That is NO artificial balance!That's not the point. People want realistic weapons and not artificial balance.
That is more realistic than you could get without a lot of work.
Bullets lose a lot of speed and so a lot of energy over the distance, so wind etc. can influence them a lot, so you can have no clue with a SMG what you'll hit at 300m even though the bullet travels that far and even farer.
And instead of modelling wind, different temperatures, the bullet starting tumbling .......... (a whole physics book) cone fire would do the job.
And if you actually read my post you'd know that I said cone fire should only come really into play at a distance (and greater) you hardly hit something with every let's say 4th shot in reality so that you "own" at close distance while you won't at a medium or large range, so after its effective range.
If that outcome is not realistic then well ...
PS.: I get the feeling that people simply say no whenver they hear cone fire, because of CS or whatever.
Even though it depends on the way you implement it if it is realistic or not.
I guess you'll agree with me that a weapon, even if you'd perfectly aim, will not hit the same spot allways.
At short distances there won't be a big or even noticable difference (small to no cone fire), the larger the distance is the larger difference is even if you aimed at the exact same spot and that is where cone fire should play a bigger rule, because the weapon is simply not effective at that range (effective --> hardly to hit something and or bullet has lost a lot of energy so hardly to kill someone).
Last edited:
Upvote
0