realism in rifle accuracy

[wigdigster]

Weapon sway should not be added. However the limitations of weapon sites should be added

However sites settling should be made much more pronounced.

For example, when I shoot my rifle, i have no trouble holding it steady, the trouble comes in with keeping the sites EXACTLY straight without a rest.

This sounds the same as sway but it isn't.

Rather than add a false game mechanic that moves the gun,there should bea visible cue(sites not quite lined up)that you are having trouble lining up the sites. It should get worse when turning, full auto etc.. (RO already has a basic system for this in place.)

When behind a rest, the sites should settle over a longer period of time, maybe a minute or so as follows:

slowly gaining accuracy with said benchmarks on bolts:

less than 1 second: top of site should be accurate to within torso shot at 50m

1 second seconds: sites gain accuracy to be accurate out to 75 meters on a torso shot

3 seconds accurate out to 100 meters torso shot

5 seconds, sites accurate out to 150 meters torso shot (notice the diminishing returns here)

seconds to 25 seconds, sites accurate out to 200 meters

1 minute: sites accurate out to 300 meters.

This is fairly representative of real life: in combat situation a torso shot will typically take a second to line up under 50 m, but out at 250 m, it can easily take a minute or two.

This also gives snipers the actual advantage they had in real life; finer sites that were easier to line up at further ranges. Though a similar system with scope settling should be added as well.

I am reposting this in its own thread since it got hurried in a flame war.

@devs it seems like to me you could use the player rotating mechanism to achieve this (where you turn and sites misalign), seeding whichever variable/condition when the sites are raised and then have it decrease by a coefficient

 

[gentrinity]

@wigdigster

I'm going to add more sway in my mod, and I can tell you from a programming standpoint, even though what you talked about is a great description of what really happens, it's going to be a lot tougher to represent that in game than just adding sway. If both reduce accurately in a similar way, I would rather go down the route that is easiest programming wise. It's the same as recoil, recoil isn't always an upward kick, but also pushes you back. How on earth can I simulate that? Easier to just make it kick upwards and make the player adjust. Again, not totally realistic, but neither is zoom, yet the end result works.

Don't focus so much on how you get the result and focus more on the end result. The end justifies the means.

 

[Veers5]

Most of these players run out of spawn and are exhausted when they reach the action area of the map.Do you think when you are exhausted you can aim a rifle and hit the target at anything farther than lets say 25 meters? Make it ten seconds to get breathing under control.5 seconds at 150 meters is a man in very good shape and experianced with his rifle.

 

[wigdigster]

Playing paintball I can lay down fire and hit some one out of 10 shots while sprinting. even if Im out of breath i dont have trouble aiming because I lean on something. it adds a bit more tremble while holding the gun with no rest but to be honest the adrenaline kicks in and thats all you need.

 

[wigdigster]

@wigdigster

I'm going to add more sway in my mod, and I can tell you from a programming standpoint, even though what you talked about is a great description of what really happens, it's going to be a lot tougher to represent that in game than just adding sway. If both reduce accurately in a similar way, I would rather go down the route that is easiest programming wise. It's the same as recoil, recoil isn't always an upward kick, but also pushes you back. How on earth can I simulate that? Easier to just make it kick upwards and make the player adjust. Again, not totally realistic, but neither is zoom, yet the end result works.

Don't focus so much on how you get the result and focus more on the end result. The end justifies the means.

I understand this is MUCH more difficult to program. However RO already has a system that facilitates this in place (note when you turn fast your sites mis-align). It would be a matter of adding a dummy force vector that reduces with a inverse log constant.

What I'm saying is the game sees it as psuedo turning and makes the sites misalign the same as if you were turning. so it takes advantage of the system they have in place.

 

[gimpy117]

Playing paintball I can lay down fire and hit some one out of 10 shots while sprinting. even if Im out of breath i dont have trouble aiming because I lean on something. it adds a bit more tremble while holding the gun with no rest but to be honest the adrenaline kicks in and thats all you need.

controlling recoil is something that isn't in paintball though...

 

[wigdigster]

controlling recoil is something that isn't in paintball though...

This is true, but when I mean sprinting, I mean full run gun in one hand. It doesn't take 5 seconds to line up your sites and put out a three round burst.

A lot of people assume that if you instant die its from a headshot....

Not true, any smart man will go for body shots with a bolt or with the smg and I can garauntee you, thats a pretty big target at 25 m. Also real guns are much more precise than a paintball gun so there's that too.

I dont want to debate the differences between paintball and real firearms.


The point i was trying to make is that I can make all the mental calculations necessary to line up a shot right after I sprinted 100 yards. remember that paintballs drop a lot more and drift too

@gentrinity


Odds are they use the angular velocity or angular acceleration to model how far the sites displace when you turn. This will be a vector, so its simply a matter of seeding this variable in a random semi random fashion when you click the sites button

 

[shadowmoses]

Playing paintball I can lay down fire and hit some one out of 10 shots while sprinting. even if Im out of breath i dont have trouble aiming because I lean on something. it adds a bit more tremble while holding the gun with no rest but to be honest the adrenaline kicks in and thats all you need.

controlling recoil is something that isn't in paintball though...

Nor do you have to deal with fatigue of carrying a 9lb weapon. More than 11 lbs if you are talking about the Mkb, 20 and 27 lbs in the case of the DP and the 34.

 

[wigdigster]

Nor do you have to deal with fatigue of carrying a 9lb weapon. More than 11 lbs if you are talking about the Mkb, 20 and 27 lbs in the case of the DP and the 34.

or ammo... note: i can do the same in airsoft with my ICS m16a4 which is simulation weight...

edit: mashing f5 haha I really should wait longer between posts..

 

[Josef Nader]

Most of these players run out of spawn and are exhausted when they reach the action area of the map.Do you think when you are exhausted you can aim a rifle and hit the target at anything farther than lets say 25 meters? Make it ten seconds to get breathing under control.5 seconds at 150 meters is a man in very good shape and experianced with his rifle.

I MIGHT miss that shot if I had massive cataracts and cerebral palsy, and it MIGHT take me that long to catch my breath if I had asthma.

Shooting doesn't even begin to get tricky until you're about 100m out, and even then that isn't that challenging. 200m+, MAYBE, but honestly.

You realize that every US soldier that has to go through the modern military has to pass a marksmanship course that involves a hard sprint between several stations, torso-sized pop up targets arranged between 50-300m, and only a few seconds to identify and shoot each hostile target? Failing to hit something like 50% of the targets results in the soldier being drummed out?

****, guys, you act like shooting a rifle is something difficult. It's not the marksmanship that's hard, it's the guys shooting back at you!

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

If you can't hit a target at 25 meters using a rifle after sprinting 30 yards, you are more combat effective by throwing your weapon than actually shooting it.

 

[wigdigster]

it should be noted to some readers that this wont change the fact that you'll get picked off at 200m by a rifleman if your running around like a moron. It will however take a little bit sitting at a spot to get sited in at that range, which I think is an accurate representation of shooting. This will cut down on pop out rifle sniping, which is almost impossible to do accurately in reality.

 

[Josef Nader]

it should be noted to some readers that this wont change the fact that you'll get picked off at 200m by a rifleman if your running around like a moron. It will however take a little bit sitting at a spot to get sited in at that range, which I think is an accurate representation of shooting. This will cut down on pop out rifle sniping, which is almost impossible to do accurately in reality.

No. It isn't.

What part of "US soldiers have to sprint between several stations shooting at pop-up targets at ranges between 50-300m with only a few seconds to make each shot" did you miss? Combat troops have to do this a couple times a month to keep their skills sharp, and if you don't score at least 30/50 hits you don't pass.

You don't have to sit there and "sight in" to a range, that's what your range adjustment on your iron-sights is for. It's already been sighted in (by you) so you know that each increment is accurate when it comes down to using it in combat. It's just a matter of judging the distance your target is at and adjusting your aim accordingly.

 

[Floyd]

Uh, I never did that.
They may do it today, but that certainly wasn't the case in my day.

Hi there. Go get your haircut. Here's your weapon. Lay down. Shoot a few rounds downrange. Get up. Board the plane. Kill the enemy. Pretty much how it went for the avg. Joe in the late '60's early '70's.

Problem with these forums is there are so many freakin 'experts'.

 

[Josef Nader]

Uh, I never did that.
They may do it today, but that certainly wasn't the case in my day.

Hi there. Go get your haircut. Here's your weapon. Lay down. Shoot a few rounds downrange. Get up. Board the plane. Kill the enemy. Pretty much how it went for the avg. Joe in the late '60's early '70's.

Problem with these forums is there are so many freakin 'experts'.

Wow, sounds like you were horribly undertrained when they sent you in-country.

All the soldiers I've talked to talk about Marksmanship training, including the several good friends I've had join up in the past few years and the close family friends still in active duty. They all seem to confirm this is par for the course.

I mean seriously, how could they send you into a combat zone without giving you a significant level of skill with your firearm? Isn't that one of the most important aspects of being a soldier? Being able to actually hit and kill the enemy before he kills you?

 

[gentrinity]

I mean seriously, how could they send you into a combat zone without giving you a significant level of skill with your firearm? Isn't that one of the most important aspects of being a soldier? Being able to actually hit and kill the enemy before he kills you?

As WW2 progressed, soldiers were sometimes sent to the frontlines with at most 2 clips worth of marksman training, and sometimes not even that. The Russians and Germans sent plenty of very poorly trained soldiers and expected them to learn marksmanship on the job. The US was also guilty of this. This is probably why research conducted by the American armed forces during WW2 showed that only 20-25% of men actually fired their weapons during engagements.

The myth of elite WW2 soldiers propagated by movies is exactly that, a myth.

 

[Josef Nader]

As WW2 progressed, soldiers were sometimes sent to the frontlines with at most 2 clips worth of marksman training, and sometimes not even that. The Russians and Germans sent plenty of very poorly trained soldiers and expected them to learn marksmanship on the job. The US was also guilty of this. This is probably why research conducted by the American armed forces during WW2 showed that only 20-25% of men actually fired their weapons during engagements.

The myth of elite WW2 soldiers propagated by movies is exactly that, a myth.

Source? The Soviets I can kind of understand, as they were fighting on their home turf, their factories were being bombed and shelled every day, and they're not known for their huge value of human life. I can see the Soviets shoving a rifle into some kid's hand as the Germans rolled up on his city and telling him "have at it, kid".

But the Germans? Sure, their training programs got desperate later in the war, but it was more or less the last vestiges of their actual military holding out against the inevitable than them pressing a bunch of untrained kids into service. Especially not this early in the war.

And the US? Bull****. Our factories were un-touched, our training grounds un-bombed, and we had the ability to train soldiers at our leisure. There was no rush, no hurry. It wasn't our homes that were getting shelled, bombed, or blown to bits every day. There was no rush to press people into service without proper training.

I smell hyperbole here...

 

[gentrinity]

Source? The Soviets I can kind of understand, as they were fighting on their home turf, their factories were being bombed and shelled every day, and they're not known for their huge value of human life. I can see the Soviets shoving a rifle into some kid's hand as the Germans rolled up on his city and telling him "have at it, kid".

But the Germans? Sure, their training programs got desperate later in the war, but it was more or less the last vestiges of their actual military holding out against the inevitable than them pressing a bunch of untrained kids into service. Especially not this early in the war.

And the US? Bull****. Our factories were un-touched, our training grounds un-bombed, and we had the ability to train soldiers at our leisure. There was no rush, no hurry. It wasn't our homes that were getting shelled, bombed, or blown to bits every day. There was no rush to press people into service without proper training.

I smell hyperbole here...

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA167920&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

20-25%

You explain that one then. I smell arrogance here...

 

[Josef Nader]

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA167920&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdfhttp://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA167920&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

20-25%

You explain that one then. I smell arrogance here...

That's a 52 page document.

Point me to what I'm looking at.

Some conclusions drawn from this investigation are: volume of rifle fire
probably has not been an effective measurement of the performance of infantry units
in combat; rather than rifle fire by individual riflemen, other elements of combat
power such as machine-guns, mortars, artillery, and personal initiative of the individual soldiers appears to have been decisive in combat;

Sounds like he's saying that all those "this many bullets per kill" statistics you guys love to throw around are a bad judge of how effective infantry were in combat...

 

[gentrinity]

That's a 52 page document.

Point me to what I'm looking at.

Dude, judging from the posts I've seen from you for the last month, you should read that whole thing as well as quite a few more books.

Sounds like he's saying that all those "this many bullets per kill" statistics you guys love to throw around are a bad judge of how effective infantry were in combat...

You know what dude, don't worry about it. Believe whatever you want to believe.