Project Reality Forums

danger01 wrote:where is this posted? i was informed by a dev and it is well noted in these forums that ballistics for bf2 are NOT possible. This has always been a sore point with me because i think that a shooting game should have realistic ballistics.
Sacrificing tracers for ballistics i think would be more than acceptable to the whole community, and for those who would not want to see that happen i suggest another game.

This video was posted by mosquill a long time ago. Im not sure if this is still possible as new updates moved on more things became hardcoded....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_f8U-n7xbo

EDIT: After going through the comments on this video I confirmed that...

Ballistics weren't implemented in PR Quote "The engine is bf2142 in this video and the video was recroded in bf2142. Unlike BF2, bf2142 supports weapon sway and doesn't have the tracer bug.

Tracer bug in bf2 causes tracers to have a slower muzzle velocity then regular rounds, which results in tracers having a different trajectory. This is the reason why ballistics weren't implemented in PR.

wtf? people wanted tracers over ballistics ?
to those who want tracers instead of ballistics i say get a friggin life !!!!

not being funny here but if realistic ballistics are poss, then why the hell dont we have them, this is a fundamental requirement for any realism mod and anyone arguing against it should be shot

after watching that vid, that would need serious adjustment, the sway is far to much for the range, when prone, the weapon is much steadier than shown there. i know its 2142 but still, there is way to much sway.

Why don´t we move over to BF2142 then xD.....just kiddin´
Just to get it right...if we remove the tracers, we could implement that bit of ballistics into PR, what the BF2 engine allows? am I right?? (plz point it out)

I want to know what does these realistic ballistics mean? I think that tracers are important as I use them a lot so I'm not sure if I'm ready to give them up.

ballistics mean accurate rifle fire, eg. when the bullet come out the gun it goes above where your points the sight then down towards the sight at whatever distance its effective range is. insted of comming out the barrel and going 600 meters and then going down, it should allowfor longer close rnage combats and a more realitic and possibly longer firefights because it'll be hard to get those just on accurate shots.

killonsight95 wrote:ballistics mean accurate rifle fire, eg. when the bullet come out the gun it goes above where your points the sight then down towards the sight at whatever distance its effective range is. insted of comming out the barrel and going 600 meters and then going down, it should allowfor longer close rnage combats and a more realitic and possibly longer firefights because it'll be hard to get those just on accurate shots.

OMG i want that way over tracers. this be awesome

eztonia wrote:I want to know what does these realistic ballistics mean? I think that tracers are important as I use them a lot so I'm not sure if I'm ready to give them up.

ballistics mean, in no shorter word,"realism"
bullets affected by size, wind(good for sniper) and gravity, maybe even ricochet's.
having to aim up for those long shots, etc

there are many ways to locate an enemy other than tracer, like sound, positioning and another great way( realistic) is looking for muzzle smoke in direction of sound heard.

as for tracers themselves, many posts here talk about 2 in front some in middle and a few at end of mag. there are a few ways of setting tracers, i used them 1-4 ratio with 2 inline 4 rounds from end of mag

I fully support ballistics over tracers. Also it would be harder for people to keep you pinned with accurate fire due to the ballistics system and therefore it wouldn't be that hard to survive the first few shots even if you can't locate their source. I definately like this idea.

None the less, none of you are staying on topic ^_^. This topic is based on the removal of tracers on some kits not all of them. But....

If we get ballistics that would be cool, but I swear i read a post in here that a dev told the community that ballistics ARE NOT possible...

There's no use in bringing up an old argument to support a new one...

Besides, I just wont feel happy shooting a cannon (on apc's or tanks etc) and not being able to see them glow when flying down the range...

But i guess, proper bullet trajectory (ie ballistics) in PR would complety transform how players play PR for the better. But IMO if we have ballistics in PR you WOULD need tracers to help you zero on the enemy.

Right now, there are no ballistics... so why do we need tracers to help us aim bullets that will go in a straight line anway? (of up to a certian distance yes)

Diabolos.

xI DIaboLoS Ix wrote: If we get ballistics that would be cool, but I swear i read a post in here that a dev told the community that ballistics ARE NOT possible...

I´ve read that too.....but I´m a bit confused right now...
As far as I have understood, you could implement "ballistics", if you remove the tracers, which cause the tracer-bug. I mean BF2142 uses the same freking engine as BF2 (a bit revised, but still) so it should not be that hard to change it for PR. But I don´t know, just saying what I have picked up in this thread, probably I´m wrong , better to shut up know :/

Edit: I´m not talking about real ballistics I know that´s not possible

Im sure Mosquill can do something about it.

Makes sense. GIve em to the AR, take em from the Rifleman.

But don't we need tracers if we add ballistics to see where the bullet is going? Without tracers it will be more like a guessing game.

eztonia wrote:But don't we need tracers if we add ballistics to see where the bullet is going? Without tracers it will be more like a guessing game.

no because then we can use the increment markers on the sights.

and IRL rifleman dont use tracers to figure out where they are shooting, they are only for showing everyone where enemies only MGs get tracers every 5 rounds

To Clear this up,in the rifles we all got issued them,usually a box or 2 ,we used them for the last few rounds in our mags to notify us when we were running out,the 5.56 tracer lights up after 90 yards and we use them alot for target identification,watch my tracer etc.yes we do need them

juduszero wrote:To Clear this up,in the rifles we all got issued them,usually a box or 2 ,we used them for the last few rounds in our mags to notify us when we were running out,the 5.56 tracer lights up after 90 yards and we use them alot for target identification,watch my tracer etc.yes we do need them

we don't need them, they don't identify if we're running out of ammo and since we have compass and SL markers we don't need them.

killonsight95 wrote:we don't need them, they don't identify if we're running out of ammo and since we have compass and SL markers we don't need them.

,well i thought this game was about realism? where is the realism in that? secondly how are you gonna rely on a compass if your working at fireteam level and you are trying to tell another fireteam 2km across the battlefield where you are shooting by compass?

use map grid?

killonsight95 wrote:use map grid?

6 Point grid reference is to 100m,thats a big area to ID a target if they are not instantly visible,much easier to lob a few tracers

juduszero wrote:,well i thought this game was about realism? where is the realism in that? secondly how are you gonna rely on a compass if your working at fireteam level and you are trying to tell another fireteam 2km across the battlefield where you are shooting by compass?

Telling another squad 2km away what your shooting at in PR is irellevant to them... Telling the commander in PR what your shooting at and marking them with a marker is what you should do imo. (as the commander can see your markers...) From there the commander can relay that information. Since on most maps the view distance is only around 800 meters... on newer maps its like 1.5 k but none the less... Your argument is irrelevant.. You gave no proof from what you orignally said.

remember that PR is not only based on Realism, In many cases gameplay has been thought of instead of realism. Which is why I think PR is so freakin fun.

My suggestion is based on gameplay improvements and in areas realism. You made a pretty darn bold statement with out any evidence or elaborate thinking other then "No I think your wrong and heres a single reason."