Project Reality Forums

I was posting feedback maybe its something you's dont want to hear but such is life i'm not bashing the MOD nor have i said anything against the forum rules or attacked anyone, i'm simply posting my point of view like others here.

None of your suggestions to why it was deleted are the case.

Obviously people make assumptions just like what you did if they cant see the full picture doesnt mean there wrong or **** its a POV.

Anyway i wont post again in this topic seeing as its unwelcome.

Hope that minimap get an "audit"

When I saw that minimap in .4 it was almost as disappointing as the time I got a goat on my 16th birthday instead of a trial bike (true story)

Anyway good work fellas, fantastic news

exellent news can' t wait to get it

Is the sound of the Spec Ops Type 95 going to be redone because it sounds way too punny right now? It is pretty much the Chinese VBF2 varient of the L85 in terms of sounds/

lol, so true SOF. Sure i have heard more fearsom Airsoft guns.
I willl miss the AK though, its wood, real loud sound and ofcourse, its really fat round! Too many 5.56mm type round firing bullpups might become alittle boring.
Least the MEC have their heavy G3.
Mabey now the Chinese GL has a UGL and a scope, mabey the british (when DEVs model a SA80with ugl) will have SUSAT and UGL aswell, more scopes the better, BF2 2d iron sites are so damn miserable - thought i saw the last of it with OFP 5 years ago!

Should have new type 95 sounds with the new type 95 models and hopefully will retrofit those to the existing type 95. We may eventually replace the vBF2 type 95s (the carbine, the DMR and the LMG are all type 95 variants modelled by EA).

All conventional armies will eventually have a Rifleman & Grenadier w approx 4x scope and all other Rifleman derivative classes using iron sights.

As a result our current small arms priorities are:

• Get the Type 95 family done and in game for PLA Rifleman, Grenadier and Rifleman derivative & combat support classes ( v0.5 )
• the vBF2 SA80 w iron sights and the AG36 UGL will get replaced with a PR modelled L85A2 w SUSAT and AG36 ( v0.6 ? )
• An M16A4 w ACOG and an M16A4 w ACOG and M203 for the USMC to replace the existing M16A2 w iron sights and M16A2 w iron sights and M203 ( v0.6 ? )
• A G3 w optics will replace the G3 w iron sights and a G3 w optics and HK79 GL will replace the Ak101 (as well as a G3/SG1 for the DMR to replace the Dragunov for MEC) ( v0.6 ? )

After we have got a symmetrical set of small arms we'll take a look at things like better looking weapon models and such... but our focus is always on stuff that impacts game play dynamics before stuff that affects eye candy.

eggy, for balancing purposes, i think the grenadier should continue using ironsights. this kit is somewhat overused now as the rifleman kit is waaay less used.. giving the optics just to the rifleman should help balancing between these 2 kits. otherwise we will may have the overuse of the grenadier class and the GLwhoring turning into a issue
imho

'[R-DEV wrote:eggman']
As a result our current small arms priorities are:

• Get the Type 95 family done and in game for PLA Rifleman, Grenadier and Rifleman derivative & combat support classes ( v0.5 )
• the vBF2 SA80 w iron sights and the AG36 UGL will get replaced with a PR modelled L85A2 w SUSAT and AG36 ( v0.6 ? )
• An M16A4 w ACOG and an M16A4 w ACOG and M203 for the USMC to replace the existing M16A2 w iron sights and M16A2 w iron sights and M203 ( v0.6 ? )
• A G3 w optics will replace the G3 w iron sights and a G3 w optics and HK79 GL will replace the Ak101 (as well as a G3/SG1 for the DMR to replace the Dragunov for MEC) ( v0.6 ? )

Sounds great! I'm drooling already, can't wait to get my hands on these

luizinhuu wrote:eggy, for balancing purposes, i think the grenadier should continue using ironsights. this kit is somewhat overused now as the rifleman kit is waaay less used.. giving the optics just to the rifleman should help balancing between these 2 kits. otherwise we will may have the overuse of the grenadier class and the GLwhoring turning into a issue
imho

I would have to agree. Even though the grenidier would run out of ammo pretty quickly, they should have to use iron sights so that it is not overplayed.

TopHat wrote:I willl miss the AK though, its wood, real loud sound and ofcourse, its really fat round! Too many 5.56mm type round firing bullpups might become alittle boring.

The Insurgents still have the AK.

luizinhuu wrote:eggy, for balancing purposes, i think the grenadier should continue using ironsights. this kit is somewhat overused now as the rifleman kit is waaay less used.. giving the optics just to the rifleman should help balancing between these 2 kits. otherwise we will may have the overuse of the grenadier class and the GLwhoring turning into a issue
imho

do you know that infact, in real life it is impossible to put a iron sight on the SA80 with UGL cos the UGL attachment covers up where you would put the iron sights onto it. But at the mo we are using that crappy EA model that dosent even have the front and back sight aligned up at the mo....

wont the scope on the g3 with the gl make it a pain to aim as you will only see sky for long range shots. when using the gl will a different site screen be used?

H1tman wrote:wont the scope on the g3 with the gl make it a pain to aim as you will only see sky for long range shots. when using the gl will a different site screen be used?

you use the leaf for the GL shots, not the scope

But thou the leaf will just be that vBF2 crosshair thing as there is no good way of making a realistic leaf ingame.

Why can't you use the model's leaf? Just putting it in front of the screen in a 3D ironsight should do the trick. It's not as if the vBF2 style crosshairs have any sort of accuracy anyway.

I agree with the GL kit not getting a scope. I started playing that kit more lately and it is deadly. I've gotten 12 kills in less than one minute with the GL; I don't need a scope for more kills.

DICE orginaly had 3D ironsites, there is a vid that has been shown a fiar ammount on this site, of both M4 3D site and GL. http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/video_play ... efs;button - Almost exactly half way through is the 3d GL site.

They managed it on the engine, so why can you (DEVs) not?

Clypp wrote:Why can't you use the model's leaf? Just putting it in front of the screen in a 3D ironsight should do the trick. It's not as if the vBF2 style crosshairs have any sort of accuracy anyway.

I should really make a sticky post, or a template of this for every time I post it.

You cant simply chuck a leaf on the screen and exspect players to be able to aim from it. A Leaf sight dose not work like that.

The leaf site is used, to control the elevation of the gun to fire at diffrent rages. The more elevation, the further the shot will go (till you get past 45deg of course). Now you control this, by lining the front iron sight up with a point on the Leaf, that has the range marked on it. at diffrent points, the gun will have more elevation, and less elevation. Here is a screenshot of it done in a game where you can do it (god knows what game this is from, just from google).



See how both the leaf and front sight are used.

Now if we just slap a leaf on the screen, how the hell are players ment to use it? They cant is the awnser. The Leaf is useless without the front sight.

So you ask, why don't we chuck a front sight on? Well the awnser is, we can, BUT due to the BF2 engine, the player can not adjust the iron sight on the leaf, and even if we could, BF2 always have the bulliest fire where ever the middle of the screen is pointing, not the gun. So even if we did find some work around to tilt the gun up with it (which i really, highly dout), it still wouldn't work cos the shell would head directly forwards and land 2 feet in front of you still.

So for the moment, the crappy cross-hair thing, curtsy of EA is all we have and it works, reletivly well if you learn how far each range is etc.

Hope that awnsers your question.

Also, I personally prefer hand nades form GL nades as you have more control over them

Top _Cat the great wrote:DICE orginaly had 3D ironsites, there is a vid that has been shown a fiar ammount on this site, of both M4 3D site and GL. http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/video_play ... efs;button - Almost exactly half way through is the 3d GL site.

They managed it on the engine, so why can you (DEVs) not?

also TC, that's 2D, and he was only firing it dead ahead so it looked like it was working. but if he had to fire it at long ranges, it would be useless and would just cover up the screen the player would need to see to aim.

thanks very much for explaining that. So was the M4 site 2D as well or what. Becuase bullets go almost strait, would a 3D Site work on the BF2 engine?

And if possible, i guess it would take alot of time, but that M4 site does look joolly nice, however they did it!

Top _Cat the great wrote:thanks very much for explaining that. So was the M4 site 2D as well or what. Becuase bullets go almost strait, would a 3D Site work on the BF2 engine?

And if possible, i guess it would take alot of time, but that M4 site does look joolly nice, however they did it!

M4 is also 2D

it is possible, but hardly worth it since we would have to make a incredibaly high pollie weapon with a nice iron sight on it first, then have to animate it so that the sight was in the middle etc, not really worth it.

Pistols are 3d iron sights for example cos they move around a load and as they are much smaller than a rifle, they can have that extra pollie.

http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/video_p...g=prefs;button

I would give anything....ANYTHING to play that version of BF2

That was so much ebtter than what we have right now, laser designators, the optics looked awsome, the Comma Rose was nice and small at the bottom, and its blue....that map is great...A battleHawk, the maps didnt look retarded...some objects were awsome...oh man

ARGH EA WTF HAVE YOU DONE!?

WEll said Darth, well said. "incredibaly high pollie weapon with a nice iron sight on it first", sheer lazyness on all parts, how very wrong i was when i thought the world had moved on from OFP, hated it 4 years ago and look what we still got.

Top _Cat the great wrote:WEll said Darth, well said. "incredibaly high pollie weapon with a nice iron sight on it first", sheer lazyness on all parts, how very wrong i was when i thought the world had moved on from OFP, hated it 4 years ago and look what we still got.

How can you say it was lazyness? They had years to work on it and delayed it several times, so they must of encountered some kind of problem. What game doesn't do what they did and never get called lazy?