DUST Search - Have any of you considered how much power 80GJ is?

KaTaLy5t-87 wrote:

Does the 80GJ refer to the energy output of the railgun or does it refer to the kinetic energy delivered by the shell when it impacts a target? Momentum is equal to mass multiplied by velocity and by firing a shell with a large mass at an extremely high velocity it would deliver a massive amount of energy on impact.

It is also conceivable that electronics and superconductor technology would have advanced to a stage where a relatively small power source could deliver a massive amount of energy. I have an electrical installation tester that is powered by 6 1.5V AA batteries, while performing an insulation resistance test the tester outputs 1000VDC. If that is possible with some basic enough electronics then it is conceivable that electronics in the future would be advanced enough to convert small power sources into massive sources of energy for the likes of railguns.

Take an electricity distribution system as an example. High-tension transmission lines have relatively low energy loss which is why they are favoured for transmitting electricity over long distances. If you stand under a 400kV transmission line and stick a standard 5ft fluorescent tube into the ground it will light up in the dark. This is because of the massive magnetic field produced by the 400kV lines. A massive magnetic field is produced with almost no energy loss from the transmission lines.

Now imagine what would happen if you took all of the energy in that transmission line and focused it in superconductors and large coils in the barrel of a railgun. It is possible to create massive magnetic fields without even meaning to so I think if someone put a some futuristic technology into it they would indeed be able to deliver 80GJ of energy.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 12130	Posted - 2014.04.08 18:28:00 - [1] - Quote So, a large railgun shot is 80GJ? Well. Considering how fast a railgun can charge up, that indicates that the power output of a large railgun is in excess of 140 GW. 140 Gigawatts. That's... somewhat concerning. Consider, for example, the peak power consumption of Britain on record: approximately 60 GW. Then consider the power consumption of France: 100 GW. That means that every time you fire a large railgun, you are consuming as much power for that shot as the peak power consumption of Britain and France combined. Pretty wimpy railguns for 80GJ. Not that I actually want them to raze the entire battlefield automatically when they fire. This does beg the question of where the power is coming from as well. It's not coming from the tank's power grid, considering that's measured in megawatts. Also, a small 20GJ railgun on my LAV might have a little problem with destroying the entire map if it really outputted its full power. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. EUrobro
Sev Alcatraz Bullet Cluster Lokun Listamenn 524	Posted - 2014.04.08 18:31:00 - [2] - Quote Me and my corp mates discussed this one night, we came to the conclusion that there are a few large capacitors (one for every shot) that are charged by a high output cold fusion reactor. closed beta Vet "The mashed up corpses of red Berrys make for great track lube"
1pawn dust Algintal Core Gallente Federation 118	Posted - 2014.04.08 18:31:00 - [3] - Quote Have you seen capacitors in the Eve universe? Hell the gun might be 80GJ but I bet you a ton of money that its not receiving it
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3276	Posted - 2014.04.08 18:32:00 - [4] - Quote Railgun is UP I should be able to nuke the entire map and win the game in 1 shot
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 12130	Posted - 2014.04.08 18:36:00 - [5] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Railgun is UP I should be able to nuke the entire map and win the game in 1 shot Oh, you. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. EUrobro
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 6460	Posted - 2014.04.08 18:38:00 - [6] - Quote The power of CCP's Nerf Bat far exceeds 80GJ. Ratamaq Doc: The Best Swarmer Who Ever Lived. [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 6463	Posted - 2014.04.08 18:40:00 - [7] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Railgun is UP I should be able to nuke the entire map and win the game in 1 shot Well it is AV (technically), so I wouldn't have a f*ck to give. Ratamaq Doc: The Best Swarmer Who Ever Lived. [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Kigurosaka Laaksonen DUST University Ivy League 742	Posted - 2014.04.08 18:42:00 - [8] - Quote time travel DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/ EVE Buddy Invite - Too damn long. Ask me for it.
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens League of Infamy 1080	Posted - 2014.04.08 18:42:00 - [9] - Quote This topic has been discussed before. "Just the thing being fired would pretty much kill anything around it. 80 GJ is a hell of a lot of force. 1 ton (2,000 pounds / 907.185 kilos) of TNT gives off 4.184 GJ of energy. Even the puny side blasters give off over four and a half tons of TNT, with a rate of fire of 857.1 rounds a minute. " "People that quote themselves in signatures confuse me." -Joseph Ridgeson
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad. 8187	Posted - 2014.04.08 18:51:00 - [10] - Quote Who knew, CCP actually made Caldari less powerful than they're supposed to be, for once. My intentions is to have a fun game for everyone. If I seem to be biased, I have good hard data to back it up.

Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 12132	Posted - 2014.04.08 18:52:00 - [11] - Quote Joseph Ridgeson wrote: This topic has been discussed before. "Just the thing being fired would pretty much kill anything around it. 80 GJ is a hell of a lot of force. 1 ton (2,000 pounds / 907.185 kilos) of TNT gives off 4.184 GJ of energy. Even the puny side blasters give off over four and a half tons of TNT, with a rate of fire of 857.1 rounds a minute. " So it has, so it has. It's quite amusing, nonetheless. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. EUrobro
Hecarim Van Hohen Bullet Cluster Lokun Listamenn 988	Posted - 2014.04.08 18:56:00 - [12] - Quote 425mm Railgun I Activation Cost 21 GJ "Now I am become Dev, the locker of threads." -CCP Logibro
Krom Ganesh Nos Nothi 1497	Posted - 2014.04.08 19:01:00 - [13] - Quote It's not that unreasonable. The US Navy's Railgun can use 33 megajoules and they hope to bring it up to 64 megajoules. Granted these are weapons intended to be mounted on a ship and not a tank. Link
WUT ANG D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 168	Posted - 2014.04.08 19:06:00 - [14] - Quote Ccp is sorry the dev that renames thing's has been on vacation for 1.5 years. Minmatar all the way. Weapon sp refund please
Izlare Lenix Arrogance. 376	Posted - 2014.04.08 19:08:00 - [15] - Quote 20,000 years in the future they probably have watch batteries with 80gj of juice. Just look at how far cell phone batteries have progressed. They have gone from large and weak to very strong and very small. 20,000 years is a long time to improve batteries and power generation. Gun control is not about guns...it's about control. The only way to ensure freedom is by having the means to defend it.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 12134	Posted - 2014.04.08 19:14:00 - [16] - Quote Izlare Lenix wrote: 20,000 years in the future they probably have watch batteries with 80gj of juice. Just look at how far cell phone batteries have progressed. They have gone from large and weak to very strong and very small. 20,000 years is a long time to improve batteries and power generation. If I had a watch battery with the energy storage of a small nuclear weapon I would be terrified. Also, that doesn't mean matter magically became much more resistant to vast quantities of energy being chucked at it. Firing one of these things, if it truly threw out 80GJ, would literally vaporise the battlefield. A 1kg thorium round with 80GJ of energy would be millions of degrees centigrade and travel at many times the speed of sound. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. EUrobro
Leonid Tybalt Inner.Hell 446	Posted - 2014.04.08 19:23:00 - [17] - Quote Krom Ganesh wrote: It's not that unreasonable. The US Navy's Railgun can use 33 megajoules and they hope to bring it up to 64 megajoules. Granted these are weapons intended to be mounted on a ship and not a tank. Link Megajoules and GIGAjoules are worlds apart you know...
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens League of Infamy 1082	Posted - 2014.04.08 19:35:00 - [18] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Izlare Lenix wrote: 20,000 years in the future they probably have watch batteries with 80gj of juice. Just look at how far cell phone batteries have progressed. They have gone from large and weak to very strong and very small. 20,000 years is a long time to improve batteries and power generation. If I had a watch battery with the energy storage of a small nuclear weapon I would be terrified. Also, that doesn't mean matter magically became much more resistant to vast quantities of energy being chucked at it. Firing one of these things, if it truly threw out 80GJ, would literally vaporise the battlefield. A 1kg thorium round with 80GJ of energy would be millions of degrees centigrade and travel at many times the speed of sound. The main thing isn't so much the amount of energy consumed but what the end result would be. Let's say that the 80gj is the amount of force that the round has. Whatever it hit would have been hit with the same amount of energy released in 19 tons of TnT. It wouldn't so much be a projectile 'bullet' at that time but rather a 'force missile.' Would basically cause an explosion everywhere it hit. MythBuster detonates a 1,000 pound bomb.. It wouldn't work quite like that as would more likely pierce and not release all of its power but the energy level is terrifying. "People that quote themselves in signatures confuse me." -Joseph Ridgeson
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 12135	Posted - 2014.04.08 19:40:00 - [19] - Quote Joseph Ridgeson wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Izlare Lenix wrote: 20,000 years in the future they probably have watch batteries with 80gj of juice. Just look at how far cell phone batteries have progressed. They have gone from large and weak to very strong and very small. 20,000 years is a long time to improve batteries and power generation. If I had a watch battery with the energy storage of a small nuclear weapon I would be terrified. Also, that doesn't mean matter magically became much more resistant to vast quantities of energy being chucked at it. Firing one of these things, if it truly threw out 80GJ, would literally vaporise the battlefield. A 1kg thorium round with 80GJ of energy would be millions of degrees centigrade and travel at many times the speed of sound. The main thing isn't so much the amount of energy consumed but what the end result would be. Let's say that the 80gj is the amount of force that the round has. Whatever it hit would have been hit with the same amount of energy released in 19 tons of TnT. It wouldn't so much be a projectile 'bullet' at that time but rather a 'force missile.' Would basically cause an explosion everywhere it hit. MythBuster detonates a 1,000 pound bomb.. It wouldn't work quite like that as would more likely pierce and not release all of its power but the energy level is terrifying. The energy lost as heat from an 80GJ round would be enough to sublimate the environment around it. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. EUrobro
DJINN Marauder Ancient Exiles. Dirt Nap Squad. 4992	Posted - 2014.04.08 19:40:00 - [20] - Quote So railguns came pre Nerfed huh lol GôÉGô¥GôÿGô£Gôö > GôÉGô¢Gô¢ Gÿà¿When will dust get better?Gÿà Forum Warrior LV. 5 \| Warframe is awesome! \| PSN: I-NINJA-ALL-DAY

Shijima Kuraimaru WarRavens League of Infamy 459	Posted - 2014.04.08 20:04:00 - [21] - Quote This sort of reminds me of my speculations of what an 8000 m/sec forge projectile's atmospheric displacement and sonic boom should do just passing near an infantry unit if there were any realism to it. I still can't find tanks on the market. All I see are those HAVs.
Leonid Tybalt Inner.Hell 446	Posted - 2014.04.08 20:09:00 - [22] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Joseph Ridgeson wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Izlare Lenix wrote: 20,000 years in the future they probably have watch batteries with 80gj of juice. Just look at how far cell phone batteries have progressed. They have gone from large and weak to very strong and very small. 20,000 years is a long time to improve batteries and power generation. If I had a watch battery with the energy storage of a small nuclear weapon I would be terrified. Also, that doesn't mean matter magically became much more resistant to vast quantities of energy being chucked at it. Firing one of these things, if it truly threw out 80GJ, would literally vaporise the battlefield. A 1kg thorium round with 80GJ of energy would be millions of degrees centigrade and travel at many times the speed of sound. The main thing isn't so much the amount of energy consumed but what the end result would be. Let's say that the 80gj is the amount of force that the round has. Whatever it hit would have been hit with the same amount of energy released in 19 tons of TnT. It wouldn't so much be a projectile 'bullet' at that time but rather a 'force missile.' Would basically cause an explosion everywhere it hit. MythBuster detonates a 1,000 pound bomb.. It wouldn't work quite like that as would more likely pierce and not release all of its power but the energy level is terrifying. The energy lost as heat from an 80GJ round would be enough to sublimate the environment around it. Indeed. Most likely it would ignite the air like a thermobaric bomb of ridiculous proportions. Also I have to say I'd share your fears about a 20 GJ watch battery. Your average watchbattery weighs what, a couple of grams give or take? Any substance containing 20 GJ of chemical energy in only a couple of grams would most likely be quite volatile and not something I'd like to wear around my wrist.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 12135	Posted - 2014.04.08 20:11:00 - [23] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Also I have to say I'd share your fears about a 20 GJ watch battery. Your average watchbattery weighs what, a couple of grams give or take? Any substance containing 20 GJ of chemical energy in only a couple of grams would most likely be quite volatile and not something I'd like to wear around my wrist. Frankly, I'd rather throw these watch batteries at my enemy as grenades than throw the grenades we have. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. EUrobro
Leonid Tybalt Inner.Hell 446	Posted - 2014.04.08 20:13:00 - [24] - Quote Shijima Kuraimaru wrote: This sort of reminds me of my speculations of what an 8000 m/sec forge projectile's atmospheric displacement and sonic boom should do just passing near an infantry unit if there were any realism to it. Thank god for dropsuits then. Make no mistake, it's perfectly reasonable for most weapons in Dust to be way more destructive than current conventional weaponry. (you'd have to pack quite a punch to bypass the sci-fi defenses of any given dropsuit) But... In certain areas I think the developers went a bit "derp physics?"
Leonid Tybalt Inner.Hell 446	Posted - 2014.04.08 20:14:00 - [25] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Also I have to say I'd share your fears about a 20 GJ watch battery. Your average watchbattery weighs what, a couple of grams give or take? Any substance containing 20 GJ of chemical energy in only a couple of grams would most likely be quite volatile and not something I'd like to wear around my wrist. Frankly, I'd rather throw these watch batteries at my enemy as grenades than throw the grenades we have. Hehehe, you trustq your throwing arm that well? Once it hits it might well enough take you with it in the blast.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 12135	Posted - 2014.04.08 20:15:00 - [26] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Also I have to say I'd share your fears about a 20 GJ watch battery. Your average watchbattery weighs what, a couple of grams give or take? Any substance containing 20 GJ of chemical energy in only a couple of grams would most likely be quite volatile and not something I'd like to wear around my wrist. Frankly, I'd rather throw these watch batteries at my enemy as grenades than throw the grenades we have. Hehehe, you trustq your throwing arm that well? Once it hits it might well enough take you with it in the blast. No. I don't. That's why I plan to have an uplink... oh, about a kilometre away. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. EUrobro
Fibo Gjenn UN3VERSAL BONDAGE 2	Posted - 2014.04.08 20:23:00 - [27] - Quote Well it is Caldari, so a certain element of marketing, must be taken into consideration. How else can you explain a "rail" gun with a 300 m range. My potato canon can out range it on a good day. I think we can conclude, that there has been government mismanagement of funds, in the colonial defense department , on an epic scale. And that some Caldari contractor made a killing.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 518	Posted - 2014.04.08 20:26:00 - [28] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Who knew, CCP actually made Caldari less powerful than they're supposed to be, for once. In dust everyone knows that Caldari sucks . Gal Amarr Caladri / Minmatar running neck and neck and you know that a Mimi is faster . Stop asking for tiercide , your killing variety and the fun of this game at the same dam time .
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 12137	Posted - 2014.04.08 20:40:00 - [29] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Who knew, CCP actually made Caldari less powerful than they're supposed to be, for once. In dust everyone knows that Caldari sucks . Gal Amarr Caladri / Minmatar running neck and neck and you know that a Mimi is faster . Right, Caldari sucks, sure... That's why rail rifles account for 40% of all light weapon sales and Caldari sidearms account for over 50% of all sidearms. Yeah. Right. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. EUrobro
Nocturnal Soul Immortal Retribution 2749	Posted - 2014.04.08 20:46:00 - [30] - Quote The Caldari where better dual tankers than the actual dual tankers when it was a legitimate role. And every single one of there weapons that was released excluding the mag and bolt was OP. Its alright everyone, no need to worry it's just an Amarr scout :(

Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2680	Posted - 2014.04.08 21:12:00 - [31] - Quote Hey guys, I just worked out why DUST has no green anywhere! ak.0 4 LYFE je ne regrette rien
Henchmen21 Planet Express LLC 887	Posted - 2014.04.08 21:17:00 - [32] - Quote Then consider the handheld forge gun fires around just as powerful while only being fed from the suits power source. 1.8 because nothing says fun like getting shotgunned in the back. Henchmen21: Infantry Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 12142	Posted - 2014.04.08 21:19:00 - [33] - Quote Henchmen21 wrote: Then consider the handheld forge gun fires around just as powerful while only being fed from the suits power source. I guess that's why it never actually fires! You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. EUrobro
KaTaLy5t-87 Shadow Company HQ Lokun Listamenn 157	Posted - 2014.04.08 21:33:00 - [34] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: So, a large railgun shot is 80GJ? Well. Considering how fast a railgun can charge up, that indicates that the power output of a large railgun is in excess of 140 GW. 140 Gigawatts. That's... somewhat concerning. Consider, for example, the peak power consumption of Britain on record: approximately 60 GW. Then consider the power consumption of France: 100 GW. That means that every time you fire a large railgun, you are consuming as much power for that shot as the peak power consumption of Britain and France combined. Pretty wimpy railguns for 80GJ. Not that I actually want them to raze the entire battlefield automatically when they fire. This does beg the question of where the power is coming from as well. It's not coming from the tank's power grid, considering that's measured in megawatts. Also, a small 20GJ railgun on my LAV might have a little problem with destroying the entire map if it really outputted its full power. Does the 80GJ refer to the energy output of the railgun or does it refer to the kinetic energy delivered by the shell when it impacts a target? Momentum is equal to mass multiplied by velocity and by firing a shell with a large mass at an extremely high velocity it would deliver a massive amount of energy on impact. It is also conceivable that electronics and superconductor technology would have advanced to a stage where a relatively small power source could deliver a massive amount of energy. I have an electrical installation tester that is powered by 6 1.5V AA batteries, while performing an insulation resistance test the tester outputs 1000VDC. If that is possible with some basic enough electronics then it is conceivable that electronics in the future would be advanced enough to convert small power sources into massive sources of energy for the likes of railguns. Take an electricity distribution system as an example. High-tension transmission lines have relatively low energy loss which is why they are favoured for transmitting electricity over long distances. If you stand under a 400kV transmission line and stick a standard 5ft fluorescent tube into the ground it will light up in the dark. This is because of the massive magnetic field produced by the 400kV lines. A massive magnetic field is produced with almost no energy loss from the transmission lines. Now imagine what would happen if you took all of the energy in that transmission line and focused it in superconductors and large coils in the barrel of a railgun. It is possible to create massive magnetic fields without even meaning to so I think if someone put a some futuristic technology into it they would indeed be able to deliver 80GJ of energy.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 12146	Posted - 2014.04.08 21:45:00 - [35] - Quote KaTaLy5t-87 wrote: Does the 80GJ refer to the energy output of the railgun or does it refer to the kinetic energy delivered by the shell when it impacts a target? Momentum is equal to mass multiplied by velocity and by firing a shell with a large mass at an extremely high velocity it would deliver a massive amount of energy on impact. It is also conceivable that electronics and superconductor technology would have advanced to a stage where a relatively small power source could deliver a massive amount of energy. I have an electrical installation tester that is powered by 6 1.5V AA batteries, while performing an insulation resistance test the tester outputs 1000VDC. If that is possible with some basic enough electronics then it is conceivable that electronics in the future would be advanced enough to convert small power sources into massive sources of energy for the likes of railguns. Take an electricity distribution system as an example. High-tension transmission lines have relatively low energy loss which is why they are favoured for transmitting electricity over long distances. If you stand under a 400kV transmission line and stick a standard 5ft fluorescent tube into the ground it will light up in the dark. This is because of the massive magnetic field produced by the 400kV lines. A massive magnetic field is produced with almost no energy loss from the transmission lines. Now imagine what would happen if you took all of the energy in that transmission line and focused it in superconductors and large coils in the barrel of a railgun. It is possible to create massive magnetic fields without even meaning to so I think if someone put a some futuristic technology into it they would indeed be able to deliver 80GJ of energy. I don't think you quite realise how much 80 GJ is. Consider a 1 kilogram block of titanium. 80 GJ would heat that to 60,000,000 degrees centigrade. That's completely absurd. The surrounding mile would sublimate. Also, the first part of your post is... dubious. Momentum is not the specific quantity you're looking at here - you're looking at the kinetic energy, for which the equation is 1/2mv^2. You're quite correct - a shell of large mass travelling at a very high speed would have a lot of kinetic energy. A 1 kg shell would travel at 400,000 metres per second. You can't just 'create' energy. Those magnetic fields aren't causing the power lines to lose much energy - but exactly the same amount of energy that's used to light that tube up is drawn from the power lines. A core principle of physics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted to different forms. It's simply not possibly that a small power source could mysteriously power a vastly more energetic function. Voltage is not necessarily equal to power. That depends on the current you have in a material, which is further reliant on the resistance. P = VI, and I = V/R. That means that putting a high voltage through a material with a high resistance will give you a low current, which in turn will affect the power. A 20W source will only provide 20W. There is no way to change this. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. EUrobro
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 671	Posted - 2014.04.08 21:55:00 - [36] - Quote Interesting fact : the United States Navy invented an actual railgun. The slug travels at mach 7, and can achieve a distance of 200 miles. It's awesome seeing science fiction become reality.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 26	Posted - 2014.04.08 21:56:00 - [37] - Quote Along the same line of thought...The 425mm railgun I I space-side has an activation cost of 21GJ...just over 1/4 the listed power of the tank mounted railgun. I want whatever capacitor they're using in a gunloggi in my rokh...(I'm assuming that 80GJ is the activation cost of all HAV railguns, since they're all described as 80GJ, but do different amounts of damage. It could be that they are terrible at converting the 80GJ input to a noticeable output...but I find that unlikely due to Calder is proficiency with railgun technology).
1pawn dust Algintal Core Gallente Federation 123	Posted - 2014.04.08 22:26:00 - [38] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Who knew, CCP actually made Caldari less powerful than they're supposed to be, for once. Caldari has been getting the CCP shaft since 2004 wtf you talking about?
Scheneighnay McBob Nova Corps Marines Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 4707	Posted - 2014.04.08 22:56:00 - [39] - Quote Everything in game is a toned-down version of how they are IRL. Even things as simple as range. A real version of the combat rifle would definitely have the range of the sniper rifles in game. I'm from the weird side of the internet
Argent Mordred DUST University Ivy League 56	Posted - 2014.04.08 23:02:00 - [40] - Quote Anyone tried to read the weapon descriptions. Mainly it is just the Minmatar weapons. Apparently Trijicon is still making their trademarked ACOGs for the Caldari and Minmatar rifles 20,000 years in the future or whatever. Guess Trijicon can't think of an original name, even though their optics no longer use the light-gathering fiber optic or glow-dark tritium to light up the reticle, don't have the bullet drop marks, or any other feature of an ACOG. "A gas-operated, short-barreled weapon, the combat rifle is a semi-automatic weapon... Classified as a light support weapon... most standard assault rifles." Wait, which is it? Semi-auto or burst (this same mistake is made in the burst ar description)? A light support weapon (i.e. a light machine gun or a dedicated grenade launcher at the squad level) or an assault rifle? What next? A pump action light machine gun shotgun? "Favouring function over form, the SMG is a lightweight, semi-automatic weapon designed for close-quarters combat... similar sub-automatic weapons..." What is sub-automatic? Also the smg is clearly full auto, and being fully automatic or select-fire is in the definition of an smg. The semi-auto/burst confusion is even more funny because on some weapons like the mass driver and the regular scrambler pistol they get it right. I am not annoyed at the lack of poor terminology, but it is odd that they are inconsistent. I can almost see making the 80 GJ error, though a common sense check should have made someone stop and think whether that large a number was at likely to make sense, but the firearms terminology should be easily verifiable. Especially since if you know enough to try and use a word, you should know what it means. Oh well, here's to CCP Shanghai. Writing nonsense descriptions and coding bugs since 2006.

VicBoss Militaires-Sans-Frontieres 441	Posted - 2014.04.09 00:18:00 - [41] - Quote Joseph Ridgeson wrote: This topic has been discussed before. "Just the thing being fired would pretty much kill anything around it. 80 GJ is a hell of a lot of force. 1 ton (2,000 pounds / 907.185 kilos) of TNT gives off 4.184 GJ of energy. Even the puny side blasters give off over four and a half tons of TNT, with a rate of fire of 857.1 rounds a minute. " Topic Cred > "It aint no petting zoo out there! Peeps be getting deep sixed!" -Daxter
ishtellian SAM-MIK General Tso's Alliance 20	Posted - 2014.04.09 01:44:00 - [42] - Quote First one to spawn get in the railgun installation and shoot the other mcc wins. My Heavy Never Dies. Logibro In training.
Zaaeed Massani RisingSuns Dark Taboo 116	Posted - 2014.04.09 01:57:00 - [43] - Quote Atiim wrote: The power of CCP's Nerf Bat far exceeds 80GJ. Quote of the month. Sig'd Atiim: The power of CCP's Nerf Bat far exceeds 80GJ. Proud Federal Marine on loan to the Republic Commandos.


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]