Joined
Last Online
Recent Posts
posted in Insurgency - General Discussion read more

Well just to clear things up, I did not serve in any military, I'm not even american. The name I use, came up with when I was 12 playing BF2, since the bots there were named like that as well.
Much like someone named Barrack Obama is probably not your former president playing Insurgency Sandstorm lol

But not serving in any military does not mean you're automatically wrong. I just did my homework, because this stuff is interesting for me. I base my knowledge on other experts' opinions and stuff that I've seen on actual videos.

And I kind of agree, Sandstorm hasn't really stayed true to it's roots. It could be improved if the bots we shoot at wouldn't be terminators and did actually react to being shot, like a normal human being or by making the bullets kill easier.

posted in Insurgency - General Discussion read more

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

@sgt-kanyo With the .50 AE example you're moving into kinetic energy calculations, you're trying to twist an argument into having weight but you don't even know the physics for why it deals the damage it does.. smdh

Ek = 1/2 mv^2

A .50 AE is a heavy projectile (high mass) moving at a relatively high velocity but not rifle-velocity because of the short barrels of the Desert Eagle (that's often the ones used for the measurements of it) but it is such a heavy round that it still has between 1900 to 2200+ joules of energy. That's almost double that of a 5.56x45mm NATO.. so you should be able to understand exactly why that is such a "heavy hitter" for PRETTY OBVIOUS REASONS.

The .50cal rifles (Barrett M82 & Zijiang M99, one being .50BMG/12.7x99mm and the other firing the Russian 12.7x108mm) have rounds moving in the range of 800-900m/s with kinetic energy ranging from 16-20KJ, not even remotely comparable.. There is zero chance IW releases them doing "gracing" hits...

The way you try to argue makes it seem like you're not particularly familiar with ballistics nor physics in general. Do you call yourself "Sgt." just because you like the sound of it?
Some of us on here have actually served and used a plethora of the weapons in the game, and have countless rounds fired in each of them.... but I don't expect everyone to have in-depth knowledge about firearms or have served (or even have much knowledge about firearms even if they HAVE served), but if you're going to try to be a smart-ass..... at least just google some basics about ballistics.

I tried to simplify it so people could get the gist of it without having to know a vast amount about the topic, but you just had to come and be snarky..

_

@turyl Yeah the long over due implementation of AP rounds for it was needed, and makes it feel a bit more "right" now

_

@marksmanmax A 12gauge slug has equal or greater energy than a 7.62x51mm/.308 (usually close to 50% more), and you wonder why it can more effectively kill than a .308? lol
Glock 17 doesn't have better velocity than the MP5's, it has lower, but some pistols (like the P226) have different twist-rates etc, and get better velocities, but you have to remember one thing when it comes to pistol-calibers... a LOT of the problems with it is, the ammo is often optimized for pistol use and not carbine use, so it's a high burn-rate powder that is meant to burn up completely before exiting a pistol-barrel, and when you then put it into a longer barrel it might underperform velocity-wise (but it varries). Granted, they seemed to have used SIG's numbers for the P226/L106A1 for upper limit to velocity when using +P ammo in it, as the standard velocity for some reason (whereas SIG lists it as upper limit for safe ammo lol), but the MP5 for instance loses some velocity due to it's heavier mechanism it has to move when also being "blockback"-recoil driven, whereas a gas-operated pistol-caliber carbine would have more velocity usually. The numbers are still technically "correct", just them choosing the P226's ammo will be +P ammo.. and your point about "as all the powder burns", well it doesn't on the SCAR-H for instance, round leaves the barrel before then, so its short barrel lands the round's velocity at that of the AKM by the time both have had their projectiles leave the barrel, those are the very same numbers as they have in real life. You can probably google it and see it being the case. It makes perfect sense they have the same penetration when they have the same projectile moving at the same speed.. that's literally how it works.
Things are working as they should.. your OPINION being that it should be performing better doesn't detract from it working as it does in real life and that's why it's based on the numbers they use. The reason I go to the L86 is the velocity and control, amazing hipfire allowing for use of a magnified optic always etc.

You served --> You're a weapon's expert and physics professor

Got it!

Once again let me just bring up the SCAR-H:
US Army: Right folks we need a new AR, since our 5.56 based M4s don't always kill with 1 shot.
FN Herstal: Sure man, here's an AR that is just as "bad" in killing term as the M4, but at least it only has a 20 round mag and weighs a lot more.
US Army: That's amazing, we'll take it.

Also I love how you applied high school physics here lol. Human anatomy and ballistics physics is a "bit" more complicated then that 🙂
It's so complicated that I won't pretend I know anything about it, and you shouldn't either.
You need to take into consideration how the bullet deforms on impact, how it travels through your body, if it travels through or stays in there, how it's higher weight carries more energy, how much of this energy is spread across the human body, how big in diameter it is and some stuff I can't even think of, since I'm not an expert. But I've seen videos / read in articles where these bullets kill, where they tear off arms if they hit your arm socket. Please do not argue with actual evidence.

Once again textbook is not always the same as real life. This can be said for anything.

posted in Insurgency - General Discussion read more

@mainfold said in BUFF 7.62x39 and 5.56 DON'T nerf anything:

This keeps coming up, so I almost can't be bothered to have to write all the freaking essays of explanations just so people will understand WHY things are as they are, but I'll try to make it short and simple so you maybe get it.

  • The weapon damage in the game is 100% working as intended and based on physics. Don't argue with it.

  • The velocities of different weapons are based on what they have in real life. Don't argue with it.

  • The damage is based on projectile type (size/weight/mass/material/etc) combined with velocity. Don't argue with that either.

If two different guns have the same projectile (and caliber), but in different rounds (i.e; 7.62x39mm and 7.62x51mm, they both have the same "pill" aka projectile), but they move at different speeds because of the powder differences in the different rounds allow for higher velocity in theory... but the barrel-length of the firearms put them at the same velocity....

..then the projectile fired out of the gun chambered in 7.62x51mm will behave identical to the one out of the one chambered in 7.62x39mm, but the one in 7.62x51mm will still have more powder that gets ignited but not able to burn it up quickly enough before the projectile leaves the barrel..... then that extra powder will just net you more recoil instead, but have the same ballistics as the 7.62x39mm once in flight.

Look at the velocities. AKM & SCAR-H have roughly the same velocity, and same same projectiles in the casings. Meaning the SCAR-H will "underperform" ballistically compared to other 7.62x51mm chambered firearms with longer barrels and higher velocities.

so..
All the ballistic performances of weapons in the game are working as intended. Do not argue with it. They don't need buffs, nerfs..
The only time you can start to complain, is when it comes to things not performing as they should..
For instance, if one gun fires 5.56x45mm NATO normal ammo, another fires 5.56x45mm NATO Armor Piercing ammo but both have the same velocity.. and the normal (non-AP) 5.56 one penetrates more than the armor piercing one (as you can see by the "PP"-stat, which is pilodyn penetration - a density & penetration standard), then there is a problem.

Velocity, material, mass, etc, are taken into account for pilodyn penetration.
If the PP is higher, then it'll penetrate better, if penetration is no problem, it's just down to pure damage on target from the physics of the impact (and round-type varying the hydrostatic pressure & cavitation ability on flesh).

Damage and such is working as intended, you're just not used to it because you're used to other video games that don't do it right.

So basically what you're saying here is that the .50 AE since it's moving at a grandma pace: ~450 ms, it shouldn't deal such damage. I'm pretty sure there are a few dead bodies with missing limbs (if not heads) that'd testify otherwise.
"Oh no no no, .50 AE won't hurt too much, it's not moving fast enough, it's okay"
When you get hit by a car driving at 50 km/h (13.8 ms) that won't kill you either right? I mean it's not moving fast.

I can't wait for your explanation when NWI releases a weak ass M82 Barrett that sometimes kill with limbs falling off, but there's that chance that you hit someone and he'll survive and keep running like nothing ever happened.

You tried very hard to make your post sound rational by including a lot of factors, but the fact of the matter is that you don't know what's textbook and what's in real life.
All bullets were designed to kill or severly incapacitate, not ask you nicely to maybe please put the gun down and give your enemy a hug. The reason some bullets do not kill on first shot is because technology advanced.

posted in Insurgency - General Discussion read more

Another way to stop the Michael Schumachers is to not be able to capture an objective until certain % of the enemies are killed or / and not being able to capture an objective by yourself. Once again a certain percent of players need to be on the objective to capture.
I remember on the EBS servers for Insurgency, we only took an objective when everyone was ready, when everyone prepared for the counter attack with C4s and whatever.
Maybe having a certain percent of players is not a good idea, but not letting anyone capture the objective until a certain percent of enemies are still present can fix the race for the objective. I can't even count how many times I got shot by a village of hajis while cowards ran forward to the objective then hid in a corner.

posted in Insurgency - General Discussion read more

Good suggestions. I haven't tried the PKM yet, but currently the M249's recoil seems to be nice. It can be controlled. Maybe the PKM should receive more recoil since it's an old piece of shit with an "Imma tear your arm off" 7.62x54 cartridge.

I still can't believe NWI thinks the MP7 is less deadly than an MP5. Or that the SCAR-H's 7.62 deals the same or less damage than the M4's 5.56. They seem to have gotten this stupid idea in their head that the damage dealt to a human body is only determined by the muzzle velocity. Like what in the actual fuck.

posted in Insurgency - Technical Feedback read more

@gsg_9_lightning said in Zoom lod distance:

@sgt-kanyo said in Zoom lod distance:

I have everything on very high except for shadows which is on high.
Anisotropic filtering on 16x. Scope setting on normal not picture in picture. And that won't change a thing.

Interesting settings !
Aren´t you one of those who are wondering why the game feels stuttery/sluggish and gameplay has only low FPS !?
If i used your settings on my PC my game would only run 40 - 50 FPS maximum which is an absolute no go.
That would feel like i was moving in a viscous world.

80 frames per second are the targeted minimum, but you cannot tell me you reach that with your settings !? Do you ?

I never complained about the FPS. I probably don't have a constant 60 fps, but as long as I'm getting 40, I'm good.
Also you do realise, that movies play at 24 fps right? In video games 30 fps is already constantly moving, but your eye perceive it a bit slower which indeed in an FPS game is kind of important, but going over 60 fps, noone in the world can tell the difference between 60 fps and 600 fps, so ... yeah.
alt text

Anyway back to the thread, I shared my settings so that people know, that ugly as car model is not because I'm using some low settings, it's because that's what the game looks like. It's clearly a bug and it should not look like that. It's not just the car, it's the buildings too. They use a much lower quality LOD model that should only be seen from a distance.

posted in Insurgency - Technical Feedback read more

@bandungpojok said in Zoom lod distance:

its both mesh and texture, but the game combines both of them on 'texture settings'

I have everything on very high except for shadows which is on high.
Anisotropic filtering on 16x. Scope setting on normal not picture in picture. And that won't change a thing.

posted in Insurgency - Technical Feedback read more

I'm sorry what does the textures have anything to do with this? Look at the car model. It's a low poly LOD mesh. Or should I say mess.

posted in Insurgency - General Discussion read more

@maa_bunny said in Sliding is realistic but a small dive is not?:

@sgt-kanyo said in Sliding is realistic but a small dive is not?:

No, what I'm suggesting is not to defy the laws of physics. You slide around on your knees in game like you're on ice. Hell you wouldn't be able to slide like that on ice either, because your knees would cry out in help. I suggest you try sliding like that in real life, even on grass, and you'll see that it just makes no sense.

I've slid into cover many times on grass, dirt, and concrete; both wearing knee pads and not. It's absolutely realistic. You can fire while doing it too, but not accurately.

I've never dived though. It would be a pretty painful experience with most gear layouts, and it's not a good way to end up in a stable fighting position. It might be a good way to avoid being blown up, but I've never had to worry about that.

In real life?
Because in that case, you're either lying, or lying.
No way anyone would land on their knees. It's simple physics and human anatomy...
What I can imagine is on grass you can kind of arrive on your ass, but it'd require you to balance yourself with your arms.

But honestly I don't really care if it's in game or not, since I can always simply not use the slide feature lol.

posted in Insurgency - General Discussion read more

@cyoce said in Sliding is realistic but a small dive is not?:

@sgt-kanyo Sliding is already useless for anything other than exploits. It's just slower than normal movement, locks your gun, and has a long recovery time. You're suggesting it should be nerfed?

No, what I'm suggesting is not to defy the laws of physics. You slide around on your knees in game like you're on ice. Hell you wouldn't be able to slide like that on ice either, because your knees would cry out in help. I suggest you try sliding like that in real life, even on grass, and you'll see that it just makes no sense.


Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.