This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

So insurgency doesn't have bullet drop or bullet travel time, yet is realistic

#21Orestes417Posted 7/15/2014 2:12:17 PM
Pretty sure it screws with hand steadiness which changes accuracy
---
Some roads you shouldn't go down because maps used to say there'd be dragons there. Now they don't, but that don't mean the dragons aren't there.
#22h3IIfir3pho3nixPosted 7/15/2014 2:12:34 PM
KillerzOverHere posted...
Greendragon854 posted...
I don't think it's slightly irrelevant. It's straight up a non-issue. Bullets don't drop any sort of appreciable difference in the size of the maps in this game. The bullet drop in the BF series is just silly. *rabble rabble rabble*



So I can aim at an enemy 150m away with a pistol and aim directly at his chest and it will hit his chest? Realistic.


...not sure if serious...

Small arms fire has a muzzle velocity between 1000 and 1500 m/s. For most modern firearms, there isn't going to be a significant depreciation in height for hundreds of meters.

If you point a handgun at someone 150m away, you are going to shoot them exactly where you are pointing at.
---
'Well if MS has taught us anything it's that originality isn't always a good thing.' - dnmt
#23KillerzOverHere(Topic Creator)Posted 7/15/2014 2:13:59 PM
Orestes417 posted...
Pretty sure it screws with hand steadiness which changes accuracy


Oh ok
---
Apparently all GameFAQs mods are women, because they just gave me a warning for having a misogynistic joke in my signature.
#24KillerzOverHere(Topic Creator)Posted 7/15/2014 2:14:15 PM
h3IIfir3pho3nix posted...
KillerzOverHere posted...
Greendragon854 posted...
I don't think it's slightly irrelevant. It's straight up a non-issue. Bullets don't drop any sort of appreciable difference in the size of the maps in this game. The bullet drop in the BF series is just silly. *rabble rabble rabble*



So I can aim at an enemy 150m away with a pistol and aim directly at his chest and it will hit his chest? Realistic.


...not sure if serious...

Small arms fire has a muzzle velocity between 1000 and 1500 m/s. For most modern firearms, there isn't going to be a significant depreciation in height for hundreds of meters.

If you point a handgun at someone 150m away, you are going to shoot them exactly where you are pointing at.


Ok
---
Apparently all GameFAQs mods are women, because they just gave me a warning for having a misogynistic joke in my signature.
#25cody4783Posted 7/15/2014 2:59:10 PM(edited)
h3IIfir3pho3nix posted...

...not sure if serious...

Small arms fire has a muzzle velocity between 1000 and 1500 m/s. For most modern firearms, there isn't going to be a significant depreciation in height for hundreds of meters.

If you point a handgun at someone 150m away, you are going to shoot them exactly where you are pointing at.

Er...Have you fired a real weapon, mate?

Let's start with statistics of some common muzzle velocities:
7.62x39 (SKS, AK47): ~730m/s
5.5645 NATO (M16, M4, M249): ~940m/s

And if you consider side arms:
9mm: 460-600m/s
.45ACP: 270-390m/s
.38 Special: 210-300m/s
.38 Special +P: 300-340m/s
.357 Mag. : 370-490m/s

So, in a slew of common calibers and wide array of velocities...No, your average small arms do NOT shoot at "1000-1500m/s". Hell, for handguns, you'd be pushing it to say that was average in Feet Per Second.

150m with a handgun is an extreme range, realistically. You're going to be suffering some severe drop at those ranges with something like a M1911 shooting subsonic .45ACP rounds, and even stepping up to hyper velocity .357 Mag calibers, you're STILL shooting at an insane distance and WILL be compensating for drop with a handgun. They are not designed for this sort of range.


If you were talking exclusively about high caliber rifles, you would have had an argument, but you specifically addressed handguns, and it's making you look like an idiot. Yes, 100-150m is standard engagement zone and a common zeroing for battle rifles and assault rifles, and chances are you can aim directly at, or nearly directly at a target and hit them--Because those weapons are designed for and often zeroed at those ranges. But you're not going to get that sort of performance out of side arms with much lower energy cartridges and shorter, less accurate barrels.

Also note, this isn't even touching on the logistics of trying to AIM a handgun at something 150m away. Think of it, that'd be like sitting somewhere mid-height in the stands at one end of a football stadium, and shooting someone in the same seating position at the OPPOSITE end. If you have some weird ARMA-level zooming vision that I don't, then maybe that's easy, but for humans that's not happening with typical pistol sights.
---
PC: http://i.imgur.com/zgyKBAY.jpg
#26polopiliPosted 7/15/2014 3:03:06 PM
Bullets also come out of your eyes in all source games. Pretty much all FPS games in fact.
#27cody4783Posted 7/15/2014 3:06:48 PM
polopili posted...
Bullets also come out of your eyes in all source games. Pretty much all FPS games in fact.

It's a common "Easy way out" to get around the logistics of not having a player feel 4ft tall, having you get shot when your camera is "Behind cover", or having a weird disjointed feel of bullets not going where your crosshair/center of your screen is for...reasons.

http://youtu.be/cPr5K23Xk4c

IIRC, Arma's bullets are fired/"spawned" from the chamber of the gun, rather than your eyes or the barrel. So "Head glitching" and general clipping your gun through walls and shooting aren't an issue.
---
PC: http://i.imgur.com/zgyKBAY.jpg
#28Orestes417Posted 7/15/2014 3:10:01 PM
Yeah. If you can reliably hit targets with any sort of decent accuracy with a handgun at 100 meters you're doing damn good. And that's standing at a firing range under non-stressful conditions. Realistically you're looking at a typical engagement distance of a quarter that or less.
---
Some roads you shouldn't go down because maps used to say there'd be dragons there. Now they don't, but that don't mean the dragons aren't there.
#29cody4783Posted 7/15/2014 3:16:16 PM
Exactly. If your target is >100m away and you literally only have a handgun, you're in a pretty s*** position and are probably better off retreating, finding another weapon, or flanking to close the distance and put the target in your engagement range.

If you're 150m away, you should be reloading your rifle and taking the time to shoot with that. Typically, again, aside from s***ty situations, military forces don't go the Counter Strike route and run in with nothing but a pistol (When the enemy also only conveniently has pistols)
---
PC: http://i.imgur.com/zgyKBAY.jpg
#30h3IIfir3pho3nixPosted 7/15/2014 3:53:52 PM
cody4783 posted...
h3IIfir3pho3nix posted...

...not sure if serious...

Small arms fire has a muzzle velocity between 1000 and 1500 m/s. For most modern firearms, there isn't going to be a significant depreciation in height for hundreds of meters.

If you point a handgun at someone 150m away, you are going to shoot them exactly where you are pointing at.

Er...Have you fired a real weapon, mate?

Let's start with statistics of some common muzzle velocities:
7.62x39 (SKS, AK47): ~730m/s
5.5645 NATO (M16, M4, M249): ~940m/s

And if you consider side arms:
9mm: 460-600m/s
.45ACP: 270-390m/s
.38 Special: 210-300m/s
.38 Special +P: 300-340m/s
.357 Mag. : 370-490m/s

So, in a slew of common calibers and wide array of velocities...No, your average small arms do NOT shoot at "1000-1500m/s". Hell, for handguns, you'd be pushing it to say that was average in Feet Per Second.

150m with a handgun is an extreme range, realistically. You're going to be suffering some severe drop at those ranges with something like a M1911 shooting subsonic .45ACP rounds, and even stepping up to hyper velocity .357 Mag calibers, you're STILL shooting at an insane distance and WILL be compensating for drop with a handgun. They are not designed for this sort of range.


If you were talking exclusively about high caliber rifles, you would have had an argument, but you specifically addressed handguns, and it's making you look like an idiot. Yes, 100-150m is standard engagement zone and a common zeroing for battle rifles and assault rifles, and chances are you can aim directly at, or nearly directly at a target and hit them--Because those weapons are designed for and often zeroed at those ranges. But you're not going to get that sort of performance out of side arms with much lower energy cartridges and shorter, less accurate barrels.

Also note, this isn't even touching on the logistics of trying to AIM a handgun at something 150m away. Think of it, that'd be like sitting somewhere mid-height in the stands at one end of a football stadium, and shooting someone in the same seating position at the OPPOSITE end. If you have some weird ARMA-level zooming vision that I don't, then maybe that's easy, but for humans that's not happening with typical pistol sights.


I've shot plenty of times before (although admittedly the vast majority has been clay shooting with a shotgun).

Now, granted, I'm not an expert on statistics. That's why I searched it up. According to this link (another concession, it is Wikipedia), the US army classifies high-velocity small arms as between 1066.8 m/s and 1524 m/s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_velocity

So, my apologies if I used wrong information.

I do know it wouldn't be easy to aim at that kind of distance, I never made the argument that it would be practical to use a handgun at that range. I was just saying if you pointed at something, it would hit it is all.
---
'Well if MS has taught us anything it's that originality isn't always a good thing.' - dnmt