Should I be freaking out right now, where's the vection based aiming?

[dmarkwick 261]

Vision is provided by your eyes and therefore camera represents you eyes. It just coincidence that your body including head follows that direction in almost every FPS shooter including ArmA. Look at that picure again. Do you really think that main view of that soldier follows his nose and not gun sight??!?!?!?

Yes I do believe that his view follows his nose and not his gunsight, if he were in ArmA. I believe that the ingame analog is that the "cardboard box" of his view represents his head direction, and that his *actual* eyes are looking down the sight. There really isn't any other ingame way to do this. I believe you are wrong to assert that the view represents the eyes, it represents the head direction.

It makes gameplay worse for vast majority of gamers (I believe I'm not too far from reality). And dot in center of the screen isn't such big deal. I personally hate disabled crosshairs. There are other, more realistic ways which doesn't hurt controls and make firing with crosshair harder but serious milsimers are suddenly silent. I guess it's because floating-zone makes them more different from Quake players.

It's easy to make up a silent following, or even a silent group of mistaken gamers guilty by their silence :) I can assert, for example, that most ArmA players do indeed see the deadzone as a viable method of preventing center-screen cheating. And that most ArmA players also see the deadzone as quite a realistic method to do that. I can with full confidence assert that some ArmA players do not like to play with the deadzone, while acknowledging the above points :) me included. (I have TrackIR to do a similar job though).

BTW, what would be your other, more realistic method to prevent this?

---------- Post added at 14:51 ---------- Previous post was at 14:47 ----------

Do you want BI to simulate eye movement? Are you asking that you adjust your head then body and not just the complete body straight away? I don't get it, sorry. I'm kind of slightly understanding some points.

You're right to not get it :) This would be a totally pointless venture. Your *actual* eyes already roam around the monitor, this is the *only* way it could work. The alternative is to blur all the image except the center and you constantly move the view around to properly view something. Obviously, this is nonsense.

The cardboard-box-over-the-head limitation has to be appreciated first before an understanding of the view can be reached :)

Edited May 31, 2012 by DMarkwick

[batto 17]

BTW, what would be your other, more realistic method to prevent this?

Gun weight and longer stabilization of crosshair after move & fire (depending on weight too).

It's easy to make up a silent following, or even a silent group of mistaken gamers :)

Nice try but I'm not going to rage again =)

[dmarkwick 261]

Gun weight and longer stabilization of crosshair after move & fire (depending on weight too).

I should like to see that too, but I already see that activity in ArmA2. After movement I am temporarily somewhat inaccurate for a while.

Nice try but I'm not going to rage again =)

Fair enough :)

[rye1 22]

The cardboard-box-over-the-head limitation has to be appreciated first before an understanding of the view can be reached :)

Basically he should play metal gear!

[pd3 25]

Complete BS. Helmet cam direction moves with head. Not eyes. When you shoot you aim with your eyes which point in other direction than your head.

http://olive-drab.com/images/id_rifle_m16_700_02.jpg

See the middle of the helmet? And the nose?

Now you're just being ridiculous, the radius that your eyes move to sight something isn't 180 degrees, its not even 120.

Your eyes pick up something in your periphery, for example.

Your head turns directly to align your body to the target and your arms follow.

People don't just walk around with their body rigid all following a single axis, that's the most inane nonsense I've ever heard.

Its like you're completely unaware of your own body's behavior in favor of pursuing this unfounded bias you have.

I knew it! I guess that 80% of ArmA players using dead zone do it just because they think it'll make greater milsimers of them (since it's different from Quake)

No, I play with dead zone on because the human body simply doesn't move as if upper/mid/ and lower extremities cannot and do not move on different axes as a simple matter of natural ergonomics.

That's what it simulates, and apparently you have a selected bias that disagrees with this rather salient fact, and its not enough that you simply have this bias and be done with it, but you must convince others to believe it as well.

I'm sorry, I don't buy that inanity.

without actually thinking about it for a second. Dead-zone is completely unrealistic. It has no equivalent IRL. Read my posts from few pages back.

Rofl, what are you on, bathsalts?

---------- Post added at 00:24 ---------- Previous post was at 23:46 ----------

You're obsessed with this thing about the eyes :) you have to understand that in games, you move your head NOT your eyes. Always. Eyes are "fixed forward" for essential gameplay control purposes, and you move your *actual* eyes around the monitor. Remember my analogy about having a cardboard box over your head with a rectangular hole cut into the front? That's how the game view works.

Actually that image shows what floating zone is trying to achieve - your main view is your head direction, your deadzone direction follows your weapon, and your *actual* eyes look down the sight. It's a very good image for explaining how well the deadzone can work, I'm going to keep it :)

I think the weight of sheer numbers is against you I'm afraid :) you seem to be the only one who thinks that the deadzone adds nothing to either gameplay or the "problem" of center-screen "cheating". Not everyone likes it or agrees that it should be enforced, or even that center-screen cheating is actually a problem, but everyone agrees that it's a viable solution for that problem.

Sorry, I had to do it.

bx-0CTecTvI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx-0CTecTvI

(Forum is being difficult)

Edited June 1, 2012 by Max Power

[rye1 22]

Donut man hahahahhahahahaha.

That's freelook (ALT), try it with floating zone.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Rye

[pd3 25]

The point is, when you press the asterisk button your "head" becomes unlocked, which would naturally imply that it is in fact your head that is moving and not your eyes.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be snarky to Batto, honest, I'm more attacking this hilarious idea that moving the mouse is moving one's "eyes", when its quite obviously not.

The reason why we have HD or multi-monitor setups is to simulate one's full visual range +peripheral vision.

I'm just trying to get the point across in a rather comical way.

[max power 21]

you move your head NOT your eyes

Well, yes and no. You will notice that you can turn your view farther than the character's head turns. The character's head stops turning at some point, but the view continues to turn.

Let's not make the mistake, though, of applying the animation of a certain thing with its actual utility. I reference the discussion about the Hamok not having enough bolts around the gas tank or whatever is was. The outward shape is a representation that gives a gameplay artifact visual interest. Part and parcel to that is the mouse does not control your head or your eyes or anyone's head and / or eyes, it controls your virtual camera, and drives some other animations.

[dmarkwick 261]

Well, yes and no. You will notice that you can turn your view farther than the character's head turns. The character's head stops turning at some point, but the view continues to turn.

Let's not make the mistake, though, of applying the animation of a certain thing with its actual utility. I reference the discussion about the Hamok not having enough bolts around the gas tank or whatever is was. The outward shape is a representation that gives a gameplay artifact visual interest. Part and parcel to that is the mouse does not control your head or your eyes or anyone's head and / or eyes, it controls your virtual camera, and drives some other animations.

Indeed. I think that regardless of what the actual animated head is doing, the view still represents the head direction. I believe the eyes do not animate at all or if they do then it's a random animation not connected with the view. But anyway, we seem to have offtopiced the conversation to something that isn't going to be radically altered in any case :)

[batto 17]

Indeed. I think that regardless of what the actual animated head is doing, the view still represents the head direction. I believe the eyes do not animate at all or if they do then it's a random animation not connected with the view. But anyway, we seem to have offtopiced the conversation to something that isn't going to be radically altered in any case :)

First of all, none of the games I know use head for view direction. They all (including ArmA2) use whole body. Now you might say that in free-look it represents head, but it doesn't! Try to go to 3rd person view and try to look behind you as much as you can and you'll notice that your head will stop turning at some point while your view will continue to turn. And that's because the view represents your eyes. Now just admit defeat please.

Now you're just being ridiculous, the radius that your eyes move to sight something isn't 180 degrees, its not even 120.

That's why your head, torso and legs need to turn too.

I'm sorry, I don't buy that inanity.

Just try to use brain.

Edited June 2, 2012 by batto

[dmarkwick 261]

First of all, none of the games I know use head for view direction. They all (including ArmA2) use whole body. Now you might say that in free-look it represents head, but it doesn't! Try to go to 3rd person view and try to look behind you as much as you can and you'll notice that your head will stop turning at some point while your view will continue to turn. And that's because the view represents your eyes.

I actually addressed this already, about the head animation. If that's your "proof" then I should point out that your eyes don't turn either, at all. I take your point about other games having the entire body direction as the view, although as mentioned the deadzone does blur that slightly. I still maintain that the eyes are not really the main view though. More like the main view is the general direction, whether that be entire body or head (as in ArmA with TrackIR/freelook).

Now just admit defeat please.

Please. Make some attempt at mature discussion would you? :)

[batto 17]

I actually addressed this already, about the head animation.

Can't find it, sorry.

If that's your "proof" then I should point out that your eyes don't turn either, at all.

I still maintain that the eyes are not really the main view though. More like the main view is the general direction, whether that be entire body or head (as in ArmA with TrackIR/freelook).

Then explain to me what body part represent the view in freelook when your head stops turning and the view continues to turn please. I think you can't tell wheter eyes are moving or not (and it doesn't really matter wheter they're animated).

I take your point about other games having the entire body direction as the view, although as mentioned the deadzone does blur that slightly.

Well, dead-zone represents nothing from real-life so I can't comment.

Please. Make some attempt at mature discussion would you?

Show some sense of humour please ;)

[antoineflemming 14]

Can't find it, sorry.

Then explain to me what body part represent the view in freelook when your head stops turning and the view continues to turn please. I think you can't tell wheter eyes are moving or not (and it doesn't really matter wheter they're animated).

Well, dead-zone represents nothing from real-life so I can't comment.

Show some sense of humour please ;)

It's actually just a camera. It's not based on the eyes. It represents the head+eyes, together as one unit. But, the reason the camera keeps turning is because it's just that, a camera. However, the fact that is doesn't represent just the eyes is no reason to say the current aiming deadzone is realistic, or practical. In it's current form, it's still not realistic to what a real soldier would do. And I've already explained why. It's really a common sense issue. In short, for the game to be realistic, they have to make sure animations and all are relative not to the player, but to the player's character. That means that:

1) you aren't going to orient your arms in a different direction than you head

2) even IF the game allows you to still do that with the aiming deadzone, it's a whole lot easier to realign your arms+weapon and head in real life than to currently do that WITH aiming deadzone at anything above 0

3) since the game can't possibly have you do every possible movement that people can do IRL, animations realistic to what soldiers would do in the field and in practice should be the priority, meaning aiming deadzone should reflect what soldiers do in practice, in the field, which is keeping the weapon pointing in the direction you are looking, meaning NOT the current aiming deadzone, and the aiming deadzone should be applied to the entire upper body relative to the legs (and NOT applied to the arms+weapon relative to the head and rest of the body)

[BinaryCode64 1]

Deleted

Edited March 10, 2013 by BinaryCode64

[metalcraze 290]

The game should never simulate the player's eyes. The monitor should be a window into the game world nothing else. I use my eyes to look at details. I like aiming deadzone because it lets me move sights away from obscuring the center of the screen so I can look there with my own eyes.

It's the same as showing that stupid depth of field. My eyes have natural DOF and if I will focus them on a point of the screen where the game thinks it should blur stuff it's annoying.

[antoineflemming 14]

This is the most important part, we will never have a viewing system like in real life with a mouse and keyboard. Maybe in the future with other kind of ways with interacting, but certainly not now.

Well, maybe you should have read ALL my points...

The game should never simulate the player's eyes. The monitor should be a window into the game world nothing else. I use my eyes to look at details. I like aiming deadzone because it lets me move sights away from obscuring the center of the screen so I can look there with my own eyes.

It's the same as showing that stupid depth of field. My eyes have natural DOF and if I will focus them on a point of the screen where the game thinks it should blur stuff it's annoying.

Game doesn't simulate the player's eyes, but the camera follows the character's head. As such, the aiming deadzone should be such that it's realistic to that fact. Meaning you won't move your weapon in another direction than your head. Yes, you may move your head in another direction than your weapon is pointed (freelook), but you should always point your weapon in the direction your head, your camera, your view is pointed. Your head with freelook should be able to look independently of the weapon and the rest of your body. The entire upper body (head+arms+weapon+torso system) should be able to move independently of your lower body (with just regular mouse movement), but your weapon shouldn't move independently of where your head is pointed (without freelook). If anything, I'd say that at the very least, with some aiming deadzone turned on, your head (and therefore camera view) should always turn with your weapon, even if the entire upper body doesn't turn as well.

If you don't understand why I'm saying that the current aiming deadzone is unrealistic, take for example looking through your sights while the aiming deadzone is set above zero:

Why, when looking through your sights, are you not at all times looking directly through the sights. I mean, I could maybe understand the aiming deadzone having an effect while you aren't "sighted". But why should that apply when you are looking through the sights? It's unrealistic that your weapon moves independently of your camera while in sights. Does that not defeat the purpose of looking through sights? Someone explain to me how this is practical in any way? I mean, yeah, sure, you can do it in real life, but then are you really looking through sights? It's not practical. A person can try to bunny hop in real life, but is it practical to a soldier? As far as realism in ArmA goes, just about any movement, whether weird or not, can be realistic. A person can try to walk like a robot. A person can try to run like the unarmed character currently runs in ArmA2. But it's not practical for a soldier. With realism, it has to be relative to the soldier. Being practical is what I call it. And, not pointing your weapon the same way you're looking isn't practical. That's my real issue with the current aiming deadzone. It makes gameplay harder, sure, but it's just impractical and is counterproductive to realistic weapon handling, aiming, and shooting.

I definitely agree with you on the DOF part. I'd like a slight depth of field around the edges of the screen, just to kinda give the appearance of peripheral vision, but that'd just be artistic effect. :p

[-Coulum- 35]

Well it doesn't really make a difference to me, I am fine with people using/not using floating zone. personal preference is good but if I had to comment on the realism of floating zone...

I'd say floating zone while looking down the sights is unrealistic. Just try lining up your sights on a target without actually keeping your focus on it. When not looking down the sights floating zone seems fine though.

But really it is impossible to determine what is realistic or not due to the fact that it is unclear whether the screen represents the eyes head or neither.

[batto 17]

Game doesn't simulate the player's eyes, but the camera follows the character's head.

Then explain to me what body part represent the view in freelook when your head stops turning and the view continues to turn please.

Explain please.

The game should never simulate the player's eyes. The monitor should be a window into the game world nothing else.

Then define the "window into the game world" then please. It could be anything. What exactly does the camera represent according to you?

Edited June 2, 2012 by batto

[antoineflemming 14]

Explain please.

The reason the view keeps turning is because it's just a camera. If I'm correct about this, the head is coded to turn with the camera, not the camera with the head, so the head stops while the camera keeps going. Least, that's what it seems like to me. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. Your head and eyes should be oriented the same direction, your weapon oriented the same direction as the head+eyes. You should be focused on the direction of where you want to shoot, meaning head, eyes, weapon (at least these three) should all be pointed in the same direction - toward your intended target.

BUT, as long as this aiming deadzone isn't forced by servers, it doesn't matter to me; I just won't turn it on. I just don't want to be forced to use the thing; it's just an impractical encumbrance. And apparently not all the devs are too fond of it. I mean, otherwise why wouldn't they have demoed the thing?

Edited June 2, 2012 by antoineflemming

[CameronMcDonald 146]

And apparently not all the devs are too fond of it. I mean, otherwise why wouldn't they have demoed the thing?

IIRC most, if not all ArmA 2 preview videos had the deadzone disabled, causing a conversation quite similar to this one to take place. Whether or not the devs like/don't like it is pretty much pure conjecture (unless they've posted so explicitly).

I like aiming deadzone because it lets me move sights away from obscuring the center of the screen so I can look there with my own eyes.

Yep.

[antoineflemming 14]

IIRC most, if not all ArmA 2 preview videos had the deadzone disabled, causing a conversation quite similar to this one to take place. Whether or not the devs like/don't like it is pretty much pure conjecture (unless they've posted so explicitly).

Yep.

oh. ok then. I'd forgotten that.

[rye1 22]

Still the eyes thing...

[Clarkey1 10]

As far as the camera goes I'd say it's simulating the eyes.

In third person with the floating zone at maximum you see the character move his upper body (including his head) independently of his legs, with it off you can only turn by turning your whole body. In first person with floating zone at max the character is still turning his upper body only until you get to the edge of the dead zone.

What the camera seems to simulate is the upper body and head moving with the rifle while the eyes stay fixed ahead. Now even though eye movements aren't animated I'd say that -in essence- what the camera is trying to simulate, dead zone or not, is actually the eyes.

[metalcraze 290]

Explain please.

Then define the "window into the game world" then please. It could be anything. What exactly does the camera represent according to you?

What antoineflemming said. It's just a head.

To answer to the argument "but you would always focus on where weapon aims to score a hit" - well it's what I do with my eyes no? Even if I will move my weapon from the dead center of the screen I will still have to look with my own eyes down the virtual sights. It isn't like I keep scoring them fragz by not aiming at all.

Eyes are never static or centered to same point in real life. They are in the constant movement. When I move to contact in ArmA with weapon ready to fire I often look around the sights in case someone will come from there instead of having a tunnel vision.

[antoineflemming 14]

What antoineflemming said. It's just a head.

To answer to the argument "but you would always focus on where weapon aims to score a hit" - well it's what I do with my eyes no? Even if I will move my weapon from the dead center of the screen I will still have to look with my own eyes down the virtual sights. It isn't like I keep scoring them fragz by not aiming at all.

Eyes are never static or centered to same point in real life. They are in the constant movement. When I move to contact in ArmA with weapon ready to fire I often look around the sights in case someone will come from there instead of having a tunnel vision.

Eyes are never static, but the character should still point his head (to which the camera is tied) and weapon in the same direction. Meaning the weapon should always be pointing generally towards the center of the screen.