Project Reality Forums

Maybe it always has been but with the nerfing the insurgent faction has seen in 1.0 the RPG-7 has really stood out to me as a piece of sh*t to be honest especially given that it is the primary means of dealing with Armour (now that garys and arty IEDs aren't so overpowered). To save you from a list of personal experiences and frustrations ill give you a brief summary of its major drawbacks:

1: Appalling accuracy/deviation. Maybe this is more realistic at longer range but apparently the RPG is a simple point and shoot weapon at ranges below 200 meters without having to wait a vital 5+ seconds for it to "settle" as in the game ATM.

2: Limited ammo. Though 2-3 rockets is a typical combat load in most skirmishes and engagements in modern conflicts in the middle east in full on battles and clearing operations (as Insurgency simulates) more rockets would definitely be carried. The problem of low ammunition is also further multiplied by the fact that most insurgents no longer carry ammo bags.

3: No sighting for below 200 meter's: I know i created a thread for this already but ill include it here as ive found it very frustrating to overshot targets so often at close ranges (ie. Typical ranges).

4: Nearly no Anti personal effect: If you've seen any videos or read any first hand accounts from Iraq or Afghanistan you'll know that insurgents almost always use there RPGs against infantry, sometimes even as much as they do against vehicles. Put it how you will but nearly 1 KG of high-explosive detonating anywhere near you is gonna do more then blur your vision.

There is no doubt one of the underlying causes of Insurgency modes lack of balance lies with the RPG I think if most of these issues could be addressed then Insurgency mode would be more balanced, realistic and most importantly of all funner for BOTH teams.

note to moderators: This isn't a suggestion as no solutions are actually made only problems are pointed out.

Point 1:
It is AS it should be.
Insurgents aren't shooting while running.
They take a stand, AIM and fire.

Point 2:
You have 2 rockets. Additionally, there are 4! Kits with Ammobags you can spawn in with. As an AT Insurgent, Communication Skills are required. It is also like the real sights (http://puu.sh/541Ql.png)

Point 3:
That is more a lack of practise TBH. How has someone played all the PR versions before without ANY adjustable sights?

Point 4:
That has been discussed before and it was also said that AT weapons will receive their splash damage back. Thanks for warming this up anyways.


PS:
The extreme negativity and swearing in your post are unnecessary. If you want a constructive discussion, start it constructive as well. Now I've edited the topic title atleast, next timel mods won't simply approve that thread.

[R-DEV]K4on wrote: That is more a lack of practise TBH. How has someone played all the PR versions before without ANY adjustable sights?

Because back then the sights were set for 100 meters, which meant up close you could always hit and aiming further would take a bit of skill. With the basic range set at 200 meters now it's bloody hard to hit something below that range because the weapon is blocking your view and it doesn't feel natural so it's kinda hard to do it by gut.

Theres only one point i would support: the 200m sight

As Insurgent you are most of the time relative close to the enemy vehicles (hiding around the corner, on a rooftop etc) You dont want to attack on long range because its much easier for a stryker to shot you then the way around. Many of your several rpg rounds just dont hit because you need them to find out how you must aim on low range. I dont see whats the reason for that... It should actually be easier to hit targets that are close than the other way around. Insurgents hide in the city and fight in the city, and rpg is is not a good help atm. A 100m sight would really help with that.

after 200 meters the ATs are useless, unlike in ARMA2 with ACE, if you adjusted your sights you could "Snipering" an APC in 500 meters without problems

Might be a nice touch to add a single FRAG round to INS RPG kits.
A bit of a stretch, but add a third Thermobaric round to RUS HAT? Would at least differentiate it from Militia HAT.


...mongol...

Why not use the HAT Iron sight ?(100-150-200 m) It's not like you would shoot from a distance greater then that.

Ins RPG are only Iron Sight, but its adjustable like the the UGL.....but not less than 200m.

If you want to fire at targets 50m or below, use the top of the ironsight ring.


...mongol...

But why making things more complicated then they should? Why implementent a adjustable sight that is pointless in 90 % of the engangement scenarios? Of course i dont know if there is any rl reference for the 200m minimum, but even the SPG allows to shot straight at 100m...

waldov wrote:Maybe it always has been but with the nerfing the insurgent faction has seen in 1.0 the RPG-7 has really stood out to me as a piece of sh*t to be honest especially given that it is the primary means of dealing with Armour (now that garys and arty IEDs aren't so overpowered). To save you from a list of personal experiences and frustrations ill give you a brief summary of its major drawbacks:

1: Appalling accuracy/deviation. Maybe this is more realistic at longer range but apparently the RPG is a simple point and shoot weapon at ranges below 200 meters without having to wait a vital 5+ seconds for it to "settle" as in the game ATM.

2: Limited ammo. Though 2-3 rockets is a typical combat load in most skirmishes and engagements in modern conflicts in the middle east in full on battles and clearing operations (as Insurgency simulates) more rockets would definitely be carried. The problem of low ammunition is also further multiplied by the fact that most insurgents no longer carry ammo bags.

3: No sighting for below 200 meter's: I know i created a thread for this already but ill include it here as ive found it very frustrating to overshot targets so often at close ranges (ie. Typical ranges).

4: Nearly no Anti personal effect: If you've seen any videos or read any first hand accounts from Iraq or Afghanistan you'll know that insurgents almost always use there RPGs against infantry, sometimes even as much as they do against vehicles. Put it how you will but nearly 1 KG of high-explosive detonating anywhere near you is gonna do more then blur your vision.

There is no doubt one of the underlying causes of Insurgency modes lack of balance lies with the RPG I think if most of these issues could be addressed then Insurgency mode would be more balanced, realistic and most importantly of all funner for BOTH teams.

note to moderators: This isn't a suggestion as no solutions are actually made only problems are pointed out.

1. I have no idea how much you played RPG before this version, but it is much more accurate now both at far range and time it takes to settle. From information I see about hit probability on Wikipedia and shooting videos from YouTube I'd personally say current accuracy is satisfactory.

2. According to Wikipedia PG-7V's weight is 2.2kg. And weight of RPG-7 itself is 7kg (don't know if this is with 1 rocket inserted). Incase 7kg is with 1 rocket that makes launcher 4.8kg so with 3 rockets and launcher total is 11.4kg. I'd say this is same as carrying 1 AK47 with 7 magazine and 2 grenade of 10.4kg (1 AK47:3.47kg 7 empty magazine:2.31kg (0.33kgx7) 210 rounds:3.42kg (16.3gx210) F1 grenade:1.2kg (600gx2) ). So I think it's realistic considering character can move as fast as AK guy. Brings up one unrealistic point about MG kit and SAW kit, with all of that extra weight that class carry with ammunition and can sprint as long and fast as any other class.

3. Lets figure out how it is on real RPG-7 Ironsight and use that one?

4. I can't agree with you more but, explosive weight is less than 730g because PG-7VL's explosive weight is at 730g with penetration of 50cm against equivalent of Rolled homogeneous armour. PG-7V has 26cm penetration so its about half. (Wikipedia) No idea if this is due to shape of charge or less explosive. But if explosive is simply half the weight of PG-7VL, what would 365g of explosive's splash effect be like?

Human_001;1960327 [b wrote:3. Lets figure out how it is on real RPG-7 Ironsight and use that one?[/b]

Apperantly there is 2 different launchers for 2 types of warheads...

waldov wrote:Maybe it always has been but with the nerfing the insurgent faction has seen in 1.0 the RPG-7 has really stood out to me as a piece of sh*t to be honest especially given that it is the primary means of dealing with Armour (now that garys and arty IEDs aren't so overpowered). To save you from a list of personal experiences and frustrations ill give you a brief summary of its major drawbacks:

1: Appalling accuracy/deviation. Maybe this is more realistic at longer range but apparently the RPG is a simple point and shoot weapon at ranges below 200 meters without having to wait a vital 5+ seconds for it to "settle" as in the game ATM.

2: Limited ammo. Though 2-3 rockets is a typical combat load in most skirmishes and engagements in modern conflicts in the middle east in full on battles and clearing operations (as Insurgency simulates) more rockets would definitely be carried. The problem of low ammunition is also further multiplied by the fact that most insurgents no longer carry ammo bags.

3: No sighting for below 200 meter's: I know i created a thread for this already but ill include it here as ive found it very frustrating to overshot targets so often at close ranges (ie. Typical ranges).

4: Nearly no Anti personal effect: If you've seen any videos or read any first hand accounts from Iraq or Afghanistan you'll know that insurgents almost always use there RPGs against infantry, sometimes even as much as they do against vehicles. Put it how you will but nearly 1 KG of high-explosive detonating anywhere near you is gonna do more then blur your vision.

There is no doubt one of the underlying causes of Insurgency modes lack of balance lies with the RPG I think if most of these issues could be addressed then Insurgency mode would be more balanced, realistic and most importantly of all funner for BOTH teams.

note to moderators: This isn't a suggestion as no solutions are actually made only problems are pointed out.

My grandfather was in war for my homeland in 1995, here in Croatia and he explained me what RPG-7 is and how it is used. He was responsible for teaching people that worked on farms, that were teachers and other people who wanted to defend Croatia from Serbia on how to use anti-tank launchers because he was in the army before the actual war started.

Firstly, anti-personal effect? Even a proper firecracker can hurt you if you get hit by splinter or fragments, or even dirt when it reaches high speed. It is difficult to simulate that in game, because then other launchers would look really under-powered. There is a chance grenade doesn't kill you on couple of meters if you are lucky enough, but if you aren't you may get hit well beyond 50 meters or more.

Secondly, when it comes to ammunition, it is still too much as it really should be.

My grandfather used to tell me that they used 2 to maximum 5 rockets before they had to use another launcher, because it started sparkling and it some cases it even exploded. RPG-7's, as much as they are widely used and effective, have this problem that they can only use limited amount of ammunition before they have to be replaced. And in PR, you can get ammo for RPG-7 at any crate, in main or at cache, how many you want.

I agree with you on the part with sights - 100 meters should definately be implemented.

I also agree with you on the part with accuracy. I was also told by grandpa that rockets, as they are so much heavier than bullets, really changed their course like crazy. They wouldn't believe that the wind changed course of target just before it should hit the tank.

There are videos on the internet where you can actually see that happening.

I guess that could be easily implemented in the game, not with deviation but by some kind of setting that would vary rockets path really quick. Devs already did it with the helicopter rockets (such as Hydras).

That's all!

Cheers!

spirit03 wrote:My grandfather was in war for my homeland in 1995, here in Croatia and he explained me what RPG-7 is and how it is used. He was responsible for teaching people that worked on farms, that were teachers and other people who wanted to defend Croatia from Serbia on how to use anti-tank launchers because he was in the army before the actual war started.

Firstly, anti-personal effect? Even a proper firecracker can hurt you if you get hit by splinter or fragments, or even dirt when it reaches high speed. It is difficult to simulate that in game, because then other launchers would look really under-powered. There is a chance grenade doesn't kill you on couple of meters if you are lucky enough, but if you aren't you may get hit well beyond 50 meters or more.

Secondly, when it comes to ammunition, it is still too much as it really should be.

My grandfather used to tell me that they used 2 to maximum 5 rockets before they had to use another launcher, because it started sparkling and it some cases it even exploded. RPG-7's, as much as they are widely used and effective, have this problem that they can only use limited amount of ammunition before they have to be replaced. And in PR, you can get ammo for RPG-7 at any crate, in main or at cache, how many you want.

I agree with you on the part with sights - 100 meters should definately be implemented.

I also agree with you on the part with accuracy. I was also told by grandpa that rockets, as they are so much heavier than bullets, really changed their course like crazy. They wouldn't believe that the wind changed course of target just before it should hit the tank.

There are videos on the internet where you can actually see that happening.

I guess that could be easily implemented in the game, not with deviation but by some kind of setting that would vary rockets path really quick. Devs already did it with the helicopter rockets (such as Hydras).


That's all!

Cheers!

Thanks for bringing a real life perspective on the discussion. about the Anti personnel effect I didn't understand what you meant ,do you think it should be stronger then it currently is or not? As for only using 2-5 rockets per launcher this would probably be due to the poor quality of the rocket launchers your grandfather was using. I'm curious about the accuracy though how accurate did you grandfather think they were out to 200 meters?

To those asking for a 100 meter option on the iron sights, they don't exist. Iron sights for the RPG-7 are only effective from 200-500 meters.

Source (Page 12): http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rpg-7.pdf

ExNusquam wrote:To those asking for a 100 meter option on the iron sights, they don't exist. Iron sights for the RPG-7 are only effective from 200-500 meters.

Source (Page 12): http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rpg-7.pdf

Yet the HAT kit is ranged from 100-200m

waldov wrote:Thanks for bringing a real life perspective on the discussion. about the Anti personnel effect I didn't understand what you meant ,do you think it should be stronger then it currently is or not? As for only using 2-5 rockets per launcher this would probably be due to the poor quality of the rocket launchers your grandfather was using. I'm curious about the accuracy though how accurate did you grandfather think they were out to 200 meters?

I believe that PR "stun" effect when you are being supressed is definately a good simulation for a real RPG-7 when it explodes near you. If its power is improved, that would mean all other launchers would have to be improved as well. Only solution to that, in my opinion, is to give player 2 AT and 1 AP rocket. But I wont give any more "solutions" because it will probably be mis-read as "suggestions". I believe that current one is a good temporary solution.

As for the ammo, when the war started opposing forces took everything so they had limited amount of them. They couldn't risk shooting at target too far, and they used streets and narrow alleys to shoot tanks, so it was used from ~50 to 100 meters.

He said they are accurate up to 150 meters when there is no strong wind. Wind is one of the most important factors.
If one is a experienced shooter, he may hit targets up to 200 meters.

Also I read on Wikipedia that:

A U.S. Army evaluation of the weapon gave the hit probabilities on a 5 meter wide (15 ft), 2.5 meter tall (7.5 ft) panel moving sideways at 4 meters per second (9 miles per hour). This probability decreases when firing in a crosswind due to the unusual behaviour of the round; in a 7-mile (11 km) per hour wind, the gunner can not expect to get a first-round hit more than 50% of the time beyond 180m.

Cheers!

Kerryburgerking wrote:Yet the HAT kit is ranged from 100-200m

That would appear to be a problem with the HAT, designed to reflect the actual effective range of the tandem warhead (100m). The tube's sights, at least according to the US Army, are only effective to 200m.

ExNusquam wrote:That would appear to be a problem with the HAT, designed to reflect the actual effective range of the tandem warhead (100m). The tube's sights, at least according to the US Army, are only effective to 200m.

I think you guys are getting confused with the optics and sights. The RPG-7s optics only have accurate range measurements from 200 meters onwards as you can see here:



As for the iron sights it is hard to imagine that there minimum ranging would be out to 200 meters especially given the Red army's experience fighting tanks in world war 2 (a key aspect in the development of all soviet weapons in the post war era.)

Page 12 of the PDF (page 9 as printed on the document).
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rpg-7.pdf




And now I can't read Russian, but this seems to indicate as well that the iron sights minimum range is 200 metres.
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-cont ... manual.pdf