-Gews-

So I recently had a minor dilemma - do I take the AK-74, or do I take the AKS-74U? I realized I didn't know the exact differences between them, so I ended up taking both until I could sort matters out. Here are some of the similarities: Damage - exact same. Zeroing, bullet drop - exact same (300 meter zero). Rate of fire - exact same (10 rds/sec). Recoil - exact same. Now, the differences... Dexterity: AK-74 = 1.7 AKS-74U = 1.78 The Suchka handles a tiny bit quicker, fairly inconsequential although the shorter length will help a bit indoors. Accuracy: AK-74 = 1.25 mils AKS-74U = 2.00 mils Dang, the AKS-74U is much less accurate! But does it matter? Let's find out. Here's the spreads at 100 and 200 meters: So when the ranges start becoming longer, the full length rifle should be a bit more effective... of course this may be harder to notice in practice. At shorter ranges it won't matter as much. And finally, let's not forget a very important factor, sights. In game I find the AK series open sights are better than the various aperture sights for tracking and firing at running targets (I can watch them run into my front post), but not as good on stationary targets (the recoil pushes up the sights and obscures the target). The AK-74 has a more precise front post, but it also obscures the target much more, especially once you fire and it jumps upwards. You get more visibility from the AKS-74U. In the end I chose to go with the Suchka, most fights I'd get into with such a rifle would be at closer ranges and I much prefer the sights. Which of these rifles do you prefer?

I just suddenly dropped dead... thirst? Maybe, but I'll never know for sure...

I also have the 58P right now, it's my baby. I used my AKS-74U to get it though. :P

[NEW]- Matryoshka packs!

Good point, those crazy German authorities.

Oh my God, this nearly happened to me today... long-lasting day character, was heavily-wounded, had a couple nice guns and all tools, spent a long time hunting animals until I got a bit of blood back... then decided to go to Elektro for painkillers... Hid in a bush, checking my backpack, immediately BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM, several 5.56 rounds hit at my feet, I try to run but am blocked by bushes and more rounds hit near my feet... I got hit by a couple in the back as I tried to free myself from the bushes and I see a survivor running around a few meters behind me... he got filled with lead from my vz58 and now I have to regain all that damn health back again. Fairly put the wind up me.

Screw that, I want a Mk 2 Lancer. I've never even played Gears of War and I know the name of that, because it's amazing...

Meh, I'd rather have my character get shot by a military round than a hunting round. Maybe not 30 military rounds, though. :P Damage right now is tied to the bullet, although they use a somewhat strange method. Step 1, they make a new bullet class. Here they define the properties of the bullet: base damage, penetration, and aerodynamic drag. Step 2, they make a new magazine class... this is where it goes wrong. For whatever reason, they chose to have the muzzle velocity tied to the magazines, and not to the weapon. That means an M4 Carbine has the same muzzle velocity (and therefore damage, since damage is tied to velocity) as an M16 or anything else which uses the same magazine. They should have tied muzzle velocity to the weapon itself instead. Some guns also have their own bullet classes even though they should be shooting the same (or very similar) loads (I'm looking at you, AS50). A couple bullet classes also have what I consider messed up or bugged damage values. EDIT: Also, adding more, even though damage should be tied to the bullet, some bullets seem to do a lot more damage for NO reason. I'll give one specific example, the above-mentioned 7.62x39mm and 7.62 NATO comparison. They've given the 7.62x39mm a base damage of 8 at 710 m/s. They've given the 7.62 NATO a base damage of 12 at 900 m/s. In real life, one bullet is 123 grains, the other is 147 grains. 20 grains shouldn't make massive difference in terms of the effect on a human, given the same speed. I doubt it would be noticeable at all, people aren't very thick creatures. If you reduce both 7.62s to the same 710 m/s speed, this happens: 7.62x39mm at 710 m/s: 4,500 damage 7.62 NATO at 710 m/s: 6.310 damage And if you bump them both to 900 m/s, this happens: 7.62x39mm at 900 m/s: 5,704 damage 7.62 NATO at 900 m/s: 8,000 damage So while it's still much better than pretty much every other game, there could definitely be a ton of improvement in the damage models.

6.8? Thanks a bunch <_< now I'm tempted to download this just to go through all the new weapons code...

Continuing on with the weapons analyses... this time the AR-15-pattern rifle and carbines. There are quite a few of these... Handling: First up is the dexterity (handling) values. I don't think these values don't matter too much, they mostly affect the vertical movement of the weapon. Don't read too much into this. From quickest to clunkiest: M4A1: 1.8 M4A1 CCO: 1.8 M4A3 CCO: 1.8 M16A2: 1.64 M4A1 Holo M203: 1.59 M16A4 ACOG: 1.51 M16A2 M203: 1.46 Accuracy: Next up is the accuracy. All the M16s have the same value as each other, and all the M4s have the same value as each other. Note that the M4s are less accurate than AK-74s! Rifle: 1.00 mils Carbine: 1.75 mils Here are the spreads at 100, 200 and 300 meters: As you can see, as expected, at longer ranges the M16s have the accuracy advantage. Recoil: Recoil also is a major factor in how many rounds get on target. They have the same recoil in semi-automatic mode, so there isn't really a significant difference. The M16's burst mode has lower recoil than the M4's full auto. Carbine recoil: 3/10 Rifle recoil: 3/10 (2/10 in burst mode) The exception is the M4A1 CCO SD, which has 2/10 recoil in semi and full-auto modes. Zeroing: some rifles are zeroed for 300 meters, others for 100. The ones zeroed for 100 should shoot SD rounds fine, if that matters to you. M16A2: 300m M16A2 M203: 300m M4A1: 300m M4A3 CCO: 300m M4A1 CCO: 100m M4A1 CCO SD: 100m M4A1 Holo/M203: 100m M16A4 ACOG: 100m Damage: (standard rounds) 000m: 3,555 100m: 3,078 200m: 2,663 300m: 2,304 400m: 1,994 (SD rounds) 000m: 2,722 100m: 2,563 200m: 2,412 A note about G36 magazines: I've heard people say the G36 magazines are more powerful, this is false. They're actually slightly weaker - 1.08 % weaker. To show how inconsequential this is, move a few meters closer to your target and you'd be dealing STANAG damage. Don't worry about the damage difference, it doesn't matter. A note about SD magazines: in some guns, these shoot far too high. In others, they work as intended. They shoot fine in guns with a 100 meter zero, but not in guns with a 300 meter zero. With their low 320 m/s velocity, these rounds need to be launched high into the air if they are going to come back down and hit your line of sight at 300 meters. Iron sights: The iron sights on the M4A1 and M16A2 are almost identical. There are some minor differences (ie, the post on the M16A2 is slightly finer). The sight gives good visibility of the target and your bullet impacts, but takes up a large amount of the screen. I feel it's worse for following a running target at closer ranges. Still, overall it's not bad at all. However, the iron sights on the M16A2/M203 are a piece of crap. It shoots way high despite having the same zero range, so something in the actual 3D model must be off-kilter. Not only that, but it has very poor visibility and the grenade launcher sight is essentially nonfunctional. I would drop this weapon as soon as possible. Optical sights: The red dot sights on the CCOs are nice. The sight gives very good visibility of the target and the surrounding area. Bullet impacts are easily seen, moving or multiple targets are easy to track, and the dot is always very visible on the screen. The dot can cover the target at longer ranges, but usually this is a non-issue. The red dot sight on the M4A1 Holo is "okay", but I feel the thick red outer ring obscures both the target and my bullet impacts. It is transparent, but I still don't like using this sight. The optics on the M16A4 ACOG are nice and this is my favorite of the M4/M16s. It has its stadia lines spaced at useful ranges, roughly 100, 200, 300, 400 and 600 meters, although they may not correspond exactly. It doesn't zoom in too far and helps one be very accurate at longer ranges. I wouldn't choose it for combat under 150 meters, but for scouting and general DayZ use it works very well. Full auto vs burst: The burst feature on the M16s groups its shots a bit closer together than the full auto fire on the M4s. I still prefer the full auto option. If you run into someone at close range and need to spam bullets, it just works better. I'd be using semi-auto in all other cases anyways, so full auto wins. Rarity: "Rarity"... heh. Here are the chances of finding one of these in a single military spawn location (chance of gun x chance of spawn) From lowest to highest: All normal military locations: M16A2: 2% M4A1: 0.8 % M16A2 M203: 0.4 % M4A1 CCO: 0.4 % M4A3 CCO: 0.4 % STANAG magazine: 4% STANAG SD magazine: 1 % Barracks: M16A2: 4% M4A1: 4% M4A3 CCO: 3.2 % M16A2 M203: 2% M16A4 ACOG: 2 % M4A1 AIM: 0.8 % M4A1 CCO SD: 1.6 % M4A1 Holo M203: 0.8 % STANAG magazine: 8% STANAG SD magazine: 2 % Note that magazines are "loot" and loot tends to spawn in piles, weapons spawn by themselves... so the magazine chances are likely larger. Once I understand loot better I'll edit it if necessary. In sum: Overall, my favorite rifle of these is the M16A4 ACOG because of its superior scouting and long range capabilities. If you can't see it, you can't hit it. This rifle does have its drawbacks in close range. Ranking them according to my taste (all pure personal preference): 1. M16A4 ACOG. 2. M4A3 CCO: it's got a red dot and a flashlight. 3. M4A1 CCO: no flashlight. Also a lower zero range than the A3, but all these guns shoot pretty flat anyways. 4. M4A1 Holo: may as well have a grenade launcher with that. Don't like the sights though. 5. M4A1: it's got full auto, that's saved my ass before. 6. M16A2: it doesn't have true full auto. More accurate though. 7. M4A1 CCO SD: I have no use for a rifle that only takes rare SD rounds, but at least it's suppressed. Still better than the next one... 8. M16A2/M203: even the grenade launcher can't save this from the terrible sights. So, what are your favorites? :lol:

Dude, do you not have a bucket?

True, there is a huge difference in energy, about 40%, one is a full-power rifle round, the other is an intermediate cartridge. Still, if you shoot someone with both, I doubt they'd notice the difference. I think the game puts too much emphasis on differences in energy... law of diminishing returns and all that. Here's the wide-spread Fackler wound profiles (of course Fackler is just one view of things and wound profiles in jelly are certainly not the final word): The top two are 7.62x39mm (M43 and M67), the other are 7.62x54mmR and 7.62x51mm rounds. The pink is the depth of an average human torso... Of course these rounds will behave differently each time, and homogenous gelatin is not directly comparable to a human filled with different dermal layers, muscle tissue, veins, tendons, organs, bones, and other various titbits. Still, these diagrams can be useful. The red is the permanent cavity, the white is the temporary "stretch cavity". Do the more powerful rounds look nearly twice as effective, even in this scientific substance? Not to me... although that can all change with expanding bullets that cause more damage and make better use of the round's energy. The difference right now is 8000 vs 4500, the larger round is 1.778 times as effective. If one was to take the square root of that number, you'd end up with 1.333, which would mean the smaller round would do 4500 and the larger round would do 6000. That seems much more reasonable to me (in terms of difference, not in terms of damage, maybe the 7.62x39 should do 6000 and the 7.62x51 should do 8000, that's all up for debate).

I like using my guns on people, I find it very fun, end of story. I'm not too cold-blooded, I'm way too nice sometimes, for example, I'll kill a couple people for their car and then decide to drive it back to them (lost my life in a hail of gunfire as I approached the meeting point). :P

It may come as a pleasant surprise to learn damage is tied to the velocity of the bullet in question, different bullets do different "base" damage and different bullets have different levels of drag. Example: Range-------5.56 NATO damage------7.62 NATO damage 000----------------3555---------------------------8000 100----------------3078---------------------------7281 200----------------2663---------------------------6627 300----------------2304---------------------------6031 400----------------1994---------------------------5490 500----------------1670---------------------------4997 600----------------1445---------------------------4548 700----------------1251---------------------------4139 800----------------1082---------------------------3767 900------------------937---------------------------3429 1000----------------810---------------------------3130 The ballistics are by no means perfect, but I assume it would be too much work to incorporate a full ballistics calculator into the game. As for the comment on the 7.62 NATO doing almost twice as much damage as the 7.62x39, they went with energy to calculate the damage at the muzzle. Obviously that's not the best solution, effectiveness and energy don't really correspond in that manner. As I see it, there's two ways to decide gun damage: formulas, or fudging. Either they decide on a formula (ie, energy) and base calculations on that, or they arbitrarily decide damage values based on (essentially) their personal opinions. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages, my favorite example of the "fudging" method is how .45 ACP used to do three times the damage of a 9mm before they updated the damages to (mostly) follow energy. Honestly I'd only be 100% happy if I was the one deciding all the damages. I don't like the hitpoints model, either, it's way too limited, I would definitely make it more of a chance-based system so you didn't get the exact same result each time. :lol:

Nope, not in standard form. Some people (even in the military) still propagate that though... More recently, instructors at Marine Corps Recruiting Depot Parris Island and at The Basic School were teaching that the .50 caliber machinegun could not be used against ground forces. Instructors at the U.S. Army Infantry School, apparently laboring under the same impression, resolved it by teaching that: "The .50 caliber machinegun can be used against enemy military equipment, but not personnel. So be sure to aim your .50 caliber machinegun at the enemy soldier's belt buckle." The explosive Mk 211 round is questionable... they even did studies to see if the round would explode inside an enemy or after it exited. :P

:lol: Now imagine what a Dushka would do!

VBS2 is what I wanted ArmA 3 to be like. :lol:

What in the world... those BMP-3s are scary enough in Wasteland, in DayZ... please tell me that's not a server spawn.

So... I'm at this screen: What do I do now? ^_^

I think he's trying to say you can take out 64 zombies without reloading, good for PvE, bad for PvP. (Firing wet paper balls can be effective, I've been on the receiving end of a chewed-for-30-minutes-tennis-ball-sized one - it's absolutely disgusting)

I figured it was a "no PvP" server seeing as you got banned for fragging someone. You might want to just find another server... I'd take "spawn with AS50" over "no PvP".

Only silenced Bizons, 2.5% chance at heli crashes.

Frequently I don't loot bodies, most times I don't even bother to hide them. I just like shooting people. ^_^

It's from loving-bengal.net. "Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high; Where knowledge is free;" -Rabinranath Tagore

That's Gags.