Project Reality Forums

playing pr ... saw the LAV 25 ... eyes begin to bleed ... heheh just kidding.

but the lav 25 model is very ... rustic for pr standards

are there any plans to remake this vehicle ?

of course is rare sight, few maps have the lav 25... but just look how different it is when compared to other vehicles .

No plans to remake it, we are much more concerned about making vehicles we don't have rather than replacing vBF2 stuff that we don't use much of

it's age is one of the reasons we much prefer using our AAV7PA1

'Rustic'.. great lexicon, hahaha..!

Rudd wrote:it's age is one of the reasons we much prefer using our AAV7PA1

Really? The LAV-25 is (gameplay wise) a completely different vehicle.


Basicly the AAVP is shit unless you use it as mobile artillery. Large, very slow and clumbersome. Not to mention the weapons system is quite lacking. Even a good gunner will miss some targets because he has to zero in the grenade launcher.

The LAV-25 on the other hand is very effective with its insane speed and cannon. I wouldn't dare touch the AAVPs on Fallujah but with the LAV-25 we always get good rounds with 40-80 kills for 0-3 deaths not to mention it actually can support infantry properly. Numerous times we had a squad desperately requesting help with us being able to provide devastating covering fire and smoke screens within seconds.

Things an AAVP couldn't even dream of.

Would be a real shame to leave out such a fine APC just because the model isn't as good. Half the players wouldn't even care about the graphics anyway.

2 Lav's on Muttrah was A.W.E.S.O.M.E but it got replaced with the Huge cumbersome loud tank/portable-toilet vehicle (AAVP).

Lav being rare is so true. I wish for an ALT version of Muttrah that has LAV(s) vs Beast(s) instead of infantry version.

Lav is easy to use and the speed makes it more likely for me to use it to transport

'Xander[nl wrote:;1843706']Would be a real shame to leave out such a fine APC just because the model isn't as good. Half the players wouldn't even care about the graphics anyway.

The much bigger reason is realism. The LAV-25 in reality is more of a recon vehicle than an APC (in r/l in its normal config, can only carry 4 troops in the back, not even a squad ingame, we only had it holding 6 troops in the back before we had the AAV because we didn't have the AAV, and haven't got round to changing it yet) and in terms of reality, the AAV is used far more than the LAV-25 by the USMC. In a normal MEU battalion landing team there are around 4 LAV-25 and 12 AAVP7A1, which is a 1:3 ratio to give you a rough idea.

Although yes, I agree we need to see more of the LAV-25 ingame, it doesn't fulfil the same role in real life and hopefully by v1.0, ingame too as the AAVP7A1 and not only just as an Amphibious vehicle, but mainly in terms of a troop carrier. So like it or not, the AAV is still going to be the main vehicle of choice for the USMC, but hopefully you should see a few more of your LAVs about in the future too

I hope so. These two vehicles are very different from reality because of the way the game works. HATs are so easy to operate that an AAVP stands no chance in whichever map, and for that reason they're rarely used. The one and only time I've seen an AAVP last longer than a few minutes was when it was camping behind the Hescos and using the grenade launcher as artillery.

The LAV-25 meanwhile has a much greater impact on gameplay because it combines heavy firepower with incredible mobility and still has quite good armor. Most other APCs can either only function as transport or as an IFV. The LAV-25 can actually provide infantry both the ride, and the firesupport that's needed after.


Would personally LOVE to see more LAV-25s. It might not be highly realistic but they add so much more to the gameplay than the AAVP does (at least in 0.97). Good to know that at least it's not been forgotten yet.

I agree that the LAVs are cool vehicles and it would be nice to see more of them regardless of realism.

Now for some peanut gallery lobbyism.

The Stryker could do with a retexture. It looks kinda muddy, and the LAV-III model used by the Canadians (basically the exact same vehicle with an autocannon instead of the .50) looks much better (IMO it's one of PR's best looking vehicles).

The LAV-AT and LAV-AD vehicles would be cool additions if a new model were ever to be made.

ShockUnitBlack wrote:The LAV-AT and LAV-AD vehicles would be cool additions if a new model were ever to be made.

been more or less phased out of service with the USMC afaik.

Must say I really would like to see more of LAV-25s around too. It simply is one of the good vehicles of PR and I even could live with it carrying only 4 troops.

Knowing that they are used less than for example AAVPs (as you say) might be important but still, I am a fancy man

Speaking of the AAVP, and it being kind of a piece of ****, I agree.

Its Mk19 overheats REALLY REALLY REALLY fast, and requires huge arcs to reach a few hundred meters.

I think it's far underpowered, can the devs consider having the grenades have more velocity, and thus less drop, and the mk19 overheat time a lot longer? I suppose if the Mk19's grenades behave realistically, I'm not opposed to keeping it the way it is, but surely the weapon doesnt overheat that fast?

ShockUnitBlack wrote:The Stryker could do with a retexture.

Meh, I updated the textures, just now, so it should look better; I contemplated whether or not to use the original 2k texture size (ie high res), but ended up re-sizing for optimization purposes.

What about the terrabaful texture on the Russian Tunguska?

It's not bad, it's just low-res. For Optimization.

Stealthgato wrote:What about the terrabaful texture on the Russian Tunguska?

what map is that on? I'm pretty sure we're using teh gopher MTLB

Rudd wrote:what map is that on? I'm pretty sure we're using teh gopher MTLB

black gold.

[R-DEV]Spush wrote:It's not bad

http://i.imgur.com/A3Mvb.jpg

Yes, it is.

Here's vBF2 for comparison.

http://i.imgur.com/WVeEo.jpg

Rhino thanks for the comments, On Muttrah and Barracuda and Jabal could we have an LAV spawn in the middle between where the Two AAVP's and the crate below the carrier in the bay.

I think the 1:3 ratio could find balance this way. I rarely see the AAVP going into battle mostly because the movement is so delayed. Where as the 1 LAV could help to protect the AAVP's and still offer transport.

Stealthgato wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/WVeEo.jpg

Yeah because it's low-res. I'll look into it later.