Project Reality Forums

'[R-DEV wrote:eggman']um... yer out to lunch mate. The Ak101 and M16 fire the same projectile and, as a result, use an identical ballistics template for damage, energy dissipation, recoil etc. The Ak101 has slightly more deviation due to the shorter barrel.

This is from the game code, so you can put a little check mark beside the "let's get these guns fixed" demand.

Surely the recoil is still too much? No wonder people like to take the M4 over it, even on single shot.

Long Bow wrote: No offence but the I picked up the G5 for under $40 Canadian. It is less money then some standard microsoft mice. It isn't wireless or anything it just has good quality components and adjustable dpi settings. If your into video games a $40 investment in you PC is nothing, most new games here cost a little more money then the G5. My old mouse was horrible and no amount of practice could over come its poor performance.

Hey long bow, I use an old MS IntelliPoint 3 optical mouse...its the nice looking gray ones that MS made a while back. It seems fine and fits my big hand (thats right ladies), but I'm wondering how much better can this G5 mouse can be?? I will go get one if it is a pretty noticable difference. Would you consider my mouse an old crapper?

Bob_Marley wrote:

I'd say the 'point this at the bad people' bit is harder than it sounds due to recoil.

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino']M16 is the 2nd best AR in the game, followed by the L85A2 hehe.

It doesn't really matter if you can hit them when their weapon will likely kill you in 1 or 2 shots at the most if it is a G3 or QBZ.

My advice:
Don't use it till Devs give it better sights.
Accuracy is fine.

As for the recoil. All 5.56 rifles have high recoil. The worst one is HK53 IMO.

maybe you should check youtube vids on them..almost no recoil at all.

zeroburrito wrote:maybe you should check youtube vids on them..almost no recoil at all.

thank god

VipersGhost wrote:Hey long bow, I use an old MS IntelliPoint 3 optical mouse...its the nice looking gray ones that MS made a while back. It seems fine and fits my big hand (thats right ladies), but I'm wondering how much better can this G5 mouse can be?? I will go get one if it is a pretty noticable difference. Would you consider my mouse an old crapper?

I had an older MS optical mouse. There was nothing really wrong with it when I grabbed the G5. The difference between the two was noticable, not huge, but there was a difference, the G5 was smoother. I like the G5 becuase it slides easy, is comfortable but most important you can adjust your sensitivity on the fly. Also Logitech just released a newer version of the setpoint software which allows you to increase the mouse polling rate. Basically the computer checks (poll rate) the mouse movement 5 times a second but with the ability to increase the sample rate to say 10 times a second (via setpoint) you get more accurate movement represintation. Visually if you were to move the mouse in a semi circle with a low polling rate you would get less of a semi circle and more a more jagy shape vs. a truer represintation from the high polling rate.

A little confusing I know. Basically when I got the G5 I had an easier time making accurate shots in BF2 with a really low DPI setting. When Im done playing I can crank up the DPI and move around the desktop no problem

i want to see the M16 with a red-dot scope if not just give us M4s

It is the US Marine Corps, right?

also on the point of accuracy:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SBDVmJN35T8
notice the barrel doesnt go upwards, but side-to-side
could we get this in PR

G.Drew wrote:i want to see the M16 with a red-dot scope if not just give us M4s

It is the US Marine Corps, right?

also on the point of accuracy:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SBDVmJN35T8
notice the barrel doesnt go upwards, but side-to-side
could we get this in PR

Man, imagine this sound IN GAME... I'd cream my pants.

<3

caboose wrote:I'm just glad my words didn't fall on deaf ears.

you said that 5.56 is more accurate and has longer range than 7.62..........my ears are impervious to such nonsense

that said, I agree that the M16 has far too much recoil

'[R-CON wrote:Jaymz']
that said, I agree that the M16 has far too much recoil

Which inst as bad as the HK5 smg! Thats been scripted like its 7.62!

...mongol...

'[R-CON wrote:Jaymz']you said that 5.56 is more accurate and has longer range than 7.62..........my ears are impervious to such nonsense

that said, I agree that the M16 has far too much recoil

Just to clarify, on full auto the 7.62 is NOT as accurate as the 5.56, so please do not even attempt that argument. Accuracy is affected by RECOIL. As far as single shot is concerned, the accuracy is NOT always Dependant on the round. It is the length of the barrel and the muzzle velocity, which is higher for the lighter projectile. Range? Again the muzzle velocity, the mass of projectile, the speed of rotation, and the shape of round is the deciding factor. I have personally wiped out entire US squads with a clip of ammo from the G3, but am taking by life in my hands sneaking up behind an MEC rifleman with an M-16. T think the deliberate tilt of the main armaments away from the US in respect to every other side seems... not classy at best.

Now that the G3 is getting scopes, even the thought of playing as the USMC is almost absurd; they can barely return fire against irons sights! The US wins a scarce 1/4 games, with them ALWAYS starting with a tactical disadvantage. What is the point of that? Shouldn't the very basic elements of the game like weapon balancing be done early? I mean I've worked on a few mods, and I know that unfair advantages in early releases can undermine the fans. I'm just being honest. Please, understand that I know you guys are working hard, but I personally would prefer to be able to have balanced weapons in PR than have a bunch of new features, even if it meant waiting an extra month or whatever this takes to fix. I'm guessing that a lot of people feel the same way.

caboose wrote:Just to clarify, on full auto the 7.62 is NOT as accurate as the 5.56, so please do not even attempt that argument. Accuracy is affected by RECOIL. As far as single shot is concerned, the accuracy is NOT always Dependant on the round. It is the length of the barrel and the muzzle velocity, which is higher for the lighter projectile. Range? Again the muzzle velocity, the mass of projectile, the speed of rotation, and the shape of round is the deciding factor. I have personally wiped out entire US squads with a clip of ammo from the G3, but am taking by life in my hands sneaking up behind an MEC rifleman with an M-16. T think the deliberate tilt of the main armaments away from the US in respect to every other side seems... not classy at best.

Now that the G3 is getting scopes, even the thought of playing as the USMC is almost absurd; they can barely return fire against irons sights! The US wins a scarce 1/4 games, with them ALWAYS starting with a tactical disadvantage. What is the point of that? Shouldn't the very basic elements of the game like weapon balancing be done early? I mean I've worked on a few mods, and I know that unfair advantages in early releases can undermine the fans. I'm just being honest. Please, understand that I know you guys are working hard, but I personally would prefer to be able to have balanced weapons in PR than have a bunch of new features, even if it meant waiting an extra month or whatever this takes to fix. I'm guessing that a lot of people feel the same way.

Ok...-takes a deep breath-. Here we go, on full auto there will be much more of a kick from 7.62 yes. However, that applies to Medium/Short and CQB engagements only (as far as rifles are concerned, I won't go into MG's). In 0.6 the engagement ranges will increase a lot because of the character drawing increase, considering rifles are zeroed to 300 and I know for a fact that they hit accurately up to 300 in PR with very little compensation there is no debate that the G3 is a far superior weapon in this case. The 5.56 round has the potential to be more "accurate" than 7.62 at longer ranges but have you ever asked why it's not used in sniper rifles? It's because it losses a shit load of stopping power at distance, stopping power that it initially lacks anyway. So can it "travel further"..probably..I really don't care because whatever potential power it has falls so quickly.

This was called Project Reality for a reason. If it were called Project Balance then you'd have a good point but the truth is that the 5.56 NATO round is shit. From research I've done to people I've spoken to who have been in engagements, one in which was behind the advisory team when we made the push for 7.62x51mm rounds to be as lethal as they are, I hear the same thing every time. That is, the 5.56 NATO round is a terrible anti infantry round.

From two seconds of online searching here's a short video that might help me with my point http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/ ... 8223.shtml

EVERYBODY WATCH !!!! (it's the thing that looks like an ad )


p.s, sorry to steal your thunder kenwayy but I thought I'd police the forums while your computer is fooked

You've just outlined my point. The 5.56mm is not as strong as the 7.62. So why do they have the same recoil? Reality and balance in this case are not mutually exclusive. If you're going to insist on not giving the M-16 a scope (how realistic can we get?), then how can you account for the low recoil of the G3? This is NOT being realistic and NOT balanced. If I were to use the same line of reasoning, I could have a 125mm chain gun, and on full auto it should be just as accurate as a mini gun (which need fixing also). Is that realistic OR balanced? According to this mod "yes". You have the time to make a dozen maps, give the tanks, APCs, and helicopters new weapons and somehow there isn't any time left to give ONE GUN an optic? And for that matter, you all spent so much time setting the longer view distances, but whats the point if we just are using iron sights? I don't really feel like debating anymore. I've made my case and that is that.

Fishw0rk wrote:Who said the M16 isnt getting a scope?

Not for 0.6 at least...

I love how our military gets shot in the foot by our own politics.... I'm so sick of hearing excuses from political numb nuts. The US military and NATO as a whole need a new primary rifle round.....The 5.56 is fine and all....but hearing people who trust their lives to it saying things about how its not getting the job done disgusts me....and then some senator has the balls to say that its to expensive to switch to a new round....Those who GO out and volunteer to fight for OUR freedoms and risk their lives for their countries deserve the BEST...not GOOD ENOUGH DAMMIT.....the BEST. From what I hear the Insurgent forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have little to no fear of the M16s or M4s....But are Scared to death of a 12gage....Mind you Just reading that article pissed me off....greatly....I have a lot of people I know who put their lives on the line for this Country. I hear the same stuff from them.....It just ticks me off...I hate hearing stuff like this.....so much damn Red tape.....Our troops deserve the BEST rifles Available, its more important then getting new Aircraft at this point.....we aren't fighting massive air wars....the fighting we are engaged in now is of the up close and personal nature.....won and lost in inner city fire fights........their should be NO compromises....give the soldiers the best or DONT ask them to risk their lives when you can equip them with THE BEST in the world. If their can be better....GET BETTER because I would rather have OVER kill then NOT ENOUGH Kill.

Sorry....just hit a topic that gets my blood boiling.....Rant off...for now...

Not going to comment on recoil or caliber debate because I don't much about those. But what really made my blood pressure go up was this

caboose wrote: ....
You have the time to make a dozen maps, give the tanks, APCs, and helicopters new weapons and somehow there isn't any time left to give ONE GUN an optic? And for that matter, you all spent so much time setting the longer view distances, but whats the point if we just are using iron sights? I don't really feel like debating anymore. I've made my case and that is that.

Do you know anything about modding? Do you really think mapping, view distance or coding are somehow related to weapon models?

We have very limited resources on ‘artistic’ side of modding. And you know what, making a weapon from scratch takes time. Infact making your ONE GUN takes shit load of time. We can’t just make an acog and throw it on top of vanilla model. No, the whole rifle must be remade. That includes modeling, uvmapping, texturing, coding and testing. There are about 3-5 different people involved. These people got to pay their bills too.

We are trying to concentrate mostly on british basic equipment. Its been our priority from since the beginning of the mod.

- British got their optics first. Our priority #1. We were going to make a new L85 model anyway. Susat was just one more object model and texture.
- Type 95 got its optics second because we had to replace the AK quick.
- G3 is going to get theirs on 0.6. We had almost finished model already (from model to game takes still months)
- USMC will probably get their rifle with optics in 0.7.

View distance or maps got absolutely nothing to do with the optics for usmc.

If you seriously can’t stand the G3 for 0.6 -> 0.7, I’d suggest you find something else to play. But endless whining here ain't going to get you anywhere.
Its 6:05 AM here. I’ve been working from 10pm just to get the f*cking G3 finished in time. Reading this bullsh*t really made me want to hit the ban button just to steam out a little.

I’m going to bed instead… Good night.