It's 0.75 sec per round, that's 1.5x slower than even the M107 in ArmA 2, which was twice as slow as the AS50.
"Good balance" isn't an excuse to slow down rate of fire to unrealistic levels. I would like a gun that behaves like its real life counterpart.
The EFFECTIVE rate of fire can be slowed by changing recoil values.
I tried the GM6 Lynx in the beta build - it now appears to have a more appropriate rate of fire.
reloadTime = 0.75;
Still not as fast as it is technically possible of achieving, but also not too terribly slow (considering clicking the mouse and firing a .50 caliber rifle has no physical effect on the player sitting in front of a screen).
I believe Samogon was saying that at 700 meters the .408 surpasses the .50 BMG, being more aerodynamic...
That all depends on the bullets and loads used. Right now .408 is very much a handloader's cartridge. There is no "standard" load, so such a claim depends on the bullet and the velocity.
Muzzle velocity for the .408 is usually from about 880-920 m/s with a bullet in the 400-grain range.
Ballistic coefficients are high, usually over 0.90, but many .50 BMG bullets also have just as high ballistic coefficients.
Anyways, comparing...
Energy------------------muzzle------700------1400
408, 400@3000---------7990------4600------2440
408, 409@3000---------8370------4800------2560
50BMG, 660@2750-----11100-----4870------1750
50BMG, 750@2800-----13060-----7450------3870
That claim could be true when compared to machine-gun grade M33 ammunition, but when compared to more powerful loads with efficient match-grade .50 BMG bullets, it isn't.
I tested this out a bit, making the GM6 have a faster fire rate. One of the problems I found... it has almost no apparent recoil at the moment!
The reticle stays very close to the target after firing... instead of artificially reducing fire rates, the devs should be looking at adjusting the weapon's recoil...
Sure you should be able to pull the trigger as fast as you want, you just won't hit anything.
.408 *might* be more quiet than .50, but not much. It's still a massive round... it has to be.
I would imagine the Lynx would be easier to carry around and also much more maneuverable - it might be heavy, but it's very compact.
I also suspect the Lynx would be far less accurate, it's not designed as a sniper rifle, it's a semi-automatic anti-materiel rifle. Not many of those are very accurate...
The CheyTac is a true sniper rifle with a focus on long-range accuracy, so these weapons have slightly different roles.
Regarding the comment above, this isn't Battlefield 3 where weapons are balanced against each other, this is supposed to be a simulator.
The weapon is semi-automatic. Even the M107 in ArmA 2 fired 2.5 times faster than the Lynx, and the M107's rate of fire was still too low.
The main downside of the Lynx is reduced accuracy. That's it.
Checked, airFriction values have now been set to appropriate values (26/06/2013). Good work!
Hmmm, when I use airFriction = -0.00042 (or thereabouts) with initSpeed 930, the bullet still appears to be supersonic at more than 2,200 meters (calculated ArmA velocity of *about* 366 m/s at 2,200 meters).
The initSpeed in the current config is 910 m/s, it is also supersonic @ 2,200 meters with that muzzle velocity.
As people have mentioned above, subsonic ammunition is somewhat rare. Subsonic 5.56 isn't even used by the military since it would have poor stopping power, poor ballistics, but most importantly wouldn't reliably cycle the action. There is subsonic 5.45 but I assume it is very rare.
Subsonic 7.62 is possible, (Lapua makes it with a 200gr bullet at 1,050 ft/s) but currently guns seem to make the same noise with different ammo, so it would be pointless when you could just use full-power.
So the main issue here is just the noise the suppressed guns make and if that is realistic or not. As is commonly said, most suppressed weapons aren't as quiet as portrayed in most media.
More wound effect would be nice. Many people who get shot will fall down, stumble, etc, even sometimes if they are not actually wounded. I suppose just from the shock of it.
It would be nice to shoot an enemy, and he stumbles or falls down, but then he quickly scrambles to his feet and runs for cover. It would also add much tension to the game for both sides.
No guaranteed "knock outs", though, perhaps sometimes.
This seems like something that would be useful in mods such as DayZ.
Personally I think it would be unrealistic to include tranquilizer darts, "knockout gas" or tazers in ArmA. First off these things are not something that people use in combat, ever. Second it doesn't fit the ArmA missions.
I vote no, because mods like DayZ can make these things for themselves.
As for missions like "Wasteland" - it would just be a tool for griefing - no other purpose whatsoever, certainly not "realism". Who hunts armed men with tranquilizer guns and tazers?
Some fix is needed - if a weapon is shorter, it should have the advantage indoors, no?
^Correct
It would be like this, say 6.5mm bullet has hit = 10, initSpeed = 795, typicalSpeed = 820;
Then modified by 0.8 = 8
8^2=64
64*((0.6*795)/(0.6*820))=62.05
Compared inherent damage, 62.05/(10^2) = 62% of original damage.
It doesn't even make sense, 0.6*850 = 510 m/s, well above subsonic levels, would definitely produce a sonic crack.
As well, why is the bullet doing 62-64%? It's the same bullet, all other bullets appear to lose hit damage linear to velocity, so 60% velocity should simply be 60% damage, if you fire a 6.5mm bullet and it's speed is 510 m/s downrange it should be doing 60% damage, but fire the exact same bullet from a suppressor at 510 m/s and it does 2-4% more? Why?
Just going to mention once again: 174 votes FOR, zero votes against...
Don't agree with the subsonic comments.
First of all, full-power ammunition doesn't magically become subsonic when used in a suppressed gun.
Second, subsonic ammunition is less powerful and has far less effective range than normal ammunition, so in many cases, it wouldn't even be used.
Third, a lot of subsonic ammunition won't even reliably cycle the action of a weapon intended for use with full-power rifle ammunition.
Fourth, all of the .45 ACP handguns are already subsonic.
^bug was still in the current build, last I checked
The suppressors in-game should neither reduce the bullet velocity or the damage
It seems like a case of "balancing" over realism. Anyways, "balance" is left to the mission maker if they want to make suppressors rare items or not.
Is this issue still being worked on, for a fix in a future patch?
Judging from the amount of votes in favor, and no votes against - the opinion is unanimous, the suppressors should not reduce a bullet's velocity to 60-70%, it would only boost the velocity.
Suppressors shouldn't have such an effect on bullets.
As for the comments about "balancing"... seriously? It's supposed to be a military simulator, not Battlefield 4. Some weapons will be "better" without any significant disadvantages in-game. "Balancing" is achieved by the mission makers creating balancd scenarios, not by deliberately altering real-life statistics, capabilities, etc.
58 upvotes, zero downvotes.
Also I have not looked into how ArmA 3 suppressors modify sound - but I know from ArmA 2 that in certain cases they reduced audible range from 1000 meters to a mere 50!
Unrealistically silent weapons are also something that should be looked at fixing...
First of all the game already has "realistic" ballistics, to an extent.
Second the ticket doesn't even make sense, do bullets have rocket motors in them? No? Then they don't magically gain energy once they leave the barrel. This is basic physics.
The main thing missing is muzzle velocity vs barrel length and there is a separate ticket for that.
You cannot - cannot - have a realistic representation of modern combat if the troops' body armor doesn't work. This is 2035. Make it an option, armor on/off, or simply don't spawn armor in your missions. Plates themselves should stop most rifle rounds including many AP rounds, don't shoot the plates... As for sniping at armored targets - get closer, don't take potshots from long range. Headshot or armpit. That's what they must do in real life.
I think this is pretty essential. I don't think any arguments against it are valid - having body armour means you stay in the fight longer, and it means you have to aim better.
I don't see how that somehow will cause people to have less fun, and if they did? - difficulty option, simply turn it off. There's no reason not to have it.
In any case, the large number of votes cast in favor and the importance of armour to modern warfare makes this an essential addition!
This is a good feature and it need to be added in. Having a combat simulator where body armor "doesn't work" is unacceptable.
Penetration of armor should be based on real-life data, not on someone's opinion. It's easy to find studies and data for armor penetration, what type of bullet will penetrate this or that, etc.
A handgun should not penetrate soft armor + trauma plates!
However, helmets are not very effective at stopping bullets, and even if they do the wearer will most likely be badly injured...
Hm, strange, because it says "hit = 40", "fuseDistance = 15". Based on that I'd expect it to kill someone, but you're right - it just stops and falls to the ground without harm.
I don't think shotguns would be very effective. Everyone's wearing advanced body armor and there's no need to use them for breaching doors. Not a big deal to me either way.
@ShotgunSheamuS: knife melee could be stealthy, however even at close range guns probably have the advantage.
Knives have to be stabbed into someone, past ribs, etc, however guns instantly send a bullet very deep into someone (or completely through them).
Knife kills are fine but I'm not a fan of "takedowns", etc. I think if you sneak up behind someone, you should have to stab them multiple times.
This could be quick and relatively quiet, simply "clickclickclickclick" and they die before they can even turn around.
However if someone "charged" you, they would be unable to easily kill you with an "automatic takedown", since the target would naturally run away / shoot back and kill them.
Think about this: why would a stab with a knife be somehow "inherently" more lethal than being shot with a .45 or a 9mm? Realistic answer, it wouldn't be (although pistols would be pretty ineffective if ArmA 3 properly modelled body armour).
I don't think knives should be something unusually deadly, sneaking up behind someone with a knife should be about as damaging as sneaking up behind them and shooting them. That's fair and it's also pretty easy to do, instead of pressing one button and instantly killing them.
I'm not against melee combat, I just want it to make sense (within the ArmAverse). If I can't kill someone with a single handgun bullet (excluding headshots) then I shouldn't be able to kill them with a single stab.
I also think knives should include some skill and a normal chance of failure, which automatic takedowns either do not include, or do so in an unrealistic way...
Melee is fine, there is no reason to vote it down...
HOWEVER it should be ineffective. Think about the phrase "don't bring a knife to a gunfight".
A player armed with a knife should be at a massive disadvantage compared to someone with a 9mm pistol.
There should also be no "finishing moves" or "instant knife takedowns". You should have to stab the person quickly and repeatedly to kill them...
tl;dr: melee is fine as long as it's not unrealistically deadly. Gun > knife, every time.
@Dr Death: I disagree, it's like with a handgun... you don't just shoot once, even though one shot could be enough.
@Raoul1234: If you don't want a "homicidal maniac melee take down" then I suppose it would be better to leave knives out altogether... there's no avoiding the fact it's extremely violent.
Like I said before there's little point making some unrealistic system where you sneak up behind someone and it automatically kills them. That's something that belongs in arcade games, knives do not automatically kill... automatic takedowns do not belong in simulators or realistic games, it should be harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun (and why not use a suppressed pistol anyways? Knives won't be completely quiet, targets will shriek and struggle, unlike in a Schwarzenegger movie).
Wikipedia says this about the 40mm Mk19 grenades (the GMG ones should be very similar):
"Upon impact, the grenade can kill anyone within the radius of five meters, and wound them within the radius of 15 meters."
That is the same lethal and wounding radius as the thrown M67. Those values should be used for the grenades in the game as well.
As the other posters have said, water stops bullets very fast. However, shooting at low angles can result in the bullet ricocheting, like a rock will skip along a pond surface.
Agreed! Should be in Greek! (Perhaps no English at all)...
Why do you say there is no bullet drop? That is concerning. When / where did you notice that?
Zeroing does work, at least on the weapons I tried it on. I didn't try zeroing on the "sniper" rifles, because they seemed to have Bullet Drop Compensation reticles, so there is no need to zero them (also those scopes would not have zeroing capabilities).
Wow, 355 upvotes and not a single downvote (yet).
I was watching a Dslyecxi video where he was flying an AH-6J and there were enemies shooting from inside a building. He flew over and sprayed the building with hundreds of rounds from his twin 7.62 miniguns.
I remember he made a comment about how in real life the guns would be sending rounds tearing through the bricks and mortar and making the enemies inside very uncomfortable, but that in ArmA he would have to get a lucky hit through a window.
It would be nice to see more penetration from many bullets, not just .50 caliber. Definitely makes things a lot more interesting and fun!
This is important, so voted up. I noticed some of this as well.
If this were true, it would be very concerning for realism, however I saw airFriction values in the configs (although I didn't check them too closely).
I tried tracer rounds in the Editor and I can see them dropping, so there is definitely bullet drop.
In terms of bullet drop, putting a suppressor on a weapon does not have a large effect. It can boost velocity by a small amount, or it can cause the bullet to lose some velocity, but it will not have a drastic change such as what happened in ArmA 2 from using SD magazines.
The drastic changes come from the type of cartridges that are loaded, not from the suppressors.
^the miniguns take out buildings? I haven't seen that myself, but I haven't tried it, since I never would have expected it.
That may be related to this: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16159
I would really like to get that changed... 6.5mm bullets should not go through an armored MRAP, or completely through buildings, etc.
I agree, I noticed this in the Editor. I put a group of OPFOR on the ground and opened fire with several long bursts, and only killed one of them.
However, another time I tried it, I killed 8 of them. I think the minigun spread is a bit too high, but I haven't looked at the damage each bullet does, I assumed it was hit=12 like other 7.62s.
There's no reason not to correct it: it's only a tiny config tweak, and would take very little effort to correct. Simply type in the correct muzzle velocity for the Gepard Lynx and it would be fixed.
Upon more research, the correct muzzle velocity for the Lynx bullpup is about 780 m/s. The game has it firing almost 1,100 feet-per-second faster than in real life!
I want to see the correct capabilities for weapons in ArmA 3.
Agreed, being an MRAP I would think it would have somewhat bullet-resistant tires.
I read on Wikipedia it can drive for 30 miles at 30 mph with two of its tires shot out, and that it has special run-flat tires. I don't think the tires would simply "pop!" and disappear from a few bullets.
Also, in the field manual it says the Mk200 fires 7.62x51mm caseless, which is incorrect.
You shouldn't be able to (instantly) die from leg shots at all.
Instead, you should become injured (limping, unconsciousness, broken leg, crawling), and with more severe damage, quickly bleed to death.
Would increase gameplay value a lot.
Most of the upwards recoil shouldn't be there when prone. The bullets should spread out slightly in all directions like a real light machine gun, not just upwards.
I noticed this too, in the prone position. Keep in mind they are firing 6.5mm, but still...
If you pitted ArmA 2 weapons against people with ArmA 3 weapons, I'm pretty sure the ArmA 2 people would win every time. Recoil does seem very high.