Weapon Inertia & Sway Feedback (dev branch)

[Ristar 10]

Unless you are using 2D scopes, this is exactly what happens in Arma 3.

heh. i know that u, and some others have absolutely no problems with the crazy swaying, while claiming the game to be "realistic", which funnily enough, people say that the game's realistic except when u scope your rifle (and many other things, i would add).

but people like i do.

swaying as if u overdose on the medication for parkinsons is just wrong.

[faire 10]

Alsanjuro: it has been pointed out numerous times: 2 possibilities are being discussed

1 - no weapon sway or inertia: more realistic behavior of weapon, less realistic fire-fights (people are too accurate - fire-fights are being fought over unrealistic distances with unrealistic results)

2 - weapon sway / inertia: less realistic behavior of wapon, more realistic fire-fights

You have to choose one of those and it is really a matter of preference. I (and many others) prefer realistic fire-fights because it allows for use of realistic tactics. For others (like you) the weapon behavior breaks the immersion more than unrealistic fire-fights.

[alsanjuro 20]

Alsanjuro: it has been pointed out numerous times: 2 possibilities are being discussed

1 - no weapon sway or inertia: more realistic behavior of weapon, less realistic fire-fights (people are too accurate - fire-fights are being fought over unrealistic distances with unrealistic results)

2 - weapon sway / inertia: less realistic behavior of wapon, more realistic fire-fights

You have to choose one of those and it is really a matter of preference. I (and many others) prefer realistic fire-fights because it allows for use of realistic tactics. For others (like you) the weapon behavior breaks the immersion more than unrealistic fire-fights.

I never said to remove the sway and inertia, what i have been asking for this to be toned down because at the moment its over exaggerated. So at the moment for me its they are not very realistic firefights when i have to wait around 2-3 seconds for my weapon from stopping to bounce.

When i try to counter the inertia it creates more of the so called inertia effect. 90% of the time i play against AI and they dont seem to have a problem head shoting me without any sway and when i play against people hardly anyone moves and waits for other people to come to them the other thing is more of them are now carrying more ammo and bigger guns cause they need to put down more rounds since their weapon is moving left to right on slightest of movements.

When i take a few steps it makes it very hard to shoot even a target at 10 meters cause my weapon decides to give me the bouncing effect. I just feel like my character is floating on water and trying to shoot. I do get that they wanna make different weapons give us a different feeling of handling and yet it look like they have no weight since you can bring up the sights of a sub machine guns up as fast as you can a LMG as much as i know they LMGs have a lot more weight.

I feel like some other games have gotten the weapon mechanic a bit better have a look at Insurgency game every weapon feels different especially when you handle a assault rifles then you pick up a lmg and you feel like have something heavy and you cant maneuver as fast which is more real.

People that i play with we do not engage targets from huge distances and engage enemy with in 400m mark.

There is a reason why i use a mod at the moment and it doesnt take away sway and inertia but lowers it, but i do not wanna use a mod for something that is the core of the game.

[Defunkt 431]

There is a reason why i use a mod at the moment and it doesnt take away sway and inertia but lowers it, but i do not wanna use a mod for something that is the core of the game.

And people who consider realistic engagement distances and durations at the core of the game (as well as desiring skill-based shooting) don't want to have to run a mod either. Somebody's going to have to run a mod to have the game match their perception of reality.

[mjolnir66 48]

I never said to remove the sway and inertia, what i have been asking for this to be toned down because at the moment its over exaggerated. So at the moment for me its they are not very realistic firefights when i have to wait around 2-3 seconds for my weapon from stopping to bounce.

When it comes to combat shooting (ie, going from movement to stop to shoot), I'm far quicker than most of my comrades, and still the time from stop to firing is usually a good 2 to 3 seconds unless the target with within maybe 15m. It takes a good second or so just to get in the proper position. And I'm assuming you're not using hold breath, cause in my experience that ends up stopping the movement to an insanely ludicrous amount.

[Defunkt 431]

And I'm assuming you're not using hold breath, cause in my experience that ends up stopping the movement to an insanely ludicrous amount.

That too. I simply cannot credit the degree of difficulty controlling sway some posters describe when it's clearly shown in the preceding videos that even when thoroughly fatigued the control breathing function all but nullifies sway completely.

[KnutRudikle 10]

I believe weapon sway and inertia are realistic and necessary, but it is being implemented with one glaring flaw. I urge anyone who reads this post to grab your nearest rifle, airsoft gun, pellet gun, or even a broom. Shoulder the weapon/toy/cleaning device, then press your cheek hard against the stock. No matter how hard you breathe, or how much you move, as long as your cheek is welded to the stock, your optic will stay centered with very little movement. Your weapon will sway and your sight picture will move all over, but the optic stays centered! Now, in game the optic seems to magically wobble all over the place even when aiming down sights. This makes me feel drunk and uncomfortable. I suggest that you maintain the inertia and the amount of sway, but keep the optic in the center of the screen, moving only slightly.

[Defunkt 431]

I suggest that you maintain the inertia and the amount of sway, but keep the optic in the center of the screen, moving only slightly.

I'm inclined to agree that whole screen sway would be better, certainly for longarms (and the identical implementation would work for 2D scopes) but probably a bit inferior for handguns.

[andersson 285]

I believe weapon sway and inertia are realistic and necessary, but it is being implemented with one glaring flaw. I urge anyone who reads this post to grab your nearest rifle, airsoft gun, pellet gun, or even a broom. Shoulder the weapon/toy/cleaning device, then press your cheek hard against the stock. No matter how hard you breathe, or how much you move, as long as your cheek is welded to the stock, your optic will stay centered with very little movement. Your weapon will sway and your sight picture will move all over, but the optic stays centered! Now, in game the optic seems to magically wobble all over the place even when aiming down sights. This makes me feel drunk and uncomfortable. I suggest that you maintain the inertia and the amount of sway, but keep the optic in the center of the screen, moving only slightly.

This is my issue with this. And as it looks like my avatar is hitting himself in the face with the stock all "authenticity" goes out of the window for me.

I don't mind sway nor fatigue, I like it, but please make it feel/look authentic.

edit: I have to add that I like the system. Room for a few tweaks really, as always :P

Edited November 25, 2014 by andersson

[Defunkt 431]

Well you'd have to suppose that whole screen sway is a fairly simple camera trick and code exists for it already. The ideal system would combine both things (breathing/whole-screen and limb/weapon-model) in varying quantities depending on weapon class and weight. A handgun (i.e. not subject to 'cheek weld') might exhibit most sway in the weapon-model (current implementation) but be less effected by breathing. A rifle (with stock locked to the player's shoulder) wouldn't have nearly so much sway in the weapon-model but would be comparatively more effected by breathing (whole-screen sway). Weapon weight combined with fatigue being a factor in both things to varying degrees.

[enex 11]

They explained:

we decided to avoid blindly adhering to the specific mechanics of physical simulation (pursuit of 'realism', which mouse/keyboard peripherals can never truly provide.)

Smaller guns, such as SMGs and carbines, naturally suffer relatively less sway

Conversely, bulkier firearms, like longer-range rifles and machine guns, are distorted and misaligned by a greater degree and for longer periods of time.

meaningful differences between various weapons and promote the appreciable benefits of smaller and subtle weapons over those large and bulky ones

---

My opinion is that if you aren't fatigued rifles should be rock steady, even machine guns - when you aren't moving.

[KnutRudikle 10]

The ideal system would combine both things

I agree, and my post was aimed at rifles. Pistols are already very good; only the rifles need the cheek-weld phenomenon taken into account. I also understand BI are gameplay oriented, but I think this is one of the things that, regardless of realism, just feels better and lends to smoother gameplay.

[machineabuse 11]

we decided to avoid blindly adhering to the specific mechanics of physical simulation (pursuit of 'realism', which mouse/keyboard peripherals can never truly provide.)

For people who don't quite understand; no matter how many times this line from the OPREP is brought up; it will never justify the execution of the simulation beyond critique.

[roshnak 41]

For people who don't quite understand; no matter how many times this line from the OPREP is brought up; it will never justify the execution of the simulation beyond critique.

No, but it remains a valid response to anyone whose sole complaint is something like, "I don't like the weapon sway because it's unrealistic and my gun doesn't sway this much in real life. Anyone who likes this has never shot a gun before in their lives."

It's not irrelevant to point out to those who are new to this discussion that BIS is aware that the system isn't completely realistic and that it serves specific gameplay purposes.

People aren't saying that the system is beyond critique. Almost every time actual constructive criticism is brought up, a civil discussion follows in which both sides tend to find common ground. It happened multiple times over the last 20 posts or so.

Edited November 26, 2014 by roshnak

[Variable 322]

Roshnak, enough with this "it serve gameplay purposes" agenda. If a feature is not at least somewhat realistic it shouldn't be used for gameplay purposes because then it feels cheap, ridiculous and murders immersion. Really, if BIS added pink stains on your screens just as a penalty when looking at the sun if they couldn't implement sun glare effects you would have been fine with it too because "it serves a gameplay purpose"?

[faire 10]

Variable: but for a lot of people it does not feel cheap, or ridiculous, or murdering immersion. Then your argument doesn't really hold water.

I liked what people did on last two pages: trying to find constructive ways to improvethe current state.

[twisted 128]

Variable: but for a lot of people it does not feel cheap, or ridiculous, or murdering immersion. Then your argument doesn't really hold water.

I liked what people did on last two pages: trying to find constructive ways to improvethe current state.

exactly right. Sway adds to the game in quite a few very good ways. I also agree that the implimentation could be improved. No need for finger pointing and no need for the same people to keep stating their points. Point of views probably have been noted by almost everyone (including Im pretty sure BIS who keep an eye on many threads here).

[machineabuse 11]

No, but it remains a valid response to anyone whose sole complaint is something like, "I don't like the weapon sway because it's unrealistic and my gun doesn't sway this much in real life. Anyone who likes this has never shot a gun before in their lives."

It is also frequently used in this discussion as justification to dismiss the discussion of realism despite many users frequently stating that the OPREP has been read and understood. Also, for many who have actually had trigger time (and because I know it will come up as a semantic argument that opinions are split on this, hence the word "many" and not "all") the weapon sway seems like a poor facsimile for what occurs in reality.

The degree of how the discontent is expressed may vary depending on the level of frustration experienced. To dismiss it just because it sounds hyperbolic is tone policing at its lowest.

[enex 11]

Machineabuse how would you create difference between machinegun/sniper rifle and standard rifle/bulpup rifle?

If we forget for a second sway we are on page one where snipers and machinegunners excels at clearing

indoors areas.

There is a reason why in fireteams MG is the last person in stack while clearing in Urban areas as you know.

[roshnak 41]

Roshnak, enough with this "it serve gameplay purposes" agenda. If a feature is not at least somewhat realistic it shouldn't be used for gameplay purposes because then it feels cheap, ridiculous and murders immersion. Really, if BIS added pink stains on your screens just as a penalty when looking at the sun if they couldn't implement sun glare effects you would have been fine with it too because "it serves a gameplay purpose"?

How do you define "somewhat realistic?" There are many features in Arma that are at least as unrealistic as weapon sway and inertia in different ways.

Weapon sway being exaggerated does not mean that it is not somewhat realistic. Could it use tweaking? Maybe. Is there perhaps another system that might be more palatable for you that would accomplish the same goals? Possibly. Does weapon sway have a basis in reality? It absolutely does. People experience weapon sway in real life. It might not be exactly like they do in Arma 3, but it is there.

It is also frequently used in this discussion as justification to dismiss the discussion of realism despite many users frequently stating that the OPREP has been read and understood. Also, for many who have actually had trigger time (and because I know it will come up as a semantic argument that opinions are split on this, hence the word "many" and not "all") the weapon sway seems like a poor facsimile for what occurs in reality.

The degree of how the discontent is expressed may vary depending on the level of frustration experienced. To dismiss it just because it sounds hyperbolic is tone policing at its lowest.

Who is dismissing people's discontent? It's fine to be frustrated with the system, but at some point people have to actually start being reasonable or there can be no discussion. All you do in this thread is defend people's right to make false statements and hyperbole. How is your post about other people's posting any better than anyone else's post about other people's posting?

Edit: Of course this is all irrelevant, since enex wasn't dismissing anyone's arguments, and, in fact, included a criticism of his own in his post.

Edited November 26, 2014 by roshnak

[machineabuse 11]

Who is dismissing people's discontent? It's fine to be frustrated with the system, but at some point people have to actually start being reasonable or there can be no discussion. All you do in this thread is defend people's right to make false statements and hyperbole. How is your post about other people's posting any better than anyone else's post about other people's posting?

Since when is it roshnak's sole right to judge what is reasonable? What I have been doing is respecting people's experiences as they come. On the other hand you've been the primary apologist of a system that requires none, continually derailing any discussion for change before any alternative ideas can come to fruition because you can't tolerate entertaining the *slightest bit* of hyperbole.

Come on man, if you are going to call people out on being unreasonable you have to be reasonable too.

[roshnak 41]

Since when is it roshnak's sole right to judge what is reasonable?

I was referring to comments that, by your own admission, are hyperbolic (i.e. not reasonable or accurate).

On the other hand you've been the primary apologist of a system that requires none, continually derailing any discussion for change before any alternative ideas can come to fruition because you can't tolerate entertaining the *slightest bit* of hyperbole.

This is not true, and you know it. I have repeatedly engaged in discussions about changing the system and almost always ask people the people who are raging about the system how they would like to see it changed, as well as making my own suggestions for changes, in this thread and the threads that preceded it. I brought up the possibility of tweaking or replacing the sway and inertia systems in the very post that you quoted.

There was a perfectly interesting and constructive discussion going on before you decided to (again) complain about people's posting. Why don't you stop critiquing other people's posting and actually talk about weapon sway and inertia? I believe that enex asked for your input on the previous page, and I would be interested to hear your thoughts on those topics as well.

Edited November 27, 2014 by roshnak

[machineabuse 11]

I was referring to comments that, by your own admission, are hyperbolic (i.e. not reasonable or accurate).

The definition of hyperbolic is a rhetorical method of exaggeration of expression. Just because the statement is emphatic it doesn't invalidate its content nor does it need constant restraining. If you must transliterate the statements for your own use by all means but don't think you need to do it for anyone else.

other words

For the sake of keeping on topic you are right solely in the part we should stay to the thread intent. If you'd prefer we can PM. I don't mean to pick a fight nor do I mean you disrespect but it's genuinely frustrating that you don't seem to get what I'm trying to tell you.

I did miss enex's post though, thanks.

Machineabuse how would you create difference between machinegun/sniper rifle and standard rifle/bulpup rifle?

There is nothing terribly wrong with the scaling of values between weapons of various configurations and formats in ArmA 3. The issue I have is the execution of the simulation. I think that sight misalignment should function on acceleration and not velocity like how it currently does. If you turned at a steady rate you should be able to maintain your sight picture (in reality, until it becomes necessary to reposition your feet.). Sight misalignment is fine if you are constantly changing the direction of aim but not if you are smoothly moving from target to target.

As far as sway goes the aspect of the simulation I think isn't great is that it meanders around the target. Again, what I think it should feel like is more of a twitching motion around a point of aim. Your brain fires signals to your muscles when you hold a contraction at intervals (rate coding). As you make conscious corrections to the muscles, say in your arms to hold a position your arms will bounce around as they twitch.

The best way to illustrate this is to pick up a pen and hold it tip up at arms length and with your dominant eye align this with another object around you. As you can see, the behavior you will observe is the that the pen twitches in all directions around that point. This same twitch is what a shooter sees when they acquire natural point of aim in an unsupported position. ArmA 2's "sway" behavior actually was a pretty reasonable facsimile of this.

The heavier, more unwieldy the weapon and the more tired you are naturally should exacerbate the twitch motion. From an inertia standpoint sudden acceleration and deceleration of the weapon as you turn should also exacerbate the twitch momentarily, with the physical characteristics driving the effect.

I also think that the bore should always gravitate back to a single "natural point of aim" that the player is trying to shoot at. I don't know whether it still holds true, but used to be that if you left ArmA 2/3 on and walked away you eventually find your player avatar aiming some random direction.

If we forget for a second sway we are on page one where snipers and machinegunners excels at clearing

indoors areas.

There is a reason why in fireteams MG is the last person in stack while clearing in Urban areas as you know.

I don't see why you couldn't simulate the unweildlyness of machineguns and other heavy small arms with my suggested system (or another).

Also, supported firing positions should be a thing. Keeping a rifle up unsupported for long periods of time is tiring. This will also be where weapons like the Tavor will come into their own as the ergonomics were purpose built for overwatching positions with the weapon up.

Conversely, if you kept a weapon like the Negev shouldered you ought to find yourself losing the ability to stay on target in relatively short order.

[roshnak 41]

There is nothing terribly wrong with the scaling of values between weapons of various configurations and formats in ArmA 3. The issue I have is the execution of the simulation. I think that sight misalignment should function on acceleration and not velocity like how it currently does. If you turned at a steady rate you should be able to maintain your sight picture (in reality, until it becomes necessary to reposition your feet.). Sight misalignment is fine if you are constantly changing the direction of aim but not if you are smoothly moving from target to target.

I agree.

As far as sway goes the aspect of the simulation I think isn't great is that it meanders around the target. Again, what I think it should feel like is more of a twitching motion around a point of aim. Your brain fires signals to your muscles when you hold a contraction at intervals (rate coding). As you make conscious corrections to the muscles, say in your arms to hold a position your arms will bounce around as they twitch.

The best way to illustrate this is to pick up a pen and hold it tip up at arms length and with your dominant eye align this with another object around you. As you can see, the behavior you will observe is the that the pen twitches in all directions around that point. This same twitch is what a shooter sees when they acquire natural point of aim in an unsupported position. ArmA 2's "sway" behavior actually was a pretty reasonable facsimile of this.

Is this a suggestion for the sway pattern, or the amount of sway, or both? Do you just think that they should revert the changes to weapon sway altogether and go back to the old method?

I also think that the bore should always gravitate back to a single "natural point of aim" that the player is trying to shoot at. I don't know whether it still holds true, but used to be that if you left ArmA 2/3 on and walked away you eventually find your player avatar aiming some random direction.

These two things seem contradictory to me. It seems like you are saying two conflicting things are good here. Or are you saying that the old way was flawed because the there was no natural point of aim?

Either way, there is a natural point of aim in the Arma 3 system in that the sway follows a distinct pattern, so you could argue that the bore will always return to every point within that pattern at some point in its cycle. Is it possible that the sway pattern is just too long/complicated, and it would be better if it was shortened so that the weapon returned to a given point quicker?

I'm also pretty certain that your aim point would not wander away like you're describing in the old system (I could be wrong on this, I don't have Arma 2 installed so I haven't had the opportunity to test it).

I may have really misread this section and, if so, I apologize.

Edited November 27, 2014 by roshnak

[St. Jimmy 272]

In my opinion logically weapon sway should go like this:

When still the weapon sway should be mainly vertical (up and down) following your breath. The more fatigued the more frequent the sway is and holding breath should really slow it down.

Changing stances should increase the vertical sway bit. Beign prone there shouldn't be much horizontal sway (left & right) and standing up there should be some.

In Arma 3 it goes like this:

When still the weapon sway is mainly vertical following your breath. This part is right because the more fatigued the more frequent the vertical sway is. But then comes the holding breath... It stops the vertical sway no matter how fatigued or what stance you're and only leaves the horizontal sway to play with.

Holding breath isn't working logically and the sway looks very artificial because of the horizontal sway. Changing that the hold breath only changes the frequency of the vertical sway and doesn't make the aim move more horizontally.

About the weapon inertia. I think it's over extragged for basic rifles. MX and other basic rifles shouldn't have that much inertia. Pistol and SMG inertia could be 0 IMO and basic rifles should be much lower but bit higher than SMGs. Inertia is OK penalty for MGs and 50 cals but it's too much for rifles.