Project Reality Forums

fubar++ wrote:
So you are saying if the target isn't moving or changing speed and direction the target will be automatically tracked (excluding fine tune) while yourself are moving (even with varying speeds and directions)?

Close, its keeping the gun in its relative position to the hull, remember the tank is in essence a "dumb" system and knows nothing of the target at all, only the direction the gun is pointed. But it will keep the gun pointed in what was the last position the gunner used aided or assisted lay. If he uses just stabilisation the gun will point the correct direction but no elevation data will be used.

So in the end of the day the tanks in PR are realistic, they are just not as good as the real deal?

The driver could be able to target enemys, with a special key, like Q

ive read through the hole thread i *think* so some one might have said this.

but why not just have the most skilled tank crew win ? rather than give every one equal chance when it should be the better shooter/driver combo

I don't think that a form of assisted aiming which functions in a similar manner to the way in which Undies described would necessarliy mean gunning would be less skill full. It would appear the gunner still has alot of tracking work to do unless the target is static.

If the target is static it would be point and click, yes, but thats what happens now anyway. If the system could be made to lose lock when sudden movements/changes in direction occur then it wouldn't provide an advantage over the current system.

With something such as this added in the inital tracking of a target would still require skill, especially if both target and own tank are moving, probably more than the stop-point-click-fire-move type of combat we have now. It would also open up a whole new range of tactics.

Whether its possible to have a similar system in Pr however is another matter.

I still think that the compromise where you could track static targets while you are on move yourself would bring new dynamics to tank battles. You could also somewhat try to estimate moving targets by pointing "aimbot" on location where the target is heading. With this kind of system static tanks or tanks with too straight forward drivers on open areas would be really vulnerable, which would actually be quite close resemblance of RL.

How do you control the turret IRL?

is it a version of a keyboards WASD or what?

Joystick i think.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:How do you control the turret IRL?

is it a version of a keyboards WASD or what?

It is literally like a video game console controller, and the younger lads we have coming through are often excellent gunners, i wonder if playing Xbox 360 is a good thing?

Take a look here and you can pan around and see the interior of a CR2 (Pre-Bowman)

http://www2.army.mod.uk/linkedfiles/the ... all2in.mov

thats very cool

model the interior!

Undies, if you have Arma, I think you would appreciate this

YouTube - M1A1 Gunnery in ArmA. M1A1 Fire Control System by NWD

I dont have ARMA unfortunately, that looks really good.

$kelet0r wrote:Undies, if you have Arma, I think you would appreciate this

fixed. You only need the ending HkuG7yMTgH8 between your youtube code.

This is exactly what i mean, holding your croshair on the target to get a "lock".

This would be great for attack choppers too .

Mora wrote:This would be great for attack choppers too .

Removing the only thing in helis that takes skills to use? Hell no.

The arma thing look great

Can't be done with BF2 itself. There is not mechanism for targeting computers. The mechanism in place for camera stabilization don't work very well either.

Spaz wrote:Removing the only thing in helis that takes skills to use? Hell no.

If you replaced the hellfires with loaves of bread that would also take skill. Its not any less unfair and unrealistic. Keep in mind that neither the Tunguskas missiles or the Stormers are heat seeking in reality; they are command and laser guided. By all counts they should be guided the same way the hellfires are.

[R-DEV]CAS_117 wrote:If you replaced the hellfires with loaves of bread that would also take skill. Its not any less unfair and unrealistic. Keep in mind that neither the Tunguskas missiles or the Stormers are heat seeking in reality; they are command and laser guided. By all counts they should be guided the same way the hellfires are.

It was a joke, I think I should have added a " " after it.

Spaz wrote:It was a joke, I think I should have added a " " after it.

Does that really mean it's a joke? What's the convention around here?