Hello There, Guest!

26-03-2012, 03:11 PM | Post: #81
Offline Healin4ev3r 
according to HATE ( he replied me ), right now there are many theory about this that they can't say anything officially, but no "silent nerf" or similar was made. We'll have to wait more Sleepy Lets fill the thread with testing vids so the devs can have a detailed thread with eveidences when they're ready to look into this problem Smile

[Image: xhUzq]

Honey Badger
PTFO
Quote
26-03-2012, 03:12 PM | Post: #82
Offline [HB]Akanto 
My AEK +3 with softpoint ammo MUST made a 3shot kill on shortrange, according to the comparison tool (Which I cant reach atm... o.0) I will test it, but without video, because it would take me yeahrs for a upload.

EDIT: Is this needed? I mean, if I just say, what happened?

[Image: 9iu6zq8c.png]

(This post was last modified: 26-03-2012 03:14 PM by [HB]Akanto.)
Quote
26-03-2012, 03:19 PM | Post: #83
Offline Solid 
I tested awhile with DeltaForce now (sry ay.j.eng, we are too far away Sad) and we recorded a few of the visual mistakes i assumed. I have yet to look if i or he made a mistake but i don´t think that we made that many mistakes Wink

Video will be uploaded soon™ Wink

I just saw that my MP5 +3 does not do 23dmg (lowest value i saw) and i remember no 26 dmg dealt anytime

[Image: b6975638bd.png]
Quote
26-03-2012, 03:42 PM | Post: #84
Offline Gam3King 
(25-03-2012 09:30 PM)Chef9000 Wrote:  Have you tested the normal MP5 also? If it gives the same value as the +3 version were screwed (again...) Else it's a bug somewhere. Is it only happening on MP5 or on other guns also?

Same with my SAW



(26-03-2012 06:45 AM)Healin4ev3r Wrote:  In MP7+3's config file it shows 27-29 ! So your MP7 +3's damage is almost the same as normal MP7. I'm getting angry now Angry

Told ya



[Image: TurtleSwag.gif]

Quote
26-03-2012, 04:33 PM | Post: #85
Offline St0mpy 
MP5 +3 Test results

I tested the MP5 +3 with casket mags and no other attachments at different ranges and recorded the figures. Hipfire and ADS was tested and the results did not vary between the two methods of firing. Test was done in a static unranked server with no distractions. The results are the exact clickstream values. Values were taken from the points scored at the firers end. Distance was measured by having the target soldier stand with his foot against a flag and the firing done from right angle (90 degrees) to them both to eliminate angular variation.

Expected Values from weapon with no barrel is
24-26 short range (to 22M) 19-23 medium range (22M to 35M) and 13-17 long range (over 35M)

Short Range
@1M 24 25 23 24 24 24 25 24 24 25 23 24 25 25 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 21 25 25 24
@10M 22 22 23 21 23 23 23 24 23 21 24 23 23 23 23 24 21 23 24 22 23 23
@20M 21 19 23 22 22 22 21 22 21 22 20 22 21 21 21 19 23 21 20 20 22 22 23 22 21 20 20

Medium Range
@24M 20 20 18 19 19 22 19 22 19 21 19 21 19 19 19 19 20 19 21 20 19 18 22 21 21 21 20 18
@30M 17 20 17 20 17 18 19 19 20 18 20 19 18 18 18 18 18 21 21 19 19 21 19 19 21 19

Long Range (no barrel)
@42M 15 16 15 16 13 14 16 13 16 14 16 14 13 14 15 14 14 15 13 15 15 13 15 15 13 14
@51M 16 13 15 16 14 15 16 13 14 13 13 16 16 15 14 15 15 15 14 13 15 14 16 15 16 15 16 13 13
@60M 16 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 13 13 15 16 16 16 14 16 14 16 13 14 14

Then fitted the stand off barrel and retested
Expected Values from weapon with stand off barrel is
19-23 medium range (22M to 55M) and 13-17 long range (over 55M)

SOB@42M 16 18 16 18 17 17 16 18 16 18 16 17 17 18 17 15 15 16 17 17 17 18 17 15 17 18
SOB@51M 14 15 16 15 16 13 14 14 14 13 16 16 15 14 14 14 14 15 16 16 14 13 13 13 13 16 16
SOB@60M 15 14 16 16 16 15 13 14 14 14 13 16 15 16 16 16 13 15 16 13 13 14 16 15 15 14 14

Since the results for the 51M SOB was inconsistent I retested at 48M

SOB@48M 16 15 18 17 18 14 18 18 14 18 15 14 16 15 14 17 15 17 17 15 18 16 15

Analysis: As you can see actual figures are not expected values, however we do see what I reported earlier about the upper bound value always missing. I presume this to be rounding or using floor values, (eg long distance no barrel figures are correctly in band for expected long distance figures except the missing upper boundary figure).

Generally the farther we get from the start of a distance divider the more inconsistencies we see.
- The 1M figures seem to be the only short range figures that match the expected (less the upper bound)
- Stepping to 10M we see no more 25s, rather the band is 21-24 (+1 for upper bound, so 21-25 instead of 24-26)
- At 20M we see 19-23 (+1UB 19-24 instead of 24-26) which is more like medium range values hitting while still in short range distance.
- Moving to medium range we see @24M figures correctly in band if we account for the missing upper bound.
- At 30M those values drop to 17-21 (+1UB 17-22) a slight departure below expectation
- At long range (42M 51M and 60M) we see all figures correctly in expected range if adding the missing upper bound.

Stand off Barrel results were more strange.
-At 42M we see much more slippage of medium values hitting 16-18 (+1UB 16-19 vs an expected 19-23)
-At 51M and 60M we see figures that would be correctly in band for long range, despite long range not being active until 55M
- I had to drop down to 48M before I could regain the slippy mid range band seen at 42M, here 15-18 (+1UB 15-19 vs the expected 19-23 upto 55M)


Having done barrel tests before on guns such as MG36 +3, SAW +3, I expected to see a missing upper bound, however I did not expect to see large amounts of slippage as seen above in medium range or longer short range with the MP5 +3
(This post was last modified: 26-03-2012 05:12 PM by St0mpy.)
Quote
26-03-2012, 05:07 PM | Post: #86
Offline [HB]Akanto 
(26-03-2012 04:33 PM)St0mpy Wrote:  many numbers
Thx for that information. Looks bad. Very bad.

[Image: 9iu6zq8c.png]

Quote
26-03-2012, 05:09 PM | Post: #87
Offline Solid 
Well, here is the first of the two records, DeltaForce might upload his versions as well




You can see that we both have different values sometimes, i doubt that it was a human (reading or calculating) mistake every time. I just made a writing mistake once in the 2nd Record

[Image: b6975638bd.png]
Quote
26-03-2012, 05:13 PM | Post: #88
Offline Septuagint 



Saw vs Saw +3 http://youtu.be/7LMS-Et6TAM?hd=1

apparent thats suppose to be HD 1080p but youtube must be acting funny.... its only 360p for me.

[Image: signature.png]
(This post was last modified: 26-03-2012 05:15 PM by Septuagint.)
Quote
26-03-2012, 05:15 PM | Post: #89
Offline St0mpy 
aha you raise a good point, are the values the same at the receivers end vs the firers end .... ....testing...
Quote
26-03-2012, 05:25 PM | Post: #90
Offline Solid 
(26-03-2012 05:15 PM)St0mpy Wrote:  aha you raise a good point, are the values the same at the receivers end vs the firers end .... ....testing...
i got suspicious because of the respawned soldier with seemingly 98HP in another Vid Wink

and... the 2nd Vid Tongue




[Image: b6975638bd.png]
Quote
26-03-2012, 05:58 PM | Post: #91
Offline St0mpy 
AHA!!

Found the missing boundary values, the firer values sometimes arent the same as the receivers values by 1 point.
It is now obvious that the receiver damage calculations are done in a different way to the shooter calculation, however I would guess its still rounding differences, shooter being floor rounded with the receiver rounded to the nearest integer

I tested firing vs receiving damage stats at different distances. The first figure of the pair is the firer, the second figure is the receiver. Stand off barrel was fitted.

@10M 24/24 23/23 21/21 24/25 22/22 22/22 21/21 23/24 24/24 23/23 21/21 20/20 21/22
@20M 20/20 21/22 20/21 22/22 21/21 20/20 22/22 21/21 21/21 19/20 23/23 21/21 19/19
@51M 14/14 15/15 16/17 13/13 13/14 13/14 13/13 13/14 13/13 13/14 13/13 16/17

Taking into account this difference that explains the missing +1 on the upper boundary, however it does not account for the slippage over distance, nor does it account for the barrel range inconsistency (seen here 51M should be medium distance, 35+20M for the stand off barrel, but we see ingame long range values at both firer and receiver ends)

The slippage seems to be a function of distance vs how far it is from the next range divider. I would maybe start to point a finger at pythons Vector Distance calculations for the MP5 +3 and again I would maybe look to rounding differences in the math to see why values are being eroded the farther they get from the divider value (altho this part is pure conjecture, it could be some different reason entirely).

The triangulation function getVectorDistance uses absolute values but I cant seem to find the core math library yet .... anyone? EDIT: ah perhaps its in dice_py.dll, anyone got any dll decompilers set up? Big Grin
(This post was last modified: 26-03-2012 08:19 PM by St0mpy.)
Quote
26-03-2012, 08:00 PM | Post: #92
Offline roennel 
(26-03-2012 05:58 PM)St0mpy Wrote:  The triangulation function getVectorDistance uses absolute values but I cant seem to find the core math library yet .... anyone? EDIT: ah perhaps its in dice_py.dll, anyone got any dll decompilers set up? Big Grin

Why can't i send you PM's? Sad

Well anyway, i've tried before (although for different reasons) and couldn't really get something out of it, but then again i suck to much in those things.

maybe you can try, check out those.


btw, thanks for the vid Aranornth...it seems the collisionHardness hasn't got anything to do with this, as you're doing less damage than your supposed to do to with the M95...and it most probably has nothing to do with it as st0mpy's newest find's tell.

(This post was last modified: 26-03-2012 08:30 PM by roennel.)
Quote
26-03-2012, 08:22 PM | Post: #93
Offline St0mpy 
ah mailbox full, someone sent me one earlier and i didnt notice i was out of space- fixed now

i was kinda joking, if its a c dll then its likely not going to be disassembleable, ive already given it a swizzle with refractor but thats for .net compiles and i cant see dice using .net Big Grin
Quote
26-03-2012, 08:28 PM | Post: #94
Offline roennel 
(26-03-2012 08:22 PM)St0mpy Wrote:  ah mailbox full, someone sent me one earlier and i didnt notice i was out of space- fixed now

i was kinda joking, if its a c dll then its likely not going to be disassembleable, ive already given it a swizzle with refractor but thats for .net compiles and i cant see dice using .net Big Grin

Ah well, it just gave me a white screen with nothing on itTongue i nearly was getting paranoid

Well i really have no idea about the Win Stuff, i'm just a webdevShy still would have been cool to get some info about actual formula's and stuff.

Quote
26-03-2012, 11:07 PM | Post: #95
Offline DeltaForce 
Here is the other point of view. I did not record right from the start, but it still covers a good number of M16 shots and all MP5+3 shots.






UH-60 Blackhawk: Guide Video
[Image: 5mLZc.png]
(This post was last modified: 26-03-2012 11:08 PM by DeltaForce.)
Quote
26-03-2012, 11:25 PM | Post: #96
Offline road-runn3r 
(26-03-2012 04:33 PM)St0mpy Wrote:  MP5 +3 Test results
...

Thanks for doing this Stompy, I knew my mp5 +3 was not acting properly. (has to kill faster Tongue)
Nice and interesting finds.

Quote
27-03-2012, 01:50 AM | Post: #97
Offline St0mpy 
(26-03-2012 11:25 PM)traumator Wrote:  
(26-03-2012 04:33 PM)St0mpy Wrote:  MP5 +3 Test results
...

Thanks for doing this Stompy, I knew my mp5 +3 was not acting properly. (has to kill faster Tongue)
Nice and interesting finds.

ah no problem - i get some kind of weird pleasure out of testing things Big Grin
Quote
27-03-2012, 04:22 AM | Post: #98
Offline Healin4ev3r 
M249 +3 damage test :





( I can't seem to use /YouTubeHD on this vid, would be nice if you click the vid and watch it from YouTube site instead )

Still, the damage numbers were much lower than in its config file. Also St0mpy's theory seems to be correct. The damage range in a weapon's file is only correct when you was shooting from point blank, or from the starts of medium/long range. The damage drop ratio is huge. Still, we don't know if this was a bug or the system was designed that way ( hope it's just a bug, like all the other bugs we got here, but the devs should fix this bug sooner than others ). Nice works, St0mpy Big Grin

Looking at the damage numbers of weapon after attached with stand-off barrel, it seems like that barrel has NO effect. Not good any at all.

Can someone try to attach precision barrel on your AR/SMG/LMG and see if damage drop ratio decrease? Maybe that barrel has more effect than we thought Rolleyes

[Image: xhUzq]

Honey Badger
PTFO
(This post was last modified: 27-03-2012 04:24 AM by Healin4ev3r.)
Quote
27-03-2012, 04:48 AM | Post: #99
Offline Septuagint 






I would advise going to the literal youtube page below for a bigger screen.


http://youtu.be/7LMS-Et6TAM?hd=1

Here Healin, i already posted an HD video of the Saw vs Saw +3 with precision barrel.

[Image: signature.png]
(This post was last modified: 27-03-2012 05:00 AM by Septuagint.)
Quote
27-03-2012, 05:33 AM | Post: #100
Offline Healin4ev3r 
(27-03-2012 04:48 AM)Septuagint Wrote:  http://youtu.be/7LMS-Et6TAM?hd=1

Here Healin, i already posted an HD video of the Saw vs Saw +3 with precision barrel.

Very interesting vid. Thanks Smile It seems like your M249 and M249 +3 has correct damage at long range, but still lose damage at close range ( just 23-27 for M249+3, which shows 28-30 in config file ). Seems like precision barrel doesn't have effect on this.

About my M249 vid... it seems like I chose the wrong settings for it that it has extremely low quaility Confused ( if you compare it with the MP5 vid I made 2 days ago ) Have to do it again, I guess Rolleyes I notice that I got +27,+28 with my M249 +3 sometimes, but only if the enemy were in point blank, like at 3:15 in that blur vid.

[Image: xhUzq]

Honey Badger
PTFO
Quote



Forum Jump:


WEB_PLAYER_PROFILE_ADD_TO_FRIENDS
WEB_PLAYER_PROFILE_REMOVE_FROM_FRIENDS
/en/ajax/checkFriendStatus
/en/ajax/friend
Battlefield Play4Free requires Windows XP or newer, sorry!
Please upgrade to Internet Explorer 5 or newer.
The 64bit version of Internet Explorer is not currently supported, please use the 32bit version.
Please upgrade to Firefox 1.5 or newer.
Please try Internet Explorer, Firefox or Chrome.
Battlefield Play4Free does not currently work with your browser.