Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat? - Page 15 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: Who needs food, I've got planetside.
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Reply
Click here to go to the first VIP post in this thread.  
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2011-10-19, 02:25 AM   [Ignore Me] #211
SKYeXile
Major General
 
SKYeXile's Avatar
 
Re: Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat?


its gotta be more like real life guys!..need my video games realistic...look at how fun this is:


clearly me in the A10.
SKYeXile is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-19, 02:36 AM   [Ignore Me] #212
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat?


Originally Posted by Bags View Post
Leading targets is not cool. You had to lead targets in gunz the duel due to terrible whateverthefuckhitregistration they used. Say no to massive leading.
Why would you bring up a game like Gunz. That doesn't even convey what I said.

A good explanation would be like playing airsoft. You fire the round and watch it travel to the target. There's an unrealistic travel time so as you fire you see the pellets fly through the air and strike their location. When a person is running you have to aim a little in front as you fire and you can watch the pellets fly through the air and meet up with the target.

Pretty much all weapons should have that effect. Makes it look like each round is important and you visually see them travel and hit something. Especially for pistols and the MCG. Seeing each round fly through the air and drop would be sweet.

Oddly enough this unrealistic travel time allows you to move around between locations easier. Even if the enemy sees you the distance you run might be too short for them to lead and place their shots. Say it takes 500 ms to go 50m so you see someone run out from a tree then you fire at them your rounds will land behind them. You have to have the skill to aim in front and fire your rounds so they intercept the target.

Getting the impression you prefer raycasted bullets?

Last edited by Sirisian; 2011-10-19 at 02:39 AM.
Sirisian is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-19, 04:29 AM   [Ignore Me] #213
SKYeXile
Major General
 
SKYeXile's Avatar
 
Re: Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat?


err planetside already has somewhat realistic bullet travel time. making all guns lashers with bullet drop... terribly lame.
SKYeXile is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-19, 04:57 AM   [Ignore Me] #214
Traak
Colonel
 
Re: Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat?


That A10 video is awesome. I have to go and reinvent the concept of close air support now and put it on my blog.
Traak is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-19, 05:15 AM   [Ignore Me] #215
Kalbuth
First Sergeant
 
Re: Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat?


Originally Posted by Bags View Post
Leading targets is not cool. You had to lead targets in gunz the duel due to terrible whateverthefuckhitregistration they used. Say no to massive leading.
1) a slight lead is not that bad. Lasher, ofc, should not be taken as base example, a weapon technically designed to miss being the stupidest design ever
2) on a strafing target, you don't hit everything. On usual twitchy games, where movement is really a key part, hit percentage is usually 30%, 40% is indicative of a good player. headshots account for 5 to 10% of shots.
This is in games with engine and netcode making movement important and effective.

When I read "faster pace", I hope it's not only talking about TTK, but also character speed, up to a point where movement is going to be influencing hit percentage significantly, at least at range with a slight lead.
Kalbuth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-19, 05:32 AM   [Ignore Me] #216
SKYeXile
Major General
 
SKYeXile's Avatar
 
Re: Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat?


Originally Posted by Traak View Post
That A10 video is awesome. I have to go and reinvent the concept of close air support now and put it on my blog.
you're doing aircraft infantry support without the A10 for reference? *slap*
watch some youtube videos of A10's they're a wicked aircraft.
SKYeXile is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-19, 06:11 AM   [Ignore Me] #217
Traak
Colonel
 
Re: Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat?


Originally Posted by SKYeXile View Post
you're doing aircraft infantry support without the A10 for reference? *slap*
watch some youtube videos of A10's they're a wicked aircraft.
Actually, new uses for the A10 and other existing and future systems is more what I had in mind.
Traak is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-19, 10:04 AM   [Ignore Me] #218
Hamma
PSU Admin
 
Hamma's Avatar
 
Re: Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat?


Totally off topic on the A-10 thing.. but what a badass aircraft.
__________________

PlanetSide Universe - Administrator / Site Owner - Contact @ PSU
Hamma Time - Evil Ranting Admin - DragonWolves - Commanding Officer
Hamma is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-19, 06:11 PM   [Ignore Me] #219
Graywolves
General
 
Graywolves's Avatar
 
Re: Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat?


Hearing the A10 with your own ears is over half the awesomeness of it.

Vrroooom


That baby just unloaded all of its ammunition.
Graywolves is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-19, 10:15 PM   [Ignore Me] #220
BuzzCutPsycho
Sergeant Major
 
BuzzCutPsycho's Avatar
 
Re: Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat?


If you want realism ARMA3 won't disappoint.
__________________
BuzzCutPsycho is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-20, 03:18 AM   [Ignore Me] #221
Kalbuth
First Sergeant
 
Re: Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat?


Well, to continue on OT, if you want A10 : DCS-A10 is the way to go, this way : http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.co...eries/warthog/
Excellent simulation, which any simulation freak should already know of
Kalbuth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-10-20, 03:25 AM   [Ignore Me] #222
Traak
Colonel
 
Re: Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat?


Twelve 7.62mm miniguns slung under the wings with a minute's worth of ammunition each. Now that would be awesome to behold (72,000 rounds total)

Probably weigh less than the combined mass of the GAU-8 and available bomb payload, too. Perhaps two minutes of ammunition would be better, 144,000 rounds.

Talk about area denial. It would be a flying claymore mine.

If each of the six weapon barrels were aimed so that they diverged from center to cover exactly one sixth of the distance between each gun's centerline to the next gun at the desired range, then the following would be the case:

57ft. 6in. wingspan: miniguns placed along 48 feet of said width, yielding 48/11 (have to take one off for the 11 spaces between the 12 weapons) yields roughly 52 inches between each weapon.

If the weapon barrels are aimed so that the 72 barrels will aim, at the desired range, at a swath 100 feet wide, evenly spaced, that will yield, conveniently, 72 separate lines of impact points, that are about 20 and a quarter inches between each impact point, laterally.

Further, given a rate of fire per weapon of 6,000 rpm, or 100rps, which, due to the barrel divergence, is 100/6 rounds per aim point per second.

So, given about 16 rounds per second per impact aim point, what kind of swath would this weapon system cut through an area?

Well, we know it is 100 feet wide, at, say, 1000 feet of altitude as an example. What would be the pattern of bullets on the ground?

Well, let's give it an airspeed of 150mph, a few miles per hour above its stall speed of 138mph.

150mph X 1.466666 equals its feet per second. This is 220 feet per second.

220 feet per second/ 16 rounds per second equals 13.75 feet between each round, where it impacts the ground.

If you include enough ammunition for one minute of fire, that will yield a pattern 100 feet wide with bullets striking in a grid of 20.25 by 13 feet eight inches along the ground.

This may not sound like great coverage. However, keep in mind, that if the weapons are aimed to yield a net 20 degree angle of impact (relative to horizontal) then the number of bullets hitting a standing man who is 6 feet tall and 20.25 inches wide will be one bullet near his center of mass, or two, one near his ankles, one near his head.

If the altitude is cut to 500 feet, since the guns are spaced at 48 feet, then that is 52 feet of divergence (from 48 feet between weapons to 100 feet between impact points) in 1000 feet, which is 26 feet of divergence at 500 feet, or a 48+26=70 foot-wide swath, with about 14 inches between each projectile aim point, on the ground. It would be very difficult to avoid this kind of fire density.

With the aircraft flying for one minute flat and level, with 72000 rounds of ammunition (one minute of fire at 6000rpm per weapon) used, it would cut a swath 100 feet wide from 1000 feet of altitude, or a swath 70 feet wide at 500 feet of altitude, at 150 mph, 2.5 miles long.

Imagine a 2.5 mile long kill zone accomplished in one minute with one aircraft, with strips of bullets 14 inches apart from 500 feet, or 20 inches apart at 1000 feet.

With 20 miniguns instead of 12, the 100-foot-wide kill zone would be 12 inches between bullets.

Not many could survive that kind of attack.

About 4000 lbs in ammunition for one minute of firing for all weapons for one minute.
50 pounds per weapon, with ammo management and all added in, for 600 lbs weight there.

The whole system, with 72,000 rounds, 12 weapons, would be only 4600 lbs. That's kind of light, considering the GAU-8 with its ammo weighs about 4000 lbs, and the A-10 has 16,000 lbs of external payload capacity, that means you can add 24 Miniguns, each with one minute and fifty seconds of ammunition for a total of 264,000 rounds, and still only have less than 15,750 lbs of under-wing payload.

This would allow it to retain the GAU-8 with a full can off ammo, and be able to stitch a swath 5 miles long and 100 feet wide with a matrix of bullets 1 foot by 13 feet eight inches.

Or a swath about five miles long with a matrix of bullets every twenty inches between bullet aimpoints, one in every 6 feet nine inches, along the ground.

The miniguns can be positioned to center the recoil in an axis intersecting the center of mass of the aircraft. The aggregate recoil force of the guns would be 3600 lbs for 24 of them.

If the weapons were pointed down and backwards, at about 85 degrees from vertical, then it would add 3600 lbs of forward and (mostly) upward thrust to the aircraft. Lead afterburner?

Plus the GAU-8 for any particularly determined or tough targets.

The A-10 gunship. For those times when missing is just not an option.

Last edited by Traak; 2011-10-20 at 05:23 AM.
Traak is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
  PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Bookmarks

Discord


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:31 PM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.