Project Reality Forums

Phoenix.86 wrote:Still it is a game and not real life. In real life you don't respawn, want that in pr? Thought so.

Apart from that there are scope possibilities for pla(just look at PRC's post) and mec (lots of claw-mount scopes available for pretty much all g3 derivatives). In the end it all would have to be modeled, textured coded and would just mean an assload of work for the dev's. And I'm not sure if the benefits of this would outweigh the work necessary.

Yeah mate but re spawning is just a necessity for it to be classed as a game. And yes believe me i know its a game im not delusional i was just being a smart *** before.

But what im saying is if we are trying to go for realism at its most then we should only put in the things that compromise "reality" if it is 100% needed

i.e Re spawning

Unbalance in weapons is a common fact of life and the game would be much better in a realistic sence if that was the case ingame.

Yeah, but the game would also be much more realistic if Coalition troops couldn't shoot anyone unless they got shot at first and if there were 100+ civilians walking around the city maps, but that doesn't happen in PR because PR isn't totally about realism. (Oh god, I said it, community's gonna explode now, oh well, truth's truth.

EOD_Security-2252 wrote:Hmm, never knew that before, but then again I don't pay much mind to the Army.
What about USMC, I mostly only see no scope for them, but in the rare occassion that there is a scope, it usually is like a reflex sight.

Both the USMC and US Army use the M145 Machine-gun Optic (MGO), which is an ELCAN variant. I have seen ACOGs fitted to SAWs, but the M145 is used on both SAWs and M240s.

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:Both the USMC and US Army use the M145 Machine-gun Optic (MGO), which is an ELCAN variant. I have seen ACOGs fitted to SAWs, but the M145 is used on both SAWs and M240s.

Who else uses it?

DavidP wrote:Who else uses it?

ELCAN sights are primarily used by Canadan Forces, including on their C9s (Minimi).

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:ELCAN sights are primarily used by Canadan Forces, including on their C9s (Minimi).

No i mean who else uses the M145 for their Machine guns?

DavidP wrote:No i mean who else uses the M145 for their Machine guns?

Don't know, but the ELCAN is popular; I think the US is the only one that calls it the M145. All of the US services, including US special operations forces, use it on their light/medium MGs.

i like scopes on weapons but pleez dont put it on so many..i say SMG,s are fine w/o them because their used for supression not sniping but if some ppl must say they need one then take the scope off the LAT kit or grenadier..theiur has to be some pick up kits w/o scopes..im a close range guy and prefer iron sights..but i also like the greadier...and you really need iron sights at close range especially w/ the scope in time for the scoped weapons.... i think the scope should be taken off the LAT or grenadier even if you dont put one on the SAW

i so wish you could choose betwwen scoped grenadier and iron sight grenadier :/..but i know tahts too much work or impossible for the devs..but thats ok

Marines use ELCAN,E.O.Tech,Acog,MARS etc... on M240,M249,M16A4,etc.

Conman51=US= wrote:i like scopes on weapons but pleez dont put it on so many..i say SMG,s are fine w/o them because their used for supression not sniping but if some ppl must say they need one then take the scope off the LAT kit or grenadier..theiur has to be some pick up kits w/o scopes..im a close range guy and prefer iron sights..but i also like the greadier...and you really need iron sights at close range especially w/ the scope in time for the scoped weapons.... i think the scope should be taken off the LAT or grenadier even if you dont put one on the SAW

i so wish you could choose betwwen scoped grenadier and iron sight grenadier :/..but i know tahts too much work or impossible for the devs..but thats ok

A) Realism--the US and most other advanced armies are using tactical scopes/sights on their weapons.

B) If you're using a scope in CQB you're doing it wrong. The man who generally wins CQB firefights is the one who puts out the most ammunition and knows where the center of his screen is.

Personally, there is nothing I love more than the new grenade launcher, and the scoped versions of weapons for the GL-class. It's like the GL man can finally be part of the squad.

Panoolied wrote:it isnt realistic though, because not all armies have the same loadouts

Wrong. Then its unrealistic to have Jdams because insurgents don't have them. Or to have Strykers use the CROWS system because the Mec doesnt have it.

Feuerwaffen wrote:Wrong. Then its unrealistic to have Jdams because insurgents don't have them. Or to have Strykers use the CROWS system because the Mec doesnt have it.

Thats true though isn't it ??:

Pariel wrote:A) Realism--the US and most other advanced armies are using tactical scopes/sights on their weapons.

B) If you're using a scope in CQB you're doing it wrong. The man who generally wins CQB firefights is the one who puts out the most ammunition and knows where the center of his screen is.

Personally, there is nothing I love more than the new grenade launcher, and the scoped versions of weapons for the GL-class. It's like the GL man can finally be part of the squad.

but they dont put them on EVERYTHING

and if it was for realism there would be no middle of the screen and you would need a iron sight...i think the grenadier scope can stay but not on the LAT or SAW