I enjoy the "Realism" of interacting with my squad mates in simulated environments. That for me is as realistic as I need it to be within the framework of any given game. When games start to impose artificial limitations in a simulated environment and attempt to call it "reality", I start to have less fun overall.

For instance, and I realize that this is not about PRM per se but I believe I've addressed the topic in its general sense above, the foot soldier to vehicle interaction in PRM is fine. Vehicle to Vehicle interaction however, is not. All the vehicles since vBF2 have lacked the (simulated) electronic target detection, acquisition, tracking, and elimination suites that one would expect to find on their real life counterparts. Electronic countermeasures are another thing that is missing from vBF2 vehicles and their modded siblings. And yet, I accept this in vBF2 as part of its set of limitations to make the game as fun for all as possible.

The problem arises when, through modification, the vehicles are further limited in terms of how they acquire and engage OPFOR vehicles (ie: through no external cams, limited FOV arcs using "mouse look", etc.), all in the name of "a more realistic simulation", without providing "realistic" substitutes for the systems being removed (ie: mirrors for drivers in place of external cams and limited FOV arcs, short range radar for aircraft and other assault vehicles, etc.).

Where is the realism in flying an aircraft, with no radar, no mirrors, and whose only means to look over the pilot’s shoulder to check one's six (for those without fancy joysticks) means losing control of the aircraft while one diverts mouse input to direct the "mouse look" FOV?

Where is the realism for the tank driver whose only source of information; whose only means of perceiving the world around him is what he can see directly ahead through a tiny view port?

I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm no fool either to believe that operators of vehicles like these, in reality, rely solely on their own keen eyesight to make decisions when under fire on the battlefield. I expect that they would have a vast array of battlefield information systems at their disposal with which to make these combat decisions. I further contend that games that seek to simulate realistic environments, as PRM has done, need to model the whole package and not just impose vulnerabilities that they think might make their game "feel more realistic".

I have the very real impression that; based upon the absence of realistically modeled vehicles, coupled with their long respawn times, that PR itself is modeled for and by those who prefer a "realistic Infantry Only" experience. In that regard, PR has done extremely well for itself on the whole. But the vehicle aspects of the game are sorely lacking. They feel more vulnerable and weaker than their counterparts in other BF2 flavors do - due strictly to the limitations placed upon drivers and pilots over and above what core BF2 technology already places upon them.

The bottom line for me, and in concluding me remarks to the topic of this thread, I enjoy "realism" in the games that I play and I especially enjoy "realistic" interactions with the people I game with. But unless the game itself is going to model everything as realistically as possible, without bias to one group or aspect or another - or has at least hidden that bias in such a way that it is undetectable to me - I'm not likely to enjoy much of what it has to offer. If that cannot be done, I prefer gameplay over realism any day of the week.

I would have preferred a second option somewhere in between as well but, given the slant of my argument, I voted no.