[WIP] Weapon Addition and Replacement Suite (WARS)

[Shanzyboo]

No AA-12 in WARS; I added one to FO3 and FNV in add-ons for WMK and WMX respectively, but this time I wanted to do a USAS-12 instead. Partially just for a change, but also because it seemed easier to do a wider range of attachments for the USAS-12.

 

Changing which ammo a weapon uses (via modification) is done via OMODs - in vanilla it's via receiver OMODs - and the OMOD in question is what defines the effects that ammo type will have on the weapon.

 

For spread, you'd add fAimModelMinConeDegrees and fAimModelMaxConeDegrees properties to the OMOD, and then probably have each of them SET the values you want. The base spread used by a weapon is defined in its AimModel record (Min Angle and Max Angle), so you could look at an AimModel for another weapon and match those values if you want. (Those base values may essentially always be modified by barrel OMODs or whatever else on the weapon, though.)

 

Instead of SET you could also use MUL+ADD if you wanted, which multiplies the base value by the value you enter, and then adds it to the base value. E.g. to reduce the base spread by 50%, you'd enter -0.5 for the MUL+ADD value. MUL+ADD would probably work better than SET if you happened to have other OMODs that you also wanted to affect that base value.

 

 

Edit: Fixed a typo.

I see so basically using your example adding an fAimModelMinConeDegrees and fAimModelMaxConeDegrees with a MUL+ADD value you could apply say -0.98 in MinConeDegrees and -0.93 in MaxConeDegrees to say creating an effect of firing a single projectile from a shotgun, like Slug rounds or exploding rounds as opposed to what I assume vanilla is is buckshot right, MaxConeDegrees being the maximum amount of allowed spread.

 

Your math really broke it down on a percentile level, so if 0.5 is 50% than 1.0 is 100% and whether that is adding or reducing depends on applying a negative value. Knowing this helps a lot, not just for making different munitions types but understanding the math of the game mechanics in general.

 

Thank you Antistar

[antistar]

No problem. :)

 

Values like -0.98 and -0.93 there would probably be way too extreme though, making it absolutely pinpoint accurate. The Min and Max Angle values are for hip-firing, so you typically want some room for it to be more accurate when aiming down sights. That's determined by the base "Iron Sights Multiplier" value in the AimModel, which can be modified in OMODs by the fAimModelConeIronSightsMultiplier property.

 

Shotguns by default only have a base iron sights multiplier of 0.9 though - since they were going for buckshot spread - so you'd probably want to reduce that in the FRAG-12 OMOD so that aiming down sights is more effective. Most weapons use a base value of 0.4.

 

I expect I'll be doing the same thing - I just haven't tested the values I've got in there yet.

[Shanzyboo]

This is a good point Antistar, game balance and well, even assault rifles don't exactly have pinpoint accuracy, not from a fully automatic perspective.

 

Thinking that like you suggested replicating the values of another weapon is very viable for FRAG-12 OMOD, like the handmade rifles values since they're both fully automatic and rifle based.

[PKxPanz3r]

lol just checking in, and to my complete shock and horror (sarcasm) this mod still isnt out yet, i called it in 5 years ago, this is never getting released. the Thompson and 1911 that were aren't even that good, shoddy anims, audio indistinguishable from Vanilla, and extremely "meh" textures, and its been worked on since when? this was announced or started in 2016? im amazed anyone thinks theyll see this mod anytime soon, i was stoked for this mod back in 2017, but that was half a decade ago.

[Shanzyboo]

lol just checking in, and to my complete shock and horror (sarcasm) this mod still isnt out yet, i called it in 5 years ago, this is never getting released. the Thompson and 1911 that were aren't even that good, shoddy anims, audio indistinguishable from Vanilla, and extremely "meh" textures, and its been worked on since when? this was announced or started in 2016? im amazed anyone thinks theyll see this mod anytime soon, i was stoked for this mod back in 2017, but that was half a decade ago.

American idiot troll is going to troll, shoddy animations? Meh textures? Lot a bold talk coming from someone who doesn't even have the skills to make animations, models and textures themselves..or a mod for that matter.

[antistar]

If you're only here to troll then you may not be interested in this, but for anyone who is interested in the status of the project and why it's taken so long:

This isn't news to anyone who's been following the development of WARS, but I was very keen to use AmmoTweaks v2 (AKA TweaksFramework) for WARS once it was available, since everything I've seen and heard of it sounds great, and - importantly - it would save me a lot of work.

When I first decided that I wanted to use its framework, ATv2 was expected to be released in a matter of days or weeks. (As far as I recall.) Unfortunately it turned out that it would remain perpetually expected to release in days/weeks/months for years - but I haven't learned to predict the future yet, and certainly couldn't do so back then, so...

Instead I took the opportunity to improve and add to WARS while I waited for ATv2 - doing things that I had otherwise planned to do after WARS' initial release. (Not to mention all the time spent working on PEACE.) This continued for a lot longer than I expected - and certainly longer than isathar (author of AmmoTweaks) expected, too.

Eventually I couldn't delay things any longer though, and had to start adapting ATv1 for use with WARS, along with adding some other required features that (as far as I'm aware) would be in ATv2. This is a lot of work - it's what I'm working on now - and of course adds even more time to the development of WARS. It's a big part of why I wanted to use ATv2 in the first place; I wouldn't need to be spending this time on it.

To be clear, I don't want to blame isathar for all this; it's just how things turned out. The kind of features we're talking about are very complex to work on.

Now that WARS is no longer in a holding pattern waiting for ATv2, the end is actually in sight. Once I've finished implementing the ammo-swapping, durability, etc for all the weapons, it'll be time for testing. That's still a reasonable chunk of work, though.

[Shanzyboo]

Sorry for chiming up like that Antistar, I find such behaviour and the people who practice it to be such a nuisance, rude, obnoxious, unappreciative and ungrateful..and completely lacking in any kind of humility.

 

Who knows maybe during testing or after the release Isathar might actually finish TweaksFramework.

 

On a side note I got around to looking at the AA12 in FO4Edit and to my surprise some of the parts..such as one of the barrels already has an fAimModelMaxConeDegrees and MinConeDegrees with a 50% reduction on it, aim models Max Angle and Min Angle is 12, so I'm not sure if I can apply such properties and values onto another OMOD without effecting the weapons balance, it comes pretty close to the values the vanilla assault rifle already has by default, unless applying such properties and values onto an ammo OMOD works differently. Thinking what I should actually be looking at might be projectile records.

[antistar]

Oh hey, that's fine; don't worry about that.

 

 

It's fine to have multiple different OMODs affecting the spread like that, but you do need to pay attention to how they're all affecting it. (And potentially to relevant perks too.) E.g. when it comes to affecting recoil like this, it's possible to end up with negative recoil (the muzzle jumps down with each shot). You could argue that there's basis in reality there, but it'd probably feel weird in the context of FO4.

 

Anyway, that's when it comes to ADD and MUL+ADD. If you've got something using SET, that's the value it's going to use - as far as I know. You probably don't want more than one SET affecting a value at a time.

 

Spread isn't affected by projectile records, as far as I know. They do have a field for "Cone Spread", but it's greyed out for every projectile type except "Cone" - and I don't know if that's actually used anywhere.

[Shanzyboo]

I'm guessing that depends on the default of such things for the base weapon itself in conjunction with what the OMOD/s adds/subtracts, if negative recoil has the muzzle jumping down each shot I don't think I want to see what negative spread does.

 

I'm also questioning though if there would be any point in further reducing the spread, the default aim model for the vanilla "assault rifle" is 4 and 8 respectively while the AA12 with this barrel would be at 6 and 6, I could use the MinConeDegrees to drop the Min Angle down an extra two points but would it actually matter and serve any purpose in doing so?

 

So does a SET value of a property take priority over an ADD/MUL+ADD value on the same property?

[nexusguy]

Hey Antistar one quick question, I just saw a 2019 article about some improvements Ruger made to the Mini-14, now they have a polymer tactical model, similar to an EBR, the result is actually quite cool in my opinion:

 

Here's an EBR for comparison:



From what I've read in your stick notes, you chose the Mini-14 due to it's similar wood and steel aesthetic, I've also saw you added a black polymer version of the rifle, do you plan on adding something similar to this new version or that would result in too much unnecessary work?