Project Reality Forums

Good jobs Devs for giving us .5, it has been a blast but there are some bugs that i kindly ask you to look into as you develop .6

1. "There is a problem with your connection". Biggest and most frustrating aspect of .5 for me. I don't know what causes it but my connection is not the problem

2. The recoil is a quite high and while this may be more realistic than .4, it has a huge impact on game play. There are no more pitched fire fights, no more taking cover from incoming, no more suppressing fire etc. .4 recoil seemed very well balanced expect for the m4 and g3

3. On 32 player maps, there is not enough manpower to deal with multiple CP's. Please, make it a linear flag order for this map size. We only have two squads anyway

4. Tanks shouldn't be almost destroyed to start throwing tracks. It would be better, if after 4 rpgs, the tracks come off instead of when its about to get on fire.

5. Map lag, this is another big problem. It could be due to the dozens of spawn points or kit requests.

6. People who receive a limited kit shouldn't be able to request another one straight away after they die. Some people whore these sniper or heavy AT to the point where no one else can use them. There should be a delay, so that if someone else wanted it, he would at least get a chance

7. Cobra's mini-gun is too accurate. I've seen real life footage of it in action in desert storm, and believe it its a hit or miss thing. I think people confused this with the apache, which has an accurate gun

8. Planes should be removed from maps. You could leave the a10 and equivalents for tank busting but generally planes mess up all the fine balancing of the game. I've never really understood why we have planes anyway?

9. Wrecks last too long on maps. Even when your new spanking t90 repswans, you see the old wreck lay where it died. Maybe this also adds to the server lag?

These are just my thoughts, if you think of anything to be added, just add it

#1 yeah, but the problem I am having is that I rarely experience this. and one major problem is that ABR has been having difficulties lately. the TG server rarely flakes out.. no ABR. The DevFile server *for me* rarely flakes out.. no ABR. They recently did a server move and ran into some problems. we have done a lot of testing and profiling on our code. we improved some server issues where we were seeing up to 30% dropped frames on the server and have dramatically reduced that. Still a bit of work to do tho. What can really help is as much detail as possible.. server, map, game mode, map size, etc, etc...

#2 what you say contradicts itself and I don't really agree.. I think one major factor is that we have, with the help of some military advisors, got the 7.62 rounds behaving more like they should in comparison to the 556 rounds.

#3 agreed

#4 agreed, that system will need some fine tuning over time

#5 agreed. we are aware of one thing that *shouldn't* be causing lag, but is, and we are working to remove that element.

#6 agreed, is changing for v0.6.

#7 not sure I agree, would much prefer to have a Cobra gunner help us there

#8 I like the planes but my biggest problem with them is the maps are too small for them (even the largest maps are too small) and the pilots are .. 80% of the time .. inneffective. But we are going to try and get some very large maps going as well as focus on improving the attack jets and are figuring out some stuff we want to to with the fighters. But mostly I think the fix for planes is much larger maps.

#9 don't agree, they provide dynamic cover. And looks cool. And do little to contribute to lag. Usually lag is from an overworked server or a bad collision mesh... I think we might have a bit of both but have made a lot of improvements on the server workload. Once ABR settles down and normalizes we'll get a better read on it.

ty for taking the time to make the post.

3. On 32 player maps, there is not enough manpower to deal with multiple CP's. Please, make it a linear flag order for this map size. We only have two squads anyway

One I completely agree with. Currently 32 man servers are like a game of musical flags.

I have to disagree with eggman and agree with Harrleson on POINT 2, a balance between .4 and .5 would be benficial for the use of sustained accurate suppressing fire.
I have got used to .5 levels and overall i do not find shooting greatly more difficult but in resepcts to single shot on 5.56mm weapons, a recoil decrease on particularly the M16 would encourage the use of suppressing fire and therefore fire and manvour tactics.

For a more detail explanation,I implor you to read:http://realitymod.com/forum/showthread. ... hot+recoil

I do hope the above links, helps flesh his POINT 2 out alittle.

With regards to the rest, i am with Egg all the way!

And about point 9 - How often do you actualy get off you computer and go out side into the average war zone ?????
Jking, but seriously i find such breaches of the laws of physics (energy, alot is required to change the state of 30 tonnes of steal and composite and may i aks where this comes from and dont say petrol or diesel!) and such breaches really do remove and distract me from, what can often be a hell raising experience.

'[R-DEV wrote:eggman']
#8 I like the planes but my biggest problem with them is the maps are too small for them (even the largest maps are too small) and the pilots are .. 80% of the time .. inneffective. But we are going to try and get some very large maps going as well as focus on improving the attack jets and are figuring out some stuff we want to to with the fighters. But mostly I think the fix for planes is much larger maps.

Im thinking that planes should be made more devestating yet more challenging to use.
The changes made to the helicopters so far have been highly effective in making them 1) and effective combat asset(as it should be) and 2) less frequenly piloted by 'smaktardz'. it means that you almost have to qualify with a liscence before you can effectively fly because practice is compulsary which results in skilled and effective pilots and that they be rewarded with flying for their efforts.
I think looking into how planes ordinance and how powerful it should be should be good point of focus here. How i would give up RL if we sucsessfuly implemented cluster bombs lol.

...mongol...

When are the ingame scores going to disappear ?


batalla35

keep it on topic please, go post on another, already existing thread for scoreboards.

..mongol...

The 5.56mm weapon's recoil seems too high at the moment - the first 2 bullets in a 3 round burst should be landing within millimetres of each other. Effective supressive fire with the M16 and l85 is currently deadly to the shooter simply because accuracy is off so much due to recoil, that the target can dance out and return fire with little fear of catching a round in the head

I see planes as being useless for the following reasons:
1 Their realism... Planes fly at a much higher altitude, including the A10. But this is prevented (at lest in 0.5) by view distance and on the future large maps they'd have trouble finding targets with, at best, 32 man teams.
2 Their purpose... I mean, how exactly do they contribute to the main objective (flag capping) ? By blowing armored vehicles sky high? A chopper is just as effective in doing that and more. And as for taking the choppers out, these already have a big enough pain in the neck in the form of heavy machine guns, static AA, Light ATs and Stingers/SA-7s.
3 Pitched battles are less intensive when your always distracted by a pesky A-10. And they're also cause of people waiting to use them at the main bases, people that could have contributed to the main flag capping effort.

In the end, from my point of view, their just another dimension of the battle that can hardly affect the battle on the ground, and the AHs are enough for that...
Maybe if you could raise the max player number to 128, with bigger view distance, speed and there will be more armor on the ground, then maybe they would be useful.

On the note of point 2, I don't think recoil would play a big role in getting players to take cover. All it would do is make it a bit more conveinant for the shooter to take his target out accurately. I suggested having some sort of camera shake when hit by bullets or when bullets land nearby. Just like in America's Army. You wouldn't think much of it at first, but it really makes players use cover and suppressive tactics.

addition to point 2: suppressive fire works and is not being used not because of recoil but 1) because of riflemen not able to deploy ammo properly (NOT in an open field e.g.) if there are any => you run out of ammo 2) doesnt help that much if your squad doesn't work together nor communicate

in order to improve 1) maybe ammo packs could be shown on the minimap and/or 3d hud?

terranova: your vision is blurred if bullets impact next to you. if one squad pounds a position, noone is gonna move into the line of fire (at least, if they have SAWs pounding too )

The blurred vison thing hardly does anything to effect your aim to be honest. We need something a bit more intense, especially when you actually hit the player. Because as it stands, you can still keep quite a steady aim even after a bullet has just passed through your gut. I like the way AA did it because it works so well when your HUD shook left to right. Hell, I don't even think you could return fire while being shot, and that helped alot too.

My issue with planes is that more than 90% of the time, lone wolves pilot them.

This is why I think air units require laser designation from ground troops, so they can actually lock onto a moving vehicle or a static defense of infantry.

No more dumb bombs, it should all be laser designated and should require a co pilot to fire them. E.g the maverick missiles on the F15 and equivalents in the Sukoi jets.

This way, we have two seater planes (or even larger bombers) that require teamwork. The main pilot can fire the standard gun and any air to air missiles, but the co pilot gets the laser guided bombs, and perhaps one other thing. I've been thinking sidewinder missiles. Anyways, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the co pilot should be the one to deploy flares, it would promote air combat to an insane degree and would require officers and special forces troops on the ground to laser designate targets.

If you can get a commander and dedicated air squads you can get some ace coordination.

Guerra wrote:My issue with planes is that more than 90% of the time, lone wolves pilot them.

maybe one could also automatically put the pilot and gunner into an own squad if they aren't already in one with the commander being able to remove them from the plane if they don't respond.

I really don't have too much beef with the fixed wing air support due to the fact that the only kind I've seen is the A-10 on Basrah, which has a tough time doing this already due to the fact that it has to engage targets hiding in a monstrous urban area. CAS from rotary aircraft seems pretty spot on, as far as I'm concerned. Will we ever see the F-35 again?

I think it should take more warheads from the RPG-7 to take out an Abrams.

Could there be anyway that the commander, or even SLs could have a direct voip to People in planes, [not using the capslock map way] to say that there need a bombing run here, or there is a lot of hostiles in on area that need to be cleared out, this may bring Planes back into the team play scenario.

You could make a control tower squad. Squad 1 requests airsupport, tells commander, commander tell control tower squad (SL), SL tells planes.

If you use the attack/destroy markers, the commander can relay that to the control tower squad.


Point: 7. Accuracy from the cobra is probably to make up for the Lag/movement of the pilot, aswell as the fact that the splash damage isn't that bad as in real life.
Plus, the downwash of the rotors has no effect on the bullets in bf2.

solodude23 wrote:How in the hell would it not be able to be accurate from the tiny engagement distances in PR?

My thoughts exactly...