Project Reality Forums

Conman51 wrote:The recoil on the AK74M seems a bit too high compared to other weapons of the same caliber.

I have the same impression. Especially since it has the most formidable muzzle brake of all compared weapons.

Conman51 wrote:The recoil on the AK74M seems a bit too high compared to other weapons of the same caliber.

I agree, why is the AK74m have worst performance than the M16a3? They both perform pretty much equally in the field. The 5.45x39 was called the "Poison Bullet" by Afghans during the Soviet/Afghan War. People who have seen wounds from this round will tell you how bad it is to be hit by this round compared to being hit from a 7.62x39 which is relatively minor due to in and out wounds. The 5.45x39 is more deadly than even the 5.56x45 rounds, wounds from the AR series have insurgents take hits, reported by American soldiers, saying they keep going, sure the wounds are fatal, but it takes them 30 seconds to realize it and die. That was what I liked about 0.98 because it truly showed how deadly the Ak74 was. Just like in real life. This weapon is scary as fuck when it is shooting at you.

We're not going to add reliability as a factor in this game, but at least keep the rifle characteristics realistic. I understand in 0.98, the AR-15 series was lacking, but don't nerf the AK74m because of it.

FN FAL is too accurate as well.

Agreed, the recoil on the AK74 is quite high...

007.SirBond wrote:I agree, why is the AK74m have worst performance than the M16a3? They both perform pretty much equally in the field. The 5.45x39 was called the "Poison Bullet" by Afghans during the Soviet/Afghan War. People who have seen wounds from this round will tell you how bad it is to be hit by this round compared to being hit from a 7.62x39 which is relatively minor due to in and out wounds. The 5.45x39 is more deadly than even the 5.56x45 rounds, wounds from the AR series have insurgents take hits, reported by American soldiers, saying they keep going, sure the wounds are fatal, but it takes them 30 seconds to realize it and die. That was what I liked about 0.98 because it truly showed how deadly the Ak74 was. Just like in real life. This weapon is scary as fuck when it is shooting at you.

We're not going to add reliability as a factor in this game, but at least keep the rifle characteristics realistic. I understand in 0.98, the AR-15 series was lacking, but don't nerf the AK74m because of it.

FN FAL is too accurate as well.

I would have to agree that the AK74m has too much recoil as well. It also doesn't have the stopping power it seems like it should have or use to have. This is really apparent sometimes on sarama ( or w/e) the map is called.

You can tag some american troops like 5 or 6 times and they are still running around and it seems like they can still kill me with only 2 or 3 shots. The burst is kind of OP in close range now that the AK47m seems to be doing less damage/being less accurate.

The FN FAL is great though I wouldn't change it. It is the perfect compromise for not being able to pick up american rifleman kits. A decent accurate weapon.

Viperelite wrote:I would have to agree that the AK74m has too much recoil as well. It also doesn't have the stopping power it seems like it should have or use to have. This is really apparent sometimes on sarama ( or w/e) the map is called.

You can tag some american troops like 5 or 6 times and they are still running around and it seems like they can still kill me with only 2 or 3 shots. The burst is kind of OP in close range now that the AK47m seems to be doing less damage/being less accurate.

The FN FAL is great though I wouldn't change it. It is the perfect compromise for not being able to pick up american rifleman kits. A decent accurate weapon.

FN FAL is not accurate in full auto in real life, I'd at least like the weapons to have realistic characteristics. Insurgents are not about accuracy, they are about overwhelming the enemy and flanking. A insurgent has to play very careful and patient. They may have to wait in a ditch or in a building until the perfect time arises to attack in order to be successful. They are also about baiting Blufor. Fire a few shots here, run away, let them come to you, then light them up. If you are trying to play as a insurgent like a Blufor soldier, you're not going to be successful, no matter what weapon you use.

007.SirBond wrote:FN FAL is not accurate in full auto in real life, I'd at least like the weapons to have realistic characteristics. Insurgents are not about accuracy, they are about overwhelming the enemy and flanking. A insurgent has to play very careful and patient. They may have to wait in a ditch or in a building until the perfect time arises to attack in order to be successful. They are also about baiting Blufor. Fire a few shots here, run away, let them come to you, then light them up. If you are trying to play as a insurgent like a Blufor soldier, you're not going to be successful, no matter what weapon you use.

Ah, I see. I wasn't aware of the accuracy being so good on FAL auto fire. Every time Ive used the FAL it was on single fire.

Hi, I used to love being a Sapper and planting Pipebomb IEDS around a cache to defend it. Now as ARF, I am not sure the damage the Mortar IEDs do when planting these around a cache. Are they similar to the older IEDs? Or do they cause more damage? What about claymores? Do they cause the same damage as they did before? Before 1.0 I could plant Pipebombs about 5-10 meters from a cache and not do damage to the cache itself while killing the Blufor near it. Mortar IEDs seem to be too powerful for that, but I would like to know exactly the extent of the Mortar IEDs damage, so as NOT to destroy the cache as well as the enemy near it. Thanks.

007.SirBond wrote:The 5.45x39 was called the "Poison Bullet" by Afghans during the Soviet/Afghan War. People who have seen wounds from this round will tell you how bad it is to be hit by this round compared to being hit from a 7.62x39 which is relatively minor due to in and out wounds.

Conventional forces in PR have body armor with ceramic-plates and the 5.45x39 just doesnt have enough energy to do much damage to that kind of armor. This is why you need to shoot the US guys 5 or 6 times to kill them. 7.62 is much better against targets with body armor.

Tarranauha200 wrote:Conventional forces in PR have body armor with ceramic-plates and the 5.45x39 just doesnt have enough energy to do much damage to that kind of armor. This is why you need to shoot the US guys 5 or 6 times to kill them. 7.62 is much better against targets with body armor.

There are various types of rounds used in weapons that can penetrate body armor, 7N10 is the 5.45x39 standard service round for Russian forces and these round which is capable of penetrating a steel slab 16mm thick at 300 meters and 6Zh85T body armour at 200 meters. These rounds were originally designed to be used against both armored infantry and light armored vehicles, but firings tests have proven that many of these rounds are effective at piercing the armor on BTRs and BMPs (about 5 and 10mm thick). While the US and Russia have never actually engaged each other for any of these weapons to know the true effectiveness. I believe the Interceptor which is standard issue for US forces would not do well protecting its wearer against the ZN10 AP round.



EDIT: Sorry I was not very clear in explaining what I found incorrect with the 1.0 Ak74. I find the weapon has too much recoil in comparison to the AR series and I believe the Russian Force's standard issue Ak74m should deal more damage than what it has right now. Factoring in the types of rounds available that the Russians will use, compared to the rounds in the Ak74 which Insurgents and Militia will be using.

Played a bit with AK now and it feels really weak. The damage seems to be lower than on any other rifle and the recoil just makes it hard to control. M16 and others seem superior in any way to the AK now

Indeed recoil on AK47 seems weird and too high especially when fired semi auto compared to other guns.

Weapons feel good, accurate just enough that its not lasers but not frustrating. Very well done. Recoil balances the reduced deviation perfectly aswell.

Heavy Death wrote:Weapons feel good, accurate just enough that its not lasers but not frustrating. Very well done. Recoil balances the reduced deviation perfectly aswell.

This statement might be true but then basically every other assault rifle is broken.

Redirected from another thread:

It's still ridiculous, i tested the Mk.12 deployed, from the prone position, firing at targets 200m away. Out of 10 rounds it only landed 2 where i was aiming, 1 second interval between shots. It misses by a little margin, maybe 3-5 feet away from where you're aiming, but it's still retarded not being able to hit a man sized target exatcly where you're aiming with a DMR from 200 meters.

Also, it's more precise undeployed, when you deploy it, it turns into a lead hose, firing bullets everywhere, you may hit the target on the first shot, but you can't hit him twice in a row. The second round will always land 10 feet away from where you're aiming.


GPMGs and LMG still take 5-8 seconds of following the target with the crosshair before you can fire and hit it. If you just go prone, right click, aim and fire, your rounds will hit the ground in front of you, the street lamps and low orbit space stations. Rounds go where the barrel is pointing, not in a 90? angle.


InB4: Engine limitations.
FH2 did it perfectly, no deviation whatsoever and aiming sway.

InB4: "But...But aiming sway is only visual, it has no impact on the crosshair"
So you'd rather have magical rounds flying in a 90? angle from the muzzle?

Deviation in the "normal" kits is acceptable, but sometimes they will still miss at <80m ranges.


What's the problem with removing deviation completely? Or maybe making it a 1-2s settle time max? It's really annoying aiming at someone center mass and having the round hit 5 feet away because you haven't been folowing him around with the crosshair for 8 seconds. I really had hope that deviation would be removed in 1.0, it's just a useless feature adding artificial difficulty when aiming.

I really like the recoil, but I still believe the deviation should be slightly looser but not so much it's back to 0.98. I think Falklands had it right but since those weapons were 7.62, .45 and 9mm it's a bit harder to compare it to 5.56/5.45/5.8. Put it this way, IMO the deviation should be like the FALs on falklands but on the intermediate caliber weapons. At the moment firefights feel way too short even at long range

Why on earth would you even want deviation in the first place? There is no deviation IRL. Nothing pisses me off as much as aiming at something and having the round land 400 yards to the left. You spend 20 seconds aiming at the guy, squeeze that trigger like a feather and the rounds look like they have free will, flying off in every possible direction BUT the direction you want. I will personally hunt down and cut off both legs of anyone who suggests deviation for PR2 and PR:Arma.

PS: 5.56 doesn't kick that hard. Not here, not anywhere.

Henrique_Dalben wrote:Why on earth would you even want deviation in the first place? There is no deviation IRL. Nothing pisses me off as much as aiming at something and having the round land 400 yards to the left. You spend 20 seconds aiming at the guy, squeeze that trigger like a feather and the rounds look like they have free will, flying off in every possible direction BUT the direction you want. I will personally hunt down and cut off both legs of anyone who suggests deviation for PR2 and PR:Arma.

PS: 5.56 doesn't kick that hard. Not here, not anywhere.

Yes there is deviation in real life, the first person animations do not accurate reflex where your weapon is always aiming, if there was a better indicator of when your weapon was perfectly aligned when aiming and when it isn't. That would be a much greater help to know when to fire, however, BF2 engine is limited in it's use.

It's impossible to line up your rear post and front post immediately and effectively take a target down at 200meters + after taking a knee from a sprint. The time it takes to have a perfect sight alignment depends on how much training and skill the operator has. It is simulated in the game as patience, in comparison to real life, the timing it takes to line up a good shot at far ranges is pretty close to the time it takes the deviation to settle in game. It's not perfect, but its much better than other games, BF2 engine cannot implement weapon sway as well.

Without deviation or weapon sway, this game would be like Arcade BF2 with more realistic weapon damage, that's about it. I would not play this game if there was no deviation.

007.SirBond wrote:Yes there is deviation in real life, the first person animations do not accurate reflex where your weapon is always aiming, if there was a better indicator of when your weapon was perfectly aligned when aiming and when it isn't. That would be a much greater help to know when to fire, however, BF2 engine is limited in it's use.

It's impossible to line up your rear post and front post immediately and effectively take a target down at 200meters + after taking a knee from a sprint. The time it takes to have a perfect sight alignment depends on how much training and skill the operator has. It is simulated in the game as patience, in comparison to real life, the timing it takes to line up a good shot at far ranges is pretty close to the time it takes the deviation to settle in game. It's not perfect, but its much better than other games, BF2 engine cannot implement weapon sway as well.

Without deviation or weapon sway, this game would be like Arcade BF2 with more realistic weapon damage, that's about it. I would not play this game if there was no deviation.

There is no need to line up jack shit when using reflex sights. It's far from being the pain in the *** people think. Deviation IRL is measured in MOA, deviation in PR is measured in meters. See the difference?

Make the animation for aiming down the sights take longer, that's a simple little solution. At least i won't be aiming center mass at a guy and end up hitting low flying aircraft.

Henrique_Dalben wrote:There is no need to line up jack shit when using reflex sights. It's far from being the pain in the *** people think. Deviation IRL is measured in MOA, deviation in PR is measured in meters. See the difference?

Make the animation for aiming down the sights take longer, that's a simple little solution. At least i won't be aiming center mass at a guy and end up hitting low flying aircraft.

None of the reflex sights, EOtech or other optics like these are properly implemented in any videogame. The method in which you aim weapons in first person shooters locks your arms, your eyes, head, upper torso in one direction. It would be impossible to do this in real life, especially in a firing stance. You would never be able to aim like this. If soldiers could do this, they would be elite killing machines. That's why there is deviation.

007.SirBond wrote:None of the reflex sights, EOtech or other optics like these are properly implemented in any videogame. The method in which you aim weapons in first person shooters locks your arms, your eyes, head, upper torso in one direction. It would be impossible to do this in real life, especially in a firing stance. You would never be able to aim like this. If soldiers could do this, they would be elite killing machines. That's why there is deviation.

Let me put it this way. If a chick can hit 6 out of 10 steel plates at 100 yards while standing, a grunt should at least be able to hit a man sized target at 200 yards 7 out of 10 times. And not 2 out of 20 times. And i won't even bring Travis Haley-tier people into the matter, otherwise i'd ***** about not being able to hit a 0.5x0.5m target at 700m with a red dot.