Tbf even the gau-8 used by the A-10 warthog only has 18 seconds of brrrrrrt. So if anything carryable could last 5 seconds, you’d basically be out of ammo anyways. It’s a way of making it “realistic” without limiting you to the point of making it worthless. Which in reality, in any extended engagement, a ground mini-gun is absolutely worthless. No one person by themselves could use that gun effectively against more than ~10-15 people and only in VERY specific situations. Only in a kamikaze rush would it be of any value. I’d take 3 marksmen with bolt action rifles and iron sights over one dude on foot with a mini-gun all day, every day.
Mini-guns are very, very good in specific applications, but absolutely worthless in others. But it’s fun in a video game to weird. It’d be unrealistic and OP to carry with enough ammo to make it useful outside of fallout power armor, or a full mech.
TIL, that rotary machines guns spin to cool down.
Uh, what did you think the rotary barrels were for?
maybe i miss understood the context of the meme
…more barrel = more bullet? 🥴
I mean, thats not wrong.
something something technically correct something
MORE DAKKA
No dakka, just brrrrrrt.
IS DAKKA
I mean technically they spin to cool but also because they use the time it takes to rotate to unload and reload a round. Basically “1 fire, 1 move out of the way, 2 fire, 1 unload, 2 move, 3 fire, 1 load, 2 unload, 3 move, etc.” multiple reasons
As someone else put it. No dakka, just brrt. When you have 8 dakkas in sync, you get all the -kka happening while the next barrel is already Da-, so dakka dakka turns into dadadadadadddddddrrrrrrtt
It’s more that using multiple barrels keeps any one barrel from heating up too quickly, and it’s easier to have multiple barrels than entire firing assemblies.
Not only that but the barrel is rotating quite fast which encourages cooling.
Sure, but realistically air isn’t a good enough heat conductor for this to help much. Fixed machine guns used to use water-cooling but that’s been phased out and modern weapons simple replace the barrel when it gets too hot.
This is why double penis dude had double penises. Refactory time be damned.
If you have a minigun and not enough enemies on screen not to need it running constantly, you’re doing it wrong.
All I saw was the title and a teeny tiny thumbnail, and I already knew it had to be Serious Sam lol
Bringing back the trauma of Breath of the Wild where melee weapons break after a few hits.
the main reason I didnt bother with tears of the kingdom
Wrong reason not to, cause they did kinda in a roundabout way fix that without fully removing the durability system.
Also you could play it but with a FPS unlock mod and infinite durability mod on emulator.
Same with flashlight batteries in horror games
Or weapon degregation in any game… Sorry this METAL weapon can’t be used for more then a few minutes?
Next thing I know you are going to tell me that punching trees isn’t an effective way to collect wood.
I walk round my house eating little pills. If I stay still the ghosts eat me.
Have you tried walking out of your back door and immediately appearing through your front door?
That can confuse them
Or how flashlights make a little circle of light in otherwise near-total darkness, as opposed to real flashlights which light up a pretty wide area.
this can all be solved with expert world-building: for example, maybe the nighmare creatures siphon the energy of the flashlights? and for breath of the wild, maybe dr. eggman has secretly infiltrated the world’s metal supply chain and sabotaged it with poor alloys.
It’s the same for weapon ranges. Assault rifles have an effective range of more than 300m IRL, but it’s commonly less than 100m in video games
Yeah also, real life, you’re not shooting 300 m very often. Your rifle may be capable of it, you’re not. With any real effect anyway.
Source: former infantryman
Is it a matter of stopping power or of precision?
Precision. It’s really hard to see anything at 300m with the eyes. You can’t shoot what you can’t see. You very rarely have clear sight lines out that far, and even when you do, it’s hard to put anything on a human sized target that far.
At 300 m the naked eye sees a person as about the size of a grain of rice.
It’s not impossible. I used to bullseye Womp Rats in my T-16 back home.
Never said it’s impossible. You just won’t do it. A standard (American army) infantryman has a red dot. Non magnified. With adrenaline, moving targets, trying to not die, you will not be effective at that range.
You can use overwhelming volume to suppress, but, realistically, you’re going to close the distance. In a straight up infantry on infantry engagement anyway, which is a rarity.
Edit: just realized the Star Wars reference lmfao my bad
This is true. I played a lot of VR “full realism” games and frequently my squad couldn’t see anything far away (not to mention VR resolution is quite a bit lower than real life)
We resorted to one of us carrying a dedicated 7.62×51 semi-auto rifle with a long range optic (which was me) and a backup weapon. One of the guys carried a spare box of 100× 7.62 just in case, and it worked out great.
Ironically, using the long range optic like a spotter scope was almost as effective as hitting guys on towers, I struggled pretty badly if they were laying down, and the longest hit in the game was 482 meters (yards) on a guy who wasn’t moving at all, and took 3 tries.
Source: Ghosts of Tabor
Shotguns are also nerfed in games with respect to their effective range.
For good reason tbh.
Nah fuck that let me blast a guy’s guts out the stratosphere from 20 meters away
Rip bad company 2
Probably better than going for ammo realism.
it costs two hundred thousand dollars to fire this gun… for twelve seconds.
Chris Rock: “You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders."
$400,000, actually. $200 custom tooled cartridges at 10,000 rounds per minute
deleted by creator
Roughly $1 per bullet, roughly 20 rounds per second in the Predator movie, so only about $14,400 for 12
secondsminutes ($240 for 12 seconds). For $200k, you could shoot it for almost 3minuteshours.Wait, I don’t get it. 20 rounds per second for 12 seconds is 240 rounds, right? So at $1 per bullet, that’s $240, right?
What am I missing?
I accidentally did the math for minutes instead of seconds. You’re right, it’s $20 per second, $240 for 12s.
“oops I ran out of money”
Just have to grind that min wage job simulator for 9-12 months for another go.
Unless it’s got rent, transportation, healthcare, and food simulators in it too.
I guess that if I was trying to make realistic game, I would give the player multiple lives. Each mission, there is a large number of friendly troops trying to advance through each area. Whenever the player dies, they swap into one of the surviving soldiers. The game is over if the troops run dry. This allows us to have each and every weapon on the field be fully effective for both sides.
There are a lot of difficulties with this, since traditional game design doesn’t account for a massive number of characters. It would probably be best to make a mod for Arma III and playtest the concept with D-Day and other operations.
It would be kinda like the isometric Army Men games or Cannon Fodder, but from a FPS perspective.
This is sort of how Battlefield, Battlefront, and Helldivers 2 work, but you play as an incoming reinforcement, not someone already on the field.
D-day on Arma Reforger sounds amazing
Edit: Yay it’s in the workshop https://reforger.armaplatform.com/workshop/64FD6D514EAB1A2C
I remember playing something similar to this on a ps2. you can press a button and youd swap with friendlies
In real life they’re mounted to vehicles.
AFAIK, you can thank the 1987 movie Predator for the idea that someone could walk around with a minigun as a personal weapon
Now I’m going to have to go watch that movie again. Not only was it so influential that it introduced the idea of miniguns as human-portable weapons to games, it’s the source of this meme and what’s not to love about a movie with Ventura, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Carl Weathers.
Huntdown has a hidden special weapon in a level known as Portable Howitzer. Now if you have an idea of what a howitzer is or looks like, the idea of a cyborg almost losing his shoulders with this thing is comical. I have roamed around the game and there seems to be only one of these ridicoulus machines, there’s even an achievement.
Portable Howitzer is basically a good marketing name for a mortar.
So many games and movies ignore both the weight of the ammunition required to fire one of those things for more than 3 seconds, and the weight of the batteries required to spin the barrels. You would need more than even a power-suit, you would need some kind of frame on self powered wheels… a “vehicle” of some kind.
I suppose a Fallout style power armour would have an energy source built in that could power the motor as well, and the weight of the ammo backpack would balance the weight of the gun, obviously assuming that the armour can properly distribute that weight so it’s not directly carried by the human within.
Still, limited ammunition is a buzzkill in the kind of context you’d give a player that gun: We want the power fantasy, dammit!
This is why we need lasers dammit. And a solar panel on top of your helmet.
Actually, we could power the rotary gun with the solar panel!
Technically, it could be done. Someone did the math from the scene in the movie Predator. He could carry a weapon that heavy, including the ammo and batteries. It would be about 40kg for the gun and 25kg for the ammo. That’s very high, but not absurd, as long as he’s carrying almost nothing else. It could fire for 45s without running dry. And if you limited it to reasonable bursts of say 3s, that ammo would last a while.
It’s not practical, but it’s possible.
It probably would have been more of a ground asset in the last century or when dealing with invisible aliens. I can’t imagine how excited a drone operator in the modern climate would feel seeing a dude lumbering through a field carrying a heavy weapon.
OTOH, if you’re trying to create an outpost near the enemy lines, maybe it makes more sense to have a soldier carry the minigun you want to use at that outpost through the jungle, rather than risk using a vehicle to deliver it.
A soldier lumbering through a jungle with a big weapon is a target, but a helicopter making a delivery, or a truck making a delivery is going to be a much bigger and more visible target with fewer things to hide behind.
I’ll take “Things they make you do in Ranger School for fun,” for 500 Alex.
How much could it possibly weigh?
Ok now from memory a gm m134 minigun shoots around 6000 rounds per minute at full tilt, weighs between 19kg and 39kg not including the 24v battery to power the gun and a 7.62x51mm cartridge weighs approximately 25g each.
So ballpark. You’re looking at about 20kg for the gun and battery alone minimum and to shoot for 1 straight minute you would be humping 150kg of ammo.
In the famous scene in predator, they fired for 45s and the gun was tuned down from the typical minimum of 2000 rounds per minute to just over 1000 so that you could actually see the barrels spinning.
1000 / 60 = 16.667 rounds per second
45 seconds of shooting
750 rounds at 25.5 grams each = 19.125 kg
That’s a lot more reasonable. In that scene at least, the guy fires every bullet available because he’s so freaked out, so what Jesse Ventura’s character was carrying was a 40kg gun with 20kg of ammo.
That’s 60kg of weapon with some recoil. Ouch.
Someone posted an excellent video of what the recoil is actually like. It fires the same rounds as an M14 rifle. So, per round, it has the same recoil force. Because the gun is a lot heavier the acceleration of the gun due to the recoil is smaller. But, the force per bullet (or the impulse) is the same. The greater number of bullets means that the total force is higher. But, it’s smoother because of all the extra mass.
The end result is that an M14 slams into the shooter’s shoulder, but the minigun is like a gridiron football player trying to shove the shooter backwards.
You arent wrong, maximum numbers vs minimum numbers.
Fact is though that by turning the gun down to 1000 rounds per minute you’re only exceeding the m249 by 150 rpm and carrying a weapon at least 13kg heaver to do so. (Yes the 249 is chambered in 5.56 so its not apples and apples)
At the end of the day it COULD be done, its just not the tool for the job. Its enough weight that dude would effectively be stationary at which point you might as well pintle mount the damn thing, attatch a giant ammo can and turn it right the fuck up.
M240 weighs like 12 or 13kg and fires 7.62.
Plus, it would’ve totally been common in service at the time of the movie’s release…
It’s just not as cool though.
I don’t think the 1000 rounds per minute would make sense in any scenario other than a movie or video game. If you’re going to the trouble of carrying all those extra barrels around, you want to be firing at a rate high enough that a single barrel would overheat. But, if you’re firing at 2000+ rounds per minute, the recoil quickly becomes unmanageable for someone on foot.
Multiple barrels makes sense for a CIWS gun because you’re shooting at something flying at you extremely fast so the time it’s within the gun’s maximum to minimum range is short. Similarly, it makes sense on a plane, like the A-10, because the plane is moving fairly quickly and it might not be able to aim at the target for very long. In both those scenarios you want as many bullets on the target in the short time window you have.
For a door gunner on a helicopter, I imagine the main goal is to suppress the enemy. Accuracy is less important than keeping their heads down. You want one man to be able to suppress possibly a platoon on the ground. The weight of the gun doesn’t matter since the helicopter is carrying the weight, and the amount of ammo it uses isn’t too important because the engagement will be pretty short (just enough time to get in and get out). So, a minigun makes sense because it can send a continuous stream of bullets into a general area for tens of seconds without running out of ammo or overheating.
I can’t imagine a scenario where it makes sense for a soldier to be able to carry and fire a minigun while standing up. Maybe there’s a scenario where it’s a crew-served weapon that you carry and set up quickly. But, even then, surely 10 rounds per second is going to be enough, and all the extra barrels are just weight you don’t need? The only time I can see them really being useful on the ground is defending an outpost of some kind. There have been scenarios like that where the engagement lasts so long that machine guns overheat. 1/6 of the heating and 1/6 of the wear and tear on each barrel might make the extra complexity, weight, and electrical requirements worth it.
Exactly. Just because it conceivably could be done doesnt make it a good idea.I mean… they do look fucking cool when they crank off at 6000rpm though. The rule of cool makes everything a good idea in movies.
Its not the greatest movie but I do love the boat rescue scene from Act of Valor https://youtu.be/O0vZY0m6INU
Yeah, rule of cool is important for entertainment. The problem is that you stretch reality too far you end up ruining the suspension of disbelief. For me, people flying backwards through the air after they’ve been shot ruins movies, because that’s just not what happens.
IMO, the best part of the scene from Predator is that they showed just how freaked out the guy was by having him hold down the trigger after he’d fired every bullet he had leaving the audience with just the sound of the barrels spinning. That’s just really good storytelling, and not something you can do with another type of machine gun.
At least 1 gram. Maybe even 2.
The beginning of that movie always takes me out. So they fly in on a helicopter, there are 3 visible helipads (well, 2 and then sand) in a line and they land on the one to the right (from the water perspective).
They get out, get in jeeps, drive for a few seconds to the left side of the helipads driving onthe ocean side and then get out?! Movies used to just do random shit for vibes and logic could go to hell.
I mean, 2 of the jeeps go somewhere else but it’s just Arnold and the driver in his.
They spent most of the money on Arnold and the predator effects. Reshoots on establishing shots wouldn’t have been in the budget, so they make do with what they got on the day.
I’ll have to watch for that when I watch the movie again.
Both are 5 seconds.
Irl bcs the truck of ammo you had behind you got depleted.
In game bcs of overheating.
Someone on Reddit actually did the math on this 5 years ago.
The scene in Predator where someone holds down the trigger and fires continuously for 45 seconds is actually vaguely possible.
The gun weighs 39 kg or 85 lbs, so it’s possible for a soldier to carry it, especially the soldiers in Predator who are shown to be much, much stronger than the average soldier. The ammo used in 45 seconds would weigh 25 kg, so it’s still vaguely possible that the soldier could carry it along with the weapon. The volume of ammo wouldn’t be that much of an issue. It’s under 1000 rounds for 45 seconds of fire, which would fit in a backpack-sized box.
Another big issue is the recoil. On earth, someone experiences 9.8 newtons per kg of mass. We don’t know how much Bill Duke weighs, because he’s just an actor, but since Jesse Ventura used to be a “wrestler”, we know his billed weight of 111 kg in his wrestling days. So, without any gear on he’d be experiencing 1088 N of force from gravity. Add the weight of the minigun and its ammo that’s 175 kg, or 1715N.
The recoil generated by the gun is based purely on the rounds it fires. An online calculator puts the recoil impulse at 13.4 Ns of impulse per bullet. From that reddit post, they figured out the minigun in that scene had been slightly slowed down from the normal 2000 rounds per minute (33.3 rounds per second) to only about 20 rounds per second. But, even then, that means the gun would be generating 268N of force. So, just to avoid being moved, someone would have to lean atan(268/1715) = 8.8 or about 10 degrees forward. That may not sound like a lot, but when you’re already carrying the equivalent of another person from the weight of the minigun and its ammo, that’s a lot of extra force to deal with.
In many games, you can move normally while carrying a minigun, but as soon as you start firing it you slow to a crawl. They actually got that part right. It would be hard to move freely while this thing is shoving you back with such force.
You forgot the weight of the battery for the motor that rotates the barrels. Afaik in the film a wire was run through the actor’s pants.
If the gun runs out of bullets in 45 seconds, you could probably get away with pretty small batteries. The main thing it’s doing is spinning a barrel, which you could probably do with a hand-held drill. The trick is that you don’t want to wait while the barrel spins up, so you want enough power to get it up to full speed very quickly, which means a lot of initial power drawn from the battery, then a lot less to keep the barrels spinning.
Nice, I wonder how many rounds per second he was shooting. That looked like the force pushing him backwards was similar to the force of gravity pushing him down.
Something that used to be a thing in a lot of games with firearms, but is increasingly minimized or just absent:
To sustain full auto aim at one spot, you would actually have to keep pulling the mouse down, to basically keep fighting the recoil kick.
So, the analogous thing here would be pulling the mouse down whatever the … arc/degree equivalent of ~9 degrees is, per second.
Given say a 75 horizontal FOV, 16:9 ratio, thats ~42 degrees vertical, 9/42 = ~ 21% of your total vertical view, or 42% of the ‘below the center aimpoint’ distsnce, so you’d have to pull the mouse down by almost half the distance of your screen, if that makes sense.
For a 90 FOV it works out to ~18% of the whole screen, ~ 36% if you go by the center to bottom of your view distance.
Nowadays, its much more common to have a very minor actual point of aim change from a shot, and most of the visual recoil effect is conveyed by a kind of oscilating viewpunch, that will pull the camera in a direction, but it will automatically return to the original aimpoint afterward.
(Also you shake the camera, roll it back and forth a bit, rapidly)
Ideally, imo, you use and blend both, but the ratio has very much shifted toward the viewpunch that auto resets, such that a short burst basically requires no ‘fighting’ it, when … in real life…
…it depends on the weapon’s ergonomics and weight and your level of training with it and the caliber and the barrel length etc etc, but generally speaking…
You do very much have to consciously and physically handle the recoil.
Another thing that would factor especially into weilding a minigun would be basically it ‘clipping’ on the surrounding environment, hitting walls, door frames, nearby plants, etc.
Theres a reason people don’t tend to do room clearing with very long and large weapons.
But very few games even attempt to model this, so, you often get ‘meta’ weapons that… only are so because this element of reality is totally ignored.
To sustain full auto aim at one spot, you would actually have to keep pulling the mouse down, to basically keep fighting the recoil kick.
Yeah, that was so annoying. I’m glad they stopped doing it. I don’t mind if your accuracy goes down when you go full auto, or your aim point drifts in some random direction, but having to scroll down as you shot just sucked.
Another thing that would factor especially into weilding a minigun would be basically it ‘clipping’ on the surrounding environment, hitting walls, door frames, nearby plants, etc.
That should even be a factor with a regular rifle. Some games simulate that, but most of them do the ultra-simple thing of pretending the gun comes directly out of your nose and never interacts with the environment in any way.
I don’t mind if your accuracy goes down when you go full auto, or your aim point drifts in some random direction, but having to scroll down as you shot just sucked.
It’s not even that realistic. In real life, you need to apply constant pressure downward to keep a machine gun firing level, but not constant movement.
IMO, a realistic way to do it would be that when you fire the game machine gun in full auto, your point of aim gets shifted upward. To return it to where you attempted to aim, you’d then have to move the mouse downward slightly and then hold it there for the duration of the burst. (And the viewpoint/point of aim should suddenly dip back downward when you stop firing.)
It’s not even that realistic. In real life, you need to apply constant pressure downward to keep a machine gun firing level, but not constant movement.
Yeah, exactly. Pushing downwards slightly with a thumb stick / joystick might be a reasonable approximation. But, the whole thing you’re trying to do is to prevent any movement.
But, I like your idea for the shifting aim point. If they ever try to do one for a mouse again, that would make more sense.
You could do the same with a mouse by making it so if you hold the trigger down, the mouse now acts like a joy con, based from where the mouse / aimpoint was when you began to hold down the trigger.
IE, instead of mouse movements being absolute, it now acts as a mouse to joycon emulator.
Aimpoint/camera rotation is now accelerating by the amount the mouse is moved away from the ‘began to hold down trigger’ point, as opposed to being 1:1 movement.
With controllers, you could also do the sort of wiimote style, most controllers have spatial awareness via acceleromators these days… but that would reveal to players how weak their arms are, so it wouldn’t be very popular, lol.
But, for some reason, thats completely fine and normal and accepted for VR controllers, VR FPS games.
Hell, there’s the old glasses that people would get for milsims and sometimes flight sims, for games where your weapon/interaction aimpoint, and your viewpoint, are disconnected and can be moved independently.
You are describing what I described, the viewpunch primarily method, where the camera auto returns to nearly the original aimpoint, in a way that treats every shot after the first as… different.
What I am saying:
Each shot = view angle gets shifted upward by say 2 degrees (+/- range of 0.75) and then left/right -0.5 to 0.5, something like that.
So, for each shot, you feel the recoil and must adjust manually to return to your original point of aim.
Which is actually very realistic, if you’ve ever shot a gun. Thats… true for timed aimed single shots, not just full auto or bursts.
‘Your’ method, the viewpunch method, is basically this, but, the real recoil is 0 or much smaller for every shot after the first.
Which is kind of odd, from a realism perspective.
Typicially you have a crosshair, your ‘cone of fire’, that expands for each successive shot in rapid progression… that actually expands faster the more shots you fire in a given time frame, and then it usually maxes out at some max innaccuracy level.
But also typically… most games… do… what you are ‘suggesting’. That’s… the whole thing I am saying is basically ‘easy mode’.
It makes sense for joycon users, they already need auto-aim to come anywhere near close to being able compete on par with MK users.
The fairly small number of FPS games that went cross platform and either did not have auto aim or allowed servers to turn it off showed this very quickly, you can see in RDR2 or GTAV online for more recent examples of this (assuming you can find and instance that isn’t plauged with hackers…)
If you think that needing to physically account for each full auto, or rapidly repeated single/semi-auto shot… does not require actice physical effort for each shot… I don’t think you’ve ever aimed and a shot a weapon accurately in rapid succession.
I’m one of the seemingly very small amount of people who has both shot real world firearms, and designed entire game systems that simulate firearms.
There’s a fairly good chance half the advanced SWEP systems you may have ever encountered in Garry’s Mod are… ultimately derivatives of my code, that I wrote almost 20 years ago now.
Scroll down?
With a mouse wheel?
No.
I mean… pull down, like, move the mouse back, toward you, down.
I personally don’t find it annoying at all, I find the near total lack of it very annoying.
Without it, being able to control recoil is no longer an actual skill that differentiates players.
I do see how this doesn’t jive well with more casual shooters, and … you can probably tell I prefer more complex and challenging gameplay, more detailed realism that serves a purpose.
But yes, modelling the gun as an element of the 3D space you are in does apply to literally any firearm.
Its why, IRL, there are different kinds of stances and aiming styles, especially so for pistols.
Yeah, most games don’t model this at all, some have a system where if you get close to a wall, your gun will change anims into some kind of state to indicate you’re too close, push it up against you or overhead or something.
Pro: you’re firing 50-100 rounds per second.
Con: you’re firing 50-100 rounds per second.
Microdosing howitzer shells.
“Realism” and “Man portable minigun without support battery and backpack”
To make the gun light enough for your character to handle it the barrels are made of aluminium foil.
For real. Complaining about the realism of a trope sparked by a T-800 ripping the minigun off of a helicopter due to superhuman strength is more than a little silly.
Ohp. Actually, it looks like Castle Wolfenstein did it first. Still, silly.
Look man I don’t care that you’ve got an AK that looks like a black colored pencil. My gun is gold plated so if it shoots you in the arm you die instantly
Goldeneye was fun.
There isn’t a video game minigun in existence that will bankrupt you in seconds either, you just gotta suspend your disbelief and enjoy the fantasy
Except for maybe bloodborne. The most fantastical minigun but you become bankrupt in multiple lifetimes attempting to acquire it
Hmm, I wondered so I looked up some prices. Retail ammo costs for 7.62x51mm (used in the M134 minigun) costs about $1 USD per round. In the movie Predator, the gun fired at 20 rounds per second. So, that’s $20/s or $1200 per minute. But, as soon as you start looting enemy bodies, you’re not the one paying that cost.
Oh, prices are going down. Can it really just use any 7.62x51?
In bulk maybe. But my .308 rounds are generally ~$30 for 20 depending on certain factors.
That’s crazy cheap since the last time I bought bullets. Maybe I need to jump on this.
No idea. It would make sense though. It would be strange to use a standard NATO round specification but require special versions of that round. There’s nothing about how it works that suggests it should need special bullets. The rotating barrel and firing mechanism are different, but otherwise it’s just a machine gun.
?? You’re not paying that cost either way lol
Plenty of games have ammo costs in some way. But a lot I can think of miniguns are one of the smaller weapons.
From the Depths, a minigun is often a secondary weapon. Missiles cost a fair bit more.
Are any of them so astoundingly expensive? Now that you mention it I do remember going into debt from bullet costs in armored core 4
From the Depths can be, it costs materials so you need to take it into consideration when building. If you design it well it should be fine but designed poorly you can easily run out of materials for supplying your guns with ammo. Or even run out of fuel.
Also got games like escape from duckov where you need to buy/make/loot every single shot.
Oh yeah, in a CUTSCENE 😜
You will receive the bill eventually. But it also operates on Valve Time, so it might be a while.
Game: tat. Tat. Tat. Tat tat tat tat tat tat tat
Real life: brrrrrrrrt
In their defense, gun barrels getting red hot from use is cool as fuck.
This is a real thing. Even LMGs generally have multiple barrels that you have to change out during sustained fire.
It would happen too, just not after a handful of seconds.
Miniguns use multiple barrels so that the barrels don’t overheat. But then they increase the fire rate significantly. In Vietnam, a common machine gun mounted in the door of a helicopter was the M60 which has one barrel and fires at about 600 rounds per minute. Door mounted miniguns like the M134 have 6 barrels but fire at up to 6000 rounds per minute. So, the barrels would actually overheat even faster than an M60s would at the full rate of fire despite having multiple barrels. Of course, you couldn’t actually shoot at 6000 rounds per minute while carrying one of those on foot, the recoil would not be possible to manage.
