Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
agent()()9

Weapon Mass and Encumbrance Relation Test

Recommended Posts

So I found this (it may be outdated by now): http://imgur.com/0JDAAvi For the EMR, the accuracy and muzzle velocity (initspeed) is very high for a 7.62mm rifle.

Oh! That's a really high muzzle velocity for a 7.62x51 NATO. Must be an error. Looks more like a 5.56 muzzle velocity, which might have something to do with the real rifle that served as inspiration for BI which is actually chambered for 5.56, not 7.62. They probably looked up the muzzle velocity for the real rifle without taking into account that they changed the caliber. I think we should make a bug report!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh! That's a really high muzzle velocity for a 7.62x51 NATO. Must be an error. Looks more like a 5.56 muzzle velocity, which might have something to do with the real rifle that served as inspiration for BI which is actually chambered for 5.56, not 7.62. They probably looked up the muzzle velocity for the real rifle without taking into account that they changed the caliber. I think we should make a bug report!

Perhaps it is an error. If it is an error and they do reduce the velocity, then they should reduce the EMR's mass a bit more as well to compensate. I wouldn't want to use an overly-heavy m14. The only other explanation I can think of is "future" Arma firearm technology improving muzzle velocity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow , no wonder why the EMR is stronger than any other 7.62x51 rifle

his muzzle velocity should be around 750-800m/s and not 940m/s

The only other explanation I can think of is "future" Arma firearm technology improving muzzle velocity.

In other words: It's magic , we don't have to explain it

Edited by RobertHammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh! That's a really high muzzle velocity for a 7.62x51 NATO. Must be an error. Looks more like a 5.56 muzzle velocity, which might have something to do with the real rifle that served as inspiration for BI which is actually chambered for 5.56, not 7.62. They probably looked up the muzzle velocity for the real rifle without taking into account that they changed the caliber. I think we should make a bug report!

Before we file a bug report, we should ensure that the information isn't outdated like Agent()()9 wrote. But it really could have happened as you wrote, Brisse.

To come back to the weights of the DMRs I have to say I prefer an authentic approach much more than "balancing" the guns against each other.

In other words: It's magic , we don't have to explain it

That's exactly what I want to avoid. ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To come back to the weights of the DMRs I have to say I prefer an authentic approach much more than "balancing" the guns against each other.

Agreed, but if the EMR is that heavy and has no distinctive advantage over the other DMRs (if the initspeed is reduced), then why use it? In this case however, reducing the mass of the EMR will make it more authentic to real-life DMRs with the same caliber and similar designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed, but if the EMR is that heavy and has no distinctive advantage over the other DMRs (if the initspeed is reduced), then why use it? In this case however, reducing the mass of the EMR will make it more authentic to real-life DMRs with the same caliber and similar designs.

Ok, initspeed and weight of the Mk-1 should be reduced and while this is done they can take care of the other DMRs, too.

Most GL versions of assault rifles seem to weight around 5 kg which is 11 lb (~3,5 kg for rifle, ~1,5 kg for launcher). M14/Mk14 is 9 lb, M14 EBR/Mk18 is 11 lb, SIG 556 DMR/Mk-1 is 9,5 lb.

I'd say put the DMRs between the assault rifles and their GL versions (or same weight in case of Mk18).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: After doing some more research on weapon weights and simple math calculations, I was wrong to speculate that BI was fudging the numbers. My assumption of the formula the devs used to calculate mass was based off of someone else's post, which seems to be incorrect. I am very sorry to the developers for ranting below, as I did.

*Sigh* I just looked up the stats of the Noreen Bad News (http://onlylongrange.com/bad-news/). This is the weapon the MAR-10 is based on. The weight of this rifle is 13 lbs, or 5.9 kgs. Multiplied by 22, it comes out to about 130, yet it is 180 mass units in game. Even if the formula I'm using isn't correct, it is still significantly heavier than other weapons that should be about equal weight when comparing real-life equivalents.

So based on this pattern, I can't help but speculate that BI is making the long-range weapons heavier than their real-life counterparts as part of some sort of gamey "balancing" tactic. This really pisses me off, if this is true. I don't want Arma to be Call of Duty or Battlefield, with arbitrary weapon "balancing" that results in unauthentic weaponry. If I wanted that crap, I'd play those games. If BI is worried that people will only pick those weapons in certain game modes, then maybe the game modes should restrict classes, or limit resources and make you "buy" the weapons in-game (NOT permanently like in KOTH). If every A-hole can use whatever weapon he wants in the game mode, then maybe the problem is with the game mode itself, and not the weapons.

BI, please just make the weapons weigh the same as their closest real-life counterparts and stop playing the "balancing" game; for the love of God, authenticity, and the majority of your fan base. This kind of thing may be insignificant to some, but stuff like this is really turning me off to the game.

Edited by Agent()()9
I'm dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The weight of this rifle is 13 lbs, or 5.9 kgs. Multiplied by 22, it comes out to about 130, yet it is 180 mass units in game.

Ah, I heard about that "multiply with 22" thing, but didn't realise how it works. Here's what some guns should be when you multiply their weight in kg with 22:

Vermin - 60

Mk20 - 75

Mk14 - 90

Mk-1 EMR - 95

Mk18 ABR - 110

Zafir - 165

Navid - 220

SPMG - 240

GM6 Lynx - 255

M320 LRR - 310

Edited by StormhawkV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Original statement deleted, due to it being wrong*

Your calculations seem accurate. Zafir weight confirmed here:

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/ArmA_III

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Negev

So the Zafir was more accurate at 160 mass units...huh. It is the lightest 7.62mm LMG that I've seen out of all the other ones I've come across. The other DMRs as you can see however, are really overweight in-game.

Edited by Agent()()9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that is correct. Re-chambering a 5.56 to 7.62 would require a slightly heavier barrel and possibly some reinforced mechanical and structural parts. Should not be a huge difference though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know the Zafir is the copy of NG7 - which is the heavier variant of Negev

so the loaded Zafir is closer to 170 mass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just noticed weight values in ArmA 3 are usually multiples of two, so maybe it's better to go with multiples of ten to not make it unnecessarily complicated. My suggestion:

NATO

P09 - 20

4-five - 30

Vermin - 60

MXC - 80

MX - 90

MXM - 100

MX SW - 100

Mk-1 EMR - 100

MX3GL - 110

MAR-10 - 130

SPMG - 240

M320 LRR - 310

CSAT

Rook-40 - 20

Zubr .45 - 30

Sting - 60

Katiba Carbine - 80

Katiba - 90

Rahim - 100

Katiba GL - 110

ASP-1 Kir - 120

Cyrus - 140

Zafir - 170

Navid - 220

GM6 Lynx - 250

AAF

ACP-C2 - 20

PDW2000 - 40

Mk20C - 70

Mk20 - 80

Mk20 EGLM - 100

Mk200 - 100

Mk18 ABR - 110

FIA

TRG-20 - 70

TRG-21 - 80

Mk14 - 90

TRG-21 EGLM - 100

Any ideas for the missing guns? Does someone know their real world counterparts?

Edited by StormhawkV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stormhawk, which missing guns are you referring to?

So I think we can all agree that the mass values aren't important, but the relationship between the weapon mass values are (to represent real-life differences in weight). This said, I wanted to eliminate the "mass units = 22 x mass (in kg)" assumption, because I don't know if that works out to correct values. To eliminate this as a factor, but still compare differences, I did some math-ing.

So this calculation (mass units/real world equivalent weight) should return a ratio that is roughly equal across-the-board for all weapons, if the weapon weights compare realistically. So we take Stormhawk's mass values for some in-game weapons, and divide them by the weight in kg of real-world equivalent weapons (adjusting for differences in caliber).

So here is what I use for estimations, mostly using Wikipedia as a source:

Arma Weapon; Arma Mass; Real-world equivalent (weight in kg); Notes; Formula and Resulting Ratio

Mk14 120; M14 (4.1 kg); Pretty much the same weapons in-game and real life; 120/4.1 kg = 29.27

MX; 100; SCAR-L (3.29 kg); Weight adjusted up to account for slightly higher 6.5mm caliber; 100/3.5 kg = 28.57

Mk18 ABR; 140; M14 EBR (5.1 kg); Same caliber; 140/5.1 kg = 27.45

MAR-10; 180; Noreen Bad News (5.9 kg); Increased weight slightly because of larger hand guard; 180/6.1 kg = 29.5

Mk1 EMR; 160; Sig 716 DMR (5.58 kg); Same caliber, lighter real-world comparison; 160/5.58 kg =28.67

Mk1 EMR; 160; Brugger & Thomet APR (7.0 kg); Same caliber, heavier real-world comparison; 160/7.0 kg = 22.86

Zafir; 180; IMI Negev NG7 (7.6 kg); Same caliber; 180/7.6 kg = 23.68

MXM; 120; SCAR-L Long (3.49 kg); Weight adjusted up to account for slightly higher 6.5mm caliber; 120/3.8 kg = 31.58

So what does this show? Weapons with higher ratios are likely heavier in-game and weapons with lower ratios are probably lighter in-game. I took two estimates of the EMR to show that there are many real-world equivalents, and that the ratios could vary widely. The most accurate ratio should be about 29, because the M14 and Mk14 in-game are virtually the same weapons. As you can see, most weapon ratios don't stray too far from 29. From this, I would conclude that the comparative weights in-game are not bad. It is hard to tell how authentic the weights are however, as the weapons could have several real-world equivalents.

So looking at this, I was probably wrong to speculate that BI was fudging the weights in an attempt to artificially balance weapons. I would like to apologize to the devs for that. The comparative weights are not as bad as I made them out to be in my previous rant.

Edit: Sorry for shitty formatting

Edited by Agent()()9
Tweaked calculations slightly to be more accurate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stormhawk, which missing guns are you referring to?

ASP-1 Kir and Cyrus.

So I think we can all agree that the mass values aren't important, but the relationship between the weapon mass values are (to represent real-life differences in weight).

The problem I see here IS the relationship between the guns. Lets take the 29 ratio from the Mk14. To reach it the Zafir has to weight 220 mass units, 400 for the M320 LRR. That's one third of a soldiers maximum carrying capacity which means he cannot carry more than 42 kg. To me this seems too extreme.

Mk1 EMR; 160; Sig 716 DMR (5.58 kg); Same caliber, lighter real-world comparison; 160/5.58 kg =28.67

Mk1 EMR; 160; Brugger & Thomet APR (7.0 kg); Same caliber, heavier real-world comparison; 160/7.0 kg = 22.86

I took the SIG 556 DMR because it looks exactly like the Mk-1 EMR. The only difference is the caliber. Even if you slap on 0,5 kg it weights only 4,8 kg, which is less than the M14 EBR or the estimated weight of the MX3GL. No matter how I look at it, the relationship between the guns always seems to be off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point about using the 29 ratio when applied to M320. However, I see the maximum carrying capacity as more of a practical limit (i.e. "I can carry all this and still be fairly mobile") instead of a hard, I-can't-carry-anymore type of limit. I would go ruck with a maximum of 50 lbs (22.68 kgs) in my unit. Moving quickly with 50 lbs on my back was somewhat difficult for me, and I'm in fairly good shape. 42 kgs is 93 lbs! I can't imagine being able to do more than walk or run a VERY short distance with more than 80 lbs (36 kgs). 42 kgs is a good practical limit.

I see that the SIG 556 looks just like the EMR, but I still think the SIG 716 is a better comparison. It is the same caliber, and still made by the same company. I see the inspiration of the SIG 516 as more of an aesthetic one, while the SIG 716 serves as a better functional comparison. It may be a heavier comparison to use, but there are several 7.62mm semi-auto DMRs that are 7.0 kgs or more. There are also lighter ones. The point is that there is no perfect comparison, but a weapon of that in-game "weight" is quite feasible.

I thought I've seen something that showed the real-life inspirations for the Kir and Cyrus. I'll do a little searching and reply if I find something.

Edited by Agent()()9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see your point about using the 29 ratio when applied to M320. However, I see the maximum carrying capacity as more of a practical limit (i.e. "I can carry all this and still be fairly mobile") instead of a hard, I-can't-carry-anymore type of limit. I would go ruck with a maximum of 50 lbs (22.68 kgs) in my unit. Moving quickly with 50 lbs on my back was somewhat difficult for me, and I'm in fairly good shape. 42 kgs is 93 lbs! I can't imagine being able to do more than walk or run a VERY short distance with more than 80 lbs (36 kgs). 42 kgs is a good practical limit.

I don't have a problem with that limit either, but it means a soldier with 33% load will have 50% load. 50% becomes 75% and you will experience fatigue gain equal to the added weight. Making the heavier guns even heavier is not an option in my opinion.

I see that the SIG 556 looks just like the EMR, but I still think the SIG 716 is a better comparison. It is the same caliber, and still made by the same company. I see the inspiration of the SIG 516 as more of an aesthetic one, while the SIG 716 serves as a better functional comparison. It may be a heavier comparison to use, but there are several 7.62mm semi-auto DMRs that are 7.0 kgs or more. There are also lighter ones. The point is that there is no perfect comparison, but a weapon of that in-game "weight" is quite feasible.

Since there is no 1:1 real world counterpart it's partly up to artistic freedom and I don't think it would be a good idea to make the Mk-1 that heavy. Atm the 7,62mm rifles weight between 100 and 160 mass units and most of them are noticable heavier than guns of comparable weight. I think the values I posted (based on the 22 thing) could be a solution to this.

I thought I've seen something that showed the real-life inspirations for the Kir and Cyrus. I'll do a little searching and reply if I find something.

Thank you. Some time ago I saw a video about a russian 12,7x54mm rifle that resembles the Kir except it was a bullpup design but I couldn't find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have a problem with that limit either, but it means a soldier with 33% load will have 50% load. 50% becomes 75% and you will experience fatigue gain equal to the added weight.

That's a very good point. The problem here is that we don't know the equation used to represent how mass and fatigue rate relate to each other. Perhaps the in-game weights were not meant to scale linearly, which would explain why heavier guns would be lighter in relation to other weapons than if we used a linear equation like [mass units = 29 x weight in kg].

I think that your solution is a better and simpler one (all weapons x22 to get mass units). Another solution would be to use a linear equation like the above, and make the rate of fatigue exponential, depending on weight carried. For a visual of what I mean, look at the graph on the right side of this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth If rate of fatigue is currently like the red equation, where X represents total mass units carried and f represents fatigue rate, then perhaps it should be more like the green equation. This way, object masses can scale correctly to each other, but items that would be made heavier as a result, equate to a similar fatigue rate.

Since there is no 1:1 real world counterpart it's partly up to artistic freedom and I don't think it would be a good idea to make the Mk-1 that heavy. Atm the 7,62mm rifles weight between 100 and 160 mass units and most of them are noticable heavier than guns of comparable weight. I think the values I posted (based on the 22 thing) could be a solution to this.

Changing the multiplier from 29(?) to 22 isn't going to change how the weights of the weapons compare to each other, it will just make ALL of them lighter, across-the-board (which sounds like a good idea in itself). What guns of comparable weight are you referring to? From my last post, and looking at different weapons online, assault rifles are generally lighter than DMRs - both in real life and in-game.

Thank you. Some time ago I saw a video about a russian 12,7x54mm rifle that resembles the Kir except it was a bullpup design but I couldn't find it.

I was able to find the real-life inspiration for the Kir. It is the VSS Vintorez. Source: http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/ArmA_III

Edited by Agent()()9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Changing the multiplier from 29(?) to 22 isn't going to change how the weights of the weapons compare to each other, it will just make ALL of them lighter, across-the-board (which sounds like a good idea in itself). What guns of comparable weight are you referring to? From my last post, and looking at different weapons online, assault rifles are generally lighter than DMRs - both in real life and in-game.

I estimated the weight of the MX3GL at 5 kg (3,5 kg for the rifle, 1,5 kg for the launcher). That's about the same as the M14 EBR. In the game the MX3GL has 120 mass units while the Mk18 ABR has 140 weight units. The M14 is considerably lighter than 5 kg but the Mk14 has the same ingame weight as the MX3GL. Changing the multiplier to 22 will not make all guns lighter. Some will also be heavier.

Guns that will be lighter by 40 or more mass units: Mk200 (40), MAR-10 (50), Mk-1 EMR (60)

Guns that will be lighter by 30 mass units: Mk14, Mk18 ABR

Guns that will be lighter by 20 mass units: MXM, MX SW

Guns that will be lighter by 10 mass units: MX, MX3GL, Katiba, Katiba GL, Zafir

Guns that will be heavier by 10 mass units: Sting, PDW2000, TRG-20, TRG-21, TRG-21 EGLM, GM6 Lynx

Guns that will be heavier by 20 or more mass units: Vermin (20), SPMG (40), M320 LRR (90)

I was able to find the real-life inspiration for the Kir. It is the VSS Vintorez. Source: http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/ArmA_III
Kir is a mix of VKS and VSS , it has the caliber of VKS and works like VSS

Thanks, that helps a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The effect of the 22 multiplier will depend on what real-world weapons you are using to compare Arma's weapons to, of course. I was trying to use real world examples that produced more consistent results across all weapons that came near the 29 mass units/1 kg ratio, based off of the Mk14/M14 ratio. Even going with your comparisons, I would be happier if BI implemented your suggested solution.

Edit: To clarify, I tried using the weapons' real life inspirations as comparable weights first, but for the EMR in particular, I used the SIG716's weight as I felt it was more fitting.

Also, with the higher accuracy, muzzle velocity and weight of the EMR, it seems to be more of a sniper rifle than a battle rifle. Some heavier semi-auto 7.62mm rifles seem to be classified as sniper rifles, if Wikipedia is to be believed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sniper_rifles

---------- Post added at 12:43 ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 ----------

A bit off topic, but does anyone know the distinction between a battle rifle, a marksman rifle, and a sniper rifle of the same caliber? It seems that from first rifle type to last, the rifle gets more accurate and heavier. Some sniper rifles do seem lighter though...I don't really know.

Edited by Agent()()9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A bit off topic, but does anyone know the distinction between a battle rifle, a marksman rifle, and a sniper rifle of the same caliber? It seems that from first rifle type to last, the rifle gets more accurate and heavier. Some sniper rifles do seem lighter though...I don't really know.

from i know, taking the portuguese G3 example, battle rifle its the standard G3, marksman is the standard G3 with scope and the sniper version is the MSG90 version.

Technically there is only difference between the marksman and the sniper. Free-floating barrel, customize stock for longer time in the same position, pistol grip and top materials for better accuracy.

In all long duration wars, budget its the only limited thing. You just cant apply scopes and others accessories to all battle weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The effect of the 22 multiplier will depend on what real-world weapons you are using to compare Arma's weapons to, of course. I was trying to use real world examples that produced more consistent results across all weapons that came near the 29 mass units/1 kg ratio, based off of the Mk14/M14 ratio. Even going with your comparisons, I would be happier if BI implemented your suggested solution.

Edit: To clarify, I tried using the weapons' real life inspirations as comparable weights first, but for the EMR in particular, I used the SIG716's weight as I felt it was more fitting.

Yes, that's the main problem. More often than not you don't have a real world equivalent. From what I've seen I'd give the Cyrus 140 mass units and 150 mass units to the Kir.

Also, with the higher accuracy, muzzle velocity and weight of the EMR, it seems to be more of a sniper rifle than a battle rifle. Some heavier semi-auto 7.62mm rifles seem to be classified as sniper rifles, if Wikipedia is to be believed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sniper_rifles

I still think the high performance of the Mk-1 EMR is not intended. I don't see why it should outperform the other 7,62mm rifles by a mile. Looks like we have to wait for the next patch to learn about BIs position on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you guys been able to confirm the EMR's initspeed in the current game version?

---------- Post added at 17:00 ---------- Previous post was at 16:56 ----------

If BI is going to keep the EMR as heavy as it is, then I don't have a problem with it having enhanced performance when compared to the other 7.62mm rifles. If its muzzle velocity is well beyond the realm of reality, however, then it should be reduced along with its weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated values for my suggestion on more realistic weapon mass.

 

NATO

P07 - 20

4-five - 30

Vermin - 50

MXC - 70

MX - 80

MXM - 90

MX SW - 100

MX3GL - 110

M320 LRR - 310

 

CSAT

Rook-40 - 20

Zubr .45 - 30

Sting - 50

Katiba Carbine - 70

Katiba - 80

Rahim - 100

Katiba GL - 110

Zafir - 170

GM6 Lynx - 250

 

AAF

ACP-C2 - 20

PDW2000 - 40

Mk20C - 60

Mk20 - 70

Mk20 EGLM - 100

Mk18 ABR - 110

Mk200 - 120

 

FIA

TRG-20 - 60

TRG-21 - 70

TRG-21 EGLM - 100

 

DLC

Mk-1 EMR - 100

MAR-10 - 140

SPMG - 240

ASP-1 Kir - 130

Cyrus - 150

Navid - 220

Mk14 - 90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×