Name a SINGLE new feature you want in FO3.
-
Wolfman Walt
- Mamma's Gang member
- Posts: 5243
- Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 1:31 pm
- Location: La Grange, Kentucky
- Contact:
Arrows, Bullets, and Fallout
In the spirit of not wanting to get kicked for arguing with a supreme ruler I bow to your superior knowledge about the fallout series and I thank you for helping facilitating the return of this great website. I don’t mean that in a smart ass way obviously your commitment in time and effort to this website and the fallout community is far above mine.
All I wanted was a crossbow not a war but like I said before ill take a silenced pistol instead (I would prefer it as a matter of fact).
One thing I will take issue with is:
You stated that bolts or arrows are inherently inaccurate actually the reverse is true. In the 1970’s the Armor community ditched conventionally shaped spin stabilized solid shot for defeating armor and switched to what we call ‘long rod penetrators’ for our primary armor defeating rounds, APFSDS (that’s Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot). The reasons for the switch were increased penetration due to a higher cross sectional density and increased stability (and hence accuracy) due to a long thin aerodynamic shape and a better ballistic coefficient because of the reduced frontal area.
If you will notice that 120mm sabot penetrator looks just like an arrow because that is exactly what it is. APFSDS ammo is far more accurate and effective against armor than any spin stabilized ammunition ever was. Its funny how technology continues to circle back on it’s self isn’t it.
Again thanks for your part in resurrecting this great website and for fighting for another iteration of fallout. Without the constant pressure of this site and NMA I seriously doubt that Interplay would have resurrected FO3. The community told them not to waste their time on a piece of console trash like BOS but they didn’t listen and nearly ceased to exist as a result.
Peace Brother
Note: I have removed the post that offended you
All I wanted was a crossbow not a war but like I said before ill take a silenced pistol instead (I would prefer it as a matter of fact).
One thing I will take issue with is:
An poorly stabilized bullet (like one fired from zip gun) no matter what its density or velocity will not fly accurately no matter what is form. All projectiles regardless of their length have what is called a center of form and a center of mass. In a spin stabilized projectile the center of form and the center of mass must nearly coincide otherwise the projectile will pick up a wobble the instant it exit’s the muzzle. If a cylindrical projectile is fired from an unrifled barrel it will instantly begin to yaw and rotate around its center of form and in a very random pattern, obviously this slug will be churning up the air that surrounds it and create a huge drag cone that will decelerate it quickly and deflect it from its intended flight path. A fin stabilized projectile on the other hand has its center of mass forward of its center of form and the stabilization is provided by the atmospheric drag and slow rotation provided by the slightly canted fins. The factors that contribute most directly to accuracy are projectile stability in flight, harmonic imbalance (barrel whip, platform stability etc.), and barrel geometry. The effect that high velocity has on a accuracy is rather indirect in that a high velocity slug or bolt will be exposed to wind and other environmental effects for a shorter period of time and thus be deflected from the intended trajectory by a smaller factor.Just the velocity of the bullet alone will make it far more accurate than the bolt. The density of the bullet will help it a great deal as well when it's cutting through the air - versus a bolt, which has an uneven weight distribution over a thin, cylindrical body.
You stated that bolts or arrows are inherently inaccurate actually the reverse is true. In the 1970’s the Armor community ditched conventionally shaped spin stabilized solid shot for defeating armor and switched to what we call ‘long rod penetrators’ for our primary armor defeating rounds, APFSDS (that’s Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot). The reasons for the switch were increased penetration due to a higher cross sectional density and increased stability (and hence accuracy) due to a long thin aerodynamic shape and a better ballistic coefficient because of the reduced frontal area.
If you will notice that 120mm sabot penetrator looks just like an arrow because that is exactly what it is. APFSDS ammo is far more accurate and effective against armor than any spin stabilized ammunition ever was. Its funny how technology continues to circle back on it’s self isn’t it.
Again thanks for your part in resurrecting this great website and for fighting for another iteration of fallout. Without the constant pressure of this site and NMA I seriously doubt that Interplay would have resurrected FO3. The community told them not to waste their time on a piece of console trash like BOS but they didn’t listen and nearly ceased to exist as a result.
Peace Brother
Note: I have removed the post that offended you
-
Chicken Hunter
Long, plot with good ideas, few features well worked upon.
Would be nice if they work on a better graphic motor, is it they also re did the previous fallouts (1&2) with the graphics they made. Thus having fallout 1, 2, &3 all in one game everything to replay. All sexy and everything making a huge plot and shit. o.o;
Would be nice if they work on a better graphic motor, is it they also re did the previous fallouts (1&2) with the graphics they made. Thus having fallout 1, 2, &3 all in one game everything to replay. All sexy and everything making a huge plot and shit. o.o;
-
Saint_Proverbius
- Righteous Subjugator
- Posts: 1549
- Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 1:57 am
- Contact:
Re: Arrows, Bullets, and Fallout
When you have projectiles flying through the air that don't have a uniform mass distribution, the turbulant flow of the air along that mass will affect the shot much more than if it were uniform. The tip of a bolt is heavier, which is why arrows and bolts tend to have guides at the end of them to stabilize them better in an attempt to get them going forward as much as possible. Bullets don't need that.xbow wrote:An poorly stabilized bullet (like one fired from zip gun) no matter what its density or velocity will not fly accurately no matter what is form. All projectiles regardless of their length have what is called a center of form and a center of mass.
Since they're slower, they'll drop faster towards the ground per unit of distance away from the person firing them due to parabolic projectile motion. The drop off of a bolt is much greater than that of the bullet. While both a fired bolt and bullet will hit the ground at the same time, the bullet will make it much farther just because it's Vxi.
Even suggesting a crossbow is more accurate than a zip gun is silly because of those reasons.
The problem is that the fins, or guides, aren't that accurate. If it gets even slightly bent or isn't aligned properly when the bolt is made, you end up with an even worse situation than a non-rifled barrel.A fin stabilized projectile on the other hand has its center of mass forward of its center of form and the stabilization is provided by the atmospheric drag and slow rotation provided by the slightly canted fins. The factors that contribute most directly to accuracy are projectile stability in flight, harmonic imbalance (barrel whip, platform stability etc.), and barrel geometry. The effect that high velocity has on a accuracy is rather indirect in that a high velocity slug or bolt will be exposed to wind and other environmental effects for a shorter period of time and thus be deflected from the intended trajectory by a smaller factor.
Hell, back in the late 1700s and early 1800s, duals were done with musket shots that were square, and non-rifled barrels. The compact nature of the shot and the speed of the shot is what allows them to do that. A square bullet is going to tumble a hell of a lot more than a rounded slug from a zip gun.
The Sabot rounds work because they have a smaller perpendicular surface area to the target than a normal shell. They wanted the penetration that gives. They didn't do it because of accuracy. The penetration was the key and the stability was the problem that engineers had to deal with to get the penetration.You stated that bolts or arrows are inherently inaccurate actually the reverse is true. In the 1970’s the Armor community ditched conventionally shaped spin stabilized solid shot for defeating armor and switched to what we call ‘long rod penetrators’ for our primary armor defeating rounds, APFSDS (that’s Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot). The reasons for the switch were increased penetration due to a higher cross sectional density and increased stability (and hence accuracy) due to a long thin aerodynamic shape and a better ballistic coefficient because of the reduced frontal area.
------------------
-
PsychoSniper
-
Guest
interesting commentary
You touched on something that is against the accuracy of a crossbow and that is its low velocity. At 300fps my crossbow has a rainbow trajectory but that is easily compensated for by using the correct aiming pin. What is much tougher to gauge is wind. Even a light breeze will deflect a bolt to the left or right quite a bit at 50 yards so you actually have to apply Kentucky windage to every shot. Even with that being the case here in the Peoples Republic Of California crossbows may not be used in archery season for deer. The rational that the department of fish and Game used to make that rule is that they consider a crossbow to be more like a rifle in function and in accuracy than a bow. To hunt deer with a crossbow you have to do it in the gun season, that’s why I don’t hunt deer with a crossbow I use a better weapon, a rifle.
A simple proof of a fin stabilized projectiles inherently stable shape is to take an arrow or a dart and throw it as hard a possible with the long axis of the projectile perpendicular to the flight path and you will see that either will upon release instantly start to align itself with its trajectory. Do the same thing with a bullet and it will tumble and yaw and never stabilize itself because it requires a fast rotation to force it to become stable. Consult the Greenhill Formula to get the exact twist rate a barrel must have to stabilize a lead core copper jacketed bullet of a specific length, diameter, and velocity. From that formula you can also get the actual revolutions per second required to stabilize a bullet.
Greenhill Formula:
Bullet Diameter x (K /(bullet length in inches ÷ bullet diameter)) = 1 twist in so many inches
K for pistols is 125 for velocities up to 1500fps
K for rifles is 150 for velocities from 1500fps to 3000fps
K for rifles is 180 for velocities greater than 3000fps
Note: A 1.5 inch long .30 cal bullet must be spinning at about 3600 revolutions per second to be stable in flight
I have fired every type of Sabot from spin stabilized 105mm APDS (M392, M392A2, M728, M724(TPDS)) to fin stabilized APFSDS (M735, M833,) and 120mm M865(TPCSDS), M829 APFSDS. they are all accurate but fin stabilized ammunition has a significant edge in accuracy. Except when you have some dicked up AT-SYS ammo with incorrectly mounted fin assemblies wowa! How about missing a 8ft x 8ft target at 2000m by 50 feet in a random direction! But that’s a quality control problem not a problem with the aerodynamic shape. But as you said it takes a high degree of precision for a fin stabilized projectile to be accurate at high velocities. Then again a bullet also has to be perfectly concentric its form and even a tiny void in the lead core or a tiny variance in the thickness of the copper jacket will cause the bullet to deviate from its intended trajectory radically. That’s why inexperienced folks that cast their conical bullets for black powder rifles often have such variable results with their homemade slugs.
Another factor that influenced a return to smooth bore technology and fin stabilized projectiles for tank guns is that rifled barrels wear out much faster than smoothbore barrels under identical stress. The rifled M68 tank gun has an EFC rating of 1000 while a M256 smoothbore has an EFC rating of 1500 to 2000. (EFC = Effective Full Charge). You can almost say that 1 EFC is equal to 1 round fired but in the case of a rifled barre when the air temperature is over 100 deg F you must double the EFC value of every round so in those cases 1 round can equal 2 EFC’s. the average life span of an M68 rifled gun is normally only 700 to 800 rounds while the M256 gun often reaches 1500 rounds fired before it is condemned .
The advantage that the more accurate smoothbore 120mm M256 gun has over the rifled 105mm M68 gun has its roots as you mentioned in ammunition quality control and to a lesser extent in something called 'driving side torque' that exists in rifled barrels when they are fired. That force is the uneven pressure on the inside of a rifled barrel as a projectile is driven through it. That force causes a greater amount of barrel vibration than is experienced by a smooth bore weapon. What that means is that there is more muzzle displacement or 'jump' associated with a rifled barrel than with a smooth bore weapon. However each tank weapon has its own unique and constant amount of jump for each type of ammunition it fires so that factor is considered to be a fixed bias and is correctable through sight adjustment. Eventually however the uneven wear pattern of a rifled barrel results in a condition called 'eccentricity'. During a bore scope and pull over test the barrels general erosion pattern and its degree of eccentricity are tested. the more eccentric a barrel becomes the more random its jump factor becomes and the less accurate it is.
Thanks for the stimulating conversation and some of your insights, you know when I see the passion that we all have for anything that is even distantly related to Fallout I understand why Bethesda probably thinks we are a bunch of barbarians. One would hope that they would understand that it is that passion and our loyalty to the greatest RPG game ever made that will make them rich if they do it right. Only a pack of fools would screw this thing up.
Now a fallout question.
I have a question that you might be able to answer Saint_Proverbius how do you think the player character and NPC 3D models will look in FO3 when they are rendered by a 3D engine from an isometric view? And how will that compare with the 2D graphics in fallout 1 + 2. This may not be true but I heard that some of the NPC’s in fallout 2 were actually made with a 3D engine notably the NCR cops, In any case they certainly looked robotic and a bit plastic when compared with the 2D graphics.
The "smaller perpendicular surface" you referred to is as I said its 'cross sectional density.'The Sabot rounds work because they have a smaller perpendicular surface area to the target than a normal shell. They wanted the penetration that gives. They didn't do it because of accuracy. The penetration was the key and the stability was the problem that engineers had to deal with to get the penetration.
A simple proof of a fin stabilized projectiles inherently stable shape is to take an arrow or a dart and throw it as hard a possible with the long axis of the projectile perpendicular to the flight path and you will see that either will upon release instantly start to align itself with its trajectory. Do the same thing with a bullet and it will tumble and yaw and never stabilize itself because it requires a fast rotation to force it to become stable. Consult the Greenhill Formula to get the exact twist rate a barrel must have to stabilize a lead core copper jacketed bullet of a specific length, diameter, and velocity. From that formula you can also get the actual revolutions per second required to stabilize a bullet.
Greenhill Formula:
Bullet Diameter x (K /(bullet length in inches ÷ bullet diameter)) = 1 twist in so many inches
K for pistols is 125 for velocities up to 1500fps
K for rifles is 150 for velocities from 1500fps to 3000fps
K for rifles is 180 for velocities greater than 3000fps
Note: A 1.5 inch long .30 cal bullet must be spinning at about 3600 revolutions per second to be stable in flight
I have fired every type of Sabot from spin stabilized 105mm APDS (M392, M392A2, M728, M724(TPDS)) to fin stabilized APFSDS (M735, M833,) and 120mm M865(TPCSDS), M829 APFSDS. they are all accurate but fin stabilized ammunition has a significant edge in accuracy. Except when you have some dicked up AT-SYS ammo with incorrectly mounted fin assemblies wowa! How about missing a 8ft x 8ft target at 2000m by 50 feet in a random direction! But that’s a quality control problem not a problem with the aerodynamic shape. But as you said it takes a high degree of precision for a fin stabilized projectile to be accurate at high velocities. Then again a bullet also has to be perfectly concentric its form and even a tiny void in the lead core or a tiny variance in the thickness of the copper jacket will cause the bullet to deviate from its intended trajectory radically. That’s why inexperienced folks that cast their conical bullets for black powder rifles often have such variable results with their homemade slugs.
Another factor that influenced a return to smooth bore technology and fin stabilized projectiles for tank guns is that rifled barrels wear out much faster than smoothbore barrels under identical stress. The rifled M68 tank gun has an EFC rating of 1000 while a M256 smoothbore has an EFC rating of 1500 to 2000. (EFC = Effective Full Charge). You can almost say that 1 EFC is equal to 1 round fired but in the case of a rifled barre when the air temperature is over 100 deg F you must double the EFC value of every round so in those cases 1 round can equal 2 EFC’s. the average life span of an M68 rifled gun is normally only 700 to 800 rounds while the M256 gun often reaches 1500 rounds fired before it is condemned .
The advantage that the more accurate smoothbore 120mm M256 gun has over the rifled 105mm M68 gun has its roots as you mentioned in ammunition quality control and to a lesser extent in something called 'driving side torque' that exists in rifled barrels when they are fired. That force is the uneven pressure on the inside of a rifled barrel as a projectile is driven through it. That force causes a greater amount of barrel vibration than is experienced by a smooth bore weapon. What that means is that there is more muzzle displacement or 'jump' associated with a rifled barrel than with a smooth bore weapon. However each tank weapon has its own unique and constant amount of jump for each type of ammunition it fires so that factor is considered to be a fixed bias and is correctable through sight adjustment. Eventually however the uneven wear pattern of a rifled barrel results in a condition called 'eccentricity'. During a bore scope and pull over test the barrels general erosion pattern and its degree of eccentricity are tested. the more eccentric a barrel becomes the more random its jump factor becomes and the less accurate it is.
Thanks for the stimulating conversation and some of your insights, you know when I see the passion that we all have for anything that is even distantly related to Fallout I understand why Bethesda probably thinks we are a bunch of barbarians. One would hope that they would understand that it is that passion and our loyalty to the greatest RPG game ever made that will make them rich if they do it right. Only a pack of fools would screw this thing up.
Now a fallout question.
I have a question that you might be able to answer Saint_Proverbius how do you think the player character and NPC 3D models will look in FO3 when they are rendered by a 3D engine from an isometric view? And how will that compare with the 2D graphics in fallout 1 + 2. This may not be true but I heard that some of the NPC’s in fallout 2 were actually made with a 3D engine notably the NCR cops, In any case they certainly looked robotic and a bit plastic when compared with the 2D graphics.
-
Wolfman Walt
- Mamma's Gang member
- Posts: 5243
- Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 1:31 pm
- Location: La Grange, Kentucky
- Contact:
The biggest lesson that can be learned from this thread - Don't argue with Saint - You're wrong. Automatically.
Also - This may have been addressed and I just didn't see it (Just indicate where) - But what exactly would you make the crossbow bolts/arrows out of? Woods not abundant and I can't imagine metal cross bow bolts to be that great.
Also - This may have been addressed and I just didn't see it (Just indicate where) - But what exactly would you make the crossbow bolts/arrows out of? Woods not abundant and I can't imagine metal cross bow bolts to be that great.
Harriers for the cup.
-
PsychoSniper
crossbow materials
If crossbows were being made in the fallout world:
The makers could get the material for the stocks from the same place where the gunrunners get wood for their gun stocks. Or they could fashion skeleton stocks from aluminum or light steel tubing.
For the prods or limbs spring steel is an excellent material and can be found in abundance since there are plenty of old junk cars around that have springs. Folks like smitty in Adytum (a blacksmith) can forge crossbow limbs from a spring and then temper the limbs back into a spring and you have your bow.
Saint Proverbius says there is alot of tubing around so perhaps a supply of small diameter aluminum tubing is available for wood shafts they could just scavange wood from all the junk furnature lying around. The broad heads would also be made by any blacksmith and the fins or fletching for the bolts would best be made from cured Brahmin hide like they did in the middle ages. also the prods or limbs would be protected by being wraped in brahmin hide.
With all that said why would they want to do all of that if ammunition and guns are so readily available to everyone in the fallout world? The bottom line is, dont bring a crossbow to a gunfight unless you have no other choice!
The makers could get the material for the stocks from the same place where the gunrunners get wood for their gun stocks. Or they could fashion skeleton stocks from aluminum or light steel tubing.
For the prods or limbs spring steel is an excellent material and can be found in abundance since there are plenty of old junk cars around that have springs. Folks like smitty in Adytum (a blacksmith) can forge crossbow limbs from a spring and then temper the limbs back into a spring and you have your bow.
Saint Proverbius says there is alot of tubing around so perhaps a supply of small diameter aluminum tubing is available for wood shafts they could just scavange wood from all the junk furnature lying around. The broad heads would also be made by any blacksmith and the fins or fletching for the bolts would best be made from cured Brahmin hide like they did in the middle ages. also the prods or limbs would be protected by being wraped in brahmin hide.
With all that said why would they want to do all of that if ammunition and guns are so readily available to everyone in the fallout world? The bottom line is, dont bring a crossbow to a gunfight unless you have no other choice!
-
Carib
- Desert Wanderer
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:27 pm
- Location: Some God Forsaken Mountain in Afghanistan
- Contact:
Damn it... Whats wrong with bows? I mean wouldn't Tribal trash and the like use primitive weapons. I mean if not cross bows at least bows.
But hey, if I had Fallout 3 I'd opt for:
-SPECIAL SYSTEM
-A lot more Traits
-Better story
-More Freedom
-Character customization
-Cooler Party members (For both good, evil players)
-More weapons
-More Retro '50's gear
-A lot more junk
-More possibilities and expand skills.
And make it on three CDS or one DVD!!!:twisted:
-And make it Mod friendly!
-Perhaps a mini-quest to find all 122 Vaults. I mean we could find those Vaults mentioned in the Bible and of course scoop out the records.
But hey, if I had Fallout 3 I'd opt for:
-SPECIAL SYSTEM
-A lot more Traits
-Better story
-More Freedom
-Character customization
-Cooler Party members (For both good, evil players)
-More weapons
-More Retro '50's gear
-A lot more junk
-More possibilities and expand skills.
And make it on three CDS or one DVD!!!:twisted:
-And make it Mod friendly!
-Perhaps a mini-quest to find all 122 Vaults. I mean we could find those Vaults mentioned in the Bible and of course scoop out the records.
-
ExtremeDrinker
- 250 Posts til Somewhere
- Posts: 2840
- Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2002 11:21 am
- Location: Going to School.
I agree....
The idea of improvised weapons was basically shouted down because they were not in FO1/FO2/FOT and in that there is some merit. But I cant ignore that fact that every time I play FO1, 2, FOT the cursor is clearly a broadhead from an arrow. I was of the mind set that not all the inhabitants of the fallout world logically have access to reliable high quality firearms and would have to make due with crossbows, spears,darts, throwing knives, zip guns until better weapons became available. so a zip gun or cross bow or pneumatic spear gun could be the tool that you use to acomplish your first quest of "GET A GOOD GUN!"Damn it... Whats wrong with bows? I mean wouldn't Tribal trash and the like use primitive weapons. I mean if not cross bows at least bows.
Over at NMA I read the unoficial FO3 faq and here is what one of the developers said:
I wouldnt want to see a FO3 with ammo being as rare as hens teeth but I think that it enhances a game if the things that you desire the most are challenging to get your grabbies on.Will ammunition be more rare then it was in Fallout 2?
I know this might seem crazy, but less ammo in the world also means less enemies using weapons with ammo. Why didn't Max get shot fifty times driving in and out of the refinery? Because out of all the raiders, only Humungus had one of the two or three guns in the movie. When he actually did fire that gun -- whoa, look out. Everyone else made due with crossbows, melee weapons, and their bare hands.
Fallout shouldn't be as bereft of ammunition as the Road Warrior, but ammunition should be a commodity -- something the player values, pays attention to, and spends accordingly
-
PsychoSniper
ExtremeDrinker wrote:If they go for Special Encounters, they should drop all the Monty Python funny crap and add some meaningful/useful encounters..Like finding the turned over truch in FO1 full of bottle caps.
Actualy, encounters like that are barley better than the montey python crap.
Special encounters should be simply a sight gag, you shouldnt get anything from them.
That way, they wont influence the game (like getting the RedRyder LE, when you had a pistol only)
-
The Gaijin
- Wanderer
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 4:24 am
- Location: Pittsburg, California
I actually like random encounters that affect gameplay. It gives a nice incentive for having high luck. Anyways, some things I'd like to see.
More use of the less "primary" skills--stuff like outdoorsman and doctor.
No more than three stupid random encounter gags i.e. finding the Starship Enterprise or King Arthur and his knights searching for the Holy Grail.
As someone mentioned before--a DECENT villain. Someone interesting. Like a giant vat of sentient insanity trying to turn everyone in sterile freaks. That's interesting.
Uh, that's it really.
More use of the less "primary" skills--stuff like outdoorsman and doctor.
No more than three stupid random encounter gags i.e. finding the Starship Enterprise or King Arthur and his knights searching for the Holy Grail.
As someone mentioned before--a DECENT villain. Someone interesting. Like a giant vat of sentient insanity trying to turn everyone in sterile freaks. That's interesting.
Uh, that's it really.
HEY WHERE THE WHITE WOMEN AT???
-
PsychoSniper
I'm cross-posting because I got off on a little rant and I think it serves this post as well.
Lunchmeat wrote:Agreed. In fact, I think that in Fallout you have to babysit your NPC's too much already. They should take care of their own health and ammo. All you should have to worry about is sharing the loot. If you choose not to, or don't give them as much as they think they should have, then you get into the whole internal party dynamics and conflict type shit that could be interesting.
Imagine Ian getting pissed off and wanting more. Is he going to just leave or shoot you in the face and take your stuff? No one would know, it's entirely possible that he would. Do you get the jump on him and shoot him before he can shoot you?
I think that all the NPCs should act as humans trying to survive in a very hostile environment. They should be careful with their lives. In the same vein, wasteland scum armed with knives and pistols shouldn't try to jump a wasteland warrior in power armor armed with a plasma rifle. Unless they were hyped up on jet, they would realize how suicidal that is and choose a weaker target.
As JJ said in another thread, Fallout was about survival. The inhabitants of the post apocalyptic world presented in FO3 should act as if they are trying to survive at all costs.
