Aiming Accuracy in Arma 3

[T0bias 1]

Good news for you then. There's a game just like that - it's called Battlefield 3. A true mouse-twitcher delight. Just use them madskillz to point a crosshair at an enemy and BLAM - instant gratification!

Unfortunately for you IRL the soldier has to deal with the "drunken swaying" of his sights - hitting with a gun actually takes skill.

BF3 is a casual deathmatch game with no teamwork. That's not what I'm looking for. See

Also want to add that I totally wouldn't mind increased weapon swaying if they also implemented resting your gun on things to eliminate it, which I see discussed in other threads. That's pretty reasonable.

[metalcraze 290]

Oh I'm for weapon resting myself. In fact since ACE did it really well BIS has no other choice now :>

[maturin 12]

I works almost perfectly, too. They just need to get rid of the sudden CPU freeze-ups that can occur when the system searches for a resting surface that isn't there.

[-Coulum- 35]

The whole point of having an animation that brings the sight to the face is that 1) it's more realistic than the view moving down to the sight and 2) if you animate bringing up your sights, then you can adjust the time it takes to do so.

Okay, I can see the use of that. If what you suggest were done, it would be possible to have it so your weapon isn't super steady right after raising your sights right? Maybe even have it so your sights are temporarily misaligned. Because that would be a big improvement in terms of weapon handling and would create more realism when in firefights. Otherwise, I would see this feature more as an aesthetic addition though, but maybe I am just not using my imagination enough...

Also want to add that I totally wouldn't mind increased weapon swaying if they also implemented resting your gun on things to eliminate it, which I see discussed in other threads. That's pretty reasonable.

Yep, if there is to be more complex aiming mechanics, than resting weapons is vital. I don't see weapon resting on the confirmed features though... I guess this, like wind, is another feature bis is going to leave to the ace team. Fine with me but it would have been nice to see it in the vanilla game. And I have never had problems with ace weapon resting, accept sometimes it is easy to forget weather you have your weapon rested or not.

[maturin 12]

sometimes it is easy to forget weather you have your weapon rested or not.

Try to turn around and you will notice, lol. Alternately, just press Shift-Space again and you will bring up the command menu instead of resting.

[-Coulum- 35]

Try to turn around and you will notice, lol. Alternately, just press Shift-Space again and you will bring up the command menu instead of resting.

Yeah I know, but trying to turn around is not usually a good solution, and the shift-space method works, but sometimes I feel that maybe I am seeing the command menu because I am not close enough to the wall or something. Its not really a big problem, but a simple indicator in a corner of the hud would be useful to me.

[wipman 1]

Hi, in my opinion the engagement distances should be:

CQB: 15m.

Short: 50m.

Medium: 80m.

Long: 200m.

Talking about 5.56mm ARs; and the weapons should be less jerky while you walking aiming down the sights... is more like a parkingson's disease emulator/shower than anything else, and it's wrong. Let's C ya

[BlueWolf 1]

are you all mad? :butbut:

I didn't see a vote option: No- I can't hit the broad side of a barn as it is NOW with the hard coded: (Gun bobbing all over the screen) and all.

I have a cunning plan! lets completely break the game so it's so unbearable no one will want to buy or play it!! :j:

my guess is that most of you voting are from "another game company"

[boredgunner 1]

I suppose harder overall. Take out the zoom when holding RMB. But as wipman said, guns are too jerky when walking and aiming, and I hate the feel of machine guns in ArmA 2. When aiming them it feels like there is a ton of mouse smoothing. They should just have increased sway due to their weight.

[-Coulum- 35]

are you all mad?

I didn't see a vote option: No- I can't hit the broad side of a barn as it is NOW with the hard coded: (Gun bobbing all over the screen) and all.

I have a cunning plan! lets completely break the game so it's so unbearable no one will want to buy or play it!!

I think you are misunderstanding the question and what others are suggesting. This has nothing to do with the sway of the weapon while moving or when wounded/tired. This only concerns the ease of shooting at medium to long range shooting while stationary. The main argument is that, while the aiming accuracy of the player currently is fine as is, the concentration and time needed to achieve that accuracy does not reflect reality in arma 2. a more realistic breath control system like in VBS2 would bring both of these things closer to realism, resulting in more realistic fire fights and tactics. If you haven't already, take a look

.

I think it would be quite easy to hit the side of a barn, even while tired using this system, but it would require more time and concentration to line up on a point target, just like in real life. There is more sway, but it is more predictable than in a2, and there would be the ability to hold your breath for a few seconds to totally eliminate that sway. Currently, in arma, you can accurately snap shoot at 200-350 metres and that really kills fire-fight times and realism.

my guess is that most of you voting are from "another game company"

Ha, I can honestly say that arma is the only game I've played for more than 5 hours total.

Hi, in my opinion the engagement distances should be:

CQB: 15m.

Short: 50m.

Medium: 80m.

Long: 200m.

Talking about 5.56mm ARs; and the weapons should be less jerky while you walking aiming down the sights... is more like a parkingson's disease emulator/shower than anything else, and it's wrong. Let's C ya

Thing is, with the ease of aim currently in a2, the engagement ranges look more like this

CQB: 15

Short: 100

Medium: 250m

Long: 500m

But if aiming were to be a bit harder, then we might get engagement ranges closer to what you were said. and these engagements might actually last longer than a minute with a more complex aiming system.

Concerning the sway of the weapon while moving, I agree, it is currently ridiculous. same goes for sway while wounded or tired. But that isn't really what the thread is supposed to be about. This is about the sway while in more ideal conditions.

[pd3 25]

I've personally modded ARMA 2 to make things more difficult for both the ai and the player to shoot accurately at long range.

I'm all for changes as long as those changes don't involve using something horrible and lazy like an expanding ring system.

That would be a tremendous step backward for the franchise.

[BlueWolf 1]

@ -Coulum-

I think that it is not possible to create a complete realism when comparing real life combat and simulated video games

in that in real situations troops have to overcome in the field is not entirely achievable by simulation

-being tired from all the weight you pack and carry and distances traveled is something you feel.

-dealing with the weather elements: cold/heat/rain are things you feel

-being wounded in the event of combat would incapacitate your will to continue fighting and effectiveness

as a team concentration is disrupted fear/demoralization sets in and chaos takes it's toll with any casualties.

all of these aspects can effect different circumstances depending on how disciplined between every troop

I believe all people have a breaking point so to just talk about improving aim realism must be tied in to all aspects

when considered.

why mess with tedious tweaks? I say leave the games be what they are -games.

games should be fun and not too serious or complex or you lose interest.

If some of you want realism so badly enlist /re-enlist

[Stone3419 1]

I don't agree with increasing the difficulty for the sake of longer engagements. There is a fine line where if you push for too much realism it becomes more fustrating than realistic. It becomes fustrating because there are things you could do in real life to increase the likeliness of taking out a threat in a stressfull situatuion that you cannot replicate in game. When you have that knowledge and are restricted in game, it looses its appeal.

[batto 17]

games should be fun and not too serious or complex or you lose interest.

bf3 & cod games should stay console for kiddies with 10 second mind spans

pick one

[Nicholas 5]

The aiming has been fine all these years since OFP for me. I wouldn't want them to change it now.

[maturin 12]

I hope we get a nice figure-eight sway that can be adjusted or easily modded, but I suspect forcing dramatically more sway on us would kill the game's appeal for many. Not everyone is an ACE-using realism hound.

[mordeaniischaos 3]

Swaying shouldn't be removed unless the weapon is stabilized on a static object. I hate the sway in Arma 2, it's ridiculous, both in what causes it (running a couple meters doesn't make aiming impossible, harder yes, not impossible. Even counting for adrenaline, still you do not see the kind of sway that Arma 2 has. It's also not totally random, as you said. It's also obnoxious that your aiming goes to shit when someone shoots near you. It makes no sense. Yes, adrenaline in a firefight can make you a bit shaky, it can increase your heart and breathing rate and influence your accuracy. It does not make you throw the barrel of your gun around like a frickin spaz.

There's a lot about Arma's shooting model that needs work. Some way to detect when you're near a surface that can be used for bracing and stability would be awesome. Anyone who's read the Marine Corps Rifle Marksmanship manual knows that soldiers are trained from the very beginning to improve their accuracy and precision in combat whenever they can. If a precision shot is required, there are a number of methods that can be used, and a number of surfaces both perpendicular and parallel to the soldier (ie, the vertical edge of a building can be used for stability just as a horizontal edge can be. It may not have the same effect but it's still effective)

It would also be nice to not do the "all you can see is what's in the optics" crap, because this is a pretty major issue with how the optics on weapons generally work today. An ACOG is not a scope, and it isn't pressed to the eye. It still allows for peripheral vision, even when your other eye is shut.

I'd also love to see a controls option that allows for a more Call of Duty-esque aiming method. I always disliked the ability to use your magic eyes to zoom in without using magnifying optics, and find iron sights in games to feel more natural when they aren't a toggle.

As well as this, I always disliked the lack of adjustment for sights. Just letting me roll the mouse wheel to at least adjust the rear sights and maybe having a mechanic in the campaign to battle zero a rifle would be really cool.

[BlueWolf 1]

pick one

If that's some sort of flame bait -derogatory statement insinuating that I am somehow contradicting myself on the same issue..

1) bf3 & cod and console games are not fun for me = lost interest =same thing.

2) that was posted in a separate thread dealing with an entirely separate issue so stop back post/stalk trolling dude.

I stick with my original choice.. aiming should be simplistic for arma 3

as a medium for those gungho players who enjoy fighting with broken guns against AI snipers who can see threw grass

I suggest an optional switch on/off in the difficulty settings under AIM Difficulty Settings.

this way depending on the individual they can play how they want and have the optional choice.

not hardcoded.

<edit>

It would be super also if the Devs would consider adding an adjustment setting under the same Aim Difficulty Settings

for bullet drop, and weapon recoil adjustment.

can't tell you how many you tube vids I have watched noticing saws or hmg's with no recoil

leaving me wonder what mod it was & where I could get it.. just for fun sake.</edit>

Edited May 20, 2012 by BlueWolf
not changing anything just adding to the suggestion :)

[-Coulum- 35]

I think that it is not possible to create a complete realism when comparing real life combat and simulated video games

in that in real situations troops have to overcome in the field is not entirely achievable by simulation

-being tired from all the weight you pack and carry and distances traveled is something you feel.

-dealing with the weather elements: cold/heat/rain are things you feel

-being wounded in the event of combat would incapacitate your will to continue fighting and effectiveness

as a team concentration is disrupted fear/demoralization sets in and chaos takes it's toll with any casualties.

all of these aspects can effect different circumstances depending on how disciplined between every troop

I believe all people have a breaking point so to just talk about improving aim realism must be tied in to all aspects

when considered.

Yep you are very correct. There are many things that a game, even arma, can't really represent realistically, including player aiming, player stamina, pain etc. etc. etc.

But... that doesn't mean it shouldn't attempt it. It would be pretty shitty if Bi were just to say "well its impossible to actually make the player feel pain so instead lets just make his avatar totally painless." similarly I think it is a bad decision to say "well its impossible to actually represent a player's real ability to aim in game so lets just make him have super soldier aim.(when uninjured/rested)" in some way, an abstraction must be made, which is really the essence of a all computer games. in the suggested case, this abstraction would be weapon sway.

why mess with tedious tweaks? I say leave the games be what they are -games.

games should be fun and not too serious or complex or you lose interest.

Well I guess not everyone loves arma for its complexity. I do however and I think many other's do as well. IMO, the more complex the better... and besides, a little weapon sway and the ability to hold ones breath isn't very complex. Americas Army has it and I don't hear of it being a feature that is too complex too be fun.

If some of you want realism so badly enlist /re-enlist

I hate it when people say this. Its like me saying to you, if you don't want so much complexity go play tic tac toe. I already have enlisted. Still doesn't change the fact that I would love to see as much realism in arma as possible.

I don't agree with increasing the difficulty for the sake of longer engagements. There is a fine line where if you push for too much realism it becomes more fustrating than realistic. It becomes fustrating because there are things you could do in real life to increase the likeliness of taking out a threat in a stressfull situatuion that you cannot replicate in game. When you have that knowledge and are restricted in game, it looses its appeal.

There is a line to be drawn. Like making a key to raise each knee and another to plant the foot in order to walk would be obviously way over board... but I really think adding some smooth predictable sway (not like the random shit we have now) and making the ability to hold one's breath in order to temporarily pause that sway does not in anyway seem to be crossing the line. I mean how bad can that little extra bit of difficulty be? What could you do in reality that would make you such a good shot that isn't possible to implement into arma?

The aiming has been fine all these years since OFP for me. I wouldn't want them to change it now.

I think this is one of main reason people are against this. "Its fine as it is, why bother try and make it better". Its almost as if people are scared to try new things and see how they effect the game. I bet that if OFP had a more complex shooting system from the start people would also be just fine with it. The problem is many are scared of change (which is understandable, I know I certainly wouldn't want certain things to be changed in arma).I really hope that BI tries to implement it into the alpha just to see what the community thinks. hopefully through some play testing some may come to realize it actually isn't that bad and actually enriches the tactics and realism of firefights.

as a medium for those gungho players who enjoy fighting with broken guns against AI snipers who can see threw grass

Ah man. The ai are way shittier shots than you. they have the broken guns. Imagine it from their perspective. You can take em out in seconds with an m16 plus and aimpoint at 200-300 metres away. seconds! the poor ai didn't even know what hit em. If you haven't playe pvp, let me tell ya it is far less forgiving than the ai because people can aim so accurately and quickly with minimal effort. This is another reason to increase aiming difficulty, to even the playing field with the ai a bit.

I suggest an optional switch on/off in the difficulty settings under AIM Difficulty Settings

Obviously I would have no objection to that. but of course BI must at some point make some decisions other wise they will end up making two different games.

not hardcoded.

DEFINITELY. no matter if a3 ends up having more/less sway make it so its not hardcoded and can be modded.

It would be super also if the Devs would consider adding an adjustment setting under the same Aim Difficulty Settings

for bullet drop, and weapon recoil adjustment.

can't tell you how many you tube vids I have watched noticing saws or hmg's with no recoil

leaving me wonder what mod it was & where I could get it.. just for fun sake.

Meh, that's probably asking too much. I mean yeah if they have time might as well, but really this is already easily scriptable (setUnitRecoilCoefficient should work). And the vids you saw may be of a hmg that is using a bipod (using ace mod).

Edited May 20, 2012 by -Coulum-

[Pfhaota 11]

I would prefer slightly more sway, only to increase the length of the fire fights.

[pd3 25]

I'd also love to see a controls option that allows for a more Call of Duty-esque aiming method. I always disliked the ability to use your magic eyes to zoom in without using magnifying optics, and find iron sights in games to feel more natural when they aren't a toggle.

I sincerely don't hope you mean something like an expanding ring system.

There's so much absolutely, positively wrong about those that it makes somebody with a sense of physics and basic math spontaneously combust from the sheer and utter laziness of it from a development perspective.

You are correct in assuming that its made to "punish" people who don't use iron sights, however its done in, once-more, the absolute most inane and lazy manner possible.

They are combining the concept of "weapon handling", and dispersion within the same dynamic variable, which just boggles the mind as to how completely and impossibly unrealistic it can be.

And we're not talking about trifling details of debatable significance.

We're talking about the ballistics of all small arms in the game, which can be a deal-breaker for people like me.

Put it this way, the amount of torque generated by a firearm that it would cause bullets to fly in a cone at such radical angles as they're capable of doing within mere cycles of an automatically firing rifle, would be so great that no soldier would be able to hold it for more than a single shot.

Think about it this way:

In games like COD and the like, you can literally see two bullets be separated by extreme angles of separation. Like in the 30s of degrees, that's insane.

And if you factor in the cyclic rate, lets say 600 rounds per minute hypothetically.

That means its taken one tenth of a second for the theoretical barrel of the gun to put two bullets more than 30 degrees apart from one another, within a relatively short total range (short by ARMA's standards anyhow).

That kind of torque isn't manageable by human hands.

No, what needs to be done is there needs to be IK-based recoil, or something that looks damn close to it.

Simulated physics based recoil.

That's the future, not this hodge-podge of random number generators that ultimately reduce the amount of spatial awareness, and ballistics and tactical knowledge required to be successful.

There's a reason why COD series is made with Quake engine technology, they play very much the same, only the damage values are tweaked.

If you watch a lot of helmet cam combat footage, you'll start to notice that the aiming methods used by the series since OFP aren't all that far off.

I would much rather keep iron sights as a toggle as nobody walks around with their rifle in the ready position at all times, nor do they always shoot that way.

I've seen plenty of footage of even special forces, cranking off shots without doing so.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Pd3

[metalcraze 290]

I'd also love to see a controls option that allows for a more Call of Duty-esque aiming method. I always disliked the ability to use your magic eyes to zoom in without using magnifying optics, and find iron sights in games to feel more natural when they aren't a toggle.

You don't zoom in in ArmA. You stop zooming out.

You do realise that "zoomed in" is how the world really looks if you were to see it through the small window that is your screen?

I think this is one of main reason people are against this. "Its fine as it is, why bother try and make it better". Its almost as if people are scared to try new things and see how they effect the game.

The problem is that it's BIS who are scared. Like f.e. If they were to make wind simulation they would've had to teach AI to cope with it. But if they were to make AI simply ignore wind to various degrees (which is essentially the same effect as making calculations for AI to compensate for wind) people would complain that AI is too good. Yeah but ACE does it and people don't complain. People enjoy it. From what I've noticed in ACE AI accuracy is probably lowered more the faster the wind is.

Some people (mostly new to the series) just go against 20 AIs in ArmA and expect to solo them CoD style then they get shot by one of 100 bullets fired at them and complain that AI has laser-aim. Sorry if you were to listen to people who are afraid of a realistic challenge there would've been no OFP to begin with.

Edited May 20, 2012 by metalcraze

[LeeManatee 4]

If that's some sort of flame bait -derogatory statement insinuating that I am somehow contradicting myself on the same issue..

I stick with my original choice.. aiming should be simplistic for arma 3

as a medium for those gungho players who enjoy fighting with broken guns against AI snipers who can see threw grass

I suggest an optional switch on/off in the difficulty settings under AIM Difficulty Settings.

this way depending on the individual they can play how they want and have the optional choice.

not hardcoded.

<edit>

It would be super also if the Devs would consider adding an adjustment setting under the same Aim Difficulty Settings

for bullet drop, and weapon recoil adjustment.

this is WAY too much. strong bolded no for making aiming simple.

ofp/arma series meant to simulate real weapons so it must not getting dumbed down for the sake of cod/bf croud.

there are enough arcade options such as crosshair, additional armor, IFF and such.

[dekster 1]

Arcade options or not, a lot of shots I would make in real life, I can't Arma. (As in hitting a target or actually dropping a target in stead of just hurting the guy so he can limp out of sight and come after me. Vica versa also)

It's not easy to replicate the coordination between your arms and eyes into a game.

In the end it's always a compromise, but if you change the way the aiming goes to implement one real life aspect, you'll compromise ballance you have in relation to certain "unreal" elements.

As for things like holding breath, I find those natural and instinctive when you're firing a weapon. Changing instinct by pressing a button in game, may perhaps simulate that, but the fact that I actually have to think to pres it, is damnright annoying and detaches me from the experience.

Another example is shooting a sniper riffle standing or kneeled, in real life you shoot and then open your other eye (knowing the recoil will be there and that you'll have trouble orientating again)

In the game, you shoot and keep looking trough the scope that goes up high.

Again, instinct replaced by buttons...

Edited May 23, 2012 by Dekster

[batto 17]

As for things like holding breath, I find those natural and instinctive when you're firing a weapon. Changing instinct by pressing a button in game, may perhaps simulate that, but the fact that I actually have to think to pres it, is damnright annoying and detaches me from the experience.

If only mouse buttons were analog =( ...