Clipping issues

[GShock 10]

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?

That's the point Markwick, right now if you don't expose ALL of yourself you'll hit your own cover regardless of what you see in your sight/scope (which due to clipping has no movement limitation). It is near to impossible to judge lenght/distance ahead of you on a 2d monitor so you don't know when your muzzle's line of fire is obstructed.

The goal here is to recreate combat:

1st step is to find cover.

2nd step is to look for target.

3rd step is to open fire from cover.

In this current stage of development this is not happening.

How the hell could you shoot from cover if 90% of the times you're hitting your cover instead of the target?!

And that's why the AI is poor. Everything is connected.

[dmarkwick 261]

That's the point Markwick, right now if you don't expose ALL of yourself you'll hit your own cover regardless of what you see in your sight/scope (which due to clipping has no movement limitation). It is near to impossible to judge lenght/distance ahead of you on a 2d monitor so you don't know when your muzzle's line of fire is obstructed.

I see. In that case, you might make use of the crosshair, it's more than an arcadey cheat in ArmA (which it isn't IMO :)), it actually serves an important purpose, which is to give you important information that you don't get thanks to the nature of the 2D monitor. Namely, it will indicate that you're currently pointed at an obstacle by the crosshair "sticking" to the nearby obstacle. When you raise your weapon above the obstacle, the crosshair will indicate this by moving to the area it WILL hit. (Note: area not exact location.)

The goal here is to recreate combat:

1st step is to find cover.

2nd step is to look for target.

3rd step is to open fire from cover.

In this current stage of development this is not happening.

How the hell could you shoot from cover if 90% of the times you're hitting your cover instead of the target?!

And that's why the AI is poor. Everything is connected.

Honestly, I find the cover mechanism to be good. I use crosshair to give me the appropriate nearby obstacle information, and I use the scope to actually aim. There is no way around it - you HAVE to expose enough of yourself to see AND shoot, which means everything above/to the side of your muzzle. However, thanks to better stance control I can minimise my exposure by only exposing the smallest part of me while looking, then altering my stance when I need to actually shoot. And of course, when bullets are landing around me I know not to do any of these things :)

You certainly don't have to expose all of yourself.

[Greenfist 1863]

You don't have to expose all of yourself. Just your gun and preferably your eyes too, and that's enough for enemy to hit you. There's nothing wrong with that.

Your bullet will hit the cover if the gun is pointed to it. Your sights will always be little above to muzzle, so just because you see the target doesn't mean you can shoot it.

Gun clipping does not have anything to do with it. The cover might be 5 meter from you and you'd still hit it if you try to shoot just above it.

While it would be cool if the weapon would not move through solid objects but it's really far from being a game breaking lack of feature. You must be blind if you can't see when you're so close to the object that the gun goes into it. There's some ground texture and grass literally in your face and you can't tell how far is it?

Don't try to shoot downhill from prone or just an inch above objects. Back up, crouch and shoot with better clearance.

[Tacti-Cool 10]

You certainly dont have to expose your entire body to fire, I think what this fella is asking for, behind his joke comments, would be a elevated prone stance. Like how when standing you have that one extra stance to peek over a wall. Granted the shooter would have to prop up on his elbows, but it might solve this persons "If the shooter is only allowed to shoot by neglecting his cover" I use Combat Seat or Low crouch the most, and I seem to do alright for myself.

[GShock 10]

You don't have to expose all of yourself. Just your gun and preferably your eyes too, and that's enough for enemy to hit you. There's nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong. It's simply a joke, considering the distance, the fact he has no line of sight (because if he had, so would I) and no zoomed optics.

While it would be cool if the weapon would not move through solid objects but it's really far from being a game breaking lack of feature.

It's not a game breaker, it's simply a joke.

Don't try to shoot downhill from prone or just an inch above objects. Back up, crouch and shoot with better clearance.

That's right: relinquish cover, get up instead of going prone for stability and you'll avoid an engine problem

Here man, you just said it but now don't think you're the king of the hill because I've been saying it since the day I posted the first ticket and now for the 2nd straight day: THAT'S NOT HOW IT SHOULD WORK.

http://img10.picoodle.com/i5ao/gshock/hqse_a13_uczqg.jpg (121 kB)

What shall I do, back off and only use the sides of the screen because it's the only ones the game allows me to?

Now go to one of those towers in ArmA3 and close the hatch. Can you shoot properly? to any target in range by putting the rifle through the slit?

[enforcer4100 10]

You already made a post about this 2 days ago.

You don't simply make a new one if the other one gets locked.

link: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?167275-AI-still-cheating-big-time-thanks-to-clipping-issue

[dmarkwick 261]

Well, I certainly don't get it. Only you seem to have this weird problem, and insist that it's the engine... it seems to me that you're unwilling to change your behavior and instead insist that ArmA changes its to suit you.

I think the joke is on us. :/

[Tacti-Cool 10]

Ying: We've offered solutions, and you refuse to acknowledge that there are other ways to go about this without modifying the game engine. Nice picture of a real life shooting range, in real life you can stick your barrel and fire from where ever, but alas, Arma 3 is a game, so yes, you are supposed to fire from where the GAME lets you.

Yang: This guy has some merit, ive been behind low walls, with barrel clearance, and have been unable to fire, bullet hits the top of the wall somehow

[progamer 14]

Ying: We've offered solutions, and you refuse to acknowledge that there are other ways to go about this without modifying the game engine. Nice picture of a real life shooting range, in real life you can stick your barrel and fire from where ever, but alas, Arma 3 is a game, so yes, you are supposed to fire from where the GAME lets you.

Yang: This guy has some merit, ive been behind low walls, with barrel clearance, and have been unable to fire, bullet hits the top of the wall somehow

This is not an issue against realism, it's that third and first person show you in two different locations. You think your gun is free but in third person it isn't.

[GShock 10]

Ying: We've offered solutions, and you refuse to acknowledge that there are other ways to go about this without modifying the game engine. Nice picture of a real life shooting range, in real life you can stick your barrel and fire from where ever, but alas, Arma 3 is a game, so yes, you are supposed to fire from where the GAME lets you.

Yang: This guy has some merit, ive been behind low walls, with barrel clearance, and have been unable to fire, bullet hits the top of the wall somehow

You are on the spot, Tacti-Cool.

The point of the discussion is not the clipping (what the engine gives) but what the engine could do (what the engine will give if we push for it).

If the firing posture can't be adapted to the situation, the only way to shoot is from the open and this forces the DEVs to build a super AI instead of an AI that runs for cover first and shoots next.

If the AI worked with cover, there wouldn't be a WWAICOVER mod but if the player has so many problems to use the shoot/cover, how can the AI? Of course it can't... that's why they built the uber AI because if it wasn't uber it wouldn't stand a chance by shooting in the open!

So, YES, the lack of this feature is connected to multiple realism issues within this engine.

And it's all about this, what should be and what is. Don't just look at what it is and if you can make it work or not. Everybody can make it work, that's not the issue here. The issue here is at what cost in realism and immersion the lack of this feature brings us?

I think if you want to completely disregard my plea for realistic ai tactics, all you need is that video on the sniper rifle used in CQB.

It starts from the clipping (ugly) ... goes to the different shooting postures (missing and cause of problems)... then to AI (which is ubered to counter this feature which is missing) and ultimately to CQB (which can't be built if clipping/dexterity/cumbersomeness isn't solved).

So, if you get on a tower and close the hatch can you say you can put the rifle through the slit and be effective at shooting?

[becubed 24]

he has no line of sight (because if he had, so would I)

Are you an ostrich?

[-Coulum- 35]

I'm confused. I thought the stance adjust did a pretty damned good job of fixing the "unable to fire, or standing straight up issue". i just wish there was better indication when your muzzle is obstructed.

A RO2 type system would be nice but unfortunately its just not going to happen.

So, if you get on a tower and close the hatch can you say you can put the rifle through the slit and be effective at shooting

But would you be able to do that in real life? I mean sure your muzzle might fit but when you look down the sights you won't be able to see anything besides the green above the slit because you scope is above the muzzle...

Sounds to be more like this is a complaint about the ai, and not so much about the rifle clipping.

And the real advantage of cover is not only that it makes you a smaller target but you can also peek in and out of it therefore dictating when an enemy can and can't shoot you. Plus its harder to see you because you are smaller/hidden. The former the ai should do, and the latter, in my experience, has little to no effect on ai - if you are in their line of sight, in a certain stance, motion, and distance they will see you.

[Greenfist 1863]

Here's me aiming at the enemy. (Well, almost). Notice the ground really close to my line of sight. I should be able to hit him, right?

Alas! This is taken from behind the target at the level of his nose. Notice how my muzzle is blocked by the ground but my scope's visible. I guess I can't hit him after all?

No, I can't:

But why?! My gun wasn't clipping shit!

It's simply a joke, considering the distance, the fact he has no line of sight (because if he had, so would I) and no zoomed optics.

After I failed hitting him, he hit the dirt and started shooting at me. What the hell!!!1! If I can't hit him, why should he?

Oh, right:

My muzzle is still obstructed but he sees a good portion of me. The blob on right is his helmet.

Neither of us moved and he kept shooting and hitting me, while I couldn't shoot back.

Now it would be great if this was like IRL and I could raise myself just that inch to get the LOF.

By the way, this would be a really bad tactic in game and in real life. If they start shooting at me, what will I do? Can't get any lower because I'm already prone. Crawling to safety would be too slow while they have me in their sights. Getting up would be even worse. I should have been crouching behind the ridge and go prone when shot at. Or next to rock so I could have just rolled to safety.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Greenfist

[maturin 12]

If the shooter is only allowed to shoot by neglecting his cover, this is not a simulator, it's a joke.

So you're a delusional Gears of War player? You should turn impervious to bullets as long as you're poking out from the stick cover? There's no way to shoot without exposing your head and shoulders. This is just baffling.

Just inch up the slope two inches and clear the line of your muzzle, like in real life. If you have a problem telling when you're going to shoot dirt (I don't, because practice and experience), turn on your crosshairs and they'll show you. It's a handy feature.

Seriously, explain what actually the hell you're talking about, besides your own lack of virtual situational awareness.

[dmarkwick 261]

But why?! My gun wasn't clipping shit!

Wasn't clipping in that image, but you can be sure the line of fire was clipping a little further on.

After I failed hitting him, he hit the dirt and started shooting at me. What the hell!!!1! If I can't hit him, why should he?

Well at last a problem I can see :)

You say he was hitting you? And you could not hit him...? Can you be sure that bullet penetration was not at work here? I mean, if you consistently shot toward the enemy, would eventually something hit him? It's the only thing I can think of right now. (Aside from a bug, obviously.)

[maddogx 13]

Wasn't clipping in that image, but you can be sure the line of fire was clipping a little further on.

Well at last a problem I can see :)

You say he was hitting you? And you could not hit him...? Can you be sure that bullet penetration was not at work here? I mean, if you consistently shot toward the enemy, would eventually something hit him? It's the only thing I can think of right now. (Aside from a bug, obviously.)

I think you misread Greenfist's post. He was obviously making a point about line of sight VS line of fire. ;)

[dmarkwick 261]

I think you misread Greenfist's post. He was obviously making a point about line of sight VS line of fire. ;)

Aha, sarcasm, the snare of most misunderstandings :)

[maturin 12]

If they start shooting at me, what will I do? Can't get any lower because I'm already prone.

Actually, you could have. Remember that your torso moves along with your head. Bury your face in the dirt and you lower your profile. If you want to get really fancy, you can even lower or drop your gun for a moment, and your head will be in a still lower posture.

But it would be best to just roll away. Or use prone low, perhaps.

The AI also could have been hitting your with ricochets and scraping shots through the dirt. In fact, this is practically the only possibility because otherwise he would have headshotted you and killed you immediately.

I will say that a prone high that isn't a sniper sit would be nice. But they're not going to overhaul the animation system this late in the game.

If the firing posture can't be adapted to the situation, the only way to shoot is from the open and this forces the DEVs to build a super AI instead of an AI that runs for cover first and shoots next.

If the AI worked with cover, there wouldn't be a WWAICOVER mod but if the player has so many problems to use the shoot/cover, how can the AI? Of course it can't... that's why they built the uber AI because if it wasn't uber it wouldn't stand a chance by shooting in the open!

Ok. Listen to me. Listen to me and then either respond to me or shut up about the topic.

This is nonsense.

You have no idea how the AI is developed.

The AI has unbalanced 'super' qualities because building a human-like AI is HARD. It has nothing to do with the even MORE DIFFICULT challenge of an AI that can make microscopic adjustments to complex 3D objects with hundreds of polys and thousand of potential targets and avenues and angles of fire. You are just running up against massive amounts of entropy and hard limits on computing power. Some things just can't be done outside the very limited worlds of linear shooters that are filled with pre-baked objects and path grids.

The AI is 'super' because BIS hasn't figured out how to make it behave in a human manner without turning it into the worthless paper targets of other FPS and ruining the SP. It has absolutely, I repeat absolutely, nothing to do with taking cover or not. So cut the drama queen antics.

Edited October 25, 2013 by maturin

[dmarkwick 261]

By the way, this would be a really bad tactic in game and in real life. If they start shooting at me, what will I do? Can't get any lower because I'm already prone. Crawling to safety would be too slow while they have me in their sights. Getting up would be even worse. I should have been crouching behind the ridge and go prone when shot at. Or next to rock so I could have just rolled to safety.

Bear in mind that what you have there is an artificial construct, you essentially "beamed" into position, whereas ingame you would encounter that situation rather differently.

[maturin 12]

Furthermore, this obsessing about crawling on top of ridgelines is getting silly, since this is a really bad tactic in real life. You are almost certainly skylining yourself, and lying right where the focus of the enemy's attention is going to be. You should be crawling down to the military crest or something, or else squatting behind the ridge so you can bug out if spotted, and not engage in a target-shooting match from your obvious position.

So in essence, there's all this bellyaching about not being able to use bad tactics to abuse an AI that lacks the complexity to punish you for your rookie skylining mistake.

[Greenfist 1863]

Actually, you could have. Remember that your torso moves along with your head. Bury your face in the dirt and you lower your profile. If you want to get really fancy, you can even lower or drop your gun for a moment, and your head will be in a still lower posture.

You're right, but turning my head down would have a very little advantage, I presume. I shouldn't even have put myself in such position to begin with.

The AI also could have been hitting your with ricochets and scraping shots through the dirt. In fact, this is practically the only possibility because otherwise he would have headshotted you and killed you immediately.

He did hit me multiple times as he was supposed to. I just was invulnerable when testing this.

Furthermore, this obsessing about crawling on top of ridgelines is getting silly, since this is a really bad tactic in real life.

Yes, it is. I was just saying laying down in the open without any means to get to cover instantly if you're fired upon, is really bad tactic to use on purpose.

[GShock 10]

What's going on, Greenfist? You couldn't hit him and he did hit you?

Odd, inn'it? :)

And you should see how much more fun it is when he hits you from below and 300 meters away with an unzoomed scope :)

Better to crouch or to get up... right? Better to give up cover completely, right? That's EXACTLY the opposite of real combat, mate.

Now look at this pic.

Think about those stonewalls in the open fields in ArmA3, they have different heights (some are taller, some are lower)

Without a proper posture adjustment in some circumstances you'll have to get up to fire AGAIN relinquishing cover.

Look at this.

http://img10.picoodle.com/i5ap/gshock/1cf4_c38_uczqg.jpg (469 kB)

The guy is not crouching, he's SQUATTING to only expose the head. In ArmA3 you'd have to stand up to shoot in this situation.

There's no real need to bring in the towers and the closed hatches... anyone who's not blind will see that there's no proper firing arch due to lack of posture adjustment. If other games tackled this issue, so must ArmA3.

[mr_centipede 31]

What's going on, Greenfist? You couldn't hit him and he did hit you?

Odd, inn'it? :)

And you should see how much more fun it is when he hits you from below and 300 meters away with an unzoomed scope :)

Better to crouch or to get up... right? Better to give up cover completely, right? That's EXACTLY the opposite of real combat, mate.

Now look at this pic.

http://img15.picoodle.com/i5ap/gshock/1t2s_7af_uczqg.jpg

Think about those stonewalls in the open fields in ArmA3, they have different heights (some are taller, some are lower)

Without a proper posture adjustment in some circumstances you'll have to get up to fire AGAIN relinquishing cover.

Look at this.

http://img10.picoodle.com/i5ap/gshock/1cf4_c38_uczqg.jpg (469 kB)

The guy is not crouching, he's SQUATTING to only expose the head. In ArmA3 you'd have to stand up to shoot in this situation.

There's no real need to bring in the towers and the closed hatches... anyone who's not blind will see that there's no proper firing arch due to lack of posture adjustment. If other games tackled this issue, so must ArmA3.

You do know that you have more than just prone/crouch/stand right?

[dmarkwick 261]

You do know that you have more than just prone/crouch/stand right?

I was just going to say exactly this :)

There are a total of 9 vertical stance adjustments, each with 3 horizontal variants (OK maybe not all the prone ones). There are oodles of stance options. (Hint: ctrl+W, ctrl+S, ctrl+A, ctrl+D)

Plus, lying down on the horizon & shooting enemy will be a poor tactic. It should surprise no-one when you get killed for it :)

[Greenfist 1863]

What's going on, Greenfist? You couldn't hit him and he did hit you?

Odd, inn'it? :)

You didn't understand the words nor the pictures. I can't offer you any more simple explanation then.

I could not hit him because there was ground between my muzzle and his head. He hit me because there wasn't ground between his muzzle and my head.

And yes, any normal soldier will hit a target the size of human head from 300 meters without scope. Maybe not with first bullet though. Hell, even I was able to in the army and I wasn't even a professional soldier.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Greenfist