Project Reality Forums

There was a post by a DEV i think asking peoples opinion on what should or could be implemented from other mods to Project Reality. I never quite saw an answer to the peoples demands. Did u guys decide on any of the options given? Because it would be awesome to see a c-130 gunship, but more especially the mortar, that would be amazing! But anyway, did u guys decide on anything yet?

mortars will come sometime ,they where in the 0.6 open beta, and the ac-130 was suggestet several times befor, but bf2 maps are simply to small for such a huge plane.

Maxfragg wrote: but bf2 maps are simply to small for such a huge plane.

kashan desert, a PR map

'S.P.C-[Reality wrote:-;592281']kashan desert, a PR map

his point still stands...

ralfidude wrote:There was a post by a DEV i think asking peoples opinion on what should or could be implemented from other mods to Project Reality.

nooo there wasn't... a "DEV" wouldn't post a topic about that...

I really, really doubt that it could be deployed from a carrier, but the upcoming PR version of Wake Island is technically large enough for a plane that size.

gclark03 wrote:I really, really doubt that it could be deployed from a carrier, but the upcoming PR version of Wake Island is technically large enough for a plane that size.

C-130's have both taken off AND landed on carriers. Although I highly doubt it's common, and I'm not so sure an AC-130 could do the same as I can't really be bothered to factor the weight of weapons, ammunition, extra crew, and equipment versus various cargo loads.
C-130 Hercules Lands on U.S.S. Forrestal

Regardless, I don't think they should be put into PR.

Kinote wrote:C-130's have both taken off AND landed on carriers. Although I highly doubt it's common, and I'm not so sure an AC-130 could do the same as I can't really be bothered to factor the weight of weapons, ammunition, extra crew, and equipment versus various cargo loads.
C-130 Hercules Lands on U.S.S. Forrestal

Regardless, I don't think they should be put into PR.

You also have to consider that the carrier ingame ain't even close to the size of the U.SS Forrestal. In fact, what we have isn't even a true carrier, it's more or less designed as an amphibious assault ship. The deck was really only designed for helicopters and VTOL aircraft (Harriers and Lighting-IIs).

But yeah I agree, the AC-130 should not be in PR. Even the current maps push it for the fixed wing aircraft, you can't even fly straight for two minutes without being threatened with desertion.

About the mortars... once again I think player controlled mortars are a bad idea. You take players away from the primary infantry and armor roles needed to seize objectives as another support role would need manpower to fulfill it. Also, I believe Ninja2dan made it clear that it's quite impractical to implement artillery realistically through player controlled methods. IMO, a customized, off-map artillery asset that can be approved by the CO is a better alternative.

Terranova wrote:You also have to consider that the carrier ingame ain't even close to the size of the U.SS Forrestal. In fact, what we have isn't even a true carrier, it's more or less designed as an amphibious assault ship. The deck was really only designed for helicopters and VTOL aircraft (Harriers and Lighting-IIs).

That was one of the other points I was going to make, actually. I think there is barely enough room to park two fighters wingtip to wingtip next to the damned superstructure, let alone a AC-130. Infact, the wingspan of an AC-130 is about 130 feet, the width of the entire damned ship (if it actually is the Essex, see below) is only about 106 feet. I was simply showing that 130's CAN operate from a carrier.

And, you're also correct about the ship. I believe the ingame model has Essex written on it somewhere, and the USS Essex is an Amphibious Assault ship with the following aircraft (straight from the Essex's own page):

· Aircraft (up to 36):

UH-1N Huey (multi-mission capable)

AH-1W Cobra (two-seat, twin-engine attack helo, armed escort for assault)

CH-53 Super Stallion (heavy lift, up to 55 passengers)

CH-46 Sea Knight (all weather assault transport)

MH-60 Seahawk (search and rescue)

AV-8B Harrier (fighter attack aircraft, air-to-ground support)

I think the biggest aircraft you'll see in common usage on actual carriers would be an AWACS plane, although feel free to correct me on that.

Awacs are to be big to be on aircraft carriers though they have a smaller plane devolved to the same function (hawkeye ? )

com_kieffer wrote:Awacs are to be big to be on aircraft carriers though they have a smaller plane devolved to the same function (hawkeye ? )

The Hawkeye would be what I was referring to, not the 707 platform.

The c130 gunship i have flown before in another mod was placed in a map about smaller size than kashan desert, and its speed was reduced greatly so u dont cross the map in 3 seconds, it worked out perfectly. Hell no it shouldnt be on the carrier, but on maps with airfields? (kashan?) Maybe.... but i was more or less more worried about the mortars... granted there are cutbacks but id say mortars are preety damn useful, and they are used by insurgents like books in a library, aside from rpgs.

Keep in mind the jets are flying super fast so it will cross a large distance really quickly, Kashan is still a rather large map, how long does it take to cross it in a chopper? awhile. All you would have to do is adjust the speed so it won't go out of bounds before you even notice. Though it would be nice to drop supplies, troops, etc behind enemy lines but that's kk.

ralfidude wrote:The c130 gunship i have flown before in another mod was placed in a map about smaller size than kashan desert, and its speed was reduced greatly so u dont cross the map in 3 seconds, it worked out perfectly. Hell no it shouldnt be on the carrier, but on maps with airfields? (kashan?) Maybe.... but i was more or less more worried about the mortars... granted there are cutbacks but id say mortars are preety damn useful, and they are used by insurgents like books in a library, aside from rpgs.

On the note of the c-130... it works on Desert Conflict only because they have slower jet speeds, but we all the PR devs strive for realism here and I don't believe they intend on reducing the speed of our current aircraft.

As I said... having artillery is fine, but player controlled is ultimately bad for gameplay. You would have to settle for an unrealistic system, you'd also take away more players from the frontline squads to fill up yet another support role, the devs would also have to waste the resources to model, code, skin etc. An off-map artillery asset alternative is best (And I'm not talking about something exactly like VBF2s).

Mortars for insurgents on Al Basrah would be either useless or too spammy. If they have the range to hit the Brit main base it would suck to play as a brit, and if they didn't there is nowhere useful to hit with them. Overll, as terranova said, crew served arty is just a bad idea.

The AC-130 does not belong in any current map in PR. There are only 21 AC-130s in US inventory, according to Global Security, and as stated they are far too big to be operating on any of these maps. Also, given their scarcity, they are carefully allocated assets, and they are not assigned to missions that would see them destroyed.

plus the AC130 would need to be permanently escorted by fighters to actually have a chance of not beeing simply an easy kill for enemy planes

i never said to slow down all aircraft. THe speed of jets now is really good, but the speed of the c130 is slower than a cow compared to that, so it would be preety realistic. But ok maybe kashan desert may not be the best idea for it, but perhaps for future maps where only airsupport is the c130 or just an additional one would be preety impressive to see, but as the devs pointed out already it doesnt seem like its going to happen so im not stressing it. Thanks for the responses guys always appreciate it.

its certainly been considered various times thats for sure...but for one reason or another we have opted not to include it our even make our own version/model...

Yea the seahawk and huey would be great in pr, seahawk woul dbe a medic helo while huey be troop transport

I think a gunship would be nice addition to the mod, but for reasons stated above (taking players of ground etc) I don't it would work well with normal maps/gamemodes that nicely when max player count is 64. But how about a new type of playmode, a modded "Extraction" if you will:

American/brit team has one squad in ground and the gunship with crew in air, againts insurgents/militia team, which has a huge advantage in numbers of men.

Objective for insurgents is to eliminate american infantry squad before they can extract thru some map border and the american objective is to get a out of the map with the gunship providing cover from air. This could be done using a "pilot kit" in similar way as in extraction game mode, having the player with pilot kit getting out of map as game ending element.

I don't know if the engine can work with teams set with different amount of players and such, but that sort of would be interesting, having very asymmetrical teams.