Quote from: Stitch on May 25, 2021, 03:50:26 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on May 25, 2021, 03:26:12 PM
I really hope they have some better guns in the pipeline for this game, because the three we've been shown so far in these posts aren't at all grounded and have lost the aesthetic of the movies.
"L" is a British designation. If the Colonial Marines are a US organization, the L for the L56A3 would be dropped for a different designation. The US has adopted British designs before, and they all were given different names. The whole "metamaterials" thing is bullshit and not even the correct use for the term. Making things lighter doesn't make them better or more effective, and there's only so light you can go before the gun isn't functional. It's a lazy attempt to sound technical and futuristic.
What exactly does the Volcan's post mean by "an arm?" An actual human arm, or something similar to the smartgun's Steadicam arm? The vagueness is pointless here. If this thing is supposed to be tied to your arm, it won't be as effective as the M240. Why? In order to have adequate fuel and range, the Volcan would have to be large and heavy--too heavy for the human arm to handle. It's impractical, and inferior to the M240 and most flamethrowers used today. It would make more sense if "an arm" means a Steadicam arm.
The Type 78 is bullshit, lazily designed, and should go back to Halo. All handguns are technically bullpup, so this just shows no research was done. It doesn't even look like it can be properly held.
I still have hope for this game, but I don't understand why the developers didn't stick with the film's aesthetic, or do some research on how guns actually function. "Make things 'cooler'" is a sad trap that FPS games need to pull themselves out of, otherwise all we have are Halo/Star Wars/Mass Effect clones.
2 points I want to query.
From what I can tell, bullpup configuration has the magazine behind the action, whereas most pistols have the magazine in the handle. I'm not knowledgeable of guns, being a Brit, but I can see the difference between their configuration and a standard pistol.
Also, as for the M56/L56 thing, since Weyland is an English company, maybe they've retroactively taken on the terminology, going from M56 to L56 for their non-military variant sold outside the US. It's a possible theory.
Other than that, I totally agree. The whole project stinks of laziness, and the weapons look like Nerf guns.
"Bullpup" is a term used to describe a firearm where the magazine and chamber are completely behind the trigger. So a semiautomatic handgun like the VP70 or Model 39 is more of a "semi-bullpup" since the magazine IS behind the trigger, but the chamber is above the trigger, not behind it. The Type 78 is a true bullpup, and there's absolutely no reason for that design. In fact, there's a very specific reason NOT to design it that way. On a handgun, you want the grip as far back as possible to help with recoil control. When you fire a handgun, the place where it's being held acts as a pivot point. You want that pivot point as far back on the gun (relative to the chamber and slide) as possible. The farther forward it goes, the more recoil will want to pull the back of the gun rearward and down, which tilts the front of the gun up.
As a more extreme example, think of an imaginary handgun (because no one would ever design this) where the grip is at the very front of the gun. When you fire it, the slide is recoiling to a point behind where you're holding it. This means that instead of the recoil going into your hand and your hand and arm strength absorbing it, it's putting your strength at a disadvantage and "fighting" the recoil rather than truly controlling it. It would be like the equivalent of leaning back while firing a rifle or shotgun: instead of leaning into it to control the recoil, you lean back, putting your strength at a disadvantage, and then the recoil controls you. And given the shape of this theoretical handgun, all of the force is going backwards, and since it can only go back so far, the next direction for it to go is to push the back of the gun down. That's how all handguns work, but with this design, that force is not being directly absorbed by having a grip at the rear of the gun, so there's nothing to stop it, and as a result, your grip in the front becomes a rotating point around which the entire gun points up, creating an absurd amount of muzzle rise and making accurate rapid fire impossible. The Type 78 isn't completely as bad as this theoretical design, since the grip is only halfway along the gun, but the point still stands: with a handgun, you want the grip as far back as possible relative to the slide and chamber so that the recoil force is directed into it, rather than pulling back on it. And then there are the issues with proper grip and stance. Another reason why on virtually every handgun designed by a knowledgeable person has the grip at the very back is because putting something else directly behind the grip interferes with properly holding the gun with two hands.
Lastly, there's literally no reason for this design. The main advantage to a bullpup rifle or bullpup shotgun is that putting the action behind the trigger, in the stock, shortens the overall length of the gun while keeping a fairly long barrel. With a handgun, the standard "semi-bullpup" design already makes the weapon as short as it can possibly be. Putting the grip and trigger farther forward not only requires more materials, and in turn makes the pistol heavier, but also leads to more complex internals, because there has to be linkage going from the trigger all the way back to the hammer or striker that fires the cartridge. And "more complex internals" is never a good selling point for any weapon. You want to make them as simple as possible. So what the Type 78 turns into is a handgun that has unnecessary features which decrease controllability and increase handling difficulties, weight, and mechanical complexity. What it comes down to is that the Type 78 is an attempt to unnecessarily improve on something that can't be improved, and as a result, it's an inferior design.
As for the weapon designations, this game is about the United States Colonial Marines. The weapons being used and shown are being used by the USCM. There's no reason why their weapons would have any other designation than the "M" prefix. Look at the L7 105mm tank gun. That's a British design, but when the US adopted it for the M1 Abrams, they immediately designated it the M68. The British L16A2 81mm mortar was also adopted by the US, again with an "M" prefix": the M252. Every weapon that the US officially adopts receives an "M" prefix. This also means that the "Type 78" is incorrect. The game can't even use the excuse that it's because they're experimental models that haven't been fully adopted: experimental weapons are given an "XM" (experimental model) prefix. The closest the US military has ever come to designating a weapon as "Type" is the predecessor to the "XM" prefix: the "T" prefix, but in this case, "T" stands for "test" not "type".
These weapons are, as far as we know, standard-issue weapons of the USCM which have been officially adopted. There's no reason to think that they wouldn't have been given a designation with an "M" prefix, especially when, in the case of the "L56A3", it's an improvement on a design already in use by the USCM and already given a designation with an "M" prefix. The nationality of the company that designs a weapon, as well as the name a company gives to its own weapon, has little to no bearing on what designation the US military would give it. Take the Colt Model 921 rifle for example. You've probably never heard of it. Actually, you have, but you know it by its US military designation: the M4A1 carbine. The fact that the manufacturer calls it the "Model 921" had NO influence on what the US military designates it.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on May 25, 2021, 06:05:16 PM
Quote from: Trash Queen on May 25, 2021, 04:44:15 PM
Never heard TheSailingRabbit angry.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c8/eb/f6/c8ebf6d614892f218c8763f223331d81.gif
Not angry, but definitely disappointed.
