Project Reality Forums

Hi all

Just small intro. I have played PR a bit more than 10 years and saw a lot of stuff and had a fun. Before PR I played BF and it was also fun. I know that a lot of us have almost same values, and some of you maybe share my vision.

All good things must come to an end. Again and again I feel that time of PR in current state is not going to be long. Yes, I know, I know that this is 100500's post regardind 'dying PR', but in loving memory of Project Reality I just need to write this feedback. Some memories just need to be written, but in this text I just analysing and writing my thought for few things in game. From my perspective these things making the game itself, like some sort of building - four columns and the base.

1. COMMUNITY

Current number of players in PR which plays more or less regular is around 350 from my statistics. I don't have the exact stats for previous years, but almost sure that it was higher. The stats shows that we are shrinking and new players not choose PR as their game. There are a lot of reasons of that, but I don't want to make analysis of them.
In any way currently we are some sort of closed-community with all the consequences. The mod does not simulate reality, it tries to simulate teamwork by adding difficulties to common tasks. This is opposite to mainstream to simplify tasks and make world to be on-top-of-your-fingers.
This saves us from bunch of cheaters and hacks, but add problems with new players and lack of freshnes.
The influence of Community to the PR should not be underestimated. For example, the well known asset rule that squad should be named for taking asset so widely used, that there is no more than 4 tanks per map (as for time that I writing this) - because max players per squad is 8 and there is minimum tank crew is two.



2. REALITY (or similar)

The Project Reality start from adding some enhancements to vanilla BF2 to stop allowing jump-lie-shoot, adjusting damage, removing hud/hit indicator, adding some vehicles etc etc. Firstly it was called PRMM. Actually at start it was very nice mod and some time after he got an well-deserved award.

There are two points of view for "reality" in PR. From one perspective we see flying and jumping vehicles, legs from walls, tanks impossible to drive through little bush, etc. This poing of view is completely not supported, because everyone agree that this is some "assumption". At other point we see "reality" as good models of weapons and vehicles and this point of view prevail of any other. Also, some devs use the 'reality' to deny some suggestions that they don't want to see in mod or too lazy to implement.

The most important change PR from BF2 to step ahead of "reality" - disabling third person view in vehicles. Actually, there are a lot of differencies between BF and PR, but most important just restrict BF 'feature' or disabled it completely, which changes our third "column", called GAMEPLAY.


3. GAMEPLAY

The first thing that you think when start playing PR is "WHY ITS SO F%$#^K SLOW?". If hurts very hard, because sometimes you can go to the bathroom while your gun is reloading. This was also made because developers thought that fast work with weapon is "unreal".
The avatar can not overcome some little edging, and must jump it over. Stamina is so small that it seems that you are driving not high-trained soldier, but some old smokers who can not even jump and run for 200 meters.
Maps are suffer by lack of details, almost all buildings is not possible to enter.
Usual gameplay for newbie is watching the dead screen and countdown for respawn. The countdown, moreover is increased everytime you die which should make you more durable and not dying. You can not see where is the enemy which killed you, which making you learnings harder than ever (the only way is watching the after-match replay that is drastically unusable and may not be supported by the server).
At other perspective the sounds in game is very good quality, even over-worked. How we can explain that you can hear a tank in 2 km away in forest area? But developers think that this is good. The 'hearing' your opponents is cruical in the game, thats why the most top k/d players is just simple campers. Or smart campers, because game is provoking to do so - usually all pvp battles ends in first two shots. First see - first kill is the main formula of this game.
The unique gamemode in the PR is Insurgency - this mode allows you to simulate a unarmed man. You will see how your schoolmates with grandpas gun die in the unequal battle against modern highly equipped army and then you also die as martyr because someone with scoped rifle not see that you have no weapon.
Another not playable game mode is CnC where you can feel yourself as guest worker - you need to 'build and destroy' objectives. This game mode is so unplayable that almost all players forget about it.



4. BALANCE

The balance is the other word (in addition to 'reality') which DEVs use to deny something which is not fit in their vision of the game. You might think that they are care of balancing, but this is wrong point. Many DEVs care about they 'beloved' fractions and just don't want something to be stronger or interesting against their side.
So we have some 'loved' fractions at which devs pays attention, update/upgrade it, and 'unloved' - fractions with no updates at all or may downgrade their power in terms of 'balance'.
Previously the most advanced and powered fraction was GB. However, looks like some developers left the team and fraction staying without updates too long and its power slightly decreased. Other fractions like insurgents was not upgraded since they are introduced and continuosly downgraded - because nobody love them, except retired DEVs
Frankly speaking, since creation PR uses some other sort of balance, like asymmetrical balance. Its mean that sides not get the same powers, but wisely using their assets they are more or less identical. But meaning 'wisely' is different for all people and practically it makes that assets at one side is easy to use to get full power, and on other side another asset is imposible to use because require a lot of skill or more people or both. In ideal balance I see (and perhaps some others) that win require mastery in iteraction different assets together, but now we have some wunderwaffe at one side and underpowered fractions at others.



THE BASE: BF2 ENGINE

You may think that all above was written to clear the point that PR is not suitable for playing, but this is absolutely wrong. BF2 core engine is very old - almost 15 years for now, but it still usable and even played. Alot of stuff is hardcoded and nobody know how it works - but because of that we have some 'features' like unreal engine
A lot of limitations in the code was workarounded by DEVs, which is pretty amasing. At current time this is most stable and featured game for team vs team playing. Developers added several game modes - which is underestimated atm, but these modes are great. Hell, DEVs should have gold medal for supporting and developing this game in such circumstances. In some future newest games will kick PR from the scene, but currently I love it very much.


and conclusion.

In the beginning I said that I think that in current state PR should end very soon. I hope that it will not be truth and something will change, because changes is that we are loving - when things are frozen, we have no motivation to play.

git gud

fenriz9000 wrote:(the only way is watching the after-match replay that is drastically unusable and may not be supported by the server)

It has to be supported by the server. Battle recorder is not really useful to find out where was the enemy who killed you. but you can use tracker to find it out - and this tool is really simple in use.
Example.

fenriz9000 wrote:The unique gamemode in the PR is Insurgency - this mode allows you to simulate a unarmed man. You will see how your schoolmates with grandpas gun die in the unequal battle against modern highly equipped army and then you also die as martyr because someone with scoped rifle not see that you have no weapon.
Another not playable game mode is CnC where you can feel yourself as guest worker - you need to 'build and destroy' objectives. This game mode is so unplayable that almost all players forget about it.

Insurgency is not played that often during prime time due to the fact that teams tend to be really disbalanced when you switch from INS to AAS.
CNC is not played at all because it requires two experienced commanders and a lot of experienced squad leaders - in both teams. It's not really that easy to gather that much experienced players willing to lead.
There is also one quite important thing: no one wants to defend. Its about both AAS flags and friendly FOB in CNC gamemode. Usually you can find no more than 1 squad willing to defend, but after over 45 minutes of doing nothing everyone want to just leave it and attack.

fenriz9000 wrote:we have no motivation to play.

WW2 in 2 hours.

PR was just a mod to make Battlefield 2 multiplayer online matches more fair, fun, balanced and focused on teamwork. Sure, it's sorta forced -- if you don't, you get the same FPS everyone is making, and people just do as they please running everywhere and anywhere they please.

While some are actively watching and waiting for "PR to die" due to "failures", after almost ten years with it, I am watching in amazement that so many people are still coming to PR and staying, still making friends and still having fun for months and years on end. If this thing has been around since 2003/2004, that's a success not a failure (that it is still here and alive). If you're burned out on it, you don't need to stay to the end - for all of us, the door swings both ways - but it would be wise to accept that we are now essentially hosting a legacy game in it's Autumn years much like we'd view BF1942 esert Combat Mod Servers in 2009 when PR was some kind of huge rising star.

It's still tons of fun for a lot of people, just not the same number of people concurrently as it used to. Certainly not for a lack of difficulty or complexity, but when you look at the alternatives, there just are none - nothing anywhere compares to PR as whole even if certain parts could be replicated. It is a unique gem we all should be happy we were (and are) a part of, running big servers and stomping around with friends like Jolly Green Giants walking the digital earth - with guns.

C'est la vie, mon frere

fenriz9000 wrote: 4. BALANCE

The balance is the other word (in addition to 'reality') which DEVs use to deny something which is not fit in their vision of the game. You might think that they are care of balancing, but this is wrong point. Many DEVs care about they 'beloved' fractions and just don't want something to be stronger or interesting against their side.
So we have some 'loved' fractions at which devs pays attention, update/upgrade it, and 'unloved' - fractions with no updates at all or may downgrade their power in terms of 'balance'.
Previously the most advanced and powered fraction was GB. However, looks like some developers left the team and fraction staying without updates too long and its power slightly decreased. Other fractions like insurgents was not upgraded since they are introduced and continuosly downgraded - because nobody love them, except retired DEVs
Frankly speaking, since creation PR uses some other sort of balance, like asymmetrical balance. Its mean that sides not get the same powers, but wisely using their assets they are more or less identical. But meaning 'wisely' is different for all people and practically it makes that assets at one side is easy to use to get full power, and on other side another asset is imposible to use because require a lot of skill or more people or both. In ideal balance I see (and perhaps some others) that win require mastery in iteraction different assets together, but now we have some wunderwaffe at one side and underpowered fractions at others.

You're process of balance isn't used by the dev team for the exact reason your talking about. The last powerful nation wasn't the British, it was the Germans. I'll leave names out of this, but One developer used to talk alot about how the German Devs used to buff their vehicles to be fairly broken. But that's only really half the story, in days gone by main Devs just did stuff that sounds cool, e.g. the Hind being a literal flying tank taking AP shells from all tanks constantly.

Nowadays balance is done based on the vehicles capability. Look at Khamisiyah, a map that was re-balanced in the last 12 months. It has 3 main layers
AAS 32 : Where US controls the center of the map off the bat so have worse APCs
AAS 64 : Where MEC controls the center of the map off the bat so have worse APCs
AAS 128 : Where both teams have to fight over the center so have mirrored but delayed assets for a drawn out fight.


Balancing by capabilities as a posed to vehicle classifications, etc is a much more consistent and superior balancing method

fenriz9000 wrote: 4. BALANCE

The balance is the other word (in addition to 'reality') which DEVs use to deny something which is not fit in their vision of the game. You might think that they are care of balancing, but this is wrong point. Many DEVs care about they 'beloved' fractions and just don't want something to be stronger or interesting against their side.

-You're absolutely right.

-Simply people can not understand,that game play and simulate the real world do not go together.No one has managed to do it so far in the world of games,can be made but not interesting to play.Therefore there is always a compromise.
The right example for wrong is for this INS mode:
-They made it look real(weapons and equipment),you have infinite tickets....
-Besides that what you have ,nothing.
-You only serve as cannon fodder.

Then they would say it was a reality.So when the rebels won in the world against strong forces?!?!technology vs rock.The only game play in INS mode is in urban map(because you have a place to hide).

-About other things not to talk as a fraction against the fraction.
Such as Russian tanks(some types) do not have thermo vision.Ok, do not have,but there should be more of them then for balance.There's an examples of how much you want...

It just needs to be understood,brutally real and game play do not go together.Suggestions do not help,"It's fight against the windmill"-Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes.

fenriz9000 wrote: THE BASE: BF2 ENGINE

You may think that all above was written to clear the point that PR is not suitable for playing, but this is absolutely wrong. BF2 core engine is very old - almost 15 years for now, but it still usable and even played. Alot of stuff is hardcoded and nobody know how it works - but because of that we have some 'features' like unreal engine
A lot of limitations in the code was workarounded by DEVs, which is pretty amasing. At current time this is most stable and featured game for team vs team playing. Developers added several game modes - which is underestimated atm, but these modes are great. Hell, DEVs should have gold medal for supporting and developing this game in such circumstances. In some future newest games will kick PR from the scene, but currently I love it very much.

-And Tetris is an old game as well as chess,but it's still playing




greeting

There's no real flame on your screen, it's just magic

I really can't be asked to respond to most of what you've said as it isn't worth a response but one bit I will respond to:

fenriz9000 wrote: 4. BALANCE

The balance is the other word (in addition to 'reality') which DEVs use to deny something which is not fit in their vision of the game. You might think that they are care of balancing, but this is wrong point. Many DEVs care about they 'beloved' fractions and just don't want something to be stronger or interesting against their side.
So we have some 'loved' fractions at which devs pays attention, update/upgrade it, and 'unloved' - fractions with no updates at all or may downgrade their power in terms of 'balance'.
Previously the most advanced and powered fraction was GB. However, looks like some developers left the team and fraction staying without updates too long and its power slightly decreased. Other fractions like insurgents was not upgraded since they are introduced and continuosly downgraded - because nobody love them, except retired DEVs
Frankly speaking, since creation PR uses some other sort of balance, like asymmetrical balance. Its mean that sides not get the same powers, but wisely using their assets they are more or less identical. But meaning 'wisely' is different for all people and practically it makes that assets at one side is easy to use to get full power, and on other side another asset is imposible to use because require a lot of skill or more people or both. In ideal balance I see (and perhaps some others) that win require mastery in iteraction different assets together, but now we have some wunderwaffe at one side and underpowered fractions at others.

That simply has never has been the case... Sure modellers do want to make stuff of factions they are particularly interested in or have a connection to (with British devs wanting to make British assets, Germans wanting to make German ones, Russian wanting to make Russian assets and so on), BUT when it comes to balancing, things are either made as realistic as possible (with regards to the engine etc) or are made to mirror other assets already ingame (which mainly goes for things like MBTs, all sharing the same basic stats with differences here and there if reality calls for it, like some tanks getting ATGMs etc). Then as FFG said, the true balance comes down to the mapper, especially for asymmetrical maps (ie, maps where both sides do not have the same exact asset types opposing each other in equal numbers etc) like in the case of Muttrah for example, which while both sides have totally different asset setups etc, is still a well balanced map (even if everyone hates playing it as it has been played sooo much).

Now me being a British dev most people probably on the face of it think I've only made British assets for this mod and nothing else (with probably you also thinking that I think all British assets should be super 1337 and crush everything... ). While yes I have made a bunch of British assets over the years, if you actually go back over what I've personally made (or at least had a big part in making/helping to make), you may be surprised to find out most of what I've made has been for other factions, even those Insurgents you claim no one cares about and no one makes any assets for.

First the RPG-7 update with all the new warheads (and optimization/improvements of the launcher), again, not used by the British, mainly an Insurgent weapon but also Russian, MEC, NVA & Polish (as well as some others).
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/showth ... p?t=138961 Again, each warhead was made to be as realistic as possible within the BF2 engine based on the r/l data I and other devs/advisors could find for it. In fact here is the post we put together of the r/l stats of each warhead and then in turn based the damage values off of: I should also note that we carefully balanced these with other factions AT weapons which also share the same basic r/l penetration values etc for the most part and where they didn't, we balanced in other ways like warhead quantity etc, etc.


And while on the subject of Insurgent Weapons, some others I've personally made or helped with (not to mention the deployable such as the SPG-9, Insurgent Mortars, Roadblocks etc):
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/blog.php?b=371
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/blog.php?b=362
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50147



Now a lot of what I've been focused on for the last few years has been to do with PR:Falklands which while is a largely British war, I have focused a lot on the Argentine assets as well and not left them in the dark and if I only focused on the British assets, there wouldn't have ever been anyone to fight against. Just some examples of areas I've focused and/or at least helped out with the development of Argentine Assets:
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/blog.php?b=456
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/showth ... p?t=140442
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/showth ... p?t=130559
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/blog.php?b=404
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/showth ... p?t=143363


If you go back further you will see I've also put a lot of effort into Chinese and other assets such as the Zhi-9/Panther series etc:
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/showth ... p?t=118657
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54987


This is also not to mention all the generic assets I've made for all the factions like all of the Deployables I've done with different deployable weapons for each, the ACVs, and many things on top. And after all of this, everything I make, be it a British asset, and Insurgent asset or whatever, I make them all with the same basic principle of being as realistic as we can make it while also being good for gameplay. Just look back through all my highlights, blogs and posts and you will find a wider verity of stuff I've done than just what I've listed above.

And I'm not the exception, although some modellers only focus on making assets for one faction that is true, most modellers make assets for any faction that needs assets and then when it comes to balancing an asset, we make it true to the real world as we can, or with things like MBTs, mirror balanced with other assets (although personally on that subject I've wanted us to go down the road of making tanks as realistic as possible and then balancing things out with map balance but that is a big re-balance of the mod so we never really have).


So please, enough of this **** that devs are just bais to their faction and want to make them super powerful ingame, it simply isn't true.... Thanks.

FFG wrote:But that's only really half the story, in days gone by main Devs just did stuff that sounds cool, e.g. the Hind being a literal flying tank taking AP shells from all tanks constantly.

That really isn't the case either tbh. We have always as far as I can remember tried to make things relatively realistic and that thing with the Hind iirc, was more a bug with trying to make it more armoured than other choppers (since in r/l it has more amour than most choppers) and was simply a bug with the coding that took quite a bit of time to identify and fix.

There's no need to justify yourself, people will always resort to bitching when they don't get what they want. Oh, Russia doesn't steamroll every map every time with thousands of tanks?
Better blame the DEVs for not making Russia stronk.

I pretty much agree with you on everything Sadly everyone who agrees with me are already banned on this forum

I always found it absolutely nonsensical how tank-combat here is based on literally stoping all tanks, exiting the tank and going up a hill to peek over it and to "listen". That's just hilarious!

Tank combat should be mobile.
This is of course one of the things that could be fixed (from what I remember), tanks could for example have a semi-aimbot that you activate to simulate fire control assistance. It could be somewhat delayed and only provided to the most modern tanks to stil keep balance and flavour alive.

There are many more points I agree with you. But it's a dead discussion, these things will never change, we tried.

But I just had to reply on this point since it's one rarely brought up and one I personally always found hilarious.


edit: Many of the aspects that you criticize are partly your fault as a member of the community. Like the difficulties experience in CnC and Insurgency mode. Yes you have grandpas old rifle and in the current state the game is in it's absolutely detrimental that newbies keep dying with it, not knowing how to beat the enemy and each time they die the death timer increases and it gets worse and worse. It's pretty messed up.

But of course you're not supposed to play like that. But since nobody attempts to employ real ambush tactics anymore and unify the insurgent command you're just stuck with all these "difficult limitations" with none of the rewards. We truly have the worst of both worlds atm!

Not sure I've seen a post that combined such self victimization with patently false information on that level in a while.

camo wrote:Not sure I've seen a post that combined such self victimization with patently false information on that level in a while.

^Well said. I thought I walked into a Flat Earth debate there for a second...

Stolt_Yugoslav wrote:I always found it absolutely nonsensical how tank-combat here is based on literally stoping all tanks, exiting the tank and going up a hill to peek over it and to "listen". That's just hilarious!
Tank combat should be mobile.

If you have any suggestions on how to stop players using that tactic you are more than welcome to use the suggestions forums. This is not a tactic we (the devs) built into the game it is one players have made for themselves.

In the BF2 engine we can't simulate the long startup-shutdown procedure a real tank engine would have, that we have thought of that is possible that is, or make it so it takes ages to get in/out of a tank, and short of either making tanks silent so players can't listen for them, or making it so players can not exit tanks after getting in them, I can't see how we could stop players from using this tactic.

Stolt_Yugoslav wrote:This is of course one of the things that could be fixed (from what I remember), tanks could for example have a semi-aimbot that you activate to simulate fire control assistance. It could be somewhat delayed and only provided to the most modern tanks to stil keep balance and flavour alive.

I don't know where you get your information from but we can not make a decent FCS for BF2, if we could we would have obviously added it. Not that a FCS would have stopped the whole players getting out to listen for tanks anyways.

While yes there have been attempts at making FCS, like this one which is probably what you're thinking of: Then this was achieved by attaching "Laser Targets" to all land vehicles (vBF2 style) and then having the tank gun's HUD (not the actual turret or barrel itself), and projectile, lock onto the enemy tank like a missile, and the tank shell would behave like a missile while flying through the air so if the enemy tank suddenly stopped while the projectile was in the air, the projectile wouldn't carry on its original course but would guide itself into the target, like a missile. Without that guidance then the projectile wouldn't hit the target unless pointed manually in the right direction beforehand like it is now.

The worst part of this system is that all Smart Air to Ground weapons, such as Laser Guided Bombs and Maverik Missiles, would automatically lock onto any enemy target they flew overhead, WITHOUT the need of anyone on the ground to lase the target. If you played vBF2 at all, this is how the Mavericks were setup on the F-15E and the co-pilot controlling them could automatically lock them onto enemy targets. You can see it in this video here at 3:15: https://youtu.be/gvYb6Xi62xk?t=181 Only in PR, if we added Laser Targets to every vehicle, the pilot/co-pilot wouldn't even need to point a targeting pod in the general direction of the target, they can just fly over the target and automatically lock-on like they would for locking onto a SOFLAM Lase, but they would be on every vehicle and they would only lock onto enemy vehicles.

Also FYI we can't give a different type of "target" for just the FCS even if we went with this, as BF2 is limited to only three types of target. "Heat" which is what AA missiles lock onto and are attached to jets/choppers, "Lase" which is what Air to Ground weapons lock onto, and "Unique" which you can't actually attach to a vehicle/object like the other two, and are only used by self-targets weapons such as Wire Guided ATGM such as the Erxy etc.

So again, stop with the "Devs are just Lazy" BS, thanks.

PatrickLA_CA wrote:There's no need to justify yourself, people will always resort to bitching when they don't get what they want. Oh, Russia doesn't steamroll every map every time with thousands of tanks?
Better blame the DEVs for not making Russia stronk.

ye, I just find it hard to ignore.

Without that guidance then the projectile wouldn't hit the target unless pointed manually in the right direction beforehand like it is now.

Exactly.
You'd have to manually adjust it to compensate for any movement of the enemy tank but you'd at least have something compensating and allowing you to keep the aim on the tank constantly until you got on a bit of flat ground, you swithc off the guidance and you correct the aim in half a second and then fire off.

That's exactly how a guidance computer works, except it also calculates that aforementioned distance ahead of the target which I don't think would be possible within BF2 limitations.* (*But externally, yes).

Nobody is asking for guided missiles and nobody is calling for a 100% hitrate nor for an exact copy of guidance computers.

"Only in PR, if we added Laser Targets to every vehicle, the pilot/co-pilot wouldn't even need to point a targeting pod in the general direction of the target, they can just fly over the target and automatically lock-on like they would for locking onto a SOFLAM Lase, but they would be on every vehicle and they would only lock onto enemy vehicles."

I gotta say man, I never liked laser guided CAS anyway. It's just too op for the scale we are simulating, though the new roles it creates are cool! But I didn't know you couldn't create different groups of laser targets that weren't affecting certain other items.

Anyway as you know there are aimbots for BF2. Why couldn't an aimbot interface just be adapted for tank gunners? I think the aimbots can differentiate between different types of targets, usually going for human targets. I assume it could be programmed to go only for vehicle types too?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CeEy44JA8c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf59sEhflb8

^ Just the first two links on google, the first one you have the ability to choose target type/location.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqxI7Ws1u7s

^Here's something far smoother that works for the "unique" signal that you mentioned. It could be adopted for this one. With the switch of a button you go from manual aim to a "TV camera" gun system that doesn't zoom. Hopefully the projectile fire would always be an unguided one. I don't know if the later is possible but with some fiddling I'm sure some solutions could ba achieved. Heck, this aimbot even seems to have that aspect of being able to calculate the targets speed and account for aiming ahead of it if you wanted an OP system.

Plus it wouldn't be that spastic since the turret has a limited turn ratio anyway.
PS: Don't download these, they are all most likely spyware filled.
PPS: What all these tools do (since they are external) is that they somehow use data that BF2 puts out and then feed inputs back into it. Now that you have your own game you could probably incorporate an external code into the outer shell of the full program.

I can't see how we could stop players from using this tactic.

By encouraging mobile warfare through the adaptation of aimbots *

There are some problems with this but I imagine they could be fixed. For example if you could just press a button to auto-find targets then camping would be even more powerful but this is easily solved by not allowing the aimbot (Fire control system) to target anything except if the curser already isn't on it or close to it.

Other issues I imagine could also be resolved.

But I'm not here to argue changes tbh I'm far past caring. Just I write something every year or so and came over now to check.

Stolt_Yugoslav wrote:Exactly.
You'd have to manually adjust it to compensate for any movement of the enemy tank but you'd at least have something compensating and allowing you to keep the aim on the tank constantly until you got on a bit of flat ground, you swithc off the guidance and you correct the aim in half a second and then fire off.

That's exactly how a guidance computer works, except it also calculates that aforementioned distance ahead of the target which I don't think would be possible within BF2 limitations.* (*But externally, yes).

Nobody is asking for guided missiles and nobody is calling for a 100% hitrate nor for an exact copy of guidance computers.

......

You totally misunderstood what I said...

Having the HUD snap onto the target but having to manually aim without a HUD icon showing you where you actually are aiming would make hitting a target basically pure luck as you wouldn't know where your cannon was pointing, other than by the centre of your screen without any crosshair showing you where that was, so it would be like hip firing with a rifle...

And of course no one is asking for self-guided tank rounds, I'm saying that is what that solution basically was...

BTW, I know how FCS work. I've been on the Challenger 2 simulators at Bovington twice, with the instructors teaching us how to use the FCS etc and as such I have a much better idea than most of how they work, and that btw isn't how they work. You do not have to manually compensate for the target. Most of the FCS is firstly turret stabilisation which helps you get the crosshairs on the target, then you lase the target for range, which automatically elevates the gun for the correct range and leads the shot as well depending on both your speed and enemy targets speed. You can also set the FCS lase to basically lock on a track a moving target so you do not have to follow it manually but that is a little tricky to do. This is just the CR2 mind you and each tank is slightly diffrent but the basic principles are the same for most more MBTs.

Stolt_Yugoslav wrote:By encouraging mobile warfare through the adaptation of aimbots *

Yes, aimbots for all!

Also as I said, a decent FCS or "Aimbots" wouldn't stop people from cutting the engines of their tanks and listening for the enemy as being able to aim more easily at a moving target won't help in determining where the enemy is. Providing wallhacks would thou if that is something you also think we should give players along with aimbots?

You're the one misreading my post but it doesn't matter. I don't care to continue the discussion.

Let's just say that I literally point out that

" That's exactly how a guidance computer works, except it also calculates that aforementioned distance ahead of the target which I don't think would be possible within BF2 limitations.* (*But externally, yes)."

but you don't have the comprehension to process it!

reply:

You do not have to manually compensate for the target

I don't really care enough about the game or its future anymore. I'm just pointing out to the OP that there were creative ways around various problems and this is one that always made me lul a bit.

Also as I said, a decent FCS or "Aimbots" wouldn't stop people from cutting the engines of their tanks and listening for the enemy as being able to aim more easily at a moving target won't help in determining where the enemy is.

It wouldn't but then they would be easy stationary targets (with the "FC which you have to manually adjust for speed") while a moving column of tanks wouldn't be.

Stolt_Yugoslav wrote:You're the one misreading my post but it doesn't matter. I don't care to continue the discussion.

lmao nice

Stolt_Yugoslav wrote:Let's just say that I literally point out that but you don't have the comprehension to process it!

Now tell us how gravity isn't real, and it's just density.


(I love these Flat Earth videos!! So funny!! From the peak of Mt. Stupid - the Dunning–Kruger based righteous incredulity FTW )

Stolt_Yugoslav wrote:You're the one misreading my post but it doesn't matter. I don't care to continue the discussion.

Let's just say that I literally point out that but you don't have the comprehension to process it!

lol ye, me explaining how screwed up Mosquil's FCS would be if the projectile didn't lock on to the target would make it so you didn't know where you were aiming since your HUD would be pointing in a totally irrelevant place to where your turret/barrel was (and not in a way that compensates for range or speed) and would just make it 1000x harder to hit than the manual setup we have now, and you thinking that is "exactly how the FCS should work" is me misunderstanding you? Right...

Stolt_Yugoslav wrote:I'm just pointing out to the OP that there were creative ways around various problems and this is one that always made me lul a bit.

You have no idea how much time has been put into finding "creative ways around various problems", which I have demonstrated with one example of how Mosquil tried to do an FCS and that is far more than just some person with no clue what he is talking about saying "you can do it this way even thou I have no f*cking clue about coding or the limitations of the BF2 engine".

You act like somehow we don't want an FCS for our tanks or that we simply lack the will to develop one yet that is not the case, we have attempted many different ways of implementing an FCS as just one example and all simply do not work better than the current system we have and adding an aimbot to the mod isn't a solution either as for starters, it wouldn't work anything like a real FCS would work, even if we did spend all the time on integrating one so it could only be used on tanks etc, which isn't at all easy when it is basically a 3rd party memory hack that works outside the confines of the engine...

Stolt_Yugoslav wrote:It wouldn't but then they would be easy stationary targets (with the "FC which you have to manually adjust for speed") while a moving column of tanks wouldn't be.

I love your logic so much. What in the hell then is the problem with hitting stationary targets as it is now? We basically have no drop on tank rounds to simulate an FCS lasing for the range before firing (and the distances in PR aren't very relevant for one either), all you need to do is point and shoot at the target which is exactly the same as you would do with a full FCS. An FCS is there to help with hitting moving targets (as well as ranging which as I said, we simulate with basically no drop on tank rounds).

Do you think an FCS in tanks means the tank automatically points its gun at a target? As if you, do then you should really do some research into how one really works as that is not the case... Gunners still need to aim manually on a target for the FCS to work. There are slight exceptions like the T-90's ability to detect a laser being aimed at it and it can turn its turret and fire a shot off towards where it detected the incoming laser automatically without any/much input from the gunner but that sort of thing are rare exceptions and the main FCS requires the gunner to aim at and designate a target for the FCS to work.

I suggest you watch this video here from 19:35 and you might learn something: https://youtu.be/WDs5oQW1vNA?t=1176

So someone can't aim and wants aim assist? There are plenty of games out there with "FCS" style shooting, it started with Halo back on Xbox and is pretty standard for console shooters. Honestly, if you have any problems hitting targets with a tank you need to practice aiming, they are akin to snipers with HEIT/AP/HEAT rounds and a machine gun for lawls.

Instead of looking dumb on the forums have you tried gettin gud?

it wouldn't work anything like a real FCS would work,

Since when do you care about how things work in real life as compared to what gameplay they force?
Besides as I tried to explain there would be ways to *limit* the aimbot to only stick to targets at or close to the cursor. But you again seem to willingly fucking ignore shit I tell you.

What in the hell then is the problem with hitting stationary targets as it is now?

I don't know what kind of 24/7 PR trained gunner you're rolling with but most if not all of my gunners want me to grind to a complete halt before they fire at a target that's more than 300 meters away and mostly even less than that.

Obviously in the term "FC" I'm also including stabilizer for a FC without one would be as useless as a car without tires.