[QUOTE=Flubadoo;24773450]
This test is invalidated.
[/QUOTE]
Edited:
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Predicting moderation, flaming in earlier posts, etc." - mahalis))[/highlight]
[b]People please follow Flubadoo's maths for calculation... I am lazy to explain anymore[/b]
Hammer can't get to 1000m...
Also, why did you do this? The cones are direct translations of an angle and with some math its really easy to figure out what to set it as...
Edited:
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Predicting moderation, flaming in earlier posts, etc." - mahalis))[/highlight]
Is that gm_flatgrass? If so, then its only 550 meters max. The highest possible is around 700 meters. Also, you could've just used math rather than do excruciating tests.
Edited:
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Predicting moderation, flaming in earlier posts, etc." - mahalis))[/highlight]
What's the point of this
[QUOTE=Chris220;24754522]What's the point of this[/QUOTE]
I think hes just trying to look like a smart ass.
[QUOTE=Wizey!;24754573]I think hes just trying to look like a smart ass.[/QUOTE]
Its not that drastic...
I just don't think he realized that we already pretty much knew this stuff and we didn't really need to know even if we didn't.
Me might be trying to be nice?
:unsmith:
Edited:
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Predicting moderation, flaming in earlier posts, etc." - mahalis))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Jill_Valentine;24755034]eh...using the "math" you are talking about...
what would be the accuracy cone of an AWP if I need to hit target at 1000 metre in grouping of 3 inches diameter ?[/QUOTE]
Use tan.
The distance is 1000 metres. If you want the angle, it's inverse tan of (1.5 inches in metres)/1000.
Which is tan-1(0.000375), which is 0.215 (rounded to 3dp) degrees.
Is that okay?
Should be arctan(3/80,000), divided by... 180? (Not sure is the accuracy cone represents a a portion of 180 or 360 degrees) Assuming 3 in. is 7.5 cm.
[editline]11:44AM[/editline]
:ninja:
Oh math, When have you ever failed us.
When you divide by zero. :v:
[QUOTE=Wizey!;24756078]Oh math, When have you ever failed us.[/QUOTE]
Once a mathematical theorem is acknowledged as true, it is true forever. :unsmith:
[QUOTE=Jill_Valentine;24755034]eh...using the "math" you are talking about...
what would be the accuracy cone of an AWP if I need to hit target at 1000 metre in grouping of 3 inches diameter ?[/QUOTE]
Set it to zero.
Easiest possible value. No one will ever notice that tiny 3 inch cone. We don't need measurements that precise, especially when the scaling in the game and engine is messed up.
lol phx plates to measure distance
[QUOTE=blackops7799;24756166]When you divide by zero. :v:[/QUOTE]
The limit of 1/x as x goes to zero.
Infinity.
:w00t:
[QUOTE=Blargh123;24756781]The limit of 1/x as x goes to zero.
Infinity.
:w00t:[/QUOTE]
[b]WRONG.[/b]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero[/url]
Common misconception.
Edited:
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Predicting moderation, flaming in earlier posts, etc." - mahalis))[/highlight]
The limit of 1/x as x decreases IS infinity though
Edited:
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Predicting moderation, flaming in earlier posts, etc." - mahalis))[/highlight]
Yeah goddammit "math", you're obviously wrong
How could working the numbers be more precise and correct than measuring it based on PHX plates? duh
[QUOTE=Flubadoo;24756921][b]WRONG.[/b]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero[/url]
Common misconception.[/QUOTE]
Whoops. I forgot to place a subscript "+" next to my 0.
I dunno how to do subscripts on a forum, so screw it. :smith:
Edited:
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Predicting moderation, flaming in earlier posts, etc." - mahalis))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=blackops7799;24756166]When you divide by zero. :v:[/QUOTE]
Oh fuck, *dissapears*
[editline]06:19PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jill_Valentine;24757035]A Pistol's accuracy is about 0.015 - 0.020 for it to function at
50 - 100 metre
a 0.215 cone would mean the AWP is only going to be effective near point blank[/QUOTE]
And the square root of pi is 1.7724 :v:
[QUOTE=Jill_Valentine;24757035]A Pistol's accuracy is about 0.015 - 0.020 for it to function at
50 - 100 metre
a 0.215 cone would mean the AWP is only going to be effective near point blank[/QUOTE]
And since the hammer scales aren't aligned with the player scales there there really is no point in this. Jgcx was right. In case you haven't noticed, he made it so that its 0.215 [b]DEGREES[/b]. Not cone. Convert the degrees to cone and blam! you're done.
Please, you are making yourself look dumb.
And since you're using phx (lol) and playermodels to scale the distance, these are off since that supposed 200m effective distance according to a player scale is in reality, around 110-130m and its simply off.
[editline]08:22PM[/editline]
Oh yeah, with the thumb thing, this isn't real life.
[QUOTE=Jill_Valentine;24757207]spawn a NPC... move back... until when you stretch out your hand and give a
"thumbs up"... the fingernail of the thumb looks exactly as tall as the npc
that is estimated 100 metre range... if you dont believe it... get your
friend/ sibling/relative to test it out...
this is a method I was taught how to draw up a range card...
there is no way to pull a measuring tape 100m long... so if situation permits get a person to stand at the landmark...
and estimate the range using the thumb's nail[/QUOTE]
Doesn't work like that in a game, seeing as pixels have finite size
Edited:
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Predicting moderation, flaming in earlier posts, etc." - mahalis))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Jill_Valentine;24771561]
and you better provide the justification/ calculations otherwise I would accuse you of plucking off the value off SWEPs files[/QUOTE]
Please, just stop.
You're not making yourself look smart here.
In that picture, that is not 500 meters.
Hammer vs. Playermodels vs. Phx are off-scale. There is no point. This test is invalidated.
And do you know what is more important than cone?
Everything single other thing in the script that determines how a gun would function.
And if you are talking about plagiarizing "cone" values, then...
Wow. There's alot more to steal from code than that. Anyways, its pretty much common sense for what you put as cone values. You don't notice it that much. If you look at my weapons (which are pretty bad), then you can go ahead and look at the cone values. I don't care. I used common sense and guesstimated. Then after testing it in-game, I then adjusted it.
Oh, and: (Quote from Jgcx) Which is tan-1(0.000375), which is 0.215 (rounded to 3dp) degrees.
Is that okay?
0.000375.
Edited:
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Predicting moderation, flaming in earlier posts, etc." - mahalis))[/highlight]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
