Post by redcrossworker on May 21, 2011 4:53:29 GMT -5
New here and i was wondering what the major differences are in the math between the BF2 and BC2 "aiming systems" (not sure what the technically correct phrase is for that).
I haven't played BC2 very much because, well... I can't stand the gameplay and i get a headache after about an hour of looking at the graphics for some reason. I do know BF2 very well though. Over 2,300 hours invested in it.
From what i gather from browsing related topics on BC2 spray and spread etc., there is some kind of "recovery" multiplier when in full auto on all the guns. I don't think BF2 has this... Or if it does, then the settings are so far apart between the two games that it's not even a factor. That is if i even understand what recovery means. ;D
Q. How similar are the two systems in terms of the numbers inside the game files? Can they even be compared to each other because of engine differences?
Q. Does accuracy ever start to improve in full auto in BC2, or is it just a slower decrease in accuracy than in BF2 when firing in full auto?
Thanks for offering your brain to be picked at free of charge! It's very much appreciated! I look forward to being corrected on anything in my comments.
Post by redcrossworker on May 21, 2011 11:02:45 GMT -5
Me too. Dice has really been pushing the whole "This IS the TRUE succesor to BF2 and NOT Bad Company" line is recent interviews. The fact that they won't confirm things though is making me a bit nervous. I guess we wait.
BC2 (or rather the Frostbite engine) has specific accuracy and recoil variables for every posture, both unzoomed and sighted.
BF2 (or rather the Refractor Engine) has a few static accuracy settings that is modified by posture and zooming.
There examples are not reflective of any of the games' actual weapons.
A BC2 weapon could have 2.5 min and 5.0 max spread from the hip while standing. A shot could add 1.0 spread per shot and recover at a rate of 3.0 per second. A 0.1 min and 2.0 max spread when zoomed. A shot could add 1.0 spread per shot and recover at 5.0 per second. A 1.5 and 4.0 spread when crouched. A shot could add 0.8 spread and recover at 4.0 per second. 0.0 and 2.0 spread when zoomed and crouched. 0.8 spread per shot and recover 5.0 per second. Make up some more numbers for prone.
And then there's a min/max for both X axis and Y axis recoil. And then recoil angle, amplitude and recovery for all six postures.
A base "Up" Recoil with two min-maxes. A base "LeftRight" Recoil with two min-maxes. The recoil is only changed by a single "Zoom Modifier". A few miscalaneous things like a frame count to set low long the recoil would take. No kind of recovery variables.
So a rifle may have 0.4 and 0.8 Up. -0.3 and 0.4 LeftRight. A 0.5 Zoom Modifier cutting those recoil values in half. And it would take 15 frames to complete the travel from the start to end.
Next would be Deviation. First is the base "Min Deviation" or MinDev. Then comes the simple Modifiers for Stand/Crouch/Prone/Zoom. Some things like Fire/Speed to add spread. And a rate of Deviation recovery.
So the rifle has 0.5 MinDev. Moving would add 0.8 spread. Firing would add 1.3 spread per shot.
Stand / Crouch / Prone / Zoom would multiply the MinDev by 1.33 / 1.0 / 0.4 / 0.8 (note: in BF2, going prone was generally several times better at improving accuracy than zooming in, and even then most weapons were pretty inaccurate)
And then a recovery of 2.0 per second. (Another note: in BF2, the deviation would only recover when the player was not holding down the fire button. It wasn't tied to the weapon but the button input itself, so those who knew about it could fire very rapidly with significant improvements in accuracy by releasing the input between every shot compared to someone who would fire in bursts.)
That's about it. BC2's Frostbite has many variables that are specific as to what they are and can be selectively tuned, giving much more control over a weapon's behavior in any posture.
BF2's Refractor has a few base numbers that are adjusted by a couple all-encompassing multipliers.
Post by redcrossworker on May 22, 2011 7:51:40 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply! It helps a lot! If i could ask another....
Were you taking the numbers from the v1.41/1.5 BF2 patched files? The aiming has been tweeked very much since the v1.0 game. And is nothing like the demo. Also when you say "Refractor" you mean Refractor2 right?
And are there any numbers that describe the range for each weapon in the games?
(Another note: in BF2, the deviation would only recover when the player was not holding down the fire button. It wasn't tied to the weapon but the button input itself, so those who knew about it could fire very rapidly with significant improvements in accuracy by releasing the input between every shot compared to someone who would fire in bursts.)
Nope, it's not related to the fire button at all; but the rate of fire. Take 600 rpm and you get 0.1 seconds per shot. Fire dev is reduced only after 0.1 seconds (or three frames) have passed. Considering a 600 rpm weapon being fired on frame 1 it will stay inaccurate during frame 2 and 3 as well but (I'm not perfectly sure on the next part) on frame 4 it will first check if another round is fired and if not finally reduce deviation or else add more dev for the next round fired.
Post by kirbyderby on May 23, 2011 10:59:15 GMT -5
While BF3 is the successor to BF2, it IS using Frostbite, so the aiming systems etc. will probably be closer to BC2 if anything. But it's a completely new engine too, so nobody can really tell right now.
It was never really going to be a BF2 successor, we all knew that. The hc niche of BF2 just isn't popular except with battlefield purists these days. Personally I loved BC2 so BF3 turned out great (Or at least it will be once this patch comes out).
Last Edit: Feb 26, 2012 3:17:35 GMT -5 by fazzmania