Realism in ARMA2

[Psychomorph 1]

Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault had a great concept with lots of possibilities, but always leaked something, the finishing touch in realism.

The abstract weapon handling, the movement optimized only for outdoor combat, and various other details.

Movement

Let's see the movement system, it is very good actually, walk, jog and sprint. The problem however is, that there is no real CQB movement. Walking alone is sometimes to slow, you need a faster, more dynamic indoor movement, because the jog alone doesn't fit various possible CQB situations.

A "fast walk" movement is what is needed, faster than the regular slow walk, but much more controlled and accurate (incl. weapon stability) compared to the jog.

Edit: The weapon posture can define a "movement cheme" in general. Having the rifle at lowready can give you an outdoor movement cheme with "jog" and "sprint" as movement, while pointing the muzzle forward (aimed or not) can change the movement into a CQB movement cheme with "fast walk" and "run" as movement. Walk remains the same with both chemes.

Weapon Handling

Now let's take a look at the weapon handling. There are nice features such as a sideways carrying position for longer outdoor movement/marches, but aside this you see the soldiers having their rifles pointed forward all the time, very inimmersive.

In reality soldiers do carry the weapons in a lowready position, only if the weapon is aimed or prepared for CQB engagements, the muzzle is pointed forward, else it is held at lowready.

On a released screenshot you see a soldier having the weapon at lowready, let's hope it is not just an option aside, but the standard weapon posture.

I see that the the typical OPF/ArmA crosshair system is probably beloved by the community, so I am not going to suggest to use a new, different system, such as "no crosshairs". Though crosshairs can be toggled off, but I am speaking about a general design concept; realism. Reality has no crosshairs.

One thing I really dislike in OPF and ArmA is the 1st person weapon posture, it doesn't look like the weapon is shouldered, sometimes you just see the front part of the weapons. For my taste relatively inimmersive.

This is how I suggest to have it, not exactly like this maybe, but with the concept in mind that the eyes are actually behind the rearsight, which means the weapon needs to have a position moved more forward and higher and hopefully not to much at the right side, sort of closer to the screen centre.

Furthermore I would like to see things like rifles slinged at the chest if a grenade is selected so that you can bring the rifle back to ready very fast, or have a very fast transition to the sidegun.

I kind of have a slight dislike seeing weapons in games with a very bright texture, while the weapon is supposed to have a relatively dark gray look. Now I know bluing and light can make them look brighter, but I still hope they wont be to bright in ARMA2.

Reflex Sights

Reflex sights are designed to be used with both eyes open. In close combat you keep a wider view and because only one eye is obstructed by the gun sight and the other not, you have a relatively unobstructed field of view.

This concept makes the refex sights effective in the area they are designed for and I would like to finally see this in a tactical simulation.

Clipping Errors

Another thing that I disliked in Armed Assault were the hands clipping through underbarrel objects. Well, past is past, but sadly I see the exact same thing on the new screenshot. Please, please, please, do not carry over this error to ARMA2, please.

Lightning

Now the ArmA engine is very good, for my taste, realistic looking at least, but whenever I see a screenshot of ArmA there seems to be something wrong. I find that the lightning is not very well, to little contrast, it all looks just plain green, like there are no shadows at all.

Not sure maybe I am mistaken. However, a powerful lightning engine adds alot to a photorealistic look.

I hope the developers will take a note of this, the OPF/ArmA concept is great, but it needs this kind of polishing to become the ultimative combat simulation. You can not let this to the community alone.

<span style='color:white'>.</span>

[Kirby 2]

The "low ready" weapon posture is already used by AI in OFP and ArmA.

The rest I agree.

'Cept no crosshairs. You know roughly where you're pointing a firearm IRL without having to look trhough the sights. Plus idiots will avoid the game and thus cost BIS money. I'd rather BIS and idiots than none.

Edit: That pic you gave is how the old WGL mod has its weapons. lol. Closer to the middle. I KIND of agree.

[Heatseeker 0]

I dont know if you held a rifle before but i dont remember having 80% of it in my FOV. Since we are playing a game i wouldnt like it to reduce my visibility even more.

If you want to hold the rifle at a lowready position because its realistic (save them poor arms, ouch) you can double tap left Ctrl key already, moment you pull the sights or shoot it pops up.

For the rest.. its all cosmetic, i think there are important non cosmetic features that would improve both gameplay and realism, like being able to control a grenade throw..

[Psychomorph 1]

Plus idiots will avoid the game and thus cost BIS money. I'd rather BIS and idiots than none.

I guess I know that it wont happen, because of the reason you named, which is sad.

You know roughly where you're pointing a firearm IRL without having to look trhough the sights.

That is where a more centered weapon position would help to estimate where the weapon is pointed at without the use of a crosshair, in CQB you can use the weapon unaimed that way.

If you see only a barrel sticking out of the right screencorner, or the weapon beeing to much at the right, than it is much harder and ineffective.

I dont know if you held a rifle before but i dont remember having 80% of it in my FOV. Since we are playing a game i wouldnt like it to reduce my visibility even more.

That would be at most 15%. Well I suggested the "lowready" to have 0% reduced visibility, you don't need to have the muzzle pointed forward on larger distances anyway (hold it at lowready, tap aim-key to raise the muzzle and aim).

My first picture wasn't ideal, a screenshot from Raven Shield explains it a bit better I think. Point is, you have a weapon perspective that looks like your eyes (view) are right behind the rear sight and this weapon posture has to stay regardless of any body stances, even if you turn around (soldiers keep their view and weapon pointed to the same direction, they do not sway the weapon undisciplined around).

If you want to hold the rifle at a lowready position because its realistic (save them poor arms, ouch) you can double tap left Ctrl key already, moment you pull the sights or shoot it pops up.

This is a sideways position and it is an option, lowready as option would be useless, it needs to be a standart weapon posture you start and play with.

To give "lowready" a solid meaning, the aiming from lowready have to be faster compared to the sideways. And since I suggested to have a CQB movement cheme (see 1st post; fast walk), having the muzzle pointed forward but not aimed could give you the fast walk instead of the jog, while keeping the rifle at lowready will keep the outdoor movement cheme (jog, sprint).

For the rest.. its all cosmetic, i think there are important non cosmetic features that would improve both gameplay and realism, like being able to control a grenade throw.

Couldn't agree more. You are right, most I suggested is cosmetic, but I generally speak about "realism" and realism means that you have all (or many at least) real life possibilities to be effective in the field, your grenade control line is the best example. Same goes for my movement suggestion, the "fast walk" would add more effectivity in close combat.

I just referred to things that I disagree with the most, but there is more to say.

<span style='color:white'>.</span>

[opteryx 1562]

Please remove the stupid zoom for ArmA2, or at least reduce it drastically!

It's a real immersion killer.

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Opteryx, I haven't measured the zoom in ArmA but go outside and look into the distance. Then imagine a 17" monitor sized window in front of you, around 2 or 3 feet away. How big is the area you can see through the "window" compared to your real eyesight? Tiny. Hence, in ArmA the first-person view is zoomed out a lot like in any FPS. So the zoom just makes it back into 1x (true life) zoom.

That's the way I see it, anyhow.

[opteryx 1562]

I don't need to, I have a window right next to monitor and if I hold up my AR and aim at something outside there's no illusion of zoom or anything like that, it's just plain unrealistic.

The only reason it was implemented for ArmA is because high Object Detail and high resolution in ArmA takes away a lot of PC power.

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Oh! You meant the sight zoom- yeah I think it's a bit silly. I'd like to see an iron sight mode totally unzoomed (as in the normal FP view) although this can be achieved with right click then double-tap numpad "-" it should be default, then hold down right click for what your really see in RL in a window the size of an average monitor.

[dslyecxi 23]

I don't need to, I have a window right next to monitor and if I hold up my AR and aim at something outside there's no illusion of zoom or anything like that, it's just plain unrealistic.

The only reason it was implemented for ArmA is because high Object Detail and high resolution in ArmA takes away a lot of PC power.

It's not "realistic" in how it appears (magical zooming eyes), but it does realistically compensate for various gaming factors that do not exist in the real world (limited resolution and screen size).

I work with these concepts in my profession, and I've been in this argument before. I'm not interested in arguing it (since BIS already knows the right course to take and has proven this in both OFP and ArmA), but did want to chime in here to simply state what it is - a compromise, and one that is necessary.

And, if you're wondering, yes, I have plenty of shooting experience.

[funnyguy1 0]

Firefight ranges...I'd like bigger distances between you and the enemy. Also, would be cool if they created the campaign/missions with this overall realism in mind. Not the opposite.

E.g. BIS-made missions are less playable with more realistic AI.  

So instead of:

default missions + AI spotting/engaging you @ 300m > mods with AI spotting/engaging you @ 600m + unplayable default missions

we could have this:

default missions + realistic AI > no need to spend time on additional AI tweaks = default missions playable

Default AI in ArmA2 should behave like the "upgraded" AI with the above mentioned tweaks + Grouplink/Second's suppression scripts etc.

[opteryx 1562]

Quote[/b] ]It's not "realistic" in how it appears (magical zooming eyes), but it does realistically compensate for various gaming factors that do not exist in the real world (limited resolution and screen size).

Yes indeed, it does compensate for factors related to screen resolution and object distance rendering, but in my opinion it is an overcompensation. The FOV decrease when going to scoped view is very disturbing and the RMB zoom is way overdone, leaving you to feel like some kind of AFV gunner when moving across hostile space.

Quote[/b] ]I work with these concepts in my profession, and I've been in this argument before.

I am perfectly aware of that.

Quote[/b] ]I'm not interested in arguing it (since BIS already knows the right course to take and has proven this in both OFP and ArmA),

Me neither, just wanted to air my frustration about this particular feature, I strongly doubt BIS will pay any attention to a single opinion.

Quote[/b] ]but did want to chime in here to simply state what it is - a compromise, and one that is necessary.

Yes, agreed, compromises must be made until we're playing 105 mega pixel 360 degree hemispherical monitors, but over compensation is just annoying. I think an example like TrueView (or maybe even a bit less than that) would a more realistic and comfortable compensation between reality and ArmA2.

[Psychomorph 1]

@zoom:

If a game deals with large distances and outdoor combat, the zoom feature makes sense, but if it is a compromise, than it has to stay what it is, not becoming a "zooming device". That means a bit zoom yes, but not to much. Not sure if ArmA's zoom is to much or not.

Edit: I agree with Opteryx here, compensation is needed, but overcompensation is bad.

Now I forgot to mention another realism aspect, the ability to aim a reflex sight with both eyes open. These sights are designed for exactly this and used in a CQB environment effectively because of this. And now that we are speaking about zoom, aiming reflex sights with both eyes open in CQB better has no zoom, in that situation at least.

I'll edit this into the first post.

<span style='color:white'>.</span>

[smellyjelly 0]

I think BIS should keep the zoom feature, but reduce it when looking through iron sights. Then we can manually zoom further using the keyboard or mouse.

[Inkompetent 0]

I don't know how demanding this is on the GPU, but I'd love if one lost some focus on the target and the rear sights when using normal ironsights, giving one a reason at all to use the AimPoint/Cobra in the game.

With the new 40km x 40km map it would also be nice with more realistic engagement ranges, both for vehicles and infantry. Infantry with a machinegun should be able to open fire at 500+ meters without coming under fire first (will of course require more work with the AI so that it can analyze the situation more correctly before opening fire), and vehicles should be used at way longer ranges.

There should also be options for using active sensors or not on vehicles. Take the Shilka for example. By using its radar it should give away its position to any vehicle equipped with radar detecting systems, but of course get greatly improved capacity to engage at ranges like 3000m.

Information-sharing between units would also be nice. Not only as in Grouplink, but to take the Shilka example again, one Shilka or other radar forwarding its data to other vehicles so that they can stay with radar off and still track the AC (not the same as locking on it.That would require the vehicle's own radar, unless we are talking SAMs).

Also, active armour on the Abrams and T-90 would be really nice, as well as more real armour values (MBTs being pretty much impenetrable from the front with RPGs)

And please, more real vehicle damage! Don't make the vehicles explode when they are destroyed. Let them get the engine knocked out, or crew killed with the vehicle still operational. Incinerate the people in a BMP-2 when shot from behind with an RPG, and so on.

Oh, and for God's sake! Make the canopy on the Cobra bulletproof! Should be in a patch of course, but if it isn't...

Oh, and sight and gas pressure adjustments! Definitely sight adjustments. Most useful for snipers, but it could be really nice for the standard rifleman too to be able to correct them depending on distance, and if we get real winds... well, then you'll need windage compensation too!

And if I'm not wrong then at least the M240 have easily adjustable gas pressure so that you can variate the ROF from between just a few shots a second to a constant "Whaaaaaam!", emptying a box of ammo in seconds. Could be nice to be able to change that depending on the situation.

[Spindry69 0]

Would it be possible for the scope zoom to only zoom in the scope area and for everything outside the scope to remain unzoomed? The only problem here is what to do about non scopted weapons? Any ideas?

[klamacz 448]

Would it be possible for the scope zoom to only zoom in the scope area and for everything outside the scope to remain unzoomed? The only problem here is what to do about non scopted weapons? Any ideas?

it is possible using render-to-texture technique, same as MFDs in vehicles, showing camera view different from players view.

I really hope that BIS implement simple render-to-texture and give scripters and addonmakers possibility to use it. Things like realistic 3d sniper scopes, MFDs in vehicles, UAVs with cameras, when their view is transmitted onto soldiers item (like laptop) and so on, all is possible using this one technique.

If BIS has no people/time resources to make it, I'm offering my programming skills and my time to help. No costs involved

[wipman 1]

Hi, something that i miss in the ArmA and that i'll like it to be present

in the ArmA2, is many destroyed buildings, debris, craters in the

ground

because of bombs, IED's, tank shells or any other of the explosive

things used in a war enviroment. Walk by a untouched, clean and

almost brand new island, don't gives you the image of be in a war

enviroment, and that just screw up the inmersion in the game.

Other thing are things like that; FLIR on the choppers and planes

equiped with this systems, working internal MFD's and targeting

systems, IR sights and googles, deplyable and removable silencers,

and from a begining... units that can put the helmet in the back

and use the cap, rise, pull down or remove the ESS googles, make

the units display the side weapon (that they've in the inventory)

in the holster and more variety in the units shape; not all the

soldiers use the same equipment or not 'em all carry it in the

same place; for many reasons. The more random shape in the

units the more recreation of atmosphere and less robotic shape

in general.

Also things like deployable bipods and the use of surefire vertical

grips that change the weapons accuracy, handling and unit's

reaction time. Same for flash lights, make 'em work.

And flashbangs, they're very very usefull in certain situations,

when a nade will make you fail your mission... a flashbang and

four bullets... with a clean and quick extraction from the DAO

will turn that situation into a complete success. Let's C ya