Project Reality Forums

Ok, one of the things I've noticed that makes BF2 such a fast paced arcadey feel is simple. The vehicles initial accelleration speeds are all much too fast, for the most part anyways. The DPVs and transports arent bad.. Top speeds aren't how they should be either..

First, I want to point out some vehicle accelleration speeds.

M1A2- 0-20mph in 7seconds. (7.2 to be exact.) That's pretty slow if you ask me.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

I think this is very important to getting the realism experience.

It will definatly make people think twice about doing things they are used to. For example, I see people trying to dodge rockets all the time by backing up and going forward really fast. That should never be an option. Not only should it not happen but usually it never works, so what's the point? Plus it just looks goofy to see this big 67ton vehicle take off like a bat out of hell...Just not right..lol.

With that said, most of the other tanks have a similar accelleration speed. Logically, the engine with the most power is going to either have more torque or accelleration..

HMMWVs and VODNIKs have a decent accelleration setup in PR. The rest of the vehicles its all about the top speeds.

Now the APC accelleration speeds are very similar to light vehicles such as the HMMWV and the VODNIK. However, most APCs have higher top speeds.

Ok, now I'de like to focus on top speeds.

The M1A2 reaches speeds of about 42mph. Now currently in the game, im not convinced im doing 42 mph when i have the throttle opened up on the M1. Doing that speed should be noticeable in the tank.

To get to the point, I think the top speed needs to be increased on the M1A2.

Now the T-90 can only reach top speeds of around 32-35mph. However, the T-90 has more torque and accelleration.

I think this difference in the tanks should be more visible.

Ok, now, the APCs in game do get goin pretty fast. However, statistics state they can reach speeds of 60mph. Given that information, im definatly not convinced im doing 60mph at full throttle in game. The only time I've experienced speed like that is going downhill..These vehicles should be able to do that on relatively flat roads.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

The HMMWV and VODNIKs are capable of about 50mph. Thats SLOWER than the APCs top speed. Bottom line, APCs should be faster than the light vehicles. But again, im still not convinced im doing 50mph in a HMMWV at full throttle..

Now the DPVs are the fastest land vehicles in the game. They can reach speeds of 60mph+...It does not feel like im doing 60mph in those things at full throttle.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... nd/dpv.htm

Basically I feel a lot of the top speeds should be increased and the accellerations need to be corrected on all land vehicles. It will add to the realism experience that much more. Its something thats rather simple in my opinion.

Who knows, maybe some US Troops will crash thier HMMWVs from going too fast and turning..LOL..(Iraq..)Thats pretty realistic.

What do you guys think?

Some good point there. Don't really know how far we can push the BF2 engine.
I DO know for a fact that another mod was fooling around with manual gearshifting for tanks for the very same reason that you mentioned.
That mod didn't get it to work before the mod itself went defunct. But it was a good idea...

'[R-DEV wrote:BlakeJr']Some good point there. Don't really know how far we can push the BF2 engine.
I DO know for a fact that another mod was fooling around with manual gearshifting for tanks for the very same reason that you mentioned.
That mod didn't get it to work before the mod itself went defunct. But it was a good idea...

Thats interesting..Although its not really realistic..As far as i know the trannies on all tanks are autos.

Yea i know, the game engine is always the culpret. Now keep in mind everyone, im not talking about drastic increases in top speeds. Just enough to get that feeling like, wow, im goin too fast i should slow down..You know?

Plus, it will give more room to allow the diverse vehicle speeds to be much more dramatic and visible...

Very good points, making vehicles handling closer to their real counter-part would improve realism a lot.

Reducing the turret rotation speed and acceleration for MBT and APC would help a lot too. Now it's insane. Although I have little knowledge on the subject (I only saw the turret of an AMX-30 turn while I was in it) it doesn't feel physically right to be able to turn a turret that fast and accelerate it that fast.

Also, regarding the tanks, they are a very powerful tools in the field, but they have huge disadvantages. One of them is being a prime target for every enemy around. The second is probably their constant need for a crew, maintenance, etc.

Few things could be done to make tanks more realistic and also bring in a bigger part in teamwork and communication when they are involved.

One of them was very nicely introduced in Red Orchestra. Having separate gunner and driver gave a very interesting perspective... realism, communication, challenge. Now you have a single guy hopping in a tank and if he knows what he is doing he can rule the battlefield. Having two men crew introduces a whole new perspective in communications. If a tank needs a crew of 3 in RealLife™, I would even push it further. Have one driver and one gunner, but to use the main cannon, you need a 3rd person in the tank (machine gun seat).

Another idea is regarding repairs. Repairing a tank with a wrench seems a bit absurd. I would suggest that to repair any large vehicles (tanks, APCs, Planes, Helos - so that would excludes smaller trucks and jeeps) you need a supply crate in a certain radius... something like 25 to 50 meters. This would also remove the stupid and unrealistic idea of having a Blackhawk full of engineers repairing it constantly (although I have yet to see this in PRMM... was this corrected?).

Believe it or not the turret turning speed is pretty accurate for modern MBT's in regular BF2. They're slightly faster (in game), but then that goes with the arcade gameplay as everything is sped up (well reaction times and so on).

well, my only reference point, the AMX 30, isn't really a modern MBT after all

Still, if that is accurate, I am impressed. Should be quite a ride for the occupants

Mad Max wrote:Believe it or not the turret turning speed is pretty accurate for modern MBT's in regular BF2. They're slightly faster (in game), but then that goes with the arcade gameplay as everything is sped up (well reaction times and so on).

Yes. Exactly correct. The reaction times on the turret speed is slightly too fast...But thats another topic.

{GD}geogob wrote:well, my only reference point, the AMX 30, isn't really a modern MBT after all

Still, if that is accurate, I am impressed. Should be quite a ride for the occupants

There are many newer versions of the AMX available nowadays.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/amx-30.htm

It may not be considered a MBT but im sure it serves its purpose quite well..

They're very fast in reverse. (spot the joke)

GRB wrote:It may not be considered a MBT but im sure it serves its purpose quite well..

I have no doubt about that. I am also pretty sure technology evolved a lot since I saw a AMX-30 in action. That must have been 17 or 18 years ago. Not too sure.

Coding wise this would be do-able but not particularly easy.

The BF2 engine uses what at least sounds like a fairly realistic engine stats. There is no top speed setting, just as in real life. As in real life the top speed is defined by torque and other settings, not some set speed that the designers put in.

I do not know anything about the real life statistics of the M1A2 Abrams tank, but for the sake of the tankers that know what theyre talking about (GRB) here are the stats that the game has plugged in, and other miscellanous settings for the engine.
Also for the sake of reference, the parameters below have the biggest influence on handling characteristics.

Hey, when i first started playing PoE a while ago, I created a small Realism Mini-Mod for PoE and i made all the vehicles physics a lot more realistic based on stats from official webpages...I know a good deal about the physics coding.

Anyways, yes, its very possible to do as nothing has changed in that area much except the tanks. Question is, are people ready for realistic physics and what do you guys think about it?

Yay or nay?

I say go for it.

The only problem is that the very reason the vehicle speeds are scaled down is because the maps are scaled down. The vehicles might be a little too fast for the current maps. That does not mean I am not willing to try, this could be very interesting.

for PR we just need to make sure all the custom maps are full size, with AAS even the largest of maps can be playable for 8-10 players.

Why?! wrote:I say go for it.

The only problem is that the very reason the vehicle speeds are scaled down is because the maps are scaled down. The vehicles might be a little too fast for the current maps. That does not mean I am not willing to try, this could be very interesting.

Good point...Its worth a shot IMO..

Again too, the speeds dont have to be drastically increased. Just enough to get more diversity between the different vehicles and to offer a more overall realistic experience..(especially with tank accelleration speeds)

The problem is that you can't mimic real life cause & effect when a vehicle, say, runs into a wall.

You know that large incline on Strike at Karkand? It's about 4-8 yards from the courtyard. In real life, if I take my HMMV and ram into the side of that incline at full speed... well... goodbye me In BF2, you would bump off the ramp and just keep on your merry way (like bumper cars).

Since that cause & effect I speak of can't be made true to life, it would seem irrational to take a related option and make that true to life.

What ends up happening is that one idea opens up a few more unrealistic things that need to be taken care of... and those unrealistic things need to be taken care of that open their own sets of things.

For example, if you make the HMMVs faster (even a little bit), you're going to open up alot of reckless driving and flag hopping. If it was up to me, Conquest mode would be stricken from PR because it's a ridiculous game mode -- but most servers have it running. The same goes for the MBTs and APCs.

So to counter that, you would need to make the HMMV's a little less resistant to small arms fire as they are in real life. Yes, they have armored windows, but if you unload with a PKM into a HMMV from around 5 meters, the occupants inside will not survive -- or will atleast get injured pretty badly. Not even starting about the Chinese & MEC "vans".

Dont take me as cynical... and I might be completely wrong here... I just always try to think how people would try to exploit an option in the game.

All I'm saying is, it's wrong to model things exactly to their real-life counterparts if you can't model everything around those things to the real life counterparts (in this case, damage when crashing, flat tires, disabling of the vehicle, slippery terrain based on wetness or terrain type, etc).

Not at all man, you're absolutely right.

Just keep in mind that im not talking about drastic speed increases. Just slight. But the accellerations is what I think should be focused on, more specifically on the MBTs. I mean, they accellerate faster than the HMMWVs, the only difference is the HMMWV pulls away with its top speed.

Thats something that should most definatly be changed IMO..Regaurdless if the top speeds are changed or not.

The top speeds aren't too bad, and i agree, it would lead to other things having to be changed. Personally, i think the light transport vehicles need to be extremely vulnerable to small arms. Plus, it is possible to increase the amount of damage done in collisions.

I have another suggestion that goes along with this that im not so sure is possible or not, but i will be posting it soon.

So all things aside, you think the tanks accellerations should be changed to a more realistic feature?

GRB wrote:Not at all man, you're absolutely right.

Just keep in mind that im not talking about drastic speed increases. Just slight. But the accellerations is what I think should be focused on, more specifically on the MBTs. I mean, they accellerate faster than the HMMWVs, the only difference is the HMMWV pulls away with its top speed.

Thats something that should most definatly be changed IMO..Regaurdless if the top speeds are changed or not.

The top speeds aren't too bad, and i agree, it would lead to other things having to be changed. Personally, i think the light transport vehicles need to be extremely vulnerable to small arms. Plus, it is possible to increase the amount of damage done in collisions.

I have another suggestion that goes along with this that im not so sure is possible or not, but i will be posting it soon.

So all things aside, you think the tanks accellerations should be changed to a more realistic feature?

omfg stfu you asshat you are such an asshat.







Ha! Got you there. You should have seen the look on your face. Anyway, onto my real response

Quite frankly, I can't really say what's better and what's worse... as that is a long time thinking. You have to take into account many things and can't come to a quick conlusion.

I think we can both agree that tanks shouldn't be strolling around the streets or cutting through mountains by simply dropping themselves off of the cliff to sustain little to no damage.

Helicopters shouldn't be able to hover next to a flag and cap it. Ever.

Those ramps in-game that add the xtreme-sports-retards effect should not only be removed, but burned and never brought back into a BF2 game again.

There should never be 8 spawns on the map, each with one tank. There should be one spawn at each end of the map, with a set of 4-6 tanks so you could atleast for a nice column (as they did in DC).

Firing a GL (203 or GP30) into a humvee should pretty much take out of service... or atleast damage it severely. Aside from the propogand-ish specs for those things... I can promise you, if you fire a grenade launcher at pretty much any area of a HMMV it will be out of service and leave the occupants either dead or really really shaken.

The same vulnurability that was created for infantry should be there for MBTs, APCs and just about any vehicle in BF2.

And lastly, how come only the M95 has the ability to blast through windshields and cockpits? Even if something is "armored" glass, if I fire at the same point for about 4-5 shots it should go through.

So that covers the things I think should be taken away. As far as things that should be added.. hell.. whatever works. I'm not much a vehicle guy and vehicles dont bother me one bit. Although when I played DC, it was really exciting to form armored columns and actually attack a position in force (as opposed to 1 tank, 1 apc, 10 infantry and 1 HMMV as in BF2).

EDIT: I just realized I didn't answer the question you directed at me.

The answer is, I don't know. Honestly, making the tanks slower will make it way too easy for them to be destroyed in the open field. Making them faster will (even a little), will make it way to see for them to avoid guided missiles (you know, when you're peeking around a corner, someone fires.. and quickly move out of the way).

Maybe making them faster will work, but they should take some damage from running into buildings... as buildings remain completely untouched when you run a huge MBT into them. What would normally happen is you would crash into the building, and all the "boulders" on top would rain on the MBT, making it immobile.

anyone else notice the (governed) after all the M1's stats. Without the governor the M1 is supposed to be able to do like 60-70 MPH from what i've read.

I wonder if they remove the governer when going into combat.

Also, the M203/GP30 is not that powerful, and should no be able to kill the armored humvees modelled in game. It is, after all, just an anti-infantry weapon.

Hi all,

IMO it's a drawback. I'm not sure one can prevent airplanes cruising at 2.5M+ in the thin air above 500m... I hope PR can restrain airplane speed at 600-900 km/h in every case. It's more realistic and much better for the gameplay (Stinger effectiveness etc.)

Why?! wrote:Coding wise this would be do-able but not particularly easy.

The BF2 engine uses what at least sounds like a fairly realistic engine stats. There is no top speed setting, just as in real life. As in real life the top speed is defined by torque and other settings, not some set speed that the designers put in.