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

[dmarkwick 261]

That's not compatible with how peripheral vision works in real life. Center of screen should represent focus of your eyes. Other parts of your body has nothing to do with vision! You see by your eyes not your head.

Well at some point you have to accept some sort of movement & visual limitations as endemic to the situation. I take it that when you're looking around the screen, that you do it with your eyes right? You don't fix your vision at the center of the screen and move the image around do you? The game controls cannot do your eye movements for you I'm afraid, you do that yourself. This brings in the subject of peripheral vision. Unfortunately in ArmA, as indeed in any game, you're playing with the equivalent of a cardboard box over your head with a hole cut into the front of it. No way around that with monitors.

That's in fact the worst way to combat it (it needs to be enforced to work). But of course I can just ignore servers with such brain-damage.

Just because ArmA is played by serious milsimers doesn't mean that floating zone is somehow more realistic than vision in early FPS shooters. It looks like some usability experiment. It has nothing to do with reality.

Well it seems that's your opinion. As we all know, opinions differ :) my own opinion is that the center of the screen does not represent your eyes, only your head. And that tying the weapon direction to not only your head, but your eyes, seems unrealistic to me.

[batto 17]

Well at some point you have to accept some sort of movement & visual limitations as endemic to the situation. I take it that when you're looking around the screen, that you do it with your eyes right? You don't fix your vision at the center of the screen and move the image around do you? The game controls cannot do your eye movements for you I'm afraid, you do that yourself. This brings in the subject of peripheral vision. Unfortunately in ArmA, as indeed in any game, you're playing with the equivalent of a cardboard box over your head with a hole cut into the front of it. No way around that with monitors.

I'm not talking about your eyes but eyes of your avatar.

Well it seems that's your opinion. As we all know, opinions differ :) my own opinion is that the center of the screen does not represent your eyes, only your head.

Opinions can change =).

And that tying the weapon direction to not only your head, but your eyes, seems unrealistic to me.

I can't understand the logic behind this. Why would your gun point at location you're not looking at (I mean your avatar not you)? The free-look is for looking around.

[Smurf 12]

You guys are going to far with this. Free-Aim (or not free-aim) is a question of gameplay not reality.

What would you like to have as default (and let's pretend that can´t be changed; server forced\user configuration is another matter) and why?

IMO (as I said before): Red Orchestra 2\BF2´s Project Reality got it right: You don´t have a dead-zone to move only your weapon; as you look to the sides the weapon point that way, taking it off the center = you can get kills in close combat without aiming but you can´t be so sure in greater (10m+) distances as your weapon might be pointing a little off the center.

As for it while aiming down the sights I like the way it is now: very little dead-zone but you can tap\toggle TAB to move only you arms\weapon; great when you con´t want to move your whole body in a ambush situation, for example.

[batto 17]

IMO (as I said before): Red Orchestra 2\BF2´s Project Reality got it right: You don´t have a dead-zone to move only your weapon; as you look to the sides the weapon point that way, taking it off the center = you can get kills in close combat without aiming but you can´t be so sure in greater (10m+) distances as your weapon might be pointing a little off the center.

IMO this is wrong too. The gun should be on the opposite side of the screen beacause your head can probably move faster and your eyes even more. Which brings me to another issue in ArmA2 where your view in turning is limited by turning speed of your whole body.

[Smurf 12]

Free-Aim (or not free-aim) is a question of gameplay not reality.

IRL you can control the direction of your walk, your torso\arms, head and eyes individually and be really aware of what are you doing. In game, even with Track-IR (which solves you "problem" there...), you can´t. So you shouldn´t take these in consideration.

[batto 17]

So you shouldn´t take these in consideration.

Some of these things could improve gameplay. Your view could turn much faster if your head, weapon and body respectively lagged behind your eyes. Currently walking up the stairs (those that goes in loop) is very cumbersome because your view is limited to turning speed of your body.

[antoineflemming 14]

When it comes to performing anything in ArmA, it should ALWAYS be relative to the character. That is the only way to have true realism when it comes to infantry based gameplay. The way the character runs, the limit of the field of view, the position he takes when he crouches, or goes prone, or transitions between either stance, the way he shoots, the recoil/kickback the character experiences, the health system and how the character reacts when he's shot, or when a bullet whizzes past his head, how much of his body he can see when looking around, his first person view of his weapon, where the character is oriented, the way he moves his weapon in relation to HIS head, eyes, and body, not the player's head, eyes, and body, should be relative to the character. Just like the origin of your shot should be relative to the barrel of the character's rifle, not where the barrel appears to be on your screen, which is what COD does (origin of shot originates from crosshairs). EVERYTHING should be relative to the character. That is the only way ensure that you're treating the character movement realistically. You are looking through the character's eyes. Have someone mocap orienting towards and engaging targets the way he/she would do in a real firefight. And leave it at that. If the mocap animator doesn't turn his head/his torso towards the enemy, and it stays oriented at 12 o clock while his weapon is pointed at 2 o clock, then fine. If his head, weapon and, if so, torso, are all oriented the same direction, then there you go. Maybe some of you would look 12 o clock and point your weapon at 1 or 2 o clock when you're engaging a target, but I would orient my head, eyes, torso, and weapon towards the target, or enemy, I am firing at. Smookie, if this isn't how I should engage enemies, then please let me know. Oh, and, by the way, when you are firing your weapon, don't you want your weapon to be as rigid and stable as possible (as in, as still as possible for the most stable, accurate shots)? If so, then you want point your weapon in the direction you are looking, and you will turn your head, your eyes, your focus, and your weapon as one unit in the direction you want to focus on. Anyone who has served active duty, in a combat zone, please correct me if you in fact orient your yourself in a different direction than where your weapon is pointing.

[dmarkwick 261]

I'm not talking about your eyes but eyes of your avatar.

I think you're gradually backing yourself into a mire of ever-decreasing avatar control detail. So you move your eyes, and your head follows, and your body follows your head, and your weapon follows all. I think I can sum all that with "view" :)

And, my opinion remains that the center of the view need not be the main focus point where you weapon must always be fixed. Fine if you like it like this, but it's not a definitive set in stone situation.

I can't understand the logic behind this. Why would your gun point at location you're not looking at (I mean your avatar not you)? The free-look is for looking around.

I do it all the time especially in urban environments. I often aim my weapon down a particular street while watching another direction so I can cover one, while watching both.

---------- Post added at 18:07 ---------- Previous post was at 18:04 ----------

Some of these things could improve gameplay. Your view could turn much faster if your head, weapon and body respectively lagged behind your eyes. Currently walking up the stairs (those that goes in loop) is very cumbersome because your view is limited to turning speed of your body.

I can imagine the hell that sort of gameplay mechanic would produce. You turn your head, and your weapon/body lags behind it and catches up? Nightmare :)

[batto 17]

I think you're gradually backing yourself into a mire of ever-decreasing avatar control detail. So you move your eyes, and your head follows, and your body follows your head, and your weapon follows all. I think I can sum all that with "view"

Yeah. But since your eyes (the view) are first to finish the move (almost instantly) the view should be centered to it.

I do it all the time especially in urban environments. I often aim my weapon down a particular street while watching another direction so I can cover one, while watching both.

That's kind of cheating the realism. You can't do it IRL. You can do the same with freelook (which will disable crosshair). Mmm... not sure about this =).

I can imagine the hell that sort of gameplay mechanic would produce. You turn your head, and your weapon/body lags behind it and catches up? Nightmare :)

Well, it would be much better than not being able to turn more (because eyes wait for body) as it is now ;).

Edited May 30, 2012 by batto

[antoineflemming 14]

Fine if other players want to use the floating deadzone, but I don't think it should be forced in servers. Take that back, if someone wants to force a certain deadzone setting then fine. I would just find another server.

My only thing would be this: If the main issue with not having an aiming deadzone is that you have to move your whole body every time you turn, then I would just suggest that BIS makes character movement such that your torso has its full range of motion, and that the upper body turns as much as it can before your legs turn. That would suffice for me. Would there be anyone opposed to this? Smookie, is there anyway that this could feasibly work (upper body turning fully before the legs begin to turn)?

[Vespa 1]

When it comes to performing anything in ArmA, it should ALWAYS be relative to the character. That is the only way to have true realism when it comes to infantry based gameplay. The way the character runs, the limit of the field of view, the position he takes when he crouches, or goes prone, or transitions between either stance, the way he shoots, the recoil/kickback the character experiences, the health system and how the character reacts when he's shot, or when a bullet whizzes past his head, how much of his body he can see when looking around, his first person view of his weapon, where the character is oriented, the way he moves his weapon in relation to HIS head, eyes, and body, not the player's head, eyes, and body, should be relative to the character. Just like the origin of your shot should be relative to the barrel of the character's rifle, not where the barrel appears to be on your screen, which is what COD does (origin of shot originates from crosshairs). EVERYTHING should be relative to the character. That is the only way ensure that you're treating the character movement realistically. You are looking through the character's eyes. Have someone mocap orienting towards and engaging targets the way he/she would do in a real firefight. And leave it at that. If the mocap animator doesn't turn his head/his torso towards the enemy, and it stays oriented at 12 o clock while his weapon is pointed at 2 o clock, then fine. If his head, weapon and, if so, torso, are all oriented the same direction, then there you go. Maybe some of you would look 12 o clock and point your weapon at 1 or 2 o clock when you're engaging a target, but I would orient my head, eyes, torso, and weapon towards the target, or enemy, I am firing at. Smookie, if this isn't how I should engage enemies, then please let me know. Oh, and, by the way, when you are firing your weapon, don't you want your weapon to be as rigid and stable as possible (as in, as still as possible for the most stable, accurate shots)? If so, then you want point your weapon in the direction you are looking, and you will turn your head, your eyes, your focus, and your weapon as one unit in the direction you want to focus on. Anyone who has served active duty, in a combat zone, please correct me if you in fact orient your yourself in a different direction than where your weapon is pointing.

What you demand could't possibly be controlled and played on 2D monitor with keyboard and mouse. It would probably make nice action looking movie with shaky image, but thats all.

Until there will be other more complex and straightforward ways of controlling ingame characters (like realtime motioncapture of player's movement), all first person shooters will use similar mechanics like they already do.

[antoineflemming 14]

What you demand could't possibly be controlled and played on 2D monitor with keyboard and mouse. It would probably make nice action looking movie with shaky image, but thats all.

Until there will be other more complex and straightforward ways of controlling ingame characters (like realtime motioncapture of player's movement), all first person shooters will use similar mechanics like they already do.

What? What I simply "demand", you mean ask, is that 1) the relatively unrealistic aiming deadzone NOT be forced on all players and that 2) character movement allows for the upper body to be able to experience its full range of motion before the legs begin to turn. That is very much possible. That very much can be controlled. It's basically the same principle as the aiming deadzone, but applied to the entire upper body instead of just the arms+weapon.

And what I'm saying is unrealistic, really unpractical, is pointing your weapon a different direction than where your character is looking. You can do that in real life, but a soldier typically wouldn't do that. I tried and don't like the feature, and I wouldn't want to be forced to use the feature. I would like for the devs/animators/whoever-is-responsible to let the player, without the aiming deadzone on, be able to turn/rotate the entire upper body (head, arms, torso, weapon) as one unit in either direction (left or right) before the legs begin to turn. Currently in ArmA2, without aiming deadzone on, every movement left or right moves the legs. That becomes frustrating. So I can understand why some people prefer the aiming deadzone. But a more realistic solution is to allow the whole upper body to move without the lower body moving. When the upper body rotates as much as a person can naturally rotate their upper body, then the legs will turn to face the same direction as the rest of the body. This can very much be controlled and played on a 2d monitor with keyboard and mouse. It's applying the aiming deadzone principle/feature to the entire upper body instead of just the arms. And frankly, it's more realistic and practical and probable than the current aiming deadzone feature, for reasons I've already explained.

[Panda_pl 0]

I can imagine the hell that sort of gameplay mechanic would produce. You turn your head, and your weapon/body lags behind it and catches up? Nightmare

Well, the two choices are then: limit speed at which player can turn (negative mouse acceleration) or allow spinning in place with any speed.

Arma2 actually allows you to turn very fast while prone.

ACE mod tried to introduce realistic prone turning. People with float zone disabled were enraged, they could no longer do breakdancer moves on the ground. I really liked the effort and it was actually making freefloat useful.

Felt very much like Vietcong, which is a good thing, you could turn your body faster by tapping any movement key but it would lower your rifle for short moment.

[batto 17]

I would like for the devs/animators/whoever-is-responsible to let the player, without the aiming deadzone on, be able to turn/rotate the entire upper body (head, arms, torso, weapon) as one unit in either direction (left or right) before the legs begin to turn.

That's too humble =). Eeys, head, arms with weapon, torso and legs should turn separately. Each part should have limited angle (except legs) and turn speed (eyes instant). Just imagine how would you turn if something just exploded behind you. In ArmA it would take 1-2 seconds just to see it. If you hear fire behind you in open area and bullets land nearby you want to quickly turn back to find the danger (other parts of body could still be turning) and return fire (after weapon finishes turn with aim distruption if torso/legs are still turning). Of course it'll happen very quickly. Asymmetry thanks to left-handedness could make it even more interesting.

However it's probably not an easy task to make it =). I must finish the GDS presentation on animations. Maybe it was covered.

limit speed at which player can turn (negative mouse acceleration)

It's already there and it sucks.

ACE mod tried to introduce realistic prone turning. People with float zone disabled were enraged, they could no longer do breakdancer moves on the ground. I really liked the effort and it was actually making freefloat useful.

Free-look?

Edited May 31, 2012 by batto

[pathetic_berserker 4]

What? What I simply "demand", you mean ask, is that 1) the relatively unrealistic aiming deadzone NOT be forced on all players and that 2) character movement allows for the upper body to be able to experience its full range of motion before the legs begin to turn. That is very much possible. That very much can be controlled. It's basically the same principle as the aiming deadzone, but applied to the entire upper body instead of just the arms+weapon..

Admitedly I'm looking forward to seeing this principle at work in Mechwarrior Online but not realy sure if it would mean much in A3, the difference between moving forward and shooting/viewing sideways vs shooting/viewing forwards and moving sideways? Gameplay wise it might not change much, but I'm open to the idea.

[pd3 25]

Fine if other players want to use the floating deadzone, but I don't think it should be forced in servers. Take that back, if someone wants to force a certain deadzone setting then fine. I would just find another server.

My only thing would be this: If the main issue with not having an aiming deadzone is that you have to move your whole body every time you turn, then I would just suggest that BIS makes character movement such that your torso has its full range of motion, and that the upper body turns as much as it can before your legs turn. That would suffice for me. Would there be anyone opposed to this? Smookie, is there anyway that this could feasibly work (upper body turning fully before the legs begin to turn)?

I actually would like an option to force it.

The whole point of having a dead zone is to simulate a more cumbersome series of movements that precede lining up your shot.

Again, plenty of combat helmet cam footage will indicate that arms/hands move independently of perspective and the two are never perfectly in concert with one another -all- the time.

That's the basic premise.

Non-deadzone feels like quake, it allows snap-aiming which again, defeats the purpose of going to simulate so many variables that human beings have to contend with when negotiating environments and accomplishing various tasks.

[batto 17]

Again, plenty of combat helmet cam footage will indicate that arms/hands move independently of perspective and the two are never perfectly in concert with one another -all- the time.

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.

See the middle of the helmet? And the nose?

Non-deadzone feels like quake, it allows snap-aiming which again, defeats the purpose of going to simulate so many variables that human beings have to contend with when negotiating environments and accomplishing various tasks.

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) 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.

Edited May 31, 2012 by batto

[smookie 11]

The analogy is that the floating-zone just adds unrealistic difficulty to make game harder like fast tapping of buttons in console games (it has nothing to do with main gameplay, story or realism). While it makes chances equal it adds nothing good to realism nor gameplay. If the cheat can't be prevented than crosshair should be enabled and fast non-sighted accurate shooting should be made harder by realistic features.

I am sorry but your argument fails long way. Also I never even mentioned realism which is totally not the case in my point and to which you seem to refer all the time.

(for me, floating zone makes movement hard)

I am pretty sure this is the base of all your arguments. Still, as I mentioned, the best way would be to let people choose how they want to play. Again - if a given server doesn't meet your preferences, you simply don't stick by it.

The reason for suggesting above is simply based on PvP experience. I see no real need to impose such requirements on Coop-only gameservers/players.

[batto 17]

If it has nothing to do with realism (it doesn't) and it doesn't enhance gameplay then enforcing it is just creating artifical difficulty. If crosshairs are disabled for more realistic gameplay then it doesn't make sense to force unrealistic and harder gameplay just because the first can be circumvented. I dare to guess that playing with dead-zone is and will be harder for majority of ArmA2 and future ArmA3 players. I'm just sayin'.

[max power 21]

batto, in case you have not noticed, you monitor is in no way like your head or your eyes. I am able to glance around and watch two directions at once whether or not my head is glued to my rifle. I am also able to get a sight picture in different head / weapon orientations, or notice something and return to a sight picture pretty instantaneously once glancing in another direction. There is nothing you can do to make a monitor behave like your eyes and your head. Absolutely nothing. Either you limit artificially, or you bestow artificial abilities to make up for the monitor's limits- such as, but not limited to, using different zoom levels to try to make up for the incredible accuity and large field of view of binocular vision. The new abilities may not be realistic, but the limitations aren't either.

[rye1 21]

If the mocap animator doesn't turn his head/his torso towards the enemy, and it stays oriented at 12 o clock while his weapon is pointed at 2 o clock, then fine. If his head, weapon and, if so, torso, are all oriented the same direction, then there you go. Maybe some of you would look 12 o clock and point your weapon at 1 or 2 o clock when you're engaging a target, but I would orient my head, eyes, torso, and weapon towards the target, or enemy, I am firing at. Smookie, if this isn't how I should engage enemies, then please let me know. Oh, and, by the way, when you are firing your weapon, don't you want your weapon to be as rigid and stable as possible (as in, as still as possible for the most stable, accurate shots)? If so, then you want point your weapon in the direction you are looking, and you will turn your head, your eyes, your focus, and your weapon as one unit in the direction you want to focus on.

I don't know anyone who would. It's going against common principles.

I don't agree with it at all but everything is optionable or modable.

Deadzone - Orientate with -> Head/Eyes OR Arms/Upperbody (drop-down box form(?)).

Some simple patrolling principles are to keep your weapon pointing in the direction you are looking so you can bring it up and snap to target. That includes when you move your body to scan around, the weapon comes around low, ready to be brought up.

Odd and rare occasions for example a baseline break contact may have a person scanning the area around him, looking for space to move as the pointman moving to the rear, while still putting rounds down range - this can kind of be done with ALT (freelook).

Basic human anatomy and marksmanship principles tell you to face your body, whole body, towards the threat. There are different kinds of stances for this because front-on may over-expose. AA3 have these: http://www.americasarmy.com/images/forums/tt3_6.jpg, "[Different] Combat Stances allow you to move faster at the cost of accuracy".

Basic human anatomy also tells us that when you move your arms, you use some chest muscles which pull your body towards that angle, it's just natural for your head and eyes to follow this path of movement to use the weapon appropriately, for better recoil management and prevent neck strain. That's what I was saying about AA3 as well - your character moves their upperbody to meet your accuracy and CQB-quickness with a very strong range of upperbody movement.

[dmarkwick 261]

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.

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.

See the middle of the helmet? And the nose?

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 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) 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.

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.

[batto 17]

you have to understand that in games, you move your head NOT your eyes

Nope. You move whole body.

Actually that image shows what floating zone is trying to achieve - your main view is your head direction

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??!?!?!?

you seem to be the only one who thinks that the deadzone adds nothing to either gameplay or the "problem" of center-screen "cheating"

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.

@Max: I'm talking about eyes of your avatar, not yours. Watching multiple points on the screen is like peripheral vision. With dead-zone you can accurately aim in top-right corner while watching everything below and to the left but not above and to the right. That's not like peripheral vision.

Edited May 31, 2012 by batto

[antoineflemming 14]

I am sorry but your argument fails long way. Also I never even mentioned realism which is totally not the case in my point and to which you seem to refer all the time.

I am pretty sure this is the base of all your arguments. Still, as I mentioned, the best way would be to let people choose how they want to play. Again - if a given server doesn't meet your preferences, you simply don't stick by it.

The reason for suggesting above is simply based on PvP experience. I see no real need to impose such requirements on Coop-only gameservers/players.

Smookie, I'm not sure if its possible, but is it possible that revs could code in an option like Rye said, to be able to set deadzone for either just your arms+weapon or whole upper body? Or to have this "upper body aiming deadzone", as in upper body moves/turns/rotates as much as it can before the legs turn, as default?

EDIT: All, reread Rye's post. That basically sums up my argument. I don't want to be forced to use an impractical aiming deadzone, something that's contrary to the way I'd shoot in real life. This is a milsim right? Shouldn't the focus not only be what's realistic but also what you'd do in real life? I mean, is a milsim just meant to be harder than other shooters, or is the focus on realism? If it's just meant to be harder, then why do people want better cqb. It's currently hard to do cqb. Isn't that what you guys want? But as most know, cqb movement in real life is easier than in arma2. Just because the current aiming deadzone makes the movement super hard doesn't mean that its more realistic. There are other ways, realistic ways, to make shooting/aiming harder than by making an impractical aiming deadzone where you move your arms off to one side of your screen and your character's head is pointed another direction, and you try to aim at the enemy and shoot as accurately as you can. Focus on what's realistic and practical first, then decide whether or not its easier than in real life. If you really want to look a different direction than where you're aiming, then there's freelook for that. But don't force me to do something contrary to what I'd, and any soldier would, most of the time, do in real life.

Edited May 31, 2012 by antoineflemming

[rye1 21]

@Batto

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17XXUgoxQxU&feature=plcp

2:50. Take it from an ex-SEAL. Think about it like wearing a hat. Your head naturally moves with your eyes, its artificial NOT to though you can do it and probably do on a daily basis, walking down the street and watching people but that's not orientating to a threat. The muscles of our eyes and peripheral vision are great to allow this. But in a combat scenario or certain shooting types we observe as you say, THEN orientate (OODA loop) before engaging...

We use both eyes to weigh up the distance, the lines and angles of shot. We close off one eye whilst lining it up.

He's kind of right though, the picture shows a slight angle change but that's going to happen with certain shooting stances and positions, as with most things in life, any action can make this happen, i.e. off-hand shooting vs the AA3 picture I posted above. But what does it matter? For example, people mount their cameras in all kinds of places - weapons, helmets. Where are you going with it? To make deadzone less accurate due to this picture? The deadzone is basically an area your weapon can move freely before your body begins to adjust for it, give or take micro-adjustments, before the anatomy/physiology limit(s) pull your body towards that direction.

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.

Deadzone is great for instinctive shooting, point shooting, etc. Sometimes I feel it limits my field of view because I have to push it over left or right to a certain point before my character begins to turn to expose the left or right-most field of view and new angles. That's why range of movement or motion is great, I'd love if you could adjust that (degrees to the amount your character can turn or will turn with certain movement in terms of upper body limit though not subjected to only this). For example, if I turn to X angle, my upper body or characters body will begin to orientate there. Don't think it has ever been done in a game before. I suppose adjusting the Y/X-axis for dead-zone boundaries is pretty much the same as antoine is talking about.

As you can see for sharper turns he has a sharper range of movement anatomy and physiology-wise. It's like being offset from a wall to buttonhook around in CQB. By making the turn less sharp you can move around it faster. It's the same thing with motor racing, the sharper the turn the slower you have to go to get through it so you work on angles and range of movement, hence why some people use the door-jam take-off (DJT) technique (

). You can see it sometimes on AA3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3Aq2x7ksfc) when they are orientating to their weak shooting side, they push the range of movement out there and the body turns inwards and towards that angle for a fair shot - most of the time it's very twitchy though and can only be seen from the 3rd person (and quite hard to see, quite rare, though if you play it with a few buddies you will get what I mean). I think it only happens while moving in AA3 too, not sure.