An idea how to do grenades

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
F

-Freshmeat

Eternally noob
Dec 4, 2003
207
0
0
50
Denmark
Visit site
Yesterday, I walked away from a standard inf fragmentation grenade blast at roughly 2 m distance while standing up. (Knife & Nade while waiting for DTAS). I felt that it was a bit unfair, as a grenade sends out some 1000 fragments IIRC. This is of course way to expensive to model, but this morning I thought of an alternative approach to grenades.

It is very easy to calculate number of fragments per square meter as a function of distance. A human has a cross-section of roughly the same. So you could do a few traces to determine if there is cover between the pawn and the blast, and use that as a base for determining how many fragments would hit the pawn on the average, and add or subtract a random number to get the actual number of fragments hitting the pawn. A further refinement would be a damage falloff based on distance.

I think this could be worth looking into as an alternative to area effect damage or using a lot of traces to model the effect.

-Freshmeat
 
Rostam

Rostam

PSN: Rostam_
May 1, 2001
2,807
0
0
Leiden, Holland
I hated blast grenades, since going prone at about 5 meters while being below the grenade (like being on some stairs) still wouldn't save your life (edit: while I do believe you should survive this I mean). Between this and that, I prefer the regular grenades even though they are kinda weak. I'm not sure what your suggestion is so I can't say too much about that. But in my simple mind keeping the grenades they are and increasing the damage of every piece of shrapnell would be the easiest and probably most effective thing to do
 
Last edited:
sir_edmond

sir_edmond

In my own world
Aug 12, 2003
606
0
16
Boston
Visit site
what we need is a blockable[meaning walls effect it] 5 (or what ever this numberis)m killzone Becuase with these nades you can be right ontop of a nade and still live, Ill use geo as proof. :)
 
yurch

yurch

Swinging the clue-by-four
May 21, 2001
5,781
0
0
USA, Maryland.
Visit site
-Freshmeat said:
It is very easy to calculate number of fragments per square meter as a function of distance. A human has a cross-section of roughly the same. So you could do a few traces to determine if there is cover between the pawn and the blast, and use that as a base for determining how many fragments would hit the pawn on the average, and add or subtract a random number to get the actual number of fragments hitting the pawn. A further refinement would be a damage falloff based on distance.
Click to expand...
Traces, as you probably know, are straight lines. In order to properly check for partial cover, you're going to need quite a fair deal of them. This is doable, given some creative optimizations.
Thing is, I wouldn't want to assign a damage val based on straight up coverage. Shrapnel has poor penetration, and the lightest of kevlar we carry should be able to stop it easily. That 5m 'kill radius' is probably bullshit, that all-too-quoted stat is from field manuals from the sixties or seventies. What would be nice to have is an accurate shrapnel count, and more know-how of how exactly they go off. (edit: HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT!) I doubt it's a spherical effect either, from what I understand they tend to go 'up' from the blast's proximity to the ground. Glass, gravel, and other assorted loose shit can probably get flung at dangerous velocities as well.
 
Last edited:
Logan6

Logan6

TC Vet
Dec 23, 2003
601
0
16
Well, from what I've read in field manuals and such is that about 300 fragments are tossed out in the blast. But as Yurch said, your also going to get gravel and other **** tossed out as well. I think the grenades are waaayyyy too weak in this game. When CNN was covering the start of the Iraq war, they showed a soldier tossing a grenade into a courtyard. The blast was immense, and tossed up a huge black cloud of smoke. Far greater explosion than shown in game. Wish I could find a clip of it.

Since were on weakness in game, some of the recoil of weapons is still pretty weak as opposed to real life (AKM, .50 Robar). And I still don't believe that a .50 magnum rifle could have a .5 MOA. The massive kick alone would destroy that. And the minimi has too much kick. Too much balancing going on in the game as opposed to realism.
 
sir_edmond

sir_edmond

In my own world
Aug 12, 2003
606
0
16
Boston
Visit site
yurch said:
That 5m 'kill radius' is probably bullshit, that all-too-quoted stat is from field manuals from the sixties or seventies.
Click to expand...

If the scrapnel dosent kill you, you would be taken out of action, then again i am pretty sure the explosion it self would do damage close enough. having a nade go off under your feetand not die ingame isnt exactly realistie either.

Logan6 said:
And I still don't believe that a .50 magnum rifle could have a .5 MOA. The massive kick alone would destroy that.
Click to expand...

The robar is a sniper rifle, not an automatic, having a huge recoil woundnt affect its accracy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yurch

yurch

Swinging the clue-by-four
May 21, 2001
5,781
0
0
USA, Maryland.
Visit site
siredmond said:
If the scrapnel dosent kill you, you would be taken out of action, then again i am pretty sure the explosion it self would do damage close enough. having a nade go off under your feetand not die ingame isnt exactly realistie either.
Click to expand...
No. If dedicated concussion grenades are considered 'nonlethal', it doesn't make sense to change this for the defensive hand grenade. Disorientation, fine, but I'm not willing to consistantly kill players who are covered enough to avoid getting hit by shrapnel. Grenades are abused bad enough.

Your grenade-at-feet scenario is unfounded, considering we're discussing an unimplemented model.
 
sir_edmond

sir_edmond

In my own world
Aug 12, 2003
606
0
16
Boston
Visit site
Geo do you still have thos screenshots? Anyways im refering to the duke nades.

For the Game, Since there is a limited number of scrapnel coming from dukenades we know it is a performance issue. However I am willing to bet that you will *not* be combat ready after taking a nade at 5m with nothing but a IIIa vest. Remember death in INF is not only death but lack of combat effectiveness.

Edit: Defensive handgrenades are far from nonleatal ;) But the explosion would still work in a line of sight system.


On a side note, how bug of an explosion does 6.5 oz of composition B yield.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yurch

yurch

Swinging the clue-by-four
May 21, 2001
5,781
0
0
USA, Maryland.
Visit site
siredmond said:
For the Game, Since there is a limited number of scrapnel coming from dukenades we know it is a performance issue. However I am willing to bet that you will be combat ready after taking a nade at 5m with nothing but a IIIa vest.
Click to expand...
I'm going to assume you meant the opposite, try to be more clear. We've got players taking penetrating hits of 5.56 to the chest and still fighting, it wouldn't make sense to make what equates to low-velocity shotgun pellets to kevlar protected areas disproportunately more effective. Right now grenades are practically more effective than direct fire.

Why don't we just sell out entirely, and toss in some older 40mm's without the 15m fuse.

Edit: Defensive handgrenades are far from nonleatal ;) But the explosion would still work in a line of sight system.
Click to expand...
What? Of course they are, the M67 is a defensive hand grenade. They are called such because of the shrapnel's ability to travel further than the throwing range. (prompting an inclination to use it defensively and behind cover)
 
Rostam

Rostam

PSN: Rostam_
May 1, 2001
2,807
0
0
Leiden, Holland
Well, after some experience with explosions, I don't see how a grenade's explosion would kill you in a situation where its shrapnell wouldn't. As easy as that, it makes more sense to focus on shrapnell.

To add to what yurch said, grenades are most often used in a direct contact situation (for lack of better words from my part). Not sure why, probably because it's faster than reloading, the way you don't need to aim and the way you can't throw a grenade around the corner without exposing yourself. Then there are the 40mm grenades that are even worse, IMO.
 
sir_edmond

sir_edmond

In my own world
Aug 12, 2003
606
0
16
Boston
Visit site
Come to think of it, I found the nades that used UT falk quite nice, with the exeption of seeing ut flak everywhere. It bounced and covered a good amount of area. Would be good too if the flak moved faster...

UT flak is as close to scrapnel as we will get in this engine imo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Logan6

Logan6

TC Vet
Dec 23, 2003
601
0
16
Actually, Im working on a new M67 right now. I ditched the code in infc_shrapnel and rewired it to infc_ballisticproj :p . Its much nicer with 300 frags coming off of the grenade. Still, it was a lot less deadly than I would have thought. I gave the grenade a little more energy in the casualty ( 5 feet) and blast radius (10 feet). I figure if your within 5 feet of the grenade when it goes off you should be dead. This usually works. Soldiers outside of the blast radius may take a shrap or two of shrapnel ( or more !!). Testing it though, it seems to hit more trees and walls than anything else and half the shrap goes into the ground. But its still better than the old grenade.

One problem I have noticed in the game though is that when I detonate the grenade, only a few marks show up on the wall, and it seems to be on only one section of a wall. ???. Engine? Lag? Haven't figured that one out yet.
Also, a lot of the spawned chunks seem to pool around the grenade after the blast.

Well, I'll release it soon.
 
zeep

zeep

:(
Feb 16, 2001
1,741
1
36
Visit site
Having >14 people on a server ( seldom for dtas i know ) makes firing full auto almost like single shots. How would a grenade with 300 projectiles make the bandwidth react?

bit OT; Why does Inf seem to be the only game out there that has so much trouble with this? Is UT bandwidth really that crap? I remember playing Dod ( Hl1 ) and never had that problem. Iirc not in any other game but Inf have i experienced lag that makes full auto slow motion when there are over +/- 12 players, in a reasonable size map.
 
Rostam

Rostam

PSN: Rostam_
May 1, 2001
2,807
0
0
Leiden, Holland
Logan, any way to make the shrapnel that goes in to the ground bounce back up? Would come closer to what happens. And I'm still against blast radius :p
Keep experimenting, you might come with something good. But I'll be honest and say the direction you are heading towards now isn't one I like.
 
Logan6

Logan6

TC Vet
Dec 23, 2003
601
0
16
Well, unfortunately from what I saw in the old grenade as I was testing it out was that almost all of the blast went up at 45 degrees and more and so had little if any effect. All most all of the grenades effect seemed to be from blast radius only.
In the new grenade Im working on, shrapnel vector for now is completely random cause I don't know of any good formulas for dispersion and I don't like the old one that was being used. I've only been able to find one video on the internet and it was a soldier dropping a grenade in a washing machine :).
Believe me, there is blast radius. It blew the washing machine to kingdom come. There wasn't any part left standing. Right now I've changed crit blast to 3 feet and total radius to 8 feet. That seems about right from what I've seen. All other damage is due only to shrapnel.
As for the 300 projectiles and bandwidth, I don't know how its going to effect it. We'll see if anyone wants to host this new grenade. I've made it as real as I possibly can, so its not like its that deadly. I'm more after realism than anything else.

Also working on the M1 Shotgun with 8.33mm x 8 Buckshot.
 
Rostam

Rostam

PSN: Rostam_
May 1, 2001
2,807
0
0
Leiden, Holland
I realise there is a blast radius, but when the blast kills you the shrapnell would have gotten you anyway. It's difficult to determine the blast radius though, so therefor I think the best would be by making a good shrapnell system. Better to aim for perfection than for average.

From my little experience with explosives, just 10 grams of any modern explosive has enough power to completely blow up most small household items. Don't know how much there is in a m67, but I am guessing atleast 10 times what I've used. Put some metal around it and you do have quite a bit of force, but again nothing gets destroyed by the blast that the shrapnell won't eat up as well. Atleast that is what I think happens. I'm also not very sure how deadly the blast itself is, I mean once the gasses of the grenade are outside the grenade they are free to go anywhere they want to: why bother punch through your body? But I could be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom