Weapon Resting & Deployment Feedback

[Varanon 892]

IMO I consider weapon resting as stability from your body being in contact with surroundings while deployment as stability from placing the weapon in contact with the environment.

If that were true, you would always rest the weapon when prone (which you don't, if you do not have something to rest the weapon on in front of you), and you would never be able to rest the weapon with just a wall in front of you (since you have nothing to rest your body on).

Even the icon implies that the weapon is rested on the object in front of you, not your body.

As such, I agree with Variable and Alwarren, as long as the weapon has no bipod, resting and deploying would be the same.

Especially considering that there is, as Alwarren pointed out, NOTHING on a deployed, bipod-less weapon that would cause a movement restriction around an artificially placed pivot point. Nothing would restrict lateral movement, and nothing would be there to absorb the recoil. The point of a bipod is not only a resting position, but also the ability to lean into the weapon. If you've ever fired a weapon (I have, 7.62 mm even), you know how much they kick, and you know how much leaning into the weapon will reduce that shock and distribute it over your body.

So in essence, there is no difference between resting and deploying when there is no bipod. In fact, the ability to rest a weapon without a bipod makes bipods kind of pointless, even though they add a little more stability (which is, for all intents and purposes, minimal)

[oggoeg 3]

Think if we wouldn't be able to deploy without a bibod then the players without one would lose many firing positions available in game. For example only those who had bibod would be able to shoot out from windows to certain directions.

That would make even less sense.

Hence resting should be available for everyone.

At the moment Bibod has it's ups and downs. More weight, shittier to use, better at range. Simple stuff, it HAS to be like it because it is only a game.

If we didn't have deploying without a bibod, then everyone would use the weapons that have them. Why the hell would anyone play with weapons that didn't have one.

[machineabuse 11]

That is most certainly not how it works, because if you deploy the weapon on e.g. a window sill the motion looks more like resting your hand on the window sill and not the weapon. Besides, this distinction is artificial. You rest your weapon by resting the weapon or the hands that hold them on a surface. There is no magic recoil-absorbing factor involved, nor is there anything that would limit your angle. There is nothing that would explain the difference, and being able to deploy a weapon without a bipod still doesn't make any sense at all.

The current implementation is again primitive. Yes you are correct the current iteration doesn't work as I have described. I am asserting that that is how I think it should work.

Deploying a weapon without a bipod makes sense, deploying a bipod without a bipod doesn't make sense.

If that were true, you would always rest the weapon when prone (which you don't, if you do not have something to rest the weapon on in front of you), and you would never be able to rest the weapon with just a wall in front of you (since you have nothing to rest your body on).

Even the icon implies that the weapon is rested on the object in front of you, not your body.

My response to Alwarren above addresses this. The current implementation logic does not reflect the behavior I have described. The described behavior is my rationalization of how to distinguish weapon resting and weapon deployment.

The photos I have linked to in my previous post both show combatants using their weapons sans in a deployed fashion albiet without actually using the bipods which are on their weapons for pretty obvious reasons.

Furthermore, it is completely possible to deploy on flat terrain with many small arms. Long magazines can be used as monopods on the ground for example.

As such, I agree with Variable and Alwarren, as long as the weapon has no bipod, resting and deploying would be the same.

Especially considering that there is, as Alwarren pointed out, NOTHING on a deployed, bipod-less weapon that would cause a movement restriction around an artificially placed pivot point. Nothing would restrict lateral movement, and nothing would be there to absorb the recoil. The point of a bipod is not only a resting position, but also the ability to lean into the weapon. If you've ever fired a weapon (I have, 7.62 mm even), you know how much they kick, and you know how much leaning into the weapon will reduce that shock and distribute it over your body.

So in essence, there is no difference between resting and deploying when there is no bipod. In fact, the ability to rest a weapon without a bipod makes bipods kind of pointless, even though they add a little more stability (which is, for all intents and purposes, minimal)

I agree the problem is that deployment treats the weapon as assumed to have a bipod regardless of whether or not the weapon has a bipod or not. What I assert is that instead of removing deployment from weapons with no bipods is instead to stop treating deployment with bipods the same as deployment without bipods.

Especially since the hard limits on the bipod pivots prevent even the weapons they are capable of being used with ingame from being deployed on cover at angles they would otherwise be in reality.

[Alwarren 2767]

players without one would lose many firing positions available in game.

Well that's like saying players without ammo should be able to shoot anyway. If it isn't possible it shouldn't be possible. It's a game mechanic argument for a game about authenticity.

Hence resting should be available for everyone.

Resting, yes. The talk is about deployment.

At the moment Bibod has it's ups and downs. More weight, shittier to use, better at range. Simple stuff, it HAS to be like it because it is only a game.

If we didn't have deploying without a bibod, then everyone would use the weapons that have them. Why the hell would anyone play with weapons that didn't have one.

That is no argument. There are weapons with 7.62 vs. 6.5 vs. 5.56 ammo. There are still missions that give you a mk20 instead of a Zafir. Why wouldn't everyone want an AT weapon?

Again, the question is not one of game mechanics. If you argue for game mechanics, all weapons should fire the same caliber and do the same damage because "everybody would use the weapon" that has the biggest one. This isn't about game mechanics. The point is that the way that deployment is handled, it makes resting an unnecessary gimmick. Why would you need it if everybody can deploy?

---------- Post added at 11:32 ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 ----------

Deploying a weapon without a bipod makes sense, deploying a bipod without a bipod doesn't make sense.

Deploying a weapon without a bipod makes sense because: Reasons?

Again, nobody can answer the question that was asked, so let me ask it again and add some extra emphasis:

What is the physical difference between resting and deployment without a bipod? What would you physically do different?

What is it that absorbs a significant amount of recoil?

There is no reason, no basis in reality, for "deploying" a weapon without a bipod. All arguments are made from a purely game mechanics point of view, which is a mood point for a game like Arma.

[Variable 322]

Think if we wouldn't be able to deploy without a bibod then the players without one would lose many firing positions available in game.

Good, advantage given to players with bipods is a GOOD thing. Otherwise there was no sense in them.

For example only those who had bibod would be able to shoot out from windows to certain directions.

Resting should cover that! Resting!

Hence resting should be available for everyone.

It IS available for everyone! Confused ah? I'm not surprised given this design.

At the moment Bibod has it's ups and downs. More weight, shittier to use, better at range. Simple stuff, it HAS to be like it because it is only a game.

Good, that's the price you pay for carrying one, hence, that's why it should provide more advantage. And the advantage of using a bipod should be available ONLY to those who carry it.

If we didn't have deploying without a bibod, then everyone would use the weapons that have them. Why the hell would anyone play with weapons that didn't have one.

That should be covered by limiting the available bipods in the mission, not giving the option to use imaginary bipods even if you don't have them, don't be ridiculous.

[oggoeg 3]

Sorry, if I wasn't able to "deploy" my weapon without a bibod, I wouldnt be able to shoot out windows the same way as now. Autorest does not cover that at all you know.

You can't shoot out from same arcs out of windows without placing (DEPLOYING) weapon on the window in this game, period.

If players with no bibods wouldn't be able to deploy, they'd be bunch of retards on the field who can't shoot properly. How the hell is would it be realistic if a guy without a bibod suddenly can't shoot out windows where he want's to because he doens't have two legs danglin at the end of his guns barrel. It doesn't make any sense. That's just unrealistic in any way.

"Good, that's the price you pay for carrying one, hence, that's why it should provide more advantage. And the advantage of using a bipod should be available ONLY to those who carry it". Well don't they? You got your heavier gun that's worse to use than without one, but you're more accurate at range. That is advantage.

These arguements lol

E: You should be more concerned how badly implemented the deploying is, not who should be able to do it.

Edited July 3, 2015 by oggoeg

[machineabuse 11]

Deploying a weapon without a bipod makes sense because: Reasons?

Again, nobody can answer the question that was asked, so let me ask it again and add some extra emphasis:

What is the physical difference between resting and deployment without a bipod? What would you physically do different?

What is it that absorbs a significant amount of recoil?

There is no reason, no basis in reality, for "deploying" a weapon without a bipod. All arguments are made from a purely game mechanics point of view, which is a mood point for a game like Arma.

I will reiterate since it seems I was not understood the first time;

The difference between resting and deployment should be;

1. Weapon resting is the stability of your body and the environment

2. Weapon deployment is the stability of your weapon and the environment

Hence weapon resting should concern the physical contact of your body against walls, the ground, what you are sitting on, leaning against etc. Everything from proning out on the ground to burying your back against the wall.

While weapon resting encompasses the stability of your weapon as it interacts with the environment, whether you are placing it up against an environmental object, pushing whichever part of the weapon that will reach the ground into the ground or flicking out the bipod to lay it on the same ground.

Again this false argument of "no basis in reality" yet making deployment the sole domain of an object on the weapon is a total failure to critically examing what a bipod actually is in real life and it's usage.

Bipods in reality do not absorb recoil. At all. What they are for in the context of a machinegun is to offset the load of an otherwise heavy and unwieldy weapon system from the soldier onto the environment. The bipod format happens to provide convenience to do that across a wide variety of surfaces especially if the legs are adjustable and pivot in some fashion.

In the context of accuracy the bipod again offsets the instability of the human body to the inherent stability of the ground.

So now that I've answered all your questions let me ask you; what makes you think any of that offset is the sole domain of the bipod format that cannot be achieved to lesser degrees by either monopodding the weapon on the ground or placing the weapon on an object in the environment and what makes you think that this doesn't apply to the reality that we live in?

This rigid dogma of deployment is bipods only feels like it comes from a "because other games do it" mentality masquerading as a realism argument. I'm not trying to antagonize you but

^That's a video you should watch. I can't remember how embedding works on this forum.

---------- Post added at 19:56 ---------- Previous post was at 19:28 ----------

'>Some additional reading material for monopodding magazines on the ground

Edited July 4, 2015 by Machineabuse
Typo

[Alwarren 2767]

1. Weapon resting is the stability of your body and the environment

2. Weapon resting is the stability of your weapon and the environment

(added emphasis)

I really don't get what you are trying to say, but then, nevermind. We're going in circles here, and I am getting tired of wasting my time. It is quite apparent that the current implementation is not going to change anyway, so why waste time on it.

[Greenfist 1863]

It's pretty obvious the 2. was supposed to be weapon deployment. And I agree with that.

[machineabuse 11]

It's pretty obvious the 2. was supposed to be weapon deployment. And I agree with that.

Typo, thanks and I apologize for that to all. I have made an amendment.

[D-James-2Rifles 10]

Liked it a lot thank you for putting the effort in to make it.

[rübe 127]

The ticket 0023800: Add the ability to adjust length of bipod legs should be really considered.

• We can already adjust stance (unitPos) in a granular way (instead of just up/middle/down), the same keybindings can be used while being deployed. So that would be nothing new (i.e. streamlined).
  
• This should make deployement much more reliable. Currently I'm often deploying my weapon, only to find out that I can't actually hit shit from here, due to restricted weapon-movement/-freedom (so I have to undeploy, move around a bit and try again... which not only sucks, but also is super dangerous, obviously). This is most often the case while deploying on flat ground, not being able to shoot "up" (really not that high). I'm pretty confident that being able to adjust the legs (e.g. a tad higher) would make this a non-issue (for lots of cases at least...).
  

:cool:

[oggoeg 3]

The ticket 0023800: Add the ability to adjust length of bipod legs should be really considered.

• We can already adjust stance (unitPos) in a granular way (instead of just up/middle/down), the same keybindings can be used while being deployed. So that would be nothing new (i.e. streamlined).
  
• This should make deployement much more reliable. Currently I'm often deploying my weapon, only to find out that I can't actually hit shit from here, due to restricted weapon-movement/-freedom (so I have to undeploy, move around a bit and try again... which not only sucks, but also is super dangerous, obviously). This is most often the case while deploying on flat ground, not being able to shoot "up" (really not that high). I'm pretty confident that being able to adjust the legs (e.g. a tad higher) would make this a non-issue (for lots of cases at least...).
  

:cool:

From community wiki:

"The #bipods may have even adjustable length of legs according to actual position"

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149636-Development-Branch-Changelog&p=2912109&viewfull=1#post2912109

"Added: Adjustable bipod legs"

Does this mean we could have raising and lowering of bibods like Strider's commander optic periscope?

[chortles 263]

That's already in the Arma 3 Weapon Config Guidelines on the BIKI -- simply call the bipod_legs_length animation source instead of bipod_legs, and be careful with the maxValue and offset1 -- although I'm not aware of any community mod that got it working.

[Alwarren 2767]

That's already in the Arma 3 Weapon Config Guidelines on the BIKI -- simply call the bipod_legs_length animation source instead of bipod_legs, and be careful with the maxValue and offset1 -- although I'm not aware of any community mod that got it working.

Probably because neither the sample nor the BIS bipods get it right either. Depending on where you deploy, the bipod will clip through the floor/obstacle or float in mid-air.

[roberthammer 582]

That's already in the Arma 3 Weapon Config Guidelines on the BIKI -- simply call the bipod_legs_length animation source instead of bipod_legs, and be careful with the maxValue and offset1 -- although I'm not aware of any community mod that got it working.

It works - at least in RH_acc pack

it's not that noticeable when you look at it ,but you need to look closely to see it heh

bipod legs work only when you deploy - they will automatically extend the bipod legs into max length

Edited July 6, 2015 by RobertHammer

[DancZer 65]

Can you guys improve the deployment at the windows? Sometimes when I deploy the weapon the deploy position is not in the center of the window, but almost at the edge of the (most of the time the right edge).

[cyruz 103]

Can you guys improve the deployment at the windows? Sometimes when I deploy the weapon the deploy position is not in the center of the window, but almost at the edge of the (most of the time the right edge).

 

Just to play devils advocate a bit, sometimes that's useful if you have windows with frames that split them down the middle so defaulting to center might cause issues.

[DancZer 65]

I agree, but would be much better without "jumping to the deployed point" feeling. I mean, in the reality, you just raise your weapon, turn down the bipod and whoala. I want to deploy my weapon at that point and direction not somewhere else.

[rübe 127]

The problem is that we can not simply adjust the deployed weapon (horizontally) in small increments (and within given bounds).

No, we have to undeploy, move a bit, redeploy and see if it's any better now. If not, then undeploy again and start over...

Shouldn't we be able to horizontally move a deployed weapon a bit?

[x3kj 1247]

Probably because neither the sample nor the BIS bipods get it right either. Depending on where you deploy, the bipod will clip through the floor/obstacle or float in mid-air.

If you deploy in standing stance (not in prone), the rotation center is not around the bipod contact point (it was at some point on DEVbranch), but somewhere around the magazine usually. So the bipod clips/unclips the structures.

 I guess they did it because of character animation and aiming constraints, which is unfortunate. If you have a bipod at  the very front of the weapon your aiming angles in heigth is really limited.  That's why the MG42 / MG3 for example can easily detach the bipod and mount it in a position to the middle of the weapon

[DancZer 65]

Shouldn't we be able to horizontally move a deployed weapon a bit?

 

Well that would help a lot. How about Ctrl+A and Ctrl+D?. 

 

But it would be better, if the deployment happens at the exact same position where the weapon is, when we press the deploy button. If it would, then we don't need move in deployed mode.

In the naive way i would generate an invisible surface there and attach the weapon to it.

[h - 169]

It would be really cool if we could fine-tune the deployment, gets me vote..

 

Also the castle ruins in Northern Altis (near Oreokastro) has really wonky deployment detection (just go there and start deploying on the wall facing Oreokastro).

[twisted 128]

agree ++.

 

really need things to work a bit more they should. worst for me is when i have the enemy direction lined up nicely, press deploy button and the freaking weapon auto rotates to point in a different angle and wont let me point at enemy. ffffffs.

[Igitur 43]

AFAIK, you can only check 3 states of  weapon deployment so far : Rested, Deployed, or Normal. However, the stance indicator displays two more states : canDeploy and RestedCanDeploy. Are there any commands or event Handler that return some usable variables for those 2 states ?

 

What about "WeaponCanDeploy" and "WeaponRestedCanDeploy" to go along with the "WeaponRested" and "WeaponDeployed" EHs? Did I miss something here ?