Project Reality Forums

I have mentioned this before and it never happened but now after playing COD4 which pulled it off I have to suggest it again. When you fire a rifle there is gas (looks like smoke) that comes out obviously, but in PR it's a joke. All you have to do is youtube COD4 videos and watch how it looks when the weapons fire, the shotgun being the most extreme but they all have it to a realistic degree and it does add much to the experince. There are no muzzle flashes in PR which is good but the lack of realistic gas discharge makes the experince weaker than it could be.

I know the DEVs can do this as they did it well with the tank main gun so PLEASE add it to the rifles. The little things make all the difference.

Thanks.

I was talking about day time dude. In COD there are always flashes day or night, that is not the case in PR and like I already said, the DEVs of PR have already done what I'm talking about with the tank main gun so it can be done. Pay attention.

SiN|ScarFace wrote:I have mentioned this before and it never happened but now after playing COD4 which pulled it off I have to suggest it again. When you fire a rifle there is gas (looks like smoke) that comes out obviously, but in PR it's a joke. All you have to do is youtube COD4 videos and watch how it looks when the weapons fire, the shotgun being the most extreme but they all have it to a realistic degree and it does add much to the experince. There are no muzzle flashes in PR which is good but the lack of realistic gas discharge makes the experince weaker than it could be.

I know the DEVs can do this as they did it well with the tank main gun so PLEASE add it to the rifles. The little things make all the difference.

Thanks.

Oh for the love of all things holy to gamers!

You want something changed in a reality mod.

To prove your point about the said mod, and the change that you're requesting, you reference...

...Call of Duty 4? Another PC game? A game that is, however much like eye-candy it is, NOT noted for its strict attention to detail in terms of reality gameplay?

Let's look at some camera footage of many differnt types of guns:

Full auto (BAR, RPK and others):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmB-ME8i2bA

Galil, AK-47 and Chinese Type 56:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcE0yNwcg10

AK-47 and M16 in lower light conditions (See 3:53 for muzzles during firing):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0

Even in fairly low-light conditions you don't get the huge muzzle flashes and dust clouds that hollywood so loves to put in films. No giant flames rolling out of the barrels, just puffs of gas and particulate - which we have in-game already.

Sure, there's an issue because all those shots were first filmed on video cameras on normal-speed video film (aside from a few slow motion capture shots of rounds being fired) so some detail is lost (and again in the compression etc from Youtube) but generally I'd go with the basis that if the video isn't showing it, it's unlikely the human eye will capture it either.

Now, on a more general note, please stop peddalling your poorly formed opinion left right and centre all over the place. COD4 does not constitute a sound evidence base!

Holy ****. I knew somebody would say COD4 is Hollywood and I thought for a moment to include the caveat 'the only reason I am using COD4 as an example is its a video game' you know, apples to apples instead of showing a vid of real which is apples to oranges. I should have, but I guess I give people too much credit. And WTF are you talking about flashes for, I said PR is good for NOT having them, and implied that COD4 having them was Hollywood.

The gas/smoke visibility has everything to do with the type of powder used in the load, so I could sit here and post videos all day showing highly visible discharges (look at the full auto Glock vid in the related list from the first vid you linked to, or ill do that work for you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBjUDCyDCuI). My point is and I'll be more clear, the current way it is in PR looks like the barrel is a cigarette with a piddle of smoke coming out, its NOT the volume that is my issue it is the graphical representation of the gas velocity being weak, it does not look anything like any of the videos you posted, nor as is does in COD and not at all realistic. The tank gas/smoke animation in PR conveys the sense that a high velocity powerful projectile exited the barrel. Why can't this be done for the rifles?

PS - how is the view from that horse?

I want that glock ingame

SiN|ScarFace wrote:Holy ****. I knew somebody would say COD4 is Hollywood and I thought for a moment to include the caveat 'the only reason I am using COD4 as an example is its a video game' you know, apples to apples instead of showing a vid of real which is apples to oranges.

The thing is that PR is not meant to just be another video game. Project REALITY is meant to be as close to realism as possible on the bf2 engine. SO he was perfectly justified in pointing out the hilarity of using CoD4 as a reference no matter what you are trying to say.

I'd say leave little things like that to the people who really know the stuff. Im not saying im smarter than you because Im one of the guys who leaves it to the rest of the team. But believe me when I say we have plenty of people on the team who know their guns like they know their....other things they are intimate with.

Comparing PR to Cod4, now thatis apples to oranges. Comparing PR to reality is not quite apples to apples, but more like apples to electronic apples programmed on a shitty engine.


Okita

Can of worms over something simple. Reminds me of the ****** falcon4 forums.

So I would like to hear it from a DEV, even MASAQ so I can have the offical comment on record. Is the current gas discharge in PR realistic and can not be nor should not be improved? If it is then delete this thread and I'll move along, with new found perspective on "Reality Mod".

I couldn’t even remember how our gun smokes looked. Had to find some old pr gameplay vids and compare them to those posted in this thread

But anyways...
There doesn’t seem to be any smoke in first person view. 3rd person looks ok I guess, could be higher velocity but its not a big deal imo.
So yes, it could be improved… just like pretty much every single effect we currently have. However stuff like this is just so trivial improvement from my/our point of view that I doubt its going to happen any time soon. It doesn’t make it a bad suggestion though.

It would be great if we could pay more attention to details like these. But the problem with concentrating on small details is that it always takes away resources from something else. I don’t think everyone would be happy if 0.8 feature list was like this
- new muddy footstep texture added
- tank smoke effect colour changed to lighter brown
- AK47 wood texture changed to darker plywood
- fixed a typo in the field dressing texture
- …
- …


I for one would much rather see some more realistic explosions effects in PR than better muzzle gasses. But that’s just me.

Maybe someone from the community thinks otherwise and decides to make a new muzzle gas effect and adds it to our weapons?

Actually the "gas smoke" you are referring to is really gun oil boiling off after sustained fire.

Thanks for an actual response. Yes anything could be improved and yes resources are limited, just thought I'd suggest it as it is the suggestion forum and to me, a layman it seemed an easy or trivial change instead of something that will never happen. If I knew how to do it I would, or if you are feeling generous you could point me in the direction to where I could research how to do it?

Anyway thanks.

LeadMagnet wrote:Actually the "gas smoke" you are referring to is really gun oil boiling off after sustained fire.

I beg to differ. Example, musket or any other similar weapon. Ever fired a rifle with **** ammo like Wolf compared to something expensive? Wolf smokes like a train while other brands may not at all. Sure oil burning may add to the mix but the gas = projectile and that hot expanding gas is what im talking about, burning oil or **** powder just makes it more visible.

Military loads do not use that cheap of powder, and normally do not leave much smoke upon firing. Yes, they do leave some, but normally it's not too noticable on small-caliber weapons such as the 5.56mm. You normally will notice the smoke upon firing on weapons such as the M2HB, which lacks a flash-hider.

M249 SAW video

M2HB firing

Another M2HB firing

Again, it's hard to judge actual "smoke" from youtube videos. But you can see that a sustained rate of fire from the SAW is not much, while the M2 has much more noticable smoke due to having a non-braked muzzle and heavier cartridge. I think the weapons in game could use a little more effect, but as stated there are much more important things to worry about.

At range, you will probably not see a weapon's smoke unless you were looking directly at it while it was firing. Locating an enemy based on his smoke is pointless, because if you can see it smoke then you should be able to see the person firing the weapon. Smoke doesn't linger long enough with modern weapons for someone to track a target based on smoke, you won't need to. Again, if you can see the smoke then you can see the person behind the trigger.

Implementing effects such as better explosions or adding a backblast effect to AT weapons is a much higher priority in my opinion than tweaking something that few people will notice has changed.

SiN|ScarFace wrote:I beg to differ. Example, musket or any other similar weapon. Ever fired a rifle with **** ammo like Wolf compared to something expensive? Wolf smokes like a train while other brands may not at all. Sure oil burning may add to the mix but the gas = projectile and that hot expanding gas is what im talking about, burning oil or **** powder just makes it more visible.

Considering I run through over 500k rounds a year in my job and many more in my previous life I think I have a handle on what modern military grade ammo can do. As for muskets, they fire a charge of black powder. The first smokeless propellant was produced by the French I believe (8mm if memory serves) in the late 1880's and is what we use today.

Modern powders come in three varieties, single, double and triple based. All have their granules coated in graphite which serves to act as an insulator against static electricity. Perhaps Wolf use something different in theirs as I have no experience with it having heard some horror stories on their lack of quality control (faulty primers, lack of deburring, shoddy necking, out-right case fractures etc).

LeadMagnet wrote:Considering I run through over 500k rounds a year in my job and many more in my previous life I think I have a handle on what modern military grade ammo can do. As for muskets, they fire a charge of black powder. The first smokeless propellant was produced by the French I believe (8mm if memory serves) in the late 1880's and is what we use today.

Modern powders come in three varieties, single, double and triple based. All have their granules coated in graphite which serves to act as an insulator against static electricity. Perhaps Wolf use something different in theirs as I have no experience with it having heard some horror stories on their lack of quality control (faulty primers, lack of deburring, shoddy necking, out-right case fractures etc).

Same here in regards to experience with military rounds. For those who are not familiar with Wolf Brand ammunition, they are favored by cheap plinkers who want to buy hundreds of rounds for a fraction of the cost. Their ammo is cheap in price but also in quality, and has lead to several noted incidents that have caused injury to the user as well as severe damage to firearms.

Patrons have experienced damage to their firearms due to the lacquer coating on steel-cased Wolf military ammo sticking the case in the chamber of better-quality guns. This may not be an issue with oversized and rough chambers in some military surplus firearms. Above are photos of a Wolf .223 cartridge that literally exploded when the bullet was pulled to investigate it's construction. Because of these incidents, Double Action does not sell or permit Wolf ammo to be fired on it's ranges.

I used some Wolf ammo in the past with my personally-owned AK-47. I stopped using it after a round blew in the chamber and damn near tore my rifle apart. After a week of repairs and deep cleaning the weapon was back to normal, but I have not used that brand since. I had been firing the weapon on auto, but at the time of the pop it was on slower single shots. Just **** ammo, and shouldn't be used to compare smoke effects with that of normal military-grade modern ammo.

This thread makes me laugh, people pointing out all this stuff when my intent with the suggestion was in relation to the speed and how it moves in PR, a feature that exists already and IMO could to be tweaked. My examples were for visual aid trying to describe what I'm suggesting. Obviously I failed.

It's funny that this was done for the tank in a previous version and shown in a teaser and people ooed and awwed how cool that was. A simple idea turns into semantics and people pulling the experience card when what I'm suggesting is demonstrable in various easy to see ways so the E card isn't required. I'm not stupid, I know the militaries of the world have used smokeless powder for quite a while and I have heard the WOLF ammo horror stories and that using WOLF as an example was again, for visual AID. Unfortunately a poor choice, my bad.

I thought the people here were all of like mind so we could skip the 101 ****, semantics and get to the point, but after two pages of mostly pointless nonsense here we are, nowhere. lol

Fuggettaboutit.

In the defense of all posters, your OP says nothing about the speed at which the gas appears and dissipates. It only refers to it as a joke.

With that sort of explanation, we can't do much but assume you mean that the entire concept of PR's rifle fire effect is a joke and that, as per your example, we can only assume you meant that CoD4 did it better/more realistically.

Assumptions all across the board. Smile.

Okay, cutting across semantics:

Scarface: Smoke in PR isn't enough
Most other posters: It's okay
Me: Let's call it a day, thread locked before it gets silly