razor6014
-
Content Count
161 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Everything posted by razor6014
-
Marksmen DLC Weapon Feedback
razor6014 replied to UltimateBawb's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Is it wrong to think 7.62 should be a 1 shot kill up to 700 m on unarmored targets ? -
I have to say some of you should invest in target lessons :p
-
Weapon Resting & Deployment Feedback
razor6014 replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
If it where the same gun yes there would be more recoil ... However you have a much more massive gun not just mass but the mass is spread out therefore it has more inertia .. hence it moves less I= I0 + m*r2 F= m*a if you translate that to the object you get with the introduction of radius from the center mass M (r x F) = I * alpha( a x r) alpa is your sway basicly rotary acceleration of the barrel from the wanted axis ( in this case the wanted trajectory ) if you read it like this: alpha = M/I basicly the more inert the object is the more it kills the forces of recoil -
Am I reading something wrong or do they need to tweek the marksmen dlc text cuz 9 new faces with paint is not "nine new types of face paint" ????
-
Mom, are we there yet , are we there yet ? :D
-
Marksmen DLC Weapon Feedback
razor6014 replied to UltimateBawb's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Well actually sniper ammo would have more powder + more weight in bullets as with more mass the more it keeps its velocity downrange and from what i gather they chose the 250 gr .338 bullet instead of 300 gr. the bullet which if you are shooting past 1K is just not good. More to the point, long range bullets you choose based on their ballistic coefficient , not based on speed or weight . Speed only helps you if you make en error in distance judging. Edit : If you are purely talking about the 12.7X54 i believe not only wold it need more speed but a lighter bullet as well. -
While it would be nice i do not believe that currently its too close to launch to iterate that. More of the same items with different textures maybe,I might be wrong but that should not be the hardest thing in the world. Ghillie wraps for rifles i get would get complicated as it would be necessary to do it for all the scopes and all the rifles , ghillie scopes im assuming is simpler in scope but wold need some form of modeling, so that depend on time to model probably + they are currently busy as hell with the bipods
-
Yeah but you could still dragbag them and they probably have no interest in simulating that Edit: Out of curiosity how hard would it be to add a ghillie scope ?
-
Weapon Resting & Deployment Feedback
razor6014 replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Is it just me, or should weapon deployment and full bipod deployment be seperate controls as it makes little sense to deploy bipods on a fellow human, also if you wanted more cover you would deploy the weapon and not the bipods ? -
Honestly even beginners would know wind , shooting uphill and downhill requires some physics and trigonometry , and this would be easy to change as the only thing you need is to tweek the display of the rangefinders and to link the distance to the target variable. this would likely result in complaits of " Why are my bullets going over the target ? "
-
While i agree that sniping is to simple its almost impossible to affect snipers only and not everybody else mil turrets might prolong this for a few seconds if you are any good you will either stick to one gun and memorise the settings which is bound to happen or zero for the middle and use mills which is what we already do when time is of the essence and nothing is change as it takes that little to memorise it, at most it would take half an hour to adjust for most people. The only way to mitigate is to add realistic wind which is what accounts for 70% of missed shots anyway, but that gets complicated for everybody, small constant winds are simple and easy to adjust for, hence no real challenge or hindrance, but if you dial it up good shooters shoot like newbies and it gets complicated to new players. Trust me in one month if they added turrets and small winds it would be back to the same as those things arent that hard. You want one simple way to complicate sniping that is easy to incorporate? Add inclinometers and have them use Cos() to determine their actual distance to the target. Edit : just to illustrate Cos Lets say I'm aiming for a solider from a mountain 1300 m away and i have to account for Cos Cos(19) * 1300 = 1229 Cos(20) * 1200 = 1127 it may look simple but i have seen a lot of people do this wrong , even adding distance if they where shooting uphill
-
yeah, i know how that would end ... everyone would just shoot one bullet without adjustment ... dial it in and go from there, so , what exactly changed ?
-
This is the thing with wind .. if it where to be implemented properly ... everyone would be bitchin about the wind , and if you arent bitchin about the wind its not simulated properly first of it would push your gun around + weapons sway .. bottom line is your barrel is a lever and the wind is applying force to it so aiming would get difficult second wind is rarely constant , its either has random intervals which you can predict based on your intuition by sound and force .... that is not easy to simulate, or it switches direction or both, and thats just on your side where it has most effect on you aiming and almost none on the bullet flight path .... so all these wind readings on your exact location go to the toilet as they do nothing for the flight path. The wind you need to read is at the peek of the bullet flight path and while you can read the average of the wind you will still need to dope it as it changes direction and strength every second . You end up needing a spotting scope with the ability do dial it back so you can see the mirage. Second thing is the terrain, it always has a big influence on the wind it can shelter your bullet flight path form wind , forrest as well break up the wind and give you an edge as if they are near the flightpath they can shelter it from wind part of the way, or they can also deflect the wind in part and create a small vortex on the path . If you read this the sense that the wind is a little devil that can rarely be predicted and turns good shots with all variables to nothing by changing in one split second you are correct. While i understand the need to challenge yourself in long shots you also need to know if wind is ever to be implemented the worst case scenario should always be that you cant even make a 100 m shot with a 50.cal .
-
Marksmen DLC Weapon Feedback
razor6014 replied to UltimateBawb's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Funny how they chose the lighter bullet the 250 for the sharpshooter ... ok i guess under heavy size and weight constraints that would be the choice .... but if accuracy and stopping power are the objective .... the heavier the projectile the better it preforms downrange ... inertia FTW yes its slower a bit and its has a smaller dead space but if you are taking the time to deliver a precision shot , the less that bullet is under the mercy of the elements , the more of the chance is that its gonna hit bottom line it would be nice to have the choice of a Lapua Scenar GB528 VLD Load -
Marksmen DLC Weapon Feedback
razor6014 replied to UltimateBawb's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
I am aware of that record .. im also aware that poor man probably was not wearing a chestrig -
another way to put it : fn200 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRwRAopovKU tavor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxCuDtQW3nw
-
Marksmen DLC Weapon Feedback
razor6014 replied to UltimateBawb's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
If that is the 250 grn bullet that would be somewhat correct in relation to the .408 the hit value should represent the energy value of the bullet so lets look at the energy 7.62 | 500m : 972 | 1000m: 366 | 1500m: 230 .338 | 500m: 2715| 1000m: 1407| 1500m:785 .408 | 500m: 5639| 1000m: 3664 |1500m 2295 based on this even when you go for the lighter bullet which drops the energy value by about 74 ft/lbs in hit value it is still to close to the 7.62 rather than smack in the middle of the two , not to mention it has about 3x more energy than the 7.62 -
Marksmen DLC Weapon Feedback
razor6014 replied to UltimateBawb's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Lets look at it like this ... 7.62 Nato |150 grn bullet | Energy at 500m : 976 .338 LM |300 grn bullet | Energy at 500m : 2715 .408 CT |419 grn bullet | Energy at 500m : 5639 energy is in ft/lbs I'm sorry but there is no universe where the .338LM would deliver the same impact as .408 the value might be closer to - hit=18 same as 9.3x64 currently but nowhere near the .408 -
FNH opens a new factory in your country if you give them a military contract.
-
Marksmen DLC Weapon Feedback
razor6014 replied to UltimateBawb's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
some examples : Normal rounds do not go through steel plates, now i don't mind taking 3 shots if the bullets are normal ball ammo and the target has the heaviest vests on them. If they introduce AP rounds they should only be AP capable to 800 m anyway. some aditional data : http://i.imgur.com/NQODIuG.jpg (159 kB) Note the energy values -
Marksmen DLC Weapon Feedback
razor6014 replied to UltimateBawb's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
From what i found the 338 wont pierce heavy chest rigs .. yet will have so much impact force they would probably break a few ribs so if you want to defeat heavy body armor you would need AP rounds .. -
Agree on the ghillie for the rifles, a way to implement them would be through the side attachment, since they are a bit useless during the day, also a fun new toy would be a nightvision attachment to enable nightvision with mil scopes if the rail is long enough of course.
-
i have a sudden need for Khaki,Tan,and Sand variants of the LRPS ... also bought the DLC bundle but have a lock on the weapons ... :/
-
at least i found the manual for it and the specs
-
from what i can see the y-tac is designed for a 10x scope http://www.bwoptic.com/id4.html http://www.bwoptic.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/805reticle.jpg (233 kB)