project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > PR:BF2 Mod Forums > PR:BF2 Feedback
15 Jul 2019, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Developer Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
PR:BF2 Feedback Post your feedback on the current Project Reality release (including SinglePlayer).

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2019-05-28, 18:28   #11
SemlerPDX

SemlerPDX's Avatar
Default Re: few words to say

Quote:
Originally Posted by camo View Post
Not sure I've seen a post that combined such self victimization with patently false information on that level in a while.
^Well said. I thought I walked into a Flat Earth debate there for a second...

SemlerPDX is offline
Last edited by SemlerPDX; 2019-05-28 at 18:29.. Reason: added quote since it started new page
Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-29, 04:31   #12
[R-DEV]​Rhino
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member

Rhino's Avatar
Default Re: few words to say

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolt_Yugoslav View Post
I always found it absolutely nonsensical how tank-combat here is based on literally stoping all tanks, exiting the tank and going up a hill to peek over it and to "listen". That's just hilarious!
Tank combat should be mobile.
If you have any suggestions on how to stop players using that tactic you are more than welcome to use the suggestions forums. This is not a tactic we (the devs) built into the game it is one players have made for themselves.

In the BF2 engine we can't simulate the long startup-shutdown procedure a real tank engine would have, that we have thought of that is possible that is, or make it so it takes ages to get in/out of a tank, and short of either making tanks silent so players can't listen for them, or making it so players can not exit tanks after getting in them, I can't see how we could stop players from using this tactic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolt_Yugoslav View Post
This is of course one of the things that could be fixed (from what I remember), tanks could for example have a semi-aimbot that you activate to simulate fire control assistance. It could be somewhat delayed and only provided to the most modern tanks to stil keep balance and flavour alive.
I don't know where you get your information from but we can not make a decent FCS for BF2, if we could we would have obviously added it. Not that a FCS would have stopped the whole players getting out to listen for tanks anyways.

While yes there have been attempts at making FCS, like this one which is probably what you're thinking of:
Then this was achieved by attaching "Laser Targets" to all land vehicles (vBF2 style) and then having the tank gun's HUD (not the actual turret or barrel itself), and projectile, lock onto the enemy tank like a missile, and the tank shell would behave like a missile while flying through the air so if the enemy tank suddenly stopped while the projectile was in the air, the projectile wouldn't carry on its original course but would guide itself into the target, like a missile. Without that guidance then the projectile wouldn't hit the target unless pointed manually in the right direction beforehand like it is now.

The worst part of this system is that all Smart Air to Ground weapons, such as Laser Guided Bombs and Maverik Missiles, would automatically lock onto any enemy target they flew overhead, WITHOUT the need of anyone on the ground to lase the target. If you played vBF2 at all, this is how the Mavericks were setup on the F-15E and the co-pilot controlling them could automatically lock them onto enemy targets. You can see it in this video here at 3:15: https://youtu.be/gvYb6Xi62xk?t=181

Only in PR, if we added Laser Targets to every vehicle, the pilot/co-pilot wouldn't even need to point a targeting pod in the general direction of the target, they can just fly over the target and automatically lock-on like they would for locking onto a SOFLAM Lase, but they would be on every vehicle and they would only lock onto enemy vehicles.

Also FYI we can't give a different type of "target" for just the FCS even if we went with this, as BF2 is limited to only three types of target. "Heat" which is what AA missiles lock onto and are attached to jets/choppers, "Lase" which is what Air to Ground weapons lock onto, and "Unique" which you can't actually attach to a vehicle/object like the other two, and are only used by self-targets weapons such as Wire Guided ATGM such as the Erxy etc.

So again, stop with the "Devs are just Lazy" BS, thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLA_CA View Post
There's no need to justify yourself, people will always resort to bitching when they don't get what they want. Oh, Russia doesn't steamroll every map every time with thousands of tanks?
Better blame the DEVs for not making Russia stronk.
ye, I just find it hard to ignore.

Rhino is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-29, 09:53   #13
Stolt_Yugoslav
Default Re: few words to say

Quote:
Without that guidance then the projectile wouldn't hit the target unless pointed manually in the right direction beforehand like it is now.
Exactly.
You'd have to manually adjust it to compensate for any movement of the enemy tank but you'd at least have something compensating and allowing you to keep the aim on the tank constantly until you got on a bit of flat ground, you swithc off the guidance and you correct the aim in half a second and then fire off.

That's exactly how a guidance computer works, except it also calculates that aforementioned distance ahead of the target which I don't think would be possible within BF2 limitations.* (*But externally, yes).

Nobody is asking for guided missiles and nobody is calling for a 100% hitrate nor for an exact copy of guidance computers.

Quote:
"Only in PR, if we added Laser Targets to every vehicle, the pilot/co-pilot wouldn't even need to point a targeting pod in the general direction of the target, they can just fly over the target and automatically lock-on like they would for locking onto a SOFLAM Lase, but they would be on every vehicle and they would only lock onto enemy vehicles."
I gotta say man, I never liked laser guided CAS anyway. It's just too op for the scale we are simulating, though the new roles it creates are cool! But I didn't know you couldn't create different groups of laser targets that weren't affecting certain other items.

Anyway as you know there are aimbots for BF2. Why couldn't an aimbot interface just be adapted for tank gunners? I think the aimbots can differentiate between different types of targets, usually going for human targets. I assume it could be programmed to go only for vehicle types too?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CeEy44JA8c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf59sEhflb8

^ Just the first two links on google, the first one you have the ability to choose target type/location.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqxI7Ws1u7s

^Here's something far smoother that works for the "unique" signal that you mentioned. It could be adopted for this one. With the switch of a button you go from manual aim to a "TV camera" gun system that doesn't zoom. Hopefully the projectile fire would always be an unguided one. I don't know if the later is possible but with some fiddling I'm sure some solutions could ba achieved. Heck, this aimbot even seems to have that aspect of being able to calculate the targets speed and account for aiming ahead of it if you wanted an OP system.

Plus it wouldn't be that spastic since the turret has a limited turn ratio anyway.
PS: Don't download these, they are all most likely spyware filled.
PPS: What all these tools do (since they are external) is that they somehow use data that BF2 puts out and then feed inputs back into it. Now that you have your own game you could probably incorporate an external code into the outer shell of the full program.


Quote:
I can't see how we could stop players from using this tactic.
By encouraging mobile warfare through the adaptation of aimbots *

There are some problems with this but I imagine they could be fixed. For example if you could just press a button to auto-find targets then camping would be even more powerful but this is easily solved by not allowing the aimbot (Fire control system) to target anything except if the curser already isn't on it or close to it.

Other issues I imagine could also be resolved.

But I'm not here to argue changes tbh :P I'm far past caring. Just I write something every year or so and came over now to check.
Stolt_Yugoslav is offline
Last edited by Stolt_Yugoslav; 2019-05-29 at 10:15..
Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-29, 13:47   #14
[R-DEV]​Rhino
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member

Rhino's Avatar
Default Re: few words to say

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolt_Yugoslav View Post
Exactly.
You'd have to manually adjust it to compensate for any movement of the enemy tank but you'd at least have something compensating and allowing you to keep the aim on the tank constantly until you got on a bit of flat ground, you swithc off the guidance and you correct the aim in half a second and then fire off.

That's exactly how a guidance computer works, except it also calculates that aforementioned distance ahead of the target which I don't think would be possible within BF2 limitations.* (*But externally, yes).

Nobody is asking for guided missiles and nobody is calling for a 100% hitrate nor for an exact copy of guidance computers.
......

You totally misunderstood what I said...

Having the HUD snap onto the target but having to manually aim without a HUD icon showing you where you actually are aiming would make hitting a target basically pure luck as you wouldn't know where your cannon was pointing, other than by the centre of your screen without any crosshair showing you where that was, so it would be like hip firing with a rifle...

And of course no one is asking for self-guided tank rounds, I'm saying that is what that solution basically was...

BTW, I know how FCS work. I've been on the Challenger 2 simulators at Bovington twice, with the instructors teaching us how to use the FCS etc and as such I have a much better idea than most of how they work, and that btw isn't how they work. You do not have to manually compensate for the target. Most of the FCS is firstly turret stabilisation which helps you get the crosshairs on the target, then you lase the target for range, which automatically elevates the gun for the correct range and leads the shot as well depending on both your speed and enemy targets speed. You can also set the FCS lase to basically lock on a track a moving target so you do not have to follow it manually but that is a little tricky to do. This is just the CR2 mind you and each tank is slightly diffrent but the basic principles are the same for most more MBTs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolt_Yugoslav View Post
By encouraging mobile warfare through the adaptation of aimbots *
Yes, aimbots for all!

Also as I said, a decent FCS or "Aimbots" wouldn't stop people from cutting the engines of their tanks and listening for the enemy as being able to aim more easily at a moving target won't help in determining where the enemy is. Providing wallhacks would thou if that is something you also think we should give players along with aimbots?

Rhino is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-29, 15:18   #15
Stolt_Yugoslav
Default Re: few words to say

You're the one misreading my post but it doesn't matter. I don't care to continue the discussion.

Let's just say that I literally point out that
Quote:
" That's exactly how a guidance computer works, except it also calculates that aforementioned distance ahead of the target which I don't think would be possible within BF2 limitations.* (*But externally, yes)."
but you don't have the comprehension to process it!

reply:

Quote:
You do not have to manually compensate for the target
I don't really care enough about the game or its future anymore. I'm just pointing out to the OP that there were creative ways around various problems and this is one that always made me lul a bit.

Quote:
Also as I said, a decent FCS or "Aimbots" wouldn't stop people from cutting the engines of their tanks and listening for the enemy as being able to aim more easily at a moving target won't help in determining where the enemy is.
It wouldn't but then they would be easy stationary targets (with the "FC which you have to manually adjust for speed") while a moving column of tanks wouldn't be.
Stolt_Yugoslav is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-29, 16:52   #16
[R-CON]​mectus11
PR:BF2 Contributor

mectus11's Avatar
Default Re: few words to say

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolt_Yugoslav View Post
You're the one misreading my post but it doesn't matter. I don't care to continue the discussion.
lmao nice

mectus11 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-29, 18:28   #17
SemlerPDX

SemlerPDX's Avatar
Default Re: few words to say

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolt_Yugoslav View Post
Let's just say that I literally point out that but you don't have the comprehension to process it!
Now tell us how gravity isn't real, and it's just density.


(I love these Flat Earth videos!! So funny!! From the peak of Mt. Stupid - the Dunning–Kruger based righteous incredulity FTW )

SemlerPDX is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-29, 22:18   #18
[R-DEV]​Rhino
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member

Rhino's Avatar
Default Re: few words to say

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolt_Yugoslav View Post
You're the one misreading my post but it doesn't matter. I don't care to continue the discussion.

Let's just say that I literally point out that but you don't have the comprehension to process it!
lol ye, me explaining how screwed up Mosquil's FCS would be if the projectile didn't lock on to the target would make it so you didn't know where you were aiming since your HUD would be pointing in a totally irrelevant place to where your turret/barrel was (and not in a way that compensates for range or speed) and would just make it 1000x harder to hit than the manual setup we have now, and you thinking that is "exactly how the FCS should work" is me misunderstanding you? Right...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolt_Yugoslav View Post
I'm just pointing out to the OP that there were creative ways around various problems and this is one that always made me lul a bit.
You have no idea how much time has been put into finding "creative ways around various problems", which I have demonstrated with one example of how Mosquil tried to do an FCS and that is far more than just some person with no clue what he is talking about saying "you can do it this way even thou I have no f*cking clue about coding or the limitations of the BF2 engine".

You act like somehow we don't want an FCS for our tanks or that we simply lack the will to develop one yet that is not the case, we have attempted many different ways of implementing an FCS as just one example and all simply do not work better than the current system we have and adding an aimbot to the mod isn't a solution either as for starters, it wouldn't work anything like a real FCS would work, even if we did spend all the time on integrating one so it could only be used on tanks etc, which isn't at all easy when it is basically a 3rd party memory hack that works outside the confines of the engine...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolt_Yugoslav View Post
It wouldn't but then they would be easy stationary targets (with the "FC which you have to manually adjust for speed") while a moving column of tanks wouldn't be.
I love your logic so much. What in the hell then is the problem with hitting stationary targets as it is now? We basically have no drop on tank rounds to simulate an FCS lasing for the range before firing (and the distances in PR aren't very relevant for one either), all you need to do is point and shoot at the target which is exactly the same as you would do with a full FCS. An FCS is there to help with hitting moving targets (as well as ranging which as I said, we simulate with basically no drop on tank rounds).

Do you think an FCS in tanks means the tank automatically points its gun at a target? As if you, do then you should really do some research into how one really works as that is not the case... Gunners still need to aim manually on a target for the FCS to work. There are slight exceptions like the T-90's ability to detect a laser being aimed at it and it can turn its turret and fire a shot off towards where it detected the incoming laser automatically without any/much input from the gunner but that sort of thing are rare exceptions and the main FCS requires the gunner to aim at and designate a target for the FCS to work.

I suggest you watch this video here from 19:35 and you might learn something: https://youtu.be/WDs5oQW1vNA?t=1176

Rhino is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-30, 00:36   #19
Murphy

Murphy's Avatar
Default Re: few words to say

So someone can't aim and wants aim assist? There are plenty of games out there with "FCS" style shooting, it started with Halo back on Xbox and is pretty standard for console shooters. Honestly, if you have any problems hitting targets with a tank you need to practice aiming, they are akin to snipers with HEIT/AP/HEAT rounds and a machine gun for lawls.

Instead of looking dumb on the forums have you tried gettin gud?

Murphy is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-30, 11:05   #20
Stolt_Yugoslav
Default Re: few words to say

Quote:
it wouldn't work anything like a real FCS would work,
Since when do you care about how things work in real life as compared to what gameplay they force?
Besides as I tried to explain there would be ways to *limit* the aimbot to only stick to targets at or close to the cursor. But you again seem to willingly fucking ignore shit I tell you.


Quote:
What in the hell then is the problem with hitting stationary targets as it is now?
I don't know what kind of 24/7 PR trained gunner you're rolling with but most if not all of my gunners want me to grind to a complete halt before they fire at a target that's more than 300 meters away and mostly even less than that.

Obviously in the term "FC" I'm also including stabilizer for a FC without one would be as useless as a car without tires.
Stolt_Yugoslav is offline
Last edited by Stolt_Yugoslav; 2019-05-30 at 11:15..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 22:15.