Jump to content

Recommended Posts

whats wrong with you guys ... since when does the ak74 have so much recoil?

 

did u guys ever use the gun?

 

tbh the recoils on all weapons are just insane ... i never had this much recoil on guns and i fired alot of firearms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dubs   

The game has realistic MOA, but slightly exaggerated recoil - To influence players to use single fire more regularly, instead of spraying everything they see fully auto 300m out.

And to answer your final question "did u guys ever use the gun?" - Quite a few of the devs are military veterans. With that comes use of firearms and other weapon systems. Quite a few devs have done live fire testing/range shooting too, I believe based on previous conversations with them over the years.

Also, If you want to make a point and for people to take your post seriously, adjust the tone of your comments/posts and be respectable towards not only the developers, but all users of this forums. Take note of the forum rules

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peerun   

The recoil is definitely exaggerated, but controlable. I feel like the philosophy of it is to make the player always consciously react to the recoil. In many other games, it's just a matter of waiting for the sights to adjust or compensating for the slight change in direction of the bullets. Here you have to adjust for each individual shot.
Though...
In the new recaps/progress updates you can readily see that they've redone the recoil. Now it's more of a backwards motion with the sights microjumping in all directions, while still having a climb. Really looking forward to it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the  5.45mm doesnt even have recoil ... its just so easy and it just makes me angry when i get the same recoil as the ak47 / AKM(or AK 47 type 4 for the geeks) in this game ... and i sometimes wonder... why use the ak74 right now

 

also where is the AK103 

Edited by RePlayByo101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peerun   
25 minutes ago, RePlayByo101 said:

the  5.45mm doesnt even have recoil ... its just so easy and it just makes me angry when i get the same recoil as the ak47 / AKM(or AK 47 type 4 for the geeks) in this game ... and i sometimes wonder... why use the ak74 right now

 

also where is the AK103 


Afaik the AK74 has a lower damage dropoff at medium to long distance.
Squad is trying to portray the regular military, whereas the AK103...
YvhU946.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RePlayByo101 said:

the  5.45mm doesnt even have recoil ... its just so easy and it just makes me angry when i get the same recoil as the ak47 / AKM(or AK 47 type 4 for the geeks) in this game ... and i sometimes wonder... why use the ak74 right now

 

also where is the AK103 

 

Use single fire... you're not supposed to be firing full auto except in CQB situations. I like the recoil; keeps the game from feeling like COD with recoil-less lasers for everyone. The AK103 is never coming unless a modder makes it; it's not standard issue equipment for standard forces. 

Edited by DoctorKamikaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Converge   

I don't think the recoil is exaggerated.  I'd say it's as close as you can get to real life in form of a game.  Certain things have to be altered to try to convey a certain feel.  But I don't use the AK74 at all if possible so I'm not really talking about that one.  I'd have to go play again to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the shorter damage drop off for the lighter bullet doesn't even make sense, its a double whammy against the ak47.

-larger bullet drop

-shorter max damage range.

I think the shorter max damage range should be removed because its an arbitrary number thats not even effective at its intended purpose.

 

E = (mv^2)(1/2)

 

-mass is constant

-velocity will drop the moment it leaves the muzzle.

-cube^3 square^2 law says that the larger bullet has more mass relative to its surface area (less effected by air resistance (drag)).

 

if anything is the case, the smaller bullet should have a shorter max damage range, not the larger bullet.

________________________________

 

I made a thread on this, and the AK74 IRL literally has minuscule amounts of recoil.

Edited by Randall172

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peerun   

The smaller bullet has larger initial muzzle velocity. Significantly larger.
The AK74 is also cited as having an effective firing range larger by 150 metres at 500 metres, compared to the 47.
 

39 minutes ago, Randall172 said:

I made a thread on this, and the AK74 IRL literally has minuscule amounts of recoil.


Well in deed it doesn't have noticable recoil if youre in the habit of reacting to it. If you have your arm limp over the table you can expect the same recoil as if you were holding the gun with limp arms.
I'll admit that it's a pretty alien concept, that is dragging your mouse down, coming from other shooter games with more streamlined but less involved mechanics.
And I have to say that I really like it, even if it's exaggerated. It lends the firefights more tension. It's not just point and shoot in most scenarios. Most of the time you'll have to follow up your shot. And if the enemy has noticed you it becomes a race.
It also makes you think twice before you start shooting, if you're not sure of your aim, as missing the first shot can put you at a pretty big disadvantage. Especially if you're against an optic or firing bursts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kern   
2 hours ago, Randall172 said:

the shorter damage drop off for the lighter bullet doesn't even make sense, its a double whammy against the ak47.

-larger bullet drop

-shorter max damage range.

I think the shorter max damage range should be removed because its an arbitrary number thats not even effective at its intended purpose.

 

E = (mv^2)(1/2)

 

-mass is constant

-velocity will drop the moment it leaves the muzzle.

-cube^3 square^2 law says that the larger bullet has more mass relative to its surface area (less effected by air resistance (drag)).

 

if anything is the case, the smaller bullet should have a shorter max damage range, not the larger bullet.

________________________________

 

I made a thread on this, and the AK74 IRL literally has minuscule amounts of recoil.

 

The AK-47 fires the 7.62x39mm which is a round that has the external ballistics of a bus thrown out of a catapult. It was only ever intended for engagements within 300m distance and, in reality, the Soviet M43 round was infamous for poor wounding capabilities. This led to the slightly improved Yugoslavian M67 but even then the 7.62x39mm has a lackluster performance compared to more modern rounds like the 5.56x45mm.

 

I think this chart highlights something that you left out of your calculations and that is the aerodynamics of the rounds themselves:

65_4.jpg

 

As you can see by this chart, already at 200m the 7.62x39mm has nearly double the drop of the 5.56x45mm. Around about 300m the 5.56x45mm overtakes the 7,62x39mm in terms of energy and it maintains a consistent lead from there on out in energy, velocity and drop. This chart also doesn't factor in the fact that, in the case of the Americans, the round being used is likely the M855A1 which has excellent damage retention properties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Peerun said:

The smaller bullet has larger initial muzzle velocity. Significantly larger.
The AK74 is also cited as having an effective firing range larger by 150 metres at 500 metres, compared to the 47.

 

Absolute maximum effective range: This the "this round is not considered lethal after crossing this threshold" distance. Neither of the other two common "maximum range" values will be greater than this.Purportedly, NATO defines this as the point at which the projectile's kinetic energy dips below 85 joules (62.7 foot-pounds). 

 

Maximum effective range on a point target: This is the maximum range at which an average shooter can hit a human-sized target 50% of the time. "Point target" is basically a euphemism for hitting a human torso sized area in this context. 

 

i believe you are using the point target definition. this is affected by moa, bullet drop, accuracy in general.

 

--------------------------------------------

7 hours ago, Kern said:

 

65_4.jpg

 

As you can see by this chart, already at 200m the 7.62x39mm has nearly double the drop of the 5.56x45mm. Around about 300m the 5.56x45mm overtakes the 7,62x39mm in terms of energy and it maintains a consistent lead from there on out in energy, velocity and drop. This chart also doesn't factor in the fact that, in the case of the Americans, the round being used is likely the M855A1 which has excellent damage retention properties.

 

the 5.56 takes slight lead at 400m, but then falls way behind by 600m

 

the shorter damage drop off is unnecessary, if you hit someone with a bullet that has more energy, you should do more damage. effective range has nothing to do with damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kern   
24 minutes ago, Randall172 said:

 

Absolute maximum effective range: This the "this round is not considered lethal after crossing this threshold" distance. Neither of the other two common "maximum range" values will be greater than this.Purportedly, NATO defines this as the point at which the projectile's kinetic energy dips below 85 joules (62.7 foot-pounds). 

 

Maximum effective range on a point target: This is the maximum range at which an average shooter can hit a human-sized target 50% of the time. "Point target" is basically a euphemism for hitting a human torso sized area in this context. 

 

i believe you are using the point target definition. this is affected by moa, bullet drop, accuracy in general.

 

--------------------------------------------

 

the 5.56 takes slight lead at 400m, but then falls way behind by 600m

 

the shorter damage drop off is unnecessary, if you hit someone with a bullet that has more energy, you should do more damage. effective range has nothing to do with damage.

 

I think your definition of "way behind" needs a bit of refinement. The Mk 262 is almost exactly identical to the M43 in energy after 600m.

 

You're looking at 'damage' from, quite frankly, an outdated viewpoint. We know now that the old theory that 'big bullet travelling fast does the most damage' is demonstrably false. Pitch, yaw and fragmentation are all far more crucial than simple mass and energy. That's why the latest generation of American rounds (M855A1, Mk 262 and 7.62mm M80A1) all focus on these aspects to increase lethality rather than jacking up the weight and velocity.

 

I would honestly argue, and many experts would agree, that the 5.56x45mm M855A1 is significantly more lethal than the 7.62x39mm M43.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tatzhit   
1 hour ago, Kern said:

 

I think your definition of "way behind" needs a bit of refinement. The Mk 262 is almost exactly identical to the M43 in energy after 600m.

 

You're looking at 'damage' from, quite frankly, an outdated viewpoint. We know now that the old theory that 'big bullet travelling fast does the most damage' is demonstrably false. Pitch, yaw and fragmentation are all far more crucial than simple mass and energy. That's why the latest generation of American rounds (M855A1, Mk 262 and 7.62mm M80A1) all focus on these aspects to increase lethality rather than jacking up the weight and velocity.

 

I would honestly argue, and many experts would agree, that the 5.56x45mm M855A1 is significantly more lethal than the 7.62x39mm M43.

 

Except both 5.56 and 5.45 tend to tumble and deviate hugely if they hit anything at all on their way, making them a lot less useful when firing through underbrush, fences, walls, vehicles,  and particularly thick sheets of cardboard. This is the primary reason some people prefer 7.62 for forested or urban terrain.

Yes the low-caliber high-velocity rounds have good penetration on paper, but what the paper doesn't tell you is that they tend to veer way off course immediately after "penetrating" whatever twig they happened to graze.
Russians partially tried to fix this issue with 7N6 bullet but it didn't really work that well and also the bullet no longer tumbled quite as much in human bodies, so I think they switched yet again.

 

Now, you would be completely right if you said that bullet deviation has nothing to do with damage falloff. However, since bullet deviation when shooting though wheat / leaves isn't adequately modeled in the game, one can perhaps model it though greater damage falloff or lower penetration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×