Project Reality Forums

Ghost1800 wrote:What is the Linebacker's strength? It's mobility and AA missile capability are pretty much identical to the Tunguska, but it's main gun is laughable in comparison (as it should be). Apparently it should be able to carry a small load of troops, but that isn't depicted in game.

It won't be in PR any more come 0.85. Being replaced by the HMMWV Avenger.

Cptkanito wrote:People rely too much on missiles when using the AAV, and changing the cannon rounds to have a fuse is not going to make them use the guns anymore than people are now, in my experience only the missiles are used against aircraft and the gun is used on things such as infantry and APC's...

I shot down silly attack choppers hovering in mid sky with the cannons before and I regularly shoot down Blackhawks with them, one issue I do have is the fact that you can't turn the radar off, somehow every time I get a full lock on, most pilots seem to know they're locked on and release flares even though I haven't fired.
Another thing is that the only way to shoot down jets with the Tunguska is if they fly low and away/towards you.

I fired at friendly A10s and such on Training (where TK is off, mind you) with the US team's Tunguska and even though I tried leading and such, very little of the rounds would impact the jet, I could usually tell from the explosions on the side of the aircraft if it was a hit.
Perhaps speeding up the velocity of bullets could fix the whole not being able to shoot down air assets due hitboxes, but that kinda takes the realism factor away and turns Tunguska's into laser cannons

Iw allways found BFV zsu to be the meanest of all antiairs

'[R-DEV wrote:Jaymz;836474']It won't be in PR any more come 0.85. Being replaced by the HMMWV Avenger.

Ummm, are you going to condense it down to one seat or will the US have the only 2 seat required AAV in game?

I doubt that they will condense it to one seat. If they did, it would be something like the gunner seat of attack helicopters (cockpit view, FLIR), but the problem with that is the player model stays in the same spot. On the Avenger HMMWV, the gunner seat is in the turret.

I'm down for a 3rd seat. I don't see why not. It could be a spot for an engi for a 2xTank+AA squad.


I'm actually worried about balance. The M2, in game, seems to have a fairly slow rate of fire. Not fast enough to be suitable for an AA. Also, the Tungusta has it's beastly cannons, which are incredibly effective against infantry, much more so than the Bradley or a M2.

Tirak wrote:Ummm, are you going to condense it down to one seat or will the US have the only 2 seat required AAV in game?

3 available seats. One driver and one gunner who operates the vehicle. While the 3rd person just sits there. The gunner can operate the AA missiles or the 50 cal CROWS machinegun on top, so it would be like a Stryker with AA missiles...i think lmao, but hey, it makes sense

CanuckCommander wrote:3 available seats. One driver and one gunner who operates the vehicle. While the 3rd person just sits there. The gunner can operate the AA missiles or the 50 cal CROWS machinegun on top, so it would be like a Stryker with AA missiles...i think lmao, but hey, it makes sense

I know what's available, but by that logic every AAV should have at minimum two seats for driver and gunner. This was condensed into one seat because they didn't want to take people away from the battlefield.

waldo_ii wrote: I'm actually worried about balance. The M2, in game, seems to have a fairly slow rate of fire. Not fast enough to be suitable for an AA. Also, the Tungusta has it's beastly cannons, which are incredibly effective against infantry, much more so than the Bradley or a M2.

Asymmetrical balance. Now bend over please.

this is brobably a good idea, i've personaly never had any problems with it myself, i just ahd to lead the plane quite significantly.

Missiles, theres a way around the flare problem, This may or may not be fixed later on, but if you zoom in so then the plane takes up most of your screen and with the tail just off screen, then when he deploys the flares, they dont stay onscreen long enough to affect your lock

[R-CON]Alex6714 wrote:You can´t mod the players...

Thats not the point, what i meant was that it wouldn't make a difference having fuses or not...

I have a few ideas for dealing with the blast radius issue. It would entail using a directional blast and a slightly larger fuze. At a long distance the cone will be bigger (could be 10-20m), but hitting a flat surface such as ground or a building, the cone will be small. I think.

Trust me, I don't think you'll have to much trouble hitting them when you're shooting 80 rounds a second. Dodgy hit boxes or not.

Lol, yes its a rather exciting shoot isn't it? I think I still have that version laying around somewhere.

I <3 this thread.

thread title changed from :
fuse for AA cannon rounds to Proximity for AA cannon rounds

Fuse would be a set time to explode as a proximity would be exploding near an object.

Colonelcool125 wrote:Leave that. That way it takes skill to lock on to the plane rather than the flares.

wait what? how does it take any skills to zoom in and fire? in took out an A10 3 times in one round cause of that zoom. lol of course he kept flying by me so thatw as also his fault. i just find it unrealistic that your camera zoom affects how many targets your radar can pick up.

Bringerof_D wrote:wait what? how does it take any skills to zoom in and fire? in took out an A10 3 times in one round cause of that zoom. lol of course he kept flying by me so thatw as also his fault. i just find it unrealistic that your camera zoom affects how many targets your radar can pick up.

Flares are unrealistic anyway. Radar will never prefer the real heat source to them despite the statistical chance that it would. If you are lagging, it is almost impossible to use SAMs effectively as well. I am all for changes to AAA to make them work more/less effectively depending on factors like player skill, and the situation.

Truism wrote:Flares are unrealistic anyway. Radar will never prefer the real heat source to them despite the statistical chance that it would. If you are lagging, it is almost impossible to use SAMs effectively as well. I am all for changes to AAA to make them work more/less effectively depending on factors like player skill, and the situation.

good point, but there are other countermeasures which i asume are also represented by the flares in game.

on another note, i do agree the AAA should be made more deadly to planes. and of course more skill oriented then it is lagg or "how many flares he's got?" oriented. i mean realisticly if you're flying that low you're pretty much screwed to begin with if there was an AAA threat

on another note, i do agree the AAA should be made more deadly to planes. and of course more skill oriented then it is lagg or "how many flares he's got?" oriented. i mean realisticly if you're flying that low you're pretty much screwed to begin with if there was an AAA threat

To be honest flying low (<50m) makes you less vulnerable to pretty much anything except enemy planes. The time that you are exposed is significantly less, especially in rugged terrain or near obstructions such as buildings or trees. This is why it has been such a popular approach method since long range radars/sams have been around. However in PR our ranges are short so flying high and out of range is an option.

[R-DEV]CAS_117 wrote:To be honest flying low (<50m) makes you less vulnerable to pretty much anything except enemy planes. The time that you are exposed is significantly less, especially in rugged terrain or near obstructions such as buildings or trees. This is why it has been such a popular approach method since long range radars/sams have been around. However in PR our ranges are short so flying high and out of range is an option.

Flying low and in open terrain doesn't make you vulnerable to AAA the way it should. Heres to hoping these fixes will make it that way. Can't wait to try it out.

AAA has always been a favourite role of mine.