Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

metric bullets #2690

Closed
4 tasks done
scarf005 opened this issue Apr 24, 2023 · 6 comments
Closed
4 tasks done

metric bullets #2690

scarf005 opened this issue Apr 24, 2023 · 6 comments

Comments

@scarf005
Copy link
Member

scarf005 commented Apr 24, 2023

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

bullets with well known metric names should be displayed in metric, as it improves consistency and helps non-US players to understand better.

(copied from #2691)
inconsistency in naming bullets with same calibre causes issues.

  • some bullets use 5.56 NATO, wheras others use .223 for names and description, confusing.
  • you need to search twice, once for .223 and once again for 5.56.
  • 5.56x45mm ammo belt is crafted from .223 ammo belt linkage, unintuitive.

Describe the solution you'd like

image
use metric names like 7.62mm rounds. this is to make searching bullet consistent. after the changes, finding bullet would always adhere to <bullet dimension> <bullet name> which would make finding and sorting compatible bullets easier.

e.g

name dimension(compatible gun) name(identifier)
5.56x45mm (.223 Remington) 5.56x45mm .223 Remington
5.56x45mm NATO M855A1 5.56x45mm NATO M855A1

Tasks

  1. data mods
  2. data mods tests
  3. enhancement
@chaosvolt
Copy link
Member

I'd say this makes sense for .223 and .308 since both the US and metric names have actual official usage, but the latter two likely should have the US designation first and metric designation, since they were designed as such.

@scarf005
Copy link
Member Author

scarf005 commented Apr 24, 2023

.30-06

I agree on this one, as google searches show little amount of IRL usage. however it still fits in 7.62mm family, and it'd be nice to search them using 7.62 specifier.
maybe it could be named 7.62x63mm ".30-06" casing.

.50 BMG

according to NATO cartridges, it's also called as 12.7×99mm NATO. I think we need to be consistent with NATO cartridges like 5.56 and 7.62.

name usage
50 cal 1,690,000,000
12.7mm 13,400,000
.50 bmg 2,900,000

also, although less than 50 cal, the name 12.7mm is used a lot according to google search. using the name 12.7 also has advantages as it's consistent with other greater-or-equal-than-rifle-calibre round names.

@chaosvolt
Copy link
Member

That definitely indicates that .50 is much more well-known as a name than 12.7mm I'd say, to be honest. So long as the name it's known as in the country that developed it is still present it's probably fine, displaying both works if needed. I'd mainly just say don't axe one name in favor of the other, otherwise it just trades confusing one part of the playerbase for another.

@Zireael07
Copy link
Contributor

As someone who played some shooters, both fictional and realistic, the names I'm familiar with are 7.62, .30.06 and .50 BMG. (Europe if it matters)

So it's simply not possible to be uniform here because IMHO we should use the more recognizable names (potentially giving the other in description)

@chaosvolt
Copy link
Member

So after more discussion, I think I'm okay with current proposal for how to name .223 and .308, so long as .30-06 and .50 stay with their more common, country-of-origin measurements first, i.e. use .50 BMG "12.7×99mm" if we include the metric designation.

However, this has reminded me of a more muddled ammo type:
"name": "PG-7VL 93mm rocket",
"name": "PG-7VR 64mm/105mm rocket",
"name": "TBG-7V 105mm rocket",
"name": "OG-7V 40mm rocket",

@scarf005
Copy link
Member Author

RPG-7 names are to be tracked in #2843
i guess others are done and id migration wouldn't worth the hassle

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants