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

[Varanon 892]

Varanon, I'm going to guess that by ""Dragon Rising" marketing" you mean "ultimate mil sim", because no way in hell do I remember Codemasters even hinting at anything about user-made content or "sandbox".

I mean creating expectations that don't hold. DR was marketed as ultra realistic (Check YouTube for the old DR promo videos and how they go on about the paint and all that crap). Turns out to fall short of those expectations.

[metalcraze 290]

Actually only a portion of Arma players want a simulator, and they have mods for that. Arma is a game, and it should stay a game.

Can you explain to me why simulator is not a game?

Because maybe I'm too stupid since I've been playing stuff like GTR2, RBR, DCS A10, Falcon 4, Dangerous Waters and for the life of me I can't understand why they are not games since I'm playing them on a computer using mouse and keyboard and whatever other game controller required by them. Just like ArmA!

Edited June 19, 2013 by metalcraze

[Minoza 11]

Simulator for sure is a game as well, but a game doesn't need to be a simulator.

[chortles 263]

I mean creating expectations that don't hold. DR was marketed as ultra realistic (Check YouTube for the old DR promo videos and how they go on about the paint and all that crap). Turns out to fall short of those expectations.

It's interesting in retrospect to contrast that with what (barely) passed for Red River marketing... though maybe "expectations" management why we have the current official Arma 3 marketing that we do.

[xyberviri 1]

Can you explain to me why simulator is not a game?

Because maybe I'm too stupid since I've been playing stuff like GTR2, RBR, DCS A10, Falcon 4, Dangerous Waters and for the life of me I can't understand why they are not games since I'm playing them on a computer using mouse and keyboard and whatever other game controller required by them. Just like ArmA!

Really? because those aren't simulators

Simulator for sure is a game as well, but a game doesn't need to be a simulator.

If thats the case then Photoshop was the most popular "Game" on the Mac for most of the 90's.

Universe Sandbox is the closet to game a simulator can really get, but it is still not really a game, that is per the creator

http://store.steampowered.com/app/72200/

Edited June 19, 2013 by xyberviri

[Smurf 12]

And we are down to semantics once again.

[metalcraze 290]

Really? because those aren't simulators

GTR2, RBR, DCS games, DW, Falcon 4 aren't simulators?!

*the sound of US Army cancelling all contracts with Eagle Dynamics and US Navy cancelling their sonar R&D contracts with Sonalysts*

Man I guess I'm completely clueless about what a simulator is too! Perhaps you can enlighten me with your wisd...

Universe Sandbox is the closet to game a simulator can really get

Hahahaha!

Man 2013 kids surely are entertaining.

Edited June 19, 2013 by metalcraze

[-Coulum- 35]

^lol^

Simulator or not, the game can still have more realistic features. And even with the "new crowd" I don't think these kind of changes would be frowned upon - New people that come to arma aren't stupid, they know that they are getting into a game that has some realism in it. Infact that is probably one of the reasons they came.

Even though the majority of the community may no longer be asking for a "simulator" I don't see anybody asking for ballistics to be taken out, unrealistic movement speeds or side-strafing bunny-hops. Most everyone still likes the realistic features and feel. Therefore I don't think there would be a huge uproar if realistic features like bipods, wind or heaven forbid turn-speed limitations for the sake of realism were implemented. I think these features would be appreciated by the hardcore realism guys and the not so hardcore guys all alike. I mean arma 2 had atrocious mouse control and yet it still got many new players via dayz. Why can't Arma 3 get and hold players with responsive but realistically limited mouse control?

[Fuse 1]

I should just read this thread instead of watching a morning show. Equally as inane and entertaining. :)

[mordeaniischaos 3]

Are you serious? At 3-4 feet it shouldn't take any longer to engage a target. If anything, in reality I could be faster and more accurate with a handgun and I'm not even trained all that well. The thing is, a human body understands and perceives momentum and inertia as they change and interact over time. This is why especially skilled shooters can drive a gun to a target in real life far faster than I can with a freakin' mouse.

This guy also has ridiculously high sensitivity, and that's coming from someone with pretty high sensitivity preferences. And that has it's disadvantages. It's less precise with smaller movements, etc etc. It was actually something I had a lot of frustration with recently where I was trying to hit targets at about 3-400 meters in another game using ironsights and I just couldn't make small enough adjustments to hit targets reliably because I didn't have that sense of movement, sway, inertia, or momentum.

A video of a guy firing with little to no precision isn't going to prove your point. If he had done that to his head at 40 meters, with a rifle, I'd maybe be impressed, but right now not so much.

Besides, this's the sort of thing that tricks BIS into using negative fuckin' acceleration, which is shitty in far more ways. I don't think this is that big of a problem, especially considering this sort of quick reaction would be impossible with most rifles at a decent range. And at close range, a skilled operator can drive a weapon with startling speed and precision.

Inertia isn't as much of an issue when you apply the force at the proper location. Using weapon handling techniques like this, designed for quick drive to target, you don't feel things like inertia or momentum nearly as much. Go ahead and try it out, feel the difference.

Maybe there could be a class of weapon, like LMGs that had some weight to them, but it has to be done right. If not, it'll be shitty. It has to feel natural, which is hard when you can't feel the reason that the weapon is lagging. Or when it's just fucking shitty negative acceleration.

[PN11A 2]

Are you serious? At 3-4 feet it shouldn't take any longer to engage a target. If anything, in reality I could be faster and more accurate with a handgun and I'm not even trained all that well. The thing is, a human body understands and perceives momentum and inertia as they change and interact over time. This is why especially skilled shooters can drive a gun to a target in real life far faster than I can with a freakin' mouse.

This guy also has ridiculously high sensitivity, and that's coming from someone with pretty high sensitivity preferences. And that has it's disadvantages. It's less precise with smaller movements, etc etc. It was actually something I had a lot of frustration with recently where I was trying to hit targets at about 3-400 meters in another game using ironsights and I just couldn't make small enough adjustments to hit targets reliably because I didn't have that sense of movement, sway, inertia, or momentum.

A video of a guy firing with little to no precision isn't going to prove your point. If he had done that to his head at 40 meters, with a rifle, I'd maybe be impressed, but right now not so much.

Besides, this's the sort of thing that tricks BIS into using negative fuckin' acceleration, which is shitty in far more ways. I don't think this is that big of a problem, especially considering this sort of quick reaction would be impossible with most rifles at a decent range. And at close range, a skilled operator can drive a weapon with startling speed and precision.

Inertia isn't as much of an issue when you apply the force at the proper location. Using weapon handling techniques like this, designed for quick drive to target, you don't feel things like inertia or momentum nearly as much. Go ahead and try it out, feel the difference.

Maybe there could be a class of weapon, like LMGs that had some weight to them, but it has to be done right. If not, it'll be shitty. It has to feel natural, which is hard when you can't feel the reason that the weapon is lagging. Or when it's just fucking shitty negative acceleration.

Your batting 1000 today, just the fact that you said drive the weapon. im with ya bro i hear ya.

[Nableton 1]

As someone pointed out early on, Dyslexci wasn't turning to contact, he was simply turning around after searching the body. I think that should be the main point of contention here, the idea that a soldier would make that kind of snappy movement for no reason except to reorient. It's an issue of physics, sure, but it's an endurance issue as well. As prior service, I know how deliberate of an action standing up and turning around is while wearing gear. Some people seem to be avoiding the reality that 100% of the time in that situation, the guy kneeling and facing away would get killed, training or not. The only reason that didn't happen here is because of unrealistic video game mechanics.

[dmarkwick 261]

As someone pointed out early on, Dyslexci wasn't turning to contact, he was simply turning around after searching the body. I think that should be the main point of contention here, the idea that a soldier would make that kind of snappy movement for no reason except to reorient. It's an issue of physics, sure, but it's an endurance issue as well. As prior service, I know how deliberate of an action standing up and turning around is while wearing gear. Some people seem to be avoiding the reality that 100% of the time in that situation, the guy kneeling and facing away would get killed, training or not. The only reason that didn't happen here is because of unrealistic video game mechanics.

In which case he would have always done that because he was turning anyway... no accounting for dumb luck :) if the other guy was a second or two earlier... or later... perhaps it might have been different. But it wasn't.

[R0adki11 3949]

Please can everyone be civil when getting your opinion across in this thread, please don't use any inappropriate language.

Thanks

R0adki11

[Leon86 13]

Having a system similar to the old rainbow six and old ghost recon titles would be perfectly fine. What's the reason for it being so hard to implement?

[Varanon 892]

Having a system similar to the old rainbow six and old ghost recon titles would be perfectly fine. What's the reason for it being so hard to implement?

I asked the same question on an appropriate ticket in the feedback tracker, and one dev commented that fluid stances wouldn't be possible with the current system.

[2nd ranger 282]

I think he's talking about the GR/R6 method of the widening reticle pips that take increasingly longer to close in for heavier weapons.

[Minoza 11]

You would quickly aim down the sight just to find out that your bullets are spraying all over the place. I mean that's how it worked back than. Not really what I'm hoping for.

[-Coulum- 35]

I think he's talking about the GR/R6 method of the widening reticle pips that take increasingly longer to close in for heavier weapons.

You would quickly aim down the sight just to find out that your bullets are spraying all over the place. I mean that's how it worked back than. Not really what I'm hoping for.

Instead of increased random dispersion make it increased sway and sight misalignment. Make each weapon have different sensitivities so different speeds are required get this increased sway (Ie. pistol you can move fast without the extra sway, LMG not so much). Could even take the shooter out of aiming down the sights if he turns to far to fast for with a heavy weapon. Then limit speed after turning 180 degrees to fast to prevent infinite instant 360's. Problem solved.

Edited June 20, 2013 by -Coulum-

[Nableton 1]

In which case he would have always done that because he was turning anyway...

I guess you didn't get my point that that kind of motion, while possible if your life depended on it, is not the kind of motion you would expect to see a person wearing gear make every time they reorient their body. Again I'll say that anyone who has worn gear for a while knows that standing up and turning around is a very deliberate action. The fact that nobody even accounted for the fact that he has to stand up before doing that 180-turn tells me that most people in here don't know about the problems with wearing gear, but have no problem sharing their opinion anyway.

[dmarkwick 261]

I guess you didn't get my point that that kind of motion, while possible if your life depended on it, is not the kind of motion you would expect to see a person wearing gear make every time they reorient their body. Again I'll say that anyone who has worn gear for a while knows that standing up and turning around is a very deliberate action. The fact that nobody even accounted for the fact that he has to stand up before doing that 180-turn tells me that most people in here don't know about the problems with wearing gear, but have no problem sharing their opinion anyway.

Yes, we all know we can turn faster than in RL, we already discussed that to death in here, it's a known thing. You're not revealing anything to anyone. I note that repeating what everyone knows didn't stop you sharing your opinion ;)

I only said that the result of that encounter was down to pure luck, not twitch response. He just happened to turn at that time, could have turned later & been a different story, but he didn't. How fast he turned wasn't the issue in that case, only when

That video was just pure dumb luck, nothing more. If he had heard a movement & turned to encounter it would be relevant, but that isn't what happened.

[doveman 7]

I'd like to see more realistic turning but without having to repeatedly pick up and reset my mouse because it forces me to move it a lot to achieve a full turn, as it's just annoying and clunky having to do that.

So perhaps (as I think has already been suggested) there should just be some limit on turning speed, so no matter how fast you move the mouse it still takes a certain amount of time to turn. I think it should be possible to rotate the upper body, as we can with freelook already but with the ability to look down the sights whilst doing so, as then whilst crouching you could quickly rotate your upper body and weapon to maybe 8'o clock and 4'o clock but not be able to swivel on a dime to turn your entire body 90 or 180 degrees.

[dmarkwick 261]

I'd like to see more realistic turning but without having to repeatedly pick up and reset my mouse because it forces me to move it a lot to achieve a full turn, as it's just annoying and clunky having to do that.

So perhaps (as I think has already been suggested) there should just be some limit on turning speed, so no matter how fast you move the mouse it still takes a certain amount of time to turn. I think it should be possible to rotate the upper body, as we can with freelook already but with the ability to look down the sights whilst doing so, as then whilst crouching you could quickly rotate your upper body and weapon to maybe 8'o clock and 4'o clock but not be able to swivel on a dime to turn your entire body 90 or 180 degrees.

Yes, the idea is good, but the problem seems to be that it won't be good enough. People will want the next thing - which is weapon-specific turn rates, lest someone with a large weapon has some sort of cruel advantage over someone with a smaller weapon.

[Varanon 892]

Yes, the idea is good, but the problem seems to be that it won't be good enough. People will want the next thing - which is weapon-specific turn rates, lest someone with a large weapon has some sort of cruel advantage over someone with a smaller weapon.

Assuming this is what is wanted, I don't see a problem with that, either. If the turn rate is dampened by a certain value, making that value dependent on the weight of the weapon (weapons already have weight, AFAIK) should be a no-brainer.

If you think about it, a heavy weapon is harder to handle than a lighter one.

[doveman 7]

Yes, the idea is good, but the problem seems to be that it won't be good enough. People will want the next thing - which is weapon-specific turn rates, lest someone with a large weapon has some sort of cruel advantage over someone with a smaller weapon.

Maybe they will and that's a separate issue to consider the merits of but I think far more people are concerned about players being able to spin on one heel whilst crouched to turn 180 in a second and even worse, being able to spin around whilst pron, as those things make ArmA too "twitchy" and glaringly unrealistic.