Printable View
They all fit into very, very similar packages, and draw heavy inspiration from it.
Most use similar magazine lockup systems and have identical fire control switches.
Its like saying the M14 is not a Garand design. Technically, its not. But its almost exactly the same and uses many of the same guts.
And yeah, the Dragunov uses a different gas system... That's really it lol.
The M14 is a hell of a lot closer to the Garand than most non-AK Russian weapons are to the AK. They're only designed to handle and look similar for familiarity, and most of them disassemble in a similar way, but the guts are different (in some cases radically).
I am aware. But I am just saying that it is the only rifle that has had that much mileage. You put a AK-74M next to an AN-94 and you go "Oh, duh". You put an M16A1 next to even an SCAR or ACR and you go "I don't get it".Quote:
Originally Posted by rossmum
And yes, I think super aliens made the AN-94 as well. Thats why nobody uses it all that much. Shit is like magnets. Nobody fucking knows...
Eh, I never liked the Pulse rifle. The way it reloads seems so illogical and weird (how come you never put more of those funky disk things into the gun, or reload the grenade launcher?) and it seems like it would be really awkward to aim with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
I dunno, I can look at nearly any Western weapon and either an M16A1 or AR-18 together and it immediately clicks. Control layout and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TVTyrant
Man, we need to stop trying to improve pointless aspects of ergonomics and start actually improving the basic actions of our rifles. But that's for another thread.
I completely agree, as long as it feels solid in your hands you really don't need much more. If I were to go to war, I wouldn't want something that feels super comfortable in my hands as opposed to something that's very reliable. I'm not saying ergonomics should merely be an afterthought, because yes some guns just feel plain awkward, but reliability should be first and foremost.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossmum
I personally prefer the Reach and Halo 4 design's, they are less bland. Yeah they have random indents and extrudes everywhere, but tbqh I prefer that then having a flat boring surface to look at. Newer engines allow more detail, what is the point in not using this (within reason), may as well stick with a Xbox or PS1 if designs aint made more interesting.
Larger texture sizes are also useless if the pixel density isn't used, the point in making a flat metal surface larger on a texture sheet? All of the indents in the Reach Battle Rifle seem like they would make the weapon more comfy to hold, although the indents on the stock and magazine do look pointless.
I agree with you, but I don't. If you get me :L
That's the thing, excessive greeble isn't interesting and doesn't add anything. You can do a lot more with a simple, clean design than a pile of extruded and bevelled bullshit.
I don't see what else you could add though tbqh, apart from more mechanical parts and attachments... nothing else a weapon needs really.
Art isn't always about whats realistic.
Observe:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6XJ1Il_-lW...00/photo_3.jpg