Joint ammo and magazines (jam)

[Heavy Metal 0]

And for completion:

[Commander-598 0]

One things for sure, you'll almost never hear an account of any rifleman from WW2 having to shoot twice unless he missed the first shot.

[Eviscerator 0]

Another one:

Quote[/b] ]"There have been several reports from troops in Afghanistan regarding the lack of lethality of the SS109/M855 cartridge, particularly when it is fired from an M4 (US) or M8 (Canadian) carbine. This was also observed in Somalia. For the SS109/M855 to achieve lethality, it must be moving at a velocity of over 732m/s when it strikes its target. At this velocity and above, the bullet penetrates a short distance and then begins to yaw as its spinning slows and it tends to return to normal stable state, which is base forward. As the bullet yaws, it comes apart at the cannelure, scattering fragments and causing a relatively large wound channel. In practical terms, this translates to approximately 200m with a bullet fired from an M16 or similar rifle with a 558mm barrel at approximately 914m/s.

When fired from a carbine, however, the SS109/M855 bullet leaves the barrel with a velocity of only about 790m/s. Therefore by the time it has traveled downrange only 50m it has already dropped below the velocity threshold for enhanced wound ballistics. The net effect is that troops equipped with M4 or M8 carbines are using weapons that are only marginally more effective ballistically than a 0.22 Magnum at anything other an close-quarters battle distances.

The lack of wounding efficacy has caused some military elements to begin exploring the possibility of adopting a 5.56x45mm cartridge with an improved bullet or even a different caliber altogether with improved wound ballistics. Most of these efforts, now only in the earliest stages, have experimented with heavier bullets. For example, US special operations forces in Afghanistan now employ a match cartridge manufactured by US company Black Hills Ammunition that fires a 5g bullet at 792m/s in the M4 Carbine. This cartridge has proven to have improved terminal ballistics over the SS109/M855. Other experiments have been conducted with bullets weighting as much as 6.5g. Some have proposed adopting an entirely new caliber, but this is unlikely in the immediate futures."

As for why we have given the 7.62x39 more damage, its mainly down to the weight of the bullet, given the unreliability of the yawing effect of the SS-109 in different rifles we could not take that into account in the damage values, so it came down to bullet size and weight.

[Eviscerator 0]

Anyway, as i said it balances out rather well, a list of the pro's and con's for each magazines included (using the weapon that uses them as an example):

AK-74 - Medium-high velocity, medium accuracy, low recoil, low damage, 30 round magazine.

M16A2 - Medium-high velocity, medium to high accuracy, low recoil (more than AK-74 however), medium damage, 30 round magazine.

AK-47 - Low velocity, low accuracy, high recoil, medium-high damage, 30 round magazine.

FN FAL - High velocity, high accuracy, high recoil, very high damage, 20 round magazine.

And it pans out rather well ingame, all the accuracies are scaled in accordance to MOA figures we found for each weapon (or the typical weapon that uses the magazine).

[Heavy Metal 0]

One things for sure, you'll almost never hear an account of any rifleman from WW2 having to shoot twice unless he missed the first shot.

Really?

No exactly WWII but..

Quote[/b] ]3P051,

While 7.62 mm has the potential to offer outstanding terminal performance when using well designed ammunition, the use of M80 ball results in limited terminal performance. The following quote is from Pat Rogers:

“7.62X51 has it's place, but having actually carried and shot people with an M14, i have my opinion about it. Remember that an infantryman may not always have an observable target. Many times he will be engaging a terrain feature to achieve fire superiority, in order to allow another element to close with the enemy. You need a fair amount of ammunition to actually do this, and carrying a lot of 7.62x51 means that you are not carrying other mission essential equipment- like water, batteries and the like.

Also note that M80 ball is not a very effective bullet (please query Doc Roberts on Terminal Ballistics). At close range- where the 5.56x45 shines, M80 ball will- if it doesen't contact something viable- leave a perfect .30 caliber hole, and may not incapacitate anyone. On 21may66, i had the occassion to bump into a large number of NVA at very close range- 3- 15 yards. I shot one mortarman 6 times with my M14 at less then 10', all rounds in the chest. He emptied a magazine from his K50 at me without effect, and i shot him twice. He went down and i shot another guy, 2X in the chest and he went right down. The mortarman retrieved his K50 and started to get up, and i shot him 2x more to the chest. he went down and i shot another guy in the brain housing group- immediately effective. And the mortarman got up again. I fired two more into his chest, he went down again. I shot another guy in the side and he went down, and my first contact got up again- slowly, but probably very upset. I threw a frag on him and that ended the life of a very tough and motivated soldier.â€

The U.S. 7.62 x 51 mm M80 FMJ bullet has a generally poor incapacitating potential, as it has a deep yaw cycle and does not fragment. Performance of M80 ball is inferior to 5.56 mm FMJ rounds when they fragment and minimally better than the 5.56 mm bullets when they fail to yaw and fragment. There is NO reason to consider a move back to an improved 7.62 x 51 mm weapon, without a concurrent change to ammunition with better terminal performance than M80 FMJ, otherwise it is likely that no improvement in terminal performance over 5.56 mm M855 will be noted. The 5.56 mm 75/77 gr OTM bullets are more likely to incapacitate an opponent than 7.62 mm M80 ball.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Quote[/b] ]As for why we have given the 7.62x39 more damage, its mainly down to the weight of the bullet, given the unreliability of the yawing effect of the SS-109 in different rifles we could not take that into account in the damage values, so it came down to bullet size and weight.

...again, you are confusing yawing and fragmenting.  Read the www.ammo-oralce.com link as it explains the difference as well as everything else you might want to know about the 5.56 round in more detail than anything else you will find.  If I copied and pasted it here, it would double the size of the entire thread as it is frikkin huge!

[Eviscerator 0]

Quote[/b] ]As for why we have given the 7.62x39 more damage, its mainly down to the weight of the bullet, given the unreliability of the yawing effect of the SS-109 in different rifles we could not take that into account in the damage values, so it came down to bullet size and weight.

...again, you are confusing yawing and fragmenting.  Read the <a href="www.ammo-oralce.com" target='_blank'>www.ammo-oralce.com</a> link as it explains the difference as well as everything else you might want to know about the 5.56 round in more detail than anything else you will find.  If I copied and pasted it here, it would double the size of the entire thread as it is frikkin huge!

I dont believe i am, from those reports and others ive read it seems that the bullet first yaw's 90 degrees and then the pressure causes the bullet to fragment, without first yawing (which doesnt happen if the SS-109 is not travelling over 732m/s, as mentioned in the earlier report) then surely it doesnt fragment in the way shown in the previous figures (with a huge wound as the bullet turns sideways and then fragments). So yes, velocity does have a great deal to do with the fragmentation of the SS-109, as seen here:

Quote[/b] ]Q. So, velocity is a critical component for the wound profile. How fast must the bullet be traveling when it hits its target in order to fragment reliably?

Testing by combat surgeon Col. Martin L. Fackler, MD (USA Medical Corps, retired), determined that M193 and M855 bullets need to strike flesh at 2,700 feet per second in order to reliably fragment. Between 2,500 fps and 2,700 fps, the bullet may or may not fragment and below 2,500 fps, no significant fragmentation is likely to occur. If there isn't enough velocity to cause fragmentation, the result is a deep, 22 caliber hole, except an area where the yawing occurred, where the diameter of the hole grows briefly to the length of the bullet.

[Heavy Metal 0]

You are mininterperting the data. Below 2700 fps, he is saying it will yaw but not fragment.

From you quote above:

Quote[/b] ]

If there isn't enough velocity to cause fragmentation, the result is a deep, 22 caliber hole, except an area where the yawing occurred, where the diameter of the hole grows briefly to the length of the bullet.

Again, www.ammo-oracle explains these things in extreme detail.

Check it out, I promise you will be impressed.

[Eviscerator 0]

What i said was that the bullet would not yaw below 732m/s, which is stated in the previous report i posted (6 posts back), 2700 fps is 822.9 m/s.

[Gollum1 0]

Pardon me if this has been asked before, but are you going to expand JAM beyond infantry firearms? Tank shells, mortar rounds, arty rounds, ATGMs etc...?

Is this some big secret or are you just too busy talking about bullet cavities, Eviscerator

[Eviscerator 0]

Pardon me if this has been asked before, but are you going to expand JAM beyond infantry firearms? Tank shells, mortar rounds, arty rounds, ATGMs etc...?

Is this some big secret or are you just too busy talking about bullet cavities, Eviscerator  

Too busy talking about bullet cavities We have no plans at the minute to expand beyond infantry weapons.

[Heavy Metal 0]

Yawing happens at all speeds, fragmentation only happens relaibly above 2700 and is the result of the projectile breaking apart at the crimping cannelure.

Even when the velocity is insufficent, the round still yaws.

Yawing is the result of the projectile entering a medium denser than air (flesh) and being no longer sufficiently spin stabilized for this new, denser medium.

The projectile then 'switches ends' to travel heavy end forward an thereby achieve a new ballistically stable configuration and this is waht causes a bullet to 'tumble'.

Quote[/b] ]Fact: Flesh is 400 times denser than air and will cause a bullet to lose stability almost instantly. For M193 and M855 ammo, this typically occurs after 3-5 inches of flesh penetration, though this can vary. In order to spin the bullet fast enough to be stable in flesh, the barrel twist would have to be on the order of 1 twist every 0.024 inches, which would look like the barrel had been threaded instead of rifled.

[Eviscerator 0]

Ok so i cant actually dispute that, thought i had read that the distance at which it yaws (distance travelling through flesh) is far longer when under the 732 m/s velocity, but i cant find anything to back it up, so ill concede on that point.

However, the 7.62x39 also yaws, the russian bullet at 22cm penetration and the yugoslavian at 9cm (if i remember correctly), again, JAM encompasses various weapons and various bullets, we cant take the characteristic of one type of bullet that happens occasionally in only certain weapons and up the damage because of it, especially when it is dependant on quite a few factors, one of them being range, and as we cannot change the damage level a bullet has at different ranges it would still have the extra damage caused by yawing and fragmentation at 1000m, even when the real bullet would have bled off the majority of its speed.

We also cant take into account where its going to hit, a shot the hand (with about 2-3 cm of flesh) shouldnt get the extra bonus of the fragmentation, same with various other parts of the body, again, we cant assign different damage to the bullet as to where it hits on the body, so adding something unique to distance penetrated, velocity (talking about fragmentation here), range, and weapon is something we just cant do without unbalancing the guns.

[Commander-598 0]

Quote[/b] ]On 21may66, i had the occassion to bump into a large number of NVA at very close range- 3- 15 yards. I shot one mortarman 6 times with my M14 at less then 10', all rounds in the chest. He emptied a magazine from his K50 at me without effect, and i shot him twice. He went down and i shot another guy, 2X in the chest and he went right down. The mortarman retrieved his K50 and started to get up, and i shot him 2x more to the chest. he went down and i shot another guy in the brain housing group- immediately effective. And the mortarman got up again. I fired two more into his chest, he went down again. I shot another guy in the side and he went down, and my first contact got up again- slowly, but probably very upset. I threw a frag on him and that ended the life of a very tough and motivated soldier.â€

Bull.

If you were hit in the chest six times, you wouldn't have a chest(Exageration) or there wouldn't be anything in your chest cavity. Six rounds to the chest would have probably put holes in every vital organ that resides in the chest.

K50? Never heard of it. Ever.

[Heavy Metal 0]

I have read numerous instances of multiple hits with .308/30-06 caliber weapons and the enemy still did not give up the fight.

Unless there is a CNS hit such as to the spinal column, a subject can fight for 20 to 30 seconds with a shreede heart on just the residual oxygen in his blood.

Quote[/b] ]Doctrine,

Thanks again for responding.

I'm not one of the subversives , nor do I have an agenda to adopt a different caliber (..that would be the .243/6mm or the .45?)

...even the mighty M1 Garand (30-06) and 1897 Winchester (12 gauge shotgun)had bayonet lugs and metal butt plates, and they were not there for parades; as both you, I, your "operator" friend, and a whole bunch of surviving WWII Marine and Army combat veterans understand.

I have spoken w/several WWII veterans over the years, who fought in the Pacific theatre. Most recently, a Marine "Raider" who was my roommate at Madigan Army Hospital, and a childhood friends father, a marine who had been bayoneted 8 times while fighting on Guadacanal. The 30-06 was not, in fact, the one shot stop cartridge some might advocate. Most certainly not in the "close" fight, at night, on those Pacific islands.

Having been in the Infantry for 20 years, I have also entrusted my life and those of my squad/company using 4 varients of the M16: XM177E2, CAR 15, M16A1, and the M16A2, 2 diferent varients of 5.56mm ammo, and several hanguns. I have never seen, nor have I talked to someone who has survived an upper torso hit from a 5.56mm rd.

..what my bottom line is w/this "hollow point" proposal centers around time: closing the gap between "immediate Incapacitation" and "lethal" hits. Time that our soldiers do not have to spare when faced w/an asymetrical threat, that does not wear a uniform and will be engaging our soldiers at CQC distances. Seconds; fractions of seconds will determine the winner, and where loosing may mean the detonation of a WMD in CONUS or abroad.

..I understand the shot placement concept. I also understand the training we are currently "not doing" at the user level which would back that up. How many rds of 5.56 does Joe/Jane shoot at under 25m in basic/AIT (0), from other than the prone/prone supported (0). I won't even bring up M9 training (what training). How many soldiers can make a head shot w/an M4 at 7 yds, from the low ready, in a second? I'm betting some in SOCOM can do it in .40, but what about a 11B from the 101st? How about a CSS soldier? What about the federalized national guardsman guarding the nuclear power plant? Because that is what it's going to take to immediately incapacitate the threat w/a FMJ bullet. Most probably it is going to be a center mass or near center mass hit were the difference in performance between a FMJ and HP would be significant. Most certainly w/the M9.

I clearly understand what the rules are. We cannot use HP ammo. Period.

But, I also know this nation has dropped not 1, but 2 atomic weapons on the civilan populace of a nation, to save a million American lives. I pose the question, can we not use the most effective type small arms ammunition against combatants to save a million American lives?

Thanks again doctrine for responding. I will try and get ahold of the lawyers.

http://www.infantry.army.mil/infforu....hpage=1

[SelectThis 0]

ALl this talk about yaw, cavitation, fragmentation is very interesting, however it is important to bring it back to the game.

OFP does not have a sophisticated damage system. THe items we can alter are limited to things like:

- Direct damage

- Indirect damage

- Indirect damage range

- init velocity

- dispersion

OFP does not give us the ability to determine damage by using a function of velocity over time, mass, etc. As Evis has said, it's a matter of coming to a compromise about the relative strengths of each bullet, while keeping game play issues in mind.

my two cents ... i think all the damage levels are too high by about a factor of 2. most of the reading i have done seems to indicate that a person can take multiple hits and keep functioning, allbeit at a much reduce capacity. Of that's not taking into account critical hits, but then even a .22 to a critical area will kill someone. It's only when we get to the higher calibers high energy weapons that we should be talking about consistent one hit one kill in OFP (eg 12.7mm)

Re: AT4, RPG7

I think we will keep the normal round damge at 450, change the direct damage on the AP version to 450 but keep the indirect at 75..more for game balance issues. Ie, we don't want 1 rpg7 taking out a whole squad.

The AA i think we will leave at 125 because if we increase it to 450 then one hit will take out a helicopter completely..which isnt much fun for everyone involved is it?

A small aside, The Rangers use to use a variation of the Carl Gustav.

SelectThis

[AngusHeaf 0]

Hellfish, in reply to your post...

Yes you are indeed correct about the Javelin in all respects. My overly generalized comment was just meant to point out that newer and better things have come along for certain reasons and certain functions. I agree that it would be good to, in the case of a Javelin, overmodel the damage just a bit. But I wouldn't choose to do it via the Hit value. From experience I think the best way to keep things in line is to stick with a realistic hit and tweak the indirect with very VERY small changes to the range. But I digress...

In my opinion the JAM AT weapons are all bungled. No offense to Evis or any of the other JAM guys. The AT4 does less damage than the stock LAW which is retarded, and the fact that you can carry 4 AT4s is also on the ridiculous side [understatement]. I have given thought to creating a proper top-attacking Javelin as many people know, but as it relates to JAM and the current state of OFP AT weapons, I think it's a waste of time to do so realistically. Why? Because if you can carry 3 LAWs (stock OFP) you can do 1500 damage to a tank. If I (or someone else) were to make a proper Javelin that required 2 people to pack the tube/ammo and guidance, and with one tube per person, you would end up doing less than half what one goon with some LAWs could do. Retarded. So it's not worth it.

However, in the context of the WarGames AddPack (now in beta for teams enrolled in the WarGames league www.virtual-wars.com) where AT inventory space is in short supply (everything takes up 4 slots) it would make more sense. Also, the fact that standard OFP AT ranges are something on the order of 500m easily if you're a good shot doesn't help things. This is all addressed and fixed in my mod. But again, I digress... (btw I think Evis really got the AT4 range issue right with his crosshairs and missile speed).

Ya know, things really are easier when you reconfigure the entire game. The whole issue of AA isn't such a big deal because we simply adjusted the Apache and HIND down to cobra levels so that AA takes it out like cake. Then boosted the A10 and Froggy. Throw in flares on all the choppers and jets, and if the AA gets past the flares (quite possible with our tweaking) you should be rewarded with a kill or a really gimped jet. Give me a week to get back from my vacation and WarGames AddPak (the realism mod I was talking about) will be out of public beta and I will start a thread about making it some sort of JAM-esque standard. But maybe I'm just dreaming.

Happy Jamming!

If I weren't so damn tired I would start talking about the backpack system I will be including in JAM for the next release (already appearing in WG AddPak). Yes, the dream of packing in more than 10 mags is here! But alas I'm too tired to chat about it.

[Guest]

The HD weapons are an excellent idea, but the problem with them seems to be that the AI has been affected, not just the weapons. Get an East and a West soldier, pace them 50m apart...and they often won't even notice each other. I have seen opponents as close as 30m without shooting at one another.

Yes, the HD is an excellent idea, and truely can add something to the game. But I don't think it will work as intended (ie: suppressive fire) if they can't target each other. If you can change HD so they will still target and fire as normal, and just change the dispersion of the bullets I think it would be brilliant.

Other than that...brilliant work by all

[AgentFox2 0]

First of all, I'd like to say... Great job on JAM. I'm having a lot of fun with it and have a feeling it will soon become a requisite addon in everyone's missions.

Despite the fact that I like this addon so much, I did find somethings that were buggy about it, and some other things that just rubbed me the wrong way. So, let me share the minor pet peeves that I found in this great addon.

In the bug category, I noticed that the M-21 fires several degrees above the crosshair when zoomed in any decent amount. I'm assuming this has something to do with alignment of optics, etc.

Also something I myself would put in the bug category, but may not be as such... The Remington 700 fires very, very fast for a bolt-action rifle. So fast, in fact, you cannot hear the "bolt cycle". It nearly reminds me of the M-21 in its rate of fire. I also noticed this problem with the M24 included in the US Army Special Forces pack. This bug, if infact a bug, is the one I am most concerned about.

A minor pet peeve: You can hear the MP5SD from a pretty far distance. Again, not sure if this was planned or not.

Weapon names: The MP5 in OFP is actually an MP5SD3, not an SD6. That is why in the game, it only had Semi-Auto and Full-Automatic. I'm sure you all knew this, but I just thought I'd make sure. I think it would be better to use the SD3 variant, as if you look at the model closely in first person, you will notice that the fire selector has the SAFE-SEMI-AUTO trigger grouping, and would look strange if it also had a "hidden" fire selection.

Also, the XM-177E2 within the game is actually not an XM-177E2, but a Colt "Commando" with its muzzle cut down to size. Infact, the only national military that I know of that uses such a weapon is the Israeli Defense Forces.

Quote[/b] ]

Picture of the real XM-177E2

Picture of a Colt "Commando" with sawn-off muzzle used by the IDF:

and

In addition, you can get more information about the history of the various M16 carbines at SpecialOperations.com

and

iSayeret

--------------------------------

Also to note is that before the M4, the M16 carbines were considered "submachineguns" due to poor accuracy at range. I don't know if, due to the purpose of this project, it would be feasible to create different attributes for the carbine magazines, but I thought I'd throw that out.

And my last whine for the day is some of the classes. In JAM's current state, if someone were to make a JAM-compatible M14, and someone else made a JAM-compatible L1A1 (FN FAL), they would both sound and act the same. Now, I understand they might be able to share ammunition...But also note that you created separate definitions for both the G-36 and the Steyr AUG, which both use 5.56 30 rounds magazines and can obviously share ammunition with the M16 or M4 rifles. I'm guessing you created these separate definitions because these two guns act different from each other, etc. I believe that this should be done to a certain extent for other weapons, including said example of M-14/L1A1.

Anyway, the preceding is just some pet peeves and minor discrepancies. Overall, I'm enjoying the new addon, and am hopeful for the cool things that will arrive in the future.

Thank you Ballistic Addons Studios, Digital Grenade, and all addon makers who strive for perfection and work so diligently simply for the betterment of the game.

[ruff 102]

Hellfish, in reply to your post...

Yes you are indeed correct about the Javelin in all respects. My overly generalized comment was just meant to point out that newer and better things have come along for certain reasons and certain functions. I agree that it would be good to, in the case of a Javelin, overmodel the damage just a bit. But I wouldn't choose to do it via the Hit value. From experience I think the best way to keep things in line is to stick with a realistic hit and tweak the indirect with very VERY small changes to the range. But I digress...

In my opinion the JAM AT weapons are all bungled. No offense to Evis or any of the other JAM guys. The AT4 does less damage than the stock LAW which is retarded, and the fact that you can carry 4 AT4s is also on the ridiculous side [understatement]. I have given thought to creating a proper top-attacking Javelin as many people know, but as it relates to JAM and the current state of OFP AT weapons, I think it's a waste of time to do so realistically. Why? Because if you can carry 3 LAWs (stock OFP) you can do 1500 damage to a tank. If I (or someone else) were to make a proper Javelin that required 2 people to pack the tube/ammo and guidance, and with one tube per person, you would end up doing less than half what one goon with some LAWs could do. Retarded. So it's not worth it.

However, in the context of the WarGames AddPack (now in beta for teams enrolled in the WarGames league www.virtual-wars.com) where AT inventory space is in short supply (everything takes up 4 slots) it would make more sense. Also, the fact that standard OFP AT ranges are something on the order of 500m easily if you're a good shot doesn't help things. This is all addressed and fixed in my mod. But again, I digress... (btw I think Evis really got the AT4 range issue right with his crosshairs and missile speed).

Ya know, things really are easier when you reconfigure the entire game. The whole issue of AA isn't such a big deal because we simply adjusted the Apache and HIND down to cobra levels so that AA takes it out like cake. Then boosted the A10 and Froggy. Throw in flares on all the choppers and jets, and if the AA gets past the flares (quite possible with our tweaking) you should be rewarded with a kill or a really gimped jet. Give me a week to get back from my vacation and WarGames AddPak (the realism mod I was talking about) will be out of public beta and I will start a thread about making it some sort of JAM-esque standard. But maybe I'm just dreaming.

Happy Jamming!

If I weren't so damn tired I would start talking about the backpack system I will be including in JAM for the next release (already appearing in WG AddPak). Yes, the dream of packing in more than 10 mags is here! But alas I'm too tired to chat about it.

cant wait for the extra ammo

every big mission i get wen i my squad has to kill over 100ppl i end having to get mags off my squad members and ammo points are not tha realistic every 200m

so cant wait to have more than 10 slots for my mags

but u guys already did that with the current jam gl

so it is so possible for mags

[4 IN 1 0]

First of all, I'd like to say... Great job on JAM. I'm having a lot of fun with it and have a feeling it will soon become a requisite addon in everyone's missions.

Despite the fact that I like this addon so much, I did find somethings that were buggy about it, and some other things that just rubbed me the wrong way. So, let me share the minor pet peeves that I found in this great addon.

In the bug category, I noticed that the M-21 fires several degrees above the crosshair when zoomed in any decent amount. I'm assuming this has something to do with alignment of optics, etc.

Also something I myself would put in the bug category, but may not be as such... The Remington 700 fires very, very fast for a bolt-action rifle. So fast, in fact, you cannot hear the "bolt cycle". It nearly reminds me of the M-21 in its rate of fire. I also noticed this problem with the M24 included in the US Army Special Forces pack. This bug, if infact a bug, is the one I am most concerned about.

A minor pet peeve: You can hear the MP5SD from a pretty far distance. Again, not sure if this was planned or not.

Weapon names: The MP5 in OFP is actually an MP5SD3, not an SD6. That is why in the game, it only had Semi-Auto and Full-Automatic. I'm sure you all knew this, but I just thought I'd make sure. I think it would be better to use the SD3 variant, as if you look at the model closely in first person, you will notice that the fire selector has the SAFE-SEMI-AUTO trigger grouping, and would look strange if it also had a "hidden" fire selection.

Also, the XM-177E2 within the game is actually not an XM-177E2, but a Colt "Commando" with its muzzle cut down to size. Infact, the only national military that I know of that uses such a weapon is the Israeli Defense Forces.

Quote[/b] ]

Picture of the real XM-177E2

Picture of a Colt "Commando" with sawn-off muzzle used by the IDF:

and

In addition, you can get more information about the history of the various M16 carbines at SpecialOperations.com

and

iSayeret

--------------------------------

Also to note is that before the M4, the M16 carbines were considered "submachineguns" due to poor accuracy at range. I don't know if, due to the purpose of this project, it would be feasible to create different attributes for the carbine magazines, but I thought I'd throw that out.

And my last whine for the day is some of the classes. In JAM's current state, if someone were to make a JAM-compatible M14, and someone else made a JAM-compatible L1A1 (FN FAL), they would both sound and act the same. Now, I understand they might be able to share ammunition...But also note that you created separate definitions for both the G-36 and the Steyr AUG, which both use 5.56 30 rounds magazines and can obviously share ammunition with the M16 or M4 rifles. I'm guessing you created these separate definitions because these two guns act different from each other, etc. I believe that this should be done to a certain extent for other weapons, including said example of M-14/L1A1.

Anyway, the preceding is just some pet peeves and minor discrepancies. Overall, I'm enjoying the new addon, and am hopeful for the cool things that will arrive in the future.

Thank you Ballistic Addons Studios, Digital Grenade, and all addon makers who strive for perfection and work so diligently simply for the betterment of the game.

when talking about mod, we are not only talking about the mod itself,

but also the game engine limits, the better way to make a weapon in a game

is to give a basic value to the ammo which how they work(like range, damage,etc...),

and add a variable numbers to the weapon itself (increase/decrease in value),

i am not clear about how guns works in OFP, but i am not really think that OFP engine will use this way

cause this will make the CPU usage increase like hell...........

[nyles 11]

Well this scientific theory talk about bullet wounds, etc.. is quite fun to listen to, but in the end the only thing that counts is how well you can reduce real-life within the boundaries of a game engine and have it work.

I for one think that JAM is a very good idea for achieving cross-compatibility between several mods. However, personally I disagree with a lot of the design decisions that were made. I would have gone a lot further in the field of damage, and on the other hand would have reduced accuracy to a more noticeable degree.

One of the greatest things I think FinMod managed is to properly simulate accuracy of small arms. While standing hitting a target at ranges beyond 100m can be quite a challenge, and only when prone, a shooter can expect a high hit quota. With FinMod however, the (little) improved damage of the firearms is still way too low to make up for the drastically decreased accuracy. Thus I fiddled around with damage values to achieve in making the "battlefield" experience more realistic. The FinMod guys have standardized weapon damage (within the mod), considering the calibre of the ammo, used by the weapons. I tweaked this values somewhat until it feld "right" for me.

I didn't really count every militmetre of difference between calibres but grouped several ammo types of similar diametre under a common damage value. For example does a m60 cause the same damage like a dragunov, pk or a g3, just like a m16 causes the same damage like a ak74 or g36.

While fiddling around with the damage values, I noticed that there is a certain boundary value, where you either need 1 or 2 shots to kill. I explored this a little more and came up with 3 damage values:

11.1 = mostly takes 2 hits to kill, but can also sometimes kill with 1 shot,

11.2 = a fair trade between 1 and 2 required hits to kill,

11.3 = the majority of the first hits result in death, but there is a fair chance that a second hit is needed once in a while.

I decided that 5.56x45 and 5.45x39 should be grouped under damage value 11.1, while 7.62x39 should be under 11.2, and 11.3 should be for 7.62x51 and 7.62x54 cartridges. Sidearms and submachineguns are in the range of 10.X, resulting in 1-3 hits required.

I think that this works out nicely. The offline games I play using Finmod are really great that way. It's the best OFP experience I had so far. It would be great if JAM would consider to loose itself from the OFP given damage values of small arms, and would try to go a similar way like the guys from FinMod have done, and maybe even go yet another step forward by adjusting the damage values like I have done.

Everyone that wants to try these changes out can replace their OFP/FinMod/BIN/config.cpp file with this file here. (make sure you backup the old file). It's a great playing experience, which I recommend everyone to at least test it out.

As for JAM and AT-weapons, I think that the way the AT4 and RPG7 are working against IFV and APC, it's really good. I always liked how kegetys RPG7 manged to mostly cripple an M2, but not destroy it with one shot. The way OFP weapons manage to destroy every thing below the armour of an T72 with one shot, is far from reality and especially in multiplayer makes use of these vehicles a rare occurence.

Please note that this is no intention to hijack this thread with the FinMod stuff, but instead wants to help improve this promising project with constructive criticism.

[Heavy Metal 0]

I would switch the rankings for the 5.45/5.56 and the 7.62x39.

Of all major calibers, the 7.62x39 has by far the porrest record as a stopper.

[CrunchyFrog 0]

Are the M60 and the M240 gonna use the same magazine?

they have different RPM, but not that big... 50-100 rpm difference

[canukausiuka 1]

If I weren't so damn tired I would start talking about the backpack system I will be including in JAM for the next release (already appearing in WG AddPak). Yes, the dream of packing in more than 10 mags is here! But alas I'm too tired to chat about it.

I hope that this works out well. I know I44 tried it, but it doesn't work so well. AI won't use it, and you can only take one magazine at a time .

I do like what I've seen with JAM, though. It sounds much better than the default OFP sounds (although I'll always have a soft spot for Satchel's soundpack), and the weapons behave alot "nicer". I was not impressed with the AIs ability to use the high recoil weapons though. But I think this is just an AI problem for OFP. Altogether, great job!