ArmA + future games = dropping vection aiming?

[NeMeSiS 11]

Quote[/b] ] the indirectHit values of the weapons’ bullets were erased

Does this mean there will be no riquochets ?

That means there will be real ricochets, instead of a damage area for bullets

Anyway, i want it to stay like OFP, this is really oje the the things that made OFP different.  

Uh. Why? It was a crappy system.

I ment the aiming system, OFP "ricochet" system indeed sucked

[codarl 1]

What's an expanding ring system and vector aiming?

"expanding ring" describes the fact that if you fire a gun, or run in most games, your aiming reticle will grow bigger to simulate you're not being able to aim straight.

"vector aiming" most likely means that the gun is selotaped to your helmet. In OFP you could move your hands (gun) a bit without moving your head. In the ArmA video's this feature was disabled, though it will be possible to turn it on.

[kernriver 4]

It really shouldn't bother us what type of crosshair aiming will be in ArmA since 99% of shooting is done thru iron sights and optics At least that was the case in OFP. I've never used crosshair to shoot unless the enemy soldier was very close, 5-10 meters maybe...

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Nah, I think it should. I don't play with crosshair turned on but I still enjoy the non-fixed view of OFP. It's the holy grail of OFP

[Metal Heart 0]

It doesn't look like expanding ring to me because there's still the small line in the middle that shows where the rifle is pointing, free of the outer lines that you use for aiming and looking around. Only this time, the view is locked to the outer lines.

See the 160mb video, at some parts you can clearly see the middle line jumping around, following the movement of the rifle.

[kernriver 4]

Nah, I think it should. I don't play with crosshair turned on but I still enjoy the non-fixed view of OFP. It's the holy grail of OFP

Of course, non-fixed view shouldn't be changed, i like that as any OFP player.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Quote[/b] ]If we were to try to release some kind of half baked, dumbed down concept in our new game we'd most likely be lynched, so fortunately for us that was something we could never consider.

And there you have it...

[CameronMcDonald 146]

That quote is what keeps me alive. <wipes tear> Thanks, Kyle.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

hehehehehe

don't fix it if its not broken

[dslyecxi 23]

Half the people in this thread don't seem to understand the different phrases they're throwing around in here.

"Vection-based aiming" is talking about how the bullet originates from the muzzle of the gun, not the player's eyeballs. Thus, when you're running around and the gun's swaying side to side, it will realistically hit where the weapon is pointed, which isn't at the center of the screen.

"Freeaim" is where the weapon has an area it can move around freely within, like what you see in Flashpoint and Red Orchestra. It has been stated that this is an option in Armed Assault.

The crosshairs now apparently no longer show you an indication of where the weapon is aiming (which was very unrealistic anyway, they're just supposed to be general guides as to where you're pointing the weapon, not an exact, updated-by-the-split-second laser pointer showing where you muzzle is aimed), but instead expands once you start moving. This in NO WAY should suggest that ArmA uses a "cone-fire" aiming mechanism. It boggles the mind that someone would come to such a conclusion when the more logical, and simple, explanation is one that has a basis in REALISM. Given the choice between BIS making a realistic and an unrealistic move when it comes to weapon aiming, why in the hell would you automatically assume not just an unrealistic move but also a REGRESSION from the original OFP?

In short, stop spazzing out over stupid stuff. There's no reason to think that ArmA will be regressing from Flashpoint in any way, I don't know why some of you have so little faith in BIS.

[frederf 0]

I very much liked the OFP aiming system. It didn't use the cliche cone-of-uncertainty method of firing, allowed you to look independant of your barrel, ect. I even noticed when you have your gun rested over your shoulder in OFP the barrel vector point is pointed up at the sky.

Now Dslyecxi is right that such a system is unrealistic that you'd know exactly what your muzzle was aiming at. My question is is are the spacing of the "view bars" indicative of how close your muzzlepoint is to your view point? The muzzlepoint being invisible, but you can tell how much the viewpoint and aiming point agree based on the separation of the viewbars?

[dslyecxi 23]

My question is is are the spacing of the "view bars" indicative of how close your muzzlepoint is to your view point? The muzzlepoint being invisible, but you can tell how much the viewpoint and aiming point agree based on the separation of the viewbars?

From what we've seen thus far, it's either closed or open. If you're jogging, it's open, if you're standing still, it's closed. I don't think the reticule thingy is going to have an increased spread the faster you're moving.

[hardrock 1]

Quote[/b] ] the indirectHit values of the weapons’ bullets were erased

Does this mean there will be no riquochets ?

No, it means that you don't get hurt when the bullet doesn't actually hit you. The indirectHit value was it what killed you when shooting in the ground in OFP, for instance. Like little explosions.

[stegman 3]

In reality you do have more than a fair idea of what your gun is pointing at, i guess it's difficult to simulate exactly.

The current system in OFP was pretty cool, what with being able to look around freely of your gun (by pressing Alt or * ).

I can't wait for this game to hit the shelves so we can make our own minds up. We sould get a little MP demo to see the work so far, they don't need a publisher for that do they?

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]Its not the end of the world m8.  

No it's the end of me enjoying OFP. For me, I find it's more intuitive, and gives the closest analog in a game to real life aiming of a rifle. I've tried to enjoy games that employ other aiming systems (there are really only two) and one is too basic, and the other is frustrating to no end because it doesn't realistically model anything. It's just designed to be obscure enough that you have to learn how to use it without applying any type of intuitive logic.

The first thing I noticed right off the bat about OFP that separated it from any other game I played is that the aiming system was in fact halfway decent.

And if they do opt for an expanding ring system in any capacity, yeah I'm just not buying the game period. You have to understand by now that we've seen the horror that is cross platform development. When you broaden your focus, the overall quality suffers. There really is no middle ground. I don't want to play a game that isn't as refined as it could be because they took consideration to implement features for tards. Every game that's been made cross platform has been dumbed down. When you design for to totally different control and thusly ballistic systems, it's the same thing. It's an irrevocable law.

People who actually enjoy that system have a little extra something on the 21st chromosome if you know what I mean.

Quote[/b] ]Espectro - this doesn't happen in OFP. If a weapon has 0 dispersion, the bullet will go exactly where the sight aims. In OFP, there is no "expanding circle," which is what Baphomet is describing (I'm fairly sure), which dynamically changes dispersion. Instead, the sight "wavers," to mimic the weapon moving while the player is moving. Dispersion remains constant in OFP.

Just to clarify, I never stated OFP had that system, and as he described it. OFP actually went the more REALISTIC route simulating human error by incorporating both the wavering hand and the dispersion of the rifle. These two individual components are the most influencial factors in determining a weapon's overall accuracy. Wind, condition of weapon, a myriad of others could be considered as well, but those two are the two essentials. From a design standpoint, it's those two factors that should be modeled accurately.

I really shouldn't have to go into explaining why the expanding ring system is inferior, but in essence it's an attempt to combine both a firearm's innate performance limits AND human error into one morass of game design stupidity. The result defies common logic and conceivably has bullets flying from diametrically opposite ends of the "expanded ring" in succession which by most accounts would be unlikely if not totally impossible. When you factor in that the overall diameter of these circles encompasses weapon accuracy plus human error, you start to see problems. Problems that frustrate me into not enjoying the game anymore.

What they should have done is incorporated weight and physics along with limited IK to even FURTHER increase the realism of recoil (recoil isn't always simply up/down).

Quote[/b] ]I think that is exactly what Baphomet means. I personally hope  everything is like they used to be in ofp. Shooting in BF2 feels almost like playing lottery.

And to think I went through that entire long winded diatribe and Goeth just summed up everything I wanted to say in one small concise paragraph.

In the end, if the rest of us have to accept that BIS is incorporating this stupid feature, then they should go the extra mile and make sure there's a server option that FORCES players joining to use the system of the admin's choosing.

[Ukraineboy 0]

For godsakes How do you know they are implementing this? Jesus christ, we don't know yet!

[Baphomet 0]

I don't. But what else can they do aside from that except maybe go the Vietcong 2 route. Which was... equally frustrating. It was too robotic and felt like the gun was taped to my head. The movements of recoil moved the entire screen which felt very unnatural and really exaggerated.

A simply fixed view aiming system sounds far too basic to be implemented into OFP. That's basically what quake had.

Since the defacto-standard aiming/ballistic system for most pseudo realistic shooters that have fixed view aiming is the expanding ring system, then I would likely assume that it's a possibility.

[dslyecxi 23]

Since the defacto-standard aiming/ballistic system for most pseudo realistic shooters that have fixed view aiming is the expanding ring system, then I would likely assume that it's a possibility.

Stop. Seriously.

This is completely and utterly baseless, you have no reason to assume anything like that is in ArmA.

I cannot believe... I really just cannot believe that ANYONE would assume that because FREEAIM is a toggleable option, that suddenly the ENTIRE WEAPON SYSTEM works DRASTICALLY different from OFP.

It's insane. Please stop talking about it.

[Baphomet 0]

Yes it would, simply because either it would be convoluted beyond any logic (insert any expanding ring system game here).

If that's not the case then it's essentially a simplified system in which in my opinion, aiming and shooting becomes far easier than it should be.

Look at a lot of first person shooters which use that system, and notice how you can aim any gun, no matter how big, as if it had no weight whatsoever? The precision of which you handle the gun is entirely based on your control of the mouse, it simulates not the weight of the gun nor the human error of handling and operation of said firearm.

Basically like halflife, or quake or unreal or ANY of those games. And to be honest I think that would drastically change how the game is played. OFP did to at least some capacity add those effects, and to remove them would in my opinion eliminate a strategic component to the game.

Simply put. I don't want this game to become a counterstrike, R6, BF2 clone, nor do I want it to be a twitch festival circle-strafe fag-dance like unreal or tribes, et al. Furthermore, I think it would be a terrible disservice to players to allow these two potential control methods to interact with the standard vection based aiming system in a multiplayer environment.

I would like to think that most individuals in the OFP community would be perceptive enough to appreciate this fact. As it's readily apparent that games that feature either system belong to franchises that are much more lucrative than a niche product such as OFP.

I simply see features as this being implemented solely to reach an all new lowest common denominator.

But, BIS could surprise me. But I'm a cynical fucker when it comes to the industry in general.

[stakex 0]

You have a point Baphomet... and Im all for keeping every single bit of realisim possible. However, don't lose focus on the fact that ArmA is in fact a GAME. It is not a military simulator, or training tool. Its a game.... and the devs will likely try to please the largest group of people possible.

There are a lot of things they could do, that would hurt realism a lot worse then this. So its really not THAT bad...

[Baphomet 0]

In my opinion it is.

then again. When I play games like counterstrike or BF2 in which it seems more like playing a lottery as far as the shooting aspect goes, then yeah. It really affects my enjoyment of the game.

I'll admit it.

With OFP's aiming system, when I play against my friends who are typically mainstream FPS gamers. I am the apex predator, and I like that. In my opinion, it's how it should be. Call me a snob, but it's kind of beneath me to be put on an even keel with people who predominantly play those other types of games.

OFP forces you to think before you act, because the guy on the end of that gun can actually hit you if he know's what he's doing. Strafing your way or trying to escape by some law of averages isn't going to save you.

I like playing a game that complements my style of play. I really don't want that to change. Except for perhaps improve the strategic/weapon realism aspect.

[dslyecxi 23]

In my opinion it is.

then again. When I play games like counterstrike or BF2 in which it seems more like playing a lottery as far as the shooting aspect goes, then yeah. It really affects my enjoyment of the game.

I'll admit it.

With OFP's aiming system, when I play against my friends who are typically mainstream FPS gamers. I am the apex predator.

OFP forces you to think before you act, because the guy on the end of that gun can actually hit you if he know's what he's doing. Strafing your way or trying to escape by some law of averages isn't going to save you.

I like playing a game that complements my style of play. I really don't want that to change. Except for perhaps improve the strategic/weapon realism aspect.

Good lord, man. You have NOTHING to base your wild assumptions on. Freeaim is now an option, that's all.

That's all.

Stop freaking out over something so simple. If you want freeaim, keep it enabled, and play on servers that require it to be on. Problem solved. Stop acting like the sky is falling based on a minor thing that has NOTHING TO DO with vection-based aiming.

[Zerg 0]

But I'm a cynical fucker...

Well at least you`re right about one thing.

[shinRaiden 0]

For godsakes How do you know they are implementing this? Jesus christ, we don't know yet!

Good lord, man. You have NOTHING to base your wild assumptions on. Freeaim is now an option, that's all.

That's all.

Stop freaking out over something so simple. If you want freeaim, keep it enabled, and play on servers that require it to be on. Problem solved. Stop acting like the sky is falling based on a minor thing that has NOTHING TO DO with vection-based aiming.

A-freakin'-men