Arma guns just don't feel right.....?

[subs17 9]

the way 7.62mm is modeled in Arma is actually less effective than 5.56mm if you are using an AK47.

The way PKM and SVD kill with mostly one hit anywhere makes me doubt your claims. The game doesn't have an AK-47, only 74 which is 5.45.

DOH My mistake it is a 74.

[subs17 9]

Quote[/b] ]Hopefully Arma2 might have an improved human damage model as it would be quite cool to add a bit more gore to the game.

Cool gore effects? Sorry, but if you like to play some arcade-shooters don't use OFP/ArmA.

Speak for yourself mate why don't you stick to arcade games that don't model realistic weapons effects which was my point. Afterall I did say improved human damage model this could cover things such as loss of the use of bodyparts if you're hit. Arma already models leg damage but loss of left or right arm could also be cool as is the ability to not be able to use both arms to fire or using the left arm if the right is hit. Could even go as far as limiting what you can carry like in the swimming mode.

[the_bengine 0]

Check out this video from OFP-Resistance modded with FFUR-SLX.

What a sound and feel - great!

This is what i say to realistic feel of a weapon ingame.

Regards, Christian

i love the SFX in FFUR-SLX, especially the echoing reverb after the initial crack of the gun.

it also feels like you have more control over the shot in FFUR-SLX. if you spy someone running at 200m, you know he's going down. In Arma, shooting feels far more hit and miss ('scuse the pun). But i'm in no position to say which is more realistic.

i actually stopped playing FFUR-SLX coz the slightly naf sky annoyed me too much. when i changed it, all the mud tracks lost their textures, but that's another, equally as interesting story...  

[max power 21]

Biggest observation from current world conflicts is that 5.56mm doesn't tend to stop a person in their tracks as much as a 7.62mm round.(regardless of ammo type) People tend to get up and carry on fighting unless they are hit by a head shot. So 1 or 2 rounds with 5.56mm in Arma should allow the enemy to continue fighting unless its near the vital organs or headshot. 7.62mm should be different as it has much more stopping power, the way 7.62mm is modeled in Arma is actually less effective than 5.56mm if you are using an AK47. The Barret and other .50cal weapons also need some adjustment on their effect, the M107 should remove body parts when it hits them and in the case of long range shots such as 2miles it would in effect split the body in half due to the trajectory . Hopefully Arma2 might have an improved human damage model as it would be quite cool to add a bit more gore to the game.

The ak47 round is not the same as a nato 7.62 round. It's much shorter. It has a shorter casing than the 5.56, actually. In real life, the ak47 produces a wound tract not unlike that of a 9mm handgun under some conditions (like an uncomplicated legwound). It yaws late and does not fragment. It does produce a large temporary cavity, though, so wounds in the inelastic tissues of the body (like the liver or brain) would be catestrophic.

At what ranges are you talking about in your post here? I've read an anecdote about a tank commander shooting a man with an rpg pointed in his direction with a burst to the chest with a browning .50. As he put it, the man looked back it him "with a look of surprise" on his face, and didn't fall until subsequent bursts hit him. What happened there? Well, you can't really know after the fact. Most 7.62 weapons that are deployed in the american army are either machineguns or precision rifles. I think that number of hits and shot placement probably have a lot to do with these numbers.

[subs17 9]

In the case of the .50 cal I noticed in the movie "Shooter" that the advisor who was a Sniper mentioned that the effect of being hit by such a weapon does produce quite heavy damage(splitting bodies apart, removing limbs etc) at 2miles+. To add to this I've seen videos that backup the above statements. As for 7.62mm you are right in the case of the AKs shorter ammo but in the case of the US 7.62mm weapons they do alot of damage and have extremely good stopping power. Also weapons such as 30mm chain guns tend to make quite a mess and there is generally not much left if someone is caught by a burst from a 30mm. So ingame maybe 5.56mm would remain the same but for the SVD and M24 there should be adjustment to increase the damage same for the .50cal weapons. Pity the M107 doesn't have a better rate of damage vs vehicles as well.

[max power 21]

In the case of the .50 cal I noticed in the movie "Shooter" that the advisor who was a Sniper mentioned that the effect of being hit by such a weapon does produce quite heavy damage(splitting bodies apart, removing limbs etc) at 2miles+. To add to this I've seen videos that backup the above statements. As for 7.62mm you are right in the case of the AKs shorter ammo but in the case of the US 7.62mm weapons they do alot of damage and have extremely good stopping power. Also weapons such as 30mm chain guns tend to make quite a mess and there is generally not much left if someone is caught by a burst from a 30mm. So ingame maybe 5.56mm would remain the same but for the SVD and M24 there should be adjustment to increase the damage same for the .50cal weapons. Pity the M107 doesn't have a better rate of damage vs vehicles as well.

Splitting bodies at 2km... doubtful. I'm going to go so far as to say that a .50 cal bullet with a hard jacket has never split anyone anywhere at any time at a range of 2km. Heavy damage? Yes. Instant incapacitation? Well, not an instantaneous knockdown, that's for sure. Let's not lose track of what we are talking about, here. And why bring cannons into the conversation? Obviously, anything large enough to carry a payload is going to do terrible things when it hits you a supersonic speeds. I'm afraid Hollywood isn't a very good source of information and I'm going to have to pass on your argument based on that. The terminal effectiveness of the 7.62 nato round is far greater than the 5.56, that's a matter of public record... but in terms of closer range 'stopping power', a term that I think is more an invention of advertising agencies, I'm not convinced.

The m107 will down a blackhawk with one or two shots to the rotor hub, I think I saw in a video. And it is a pitty that arma didn't have the ballistic features of NWD's mod from the getgo! In terms of damage against vehicles, it's the same as damage against people. It all has to do with penetration and shot placement. I would really like to be able to penetrate vehicles and damage only what I hit rather than a global hitpoint value... really a lot.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

...'stopping power', a term that I think is more an invention of advertising agencies...

"Stopping power" (so named) has been a topic of discussion

since the first close-combat practical shooting manuals were

published. It isn't an invention of advertisers. "Shooting to

Live" by Fairbairn and Sykes from 1942 is usually accepted

as the first such manual. It already has a very interesting

chapter entirely devoted to "stopping power" and all the

various factors associated with it.  I won't go into details,

though, since it is all rather irrelevant in a discussion of

video-game toy guns.

[Sevan 0]

It seems this discussion has gone further then what's possible to represent in the game. There is no penetration model, and the wounding system is very basic.

[max power 21]

...'stopping power', a term that I think is more an invention of advertising agencies...

"Stopping power" (so named) has been a topic of discussion

since the first close-combat practical shooting manuals were

published. It isn't an invention of advertisers. "Shooting to

Live" by Fairbairn and Sykes from 1942 is usually accepted

as the first such manual. It already has a very interesting

chapter entirely devoted to "stopping power" and all the

various factors associated with it.  I won't go into details,

though, since it is all rather irrelevant in a discussion of

video-game toy guns.

I'll check out that book. A more recent essay I read by the FBI goes to great lengths to discredit 'stopping power'.

[subs17 9]

Splitting bodies at 2km... doubtful.  I'm going to go so far as to say that a .50 cal bullet with a hard jacket has never split anyone anywhere at any time at a range of 2km.  Heavy damage?  Yes.  Instant incapacitation?  Well, not an instantaneous knockdown, that's for sure.  Let's not lose track of what we are talking about, here.  And why bring cannons into the conversation?  Obviously, anything large enough to carry a payload is going to do terrible things when it hits you a supersonic speeds.  I'm afraid Hollywood isn't a very good source of information and I'm going to have to pass on your argument based on that.  The terminal effectiveness of the 7.62 nato round is far greater than the 5.56, that's a matter of public record... but in terms of closer range 'stopping power', a term that I think is more an invention of advertising agencies, I'm not convinced.

The m107 will down a blackhawk with one or two shots to the rotor hub, I think I saw in a video.  And it is a pitty that arma didn't have the ballistic features of NWD's mod from the getgo!  In terms of damage against vehicles, it's the same as damage against people.  It all has to do with penetration and shot placement.  I would really like to be able to penetrate vehicles and damage only what I hit rather than a global hitpoint value... really a lot.

I'm talking about the interview with US Marine in the making of Shooter and to backup what he said the trajectory is quite high for a .50 cal round when firing at long distance so in effect its coming down on the target and the momentum is that much that it causes quite alot of damage. (I've seen video of it, its quite messy )

[Col. Faulkner 0]

It seems this discussion has gone further then what's possible to represent in the game. There is no penetration model, and the wounding system is very basic.

Yes, this is why I didn't go into any details. Rather silly when

all it is is just some very simplistic mathematical calculations

in software.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

I'll check out that book.  A more recent essay I read by the FBI goes to great lengths to discredit 'stopping power'.

I'd not be surprised if your FBI essay drew the same broad

conclusions as Fairbairn and Sykes in the early 1940s.

They decided that bullet performance is less important than

rapid repeated fire and accurate shot placement. Fairbairn

and Sykes were also speaking from a position of considerable

authority based on extensive practical experience. Anyway,

it's all very OT when discussing ArmA toy guns.

[max power 21]

I'll check out that book. A more recent essay I read by the FBI goes to great lengths to discredit 'stopping power'.

I'd not be surprised if your FBI essay drew the same broad

conclusions as Fairbairn and Sykes in the early 1940s.

They decided that bullet performance is less important than

rapid repeated fire and accurate shot placement. Fairbairn

and Sykes were also speaking from a position of considerable

authority based on extensive practical experience. Anyway,

it's all very OT when discussing ArmA toy guns.

Well, you've got me interested now anyhow. Despite the OTness, I'll try to find that book while I'm on holidays. I'd like to see stopping power defined. Thanks for dropping that information... I still don't believe .50 cal shells splitting people in two like chording wood at 2k, tho.

The FBI drew their conclusions based on a meta-analysis of law enforcement shooting case reports. This was while they were attempting to choose a new sidearm, and deals specifically with pistol loads- high power and otherwise.

[NoRailgunner 0]

There is no explosion and no blown away with a .50cal - this myth is really busted. Too much faith in hollywood movies and wired-guys/special effects (remember Newton: action - reaction)

[whisper 0]

It seems this discussion has gone further then what's possible to represent in the game. There is no penetration model, and the wounding system is very basic.

Yes, this is why I didn't go into any details. Rather silly when

all it is is just some very simplistic mathematical calculations

in software.

I wonder what a real body penetration calculation would bring over a simple "damage part -> random effect" could do. At some point, too much details would be useless if you ask me.

Better have something checking where you're hit and applying random effect specific to the part hit and scaled to the ammo that hit you.

Which ArmA still doesn't do (but could be doable, in fact, because the only information needed is "where are you hit" and "what ammo did hit you", both informations available in ArmA)

In fact, it's more than just the wounding system, it's also the healing system that is way too light.

[subs17 9]

It seems this discussion has gone further then what's possible to represent in the game. There is no penetration model, and the wounding system is very basic.

Yes, this is why I didn't go into any details. Rather silly when

all it is is just some very simplistic mathematical calculations

in software.

Well consider this then there are other games in development which are making use of physics cards which can be used to calculate each individual fragment if a grenade explodes. The same card can be used for flight sims for aerodynamics calculations and its possible such a feature could be built into computers in the future. I think future FPS games could use such a feature to allow for buildings/vehicle/people to have a better damage model.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060322-6436.html

There is no harm in improving future versions of Arma with such features.

[Sevan 0]

It seems this discussion has gone further then what's possible to represent in the game. There is no penetration model, and the wounding system is very basic.

Yes, this is why I didn't go into any details. Rather silly when

all it is is just some very simplistic mathematical calculations

in software.

Well consider this then there are other games in development which are making use of physics cards which can be used to calculate each individual fragment if a grenade explodes. The same card can be used for flight sims for aerodynamics calculations and its possible such a feature could be built into computers in the future. I think future FPS games could use such a feature to allow for buildings/vehicle/people to have a better damage model.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060322-6436.html

There is no harm in improving future versions of Arma with such features.

There is no disaggreement there.

[dab_burns 0]

you guys make me laugh in a good way

[-Puma- 2]

Splitting bodies at 2km... doubtful. I'm going to go so far as to say that a .50 cal bullet with a hard jacket has never split anyone anywhere at any time at a range of 2km. Heavy damage? Yes. Instant incapacitation? Well, not an instantaneous knockdown, that's for sure. Let's not lose track of what we are talking about, here. And why bring cannons into the conversation? Obviously, anything large enough to carry a payload is going to do terrible things when it hits you a supersonic speeds. I'm afraid Hollywood isn't a very good source of information and I'm going to have to pass on your argument based on that. The terminal effectiveness of the 7.62 nato round is far greater than the 5.56, that's a matter of public record... but in terms of closer range 'stopping power', a term that I think is more an invention of advertising agencies, I'm not convinced.

The m107 will down a blackhawk with one or two shots to the rotor hub, I think I saw in a video. And it is a pitty that arma didn't have the ballistic features of NWD's mod from the getgo! In terms of damage against vehicles, it's the same as damage against people. It all has to do with penetration and shot placement. I would really like to be able to penetrate vehicles and damage only what I hit rather than a global hitpoint value... really a lot.

I'm talking about the interview with US Marine in the making of Shooter and to backup what he said the trajectory is quite high for a .50 cal round when firing at long distance so in effect its coming down on the target and the momentum is that much that it causes quite alot of damage. (I've seen video of it, its quite messy )

i think i saw that vid too. it was something like 50 cal sniper in afganistan, and it wasnt pretty at all. ofcourse they just may have put some melons in they´re local hills and shoot it with some hunting rifle.

[max power 21]

I'm going to stick my neck out here and tell you that the video you were watching was a varmint shoot. I'm fairly certain that the video in question was scenes from Rock Mountain Varmint Hunt's Varmint Safari II video, and the animals that were being shot were rock chucks. If that is indeed the video, then the rifle that was used was a .17 predator varmint rifle. If you want to see, you can find the takes from the videos I think that your clip was taken from at rmvh.com

[-Puma- 2]

i tought that was fake. i dont think that a sniper in afganistan would bring his own camera with him. not to mention random talibans would just chill in a mountains behind rocks.

[subs17 9]

You heard Plantiff they were Varmints not anyone else, quite a powerful .17 though as I think in one of those shots I saw a varmints limbs fly off . What about that 25mm version I wonder how that would look in Arma . Definately good for wreaking vehicles but I doubt you could fire it any other way than lying down.

[max power 21]

You heard Plantiff they were Varmints not anyone else, quite a powerful .17 though as I think in one of those shots I saw a varmints limbs fly off . What about that 25mm version I wonder how that would look in Arma . Definately good for wreaking vehicles but I doubt you could fire it any other way than lying down.

I think in their literature they said that it was that round. Rock chucks aren't large animals. They weigh 4kg at the largest. That's what, 20 times less massive than a man? Scale the bullet weight up 20 times and you have your projectile in human terms. I have a headache now and I can't really figure out the dimensional analysis on volume vs. diameter, but I think you're scaling the diameter up 10 times..