Project Reality Forums

^I agree, from first hand experience to boot.

It'll require more knowledge/inteligence about the enemy and knowing how to control the tank and it's environment, as I saw when we tried it.

What about the helo missile systems?

The missile will lockon to vehicles.

Laikalappie wrote:The Tank-locking system is überly lame.

PLEASE.
PLEASE!
Don't do it!!!!

Please try it before you say anything like this because you have no idea what you are talking about.

StuTika wrote:I agree. I know it's realistic and whatever, but it's really lame. It just takes all the fun out of gunning. No-one will ever miss.

Stu.

You do still miss sometimes.

crazyasian11 wrote:Please try it before you say anything like this because you have no idea what you are talking about.




You do still miss sometimes.

I never miss.

StuTika wrote:I agree. I know it's realistic and whatever, but it's really lame. It just takes all the fun out of gunning. No-one will ever miss.

Stu.

Tactical > Technical skill.

Edmister wrote:I know that the Combined arms mod isn't actually in 0.9, but some of the ideas in it are seriously useful(especially that 2k draw distance-why wasn't that in there before?)
Maybe not in 0.9, but sometime in the future of mainstream PR some of these ideas might be able to be put to work.

They have 2k draw distance? This is the stuff PR should have! Dont come dragging with arguments about slow computers, it is not 2007 anymore.

TheLean wrote:They have 2k draw distance? This is the stuff PR should have! Dont come dragging with arguments about slow computers, it is not 2007 anymore.

Well, the draw distances haven't hurt me (I run both maps at above 30 fps), and I have an entry level iMac. A few maps like Fools Road kill my computer, but otherwise DR and wak2 have far fewer statics than many newer maps.

McLuv wrote:Well, the draw distances haven't hurt me (I run both maps at above 30 fps), and I have an entry level iMac. A few maps like Fools Road kill my computer, but otherwise DR and wak2 have far fewer statics than many newer maps.

Yeah and these haven't even really been optimized much or so Rhino has told me. But they still run pretty good.

As an experienced PR Tank Gunner, I say nay. Will take all of the fun out of gunning.

As for the Missiles, I see a round of Kashan going like this.

A-10 Takes off. A-10 flies to (Really high). A-10 Locks onto all enemy vehicles. A-10 Kills all enemy vehicles. Su-25 Does Same.

That really doesn't seem fun for anyone who isn't in the A-10

What if it misses due to range or the size of vehical. I vote yes if you are able to turn it off

Fess|3-5| wrote:
As for the Missiles, I see a round of Kashan going like this.

A-10 Takes off. A-10 flies to (Really high). A-10 Locks onto all enemy vehicles. A-10 Kills all enemy vehicles. Su-25 Does Same.

That really doesn't seem fun for anyone who isn't in the A-10

Jets should have superior power , But not to the point where its unbeatable. If the enemy doesn't have any Anti air , then of course fast movers are going to wipe out their forces. Its the same concept even in PR .85 itself.

Fess|3-5| wrote:As an experienced PR Tank Gunner, I say nay. Will take all of the fun out of gunning.

PlatinumA1 wrote:Speculation about the "FCS" that CAS and Alex have made being "Unrealistic" SHOULD stop until you try it out yourself. The video he uploaded on youtube was made 1 month ago, many adjustments have been made. Your not going to find a real targeting system for tanks in bf2, so be happy for what you have.

If you don´t have AA with you, say goodbye. However if you do, then it becomes very interesting.

You can´t just get in a tank and drive around thinking your awesome and nothing can hit you, you might actually have to use teamwork and work with AA vehicles and your own fighters.

Remember, some AA has radar, and full view range...

Also remember said A10 has 2 enemy fighters to worry about...

There is no point in saying how it will play out, until you actually play it, and anyway, its just more realistic and will suit a certain type, its not like PR will be like this at all (unless they want it, but I doubt it) so life isn´t over.

Fess|3-5| wrote:As an experienced PR Tank Gunner, I say nay. Will take all of the fun out of gunning.

As an experienced PR Tank Gunner, I say nay.

Shoot on the move > Bunker wars...

Fess|3-5| wrote:Will take all As for the Missiles, I see a round of Kashan going like this.

A-10 Takes off. A-10 flies to (Really high). A-10 Locks onto all enemy vehicles. A-10 Kills all enemy vehicles. Su-25 Does Same.

That really doesn't seem fun for anyone who isn't in the A-10

We thought of that. So we gave AAV's a radar can target an aircraft up to 2300m (instead of 800m like now), and the A-10 must visually acquire a vehicle (if you watched the vids you'd notice there is no green or white box around each vehicle unless you lock on it); I am fairly sure that it would be closer to the A-10 getting shot before it even comes into range, that is if he's at high altitude.

Most of the guys working on this fly in PR, and the AA vehicles win about 3:5 of the time against enemy aircraft. It gets closer to 1:1 when the aircraft (particularly choppers) use terrain masking.

And the good part is that you can play PR if you don't like it.

Fess|3-5| wrote:As an experienced PR Tank Gunner, I say nay. Will take all of the fun out of gunning.

What was it that one of the devs said? When you say your good at game gunning its like saying your good at eating? Noone cares?
BTW any n ew videos?

DeltaFart wrote:What was it that one of the devs said? When you say your good at game gunning its like saying your good at eating? Noone cares?
BTW any n ew videos?

Nah, that was ColonelCool when I was playing a game of pr with him. Someone typed in chat that they were pro, to which Cool replied: "Pro BF2 is like Pro eating. Sure, it's pro in a sense, but who cares?"

DeltaFart wrote:What was it that one of the devs said? When you say your good at game gunning its like saying your good at eating? Noone cares?
BTW any n ew videos?

Thanks, the point of that was really to toot my own horn. You sure got me

I mentioned that so you know that I'm not just Johnny Nobody.




@CAS thank you for clearing up the AA situation. That almost sounds fun now.

But I still cannot support the FCS. In it's presented state. I would however support it if rather than you simply having to get target within 10-20 meters of said enemy tank, you still have to get crosshair lined up perfectly first, then hit the lock button and it tracks that point. I think that's more realistic, and would be a good mix of the old way and the new.


Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of new FCS. I just don't like the "AutoAim" Feel of that one.

Perhaps if someone could send me the link and I could try it out, then I might change my mind.

Fess|3-5| wrote:Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of new FCS. I just don't like the "AutoAim" Feel of that one.

Perhaps if someone could send me the link and I could try it out, then I might change my mind.

Now, I almost felt a little like this at first too. And the video isn't actually a good representation of how it works ingame. It feels quite different when you're actually versus an enemy tank.

However, I understand your concern. I hope though that you feel differently when the addon is actually released and you can have a go at it yourself. Even getting some actual test session footage would give you a better idea of how it works in game.

Anyway I could help test this? I haven't been able to test PRSP anymore (no I wasn't kicked out, I didn't have time for it) and having something to test is something I been craving!

Fess|3-5| wrote: @CAS thank you for clearing up the AA situation. That almost sounds fun now.

That's what I keep saying.

Fess|3-5| wrote:
But I still cannot support the FCS. In it's presented state. I would however support it if rather than you simply having to get target within 10-20 meters of said enemy tank, you still have to get crosshair lined up perfectly first, then hit the lock button and it tracks that point. I think that's more realistic, and would be a good mix of the old way and the new.


Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of new FCS. I just don't like the "AutoAim" Feel of that one.

Perhaps if someone could send me the link and I could try it out, then I might change my mind.

Well this isn't just meant to represent a FCS. We also have to represent a stabilization system.

IRL:

1. Gunner sees tank
   
2. Acquires tank
3. Lases
   
4. Slews Turret
5. Fires
6. Adjusts

*These are our problem

In CA:

1. Gunner sees tank
   
2. Slews Target
3. Locks
4. Fires

But try an actual game against another tank:

1. Gunner sees tank
2. Slews Target
3. Locks
   *Bumps
4. Slews Target
5. Locks
   *Bumps
6. Slews Target
7. Locks
   *Bumps
8. Slews Target
9. Locks
10. Fires

I found early in tests that the total delay between lasing for a gunner in games like "Steel Beats" some youtube vids, and mods for Arma, that the pitch stabilization while heading sideways didn't work well enough to justify a longer lock time.

Understand that previously it was about 1-1.5 seconds, and that was 1.5 seconds of actively acting as a human gyroscope with a pitch stabilizer that multiplies the upwards force by 2x when the turret is turned perpendicular to the tank chassis(try a tank in any version of PR from 0.7 - 0.85, you'll know what I mean).

The gunner in the actual abrams tank doesn't have to act as his own stabilizer, just point, lase, fire. The ones in PR have a much bigger workload. So we decided that this would make up for most bumps in terrain that would occur with most tanks.

And tanks battles in CA will have other issues as well. For example, the tanks are no longer mirror balanced.

The M1A2 and PLA T-98 each have comparable armor and weapons ranges.

However the T-72 has a lower firing range, as well as about 25% weaker armor, they will have a shorter spawn time however and be more numerous, so in a battle of attrition, they will have the upper hand. It also has an auto-loader which will give it a 2-3 second rate of fire advantage.