Spring RTS Engine

The intel says an expiremental rail-machine gun thingy...

Rail gun!!!

Arooogh! It pisses me off, they wanna go realistic and go "Bullets don't do shit vs tank!" But they won't turn around and say "Yeah, a bullet going 90000 MPH, accelerated by the forces of magnetism itself, would obliterate the inside of a tank, killing the crew. And it would also make destroying venoms and helicopters easy, too! The bullets would slice through the cockpit like.. A plasma blade through butter."

Seriously, its annoying...

Snipawolf wrote:Rail gun!!!

Arooogh! It pisses me off, they wanna go realistic and go "Bullets don't do shit vs tank!" But they won't turn around and say "Yeah, a bullet going 90000 MPH, accelerated by the forces of magnetism itself, would obliterate the inside of a tank, killing the crew. And it would also make destroying venoms and helicopters easy, too! The bullets would slice through the cockpit like.. A plasma blade through butter."

Seriously, its annoying...

It depends on the size of the bullet.

Not really... It depends on the make of the bullet (how hard) and how fast its moving...

It shouldn't be like "Fire, fire fire, tank explodes," he should fire and the tank should just die out, leaving its corpse behind (the infantry inside die), and maybe, the engi's could come and cap it..


Edit: Here ya go!

A railgun is a form of gun that converts electrical energy (rather than the more conventional chemical energy from an explosive propellant) into projectile kinetic energy. It is not to be confused with a coilgun (Gauss gun). Rail guns use the magnetic pressure force to drive a projectile. Unlike gas pressure guns, rail guns are not limited by the speed of sound in a compressed gas, so they are capable of accelerating projectiles to extremely high speeds (many thousand meters per second).

Seriously, the Commando should be able to single handedly wipe out entire armies of tanks, airplanes, infantry and so on with their rail guns, power armor, explosives and general all around badassness.

Snipawolf wrote:Not really... It depends on the make of the bullet (how hard) and how fast its moving...

It shouldn't be like "Fire, fire fire, tank explodes," he should fire and the tank should just die out, leaving its corpse behind (the infantry inside die), and maybe, the engi's could come and cap it..


Edit: Here ya go!

A railgun is a form of gun that converts electrical energy (rather than the more conventional chemical energy from an explosive propellant) into projectile kinetic energy. It is not to be confused with a coilgun (Gauss gun). Rail guns use the magnetic pressure force to drive a projectile. Unlike gas pressure guns, rail guns are not limited by the speed of sound in a compressed gas, so they are capable of accelerating projectiles to extremely high speeds (many thousand meters per second).

A railgun is not that different from a conventional gun. It simply accelerates a slug to hypersonic speeds. Just like a normal gun, except with higher velocitys given lots of power.
A big, heavy (AP) bullet will pierce through armor etc, a normal one wont.
I'd really guess the commando would be carrying normal ammo.

Why shoulden't the commando be carrying big bullets? He's a big guy!

hmm, if you push a bullet with enough force to send it flying at such speeds, arent you supossed to recieve as much force as recoil? even if your are 1000 times heavier than the bullet, it should have enough recoil to send the gun flying in the other direction, along with your arms and probably your spine too

Zoombie wrote:Why shoulden't the commando be carrying big bullets? He's a big guy!

Imagine him towing around a truckload of bullets. Seriously, he can pewpew all day. Thats some small ammo thar.

Radja wrote:hmm, if you push a bullet with enough force to send it flying at such speeds, arent you supossed to recieve as much force as recoil? even if your are 1000 times heavier than the bullet, it should have enough recoil to send the gun flying in the other direction, along with your arms and probably your spine too

you have to think about it as effect(watts). You get as much ENERGY, but over longer time. the recipient gets it in a fraction of a fraction of a second, while you'd have longer time while its accelerating in the barrel.

A slug going right through the enemy is undesirable. Optimally it goes through the armor and then expands in some way (e.g. explosion) to hit as much inside the target as possible. A hole right through a tank may have done damage or it may have missed the interesting bits completely. Modern APDFS rounds do pretty much just that because it has been found that punching a hole through a tank works well enough (I think DU projectiles do cause area damage, though) but anti infantry rounds use explosives and shrapnel for the big guns, projectiles that expand on impact for smaller ones (and high refire rates since you need to target lots of small targets quickly and you have to deal with cover so you probably won't hit them easily). Hitting aircraft is a matter of targeting, not power since you'll have a hard time hitting something 3 kilometers above you moving at mach 2, especially when it's stealthed and you have to rely on optical targeting to spot, identify and target it. Aircraft are usually lightly armored which again makes shrapnel effective.

AF wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWeekod30wQ

maed of winz!

Needs moar Spring comparison!

Also the saddest bit is that C&C3 is still better than SC.

KDR_11k wrote:Also the saddest bit is that C&C3 is still better than SC.

They even have the actress from House! Yes.

KDR_11k wrote:Needs moar Spring comparison!

Also the saddest bit is that C&C3 is still better than SC.

Im outta words. This statement is so unbelievably true.

HAHAHhahahaha, that was a funny video...

neddiedrow wrote: They even have the actress from House! Yes.

I couldnt take anything she said seriously because of that

This thread needs moar KANEDANCE

LOL