Clipping issues

[Cathrynn 10]

Hypothetically speaking, a smoothly animated stance system that was controllable via an analog device would be interesting...

So, instead of having only a fixed number of set positions, the player would be able to raise and lower their body to whatever position they liked simply by moving an analog device up or down, the further the device is moved the more the players body moves. Moving a device left or right would smoothly adjust the players stance left or right.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Bear

[dmarkwick 261]

The line-of-sight vs line-of-fire conundrum explained:

Each soldier is aiming at the topmost part of the other.

[GShock 10]

Both of the game pictures and drawings you guys displayed, depict a STATIC stance and not a stance that adapts to the situation to make use of cover.

Let me explain: Greenfist hypotizes that a guy who's standing in the open (on the left) can hit a guy who's above and behind a crest on the right because the guy on the right can't see the guy on the left while the guy on the left can see and shoot the guy on the right. What he's shown in that drawing is what's happening in ArmA3 and I am challenging.

Actually, it's the guy on the left who's dead because, while he's completely exposed, the guy on the right, lies his rifle on the ridge and his eye in the sight to shoot downwards surpassing the obstacle that is hiding him and, actually, using it for cover. <-- This which is what happens in real combat can't happen in ArmA3 because you guys are saying so. If you, like me, were saying that ArmA3 must simulate real combat, the DEVs would build it.

The man, in has been saying all along that a guy lying prone behind a ridge is at disadvantage vs a guy who's crouching when it's actually the opposite as the entire world knows by the real life pictures I am posting instead of your theoretical justifications to something the engine recreates the wrong way.

An engine that aims to be a simulation must allow as many firing situations as possible. The body of the soldier must adapt to the cover to allow him to shoot from cover and not to be handicapped by it.

In the case of Dmarkwick the guy on the left is dead all the same because the guy on the right rests on the rock more or less like the 1st of the 2 pictures in my previous post, while he's completely exposed.

You, guys, find yourselves justifying a design choice that produces the opposite of what happens in real combat.

This is an example of what the engine could do:

I think we've seen something like that in ArmA3 haven't we?

[Sniperwolf572 758]

...

I think we've seen something like that in ArmA3 haven't we?

Slightly adjusting your posture to expose as little as possible is very possible in Arma 3. Once again, are you aware of it? CTRL + Movement keys adjust your stance slightly. So for example the right guy could, while standing, press CTRL + W to slightly raise his rifle to clear the cover. It's not done automatically.

The stance in the picture, or well something similar, you can accomplish by pressing CTRL + A while being prone.

[dmarkwick 261]

Both of the game pictures and drawings you guys displayed, depict a STATIC stance and not a stance that adapts to the situation to make use of cover.

Let me explain: Greenfist hypotizes that a guy who's standing in the open (on the left) can hit a guy who's above and behind a crest on the right because the guy on the right can't see the guy on the left while the guy on the left can see and shoot the guy on the right. What he's shown in that drawing is what's happening in ArmA3 and I am challenging.

Actually, it's the guy on the left who's dead because, while he's completely exposed, the guy on the right, lies his rifle on the ridge and his eye in the sight to shoot downwards surpassing the obstacle that is hiding him and, actually, using it for cover. <-- This which is what happens in real combat can't happen in ArmA3 because you guys are saying so. If you, like me, were saying that ArmA3 must simulate real combat, the DEVs would build it.

Eesh. At the risk of unnecessarily prolonging this, I should say that crawling to a ridge as shallow as the one in your video example would definitely constitute you placing yourself in full view of the enemy. If you wish to attack from that position, I should back up & use a higher stance. I'm getting the feeling though that you don't wish to change your own behavior.

The man, in has been saying all along that a guy lying prone behind a ridge is at disadvantage vs a guy who's crouching when it's actually the opposite as the entire world knows by the real life pictures I am posting instead of your theoretical justifications to something the engine recreates the wrong way.

I should say that a guy who is skylining himself along a ridge is at the disadvantage...

An engine that aims to be a simulation must allow as many firing situations as possible. The body of the soldier must adapt to the cover to allow him to shoot from cover and not to be handicapped by it.

It does just that.

In the case of Dmarkwick the guy on the left is dead all the same because the guy on the right rests on the rock more or less like the 1st of the 2 pictures in my previous post, while he's completely exposed.

That illustration is not meant as a literal situation, only a simplification of why sometimes the enemy has a shot on you, but you do not on him at larger scales.

You, guys, find yourselves justifying a design choice that produces the opposite of what happens in real combat.

I'm going to suggest that, in this case, the engine is doing the correct thing, and it's you who is refusing to adapt to practicalities. And by that I don't mean gameplay practicalities, but RL practicalities.

This is an example of what the engine could do:

http://img10.picoodle.com/s5ap/gshock/mnpc_640_uczqg.jpg

I think we've seen something like that in ArmA3 haven't we?

Yes we have. And it's been explained several times to you how to do it.

[GShock 10]

I should say that a guy who is skylining himself along a ridge is at the disadvantage...

As long as you are prone you are not skylining because you're as one with the terrain.

Unfortunately in this game, there's not much else you can do because if you don't go crouch/standing, you'll shoot on your own cover. As soon as you do, you've relinquished your cover and you have skylined.

The game is doing the opposite that it should do... and you guys are all happy about it. :)

[progamer 14]

Isn't this just a problem of the first and first person view showing different things? The first person vie shows you can't shoot over the object but first person does? It seems you guys are thinking too much on it, it's just a bug that needs fixing.

This is the bug, we don't need some drastic change other than fixing this.

Edited October 25, 2013 by ProGamer

[lappihuan 178]

Can someone explain this guy how to use the stance adjustment in arma 3 and get him happy?

I think a Video Tutorial would be the best, since he ignored the two post about them and how to use them...

[Greenfist 1863]

There is no bug in here. It's just that your eyes do not shoot the bullets, the muzzle below them does. And because the bullets are lower than your eyes, they will hit objects that are below your line of sight.

Please help, I think I'm trapped by a troll.

[-Coulum- 35]

at 2:37. Watch it GShock.

You don't have to fully stand or crouch to look over the ridgeline/cover/grass whatever.

[mr burns 132]

Why not stop bugging the guy about using stances when all he wants is some realistic rifle handling behaviour, where e.g. youre on a ridge and would simply adjust your hold on the rifle to be able to shoot the bad guys w/o moving your whole body into their line of fire :E

[dmarkwick 261]

Can someone explain this guy how to use the stance adjustment in arma 3 and get him happy?

I think a Video Tutorial would be the best, since he ignored the two post about them and how to use them...

Not going to happen I think :) he's resolutely refusing to acknowledge that it can be done.

Edited October 25, 2013 by DMarkwick

[lappihuan 178]

Why not stop bugging the guy about using stances when all he wants is some realistic rifle handling behaviour, where e.g. youre on a ridge and would simply adjust your hold on the rifle to be able to shoot the bad guys w/o moving your whole body into their line of fire :E

As far as i understand him, he has no knowledge about the stances and complains about only be able to shoot from prone, crouch, stand.

E: and the way he is complaining isn't productive and usable. It only confuses ppl trying to help.

[mr burns 132]

As far as i´m concerned, knowing about stances, there´s still silly problems where your muzzle ends up blocked by terrain/objects.

Most of the time you cannot even notice it, just until you fire and dust kicks up in your face..

Then, when you know about it, the only ways to circumvent that is disengaging or snapping out of cover and getting shot more likely, which i both dislike.

Thinking about it, simple game routine checks for muzzle touching gemoetry would suffice, trigger a slight anmiation change that raises both hands a bit, problem gone.

[metalcraze 290]

What about clipping issues where you can clip a long weapon (like MG) inside a house through a pretty thick wall that would deflect bullets otherwise while being safe behind that wall. AI especially has no chances against this since the player is not in his view whereas a human player will at least try to spray a wall with a gun sticking through it.

I know that BIS is very lazy and all but it's been almost 2 years since they've started removing weapon collision and still haven't put auto-lowering in.

[dmarkwick 261]

As far as i´m concerned, knowing about stances, there´s still silly problems where your muzzle ends up blocked by terrain/objects.

Most of the time you cannot even notice it, just until you fire and dust kicks up in your face..

Then, when you know about it, the only ways to circumvent that is disengaging or snapping out of cover and getting shot more likely, which i both dislike.

Thinking about it, simple game routine checks for muzzle touching gemoetry would suffice, trigger a slight anmiation change that raises both hands a bit, problem gone.

There is: but you probably won't like it :) as the problem is one of 2D representation of 3D space compounded by a lack of immediate spacial awareness, it's the crosshair. It "sticks" to nearby obstructing objects, and when you move off it then snaps to the area further away that it is aiming at. Note *area* not precise location.

Edited October 25, 2013 by DMarkwick

[lappihuan 178]

As far as i´m concerned, knowing about stances, there´s still silly problems where your muzzle ends up blocked by terrain/objects.

Most of the time you cannot even notice it, just until you fire and dust kicks up in your face..

Then, when you know about it, the only ways to circumvent that is disengaging or snapping out of cover and getting shot more likely, which i both dislike.

Thinking about it, simple game routine checks for muzzle touching gemoetry would suffice, trigger a slight anmiation change that raises both hands a bit, problem gone.

Yep. As metalcraze mentioned, this involves collision with objects etc. and that is something BIS is not clear about what they will do with.

I think its not that easy, with this comes alot of movement issues and other stuff known in Arma 2.

As much as i dislike those things too, it is still a game and not a RL Sim. so with some limitations we need to life and consider if we add one feature, it might break lots of others.

[mr burns 132]

There is: but you probably won't like it :) as the problem is one of 2D representation of 3D space compounded by a lack of immediate spacial awareness, it's the crosshair. It "sticks" to nearby obstructing objects, and when you move off it then snaps to the area further away that it is aiming at. Note *area* not precise location.

Ewwww, crosshair no thx. Cheeseburger :)

As much as i dislike those things too, it is still a game and not a RL Sim. so with some limitations we need to life and consider if we add one feature, it might break lots of others.

Not really hoping for it either anymore, because, it´s not like they hadn´t had 12 years time for consideration...

[dmarkwick 261]

Ewwww, crosshair no thx. Cheeseburger :)

Then you'll have to rely on getting a "feel" for it :)

[mr burns 132]

Then you'll have to rely on getting a "feel" for it :)

No high hopes on that. I can adapt to ultraskill AI (sort of) by playing ultra careful, even bringing musclereflex shots to the table (sometimes those shots land around the face of my squaddies, because "shoot first ask later" also belongs to this new playstyle), but things like muzzle obstruction i´ll probably never learn, same as the frickin grenades bouncing off of trees "issue" :E

[Smurf 12]

Ewwww, crosshair no thx. Cheeseburger :)

Yep, also playing without Xhairs, sure it is way harder but also somewhat more fun. I could go with a crosshair that only pops up when your muzzle is blocked, or a symbol to indicate that.

But someone said that xhairs and no freeaim are better so it is default :j:

Yep. As metalcraze mentioned, this involves collision with objects etc. and that is something BIS is not clear about what they will do with.

I think its not that easy, with this comes alot of movement issues and other stuff known in Arma 2.

As much as i dislike those things too, it is still a game and not a RL Sim. so with some limitations we need to life and consider if we add one feature, it might break lots of others.

This is also a game. This and many others.

[Cathrynn 10]

Under controls-k/b-show-view, there's various key binds for moving the head and in particular, 'move head up' and 'move head down' with 'L-Ctrl+PageUp' and 'L-Ctrl+PageDown' set as the default binds; but 'L-Ctrl+PageUp' and 'L-Ctrl+PageDown' don't seem to do anything when pressed in game (a place holder maybe, but would they move the rifle and sight a little too on the Y-axis if they worked?). I also noticed that TrackIR has binds (+tY, -tY) for head movement on the vertical but nothing seems to happen when I assign them, so I presume these things just haven't been implemented yet because it would be amazing if, at some stage in the future, I could just lift or lower my head a little and have my rifle and sight follow on the vertical in 1st person, up at the aim, while prone: so it'd be like adjusting how the rifle is held as someone mentioned before.

[GShock 10]

As far as i´m concerned, knowing about stances, there´s still silly problems where your muzzle ends up blocked by terrain/objects.

Most of the time you cannot even notice it, just until you fire and dust kicks up in your face..

Then, when you know about it, the only ways to circumvent that is disengaging or snapping out of cover and getting shot more likely, which i both dislike.

eheheheeheh good.

The body must adapt to the obstacle you're using as cover and this requires an automated-adaptive system and not the sub-stances which is obviously not what I am talking about.

Even if you use the 100% right stance for the 100% right obstacle you're using as cover, the rifle is not a physical entity (Hellowwwwwwww --> Topic name!) hence it will clip into the obstacle and in a 2d monitor you can't tell the depth of a covering object where you would naturally lie your rifle upon (this means this system can allow stabilization of a rifle in absence of a bipod and the body adapting can allow bipod mounts on slopes and objects of the 3d world). You will be brought to think your LOF is clear when it isn't. Most of the times you can even see a target in the sights when you should obviously see the object (happens when you are very close to the object such as cases when you're using it for cover).

There's no visual cue you can use to prevent that from happening and, in case nobody noticed, the AI is not using any of those stances (it doesn't need to at present stage).

You will spend minutes to set up in a position where you are ambushing the enemy only to find you're shooting the ground. At that point, the Elite AI, not needing zoomed scope and regardless of its LOS limitations (which are only limiting YOU) will kill you.

Please note: when you put the eye in the scope you are looking at about 5cm above the muzzle and your LOS is almost equal to LOF in 99% of cases.

Geometry 101: there's one and one line only that connects 2 dots.

Ergo: if the guy can see and shoot me, so can I (provided the engine allows me to!).

That's what is wrong in the drawings and gaming pictures you posted. You are posting exactly what I'd like to have changed. :)

I'll say it again: the issue starts from the clipping, to go to the autostances (and dropdown of gun in close proximity to avoid clipping or Friendly fire in CQB), then go to AI logics (AI can't use cover to shoot and so it is uberbotted) and, finally, to the CQB issues.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Geometry 101: there's one and one line only that connects 2 dots.

Ergo: if the guy can see and shoot me, so can I (provided the engine allows me to!).

Newborn logic, I've covered my eyes, therefore mom can't see me.

Your eyes, your scope and your barrel are different entities in different positions and at best you can line up 2 of them.

1) If you want to argue for weapons lowering when the weapons collide, fine, I'll agree, but it will still result in you being killed because you couldn't fire back.

2) If you want to argue for weapons to be physical objects that collide, fine, I'll agree, but it will still result in your video being the same thing and 1) needs to be implemented as well because we'll get the same CQB movement horror that was in Arma 2.

3) If you want to argue for your stance to automatically adjust to some arbitrary things so that your muzzle and optic are always clear of any close object, you'll find it that it will get you killed more than when you control the stance adjust. Whoops, I'm near a wall and I automatically adjusted to the side, now I'm dead. Or you'll be unable to aim at certain things in your proximity when you want to.

[Greenfist 1863]

@GShock I get your point. Now.

But your video in the first post is a thing that should happen in the game because it happens in real life too. Just like in my pictures. It wouldn't help a bit if the gun didn't clip through objects because most of the times the object obstructing your line of fire is a meter or two in front of the gun, not inside it. Just like in your video.

Take a look at my image again. http://i.imgur.com/EPQ7pOK.jpg Clearly my eyes see the target but the muzzle doesn't. While target's muzzle does see me and can hit me. The difference between our lines of fire is distance from the obstacle. Geometry 101.

Weapon resting would be great but it will never happen in vanilla Arma 3. Even less probable will be automatic or stepless stance adjusting. You are calling this a joke, BS, and demanding BIS to change it but you really should just put that in your Arma 4 wish list. :(