Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Registration is free! Calendar Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Search Home

Go Back   BeyondUnreal Forums > Mods > Infiltration > New Version Suggestions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 19th Jan 2004, 05:00 PM   #21
Gnam
Registered User
 
Gnam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb. 13th, 2002
Location: Yes, please.
Posts: 514
To clarify, Big Duke, I actually support the idea for more attachments. The point of my previous post was to illustrate why some people would disagree, and how it's not just a black-and-white distinction of what's realistic or unrealistic.
Gnam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jan 2004, 05:27 PM   #22
OICW
Reason & Logic > Religion
 
OICW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar. 18th, 2000
Location: New South Wales, Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,374
You can put electro optical sights on a FAMAS, but they're a bit high above the bore axis.

http://media.militaryphotos.net/phot..._congo/aap.jpg

http://media.militaryphotos.net/phot..._congo/aax.jpg
__________________


"If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America" - Nelson Mandela, at the International Women's Forum
OICW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jan 2004, 05:36 PM   #23
spm1138
Irony Is
 
spm1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug. 10th, 2001
Posts: 2,662
Quote:
For example, you propose a switch to a rail-mounted P90. Is this a true weapon, or is it just something you saw as an airsoft model which you assumed to also exist in real steal? If it is real, does such a model receive widespread standard military use, or is it just a custom variant sold to law enforcement or civilians? Show people the facts instead of bickering and then maybe people will begin to see where you're coming from.
The P90TR is a real variant. The built in sight is fine and dandy but it lacks a certain amount of wang compared to many third party reflex sights (which feature refinements like NVG settings and anti-parallax reticules).

I think the idea is that you'll buy the basic P90 as a PDW and the TR variant for your special operations units.

http://www.fnmfg.com/products/p90/p90triple.htm

My feeling is that in the next version of Inf where weapons like that exist the version with rails should be the default and the iron/built in sights should be one attachment of many.
__________________
spm1138 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jan 2004, 07:25 PM   #24
Meplat
Chock full-o-useless information
 
Join Date: Dec. 7th, 2003
Location: Phoenix,Arizona
Posts: 482
I want a "Johnny Seven O.M.A." in Infil . Talk about attachments. I'm sure someone could find ways to justify it's questionable realisim, or usefulness.

meplat-

Last edited by Meplat; 19th Jan 2004 at 07:26 PM.
Meplat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jan 2004, 08:07 PM   #25
G36
Loose Cannon
 
G36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct. 19th, 2003
Posts: 57
I don't see added attachments as a realism issue (there's always going to be arguments about what is "realistic/milspec" in the INF situation) rather as an issue of game balancing. Making 4-5 attachments per weapon multiplies the number of possible, usable weapons (in game terms) immensely and it would be a massive undertaking to balance out all these crazy permutations of modded weapons. It'd be far too likely for one weapon to become the SuperGun and be head and shoulders above the rest of the armory. Keep in mind you'd have to make the stock weapon somehow advantageous to the modded one too, otherwise no one would use it.

It'd also end up decreasing the variety of weapons. Instead of a bunch of quite different weapons (which I like) you'd end up with weapons configurable along a spectrum of difference. I like the AKMSU's clunky unsophisticated sights, the FAMAS's very enclosed ones and the P90's "point and shoot" n00b friendly circular sight. You'd lose this individualism with so many different variations upon the stock weapons.

I say add more varied and individual weapons (FAL anyone?) rather than add attachments to the ones we've already got.
G36 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jan 2004, 09:02 PM   #26
Big_Duke_06
Charlie Don't Surf!
 
Big_Duke_06's Avatar
 
Join Date: May. 25th, 2003
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 360
I don't see how more options would be more likely to make one gun the "it" gun... If anything, I think more options (assuming proper balance) makes it less likely for one gun to be the "it" gun.

As far as balance, yes, this can be an issue, but with details to work with like bulk, I think this can all be sorted out properly... Really the only attachments that I could see as altering the balance of a weapon would be scopes. And then it's a matter of bulk values to control. Seeing as how LAMs and flashlights are nearly useless in-game (more a problem with the UT engine than anything SS has or hasn't done), I don't see how adding those to nearly all weapons would hurt anything...

Fact of life is that modern weapons are being designed and built as modular systems - able to be modified to best suit the users' preferences and mission specific needs. I don't see how modeling this reduces realism.

But obviously, balance is important, too.

Matthew
Big_Duke_06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jan 2004, 09:11 PM   #27
Meplat
Chock full-o-useless information
 
Join Date: Dec. 7th, 2003
Location: Phoenix,Arizona
Posts: 482
As long as the addition of said attachments affects bulk.. I still laugh at people who hang lights, lasers, a couple lumps of optics and maybe a 37MM M203 clone off of their M forgery, then wonder why it's so damn heavy.(Especially when they add a Beta Cmag.

Someone want to do something really useful, attachment wise? Come up with an ELCAN or ACOG for the 249.

Meplat-
Meplat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jan 2004, 10:52 PM   #28
geogob
Koohii o nomimasu ka?
 
geogob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar. 11th, 2000
Location: replication{ reliable if( Role==ROLE_Authority ) Tick;}
Posts: 4,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat
Someone want to do something really useful, attachment wise? Come up with an ELCAN or ACOG for the 249.
I second that!
__________________


--
Intelligenti Pauca

--
Get RealTargets - INF_Loadlim - INF Mod Team addons
geogob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jan 2004, 11:24 PM   #29
Big_Duke_06
Charlie Don't Surf!
 
Big_Duke_06's Avatar
 
Join Date: May. 25th, 2003
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 360
I'd like to see a 1.5x ACOG implemented like the AA M4 (non-SOPMOD) - as used in the Rangers maps like Radio Tower. I.e., slight magnification through scope, regular view otherwise... For those who don't play AA, I'll try and get a screenie.

Might be just a bit unbalanced, though...

Matthew
Big_Duke_06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Jan 2004, 02:23 AM   #30
keihaswarrior
<P^R>
 
keihaswarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan. 7th, 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by G36
1) It'd be far too likely for one weapon to become the SuperGun and be head and shoulders above the rest of the armory.
2) You'd lose this individualism with so many different variations upon the stock weapons.
3) I say add more varied and individual weapons (FAL anyone?) rather than add attachments to the ones we've already got.
1) I disagree. If all the weapons can get a bunch of attachments, then they will be balanced. You would only get a super weapon if there was one gun that could have any attachment, while the rest had none.
2) No way, more variations = more individualism. Everyone would have a different taste for which sight and attachments they liked. You'd see one player with an m16+acog, another with a reflex, and another with bare irons. It would get to a point where you could identifiy the player by how they modify their weapon.
3) It would be much easier to add attachments to existing guns than to try and create an entirely new weapon that is balanced but still brings something new to the armory.
__________________

--------------========Fear the Spear=============>
Downloads:
Storm Trooper Camo
keihaswarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Jan 2004, 07:21 AM   #31
Crowze
Bird Brain
 
Join Date: Feb. 6th, 2002
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 3,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by keihaswarrior
1) I disagree. If all the weapons can get a bunch of attachments, then they will be balanced. You would only get a super weapon if there was one gun that could have any attachment, while the rest had none.
2) No way, more variations = more individualism. Everyone would have a different taste for which sight and attachments they liked. You'd see one player with an m16+acog, another with a reflex, and another with bare irons. It would get to a point where you could identifiy the player by how they modify their weapon.
3) It would be much easier to add attachments to existing guns than to try and create an entirely new weapon that is balanced but still brings something new to the armory.
1. I agree here. Bear in mind that there's only one 'activate attachment' key, so that really limits how many attachments you can have at once.
2. More attachments would give more variation, and more weapons would give more variation. I'm for having both.
3. In theory. In practice, attachments still take a lot of work to get completely right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Duke_06
I'd like to see a 1.5x ACOG implemented like the AA M4 (non-SOPMOD) - as used in the Rangers maps like Radio Tower. I.e., slight magnification through scope, regular view otherwise... For those who don't play AA, I'll try and get a screenie.

Might be just a bit unbalanced, though...

Matthew
This gives a stupid peformance hit in the UT engine. With UT2003 it's alright (I believe Red Orchestra do this) but in UT it's just not worth it.
__________________

Infiltration | Sentry Studios
Crowze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Jan 2004, 11:02 AM   #32
Big_Duke_06
Charlie Don't Surf!
 
Big_Duke_06's Avatar
 
Join Date: May. 25th, 2003
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowze
...This gives a stupid peformance hit in the UT engine. With UT2003 it's alright (I believe Red Orchestra do this) but in UT it's just not worth it.
Ah hah. Too bad. I really enjoy playing the Radio Tower map so I can use my 1.5x ACOG... Sure would be great to have in INF, but if not, I'll live... Just so long as the M4 (when released) at least has an aimpoint attachment.

Matthew
Big_Duke_06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Jan 2004, 11:44 AM   #33
Gnam
Registered User
 
Gnam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb. 13th, 2002
Location: Yes, please.
Posts: 514
I don't see a balance issue happening because most attachments are a matter of personal preference, not a matter of clear superiority. There is an aimpoint attachment for the MP5, but a lot of people prefer not to use it because the sides block your peripheal vision and the red dot blocks the front post, making it hard to make distance shots. Plus, some people just don't like em, period. Then you have scopes on all the rifles, and most people prefer irons except in specialized situations.

I think the attachments would improve balance on some weapons. For example, the FAMAS is more akward than it should be, because you can't see around the big carrying handle (in RL you could just open your other eye). Obviously, if you like the FAMAS you can get used to it with a little practice, but it's still an obstacle which is not really an issue in RL and makes an otherwise very good gun a second choice to other assault weapons in Inf. This is something which would easily be solved with an aimpoint or a 1.5x scope. It still wouldn't be the same as irons, but it would be a healthy alternative.
Gnam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Jan 2004, 04:28 PM   #34
Big_Duke_06
Charlie Don't Surf!
 
Big_Duke_06's Avatar
 
Join Date: May. 25th, 2003
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 360
So to research the 1.5x ACOG I thought was in AA, I've been playing a bit more AA lately... Anyway, it's not actually a 1.5x ACOG, it's just a 1x Trijicon Reflex amber dot. But you get the net effect of zoom with it because when you go to iron sights mode in AA, it fiddles with the FOV - similar to the effects Beppo and others are discussing in the True Scale thread at the moment. So no real magnification with the reflex, but the FOV shift makes you think so... Pretty cool - especially if we get this for INF eventually.

Oh, and I forgot how nice AA looks - the new 3D iron sights are pretty nice, actually. If my computer were just a little bit better, I'd play it a lot more.

So I guess my new request for the M4 attachment would be the Trijicon reflex amber dot...

Matthew
Big_Duke_06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Jan 2004, 08:52 PM   #35
sir_edmond
In my own world
 
sir_edmond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug. 12th, 2003
Location: Boston
Posts: 442
I thought it was a 2x scope with a red dot.
__________________
Warning: i am in my own world


"We Don't Die...we just regroup in hell"
sir_edmond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Jan 2004, 09:32 PM   #36
OICW
Reason & Logic > Religion
 
OICW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar. 18th, 2000
Location: New South Wales, Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,374
No, the Trijicon Reflex sight doesn't magnify the image. And it has an amber dot, not a red one (the Reflex 2 can come with a triangle or dot IIRC).
__________________


"If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America" - Nelson Mandela, at the International Women's Forum
OICW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Jan 2004, 10:12 PM   #37
=CreepingShadow=
Ol' CyberStalker
 
=CreepingShadow='s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr. 5th, 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 278
http://www.calssportingarmory.com/Tr...ticsReflex.htm
__________________

R.I.P. Cracwhore
=CreepingShadow= is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Jan 2004, 10:41 PM   #38
sir_edmond
In my own world
 
sir_edmond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug. 12th, 2003
Location: Boston
Posts: 442
acualy its in twopeices the acog and the acog reflex sight the scog is mounted on the handle and the reflex sight is mouted on the top rail. And to stick to the topic i say the attachments shouldbe organized by weapon then by rail or something simular.

M4A1
handle:
acog 4x
acog 2x
aimpoint
barrel:
silencer
top rail:
heatsheild
acog reflex sight
left rail:
heatsheild
flashlight
right rail:
heatsheild
(not sure what else is mounted there)
bottom rail:
heat sheild
bipod
grenade launcher (m203)
flare launcher
amunition:
(select amunition here)

M16A2
etc.


and this way it would allow you to mod every gun there is. with the right attachments of coarse
you are alowed to pick one attachment for each rail
__________________
Warning: i am in my own world


"We Don't Die...we just regroup in hell"

Last edited by sir_edmond; 21st Jan 2004 at 01:05 AM.
sir_edmond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Jan 2004, 11:24 PM   #39
Meplat
Chock full-o-useless information
 
Join Date: Dec. 7th, 2003
Location: Phoenix,Arizona
Posts: 482
Edmond- Damn, I'd spend less time building a real M4 than I would selecting the attachments for the game, were it set up that way..

Meplat-
Meplat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Jan 2004, 11:44 PM   #40
Specter
Infiltrator
 
Specter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul. 17th, 2002
Posts: 62
That set up sounds suspiciously like America's Army: Special Forces.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Shot00000.jpg (97.5 KB, 40 views)
__________________
Safety first... then semi, burst, or auto.

Cool things that are named Spectre: Spectre M4 SMG, AC-130 Spectre Gunship, Spectre VR...
Specter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Copyright ©1998 - 2012, BeyondUnreal, Inc.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
Bandwidth provided by AtomicGamer