Accuracy and damage of weapons

[beedlo 0]

Just wondering... who finds the current ballistic model to be a little off, too realistic, too unrealistic, unrealistic but fun, too realistic but fun etc...

Personally, I think a reduction in the accuracy of some weapons (especially the rifles) would give a more enjoyable gameplay.  But that is just my opinion.  Perhaps an option to increase more recoil/decrease accuracy would be nice too.  And whats with the super powerful HK and G36?

I'm not saying the current model is bad, just that it might be more enjoyable with some small tweaks.  

[USMC Sniper 0]

I think it should be completely overhauled. The M16, AK47, AK74 all have the same damage values, when the AK47 should be more powerful then the others. THe G36 and Steyr are both too powerful, when they should be the same as the other 5.56 NATO weapons. Also I think the weapons should wobble to the characters breath, at this stage it's far too easy to shoot things.

[SFG 1]

Yeah, I remember the sniper rifle scope wobbling constantly... now it stays still.

[Harnu 0]

Then take your finger off alt SFG

[SFG 1]

Wah? No what i'm saying is... before it would move a little constantly... because no one can hold it perfectly still. Now it does stay still. So it's alot easier to snipe.

[Harnu 0]

Actualy it shakes just as much as before. It seems easier for us because our intuitives (sp?) and judgement is better with it after experince. Reflexes aid quite so with the sniper rifles.

[SFG 1]

No i'm serious... line up the crosshairs on a building or something. After about 3 seconds they dont move. Or maybe its just me

[beedlo 0]

You could be subconciously developing uber sniping skills

[Harnu 0]

SFG, it's always been like that. If you hold it in one position long enough all shakyness stops. Nothing new.

[HellToupee 0]

id o find it too easy to shoot with weapons, shooting targets at 300meters is simple, sniping is very easy scope stays very still, with a dammaged arm now thats when it gets hard, i think all weapons should become harder to aim things like machine guns would be more useful and fights wouldnt be 2 shots long.

[N.o.R.S.u 0]

In my opinion both PK and M60 should be made more accurate but they should also be heavier just like Kegetys' RPK47 & 74. This would make them ideal support weapons and bad close combat weapons. Maybe increase their damage level also, after all they are both 7.62mm.

[Jinef 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Feb. 15 2003,05:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">with a dammaged arm now thats when it gets hard,<span id='postcolor'>

When someone says this you have to admit that the damage model is fucked!

When a 5.56 rips through your amr shattering all bones and cutting muscle and arteries your aim doesn't 'go off a bit'.

I have never been shot myself (not that i would want to so i could give advice on ballistics for a game! but i've seen people get shot (northern ireland mainly) and they very raerly carry on shooting unless of course they're on drugs.

The AK74 and M16 shouldn't have the same damage because they have different bullets - NATO and Russian.

Also i think instead of making individual mags for the different weapons they should in the next game have bullet sizes so let's say if you have a m60 you can pick up a PKs ammo - 7.62mm bullets.

9mm should be quite devasting at close range but don't expect to do much at 50+ metres.

Also people say they want to reduce the accuracy of the weapons, to make gameplay more fun? Would it be more fun if you didn't get shot from 400 metres away in pitch dark? Well i think the unfun factor is the irritatingly good AI

which seems to be able to shoot for the olympics. From what i've seen of initial contacts (I flew away quickly! between IRA guys and Brit squaddies) you have soldiers just putting out rounds to keep the enemy's head down and not much actual aiming until they get their shit together. It would be cool if OFP people did that, and MGs didn't just fire when they saw something but at the general direction of the enemy. Also i think there should be less contact between squad members, they should yell things like reloading and stuff but the leader should just have to point and signal for his squad to do stuff, not give them explicit instructions down the radio for half an hour. Also the AI should engage each other more quickly but less accurately, cause if i was a soldier running along and i saw an enemy running towards me i would just shoot and dive, and thus i would be giving a better warning to my squad instead of explaining that i see an enemy soldier, 2 o'clock.

[Itchy 0]

Wel,, my tuppence worth...the G36 is a bit overpowered, and I really wish the AI couldn't fire through bushes and smoke.

[Acecube 0]

Well, an old issue. It seems to me that I have already written books in forums, mails and things about ballistics and kinetics. Now this time to make it short. It's simply a shame that OFP doesn't use it's given possibilities in ballistics (accuracy, bullet drop, hitpower etc.)

The SEB Nam Pack shows it very good I think. With the guns there the AI suddenly gets "alive".

[Commander-598 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also i think instead of making individual mags for the different weapons they should in the next game have bullet sizes so let's say if you have a m60 you can pick up a PKs ammo - 7.62mm bullets.<span id='postcolor'>

The M60 uses a 7.62x63(?, 60 something)mm round(.30-06, US Caliber)-Yes, the games Gear Section is wrong. A 7.62x51mm is a US Caliber .308

The PK uses a 7.62x54R(Rimmed)mm round.

They don't fit with each other.

One thing i've noticed, is that any weapon that uses a 7.62 round(Especially the Dragunov, M21, M60, PK) seems to have the exact same dammage. In reality, any of the above could drop a human target with one shot(Provided the target is hit somewhere like the chest and not the Arms/Legs). They are fairly large rounds. I've seen that it takes sometimes two shots to kill something with any of them.

Anything using a 5.56N(5.56x45mm; .223 Remington) is severly overpowered. In reality, it can sometimes take several rounds to kill a target, especially when your shooting at ranges of 500m and up.(I'm not sure if Flashpoint models this, but I don't think it does).

Russian 5.45mm rounds can inflict some bad wounds(You may have heard of "Poison Bullets" from back when the Soviet's invaded Afghanistan). Anything that is hit with a 5.45mm round will most likely die. In other words, its more powerful than a 5.56mm round, although it isn't on par with big 7.62mm rounds.

The AK47, is more powerful than both 5.56 and 5.54 rounds. Although its 7.62x39mm round is still incomparable to the larger 7.62mm rounds. It should have a dammage level just a little higher than the 5.45mm round.

I think that covers it.

[Edit-Accuracy]

M16- Not as acurrate as the AKs.

AK74- About the same as the AK47.

AK47- Not as accurate as Semi-Auto 7.62 weapons.

Sniper Weapons(Or any Semi-Auto 7.62 weapon)- Superb Accuracy.

Steyr Aug- I've heard that all Bullpups are rather inacurrate.

G36- Most Acurate Assault Rifle

M60- Not exactly accurate, but good for shooting at groups.

PK- See Above.

[JJonth Cheeky Monkey 1]

The M60 fires the 7.62 X 51 NATO (I think your confusing it with that round the M1 Garand fired)

The PK fires the 7.62 X 54 R

The M16A2 should be more accurate than the AKs. (in real life 14" grouping at 400m is a lot better than any AK could do)

The AKs shouldn't have burst mode and the AK 47 should have less effective range ( 250-300m, that 7.62 X39 wasn't that good at ranges)

The AK 74 should have a higher velocity, but do the least damage. 5.45mm act like soft nose bullets and do a lot more damage to unarmoured targets. Because it weighs alot less than the M855, it is more affected by wind and has a lower effective range of about 400m, but its still better than the 7.62 X 39mm.

The Steyr and G36 should be about the same as the M16A2.

5.56mm rounds tumble inside the target causing nasty wounds inside. The Steyr should be the most accurate as it is a Bullpup and so the barrel can be much longer in a shorter gun. The G36 doesn't have much of an advantage over the M16A2 apart from the 1.5X scope. The M16 though can be outfitted with an M203. Rifles firing the M855 (SS109, 5.56mm NATO) are all capable of hitting things quite effectively at 500-550m.

FN FAL and G3 should be powerful and accurate, but uncontrolable in full auto.

M60 and PK are very effective weapons out to 1000m. In real life the PK is a far better weapon of the two though.

Both the M21 and the SVD are good weapons to 800m or so, but as the M21 is essentially an M14 match, its not much better than any of the 7.62mm Assault rifles. The SVD was designed for battlefield durability more than accuracy.

So range wise.

5.45 X 39mm : 400-450m (AK-74, AK-74 SU)

5.56 X 45mm NATO : 500-550m (AUG, G36, M16A2)

5.56 X 45mm M193 : 400-500m (XM177E2)

7.62 X 39mm : 250-300m (AK-47, AK-47CZ)

7.62 X 51mm NATO : 600-1000m (G3, FAL, M21, M60)

7.62 X 54 Rimmed : 800-1000m (SVD, PK)

9 X 19mm Parabellum: 50-200m (Glock, 92FS, CZ75, MP5 SD6)

7.62 X 25mm : 50-150m (TT-33, Skorpion)

Accuracy wise

MP5. Great at closer ranges, but it struggles at longer ranges due to its rounds going at subsonic speeds.

AK-47. Poor groupings at longer ranges, cross between an AR

and an SMG for range. Recoil higher than the .223s

AK-74. Decent groupings at 350-400m or so. High velocity and low recoil make this an effective weapon even in full auto.

M16A2, AUG, G36. M16 has a recoil buffer, G36 is unlike most other HK weapons and doesn't have a roller locking blowback system, It uses a rotary bolt system like the M16. All should be about the same.

XM177E2. Due to the older and lighter M193 cartridge, the XM should be more affected by wind and because it is a carbine, it should only be effective out to 300-400m. Slightly higher muzzle velocity though as it has a shorte barrel. Very Controllable in Full Auto.

FN FAL and G3 should both be on par with the M21, without the scope, but with full auto. The G3 uses the delayed blowback systemand so has a very slightly slower rate of fire, 600 RPM (the same as the AK47 and XM). Because of the system the Muzzle climb should be less than the FAL. Both should be very good powerful weapons out to 600m

M21, SVD. The M21 takes advantage of a 20 round mag and an ART sight, but less power than the SVD.

M60 and PK. The M60 has a slower ROF, 550rpm, the 7.62 Nato is a good GPMG round and so is effective out to 1000m. The PK fires the slightly larger Rimmed cartridge with a higher rate of fire. Clearly superior over the M60.

The West have got the better more accurate Assault rifles.

The sniper rifles are equally matched.

The East have superior Support weapons.

[Major Fubar 0]

I'd like to see this implemented if it was possible:

Specialists (snipers, AT, MG etc.) getting accuracy bonuses when using their chosen weapon. A grunt shouldn't be able to pick up a sniper rifle and be as effective with it as a professional sniper.

[Commander-598 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The M60 fires the 7.62 X 51 NATO <span id='postcolor'>

Prove it.

My father being familiar with Firearms most of his life, vividly recalls his experience in the US Army.

He knows a .30-06 and a .308 when he sees it. He's not my only source either.

Although possible, I highly doubt they decided to change the caliber between then and now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think your confusing it with that round the M1 Garand fired<span id='postcolor'>

I, being a WW2 Semi-Historian, know quite well the M1's .30-06, as well as the British Lee Enfield's .303 and the Soviet M91/30's 7.62x54R.

The .30-06 is also used by the M1903 Springfield.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The AK 74 should have a higher velocity, but do the least damage. 5.45mm act like soft nose bullets and do a lot more damage to unarmoured targets.<span id='postcolor'>

I thought firearms were used for human targets, which at last check, couldn't be fitted with several tons of armor.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5.56mm rounds tumble inside the target causing nasty wounds inside.<span id='postcolor'>

Your confusing current rounds with those used in Vietnam, which were rather "unstable" compared to whats comming out of the M16A2.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Steyr should be the most accurate as it is a Bullpup and so the barrel can be much longer in a shorter gun<span id='postcolor'>

Although I know little of Bullpup weapons, I do know that Bullpups aren't exactly accurate.(My sources)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Rifles firing the M855 (SS109, 5.56mm NATO) are all capable of hitting things quite effectively at 500-550m.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm doubting its ability to hit something, i'm doubting its ability to cause damage to a target at that range. Besides, a .223 is essentially a high-speed .22LR.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the M21 is essentially an M14 match, its not much better than any of the 7.62mm Assault rifles<span id='postcolor'>

When did a battle rifle(M1, M14) become an assault rifle?

I'm curious, have you ever used firearms? If so, have you ever used firearms beyond a firing range?

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Commander-598 @ Feb. 16 2003,06:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The M60 fires the 7.62 X 51 NATO <span id='postcolor'>

Prove it.

My father being familiar with Firearms most of his life, vividly recalls his experience in the US Army.

He knows a .30-06 and a .308 when he sees it. He's not my only source either.

Although possible, I highly doubt they decided to change the caliber between then and now.<span id='postcolor'>

Every source on the web, as well as my Enclopedia of World Weapons, list the M60 as firing the .308 (aka 7.62 x 51, aka 7.62mm NATO) round.

Modern Firearms

FAS

The M1919 fired .30-06, didn't it?

[Assault (CAN) 1]

.308 and 7.62 NATO are not the same!!!!!!! The same goes for the 5.56 NATO and .223.

Well, yes they are the same, but NATO rounds are made to a higher spec. and have thicker casing walls. You could use .223 in an M-16, but that is not what the weapon was designed to be fed.

Anyways..............

I do think that the ballistics should be totally overhauled for OFP (OFP 2?) I hate shooting an enemey in the chest with an M-21 to only have him run away. The AI needs to be less accurate, and the ballistics should be accounted for sperately with each weapon. No generalization. I don't think being able to kill people with an MP5SD at 100m+ with 2 or 3 shots is very realistic.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(You may have heard of "Poison Bullets" from back when the Soviet's invaded Afghanistan)<span id='postcolor'>

No such animal.

Those infected wounds were caused as a result of the poor sanitary conditions of the Afghan fighters. Not a 'poison bullet'.

And the M-60 fires 7.62 NATO linked ammo. Some earlier prototypes might have been chambered for .30-06 though.

Tyler

[Tex -USMC- 0]

the entire ballistics system needs to be taken into account, but there is one thing that I think would be really cool to implement.

Think of it as a dynamic wound system: you get hit in the arm, you ain't using that arm no more. Same for a leg shot. And if you get hit in the chest with an M21, even if you don't die, it would be really nifty to see the target get knocked backwards, even if he does manage to get back up eventually (not likely though). That would be a great thing to see, implementing physics where a bullet to the hand will knock a weapon away (in addition to ending your career as a switch-hitter), or knock a person off balance. Plus things like bleeding out, and incapacitation would be great. Or maybe I'm just morbid lol.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Feb. 15 2003,19:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Feb. 15 2003,05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">with a dammaged arm now thats when it gets hard,<span id='postcolor'>

When someone says this you have to admit that the damage model is fucked!  <!--emo&

When a 5.56 rips through your amr shattering all bones and cutting muscle and arteries your aim doesn't 'go off a bit'.

I have never been shot myself (not that i would want to so i could give advice on ballistics for a game! but i've seen people get shot (northern ireland mainly) and they very raerly carry on shooting unless of course they're on drugs.

The AK74 and M16 shouldn't have the same damage because they have different bullets - NATO and Russian.

Also i think instead of making individual mags for the different weapons they should in the next game have bullet sizes so let's say if you have a m60 you can pick up a PKs ammo - 7.62mm bullets.

9mm should be quite devasting at close range but don't expect to do much at 50+ metres.

Also people say they want to reduce the accuracy of the weapons, to make gameplay more fun? Would it be more fun if you didn't get shot from 400 metres away in pitch dark? Well i think the unfun factor is the irritatingly good AI

which seems to be able to shoot for the olympics. From what i've seen of initial contacts (I flew away quickly! between IRA guys and Brit squaddies) you have soldiers just putting out rounds to keep the enemy's head down and not much actual aiming until they get their shit together. It would be cool if OFP people did that, and MGs didn't just fire when they saw something but at the general direction of the enemy. Also i think there should be less contact between squad members, they should yell things like reloading and stuff but the leader should just have to point and signal for his squad to do stuff, not give them explicit instructions down the radio for half an hour. Also the AI should engage each other more quickly but less accurately, cause if i was a soldier running along and i saw an enemy running towards me i would just shoot and dive, and thus i would be giving a better warning to my squad instead of explaining that i see an enemy soldier, 2 o'clock.<span id='postcolor'>

Good thoughts!  

I`d like to see the damage model reworked too. I`d prefer if the wounds and the blood loss would kill if not treated. So the wounded had to pull of from the battle to get first aid, which would make the battles more realistic. A nice thing would be black outs if badly wounded (should be easy to be scripted), so you get the feeling "uh uh, I REALLY need a medic".

The physics of the bullets is quite good IMO, because you have to see from where the wind blows when sniping. But the weapon-damage needs a update, like mentioned before, so they are as dangerous like in real life. So a G3 is in real life more powerful like a G36, but in OFP the G3 is just crappy...

Another realism thing I`d like to see in OFP (even if that`s not weapon related) is that you can`t run for all eternity without getting slower.

[Jinef 2]

AHH too much ballistics knowledge! *runs around base naked*

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Feb. 16 2003,12:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AHH too much ballistics knowledge! *runs around base naked*

<span id='postcolor'>

That gives me a weird erotic sensation *blushes*

[JJonth Cheeky Monkey 1]

M60 fires 7.62 X 51 NATO

M60 fires 7.62 X 51 NATO

M60 fires 7.62 X 51 NATO

I think thats enough proving.

I didn't mean that the SS109 tumbles in mid air, as that would be stupid. As it hits the flesh the round spins round and causes nasty internal wounds. Look at this M855 test here. The 5.7 X28mm SS190 round also does this.

Also what I meant by the 5.45mm round been good against unarmoured targets like targets not wearing a CRISAT vests or other body armour. The bullet squashes on the target and so causes bad wounds against unarmoured targets and not much against armoured targets.

Oh yes, now I see the similarity.

I have fired .22s, .223s, .308s, .44s, .45s, 9mms, .380s etc and anyway why would that affect my knowledge in firearms?

Also what would you think makes a Bullpup more inaccurate, look at the SA80, its unreliable, but its very accurate. Also look at the WA2000 sniper rifle, its one of the most accurate rifles around.