M4A1 model looks wrong
- Thread starter ShR1ke
- Start date
-
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.
No, you're right. The model on the armory page is definately not a M4. The one on that page is the old CAR/XM177 style.
Got to apologise for that one, the wrong pics ended up there. Not to worry though, be assured that the actual model is 100% koshur.
FiringAimlessly: You. You're not allowed to think anymore.
I know I'm going to regret this, but here's a makeup render, just to reassure everyone we do have it right.
/Me braces for rabid M4A1 worshipping bitches to rave about their overrated toy.
I know I'm going to regret this, but here's a makeup render, just to reassure everyone we do have it right.
/Me braces for rabid M4A1 worshipping bitches to rave about their overrated toy.
No, I think Shak just likes to model stuff. Hes got tons of rifles modeled.
Anything new to show us?
edit: BAH! Instaposted by the man himself.
Anything new to show us?
edit: BAH! Instaposted by the man himself.
Now all the team needs is another animator to give warren a little extra time for himself
here's a question for anyone that's fired a M4..
how much recoil does the M4 have compared to the other weapons in the game?
I'm guessing that it'll be very similar to the SIG we have presently except maybe with a little more recoil per shot? or is it a little less?
which brings me to a second question about how weapons are modeled in INF.
some attachments (like a loaded m203) add significantly more weight to a weapon.. wouldn't that reduce the felt recoil? (more mass = harder to move) and in the case of a forward mounted bit of Mass work to reduce muzzle climb sort like a compensator? If so. does INF simulate that or plan to?
how much recoil does the M4 have compared to the other weapons in the game?
I'm guessing that it'll be very similar to the SIG we have presently except maybe with a little more recoil per shot? or is it a little less?
which brings me to a second question about how weapons are modeled in INF.
some attachments (like a loaded m203) add significantly more weight to a weapon.. wouldn't that reduce the felt recoil? (more mass = harder to move) and in the case of a forward mounted bit of Mass work to reduce muzzle climb sort like a compensator? If so. does INF simulate that or plan to?
I believe they were talking about something like that.
the real aim "crouch/prone reduces recoil" bit is supposed to be in there. (dunno about attachements)
I also remember some mention about an inertia system to keep larger guns from being easily pointed.
assuming so: a grenade launcher would make it slightly easier on the recoil, but harder to point.
the real aim "crouch/prone reduces recoil" bit is supposed to be in there. (dunno about attachements)
I also remember some mention about an inertia system to keep larger guns from being easily pointed.
assuming so: a grenade launcher would make it slightly easier on the recoil, but harder to point.
*clears throat...*
/me visibly restraining ritalintoddlerlikeoverexcitement:
That looks wonderful. Flattie with carrying handle attachment? The scope goes straight on top?
Anyway, I cannot wait.
2.88?
Last edited:
Errr, eh? No, a grenade launcher attachment won't affect the recoil on the M4 as much as the shorter buffer tube and spring in the flimsy collapsible stock (compared to a regular M16A2).
No 5.56 rifle has much recoil to speak of. There's a reason why M14 bigots call them, "mouseguns."
Another problem with the description of the M4 is the fire modes. It should be "semi or auto" or "semi or burst". As far as I know, the Army/Navy/Marines have not fielded an AR with a 4 position selector switch (add "safe" to the others listed". The 4 position selector is an aftermarket deal.
Removeable carry handle implied optics replacing it, right? How about an Acog with night vision co-witness?
Another problem with the description of the M4 is the fire modes. It should be "semi or auto" or "semi or burst". As far as I know, the Army/Navy/Marines have not fielded an AR with a 4 position selector switch (add "safe" to the others listed". The 4 position selector is an aftermarket deal.
Removeable carry handle implied optics replacing it, right? How about an Acog with night vision co-witness?
umm i don't think it's a flat top.. or at least i remember that someone from the team said we were using one with a fixed carring handel. Something about flat tops not having very robust iron sights. but maybe they changed that.
thats why I said "I dunno about attachments" in reference to recoil.
was talking about the crouch=reduced recoil, which I find oddly handy in rav2
good question. why dont we have a safe mode on inf rifles?
yea, no one would use it.
but if its on the gun.......
was talking about the crouch=reduced recoil, which I find oddly handy in rav2
good question. why dont we have a safe mode on inf rifles?
yea, no one would use it.
but if its on the gun.......
Are those not the screws/bolts that hold a removable carrying handle on, then?
Upper rifle shows it clearer.
Upper rifle shows it clearer.
The detachable carry handle is probably there when somebody takes the M4 without any scope attachment. With a scope, it'll be a flattop. And without the carry handle, you can still mount flip-up iron sights.
yes it is a flattop. And yes I'll enjoy watching you boys whining about how the front sight sticks up into the ACOG's sight picture >=)
No ARMS flattop riser, Shak? I'll probably have to get one for my Aimpoint to put the dot over the front sight assembly.