Project Reality Forums

This has probably come up many times before, but i would just like to devote a thread to this idea.
Note: Only applies to Assault rifles/DMRs/Snipers/LMGs, and submachine guns. this does not apply to pistols, or rocket launchers.

IRL and rifle is automatically zeroed in at 100 meters. this means that, no matter the wind/elevation, your bullet will hit your mark. i think that, to solve (at least half of) the ongoing accuracy/deviation issues, the DEVs should make it so that you can hit anything within 100 meters. this means that, after pulling up your sights, you do not have to wait 3 seconds. it also means that where you aim, the bullet will hit. no deviation or anything. point, click, hit. this only applies when you are looking down your weapons sights (this does not make "no scoping" possible. all deviation still applies when your not aiming down the sights)

this will solve many of the accuracy complaints. i can also see this solving problems in the insurgency game mode. insurgents only have a fighting chance at close ranges, and with the 100 meter rule, it will increase their chances, and will require the coalition forces to be more prepared and use more tactics. in short, it gives the insurgents a fighting chance.

it isnt perfect, and some might view it as overpowerful, but i do not believe it to be so, as this is true in real life. i do not see any major issues with this, but as always im looking for harsh criticism.

The only flaw that i see happening here is the "BOOM headshot"/firefights become sniper wars senario. again though, the 100 meter (or yard, i forget but either way its close enough) rule applies in real life, and the firefights going on at these close ranges are not sniper wars. (Average ranges of firefights in Iraq/Afghanistan are between 50-150 meters)

again, criticize the idea, but please dont bash me too hard. just trying to figure a way to fix this accuracy debate smoothly. if anything the DEVs could try something like this in a mini patch. something that can be easily added and easily removed after a week or so of live testing and player feedback.
if you have any questions just ask.
Thanks
P.S Sources: I dont have any websites to link you guys, because i originally saw this on the military channel or something during a TV program, but i also know the 100 meter/yard rule to be true from experience with firearms.

Your kinda right. But the problem is that the game doesn't know the target is at 100m...

i.e. you can't have a deviation for 100m and a deviation for 300m, so making rifles more accurate may speed up firefights in the long range. I wouldn't mind that, but I'm one of those dudes who would rather take cover and live than keep shooting in the hope of a kil before the inevitable death.

the deviation is actually fine imo...gotta work with it since we can't have weapon sway etc.

What I'm looking forward to is when CA's ballstics are implemented in to PR.

Since bullet drop will be ingame, one of the things deviation is replacing will actually be ingame, thus deviation can be decreases slightly. You'll see alot of great CQB fights, and long - long range fights as people get their eye in.

"But the problem is that the game doesn't know the target is at 100m"
Well, in an APC it has a little "range to target" marker. i think that if the DEVs can use that as a template they could overcome this problem.

"I wouldn't mind that, but I'm one of those dudes who would rather take cover and live than keep shooting in the hope of a kil before the inevitable death."
Im also one of those people. i hate it when i know, no matter what i do, that within 20 seconds im going to die. but this fix would not cause that. all the same mechanics apply. if you stay in cover, suppress and outmaneuver the enemy, then you will survive. but i can see where this could be viewed as a possible problem.

Thanks for your imput

flem615 wrote:"But the problem is that the game doesn't know the target is at 100m"
Well, in an APC it has a little "range to target" marker. i think that if the DEVs can use that as a template they could overcome this problem.

"I wouldn't mind that, but I'm one of those dudes who would rather take cover and live than keep shooting in the hope of a kil before the inevitable death."
Im also one of those people. i hate it when i know, no matter what i do, that within 20 seconds im going to die. but this fix would not cause that. all the same mechanics apply. if you stay in cover, suppress and outmaneuver the enemy, then you will survive. but i can see where this could be viewed as a possible problem.

Thanks for your imput

Ok let clear some stuff up. "all the same mechanics apply. if you stay in cover, suppress and outmanoeuvre the enemy, then you will survive"

That game mechanic your referring to in this passage that creates this kind of game play we are experiencing in PR in the resent patches, that deviation at work, back in the old day's of PR, there was not deviation the weapons handled and behaved like the weapons in counter strike. and the game played like counter strike,

every thing your experiencing in game right now, the really tight squad work, real infantry tactics, people using suppression and cover, all comes back to deviation it is the fundamental block that allows all of this.

that why im really touchy about removing deviation, bullet drop or no it should stay.

could someone give a precise formula on how deviation is calculated?
I hate following all of these discussions without knowing what you could change to make it better.

Look, deviation isn't a distance related accuracy test. It's more of a varying cone of fire. What makes it less accurate is that as the distance increases, so does the width of the base of the cone.

Simple geometry, right? 2 similar triangles, where one has it's heat increase, also has it's base increase by the same ratio.

In other words, this is how it would look like:



Notice that I've included Min and Max dev, all that means is there is a difference in you cone of fire when you've just moved or fired (your maximum deviation), to after having let the gun settle and waited for maximum accuracy (your minimum deviation).

What you're suggesting to do, is to have the weapon pin-point accurate up to 100 meters, and then have lots of deviation I suppose? Like this:



Well, As far as I'm aware of, that is impossible to do, having two different cone of fires, and even if it were, you'll have:

1) Fubared longer range engagements, which are what makes PR realistic, rather than house-to-house engagements that are the only type of engagements found in other games such as BF2, CS, etc..., in essence just taking reality out of project reality (and in the biggest of sense, too, not just Oh it doesn't have XYZ details so it's not realistic).
2) Made run-and-gunning the a more effective way to operate, since there is no weapon sway like in Arma2 that is dependant also on your stamina level and whether you've just ran a distance.

There is a way to do this technically, you'd simply have to cut off the bullet after 100 meters, which WOULD NOT WORK. I hope I don't need to explain why.

Bottom line: Deviation is in the game to simulate both weapon sway and ballistics. While ballistics are possible with the BF2 engine, the tracer rounds would be forced to be off their mark by a considerable amount, or you'd need to make every round a tracer or none at all. If the former, than you'd need to reduce the tracer size to make it less ZOMG LAZURZ! This is what CA has attempted to do, and aside from a few things which I dislike (such as the inability to run, and the second zoom level), I believe improves infantry combat and realism.

Now, if ballistics were implemented, the deviation would be able to be reduced by a great amount, since it would only be compensati for weapon sway and the effects of it after having run or w/e. However, the for a model attempting to simulate both ballistics and weapon sway, I'm pretty happy with it right now, and so is the rest of the community.

EDIT: I'd really like to see some sources stating at which distance army rifles are commonly zeroed at, as I'm pretty sure it's 300 meters from the majority of previous posts I've read, but if you can source your claim I'd see some credibility.

not entirely. the deviation would not massively increase after 100m, it would gradually increase. combine the first and second diagrams. after 100m, the deviation is the same as the first diagram when it begins

It would make less sense than the current system.

flem615 wrote:IRL and rifle is automatically zeroed in at 100 meters. this means that, no matter the wind/elevation, your bullet will hit your mark.

That's like saying you'll be just as damaged from being hit by a car travelling at 3kmh (2mph), or one travelling at 300 kmh (~180 mph)...

flem615 wrote: IRL and rifle is automatically zeroed in at 100 meters. this means that, no matter the wind/elevation, your bullet will hit your mark. i think that, to solve (at least half of) the ongoing accuracy/deviation issues, the DEVs should make it so that you can hit anything within 100 meters.

...

P.S Sources: I dont have any websites to link you guys, because i originally saw this on the military channel or something during a TV program, but i also know the 100 meter/yard rule to be true from experience with firearms.

There is about one function that a firearm will 'automatically' do for you, and that is cycle the action in the case of semi & fully automatic weapons. There is no small-arm that will gauge the wind across a 100m span, and adjust accordingly.
When zeroing a rifle, the windage is adjusted to compensate for different aspects that may cause the weapon's fire to deviate horizontally. This in no way will compensate for existing environmental conditions when the weapon is utilized.

In the case of precision shooters, windage may be again adjusted to compensate for prevailing environmental conditions that would inhibit the shooter from reliably and consistently engaging their target.

-REad

Thats all I think...

Twill get very annoying after a while imo

Currently in PR all rifles are zeroed in at 600m. Means if you want to engage a target beyond that effective range of engagement you have to interpolate by aiming higher.
Still you have to wait a couple of seconds after you started looking down your sight. If you shoot prematurely your bullet will deviate horizontally as well as vertically. This is to simulate the time a shooter in reality would need to aim at his target properly.
The likelihood of hitting a target when shooting prematurely may increase from longer to shorter distances but nevertheless is quite present both in PR as well as in reality.
Now to proclaim my opinion I am rather satisfied with the deviation and trajectory system as it is. Especially since the suggestion of the threadstarter would indeed mean a falling back to the times were this system had great similarities with Counter-Strike and alike.

The thing I find is that there is no actual combined force play at work in the game it is more like a bunch of people play army man than using real military manuevers.
Tanks are to support infantry and fend of other tanks. Apaches are to scout out just ahead of the tanks to check for enemy tanks and knock out if possible. Blackhawks just dont fly in a hot area all the time, and 3 tanks squads work together. not on their own. bradley follow the tanks with troops on board. Snipers take spots to cover the LZ before the copters arrive. A sniper is a team of two. Plus the use of dirt bikes in all the deserts combat would be realisitic since they are used by recon teams.

Mcmahon that is the thing we call the IDEAL world but not all players have the intent on working as a team :/

[R-COM]Cheditor wrote:Mcmahon that is the thing we call the IDEAL world but not all players have the intent on working as a team :/

Moreover, it's not advantageous ingame to do some of those things. Tanks can work very effectively on their own since the View distance isn't large enough and to make large convoys of tanks useful, nor does AA need to stick with them constantly because air assets are useless against them 70 % of the time.

And since snipers don't have ballistics, and each carries a GLTD themselves, it's not worth the extra man off the field which can also now reveal your position to tag along.

Though some of it just comes down to the quality of players. On more teamwork oriented servers, tanks will support infantry, though it's unfortunate how close they get, seeing as the main cannon blast could potentially kill the infantry around it, or at least injure them.

And many public pilots are too sure of the flare effectiveness to dare going into AA protected zones, or can't communicate with the infantry squad and the team effectively to avoid Hot LZs (Which is why I love mumble, BTW ).

While I see where you are coming from, Mcmahon, and it's true that there are some pretty fail games that I too have had, a decent majority of them have involved a good amount of teamwork, and there's no doubt to the improvement over other vBF2, or many other FPSs infact in those terms.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:Your kinda right. But the problem is that the game doesn't know the target is at 100m...

This.

Also this does not take into account any number of things that can affect a soldier in combat like fatigue, weapons sway or a poor aim. So yes weapons maybe zeroed at 100m, but that means that they will hit precisely at 100m when fixed in place, rather than in the hands of a soldier who is likely undergoing all the stresses of being in combat, all of which will affect his ability to aim at and hit his enemy.

flem615 wrote:(Average ranges of firefights in Iraq/Afghanistan are between 50-150 meters)

Source plox...

flem615 wrote:it also means that where you aim, the bullet will hit. no deviation or anything. point, click, hit.

That is completely unrealistic, it is just not that simple for a human being in combat to just point, shoot and hit everytime.

As Rudd says I wish for the day that realistic ballistics are introduced into PR. Atm I think the deviation system works very well, and you can be extremely accurate with all types of weapons if you use it right but ballistics would add another level to it. ARMA 2 has an excellent representation of ballistics, it is very hard to hit if you have been moving quickly prior to shooting at anything more than 50m but if you have been moving carefully and slowly then you can be very accurate, which is how it is in RL. Unfortunately the BF2 engine does not allow the implementation of the kind of weapon sway and fatigue effects that ARMA 2 has.

flem615 wrote:IRL and rifle is automatically zeroed in at 100 meters.

Also afaik this is wrong.

Chase Armitage wrote:Currently in PR all rifles are zeroed in at 600m.

As is this. Assault rifles are zeroed to 300m.

jigsaw-uk wrote:This.

Also this does not take into account any number of things that can affect a soldier in combat like fatigue, weapons sway or a poor aim. So yes weapons are zeroed at 100m, but that means that they will hit precisely at 100m when fixed in place, rather than in the hands of a soldier who is likely undergoing all the stresses of being in combat, all of which will affect his ability to aim at and hit his enemy.



Source plox...



That is completely unrealistic, it is just not that simple for a human being in combat to just point, shoot and hit everytime.

Sneaky little jiggy, adding stuff to your post as I'm quoting you

Anyways, Jiggy is right. All that "zeroing" means anyways is that that is where the bullet will hit when ballistics are included, any closer and the bullet will land above the reticule, any further and it will land under it (Unless of course you are shooting upside down, in which case I guess it's reversed [insert pic of the guy with the AK] ).

Deviation is in place to allow for engine limitations (such as the lack of weapon sway), and currently ballistics, which aren't implemented.

McLuv wrote:Sneaky little jiggy, adding stuff to your post as I'm quoting you

Anyways, Jiggy is right. All that "zeroing" means anyways is that that is where the bullet will hit when ballistics are included, any closer and the bullet will land above the reticule, any further and it will land under it (Unless of course you are shooting upside down, in which case I guess it's reversed [insert pic of the guy with the AK] ).

Hehe.

Oh yeah forgot to mention about how if it was under 100m then the bullet wouldn't hit exactly as well as over 100m. So with this suggestion at 100m all guns would be lazors, but at any other range there would have to be a different system, deviation or otherwise.

Fail.

McLuv wrote:Moreover, it's not advantageous ingame to do some of those things. Tanks can work very effectively on their own since the View distance isn't large enough and to make large convoys of tanks useful, nor does AA need to stick with them constantly because air assets are useless against them 70 % of the time.

And since snipers don't have ballistics, and each carries a GLTD themselves, it's not worth the extra man off the field which can also now reveal your position to tag along.

Though some of it just comes down to the quality of players. On more teamwork oriented servers, tanks will support infantry, though it's unfortunate how close they get, seeing as the main cannon blast could potentially kill the infantry around it, or at least injure them.

And many public pilots are too sure of the flare effectiveness to dare going into AA protected zones, or can't communicate with the infantry squad and the team effectively to avoid Hot LZs (Which is why I love mumble, BTW ).

While I see where you are coming from, Mcmahon, and it's true that there are some pretty fail games that I too have had, a decent majority of them have involved a good amount of teamwork, and there's no doubt to the improvement over other vBF2, or many other FPSs infact in those terms.

Nail hit squarely on the head.
(minus the bit about mumble, bad experiences personally, nothing against it)

mat552 wrote: (minus the bit about mumble, bad experiences personally, nothing against it)

Well, yea, being Beta, I've had my bad experiences with it, too. Hopefully it will be much more integrated and completely fixed, but the main idea is good. When it finally becomes final and things get fixed, it will be much better.