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

[Oshi7 1]

I've only ever played paintball, but even with only that it used to infuriate me in previous titles when it would take me huge amounts of effort to turn around. Quite immersion breaking, like I was in someone's body who could only turn their entire bodies, instead of shifting weight and pivoting with the hips.

[Cookieeater 10]

Adding the turning speed cap will damage the much smoother controls for a tiny bit of realism. Not worth it IMO.

[pd3 25]

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

Well that's a whole different kettle of fish.

I mean its really "just" a cursor right? Its not like BI did something monumentally stupid and create dynamic cursor ballistics to go with it did they?

That's purely an incidental issue now though, people do all sorts of moronic shit to get an edge, and now that the common option is to have the perspective fixed to the gun at all times, people can do all sorts of stupid shit to offset that, such as "taping".

I simply don't think you can overestimate how necessary it is to regulate "transitional aiming", going from a neutral position to acquiring a target in sighted mode.

Adding the turning speed cap will damage the much smoother controls for a tiny bit of realism. Not worth it IMO.

At some point there is a "divide" between "realistic" and "smooth".

And the people who can't reconcile that are the ones that are going to turn this game into Quake.

With Arma 2, Arma 1 and even OFP there was a value that limited the speed of weapon travel, esp for heavier guns.

The lazy way of doing it is to simply limit mouse speed.

The CORRECT way of doing this to begin with, would be to add a certain level of IK physics, as well as FORCE a slightly larger deadzone.

Why?

The principle is simple.

The more force you apply to move something heavy, the more force you're going to need to stop it.

Your weapon is going to "wobble" independently of your perspective as its moving a little because the heavier the object is, the more difficult it is to precisely stop where it ends up.

It really does almightily fuck the game up if you attach the perspective to the gun.

I have no idea why people are still clinging to this very antiquated gameplay feature, its old, its a crutch for people who are scared of the idea that, guess what, even though perhapse minute, arms move independently of eyes/head.

With the exception of stances like this:

http://www.defensereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Chris_Costa_of_Costa_Ludus_Shooting_Suppressed_FERFRANS_SOAR-P_Tactical_Piston_AR_Carbine_SBR_Sub-Carbine_on_Full-Auto_2.jpg (127 kB)

But you don't see people walking around like that all the time.

The devil is in the details, and personally I believe that its the "little" things, such as the inherent inaccuracy of whipping your perspective around with a rifle, with all the inherent "simulated human error" that goes along with it between stance and position changes, that makes a milsim, a fricking mil-sim.

Imposing physical limitations similar to that of, you know "actual" human beings.

There's a right way to do this, and a WRONG way.

Dynamic cursors that inexplicably hurl bullets at opposing 37 degree angles within 0.06ths of a second (ala pretty much every other modern shooter), forcing you to use the sights is the WRONG way.

The solution then is to simulate a slight disparity in travel time between the gun and the eye perspective and a small potential for inertial "wobble" depending on how fast you move when out of the "sighted" perspective.

Simple minds think simple thoughts, and simple minds don't take into account physical limitations because conceiving of desired outcomes is a lot less mentally demanding than of innately physical limitations.

If imagining things into existence were possible, we would not exist as a society as we do today, kind of defeats the purpose of "simulation".

People don't explicitly like this though, because it precludes thinking about the kind of situation you're putting yourself in to begin with.

(If you need to move like this, you're not in a good place, and given the inherent freedom in the ArmA series, that is entirely your own doing)

nevermind what happened with the pistol, I'm concerned about jagoffs who now feel confident in speed-acquiring multiple targets with rifles at medium ranges and directing accurate fire as if they're somehow Robocop on steroids.

You're going to see a potentially whole new dynamic emerge in terms of gameplay, and its guaranteed going to piss a lot of people off.

You won't have "gunfights" anymore, you'll have "quickdraw" competitions in the hundreds of meters.

Just my 0.02, I've pretty much said all I can on the issue.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Pd3

[dmarkwick 261]

Are you sure you understand the inaccuracy zone I mentioned? because that last post reads exactly as though you have not. The cursor (if you have it enabled, but regardless the inaccuracy zone is still there even for people taping stuff to their screen) represents only a more-or-less direction of the barrel. It can be pointed anywhere within the zone described by the cursor, it's not an absolutely reliable indication. As such I think it circumnavigates your fear that Quake-like pixel-sniping is possible.

I understand that you don't like the idea of inertia being taken off the weapon, but the situation is not all as bad as you fear.

For my part - I'm fairly ambivalent toward the idea. Inertia ingame translates as sluggishness in practise, that's my own feeling. I can take it or leave it. It doesn't make me any better, or worse, a player if I'm honest :)

[pd3 25]

In that case, either vection based aiming exists or it doesn't.

Either perspective and weapon movement are the same, or they're not.

8:25

It certainly doesn't appear to be the case, it looks as if cursor and weapon movement are the same thing.

The only alternative to that is that BI went full retard, at which point I'm glad I didn't buy a new computer to get this game, as I had planned a while back to do.

[dmarkwick 261]

In that case, either vection based aiming exists or it doesn't.

Either perspective and weapon movement are the same, or they're not.

It certainly doesn't appear to be the case, it looks as if cursor and weapon movement are the same thing.

The only alternative to that is that BI went full retard, at which point I'm glad I didn't buy a new computer to get this game, as I had planned a while back to do.

Not the same. Not exactly the same. Remember how ArmA2 had a wandering cursor, showing your the current direction of the wandering/swaying weapon? Well that's gone, instead you get an area, described by the 4-point cursor, where the weapon is generally aiming. So you cannot use it as an aiming reticule, apart from obviously VERY close range encounters, such as out friend Dslyecxi had :)

[pd3 25]

I generally had that understanding.

However if you think that's going to stop some enterprising individual from mathematically figuring out a close theoretical "dead center" that is further inside those four points then I would wager you would be surprised.

Even at this point, removing the cursor is kind of a moot point precisely because of that, for precisely the reasons I've specified.

The perspective rigidly follows the gun outside of the sighted perspective, which greatly increases the useful range of off the hip shooting and fast target acquisition.

Its a gaping canyon-wide vulnerability to the concept in general IMO.

[white 1]

seems like he took 2 seconds to turn and start shooting, seems doable.

3 seconds, but he had to draw:

close topic?

[pd3 25]

What we saw in the first video was not two seconds.

In fact you've now compelled me to make a determination based on how much time it actually did take.

brb

Incidentally I would be completely fine with something depicted in the video.

[Fuse 1]

seems like he took 2 seconds to turn and start shooting, seems doable.

3 seconds, but he had to draw:

close topic?

Sure, if you want to ignore the fact that he wasn't wearing any gear. :j:

[pd3 25]

Dyslexci turned in less than a tenth of a second.

Checked the timing via my video editor.

Downloading /mashing up the video white supplied forthcoming...

[white 1]

Sure, if you want to ignore the fact that he wasn't wearing any gear. :j:

then i say the guy in the game is a weight lifter and the one in the video isnt.

but, do you even lift?

Dyslexci turned in less than a tenth of a second.

Checked the timing via my video editor.

Downloading /mashing up the video white supplied forthcoming...

i said 2 seconds to start shooting, he definetly took more than 1 second to do that. the guy in the video took a little more than 1.5 secs (little over half the video) to just turn. and he waits a bit before the turn aswell.

but even if im wrong i appreciate the edited video, will be cool to watch.

Edited March 17, 2013 by white

[pd3 25]

Lol, I've been VERY charitable in my video comparison, and I've included the starting points being neutral position to the point of time it takes to turn, he still has the "real" human beat by a very wide margin.

[white 1]

Lol, I've been VERY charitable in my video comparison, and I've included the starting points being neutral position to the point of time it takes to turn, he still has the "real" human beat by a very wide margin.

did you make him wait before turning liek the guy in the video and did you make him draw his gun? its obvious he would be faster, the thing is, by how much?

[Deadfast 43]

The fact that you can aim faster is rendered moot by the fact that both the recoil and weapon shakiness has been increased.

As for the video comparison, not only did he have the weapon already drawn, he also didn't even need to aim considering this was pretty much point-blank range.

[Fuse 1]

then i say the guy in the game is a weight lifter and the one in the video isnt.

but, do you even lift?

I can't tell if you're being serious to begin with, but if you are...

A) Strength doesn't change physics.

B) A weight lifter's muscle mass slows their movements down.

[white 1]

I can't tell if you're being serious to begin with, but if you are...

A) Strength doesn't change physics.

B) A weight lifter's muscle mass slows their movements down.

so strenght woulndt make you handle heavy objects easier? thats new for me. came to mind arnold using an 25kg armor to film the atrocious movie batman forever, but sure, any regular teenager would be able to accomplish the same and be able to have the same freedom of movements. hurr durr.

B isnt true

there are 2 types of muscles, a quick and a slow one, white and red muscle fibers if i recall correctly, good weight lifters train both with both slow and quick movements and different weights. and of course im not talking about the cover of a muscle n fitness, but an average weight lifter but still is a lot stronger than a regular joe.

also, tell that to boxers, their punches seem pretty quick to me. some mma fighters can land close to 6 punches a second while being very strong.

Edited March 17, 2013 by white

[pd3 25]

That's incidental, the point is, we're not comparing shooting, this is a pure comparison of the time it takes to spin around to meet your attacker.

And all things being evened out, it takes nine hundredths of a second to turn to face an attacker in Arma 3

compare that to the person spinning around which takes 1 second + 2 hundredths to get fully turned around and in a position to shoot.

[white 1]

That's incidental, the point is, we're not comparing shooting, this is a pure comparison of the time it takes to spin around to meet your attacker.

And all things being evened out, it takes nine hundredths of a second to turn to face an attacker in Arma 3

compare that to the person spinning around which takes 1 second + 2 hundredths to get fully turned around and in a position to shoot.

pretty close to me.

and then the guy doubles his mouse sensitivity. lol

[dmarkwick 261]

I generally had that understanding.

However if you think that's going to stop some enterprising individual from mathematically figuring out a close theoretical "dead center" that is further inside those four points then I would wager you would be surprised.

Even at this point, removing the cursor is kind of a moot point precisely because of that, for precisely the reasons I've specified.

The perspective rigidly follows the gun outside of the sighted perspective, which greatly increases the useful range of off the hip shooting and fast target acquisition.

Its a gaping canyon-wide vulnerability to the concept in general IMO.

Well it seems you're just going to continue ignoring/discount the inaccuracy zone, for your own reasons. "Some enterprising individual" is the guy you're going to fear in ArmA3? And those 4 points represent the area the barrel could be pointing - not an area larger than the area the barrel could be pointing. Your enterprising individual will be no better off than the rest of us. However, if you wish to imagine, then fear such a person, go ahead :)

The perspective rigidly follows the gun outside of the sighted perspective, which greatly increases the useful range of off the hip shooting and fast target acquisition.

Well I won't repeat myself in this matter, but I will add that there is no hip-shooting in ArmA. All weapon stances other than lowered are from the shoulder.

---------- Post added at 23:55 ---------- Previous post was at 23:47 ----------

I just re-watched Dsylecxi's shootoff, and noticed that he didn't turn to face his opponent - he was turning in any case, the opponent happened to be there. OK it was a fast turn, but really at that distance a fast turn & a snap shoot can easily be lucky. Note that Dsylecxi still took a second or so to actually shoot even when he was turned. His opponent had all the time in the world to fire, he did not. It was a lucky escape - not some uber twitch shoot.

[pd3 25]

Well it seems you're just going to continue ignoring/discount the inaccuracy zone, for your own reasons. "Some enterprising individual" is the guy you're going to fear in ArmA3? And those 4 points represent the area the barrel could be pointing - not an area larger than the area the barrel could be pointing. Your enterprising individual will be no better off than the rest of us. However, if you wish to imagine, then fear such a person, go ahead :)

The point im trying to make is there's a deeply rooted systemic fault in the gameplay, and its obvious for anyone to see.

Well I won't repeat myself in this matter, but I will add that there is no hip-shooting in ArmA. All weapon stances other than lowered are from the shoulder.

You know what I mean.

Anyhow, here's the pudding, enjoy the proof:

http://videobam.com/TGEZX

For some reason split screening videos of differing resolutions in vegas movie studio is a pain, but I did what I could.

If you want to find another video for me to compare it to, be my guest, however I think this is proof enough.

You're not going to find somebody who manages to turn and stop on a dime in nine hundredths of a second.

[Masharra 10]

This coming from an 11c. With full gear I must somewhat agree. I may be able to make a fast turn but rest assured I would be on my ass especially if I had to fire. Especially a turn like that with back-peddling.

OFF topic does it look like he is ice skating on the ground there? It doesnt look/ feel like walking.

Infact I would say that whole movement doesnt look much different(or at all) from other fps which I "think" was the objective the only thing missing was a bunnyhop.

[ric 1]

You're not going to find somebody who manages to turn and stop on a dime in nine hundredths of a second.

this is why BF3 is such a joke...some people have there mouse sensitivity maxed out and can pull off these inhuman snap turns that would make flash Gordon jealous

[Fuse 1]

so strenght woulndt make you handle heavy objects easier? thats new for me.

B isnt true

there are 2 types of muscles, a quick and a slow one, white and red muscle fibers if i recall correctly, good weight lifters train both with both slow and quick movements and different weights. and of course im not talking about the cover of a muscle n fitness, but an average weight lifter but still is a lot stronger than a regular joe.

also, tell that to boxers, their punches seem pretty quick to me. some mma fighters can land close to 6 punches a second while being very strong.

Strength doesn't change the fact that having 50+lbs of gear on slows the speed at which you can pivot without centrifugal force causing you to lose balance, which is why earlier in the thread it was said that to do the move in the first video IRL would require the shooter to spin and fall backwards in one motion. (I'm oversimplifying, obviously, but I'm going to assume you understand.)

B is definitely true. That dude who spends every day at your local gym chugging Beefcake 4000 is definitely slower than a shooter. Weight lifters, even those that train properly, have different goals. I think you know this since you said you don't mean a weight lifter.... And then listed a bunch of examples of people who may use weights as part of training for something else. Yes, a boxer is obviously faster than an average person, but they aren't a weight lifter and I doubt the guy in the video was untrained. :confused:

[dayglow 2]

That's incidental, the point is, we're not comparing shooting, this is a pure comparison of the time it takes to spin around to meet your attacker.

And all things being evened out, it takes nine hundredths of a second to turn to face an attacker in Arma 3

compare that to the person spinning around which takes 1 second + 2 hundredths to get fully turned around and in a position to shoot.

It takes you a full second to turn around?

I just tried myself. From a close ready I have my weapon pointed out at a target behind me in less than 1 second. Now in real life I can twist my hips so I'm not squared off, but since that's not possible in the game a slightly faster turn is acceptable. You wouldn't need to aim in real life as a target within 5 yards you will instinctly point right at it. I. The video a draw takes just over a second for most competent shooters and most people get their first shot off in under 1.5 seconds With an instinctual shot. To have your weapon out I still maintain its not unrealistic to get a effective shot off from a turn in under a second.