Stab.time calculation

[Tollen 0]

Hello I´m working on stabilizationtimes for the weapons in the SWEBAT-MOD and I made an eire discovery...

First I tok the lenght of the AK 5 (1010 mm) and added the weight of it (4500 g) it added up to 5510. Then I took the distance between the sights (510 mm) and divided 5510 with this distance, got 10,80 and then divided this sum (or quota to be mathematicaly correct) with 5 and got 2.1

(The Ak 5)

((1010+4500)/510)/5 = Aprox. 2,1

I later tried this on the M16

((1006+3940)/510)/5 = Aprox. 1,9 (fairly well with the GR.file)

The Ak47 AKM:

((880+3600)/510)/5 = Aprox. 1,7

The MP5A2:

((680+2540)/510)/5 = Aprox. 0,126 (fairly close to the GR.file)

Might these be correct, is this how you calculate the stabilization times?

or is there any better systems out there?

As it is now, I will start to look for koefficents that will work for bullpup-weapons to...

Edited September 18, 2003 by Tollen

[Parabellum 12]

Well, it's a fairly logical way to determine how long it would take to stabilize the weapon, since you're taking into account weight, sight radius, and weapon length. I don't think that RSE calculated the stabilization time in any way, though. I personally think that RSE just toyed with it until the weapons felt right and balanced. I also think that RSE's stabilization times are much too high.

[Gryphon 0]

... and added the weight of it (4500 mg) ...

WOW - is that like a new lightweight AK5? Four and a half grams!

Anyway - I've never thought of it this way! I did it much like Para says, just played with the coefficients and accuracies until the weapon felt like I've had the impression it does in real life, and to reflect some basic differences.

This could very well be a good physical model for acquisition but I'm surious as to why You're taking the distance between sights in consideration. I suppose it might model some kind of parallax-related phenomenon where sights too close together will overlap even when not entirely lined up. Good thinking! I think this formula should work just as well for bullpup weapons, after all they are easier to manage than long rifles. The weight should make the difference and tell them apart from SMGs.

What about scopes? On the one hand, distant targets are acquired more easily, on the other, CQB targets much harder. Difficult situation.

[Tollen 0]

So... I might be on to something... The distance between the sights, that was just a koefficent that by chance worked quite well!

Since I notice that people are interested, I will keep on working on this model and explore it further.

Perhaps I get a better and more accurate model if I only account for the length between the barrel muzzle and the handgrip... we´ll see!

[Gryphon 0]

I suggest this

(length/sights) x weight = 4Xtime

This makes the model linear and allows for SI units all theway. This makes the M16

(1,006/0,510 x 3,940)/4 = 1,94

This model is more scientific, since in Your original formula doubling the weight fir onstance, does not double the time it takes to bring the weapon to bear, and doubling the barell length made very little difference since You used addition. In physics we always try to use multiplication in formulas since that's how must coefficients work together.

[Tollen 0]

As I said before, the 510 is a lucky number that have worked well (even if there is the same distance between the sights of the Ak 5 and the M16).

Your new formula was very usefull Gryphon... Now I just have to find out how to make SMG´s and Bullpup´s, I will try by changing the 4 into some other numbers... let´s see what we get shall we?

[Tollen 0]

O.K. I found something new to add into this system...

For the Ak 5 it´s

((1,010/0,510 x 4,5)/4,3)*0,1 = 0,2073 which is a pretty good stab-time.

The new in the formula (compared to Gryphons) is that x 4 have been changed to 4,3 and I´ve added x 01 just to get the translation done from start!

This formula also works well for SMG´s, and it gives the MP5 a time of 0,08 which I guess is the time it takes for a trained professional to place a pair of round´s between some one´s eyes.

The M16 gets 0,1807 and the M4 some serious 0,1146

Another interesting find i made is how to calculate bullpup´s.

for the SA80/L85 it´s:

((0,778/0,510 x 5)/6)*0,1 = 0,1271 (the news here is the 6, compared to the 4 for normal rifles)

Para and all you others, does this seem more realistic?

Edited September 18, 2003 by Tollen

[Lancer 1]

I'm intrigued why you are making a special allowance for Bullpups. They should be treated the same as any other weapon.

[Parabellum 12]

One thing to remember, is that, whatever stabilization time you have for your weapon, will only apply if your character is very skilled, with a weapon score of probably 6 or 8. Greenhorns will take alot longer to stabilize (though I don't know what the calculations are) So, if your stabilization time is 0.5 seconds for an MP5, guys with a weapon score of 1 or 2 will probably actually take 1.0 or even 1.5 seconds to stabilize their weapon.

I tend to research military and LE requirements to find out where to set my stabilization times. For example, one particular unit requires their operators to be able to start facing away from a target (at 7 meters) with an MP5, and on the signal, turn, drop to one knee, and put two rounds center-mass in less than less than two seconds. Factor in the time it takes to turn and drop (probably 1.0, or 1.25 seconds, and that leaves you less than one second to stabilize the weapon.

[Tollen 0]

I'm intrigued why you are making a special allowance for Bullpups. They should be treated the same as any other weapon.

@Lancer

The big problem with the bullpup´s are their weight. The L85 weights in at 5 kilos, while a loaded Steyr AUG wheights some 4,7 kilos (3.8 unloaded, and each loaded clip weights some 943 grams...).

But these weapons are still in another perspective, given the fact that their point of balance is very close to the pistolgrip, I have always thought that this was an advantage that made manuvering these guns a bit easier...

Is this wrong? I have never actually tried an AUG or L85.

@Parabellum

Enlighten by this, do you think that I should lover the values even more?

[TRC 0]

Tollen, the stab. times are strictly for gameplay balance as Para noted. I've put thousands of rounds through 9mm, 45 cal pistols and Remington 870 shotguns during my police career, and have also shot with the mp5, ar15 and mini 14 and stabilization of those weapons are quick. If you want real, go for low stab. times and perhaps increase recoil number some so you don't create uber weapons. Single shot mode should be accurate while full auto should spray which increasing recoil number helps to do.

[Parabellum 12]

I'm intrigued why you are making a special allowance for Bullpups.  They should be treated the same as any other weapon.

@Lancer

The big problem with the bullpup´s are their weight. The L85 weights in at 5 kilos, while a loaded Steyr AUG wheights some 4,7 kilos (3.8 unloaded, and each loaded clip weights some 943 grams...).

But these weapons are still in another perspective, given the fact that their point of balance is very close to the pistolgrip, I have always thought that this was an advantage that made manuvering these guns a bit easier...

Is this wrong? I have never actually tried an AUG or L85.

@Parabellum

Enlighten by this, do you think that I should lover the values even more?

Well, do a test. Set up a target somewhere, and face away from it. Then, spin, drop,and see how long it takes for your pips to close. If you're shooting an MP5, or even an M4, and it takes more than three-quarters of a second, it's taking too long.

[Lancer 1]

In your calculations you have taken in to consideration the main features (weight, length, etc) so these apply equally to the Bullpup design.

The L85 and AUG are butt heavy, the point of balance is behind the pistol grip. If you look at units, which specialise in CQB/HRT, where 'real life' reaction time is paramount, you'll notice they do not use Bullpups even when it is the primary weapon of their army.

Odd that RSE consider the L85 a bit of an uber weapon and its 'real life' users think the complete reverse.

[Parabellum 12]

In your calculations you have taken in to consideration the main features (weight, length, etc) so these apply equally to the Bullpup design.

The L85 and AUG are butt heavy, the point of balance is behind the pistol grip. If you look at units, which specialise in CQB/HRT, where 'real life' reaction time is paramount, you'll notice they do not use Bullpups even when it is the primary weapon of their army.

Odd that RSE consider the L85 a bit of an uber weapon and its 'real life' users think the complete reverse.

It seems to me that bullpup weapons would recoil far worse on full auto, than standard rifles would; with the center of gravity so far back, a small amount of movement forward of the pistol grip will be translated into a much more powerful force at the back of the weapon, causing it to drop as the muzzle rises. Stabilization time would therefore be increased, since it would take longer to bring the back of the weapon up, in order to bring the muzzle back down.

Does that make any sense?

[Tollen 0]

@Lancer

Makes sense... will correct that

@Parabellum

Thanks Para... I´ll keep on working on this.

@TRC

Originaly, this experiments was to create some balance between the original weapons of GR and the new ones Snow and I are making. Atleast I got the values for the weapons we are implementing, and then the thought turned to realism.

If every one had faster weapons, would it affect the balance all that much?

@Every one

Another project this headonistic ###### on the other side of the monitor (that´s me) is working on is realism-settings for LMG´s.

My experiences of LMG´s of the heavier kind (the FN MAG58/M240/KSP 58B) is that while standing and crouching, you don´t hit squat.

But while prone, bipod´s out and with the sight´s up, it´s definetly more accurate.

Would it upset the balance of the game that much if 7.62mm MG´s where modelled this way (I mean that it´s accurate to a degree, but that the recoil is set to about 25 (compensated while standing and crouching by p### poor accuracy!))?

Edited September 18, 2003 by Tollen

[Lancer 1]

The next big one is 'recoil'. Weight of weapon, energy of the round fired and ROF just as starters

[Tollen 0]

@Lancer, I´ll mail you an example!

[Gryphon 0]

I'm currently working on a recoil formula.

It's based on momentum as the method of measure. In physics, momentum before and after an incident within a system is always the same, in fact it is always set at a constant. Before the shot is fired, the momentum of the gun system is zero. After the gun is fired, the bullet shoots forward and the bolt and gun backward.

Momentum is calculated as mass times velocity

p=mv

Before the shot

m1v1 = m2v2 = 0 (m1, v1, mass and velocity of bullet; m2, v2, mass and velocity of gun)

After the shot

m1v1 + m2v2 = 0

Take for instance an M16 firing an M855 round. That weighs in at 62 grains. One grain is 0.0628 grams, so the round weighs 4 grams (4.02), or .004 kg.

Before the shot

m1v1 = .004 *0

m2v2 = 3.940*0

After the shot

m1v1 = .004 * 945 (m/s for M855, for other bullets it is different)

m2v2 = 3.940 * x

x = 0,9642 m/s

I'm not sure how to final this implementation into the recoil value but so far it's scientific so enough research should yield a good result. Bolt action rifles have to have this ideal recoil, gas operated rifles should receive a decrease because of the bolt moving, rifles with recoil dampeners should also receive a rebate (percentages are usually available on the net), and designs like the G36 which places the barell below the shoulder contact point should also have a lower recoil. This is an "ideal" recoil suitable for sniper rifles. Would You be interested in me doing a list of recoil velocities for the GR weapons? Maybe host the table like the ballistics table?

Edited September 19, 2003 by Gryphon

[Gryphon 0]

The new suggestion for stabilisation times:

Largely the same, save for square rooting the weight and making the final factor into 20 thus:

Ak5

((1,010/0,510 x sqrt(4,5))/20) = 0,2101

MP5 gets 0,1062

M16 gets 0,1958 and the L85 turns out into

((0,778/0,510 x sqrt(5))/20) = 0,1706

This to me seems very close to realism. Opinions are welcome. Rocky, how about hosting our work when it's done? That way everyone can have realistic recoil and stab times...

[Lancer 1]

There's that "treat Bullpups differently" thing again!

[Gryphon 0]

There's that "treat Bullpups differently" thing again!

What are You talking about? I'm treating no guns differently! Look at the formula, the only things that differ are the length and weight, otherwise the formulas are identical! That's what I like about this formula, it gives realistic values without having to treat anything differently. Please look again.

[TRC 0]

Tollen, totally up to you and Snow--make the mod as you want it. My post merely stating GR was set up for gameplay. I just do single player and have adjusted stab. times to .125 to .11 on most weapons I play with and increased recoil. It's strictly a matter of personal preference. To avoid any huge advantage for any weapon, either set up all your weapons along GR lines or using your formula. I shall try it no matter which way you gents go.

[Tollen 0]

Thanks TRC. But believe me, neither weapon will be anything close to "Über" either in SP or MP.

We are experimenting quite freely with the weapons, and every gun and charachter will have their niche, and every gun will feature som radical pro´s and con´s!

Edited September 19, 2003 by Tollen

[soup31314 0]

I remember when I was doing some testing for my weapons mod (never did finsih it). I let some people play it. Well first thing i get told is that the weapons were to hard. I used my military background and made up the stab times. But now that I have fired the MP-5 I need to redo those. Cause the MP-5 has no recoil at all and I got off about 5 rounds before I knew i was firing. But when I flipped to full auto. Well my rounds were all over the place. The weapon is light and a little hard to hold. It was a MP-5N I do belive not sure though. The AK-47 being heavier and larger round is a little harder to control also. But easier on full auto. The RPK standing is a tough taks but can be done. As for stab times that Ghost has normally. They are wayyyy off. Think about this, For soldiers in the US Army to qualify we have to hit a 100 meter, a 150 and a 300 meter target in 12 secs. And during reflex fire you have 3 secs to engage 3 targets at 25 meters. Plus you have to think you arent working with kids straight off the street. Your talking about soldiers that fire thousands of rounds a year. You maybe assigned the same weapon in my unit for 6 months (if your lucky). You learn that weapon. Plus SF units have weapons that they are assigned for a long time or are custom made. So they know these weapons insdie and out.

Ok I'm getting off track now. Damn war cant remember what I'm talking about now.

Well have fun.