Project Reality Forums

We have a lock on box for killing tanks, it's called a laze, the problem for the guides missiles is that there is no stabilization for the attack heli gunner, as soon as the helicopter moves an inch the gun twiches along with it.

I would assume these things have a gyroscope of some sorts?

So basically if you get a whole server filled with people who know the in's and outs of the assets abilitys you will see unrealistic use of them. For example a helo far up in the sky with constant updates, lasers, and attack orders given to them will just let them sit, point, and fire on a gray area ( to them anyway) and get kills . Now if the view distance is changed to a clear sunny day then there goes your assets and *element of surprise*. The element of surprise includes sitting in one spot waiting, then surprise! pretty much whats being said on my part is if you can shoot at a target it should be able to shoot back at you, regardless of how accurate or deadly it is. Now how effective the projectile is should be dealt with by the dev's in anycase. Besides whens the last time you seen a t-79 go head to head with a apache irl when both know the other is there, regardless of line of sight.

An FCS properly implemented for the attack choppers and the AH-64D and having it's radar be more then just decoration, and also making 50 cals and mgs affect the attack choppers far less will help. A lot.

Will spark debate like the suggestion for tank FCS, but for helicopters it's more sorely needed. Helicopters as it is have terrible times trying to have accuracy at all. Spamming hellfires and bullets is basically the only way.

The FCS would basically solve every problem with having to stay a sitting duck for about 5 seconds so you can get an accurate shot off.

And the AH-64D would lock on, then pop down, and then launch. The AH-64D can do that.

It's true, in videos of Apaches and such in combat, you never see them hovering 1000 meters up.
They are down low in the fields, sometimes less than 50 meters off the ground.

The Apache in PR is the Longbow variant, so realistically it should be able to lanch Hellfire strikes without even exposing itslef from cover.
Obviously, this would be ridiculous pwnage, so shouldn't really be implemented.

Perhaps the Apache could be made to lock on to a GLTD laser even if it doesn't have a visual on it?
That way the helo could just pop up, frie at the laze, and be gone.

Of course, then the Havoc pilots and T-72's would complain about getting the short end of the stick...

Sidewinder Zulu wrote:It's true, in videos of Apaches and such in combat, you never see them hovering 1000 meters up.
They are down low in the fields, sometimes less than 50 meters off the ground.

The Apache in PR is the Longbow variant, so realistically it should be able to lanch Hellfire strikes without even exposing itslef from cover.
Obviously, this would be ridiculous pwnage, so shouldn't really be implemented.

Perhaps the Apache could be made to lock on to a GLTD laser even if it doesn't have a visual on it?
That way the helo could just pop up, frie at the laze, and be gone.

Of course, then the Havoc pilots and T-72's would complain about getting the short end of the stick...

Well T-72s should be getting the short end of the stick. The Apaches lock on to any lase within 1.5km and in the gunner's FLIR view. The lock time should be maybe a second longer and it requires the gunner to keep his aim steadier for a lock.

Assuming you're shooting behind terrain without laser, you should only be able to shoot about 1/4th of the current VD for any map.

Once a lock is acquired as long as the target is in the gunner's view it should be fine. The AH-64D should have a significantly smaller range to acquire a lock without lase while behind terrain. If the target is beyond view distance, you have to have a direct shot to take it out.

The FCS on all other helicopters should have the same range as a GLTD. As long as you can see the target, you can take it out. If someone lases, direct shot must be necessary, but you can still hit it. The missile should have limited range though, so you still need a spotter to see if it actually made it to the target.

Shooting behind terrain should only let you see and engage anything 1/4th of the way before the fog begins to appear. After that either you should be able to see the target but you must be in direct line of sight to engage, or you simply don't see anything and you have to pop up.

I'd honestly want to see FCS for aircraft and helos, they need it the most. Tanks have relatively accurate sights and it's much easier to range.

CAS_117 wrote:Well yes increasing ranges changes the fighting quite a bit, but along with that comes weapon scaling. In all likelyhood snipers would be limited to 1-1.3km range. Understand that we can't have direct scaling, so we use empirical scaling.

Tunguska = 12km

apache = 8km

Tank = 4km

We drop them by a factor of 4 for example and..

VD = 3km, Fog starts at 2.5 approx

Tunguska = 3km

apache = 2

Tank = 1

Giving a Tunguska a range of over half the map can cause problems. Same with tanks only being able to hit a target 1/3 of the view distance away from them. So to fix this we decided to narrow the margin between each vehicles max effective range.

Ultimately weapons with a longer real life range will enjoy a first shot advantage. However this advantage is not as pronounced as it would be in reality or under direct scaling.

VD = 3km, Fog starts at 2.5 approx

Tunguska = 2.5 km

Apache = 2.0 km

Tank = 1.5-1.75 km

In this scenario the real loser is the Tunguska unfortunately (partially compensated for by its radar detection range being around 3 km). The Apache does benefit from a lowered Tunguska range, but loses when it comes to the tanks increased range. The Tank is the overall winner.

The same is applied to most weapons in CA such as AAA, APCS, HAT, Snipers, .50 cals, small arms etc.

When dealing with weapons where the real life weapon range is not very well defined (things like tanks), we tend to make the projectile outlast the lock range. So while a lot of weapons are more powerful, the circumstances under which they can be used is somewhat narrower.

Just leave the empirical scaling and have the REAL LIFE ranges. That way it would be so much cooler and then it would really be "REALITY" MOD. Considering you could shoot across the whole map? Yea, that is where the geometry of the map comes in, there are hills on most maps preventing this anyway. A tunguska attack range of the whole map would be awesome, then attack helis would have to fly low. And tanks would be able to attack the things they see, just as in real life.

I want it to be realistic! If attack helo got real targeting system, I must make sure to have an AA to back me up if Im in a tank, otherwise Id get killed. That is what I call teamwork

Weapon balancing is for vanilla. The reason why I played PR in the first place was because in the start of the MOD, all was made as realistic as possible (it is still a great/best MOD but some things are getting out of hand). Balance out the maps by changing the numbers of the hardwares, not by crippling their weapons. Eg. if U.S. got 3 abrams, give MEC 5 tanks and make weapons/armor and damage as real as possible.

Believe me, it works quite well even as it is now. hough it would be great to test with 64 players.

CAS_117 wrote: VD = 3km, Fog starts at 2.5 approx

Tunguska = 2.5 km

Apache = 2.0 km

Tank = 1.5-1.75 km

In this scenario the real loser is the Tunguska unfortunately (partially compensated for by its radar detection range being around 3 km). The Apache does benefit from a lowered Tunguska range, but loses when it comes to the tanks increased range. The Tank is the overall winner.

These values could be easily "exploited".
Let me explain you why.

A helicopter in CA has better handling than PR. It can't make some really stupid maneuvers but its more responsive to commands. And because of BF2 engine can make maneuvers which IRL could lead to a vortex or a stall.

An experienced pilot could make a run for 500m and not exactly direct to target. He can just remains in hellfires DLZ poping flares, (which in CA are greater in numbers and more effective) fire the missile and drag a hard turn taking altitude. So even the tunguska fires he may outrun the missile. Of course tank or tunguska targeted cant do the same.

This tactic is tested in LAN. In 15 times the helicopter destroyed once and tunguska 12.
12/15 is a good probability of kill for a hellfire.
1/15 for a tunguska missile is not. (Well i think so ... maybe I am wrong here).
But anyway in game it could be very annoying.

As you already stated: in CA Tactical Skill > Technical Skill.
But this one helps only a player good with the joystick and could be exploited to death.
Maybe you should check it.

Yeah perfect example of why teamwork is even more important. 1 Apache Vs 1 Tunguska is not really a fight, it depends on the crews and such. If the server was full it would be quite alot different.

Also, the flares are much less effective in CA, but I don´t know what version of CA you were trying this on because the missiles have had constant changes and have sometimes been broken.

Nemus wrote:These values could be easily "exploited".
Let me explain you why.

A helicopter in CA has better handling than PR. It can't make some really stupid maneuvers but its more responsive to commands. And because of BF2 engine can make maneuvers which IRL could lead to a vortex or a stall.

An experienced pilot could make a run for 500m and not exactly direct to target. He can just remains in hellfires DLZ poping flares, (which in CA are greater in numbers and more effective) fire the missile and drag a hard turn taking altitude. So even the tunguska fires he may outrun the missile. Of course tank or tunguska targeted cant do the same.

This tactic is tested in LAN. In 15 times the helicopter destroyed once and tunguska 12.
12/15 is a good probability of kill for a hellfire.
1/15 for a tunguska missile is not. (Well i think so ... maybe I am wrong here).
But anyway in game it could be very annoying.

As you already stated: in CA Tactical Skill > Technical Skill.
But this one helps only a player good with the joystick and could be exploited to death.
Maybe you should check it.

Thats why I said, add/tweak the best parts of CA, we dont want the unrealistic/exploiting parts.

Alex6714 wrote:Yeah perfect example of why teamwork is even more important. 1 Apache Vs 1 Tunguska is not really a fight, it depends on the crews and such. If the server was full it would be quite alot different.

Also, the flares are much less effective in CA, but I don´t know what version of CA you were trying this on because the missiles have had constant changes and have sometimes been broken.

Well about flares is mostly matter of posibilities.
So you are somehow right.
We cant consider them as a constant factor.

And yes. This tactic tested in special. I dont know if in full game conditions could be so effective.

@Nemus it just sounds like your apache was a lot smarter than the Tunguska was. Aircrafts advantage is its firepower, and Anti-Air's advantage is its ability to hide. Once the Tunguska knows he's been located he should change position.

And I have killed 2 apaches and 2 littlebirds a few minutes apart with no trouble at all. These apaches were controlled by Alex, Mora, and Mcluv if I remember correctly, and they have been in CA since it started.

The Tunguska outranges the Apache by half a kilometer, its guns are homing, it outnumbers the apache by a factor of 2, and it only needs 1 player.

Even though flying an apache is less complicated than reality, so is every other object in BF2. Right down to the small arms and yes the Tunguska. I don't really care if a player knows how to clear a jam or do CPR or uncage an AGM-65, I just care about how well they know how to use them.

And also flares are not nearly as "effective" as they are in Vanilla and PR in CA. The do not even attract missiles, instead they block the heat signature from an aircraft sort of. Missiles are extremely accurate in CA. We have missiles that shoot down other missiles, and even guns that fire homing bullets, so suggesting that anti-air is in any way underpowered doesn't wash with me.

Viper.Sw wrote:Just leave the empirical scaling and have the REAL LIFE ranges. That way it would be so much cooler and then it would really be "REALITY" MOD. Considering you could shoot across the whole map? Yea, that is where the geometry of the map comes in, there are hills on most maps preventing this anyway. A tunguska attack range of the whole map would be awesome, then attack helis would have to fly low. And tanks would be able to attack the things they see, just as in real life.

We could do that but in reality the bases wouldn't be 5.5km apart. Which is less than half of what a Tunguska can fire. Besides, the max weapon range in BF2 is unfortunately 3km anyways so its not like we have a choice.

Ehmmm ... CAS
I just told you about a possible exploit. In every game exists exploits.
Maybe I am wrong.
That's why i told you to look after it and didnt said:"Pk of CA's AA sucks". (Just like many people here say" This or that is great" without even test it for 5 minutes )
At least i tried it many times just even before tell you that MAYBE it is an exploit.
No need to react like this man.
I didnt acused your mod.
Dont be as you said:

although I prefer to think of them as paranoid schizophrenics

(As you can see at least I am wathing your work )

Anyway ... sorry for the off topic post.

Nemus I am not being paranoid, I am telling you that I and many others have had a different experience with the Tunguska than yourself both in coding and in testing. I responded to some earlier comments without bothering to directly quote since we both read them. And lastly that quote you took from the CA marketing page has nothing to do with people criticizing CA, its about people thinking CA is some kind of existential threat to Project Reality.

Get in, do what's needed, and get out. Drive-by shootings are a lot more common than more stationary ones.

Modern targeting systems are very good at taking out attack helicopters, at least those on German Tanks. If there should be a war between Germany and a country that fields apaches the crew will be in for a surprise when they think their apaches are going to eat up leopards.

Cassius wrote:Modern targeting systems are very good at taking out attack helicopters, at least those on German Tanks. If there should be a war between Germany and a country that fields apaches the crew will be in for a surprise when they think their apaches are going to eat up leopards.

Absolutely don´t deny thins, but I think you will find that not only are helicopters targeting systems also good at taking out tanks. but they can do it from double the range.

Well what about leaving the visible range alone and work on the targeting then? If you smooth out the gunner view with gyros (that they do have in real life) then the shot would be better. I believe they can lock the gun on a target and the chopper can move around (within reason) and the gun stays on target.

Correct me if I’m wrong here because I have been in and out of the cockpits of a few longbows because they are stationed at my base here in Mo.

Yeah but you can´t stabilize the cameras in BF2.

Like I said in the other thread.......

CAS, Alex & Co have done some amazing work and I'll be looking into porting over more of it into PR. Won't be until 0.9 or latter though.