Malyutka ATGM feedback

Post your feedback on the current Project Reality release (including SinglePlayer).
Post Reply
Jacksonez__
Posts: 1090
Joined: 2013-07-28 13:19

Malyutka ATGM feedback

Post by Jacksonez__ »

This is a little bit relevant to my previous thread (ZSL-92 ifv feedback), but I'll post it here too under correct subforum:

Why on earth it takes 4 seconds (4,25-4,35?) for Malyutka atgm to get launched? I've watched several videos and made a conclusion the missile gets launched with zero (or very insignificant) delay after the trigger has been pushed.

Why 4 seconds delay? Is some actual fact it takes exactly (or 4+) 4 seconds? Or is this just some "it would be OP" stuff?

Why would BMP-1 ATGM launcher use different launch mechanism than the ground launcher? They look identical.

Image

Image

Image
Evidence to support my claims: 2:48. Watch really close to the person operating the launch control. First he flicks the safety off, then gently taps the trigger. Missile gets launched immediately.

Also check 3:28.
0:02, no similar sound of HJ-8/TOW-2 missile launch motors after pushing the trigger. The missile starts and gets launched immediately.
Last edited by Jacksonez__ on 2015-11-09 11:42, edited 2 times in total.
Brozef
Posts: 213
Joined: 2015-03-27 02:51

Re: Malyutka ATGM feedback

Post by Brozef »

In your first video it looks like there is a delay after he flips the switch at 2:45, about 4-5 seconds delay.
Jacksonez__
Posts: 1090
Joined: 2013-07-28 13:19

Re: Malyutka ATGM feedback

Post by Jacksonez__ »

Brozef wrote:In your first video it looks like there is a delay after he flips the switch at 2:45, about 4-5 seconds delay.
pretty sure that was the safety switch. If you close you can see that he pushes the trigger gently with his thumb at 2:48
M42 Zwilling
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 613
Joined: 2012-06-10 11:27

Re: Malyutka ATGM feedback

Post by M42 Zwilling »

Yeah, looks like it's much longer than it should be. The reference from which the 4-second figure came from seems to have been referring to part of the reload process rather than firing. It'll be reduced by next version, but to what I don't know. We still haven't found a detailed ref yet, but we'll keep looking. Thanks for the report. :)
Image


"How many posts have there been about how much better PR was back in 0.X? The fact is that if we played the older versions we would start to remember the shortcomings, but we tend to hold onto the good memories tighter than the bad ones." - Murphy
Jacksonez__
Posts: 1090
Joined: 2013-07-28 13:19

Re: Malyutka ATGM feedback

Post by Jacksonez__ »

[R-DEV]M42 Zwilling wrote:Yeah, looks like it's much longer than it should be. The reference from which the 4-second figure came from seems to have been referring to part of the reload process rather than firing. It'll be reduced by next version, but to what I don't know. We still haven't found a detailed ref yet, but we'll keep looking. Thanks for the report. :)
Those videos are pretty good reference in my opinion. I googled around for good time and I couldn't find any better sources than those videos.

You could make it 4-5 seconds until you are able to move the turret though, but fire-delay is 0-0,1 seconds :p
Zeno
Posts: 3430
Joined: 2008-09-07 14:16

Re: Malyutka ATGM feedback

Post by Zeno »

seems like a fair tradeoff since its much less accurate and powerfull than other atgms
Image
[R-DEV]Ninja2dan: Not having a spotter is like masturbating with a cheese grater...mildly amusing at first, but generally painful and bloody in the end.

Thornehaw: If all this have been evidently true, Battlefield is a much scarier and dirtier than ever imagined. Not a conspiracy, but a possibility. If it is true, then trusting another is quite worrisome.
Murphy
Posts: 2339
Joined: 2010-06-05 21:14

Re: Malyutka ATGM feedback

Post by Murphy »

I don't understand why the delay was implemented on vehicles to begin with. It may be realistic to have the delay on certain vehicles, but from a gameplay stand point the 4 second delay seems to be aimed at HAT soldiers who used to be able to "jack in the box" and successfully destroy enemy Armour while remaining unseen/untouched due to the nature of deviation.

It also lends itself nicely to TOW emplacements, but vehicles never needed to be "nerfed" in that manner. I suppose it gives more of a balance when a tank with ATGM comes up against one who is armed with AP at best.
Image
Jacksonez__
Posts: 1090
Joined: 2013-07-28 13:19

Re: Malyutka ATGM feedback

Post by Jacksonez__ »

Murphy wrote:I don't understand why the delay was implemented on vehicles to begin with. It may be realistic to have the delay on certain vehicles, but from a gameplay stand point the 4 second delay seems to be aimed at HAT soldiers who used to be able to "jack in the box" and successfully destroy enemy Armour while remaining unseen/untouched due to the nature of deviation.

It also lends itself nicely to TOW emplacements, but vehicles never needed to be "nerfed" in that manner. I suppose it gives more of a balance when a tank with ATGM comes up against one who is armed with AP at best.
if you mean atgm delay, it is because of the launch motor takes time to start after you push the trigger ;-) For instance, TOW-2 delay is like 1,25 seconds meanwhile HJ-8 is 3,5-4 seconds.

but as you can see from the video, malyutka doesn't have this delay. Maybe because it doesn't have that powerful motor or so.
Murphy
Posts: 2339
Joined: 2010-06-05 21:14

Re: Malyutka ATGM feedback

Post by Murphy »

I was talking from a gameplay angle, not strictly realism. I understand how these weapons function, but for sake of gameplay I feel some of the less realistic changes suit the game.
Image
chrisweb89
Posts: 972
Joined: 2008-06-16 05:08

Re: Malyutka ATGM feedback

Post by chrisweb89 »

Murphy, correct me if I'm wrong but tank launched ATGMs, or any other atgms from a barrel don't have this delay do they? I thought it was only tube launched ones like the type usually found on ifvs.
Post Reply

Return to “PR:BF2 Feedback”