Project Reality v0.8 Improvement Compilation

[the other Steve]

everyone calm down. please. i agree whit the devs, and M warren.
i love your work, and i play it everyday, and personaly, i dont demand extemely much more as there is already. and i like what im seeing whit the new vehicles and maps,

but. we should not forget to repair and polish the current version before making the next step. one thing after another.

[[R-DEV]Rhino]

Originally Posted by M.Warren

No, no, I'm certainly not asking you guys to work any harder than you are now. Your efforts are appreciated enough already.

What I was hoping is that you guys would slow down just abit and shift your efforts to already existing gameplay dynamics. This would allow Developers additional time to absorb and consider in game bugs, including to focus on refinement of vehicles, tools and weaponry aswell.

that is not how I'm reading your last posts.

Originally Posted by M.Warren

I just think it is far better to repair and refine what we have now, rather than rushing something new that is still in the making. There will always be a another day to think of some new and impressive concepts.

There has been plenty of instances where even I was considering on improving something, then out of the blue a new idea came along. Just jot the thought down and put it to the side to evaluate at a later date. It's all about fixing what we have available already. When all is said and done, we can move on to bigger and possibly better things.

We must have a sturdy foundation to work upon, then we can expand from there. One step at a time.

if we did things this way we would never release since PR is ongoing in development. One of the big reasons why PR is soo successful is that we do lots of releases and refine each release on the way. Dont belive me, take a look at FH2 for exsample, they spent what, 2 years making something "just right", when they released it, even thou it was "just right" in there eyes, player pop for the mod etc is very small, why? that is because they did not attract / keep enough players with short and often releases like we do with pr. Just think what PR would be like if we decied to have the brits 100% finished before releasing, we would not have a player base above 100 since we would have only released the mod a few months ago, and in fact, I doubt we would have ever got the release out the door if we did it like that.

Originally Posted by Waaah_Wah

Jesus Christ...

What do you think this thread is? There is a shitload of "constructive feedback" in this thread, yet you have to get cauth up in small details...

He never even said that you are "making bad bad quality stuff and are not working hard/long enough". He simply stated that just because you are volunteers, the work you do doesnt nessesary have to be worse than the work of people who get payed.

Jesus Christ waaah_wah, if you in fact look at my posts I am not commenting on the feedback he has given, I have read it and taken it in, fuzzhead etc have replied to that. The only thing I'm replying to if you in fact bother to open your eyes is him saying that we do not work hard or long enough and our stuff is crap quality which is what I'm reading from his posts before which has rather pissed me off since that is anything but the case! and yes he did say it, look back on his last few posts. You should really stop getting yourself involved with this kinda crap where you do not belong.

[M.Warren]

I simply was updating the Improvement Compilation List, then apparently a rogue comment one month later decided to stoke up a fire again. Of course this could have been taken to personal messages, but no one apparently wanted to do so.

My discussion was directed particularly to fuzzheads response then everyone else decided to chime in. Matter of fact I didn't mention any other Developers name specifically. My origional opinions and perspectives remain the same as they were months ago including up to now. Only element somewhat removed at this point is sarcasm.

I already clarified my statements to help prevent any furthur confusion. My opinions could be right, or they could be wrong. But whichever case it is, they're my opinions. It just so happens that regardless of either situation, they are my own thoughts. Whether a group of Developers wish to leverage thier points of view in numbers or not, that's just the way it is. My opinion remains the same just as anyone else in the Community is entitled to think outside the norm.

Just so happens that because of the public nature of this debate has drawn as much attention as it has, it can't be allowed to continue. I suppose any openly outspoken opinion is best to be snuffed out before it begins to spread. Maybe we'd see more constructive criticisms if it didn't get brutally mauled by the forum moderators aswell in other threads. But then again, that's simply my own opinion.

But in relation to how Project Reality is being conducted at times. I'll introduce a word called "Plurality". There are multiple approaches to go about it. You can do it this way, that way, another way, and any way you want. Some decisions are better than others. But there are countless circumstances that relate to a singular purpose. This is simply one of many.

What I am trying to do is emphasize a singular perspective out of numerous others that I feel is being overlooked. Which is attention to detail in relation to glitches and bugs in certain cases. I honestly feel that the list that was made here should have been atleast half it's actual size.

I am not trying to find an absolute solution to every single problem PR faces. The presence of bugs and inconsistancies is the main focus here.

[Alex6714]

Regarding gameplay, teamwork and certain aspects, I just found the perfect sentence to describe my feelings, and why many vets of pr are seem to be playing less.

they work when they want to and that is it, pressure a guy to much and he will leave as he wants to do this for enjoyment

You play when you want to and you do what you want, force someone to rely on others and some things too much and he will leave, as he wants to play this for enjoyment.

But alot of people have a different view, and mine doesn´t really fit in with the common one.

[[R-DEV]fuzzhead]

Yes I probably should have responded to you M.Warren via private message when you made your post on 10-23-2008, but I didnt think it would get this involved. Keep in mind the reason my reply might have seemed a bit hostile was that I noticed your post on 10-23-2008 was written 20 days after I made my long reply to your list of bugs/gameplay issues. I was hoping to get a reply from you in a more timely manner and hoping you would be more technical with your answers.

Instead your post on 10-23-2008 was very non-specific and very negative sounding towards the PR team. It did not address any specific comments or details about your list or the list of replies that I posted. The 10-23-2008 post you made Warren suggested that the PR dev team do not want to hear your opinion or the opinion of PR players. I found that kind of offensive considering it took me a good 4 hours to read through your extensive list, comment on each point and go so far as to color code the response for easy reference and reading. I agree absolutely that paying attention to the small details pays off in great dividends in final gameplay. You would not believe the amount of tiny changes/fixes that were made to PR that was overall good for the gameplay, but for 95% of the player population they would go completely unnoticed.

My main interest and purpose for being on these forums is to improve and refine the gameplay of Project Reality, increasing the realism and teamwork of the mod with each release. Since I was the one to instigate these aggressive responses because of my reaction to Warrens post made on 10-23-2008, I ask that ALL people reading this thread (both R-DEV's and forum members) refrain from any further arguments. All those posts are in the past now and I would like to see a positive outcome from this thread, which M.Warren has exhaustively collected and compiled and which the PR coders have been slowly whittling down.

M.Warren:
If your still interested in helping out PR, what would be good from you is:

- responses and further discussion to my comments made on your list (both the green AND the red comments that I made)

- revising your current list after this discussion, so its more relevant, adding new things as they come up and removing old things that have been fixed/changed in v0.85

If you ARE still interested, you can contact my via PM on these forums, and you can also contact me on gmail/gchat (captainfuzzhead@gmail.com) if you want to further the discussion into email/instant messaging or use the built-in voice comms that gmail offers.

Also if you want to discuss this list and other gameplay elements with the dev team directly, PM me about getting our TS, I am willing to talk to you on TS at great length about any of the gameplay decisions being made in PR v0.85 or v0.9.

Anyways, Balls in your court now Warren, we may be "dragging players through the mud" sometimes with PR but dont say were not willing to work with them to help make PR a better game! Here was my original response that has still not been answered and I would appreciate a reply, either by PM, email, instant messenger or teamspeak.

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]fuzzhead

Originally Posted 10-03-2008:

Legend:

BLUE = Contact the appropriate DEV to get your suggestion implemented
GREEN = In Agreement / Work In Progress / Needs Improvement
RED = Disagreement / Not Possible / Problems

Although Im not "The Final Word" when it comes to stuff being implemented into the mod, I figure I would reply to your thoughts here warren since you took the time to lay them out in an organised list.

I have not had as much time as I'd like to work on PR stuff, so Warren I really hope you do follow up on what Ive mentioned and PM the ones I mention here. Most of this stuff is within the grasp of changes, so please do PM the ones I've specified with your suggestions.


Well here we go....




Yeap sounds good. I still think Jets in Project Reality are critically hampered due to the size of maps and the view distance. 4km is simply too small for a jet in the BF2 engine IMO. If it was entirely up to me, 4km would be the minimum size in order to field a 2 seat attack helicopter and 8km would be the minimum size in order to field a jet. Obviously my opinion on this is not the opinion of all the dev team. PM CAS_117 about your concerns with the jet aircraft and Im sure he can tell you everything he is doing to improve this aspect of PR.




Agreed. This is a strange issue though because they SHOULD be set at 30 seconds on Kashan and Qinling, although it seems to be different than the setting
If we can get it to work properly, IMO the timer should be set to 9999.



Again speak with Mr. CAS117 about this as he is the most likely candidate to implement changes on these.




This is definitely an oversight - ALL laser guided munitions should have a minimum travel time before they become active. This will be adjusted in the future if better maps come out which benefit from having Fighter-Bombers. Speak with Mr CAS about getting this corrected.




Agreed, this is an oversight, as you can tell the 2 seat bombers were a late addition to v0.8, speak with CAS117 about implementing these.




The harrier in v0.8 is heavy WIP and is NOT in a releasable state currently. Direct any vehicle handling comments towards CAS117, we will probably see this aircraft complete in v0.9.




The Merlin Loading ramp is a trivial and whimsical part of the vehicle, and may in fact be causing the "lag" of the vehicle. There is no usefulness in the loading ramp other than to "look" cool, unless we choose to make the entry positions inside the actual helicopter (something most devs opted against). Due to the nature of the BF2 engine, having players freely standing on/in vehicles will almost always kill them, thus having a loading ramp at all will be evaluated and possibly removed in future versions, but the sound of the loading ramp is of no relevance to the dev team, thanks for finding it though.



Agreed, makes sense. I think there is a feature like this currently? I could be mistaken though. If theres not its definitely a good idea.




Agree with giving them "FLIR", the same thing in thats in the scout helicopter but without the laser. But also allow them a normal view as well. Thats a very low priority though, send Falkun a message about it and see if he'd be willing to do it.

I disagree with making the co-pilots mandatory... we already have a problem with not enough boots on the ground, no need to create yet MORE positions in the air. However, I do think that giving players the option to play a co-pilot if they so choose is a good idea, as it brings unique gameplay and further level of coordination, I just dont think it should be forced if players feel its unnecesary to be a co-pilot.




According to our mil advisors, the BTR-90 is a very high-end vehicle that was not signifigantly produced / deployed by any Middle Eastern or Russian forces, and will be phased out of Project Reality in the coming versions.




This kind of delay is not possible (to delay switching). We have tried engine start delays before, but there was issues with that as well as bugginess.
In the end I dont see this being signifigant, I still favour personally a change that forces 2 man armor crews in order to effectively engage targets. Through python, limit the gunner seat so that if there is no player sitting in the driver or cupola gunner, the main gun becomes disabled and cannot fire - - - this would remove 99% of one man tanking, but is still a debateable topic with the rest of the dev team.





Smoke Generators have been discussed by dev team many times before (remember UK Force lives at a Tank Army Base) but until someone developes an effect that does not kill a players PC, renders at all ranges and renders consistently we will have to make do with what we got.
The current smoke screen does not render at long ranges and has consistency issues. The current smoke will NOT ALWAYS show up for players, it all depends on these factors:
- distance player is from the vehicle when smoke is deployed
- direction player is facing in relation to the vehicle when smoke is deployed
- current number of smoke being rendered on screen, after a certain amount the engine will stop rendering additional smoke clouds.
- random chance.

This inconsistency is a major pita and is due to the particle system of BF2, both a blessing and curse to the mod.




All 50cal do not recoil nearly as much as we would like... reference FH2 for some good 30cal recoil. This is still unanswered, we need someone with experience with this sort of stuff, our animator Chuc has been unable to solve this yet, contact him if you have any idea how to implement this.



Most custom PR vehicles have these, and most new vehicles will be recieving these. We cannot edit vbf2 vehicles, so as more vbf2 vehicles get replaced, this problem will become less and less.



Known issue thanks for bringing to attention.




Not seen this issue before thanks for bringing it up.




Agreed there needs to be better smoke system for vehicles, I believe they should create thicker smoke as well as launch further out, last much longer and much thicker, however as the reasons above suggest, there is problems with BF2 particle system, and rendering is not reliable. That being said, Alex is our main effects creator right now so PMing him your suggestion will help your cause.



Agreed, read above for my response.




Strange vbf2 bug related to material types and explosion projectile. Will need to be investigated, Im not convinced that its just the LAV-25, needs extensive testing. In either case, I believe we will eventually be replacing or getting a custom model for the LAV-25 to replace the vanilla model, which may fix this problem if it is in fact an isolated incident (which I doubt)





Yeap, its a new vehicle that was put in late in the v0.8 developement process, expect bugs like this to happen to all new vehicles. We will be working on this vehicle as well as other AAV's in the future, however its a low priority vehicle atm due to it being only on one map.






Agreed. In my opinion, an AAV should be much closer to the Stormer - that is, a purely ANTI AIRCRAFT focused role. As it is right now, the PLA, MEC and USA AAV's are all used as 1 man tanks that are extremely effective at killing infantry. Basically they are perfect vehicles for lonewolf rambo's after a high kill count. Usually they are too busy shooting at grouped up infantry to notice the enemy jets flying overhead which is the entire point of their existence.

The dev team is still deciding how to approach this situation, but my personal opinion is to pick more role specific vehicle approach to AAV's, which is the Stormer HVM, Humvee Avenger, WZ551 outfitted with 8 AA missles, BRDM Spandrel with AA or simular. So AAV's without the super cannon. If an asymetrical scenario dictates the need for an AAV with both cannon and missles, then that vehicle should be a 2 man vehicle (driver and gunner) like the rest of the armored vehicles. It only makes sense....





Hopefully we can get those new dirtbikes by Flan into the next build. ATV handling is a bit of an experiment by us, needless to say though it is NOT meant to be taken seriously, as matter of fact there is not ATV in PR maps right now other than for a bit of silly entertainment. We dont intend ATV to be a major part of PR, however the dirtbikes will continue to be an element in insurgency.






Known issue, something needs to be dealt with in future but low priority, its a result of the new high poly m2 browning we got from BSS.






Known issue, may or may not ever be fixed.





Sounds like a reasonable suggestion. IMO jeeps are much less effective than APC's and should have a minimal role in largescale ground operations, they should definitely take the backseat and APC/IFV should be at the forefront. PM dbzao to see if its possible to implement.





Interesting findings, will need to do some tests and this and see what we come up with. I dont really care for the vbf2 "overheating", I'd prefer something along the line of "weapon malfunction", in that you can fire the weapon for a long time without this vbf2 overheating ever 10 seconds, however if you fire the weapon long enough and an "overheat" does occur, it effectively shuts down that weapon for 5 minutes or longer. Dont mean it will be implemented but thats how I'd rather see the overheating system go towards instead of keeping the vbf2 mechanics (which Im prety sure PR is simular to in that regard)





We will probably see a reduction in normal jeeps, thus you will see the use of engineer vehicle increase. They ARE useful currently as they are a guaranteed vehicle for engineers attached to an armor unit can use (esp since they are usualyl readily avaliable.) However in the future maybe the repair system will change for vehicles and the role of the engineer vehicle will shift again.

Mobile vehicle rearm has been discussed within the dev team, I personally think its unnecesary due to the extremely short distances that all PR maps take place in, I think the need to go back to your operations base to rearm is both realistic and good tradeoff to burning through all that ammunition, ammo conservation is a part of tactics in PR now and would NOT be a factor if mobile ammo resupply was introduced again. Theres also the fact that these tiny cars would NOT be able to carry ANY signifigant amount of vehicle ammunition.






Sounds like a good idea.
PM Falkun (the dev team's odd's and end's coding bitch) to have this idea brought to light.






Hopefully M249 will be replaced with a more suitable mounted weapon in the future (M240), as the current one is impossible to line up the sights properly. Also the RIB could probably use a replacement but is very low priority.




Good suggestion. Get modeling. Post your progress in the Community Modding forums like everyone else




Known issue,

bug jaymz about this to fix it (he's tried fixing it he doesnt know why the fuck its not working)



Good observation,
PM Chuc this issue to get this fixed.





Known issue.
PM Jaymz to add that clicky sound.




Molotov's were never intended to do ANY damage to armor vehicles. Its an on going issue with the molotov's, the engine is very buggy with these things, feel free to give it a try and get them behaving correctly, hope you have a large stockpile of asprine your gonna need it.





PM CAS117 about this one...






Disagree. Dont think Recon units should be engaging the enemy much to begin with - they should be giving intel to command and spotting units, only taking out high priority targets from a long range... dont think there is any need for them to use surpressed weapons... if the enemy is that close, that means your doing it wrong IMO. This is PR not Splinter Cell.




The governor on pistols was to restrict the unrealistic hyper-speed at which most players fired at. Pistols in v0.8 are currently the most deadly CQB weapon, I personally dont see a strong need to make them EVEN more deadly than they already are.





The governor on assault rifles was to restrict the unrealistic hyper-speed at which most players fired in single shot - often, there was little difference from rapid firing single shot to full auto. There is on going discussion about this amougst the dev team but its generally considered a balanced tradeoff to realistic representation of the capability of these weapons in a single-shot fire mode.




Agreed this is needed, albeit its hard to shot hte state of a bipod since its at the front of the weapon and is rarely in sight of the viewpoint of the player. PKM would need a remodeling since its a vanilla bf2 model and the bipods cannot "fold up"




Agreed, shotguns need more accuracy to breach doors, but I do not think they should be used primarily in combat role, rather as a breaching tool. Maybe in future we can replace shotgun with more commonly used breaching tools.




Changes will be made to recoil on Assault rifles, they are simplified in v0.8 as deviation was the #1 priority and recoil was not heavily modified.



Agreed needs to be more material sounds, very very very low priority,
PM Jaymz for your suggestion



Unknown if this is possbile and not really worth the effort of doing probably.





various problems make this unlikely, although there still might be some refinements to the CPR, were mostly happy with it and it is what it is.... a handy "tool" that basically makes a BF2 bug work favourably in our advantage sometimes.




IMO Runways should not be destroyable and should be located NO WHERE NEAR the area of operations, unless its an assymetrical scenario such as Al Basrah.




I think instead of wasting more time making the wrench look more visually appealing we should search for ways to remove it completely and incorporating automated repair systems, ie where a player drops off a "box" and the box does the repair work.




PM CHuc your suggestion hes lead animator on he dev team




putting "Friendly Fire" radio command on commo rose is a good idea, just need to stick it in there somewhere, possibly doubling up roger/negative into one place




Good suggestion
PM dbzao to get this implemented



Not heard of this before, thanks
PM jaymz about this issue



Good suggestions
PM dbzao for these


Disagree, let them choose what they want to spawn with, most will gravitate towards the officer kit when they realize how mission critical it is. Plus there would be problems in implements this properly (Same with limiting medics).




Known issue, may or may not be fixed in v0.85, may require new AA assets or new target reticle. This has to do with a fix for the z buffering issue, which makes some things such as vehicle HUDs screwy (AAV, APC passengers, etc).



Agreed.
PM Chuc about getting new icons attached to these vehicles




Fixed for v0.85 I believe?



Disagree. Its precisely because of those small maps that the range should remain small. IMO Small maps should NOT have large amounts of Forward Outposts aka spawn points, as it turns the game into a spam fest. The idea behind 400m rule was to force spawnpoints to be spread out quite far, making them major "objectives" to destroy, and once destroyed can be assured there is no other fixed spawns in sigfigant area. Although this is up for discussion in dev team, I dont see major issue with the way it currently is, Small maps is not an issue IMO and should not be a factor as most maps are 2km sized.




Agreed, except I think there should NEVER be destroyable runways, in fact I think there should never be runways near an area of operations but thats an entirely different topic...




Known Issue, Not sure why this is no longer working. Needs more testing






Agreed, however check out Korengal for an example of how flora can be done RIGHT. OGT and Qinling are very good examples of very poor flora. Check out Sangin for an idea on how it IS possible to get very good and useful flora in a 4km map. Expect much more USEFUL, FULLY RENDERED flora coming in the future, Rhino has made some progress in regard to this, most new maps will be using this, maybe some older maps retrofitted as well.




Known issue, solution will be there in v0.85






Al Basrah (and other maps) crashing after each round has been finally nailed down to the high networkable object count on the map. If a map has too many networkables (which includes players, vehicles, ammo caches, destroyable houses, basically anything player can affect physically) then it will cause a memory overload and hangs on the next map load.

So we went through and removed hundreds of networkables, while still trying to retain networkables that affected gameplay considerable. Although its disappointing these buildings are no longer destroyable, Al Basrah does retain a considerable amount of destroyable buildings, unfortunately the 2 story ones use up to 20-30 networkables each, because each "segment" of the house is a networkable in its own right, whereas the single story houses as seen on kashan are just 1 networkable.

This discovery is a hard taught lesson and will affect future static creation, esp when desiging destroyable statics. "Lego" style destroyable statics are simply not an option in the BF2 engine it seems, unless the memory crash due to high networkable counts can be resolved (and trust me many different attempts were tried to get around this crash).





Agreed. IMO this map plays out much better in AAS16 configuration with no jet aircraft.
However, your free to PM Rhino your thoughts on how to implement a more realistic airport configuration, although dont expect much from him :P








Agree this is something that needs to be improved upon, currently dont have a solution but Ancientman is continuing to think of ways to make the browser bend to his will...

[drs79]

wow, warren, great job i am still not completely done reading it, but i like what you compiled!! +4

[M.Warren]

Due to fuzzheads request, here is a following explanation of events:

In the past month I had retired from Project Reality for the time being to relax and unwind from consistant squad leading, commanding and the general "hair pulling" that may occur during a normal round of Project Reality. Just needed a break really and get in touch with other games. I go through gaming Phases. FPS, RPG's and MMO's. Just the way things are at times. Anyways, as we were saying...

In referance to the subject matter that resulted in a developer not being followed up or directly contacted with... The list was made as a list. Everyone and anyone can see it for themselves, all they need to do is look. Everything is pretty much self-explanitory.

And like I said. I wasn't here for the past month or so.

Anyways, not that hard really to see the details. Everything is in plain sight, organzied and categorized. All you need to do is page down to the section that relates or intrests you the most. Voila.

If this information is some how deemed "sensitive" to the developement of Project Reality, then I suppose it's fine for this list to be removed...

I don't see anything that is secretive about it. Besides, I think the public should view it at thier leisure to help expand upon thier own opinions and thoughts. Not going to hurt anyone. It can only better the community.

Now for the actual request reply:



Legend:

BLUE = Contact the appropriate DEV to get your suggestion implemented
GREEN = In Agreement / Work In Progress / Needs Improvement
RED = Disagreement / Not Possible / Problems

Although Im not "The Final Word" when it comes to stuff being implemented into the mod, I figure I would reply to your thoughts here warren since you took the time to lay them out in an organised list.

I have not had as much time as I'd like to work on PR stuff, so Warren I really hope you do follow up on what Ive mentioned and PM the ones I mention here. Most of this stuff is within the grasp of changes, so please do PM the ones I've specified with your suggestions.


Well here we go....

Both short range and long range missles such as the AIM-9M, AA-11 and the AIM-120, AA-12 could use some serious rethinking. Currently short range missles have a enormous detection diameter and long range missles have an inadequate detection diameter. Which is apparently and almost logically backwards... This will be explained later. On another note, the overbearing effectiveness of short range missles has nearly eliminated an amount of player ability that was previously required.

A. Decrease the detection diameter of short range missles significantly.
B. Increase the detection diameter of long range missles greatly.
C. All missle detection diameters for both short and long range missles must coincide with thier respective HUD displays.

Yeap sounds good. I still think Jets in Project Reality are critically hampered due to the size of maps and the view distance. 4km is simply too small for a jet in the BF2 engine IMO. If it was entirely up to me, 4km would be the minimum size in order to field a 2 seat attack helicopter and 8km would be the minimum size in order to field a jet. Obviously my opinion on this is not the opinion of all the dev team. PM CAS_117 about your concerns with the jet aircraft and Im sure he can tell you everything he is doing to improve this aspect of PR.

<M.Warren: I have contacted and spoke to CAS_117 about this previously. He stated that newer modern military close range air to air missles now work differently than before. They are capable of what's referred to as "off-bore" firing. Meaning that a pilot simply can look at an enemy aircraft through his helmet and guide a missle to it's target in any direction within line of sight and no more than directly left, right or above the aircraft. Thusly, to simulate this effect he has increased the detection radius of all short range missles to reflect this new cutting edge technology.>

All large scale maps utilizing jet aircraft of any varient requires the out-of-bounds timer set to 15-20 seconds (Currently 10 seconds for jets and 20 seconds for helicopters).

Agreed. This is a strange issue though because they SHOULD be set at 30 seconds on Kashan and Qinling, although it seems to be different than the setting
If we can get it to work properly, IMO the timer should be set to 9999.

<M.Warren: I was not aware that a timer could infact be placed at value as high as 9999. However, I would not suggest placing an out of bounds timer to 9999, players would fly endlessly into oblivion. What I would do instead is, set the out of bounds timer to 120 seconds instead as opposed to 30 if possible. Why I say this is that the maximum out of bounds and respawn timer can go up to is 120 seconds. Otherwise known as 2 minutes.

Basically, as soon as a pilot or helicopter pilot flys out of bounds they can immediately begin seeing the countdown timer begin ticking... So, if we set it to lets say --- 5 minutes --- the person would only know to fly back into the map zone with 2 minutes notice. Thusly, 120 seconds is the perfect balance between adequate time, and removal of any possible guesswork.

Of course, this is simply a theory. Should work though.>

Currently seen in Fighter-Bomber type aircraft the Co-Pilot may have difficulty delivering laser guided bombs. While the Co-Pilot is looking through the laser guided bomb interface there is a general lack of a sufficient arc to view during attack runs making it hard to maintain a bead on the target.

Again speak with Mr. CAS117 about this as he is the most likely candidate to implement changes on these.

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

All Fighter-Bomber aircraft need a critical minimum altitude to use Laser Guided Bombs as currently there is none in place and/or an inconsistant defect.

This is definitely an oversight - ALL laser guided munitions should have a minimum travel time before they become active. This will be adjusted in the future if better maps come out which benefit from having Fighter-Bombers. Speak with Mr CAS about getting this corrected.

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

All Fighter-Bomber aircraft need the Co-Pilot seat altered so the player cannot have a 3rd person camera outside of the plane. Currently the Co-Pilot can have 3 different modes of camera viewing. These camera views are stationary fly-by, chase front, chase rear. Also the Co-Pilots view must be limited to the same as the Pilot; being that he can freelook from inside the cockpit and look rear to watchout for enemy aircraft.

Agreed, this is an oversight, as you can tell the 2 seat bombers were a late addition to v0.8, speak with CAS117 about implementing these.

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

The U.S. and/or British Harrier VTOL (Vertical Takeoff or Landing) needs to be immediately reverted back to it's previous control state as seen in v0.75 training.

The harrier in v0.8 is heavy WIP and is NOT in a releasable state currently. Direct any vehicle handling comments towards CAS117, we will probably see this aircraft complete in v0.9.

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

The HC3 Merlin is currently missing a previously existing sound notification. While acting as the Co-Pilot and operating the boarding ramp it appears that the hydraulic actuation sound no longer exists. This minor detail will need to be resolved.

The Merlin Loading ramp is a trivial and whimsical part of the vehicle, and may in fact be causing the "lag" of the vehicle. There is no usefulness in the loading ramp other than to "look" cool, unless we choose to make the entry positions inside the actual helicopter (something most devs opted against). Due to the nature of the BF2 engine, having players freely standing on/in vehicles will almost always kill them, thus having a loading ramp at all will be evaluated and possibly removed in future versions, but the sound of the loading ramp is of no relevance to the dev team, thanks for finding it though.

<M.Warren: In all honesty, if you removed the functionality of the rear ramp of the HC-3 Merlin, I think we'd be better off to keep it closed. All too often players open it up without thinking and resultantly exposes the occupants to incoming enemy fire and explosive munitions including landings that result in damage to the aircraft. If this is the leading cause of lag in the HC-3 Merlin, then leave it closed as it's importance is minimal and it would probably even completely solve the well known "lag" issue.

My alternative suggestion is if it is infact deemed not the problem of lag, I would like to see the use of the rear door placed in control of the pilot of the helicopter only. Something along the nature of pressing and/or holding a key down such as the #1 (To open) and #2 (To close) buttons if possible.>

Attack Helicopters should have the 1st weapon slot as the Radar Off function.

Agreed, makes sense. I think there is a feature like this currently? I could be mistaken though. If theres not its definitely a good idea.

<M.Warren: There currently is no way to turn the radar function off. It is constantly on and the AA missles are always armed. This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

The HC3 Merlin and the UH-1N Huey (Both transport and rocket varients.) need a FLIR (Forward Looking Infared Radar) camera system. Currently these two helicopters posess this equipment as displayed in thier models but they do not play any role in thier use.

Also for aircraft balancing, take note to remove the "laser designation" feature that the Light Scout Helicopters have. This is to prevent players from using Transport Helicopters in a role that they're not specified for.

Agree with giving them "FLIR", the same thing in thats in the scout helicopter but without the laser. But also allow them a normal view as well. Thats a very low priority though, send Falkun a message about it and see if he'd be willing to do it.

I disagree with making the co-pilots mandatory... we already have a problem with not enough boots on the ground, no need to create yet MORE positions in the air. However, I do think that giving players the option to play a co-pilot if they so choose is a good idea, as it brings unique gameplay and further level of coordination, I just dont think it should be forced if players feel its unnecesary to be a co-pilot.

<M.Warren: I sympathize with your perspective in not making co-pilots mandatory. The main purpose why I mentioned this is to increase the life expectancy of transport helicopters. This was intended to also help pilots scan and locate safe LZ's. Rather than having 4 transport choppers flying around, we could have 2 choppers instead; ones are better equipped and have a greater chance of survival and delivering it's cargo/passengers successfully. Rather than the commonly seen Jabal Al Burj suicide runs.>

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

Alter the BTR-90 Rostok

According to our mil advisors, the BTR-90 is a very high-end vehicle that was not signifigantly produced / deployed by any Middle Eastern or Russian forces, and will be phased out of Project Reality in the coming versions.

<M.Warren: If the Military Advisors state the BTR-90 is not a commonly seen asset on the battlefield, then thier word is law. No furthur debates are necessary if it is intended to be scrapped. However, I hope an acceptable alternative that is amphibious will take it's place. Such as a BMP-1 or BMP-2 which is the more commonly abundant APC we'll most likely see. But that's simply my prediction.>

Rather than simply adding a 30 second delay to all armor turrets, but also add a new feature that prevents users from switching back to the Driver seat from the Gunner position as quickly. This idea was derived from the 3 second timer delay while switching to the gunner position on a jeep's mounted .50 caliber gun.

This kind of delay is not possible (to delay switching). We have tried engine start delays before, but there was issues with that as well as bugginess.
In the end I dont see this being signifigant, I still favour personally a change that forces 2 man armor crews in order to effectively engage targets. Through python, limit the gunner seat so that if there is no player sitting in the driver or cupola gunner, the main gun becomes disabled and cannot fire - - - this would remove 99% of one man tanking, but is still a debateable topic with the rest of the dev team.

<M.Warren: Fantastic. Reason why I even mentioned adding a 30 second delay to switching between driving and gunning was to prevent one-man Tanks and APC's. I had previously and repeatedly suggested to link the gunner functionality with a driver being present in the vehicle since the v0.7 build. No information has been given to me if any steps were being taken towards this possibility. I am glad to hear it's being furthur investigated or possibly solved. I have been banging my head on the wall about this detail as one of my largest pet peeves nearly above all else.>

Rather than having a smoke screen launcher for the Tank drivers, a new approach is in need of a research. Although Gunners for Tanks already have access to smoke screen deployment, how about Tank (And possibly APC's aswell.) Drivers having access to whats referred to as a "Smoke Generator" created.

Smoke Generators have been discussed by dev team many times before (remember UK Force lives at a Tank Army Base) but until someone developes an effect that does not kill a players PC, renders at all ranges and renders consistently we will have to make do with what we got.
The current smoke screen does not render at long ranges and has consistency issues. The current smoke will NOT ALWAYS show up for players, it all depends on these factors:
- distance player is from the vehicle when smoke is deployed
- direction player is facing in relation to the vehicle when smoke is deployed
- current number of smoke being rendered on screen, after a certain amount the engine will stop rendering additional smoke clouds.
- random chance.

This inconsistency is a major pita and is due to the particle system of BF2, both a blessing and curse to the mod.

<M.Warren: Understood and noted. Reason why it was mentioned is my overwhelming intrest in armor and support of infantry units wherever and whenever possible. Especially because the deployment of smoke countermeasures was previously only in the gunners control and not the driver. But if this cannot be accomplished via the BF2 engine, then it seems we're at an impass. It is a unfortunate circumstance that will simply have to be accepted.>

The British Challenger 2's mounted Browning M2 .50 caliber machine gun does not have a proper recoil animation. Rather than the weapon recoiling as it should, it appears that there are two different Browning M2 .50 caliber machine guns at once. There is a static representation of it while not firing, which also results in a second representation of the machine gun during it's recoil phase.

All 50cal do not recoil nearly as much as we would like... reference FH2 for some good 30cal recoil. This is still unanswered, we need someone with experience with this sort of stuff, our animator Chuc has been unable to solve this yet, contact him if you have any idea how to implement this.

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

Recommend adding "collision boxes" to the main guns on all armored assets, such as APC's and Tanks. Currently few APC's and Tanks actually have these "collision boxes" and creates an unrealistic advantage for some armor units over others.

Most custom PR vehicles have these, and most new vehicles will be recieving these. We cannot edit vbf2 vehicles, so as more vbf2 vehicles get replaced, this problem will become less and less.

<M.Warren: Understood and noted.>

The British Scimitar has a Gunner Smoke Screen deployment issue. Rather than deploying smoke in a uniform and equal fashion, it appears that 2-3 Smoke Screen grenades seem to clump up on the front left hand cornor after deployed from the turret. This also results in a large gap in the Smoke Screen which will occur directly infront of the turret.

Known issue thanks for bringing to attention.

<M.Warren: Understood and noted.>

The British Scimitar has a Driver HUD indicator issue. There appears to be a numerical value of 10 or 11 which is ifficult to determine for sure as it's off-screen and hard to see. This can be viewed in the bottom left hand cornor of the screen. It seems to pose no particular use as left clicking, right clicking or attempting to switch weapon types produces no effects to it's purpose.

Not seen this issue before thanks for bringing it up.

<M.Warren: Understood and noted.>

Vehicle deployed smoke screens could also use refinement. To help describe and identify these situational uses of smoke screens I needed to utilize screenshots. There are 2 different effects that occur based upon what happens to the grenades.

A. Smoke Screen Airburst Type (Time delayed.) - These are the common result of deploying smoke screens that do not impact with an object or the ground. They appear to hang in the air vertically rather than dispersing out in the air in volume. These results are inconsistant and on occassion vary in large gaps that appear between each deployed smoke screen canister. Other times the smoke deploys properly.

B. Smoke Screen Impact Type - These are not a common result while deploying smoke screens, however they provide a more desireable effect. These grenades generally provide a thicker and significantly better smoke screen as they've resultantly impacted with an object (Trees, rocks, buildings, etc.).

If there was a means to modify the smoke grenade itself so that when deployed they use a similar system to how deployable assets work we would see better smoke screen utilization. For example, razorwire when deployed comes in contact with the ground at a certain point. After it comes in contact with the ground the deployable object itself settles and the actual graphic representation of where the razorwire lays is shown a few moments later.

So, if we could fire these smoke screen grenades similar to deployable assets to have them detonate at a certain point above where it makes contact with the ground, we'd see an improvement in results, rather than having them simply time detonated... Or we could possibly have a mix of both worlds of "deployed impact" type and "time delayed airburst". This is so that it does not fall too far away from the vehicle itself, such as deploying a smoke screen over water where the "deployed impact" type would not function and "time delayed airburst" would come into play.

Here is several sample pictures of the previously mentioned situation.

Current Issue:
Smoke Screen Airburst Type Woodland
Smoke Screen Airburst Type Desert

Smoke Screen Impact Type Woodland
Smoke Screen Impact Type Desert

Agreed there needs to be better smoke system for vehicles, I believe they should create thicker smoke as well as launch further out, last much longer and much thicker, however as the reasons above suggest, there is problems with BF2 particle system, and rendering is not reliable. That being said, Alex is our main effects creator right now so PMing him your suggestion will help your cause.

<M.Warren: Understood and noted.>

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

One-man armor gunning (Tanks and APC's) should no longer be capable of occuring.

Agreed, read above for my response.

<M.Warren: Understood and noted.>

The LAV-25 Pirana for the U.S.M.C. forces has a major issue. While traveling through the water it is particularly vulnerable to explosives such as anti-tank rockets. The vehicle itself will take damage as expected, however the explosive charge of the missle projectile will severely injure or kill it's occupants.This issue still exists from the previous version of Project Reality, this was noted on a particular round on "Qwai River".

Strange vbf2 bug related to material types and explosion projectile. Will need to be investigated, Im not convinced that its just the LAV-25, needs extensive testing. In either case, I believe we will eventually be replacing or getting a custom model for the LAV-25 to replace the vanilla model, which may fix this problem if it is in fact an isolated incident (which I doubt)

<M.Warren: Understood and noted. I agree that it may not be limited to the LAV-25 either. However I have never had a circumstance of being fired at with an explosive device in a different amphibious vehicle to confirm this.>

The British Stormer HVM Anti-Aircraft Vehicle is shockingly unrefined. The player must enter the vehicle from the rear, but when dismounting the vehicle he is released from the forward driver compartment and cannot reenter the vehicle from that point. Thusly the player after dismounting must get out and go around once again to the rear of the vehicle to get back in.

If the user presses the number "1" or "2" on his/her keyboard they will be switched out of the AAV's missle control interface. The player then will enter what appears as a non-existant driver seat with no possible means to switch back to the missle control interface and must exit and reenter the vehicle.

Also the green sighting reticule is horridly disfigured and appears as a blurr of neon-green-mess below the sighting system itself and randomly changes in appearance from time to time. This sighting reticule is also so relatively light in color that it does not contrast well against a brightly lit sky like what is seen on the "Battle for Qinling" map.

This vehicle also lacks an audible tone when a proper lock on is made. An enemy aircraft could possibly be right infront of you and you'll not even hear a sound.

Yeap, its a new vehicle that was put in late in the v0.8 developement process, expect bugs like this to happen to all new vehicles. We will be working on this vehicle as well as other AAV's in the future, however its a low priority vehicle atm due to it being only on one map.

<M.Warren: Understood and noted. Although I do suggest for future referance that a temporary "place holder" for a disfigured HUD be copied and applied for a more acceptable alternative in the meantime.>

As time goes on it's becoming increasingly noticeable that there is a need for additional asymmetrical balancing in game for Anti Aircraft Vehicles.

Agreed. In my opinion, an AAV should be much closer to the Stormer - that is, a purely ANTI AIRCRAFT focused role. As it is right now, the PLA, MEC and USA AAV's are all used as 1 man tanks that are extremely effective at killing infantry. Basically they are perfect vehicles for lonewolf rambo's after a high kill count. Usually they are too busy shooting at grouped up infantry to notice the enemy jets flying overhead which is the entire point of their existence.

The dev team is still deciding how to approach this situation, but my personal opinion is to pick more role specific vehicle approach to AAV's, which is the Stormer HVM, Humvee Avenger, WZ551 outfitted with 8 AA missles, BRDM Spandrel with AA or simular. So AAV's without the super cannon. If an asymetrical scenario dictates the need for an AAV with both cannon and missles, then that vehicle should be a 2 man vehicle (driver and gunner) like the rest of the armored vehicles. It only makes sense....

<M.Warren: I understand and sympathize with your point of view on selecting AAV's specifically orientated with air defense to dissuade players from using it as a single man vehicle to mow down vulnerable targets to thier benefit. However, I do suggest not to abandon dedicated AAV's with cannons and missle defense systems either. Every vehicle we have adds to available possibilities for future maps and combinations.

With that said, I also suggest to utilize AAV's specifically orientated with air defense such as the HMMWV Avenger on maps that are what I would refer to as a "Minor Conflict". "Minor Conflicts" being small scale maps that most likely include asymmetrical balancing, with the presence of Light Choppers (Such as the "Little Bird" series helicopter.) or a single Attack Helicopter such as a Havoc... You know, as in, the enemy has "this one chopper" but the allies have "this one AAV and two APC's" to counter it in an assymetrical map.

"Major Conflicts" are situations that include Tanks, Attack Helicopters, Fighter Jets and Fighter-Bombers in large numbers. I feel more powerful AAV's such as the M1 Tunguska, PGZ-95, and M6 Bradley Linebacker be frequently used on "Major Conflict" maps like Kashan Desert or The Battle of Qingling.

To put it simply. I don't recommend HMMWV Avengers on maps with T-90 tanks running about. It doesn't properly fit the severity of the engagement. The HMMWV Avenger is clearly overwhelmed. Instead a M6 Bradley Linebacker would be the preferred solution. Of course, not the perfect combatant to fend off a T-90, however it is much better equipped and better armored against other threats such as infantry.>

Dirtbikes and ATV's veer left or right slightly depending upon last directional input. Requires minor centering adjustments.

Hopefully we can get those new dirtbikes by Flan into the next build. ATV handling is a bit of an experiment by us, needless to say though it is NOT meant to be taken seriously, as matter of fact there is not ATV in PR maps right now other than for a bit of silly entertainment. We dont intend ATV to be a major part of PR, however the dirtbikes will continue to be an element in insurgency.

<M.Warren: Understood and noted.>

The British Landrover's mounted Browning M2 .50 caliber machine gun does not have a proper brass ejection animation. Rather than the spent brass cases and metal links dispersing to the right of the machine gun, it appears that the ejected materials collide with the gun and end up awkwardly on the left side of the front ironsight.

Known issue, something needs to be dealt with in future but low priority, its a result of the new high poly m2 browning we got from BSS.

<M.Warren: Understood and noted.>

The 375 Ural (Chinese and M.E.C. support truck.) needs some minor visual corrections. When the driver attempts to turn left or right the vehicle's front wheels remain pointing forward rather than turning left or right respectively. This does not effect the vehicles driving in any way, just it's visual representation of directional control. This issue has been noticed since the v0.7b patch.

Known issue, may or may not ever be fixed.

<M.Warren: Understood and noted. However, as of late with an apparently recent server patch, it seems resolved.>

Simple vehicles such as Jeeps should be squad orientated vehicles. Any squad utilizing a standard Jeep all they need to do is keep a minimum of one person in the Driver or Gunner position. As soon as both of those spots has been exited it's free game to be utilized by another squad. This is to prevent random players from impeding gameplay progress and is way overdue to be implemented in game as this is not the first time the problem has occured.

Sounds like a reasonable suggestion. IMO jeeps are much less effective than APC's and should have a minimal role in largescale ground operations, they should definitely take the backseat and APC/IFV should be at the forefront. PM dbzao to see if its possible to implement.

<M.Warren: Noted.>

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

After several testing sessions, it's clear that .50 caliber machine guns appear to be unbalanced between factions, this is primarily aimed at vehicles that utilize HMG's mounted on them. It appears that the Chinese and MEC .50 HMG fires at double the rate of the British and U.S. .50 caliber HMG. However the Chinese and MEC .50 caliber HMG overheats at roughly 5 seconds, whereas the British and U.S. .50 caliber HMG overheats at roughly 6 seconds.

To help bring this into perspective, there are two different specifications for modern .50 caliber weapons. The British and U.S. team uses an identical round. The Chinese PLA and fictional MEC army would theoretically use the Russian varient of a .50 caliber round.

A. Standard British and U.S. .50 caliber round = 12.7mm x 99
B. Standard Russian .50 caliber round = 12.7mm x 108

Although Project Reality has an abstract perspective on overheating weapons. Thermal conditions and rate of fire go hand in hand. Double the rate of fire, double the overheat condition. Also the fact that the Russian .50 caliber round ( 12.7mmm x 108 ) is slightly larger than the standard .50 caliber (12.7mm x 99) round.

Thusly the Chinese and MEC .50 caliber HMG should be able to maintain it's rate of fire and overheat at 5 seconds. Whereas the British and U.S. .50 caliber HMG fires at a rate almost half of the others and thusly should overheat at roughly 10 seconds of consistant fire rather than the limited 6 seconds.

This will give each .50 caliber varient of HMG's its own particular nature of Pro's and Cons. The Chinese and MEC .50 caliber HMG offers higher firepower volume at the loss of longevity, whereas the British and U.S. .50 caliber HMG offers lower firepower volume and increased longevity.

Interesting findings, will need to do some tests and this and see what we come up with. I dont really care for the vbf2 "overheating", I'd prefer something along the line of "weapon malfunction", in that you can fire the weapon for a long time without this vbf2 overheating ever 10 seconds, however if you fire the weapon long enough and an "overheat" does occur, it effectively shuts down that weapon for 5 minutes or longer. Dont mean it will be implemented but thats how I'd rather see the overheating system go towards instead of keeping the vbf2 mechanics (which Im prety sure PR is simular to in that regard)

<M.Warren: Understood and noted. I have witnessed weapons overheating. As in a cherry red-hot barrel, then a reduction in rate of fire, then up and until the weapon seizes from internal components expanding and jamming the weapon. I think infantry LMG's should have a 1-2 minute jam time to simulate a cooldown and barrel change. Fixed cannons and MG's seen on tanks and APC's would logically have a cooldown/repair timer of 3-5 minutes, simply because these items are integral to the vehicle and not easily accessible.

Of course, in order to overheat a weapon to such an extent that it fails would take extensive amount of recklessness. I would say that constant fire for 1.5-2.5 minutes would cause this malfunction to occur.>

The return of the Engineer support jeep. The purpose of this vehicle seems elusive and undefined. However, this vehicle does not offer anything other than exclusive access to engineers and a single ammo box primarily for mine deployment. Apparently this vehicle has little use outside the fact for the deployment of mines.

We will probably see a reduction in normal jeeps, thus you will see the use of engineer vehicle increase. They ARE useful currently as they are a guaranteed vehicle for engineers attached to an armor unit can use (esp since they are usualyl readily avaliable.) However in the future maybe the repair system will change for vehicles and the role of the engineer vehicle will shift again.

Mobile vehicle rearm has been discussed within the dev team, I personally think its unnecesary due to the extremely short distances that all PR maps take place in, I think the need to go back to your operations base to rearm is both realistic and good tradeoff to burning through all that ammunition, ammo conservation is a part of tactics in PR now and would NOT be a factor if mobile ammo resupply was introduced again. Theres also the fact that these tiny cars would NOT be able to carry ANY signifigant amount of vehicle ammunition.

<M.Warren: Well... Like stated, the Engineer Repair Truck needs a specialized supply crate. Each E.R.T. can only spawn one of these crates at a time. If more than that is made, the last one will despawn/self destruct. This will prevent players from mass stockpiling these specialized crates.

Of course the Engineers are responsible for delivering the repairs. However I think main purpose of the crate is to specifically supply ammo only. This crate can be modified to only resupply 50%-75% of the total ammunition of a single vehicle.

Also alternatively, not every map needs to have an E.R.T. available. Just maps that only have armored units present, like Tanks and APC's.

The main reason why the E.R.T. isn't so sought after at this time is because there are not exactly many large maps out there. Why I say this is because, Al Kufrah Oilfields is rather small, Kashan Desert is just wide open terrain, and Fools Road usually ends up with plenty of infantry nearby to support the armor.

The best example and use of an E.R.T. would be on the map "The Battle for Qinling" is because of it's massive size and generally hilly and difficult terrain. As soon as we see larger maps with more limiting geography, then it'll become a blessing.

Matter of fact we have a new map being made called "Feyzabad" although it isn't complete yet, [R-DEV]CodeRedFox already makes it clear that he intends to make it hard to get around. This is exactly where the E.R.T. will shine the most. Imagine being in the middle of a valley road with your tank tracked from an I.E.D. you're certainly going to be looking forward to that E.R.T. vehicle.

But like stated, right now there isn't too much of a demand. It's not suprising. What I am emphasizing is the future and for things to come ahead of time. It's not going to hurt to be prepared.>

To help improve gameplay dynamics it is recommended to increase the amount of soldiers a RIB can carry to 8 people.

Sounds like a good idea.
PM Falkun (the dev team's odd's and end's coding bitch) to have this idea brought to light.

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

The M249 on the RIB (Rigid Inflatable Boat) has some minor graphic issues and an incorrect shot location.

Hopefully M249 will be replaced with a more suitable mounted weapon in the future (M240), as the current one is impossible to line up the sights properly. Also the RIB could probably use a replacement but is very low priority.

<M.Warren: Understood and noted. I have even attempted to tweak it in my PR BF2 editor myself. As simple as a task it is to line up the weapon properly it seems that it refuses to do so. I can certainly say that first hand.>

we're ready for Patrol Boats and Light Ships.

Good suggestion. Get modeling. Post your progress in the Community Modding forums like everyone else

<M.Warren: Insufficient 3D modeling resources and knowledge.>

The Lee-Enfield Sniper Rifle for the Insurgent and Militia forces do not have a bolt actuating sound, despite that the standard Lee-Enfield iron-sight counterpart does.

Known issue,
bug jaymz about this to fix it (he's tried fixing it he doesnt know why the fuck its not working)

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

The U.S. M9 and the M.E.C. MR-444 pistols do not have an idle "breathing" animation. However the British L9 and the Chinese QSZ-92 pistols do. Minor corrections will be needed to fix this situation.

Good observation,
PM Chuc this issue to get this fixed.

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

The TM62 mine used by MEC and Militia forces still do not have an equip sound active. After drawing the mine out for use you cannot hear any sound effects for the fuse / detonator being placed into the explosives carridge.

Known issue.
PM Jaymz to add that clicky sound.

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

Apparently Molotov Cocktails still have an effect on armor assets. However the damage is lessened, but this proceeds to injure the occupants of the vehicle. Seems odd for Molotov Cocktails to injure and/or kill it's occupants while behind a layer of armor. It is vague and undetermined if this was actually intended to occur or not.

If it is infact true that Molotov Cocktails are to effect armor assets, it would make better sense for it to cause damage to a vehicle and the occupants only after it is below 25% armor rating (health) or is disabled. Currently it seems awkward that a Molotov Cocktail would cause damage/harm to the vehicle or occupants while inside an unharmed and operational armor asset.

If it's possible to alter the effect of Molotov Cocktails against damaged armored vehicles when at 25% armor rating (health) or less, it would serve a more practical approach in the "ambushing" of armored vehicles. Otherwise as is, Molotov Cocktails still need some reevaluating.

Molotov's were never intended to do ANY damage to armor vehicles. Its an on going issue with the molotov's, the engine is very buggy with these things, feel free to give it a try and get them behaving correctly, hope you have a large stockpile of asprine your gonna need it.

<M.Warren: Ran out of aspirin.>

A majority of aircraft need to have the Pilot and/or Co-Pilot exit point relocated. There is a significant problem of aircraft colliding with the pilot while in flight or during ejection. This defeats the purpose of even trying to abandon an anotherwise compromised aircraft.

PM CAS117 about this one...

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer. Can I choke him yet anyway?>

Special reconnaissance units like Snipers and Spec Ops require a high level of subtlety. However, for the Sniper there is still a lack of a supressed sidearm that is otherwise necessary.

Disagree. Dont think Recon units should be engaging the enemy much to begin with - they should be giving intel to command and spotting units, only taking out high priority targets from a long range... dont think there is any need for them to use surpressed weapons... if the enemy is that close, that means your doing it wrong IMO. This is PR not Splinter Cell.

<M.Warren: Through continued use of Sniper kits, familiarization, utilization, communication and teamwork I still deem it necessary to the Sniper. Subtlety is a key aspect of a Special Operations soldier. In any enevitable situation, strange things happen. A stray soldier, another sniper, etc. This very rarely happens but does not justify ruling it out as a completely impossible occurace.

I am not asking the developers to enable me to dangle upsidedown from a rope with night vision goggles inside an elevator shaft. I am asking to outfit a kit with required items of the trade to be performed. As in a capable silenced pistol to nutralize an unsuspecting nearby potential threat, enabling the user the chance to sucessfully evade detection and relocate to a new and uncompromised location. Ultimately to offer continued intelligence to the team of enemy movements and positions.>

Highly suggest increasing the rate of fire of all Pistols as they're currently lacking the ability to fire in rapid succession. A players ability to mouse click far exceeds its actual shot output making for a very awkward "fire overlapping" situation. Mechanical limitations should far exceed biological potential, a human being cannot pull a trigger faster than a modern self-loading weapon can fire.

The governor on pistols was to restrict the unrealistic hyper-speed at which most players fired at. Pistols in v0.8 are currently the most deadly CQB weapon, I personally dont see a strong need to make them EVEN more deadly than they already are.

<M.Warren: See details mentioned below.>

Highly suggest increasing the rate of fire to all Assault Rifles, Carbines and Submachine guns as they're currently lacking the ability to fire in rapid succession. A players ability to mouse click far exceeds its actual shot output making for a very awkward "fire overlapping" situation. Mechanical limitations should far exceed biological potential, a human being cannot pull a trigger faster than a modern self-loading weapon can fire.

The governor on assault rifles was to restrict the unrealistic hyper-speed at which most players fired in single shot - often, there was little difference from rapid firing single shot to full auto. There is on going discussion about this amougst the dev team but its generally considered a balanced tradeoff to realistic representation of the capability of these weapons in a single-shot fire mode.

<M.Warren: As a resident of the United States of America, I do excersice my Second Amendment. I own an AK-47, SKS and an M-14... I myself can vouch on the proper use of infantry based weapons. I have a large respect for weapons as they both take life and preserve life. At times I become amazingly agravated when I am playing in-game and see a friendly soldier firing around main base like a twit. No restraint, no respect, no responsibility, all recklessness.

It is to my utmost displeasure to think that there is actually a governor that restricts the rate of fire in which a user can operate his/her firearm. This is not by any means realistic, despite the developers views on "accurate fire". It is a folly to force players to limit the functionality of weapons in a ficticious manner. If there are any limiting factors to be placed on a weapon, it is upon how fast a person can shoot it; this is determined by both the recoil and accuracy of the weapon. Only then can the operators ability to quickly recover the weapon and sufficiently control it after firing. The more professional and skilled user is, he/she will find that they can harness the abilities of the rifle and/or pistol much more efficiently.

A user of any weapon should be free to fire thier weapon as they desire. Conservatively or liberally. The user of the firearm determines it's effectiveness. If someone wants to fire liberally and sacrafice accuracy for rate of fire, then proceed to do so, but do it wisely and in close quarter situations where accuracy is impacted little and quantity is preferred. If someone wants to fire conservatively, then expect very few rounds down range and in exchange, expect accurate results over reckless use of weaponry.

Don't be discouraged if you see players spraying an enemy soldier on fully automatic. Although it may be looked down upon, but the cold hard truth of life is that a selector switch was made for a reason. This is a Military simulator, not a SWAT or Counter Terrorist organization attempting to rescue innocent lives at stake, where speed, accuracy and precision is the major outlying factor. There is no way that the BF2 engine will allow us to clear a room on the basis of the "double tap" theory. Two shots to the chest, and if that doesn't do it, then one shot to the head. This kind of accuracy cannot be accomplished in Project Reality or BF2. This is why CQB is a failing aspect in PR. It simply does not work as intended, and may never will. Hopefully this detail will be ultimately accepted, and the realization that firearms in game cannot be fully represented as they should be.

As mentioned before. The use of a govenor to limit the rate of fire is yet another step of Project Reality to break the behavior of a players in an ironic farcry to establish realism. The user of the weapon is the sole responsible being of it's use. People who are trained with weapons understand the virtues of controlled semi-automatic fire. Those who find themselves spraying bullets like lunatics with little restraint also find themselves dead. This is the major difference between a well trained soldier, and an insurgent that just crawled out of a hole in the ground.

Once again, the user defines the effectiveness of the weapon. Not the otherway around. Never should be. Hopefully PR will be stripped of this falsehood in the near future, this is yet another detail that I am very profound on. I may not know everything about computers, but the message I am trying to convey to you here is of a most serious nature. Firearms is what makes or breaks Project Reality.>

Recommend implementing some form of visual indication to aid a player in determining if his/her Squad Automatc Weapon (Automatic Rifleman) is in an assault state or a deployed state. Not all LMG's can be easily identified by the deployed bipod, as the M249 SAW for example has a majority of the rifle covering it and cannot be seen. Also the PKM has it's bipod constantly deployed as it's used for a handgrip. This may create some confusion and unwanted results in the middle of a combat situation.

Agreed this is needed, albeit its hard to shot hte state of a bipod since its at the front of the weapon and is rarely in sight of the viewpoint of the player. PKM would need a remodeling since its a vanilla bf2 model and the bipods cannot "fold up"

<M.Warren: Understood and noted.>

All shotguns placed in game have had thier accuracy level reduced to a questionable level. Currently it seems that the accuracy level on these shotguns completely defeats the purpose of even using the ironsights to aim at a target. Also the use of Slugshot ammunition over 00 Buckshot remains an issue. A shotgun with slugshot should atleast be able to hit a target with the same width of a soldiers chest cavity at 15 meters (50 feet.) frequently on average.

Agreed, shotguns need more accuracy to breach doors, but I do not think they should be used primarily in combat role, rather as a breaching tool. Maybe in future we can replace shotgun with more commonly used breaching tools.

<M.Warren: A gun is a gun, and a Shotgun is a gun. It can be used for hunting, it can be used for breaching doors, it can be used for blowing off locks and door hindges, and it definately can be used against the enemy.

I feel this is yet another instance that Project Reality uses an item improperly as a "work around" temporarily. Shotguns are an effective close quarters weapon. They were used for many many years. Even dating back in World War I as a way to clear enemy trenches. Just turns out that it worked so damn well that they used it in World War II, Vietnam, The Gulf War, and now. Goes to show that even to this day it remains effective and serves it's purpose.

Only reason why Project Reality looks down upon it is that everyone wants to use a Shotgun for it's true intended and most effective use. Not just blowing open locks on Korengal Valley. Just turns out that Project Reality doesn't want to have anything to do with the truth of the matter.

Just appears that it doesn't get any of the credit it deserves for it's purpose simply because it's too taboo for our gameplay. Which is a shame, and defeats it's origins. Makes no sense to me at all. None at all.>

Recoil and muzzle climb to all Assault Rifles, Carbines and Submachine guns seems odd and unnatural when firing a weapon in semi-automatic (Single Shot.) burst, and fully automatic modes. However, this visual representation of recoil is not entirely incorrect. It would be safe to say that a number of users may find themselves in a situation where they'll be saying to themselves "This feels strange, but I cannot exactly pinpoint where." if this is so, they maybe right. The main focus of this detail is primarily the awkward "scooping" or "dipping" motion the weapons have recently taken on. This also negatively impacts consistant followup on shots fired in rapid succession.

A. Semi-automatic mode (Single shot.) - When normally firing the weapon in semi-automatic mode it proceeds to force the rifle straight back against the users shoulder, then pivot up slightly from normal muzzle climb and internal mechanics. This is because of the recoil of the rifle itself from firing, then proceeding to pivot up against the users shoulder because of pneumatic and kinetic energy being dispersed through the weapon and user. However, the user normally DOES NOT need to "fight" or "compensate" for muzzle climb as severely as it is currently represented in Project Reality in semi-automatic mode.

B. Burst and fully-automatic mode - When normally firing the weapon in semi-automatic mode it proceeds to force the rifle straight back against the users shoulder, then pivot up slightly from normal muzzle climb and internal mechanics. This is because of the recoil of the rifle itself from firing, then proceeding to pivot up against the users shoulder because of pneumatic and kinetic energy being dispersed through the weapon and user.However, the user must now actively "fight" or "compensate" for both recoil and muzzle climb as the weapon operates at a consistant rate in burst and fully automatic mode. This is the only time where the "scooping" or "dipping" motion with the front sight is an acceptable occurance when firing the rifle in bursts or fully automatic mode.

To explain this as simply as possible... The recoil of weapons fired in semi-automatic mode should be viewed as previously seen in v0.75 where it recoils and has a slight muzzle climb. But weapons fired in burst mode or fully-automatic mode should have this "scooping" or "dipping" motion after the firing is done. This will simulate the soldier making compensations to counteract the recoil and muzzle climb of the weapon while discharging consecutive rounds.

Changes will be made to recoil on Assault rifles, they are simplified in v0.8 as deviation was the #1 priority and recoil was not heavily modified.

<M.Warren: Understood and noted.>

The U.S.M.C. and British plastic "restrainer" could use a more practical sound. Rather than a metallic clank upon striking the target, instead replace with a "cloth" or "thud" like sound.
This alternative "clothy" or "thud" like sound would be abit more practical. As if the soldier is actually striking the target with his fist and provide a generic sound that can be logically associated with almost any surface as opposed to the current and irregular metallic "clank".

Agreed needs to be more material sounds, very very very low priority,
PM Jaymz for your suggestion

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

The Insurgent Collaborator could use a more refined approach when using the cell phone. Rather than the dialing the phone and having to rely on a normal view to call in for a Morter Strike, I suggest an alternate method.

This method would be to devise a new aiming mode, this mode would have the Civilian Collaborator look directly at his Cell Phone screen and it would produce an image of the target he's trying to call a Mortar Strike on. This would be used to simulate the Civilian Collaborator using the "digital camera" function on his Cell Phone and allow a minor 2x to 4x zoom.

Unknown if this is possbile and not really worth the effort of doing probably.

<M.Warren: Understood and noted.>

Recommend refinement of the "CPR Resusitation" animation for the Combat Medic. Rather than using CPR with one single push; see if it is possible to have the animation cycle repeatedly. For example, the Engineers repair ability with the wrench. While repairing with the wrench, the animation will continuously cycle. If this can somehow be implemented into the "CPR Resusitation" animation we would see a more realistic approach.

While this new animation occurs, a small invisible object is theoretically "fired" similar to dropping a field dressing on the ground to shake the body free. This animation will cycle continuously as it "fires" an invisible and harmless object repeatedly each time a CPR chest compression takes place in syncronization.

various problems make this unlikely, although there still might be some refinements to the CPR, were mostly happy with it and it is what it is.... a handy "tool" that basically makes a BF2 bug work favourably in our advantage sometimes.

<M.Warren: Understood and noted. Would be nice to have a more fluid and repeating animation though. But it'll do.>

Destroyable runways should be capable of being repaired by a shovel instead of a wrench. Currently using a wrench to repair a runway is rather awkward. Slightly increasing the time to repair the runway in exchange for the abundant shovel would be an acceptable trade off.

IMO Runways should not be destroyable and should be located NO WHERE NEAR the area of operations, unless its an assymetrical scenario such as Al Basrah.

<M.Warren: Understood and noted. However, I didn't feel inclined to make such a bold statement as to say that we should have an invincible runway. At the time, it seemed a completely impractical statement for me to make. Was suprised to hear this response actually.>

The Engineer wrench tool could use an animation while it's being utilized. It is understandable if the wrench itself was hidden to cover up the "midair wrench turning" look, but a visual representation must be in place other than the repair icon.

A pratical solution to this should be an animation that allows the player to see the wrench being turned itself. But the particular work being performed is not viewable. As in the player can see the hands of the Engineer and the wrench handle being turned, but the head of the wrench itself is centered below "off screen" and is otherwise not viewable by the player.

I think instead of wasting more time making the wrench look more visually appealing we should search for ways to remove it completely and incorporating automated repair systems, ie where a player drops off a "box" and the box does the repair work.

<M.Warren: Well... I don't know about automatic repairs. It may be suprising, but I felt the default BF2 "wrenching" action to be sufficient. It wasn't till after I played standard BF2 to realize that's what we had all along before the animation change. So basically, it was fine and dandy as it was to begin with. Atleast in my opinion.>

The Medic bag could use an animation while it's being utilized. It is understandable if the Medic bag itself is able to be viewed by the player, but adding a visual representation should be in place other than the First Aid icon.

A pratical solution to this should be an animation that allows the player to see the Medic bag itself. But the particular work being performed is not entirely viewable. As in the player can see the left hand of the Medic and the Medic bag being held, but the right hand is holding a small roll of medical tape which is centered below "off screen" and is otherwise partially viewable by the player.

Adding a simple cycling gesture of the right hand wrapping tape around an unviewable object would be acceptable. There then would be no need for addtional sound effects as the application of First Aid is already represented by the sound of tape unrolling. An acceptable alternative example of this is the BF1942 Medical First Aid application animation.

PM CHuc your suggestion hes lead animator on he dev team

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

Friendly Fire is still a continued issue in Project Reality. Sadly, nothing has been done to help prevent this from happening. And so the discussion remains open ended and unconfirmed but it is clear that there is still a need to provide communications over the radio of when a friendly fire incident has taken place.

putting "Friendly Fire" radio command on commo rose is a good idea, just need to stick it in there somewhere, possibly doubling up roger/negative into one place

<M.Warren: Sounds good to me. That'll do just as good or better than the picture I provided. Glad to hear it.>

When the Co-Pilot is using the FLIR interface in a Light Scout Chopper, it should act like the Co-Pilot is using a G.L.T.D. while in the cockpit. Of course the only difference is that the screen is black and white to simulate looking through infared optics.

Good suggestion
PM dbzao to get this implemented

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

As of the latest v0.8 patch, some of the sounds made over the Radio net for certain teams are different. The largest issue is the "Affirmative, a vehicle is on the way" radio call in particular. Although the radio call itself is not an issue, however the background sound has some intresting side-effects.

For those that are Piloting aircraft and still getting used to the new warning sound indicators, players will notice that the "Affirmative, a vehicle is on the way" background noise sounds nearly exact to the warning sound produced when you're being locked on. I must admit that even I had mistaken myself for being locked on more than several times.

A player that is using the "Affirmative, a vehicle on the way" radio call does not sound the same as one that is received from being broadcasted over the net. This is most easily noticed while playing as the British team on "The Battle for Qinling" map when another player uses the "Affirmative, a vehicle on the way" radio call. You'll see for yourself the next time you are flying a jet and freak out behind the controls thinking an enemy jet is behind you.

Not heard of this before, thanks
PM jaymz about this issue

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

Add Need Fire Support to GLTD T-rose
Add Need Close Air Support to GLTD T-rose

Good suggestions
PM dbzao for these

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

Prevention of Squad Leaders and Commanders from spawning or selecting kits other than what is mission critical.

Disagree, let them choose what they want to spawn with, most will gravitate towards the officer kit when they realize how mission critical it is. Plus there would be problems in implements this properly (Same with limiting medics).

<M.Warren: Understood and noted. Shame this cannot be altered. I find it Ironic that 70% of the time the guy that gets elected SL already has a Optical Rifleman kit... Which is almost identical to an Officer kit to begin with. But the Officer kit is still better, go figure.>

Stinger and IGLA AA missle defense system. Currently these AA missle defense systems seem to be lacking the black backdrop while manning the gunner position. When a person sits in these AA missle emplacements, the player will notice the outline of the goggles with no outer "black edge" to simulate looking through an aiming system.

Known issue, may or may not be fixed in v0.85, may require new AA assets or new target reticle. This has to do with a fix for the z buffering issue, which makes some things such as vehicle HUDs screwy (AAV, APC passengers, etc).

<M.Warren: Understood and noted.>

Maps such as "Fools Road" and "Assault on Mestia" require team orientated asset location markers for the Militia faction for all stationary gun emplacements.

Agreed.
PM Chuc about getting new icons attached to these vehicles

<M.Warren: This matter has not been discussed or resolved through the associated developer.>

The stationary British / U.S. Vulcan AA gun needs significant graphic adjustments. Rather than the smoke escaping the barrel and proceeding out and away from it while firing, instead it is directed back at the operator. This makes using the AA Vulcan gun extremely hard to utilize, not only does it lack an aiming reticule to fire at targets with an acceptable accuracy level, it's inhibited by this unusual enveloping barrel smoke.

Fixed for v0.85 I believe?

<M.Warren: Hope so.>

Recommend reducing the maximum allowable sphere of influence for Firebases and Bunkers (Forward Outpost.) be placed at 300 meters instead. The current limitation of 400 meters prevents adequate deployment of bunkers on small maps.

Disagree. Its precisely because of those small maps that the range should remain small. IMO Small maps should NOT have large amounts of Forward Outposts aka spawn points, as it turns the game into a spam fest. The idea behind 400m rule was to force spawnpoints to be spread out quite far, making them major "objectives" to destroy, and once destroyed can be assured there is no other fixed spawns in sigfigant area. Although this is up for discussion in dev team, I dont see major issue with the way it currently is, Small maps is not an issue IMO and should not be a factor as most maps are 2km sized.

<M.Warren: I see your point. But cutting it down to 300 meters would probably be the "sweet spot" we're looking for. I feel the 400 meter idea is just abit excessive. I see players banging thier head on the wall going "WTF? I'm STILL not far away enough? Give me a break" kind of a deal. It's probably tipping more on the "annoying" scale than practical.>

Highly recommend disabling destructable runways in Training mode. This will aid players in being able to focus on taking off and landing in a more suitable environment without the need to worry if it's destroyed. It is destroyed most frequently by friendly players firing weapons from thier aircraft while on the runway rather than an actual enemy attack.

Agreed, except I think there should NEVER be destroyable runways, in fact I think there should never be runways near an area of operations but thats an entirely different topic...

<M.Warren: I understand your perspective on how a airfield should never be remotely near a combat zone. Just like an aircraft carrier should never be 1000 meters or less off of a hostile shore but it still has to occur. But we both know that isn't exactly possible as we only have so much room to operate.>

When a player requests support from an Engineer, the icon no longer seems to be displayed on the Map or Minimap interface. However when requesting ammunition from a Rifleman or First Aid from a Medic it is always displayed. It cannot be confirmed or denied but it is unclear if Engineer icons are supposed to appear or not for users operating inside of vehicles.

Known Issue, Not sure why this is no longer working. Needs more testing

<M.Warren: Good to know it's being investigated.>

As time goes on it's becoming increasingly noticeable to myself that there is a general lack of valuable flora in game.

Agreed, however check out Korengal for an example of how flora can be done RIGHT. OGT and Qinling are very good examples of very poor flora. Check out Sangin for an idea on how it IS possible to get very good and useful flora in a 4km map. Expect much more USEFUL, FULLY RENDERED flora coming in the future, Rhino has made some progress in regard to this, most new maps will be using this, maybe some older maps retrofitted as well.

<M.Warren: Who could argue against having some more bush to hide in?>

On the "Muttrah City" map, the U.S.M.C. side cannot reload any of thier APC's or Boats. The Command Post is too far above the waterlevel on the U.S.S. Essex in order to resupply these crafts. Nor has there been any repair/rearm facilities implemented on the deployment ramp for the APC's or Boats to return to as an alternative method.

Known issue, solution will be there in v0.85

<M.Warren: Understood and noted.>

On the "Al Basrah" map, there are 2 different versions of clay/cement housing which are generally seen in rural and the suburban areas. These clay/cement houses are 2 stories high and were previously destructable as seen in the v0.7+ builds. But, this is no longer the case as these structures cannot be destroyed by any known explosive. Anti-tank missles, M2 Slams, C4 Explosives and even shells from armor assets cannot punch a hole in these structures.

Al Basrah (and other maps) crashing after each round has been finally nailed down to the high networkable object count on the map. If a map has too many networkables (which includes players, vehicles, ammo caches, destroyable houses, basically anything player can affect physically) then it will cause a memory overload and hangs on the next map load.

So we went through and removed hundreds of networkables, while still trying to retain networkables that affected gameplay considerable. Although its disappointing these buildings are no longer destroyable, Al Basrah does retain a considerable amount of destroyable buildings, unfortunately the 2 story ones use up to 20-30 networkables each, because each "segment" of the house is a networkable in its own right, whereas the single story houses as seen on kashan are just 1 networkable.

This discovery is a hard taught lesson and will affect future static creation, esp when desiging destroyable statics. "Lego" style destroyable statics are simply not an option in the BF2 engine it seems, unless the memory crash due to high networkable counts can be resolved (and trust me many different attempts were tried to get around this crash).

<M.Warren: Al Basrah is a map to be remembered. It will certainly be enjoyable to play without a couple of destroyable buildings. It's definately worth the sacrafice.>

It has come to my attention that there are several issues reguarding aircraft on the "Battle for Qinling" map. It is quite apparent now that the problems resulting from aircraft handling or weight is not the issue, but more of an alternate matter. After continued research and repeated landing attempts it has now come down to the realization that the airfield runways presented on the British and Chinese teams are beyond inadequate.

Agreed. IMO this map plays out much better in AAS16 configuration with no jet aircraft.

<M.Warren: ........................ Next time we're playing as the British, I'm sending you out to the middle of the lake in a boat to deploy tripflares to signal the Chinese forces to discuss this topic in game.>

However, your free to PM Rhino your thoughts on how to implement a more realistic airport configuration, although dont expect much from him :P

<M.Warren: Definately going to have to discuss it over a pint or twelve. =D>

There is a minor problem while accessing the "Deployment -> Join Internet -> Update" server list. After the list updates it still displays Training Servers in the "Deployment" server list. This creates and issue as the "Training" server list is supposed to be accessed through a different menu selection to begin with.
There has been several occurances where players had joined one of these servers and had no clue they were actually on a training server.

Agree this is something that needs to be improved upon, currently dont have a solution but Ancientman is continuing to think of ways to make the browser bend to his will...

<M.Warren: Understood and noted.>


Looks like I do have a sense of humor even while on the forums. Hell, I didn't even think it was possible. =P

[jbgeezer]

Sticky it! Really I agree on wverything here(tokk me a long time to read to)

[[R-DEV]Jaymz]

Excellent response Warren.

regarding molotovs : Fixed for 0.85

regarding pistol/rifle RoF restriction : Will be lowered to a more realistic value for 0.85

[Ghost1800]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Jaymz

regarding molotovs : Fixed for 0.85

******* YES!!!