Project Reality Forums

I was playing some pr when i became frustrated with the fact that you can spot a aa or tow or hmg from long range because of the dirt. i think that it is a flaw. i know in arma there is no dirt at all and you can place foxhole, hmg camo, and sandbags over them for protection. because in pr it is possible to put foxholes over things.

so why is it that we do not do it this way instead of dropping tons of dirt to put up a hmg? just a wondering



you can see the amount of sand that is visible plus it looks tacky when not on the right background and sticks out



sorry this was the best i could find, but you can see no sand

Because in PR the TOW/emplacements don't always spawn right on the flat ground. Often they appear halfway into a hill or whatever. Either way this is a quasi-suggestion thread and the suggestion thread is currently closed, plus I'm pretty sure you're on the watch list for resuggestion threads.

Imagine what it would look like if there was no dirt on this, but there was just a floating SPG-9.

so how do i get rid of a post because i wasnt trying to re suggest i was just asking why it was like that, i havny posted in months plz give me a break, can i just delete this or something because i cant risk another infraction, for some reason the devs have been on my back like crazy since i posted my first thread. hopefully i dont get banned... again : (

You tell me what looks more realistic...

A mound of dirt where soldiers dug for cover of an asset
or
An AT Launchers tripod defying gravity with only 1 leg touching the ground

If the BF2 engine could 100% of the time place an asset and flatten the ground I am sure PR would have it.
However when you put an asset on even the smallest slope it could cause the asset to be a few feet from the ground, so instead of having a floating at emplacement we have a mount of dirt to support the said asset.

^I feel your pain. Mods read stuff the same way lawyers or something do, in the worst possible light.
With the dirt you already have stuff poking through the ground it'd look much worse without it.

SGT.MARCO wrote:so how do i get rid of a post because i wasnt trying to re suggest i was just asking why it was like that, i havny posted in months plz give me a break, can i just delete this or something because i cant risk another infraction, for some reason the devs have been on my back like crazy since i posted my first thread. hopefully i dont get banned... again : (

They might be hinting you to think before you post.
IF you think it is a suggestion then it in fact is a suggestion.

CommunistComma wrote:^I feel your pain. Mods read stuff the same way lawyers or something do, in the worst possible light.
With the dirt you already have stuff poking through the ground it'd look much worse without it.

I find wannabe mods with no tags alot worse.

It is indeed a shame the dirt mound couldnt be made to mirror the ground its placed on but I assume it cant be done or it would have by now.Id rather a dirt mound that didnt match than that 2nd pic tbh

And this is what te mods will do to you

It would be possible with a check of the area it's over and a script that would allow for individual locations that change the texture used.. but... in the end, this ends up with a lot more models and work than proper, where as dirt can be explained as "We poured some dirt... yay."

SGT.MARCO wrote:

because if it dosen't have that dirt mount, the object floats off the ground (and some times really, really far in the air if deployed badly. Even that ARMA2 ref you gave the TOW is floating off the ground and looks retreaded because of it.


As long as you deploy the TOW correctly on flat ground then you will not see any dirt other than inside the sandbag wall, which if you look at that edtior pic your posted, you can see, the dirt outside of the sandbags is under the grid, meaning that the dirt is under the ground when deployed correctly on its pivot. Its just the way the deploy system works means that some times it deployed a little, or sometimes a lot off the ground.

Can't really argue with the placement of the deployables, I think what previous posts said sums it up nicely.