Dismemberment Is A Bit Silly

[KarmakazeNZ]

Yeah, I was just in clan training and we had someone drop a grenade directly opposite a low wall. We all dropped prone (the wall was barely high enough to cover us prone) and the grenade barely even affected us.

To be fair, that's what you are supposed to do to minimise a grenade's damage, and it can work even when you're pretty close. If the grenade is on the ground when it detonates, the force is directed up and out in a cone shape, with the shrapnel at it's leading edge. You can get a lot closer to it, f you are lower down, because the cone of shrapnel passes over head.

The most correct way to deal with a fragmentation grenade landing nearby is to go prone facing away from it. That way any small amount of shrapnel that manages to fly horizontally across the surface hits your legs rather than head and torso.

Trying to run is just asking to take a back full of splinters.

Of course if there isn't any shrapnel, it doesn't make a difference. So the German grenade is kind of the opposite. It kills by over pressure, so the closer you are to it, the more likely you are to die. Running is a viable option in that case. Every step you take is one step further away from death.

This is why I laugh at people complaining about realism. It's a totally unrealistic goal. Computers are just not powerful enough for an FPS to be fully real, so it is always going to be the best approximation of real that the hardware can handle. I care about them TRYING to be real, not whether or not they can actually do it. Close enough is good enough.

The grenades work for me, so that's good enough, but it would be nice if there was the some differences between a defensive grenade and an offensive grenade.

 

[Nenjin]

I just got done playing on Station, flanking the left side of the first objective in that series of brick ruins.

I had grenades coming down at my feet where I was crouching at a T corner of ruins....like so...

=====
G = M
  =

Where G is the grenade and M is me....and it went off probably 5 feet away on the other side of the wall, and it took it.

All it takes is something to block most of the LOS to the explosion and it seems to do the trick.

 

[KarmakazeNZ]

Nope, the Soviet F1 Grenade had 60g TNT filler while German Model 24 grenade had around 165g of TNT.

So I have been informed. It doesn't really make a difference to my post. You could take that claim out and the post would mean exactly the same. Nothing I was talking about was decided by which had the larger charge.

You should also remember that not all shrapnell originates from the explosive device, I'm pretty sure 165g TNT charge is enough to make some crap (small stones, pieces of wood, concrete, glass etc) around it fly at rather high velocities.

Not really. Imagine a flat gravel road. You throw a grenade onto it and it detonates. Where is the gravel? It's UNDER the grenade. When the grenade detonates which way will the gravel try to go? Away from the grenade. If the gravel is below the grenade, and wants to fly away from it, where is it going to end up? Deeper in the dirt.

These grenades were specifically designed to not throw dangerous shrapnel. Yes it's possible that may happen, but it is unlikely to hurt anyone more than the blast effect does. The offensive grenade is thrown when you are in the open and they are in cover. The defensive grenade is thrown when you are in cover and they are in the open.

The blast effect is more dangerous the more it is confined. In the open, a German stick grenade is probably not much more than a flash bang. It makes a lot of noise and scares the crap out of you, but unless it's between your feet, it won't do that much damage. That is what it is designed to do.

I just did a quick search and according to Wikipedia, gunpowder has 3 megajoules of energy per kilogram. TNT has 4.7. So 160 grams of TNT has about the same energy as 300g of gunpowder. An optimised mixture of oxygen and gasoline has 10.4 megajoules of energy per kilogram.

So, really, not that much of a bang.

 

[DannyNickelov]

I can't even see dismembered limbs when someone exploded. I own a uncensored version and i have tried everything, i think it's a bug?

 

[Filo90]

lower shadows from Ultra to high

 

[DannyNickelov]

lower shadows from Ultra to high

It works when i put shadows on Normal, and Post Processing on Normal. Is TW going to fix this? Just curious.

 

[aop]

So I have been informed. It doesn't really make a difference to my post. You could take that claim out and the post would mean exactly the same. Nothing I was talking about was decided by which had the larger charge.

Not really. Imagine a flat gravel road. You throw a grenade onto it and it detonates. Where is the gravel? It's UNDER the grenade. When the grenade detonates which way will the gravel try to go? Away from the grenade. If the gravel is below the grenade, and wants to fly away from it, where is it going to end up? Deeper in the dirt.

These grenades were specifically designed to not throw dangerous shrapnel. Yes it's possible that may happen, but it is unlikely to hurt anyone more than the blast effect does. The offensive grenade is thrown when you are in the open and they are in cover. The defensive grenade is thrown when you are in cover and they are in the open.

The blast effect is more dangerous the more it is confined. In the open, a German stick grenade is probably not much more than a flash bang. It makes a lot of noise and scares the crap out of you, but unless it's between your feet, it won't do that much damage. That is what it is designed to do.

I just did a quick search and according to Wikipedia, gunpowder has 3 megajoules of energy per kilogram. TNT has 4.7. So 160 grams of TNT has about the same energy as 300g of gunpowder. An optimised mixture of oxygen and gasoline has 10.4 megajoules of energy per kilogram.

So, really, not that much of a bang.

TNTs detonation velocity is 6940m/s and gunpowders (assuming you mean black powder) detonation velocity is 400m/s. This means that TNT releases it's energy much, much faster and creates far more powerful impulse.

Think about it for a second. You could take a pile of firewood with equilevant energy content of 1kg TNT but you couldn't make a bomb out of it.

edit: Thus high explosive doesn't need to be confined to be dangerous.

 

[aop]

I stand corrected. I must have misunderstood something I read, but I believed the charge in a defensive grenade would be larger.

The thing is, the concussive effect of the defensive grenade isn't gone. It's just that it only kills in close, just like the defensive grenade. But the offensive grenade also has shrapnel that goes a lot further before it loses the ability to kill. It's possible they are treating them both as offensive grenades, but then it seems they are far too weak.

The Soviets considered the F1 to have an effective kill radius of up to 30m, but the shrapnel could kill up to 200m. The ones in game seem to be nothing like that.

So it seems to me they are both acting like defensive grenades, which means the Russian grenade has been gimped. You can't throw it as far, but it isn't more powerful either.

Then again it's hard to tell in-game. If you're trying to grenade someone, you usually aren't hanging around to watch the effects. They just don't quite feel poweful enough. Maybe if I had been hit by my own shrapnel a time or two, I would have a different opinion.

It doesn't mean that everyone inside that radius dies, it means that if you catch one of the bigger shrapnels you are likely to be very badly injured or killed. Even though the F1 grenade has a pattern that was supposed to help with fragmentation it didn't work out that well.

You could try to calculate the surface area of 30m radius sphere and then compare it to a surface area of man and then try to calculate amount of fragments the grenade would have to create for real 30m kill radius.

Or maybe I should just help you. A sphere with 30m radius has around ~11300 m^2 surface area. Standing man has around 1m^2 or less surface exposed to those fragments. Now think about it for a minute, can F1 grenade produce 11300+ sizable fragments to achieve true 30m kill radius? In reality the change to get hit by grenade fragments at that range is very, very low but if you get hit by one of the sizable fragments you may die.

 

[Sufyan]

Well since we're discussing the effects of grenades and realism, I hope no one seriously considers making grenades more efficient for any reason. They work perfect now, they can kill and stun but they are certainly no cheap kills.

It is amazing how a game where every character spawns with two grenades is not a 'nadespam-fest. Don't mess with this balance, it won't get much better!

Real life grenades are potentially more deadly, but if they are deadlier in the game people will end up using them in very unrealistic ways. A front line soldier may have to rely on what little ammo he can carry for the next two days so he is not going to try his luck tossing grenades everywhere hoping for a cheap kill, while a gamer can expend his ammunition without a worry since he will get restocked every time he respawns. Since grenades are rather toned down in this game, the gamer is better off saving his grenades for really good opportunities or desperate defensive situations.

 

[u-s-e-r]

well then, how about hand-grenade upgrades?

yes!!

 

[I. Kant]

So much of physical reality is still left out of even the most realistic games. Take the sound barrier. It doesn't seem to exist in most games. If something is far away, you hear it quieter, but not delayed. This is why gun shots are never going to sound right until they can do this sort of stuff. They have to be able to simulate the shockwave coming off the bullet, and its reflection off the environment, before they will be able to accurately simulate the sound of live gunfire.

When that day comes, I will be rapt.

I know you've indicated that it "doesn't seem to exist in most game", so please don't take this as an attack on your post (like you seem to have with when someone indicated the correct TNT loadouts for the different grenades), but - to quote one example I am personally familiar with - ARMA2 does model that.

Thus, if it exists in one(/some) games, it is possible. The fact that it is not implemented more often is an indication, it appears to me, of the developers' unwillingness to implement it. I am guessing that the fact that most virtual battlefield environments (which is too loftily put, to be frank) are just to small for it to matter is a chief reason why it's not more wide-spread.

But yes, once this becomes standard, things will be great.

 

[Yellonet]

I sure haven't been killed by shrapnel yet. It would seem that it's not modelled at all.

 

[Faneca]

Red Orchestra 2 Beta : PTRS-41 vs head - YouTube

"Keep your eye out for Ivan's!"
*PAUNFT*

 

[BlackLabel]

I really hate the restricted area thing. They should axe it all together.

uhm no--its there for a reason..longer warning time..yes

 

[Nebelkind]

Also what is on the limbs that get blown off? it looks like theyr'e wrapped in bandages when they lay there after getting blown off. Anyone elaborate on what that is?

Puttees. Russian leg-wraps used in concert with lowboots. Lots of countries used em, but most converted to some kind of taller boot by WWII. Russians used what was leftover, but had done a good job of converting to jackboots by the end of the war.

 

[Yellonet]

I just did a quick search and according to Wikipedia, gunpowder has 3 megajoules of energy per kilogram. TNT has 4.7. So 160 grams of TNT has about the same energy as 300g of gunpowder. An optimised mixture of oxygen and gasoline has 10.4 megajoules of energy per kilogram.

So, really, not that much of a bang.

The key is how fast TNT and gunpowder builds up pressure however, that's why there really is a big difference between the two.