US Army Update Part 1

Project Reality announcements and development highlights.
Locked
bosco_
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 14620
Joined: 2006-12-17 19:04

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by bosco_ »

[R-DEV]ohnomelon wrote:i never thought i'd be so excited to see acupat, let alone toy with the notion that at least in the fpv the pattern looks a little large? i'm guessing any lower and you'd lose the contrast from medium and far distances or something?
Image

Sorry, couldn't resist :D

Some older ACU skins just looked plain gray from distance, at least thats what I've experienced.
Image
moj
Posts: 198
Joined: 2008-04-01 06:46

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by moj »

Good job guys, can't wait to see the Stryker in action! I'm guessing that maybe, the BTR-90 could be downgraded to the BTR-80 in order to balance things a bit. Guess I'll probably have to wait until part 2 to find out.
Ironcomatose
Posts: 3471
Joined: 2007-02-21 06:07

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by Ironcomatose »

moj wrote:Good job guys, can't wait to see the Stryker in action! I'm guessing that maybe, the BTR-90 could be downgraded to the BTR-80 in order to balance things a bit. Guess I'll probably have to wait until part 2 to find out.
I think its all but written in stone that the US Army will be getting the Bradley IFV as well.

[R-DEV]DuneHunter - No offense to any female gamers, but never, ever underestimate the amount of havoc a woman can unleash upon innocent unsuspecting electronics.
HughJass
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-10-14 03:55

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by HughJass »

agentscar wrote:
Quick Fact: Did you know Strykers are street legal in the U.S. ,you just have to have a "Wide Load" or "Oversized Load" thing on it.
:shock: makes me feel safe on a battlefield...
Image
agentscar
Posts: 1266
Joined: 2007-06-25 04:26

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by agentscar »

Yea,USI has the BEST Bradley IFV out there...
Image
Image
Image
moj
Posts: 198
Joined: 2008-04-01 06:46

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by moj »

ironcomatose wrote:I think its all but written in stone that the US Army will be getting the Bradley IFV as well.
Yeah I can't wait. So maybe we'll be seeing Stykers and Bradleys Vs. BTR-80s and BMP3s on Kashan?
MikeAP
Posts: 61
Joined: 2005-11-23 14:32

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by MikeAP »

Oh my GOD. MY EYES ARE BURNING!!! MY EYES ARE BURNING.

Ok a few things from an US Army officer in a Stryker Brigade.

1) We DONT HAVE SAND COLORED STRYKERS. They are CARC Green.

2) Stryker's in a combat theater of operations will have SLAT armor on it. You will never see a Stryker in Iraq/Afghanistan without SLAT armor.

3) Weapons: WE DONT LIKE USING THE M68 as an optic, and we DONT use iron sights anymore. Every primary weapon in the Stryker brigade has some sort of optic on it. The priority is 1) ACOG 2) EOTECH Reflex and finally 3) If you have no other option, but an M68 on it.

I asked a long time ago if the team needed help with some references. In fact, I even put together a pretty large powerpoint together so that we could avoid these problems.

I really hope the team can sort this **** out before it's in final production.

PM me if you guys need help.

EDIT - Another thing I noticed that is KILLING ME.

The Stryker pictured is an 1126 ICV (Infantry carrier variant) HOWEVER, it's bumper says it's part of 2-25 ID, 2-14 CAV.............If it's in the CAV its an 1127 RV (recon variant) we dont use ICV's in the CAV.

Thank you.
Image
Me and my men - Baghdad 07'
moj
Posts: 198
Joined: 2008-04-01 06:46

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by moj »

Uh oh looks like someone didn't do their homework :grin:
agentscar
Posts: 1266
Joined: 2007-06-25 04:26

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by agentscar »

Wow,you gey em' Mike!

I think we all knew about the weapons on it,camo color,and armor..At Least I did,but I kept my mouth shut...Yes,lets hope it gets sorted out...
Image
Image
Image
Gamerofthegame
Posts: 32
Joined: 2008-04-17 02:49

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by Gamerofthegame »

Tis slightly in the future. Maybe the slightly in the future US made desert Cameo for them or something.
Image
OkitaMakoto
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 9368
Joined: 2006-05-25 20:57

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by OkitaMakoto »

[R-CON]MikeAP wrote:Oh my GOD. MY EYES ARE BURNING!!! MY EYES ARE BURNING.

Ok a few things from an US Army officer in a Stryker Brigade.

1) We DONT HAVE SAND COLORED STRYKERS. They are CARC Green.

2) Stryker's in a combat theater of operations will have SLAT armor on it. You will never see a Stryker in Iraq/Afghanistan without SLAT armor.

3) Weapons: WE DONT LIKE USING THE M68 as an optic, and we DONT use iron sights anymore. Every primary weapon in the Stryker brigade has some sort of optic on it. The priority is 1) ACOG 2) EOTECH Reflex and finally 3) If you have no other option, but an M68 on it.

I asked a long time ago if the team needed help with some references. In fact, I even put together a pretty large powerpoint together so that we could avoid these problems.

I really hope the team can sort this **** out before it's in final production.

PM me if you guys need help.

EDIT - Another thing I noticed that is KILLING ME.

The Stryker pictured is an 1126 ICV (Infantry carrier variant) HOWEVER, it's bumper says it's part of 2-25 ID, 2-14 CAV.............If it's in the CAV its an 1127 RV (recon variant) we dont use ICV's in the CAV.

Thank you.
You could word it a bit differently, imho

You think the DEVs are oblivious to this stuff? Sand colored... picky. PR is not current conflict rather somewhat in the near future. I would hope we could get our act together and put a little paint on them for use in areas like Kashan.

Optics = balance issue. No ones saying it wont ever be changed but that seems to be the decision right now. I do agree though, it'd be nice to get proper optics for the G3, m16/m4 and Ak weapons at some point [non scoped optics]

I agree with the bumper thing though, if you are correct. :P

[edit: wow, I accidentally said Karkand instead of Kashan at first :roll: ]
Last edited by OkitaMakoto on 2008-06-14 04:43, edited 1 time in total.
ReadMenace
Posts: 2567
Joined: 2007-01-16 20:05

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by ReadMenace »

agentscar wrote:BTW,I've always wondered...What's up with that random little chunk missing on the left side of the "chickenplate" on the Humvee?

Quick Fact: Did you know Strykers are street legal in the U.S. ,you just have to have a "Wide Load" or "Oversized Load" thing on it.
Yes, I've seen them on I-5 north of Seattle.

-REad
MikeAP
Posts: 61
Joined: 2005-11-23 14:32

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by MikeAP »

agentscar wrote:Wow,you gey em' Mike!

I think we all knew about the weapons on it,camo color,and armor..At Least I did,but I kept my mouth shut...Yes,lets hope it gets sorted out...
It's not about 'getting them'

I'm pretty pissed because back before the development I offered to help. I'd say I'm qualified to help with this considering I'm part of a Stryker Brigade and deployed to Iraq with them. I guess you can consider my word 'coming from the horses mouth'

What really upsets me is that I was told 'we have this under control'...to me thats like being told to PISS OFF. Unless they have someone more qualified than me doing historical advising for them, then I'd take it as an insult.

BTW. Looking at the Stryker model again, I see they're missing the vehicle commander's hatch. It's suppose to be next to the gunner. Defin another big boo boo.
'[R-CON wrote:OkitaMakoto;700526']You could word it a bit differently, imho

You think the DEVs are oblivious to this stuff? Sand colored... picky. PR is not current conflict rather somewhat in the near future. I would hope we could get our act together and put a little paint on them for use in areas like Kashan.

Optics = balance issue. No ones saying it wont ever be changed but that seems to be the decision right now. I do agree though, it'd be nice to get proper optics for the G3, m16/m4 and Ak weapons at some point [non scoped optics]

I agree with the bumper thing though, if you are correct. :P
Even in the future Strykers will NEVER be painted 'sand colored' whatever color that may be. There are reasons why the Stryker is carc green.

The bumper thing, IF I'M RIGHT? Hey guy, this is what I do for a living!
Image
Me and my men - Baghdad 07'
Tirak
Posts: 2022
Joined: 2008-05-11 00:35

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by Tirak »

Nice spot Mike, all of us were too busy oohing and ahhing, I suppose we all need a dose of reality (pun not really intended).

Okita, he's got a valid point, this mod strives for realism, and this guy knows his vehicle. Most of us like the model, but it's not right, does it need to be changed, yes, but I'm sure we're all willing to take the current one being offered until a fixed version comes along.

Anyway, let me throw in my Oooh, Ahhh, because regardless of what Mike says, it still looks sexy. :D
OkitaMakoto
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 9368
Joined: 2006-05-25 20:57

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by OkitaMakoto »

The problem is not saying things are in need of changing, its the manner in which its said. Especially from a team member and taking your follow up post into consideration. I'm dropping it here because I don't care to continue and make things worse by bickering.

If you have a problem with the Stryker or the way the PR team treated your offerings, take it up with someone higher up via PM, no need to bash the team on the public forums. I also apologize for throwing this out into the open, but I believe the PR team needs to be mindful of the way it portrays itself on the public forums.
Last edited by OkitaMakoto on 2008-06-14 08:28, edited 1 time in total.
Rudd
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 21225
Joined: 2007-08-15 14:32

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by Rudd »

[R-CON]MikeAP wrote: Even in the future Strykers will NEVER be painted 'sand colored' whatever color that may be. There are reasons why the Stryker is carc green.
Pardon my ignorance, but why is it this way?
Image
LtSoucy
Posts: 3089
Joined: 2007-03-23 20:04

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by LtSoucy »

why, because most of the world has a tree in am mile, and they can camo better. And look better. :p But i have to agree with mike hee, if we can jsut change there color it would be alot better, most cant see or even read typing on back so its no a issue. But everyone can see the color.
Image
Reality Gaming - Making Games Reality
http://realitygamer.org/
agentscar
Posts: 1266
Joined: 2007-06-25 04:26

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by agentscar »

The bottom point is,Mike is an ACTUAL Stryker operator...So he needs to be listened to,I can understand why he's upset.No one else to blame here,but the Devs in charge of making this vehicle...
Image
Image
Image
Pride
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 1467
Joined: 2007-07-19 18:13

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by Pride »

What you've got to take into account is that this model was made nearly a year ago, by someone who isn't on the PR team.
Vehicle: Stryker! - Game Artist Forums
Therefore, you have to realise that, yes, although some things on the model may be a tad unrealistic, it is probably too late in the production process to change these things. The effort required for these details is not worth the effort for something 99% of people will not notice ingame.

And looking at your points:
The commanders hatch does seem to be there to me (well a hatch next to the gunner), it's just closed. Take a look at this render of the model:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/ ... ol/6-2.jpg

If there is a reason for the green paint, like you say, i'm sure this can be quickly and easily edited. Likewise for the number on the back.

There was definitely a stryker modeled with slat armour, look here:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/ ... gol/19.jpg
however, i don't know why it wasn't used. Probably because the cage didn't look good ingame or something.
Image

eddie: the MoD aren't just going to start blurring their faces so they look 'well ard' are they?
Rhino
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 47909
Joined: 2005-12-13 20:00

Re: US Army Update Part 1

Post by Rhino »

Pride wrote:What you've got to take into account is that this model was made nearly a year ago, by someone who isn't on the PR team.
Vehicle: Stryker! - Game Artist Forums
Therefore, you have to realise that, yes, although some things on the model may be a tad unrealistic, it is probably too late in the production process to change these things. The effort required for these details is not worth the effort for something 99% of people will not notice ingame.

And looking at your points:
The commanders hatch does seem to be there to me (well a hatch next to the gunner), it's just closed. Take a look at this render of the model:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/ ... ol/6-2.jpg

If there is a reason for the green paint, like you say, i'm sure this can be quickly and easily edited. Likewise for the number on the back.

There was definitely a stryker modeled with slat armour, look here:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/ ... gol/19.jpg
however, i don't know why it wasn't used. Probably because the cage didn't look good ingame or something.
yep, the model was made outside of the mod and there are a few issues with it thou that is down to the MAs didn't really get many WIP pics like they do with our inside models. Most of the issues like pride said are to late to fix, and to small to really worry about.

As for the colour our MAs inform us that in a few years some "tan camo" strykers should start coming out of production, it is a fairly new weapon in the US Army and its still being fully integrated into it.

As for the cage, we will probaly put that on but it caused lots of problems sticking it on the scimitar.
Image
Locked

Return to “Announcements & Highlights”