Project Reality Forums

Jonny wrote:Both images are wrong, the first should show a parabolic drop as the bullet goes further from the barrel and the second should show a balistic path, not hyperbolic.

The problem with modelling correct balistics are that the DEVs are ignoring it. It was done last year. Zeroing is more dificult as some of the rifle scopes cannot be changed, but Nedlands1 and Zangoo are working on ways around that problem and then the balistic curves can be applied to give the best approximation the engine is capable of, which is drag being related to velocity.

Okay, so never post while at work. For the ballistic path, I couldn't be bothered to find the right drawing tool in Powerpoint (all I have available at work) to draw one (if any). It was more to show that the trajectory "arcs".
For the first drawing, I should have made it more as a question. Like, do BF2 guns shoot like that? Although you said it should be a parabolic drop, I suppose you mean if the bullet was fired from a barrel parallel to the ground in real life. I was trying to draw how bullets currently travel in the engine, not in real life. In the engine, bullet drop does not increase but stays the same (set by the gravity value) so the path should be a straight line. And Jaymz said

Quote:
you only have to compensate for the bullets trajectory after the point we claim it's zeroed at

meaning, the bullet drop only sets in after this point. With no drop before this point, the bullet should fly straight and parallel to the ground (assuming the barrel is parallel, too).

If we had a parabol in the engine, you would have to compensate at any distance.

double post

Jonny wrote:Salah:
its not what he meant.

There is parabolic drop at ALL ranges, its just that it is not very much. The bullets act like they are in a vacuum and gravitational field.

In real life they experiance a drag force because of the atmoshpere which is usually ignored by most people to make things simple.

So the bullets actually accelerate? The gravity variable is an acceleration? and the bullets drop faster at the end of trajectory than at the beginning? Ok, then.

'[R-CON wrote:nedlands1;601553']

Differences:

• Higher recoil for L85A2

M16 is Roughly 3.9 with mag.

SA80 is 4.98 kg with mag.

Therefore should the SA80 not have identical if not less recoil than the M16?

but the m16 is longer which I'm not sure how that would affect handling but I do know it does have its positives.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt wrote:M16 is Roughly 3.9 with mag.

SA80 is 4.98 kg with mag.

Therefore should the SA80 not have identical if not less recoil than the M16?

I thought the L85A2 was quite heavy in the butt end. This would result in increased muzzle climb compared to an identical weapon with the weight further forward. That may be why it is greater than the M16A4's even with the L85A2's overall weight advantage.

Jonny wrote:*checks table*

M16 should have less.
Should be 82.6% of the L85A2s recoil.

I'm in the British army!
I have used an M4 rifle on a range before, but not an M16.
L85A2 has less recoil than an M4 due to the "bullpup" configuration, The SA80 also has a longer barrel than an M4 which gives the SA80 a superior muzzle velocity, range and accuracy.
The only advantage i could say the M4 had other the SA80 was weight and ease of maintenance.
I'm going to find the specs of an M16 now like muzzle velocity and barrel length...As i know the M16 is larger than a M4.

Given that there is less energy imparted to an identical round being fired by an M4 versus the M16, that seems quite likely.