Project Reality Forums

The weapon should be less overall accurate than a m16 however when on full auto it should be more stable within a certain level. After all it weighs more than a m16 and should not kick as much.

So if we do some rambo hip shooting it should be more accurate. I mean you cant hit probably on 300 in real life but you would be able to hit something within 50m

Ahh unless I am on defense I only use the LMG in the huey

Recoil of undeployed has been worked through based off same caliber rifle recoil, so expect the mode being a lot more viable.

Have in mind that the MG is pretty heavy, so it wont climb as much as a rifle

I don't prone spam, 'cause I support my squad by laying behind them.

i agree to this suggestion, a deployed mode was nice but the way they killed the accuracy for un deployed was bad. this is a 5.56mm weapon in which case the recoil should be no more than an m16

Caboosehatesbabies wrote:This is exactly what the Devs don't want you to do.

do you or the devs have a better suggestion that works in practice?

cat wrote:its artificial. its the same piece of metal I am holding. while firing prone without a bipod would be less accurate, firing standing with the bipod deployed would not make it less accurate.
And since the mgs are quite heavy they should be able to hit more accurate on some ranges wven when firing unsupported.

What he says...

Dr2B Rudd wrote:I like the two modes, and it doesnt seem stupid in my mind since when deployed, you hold the weapon differently and modify your weight distribution, in a way that just wouldn't work if standing, as you'd have to actually put strength in to holding the weapon's weight.

Just to back it up some more, see how the guys in the background are using their PKMs. You wouldn't stand up holding your MG by the stock only looking down the sights like that would you? Gotta love that US soldier with his cheesy grin there don't you

Solid Knight wrote:Well they need to pick a single method of creating inaccuracy. Currently they have two. They have the weapon physically move around and on top of that they have a deviation cone that is supposed to mimic the affects of the weapon moving around.

No they don't, deviation is intended to re-create the weapon due to it's weight, size, how it's held and the effect these have when you move with it. Your moving of the mouse simulates your intention to move, deviation simulates the effect that movement has.

So you move your mouse to do a quick 180 turn, your weapons weight etc will make you unstable, since soldiers are generally don't weigh 20 stone of pure muscle with weapon familiarity the SAS could only dream of.

In my humble opinion the SAW is kind of in a category of its own. The G3 machine gun is .308 caliber, the PKM is 7.62x54R. The M240G in the foreground of the pic AnRK posted is also .308 (7.62x51 NATO).

The SAW on the other hand is .223 (5.56 NATO) and is a much smaller round and weapon overall. I have personally hit a 200 yard target of a full silhouette body from a kneeling position with the SAW, and though uncomfortable is still doable. Standing takes a bit more work but since PR does not allow for stability from surrounding objects it could be better.

They even have a CQB version of the SAW with some forces that integrates a smaller barrel length and a vertical foregrip instead of a bipod.

The PKM is a monster to try to shoot from any unsupported position.

If there were a way to let the SAW be more available and have the M240G, PKM and other 'heavier' MGs as a limited team kit, I would be all for it.

I don't think it's really fair for that to happen, but given the SAWs lighter ammo etc, it makes sense for it to have an edge over the others in CQB, although conversely it shouldn't be as good at range. Those are both probably in game already though.

The Chinese Type95-whatever variant it is also has pretty light ammo, using the same as the Type 95 itself, but it's always been pretty accurate and controllable compared to the others, just with the trade off of less power and much less ammo.

Sounds like the OP wants the MG from 0.75. The reason they added deployed mode is that they can't change the accuracy/deviation of a weapon while prone, and have it different while standing. And sure they could change the animation on deployed mode so he'd maybe flip the bipod down and be done, but then you'd have people throwing grenades and whipping out their LMG's faster then a rifleman could pull out his m16. Because if you switched to the deployed mode right off, it would skip all the prep in the undeployed animation. BF2 engine, gotta love it.

bf2 engine.. gotta hate it
im for the OP.

the other Steve wrote:bf2 engine.. gotta hate it

To re-iterate what I said in another thread, the BF2 does a great job considering the complexity of what actually occurs in vanilla, nevermind everything the PR mod demands of it. It's an old engine, but runs more smoothly then some newer engines when it comes to multi platform combat.

AnRK wrote:What he says...





Just to back it up some more, see how the guys in the background are using their PKMs. You wouldn't stand up holding your MG by the stock only looking down the sights like that would you? Gotta love that US soldier with his cheesy grin there don't you



No they don't, deviation is intended to re-create the weapon due to it's weight, size, how it's held and the effect these have when you move with it. Your moving of the mouse simulates your intention to move, deviation simulates the effect that movement has.

So you move your mouse to do a quick 180 turn, your weapons weight etc will make you unstable, since soldiers are generally don't weigh 20 stone of pure muscle with weapon familiarity the SAS could only dream of.

You should look at the solider animations when they lay down. They change their grip of the weapon automatically.

You are incorrect. Fire any weapon on full auto. Notice that your gun progressively moves upwards? That's from the crazy recoil in the game. There are, two methods of modeling deviation being used at the exact same time and they aren't being used to complement each other. If they are going to bounce my camera around (and thus bounce where my weapon is point around) then they need to make the deviation code suit that style. If they're going to use the deviation code to model it then they need to tone down the camera bouncing. What they currently have is an every expanding deviation cone and an ever more violent camera bounce.

The deviation system isn't exactly finished though yet. I still think it's right to use both the methods though, it adds more variation into the effect your firearm handling has. Recoil and Deviation in tandem come out with a theoretically realistic effect from firing and weapon handling, you need recoil (obviously) to recreate the power of the firearm, and you need deviation to simulate how a soldier would have to deal with that recoil. If you choose to fire wisely, taking breaks between shots and steadily tracking targets you will fire accurately, this doesn't always pan out at the moment, but as said before the system still need alot of refinement.

In simpler terms without recoil (which I'm not saying you'd advocate obviously) people could theoretically fire accurately as their weapons accuracy permits them as long as they did it steadily. Without deviation people can aim all over the place as long as they don't keep the trigger down too long or too often. So we need both systems, and it's good that they exacerbate each other.

I see your points with regards to the camera movement, and the fact it would seem the weapons act like they're half their weight, but with the camera thing you can't make anything other then the centre of the screen where the projectile originates from, and since there's no way of animating deviation and recoil properly I think it's better for the camera to move erratically then to be second guessing where you might be firing even more then you have to do with the deviation system sometimes.

Fair point about the lying down animation too, but I think the problem is that you can't put a delay on firing after your in the prone position (I think that's the problem anyway) to simulate readying yourself in that position, also if that was in game you'd have the trade off of always having to wait to fire when you go prone. Plus you can't simulate the time needed to get out of the optimum prone firing position before standing up or kneeling as far as I'm aware either.

I'm saying they need to complement each other. You don't have wild deviation and wild camera movement at the same time. In fact, they should have animations and deviation code simulate the jostling of the weapon in your arms and have a small degree of camera movement. What I'm against is having the point-at-the-sky camera movement which makes no sense. It'd be physically impossible just about all of these guns to do that. If you taped the trigger of a SAW down and let go it wouldn't defy gravity and flip over on the Y axis. As such the only way for you to look at the sky by firing a weapon full auto is to willingly do so. It'd have to be intentional 100% of the time.

Agreed!

Once again an example of this game going to far out, chasing realism and only ending up with "harder than realism" examples.


Edit: Obviously there is a difference between deployed and undeployed in reality and it takes a sec to unfold the bipods. But it definetly doesn't take that long.


Other examples include the AT.

What the hell is the guy doing grabbing it all over like he's in love with it and about to do it.
Switching it from left to right hand, feeling it, turning it around...common.

Ondskan wrote: Other examples include the AT.

What the hell is the guy doing grabbing it all over like he's in love with it and about to do it.
Switching it from left to right hand, feeling it, turning it around...common.

At-4 has two safeties, and a cocking lever that need to be prepared in order for the weapon to fire, in addition to flip-up sights and a fold-down shoulder strap. Maybe the animation doesn't show what's going on very well, but you can't just draw an AT-4 out of a leg holster and shoot it at an APC 2 seconds later.



I do agree on the SAW animations being overly exaggerated, but that topic has been honestly done to death by now.

He was referring to the SRAW, not the AT4.

Solid Knight wrote:He was referring to the SRAW, not the AT4.

My point still stands. Maybe the animation could be better but it's there to represent the fact that getting an AT launcher ready isn't as simple as pulling out your knife. But, we're getting kinda off-topic here.