This game is about realism, right? Human movement still the biggest immersion killer.

[ratszo 17]

No matter how bf, cs or puzzle pirates do things, they ain't arma devs working on arma 3.

What matters is arma's ongoing development. And this development arc is built on the work already done, it's a process, a continum.

So improvements will only be found within the minds of our dev team using the code they have built.

Does anyone here really think another game's approach has any relevance to arma's work in progress?

Not even possible given the existing code.

[roshnak 41]

Does anyone here really think another game's approach has any relevance to arma's work in progress?

Why wouldn't it?

[ratszo 17]

Why wouldn't it?

Because it is a process. A leads to B leads to C.

For example, look how they did weapons resting --it could've been done many ways. It was done the arma way.

[bad benson 1733]

look how they did weapons resting --it could've been done many ways. It was done the arma way.

no. it has been done very similar to how it is done in other games. same goes for firing from vehicles. and same goes for car controls, weapon controls and pretty much everything else. because it works and because it makes sense. you seem to think that every game engine reinvents the wheel entirely. you're obviously suffering from severe ignorance about how technology works.

do you want a very basic example to illustrate? you know cars, right? you know how they are very similar in some ways and different in others, right? you know how in each car you use a pedal for the gas eventhough the exact assembly of things is not 100% identical?

you following me so far? you know actually i don't care.

i think it's your turn to actually make some sense since you insist on dragging this thread down with you. go make some elaborate points please. you know like something that doesn't originate from your anus.

[altis 12]

Please lets not go there :)

I think this is a healthy discussion on different approaches to animation, i really appreciated Toadies input along with other knowledgeable people, we mostly all play other games and this aspect is worthy of comparison and discussion, its not a bitch/moan fest as other threads in the past.

[ratszo 17]

"Do it like they do it in bf4!" --Can't see that conversation going down at an arma planning meeting.

[roshnak 41]

"Do it like they do it in bf4!" --Can't see that conversation going down at an arma planning meeting.

Again, why not? We're not talking about gameplay mechanics, here. We're not even talking about specifically copying Battlefield. We're talking about general features of an animation system. Surely you don't think developers come up with ideas in a vacuum.

Edit: And yes, I am aware that the EA has a massive team working on Frostbite and tons of money to spend on it. The point of this post is that it is not unreasonable for developers to look to other games for examples and inspiration, generally.

Edited June 3, 2015 by roshnak

[windies 11]

"Do it like they do it in bf4!" --Can't see that conversation going down at an arma planning meeting.

As an example, from a functionality pov how do bipods differ from BF4 in ArmA? They're actually quite similar in function for the most part with roughly the same imparted limitations. For that matter how does FFV differ from BF4? They both share very basic commonalities in implementation.

[PuFu 4600]

So here's why picking Frostbite2 is a VERY poor comparison for animation - EA and DICE poured a CRAPLOAD of money and resources into porting across EA Sports' proprietary sport kinematics package to make it work in more generic applications. More than probably BIS could reasonably throw at an ENTIRE game. The reasons were twofold- so that Frostbite 2 would not only be a viable, multi-purpose "in-house" engine, but also to make a significant tech bullet point for potential licensors outside of EA. I'd speculate they spent about as much doing it as they did their incredibly robust sound engine, for same results. It was a drawcard for the tech, and because of that it's basically on top of the pack for kinematic frameworks in game engines. No, you're better looking at like a Call of Duty, which in MP STILL handles much like Arma's motion does.

While that is accurate, and a whole dev team was tasked to work only on the animation system, it is safe to say that while really good in terms of representing human motion, and the pinnacle of game animations so far, there are other games using different engines that do it better (hidden and dangerous and recent ground branch tech preview springs to mind - a game where the same arma3 animator worked on). So it isn't really fair to say that, not from a comparison pov, but at least from the fidelity given by allowing animation blending and separate body controls that goes down the skeleton (ik) when they reach a limit, that this particular francise shouldn't be taken as a reference.

Now having said that, yes Arma's kinematics system needs work, but at it's core it's already pretty solid. It's got limb-based IK solvers, pose interp, motion masking.

From what i gather, the said limb based IK solvers do work only in certain conditions, and not for entire animation.

There are also certain hard wired limitations - an example comes to mind now - one cannot change hand animations for the bino/range/designator classes...which feel weird decision in itself.

It's not THE most powerful suite, but it's far from the worst. Basically everything that Frostbite uses at it's core is there, but it's one main detraction is tied to Arma's OTHER key engine problems. Like how rendering is tied to simulation and thus drags down performance due to simulation-heavy processing times, Arma's animation system is inextricably dependant on simulation- everything in character animation is linked by fixed animation states. That is to say, for example if they unit is crouched and not moving, that's one state with is one animation defined for it, same for moving forward, backwards, drawing a sidearm, reloading, etc. All 1:1, you can't have more than one animation per action state, and they don't allow for transitive phases, which is what you want with the turning. As it stand now you'd have to make turning left/right on the spot unique actions. Now it CAN be done, but for that one change, but it'd be fairly hacky without some solid background work (some of which BI looks like they did the groundwork for in #bipods, but given this is entirely not even a mechnaical improvement, I wouldn't count on ever being done)

Which is one of the main reasons why it feels robotic - humans do more than one animation at a time. While the transition from A2 to A3 in terms of "snapines" is a plus, it is, afaik, simply driven by the animation frame range (shorter for A3), and more stages available, rather than a different system, allowing those animations to come together as one.

Ideally what needs to happen is to decouple it from the simulation. Allow it to run in a more generic state to do more contextual sub-sequences per animation (which is what turning basically boils down to), and that can really only happen around the same time they're looking at the renderer. Considering at least as we the public know about the chances of that happening in Arma3's life, you're PROBABLY not going to see it happen until Arma4.

While we all agree that it is way outside A3 lifespan for a new system to be implemented, or in fact the current one being "liberated", this particular animation system remained the same since OFP, the improvements coming from hacky solutions and workarounds rather than a new approach that while taking more time would allow a better interaction and a better translation on screen of the user input.

"Do it like they do it in bf4!" --Can't see that conversation going down at an arma planning meeting.

surely not do it like in game X. But hey, maybe we should put more work in Z, have a look over game A, B and C, from a visual point, it'd be a good start / ref to work on....

References are used in all visual and creative agencies...

As an example, from a functionality pov how do bipods differ from BF4 in ArmA? They're actually quite similar in function for the most part with roughly the same imparted limitations. For that matter how does FFV differ from BF4? They both share very basic commonalities in implementation.

no, they share the basics in terms of function, i'm sure the implementation is different.

[ratszo 17]

Again, why not? We're not talking about gameplay mechanics, here. We're not even talking about specifically copying Battlefield. We're talking about general features of an animation system. Surely you don't think developers come up with ideas in a vacuum.

Edit: And yes, I am aware that the EA has a massive team working on Frostbite and tons of money to spend on it. The point of this post is that it is not unreasonable for developers to look to other games for examples and inspiration, generally.

It's a matter of 'work product' & 'Proprietary Rights', legalese. --even concepts fall into pervue.

Bis owns a proprietary engine thru their work product. So one could say if they need a wheel, they do have to invent it as work product.

To say, "every car has a gas pedal" ignores the unique linkage every pedal has to an engine by brand & company.

It's not rocket science ..., or is it?

Back to animations, I'd like to see the torso articulate better.

For example, have the rifle snap to freelook view rather than view snapping back to the rifle. Have the torso/stance twist in a natural way for rifle to meet eyes.

Or in prone position, have the torso roll on its back as it moves from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock, behind.

I'd like to see each faction have its own gait. Where one could tell friend or foe by silhouette movement.

Looking at recent change logs, Bis is still working on annimation details. Where it ends, i don't know.

Tho it's a good guess that what Bis presented us with since beta release isn't too far from final.

It's a good bet i'm gonna be going home with the girl i brought to the dance.

[roshnak 41]

It's a matter of 'work product' & 'Proprietary Rights', legalese. --even concepts fall into pervue.

Bis owns a proprietary engine thru their work product. So one could say if they need a wheel, they do have to invent it as work product.

To say, "every car has a gas pedal" ignores the unique linkage every pedal has to an engine by brand & company.

It's not rocket science ..., or is it?

What are you talking about, dude? None of this applies at all. Do you think Arma shouldn't be using normal maps because some other game did it first? Uh, oh - Arma shouldn't be using PhysX, they didn't invent that wheel at all!

[ratszo 17]

What are you talking about, dude? None of this applies at all. Do you think Arma shouldn't be using normal maps because some other game did it first? Uh, oh - Arma shouldn't be using PhysX, they didn't invent that wheel at all!

Dude ..., a painter doesn't need to make the brushes to paint the picture.

[froggyluv 2136]

Lol....this thread.

It was just another simple "Hey, animations need to be better.." thread devolving into "BF does it this way, take note BI...."thats now turned red. Sure BF does it better -great! Pac Man does pathfinding better. Chessmaster does Ai decisions better. GTA does ragdoll and AI driving better. Bassfishing does, well, Bass fish better.

So whats the fucking point of this thread? To tell BI to load up BF4 one more time and give her a really, really long look this time? 1000's of threads mention a flaw, and bring a game as an example, to get this heated over another dot in the mindless horde is just fuckin dumb.

[altis 12]

This thread is now about a fan of Arma who somehow feels threatened about a thread that discusses and compares animations from other games with Arma on this forum because... Yeah, there's an Arc that BI are on and it's a continum and process With paint brushes because some guy left with his girl at a dance.. Blah blah, It was quite interesting otherwise :)

[bad benson 1733]

To say, "every car has a gas pedal" ignores the unique linkage every pedal has to an engine by brand & company.

It's not rocket science ..., or is it?

you know how in each car you use a pedal for the gas eventhough the exact assembly of things is not 100% identical?

you can read can you? i wish there was a forums rule against straight bullshitting. or maybe against accidentally trolling? ;) i dunno...does it mean you finally got the point? i kinda doubt it.

some people really blow my mind.

i think it's pretty obvious why the thread turned into what it is now. people should maybe actually react to what is being said instead of harrassing everyone with their sensitivities :rolleyes:

It was quite interesting otherwise :)

it was fun while it lasted.

[kklownboy 43]

"i think it's pretty obvious why the thread turned into what it is now. people should maybe actually react to what is being said instead of harrassing everyone with their sensitivities"

;says the the Guy with the only infraction... I hope you get your comp up and running soon, you wont be so ... well so. I have played with both you and Ratzo,your great guys :) I get both of your points, and its not that hard.

Love Pufus tech side, and Froggyluvs summation.

Some in this thread say (Animations) its good enough. Some think its just lame. And both positions are right (I know for some that will be hard to grasp...). Arguing over HOW a Dev should work on some part of the game is never going to end well. For me the Tech side chatting is much better than the Fanboy verbosity about what is real,fun,serious etc... and or "Artistes" being bent about the lack of some such Tool,Doc, Dev intervention. It has entertainment value but... yeah thats all.

Grown men know its about Money. Longtime BIS fans know the history.

How to Argue...Debate... well comparison is fine, it should be a given that is is just another way to explain some such, but to get bogged down in the "right" to compare... is just silly. Having the last-word is usually not helpful.

It is not about winning its about increasing the knowledge.

[roshnak 41]

Dude ..., a painter doesn't need to make the brushes to paint the picture.

Okay, to use your analogy, brushes are what we've talking about this whole time. Not the picture. No one is saying "Photocopy the painting that is Battlefield 4." What people are saying is that the artists who painted BF4 have some pretty sweet brushes and paints, and it would be nice if Arma used some of those things, too.

I'm really stretching this analogy, honestly, but I hope it can clear some things up.

Anyway, I'm not sure how much is left to really discuss about animations in Arma. It's not a great system. People have pretty much covered what's wrong with it. I'm pretty sure BIS is aware of the problems. Hopefully they'll overhaul it for future games, but I'm not super hopeful. I'm pretty sure they said they were going to overhaul it for this game, and it hasn't really been enough.

Edited June 3, 2015 by roshnak

[PuFu 4600]

Lol....this thread.

It was just another simple "Hey, animations need to be better.." thread devolving into "BF does it this way, take note BI...."thats now turned red. Sure BF does it better -great! Pac Man does pathfinding better. Chessmaster does Ai decisions better. GTA does ragdoll and AI driving better. Bassfishing does, well, Bass fish better.

So whats the fucking point of this thread? To tell BI to load up BF4 one more time and give her a really, really long look this time? 1000's of threads mention a flaw, and bring a game as an example, to get this heated over another dot in the mindless horde is just fuckin dumb.

unfortunately, this ends that way when people are just trying to break a proper discussion with the bolded part. If you still can't understand this isn't about BF4, or ANY OTHER FUCKING game for that matter, i really feel for you...

It was heading into the right direction, with people like benson and toadie contributing to a discussion about the animation system and the fact that the current system could handle more if used in its entire form, but for some weird reason it isn't, and all the things that it affects (beside the user input and immersion, as it includes AI just as well)

But as Altis put it, some mindless bob just gets his nappies in a knot as soon as hears any other francise out there, because reason. And you then wonder why most of these discussion are kept outside BIF and then you wonder why the same mindless bob is never gonna get into modding...simply because he doesn't understands the fucking "magic" behind it. Suit yourself.

[altis 12]

"i think it's pretty obvious why the thread turned into what it is now. people should maybe actually react to what is being said instead of harrassing everyone with their sensitivities"

;says the the Guy with the only infraction... I hope you get your comp up and running soon, you wont be so ... well so. I have played with both you and Ratzo,your great guys :) I get both of your points, and its not that hard.

Love Pufus tech side, and Froggyluvs summation.

Some in this thread say (Animations) its good enough. Some think its just lame. And both positions are right (I know for some that will be hard to grasp...). Arguing over HOW a Dev should work on some part of the game is never going to end well. For me the Tech side chatting is much better than the Fanboy verbosity about what is real,fun,serious etc... and or "Artistes" being bent about the lack of some such Tool,Doc, Dev intervention. It has entertainment value but... yeah thats all.

Grown men know its about Money. Longtime BIS fans know the history.

How to Argue...Debate... well comparison is fine, it should be a given that is is just another way to explain some such, but to get bogged down in the "right" to compare... is just silly. Having the last-word is usually not helpful.

It is not about winning its about increasing the knowledge.

The point is there was no argument happening here, only cool guys dropping knowledge with mild (non fanboi) opinions thrown in, until someone decides he doesn't think it's worth talking about simply because he doesn't like it, please explain his point to me, I'm struggling to understand.

[I give up 152]

The animations in Arma 3 are not that bad, in my opinion are quite good.

Also we cant compare Arma 3 animations with BF4 or GTA 5 animations.

With those games the concept is different, while with Arma 3 this kind of stuff is handled basically by the CPU with those games is handled by the GPU.

And my guess is that BIS had to lower the number of "bones" to avoid an excessive CPU usage with animations.

Now, I agree that Arma 3 should be more similar to those games in matters of how the game engine operate, should be more GPU instead of CPU.

This would give a better output in matters of performance avoiding the CPU bottleneck caused by graphics rendering because of DirectX 11 limitations in matters of multi core/threading.

The proof is that GTA 5 and BF4 have basically the same performance with whatever CPU (from i3 to i7) while the power of the GPU is decisive.

If those games were like Arma 3 (highly dependent of CPU) most likely the players would be also complaining about lack of multicore support with its engines.

[DJankovic 401]

I can not belive that people here are comparing BF4 with Arma 3 ill show you the diference

BF 4 Basic movement

So you have basic WASD movement

shift and you are sprinting

ctrl or C is crouch and

Y or Z prone is that it

Q and E leaning

Pretty basic for all those who want khmmm realistic shooting game. Now

Arma 3 has

WASD basic movement

Ctrl+w or s changing from high stand to prone on side animation that is like 3 animations per stance

Now there is animation for walking,joging,sprinting as far as i know and me using all of those with

weapon up,weapon ready,and lowered weapon

As for the leaning you have basic one with Q and E and than you have step out lean.

I am admiting that arma has some flows with pivoting around axis but it is not quiet noticable. But as for the animation if you find "realistic" (BF4) turning back over 80 and something degrees(like on that video) before turning your lower body that is wrong for me. And ofc arma has the free zone of weapon movement before your character starts turning. Still thing BF has better movement?

but i must admit GTA V climbing and geting down and jumping from high obstacles animations are needed in arma :)

Ps. Writing this post on the phone sorry if it is messed up il fix it when i get back home

I know ill be flaged because of this but main reason some animations sucks is

That guy...we need real like profesionals doint MOCAP and not random guy dresed in mocap suit and doing animations. God damn hahahaha

Edited June 4, 2015 by DevilDogCro

[oggoeg 3]

I believe the MOCAP guy is a mil advisor :D Not sure if it's true.

I understand why everyone would want GTA like movement, but I don't think it's possible in this engine to happen. At least in non-clunky, non-intrusive manner and without massive bugs.

And it's not the MOCAP guys fault, it's how the engine works. Same reason why we can't switch weapons on the move, even if it seems so simple :D

Even A3 anims aren't anything shiny, remember the good things it has. I'd feel confined by not being able to move my head or move my torso behind cover and knowing where the body is. Going prone on your sides?

Not going to happen in any other game. Nor you can't roll in any other shooter.

Moving weapon to left shoulder is jus awesome. And the best thing; impossible to headglitch, bullets come out of the weapon not the players forehead like in BF.

It's far from perfect. Changes I'd like to see are limiting turning speed when player is running or sprinting and removing or fixing weapon collision.

Edited June 4, 2015 by oggoeg

[DJankovic 401]

Switching weapon is possible to do widouth a problem and there is a proof of that in a mod. It is working flowlesly helped me in firong drils so much :)

Prone on your sides

go in prone and than Ctrl+ A or D to prone lean on either sides

now idk is it possible do look down sights in vanila still but i know that AGM got that covered

[Sniperwolf572 758]

The core problem is that animation blending/interpolation isn't a first class citizen in Arma engine and the logic in Arma is inverted in regards to what animations do. As with many things Arma in the past, it was made to address very specific concern (Reloading) when it was implemented, and from there it was barely expanded. Blending currently is used mostly for minor cosmetics instead of complementing the really bad points due to those limitations.

In Arma, when you press W to go forward, you're initiating the animation and the animation configuration is what (mostly) determines the parameters like your speed, etc.

In most other modern engines, this is the other way around. The game logic gives the animation system all the parameters, like "ok, this guy is moving forward at this speed, in this stance, etc." and the animation system chooses the appropriate animation to play on top of the movement of the character.

Many things in Arma feel "clunky" because you're limited to a single animation in such cases. You can't blend multiple animations with ease. And the animators need to put in a herculean effort to add or change minor things because changing the parameters requires change at more than one place/level.

When people mention BF4, they aren't talking about how something "looks", they're talking about how things work in the background, and the Arma system isn't that way because BI desires it to be that way, but because the animation system was made in the "ye olden days" when things like "animation blend trees" were non existent and everyone did it that way. It is currently like that in Arma because no effort was put in to change it. It's one of those changes that requires a lot of work to accomplish and would pay off in the long run, but nobody is willing to say "Yes, this is the game iteration where we'll change this".

I'm quite confident to say BI animators much rather work with the second type of animation system than the current one.

---------- Post added at 15:32 ---------- Previous post was at 15:27 ----------

Switching weapon is possible to do widouth a problem and there is a proof of that in a mod. It is working flowlesly helped me in firong drils so much :)

Yes, but not without problem.

For example, you'll see the character body rapidly "jerk" because of the transition from "I'm in this set of animations where I'm wielding a rifle" to "Set of animations where I'm wielding a pistol".

The hands themselves move without problem because they're blended in two phases and are literally the same animations from the base game, but are the "blended versions" forcibly triggered with scripting on top of whatever animations you are doing at the time. It can be illustrated as a timeline.

Regular arma switch:

                            [Hit key]
---- Run with rifle forward ---- > ----- Begin putting away rifle ---- > ---- Start taking the pistol ---- > ---- Run with pistol forward ---- >
------ Hand gesture to grip the rifle in the correct place ----------- > -------- Hand gesture to grip the pistol in the correct place ------- >

My scripted switch:

                        [Hit key]
----------------- Run with rifle forward ------------------------------ > ------------------- Run with pistol forward ------------------------ >
                            | ---- Begin putting away rifle ---------- > ---- Begin taking the pistol ---- |
------ Hand gesture to grip the rifle in the correct place -------------> ------ Hand gesture to grip the pistol in the correct place -------- >

Edited June 4, 2015 by Sniperwolf572

[bad benson 1733]

Even A3 anims aren't anything shiny, remember the good things it has. I'd feel confined by not being able to move my head or move my torso behind cover and knowing where the body is. Going prone on your sides?

Not going to happen in any other game. Nor you can't roll in any other shooter.

Moving weapon to left shoulder is jus awesome. And the best thing; impossible to headglitch, bullets come out of the weapon not the players forehead like in BF.

exactly. no one is denying the good things arma has. you could easily do what you did there with a lot of games. like using arma to illustrate what is missing in those games.

but what's the point? of course you would do that on the forums for those games because here we talk about arma and how we think it can be improved. it should be a no brainer really.

bipods, firing from vehicles, sling loading, advanced helo flight model are all things requested and talked about by the community before they were implemented. it's no coincidnet we got exactly those features.

threads like this one have always been the way to get feedback and ideas BIS' way and fortunately this has worked great in the past for certain things.

I'm quite confident to say BI animators much rather work with the second type of animation system than the current one.

yes. i'm 100% sure.

Yes, but not without problem.

For example, you'll see the character body rapidly "jerk" because of the transition from "I'm in this set of animations where I'm wielding a rifle" to "Set of animations where I'm wielding a pistol".

i think people don't realise what the real reasons are why there aren't many animation related mods for the arma series (total lack of tools, documentation or even a simple rig aside).

on my workshop page for my "enhanced movement" mod i frequently get comments like "why isn't this in the game by default, if you can do this?"

people don't realise how much work actually went just into finding a way to make it function at all. just minimizing the "jerk" you mentioned there was a task of its own for me. and pretty much all the limitations i encountered are due to the architecture of the animation system and not the nature of the features themself. just because the end product might look semi smooth doesn't mean there isn't a giant hack happening under the hood ;)

i can only second what you said about the pipeline being reverted in arma. animations should be reduced way more to visual presentation rather than dictating the actual movement. that would allow BIS to be more adventurous with new features themselves too.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Bad Benson