• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Best and worst of suggestion - Look here before posting

Floyd I kept windage in inches because I didn't believe it was necessary to list it in both measures, the difference is clear enough in inches.

But if you wish to convert inches into mm or cm, then it's as simple as multiplying your listed inches by 25.3 to get mm, or 2.53 to get cm.

1 inch = 25.3 mm = 2.53 cm

I edited my post though and changed windage into cm for you :)
Well, duh...lol.
I may be slow but I'm not stoopid ;)
My BS in Mechanical Engineering from LA Tech University in 1978 courtesy of the GI Bill requires that as an engineer whenever I see someone mixing units of measure the result should be clarified and qualified. I didn't (and still don't) understand the reasoning behind your original quoting of muzzle velocity and bullet wgt in a metric system and listing sectional density and windage in US standard measure. Wouldn't you agree that doing so might make one wonder? ;)

Anyway my comments with regard to the ingame and real life differences and with regards to TW's use of ballistics stands......
 
Upvote 0
Lots of text and data

Ballistic coefficient doesn't make rounds more accurate. A high BC is nice for extreme long range shooting (1000m plus) because the round stays supersonic longer and high BC bullets are effected by crosswinds less than lower BC bullets.

We do not have wind in RO2 and you will probably never shoot at targets more than a Km away. We are using the BC to model trajectories etc, but it would be quite wrong to use the BC as a factor in an accuracy calculation.

Accuracy is a lot more than BC. My rifle shoots bullets with almost half the BC of a good 8mm Mauser round, but is still capable of 0.5 MOA and better (If the clown behind the trigger does his job).
 
Upvote 0
Ballistic coefficient doesn't make rounds more accurate. A high BC is nice for extreme long range shooting (1000m plus) because the round stays supersonic longer and high BC bullets are effected by crosswinds less than lower BC bullets.

We do not have wind in RO2 and you will probably never shoot at targets more than a Km away. We are using the BC to model trajectories etc, but it would be quite wrong to use the BC as a factor in an accuracy calculation.

Accuracy is a lot more than BC. My rifle shoots bullets with almost half the BC of a good 8mm Mauser round, but is still capable of 0.5 MOA and better (If the clown behind the trigger does his job).

Actually, all else being equal, a higher BC does make a bullet more accurate, quite simply because it is less affected by both drag & crosswinds. But ofcourse as you said yourself this will matter little if the rifle firing the round for what'ever reason isn't consistent, or even worse if the shooter isn't.

I am very happy to hear that you are using BC data to plot trajectories ingame. Out of interest what figures are you using for the two rounds s.S. & Type L ?

As for dispersion, how do you extrapolate this? And is there any difference between say the K98k & Mosin in this respect?

Many thanks in advance :) I am truly looking forward to this title, and I am already extremely impressed by the work you guys have done so far. Keep it up! :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Well, duh...lol.
I may be slow but I'm not stoopid ;)
My BS in Mechanical Engineering from LA Tech University in 1978 courtesy of the GI Bill requires that as an engineer whenever I see someone mixing units of measure the result should be clarified and qualified. I didn't (and still don't) understand the reasoning behind your original quoting of muzzle velocity and bullet wgt in a metric system and listing sectional density and windage in US standard measure. Wouldn't you agree that doing so might make one wonder? ;)

Anyway my comments with regard to the ingame and real life differences and with regards to TW's use of ballistics stands......

Ofcourse, I understand Floyd. I fixed it for you though, now you've got it all in metric and some parts in imperial.
 
Upvote 0
Actually, all else being equal, a higher BC does make a bullet more accurate, quite simply because it is less affected by both drag & crosswinds. But ofcourse as you said yourself this will matter little if the rifle firing the round for what'ever reason isn't consistent, or even worse if the shooter isn't.

I am very happy to hear that you are using BC data to plot trajectories ingame. Out of interest what figures are you using for the two rounds s.S. & Type L ?

As for dispersion, how do you extrapolate this? And is there any difference between say the K98k & Mosin in this respect?

Many thanks in advance :) I am truly looking forward to this title, and I am already extremely impressed by the work you guys have done so far. Keep it up! :)

Again, even with all things equal: A better BC does not mean better accuracy. The point of impact will be different, yes, but as long as the bullet stays supersonic, nothing changes. It is the shooter's job to know how to compensate for his rifle/ammo combination.

A high BC makes the shooter's life easier, but it does not make your gun/bullet combo shoot more accurate.

Another thought: The G1 standard is not the holy grail. Even WWII projectiles look and work quite differently to the standard G1 projectile and the BC is changing like crazy depending on the bullet's velocity.

The G1 projectile has a "round" nose and is not boat tailed at all. More like a pistol round.

Time to switch to G7 imho, but then the BC would be lower and that is, of course, bad marketing.
 
Upvote 0
Again, even with all things equal: A better BC does not mean better accuracy. The point of impact will be different, yes, but as long as the bullet stays supersonic, nothing changes. It is the shooter's job to know how to compensate for his rifle/ammo combination.

There is a difference even at supersonic speeds, as a lower BC bullet will be more easily affected by crosswinds.

A high BC makes the shooter's life easier, but it does not make your gun/bullet combo shoot more accurate.

But that would be because of differences in the gun, not the bullet.

If the gun is exactly the same, then it will be more accurate when shooting a higher BC bullet at the same MV as when shooting a lower BC bullet.

Another thought: The G1 standard is not the holy grail. Even WWII projectiles look and work quite differently to the standard G1 projectile and the BC is changing like crazy depending on the bullet's velocity.

The G1 projectile has a "round" nose and is not boat tailed at all. More like a pistol round.

Time to switch to G7 imho, but then the BC would be lower and that is, of course, bad marketing.

I absolutely agree, I am presenting the G1 average extrapolated from G7 figures, just like all the ammunition manufactureres do as-well :)

Any info on the ingame BC's and dispersion? You can pm me if you wish :)
 
Upvote 0
There is a difference even at supersonic speeds, as a lower BC bullet will be more easily affected by crosswinds.

Yes. But, again, as long as you know where your "lower" BC bullet is going to hit, it does not make a difference.

Accuracy has nothing to do with crosswinds etc.

Accuracy means hitting the same spot every time under the same circumstances.

But that would be because of differences in the gun, not the bullet.

If the gun is exactly the same, then it will be more accurate when shooting a higher BC bullet at the same MV as when shooting a lower BC bullet.

Nope. See above. If the conditions are the same for every shot, accuracy should be the same.

I absolutely agree, I am presenting the G1 average extrapolated from G7 figures, just like all the ammunition manufactureres do as-well :)

Any info on the ingame BC's and dispersion? You can pm me if you wish :)
 
Upvote 0
bad habit of discriminating their own names and designations alot (E.G. Bf 109 is officially Bf 109, yet in operational reports Bf 109 and Me 109 were commonplace even on the same damm page)
I think you missed the point here. The Bf or Me in this case would not be that important. The Me/Bf 109 >>> E-3, F-4, G-6, or K-4 <<< would be the important part.
Oldih said:
Speaking of the devil it was said it is early G and going with the fact that early Gs are virtually the same as F2, what is wrong with that?
Where is the standard double baffle muzzle break then? Where is the added on welded frontal armor? (since May 1942)



Ok - on the smoke pots. Now you see 'em - now you don't - see pics. Go figure.
You deliberately missed the point by putting up pictures of non-single baffle muzzle break tanks. The one in RO2 has a single baffle muzzle break does it not? You are putting up pictures of oranges with turret dischargers when the debate was about apples and their rear smoke dischargers above the muffler and putting this in game.



He means tanks leaving tracks in the ground - like footprints. Especially in snow it would look cool and add imersion. They can disapear after a while like decal
You missed the point as well. That is not what I meant at all. What I said was the Zielschiene and the Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung are common standard equipment on Panzers and suggesting it here would be like suggesting tank coaxial mg's and tank tracks. ([URL="http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=691045&postcount=209"][URL]http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=691045&postcount=209[/URL][/URL]) The idea was that the ziel and nebel are common and obvious. Suggesting them would be like suggesting tracks, or a turret, or a roadwheel, or an engine, or a cupola...



Oh, ok... being tested. Will make/fail the cut depending on performance impacts.
What about the rear mounted (not turret) Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Where is the standard double baffle muzzle break then? Where is the added on welded frontal armor? (since May 1942)

You don't get it, do you?

Is it so hard to understand that the F2 and early G are the same?
The "differences" you are talking about are changes during the production run of the ausf. G!

These changes did not happen from F2 to G but from G to G.

Christ, and sometimes I think I'm slow one... :rolleyes:

Also, additional +30mm frontal armour was only applied regularly from Dec 1942 onwards (my previous post has a typo in that regard, saying June 1942)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Where is the standard double baffle muzzle break then? Where is the added on welded frontal armor? (since May 1942)

Once again this would only apply if we're talking about 'genuine' Gs after the early production run. You already admitted the pickyness about the 'genuine' mid-late production Gs rather than the early ones:

The point is that RO2's IV has the features of a 7/BW but is labeled an 8/BW. For it to be a genuine (not post production renamed to) 8/BW the single baffle muzzle break, vision/signal ports, and whatever else would have to be deleted.

It's basically ****picking about because the data and information about the subject labels things diffrently for the sake of convenience despite the fact F2 = early G, even when it's accurate from authenticity's point of view.
 
Upvote 0
Yes. But, again, as long as you know where your "lower" BC bullet is going to hit, it does not make a difference.

Accuracy has nothing to do with crosswinds etc.

Problem is that you don't know exactly where the bullet will hit, therefore a bullet with a higher BC will make your chances of a hit higher, quite simply because you have to worry less about crosswinds, bullet dop, travel time etc etc, making the chance of missing your target first time smaller, i.e. accuracy is increased.

Anyway I believe we agree, we're just using different wording.

Anyway Schneidzekk, is it not possible for us to see the BC and dispersion figures used for the different bullets and rifles ingame? Would be very interesting, and also show you care very much about historical accuracy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
To be honest, I don't think we agree :p. It is like saying the shooter or the quality of your optics affect the accuracy of the bullet.

I doubt you would say that.

Let me draw that for you.



You will see that the accuracy is pretty much the same. We could actually assume that 2 different rifles with even totally different calibers and BCs shot at the same target, they had a different trajectory and were affected by the crosswind differently.

They still had the same accuracy.

If both shooters would adjust windage and elevation correctly, there would be no difference at all and the shots would be on top of each other.
 
Upvote 0
The drawing you made shows exactly what I mean, the shooter using the lower BC bullet has to make greater corrections to his aim in both elevation and windage to achieve a hit - something that is hard to do accurately without a few ranging shots. Therefore the higher BC bullet makes hitting your target the first time around easier to achieve = it increases combat accuracy.

But ofcourse a higher BC bullet will never change the tightness of your rifle's natural dispersion and therfore your groupings, no it will only make actually placing your groupings on target easier :)

But maybe I'm just at fault for describing windage & bullet drop as part of accuracy, when accuracy maybe applies more to dispersion.

Anyways, it would be nice to see the BC figures you used for th various smallarms projectiles ingame. Pretty please! :D
 
Upvote 0
The drawing you made shows exactly what I mean, the shooter using the lower BC bullet has to make greater corrections to his aim in both elevation and windage to achieve a hit - something that is hard to do accurately without a few ranging shots. Therefore the higher BC bullet makes hitting your target the first time around easier to achieve = it increases combat accuracy.

But ofcourse a higher BC bullet will never change the tightness of your rifle's natural dispersion and therfore your groupings, no it will only make actually placing your groupings on target easier :)

But maybe I'm just at fault for describing windage & bullet drop as part of accuracy, when accuracy maybe applies more to dispersion.

Anyways, it would be nice to see the BC figures you used for th various smallarms projectiles ingame. Pretty please! :D
I beg to differ

(with what I have highlighte in blue) thats why each weapon system is 'sighted in' and 'matched' to a particular load. As an easy to research example, take a look at the history of the 30-06 round with respect to the M1 Garand vs the BAR. In trying to make the rounds a little 'hotter' to take advantage of the BAR, the army tried playing with the powder loads and bullet calibers. While the 'hotter' load (and higher BC) for the BAR was accurate enough for its intended use, the Garand's shot placement was all over the place. For logistics, the Army needed one load for both weapons, so they reverted back to the original Garand load. In other words, you don't just pick up a rifle, cram some ammo into it and run off into battle.

(with what you state as I've highlighted in orange). Now you're talking precision over accuracy (which I think everyone has bass ackwards anyway ;)). In any event, that statement is just wrong.

In your OP, what I think you're asking for is comparable trajectories for the individual weapons based upon their real life counterparts. Certainly, if the trajectory calculation makes any statistical difference (re: bullet drop and 'circular error probability', 'cone of fire', 'dispersion' or whatever you want to call it) , I'm sure it will be in. Why wouldn't it be? This is after all TW we're talking about isn't it?;)

There is no environment (ie wind, humidity) in RO:HOS. Schneidzekk has already told us that. With no environmental affects , the BC is not the holy grail you're looking for in this case. In real life (I hate it when we have to use that term) BC is just a piece in the puzzle of where that bullet goes once it exits the barrel. Using BC of diffferent calibers, loads and different weapons doesn't really tell you a whole lot. Its an apples to oranges comparsion if based upon BC alone.

Besides, as irl, once we learn the weopons and loads, we get to 'dial in' our sights (like any proficient rifleman would do).........;)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0