Jump to content
solzenicyn

Weapon Inertia & Sway Feedback (dev branch)

Recommended Posts

... WOW, this is how it should be ...

I really like this inertia based movement and think this make the game a lot more believable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I do holosights and aimpoints (for mods) I always place the sprite several hundred meters downrange, that takes away almost all the parallax, and ingame, the user experience it as no parallax. I sure hope the devs did the same on the vanilla sights, but I'm not sure. Just placing it at the end of the barrel is not good enough.

I stand corrected.

It looked like that when I encountered this problem: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?152866-General-Discussion-%28dev-branch%29&p=2757894&viewfull=1#post2757894

But it just seems the boundaries of the sprites are off?

Edited by NoPOW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This most be the least controversial new feature ever implemented. Look BIS, everybody is cheering, no one is complaining! Keep up the good work!

And its funny, because visually, the system isn't very realistic. Its just the effect that is realistic. Just like sway... But I guess it is to early to tell if people will have problems with it as Jona33 points out.

In fairness when they staged fatigue on devbranch the response was overwhelming positive, and look how that turned out.

----

I think this is the right place (thhough it doesn't have to do with ineria), but what about the unlimited hold breath. I believe it is very overpowered right now and not very balanced with reality. You can hold breath no matter what fatigue your are in, for a full 8 seconds, and after a second of increased sway, you can hold for another 8 seconds with the same level of steadiness - and you can repeat this for ever and ever. This needs to be limited more. Recovery time from holding breath should be based on how long you held for, and it should take longer for the steadiness to fully take effect. At least that's my thoughts. Right now there is no need to manage your breathing, its just hold right click as long you are shooting for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it just seems the boundaries of the sprites are off?

Yes, you are correct. Looks like the person doing that sight was lazy and just shaped the alpha tunnel (the invisible object that hides the sprite when not looking through glass) as a square instead of giving it the same shape as the glass on the sight.

Edit: Here's an example of how it should look. Note how the tunnel is round (same exact shape as the optic's glass)

29ps1e8.jpg

Edited by Brisse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, you are correct. Looks like the person doing that sight was lazy and just shaped the alpha tunnel (the invisible object that hides the sprite when not looking through glass) as a square instead of giving it the same shape as the glass on the sight.

Edit: Here's an example of how it should look. Note how the tunnel is round (same exact shape as the optic's glass)

So, it's not possible to change the distance of the reticule-sprite ingame? I know those holosights/aimpoints are primarily for <100m encounters, but it would be a nice feature.

PS. How big is the diameter of the reticule in your model?

PPS. Because this 'inertia'-effect changes the angle the camera has on the reticule-sprite (as in: not perpendicular), shouldn't there be some distortion of the reticule visible?

...and that's why these reticules are affected by rotational blur. :rolleyes:

Edited by NoPOW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weapon Handling must be more penalizing and this new feature without gun collision detection is not the same thing. Can get through doors sideways and continue to spray enemies with LMG or a DMR unthinkable within four walls, cleaning rooms.

I will await for more information about the empirical data, used in this feature.

Edit: Holo sights can be use with magnifier (3x) to longer distances (500 meters), sadly isn't available in Arma. Can be use with both eyes open, there is no parallax.

Edited by Five_Seven5-7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I was feeling this too. Weapon inertia for holo sights and iron sights on the whole is beautiful. When it comes to zoomed 3d sights and 2d sights not so much. You can tell it isn't function quite as inteneded. Would love to see scope shadowing to show you the weapon misaignemnt like what you show, or even better like this (1:50):

And I am not referring to the 3d sights in that vid, just to the shadowing. I guess it would be hard to implement with the current arma 3 "pseudo 3d sights" but that would be key to make this feature consistent across all the weapons and optics.

I agree, especially the large sniper rifles. LMG's maybe a bit as well. It would be cool it the same kind of slow alignment occured when bringing up the sights as well (it makes sense as well, because small er weapon are easier to snap up and onto target)

Prone should also have much slower alignment recovery, and higher sway penalty after sudden rotations, for all weapons imo.

agree. and the shadowing on the scope is a good way to bring the 'inertia' to 2d scopes.

i think inertia should be applied to weapons at all times not just when zoomed in to scope/sights. there's a real disconnect thats immediately apparent. agree with heaiver weapons needing more inertial weight and the now greater need to apply movement recovery penalties based on stance.

but such a good start BIS, pretty awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all fine and dandy, but can we get a fix for the 3d optics "swaying" completely off screen before this goes into effect?

edit: Having read the full oprep and done some testing, I have the following feedback/criticism:

In the oprep is the following statement:

Basically, though, the heavier and larger the weapon is, the more difficult it is to hold a steady aim, either while moving around, while being fatigued or if suffering through injury.

While I agree with this, I think there is a massive breakdown between this inertia simulation and the recoil simulation in game. This same standard is not evenly applied across different weapon handling simulations.

In game, all weapon recoil goes "up", which is already unrealistic. Due to multiple reasons - training, knowledge of firearms handling, muscle memory, etc - recoil in real life doesn't just go up and stay there. Whether in single-fire mode or in automatic-fire mode, trained, experienced shooters are able to, and capable of, handling recoil. When you fire a weapon, your weapon sights should end roughly where your aim started regardless of the amount of upwards recoil the weapon itself has, you automatically(muscle memory) pull the weapon back down. This is not simulated in ArmA 3. When you fire a weapon in A3, your weapon recoils up and simply stays there.

Now above, you state that heavier/larger weapons have different handling characteristics, which is absolutely true. A heavier weapon firing the same round(in this instance we'll use the 6.5mm from in-game) should have -less- upwards recoil than it's lighter counterpart. Let's take the MX Rifle vs the MK200 LMG in game. They both fire the same round. The MK200 is heavier by a large factor, yet the Mk200 has -more- upwards recoil than the MX rifle, which weighs less.

An easy real life comparison would be a soldier firing an M4a1 on full-auto vs an M249 SAW on full auto. Both soldiers will be able to control their upwards recoil, but the SAW gunner has to apply almost no effort to doing so because the weight of the weapon itself almost completely eliminates upwards recoil.

My whole point here is that you are talking about how different weapons handle differently and trying to apply a realistic approach to weapon movement while in-game, but not applying the same approach to other parts weapons simulation(recoil). I feel that these things aren't being evenly considered or applied across the board.

Additionally, it seems as though you're adding this mechanic in that is going to make weapons handling harder(yes more realistic, but harder) overall, but without first adding in the one thing that almost completely negates these inertia changes and recoil handling, which is weapon resting/bracing on various surfaces and bipods.

Edited by MacScottie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a part of these inertia changes I really hope you reduce turn speed of the characters, especially when prone.

I'm pretty sure that is pretty much the opposite of the goal of these changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Additionally, it seems as though you're adding this mechanic in that is going to make weapons handling harder(yes more realistic, but harder) overall, but without first adding in the one thing that almost completely negates these inertia changes and recoil handling, which is weapon resting/bracing on various surfaces and bipods.

Please clarify how you see weapon resting and bipods as being relevant to the situations where inertia typically becomes a factor. It's clear that you want to see those features, but I don't understand the logic you're using to try to cite the inertia changes as some justification for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please clarify how you see weapon resting and bipods as being relevant to the situations where inertia typically becomes a factor. It's clear that you want to see those features, but I don't understand the logic you're using to try to cite the inertia changes as some justification for them.

You left out the part where he also said recoil which does. Don't see the direct link between just inertia and bi pods myself. Maybe he means in general why are all these features being added for realism. But then leaving out the bi pods and weapon resting that goes hand in hand when dealing with such factors, till the end.

most servers I play on use Vts weapon resting for now. So can't complain too much. looking forward to the bi pods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You left out the part where he also said recoil which does.

I didn't leave it out - I understand how recoil is an influence, so there's nothing to ask about there. What I don't understand is what inertia has to do with weapon resting/bracing or bipods, which is what I asked about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thrilled to see continued development towards weapon mechanics and other realism factors. That being said, I am still very disappointed that simple features, like the use of bipods, have still not been implemented. Fine tune the game as it stands and then begin to delve further into game's characteristics. This game has been out for almost one year and these simple features are still not present. Again, this is a wonderful game with what seems to be a good team behind it, but I believe the man hour have been directed inappropriately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please clarify how you see weapon resting and bipods as being relevant to the situations where inertia typically becomes a factor. It's clear that you want to see those features, but I don't understand the logic you're using to try to cite the inertia changes as some justification for them.

This is how I understand his point, and thus the justification for weapon resting and bipods: The logic is that adding inertia is yet one more feature added that is exacerbating an existing problem. The problem of which he speaks is making weapon handling even harder without adding the one or two features that realistically allows a soldier to compensate for the increased difficulty.

Edited by Agent()()9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
edit. Ok, when you're tired the lenght matters a lot more. :)

And, is it just my imagination or does the weight of your loadout also affect the misalignment? Because that would be awesome!

Probably not directly, but rather through affecting fatigue level; as you said, "when you're tired the lenght matters a lot more."
Ah, now I get it, I always thought the gun is lifted a little, no wonder ADS doesn't show in 3rd person then.

Yes, back on topic.

I believe that Dslyecxi brought it up in one of his videos early in alpha -- from a third-person perspective the player's weapon was always shouldered/raised when stationary/walking/in combat pace irrespective of whether or not the player was ADS, whereas even some COD games have a "low ready -> ADS" animation in third-person view.
Agreed. I like what I see, but what I expected was also that turning with a machinegun would be slower than with an SMG. This, I think, is important to balance CQB especially in urban terrain.
The sandbox designer (speaking for the devs) disagreed: "We feel that these effects are much closer to what you encounter while handling weapons in reality than, for example, a weapon lagging behind the cursor or a slow down of the overall cursor motion." The idea seems to be to promote "[c]ontrolled turning and fluent aiming without sudden, quick shifts".
I'm pretty sure that is pretty much the opposite of the goal of these changes.
Someone gets it...

For an official, from-the-devs perspective on deciding in favor of the "inertia as sight misalignment/sway distortion" method, read the OPREP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it! I feel the handling more natural then without inertia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, it's not possible to change the distance of the reticule-sprite ingame? I know those holosights/aimpoints are primarily for <100m encounters, but it would be a nice feature.

No it's not possible, and it should not be possible. IRL those sights are 100% parallax free (at least the high quality ones) so there is no need for any adjustment.

PS. How big is the diameter of the reticule in your model?

It's pretty big, and it has to be, so that it is the correct size from the perspective of the shooter. I fine tuned the size by trail and error so that the reticle is ballisticly correct when using the 5.45×39mm 7N6 ammunition which I also created. It's all included in the Swedish Forces Pack if you want to try it out ingame.

PPS. Because this 'inertia'-effect changes the angle the camera has on the reticule-sprite (as in: not perpendicular), shouldn't there be some distortion of the reticule visible?

Not really, becouse the reticle is only visible at a shallow angle. If the angle becomes to steep then the reticle disappears like this:

...and that's why these reticules are affected by rotational blur.[/b] :rolleyes:

I hate that, so I turn rotational blur off.

Edited by Brisse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played around with this a bit on the dev branch. Have to say that it's actually pretty neat and should help solve the issue of people whipping around with an lmg or long rifle.

It'd be nice if the sway was somehow visually represented when you are not in the optics view - 1st and 3rd person, so you could tell if a friendly/enemy is actually focused on a target or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whelp! I think BIS may have accidentally made sight radius a big deal while turning, so props to that.

After playing around with it some more (although I haven't tried the pistols yet) I'm starting to get a pretty good feel for it. My only real feedback would be to have the smaller weapons have a slightly smaller effect and the sniper rifles a bigger effect. I won't say anything on the Negev of the KAC LMGs because they seem to be pretty light from what I can tell, though I haven't held either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(although I haven't tried the pistols yet)

The effect on pistols is barely noticeable.

I won't say anything on the Negev of the KAC LMGs because they seem to be pretty light from what I can tell, though I haven't held either.

I would not call them light. The Negev, at 7,4kg is more than twice as heavy as an Ak-74 at 3kg.

Then add a loaded magazine in the Negev which adds 2,55kg which makes it almost 10kg when combat ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Zafir is much heavier than KAC LMG (M200) - empty NG7 is 7.6kg also this negev is 7.62x51mm and ingame zafir has 150 in the ammo bag so fully loaded it must be min 10kg

/edit: ninja'd :p

Edited by RobertHammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I see. I should have used "relatively" instead of "pretty". I mean, the average FN GPMG is like 12-ish kg. Even the MK48 is 8-ish kg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×