Project Reality Forums

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:Ye but then we wouldn't have a map for the F-16 and its more realistic for the US Army to be getting air support from the US Air Force

One feature we may see in the future of PR thou is semi-random spawning vehicles on spawn points, so for example on Kashan you could have a F-16 or a F/A-18 spawning on the Fighter's spawn point, but no promises

I find the when Rhino gives little bit of ideas out its like a sex phone number, i just got to keep with it...

Viper5 wrote:In the spirit of interservice cooperation, I think Kashan would make a smashing fit

seriously though, the team has done all that work on making the USA and USMC different according to their RL differences it would be a step back to put USN/MC air assets on a USA map imo. Adding vehicles to the mod for the sake of adding vehicles to the mod doesn't do anything except increase the number of things that need work and beta testing



appropriate maps for appropriate assets, if ya wanna get a nimitz carrier or get a scenario featuring a USMC controlled airfield on a 4k map, then the USN air power can be featured properly

Though there are a couple of maps in development that can feature something, but we'll release details at a more appropriate time

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:seriously though, the team has done all that work on making the USA and USMC different according to their RL differences it would be a step back to put USN/MC air assets on a USA map imo.

Well tbh it wouldn't be unrealistic for a USN/USMC aircraft to be giving air support to US Army troops on the ground, in the same way its very common to see US jets giving air support to British troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Its really about what is the nearest available jet to give support

But yes, it is more common for the US Army to receive air support from the US Air Force but not set in stone like ground vehicles.

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Rudd;1634544']Ace, did you mean to post that in a different thread? its a bit random[/quote]

I in fact did not mean to post that in a different thread.

[quote="PlaynCool""]Oh cmon guys stop wanting 1337 jet landing on carriers, the mod is awesome as it is.[/quote]

...I'm fat.

acemantura wrote:PR is not awesome. It is awesome-est, which which is kind of like being the tallest midget.

The work the community does now, will be vastly "shorter" than PR2. This is one of the reasons why I haven't made too many maps. But mostly because I am lazy and disorganized, but I am not about to roll off the couch onto smaller couch just to make a map for a mod that is going to be replaced.

This really isn't true. PR2 is a very long way off and even when PR2 comes, it may not necessarily offer the same experience/features as PR:BF2 and as such, wont strictly replace it.

The "PR2 is a very long way off" is good enough reason than anything else to make a map for PR:BF2 as it still has a very large player base and unless you can develop directly towards PR2 currently, there isn't a reason why you shouldn't map for PR:BF2 now.

Rhino, my dear sir, what part of , "I AM A LAZY FAT *******!" do you not understand?

.../troll + /sort of truth

acemantura wrote:Rhino, my dear sir, what part of , "I AM A LAZY FAT *******!" do you not understand?

.../troll + /sort of truth

The biggest thing I was worried about was you putting other people off from mapping by that statement tbh although it would be good for you to take up mapping again too

acemantura wrote:Rhino, my dear sir, what part of , "I AM A LAZY FAT *******!" do you not understand?

.../troll + /sort of truth

I'm just not understanding why your willingless or lack thereof is relevant to the discussion?

the only way it would be is if we renamed the thread to 'the stuff about acemantura thread'

which I'm pretty sure wouldn't belong in teh BF2 gen discussion section, thus we can save ourselves the annoyance of moving the thread to the off topic section or locking it by just returning to the thread topic

wait, didnt the US drop the contract for the F35s?

i prefer sticking with choppers, jets just don't have the space to move and thus fly at unrealistically low speeds in game making them easy prey for auto cannons

edit: correction, they're thinking about dropping it.

Bringerof_D wrote:wait, didnt the US drop the contract for the F35s?

i prefer sticking with choppers, jets just don't have the space to move and thus fly at unrealistically low speeds in game making them easy prey for auto cannons

edit: correction, they're thinking about dropping it.

Ummm no? the F-35 is going to be making up the majority of the US air power in the future epically with them not buying any more F-22s.

What your probably thinking of is the USMC is thinking of not getting the F-35B as it has a few issues that are being overcome but they are still very much on track of getting it as none of the issues can't be resolved and they have put far to much time and money into the F-35B to think of scrapping it, epically with them making things like the America class amphibious assault ship which dosen't even have a well dock like the Wasp class (the carrier ingame) as its main focus is delivering air power in the forum of choppers and F-35Bs.

Is that a bf2 rendered model? would be nice to retire the Essex for some new carrier

Sorry, looks like an IRL model of a planned carrier.

that is what the essex looks like..... and no i think thats from a wiki article or something about the US marine core....

killonsight95 wrote:that is what the essex looks like.....

Nope, thats an America class. The Essex is a Wasp class.

US marine core....

US Marine Corps.

Core...

Why all that "one faction" attitude...

US Army and Marines are different, realy different, but they both serve US, so why they would not be able to work with each other ?

I'm dreaming ( rather than doing it ) about a Operation Medusa map, with Canadian-led infantry, supported by US Army ( with the addin of Kiowa on the map), British (by adding Warriors), etc. Just like it was made in Fallujah. I known that you can't have a Coalition faction due to Engine, but, you can represente them by adding vehicle. So the Coalition leader will provide the core, and the other just a few assets. Canada do have allies, just like other nation, it would be awesome to have map depicting it.

Joint Ops? Whaaaaaaaat? I wouldn't mind having Canadian assets on maps like Qwai, that'd be a good map. Like having the LAV3 or something. Or better yet having USMC, US Army, and Canadian all going out on PLA, Hamas, Russia. That'd be an epic battle.

No but seriously, a joint ops map would be pretty cool, as long as it's not so overboard. Maybe like an air asset or two.

Hotrod525 wrote:Why all that "one faction" attitude...

US Army and Marines are different, realy different, but they both serve US, so why they would not be able to work with each other ?

I'm dreaming ( rather than doing it ) about a Operation Medusa map, with Canadian-led infantry, supported by US Army ( with the addin of Kiowa on the map), British (by adding Warriors), etc. Just like it was made in Karabala. I known that you can't have a Coalition faction due to Engine, but, you can represente them by adding vehicle. So the Coalition leader will provide the core, and the other just a few assets. Canada do have allies, just like other nation, it would be awesome to have map depicting it.

Ye its not a new idea and one we have been doing a bit of in the past/current (with a US Army Bradley supporting USMC troops on Fallujah for example, as per r/l) and planning to do a bit more of in the future

Why all that "one faction" attitude...

there's about 27 maps in PR right?

dump teh 1ks, thats 22 - only 1 1k features heavy assets in a joint ops scenario the rest either cannot do the joint ops or are unsuitable for heavy vehicles of any kind

of those 22 maps only 7 are large enough for jets, only 4 of them are set up to actually have jets.

so that 4 jet maps, Qinling - GBvsCH, Kashan USAvsMEC, Iron Ridge MECvsIDF, Silent eagle GervsRu

that means the only team ingame that gets featured twice on a jet map is MEC, so if we featured a different team's jets on any other team, that means that teams jets are no longer going to get shown AT ALL. - therefore adding different jets would be pointless work for everyone when it means we'll not be able to use assets that have already had work put into them.

Same kind of deal for CAS choppers tbh, we could feature the british apache on kashan if you like? real gameplay difference there. Could put the cobra on kashan if you like...again huge gameplay difference and then teh US apache isn't even used ingame whereas the Cobra is on muttrah.

armoured vehicles, some people rose a stink that a bradley is on the same map as a stryker...but another country's vehicle is ok?

And I'm not sure if its actually coded python wise already for the non-us assets or teams to use or to be used by non-us assets or teams

really want the F18 or whatver? only way its gonna happen is if you make an appropriate map so there is an actual reason to code it up.

Adding the USMC to say, a 32 layer of Kashan would be the only way to get this done properly imo, but kinda pointless if the only reason is to use a different jet

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:there's about 27 maps in PR right?

dump teh 1ks, thats 22 - only 1 1k features heavy assets in a joint ops scenario the rest either cannot do the joint ops or are unsuitable for heavy vehicles of any kind

of those 22 maps only 7 are large enough for jets, only 4 of them are set up to actually have jets.

so that 4 jet maps, Qinling - GBvsCH, Kashan USAvsMEC, Iron Ridge MECvsIDF, Silent eagle GervsRu

that means the only team ingame that gets featured twice on a jet map is MEC, so if we featured a different team's jets on any other team, that means that teams jets are no longer going to get shown AT ALL. - therefore adding different jets would be pointless work for everyone when it means we'll not be able to use assets that have already had work put into them.

Same kind of deal for CAS choppers tbh, we could feature the british apache on kashan if you like? real gameplay difference there. Could put the cobra on kashan if you like...again huge gameplay difference and then teh US apache isn't even used ingame whereas the Cobra is on muttrah.

armoured vehicles, some people rose a stink that a bradley is on the same map as a stryker...but another country's vehicle is ok?

And I'm not sure if its actually coded python wise already for the non-us assets or teams to use or to be used by non-us assets or teams

really want the F18 or whatver? only way its gonna happen is if you make an appropriate map so there is an actual reason to code it up.

Adding the USMC to say, a 32 layer of Kashan would be the only way to get this done properly imo, but kinda pointless if the only reason is to use a different jet

Thats not the point i'm bringin up, i'm not asking to get AV8B or F18 or anything. Just maybe a map with a Coalition on it, something more "NATO like". Just like Fallujah but at an other scale. Take Kashan, replace some M1A2 for lets said CR2 to represent the british, and change 1 or 2 M2A3 with LAV-3 to represent the Canadian, and that's it, on the other side you can have a non-coalition/coalition...
I dont know shit about modding, but i dont think change some vehicle on a map is REALY that hard.