Support Class

[Outlawz7]

United Kingdom is using SUSAT scope on he's MINIMI,

I take, English isn't your first language or did you skip the grammar rules?
/grammar nazi

[nedlands1]

I take it that English isn't your first language or did you skip the grammar rules?
/grammar nazi

/syntax Semite

[Soulis6]

ok heres my opinion on this issue, which isn't so much of an issue with the support class or gun, but with the way the whole engine works.

The real problem is no weapon sway, or any real decrease in long range accuracy (on the player's part, not the guns) depending on what your doing or what stance your in.

In real life, it takes more skill and time to aim at someone farther away. You can't sprint for 100 ft, pop up over a rise, hit the dirt, and instantly have 100% steady aim at whatever your aiming at.

I know there probably isn't a feasible way to implement this in the BF2 engine, but, and i've said this before too, I think it's the only real thing holding infantry combat back in PR.
A completely stationary rifleman lying prone should be very very accurate (almost no weapon sway). A soldier who just ran around the corner and hit the ground should not (moderate weapon sway). Someone who was aiming while they un-crouched should have almost no accuracy (heavy weapon sway) for a second or so while they adjust their stance.

This is IMO the reason that suppressive fire isn't nearly as useful as it should be. If you knew that you didn't have much chance in getting off a good shot at the LMG throwing bullets your way before your hit, you probably would try something else...

[fuzzhead]

we have made some tweaks to deviation model soulis, i think youll like it.

basically, it does what your describing, when you run, you need to stop for a few seconds nad steady yourself. you WILL NOT have instant accuracy after spriting 100 meters, it will take tim eto regain accuracy. if you shoot during this time, your shots will go all over the place.

so someone in a good defensive position, whos been sitting prone for a while, will get very little deviatiion and be at an advantage to the guy spriting like a madman and prone diving.

[Soulis6]

That sounds perfect Fuzz.
I remember someone mentioning that they were trying to do something with it, i thought it had been abandoned though. Thats really great to hear and if that works out, suppression will kick ***.

[Billy_Crook_Foot]

I am sure this has been raised before but I'll mention it again anyway. Let's not forget the problem of bullet scale over distance. On close range shots (game terms) the pixel that represents the top, middle, center of the post at the end of your rifle (where your bullet will strike) when superimposed over an enemy combatant will block out roughly a pixel or a group of pixels... i.e your shot hitting an opponent up close is probably the size of a golf ball in relation to their overall proportions. All well and good.

Consider the above situation when firing at an opponent who is 5 times further away - and let's say for the sake of argument, this character will be one quarter of the height of the first opponent above. Your "aiming pixel" (and therefore bullet path) - the centre top of your front rifle post - is proportionally greater when superimposed over this distant figure. If the far away figure is 10 pixels high (arguments sake) and your aimpoint is still 1 pixel in size - you are effectively firing MASSIVE rounds at you target. Rounds that are effectively one tenth the size of your target (using the made up figures above). In short, when proportions are taken into account, it is like firing rounds the size Basket balls at somebody over range. Anyone getting my drift?

Combine this with the lower relative movement speed (left to right across your screen) of your enemy when at range, and all of a sudden really long shots at sprinting targets don't feel as difficult as they should. There is no wind to consider, nor variations in firing position/weapon handling or fatigue - you only really need to get the lead right (lag and distance). I am fairly sure that if I saw somebody shoot a sprinting man at 400 metres over open sights I would be pretty impressed. In FPS games, it happens pretty commonly. I guess these things can't really change in any FPS until we resolutions approaching infinity. I'm not bagging PR, it is something unavoidable at this point.

I am not really sure if we need more scopes in game....

Here is a little caveat to the above: I assume that our fired rounds will always pass through the top, middle of the post at any range(?). Do we still have the CONE OF FIRE? Dev post above indicates that this may not be true...

[nedlands1]

I am sure this has been raised before but I'll mention it again anyway. Let's not forget the problem of bullet scale over distance. On close range shots (game terms) the pixel that represents the top, middle, center of the post at the end of your rifle (where your bullet will strike) when superimposed over an enemy combatant will block out roughly a pixel or a group of pixels... i.e your shot hitting an opponent up close is probably the size of a golf ball in relation to their overall proportions. All well and good.

Consider the above situation when firing at an opponent who is 5 times further away - and let's say for the sake of argument, this character will be one quarter of the height of the first opponent above. Your "aiming pixel" (and therefore bullet path) - the centre top of your front rifle post - is proportionally greater when superimposed over this distant figure. If the far away figure is 10 pixels high (arguments sake) and your aimpoint is still 1 pixel in size - you are effectively firing MASSIVE rounds at you target. Rounds that are effectively one tenth the size of your target (using the made up figures above). In short, when proportions are taken into account, it is like firing rounds the size Basket balls at somebody over range. Anyone getting my drift?

Combine this with the lower relative movement speed (left to right across your screen) of your enemy when at range, and all of a sudden really long shots at sprinting targets don't feel as difficult as they should. There is no wind to consider, nor variations in firing position/weapon handling or fatigue - you only really need to get the lead right (lag and distance). I am fairly sure that if I saw somebody shoot a sprinting man at 400 metres over open sights I would be pretty impressed. In FPS games, it happens pretty commonly. I guess these things can't really change in any FPS until we resolutions approaching infinity. I'm not bagging PR, it is something unavoidable at this point.

I am not really sure if we need more scopes in game....

Here is a little caveat to the above: I assume that our fired rounds will always pass through the top, middle of the post at any range(?). Do we still have the CONE OF FIRE? Dev post above indicates that this may not be true...

Not buying it. I'm fairly sure the rounds do not follow the path of the pixel in the sense that you are suggesting. There are two possible scenarios that come to mind. Firstly, minute changes (not literally minute the angle) could be only visually represented over the size of a pixel or greater. This would mean that the actual location is somewhere between two pixels. The other alternative is that the approximation is also in the actual location. Therefore there would be "dead spots" between individual pixels when the crosshair jumps from one spot to the next. Both of these cases, which are the likely scenarios, would not result in a arc (mathematic sense not ballistic) in which a bullet's forward, cross-sectional area expands proportional to distance traveled.

Except for the stone (AFAIK from personal research in the weapon .tweak files), all weapons have a cone of fire.

If you need a diagram to illustrate the two scenarios, I think I can whip them up. Just ask

[$kelet0r]

fuzzhead;542002']we have made some tweaks to deviation model soulis, i think youll like it.

basically, it does what your describing, when you run, you need to stop for a few seconds nad steady yourself. you WILL NOT have instant accuracy after spriting 100 meters, it will take tim eto regain accuracy. if you shoot during this time, your shots will go all over the place.

so someone in a good defensive position, whos been sitting prone for a while, will get very little deviatiion and be at an advantage to the guy spriting like a madman and prone diving.

Don't take that to extremes - the bullets would hardly go all over the place. They would simply be noticeably less accurate when engaging a point target at range, not BF2 cone of fire a-like at 10m

[Outlawz7]

Don't take that to extremes - the bullets would hardly go all over the place. They would simply be noticeably less accurate when engaging a point target at range, not BF2 cone of fire a-like at 10m

Yes, but IRL soldiers don't just instaprone under fire, and while theres a barrage of bullets going over their head, they can simply headshot the guy suppressing them.

[Billy_Crook_Foot]

Not buying it. I'm fairly sure the rounds do not follow the path of the pixel in the sense that you are suggesting. There are two possible scenarios that come to mind. Firstly, minute changes (not literally minute the angle) could be only visually represented over the size of a pixel or greater. This would mean that the actual location is somewhere between two pixels. The other alternative is that the approximation is also in the actual location. Therefore there would be "dead spots" between individual pixels when the crosshair jumps from one spot to the next. Both of these cases, which are the likely scenarios, would not result in a arc (mathematic sense not ballistic) in which a bullet's forward, cross-sectional area expands proportional to distance traveled.

Except for the stone (AFAIK from personal research in the weapon .tweak files), all weapons have a cone of fire.

If you need a diagram to illustrate the two scenarios, I think I can whip them up. Just ask

It's OK, I understand what you have layed out - the two pixels you refer to are the two end points of a mathematical arc (of "blind spots" ). I was under the impression that accuracy is determined by drawing a vector between two points (x, y and Z ). We then travel along this vector from source to target until we find the first object (wall, vehicle, tree or soldier ) that intersects this vector. If there is such an approximation between the first aim point and the second aim point (smallest deviation possible) - i.e. the mathematical arc at the far end, how is it determined? Is this the cone of fire and was it created to diminish or nullify the situation I described in my first post?

Perhaps I am simply confusing myself - but we seem to proportionally shrinking our target over range but not our virtual bullets because they are already at the smallest dimension possible ( 1 pixel or even a mathemical real number position ). TOO MUCH..... AARRTRGHGHGHG

[bosco_]

Don't take that to extremes - the bullets would hardly go all over the place. They would simply be noticeably less accurate when engaging a point target at range, not BF2 cone of fire a-like at 10m

Rather that for a few seconds than the current thing...

[Hotrod525]

This is not about the small number of infantrymen who got their hands on one of the new picatinny railed M249s. This is about what most US forces are issued - M249s manufactured primarily in the 1990s, M240s manufactured primarily in the 1980s and -90s, and all without the fancy rails that allow you to mount optics. While many are being equipped with rails, the great majority are do not have optics mounted on them, are not designed to be used with optics, and should not be depicted with optics.

Also, we can effectively eliminate any NV/IR scopes. They are rarely if ever mounted by US troops, mainly because switching scopes between day and night operations is a waste of time, and using one doesn't allow you to operate in lit areas.

Once again, I'm not arguing that US soldiers do not equip their weapons with non-standard optics. It's just that they are non-standard, and we shouldn't be giving every dolphin-diving noobie a chance to snipe you in the head from 600 meters, or depicting the US military as using an overabundance of optics on their support weapons.

If one of the real US infantrymen around here wants to come in and kick my butt around because I'm wrong, feel free. This post is my understanding of the way things work, and should not be construed to imply that there is any fact involved in my thought.

Its not because YOU think they dont use optics on they're weapon they didnot... ALL my picture come from US Army website... and i can find you more than 100 picture of SAW whit optics...

UNMODED (stock) weapons are gone from the battlefield men, remember that.

[BloodBane611]

This is a pointless argument between the two of us, but it could use some professional advice from one of the real infantrymen around here.

[Aus Sniper01]

Hey this is for the bright spark bloke who believes that the minimi and the Mag 58 do not have Optics attached :
I have a whole heap of pics if you like of the Mag 58 with optics.

Canucks in Afghanistan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFjs5sm- ... re=related ...01:00

Brits Afghanistan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTip_-qZ5Bk ....02:24

Aussie Afghanistan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiUKkD8rYHQ ...04:00

[Rico11b]

This is a pointless argument between the two of us, but it could use some professional advice from one of the real infantrymen around here.

I'm not sure even professional advise from modern day Infantry soldiers will resolve these debates. Most will simply insist that what they "read" on the Internet is the gospel and be done with it. Even this posting will be subject to attack.

Anyway!

Yes there are SAW gunners on deployment that carry the M249 with optics. Usually when they are still here in the states they may or may not have them. Mostly because they are being used overseas. Where they are needed most.

Mostly this depends on the unit, and unit SOP or MTOE. Most standard Rifle Companies or Infantry Battalions don't have allotments for such gear and optics, unless their SOP or MTOE specifically requires it. But once they get deployed to a hot spot that sometimes changes.

Now for more "elite" (if I'm allowed to use that word here) Infantry Divisions like 101st and 82nd ABN Div, or 24th ID the story is very different. Because those unit are "quick reactionary" unit that can deploy anywhere in the world in under 18 hours they must be equipped to handle anything that comes there way. They also must be READY TO FIGHT as soon as they arrive on site. Units like those mentioned above usually get all the newest and most updated gear including optics. Then there seems to be a trickle down effect to the rest of the Army. More times than not the newest "cool" gear turns out to be **** that soldiers would rather do without. However optics is something that soldiers do find a benefit in having on hand.

Most fire support weapons that I encountered with on deployment had optics. Even most all M16s and their variants had optics. But like I said earlier, each unit is different. Usually during the rotation of forces the new units deploying will be issued gear and optics to use while on deployment, but once they re-deploy back to the states that gear gets turned in to supply. Most of the time that’s how it goes, but not always. Like I said, “each unit is different”. As far as Special Operations forces like Special Forces or Seals teams go, I can't speak for them, but most I encountered carried rifles and LMGs with good optics. Now does the type of optics really matter? No it's doesn't matter, what matters is that we had them.

Now, back to PR. PR will be limited in how effective suppressive fire will be. Simply because the rounds don't penetrate much at all in game. Also the assault rifles are still too accurate to be realistic, but as Fuzz stated earlier, that is being addressed.

Lets all think about this for a second. All of the assault weapons that the US Military issues to their soldiers are MANUFACTURED BY THE LOWEST BIDDER… What does that mean you wonder? It means that these weapons were made as “CHEAPLY” as possible to keep costs down, and still produce a weapon that meets the minimum standards.
I’m sure some of you can find such things on the “Internet” or “wikipedia” go look it up. The minimum standards are determined by the Pentagon, so potential Government contractors understand just how many corners they can cut.
Just how accurate do any of you REALLY think these weapons are? In reality they are not very accurate, especially when compared to the private sector. Can soldiers still hit target with them? Of course they can, and they do.


Now the DM and Sniper weapons are not included in that statement. Those weapons are of a much higher class, and minimum specs requirement. Most any of us can go into a local gun store and purchase or even special order an M-16 rifle (not a real M-16, but the civilian equivalent) that is much more accurate than most any standard issue M-16a2. Especially if that M-16 is a few years old and only has open sights.

In closing I’d like to say that, “Yes the M-16 family of weapons are VERY accurate, when compared to other Assault rifles from around the world. Just not when compared to better quality rifles. The accuracy of the in game rifles is more closely related to bench rest quality weapons, and not the cheaply made mass produced assault rifles that they should be modeled after. But as said earlier, it’s being addressed.

Anyway, someone like WnxKenwayy would be better to comment this, since he is still currently serving. I’ve been out a few years now, so my info is getting a bit out of date, not to mention I don’t wanna share tooooo much. Cause frankly it’s on a need to know basis

[font=&quot]R[/font]

[Top_Cat_AxJnAt]

Wrote this for the SAW Optics threat....more of semi incomplete logical ramble than anything...



If an infantry squad is to be successful in a fight against other infantry it must be able to effectively kill and/or suppress them. The main method of doing this is to fire as many rounds as is possible and as accurately as is possible at the enemy, where both volume and accuracy is equally important and without one, the squad cannot be successful. But becuase the range at which enemies are met changes, the fire an infantry squad lays down must be accurate at all ranges, from 100m out 500m.

The most important weapon in achieving this is the Light and/or Medium machine gun (LMG/GPMG), this is becuase when compared to all the other weapons in an infantry squad (assault rifle and designated marksman rifle) the LMG and GPMG is capable of laying down both the greatest volume of fire at equal to or if not to greater accuracy. These capabilities are due to all MGs having slightly longer and significantly stronger barrels compared to assault rifles and a bipod attached to end of the weapon. As a result of features the weapon is both heavier and bulkier, significantly in the case of GPMG than the more common assault rifle and is therefore less capable in very fast moving close combat situations.



However it has been found by many, including my self that laying down accurate fire (but not a great volume) with all man portable MG's, particular LMGs (the SAW and Chinese version - greater volume of fire is required for the same effect when compared HK GPMG, due to less powerful round they fire) at man size targets past ranges in the region of 300m is disproportionaly difficult, when compared to laying down accurate fire (of equal volume) with a scoped assault rifle at the same range.


A conclusion can only be drawn when one is fully aware of and understands what is described in 1st and the 2nd paragraph, namely:
- The huge importance that infantry squads can put down both accurate and large volumes of fire.
- The design features of all MGs, which should make the weapon the most effective, by a significant margin, of all infantry squads weapons for doing what is described in first point.

Therefore the difference in accuracy, less accuracy between the MG and Scope Assult rifle, results in MG playing a much smaller role in PR Infantry squads compared to the hugely important role it plays in Real Life Infantry squads.



The reason for this difference in accuracy of fire, i believe is becuase accuracy of fire from a gun depends on two components in PR, the range the weapon is zeroed at (range up to which bullet land where sight is points, therefore bullet drop does not have to be considered, aiding quick and accurate aiming) and ease at which the weapon allows the player to identify the targets and align its sights. Scopes attachments helping with the later, with the extent to which they help, increasing greatly as range increases and in PR particularly past ranges of 200m.

Therefore a major reason for decreased importance the MG plays in PR Infantry Squads compared to RL Infantry Squads, in doing the job it was specifically designed to do, namely lay down large volumes of accurate fire beyond the range of 300m is becuase the unlimited availability of scoped assault rifle which has greater accuracy at such a range. This accuracy being becuase of the greater ease at which man size targets can be identified and aligned with the weapon sight, a direct of scope and not a failure to portray the either weapons ability to fire rounds accurate out barrel to such ranges (partly zeroing range).




Overall probably too long and complicated but i believe the issue of squads being incapable of effectively killing and suppressing at range past 300-400m to serious one in 0.75 environment and with introduction of larger maps in future versions, with larger lines of sight, i believe this issue will only get plumper!

[Harrod200]

A full year...that's one hell of a digup

As for the SAW < others argument at the end of the optics thread, I personally far prefer the SAW over the other LMG's simply because it seems to have less recoil (can keep the target in sight) and pretty reasonable accuracy. With the bigger LMG's like the MEC one, I find the recoil heavy even prone.

[GR34]

Give the SAW and all other support kits 4x/3.5x zoom scopes. IT is PROJECT reality and In reality Most LMGs have scopes on them so why not in PR then people might use it Just make is so its not an Auto sniper

[IAJTHOMAS]

Like to see it map dependent. Some form of optic on the larger maps where its hard to put semi-accurate supressing fire down range with the mg. I find the assault rifles after a certain range provide more effective supression, and it should, from my understanding, be the other way round.

But, it would require alot of remodelling i'd assume.

As to the 'auto-sniper' fear, if your using it as a single shot weapon it would be no more effective than an assualt rifle in terms of damage dealt i'd assume as all the conventional armies' MGs use the same size rounds as their assault rifles afaik.

[gclark03]

Even if one or two LMGs in PR aren't issued with optics, we can control the limiting of the Auto Rifleman kit to add some asymmetrical balance beyond just the vehicles on the map.