Laser rifle recoil

[HeyYou]

Star Wars 'lasers' aren't really lasers though, they are 'blasters'....... directed energy to be sure, but, I think different principle than lasers.

[AeonsLegend]

The way you shoot lasers in this game is a bit like blasters though. It's much more beneficial for a laser to be a concentrated beam than to be fired as a "blast".

[HeyYou]

The way you shoot lasers in this game is a bit like blasters though. It's much more beneficial for a laser to be a concentrated beam than to be fired as a "blast".

Good points and bad points I suppose. A continuous beam would eat up power relatively quickly, and given that in the FO universe, the 'bolts' are actually visible...... It gives EVERYONE a precise location of where you are. So all those guys with slug-throwers, are gonna have a field day. :D On the other hand, the continuous beam would burn thru armor much more effectively, not to mention potentially setting you on fire. :D

[geala]

 

...

 

Another thing that is odd is that everyone wants the fallout world to look crappy and dead. While the truth of the matter would be the complete opposite. After 200 years everything would be lush and green and overgrown with lots and lots of plantlife. And water wouldn't be muddy or dirty. It would be crispy clean because there's no polution for 200 years.

 

 

Not everybody. My Fallout 4 world is very green with lots of trees and has dense cover with grass and flowers (thanks BNS and Grasslands Healthy). And my surface water is not radioactive. :happy:

 

 

 

The way you shoot lasers in this game is a bit like blasters though. It's much more beneficial for a laser to be a concentrated beam than to be fired as a "blast".

 

 

But what do you mean with "blaster". What technique is this? The FO4 lasers for me are pulsed, shooting a short high energy beam. But wether you shoot a pulsed or constant laser beam, there would be no recoil.

 

The pulsed laser would have the effect on targets with water in it (like human skin and flesh) like small explosions. Wounds would not be black like in the game but very bloody, I suppose. Armor penetration on the other hand may be bad.

[geala]

double post, deleted

[StormWolf01]

I'll have to try to counterpoint on the clear water scenario, the way that they did it in the game.

The way they did it in the game was it really devastated the landscape, to the (rediculous) point most of the landscape is no longer anywhere near what it should be.

That's gonna throw a lot of mud, and dust around that water is going to be running through. And as unstable as it is, I feel like the water would still be fairly muddy.

 

As far as it being green. Yeah, I can see that. I mean, I can say that it would take a bit longer than it would naturally. Simply because most of the original plant life was burned, blasted, poisoned, then stripped away. As were most of the insects that pollinate them.

Trees that depend upon animals to spread their seeds would also take longer, as many of those animals are gone as well. Tho, oddly enough, we can still eat their nuts. Er... that's bits.

 

But, that also takes up back to the other convo about using trees for cover. I honestly can't say as the game would be enjoyable to me, if the trees were overgrown. That would make for a crap run of trying to get away from a fight in a hurry. It would also make for too much cover for enemies to use, when I'm trying to kill them. And the way that vanilla grenades (or explosions in general) work, you probly couldn't even blast them out, with grenades.

 

Now, this last one is just a personal situation. I won't make my game all nice, lush, and green. Because FPS

I have a laptop with a shared memory video card. Yeah, rendering all that shi...tuff? My box would give me the middle finger, right fast.

Edited January 29, 2020 by StormWolf01

[geala]

It's understandable that fps goes over visuals. I'm using BNS + Grasslands Healthy + a lot of big HD texture packs + ENB and only get 40 to 60 fps (capped) with an i9 3.6 Ghz and a RTX 2070. I doubt that would be possible on a laptop I could afford. :happy:

 

To "realism", Fallout 4 is not consistent with it's landscape and features. Radioactivity does not destroy plants the same way it destroys animals, for example. Look at Chernobyl, an idyllic overly lush area despite very high and long lasting radioactivity. And if the trees and plants would have been destroyed by the explosion of the bombs, as some scions of the "devastated look" argue, there wouldn't be at all nearly intact buildings nearby, as is the case in FO4. So FO4 landscape is a deliberate artificial statement, a style, you can like it or not.

[StormWolf01]

It's funny on that note about the visuals. I watch a lot of MXR's videos, and he usually starts out every one of them, with a mod that alters the world appearance. There's been a few times where he's made statements along the lines of "If you have a NASA computer" :laugh:

No, FO4 is most definitely not consistant with it's landscaping. You go out into the wilderness and the land looks like it (barely) survived an entire shift of the landmass from when the continants separated. But then you get into town, and oh... no problem, there's just holes in the buildings. :dry:

[HeyYou]

Maybe they used neutron bombs? They don't do a lot of damage, outside the immediate blast radius, but, they will kill most living organisms in pretty short order...... :D