• Announcements

    • Aldous

      Forum Upgrade Completed   02/22/2017

      We have upgraded our forum and some background software to a new build. This will, among other things, add a few new features as well as implement a few bugs. Please let us know if you find anything unusual.

paritybit

Member
  • Content count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About paritybit

  • Rank
    Wannabee
  • Birthday
  1. Marine Corps marksmanship teaches to aim at "center mass" which is the body. I'm sure police are also taught to aim at center mass, as you've stated. Even so, there is a gigantic difference between the following two scenarios: holding a 2 and a half pound chunk of metal in front of your body and manipulating a small piece of it with one of your fingers (which, contrary to some beliefs, does not move completely independently from the rest of your hand if you are human) and trying to keep a set of dots in the appropriate alignment AND over a potentially moving target while your body breathes air in and out (sometimes at an increased rate of speed) moving a 2 dimensional reticle over a 2 dimensional target (sure it gets smaller when it moves farther away, but is still a 2d image on your screen) and clicking the button of a quarter pound mouse which has the majority of its weight supported by a desk If you could accurately simulate that, most gamers probably wouldn't even hit the door frame at greater than 50 meters (including me, and I've had pistol marksmanship training in the military). Rifles are much easier to handle because their size (and buttstock) give shooters the ability to stabilize them. There are various attempts at simulating this, one of the worst being to randomly determine the actual path of the bullet when it is fired. Rifles generally fire where you point them; even pistols with short barrels are good about firing where the barrel is pointing. Sights "swaying" is a better way to handle this, but still isn't perfect. Until we have a controller that is exactly like the weapon we're trying to fire, though, we won't have a perfect answer for this. I think I've strayed from your original point, which was "where do shooters aim" and wandered down the path of "why bullets don't go there".
  2. Thanks for the welcome. Yes. I wasn't sure how to start out, so ... I start with yes. It helps make you not dead. So maybe you won't be fighting for a minute, two minutes, whatever the case, but you won't be dead. Maybe you're out of it for a long time, but maybe you're just winded. This links back to this and other threads discussing single player, saved games and longer firefights. In the case of single player games, getting shot and not dying gives the player incentive to not immediately hit the "reload" button -- which is so often the case. Down but not out, and eventually you'll be back up -- which brings us to longer, more exciting firefights. Sure you're going to lose a guy now and then because somebody shot him in the head, but if you cared enough about him to equip him with some decent body armor, his survivability goes way up. And I don't want it to make you invincible. I want it to make the experience of being shot more enjoyable (assuming its not a shot in the head). I've just seen too many games do it wrong.
  3. I'm new here (as of today) and didn't read the entire post in depth -- though I did skim every bit. But, I didn't see anyone talking at length about body armor. I'd like to see a game that can accurately simulate modern body armor, such as Dragon Skin (saw it on a recent episode of Future Weapons). It can stop 9mm, 5.56 and 7.62 rounds with no problem and spreads the impact across a broad area. Further, it doesn't degrade, at least during a single engagement -- it took dozens of rounds and the only effect was holes and burn marks on the outside of the armor. It also appeared to have little effect on mobility (other than the weight). Current simulations use a damage-lessening approach to armor, which is absolutely not the way it works. If the rounds is stopped, it's stopped. Other simulations expand the protection to the entire body, which is also absolutely not the way it works. This concept would seem to have a huge bearing on the one-shot-kill discussion. I'm all for one-shot-kills to the head, but I'm also all for no-amount-of-shots-kill to the body when wearing armor. There's got to be a catchier way of saying that. If someone is wearing armor, shot them in the head.