Clipping issues

[GShock 10]

Eh, look at

guys.

I am lying prone on a ridge, shooting at a target below me and far away. Due to the rifle clipping and lack of a "adjust posture" system, I am forced to shoot at that target by going out of cover (in fact, it is shooting at me even before I can even see it).

All I can do is keep shooting, check for dust/rocks and move forward to shoot again. It is but natural that I will be killed 90 times out of 100 times, considering I am in the open like that target is while that target has no clipping problem while I do.

So... I am in cover but that target has the advantage? That's total BS.

It's not a matter of I like or I dislike, then the DEVs may take any approach to solve it, based on the opinions of everyone, but this is a game breaker.

Mind that the AI guy below at 300m is shooting at me with an unzoomed sight and he's more likely to kill me than I am likely to kill him given these premises.

For the records: shooting at any object in such proximity may prove fatal to the soldier due to ricochet. A simulative approach of this kind might make worthwhile correct weapon handling (i.e. don't stand behind RPG server) that is ALSO currently missing.

If this game wants to be a simulation this issue must be brought down.

I know it's been discussed many times already and it will keep being discussed until it's solved. Delaying the solution or denying there's a problem here will not help.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Eh, look at

guys.

I am lying prone on a ridge, shooting at a target below me and far away. Due to the rifle clipping and lack of a "adjust posture" system, I am forced to shoot at that target by going out of cover (in fact, it is shooting at me even before I can even see it).

All I can do is keep shooting, check for dust/rocks and move forward to shoot again. It is but natural that I will be killed 90 times out of 100 times, considering I am in the open like that target is while that target has no clipping problem while I do.

So... I am in cover but that target has the advantage? That's total BS.

It's not a matter of I like or I dislike, then the DEVs may take any approach to solve it, based on the opinions of everyone, but this is a game breaker.

Mind that the AI guy below at 300m is shooting at me with an unzoomed sight and he's more likely to kill me than I am likely to kill him given these premises.

For the records: shooting at any object in such proximity may prove fatal to the soldier due to ricochet. A simulative approach of this kind might make worthwhile correct weapon handling (i.e. don't stand behind RPG server) that is ALSO currently missing.

If this game wants to be a simulation this issue must be brought down.

I know it's been discussed many times already and it will keep being discussed until it's solved. Delaying the solution or denying there's a problem here will not help.

So, it's an issue that your gun doesn't shoot out of your eyes but instead out of it's muzzle?

How do you expect to keep your head in cover if you are looking through a sight that has LOS on the enemy? Your forehead and helmet is going to be way above the sight and a nice target for anyone if you have eyes on through the scope as your eyes aren't on top of your head and they're not going to telescopically go out of your head and to the scope. The taller the scope, like HAMR, the more discrepancy is going to be between what your scope sees and what the barrel of your weapon sees.

Either stance adjust up and clear the rifle so it can shoot over the obstacle or back up and into cover where you are not exposing yourself. You can't have it both ways.

And no, you don't have to keep shooting, when you back out of your scoped in view, the crosshair is clearly indicating that your muzzle is obstructed by the ground, there is no need to fire.

[dmarkwick 261]

denying there's a problem here will not help.

Well there's a bit of a difference between having a different view and denying there's a problem :) but let me make a couple of observations:

If you can see them, they can probably see you, especially if they already know where you are. Even when they cannot see you, they will have a "knowsAbout" value attached to you based on when they last saw you and what you were doing. As you are looking at them, you are not in cover. If you are *just* in cover, as judged by your direct eyeline, then it's possible that some part of you (in this case your helmet) is still visible.

If you keep doing the same thing that gets you killed 90 times out of a hundred, then that's why :)

Try setting your terrain detail to a higher value. I don't know if it affects AI, but it certainly affects players' horizon detail. With default terrain detail, I often saw a line of trees & rocks apparently floating above a hill's silhouette, when I applied a higher terrain detail setting, that went away and I saw more appropriate hill silhouette behavior. This might apply to AI visibility abilities.

You do not shoot out of your eyes, there is a few inches of difference between your scope line and your firing line. Because your target is in your scope, does not mean your barrel is not blocked. And yes I guess there might be some barrel clipping :)

Edited October 24, 2013 by DMarkwick

[andersson 285]

I think it would be nice if the barrel wouldnt be clipped into the ground. In your case that would mean you loose the ability to aim as low as you do as the rifle would be forced to point more up. Just like in real life.

In any case, clipping or not, I dont see the game breaker here. You expose your head and part of your shoulders in order to get your rifle above the crest. Until you do that the angle you can shoot downwards is limited. As it should be.

[NeuroFunker 11]

Eh, look at

guys.

I am lying prone on a ridge, shooting at a target below me and far away. Due to the rifle clipping and lack of a "adjust posture" system, I am forced to shoot at that target by going out of cover (in fact, it is shooting at me even before I can even see it).

All I can do is keep shooting, check for dust/rocks and move forward to shoot again. It is but natural that I will be killed 90 times out of 100 times, considering I am in the open like that target is while that target has no clipping problem while I do.

So... I am in cover but that target has the advantage? That's total BS.

It's not a matter of I like or I dislike, then the DEVs may take any approach to solve it, based on the opinions of everyone, but this is a game breaker.

Mind that the AI guy below at 300m is shooting at me with an unzoomed sight and he's more likely to kill me than I am likely to kill him given these premises.

For the records: shooting at any object in such proximity may prove fatal to the soldier due to ricochet. A simulative approach of this kind might make worthwhile correct weapon handling (i.e. don't stand behind RPG server) that is ALSO currently missing.

If this game wants to be a simulation this issue must be brought down.

I know it's been discussed many times already and it will keep being discussed until it's solved. Delaying the solution or denying there's a problem here will not help.

judging by your video, pay attention how high your scope and where is your rifle, and your head. You were seeing the enemy through the scope, but here comes the WOW: your gun is like 5-10 centimeters under your scope, and you were shooting the ground! Your head is even more higher then the scope, so no wonders you are geting killed like that... Thats is actually realistic, i guess people would rage, if you would be able to shoot through the ground like that.

[msy 22]

guys，why dont you compain that other fps games dont have 3rd person's view? if arma didnt have the view either then things will be simpler.

then you can see so called real animation.

[dmarkwick 261]

guys，why dont you compain that other fps games dont have 3rd person's view? if arma didnt have the view either then things will be simpler.

then you can see so called real animation.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but in case it's the recent conversation, then I don't see how 3rd person is involved at all?

Plus: it's always been optional to have it in ArmA. It can be switched off.

[msy 22]

in other word, why arma must have 3rd person view? why not remove it then every thing will as simple as normal fps game.

[roberthammer 582]

in other word, why arma must have 3rd person view? why not remove it then every thing will as simple as normal fps game.

so far i know , every fps has 3rd person - just you have to use console to do that - so i dont see a reason to remove 3rd person

[dmarkwick 261]

Yeah - it's an old, bitter argument :)

As it's entirely optional, it should stay. Whether it should be enabled by default.... there's another argument :)

But I don't see what 3rd person has to do with the current conversation?

[msy 22]

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but in case it's the recent conversation, then I don't see how 3rd person is involved at all?

Plus: it's always been optional to have it in ArmA. It can be switched off.

i am talking about animation. if arma has only fps view then evey complex and cool animation can be seen in it. dont you agree with me? in other word if cs/cod/bf/ue engine games have 3rd, do you think they have better resolution or idea?

[GShock 10]

In the situation described by the video, you would lie down the rifle on that ridge and crawl ahead (adjust) 'till you could have a clear shot below (LOS + LOF = clear).

From below, the target, especially at that distance, wouldn't even notice your head, much less the rifle, unless it was scoping (or using binoculars) aiming right at your spot. Naturally it would have to stand still and focus to actually see you.

What happens in ArmA3, instead, is that you can't lie that rifle on the ridge and you can't follow its slope to look for a clear shot because of clipping.

You are forced out of cover and killed by an AI that, despite having no zoomed sights, has unhindered visibility and unerring aim, even while you are shooting at it and hitting. <-- You guys must ask yourselves WHY this choice was taken on the AI.

I want the AI to act like it should when under fire: 1) Look for cover (which it doesn't), 2) look for the threat (which it doesn't) and only then 3) shoot back.

This PROPER AI logic cannot be implemented if this issue is not solved because neither the AI nor the player can shoot from cover right now.

A simulator that allows solid objects to clip and actually forces the shooter to neglect cover is a joke, not a simulator.

I am brand new to this community and I don't know how it works here.

Do the DEVs come out to talk with the users about issues?

If so I would like to know what they intend to do about this issue.

I would just like to be reassured there will be a solution and that this solution will lead to proper AI logics and more realistic and immersive firefights in the future, that's all.

[msy 22]

why say if fps game has no 3rd person view then every thing would be simplerl? because the fake animation is only for you, the animation picture that other players will never see rather than an ugly simple bad animation. then i wont show the classic example, the switch weapon animation which is so cool in cs/cod/bf/ue etc. but is so awful when other people see you switching because it is like play magic.

so if you guys are talking animation, why dont you talk about fps view and 3rd view? it is so unfair for arma.

[phlux1 10]

I am brand new to this community and I don't know how it works here.

Do the DEVs come out to talk with the users about issues?

Well generally they would, but they might ignore posts that call their game, the only one of its kind, "a joke," because it doesn't meet the fantastical requirements that you set for it to exist in the genre which it arguably created.

[dmarkwick 261]

In the situation described by the video, you would lie down the rifle on that ridge and crawl ahead (adjust) 'till you could have a clear shot below (LOS + LOF = clear).

From below, the target, especially at that distance, wouldn't even notice your head, much less the rifle, unless it was scoping (or using binoculars) aiming right at your spot. Naturally it would have to stand still and focus to actually see you.

What happens in ArmA3, instead, is that you can't lie that rifle on the ridge and you can't follow its slope to look for a clear shot because of clipping.

You are forced out of cover and killed by an AI that, despite having no zoomed sights, has unhindered visibility and unerring aim, even while you are shooting at it and hitting. <-- You guys must ask yourselves WHY this choice was taken on the AI.

I want the AI to act like it should when under fire: 1) Look for cover (which it doesn't), 2) look for the threat (which it doesn't) and only then 3) shoot back.

This PROPER AI logic cannot be implemented if this issue is not solved because neither the AI nor the player can shoot from cover right now.

A simulator that allows solid objects to clip and actually forces the shooter to neglect cover is a joke, not a simulator.

I am brand new to this community and I don't know how it works here.

Do the DEVs come out to talk with the users about issues?

If so I would like to know what they intend to do about this issue.

I would just like to be reassured there will be a solution and that this solution will lead to proper AI logics and more realistic and immersive firefights in the future, that's all.

I'm not entirely sure of the extent & nature of the issue here. Are you suggesting that you moved to that position, and without firing, were instantly seen & fired upon even though only your head were above the ridge line? When you fire upon the AI, they will naturally look for you. If you fire more than once, they will find you easier.

Also: you must make the AI suitable for your needs. Turn down their skill to make them less aimbotty, and firefights will last longer. When they do return fire, it will be around you & less on you.

Bear in mind that when you are shooting, you are not in cover. You necessarily have to break cover to shoot by exposing part of yourself, try treating the situation as real life, i.e. when you're being fired upon, do not show a single part of you. This means hiding, and this means you won't be able to see them. Shooting from cover means you are mostly in cover.

Also, consider the situation in context: the ridge looks fairly shallow to me: consider being further back, but crouching instead, showing the same amount of yourself, just from further back. That way, you can adjust your stance to low crouched & use that to pop-up & down.

As for the AI behaviors - yes it's well known they cannot be suppressed or look for cover very well. There are addons that can change this, but currently it's not vanilla.

[ProfTournesol 956]

why say if fps game has no 3rd person view then every thing would be simplerl? because the fake animation is only for you, the animation picture that other players will never see rather than an ugly simple bad animation. then i wont show the classic example, the switch weapon animation which is so cool in cs/cod/bf/ue etc. but is so awful when other people see you switching because it is like play magic.

so if you guys are talking animation, why dont you talk about fps view and 3rd view? it is so unfair for arma.

Please, it has already been discussed to death here : http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149711-3rd-person-view-and-difficulty-levels&highlight=3rd

[msy 22]

Please, it has already been discussed to death here : http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149711-3rd-person-view-and-difficulty-levels&highlight=3rd

forgive my english. what i want to say is if you guys just want beautiful animation then you should order bis to quit/ remove/never develop in-build 3rd person view. because even valve/iw/dice/etc. has no idear, why should you force bis to develop animation that can be fixed in both fps view and 3rd peraon view? if arma has only fps view which means there is never ever a 3rd view mode in the game like other fps game. bis can of course give you a cool fake fps animation picture.

[gliptal 25]

forgive my english. what i want to say is if you guys just want beautiful animation then you should order bis to quit/ remove/never develop in-build 3rd person view. because even valve/iw/dice/etc. has no idear, why should you force bis to develop animation that can be fixed in both fps view and 3rd peraon view? if arma has only fps view which means there is never ever a 3rd view mode in the game like other fps game. bis can of course give you a cool fake fps animation picture.

This is because animations are shared between all entities: unlike most games, the animations for the player are the same animations used by the AI soldiers.

Yay!

[dmarkwick 261]

forgive my english. what i want to say is if you guys just want beautiful animation then you should order bis to quit/ remove/never develop in-build 3rd person view. because even valve/iw/dice/etc. has no idear, why should you force bis to develop animation that can be fixed in both fps view and 3rd peraon view? if arma has only fps view which means there is never ever a 3rd view mode in the game like other fps game. bis can of course give you a cool fake fps animation picture.

It's one of many things that make ArmA unique and preferable to other FPSs. Your body is actually your body. You cast shadows, unlike other FPSs. All in all, I think it's preferable, even with the caveats.

[maturin 12]

I want the AI to act like it should when under fire: 1) Look for cover (which it doesn't), 2) look for the threat (which it doesn't) and only then 3) shoot back.

They do all that. Are you just upset that you can't suppress an entire squad all on your own? Why should they all go running for the hills when there's not enough cover for all of them anways (there usually isn't, if you see a whole squad) when they have a perfectly good machinegun?

As for whatever else the heck you're talking about, with not being able to invisibly shoot from a skylining ridgetop (lolwut?), I don't know. And blathering about simulators and demanding explanations from the devs to boot.

There's nothing you can do in that situation in the video (IRL, I mean) without exposing your head. If you move your rifle up to the imaginary boundary that's the momentary ridgeline using a wonderful Crysis key adjust, you still have to expose more of your head to get a sight picture. What weapon the enemy is carrying is irrelevant here, or a separate issue. So far as I can tell, you're just complaining because you thought you chose a clever, tactical position and it got you killed.

HOWEVER, your sound mod is darling. What's it called?

Edited October 24, 2013 by maturin

[vegeta897 13]

They do all that. Are you just upset that you can't suppress an entire squad all on your own? Why should they all go running for the hills when there's not enough cover for all of them anways (there usually isn't, if you see a whole squad) when they have a perfectly good machinegun?

As for whatever else the heck you're talking about, with not being able to invisibly shoot from a skylining ridgetop (lolwut?), I don't know. And blathering about simulators and demanding explanations from the devs to boot.

There's nothing you can do in that situation in the video (IRL, I mean) without exposing your head. If you move your rifle up to the imaginary boundary that's the momentary ridgeline using a wonderful Crysis key adjust, you still have to expose more of your head to get a sight picture. What weapon the enemy is carrying is irrelevant here, or a separate issue. So far as I can tell, you're just complaining because you thought you chose a clever, tactical position and it got you killed.

HOWEVER, your sound mod is darling. What's it called?

+1 to this post

The sound mod in the video is JSRS.

[Deadfast 43]

I think I can see your point hidden amongst all the rantyness.

You cannot tell your rifle is clipping into something in first person view.

Yes, this is an annoying problem caused by the vehicle you are controlling (be it a car or a soldier) being always drawn in the foreground.

[GShock 10]

I think I can see your point hidden amongst all the rantyness.

You cannot tell your rifle is clipping into something in first person view.

Yes, this is an annoying problem caused by the vehicle you are controlling (be it a car or a soldier) being always drawn in the foreground.

This is not just a clipping issue.

Let me make it clear once again: If the shooter is only allowed to shoot by neglecting his cover, this is not a simulator, it's a joke.

[dmarkwick 261]

This is not just a clipping issue.

Let me make it clear once again: If the shooter is only allowed to shoot by neglecting his cover, this is not a simulator, it's a joke.

I'm afraid that by making it clear, as you put it, you are confusing everyone. If you wish to shoot at an enemy, you have to expose part of yourself, that much must be plainly obvious yes?

[Smurf 12]

@ Auto lowering weapon & cover adjustments, just to ilustrate since I don't believe Arma will have such features (maybe auto lower, as done in mods) due the way animations works, this 1st person =~ 3rd person thing (not saying it is bad but it has its cons) and because we already have the adjusted poses:

RO2 nailed it. First, auto lowering. When close to an object the soldier will lower the weapon and, depending on the distance to that object, the animation will change slightly, compare the 2 pics:

If there is *some* room to it (like in the first pic) he can shoot\aim but the 3rd person animation will be somewhat strange, not big deal. 1st person view will not match exactly what others see (3rd person animation) but it is close enough. When there is no room to shoot\aim ("glued" to object) the animation will change accordingly in 1st person view.

(pending pics)

Adjustments:

You have 3 "states"; hip firing, aiming and cover adjusted. The pic below nicely show (coincidence) these three, the dude on the left is on the hip, the middle one is using the cover system and aiming (height depends on cover, see knees) and the third is just aiming, note the small difference in height (does matters) between this and the first soldier:

And another showing, from back to front, cover adjusted, hip holding\firing (MGs can't be shouldered, just deployed\rested!), peeking using the cover system and the auto lower (in this case he can still shoot IF he aims, because the change in height and shouldered weapon)

My point is: it works in other games.