*NTKB falls on his knees and PLEADS to yurch!
- Thread starter NTKB
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
There HAS been communication between Duke and the RA community, and Duke and (especially) Toad have been receptive and responsive to input from the people who play their mod. I think there should be more community involvement in the development, but having a very dedicated coder who will pursue his own vision isn't always a bad thing.
Maybe so, but ra286 has been more or less forced on some players because it is being tested on the P^R1 server, which has become the best option for many players since the untimely demise of the other major North American RAv2 servers; those run by GD and AFA.
I would agree that ra286 has lost some of the realism-intensive spirit of RA, though I also think that the point is quite arguable.
This debate is not at all pointless - the saga of ra286 has highlighted the RA community's need for new development leadership, at least while Yurch is sidelined. Also significantly, the role of the RA community in further development is obviously not well defined. Finally, the changes made in ra286 may or may not resurface as options for RA after Inf 2.9 is released, so we might as well address the issues now.
Most importantly, I had hoped no one would go so far as to say that Duke and Toad should not develop RA290 because I for one believe that Inf 2.9 will NOT satisfy the RA community's desire for realism and Ra290 is not going to code itself - we will absolutely need people like Duke and Toad to step forward and lead the development effort.
I call BS. Duke used to be considered a friend by me, we even voice chatted while playing, then he makes the RA286, my server GD2 dies and he disappears. I tried talking to him but I was ignored. I tried talking to Taque and I felt I was spit upon. These were ppl who I considered friends. Whatever I dont think friendship exists in RL anyway, everyone has some interest in someone.
Wrong. JGKDO was around wayyy before RA286. In fact when GD2 was axed and GD3 was having problems ppl would be playing on JGKDO. Now GD4 has been up for 2 weeks and AFA3 will be up very soon. I DID notice however that players stopped playing once RA286 went into dev. I know for a fact we lost Asmodeus one of our clan members because he was fed up with the zoom BS. He said he isnt coming back now till 2.90 because he has no interest in playing now.
I dont see where any argument can be made. It basically runs now like Vanilla INF but with slower movement and now you even have a zooooom! wheeeee! I can shoot you now across Island with an M9! Yay! Realism!
I disagree. Yurch left us a gem that has wayyy more playability till 2.9 comes out. I dont want any development leadership thats gonna detract form the spirit of RA. Test your RA286 on MUF, not an RAv2 Server. Either way if the authors of "RA"286 should have enabled a switch to turn on and off the features desired and it should be renamed to something else that doesnt contain "Real Aim" in it. Because its not.
Wrong. Yurch said he was going to make a RAv3 for 2.90. We dont need Duke or TOAD to do that for us. Yurch can easily code the new nade effects, blood and critical impacts and even the climbing, if tweaked alittle into RAv3. There is no need for a RA290. I would sacrafice my future child to make sure Yurch coded RAv3 over Duke and TOAD since they allready proved they are not responsible enough with realism to continue in Yurchs shoes. In fact I dont understand why Yurch hasnt said "enough!" yet. But thats his perogative. Either way if Yurch gives up and doesnt code RAv3 and 2.90 isnt as realistic as RAv2 then I think im done with Infiltration. The only reason I started playing was for the realism and thats the only reason I continue to play. And I think I speak for the majority of RA players when i say that.
I can understand the zoom, since the person's eye is closer to the guns iron site. Especialy on pistols. So maybe a feature should be implemented where the person can move the weapon closer (+ zoom) and move the weapon away (-zoom).
Only some weapons should be able to be zoomed / moved closer to sites. Likes pistols, and SOME other guns. Good idea? bad?
I assume the zoom isn't that great? (my gfx broke, cannot try INF or INF RA untill I get a new card/PC... Can some one post a pic of it on zoom? and a features lsit?)
Only some weapons should be able to be zoomed / moved closer to sites. Likes pistols, and SOME other guns. Good idea? bad?
I assume the zoom isn't that great? (my gfx broke, cannot try INF or INF RA untill I get a new card/PC... Can some one post a pic of it on zoom? and a features lsit?)
Last edited:
jasdave said:
jasdave, its not a zoom like that. It literally zooms in the enviroment x2 like a scope but without the blackout. You can do this at anytime anywhere with or without a weapon. Its retarded. Many ppl have suggested EXACTLY what you said. If you could zoom the iron sites only closer to the screen then it would pwn your mommas ass. But for some reason they dont do this...
I don't think it's that easy.
In fact, their solution was to just modify the FoV to 45° which is quite simple because there is a command (fov XX) coded into UT that does just that. Making the sites actually come up would require new offsets and stuff and weapon meshes I think. I think it is posssible though since Yurch changed the posistion of the M3s90 so it'd probably be possible to make all the weapons come closer.
I'm no coder so I'm not sure if this all works but it's an educated guess.
In fact, their solution was to just modify the FoV to 45° which is quite simple because there is a command (fov XX) coded into UT that does just that. Making the sites actually come up would require new offsets and stuff and weapon meshes I think. I think it is posssible though since Yurch changed the posistion of the M3s90 so it'd probably be possible to make all the weapons come closer.
I'm no coder so I'm not sure if this all works but it's an educated guess.
Personnally, i'm not judging every single feature in particular, but gameplay in general. I'm not going to say anything about the ideas that originated ra286, but i've just found gameplay in ra286 to be less realistic and much less thrilling. For example, it's kind of boring getting sniped all the time by mp5's...
RAv2 has undoubtfully some some flaws, but overall it produces a very balanced game. And it's also true that the RA community is very small, and i can understand why peolple are pissed off to see it divides.
RAv2 has undoubtfully some some flaws, but overall it produces a very balanced game. And it's also true that the RA community is very small, and i can understand why peolple are pissed off to see it divides.
I am and have been aware of JgKdo's server. However, it is in Europe, whereas it seems that many RA players are in North America. I know that I personally look first at servers on which I have good pings, and I think that many others share this tendency.
Judging by ping, map list, and number of players, PR1 is often the most appealing choice for me. If it means that I have to play with ra286, so be it. After all, it's not that much different from RAv2 anyway. THIS is why I said that PR1 has become the most viable option for many players.
The realism of ra286 can be argued because it is realistic in the details. The jumping system makes a lot of sense when you think about it. The zoom corrects to some extent the low resolution and downright bizarre field of view of UT. Even the changes to the weapon characteristics are supposedly based on real experimentation (though where they obtained these guns, I don't know). The problem that I see and I think others see is that ra286 reduces the realism of RA as a combat experience. These details, realistic when taken individually, combine to create an experience that is somewhat less realistic OVERALL than Yurch's RAv2 was. This point is most applicable to the new weapon charactersitics. If recoil muts be a bit overdone and weapon sway while moving more than is realistic to penalize players for shooting wildly and firing on the move, then I think that these compromises are acceptable because in the end we gain a more real-feeling combat simulation.
Aha! Well here are some valuable points to discuss. So I guess this thread is worthwhile after all, isn't it?
Great! Yurch can be the leader that I was talking about. But what if Yurch can't or won't develop RA anymore? What then? I'm not saying that Yurch shouldn't code RAv3, or RA290, or whatever you want to call it (actually, I think that he should). I'm not saying that Duke should. I'm just saying that we need SOMEONE to do the job, and those who step up and shoulder the burden (and harbor no illusion here - it is a burden) deserve some praise along with a healthy dose of criticism.
First off, I'd like to say I'm very much still alive and kicking. The very thing that's keeping me 'sidelined' is the 2.9 release. (of course, the death of the re-format and installation that I mentioned earlier doesn't help much, I'm on win98 now...)
As for the zoom thing, it was something I also had brought up and was considering implementation. (I remember a thread, but it died with the forum crash) I've seen it used in IL2 almost flawlessly and plenty of standard FPS's to decent sucess, and I may add some of them feel quite natural with it. I don't know if or how duke went 'wrong' with his implementation but it's something I plan on examining fully.(Note that even simply changing the FOV in inf requires a re-offset of the sights, no short amount of work.) If someone wishes to discuss it I'll be glad to take up a thread for it.
And isn't JgKdo running or at least was running another modified version of RA?
As for the "RA name", I can't do much to protect or preserve it, especially when other's opinions are involved. The mutator serves as a very easy 'base' to get modifications in. It's obviously impossible for me to hold a copyright or standard on it, and in the unlikely event that someone were to heavily disagree with me and decides to make thier own, it's in a way too late to keep a standard here anyhow. If people can't stand playing with RAv2 or anything else I put out, I wouldn't want to stand in the way in order to preserve the 'unity' of the mod.
It is, afterall, the same thing we did to 2.86, create a division. There aren't too many of us left who regret the decision.
Also, there are many mods out there that attract too few people to remain standing. I'm obviously not saying this about RA286, but the majority of players will clump together if and when it's nessesary.
It's just a name, I wouldn't be too concerned of it. I originally had randomly banged the keyboard to get "RA" anyway when first setting up my compiler almost two years ago. Hopefully my later projects will be much more... "professional" than the first two versions of RA was.
I will be undertaking RAv3 and hopefully many other projects after 2.9 has had time to settle. It's final features and actual usage on a server will be a combination of a wait-and-see policy as well as my own judgment. If it's not needed, not wanted, or otherwise no support for it, it is of course possible it may never see it's way onto a server.
I will be paying attention first to gameplay problems 2.9 may have and features I am directly interested in.
As for the zoom thing, it was something I also had brought up and was considering implementation. (I remember a thread, but it died with the forum crash) I've seen it used in IL2 almost flawlessly and plenty of standard FPS's to decent sucess, and I may add some of them feel quite natural with it. I don't know if or how duke went 'wrong' with his implementation but it's something I plan on examining fully.(Note that even simply changing the FOV in inf requires a re-offset of the sights, no short amount of work.) If someone wishes to discuss it I'll be glad to take up a thread for it.
And isn't JgKdo running or at least was running another modified version of RA?
As for the "RA name", I can't do much to protect or preserve it, especially when other's opinions are involved. The mutator serves as a very easy 'base' to get modifications in. It's obviously impossible for me to hold a copyright or standard on it, and in the unlikely event that someone were to heavily disagree with me and decides to make thier own, it's in a way too late to keep a standard here anyhow. If people can't stand playing with RAv2 or anything else I put out, I wouldn't want to stand in the way in order to preserve the 'unity' of the mod.
It is, afterall, the same thing we did to 2.86, create a division. There aren't too many of us left who regret the decision.
Also, there are many mods out there that attract too few people to remain standing. I'm obviously not saying this about RA286, but the majority of players will clump together if and when it's nessesary.
It's just a name, I wouldn't be too concerned of it. I originally had randomly banged the keyboard to get "RA" anyway when first setting up my compiler almost two years ago. Hopefully my later projects will be much more... "professional" than the first two versions of RA was.
I will be undertaking RAv3 and hopefully many other projects after 2.9 has had time to settle. It's final features and actual usage on a server will be a combination of a wait-and-see policy as well as my own judgment. If it's not needed, not wanted, or otherwise no support for it, it is of course possible it may never see it's way onto a server.
I will be paying attention first to gameplay problems 2.9 may have and features I am directly interested in.
![Cleeus[JgKdo]](/data/avatars/s/30/30543.jpg?1424422840){kind=avatar}
yurch said:
No, the German INFantry Server once was, but this was long ago and only a needed consequence of certain circumstances. We are just running the good ol RAV2
yurch said:
At this time (and Duke has told me that this is how it will stay), the player can zoom at any time he wishes, as long as he is alive (and even death does not get in the way in some circumstances). I think that the ability to stayed zoomed at all times is one problem some have with the system.
Another issue is that the zoom has made iron sights much more usable (a good thing, I think), but this change has made scopes far less valuable, especially because it seems like it's much more difficult to line up any given shot when using an ACOG than when using an m16 or sig's irons. Is there a balance issue here? Well, that depends on how worthwhile you think scopes should be. I personally think that shooting with iron sights at medium range should be harder than it is right now. How should this be done? Probably more swaying even while standing still (apply the same problem that scope users face to iron sights) The low visibility of iron sights in RAv2 made scopes an appealing alternative, but I don't think that's a particularly realistic or sensibly way of balancing irons and scopes. Note: I may be completely wrong about the difference in weapon sway between scopes and irons. If so, please inform me of my error.
Yes, I think you've nailed it on the head. The general motion of weapons in inf is not something that causes much difficulty once the gap of visual obscurement is bridged. There are those out there that consider the old 2.86 shotgun to be more accurate because the sights are not blocking the point of aim. Using a pistol as a reference, I'm much more accurate (during quick firing) in inf than I am with a real-life alternative, and the only thing holding me back in inf is a sight that blocks the target... but we are talking then about something 100+ yards away.
If the FOV change is supposed to represent a more accurate representation of visual resolution, I have no problem with it being allowed to be used at any time. This is, of course, taking away the one thing really holding irons back, and I think the lack of this difficulty is what's turning most players off to the idea of 'zoom'.
From what I understand of course, inf's map distances usually stay well within what is considered 'iron sight' range. If the iron/scope ordeal were to be accurately portrayed, scopes may take on a smaller advantage or simply a more preferential role, and this I don't really have a problem with, considering the distances covered.
If the FOV change is supposed to represent a more accurate representation of visual resolution, I have no problem with it being allowed to be used at any time. This is, of course, taking away the one thing really holding irons back, and I think the lack of this difficulty is what's turning most players off to the idea of 'zoom'.
From what I understand of course, inf's map distances usually stay well within what is considered 'iron sight' range. If the iron/scope ordeal were to be accurately portrayed, scopes may take on a smaller advantage or simply a more preferential role, and this I don't really have a problem with, considering the distances covered.
heres my 2 cents
Example M16 you are too far from the site when look through it.......Most FPShooters do this...they zoom in a bit when you get select the iron sites..which I believe represents you sticking your eye up to site and focusing on the target which with one eye closed would eliminate some of your p-vision.
Example M16 you are too far from the site when look through it.......Most FPShooters do this...they zoom in a bit when you get select the iron sites..which I believe represents you sticking your eye up to site and focusing on the target which with one eye closed would eliminate some of your p-vision.