Jump to content
solzenicyn

Weapon Inertia & Sway Feedback (dev branch)

Recommended Posts

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

With the weapon resting, there's a constant need to check if there is something in front of you, so implementing lowering the weapon when you're close to a more than chest-high wall should be a no-brainer. Tracking the state of the weapon that you set yourself (you might lower the weapon deliberately while close to a wall) also shouldn't be a problem.

A scripted solution for this already exists, as Das Attorney already showed, so engine side implementation should be really easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Currently, there's zero penalty in using an LMG to clear rooms.

Indeed. As seen in this video, the size of the weapon doesn't matter, and that is not how it should be. The difference in inertia is so small that SMG vs. Machine Gun doesn't matter, but it isn't only the weight it is also the size of the weapon that should have impact, otherwise, again, as I pointed out numerous times before, why have a "compact" version of any assault rifle (like the MXC), it does NOT make any difference.

I was happy to hear about the inertia, but the implementation is so mushy that it basically is non-existent.

BIS, *please* change that. Make the choice of weapon actually count.

Edited by Alwarren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well before the inertia was like if you added anything over 0.1-0.2 it felt pretty big. Now maybe 1.0 isn't even enough? Or should they just increase inertia of those big guns more? I'm not sure how much there's room for tweaking without making changes again in the base. Can someone show how much 0.7-1.0 inertia is currently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well before the inertia was like if you added anything over 0.1-0.2 it felt pretty big. Now maybe 1.0 isn't even enough? Or should they just increase inertia of those big guns more? I'm not sure how much there's room for tweaking without making changes again in the base. Can someone show how much 0.7-1.0 inertia is currently?

I think the MK-1 EMR is 0.7 so try that without any attachments and you will get an idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree that the inertia for larger weapons doesn't seem to be visible enough to make it a factor to take into account when deciding what weapon to use. As was said before, and I feel the same way, it would be a shame to leave it in the current state when there is an option to change it. Thank you for looking into this!

Edited by Valhalian
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the major issue with CQB weapon handling in Arma 3 is that, just like with the inventory, two distinctive values are rolled into one. For inventories, the weight and volume of an item is put into one value, which can never be accurate or even adequate to represent stuff. A 1x1x1 meters Styrofoam cube might weight as much as six magazines, but it just doesn't compare in volume. The current system is a tradeoff between the two.

For inertia, the two values are weapon size and weapon weight, rolled into a single inertia value. The problem with that is that there is no good reason why a couple of centimeters should make a world of difference, but in absence of weapon collision, the inertia value MUST take these things into account or it is becoming irrelevant.

For example, the inertia value of the MXC is 0.4, and the full-length rifle is 0.5. The difference in handling is virtually non-existent (you will get more difference in handling by mounting an ACOG). However the actual POINT of a compact weapon like the MXC is close quarter, so the tiny difference in handling makes the MXC (or any carbine for the matter) completely redundant.

There are two solutions to this problem that I can see. The preferable one, and the tradeoff solution.

The tradeoff solution is to make weapon inertia more pronounced. This is especially true for the carbines and large machine guns/sniper rifles. Right now there is no point in going for an assault rifle, the difference is just too low compared to the volume of bullets a machine gun can output. Increasing the inertia is going to make it meaningful.

The preferred solution would be weapon collision/lowering. For example, take this scene from the game Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter:

Notice how at around 1.32 when ducking into cover he lowers the weapon automatically. I am not talking about the slow raise/lower weapon anim we have right now, there should be a ready stance like the one with raised weapon, just with a lowered weapon, and the transition should be near instantaneous. It should automatically happen every time you get close to an obstacle. As far as I can tell, the game already checks the area in front of the player for resting. It shouldn't really be too difficult to add an automatic lowering when there is a wall in front of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup , i agree with that - if you look into older Vietcong game or even Crysis 2 - those games had nice weapon collision systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup , i agree with that - if you look into older Vietcong game or even Crysis 2 - those games had nice weapon collision systems

I'll just leave this here in response. :D

Also, a major difference here is that those games didn't have a restrictive animation system from the year 2000. If I had a Euro every time a BI dev complianed about the animation system or explained it away as the reason we can't have nice things, I could probably have a financially stable lifestyle.

Either way, gestures would be a great way to make this collision type thing look and feel good. It might even be moddable, but I'm not sure if you can force an infinite gesture or break out of one. Other mod implementations seem to use the whole body animation system instead of blending with gestures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll just leave this here in response. :D

A bad implementation isn't a proof that the concept is bugged

Either way, gestures would be a great way to make this collision type thing look and feel good. It might even be moddable, but I'm not sure if you can force an infinite gesture or break out of one. Other mod implementations seem to use the whole body animation system instead of blending with gestures.

It just needs an adjusted stance with weapon lowered, and a pretty fast switch between the two. The previous attempts at modding this were botched because lowering the weapons normally not only changes from a ready into a relaxed stance, it also is too slow to be usable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A bad implementation isn't a proof that the concept is bugged

That wasn't my point, video was added as a joke. I thought it was obvious. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the weapon resting, there's a constant need to check if there is something in front of you, so implementing lowering the weapon when you're close to a more than chest-high wall should be a no-brainer.

Isn't that already the case? or am i making things up? I could swear remembering my dude lower his MX when he was too close to one of those stone-bag defence walls...

Our interiors are not that small that a short rifle is necessary. They are all very large and open. The much bigger difference would make the effect of weapon weight on stamina. Holding your rifle in ready position constantly is pretty fatiguing. And that is with a regular assault rifle. Not with a 7+ kg weapon.

Edited by Fennek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't that already the case? or am i making things up? I could swear remembering my dude lower his MX when he was too close to one of those stone-bag defence walls...

That does not happen unless you use a mod that add auto-weapon lowering.

Edited by Variable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example from UDK TFP >

in tight spaces it's natural to lower your weapon then able to move with the longer weapon

this shouldn't happen in the game >

Edited by RobertHammer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another example from UDK TFP >

in tight spaces it's natural to lower your weapon then able to move with the longer weapon

this shouldn't happen in the game >

I agree.

It's especially infuriating to see this with Unreal Tournament weapons... A game nobody would even start to describe as being "realistic" or "authentic". It's IMO an essential feature for a game with the realism (yeah yeah it's now call "authenticity") appoach of Arma.

---------- Post added at 13:27 ---------- Previous post was at 13:15 ----------

Isn't that already the case? or am i making things up? I could swear remembering my dude lower his MX when he was too close to one of those stone-bag defence walls...

No, it doesn't happen. There are mods for it, but the default lowering anim is too slow.

Our interiors are not that small that a short rifle is necessary. They are all very large and open. The much bigger difference would make the effect of weapon weight on stamina. Holding your rifle in ready position constantly is pretty fatiguing. And that is with a regular assault rifle. Not with a 7+ kg weapon.

I agree with the weight, but the video RobertHammer just posted shows clearly that our interiors ARE that open. And if you play against AI, you will agree that the most annoying "feature" of AI is clipping through walls, exactly BECAUSE they can get close enough without penalty. Every time you put AI in house positions, they go prone, and shoot you through the walls or floor/ceiling.

And in general (disregarding AI bugs like the above), I guess you are aware of the method of "slicing the pie" to enter a room. This inherently puts you into a small space, a space confined by door frames. You should not be able to win against anyone (AI or Player) in that room just because you have a machine gun. You should be FORCED to have a short weapon, like an MXC or even an SMG. Because otherwise, what good are SMG's? They are just for raising the difficulty, nothing else. I have hardly ever seen them used in missions, which is no surprise because in Arma they are inferior in every aspect to assault rifles, and with the lack of a pronounced inertia difference, they are even inferior to machine guns or sniper rifles. That is NOT how it should be. Using an SMG in a close quarter situation should be the preferable method for room cleaning (even better: Breach, bang and clear).

In any case, we are about one third of the way there. The inertia mechanism is fine, but it lacks penalty for big weapons. But even with that, the weapon collisions are IMO a very necessary part of any infantry gameplay, especially if you are claiming that "this is war".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Using an SMG in a close quarter situation should be the preferable method for room cleaning (even better: Breach, bang and clear).

Arma is more about open terrain combat then CQB (it just happens alot more often)... therefore it's not usefull to carry an SMG over an AR. Also, i doubt police forces and so on would use SMG in a large fashion if they almost exclusively face opponents with latest body armor. I disagree with giving SMG an advantage just because they are used in RL in situations that are alot different to 90% Arma combat situations. Collision and increased fatigue for heavy weapons yes, but not "i tailor it so SMG should be your preferred option in CQB, because.".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arma is more about open terrain combat then CQB (it just happens alot more often)... therefore it's not usefull to carry an SMG over an AR. Also, i doubt police forces and so on would use SMG in a large fashion if they almost exclusively face opponents with latest body armor. I disagree with giving SMG an advantage just because they are used in RL in situations that are alot different to 90% Arma combat situations. Collision and increased fatigue yes, but not "i tailor it so SMG should be your preferred option in CQB, because.".

The advantage that SMGs should have are advantages they have in real life, in that they should be faster and more manoeuvrable to use. It's a bit of an advantage in open world fighting, but it's more than counterbalanced by their lack of stopping power, and worse ballistics. It should be a choice based on the situation you are going into and also the various advantages and disadvantages of each weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arma is more about open terrain combat then CQB (it just happens alot more often)... therefore it's not usefull to carry an SMG over an AR. Also, i doubt police forces and so on would use SMG in a large fashion if they almost exclusively face opponents with latest body armor. I disagree with giving SMG an advantage just because they are used in RL in situations that are alot different to 90% Arma combat situations. Collision and increased fatigue for heavy weapons yes, but not "i tailor it so SMG should be your preferred option in CQB, because.".

Oh please, come on. Arma is not "about" anything other than what you CHOOSE to play. Pilots carry SMG's by default.

This is not about "I tailor it so SMG should be your preferred option in CQB". The point is, since the weapon is short it should increase/improve your mobility within houses. Period. Why? Because it is like that in reality. You are not strafing sideways through a doorway with a sniper rifle raised. It will not happen in reality. It should not happen in game either. It is ridiculous that so many games implement this feature. I am not talking about bullet-in-chamer accounting, which is mostly neglectable. I am talking about a fundamental mechanic in any sort of closed-in environment.

Basically, we are in agreement anyway. Collision and Fatigue increase. That is what we all want. The rest will regulate itself. Such changes will make carbines and SMG's more suited for CQB, because they should be. The M4 was invented for the explicit purpose of making it easier to handle in urban territory. Things like Bullpup rifles were invented to make the rifle shorter and thus easier to handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it doesn't happen. There are mods for it, but the default lowering anim is too slow.
I'd also say that the default raising animation causing the character to pause in place (as seen in norrin's rifle collision mod video) however briefly was deemed a deal-breaker by somebody in the design department, especially when the company continues to catch hell for a (slightly longer) pause for weapon switching. 'Course, they should be leaning on the animations department about both...
You should be FORCED to have a short weapon, like an MXC or even an SMG. Because otherwise, what good are SMG's? They are just for raising the difficulty, nothing else. I have hardly ever seen them used in missions, which is no surprise because in Arma they are inferior in every aspect to assault rifles
Ehhh... unfortunately that's arguably realistic/authentic in the sense that whatever inertia advantage a SMG might realistically have wouldn't be so great as to outweigh a carbine's punch outside of scenarios where overpenetration is a concern, i.e. a hostage rescue scenario... although I remember that at one point due to a sufficiently low mass value a SMG could be carried in a vest-slot container (LBE, vest, plate carrier) instead of a backpack?

Oh, and for bullpups it's not so directly about CQB as about greater barrel length (and what that entails for ballistics) relative to overall length than in a conventional layout, i.e. the L85 combining just-over-M16 barrel length with just-over-M4 (stock collapsed) overall length... there's something darkly amusing about how every armed faction but​ NATO has that. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
unfortunately that's arguably realistic/authentic in the sense that whatever inertia advantage a SMG might realistically have wouldn't be so great as to outweigh a carbine's punch outside of scenarios where overpenetration is a concern, i.e. a hostage rescue scenario... although I remember that at one point due to a sufficiently low mass value a SMG could be carried in a vest-slot container (LBE, vest, plate carrier) instead of a backpack?

That's why I said short weapon, and in fact it is why compact carbines exist, like the G36C or the (real) Mk.18. We can argue about punch and overpenetration all we want, but in the end it doesn't negate the truth - namely that a short weapon should have an edge in confined spaces *in terms of mobility*, and that requires collision. I have not said that the SMG/compact should be superior in terms of stopping power

Oh, and for bullpups it's not so directly about CQB as about greater barrel length (and what that entails for ballistics) relative to overall length than in a conventional layout, i.e. the L85 combining just-over-M16 barrel length with just-over-M4 (stock collapsed) overall length... there's something darkly amusing about how every armed faction but​ NATO has that. :lol:

The point is to make the overall length of the weapon shorter. There are obviously other reason than CQB, but those are irrelevant for the topic at hand. An FN F2000 is shorter than an M16.

Send from my tablet, so pardon any autocorrect bollocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall weapon inertia is good for the role but if we want to be nitpicking, weapon inertia as to be related with creation of object collision and mouse sensitive to create the illusion of weight/inertia:

Pistol: 1:1

SMG: 2:1

Assault: 1:2

DMR: 1:2,5

Sniper: 1:3

MG: 1:4

Its necessary to penalize hip fire in heavier weapons, with this CQB will became another experience.

PS: Bullpup guns and short assault rifles don't are related to CQB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Overall weapon inertia is good for the role

That's simply false. There is hardly any discernable difference.

PS: Bullpup guns and short assault rifles don't are related to CQB

They're meant for easier handling in confined spaces or urban territory.

Send from my tablet, so pardon any autocorrect bollocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're meant for easier handling in confined spaces or urban territory.

Bullpups are more balanced and ergonomic. This results in less arms fatigue unlike normal rifle where the fulcrum is behind the whole height besides which can be use longer barrel in the setup. (Almost eliminate the use of a front grip to counterbalanced the weight)

What i meant was in comparison with others games, this inertia feature is alright. There are many more issues related to the inertia in previous posts, inertia is only the tip of the iceberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What i meant was in comparison with others games, this inertia feature is alright

I don't think any other game has done the same kind of inertia implementation as Arma. Usually it's just a purely visual feature which have no impact on gameplay whatsoever. Other games do not simulate your barrel, they just spawn a projectile straight out from the middle of your screen so it does not matter where the gun model is pointing. In Arma, inertia is much more important, because the projectiles spawn inside the barrel and goes out through the muzzle. Pretty amazing stuff compared to other games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arma is focused on open terrain very much also BECAUSE it lacks very badly in CQC situations. Adding weapon collision and increased inertia for heavy weapons will help making CQC as much as entertaining as Arma's open terrain combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think any other game has done the same kind of inertia implementation as Arma.

Flashpoint Red River has something similar.

Send from my tablet, so pardon any autocorrect bollocks

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

×