In the future apparently human beings are not subject to inertia or weight.

[pd3 25]

Not cool.

I'm a big fan of the old vection based aiming ala the days of OFP.

It was a nice compromise instead of getting full physics based movement.

I know BI is trying to make a buck, but seriously.

Will this at least be moddable?

So that human movement isn't arbitrated by how fast your mouse moves?

I kind of gravitated toward this genre because I was tired of playing games that completely disregarded reasonable human limitations.

[Leon86 13]

I was hoping for a system like the old rainbow 6 games, where the view is 1:1 but the time on target is dependant the type of gun.

well too bad, luckily the framerates in multiplayer are so bad it will not be a twitch shooter anytime soon. :p

[dmarkwick 261]

Well, OK, two things I noted from that vid:

There was still some amount of luck involved with that quick turn-&-fire move, ArmA3 is still not a pixel-shooter.

Dude should have just shot Dslyecxi in the head and not tried some uber-cool Hollywood type one-liner out :D

Also, given my first point there, I'd suggest it's perfectly possible for a guy to swing his aim around like that. Maybe not his entire body, but certainly his aim, for which he'd need an amount of luck to pull off, which apparently he had :)

[NeMeSiS 11]

Have you played the game or are you basing this just on videos? Aiming speed is fine.

[pd3 25]

Well, OK, two things I noted from that vid:

There was still some amount of luck involved with that quick turn-&-fire move, ArmA3 is still not a pixel-shooter.

Dude should have just shot Dslyecxi in the head and not tried some uber-cool Hollywood type one-liner out :D

Also, given my first point there, I'd suggest it's perfectly possible for a guy to swing his aim around like that. Maybe not his entire body, but certainly his aim, for which he'd need an amount of luck to pull off, which apparently he had :)

My concern is not specifically the scenario, but that aiming accuracy will literally depend exclusively on how fast you can twitch to your target and little else.

In OFP, if you played it, you'd recall that the gun moved slightly independently of the perspective and took a "little" bit of time to get there.

AFAIK there's also a variable that's been around since OFP that limited the speed at which certain weapons can move anyhow.

My point is that, sure I know people had problems with ARMA2's controls, however no human being except perhaps a gross aberration is going to be able to flail at that speed and not either over or under compensate to a degree.

I don't know, its just kind of sad that this series is being overtaken by other demographics that seem to prefer "comfort" to progress and simulation accuracy.

If you watch a lot of gameplay videos of CoD, you see a lot of similar, quick robotic movements, which allows players who do a lot less "thinking", to get by on reflexes alone.

A bad precedent in my opinion for the series to set considering the focal point is at the infantry level.

We're not quite there yet as species... just remember that.

Then again, I figured we'd be moving in the direction of full IK based weapon handling at this point.

Keeping the people who take situational awareness for granted where they belong.

On the ground. :p

Edited March 17, 2013 by Pd3

[derk yall 0]

The weapon deadzone is present in the game as it was in OFP. Just the Dsyliecxy prefer to play without it. You can adjust/disable the aiming deadzone since ArmA 1 I think, not sure if that was in the original OFP (played it a looong time ago)

[pd3 25]

Kind of irrelevant if you can opt out entirely.

[derk yall 0]

Well you can opt out it since ArmA I and ArmA II and as I said, not sure how it is in the OFP settings.

[pd3 25]

The point is ultimately, that the common denominator is going to be entirely consequence, constraint free (free of everything really) movement.

Not terribly realistic... at all.

I'm just kind of hoping that there may be some sort of addon in the future that "corrects" this in some manner.

[derk yall 0]

The movement is not free of anything. You cant do a 360 spin or twitch shoot in the game. The balistics and aiming deadzone (optional by the user) are still there. You can move your head using the alt-key or via TrackIR (or similiar). You have a new stance system. The improved controls are certenly not a step toward the twitch shooters category.

But It would be best if you see that yourself. Try to ask someone for a free Alpha Lite key and see yourself (unfrotunately I don't have any left) ;)

[pd3 25]

The movement is not free of anything. You cant do a 360 spin or twitch shoot in the game. The balistics and aiming deadzone (optional by the user) are still there. You can move your head using the alt-key or via TrackIR (or similiar). You have a new stance system. The improved controls are certenly not a step toward the twitch shooters category.

Inertial based physics for movement would be a step away from twitch shooters.

But you won't see that because... well I might as well just come out and say it.

People a little light on patience and the stuff between our ears generally become frustrated when having to utilize both.

But It would be best if you see that yourself. Try to ask someone for a Alpha Lite key and see yourself ;)

Making something optional simply leaves the standards in terms of gameplay left to be determined by the lowest common denominator.

I'm concerned now principally because there are no limiting factors to aiming movement now, or at least virtually none, none that I can see that set it apart from Quake or Unreal (and that's a -bad- thing).

I understand that some people want to play this game with TrackIR, (for the infantry portion why I don't know, it seems like a good idea for piloting vehicles for freelook, little else).

[dmarkwick 261]

My concern is not specifically the scenario, but that aiming accuracy will literally depend exclusively on how fast you can twitch to your target and little else.

Well that's the thing, I don't think it is at all. There is still the area of inaccuracy represented by the aiming zone indicator (if you have it enabled, regardless it still exists) but really at that distance it was irrelevant, which is why it didn't influnence the outcome. The guy litereally filled that area of inaccuracy zone and the outcome was more-or-less decided, given that Dslyecsi ot a sufficiently good aim to begin with. I don't think that particular scenario was much of a surprise.

However, I see that you're not concerned with that particular scenario and are concerned that such a fast movement was even possible right? Well in CQB scenarios I would think it is possible, and for mid-range battlefield scenarios (which is ArmA's focus) it's irrelevant. The area-of-inaccuracy make that sort of twitch shooting an irrelevant skill.

[pd3 25]

I know I'm on the losing end of this battle.

The lowest common denominator are winning, and I have to get used to that.

Its just sad because this was seriously the last series I even bothered playing, and now the derpin' millennials are having their way.

Demographics are destiny I guess.

I would very much like to see some motion tracked data on the real physics behind human movement handling firearms of varying weights and see how it stacks up to what we're seeing currently in the game.

I would guarantee there will discrepancies.

CQB, multiple target acquisition even midfield that borders on CIWS-like accuracy, the nightmare possibilities are endless.

I just don't see how enabling this sort of douchebag potential is good for the series, but I know I'm in the vast minority considering how many new customers this franchise has accumulated.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Pd3

[dmarkwick 261]

I know I'm on the losing end of this battle.

The lowest common denominator are winning, and I have to get used to that.

Its just sad because this was seriously the last series I even bothered playing, and now the derpin' millennials are having their way.

Demographics are destiny I guess.

It sounds to me like you haven't really read what I wrote there and have decided that only the speed of turning is important and relevant. Myself, I'm ambivalent about the speed of turning because it's mostly irrelevant given the other limitations, which it seems you're ignoring. I've seen a few of these threads where the OP just throws his hands in the air and sighs about the "derps taking over", like they somehow can do that. I mean, if it's your bugbear, then it's your bugbear, but someone else holding a different opinion doesn't mean the derps are ruining your game, it just means your bugbear is your bugbear.

I would very much like to see some motion tracked data on the real physics behind human movement handling firearms of varying weights and see how it stacks up to what we're seeing currently in the game.

I would guarantee there will discrepancies.

Also discrepancies in running speeds, stance granularity, all kinds of things. But I wonder if your inertial dampening system vs current aiming inaccuracy system are in fact so different that they actually make such a difference in actual gameplay. In order to have actual accuracy you still very much need to go to sighted mode.

[pd3 25]

It sounds to me like you haven't really read what I wrote there and have decided that only the speed of turning is important and relevant. Myself, I'm ambivalent about the speed of turning because it's mostly irrelevant

Turning speed was irrelevant when the speed of the weapon did not match it.

given the other limitations, which it seems you're ignoring.

Such as?

I've seen a few of these threads where the OP just throws his hands in the air and sighs about the "derps taking over", like they somehow can do that. I mean, if it's your bugbear, then it's your bugbear, but someone else holding a different opinion doesn't mean the derps are ruining your game, it just means your bugbear is your bugbear.

Which so happens to be people who like "realism" except when it gets in the way of their superhuman target acquisition speed.

Also discrepancies in running speeds, stance granularity, all kinds of things. But I wonder if your inertial dampening system vs current aiming inaccuracy system are in fact so different that they actually make such a difference in actual gameplay. In order to have actual accuracy you still very much need to go to sighted mode.

True, however this is going to be mitigated to a significant degree, as volume of fire will supercede accuracy midfield (perhaps not at longer ranges) if the benefit of faster acquisition with no penalty enables you to saturate your target area with bullets before they draw a bead.

Remember that sighted mode heavily occludes your field of view.

What's next? Quickscoping?

#Bugbearz #Rustledjimmies

Edited March 17, 2013 by Pd3

[NeMeSiS 11]

In OFP, if you played it, you'd recall that the gun moved slightly independently of the perspective and took a "little" bit of time to get there.

The aiming deadzone is still in, but disabled by default. If by 'a little it of time to get there' you mean the input lag which almost everyone seemed to suffer from(screen moved a bit after you moved your mouse), you had to enforce some driversettings, thankfully that's not needed anymore. If you mean the max turning speed as dictated by the weapon, ive no idea if that's still in, but it was pretty quick for most weapons anyway.

Shooting is pretty much the same, except that you can now hit the broad side of a barn when moving slowly.

Edited March 17, 2013 by NeMeSiS

[dmarkwick 261]

Such as?

I already mentioned it - an inaccuracy zone for the weapon. So that only going to sighted gives you accuracy. As such, I don't think it matters how fast you can turn, given that the difference is small anyway.

In fact, the only place I would consider it a "derping down" is for prone, so I'm prepared to agree on that case :)

True, however this is going to be mitigated to a significant degree, as volume of fire will supercede accuracy midfield (perhaps not at longer ranges) if the benefit of faster acquisition with no penalty enables you to saturate your target area with bullets before they draw a bead.

I doubt the difference in turning speed makes all that big a difference, especially considering the inaccuracy zone.

Remember that sighted mode heavily occludes your field of view.

And it also has less turning ability for zoomed views.

[NacroxNicke 11]

I think before the dexterity value in every weapon dictated how fast it could turn, I don't know if that keeps being true but it was pretty good thought, because if you keep turning rate on all weapons the same you will have the effect "who turns faster the mouse will win".

Anyhow, the shot that the guy did in the video is possible in RL, it's just that with 40kg of equipment he would have fall to the ground afterwards with the move, and he wouldn't had that steady accuracy while moving backwards and sidewards after the turn, he would have rather point his gun first and then moved his torso fully (and in more time than in the video to be fully recovered to keep moving).

I have seen videos where the guys are now moving like trying to dance while firing moving to the sides and back to have better chances of not being fired (see this:

). That would be never done in RL because you have inertia and because you would be an easy shot (you move less fast than the video in full equipment). If the game enforces that because it works, then the players will not give a shit about realism and will do it anyway, losing all the point of the "total military sim" that the game has taken so far with the marketing, replacing it with a "total paintball/airsoft sim".

I can play COD as if it were a mil sim, and I can kill while doing it, it's the same in ARMA 3 right now, it's just it needs time when it gets full of pro's that can (and will) overpass the grand scheme of current players that thinks that they are 'good', just because they now have new tools at their hands.

Edited March 17, 2013 by NacroxNicke

[johncage 30]

Have you played the game or are you basing this just on videos? Aiming speed is fine.

aiming speed is adjustable, which means instant 360 are totally possible now.

it's one of the sacrifices made for increased control and responsiveness. although forced deadzones will solve this issue. it means rambos and pretend-hardcore wannabes can't do their insta-turns anymore, and hey seem to be the majority now, so...

[Fuse 1]

In general I'm a big fan of the new mechanics. The clunky feel of Arma 2 kept me from getting in to it as I didn't have a PC that could run it when it was new and it felt incredibly dated when I did get my hands on it.

That said, I've already got the feeling during a couple of firefights that, with some practice, CQB may be too easy now. The first video of the pistol kill isn't a good example, but the part linked by Nacrox is. Dsly is good, but what he does there simply shouldn't happen in Arma.

I'd like to see the player's movements have some inertia to them so you can't change directions instantly as in the side-strafing example. I watched that video the day it came out, and I just about spit water all over my screen when I saw how effective side-strafing was in Arma 3. I've grew up playing twitch-based shooters, side strafing is 2nd nature to me, but seeing it in Arma just kills any sense of realism. It seems like it's even more effective than in most other games. It's definitely an issue.

Weapon handling seems a bit more complicated, but also less of an issue if we could get movement to feel right.

I know I'm on the losing end of this battle.

The lowest common denominator are winning, and I have to get used to that.

CQB, multiple target acquisition even midfield that borders on CIWS-like accuracy, the nightmare possibilities are endless.

I just don't see how enabling this sort of douchebag potential is good for the series, but I know I'm in the vast minority considering how many new customers this franchise has accumulated.

Try to keep your head up and stick to the issues. Your complains are definitely worth consideration, please don't let your frustration derail your constructive feedback. :)

[dayglow 2]

I'm pretty sure I can spin around and unload at a target at under 5 yards much like the video. I don't see anything unrealistic in the video.

[johncage 30]

then you've watched too many action films. maybe we can shoot dodge like matrix too.

[metalcraze 290]

The problem I see with inertia and weight is not in how you turn around (although I really hope BIS will not allow doing this with heavy weapons like sniper rifles and MGs... Otherwise expect 360 noscope frag movies) but how you can take off from a standing position when sprinting, from 0 to full speed. Although maybe I get this impression because of how fast the sprinting is. BIS said they will tone it down though.

[Smurf 12]

I think that those problems are tied to the animation\full body system that Arma use and aren't easy to overcome (as many other issues), otherwise we should had them by now.

[dayglow 2]

then you've watched too many action films. maybe we can shoot dodge like matrix too.

No, because I've done that sort of shooting and to turn and fire at a close target can be done very quickly. Do it yourself, durn 180 and stab your hands out at a target under 5 yards. If it takes any longer than .5 a second you are very clumsy.