New Weaponsway is way to much. And holding breath bug?

[metralla 19]

At least that's the direction I would take. Looking forward to seeing what happens next. And it sounds like Inertia is something that may change the dynamics of sway even more. Can't wait to see it.

I'm also excited to see this change in the next update and see what impact it will have on the game the introduction of inertia.

[gibonez 18]

The sway is perfectly fine IMO.

All it needs now is weapon resting and its perfect.

[GShock 10]

Ah well... how many months after the release?

I've been trying the Combined Arms mission at Regular difficulty in the DEV branch and 5 clips are not enough to complete half of it since you can't kill a guy with a full clip at times.

At least the good news: it's not me.

[faire 10]

GShock - 3-5 shots usually work for me... The setting of CA mission is a bit crazy - attacking well defended position while being outnumbered :).

[GShock 10]

GShock - 3-5 shots usually work for me... The setting of CA mission is a bit crazy - attacking well defended position while being outnumbered :).

You're not really outnumbered if you can keep your APC alive. The problem is that you can barely see the AI at all at 100m+ in the bushes while they shoot pretty good... then you shoot and hit you can see their bodies moving awkward but they don't just die that easy. A few devbranch updates ago bullets were more efficient now it seems I'm firing a peashooter again. Considering there's no zoomed sight, I thought it was the weaponsway but it isn't... I can really see I hit them and they don't die. It's the dmg model, again.

[HKFlash 9]

You're not really outnumbered if you can keep your APC alive. The problem is that you can barely see the AI at all at 100m+ in the bushes while they shoot pretty good... then you shoot and hit you can see their bodies moving awkward but they don't just die that easy. A few devbranch updates ago bullets were more efficient now it seems I'm firing a peashooter again. Considering there's no zoomed sight, I thought it was the weaponsway but it isn't... I can really see I hit them and they don't die. It's the dmg model, again.

I agree. While CSAT uses an all body armor protection it should not be as powerful as the regular NATO carrier rig. CSAT is more mobility at the expense of protection.

[Echo38 1]

The sway is perfectly fine IMO.

There's roughly five times more weapon sway in Arma 3 than I have in real life shooting. ~5mm deviation measured from end of barrel, compared with ~1mm deviation. I'm afraid a 500% error isn't fine. For a more dramatic example of a 500% error, imagine an automobile that's able to go 120 MPH in reality, being able to go 600 MPH in the game. Quite a big error, isn't it? : )

[-Coulum- 35]

And its ten times easier to hold a mouse steady than it is to hold a real weapon steady. I guess things kind of balance themselves out and then some.

[Echo38 1]

I guess things kind of balance themselves out and then some.

My hand is literally hurting from trying to get my rifle to be steady in Arma 3. It doesn't while holding a real life weapon steady (and that's steadier than I can get in Arma 3, I might add). It isn't even half as difficult in real life to keep a rifle steady. So, that isn't what I'd call balancing itself out. The game is, as I said earlier, wrong. It isn't "fine," and it isn't "balancing itself out."

[vegeta897 13]

There's roughly five times more weapon sway in Arma 3 than I have in real life shooting. ~5mm deviation measured from end of barrel, compared with ~1mm deviation. I'm afraid a 500% error isn't fine. For a more dramatic example of a 500% error, imagine an automobile that's able to go 120 MPH in reality, being able to go 600 MPH in the game. Quite a big error, isn't it? : )

You're focusing on how many millimeters the barrel moves instead of how easy it is to hit targets at 1km compared to real life (probably 5x easier). When it comes to realism, I'd rather have that be realistic, with an unrealistic barrel sway amount that contributes toward it.

Even when it's harder to steady your weapon in the game than real life, it's still way easier to hit targets at insane ranges. If you want it even easier to steady your weapon, it gets even more silly.

Arma is never going to recreate the real life conditions and skills required to shoot a weapon, so focusing on a single aspect of that (the weapon's sway) and calling it unrealistic isn't going to get us anywhere. What should matter most is the end result.

[Echo38 1]

I don't shoot at 1 km. I generally can't even see targets at that range, because I use iron sights only. What I'm concerned about is short & medium range shooting -- out to 300 yards. That's where my real-life shooting experience is, and that's where I see Arma 3 falling ridiculously on its face in the simulation category, currently by being far more difficult to keep the weapon steady than in reality. And, no, "use a scope" isn't a solution.

[-Coulum- 35]

My hand is literally hurting from trying to get my rifle to be steady in Arma 3. It doesn't while holding a real life weapon steady (and that's steadier than I can get in Arma 3, I might add). It isn't even half as difficult in real life to keep a rifle steady. So, that isn't what I'd call balancing itself out. The game is, as I said earlier, wrong. It isn't "fine," and it isn't "balancing itself out."

your hand is hurting? Really? Maybe you are doing something wrong. Anyone else's hand hurting because they have to move a 5 ounce mouse?

I don't mean to come across as rude, but maybe you just need a bit more practice to get accustomed to the weapon sway. Because logically you shouldn't have more trouble controlling the mouse while sitting in the comfort of your home than an 8lb rifle while standing up with full gear on.

Bascially sway is a neccesary evil to present realistic limitations to ones shooting abilities in game. Is it a 1:1 representation of how your weapon moves in your hands in reality? No. But it does produce more realistic shooting results than if it were not their or toned down. As far as I know it is the best way to achieve this. If you have any better ideas I am all ears.

Arma is never going to recreate the real life conditions and skills required to shoot a weapon, so focusing on a single aspect of that (the weapon's sway) and calling it unrealistic isn't going to get us anywhere. What should matter most is the end result.

That's where I'm coming from.

[Echo38 1]

I have thousands of hours in the Arma series, all on Elite difficulty. It isn't a question of practice. As for my hand hurting, I'm suffering from complications from a hand surgery (not that it's your business). It isn't that I have to move a 5 oz. mouse; it's that I have to fight a 5 oz. mouse. (Unrealistically.)

The fact remains: holding a weapon steady in real life does not hurt my hand, while trying to hold the same weapon steady in Arma 3 hurts my hand (and I still can't get it as steady as I can in real life). That's enough proof for me that the game is horribly wrong here. As for realistic shooting results: with the current version of Arma 3, hitting targets is harder than it is for me in reality -- and I'm not even a trained soldier IRL. : /

logically you shouldn't have more trouble controlling the mouse while sitting in the comfort of your home than an 8lb rifle while standing up with full gear on.

That's exactly my point. When it's easier to keep a 10 lb. rifle steady in real life than it is in the game, then the game's badly in need of correction. Do I need to make a video, showing how steady I can hold a firearm in reality, and put it side by side with a video of how steady I can hold a firearm in Arma 3? I would, if I had the equipment to record it.

The correct solution, I think, to the "too easy" versus "too hard" problem is to simulate it as accurately as possible. That would mean removing the unrealistic drunken sway and adding a realistic tremble. One wouldn't be able to significantly counter the tremble -- just like reality, it'd always be there and it'd always keep your aim from being 100% precise while not resting the weapon, but it would be fairly slight. Enough to make shooting progressively difficult at longer ranges (again, like real life), but not exaggerated beyond realism to the point where one is forced to unrealistically wrestle the mouse with far greater difficulty than the real deal in order to get a fraction of the steadiness of the real deal.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Echo38

[roshnak 41]

I don't shoot at 1 km. I generally can't even see targets at that range, because I use iron sights only. What I'm concerned about is short & medium range shooting -- out to 300 yards. That's where my real-life shooting experience is, and that's where I see Arma 3 falling ridiculously on its face in the simulation category, currently by being far more difficult to keep the weapon steady than in reality. And, no, "use a scope" isn't a solution.

Obviously using a scope isn't going to be a solution because that will just amplify the effect of weapon sway. On the other hand, I don't really understand how you're having significant trouble hitting targets at 300 meters (I'm assuming you mean meters, since that's what the game measures distance in). There have been multiple videos of people accurately engaging targets at that distance and beyond with ease.

As for my hand hurting, I'm suffering from complications from a hand surgery (not that it's your business).

Well, it's not fair to even bring this up, then. It doesn't hurt other people to use the system because they don't have a hand injury. You can't really blame the game mechanics for aggravating an injury that will presumably get better at some point.

The correct solution, I think, to the "too easy" versus "too hard" problem is to simulate it as accurately as possible. That would mean removing the unrealistic drunken sway and adding a realistic tremble. One wouldn't be able to significantly counter the tremble -- just like reality, it'd always be there and it'd always keep your aim from being 100% precise while not resting the weapon, but it would be fairly slight. Enough to make shooting progressively difficult at longer ranges (again, like real life), but not exaggerated beyond realism to the point where one is forced to unrealistically wrestle the mouse with far greater difficulty than the real deal in order to get a fraction of the steadiness of the real deal.

This comes down to a difference in game design philosophy. Some people want the sway to be exaggerated, but counterable in order to stand in for the skill involved in accurately aiming and shooting a rifle. It's just a different way of looking at the game. I don't want it to be impossible to be precise while shooting the gun. I want it to possible to be very precise if I practice, in a different, but analogous way to practicing with a real rifle.

Another thing to note is that 300 meters is on the far end of a typically expected firefight, and it's quite far for a standing, off-hand shot in combat. Accurately engaging targets beyond 300 meters is the realm of specially trained designated marksmen and snipers. The system you are describing doesn't sound like it would create that kind of gaming situation. It sounds like people would still be able to take accurate potshots with carbines out to 500m.

Edited July 24, 2014 by roshnak

[Echo38 1]

You can't really blame the game mechanics for aggravating an injury that will presumably get better at some point.

Since holding a real-life firearm steady doesn't hurt my hand, I can blame the game mechanics. If Arma 3 were doing a good job of simulating the difficulty of holding a firearm steady, then it wouldn't hurt my hand any more than the real deal. (And, no, this is a long-term problem, not an acute injury that's going to get better -- again, not that it's your business.)

---------- Post added at 17:21 ---------- Previous post was at 17:17 ----------

The arcade-simulation difficulty slider for accurately shooting a rifle at 100m with iron sights, while crouching with left elbow on knee:

---------------Halo-------Battlefield & CoD------------------------------------------------------------------------real life--------------------------------Arma

Arcade <-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Simulation

It ought to look more like this:

---------------Halo-------Battlefield & CoD-----------------------------------------------------------------Arma & real life

Arcade <-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Simulation

: )

Edited July 24, 2014 by Echo38

[Smurf 12]

It has been a while since I last played Arma 3 (RL, no PC) so simple questions about all these changes: (disconsider the AI, don't thing they're adapted to it yet, right?)

Firefights are longer?

Firefights are more fun?

Now imagine how they would be with weapon resting, same answers?

[roshnak 41]

Since holding a real-life firearm doesn't hurt my hand, I can blame the game mechanics. If Arma 3 were doing a good job of simulating the difficulty of holding a firearm steady, then it wouldn't hurt my hand any more than the real deal. (And, no, this is a long-term problem, not an acute injury that's going to get better. Again, not that it's your business.)

It's our business as long as you continue to complain about its effects on game mechanics on a public forum. I don't even know why you would be sensitive about this. You're not the only person in the world to have a hand injury, and unless you broke your hand masturbating or something, it's nothing to be embarassed about.

You can't compare holding a rifle to using a mouse. The fact that running around in real life doesn't make my wrists hurt doesn't give me license to complain that using the keyboard to run in Arma aggravates my carpal tunnel.

[Echo38 1]

It's our business as long as you continue to complain about its effects on game mechanics on a public forum. I don't even know why you would be sensitive about this. You're not the only person in the world to have a hand injury, and unless you broke your hand masturbating or something, it's nothing to be embarassed about.

I'm "sensitive" about it because every time I'm forced by poor game mechanics to point out on an Internet forum that said mechanics are making it impossible for me to play the game due to hand pain (not that this happens often, as most games & sims don't have a drunken aiming simulation), I get snarky remarks like yours. I'm not embarrassed about my hand injury; I'm sick of dealing with people who don't know what it's like to have a permanent pain crippling all of their hobbies, and I don't much care for { having to give you ammunition with which to mock me } in order to point out the difference between the faulty simulation and reality.

I had minimal hand pain from playing Arma, until the last patch made { holding the weapon steady } super-unrealistic and excessively taxing on the hand-mouse workload budget. A proper simulation of aiming wouldn't be hurting my hand. This shoddy one does, and as a result, it's looking like I'm going to have to quit playing Arma indefinitely. Naturally, I'm not happy about this, as I've played the series thoroughly since 2001. Do you get it now?

Edited July 24, 2014 by Echo38

[roshnak 41]

I'm "sensitive" about it because every time I'm forced by poor game mechanics to point out on an Internet forum that said mechanics are making it impossible for me to play the game due to hand pain (not that this happens often, as most games & sims don't have drunken aiming simulation), I get snarky remarks like yours. I'm not embarrassed about my hand injury; I'm sick of dealing with people who don't know what it's like to have a permanent pain crippling all of their hobbies, and I don't much care for { having to give you ammunition with which to mock me } in order to point out the difference between the faulty simulation and reality.

I had minimal hand pain from playing Arma, until the last patch made { holding the weapon steady } super-unrealistic and excessively taxing on the hand-mouse workload budget. Now it's looking like I'm going to have to quit playing Arma altogether. (At which point they'll no longer be getting money from me and all of my friends whom I drag into the series.) Mmkay?

I'm not mocking you, man. I know plenty of people with hand and wrist injuries (unsurprisingly, it's not uncommon in the gaming world). My sister isn't supposed to lift anything that weighs more than 5 lbs because of a pinched nerve in her elbow.

It sucks that your injury is causing you pain while playing the game, but don't try to argue that it's not realistic because it hurts you to use the mouse and it doesn't hurt you to hold a gun, because that's a fallacy. If you want to argue that the new sway mechanics make it difficult for some players with injuries to adapt, then that's a discussion we can have, and it will go totally differently than if you try to argue that holding a mouse should have the same physical impact as holding a gun.

[Echo38 1]

than if you try to argue that holding a mouse should have the same physical impact as holding a gun.

I don't want unrealistically-easy aiming any more than I want unrealistically-difficult aiming. A proper simulation of aiming, on the P.C., will -- by necessity of differences in hardware (mouse vs. gun) -- be different from reality, but as close as possible. Such a simulation, I have concluded, does not need to have a greater workload on the hand than the real activity it attempts to simulate. The current one does have a much greater workload on the hand than does the real activity, and this is my primary objection.

I hear your point about carpal vs. running, but this is different; aiming is done with the hand, both in reality and in games. For that reason, the differences between aiming in reality and aiming in a proper simulation will not be large as they must be with a mouse & keyboard simulation-attempt of running (which is done with the legs in reality but the hand in games).

Edited July 24, 2014 by Echo38

[CaptainObvious 95]

Firefights are longer?

Firefights are more fun?

Now imagine how they would be with weapon resting, same answers?

Three words, yes.

[jotte 0]

Some "hardcore" folks in here do the very common misstake of mixing up hard with realistic. Its the same in all simulation communitys.

[dsiOne 10]

Three words, yes.

Yep, weapon resting is a trade off. More accuracy, more obvious positioning.

[roshnak 41]

Some "hardcore" folks in here do the very common misstake of mixing up hard with realistic. Its the same in all simulation communitys.

Conversely, maybe they are making a distinction between mechanics which seem realistic or unrealistic on the surface and whether or not those mechanics provide realistic results and gameplay.

[mamasan8 11]

Trying to aim at anything while getting max 20 fps makes aiming difficult as it is. Couple that with Armas aiming mechanism, it's already hard imho.

Mouse smoothing feels like inertia and actually detracts me from using it because I have to up the sensitivity on my mouse, which is low to begin with because of how sensitive aiming is. It's a losing battle for me.