Weapon Inertia & Sway Feedback (dev branch)

[luciferHate 10]

As someone with 35+ years of shooting experience in real life, I have an issue with the weapon sway as it is. It is not realistic primarily the amount of sway when shooting from the prone or sitting positions. It has made the game much worse for sniping with the unrealistic settings. When you are prone there should be almost no sway at all even with a zoomed in scope. The sway we have now is unrealistic and in my opinion broken which adding new features onto a broken foundation makes it worse. I think the weapon sway values need to be looked at and reassessed.

[ratszo 17]

As someone with 35+ years of shooting experience in real life, I have an issue with the weapon sway as it is. It is not realistic primarily the amount of sway when shooting from the prone or sitting positions. It has made the game much worse for sniping with the unrealistic settings. When you are prone there should be almost no sway at all even with a zoomed in scope. The sway we have now is unrealistic and in my opinion broken which adding new features onto a broken foundation makes it worse. I think the weapon sway values need to be looked at and reassessed.

Sniping is too hard ..., and the world is a better place for it.

[Kemeros 1]

Speak for yourself. Sniping being too hard makes the game a lot easier for infantry so i get why you want to be selfish and say that but personally i miss my sniper vs sniper battles.

[Brisse 78]

Sniping is actually way to easy in the vanilla game, even with the exagerated sway. Try Ruthberg's Advanced Ballistics mod too see what I mean :)

[ratszo 17]

Speak for yourself. Sniping being too hard makes the game a lot easier for infantry so i get why you want to be selfish and say that but personally i miss my sniper vs sniper battles.

Fully rested, you have 6 seconds rock steady on the down breath cycle --Six seconds is a long time to make a shot.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

That's what I've always wondered, was why the heck is there any sway when prone? When prone, you don't even need a bipod or anything to have perfectly still aim.

[13islucky 10]

That's what I've always wondered, was why the heck is there any sway when prone? When prone, you don't even need a bipod or anything to have perfectly still aim.

Because for some reason your virtual persona doesn't have his arms touching the ground, sort of like a martial artist trying to prove a point.

[ratszo 17]

That's what I've always wondered, was why the heck is there any sway when prone? When prone, you don't even need a bipod or anything to have perfectly still aim.

Unless the rifle is bench-locked onto a vice, there's always movement on the breath cycle. Higher the X-mag, the more obvious.

"perfectly still aim" --ain't no such thing.

[chortles 263]

Does the movement change more specifically (instead of a general "less!") when prone though?

[Tonci87 163]

Because for some reason your virtual persona doesn't have his arms touching the ground, sort of like a martial artist trying to prove a point.

Hardcore planking.

[twisted 128]

Unless the rifle is bench-locked onto a vice, there's always movement on the breath cycle. Higher the X-mag, the more obvious.

"perfectly still aim" --ain't no such thing.

exactly this. still got to breath, still got to haverifle butt snuggled nicely in shoulder. which conveys any motion of yours to the weapon. even your hands have sway unless you prop the weapon up on a support.

[ratszo 17]

Does the movement change more specifically (instead of a general "less!") when prone though?

Don't think so.

Moreover, the 'high prone' 3-point stance seems the same as crouch, for awhile now.

High prone ought to be much more stable.

[makhno 166]

BIS, I don't understant why you add in this SIMULATION physical prenomenons that don't exist on this planet.

The new weapon sway when turning ( even slightly left or right) is uterly ridiculous..

It has no sense at all to have sights misaligned when turning.

In the real world, when my very imperfect body is holding any kind of rifle, when it's stock is resting in my armpit, my cheekbone is resting on the stock and both my arms are (very lightly, i'm no rambo) holding the rifle, well, if move even very fast left to right, there is absolutely no sights misalignment. Not at all whatever i do. That's because my arms and my head are both very tightly attached to my torso, and don't move semi-independently from each other like tree branches in the wind.

[Brisse 78]

They actually explained why, in an SITREP or something like that long ago. They even admitted that it is not the same thing that happens in real world, but the are some phenomenons in the real world that cannot be simulated ingame, so something artificial have to be used instead. The weapon inertia system is mainly to make heavy weapons more difficult to use in CQB, which is an important thing as they were overpowered before, and I think they accomplished it in a good way. Now, with the new system, you have a good reason to bring a sub machine gun instead of a light/medium machine gun into a CQB scenario.

Edit: I want to commend the devs for bringing innovation to the PC-gaming market. This system of weapon sway and inertia is an innovation. It's something new.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Brisse

[Kemeros 1]

Making them hard to use in CQB is a good thing and logical.

I clearly haven't played long range in a while because it's not as bad as i remember it was when they introduced it. The weapon sway was so bad i couldn't hit anything even with a scope. Now you hold your breath wait a second to stabilize(when prone) and then you have accuracy. Very good. It's not as easy for sure but it's usable and will set apart people with skills. Probably a good thing. :)

Should have tried again before opening my mouth.

I have to say, that Virtual Arsenal is awesome. Got to try so many things so freaking quickly. All FPS should have one of those. ^^

[roshnak 41]

They actually explained why, in an SITREP or something like that long ago. They even admitted that it is not the same thing that happens in real world, but the are some phenomenons in the real world that cannot be simulated ingame, so something artificial have to be used instead. The weapon inertia system is mainly to make heavy weapons more difficult to use in CQB, which is an important thing as they were overpowered before, and I think they accomplished it in a good way. Now, with the new system, you have a good reason to bring a sub machine gun instead of a light/medium machine gun into a CQB scenario.

Edit: I want to commend the devs for bringing innovation to the PC-gaming market. This system of weapon sway and inertia is an innovation. It's something new.

Although I wish they had accomplished it with actual animations that pivot from the shoulder instead of with a camera trick.

I clearly haven't played long range in a while because it's not as bad as i remember it was when they introduced it. The weapon sway was so bad i couldn't hit anything even with a scope. Now you hold your breath wait a second to stabilize(when prone) and then you have accuracy. Very good. It's not as easy for sure but it's usable and will set apart people with skills. Probably a good thing. :)

Should have tried again before opening my mouth.

I thought it was pretty easy even when the sway was first introduced.

[St. Jimmy 272]

If someone has a problem with weapon sway then he's not using hold breath. When holding breath you only need to compensate against horizontal movement. 2km shots are very easy. (This isn't really pointed to any of the previous posts).

With weapon inertia it really now matters if you go in with your pistol/SMG or with some heavier weapon. Vermin is a good weapon inside building and in fast CQB.

[machineabuse 11]

The real issue here is the artificial implementation of the system grossly misrepresents some aspects of how real weapons are employed. Look at open class 3 gun rifles built for speed and rapid target transition and you will notice that they are mostly long rifle length AR-15s. Again, some of the most agile guns you can shoot are heavy skeet shotguns.

"Difficult" and "real" are not directly related mathematically in simulation. If something is authentic in difficulty it should be "difficult" in analogy to how accomplishing the real task is difficult and the way the difficulty is overcome should likewise be analogous to how (in this case) one trains, practices and improves in reality.

In reality; if you've trained to track moving targets the front and rear sights stay in alignment. The Weapon Inertia system offers no affordance in this regard. When proned out and properly settled on a rifle with maximal ground contact, a rifle's sway on the target is largely vertical with no horizontal movement. The sway system movement makes no consideration in that regard.

A3 also still has the weird behavior where as long as you keep the mouse moving, sway doesn't kick in. It only kicks in AFTER the mouse stops moving. Which is a behavior both bizarre and also makes the easiest exploit to hit something is to keep spamming in semi while sweeping your sights over the target in small motions.

As I mentioned previously, I'm not saying that the way these systems are implemented can't work. I am however saying that the way they function at current leaves a lot to be desired in terms of authenticity. ;)

Edited October 19, 2014 by Machineabuse
Added a smiley in the spirit the post was written. Peace all! c:

[roshnak 41]

In reality; if you've trained to track moving targets the front and rear sights stay in alignment. The Weapon Inertia system offers no affordance in this regard.

Do you have a suggestion for what you would consider to be a better system of approximating the differences in maneuverability between large and small weapons that doesn't involve hard caps on turn rates?

[blackpixxel 53]

Do you have a suggestion for what you would consider to be a better system of approximating the differences in maneuverability between large and small weapons that doesn't involve hard caps on turn rates?

The current inertia system just creates a camera offset depending on the rotation speed. This makes it impossible to hit moving targets with ironsights. But I am 100% sure that a trained soldier is able to do exactly that. So how could BI fix that?

Simply make the camera offset effect based on the rotation acceleration, not the speed. That means, when you accelerate there will be a camera shift effect, when you change the rotation speed, and when you stop to turn. But as long as you rotate with the same speed, the sights will be aligned again.

This punishes you for using a heavy weapon and doing quick CQB movements, but at the same time it will allow you to hit moving targets after the short inertia effect after accelerating the rotation.

This should make inertia much better.

[roshnak 41]

The current inertia system just creates a camera offset depending on the rotation speed. This makes it impossible to hit moving targets with ironsights. But I am 100% sure that a trained soldier is able to do exactly that. So how could BI fix that?

Simply make the camera offset effect based on the rotation acceleration, not the speed. That means, when you accelerate there will be a camera shift effect, when you change the rotation speed, and when you stop to turn. But as long as you rotate with the same speed, the sights will be aligned again.

This punishes you for using a heavy weapon and doing quick CQB movements, but at the same time it will allow you to hit moving targets after the short inertia effect after accelerating the rotation.

This should make inertia much better.

That sounds good.

For the record, I'm not saying that I can't think of alternative systems -- in fact, I can think of several. I'm just trying to get people to stop saying "This is totally wrong" and not offering any alternative solutions.

[andersson 285]

The current inertia system just creates a camera offset depending on the rotation speed. This makes it impossible to hit moving targets with ironsights. But I am 100% sure that a trained soldier is able to do exactly that. So how could BI fix that?

Simply make the camera offset effect based on the rotation acceleration, not the speed. That means, when you accelerate there will be a camera shift effect, when you change the rotation speed, and when you stop to turn. But as long as you rotate with the same speed, the sights will be aligned again.

This punishes you for using a heavy weapon and doing quick CQB movements, but at the same time it will allow you to hit moving targets after the short inertia effect after accelerating the rotation.

This should make inertia much better.

Excellent idea.

[chortles 263]

Simply make the camera offset effect based on the rotation acceleration, not the speed.

So still a camera trick, just with a different method?

[roshnak 41]

So still a camera trick, just with a different method?

Yeah. What he's asking for would be for quick acceleration to cause a misalignment of the sights that settle back into position probably relatively quickly if the movement speed leveled out. It would mean that jerky movements would cause sight misalignment, but you would still be able to smoothly track a moving target even at fairly high speeds as long as you accelerated smoothly enough. It seems like a decent enough idea, in theory. Although I don't have a problem with the system as it is now, since I don't think this is a game that really requires tracking quickly moving targets.

But it would definitely be better if we could get away from camera tricks altogether and use actual animations, in my opinion.

[chortles 263]

Ehhh, I get you re: animations, but keep in mind that this game is designed by a team for whom "hard caps on turn rates" are so verboten that machineabuse accused BI of "character assassinating" the idea. :p