|
Post by jaedrik on Nov 14, 2013 13:45:21 GMT -5
|
|
Den
He's That Guy
Posts: 4,294,967,295
|
Post by Den on Nov 14, 2013 18:00:27 GMT -5
They look accurate. The readout is matching the grouping and climb you'd get if you tested it in game. The "Warning Math" tab shows all relevant cone of fire and recoil angle variables being factored in. For comparison, in-game NS-11C, AMC and TRAC-5 S. Just as with that graph's production, the TRAC-5 S pulls to the right slightly more than the AMC. The NS11c goes to the left and its grouping widens more at the end of a mag dump. So it has the angle and spread, though the scale is weird visually. I'd have to use a fraction of the range it fires at to view it as anything other than a little clump. As in set the shot to 50 Range and look at the 10m graph. It's like the resulting numbers should be ten times larger to see the grouping you would in game if you measured from the same position you fired. Besides that, I guess it gives you an accurate comparison of recoil between weapons. I'd just take a trip to the VR firing range and screenshot their recoil side by side though.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Nov 14, 2013 20:20:41 GMT -5
This makes a lot more sense now. I can actually tell the difference between the NC6 Gauss Saw and the TMG-50 by putting in the 100 range and using the 10 meter range graph. The maximum horizontal deflection for the second shot is a substantial bit higher for the TMG, whereas the maximum vertical deflection for the NC6 is higher, and so on. It is confusing having two patterns sitting side by side with different origin points, I'm spoiled by Probaddie's colored graphs with like 50 million samples. :3 Now I can use numbers to complain about faction imbalance too! . . . Right? >:P Edit: Oh, it doesn't show foregrip numbers. Looks like Den pixel box method is best. I'll be using the AMC from now on (and have been). Edit edit: It actually looks like the NC-11C is substantially better. Huh.
|
|