Project Reality Forums

Can someone please explain this concept? I played last night and had fantastic time, but couldnt figure out which vehicles I can or cant enter, and why. Anyone?

Shafik wrote:Can someone please explain this concept? I played last night and had fantastic time, but couldnt figure out which vehicles I can or cant enter, and why. Anyone?

The idea is that you cannot steal enemy vehicles so all enemy vehicles are in theory locked, ie you cannot enter them. The lock excludes jeeps and buggys because (I think) they're not as important and are mostly used as taxi.
The short answer is : you can enter vehicles from the army you're in.

Anyone can enter buggies.

Only US can enter US vehicles.
Only MEC can enter MEC vehicles.
Only Chinese can enter Chinese vehicles.

By vehicles, I mean everything.. including planes, choppers, apcs, tanks and trucks.

Thanks for the replies, guys. This really calls for different flag capping tactis. Very nice.

Shafik wrote:Thanks for the replies, guys. This really calls for different fag capping tactis. Very nice.

whats the matter cant kill the rainbow pride patrol in a buggy with a .50cal?

lol, owh Beckwith. Too funny!

Beckwith wrote:whats the matter cant kill the rainbow pride patrol in a buggy with a .50cal?

btw...the .50 cal overheats to fast, rendering it useless to it's purpose.

all the MG's overheat too fast. OMG i fired 50 rounds and my machinegun designed to rapidly fire hundreds of rounds has overheated! Whatever should i do?

Fire in controlled bursts, like you're s'pposed to.

Why is it that BF2 incorperates these overheats?
I have seen a modern M60 fire 800 rounds [2 minutes worth]
with no lockup - That is quite an exception, but still nowhere near
the 100 rounds where BF2 weapons lock.

What is a realistic 'overheat' time for a .50cal or MG [M60/M249/etc.]?

why would you want to fire that many rounds none stop? your not going to hit anything anyway by then the spread would be like 30 feet

OAKtwoFour wrote:Why is it that BF2 incorperates these overheats?
I have seen a modern M60 fire 800 rounds [2 minutes worth]
with no lockup - That is quite an exception, but still nowhere near
the 100 rounds where BF2 weapons lock.

What is a realistic 'overheat' time for a .50cal or MG [M60/M249/etc.]?

So ppl don't whore around with the .50 cal ( unlimited ammo ). They should have given all weapons in the game limited ammo with the possibility to reload like the .50 cal in PRMM. They didn't need to add overheating, one who is stupid enough to empty his machine gun while enemy infantry is around is dead meat.

In most cases i use the HMG for AA pusposes, this is the only chance you have as a mudrunner. In most cases i kill the helo before the mg overheats, but when they have an engineer on board or the distance is over maximum range i might need more shots ( with the mg overheating before i shoot down the helo ). Most of the time it is annoying though.

The MGs accuracy is so bad after so many rounds, AND the only way to hit anything is in bursts as you said so the overheats in BF2 really just seem like overkill, I can't figure what it's for. Unless of course MGs do actually overheat in less than 100 rounds.

Not a big deal really, as in bursts you don't run into this problem very much.
But for a realism mod I would think the limit to overheat could be extended or removed.

IIRC M2HB is good for about 2000+ rounds before overheating/barrel warping, ive seen them glow WHITE HOT and then fire some more {old quad 50 cal AA mounts}

hehe yeah, One more thing. The MG on the chopper should ouverheat a LOT slower. And the tracers should go back in. This is coming from a crewchief that has extensive time on the GAU-17 aka minigun. The power of that gun IRL is amazing. When you shoot it, you see a line of tracers to what you are shooting at. It's that fast. I mean, it shoots 3000 Rounds per minute for the good lords sake! It is literally a solid stream of tracers to what you are shooting at. The accuracy is GREAT on that gun. It's like shooting a laser at something. And by the way, I have done a 1 minute trigger pull on that gun. The barrels do turn white hot AND you can actually see the bullets go through the barrels.

So about the overheat, it should be twice what the ground vehicles are. The gun is out there in the windline of a chopper going twice as fast as any ground vehicle.

I'll throw this in there too. That gun jams a butload of you don't know how to use it or if something in the feeder or gun gears are off just a little bit.

Probably ain't usefull but just trying to let you know the reality of the MG.

OAKtwoFour wrote:Why is it that BF2 incorperates these overheats?
I have seen a modern M60 fire 800 rounds [2 minutes worth]
with no lockup - That is quite an exception, but still nowhere near
the 100 rounds where BF2 weapons lock.

What is a realistic 'overheat' time for a .50cal or MG [M60/M249/etc.]?

The only realistic data I see on such things is the recommended amount of time between barrel changes at various rates of fire (sustained, rapid and cyclic) in various field manuals. This is the light and medium MG related field manual for the US Army.

https://atiam.train.army.mil/soldierPor ... 68/toc.htm

For the US .50 calibers it varies slightly, since there is more than one version of the M2. The helicopter mounted configuration of the M2, the GAU-15/16, has a higher cyclic rate (up to 750 rpm) than the ground-mounted configuration (450-550 rpm).

The new M3M/GAU-21 that the Marine helicopter squadrons have been receiving can go even higher (up to 1100 rpm). Personally, I think the infantry units should be looking at this as an interim to the XM312.

From research, what it seems to boil down to is a barrel change every minute if you're firing at the full cyclic rate.

Thanks for all the info guys, Nevermore, Noetheinner, Eddie Baker.

It seems from the info that about ONE minute should be a limit
to an overheat or another action [barrel change]. But to keep it simple,
PR could just extend the 'overheat stoppage' a bit longer.

Noetheinner
I've seen a few vids of that, fuggrin amazing!
First thing I thought was 'laser' because like
you said the rate of fire and tracers produce quite an image -
I'd love to see them in either BF2 or Special Forces.
PIC

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker
You got me looking up a bunch of MGs now. ;]
As a gamer, you don't see barrel changes in games
I guess the devs would rather add a simpler overheat
to avoid animating it, who knows. Great info.

Just goes to show you games are much further from realism
than they pretend to be.

"Laser Video"

Size = 6 MB

Is it just me or this went a bit off topic

About locks, that posses a problem... not sure how big of a problem it is, but it's somewhat annoying.

When you capture and enemy flag, you could think "yes! at last usefull ressources"... think again. Once the flag is yours, all vehicules arounds are still those of your enemy, which you can't use.

Not to sure what would be the best way to deal with this. Leave it as is, replace the vehicule immediately with the right ones or give ownership and access to _these_ vehciles to the new owning team.

Of course this would create some more confusion in the field. Now if you see a tank, you know to what team it belongs. That's one thing I hate in BF2, you never know if it's a friend of foe until it's too late

Also, it could create confusion in the usage, that is you'll have tank and APC around the map that where initially from your team, but that you cannot use because their ownership has changed.

Not sure there will be an easy solution to improve this. Perhaps to leave it as is is still the best idea...

{GD}geogob wrote:Is it just me or this went a bit off topic

About locks, that posses a problem... not sure how big of a problem it is, but it's somewhat annoying.

When you capture and enemy flag, you could think "yes! at last usefull ressources"... think again. Once the flag is yours, all vehicules arounds are still those of your enemy, which you can't use.

Not to sure what would be the best way to deal with this. Leave it as is, replace the vehicule immediately with the right ones or give ownership and access to _these_ vehciles to the new owning team.

Of course this would create some more confusion in the field. Now if you see a tank, you know to what team it belongs. That's one thing I hate in BF2, you never know if it's a friend of foe until it's too late

Also, it could create confusion in the usage, that is you'll have tank and APC around the map that where initially from your team, but that you cannot use because their ownership has changed.

Not sure there will be an easy solution to improve this. Perhaps to leave it as is is still the best idea...

Well, by my logic there is a very easy solution. then again, it's my logic and everyone doesnt think alike unfortunately

I recommend that all heavy vehicles only start in the main spawns. The only things you get at capturable control points vehicles that can be used by both sides.

What this will do is limit the destructive force of armored vehicles. As far as I know, the PR team is planning to accurately portray armored vehicles in that they are devastating to infantry. The only way to accomplish a good coordination in tactics is to use armor for what it's supposed to be used... as a supporting role. If a player goes rambo and tries to rush into a control point and loses his tank... he'll be forced to drive all the way back. This sort of does for vehicles what the damage of guns does for infantry...forces people to be more careful with themselves.

This is why Strike At Karkand (and other maps with heavy vehicles at each end of the map, as opposed to sitting around in the center) always turns out to be an intense firefight.

If armor decides to pull up, it normally gets eliminated pretty quick and that buys the team a good 5-10 minute without worrying about armor--unless the guy in the armor is a good player and knows the dangers of getting too close a large pack of infantry. He stays back and keeps the infantry from advancing through the most direct path.. causing them to go seperate ways and splitting their force (while getting alot of kills in the meantime)

On maps like Gulf of Oman, on the other hand, people tend to do whatever the hell they want (which I think is the root of some of your initial analysis of the teamwork Snake). They know that if they die, they have 3 other spawns with armored vehicles that they can utilize.

Not to mention, if all of these vehicles are spread out around the map, it creates another unrealistic experience because you have lone tanks and APCs driving about all over the place. Instead, these vehicles should atleast follow the same route so that they can support one another and actually act as a "force". This can be accomplished by spawning armored vehicles in main bases only -- as it will increase the chances of someone waiting for that extra APC to roll up beside them to give them a higher chance of survival.

It ultimately boils down to what the PR team feels this mod should focus on. If it will focus on vehicle combat, obviously this solution will not work. But, if it will focus on infantry combat with the support of vehicles (as it works in real life), this solution would be perfect.

One other thing this would do...

Let's take a map like Oman, but without all of the water. You have an MEC base on one end and a US base on the other end. In between, there are flags thare already taken by each side.

What normally happens is that people start spawning on any o the flags in the beginning of the game because these flags will contain vehicles. So even at round start, the force is already fragmented.

If you spawn all heavy vehicles (and aircraft/helos) in the main spawn, there is more of a chance that people will try to spawn there and move out together in force.

And as a last point (sorry for my rambling), I think that the gameplay should focus more towards teamplay. In other words, the freedom of movement needs to be limited to encourage people to move together. Now, don't get me wrong, this wont ruin the classic freedom of the BF environment -- it would only reinforce it. You can move out on your own and you can try to jump in a jeep and roll your *** into the back of the enemy's main base... but the consequences should be that you are in such a disadvantage when you do that -- that you either have to be really good or really lucky to get through the lines.

If in that the most exciting gameplay is when you are fighting for a bridge, or a hillside... or when there is only one spawn left for you or the enemy. The battles are very linear and simplistic... penetrate the enemy line and take the flag/cp. The great part is, everyone is forced to work together because there is nowhere else to go. A selected few try to sneak around but usually get clobbered by forces watching the flanks. They do, at times, get through... which is when the battles shifts again.

I prefer that type of gameplay to playing in a 64 player server and capping a control point with 5 friendlies against 5 enemy. It just defeats the point. In vanilla BF2, the 64 player servers never feel like 64. It's like having all of these little battles going on everywhere at once.. instead of one major battle going on in one place as it should be --- which is why vehicles should only spawn at main