GL popping sound...

[}PW{ Postal]

Ive been reading through this debate but have only come up with one conclusion.

If this game was based on todays technology then i would expect the sounds of todays weapons to be there But this game is based in the future so its hard to say what they should sound like.

This is where conflicts come in just like this one cause there is no way of saying how it will sound in the future. There is only speculation.

Now...would that crack sound be cool...i beleive it would. But i cant say it should be there only because i dont know what future weapons will sound like.

With the exception of the MR-C (and the GI-8? not sure about that one) this game IS based on small arms that have been fired by all sorts already in today's world. Even the M-8. Seen a ton of videos of this guy and that one firing off metric butt tons of rounds. Even the IGLA has already been built and tested. I could go buy an M-99 sniper rifle just like the one in GRAW for $1,799.00 at a local shop here if I had the cash and a reason to own a .50 rifle. REALLY. Wanna see a pic of it up on the rack? In 2006, not 2013.

Not to bust your chops, but that's not much of a point. The only change in technology this game counts on is an ability to apply caseless ammunition technology to a practical submachinegun- the MR-C. Otherwise, this game's weapons have already been done...

I should have been more specific.. i was more talking about ammunition then the guns themselves. I mis spoke when i said weapons cause i was talking about the ammunition.

We can assume they are using ammo from today and thus the sound would be in acurate but then we would still be assuming.

Thank you for pointing that out...i stand corrected but in my defense it was meant about the ammunition...hehehe

Edited August 17, 2006 by }PW{ Postal

[zulater]

I should have been more specific.. i was more talking about ammunition then the guns themselves. I mis spoke when i said weapons cause i was talking about the ammunition.

We can assume they are using ammo from today and thus the sound would be in acurate but then we would still be assuming.

Thank you for pointing that out...i stand corrected but in my defense it was meant about the ammunition...hehehe

You're still denying physics. Unless the round is going to weigh substantially more (different materail that's much heavier than lead) you cannot impart more energy at a slower velocity. p=mv. momentum equals mass times velocity. you change the velocity without changing the mass by the same amount you get less momentum. so if you reduce the velocity you would have to increase the mas by the same amount for the round to have the same energy.

[DayGlow]

a subsonic .223 round would be next to useless. The round's potential is based off of it's high velocity. Remove the velocity and you have a very small, low powered round that would have crap ballistics. Considering how the SF community is moving towards the 6.8mm round because of the disappointing ballistics of the .223, I kinda doubt that even if it's available they would choose to use a subsonic .223. If a silent round was needed a suppressed .45ACP UMP would be a much more logical choice. A big heavy .45 round that is already subsonic (unless it's a really hot load) would hit a lot harder than a .223.

As for rounds passing by, I still think Red Orchestra still does it best causing your FPV to blur and shake from close rounds. You feel suppressed in that game, which no other has mimicked.

[}PW{ Postal]

I should have been more specific.. i was more talking about ammunition then the guns themselves. I mis spoke when i said weapons cause i was talking about the ammunition.

We can assume they are using ammo from today and thus the sound would be in acurate but then we would still be assuming.

Thank you for pointing that out...i stand corrected but in my defense it was meant about the ammunition...hehehe

You're still denying physics. Unless the round is going to weigh substantially more (different materail that's much heavier than lead) you cannot impart more energy at a slower velocity. p=mv. momentum equals mass times velocity. you change the velocity without changing the mass by the same amount you get less momentum. so if you reduce the velocity you would have to increase the mas by the same amount for the round to have the same energy.

Im not denying anything. I stated that if they are basing the sounds on ammo of today then the sounds would be incorrect. If they are basing it on the future then they can make it sound like whatever they want because we do not know for a fact what a bullet going by your head in the future will sound like.

Do i think the ammo will change in the future?...sure...everything evolves. Do i know this?...no!

This is really getting interesting though...lol

Ok,

Let me put it like this....I agree with you that the crack sound of a bullet whizzing by your head is cool...and it would make for a great sound effect in the game.

I dont know why that sound isnt there and since no Grin Dev has spoke up i am left to presume that they feel in the near future that sub sonic rounds would be the most effective rounds and would get the job done.

Being that this game is based in the future one could be compelled to think along these lines cause someone very well could create a new style sub sonic round that was very lethal at long range. I see your point in this as i have stated from the beginning but who are we to say that ammunition wont evolve any farther than it has?

[RAbbi_74]

@}PW{ Postal- OH, now I see. Gotcha! And you're right. The round of the future is one BAD MUTHA...

http://www.defensereview.com/water/blendedmetalintro.wmv

Watch that video. Take a close look at the first piece of meat they light-up. Antiveros (I've been unintentionally misspelling it all along, but saw it on a wall poster in-game last night) would have to change his first name from Carlos to Puddle...

Bullets ARE changing, in fact. And these have already been used in Afghanistan by Blackwater (is that right?) employees with grotesque results. Remember the 'million dollar wound?' One of those form a 5.56mm took Hadji's whole abdomen apart.....

[}PW{ Postal]

@}PW{ Postal- OH, now I see. Gotcha! And you're right. The round of the future is one BAD MUTHA...

http://www.defensereview.com/water/blendedmetalintro.wmv

Watch that video. Take a close look at the first piece of meat they light-up. Antiveros (I've been unintentionally misspelling it all along, but saw it on a wall poster in-game last night) would have to change his first name from Carlos to Puddle...

Bullets ARE changing, in fact. And these have already been used in Afghanistan by Blackwater (is that right?) employees with grotesque results. Remember the 'million dollar wound?' One of those form a 5.56mm took Hadji's whole abdomen apart.....

All i can say is....DANG...lol That was wild what it did to the meat...lol

[GRiN_desmond22]

I don't know why you are discussing this - even if the Ghosts did use sub-sonic .223 rounds, that's not the bullets you are hearing whizz by your ear, it's the Mexicans' bullets - and the Mexicans surely don't use sub-sonic .223 rounds. You're making up excuses for me and that really isn't necessary. No need to take my sound design decisions in defense.

The truth is that bullet whizby noises with the "crack" in them are available; they're not impossible to record and there are sample libraries that have those - I had access to such sounds. There are two reasons why I chose to take the "crack" out of the sounds:

1. The difference in character in the arrary of bullet whizbies with "crack" noise I had was not that different. In fact, I don't think different caliber round sound that much different at all - at least not as different as I wanted them to sound. Therefore, I started to create my own set of bullet sounds, with individual for each caliber. My idea was that you should be able to hear by the whizby noise how dangerous the bullet that almost hit you actually was - it's a good example of realism having to make way for gameplay indication. The sound should be realistic, sure, but also useful in a tactical aspect. The series of realistic whizby noises I had just didn't provide the wide array of character I wanted to add to the whizby noises in GRAW.

2. The "crack" noise makes the bullet whizby confusing. If a bullet comes from in front of you and passes your left ear and "cracks", you might mistake the "crack" noise for a gunshot and think you're getting shot at from the left side. For those who aren't familiar with how bullets should sound, this would only be confusing and frustrating. The % of people who are military geeks (such as yourselves ) and think the lack of "crack" is a drawback (wow, that sounded like a piece hiphop lyrics) is in fact very small. Sorry.

[}PW{ Postal]

I don't know why you are discussing this - even if the Ghosts did use sub-sonic .223 rounds, that's not the bullets you are hearing whizz by your ear, it's the Mexicans' bullets - and the Mexicans surely don't use sub-sonic .223 rounds. You're making up excuses for me and that really isn't necessary. No need to take my sound design decisions in defense.

The truth is that bullet whizby noises with the "crack" in them are available; they're not impossible to record and there are sample libraries that have those - I had access to such sounds. There are two reasons why I chose to take the "crack" out of the sounds:

1. The difference in character in the arrary of bullet whizbies with "crack" noise I had was not that different. In fact, I don't think different caliber round sound that much different at all - at least not as different as I wanted them to sound. Therefore, I started to create my own set of bullet sounds, with individual for each caliber. My idea was that you should be able to hear by the whizby noise how dangerous the bullet that almost hit you actually was - it's a good example of realism having to make way for gameplay indication. The sound should be realistic, sure, but also useful in a tactical aspect. The series of realistic whizby noises I had just didn't provide the wide array of character I wanted to add to the whizby noises in GRAW.

2. The "crack" noise makes the bullet whizby confusing. If a bullet comes from in front of you and passes your left ear and "cracks", you might mistake the "crack" noise for a gunshot and think you're getting shot at from the left side. For those who aren't familiar with how bullets should sound, this would only be confusing and frustrating. The % of people who are military geeks (such as yourselves ) and think the lack of "crack" is a drawback (wow, that sounded like a piece hiphop lyrics) is in fact very small. Sorry.

First off...thank you for explaining. I was hoping you would chime in with the reason...lol

As of why you cant understand why we were discussing this...well...we were left up until now to come up with something on our own cause up until now...you hadnt said anything...lol

Its ok...i was having fun with my whole theory i had going...hehehe I am glad to see it was just a simple explanation away though...lol

[ROCO*AFZ*]

I don't know why you are discussing this - even if the Ghosts did use sub-sonic .223 rounds, that's not the bullets you are hearing whizz by your ear, it's the Mexicans' bullets - and the Mexicans surely don't use sub-sonic .223 rounds. You're making up excuses for me and that really isn't necessary. No need to take my sound design decisions in defense.

The truth is that bullet whizby noises with the "crack" in them are available; they're not impossible to record and there are sample libraries that have those - I had access to such sounds. There are two reasons why I chose to take the "crack" out of the sounds:

1. The difference in character in the arrary of bullet whizbies with "crack" noise I had was not that different. In fact, I don't think different caliber round sound that much different at all - at least not as different as I wanted them to sound. Therefore, I started to create my own set of bullet sounds, with individual for each caliber. My idea was that you should be able to hear by the whizby noise how dangerous the bullet that almost hit you actually was - it's a good example of realism having to make way for gameplay indication. The sound should be realistic, sure, but also useful in a tactical aspect. The series of realistic whizby noises I had just didn't provide the wide array of character I wanted to add to the whizby noises in GRAW.

2. The "crack" noise makes the bullet whizby confusing. If a bullet comes from in front of you and passes your left ear and "cracks", you might mistake the "crack" noise for a gunshot and think you're getting shot at from the left side. For those who aren't familiar with how bullets should sound, this would only be confusing and frustrating. The % of people who are military geeks (such as yourselves ) and think the lack of "crack" is a drawback (wow, that sounded like a piece hiphop lyrics) is in fact very small. Sorry.

I liked my subsonic theory better

J/k

Thanks for the update. I also was kinda figuring that the crack would be to much and hard to distinguish when someone lights you up with a support.

[ROCO*AFZ*]

I don't know why you are discussing this - even if the Ghosts did use sub-sonic .223 rounds, that's not the bullets you are hearing whizz by your ear, it's the Mexicans' bullets - and the Mexicans surely don't use sub-sonic .223 rounds. You're making up excuses for me and that really isn't necessary. No need to take my sound design decisions in defense.

The truth is that bullet whizby noises with the "crack" in them are available; they're not impossible to record and there are sample libraries that have those - I had access to such sounds. There are two reasons why I chose to take the "crack" out of the sounds:

1. The difference in character in the arrary of bullet whizbies with "crack" noise I had was not that different. In fact, I don't think different caliber round sound that much different at all - at least not as different as I wanted them to sound. Therefore, I started to create my own set of bullet sounds, with individual for each caliber. My idea was that you should be able to hear by the whizby noise how dangerous the bullet that almost hit you actually was - it's a good example of realism having to make way for gameplay indication. The sound should be realistic, sure, but also useful in a tactical aspect. The series of realistic whizby noises I had just didn't provide the wide array of character I wanted to add to the whizby noises in GRAW.

2. The "crack" noise makes the bullet whizby confusing. If a bullet comes from in front of you and passes your left ear and "cracks", you might mistake the "crack" noise for a gunshot and think you're getting shot at from the left side. For those who aren't familiar with how bullets should sound, this would only be confusing and frustrating. The % of people who are military geeks (such as yourselves ) and think the lack of "crack" is a drawback (wow, that sounded like a piece hiphop lyrics) is in fact very small. Sorry.

First off...thank you for explaining. I was hoping you would chime in with the reason...lol

As of why you cant understand why we were discussing this...well...we were left up until now to come up with something on our own cause up until now...you hadnt said anything...lol

Its ok...i was having fun with my whole theory i had going...hehehe I am glad to see it was just a simple explanation away though...lol

LOL so was i since i had found things that may have supported it.

[zulater]

I don't know why you are discussing this - even if the Ghosts did use sub-sonic .223 rounds, that's not the bullets you are hearing whizz by your ear, it's the Mexicans' bullets - and the Mexicans surely don't use sub-sonic .223 rounds. You're making up excuses for me and that really isn't necessary. No need to take my sound design decisions in defense.

The truth is that bullet whizby noises with the "crack" in them are available; they're not impossible to record and there are sample libraries that have those - I had access to such sounds. There are two reasons why I chose to take the "crack" out of the sounds:

1. The difference in character in the arrary of bullet whizbies with "crack" noise I had was not that different. In fact, I don't think different caliber round sound that much different at all - at least not as different as I wanted them to sound. Therefore, I started to create my own set of bullet sounds, with individual for each caliber. My idea was that you should be able to hear by the whizby noise how dangerous the bullet that almost hit you actually was - it's a good example of realism having to make way for gameplay indication. The sound should be realistic, sure, but also useful in a tactical aspect. The series of realistic whizby noises I had just didn't provide the wide array of character I wanted to add to the whizby noises in GRAW.

2. The "crack" noise makes the bullet whizby confusing. If a bullet comes from in front of you and passes your left ear and "cracks", you might mistake the "crack" noise for a gunshot and think you're getting shot at from the left side. For those who aren't familiar with how bullets should sound, this would only be confusing and frustrating. The % of people who are military geeks (such as yourselves ) and think the lack of "crack" is a drawback (wow, that sounded like a piece hiphop lyrics) is in fact very small. Sorry.

Thanks for explaining. I'd still rather have the ###### scared out of me by a crack but I understand how people could think of those as gunshots and not the round itself. the sound of a gun firing and the crack is very distinct but if you don't really know what you are hearing i see where confusion could set in.

maybe put it in and explain it on page 34 of the manual

[Rocky]

Oh happy day zulater, Supersonic cracks modded into BF2.