I've just finished my mech eng diploma and to keep up solidworks and drawing practice thought I'd dust off my silly "Bullpuppest Bullpup" idea. It's not really for ever actually making, but just exploring weird ideas based on some workshop experience and watching a lot of Forgotten Weapons and other gun disassembly. It's loosely based on the TBK-022PM, the F-2000, and some of those weapons that turn the bullet from the magazine to chambering. Awful complicated mechanics all around.

Anyway, I was going to make it in 5.56x45 NATO as I'm in a NATO country and assumed that would be the easiest ammunition to get (as well as pre-cut M16 or AR-15 barrels or whatever, and I didn't want to fiddle with ballistics really). However, I've had a heck of a time finding the technical drawings for the round (STANAG 4178)/chamber/magazine well dimensions to design around. (Yes, apparently it's not actually an accepted standard, but it would be nice to have something to work around)

I've also noticed that a lot of the supplied technical drawings are very old scans of very old drawings, with almost unreadable dimensions (and are often incomplete). Every AK-47M drawing that I seem to find, something that I feel must have an abundance of drawings, seems to be a tiny grainy picture maybe with cursive Cyrillic written all over it or something. M16A1 etc seems to also. Also, a lot of drawings have one or two dimensions missing that would be trivial to measure and include in a 3D model.

So I thought it would be a good practice project for me to take some of these old drawings and after much examination, interpretation, and discussion (and potentially measuring actual objects), reproduce the drawings in a very clear and readable format. The actual making of 3D models (especially if they are traditionally machined parts) does not take very long once dimensioned, and I can upload them here or where-ever. Solidworks is actually pretty intrusive with what details about your computer it includes in drawings/parts, so probably PDFs until I can work out how to scrub everything with the Admin tool SW has (if possible, hexeditors maybe).

I'm also pretty open to just changing the ammunition/magazine standard etc. to whatever, even a made up one. Can't do any physical testing, but would work fine for a "fantasy" gun for like... idk, an imaginary modern soviet Industrial Concern. The US Army seems to want its funny high powered 277 Fury with the stainless case base (is that really the best way of doing things).

It's also fine to roleplay as an engineer or end user with complaints and stuff around the design, but don't get too heated about it. This is mostly just a project to whet teeth on and get brain juices flowing.

What do I want from gun nerds? Interpretation of technical drawings Measurements for real parts (e.g. I could not find the STANAG magazine feed lip dimensions or how far the catch is from the lips etc, some parts could be reverse engineered based on the size of the round). Access to lots of parts is impractical, so we'd basically guess and decide what the tolerances were based on other parts. Design suggestions/comments (mostly for fun, this is a very silly design)

What does everyone get? Up to date, modern technical drawings with cut lists, welds, BOM, 3D modelled parts, tolerances (where possible) without having to squint at tiny pictures of scans and cursive cyrillic. I'm happy to do extra models/drawings for whatever "base gun" we're building off; models/drawings are pretty easy once details are finalised.

Current Decisions: Ammo/magazine standard. Probably based on ease of getting drawings, dimensioning, or models, but if there's an interesting set of old drawings we can use that as a standard we can go with that. Can hypothetically invent dimensions (and primers are standardised and interference fit, so that part is already "designed").

Odd features I'm including because I'm a weirdo (the absurd design is partly the point):

• Pulls ammunition from traditional AR sickle mag that runs almost parallel to the main length, turns the bullet 90°-ish, and shoves it into the chamber, thus maybe reducing the distance between the rear of the gun and the chamber.
• Funny membrane that pushes air out of the barrel when cycling
• Different funny membrane that has a filter (for dust) that allows air in but not out, and no water in
• Forward ejector for spent rounds (but like... yet another way of doing it)
• Different bullpup trigger/action

By the end, I hope to have something of an absurd rube goldberg machine wrapped up in a modern (or whatever aesthetic) shell. But that might be a couple of years down the line.

Notes:

• Could crib measurements from video game models for some looser fits maybe.
• I'm not above stealing other people's ideas, patented or not. But this is partly practice for me.

It does often seem to be correlated to reactionary conspiracy sentiments. There is the "non-white people could not have possibly stacked rocks this big!" thing

I guess also flat earth?

My partner has a big butt and has asked to see it. I cannot find it. Several others have asked to see it also.

It is manga, full of text, and the main character gets more unhinged and full of energy as the comic goes on.

Random notes: boobs are hereditary or bought

Butts are the product of labour.

!

Was around a guy who literally never said anything that wasn't making fun of someone, complaining about someone, or direct work stuff (we were pulling up star pickets). Just kinda toxic to be around. He seemed to enjoy himself though.

Inasmuch as I disagree with XR, I disagree with this meme more.

!

So, a while ago I was in a community theater and we put on plays that would break even largely. Our biggest costs were theater rent, followed by specialist hires (a worker with safety training that did our ropes and high powered electrical stuff). We charged pretty cheap tickets in the context of theater, which given the majority of our actors, costuming and props labour etc. was volunteer.

It got me thinking about games. I realise there is an intense dislike of DLC, particularly AAA companies doing day 1 DLC, but even longer term DLC that could not have been made on the budget of the original game and released like a year later or whatever.

The idea was having a platform for, say, RPG systems that's well coded, slick, bla bla bla, and comes with a few base stories, but after that the majority of development after that is done by something similar to the theater group but indie artists, writers etc. and you buy into a long form RPG (or, idk, subscribe on patreon or whatever). Every month (or whatever), some sub-team releases a new part of their adventure or a new system with a new adventure, and you can keep playing with what characters you had before (if that's what's happening).

Things like the Adventurer's Guild (or whatever the D&D one is, where you register and play each adventure bit once alongside thousands of other players) are a thing, this would wind up be something similar but system agnostic and more tech oriented.

IRL, every time a community theater wants to do a show, they don't rebuild the theater and stuff. It's not "wholly original".

I'd also want the writers/artists to be more connected to their community, hypothetically.

The system would have to have very non-coder friendly tools for writers to pull together systems and make maps and stuff. Dialogue trees may be a bridge too far.

Just got this email from one of the event ticketing place some of my friends use

(Um, I don't know why your post triggered me into writing this pitch for a wishlist game. Maybe the minecraft with guns bit? idk, I got excited) (repost, as this is enough crap for its on top level post)

I have this pitch for a builder game where you're a military procurement/engineering firm. The LoD would be about what Stormworks has (25cm blocks, or maybe 20 or 10 cm), you spend time fiddling around with air fuel ratios and RADAR etc. You'd be able to fiddle with various war nerd numbers on vehicles you create, but there wouldn't be much for you to do with the vehicles directly. Instead, you teach bots how to use the vehicle (some sort of waypointing system, some vehicle tests like turning, acceleration etc etc). After that, your vehicle and usage data is compiled and a little war goes on in the background. Hypothetically, this war would be happening on another screen or you could refer to it. Because the vehicle is compiled into this RTS mode and not run as a physics simulation (or at least, would be run as a very cut down simulation), that section would be quite light. Possibly multiple layers to examine (strategic, operational, tactical). Your vehicles would have logistical strain (e.g. fuel, maintenance/wear, damage from fire etc). You'd probably want to define a few other variables on how its used (e.g. This is a TANK, GENERAL PURPOSE, SWARM or something). I don't think it would be possible for an AI to account for all ways people would design vehicles and use-cases, but the basic classes are pretty standard nowadays, and people could request things that feel plausible to the dev.

A few reasons for doing it this way:

• Having it so that the vehicle is tested by itself on multiple predictable scenarios means the physics simulation (e.g. denting, beams bending etc) can be more detailed, and allows for more complicated vehicles.
• Once its "compiled" so that the bots can use it, it will run quite light (this is sort of explored in From The Depths, but not to its fullest extent). This couldn't take into account everything possible, but hopefully the bots would use things intelligently (e.g. using cover, grouping tanks, screening etc)

You'd watch combat and take notes on what works well and what does, and work on new designs as the war gets under way. Your new designs that you produce and test would percolate through the logistics system and slowly start appearing on the front.

There'd also be a little thing where you could define your squads that the AI uses in the war (e.g. 12 dudes, 1 command, 2 fireteams, each fireteam has a LAW and 5 assault rifles, command has 1 commander and 2 machine guns etc), with some reference to real world stuff. This would obviously be important for transport vehicles and logistics.

There'd be a mode where you'd have to do it "in real time" (i.e. no pausing for designing), a more freeform creative mode where you can design and save freely without worrying about wars and launch battles with your vehicle instantly, and a thing where you could compile all of your designs into a faction. Presumably, the game would ship with a few real world referenced factions, people could mod in their own ones. And people could also mod in maps that the AI will fight wars on, and opponent factions (of varying degrees of fairness). Tutorial mode, build a truck that carries a squad. It's an electric truck so you don't have to program a gearbox.

It's probably a bit beyond me as a coder (maybe, idk, the primary time I was trying to learn coding was when I had pretty severe depression), but maybe as a fresh godot project if applicable? I think it would absolutely kill amongst a certain sort of war nerd.

Um, comments, I guess. Obviously extremely ambitious on my end, it will probably be another half-started project in my collection :(

!

One of the first cards is planting corn. !corn-man-khrush

Thought Cuban (or maybe vietnamese) gun ownership was a lot higher than it was by "guns per capita". Vaguely remember somewhere here that it's quite high but locked up in community armouries in case of invasion rather than individually held on to.

idek if 7zip is better than winrar anymore assuming both are being updated constantly, but like... My memory is that pretty much every tech oriented person on windows uses 7zip.

Apparently she was given it by a "rationalist", possibly as a flirting strategy (those sorts hit on her regularly).

I kinda want to do a dunk review

Not going to harass her for it, but she's absolutely esconsed in liberal foreign policy

They don't seem very radical.

News thread IFV project, made in stormworks. Not wholly functional, but enough so that it's going to look the same regardless.

Role: Transport, Medevac, amphibious, anti-air, anti-drone, fire support

Features/design choices:

• Fast on both land and calm waters. This vehicle is more on the "truck" end of IFV rather than "tank". The vehicle spends most of its time ferrying troops around. Can stop small-arms, light munitions, and shrapnel, with armour focused on the crew/passenger compartment.
• Twin 40-mm autocannons, loaded with fragmentation rounds. Can be loaded with AP rounds, but is primarily there for knocking missiles, planes, and drones out. Obviously infantry are going to be threatened by two autocannons as well.
• Side doors. This means that troops can dismount if the vehicle is moving in a column and parks end-to-end. The doors open up, giving cover to evacuating troops. There is a small window for troops to look out of before trying to disembark. This can be a safety issue if hydraulics fail.
• 8 Wheel design is substantially cheaper, faster on roads, and is mildly bouyant. This does mean that the vehicle's cross-country performance suffers, especially in thick mud and other extreme adverse conditions. As a general purpose vehicle to improve infantry's mobility in most conditions, the 8 wheel design was chosen over tracks. It also allows the bulge in the middle, increasing transport capacity.
• 2-frequency RADAR tracking. The vehicle can track aerial targets, and the turret can lock on to a specific target. The gunner can then trim the RADAR output to lead appropriately. I'd code something here, but I'm lazy.
• Turret actually poorly armoured. This helps with balance in water. The primary purpose of this vehicle is to transport them. All the ammunition for the turret is separated by armour, meaning that if the ammo cooks off the passengers and crew are safe. Locating the bulk of the ammo in the turret means there is enough additional space to include light medical facilities.
• Exhaust is dumped behind the rear wheels, which spreads out the exhaust and makes it harder to lock on to with heat-seeker weapons.

Tac notes:

• This is designed to be used as part of a general mechanisation program, not specifically for specialist troops. The idea is to have so many light-air defence systems in a battle space that opposing aircraft, drones, and cruise/tactical missiles will be unable to operate.
• In a pinch, the twin 40s can rip up urban fortifications. However, this is not their primary role. Certainly they shouldn't be used as a preliminary bombardment tool, rather one used for emergencies or particularly good targets.
• Remember that side doors need about an extra meter of clearance to open, so tight streets should be avoided especially for dismounting.
• This vehicle wound up being fairly short. While this makes the vehicle harder to detect, the presence of drones makes this less important. However, lower height makes the vehicle more stable in hilly terrain or in the water. It also means cover against direct-fire weapons (esp. HEAT missiles, which can be tripped by brick walls etc) is easier to find.
• Doctrinally, this is a truck with armour, amphibious capability, and firepower. However, it is likely to be able to defeat most other transport vehicles other than heavy IFVs. A single one of these is capable of extremely disrupting supply lines.

Room for future features:

• Drone launching platforms can be mounted on the front-side slanted armour, with opening hatches like the rear ammunition storage bins.
• There is enough space in the vehicle for a small command centre.
• Missiles could be mounted on the turret pretty easily. Small AA missiles or ATGMs.
• Multiple outlets for exhaust could be used for different situations. For instance, an exhaust outlet underneath the hull to reduce detection chances, and an exhaust above the hull for amphibious operations.
• More electronic warfare options.

Things I had to work around because the game only has 25 cm blocks

• The turret would be a lot flatter IRL. The combination of having to have 25 cm blocks for armour and 25 cm blocks for mechanics means the whole thing is a lot taller. The same goes for all the camera systems.
• I'd probably fit more med-beds in the crew compartment. While they're not in use, troops can dump bags and stuff on them (and just have more leg room).
• With a lot of the space savings from having a maximum of 50 mm RHA instead of 250 mm, I'd probably include a commanders section.

Thoughts:

• So, one of the reasons the Bradley IFV is so big while only transporting 4-ish soldiers is that their turret basket extends the whole height of the vehicle, creating a big space in the middle which I assume is for ammunition storage or a gunner. Obviously, if it's moving around, passengers can't sit there.
• Yes, it looks sort of like a stryker or BTR. How many different shapes could an IFV/APC possibly have?
• The Germans claim the Puma (I think) can stop 125 mm rounds from the front, which sounds optimistic. I didn't bother with that capability.

Anyway, this was a fun exercise.

Some random thoughts, because my brain is like that.

• Someone please suggest a name.
• This wargame is designed to sorta simulate what we're seeing in Ukraine atm, and what a future war might look like. A single game of GAME_NAME represents a few weeks and should take most of a day. While there are some experiments wrt game systems, it's also supposed to represent something.
• The system is hex-based. One of my friends got an enormous printer from a warehouse sale so we want to use that for stuff. Using hexes also gets rid of a lot of time wasted on minor adjustments in range and inter-player arguments, while not having the weirdness associated with squares. Also you can do scatter with d6s.
• Each day there are two day turns and one night turn. During night turns, firepower and detection ranges are reduced.
• I'm using count-up systems for a few things. This is one of those game design experiments. Think, like, Super Smash Brothers damage system. The simplest one is probably Fatigue. Units have levels of fatigue, which they can gain to do special actions (e.g. ignore suppression). All attacks roll against Fatigue. e.g. An infantry platoon has 5 Strength and 1 Firepower, let's say has 4 Fatigue. That means it rolls 5 d6, and each 4 or more counts as a success (6s count as 2 successes). As the unit does things and takes casualties, it gets worse and worse. Fatigue can be alleviated by supply units.
• I'm trying to track as many things on the miniature as possible. Attrition, Fatigue, and EM emissions are pips placed around the edge of the base. In the centre is the unit type (infantry, artillery, tank). This is a hypothetical assuming I can be bothered cracking out the pin vice and 3D printer.
• If you align with "The West", certain high profile victories can net you "Advanced Support", a supply of higher tech weapons and equipment. This isn't solely the purview of The West, but they have more points of it. Advanced weapons have high damage output, but have low endurance and high EM emissions.
• If you align with more heavy industrial nations, you get more legacy vehicles and artillery. Anything with an engine, heavy cannons etc. Once again, not entirely the purview of heavy industrial nations, The West has them too. These have decent damage output and endurance.
• Grabbing towns with aligned importance (I guess the example is playing Russia and taking a Russian aligned city) gets you more manpower. Manpower is low damage, but cheap and has very high endurance. Use this for controlling large portions of the battlefield.
• How alignment works I haven't really figured out. Maybe something with cards and a hand.
• Aircraft aren't really represented on the board, they're just support powers you bring in. AA creates bubbles of either denial or forces the enemy to sacrifice their air support card after use. idk. Helicopters allow you to plonk down troops a distance from the enemy.
• EM emissions (RADAR, drone control/video feed, smart-weapons etc) gain you EM pips, which can be used by opponents to activate other abilities. The most basic common interaction is an infantry platoon uses drones to scout out a nearby forest. They reveal some enemies, but also gain some EM pips. An enemy uses an EM kit to reveal the first unit with a bonus to detection range depending on the EM pips gained. Those same EM pips can be used to launch a medium tactical strike with a bonus number of dice equal to those EM pips. The OG unit loses its EM pips at the start of its next activation.
• The vast majority of a unit's variation in toughness comes from terrain around it. Toughness is directly the number of successes an enemy needs to get to cause a point of attrition. Cover, distance, and smoke add to toughness.
• Using my wonky initiative system. Units close to enemies go first. Works well enough and promotes aggression. Given how entrenching, cover, and retreating work, this is good. Don't want two armies just sitting there.
• Haven't really thought much about deployment systems. Trying to get basic unit interactions out of the way first.
• Roads make go fast. Forests and marshes make go slow.
• There is a basic unit detection system. At the start of the game, all units are hidden. Both players can see the Fatigue and EM emissions of hidden units because it would be too annoying to manage that separate to the model. Hidden units can't be attacked, and can be spotted by getting close to an opponent, or certain drones or army support abilities. Units can't re-hide. Also, using weapons reveals you.