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

[pd3 25]

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

I love this game, and I've loved this series since it first graced my computer screen in 2001

However I liked it primarily because the elements of "realism" that set it apart from other games of the day was the fact that the developers tried to simulate movement and weapon handling in a way that was at least approaching human.

I positively loathe CoD and its ilk for the tic' fest that the gameplay ultimately degenerates to.

I simply cannot make that critical distinction now between this series and others.

There are some other differences, sure, such as blood loss

But how did you end up getting shot? Should be the question that is ultimately asked.

When you simply cannot "dexterity" your way out of a situation, you're forced to think.

---------- Post added at 00:33 ---------- Previous post was at 00:30 ----------

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.

You made a casual observation that equated what you saw in the video to being "pretty close" to what we saw in the gameplay video.

I made a direct timed comparison of the footage in-game to the footage you supplied.

Your observation skills seem to be a bit lacking, and by corollary your self evaluation skills are probably not much better.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but the last thing you stated in your first response was an advocacy to terminate this thread.

Everything you say rings of apprehension and confirmation bias.

[Masharra 10]

I can concur that a full second may be too long but, I dont have anything to time myself with properly so Im not going to make any bold statements on time.

There are a few things to note though.

1 "tactical stance" with both hands on weapon.

a full 180

To an aimed "fully" accurate stance + backpeddling

With a lbv on, with a rifle hidden somewhere on chars body.

Now I dont have a rifle but I do have my lvb and camelback here.

I will fill em up head outside and go from a looking at ground position (cant simulate actually rifling through someones gear which is what he was doing)

to spinning around whilst backpeddling right to left over said body. which will have to be a pillow because I dont have dead bodies lying around.

That being said he didnt make a lucky shot. I would say all but 1 rounds impacted. The one round being his only unaimed shot, all the rest (iirc) were aimed down the sights.

-----

What I want to know is why people are outside to witness my tomfoolery.

1st attempt- Was similar to video except the shifting weight of gear pulled my "finger bang" accuracy off slightly. I also over compensated in such a turn and had to pull back to target.

2nd attempt- Fell down and hurt my side because I used my benchpress elevation bar as a rifle hanging down.

3rd -7th attempt = Was similar to video except less overcompensation.

8th attempt = (had friend change position) under-compensated. *was getting accustomed to turning around*

9th attempt = overcompensated and fell over/ bastage moved, and lining up target + aiming + backpeddling screwed me over.

Thanks to neighbour and friend for testing with me.

Therefore I conclude, it is possible to do such a thing. If you are accustomed to being approached from behind, are a ballerina/ have good(i would say above average) balance, and are firing a weapon that is pixels.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Masharra

[white 1]

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:

a strong leg placed properly at the correct time would be able to hold his weight, when a weaker than necessary one wouldnt be able to compensate while stopping the turn. imho. afterall what starts and stops the turn is force made with muscles, how strong and quick depends on his muscles, be able or not to is technique and muscles, especially if you have extra weight and need to counter the extra force when stopping.

noone said the guy couldnt lift and train shooting. you can box, lift weight, be huge and train with firearms, they arent exclusive. my point is yes you can be way stronger than average and also be way quicker than average, and run longer if so. just wont win a medal.

Edited March 18, 2013 by white

[Scoggs 1]

I love the new system personally. Not sure why smooth aiming and having my character do what I tell him to(thus not breaking immersion like it did for me in A2) makes it COD.

Oh well to each their own.

[dayglow 2]

I love this game, and I've loved this series since it first graced my computer screen in 2001

However I liked it primarily because the elements of "realism" that set it apart from other games of the day was the fact that the developers tried to simulate movement and weapon handling in a way that was at least approaching human.

I positively loathe CoD and its ilk for the tic' fest that the gameplay ultimately degenerates to.

I simply cannot make that critical distinction now between this series and others.

There are some other differences, sure, such as blood loss

But how did you end up getting shot? Should be the question that is ultimately asked.

When you simply cannot "dexterity" your way out of a situation, you're forced to think.

---------- Post added at 00:33 ---------- Previous post was at 00:30 ----------

You made a casual observation that equated what you saw in the video to being "pretty close" to what we saw in the gameplay video.

I made a direct timed comparison of the footage in-game to the footage you supplied.

Your observation skills seem to be a bit lacking, and by corollary your self evaluation skills are probably not much better.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but the last thing you stated in your first response was an advocacy to terminate this thread.

Everything you say rings of apprehension and confirmation bias.

Not to be offensive, but your reading comprehension needs to improve as I never posted the video or stated this thread should be closed.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Don't forget that , with the animations currently used turning around really quickly looks ridiculous, but that is because asking BI to simulate the entire body perfectly is going a bit too far. Using your whole body, turning around and shooting someone point blank in less than a second is definitely possible with a bit of luck, and Dslyecxi was lucky. (Though he is also

)

If the guy was a bit further away turning around quickly wont help you at all, high speed doesn't help with accuracy.

I still doubt you have actually played ArmA3, cause last time I checked it still wasn't UT.

EDIT: Something unrelated: IMO the double spacing does not really make your posts more readable. :)

[Masharra 10]

I would agree about the animations. This new "fluidity" will make some things look odd because they simply cant do them properly. I think. About the accuracy and speed- it sure doesnt detract from accuracy either. If you can stop on a dime it doesnt really matter how fast you do things. *or whatever them fancy mice can stop on now*

it depends which UT you mean?

UT's numerous "tactical shooter mods"

[pd3 25]

Not to be offensive, but your reading comprehension needs to improve as I never posted the video or stated this thread should be closed.

My mistake.

You and white type and espouse logic that is virtually indistinguishable.

---------- Post added at 01:06 ---------- Previous post was at 01:02 ----------

Don't forget that , with the animations currently used turning around really quickly looks ridiculous, but that is because asking BI to simulate the entire body perfectly is going a bit too far. Using your whole body, turning around and shooting someone point blank in less than a second is definitely possible with a bit of luck, and Dslyecxi was lucky. (Though he is also

)

If the guy was a bit further away turning around quickly wont help you at all, high speed doesn't help with accuracy.

I still doubt you have actually played ArmA3, cause last time I checked it still wasn't UT.

EDIT: Something unrelated: IMO the double spacing does not really make your posts more readable. :)

Not the entire body, even simulating inertia with a reasonable weight to strength ratio for weapon handling would suffice, and that shit was done (albeit in a very rudimentary fashion in 1998).

Basically: You could turn like mad, but your weapon would be dynamically "wonking" all over the place trying to follow the rest of you at the inhuman speeds you were attempting to turn.

This is the future, provided the hurpadurps don't assert their newly found market clout.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Pd3

[dayglow 2]

I speak of experience and actually moving and shooting guns? You? The Alpha could be off by a few hundreds of a second, but one of the things lacking from OFP and Arma was the clunky movement. People are much more fluid and smooth than what can be done in the games. The Alpha is a very positive step in the right direction. People are fast, people are smooth, the ones that are fast and smooth in a high risk situation are successful. Since it's very hard to model someone going code black in high stress all we can hope for is smooth, fast movement in the game.

[pd3 25]

I speak of experience and actually moving and shooting guns? You? The Alpha could be off by a few hundreds of a second, but one of the things lacking from OFP and Arma was the clunky movement. People are much more fluid and smooth than what can be done in the games. The Alpha is a very positive step in the right direction. People are fast, people are smooth, the ones that are fast and smooth in a high risk situation are successful. Since it's very hard to model someone going code black in high stress all we can hope for is smooth, fast movement in the game.

You're talking in anecdotes, when I'm dealing in visual examples.

I own and shoot vz 858 carbine myself.

Inb4 trying to compare "shooting dicks".

Its a pointless exercise, based on my video example, there's simply no way human reactions can be that "crisp" and accurate.

I don't hope for unrestricted movement as that relegates this game to being a pseudo milsim with vehicles.

It cripples a very admittedly fundamental and focal aspect of the gameplay.

[dayglow 2]

In your video analysis how long did it take for the real person to turn around? Not including the draw and shoot, but to simply turn around? That would be a good comparable because if he was in a close ready on the turn the actual shot at a point blank target would be only be a few tenths of a second more.

[white 1]

I love this game, and I've loved this series since it first graced my computer screen in 2001

However I liked it primarily because the elements of "realism" that set it apart from other games of the day was the fact that the developers tried to simulate movement and weapon handling in a way that was at least approaching human.

I positively loathe CoD and its ilk for the tic' fest that the gameplay ultimately degenerates to.

I simply cannot make that critical distinction now between this series and others.

There are some other differences, sure, such as blood loss

But how did you end up getting shot? Should be the question that is ultimately asked.

When you simply cannot "dexterity" your way out of a situation, you're forced to think.

---------- Post added at 00:33 ---------- Previous post was at 00:30 ----------

You made a casual observation that equated what you saw in the video to being "pretty close" to what we saw in the gameplay video.

I made a direct timed comparison of the footage in-game to the footage you supplied.

Your observation skills seem to be a bit lacking, and by corollary your self evaluation skills are probably not much better.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but the last thing you stated in your first response was an advocacy to terminate this thread.

Everything you say rings of apprehension and confirmation bias.

didnt even see this post since you mistook me from someone else, no idea why.

check my first post again, i stated from when he turns to when he shoots, and then u proceeded to calculate his turn without his shooting and when i asked to consider the time he shot, you ignored it. by then i couldve argued a lot of things, i couldve said that the turn without the shooting couldnt be compared to the video, since the whole turn stance of the shooter in the video was based on him cocking/drawing his gun, taking aim and then shooting, slowing him down quite a bit. then i could say could be compared only to a head and arm turn before the body while aiming randomly without considering hitting anything but trying to turn as quick as one could, to only proceed to try to aim afterwards, which would be completely different from the video i posted and could be waaaaay quicker.

and i agree that i misread the timeframe you mentioned before you posted the video, i glanced and thought it was 0.9 seconds, my english is far from perfect and i made a mistake, also, i agree that the turn by itself was faster then i thought, on the youtube video, that i have checked again, still seems slower than yours, wont acusse you of changing it inadvertely because im not willing to check though. but i dont think turning randomly without being able to shoot means anything, thus why i counted the first shot as a parameter in my first post. one, turning randomly as fast as one could, idk, one might be able to do it in less than 1 second, i agree, still far from your video, but then maybe even shoot in less than 2 seconds if not having to draw or care about accuracy like the guy in the video i posted. afterall, he cared about his stance, getting/cocking his gun or whatever, aligning it to the target for a hit and then proceeded shooting. all in 3 seconds, maye without all those things hw could get to half that.

but anyway, turning 180 degress in less than 1 sec without being able to shoot accurately wont accomplish anything.

Edited March 18, 2013 by white

[NeMeSiS 11]

Basically: You could turn like mad, but your weapon would be dynamically "wonking" all over the place trying to follow the rest of you at the inhuman speeds you were attempting to turn.

Your weapon wouldn't do that, unless your arms are fixed on your body, and for most people they aren't. You could still sway your weapon towards an enemy while your bodies wonks about. And since higher turning speed comes with lower accuracy (harder to aim with the mouse when it sways all over the place) I would say that the current situation is more realistic for light weapons.

For heavy machineguns and stuff I would like to see the return of the dexterity parameter though. For lighter weapons... The value was too high/low to actually have an effect in most cases, so it doesn't matter too much.

[Masterfragg 10]

When turning a trained person can turn without too much effect from inertia from weapon movement.

Simple way to test this.

1) Grab a piece of wood rifle sized, if you are OCD grab a prop rifle, real rifle if legal in your country or an airsoft rifle.

2) Practice lowering your weapon turning 180' then raising and aiming again.

This is incredibly easy when using a sidearm and is a legitimate exercise of practice for many armed forces around the world.

The truth is if you are a soldier and you suffer with an inability to aim due to weapon inertia/weight whilst turning you are either new to weapons and skipped training or you didn't listen.

Any MOUT or Urban Courses should teach you to move and aim without all this crap being an issue. If you want it to be uber realistic then leave it how it is or enable your own vector aiming.

As far as I'm concerned a professional soldier should not have an issue turning and aiming, I'll see if I can upload a video of myself showing exactly what I mean as I am NOT a trained soldier yet I can perform simple stuff like this.

And at close range I can still hit a target human size without too much of an issue especially with something as mobile as a sidearm and honestly I am no rambo nor am I Jason Bourne, James Bond, Chuck Norris.

Just a simple fella that enjoys a bit of target practice.

EDIT: Although perhaps when aiming down sights a little more vector deadzone would be an idea yet when moving keep it locked. Nothing worse in a game than having issues moving due to OFP style vectoring crosshairs.

Despite its apparent realism ultimately this is still a GAME and vector based crosshairs while moving are bloody annoying. Keep it realistic in areas like no jump button, realistic ballistics, physics, weapons (Don't wanna see no rayguns except in mods) but this isn't VR yet so the annoying loose control scheme you talk of would be detrimental to most peoples enjoyment.

Maybe when The Oculus Rift is out then yeah that'll be an ideal time. And before I get blown up for saying "it's still a game" yes I too have been playing since OFP back in 2001.

This is just my opinion and please if you don't like it, just ignore it.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Masterfragg

[pd3 25]

In your video analysis how long did it take for the real person to turn around? Not including the draw and shoot, but to simply turn around? That would be a good comparable because if he was in a close ready on the turn the actual shot at a point blank target would be only be a few tenths of a second more.

Find a better video.

However I purposely "truncated" the footage of the actual man turning which started the very moment he began to turn, and the very moment he had turned and was stable.

That is the relevant comparison here, drawing the firearm happens during the process of turning, however if you really wish to nitpick, find a better tactical shooting demo.

I am highly confident you can't find one that exceeds half a second which is still around five times faster than the player can turn with perfect precision in-game.

However I'm not even going to get into throttling "scroll speeds", because it does feel "bad" when you're actually playing the game.

Although, as I've stated before, facilitating body movement that matches that of one's ability to look whilst holding a rifle in a tactical position is ridiculous.

The very thing a lot of people hate is the only way to accurately model this, which is by providing something of a dead zone so that simulated strength/weight/reaction variables are calculated independently of scroll speed.

I highly doubt that is going to happen with Arma 3 anyhow, which to me indicates that the series is now too mainstream.

I remember a plucky upstart of a company more than ten years ago that decided to buck industry trends based on design principles.

Maybe we'll see another company like that one day.

---------- Post added at 02:03 ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 ----------

When turning a trained person can turn without too much effect from inertia from weapon movement.

Simple way to test this.

1) Grab a piece of wood rifle sized, if you are OCD grab a prop rifle, real rifle if legal in your country or an airsoft rifle.

2) Practice lowering your weapon turning 180' then raising and aiming again.

This is incredibly easy when using a sidearm and is a legitimate exercise of practice for many armed forces around the world.

The truth is if you are a soldier and you suffer with an inability to aim due to weapon inertia/weight whilst turning you are either new to weapons and skipped training or you didn't listen.

Not at the speeds a mouse is capable of scrolling at hundredths of a second, and remember it took just under 1/10th of a second for the guy to turn around completely.

I am very much shocked that BI hasn't spent money researching this, as it would be pretty easy to do if you have access to a motion capture studio.

---------- Post added at 02:04 ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 ----------

Your weapon wouldn't do that, unless your arms are fixed on your body, and for most people they aren't. You could still sway your weapon towards an enemy while your bodies wonks about. And since higher turning speed comes with lower accuracy (harder to aim with the mouse when it sways all over the place) I would say that the current situation is more realistic for light weapons.

For heavy machineguns and stuff I would like to see the return of the dexterity parameter though. For lighter weapons... The value was too high/low to actually have an effect in most cases, so it doesn't matter too much.

Once more, we're talking about inhumanly fast speeds.

Your scale for physics versus movement is constrained to variables that currently are being greatly exceeded by the game's mechanics.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Pd3

[Masterfragg 10]

Fair enough, maybe an idea would be to have the weapon automatically lower for a split second to offset the mouse turning speed rather than vectors?

It's a quick and dirty fix but a fix still.

Also, you seem to be complaining about how "mainstream" it is yet whilst I understand your concerns as a gamer looking for a tactical challenge, perhaps you should look into the modding community to fix it once the game is released. After all the modding community IS used to fixing the things that BI left out/out right BROKE.

Look at ACE for example.

Just bare in mind this is still alpha and may still change yet.

[pd3 25]

Fair enough, maybe an idea would be to have the weapon automatically lower for a split second to offset the mouse turning speed rather than vectors?

Something, I don't know. I still think calculating actual weapon movement based on simulated human variables separate from head tracking is what is needed.

You won't see that now because there are too many newer players who are attached 20+ year old design philosophy for FPS games.

[Masterfragg 10]

Perhaps post it as a suggestion rather than a gripe. May get more of a following.

Like I said, as long as it avoids the clumsy dodgy feel of vector based crosshair movement I'm happy with whatever they do lol

I mean I personally think lowering the weapon if the weapon is above X size for a moment whilst fast turning would be just as effective as simulating human physics to that degree especially with the CPU bottleneck we currently experience in this alpha build.

Last thing the CPU needs is something else to bottleneck it, I for one value framerate and detest people that say "it's a simulation it doesn't need more than 25fps"... I'm sorry I don't see real life as a slideshow thus poorly running simulations = unrealistic haha

But yeah I still think that perhaps put a needle in turning speed with weapon drawn rather than physics may act just as well in this situation.

[ghostnineone 10]

This guy does it pretty fast.

It's a real drill, I think it's also in the art of the dynamic handgun video but I cant find it on youtube.

Also, trying to use the new crosshair in a3 doesn't work, even if you find the center (ir laser and nightvision) it doesn't hit the same spot at all, you can miss literally at point blank trying to use it. I use to play a2 in 3rd person the majority of the time (I have really bad vision and the 3rd person helps me see/react better) It's pretty much impossible to play a3 like that, even prone in 3rd person you basically miss most of the time. (Although I have noticed a few weird things in 1st person, such as firing a diagonal burst across someone and not having anything actually hit them.)

[white 1]

This guy does it pretty fast.

It's a real drill, I think it's also in the art of the dynamic handgun video but I cant find it on youtube.

wow, 1.18 seconds to turn and shoot, and accurately. damn. is that right? no, something is off, it counts to 0.30 then jumps to 1 sec. never seen time counted like that, how does that work?

and he took less just to turn. still pretty impressive.

Edited March 18, 2013 by white

[dayglow 2]

wow, he turns and draws to shot in 1.5 seconds. Now that is not normal, but it does show that a trained shooter is pretty damn quick. Remove the draw and have him already holding a close ready and it would be under a second. Now going back to the original video, the initial spin is a tad fast, but even from using the youtube time-bar as a rough timer from turn to shoot is just under 2 seconds. I don't think we are looking at something very unrealistic. Now what would be interesting would to have some sort of inertia in the weapon itself so if you spin quickly the front and rear sights aren't completely aligned and it would take a slight moment for them to settle. But again at the range in the video it was very much what an instinctive shot would be in real life and no sight picture would be used.

Edited March 18, 2013 by DayGlow

[ak1287 1]

Yeah, the El Presidente drill is actually a pretty common drill for LE and military; hell, I did a modified version for two different agencies.

Granted, not nearly as fast.

[ghostnineone 10]

I didnt notice the timer was like that.

Also I don't remember it being very hard to do 180's in arma 2, I remember being able to do that and hitting people much farther than he did and I suck at arma.

I liked the concept of a deadzone, being able to point my weapon pretty much where ever i wanted (it also looks cool in third person, nice and realistic) I just found out that in practice, that while I could move my weapon where ever I wanted, it never went where I wanted... :eek:

[chortles 263]

I will add though that Arma 2 aiming deadzone was compounded by negative mouse acceleration, whose apparent disappearance from Arma 3 has been getting rave reviews.

wow, he turns and draws to shot in 1.5 seconds. Now that is not normal, but it does show that a trained shooter is pretty damn quick. Remove the draw and have him already holding a close ready and it would be under a second. Now going back to the original video, the initial spin is a tad fast, but even from using the youtube time-bar as a rough timer from turn to shoot is just under 2 seconds. I don't think we are looking at something very unrealistic. Now what would be interesting would to have some sort of inertia in the weapon itself so if you spin quickly the front and rear sights aren't completely aligned and it would take a slight moment for them to settle. But again at the range in the video it was very much what an instinctive shot would be in real life and no sight picture would be used.

That's the interesting thing in my book, the video that started this thread itself -- a video which I use to promote Arma 3 by Internet word-of-mouth! -- is taking place at borderline "reach out and punch him" distance at which point/distance it's not really indicative of shooting at distance, and the videos I've seen of Arma 3 "pistols-only team deathmatch" where the player opened fire on a perceived target past "reach out and punch him" distance were in fact aimed single shots, sometime spaced a second or two apart.

I'd I'd add that in the case of red dot optics, Dslyecxi has shown parallax simulation (betcha didn't see that video in this thread? I wonder why) to simulate "sight not completely aligned". As far as the crosshair though... maybe it's from watching his videos, maybe it's from watching videos of twitch shooters, but for me the crosshairs are basically for "reach out and punch him" distance -- sights (iron, red dot, magnified) for further than that, and in any case walk speed has noticeably less sight sway than combat pace does.

[ghostnineone 10]

I've never noticed the parallax, is it a deadzone thing? The dot doesn't really move otherwise.

Most red dots and holo's are parallax free, IIRC.