Project Reality Forums

For 0.7 we are using relative values close to the #1 suggestion.

I never really thought the G3 had that bad recoil, I always assumed it was the AK that kicked like a donkey, good work Sloan...

G3A3 kicks like an *** when fired at full. Great weapon but back recoil when looking down sights

Recoil is subjective if you are asking people who have fired each weapon. Sure you might get consistent replies that, l85 is lighter than the AK or G3 but how much so will depend on the user. Even if you got scientific and mounted the weapon on something that could calculate the force of recoil that wouldn't really translate over to actual use. Stance, size of shooter and technique all factor in and since everyone is different, there will be different results.

As far as in game, I would assume guessing is whats being used as the game engine isn't that accurate where real world values would translate into bf2. Trial and error and getting a good feel in game is the best way imo.

The rough empirical data is as follows:

M16 - 4.1 ft/lbs of recoil (5.56 family)
G3 - 15.8 ft/lbs of recoil
AK47 - 7 ft/lbs of recoil


I hope we go with as close to realistic values here as possible...anything else would be uncivilized.

If you go just by looks, the AK round is a mini compared to the G3 round and yes the AK still kicks...imagine the G3. The 5.56 or .223 is a pea shooter. It is literally illegal to hunt 150 lb deer with this size of a round (in WA). The recoil is a joke, and young kids ages 8-12 are taught to shoot in this size of a round in my home town until they can move up to a .243 or bigger.

The 7.62x51 that the G3 shoots is a massive round and pretty damn close to what a sniper uses...though obviously its not match grade.

I did a bunch of research awhile back and put it in a fat post but it was lost in the forum move, wish I had the rest of that post.

The values we defined in 0.7 were guesses based on projectile size using the 556 rifle as the starting point. We got very close to the values Jonny calculated. I think we are going the right path here.

No disrespect in anyway but why not use the real data from above? All that data is the real thing for sure, I did all of the research a while back and sent it to eggman.

Here is the recoil table, no guessing required.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm


5.56 rn = .223

7.62x39 is listed already

The HKG3 shoots the .308 win

Don't worry, we are using the real stuff. Was just interesting that my initial guesses were pretty much spot on.

Yeah I understand that percieved recoil is a difficult thing to test/measure accurately but still. I've shot a .308 win and its recoil is a lot more than double that of a .223. I don't think the chuckhawks manual is perfect but IMO its not too far off and can give a decent ratio. I can shoot a .223 and barrrely notice the recoil. Go and shoot the .308 and it kicks big time. The M14 shoots that Nato rn I beleive and it seems about right though the M16 obviously seems a bit high in comparision.

Look at the size difference here, not that it means much but still.
http://www.african-hunter.com/fnslr_p03p34v5no3.jpg

From Left to right

7.62nato, 7.69x39 (ak), 5.56

IMO the G3 should have 3 times as much recoil as the 5.56 family. Go and shoot a semi auto .308 fast and then shoot an M16 quickly...just to get the real feel, you 'll agree. That .308 jumps all over and while the .223 is nothing.

Lets put it this way, my brother and I as kids used to trim off metal fence post tops with a .223 semi-auto pulling the trigger as fast as we could. There is hardly any recoil at all. Our .308 KICKS and its not some light gun either...we had nice recoil pads as well. Don't let someone fool you into thinking the 7.62NATO rnd only has twice the recoil of an M16. Too many people assume the 5.56 is a killer round and shoots like you'd think a killing rifle would. Like I said, its so small you can't hunt little deer with it...and 4th graders learn to shoot on that round. Its accuracy is what makes it a killer.

Here's a decent video showing how the AK has almost double the visible recoil than the M16...let alone the G3 massive round (comparitively). Not to far off from the chuckhawks imo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0&feature=related

Question - why not have many different "versions" recoil for each of the G3, M16, L85 and QBZ-95, each kit being issued with a different version.

It means that every US rifleman's rifle would behave in the same way, as would every every MEC Medic's G3 etc, but between the kits, each rifle would handle slightly differently. If you picked up a fallen comrade's rifle, for example, you'd have to readjust your aiming slightly...

[R-MOD]Masaq wrote:Question - why not have many different "versions" recoil for each of the G3, M16, L85 and QBZ-95, each kit being issued with a different version.

It means that every US rifleman's rifle would behave in the same way, as would every every MEC Medic's G3 etc, but between the kits, each rifle would handle slightly differently. If you picked up a fallen comrade's rifle, for example, you'd have to readjust your aiming slightly...

I endorse this idea.

That would be pretty neat Masaq, but I'm not suer that it is possible. It is my understanding that the kits are classified together in such a way that this would be impossible. I'm still pretty low on the experience scale with the BF editor, but I'm pretty sure thats how it works.

All sorts of real world factors like that would be nice but I doubt bf2 tracks the numbers in that detail




M16 and ak47 penetration compared

I didnt realise the G3 round is bigger then the ak47 or that the M14 has a potentially higher rate of fire then any of them