Fallout Studios Forums

Obviously no on is giving a fuck about what I'm saying

The issue is WIDTH

WIDTH of the hole NOT THE DAMAGE done if a .50 cal would hit THE FRIGGIN HEAD


If you plan on arguing with me about something at least stay on the damn subject

There's also a reason why .50cal hunters don't go near their prey and instead opt to shoot from afar is because the .50 will simply...mangle his prey from a close enough range.


Edit: If that isn't enough to say anything about the width when an animal gets shot by a .50cal, the guess what, that concrete has no rebar, is thin, and the .50cal has a lot of kinetic energy in it. Fast and heavy thing meets brittle thing = Big hole, if not completely obliterated.
Edited by Destiny, 17 March 2011 - 17:20.

How about...rather than saying "theres a reason for this and that" you might actually show me it. Show me some proof of damage done to a concrete wall (that isnt FutureWeapons)

if you want to enlighten me that is
Edited by TehKiller, 17 March 2011 - 17:23.

TehKiller, on 17 Mar 2011, 17:16, said:

The entry hole of a 50 hitting a wall might not be massive, but the exit hole will be. If that haven't shattered the wall already that is. For a round that can go through a engine block with no problem, destroying a wall at 50 meters is cake. Its also because how concrete are structured, it is brittle so exit hole can be big and can cause spalling damage to multiple targets behind it even.

EDIT: oh god...


This is not even a .50Cal BMG, its more of a up sized .50 AE used in an AR. A .50 BMG would have 50, yes, read, 50 times more kinetic energy compared to this round


A slightly more powerful round against a wall at 4 times the distance stated in BF3 trailer. Note even the entry hole is already quite big.
Edited by ΓΛPTΘΓ, 17 March 2011 - 17:40.

Cinder blocks arent a concrete wall

The video with the Kord actually proves my point as the holes are way smaller than the one in BF3 (look at 0:36, the individual holes around the centre and then compare it to the BF3 holes)

TehKiller, on 17 Mar 2011, 17:51, said:

So you know the small fence/barrier in BF3 is not made by cinder blocks? They are actually most likely cinder block as it does not contribute to the over all building structure at all. The Kord is making nearly fist size entry hole, that is way smaller?

I have a better idea to convince TehKiller... Anyone got a Barret laying around?

CJ, on 17 Mar 2011, 18:10, said:

Have a M82A2 lying at my friend's house, missing some ammo or anything ammo at all.

ΓΛPTΘΓ, on 17 Mar 2011, 19:02, said:

So you can get your fist through a hole that can fit some 2-3 fingers? Thats some small fist you got there bro. (the holes in the vid obviously are no where near this "fist" size you speak of...we are talking about a single bullet here not a small grouping of multiple hits forming a larger hole)


A single cinder block will shatter greatly than multiple cinder blocks connected. Thats what I was aiming at. Its like trying to prove that you can break 5 blocks with one hit from your by breaking a single cinder block.

If that is all you have to complain about at this stage I really don't see what your problem is with this game?

Although the sniper was at a higher altitude than the soldiers, the kinetic energy behind the bullet should remain the same at such a short range. Also, the AT-4 explosion could be plausible depending on where the warhead struck the building, what type of warhead was used, and the age and structure of the building. Not every country has the same building regulations as we do. Also a .50 BMG is different than the .50 cal we use today. .50 cal bullets exit wounds are about 5 times larger than the bullet (just about or over a 5 inch diameter circle) which means body part would be severely mangled but not blown off.
Edited by Slevered, 17 March 2011 - 19:08.

Wizard, on 17 Mar 2011, 19:56, said:

Because someone tried to convince me that the environment wouldnt be retarded when BC2 was at this stage...the end result was exactly what I expected

Retarded environment? Well it's less retarded than indestructible buildings everywhere and fences that you can't even jump over

Apart from the AT-4 totally messing up the building, I don't see what wasn't plausible about that video. For a pre-alpha, that was fucking awesome. Can't wait to see the beta or near finished product. TehKiller, at this stage, give the devs the benefit of the doubt. Considering this is still a pre-alpha.

Considering the past...I trust them even less.

Remember. BF2 alpha was 10x times better looking than the final product. That pretty much makes the entire "trust us" scenario kinda unfavorable (especially with the failure called 2142)

I think Battlefield will be teh killer of CoD.

Still, if the game is REALLY that bad, give them time. It looks plenty awesome to me though.

deltaepsilon, on 18 Mar 2011, 12:50, said:

I saw what you did there

If this actually upsets you Killer, how do you play any video game at all? 90% of gaming has unbelievable content that we all know doesn't happen in the real world.

Are...Are you guys honestly discussing wether or not a .50 cal does a certain amount of damage to concrete?
...
I'm just gonna go back to my invisible walls and immovable boxes.

Tehkiller isn't upset about the damage, he is annoyed by the devs promising realistic destruction when they promised so much more for BC2 and so much more for 2142. I am honestly siding with him as games companies these days then to promise some many features in the "pre-alpha" that some have to be cut because they just don't have the time. It's always the cool features like realistic destructible terrain and bullet penetration holes that just disappear before the release.

Stay skeptical people, it saves major disappointment. If Dice had only been working on this for 5 years then sure, it might deserve it's hype, but they haven't. Until they get out of pre-alpha and get into what the real game is going to be, no one should expect anything more than BC2 with a shiny skin (although I loved BC2, so I'd buy that ).

SquigPie, on 18 Mar 2011, 7:21, said:

Why is it that FPS's bring out the more ridiculous discussions in these forums

Because...it is! Especially TF2's...damn. Right, back on track...still, I think this could turn out to be a good game. Just hope no rushing around by the publisher.

TheDR, on 18 Mar 2011, 11:29, said:

Finally someone who figured out what I'm actually on about

They promised allot of things but so far I've only seen BC2 with a BF2 mappack DLC

The footage we have seen looks really nice but...

Who really cares for SP?

Sure, I enjoy a good SP-FPS, but after 5-10 hours your done and I couldn't think of a reason to play a game like that a second time

Until they show some MP footage (actual gameplay) this is nothing more than a (very good) tech demo for me.

Pav:3d, on 18 Mar 2011, 13:52, said:

Because of the inherent fanboiism involved in the various franchises as well as the "good old days" factor. Oh and reload animations