the AT4's that I've watched fired IRL the backblast explosion and dust cloud is much larger than the actual impact of the warhead, and is very easy to see for anyone nearby.

Someone firing a L-AT should have their position given away immediately, which is why I'm guessing the smoke trail has been added in game. And about the damage the warhead does, I think it is represented about right in game, the AT4 is a weak weapon. (I hope it doesn't show that I am not a fan of the weapon system IRL ??

I see nothing wrong with the way the AT-4 is currently..I love that thing...

*Beast Mode* lol.

if you go onto the level before the nuke explodes on COD4, and get the give all weapons cheat on, you get a AT4 which looks SEXY!

wow...lol...

b_black69, I think you might be mistaken. The backblast isnt as lasrge as you might thing. It kicks up some dust and you are easily identified for a couple seconds, but the impact cloud itself is about 5-8m high judging from the videos ive seen.

b_black69 wrote:IF the smoke trails were removed, then the backblast would have to be added (which I fear many players would hate). From the AT4's that I've watched fired IRL the backblast explosion and dust cloud is much larger than the actual impact of the warhead, and is very easy to see for anyone nearby.

Someone firing a L-AT should have their position given away immediately, which is why I'm guessing the smoke trail has been added in game. And about the damage the warhead does, I think it is represented about right in game, the AT4 is a weak weapon. (I hope it doesn't show that I am not a fan of the weapon system IRL ??

They are working on the backblast now, thank god AFAIK they are thinking of putting a large projectile that comes out the back for a short range and high velocity.

I would also think on the desert maps that the dust thrown up by the backblast etc would be more than in the vid.

I think backblast, trail removal with new dust effects at the origin of the projectile and maybe velocity increase are what's needed. But I'm sure the MA's of the devs already know this and they hadn't got around to it yet. Backblast will be cool, I always assign a rifleman to stay with my LAT, when this is implemented I'll get him to make sure the rear of the weapon is clear as well.

The visual effects of the backblast will vary dependant on conditions such as lighting and environment. Also remember that what the video and still cameras capture is not always what the eye can see. While firing live rockets myself and watching others on the line fire theirs, the average backblast is a puff of smoke and minimal flame for a split-second. If the ground was dusty or loose dirt, the shock would often kick up a little dust and dirt as well, both to the rear and front of the weapon. From about 100m away though this kicked up dirt and dust is not normally visible without optics. At night, the bright flame at the rear is like a fast "pop". It lasts only for a split second as well, and is like flicking a bathroom light on and off real fast. While it's enough to spot the firer if you were looking in their direction, it's not something that will give their position away as easily as most here think.

As for the impact, that also depends on the target. Under most circumstances though, the impact is not small. While not as big as an artillery impact or HEAT tank round, the impact is still quite powerful and will kick up a lot of loose debris and smoke. If I remember correctly, the "flame ball" and black smoke upon impact were about the size of a port-a-potty, maybe 7-8ft in diameter. The residual smoke and dust as well as debris will again vary depending on the target and terrain.

Soldiers firing an M136 should not be solo, they are part of a squad and have plenty of rifles to support them should they be spotted or take fire. Another thing to remember that is in real life more than one soldier in a squad will be carrying the M136, and if attacking an armored target they will often fire in tandom to ensure a good kill. A normal infantry squad should not be concerned with smoke signature and such, as their presence upon firing will already be known regardless. Don't forget that besides the smoke/dust signature, these weapons are pretty loud.

Dan, I think youve clarified this topic very well. I think someone should PM a DEV and have them take a look at this, or get alex to work .

Ryan3215 wrote:Dan, I think youve clarified this topic very well. I think someone should PM a DEV and have them take a look at this, or get alex to work .

I'm pretty sure that when I took a "vacation" from the game several months ago that someone in the modding thread was already working on the backblast effect and was doing a good start at it. Impact effects weren't mentioned, but it looks like a few people here already have a good understanding of what looks like.

I know we have several military consultants with the game that have live-fired M136 themsselves, so hopefully the combination of experiences should allow a realistic yet balanced modification as is capable within the game. Although Youtube and other sources of video and images might be of some help, remember what I said about cameras (both still and video) might show some things that are not normally seen by the naked eye. Input and feedback from first-hand experience should compensate for that.

I think we have a general understanding of what the AT-4 should look like at this point. All we have to do is get someone who is willing to do the work, my vote is in alex!

Backblast? Oh god, it's gonna be America's Army all over again...killing the whole team in a bunker.

While we're on the subject of AT4s, how come brits got them instead of the LAW now? Gotta say the LAW was my favourite.

and other LAT equilivant weapons

Not sure how they are creating "backblast" exactly. But I'm sure there may be a more simple method rather than creating a second short range invisible projectile that comes out the back of the AT-4 and explodes.

How is it possible? Well, I may suggest to see if the explosion effect of a simple claymore anti-personnel mine will provide the close range cone shaped rear explosion effect we're looking for. So basically have the AT-4 fire it's projectile as it normally would, but also simultaneously have an "invisible claymore" attached to the rear end of the AT-4 and have it detonate at the same time the AT-4 launches it's rocket. Bam! Then there's your "backblast". All that needs to be done is to have it's effects tweaked and refined.

However, creating the "backblast" effect still may produce a problem with players firing the AT-4 from a prone position. As basically the lower half of thier body is exposed to the backblast effect... Of course, it's not exactly ever a good idea to fire rocket launchers from the prone position, unless specifically done properly.

Heres some information in relation to the proper stances while utilizing AT-4: Firing Positions for the M136 AT-4.

Heck... If "backblast" is finally implemented into the game you may even want to commit these facts to memory if you're not already roughly familiar with them in some manner.

Also, thanks Ninja2dan for the info. I myself am a large fan of the military and have spent a signficant amount of time becoming familiar with weapons from a civilian level as much as possible. I thought about joining the military a few times in my life, but that never came to be. I appreciate you sharing your accurate knowledge on these topics. Not sure if you're in the military, but it's not impossible to be well informed about military procedures from a civilian level either.