Jump to content

zulater

GR.net Supporter
  • Posts

    412
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by zulater

  1. Good post, SimDood.

    If non-urban maps were available for GRAW, would that get closer to the feeling you've so eloquently described?

    The reason why I ask...I think the urban nature of the current map set is prohibitive to the non-linear, [GR] experience we're used to. Most of the maps in [GR] were wilderness or non-urban.

    Additionally, I believe that firing a gun isn't the only way to win a mission. Some of the best missions in [GR] relied upon other weapons...observation and evasion.

    That's the really fun (and scary) part of what I'd like to see in GRAW.

    Actually, that would be a part of it, but there's a lot more....

    I go back again to the definitions of "Ghost" being what they were, and "Recon" being what they did. Couple that with WHEN they did it is where we start to understand the essence of what needs to be achieved.

    Ghosts were a pre-emptive taskforce designed to stop problems arising. GR:AW is about fixing problems after they happen, which is better suited to a different style of soldier.

    The Ghosts were ultimately responsible for their own actions that were made out in the field. They weren't spoon fed with intel updates, they were free to make tactical decisions as required, not as dictated. You cannot be a Ghost with a small drone flying somewhere overhead working in an environment where you are expected, by the enemy, to be showing up. And that's just it, the Ghosts were NOT exepected, they evaluated the scenarios, and made appropriate responses.

    GR:AW has that as well to a degree, but only within specific boundaries.

    I say again, the technical issues would be all but a "no problem" if the essence of the "Ghost" and "Recon" intact. The real issues rise in the fact that technical and game dynamics issues are both not working, and look at the result

    Gimme my Ghost!

    Someone give this man a gold star and a cookie! Nail, meet Mr. Hammer!

  2. To beta, or not to beta: that is the question:

    Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer a game

    The round corner shots and hackers of outrageous fortune,

    Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

    And by opposing end them? To die LMS: to Dsiconnect and sleep;

    No more; and by a sleep to say we play GRAW no more

    The heart-ache and the thousand software fixes

    That flesh is heir to, 'another game

    Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;

    To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;

    For in that sleep of death what dreams of a better GRAW come

    When we have shuffled off this penchant of GRAW,

    Must give us pause: there's the respect

    That makes calamity of so long without [GR];

    For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,

    UBI' wrong, the honest player's contumely,

    The pangs of despised love of [GR], the patches delay,

    The insolence of forums and the spurns

    That patient merit of the poster takes,

    When he himself might his quietus make

    With a bare nade? who would perfect FPS bear,

    To run and shoot under a weary game,

    But that the dread of something after [GR],

    The undiscover'd GRAW upgrade from whose bourn

    No traveller returns, puzzles the will

    And makes us rather bear those bugs we have

    Than fly to other games that we know not of?

    Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;

    And thus the native hue of resolution

    Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,

    And enterprises of great beta test

    With this regard their honest thoughts of perfect FPS turn awry,

    And lose the name of action.-- Soft you now!

    The fair GRIN! Nymph, in thy fixes and patches

    Be all my [GR] matches remember'd.

    You sir have too much free time. I applaud your efforts, please pass go and collect $200. May your children be blessed with the fleas of a thousand camels and your wife look as good as one too. I, however, am going to bed as I have had too much to drink.

  3. Motherboard redesign is despirately needed to give room for more cards and adequate cooling though.

    that design has been made. mobos with 3 slots for graphics are on the way.

    but they still don't give room for more than 1 pci slot. if you want to run a sound card and a physics card with a top of the line graphics card tough luck because the heatsink covers a pci slot.

  4. the biggest problem is people with sli and a sound card. There is just physically no more room to be had. If it were made for the PCIE x1 I could use it but I have no more pci slots that aren't covered up.

    also with the dual core cpus becoming more prominant and quad cores on the horison the extra power the cpu will have can be dedicated to physics as well.

    It will be interesting to see what happens in the future. I think it can be a good idea and I firmly believe having the video cards do physics is asinine as they struggle at times to do graphics well espically on the lower end cards.

    Motherboard redesign is despirately needed to give room for more cards and adequate cooling though.

  5. 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 :lol::P

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

    it's a matter of physics. the rounds are the same as what we have today and to have reasonable stopping power need to be traveling faster than the speed of sound. they aren't using some new magic bullet that defies the laws of physics.

  8. In the single player you are susposed to be stealthy(although sometimes your ai isn't). The Multi player is based off the single player campaign storyline.

    Very interesting.

    But you are forced to engage an encamped enemy on their terms so going in with an underpowered round is asking for trouble. If you were able to pass around the spots where the enemy had setup machine guns and the like I would agree that stealth would be more important than stopping power. But also since you are allowed two weapons your mp5sd or other secondary weapon would be used as stealth and your primary would be use for when you need stopping power.

  9. They would have access to such ammo but if you are going in against a hard target with body armor the subsonic .223 would be worthless (as you noted at distance it's basically a .22lr with a copper jacket) hell i think most .22LR is supersonic anyways because you can buy subsonic .22LR. Eitherway being inserted against a rebel force that you don't know much about going with an underpowered subsonic .223 is not the brightest idea.

    Still the mexian rebels more than likely will not have subsonic ammo.

    And it just takes a lot of shots to kill anyone with a .223. It wasn't designed to be a one shot one kill weapon. It was designed to be humane according to the geneiva convention. Reports from marines in Iraq rotuinely state it takes multiple rounds to drop an enemy and they aren't using subsonic ammo.

    Subsonic would be used when absolute stealth is needed. In graw absolute stealth is not needed, penetration and stopping power is needed to get to your intended destination since avoiding the enemy is not an option.

    I'll admit i'm nitpicking graw here. the sounds really are one thing that was done very well. some volume issues exist as in footsteps being a little too loud for my tastes but the actual modeling of the sounds are done very well.

  10. You didn't even read my post did you?

    and unless there is a very specalized task .223 rounds are not going to be subsonic even with a suppressor attatched.

    Read this from the same article

    Subsonic rounds being fired out of a silenced weapon, on the other hand, will "whoosh" at best and will thus make it that much harder for any targets to figure out where the fire is coming from.

    I hear the 'woosh' but that's hardly what a bullet would sound like unless it was subsonic.

  11. Bullets already do that. You mean you can't hear it on your computer?

    I hear the 'woosh' but that's hardly what a bullet would sound like unless it was subsonic.

    video only for easy reference from the following links

    http://zulater.net/bullet_snap.html

    There is an audible difference in the sound of the gun firing and the sound of the round passing nearby. the round passing nearby almost sounds like firecrackers.

    references.

    http://dslyecxi.com/bestoftactical.html

    as posted here http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=37773

    specifically check out page 3 http://dslyecxi.com/bestoftactical3.html

    scroll down to section X "Future Stuff"

    There has not been a single game, ever, that has come anywhere close to representing the sound that a supersonic bullet makes when flying past. Watch a bit of this video, and you'll notice all kinds of popping and snapping sounds the likes of which you've never experienced in a game before.

    The snapping noises are created by supersonic rounds passing within a certain distance of the camera. Each little snap or crack is the sonic shockwave created by the bullets, and the closer ones typically sound like a very large, sharp, and dry "CRACK!" (at least in person - it's a very difficult sound to catch on tape, but this video is the best representation I've seen of it so far).

    Imagine the level of immersion that would be acheived by modeling thesee sounds properly. No longer would players have a lame "whoooosh" to signify that a bullet just passed close - instead, they'd likely jump out of their seat upon hearing a CRACK just inches from their character's head as a sniper's bullet barely misses them. Or, even better, they'd have a CRACKCRACKCRACKCRACK each time a burst of machinegun fire passed too close.

    If modeled such that supersonic and sub-sonic bullets have proper audio signatures, the difference between sub- and supersonic rounds would be even more pronounced for the purposes of stealth. A suppressed weapon firing a supersonic round will have the muzzle blast muffled, whereas the CRACK of the round passing near anything in the line of fire will still be heard. Subsonic rounds being fired out of a silenced weapon, on the other hand, will "whoosh" at best and will thus make it that much harder for any targets to figure out where the fire is coming from.

    To give an example of how loud this supersonic crack can be, during USMC rifle qualifications half of the shooters are sent to the "pits" to pull targets (bring them down, mark where the person hit, send them up). There's a berm protecting you from stray rounds, and at that distance the sound of everyone shooting up above (from 200, 300, and 500 meters) is very muffled - if you've ever heard gunfire from a good distance, that's what it sounded like, except more subdued. Anyhow, the ONLY sound you can hear from the pits that's of any substantial volume is the sound of the supersonic 5.56mm rounds passing overhead. The intensity of the sound is such that it actually hurts your ears if you're not wearing earplugs. They're LOUD, no two ways about it.

    This desperately needs to be modeled in future wargames.

  12. Yes of course, the only variable which determines the number of online players is of course the greatness of the game. Prove that one without making me smoke über crack. Genre, access to DS-files and copy protection (Gamespy primarily in GRAW's case) could be entities to take into account, just to name three of them.

    But then again “good“ is a relative term, so if one decides that # of players is definition of “good”, then you are spot on right – but that is not even near my take on the term.

    If you judge a game by the number of people playing it, that must mean that Counter Strike is one of the best games ever!

    Hey in the world of buisness, (grin and ubi are buisnesses eh?) it's about dollars and cents. more people playing the game more money for the makers. While we may not like the dumbed down 'realism' of css or the outright fakeness of quake 3 the games are wildly successful and have made a lot of money. So yes, the game greatness in a buisness sense is defined by how much money it makes. You can argue that it's not realistic until you are blue in the face but it's simple, easy to play, and fun. not to mention the original was free.

×
×
  • Create New...