Project Reality Forums

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZlbWhlQF5U


There is no way they can make some of these hits on target without some type of target lock for the guns. on the last one shooting the airplane you can see the target box.

Alex6714 wrote:Yeah but you can´t stabilize the cameras in BF2.

Well why not do it like the tank FCS in CA?

The primary thing needing fixing in PR is the speed of the laser. That's really about it. If the laser could be made to be hitscan, the second firing mode for the AT missiles would actually be useful, and have the reticle move around independent of the camera when locked on would make it harder to lose a lock I suppose.

Fixing of the lasers and having a stabilised camera would do wonders for the attack choppers, but unfortunately the second can't be implement and the first is also possibly an engine limitation.

Hunt3r wrote:Well why not do it like the tank FCS in CA?

The primary thing needing fixing in PR is the speed of the laser. That's really about it. If the laser could be made to be hitscan, the second firing mode for the AT missiles would actually be useful, and have the reticle move around independent of the camera when locked on would make it harder to lose a lock I suppose.

Fixing of the lasers and having a stabilised camera would do wonders for the attack choppers, but unfortunately the second can't be implement and the first is also possibly an engine limitation.

It is like the tank fcs really?


You can´t fully stabilse cams, and the laser can´t go any faster and work. The best way is each vehicle having a laser on it simulating the quick lase/tracking that would happen when the helicopter points at it, in a simple way.

The problem is people seem fixated on the someone has to lase concept and I just don´t know why, its not always realistic, and it cetainly doesn´t make a difference to teamwork in the right situations.

Alex6714 wrote:It is like the tank fcs really?


You can´t fully stabilse cams, and the laser can´t go any faster and work. The best way is each vehicle having a laser on it simulating the quick lase/tracking that would happen when the helicopter points at it, in a simple way.

The problem is people seem fixated on the someone has to lase concept and I just don´t know why, its not always realistic, and it cetainly doesn´t make a difference to teamwork in the right situations.

A modified tank FCS from CA would work. Since the cam can't be stabilized, we'll stabilize the reticle. Once you have a lock your reticle will stay on the vehicle until you move enough to break the lock. Only difference would be that the shell would be a tracking hellfire and you would have the reticle lock directly on the target instead of moving a certain way to lead and account for bullet drop.

The implementation is kludgy and isn't technically accurate, but the BF2 engine has limits and so technically realistic implementations should wait until PR2.

Yeah we did the chopper and jet tracking systems before we even did the tanks so this is kindof old news. Good video btw.

CAS_117 wrote:Yeah we did the chopper and jet tracking systems before we even did the tanks so this is kindof old news. Good video btw.

Is there a video of the helos in action?

i think choppers are ok the way they are but i think the view of the cobra should be increased. Because on mutrah you can't fly as high as vs. on kashan

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote: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.

I suggest PR to prioritze the things that are already made eg. the CA stuff. Instead of first creating lots of new stuff from scratch, you can add some of the good/appropriate features from CA and then we will have awesome new things to add in patches much faster than stacking up for uber heavy patches having the community to drool over the DEV blogs for a very long time.

The work PR DEV's do is amazing, but to first make use of the things that are already "out there" wouldn't hurt anyone.

P.S. Don't worry, we would still drool over the DEV blogs

Its not as simple as it sounds though. It takes time to port things over an set it up right.

Ofcourse it isn't exactly copy/paste, but it will still be a lot faster than making things from scratch...

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.

...


VD = 3km, Fog starts at 2.5 approx

Tunguska = 2.5 km

Apache = 2.0 km

Tank = 1.5-1.75 km

...

We already had a little talk about the weapon ranges in Combined Arms section awhile ago and I wouldn't want to start it all over again.

I don't think the actual problem are the ranges rather than the view distance itself. 2-3km for 4km^2 is just so much. I know it looks cool to have large VD and is much more realistic than for instance 1km VD, as the real life VD's can be tens of kilometers.

I'm not able to offer any solution for the problem, all I can think that there should be more compensation between the relative small map area and realistic view distances. Then again it is still subject of personal preference without any perfect solution.