0.91 its a joke right? please tell me its a joke - No its not

[Leeu]

What the flying hell is up with the new FOB/hideout being "not too close" i.e. DEV speak for 200m+ from the edge of the map.

The maps aren't all that big really when you consider all the elements that need to fit in them - and with that in mind the new FOB/hideout placement changes are COMPLETE UTTER FAIL. Now you have LESS FOBs or hideouts being built because most of the time the desired area where the fob/hideout is going to be placed, which is also somewhat hidden (note "somewhat", I'm not even saying "effectively") and which also isn't crawling with enemy and which is anyway near the forward line of battle (FLOB) doesn't fit in with the patheticly stupid new model.

So you can have an area that's hidden and not crawling with enemies but it isn't anyway near the FLOB, i.e. its probably back by your damn main base spawn anyway. You can even have a possible build area that's completely exposed, which is near enough to the FLOB but still.... it's crawling with enemies. Etc, etc, etc.

So, now we probably have HALF or less the number of FOBs being built in game compared to previous versions because-> it's too much fukking effort finding a "suitable" spot to place the FOB in. But oh it's real easy to place it in a spot where it's going to get discovered in about 5 minutes -> that surely fits in with the new model.

And what's with the insurgent hideouts -> did they purposefully write code that requires a clear area the size of a parking lot before the hideout will place? I mean really, regardless of whatever magical reason the DEVs had -> complete and utter fail. On INS maps BLUFOR have UAV and on some maps choppers. Insurgents might wanna think about placing hideouts under natural foliage or in between buildings/alley ways, you know maybe hide the hideout (crazy idea isn't it) -> oh no wait, they can't do that because the DEVs have made sure hideout can only be placed in the complete open, where every god damn UAV and chopper can see it. I guess it's totally realistic, i mean in real life no insurgent in his right mind is going to choose foliage, dense cover, alley ways or even inside a building as the spot for his HIDEout, no it's more realistic that he's going to place it in the open where everyone can see it.

This "not too close" to the map edge **** MIGHT apply to the massive 2km maps of the future or maps like Kashan, but NOT to most of the maps, as is the current situation.

[Duke]

Ima just leave this here..


https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f196-p ... ances.html

[Exterior]

one more thing, could you please remove the HUGE U.S. advantage on every U.S. map please?

Just thought i should point out the US have the advantage in every fight in REALITY! hence Project Reality!

[joethepro36]

Just thought i should point out the US have the advantage in every fight in REALITY! hence Project Reality!

Irony is that the US is balanced for every map it's on however they tend to get given the 1337 assets (air support, TOW hummer etc.) which encourages the silly mentality about them.

I would like the US to be overpowered by nature against most Opfor and then balanced by assymetry but I'm happy with things at the moment.

[ytman]

Just thought i should point out the US have the advantage in every fight in REALITY! hence Project Reality!

Qwai comes to mind. Definitely a map that favors the Chinese forces with flag lay-out and assets.

Not that its too much of an issue.

[dtacs]

Qwai comes to mind. Definitely a map that favors the Chinese forces with flag lay-out and assets.

Not that its too much of an issue.

It is, but only when the Chinese make the effort to use what is given to them.

One of my favorite tactics is crewing three APCs and zerging the TOW Humvee at the start. One will die, two at most, but since it can't reload fast enough it ensures the US will have a completely halted rollout, while the Chinese can simply load up an infantry squad in a clowncar/logi and cap the flags while the APC's continue.

[Rudd]

Qwai comes to mind. Definitely a map that favors the Chinese forces with flag lay-out and assets.

Not that its too much of an issue.

I would actually say that teh flag layout can favour either force since its random flags, asset wise I agree.

[Redamare]

and 70% of PR's players also think I'm sexy

Make that 71%


I havnt really gotten into .91 recently Because i have been really busy with homework, projects and speeches -_- i have YET to experiance what all the fuss is about ... i can see shorter visible distances could
1 fix peoples running issues
2 MAKE Maps easier to play... instead of ALWAYS being seen you now have a bit more advantage of sneeking around enemies..
3.. i dont know sux for jet maps? ahaha but i cant Fly jets anymore because my computer hates me and Automaticaly satarts Dropping bombs when i am taxing .. so Fine i wont fly

[Wakain]

the reduced viewdistance isn't really that drastic, you can hardly notice it actually, so you might a well scrap 2

[sharpshootertrig]

I love this,this is like saying the earth is still flat

If i were you sharpshooter, i would shut up now and go play the game instead of giving us more stuff to laugh at

Im voting this thread be moved to the "stuff that makes us laugh" thread.

Oh...and im just wondering,am i included in your little survey?

lol

[sharpshootertrig]

ok, i think i got over the view distance trauma lol =P apologies as my post was a bit drastic.

keep up the good work =)

[sharpshootertrig]

If its possible i would please like to have this post deleted, as i made the whole thing out of anger.

apologies for all of this.

thanks.

[Arnoldio]

Just thought i should point out the US have the advantage in every fight in REALITY! hence Project Reality!

Also Chinese armed forces have 2.3 times more active army members than US, so i did the math, if server is maxed out at 64, thats 32 per team (yes i know, i own at maths).

That means the max number of china forces is 32, max ammount of US would then be 14.

Reality is cruel...

[Rudd]

If its possible i would please like to have this post deleted, as i made the whole thing out of anger.

*yoda voice*
anger leads to hatred, hatred leads to bad forum posts!

[Duke]

ok, i think i got over the view distance trauma lol =P apologies as my post was a bit drastic.

keep up the good work =)

So im now intrigued.

Have you genuinely noticed drastic view distance changes or not? As the evidence for noticeable distance change has been quite categorically disproven from various sources, im now wondering if its simply your view distance slider not being at max in your video settings in PR?

[Arnoldio]

*yoda voice*
anger leads to hatred, hatred leads to bad forum posts!

More like:
*yoda voice*

Anger to hatred leads, to bad forum posts hatred leads.

[Sniperdog]

I may be wrong but I'm assuming the lowered view distances are just a temp fix until someone can find a definitive source for the significant fps increases on a number of maps.

I sincerely believe it is a problem with the LoD / # static models on quite a few of the maps and I beleive that aspect should be cut a good deal in the next build in favor of higher view distances.

I think that the level of immersion that higher view distances gives is well worth the dropping of some of the finer details that are being included in the maps.

This summer I plan on doing an analysis of how both view distance and # of static objects affect performance (and hopefully coming up with an equation that models the relationship decently well). Along with dissecting some of the problem maps by removing whole groups of static objects and seeing which ones are the trouble makers.


ps. Rhino's a manwhore

[Jigsaw]

See im the opposite on that viewpoint Sniper_Dog mate, I agree that large view distances are good but I think they are sufficient in 0917. As already stated the reductions from 0909 to 0917 are minute and can barely be noticed and for me I would rather have extra detail up close and personal where it matters than epic view distances that allow you to see across the entire map.

To illustrate my point, i'll use an example from other games.

Just Cause v GTA 4

These two games came out about the same time, Just Cause focusing on massive gameplay areas and huge draw distances whilst GTA 4 focused on the nitty gritty close ups.







Obviously, GTA 4 is a far prettier game to look out. What you really notice is the extra detail close up, not how far into the distance you can see which is very much an afterthought after you've finished admiring the foreground.

What im getting at is that close up detail is way more immersive for me than being able to see several miles into the distance as that is what you focus on when in-game.

[Arnoldio]

But the reduction of the viewdiestance is moreorless avoiding to solve the problem. It must be something in the models/lods/fields thats causing all this.

[Celestial1]

But the reduction of the viewdiestance is moreorless avoiding to solve the problem. It must be something in the models/lods/fields thats causing all this.

Or, it's a temporary fix so that the maps and game are playable until a better solution is found...

Also, JustCause/GTA4 comparison doesn't fit with PR. You rarely benefit much from a large view distance in either game, because there's nothing that far out that concerns you; in GTA, people and vehicles stop rendering entirely after a distance; sniping is not an option at those ranges and helicopters and buildings (at their lowest LoD) are the only things visible.

In PR, you want to see as far as possible so you're always able to make a good tactical decision; in games like JC/GTA4, you're not really thinking in the same manner, where the view distance would be beneficial.

Besides all of this: the 'nitty gritty' graphics of PR aren't changing for the better or worse in significant amounts any time soon. It's going to remain relatively static, while we can continue to push view distance to it's limits, and the only thing that will change is the speed at which one can play on certain machines (ie: more lag)