|
Post by rudybojangles on Aug 15, 2011 13:50:18 GMT -5
HI THAR. I used :V's recovery analysis to come up with yet another tab on my TTK spreadsheet. At range, guns WILL NOT put all bullets into the target when fired full auto. With that in mind, I put in the calculated fire rates and used them for the LONG-RANGE time to kill only. The short range TTK are copied from the first page, and the average is calculated based on the average of the short-range standard TTK and the long-range ideal TTK. This way, we can figure out which weapons truly are well rounded, which are dogs and which are unbalanced. Here is the link: spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlTMrHbh89wedFd6REg3cFdlek1JdDJ3eWNzWXRUWWc&hl=en_USThe second tab incorporates the fire rate and is the new tab. What we have found: *The T88 LMG isn't the total dog it looks like from the outset because it has a high ideal fire rate. It's no PKM but it can kill fairly fast at distance. *Weapons like the XM8C and the M93R, which look really good on paper provided 100% accuracy seem to falter in this "closer to actual performance" test. *Overall, the guns look a lot more balanced. *Vietnam still needs work. I'm sure others will find different things. I just did this to confirm what I thought about the balance: it's pretty solid. There are winners and losers but mostly a level playing field. Perhaps I'll put up the results with Marksman training if :V reposts that.
|
|
|
Post by infininja on Aug 15, 2011 16:36:01 GMT -5
Thanks, but your link has an extra bit at the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by raxcoswell on Aug 23, 2011 19:02:32 GMT -5
good charts, interesting tool. but by factoring in stuff like this, you are opening up a rather large can of worms. next i expect a full study into the benefits of high rof vs low rof with quantitative results
|
|