Project Reality Forums

Been browsing their screenshots on moddb... and I was wondering how the hell are they doing what they're doing...
and why are they not in PR NAUGHHHHWWW!?!?!?!?

3D Sniper Scopes
3D Zoom Shaders image - Alpha Project Mod for Battlefield 2 - Mod DB

Weapon Sway
Battlefield 2 - 3D Ironsight Test - YouTube

Interactive Weapon Sights
alpha project newupdate - YouTube

Physics for Barrels, Static Objects, Etc.
Steering and Weapon Emplacement 1st Person Animations
The List Goes On.

Also I'd just like to say what Mosquill has done in BF2142 for PR is also amazing...
I'd happily buy BF2142 to play PR, especially since its noCD now

Although mosquill also did stuff that didn't require BF2142, like dynamic day/night...
WHERE IS ALL THIS STUFF?! D=
And on a more serious note why? Legitimate question. I'm sure there's a reason... I'd like to know.

Because a lot of that stuff doesn't effect gameplay rather then visual styles, which in reality isn't important and rather pointless. We already have 3d scopes, had since v.95. Physics would take up a lot of resources that we try hard to optimize for all types of people's computers so they don't have a problem. It'd also be pointless at this point to port our mod to BF2142, as a lot of stuff that we use is BF2 and we can't move BF2 content to BF2142.

The whole explanation about the decision not to port over to BF2142 was already explained not so long ago actually. It would be such a vain effort otherwise.

This is all really old news, you should keep tabs on the forums

Bluedrake42 wrote:3D Sniper Scopes
3D Zoom Shaders image - Alpha Project Mod for Battlefield 2 - Mod DB

Its not that much diffrent from PR's 3D scopes. The only real difference is that there is a slight digital zoom in the inner area of the scope, done via the shader. The problem with this type of zoom is its not real zoom, and if done too much just makes the image very pixely which is the last thing you want your sniper scope to look like.

Bluedrake42 wrote:Weapon Sway
Battlefield 2 - 3D Ironsight Test - YouTube

Well for starters that isn't really weapon sway, the front sight is staying in the same place. Its done via the weapon animation and we have known this to be possible for a long time. The reason why we haven't done it is because if we did do it, all it is is fake weapon sway, which is the worst possible thing you can do, as your bullets still come out of the centre of your screen w/e, even if your weapon is pointing out way to the right, making it even harder and to hit your target much less realistic than deviation...

Bluedrake42 wrote:Interactive Weapon Sights
alpha project newupdate - YouTube

This is done in the same way we have done our UGL ranging in PR, just it has a invisible Q/T comm rose with the buttons on top of where the buttons are on the sight.

Bluedrake42 wrote:Physics for Barrels

A little fun with Dynamic Objects - Project Reality Forums

We have also known about them for much longer than before I did that, the CQB mod was the first mod I saw to make use of dynamic objects, but the big problem with them is they each require a networkable, which there is a limit of 1024 of them in a map, and when dest objects, vehicles and many other things each take up a networkable and we have in the past ran out of them, causing CTDs to servers, its not worth using them other than for the odd easter egg at most.

Bluedrake42 wrote:Also I'd just like to say what Mosquill has done in BF2142 for PR is also amazing...
I'd happily buy BF2142 to play PR, especially since its noCD now

If we moved to BF2142, we would first of all loose all of BF2s assets as you can not legally port stuff from one game to the other, and trust me people have tried in the past and have had there mods taken down as a result. So if we did, we would loose many weapons, vehicles, textures, etc etc but probably most importantly, we would loose the static objects which every single PR map uses vBF2 static objects, meaning every single PR map would have to be scrapped or reworked, and it wouldn't just be the statics when you consider things like terrain textures etc etc...

Then of course we would be moving to a game that most PR players don't have, isn't played much on its own (much, much less than BF2) and is pretty much the same, the move alone would most likely kill PR's player base for these reasons and for what, a few tiny little extras which tbh, we have been doing ok without for so many years? No thanks.

Bluedrake42 wrote:And on a more serious note why? Legitimate question. I'm sure there's a reason... I'd like to know.

There are plenty of reasons as to why this stuff hasn't be done, many of them I've answered above and you can find answers to them on the forums and some like the interactive sights, just aint worth the work when they are yes, neat features, but offer basically nothing to gameplay and when we are stretched as it is developing many more important things, can't afford to do this kinda work unless an outsider is willing to do them for us.


EDIT:

KaizerSosa81 wrote:The whole explanation about the decision not to port over to BF2142 was already explained not so long ago actually. It would be such a vain effort otherwise.

damn missed your reply, would have saved me a bit re-explaining that part!

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:This is all really old news, you should keep tabs on the forums ...

wow haha, you all should sticky that whole reply xD

if we stuck topics like this stickies would become meaningless

Yawns.

Less toys more gameplay sez I (bearing in mind that we already have the toys apart from Mosquills sights which will complete the Inf toys!).

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino;1716554']
A little fun with Dynamic Objects - Project Reality Forums

We have also known about them for much longer than before I did that, the CQB mod was the first mod I saw to make use of dynamic objects, but the big problem with them is they each require a networkable, which there is a limit of 1024 of them in a map, and when dest objects, vehicles and many other things each take up a networkable and we have in the past ran out of them, causing CTDs to servers, its not worth using them other than for the odd easter egg at most.

I don't know much about the subject, but perhaps if soppa is feeling generous after he's worked through the 64++ player code, he can look at hex editing out that 1024 limit as well . It's something that would open up quite a few avenues, as I believe the networkables limits everything from debris, physics, projectiles to destructible environments and ladders.. it'd be a nice arbitrary limit to have lifted.

Have you guys ever seriously considered or tried bartering with EA for the Refractor 2 source code or is that simply an excercise in futility?

Also, is it against the EULA to port BF2 content to 2142 so long as those using the content own both BF2 and 2142?

ShockUnitBlack wrote:Have you guys ever seriously considered or tried bartering with EA for the Refractor 2 source code or is that simply an excercise in futility?

Looking at the lack of mod tool for BF3(apparently it is "too complicated")...
EA and DICE went full-retard and this will not happen.

Th3Exiled wrote:Well from what I know, unlike the 64 player limit, the networkable object limit isn't coded into the game; It's to do with how networkables have been implemented. Once the limit has been reached the game crashes because the code has encountered an error. As such, there's really not much we can do about.

Exiled.

It seems a little contradictory to say 'hasn't been coded into the game' and then go on to say 'It's to do with how networkables have been implemented' doesn't it?

Interesting though... what a strange limit... 2^10

What vartype has that kind of limit? Perhaps some sort of array/list bounds?

Is this one of the threads where the devs troll the community again? It's like they're gods. . .

Lots of contradictions

On a more serious note, if you want something done just learn to do it yourself with a seperate copy of PR, then stick it in the community modding section. Then you'll get like-minded people that want your mini-mod for themselves

Most of the Alpha Project stuff isn't worth bringing in, but something I would like to see in PR is the visible hands on turrets and steering wheels, would be awesome.

Shovel wrote:Most of the Alpha Project stuff isn't worth bringing in, but something I would like to see in PR is the visible hands on turrets and steering wheels, would be awesome.

+1 It would make the experience more authentic to me

SGT.MARCO wrote:+1 It would make the experience more authentic to me

Shovel wrote:Most of the Alpha Project stuff isn't worth bringing in, but something I would like to see in PR is the visible hands on turrets and steering wheels, would be awesome.

Sorry to burst your guy's bubble but this to has little to no chance to be implemented. Let me explain. BF 2 dictates its solider types under 2 classes. Heavy and Light solider. Each faction has these so thats 8 total classes. (4 duplicates US, CHINA, MEC, EU) So they make a pair of hands for each class so thats a total of 8 pairs of hands to make and about 10-20mb of textures ect.... not hard to do. Let's take a look at PR. PR has MANY classes.... to be more specific, you'd have to make a pair of hands for each individual kit and there alternatives. Thats over 100 kits. layover a 512x512 texture over that and they're required animations and you have about 5MB a hand at most. Multiply that by over a 100 kits... and your talking serious community involvment and DEV time. Not to mention that PR is already big enough/ laggy enough and i would rather have an optimized PR than dev's adding hands to the already unoptimized problem. The only way that this will be implemented is if the community volunteers itself to this task, creates an organized temporary modding group and then assigns hands to volunteers and show members eager to learn how to model what to do (for the sake of quality, newbies probably won't have good hands) and such. Then we could had it over to the DEV's to implement. This is a BIG IF andi doubt it happening.

As a side note on networkables, DICE fixed this problem with the Frostbite Engine and the average BF3 map has over 10,000 networkables. ;P

Valleyforge3946 wrote:Thats over 100 kits.

No. There's only 2 or 3 different hands for every faction, the kits you request don't change the hands/arms. They're determined by which kit you spawn with and don't change if pick up another kit. Only the kit geometries do and they don't show up on first person.

At least that's what I observed and believe to be, if it's not please correct me.

Stealthgato wrote:No. There's only 2 or 3 different hands for every faction, the kits you request don't change the hands/arms. They're determined by which kit you spawn with and don't change if pick up another kit. Only the kit geometries do and they don't show up on first person.

At least that's what I observed and believe to be, if it's not please correct me.

Then you also have the woodland variants. So that is 4 or 6 different hands/arms.

ShockUnitBlack wrote:Also, is it against the EULA to port BF2 content to 2142 so long as those using the content own both BF2 and 2142?

Yes it really is...

Conflict 2142 mod - Mod DB

This mod here tried it, and got away lightly. I can't find the posts on it right now but from memory, they released Karkand with BF2 statics in it as part of there mod and at first, they got away with it until EA realized what they had done and there mod builds with BF2 assets in it all got taken down and it almost shut down there mod (it pretty much did) although they where told they where allowed to continue to release new versions of there mod providing they didn't have any BF2 stuff in it, which they did.

But if EA wanted to, they could do a lot more as it is totally against the EULA.