MP thoughts

[pvt_ryan 10]

1. Choke points are mindless meat grinders that have no place in modern warfare IRL or in a simulator in my opinion.

2. Unlocks are for gamers with short attention spans.

3. BF3's animations are actually not that great, and I prefer some degree of bodily inertia.

All reasons why BF3 was quite disappointing in my humble opinion, and why I think BF3 is the last game among the BF series that ArmA should be looking to imitate. Above all, though, I'm most surprised that this thread is still open. XD

[batto 17]

Hi. I'd like to reply to metalcraze argument that ArmA realism would discourage PvP kids from ArmA. I occasionally play CoD:MW Search&Destroy (aka Counter-Strike) and Team Deathmatch but only with Hardcore mode (= you die after 1-2 bullets from MP5 & no crosshair). Almost all S&D servers has Hardcore mode on and they're full. Maybe half (or more) of TD servers has Hardcore mode on and they're full as well. Idiot perks (martyr, last stand, ...) are banned on most of these HC servers. PvP kids like me like realism.

---------- Post added at 08:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 AM ----------

2. Unlocks are for gamers with short attention spans.

Unlocks are for World of Warcraft. Buy system á la Counter-Strike FTW!

[Messiah 2]

That seriously looks a lot better. So this small mod is for A2. You have any screens of it?

@PuFu Peripheral vision and simulating peripheral vision aren't the same. Green dots showing whether something is to the left or right of you is NOT peripheral vision. There's the part of your vision that is focused and clear, and then there's the rest that is blurry and not clear, where the eye can distinguish shape and color and that's about it. THAT is PERIPHERAL VISION.

Oh, and nice pics: you see, if BIS would include peripheral vision (actual peripheral vision), it wouldn't be as drastic, but the top pic would be the focused vision, the part that is CLEAR. Everything in the lower pic that isn't in the top pic would be PERIPHERAL vision and therefore blurry. Oh, and BIS can do that. It's called DEPTH OF FIELD. And on the note of LODs and stuff like that. Who cares if the eyewear isn't in the character P3D. It's called using the same LOD for third and first person. I can see the gear in third person view. That camera is in a different LID. So theoretically if the first person camera were a modified third person camera, everything would show up, including glasses and headgear. But, maybe you can answer this question without other bullcrap, and JUST answer this question with a simple, honest answer: If you were to move the third person camera to just in front of the eyes (as in using whatever LOD is used for the third person camera), would that look completely horrible? Or would that work, using depth of field settings to blur the "peripheral vision"?

Here is what I'm saying a potential view (one that includes peripheral vision) could look like. This is my idea of it:

SNIP

This is just my IDEA of what a more realistic first person view COULD look like. It'd be a larger FOV with Depth of Field used to blur out the peripheral vision. In the end, the view in focus would be the same as with ArmA2's regular FOV (that is probably why BIS has the zoomed in view, and, yes PuFu, it IS zoomed in). I guess BIS only wanted to show what your eyes could actually focus on. It's smart, but peripheral vision would make for an interesting dynamic in-game, not to mention it's more realistic.

The green dots simulate situational awareness more than anything, that 'sense' of what's around you that you clearly lose by viewing the world through a defined area on screen.

I'm aware that the photo's are just mock ups, possibly exaggerated to highlight your idea, but it doesn't look in the slightest bit appealing or realitic (I mean, thats not how I see the world). Simulating such a thing as peripheral is difficult to put it mildly, and placing blur affects on the screen to give a sense of it is more likely to detract than strengthen the experience. It looks unnatural, more so because we're already experiencing the world with peripheral vision, so to then add an extra layer on that vision by blurring our own 'clear area' gives for an odd experience (from my own point of view, of course everyone has their own, hence the current back and forth phalic gesticulation)

Additionally, given our visual focal point, how noticable is eyewear? (I've got nothing to test with to hand, so I felt it may be a valid dicussion point) I mean, I wear sunglasses, ski goggles, helmets, etc, but to be honest once I have them on, my focal point means that its barely noticable because thats not the object I'm focusing on. Yes I'm aware that we percieve our nose as a faint blurry object in the middle of our vision, but then thats probably heightened now because I'm more acutely aware of it, and at any rate, my nose is already there, no need to model that in game either, the screen is already 'obstructed' by it (this point exludes things such as respirators and other S&M devices you may choose as your attire, which certainly are very noticable). Tinting the screen is a fine suggestion, I can't see why this can't be implemented, even going as far to say that it could work alongside HDR to reduce glare effects?

If you want true peripheral vision experience, hook up a projector, get three screens, do something to utilise your own natural peripheral vision, trying to immitate it on screen will ulitmately just feel clumsy.

I do prefer the right eye view, but this is just a case of moving a memory point, something modable by any man or beast if they so desire.

Unlocks are for World of Warcraft. Buy system á la Counter-Strike FTW!

I see no difference, one you grind for the item itself, the other you grind tokens/money for the object.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Messiah

[antoineflemming 14]

1. Choke points are mindless meat grinders that have no place in modern warfare IRL or in a simulator in my opinion.

2. Unlocks are for gamers with short attention spans.

3. BF3's animations are actually not that great, and I prefer some degree of bodily inertia.

All reasons why BF3 was quite disappointing in my humble opinion, and why I think BF3 is the last game among the BF series that ArmA should be looking to imitate. Above all, though, I'm most surprised that this thread is still open. XD

So is there any FPS in your opinion that has better animations? Because, BF3's animations are better than ArmA's. I'd take BF3's sprinting animation over ArmA's any day. I'd take BF3's prone animation over ArmA's any day. I'd take BF3's crouch stance over ArmA's any day.

2rQvtBxN6Hs&hd=1

[batto 17]

I see no difference, one you grind for the item itself, the other you grind tokens/money for the object.

There is big difference. In Word of Warcraft you gain experience/levels and you unlock new things (same as in CoD:MW/BF3). So after weeks/months you're super-powerful. In CS you get money in one game (cca 20 minutes) if you're successful and you exchange it for equipment. (Note: I don't/didn't play WoW :)) Edited December 22, 2011 by batto

[Messiah 2]

There is big difference. In Word of Warcraft you gain experience/levels and you unlock new things (same as in CoD:MW/BF3). So after weeks/months you're super-powerful. In CS you get money in one game (cca 20 minutes) if you're successful and you exchange it for equipment. (Note: I don't/didn't play WoW :))

You strive for realism, yet want a system where you 'purchase' your weapons as you progress? Choose a weapon and fight, employ better tactics, better manouvres, better use of cover and concealment, not better use of a nominal $5000 to purchase 'better' weapons. The weapon should be a level playing field, not a game decider.

I don't mind PvP in the slightest, I think its an area that can vastly be improved on in ArmA as long as it doesn't detract from the core values and ideals of the game, otherwise I may as well go play a game specifically designed for it (COD, CS et al).

At any rate, what you want is already possible/has been done in ArmA.

[batto 17]

You strive for realism, yet want a system where you 'purchase' your weapons as you progress? Choose a weapon and fight, employ better tactics, better manouvres, better use of cover and concealment, not better use of a nominal $5000 to purchase 'better' weapons. The weapon should be a level playing field, not a game decider.

Of course. But you also purchase other equipment: grenades, kevlar vest, scopes, ... You start with glock and $800 and get money for success. Of course it doesn't makes sense IRL :). (In CS there all players buy standard M4/AK47/Sniper too)

[pvt_ryan 10]

So is there any FPS in your opinion that has better animations? Because, BF3's animations are better than ArmA's. I'd take BF3's sprinting animation over ArmA's any day. I'd take BF3's prone animation over ArmA's any day. I'd take BF3's crouch stance over ArmA's any day.

2rQvtBxN6Hs&hd=1

Perhaps I was too vague. I'm not going to commit to saying any of its rivals have better animations, but BF3's vaulting (along with the transitions in and out of prone, and even running) animations are pretty silly looking. I'm not meaning to say that ArmA's current animations are superior; rather, I think BF3 leaves an awful lot in the way of room for improvement regarding animations (and in fact I would say that the actual in-game content is a lot less convincing than what that video contains (as was the case with many of the teasers for the Frostbite 2.0 engine).

[antoineflemming 14]

The green dots simulate situational awareness more than anything, that 'sense' of what's around you that you clearly lose by viewing the world through a defined area on screen.

I'm aware that the photo's are just mock ups, possibly exaggerated to highlight your idea, but it doesn't look in the slightest bit appealing or realitic (I mean, thats not how I see the world). Simulating such a thing as peripheral is difficult to put it mildly, and placing blur affects on the screen to give a sense of it is more likely to detract than strengthen the experience. It looks unnatural, more so because we're already experiencing the world with peripheral vision, so to then add an extra layer on that vision by blurring our own 'clear area' gives for an odd experience (from my own point of view, of course everyone has their own, hence the current back and forth phalic gesticulation)

Additionally, given our visual focal point, how noticable is eyewear? (I've got nothing to test with to hand, so I felt it may be a valid dicussion point) I mean, I wear sunglasses, ski goggles, helmets, etc, but to be honest once I have them on, my focal point means that its barely noticable because thats not the object I'm focusing on. Yes I'm aware that we percieve our nose as a faint blurry object in the middle of our vision, but then thats probably heightened now because I'm more acutely aware of it, and at any rate, my nose is already there, no need to model that in game either, the screen is already 'obstructed' by it (this point exludes things such as respirators and other S&M devices you may choose as your attire, which certainly are very noticable). Tinting the screen is a fine suggestion, I can't see why this can't be implemented, even going as far to say that it could work alongside HDR to reduce glare effects?

If you want true peripheral vision experience, hook up a projector, get three screens, do something to utilise your own natural peripheral vision, trying to immitate it on screen will ulitmately just feel clumsy.

I do prefer the right eye view, but this is just a case of moving a memory point, something modable by any man or beast if they so desire.

I see no difference, one you grind for the item itself, the other you grind tokens/money for the object.

The point of the eyewear is that, if you have on shades, they should actually be there. They should actually reduce some of that blinding sun glare. If you have on orange, or yellow, or whatever-color eye protection, then you should see some of that color.

Of course you won't notice that because the focus of our vision is limited, but there's still peripheral vision. You see it, but it isn't clear. Depth of Field, present in games like COD and BF, can bring about the true desired effect. Not only that, but the view of the M4 in those mockups (used larger FOV AND had to look down a little) is a more realistic view of the rifle. That's about how much of the rifle you can actually see.

The point of the dark areas for the glasses is that they do limit your peripheral vision. It is noticeable if you pay attention to it. But mostly, even with that on screen, your focus will gravitate to what's directly in front of you. It's just to make it more realistic. Depth of field would make it look a lot better than those mockups.

DOF Mockup (taken from some person's RTT mockup, but modified of course):

---------- Post added at 02:48 ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 ----------

Perhaps I was too vague. I'm not going to commit to saying any of its rivals have better animations, but BF3's vaulting (along with the transitions in and out of prone, and even running) animations are pretty silly looking. I'm not meaning to say that ArmA's current animations are superior; rather, I think BF3 leaves an awful lot in the way of room for improvement regarding animations (and in fact I would say that the actual in-game content is a lot less convincing than what that video contains (as was the case with many of the teasers for the Frostbite 2.0 engine).

Well those animations (minus the prone to run transition) are pretty good. Yes, you could slow them down a little, but the turning animations and the standing to crouch and crouch to prone, are good. Looks better than what ArmA currently has. By the way, that's what is meant by fluid animation.

Edited December 22, 2011 by antoineflemming
movement wasn't what I meant. I meant mouse movement which is turning...

[Messiah 2]

Depth of field is something else then, and I thought that ArmA 2 had a DOF simulation in it, although as I recall it left a lot to be desired? I seem to remember turning it off because it ended up annoying me.

What you need to bare in mind is that some features improve gameplay, some detract. Not everything in the name of realism is a good addition. From your suggestions I personally only see any appeal in reduced HDR glare and tinting via the equipment you use (makes sense and brings up attire choices to the same level of tactical decision making as any weapon)

I understand what you mean with the dark areas, and I understand what you're 'trying' to achieve, but considering we already possess peripheral vision when playing the game, trying to add another simulated level of that onto a screen just feels very clumsy in its implementation.

- Moment of Clarity -

This is the MP thread, and this is begining to turn into a feature discussion

[metalcraze 290]

Of course you won't notice that because the focus of our vision is limited, but there's still peripheral vision. You see it, but it isn't clear. Depth of Field, present in games like COD and BF, can bring about the true desired effect.

No it does not. My eyes are perfectly focused on the monitor yet stupid DoF effect constantly makes them refocus even though the monitor is right there and it's flat.

DoF is one of the worst visual effects ever created in games, up there with bloom and BF3's retina-burning contrast.

DOF Mockup (taken from some person's RTT mockup, but modified of course):

Horrible, absolutely horrible. I look at it for 5 seconds and my eyes are already tired.

FYI ArmA1 had exactly this crappy effect - I'm glad BIS ditched it.

And I thought one of the main points of "open" optics is to let you look around them any time, not become blind when it comes to the rest of the world.

Well those animations (minus the prone to run transition) are pretty good. Yes, you could slow them down a little, but the movement (looking) and the standing to crouch and crouch to prone, are good. Looks better than what ArmA currently has. By the way, that's what is meant by fluid animation.

No they are not. They are just as crappy, but not in a sense of bad mocap and transitions like ArmA, but in a sense that they are not how soldiers move. They are to show off. Some animations in BF3, especially crouching ones, look like a soldier will crap his pants - so hard he tries to show off.

I agree that what ArmA needs is mocapped everything - but if you want to compare ArmA to really good animations, compare it to real life.

Hi. I'd like to reply to metalcraze argument that ArmA realism would discourage PvP kids from ArmA. I occasionally play CoD:MW Search&Destroy (aka Counter-Strike) and Team Deathmatch but only with Hardcore mode (= you die after 1-2 bullets from MP5 & no crosshair). Almost all S&D servers has Hardcore mode on and they're full. Maybe half (or more) of TD servers has Hardcore mode on and they're full as well. Idiot perks (martyr, last stand, ...) are banned on most of these HC servers. PvP kids like me like realism.

Being killed with 1-2 bullets doesn't make BF3 any more realistic. It still remains same arcade game, except you get killed with 1-2 bullets.

And if you like realism so much why are you one of those saying it should be ditched to let CoD-kidz have their fun in another CoD clone #151? Step up and defend realism then - like body weight, weapon weight, lack of floating camera, weapon being real object with which you can't just waltz around corridors - all these features people who say "make the game like BF3 but hey I don't want to turn it into BF3 but hey make it like BF3" so desperately want to get rid of.

Also have you posted a complaint on DICE forum that BF3 has no bulletdrop yet?

Unlocks are for World of Warcraft. Buy system á la Counter-Strike FTW!

Then add it to the mission yourself? Or ask someone? Warfare already has it. And I thought you liked realism? Last time I've checked IRL militaries didn't get money transfered to their account immediately upon and for killing some dude and their commander telling them "Hold on a second! You can't use this brand new M4A3 with IR laser, you have to pay $4000 for it first that you gather from kills"

BTW here's a little riddle I'd like people crying about bad PvP support to answer:

Why Coop players never complain about the lack of Coop support from BIS?

Default coop missions are just as horrible as default PvP ones if not more and making a good coop mission is harder than stuffing a small town with team respawns.

Edited December 22, 2011 by metalcraze

[PuFu 4600]

But there also needs to be a more robust PvP mode. Similar to what Project Reality was looking into, but maybe, make Limos smaller on these maps, like BF, when you stray too far you are killed. Keeps people closer and in a more confined area, which means more kills and more fun. Obviously, in this mode, specific missions can earn you ranks, unlock new weapons, new attachments etc. Could bring a whole new range of players to ArmA, and allow those who turn to COD/BF3 etc when ArmA is giving us a headache, we can just join a PvP server and hook in.

I believe this needs to be looked into. It doesn't need to be crazy complex, just certain missions which have a limited size, distinct objectives, etc.

While I strongly agree that BIS should have more out of the box missions for both coop and PvP (especially good ones for the later), what you are suggesting already happens in most community made PvP games (minus the big tournaments missions): more confined space, but NOT by creating a smaller island, but by limiting the gameplay area to a certain size. Unlocks, new attachments and alike can also be achieved missions side, and i believe with the the sort of server database Jman is currently on, the stats can easily be saved server side. While i DON'T like unlocks and alike to make and appearance in Arma, i have nothing against this sort of approach on a mission/server level.

1. Choke points are mindless meat grinders that have no place in modern warfare IRL or in a simulator in my opinion.

2. Unlocks are for gamers with short attention spans.

3. BF3's animations are actually not that great, and I prefer some degree of bodily inertia.

All reasons why BF3 was quite disappointing in my humble opinion, and why I think BF3 is the last game among the BF series that ArmA should be looking to imitate. Above all, though, I'm most surprised that this thread is still open. XD

While i agree with all your points, i have some notes i would like to make:

1. NATURAL choke points can be a lot of fun to fight over. Back in ArmA days, a lot of my tournaments PvP games took place in Corazol, simply because that was such a choke point: while no one was holding me back from going around it as recon in a chooper/boat whatever. most of the assets provided where limited to having to PUSH through the city. Had a blast...

2. Yes, i do agree wholeheartedly

3. While animations in BF3 are designed for fast paced shooter and gameplay, its fluidity and overall motion is something too aim for by most of the game developers.

@PuFu Peripheral vision and simulating peripheral vision aren't the same. Green dots showing whether something is to the left or right of you is NOT peripheral vision. There's the part of your vision that is focused and clear, and then there's the rest that is blurry and not clear, where the eye can distinguish shape and color and that's about it. THAT is PERIPHERAL VISION.

Thank you for stating the obvious. What is extraordinary is that i can experience the peripheral vision all of the time that i spend awake...cool, no?

And on the note of LODs and stuff like that. Who cares if the eyewear isn't in the character P3D. It's called using the same LOD for third and first person. I can see the gear in third person view. That camera is in a different LID. So theoretically if the first person camera were a modified third person camera, everything would show up, including glasses and headgear. But, maybe you can answer this question without other bullcrap, and JUST answer this question with a simple, honest answer: If you were to move the third person camera to just in front of the eyes (as in using whatever LOD is used for the third person camera), would that look completely horrible? Or would that work, using depth of field settings to blur the "peripheral vision"?

quick answer: if that would be possible (as in ALL games have 2 separate LODs for first and 3rd person view - even when they DON'T have a 3rd view camera for the player) it would look completely stupid, yes.

I have tried to explain to you why those 2 lods are needed, but you seem to be a bit hard-headed for your young age...Even other games that have full body present in 1st person lod such as Crysis 2 have them...

Oh, and nice pics: you see, if BIS would include peripheral vision (actual peripheral vision), it wouldn't be as drastic, but the top pic would be the focused vision, the part that is CLEAR. Everything in the lower pic that isn't in the top pic would be PERIPHERAL vision and therefore blurry. Oh, and BIS can do that. It's called DEPTH OF FIELD.

Well, a game will never be able to simulate depth of field unless it can track where your eyes are pointing at any given time. The sort of games that consider the point of interest the center screen and simulate depth of field for the rest are the ones i am certain to remove this feature first thing. Tell you what. Load any of the games, point your ingame crosshair towards something and then stay put. IRL, pointing your gun's muzzle in one direction doesn't mean you are unable to scan the rest of the area without moving your gun, right...? But your game would only want to focus around the crosshair rather than on the entire screen...

This is just my IDEA of what a more realistic first person view COULD look like. It'd be a larger FOV with Depth of Field used to blur out the peripheral vision. In the end, the view in focus would be the same as with ArmA2's regular FOV (that is probably why BIS has the zoomed in view, and, yes PuFu, it IS zoomed in). I guess BIS only wanted to show what your eyes could actually focus on. It's smart, but peripheral vision would make for an interesting dynamic in-game, not to mention it's more realistic.

Why would i want the screen to simulate something i can already experience when looking at the monitor thanks to my own eyes? What you can tried to achieve here is limiting your field of view from the average 100 degrees in RL to about 50, since the rest is a big blur mass.

I told you before, you want to experience peripheral vision, get 3x24' monitors(minimum), place them at a distance of 20-30cm from your head position, and you'll see that you'll be able to play with the blur that is provided by your own 2 eyes on your lateral monitors...

BTW here's a little riddle I'd like people crying about bad PvP support to answer:

Why Coop players never complain about the lack of Coop support from BIS?

Default coop missions are just as horrible as default PvP ones if not more and making a good coop mission is harder than stuffing a small town with team respawns.

Oh but they do. i heard you numerous times bitching about AI not behaving like human players do, or even better "cheating". I have always felt sorry for that poor soul that actually believes an AI is cheating by being able to walk through a fence, or turn around way too quickly, but he plays with better weapons, respawn ON and with dots on the map. Don't you feel like cheating when an AI cannot respawn like you can?

The fact that you can't or don't want to play against human players, and the fact that OTHERs might have an opinion doesn't make you right and them wrong. Because this is exactly how you behave in general, and to be perfectly honest i am so sick and tired of your frustrated person...

Edited December 22, 2011 by PuFu

[dmarkwick 261]

And if you like realism so much why are you one of those saying it should be ditched to let CoD-kidz have their fun in another CoD clone #151? Step up and defend realism then - like body weight, weapon weight, lack of floating camera, weapon being real object with which you can't just waltz around corridors - all these features people who say "make the game like BF3 but hey I don't want to turn it into BF3 but hey make it like BF3" so desperately want to get rid of.

I don't thnk anyone's mentioned that A3 should be like that at all. I think all that's needed is a simple setup gamemode(s) where you simply start it up, join in, play. Lets call them "missions" ;)

We've all discussed this before, ArmA is more than flexible enough for almost any gamemode type, all that's needed is included missions to cater for a wide range of game types. It's always the endless cycle of hunt-the-addon that breaks a lot of people's interest, so lets have as much variety in the default game as possible. Also, lets have some in-browser indication of a game session that you're already compatible with, say a BIS logo for default addon-free servers.

As for DoF, no case for it to answer. There is literally no good reason to simulate DoF because there's no telling where on the screen a player will decide to look, moving the viewpoint is moving the avatar's head, moving the eyes is done by the player... moving his eyes :)

[metalcraze 290]

I don't thnk anyone's mentioned that A3 should be like that at all. I think all that's needed is a simple setup gamemode(s) where you simply start it up, join in, play. Lets call them "missions" ;)

I agree with this. But you see the problem is that, let's face it, BIS is quite bad at making MP missions. Any MP missions, coop or PvP.

But even considering that people who want pvp with clearly visible objectives right now can install PR, servers of which are very populated most of the time. And it's completely free.

Things I don't agree with (and this thread has them) are complaints about movement (and not in a meaning of animations) where in ArmA you can't just float through air but have to finish your step, weapon wavers when moving and I find the feeling of your body being present in the game to be very immersive. Also complaints about weapon being a real object - to which unfortunately BIS listened and now inside tight corridors you can easily turn around even when aiming with M16 which is quite long. I always liked the need to switch to shorter weapons inside or carry shorter weapons. It was annoying much like quickly dying or blinding sun. But not in the meaning annoying-annoying, but in the meaning gameplay-annoying to which you had to adjust since you can't have everything at once.

It's always the endless cycle of hunt-the-addon that breaks a lot of people's interest, so lets have as much variety in the default game as possible. Also, lets have some in-browser indication of a game session that you're already compatible with, say a BIS logo for default addon-free servers.

This I agree with too (although I have no problem getting needed addons myself, usually server websites also host them). Hopefully BIS will get a few tips from Sickboy and his updater.

As for DoF, no case for it to answer. There is literally no good reason to simulate DoF because there's no telling where on the screen a player will decide to look, moving the viewpoint is moving the avatar's head, moving the eyes is done by the player... moving his eyes :)

Yes. I use aiming deadzone exactly for this. My weapon sights are usually somewhere to the side so I can keep an eye both on where I am shooting and on a possible location for enemies to come. DoF was ruining it quite a bit in ArmA1 since often all but sights and what's in front of them was blurred.

[[evo] dan 79]

I'd also like to see all the modules working in MP this time around as well. That will help with making MP missions too.

[antoineflemming 14]

No it does not. My eyes are perfectly focused on the monitor yet stupid DoF effect constantly makes them refocus even though the monitor is right there and it's flat.

DoF is one of the worst visual effects ever created in games, up there with bloom and BF3's retina-burning contrast.

Horrible, absolutely horrible. I look at it for 5 seconds and my eyes are already tired.

FYI ArmA1 had exactly this crappy effect - I'm glad BIS ditched it.

And I thought one of the main points of "open" optics is to let you look around them any time, not become blind when it comes to the rest of the world.

No they are not. They are just as crappy, but not in a sense of bad mocap and transitions like ArmA, but in a sense that they are not how soldiers move. They are to show off. Some animations in BF3, especially crouching ones, look like a soldier will crap his pants - so hard he tries to show off.

I agree that what ArmA needs is mocapped everything - but if you want to compare ArmA to really good animations, compare it to real life.

Being killed with 1-2 bullets doesn't make BF3 any more realistic. It still remains same arcade game, except you get killed with 1-2 bullets.

And if you like realism so much why are you one of those saying it should be ditched to let CoD-kidz have their fun in another CoD clone #151? Step up and defend realism then - like body weight, weapon weight, lack of floating camera, weapon being real object with which you can't just waltz around corridors - all these features people who say "make the game like BF3 but hey I don't want to turn it into BF3 but hey make it like BF3" so desperately want to get rid of.

Also have you posted a complaint on DICE forum that BF3 has no bulletdrop yet?

Then add it to the mission yourself? Or ask someone? Warfare already has it. And I thought you liked realism? Last time I've checked IRL militaries didn't get money transfered to their account immediately upon and for killing some dude and their commander telling them "Hold on a second! You can't use this brand new M4A3 with IR laser, you have to pay $4000 for it first that you gather from kills"

BTW here's a little riddle I'd like people crying about bad PvP support to answer:

Why Coop players never complain about the lack of Coop support from BIS?

Default coop missions are just as horrible as default PvP ones if not more and making a good coop mission is harder than stuffing a small town with team respawns.

Ok. I understand your issue with the DOF. I can understand the whole peripheral blur issue. I see that your peripheral vision is working even when just looking at the screen. What I can't understand is 1) Issue with a more realistic FOV, 2) issues with superior, yes, realistic animations. I don't care if they put your precious ArmA animations to shame. They do. YES, that is how soldiers move.

This is just on stances, not movement.

Standing stance: there is no set way to stand and shoot.

Crouch: There is no set way to crouch. Keep in mind that someone was actually crouched like that, and I'm pretty sure they weren't crapping their pants.

Prone: There is nothing wrong with the prone stance.

Movement:

Walking/Running: I don't see any problem with this movement in BF3.

Crouching: Yes, this looks like crapping, but if you noticed I did not say I liked the crouch movement. I was only highlighting what was in that video, which was fluid stances and transitions (minus the prone to sprint transition).

Prone: If you say this isn't realistic, then you haven't seen how soldiers move. Their prone movement (third person, not floating hand movement) is a realistic high crawl. I'm not talking about the character sliding around, which is not an animation mocap issue. I'm saying that crawl is realistic, whereas ArmA's isn't. Maybe other nations train their soldiers to crawl like that, but in those games you're playing as USMC and US Army, and BF3's prone animation is how soldiers are trained to high crawl.

No, none of these things which I've brought up are necessarily game breaking things.

@PuFu Again, just simply answer a question without trying to blow up the issue and acting like you've been greatly offended. You actually never explained WHY two LODs are needed. You just explained that there were two LODs. This is the first time you've done so. In the end, I can understand the blur issues and problems with that. As I said in other threads, the main thing I would want is to actually have functional glasses and to have that increased FOV, as in seeing more of the rifle like you can in my mockup pics. Is there anything WRONG with that?

One last question: Are you saying that there is absolutely no way to have functional glasses in ArmA3?

@metalcraze The most important point of posting the BF3 video is to show what is meant by fluid animations. You can slow down the turning and stuff to be realistic to having a lot of gear, but that is the realistic, fluid movement I've been talking about. It doesn't look clunky. Most of ArmA's animations themselves aren't an issue. Is that it's not fluid. I'd be fine with ArmA's walking, crouching, running, turning, sidestepping animations if they were actually fluid.

Edited December 22, 2011 by antoineflemming

[wipman 1]

Hi, the problem with the FOV is that the ppl like me with 5:4 monitors will have a narrower FOV than a dude/chick wiz a 16:9 one so... he/she may be more aware than me in MP which means kill more; this can adjusted a bit but the ones with 16:9 monitors will have a little advantage on me because my hardware and that's not the BIS fault.

The damn blur effecs... the blur is unrealistic and is bad in MP for everyone; the only time where you can get a little advantage of it, is if your CPU is not that big but your graphic card is; then you turn On the blur the game (the ArmA2 at least) will run better/faster as sends that working load from the CPU to the Graphic Card. But im againist the blur, is not realistic and is more a problem than a solution to anything; booth in MP as in SP.

Simulate sun glasses...!? hell yeah man that we can do that; you do 'checker' that checks if you've X equipment (read: a 3D model, just as the weapons or the map) on your inventory and then if Yes... it tweaks the colour values of your screen to the glasses colour; it's easyer than kill a baby.

The ArmA's animations are indeed a pain, some of 'em; for example... if you are crouched with an AT at your shoulder and you stand up... what the game does is:

A) hold the AT and switch to the main weapon and stand up.

B) once standing (inmovile, you can't move from this point) switch from the main weapon to the AT; all this standing unable to move to anywhere.

Is worst with the side arm to binocs or to the LD... it cycles by all the weapons that you've before do what want (go prone or stand up) and you can't do nothing about it than observe a weird, stupid and deadly cycle of animations be performed on your screen by your character; if they kill you... you don't gonna go to hell until the whole animations end their absurd cycle. This is not my idea of "fluid", "realistic" and much less "good". And this goes againist the fun in MP because you've bigger chances to die without be able of do anything else than watch. Let's C ya

[antoineflemming 14]

Hi, the problem with the FOV is that the ppl like me with 5:4 monitors will have a narrower FOV than a dude/chick wiz a 16:9 one so... he/she may be more aware than me in MP which means kill more; this can adjusted a bit but the ones with 16:9 monitors will have a little advantage on me because my hardware and that's not the BIS fault.

The damn blur effecs... the blur is unrealistic and is bad in MP for everyone; the only time where you can get a little advantage of it, is if your CPU is not that big but your graphic card is; then you turn On the blur the game (the ArmA2 at least) will run better/faster as sends that working load from the CPU to the Graphic Card. But im againist the blur, is not realistic and is more a problem than a solution to anything; booth in MP as in SP.

Simulate sun glasses...!? hell yeah man that we can do that; you do 'checker' that checks if you've X equipment (read: a 3D model, just as the weapons or the map) on your inventory and then if Yes... it tweaks the colour values of your screen to the glasses colour; it's easyer than kill a baby.

The ArmA's animations are indeed a pain, some of 'em; for example... if you are crouched with an AT at your shoulder and you stand up... what the game does is:

A) hold the AT and switch to the main weapon and stand up.

B) once standing (inmovile, you can't move from this point) switch from the main weapon to the AT; all this standing unable to move to anywhere.

Is worst with the side arm to binocs or to the LD... it cycles by all the weapons that you've before do what want (go prone or stand up) and you can't do nothing about it than observe a weird, stupid and deadly cycle of animations be performed on your screen by your character; if they kill you... you don't gonna go to hell until the whole animations end their absurd cycle. This is not my idea of "fluid", "realistic" and much less "good". And this goes againist the fun in MP because you've bigger chances to die without be able of do anything else than watch. Let's C ya

Oh, yeah, I understand the blur thing. I was just trying to see what an actual eyesight simulation would look like, and it'd look something like that. But, yeah, it's a little much. As far as the glasses thing. I'd be find with even that. I just think they should be functional and not just for show.

As far as the FOV thing, I just want to be able to see more of my weapon as that is more realistic. Not only that but I think it just looks better than only being able to see half of your weapon sight and forward. It's like the rest of the weapon is resting on your cheek or something.

[wipman 1]

Oh, yeah, I understand the blur thing. I was just trying to see what an actual eyesight simulation would look like, and it'd look something like that. But, yeah, it's a little much. As far as the glasses thing. I'd be find with even that. I just think they should be functional and not just for show.

As far as the FOV thing, I just want to be able to see more of my weapon as that is more realistic. Not only that but I think it just looks better than only being able to see half of your weapon sight and forward. It's like the rest of the weapon is resting on your cheek or something.

Hi, i think that the glasses should be functional too, i was just sugesting an easy and doable method for get it; and then wear or not tinted glasses could mark the difference on certain enviroments or times of the day.

The problem that i see with the weapons is that there're not specific animations for each weapon aside that the character is always with the weapon raised on the shoulder and if you don't go arround with the Free Look and the weapon aiming down... then the weapon takes very much of the screen removing alot of awareness. But i don't know of an easy way of get rid of this, as capital animations as this ones can't be (IMO) made by gradual steps; because that will remove almost all the reaction time at the time to ADS, i think. Let's C ya

[PuFu 4600]

@PuFu You actually never explained WHY two LODs are needed. You just explained that there were two LODs.

Mainly because it allows more flexibility. For example, in the pilotLOD the weapons have higher details, things that you wouldn't notice in 3rd person anyways. Plus, as i previously said, there is no head in the first, which allows for the freelook to work as it should rather than having to deal with clippings and alike which prone to happen in most of todays games.

This is the first time you've done so.

No it isn't. If someone would tell me something and i wouldn't believe him, i would, as i already suggested to you, open up the model provided by BIS myself. Seems you can't be bothered with such a complicated task. Would most likely clear a lot of your issues.

In the end, I can understand the blur issues and problems with that. As I said in other threads, the main thing I would want is to actually have functional glasses and to have that increased FOV, as in seeing more of the rifle like you can in my mockup pics. Is there anything WRONG with that?

And i already said you can increase the FOV, just like you did in that mockup picture of yours.

One last question: Are you saying that there is absolutely no way to have functional glasses in ArmA3?

Oh but there is. I already said it is possible right now in A2(without the glare and alike, just the tint)...

You just don't need to have a real 3d model that close to the eye point/camera, if you would like to have it blurred. You could just have an overlay (ACE method).

The only thing that i doubt to be possible in A3 is changing the HDR/Glare/Bloom based on the item use/wear...

Edited December 23, 2011 by PuFu

[wipman 1]

Hi, is true that you can't change the HDR/Glare/Bloom based on the equipment that you've; for do it you'll have to change the engine and fine tune the UV maps of every game's texture and even then... sure that there're plenty of times where it wouldn't change that much from what we already have. The HDR in it's present form unables you to play at certain times of the day (by hours) and doesn't affect the AI, so in MP on the ArmA2 you're totaly sold againist the AI at those times.

The tinted colours could improve this but just a bit, it can't solve it at the 100%. Let's C ya

[acoustic 82]

OP, I agree with your posts about animations and that public MP not being that great.

In all honesty, if I were to have picked up Arma without being in a clan and just joined a random public server I would have probably thrown the game away. I have a little more patience then most people though (I play Arma don't I?) so I decided to give it a go with the clan I was in and get some COOP sessions in and eventually TvT. The average player though will usually give up early on due to the fact that they are use to either BF or CoD style of MP. These people might be shunned by the BI community for not having the patience at first but you have to realize that these people could eventually join clans and get a little more serious. I have not a clue what the solution is to keeping the new guys but I assume BI is doing something about it.

Another real quick input of mine to this thread in terms of FOV, animations, and models.

FOV: Saw what RH posted a couple of pages back and was really impressed with the difference. It honestly replicated better what holding an AR-15 is actually like.

Animations: Animations certainly needs improvements, BI knows this and we should know this as well. Not much discussion on this is needed.

Models (kinda a suggestions of mine): I have always had an issue with the models of units in the Arma Verse, especially Blufor. I think it honestly has to do with the idle animations and animations in general so everything should be good in III. The BAF units did have a lot more quality in them than the vanilla units though.

[Dawks 10]

No it does not. My eyes are perfectly focused on the monitor yet stupid DoF effect constantly makes them refocus even though the monitor is right there and it's flat.

Yes, the monitor is right there. And stays right there. If the image blurs, you can't focus it by focussing your eyes, because the object is still at the same distance. So no, DoF does notRPTnot make you refocus your eyes.

DOF Mockup (taken from some person's RTT mockup, but modified of course):

Horrible, absolutely horrible. I look at it for 5 seconds and my eyes are already tired.

Wonderful ... fabulous ... love it totally. Eye/mind is naturally drawn to the in-focus area, so peripheral becomes less distracting. (Not great for SituationalAwareness, but that's IRL too. Target fixation => fail/lose/die.) Edited January 12, 2012 by Tremblay

[james2464 177]

Yes, the monitor is right there. And stays right there. If the image blurs, you can't focus it by focussing your eyes, because the object is still at the same distance. So no, DoF does notRPTnot make you refocus your eyes.

Wonderful ... fabulous ... love it totally. Eye/mind is naturally drawn to the in-focus area, so peripheral becomes less distracting. (Not great for SituationalAwareness, but that's IRL too.)

i like it too

[Minoza 11]

^^+1 both RTT and DOF