project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: UFOpaedia errors, etc...  (Read 6436 times)

Offline Sarin

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 339
    • View Profile
UFOpaedia errors, etc...
« on: May 12, 2011, 06:42:51 pm »
I've been reading it a lot, and noticed some errors and logical or reality problems.

1. Our old good sniper rifle. 20mm caliber, that is totally weird. 20mm antimateriel rifles exists, but only few, and firing one from standing or crouching position is downright impossible. Judging by performance in game, I'd say its caliber is probably .338 Lapua, it isn't powerful enough to be .50 BMG.

2. I know it's probably too late to change, but operation of M/AM engines as described in game is unworkable. Rocket/jet engines operate on classical action-reaction basis-high velocity mass goes one way, plane goes the other way. But M/AM anhillation produces no mattter, just energy. There is almost nothing to push the craft. The best solution for this would probably be mentioning that there is additional fuel, some dense gas, and antiprotons are injected into the stream of this, creating a high temperature plasma stream capable of propelling the craft. If you just use some common gas, all that would be needed is to change some entries and it's fixed.

3. Why does frag grenade description states it has smooth surface and model looks like pineapple type?

4. Another caliber rant, 25mm grenades for GL? Oh come on, even underbarrel launchers today use 40mm. 25 mm grenades are kind of "hybrids" between normal ammunition and grenades, sacrificing power for range...and ingame GL is nowhere near long range.

5. UFOpaedia clearly overestimates the weight of plasma blaster. If it is supposed to be a weapon useable by, although only some, human soldiers, it can't weigh more than average human can take on a cart.....

Well. I might add more as I notice them....

Offline Hertzila

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 469
    • View Profile
Re: UFOpaedia errors, etc...
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2011, 07:28:40 pm »
1. Our old good sniper rifle. 20mm caliber, that is totally weird. 20mm antimateriel rifles exists, but only few, and firing one from standing or crouching position is downright impossible. Judging by performance in game, I'd say its caliber is probably .338 Lapua, it isn't powerful enough to be .50 BMG.

Nothing to add here, really. It isn't an antimateriel rifle (>=.50 BMG), that's for sure.

2. I know it's probably too late to change, but operation of M/AM engines as described in game is unworkable. Rocket/jet engines operate on classical action-reaction basis-high velocity mass goes one way, plane goes the other way. But M/AM anhillation produces no mattter, just energy. There is almost nothing to push the craft. The best solution for this would probably be mentioning that there is additional fuel, some dense gas, and antiprotons are injected into the stream of this, creating a high temperature plasma stream capable of propelling the craft. If you just use some common gas, all that would be needed is to change some entries and it's fixed.

This has been talked before. Basically it just needs a minor note in the Alien Propulsion and things are fine.

Offline parjlarsson

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
  • Chaos Gate next?
    • View Profile
Re: UFOpaedia errors, etc...
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2011, 08:15:21 pm »
1. Material advances in the next 70 years.
2. Sure, make notes on the relevant wiki pages or get it in the process for a fix. I don't know what that process is or how it starts.
3. Either do the same for a text fix, or make a new model/image. Good catch.
4. We're kinda guessing at how things might look 70 years from now. But if you really think that's a big deal, feel free to propose an alternative text. You sound like you know what you're talking about.
5. Good catch. Yes. Unless we're gonna mess with things like anti-grav stuff inside the weapon/gear, which I don't think we need to introduce.

Offline Hertzila

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 469
    • View Profile
Re: UFOpaedia errors, etc...
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2011, 09:02:06 pm »
1. Material advances in the next 70 years.

On the other hand, the damage is too pathetic for the caliber it's supposed to be.

Offline Sarin

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 339
    • View Profile
Re: UFOpaedia errors, etc...
« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2011, 09:31:07 pm »
Material advances? Yea, but in a wrong way....according to UFOpaedia, it uses (fictional) 20x140 HMG cartridge, same as loaded into SHIVA cannon. It is described as new cartridge using new high-velocity power. So apparently, the round has more power than "ordinary" 20mm rounds, whose muzzle energy is around 50 kJ. For comparison, .50 BMG has around 15-20 kJ...talk about overkill, if it really would be such 20mm, it could go through five walls and pin the armored Ortnok on the sixth.

I personally vote for (maybe upgraded) .338 Lapua Magnum caliber. It's more powerful than common 7.62 NATO, designed specifically with sniping in mind.

Offline TrashMan

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
    • View Profile
Re: UFOpaedia errors, etc...
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2011, 01:44:23 pm »
I do agree that some advances, numbers and resistances feel too far fetched, even for "modern" materials.

Offline Sarin

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 339
    • View Profile
Re: UFOpaedia errors, etc...
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2012, 12:45:33 pm »
To give this a little kick...

I'd be willing to rewrite the flawed articles myself, I just don't know how to extract them and replace...and how to submit them.