BF2S Forums Technology Development in Small Arms

In order for lasers to become practical, they'd have to be powerful enough to cause destruction comparable to a bullet in a fraction of a second, they'd have to be small enough to be mounted in a rifle/LMG type setup, and would need batteries capable of competing with standard rifle magazines in both size/weight, and shot capacity.

Basically, an M4 that shoots laser beams instead of bullets.

I'm no soldier, IDK, maybe optics will get better?

Last edited by Pubic (2010-06-02 03:00:33)

I like the science of that sound system that picks up a shot and tells you what direction and distance the shot came from


micro size it and mount it up on helmets so I know where the shots are coming from ..... but make sure it can tell the difference between 5.56mm & 7.62mm

Trotskygrad wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

I like the science of that sound system that picks up a shot and tells you what direction and distance the shot came from


micro size it and mount it up on helmets so I know where the shots are coming from ..... but make sure it can tell the difference between 5.56mm & 7.62mm

I'm pretty sure that it can differentiate between guns.

Or they'll just field it with spec-ops first, because they like their silencers.

nomatter how advanced they make those mic. array systems, I doubt helmet mounted ones will be realistic anywhere in the near future, I think the mic.s have to be at a certain distance to eachother to accurately measure the sound delays.

FloppY_ wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

I like the science of that sound system that picks up a shot and tells you what direction and distance the shot came from


micro size it and mount it up on helmets so I know where the shots are coming from ..... but make sure it can tell the difference between 5.56mm & 7.62mm

I'm pretty sure that it can differentiate between guns.

Or they'll just field it with spec-ops first, because they like their silencers.

nomatter how advanced they make those mic. array systems, I doubt helmet mounted ones will be realistic anywhere in the near future, I think the mic.s have to be at a certain distance to eachother to accurately measure the sound delays.

riiiiiiiiiight, I forgot about that.

nlsme1 wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

nomatter how advanced they make those mic. array systems, I doubt helmet mounted ones will be realistic anywhere in the near future, I think the mic.s have to be at a certain distance to eachother to accurately measure the sound delays.

riiiiiiiiiight, I forgot about that.

Ehh, Better microphones+better processors are going to be made. You could use four small hyper sensitive mics at the front,back,right and to the left of the helmet. A better processor that now has input from four, more detailed inputs. And you never know.

It still doesn't change the rate of which the sound moves... longer distance between mics = more tollerance to disturbances like wind...

nlsme1 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

Ehh, Better microphones+better processors are going to be made. You could use four small hyper sensitive mics at the front,back,right and to the left of the helmet. A better processor that now has input from four, more detailed inputs. And you never know.

It still doesn't change the rate of which the sound moves... longer distance between mics = more tollerance to disturbances like wind...

Better processors/better mics/more input MIGHT be able to counter.

What about echoing sounds?  Sounds bounding off buildings?  That would fuck with it pretty badly.

FloppY_ wrote:

I'm amazed an AR15/M4 platform did THAT well when it comes to beeing buried
And equally amazed that the AK did that bad...

He did the AK test with the selector set to "fire", which is how it would most likely be carried when engaging enemies in combat. When an AK's selector is set to "fire" it leaves a large opening in the receiver for objects to enter. The AR has a dust cover, but even with the dust cover open the gaps are significantly smaller. My personal experience, I don't cover my rifles in dirt or shoot in dust storms , is that AR's are more likely to have issues, usually due to cheap ammo or lack of maintenance. They're both great rifles and fun to shoot. Both are worth owning.

nlsme1 wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

Better processors/better mics/more input MIGHT be able to counter.

What about echoing sounds?  Sounds bounding off buildings?  That would fuck with it pretty badly.

Just like it does the system now? That is what the processors are for.

This technology is being widely adapted. There are numerous manufacturers, and they ALL have an R&D dept. I am sure one day it will get smaller. All technologies get smaller.

Huh?

How would the processors process it, they wouldnt know where its from...  They cant process something they dont know about.  If a sound is to your left but due to buildings/people/other noises it sounds like its behind you theres not a lot a bunch of processors can do.

nlsme1 wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

Just like it does the system now? That is what the processors are for.

This technology is being widely adapted. There are numerous manufacturers, and they ALL have an R&D dept. I am sure one day it will get smaller. All technologies get smaller.

Huh?

How would the processors process it, they wouldnt know where its from...  They cant process something they dont know about.  If a sound is to your left but due to buildings/people/other noises it sounds like its behind you theres not a lot a bunch of processors can do.

This is already viable technology. What would change it to where it "suddenly" no longer works? Chances are your local police force already has it or is in the process of getting it.
Why is this technology different from any other electronic device so that it can't be scaled down like EVERY other one?

So you have such a piece of technology?  Or are you just assuming it exists?  I dont see how it can "know" where its from if the sound is coming from a different direction than it is hearing it from.

Winston_Churchill wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Huh?

How would the processors process it, they wouldnt know where its from...  They cant process something they dont know about.  If a sound is to your left but due to buildings/people/other noises it sounds like its behind you theres not a lot a bunch of processors can do.

This is already viable technology. What would change it to where it "suddenly" no longer works? Chances are your local police force already has it or is in the process of getting it.
Why is this technology different from any other electronic device so that it can't be scaled down like EVERY other one?

So you have such a piece of technology?  Or are you just assuming it exists?  I dont see how it can "know" where its from if the sound is coming from a different direction than it is hearing it from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunshot_Lo … ion_System

eleven bravo wrote:

this one time, a friend of mine fired his mac 10 into some dirt in some back yard and 4 minutes later police helicopters were flying over head.  so to test the theory that they were able to detect the area where the round was fired, my friend waited for the chopper to leave and then my friend did it again and sure enough, it was back within minutes.

It is widely implemented. Any patrol unit can be fitted with it. And, it is pretty accurate.

All of those are using sensors that are previously placed around the city, not on a moving person.  It works because the system is in place and has sensors all over.  Thats a totally different thing than having it on an individual soldier who is walking around a foreign urban area with a close unit and no previously placed sensors.

Last edited by Winston_Churchill (2010-06-02 11:26:02)