• Why the tech of the Halo Universe is a step backward.
    1,885 replies, posted
[QUOTE=yuki;27221973](7.62x51 compared to the Mosin's 7.62x54r)[/QUOTE] Or the real life 7.62x51 NATO which is exactly what the MA5 series fires. [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27222023]I'd definitely take an M4 or AK over the Halo 'Assault Rifle.'[/QUOTE] HAHA seriously? The MA5 from Halo fires a more high powered round that either of those, some models can accept a 60 round magazine and fires at about 600 rounds a minute with little recoil.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;27222060]I'd probably take the AK since it takes less work and training to maintain.[/QUOTE] True. In terms of accuracy and range, it isn't the best, but it is definitely better than the Assault Rifle. [QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;27222083] HAHA seriously? The MA5 from Halo fires a more high powered round that either of those, some models can accept a 60 round magazine and fires at about 600 rounds a minute with little recoil.[/QUOTE] As for which weapon is more powerful, that is up in the air, but the AK - 47 is a very powerful gun.
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;27212136]Halo seems to have the best tech for space battles and stuff, but on the ground it's what 50 years in the future will look like, not 500. If we don't count some of the strange weapon ranges and such. Mass Effect seems to have the best gear for infantry battles but that's all we've seen from the franchise. We can't really tell if they have any sort of armored warfare, in-atmosphere bombers et cetera. So yeah, ME for infantry combat, Halo for spess combat, real life for, uh, plausibility?[/QUOTE] You are forgetting the 20 ton ferreous slug and "Isaac Newton is the deadliest SOB in Space"
[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;27222083]Or the real life 7.62x51 NATO which is exactly what the MA5 series fires. [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] HAHA seriously? The MA5 from Halo fires a more high powered round that either of those, some models can accept a 60 round magazine and fires at about 600 rounds a minute with little recoil.[/QUOTE] Why the hell would I want to fire 600 rounds a minute with a 60 round magazine? This isn't a Submachine gun, RoF shouldn't be through the roof. [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27222112]True. In terms of accuracy and range, it isn't the best, but it is definitely better than the Assault Rifle. As for which weapon is more powerful, that is up in the air, but the AK - 47 is a very powerful gun.[/QUOTE] And it has a shitload of recoil. (or so I've heard.)
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;27222134]Why the hell would I want to fire 600 rounds a minute with a 60 round magazine? This isn't a Submachine gun, RoF shouldn't be through the roof. [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] And it has a shitload of recoil. (or so I've heard.)[/QUOTE] nah ak47 doesn't have that much recoil(it mean it does but not a shitload) you could hip fire it one-handed if you really wanted to
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;27222134]Why the hell would I want to fire 600 rounds a minute with a 60 round magazine? This isn't a Submachine gun, RoF shouldn't be through the roof. [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] And it has a shitload of recoil. (or so I've heard.)[/QUOTE] You think 600 rounds a minute is fast? Most 5.56 assault rifles tend to be about 800 now. And if you didnt know the rule of thumb of a firefight is who ever puts most rounds down range the fastest tends to win, hence the invention of man portable machine guns.
[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;27222161]nah ak47 doesn't have that much recoil you could hip fire it one-handed if you really wanted to[/QUOTE] The Ak47 had a LOT of recoil. The AKM (which has pretty much replaced the AK47 but goes by the original's name) is more accurate and has less recoil while being cheaper to produce. (The only difference between an AK47 and an AKM is that the AKM uses slightly different materials and manufacturing methods.)
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;27222201]The Ak47 had a LOT of recoil. The AKM (which has pretty much replaced the AK47 but goes by the original's name) is more accurate and has less recoil while being cheaper to produce. (The only difference between an AK47 and an AKM is that the AKM uses slightly different materials and manufacturing methods.)[/QUOTE] i guess i am thinking about the akm then
The MA5 fires 7.62x51 NATO rounds? You mean like the M14? Not very impressive, considering Halo is 500 years in the future, and that the MA5 has much smaller range than the M14 also. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle[/url]
[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;27222163]You think 600 rounds a minute is fast? Most 5.56 assault rifles tend to be about 800 now. And if you didnt know the rule of thumb of a firefight is who ever puts most rounds down range the fastest tends to win, hence the invention of man portable machine guns.[/QUOTE] Yes, but I would rather have a more ammo efficient weapon like the M16. (which modern versions only use 3 Round Burst and Semi-Auto)
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;27222227]Yes, but I would rather have a more ammo efficient weapon like the M16. (which modern versions only use 3 Round Burst and Semi-Auto)[/QUOTE] m16s of today do have full auto
[QUOTE=froztshock;27205106]Don't forget Larry Niven. [img_thumb]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Vsb1A6sSm24/S4G4RWX-_SI/AAAAAAAAAJ8/xyi1ikSbg-M/s320/ringworld.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] I only read the first book, but it was really good. Also, when they made the original Halo, a number of the staff felt that they were ripping Niven off, but nobody stopped the creative process. (Probably because it wasn't worth it to change a somewhat minor detail.)
An AKM: [IMG]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQDYzAVmwFfOQdabR7tHo8QisqQ_W7m1R-B2YZn-F3k9OYE3LH0[/IMG] An AK47: [IMG]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT2cNOAwInZsAFdP0f3E4zFLoSOPRerp9yJJ51FsJcK9Bre5tT1Kg[/IMG] See how you could be VERY easily confused if you don't know what to look for? (Note, the AK47 and AKM pictured here both have different colored wood but if I showed you an AKM and an AK47 made in the same place by the same company, they would be almost identical)
[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27222222]The MA5 fires 7.62x51 NATO rounds? You mean like the M14? Not very impressive, considering Halo is 500 years in the future, and that the MA5 has much smaller range than the M14 also. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle[/url][/QUOTE] You cant really prove that it does because its performance ingame is different to that of the canon for gameplay balance. [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Fire Kracker;27222250]m16s of today do have full auto[/QUOTE] Nope, only the M16 and the M16A3 did. [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CakeMaster7;27222227]Yes, but I would rather have a more ammo efficient weapon like the M16. (which modern versions only use 3 Round Burst and Semi-Auto)[/QUOTE] How is burst ammo efficent? if the guns firing a round with the ability to kill a man in the first hit why burst? Burst is ok on an M16 because you cant trust that the man wont get knocked down in 2 hits but with a 7.62 hes gonna go down.
[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;27222274]You cant really prove that it does because its performance ingame is different to that of the canon for gameplay balance. [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] Nope, only the M16 and the M16A3 did.[/QUOTE] that's what he said m16
[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;27222274]How is burst ammo efficent? if the guns firing a round with the ability to kill a man in the first hit why burst?[/QUOTE] Because a burst is made with ammo efficiency and accuracy in mind. Plus firing a 3 round burst creates little to no recoil (I've seen videos of it being used) but fires 3 rounds instead of one, increasing your chance of getting a hit without wasting too much ammo. (Not EVERY bullet goes to the EXACT same place)
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;27222256] See how you could be VERY easily confused if you don't know what to look for? (Note, the AK47 and AKM pictured here both have different colored wood but if I showed you an AKM and an AK47 made in the same place by the same company, they would be almost identical)[/QUOTE] or the fact that the AKM and later models came with a ribbed top receiver to reinforce its weak shape.
[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;27222378]or the fact that the AKM and later models came with a ribbed top receiver to reinforce its weak shape.[/QUOTE] THAT'S EXACTLY the difference I was referring to! Great job. That's the primary way of telling them apart.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;27222356]Because a burst is made with ammo efficiency and accuracy in mind. Plus firing a 3 round burst creates little to no recoil (I've seen videos of it being used) but fires 3 rounds instead of one, increasing your chance of getting a hit without wasting too much ammo. (Not EVERY bullet goes to the EXACT same place)[/QUOTE] Or you could just hold your trigger for a second then let go. Im not a fan of burst.
[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;27222398]Or you could just hold your trigger for a second then let go?[/QUOTE] A SAW wasn't made for accuracy the same way an assault rifle is. The whole point of machine guns is saturation fire, and it's extremely inefficient. Plus, you really think EVERY soldier will be watching their ammo carefully when they start spitting rounds? (Saturation fire is the idea that you just shoot as many bullets as possible to increase your chance of getting a hit instead of being accurate)
[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;27221709]we made a railgun recently which is cool[/QUOTE] Didn't it melt after the first shot? :3:
[QUOTE=mobrockers;27222457]Didn't it melt after the first shot? :3:[/QUOTE] I thought Railguns were still experimental. (At the most)
I always figured the 7.62 cartridge of the MA5B was a fair bit stronger as well, I mean a couple decades ago the maximum range of a .22LR was somewhere around 1000 yards, today that same bullet will travel 2 miles. It's at such an extreme that older manufacture .22 rifles that used to fire the less powerful loads will actually be damaged by firing modern .22LR cartridges. In the future I'm sure there have been advances in propellant chemistry allowing better performance than a modern day 7.62x51 cartridge.
[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;27222250]m16s of today do have full auto[/QUOTE] Nope. The only reason you'd need to go full auto is in close range which is what the M4 was made for. (The M4 is basically the M16 with a shorter barrel, full auto, and a nice new name)
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;27221650]Humans NOT trying to invent even better ways to kill each other and everything around them? What did they do to the Humans?! I know they weren't expecting anymore war but that doesn't change the fact that we're human.[/QUOTE] They were expecting war, in fact before the Covenant arrived everything was going interstellar war-ward. However, this was after hundreds of years of peace that led to a unified world government. With the increasingly rebellious colonies they turned into more of a military state to prepare for dealing with the inevitable conflict. This instead came in handy for dealing with OP aliens. Halo is science fiction not science jerk off. The simple statement that is being made about technology is surprisingly good. It's getting faster, but it's not that fast. We didn't have flying cars in 2000 and we're not going to have magical guns in 2500. In fact chances are we're closing in on a sort of limit to how efficient a man portable gun can be. A hand held railgun might very well be prohibitively expensive for no real gain in combat efficiency. Whereas it works wonders in huge space weaponry compared to anything invented before. Do you use an axe in your daily life? Axes haven't changed much, they were invented thousands of years ago. Guns were invented only a few hundred years ago. And in the year 2500 they might not be all that different from now. Sure they'll be better and shinier but ultimately a gun is a gun and an axe is an axe. And that, I think is a very realistic way to think about technology. The things that work well now are probably going to work just as well hundreds of years from now. And people will still be people. So what Halo is presenting isn't really the future It's the present, 500 years from now. This is a very nice deviation from the borderline magical worlds presented in most science fiction where some special whatever has completely changed the face of the world and now everyone are completely different blah.
[QUOTE=BmB;27222551]They were expecting war, in fact before the Covenant arrived everything was going interstellar war-ward. However, this was after hundreds of years of peace that led to a unified world government. With the increasingly rebellious colonies they turned into more of a military state to prepare for dealing with the inevitable conflict. This instead came in handy for dealing with OP aliens.[/QUOTE] You know who we need to stop these evil Covenant? GORDAN FREEMAN! (JK)
[QUOTE=BmB;27222551]They were expecting war, in fact before the Covenant arrived everything was going interstellar war-ward. However, this was after hundreds of years of peace that led to a unified world government. With the increasingly rebellious colonies they turned into more of a military state to prepare for dealing with the inevitable conflict. This instead came in handy for dealing with OP aliens. Halo is science fiction not science jerk off. The simple statement that is being made about technology is surprisingly good. It's getting faster, but it's not that fast. We didn't have flying cars in 2000 and we're not going to have magical guns in 2500. In fact chances are we're closing in on a sort of limit to how efficient a man portable gun can be. A hand held railgun might very well be prohibitively expensive for no real gain in combat efficiency. Whereas it works wonders in huge space weaponry compared to anything invented before. Do you use an axe in your daily life? Axes haven't changed much, they were invented thousands of years ago. Guns were invented only a few hundred years ago. And in the year 2500 they might not be all that different from now. Sure they'll be better and shinier but ultimately a gun is a gun and an axe is an axe. And that, I think is a very realistic way to think about technology. The things that work well now are probably going to work just as well hundreds of years from now. And people will still be people. So what Halo is presenting isn't really the future It's the present, 500 years from now. This is a very nice deviation from the borderline magical worlds presented in most science fiction where some special whatever has completely changed the face of the world and now everyone are completely different blah.[/QUOTE] I want to be able to walk around with a phaser in 100 years, if I can't, don't bother keeping me alive till then.
[QUOTE=BmB;27222551]They were expecting war, in fact before the Covenant arrived everything was going interstellar war-ward. However, this was after hundreds of years of peace that led to a unified world government. With the increasingly rebellious colonies they turned into more of a military state to prepare for dealing with the inevitable conflict. This instead came in handy for dealing with OP aliens. Halo is science fiction not science jerk off. The simple statement that is being made about technology is surprisingly good. It's getting faster, but it's not that fast. We didn't have flying cars in 2000 and we're not going to have magical guns in 2500. In fact chances are we're closing in on a sort of limit to how efficient a man portable gun can be. A hand held railgun might very well be prohibitively expensive for no real gain in combat efficiency. Whereas it works wonders in huge space weaponry compared to anything invented before. Do you use an axe in your daily life? Axes haven't changed much, they were invented thousands of years ago. Guns were invented only a few hundred years ago. And in the year 2500 they might not be all that different from now. Sure they'll be better and shinier but ultimately a gun is a gun and an axe is an axe. And that, I think is a very realistic way to think about technology. The things that work well now are probably going to work just as well hundreds of years from now. And people will still be people. So what Halo is presenting isn't really the future It's the present, 500 years from now. This is a very nice deviation from the borderline magical worlds presented in most science fiction where some special whatever has completely changed the face of the world and now everyone are completely different blah.[/QUOTE] the cell phone was made just a few years ago so was the cd, computer, games, we could have pay phones replaced by touch screens or wait no they do in SK but still shits getting real
[QUOTE=mobrockers;27222887]I want to be able to walk around with a phaser in 100 years, if I can't, don't bother keeping me alive till then.[/QUOTE] We MAY not have Phasers but we'll definitely not be using weapons that're not too similar to today's weapons, in my opinion. (That is if we don't destroy ourselves and send ourselves back to the Stone Age, which would be a rather ironic ending to the Atomic Age)
First step is caseless ammunition; indeed that's currently being developed in the US. The first system without the use of explosives will almost certainly be railguns. It's doubtful we'll see handheld laser weapons for a long time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.