Andrew B

Just wanted to pop in with a small realism note: Subsonic ammo is rarely used with 5.56 weapons, so putting a scope on one should be fine. Suppressors also make weapons more accurate. 99% of the time, regular ball (normal velocity) ammo is used with M4s because: 1) subsonic ammo usually won't cycle an M4's action 2) subsonic 5.56mm produces wounds similar to heavy .22 rounds (much less than normal-velocity ammo, which can produce fist-sized internal wounds) 3) subsonic ammo is produced only in very small amounts A suppressed M4 with regular ball or match ammo is just a bit more quiet than shooting a .22 rifle with a long barrel; i.e. you hear more of a "POP" noise (instead of "BANG").

Has anyone else noticed that the dimensions on those weapons are off? The textures are pretty, but the models aren't that great IMHO.

Yeah I know about the optics. I've got a pair of "E-D" 3d glasses (very cool with OFP btw!) and I tried to put the front sight image about 20" ahead of the rear sight, and it didn't work. Both were still displayed at the same depth. It really is a shame since that could have been a really cool effect for those with 3d glasses. For me, the thing I like about the AR-18 design is that the bolt carrier doesn't ride directly against the receiver like it does in the AR-15. IMHO, the AR-15's gas system isn't a problem. Its carrier and receiver design just don't allow enough space for foreign matter to work its way clear of the moving parts. Sorry for taking the thread so far off-topic.

Yeah, I actually just sent my 180B back in for evaluation and repair. This will be the third time, but I'm not too upset about it. ArmaLite has taken good care of me and has been paying the shipping both ways. I sent it back the second time in Feb because the scope mount plate that's welded to the top of the receiver had broken loose. The bolt hold-open had also stopped working because the carrier was too soft and had worn out the little ledge that catches the hold-open latch. I got it back in March and discovered a few weeks later that the bolt lugs had worn their rear-right corners off after only 300 rounds. After examining some casings, I found that there was also a lot of carbon residue on the outside of the cases and also some caked up in the rims. Â I don't know if it's as simple as a headspace issue or if it has to do with some improper chamber/barrel extention dimentions. So, back it goes for the third time... It sucks too, because it was really shooting well with that last upper. I had a couple of 1.5 MOA groups I shot with a 4x russian scope. Does your FAL have a rough or heavy trigger pull? (I just got a NM two-stage for my 180B, for when it gets back ;) ) There are some smiths that do good trigger work on FALs. I can't remember their names right off, but if you check out falfiles.com you should be able to find them. Was that 180 at the gunshop a 180B? Either way, I say go ahead. No one else seems to be having the kinds of problems with their 180Bs that I've had with mine, heh. Just make sure you go with Thermold and USGI mags to avoid having to modify the mags. (The cheap Brit steal mags are great, but have to have the mag catch hole "raised" about 1-2mm with a Dremel and epoxy) ArmaLite also has very good customer service. So, if something does go wrong with your rifle, you're covered. (My "One Year Warranty" expired almost a year ago, and ArmaLite is still taking care of me free of charge.) Finally, be careful with the Cetmes. I've heard that some of the latest ones have very badly worn rollers, bolts, and locking shoulders (Out-of-battery discharge hazard. ) Make sure you read up on them so you know what to look for before you plunk down the cash. ;) P.S. Remember that AR-180B model you improved and re-textured for me? I made a couple of refinements to your model and would like to mail it to you sometime to look over. Maybe we can finally get that thing released, eh?

I don't think Rambozo's FAL has a carry handle Miles. You can get them with and without. Hey, no need to apologize Rambozo. I know how you feel, I'm a bit of a detail person myself. BTW, have you checked the scale of your rifle in o2? No one ever thinks to check their models for scale... (eg. BAS's Delta pack had weapons that were much too big. Their M4 was over a meter long! ) Â P.S. How's the FAL shooting these days? EDIT: Wow, those MOA calculators are nifty! Now I have some work to do with all of my weapons... I can't believe I forgot that MOA was a measurement of degrees and not an inch measurement...

My simple calculation was: 5.88 X 0.3937 = 2.314956 inches at 100 meters... I think I just realized that I'm the one who made the mistake. I was assuming that 1 MOA was 1 inch at 100 meters instead of 100 yards. Doh! So, why exactly are they making you use that iron sight? You say someone else's FNMAG is using that as their iron sight, so you have to too?

It looks great! I noticed two issues that someone might want to examine though: 1. The iron sight view is incorrect for someone aiming the rifle. (The view is looking over the rear sight instead of through the aperture; like someone is about to use the grenade sight.) 2. The accuracy is reported to be 2 MOA in the readme. It's actually set at 2.31 MOA right now. (Maybe typo? It's set at 0.000588 now, when 0.000508 would be 2 MOA almost exactly.) Great work guys, especially with the textures. Keep it up!

Heh. Did I mention how much I like that aimprecision improvement? I've wanted to do that since I made my first little mod. I though that something in the animations was going to have to be changed... I didn't know it was right there in the main config.

I just tried this, and it doesn't work very well with the new aimprecision code. I put the binocular's crosshairs right on a kneeling enemy at about 450M, hit the freelook key to stop the wobbling (with the crosshair dead on him), and it still took me three tries to kill him. It's there, but a scoped rifle is still much more effective and easier to use. ;)

You have to add the "dexterity=?;" line to the weapon's config. Locke, I'm sure it works. Try looking through the weapon's sights, i.e. scope or iron sights, with this done. You should notice a pretty big difference. Also, try making the value larger or smaller. I've noticed that if you move the mouse left or right quickly while not in a sight view, you can sort of 'override' the sluggishness. However, it is very apparent when you need to make fine correction to your aim. General Barron, you're an Andrew B too eh? Cool! Not many of us around. I'll PM those recoils to you. I actually went out and compared my rifle with an SAR1 and a 7.62x51 Saiga, to get an idea of what the comparitive muzzle rise and return-to-point-of-aim should be, when I made them. ;) I wish we could make the recoil also go in the horizontal... My rifle recoils much more to the right than it does up IRL. The recoil lines themselves are actually from way back in my editing days, so they may not be the most "correct", but they do provide the correct effect, IMHO. Oh, I almost forgot: I made a couple of replacement iron sights that are based on BIS's. (AK-47/74, M-16A2, and AR-180B for my rifle in-game) I've found that new Irons really do need to be to-scale with BIS' sights, simply to fit in with the way BIS chose to simulate field-of-view in the game. Have you guys ever noticed that the standard view in-game is actually a wide-view?

I just tested out the config for wobble: I tested it against looking through my AR-180B's iron sights, and it feels about right. You might also consider using the "dexterity=" command in each individual weapon's configuration. This command influences how "heavy" or "sluggish" the weapon feels in game. The lower the value, the more time it takes to traverse the weapon left or right. The values are 0 to 1. i.e. dexterity=0.87; for an AK-47, dexterity=0.85; for an M-16A2, dexterity=0.35; for the SAW. The AK being the fastest to swing around, with the M-16 very close behind, and then the SAW being fairly sluggish in comparison. It really makes you think twice before selecting the M240B or the MG3 in "Steal the Car". ;) I also have some recoil settings for all of the weapons that I've used for years if you guys would like to try them out. Great job guys!

About increased realism for the weapons: I think you guys will be pleased once you get a chance to try the game with my weapons. I really hated the fact that, as the game works out of the box, the rifles are all the same. They only look different. I was really irked that they didn't even bother to reduce the recoil and muzzle climb on the AK-74 as compared to the M16 or increase the damage and recoil of the FAL and G3 over the other rifles. These things are pretty obvious to anyone who's spent any time at all around firearms or in the infantry. And what's with having a 7.62 round fired from a sniper rifle do more damage to a target than the same round from a belt-fed? The only difference in reality would be that the sniper rifle would use more accurate match ammo. I couldn't stand it. If that's what 'Game balancing' is, then screw 'Game Balancing'! I prefer reality, it's much more 'Balanced' and more fun. If you guys want it, great. I'd be more than happy to share.

What's disgusting? The blood added to the game? Perhaps. But the bleeding does add the ability to track a wounded enemy, which is therefore, useful in an infantry simulation. The wounding mechanisms of projectiles? Not really. It's just simple physics. It's what happens when you shoot someone. This is a discussion about improving an infantry sim. If one wants an accurate simulation of infantry combat, one has to accurately simulate the effects of infantry weapons. Such things ought not to be regarded with disgust. It is the way of things. It is the way things will be until there is no more need for war- and there will always be need for war until men cease to give in to the temptation to try and take by force that which is not theirs.

All I have to say is: Hooah!

Have a look over at www.ammo-oracle.com to understand a little bit of what I've studied. The problem that faced me in trying to simulate 5.56 in Operation Flashpoint was this: An M855 round fired from a weapon with a 20" bbl will leave the barrel traveling at between 3000 and 3100 FPS. If the round hits a human target traveling at 2700 FPS or higher, it will fragment after penetrating about 3-4" into the target. These fragments will continue to penetrate several inches. If this fragmentation occurs, the wound track will show a softball sized chunk of flesh 'missing' (it's actually just shredded and turned to mush) about 3" into the wound track (where the fragmentation started) with the overall penetration of the fragments being about 13.5". Needless to say, if you have this happen inside your chest cavity, you are going to be out of action very shortly. The problem is that this only occurs if the bullet fragments. As I mentioned earlier, 5.56 needs about 2700 FPS to reliably fragment (though it has been shown to fragment as low as 2500 FPS). M855, when launched from a 20" barrel, falls below this 2700 FPS threshhold at about 100m. Past this distance, the bullet will still 'tumble' (The proper term is yaw. All spitzer [or teardrop] shaped bullets yaw in flesh BTW) upon impact with flesh, but the results are much less spectacular. So, how do I model this in Operation Flashpoint? I can't. I would have to be able to change the amount of damage that a projectile does based on how far it was from it's starting point when it impacted a target. Since I don't know how to do that, I just set things so that the M-16 does this damage at all distances. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I take it no one read my above post...<span id='postcolor'> I read it. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If an M16 would even hit you dead in the stomach, you would probably still be shooting although bleeding through a small hole.<span id='postcolor'> That all depends on how far away you were from the soldier/Marine who shot you with said M16. And you had better hope that the 'small hole' that the bullet made doesn't happen to be through your Aorta... You have to understand that you aren't just bleeding through that 'small hole'. You are going to be bleeding internally. And the wound track of a 5.56, even if it doesn't fragment, is not going to be just a 5.56mm hole straight through. It's likely going to be 20x5.56mm someplace inside you where the bullet yawed 180 degrees without changing course (it yaws through 180 degrees, traveling sideways for a while before completing it's yaw and traveling backwards). </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">An Ak-47 uses a larger round(Although a 7.62x39mm isn't much better than a 5.56N round).<span id='postcolor'> It isn't any better at all. Its terminal performance is actually quite pour when compared to that of the 5.56. In the examples seen in Dr. Fackler's work, 7.62x39 failed even to yaw inside a target until it had penetrated farther in the test medium than most humans are thick, meaning that it simply leaves a 7.62mm hole straight through the target (Unless it strikes bone, in which case you might have effects from the fragmentation of the bone, and of course, the effect of losing whatever structure that bone provided, but 5.56 does this too). Now, I have read rumors of a certain type of newer, commercially available 7.62x39 that does yaw in flesh (still not providing anywhere near the wounding effect of fragmentation), but I've yet to see any documented proof that this ammunition performs any better than that used by Dr. Fackler in his testing. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What i'm saying: An M16 shouldn't be dropping targets unless it's making head shots. And I do recall having to sometimes hit Ruskies twice with the default M16 in the chest. It completely matched the Statements made by the Marine who is known on the Russian Front forums as Devildog.<span id='postcolor'> You are correct in your statement in that the only sure way to get a one-shot-stop is to take out the target's Central Nervous System. However, with the damage/destruction of major organs like the heart, lungs, liver, and the amount of internal bleeding that would be the result of 5.56 fragmenting in the chest cavity, even a target high on a drug that rendered him unaffected by the pain would be rendered unconscious in a minute or less, simply from loss of blood. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Note: These ideas are drawn from my own personal experiences and remarks from a guy in Marine Force Recon. <span id='postcolor'> I’d love to hear more about your personal experiences. I’ve found that many of the negative remarks those in the service make about the 5.56 come from using a carbine against a target that is outside the effective fragmentation range of the round. Using M855 from the 14.5†barrel of an M4/M4A1 carbine, the effective fragmentation range is reduced to about 80m[!!]. Optimally, when engaging targets outside of 200m one should consider using artillery, 7.62 NATO, or one of those nifty new 75 or 100gr bullet loadings for the 5.56 which reportedly have fragmentation ranges as far as 300m(if 5.56 weapons are all that are available). Standard 5.56 even outperforms 7.62x39 outside the distance that it fragments, because it will still yaw inside the target past its fragmentation range and it is a much faster, flatter shooting round than 7.62x39. Basically, the end result is that 5.56x45, when used inside it's fragmentation range, allows you to be a little off center with your shot placement but still score a critical hit against the target's vitals, turning what might have been a 'wounding shot' with another caliber that would have required a follow up shot, into a 'killing shot' that puts the target out of action. At the same time, it makes what would have been a non-life threatening wound with another caliber into one that may be life threatening or disabling. i.e. a shot through the thigh with a 7.62x39 that misses the bone, major nerves, and arteries, although painful, would not likely be an immediate threat to someone's life. However, a 5.56 round that entered the same spot on a target's thigh and fragmented may well expand the damage into areas of the thigh containing major nerves and/or arteries which may very well make the wound disabling or life-threatening. P.S. PV, I actually would rather implement my changes into the DR config, as I really like DR. I forgot to mention that I have made replacement models that are more correct in scale and proportion for the M16, AK-74M, G3, FN FAL, M249, RPK-74, and M4A1 carbine (by Fliper). All of these models, besides the M16, were made by modifying or combining other people's models. Before they could be released I would, of course, have to ask permission of those whose models I have modified. BTW, kudos to W.M. Crielaard, maker of the FN MAG model and DeZzErX and Kabal of Tales Of War, makers of the FN FNC model. These are the only two models I think I've ever downloaded that I didn't need to change in size or proportion to get them properly to scale with the soldier model. These guys really did a good job making the scale of their models realistic compared to the soldier model!