Perfect accuracy when firing from the hip

[djfluffwug 10]

My problem isn't exactly the spread. Well it is, sort of.

Let me explain:

I think having the bullet actually come out of the barrel and have the bullet go where you truly aim is how it should be. That should not be changed and I know it will not be changed :)

The problem is, the soldier can keep the gun too steady.

I did the test just then.

I had 1 militiaman with an AK74 in OA, start at 350 metres away from a target. He ran 100 metres to the 250 metre point and fired 2 shots from the shoulder without going into the iron sights.

I then continued to move up to the target to find that the horizontal distance between the 2 bullet holes was about 10cm. The vertical distance was about 50cm between the bullet holes (expected due to recoil).

I figure the vertical distance sounds right but the horizontal distance between the 2 bullet holes is way too accurate.

Now, since the bullet actually comes out of the gun and the spread isn't just a variable, then the animation for holding the gun must be too steady, because if an amateur militiaman sprinted 100 metres in the sun and fired 2 shots at 200 metres, I wouldn't think the horizontal distance between the two impacts would be only 10cm.

Edit:

I just did a test with an M4A1, fired 3 shots after running to the 250m mark, and the bullet impacts were all within 15cm of each other.

Edited November 19, 2011 by djfluffwug

[Brutus404 10]

I agree that A3 shouldn't a CoD style of hipfiring (I know that even in CoD the weapon is shouldered, but I'll continue to call it like this), that is: having an area of spread that varies per weapon in which your bullets will be shot. It's unrealistic and doesn't belong in a game like Arma.

The way it's implemented in ArmA so far however allows you to just blast away with your M107 in close quarters, especially with crosshairs. I know that IRL you can 'see' where the bullet is going to hit to a certain extent and that this would justify a crosshair of any sort, but the problem with the M107 remains then.

I posted my suggestion because I dislike the idea of making hipfiring CoD-ish and because I don't think that removing crosshairs altogether is going to solve the problem. But I do think that if BI would make heavy weapons feel like they're heavy (a M107 weighs what? 15 kg?) in any way, not necessarily mine, that would properly balance it out.

[smookie 11]

Hence the idea of removing the aiming rectangle in the center which is responsible for telling you where exactly is the bullet going to land. You can do it currently in ArmA2 by adding attribute showWeaponAim = 0; to most of moves. Try reffering to blindfiring (notice the rectangle disappears but you can still see the crosshair showing you general direction of the gun) in my animations pack.

[Nielsen 10]

Hence the idea of removing the aiming rectangle in the center which is responsible for telling you where exactly is the bullet going to land.

I like that idea.

[dmarkwick 261]

Maybe the crosshair should be "calibrated" at 20m, thus making it somewhat useful for CQB (as it would IRL) but less useful for any kind of battlefield use.

Edited November 21, 2011 by DMarkwick

[maddogx 13]

I always liked the idea of making the crosshair slightly larger and an unusual (asymmetrical) shape, so that it is okay at close quarters but completely useless at longer ranges.

[metalcraze 290]

If I was to decide I would've removed the crosshair from the game altogether because people seem to miss the whole point of it.

[dmarkwick 261]

If I was to decide I would've removed the crosshair from the game altogether because people seem to miss the whole point of it.

You have a different view on the purpose of the crosshair? :)

Doesn't bother me much. I still use sights more often than not, and because I use TrackIR the crosshair gives me a visual feedback as to my general orientation. But, I can play with or without it.

[-=seany=- 5]

If I was to decide I would've removed the crosshair from the game altogether because people seem to miss the whole point of it.

why do you care so much about how OTHER people like to play the game? Just play the hardcore way you like and be happy that BIS gave us the ability to turn these things on and off based on our preference.

If this game was how you and some others wanted, barely any one would play it. That's the point you realism "forcers" seem to miss.

[Tonci87 163]

If this game was how you and some others wanted, barely any one would play it. That's the point you realism "forcers" seem to miss.

I disagree

[Pulverizer 1]

If this game was how you and some others wanted, barely any one would play it. That's the point you realism "forcers" seem to miss.

They do realize it. Hell, it's their primary objective. To not have silly COD and BF kids enjoying their OMG-SO-HARDCORE military simulation, can't have that. It's called elitism.

The unsighted sharpshooting needs to go, though. No one could hold a rifle shouldered so steady for 3 hours straight and have the accuracy of an expert marksman without looking down sights.

[Maio 293]

Let's not turn this thread into a civil war as well :)

Maybe the crosshair should be "calibrated" at 20m, thus making it somewhat useful for CQB (as it would IRL) but less useful for any kind of battlefield use.

That sounds like a good idea. Seeing that you can't hit your target after a certain range, forces you to switch to sights and thus you get some more weapon "training".

This would please both crowds I say :)

[HyperU2 11]

They do realize it. Hell, it's their primary objective. To not have silly COD and BF kids enjoying their OMG-SO-HARDCORE military simulation, can't have that. It's called elitism.

The unsighted sharpshooting needs to go, though. No one could hold a rifle shouldered so steady for 3 hours straight and have the accuracy of an expert marksman without looking down sights.

Those fucks won't be coming around anyway. It's possible for people who primarily play ARMA to enjoy COD and BF, the reverse isn't so true.

[dmarkwick 261]

This would please both crowds I say :)

I doubt it ;) :D

[Brutus404 10]

I thought that the problem adressed in this thread was the effect of perfect accuracy when 'hip'-firing (not really the crosshair) in close quarters. Calibrating the crosshair at 20 m doesn't change anything about that.

Having said that, I think we are slowly drifting off topic with the discussion about BF3 and CoD.

[HyperU2 11]

There is no hip firing, so it should be accurate.

[Brutus404 10]

There is no hip firing, so it should be accurate.

:confused:

[HyperU2 11]

It's always on your shoulder. The magic crosshair isn't something I'd play with but you could argue that it's a representation of using the sights, since the weapon is in the ready position.

[Pulverizer 1]

It's possible for people who primarily play ARMA to enjoy COD and BF, the reverse isn't so true.

It's really not that much of a leap from BF3 to Arma2 if you start out playing a BF-like gamemode, such as Berzerk or Project Reality Arma.

Especially with a little time. I used to primarily play Quake pvp. Flash forward a few years and I might be playing OFP co-op for a whole weekend non-stop :rolleyes:

[-Coulum- 35]

Whether you are looking down the sights, the gun is at your shoulder, at the hip, or balanced on top of your head the accuracy of the gun should remain the same. It really doesn't matter because the bullet will still leave the barrel in exactly the same way.

In my opinion, the problem, and the one the op is trying to convey, is that players are allowed to see exactly where the bullet will land without looking through the ironsights, which is extremely unrealistic and unfair to those who do use the sights /optics as intended or those weapons that have optics inappropriate for close quarters fighting.

To solve this, the accuracy of the gun should not be tinkered with. Instead the crosshairs need to be changed to give the player a realistic amount of knowledge as to where exactly they are pointing their weapon. In reality you have 3d awareness of where your weapon is that cannot be depicted in a video game so arguing that the cross hairs should be totally eliminated is, in my opinion, not realistic. It is true that after many hours of gaming you can get as accurate whithout corsshairs, as you would in real life without using sights, but in real life you don't need to be using a gun for hours to shoot something close without using sights. Without crosshairs in arma, it is possible to get reliable hits on a human sized target about 5 metres away

(for someone just starting to play) where as in real life it is possible to hit something human sized without using sights from just over 10 m (at least it was for me). Therefore it is perfectly realistic imo to add some type of crosshairs so someone new to the game can hit someone from 10 metres as well as they would in real life.

To me the ideal crosshairs for this would actually be from COD. please let me explain before you lynch me. I do not mean cod like dispersion nor the way they expand. They should remain static. I just mean the look of the crosshairs themseleves. they do not clutter the screen much if kept small and they give the player a general idea of where they are shooting without pinpointing the point of impact. My only problem with the cod crosshairs is that they are to easy to line up with the horizon and vertical landmarks. To prevent this they should be rotated 45 degreas so they look like this :: instead of this -:- This crosshair would be centred around the exact location of where the bullet is aimed to hit. These cross hairs should have a spread of 5 or 6 centimetres (on my screen at least). This would allow people to easily engage in close quarters without using the sights but will not allow them to snipe without them unless they are very skilled, which in real life is possible.

That's my opinion at least. I personally disable croshairs because as is, they are way to easy/unrealistic. If the above was implemented I may consider them however. I like to lean as much towards realism as possible however so this idea may not be everyone's piece of cake.

If this game was how you and some others wanted, barely any one would play it. That's the point you realism "forcers" seem to miss.

I repectfully disagree. there are many people who enjoy the tactics and challenge of real war just not the death and pain part. Putting it into video game format allows those people to continue enjoying war without actually risking their lives or killing real people.

Edited November 21, 2011 by -Coulum-

[HyperU2 11]

It's really not that much of a leap from BF3 to Arma2 if you start out playing a BF-like gamemode, such as Berzerk or Project Reality Arma.

Especially with a little time. I used to primarily play Quake pvp. Flash forward a few years and I might be playing OFP co-op for a whole weekend non-stop :rolleyes:

There are a lot of times where I didn't want to deal with ARMAs "realistic hassles" and I'd plop down for some BF2. They have their place. I find I'm needing it less and less. I'm sure I will end up with BF3 regardless. COD has never appealed to me.

[metalcraze 290]

You have a different view on the purpose of the crosshair? :)

People treat it in BIS games in the exactly same way as in any other shooter.

The problem is that GUI elements in BIS games are nothing but visual helpers that you use to learn to play the game and you should turn them off when you feel comfortable enough. They are not there for the same reason as in BF or CS. They are not a part of the gameplay, they are just another tutorial.

Yet people treat the lack of spread like "another glitch of a game".

Of course there won't be any spread no matter which position you fire from because guns don't have magical spread when you don't look through ironsights.

Stop treating ArmA as Bohemia-wanted-to-do-Battlefield-so-hard-but-they-lack-something ffs

[Cripsis 10]

Let's face it, realism obviously isn't a prime concern for people who use the crosshair, so arguing about accuracy settings is a thoroughly meaningless endeavor. :)

[HyperU2 11]

If anything it helps my elitism. Now I've got an air of smugness not only over those who play BF and COD but also over those who play ARMA with crosshairs and third person. You psychos who play with no map markers are one up on me.

[NeMeSiS 11]

You psychos who play with no map markers are one up on me.

Why would you play with map markers? Boring as shit. :p