1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. 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.

Inf-info.xls

Discussion in 'Infiltration Development' started by Kueltag, Jul 19, 2008.

  1. Kueltag

    Kueltag New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    When I was collecting data for Inf-info.xls, I got a good picture on how the bulk values are set in Inf versus RL. To sum it up: most equipment have a correct bulk value if 1 bulk unit (BU) = 1/5th kg. Sometimes when a weapon is very weak, it's made lighter to encourage ppl to still use it. Stuff that the creators felt would make people annoying are heavier. Like ACOG and Claymore.

    And staff that are very heavy are made lighter. An empty M82 weighs 12.9 kg, so it should have a bulk of 12.9x5 = 65 instead of 39. This way it would be so heavy that with the smallest amount of ammo and other equipment it would cause hopelessly heavy loadouts, or -as you want it now- they should have make bulk to affect speed less, so a total bulk of 100 would still be reasonably fast. Here, there would be two possibilities. A: no one would use the M82 because of the low speed it causes with a proper loadout. This is what happened with the M136, which is as bulky as it should be, but is marginally more useful than a single 40 mm round. B: they would have flattened out the speed dropping curve, so 100 bulk would have been still acceptably fast. But in this case everyone would have taken 20 or 30 mags for an assault rifle, because 70 total bulk would have been as fast as 50 is now. So: they lightened the heavy pieces. These are the Minimi, the RC50, the M82, the M60, and to some extent the M14 and the PSG1.

    I hope I could help you.
     
  2. GalZohar

    GalZohar New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, I can see what they did, but considering a more consistent reduction in speed as bulk increases, you could have people carrying M82 for sniper-happy maps and still not carrying 20-30 mags simply because it's not needed and you will run faster with less. IRL you don't carry 20 mags because you don't need 20 mags and it would be extra weight carried for no benefit, not because it's too much weight for you to handle. Besides, 70 may become the new 50, but also 50 will become the new 30... That combined with no minimum bulk (that is, everything past 0 slows you down) will prevent people from carrying any unneeded equipment.

    Even if adjusted for realistic weight, AT4/claymores are still too heavy to load up on and they do have a rather situational use.

    I agree that most bulk values are pretty close to what they should be at, but some things could use fine-tuning still - both stuff that have too much / too little bulk per weight, as well as stuff that need to get more/less bulk per weight due to their size. Yes that again makes 50cal sniper rifles and the minimi heavy, but that's realistic if bulk effects get tuned properly.
     
  3. Kueltag

    Kueltag New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed.
     
  4. GalZohar

    GalZohar New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regarding the XLS, how certain are you regarding the suppresors (for both m16 and mp5), magazine (for mp5 and uzi) and m203 weights?
     
  5. Kueltag

    Kueltag New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    On the web you can find tons of QD suppressors. I don't know the exact type NATO uses, maybe it would require just minor research. Here I simply looked at the weight of typical, professional QD suppressors, and said "it's about okay". About MP5 and Uzi mags, see links below. The weight of M203 is quoted at many places, and with a few contradictions they write the same. So these values should be real.

    Links:
    http://files.uzitalk.com/reference/pages/ownersmanuals.htm
    (See the manual at the top.)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M203_grenade_launcher
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-31/chap3.htm#3-2
    http://www.heckler-koch.de/HKWebText/detailPara/1926/128/4/20/226
    (Switch to metric (if you wish) and subtract empty weapons weight from the loaded one, it will give the 170 grams I used.)
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2009
  6. GalZohar

    GalZohar New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    You used "empty 30 round mag" weight instead of a full one :( 30 rounds would add ~0.35KG, but then the result is a mag that weights just as much as a loaded 5.56 mag which doesn't make a whole lot of sense but is not impossible either (I never used 9mm for anything).

    As for the M203, I asked because different weapons had different M203 weights in the XLS.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2009
  7. Kueltag

    Kueltag New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, maybe it's wrong. Thanks. And I did find some 9mm mags as heavy as assault rifle mags.

    The HK416 uses the M203 with a 9" barrel not with a 12" as others. Check it out in Inf. And it does have a shorter trajectory.
     
  8. GalZohar

    GalZohar New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    ok, makes more sense now. However I don't understand what exactly to put in custombulk, for example I don't understand what the following refer to:

    "AK-47 - BAY", as opposed to "AK-47(BAY)" - I'm assuming the first one is just the bay and the second is AK with BAY? Do I need to change both values to get proper behavior in game, or can I ignore the "AK-47 - BAY" since nobody can actually use the AK's BAY without an AK and if the BAY is on the AK it takes the "AK-47(BAY)" value?

    "AKMSUP"

    On a side note, I need a custombulk that can accept up to 300 lines ;)
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2009
  9. Kueltag

    Kueltag New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ha-ha-ha, custombulk could handle 32 items, I asked the creator to increase this to 80 for my needs. :lol:

    Well, the bayonet has its own name (that's my "AK-47 - BAY"), but if you want it, you have to change the weapon's bulk WITH bayonet ("AK-47(BAY)").

    There are two different types of weapons in Inf. The original Inf weapons had their attachments as flags. So if you change the bulk of the M16A2 with custombulk, all of its variants will be influenced. But more recent weapons have as many "variants" as many combinations they have because of their accessories. So the M16A4 has 18 variants. If you want to change the bulk of the M16A4 itself, that will eat up 18 rows in custombulk. :eek:

    AKMSUP simply means AKMSU with polymer grips. The only difference is looks. You can have both weapons at the same time, so it's definitely not an accessory.

    The author of custombulk, Stinkmarder told me it's okay to change the number of available rows in custombulk yourself, if you know how to. See
    http://infiltration.forum.cerberon.net/viewtopic.php?t=50
     
  10. GalZohar

    GalZohar New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Obviously you need to change the 32s to 300s and re-compile, but I have no clue how to compile it...

    Also the excel file's auto-generation of bulk values seems to be limited as well, and I couldn't manage to increase that limit.
     
  11. Kueltag

    Kueltag New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can increase its capacity to over 60000 in no time.
     
  12. Snakeye

    Snakeye Mk82HD

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2000
    Messages:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you still need someone who can compile (and change that line :D) - I can do that, probably tomorrow, if that's early enough.
     
  13. GalZohar

    GalZohar New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    That would be nice, as I can't even download the attachments on the INF COOP forums since I can't register (and yes I e-mailed twice and it had been a few days).
    Also would be nice to have an inf-info.xls that accepts >300 entries for easily making the ini file.
     
  14. Snakeye

    Snakeye Mk82HD

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2000
    Messages:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's quasi-normal. Stinkmarder seems to be pretty busy with RL, plus I'm not sure how many Spam-Emails he gets into his inbox; I'll try and drop him a PM concerning your request for registration on the COOP forums - worked last time.
     
  15. GalZohar

    GalZohar New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thx.
    Anyway once I have a compiled custombulk with >300 array size and an XLS that can make an INI with >300 items I'll upload an INI you guys can play with and tell me what you think about it, realism-wise. Hopefully it'll also make co-op a lot more playable while still using realistic bulk settings.
     
  16. Snakeye

    Snakeye Mk82HD

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2000
    Messages:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you really need 300+? I just checked Stinkmarders thread and he uploaded a 80 limit version a while ago, if that's enough..
     
  17. GalZohar

    GalZohar New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are nearly 300 items in the XLS, and I need to change all (or at least the majority) of them if I want to fine-tune bulk. That is, increase bulk values and reduce the impact of bulk to get around the integer limit.

    I found -117 standardbulk, 117 speeddivisor and 9999 bulkdivisor to work rather realistically with 0.2KG = 1 bulk. Some items can't be tuned like that, though, so I'd like to set it to -1170 and 1170 respectively, and then have 0.02KG = 1 bulk plus some extra bulk for size. This requires changing the bulk values of pretty much everything. I already have the adjusted bulk values, just need an XLS that can easily produce the INI file for custombulk and a custombulk that can modify that many values.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2009
  18. Crowze

    Crowze Bird Brain

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,556
    Likes Received:
    1
    Don't suppose you'd do the same for me? I've had a reg request in for months.

    Also, I seem to recall running into problems with large arrays of strings in UT, and can't remember if there's way around it.
     
  19. Snakeye

    Snakeye Mk82HD

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2000
    Messages:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    0
    Done - can't say when/if it will work though, as mentioned before Stm seems pretty busy with RL.

    To be honest there two things I see as troublesome here, depending in how the CheckItemBulk function works (don't remember by heart).

    If the function is only called for every class once you'll end up in a world of hurt getting the data in, since at least the INFMOD weapons have a class for each attachment configuration and distribute bulk per class, i.e. you'll need an entry for a plain M4, M4 with carrying handle, M4 with reflex, M4 with ACOG, plain M4 with flashlight, plain M4 with M203 and so on. Plus you need to get the classes in the correct order, since putting e.g. the M4 base class in first will result in ALL M4s having this bulk and not the one reflecting the attachments.

    If the function gets called for every item once you might in additon cause join lag due to the large number of comparisons done - you'll end up having about 100-150 comparisons for each item on average (assuming you did a reasonable job putting commonly used items first) in the loadout once a player joins/respawns - with about 50 to 80 items on large loadouts that might affect runtime.

    Basically I wouldn't do a general overhaul but rather use the bulk numbers as is and just do a bit of finetuning within the possible range.

    EDIT:
    Okay, did some uc-file reading and apparently CheckItemBulk is called on every add and subtract bulk call, plus it is called for every loadout-mutator that's in the list, which might additionally cause some horrible load order dependencies - IIRC MicroBulk already doesn't work when in the wrong position of the mutatorlist. Don't get me wrong, but doing an overhaul for EVERY item available is not an option IMO.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2009
  20. GalZohar

    GalZohar New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know, man, if it works fine with 80, 300 is likely to not be that big of a difference. Do we even know how the original INF "check bulk" function works to compare their complexities/run times? I wouldn't rule out a 300 array without trying it, assuming the 80 works fine. And obviously common items can be placed first.

    Adjusting the bulk on every item combination is not that big of a deal. Like I said there are less than 300 of them, and if excel makes the INI all I need to do is make the "INI maker" tab read the "desired bulk" values from the "mass" tab. M4A1 with acog for example would add up the bulk of the M4 with the bulk of the acog, so later adjustments are quick and easy. I just need to know if there are items I shouldn't include or items I need to include before other items, as well as an XLS that actually accepts 300 items, as I don't understand exactly how the XLS's INI generator works.

    Anyway, realistic bulk is not going to happen without completely overhauling the bulk values, since a lot of items are too heavy yet reducing their bulk by 1 would make them too light, as well as items that are too light but increasing their bulk by 1 would make them too heavy. Besides, most items need their bulk values changed at least by a little regardless of the "rounding issues".
     

Share This Page