Project Reality v0.8 Improvement Compilation

[M.Warren]

Project Reality v0.8 Improvement Compilation Revision v3.0

Be warned... The information provided in here is of substantially large and is not intended for light readers. This content is primarily aimed towards Project Reality Developers, Contributors, Public Relations, Moderators and hardcore member enthusiasts. All details were kept as breif and descriptive as possible. This list had taken me 48 hours (More or less and does not include the time spent playing rounds.) to construct out of my own free time since the release of the v0.8 build. Including the 5 hours it took me to load the pictures on photobucket, provide links, referances and check to make sure everything was structured properly to be ready to post on this Forum. I hope this goes to good use as this compilation was made in all seriousness to better Project Reality.

This expansive list was accumulated by numerous ideas, concepts, bugs and/or issues that was jotted down in a simple text file extending back to the v0.6 build. At the same time it was necessary to address multiple gameplay ideas and situations that are of noteable importance including the latest v0.809 build aswell. All previous data, feedback or suggestions were removed or updated to coincide with the current gameplay dynamics where applicable.

Also, this list was checked in accordance with PR rules and guidelines with the intent to avoid the potential chance of repeating previously suggested ideas and/or concepts. The chance of this occurance is unlikely but not impossible. In the event that a previously suggested idea and/or concept be repeated, please keep in mind that the subject of the matter may be similar however the specifics of the details may be significantly different. Thusly creating a newer or more plausible approach to the aforementioned situation.

It's been noted that the PR Forums has been restructured and broken down into subcategories. However, a list this large is probably best suited to remain as a "compilation" of various aspects for simplicity of viewing. At the same time, the PR Suggestions Forum generally attracts a larger amount of viewer traffic over other subsections. Thusly a prime location to get the valuable opinions and perspectives of other members.

Table of Contents:

I. ------- Aircraft - Jets
II. ------ Aircraft - Helicopters
III. ----- Vehicles - Armored
IV. ------ Vehicles - Standard
V. ------- Vehicles - Water
VI. ------ Soldier - Weapons
VII. ----- Soldier - Tools
VIII. ---- Team - Communication
IX.------- Team - Assets, Squad Leaders and Commanders
X. ------- Modes of Gameplay
XI. ------ Maps and The Minimap
XII. ----- Human Interface

The following list has been simplified to be easier on the eyes compared to previous Improvement Compilation posts. The breakdown for these sections are as follows:

A. Major / Minor - (This is the breakdown of the particular topic in relation to level of importance.)

1. Major topics are of a greater importance to gameplay dynamics and/or situations.
2. Minor topics are of a lesser importance to gameplay dynamics and/or situations.

B. Feedback / Suggestion - (This is the breakdown of the particular topic in relation to its situational origin.)

1. Feedback is derived by opinions and concepts to improve already existing gameplay dynamics and/or situations.
2. Suggestions are derived by opinions and concepts to improve potential gameplay dynamics and/or situations.

New Feedback, Suggestions and Updates will be named "Additions, Reevaluations and/or Updates" and will be marked in bold lettering to emphasize this new content.

And, so it begins ladies and gentlemen...



------------------------------ Start of List ------------------------------

I. Aircraft - Jets

1. (Minor Feedback)
The GR4 Tornado needs to have the scroll menu in the bottom right hand cornor of the Pilot seat screen removed. Currently shows 4 blank slots when switching weapons or using the scroll wheel.

Here is a sample picture of the previously mentioned situation.

Current Issue:
British Tornado GR4 Weapon Selection Box Issue



2. (Minor Feedback)
The GR4 Tornado needs to have the Co-Pilot rear seat ambient sounds changed. Curently ambient communications are heard in the German language, replace with radio chatter sounds from the primary Pilot seat to coincide more with it's country of origin.



3. (Minor Feedback)
The U.S. A-10 "Warthog" close air support jet seems to still be hounded by directional control issues. Minor control adjustments are required.

As previously seen in the v0.7+ build, it had veered heavily to the right while taxiing, taking off, landing and during flight. Currently a similar problem exists, however instead of veering to the right it now veers slightly to the left. Not as much of a significant problem as before, but it still needs additional attention and refinement.



4. (Minor Feedback)
The Chinese PLA J-10 aircraft needs some minor HUD adjustments made. While utilizing the "bomb" interface, the numerical values of Speed and Altitude are offset slightly to the left and are not centered in thier appropriate boxes.

Here is a sample picture of the previously mentioned situation.

Current Issue:
Chinese J-10 Bombing HUD Interface Issue



5. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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). The pilots of these aircraft often run out of time before ever having a chance to collect thier bearings and head back to the combat zone and resultantly end up bleeding to death and/or dying needlessly. Usually this happens on accident or in the middle of a dogfight. This occurance has also been significantly overlooked for quite some time now and no information pretaining to it's correction or possible solutions have been made.

Primarily maps such as "Kashan Desert" and "The Battle of Qinling" face the greatest issue of this situation.



6. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.

This current bombing view arc limits the Co-Pilot as follows:
A. When targets are being approached by the aircraft it is difficult to search and designate a laser target in time by the Co-Pilot.
B. When targets are being overflown by the aircraft it is difficult to maintain track the target as the limited arc inhibits the Co-Pilot.

Realistically modern aircraft that are dropping laser guided bombs have a significantly larger view arc, especially while facing the rear of the aircraft. To get a taste of the amount of view an Fighter-Bomber Co-Pilot should see is something along the lines of this. Notice the significant angle where the aircraft is looking behind itself. This is something that is not occuring as it should in Project Reality. This video was taken from a British Tornado, the same aircraft seen in game as of this moment.

Here is a sample video of the previously mentioned situation.

YouTube - British Tornado Jet & Laser Guided Bomb

The below pictures helps identify these problems. The Red lines signify the current lack of sufficient view arc for laser guided bombs targeting ability. The Blue lines signify the critical minimum view arc for practical laser guided bomb targeting. The Green lines signify the most adequate view arc for laser guided bombs and proper operation.

Here is several sample pictures of the previously mentioned situation.

Current Issue and Improved Solution:
Fighter-Bomber Guided Bomb Long Area View

Current Gameplay:
Fighter-Bomber Guided Bomb Wide Area View
<Note: The green lines in this picture are an exception. They depict the current view width of the Co-Pilot bomber's seat and is at an acceptable level. The left and right movements do not need to be altered any furthur.>



7. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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 will help prevent players from flying low to the ground and using Laser Guided Bombs to carpet bomb enemy bases or runways. Creating a 100 - 200 meter delay before the bombs are armed for detonation would be acceptable. If it is deemed by the developers for the Co-Pilot to utilize the Laser Guided Bombs without the assitance of a spotter, then there will have to be alterations made so this can be possible as the Co-Pilot cannot currently lase targets himself.

Bombs that are dropped at an altitude less than 100 meters above the target will damage the aircraft.



8. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.



9. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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. To refine and explain this more theroughly, it needs to have the simulated "applied break take-offs" removed. These "applied break take-offs" are simply put as when the Pilot is about to take off from an airstrip and he throttles the aircraft engines to maximum before the aircraft is actually begins to move. This cannot and should never be associated to VTOL forms of aircraft. The current "applied break take-offs" completely defeat the purpose and essence of the Harriers key advantages of agility and accelleration characteristics at the loss of a potentially higher top speed.

VTOL (Vertical Takeoff or Landing) aircraft are a very unique form of vehicle that is a cross combination of a plane and the hovering capabilities similar to a helicopter. However due to the lack of aircraft control potential from the Battlefield 2 engine, we must do what we can to preserve and apply VTOL aircraft as effectively as possible. It is absolutely critical that all forms of engine thrust and power be as fluid and uninterrupted during all phases of flight (horizontal flight and vertical flight) as much as possible.

The most hazardous risk VTOL aircraft withstand during normal operation phases is the transition between horizontal flight (Helicopter controls such as hovering.) and vertical flight (Airplane controls such as taking off.) and vice versa. Currently there is a massive lack of power and control when the Harrier is crossing in and out of these phases. These phases are most easily referred to as the "dead zone".

VTOL aircraft CANNOT be made subject to using Mouse/Joystick control inputs for taxiing purposes either. This aircraft is heavily reliant on using Mouse/Joystick inputs to keep the aircraft stable and properly balanced in multiple phases of flight. To add a taxiiing function through the use of Mouse/Joystick inputs to VTOL aircraft is a major mistake due to limitations as per the Battlefield 2 engine.

Also the major issue here is that the Harrier VTOL aircraft must ascend to a altitude of 700 just to transition from horizontal flight, into vertical flight safely. During this "dead zone" period the aircraft will lose control and power to the engine and proceed to dive dangerously low to the ground, often resulting in the death of beginning pilots.

These rules and guidelines are:

A. VTOL aircraft MUST allow the pilot to TAXI the aircraft while using normal engine throttle. Not through the use of Mouse/Joystick control inputs .
B. VTOL aircraft MUST be able to transition through the "dead zone" phase as quickly as possible through the use of adequate acceleration and decelleration.
C. VTOL aircraft MUST be able to transition through the "dead zone" phase with a maximum loss of altitude no more than 20 meters (65 feet.)
D. VTOL aircraft must NOT have "applied break take-offs" as it prevents rule and guideline A, B and C from being possible to occur.

Unfortunately, there will be a harsh realization that Harriers are not a simple aircraft to be utilized. These aircraft are significantly unique and tempermental to controls. All forms of VTOL aircraft CANNOT be "watered down" or "simplified" for the common player as the details of thier flight characteristics are too complex. Trying to "water down" or "simplify" VTOL aircraft will result in the immediate decay of performance and the practical functionality of the unit. This will render all VTOL aircraft useless to both beginner pilots and experienced pilots as the flight characteristics will prove themselves to be inadequate to perform necessary flight functions.

If a player chooses to risk using a Harrier, then he/she may do so. In the hands of a novice it will prove to be disastrous. In the hands of a skilled pilot, will it prove to be invaluable. But the same can be said about any other aircraft, you must learn to use it properly or don't use it at all. Attempting to custom fit aircraft to the reckless is simply one more nail in the coffin to our gameplay dynamics.

II. Aircraft - Helicopters

1. (Minor Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.



2. (Minor Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
The HC3 Merlin is in need of a new and alternate view mode for the Co-Pilot. Rather than simply relying on listening to the hydraulic actuation sound of the boarding ramp an additional feature would be practical. Creating a new view that allows the Co-Pilot to look back through the opening in the cockpit into the cabin/cargo bay would be a key feature.

Here is a sample picture of the previously mentioned situation.

Improved Solution:
Merlin Co-Pilot Cabin View


3. (Minor Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
After a period of reevaluation, the Attack Helicopters in game could use some additional refinement. In relation to other aircraft like Jets in particular, it would be adviseable to have the 1st weapon slot as the Radar Off function. This is so the Pilot enters the Attack Helicopter with the Radar Off and only the Hydra and Flare indicators are visible, similar to Jet aircraft.

When selecting the 2nd weapon, the Attack Helicopters HUD switches to the Short Range Missle System, indicated as "AIM-9" and "AA-11" and offers the same HUD display as aircraft.

Here is several sample pictures of the previously mentioned situation.

Current Issue:
Attack Helo Short Range Missle HUD (Radar Off) (Current)
Attack Helo Short Range Missle HUD (Radar On) (Current)

Improved Solution:
Attack Helo Short Range Missle HUD Final (Radar Off) (Improved)
Attack Helo Short Range Missle HUD (Radar On) (Improved)


4. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.

Sadly... It seems that as time goes on and Project Reality is becoming increasingly demanding for teamwork, but not enough provisions are being given to players. You may agree or disagree with this, however keep in mind that maps such as "Jabal Al Burj" "Muttrah City" and "Operation Barracuda" place a heavy burden on our Helicopter Pilots. At this point it's becoming beyond critical to help them perform thier duties.

To the naked eye this equipment may not seem of value, but to the more versed Pilots would find this to be amazingly helpful. Not only would the Co-Pilot of the HC3 Merlin and UH-1N Huey have an increased role and purpose, but will play in turn actually help keep a vigil to protect the aircraft and aid the pilot in areas where he is not readily available to do so himself.

As we all know, we have been faced with the agravating situation of losing all of the Transport Helicopters while playing the U.S.M.C. forces attempting an amphibious assault. Rather than continuing our gameplay with having these helicopters being shot down constantly, let us provide some means to help increase thier longevity in the field. Transport Helicopters need to be treated with significantly more respect than they're currently receiving and are beyond overdue for refinement.

To help bring this into perspective, allow me a moment to draw a picture of potential gameplay with the use of these items.

Pilot and Co-Pilot roles:

A. Pilot -

1. Operate the aircraft.
2. Operate weapon systems (Where applicable.)
3. Operate vehicle functions (Supply crates.)

B. Co-Pilot -

1. Can easily spot potential threats
2. Can easily survey the surrounding areas.
3. Can easily identify safe landing locations.
4. Can communicate with Squad Members and the Commander (Where applicable).

Squad Structure: Full 6 man squad. (Helicopter Fire Support / Transport Support)

Fireteam Section:

Rocket Helicopter Alpha: Co-Pilot 1 (Squad Leader)
Rocket Helicopter Alpha: Pilot 1

Support Section:

Transport Helicopter Bravo: Co-Pilot 2
Transport Helicopter Bravo: Pilot 2
Transport Helicopter Charlie: Co-Pilot 3
Transport Helicopter Charlie: Pilot 3

One of the problems we face with Transport Helicopters today is that we're missing a major component to an increasingly demanding aspect of teamwork. Having a Co-Pilot at this point and time is both a vital and critical asset to Tranport Helicopters just as much as having a fully crewed tank or fully crewed attack chopper.

Now, as you can see the importance of the FLIR system and the use of a Co-Pilot. The Pilot can focus on his job of flying the aircraft, providing supply crates and/or fire support. Whereas the Co-Pilot basically provides communication, directions and surveys potential threats and landing locations in enemy territory...

Without the use of a Co-Pilot and a FLIR system as is currently, expect gameplay dynamics and the general fate of Transport Helicopter to continue unimproved. Should we finally come to the realization that Co-Pilots and FLIR systems be implemented as they should have been some time ago, expect a potentially better future for the Transport Helicopter role.

<Note: Although the UH-1N Huey is represented in the pictures to have a FLIR view; it does actually have one at this time. However if the current FLIR view from the Light Attack Helicopters was implemented on the HC3 Merlin or UH-1N Huey, it would be an inadequate view arc for the Co-Pilot. An increased view 180º to the full left and full right positions would prove useful.

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.>

Here is several sample pictures of the previously mentioned situation.

Current Gameplay:
Current FLIR View Magnified
Current FLIR View Unmagnified

Current Issue:
UH-1N Huey FLIR Equipment
HC3 Merlin FLIR Equipment

Improved Solution:
Transport Helicopter FLIR Arc View

III. Vehicles - Armored

1. (Minor Feedback) <Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.

Here is a sample picture of the previously mentioned situation.

Current Issue:
[URL="http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll47/AnonymousUserPictures/Challenger2M2Browning50CaliberMachi.gif"]Challenger 2 M2 Browning .50 Caliber Machine Gun Issue[3. (Minor Feedback)
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.

Here is several sample pictures of the previously mentioned situation.

Current Gameplay:
Warrior Proper Smoke Screen Spread Final

Current Issues:
Scimitar Improper Smoke Screen Spread


2. (Minor Feedback) <Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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



3. (Minor Feedback) <This is an ongoing issue before the v0.8 build and still currently exists.>
Recommend increasing the turning effectiveness of amphibious APC's while in water where possible. Amphibious APC's have always had a painfully slow turn in water; something that should not entirely be a problem as most modern amphibious vehicles have independant propellers or water jet technology.

It seems that a large majority of players have always noticed the lack in manuverability of APC's in water. However, this detail is not frequently mentioned as it simply plays such a minor role at times it very rarely comes to mind. Of course... That is until you have 8 people in your APC, then become subjected to enemy fire.

In example, the U.S.M.C. AAV7 can perform 360º turn in the large bodies of water. My friend in the U.S.M.C. can tell you from first hand experience.



4. (Major Feedback) <Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
One-man armor gunning (Tanks and APC's) should no longer be capable of occuring. One-man armor is unrealistic and simply a problem that needs to be removed from PR permanently and has been in existance for far too long. If no driver is present then the main weapons should not be able to fire.

The criteria relating to this whole discussion is far too complex to place in a single Suggestions and Feedback post. A thread was created for this particular idea with adequate supporting evidence. For additional information and details visit the link below.

PR Forum - One Man Armor (Tanks and APC's).>



5. (Major Feedback) <Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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".

The most recent occurance of this situation can be described by my own particular experience. While playing on "Muttrah City" and remaining idle on the deployment ramp on the underside of the carrrier, a MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense System) was fired from the nearby shore from the South East. This missle proceeded to track and destroy a UH-1N Huey while it was on the Carrier Deck. The explosion itself somehow extended itself through the below deck and injured myself while inside the LAV-25. I immediately had to deploy the ammo crate from the LAV-25 and supply myself with field dressings as the hit was significantly harsh and began bleeding.



6. (Major Feedback) <Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.

Here is several sample pictures of the previously mentioned situation.

Current Issue:
Stormer HVM Unrefined AA Target View
Stormer HVM Functionless Driver Interface



7. (Major Feedback) <Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
As time goes on it's becoming increasingly noticeable that there is a need for additional asymmetrical balancing in game for Anti Aircraft Vehicles. Especially with the introduction of the British Stormer HVM. It's quite clear that some AAV's posess a large amount of firepower and capability over others. Whereas these "other" Anti Aircraft Vehicles need a more potent and effective virtues in thier own right as they're currently lacking in a large way. All information contained herein is the way AAV's should be presented in Project Reality.

The M1 Tunguska (MEC AAV). One of the most brutal of dedicated Anti-Aircraft Vehicles. A large volume of fire, a large round caliber and what should be 8 available missles to fire. This AAV captures the essence of a true AAV.

A. M1 Tunguska (MEC AAV)

1. Two 30mm AA Cannons (High rate of fire.)
2. Eight AA Missles (8 Available, 0 Stored = 8 Total)
3. 1 Man Operating Crew

The PGZ-95 (PLA AAV). This Anti-Aircraft unit is somewhat an elusive vehicle in real life. It's effectiveness is sure to be similar to some degree to the M1 Tunguska as it's armament and weapon systems are similar in nature. This Anti-Aircraft Vehicle has only half the available missles as an M1 Tunguska, but makes up for it with Four 25mm AA Cannons. These cannons allow for a more consistant stream and volume of fire downrange toward low flying enemy helicopters.

B. PGZ-95 (PLA AAV)

1. Four 25mm AA Cannons (High rate of fire.)
2. Four AA Missles (4 Available, 4 Stored = 8 Total)
3. 1 Man Operating Crew

The Stormer HVM (British AAV). This Anti-Aircraft Vehicle has no available AA Cannon and relies on support from friendly units. However it makes up in a large resource pool of Surface to Air missles and an available deployable smoke feature.

D. Stormer HVM (British AAV)

1. No Cannon (No rate of fire.)
2. 8 AA Missles (8 Available, 8 Stored = 16 Total)
3. One Man Operating Crew
4. Deployable Smoke

The M6 Linebacker (U.S. AAV) is not a true dedicated Anti-Aircraft Vehicle but is more of a M2 Bradley APC/IFV outfitted with AIM-92 Stinger missles as opposed to TOW missles. However, this Anti-Aircraft Vehicle is lacking heavily in the asymmetrical balancing department. It missing the punch of a dedicated Anti-Aircraft Vehicle, but is supposed to make it up in multi-role versatility that is currently non-existant in Project Reality. It is no wonder why this AAV was considered almost uneffective in gameplay .

C. M6 Linebacker (U.S. AAV)

1. One 25mm Cannon (Slow rate of fire, but AP and HE rounds available.)
2. Four AA Missles (4 Available, 4 Stored = 8 Total)
3. Two Man Operating Crew
4. Capable of Transporting 6 Soldiers (Full squad)

The most important change to this whole lineup is the M6 Linebacker. It's true potential has been constantly overlooked in Project Reality. As of v0.8 and PR taking larger steps towards more new and realistic gameplay, it is becoming absolutely necessary to upgrade this vehicle. This vehicles abilities has either been overlooked or ignored for quite some time and is far beyond overdue for realization of it's true realistic potential.

So all AAV's have thier pro's and con's. Project Reality still needs to work on it's asymmetrical balancing characteristics. The Russian Tunguska and the Chinese PGZ-95 plays a more strictly dedicated role for AA defense. Which is no surprise why these 2 AAV's excell in thier field. Whereas the M6 Linebacker provides more of a well rounded role as it is capable of carrying men alongside armor units while still offering air defense to a specified area. The Stormer HVM is a unique vehicle that relies heavily on protection of friendly armor units but provides fearsome AA defense with an ability to launch several missles at a time.

Anti-Aircraft Vehicles are in need of an immediate restructuring of abilities and characteristics.



8. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
The Chinese PGZ-95 Anti-Aircraft Vehicle appears to have a problem that has only recently surfaced. It was unseen in the first release of the v0.8 build. However, after several server side updates, it appears it may have developed some unwanted tendancies.

A. The PGZ-95 AAV feels as if it is "boosting" around as it travels at top speed. Rather than cruising smoothly. The camera appears to shake slightly while driving at full speed.

B. The PGZ-95 AAV frequently veers to the left or the right signficantly more than it used to while travelling at full speed. It will continue to veer left or right depending upon it's last directional input, or if it is going up or down an geographical incline.

9. (Major Feedback)
Recommend increasing the weight and/or grip of the tires for the U.S. Stryker. Currently this APC has a tendancy to tilt or roll far more than expected for a vehicle of that size and width in comparison to other APC's.

Take note that even though rolling an APC is possible. It should occur far, far less than it currently is for the Stryker. I have beared witness to a total of 3 different occurances, this all occured in a span of about 1 week of gaming.

To be honest, 1 of the 3 occurances includes my own mishap. From my seasoned experience in driving, I was even suprised at how particularly unbalanced the Stryker is. If anyone has ever crewed a vehicle with me, they would know that I drive in a relatively safe manner and avoid potentially dangerous obstacles very frequently.

The U.S. Stryker is definately in need of some stability refinement. The LAV-25 is ever so slightly smaller than the Stryker, however it vastly outperforms it in stability. Also take note on how the M2 Bradley is much bigger than the Stryker and still fares much better in stability performance.

Here is a sample picture of the previously mentioned situation.

Current Issue:
U.S. LAV-25, Stryker and M2 Bradley

IV. Vehicles - Standard

1. (Minor Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
Dirtbikes and ATV's veer left or right slightly depending upon last directional input. Requires minor centering adjustments.



2. (Minor Feedback) <Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.

Here is a sample picture of the previously mentioned situation.

Current Issue:
Landrover M2 Browning .50 Caliber Machine Gun



3. (Minor Feedback) <Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.



4. (Major Feedback) <This is an ongoing issue before the v0.8 build and still currently exists. Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
Simple vehicles such as the U.S. HMMWV, MEC Vodnik, PLA NJ-2046 and the British Land Rover with mounted .50 caliber machineguns need to be squad orientated. Any squad utilizing a standard Jeep usually intends to keep it for thier own uses.

Sadly, not all players have the respect or self-control to overcome the impulse of taking another squads vehicle. These vehicles should be on a first come, first serve basis. Any infantry unit that enters the vehicle in the Driver or Gunner position must be part of the same squad and otherwise "squad locked" so to say. However, this shouldn't be a problem afterall because the external squad passenger should be in the back receiving the ride. If the trip doesn't get them there, it seems that the passenger should have remained at the main base for a helicopter transport like it's supposed to.

Like stated previously, if a squad wishes to use the vehicle 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.



5. (Major Feedback) <This is an ongoing issue before the v0.8 build and still currently exists. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.



6. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.

As expected, the Engineer support jeep as no weaponry on it which is acceptable. But why would an Engineer select a support jeep over any other car that already offers a .50 caliber machine gun? The end result simply makes the Engineer support jeep obsolete just as soon as it was revived for service. Otherwise, it's a team asset that remains in question for practical abilities for now.

However, the Engineer support jeep can have it's usefulness restored by implementing a specialized deployable ammo crate with limited ammunition specifically for rearming armored units that are too remote for a Command Post. This deployable limited ammunition crate would be best suited to resupply one armor unit (As in a single Tank or a single IFV.) that has completely run dry of munitions. Also to prevent stock piling of these crates while in the field, all Engineer support jeeps are not allowed to have more than 1 existing vehicle ammo crate in the world at a time per vehicle.

<Note: Please take note that the link to the below mentioned thread is older and points out certain concepts that would not entirely coincide with the new v0.8 build. Rather than restructuring the whole thread, please make a mental note of the following:

The Engineer Repair Truck's specialilzed deployable vehicular supply crate be reduced to only being able to rearm the vehicle. The Engineers must now perform the repairs on the damaged vehicle units instead.>

The criteria relating to this whole discussion is far too complex to place in a single Suggestions and Feedback post. A thread was created for this particular idea with adequate supporting evidence. For additional information and details visit the link below.

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18...uck-e-r-t.html

V. Vehicles - Water

1. (Minor Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
It would be recommended to increase the occupant capacity on the RIB (Rigid Inflatable Boat). In any assault boat to this day obviously has a crew and also passengers.

To help improve gameplay dynamics it is recommended to increase the amount of soldiers a RIB can carry to 8 people. This will allow a Boat squad of 2 players such as 1 driver and 1 gunner. The other 6 slots are for passengers of an external squad.

Now rather than driving a boat to a location and dumping it, players will actually have enough room to drive it back and forth to transport additional passengers to the shore or assault ship.



2. (Minor Feedback) <This is an ongoing issue before the v0.8 build and still currently exists. Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
The M249 on the RIB (Rigid Inflatable Boat) has some minor graphic issues and an incorrect shot location.

When a user decides to aim the M249 on a RIB his camera will actually zoom into the rear of the weapon mounted on the boat. Also when the user fires the M249 it's not surprising why he will miss, the actual shot location is just high enough to miss his targets at ranges above 50-100 meters.

Here is a sample picture of the previously mentioned situation.

Current Issue:
RIB M249 Problems



3. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
Project Reality is still growing and in all honesty, it has yet another frontier to meet. We've all used RIBs, drove them and dumped them. It's not surprising no one has ever really cared much for maritime vehicles considering most of all combat action takes place far from the shoreline. And now it's safe to say we're ready for Patrol Boats and Light Ships.

It would be a good step to take in refining these crafts and begin modeling maps around thier use. But also to see if thier larger scale cousins can make a step into PR aswell. Imagine having a light ship off the coast launching rounds inland like a floating tank with the use of coordination and communication efforts. That'd be an impressive sight and a new twist on gameplay that is getting progressively older.

Of course, the primary use of these light ships would be to offer fire support and shelling locations inland...

The criteria relating to this whole discussion is far too complex to place in a single Suggestions and Feedback post. A thread was created for this particular idea with adequate supporting evidence. For additional information and details visit the link below.

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18...ght-ships.html

VI. Soldier - Weapons

1. (Minor Feedback)
Suggest the introduction of a selectable Officer Kit from the respawn interface specifically equipped with Ironsights only. Although most users may feel there is little need to equip Officers with Ironsight weapons. However the point is primarily directed at conflicts that take place in areas of limited visibility. As in rough terrain and locations with high amounts of foliage that generally limit the maximum view distance to about 0-250 meters.

To remove confusion, the respawn kit interface should appear as:
Officer Kit (Scoped), Officer Kit (Ironsights), Rifleman (Scoped), Rifleman (Ironsights), Medic, Engineer

Examples of maps that would encourage the use of Officer Kits with Ironsight weapons:
Al-Basrah, Assault at Mestia, Bi-Ming, Korengal Valley, Operation Ghost Train, Qwai River, Ramiel, Sunset City, Tad-Sae
<Note: As you can see, there are alot more maps that could use ironsight weapons than one would normally anticipate.>

Of course this will bring up the question: "Allright, what if we do if we put Officer kits with Ironsights in? Obviously you can't select an Officer kit with ironsights from a Rally Point, Bunker, Firebase, etc."

This is correct, however it isn't that much of a big deal. I'm sure all players are already used to making due with a Scoped Weapon. So by default when requesting an Officer kit, you will get the Scoped Officer kit. Only until you die or spawn/respawn can you select it. This should not prove to be a problem.



2. (Minor Feedback)
Certain Sniper Rifles need some minor refinement and recalibration. Keep in mind that a majority of users may not even notice this, however when firing at ranges of 500 meters or more, it slowly becomes a factor.

The Lee-Enfield elevation is correct, however windage appears to be off. The weapon appears to fire ever so slightly to the left of the crosshairs.

The L115A1's elevation is correct, however windage appears to be off. The weapon appears to fire ever so slightly to the left of the crosshairs.

The L96A1 elevation is correct, however windage appears to be off. The weapon appears to fire ever so slightly to the right of the crosshairs.

The M24 has no recognized accuracy issues.

The M40A3 elevation is correct, however windage appears to be off. The weapon appears to fire ever so slightly to the left of the crosshairs. Addtionally unlike many other sniper rifles of it's class, the M40 appears to have an unusually underpowered high-level zoom. After repeated testing, it instinctively feels that the user may find himself or herself straining to fire at targets up to 450-600 meters. Whereas the same "instinctive feel" would happen with other rifles but at 600-750 meters. Simply put. In comparison to other rifles, there is a slightly noticeable difference when fully zoomed with a M40A3. The targets feel much, much furthur away while attempting to engage at normal ranges of 450-600 meters. This needs to be looked into.

The SSGP1 has no recongnized accuracy issues. However on another note, adding a secondary mid-level zoom would be practical. Currently the weapon lacks a low-power zoom for observation and target aquisition unlike all other sniper rifles of it's class. It would be wise to add a mid-level zoom stage before the full-level zoom.



3. (Minor Feedback) <Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.



4. (Minor Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.



5. (Minor Feedback) <This is an ongoing issue before the v0.8 build and still currently exists. Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.



6. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.



7. (Major Feedback) <This is an ongoing issue before the v0.8 build and still currently exists. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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. All Sniper Kits from conventional factions and the Militia require a silenced pistol for thier sidearm. Previously this was a minor suggestion, but has been upgraded to major feedback as it's level of importance has practically more than doubled.

This is a critical minimum requirement of all reconnisance personnel that has been otherwise overlooked or deliberately ignored for some time. It's nearly ironic that a Spec Ops kit offers a silenced pistol and an automatic carbine or submachine gun, whereas a silenced pistol for a sniper is twice as critical due to a lack of a close range defensive weapon. Not to mention the absolute necessity to keep things as discreet as possible.

It is now a required element to issue silenced pistols to these specialized recon infantry units.



8. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.



9. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.

Here is a sample picture of the previously mentioned situation.

Current Gameplay:
Shotgun Ironsight Accuracy

Current Issue and Improved Solution:
Shotgun Accuracy Impact

VII. Soldier - Tools

1. (Minor Suggestion)
Recommend adding two different magnification levels to generic Binoculars. Rather than having a single default large zoom, it would be far better to create two different modes of magnification. One zoom for moderate magnification, and another zoom for full magnification. Keep in mind that Binoculars are not to exceed the abilities of a GLTD. This is simply to help create a more refined and practical use of generic Binoculars.


2. (Minor Feedback)
Recommend increasing the EPIPEN application range slightly to an estimated 1.5 meters. This will allow a Medic to revive a downed soldier from a knelt position more effectively. Currently the reach of this function is too short, thusly resulting in failed or repeatedly failed attempts.



3. (Minor Feedback)
Recommend increasing the CPR abillity range slightly to an estimated 1.5 meters. This will allow a Medic to revive a downed soldier from a knelt position more effectively. Currently the reach of this function is too short, thusly resulting in failed or repeatedly failed attempts.



4.(Minor Feedback)
Recommend increasing the Combat Engineers on-hand trip flare count to 3 or 4 available. Currently Combat Engineers only have one available at a time, this usually results in the items being barely used at all, simply because the hassle outweighs the benefits.

Also, the amount of resupply necessary to properly re-equip a Combat Engineer will expend heavy amounts from ammunition sources. As we all know, items that have an ammunition resource pool for one use items such as Mines, Light Anti-Tank and Heavy Anti-Tank are not available in abundance. Quantity refinement for the Trip Flares is necessary for Combat Engineers to improve thier limited usefulness.



4. (Minor Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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".



5. (Minor Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.



6. (Minor Feedback) <This is an ongoing issue before the v0.8 build and still currently exists. Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.



7. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.



8. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.

VIII. Team Communication

1. (Minor Suggestion)
Recommend adding a "Cover Me" voice command in the Primary Radio interface. This is mostly directed at Medics who have thier First Aid bag equipped and ready. This will enable them to communicate with other team members in the same manner when they use thier "Good To Go" and "First Aid Here" voice commands.



2. (Major Suggestion) <This is an ongoing issue before the v0.8 build and still currently exists. Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.

There is a simple method to help prevent these situations from occuring. This message should be broadcasted over the radio net to all units as a reminder to reevaluate thier targets before continuing fire.

Here is a sample picture of the previously mentioned situation.

Friendly Fire Interface and Radio Call



3. (Minor Feedback) <This is an ongoing issue before the v0.8 build and still currently exists. Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
The role of Light Scout Choppers is seldomly used properly. Due to the increased difficulty of coordination between squads as of v0.8, it has become increasingly vital that Light Scout Choppers have a "Laser Target" radio call for the Co-Pilot.

This "Laser Target" radio call should be listed in the secondary radio, which is in the same radio channel as the "Attack / Defend" and "Move / Repair" indicators can be issued.

Basically to explain this as simply as possible... 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.



4. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.



5. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
To help recover some of the lost communication elements of v0.8 between Squad Leaders and the Commander, the following concept has been devised. A simple pictoral representation has been created to aid in describing the situation.

To help explain this breifly as possible the new G.L.T.D. secondary communication functions are as follows:

A. Attack / Defend -

(This element is unchanged.)

B. Need Area Attack -

(This element is unchanged.)

C. Need Fire Support -

The "Need Fire Support" option will forward a request to the Commander. After the request has been accepted it will place an ORANGE marker that is rather accurate upon the target. This will also identify the target on the map and is primarily for coordination with vehicle units of both ground and air variations.

D. Need Close Air Support -

The "Need Close Air Support" option will forward a request to the Commander. After the request has been accepted it will place the RED marker that is rather accurate upon a preferably STATIONARY target. This will also identify it on the map and issue a fixed laser target on the specified area, including notification to friendly air units in particular.

Elements such as "Need Fire Support" and "Need Close Air Support" are still a necessary function for Squad Leaders to be able to request. These aspects of communications are a invaluable tool to provide accurate information to the team. At the same time, manually lasering targets will still be practical as they're the most accurate and will be able to offer continued tracking to the target while it is on the move.

Here is a sample picture of the previously mentioned situation.

Current Issue:
Current G.L.T.D. Interface

Improved Solution:
Improved G.L.T.D. Interface

IX. Team Assets, Squad Leaders and Commanders

1. (Minor Feedback) <Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.



2. (Major Feedback)
As of the introduction of the v0.8 build, it's clear that there has been a significant drop in players willing to act as Commander. This may be the desired result, but it should not be a result from a lack of available options to aid the team. What I am proposing now, is to reintroduce one of the more brilliant and intresting aspects of Project Reality in it's earlier times... The revival of "Parachute Supply Drops".

If anyone remembers the standard Battlefield 2 Commander interface, it had a maximum amount of 5 potential abilities a Commander could perform. I think we're certainly underpowering a very important and effective option to our teams to bring back some spice to gameplay. Currently we only have 2 of 5 potential resources. Let's step it up to 3 of 5.

My suggestion here is to take an aspect of Project Reality that already existed. We have had supply crates that could be dropped in the past. What I am asking now is that our developers do some minor adjustments to give this "Parachute Supply Drop" is nothing that we don't already have available.

To help create a picture of what this "Parachute Supply Drop" is, it's basically four standard supply crates. But the trick is that they're all joined together as one unit, but still indiviual crates attached to a single parachute. However, in order to destroy the "Parachute Supply Drop" entirely requires that all four supply crates be shot or demolished by an explosive.

With that picture in mind, let's speak about it's application. Now... I sympathize with the developers point of view that they encourage teamwork and the use of Helicopters and Support Trucks... What is trying to be accomplished here is that this "Parachute Supply Drop" WILL NOT replace Helicopters and Support Trucks. Instead it will act as a potential team option and add a new dimension to building, tactics and teamwork.

What I am asking is that it is placed on maps that do not offer Heavy Transport Helicopter support, but also has difficult geography and moderate to long distances of travel. The following maps that fit this criteria are:

Al Kufrah Oilfield (AAS: 16)
Ejod Desert (AAS: 16)
Fools Road (AAS: 16,32,64)
Korengal Valley (Ins: 16,64)
Qwai River (AAS: 16,32,64)
Ramiel (Ins: 16)

Now keep in mind, these "Parachute Supply Drops" are not intended to be used frequently. It is recommended to be available in 30 or 45 minute intervals. Although, 45 minutes would most likely be best suited for it's use. In order to request this "Parachute Supply Drop", a squad leader would have to request it in advance and make a prepared decision upon it's use. So to sum this all up:

Pros:

1. Offers an additonal option to Commanders and Squad Leaders if used properly.
2. Can reach remote locations that a Support Truck may not be able to access.
3. Helps Commanders and Squad Leaders resupply troops that are extended far beyond normal safe supply routes.

Cons:

1. Has a 30 or 45 minute wait timer.
2. The "Parachute Supply Drop" takes 3-5 minutes to touch down after acceptance by the Commander.
3. Can be destroyed by the enemy before it reaches the ground.
4. The enemy may be able to detect your location based upon the drop zone.

3. (Major Feedback) <This is an ongoing issue before the v0.8 build and still currently exists. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
Maps such as "Fools Road" and "Assault on Mestia" require team orientated asset location markers for the Militia faction. These markers in particular are addressed to locations for all stationary gun emplacements.

Currently the lack of these gun emplacement markers produces a large issue as most Project Reality players are unaware of all possible fixed gun locations. This does not aid in promoting additonal teamwork or notification of potential tactical possibilities.

Here is several sample pictures of the previously mentioned situation.

Current Gameplay:
Militia Cannon Emplacements

Current Issue:
Militia Cannon Emplacement No Indicators

Improved Solution:
Militia Cannon Emplacement Indicators



3. (Minor Feedback) <Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.



4. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.

Maps that can afford the 400 meter distance rule is acceptable for large maps like "Kashan Desert", "The Battle for Qinling" and "Fools Road". However, for maps like "Bi Ming", "Korengal Valley", "Operation Ghost Train" "Sunset City", "Tad Sae", and "The Road to Kyongon Ni" but the 400 meter rule is excessively large and unacceptable, proceeding to negatively impact gameplay experience.

Although the idea of creating a maximum allowable sphere of influence has it's impact on gaming experience; the problem remains is that there has been an insufficient means of representation to help Commanders and Squad Leaders in the map interface. As in creating a visual aid to assist in estimating the rough distance in which the next Firebase or Bunker (Forward Outpost.) can be placed from the already existing Firebase or Bunker (Forward Outpost.) nearby.

Keep in mind that not all players have the ability to figure out the proper spacing between assets. Previously in the v0.7+ build the maximum distance was 200 meters and barely disturbed bunker deployments, unlike now where it almost prevents deployments in tactically valuable areas... Either a visual aid must be created to assist Squad Leaders, or the currently stringent rules and guidelines be reduced to promote the ease of deployment of Forward Outposts amongst players.

X. Modes of Gameplay

1. (Minor Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.

XI. Maps and The Minimap

1. (Major Suggestion)
Recommend the reintroduction of one of our late maps... Helmand Province. One of our famed conflicts between Insurgents and British forces.

It certainly was a hit amongst the community. It was discussed vast amounts of times, and still seems to be unclear about it's future. For most of us, it feels as if it was introduced and removed all too soon... Can't help but say it left some players wanting more.

It is understandable that there were minor occurances of "camping" that took place on the main flagzones. However, a simple fix may be to simply add a small Forward Operating Base (F.O.B.) on the South Eastern side of the map where the British forces spawned near the road.

This F.O.B. NOT to be confused as a deployable object. What is meant here is to have a makeshift base with built-up sandbags. To help draw a better picture, imagine a small "Vehicle Checkpoint" base (Like seen in Al-Basrah.) in the South Eastern cornor of the map for British forces.



2. (Minor Feedback) <This is an ongoing issue before the v0.8 build and still currently exists. Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.



3. (Major Feedback)
Recommend increasing the map "Operation Barracuda" to the size of a 4km map similar to "Kashan Desert" and "The Battle for Qingling". The main purpose of this is to simply add more room to travel to a location while out at sea. This does not involve altering the Island in any manner at all.

This will also allow the U.S.S. Essex to be placed furthur away from hostile AA emplacements on the shoreline. Afterall, a multi-billion dollar carrier should be simulated from being as far away from the shore of an hostile region as much as possible.

It goes without saying that this will encourage addional levels of tactics and teamwork by allowing operations to be conducted on the seldomly assaulted southern beachhead of the island.



4. (Major Feedback) <Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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. To constantly force our developement team to tweak and refine the engine performance or handling of these crafts will not bring us the desired results we're looking for any longer.

With the long awaited introduction of the Fighter-Bomber class jets, there is a great necessity to revaluate and redesign the airfield around these crafts. They are much larger, much faster and much heavier than our one seat fighter jets. These cumbersome Fighter-Bombers are a vital asset and clearly need custom tailored airfields for thier purpose.

Thusly, I taken surveys of the aircraft length and brought up this proposition, without making them excessively long of course. Currently the airfields on the "Battle for Qinling" map are roughly 575 meters long. Adding another 225-275 meters ontop of what we have now would bring them from 800-850 meters in length and provide just enough room for these exceptionally large Fighter-Bombers to land. Although in my own personal opinion these runways should be 1,000 meters in length for a more realistically sized airfield, we'll have to make due with 800-850 meters to keep map alterations to a minimum and a manageable size for vehicles to travel around them.

The existing problem is that it feels as if these runways were tailored to fit the Typhoon EF-2000 jet fighter... This jet is an exceptionally remarkable aircraft with almost unbeatable handling, power and ease of operation. To build airfields around this jet would be a folly as most aircraft cannot possibly compete against it's potential abilities. Thusly a majority of other aircraft will fall short of expectations and result in players referring to other aircraft as being "unmanagable, slow and lacking power" which would make sense. This is why the airfields need to be altered and expanded furthur.

Please take note, the GR4 Tornado is one of the smallest of it's class. The U.S. F-15 Strike Eagle and MEC SU-34 Flanker has not even been introduced into the modification yet and they are just as large as the Chinese SU-37. If we're to make preperations for thier introduction, then airfield size MUST be increased. These scrawny 575 meter landing strips will not suffice by any means and will result in future build setbacks and negative player feedback. This cannot be allowed to occur.

For now, the GR4 Tornado has just enough abilities to land at the British airfield on the northern most runway. To attempt a landing on the southern runway would force most pilots to approach at a steep angle and result in crashing or causing damage to the vehicle on touchdown. However after rigorous testing, the Chinese SU-37 still cannot make a proper landing as the airfield is far too short. Even the best pilot may be able to land the aircraft, but will be unable to stop it in time to prevent it from crashing into the taxiways or perimeter fencing.

Also, airfields structured like the one seen on the Chinese team on the "Battle for Qinling" map can no longer be allowed to exist. There must be 2 runways that allow a pilot to take off into combat in one direction, and another runway that allows the aircraft to land in the opposite direction. On the other hand, the British teams vehicle spawn points at the main base is on the side furthest away from combat. This is not acceptable as it forces vehicles to have to go around the perimeter of the airfield to exit the area. This will proceed to make exiting a main base difficult if airfield runway size is increased.

To explain the most ideal airfield built would be as follows... Take the British main base / airfield set up and place it in the South Eastern (Bottom Right) cornor of the map. Then make a near identical layout for the Chinese team (Of course the buildings and hangers will be different.), mirror and flip it over on the North Western (Top Left) cornor of the map. Voila, better airfields and better results.

So to get back on the previous topic... The necessity to expand the length of these runways to facilitate proper landing of aircraft is becoming a significant and ongoing problem even from previous patches. These steps must be taken to provide adequate landing space. A

Rules and Guidelines for all Airfield establishments:

A. All airfield establishments MUST have a runway that is atleast a minimum of 800-850 meters long in length.
B. All airfield establishments MUST have a runway that allows Pilots to take off into combat. This runway also must be the closest to the aircraft spawn point.
C. All airfield establishments MUST have a runway that allows Pilots to land away from combat. This runway also must be the furthest from the aircraft spawn point.
D. All airfield establishments MUST NOT be obstructed by vegitation that endanger the aircrafts operation.
E. All airfield establishmenst MUST NOT be obstructed by geography that endanger the aircrafts operation.
F. All airfield establishments MUST NOT be obstructed by structures that endanger the aircrafts operation.
G. All airfield establishments MUST NOT force the Pilots to land the aircraft at an angle greater than 0° - 35° maximum.

Rules and Guidelines for Jet Aircraft units:

A. All jet aircraft MUST reach 100% throttle for a critical minimum of 1 full second before the aircraft begins rolling / taking off.
B. All jet aircraft MUST NOT exceed a critical maximum landing speed above 750 kmh.

Following these guidelines will provide a more practical and adequate means for landing aircraft.

The importance of aircraft being able to reach 100% throttle before rolling / take off will allow an efficient use of valuable runway space and provide sufficient engine power to be established prior to taking off. Also aircraft CANNOT ever be allowed to exceed a critical maxium landing speed above 750 meters. Any aircraft landing at speeds of 750kmh or more do not posess enough stopping power to slow the vehicle down to a halt in enough time before the aircraft will reach the end of the runway. Speeds of 750kmh or more usually result in the aircraft taking damage while landing or causing the aircraft to crash into the perimeter fencing surrounding the airfield itself.

To put things into perspective, the F-16 is estimated to land at 260-280 mph, which is the equivalent of landing at roughly 418-450 kmh. Currently aircraft in PR land from an average of 372-466mph or otherwise 600-750kmh. As you can see this is a rather fast landing and nearly almost double the realistic values.

On another note... Aircraft dating back to and before the WW2 era had a mechanical wing extension referred to as "flaps". These items allow aircraft to fly at a much slower speed with a greater amount of lift and control. Also "flaps" allow the aircraft to descend in altitude but at the same time allow the plane to keep it's nose level upon approach or in the event of an emergency the abilitiy to pull up and accelerate out of harms way. Remember, the Battlefield 2 engine does not have the vital component of "flaps". So maps must be designed to facilitate an adequate landing approach with that in mind considering the limitations of the Battlefield 2 engine.

Anyways... The fact of the matter is, at this point and time Jet Piloting in PR is almost over the top. Even as a seasoned Pilot myself there are very rare occasions where even I cut it close to overshooting the runway and/or crashing into the permeter fencing. Project Reality needs to provide better accomodations for airfields and runways. As even the most sloppy of acceptable landings should provide adequate room to land without worrying to crashing the aircraft into a wall. Last thing a Pilot should worry about is "Do I have enough room to land?" and allow him to concentrate more on getting his wheels on the ground as quickly and cleanly as possible. Then proceeding to conducting another sortie shortly thereafter.

Current Gameplay:
British Airfield - Start

Chinese Airfield - Start

Current Issue:
British Airfield - Short Runway Map (579m)
British Airfield - Short Runway View (579m)
British Airfield - Short Runway Binoculars (579m)

Chinese Airfield - Short Runway Map (577m)
Chinese Airfield - Short Runway View (577m)
Chinese Airfield - Short Runway Binoculars (577m)

Improved Solution:
British Airfield - Long Runway Map (799m)
British Airfield - Long Runway View (799m)
British Airfield - Long Runway Binoculars (799m)

Chinese Airfield - Long Runway Map (797m)
Chinese Airfield - Long Runway View (797m)
Chinese Airfield - Long Runway Binoculars (797m)

XII. Human Interface

1. (Minor Feedback)<Known issue, refinement or replacement is in progress. Pending update is being awaited on this matter.>
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.



------------------------------ End of List ------------------------------



That'll be all for now.

[pwn3ge106]

Holy crap.
How long did that take?!
Great list - hopefully some are implemented.

[hx.bjoffe]

Originally Posted by pwn3ge106

Holy crap.
How long did that take?!

x2

[mammikoura]

Originally Posted by pwn3ge106

Holy crap.
How long did that take?!

You didn't even read the first paragraph?

But.. M.Warren, you officially have WAY too much time on your hands.

[DeltaFart]

I agree with it all, that was a long list to go through!

[joethepro36]

I'd like to see this stickied, MODs get in here already...

[gclark03]

Great. Far too wordy, but one of the best suggestions (or compilations) ever seen.

[Zimmer]

Again a great post by M.Warren

[ReaperMAC]

Lets just give the Insurgent Collaborator an iPhone. Then they could use the Google Earth/Map feature to call in arty.

[Rezza]

WoW Hardcore...