I’ve tried updating to the newest bios… all settings in the BIOS are set: Discrete Graphics Legion Opt = enabled Under volt = disabled GPU Over = Enabled Perf mode set = Extreme Sys peak power = unlock

The current-generation model will live on, however
​
https://preview.redd.it/r9peu89t8r0b1.png?width=1062&format=png&auto=webp&s=fcaf6d8387bf089452f5963a171f430188d525d8
Porsche is planning an electric successor to the Cayenne, according to a recent report. The battery-powered SUV will allegedly be sold alongside an updated version of the current-generation model, and it will share many of its underpinnings with the upcoming Macan EV.
​
Without citing sources, British magazine Autocar wrote that the electric Cayenne will go on sale in 2026. It will ride on a version of the modular Premium Platform Electric (PPE) architecture that's being co-developed by sister companies Audi and Porsche. The publication adds that, like the Macan EV, the Cayenne EV will feature torque-vectoring technology, a four-wheel steering system and an 800-volt electrical architecture. Interestingly, the battery pack will reportedly be capable of essentially splitting itself in two for faster charging.
​
It's too early to provide powertrain details, but it's reasonable to assume that the Cayenne EV's specifications will be at least on par with the Macan EV's. For context, the electric Macan tentatively due out in 2024 will offer dual-motor all-wheel-drive, a 100-kilowatt-hour lithium-ion battery pack and an output pegged at approximately 603 horsepower and 738 pound-feet of torque for the range-topping variant. Porsche could take advantage of the Cayenne's longer wheelbase to fit a bigger battery pack and unlock more driving range, however.
​
The report adds that the current, third-generation Cayenne (pictured) will stick around for at least a few more years. It made its debut in 2017 so it will receive a comprehensive round of updates inside and out in order to remain relatively fresh. It's Porsche's best-selling model globally and it competes in a hotly-contested segment of the market so the German company can't afford to let it wither on the vine.
​
Porsche hasn't commented on the report, and it hasn't announced what's next for the Cayenne.
​
Source: Autoblog

TL;DR in comments due to popular demand.
A while back, I was investigating how the swap speeds of weapons compared to one another for a video I wanted to make. Along the way, I noticed something extremely interesting: the weapon with the lowest “draw time” in the game is not the P2020 like you may expect, but rather the R99. This is true even without a stock.
I thought this had to be a bug, so I decided to investigate more thoroughly. I quickly noticed several more examples of strange behavior:

• It is much faster to swap from a P2020 to an R301 (~0.47 seconds) than it is to swap from an R301 to a P2020 (~0.74 seconds)
• The Rampage draws faster than the Volt.
• The Flatline draws in roughly half the time of the Nemesis.

Here is a short video which demonstrates that all of the above is accurate:
The Foundational Flaw of Apex Legends - YouTube
It is also an extreme TL;DR. I would recommend reading the post instead for better context.
I eventually realized that these behaviors were just the tip of the iceberg.
The more I dug into it the more problems I found. I ended up digging deep into the code of Apex/Titanfall as well as the history of Respawn and the Source engine to find answers to the questions that kept popping up. Ultimately, all the evidence pointed to one conclusion.
I believe that the behaviors I have noticed are not the result of a bug. They are instead symptoms of a much deeper issue which I believe to be an oversight in the weapon design process. It has existed ever since release and affects every single weapon in the game.
It appears that as a direct result of this oversight, most weapons in Apex “draw” 30-50% faster than originally intended. And, somehow, no one ever noticed.
To give myself at least some credibility, I recently graduated with a degree in Computer Science. I’m also Masters in Apex (not this season, the second easiest one). The details here got more and more interesting as I went along, and I couldn’t believe no one had noticed it before, so it turned into a bit of a passion project. If this project actually results in changes to the game, it may even be worth putting on my resume.
This is a very long post. Half of the post is sections V and VI, but you can get the gist of it if you skip those.
Without further ado, there’s a lot to get through. The core of the problem here is something called “deploy_time”.

I. Misunderstanding Deploy Time

There are two values in the code which dictate how long it takes to swap between two weapons: “holster_time” and “deploy_time”.
The meaning of these values seems obvious. Holster time is the amount of time it takes to put away a weapon, and deploy time is the amount of time it takes to pull out (and fire) a weapon.
From my research online, this understanding of these values is virtually unanimous amongst the playerbase. I was able to find zero exceptions online, not even in Discord servers dedicated to modding.
This interpretation appears to be supported by a graph I made showcasing the distribution of deploy times for every weapon in the game. These values are taken directly from the game files, and are color coded by weapon type.
​
Deploy Time Graph
I’m not a game dev, but if I were laying out the draw times for weapons in an FPS game, this is exactly how I would do it. Deploy times are standardized within each weapon class, with exceptions for the unique characteristics of certain weapons. Additionally, there is a logical progression of deploy times from one weapon class to another, in-line with what you would intuitively expect in an FPS game.

II. Deploy Time vs Draw Time

As you may have guessed from the wording, deploy time doesn’t work how you probably think it does. To explain this more clearly, I’ll be using the term “draw time” a lot to distinguish from “deploy time”. “Draw time” is the length of time after a weapon is deployed at which point it can fire or ADS. (A weapon is deployed when the swapped-from weapon is finished holstering.) Deploy time is something else, which I will explain soon. As far as weapon balance is concerned, draw time is the only thing that matters.
Surprisingly, draw time is impossible to determine from the weapon settings files alone (the .txt ones). To find it, I used the timer setup as seen in the original examples and found the differences in timestamps at a few critical points:

1. Start of the swap. On the first frame of the swap, there is a mismatch between your selected weapon and its associated picture on the UI (bottom right)
2. The crosshair changes from the holstered weapon’s crosshair to the deployed weapon’s crosshair.
3. The ammo count changing represents the first shot being fired.

So, by subtracting timestamp (2) from timestamp (1), I was quickly able to discover that holster time works exactly how you think it does for every weapon. By comparing my found values to these known ones and many others, I am confident my methodology is accurate within ~0.01 seconds (original recordings are 144 FPS).
Now, I was able to find draw time by subtracting timestamp (3) from timestamp (2). For these, I did three trials for each weapon to minimize the odds that I made a mistake. I should note that the times for semi-auto weapons are near perfectly consistent. There’s a window where if you click your shot is “queued” and will fire as soon as it can. This window is not hard to hit. For full-auto weapons, I just held M1. I went until I got the same result three times in a row (plus or minus 0.01) as well.
When I first compiled this data, I began to realize the scale of what I had stumbled upon.
​
Graph of draw times, sorted by draw time
Deploy time vs draw time, sorted by deploy time. The colored portion represents draw time, the whole bar represents deploy time.
While the distribution of deploy times is logical and consistent, the distribution of draw times most certainly is not. There is substantial variance in draw times within weapon classes, and these differences are frequently large enough to lead to overlap between weapons.
As I said, I’m not a game dev, but I could not imagine a world where these draw times were working as intended. At this point I knew that I was onto something substantial, but still hadn’t quite found the explanation I was looking for. However, using this data and some relevant comments in the code, I was able to reverse engineer exactly how deploy time relates to draw time.

III. Understanding Deploy Time

The key to understanding deploy time came from comments discussing some AE_WEAPON_READYTOFIRE variable.
The “AE” stands for “Animation Event”. This feature of the Source engine allows animations to send a signal to another part of the code when a certain frame of an animation plays.
For example: when you’re reloading, you smack the magazine into the rifle, and that plays a sound. This is handled by an animation event on that frame of the animation which tells the game to play the sound file of the magazine hitting the rifle.
So, when you pull out (deploy) your weapon, there is an associated deploy animation with it. In many games (such as Valorant/CSGO), this associated animation must play in its entirety before the weapon can be fired. It’s a minor detail, but it does look a little bit robotic and “video gamey” if you pay attention.
Respawn decided that wasn’t good enough, and used Source’s animation event system to allow weapons to begin firing before their deploy animation has finished. This was implemented by adding AE_WEAPON_READYTOFIRE to a certain frame of every weapon’s deploy animation. When this event is triggered, the weapon is “ready to fire”.
To summarize, swapping weapons in Apex behaves as follows:
If you’re swapping from weapon A to weapon B, you first wait for the holster time of weapon A to finish, at which point the crosshair changes. From there, weapon B begins deploying. Deploy_time does not refer to the time it takes for your weapon to start shooting, but rather the time it takes for the draw animation of that weapon to play in its entirety. The point at which the weapon starts shooting is determined by a READY_TO_FIRE animation event, in the form of a specific frame of the animation at which point the weapon becomes fully functional.
For example: if a weapon has a deploy animation with 100 frames, a deploy time of 0.5, and the RtF AE is placed on the 50th frame, that weapon’s “draw time” is (50/100)*0.5 = 0.25.

IV. The Bigger Picture

At this point, I understood how swapping weapons worked in Apex, but it ended up raising more questions than it answered. I had anticipated finding some bug which was leading to weapons firing too early, only to discover that the system appeared to be working exactly as intended.
An explanation that immediately stood out to me was that the weapon designers had made the exact same mistake that every player I was able to find had made, and assumed that “deploy time” and “draw time” were the same thing. The contrast between the uniform deploy times and the chaotic draw times appeared to support this notion. It seemed odd that weapon designers would prioritize standardizing animation length, which has zero gameplay impact, over draw time, which does affect weapon balance.
Put another way: the root of the issue appeared to be that the interaction between deploy time and RtF AE’s had at no point been considered during the development of Apex Legends.
I found this extremely difficult to believe. I initially thought it might be some niche detail from the Titanfall days that had been forgotten even by Respawn, but the only reason I was able to figure out how deploy time worked was because of comments in the code from people that were clearly aware of it.
However, I later realized that the comments I had been reading were exclusively located in the .txt files for abilities, NOT weapons. Additionally, they were all in reference to “raise_time” and NOT deploy time. Either one of these could potentially explain why there is a blind spot on specifically weapons/deploy time. I might have been able to figure out why this blind spot exists, but I’ll talk about that later.
The next major pieces of evidence which caused me to take this possibility seriously were the extremely long draw times on the Volt and the Nemesis. It appears that both of these weapons are mistakenly missing RtF AE’s entirely. The Volt is the ONLY weapon in the game for which deploy time is equivalent to draw time. It seems that in the absence of this AE, weapons default to firing at the end of their deploy animation instead.
The 0.03 second discrepancy between draw time and deploy time for the Nemesis is slightly more confusing. I believe it is somehow related to the burst fire of the weapon (burst/single fire slightly affects draw time on the Hemlok). It’s hard to say for sure, but it seems extremely unlikely that the RtF AE was intentionally placed 95% of the way through the animation.
Lastly, there is a clear difference in when these weapons fire during their animations compared to other weapons. This can most plainly be seen by comparing the R301 to the Nemesis. The R301, and many other weapons, begin firing long before they approach their final positions. In contrast, the Nemesis doesn’t begin firing before it is firmly settled in its final state. The difference can easily be seen by watching the initial examples in slow motion (or even at full speed)
These examples are the most direct evidence I have that RtF AE’s are not properly considered during the weapon design process. If considering the interaction between RtF AE’s and deploy time were a standard part of the weapon design process, I struggle to imagine how this could happen once, let alone twice.
When I first saw the distribution of the draw times, I thought the full extent of the problem was the inconsistencies in draw times within weapon classes, which would occasionally lead to crossover between weapon classes. I could believe that Respawn could make a minor mistake like this, but after uncovering how deploy time functioned, I realized I could have been missing the bigger picture.
If the weapon designers were in fact operating under the assumption that deploy time and draw time were the same thing, then that would mean that the distribution of deploy times is the intended distribution of draw times for Apex. If that were in fact the case, then this graph showing the placement of RtF AE's would represent how much faster weapons drew than intended:
​
Approx RtF AE placement. Just deploy time divided by draw time.
It was this graph that was the basis for my original assertion: that the weapons of Apex draw 30-50% faster than originally intended (with some outliers).
Now that is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I thought I had to be missing something here, so I dug a little deeper.

V. Titanfall is in our DNA

As Respawn likes to say, Titanfall is in their DNA. This idea is true of the code as well. Almost all of Apex’s core gameplay is basically copied and pasted from Titanfall, with the BR elements built on top. As such, I was curious how weapon swap mechanics were implemented in Titanfall 2, and how the weapons which are present in both games compared.
I quickly realized that the deploy times and RtF AE’s were still present. Here are graphs of the deploy times, draw times, and RtF placements for several Titanfall 2 weapons:
​
Deploy
​
Draw
I don't have all the weapons unlocked, so the data is a little limited.
Although there is conflicting evidence (CAHemlok don’t make much sense), it is entirely possible that some decisions were made with respect to RtF AE’s while others were not. Regardless, there are several design decisions which seem to imply an awareness of RtF AE’s.
First off, the Volt’s deploy time. Its RtF AE in TF2 is abnormally late, occurring 80% of the way through the animation. However, the Volt has a deploy time on-par with the pistols which compensates for this factor. The alignment of the Volt’s draw time with several other weapons in the 0.32-0.35 second range, despite varied deploy times, further suggests this was an intentional decision, made with consideration to RtF AE’s.
On a related note, it’s worth pointing out that every single weapon that is present in both TF2 and Apex has the exact same RtF AE placement. The one exception here is the Volt, which further suggests that its absence in Apex is a mistake.
Next, I want to point out how the designers in TF2 circumvented the late RtF AE’s on pistols. Moving the RtF AE or lowering deploy time are options, but doing either of these may sacrifice animation quality. To get around this issue, TF2 has a “quickswap” mechanic. The draw times of pistols are similar to those of SMG’s, but this is compensated for by a “quick_swap_to” attribute on the pistols, which reduces the holster time of the weapon you are swapping from by 75%.
However, this mechanic is not implemented in Apex. Along with a large reduction in deploy times for SMG’s in the transition between TF2 in Apex, and an insufficient reduction in the deploy times of pistols to compensate, this directly led to the problem which sparked this whole investigation: the fact that the R99 has the fastest draw time in the game.
Finally, I want to point out some general differences between the distributions of deploy times and holster times between the games. Deploy times in TF2 are not always multiples of 0.05 and are not standardized by weapon class (Alternator is 0.63, R99/CAR are 0.66 Hemlok is 1.13). In contrast, holster times are always multiples of 0.05. The specificity of the deploy times makes sense considering the imprecise nature of deploy time’s effect on draw time. The contrast here with the precise holster times seems to suggest that RtF AE’s were accounted for.
As we’ve already seen, deploy times in Apex are always multiples of 0.05 and are generally standardized by weapon class. But what is also interesting is that holster times are generally 0.05 seconds behind deploy time, or 0.1 in the case of snipers (plus a few outliers). In contrast, the gap between deploy time and holster time is generally larger in TF2 compared to Apex, oftentimes being well over 0.2 seconds.
I believe the original intent of the changes in the transition to Apex was to have the weapons of Apex draw and holster in roughly the same amount of time. Seeing as the distinction between primary and secondary weapons was being removed, it would make sense for this to be relatively consistent between weapons. However, in practice, the larger gaps between deploy time and holster time in TF2 came much closer to achieving this goal.
At this point, many details were starting to connect with one another, and I was almost convinced. The main thing causing doubts at this point were the frequent references to RtF AE’s in the code of Apex, and their apparent consideration in the weapons of TF2. How could a blind spot appear in the transition to Apex?
Analyzing the weapons in TF2 yielded a lot of information, but what was equally useful was analyzing the code. By looking at the differences in how TF2 and Apex implemented a variety of features, I was able to gain a much deeper understanding of the code than if I had access to either game alone. Through this examination, I might have been able to figure out how that blind spot appeared.

VI. How did we get here?

This is the definition of a shot in the dark, and I have no way of confirming most of my thoughts due to limited access to the code. I almost certainly made at least some mistakes on the finer details, but I believe the overall concept is at least close to the truth. I’m not sure how much sense this will make to someone that hasn’t looked at the code (or any code), but I think that Respawn will catch wind of this, and it may make sense to them. Or it could be an incomprehensible mess to everyone.
But you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take, so I may as well go for it.
First, I want to reiterate that someone looking at the .txt files for weapons is OVERWHELMINGLY likely to come to the conclusion that “deploy time” and “draw time” are the same thing. I found ZERO evidence that anyone online understood how deploy time actually works. I found ZERO references to AE_WEAPON_READYTOFIRE, or any variation of that phrase. I found ZERO references to the discrepancy between deploy time and draw time anywhere online.
This is in large part possible due to the fact that there is zero indication as to the true functionality of deploy time in any of the files I have access to. I'm sure it's documented somewhere, but if no one can find it that needs it, that doesn't matter.
The average Respawn employee is much more knowledgeable than the average player, but they aren’t superhuman. The scale of the discrepancies here is simply too small to see unless you are specifically looking for them. For reference: it takes 0.1-0.2 seconds to blink. The weapons you would be most likely to see it on (LMG/snipers) are also the least likely to swap to mid-fight and fire ASAP. The discrepancy is partially covered up by the holster time of your previous weapon as well.
Between the TF2 weapons and the comments on abilities, it is clear that some people at Respawn are aware of this interaction. But if those people didn’t communicate with the weapon designers for Apex, and it wasn’t documented for them, it would require nothing short of a miracle to discover independently.
With that being said, I believe the root of this issue lies in a minor oversight in the development of something Respawn refers to as "Bakery". A huge part of my research was spent trying to understand what Bakery is. There are zero references to Bakery in Titanfall 2, so it was at least clear that it was developed in the transition to Apex.
My best guess is that Bakery is a system for managing “entities” in a way that is much more resource-efficient than what existed in Titanfall. I believe that Bakery was developed out of necessity after the larger scale of the game and the inclusion of skins led to unacceptable performance/file size issues. Entities are basically anything interactable: including abilities/legends and weapons.
Additionally, I suspect that both weapons and abilities begin development by being created in an editor called “weaponED”, which provides a simple GUI to streamline the process of creating the lengthy .txt files containing the stats and the file paths to assets associated with a weapon/ability (models, sounds, etc.). It appears that this editor was initially built for the original Titanfall. I believe Bakery builds on this system, taking the list of “ingredients” and “baking” it into the new file format Apex uses, hence the name.
I suspect that weapons were integrated into Bakery first, since they were largely identical to their TF2 counterparts. A projectile system already existed in TF2 due to the Kraber, and the attachments in Apex are merely an extension of the system from TF2. Additionally, the potential scope of weapons is fairly narrow. 90% of functionality is identical between weapons, and that 10% could be handled without much hassle. As such, I suspect that weapons' integration into Bakery was rather primitive, and most weapon balancing is still done using weaponED.
In contrast, the scope of legends/abilities is much wider in Apex than Titanfall. “Pilots” from TF2 only had a tactical ability, and these abilities were relatively simple compared to abilities such as Wattson’s fences, Valk’s ult, or Path’s ziplines. Between the extra complexity and the addition of ultimates/passives it would make sense if the existing code for pilots in TF2 required substantial revisions to become legends. Along with abilities inherently being more complicated than weapons, it would make sense if their implementation into Bakery was more feature rich.
Now, there are several comments in the code which clearly suggest that the placement of an ability’s RtF AE is visible in some “ANIMATION” section of Bakery. Along with several references to “sequences”, one of these new features appears to allow the user to view information about legends (and their abilities) in a modified HLMV, which is the main model viewer for the Source engine. The critical detail here is that there is absolutely zero indication that a similar feature exists for weapons.
​
HLMV screenshot. Note \"Sequence\" and \"Events\". Whatever Respawn has would be VERY heavily modified.
Connecting the dots here, I suspect that the core reason for the blind spot in RtF AE’s with respect to weapons is that the tools weapon designers are given do not provide any information on the placement of AE’s. As a result, weapon designers have to go out of their way to view this information. Some weapon designers for TF2 likely knew to do this, but they may have forgotten to pass on this minor detail to the new designers for Apex.
Thus, I believe an information gap arose during the development of Apex: animators focused on their job and placed the RtF AE at whichever point they thought looked the best aesthetically, but never had any reason to consider the balance ramifications of that choice. Whereas the weapon designers would consider the balance impacts of deploy time, but never had any reason to suspect it meant anything other than “draw time”.
Based on this mistaken assumption, the original weapon designers would go on to set the standard of deploy times for each weapon class. Future weapon designers had no reason to question this precedent, and so the standard of deploy times has gone mostly unchanged to this day. Since then, Respawn has constantly been developing new content for each season, looking forward rather than backward, and this foundational flaw has gone unnoticed for this entire time.
Until now.

VII. Conclusion

Despite the wall of text, all of the matters discussed here come down to fractions of a second. But in an FPS game, even milliseconds frequently matter. A few milliseconds can easily make the difference in getting off another PK shot. That difference could end the fight, allow a teammate to finish them off, prevent an enemy from getting behind cover, or at least force another battery out of the opponent.
Draw time is an extremely minor balance concern in most games. However, Apex is fairly unique in this regard. Due to the difficulty of hitting one-clips for even the best players, swapping weapons mid-fight is relatively common, at all skill levels. Weapons take ~2-3 seconds to empty their clips, so assuming you are swapping to your secondary and kill the enemy with that, you’re looking at a ~3-7 second TTK. A 0.3 second discrepancy on the kill would cause a difference of 4-10%. It’s worth noting that going from your melee to a gun triggers a deploy, and that ADS’ing earlier allows you to react/aim/fire faster as well.
I haven’t mentioned it until now to cut down on length, but assuming RtF AE’s are not accounted for on raise_time either, weapons generally raise ~25% faster than originally intended as well. No one seems to know what this does, so to clarify, it appears to come into play when you are pulling your weapon back out after doing any parkour, using an ability/consumable, and probably other stuff I didn’t find.
Now, consider the fact that these issues have always been in the game. Even if they affect the outcome of 1/1000 fights, there have been billions of fights over the course of the game’s history. How many times has a game been decided by the implications of this problem? How many times has this affected the distribution of prize money/qualifications for ALGS games?
Additionally, something like this would have been invisibly affecting the development of the meta. Faster draw times inherently benefit more aggressive playstyles. One major effect of quicker draw times is that the time difference between reloading and swapping weapons is widened, which favors running two CQC weapons. Combos such as R3/R99 benefit especially heavily since being forced to swap to an R3 is hardly a punishment for running a rifle. Combos such as SMG/sniper are punished because reloading is proportionally slower than swapping weapons.
The P2020 and RE-45 in particular have been absolutely hamstrung due to their abnormally late RtF AE’s. It’s worth noting that pistols were originally intended to be terrible weapons, which likely contributed to the poor design of their swap mechanics. However, this philosophy has changed over time and efforts have been made to make them reasonable choices. The Hammerpoint and Quickdraw hopups both seek to play off the signature role of pistols as quick-drawing secondaries, but both fell short due to failing to address the core issue: that pistols do not draw fast. Without that benefit, they’re just SMG’s, but worse.
It's hard to say what to even do about a problem of this scale. Addressing it completely would probably require a complete reevaluation of the deploy times for every weapon in the game. They should at a minimum be restructured in such a way that draw times are consistent within weapon classes (except where reasonable).
Additionally, quickswap should be added to at least the P2020 and RE-45 so that they can fulfill their traditional role as effective sidearms. The Mozambique might need its HP compatibility removed if it is given quickswap, since burst damage is fundamentally stronger with faster swap times. Deploy times would need to be increased to compensate. The Wingman is fine.
This is only slightly related to the rest of this post, but while I’m making suggestions, the deploy time of the Mastiff should be reduced to match other shotguns. It’s been 0.8 ever since release. This made sense when it did 144 damage in the CP, it still made sense when it did 112 per shot, it doesn’t make sense now that it does 88.
The most challenging question here is what the new uniform values should be for each weapon class. It is impossible to say if Apex is a better or worse game as a result of the fast draw times. A lot of people enjoy the fast-paced gameplay that Apex provides. I think the deploy times should be increased somewhat (this would have the benefit of increasing the value of stocks as well). It may not be best to raise them all the way to their intended values, though. I’d really have to play with it to form a strong opinion about it, so I won’t go into detail there.
If you made it this far, even if you skipped a lot, thank you for reading. I hope these findings will change Apex for the better, and I’m eager to finally get other opinions on all this.

A while back, I was investigating how the swap speeds of weapons compared to one another for a video I wanted to make. Along the way, I noticed something extremely interesting: the weapon with the lowest “draw time” in the game is not the P2020 like you may expect, but rather the R99. This is true even without a stock.
I thought this had to be a bug, so I decided to investigate more thoroughly. I quickly noticed several more examples of strange behavior:

• It is much faster to swap from a P2020 to an R301 (~0.47 seconds) than it is to swap from an R301 to a P2020 (~0.74 seconds)
• The Rampage draws faster than the Volt.
• The Flatline draws in roughly half the time of the Nemesis.

Here is a short video which demonstrates that all of the above is accurate:
The Foundational Flaw of Apex Legends - YouTube
It is also an extreme TL;DR. I would recommend reading the post instead for better context.
I eventually realized that these behaviors were just the tip of the iceberg.
The more I dug into it the more problems I found. I ended up digging deep into the code of Apex/Titanfall as well as the history of Respawn and the Source engine to find answers to the questions that kept popping up. Ultimately, all the evidence pointed to one conclusion.
I believe that the behaviors I have noticed are not the result of a bug. They are instead symptoms of a much deeper issue which I believe to be an oversight in the weapon design process. It has existed ever since release and affects every single weapon in the game.
It appears that as a direct result of this oversight, most weapons in Apex “draw” 30-50% faster than originally intended. And, somehow, no one ever noticed.
To give myself at least some credibility, I recently graduated with a degree in Computer Science. I’m also Masters in Apex (not this season, the second easiest one). The details here got more and more interesting as I went along, and I couldn’t believe no one had noticed it before, so it turned into a bit of a passion project. If this project actually results in changes to the game, it may even be worth putting on my resume.
This is a very long post. Half of the post is sections V and VI, but you can get the gist of it if you skip those.
Without further ado, there’s a lot to get through. The core of the problem here is something called “deploy_time”.

I. Misunderstanding Deploy Time

There are two values in the code which dictate how long it takes to swap between two weapons: “holster_time” and “deploy_time”.
The meaning of these values seems obvious. Holster time is the amount of time it takes to put away a weapon, and deploy time is the amount of time it takes to pull out (and fire) a weapon.
From my research online, this understanding of these values is virtually unanimous amongst the playerbase. I was able to find zero exceptions online, not even in Discord servers dedicated to modding.
This interpretation appears to be supported by a graph I made showcasing the distribution of deploy times for every weapon in the game. These values are taken directly from the game files, and are color coded by weapon type.
​
Deploy Time Graph
I’m not a game dev, but if I were laying out the draw times for weapons in an FPS game, this is exactly how I would do it. Deploy times are standardized within each weapon class, with exceptions for the unique characteristics of certain weapons. Additionally, there is a logical progression of deploy times from one weapon class to another, in-line with what you would intuitively expect in an FPS game.

II. Deploy Time vs Draw Time

As you may have guessed from the wording, deploy time doesn’t work how you probably think it does. To explain this more clearly, I’ll be using the term “draw time” a lot to distinguish from “deploy time”. “Draw time” is the length of time after a weapon is deployed at which point it can fire or ADS. (A weapon is deployed when the swapped-from weapon is finished holstering.) Deploy time is something else, which I will explain soon. As far as weapon balance is concerned, draw time is the only thing that matters.
Surprisingly, draw time is impossible to determine from the weapon settings files alone (the .txt ones). To find it, I used the timer setup as seen in the original examples and found the differences in timestamps at a few critical points:

1. Start of the swap. On the first frame of the swap, there is a mismatch between your selected weapon and its associated picture on the UI (bottom right)
2. The crosshair changes from the holstered weapon’s crosshair to the deployed weapon’s crosshair.
3. The ammo count changing represents the first shot being fired.

So, by subtracting timestamp (2) from timestamp (1), I was quickly able to discover that holster time works exactly how you think it does for every weapon. By comparing my found values to these known ones and many others, I am confident my methodology is accurate within ~0.01 seconds (original recordings are 144 FPS).
Now, I was able to find draw time by subtracting timestamp (3) from timestamp (2). For these, I did three trials for each weapon to minimize the odds that I made a mistake. I should note that the times for semi-auto weapons are near perfectly consistent. There’s a window where if you click your shot is “queued” and will fire as soon as it can. This window is not hard to hit. For full-auto weapons, I just held M1. I went until I got the same result three times in a row (plus or minus 0.01) as well.
When I first compiled this data, I began to realize the scale of what I had stumbled upon.
​
Graph of draw times, sorted by draw time
​
Deploy time vs draw time, sorted by deploy time. The colored portion represents draw time, the whole bar represents deploy time.
While the distribution of deploy times is logical and consistent, the distribution of draw times most certainly is not. There is substantial variance in draw times within weapon classes, and these differences are frequently large enough to lead to overlap between weapons.
As I said, I’m not a game dev, but I could not imagine a world where these draw times were working as intended. At this point I knew that I was onto something substantial, but still hadn’t quite found the explanation I was looking for. However, using this data and some relevant comments in the code, I was able to reverse engineer exactly how deploy time relates to draw time.

III. Understanding Deploy Time

The key to understanding deploy time came from comments discussing some AE_WEAPON_READYTOFIRE variable.
The “AE” stands for “Animation Event”. This feature of the Source engine allows animations to send a signal to another part of the code when a certain frame of an animation plays.
For example: when you’re reloading, you smack the magazine into the rifle, and that plays a sound. This is handled by an animation event on that frame of the animation which tells the game to play the sound file of the magazine hitting the rifle.
So, when you pull out (deploy) your weapon, there is an associated deploy animation with it. In many games (such as Valorant/CSGO), this associated animation must play in its entirety before the weapon can be fired. It’s a minor detail, but it does look a little bit robotic and “video gamey” if you pay attention.
Respawn decided that wasn’t good enough, and used Source’s animation event system to allow weapons to begin firing before their deploy animation has finished. This was implemented by adding AE_WEAPON_READYTOFIRE to a certain frame of every weapon’s deploy animation. When this event is triggered, the weapon is “ready to fire”.
To summarize, swapping weapons in Apex behaves as follows:
If you’re swapping from weapon A to weapon B, you first wait for the holster time of weapon A to finish, at which point the crosshair changes. From there, weapon B begins deploying. Deploy_time does not refer to the time it takes for your weapon to start shooting, but rather the time it takes for the draw animation of that weapon to play in its entirety. The point at which the weapon starts shooting is determined by a READY_TO_FIRE animation event, in the form of a specific frame of the animation at which point the weapon becomes fully functional.
For example: if a weapon has a deploy animation with 100 frames, a deploy time of 0.5, and the RtF AE is placed on the 50th frame, that weapon’s “draw time” is (50/100)*0.5 = 0.25.

IV. The Bigger Picture

At this point, I understood how swapping weapons worked in Apex, but it ended up raising more questions than it answered. I had anticipated finding some bug which was leading to weapons firing too early, only to discover that the system appeared to be working exactly as intended.
An explanation that immediately stood out to me was that the weapon designers had made the exact same mistake that every player I was able to find had made, and assumed that “deploy time” and “draw time” were the same thing. The contrast between the uniform deploy times and the chaotic draw times appeared to support this notion. It seemed odd that weapon designers would prioritize standardizing animation length, which has zero gameplay impact, over draw time, which does affect weapon balance.
Put another way: the root of the issue appeared to be that the interaction between deploy time and RtF AE’s had at no point been considered during the development of Apex Legends.
I found this extremely difficult to believe. I initially thought it might be some niche detail from the Titanfall days that had been forgotten even by Respawn, but the only reason I was able to figure out how deploy time worked was because of comments in the code from people that were clearly aware of it.
However, I later realized that the comments I had been reading were exclusively located in the .txt files for abilities, NOT weapons. Additionally, they were all in reference to “raise_time” and NOT deploy time. Either one of these could potentially explain why there is a blind spot on specifically weapons/deploy time. I might have been able to figure out why this blind spot exists, but I’ll talk about that later.
The next major pieces of evidence which caused me to take this possibility seriously were the extremely long draw times on the Volt and the Nemesis. It appears that both of these weapons are mistakenly missing RtF AE’s entirely. The Volt is the ONLY weapon in the game for which deploy time is equivalent to draw time. It seems that in the absence of this AE, weapons default to firing at the end of their deploy animation instead.
The 0.03 second discrepancy between draw time and deploy time for the Nemesis is slightly more confusing. I believe it is somehow related to the burst fire of the weapon (burst/single fire slightly affects draw time on the Hemlok). It’s hard to say for sure, but it seems extremely unlikely that the RtF AE was intentionally placed 95% of the way through the animation.
Lastly, there is a clear difference in when these weapons fire during their animations compared to other weapons. This can most plainly be seen by comparing the R301 to the Nemesis. The R301, and many other weapons, begin firing long before they approach their final positions. In contrast, the Nemesis doesn’t begin firing before it is firmly settled in its final state. The difference can easily be seen by watching the initial examples in slow motion (or even at full speed)
These examples are the most direct evidence I have that RtF AE’s are not properly considered during the weapon design process. If considering the interaction between RtF AE’s and deploy time were a standard part of the weapon design process, I struggle to imagine how this could happen once, let alone twice.
When I first saw the distribution of the draw times, I thought the full extent of the problem was the inconsistencies in draw times within weapon classes, which would occasionally lead to crossover between weapon classes. I could believe that Respawn could make a minor mistake like this, but after uncovering how deploy time functioned, I realized I could have been missing the bigger picture.
If the weapon designers were in fact operating under the assumption that deploy time and draw time were the same thing, then that would mean that the distribution of deploy times is the intended distribution of draw times for Apex. If that were in fact the case, then this graph showing the placement of RtF AE's would represent how much faster weapons drew than intended:
​
Approx. RtF AE placement. Just draw time divided by deploy time.
It was this graph that was the basis for my original assertion: that the weapons of Apex draw 30-50% faster than originally intended (with some outliers).
Now that is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I thought I had to be missing something here, so I dug a little deeper.

V. Titanfall is in our DNA

As Respawn likes to say, Titanfall is in their DNA. This idea is true of the code as well. Almost all of Apex’s core gameplay is basically copied and pasted from Titanfall, with the BR elements built on top. As such, I was curious how weapon swap mechanics were implemented in Titanfall 2, and how the weapons which are present in both games compared.
I quickly realized that the deploy times and RtF AE’s were still present. Here are graphs of the deploy times, draw times, and RtF placements for several Titanfall 2 weapons:
​
Deploy
​
Draw
​
RtF
I don't have all the weapons unlocked, so the data is a little limited.
Although there is conflicting evidence (CAHemlok don’t make much sense), it is entirely possible that some decisions were made with respect to RtF AE’s while others were not. Regardless, there are several design decisions which seem to imply an awareness of RtF AE’s.
First off, the Volt’s deploy time. Its RtF AE in TF2 is abnormally late, occurring 80% of the way through the animation. However, the Volt has a deploy time on-par with the pistols which compensates for this factor. The alignment of the Volt’s draw time with several other weapons in the 0.32-0.35 second range, despite varied deploy times, further suggests this was an intentional decision, made with consideration to RtF AE’s.
On a related note, it’s worth pointing out that every single weapon that is present in both TF2 and Apex has the exact same RtF AE placement. The one exception here is the Volt, which further suggests that its absence in Apex is a mistake.
Next, I want to point out how the designers in TF2 circumvented the late RtF AE’s on pistols. Moving the RtF AE or lowering deploy time are options, but doing either of these may sacrifice animation quality. To get around this issue, TF2 has a “quickswap” mechanic. The draw times of pistols are similar to those of SMG’s, but this is compensated for by a “quick_swap_to” attribute on the pistols, which reduces the holster time of the weapon you are swapping from by 75%.
However, this mechanic is not implemented in Apex. Along with a large reduction in deploy times for SMG’s in the transition between TF2 in Apex, and an insufficient reduction in the deploy times of pistols to compensate, this directly led to the problem which sparked this whole investigation: the fact that the R99 has the fastest draw time in the game.
Finally, I want to point out some general differences between the distributions of deploy times and holster times between the games. Deploy times in TF2 are not always multiples of 0.05 and are not standardized by weapon class (Alternator is 0.63, R99/CAR are 0.66 Hemlok is 1.13). In contrast, holster times are always multiples of 0.05. The specificity of the deploy times makes sense considering the imprecise nature of deploy time’s effect on draw time. The contrast here with the precise holster times seems to suggest that RtF AE’s were accounted for.
As we’ve already seen, deploy times in Apex are always multiples of 0.05 and are generally standardized by weapon class. But what is also interesting is that holster times are generally 0.05 seconds behind deploy time, or 0.1 in the case of snipers (plus a few outliers). In contrast, the gap between deploy time and holster time is generally larger in TF2 compared to Apex, oftentimes being well over 0.2 seconds.
I believe the original intent of the changes in the transition to Apex was to have the weapons of Apex draw and holster in roughly the same amount of time. Seeing as the distinction between primary and secondary weapons was being removed, it would make sense for this to be relatively consistent between weapons. However, in practice, the larger gaps between deploy time and holster time in TF2 came much closer to achieving this goal.
At this point, many details were starting to connect with one another, and I was almost convinced. The main thing causing doubts at this point were the frequent references to RtF AE’s in the code of Apex, and their apparent consideration in the weapons of TF2. How could a blind spot appear in the transition to Apex?
Analyzing the weapons in TF2 yielded a lot of information, but what was equally useful was analyzing the code. By looking at the differences in how TF2 and Apex implemented a variety of features, I was able to gain a much deeper understanding of the code than if I had access to either game alone. Through this examination, I might have been able to figure out how that blind spot appeared.

VI. How did we get here?

This is the definition of a shot in the dark, and I have no way of confirming most of my thoughts due to limited access to the code. I almost certainly made at least some mistakes on the finer details, but I believe the overall concept is at least close to the truth. I’m not sure how much sense this will make to someone that hasn’t looked at the code (or any code), but I think that Respawn will catch wind of this, and it may make sense to them. Or it could be an incomprehensible mess to everyone.
But you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take, so I may as well go for it.
First, I want to reiterate that someone looking at the .txt files for weapons is OVERWHELMINGLY likely to come to the conclusion that “deploy time” and “draw time” are the same thing. I found ZERO evidence that anyone online understood how deploy time actually works. I found ZERO references to AE_WEAPON_READYTOFIRE, or any variation of that phrase. I found ZERO references to the discrepancy between deploy time and draw time anywhere online.
This is in large part possible due to the fact that there is zero indication as to the true functionality of deploy time in any of the files I have access to. I'm sure it's documented somewhere, but if no one can find it that needs it, that doesn't matter.
The average Respawn employee is much more knowledgeable than the average player, but they aren’t superhuman. The scale of the discrepancies here is simply too small to see unless you are specifically looking for them. For reference: it takes 0.1-0.2 seconds to blink. The weapons you would be most likely to see it on (LMG/snipers) are also the least likely to swap to mid-fight and fire ASAP. The discrepancy is partially covered up by the holster time of your previous weapon as well.
Between the TF2 weapons and the comments on abilities, it is clear that some people at Respawn are aware of this interaction. But if those people didn’t communicate with the weapon designers for Apex, and it wasn’t documented for them, it would require nothing short of a miracle to discover independently.
With that being said, I believe the root of this issue lies in a minor oversight in the development of something Respawn refers to as "Bakery". A huge part of my research was spent trying to understand what Bakery is. There are zero references to Bakery in Titanfall 2, so it was at least clear that it was developed in the transition to Apex.
My best guess is that Bakery is a system for managing “entities” in a way that is much more resource-efficient than what existed in Titanfall. I believe that Bakery was developed out of necessity after the larger scale of the game and the inclusion of skins led to unacceptable performance/file size issues. Entities are basically anything interactable: including abilities/legends and weapons.
Additionally, I suspect that both weapons and abilities begin development by being created in an editor called “weaponED”, which provides a simple GUI to streamline the process of creating the lengthy .txt files containing the stats and the file paths to assets associated with a weapon/ability (models, sounds, etc.). It appears that this editor was initially built for the original Titanfall. I believe Bakery builds on this system, taking the list of “ingredients” and “baking” it into the new file format Apex uses, hence the name.
I suspect that weapons were integrated into Bakery first, since they were largely identical to their TF2 counterparts. A projectile system already existed in TF2 due to the Kraber, and the attachments in Apex are merely an extension of the system from TF2. Additionally, the potential scope of weapons is fairly narrow. 90% of functionality is identical between weapons, and that 10% could be handled without much hassle. As such, I suspect that weapons' integration into Bakery was rather primitive, and most weapon balancing is still done using weaponED.
In contrast, the scope of legends/abilities is much wider in Apex than Titanfall. “Pilots” from TF2 only had a tactical ability, and these abilities were relatively simple compared to abilities such as Wattson’s fences, Valk’s ult, or Path’s ziplines. Between the extra complexity and the addition of ultimates/passives it would make sense if the existing code for pilots in TF2 required substantial revisions to become legends. Along with abilities inherently being more complicated than weapons, it would make sense if their implementation into Bakery was more feature rich.
Now, there are several comments in the code which clearly suggest that the placement of an ability’s RtF AE is visible in some “ANIMATION” section of Bakery. Along with several references to “sequences”, one of these new features appears to allow the user to view information about legends (and their abilities) in a modified HLMV, which is the main model viewer for the Source engine. The critical detail here is that there is absolutely zero indication that a similar feature exists for weapons.
​
HLMV Screenshot. Note \"Sequence\" and \"Events\". Whatever Respawn has would be VERY heavily modified.
Connecting the dots here, I suspect that the core reason for the blind spot in RtF AE’s with respect to weapons is that the tools weapon designers are given do not provide any information on the placement of AE’s. As a result, weapon designers have to go out of their way to view this information. Some weapon designers for TF2 likely knew to do this, but they may have forgotten to pass on this minor detail to the new designers for Apex.
Thus, I believe an information gap arose during the development of Apex: animators focused on their job and placed the RtF AE at whichever point they thought looked the best aesthetically, but never had any reason to consider the balance ramifications of that choice. Whereas the weapon designers would consider the balance impacts of deploy time, but never had any reason to suspect it meant anything other than “draw time”.
Based on this mistaken assumption, the original weapon designers would go on to set the standard of deploy times for each weapon class. Future weapon designers had no reason to question this precedent, and so the standard of deploy times has gone mostly unchanged to this day. Since then, Respawn has constantly been developing new content for each season, looking forward rather than backward, and this foundational flaw has gone unnoticed for this entire time.
Until now.

VII. Conclusion

Despite the wall of text, all of the matters discussed here come down to fractions of a second. But in an FPS game, even milliseconds frequently matter. A few milliseconds can easily make the difference in getting off another PK shot. That difference could end the fight, allow a teammate to finish them off, prevent an enemy from getting behind cover, or at least force another battery out of the opponent.
Draw time is an extremely minor balance concern in most games. However, Apex is fairly unique in this regard. Due to the difficulty of hitting one-clips for even the best players, swapping weapons mid-fight is relatively common, at all skill levels. Weapons take ~2-3 seconds to empty their clips, so assuming you are swapping to your secondary and kill the enemy with that, you’re looking at a ~3-7 second TTK. A 0.3 second discrepancy on the kill would cause a difference of 4-10%. It’s worth noting that going from your melee to a gun triggers a deploy, and that ADS’ing earlier allows you to react/aim/fire faster as well.
I haven’t mentioned it until now to cut down on length, but assuming RtF AE’s are not accounted for on raise_time either, weapons generally raise ~25% faster than originally intended as well. No one seems to know what this does, so to clarify, it appears to come into play when you are pulling your weapon back out after doing any parkour, using an ability/consumable, and probably other stuff I didn’t find.
Now, consider the fact that these issues have always been in the game. Even if they affect the outcome of 1/1000 fights, there have been billions of fights over the course of the game’s history. How many times has a game been decided by the implications of this problem? How many times has this affected the distribution of prize money/qualifications for ALGS games?
Additionally, something like this would have been invisibly affecting the development of the meta. Faster draw times inherently benefit more aggressive playstyles. One major effect of quicker draw times is that the time difference between reloading and swapping weapons is widened, which favors running two CQC weapons. Combos such as R3/R99 benefit especially heavily since being forced to swap to an R3 is hardly a punishment for running a rifle. Combos such as SMG/sniper are punished because reloading is proportionally slower than swapping weapons.
The P2020 and RE-45 in particular have been absolutely hamstrung due to their abnormally late RtF AE’s. It’s worth noting that pistols were originally intended to be terrible weapons, which likely contributed to the poor design of their swap mechanics. However, this philosophy has changed over time and efforts have been made to make them reasonable choices. The Hammerpoint and Quickdraw hopups both seek to play off the signature role of pistols as quick-drawing secondaries, but both fell short due to failing to address the core issue: that pistols do not draw fast. Without that benefit, they’re just SMG’s, but worse.
It's hard to say what to even do about a problem of this scale. Addressing it completely would probably require a complete reevaluation of the deploy times for every weapon in the game. They should at a minimum be restructured in such a way that draw times are consistent within weapon classes (except where reasonable).
Additionally, quickswap should be added to at least the P2020 and RE-45 so that they can fulfill their traditional role as effective sidearms. The Mozambique might need its HP compatibility removed if it is given quickswap, since burst damage is fundamentally stronger with faster swap times. Deploy times would need to be increased to compensate. The Wingman is fine.
This is only slightly related to the rest of this post, but while I’m making suggestions, the deploy time of the Mastiff should be reduced to match other shotguns. It’s been 0.8 ever since release. This made sense when it did 144 damage in the CP, it still made sense when it did 112 per shot, it doesn’t make sense now that it does 88.
The most challenging question here is what the new uniform values should be for each weapon class. It is impossible to say if Apex is a better or worse game as a result of the fast draw times. A lot of people enjoy the fast-paced gameplay that Apex provides. I think the deploy times should be increased somewhat (this would have the benefit of increasing the value of stocks as well). It may not be best to raise them all the way to their intended values, though. I’d really have to play with it to form a strong opinion about it, so I won’t go into detail there.
If you made it this far, even if you skipped a lot, thank you for reading. I hope these findings will change Apex for the better, and I’m eager to finally get other opinions on all this.

A while back, I was investigating how the swap speeds of weapons compared to one another for a video I wanted to make. Along the way, I noticed something extremely interesting: the weapon with the lowest “draw time” in the game is not the P2020 like you may expect, but rather the R99. This is true even without a stock.
I thought this had to be a bug, so I decided to investigate more thoroughly. I quickly noticed several more examples of strange behavior:

• It is much faster to swap from a P2020 to an R301 (~0.47 seconds) than it is to swap from an R301 to a P2020 (~0.74 seconds)
• The Rampage draws faster than the Volt.
• The Flatline draws in roughly half the time of the Nemesis.

Here is a short video which demonstrates that all of the above is accurate:
The Foundational Flaw of Apex Legends - YouTube
It is also an extreme TL;DR. I would recommend reading the post instead for better context.
I eventually realized that these behaviors were just the tip of the iceberg.
The more I dug into it the more problems I found. I ended up digging deep into the code of Apex/Titanfall as well as the history of Respawn and the Source engine to find answers to the questions that kept popping up. Ultimately, all the evidence pointed to one conclusion.
I believe that the behaviors I have noticed are not the result of a bug. They are instead symptoms of a much deeper issue which I believe to be an oversight in the weapon design process. It has existed ever since release and affects every single weapon in the game.
It appears that as a direct result of this oversight, most weapons in Apex “draw” 30-50% faster than originally intended. And, somehow, no one ever noticed.
To give myself at least some credibility, I recently graduated with a degree in Computer Science. I’m also Masters in Apex (not this season, the second easiest one). The details here got more and more interesting as I went along, and I couldn’t believe no one had noticed it before, so it turned into a bit of a passion project. If this project actually results in changes to the game, it may even be worth putting on my resume.
This is a very long post. Half of the post is sections V and VI, but you can get the gist of it if you skip those.
Without further ado, there’s a lot to get through. The core of the problem here is something called “deploy_time”.

I. Misunderstanding Deploy Time

There are two values in the code which dictate how long it takes to swap between two weapons: “holster_time” and “deploy_time”.
The meaning of these values seems obvious. Holster time is the amount of time it takes to put away a weapon, and deploy time is the amount of time it takes to pull out (and fire) a weapon.
From my research online, this understanding of these values is virtually unanimous amongst the playerbase. I was able to find zero exceptions online, not even in Discord servers dedicated to modding.
This interpretation appears to be supported by a graph I made showcasing the distribution of deploy times for every weapon in the game. These values are taken directly from the game files, and are color coded by weapon type.
​
Deploy Time Graph
I’m not a game dev, but if I were laying out the draw times for weapons in an FPS game, this is exactly how I would do it. Deploy times are standardized within each weapon class, with exceptions for the unique characteristics of certain weapons. Additionally, there is a logical progression of deploy times from one weapon class to another, in-line with what you would intuitively expect in an FPS game.

II. Deploy Time vs Draw Time

As you may have guessed from the wording, deploy time doesn’t work how you probably think it does. To explain this more clearly, I’ll be using the term “draw time” a lot to distinguish from “deploy time”. “Draw time” is the length of time after a weapon is deployed at which point it can fire or ADS. (A weapon is deployed when the swapped-from weapon is finished holstering.) Deploy time is something else, which I will explain soon. As far as weapon balance is concerned, draw time is the only thing that matters.
Surprisingly, draw time is impossible to determine from the weapon settings files alone (the .txt ones). To find it, I used the timer setup as seen in the original examples and found the differences in timestamps at a few critical points:

1. Start of the swap. On the first frame of the swap, there is a mismatch between your selected weapon and its associated picture on the UI (bottom right)
2. The crosshair changes from the holstered weapon’s crosshair to the deployed weapon’s crosshair.
3. The ammo count changing represents the first shot being fired.

So, by subtracting timestamp (2) from timestamp (1), I was quickly able to discover that holster time works exactly how you think it does for every weapon. By comparing my found values to these known ones and many others, I am confident my methodology is accurate within ~0.01 seconds (original recordings are 144 FPS).
Now, I was able to find draw time by subtracting timestamp (3) from timestamp (2). For these, I did three trials for each weapon to minimize the odds that I made a mistake. I should note that the times for semi-auto weapons are near perfectly consistent. There’s a window where if you click your shot is “queued” and will fire as soon as it can. This window is not hard to hit. For full-auto weapons, I just held M1. I went until I got the same result three times in a row (plus or minus 0.01) as well.
When I first compiled this data, I began to realize the scale of what I had stumbled upon.
​
Graph of draw times, sorted by draw time
​
Deploy time vs draw time, sorted by deploy time. The colored portion represents draw time, the whole bar represents deploy time.
While the distribution of deploy times is logical and consistent, the distribution of draw times most certainly is not. There is substantial variance in draw times within weapon classes, and these differences are frequently large enough to lead to overlap between weapons.
As I said, I’m not a game dev, but I could not imagine a world where these draw times were working as intended. At this point I knew that I was onto something substantial, but still hadn’t quite found the explanation I was looking for. However, using this data and some relevant comments in the code, I was able to reverse engineer exactly how deploy time relates to draw time.

III. Understanding Deploy Time

The key to understanding deploy time came from comments discussing some AE_WEAPON_READYTOFIRE variable.
The “AE” stands for “Animation Event”. This feature of the Source engine allows animations to send a signal to another part of the code when a certain frame of an animation plays.
For example: when you’re reloading, you smack the magazine into the rifle, and that plays a sound. This is handled by an animation event on that frame of the animation which tells the game to play the sound file of the magazine hitting the rifle.
So, when you pull out (deploy) your weapon, there is an associated deploy animation with it. In many games (such as Valorant/CSGO), this associated animation must play in its entirety before the weapon can be fired. It’s a minor detail, but it does look a little bit robotic and “video gamey” if you pay attention.
Respawn decided that wasn’t good enough, and used Source’s animation event system to allow weapons to begin firing before their deploy animation has finished. This was implemented by adding AE_WEAPON_READYTOFIRE to a certain frame of every weapon’s deploy animation. When this event is triggered, the weapon is “ready to fire”.
To summarize, swapping weapons in Apex behaves as follows:
If you’re swapping from weapon A to weapon B, you first wait for the holster time of weapon A to finish, at which point the crosshair changes. From there, weapon B begins deploying. Deploy_time does not refer to the time it takes for your weapon to start shooting, but rather the time it takes for the draw animation of that weapon to play in its entirety. The point at which the weapon starts shooting is determined by a READY_TO_FIRE animation event, in the form of a specific frame of the animation at which point the weapon becomes fully functional.
For example: if a weapon has a deploy animation with 100 frames, a deploy time of 0.5, and the RtF AE is placed on the 50th frame, that weapon’s “draw time” is (50/100)*0.5 = 0.25.

IV. The Bigger Picture

At this point, I understood how swapping weapons worked in Apex, but it ended up raising more questions than it answered. I had anticipated finding some bug which was leading to weapons firing too early, only to discover that the system appeared to be working exactly as intended.
An explanation that immediately stood out to me was that the weapon designers had made the exact same mistake that every player I was able to find had made, and assumed that “deploy time” and “draw time” were the same thing. The contrast between the uniform deploy times and the chaotic draw times appeared to support this notion. It seemed odd that weapon designers would prioritize standardizing animation length, which has zero gameplay impact, over draw time, which does affect weapon balance.
Put another way: the root of the issue appeared to be that the interaction between deploy time and RtF AE’s had at no point been considered during the development of Apex Legends.
I found this extremely difficult to believe. I initially thought it might be some niche detail from the Titanfall days that had been forgotten even by Respawn, but the only reason I was able to figure out how deploy time worked was because of comments in the code from people that were clearly aware of it.
However, I later realized that the comments I had been reading were exclusively located in the .txt files for abilities, NOT weapons. Additionally, they were all in reference to “raise_time” and NOT deploy time. Either one of these could potentially explain why there is a blind spot on specifically weapons/deploy time. I might have been able to figure out why this blind spot exists, but I’ll talk about that later.
The next major pieces of evidence which caused me to take this possibility seriously were the extremely long draw times on the Volt and the Nemesis. It appears that both of these weapons are mistakenly missing RtF AE’s entirely. The Volt is the ONLY weapon in the game for which deploy time is equivalent to draw time. It seems that in the absence of this AE, weapons default to firing at the end of their deploy animation instead.
The 0.03 second discrepancy between draw time and deploy time for the Nemesis is slightly more confusing. I believe it is somehow related to the burst fire of the weapon (burst/single fire slightly affects draw time on the Hemlok). It’s hard to say for sure, but it seems extremely unlikely that the RtF AE was intentionally placed 95% of the way through the animation.
Lastly, there is a clear difference in when these weapons fire during their animations compared to other weapons. This can most plainly be seen by comparing the R301 to the Nemesis. The R301, and many other weapons, begin firing long before they approach their final positions. In contrast, the Nemesis doesn’t begin firing before it is firmly settled in its final state. The difference can easily be seen by watching the initial examples in slow motion (or even at full speed)
These examples are the most direct evidence I have that RtF AE’s are not properly considered during the weapon design process. If considering the interaction between RtF AE’s and deploy time were a standard part of the weapon design process, I struggle to imagine how this could happen once, let alone twice.
When I first saw the distribution of the draw times, I thought the full extent of the problem was the inconsistencies in draw times within weapon classes, which would occasionally lead to crossover between weapon classes. I could believe that Respawn could make a minor mistake like this, but after uncovering how deploy time functioned, I realized I could have been missing the bigger picture.
If the weapon designers were in fact operating under the assumption that deploy time and draw time were the same thing, then that would mean that the distribution of deploy times is the intended distribution of draw times for Apex. If that were in fact the case, then this graph showing the placement of RtF AE's would represent how much faster weapons drew than intended:
​
Approx. RtF AE placement. Just draw time divided by deploy time.
It was this graph that was the basis for my original assertion: that the weapons of Apex draw 30-50% faster than originally intended (with some outliers).
Now that is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I thought I had to be missing something here, so I dug a little deeper.

V. Titanfall is in our DNA

As Respawn likes to say, Titanfall is in their DNA. This idea is true of the code as well. Almost all of Apex’s core gameplay is basically copied and pasted from Titanfall, with the BR elements built on top. As such, I was curious how weapon swap mechanics were implemented in Titanfall 2, and how the weapons which are present in both games compared.
I quickly realized that the deploy times and RtF AE’s were still present. Here are graphs of the deploy times, draw times, and RtF placements for several Titanfall 2 weapons:
​
Deploy
​
Draw
​
RtF
I don't have all the weapons unlocked, so the data is a little limited.
Although there is conflicting evidence (CAHemlok don’t make much sense), it is entirely possible that some decisions were made with respect to RtF AE’s while others were not. Regardless, there are several design decisions which seem to imply an awareness of RtF AE’s.
First off, the Volt’s deploy time. Its RtF AE in TF2 is abnormally late, occurring 80% of the way through the animation. However, the Volt has a deploy time on-par with the pistols which compensates for this factor. The alignment of the Volt’s draw time with several other weapons in the 0.32-0.35 second range, despite varied deploy times, further suggests this was an intentional decision, made with consideration to RtF AE’s.
On a related note, it’s worth pointing out that every single weapon that is present in both TF2 and Apex has the exact same RtF AE placement. The one exception here is the Volt, which further suggests that its absence in Apex is a mistake.
Next, I want to point out how the designers in TF2 circumvented the late RtF AE’s on pistols. Moving the RtF AE or lowering deploy time are options, but doing either of these may sacrifice animation quality. To get around this issue, TF2 has a “quickswap” mechanic. The draw times of pistols are similar to those of SMG’s, but this is compensated for by a “quick_swap_to” attribute on the pistols, which reduces the holster time of the weapon you are swapping from by 75%.
However, this mechanic is not implemented in Apex. Along with a large reduction in deploy times for SMG’s in the transition between TF2 in Apex, and an insufficient reduction in the deploy times of pistols to compensate, this directly led to the problem which sparked this whole investigation: the fact that the R99 has the fastest draw time in the game.
Finally, I want to point out some general differences between the distributions of deploy times and holster times between the games. Deploy times in TF2 are not always multiples of 0.05 and are not standardized by weapon class (Alternator is 0.63, R99/CAR are 0.66 Hemlok is 1.13). In contrast, holster times are always multiples of 0.05. The specificity of the deploy times makes sense considering the imprecise nature of deploy time’s effect on draw time. The contrast here with the precise holster times seems to suggest that RtF AE’s were accounted for.
As we’ve already seen, deploy times in Apex are always multiples of 0.05 and are generally standardized by weapon class. But what is also interesting is that holster times are generally 0.05 seconds behind deploy time, or 0.1 in the case of snipers (plus a few outliers). In contrast, the gap between deploy time and holster time is generally larger in TF2 compared to Apex, oftentimes being well over 0.2 seconds.
I believe the original intent of the changes in the transition to Apex was to have the weapons of Apex draw and holster in roughly the same amount of time. Seeing as the distinction between primary and secondary weapons was being removed, it would make sense for this to be relatively consistent between weapons. However, in practice, the larger gaps between deploy time and holster time in TF2 came much closer to achieving this goal.
At this point, many details were starting to connect with one another, and I was almost convinced. The main thing causing doubts at this point were the frequent references to RtF AE’s in the code of Apex, and their apparent consideration in the weapons of TF2. How could a blind spot appear in the transition to Apex?
Analyzing the weapons in TF2 yielded a lot of information, but what was equally useful was analyzing the code. By looking at the differences in how TF2 and Apex implemented a variety of features, I was able to gain a much deeper understanding of the code than if I had access to either game alone. Through this examination, I might have been able to figure out how that blind spot appeared.

VI. How did we get here?

This is the definition of a shot in the dark, and I have no way of confirming most of my thoughts due to limited access to the code. I almost certainly made at least some mistakes on the finer details, but I believe the overall concept is at least close to the truth. I’m not sure how much sense this will make to someone that hasn’t looked at the code (or any code), but I think that Respawn will catch wind of this, and it may make sense to them. Or it could be an incomprehensible mess to everyone.
But you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take, so I may as well go for it.
First, I want to reiterate that someone looking at the .txt files for weapons is OVERWHELMINGLY likely to come to the conclusion that “deploy time” and “draw time” are the same thing. I found ZERO evidence that anyone online understood how deploy time actually works. I found ZERO references to AE_WEAPON_READYTOFIRE, or any variation of that phrase. I found ZERO references to the discrepancy between deploy time and draw time anywhere online.
This is in large part possible due to the fact that there is zero indication as to the true functionality of deploy time in any of the files I have access to. I'm sure it's documented somewhere, but if no one can find it that needs it, that doesn't matter.
The average Respawn employee is much more knowledgeable than the average player, but they aren’t superhuman. The scale of the discrepancies here is simply too small to see unless you are specifically looking for them. For reference: it takes 0.1-0.2 seconds to blink. The weapons you would be most likely to see it on (LMG/snipers) are also the least likely to swap to mid-fight and fire ASAP. The discrepancy is partially covered up by the holster time of your previous weapon as well.
Between the TF2 weapons and the comments on abilities, it is clear that some people at Respawn are aware of this interaction. But if those people didn’t communicate with the weapon designers for Apex, and it wasn’t documented for them, it would require nothing short of a miracle to discover independently.
With that being said, I believe the root of this issue lies in a minor oversight in the development of something Respawn refers to as "Bakery". A huge part of my research was spent trying to understand what Bakery is. There are zero references to Bakery in Titanfall 2, so it was at least clear that it was developed in the transition to Apex.
My best guess is that Bakery is a system for managing “entities” in a way that is much more resource-efficient than what existed in Titanfall. I believe that Bakery was developed out of necessity after the larger scale of the game and the inclusion of skins led to unacceptable performance/file size issues. Entities are basically anything interactable: including abilities/legends and weapons.
Additionally, I suspect that both weapons and abilities begin development by being created in an editor called “weaponED”, which provides a simple GUI to streamline the process of creating the lengthy .txt files containing the stats and the file paths to assets associated with a weapon/ability (models, sounds, etc.). It appears that this editor was initially built for the original Titanfall. I believe Bakery builds on this system, taking the list of “ingredients” and “baking” it into the new file format Apex uses, hence the name.
I suspect that weapons were integrated into Bakery first, since they were largely identical to their TF2 counterparts. A projectile system already existed in TF2 due to the Kraber, and the attachments in Apex are merely an extension of the system from TF2. Additionally, the potential scope of weapons is fairly narrow. 90% of functionality is identical between weapons, and that 10% could be handled without much hassle. As such, I suspect that weapons' integration into Bakery was rather primitive, and most weapon balancing is still done using weaponED.
In contrast, the scope of legends/abilities is much wider in Apex than Titanfall. “Pilots” from TF2 only had a tactical ability, and these abilities were relatively simple compared to abilities such as Wattson’s fences, Valk’s ult, or Path’s ziplines. Between the extra complexity and the addition of ultimates/passives it would make sense if the existing code for pilots in TF2 required substantial revisions to become legends. Along with abilities inherently being more complicated than weapons, it would make sense if their implementation into Bakery was more feature rich.
Now, there are several comments in the code which clearly suggest that the placement of an ability’s RtF AE is visible in some “ANIMATION” section of Bakery. Along with several references to “sequences”, one of these new features appears to allow the user to view information about legends (and their abilities) in a modified HLMV, which is the main model viewer for the Source engine. The critical detail here is that there is absolutely zero indication that a similar feature exists for weapons.
​
HLMV Screenshot. Note \"Sequence\" and \"Events\". Whatever Respawn has would be VERY heavily modified.
Connecting the dots here, I suspect that the core reason for the blind spot in RtF AE’s with respect to weapons is that the tools weapon designers are given do not provide any information on the placement of AE’s. As a result, weapon designers have to go out of their way to view this information. Some weapon designers for TF2 likely knew to do this, but they may have forgotten to pass on this minor detail to the new designers for Apex.
Thus, I believe an information gap arose during the development of Apex: animators focused on their job and placed the RtF AE at whichever point they thought looked the best aesthetically, but never had any reason to consider the balance ramifications of that choice. Whereas the weapon designers would consider the balance impacts of deploy time, but never had any reason to suspect it meant anything other than “draw time”.
Based on this mistaken assumption, the original weapon designers would go on to set the standard of deploy times for each weapon class. Future weapon designers had no reason to question this precedent, and so the standard of deploy times has gone mostly unchanged to this day. Since then, Respawn has constantly been developing new content for each season, looking forward rather than backward, and this foundational flaw has gone unnoticed for this entire time.
Until now.

VII. Conclusion

Despite the wall of text, all of the matters discussed here come down to fractions of a second. But in an FPS game, even milliseconds frequently matter. A few milliseconds can easily make the difference in getting off another PK shot. That difference could end the fight, allow a teammate to finish them off, prevent an enemy from getting behind cover, or at least force another battery out of the opponent.
Draw time is an extremely minor balance concern in most games. However, Apex is fairly unique in this regard. Due to the difficulty of hitting one-clips for even the best players, swapping weapons mid-fight is relatively common, at all skill levels. Weapons take ~2-3 seconds to empty their clips, so assuming you are swapping to your secondary and kill the enemy with that, you’re looking at a ~3-7 second TTK. A 0.3 second discrepancy on the kill would cause a difference of 4-10%. It’s worth noting that going from your melee to a gun triggers a deploy, and that ADS’ing earlier allows you to react/aim/fire faster as well.
I haven’t mentioned it until now to cut down on length, but assuming RtF AE’s are not accounted for on raise_time either, weapons generally raise ~25% faster than originally intended as well. No one seems to know what this does, so to clarify, it appears to come into play when you are pulling your weapon back out after doing any parkour, using an ability/consumable, and probably other stuff I didn’t find.
Now, consider the fact that these issues have always been in the game. Even if they affect the outcome of 1/1000 fights, there have been billions of fights over the course of the game’s history. How many times has a game been decided by the implications of this problem? How many times has this affected the distribution of prize money/qualifications for ALGS games?
Additionally, something like this would have been invisibly affecting the development of the meta. Faster draw times inherently benefit more aggressive playstyles. One major effect of quicker draw times is that the time difference between reloading and swapping weapons is widened, which favors running two CQC weapons. Combos such as R3/R99 benefit especially heavily since being forced to swap to an R3 is hardly a punishment for running a rifle. Combos such as SMG/sniper are punished because reloading is proportionally slower than swapping weapons.
The P2020 and RE-45 in particular have been absolutely hamstrung due to their abnormally late RtF AE’s. It’s worth noting that pistols were originally intended to be terrible weapons, which likely contributed to the poor design of their swap mechanics. However, this philosophy has changed over time and efforts have been made to make them reasonable choices. The Hammerpoint and Quickdraw hopups both seek to play off the signature role of pistols as quick-drawing secondaries, but both fell short due to failing to address the core issue: that pistols do not draw fast. Without that benefit, they’re just SMG’s, but worse.
It's hard to say what to even do about a problem of this scale. Addressing it completely would probably require a complete reevaluation of the deploy times for every weapon in the game. They should at a minimum be restructured in such a way that draw times are consistent within weapon classes (except where reasonable).
Additionally, quickswap should be added to at least the P2020 and RE-45 so that they can fulfill their traditional role as effective sidearms. The Mozambique might need its HP compatibility removed if it is given quickswap, since burst damage is fundamentally stronger with faster swap times. Deploy times would need to be increased to compensate. The Wingman is fine.
This is only slightly related to the rest of this post, but while I’m making suggestions, the deploy time of the Mastiff should be reduced to match other shotguns. It’s been 0.8 ever since release. This made sense when it did 144 damage in the CP, it still made sense when it did 112 per shot, it doesn’t make sense now that it does 88.
The most challenging question here is what the new uniform values should be for each weapon class. It is impossible to say if Apex is a better or worse game as a result of the fast draw times. A lot of people enjoy the fast-paced gameplay that Apex provides. I think the deploy times should be increased somewhat (this would have the benefit of increasing the value of stocks as well). It may not be best to raise them all the way to their intended values, though. I’d really have to play with it to form a strong opinion about it, so I won’t go into detail there.
If you made it this far, even if you skipped a lot, thank you for reading. I hope these findings will change Apex for the better, and I’m eager to finally get other opinions on all this.

Hello, here is the problem, my Dyson Heurist no longer charges and when it wants to clean it automatically turns off when it leaves the base.
After checking it is indeed a battery problem, I tried to order another one on the internet, the opinions are very negative on the capacity of the spare batteries which dies after 1 month.
So I decided to watch myself on drums here are all my steps..
I want to clarify that I could not fix it and I made this post only for the purpose of showing the inside of the batteries.
I also specify that it can be very dangerous and destructive for the batteries to open it!
​
here is a very well done video on the opening of the battery:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKd5R-4NLmI
​
1.Opening the case
As you can see in the photos the case is quite complicated to open there are several clips which are very well closed I used a flat screwdriver and inserted them into the slot and by levering I was able to open the case.
​
https://preview.redd.it/2kjo842eh02b1.jpg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=06407e6f022fd57eff38cc0d0089b8a2f5d17a8b
https://preview.redd.it/81ukvd2eh02b1.jpg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c3bc6cf05fc91692255028cd66edcdcc1e2ed4f9
https://preview.redd.it/xpao042eh02b1.jpg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1137c71fa33061bd292839fa9d3517f691270eb6
https://preview.redd.it/wgyut32eh02b1.jpg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8c444d137e01309d743ec710072c94f621eadaba
​
2.Troubleshooting
The first things I wanted to check on the fuses there are several on the board the second thing that could be your problem is the BMS another possibility would be one of the cells that would be at fault or the balancing of the cells .
the cells were completely discharged I took care before any manipulation to recharge it myself directly with a scientific power supply and then to try it but it did not work.
​
https://preview.redd.it/rdfk38ehh02b1.jpg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=233dc23fed0add3f094fe4601b99efd57d631740
https://preview.redd.it/jzcj09ehh02b1.jpg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0aac2882c3a7207c9f5184731eb8a32c89430de6
https://preview.redd.it/zuyboaehh02b1.jpg?width=2268&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e455e878697db143039a7c864a002faa8866b5f
https://preview.redd.it/mtb45dehh02b1.jpg?width=2268&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=60610f12125f16b1ad58bcd32664c9854879cffe
https://preview.redd.it/ngukd1fhh02b1.jpg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=70ee3656f39760643f589df49aedb00f5849a7c2
​
3.Battery disassembly
To do this, you have to unsolder the 5 legs that connect the battery to the PCB, be careful, I don't know about its through-hole, it is quite complicated to unsolder them and above all, be careful because the battery, to be still under voltage, a short circuit could cause death for the battery the 2 biggest legs that we see on the right of the PCB are the two pins of the battery the other three pins are for measuring the voltage of the cells.
​
https://preview.redd.it/s7lzygaoh02b1.jpg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c47610210c73adc8a019cd0243f4418d3fb16e81
https://preview.redd.it/f5tq7haoh02b1.jpg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4dec2304b81bc130bd9bdb3bc1d5b6a448be2d9f
https://preview.redd.it/piu50jaoh02b1.jpg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ebaa05c84ea8dad5119c39722759cee39fdf30a2
https://preview.redd.it/k7e7ehaoh02b1.jpg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0fcd77de0093329b5320003f4d777150ef1bbd50
https://preview.redd.it/cwdsz7boh02b1.jpg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b29debfac83232d9d6c539b48ca575770a4e33f1
​

1. Find the problem

We can now see more clearly on the different components that there are on the PCB, by taking some measurements I realize that the fuse F2 is passing this fuse is a bit special because it has a heating resistor inside which can be controlled by an FET control BMS in the event of a critical fault this one can decide to melt the fuse (SCP fuse)
fuse reference ink: SFK 30a k45 a
​
I have nothing more to lose I decide to bridge the fuse!
be careful I do not recommend anyone to do this, I will explain later several other manipulations to do which could be judicious before doing this!
​
I try to put the battery back in the robot to see if it works obviously it hasn't changed anything..
​
5.Components
So I decide to look a bit at the other components since the fuse bypass didn't work. I can see several things the first is that the BMS or the battery management board is a reference: BQ3050 from Texas Instrument and that there is on the PCB a FET for charging the battery and FET for discharging the battery there are also 2 temperature sensors to measure the temperature of the cells which is normal for a BMS. Enabling the discharge FET would allow me to run the battery in the robot, unfortunately it's not that simple to do.
After looking a little closer at the BMS chip, it can be controlled by SMBUS which is a derivative of I2c.
​
6.BMS
There is a place in the documentation where a clarification in Power On Reset (POR) after looking a little closer I understand that it is necessary to put a negative voltage (-2V) across the terminals of regulator 25 of the BQ3050 so I try with my power supply to connect the most of the power supply on the month of the card and the least of the power supply on the regulator 25 which is on the pad 38 put in white on one of the photos.
from what I understood you have to put the POR in place before starting the chip so you have to desolder the battery put the POR then reconnect the battery with the POR.
what i did but it didn't work.
to make it easier I soldered the battery on the side of the pcb not crossing to make it easier.
​
https://preview.redd.it/nekkixgth02b1.jpg?width=2268&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bf9226f0d9559fc74896ae84d9e1984f09dfb130
ok we get into the complex things I decide to solder 2 wire directly on the chip which manages the battery with two wires SDA SCL and GND that I took at the level of the battery because easier to solder and they are common the communication pins smbus are not used on the card see the component datasheet to find the communication pins.
​
https://preview.redd.it/jvssvy1wh02b1.jpg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f644dea96744822c01bce77a59fcd1bc391f79f1
https://preview.redd.it/c4x04y1wh02b1.jpg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=efca59bef0fbac5d8b12cf0f2e62ab03b66f33e8
I then came across a very interesting video of someone doing the same thing for DJ drone batteries using a Raspberry Pi is programmed to use last weekend and a little program all on Github it's quite simple to retrieve the information that is on the chip here is all the information that I found.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5PNOO2GebY
after watching the video I tried several times with difficulty to have a communication between the chip and the raspberry pi for that it was necessary to supply the PCB by the charging port and in addition by the battery ports in 17.8 volts, see communication diagram.
​
Once connected to the chip I can analyze, in the event of a problem BMS will take care of cutting the battery it will no longer be able to deliver voltage or be recharged, the BMS simply manages it with bits in memory in the video we can see that the person has a flag which is set to 1 (PF) and this flag causes the blocking of the battery, they then go through commands to reset this flag and the battery is restarted.
happy for him..
small specifications the BQ3050 chip is not in the base of the GitHub program you will have to use the BQ30z554 chip
​
unfortunately for me all my memories were at zero (reserved) maybe because of the POR? no alerts no crashes after a few scans I realize that my battery security level is at zero and that of the video is on 3 ( SEC ) then 2 when it unlocks it I did not look further I don't have time but here I hope it can already help a lot of people..

Wondering if anyone has had this pop up before and found a fix or way to dismiss it. It showed up in the myChevrolet app when my car had a cracked egr replacement, but hasn’t gone away since that was fixed. The car doesn’t have any warning lights or show any error codes when I took it in, so they said there wasn’t much they could do. It drives normally and gas mileage hasn’t changed noticeably in either direction when I use the ICE. Any answers would be appreciated.

In the realm of electrical engineering, understanding the fundamental concepts of voltage potential and electromotive force (EMF) is crucial. Jim Murray, an inventor and visionary, embarked on a journey several decades ago to study the distinction between these two expressions of electrical energy, leading to the creation of the Transforming Generator. This groundbreaking machine, a combination of a generator and a transformer, taps into the untapped magnetic energy that is often overlooked. Despite facing patent challenges in the United States, Murray's invention has garnered significant attention for its potential to revolutionize energy generation. This essay delves into the fundamentals of the Transforming Generator and its unique capabilities.
Fundamentals Of The Transforming Generator
Download: Fundamentals Of The Transforming Generator

The Birth of the Transforming Generator:

The Transforming Generator was conceived by Jim Murray as a means to explore the disparity between voltage potential and electromotive force. These two terms, commonly referred to as "volts," represent distinct aspects of electrical energy. Through his research and experimentation, Murray sought to harness the full potential of magnetic energy and uncover a more efficient and effective approach to power generation.

Patent Challenges and Overseas Recognition:

While the Transforming Generator obtained patents in various overseas countries, its path to patent approval in the United States was blocked. Despite this setback, the international recognition of the Transforming Generator attests to its innovative nature and the potential it holds for transforming the field of energy generation. The overseas patents validate Murray's unique contribution to the field and the significance of his invention.

The Unique Design:

At the heart of the Transforming Generator lies its innovative design, which combines the principles of both a generator and a transformer. By leveraging the transformer effect, this machine taps into additional magnetic energy that is typically unused in conventional generators. The Transforming Generator operates by accessing power in the current without directly involving voltage, thus providing an alternative approach to energy conversion. However, it is crucial to regulate the machine properly to prevent self-destruction due to the immense potential it harnesses.

Demonstrations and Features:

Murray's presentations and demonstrations offer a glimpse into the workings of the Transforming Generator. The machine's primary feature is its ability to capture and utilize extra magnetic energy, revolutionizing energy conversion processes. In one demonstration, Murray showcases the transformer effect, highlighting the machine's capacity to access untapped energy. In another demonstration, the focus shifts to the regulator, a vital component of the Transforming Generator. The regulator adjusts the machine's internal fields and links them with motor controls, enabling the motor to drop power back immediately when it starts to unload. This mechanism ensures efficient operation and prevents damage.

The Role of Copper:

Copper, a crucial element in the Transforming Generator, plays a vital role in its functionality. The precise nature of the copper's involvement in the machine is not explicitly stated in the provided information, but its presence is crucial to the overall operation and performance of the generator. Further exploration of this aspect would be valuable in understanding the intricate details of the Transforming Generator.

Conclusion:

Jim Murray's Transforming Generator represents a remarkable exploration of the distinctions between voltage potential and electromotive force. Through his invention, Murray has tapped into the untapped potential of magnetic energy and offered a new paradigm for energy generation. Although the Transforming Generator faced patent challenges in the United States, its international recognition underscores its significance and potential impact. As we delve deeper into the understanding and utilization of magnetic energy, Murray's pioneering work serves as a catalyst for further advancements in the field of electrical engineering. The Transforming Generator stands as a testament to human ingenuity and the relentless pursuit of unlocking the full potential of energy generation.
Free energy documents - Tesla technology: Tesla's Free Energy

Analog technology is highly applicable and available to everyone:
🌀 Nikola Tesla's Ether Technology: 💠 Harnessing the power of back electromagnetic fields (Back EMF)