Update the Hand & Arm Animations

[nkenny 1057]

Animations just eyecandy and not relevant to gameplay?

Nonsense! Aside from the immersive/authentic value of proper animations consider these classic examples.

Casepoint #1: Pistol animations in Arma2.

Because not only the animation but interface are cumbersome and downright suicidal in CQB situations. Pistols are less than useless in Arma2.

Had pistols been more useful; this would have had a great effect on gameplay.

Casepoint #2: Reload animations

Reloading arma2 is wonderfully convenient because no matter what weapon you carry, the reload animation is more or less the same and takes the same amount of time.

If it was impossible to SPRINT through bushes whilst reloading belt-fed weapons. THAT would have affected gameplay.

Casepoint #3: Optics aren't held at eye-level.

This one is a biggy. When you press the optics button you do not bring the weapon UP into your line of sight. You magically transfer your point of view to the weapon sight system.

This combined with the improper shouldering animation of Arma2 is the root many of the shooting annoyances in Arma2. Typical examples are shooting over a hillside -- only to have your bullets impact on the ground. Shooting around a corner, only to have the bullets hit the wall. Or laying in the grass, spotting the enemy, pressing optics -- only to see nothing but grass.

Had there been better centered and eyelevel holding animations in arma2-- shooting would have felt more natural and been MUCH more intuitive. (not to mention removing the need for a crosshair. )

-k

[Ians 10]

i agree with Nkenny

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

#1: Pistols are backup weapons and not the holy cow of CQB. I don't have any problems with the anims as they're. Maybe you can explain a little more what is so cumbersome and downright suicidal?

#2: Which is quite ok (except for the belt-fed weapons) or would you say that f.e. reloading an AK takes more or less time then reloading an M16 in RL? Your "running through" bushes point is correct but is that really animation related or would a "can't move while reloading" feature simply do it?

#3: This point is nonsense it actually is the other way around.

The barrel of the weapon is not at the height of the optics which means that you may can look over an obstacle and have a clear view but your barrel could still be at an height where it's blocked. You can simply check that in any other then frist person view and you'll see that everything is correct here. The problem is that the barrel has no collision which means you can mostly stick it into the ground or and obstacle without even noticing it if you're looking through the optics.

It seems like you should stay with the standard ego-shooters because ArmA seems to be a little too much (or less) for you.

[nkenny 1057]

#1: Pistols are backup weapons and not the holy cow of CQB. I don't have any problems with the anims as they're. Maybe you can explain a little more what is so cumbersome and downright suicidal?

A practised operator can draw a pistol from a suitable holster in split seconds. If drawing pistols was a smooth operation requiring little time and a single press of a button-- this would have been tremendous change in any CQB situation. ie: drawing a pistol would have been a viable alternative to reloading.

#2: Which is quite ok (except for the belt-fed weapons) or would you say that f.e. reloading an AK takes more or less time then reloading an M16 in RL? Your "running through" bushes point is correct but is that really animaton related or would a "can't move while reloading" feature simply do it?

My post tries to underline the fact that animations DO matter for gameplay. Since arma2 we've had the ability to move and reload-- a tremendous change.

The difference between reloading a beltfed weapon, magazine loaded, grenadelauncher(m203,gp25/30) or RPG/CG type weapon is huge. With the animations of arma2 this is not the case.

#3: This point is nonsense it actually is the other way around.

The barrel of the weapon is not at the height of the optics which means that you may can look over an obstacle and have a clear view but your barrel could still be at an height where it's blocked. You can simply check that in any other then frist person view and you'll see that everything is correct here. The problem is that the barrel has no collision which means you can mostly stick it into the ground or and obstacle without even noticing it if you're looking through the optics.

Respectfully, you have misinterpreted my post. I recognize the difference between a rifle bore and the mounted optics; what I bemoan is the lack of "optics" animation.

This is easy to test in the editor. Make sure you have shadows switched on. Arma yourself with a assault rifle of some kind and find a wall which you can observe your shadow. Enter and leave optics mode. You'll see that your animation--the way the weapon is held-- DOES NOT CHANGE. That your avatar is not shown to move his head/lower his profile or bringing his weapon up to eye-level is HUGE. It means that you are given false impression of how well concealed you are-- and it is felt in gameterms in all the examples I listed in my previous post.

It seems like you should stay with the standard ego-shooters because ArmA seems to be a little too much (or less) for you.

Does your mother make you wear a helmet when you walk outside?

-k

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

A practised operator can draw a pistol from a suitable holster in split seconds. If drawing pistols was a smooth operation requiring little time and a single press of a button-- this would have been tremendous change in any CQB situation. ie: drawing a pistol would have been a viable alternative to reloading.

Drawing a pistol in ArmA2 takes about a second. It's just a scroll and click. I don't know where your problem is.

My post tries to underline the fact that animations DO matter for gameplay. Since arma2 we've had the ability to move and reload-- a tremendous change.

The difference between reloading a beltfed weapon, magazine loaded, grenadelauncher(m203,gp25/30) or RPG/CG type weapon is huge. With the animations of arma2 this is not the case.

Infact you're right but for me it's simply not the case that I ever had the feeling that myself or my opponents are reloading too fast or slow. Like I said before there're much more important things that have to fixed than some missing reload anims and times.

Respectfully, you have misinterpreted my post. I recognize the difference between a rifle bore and the mounted optics; what I bemoan is the lack of "optics" animation.

This is easy to test in the editor. Make sure you have shadows switched on. Arma yourself with a assault rifle of some kind and find a wall which you can observe your shadow. Enter and leave optics mode. You'll see that your animation--the way the weapon is held-- DOES NOT CHANGE. That your avatar is not shown to move his head/lower his profile or bringing his weapon up to eye-level is HUGE. It means that you are given false impression of how well concealed you are-- and it is felt in gameterms in all the examples I listed in my previous post.

Respectfully, then you haven't verbalised it very well. So what you're actually bemoaning is that you don't press your cheek on to the buttstock while looking through the optics, right? If so you're talking about some few centimeters here concerning consealment. Before you mentioned it I never even thought about it. Maybe because it's simply unimportant in 99,9% of all cases.

Does your mother make you wear a helmet when you walk outside?

I don't get what you mean but I suggest you better leave my family members out of your comments!

[AnimalMother92 10]

Does your mother make you wear a helmet when you walk outside?

I don't get what you mean but I suggest you better leave my family members out of your comments!

I think he was inferring something along the lines of

Anywho, I do agree with a lot of the points here. Animations really do impact gameplay imo. I would hope BIS focuses on them for future expansions/games.

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

Lol, when I wear a helmet only the aramid one and that's not issued by mum. ;)