DUST Search - Shouldnt the Rail Rifle have terrible hipfire?

Tch Tch wrote:

Eko Sol wrote:

I just want to throw this out there but, technically, the RR wouldn't have typical recoil. It would have equal dispersal to the outside of the weapon. This means that there would actually be zero recoil in the reverse of the direction of the projectile. Again, it would go out to the "sides" of the rifle but since it is even it will appear non-existent and not affect aim.

I say this to prove the point that this is a game and so they made recoil against all of physics. Just like dropping a tank on top of a tower over 150m in the air and being able to shoot at better than 45 degree angles downward from a 90 degree flat and parallel land/tile.

It's a game. Let it be a game first and then accurate later.

About the hip shooting. Here is another interesting fact. if you train a person who has never fired a weapon 20 hours how to fire down the sight using the eye and 20 hours from the hip they are more accurate from the hip. This goes for hand guns though...not rifles (at least not to my knowledge).

It's a game.

Interested why the rail rifle wouldn't have typical recoil as per Newton's Three Laws.

The bullets going out would have a momentum. The rifle would have an equal momentum backwards ie recoil. If you could fire fast enough you would have a rocket engine.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Eko Sol 3dge of D4rkness SoulWing Alliance 46	Posted - 2014.01.16 00:00:00 - [1] - Quote I just want to throw this out there but, technically, the RR wouldn't have typical recoil. It would have equal dispersal to the outside of the weapon. This means that there would actually be zero recoil in the reverse of the direction of the projectile. Again, it would go out to the "sides" of the rifle but since it is even it will appear non-existent and not affect aim. I say this to prove the point that this is a game and so they made recoil against all of physics. Just like dropping a tank on top of a tower over 150m in the air and being able to shoot at better than 45 degree angles downward from a 90 degree flat and parallel land/tile. It's a game. Let it be a game first and then accurate later. About the hip shooting. Here is another interesting fact. if you train a person who has never fired a weapon 20 hours how to fire down the sight using the eye and 20 hours from the hip they are more accurate from the hip. This goes for hand guns though...not rifles (at least not to my knowledge). It's a game.
Eko Sol 3dge of D4rkness SoulWing Alliance 46	Posted - 2014.01.16 00:53:00 - [2] - Quote Tch Tch wrote: Eko Sol wrote: I just want to throw this out there but, technically, the RR wouldn't have typical recoil. It would have equal dispersal to the outside of the weapon. This means that there would actually be zero recoil in the reverse of the direction of the projectile. Again, it would go out to the "sides" of the rifle but since it is even it will appear non-existent and not affect aim. I say this to prove the point that this is a game and so they made recoil against all of physics. Just like dropping a tank on top of a tower over 150m in the air and being able to shoot at better than 45 degree angles downward from a 90 degree flat and parallel land/tile. It's a game. Let it be a game first and then accurate later. About the hip shooting. Here is another interesting fact. if you train a person who has never fired a weapon 20 hours how to fire down the sight using the eye and 20 hours from the hip they are more accurate from the hip. This goes for hand guns though...not rifles (at least not to my knowledge). It's a game. Interested why the rail rifle wouldn't have typical recoil as per Newton's Three Laws. The bullets going out would have a momentum. The rifle would have an equal momentum backwards ie recoil. If you could fire fast enough you would have a rocket engine. You would not. Lauching a projectile via a "Rail" mechanism involves complex electro-magnetic math where the forward force is generated from at a perpendicular angle and NOT from behind the projectile. I don't explain physics on forums but I'll try to summarize it in a sentence. The force applied is electro-magnetic and the "recoil" would happen on the projectile in the reverse direction and thus a perpendicular force would have a perpindicular recoil. In addition, Newtonian Physics applies to mostly gravity and not thermodynamics, electro-magnetism, and quantum physics. Newtonian physics is also just algebra where as modern spacetime and gravity physics is calculus. Go talk with your physics teacher if you have one.
Eko Sol 3dge of D4rkness SoulWing Alliance 46	Posted - 2014.01.16 01:45:00 - [3] - Quote Tch Tch wrote: I think you will need to talk with yours. The force to move the projectile is from the Lorentz force which is also forcing the rails apart. The Lorentz force acts on the particle perpendicular to the field. The momentum change is experienced by both the particle and the plate generating the field. Lorentz force is how cathode ray tubes (old TVs) and how TIMS (Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometers) work (I've used TIMS analyzing yellow cake isotopes for the natural OKLO nuclear reactor). So the magnetic field is perpendicular, the momentum is not. And it gets applied to both the projectile and the railgun. You are right, there will be recoil with the launcher if using modern rail tech. But your explanation is like a copy and paste from nonsense on the web. The only reason I know there is recoil now is because I looked on youtube and there is recoil. I have the mindset of, what was, the traditional rail where a single rod would be launched using perpendicularly applied force as opposed to the modern way where it is now applied in the back at the fork tail thing. This conversation has sparked my interest though and I will now be looking into it and the math...since the math is my favorite part.
Eko Sol 3dge of D4rkness SoulWing Alliance 48	Posted - 2014.01.16 19:33:00 - [4] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Jacques Cayton II wrote: Dusters Blog wrote: user skill will never be even. if u can get all headshots with the SCR congratulations, you will do well with any weapon. Aim is king in shooter, no one will ever debate this. but when the weapon design is bad and everyone can use it against how it was intended it may be time for tuning. the RR simply cant be designed as a close quarters weapon or it has no weaknesses. it and weapons like the SCR should have bat hipfire. the GEK & HMG should have good hipfire and faster ADS as they both gets outranged by weapons like the CR, SCR and RR. The CR should be the most balanced with solid ADS and and solid hipfire..though not as good as the SMG, HMG or gallente AR. RR has a weakness slow rof and charge up. You can fire 2 bursts with the cr in that time almost 4 shots with the at scr idk 3-5 hmg 100's. If you die from a rail rifle and complain because it killed you at 30m don't stand still move or wait till he reloads the rail rifle is very easy to manipulate I think no weaknesses is a poor way to put it. I think the inherent weaknesses the RR has a close range are not prominent enough, making it more effective in CQC than was originally intended. Since I'm a prominent user of the RR I'll chime in here. The only time my RR has any success in close range is when someone boxes themselves in and they can't get away. That being said, when I'm up against someone that can stick and move like they should then I have serious difficulty in the close range and lose. The biggest issue I find with people is that they run away from the RR like they would an AR. The problem is that you are giving an RR what they want. Instead, find cover immediately even if you are 60m away from the RR. People stay in the open and try to fight it out against an RR. There is no other weapon before 1.7 that required you to find cover at 60+ meters away. So everyone has this bad habbit of just moving left to right. FIND COVER.