- User Since
- Jul 5 2013, 7:44 PM (319 w, 3 d)
May 10 2016
Tracer rounds are nothing special, they are not setting off explosives period.
As in the other explosives related ticket about HE grenades setting off C4: if you can provide us with the blast velocities generated by an HE grenade and the required shockwave to set off a C4 charge, you have valid arguments. Just doubting something is not enough.
Ask the Mythbusters: Busted.
What is the schockwave velocity of a hand grenade?
As some use RDX and TNT (Composite B if I am not mistaken?) the blast velocity is over 8000m/s.
How much is required for C4? Anyone got info about the blasting cap shockwave velocity?
You guys don't want ArmA3, you guys want a different game. Suppressors do not magically make enemies unaware of your position, even when you shoot them.
Of course the AI should also react to dead bodies, but this is another issue not only related to suppressed kills, which are not silent at all. You'd have to use a knife and some technique to stay covert. Or dedicated suppressed caliber & weapons, like .300AAC.
That does not make any sense, does it?
Selective hearing. "Oh, someone shot a weapon. It didn't hit anybody, so I just ignore the enemy presecne."
I get the info directly from the source: the gun. I work in the firearms industry. But even as an "outsider" you'll find a lot of sources for sound levels for suppressed weapons. For example, here is a review for several 9mm suppressors.
You could also look up suppressor manufacturers and use their "values" which are mostly enthusiastic than realistic.
A suppressed 9mm is pretty loud. 125-130dB(A) is not what you'd call hearing safe (the definition makes you believe you can listen to suppressed shots without damage, which is wrong). You'd hear the shot in and around a building that is not soundproof. And there are no such buildings or bunkers in ArmA 3.
Try these tickets, all related to the great "simulation" of futuristic weapons with squib loaded guns due to metal thingies attached. /sarcasm off
There should only be a lock a) when the fighter jet has a laser targeting pod or b) an external laser is used.
For "dumb" bombs there should be a consent release mode to drop bombs according to their flight pattern (reference to Nou's great work from ACE 2).
It was meant to show the player that his weapon might hit something different than your actual target. As you have no perception of the level of the barrel, as weapons clip through everything, you could hit a berm in front of you without knowing. The crosshair will "snap" to the berm if your point of aim and the point of impact are two different things.
If there was weapon collision, there would be no need for such crosshair (who needs crosshairs anyway?!) concept.
But hey, "This is WAR!"...not a military simulation.
The idea is not bad. InstaGoat said it already. However, failure to feed or short strokes could be a nice feature for weapon jams.
We don't have to clean our weapons in-game, but some sort of malfunction should be simulated.
With a bolt action you won't have many possible malfunctions (only catastrophic failures) but this would add the possibility to sabotage ammunition (like the MACSOG did in Vietnam).
For semi/fully automatic weapons there are quite a lot of malfunctions. Aforementioned short strokes (low gas pressure), failure to feed (magazine lips deformed), double feeds (combination of isues) and everything that does not require armory service (which would be too much).
A catastrophic malfunction can injure or kill the shooter, depending on severity. A bullpup rifle has a good chance of inflicting injuries directly to the head while a common design can cause hands and arms to be affected as well.
This might be more than this ticket asked for :D
Duplicate of http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=768
It is not the scope that moves, you can move the weapon in the shoulder without turning your body.
However, I support the real 3D scope idea of turning your head with a weapon in the ready (regardless of optical or open sight).
But the weapon has to be on the left/right side not in the center, as you would not want your chin to be on the buttstock.
Related to my old ticket http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11616
Not a bug. Thermals can not see through glass.
So many false assumptions in one ticket...
a) the energy for shooter and target is the same. If you are not knocked down by the recoil, your target isn't either. The energy is comparable to that of a chocolate bar being thrown at you. Irrelevant, even for a 12,7x99.
Ballistic protection has nothing to do with thickness. An engine block is made of cast metal and cylinders of hardened steel. A ballistic vest is made of layers of Kevlar, entangling the bullet and spreading the energy over a wide area.
If you can penetrate an engine block, you not always can penetrate a ballistic vest, especially if it has armour plates to spread the energy even more.
Ragdoll is way too much in any game. A headshot would drop the body like a bag of cement, without any movement. A shot to the center mass will stop the human in his tracks, on the run, he will fall over. With high velocity rounds, he might not even notice being hit (overpenetration) and proceed to charge you. Happens with 5,56x45 ball ammunition alot (drugs add to that "invincibility")
Sorry about that. Overlooked the video.
However, the recoil is still unrealistic. With a proper stance, you automatically counter any climb, weight of the weapon won't keep it in the sky anyway.
Usually the recoil causes a larger "cone of fire" not a vertical climb. This was "invented" by game developers as a counter mechanism for effective weapons in adverserial games also called "balancing".
Since we don't want any sort of balancing in a simulation, there is no need for such mechanics. Firing a shotgun or high caliber handgun (.50AE) will kick up the gun, but you won't keep it there unless you turn off gravity.
There are two groups of players: one group wants people to counter the recoil with mouse movements, the other group wants recoil to be countered automatically.
You don't have to move the mouse to reload, to activate switches, doors and what not. But people want to move the mouse for something that is an automated action in the real world (unless aforementioned large caliber/heavy projectile weapons). This, however, excludes mechanical recoil reduction (either muzzle brake or short recoil system).
Generally speaking, every handgun without a stock is prone to climb when the recoil energy is high enough. A .45ACP can be controlled pretty easy with a proper grip. Now imagine you'd have to manually reaim after each shot. Firing double taps in a life-or-death scenario is made way more difficult than it would be for the shooter as the movement in the real world is totally different from the unprecise movement of the mouse. Not everyone wants to feel like playing fast paced shooters, rocket jumping and shooting with excessive speeds.
If you fire a rifle, the recoil is absorbed by the body due to shoulder contact increasing the stability. A 5,56 or 7,62 fired fully automatic won't lead to shooting stars out of the sky as the shooter positions himself in a stance to counter the recoil (eg leaning forward, square to the target...). The recoil force is straight backwards and even countered by muzzle brakes and flash hider (eg A2 for M4/M16) that only have slots on the upper side of the hider.
Now you might say, what about a .50 cal? Well, the short recoil operation and the brake reduce the recoil to that of a 12 gauge shotgun. The sheer weight will make it impossible to have the gun rise and stay up. Try holding 13kg into the sky with extended arms.
The GM6 Lynx has a short recoil system, too.
The M200 Intervention has an effective brake and also weights 14kg.
Already posted http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2425
With all open sights, actually. A pistol sight is normally center hold or below six (for competitions). You won't want to shoot with hold overs with a handgun (range up to 50m).
With rifles you can shoot to 1k without issues, depending on the sight, you can achieve a center hold, if your range adjustment maxed out, you have to use hold over (framing) techniques, which makes is more difficult to engage camouflaged or half visible targets. Old Mauser 98 rifles could be set to 1200m (7,92 Mauser or better known as 8x57 IS nowadays)
bracketing is only used for hold overs. The preferred method is the center hold. You can't hit what you can not see. Covering the target (and you cover quite a lot with a front sight on distance) is not advisable. If you have to shoot beyond the zero range, you have to hold over, but iron sights are considered back up these days (if your scope is destroyed or out of batteries)
No DarkWanderer, there is no need to offend people. It was a sarcastic joke. Too many tickets about suppressors, so people stop reading, because most posts are either irrelevant or wrong. I was referring to sound levels of real suppressed vs unsuppressed weapons and they can be implemented 1:1 in-game. Drop-off distance can be scaled to the island.
The issue with suppressors (we Germans call them moderators in certain professions) is the realism and the false assumptions, not just by players (how should they know better?) and game developers. Basically you could substitute player by "public" and game developers by "entertainment industry or government".
They do not know about the true specs of a suppressor or don't want people to know.
There is no magic behind a suppressor but they are still stigmatized as being evil.
I am not sure why the developers went down that road. They should know better by doing VBS and working with real military units for that matter.
If it is for "balancing" reasons, we don't have to try changing things, because this game won't be a simulation then.
We had this topic in several threads already so there is no point in discussing nomenclature.
The designation should not be named after what people like to call things. I'd call ArmA 3 a casual shooter, although it should be called a military simulation. Some people won't feel good about ArmA being just another shooter.
So let's keep it correct and call those things suppressors and ArmA 3 a military simulation for the casual shooter game player.
@DarkWanderer: If you read one of the other suppressor related tickets, you would not answer in that way. But hey, reading is for professionals :D
That's why the ATF is (political) incorrect in the first place. They do NOT silence anything. Governments do not really represent the unbiased people when it comes to "murder death kill" weaponry.
I guess you don't take scientific evidence seriously. The pictures in the OP show a rotation point WAY over the center of gravity. And it is only ONE helicopter. Not every object has it's center mass in the same location. Since I am not an aviator, I don't compare the reality to the in-game flight model, just correcting wrong physical assumptions.
The center of gravity varies between aircraft models. For some it is higher, for some lower. Obvisouly, it can never be over the main mass of an object. So the rotor head is not the point of rotation / center of gravity as your pictures make us believe.
And I can not up vote a wrong assumption. Show us the exact center of gravity of the in-game model (not a picture mock up) and the one of the real counterpart and we can talk differences. This is pure speculation on your end.
Funny. Who said helicopters were perfect? But as you already know, ArmA 3 is not a simulation because you don't want the game to be one.
And on a side note: I really like trolls. You are my favourite. No hurt feelings. You never fail to amuse me.
Don't argue with Fri13, he is an experienced czech ex-sniper helicopter designer.
Better use official knowledge:
You are talking about this video which is an attached laser and not the designator itself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg3rmVBv9bs
And despite all those videos, they are still videos not first hand experience.
laser guided Vikhr seen through FLIR, still no laser, sorry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyabIb2QxuU
I guess you don't understand the logic behind invisible targeting lasers...or do you want the enemy to know who is targeted and from where? Oh yes, this would be fun...
Actually, the laser should not be visible in night vision, nor visible spectrum as the wavelength is over 1000 µm. This is a wanted aspect as the laser of the designator should not be visible with night vision devices as the enemy could spot the source.
The laser is also pulsed and not steady "on", to decrease the chance of two active laser targets which would confuse laser riding ordnance.
All your nice videos do NOT show a laser designator, sorry to spoil the fun. Those are IR weapon lasers that point out targets for the aircraft. This is a common procedure.
A laser designator is made to not show the beam, otherwise you'd block your view with a bright laser. If you read your posted references, the thermal scope is optimized for spot detection, not beam detection. And the pulse frequency of the laser designator in paint mode is quite fast, in the old GTLD II you could hear the fast on-off sequence.
Night vision preferably works with 830 nm wavelength, if you read the thread you posted, you'd see the best results at the power level of night vision devices is 850 nm. And they were talking about a camera, not a helmet mounted NOD.
I might be the smartass again, but trust me, I've been through that discussion quite a few times in my modding days and also talked to actual JTACS/TACPs from the Gulf War because I thought the same as you do now.
But we do not have a SOFLAM in-game. This is a "cheap" turkish made laser designator that might work in a different way.
If you could pick up the laser, the spotter always will be the first target to be fired at, even if he is at great distances. Imagine it to be like switching on a light house at your position if the laser beam could be picked up just with night vision.
The smartphone thing is pretty irrelevant. We are not talking about cheap IR sources. The laser is a YAD high energy (24DCV) consuming long range painter. 2,3m² area @ 5km and you want to see a fat beam all over your screen when you are close to the target wearing NODs?
Edit: here you can't see the laser beam in thermals...only the flashing pulses at the target https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRLWUCk3B6Y
In addition to that, the bolt of the rifle is also moving while reloading, not just the grenade launcher tube breech.
This is an old issue with OFP/ArmA. The weapons do not affect the projectile. The ammunition specifications like velocity, is configured with the ammo and as far as I remember not adjusted by barrel length of the weapon.
Ammunition itself does not have any v0, only a barrel will make a projectile lethal because of the increased velocity and stability over range.
If they can change the engine to properly reflect that? I doubt it but would be highly appreciated.
As much as I dislike BARF.com I agree.
Copyright can't be the issue, because of the Rshkosh vehicles :D
Anyway, foregrips and launchers should be an attachment and this would solve so many issues with preference. Of course it would need changes in the animation.
So you are talking about the F2000 Standard, not the F2000 Tactical, which is in-game?
Edit: The Foregrip you are seeing in ArmA 3 was photoshopped by Little J from MP.net. So the guys at BIS fell for that or did this on purpose. There is no real P90 frontgrip for the F2000. Monolith produces aftermarket foregrips, which are normally not fielded.
http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/5660/cimg3255az4on0.jpg (somehow looks Airsoft with the EOTech magnifier :D)
Sorry for the jigsaw updates, still early over here.
We don't know if the Mk20 is the military variant of the F2000 or the civilian FS2000. The military variant does not have the PS90 (S for Sport) foregrip.
RobertHammer did post the last image of the FS2000 (seen on the box), which is not the military variant, which only comes with the Tactical TR or Standard (opttical gun sight on top) variants.
So either they have to get rid of the PS90 foregrip or make it semi-auto only for the civilian counterpart or leave the realistic aspect out of the game and do the same hack-job I did with this comment.
This would be a nice feature. Also birds shut up when something loud is going on and start to sing again after some time. This would be a hint for nearby enemy movement/engagement.
Only if there are riccochets and tumbling in flight. Bullets do not really make that signature Hollywood sounds. You can hear a hissing sound when they pass real close subsonic.
I'd say go back to BF3, but scope reflections are dealt with by so called anti reflection devices (ARD) either aftermarket honeycomb filters or DIY with nylon stockings (don't let your girl catch you running around in them!) or see-through cloth.
Would add a litte realism and diversion to the sterile looking weapons. However, this should only be used by ghillie wearing Wookies, otherwise you'd stick out of the group like a Orangutan in a bikini.
Would be as stupid as saluting in the open. Your superior will catch the next flight home in a cardboard box.
Had the same issue when I was walking over the SDV before mounting. Did not happen after swimming and then entering the vehicle.
Zero distance and sound travelling distance are not related. You'd be dead before you hear the shot. At 2300m it would take about 7 seconds for the muzzle report to reach your ear :D
If there is sound travelling and sound shift, you won't be able to make out the source of the shot. This only works for shorter ranges or with modern sniper detection systems.
I have to support this motion. From a realistic point of view, even the insurgents in A-Stan know how to mask from thermal. More or less effective.
There are several ways to counter thermals, wearing a glass window is not the best option :D
You won't probably read alot about masking from thermals from an official point of view, because the enemy could make use of those tactics.
But this is the future and although I am against the sci-fi scenario, there are countermeasures already for this issue.
Additionally to the binocular issue, which exists since OFP, we now can not even look around with binocs equipped.
I would even love to see the laser designator as a deployable weapon. The laser designator is not meant to be a hand held device. For extreme long range designation, you need a absolutely stable platform to paint targets at 5km.
Make it a tripod mounted "launcher" that way, only a few specialist will carry a designator. Make it compatible with attachments (thermals, IR laser...) and make it a weapon with a "firing" sound. The laser is a high energy pulsed laser, creating a sound and does overheat after prolonged use.
The old school binoculars are a nice retro-aspect but do not fit into your 2030 scenario at all.
Anachoretes, you are the funny guy, I give you that.
Since you don't seem to understand logic and keep acting as smart as on the official forums, you joined last month by the way, I stop commenting on this thread.
I apologize to anyone that got tired reading this boring, yet entertaining topic.
So if you are a doctor...Which country I should stay away from to fall into your "educated" hands?
You don't have a clue what you are talking about, buddy. Just saying.
You might do wonders with your vibrating hands as a doctor, this whole discussion is more entertaining than I thought it would be.
Your lack of knowledge concerning firearms and shooting technique is not a bad thing, but insisting on something that is made up BS won't make this game any better.
And since you don't know me or what I did, or do you should not jump to conclusions. I don't know you so I can't tell what a troll looks like.
So if you really have to work on your grip to deal with recoil, you should see a doctor. Because there is no muscle work to deal with recoil. This is the whole point. You need strong arms to keep the weapon steady longer, but how many rounds are you going to shoot to make your hands let lose of the gun they are holding?
This is ridiculous. Try firing 100 or 200 rounds without lowering your weapon. Oh wait. You have to reload, don't you?
Shooting 30 rounds .50 AE will make you curse your choice of handgun, but you won't do that with your arms stretched out, and your hands will hurt due to the forces, but you won't drop the gun or be exhausted by recoil.
You do not counter recoil by force. This will result in poor aim. You are surprised by the shot, how do you counter surprise? This is exactly the point here you don't seem to understand. Does the term compressed surprise break mean anything to you?
Poor technique stands in contrast to your statement that soldiers are trained to properly shoot.
What do we gain by adding increased recoil by firing a gun multiple times "we" are trained to use? If anything changes it is your cone of fire, but with the trigger discipline your shot will break at the best possible moment and despite increased sway due to lowered concentration, competitive and military shooter can still hit their targets.
I do shoot quite a lot. And I do work in the firearms industry. So I guess you could say my opinion is not based on reading books. Thank you for your cooperation.
If I understand you correctly Anachoretes, you are talking about increasing recoil just by shooting a firearm?
You do not use muscles to counter recoil. That would be unwise. You use proper grip and stance and absorb the recoil with your body and arms.
What is tiring is holding your weapon in the ready for quite some time. Try holding a 4kg item in your hands with arms extended.
You don't even have to shoot to get fatigued.
@Surfer: You are right. You should not be forced. The loss of stamina will, however, change your opinion about proper etiquette. This is what makes ArmA too much like any other shooter. People going in solo and not using team play. Look at the current and past wars and conflicts. You won't find people running around like headless chickens, they do not run with weapon in the ready through the combat zone (unless you like to watch Monkey Snackbar videos on LiveLeak).
As a competitive shooter, I can not support the increase of recoil. The recoil is always the same, your arms get tired from holding a gun too long. With all kinds of other side effects that comes with shooting and breath control (not holding breath)
Not just for lowering his weapon, for correct operational procedures. You would also lower your weapon if a friendly walks in front of you or at least aim above his head as long as he would be in your line of sight. Some games did that pretty good.
Running around with your weapon in the ready should not be the default stance. It should be walking with your weapon lowered. But ArmA seems to adapt too many CoD-esque "features".
Sad thing is that "the" last military simulation is abused by Wasteland and Zombie game modes and people forget to realize that this is about military simulation not run-and-gun solo ops.
You probably know the typical Domination / Invade&Annex player? The flying, rocket launcher wielding sniper engineer medic.
This is what comes out of weapon choice and no punishment for unrealistic loadouts and tactics.
Suffering from running with your weapon raised is a nice and realistic punishment for those individuals. But that does not make money... go figure.
If the Devs reconsider the way weapons are handled in ArmA 3 (recoil, sway, resting...) there is a possibility to make this happen.
Aiming requires concentration and muscle. After several seconds, your eyes start to give you ghost images (lack of oxygen due to slowed breathing) and your muscles will twitch after prolonged aiming.
So this is not a bad idea in general. But first there should be a good basic weapon handling system. Recoil is way over the top, sway not so much, holding breath is not a good technique after all, because of aforementioned lack of oxygen and you are better off shooting in your natural respiratory pauses.
So to make this work in-game:
Walking with your weapon lowered does not consume stamina.
Jogging with your weapon lowered does consume stamina n+1.
Walking with your weapon in the ready does consume stamina slowly n+2
Jogging with your weapon in the ready does consume stamina n+3
Running is only possible with a lowered weapon and stamina consumption n+5
The combat pace modifier reduces the speed to something between walking and jogging with your weapon in the ready, stamina consumption n+2,5
Standing still and aiming should consume stamina n+0,2
Prone and sitting position do not consume stamina, as they are considered bone supported positions (no muscle tension to stabilize the weapon)
The stance modifier should add to consumption: the more muscles are required to maintain the stance, the more it will consume stamina.
The numbers are made up to make the difference visible.
That will lead to one realistic aspect: Less running and gunning, more cover and concealment. This is not CoD, MoH or CS or what ever games are used as a reference for run-and-gun tactics.
This game is about realism and a combat simulation. If you can point me to a proof of running foot patrols in modern engagements, be my guest and share it.
Getting from A to B should be a real consideration. Do I run and am out of stamina to effectively engage target or do I walk in a patrol manner to observe the environment and be ready to engage without being punished by the body exhaust.
If you need to run to cover or shoot on the run, you can do so. But it is way more realistic to pant after running a short distance with combat gear (weight should be accounted into the calculation)
If you look at the current multiplayer sessions, many guys just run around all the time. Only in a few occasions you see people actually walking with weapons lowered in a realistic fashion.
So back to recoil and stamina:
Recoil is not affected by your degree of exhaustion. But the control of the weapon is. So not the recoil should be increased, the sway should.
This might require two types of exhaustion. One is by increased cardiovascular activities and the other by muscle tension.
You won't start breathing heavily after holding your gun for 5 minutes in a standing unsupported position. You will eventually lower your weapon due to hypoglycemia.
Even in the near future such optics won't feature a bullet drop compensator as magnified optics do. In the near future this will be achieved by digital optics (already being tested). They adjust the reticle according to the measured distance with a build-in range finder. You can even select the ammunition being used to compensate different coefficients.
However, when BIS implements real world weapons and equipment, they should work as expected. Close/Mid-range optics (Elcan, EOTech,...) do not have elevation knobs and therefore should not have such in ArmA 3.
Figured that much, which is basically a game issue if you have to use a "SMG" optical sight and a "rifle" sight, although it should be one item only.
There is no range adjustment on any holo-, reflex- or red dot-sight. You can adjust your zero and better keep it that way. They are not made to be used like scope turrets.
Granted, the range should be set for <200m, depending on the reticle and weapon used.
A Carbine would be set to 100m or 200m (with 2 dots you could set it to 100m and use the second dot for 200m).
The Evo and KRISS are used for <100m.
By the way nice AR, Warfighter! Would say 7", VLTOR stock, XPS2, Magpul mag and foregrip, Troy BUIS, fully decked out. What matches do you compete in?
At least one ticket about that issue that is not being trolled at the moment.
3D scopes would be a nice feature, if they are really 3D. That means you could turn your head and still see the image in the scope in your peripheral vision. Only then I could accept the screen to be completely sharp without any blur. They have to fix the full-screen zoom issue, though. That is only possible with PIP rendering. The "easy way out" is the old-school full screen scope without the blurred edges. That way there is no zoomed in peripheral vision.
As it is now, the field of view is too narrow to be realistic. I gave up on requesting screen blur for 3D scopes, as people want to simulate the simulation themselves. Like running 50 miles before playing ArmA 3 the be exhausted like your avatar.
This is a serious issue as suppressors are more and more common in the military. Not just because of sound reduction (easier to communicate/listen), recoil reduction and flash suppression (insurgency already have night vision devices to spot night attacks).
It's not about silent kills. That's what a dedicated suppressed weapon is used for (.300AAC/300Whisper, .22lr, .45ACP,...).
The chance to be spotted by light/sound are reduced, sometimes enough to get the job done.
The physics are completely off in ArmA 3. But this seems to be ignored by the Developers.
Not accuracy, sound suppression. Usually the first round(s) are not as effectively suppressed as the following shots until the suppressor "overheats" and the sound level increases.
You can shoot the suppressor wet with oil, grease or water to increase the effectiveness of the first shots (especially the rubber suits would benefit from this feature)
The heat would also affect unsuppressed weapons and create a shimmering blur (look at the engine exhausts of helicopters in ArmA3) which is basically the same.
You lost me at the word "balancing".
Suppressors do have negative aspects. But nothing that would affect current gameplay. They overheat and loose some of their effectiveness, they create a barrel mirage (hot air causes blurred target image with sights) and increase the rifle length and make them less maneuverable in close quarters.
But please do us all a favour and remove "balancing" from your vocabulary :D
To those that say subsonic ammunition is not used in the military (other tickets), they are. But not by the Grunts.
Needs to be addressed before launch. Should be quite simple to add subsonic ammunition and remove the velocity & accuracy penalty to the standard loads.
Suppressors reduce the muzzle flash to almost zero, mostly removing a visible flash completely.
Brush suppressors are used in the HK MP5SD, to reduce the speed of a common 9x19mm Luger round below sonic speed.
Noted. Now I need to find another ground breaking invention :D
Ballistics can be fun. And even games like Battleground Europe managed to implement them. But the ArmA 3 engine has about the same "realism" potential as OFP back in 2001 it seems. Or at least the same issues are transcripted from sequal to sequal.
If you could explain to me why a bullet gains speed after it left the barrel, you won't mind me stealing your idea for the real world.
The ballistic system in ArmA is pretty good, but not the external ballistics is what buggers me. They are pretty good, if wind would be more of an influence. It is the internal and terminal ballistics that needs alot of love.
Speed != Energy. Mass and speed is where the energy comes from.
And the table zGuba posted shows that the M855 barely has enough energy @1000m for fatal injuries. 80 Joule of terminal energy are required for an unprotected human to be killed, 530 Joule for a protected infantryman.
A 77grain Mk262 round retains more energy over distance and is currently used by many soldiers in the field to tackle the issues with the M855 ball ammunition.
The 6.5 Grendel has pros/cons. The magazine capacity is reduced due to the larger cartridge size and the weapon has to be rebarreled, which is always an issue with GI weapons (hence the Army still uses M16 variants).
Terminal ballistics are difficult to simulate, same goes fore internal ballistics. If the projectile has enough energy on impact, only three factors should be considered: Where did the bullet hit? Is there enough energy (and sectional density) to penetrate? Is enough energy retained to kill the target?
Internal ballistics have to take into account barrel length, twist rate (stabilizing factor) and powder mass. Let's count the muzzle to the internal ballistics and the muzzle velocity would also be considered to this category.
As it is in OFP and ArmA games, the ammo has specification in the config as well as the weapon. This is the worst idea, as the cartridge does not inherit accuracy per se or muzzle velocity. It only contains a given amount of propellant and a specific projectile (ballistic coefficient) that factor into the equation.
The barrel is where the magic happens. The twist rate defines how stable the projectile can be shot, a heavy/long projectile generally requires short twist rates to stabilize the bullet (eg. 1:10 for heavy .30 cals and 1:12 for lighter projectiles). The muzzle velocity depends on the barrel length up to a certain length. A .30 only requires 22-24" barrel length, longer bbl do not increase accuracy or velocity.
This leads to a system where the ammo should inherit a basic v0, for a standard barrel length, let's say 14,5" for 5,56x45. The weapon has a factor for the barrel length, the longer the higher the v0 (limitations as aforementioned), shorter barrels lower v0 and larger muzzle flash due to unburnt powder. Recoil also is affected by barrel length, not just by weight.
There is so much about weapons that are not though about in most games, that I can't tell if there is any agenda for ArmA 3 to correct some of the mistakes, as it already lacks basic realism features and the developers don't seem to care.
Back in the days of Operation Flashpoint, people thought how eyecandy the graphics were, how nice the sound and all. Some years later only the hardcore fans stuck with the game, because they did not like cutting-edge graphics and sounds, the liked the immersion, realism, freedom.
Would you go back to OFP just because it is probably still "the" mil-sim despite the poor sounds and graphics in comparison?
If you answer with yes, you will understand my aforementioned notion. All I said was it is not about the sound, it is about the physics behind the actual "noise". You can have highly authentic range recorded sounds that won't sound nearly as true as you excpect, if the engine can't handle speed of sound travelling, obstruction, reverb and all that real-time calculated to any sound you throw into the mix.
Jarhead, Chammy, Anders and all those that worked on sound mods, myself included, could not change the way sound was processed in previous titles. So money and time (mostly money as recording authentic sounds for all the equipment, cars, weapons, clutter, movement et cetera will ruin their budget) should be put into variety of sounds, the engine and immersion. And that is not how the weapon sounds, but how the environment sounds. Thunderstorms, pouring rain, wind gusts, moving trees, wild life, you name it. Do you really think they will use their sound team simply to make loud things sound "nice" while everything else is muted that makes games since OFP enjoyable?
As I said, I am not against changing sound, but this is a JSRS addition plea. Down voted.
So you want constructive criticism how to improve the sound in ArmA3: don't change the sound, concentrate on more important issues.
Happy? No? I don't care. This is not a pro-JSRS request form, this is a tracker that lists bugs and user opinions, even if they don't match yours. That's life.
The time and afford to record realistic sounds (and this game is called a simulation) will lead to two things: less money and time for really important issues and a split fan base of the sounds recorded. Some might find them "cool" some might find them "over the top".
It's like graphics. A game is not good because it looks pretty. It's about the possibilities. Also true for sounds. If the game sounds like down-town Fallujah won't make it a perfect game.
Oh, too many arguments, can not compute.
JSRS is not realistic at all. It's the typical movie sound foley. Guns will never sound realistic in a game, unless you have speakers, that throw 150+dB in your face and stomach. Sound is not just received by the ears, it is also transferred to the bones.
I quit modding ArmA sounds because of that. As a shooter, you'll never be satisfied with how stuff sounds in a game. You would be quite disappointed if you hear the real deal in a game. Weapons do NOT sound cool or powerful. Sometimes their signature report is pathetic. Only thing that makes them sound "powerful" is the muzzle blast.
I support the idea of better sound environment in ArmA 3, BIS always was on the down side of good sound effects and physics.
But JSRS in favour over more authentic "non-hollywood" effects: Leave it as an optional AddOn. I do like vanilla sounds. And if I want to hear real shots, I just go to the shooting range.
So only a pro-JSRS opinion is helping? Nice try, fanboy.
Even with 12.4 sound systems the loudness is not what makes a gun shot sound like a gun shot. But you heard them all before, right?
It's the pressure level, your speaker has to move quite a lot of air to achieve the same effect as a muzzle blast.
The ACESM is pretty nice. But again, no sound mod will satisfy everybody, it comes down to user preference and taste. So leave sound mods to AddOns and concentrateon physics and diversity.
May 9 2016
Literature/own experience/customer feedback. As I said, weapons are my daily job. These are average loads and their respective measured values.
If those sound levels were in-game, weapons would not be unheard at a fixed range. The fall-off would be proportional to their suppressed volume. Same as the unsuppressed weapon is unheard at a specific range. But there is no invisible sound barrier for all weapons.
So what is the status of this ticket?
Suppressed weapons now are unheard beyond 200m range despite various original sound levels and still reduce the damage.
Did I miss something?
Oh yes, the muzzle flash, although non existent, lights up the shooter position.
Read that, too. Had no time to test that and how if affects gameplay.
you are right about "silent kills". There is no way of killing someone silent with a gun, as long as it not a .22lr.
I am not sure how sound is processed in the AIs "ear". Let's say there is a thunderstorm or a artillery barrage nearby. The environmental sound level should increase, so that with a bit of timing, you can fire while the thunder clap is heard or a artillery grenade goes off and so on. If the AI still "hears" a suppressed gun shot over a bomb going off next to them, there is no way of creating distractions that actually work. Like setting up a timed explosive on the opposite side of the shooter. The AI should investigate unfamiliar sound instead of "knowing" who shot what from where.
But this is not really part of the suppressor issue, it is the next level of sound physics.
9x19 -> 350-400 m/s, max. effective range: <100m, sound level: 159.8 dB
.45ACP -> 250-270 m/s, max effective range: <75m, sound level: 157.0 dB
5,56x45 -> 900-950 m/s, max. effective range: <700m, sound level: 155.5dB
6,5x39 Grendel -> 760-880 m/s, max. effective range: <730m, sound level: no data
7,62x51 -> 740-850 m/s, max. effective range: <800m, sound level: 156.2dB
.408CheyTac -> 880-1100 m/s, max. effective range: <2000m, sound level: +170dB
12,7x99 -> 860-930 m/s, max. effective range: <1800m, sound level: +175 dB
Now let's assume a suppressor reduces the sound level by 30dB average. An decrease by 10dB is perceived as half as loud.
A spoken conversation is about 70-80 dB, a slam shut door 120dB. Now go figure how far the sound travels (I can not be held responsible for broken doors or angry neighbours).
The range is not affected by the suppressor. The accuracy can be increased by up to 30%, depending on weapon and caliber. Let's say 10% average.
The kinetic energy does not suffer and therefore the damage potential.
The supersonic crack (up to 120dB!) can not be traced to the origin and should make the AI at least duck and cover. They should investigate the surroundings. If there is light, movement or noise, they will be alerted.
A suppressor reduces the muzzle flash entirely or at least makes it neglectable.
Using subsonic loads reduces the effective range depending on bullet weight and speed. High kinetic mass does travel farther and offers longer effective ranges. For example a subsonic 7,62x51 load is effective up to 300m.
Subsonic means a muzzle velocity (v0) of <340 m/s. That is more than half the velocity of a supersonic load of the same caliber.
That being said, you can not suppress long range calibers and expect the same ranges with a subsonic load.
So the conclusion of this little write up:
Subsonic loads only make sense for a few calibers and purposes. 5,56x45, 7,62x51 and 9x19. The rest of the above listed calibers are not suited for subsonic loads or are already subsonic (.45ACP).
What buggers me is the way of setting muzzle velocities in ArmA games. It's not the gun that dictates the velocity, it is the ammunition. But to be precise, the barrel length should factor the v0. You could load a 9x19mm with 350m/s into a long barreled gun and still get 350m/s. Did BIS change that in ArmA3? Do longer barrels generate higher v0? This would be essential in ammunition calculations. A carbine will not generate as much v0 as a marksman variant (14,5" to 18 or 20"). So my notion would be to make the gun dictate the v0 or at least add a factor for barrel length to increase/decrease the muzzle velocity accordingly.
But this might be another issue not directly related to "stealth" and "suppressors".
That's all folks, thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts on that matter.
So much knowledge in this place :D
I guess I will be the smartarse now. But anyhow, there is no such thing as a silencer. The word itself makes people believe it is completely silent after attaching a "silencer". This is Hollywood and far from reality. Some people here wrote a suppressed rifle is 80 dB. It's not. A suppressed rifle still brings about 130dB, maybe 125dB. Compared to 180+dB unsuppressed this does make a huge difference.
Suppressors, as the name says, suppress the muzzle blast and change the report to something that does not sound like a gunshot. For a trained individual, the noise is still recognized as being a shot.
As written correctly, the only type of weapon that can be suppressed to a level that makes it almost impossible to hear beyond several meters (not talking one digit distances!) is a .22lr. These weapons were and are still preferred by agencies in assassinations, because the weapon is small and concealable, almost silent and deadly within point blank ranges.
In games suppressed weapons are mistaken for Hollywood guns. That is one of the reasons us Germans are not allowed to use them for recreational shooting, because nobody could hear us shoot...yeah. Well, this is not a political rant, so back to facts.
Suppressed weapons do NOT do less damage as the "Field Manual" suggests. If you have your buddy (or nemesis) shoot a suppressed weapon above your head, you will still hear the supersonic crack. So why should the suppressed weapon do less damage, if the projectile still travels at its usual velocity?
Fact is, a suppressor can increase the accuracy and reduces recoil. Not so in ArmA 3. Fact is a suppressor does not alter the velocity of the projectile except for the MP5SD which utilizes brushes to slow down the 9x19mm projectile to subsonic speed. Any 9mm pistol/SMG/rifle has 350+m/s muzzle velocity= supersonic.
Any .45ACP round is below 300m/s and therefore subsonic by default. That leads to a simple truth: Not every caliber is effectively suppressed. A .45ACP is a good choice for suppressed shooting, because you don't need to use subsonic loads.
Above 9mm the projectile produces a supersonic crack, unless the load is subsonic, which reduces the range, not the damage. If you still fire supersonic rounds (eg 5,56x45 at 950-1100m/s) you will not suffer from reduced damage or range.
In modern days, suppressors are used to make it difficult to spot the shooters position. You can not pin point a shooter just by the supersonic crack, because this is omnidirectional for the human ear. That's where systems come into play that can calculate the position of a shooter by triangulating the sound. Since the human has only two ears and not the ability of any owl to spot the source, you can not spot the shooter without the muzzle report.
That being said:
We need following changes for realistic suppressed weapons:
a) realistic sound levels & travelling distances
b) realistic muzzle velocities
c) supersonic and subsonic ammunition where applicable
d) correct nomenclature (and ArmA already calls them Suppressors, kudos BIS!)
e) less Hollywood magic, so the truth is not distorted by lack of knowledge of the COD generation...
Thanks for reading my smart arse comment and don't feel offended if your entry was used as reference for above mentioned lack of knowledge.
Predator, part of the firearms industry.
The scope has to be on either the left or right side of the screen (depending on shooting eye). With the scope in the middle, your chin would rest on the cheek piece instead of left/right of the stock.
With a real 3D scope, you could turn your head, breaking your cheek weld but always have a definite shadow free sight picture. Slightly too high/low/sideways and you have a shadow crescent which causes the point of impact to shift.
Actually we'd need parallax adjustment, too.
And barrel mirage when the rifle is hot and the warm air causes disturbances in front of the scope.
I missed every point you've made because they are bullshit. Sure it seems realistic to render everything on screen sharp because you only focus on one spot, but as the pro sniper you were you should know better. So please continue with this crap and try to make people believe whatever you want. I won't argue with you anymore. There is no point.
I won't even call you out, because if you really were a sniper you'd dishonor all those that are and were active duty professionals. With your attitude and disrespectful behaviour (no professional would ever even think about threatening someone the way you did) but maybe that is the reason for you being ex-.
But none of this is relevant to the ticket and I am wondering which course the game will take if more of your kind try to influence a once great simulation.
If people want the screen to be all sharp with the limits of a monitor, so be it. They probably won't even notice how unrealistic it will be. I actually start to grin every time I look through my scopes because I know what bullshit you wrote. As long as there is no realistic field of view, the peripheral view could be coloured pink and upside down, your "peripheral" vision still is a fraction of the real deal. But you know that, of course, because you have secret mall ninja knowledge.
Let's try to break down the processes relevant to firing a gun in ArmA 3:
Stance: The stance dictates how stable your aiming will be. Usually you could say the higher the stance, the less stable the shooting platform.
Aiming: Key to a proper hit. Pretty easy with optical gun sights, as long as the dope is correct for the distance taking into account the necessary hold over/under and/or lead.
Firing: in a game a single mouse click. The moment you click the button the bullet will travel down the barrel. The length of the barrel will delay the time of exiting the muzzle. Every movement within this split second will change your actual point of impact.
Recoil: The topic of this feature request... Recoil takes place as soon as the mouse button is clicked. The mass of the weapon will increase the time it affects the player character. Rule of thumb: heavy weapons need higher intertias to be moved. A small/light weapon will recoil faster, a heavy weapon will absorb recoil energy to move the weapon before it can move the shooter.
This should be taken into account in ArmA 3. The weapon mass and the soldier body mass, a hinge point for the buttstock or handgrip of the firearm and the recoil energy. A light handgun will turn in the hand and then move the arm (absorbing recoil). A rifle will recoil backwards and turn at the shoulder as the hinge. A higher stance increases the momentum and recoil will move farther up than shooting prone, which is basically a straight impulse backwards. Let's neglect the fact that not every rifle stock is directly behind the center of the recoiling mass.
To not make this a mathematical nightmare, just assume the calculus is already done and recoil is set manually.
Now let's take a look at accuracy on distance.
The usual combat engagement distance is about 200m and less. Nowadays most wars are asymmetrical, so one force outnumbers the other. In this case, the combat distance increases for the "superior" power and decreases for the "guerilla" force. This is proportional. If the guerillas attack, the regular army is forced to fight in close proximitry, if the regular forces fight, they try to keep distance. This was not the case in world wars. The distances were greaterr than today, 300m+ were not unusual for a common infantry man with open sights (!).
Firing a single shot is highly accurate, firing in fast succession reduces the effective range due to time to aim and recoil.
Firing fully automatic further reduces effective range to <100m.
Supported shots increase the effective range up to the projectile effective range (beyond that the accuracy decreases exponentially, mostly due to subsonic speeds, for example 7,62x51 drops below sonic speed at 700-800m, 1000m with special long range loads).
Shooting supported at the max. effective range is therefore a matter of your "cone of fire" generated by recoil and time to aim. While you might hit your target at 100m without any problems, the spread increases over distance, due to the inherited accuracy of weapon and ammo and aiming errors, movement while the bullet is in the barrel.
Point of the recoil request is vertical climb of a weapon after each shot.
Simple solution: do not make the weapon recoil vertically, make it recoil within a small cone and have it return to almost the same point of aim. In close quarters, you will still hit your target, on longer distances, you have to time your shots with the automatic return to battery. You could still use your mouse to speed up the process, but the next shot will return to the "corrected" point of aim, which will increase the cone of fire. This is realistic, as you adjust your stance/grib/aim out of the optimal position to squeeze another bullet out. Timing your shots won't change the point of aim, but takes a tad longer. You have to balance out your need for higher rate of fire (in semi auto) or accuracy. All that we have now is too much of a climb reducing the effective use of firearms on usual distances, a follow up shot at 200m with a 5,56x45 is not too difficult, if you know the drills.
If the target audience for this game is the DayZ community / casual adverserial player, there is no need for us OFP-fans to expect a simulation. If the goal is to make this a military simulation without being VBS, there is nothing wrong with proper weapon handling and firing drills.
Anachoretes, you just agreed. Aiming is more important than recoil. Focus on the one thing you can influence. The recoil is always there. You have to properly hold the gun and there is no issue to deal with.
Are we still discussing recoil or how easy/difficult shooting is?
I don't know why (ex)military folks think recoil is OK in ArmA. It isn't.
Firing a weapon is pretty simple: pull the trigger. Everything that comes after the bullet has left the barrel is set by the actions before taking the shot: stance, support, aiming and follow through.
Recoil is neglectable. It only comes into play when you plan to fire follow up shots in fast succession. And unlike many of you believe, recoil is not a mystical force you have to counter. It just happens. And most weapons do have less recoil than games and movies made you believe.
A 5,56mm has little recoil, nothing to worry about. Follow up shots are easy and fast, even unsupported. With 7,62mm you have to "work" a bit more to get the rifle back on target, but using your mouse to do so is the worst possible mechanic ever invented for adverserial game play. This has nothing to do with a military simulation, it was meant for balancing firearms against other makes and models. A simulation should make it realistic, not "fair".
Firing a .50 BMG standing, unsupported might look cool, but is highly ineffective. Recoil energy is about 100-120 Joule. This feels like bumping into the local club bouncer (not advisable) in a fast walk. The energy response will be much higher and surpassed that of the felt recoil of a .50BMG without muzzle brake.
So the player needs to think before shooting. Which stance is advisable, where is cover and/or concealment, how far is the target away, is it within effective range, is the weather a factor, what type of target, one shot or suppressive fire?...
Only then you get into position and prepare for the shot. You will have to control your breathing (not holding your breath!), slowing down your heart beat (relaxing), concentrate on aiming and trigger pull, follow through and realigning the sight, repeat as necessary.
This can be done either under "peaceful" conditions or under combat stress. The process is the same and automated by many hours on the range and live fire drills.
If you want to deal with all aspects of firing a weapon you have a mini game.
Just concentrating on the least controlled factor of the shot is simply stupid.
After the weapon has been fired it will return to its former point of aim with a small offset. But you don't have to use your mouse to compensate for fully automatic fire. The direction the barrel points in while the bullet is on it's way through the barrel will define the actual point of aim. And the cone of fire eventually results in larger and larger groups on distance.
There is absolutely no need to make the weapon rise unrealistically to make it "difficult" to shoot. Just use the realistic aspects of firing a weapon and you'll have a simulation.
Sadly, many players never fired real weapons but still suggest their "experiences" for realistic weapon handling. Military training is not always a proof of proper shooting skills. Not everyone is born a sniper or 11B with 20+ years of clandestine operation experience in tours from WW1 to WW3.
Just as everybody thinks of themselves as good car drivers, the streets tell a different story.
In the end, it all comes down to a good engine to deal with weapon weight, bulk, (barrel) length, caliber, muzzle velocity, bullet weight and energy. The character has a weight and is not a dead rag doll that only holds the weapon with the tips of his thumb and index finger.
But this feature request is full of BS and false statements that is is pretty difficult to give the Devs a proper overview what this is all about. So who knows what they might change.
People forget that this is not an ego-shooter where your "skills" in firing a weapon while rocket jumping beats the high score.
The scope of this game is the tactical and strategical element of modern warfare, mainly infantry combat.
So there is no need to make it difficult to aim or shoot, because it isn't. Everybody can shoot a weapon and with proper training you can do much more with a firearm than shooting bulls-eye targets in a static, relaxed yet competitive environment.
This is about combat engagements on distances from point blank to 2,5km, depending on the weapon used.
Recoil management is always part of the muscle memory. It is a reflex so to speak. Aiming, however is not. How does this work in a game?
Easy: All you have to do is aim properly and pull (click) the trigger at the best possible time. Rinse and repeat.
The game will take control of the "human" body as you don't have to move into the shooting stance yourself, you let your avatar do the work. So why do some people insist on recoil management, if they sit in front of a screen and press buttons instead of low crawling through tall grass in the middle of a firefight?
While other games focus on "fair play" and balancing, because in real life every arms has the exact same equipment and specifications, start at the same time, have the same distance between them and their goal and need to score points to advance, this game tries to be as arcady as possible to make you believe the world is unfair and not everybody can has the same weapon or advantage. This is fiction, mate. We do not want equality, we want dirty realism.
That requires a different skill set beyond who can move the mouse the fastest across his mouse pad, it is not about who has the best graphics card to reduce the scene to wire frames and low res textures to gain advantage. This is about who can outsmart the opponent and use the environment to their advantage. No one wants to fight his in-game body with simple and trivial things as recoil.
If we would fight gravity in real life as you suggest fighting a sudden force, we would all look like body builders on 'roids.
Now lets keep this topic to people that actually want a military simulation and not a sequel to CoD "Press X to be awesome" type of games. If you need a casual game to just steam off, go play BF, CoD, MoH, CS, Minecraft or pocket billard.
Thank you for your cooperation.
@Anachoretes: An RPG does not have a recoil. Whatever...
Good shooters separate from bad shooters by their way of shooting.
Shooting from the hip puts you into the latter category. Shooting from the hip without crosshairs is difficult if you set your aiming deadzone to the max (if it is fixed someday).
Playing without a magical crosshair and a good recoil/dispersion system for weapons will reduce the chances of hitting far away targets (+25m) efficiently.
And hip shooting is a training issue. With some hours on the range you can increase the chances dramatically.
But this is pointless as you don't want to play a monkey snackbar simulator (firing your PKM from the hip with ammo belt wrapped around your arm and shouting at your enemy doing jumping while jacks wearing a funny hat)
Firearms in games are almost always broken...for "balancing" reasons.
Recoil is a method of making weapons difficult to use in an adversarial environment. Given the fact ArmA 3 is supposed to be a military simulation, recoil should be a no-brainer.
Using proper stance and shooting techniques (maybe adjustable and proportional to the skill slider?) the weapon returns to the former point of aim.
The shooter speaks of natural point of aim (NPA). There is an offset to your point of aim after shooting and you might not be able to fire another round at the exact same spot, but the difference between initial point of aim and the follow-up POA is, depending on the weapon used, way smaller than most games makes the player believe.
With a 9x19mm handgun you can double tap targets at 25m and have two shots within 50mm and less. Firearms with higher recoil forces do not always kick up the barrel. It depends on the weapon and recoil management of the shooter.
However, you will get used to the recoil and counter the effect without losing accuracy. A .45ACP has higher recoil forces due to higher projectile weight and is not as easily controlled as a 9x19. I am not talking about .50AE, which does kick up the gun even in trained hands.
Velocity does not increase recoil per se. A 5,56x45 is easily controlled in semi-auto and bursts do not cause you to lose sight of the target. Full-auto is only advisable in CQB encounters, since a trained soldier will use single shots to place precise shots where they count. Burst modes (2 or 3 rounds) are not used much or only in close combat scenarios.
Weight of the weapon significantly affects recoil. Inertia is a key factor. More mass needs more energy to be moved. A heavy rifle will absorb more of the recoil forces before the shooter is affected. Try shooting a snub-nosed titanium framed .44 Magnum with aluminium sleeved barrel, because "light is the new black"... Kids, do not try that at home!
In a prone supported position, recoil is lateral. The weapon does not kick or "hop" even when fired off a bipod. With a good and stable shooting platform, you can observe the impact through your scope. Most games make you believe you are "moved" off target, just to reduce the follow-up hits that would be possible.
However, shooting an EBR chambered 7,62x51 in full automatic on more than 50m is like watching Hellen Keller play basket ball with Steve Wonder. Entertaining and sad at the same time.
Back in the days, when quantity was better than quality, you only had to throw more bullets in the direction of the enemy because he might reconsider taking cover by those "arguments". In Vietnam the average engagement distance was below 50m. And still most soldiers were not able to hit a standing training target at 25m. Lack of training, no time for proper instruction and so on.
Now the distances significantly increased, because your average insurgent live in a wast countryside with long lines of fire.
What has that to do with recoil you might ask ?
It's all about training and knowledge of your firearm. One does not simply shoot full auto because you can, but because you must. Recoil management is not off the table, it is a thin red line. Most weapons do fire without much recoil under controlled conditions and within reasonable boundaries. Forcing the player to counter even the recoil of one single shot is punishment. Being forced to counter excessive use of full automatic fire is realism.
Don't forget that a slight movement of the barrel at the moment of firing has severe effects over distance. That's why fully automatic fire is sort of precise and controllable on short ranges and way off target at longer range.
No need to make a weapon unrealistic to hide poor game mechanics/ballistics.
Thanks for reading Mr. Smartarse comment of the day.
@Streaks: The remark about the shooting skills is not an offense to the soldiers. It is a lack of training because the Army needed soldiers on the ground fast and did not really put much into training.
As I wrote earlier, recoil should be reduced to a simple mechanic: timing.
You fire one shot, the weapon recoils realistically and will return to almost the same point of aim as before. If you fire a follow-up shot while the weapon returns to zero, you will gradually lose your accuracy, as the weapon does not move back to the NPA.
That will make shooting weapons with some discipline precise and punishes firing like a mad man (which can also be a tactic for suppressing the opponent).
The time it takes for the weapon to return to zero depends on two things: weight and bulkiness. A heavy weapon, once brought out of battery, will need more effort to get to the initial POA. This is, however, an automated action that does not require user input. With some training, you could still accelerate the realigning.
A bulky weapon can not be handled as easy as a compact firearm.
Sights can be a factor too. It is way easier to aim with a holo/reflex/optical gun sight than with iron sights. So using iron sights will take a bit more time to realign the front post with your rear sight. To be realistic, everything else should be blurred, but no one wants that, eh?
I am talking about <1sec for a heavy hitter and high caliber handgun to get back to the NPA.
That way we have a realistic recoil and aiming mechanic without the user dealing with recoil beyond the soldiers abilities to do that automatically.
Don't generalize 12,7x99mm ammunition. Not every sniper rifle or machine gun is loaded with AP rounds. Some use standard Ball projectiles (FMJ), match grade projectiles (BTHP), SLAP(T)(saboted light armour penetrator) rounds or MP (multi-purpose) (e.g. Mk211Mod0).
5,56x45 is a bad penetrator. Unless you are talking about the Mk262 and advanced 5,56 loads. The standard M885 ball is deflected by brush and some soft covers.
The AP variants with tungsten carbide penetrators are lacking stopping power (overpenetrating) and the Mk262 is a hybrid that tries to make things better. But the caliber itself was a mistake, hence the switch to 7,62x51 and .45 in regard to handguns.
The 6,5Grendel is slightly better but reduces magazine capacity due to the cartridge size.
Most important is the energy density. There is some reason for 4,6x30 and 5,7x28mm weapons. They lack stopping power but have a high sectional density compared to other calibers.