Cone or Cylinder of Fire?

[Tsanhael]

I played the BF2 demo back before release and was turned off by several things, but the #1 issue for me was the unreasonable miss rates at point blank range. There was hypothesizing that BF2 modeled weapon accuracy as a cylinder of fire instead of the more appropriate cone of fire. Anyone know about the accuracy model or whether completely missing over and over at point blank is still the norm?

[MisterBubbles]

Re: Cone or Cylinder of Fire?

You just suck, it's actually easy to hit an enemy if you aim at him.

[Lamri35UK]

Re: Cone or Cylinder of Fire?

You just suck, it's actually easy to hit an enemy if you aim at him.

What he said but WITHOUT the flamy bit .

I've been in situations where i'm facing an enemy and i'm SURE that i've just unloaded nearly a whole magazine into him before he drops me with a straw and some wet tissue paper. Sometimes you just miss!

[whoosh]

Re: Cone or Cylinder of Fire?

Yeah right point blank range and he missed.

BF2's close encounter gunfights are a crap shoot.

[troybob]

Re: Cone or Cylinder of Fire?

You just suck, it's actually easy to hit an enemy if you aim at him.

you sir (pun intended) are an idiot. After extensive playtesting of 1.0 bf2, it is obvious that close range deviation was laughable at best.

anyways - yes the physics have gotten a little better. At close range the accuracy has been improved and at long range it has also been improved.

The cone of fire has returned - although I wouldn't call the 1.0 physics a cylinder. A pkm, for example, can now hit a guy that's standing right in front of you even while you are walking, yet walking and shooting the pkm is still wildly inaccurate at long range (as you would expect.)

I think you'll be surprised.

[Leviathan]

Re: Cone or Cylinder of Fire?

Yeah, I agree with troybob. The support guns were the best example of unreasonably bad accuracy. You could stand 2 feet away and fire 30 rounds before you killed someone. Thankfully they have fixed that somewhat, although now that support guns may be a bit too good.

[bjack]

Re: Cone or Cylinder of Fire?

Yeah, it was a cylinder and not a cone but the last patch fixed a lot of that.

[Raiblast]

Re: Cone or Cylinder of Fire?

you wanna talk about bad close range combat? me and a friend were in an empty server tking each other. we were 3 feet away, and i shot a 6" behind him as he ran by and somehow 2 shotted him in the kneecap...and this is a very low ping/lag server.

[imported_Demize99]

Re: Cone or Cylinder of Fire?

Its a cone, not a cylinder.

Close range when you're running around full auto its just a really really wide angled cone, so you miss.

[BigBadBob]

Re: Cone or Cylinder of Fire?

why does a AK miss any rounds with fired from 3ft?

There's no reason you should miss from that distance.

[Blak_Phoenix]

Re: Cone or Cylinder of Fire?

It has got alot better, but there is still room for improvement.

Oh and welcome to the forums Tsanhael :hi:

[Tenshi]

Re: Cone or Cylinder of Fire?

The idea that the bullets fire in a cylinder is absurd.

Stop being absurd.

[thecheat]

Re: Cone or Cylinder of Fire?

why does a AK miss any rounds with fired from 3ft?

There's no reason you should miss from that distance.

Haha when you read this it made me think about some of the episodes of "Shootout" I've seen on the history channel. They've told stories where marines have busted through a door only to meet an insurgent on the other side with a fully loaded AK. As soon as they bust the door down he lets loose on the trigger...A lot of times they never even hit lol (Not that it's a bad thing at all)