Project Reality Forums

OH-58D Kiowa Warriors and P-3 Orions recorded the The Battle of the Black Sea.

Whats the battle of the black sea and whats a P3 orions.

The Battle of the Black Sea:
http://www.paulnwhelan.com/battleofmogadishu.html

P3-C Orion:

The Battle of the Black Sea, commonly known as "the Blackhawk Down incident."

P-3 Orion:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/p-3.htm

Ugly Duck wrote:1. BHD is one of my favorite movies, and it was NOT a satelite it was a helicopter with cameras.

As Black Beret has said, during the BHD incident recon was performed by more then just helos

Ugly Duck wrote:Tears of the son is made up, its not real, its holly wood.

Yes, it's a made up story, but the technology shown exists, hell, even civilians can get equipment/programs that can do basic taps into satelites that relay images of the earths surface.

Ugly Duck wrote:Behind Enemy lines is BASED on a real life story, however is unlikely to be 100% acurate. Also, satelites cant hover over the battlefield, they loop around the planet and would only briefly be over the area, if they ever passed over at all.

Wrong, there are satelites called geosynchronous satelites. Geosynchronous satelites are named such due to the fact that they maintain synchronisation with the earth's orbit by orbiting in the same direction the earth is spinning, and at a speed to keep them on location, meaning they 'hover' over the same location on earth, instead of simply orbiting it. Such satelites have to maintain a higher orbit due to their slower rate of orbit. Such satelites are primarily used by communications companies, and organisations that wish to maintain a view on a specific region of the earth, such as the military. The satelite used in Behind Enemy Lines was however not such a satelite, which is why they lost the image of the navigator's position after a while.

Ugly Duck wrote:2. And the things that get shelled and hit by artillary in falluja have been identified over weeks of observation. They dont just say hey that looks like there are bad guys in it lets blow it up. If that were the case there would be a lot more civilian casualties.

Yes, most of the targets being hit would have been identified a while ago, but the commanders would also be keeping a constant eye on enemy troop movements, they would be stupid not to, and pilots are sometimes asked to take out targets of oppurtunity whilst on a predifined strike mission. Such targets have been spotted after the pilot has gone into flight, and have been deemed important enough for the pilot to deviate from his mission to take them out as well. Such targets can also be struck by arty fire.

Ugly Duck wrote:3 Dice has proven incapable of testing with BF:V. How is it possible to let an uber class that sprints around with an M60 with god like accuracy as well as carrieing 4 LAW's or like 5 Grenade rounds as well as a grenade launcher.

Yes, EA/Dice have missed things before, as all game developers do, but, as has been done in the case you've mentioned, such issues are fixed by patches.

Don't worry JS.Fortnight.A, I'll drop the subject now , just trying to prove my point.

[R-DEV wrote:Black Beret]The Battle of the Black Sea, commonly known as "the Blackhawk Down incident."

P-3 Orion:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/p-3.htm

Heard those will be replaced soon by modified Boeing 737's. That pretty much leaves only the C-130 as a prop plane in military use.

I don't know if someone has said this before (I don't have the time to read through 20 pages for one thing) But I was thinking something like this. It might be very challenging to do. I was thinking (it involves very realistic physics) that if the player had a pack (like a backpack) of some sort, when they would run it would bob up and down seperatly from the body. And if the player was to dive down or fall on his side for some reason (let's say he pulled a mtrix or something) the pack would float a little above the body while he's in the air, and when he lands it will land a short time after and bounce the slightest bit.

Well actually Mind Game, the physics engine ingame does allow for this and can bee seen in such videos as the latest HOT file on the net of BF2 from the guys over at NBrigade.

Here is the video I'm speaking of, note the solider's load-out bouncing around.

(82.1megs)
http://www.northernbrigade.com/m8.php?P ... 5265585111

no need for an uber l33t physics engine... i think it can be done with just animations.... or am i wrong?

ragdoll

you can see pretty much all of the physics in the demo movies

Ragdoll is so much fun in Americas Army. I remember when it first was introduced those that were dead would rate peoples deaths when they got blown up By RPG's. Guys were getting blown out of windowns and off of ledges, all while twirling limply through the air... ah the joys. Hopefully ragdoll physics in BF will be well done so that people aren't flying 50 feet in the air from bombs and such. IRL youd probly be knocked down from the explosion not thrown into the air.

[R-DEV wrote: JS.Fortnight.A]Well actually Mind Game, the physics engine ingame does allow for this and can bee seen in such videos as the latest HOT file on the net of BF2 from the guys over at NBrigade.

Here is the video I'm speaking of, note the solider's load-out bouncing around.

(82.1megs)
http://www.northernbrigade.com/m8.php?P ... 5265585111

Australians cant get in that website, so can someone please put it on their FTP server and post it here?
PLEASE!!!!!

Drew is going to kill me for this...


Do NOT hot link these anywhere else!!!!
http://reality.dc-nc.com/pr/fortnight/N ... F2long.avi (82meg)
http://reality.dc-nc.com/pr/fortnight/N ... short3.avi (41meg)

Enjoy Austrailia!

OMG Thank u 100 times!!! DUDE u are the best!

heres an idea:

when in a jeep, car, buggy, ground thing that moves that isnt armor, if you hit a wall really fast, your character takes damage, as he would from the whiplash in a real accident. I love how in bfv you can drive a jeep eighty miles an hour into a wall and all that happens is your jeep starts smoking! it should kill you.

I saw that video, it is very nice...

ok i just thought of some more suggestions. i dont know if this has been said yet but it probably has. how bout being able to rest your gun on objects. like if theres a sandbag in front you i dont think u would hold your gun above the sand bag but you would rest it on the sand bag to get more accuracy

Thats a good one bloom. Also, 3D iron sites are a moost, at some point they need to be added. A simple zoomed weapon at the hip view is silly. Cant you just move the weapon so when its raised you look down the already modelled sites, that is, they are part of the model. Also, weapons should always fire where they are pointed, IRL there is no crosshair spread. Accuracy should be affected by recoil, yor movement, breathing, etc etc. Also also, if youve just sprinted 100 feet dodging fire, you should not be able to aim very well.

Bumlingfool56 wrote:ok i just thought of some more suggestions. i dont know if this has been said yet but it probably has. how bout being able to rest your gun on objects. like if theres a sandbag in front you i dont think u would hold your gun above the sand bag but you would rest it on the sand bag to get more accuracy

That reminds me a little of how the MG bipod system in DOD worked. Even though your idea seems more refined since it adds regular weapon.