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

[-Coulum- 35]

IMO the floating zone should have a minimum value greater

than 0. Is just idiotic to have the gun glued to the center of the

screen.

No. I personally use a bit of floating zone but I don’t believe it should be mandatory. Technically the gun is not glued to the centre of the screen (try raising a SAW really quickly in game) and playing with floating zone makes shooting without crosshairs or looking down the sights way to hard to do.

Bi should be trying to increase firefight lengths by making aiming harder but I find shooting unsighted without crosshairs hard enough. What beeds to be harder is aiming down the sights. Maybe I'm just a noob though.

Edited May 28, 2012 by -Coulum-

[metalcraze 290]

It must be a coincidence but shooting without crosshairs or looking down the sights is way too hard in real life as well.

[-Coulum- 35]

I understand that but at 5-10 meters range I can hit a human sized target very easily without using the sights. I know that it isn't a real gun but playing Airsoft, in close combat I rarely use sights because it is faster not to. And I can still hit very easily. But in arma, without crosshairs I find myself missing at those ranges still. Like I said maybe I am just a bad shot but in close range combat is fast and very unforgiving. When I miss at 5 meters because I didnt bring up my sights it is very forgiving for those I target

[metalcraze 290]

The rules are the same for those you target by the way

Hitting at 5m is also really easy even with a floating dead zone.

[Undeceived 392]

What? Having your barrel poiting at the exact point every time is jsut bad.

But thats in my opinion. I could just zero the float zone and have the advantage that it brings, but I would be cheating me!

It makes aiming way too easy?

BIS should work on extending the firefight time, not shortening it.

I may be wrong, but this sounds to me like another of those BF3/CoD/MoH bashing arguments, like "'Cause those noob-shooters have it, Arma must not!" (no offence intended).

I mean... What's wrong with using 0 flot zone when it is available to set it this way? In my opinion it's not

idiotic

at all!

I guess that it's a pure taste thing. Go ahead and use it - even if you know that it is a disadvantage. But you should not get mad when you get shot in MP because other players USE 0 float zone. :)

A small addition from my own experience: I played similarly in "earlier times" - back in the days I was at AToW (with the floating zone and other hyper-realistic features that I thought were cool but make life more difficult than needed). Then a guy named Celery ;) joined the tournament. ;) And he was absolutely fast in shooting others - including me. I was so upset because of this and at one point I even thought he had marked a point on his screen with a marker pen and thus didn't even have to bring up the gun. :D So that made me learn that lesson.

I don't play with crosshair - have it completely disabled. But to make the floating zone > 0 obligatory would be way too exagerated, IMO.

Edit:

Btw, I also don't have a point marked on my screen! :nerner: :D

Edited May 28, 2012 by Undeceived

[-Coulum- 35]

The rules are the same for those you target by the way

Oh yeah I understand, but what I am saying is those rules aren't entirely realistic in this regard.

Hitting at 5m is also really easy even with a floating dead zone.

Actually upon trying it it is easier than I thought - I could live with forced floating zone. but overall it shooting this way sitll feels less natural and thus harder than shooting unsited in reality. And that's probably the cause of out different opinions. You are probably very good at estimating where your shots will land without using sights, or I am really bad at estimating where my shots will land. thus we both differently about how hard it should be in game.

[Smurf 12]

Its not a corridor shooter bashing (at least not by my part).

And the idiot is the guy that don´t have it set to 0 (me!).

I just don´t feel comfortable knowing that one can "twitch shot" someone that has been walking with ironsights up when come to (not so) close range engagements.

Is a default setting in BF2: PR, Insurgency, RO1 and 2; You have to be aware to where your gun is pointing when you come to those situations, giving the upper hand to ones that are more prepared.

But if nothing changes, it isn´t the end of the world either. Not big deal.... ;)

[maddogx 13]

Ever since I started using TrackIR I've set float zone to zero, because having the head, body and gun all pointing in different directions makes your avatar impossible to control properly. Zeroing the float zone is a necessity for headtracking users.

Also, I don't really see what it has to do with aiming realism? The problems in that regard are of a different nature.

[antoineflemming 14]

Ever since I started using TrackIR I've set float zone to zero, because having the head, body and gun all pointing in different directions makes your avatar impossible to control properly. Zeroing the float zone is a necessity for headtracking users.

Also, I don't really see what it has to do with aiming realism? The problems in that regard are of a different nature.

Having the floating zone set to something other than zero isn't entirely realistic anyway. Yeah, you can move your arms independently of your head in real life, but why would you point your rifle somewhere you aren't looking? Pretty sure you want to look directly at the area you're shooting at. In essence your view will follow the direction your rifle is pointing at, or rather your rifle will follow the direction your view is pointing at. So even IF the floating zone option isn't present in ArmA3, it won't necessarily mean that ArmA3 is less realistic than ArmA2.

[pd3 25]

Vection?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx39w4imMr1qftkh9.jpg

http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-98-11/node17.html

"Vection refers to the perception of self-motion induced by visual stimuli."

That is a definition of "vection".

And if you take into account the concept of a weapon moving independently of your perspective, versus a weapon essentially glued to your cheek so to speak, you can see a loose corollary between that term and what was being described.

It was once used to differentiate between the typical FPS weapon perspective prevalent back in the day, and this emerging technology at the time.

Perhaps its not totally accurate, however that was the term that was coined to describe it.

[max power 21]

However that was the term that was coined to describe it.

Interesting. By who?

[pd3 25]

http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-98-11/node17.html

That's the only source I could find, but the term was quite prevalent when there were heated debates regarding whether or not the system had any merit.

Again, it could not be accurately applied, but in the aforementioned sense, it does seem somewhat relevant.

[max power 21]

When you said 'the term that was coined', I thought you meant the term was coing with regards to this application.

It seems a weird term to apply- retinally induced false perceptions of inertia => aiming with arms and head semi independently in a videogame.

It also means the transference of a disease.

Perhaps, through vection, we are transmitting the application of this dizzy term. XD

Edited May 29, 2012 by Max Power

[Trauma.au 10]

IMO the floating zone should have a minimum value greater than 0. Is just idiotic to have the gun glued to the center of the screen.

ze truth! unfortunately, NGH...

No way, I hate the floating zone in Arma. But I have no issue with it at all in Red Orchestra 2, simply because it blends rather than having a harsh edge.

"Vection refers to the perception of self-motion induced by visual stimuli."

That is a definition of "vection".

And if you take into account the concept of a weapon moving independently of your perspective, versus a weapon essentially glued to your cheek so to speak, you can see a loose corollary between that term and what was being described.

It was once used to differentiate between the typical FPS weapon perspective prevalent back in the day, and this emerging technology at the time.

Perhaps its not totally accurate, however that was the term that was coined to describe it.

I understood vection to be the transference of a disease, but I googled what you said and it seems true, something to do with visual illusions for pilots.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Trauma.au

[[frl]myke 14]

First of all, i guess the best way would be (and most likely will be) to keep floating as an option, exactly how it is now. Those who like have it enabled, those who don't, obviously not.

@MadDogX

i use TrackIR all the time with floating on (slider on about 50%) and i feel really comfortable with it. So, with all due respect, speak for yourself and don't generalize like this:

Zeroing the float zone is a necessity for headtracking users.

Besides all that was said until now, no one ever noted the most practical side of floating (ability to move arms w/ gun independently): it draws less attention.

If floating is off, every slight correction to the left or right will result in the whole body moving, while with floating on, only a relative small movement is done which attracts by far less attention. AFAIK the AI will spot a zero-floating player faster than a player with floating on. I think to remeber to have seen a YT vid about this exact behaviour but can't find it anymore (long time back).

That said, having floating off gives a disadvantage.

And for the argument of being realistic: if you would have a real gun in your hand, would you really turn your whole body to follow the movement of a target 200m away or just move your arms?

[rye1 21]

Myke;2158860']First of all' date=' i guess the best way would be (and most likely will be) to keep floating as an option, exactly how it is now. Those who like have it enabled, those who don't, obviously not.

And for the argument of being realistic: if you would have a real gun in your hand, would you really turn your whole body to follow the movement of a target 200m away or just move your arms?[/quote']

Couldn't they make some Y and X-axis changes? So you can adjust the float zone for each. As said before "zero'ing the float zone'".

Couldn't they add an avatar next to the option to show you your range of movement - every time you adjust it, it adjusts the picture so you know what you're selecting? Instead of changing it up then testing, changing then testing to finally get it right.

Turn whole body. Stable, comfortable. But a float zone which is huge might allow you to aim with "just the arms".

[[frl]myke 14]

Couldn't they make some Y and X-axis changes? So you can adjust the float zone for each. As said before "zero'ing the float zone'".

Couldn't they add an avatar next to the option to show you your range of movement - every time you adjust it, it adjusts the picture so you know what you're selecting? Instead of changing it up then testing, changing then testing to finally get it right.

Turn whole body. Stable, comfortable. But a float zone which is huge might allow you to aim with "just the arms".

Any option that would allow more finetuning surely would be welcome. But i think this wouldn't (or shouldn't) top priority on the development to-do list. Not saying i wouldn't welcome it, don't get me wrong.

About the "Avatar preview"....well, good idea indeed. On the other side, i doubt it that many players do make changes regulary on this so it is basically a "one set and forget" option. Myself i've been just was once after installing the game in this option to set it up. So again a good idea. But would it be worth the additional work and justify the time spent into development of this? I honestly don't know but i have doubts.

That said, if the same system and options that are in A2 will be in A3, i think it will be fine. If BIS expands the options like Rye suggested, it would be a welcome addition.

[maddogx 13]

Myke;2158860']i use TrackIR all the time with floating on (slider on about 50%) and i feel really comfortable with it. So' date=' with all due respect, speak for yourself and don't generalize[/quote']

Sorry, that wasn't my intention. However, as far as float zone is concerned, you're the first TrackIR user I've spoken to that uses it. Back in 2009 when I bought my TrackIR, I found that setting it to anything above zero would cause confusion as to the direction I would run in. After posting in the Arma2 TrackIR thread about it, the general response was "yeah, float zone makes no sense with TrackIR, set it to zero", so I assumed this was general knowledge. Apparently this isn't the case.

I stick by my original point though, in response to Smurf et al: forcing people to use a float zone is absolutely not an option.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

I just hope they keep the option in. The loss of the floating zone would be the worst kind of travesty - the kind against me. :dj: :rage:

[antoineflemming 14]

Myke;2158860'] And for the argument of being realistic: if you would have a real gun in your hand' date=' would you really turn your whole body to follow the movement of a target 200m away or just move your arms?[/quote']

No, you wouldn't turn your whole body, but I guarantee you that you would turn your head or at least your eyes, which amounts to your camera turning with your weapon, which is basically, for ArmA's purposes, zero floating zone. In all, even with floating zone on, if your head turned with your weapon at all times, it would only be a noticeable difference in third person. I said the current floating zone is not realistic because the center of your camera view, the focus of your view, is not pointing at all times where your weapon is pointed. If you're looking straight and want to engage an enemy to your 1:00 or 2:00, you wouldn't just point your weapon towards your enemy while still looking at 12:00. You would turn/focus your view at 1:00 or 2:00. You would orient yourself towards your enemy. To be honest, you would orient your upper body (head, eyes, arms, torso, weapon) towards the enemy, if not for any other reason than the fact that you have the most protection on your head and on your torso, so you wouldn't leave the side of your body, the more vulnerable part of your upper body, exposed towards the enemy. So no, you wouldn't turn your whole body, but you would definitely orient your upper body towards the enemy. Floating zone should really turn your head independently of the rest of your body, only a little bit, to allow for a partial "free look" without pressing another key to do so. Once you've turned your head enough (and this would be changeable via the floating zone slider) then your upper body should pivot. The last to turn should be your lower body. This is what I say a realistic floating zone setting would be. Head turns first (how much it turns depends on the slider), then upper body with head and torso turns, and last the lower body turns.

[batto 17]

That would be good. Freelook should turn your body if it hits the boundary (currently very small cone in sighted free-look). Different behaviour with lowered weapon could solve some problems too.

[antoineflemming 14]

That would be good. Freelook should turn your body if it hits the boundary (currently very small cone in sighted free-look). Different behaviour with lowered weapon could solve some problems too.

And, see, with this kinda of free look (where it's actually a part of the floating zone), you wouldn't have to have a separate key for free look.

[Smurf 12]

No way, I hate the floating zone in Arma. But I have no issue with it at all in Red Orchestra 2, simply because it blends rather than having a harsh edge.

Oh yeah. I don't hate ARMA's but agree on that. Seems that, while in A2 you move you gun then the screen starts to move when you reach the borders, in RO2 and other games it goes together. Much better if you ask me.

[batto 17]

And, see, with this kinda of free look (where it's actually a part of the floating zone), you wouldn't have to have a separate key for free look.

I'd like to continue controling my avatar in usual FPS shooter way when running.

Currently free-look is same with lowered/ready-to-fire weapon. The free-look in ArmA2 with body turning could work like better floating-zone. Not without sight though. So the current non-sighted free-look behaviour would make more sense only with lowered weapon. With raised weapon your gun shoud move with view (and turn your body as described above). Objections?

[antoineflemming 14]

I'd like to continue controling my avatar in usual FPS shooter way when running.

Currently free-look is same with lowered/ready-to-fire weapon. The free-look in ArmA2 with body turning could work like better floating-zone. Not without sight though. So the current non-sighted free-look behaviour would make more sense only with lowered weapon. With raised weapon your gun shoud move with view (and turn your body as described above). Objections?

No that sounds good. Hopefully BIS is paying attention lol