Project Reality Forums

Jonny wrote:Good to know my backup plan was right, then.

backup plan? The idea of having a lase spawn from where the projectile exploded via python was thought of before but was considered impractical to go though python which would most likley put a lot of strain on the server and also too slow to make it effective. The idea of having it done from a partial effect I haven't seen suggested anywhere, dunno why we didn't think of it before it is pretty simple, but we have yet to see if it works or not.

dtacs wrote:Realistic, but severely overpowered as armor would have NO idea they're being lased. People are talking as if the one lasing would have to expose their whole body, when in PR they only have to expose their forehead due to the BF2 avatars firing bullets out their heads.

I don't see how that is "overpowered". You guys must be watching too much television or are still too used to the gimptarded vanilla game.

As far as "generic" vehicles go on the modern battlefield, there is NO detection of laser systems. Unless you can see or hear the weapon being fired at you, you will be unaware that you are under attack until that weapon impacts/detonates. That's how it is in real life, why should PR be any different?

Hopefully in the near future we will see some changes made to certain weapon systems that improve survivability while also increasing realism, such as adding a more realistic visual (smoke/flash) signature to launched weapon systems, and increasing the effectiveness of vehicle-mounted defensive smoke systems against laser-guided weapons (with minimal effect on SACLOS).


As for it being "unfair" because spotters aren't exposing much of their bodies, that is sort of mixed opinion. In real life a soldier in the prone operating either a GLTD or LLDR is going to provide a minimal target signature (excluding thermal). The chances of an armored vehicle actually spotting and identifying ground personnel providing the lase is near impossible.

In PR you are capable of hiding behind cover and seeing over it unnaturally due to the "fire through forehead" issue, but at distance your body is also going to be visible a lot easier due to awkward body animation/position, lack of good camouflage and terrain blending, and other aspects. So in my opinion, real life vs PR even out.

How about just coding in the ability for the lase to remove itself when the target is behind terrain or statics or whatever?

I seriously doubt that's possible. You're talking about the laser point-of-impact knowing exactly where the firing unit is at all times, as well as knowing every cubic inch of stationary and dynamic terrain, objects, players, etc. and then being able to calculate in real-time with precision if any said obstacles are blocking the trajectory of the laser marker up to the POI?

If you know how to code that shit-storm, you win the Golden Cookie.

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Ninja2dan;1363756']I don't see how that is "overpowered". You guys must be watching too much television or are still too used to the gimptarded vanilla game.[/quote]
No, I'm playing alot of PR and seeing how some things are grossly imbalanced.

As far as "generic" vehicles go on the modern battlefield, there is NO detection of laser systems. Unless you can see or hear the weapon being fired at you, you will be unaware that you are under attack until that weapon impacts/detonates. That's how it is in real life, why should PR be any different?

Pulling that card? Righto, what about the rest of the stuff that should be in PR but isn't?

PR should be different in this respect due the the fact that it promotes armor survivability, which according to real life (in a conventional conflict) what with fire-and-forget anti tank weapons and the ability for a soldier to call in CAS with minimal effort, sounds like it wouldn't be very fun at all. Armored vehicles already have an almost 100% fatality rate, why should the chance of it be increased?

As for it being "unfair" because spotters aren't exposing much of their bodies, that is sort of mixed opinion. In real life a soldier in the prone operating either a GLTD or LLDR is going to provide a minimal target signature (excluding thermal). The chances of an armored vehicle actually spotting and identifying ground personnel providing the lase is near impossible.

[quote="Jonny""]
As opposed to the current situation, where there is no way of seeing the markers from the tank, and no way of seeing the person with the GLTD as they are hiding? Surely the guy with the GLTD having to see the tank is going to make it easier for them to be seen?[/quote]
Well even if this system the OP is proposing is added, the 'fire through forehead' situation still remains, so not only is it the same situation for the armor seeing whos lasing them, its even easier for the one lasing.

Bahlye, I think its time we go to bed.

dtacs wrote:PR should be different in this respect due the the fact that it promotes armor survivability, which according to real life (in a conventional conflict) what with fire-and-forget anti tank weapons and the ability for a soldier to call in CAS with minimal effort, sounds like it wouldn't be very fun at all. Armored vehicles already have an almost 100% fatality rate, why should the chance of it be increased?

In PR, armor has so many less threats than a real-world AO. I would have to say that, based on military experience, armor in PR (comparing conventional forces) have a much higher survivability rate than real life.

Also, as was mentioned before, armor would actually have better survivability compared to the current system because with the suggested changes armor will be capable of using cover/concealment more effectively, and it will be much harder to actively track them while moving (compared to the sticky laser).

Jonny wrote:I am sure there was a video of it, actually.

I remember seeing an MEC tank, one of the old ones, driving around in semi-circles on a flat part of a desert map (probably kashan) as if going through a traffic-cone slalom. There was someone marking it continually with a GLTD that had been modified in that way, but with the laser marker objects lasting for a lot longer than they would in a finished system and forming a large 'S' that followed the path of the tank.

It was probably Mosquill, Zangoo or Nedlands1 that made it (but I cant remember), and might still be in a very old thread about improving the GLTD.


I dont remember how they had done it, but it looked really promising.

EDIT:

Well I dont remember that at all and if they had anything working at all well they didn't really get it to us very well, and by them saying it was iffy on a dedi server sounds like it was done via python like I was saying

Thou having it done via the particle effect way which we are going to look into shouldn't have any issues what so ever on a dedi server since there are always particle effects going off all the time, just need to strap a lase onto one, make it invisible and done. Might be something that pops up that means it wont work, this is BF2 after all but from what I can see there shouldn't be any issues.

EDIT: also the topic that post was in was about being able to "steer" the slow moving laser target in flight, nothing to do with this sort of idea.

dtacs wrote:
No it wouldn't, its practically impossible to get a lase to 'stick' when lasing a tank. Holding it down would mean you can lead it, at the moment if you hold it down it just continually resets the lase as the target moves. Proof:

If you cant lase a moving target then your simply not using your head, the amount of times I have lased moving tanks other ground vehicles and even a few helicopters, there are plenty of other PR players that I have played with that can lase a moving target too.

How do you shoot a moving target? you shoot where you think its going to be. The method is exactly the same. The laser is just like a bullet that moves too slow, all you have to do is laser where its going to be it will drive over it and the lase will auto stick to the moving vehicle and you lased your self a moving vehicle and then you just let the Air Support do the work.

(this is just about PR)

Jonny wrote:Yes it is, its a part of it if any method mentioned in this thread so far is used.

If you can steer the projectile that causes the marker effect on impact you can simultaneously ensure it accurately hits a moving target that is being tracked and prevent it glitching through anything by allowing it to go significantly slower than the engine's maximum speed limit. It will usually be going fast enough to make its speed irrelevant above about 800m/s, and you can more safely stick to the lower end of this limit if the projectile can be guided.

If you can push its speed right up to the engine's limits without getting buggy collision detection then it can still be useful to have a guided projectile at extreme ranges, to remove any need to lead a target at all. Better to sort that out now, than wait until someone does a map with a 2.4km view distance and have a GLTD that needs to slightly lead a target.

ye possibly. thou the the guiding isn't so critical if this new high speed technique works, even at extreme ranges since its moving so fast that it will land pretty much where you point it and even if it is falling behind the target you can easily tell by how much and compensate for that.

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote: increasing the effectiveness of vehicle-mounted defensive smoke systems against laser-guided weapons (with minimal effect on SACLOS).

I think combined arms may have been working on something simliar to this, I think it consisted of laser targets which were deployed in the smoke far enogh away from the tank or APC, to either make the bomb/missle hi the lase and only leave the vehicle slightly hurt, or confuse the missle with so many lases that it would fly off to some random spot and hopefully not kill the tank.

This new way of lasing looks very promising and I hope it will work, as for the testing and effectivness, do we know yet if the guided weapons will respond properly to the lase source changeing every half second? I ask this because even with 2 lases on a single target the munition can get very confused and not hit anything or miss by enough not to kill the target

chrisweb89 wrote:I think combined arms may have been working on something simliar to this, I think it consisted of laser targets which were deployed in the smoke far enogh away from the tank or APC, to either make the bomb/missle hi the lase and only leave the vehicle slightly hurt, or confuse the missle with so many lases that it would fly off to some random spot and hopefully not kill the tank.

The lase in the smoke would have to be really far away for it to have any effect against a bomb etc and wouldn't do much in a formation of tanks.

chrisweb89 wrote:This new way of lasing looks very promising and I hope it will work, as for the testing and effectivness, do we know yet if the guided weapons will respond properly to the lase source changeing every half second? I ask this because even with 2 lases on a single target the munition can get very confused and not hit anything or miss by enough not to kill the target

Well the way from my understanding target tracking works in BF2 is that a missile/bomb only follows one target at any one time and the target it picks is the closest target inside its locking FOV. It shouldn't really have any issues switching to new targets over and over again, since if you ever use to fly jets in vBF2, and you had a situation where you had 3 jets flying in a row, a team mate in the first jet at the front, a enemy jet in the middle, and you at the rear, all chasing each other trying to shoot each other down, other than the first guy who would be trying to run away, if you, the guy at the rear, locked onto the enemy jet in the centre, fired your missile at the enemy jet, and the missile misses the enemy jet, tell me what then happens? Yes the missile after missing the enemy jet, finds the new friendly jet heat sig (since once the missile is launched it doesn't know what team its on and will go for w/e the closest heat sig is inside its locking FOV, friendly or enemy) and ends up flying strait into the back of your team mate, killing him.

This was simply because it switched targets after it could no longer see the enemy jet's heat sig.

As such, if the lase sig that it was locking onto goes and there is one right next to it, it shouldn't have any problems tracking the new target.

There are work being done to improve the laser system.

If it was that easy, it would have been done before, but there are issues between stuff working on local and dedicated servers.

Nevertheless, we might see some good stuff coming that way.

@ Rhino, would the missle still act like this if it was only supposed to lock before launch? I have found that if the missle loses its initial lock, sometimes it won't relock onto the lase when it comes back into sight. I don't know anything about BF2 though so it may just have been that the missle didn't have enough time to relock.

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote:I don't see how that is "overpowered". You guys must be watching too much television or are still too used to the gimptarded vanilla game.

As far as "generic" vehicles go on the modern battlefield, there is NO detection of laser systems. Unless you can see or hear the weapon being fired at you, you will be unaware that you are under attack until that weapon impacts/detonates. That's how it is in real life, why should PR be any different?

Hopefully in the near future we will see some changes made to certain weapon systems that improve survivability while also increasing realism, such as adding a more realistic visual (smoke/flash) signature to launched weapon systems, and increasing the effectiveness of vehicle-mounted defensive smoke systems against laser-guided weapons (with minimal effect on SACLOS).

I dont wanna argue, but do you mean that no vehicles that are in R.L. battlefield do not have laser detection systems ? Or i missunderstood Cause there is a LWR LAV25, LAV3 and LAV3RWS

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:Sorry read your post wrong.

Basically ye, but not quite.

Basically the idea is to have the GLTD fire lots of projectiles on automatic fire and have the projectile itself with no lase, then when the projectile strikes the target we have a invisible partial effect spawn which has a laze attached to it that has a TTL of 1/2 a sec or something, giving it enough time for the next projectile behind it to strike and "explode" before it fades away. There is no need for any "sticking" because the laze is there for such a short period of time and dosen't move off from where it exploded.

Would this eliminate counterlazing or would someone on the other team lazing at the same time take precedence?

I'd love to get rid of counterlazing of course.

I just recently learned (1month ago) that when you laze you dont hold it down... and ive been playing since .85

snooggums wrote:Would this eliminate counterlazing or would someone on the other team lazing at the same time take precedence?

I'd love to get rid of counterlazing of course.

I'm all up for this, seen as IRL the lasers are Encoded with a 5 digit key.

Source :RAF Bentwaters Tactics Guide by Andy Bush

Linky

The 9-line brief looks like this:

1. IP (initial point)

2. Heading to the target

3. Distance to the target

4. Target elevation above sea level

5. Target description

6. Target coordinates (TACAN radial/DME, lat/longs, or grid)

7. How the target may be marked (smoke, laser TISL code)

8. Location of friendlies

9. Egress direction

xtremeqban wrote:I just recently learned (1month ago) that when you laze you dont hold it down... and ive been playing since .85

then shame on you