Project Reality Forums

[R-DEV]LeadMagnet wrote:I'm just curious....how many of these tests with 2000m view distance were performed with a full 64 player server and how was the lag?

If the PR testing team would like to organize a session, I'm sure it would be extremely beneficial. If you want to see it first hand, seeing as you're the lead tester, you could help us populate it the next time a new CA test build is up. But even with 20-30 players it's not bad. And I have a baaaaaaaaad computer.

I can do a simple local FPS comparison sometime, but I haven't ever *lagged* on the map, unless it's been due to my internet connection which has only affected myself, and I experience far, faaaar worse FPS on other maps than with Kashan at 2000 meters VD.

EIDT: What am I thinking, ofcourse we've had full 64 players of Desert Rats at 2000 meters VD. Remember the community matches? I was in both, and there wasn't a single problem incurred, and it still played better than 50 % of PR's maps

[R-DEV]LeadMagnet wrote:I'm just curious....how many of these tests with 2000m view distance were performed with a full 64 player server and how was the lag?

We get up to 20-30 for big tests. Haven't noticed any lag yet. (There have been some complaints about the island on seethed waters).

Now we are getting somewhere!

MOD OF THE YEAR 2009 here we come !

I also hate that the attack choppers only fly in to 3000 altitude something and hover completely still instead of using more real-life tactics.

But I guess its engine limitations above all else. Im curious what CA has done. Taking a look at the videos nao

[R-COM]cyberzomby wrote:I also hate that the attack choppers only fly in to 3000 altitude something and hover completely still instead of using more real-life tactics.

My thoughts exactly

But until AA is actually effective against them, and until the VD is upped as well as targeting systems, I'm afraid that it's actually more efficient to just sit up high and rape everything on the ground than it is to sit masked, and communicate with your team and use RL tactics.

It wouldnt take long to add the best of CA into PR. Its just copy paste the good stuff (a few weeks tops?)
I am sure u DEV's know how it works

Then we can finally say goodbye to the vanilla ROFLCOPTERS...

Viper.Sw wrote:Hey!

Is there anything being done to the attack chopper targeting system in the upcoming 0.9?
As it is now it is just a joke.

...

Is this REALLY, the way its supposed to be?

+1

I would love to be able to hit what I'm shooting at regardless of the pilots ability to stay still.

Should I schedule a test this weekend? I am pretty busy nowadays so I'd like to have a lot of people if I take the time to set it all up.

Viper.Sw wrote:No offence here smart_boy00, but you seem to be one of these ROFLCOPTER dudes...

Not to sound stupid here but what’s this suppose to mean?

I get it that its a crack at me and my opinion but I just would like to know what it means so I can be properly offend...

I understand the physics behind the tank shell and the chopper missile, but thanks for the lesson.

I still stand behind the fact that if you use proper techniques and fly correctly (either high or low) you should be able to spot most threats before they see you or are engaging you.

smart_boy00 wrote: I still stand behind the fact that if you use proper techniques and fly correctly (either high or low) you should be able to spot most threats before they see you or are engaging you.

Meh, always found it to be half and half, really. Except for the fact that, opposite to RL, Terrain masking in PR currently doesn't do you any good as you stick out like a sore thumb against the terrain at the low view distance, while flying in the air keeps you somehow (relatively) more concealed due to the clouds/fog.

McLuv wrote:Terrain masking in PR currently doesn't do you any good as you stick out like a sore thumb against the terrain at the low view distance, while flying in the air keeps you somehow (relatively) more concealed due to the clouds/fog.

I do agree with this but still its all in how you do it. If I hover there and wait all the time for the gunner to figure out what I’m doing then yes I can expect a missile or gun up my @$$. If I talk to my gunner and he talks to me and he tells me this is over here and I give him a second of stability to make the shot then it is easier for them.

Always moving and being aware of where the threat is in relation to you and how can I use the terrain to my advantage should always be in your mind. If I was up in the air high in the sky I have no where to go but closer to the threat. If I’m low and always moving then I can lessen "the danger cone" or their angle of attack on me and also lesson the time they have to react to pull that trigger or aim that gun. Far away, un-obstructive and up high its like slow motion for the gunner shooting at the chopper (easy kill).

smart_boy00 wrote:Not to sound stupid here but what’s this suppose to mean?

I get it that its a crack at me and my opinion but I just would like to know what it means so I can be properly offend...

I understand the physics behind the tank shell and the chopper missile, but thanks for the lesson.

I still stand behind the fact that if you use proper techniques and fly correctly (either high or low) you should be able to spot most threats before they see you or are engaging you.

My tank vs ur chopper in this version of PR, as long as you fly along the ground u dont stand a chance

I know what you are saying here, but in my experience it has never shown to be good to fly low m8.

Viper.Sw wrote:My tank vs ur chopper in this version of PR, as long as you fly along the ground u dont stand a chance

I know what you are saying here, but in my experience it has never shown to be good to fly low m8.

Sigh... I don't know. I think one thing that will help in all aspects would be to just increase the fov.

Increase the VD. Make the Apache and Cobra have better targeting systems. Instant lase please. Lasers move at the speed of light, not slower then Hellfires. Have the Apaches work as the AH-64D.

Try to make the speed of a flying shell as realistic as possible, as with the Hellfires and other armaments. No lasers please.

Lastly, increase the VD.

Instant lase please. Lasers move at the speed of light, not slower then Hellfires. Have the Apaches work as the AH-64D.

if made faster the laser will not stick to things, it will bounce off

or so I've been told

Dr2B Rudd wrote:if made faster the laser will not stick to things, it will bounce off

or so I've been told

I'd just think that a laser that is hitscan (instant shoot, places a homing marker at first thing it collides with) would be best.

Anyhow, only dedicated AA weapons (Tunguska, Linebacker, AA missiles, ZPUS) should be able to take out air regularly.

So easy fix is to just increase the view distance. Anti-air should be countered with tanks or HAT.

CAS_117 wrote:Should I schedule a test this weekend? I am pretty busy nowadays so I'd like to have a lot of people if I take the time to set it all up.

Let me run it by the testers as I'm actually interested to see what a full server can achieve. The reason I'm asking is that from prior experience working on Rising Conflicts we had some items that ran beautifully in smaller test sessions that suddenly turned into utter dogs when the server filled up. Things like the Osprey flew beautifully with 10-20ish guys on the test server but when we released it caused others to lag like hell.

Hunt3r wrote: So easy fix is to just increase the view distance. Anti-air should be countered with tanks or HAT.

Hardly. You do realize that increasing the view distance to 2km affects everything in game. Snipers can now engage much further (meaning the .50's might make a return to resume their proper place. How do you feel about getting shot out of your hovering helo by a sniper?), armor optics can engage upto 4km so you're still well within their ability and range, IFV's can engage upto the same distance with their TOW's etc etc. Basically this means that armor can engage bunkers from their base on Kashan. These are 4km maps remember and even that was only possibly after PR's hard work expanding the current map size limits.

The cold, hard truth of the matter is that you will never achieve 100% purely realistic flight and fighting characteristics using the BF2 engine since it's just not possible.

[R-DEV]LeadMagnet wrote:The cold, hard truth of the matter is that you will never achieve 100% purely realistic flight and fighting characteristics using the BF2 engine since it's just not possible.

Yes, that's true, but you can still improve it to a great degree. And from what I've seen, nearly everything that's been put into CA in that regard has been beneficial.
Though, you say tanks could theoretically engage bunkers from their main. That's not true, due to the terrain of the map, both mains are in positions where they aren't able to be shot at or out from from too far away.

[R-DEV]LeadMagnet wrote:Hardly. You do realize that increasing the view distance to 2km affects everything in game. Snipers can now engage much further (meaning the .50's might make a return to resume their proper place. How do you feel about getting shot out of your hovering helo by a sniper?), armor optics can engage upto 4km so you're still well within their ability and range, IFV's can engage upto the same distance with their TOW's etc etc. Basically this means that armor can engage bunkers from their base on Kashan. These are 4km maps remember and even that was only possibly after PR's hard work expanding the current map size limits.

The cold, hard truth of the matter is that you will never achieve 100% purely realistic flight and fighting characteristics using the BF2 engine since it's just not possible.

Well yes increasing ranges changes the fighting quite a bit, but along with that comes weapon scaling. In all likelyhood snipers would be limited to 1-1.3km range. Understand that we can't have direct scaling, so we use empirical scaling.

Tunguska = 12km

apache = 8km

Tank = 4km

We drop them by a factor of 4 for example and..

VD = 3km, Fog starts at 2.5 approx

Tunguska = 3km

apache = 2

Tank = 1

Giving a Tunguska a range of over half the map can cause problems. Same with tanks only being able to hit a target 1/3 of the view distance away from them. So to fix this we decided to narrow the margin between each vehicles max effective range.

Ultimately weapons with a longer real life range will enjoy a first shot advantage. However this advantage is not as pronounced as it would be in reality or under direct scaling.

VD = 3km, Fog starts at 2.5 approx

Tunguska = 2.5 km

Apache = 2.0 km

Tank = 1.5-1.75 km

In this scenario the real loser is the Tunguska unfortunately (partially compensated for by its radar detection range being around 3 km). The Apache does benefit from a lowered Tunguska range, but loses when it comes to the tanks increased range. The Tank is the overall winner.

The same is applied to most weapons in CA such as AAA, APCS, HAT, Snipers, .50 cals, small arms etc.

When dealing with weapons where the real life weapon range is not very well defined (things like tanks), we tend to make the projectile outlast the lock range. So while a lot of weapons are more powerful, the circumstances under which they can be used is somewhat narrower.