more accurate while standing than crouching?!

[topeira 10]

in ARMA2 when i crouch i get a sway to the sides but also inside and outside of the screen while when im standing the gun is so much mroe accurate.

do u think it's realistic that way cuz it's kinda counter intuitive... :\

[maddogx 13]

I've noticed this aswell. At first I thought I was doing something to cause this, but it seems that the crouching position just has some kind of weird animation that displaces the gun. Quite annoying.

Might be an idea to report it on the bugtracker.

[topeira 10]

i am not sure it's a bug though...

anyways i dont like the fact that standing up is more accurate... i know ARMA2 tries to be realistic but this feature is the complete opposite of every other shooter i know.

the last time i fired an M16 was really long ago and i cant remember how it is in real life but it IS that way.... :\

[An-225 0]

I'm not an active person, so I don't know much about this. But crouching is quite tiring in real life, and considering you are doing it with 50kg of gear...

Have you considered that every other shooter is inaccurate? It would be very difficult to properly support the gun while crouching...

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Sounds very reasonable actually. Using ACE our procedure is to never crouch unless absolutely necessary. Not due to accuracy, but because you become tired much more quickly that if you simply walk upright (not jog or sprint, but walking slowly).

[Hell_Toupee 0]

its a bit awkward when moving crouched, animation could be better tho.

[Maddmatt 1]

Have you considered that every other shooter is inaccurate? It would be very difficult to properly support the gun while crouching...

Actually, crouching makes it easier to hold the gun steady.

Sounds like a bug to me.

Although with heavy gear, I imagine the actual process of moving between crouching and standing can get a bit painful.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Maddmatt

[frederf 0]

Traditional shooters are inaccurate in making the crosshairs tend to stay far apart when standing and making them snap shut when crouched or prone. Be aware that crouch-walking is extremely tiring at least in ArmA.

Note how the standing is the fastest to close but has the widest minimum spread. Prone responds the slowest but achieves the smallest spread eventually. Crouch is in between.

[max power 21]

In SWAT 3, I think that standing was a better firing position. They explained that crouching wasn't a very stable firing platform. This was counter to almost every other game that had crouching and shooting in it.

It looks like frederf's graph seems to indicate the intention of the devs. If crouching is less accurate that standing, I think they would like to know about it.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Staying upright has its advantages. When you slowly walk and pick up enemy movement its far more important to take quick shots than to loose time with crouching. If in cover, standing gives you more radius when looking around corners and once you come under fire you can get back into full cover more quickly.

At first i thought crouching would be the best balance between cover and overview when in deep grass, but as we all know now, the AI will shoot you anyway, so you better stand up and hope you get them first. ;)

[prosthetics-dot 10]

During my time in the Austrian army (Infantry for 6 months) we learned that crouching is used mainly for reducing your size in battle, making you a harder target to hit. Shooting while crouching for a longer period than a few seconds sucks, because you are not as stable as in a standing or a prone position.

[householddog 10]

Traditional shooters are inaccurate in making the crosshairs tend to stay far apart when standing and making them snap shut when crouched or prone. Be aware that crouch-walking is extremely tiring at least in ArmA.

[iG]http://www.squick.org/ffa/bin/CrosshairStance.gif[/img]

Note how the standing is the fastest to close but has the widest minimum spread. Prone responds the slowest but achieves the smallest spread eventually. Crouch is in between.

Thats quite a well thought out system. It makes sense.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Placebo

[no use for a name 0]

but in the game when you crouch you're taking a knee...not popping a squat. I could see how squatting would be extremely uncomfortable; but with a knee on the ground and being able to rest your elbow on your other knee (even though that's not modeled in the animation) would be a hell of a lot more stable then standing. I've taken my AR-15 out shooting and whenever I've shot in this position my accuracy is better then when standing

[Placebo 29]

Remove image tags when quoting please.

[prosthetics-dot 10]

but in the game when you crouch you're taking a knee...not popping a squat. I could see how squatting would be extremely uncomfortable; but with a knee on the ground and being able to rest your elbow on your other knee (even though that's not modeled in the animation) would be a hell of a lot more stable then standing. I've taken my AR-15 out shooting and whenever I've shot in this position my accuracy is better then when standing

that is actually true. I haven't had the chance to play Arma2 until now, so I thought it might use the above mentioned position. Kneeling down is a way to improve accuaracy, but it it is very static.

If you spot a target on your flank you have to move your legs before you can actually take a proper shot at your target.. Many games portrait the soldier like if he was able to slide sideways with his knee in this case. I don't know how ArmA2 handles this stance, but in real combat you don't use this stance if you want to remain mobile.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Crouching position makes it much easier to hold the gun steady in real-life, no question about it. For me, atleast, I was atleast as precise in crouched position as in prone position when I was in the military.

[hoak 0]

It would be nice to have hard data on ArmA II stance/weapon handling metrics so we understand its Player/Soldier interface. Facts and hard information remove a doubt, frustration and 'WTF?!' factor from game encounters (and people blaming things like FADE).

If ArmA II's stance metrics are different it's even more valuable that it be documented as there is the established intuitive high-level (though arguably less realistic) gestalt that's been discussed which is offered in most games.

For the same reasons, and a lot of the consternation that developed around ArmA 1's weapon metrics, it would be constructive if BI were to document ArmA II's weapon metrics to avoid a repeat episode of potentially much larger proportions due to the prospecti of a much larger audience...

ick puts together some of the best weapon handling and performance metrics presentations I've seen -- and game metrics in general (typically only for console games though). I'm a bit suprised that more Developers aren't doing this from get-go, especially for this genre...

:pet5:

Edited June 16, 2009 by Hoak

[fabrizio_t 58]

It would be nice to have hard data on ArmA II stance/weapon handling metrics

I am making some empirical tests with AI firing in a target range in order to gather some data.

So far i'm comparing how accuracy changes for standing vs. prone stance for different unit classes (rifleman, machinegunner, sniper) and variable target distances (100m, 250m, 500m).

Many surprises so far, for example in many cases for a same distance AI units firing from standing position are actually WAY MORE ACCURATE than from prone stance ...

Let me add that the skill level set into the editor seems to have VERY LITTLE effect on actual firing precision, at least for some classes.

So you have to tweak the ARMA2 profile file in order to really tweak precision.

Also it SEEMS that the more a unit fires in a short period of time, the lesser is the precision, until a "lower" limit is reached. Usually that limit seems to be around 5-7 bursts.

Beware, this is what some empirical data is showing now, but so far the data collection is not big enough to really jump to any conclusions.

More raw data will be collected and normalized in order to get reliable results. Keep an eye on the "Micro AI" thread, i'll post there later.

Edited June 16, 2009 by fabrizioT

[Heatseeker 0]

I think its easier to adopt a good stance standing up, leg position, lean forward a bit, etc. Might not be the same for everyone but for me crouch was restrictive, not natural and a real pain in the ass. My worst scores in the range were in the crouch position.

[galzohar 31]

Crouch is more difficult to learn, but when done properly will be a noticeable (but not huge) increase to weapon stability. Of course it takes longer to get into a proper crouching position - less than going prone but also less stable than prone. There's a reason the standard 3 round firing exercise is done at 50m/5sec standing, 100m/7sec crouch and 300m/8sec prone in the IDF M4A1/4X ACOG training.

[wipman 1]

Hi, when i was on the IDM they ordered us to shot crouch in the next way: You put your

right knee on the ground and you seat the ass over your right feet's heel, then you pass

your left elbow forward than your left knee and rest it there, firmly; then shoot.

It worked fine shooting at 50, 100, 200, 400 & 600m; shooting in this way is good for shot

at any distance (short, mid or long range) is better than shoot standing but you've less

side awareness. If you can enter in this shooting possition quick, then you'll have bigger

chances to hit any target in front of you while you minimize your chance of get shot.

Shoot over the knee should be much more accurate than shoot standing; but shoot in

the ArmA/yankees way (on that possition) is only good for the CQB or up to 150m with

luck. It's even slower than the other way (the right one outside citys) to stand up from

this possition, so it shouldn't be used unless we're in a half controled sector. Let's C ya

[volkov956 0]

when firing my kar98k I am more accurate standing then when crouched without support for the weapon

[hoak 0]

I am making some empirical tests with AI firing in a target range in order to gather some data.

So far i'm comparing how accuracy changes for standing vs. prone stance for different unit classes (rifleman, machinegunner, sniper) and variable target distances (100m, 250m, 500m).

Many surprises so far, for example in many cases for a same distance AI units firing from standing position are actually WAY MORE ACCURATE than from prone stance ...

Let me add that the skill level set into the editor seems to have VERY LITTLE effect on actual firing precision, at least for some classes.

So you have to tweak the ARMA2 profile file in order to really tweak precision.

Also it SEEMS that the more a unit fires in a short period of time, the lesser is the precision, until a "lower" limit is reached. Usually that limit seems to be around 5-7 bursts.

Beware, this is what some empirical data is showing now, but so far the data collection is not big enough to really jump to any conclusions.

More raw data will be collected and normalized in order to get reliable results. Keep an eye on the "Micro AI" thread, i'll post there later.

It would be interesting to get data both from virtual firing range testing MOA, and have BI's actual metrics and compare the two as game engines have mysterious ways of adding inaccuracy to weapon code all their own -- and I don't mean multi-player net-code latency and reconciliation issues.

Different engines have different issues, from calculation latency and hit reconciliation errors, to outright bugs -- but the only way to know is to get the actual metrics from BI (or if someone knows where that information is stored in the game and can decompile it) and compare with what's actually happening in-game.

I think it's fairly shocking BI doesn't publish this information, it's great PR is just the sort of thing this audience loves to discuss and explore, and as I mentioned earlier takes a lot of doubt and 'WTF?!' factor out of the game that can be very negative. Heck even DICE and Infinity Ward publish this info or make it easily accessible...

:butbut:

[Carnster 10]

I'm a former British soldier and currently a Firearms Officer in the Police. The kneeling/standing question is quite interesting. In a controlled environment the kneeling position will always be more accurate than standing, however, there are so many variables in reality that make this statement false. Type of weapon, situation, extra weight/balance issues, fitness etc etc. In the Military your role is more defined, it's all about cover, control, and maximizing your chances and minimizing the dangers. Therefore a lot of firing will be done supported (By cover etc) regardless of your stance. In the Police, rarely do you kneel (Even though it has a little part in the qualification) as the role is different. It's about resolving an outcome and most of the shooting is done stood, purely because movement is key a lot of the time.

Of course, I am generalising a lot here. What I'm trying to say is, kneeling doesn't always mean more accurate in reality. It may do on the range (Although in my experience a lot of people's accuracy suffered on the range too) but in reality it can be very different.

:)

[Raidar 1]

I allso don't really like to shoot from crouched position, in means of recoil handling, but what i don't understand is: why can't he keep the sight line straigh? The rifle moves around like he's drunk or he has a rifle without a buttstock. Allso scoped rifles are more stable if crouched in ArmA2 (and if you aim with the "crosshair" you are more accurate (the 2 lines are closer) so i don't get the logic)... If it would be the same with all rifles and just the whole rifle moves (no tilt of the sight line), it would be ok for me. But like this people which like to shoot with ironsight rifles/reddot/holosight, going in cover behind something crouched, makes hitting something nearly impossible.

greetz