0.9: past predictions

A_Grounded_Pilot · Post by **A_Grounded_Pilot** » 2010-01-20 14:03

hobbnob wrote:i doubt it will come out for US because it is not used by the regular us army.

What? The US army currently operates 425 CH-47Ds, as well as a handful of MH-47s.

boilerrat · Post by **boilerrat** » 2010-01-20 14:08

Anybody got a list of confirmed .9 new things?

Any confirmed added vehicles, maps, factions, class changes?

WilsonPL · Post by **WilsonPL** » 2010-01-20 14:30

We need chxxxxlogs

Snazz · Post by **Snazz** » 2010-01-20 14:47

Burton wrote:As much as it pains me to say it, the DEVs have always said that the Chinook and Sangin will be released together - so if one's not ready (Sangin), I'd hedge my bets on not getting the Chinook either.

I don't expect you to dig up the post where you think they said that, but I'm skeptical of it. The Chinook is appropriate for Kashan, Qinling or any interim 4x4km map with factions that use them IRL.

hobbnob wrote:The single in game pic i've seen of it was in the UN livery, so that might mean something.

That was the Merlin:

This is the Chinook in game on Qinling:

hobbnob · Post by **hobbnob** » 2010-01-20 15:57

Actually i didnt know bout the merlin in UN colours, i was thinking about a youtube video with a title something like "project reality HD". it definitely had hd in the title, and it was a series of pr pics editted to look better. One of them was definitely a chinook in UN livery. Trust me i should know considering i have flown in one, if i didnt then i would be a moron.

gazzthompson · Post by **gazzthompson** » 2010-01-20 16:07

boilerrat wrote:Anybody got a list of confirmed .9 new things?

Any confirmed added vehicles, maps, factions, class changes?

PR Dev Blogs - Project Reality Forums
PR Highlights - Project Reality Forums

hobbnob wrote:Actually i didnt know bout the merlin in UN colours, i was thinking about a youtube video with a title something like "project reality HD". it definitely had hd in the title, and it was a series of pr pics editted to look better. One of them was definitely a chinook in UN livery. Trust me i should know considering i have flown in one, if i didnt then i would be a moron.

Eitherway, the US operate them IRL so its possible they will operate them in game.

hobbnob · Post by **hobbnob** » 2010-01-20 18:42

That is the UN chinook, just to prove me right

Adetter · Post by **Adetter** » 2010-01-20 19:27

Found the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2WUfmAkf6s

1:26 is the Chinook

Lan · Post by **Lan** » 2010-01-20 21:58

[R-DEV]AfterDune wrote:You do realize Chinooks are faster than Apaches for example?

But would they be ingame?

Snazz · Post by **Snazz** » 2010-01-20 22:17

hobbnob wrote:That is the UN chinook, just to prove me right

That's just photoshopped from this:

Both have RAF livery.

rushn · Post by **rushn** » 2010-01-21 00:29

chinooks are cool hopefully it will have some miniguns on it

mangeface · Post by **mangeface** » 2010-01-21 05:35

rushn wrote:chinooks are cool hopefully it will have some miniguns on it

HAHA, big dreams. They'll probably be armed with M240s. I seriously doubt they'll have M134s, seeing as only the MH-47s of the 160th SOAR in the US Army arm their Chinooks like that. And I haven't seen one SOCOM faction in PR.

barbdwyer22 · Post by **barbdwyer22** » 2010-01-21 06:02

Wow, people who are not in the military are quick to post their extensive knowledge of US operated helos.

Fast-roping is not a very common practice, yes most Marines in helo companies are trained to do it (like I was) yet my whole time in, I never fast-roped in a real combat operation.

US Army utilizes the CH-47 Chinook and the UH-60 Blackhawk, the Marines use the CH-46 Sea Knight (V-22 Osprey is slowly going to phase these out) and the CH-53 Sea Stallion (These are their general names, I know we use the Super Stallion, etc.).

The largest helos in the US military are typically the fastest helos, such as the CH-53 which is faster than an Apache.

hobbnob · Post by **hobbnob** » 2010-01-21 21:41

This wasnt a prediction, quite the opposite in fact. i saw a dev blog by uk_force about the new jackal. On it was a mark 19 GMG, which i believe was shot down in flames when it was suggested a while ago. its good that its there,because its there IRL, but wasnt it considered overkill by the devs?

Post by **Rudd** » 2010-01-21 21:44

hobbnob wrote:This wasnt a prediction, quite the opposite in fact. i saw a dev blog by uk_force about the new jackal. On it was a mark 19 GMG, which i believe was shot down in flames when it was suggested a while ago. its good that its there,because its there IRL, but wasnt it considered overkill by the devs?

was wasn't for PR mate, thats for a different game that UK_Force is involved with.

rampo · Post by **rampo** » 2010-01-21 21:44

hobbnob wrote:This wasnt a prediction, quite the opposite in fact. i saw a dev blog by uk_force about the new jackal. On it was a mark 19 GMG, which i believe was shot down in flames when it was suggested a while ago. its good that its there,because its there IRL, but wasnt it considered overkill by the devs?

You are aware it's not for PR but for the VBS2?

hobbnob · Post by **hobbnob** » 2010-01-21 21:51

darn, i just thought it was a making method or something. in that case, why is he posting a dev blog for another game on a pr site.

rampo · Post by **rampo** » 2010-01-21 21:53

It's just a blog for all the devs to post anything they want, hes not the only one to post something not PR related there you know

Post by **Rudd** » 2010-01-21 21:54

hobbnob wrote:darn, i just thought it was a making method or something. in that case, why is he posting a dev blog for another game on a pr site.

DEV blogs are not the same as PR highlights, the PR devs do have things in their lives other than PR mate

they have their portfolios to consider.

they can put whatever they want in their blogs, their favourite breakfast if they like

they just won't put their favourite breakfast in the PR highlights

0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions

Re: 0.9: past predictions