Jump to content

Gews

Member
  • Content count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gews

  1. Focus Zoom

    Reticle needs to be a specific size for the rangefinder / bullet drop compensation to work. If you don't have 'focus zoom' then things appear smaller. And even if you make the image 4x larger the resulting sizes are still small. And so you need a small reticle. For another example, TA01NSN will look this size, at 4x from ~91 deg FOV: 4x from a ~58 deg FOV ('focus zoom') it would look like this:
  2. Focus Zoom

    1.8 m tall man, 100 m distance = 0.018 rad If you want to maintain the same angular value, for a viewing distance of 2 feet the 1.8 m man at 100 m should be displayed as 0.432" tall. For a 12.75" high 1920x1080 16:9 screen (~24" diagonal) that means 37 pixels. Everyone has a different distance/monitor, and there are other considerations, however. Here's a problem you get without any zoom. I scaled this PSO-1 reticle (scaled reticle only and not the surrounding black mask) to be properly sized when magnifying 4x from the base FOV of ~91° (ie, no 'eye zoom'). See how the reticle has to be really small? Doesn't look or play that great. Here's the same reticle correctly scaled when you zoom 4x from the base 'eye zoom' FOV of ~58°. Much better.
  3. Are you a good shot?

    0.44, 800 dpi, off.
  4. Are you a good shot?

    Not particularly. My frames aren't that great these days either. Red dot is okay but for whatever reason I seem to get the most satisfaction tapping with AKM, of the non-magnified sights.
  5. Music!

    Via spotify.me: 88% of your tracks are energetic 88% of your tracks are danceable Overall, your tracks are positive Your top genre is Dance Pop which appears in 100% of your top tracks. 100% of your favorite artists are within your most-listened to genre. YOU ARE HIGH ENERGY! We can’t seem to find any chill music in your recent streaming history. Generated playlist: Charli XCX - "Body of My Own" Little Boots - "New in Town" RuPaul - "U Wear It Well" Becky G - "Sola" JoJo - "Breezy" HAIM - "Something to Tell You" Carly Rae Jepsen - "More Than A Memory" Charli XCX - "SuperLove" Kesha - "TiK ToK" Neon Hitch - "Yard Sale" (PomPom Remix) RuPaul - "Champion" Carly Rae Jepsen - "Curiosity" Iggy Azalea ft. Rita Ora - "Black Widow" Little Boots - "Headphones" Karmin - "No Suitcase" Rita Ora - "How We Do (Party)" Charli XCX - "Red Balloon" The Saturdays - "808" MUNA - "I Know A Place" Jessie J - "Said Too Much"
  6. Music!

  7. Music!

    Kesha released a new song the other day. The first time she's been on the charts since her feature on Timber (2013).
  8. Music!

  9. I noticed some strange things concerning damage and specifically, drop in damage, from this spreadsheet (apparently last updated in version 9.2). It got me wondering how the initial damages and their drop-offs were calculated. This system is extremely simplistic but it still looks like there's plenty of room for improvement. Just a handful of examples: PPSh-41 vs M9A1 For comparison—values from ballistic calculator: PPSh-41 starts with much higher muzzle energy, but the high-speed bullet experiences more drag and rapidly slows down. By 100 m, the remaining energy of the two projectiles is almost equal. In-game: PPSh-41 bullet loses damage gradually, while the bullet from the M9A1 experiences a sudden cliff-like drop. At 20 meters, the PPSh bullet has over 5 times the damage of the 9 mm bullet. Final damage of PPSh-41 bullet is more than double that of M9A1. ? Unexplained, extremely sharp drop on damage for all pistols past a short range. Doesn't seem to apply to SMG firing pistol cartridge. M9A1 at 200 m would have about the same energy as Makarov pistol point-blank, yet in Squad it would have less than 1/4 the Makarov's damage (in fact, as shown above, it would have less than 1/4 the Makarov's initial damage at only 20 m...). Why is the final damage so low on the pistol projectiles? AKM vs AK74 Ballistic calculator: AKM starts with higher muzzle energy but the AK74's more aerodynamic projectile slowly closes the gap. At 500 m, remaining energy is almost equal between the two rounds. In-game: AKM has a fast drop off in damage at just 150 m, after which, for a good distance, the AK74 is much superior. ? AKM has a less aerodynamic projectile than the AK74, but this doesn't explain such a sharp drop so soon. Could it be that AK74's bullet tumbling inside target was taken into account? Probably not, since AKM has 18% higher damage for the first 150 m. Not sure what that drop-off is based on. M110, SVD, G3A3 Ballistic calculator: All three rifles have fairly similar drop in energy. M110's projectile has the highest ballistic coefficient and initial energy, using book values. In-game: M110 damage starts to drop off at only 283 m, but SVD's damage doesn't start to fall until an incredible 365 m. In addition to drop-off advantage the SVD has 8% higher initial damage than M110. The G3A3 experiences a drop in damage much sooner than the other two. ? Why does SVD's damage not drop off sooner? The SVD projectiles are lighter and have an inferior ballistic coefficient compared to those of the M110. Why does the SVD have more initial damage than the M110? AFAIK Squad doesn't attempt to account for body armor and therefore I would expect the M110's 175-gr SMKs to provide equal or greater damage, depending on variables. If projectile construction was simply ignored, M110 still has the highest muzzle energy. Why does G3A3 experience its damage drop-off so soon? It reaches its minimum damage of 35 just 40 meters after the M4A1 and RPK74 hit the same number, which doesn't seem right.
  10. Damage drop-off...?

    Developers seem to be telling a different story (emphasis mine): No, it's not totally 1:1 with real life, it's not intended to be, and couldn't be in any case. But your comment is hyperbolic. Even without relating to real life the question of how or why the specific values are chosen remains just as valid.
  11. Bullets - Speed

    Uh, that's not how it works. Insurgency now has a system for 'penetration-based armor', but it's only live on co-op and competitive. No body armor in Squad, they have multipliers for different body parts but AFAIK this doesn't take into account armor.
  12. Bullets - Speed

    You are. Ideal performance makes the most of the bullet's energy. As the article says, "if a bullet leaves the target at high speed, it's taking valuable energy with it". That doesn't imply the same bullet will cause more damage when it's moving slow enough to remain in the target. If you were after deer you would want a bullet that uses the majority of its energy through expansion, cavitation, etc, and exits the other side with modest velocity. Exit because exit wound = better blood trail (although you may not need it, nice to have). If you were after, say, coyote, maybe you want to save the pelt and use a lighter bullet that 'blows up' inside the animal in an attempt to avoid an exit wound. But in both cases you want, first and foremost, appropriate penetration, and second, to use all or most of the energy because this usually means a larger wound. Bullets are also not always designed for one scenario, so a general purpose hunting bullet would need to have enough penetration to cover many different shots, eg, not just broadside behind the shoulder. Typically, the higher the speed of impact, the greater the projectile's deformation, so a higher speed will usually mean more damage. If you push a bullet at speeds higher than it was designed for it may deform too much to penetrate adequately, or if the bullet has little or no deformation in the first place there may be little advantage to the higher speed, depending on the shot taken, tissue vs bone, etc. Nosler E-Tip Anyways, in Squad it only makes sense higher speed = more damage.
  13. Sniper rifle damage.

    There are plenty that can stand up to that. Multiple standard Russian armor (with plates) is rated to stop 7N13 at 100 m. 6B4X with Granite-6 plates stops it at only 10 m. Can SAPI/ESAPI? Don't know, but that is rated to stop .30-06 black tip AP at close range. And note that 7N13 will lose ~30% of its energy at only 200 m. (but then again, we do not have functional body armor in Squad)
  14. If the effect this feature has on in-game visual capability is "net positive" for realism, how does that make the feature unrealistic? Clearly everyone knows human eyes do not have a variable zoom. And why does that matter? It's not a human eye we have. It's beside the point, which is very basic: what can I see, and how does it compare to real life? You can say at same time, zoom is unrealistic, yet also zoom provides a more realistic vision. Which is why it is "subjective at best"... but I find any realism-based argument for "no zoom" is quite weak.
  15. Subjective at best. It depends on your definition of what is "realistic". If features are introduced that make the gameplay more closely mimic real life, then those features can be said to be "realistic". Very specific point of realism: eyes don't have variable zoom. Okay. Big-picture, over-arching realism: engagement distance and visual capabilities closer to real life. Which, overall, provides more realism to the game? Same thing with any suppression mechanics. Any HUD features whatsoever, even pain/wound indication. Etc. Yes, looking only at the very basic "eyes don't zoom" it's "unrealistic". Yet—those features belong in realistic games. Unrealistic feature providing more overall realism? Does that make the feature, as a whole, unrealistic? Provide sources for these statements, please. I don't think that's an achievable reduction for a game that gives ACOG, 1P29, SVD or M110 to each squad.
  16. Shift-zoom is intended. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be here. They are also adding it to machine guns. Haha. Taken by itself, eyes "zooming" (variable FOV) is unrealistic. However, the visual capability created by eyes "zooming" (variable FOV) is realistic. The defining factor here is "what can you see and how does it compare to real life?" Therefore, the feature as a whole is realistic and belongs in realistic games. Does it belong in Squad? Well, I don't really care. Did I say we needed longer engagement distances in this game? Correct, I mentioned it earlier as well: However this absolute statement... ...does not hold water. Games can pick a suitable minimum FOV that is a balance between realistic relative sizes and identification of objects based on average hardware with the consideration that it will be easier to spot movements and figures in the game world. We already have adjustable FOV, just not in game. ARMA 3 was changed, now zooms 3x to 37° FOV. This is the same as in ARMA 2. Looking at distant objects, I think that's a bit too much for 20-24" 1920x1080. Previously it was only a 2x zoom to 53°, which I thought was better. Soldiers were smaller and harder to see, but not too much so. DayZ has a minimum 58° FOV, less zoom than A3, which the devs have played around with in various patches. See how "eye zoom" can be so greatly different? In those games, on the standard maps, I think 50-60° is a very suitable level of zoom. Squad? Well, there is hardly a zoom at all compared to any of those BIS games. I don't see how Squad's current shift-zoom "ruins" the gameplay or is supposedly against dev wishes or "unintended". Engagement distances are already quite short.
  17. Absolutely. You can already see them several times further without even shift-zoom. *cough* kilometres. It improves the realism of your character's visual capabilities, which is the deciding factor in whether or not something is "realistic": how well can you see in-game compared to an average person in real life? ... with variable FOV your capabilities are closer to real vision than with a fixed FOV... and that makes the feature... wait for it... realistic. Nope, I made no assumptions. I'm aware of their intentions. Have read their statements. It's not relevant to my argument. I didn't say ARMA-level zoom is right for Squad. There's a fair chance it would even hurt the gameplay. I'm taking objection to the fact you say a variable FOV is "unrealistic".
  18. Again: you are not playing with a human eye. You're playing with a monitor that is representing the capabilities of a human eye. Yours is a simplistic and incorrect view, as shown by the following... So "realistic eyesight", in your opinion, means myopic soldiers? Back to the previous: if the eyesight with fixed FOV is more "realistic", then why are the engagement distances so much shorter? Maybe because people can't see properly? Why can't they see properly? Perhaps because fixed FOV is... unrealistic? Do you own a rangefinder? Yes? Laser some distant targets and compare to the same ranges in Squad. No? Then use Google Maps and do the same thing. Unless you have serious vision problems you will notice people appear a lot bigger and much more detailed in real life. It's almost as if the player "eye" should have a higher resolution and provide a larger image. Strange, no? It's not just in ARMA but also VBS, DCS simulations, etc. There is a reason for that. ARMA characters have three FOVs: minFov (zoomed in, RMB or + on numpad) initFov (the initial level) maxFov (zoomed out, - on numpad) ARMA zoom is defined like this: minFov of character/FOV of optic (opticsZoomMax/Min) The character minFov is currently 0.25. The initFov (unzoomed vision) is 0.75. The LRPS has these stats: opticsZoomMin = 0.01; opticsZoomMax = 0.04; The DMS has these stats: opticsZoomMin = 0.0625; opticsZoomMax = 0.125; Which means: 0.25/0.01 = 25 0.25/0.04 = 5 0.25/0.0625 = 4 0.25/0.125 = 2 LRPS is a 5-25x scope, and DMS is a 2-4x scope. Zoom is counted from zoomed-in FOV because zoomed-in FOV is considered to represent normal visual acuity. Zoomed-out level is only there for the increased field of view. From DayZ senior designer Jan Tomasik, status report 0.58: Since there's been some discussion regarding changes in the character zoom mechanic I decided to jump in and explain what are we trying to achieve. We should probably start by asking the question "Why have a characters-eye zoom in the first place?". It's the old problem with emulating a 3D world on insufficient hardware. The human field of vision (fov) is around 190° and the area where the vision cones of both eyes overlap is around 100°. Unfortunately, most of todays monitors viewed from a regular distance usually tend to cover only 45°of human fov in real life. This means that if you want for target on screen to appear in real-life size you are only able to display around ~1/2 of what you would see in reality, stereoscopically. And so as a designer you have to choose - Should I display objects in the distance properly but sacrifice the overall vision or set the fov to 100° but deform the whole picture? The trick of Arma is actually not to choose and instead introduce an "eye zoom" instead. This way you can keep the surrounding awareness by setting the default fov to 100°, but when necessary to perceive a depth of field properly occurs (ie. you are shooting), you can "zoom in" to 45°. 0.57 unzoomed eye vision 0.57 Eye Zoom 0.58 Eye Zoom Define "1x". What's the baseline FOV? If we were looking for "realistic vision", in your opinion, should we have a fisheye 180-degree FOV? Or would we scale the images produced to realistic sizes based on the average monitor and viewing distance, resulting in a FOV of 45 degrees or less? Or let people choose from any number 30-200 deg?
  19. No, it doesn't make sense. You still have not explained how variable FOV/eye zoom is "unrealistic". It's a method to make a flat, low-res monitor represent the capability of the human eye. It seems like you are telling me than sticking with fixed, ~90-degree FOV is more realistic. Okay, why? You will find this "eye zoom" feature in any serious combat flight sim, and those flight sims make all the infantry "realistic"/"milsims" look like jokes. Unrealistic? Also: "Bionic zoom makes sense in games like, say, ArmA because it's meant to simulate realistic engagements" and then "This feature does nothing but cause them to hamper gunplay at the expense of keeping an unrealistic feature [...] It actively makes the game unrealistic while causing them to make the rest of the game less realistic around it" ? Quite the opposite. ARMA zooms are not "off". The zoom is taken from the character's minFov (their zoomed-in vision). The minFov/zoomed-in view is the baseline, it's the 1x vision. The character defaults to a zoomed OUT vision which is less than 1x. Players aren't zooming in more than normal, they are zoomed out more than normal by default. Normal vision = zoomed in. In ARMA a "4X" scope will zoom exactly 4X larger than what you can see with your bare eyes. "Zoomed out" in ARMA is not 1x magnification! It's only there for peripheral view. If anything Squad zoom is "off". Thanks to the shift+zoom only applying to iron sights, a 4X scope doesn't magnify your vision 4X greater than you can see with iron sights or non-magnified optics. What is shift-zoom, around 1.5x? Well, that would make the ACOG effectively 4/1.5 = 2.67x more zoom than bare eyes. To be consistent the shift+zoom should apply to scopes as well (or if you got your wish, neither). You're talking about the "unrealistic" nature of variable FOV at first, and then flip-flopping to "the devs don't want realistic engagement ranges" and 100 m engagements. If that is your argument, gameplay>realism and all that, then don't talk about the "realism" of variable FOV.
  20. Are BTR KPVTs really this inaccurate?

    Yep, it's for bursts.
  21. Are BTR KPVTs really this inaccurate?

    I have copy of 1980s KPVT manual. Firing table extends to 2,000 m. At that range 50% of the shots fly within a circle about 4 m wide. At 500 m, 50% of the shots will fly within roughly 2/3 m. And at 200 m, it's about 1/4 m. Note that the diameter of circle covering 100% hit rate is 4 times larger. And technically a slight ellipse.
  22. Here you've said giving players eyes a variable FOV is "unrealistic". Yet here, within the same post, you say that that Squad "isn't a realistic game" and that so-called "bionic zoom" "makes sense" in games that are more realistic than Squad: So which? The argument of "real eyes don't zoom" has no merit. We aren't playing with physical eyes, we are playing on flat, low-resolution monitors. Variable FOV can help better represent the capabilities of the human eye. You can make an argument based on gameplay (don't want long engagement distances and people sitting sniping from hills) or even realism (given that you can see them, it's usually far easier to both hit targets and to spot enemy movement in a game), but calling it "bionic vision" and saying it's unrealistic because human eyes don't have a variable magnification is silly. That's not true in Squad currently, and not true even for games with large "bionic" zoom. 4x scope has no advantage over shift-zoom? Really? ARMA has a large zoom of 3x IIRC, you can view people more than a kilometre off (although they are little dots) and optics are still useful because the overall engagement distance has increased.
  23. Criticism V7

    No, shotguns are not illegal. Read this, starting on page 16: https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/10-1997.pdf " Lead-and-antimony buckshot does not “expand or flatten easily,” and therefore violates neither the 1899 Hague Declaration nor the criteria for legality previously articulated in opinions of The Judge Advocate General, United States Army." When weapon is "exotic" it's often not represented realistically in a game.
  24. Criticism V7

    I'm fully aware Russian Army doesn't issue shotguns, however developers seem to intend on having a shotgun for the Russian faction anyways. As for ballistic breaching with shotgun, it has its pros and cons, mainly: it's relatively simple, faster than a ram and safer than using explosives. VSS is in another game I play. As usual devs have given it too much damage, and players seem to think it should have even more damage and also be able to pierce ceramic hard plates. In which service? In US military there have been no type-classified slugs, for anti-personnel rounds only buckshot (and experimental flechette). Slugs have been acquired by US soldiers, but not officially.
×