Apex Weapon Feedback

[Axon1 67]

Could you add AFG handle for new SPAR-16 rifle do like MX? NATO regular forces have AFG handles on their rifles, but special forces (CTRG) not have - really strange.

[Electricleash 133]

Looks like the barrel of the CMR-76 was changed so it now fits the usual far too long suppressor.

 

 

 

I guess I can understand wanting a suppressed version but I rather liked the flash hider on the tip.

 

[roberthammer 582]

Looks like the barrel of the CMR-76 was changed so it now fits the usual far too long suppressor.

I guess I can understand wanting a suppressed version but I rather liked the flash hider on the tip.

Well they could make the muzzle brake hide when it uses suppressor but now it kinda resembles the actual flash hider

[graemeshute 218]

Yes, you can attach the GL to anything but in the real combat you won't see the ScarH with the UGL , same with Hk417 - main reason is the weight , .308 rifles are always quite heavy and the GL makes them even more front heavy

 

I am always for more variants because when you already got the parts you can do them quite easily , 5-10min work /at least with SPAR16s/

 

That change with the stocks was worth it imho , because it doesn't look like a pistol brace and works like a actual stock now

The Issue is I could have a 7.62 with a UGL for CSAT. I would opt for that. If I could throw on a Drum Mag and a IR Mid Range precision scope the better. In fact if I can have that in a Lapua 338 variant the better. Yes crazy BFG Doom guns. But dealing with 5.56 or the MX rifles against vanilla CSAT and bushes. Maybe its all about marksmanship. But sometimes you just want to blow things away.

[probad 44]

Don't get me wrong: the change is worth it, but it still would've been nicer to see them rework the stance rather than lengthen the stock. I want the see the stock touch the shoulder, but I would've liked to see it in the most compact position so that the rife's as short as possible. Does it matter that much? Not really, but you know, to me it does a little more than it should. 

shooting an ar15 with the stock collapsed is very uncomfortable and awkward , reason is the pistol grip being too close to your body , unless you are a small thin person or wearing a thick body armor

 

Without armor/packs bulking you up the SPARs float off your body even with the extended stock, so you're holding the weapon too far off to begin with.

Compare with the MX posing which all other vanilla weapons are consistent with -- the SPARs are the only ones with an inconsistent pose.

 

Here is a proposal for what I think the SPAR should ideally look like:

 

Red line = SPAR

Blue line = MX

1) The entire gun is moved up and back so the grip is aligned with MX grip

2) Stock retracted to contact body where other weapons contact body

3) Optics mount moved backwards

[greywolf907 20]

Great job on Tanoa and Apex all together love it so far. But can we please have some realistic long range scopes with NV & Thermal rail attachments I would even be happy with built in features integrated into the scopes as this is in the future, but would be nice to see separate attachment models for the different NV & Thermal accessories to use along side of different scopes that are removable when not needed.

[E. Manning 5]

Compared to the Type 115 50 BW and the CMR-76, I feel like the SPAR-17 is a little heavy on the recoil. Even compared to the M14's, the SPAR-17 is just a monster on semi. Though has better automatic control than the M14s. This may be due to the fact that the M14's use the "Sniper Rifle" Crosshair with the more longer lines, versus the smaller more compact rifle crosshairs on the SPAR-17.

Also, other rifles primarily have upward recoil, while the SPAR-17 switches between up and up and to the right. Even the AK-12 is more controllable than the SPAR-17 on fully automatic, the SPAR-17 also feels like it has more recoil than the Mk-1 EMR. In my mind, there is no reason to use the SPAR-17 other than just to look cool.

Even the SPAR-16 compared to the AK-12 has more recoil and it is just 5.56. I can shoot a tighter grouping with bullet tracking on with a full Auto AK-12 (or AKM) than I can with the SPAR. Using the 2-round burst as fast as I can produces similar accuracy to the SPAR-16 on auto.

I'm not advocating any specific way to rectify this, whether recoil should be increased on others or decreased on the SPARs or made more streamlined as they seem to shift every which way when fired.

Type 115 50 BW is good, please do not replace it. In the Jungle the only available cover is trees which are maybe 1m in diameter vs 1/2 meter shoulder width. In order to attack a target behind a tree, this usually involves flanking to his sides but also involves moving from your own cover. When in a fight or being suppressed, you do not want to move out of your tree. The 50 BW allows you to put a high powered round through the tree and defeat cover. This is very useful and I believe fitting for a "Jungle Special Forces" weapon. It is also a godsend in urban where you can put two in a window or through a door.

Keep the 50, don't replace it with a Shotgun etc. Although additional variants with a Shotgun or a 40mm would be nice, as the Type 115 is quickly becoming a popular favorite.

[roberthammer 582]

@probad - well BIS did that change with the vest , so without it there will be a gap yes

 

position of the weapon looks fine to me , the MX position is way too close to your face  and also MX got the stock fully extended so is the MXC

 

optic position could move back but it doesn't bother me too much

[dragonfire43560 27]

The makarov has incorrect magazine size. IIRC its supposed to be 6 or 7. Also in game it uses 9x21 rounds. its supposed to use 9x18. 

[probad 44]

^ this seems to be very intentional going by the field manual entry.

[E. Manning 5]

After using the SPAR-16 in combat, I am very impressed by the level of stealth that it offers. I am not sure if this is very scientific, but using the Type 115 Silenced after taking several shots at close range (under 50m) led to me being spotted within 5-10 seconds.

Using the SPAR-16 the AI are aware they are being attacked, but are very oblivious as to where the fire is coming from and only spot me by direct line of sight. The Type 115 attracts everyone to my location due to as I believe, the visible and audible fire values in the config. Though I really lack the understanding to check for this.

Given it being CTRG's to-go weapon, I really like this and I think it is great. The only complaint I have is that all the 5.56x45mm NATO rounds are tracers which I believe have a larger visible fire value. If regular ball 5.56 non-tracer rounds could be made with a lower visible fire rate, I think this would be superb for stealth.

EDIT: All shots were suppressed.

[UkropyPrivyet 32]

I prefer it with the stock, since it already looks like the hand is really close to the shoulder. Any closer and it would probably be uncomfy.

 

It's really not all that close to the shoulder, like, at all. 

 

That's true , there is reason why the stock is collapsible instead being fixed , you know

short closed stock is only used when you are not using it , like in vehicles etc

shooting an ar15 with the stock collapsed is very uncomfortable and awkward , reason is the pistol grip being too close to your body , unless you are a small thin person or wearing a thick body armor

 

Excuse me? I've never heard that before in my life, in fact, I've heard that everyone always uses the collapsed position as it's easiest to shoot properly with the M4 (nose to charging handle) as well as makes it easier to get eye relief with the ACOG without having to stretch your neck. It's pretty common to see soldiers shooting their ARs with the stock fully collapsed, as well, thus further disproving that.

 

As for the last sentence: that's preferential crap. I'm 6'4" and I can tell you right now that it's not uncomfortable in the slightest to shoot with the stock on my AR fully collapsed. Is it more comfortable than, say, 2 positions out? No, but it's closer to comfort than discomfort. As for wearing thick body armor: welcome to the military. ESAPI plates are thick regardless of the carrier it's in, which is why you see people using fully collapsed stocks. ACOGs have poor eye relief and you've really got to scrunch up on that rifle.

 

Could you add AFG handle for new SPAR-16 rifle do like MX? NATO regular forces have AFG handles on their rifles, but special forces (CTRG) not have - really strange.

 

Please don't do this. The AFG on the MX is incredibly ugly and way too large. It would be much better to just move the hand out onto the rail. As for normal soldiers having the AFG: I wish they wouldn't. They're really, really awkward for the majority of people and aren't even being utilized properly in game. Them being there strikes me as just being easier than properly messing around with models so as not to create a funky model. 

 

Looks like the barrel of the CMR-76 was changed so it now fits the usual far too long suppressor.

 

 

 

I guess I can understand wanting a suppressed version but I rather liked the flash hider on the tip.

 

 

I like it, but that's a real shame. Wish that BIS would just get rid of that terrible suppressor model than continue to adapt it it new rifles.

 

Without armor/packs bulking you up the SPARs float off your body even with the extended stock, so you're holding the weapon too far off to begin with.

Compare with the MX posing which all other vanilla weapons are consistent with -- the SPARs are the only ones with an inconsistent pose.

 

Here is a proposal for what I think the SPAR should ideally look like:

 

Red line = SPAR

Blue line = MX

1) The entire gun is moved up and back so the grip is aligned with MX grip

2) Stock retracted to contact body where other weapons contact body

3) Optics mount moved backwards

 

Thanks for the visualization. This makes it plain to see that a. it's not that close and b. the HK416's positioning is just messed up. 

 

Love your three ideas, but you should add one more: fold the pistol grip on the grenade launcher. RHS mod has it unfolded as well, and I really don't understand why. That'd do nothing other than get in the way.

 

Compared to the Type 115 50 BW and the CMR-76, I feel like the SPAR-17 is a little heavy on the recoil. Even compared to the M14's, the SPAR-17 is just a monster on semi. Though has better automatic control than the M14s. This may be due to the fact that the M14's use the "Sniper Rifle" Crosshair with the more longer lines, versus the smaller more compact rifle crosshairs on the SPAR-17.

Also, other rifles primarily have upward recoil, while the SPAR-17 switches between up and up and to the right. Even the AK-12 is more controllable than the SPAR-17 on fully automatic, the SPAR-17 also feels like it has more recoil than the Mk-1 EMR. In my mind, there is no reason to use the SPAR-17 other than just to look cool.

Even the SPAR-16 compared to the AK-12 has more recoil and it is just 5.56. I can shoot a tighter grouping with bullet tracking on with a full Auto AK-12 (or AKM) than I can with the SPAR. Using the 2-round burst as fast as I can produces similar accuracy to the SPAR-16 on auto.

I'm not advocating any specific way to rectify this, whether recoil should be increased on others or decreased on the SPARs or made more streamlined as they seem to shift every which way when fired.

Type 115 50 BW is good, please do not replace it. In the Jungle the only available cover is trees which are maybe 1m in diameter vs 1/2 meter shoulder width. In order to attack a target behind a tree, this usually involves flanking to his sides but also involves moving from your own cover. When in a fight or being suppressed, you do not want to move out of your tree. The 50 BW allows you to put a high powered round through the tree and defeat cover. This is very useful and I believe fitting for a "Jungle Special Forces" weapon. It is also a godsend in urban where you can put two in a window or through a door.

Keep the 50, don't replace it with a Shotgun etc. Although additional variants with a Shotgun or a 40mm would be nice, as the Type 115 is quickly becoming a popular favorite.

 

Seems to me like everything you said makes sense in reality.

 

The HK417 has more recoil in semi-automatic and fully automatic than the AK-12. The HK416 has a higher fire rate than the AK-12 and therefore has more recoil when shooting in full auto. I don't really see what you're getting at. 

[xxgetbuck123 945]

Am I the only person that has noticed that they seemed to have fixed the stock on the SPAR?

 

http://imgur.com/a/GfSUh

 

Hey, that's pretty good. 

[ruff 102]

AFG, VFG and clean should be available for the SPAR-16 rifle. SF use afg, vfg and none. Please make it a mixture.

[probad 44]

Am I the only person that has noticed that they seemed to have fixed the stock on the SPAR?

 

http://imgur.com/a/GfSUh

 

Hey, that's pretty good. 

They "fixed" it by extending the stock, but even in this state it still doesn't reach the shoulder because the hand positions are too far forward to start with.

 

Here's a comparison of a selection of vanilla weapons:

The ones I omitted (Zafir, Navid, LRR, SMGs) all fall into the "Good" category, that is, their stocks nicely meet the shoulder without any armor or packs, which should be the baseline standard. The bullpups don't quite touch but the margin is tolerable. Interesting to note is the hand positions for all of the Apex weapons with secondary modules -- Type 115, SPAR-16 GL, AK-12 GL, all use the same hand pose. The Type 115 is also too far from the shoulder, despite it being a bullpup, and the AK-12 is doubly problematic because the position of the gun is too close to the shoulder that it clips into it (clipping itself is not the issue, but the fact it clips beyond armor/packs) while the hands are nowhere close to holding the gun. All other AK types currently also share the problem of being rendered too close to the body.

 

It's really not all that close to the shoulder, like, at all. 

 

 

Excuse me? I've never heard that before in my life, in fact, I've heard that everyone always uses the collapsed position as it's easiest to shoot properly with the M4 (nose to charging handle) as well as makes it easier to get eye relief with the ACOG without having to stretch your neck. It's pretty common to see soldiers shooting their ARs with the stock fully collapsed, as well, thus further disproving that.

 

As for the last sentence: that's preferential crap. I'm 6'4" and I can tell you right now that it's not uncomfortable in the slightest to shoot with the stock on my AR fully collapsed. Is it more comfortable than, say, 2 positions out? No, but it's closer to comfort than discomfort. As for wearing thick body armor: welcome to the military. ESAPI plates are thick regardless of the carrier it's in, which is why you see people using fully collapsed stocks. ACOGs have poor eye relief and you've really got to scrunch up on that rifle.

I agree. Additionally, as Apex's focus is on CQB in cramped environments, compact pose is more appropriate. I should also point out that the SPAR stock even in it's most collapsed position is longer than the HK416 stock. The fact that currently this long stock is extended and yet still doesn't reach the shoulder borders on the ridiculous. The elephant in the room here is that the SPAR-16 is a compact carbine and yet its muzzle sticks out further than the standard MX as it is.

 

you should add one more: fold the pistol grip on the grenade launcher. RHS mod has it unfolded as well, and I really don't understand why. That'd do nothing other than get in the way.

If I could have my way this is what we'd get:

[E. Manning 5]

 

 

Seems to me like everything you said makes sense in reality.

 

The HK417 has more recoil in semi-automatic and fully automatic than the AK-12. The HK416 has a higher fire rate than the AK-12 and therefore has more recoil when shooting in full auto. I don't really see what you're getting at. 

 

No. Just no.

A 7.62x39mm rifle should not have significantly less recoil than a 5.56x45mm NATO rifle, especially when the SPAR-16 is supposed to be a high quality rifle built for Tier-1 operators. Both the AKM and the AK-12 have less recoil than it and we're talking a difference of about 600 rpm vs 700rpm. Even fast-tapping the AK-12 on burst at 900-1000 RPM is more controllable. Have you ever shot a decent AR and compared it to an AK in real life? Right now the AKs outperform the SPAR in every aspect besides stealth, which is not only unrealistic, but I feel imbalanced. It is not worth it using the SPAR-16/17 for general purpose use when an AKM/AK-12 will give you a one shot kill, ammo is everywhere, and it has more accuracy and less recoil. Especially given the fact that both the AKM/AK-12 have open iron sights which improves field of view and people have already complained about the SPAR's ironsights.

 

 

Even compared to the 6.5 MX, the MX for the first 15-20 rounds actually has less recoil though it becomes gradually harder to control. Unless you're mag dumping, the MX actually beats the SPAR-16. Even the AAF Mk 20 which is a 5.56 bullpup is more controllable than the SPAR-16.

Even plinking around with the ASP KIR produces a better shot grouping than plinking with the SPAR-17. The SPMG 338 has more recoil than the SPAR-17. I can get a tigher shot grouping with the 9.3 Navid than I can with the SPAR-17.

It is broken/inconsistent.

EDIT:

Upon further review in slow-motion, it is clear to me that the SPAR-17's recoil value changes. On some shots it is low and then suddenly WHAMO it hits you big. This inconsistency is a nuisance as it makes it impossible to adjust for recoil. The only real life weapon which behaves in such a way is the AKM and only because three parts of the gun actually misalign and bend during fully automatic fire. The SPAR-17 should just be a simple up/down like the rest of the weapons and have consistent recoil rather than this "Light, medium, light, OH MY GOSH 50 CAL RECOIL, medium, light, 50 CAL RECOIL" pattern

[probad 44]

Are you sure you're not on some bullet mod?

 

I run vanilla and SPAR recoil is negligible, and AK lethality is not nearly as great as what you describe. SPAR-17 is like the prenerf Mk.I EMR with low recoil and low dispersion.

 

EDIT: You're shooting unbraced right? If anything it's very realistic you have little control over the recoil with how you're holding that gun lmao

It's a completely different animal when bipodded.

[E. Manning 5]

All I am running is MCC/CBA3 for testing purposes.

 

I am not saying that the SPAR-16's recoil is "Zomgwtfuncontrollable" but relatively speaking it is outclassed by almost any other firearm, even the 6.5 MX series performs better/just as well.

The SPAR-17 is just insane though. It is lack of consistency and uncontrollable recoil make it worse in fully automatic standing than a 9.3 Machine Gun designed to be fired from a supported position. I can mod the GM6 Lynx to accept 30 round mags, fire at 700 rpm, and still have more control than this thing.

[roberthammer 582]

All I am running is MCC/CBA3 for testing purposes.

 

I am not saying that the SPAR-16's recoil is "Zomgwtfuncontrollable" but relatively speaking it is outclassed by almost any other firearm, even the 6.5 MX series performs better/just as well.

The SPAR-17 is just insane though. It is lack of consistency and uncontrollable recoil make it worse in fully automatic standing than a 9.3 Machine Gun designed to be fired from a supported position. I can mod the GM6 Lynx to accept 30 round mags, fire at 700 rpm, and still have more control than this thing.

Well point of SPAR17 is just being DMR rifle in semi auto , full auto is just a bonus which shouldn't be used at all imho

 

also every .308 rifle kicks like a mule in full auto

[probad 44]

Cripes, we are really complaining that a DMR is being bad at being an LMG.

 

A Navid isnt going to get you those reliable first round hits out at 1000m, it's not going to be nearly as easy to carry around; that AK bullet isn't nearly as lethal out there either. The SPAR-17 is a Mk.I EMR except it's every bit as accurate while being lighter. It's a good weapon for what it is.

 

If you want to go in blazing on full rambo, maybe choose a weapon actually intended to be used that way.

 

That said, whether or not the SPAR-17 recoil is accurate to reality is another matter, I just highly disagree with the criteria you're using to push your argument.

[E. Manning 5]

Can you guys stop misdirecting things with useless information? So what if it is meant to be a DMR rifle only used in semi-auto. If a .22LR DMR had more recoil than a 9.3 LMG, would that extreme be more clear to you? Even on Semi the SPAR-17 behaves in the same way with a wave like recoil pattern rather than something more smooth and consistent. This should not be the case given the intended quality of the rifle and the size of the cartridge. Weapons with more upward momentum are more controllable than the SPAR-17 simply because the "SPAZ-17" spazzes out all over your screen while you frantically move your mouse left right up down trying to keep it even on target. 

The CMR-76 doesn't even have this problem and it is a DMR-type rifle.

Also, it is a completely different animal when bipoded? What gun isn't? A bipod offers complete and total support, you can fire a 20mm cannon with a bi/tripod, what difference does it make? Supported firing positions are designed to nearly completely mitigate recoil regardless. Crouched or standing, there is an issue.

I build AR-10/15's, they do not behave this way and few guns do.

This problem exists even on SEMI. Get that into your heads, I am tired of having to repeat myself.

EDIT:

I am not complaining that a DMR is bad at being a LMG. What I am complaining about is the fact that a LMG specifically designed to be fired from a supported position, with a larger round nearly double the energy, can be fired standing and perform better than it. The SPAR-17 only has a 20rnd mag, goodluck being a LMG with that. But 20 rounds out of a LMG perform better. With your reasoning, why don't we invent a 6.5" barrel carbine that fires 20mm rounds? It is okay that it has no recoil because it is a carbine.

EDIT 2:

Also, stop attacking my character and accusing me of trying to be Rambo. I take this game seriously and methodically, and my methods of evaluation have only been pointing out discrepancies between the performance of cartridges/firearms and not complaining that shooting the SPAR-17 gave me a minor case of PTSD and butthurt. I would just like the SPAR-17's recoil to be more consistent so that is more controllable given the performance of other weapons.

[roberthammer 582]

Sorry but you are overreacting, i just tried it on latest dev version and the SPAR17 has a reasonable recoil even in full auto 

[E. Manning 5]

I will upload to Youtube when I get home from work and show you actual shot groupings of other 7.62 DMRs and some LMGs as compared with the SPAR-17.

Also, for the record, the video of the Mk-1 EMR on auto shoots better than the SPAR-17, so I don't know about your earlier comments about the 17 being better.

[probad 44]

point taken, the emr is more controllable on auto than the spar-17.

 

i'll wait and see how bis adjusts the values on the weapons still since it's still very much a work in progress.

[UkropyPrivyet 32]

They "fixed" it by extending the stock, but even in this state it still doesn't reach the shoulder because the hand positions are too far forward to start with.

 

Here's a comparison of a selection of vanilla weapons:

 

The ones I omitted (Zafir, Navid, LRR, SMGs) all fall into the "Good" category, that is, their stocks nicely meet the shoulder without any armor or packs, which should be the baseline standard. The bullpups don't quite touch but the margin is tolerable. Interesting to note is the hand positions for all of the Apex weapons with secondary modules -- Type 115, SPAR-16 GL, AK-12 GL, all use the same hand pose. The Type 115 is also too far from the shoulder, despite it being a bullpup, and the AK-12 is doubly problematic because the position of the gun is too close to the shoulder that it clips into it (clipping itself is not the issue, but the fact it clips beyond armor/packs) while the hands are nowhere close to holding the gun. All other AK types currently also share the problem of being rendered too close to the body.

 

I agree. Additionally, as Apex's focus is on CQB in cramped environments, compact pose is more appropriate. I should also point out that the SPAR stock even in it's most collapsed position is longer than the HK416 stock. The fact that currently this long stock is extended and yet still doesn't reach the shoulder borders on the ridiculous. The elephant in the room here is that the SPAR-16 is a compact carbine and yet its muzzle sticks out further than the standard MX as it is.

 

If I could have my way this is what we'd get:

 

It's too bad you don't have you way, because that looks a shitload better.

 

No. Just no.

A 7.62x39mm rifle should not have significantly less recoil than a 5.56x45mm NATO rifle, especially when the SPAR-16 is supposed to be a high quality rifle built for Tier-1 operators. Both the AKM and the AK-12 have less recoil than it and we're talking a difference of about 600 rpm vs 700rpm. Even fast-tapping the AK-12 on burst at 900-1000 RPM is more controllable. Have you ever shot a decent AR and compared it to an AK in real life? Right now the AKs outperform the SPAR in every aspect besides stealth, which is not only unrealistic, but I feel imbalanced. It is not worth it using the SPAR-16/17 for general purpose use when an AKM/AK-12 will give you a one shot kill, ammo is everywhere, and it has more accuracy and less recoil. Especially given the fact that both the AKM/AK-12 have open iron sights which improves field of view and people have already complained about the SPAR's ironsights.

 

 

Even compared to the 6.5 MX, the MX for the first 15-20 rounds actually has less recoil though it becomes gradually harder to control. Unless you're mag dumping, the MX actually beats the SPAR-16. Even the AAF Mk 20 which is a 5.56 bullpup is more controllable than the SPAR-16.

Even plinking around with the ASP KIR produces a better shot grouping than plinking with the SPAR-17. The SPMG 338 has more recoil than the SPAR-17. I can get a tigher shot grouping with the 9.3 Navid than I can with the SPAR-17.

It is broken/inconsistent.

EDIT:

Upon further review in slow-motion, it is clear to me that the SPAR-17's recoil value changes. On some shots it is low and then suddenly WHAMO it hits you big. This inconsistency is a nuisance as it makes it impossible to adjust for recoil. The only real life weapon which behaves in such a way is the AKM and only because three parts of the gun actually misalign and bend during fully automatic fire. The SPAR-17 should just be a simple up/down like the rest of the weapons and have consistent recoil rather than this "Light, medium, light, OH MY GOSH 50 CAL RECOIL, medium, light, 50 CAL RECOIL" pattern

 

Yes, just yes. The AK12 has more recoil than the HK416 no matter what in game, so I don't have any clue what you're talking about there. The HK416 does have a higher fire rate though, which does contribute to a higher recoil overall than most 5.56 guns. The SPAR-16 is just the HK416, which isn't really high quality or built for "Tier-1" operators. It's extremely front heavy, has more recoil than most ARs due to its piston design, and has nothing really positive going for it. The AKM and AK-12 most certainly do NOT have more recoil than the HK416. Have you tried playing the latest build? I'm not sure if they changed it, but it's perfectly acceptable as it is right now. HK416 seems fine to me, but the only issue I could possibly think of is that the AK-12 might outperform the HK416 in ballistics, which is an issue with the devs having a hard on for the non-existent stopping power of the 7.62x39mm round. 

 

It's more accurate? Since when? It's got less recoil? Since when? Is 5.56 not one-shot without body armor? If not, then they've fucked up a system they've previously fixed. You think the AK-12 and AKMs sights are better than the HK416? Are you trolling, or are you literally backwards right now? 

 

Slow motion? How about actually looking into the recoil values rather than "muh video footage"? Try using something set in stone rather than just making baseless claims. Seems consistently straight up with a minor pull to the right to me. Dude, all guns bend when they fire. Have you ever fired a gun? I've got an AR, an AKM, an AK74, a VZ58, 3 Mosin Nagants, A 10/22, and countless other guns and they all flex when they fire to some degree or another. It's a controlled explosion, so shit moves in all directions. 

 

The MX beats the SPAR-16? Well isn't that a shocker? The 6.5mm round was designed to replace the 5.56 round, which explains why 5.56 is much worse. The only problem is that it seems the devs don't want to continue on this trend of everyone using 6.5, or maybe they just want to have SFs be different for the sake of being different. Either way, 6.5 is going to be better, and it should be. The SPAR-17 shouldn't be up and down because pistons change the way weapons recoil and in what direction they pull. A DI/Stoner gas rifle would be straight up and down, but a piston sure won't be. Very few guns in this game have straight up and down recoil, which is good because recoil is very rarely up and down. 

 

This recoil pattern you're complaining about? It doesn't exist. You're being extremely melodramatic, and I suggest you stop. 

 

Can you guys stop misdirecting things with useless information? So what if it is meant to be a DMR rifle only used in semi-auto. If a .22LR DMR had more recoil than a 9.3 LMG, would that extreme be more clear to you? Even on Semi the SPAR-17 behaves in the same way with a wave like recoil pattern rather than something more smooth and consistent. This should not be the case given the intended quality of the rifle and the size of the cartridge. Weapons with more upward momentum are more controllable than the SPAR-17 simply because the "SPAZ-17" spazzes out all over your screen while you frantically move your mouse left right up down trying to keep it even on target. 

The CMR-76 doesn't even have this problem and it is a DMR-type rifle.

Also, it is a completely different animal when bipoded? What gun isn't? A bipod offers complete and total support, you can fire a 20mm cannon with a bi/tripod, what difference does it make? Supported firing positions are designed to nearly completely mitigate recoil regardless. Crouched or standing, there is an issue.

I build AR-10/15's, they do not behave this way and few guns do.

This problem exists even on SEMI. Get that into your heads, I am tired of having to repeat myself.

EDIT:

I am not complaining that a DMR is bad at being a LMG. What I am complaining about is the fact that a LMG specifically designed to be fired from a supported position, with a larger round nearly double the energy, can be fired standing and perform better than it. The SPAR-17 only has a 20rnd mag, goodluck being a LMG with that. But 20 rounds out of a LMG perform better. With your reasoning, why don't we invent a 6.5" barrel carbine that fires 20mm rounds? It is okay that it has no recoil because it is a carbine.

EDIT 2:

Also, stop attacking my character and accusing me of trying to be Rambo. I take this game seriously and methodically, and my methods of evaluation have only been pointing out discrepancies between the performance of cartridges/firearms and not complaining that shooting the SPAR-17 gave me a minor case of PTSD and butthurt. I would just like the SPAR-17's recoil to be more consistent so that is more controllable given the performance of other weapons.

 

It's not a misdirection, it's basically what you're saying. Are you not complaining that a twelve pound 7.62x51mm rifle has more recoil on full auto than a 25-30lbs 9.3 GPMG? That's a pretty stupid comparison, if I do say so myself. The GPMG is going to have less recoil, but it'll be harder to keep on target simply because you're holding it out rather than resting it on something. That being said, ArmA doesn't exactly account for that, and I somehow doubt many people would like it to. The SPAR-17 really doesn't have improper recoil at all. Why do you keep assuming that high quality rifles have low recoil? Even if the HK416 and HK417 were above average quality rifles, then what would make them have lower recoil? Seems like a stupid assumption to me. Does the SR-25 magically have no recoil because it's a $5000 rifle?

 

The CMR-76 is in 6.5.

 

I've built several AR-15s and AR-10s, and I somehow doubt that you do if you seriously believe any of what you're saying. 

 

This problem exists nowhere.