Will Arma 3 have better mouse controls?

[4 IN 1 0]

Allways happy to explain.

About shooting accuracy - I admit things are still a bit on the too much precision side, but its our goal to make accuracy and firefight lenght more reallistic. But it is sometimes tricky, if you want to avoid frustrating mechanics, like bullet spread or mouse speed cap.

Recently we introduced linking of weapon sway with turning, so thats one step.

I see there is still discussion about aiming deadzone - I can assure everyone it is still functional like it always was, we just didn't show it on videos as Jay doesnt use it (me neither).

I will give one bold suggestion here:

Front sight are actually more important then rear sight in CQB but have a huge impact on more distanced shots, so if you make the rear sway more while the front stable, and extent the time required to align the two sights on target, you may actually fix the problem where CQB is too hard to aim while longer range is too easy. But thats only irons for you, red-dot is still going to have this problem unless you guys comes up a way to make it more realistic.

On a side note, aiming dead zone really is there only because in the past we do not have better way to turn our head while having our weapon pointing in one direction, with the alt looking or further more head tracking device, aiming dead zone is somewhat redundant once you get used to using those 2 function, but since you guys still keep it as optional, the problem is non-exist.

As frustrating mechanics as trying to move about quickly while carrying a heavy weapon and trying to fire it accurately?

And you point was?

Edited August 14, 2012 by 4 IN 1

[NeMeSiS 11]

stuff

Let me just make clear that i am fine with the weight implementation of weapons, its more the delay/overshooting because of odd mouse input handling that annoys me.

I am not familiar with VBS2 weapon sway, but i would like to note that the sway should be faster when you are tired, currently it only seems to go wider. Even de unfatigued sway should be somewhat faster and wider IMO.

[luizsilveira 5]

[...]

And you point was?

That of course if you try to implement something that feels realistic and replicates difficulties faced by a soldier on the field (in this case, the difficulties of dealing with the weight of weapons when turning and aiming), that will obviously be frustrating for everyone who is wishing for a fast-paced-dead-easy-no-difficulties-to-be-faced type of shooter game.

I also meant that it is pretty damn frustrating to shoot any weapon, as you can be 100% sure you are aiming correctly but still never make that damn bullseye when the trigger is pulled. I don't see any problem whatsoever in bringing that very same frustration to the game atmosphere through the bullet dispersion mechanic.

I didn't think I needed to unpack it all to make that point as this balancing problem is over beaten. But what didn't seem clear to me is the stand of Arma 3 on this balancing problem regarding the mouse turning/weapon handling combo.

imho, giving proper weight feel to the different weapon systems is a must. But of course fast-paced shooter CQB lovers won't like it. I couldn't agree more with metalcrase when he says: "And you see - weapons should have weight. Pointing M107 shouldn't be as fast as pointing M4 or AK47. I mean the only difference between weapons in those 3 games is the amount of damage they deal and dispersion. In CS M249 weighs as much as a pistol. Turning and aiming with such a bulky weapon shouldn't be easy in any way. In fact since ArmA has real ballistics instead of dispersion-hitscan like those games making all weapons easy to aim will greatly hurt the gameplay if not turn it into reflex fragfest."

[Psychomorph 1]

I'd like to clarify my point. I mentioned Quake not in relation to the aiming system, but the pure mouse performance. There is nothing that justifies various forms of acceleration on various axes. Mouse performance as such, should be as well implemented as it is, say in Quake.

The way you actually aim and all the involved mechanics are another subject matter, on which I have an opinion of course. I am a realism fan and realistic to me means "unfettered awareness". While it is true that when a trained soldier has his gun in a ready position, he does keep the view facing the direction he has his gun pointed at, unless he consciously turns his head to check the sides and such (what you can do in ArmA already), but to keep the gun and view aligned there need to be pace slow enough to have the character be able to rotate the torso, or turn the body with a realistic animation. But that should not restrict the mouse look in the game, if you turn your view faster than the body can follow, than the weapon laggs behind, to a point where it goes down and back up when you halt the view still, because at a certain speed the mosue look is the head movement and the body laggs behind and acts accordingly.

What I am trying to say is, that the view should be as accurate and fast as necessary (efficient like turning and looking around in Quake), which is the "unfettered awareness" factor as your awareness is not restircted by any clumsy implementation or poor mouse performance, but that does not mean you aim the gun as fast and as twitchy as in Quake, which would be totally wrong in ArmA3.

As for the actual process of aiming. The human shooter is capable of more than what games often allow, you can focus on a target and raise the sights and have the sights almost exactly placed on target, but there are factors that define things in real life, such as arm tremble (especially if fatigued), general sway, disalignment of sights (if irons). Stance (kneel, prone), support (bipods, resting gun on things) and fitness (don't sprint till full exhaust) are the means to combat these effects. This I'd like to see in ArmA3, which, I think, is worlds away from BF3 and CoD gun handling.

Another subject is the hitbox. If the hit model is well made, you could shoot between legs and even below under the armpit, from "miles" away and wonder why the guy is still alive. These things will add to the difficulty of hitting targets. Aiming center mass would gain more significance, as a head would be as small as it looks.

There are probably other things to mention, but I think you know what I mean.

To sum it up. Mouse performance is essential in a first person game, not just for efficiency, but also for comfort (which is actually my main aspect here). View and awareness should be unrestricted as much as possible, which does not mean your body and gun behaves just as fast and twitchy as your view/head. Aiming sights should be very effective as it is in real life, but that doesn't mean hitting a target is as easy as that, as there are mechanics that make hitting targets not that easy (fatigue, stance, etc).

[chortles 263]

Recently we introduced linking of weapon sway with turning, so thats one step.

Can you make sure that whoever is demonstrating at E3 makes sure to throw a demonstration of this in?

I see there is still discussion about aiming deadzone - I can assure everyone it is still functional like it always was, we just didn't show it on videos as Jay doesnt use it (me neither).

Thanks for a definitive statement on this, hopefully this will settle the complaints from aiming deadzone users that it wasn't appearing in ARMA 3 videos.

But what I'm not in favor of is the sentiment of "make it like Quake and Counter-Strike" (aka "why this game no play like BF3").

Where are you getting this?

In fact since ArmA has real ballistics instead of dispersion-hitscan like those games making all weapons easy to aim will greatly hurt the gameplay if not turn it into reflex fragfest.

I would have thought that MG recoil alone would have deterred this, considering that MG recoil is NOT to do with "ease of aim"... again, where are you getting your claims?

As for the weapon weight idea... I'd suggest that "raise time" can be used as a factor, and ironically I like the idea because it gives the lighter, shorter-ranged weapons and sidearms distinct gameplay niche as the least hampered by weight or by movement of character (feet) or of view (i.e. turning sway).

I will give one bold suggestion here:

Front sight are actually more important then rear sight in CQB but have a huge impact on more distanced shots, so if you make the rear sway more while the front stable, and extent the time required to align the two sights on target, you may actually fix the problem where CQB is too hard to aim while longer range is too easy. But thats only irons for you, red-dot is still going to have this problem unless you guys comes up a way to make it more realistic.

This is an interesting idea, and definitely sounds better than the ARMA 2 implementation where there's not much point at all to the walk speed due to the extent of waver/sway, making the "optimal" (under such mechanics) movement system more akin to old-school Resident Evil (couldn't move and shoot at any speed). :rolleyes: I would imagine that parallax simulation or the fabled "RTT scope" (both magnified and red dot/reflex/collimator) would be the best solution here, but of course that's a non-starter due to technical limitations as previously discussed.

That of course if you try to implement something that feels realistic and replicates difficulties faced by a soldier on the field (in this case, the difficulties of dealing with the weight of weapons when turning and aiming), that will obviously be frustrating for everyone who is wishing for a fast-paced-dead-easy-no-difficulties-to-be-faced type of shooter game.

imho, giving proper weight feel to the different weapon systems is a must. But of course fast-paced shooter CQB lovers won't like it.

So you're going to be like metalcraze in claiming to speak for a subsection of ARMA 3 players that you're opposed to? :rolleyes:

I don't see any problem whatsoever in bringing that very same frustration to the game atmosphere through the bullet dispersion mechanic.

Right here I think we're going to have an irreconciliable difference, not least since the advertised changes and improvements (some of which I've been using to proselytize) have been about the opposite, about removing frustrations.

Part of the reason that I'm against adding frustrations on weapon movement/aiming is because ARMA 3 has a better solution for "difficulty of hitting targets"... in the form of game mechanics (such as the fatigue system) whose effect is magnified at range. I'm generally in agreement with Psychmorph here.

[metalcraze 290]

Where are you getting this?

Read this thread

I would have thought that MG recoil alone would have deterred this, considering that MG recoil is NOT to do with "ease of aim"... again, where are you getting your claims?

First bullet is always spot on. One bullet is often enough to seriously wound if not kill an enemy in the game. So with some practice frag movies with MG wouldn't be a fantasy in the case above.

Same goes for anti-materiel sniper rifles. If turning with them will be just as easy as with an assault rifle - what will stop anyone from taking some sniper rifle, especially with automatic fire to clean houses?

So you're going to be like metalcraze in claiming to speak for a subsection of ARMA 3 players that you're opposed to?

That "subsection" made itself pretty clear over time. "Why this game no play like BF3" is a pretty common complaint.

And btw I'm not opposed to CQB. I'm opposed to completely unrealistic fragfests present in dozens of games. There should be at least one game that provides realistic (as much as it is possible within a videogame) firefights.

Edited August 15, 2012 by metalcraze

[dmarkwick 261]

That "subsection" made itself pretty clear over time. "Why this game no play like BF3" is a pretty common complaint.

Actually it isn't. In fact, only you have made that particular remark, or anything like it.

What some people have said, is that a particular feature from a particular game works well. That may be agreeable or not, entirely subjective, but I think this knee-jerk reaction to any mention of BF3 or whatever seems tiresome. It would be better to address the actual feature not reduce & dismiss the entire argument to "Why this game no play like BF3". Believe it or not, other games do have good features, even if that game itself is not so good. Or at least, features worth discussing.

[metalcraze 290]

Actually it isn't. In fact, only you have made that particular remark, or anything like it.

What some people have said, is that a particular feature from a particular game works well.

And some have said "I definitely think there would be a market for CQB, say Battlefield 3 style. The thing holding it back is the mouse controls." :rolleyes:

[chortles 263]

First bullet is always spot on. One bullet is often enough to seriously wound if not kill an enemy in the game. So with some practice frag movies with MG wouldn't be a fantasy in the case above.

Same goes for anti-materiel sniper rifles. If turning with them will be just as easy as with an assault rifle - what will stop anyone from taking some sniper rifle, especially with automatic fire to clean houses?

I thought it was shotguns that were supposed to be the Hammer of God? ;)

In response, my answer is that I like the idea of weapons having weight, but direct impairment of aiming -- as opposed to turning, as Psychomorph has posted on that -- not so much... I suppose the devil's in the details and extent. As an example of a "good" weapon weight implementation IMO, weapon weight could affect the time to raise the weapon, i.e. when using the old raise/lower weapon (Ctrlx2 in ARMA 2) or when switching from the ARMA run (lowered weapon) to tactical pace/walk. Likewise, while it's not necessarily an aspect of the fatigue system, you could have it be that the raise time from ARMA run or sprint to tactical pace/walk is the same, but that it's "shakier" (i.e. sights not immediately aligned?) if going from sprint than from ARMA run. Of course, weapon weight will probably affect your total Encumbrance and Fatigue levels with corresponding hits to accuracy and accuracy recovery as was previously described by Jay Crowe, and there's also the possibility of weapon weight affecting the extent of the "idle" sway, i.e. the size of the "8", when not prone (I have no idea if ARMA 3 vanilla is doing bipod/Grip Pod). Finally, if ARMA 3 were to use the "auto-lower when facing a wall" (sounds like a different response from ARMA 2 to collision detection) that you called for in another thread, then aren't long-barreled MGs and AMRs the most likely weapons to spend their time lowered?

Oddly enough, this sounds like "weapon balance"... :D

I'll add that even without artificially altering "sight in" time for magnified scopes or having their point of aim be randomly different from where your crosshair was to prevent "quickscoping," the above ideas are meant to NOT favor an AMR or a long-barreled MG indoors... in fact, ARMA 3's new "crosshairs" preclude the infamous "noscope" more than the old ARMA 2 crosshairs (I think that we're in agreement on this being an improvement) unless the player were to stick a dot onto the center of the monitor screen where the scoped-in point-of-aim was. :p

That "subsection" made itself pretty clear over time. "Why this game no play like BF3" is a pretty common complaint.

Absolutely not common, try again.

And btw I'm not opposed to CQB.

To be frank, you absolutely come off like you are opposed. :mad:

I'm opposed to completely unrealistic fragfests present in dozens of games. There should be at least one game that provides realistic (as much as it is possible within a videogame) firefights.

VBS3 is that way. :rolleyes:

Joking aside, in my view existing and less controversial mechanics already preclude the possibility of "completely unrealistic fragfest" in ARMA and therefore are a preferable solution; 4 IN 1 voiced another interesting solution (perhaps usable for my suggestion about raise time) for the dilemma because of its underlying principle "easy short range shooting, difficult long range shooting". While some twitch shooters pay lip service to certain principles ("prone stance best stance" and "fire in bursts"), those principles are more carried out in ARMA due to the ballistics system, the various aim degradations such as fatigue and the possible distance of firefights... between short and long distances, the controls must be the same despite the differing priorities at the different distances, while factors such as the aforementioned and the relative size of a torso may be trusted with the task of encouraging skill/patience at distance, by penalizing at distance.

And some have said "I definitely think there would be a market for CQB, say Battlefield 3 style. The thing holding it back is the mouse controls." :rolleyes:

... a grand total of one poster, who I already responded to (I didn't agree with that post), who you responded to by pulled the same claim (to speak for that subsection) in that thread too without even bothering to ask that poster what "Battlefield 3 style" was supposed to mean, and I in turn saw Ekko's correction of you.

Nice job selectively quoting and not answering the main body of DMarkwick's post by the way.

[metalcraze 290]

That's why I'm suggesting more weapon sway with heavier weapons.

To be frank, you absolutely come off like you are opposed.

Maybe we think about different CQBs then?

In my mind better CQB is easier navigation around buildings (e.g. weapon auto-lowering) and better grenade-throwing (like in ACE mod). Just because I'm against using sniper rifles and MGs like M240 to clean-sweep buildings while doing "awesome" headshots doesn't mean I'm against CQB.

... a grand total of one poster

Yeah. Only yesterday. "Do it like in BF3" stuff is not rare here.

"- shooting while running... dont "hide" the weapon while running/moving outside of the screen, make it like in bf3. sprinting=no shooting, running=weapon visible and shooting possible"

"maybe seperate 3rd person view from 1st person view, to make it more like other popular games (bf3, planetside2...). "

Of course that's nothing like "make small maps, cut out AI" from a while ago.

Why is BF3 held like some high standard by some anyway? It plays like shit.

Edited August 15, 2012 by metalcraze

[dmarkwick 261]

Why is BF3 held like some high standard by some anyway? It plays like shit.

It's a game. Start it up, you get gameplay, no headaches. I don't like it myself either, but then I'm rather a geek. Most people however, just want a game. That works, out of the box, same for everybody. There is something to be said for that.

Anyway, why the "Why this game no play like ArmA2"? ;) :D

[chortles 263]

That's why I'm suggesting more weapon sway with heavier weapons.

I'm not so sure that we'll agree on the details, but the principle seems sound -- heavier/longer weapons king at long range, lighter/shorter weapons king at short range; my historical dissatisfaction with ARMA "gunplay" was that it did not seem to achieve the latter, which is why I've been so lauding of the incarnation shown in the E3/post-E3/GameStar videos (I'm treating the MX 6.5 mm as "lighter/shorter" for this purpose, and I had a blast at seeing the PO7) that just looks arcadey because the infantry videos tending to take place at COD-like distances.

I should note though that the only video I've seen of the Mk 200 in action had the user prone and firing in short bursts at a target at long range, so I don't consider it "arcadey" at all, it's adhering to longer-distance shooting principles.

Maybe we think about different CQBs then?

In my mind better CQB is easier navigation around buildings (e.g. weapon auto-lowering) and better grenade-throwing (like in ACE mod). Just because I'm against using sniper rifles and MGs like M240 to clean-sweep buildings while doing "awesome" headshots doesn't mean I'm against CQB.

I'm certain that we think about different CQBs indeed. For me it's not just features like auto-lowering or different grenade toss options but more broadly "improving" the navigating within buildings/enclosures and ease of using short-range weapons (sidearms, SMGs, PDWs, short-barreled/"subcompact" rifles and carbines), hence the focus on weapon handling/aiming and on the perceived gains demonstrated in the ARMA 3 videos -- "short range" is basically my pet issue when it comes to ARMA 3.

Yeah. Only yesterday. "Do it like in BF3" stuff is not rare here.

"- shooting while running... dont "hide" the weapon while running/moving outside of the screen, make it like in bf3. sprinting=no shooting, running=weapon visible and shooting possible"

"maybe seperate 3rd person view from 1st person view, to make it more like other popular games (bf3, planetside2...). "

Of course that's nothing like "make small maps, cut out AI" from a while ago.

Why is BF3 held like some high standard by some anyway? It plays like shit.

Got links for those quotes? As rather amusingly, "shooting while running" is tactical pace (at last check COD/BF3's default movement speeds are akin to tactical pace), I have no idea what "separate 3rd person view from 1st person view" is supposed to mean (I certainly don't remember BF3 having third-person view mode at all), and "make small maps, cut out AI" can already be done in ARMA 2 by any mission maker who cares to wall in the area.

As someone who DID play Battlefield 3 for a while from release to some time after Back to Karkand came out, I would dare say that BF3 is "held like some high standard" because despite all the lumping in with COD, it is NOT COD and it DOES have remaining distinctive differences from COD shining through despite EA seemingly "COD-ing" it because they wanted to go head-to-head with COD on its own terms (I personally thought this a poor idea but whatever). :rolleyes: Likewise, while DICE does seem to come up with terrible ideas at times (i.e. using the popularity of the notorious "Metro Conquest 64" as a justification for the Close Quarters DLC), there's a recognition somewhere between DICE and EA of needing to distinctly separate themselves from COD, for example by advertising an Armored Kill DLC with a "vehicle-centric and bigger maps" concept.

The way I look at it, there's something that drew these players to BF3 over COD, i.e. specific differences in marketing hype, or looking for specific things... those content with the current implementation of the "BF3 concept" (in the sense of how it differs from the COD concept) may not give us a look so whatever, but for discontented with BF3 and giving a look at ARMA 3, I therefore wonder: what were they hoping for from BF3 that they "knew" COD's concept wouldn't allow? And what do they see in ARMA 3 that leads them to be interested in "us" in the first place?

P.S. This probably merits either moving into a different thread or PMs.

To KBourne: Worst part is, there's already a CQB thread. :D But this deserved some time in the thread I think, even if it's outliving that now, because of mouse controls' role in weapons use at CQB distances.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Chortles

[KEVINMGXP 20]

Anyway, why the "Why this game no play like ArmA2"? ;) :D

this, i spitted my drink :p

I wonder why a Thread: Will Arma 3 have better mouse controls? turns in to a CQB i like don't like BF3 rage fest anyway djeeses ...

[doveman 7]

Is there a consensus on what to set the deadzone at?

I tried it at various settings and kinda liked it on high, so that I could move my aim from almost the left to the right edges of the screen without turning but then at other times I found it annoying not being able to turn quickly (i.e. not until the aim-point had reached the edge of the deadzone), so I've gone back to having no deadzone now, which just seems quicker and less likely to disadvantage me against other players. Perhaps if it could be only active whilst holding a key it might be better but if it doesn't have any particular advantages, I'm not sure there's much point.

[dmarkwick 261]

Is there a consensus on what to set the deadzone at?

I tried it at various settings and kinda liked it on high, so that I could move my aim from almost the left to the right edges of the screen without turning but then at other times I found it annoying not being able to turn quickly (i.e. not until the aim-point had reached the edge of the deadzone), so I've gone back to having no deadzone now, which just seems quicker and less likely to disadvantage me against other players. Perhaps if it could be only active whilst holding a key it might be better but if it doesn't have any particular advantages, I'm not sure there's much point.

The advantage I most hear about is one of MP visibility, with no deadzone your whole body turns when you turn your view, while with the deazone only a portion of you does.

I use TrackIR so I don't use a deadzone for that reason.

[doveman 7]

The advantage I most hear about is one of MP visibility, with no deadzone your whole body turns when you turn your view, while with the deazone only a portion of you does.

I use TrackIR so I don't use a deadzone for that reason.

Ah, good point I hadn't considered.

TrackIR only allows you to move your head though doesn't it, so you still have to move your entire body to change your aimpoint and thus you'd still have the same problem with visibility? I think it would be good if the aimpoint could follow your head/TrackIR point (within reason of course, you shouldn't be able to aim and fire backwards over your shoulder!)

[dmarkwick 261]

Ah, good point I hadn't considered.

TrackIR only allows you to move your head though doesn't it, so you still have to move your entire body to change your aimpoint and thus you'd still have the same problem with visibility?

It's more about situational awareness with TrackIR than anything else - I don't do too much MP so I'm not concerned with MP visibility. TrackIR + deazone can be a little too much, once you have your head freely moving, there's not much reason to have a loose weapon aimpoint too.

I think it would be good if the aimpoint could follow your head/TrackIR point (within reason of course, you shouldn't be able to aim and fire backwards over your shoulder!)

Aiming with your face is NOT fun :)

[doveman 7]

Aiming with your face is NOT fun :)

No, I was thinking more of having a button to align your gun with where you're looking, which you'd then still control with your mouse (with a deadzone to prevent moving the lower body), which would involve the avatar moving their arms (so somewhat increased visibility over just turning his head) but not rotating his entire body (with the resulting increased visibility) as is now required if aiming at something to the left or right.

I'm thinking we should be able to lay down suppressive fire to the left or right whilst moving forward, which would obviously be completely inprecise but could serve the purpose whilst trying to get to cover. The only way to do that at the moment is to turn towards the enemy, giving him a bigger target, and side-step/strafe towards the cover, which I can't imagine would happen IRL.

[dmarkwick 261]

No, I was thinking more of having a button to align your gun with where you're looking, which you'd then still control with your mouse (with a deadzone to prevent moving the lower body), which would involve the avatar moving their arms (so somewhat increased visibility over just turning his head) but not rotating his entire body (with the resulting increased visibility) as is now required if aiming at something to the left or right.

I'm thinking we should be able to lay down suppressive fire to the left or right whilst moving forward, which would obviously be completely inprecise but could serve the purpose whilst trying to get to cover. The only way to do that at the moment is to turn towards the enemy, giving him a bigger target, and side-step/strafe towards the cover, which I can't imagine would happen IRL.

Hmm I see. Of course, IRL you wouldn't be laying down covering/suppressive fire for yourself, you have someone do that for you while you concentrate on hauling ass as quick as possible. There is a general inability to turn your torso separate from your movement controls, but I don't think this is going to change anytime soon. To be honest, the complexity of that control system (whatever it would be) wouldn't be worth it for the few times it'd be useful.

[doveman 7]

Hmm I see. Of course, IRL you wouldn't be laying down covering/suppressive fire for yourself, you have someone do that for you while you concentrate on hauling ass as quick as possible. There is a general inability to turn your torso separate from your movement controls, but I don't think this is going to change anytime soon. To be honest, the complexity of that control system (whatever it would be) wouldn't be worth it for the few times it'd be useful.

I guess (although there could be times, particularly with some missions, when you're on your own and might need to put the enemy off their aim whilst you get to cover). It already has the ability to move the aim-point without moving the lower body though (i.e. the deadzone) and I'm not really talking about moving the torso independently, as you don't really need to in order to aim at something 9-12 o'clock or 3-12 o'clock of yourself. The head's already facing that way and you only need to move your hands to lift the gunsight/scope to aim in that direction. So as I say, if there was a button to align the sight/gun with your head (without turning the body) and then the deadzone was automatically engaged, you could aim in that direction whilst continuing to walk forwards and then either press the button again to disengage the deadzone and have the mouse turn your body again, or have it so the deadzone automatically disengages if the player exceeds it.

[Taylor422 1]

I think Chortles understands the direction I'm coming from. In ArmA, you get mil-sim combat, but it's all ranged. How about some milsim CQB? It exists. It actually happens. Just look at Iraq/Afghanistan. There's room for more than just one style of play.

[chortles 263]

Take it to the CQB thread already, Taylor. :p

[Psychomorph 1]

In ArmA, you get mil-sim combat, but it's all ranged. How about some milsim CQB?

What about "allround mil-sim"? CQB and ranged combat are not from two different worlds, they exist in one and interchange. You run for miles through a desert, pop targets in the distance, reach a building, enter and clear it CQB style, exit, keep running another couple of miles.

[hannibal636 11]

Honestly the mouse controls in Arma 2 for me, are fine. I use a Razer Naga and just customize my settings out of the game with my mouse program features to get the exact values of precision and sensitivity that I want.

Not sure if this is needed.

my i ask what exact Razr Naga product that you use, and how do your set your mouse software to make Amra2 more enjoyable to play? if you have a mouse config profile, would be awesome.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Recently we introduced linking of weapon sway with turning, so thats one step.

SWEEEEET! That basically means no more 180° flips and instant 500 meter bullseyes.