Jackarunda's SENTs - Garry's Mod

[QUOTE=CG62;30471442]Please tell me you're being sarcastic, the gun-nerd in me is frothing at the mouth at this. Also, bigger cartridge =/= more stopping power, terminal ballistics is far too complicated to simplify it to that. Also the .500's recoil isn't nearly enough to rip off your arms. It'll hurt your wrists after repeated firing, yeah, but ripping off limbs...[/QUOTE] 1. Exaggeration: shooting a small cartridge from a rifle is quite manageable, whereas large-caliber revolvers push the limits of what you can control. 2. I believe in energy dump theory. Bullet composition and shot placement make a difference to be sure, but generally you can gauge the amount of damage something's going to do on average based on its muzzle energy. Since we don't have ammo types in this pack, I simply calibrated every weapon's damage based on energy of its projectile. [i]Besides[/i], it's not a matter of opinion. Rifles outclass pistols in terms of killing power (accuracy, range, penetration power, stopping power); this much is and has been accepted as fact. The point of mentioning the .500 S&W was that you see in order to get a pistol of rifle-like killing power, you have to create an absolute monster of a pistol.

[QUOTE=Jackarunda;30476457]1. Exaggeration: shooting a small cartridge from a rifle is quite manageable, whereas large-caliber revolvers push the limits of what you can control. 2. I believe in energy dump theory. Bullet composition and shot placement make a difference to be sure, but generally you can gauge the amount of damage something's going to do on average based on its muzzle energy. Since we don't have ammo types in this pack, I simply calibrated every weapon's damage based on energy of its projectile. [i]Besides[/i], it's not a matter of opinion. Rifles outclass pistols in terms of killing power (accuracy, range, penetration power, stopping power); this much is and has been accepted as fact. The point of mentioning the .500 S&W was that you see in order to get a pistol of rifle-like killing power, you have to create an absolute monster of a pistol.[/QUOTE] I was gonna type out some long-winded essay using the .45 ACP compared to the 7.62 NATO, but it struck me I don't know nearly enough about terminal ballistics to competently argue a point. It's a matter of circumstance; something like a .45 ACP can blow out a good-sized chunk of a person at close range, but the short barrel of the weapon it's being fired from is going to make it ineffective at ranges past a hundred yards or so. Apply a 7.62 NATO to a similar, close range situation, and it'll most likely overpenetrate. Like I said, it's a simple matter of circumstance. I also kind of thought you were using killing power interchangeably with stopping power, most people I've talked to on the internet about firearms have been CoD-kiddies, I apologize. You also reminded me I haven't been to the range in a long-ass time.

[QUOTE=CG62;30476921]I was gonna type out some long-winded essay using the .45 ACP compared to the 7.62 NATO, but it struck me I don't know nearly enough about terminal ballistics to competently argue a point. It's a matter of circumstance; something like a .45 ACP can blow out a good-sized chunk of a person at close range, but the short barrel of the weapon it's being fired from is going to make it ineffective at ranges past a hundred yards or so. Apply a 7.62 NATO to a similar, close range situation, and it'll most likely overpenetrate. Like I said, it's a simple matter of circumstance. I also kind of thought you were using killing power interchangeably with stopping power, most people I've talked to on the internet about firearms have been CoD-kiddies, I apologize. You also reminded me I haven't been to the range in a long-ass time.[/QUOTE] Well, getting shot close range by a .45ACP from a pistol will [i]most likely[/i] kill you (assuming center mass of course), like I'd estimate a 90% chance of death within a minute. Getting shot with a 7.62 from a rifle at close range will [i]almost certainly[/i] kill you, perhaps I'd say 98% chance of death within a minute. Take these out to range, and you see that the .45's external ballistics fail to keep it as lethal as the 7.62 as you go out. Sure the 7.62 would likely overpenetrate at close range, but simple hydrostatic shock and tumbling before it leaves the body would ensure massive wounding. Look at this little situation: there's a guy at close range that you need to kill as quickly and as certainly as possible. You have the choice between a .45ACP pistol and a 7.62 rifle. 100% of gun users will choose the 7.62 rifle 100% of the time. Even though it's at close range, the rifle is going to kill more assuredly than the pistol. Even a 5.56 rifle, actually. People get all up and shit about how the .45's so deadly and how the 5.56 is so puny. Still, though, the 5.56 is more powerful than the .45 by virtue of the fact that it's a larger, faster rifle cartridge. The reason there's an apparent discrepancy is that people are comparing the 5.56 to [i]other rifle cartridges[/i] which puts it on the lower end of killing power, and people are comparing the .45 to [i]other pistol cartridges[/i] which puts it on the higher end. However, the power difference between the realm of pistol rounds and that of rifle rounds still places the rifle rounds above pistol. Rifles outclass pistols, but at close range pistols [i]will[/i] suffice when you need to kill something. You'd never have a [i]higher[/i] chance to kill something with a pistol shot than you would with a rifle shot, but pistols are useful because they're very small, easy to carry, easy to maneuver and easy to conceal. I'm not advocating anything, I'm just pointing out how people's general impressions can overtake their logical know-how when they're creating and playing video games. I mean, just open up my pack and look at the stats. The .357 Magnum does [i]similar[/i] (still less) damage than the M4 Carbine. However, the .357 Magnum's bullet loses energy more quickly with range than the M4's bullet. I mean come on, the 5.56 is this little spitzer thing (it's actually really cute, I have some lying around here somewhere) and the .357 magnum bullet is this blunt (flat point, most magnum ammo is actually), large-diameter non-boat-tail thing. Aerodynamics, take it away. But yeah, good to see someone here who knows about guns 'n' ballistics. Nice break from the rest of the internet :) [editline]15th June 2011[/editline] I'm rewriting alot of the code to remove dependence on the Think hook. In doing this, I'm placing the adrenaline and bandage use on different hooks; maybe this will create more certain keypress detection. [editline]15th June 2011[/editline] [b]A 5.56 JSP would fuck your shit up in a hurry.[/b] Give it a boat tail and a 1:7 twistrate and it would be [i]really[/i] accurate, too. The soft point would increase the window of speeds at which the bullet would fragment, and the 5.56 fragments like a crazy motherfucker, as we all know. I wouldn't at all be opposed to using a 5.56 rifle in combat if I could choose my own ammo. [editline]15th June 2011[/editline] And another thing: let's say in a video game you have a pistol and an SMG, chambered in the same round. The game devs make the smg do less damage per shot and be less accurate than the pistol by virtue of the fact that since it's a rapid fire weapon, each individual shot must do less damage and it can't be more accurate than a pistol cause it's a rapid fire weapon. [b]FUCK YOU[/b] game developers [b]FUCK[/b] [i]you[/i]. The smg should do MORE damage and be MORE accurate than the pistol because it has a longer barrel. I mean FUCK, man.

[QUOTE=Jackarunda;30477407]-far more than is reasonable to quote-[/QUOTE] Meh, I'm done with this little bit of discourse, if I keep going I'm gonna make myself look like an idiot (if I haven't already). I'm one of those fellas who shoots guns sometimes and knows a few things about them, just enough to [i]sound[/i] educated without actually being educated. As for video games... blame Call of Duty, or whatever game you want to see as the catalyst for the current plague of faux-realistic modern military shooters. Oh yeah, here's a dumb idea, but an idea regardless; If the player fires a semi-automatic handgun whilst moving or in another "unstable" position, there's a chance they'll limp-wrist it and have to clear the jam. Might be cool, add a bit of "realism" to combat; but then again, I limp wrist just about every semi-auto I get my hands on because I've got weak wrists.

[QUOTE=CG62;30478107]Meh, I'm done with this little bit of discourse, if I keep going I'm gonna make myself look like an idiot (if I haven't already). I'm one of those fellas who shoots guns sometimes and knows a few things about them, just enough to [i]sound[/i] educated without actually being educated. As for video games... blame Call of Duty, or whatever game you want to see as the catalyst for the current plague of faux-realistic modern military shooters. Oh yeah, here's a dumb idea, but an idea regardless; If the player fires a semi-automatic handgun whilst moving or in another "unstable" position, there's a chance they'll limp-wrist it and have to clear the jam. Might be cool, add a bit of "realism" to combat; but then again, I limp wrist just about every semi-auto I get my hands on because I've got weak wrists.[/QUOTE] Lol dude, limp-wristing would be a thing I would add to the causes of jams in my system. I always wanted a jam system, but I can't think of a way to implement it without having appropriate viewmodel anims :/

[QUOTE=Jackarunda;30478496]Lol dude, limp-wristing would be a thing I would add to the causes of jams in my system. I always wanted a jam system, but I can't think of a way to implement it without having appropriate viewmodel anims :/[/QUOTE] Use the last-shot animation? I'll go ahead and be honest, I have no clue how animations work in Source.

[QUOTE=CG62;30478792]Use the last-shot animation? I'll go ahead and be honest, I have no clue how animations work in Source.[/QUOTE] I meant the unjamming anims. Think FarCry2... There's only one anim for the shooting, and that's ACT_VM_PRIMARYATTACK... I don't know why some weapons have a shooting-then-locking-back anim even when the same anim is called. It must be built in, which means I can't access it.

:words:

[QUOTE=noobcake;30480594]:words:[/QUOTE] another gray hair... -_-

well it's not my fault you guys spend more time arguing about actual guns than talking about the pack :colbert:

I'll try and get us back on topic; how's the code optimizations coming along? :v:

[QUOTE=Nimhster;30499454]I'll try and get us back on topic; how's the code optimizations coming along? :v:[/QUOTE] My original redone version had too much jacked up stuff to work, so I started the optimizations from scratch two days ago. So far I'm going through and very selectively rewriting things. So far I've moved four systems off of the Think event and onto a more relevant event (that I didn't know about when I originally made them) and I've optimized 3 more serverside systems by removing all the NetworkedVars and replacing them with table values. It seems to have improved my average fps by about 7 or 8, which isn't much, but it's noticeable and I'm nowhere near done with the optimizations. Once I get them done I'm going to debug the hell out of the holstering system, and once I get that done I will release the update. A week, maybe, if I can stay on track; FO:NV and Reach have become more enticing after three weeks without games :V [editline]16th June 2011[/editline] Also de-networkedvar-ing the weapons so perhaps they will run more smoothly. Also, the movement speed modification is now on table values, so maybe that will remove the movement prediction glitchiness on servers.

Glad to hear all of that. :v:

I ironed out all the bugs in the holstering system (I'm pretty damn sure). The next update, will prolly be tomorrow, will just be a fixed holstering system, fixed weapon base and a little optimization. I'm going to stop working on this for a little while. I mean, I will still work on it now and then, and I am not [i]even[/i] thinking of abandoning the project, but I'm not going to get up everyday and work on it for 6 hours like I've been. Parents are getting pissed at me because of that. It's just that optimizations are what's needed, even though I [i]want[/i] to add more guns, backpacks, missile launchers etc. And without an experienced lua coder to help me, there's no clear way forward with the optimizations anymore. [editline]22nd June 2011[/editline] Sure every once in a while I will have an epiphany, then I'll sit down and add/modify something major and release an update, but constant work every day just isn't working.

[QUOTE=Jackarunda;30627745]I ironed out all the bugs in the holstering system (I'm pretty damn sure). The next update, will prolly be tomorrow, will just be a fixed holstering system, fixed weapon base and a little optimization. I'm going to stop working on this for a little while. I mean, I will still work on it now and then, and I am not [i]even[/i] thinking of abandoning the project, but I'm not going to get up everyday and work on it for 6 hours like I've been. Parents are getting pissed at me because of that. It's just that optimizations are what's needed, even though I [i]want[/i] to add more guns, backpacks, missile launchers etc. And without an experienced lua coder to help me, there's no clear way forward with the optimizations anymore. [editline]22nd June 2011[/editline] Sure every once in a while I will have an epiphany, then I'll sit down and add/modify something major and release an update, but constant work every day just isn't working.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgI2ZQVyrBo&feature=related[/media]

[QUOTE=elowin;30633487]overreaction[/QUOTE] Lol dude, calm yourself. I'm not leaving, just informing you all that work on this isn't going to be as persistent as it was.

New update out. Sorry it isn't very much, but even though I [i]want[/i] to add more things, the optimizations come first and I'm kinda stuck there. I don't want to keep adding to this pack if the lag is only going to get worse :/

I can make you some OB engine driven particle effects for those explosives (Nuke, dirty bomb, grenade, mortar and so on) If you can dispatch them via lua, that is. As I suck at coding :P Great addon by the way, I love how the grenade works.

[QUOTE=Failure;30676281]I can make you some OB engine driven particle effects for those explosives (Nuke, dirty bomb, grenade, mortar and so on) If you can dispatch them via lua, that is. As I suck at coding :P Great addon by the way, I love how the grenade works.[/QUOTE] Particle effects... as it is, those explosives [i]do[/i] have particle effects; I recently added them because sometimes the base explosions don't show up on servers. In truth, though, they're just super-light versions of the scaleableexplosion effect, which is a bit lame but it's better than nothing. I honestly don't know what the explosion from an M67 would [i]look[/i] like, nor that from a 1-1/4 pound block of C4, but if you can make good looking (and not unrealistic) particle effects then [b]I'd love to use them[/b]. I don't know what "OB engine" is though; I'm only familiar with the CLuaParticle system.

I'm talking about the particle editor driven effects. For example most of episode 2 effects are done with that editor - like the silo explosion and various smoke and flame effects. The editor is easy to use, and it gives out much better effects than lua driven particles.

[highlight]on an unrelated note[/highlight] Also, in explosions, there isn't a whole lot of light... just a huge dustcloud that gets thrown up in an instant. I wanted my explosion's particle effects to look like this [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FSat09tG0E[/url], but that would be way to many particles to accurately represent :/ [editline]24th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Failure;30676504]I'm talking about the particle editor driven effects. For example most of episode 2 effects are done with that editor - like the silo explosion and various smoke and flame effects. The editor is easy to use, and it gives out much better effects than lua driven particles.[/QUOTE] Oh! Well then, go for it. I'd love to get some new particle effects, if you wouldn't mind making them.

I know mate, I'm perverted if it comes about explosions :P As for the possibility, you can really have a good representation of that with OB effects. Then let's talk about this on steam, shall we? :D

[QUOTE=Failure;30676526]I know mate, I'm perverted if it comes about explosions :P As for the possibility, you can really have a good representation of that with OB effects. Then let's talk about this on steam, shall we? :D[/QUOTE] Sure! But not now, it's 03:00 lol. [highlight]on an unrelated note[/highlight] hey noobcake and all you computer gamers, look at this muzzle flash: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4nfZu8VqgQ&feature=related[/url] Didn't believe me did you? Well there you go. Just a little smoke, perhaps a heatwave effect if you view it from the right angle. No flash, really, and another thing GUNSHOTS ARE LOUD AS FUCK. [editline]24th June 2011[/editline] Holy CRAP you live in POLAND?! Lol, well it's 3 AM here... so derp

Haha yeah :P By the way, I can make muzzleflashes too :P

[QUOTE=Failure;30676647]Haha yeah :P By the way, I can make muzzleflashes too :P[/QUOTE] Cool. See here's the thing: I could make nice particle effects for my stuff that would be [i]niiice[/i], but they would also [i]laaag[/i]. So if you can do something better with this system I've never used before, then by all means. I'm going to bed. Night.

[QUOTE=Jackarunda;30635843]Lol dude, calm yourself. I'm not leaving, just informing you all that work on this isn't going to be as persistent as it was.[/QUOTE] I have the right, and duty, to overreact at random things, when and if i choose to do so.

This is the best addon I've ever downloaded. Ever.

[QUOTE=Jackarunda;30676511]Also, in explosions, there isn't a whole lot of light... [/QUOTE] Of course there is. The sun's just brighter, and ignores the power of the ozone layer and distance factor. That video was taken in a pale white desert at high noon with the sun directly above the camera and the explosion itself was inside of a washing machine which would've decreased exposure due to how short the time of the actual light flash is, even if the scene was at night, which it should've been imo If it were at night there'd be a big light for sure. A lot of explosions actually have fireballs in real life that brighten up the whole scene for a long time, without having massive shockwaves that deafen everyone around, ear protection or not. I think you just mean grenade explosions, but even then, a grenade exploding would produce immense amounts of light, just only for a split second, like a muzzleflash at the end of a gun which, as well, can only really be seen at night. It's just because the sun is brighter. You could get a 400 watt lightbulb and have it out in that desert and it wouldn't be a big deal, because the sun is just that bright when it's reflecting off of the sand- likewise, the light bounces off the smoke from an explosion and ambient light is thrown everywhere during a night-time scene. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31vm3-BQRJU[/media] It's all about relativity when it comes to light.

[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;30711001] trolololololol [/QUOTE] Ugh... I mean [i]real[/i] explosions. What you're seeing in that video is what appears to be gasoline pyrotechnics explosives (specially rigged to create a fireball) combined with tracer fire. Every explosion you ever see in a fucking movie is pyrotechnics. Real explosions are fast, violent, loud, visually unceremonious and messy. You get visual drama when you use things like firecrackers, sometimes carbombs, fireworks, etc, but almost never with real military-duty plastic explosives, and [i]especially[/i] not grenades. The most light you'll get is a brief flash from some kind of high explosive in the first fraction of a second before the dustcloud and smoke engulfs everything. At night, it will be more obvious, but my point stands. You'll never be able to use an explosion to light something up, and explosions prety much [i]never[/i] start fires (except in the case of igniting some kind of other highly reactive substance). Sometimes if you accumulate an insane amount of high explosives (enough so that the explosive's shockwave won't carry far enough to light all the other explosive and it all must be detonated externally), you can see burning (as in, a dispersion flame coming from within the smoke) that results from the partial detonation of the explosive. This is the case sometimes with huge munition disposal explosions, but [i]never[/i] controlled, utilitarian explosions. If you're using a uniform explosive, and detonating it efficiently, then there's at most a flash for a split second which can really only be seen in dark conditions. And we're dealing with grenades and plastic explosives here. No fucking pyrotechnics. [editline]25th June 2011[/editline] Noobcake, stop being immature and counter-productive. He posted an irrelevant pyrotechnics demonstration video and you [i]know[/i] it.

No, I did not know it. Quit assuming everyone has the same guns and explosives fetish that you seem to have. It's fucking annoying.