project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > PR:BF2 Mod Forums > PR:BF2 Suggestions
01 Sep 2014, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Forum RulesDeveloper Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
PR:BF2 Suggestions Suggestions from our community members for PR:BF2. Read the stickies before posting.

Contact Support Team Frequently Asked Questions Register today!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-27-2008, 08:33 PM   #31
agentscar

agentscar's Avatar
Send a message via Yahoo to agentscar Send a message via Skype™ to agentscar
Default Re: Improve the AT-4

wow...lol...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
agentscar is offline Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2008, 08:42 PM   #32
Ryan3215

Ryan3215's Avatar
Default Re: Improve the AT-4

b_black69, I think you might be mistaken. The backblast isnt as lasrge as you might thing. It kicks up some dust and you are easily identified for a couple seconds, but the impact cloud itself is about 5-8m high judging from the videos ive seen.
Ryan3215 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2008, 08:53 PM   #33
[R-DEV]Rudd
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member

[R-DEV]Rudd's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by b_black69 View Post
IF the smoke trails were removed, then the backblast would have to be added (which I fear many players would hate). From the AT4's that I've watched fired IRL the backblast explosion and dust cloud is much larger than the actual impact of the warhead, and is very easy to see for anyone nearby.

Someone firing a L-AT should have their position given away immediately, which is why I'm guessing the smoke trail has been added in game. And about the damage the warhead does, I think it is represented about right in game, the AT4 is a weak weapon. (I hope it doesn't show that I am not a fan of the weapon system IRL )
They are working on the backblast now, thank god AFAIK they are thinking of putting a large projectile that comes out the back for a short range and high velocity.

I would also think on the desert maps that the dust thrown up by the backblast etc would be more than in the vid.

I think backblast, trail removal with new dust effects at the origin of the projectile and maybe velocity increase are what's needed. But I'm sure the MA's of the devs already know this and they hadn't got around to it yet. Backblast will be cool, I always assign a rifleman to stay with my LAT, when this is implemented I'll get him to make sure the rear of the weapon is clear as well.
[R-DEV]Rudd is online now Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2008, 09:10 PM   #34
[R-DEV]Ninja2dan
PR:BF2 Developer

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan's Avatar
Default Re: Improve the AT-4

The visual effects of the backblast will vary dependant on conditions such as lighting and environment. Also remember that what the video and still cameras capture is not always what the eye can see. While firing live rockets myself and watching others on the line fire theirs, the average backblast is a puff of smoke and minimal flame for a split-second. If the ground was dusty or loose dirt, the shock would often kick up a little dust and dirt as well, both to the rear and front of the weapon. From about 100m away though this kicked up dirt and dust is not normally visible without optics. At night, the bright flame at the rear is like a fast "pop". It lasts only for a split second as well, and is like flicking a bathroom light on and off real fast. While it's enough to spot the firer if you were looking in their direction, it's not something that will give their position away as easily as most here think.

As for the impact, that also depends on the target. Under most circumstances though, the impact is not small. While not as big as an artillery impact or HEAT tank round, the impact is still quite powerful and will kick up a lot of loose debris and smoke. If I remember correctly, the "flame ball" and black smoke upon impact were about the size of a port-a-potty, maybe 7-8ft in diameter. The residual smoke and dust as well as debris will again vary depending on the target and terrain.

Soldiers firing an M136 should not be solo, they are part of a squad and have plenty of rifles to support them should they be spotted or take fire. Another thing to remember that is in real life more than one soldier in a squad will be carrying the M136, and if attacking an armored target they will often fire in tandom to ensure a good kill. A normal infantry squad should not be concerned with smoke signature and such, as their presence upon firing will already be known regardless. Don't forget that besides the smoke/dust signature, these weapons are pretty loud.
[R-DEV]Ninja2dan is offline Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2008, 09:24 PM   #35
Ryan3215

Ryan3215's Avatar
Default Re: Improve the AT-4

Dan, I think youve clarified this topic very well. I think someone should PM a DEV and have them take a look at this, or get alex to work .
Ryan3215 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2008, 08:23 AM   #36
[R-DEV]Ninja2dan
PR:BF2 Developer

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan's Avatar
Default Re: Improve the AT-4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan3215 View Post
Dan, I think youve clarified this topic very well. I think someone should PM a DEV and have them take a look at this, or get alex to work .
I'm pretty sure that when I took a "vacation" from the game several months ago that someone in the modding thread was already working on the backblast effect and was doing a good start at it. Impact effects weren't mentioned, but it looks like a few people here already have a good understanding of what looks like.

I know we have several military consultants with the game that have live-fired M136 themsselves, so hopefully the combination of experiences should allow a realistic yet balanced modification as is capable within the game. Although Youtube and other sources of video and images might be of some help, remember what I said about cameras (both still and video) might show some things that are not normally seen by the naked eye. Input and feedback from first-hand experience should compensate for that.
[R-DEV]Ninja2dan is offline Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2008, 05:50 PM   #37
Ryan3215

Ryan3215's Avatar
Default Re: Improve the AT-4

I think we have a general understanding of what the AT-4 should look like at this point. All we have to do is get someone who is willing to do the work, my vote is in alex!
Ryan3215 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2008, 10:21 PM   #38
Death_dx
Default Re: Improve the AT-4

Backblast? Oh god, it's gonna be America's Army all over again...killing the whole team in a bunker.

While we're on the subject of AT4s, how come brits got them instead of the LAW now? Gotta say the LAW was my favourite.
Death_dx is offline Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2008, 10:24 PM   #39
Airsoft Soldier
PR:BF2 Deputy Test Lead
Project Reality Beta Tester

Airsoft Soldier's Avatar
Default Re: Improve the AT-4

and other LAT equilivant weapons
Airsoft Soldier is offline Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2008, 07:42 AM   #40
M.Warren

M.Warren's Avatar
Default Re: Improve the AT-4

Not sure how they are creating "backblast" exactly. But I'm sure there may be a more simple method rather than creating a second short range invisible projectile that comes out the back of the AT-4 and explodes.

How is it possible? Well, I may suggest to see if the explosion effect of a simple claymore anti-personnel mine will provide the close range cone shaped rear explosion effect we're looking for. So basically have the AT-4 fire it's projectile as it normally would, but also simultaneously have an "invisible claymore" attached to the rear end of the AT-4 and have it detonate at the same time the AT-4 launches it's rocket. Bam! Then there's your "backblast". All that needs to be done is to have it's effects tweaked and refined.

However, creating the "backblast" effect still may produce a problem with players firing the AT-4 from a prone position. As basically the lower half of thier body is exposed to the backblast effect... Of course, it's not exactly ever a good idea to fire rocket launchers from the prone position, unless specifically done properly.

Heres some information in relation to the proper stances while utilizing AT-4: Firing Positions for the M136 AT-4.

Heck... If "backblast" is finally implemented into the game you may even want to commit these facts to memory if you're not already roughly familiar with them in some manner.

Also, thanks Ninja2dan for the info. I myself am a large fan of the military and have spent a signficant amount of time becoming familiar with weapons from a civilian level as much as possible. I thought about joining the military a few times in my life, but that never came to be. I appreciate you sharing your accurate knowledge on these topics. Not sure if you're in the military, but it's not impossible to be well informed about military procedures from a civilian level either.
M.Warren is offline
Last edited by M.Warren; 05-29-2008 at 07:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
at4, improve
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:34 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. ©vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
All Content Copyright ©2004 - 2014, Project Reality.