MW3 Rates of Fire - Akimbo FMG9 have built in RF! « Thread Started on Dec 4, 2011, 12:41am »
Bros,
I know we have MW3 stats from the game guide, but sometimes we have often found them faulty especially for rates of fire (shotguns). So I measured the time to empty whole extended mags for every auto weapon to calculate the rate of fire. (PS3 12/3/2011)
You ain't gonna believe this shit ... the Foxtrot-ing akimbo FMG9's shoot at a faster rate than the FMG9 with any other attachment! I can hear the difference when I use them side by side. What were they thinking!?
Also: * Most of the MG's shoot at the same rate ... 150 rounds takes 12.5 seconds to fire for L86, MG36, MK46. * Rapid fire is running a consistent 25% increase in fire rate with 1 exception: the MP7 is only getting 10% increase * Some of the weapons are significantly slower than the guide's ROF.
Re: MW3 Rates of Fire - Akimbo FMG9 have built in « Reply #2 on Dec 4, 2011, 7:13am »
I was curious about LMG and I tested MK46, L86, MG36 on PC on 4.12.11. Well, at least on PC they have different rate of fire for sure, with MK46 highest, can't remember the numbers now, but there was a significant difference.
Re: MW3 Rates of Fire - Akimbo FMG9 have built in « Reply #4 on Dec 4, 2011, 10:05am »
Im getting different results than you.
Copied from Psijaka's recoil plots thread,
MK46: 734 RPM MK46 RF: 904 RPM +23%
L86: 722 RPM L86 RF: 915 RPM +27%
MP7: 860 RPM MP7 RF: 983 RPM +14%
PP90: 939 RPM PP90 RF: 1293 RPM +32%
There's some room for error, but it should be across the board. The only other thing that could cause issues is that not all were tested in the same spot, e.g. framerate.
They obviously deviate from the guides that've been copied from because they don't take the burst delay into account. Also, I tested in a frame by frame editing program, so anything I test could be off by as much as 17 thousandths of a second (0.017) since that's what it reads the difference in frames under 59.94 frames/second.
I was getting slightly different results than you for each gun, but they were almost always within 20 RPM. Except with the PP90M1 and MP7. I got 1003.717 and 1188.119 for the PP90M1, and 773.445 and 910.474 for the MP7.
I tested through Xbox 360 without serverside patches (Banned from xbl right now lol) for the record. I'm on version 1.3.466
Re: MW3 Rates of Fire - Akimbo FMG9 have built in « Reply #6 on Dec 4, 2011, 11:55am »
I'm measuring from the fist frame a bullet is missing from the magazine, to the frame when the last bullet disappears. Shot two mags and measured both to make sure my numbers were the same both times. No extended mags. G36C, kick, no attachments: 145 frames G36C, RDS Silencer: 145 frames 745rpm or -3.12%
FAD no attachments: 156 frames FAD silencer: 156 frames 923 rpm or -7.7%
There's some room for error, but it should be across the board. The only other thing that could cause issues is that not all were tested in the same spot, e.g. framerate.
Your MG numbers are close enough to be comparable. Were you on PS3? MK46: 734 RPM vs 715 CLOSE MK46 RF: 904 RPM vs. 894 CLOSE L86: 722 RPM vs 715 CLOSE L86 RF: 915 RPM vs 894 CLOSE
However the Rapid fire for PP90 PP90: 939 RPM vs. 908.57 CLOSE PP90 RF: 1293 RPM vs. 1135 OUR NUMBERS NOT EVEN CLOSE
And for the MP7 both are significantly different, but you still see the RF defect: MP7: 860 RPM vs 813 MP7 RF: 983 RPM vs 885
I used the same map (Seatown) but not always the same position. However the measurements wound up the same as long as say 3 cars didn't blow up while I was shooting. Another difference may be attachments and proficiencies. I used either no profic+EM or attachments+EM+RF or a secondary with akimbo. What did you use?
The MP7 only gets 10%? Should I reconsider Rapid Fire + Ext. Mags...?
It could be what the rumors are... The game starts with these maps, and these problems, so that they can be fixed in the future...
The current patch to the FMG9s are like "ha ha" but I guess I don't mind too much after being used to MW2 and its "balance".
Thank you for the data.
Speaking of which... If the ROFs are off, doesn't this mean TTK values are incorrect?
The MP7 only gets 10%? Should I reconsider Rapid Fire + Ext. Mags...?
If you're on PS3 you'd have to consider whether it is worth giving away your proficiency for a marginal gain. Given the MP7's short effective range (of 3 shot kills) I'd recommend range because it's already very accurate. However, if you were using specialist strike package I'd say attachments prof can be good ...
Speaking of which... If the ROFs are off, doesn't this mean TTK values are incorrect?
They obviously deviate from the guides that've been copied from because they don't take the burst delay into account. Also, I tested in a frame by frame editing program, so anything I test could be off by as much as 17 thousandths of a second (0.017) since that's what it reads the difference in frames under 59.94 frames/second.
I was getting slightly different results than you for each gun, but they were almost always within 20 RPM. Except with the PP90M1 and MP7. I got 1003.717 and 1188.119 for the PP90M1, and 773.445 and 910.474 for the MP7.
I tested through Xbox 360 without serverside patches (Banned from xbl right now lol) for the record. I'm on version 1.3.466
I put your numbers in the chart with an annotation of "source doom; XBOX360 etc." Burst weapons are hard to test using my methods so I skipped them as you can't tell the difference between the fire time and the burst delay.
One thing I noticed is that you are not using the n-1 convention in calculating ... basically 30 rounds from a normal auto take 29 cycles. In the past Bro's insisted I use this formula: ((Num Rounds Fired - 1)/Time in sec) * (60 sec/min) = rounds/min.
I'd love for someone to do one of those "macro tests" on these 2 weapons to actually measure the microscopic fire-time and burst delays.
Re: MW3 Rates of Fire - Akimbo FMG9 have built in « Reply #12 on Dec 4, 2011, 4:35pm »
More significant finds:
(1) Per request of Ishbane I measured various combinations of MG36 grip as he said they were slower. He's right. My calculations show a 19% reduction in the rate of fire vs. non-grip (like applying RF in reverse). Any combination of grip + sight had the same effect of ROF. Lastly, G36 grip + RF has the same ROF as no attach at all. Ha ha, funny devs. I did try other LWGs to see if they were affected negatively by grip but no they weren't.
(2) The akimbo MP9 look like it is getting an ROF boost like the FMG9. I also tried the akimbo versions of the Skorp and G18 but there was not a significant difference.
The PP90 is an odd one. Retested and got 1244RPM which is still far off. Very odd.
I retested the PP90M1 RF+EM again. There was a slight decrease of .1 second for the RF+EM; I did the PP90M1 early and I refined my technique as I went.
Also, did you use the n-1 convention?
If not the combinations of these two raise the calc ROF to 1200RPM which is only a couple percent different than your 1244RPM. (w/in experimental error).
Re: MW3 Rates of Fire - Akimbo FMG9 have built in « Reply #14 on Dec 4, 2011, 7:53pm »
These are my results:
PP90: 911 RPM P90: 731 RPM MP7: 827 RPM PP90 w/ RF: 1167 (28% increase, round up to 30%) P90 w/ RF: 895 (23% increase, round up to 25%) MP7 w/ RF: 941 14% increase, round up to 15%)
I didn't test LMG's because I don't like that class. As far as the FMG9's are concenred, if you look at selarmor's spreadsheets, it appears that "akimboing" FMG9's does not incrase RoF. Instead, using any other attachment on the FMG9 other than akimbo seems to DECREASE its RoF.
Tl;dr
The only two SMG's worth using are the PP90 and MP7. PP90 is best in close range with RF and Ext. Mags. MP7 is best in medium range with Range proficiency and Ext. Mags. The P90 does nothing well.
The only two SMG's worth using are the PP90 and MP7. PP90 is best in close range with RF and Ext. Mags. MP7 is best in medium range with Range proficiency and Ext. Mags. The P90 does nothing well.
The P90 has the highest mag size, the highest ammo count, and the fastest reload (tied with MP5) of all the SMGs. It also has arguably the best recoil and the best long range performance until you unlock the MP7.
The only two SMG's worth using are the PP90 and MP7. PP90 is best in close range with RF and Ext. Mags. MP7 is best in medium range with Range proficiency and Ext. Mags. The P90 does nothing well.
The P90 has the highest mag size, the highest ammo count, and the fastest reload (tied with MP5) of all the SMGs. It also has arguably the best recoil and the best long range performance until you unlock the MP7.
So the P90's job is to hold the fort until the MP7 arrives? The stock MP7 has a higher RoF than the stock P90, so MP7 beats it in CQC. In long range, MP7 wins with better accuracy. P90 requires Rapid Fire to be viable and an MP7 with Extended Mags has only a slighly lower RoF.
Thus, Ext. Mags MP7 has more magazine capacity, more starting ammo, better recoil, and slightly less RoF. PP90 w/ Rapid Fire is best in CQC. So P90 struggles to find its niche.
Joined: Nov 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 58 Location: SoCal
Re: MW3 Rates of Fire - Akimbo FMG9 have built in « Reply #17 on Dec 5, 2011, 1:18am »
Don't forget that the MP7 loses slightly in range, compared to the P90 and PP90. I require a silencer for my "SMG hipfire" class, and the only viable combination that leaves (on the MP7) is Silencer+Range. Theoretically, if you are okay with sacrificing the versatility of the dead-accurate MP7 (meaning you're now strictly a CQB role), the other two are better in their own ways. For example the P90 has built-in Range and built-in Extended Mags (to some extent), and the PP90 has built-in Range and RF, albeit even more useless outside it's effective range due to 6HK -_-
Still, I prefer the MP7 for it's versatility (those use mind bulletses never expect someone to have a weapon both accurate and powerful enough to beat them... I love the MP7 for that), and it's one of the only 4 guns I actively use.
PP90: 911 RPM P90: 731 RPM MP7: 827 RPM PP90 w/ RF: 1167 (28% increase, round up to 30%) P90 w/ RF: 895 (23% increase, round up to 25%) MP7 w/ RF: 941 14% increase, round up to 15%)
I didn't test LMG's because I don't like that class. As far as the FMG9's are concenred, if you look at selarmor's spreadsheets, it appears that "akimboing" FMG9's does not incrase RoF. Instead, using any other attachment on the FMG9 other than akimbo seems to DECREASE its RoF.
Tl;dr
The only two SMG's worth using are the PP90 and MP7. PP90 is best in close range with RF and Ext. Mags. MP7 is best in medium range with Range proficiency and Ext. Mags. The P90 does nothing well.
Nice job dude.
I love the MP7 and I've found a lot of success using extmag+silencer. I also love the PP90 with extmag+rapid.
But my playstyle I always find myself in the middle of enemies where a silencer helps me a lot. I can't stand looking at a killcam and a guy happens to turn around and kill me because i didn't have a silencer. So I use a silencer a lot.
Do you know how far the range prof helps with the smgs and how its effected with silenced smgs?
And 15% increase in rof on the MP7 is not worth, especially how it effects the MP7s strength: accuracy.
Re: MW3 Rates of Fire - Akimbo FMG9 have built in « Reply #20 on Dec 7, 2011, 4:15pm »
Range proficiency increases both the initial range drop off as well as the maximum range by 25%. Silencer reduces range by 25%. I did some tests and concluded that the two DO NOT cancel each other out so it is probably multiplicative. So MP7 with both silencer and range will have 94% the range of a stock MP7.
Range proficiency increases both the initial range drop off as well as the maximum range by 25%. Silencer reduces range by 25%. I did some tests and concluded that the two DO NOT cancel each other out so it is probably multiplicative. So MP7 with both silencer and range will have 94% the range of a stock MP7.
94% is really good given the benefits of the silencer.
Joined: Feb 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 10,879 Location: Orkney
Re: MW3 Rates of Fire - Akimbo FMG9 have built in « Reply #22 on Dec 8, 2011, 8:39am »
I am getting worried by these results as they will have a big impact upon my recoil plots. It seems that in general guns have a true rate of fire lower than that quoted in the game guide; lower rate of fire generally means a tighter spread of recoil (but not always).
And the RF figures. The only "safe" figures to use is a 25% increase for all LMGs and for the MP5 & P90.
I may go ahead and produce recoil plots for these "safe" ROF, but I don't know what to make of the MK7 and PP90.
And just exactly what is going on with the MG36+grip? WTF ??
Keep up the good work, fred, all the more valuable in view of the discrepancies that you have discovered.
Re: MW3 Rates of Fire - Akimbo FMG9 have built in « Reply #23 on Dec 8, 2011, 8:17pm »
I am guessing these differences in RoF that have been calculated have something to do with framerate drops... I just want to ask, has anyone tested the PM-9? Or did I miss it entirely?
(1) Per request of Ishbane I measured various combinations of MG36 grip as he said they were slower. He's right. My calculations show a 19% reduction in the rate of fire vs. non-grip (like applying RF in reverse). Any combination of grip + sight had the same effect of ROF. Lastly, G36 grip + RF has the same ROF as no attach at all. Ha ha, funny devs. I did try other LWGs to see if they were affected negatively by grip but no they weren't.
(2) The akimbo MP9 look like it is getting an ROF boost like the FMG9. I also tried the akimbo versions of the Skorp and G18 but there was not a significant difference.
I've updated the spreadsheet.
You know, this game is less-and-less seeming "laden with Easter Eggs," and more-and-more seeming "carelessly designed with no concept of proofreading."
I am guessing these differences in RoF that have been calculated have something to do with framerate drops... I just want to ask, has anyone tested the PM-9? Or did I miss it entirely?
You missed it. See the spreadsheet link on first post.
PM-9 EM 48 3.1 1090 909.68 -17% N/A Significantly lower than expected.
I am guessing these differences in RoF that have been calculated have something to do with framerate drops... I just want to ask, has anyone tested the PM-9? Or did I miss it entirely?
Regarding the framerate drops it didn't matter unless I drastically exploded shit like multiple barrels or cars nearby while in the middle of trying to measure. Even then I don't think it did much but cause a hiccup or two.
BTW, for consistencies sake during my measurements I was shooting into the sky per Den's recommendation from MW2 ROF testing.
I am guessing these differences in RoF that have been calculated have something to do with framerate drops... I just want to ask, has anyone tested the PM-9? Or did I miss it entirely?
You missed it. See the spreadsheet link on first post.
PM-9 EM 48 3.1 1090 909.68 -17% N/A Significantly lower than expected.
I am guessing these differences in RoF that have been calculated have something to do with framerate drops... I just want to ask, has anyone tested the PM-9? Or did I miss it entirely?
Regarding the framerate drops it didn't matter unless I drastically exploded doo-doo like multiple barrels or cars nearby while in the middle of trying to measure. Even then I don't think it did much but cause a hiccup or two.
BTW, for consistencies sake during my measurements I was shooting into the sky per Den's recommendation from MW2 ROF testing.
Just for curiosities sake, on which map did you test this?
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9395/originalquadrat100pxmit.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i.imgur.com/Q8HTR.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee391/psijaka/davo.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3Da2xvioRBk/TpPc-iWHghI/AAAAAAAAJh0/1wcuq_lEQ2E/s1600/hot-lips-710503.jpeg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i.imgur.com/C4SPH.png "[avatar]")