How to improve the Close Quarter Combat experience in Arma 3?

[-Coulum- 35]

I wonder if a specific new collision logic could look after fluid movement, so that the barrel/player colliding with geometry makes you fluidly slide away from the collision, much as you would naturally IRL. Basically, the idea is that ingame you should be able to enter through a doorway as fast and as naturally as IRL, and that's simply not the case now. You always seem to spend a couple of valuable and unnecessary seconds dancing about trying to rattle yourself in. I dunno. Something needs to be improved somewhere, that seems to be generally agreed on.

That sounds like a good idea. Auto raising lowering weapons would help prevent people form getting stuck but this kind of thing would help even more. Of course I have no clue how this would be done or of its even possible.

[SexParty 1]

Autolowering your weapon when close to a wall and autoraising it when not is an easy solution.

The problem is that in CQB America's Army plays very much like BF. You can just move back and forth through doorways blasting enemies inside easily.

To me people's issue seem to be because of the easiest way to clean insides of buildings in ArmA being the usage of SWAT-like procedures (they do work, while running inside guns blazing does not) but alas they require teamwork, which is something not present on all those Domi/Warfare/PvP public servers. If you don't want to work as a team clearly the best solution is to dumb down the game, not to learn to play it.

And I still don't understand what exactly people mean by "clunky movement" as I never had any issues with moving in ArmA and if I wanted to clean narrow takistani buildings I just used the pistol or SMG.

---------- Post added at 12:36 ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 ----------

Really? I guess floating camera, hip shooting, hopping, steady aim don't count? Among other things.

Exactly. So why is it being used as an example in a discussion about a simulator? And why realism and "skill" are mutually exclusive? And what do you mean by this "skill"?

So what exactly is wrong with ArmA's CQC? In America's Army 2 CQC is completely and utterly broken because you just waltz through buildings BF-style - clearly that means America's Army 2 is doing it wrong too. So tell me what is the right way of doing CQC?

They want realism so much BF3 got health regeneration and got rid of medics with soldiers jumping out of planes in the middle of the air to blast another plane with RPG and also come here wondering why ArmA has no bunny hopping :D

Not talking about strafing in and out of doors or jumping etc. I encourage the idea that you commit to room clearing and make CQC more military and realistic. But with that comes the desire to move like a human and we are fluid and seamless. I don't get caught on doors and walls, I bounce off them, I don't get caught half way through animations etc. We're argueing the same thing you're just intent on defending ARMA being a sim and not becoming arcade like and everyone here wants the same thing. Only thing is everyone else sees room for improvement and mediums in which inspiration can be taken from and you simply outright seem to be defending ARMA. Thats fine but nobody wants what you fear ARMA could become. So don't worry about that.

As for the battlefield, don't even bother it's exhuasting thinking about discussing this. The DEVs are out of touch with the community and the game does not reflect what the fans want.

I wonder if a specific new collision logic could look after fluid movement, so that the barrel/player colliding with geometry makes you fluidly slide away from the collision, much as you would naturally IRL. Basically, the idea is that ingame you should be able to enter through a doorway as fast and as naturally as IRL, and that's simply not the case now. You always seem to spend a couple of valuable and unnecessary seconds dancing about trying to rattle yourself in. I dunno. Something needs to be improved somewhere, that seems to be generally agreed on.

A great idea but already done by battlefield to an extent and madden in detail. Maddens ANT technology is excellent at that. Which is what I've been trying to get at, madden is not a military simulation or even an FPS but a lot as far as the mechanics of the game can be learnt from it at a coding level because it's got some of the most realistic human movement seen in any game. And things such as this are what ARMA needs.

[rye1 21]

Good video - btw you can see them slightly lowering the weapon when close to the walls, while when they move into the room they raise it again. I would like to see a solution like that. BIS is adding faster walking speed compared to ArmA2 and I hope they will consider this. Just faster autolowering/raising speed for gameplay and it's perfect. Obviously the firing button should still be active since you can still hit enemy in the feet if he's too close in those bits of seconds you raise the weapon.

And no wonder they had the leftie on the rear of the stack, poor guy on point would of got popped before he could even let off a round.

One thing though guys. I try compare features of other games, not gameplay. Firefights in COD, BF3, AA2/3 will be wayyyyyyyyy different to Arma. For one AA2 had a view distance of around 200m! It's a joke to compare gameplay. Just look at the good features you would want to see and try visualise them in Arma 3 and how that would universally change it - better or worse? Of course you can compare what happened in THOSE games - but that doesn't mean it'll happen in Arma, why? Because there are contingencies you can make to assure it won't. Now thinking of those contingencies instead of argueing about other games would really impress.

And what we really need is not just getting stuck in doorways but allowing players to get REALLY close together. That would allow two to squeeze through a doorway - maybe allowing them to squeeze through if they are facing a certain direction i.e. one left, one right.

Like this: http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/382338_10150390761102772_180015202771_8588866_529809981_n.jpg.

South Africa style, 4 to a door, 3:1 split. Or like the Israeli's do it.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Rye

[maturin 12]

Maybe some squishy collision would be nice. First couple of inches of clipping just makes you bounce or slide, so weapons and men and backpacks can squeeze appropriately without snagging on things.

[Phantom Six 25]

For CQC I'd like some fluid movements of going to and through the room, lockable/breachable doors, flashbangs, breach charges and those other goodies (keep it real). I heard that BIS are going to make all buildings if not all almost all buildings enterable. If that's the case, why not some CQC too :D . The movements in ARMA 2 are a bit hard to do CQC with but SMK animation does make it a bit easier but some part of it is a bit arcadey. I did heard that SMK animation some part of it somewhere is being included in ARMA 3? I guess that would be nice. For CQC, I like how SWAT 4 does it.

[rye1 21]

flashbangs

6-12 bangs. :)

Single flashbangs are OK but do not expand all scenarios and longer enteries, etc.

I'm sure if BIS gave us a single, someone could mod a 12bang.

[hoak 0]

What's wrong with the hit-reconciliation?

There's nothing 'wrong' with it per-se, as there isn't any, the game's hit code is client-side, so there is not and can not be any hit-testing or time based 'reverse' feed-forward hit-reconciliation -- see below...

Oh... okay. so what do you mean by "You Fellas are kinda ask'n asking the equivalent of making an all-weather fighter out of a cargo plane...". If you read my post I never actually stated that you were saying anything. I was merely asking, thus the ?. please explain to me what you truly mean as we are obviously not understanding one another.

ArmA 2, and Arma 3 as far as we know has client-side hit code like ArmA 2, if this is the case then a lot of this discussion is 'cart before the horse' (or pony in this case)... This means there's no server-side hit-testing or reverse/feed-forward reconciliation... Neither does ArmA 3 advertise per-poly (or pixel) hit-code...

If in fact the aforesaid is the case, it would mean as far as PvP is concerned that a lot of the CQC positioning precision people appear to be pining for is just going to exacerbate the 'WTF' factor of where WUSINWYG; ergo 'what you see is NOT what you get'...

Even applied to PvE COOP all the precise positioning, formation, lean and peak animation etc. are going to end up being little more then aesthetic affectation and as far as game-play is concerned little more then pretend, as again there's nothing reconciling what the AI sees with what each real player sees in for example a fire-team... Just how absurd this can get escapes some people until they see time synced recorded video from more then one player perspective in a PvP or PvE game with client-side hit-code...

Not trying to rain on anyone's pet wish parade here, just suggesting that the enormous emphasis on more aesthetic feature and even functional realism that doesn't have infrastructure to support it may be premature...

:confused:

Edited April 9, 2012 by Hoak

[-Coulum- 35]

flashbangs

6-12 bangs.

Single flashbangs are OK but do not expand all scenarios and longer enteries, etc.

I'm sure if BIS gave us a single, someone could mod a 12bang.

Are flashbangs generally used by the army? I always though of them as a special forces/swat kind of tool for some reason. Its a good idea to implement them in A3 but what would their effects be on other players and more importantly on the ai.

And I never knew flashbangs can have more than one "bang". If they get into arma they should all have multiple bangs if only to impress the cod kids.

There's nothing 'wrong' with it per-se, as there isn't any, the game's hit code is client-side, so there is not and can not be any hit-testing or time based 'reverse' feed-forward hit-reconciliation -- see below...

ArmA 2, and Arma 3 as far as we know has client-side hit code like ArmA 2, if this is the case then a lot of this discussion is 'cart before the horse' (or pony in this case)... This means there's no server-side hit-testing or reverse/feed-forward reconciliation... Neither does ArmA 3 advertise per-poly (or pixel) hit-code...

If in fact the aforesaid is the case, it would mean as far as PvP is concerned that a lot of the CQC positioning precision people appear to be pining for is just going to exacerbate the 'WTF' factor of where WUSINWYG; ergo 'what you see is NOT what you get'...

Even applied to PvE COOP all the precise positioning, formation, lean and peak animation etc. are going to end up being little more then aesthetic affectation and as far as game-play is concerned little more then pretend, as again there's nothing reconciling what the AI sees with what each real player sees in for example a fire-team... Just how absurd this can get escapes some people until they see time synced recorded video from more then one player perspective in a PvP or PvE game with client-side hit-code...

Not trying to rain on anyone's pet wish parade here, just suggesting that the enormous emphasis on more aesthetic feature and even functional realism that doesn't have infrastructure to support it may be premature...

:confused:

Hmmm. Interesting. So essentially arma's online gameplay doesn't handle and process info well enough? May I ask though why this would effect CQC greater than long range battles?

I personally find that my coop games against the ai in CQC currently seem alright (besides what everyones been discussing earlier in this thread).

In PVP things seem to work fine for me as well. I don't experience any of what you are saying. But I only play with a small group of people and we all live within 20 km of one another so maybe that makes things "better"? You also say that "this can get escapes some people until they see time synced recorded video from more then one player perspective in a PvP or PvE game with client-side hit-code..." so maybe I am ignorant of how bad things really are.

Of course in SP your points have no value whatsoever.

So you think that devs should work on building a strong base for multiplayer on the technical side before they focus on smoothing out the actual gameplay? This is logical but I honestly have to say that I don't notice much of the problems you are describing. and what exactly is the harm in creating better CQC animations fluidity and what not? For me, and I assume most other Arma players (could be totally wrong) If you asked whether I wanted close combat improved or what your talking about improved I would instantly say close combat - because I really don't notice what you are talking about while I play. Now that you have brought it up I of course hope it gets immprovement but reallly I don't see how making weapons automatically lower/raise, making people not get stuck so easily and making smoother walking could hurt the game in any way whatsoever. The same goes for AI suggestions in this thread as well. They can only result in more enjoyment, even if what your saying is true. In the campaign and SP these suggestions would make a big difference as well. and although the campaign of a game often doesn't represent the full potential of it accurately the campaign is one of the big things players and critics will use to judge a game. So even if what you are saying is correct, I see no reason to not give a at least a little bit of loving to the CQC of A3.

time synced recorded video from more then one player perspective in a PvP or PvE game with client-side hit-code...

Do you have any of these? I am interested to see how what your talking about translates into in terms of gameplay.

Edited April 9, 2012 by -Coulum-

[hoak 0]

Are flashbangs generally used by the army? I always though of them as a special forces/swat kind of tool for some reason.

I don't have any idea what you're pretending to quote about flash-bangs as I didn't say anything about them in the thread, but yes all branches of the U.S. Military do have them in inventory...

Hmmm. Interesting. So essentially arma's online gameplay doesn't handle and process info well enough?

Well from what has been disclosed as of ArmA 2, the game's net-code doesn't even have the 'process' or means to 'handle and process' -- i.e. no hit-testing or reconciliation at all...

May I ask though why this would effect CQC greater than long range battles?

Yes, you may...

In PVP things seem to work fine for me as well.

You say this multiple times in your post, but whether you consider it valid or not; it's not about you and just your anecdotal experience; it's about what most Players experience.

I don't experience any of what you are saying. But I only play with a small group of people and we all live within 20 km of one another so maybe that makes things "better"? You also say that "this can get escapes some people until they see time synced recorded video from more then one player perspective in a PvP or PvE game with client-side hit-code..." so maybe I am ignorant of how bad things really are.

Yes, if you play with friends, especially if they geographically close to you and have similar and/or low latency, and none of those you play with are motivated to exploit the limitations of client-side hit-code, you probably won't see much in the way of issues.

Of course in SP your points have no value whatsoever.

I never suggested or implied they did... But since you brought it up; what the AI 'sees' (and does not) can obviate as much realism as net-code limitations with regard to the sort of precision involved in scaling realistic CQC scenarios...

So you think that devs should work on building a strong base for multiplayer on the technical side before they focus on smoothing out the actual gameplay? This is logical but I honestly have to say that I don't notice much of the problems you are describing.

I haven't said or implied anything about what the Developers should do, or work on, the assumption here again, is all yours. I have suggested what Fans might want to focus on that's practical and logical to wish for in terms of getting more of what they want per man-hour of development time that gets poured into ArmA 3.

I am interested to see how what your talking about translates into in terms of gameplay

Obviously PvP is where it has the biggest effect, issues that will present, prevail and can not be reconciled without some sort of hit-reconciliation or testing system include but aren't limited to:

· being hit from a Player you can't see (is not in your LOS)

· Players killing Players they should not be able to see

· misses that should be hits

· dropped projectile and hit-scan hits

· player warping (either visibly, or, interpolated, smoothed and not seen)

· hits that should miss

· triggers that can not be triggered

· lean/peek sync that making the first two scenarios common

These issues and anomalies can be moved around, and covered up to an extent as far as who 'sees' them, who sufferers, and who does not... Again with CSHC and no system of hit-reconciliation the anomalies will always be present and prevail on some Players, increase with greater latency, and get increasingly bizarre with unavoidable packet-loss...

SOTA net-code that was the match of some of the RV engine's other capabilities could substantially move the ArmA franchise forward in a bigger way that has more significance with respect to actual game play then what amounts to the 'paint job'... I'm not trivializing what anyone values in this thread, just say'n a lot of what people are pining for here can be satisfied by mods, what gets done with the net-code is solely in BI's hands...

:)

Edited April 9, 2012 by Hoak

[-Coulum- 35]

I don't have any idea what you're pretending to quote about flash-bangs as I didn't say anything about them in the thread, but yes all branches of the U.S. Military do have them in inventory...

Ha sorry bout that. I was discussing something from earlier on in the thread and merely quoted the wrong person. If you haven't noticed, computers are not exactly my strong point. fixed now though.

Well from what has been disclosed as of ArmA 2, the game's net-code doesn't even have the 'process' or means to 'handle and process' -- i.e. no hit-testing or reconciliation at all...

So is it relatively straight forward for BI to implement these things? Could that possibly be what is meant on the "confirmed features list" by "The net code is being optimized."? Or is it something that would take tons of time and work and if it were not specifically mentioned already, probably won't be implemented in a3, at least not upon initial release.

Yes, you may...

C'mon man. I don't know if your trying to be funny or be a smartass, but I personally am trying to look at things from your point of view and discuss them with you. the least you could do is use a bit of common sense and logic.

You say this multiple times in your post, but whether you consider it valid or not; it's not about you and just your anecdotal experience; it's about what most Players experience.

Yes I know its not "all about me" and I know that I don't in any way represent the arma community - but I do represent that fraction of the community, no matter how small or big, that doesn't really mind the net code the way it is and I am trying to describe to you why I personally still think that CQC is worth improving now. and who knows, maybe "most players" aren't experiencing problems like you are. start a thread about it and find out.

I never suggested or implied they did... But since you brought it up; what the AI 'sees' (and does not) can obviate as much realism as net-code limitations with regard to the sort of precision involved in scaling realistic CQC scenarios...

I know you never mentioned it. I brought it up to support the fact that implementing better CQC will still have benefits, even with shitty netcode.

I haven't said or implied anything about what the Developers should do, or work on, the assumption here again, is all yours. I have suggested what Fans might want to focus on that's practical and logical to wish for in terms of getting more of what they want per man-hour of development time that gets poured into ArmA 3.

*sigh* this again. I am not saying that you are thinking anything. I am asking if you are thinking something thus the ?. I'll try to stop it since you always jump to the conclusion that I am trying to twist your words. But I am not. just trying to summarize what you are telling me, put it in my own words and ask you if I am understanding it correctly.

Anyways. I agree with you to a certain extent. the community should be wanting more optimization and improvement on this front.

Obviously PvP is where it has the biggest effect, issues that will present, prevail and can not be reconciled without some sort of hit-reconciliation or testing system include but aren't limited to:

· being hit from a Player you can't see (is not in your LOS)

· Players killing Players they should not be able to see

· misses that should be hits

· dropped projectile and hit-scan hits

· player warping (either visibly, or, interpolated, smoothed and not seen)

· hits that should miss

· triggers that can not be triggered

· lean/peek sync that making the first two scenarios common

These issues and anomalies can be moved around, and covered up to an extent as far as who 'sees' them, who sufferers, and who does not... Again with CSHC and no system of hit-reconciliation the anomalies will always be present and prevail on some Players, increase with greater latency, and get increasingly bizarre with unavoidable packet-loss...

Thanks for this. very informative and gives me a better picture of what your asking to be fixed.

SOTA net-code that was the match of some of the RV engine's other capabilities could substantially move the ArmA franchise forward in a bigger way that has more significance with respect to actual game play then what amounts to the 'paint job'... I'm not trivializing what anyone values in this thread, just say'n a lot of what people are pining for here can be satisfied by mods, what gets done with the net-code is solely in BI's hands...

I agree. But I still don't think this is a reason for BI not to work on CQC, even if only a bit. And like I mentioned earlier I personally don't really see the effects of this while playing... And I know that I don't in any way represent the arma community, but I do represent that fraction of the community, no matter how small or big, that doesn't really mind the net code the way it is, and I am just speaking my mind.

You raise some good point Haok. But here is not the place for it. Hell this is not even the place for discussing whether CQB should be improved or not - its for discussing what can be done to improve it. Start a new thread on this matter or open a feature/bug report on the a3 devheaven site. I would be willing to support and discuss it further.

[rye1 21]

Are flashbangs generally used by the army? I always though of them as a special forces/swat kind of tool for some reason. Its a good idea to implement them in A3 but what would their effects be on other players and more importantly on the ai.

And I never knew flashbangs can have more than one "bang". If they get into arma they should all have multiple bangs if only to impress the cod kids.

In some units, yes. In those heavily involved in Close Quarters, Counter-terrorism, Room clearing then you will see them more often.

But some units in Afghanistan have them, say working in Kabul.

Contractors have also used them in defensive driving.

Vehicle CheckPoints have used them.

So, yes it's used. But to what value that has in Arma 3? I don't know. The 50+ cities, villages and towns it has. The enterable buildings.

Just a thought...

Yes you can get more than one bang. 6-12 that I know of.

You can also get them mixed with CS/CN gas.

No joke...

12's are fire starters as it is, nevermind mixed. :D

Then the oxygen/NBC kit comes out. :mad:

"DD is called P1, its made with 6, 8, 10 or 12 bangs. There is P2 too,its with bangs and CS together." - Slovakian SWAT member. Probably different model names in other countries.

See here:

1:07 and 1:44.

P.S. my fellow clan member Snakedoctor does not endorse this video! (And neither do the sane ones)

From playing today, what we also need:

Better penetration through windows and flight path

Better effect through windows (bullet deflection, breaking glass)

Better AI sight to muzzle ratio

Less, way less clipping!

Edited April 10, 2012 by Rye

[hoak 0]

You raise some good point Haok. But here is not the place for it. Hell this is not even the place for discussing whether CQB should be improved or not - its for discussing what can be done to improve it.

It certainly is the place to discuss it; while a net-code centric thread could encompass a much broader range of technical design discussion -- there's plenty that applies here explicitly; just as it would be silly to plan speed skating races on a lake without knowing when the time of year the ice starts to get to thin. RV is an LSS engine that renders and positions a lot more entities then indoor or BSP type engines, similarly it's net-code was designed for LSS game-modes and play -- that's not to say it can't be made to work better at the level of granularity, precision, and smoothness needed for CQC, but, that's not as simple as dropping in new pretty art assets like some animations, and monkeying around with collision mesh.

Start a new thread on this matter or open a feature/bug report on the a3 devheaven site. I would be willing to support and discuss it further.

Why? The current design and it's limitations are not bug's or issue, any more then the fact that a '57 VW Beetle can't go over 100mph...

I'm all for people making any sort of 'pet wish' posts as pleases them, but they should be tempered with the same awareness that you can't skate on an lake that isn't frozen. Having a wish list that's congruent with reality has a lot better chance of making it's way into the game by way of BI's efforts or Mod projects...

:)

Edited April 10, 2012 by Hoak

[rye1 21]

I'm all for people making any sort of 'pet wish' posts as pleases them, but they should be tempered with the same awareness that you can't skate on an lake that isn't frozen. Having a wish list that's congruent with reality has a lot better chance of making it's way into the game by way of BI's efforts or Mod projects...

A mixture of idea's and opinions. Realities and possibilities. This isn't "BIS, do this". This is "Hey, take a look at this", "This may improve this aspect". This is valuable information to a point, not a wishlist full of 'I want da big gunz'. From a gamers perspective it shows you Arma's constraints, from reality (and pushing towards realism gamers) perspectives it shows you their opinions, for public players it gives you an idea of what new kids to the block want and old hardcore gamers. Some things here, they may be a small sentence or a few words to a whole paragraph on a topic/subtopic really deserve to be in game, or be fixed. :D

[Whirly 1]

I really hope we can mod in weapon raising/lowering like this -

l2bbdLUY_jE&context=C49b01a6ADvjVQa1PpcFODIfYh5xtQeChBytleqmj_C9jCWDJI9lg=

[NoRailgunner 0]

AFAIK "Lower/raise weapon" is ingame since OFP/CWA. Only issue is that people have to do it on their own and not to wait until some auto-magic kicks in. Or is there any logic that weapons should clip through solid walls or objects when they physically can't? Imo players should get or "feel" this feedback of beeing too close to a wall/object. For newbies/recruits there could be a flashing warning symbol until they got used to distances and the barrel lenght or their rifles. ;)

[Whirly 1]

AFAIK "Lower/raise weapon" is ingame since OFP/CWA. Only issue is that people have to do it on their own and not to wait until some auto-magic kicks in. Or is there any logic that weapons should clip through solid walls or objects when they physically can't? Imo players should get or "feel" this feedback of beeing too close to a wall/object. For newbies/recruits there could be a flashing warning symbol until they got used to distances and the barrel lenght or their rifles. ;)

In Arma I often get stuck in doorways and it really ruins the realism/simulation aspect for me. I tried this today with my .243 in my living room doorway and it was very easy to do, I certainly didn't get stuck like I do in Arma.

w961bpMc1bY&context=C493eadfADvjVQa1PpcFODIfYh5xtQeNWMxX7Jna6wRmFovYP-R3g=

[antoineflemming 14]

I really hope we can mod in weapon raising/lowering like this -

l2bbdLUY_jE&context=C49b01a6ADvjVQa1PpcFODIfYh5xtQeChBytleqmj_C9jCWDJI9lg=

Why should we hope to be able to mod it? Man I hope BIS implements that!

[NoRailgunner 0]

whirly thats simply because you know or don't want to know how it feels! Ingame you have to do the same just with an click - otherwise you would sooner or later feel too comfortable/invulnerable with all those magic/unreal "auto" features. ;)

[metalcraze 290]

Nice video, Rye.

Also shows how CQB really is, not hollywoodish hopping/blindfiring. Perhaps that grenade throwing can be achieved by aiming with a deadzone like it's with weapons now (if you turn it on of course)? Except use that deadzone as a throwing angle.

Also perfect example, Whirly. Very smooth and fluid. BIS should do it like that.

[Smurf 12]

whirly thats simply because you know or don't want to know how it feels! Ingame you have to do the same just with an click - otherwise you would sooner or later feel too comfortable/invulnerable with all those magic/unreal "auto" features. ;)

Then you should have to actually drive the mag out\in and pull\push the bolts while reloading or walk in QWOP style? :j:

Seriously, the need to lower\raise the weapon to walk in confined spaces while in "hip fire mode" should be automatic. The manual lower is meant to hold the trigger happies.

[metalcraze 290]

whirly thats simply because you know or don't want to know how it feels! Ingame you have to do the same just with an click - otherwise you would sooner or later feel too comfortable/invulnerable with all those magic/unreal "auto" features. ;)

Well the fact that lowering your weapon for a bit already doesn't make you invulnerable, in fact it's the opposite for those moments. Still - with the lowered weapon you are still able to fire and in case of you moving through a doorway sideways and you noticing an enemy crouching right there very close - you still can easily kill him by pulling the trigger since your gun is still pointed ahead more or less (of course not the dudes that will be further away which is fair).

I just hope BIS will implement this solution, I find it good enough. Of course it should depend on weapon length too. F.e. something as big and clunky as M240 will be lowered most of the time in buildings like Takistani huts while much shorter M4 will get more freedom.

[Panda_pl 0]

Well, frankly, if you increase the weapon float zone you can lower your rifle just fine, especially if you toggle zoom out (-- on numpad).

You can pretty much aim the weapon 60 degrees down and then have it back up pronto.

Would be nice however to have separate sliders for vertical and horizontal for this.

[Whirly 1]

whirly thats simply because you know or don't want to know how it feels!

Can you reproduce these rapid, realistic movements in Arma...

acCvP9q9qlU&feature=fvst

Ingame you have to do the same just with an click

In the real world troops don't fart around clicking buttons, movements are performed without conscious effort, it's called muscle memory.

- otherwise you would sooner or later feel too comfortable/invulnerable with all those magic/unreal "auto" features. ;)

It would feel natural and realistic, currently it feels robotic and unrealistic.

[maddogx 13]

I have to agree with Whirly here. From a game design perspective, automating certain things is preferrable to making the player do everything manually ("because REALISM!"). When player intent can be reliably inferred, automation makes the game flow smoothly and feel more natural. In this case, i.e. the player is holding a rifle and turns into a wall, it's pretty clear that he does not want his rifle to hitch on the wall when he turns. Automatically lowering/raising the rifle is a natural (and good) game design choice, which is why so many games already do exactly that.

[NoRailgunner 0]

One could always fall back and say "its a game", "other games do this and that" but how easy-peasy or "casual" you want to become A3 if there is no feedback to the player eg if he is simply too close to an wall to raise the rifle/machinegun? Imo if BIS going to automate lower/raise weapons they should also consider to include at least one or two auto-steps/animations to avoid clipping weapons/barrels or silly (unrealistic) positions. On the other hand it would be nice to see someone hurting himself just because he thinks that the game will do all the less action/shooting related things for him.....