Weapon Inertia & Sway Feedback (dev branch)

[Worthy85 10]

Ah that's a shame, though I suppose ARMA always has struggled a little with collision/clipping. Still all the more reason to better implement inertia and sway mechanics to simulate the difficulty of using such heavy weapons in CQC/FIBUA type situations.

[fareast 20]

the turning speed also needs to be slower with mg..right now its a joke as u can turn 360 with a mmg in a flash even while proning

[Gwynbleidd 28]

Im ok with inertia for rifles and smg's, but mg's could really use some more tweaking. As it is now - enemies being so bullet spongy, i'm always gonna take 7.62mm mg over any assault rifle, and be more effective, even when clearing the buildings.

[roshnak 41]

the turning speed also needs to be slower with mg..right now its a joke as u can turn 360 with a mmg in a flash even while proning

Probably not going to happen (fortunately).

[aliascartoons 182]

What i personally miss is the feeling of weapon's weight. They all feel pretty much the same. I think sway/inertia can be a way to suggest that.

[twisted 128]

Inertia - It's a shame that something that has been thought about, wanted, developed, put effort on, is left to be a meaningless feature just because of too low values.

Agree. There needs to be more variation appropriate to each weapons size and weight

Edited April 10, 2015 by twisted
fuck autocorrect

[CaptainObvious 95]

the turning speed also needs to be slower with mg..right now its a joke as u can turn 360 with a mmg in a flash even while proning

This is exactly what the devs don't want to do, and to be honest I'm happy that they don't.

Sure, it's silly to spin around wildly but I rather have that than a gun that feels laggy compared to what I do with my mouse.

[Brisse 78]

the turning speed also needs to be slower with mg..right now its a joke as u can turn 360 with a mmg in a flash even while proning

There are players which absolutely hate limits to turn speed (negative mouse acceleration). The inertia system was designed to replace the need for negative mouse acceleration.

[McGregor_CiA 19]

I think I said this before (or in a different thread), but they really need to lock the view to the center of the scope in the "3D scope" views. As a TrackIR user, it makes me want to look up to the left when the scope sways to the upper left of the screen, which then screws up my view/aim even more. It is far better with 2D scopes (and ironsights for that matter), where the reticule stays centered and your overall view just sways. I don't have a major problem with weapon sway/inertia as-is, but it just exacerbates this issue.

PLEASE considers this, devs.

Oh god THIS. A million times THIS! The 3D scopes are completely useless to me. I've had to resort to using TMR's 2D scopes but I would very much prefer to use the vanilla ones

[bullhorn 18]

I use Dslyecxi's TIR profile which has a generous deadzone - I'm not having these problems. I do however agree that it IS an issue and it IS very annoying. Nobody who uses a x6 scope would really want to look to the sides with that same cheatsydoodly x6 vision.

[McGregor_CiA 19]

I've tried with more deadzone but that just feels awkward too me. I prefer to be able to look around smoothly. The cheaty vision is an other factor, more so for PvP players I guess

[oggoeg 3]

Oh god THIS. A million times THIS! The 3D scopes are completely useless to me. I've had to resort to using TMR's 2D scopes but I would very much prefer to use the vanilla ones

Yep, all BIS 2D scopes should behave like TMR optics, they looks and feel so much better than flat inanimate scopes what we have now.

[fareast 20]

There are players which absolutely hate limits to turn speed (negative mouse acceleration). The inertia system was designed to replace the need for negative mouse acceleration.

yea but inertia doesnt apply on 2d scopes..i think heavy load soldiers should have their maximum running and sprint speed reduce

[das attorney 858]

Indeed. I usually don't bother switching to a close quarter weapon and stick with my machine gun since there is hardly a reason to. The concept is fine, but the differences are mushy at best, it needs to be MUCH more pronounced, otherwise I am really not sure why it was included.

Yes!

This is exactly what I see as well. CQB rifles and LMG's.

They should increase inertia for these unwieldy guns and also put weapon collision back in the game as per my rantings in this thread:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?190553-Marksmen-DLC-Concerns-regarding-suppressors&p=2915723&viewfull=1#post2915723

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?190553-Marksmen-DLC-Concerns-regarding-suppressors&p=2915737&viewfull=1#post2915737

Currently, there's zero penalty in using an LMG to clear rooms.

[St. Jimmy 272]

Well if you mean Arma 2's weapon collision it was pretty horrible in the extreme other end. Pistol and M107 had same collision and your back couldn't go near a wall.

[das attorney 858]

Well if you mean Arma 2's weapon collision it was pretty horrible in the extreme other end. Pistol and M107 had same collision and your back couldn't go near a wall.

Yes it was total crap but Norrins weapon-lowering mod made it work really well:

[roshnak 41]

Norrin's mod was super clunky and not good. It was a decent proof of concept at best. I'm sure an official implementation would be smoother, but I would still prefer something like

. Since neither is likely to happen any time soon, though, I would rather not have collision at all.

[enex 11]

Norrin's mod was super clunky and not good. It was a decent proof of concept at best. I'm sure an official implementation would be smoother, but I would still prefer something like

. Since neither is likely to happen any time soon, though, I would rather not have collision at all.

That is really nice way of solving that roshnak.Norrin mod however, (kuddos to him on coding ofcourse) takes that half second of delay before switch happens

which is bloody important in close combat scenario.

[roshnak 41]

Norrin mod however, (kuddos to him on coding ofcourse) takes that half second of delay before switch happens

which is bloody important in close combat scenario.

Yeah, the problem with Norrin's mod was that it was tied to the Arma 3 "lower/raise weapon" states, which were not designed to be something you toggle between frequently. It's a nice idea, but super impractical.

[das attorney 858]

All true, but the point was that the concept is good and if it was part of the engine (and maybe tied into how long/heavy/unwieldy the gun is), it would be another way of representing the impracticality of big guns in small spaces.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I agree, i'f i'm not mistaken, Insurgency does this really smoothly.

[roberthammer 582]

I agree, i'f i'm not mistaken, Insurgency does this really smoothly.

Almost every other game does it :p

[Variable 322]

Since we will probably not see weapon collision, AT LEAST increase inertia for heavy weapons. The mechanism is in place, just tweak the values to make it meaningful

[roberthammer 582]

Since we will probably not see weapon collision, AT LEAST increase inertia for heavy weapons. The mechanism is in place, just tweak the values to make it meaningful

Yup , almost everyone are using heavy weapons in CQB seen from the EndGame mode (SPMG/Navid & Cyrus/Mar-10) they all should have much higher weapon inertia

Edited April 11, 2015 by RobertHammer

[Variable 322]

Sigh... Another thing I wish ACE will fix