the svd has a bullet velocity of 640, which is really slow, why did they do this?Irl the bullet velocity is 2,723 feet per second when using the 7.62×54mmR cartridge.I hate unrealistic gaming bullet velocity same thing happens in Tarkov and COD.
>>64319581because its a video game for cheeto eating teenagers you idiot
>>64319581Its as much as the game's engine can handle.
>>64319581It's a videogame. All of the battlefield games have reduces bullet velocity and 2x the speed or gravity to make drop and leading a more relevant factor. Also, fun fact, most games have physical/player objects subject to much more gravity than in real life as real gravity values feel excessively floaty and slow.
>>64319581How many tylenol tablets did your mother take when you were in the womb?It's for game balance reasons you fucking retard. If you had cartridges with realistic muzzle velocities at the scale of maps that you see in CoD, Tarkov and BF6 they'd practically all be hitscan.
>>64319581It's probably still more damage than the M39. Piece of shit takes more shots to kill someone than the P320.
>>64319581Hello zoomer.Battlefield series had bullets speeds reduced for balance sake like since forever.
>>64319581If you want realism to fight in Ukraine nerd
>>64320113>>64320003What mainstream FPS has reality close ballistics?PUBG I guess?
>>64320013Even squad’s bullet speed seems kinda slow compared to real life:>In squad a 5.45x39mm outta a 16” AK-74 takes about 1.750 seconds to impact at 600 meters >IRL a 5.45x39mm outta my 16” AK-74 takes about 1.102 seconds to impact at 600 meters ARMA 3 takes about 2 second (albeit the AK-74 from the RHS mod is pretty on-point but base game ballistics seem slow) Are game engines just not capable of rendering projectiles travel at those speeds or is it something to do with my PC?
>>64319581Be quiet idiot.
>>64320197Again, it's because games obfuscate the true scale of maps (and velocity) to sell the illusion of things being enormous, I guarantee that ARMA's nearly 300km square maps aren't actually 1:1 with real measurements. There's also probably an element of engine limitations, tic rates (especially in multiplayer games) and your frame rate affecting things. Games can only calculate as fast as their tic rate allows.
>>64319581Battlefield is kind of a "sim lite" pseudo-tactical (i just vomited) FPS by nature. Things are scaled down for relative appearance/playability balance>>64320197>game enginesThat answer is "it depends" and also "no, not even from the late 90s era"Ask yourself this: if they can already process 2000+ fps projectiles, hundreds to thousands at a time, on large game lobbies (64 vs 64) why wouldn't 2700 be possible? Answer: it is.Everything else about "why" has mostly been discussed itt.I wonder if there's any element of real world social aspect in these decisions but that's just me schiz-conspiracy theorying. That is to say:>look this popular really realistic game trained mad shooter X before he committed the crime!
Because most games aren't realist, just games.UT was worse, the Redeemer missile moved at about 50 m/s iirc, while users could run at +20 m/s (70 km/h)...
>>64320135Tarkov is the closest thing you'll get, but it's not realistic either, particularly in terms of bullet drop
>>64320135>What mainstream FPS has reality close ballistics?Literally none. Either they have slow as hell projectiles in the 600 meters per second range(its a lot faster than it was 15 years ago), or they have hitscan, which is that the bullet arrives instantly as soon as you pull the trigger.
Are the majority of posts here b8?Is nu/k/ really this retarded?Do vidya threads just attract the lowest of the low?
