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

[Nableton 1]

I just wanted to make clear that twitchy movement is fine, just not all the time. At some point game developers are going to have to tackle how to allow CQB type movement in CQB situations, but somehow restrict it to keep the game looking/playing like it does. I mean, in theory someone could do a turn to contact drill with an LMG and do it reasonably fast. That doesn't mean there should be players in fields with 360 instant MG coverage. The reason is, as someone else mentioned, you'd fall or work yourself into an equipment malfunction. A balance mechanic would be nice. How about turning raises a variable which accumulates easy? So one turn can be quick and precise, but three turns in a row gets you sloppy mouse action for about 3 seconds...

[chortles 263]

That doesn't account for how often someone might have to do said turns in CQB, and a 'hard number' threshold sounds artificial/arbitrary... a sliding scale (somehow) tied to stamina, not so much. ;)

Edited June 20, 2013 by Chortles

[doveman 7]

Regarding my idea about being able to twist the body whilst crouched (or even standing), I've realised that if I'm holding a rifle with my right hand on the trigger and my left hand supporting the barrel, I can twist to about 6'o clock turning left whilst still being able to aim down the gun but barely at all turning right (for left-handed people it would be the opposite) so to be realistic it should be the same in ArmA and you shouldn't have a magic rubber body that can do unrealistic contortions.

[EDcase 87]

Regarding my idea about being able to twist the body whilst crouched (or even standing), I've realised that if I'm holding a rifle with my right hand on the trigger and my left hand supporting the barrel, I can twist to about 6'o clock turning left whilst still being able to aim down the gun but barely at all turning right (for left-handed people it would be the opposite) so to be realistic it should be the same in ArmA and you shouldn't have a magic rubber body that can do unrealistic contortions.

Thats basically what the "Aim deadzone" does (when it works)

Edited June 20, 2013 by EDcase

[Leon86 13]

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.

yes, view at mousespeed, weapon on target with a slight delay, delay being weapon dependant.

Rainbow six is a bit over the top with the delay on the heavy stuff, shouldn't be at that level.

Anyway, the low fps keeps this game from being very twitchy. but if you're in singleplayer on low settings it's quite ridiculous to see how easy it is to rambo around with an lmg.

[doveman 7]

Thats basically what the "Aim deadzone" does (when it works)

I never noticed it did anything like that in ArmA2, all it did was make it possible to move my aim in front of me without moving my body, not that it allowed me to turn my upper body 90+ degrees to the left and still aim. I think even with maximum aim deadzone it ended at the edge of the screen and aiming any further caused your entire body to turn, as it would if you didn't have the deadzone on.

[Muscular Beaver 0]

Sad, sad thread. Shows me that I will probably not be playing ArmA 3 and instead stick to ArmA 2.

Not even a developer chimes in. But no answer is an answer anyway...

And as proof that it is possible someone posts a video of someone aiming that quickly in about a 15 degrees range. Yeah, totally the same thing as 180 degrees, huh?

Really, really sad what has become of ArmA. My projects have been put on hold until this turning speed issue is cleared.

Hell, I even wanted to buy a new PC for ArmA 3, I have just canceled that thought too...

Thank god I got my supporter edition refunded. I would be even more furious about it otherwise.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Muscular Beaver

[Masharra 10]

No need to go balls deep right now Beaver! Concerns are being raised now as they should be. Make your final decisions after launch, preferably waiting till a trusted individual gives you the low down and then only after a few weeks. The roof isnt on fire yet!

[-Coulum- 35]

Limitations due to weapon weights/size are not the only thing lacking. From a realism POV limitations should also be applied depending on the speed you are moving. Right now it is posibble to sprint into a room and then simultaneously stop, right click and 180 to clear out the hard corners. In reality there is a reason you don't sprint into rooms. In arma there is not (besides poor fps).

Unfortunately, judging by other features of arma 3 (ie. medical system) it seems like BIS no longer considers realism much of a focus. Arma is just a game that happened to have some features from previous iterations that are realistic.

[pd3 25]

What is the ownership status of BI? Barring them getting dollar signs in their eyes after the "success" of DayZ. I would hazard a guess that the corrupting influence such as other investors could have the same impact.

Either way it's just a sad state of affairs. BI owes its existence as we know them to the people who were loyal to their product when publications such as PC gamer at the time were trying to purposely run them down for not being "accessible" as it were.

OFP made them, there would be no DayZ without that game.

At the very least cut the community in two if need be, via server-enforceable options.

---------- Post added at 08:39 ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 ----------

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.

Good lord I hope not. That's a million times worse than having no inertial movement at all.

The mathematical cluster-f that results from picking a random point within a dynamic circle to simulate two very separate variables is ridiculous.

A simple example is taking the cyclic rate of an automatic and the greatest possible angle generated at two opposing points. The result would either knock the gun from your hands tue to the force, or rip out your sholuder.

No, I hate, hate, hate the expanding ring model, it is ancient, ham-fisted and unrealistic.

The initial reason I liked OFP was because it was lacking that very thing.

As far as claims about inertial movement being inconsequential, I would refer again to the fact that people greatly overestimate their own personal ability. I love to see a real world modeled experiment contrasted with the calculated limits currently in game. The faster you move, the more you will overcompensate.

3 to 6 feet might be negligible, but that increases exponentially at distance. Simply put, humans cant really move as fast as they can in A3. There needs to be a limit, or a "theoretical" penalty for it in-game.

[chortles 263]

I doubt that he's talking about "random shot trajectories within that circle", if you're thinking of how other shooters do it...

[Wolfstriked 11]

This ticket is listed as assigned.Could help flesh out weapons a bit more.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=6732

[chaplainDMK 10]

Thats basically what the "Aim deadzone" does (when it works)

The aim deadzone is utter BS, the point at which you are aiming represents where you are looking/focusing. I don't know about you but I don't move my arms/body left or right before my head. All it resulted in was unnecessarily imprecise and counter intuitive movement. The gun shouldn't be precisely fixed to that location by any means, but the aiming deadzone was completely unrealistic because it gimped your movement.

And overall I agree that movement shouldn't be like in CoD where you can do 360 pirouette bunnyhoping, but turning 180 degrees should be relatively easy because at the end of the day you don't even really need to move your legs, but turning beyond 180 degrees should be much slower. And some inertia should be modeled, but stuff like carbines and pistols are light enough that you really don't need to factor that in.

[chortles 263]

As mentioned before I believe in this thread, Maruk (BI CEO) mentioned at E3 that the Arma 3 devs had given a try at inertia but gave up or couldn't make it work satisfactorily, though he didn't specify whether this was weapon inertia or unit movement inertia (thread speculation was that he meant unit movement inertia); to my knowledge no one else at E3 from BI even mentioned/alluded to inertia.

Doesn't mean that changes can't/won't happen, but it does suggest that such changes are not high-priority enough for the devs (or rather "dev priorities according to the respective leads") to publicly tackle.

[doveman 7]

The aim deadzone is utter BS, the point at which you are aiming represents where you are looking/focusing. I don't know about you but I don't move my arms/body left or right before my head. All it resulted in was unnecessarily imprecise and counter intuitive movement. The gun shouldn't be precisely fixed to that location by any means, but the aiming deadzone was completely unrealistic because it gimped your movement.

And overall I agree that movement shouldn't be like in CoD where you can do 360 pirouette bunnyhoping, but turning 180 degrees should be relatively easy because at the end of the day you don't even really need to move your legs, but turning beyond 180 degrees should be much slower. And some inertia should be modeled, but stuff like carbines and pistols are light enough that you really don't need to factor that in.

Indeed. People say they like the deadzone as it allows them to move their gun without moving their body and thus presenting less of a target. If freelook allowed us to turn our upper body (up to about 3'o clock and 9'o clock) and continue to aim down the gun without moving our upper body, this would be more realistic, useful and still reduce movement and thus how much of a target we present compared to turning our entire body. In fact, using freelook to aim in the cone just in front of us would involve very little upper body movement, similar to the current deadzone feature.

[progamer 14]

Have we seen any progress regarding inertia yet?

---------- Post added at 20:41 ---------- Previous post was at 20:40 ----------

Limitations due to weapon weights/size are not the only thing lacking. From a realism POV limitations should also be applied depending on the speed you are moving. Right now it is posibble to sprint into a room and then simultaneously stop, right click and 180 to clear out the hard corners. In reality there is a reason you don't sprint into rooms. In arma there is not (besides poor fps).

Unfortunately, judging by other features of arma 3 (ie. medical system) it seems like BIS no longer considers realism much of a focus. Arma is just a game that happened to have some features from previous iterations that are realistic.

Arma 3 is young. It will get more realistic over time. And this take time and resources for the developers.

[smookie 11]

Have we seen any progress regarding inertia yet?

---------- Post added at 20:41 ---------- Previous post was at 20:40 ----------

Arma 3 is young. It will get more realistic over time. And this take time and resources for the developers.

Current state is a result of many trade-offs for sake for increased fluidity of control over the character. Being huge fan of inertia in animations and having prototyped some of moves like sprint-stopping/starting etc. - well it takes away from control-ability, i must admit it was correct choice, taking into account the assets that we had. The animation system is, however, a candidate for further development so we might as well see some improvements in this field.

[progamer 14]

Current state is a result of many trade-offs for sake for increased fluidity of control over the character. Being huge fan of inertia in animations and having prototyped some of moves like sprint-stopping/starting etc. - well it takes away from control-ability, i must admit it was correct choice, taking into account the assets that we had. The animation system is, however, a candidate for further development so we might as well see some improvements in this field.

Thank you for the reply. But adding inertia does not make the game less fluid. People who aren't used to inertia at first may think it is less fluid, but they are just used to playing without inertia. It is not less fluid than other games, it is different.

[Harry Canyon 10]

Personally, I think you need to just put in controls to select what you want. Amount of weapon sway, inertia, headbob, fatigue, blinding level of sun, etc.

[twisted 128]

Current state is a result of many trade-offs for sake for increased fluidity of control over the character. Being huge fan of inertia in animations and having prototyped some of moves like sprint-stopping/starting etc. - well it takes away from control-ability, i must admit it was correct choice, taking into account the assets that we had. The animation system is, however, a candidate for further development so we might as well see some improvements in this field.

thats good to hear. Even something as simple as the movement of the weapon needs a little inertia. right now its very robotic with the gun perfectly in sync with the arms like a locked off clamp. It could far better mimic the size and even weight of the weapon to differentiate between lmg and a pdw. very important game play repurcutions there as well. bf4 does it pretty damn well (and they have the budget for it) and its got great control and fluidity.

Edited November 3, 2013 by twisted

[progamer 14]

Personally, I think you need to just put in controls to select what you want. Amount of weapon sway, inertia, headbob, fatigue, blinding level of sun, etc.

Those would need to be able to be forced via the server. You can set the level of head bob and missions can remove fatigue. The sun is fine.

[Harry Canyon 10]

thats good to hear. Even something as simple as the movement of the weapon needs a little inertia. right now its very robotic with the gun perfectly in sync with the arms like a locked off clamp. It could far better mimic the size and even weight of the weapon to differentiate between lmg and a pdw. very important game play repurcutions there as well. bf4 does it pretty damn well (and they have the budget for it) and its got great control and fluidity.

I wouldn't know about BF4. I never was able to get it to work in the beta phase, so dam if I going to buy something that didn't work in the demo.

[xendance 3]

I wouldn't know about BF4. I never was able to get it to work in the beta phase, so dam if I going to buy something that didn't work in the demo.

Demo? There wasn't any demo for BF 4.

[chortles 263]

I wouldn't know about BF4. I never was able to get it to work in the beta phase, so dam if I going to buy something that didn't work in the demo.

... so, Arma 2? :lol:

@ ProGamer: Smookie's response was emphatically not saying that "adding inertia makes the game less fluid".

[defk0n_NL 2]

thats good to hear. Even something as simple as the movement of the weapon needs a little inertia. right now its very robotic with the gun perfectly in sync with the arms like a locked off clamp. It could far better mimic the size and even weight of the weapon to differentiate between lmg and a pdw. very important game play repurcutions there as well. bf4 does it pretty damn well (and they have the budget for it) and its got great control and fluidity.

They should just force aiming deadzone game-wide. With the addon i made there is almost no disadvantage to using it anymore. Atleast not how it was before (A2/A3 beta)

You can still do 360s if you are good but definitely not every single time.