Page 4 of 7
Posted: 2007-11-09 22:34
by Jaymz
Jonny wrote:WRONG!
Nedlands and me have demonstrated a parabolic trajectory in the engine, it is very obvious at low speeds.
The drag is related to either velocity or the square of the velocity, I havent been able to find out which yet, the equations are very complex.
ATM the gravity is WAY to low, and the drag effect has been ommitted.
Get that working on a dedicated server without making hit detection any worse than it is and we'll talk.
Posted: 2007-11-09 22:45
by TayloR016
supahpingi wrote:Okay ill stop arguing about what it is,u guys win.
but what do the marines do with the black hawk then?
They get transported from a to b in it...
I think there will be no argument over this if the blackhawk in game was black it seems to me the only reason some are thinking its a seahawk is because of its grey colour.
Posted: 2007-11-10 12:50
by MAINERROR
The Power wrote:They get transported from a to b in it...
I think there will be no argument over this if the blackhawk in game was black it seems to me the only reason some are thinking its a seahawk is because of its grey colour.
Pls not again! Lets try not to discuss this Black Hawk / Sea Hawk thing again!
Posted: 2007-11-10 17:26
by Hotrod525
Is there will be C.R.O.W. humvee or C.R.O.W. Stryker ? Bradley APC ? Marine got Super Stalion? Give us some info men comon !
Posted: 2007-11-10 17:54
by Oldirti
Jonny wrote:Give me a few days, I Think I have found the right equations.
The hit detection may end up being better, the bullets will be slower later on in their flight due to drag. I'll try it on a server though.
So what exactly are you trying to change/fix? The gun's kick, or the ballistics? Whatever it is, i hope it works.
Posted: 2007-11-10 21:39
by OkitaMakoto
Jonny wrote:The ballistics are currently non-existant.
I am making them.
Jonny, please make your own thread for this so you dont have to keep posting it in here. Its not terribly related to the US Army, and Im sure a lot of us have questions and want pictures/demonstrations/information on it. It could prove toi be a lengthy thread with a lot of information and comments.
Thanks
Posted: 2007-11-11 02:26
by DavidP
Jonny will you incorporate the coriolis effect? Now that would be cool for us snipers to have to deal with!
Posted: 2007-11-11 04:08
by M1126 Stryker
Can you guess what vehicle I want?
*Hint* Look at my name here
Also improved 5.56x45mm weapons with lower recoil and higher damage at shorter ranges. (>300m) The G3 should not outclass all of the other assault rifles in the game.
Posted: 2007-11-11 19:02
by 00SoldierofFortune00
ironcomatose wrote:I dont know why all this talk about the ACU is even happening. The ACU is the Army's all purpose camo and will stay that way for a least a decade more(they just got it). Its not so bad at a distance in jungle maps, you will see. And IRL the ACU adapts to its terrain(basically it gets dirty
but seriously though) so dont worry n00bies we are safe.
No, they should of just adopted two camoflauge patterns for desert and woodland like everyone was doing before. 1 camo pattern cannot do it all.
Posted: 2007-11-11 19:22
by OkitaMakoto
I have the belief that in modern warfare camo isnt anywhere near as important as it used to be. At least in the wars we are currently fighting. Its still important, but nowhere near as much as it used to be
Think vietnam, sure it was important
But now our troops are standing at roadblocks, etc.
Sure its a VERY uninformed belief, but really... idk...
And I still hold the idea that the PR army ACU should come in two ACU types. Same exact camo, except one is faded and worn from desert wear, while the other has grass stains and mud. After tall, thats what ACU is meant for, right?
Posted: 2007-11-11 19:26
by Dunehunter
True. Whenever I see pictures of US Army folks walking down a street in Iraq, standing out like clowns at a funeral...I wonder why they wear it, besides being easy to tell apart from the other people around.
Posted: 2007-11-11 19:31
by M1126 Stryker
ACU in the jungle:
[ATTACH]1234[/ATTACH]
It does not stand out too bad.
Posted: 2007-11-11 19:34
by OkitaMakoto
M1126 Stryker wrote:ACU in the jungle:
[ATTACH]1234[/ATTACH]
It does not stand out too bad.
He's standing in the lower right of the pic.
I'm kidding. yeah, it really doesnt look too bad.
Posted: 2007-11-11 21:28
by Objurium
ACU actually works VERY well in urban environments. But remember, no camouflage works while moving. Anyway, I give you myself as an example.
Posted: 2007-11-11 23:28
by zardez
lol @ all the magazines on the ground, wtf are you shooting at
Posted: 2007-11-11 23:48
by [T]Terranova7
M1126 Stryker wrote:ACU in the jungle:
[ATTACH]1234[/ATTACH]
It does not stand out too bad.
You have to think though that not every jungle, forest, desert, city etc. will look the same. I think lighting plays a big part of it (notice how he's in the shade), and other factors such as the colors and pigments of the vegetation and terrain.
Posted: 2007-11-12 00:03
by Dunehunter
Objurium, I dunno, I find the tan coloured stuff you're wearing to stand out less.
Posted: 2007-11-12 00:33
by 00SoldierofFortune00
'[R-CON wrote:OkitaMakoto;527954']I have the belief that in modern warfare camo isnt anywhere near as important as it used to be. At least in the wars we are currently fighting. Its still important, but nowhere near as much as it used to be
Think vietnam, sure it was important
But now our troops are standing at roadblocks, etc.
Sure its a VERY uninformed belief, but really... idk...
And I still hold the idea that the PR army ACU should come in two ACU types. Same exact camo, except one is faded and worn from desert wear, while the other has grass stains and mud. After tall, thats what ACU is meant for, right?
It works at a distance. That is what really matters.