Weapon Mass and Encumbrance Relation Test

[agent()()9 18]

I'll probably get criticized for posting this (especially by Fennek), but I haven't gotten an answer yet, and it relates to the DLC weapons. Also, I am deployed, so I can't test this myself:

Would someone mind going into the virtual arsenal of the game (dev branch) and create two exactly equal load outs (doesn't matter what, as long as they are the same) with only this difference:

Loadout 1 has a Zafir and one 150-round magazines

Loadout 2 has a Mk-1 EMR and seven 20-round magazine (140 rounds total)

Now, look at the load percentage shown for each load out. Are they the same or different? If different, by how much? Does anyone know if your load percentage is the only thing that determines how quickly you fatigue when running?

I'm hoping that the load percentage shown is not equal to the rate of fatigue, as loadout 2 should be lighter than loadout 1.

[stormhawkv 19]

Loadout 1 has a Zafir and one 150-round magazines

Does that mean a loaded Zafir and nothing else? If so, loadout 2 should be heavier by the weight of a smoke grenade. This is more a problem with the guns and not with the mags because in reality 7 empty rifle mags are heavier than one empty box mag. In my opinion LMGs should be at least 50% heavier than rifles of the same caliber.

[Brisse 78]

There's a bug that counts any loaded magazine as zero mass, so please do this test with all magazines in inventory, and empty magazine slot in weapon.

Even better would be just to look in the configs and add up the mass values. It's not hard to do, and it gives you a absolute number instead of some visual bar which is hard to read accurately.

Edit: I decided to do it myself, becouse it's really easy and does not take much time. Here we go:

Zafir mass: 180

Zafir 150rnd magazine mass: 40

Mk1 EMR mass: 160

Mk1 EMR 20rnd magazine mass: 12

Zafir + 1 magazine: 180+40=220

Mk-1 EMR + 7 magazines: 160+(12*7)=244

Edited April 5, 2015 by Brisse

[stormhawkv 19]

So the mass of the Zafir was increased by 20 and the Mk-1 still has a mass of 160. That's way too much. The Rahim has a mass of 100. MXM has 120, Mk18 has 140 last time I checked.

[agent()()9 18]

Are you guys sure the mass of the Zafir is 180? Last I heard, it was 160, same as the EMR. That's good if they increased it. I think the issues are that the DMRs are overweight overall, but volume is considered into the equation that determines the value of an object's "mass units".

Thanks for doing that, Brisse. As I said, I would test myself if I were home.

I'm guessing that the rate of fatigue is directly tied to the total mass units carried. I hope BI separates volume from being considered as part of the "mass unit" value. Volume should be a separate variable to limit maximum holding capacity, so as not to affect fatigue rate.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Agent()()9

[St. Jimmy 272]

There's no two values, volume and mass and I hardly believe it will change in Arma 3. Only one value that tries to balance between those two.

[tinter 186]

I never understood why they went with some vague inbetween thing. How are you supposed to relate to it? Nevertheless actually calculate how much volumass the item you're making takes up?

[stormhawkv 19]

These values really need to be tweaked. The 4-five is twice as heavy as a P07 and as heavy as a TRG-20 while the Mk-1 EMR weights as much as the Titan MPRL.

[agent()()9 18]

These values really need to be tweaked. The 4-five is twice as heavy as a P07 and as heavy as a TRG-20 while the Mk-1 EMR weights as much as the Titan MPRL.

Even if volume and mass are combined in one value, this still seems way off. Authenticity of a weapon's weight is more important to accurately represent encumbrance.

The easiest solution might be to make "mass units" = weight for all items, and create a new value for volume that equals the "mass units" value by default, but exists to be tweaked if the developers feel it should be adjusted later to account for unusually bulky or compact items. "Mass units" would affect a soldier's fatigue rate while moving, while "Volume" would be used to determine the maximum capacity of a container or person.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Agent()()9

[Hsiulung 1]

These values really need to be tweaked. The 4-five is twice as heavy as a P07 and as heavy as a TRG-20 while the Mk-1 EMR weights as much as the Titan MPRL.

Why not tweak them yourself, it is super easy to make a big difference, and those weapons in arma 3 which also have real life counterparts.

[agent()()9 18]

Why not tweak them yourself, it is super easy to make a big difference, and those weapons in arma 3 which also have real life counterparts.

The problem isn't that it can't be tweaked by modders, but a problem with vanilla Arma 3 itself. There is not enough distinction between using an LMG or MMG, and other weapons if soldiers can carry MGs as easily as other weapons that should be lighter. I saw a recent youtube video of End Game where almost everyone was running around with an LMG or MMG.

Edit: To clarify, I mean that stamina should deplete faster with an MG because of the heavier weight. I don't think weight should affect the initial rested run speed.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Agent()()9

[Hsiulung 1]

The problem isn't that it can't be tweaked by modders, but a problem with vanilla Arma 3 itself. There is not enough distinction between using an LMG or MMG, and other weapons if soldiers can carry MGs as easily as other weapons that should be lighter. I saw a recent youtube video of End Game where almost everyone was running around with an LMG or MMG.

I think it is all about the stamina system ,you run at same speed whatever you are carrying. This has been ages.

[stormhawkv 19]

Even if volume and mass are combined in one value, this still seems way off. Authenticity of a weapon's weight is more important to accurately represent encumbrance.

The easiest solution might be to make "mass units" = weight for all items, and create a new value for volume that equals the "mass units" value by default, but exists to be tweaked if the developers feel it should be adjusted later to account for unusually bulky or compact items. "Mass units" would affect a soldier's fatigue rate while moving, while "Volume" would be used to determine the maximum capacity of a container or person.

I don't think this is needed. Large rifles already don't fit into backpacks even though their mass could be stored there. Their weight doesn't have to be ultra realistic, but it needs to reflect their real world differences, which is not given when the Zafir is only 10 or 15% heavier than the Mk-1 EMR. I imagine something like this:

all pistols - 20

all SMGs - 40

all carbines - 60

all assault rifles - 80

Mk18, Mk14, MXM, Rahim, Mk-1 EMR - 100

all GL versions, MXSW - 120

MK200 - 140

Zafir - 160

Easy to do, not far from what we have atm and (imo) close enough to reality.

Why not tweak them yourself, it is super easy to make a big difference, and those weapons in arma 3 which also have real life counterparts.

I know, but that's not the point.

[agent()()9 18]

I agree that it doesn't have to be perfect. Those values you posted would work fine; maybe make the MMGs 180 or 200.

[stormhawkv 19]

I will have a closer look at the weight of the DLC guns when the update is live in 6 or so hours. I don't know their stats and constantly changing between stable and dev is going on my nerves.

[agent()()9 18]

I will have a closer look at the weight of the DLC guns when the update is live in 6 or so hours. I don't know their stats and constantly changing between stable and dev is going on my nerves.

It would be interesting to see; thank you! I won't have access to my computer until about mid-June.

Also, do you (or anyone else) know if the inertia values on the DMRs are at least better than the MGs, in general?

[stormhawkv 19]

Afaik inertia is tied to mass and therefore the inertia of the Mk-1 EMR should be better than the inertia of the Zafir but worse than the inertia of the Mk200.

[Brisse 78]

Nope. Inertia isn't tied to anything, not even mass. It has it's own value (example: "inertia = 0.5;") and is entirely subjective or arbitrary. It's up to the designer to choose what to use.

[razor6014 35]

Nope. Inertia isn't tied to anything, not even mass. It has it's own value (example: "inertia = 0.5;") and is entirely subjective or arbitrary. It's up to the designer to choose what to use.

I disagree

example :

[roberthammer 582]

I disagree

A3 inertia it's own value , ofc in real life it is tied with weight etc but in A3 nope

that's why Long Sniper rifles , Machine guns should have strong A3 weapon inertia to simulate their clumsiness in CQB areas because they are not simply made for CQB

Edited April 8, 2015 by RobertHammer

[stormhawkv 19]

Nope. Inertia isn't tied to anything, not even mass. It has it's own value (example: "inertia = 0.5;") and is entirely subjective or arbitrary. It's up to the designer to choose what to use.

Ah, good to know. So I have to look them up separately. Thank you!

I disagree

I'm pretty sure Brisse was talking about the ingame mechanics not reality.

[razor6014 35]

@RobertHammer : That i sort of figured, but since the implementation was not mentioned above i assumed it was a discussion on tweaking

Edited April 8, 2015 by Razor6014

[Brisse 78]

I'm pretty sure Brisse was talking about the ingame mechanics not reality.

Correct. There seemed to be some confusion on how inertia was implemented in the game so I just wanted to present how the mechanic is actually configured.

Razor6014: I have a Bachelor of Science in Marine Engineering. I don't think I need lecturing on physics. :)

Of course, there's no way you could know that though.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Brisse

[stormhawkv 19]

Got them.

NATO

P09 - 20

4-five - 30

Vermin - 40

MXC - 80

MX - 100

MXM - 120

MX3GL - 120

MX SW - 120

Mk-1 EMR - 160

MAR-10 - 180

SPMG - 200

M320 LRR - 220

CSAT

Rook-40 - 20

Zubr .45 - 30

Sting - 50

Katiba Carbine - 80

Katiba - 100

Katiba GL - 120

Rahim - 100

Zafir - 180

ASP-1 - 120

Cyrus - 160

Navid - 220

GM6 Lynx - 240

AAF

ACP-C2 - 20

PDW2000 - 30

Mk20C - 70

Mk20 - 80

Mk20 EGLM - 100

Mk18 ABR - 140

Mk200 - 140

FIA

TRG-20 - 60

TRG-21 - 70

TRG-21 EGLM - 90

Mk14 - 120

I looked up some real-life weights and one thing I noticed is that most DMRs are lighter or at least not heavier than GL versions of assault rifles.

[agent()()9 18]

Thanks for posting the mass values, Stormhawk.

So I found this (it is outdated by now): http://imgur.com/0JDAAvi For the EMR (assuming they kept the values the same), the accuracy and muzzle velocity (initspeed) is very high compared to the other 7.62mm rifles in game. The caliber is also a bit higher than the m14 (which I think is probably the default for the rest of the 7.62mm rifles). I've looked at several semi-auto 7.62mm DMR and sniper rifles online, and there are only a few that match the heavy weight of the EMR (assuming weight in kg = mass units / 22). The H&K PSG1 and M39 EMR are the only two with equivalent weight. All of the remaining semi-auto 7.62mm rifles are much lighter.

Considering everything, when you look at how accurate and powerful the EMR is, I can see why BI would also make it the most heavy 7.62mm DMR. It is more of a light-caliber sniper rifle than a battle rifle. I'm still glad that the devs made the Zafir and the MMGs heavier, though. I couldn't find one 7.62mm LMG that was nearly as light as the Zafir was. Even bumping it up from 160 to 180 might still be a bit too light.

I know that I've been nit-picking here on the weapon masses, so I'll finish with this: Overall, I think the folks at BI have done a fantastic job on the Marksmen DLC from what I've seen, with bipods, recoil, sound overhaul, weapon stabilization, end game mode and new weapons. They've addressed just about every major concern I've had about this game in one big update. I'll be buying the DLC and enjoying some game time when I return home from my deployment.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Agent()()9