I know people have mentioned this in various threads, but I decided to make one thread about it. I'm no expert, and I'm no professional. Just a "decent" player that loves CS. I tend to find myself pretty good at testing things like this, and I had been noticing some weird things in CSP in regard to recoil patterns, so I decided to give it a test. Before my graphics card decided to start hating running CSP and 1.6 at the same time, these are my results. (And for the record, it's a brand new computer, with a Radeon 5770, but without two GFX, it didn't enjoy the experience!)
For some reason I've seen a lot of people say how bad the recoil is on it. I wasn't able to replicate the problems people have mentioned. I tested four things from a fixed position on dust2. Full spray (with no mouse movement), spray while controlling recoil, burst fire (2-3 shots), and single tapping fire. All from about a medium range.
The patterns were virtually indistinguishable. In a full spray, the CSP AK is a little bit more erratic. In 1.6, there is a clear "line" that is made when the spray goes up, right, left, and then kind of repeats back and forth. It makes almost a perfect line, whereas in CSP, the "line" is somewhat more random. However a spray like this is something that is very rarely going to be relevant. As anybody that's played CS for more than a month is going to be pulling down even a little bit.
In the controlled spray, the patterns were fairly similar, CSPs were once again more erratic, but still pretty solid.
Burst fire and single tap were both as one would expect. For these I slightly increased the range of my little experiment (because at a medium range that kind of fire isn't going to be noticeable anyway), but both of them were accurate and on target.
On the contrary of the AK, people seem to say how nicely this has been replicated. I used the same tests as I did for the AK, with the exception that I bursted 3-4, instead of 2-3.
The first discrepancy I came across was the full spray. In 1.6, the spray pattern of the M4 is actually fairly close to that of the AK. Up, right, left. The M4 tends to stay left, while the AK kind of goes back and forth. In CSP full spray, it seems as though it goes up and to the right, but then stays there, rather than moving to the left as it does in 1.6. But again, how often will a full uncontrolled spray come into play.
In a controlled spray, however, it was a lot better. As in 1.6, the spray of the M4 is a lot easier to control accurately than the AK. And both CSP and 1.6 had similar results. I was able to keep it in the general area of where I wanted it, but it is a different pattern (therefore obviously requiring a different mouse movement. Just takes some getting used to.)
Once again the burst and single tap were, of course, normal. The burst of the Colt seemed to jump a bit higher than it does in 1.6, but still not noticeable enough for it to really effect anything.
While playing CSP more and more, I've started to notice how inaccurate the Deagle has been. One of the selling points of the Deagle has always been it's, what can be referred to as, "first shot quickness". The ability to get off that one accurate shot for a one bull before someone with any other gun is going to be able to respond. With the Deagle I tested two things. Single tap fire while letting the recoil completely settle, and "spam" fire.
I should start off by saying the end result of both weapons was a tight grouping, the size of which is the same in both games. The Deagle spam in 1.6 and CSP was the same.
However the problem comes from the tap shots, and that "first shot quickness." With single fire, in 1.6 all 7 shots of a clip will go almost directly to the middle of the crosshairs, as one would expect. (Up and to the right a little bit of course), but definitely close enough.
In CSP, however, lies the problem. It seems as though single tap fire results in a pattern just like if you were spamming it. No matter how slow you fire, there is no guarantee the Deagle shots will go where you are intending. It's as if it's an unscoped AWP, they go into a tight nit group, but not the clean angle that we've come to love and respect of the Deagles awesome power.
Before I wrap up my novel. I want to mention two other things.
1: The AWP. As I played CSP, I felt as though the AWPs scope delay was extremely long. But in a quick comparison with 1.6, it doesn't really seem to be. (The way I tested it was simple, if not a bit amateur, I switched to a Deagle, held down the right mouse button, and then quick switched to the AWP while still holding down RMB, and measured how long before it scoped.) The difference was not noticeable. I think the problem, at least for me, comes from using the Quake weapon switching. Without the animations, it gives you that optical illusion of the gun being ready to fire before it actually is.
It still feels like it's a longer time to scope to me, but I wasn't able to actually PROVE it being longer. It felt the same, and rough "counts" were fairly close.
And 2: The size of grenades. As in that other thread that "debunked" the grenade size (based on when they are visible in front of your screen), I think I would tend to agree. The nades still feel "heavy" to throw (not going far enough or at the right angle), but the size is pretty accurate, I think. Other than the angle at which they are thrown in front of your face, their size on the ground is actually different. In 1.6, all three models are rather short and stubby, whereas in CSP they are a bit longer and thinner. But because of how briefly we're going to see any of the three grenades that have landed on the ground, the most noticable aspect is going to be it's LENGTH, rather than it's width. And because the length is longer, it appears as though the whole thing is bigger.
Like I said, I'm no expert. I'm no professional. But I do love this game, I've played quite actively for some 5 years now, and those were the results of my testing.
You may now proceed with the berating of my posting a repetitive thread, a useless thread, or whatever else it is you internet trolls so desire.