Project Reality Forums

I am really confused, i love option 3, but have massive douts that all normal players could use it properly BUT it is only a small change compared to option 2, so not go the full way? BUt..........sob sob, after carefull thinking i can say:
I would happily except option 2, if it was to be implamented soon, eg. PR.4. THis way we can see how it works, problems/ advantages before the proper and full PR1.
And then if many people still want option3, it is considered alot more carefully and another pole like this is done.

To keep option 2 simple but realistic, we need to consider carefull the drivers view. Lots of ideas have been suggested but which one will be work best and be the best balance between realsim and fun.
THe driver can iether have maxium view of 180 degrees, looking forwed. With the camra sitting just around where a driver would normal sit.
OR we can also give him an extra 360 degree view that is sitting on top of the turret, with a diagram of the tank, showing the it's direction in relation to his view.
Some have suggested this come with a machine gun, i say an absoulte no, considering we already have an extra crew mmebr manning one on the top of the turret.

And sooner we see option 2, the better.

And IF we do add option 3 later, most of the players will have had alot of practise using a similar system, so it would not be such a massive hugmungous leap that it would be from option 1 to 3.

Major Ursa Norte wrote:You are right. I guess I am confused. I would like all of you to go back and read the mission statement you have posted on this site though. It darn sure never said anything about this MOD becoming a simulator. So, I will chalk this up to false advertising.

I won't be playing PRMM anymore either. So go have a blast prentending to be soldiers.

Good luck with your efforts. I never said a foul word about the talent and dedication of the development team, nor will I.

Note this is the exact reason why instead of just going and chaning tanks to a more crew like setting we have chosen to ask the community for their input first. As you can see the majority dislike the way vBF2 has it setup, so we will most likely take tank crews a step up as requested. Majority rules, sorry to disappoint Major.

3 ALL the way!


-Slick

I'd go with uber-realism. Is that when the driver well drives, gunner operates the turret and parascopes, and the last guy has the HMG on the cupula right? If that is the case then I give it a thumbs up!

Top _Cat the great wrote:I am really confused, i love option 3, but have massive douts that all normal players could use it properly BUT it is only a small change compared to option 2, so not go the full way? BUt..........sob sob, after carefull thinking i can say:
I would happily except option 2, if it was to be implamented soon, eg. PR.4. THis way we can see how it works, problems/ advantages before the proper and full PR1.
And then if many people still want option3, it is considered alot more carefully and another pole like this is done.

To keep option 2 simple but realistic, we need to consider carefull the drivers view. Lots of ideas have been suggested but which one will be work best and be the best balance between realsim and fun.
THe driver can iether have maxium view of 180 degrees, looking forwed. With the camra sitting just around where a driver would normal sit.
OR we can also give him an extra 360 degree view that is sitting on top of the turret, with a diagram of the tank, showing the it's direction in relation to his view.
Some have suggested this come with a machine gun, i say an absoulte no, considering we already have an extra crew mmebr manning one on the top of the turret.

And sooner we see option 2, the better.

And IF we do add option 3 later, most of the players will have had alot of practise using a similar system, so it would not be such a massive hugmungous leap that it would be from option 1 to 3.

ah very good point. this is why i voted for option two as well, like egg said small steps before big ones.

Set 2 works for me, but I strongly believe the driver should command the remote-operated .50 caliber as the right-click "sights" view. This gives him smoke and maneuver as the vehicles defensive systems as well as the 360 awareness a dedicated commander would grant him. It also helps avoid running over friendlies and being bored to death while waiting hull-down.

You could give the driver the loader's hatch MG and keep the third seat on for the commander's MG. Its worth saying that I think exposing crewmen to fire the machine guns when the real world has remote firing systems is overly sympathetic to infantry.

I think that in addition to this, tanks should also receive stablized guns, fording systems and Independent Thermal Viewers, like in the actual Marine corps:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm

I also think that the M250 smoke grenade launchers on the M1 should be made to work realistically as well as the other smoke systems on the other tanks in the game.

I voted Set 2 but I would like to see a gradual progession over time to Set 4.

Although having option 2 maybe more realistic. I still prefer option 1.

[BT]Mugsy Malone

Set 2 is the best. It takes 2 players to operate a tank, and 3 to operate it well. The only problem will be people driving around and switching to the gunner position (a problem already seen on HMMWVs). Is it possible for certain positions only to be acessed by getting out and walking to the back/other side of the vehicle to change slots?

Oh, is the Co-axial 7.62mm in the right place in BF2? Because in Joint Operations: Escalation and such, where the co-axial is in BF2, there is a scope, with the same shape. You just get a view out of it

After re-looking over the options, I believe option 3 would be a little bit better, as long as the commander wasn't required for the tank to operate.

option 4 all the way. it may not be a simulation but i sure as hell push it to be as much as i can.

This is reality mod isnt it? Not what would be cool mod.

Might be a step, but I wouldn't call it a jump. It's the same as the jeeps. Everyone knows you can't really hit anything while that thing is moving, but it only takes half a second to switch positions to the gun.

This will be the same thing. Better, yes, but only marginally over it's predecessor.

I bet people will find operating the thing with more than one person too dangerous (due to lack of communication / and an override brake!) and will take off by themselves most of the time. We will just have to find out.

An override brake is practically essential for the gunner.

Helluva lot of work getting the OT idea right.

Arg. . I'll keep this one short - Just add an MG for all the vehicle positions that have them IRL (that includes apcs and of course tanks.)

Nobody has answered my question yet: Is the co-axial MG on the Abrams in the right place or not? Because currently it's firing out of the optical piece

Griffon2-6 wrote:Nobody has answered my question yet: Is the co-axial MG on the Abrams in the right place or not? Because currently it's firing out of the optical piece

Close enough. But the Commander's .50 cal should be able to fire while buttoned via remote instead of the shoddy EA manual-operated implementation. And the loader needs a seat and a MG.
P.S. I'm no expert, unless you consider Googling a qualifiying skill.