Supressed 5.56mm- Way to powerful?

})FA|Snake · Jul 22, 2004

those prices are for the gun and supressor combined

edit: missed the $200 one, btw that site also lists the Colt M16a2 as being 16.5k USD, so ya I'd call 200 negligible

(SDS)benmcl · Jul 22, 2004

$200 for one gun is negligible. X 25,000 units, well...

keihaswarrior · Jul 22, 2004

LOL, you can't look at websites for normal consumers to figure out what they cost the pentagon. The bare bones M16 only costs the military $500. A suppressor would be even cheaper. That kind of cost is nothing when the thermal sights and scopes cost upwards of $10,000 - $20,000.

It is safe to say that the military doesn't neglect suppressors due to the cost. The suppressors for the FAMAS, M4, and M16A4 are not realistic right now.

source (scroll down to the bottom): http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/military/1998/9/army_wonder_weapon/print.phtml

Arethusa · Jul 23, 2004

Snake13 said:
those prices are for the gun and supressor combined

edit: missed the $200 one, btw that site also lists the Colt M16a2 as being 16.5k USD, so ya I'd call 200 negligible

Bull****. An M16 does not cost more than $1000. In fact, they cost around $800 or less (keihas' figure of $500 does not surprise me at all) for the military, and a suppressor's going to run $3-400 for an assault rifle. Noreover, suppressors are not soldier proof. Give one to an untrained, undisciplined soldier and you will get back, within one day, a rifle that costs 50-80% more and does not work because he's jammed the thing. They're expensive, they require more care than a standalone rifle, they're expensive— now outfit a million soldiers to fight a big war and see how much you like your budget.

Also, ecale, if the M4 does use the same ballistics as the M16, you have to admit that that is not good. Forget the trivial issues that other people have raised with the pack; that one is actually kind of significant.

ecale3 · Jul 23, 2004

I know it uses the same ballistics as the M16 (well, i knew it was the same as one of the AR's already in-game). I didn't need you guys to tell me. However if i remember correctly there is very little difference at most INF ranges beteen an M4 and an M16 ballistics wise. Doing custom ballistics for weapons that have such a negligable difference inside of 300m would be silly and time consuming.

If you can make a case that there is a large difference in performance between the weapons at ranges of 300 or less meters then MAYBE we'll do the adjustment.

geogob · Jul 23, 2004

Ecal is right. The workload of modelling complexe balistics in INF, with its 0 to 300 m fighting range, is unjustified. It is not justified to model the ballistics of similar type of rifles with the same ammo individually for this range.

On another engine, with larger maps (> 1000m), now it would be totally justified, not with INF 2.9.

Before saying things like "that one is actually kind of significant", you got to put things into perspective. Yes it is significant, but is it significant in the actual Infiltration point of view?

mat69 · Jul 23, 2004

Beside the ShootingRanges and maybe Arid and RTK - maps that are played all the time on the severs - you aren't going to encounter many maps which would make use of distances over 400m. And as I've experienced the recoil of the M4 is larger than the M16's recoil. So I don't think there will be a problem online or even offline. For me realism is not ONE part of a weapon but the weapon at all, the whole feeling. So many people wrote about whoring the M4 before it was actually whored and I don't think that it will be whored in the future. CampersDaz whored the M93F, the next round he whored the MicroUzi and then, then he died.

What I want to tell you is that you shouldn't look always at the data sheets of the things in INF but rather at the overall result.

Edit: Yes, actually crossposted by geogob. :lol:

Hey I'm opening so much tabs in my browser that it takes ages to read them all.

geogob · Jul 23, 2004

tabed browsing is a blast!

ant75 · Jul 23, 2004

And to close on the price/efficiency matter, you guys are talking as if the priority of every government was to have the most efficient army possible. Where i live, the police doesn't even have semi automatic pistols, maybe you can call my government stupid, but i like to think the money is used for something else.
Really, it's ok with me if you want weapons to be more balanced, but just admit it.

})FA|Snake · Jul 23, 2004

Where i live, the police doesn't even have semi automatic pistols, maybe you can call my government stupid, but i like to think the money is used for something else.

Many cops prefer revolvers to semi-autos, they're much easier to carry. If your living in a town where you expect you'll never have to fire your gun uprading to a semi-auto that is more of a pain to carry around all the time wouldn't make the top of the list.

to do a brief summary I think at the very least we need the following changes
-Supressed Rifles need to be way louder if they're using super-sonic ammo
-I suspect that the added supressor length is not be added to the weapon collision area, supressors add a good deal of length to a rifle (or pistol/smg) and I suspect this may be a large reason for their restricted military use as well.

Arethusa · Jul 23, 2004

They don't really add much length. Just take a look at the size of the M4/M16 QD suppressor. Thing's not very big at all. Relative to a pistol, yes, but pistols already have more collision than they should (read: none). Given that collision distances are already screwy on everything (though none so notoriously as the shotgun), I'd say it's hardly a priority. I'd realy prefer the team moved on the nightmare that is UT99.

As for sound, well, yes, they should be, but at this point, I'm hard pressed to really care. They have a negligable impact on the game as it is.

messe · Jul 23, 2004

Suppressors do not slow the bullet down dramatically. A super sonic bullet remains super sonic. A suppressor only allows the gases to expand before exiting the barrel, that reduction in pressure reduces the BANG to a pop. As for suppressor length, it should be 3x or more the barrel volume. This puts them at about 3x barrel Dia and about 1/2 the length of the barrel. That is rough guess, you can do the math if you like. Thanks for your time.

NTKB · Jul 23, 2004

If you want my opinion I wish everyone used the damn supressors. Its too noisy without them

Arethusa · Jul 23, 2004

[nMp]Messe said:
Suppressors do not slow the bullet down dramatically. A super sonic bullet remains super sonic. A suppressor only allows the gases to expand before exiting the barrel, that reduction in pressure reduces the BANG to a pop. As for suppressor length, it should be 3x or more the barrel volume. This puts them at about 3x barrel Dia and about 1/2 the length of the barrel. That is rough guess, you can do the math if you like. Thanks for your time.

Suppressors do not actively slow bullets at all. Integral suppressors with ported barrels do. Suppressors with outmoded bullet wipes do. These are rare occurrences. The kind of suppressor that you can just attach to the end of a weapon will hardly ever negatively affect bullet performance.

Furthermore, your figures about suppressor volume are plain wacky.

MP_Duke · Jul 23, 2004

The M4 is using the FAMAS ballistics not the M16. And when it's suppressed, it's using the FAMAS suppressed ballistics.
The reason i don't use my own ballistics is because i think it's ok given the circumstances. And also, i want them to be compatible with yurch's bulletsounds.

Arethusa · Jul 23, 2004

Wouldn't it have made a bit more sense to go with the SG551's ballistics (though I'm guessing you went with the FAMAS because it has both suppressed and unsuppressed models)?

MP_Duke · Jul 23, 2004

i just checked the ballistic classes. You guys will have a ball with this one. Apparently, the FAMAS, M16, and SIG ballistics have exactly the same characteristics except the SIG does 5% less damage. Here are the variables that distinguish the ballistics:

[FAMAS]
MaxRange=32400.000000
EffectiveRange=19800.000000
BulletWeight=2.500000
Damage=40.000000
INFDamageType=FAMAS
GAirNeg=-1.752750
GAirRes=0.999956
Zero=(Pitch=14)
speed=39600.000000

[FAMAS suppressed]
Damage=35.000000
INFDamageType=FAMASSub

[M16]
MaxRange=32400.000000
EffectiveRange=19800.000000
BulletWeight=2.500000
Damage=40.000000
INFDamageType=M16
GAirNeg=-1.752750
GAirRes=0.999956
Zero=(Pitch=14)
speed=39600.000000

[SIG551]
MaxRange=32400.000000
EffectiveRange=19800.000000
BulletWeight=2.500000
Damage=35.000000
INFDamageType=SIG551
GAirNeg=-1.752750
GAirRes=0.999956
Zero=(Pitch=14)
speed=39600.000000

Have fun

(SDS)benmcl · Jul 23, 2004

Grabs a large drink, an oversize bag of chips and sits in comfy arm chair. This should be better then TV.

Arethusa · Jul 23, 2004

Hah. Well, that is amusing. At least I feel vindicated in agreeing that ballistic modelling ultimately meaningless in an engine as stupidly imprecise as UT99.

NoFate · Jul 24, 2004

Then I'd say SS did a good job for having such an imprecise engine to work with.

And for the suppressors in INF, I think the effect simulates their RL utilization well. If someone is shooting at you with a suppressed firearm, you don't hear the point of origin, the sonic crack is the last thing on your mind when you hear bullets whizzing by, and if you don't hear them you're already dead.

- NF

Supressed 5.56mm- Way to powerful?

New Member

Why not visit us here in the real world.

New Member

We will not walk in fear.

Sniper - May be harmful to your health.

Koohii o nomimasu ka?

just fooling around

Koohii o nomimasu ka?

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

New Member

We will not walk in fear.

New Member

Banned

We will not walk in fear.

Banned

We will not walk in fear.

Banned

Why not visit us here in the real world.

We will not walk in fear.

BAD TAQUE'S ROBAR..BAD ROBAR!