Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

  • "leptis" started this thread

Posts: 282

Date of registration
: Mar 17th 2015

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

1

Tuesday, November 15th 2016, 10:57pm

Recoil Control: An appetizer

I have been working on the Recoil control pattern to be able to handle that scenario in both BF4 and BF1 simulators. The limitation we have so far is that only two scenarios can be rigorously evaluated: no control and full control (ie, recoil = 0).

We have done some rough approximations as reducing the parameters by 50%, 75% ... but there is no evidence that that results similar to the actions of an average player.

When the analysis was well advanced, with the tools available, the possibility of working with real data has appeared. So the initial analysis stops and the final one will come from actual data.

However, as an appetizer, I can show just a little bit of the initial process because it allows players to calibrate their own recoil control, obviously under specific conditions.

That is:

Go to BF4 Test Range. Equip your preferred LMG with magazine >=100 without attachements and with a good visibility sight (Coyote would be good). Go to the building and stand about 6-8 m from a horizontal window and centered with it.

Shoot a long burts > = 100 without controlling recoil aiming to an upper corner of a horizontal window. If you hit the 2nd floor go to other window and start again closer.

Without move, shoot a long burst > = 100 controlling the recoil aiming to the other top corner of the horizontal window.

This is:



Measure (with a simple ruler on the screen is enough) the height of both burst cloud (yellow marks show what you have to measure)

Divide the major by the smallest.

My results are those:




What are yours on the leptis scale? :) (bigger is better)

The method is rough and only approximated (hits marks is not the better method to measure)... but surprisingly the results look good.



I suspect there will not be much variation between players.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "leptis" (Nov 15th 2016, 11:08pm)


Miffyli

Symthic Developer

(6,088)

Posts: 3,650

Date of registration
: Mar 21st 2013

Platform: PC

Location: __main__, Finland

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

2

Tuesday, November 15th 2016, 11:48pm

Heh interesting idea for measuring player's ability to compensate for recoil (I shall call it leptis scale from now on ^^).

Is the Y-axis in the graph leptis scale number, and X-axis the ADSRecoilUp? Just wondering because none of your numbers go to leptis scale = 3.0 but graph has one point there.

How about horizontal recoil though? V recoil can be 'learned' quite well but compensating for H recoil could be crucial, or is it too random to be compensated against (or sums up to zero)?
Links to users' thread list who have made analytical/statistical/mathematical/cool posts on Symthic:
  • 3VerstsNorth - Analysis of game mechanics in BF4 (tickrates, effects of tickrate, etc)
  • leptis - Analysis of shotguns, recoil, recoil control and air drag.
  • Veritable - Scoring of BF4/BF1 firearms in terms of usability, firing and other mechanics.
  • Miffyli - Random statistical analysis of BF4 battlereports/players and kill-distances. (list is cluttered with other threads).
Sorry if your name wasn't on the list, I honestly can't recall all names : ( . Nudge me if you want to be included

  • "leptis" started this thread

Posts: 282

Date of registration
: Mar 17th 2015

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

3

Wednesday, November 16th 2016, 1:09am


Heh interesting idea for measuring player's ability to compensate for recoil (I shall call it leptis scale from now on ).

Is the Y-axis in the graph leptis scale number, and X-axis the ADSRecoilUp? Just wondering because none of your numbers go to leptis scale = 3.0 but graph has one point there.

How about horizontal recoil though? V recoil can be 'learned' quite well but compensating for H recoil could be crucial, or is it too random to be compensated against (or sums up to zero)?


The correlation graph is the radius Y (semi-height) of the "controlled" circle vs. recoil up. Is not refered to index.

What I have done is to determine when the sight stops rising (recording the image) because that is my scale factor (10 degrees for the LMG) that allows to measure the controlled circle in degrees. That is, eliminating the spread from the top. In fact in the image the weapon is seen aiming to the maximum recoil not to the upper hit. So my calculations are in absolutes degrees.

The method I have given is so that it can be used by anyone, giving my results referred to the maximum hit height recorded, because the player can not measure (easily) the maximum recoil that is less than the upper hit.

Regarding the horizontal recoil, I only have qualitative impressions: the deviations that correspond to events of the right-right-right type are controlled, that is to say when the sight is seen to be moving away from the target. Also in case of asymmetrical recoil. Here you see:




That is, there is control of the horizontal recoil, but not systematic as the vertical. If the sight remains close the aiming point you don't do anything.

Curiously, the hit circles have very similar horizontal and vertical dimensions which points to an accuracy circle and, in this case, an additional spread proportional to the maximum (here there is a complex statistical calculation of which is the expected maximum effective spread in a burst of 100 bullets wich operates mostly at nominal MaxSpread).

The very rough calculation is that if there is a hits controlled circle of 5 degrees in diameter and the maximum spread is 2, the accuracy circle where the aim is moved is at least 1 degree in diameter.

Other interesting point is the center of hit circle is slightly high than aiming point. Other data I have :) confim that. But it is not important. It is as If you had aimed 5 cm above (at that distance)

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "leptis" (Nov 16th 2016, 1:14am)


Zer0Cod3x

Can't get a title

(1,327)

Posts: 1,530

Date of registration
: Dec 23rd 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Land of Multitudinous Kangaroos

Reputation modifier: 12

  • Send private message

4

Wednesday, November 16th 2016, 6:45am

This actually sounds like a very good method for measuring a player's level of vertical recoil control.

PKP at 5 m: 2.35
PKP at 19 m: 2.4

Type 88 at 5 m: 2.46
Type 88 at 19 m: 2.18

MG4 at 5 m: 2.67
MG4 at 19 m: 3

I also noticed that I tend to overcompensate on the initial FSM.
something something Model 8 bestgun


How to ice an A-91

Next, wanna try adding a guy that you KNOW is bad, and just testing to see that? Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)

Example: PP-2000 (god I so wanna love this gun, and yet...)

PP-2000 added. Y'know, it's not that bad....

Yes, it comes in last so far, but that is mostly because I'm making it shoot at 100m ADS - Not Moving as one of the criteria. Even then, between 50-100m Not Moving, when you include Useability, it is only 1.37% worse than the MTAR-21. Within 50m then it even beats the A-91.

Have a look, vs. the A-91 Carbine:




Using it with Muzzle Brake and Compensator is a wash in terms of overall performance. Comp is SLIGHTLY more accurate, while MB is SLIGHTLY more easy to use. Their overall scores are basically tied, with MB just ahead. I guess either can be recommended.

But... You can't be counting for the fact that it takes 9 bullets to kill at "long" range... Don't you dare tell me my A-91 is worse than a 9 BTK 650 RPM mediocre PDW.

Also. Just go heavy barrel. The recoil is low enough.

Well, technically...

Comparing a PP2K with HB and an A-91 with comp and stubby (as you suggested in an earlier post), at 50m not moving, the A-91 is only better by 4 damage per hitrate. While at 75m and 100m, surprisingly the PP2K does better than the A-91 (I'm pretty damn surprised as well).

And 10m and 50m moving the PP2K also does more damage per hitrate than the A-91. At 25m the A-91 is only better by about half a bullet's damage as well.

In addition, the PP2K has a much larger mag size and substantially less recoil. And it looks hella awesome. So comparing the A-91 to a PDW is of some worth after all, as the PP2K is better (technically, not practically) than the A-91.

Mind blown.

I... I...

*cries in a corner*

Zer0Cod3x explained it very well. If you look at the raw numbers right here on Symthic Comparison, you can see how that happened:

A-91 vs PP-2000 | BF4 Weapon Comparison | Symthic

A-91's "23%" RPM advantage only afforded it 1 extra round.

Reload times are wash.

Velocities are wash.

V-Recoil are wash (and this is HBar on PP2k vs. A-91 without).

Hipfire and ADS - Moving are better on the PP2k, but it's a PDW and not the surprising part.

The surprising part is that, as equipped (and we see above that PP2k HBar has almost same V-Recoil as A-91 without HBar so why not?), the PDW performs better at 50 - 100m than a bloody Carbine. Why?

H-Recoil Spread, 0.525 vs. 0.45, advantage PP2k.

SIPS, 42% better on the PP2k.

And here is the most important part. ADS - Not Moving Spread, 0.35 vs. 0.2, 43% improvement.

Without HBar then of course the PP2k loses, which is why when I add all the attachments together for an Overall Ranking, it would slot below the A-91. Run HBar on it, though, then... I'm sorry

@Veritable
@Zer0Cod3x
I... I...
But...
Wha...
I AM HAVING AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS IN SCHOOL BECAUSE OF YOU TWO.

FUCK YOU NERDS AND YOUR FANCY NUMBERS

SEXY RUSSIAN BULLPUPS FTW.

In all seriousness, thank you both so much for giving me the numbers. I still don't want to accept them. You have led the horse to water. I still need to drink.


  • "leptis" started this thread

Posts: 282

Date of registration
: Mar 17th 2015

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

5

Wednesday, November 16th 2016, 11:44am


This actually sounds like a very good method for measuring a player's level of vertical recoil control.

PKP at 5 m: 2.35
PKP at 19 m: 2.4

Type 88 at 5 m: 2.46
Type 88 at 19 m: 2.18

MG4 at 5 m: 2.67
MG4 at 19 m: 3

I also noticed that I tend to overcompensate on the initial FSM.


It isn't a "very good method". :)

It is an easy, quick and expeditious method, but very rough in measures, in statistical representativeness (100 bursts each one would be better), etc...

Your results are very good especially with PKP.

Doing some rough calculation (more rough things) taking into account that your "circles" and mine have the same MaxSpread the relative comparison between you and me could be




That is, you are 40% better than me on average.

But don`t be happy. I am really bad. :) :) :)

Posts: 7,793

Date of registration
: Feb 25th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: italy

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

6

Wednesday, November 16th 2016, 12:18pm

i'm not following the discussion, so i won't comment on that, but the last phrase of zerocdex made me wonder: what is the best way to control fsm?

actually containg it it's impossible, at this point everyone knows that, but then, what is better: over compensate or under-compensate? would it be better to get a somewhat likely bodyshot and then see where aim goes from there or hope for a headshot and try to to get the sight back on the target after wards? how is this choice affected by various levels of fsm on say, a .4 vrecoil gun?
"I'm just a loot whore."


stuff mostly unrelated to BF4 that interests nobody



bf4
on 13/05/2016
23rd M320FB user on pc(13/05/16)
rush mode score RANK:2794 TOP:2% OUT OF:215398
obliteration mode scoreRANK:994 TOP:1% OUT OF:159466
handgun medals RANK:2236 TOP:2% OUT OF:143874
longest headshot RANK:9512 TOP:4% OUT OF:257589
recon score RANK:10871 TOP:4% OUT OF:274899
general score per minute RANK:10016 TOP:4% OUT OF:294774

bf3
31/3/2012 4:58:

Headshot distance RANK:493* TOP:0%
Revives per assault minute RANK: 6019 TOP: 3%
Headshots / kill percentage RANK:25947 TOP:13%
MVP ribbons RANK:18824 TOP:11%

*= 6 if we not count the EOD BOT headshots

@kataklism

ARGUMENT DESTROYED 100

ENEMY KILLED [REASON] JSLICE20 100


WRITING SPREE STOPPED 500

link to full-size old avatar:
http://i.imgur.com/4X0321O.gif




  • "leptis" started this thread

Posts: 282

Date of registration
: Mar 17th 2015

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

7

Thursday, November 17th 2016, 11:28pm


i'm not following the discussion, so i won't comment on that, but the last phrase of zerocdex made me wonder: what is the best way to control fsm?

actually containg it it's impossible, at this point everyone knows that, but then, what is better: over compensate or under-compensate? would it be better to get a somewhat likely bodyshot and then see where aim goes from there or hope for a headshot and try to to get the sight back on the target after wards? how is this choice affected by various levels of fsm on say, a .4 vrecoil gun?


You know my opinion that you can not react so fast to compensate for first Recoil (always under the action-reaction principle, this is you react to the cause when you "feel" it, not before). I even believe based on the calculations of the accuracy circle that the second recoil is not corrected either (on average), ie three bullets are uncontrolled, then there is a large correction in reaction to the first recoil and then a repetitive correction in the range of every two bullets. Possibly with slow weapons this can be improved.

The correction has a systematic delay so that the average aiming level is higher than the starting point. This is verified by the eccentricity of the hits circle. It is posible an overcorrection that gives a lower center of the circle.

To quantify this, and only for reference, a high level athlete who runs 100 m reacts to the starting shot in 0.12 seconds (time difference between the shot and the first muscle reaction). A ROF 700 weapon fires the third bullet in 0.0857x2= 0.171 second after first shot. Add to reaction time somethig for muscular action and time of process and we are in the range.

Another thing is preventative techniques. You know what's going to happen and you start corrections even before you shoot. That is to say you press the button with the mouse in movement downwards.

As the purpose of all this is to quantify the level of control to apply the controlled recoil hypothesis in the simulators, the second option is not modelable. I think that reaction...yes.. Even parameterize it for different levels of skill. I have two levels of skill.. really bad, mine...and good

@Zer0Cod3x

I hope, with the precise data that I already have, to confirm that next weekend.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "leptis" (Nov 17th 2016, 11:42pm)