crosshair, third person and zoom needs to be rookie difficulty

[blackpixxel 53]

I dont think that you really need the crosshairs to see whether your barrel is free or not, just look at your weapon. After some time you will know when you cans shoot and when you have to adjust your stance - even when you are aiming.

I mean - it worked in Arma 2, why are people suddenly complaining about it?

[Bouben 3]

I dont think that you really need the crosshairs to see whether your barrel is free or not, just look at your weapon. After some time you will know when you cans shoot and when you have to adjust your stance - even when you are aiming.

I mean - it worked in Arma 2, why are people suddenly complaining about it?

Can you try your technique with aiming deadzone enabled and post your results here? Thank you.

[blackpixxel 53]

Is it so hard to estimate if something could be in front of your weapon? And if you think so, a simple symbol that says "barrel blocked" would be a better solution than crosshairs that tell you where your bullets will hit.

[Bouben 3]

Is it so hard to estimate if something could be in front of your weapon? And if you think so, a simple symbol that says "barrel blocked" would be a better solution than crosshairs that tell you where your bullets will hit.

I believe it would be completely unintuitive, unnatural and impossible to correctly estimate your weapon position with aiming deadzone as you would have no reference point at all (no crosshair while having skewed perspective, no natural depth of field, no muscle feeling etc.). It is also very hard and unintuitive to estimate with aiming deadzone disabled because it is very difficult to estimate delicate distances in virtual environments.

I also don't talk only about estimating if your barrel is being blocked but also about general directions of your weapon while using aiming deadzone. Of course it would be playable, but it would be much less intuitive and less natural then controlling your weapon in real life. In real life, you would have more clues to your aim than in a game without a crosshair and that is something I would consider being wrong.

More rough crosshair shape (bigger centre for less precision) would be much better solution than an obstructive, immersion killing "barrel blocked" text and unintuitive, unnatural controls of your weapon.

I believe crosshairs are necessary evil. In Arma, though, they could use less precision. That would be then perfect, in my opinion.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Bouben

[roshnak 41]

I dont think that you really need the crosshairs to see whether your barrel is free or not, just look at your weapon. After some time you will know when you cans shoot and when you have to adjust your stance - even when you are aiming.

I mean - it worked in Arma 2, why are people suddenly complaining about it?

Yeah, I'm not sure why people are getting hung up on this whole "barrel blocked" thing. I'm pretty sure it was only mentioned once in passing. While the crosshairs do give an indication of whether your barrel is blocked by an object that's not their primary purpose. Crosshairs are for aiming. I don't think anyone is disputing that. The crosshairs in Arma 3 are designed to give a fairly accurate indication of where your bullets will impact at close ranges. They are wider than in most other shooters so that their usefulness becomes degraded at range.

Like Bouben said, perhaps they could be expanded further so that they are even less accurate. Although, my experience has been that they aren't super useful for shooting at 100-300 meters, anyway.

[Greenfist 1863]

Like Bouben said, perhaps they could be expanded further so that they are even less accurate. Although, my experience has been that they aren't super useful for shooting at 100-300 meters, anyway.

Crosshair is unnecessarily accurate currently. But if they were made less precise, there would have to be more gun sway when the weapon is raised, because the bullet always goes where the barrel is pointing. And that might look a bit silly.

While shooting with sights up at longer distances is always more efficient than from the hip, I still shouldn't be able to hipfire targets at 200m as easily as now.

[vegeta897 13]

Crosshair is unnecessarily accurate currently. But if they were made less precise, there would have to be more gun sway when the weapon is raised, because the bullet always goes where the barrel is pointing. And that might look a bit silly.

The crosshair doesn't represent exactly where the barrel is pointing. It is where the barrel would be if it was totally stabilized, which it almost never is. That is why irons are useful, because then you actually see where the barrel is truly pointing. That's why the crosshair doesn't jitter or sway, it's a theoretical indicator.

[Bouben 3]

The crosshair doesn't represent exactly where the barrel is pointing. It is where the barrel would be if it was totally stabilized, which it almost never is. That is why irons are useful, because then you actually see where the barrel is truly pointing. That's why the crosshair doesn't jitter or sway, it's a theoretical indicator.

Good point.

[roshnak 41]

Crosshair is unnecessarily accurate currently. But if they were made less precise, there would have to be more gun sway when the weapon is raised, because the bullet always goes where the barrel is pointing. And that might look a bit silly.

While shooting with sights up at longer distances is always more efficient than from the hip, I still shouldn't be able to hipfire targets at 200m as easily as now.

To clarify, I'm not saying the there should be a wider cone of fire or guns should be less accurate, I'm just saying that perhaps the area inside the crosshair could be larger, so it less accurately represented where your bullets were going to impact.

Also, here are two screenshots of the crosshairs over a target at 200m. The first is zoomed out, and the second is zoomed in. They really don't seem that accurate at 200m to me.

Click for 1920x1080

[Greenfist 1863]

The crosshair doesn't represent exactly where the barrel is pointing. It is where the barrel would be if it was totally stabilized, which it almost never is. That is why irons are useful, because then you actually see where the barrel is truly pointing. That's why the crosshair doesn't jitter or sway, it's a theoretical indicator.

It's almost exactly where the barrel is pointing:

Bullet will hit too close to the center of the crosshair to be realistic for my taste. It's stabilized enough when kneeling and healthy. Edited June 28, 2014 by Greenfist

[vegeta897 13]

It's almost exactly where the barrel is pointing:

Bullet will hit too close to the center of the crosshair to be realistic for my taste. It's stabilized enough when kneeling and healthy.

Yes I know, if your firing from a relatively stable position with no fatigue, of course the bullet is going to land pretty much right where the crosshair is. I was just clarifying how the crosshair worked just so everyone's on the same page.

[defk0n_NL 2]

Can you try your technique with aiming deadzone enabled and post your results here? Thank you.

Aiming deadzone is broken and has nothing to do with the no crosshairs. Go download and install the mod i made (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?163285-A3-FreeAim-Fix) which fixes aiming deadzone to feel like red orchestra 2 and insurgency.

I can stand in the middle of kavala and shoot in every window near perfectly.

Edited June 29, 2014 by defk0n_NL

[roshnak 41]

Aiming deadzone is broken and has nothing to do with the no crosshairs. Go download and install the mod i made (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?163285-A3-FreeAim-Fix) which fixes aiming deadzone to feel like red orchestra 2 and insurgency.

I can stand in the middle of kavala and shoot in every window near perfectly.

Does it lock the point of aim to the center of the screen? Because what Bouben is referring to is that it's more difficult to tell where your gun is pointing when it isn't locked to the center of the screen.

The guy he's referring to is saying that you can estimate where your rounds will impact by looking at where the barrel of the gun is pointing. It's more difficult to do that with the aiming deadzone turned on.

[[frl]myke 14]

All examples and tests done i've read now are set up in the Editor with no enemies at all. So you have all the time of the world to do what you want to do. Please repeat all those tests in combat situations, i am really curious if the results remain the same.

[Greenfist 1863]

Myke;2719154']All examples and tests done i've read now are set up in the Editor with no enemies at all. So you have all the time of the world to do what you want to do. Please repeat all those tests in combat situations' date=' i am really curious if the results remain the same.[/quote']

I don't think anyone claimed that crosshair is too accurate in combat situations. It's never a good idea to even to try shooting someone at more than 50m away in combat. ADS is still way more efficient. I for one just pointed out that it's unrealistically accurate, not because I thought it was a problem.

[defk0n_NL 2]

Myke;2719154']All examples and tests done i've read now are set up in the Editor with no enemies at all. So you have all the time of the world to do what you want to do. Please repeat all those tests in combat situations' date=' i am really curious if the results remain the same.[/quote']

so far what ive experience in pvp it hasnt showed me adverse effects. ofc its not going to be as accurate as a crosshair but thats kinda the point. dont even try using it against AI. they are not rational at all.

[roshnak 41]

I don't think anyone claimed that crosshair is too accurate in combat situations. It's never a good idea to even to try shooting someone at more than 50m away in combat. ADS is still way more efficient. I for one just pointed out that it's unrealistically accurate, not because I thought it was a problem.

I kind of think people must be claiming the crosshair is too accurate in combat situations. If it isn't, then what are people upset about? It being too easy to shoot pop up targets? The whole point of the crosshair is to be relatively accurate in close quarters combat. Its effect outside of combat is largely irrelevant.

[Greenfist 1863]

I kind of think people must be claiming the crosshair is too accurate in combat situations. If it isn't, then what are people upset about? It being too easy to shoot pop up targets? The whole point of the crosshair is to be relatively accurate in close quarters combat. Its effect outside of combat is largely irrelevant.

I was replying to the post I quoted regarding accuracy in longer distance combat, in which I just feel the crosshair is too accurate. But don't think it's a problem since it's so useless compared to sights.

[bad benson 1733]

I kind of think people must be claiming the crosshair is too accurate in combat situations.

yes. because combat happens inbetween 1 and let's say 1000 meters. that's why i don't understand why people keep talking about longrange combat and crosshairs. they are obviously a help for shorter ranges and cqb.

that is though because they are made much less effective for long range than in arma 2. you could literally snipe people with them in arma 2 since they represented ironsights themselves. so you could play it like a 3rd person shooter. for weapons like the enfield (:inlove:) it was even the better choice to use the crosshairs (if the server allows :P) especially when prone since you had like a 2 pixel aim instead of a much bigger 3d ironsight.

the problem that last shown video reveals is that you still can do some nice aiming beyond the ranges it should be effective in, just by aligning the the vertical lines though. something that would never be possible in let's say battlefield. this is due to arma not "simulating" hip fire, by alterting accuracy based on, if you use ironsights, like several popular shooters do.

so like someone said. the crosshairs are an almost perfect representation of where the bullet goes in arma, still. which is not only bad from a difficulty perspective but also simply a gameplay one.

having a difference between sights or no sights would be much cooler than just some setting renaming in my opinion. it would feel like really taking aim instead of just switching to a camera with a better "dot" to aim with.

insurgency for example does such a nice job "simulating" weapons. it's basically like the deadzone in arma but much better executed and of course some other aspects. crosshairs would feel out of place in that game. but i guess too many people like/need crosshairs in arma. i get that.

[roshnak 41]

The video test isn't 100% accurate because he's using the bullet tracing script, so you can see where your rounds are going and adjust easier than would otherwise be possible.

As for the crosshairs being able to line up the vertical lines, how would you feel about a different shaped crosshair? A circle or maybe the corners of a box? That would make it harder to line stuff up at distance.

I made some examples. They're not great.

Aiming at targets 200m away from the zoomed perspective:

Click for 1920x1080 again.

It's not the best representation, since they're just mockups and already perfectly lined up.

[13islucky 10]

I like the circle one, honestly it seems sensible enough to work and not so precise to the point that you could point shoot past too far.

[Greenfist 1863]

Right now the crosshair represents the "dispersion" exactly. It shouldn't. Bullets should just spread out more, beyond the crosshair lines.

Did anyone notice the crosshair accuracy in prone position in the latest dev branch update? It's really accurate. You can snipe people at 500m with ease. It's currently much better option than any non/low-magnified scope or iron sights. Crosshair get less accurate if you move it a lot, while the sights doesn't, but there's not much such twitch shooting going on that it would make actual sights better.

I hope it changes in the future.

[roshnak 41]

I would say that ideally the crosshair would never shrink at all. I like that it expands when you zoom in so that it still covers the same area that it did when you were zoomed out, but I don't think the crosshair should really be dynamic beyond that.

[13islucky 10]

Right now the crosshair represents the "dispersion" exactly. It shouldn't. Bullets should just spread out more, beyond the crosshair lines.

Did anyone notice the crosshair accuracy in prone position in the latest dev branch update? It's really accurate. You can snipe people at 500m with ease. It's currently much better option than any non/low-magnified scope or iron sights. Crosshair get less accurate if you move it a lot, while the sights doesn't, but there's not much such twitch shooting going on that it would make actual sights better.

I hope it changes in the future.

Dispersion? If I recall correctly at one point the crosshairs represented sway. I thought that that wasn't a bad idea, but now I'm not sure if that ever existed or not.

I'm really confused now.

[Greenfist 1863]

Dispersion? If I recall correctly at one point the crosshairs represented sway. I thought that that wasn't a bad idea, but now I'm not sure if that ever existed or not.

I'm really confused now.

Sorry, I meant "dispersion" as in what area the bullets go when the gun is swaying. Not the actual technical bullet dispersion.