Will you be keeping the new mouse speed

[BL1P 35]

In arma2 all players turned at the same max speed which was a quite realistic speed in my opinion and was a great feature in a simulation.

Will you be keeping the your mouse speed determines how fast you can spin on the spot same as every other arcade fps on the market ?

If so its a shame as it was one of the great features that made arma2 less of a twitch arcade game.

...............................

Here are a couple of related bug trackers.

for prone / crouch: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=912

For sprinting (still not assigned despite having more "yes" votes): http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=5509

Edited July 21, 2013 by BL1P

[Gwynbleidd 28]

You could turn faster with higher mouse sensitivity (as long as you don't move your mouse quickly) in arma 2, same like any other fps. The thing is, if you turn your mouse too quickly, negative acceleration kicks in, and it seems like there is turn speed player limit.

PS. "fps shooter on the market" = first person shooter shooter on the market, you might wanna correct that.

[BL1P 35]

Thanks for the frames per second shooter fix :P

What ever the technology was behind how it was done in Arma2 the result still stands Arma2 played more like a simulator and Arma3 plays like every other twitch arcade fps.

watch the players spin on the spot and try tell me that looks realistic :)

[Gwynbleidd 28]

I agree, it's not the way it should be, would be happy if they did something about it. It's especially noticeable on machine guns since they are heavier, you should not be able to throw them around, like they are paper weight. But I would definitely be against negative acceleration, it's the worst thing they could do :)

But like I said, negative acceleration is only gonna affect you if you are used to play with lower sensitivity, and move mouse around quickly. But if you play with high sensitivity and don't move mouse around too quickly, you can still play it like twitch arcade fps, and spin quickly on the spot.

[Axe99 10]

The best way around this for a sim would be to actually model human turning and aiming with various weighted weapons (y'know, simulating it, a crazy wacky idea for a sim ;)). ArmA 2's weapon aiming was just like every other PC shooter, and a right disappointment. Would be great if they could get more sim into ArmA 3.

[mmaruda 20]

Just use the aiming deadzone, if you don't like the new mouse feature. As for calling Arma a twitch-shooter, please stop using that term. It's not a serious argument, just an obvious hyperbole and quite false, since it's plain and simple insulting to proper twitch-shooters (no, BF3 and CoD are not among them either).

All in all, I can say that I have spent my fair share of time in Arma 3 and cannot really say I noticed any difference except maybe CQB makes sense now, as the controls are no longer clunky. Most of the time you still hit the deck and use single fire at 300m. It's also a lot harder to hit anything in Arma 3 without aiming down the sights than it was in Arma 2.

[Axe99 10]

Just use the aiming deadzone, if you don't like the new mouse feature. As for calling Arma a twitch-shooter, please stop using that term. It's not a serious argument, just an obvious hyperbole and quite false, since it's plain and simple insulting to proper twitch-shooters (no, BF3 and CoD are not among them either).

It's definitely not a twitch shooter, but by all accounts the current aiming model is also definitely not a sim. Given it the series' sim aspirations, and the detail gone into simulating other parts of play, the lack of simulation when it comes to turning and aiming stands out for all the wrong reasons.

[BL1P 35]

Its not a pure twitch game for sure.

Although being able to perform a 360 degree turn even while prone with the unrealistic speeds allowed, certainly makes Arma3 contain elements of twitch gameplay.

It just feels and looks totally wrong for Arma.

[chortles 263]

After last year the term "negative mouse acceleration" seems to have become anathema to the devs (and as you just saw, Gwynbleidd is one player that it's anathema to ;) ) and the last I've heard from any dev on the subject was Vespa saying that mouse acceleration and smoothing would be "fps standard", so while it's of course subject to tweaking of the implementation, "different from Arma 2" seems to have been not only intentional but outright a selling point in both media previews and player word-of-mouth promoting.

[metalcraze 290]

Man that video looks like a game with simulation elements.

Those NATO soldiers sure receive quality training, doing insane turns while laying on their side.

[Variable 322]

I really hope this gets fixed, or at least limited. Is there a bug on the bugtracker we can upvote?

[chortles 263]

At least you didn't misquote neokika with a never-said "realistic game with simulation elements" this time. :rolleyes:

To OP, I don't recall any dev commenting on the subject this year, but then again I don't recall it coming up in any interview this year either.

[metalcraze 290]

I really hope this gets fixed, or at least limited. Is there a bug on the bugtracker we can upvote?

for prone / crouch: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=912

For sprinting (still not assigned despite having more "yes" votes): http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=5509

[Variable 322]

for prone / crouch: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=912

For sprinting (still not assigned despite having more "yes" votes): http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=5509

Thanks Metalcraze. Voted up.

BL1P, Would you add these bugtracker links to your opening post? It will help getting support of the community to address this issue without digging into the thread to find the links.

[BL1P 35]

Thanks Metalcraze. Voted up.

BL1P, Would you add these bugtracker links to your opening post? It will help getting support of the community to address this issue without digging into the thread to find the links.

With pleasure

[chrisb 196]

At present it’s a crossover type format, not following the series as such, instead trying to keep their user base happy, whilst generate money via being more mainstream.

Mod/addon makers will bring it back a certain amount, but it will be harder than the previous titles in the series, to make realistic.

Odd place its landed, A3.

______________

On topic, mouse setup is very important for good performance, they should just not tweak it much and let us all use our software to get it just right.

Edited July 21, 2013 by ChrisB

[Sneakson 1]

Meh, I'm not sure about turn speed really.

Crosshairs going where you want is very important. The only time turning quickly looks really dumb is when you’re prone so I think there should absolutely be a pretty strong negative acceleration when trying to turn more than about 45 degrees or something such.

I don’t think there should be any other limits though. I mean it’s possible to turn around pretty quick in reality and unless you have a nice 120 Hz monitor you’re still going to have to pause to spot enemies after turning around unless it’s very CQB.

We definitely need inertia to slow down movement when changing movement direction though but it shouldn’t affect turning speed in case someone was suggesting that.

Instead turn speed should affect movement and if you spin around like a fool you should be stuck in position.

[Variable 322]

Can we please get a developer to respond on BIS stand regarding this issue? :lookaround:

[Axe99 10]

After last year the term "negative mouse acceleration" seems to have become anathema to the devs (and as you just saw, Gwynbleidd is one player that it's anathema to ;) ) and the last I've heard from any dev on the subject was Vespa saying that mouse acceleration and smoothing would be "fps standard", so while it's of course subject to tweaking of the implementation, "different from Arma 2" seems to have been not only intentional but outright a selling point in both media previews and player word-of-mouth promoting.

The problem with FPS standard is that FPS standard on PC is as arcade and twitch as you can get, and using this type of modelling for human aiming for a milsim is pretty out-of-step with the rest of the game. It's putting cutting edge ballistics modelling alongside aiming with no explicit modelling at all.

---------- Post added at 02:39 ---------- Previous post was at 02:35 ----------

Meh, I'm not sure about turn speed really.

Crosshairs going where you want is very important. The only time turning quickly looks really dumb is when you’re prone so I think there should absolutely be a pretty strong negative acceleration when trying to turn more than about 45 degrees or something such.

I don’t think there should be any other limits though. I mean it’s possible to turn around pretty quick in reality and unless you have a nice 120 Hz monitor you’re still going to have to pause to spot enemies after turning around unless it’s very CQB.

We definitely need inertia to slow down movement when changing movement direction though but it shouldn’t affect turning speed in case someone was suggesting that.

Instead turn speed should affect movement and if you spin around like a fool you should be stuck in position.

Fair enough if you like arcade aiming, but actual human muscles have acceleration and momentum. Then if you factor in the relative weight of weapons (aiming with a pistol is quicker than aiming with an LMG is likely quicker again than aiming with a shoulder-launched missile) there are more factors to take into account. No way in hell that assuming that the way your hand moves with your mouse in any way reflects how it actually happens. All depends what the ArmA3 audience are looking for, but it seems really odd going to a lot of trouble to 'sim up' most of the game, then leave aiming as bog-standard arcade (as 'FPS standard' is sure as hell arcade modelling).

[frostwyrm333 1]

One solution could be that your head will turn quickly but rest of your body will turn with delay. And more heavy the weapon, the slower will it be.

Or cap the max turning speed or whatever. Doing 360 with 12 kg gun is quite broken.

[tpw 2313]

While I generally like like increased fluidity of movement in A3, and notice the clunkiness when going back to A2, I personally feel that there are several issues that really should be addressed:

1 - Why can I turn my whole body so much faster than I can turn my head? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

2 - Why can I turn 360 degrees in 1/2 a sec, regardless of stance?

3 - Why can I turn as just as fast with a heavy launcher as a small pistol?

Surely these 3 issues could be dealt with in such a way as to retain the fluid movement.

It's great that BIS have provided us with a framework to modify many aspects of the game to increase realism, but there is no straightforward access to the fundamental innards of the engine needed to mod these current unrealistic behaviours*.

The problem with Arma3 is that the aspects of the game that are wonderfully realistic just make the unrealistic ones seem so much more jarring: eg dynamic lighting / no dynamic shadowing, or fluid player animation / inertialess superspeed turning.

* I would love to be proven wrong and told there are some config values I could patch

[metalcraze 290]

Small turn speed limits for heavy weapons and low stances.

After all if you've noticed there's a turn speed limit when looking through scopes that have any kind of magnification. And yet it feels fluid. Add the same to heavy weapons and low stances and it will be just perfect.

No need to make mouse feel like jelly either.

It's a natural "balance" too after all

Standing? More control but also less safety.

Prone? Less control but more safety.

[Variable 322]

1 - Why can I turn my whole body so much faster than I can turn my head? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I think this is related to the below issue, which is present also in Arma 2. Mouse smoothing setting has no visible effect over head turn:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11751

[Sneakson 1]

Fair enough if you like arcade aiming, but actual human muscles have acceleration and momentum. Then if you factor in the relative weight of weapons (aiming with a pistol is quicker than aiming with an LMG is likely quicker again than aiming with a shoulder-launched missile) there are more factors to take into account. No way in hell that assuming that the way your hand moves with your mouse in any way reflects how it actually happens. All depends what the ArmA3 audience are looking for, but it seems really odd going to a lot of trouble to 'sim up' most of the game, then leave aiming as bog-standard arcade (as 'FPS standard' is sure as hell arcade modelling).

Actually arcade has nothing to do with it. I don't know a single arcade machine to ever have exact mouse controls. It is simply unrestricted rotational speed in an inverted world transform matrix and has been around since the mid-90s.

And it is greatly preferred not because of standards but because negative acceleration typically means you will have to lift and reposition your mouse a lot more which is annoying.

One solution could be that your head will turn quickly but rest of your body will turn with delay. And more heavy the weapon, the slower will it be.

Or cap the max turning speed or whatever. Doing 360 with 12 kg gun is quite broken.

Yeah, I thought that too.

Anyways it seems no negative mouse acceleration was a really bad choice for a simulatorlike game even if it makes for awkwardness with mice.

[Gwynbleidd 28]

I actually don't know why do you guys have problem with spinning in place quickly? It will never give you any advantage over enemy. The most you will ever need to spin quickly is 180 degrees (if he is directly behind you), now if you go outside (in reality) and try doing 180 turn, you may notice there is no turn speed limit, you can do it instantly. So don't whine about something not being realistic, if you just think it isn't. If you don't trust me, get off your ass, and try it.

Now to test this as realistically possible, try to get a hold of some sort of rifle, (not working one if possible, I don't want to be responsible for any injuries) I have a friend that has PPSh-41, so i tested on this one (it's weighs almost 4kg). If you really can't get a rifle, i dunno, just test it with a broom and duck tape some weight on it. You will notice that turning 180 degrees in a split second is not a problem, the problem is stopping, like sneakson explained in his post, on page 2, inertia. Now if i know where exactly target is behind me, i can stop exactly on it every time (I am not even a soldier) , since the gun is not really heavy, so there is not a lot of inertia. I imagine a highly trained soldier should definitely have no trouble with it, even on a bad day.

Now I can't say anything about machine gun, but since they are heavier I believe they should be a little harder to start the turn with, and to stop the turn, probably even slow the turning rate with mg a little, like someone mentioned, can't really say anything for sure, but something needs to change, what would be the benefit of taking a rifle over mg (except less weight), especially in CQB when they are pretty much the same to handle. Maybe someone who has actually used them, could provide a little insight.

As for the negative acceleration, it doesn't slow your spinning or make it any more realistic (which is the reason why we are even having this argument), also it doesn't add inertia, so you can basically stop immediately after ludicrous spin with 12 kg in your hands.

And here is a proof of how it looks in arma 2 with negative acceleration --->

So basically what some of you guys want, is negative acceleration back, even though it's nothing close to realistic, but it makes your game harder, therefore it must be realistic. Harder≠Realistic.

PS. I'm talking about standing position, prone should definitely use some tweaks.