‘Simulation fever’ - No bipods without weapon resting?

[Tonci87 163]

I am 99% sure that zoom has zero effect on recoil. If you shoot at at a rock with zero zoom and then shoot at it with "eyeball zoom" the reticle will end up approximately the same ingame distance from the rock. On the screen It will appear the rifle raises more because you are zoomed in and everything appears bigger, but in actuality your gun moves the same number of degrees/MOA.

It is worth mentioning that recoil has a random factor to it. Sometimes you will take a shot and it will result in far more displacement than the next shot. But this has nothing to do with zoom.

Wolfstriked made a very good observation about zoom and mouse sensitivity. Basically the higher the zoom the lower the sensitivity. This makes it so that even though the the recoil is the same at higher zooms, the mouse control you have to deal with that recoil is not. The more zoom the less sensitive the mouse, and the more you have to pull down. I think this is a problem.

To solve it zoom should simply have no effect on mouse sensitivity. this means the amount you pull down on the mouse is consistent. As Sneakson says, this will make it harder to shoot with magnified optics but honestly I think this is a good thing. It is not easy to line up a shot with a 12x scope at far range.

Yeah I think that´s it, if you are zoomed in you have to pull he mouse further to achieb´ve the same result as when you are not zoomed in.

[sqb-sma 66]

I am 99% sure that zoom has zero effect on recoil. If you shoot at at a rock with zero zoom and then shoot at it with "eyeball zoom" the reticle will end up approximately the same ingame distance from the rock. On the screen It will appear the rifle raises more because you are zoomed in and everything appears bigger, but in actuality your gun moves the same number of degrees/MOA.

It is worth mentioning that recoil has a random factor to it. Sometimes you will take a shot and it will result in far more displacement than the next shot. But this has nothing to do with zoom.

Wolfstriked made a very good observation about zoom and mouse sensitivity. Basically the higher the zoom the lower the sensitivity. This makes it so that even though the the recoil is the same at higher zooms, the mouse control you have to deal with that recoil is not. The more zoom the less sensitive the mouse, and the more you have to pull down. I think this is a problem.

To solve it zoom should simply have no effect on mouse sensitivity. this means the amount you pull down on the mouse is consistent. As Sneakson says, this will make it harder to shoot with magnified optics but honestly I think this is a good thing. It is not easy to line up a shot with a 12x scope at far range.

I believe we're all agreed there. But the apparent movement of the gun will be hugely increased with the zoomed FOV. It's this (combined with the sensitivity issue) that makes people thing there's too much recoil when in reality it's very good, perhaps slightly on the low side even. You should have to move the mouse to reposition the gun and get the next shot on target, an experienced player can do this quickly and effectively, putting many shots in a small grouping, a worse player will struggle. In reality the gun's recoil when looking down a 6x scope and firing unsupported (shooting a mosin) at around 150m the target is completely lost, but muscle memory brings it back into view. With the weapon supported the target was barely visible in the blurred area at the edge of the scope.

[ghostnineone 10]

There are plenty of things that aren't simulated properly in the ARMA series.

Don't get me wrong, I love ARMA and BI. But I often wonder if their engine is really cut out for this kind of thing. There seems to be a lot of "simple" (this isn't the right word) things that require big work arounds to do, and that doesn't seem right.

How difficult in this engine is it really to make fluid and realistic feeling movement? Movement that is similar in fluidity to BF3 or GTA4/RDR physics instead of the clunky and stiff animations and movements we have now, even though they are much improved.

Is it difficult to have more realistic handling of vehicles than we currently have? Games that are arcadey or not full sims have more realistic handling than what ARMA has. ATV's are a death trap, I don't think it would be much better with a steering wheel, it's not much easier with a controller.

Body armor doesn't seem to be simulated very well (at least it's not when I get shot). It either is amazing and can stop two 7.62 round to the helmet at less than 100yds (this happened when i shot someone earlier) or you get hit by one round and die. I don't think the AI is good enough on recruit to hit me in the face at very far distances with one shot and kill me every time I die. That wasn't the case earlier when I had no injures and got shot in the left lower quadrant in the trauma plate and died instantly. (One of many instant deaths) You can also shoot an in unarmored civvie multiple times in the chest and they will survive. There is no force when struck either, I don't think if someone catches a bullet, vest or not that they are going to continue running uninterrupted. I've died multiple times from shooting an AI that doesn't even flinch after I shot him in the chest, he will just stand there and shoot back.

Believe me I get the whole "It's a beta" thing, but it's still hard for me to feel like I'm playing a simulator when I open a door and get stuck behind it or move like I'm coming down with tetanus, and can drive better in forza or GTA than in arma.

I'm not saying "make the game more like these other arcade games" I'm saying make it more realistic. Some arcade games are pretty good about certain things. RDR has very nice movement (a little clunky) and very nice physics. I've yet to see anything more satisfying than shooting a guy in the leg or arm and having him trip and roll all the way down a cliff.

Do we have crappy physics and animations and AI because that's how the engine had to be made in order to make a game like this and there isn't any alternatives, or are there crappy animations and physics because the engine just sucks and it has to be Jerry rigged just to be able to simulate any of this stuff?

I saw a post about dynamic spawning being removed because the developers did not have the documentation to upgrade it. Someone built this engine and its functions and modules, so shouldn't it be possible to upgrade it? Shouldn't the way it's made give you clues how to upgrade it? It's BI's engine, why is there no documentation for something like that? Why is it even designed in such a way that it has to be scrapped completely and can't even be redesigned?

I'm not trying to rip into BI. They still do wonderful work, and arma 3 is still fun. These are just things I have been wondering about. Hopefully someone answers them, or at least reads them.

[Droikka 1]

Do we have crappy physics and animations and AI because that's how the engine had to be made in order to make a game like this and there isn't any alternatives, or are there crappy animations and physics because the engine just sucks and it has to be Jerry rigged just to be able to simulate any of this stuff?

I saw a post about dynamic spawning being removed because the developers did not have the documentation to upgrade it. Someone built this engine and its functions and modules, so shouldn't it be possible to upgrade it? Shouldn't the way it's made give you clues how to upgrade it? It's BI's engine, why is there no documentation for something like that? Why is it even designed in such a way that it has to be scrapped completely and can't even be redesigned?

I'm not trying to rip into BI. They still do wonderful work, and arma 3 is still fun. These are just things I have been wondering about. Hopefully someone answers them, or at least reads them.

The engine basecode was laid before 2001. For an improvement in "basic" things, such as the animation-transitions means that most of the code needs to be rewritten entirely and that means more than three years of constant engine work without any possibility making money off games. Video game studios do not survive even six months without some sort of constant funding.

Missing documentary about coding is so normal and hateful stuff that you do not seem to believe it happens. It happens so extremely frequently on all code that some engines are better off being scrapped.

RDR and GTA IV are running on RAGE engine, which took more than four years from one of the largest companies in the entire industry.

[Tyl3r99 41]

Not the first time I've said this, but BIS could use some more scripters on their team (atleast it seems like it anyways) :P

apply ;)

[Mirudes 1]

Wolfstriked made a very good observation about zoom and mouse sensitivity. Basically the higher the zoom the lower the sensitivity. This makes it so that even though the the recoil is the same at higher zooms, the mouse control you have to deal with that recoil is not. The more zoom the less sensitive the mouse, and the more you have to pull down. I think this is a problem.

That's indeed a nice finding. What I have learned so far is, that the Developers always seems to connect some features together.

In the case with the topic here: ‘Simulation fever’ - No bipods without weapon resting?, it is also connected with the way, how the recoil is simulated.

I think we agree that the recoil was made too strong, because...

It's as if the mission was designed with weapon resting in mind but... it's just not there!

[dale0404 5]

Just read this thread and I got 2 words for ya!!!

Go Dwarden!!!!

[liquidpinky 11]

Just read this thread and I got 2 words for ya!!!

Go Dwarden!!!!

Ever wish you hadn't started something? :blush:

[Wolfstriked 11]

Just go in game and choose the Zafir and load up an enemy blufor squad.Opfor autorifleman spawns now with just iron sights and is perfect to show how good the stock-non zoomed recoil actually is.Game feels awesome like this but throw some zoom in the mix and it all goes out the window.It was most likely a design decision to leave it this way so that players are not too accurate at range but we all agree it just feels off.

I feel its a shame that it is this way as its hard to balance anything with so many variables and will never give that realistic feeling I think many players want..Many people also want more differences between weapons of which its minimal.They all suck when crouched or standing is one area this could be improved.Try fighting with the Zafir while crouched in same above scenario and you will find its a bitch.That is good as its a heavy ass weapon and hence will be very hard to keep on target due to recoil.But rifles,maybe even more so for carbines,I think the sway should be halved.I watch soldiers in CQB videos fighting while standing and shooting around corners but in Arma3 thats gonna get you killed.Arma3 gameplay IMO feels like a go prone or your dead mentality.Current sway is great for LMG and snipers but wrong for rifles IMO.And then bullpup rifles with their known advantage of less sway from the weight of weapon being near shoulder but higher recoil from same design can make for different feeling weapons between weapon classes.

Back on topic......they should make a different recoil model for each zoom level you fire from.Can the engine be changed though?

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Go Dwarden!

This has been commented on by others I have got to play this game. Its a vanilla must have in my view.

[-Coulum- 35]

Back on topic......they should make a different recoil model for each zoom level you fire from.Can the engine be changed though?

NO! the way the recoil itself works at different zooms is fine. No matter what zoom you fire at the recoil is the exact same (besides the slight randomness recoil now has). Its just at higher zooms it appears to be higher. but in actuality the change in MOA is the same.

The way the mouse handles at different zooms however needs to be changed. At higher magnifications it is less sensitive, making recoil harder to compensate for and introducing inconsistencies that can throw a players muscle memory off.

I'll follow suit:

Go Dwarden

[Wolfstriked 11]

I don't think though,in regards to changing the mouse sensitivity at higher zooms,that that is gonna work either.When you zoom in a game and leave the mouse sensitivity the same the same movement of the mouse will be more twitchy.It reminds me of IL2 and how they did did not dull out the jostick sensitivity when you went to gun view and the plane would feel different and erratic.And in flight sims your only zooming into the gunsight and not zooming in 100's of yards.;) I think this issue is just hard to fix and I wait patiently to see what they come up with.

[Sneakson 1]

Turning mouse smoothing off completely makes the mouse movements a bit erratic already by the way...

[twisted 127]

Go Dwarden. Bipods will be very good fit more considered and tactical gameplay!

Edit. Ideally bipods deploy by button press not automatically. Plus they take a little time to deploy not instant.

Edited June 25, 2013 by twisted

[krazikilla 5]

Comon, Dwarden u say u are fighting for this feature since ages.

Why the hell should one need to fight for this "easy to implement", "drasticly game improving" and "whished by almost everyone of the communty" Thingy SO LONG?

Whats goin wrong there?

Just take this damn addon which a nice guy already created and put it in as default. Work for like 5minutes.

If u want to quality check that and change a bit of it - Work for 5 hours. -DONE.

Whats the problem with it?

Edited June 25, 2013 by KrAziKilla

[dmarkwick 261]

Comon, Dwarden u say u are fighting for this feature since ages.

Why the hell should one need to fight for this "easy to implement", "drasticly game improving" and "whished by almost everyone of the communty" Thingy SO LONG?

Whats goin wrong there?

Just take this damn addon which a nice guy already created and put it in as default. Work for like 5minutes.

If u want to quality check that and change a bit of it - Work for 5 hours. -DONE.

Whats the problem with it?

For one thing, it's a request of a non-essential feature, not an essential fix. If it arrives, it will be after more important fixes.

[krazikilla 5]

For one thing, it's a request of a non-essential feature, not an essential fix. If it arrives, it will be after more important fixes.

Ye, this feature is asked for since as long as i play Arma / Operation Flashpoint series. Around 13 Years.. For max. a few hours of work.

Always something more important to fix it seems, aye?

[Droikka 1]

For one thing, it's a request of a non-essential feature, not an essential fix. If it arrives, it will be after more important fixes.

How can you say that it's a non-essential feature?

It's more essential than say, grenade launchers. It changes the entire gameplay to far more realistic direction.

[Tyl3r99 41]

the fate in weapon resting and bipods are in dwarden's hands :) sounds promising

[dmarkwick 261]

How can you say that it's a non-essential feature?

It's more essential than say, grenade launchers. It changes the entire gameplay to far more realistic direction.

By essential I don't mean gameplay, because I agree that it is :) What I meant by essential is actually fixing broken things.

[-Coulum- 35]

I agree with DMarkwick. At this point, if we did ever get bipods we would be lucky. I feel sorry for Dwarden when bipods don't make it in.

I don't think though,in regards to changing the mouse sensitivity at higher zooms,that that is gonna work either.When you zoom in a game and leave the mouse sensitivity the same the same movement of the mouse will be more twitchy.It reminds me of IL2 and how they did did not dull out the jostick sensitivity when you went to gun view and the plane would feel different and erratic.And in flight sims your only zooming into the gunsight and not zooming in 100's of yards. I think this issue is just hard to fix and I wait patiently to see what they come up with.

Yeah reducing the sensitivity when zoomed would bring about problems of its own. It would actually be more realistic because in real life when using magnification the smallest movement can result in wildly throwing you off target. But I fear that the physical precision of peoples mice might mess things up. Either way, I do not think that recoil should be toned down based on zoom. It would result in you being able to make unrealistic groupings, even with full auto, at very far ranges when using sights like the 12x.

[Insanatrix 0]

By essential I don't mean gameplay, because I agree that it is :) What I meant by essential is actually fixing broken things.

If that were the case, I don't think we would have ArmA 3 in an alpha or beta capacity since there are still a lot of broken things that have been broken since before ArmA 3 and ArmA 2, but we still see progress and additions in areas don't we, we still see new iterations of games don't we? Is software ever perfect or is it ever completely bug free? I doubt they wait for every bug to be fixed before adding in newer functions, I mean we would still be in Alpha at this point right since there are bugs from Alpha that haven't been fixed, yet we just got Beta content additions.

I think there's more of an internal opposition to weapon resting and bi-pods, hence Dwarden's comment of having to "fight" for it.

[Wolfstriked 11]

I agree with DMarkwick. At this point, if we did ever get bipods we would be lucky. I feel sorry for Dwarden when bipods don't make it in.

Yeah reducing the sensitivity when zoomed would bring about problems of its own. It would actually be more realistic because in real life when using magnification the smallest movement can result in wildly throwing you off target. But I fear that the physical precision of peoples mice might mess things up. Either way, I do not think that recoil should be toned down based on zoom. It would result in you being able to make unrealistic groupings, even with full auto, at very far ranges when using sights like the 12x.

Some more thinking about it and I think that different recoil levels for each zoom level is the way to go.The VTS weapon resting mod illustrates the effect well.It reduces the recoil and you will find that at 300m with the SOS scope and weapon rested its still hard to do very small groups and gets worse as range increases while at same time feels worlds better.Throw weapon resting in the mix though and it will become overkill and groupings at 600m would be possible.

But if weapon resting were to decrease sway only then voila it would be a perfect system.

EDIT<let me explain better....fire a weapon with SOS at 12X with weapon rested and in each stance.This is how the recoil should feel with no weapon resting AND if you do rest the weapon then it just lowers the sway when against objects.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Wolfstriked

[-Coulum- 35]

Some more thinking about it and I think that different recoil levels for each zoom level is the way to go.

Sorry but I just can't agree. that would mean that hypothetically, if I had a sight with 50x optical zoom, I would be able to shoot at 200 metres and there would be practically no recoil. I would be able to keep a grouping within a guys eyeball. But then when I take that sight off and shoot ironsight I would be lucky to get half my shots to hit him let alone his eye. If I am following correctly...

[Wolfstriked 11]

Sorry but I just can't agree. that would mean that hypothetically, if I had a sight with 50x optical zoom, I would be able to shoot at 200 metres and there would be practically no recoil. I would be able to keep a grouping within a guys eyeball. But then when I take that sight off and shoot ironsight I would be lucky to get half my shots to hit him let alone his eye. If I am following correctly...

Yeah,I think your right.Still I wonder what the devs are up to in regards to recoil.