Well the FAQ was updated and they've created a special page dedicated to it, so I figured we could have a salivation and speculation thread, for posting of ideas, wishes, discussion and comments pertaining to the potential PR2.

 

Link

Is the PR team working on a complete stand alone game?

Yes, and as of June 6, 2009 we were in pre-production. This remains the case now - late 2009.

 

 

Who is working on PR2?

Currently, a small group of developers from PR1 are involved. The number is currently very small (under fifteen), as work at this early stage centres around proof-of-concept and design planning.

 

This core group of developers will be responsible for putting together a solid foundation, upon which more developers will work later down the line. New members of this team are not being sought at this time, and no, we're not about to tell you who they are... we have inbox quotas to stick to

 

What kind of features and content will it include?

Most of this, for obvious reasons, is still under wraps at the moment. However, you should not expect a direct port of current Project Reality 1 gameplay, content and user interface into a new engine. PR2 is aiming to do much more than recreate what already works (and works well) on the Battlefield 2 engine.

 

PR2 isn't about plugging the gaps in what our BF2 mod can't deliver (fastropes, for example). It's about creating something new and original.

 

When will there be a playable alpha?

What's your definition of playable?! But yes, hopefully before too long we'll be able to distribute an early build to the community that shows off some of the basics. This will not be in 2009.

 

Will there be a physics system?

Yes. C4 will include its own physics system and in the unlikely event that this proves inadequate for our needs, we'll integrate a 3rd party physics engine.

 

As of late 2009 the C4 physics system is slated for inclusion in C4 v2.0, which is due imminently. The physics system in C4 is designed to be a "network aware" physics engine; networked physics are extremely difficult to pull off, particularly in large scale multiplayer environments (physics use network traffic fairly intensively). But all on the team dislike the idea of elm trees that can stop a tank, and we have had some thoughts about where networked physics are a must-have, and where they are less vital. This optimization will hopefully allow a good balance of immersive, realistic environments and smooth gameplay.

 

The PR2 'official page' can be found here:

http://www.realitymod.com/pr2.html

 

C4 Engine Videos:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfltWNBLkAU&fmt=22]YouTube- The Visible Dark -Demo (Highres)[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UqtUnMyZX8]YouTube- New chaingun and reflections for Lego Wolf3D[/ame]

Edited December 7, 200915 yr by Husker

Nice C4 looks pretty shmick cant wait to see some SS of development just to see the terrains and lighting ect

I do like the idea of being able to use lego as a way to build bunkers and cover.

 

This is the one game we can wait an infinite amount of time for, so long as it is playable in the most basic state.

Hmmm, Looking at that first video of The Visible Dark...

A nighttime PR map ?

Heheh, Lego Wolf3d Is epic, but the engine itself seems more than enough. PR2 (Hopefully) Will be our cure for Arma 2 and Grenade Spam's on Ramiel.

I'm not confident in that engines ability to support large scale multiplayer and/or large scale maps with alot of objects.

I'm not confident in that engines ability to support large scale multiplayer and/or large scale maps with alot of objects.

So long as it supports at least 100 players I'll be happy. So angry that developers are actually going backwards in player cap nowadays, it's not right.

 

How many players will be supported? - We are hoping to support a minimum of 33 players per team (4 x 8 man squads + 1 Commander, per side) for a total of 66 players. Ideally we'll support 98 players total preferably up to 130 (8 x 8 man squads + 1 Commander per team).

130 players = WIN!!

Edited December 18, 200915 yr by mrchickenfool

I bet BigD, if it hosts PR2, will never get about 80 or so people, there just isn't enough interest in this market.

 

However it will be cool for community matches overseas, maps will have to be xbox huge to have that big of a war though.

 

Will be awesome if there are some really good conventional maps.

I don't think that at all dtacs, I think the fact that there is a limit on the server pretty much stops it from gaining more than 100+ online at any time (across servers). People don't want to be segregated, they want to play in the same game with the people they know.

 

And heck, god knows there is more than 200-300 people that are interested in a PR type game. Being 5 years old doesn't exactly help the current PR's cause though. If we had a smooth running 100+ player Multiplayer war game, it would gain popularity like wildfire. I honestly think the current PR would be better if all the fights were focused but lost faith in that ever happening a while ago. 64 people isn't enough to partake a modern combat game, the very simple answer is....we need moar people on the battlefield!!

Edited December 18, 200915 yr by YAK

Of course there are 200-300 people interested in the game.

 

According to this community there are 1000 or so amirite? But they aren't playing PR all at once, and even with this 130 amount the same situation will repeat itself.

 

Plus if a game had a limit of 1000 it isn't going to change the sheer fact that gameplay is the prime attraction. People play MW2 due to the fact you can go in, shoot up some people, imagine your in the SAS and so forth. 130 players is a cool perk but if this game is cactus then it will be lucky to break BF2's limit.

I don't think that at all dtacs, I think the fact that there is a limit on the server pretty much stops it from gaining more than 100+ online at any time (across servers). People don't want to be segregated, they want to play in the same game with the people they know.

 

And heck, god knows there is more than 200-300 people that are interested in a PR type game. Being 5 years old doesn't exactly help the current PR's cause though. If we had a smooth running 100+ player Multiplayer war game, it would gain popularity like wildfire. I honestly think the current PR would be better if all the fights were focused but lost faith in that ever happening a while ago. 64 people isn't enough to partake a modern combat game, the very simple answer is....we need moar people on the battlefield!!

 

but the way games are going today ... bf2 player limit of 64 is better then compaired to other New games which have a limit of only 24 .......

So angry that developers are actually going backwards in player cap nowadays, it's not right.

 

This was the point I was trying to make in another thread about the console market dictating the new games and there gameplay.

Console Market sucks, Developers should be pushing the PC boundarys with Console follow up releases not the other way around

Console Market sucks, Developers should be pushing the PC boundarys with Console follow up releases not the other way around

 

as much as it sucks man, Video game developers will always look at the market that will earn them the most money... in comparrison to PC players, would you guys think they are more "online" consolers ?

 

wasnt Fuel of war supposed to be like 100+ players ? all i know is im getting fed up with these console ports, we have to pay the same money and we dodgy left overs ! !!!!shafted!!!!

 

PC have better specs so isnt it time they made something holy and soly for us ? my old 486 could run faster than a Ps3 lololol and yet i havnt found a game to really push my pc's limits which brings me to the question !! why do we buy good compnents if we can use them to our fullest potential, the only time my girl cops a floggin is when im benchin my OC !

Console Market sucks, Developers should be pushing the PC boundarys with Console follow up releases not the other way around

 

As much as it enrages me the money is in consoles. As such the market is in fact very good.

 

The PC pushes more boundaries than the console ever will, just that more people like consoles for reasons I can't explain. Fratboys who like to drink beer, shout and high-five playing halo? I still can't get over how anyone can play a fps with a joystick.

/rant

As much as it enrages me the money is in consoles. As such the market is in fact very good.

 

The PC pushes more boundaries than the console ever will, just that more people like consoles for reasons I can't explain. Fratboys who like to drink beer, shout and high-five playing halo? I still can't get over how anyone can play a fps with a joystick.

/rant

 

its funny how a person who loves their PC games can be regularly refered to as a "Nerd / Geek" whereas you got a full footy team playing halo on an xbox .....

 

where's their nick name... just coz they aint got the brains to turn a PC on... or to install a game for that matter LOL !!! damn frat boys !! come here ill show you how we roll in the 4114 ! lol

As someone said in another thread, consoles will never take off until one can alt-tab whilst dead and look at porn.

 

But...you could have your DVD player playing some, and use the TV/AV button to switch between the two. Hmmm, I'm intrigued in consoles now.

 

 

One thing that has always bothered me, especially in the 'arcade realism' side of things, that developers know what they need to do but almost never achieve it. Look at Tactical Gaming Done Right, that was written in 2006, and still nothing has even gone close.

 

Developers are scared of actually trying anything new, in case it tanks, so the actual movement, and gameplay mechanics stay basically the same because they work and don't frighten people. (the exception to this rule was Frontlines - where they would of been better off trying the same thing).

 

I would love to see a game where actually physics are integral. i.e. human movement is limited to what a human can actually do - speed of turning around, mantling, no jumping. Weapon collisions with environment. Bullet trajectories and speed, no cone of fire etc.

 

All these things have been done, no one has put it altogether in one package. It's nearly 2010 and we are still playing Wolf3D clones. I can't see how these advancements aren't being made.

The money may be in console but for as SOP said advancing gaming PC's are the way to go, these games companys just release the same stuff with a few changes here and there, now some game companies do push the boundaries and its usually the PC market not the console market.

it almost comes down to a VHS vs BETA thing. Consoles have the marketing and they are "cool" to have where having a computer you are a nerd. PCs are far superior but lack the marketing to push their benefits. The internet was only for nerds a few years back until myspace came and now it's facebook, remember before them no one would touch a computer if they thought it would knock down their social status.

well the only game i know of that has a over 200 player limit was FREELANCER ... and that was a epic game with some cool mods ... game was released nearly 7 years ago now ... and its still running strong with the mods .... epic space battles too

Having revisited material on the C4 engine, I'm finding myself unnerved by the foliage and lighting, does anyone else see what I'm talking about?

http://www.terathon.com/c4engine/shots.php

 

The lighting model seems very... sharp. It's hard to explain but I suppose you could say it would be the opposite of ray tracing (like none). The shadows are seemingly handled very well (and from what I can see are RTS... real time shadows) which is good.

 

In all of the screenshots for games with trees/bushes, something just looks strange about the actual foliage to me... Maybe I'm crazy

i get what your saying psyrus, and i can see what you mean, but also keep in mind the dev team will be making their own tree models, which should allow them to ajust them to look atleast half decent.

Could it be the lack of grass and other foliage you would find lying aorund ont he floor in such areas? It looks real pretty but it does seem to be missing the smaller details.

I realized what the lighting reminded me of... an assignment from my uni class [CG252] in povray... Ended up doing a 30 frame render:

http://members.ii.net/~rodchinn/public/images/final_render.gif

 

The way the light falls looks quite sharp on both mine and C4, whereas you look at some of the newer games and blending is far more... immersive?

I'm sure some development towards dynamic light rendering is underway Psyrus, the good thing about the C4 engine is that it is constantly being updated and upgraded as an engine.