How do people aim big guns/energy rifles/etc?

Actually, I wouldn't mind creating hundreds of new frames for all of those weapons. Someone just point me towards a good FRM or GIF tutorial and whala :lol:

Regards,
Dark Legacy
 
Things I'd need:
Sprite/whatever for the gun
Pics of each gun
Nuka-Cola

I can do it in MS Paint.
 
It is a lot more than hundreds. Let's say you want to make one new rifle type. Those frames need to be in every character animation that can use the rifle. Looking at my spreadsheet of animations, there are 27 characters that can use rifles.

Now looking at one set of rifle animations, there are 9 sets of required animations: stand, walk, take out, put away, parry, point, unpoint, fire single, and fire burst. And each of those is multiple frames in sequence, and also 6 directions. If I deconstruct just one of those character's rifle animations I have 68 files.

So, in order to add just ONE new rifle type, you have 27x68 = 1836 frames to make. And you wanted to do what 10 rifles? 18,000 frames? Manually?

There is another problem, the engine has a fixed number of animation codes. J suffix is rifle. They are file name suffixes D (knife) through M (rocket). I have tried adding new codes past M and they did not work.

Corpse had a brilliant idea for adding new codes though, you basically clone the character into another name, and a script can then do the art_change_fid_num to switch to a new set when wielding certain weapons. This is all untested and conceptual though, and it would require a lot of new scripting.

So overall I think its pretty unrealistic to do what you're suggesting, and not much bang for your effort. I suggest that there are many other things that can be "fixed" that would be much less effort for more overall impact on the game.
 
Question said:
I know perfectly well people fire machine guns on the move in real life,but they dont do it with any semblance of accuracy.
Click to expand...
No. Anybody who would have, and fire a machine gun legally would not only be trained NOT to fire it while standing, running, or moving in any fashion*. They wouldn't do it for the fact that they would be wasting ammunition. Ammunition they have to carry. If you carried something for a few days, and dozens of miles, you wouldn't want to waste them.






*This applies to true machine guns, which are stationary weapons that are mobile, this differs from automatic weapons (SAW, full auto assault rifles, etc.) which can be fired "from the hip" because they aren't nearly as accurate.
 
The FN Minimi is classified as a SAW and yet it proves more accurate than its predecessors. It can be used as both carried and mounted. Of course, no one would be running around with it, but using it as an assault rifle proves nearly as effective as the M16 and when bolted down it's on par with an M60.
 
dude_obj said:
It is a lot more than hundreds. Let's say you want to make one new rifle type. Those frames need to be in every character animation that can use the rifle. Looking at my spreadsheet of animations, there are 27 characters that can use rifles.

Now looking at one set of rifle animations, there are 9 sets of required animations: stand, walk, take out, put away, parry, point, unpoint, fire single, and fire burst. And each of those is multiple frames in sequence, and also 6 directions. If I deconstruct just one of those character's rifle animations I have 68 files.

So, in order to add just ONE new rifle type, you have 27x68 = 1836 frames to make. And you wanted to do what 10 rifles? 18,000 frames? Manually?

There is another problem, the engine has a fixed number of animation codes. J suffix is rifle. They are file name suffixes D (knife) through M (rocket). I have tried adding new codes past M and they did not work.

Corpse had a brilliant idea for adding new codes though, you basically clone the character into another name, and a script can then do the art_change_fid_num to switch to a new set when wielding certain weapons. This is all untested and conceptual though, and it would require a lot of new scripting.

So overall I think its pretty unrealistic to do what you're suggesting, and not much bang for your effort. I suggest that there are many other things that can be "fixed" that would be much less effort for more overall impact on the game.
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't put THAT much thought into the sprites..

Anyway, those 18,000 frames would be alot more feasible with, you guessed it! 3D Animation.

Have the PC tween the frames for you. You just need to create the model and texture :D

(Bethesda, Isometric is good. 3d is OK. But heavens you forget turn-based and I shalt rip thou head off.)

Regards,
Dark Legacy
 
Lord 342 said:
The answer is simply that they figgured out that they could use the flamethrower animation for everything from MMGs to laser rifles. Changing it would change the way super mutants use weapons since they only have frames for the large weapons, and so on.
Click to expand...

heh, never thought of that before, makes sense though :)

Anywho, I've noticed one thing in the Enclave; a few soldiers shoot with pulse rifles but use the animation frames for a slugthrower rifle. I've picked up their rifles, but they use the "Heavy gun" animations for me... what's up with this![/quote]

I'm pretty sure I've seen the same thing :?
 
Erm my entire point was just that if you are running and shooting wit h a SAW or whatever your accuracy is not going be exactly good.
 
Why would you be running and shooting at the same time in Fallout?

Anyway, one suggestion for F3 would be this:
For MGs, have the user kneel down, shoot, then get back up.

For MiniG's, have the person kneel down, put down the stand, shootr, and get back up. Or the animation for drawing it out would be pulling it out of his ass, engaging the stand, and walking around with it.

Way OT: I just saw some dumbass in an SUV with an open gas can on top of his car.
 
Nah, I think the miniguns are fine as they were - unrealistic, but cool overkill.

But they should only be usable by very strong or power-armoured characters.
 
dude_obj said:
It is a lot more than hundreds. Let's say you want to make one new rifle type. Those frames need to be in every character animation that can use the rifle. Looking at my spreadsheet of animations, there are 27 characters that can use rifles.

Now looking at one set of rifle animations, there are 9 sets of required animations: stand, walk, take out, put away, parry, point, unpoint, fire single, and fire burst. And each of those is multiple frames in sequence, and also 6 directions. If I deconstruct just one of those character's rifle animations I have 68 files.

So, in order to add just ONE new rifle type, you have 27x68 = 1836 frames to make. And you wanted to do what 10 rifles? 18,000 frames? Manually?

There is another problem, the engine has a fixed number of animation codes. J suffix is rifle. They are file name suffixes D (knife) through M (rocket). I have tried adding new codes past M and they did not work.

Corpse had a brilliant idea for adding new codes though, you basically clone the character into another name, and a script can then do the art_change_fid_num to switch to a new set when wielding certain weapons. This is all untested and conceptual though, and it would require a lot of new scripting.

So overall I think its pretty unrealistic to do what you're suggesting, and not much bang for your effort. I suggest that there are many other things that can be "fixed" that would be much less effort for more overall impact on the game.
Click to expand...

Just one more out of the many many reasons 3D animation is better, oh and... wait for it.... EASIER! Come on do you really think Bethesda is going to make Fallout 3 using 2D animation? It's time consuming, costs more money, and means more development time, Van Buren was 3D what's the big deal? I want each weapon to have an individual design, graphic, and animation... as mentioned VAN BUREN HAD IT! Oh by the way I'm answering my own question, Bethesda ain't making no 2D Fallout sequel.
 
fallout_expert105 said:
Just one more out of the many many reasons 3D animation is better, oh and... wait for it.... EASIER! Come on do you really think Bethesda is going to make Fallout 3 using 2D animation?
Click to expand...

Your post doesn't make much sense, but from what I can tell you think the character models in the first two games were done frame by frame in MS Paint. I suggest you re-read the thread and educate yourself in general.
 
self-proclaimed fallout_expert105 said:
Come on do you really think Bethesda is going to make Fallout 3 using 2D animation? It's time consuming, costs more money, and means more development time, Van Buren was 3D what's the big deal? I want each weapon to have an individual design, graphic, and animation... as mentioned VAN BUREN HAD IT!
Click to expand...

You should read the actual threads before sharing your self-proclaimed fallout expertise.

DarkLegacy said "I wouldn't mind creating hundreds of new frames for all of those weapons. Someone just point me towards a good FRM or GIF tutorial". My response was to him, regarding FO2, and the reality of doing what he suggested. It has nothing to do with Bethesda nor FO3.

Read before you click on that reply tab.
 
Question said:
I mean look at the way they hold them and the way they shoot.

Its ridiculous.

How is it possible for them to aim like this?They just sorta fire it at the hip.And the plasma/las/pulse rifles are so ridiculously oversized normal people will find it a pain to hold them for any longer period of time.They are more like canons than rifles really.
Click to expand...

They aim from the hip. I imagine they just point the business end at the target and squeeze. With the propellant being energy rather than an explosive power I'm sure theres very little recoil.

Then again, it sounds like you're critiquing this game for not having any realism...
 
Seriously....don't you think the game is a little old to be criticizing why the weapons fire the same? Wait until the new one comes out, if it sucks, then complain.



Edit: Wow. What a ignorant dick I was. Sorry dude.
 
Ekarderif said:
The FN Minimi is classified as a SAW and yet it proves more accurate than its predecessors. It can be used as both carried and mounted. Of course, no one would be running around with it, but using it as an assault rifle proves nearly as effective as the M16 and when bolted down it's on par with an M60.
Click to expand...

Yeah. You ever play America's Army? That thing is almost impossible to aim standing, but with supports out prone, it's a deadly, deadly weapon.
 
Actually the Minimi is quite easy to control, the 5.56mm round produces very little recoil. A friend of mine who is in the army can aim and fire it in automatic, controlling it with ease so there is no muzzle climb increasing its accuracy.
The M60 could be a handful to an untrained firer but its heavy design absorbs a lot of the recoil, that and its slow rate of fire make it relatively easy to control compared to other 7.62mm NATO general purpose machine guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top