In game rifle accuracy - why is it done like this?

[TAW_RiEvEr 10]

With a real 7.62mm rifle I never miss at 300yds and, in calm winds, can put 5 shots in a grouping that will be covered by a cigarette packet.

That was the standard they trained us to in the British Army in the 1980s.

In ArmA2 the accuracy seems to suffer drastically at anything over 150yds with standard rifles (no sniper scopes).

Why is it this bad? I even tried re-assigning the fire key in case the mouse was moving when I clicked to shoot and it made no difference, the shot will still miss far too often.

No I haven't been running, just lying prone and calm waiting for a target...

I've had similar comments from other serving and ex-serving forces members in TAW. As a 'simulation', shouldn't the game simulate real life rifle accuracy too?

Edited July 16, 2009 by TAW_RiEvEr
typos as usual

[whisper 0]

Can be simply a gameplay decision. I remember people being delighted by ACE recoil changes compared to ArmA1 1.08 recoils (which were more prone to precision)

Sidenote : TAW, same group as in ET:QW?

[TAW_RiEvEr 10]

Can be simply a gameplay decision. I remember people being delighted by ACE recoil changes compared to ArmA1 1.08 recoils (which were more prone to precision)

Hmm.. possible, but it has put a couple of the guys off playing it as it feels artificial to us.

Sidenote : TAW, same group as in ET:QW?

Yes - same group - I used to be in the ET:QW team at TAW :)

[LJF 0]

I just don't like the way it seems your rifle only kicks up. I know it doesn't but the way the view is done it appears that way.

[Decerto 10]

The PK machine gun kicks up and to the right when you try a long burst.

[manberries 0]

I dont have any issue putting rounds in a ciagrette pack grouping at 250 meters (close enough to 300 yds). Not with the akm the ak74 or the m16. With enough practice i learn exactly where the zeroing distance is, exactly where the bullet will go compared to the sight. The only thing that throws it off is the random dispersion model sometimes goes a bit haywire and makes my bullet go far off course. Other than that its not too hard; especially with a red dot or acog.

[synch_c 10]

I don't think it's random dispersion. It's the fact that your soldier can't hold the gun straight. It get's ridiculous with the submachine guns.There was one time, with an uninjured soldier, I couldn't see the front sight post on my mp5 at all because the sway was so bad. Bizon even worse. Breathing makes little difference. You're far better off using the hud sights. It's just .... wrong. Too exaggerated.

[Pyrodox 0]

With a real 7.62mm rifle I never miss at 300yds and, in calm winds, can put 5 shots in a grouping that will be covered by a cigarette packet.

That was the standard they trained us to in the British Army in the 1980s.

In ArmA2 the accuracy seems to suffer drastically at anything over 150yds with standard rifles (no sniper scopes).

Why is it this bad? I even tried re-assigning the fire key in case the mouse was moving when I clicked to shoot and it made no difference, the shot will still miss far too often.

No I haven't been running, just lying prone and calm waiting for a target...

I've had similar comments from other serving and ex-serving forces members in TAW. As a 'simulation', shouldn't the game simulate real life rifle accuracy too?

Just wondering, you stated that you bound fire to another key incase your mouse was moving at all when you clicked (trigger pull? =P) I've always thought about this in ArmA, OFP, etc... I wonder if the game perfectly re-centers the weapon after firing, or if it recoils and the game stops re-centering the weapon somewhere along the path of recoil, just not completely back at the center of your view.

I guess to try it, fire the weapon, then move the mouse and re-center your sights on the target. See if that makes your groups any smaller. If so, the game might not fully compensate for recoil and leave it up to the player to do so.

[50.cal 10]

I agree that with some known to be precise weapons the dispersion cone is a bit to loose by now.

[manberries 0]

I don't think it's random dispersion. It's the fact that your soldier can't hold the gun straight. It get's ridiculous with the submachine guns.There was one time, with an uninjured soldier, I couldn't see the front sight post on my mp5 at all because the sway was so bad. Bizon even worse. Breathing makes little difference. You're far better off using the hud sights. It's just .... wrong. Too exaggerated.

Well we are talking about range shooting here. We are not talking about a 3km hike then trying to shoot someone. I am talking about standing with a rifle engaging a static target at 250 meters with a rifle. Not in fast succession but with precise controlled semi auto shots. Also, the sway isnt realistic by itself, but what it does do is make it about as hard to hit someone once ur winded/tired/freaking out as it is in real life. Shooting on a computer game is easy because the sights line up all nice and dandy and keep relatively steady. Therefore, exaggerated sway increases shot difficulty in functionality if not reality.

[Murklor 10]

To me the accuracy isnt a problem, its the bullet drop that mess up the aim. The MP5 for example, absolutely horrendous. Have to aim like 5m above people just to hit them.

[chaplainDMK 10]

Just wondering, you stated that you bound fire to another key incase your mouse was moving at all when you clicked (trigger pull? =P) I've always thought about this in ArmA, OFP, etc... I wonder if the game perfectly re-centers the weapon after firing, or if it recoils and the game stops re-centering the weapon somewhere along the path of recoil, just not completely back at the center of your view.

I guess to try it, fire the weapon, then move the mouse and re-center your sights on the target. See if that makes your groups any smaller. If so, the game might not fully compensate for recoil and leave it up to the player to do so.

It takes a little time to recentre the weapon. Without sights check the little line thats in the centre of the crosshair. It moves to show where barrel is pointing (at the ground when running etc.)

[synch_c 10]

To me the accuracy isnt a problem, its the bullet drop that mess up the aim. The MP5 for example, absolutely horrendous. Have to aim like 5m above people just to hit them.

At ~> 100m yes you have to aim high. That's more than 300ft remember. Don't know the first thing about ballistics but at the end of the day that's a parabellum round. It just hasn't got the mass to keep it's velocity. Sounds about right to me.

[Pyrodox 0]

It takes a little time to recentre the weapon. Without sights check the little line thats in the centre of the crosshair. It moves to show where barrel is pointing (at the ground when running etc.)

I realize that (if you use the on-screen crosshair anyway, which I don't)... But I'm saying, that shows the location of the front sight relative to the rear sight of the weapon, the outer and inner portions of the on-screen crosshair. I'm wondering if the game does not compensate completely for recoil when the weapon is fired.

I.E. you have your sights on target, you fire the weapon, it recoils throwing your sights off target some amount (both front and back, the whole weapon is moving). Now, the game automatically "re-centers" the weapon, pulling it back to the center position of your screen, and lines up the front and rear sights again for you. However, I'm wondering if it doesn't completely compensate for that movement, maybe the entire weapon is thrown "off center" by recoil and when you recenter your sights, you see them relative to themselves (front and rear sights centered on each other) but the point at which the sights are aiming might be slightly different from the point at which they were aiming before you fired the weapon.

[whisper 0]

It takes a little time to recentre the weapon. Without sights check the little line thats in the centre of the crosshair. It moves to show where barrel is pointing (at the ground when running etc.)

There's 2 things, the weapon recentering slowly back into your aimpoint (the crosshair around the little line is your aimpoint) after each shot, and the aimpoint itself moving very slightly, a bit randomly, and depending on weapon, making the weapon not coming back always at the point you was aiming originally.

So there's the recoil that your character handle to re-aim correctly, and the "kickback" which moves your character's body and is not compensated. This kickback is high for machineguns in autofire and not prone, for example, on top of normal recoil being huge

[Pyrodox 0]

There's 2 things, the weapon recentering slowly back into your aimpoint (the crosshair around the little line is your aimpoint) after each shot, and the aimpoint itself moving very slightly, a bit randomly, and depending on weapon, making the weapon not coming back always at the point you was aiming originally.

So there's the recoil that your character handle to re-aim correctly, and the "kickback" which moves your character's body and is not compensated. This kickback is high for machineguns in autofire and not prone, for example, on top of normal recoil being huge

This is basically what I'm talking about. So, you're saying this actually is modeled in-game?

And precisely why I asked the OP what he thought about this... He said he bound another button to his "fire" key to make sure the mouse wasn't moving at all between shots. I'm wondering, even if the user input (mouse) isn't being moved, if the game changes the sights alignment towards the point of impact between shots slightly. I.E. every time you fire, you bring your weapons sights back to the same position relative to your virtual "head," but the point at which your virtual eyes have aligned with the sights and you are now looking down range at your target is slightly different.

I mean, in real life, you have to align the sights on a static point of impact every time you fire a weapon. So it makes sense that it would be modeled in game that you have to apply some user input to realign the sights on a point of impact, rather than the game doing it completely for you.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Pyrodox

[TangoRomeo 10]

In ArmA2 the accuracy seems to suffer drastically at anything over 150yds with standard rifles (no sniper scopes).

Why is it this bad? I even tried re-assigning the fire key in case the mouse was moving when I clicked to shoot and it made no difference, the shot will still miss far too often.

No I haven't been running, just lying prone and calm waiting for a target...

I've had similar comments from other serving and ex-serving forces members in TAW. As a 'simulation', shouldn't the game simulate real life rifle accuracy too?

Just curious. Do you experience inaccuracy in all firing positions, or just using a particular one? I just set up a blue-blue scenario at ~500m, to get immediate feedback on whether or not i´m on target. Standard rifleman used.

Results are consistent for prone and standing, for both firing positions, 1st shot on target, aiming point being on the edge of the upper torso. Kneeling position had somewhat unexpected results, in that sight-alignment appears to be off to varying degrees.

ArmA, as 99% of other fps, does not have an option, or require the player to establish sight alignment, he is just tasked with maintaining proper sight picture and adjust for recoil. So there's not much that could be done about it atm. Don't know if/ to what extend athmospherical conditions do have an impact, for this test i selected perfect weather.

[Flanker15 0]

Are you holding your breath when firing and then not releasing it which makes your aim worse the longer you hold? Or not holding your breath at all?

[*NOB*Perica 10]

Speaking of rifles and realism, have you guys noticed how gun sway while standing and aiming is almost 'fixed' with very little movement when IRL it should sway a lot more (regardless of your breathing technique). I'm also a sports shooter and I base this observation from my own experience and I believe everyone here who has ever held a rifle in his/her life would agree in Arma2 the aiming thru iron sights is too static.

[Slaytanic 10]

I have to admit that I to am a good shot in real life. Not the best but good enough to get the round to target. Here is the difference between how a persons shoots on a range and in combat.

On the range noone is shooting back. So your heart rate will increase you will lose some fine motor skills and your heart rate will increase because your body is going to dump Adrenaline and other chemicals into your system.

If you want a real world simulation of combat you have to consider and incorporate fear into the game. For example James Butler Hickok (Wild Bill Hickcock) had one street shootout in his life with David Tutt a confederate army veteran. Both had combat experience, and both fired thousands of rounds during thier time on earth, and both of them have aimed and killed other men before this day. But one man missed by a mile and one man hit the other in the heart. Keep in mind both men fired almost at the same time, so much so witnesses heard only one shot. Hickok lived to fight and lie to the press another day, and Tutt was sent to his grave.

Hickok was said to have a very rare charater feature. He was able to stay clam in the face of almost certain death. A attribute that most men and women do not have. And yes that includes Army veterans and Special Forces. Trust me I would rather take cover behind a object than stand in a straight line while your enemy fires rifle vollies. I feel they did a good job of bringing the fear aspect into the game. Below is some great points made about training in reactive shooting. Pay attention to the accuracy rates of officers in combat situations, its less than 17%.

REACTIVE SHOOTING

During a deadly force encounter survival is based on actions and re-reactions. Reactive shooting teaches individuals to identify, track and engage moving threats at human reaction speeds. We know that to effectively operate at these speeds is a critical foundation to survive a deadly force encounter.

Reactive shooting is based on human reaction time. “Reaction time†by reactive shooting definition is the time it takes one’s mind to have the ability to select the proper action to a response upon recognition of a specific threat, then act upon that threat.

The average human reaction time is just under 0.25 seconds. When training to shoot reactively we break down all our movements by time. Using this principle a shooter has a maximum set time allowed to realistically engage a threat.

It is imperative that law enforcement officers have reality based training that requires personnel to demonstrate the ability to accurately engage multiple moving targets within realistic time periods. How one ultimately performs under stress is the foundation of one’s reality based training and mental conditioning.

Because most firearm training programs are based on static precision style shooting and unrealistic engagement times most people cannot accurately deploy their firearm under severe duress during a deadly force incident. If you look at the FBI Crime statistics, it shows that officers have a hit ratio of less than 17% when they fire their weapon in the line of duty.

Using the seven principle fundamentals of reactive shooting, officers can learn how to successfully engage threats that are only exposed for .25 to .75 of a second from 0 to 18 yards.

Reactive shooting teaches officers to operate within realistic time periods while accurately engaging identified threats.

[Drumheller 19]

Oh but don't worry. Enemy NPCs with submachine guns can headshot your sniper from 400 yards away 3 seconds after you blow up the APC they were in.

Oh and they do it through vegitation that they can see through but you can't.

sigh.

[TAW_RiEvEr 10]

Okay - some interesting points there about sight-centering, body position and aiming. I'll experiment a bit. (I was briefly using the 'pause breathing' key before each shot. I tried it without that and the results did seem less accurate.)

On the whole the in-game shooting does feel much less accurate than real life weaponry though, unless being a 'Marksman' means I shoot better than 99% of the population, which I doubt.

I could teach anyone, who was willing to listen, to shoot with the same accuracy I do - in fact that was part of my job in the forces for a while. ;)

[Bulldogs 10]

Not sure what the issue would be, other than if fade kicked in in which case you couldn't hit anything easily over 50m.

I can pick off a target at 300m pretty easily without scope, the difference being that with most weapons below 300m you have to aim lower than the target for recoil and over 300m you have to aim above for falloff.

That said, I haven't had so much ease of shot with the AK's.