dog
True Bro
woof
Posts: 10,608
|
Post by dog on Mar 2, 2011 8:28:58 GMT -5
Its just simple logic bros,
An ideal cup of coffee for a diabetic patient is coffee with no sugar. Coffee with less sugar still has sugar no matter how small the quantity is.
|
|
|
Post by raxcoswell on Mar 2, 2011 9:56:26 GMT -5
That's not a perfect analogy though, unless you can have negative sugar? This is hurting my tiny robo-assisted brain
I'm just trying to wrap my head around how reducing the spread per shot by any amount would not have an upwardly-mobile affect on ideal rpm? Spread recovery removes a fixed amount, no?
|
|
dog
True Bro
woof
Posts: 10,608
|
Post by dog on Mar 2, 2011 13:04:16 GMT -5
Those with negative values are essentially considered as 0.
Same reason why you can't have .1 of a bullet, or half a human being.
|
|
|
Post by raxcoswell on Mar 2, 2011 17:35:15 GMT -5
yeah but i mean it's not a discrete thing. surely reducing spread per bullet whilst spread recovery stays the same = an increase in ideal ROF, even if it's not maximum?
|
|
dog
True Bro
woof
Posts: 10,608
|
Post by dog on Mar 3, 2011 4:31:33 GMT -5
What better way to explain than to use a graph y-axis = spread added/shot x-axis = rate of fire (RPM) green dot = Ideal rof (0 spread, 514 RPM) Red dot = AEK (Normal) @ 800 RPM Blue dot = AEK with MMN @ 800 RPM The blue guy is 3x more accurate than the red one. As you reduce the rof by whatever means, both dots converge onto 1 point, which is the green guy.
|
|
|
Post by raxcoswell on Mar 3, 2011 8:55:59 GMT -5
Aha. My feeble liberal arts brain is satisfied now. Don't exactly know why it works like that but I can at least see that it does!
|
|
|
Post by raxcoswell on Mar 3, 2011 9:02:21 GMT -5
Now we just need someone to plot the statistical average TTKs of MMN weapons to see if they compare favourably with magnum at any ranges!
I nominate Not Rax
|
|
|
Post by field on May 19, 2011 16:53:08 GMT -5
I deal rate of fire for weapons seems really high when comparing it to thier max rof. The chart basically says if someone is 100m away you are supposed to hose at them and all your shots will go dead center. Could be wrong.
|
|
dog
True Bro
woof
Posts: 10,608
|
Post by dog on May 20, 2011 1:01:36 GMT -5
I deal rate of fire for weapons seems really high when comparing it to thier max rof. The chart basically says if someone is 100m away you are supposed to hose at them and all your shots will go dead center. Could be wrong. Ideal rof only eliminates weapon spray. Recoil is still there.
|
|
|
Post by field on May 20, 2011 2:39:32 GMT -5
The spray is basically what you see after you have fired x amount of bullets and you start to see bullets start to splatter all over the place instead of in a tight group am i right?
|
|
|
Post by raxcoswell on May 20, 2011 4:56:07 GMT -5
Basically, yeah. It's bullets not going where the gunsights would indicate they would go.
|
|
|
Post by 418Y on May 22, 2011 8:56:49 GMT -5
Now, tell me it's not just me.
When I use the iron sights (even with the misalignement of the AN) it's all fine. When I use the Red Dot on the AN, it's all fine. When I use the ACOG on the M16 it's all fine.
But if I use a Red Dot on the M16, or an ACOG on the AN, the hit detection is just messed up. It's not a question of one or two games, rather 10. Is this a total bs or some Bro has had the same issue?
|
|
|
Post by field on May 22, 2011 17:42:35 GMT -5
I've felt like the acog on certain rifles is decieving and goofs with how i would normally shoot it with iron sights.
Sometimes i dont think the crosshair on the acog is true to what the weapon actually doese such as when single firing the G3 you can fire acccurate shots at a faster rate than the speed at which the crosshair returns to center with the acog.
|
|