PDA

View Full Version : Inf needs better ballistics


Logan6
10th Sep 2004, 12:00 PM
I was toying around on the INF shooting range the other day, and I noticed that all of the weapons in INF shoot waaaayyyyy to flat. I thought it might be bulletsounds4, because I was able to hit one of the 500 meter targets with the Mk23 multiple times. I took off bulletsounds4 and it got slightly more realistic, as this time I only hit the 500 meter target once. This was pointing the pistol directly at the targets center at 500 meter. IRL my shots should never have reached even near that target. Probably bit the dust before they even got halfway there. So I looked around on the internet and found this program from Remington that calculates many different values such as bullet path, drop, velocity, and energy. Its amazing how NOT flat shooting rifles are. I don't know if this program can do pistols yet, haven't got that far. But it appears that the rifles in the game also shoot waayyyyy too flat. To hit one of the red men on the 500 meter range, I should have to aim about five feet above the target according to the graphs on the chart. I've always thought the weapons in this game shoot way too flat, and now I'm sure of it.

Could someone make a mutator to correct this? It would be really nice to make the ballistics in this game real. And on a secondary note, I think that some of the bullet speeds should be looked at also. I'd write a mutator if I could, but I have no idea of how to do it.

Here's the link for the program. Just hit the download link on the page.

Remington Shoot! (http://www.remington.com/ammo/ballistics/remshoot.htm)

Crowze
10th Sep 2004, 12:09 PM
You do realise that the rifles are zeroed at (IIRC) 300m? And that the shooting range markers are too short, and as such can't be relied upon?

Logan6
10th Sep 2004, 12:14 PM
Yeah, but things still seem to shoot way too flat. Like why was my pistol, held level, able to hit a target near the center at 500 meters? With BS4 taken off, it went a little lower, maybe a foot. Been getting capped by pistols at long range in the game of late and am beginning to wonder. I was shooting with the PSG-1 on the range, level, at 500 meters, and hitting the targets at near center. I recalculated for the 300 meter zero, and now at 500 yards on the graph the bullet will drop 44.25 inches in trajectory. So almost a 4 foot drop in trajectory.
As close as I can get to the .45 on this program is the .44 magnum and it would have dropped over 200 inches at 500 meters. So there is no way I could ever have gotten even near the target with the .45 level.

This program can calculate a lot of other variables too, such as velocity, time to target, energy, and wind deflection.

Some people bitch about snipers on the maps. Well, making the balistics real will make sniping more realistic and harder. Especially for those dam pistol snipers! :rolleyes:

gal-z
10th Sep 2004, 01:38 PM
We need a shooting range with real ranges... And yeah, inf does need better ballistics.
The problem with the remington software is that it doesn't have the barrels and bullet types that we need.

Logan6
10th Sep 2004, 01:46 PM
Well, I think it gets pretty close to the bullet types, its just that the barrel lengths are set to 24 inches. Now if someone had the full version of this program *hint*hint*, maybe we could calculate for different barrel lengths. :)

Considering the shorter barrel lengths of the assault rifles, I think the bullet drop would be even more extreme. Also, the action of the suppressors on the bullets velocity should be considered.

mbs357
10th Sep 2004, 01:49 PM
.45 auto is alot different from .44 magnum, I'm sure. o_O

gal-z
10th Sep 2004, 01:49 PM
You also can't change the barrel's twist rate.
As for ammo, a difference as small as 2 grains in bullet weight makes considerable difference in ballistics, not to mention a change in the bullet's shape/material.

Logan6
10th Sep 2004, 01:50 PM
Lol, yeah but it was as close as I could get. Im betting the .45 has a lot more drop than that.

@Gal-z : Well, we only use one type of bullet in this game for each different caliber. Surely we could all agree on the drop, trajectory, velocity, energy, etc. for one bullet type per caliber. Like for the .308 in the chart I put in for the match .308 hollow point. Yeah, we probably use steel jacketed military ball in the game, but the path would still be pretty close to it. They had a couple of other bullets in the list to calculate but I wasn't sure exactly what type they were.

salad
10th Sep 2004, 04:20 PM
Did you not understand Crowze when he said "And that the shooting range markers are too short, and as such can't be relied upon?"

Here, I'll quote it again for you.

And that the shooting range markers are too short, and as such can't be relied upon?

You either just dismissed a fact with a "yeah, but..." or lacked the reading comprehension to grasp what he said. Since you went on using those 500m markers as Truth I'm leaning towards the latter. Then you go on using yards, meters, inches, and other measurements, all mixed up, saying you recalculated. Post your calculations. What conversion factors did you use? What formulas?

Then you used a .44 magnum as a reference for .45, which at least you admitted, but it's still fairly asinine, don't you think? They're quite different rounds, which I'm sure you know, or will at least say you know, claiming you own a dozen guns that fire each caliber. Then there's this: "Surely we could all agree on the drop, trajectory, velocity, energy, etc. for one bullet type per caliber". Per caliber? No. Per weapon, yes.

So, in summary, according to a program you found on the internet you calculated the bullet drop for a gun that's in the game based on a different barrel length, different caliber, using dubious distances and measurements on a shooting range that has markers that are mis-marked and came up with some answer you now claim as Gospel to prove the ballistics in-game are off? Way to go Einstein.

Derelan
10th Sep 2004, 04:47 PM
Have you tried sniping with the 100m and 200m targets? You should have fun for a while as you wonder why your shots are going upwards of where you aimed them.

Logan6
10th Sep 2004, 06:02 PM
Lol, I dont even bother reading the posts of ****ing morons like you Salad.

@Derelan, actually the shots do not go high. I zeroed in with the .50 on the 100 meter target. I hit dead center aiming at the center with 5 shots. Yeah, they should have been a few inches high with that particular rifle. At 500 meters, they go lower but not near as low as they should be hitting at 500 meters. Now some people say the range is off, so what would be nice if one of the mappers could make a simple box range with one target of known measurement and the range mapped out to exact measurements. Then we could see exactly where the bullets are hitting and if the ballistics are correct or not.

Derelan
10th Sep 2004, 06:20 PM
Lol, I dont even bother reading the posts of ****ing morons like you Salad.
Then why do you post here at all? :rolleyes:


@Derelan, actually the shots do not go high. I zeroed in with the .50 on the 100 meter target. I hit dead center aiming at the center with 5 shots. Yeah, they should have been a few inches high with that particular rifle. At 500 meters, they go lower but not near as low as they should be hitting at 500 meters. Now some people say the range is off, so what would be nice if one of the mappers could make a simple box range with one target of known measurement and the range mapped out to exact measurements. Then we could see exactly where the bullets are hitting and if the ballistics are correct or not.

First of all, did you accurately enter in the barrel twist, bullet weight, barrel length, caliber, and gunpowder used? If not, then your source is quite innacurate.

Secondly, i believe when you hit the target dead-on at 500m, the target explodes.

Logan6
10th Sep 2004, 06:36 PM
Lol, Derelan, its obvious enough that your Salad, isn't it strange how you two show up together. And no, the targets don't explode. Also i'm just trying to get pretty near what the real ballistics would be like. Twist and powder used can affect the bullet only so much. The Shoot program gives an average trajectory for the average rifle and its caliber bullet. And I wouldn't mock a program that was made by a cartridge manufacturer. I think they would know what they are talking about.

So to get back to all seriousnes, is anybody else getting these results at 100 meters with the .50? Maybe somethings gone wrong with my copy, but I don't think so. Who knows. I seem to get strange results with PSG-1 also. Ballistics look way off. The results with the PSG-1 seem FAR different than that with the rifle in game. The .308 in game shoots much flatter trajectories than that shown in the shoot program.

Also, does anyone know of any other ballistics programs that are free to download other than Remingtons shoot?

edit: I was going to post a picture of the target I shot but my ftp site is down. But it was just a target with the center shot out.

salad
10th Sep 2004, 07:14 PM
That's because you're a sanctimonious, self-righteous person who specializes in specious reasoning. It seems you don't bother to read anyone's posts, not just mine. If you did, you'd understand that the target distances on the range are off. Let me repeat that for you. THE DISTANCES FOR THE TARGETS IN THE TARGET RANGE MAP ARE WRONG. Now, climb down off of your high horse, quit ignoring facts, arguments, and everyone who disagrees with you (i.e. 99% of the population) and be a man. Debate instead of dismiss, if you're able to, that is. As it is, most people see you as someone who posts just to hear themselves talk and not much better than a common troll with brown eyes. Blue, if you're a quart low that day. I just see you as an idiot who spews whatever thoughts cross your mind with little regard for fact or reality. That's why I call you on it. Oh, and no, I'm not Derelan. I have no alter-ego, so put away the tin-foil hat. I'm just me. Your worse nightmare. Now, go read up on "you're" vs. "your" a bit and cry yourself to sleep again.

geogob
10th Sep 2004, 07:14 PM
There's modification to ballistic scale in bulletsounds4 (or in RealTargets for that matter). It's set in the ini file with percentScale. Default is 60%.

If you want to test ballistics of the original Infiltration, no mutator affecting it should be running. That a pretty obvious rule, otherwise all your tests are invalid.

Lol, Derelan, its obvious enough that your Salad

ok just stfu please, if you're going to continue with stupid comments like that

I zeroed in with the .50 on the 100 meter target. I hit dead center aiming at the center with 5 shots. Yeah, they should have been a few inches high with that particular rifle

I'd say the error at 100 m for at rifle zeroed at 200 would be about less than an Inch. For a rifle zeroed at 500 m perhaps a little more than an inch.

Now how the **** do you mesure stuff with a precision under one inch in infiltration? Please explain that to me. I would like to know the resolution if your measurement, the precision and the error associated to your measurements.

If you want to go into precision, we can do that, but it's going to be on both sides... not only when you feel like it.

Since i work in a field related metrology, doing measurement of lenghts with a few nanometer precision, I'm sure we can talk for hours together on what a pain doing precise things is...

Maybe you should take out a dictionnary and check out all the words related to "approximation", "simulation" and "modelling".

Derelan
10th Sep 2004, 07:32 PM
Lol, Derelan, its obvious enough that your Salad, isn't it strange how you two show up together.

Isn't it strange how we have different tastes, i play online, we have different IPs, and different emails? If i was really that desperate to push you around, i would think of something better than registering another account and making fun of you.


So to get back to all seriousnes, is anybody else getting these results at 100 meters with the .50?

Have you really left anyone on these forums alone enough to be willing to help you? Or do you just push aside all information that disagrees with what yours shows and simply acknowledge the info that coincides with what you say?

Logan6
10th Sep 2004, 07:53 PM
blah, blah, blah.

Well, Im not going to be lured into another stupid flame war. So lets drop the insults. The post was going fine till people started flaming.

As Gal-z also said, the ballistics seem to be somewhat off. My thought with the rifle is that it is shooting too flat. Up close hard to tell. I can't find any info for the .50, so I'll talk about the .308. According to Remingtons shoot software, with the .308 at 500 meters you should get a drop of about 4 feet. The bullet appears to drop only about 2 feet or so, if that.

If anyone one else is testing, what are you getting with the PSG-1?

salad
10th Sep 2004, 08:04 PM
No flames here. I just want to know why you don't acknowledge, well, anything said by anyone else that contradicts anything you say. Why haven't you said anything about the shooting range distances being off after a few people said they were? Why haven't you given any of your calculations or methods? You'd think you'd want to in order to have others replicate your results as would happen in any good science. Why haven't you discussed how you measure things as geogob requested? I'm not flaming, I just want to know the answers to these simple questions, but more than that I want to know why you never answer the question of why you never answer them.

Derelan
10th Sep 2004, 08:09 PM
blah, blah, blah.

Well, Im not going to be lured into another stupid flame war. So lets drop the insults. The post was going fine till people started flaming.


No, lets not stop what you call "flaming". Having someone disagree with you isn't something you can pass off. Before you can try to figure out your problem and have people acknowledge your suggestions, you have to realise something: you're not always going to be loved!

Here's one thing i found to always be useful; When you think someone is flaming you, ask them the question, 'why?'.

Derelan
10th Sep 2004, 08:14 PM
. According to Remingtons shoot software, with the .308 at 500 meters you should get a drop of about 4 feet. The bullet appears to drop only about 2 feet or so, if that.


Thats because the 500m target in the range isn't actually at 500m, its actually closer, so you get less drop.























Oh wait, thats been said 5 times!

Logan6
10th Sep 2004, 08:14 PM
Well, look, like I said in an earlier post, the Shoot program is just giving an average result for the info put in. I don't think it is concentrating on any one rifle, mostly just the cartridge. Hollow point will probably be somewhat different than metal jacket. Sure. But, altogether, the results of most bullets from standard rifles of that caliber will probably be about near the same trajectory. What I am saying is that in the game, the ballistics seem to shoot MUCH flatter.

Now its hard to tell up close, cause like one of you said when the bullet is actually positive in its trajectory its only so by a few inches. Its at 500 meters that things look wrong. The bullet seems to barely drop.

I think the way to tell how things are going is if someone would make a simple hallway map that is accurately measured with a measured target. Then we can pool information on what each of us is getting.

I'd do it but Im a horrible mapper. :)

Logan6
10th Sep 2004, 08:16 PM
[QUOTE=Derelan]Thats because the 500m target in the range isn't actually at 500m, its actually closer, so you get less drop.

Well, no one said it was closer, they just said it was off. Well, I think Gal-z said it all, we need a new measured range. I'd be happy with just that simple hallway I talked about. Maybe I'll try and build it.

salad
10th Sep 2004, 08:40 PM
Actually, yes, they did say they were closer. The first person to mention the range distances being wrong said it.

And that the shooting range markers are too short, and as such can't be relied upon?

Now, can you please answer the rest of my questions without dodging or ignoring them? I'm not too terribly hopeful that you will, to be honest, but I'll keep on hoping.

Derelan
10th Sep 2004, 09:29 PM
Like why was my pistol, held level, able to hit a target near the center at 500 meters?

Were you aiming above the center? I just tested it, i wasn't able to hit the center of the target at 500m with the PSG-1 unless i aimed about a target's height high. And with the pistol, i got 0 hits. Are you sure you aren't seeing previous target hits, or are you switching targets after each test?

Arethusa
10th Sep 2004, 09:38 PM
Logan, I realize that reading is difficult for you. Really, I do. But we believe in you! So please ****ing try your best.

(SDS)benmcl
10th Sep 2004, 10:06 PM
Well if you do be sure you know what scale SS is using because it is not 16 uu to a foot like other mods. I think it is 24 uu to the foot.

Logan6
10th Sep 2004, 10:07 PM
Well, I can see trying to be nice is pointless with you guys, obviously you did not read the post where I said I was looking for an average trajectory, like the program gives you. Not perfect.

Well, I built the new shooting range with 1 foot = 16 units. 1 meter averages about 3 feet ( no Im not looking for to the cm perfect here ). 28000 units = around 500 meters. At the end is a 5 foot tall x 2 foot wide square. I thought the mutators I had loaded may be screwing with things so I took them all out before loading the map I had built.

Took five shots at the target at around 500 meters. Not only was there no bullet drop, the shots actually went a little high ( about 6 inches or so ). So, unless Im wrong about the 16 units to a foot, something is definitely amiss.

Is anybody else getting this? ( besides the people who just came to pick a fight ). Im wondering if my copy of the game has gone bad ( though it seems unlikely since everything else is working) or if ballistics are just off.

I'd upload the map, but my FTP is down, and its pretty easy to build.

Logan6
10th Sep 2004, 10:11 PM
Well if you do be sure you know what scale SS is using because it is not 16 uu to a foot like other mods. I think it is 24 uu to the foot.

Thanks benmcl. I was wondering about that. Everyone on the posts I can find talks about 16 units to a foot. I'll try to rebuild the map with 24 units to a foot and post the results.

Though I did notice that when I took off all the mutators, the 6x scope on the PSG-1 seemed to lose about a 1/3 of its magnification. Can't figure that one out.

Logan6
10th Sep 2004, 10:15 PM
Were you aiming above the center? I just tested it, i wasn't able to hit the center of the target at 500m with the PSG-1 unless i aimed about a target's height high. And with the pistol, i got 0 hits. Are you sure you aren't seeing previous target hits, or are you switching targets after each test?

OK, no I was aiming for the center of the target with the PSG-1. On the new map I built, the same thing happened. The pistol was hitting the target when I had BS4 on, when I took it off, the pistol hit very near and got one shot on to the target. That was knocking a full clip off at it, slowly to keep steady aim. I was switching targets after I was through so no they weren't previous hits.

Hmm, maybe it is my system. Im using windows 98, I'll try this out on windows XP.

Derelan
10th Sep 2004, 10:22 PM
Well, I can see trying to be nice is pointless with you guys...
(besides the people who just came to pick a fight ).

You don't make much of an effort to sound like you didn't just come to pick a fight.

Logan6
10th Sep 2004, 10:50 PM
Well, you guys started the attack.

Anyway, I can't use INF on XP cause my ancient video card won't deal with the system. I can't tell where the bullets are hitting on the target. The hits aren't drawn. But it sounds like the ballistics are working on your system if your having to aim high to hit the target. My bullets just seem to go where I point. So I guess its something wrong with my copy of INF. I guess I'll have to try and re-download it. Thanks for the info.

salad
10th Sep 2004, 11:06 PM
But Moommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, they started it!

What are your complete system specs? Try with a fresh install of Infiltration 2.9 and no mutators at all. Find a server running the shooting range and try it online or get an admin to change to it for a bit for testing.

I'm happy that you've made a baby step to stop ignoring everything that contradicts what you say, by the way. Even if it is just to acknowledge that it works for us and nothing else. Baby steps, Bob, baby steps.

geogob
10th Sep 2004, 11:22 PM
Logan, did you put me on ignore or do you intentionally ignore my post?

Listen, no one disagrees with you on the fact that INF's ballistics are not perfect. You are probably right about this. Where _I_ disagree with you is on two major points: your method of evaluation of the ballistics and your initial statement that "Inf needs better ballistics".

Now, I _suggest_ you to recheck your methods and to explain why inf needs a better ballistics. How and how much those differences between inf's ballistics and real life ballistics affect the simulation itself? Also, I would like to suggest you to keep statistics of all game you played and kill distances.

yurch
10th Sep 2004, 11:50 PM
BS4 has an adjustable bullet speed. If your pistol rounds are hitting level at 500 meters you must have the speed turned waaaay up.
The default that BS4 has (60%) drops more, not less.

(PS, guess where I got much of my ballistic info (http://www.remington.com/pdfs/rem2004_ballistics.pdf) when I converted the ballistic numbers for inf's system, it's a surprise!)

geogob
11th Sep 2004, 12:11 AM
Logan! I saved you the trouble... I just went over 80 screenshots of inf games end (of DTAS, TDM, EAS and SPEC).


Out of 87 games recorded, a total of 1876 kills have been
registered (21.56 kills per game)

|Range Kills Kills per game % of total kills |
----------------------------------------------------------|
| 10m 457 5.252874 24.360341 |
| 50m 1204 13.839080 64.179104 |
|100m 166 1.908045 8.848614 |
|100m+ 49 0.563218 2.611940 |

The 49 100+ kills have been registered on 6 unique maps.
Of those, 33 were registered on 2 unique maps, which makes 67.35%
of the 100+ kills. It makes 1.76% of the total kills registered.


Now please, explain to me again why Infiltration need better ballistics so badly?

gal-z
11th Sep 2004, 12:40 AM
You get kills at short ranges only simply because mappers don't make open ground maps, which make you take weapons that can't handle such ranges. In those big maps, you do need realistic ballistics, so these maps won't suck that bad. And, of course, make good open-ground maps.

keihaswarrior
11th Sep 2004, 03:31 AM
Wow, a lot of bs is flying around in this thread.

First, let me clear one thing up: The distances in the shooting range ARE correct. I don't know why crowze said that. INF uses 48 UU = 1 meter. The shooting range uses that scale. Also, using that scale the INF soldier is about 5'9" if he stood up straight.

You all should be a lot more polite to Logon. He hasn't really insulted you at all.

Oh, and Logon, post some real evidence instead of your subjective game experience. You should calculate the proper trajectory for the bullet, rifle, barrel etc. Then test in on the INF shooting range with no muties and keep in mind what the INF weapons are zeroed at.... I look forward to seeing your screen shots.

Nukeproof
11th Sep 2004, 06:29 AM
You all should be a lot more polite to Logon. He hasn't really insulted you at all.



I second that. Some just seem to dig up his posts, just to rip it apart. Not agreeing with his opinion or his claims is one thing, but doing a witchhunt where he brings up valid aspects presented in a decent manner is just ... whatever.

Take it easy guys

Logan6
11th Sep 2004, 12:18 PM
Thanks Gal, Keihas, Nuke. Im not looking for a fight with anyone. Some people just seem to want to attack. Just wanted to question the ballistics because they seem waayyyyy off on my game. Im not looking at it being perfect, its just nowhere near an average curve for the bullet drop. Im beginning to suspect its my copy of the game. So I've deleted INF and am going to redownload it and see what happens. I can't give screenshots right now because my FTP server with earthlink seems to be down. Lets just say that the bullets seem to have little if no drop. Shot a target on the range I made last night which was measured to 500 meters with 16 units = 1 foot. The bullets not only had no drop this time but went high by about a foot.

One strange thing I did notice is that when I got rid of all the mutators, the PSG's scope seemed to lose magnification by 1/3 or so.

@Yurch : I took BS4 off and seems to do the same thing. Then I took all the mutators off and same thing. So now I'll try a fresh download, @56k (ugh).
What exactly does the bullet speed in your .ini do? I know you have it set at 60%, so Im guessing 100% is normal speed in INF. Yeah, I see you got your stats from Remington, so now I really think something is wrong with my copy because the balistics Im seeing in game are nowhere near those in the Shoot graphs.

@Keihaswarrior : Your saying that the range isn't off, so could you tell me what the units per foot are in game? As I was telling Yurch, I've tried it on the range with vanilla inf. Same thing. Nowhere near average ballistics for a .308 round or a .45. The Remington Shoot program lets you put in your zero for the .308. I set it at 300 meters and target at 500 meters. I don't have the info for a .45, but I own one IRL so I pretty much know how it should shoot. No way should I be able to hit a target at 500 meters shooting level. I'll have to dig for some trajectory graphs for it.

@Anyone else : Is anybody else getting strange balistics where the bullets seem to hardly drop?

Psychomorph
11th Sep 2004, 01:50 PM
I shoot with my MicroUzi and Pistols at huge distances and always hit.

Logan6
11th Sep 2004, 02:30 PM
Thats what I've been noticing online of late, and why I started questioning the balistics. I keep getting pistol sniped of late, and yet when I die, I can't see anyone around for like 200 meters. So I don't know now if its just my copy or if it really is something in the game. But I erased my copy and I'm going to do a fresh download just to make sure. Of course its going to take me a couple of days at 56k :lol: .

Oh, and I screwed up when I said the scope lost 1/3 of its magnification. I forgot I had changed my shooting range map to 24 units per foot too see if it improved. Thats why the magnification changed. And making it 24 units per foot just made the bullets actually go higher than level.

keihaswarrior
11th Sep 2004, 03:01 PM
INF uses 48 UU per meter. So it is a simple conversion to get UU per foot, which comes out to be about 14.63 UU per foot. I suggest you use 48 UU per meter for your calculations and only convert to feet at the end, or else you are going to end up with rounding errors.

Nukeproof
11th Sep 2004, 03:49 PM
Loss of magnification is probably due to uninstall of RaV3.
If you still have the install of INF its not worth to re-download

Logan6
12th Sep 2004, 01:21 PM
Well, unfortunately, I lost the install in a hard drive crash, so I've got to redownload it again.