Faster moves for a better simulation

[andersson 285]

Speeds ingame is much faster than RL soldiers move, Arma looks slower because of the FOV.If you zoom out max you see that the aparent speed increases. When you zoom in it seems to slow down. Your avatar is always moving at the same speed, which is faster than in RL.

As a trackir user Im always max zoomed out to get more pheriferal vision + to get rid of that slow feeling. I do zoom in if I need to look closely at something...

[Mudkip 0]

Switching from primary to secondary weapon needs to be faster as I'm pretty sure if my rifle ran out of ammo/jammed i wouldn't spend the time to swing it out of the way (slowly) while I carefully draw my sidearm.

Agreed! Check out the binocular and laser designator animations in 3rd person, the character just drops his weapon to his front. It should be like this for anti-tank weapons too.

in fact more makes it easier

Where did you go to school?

[Nutlink 10]

Personally I feel the game feels too slow sometimes as well in regards to player actions. Like switching to your sidearm, for example. BlackHawk Down shows a perfect example on how quick you should be able to switch from one to the other. Well, I suppose that's the only time I feel my avatar is going to slow...

[nyran125 10]

OK so what you really need is an arcade mode then. Where you can run,jump, sprint , topple fall in 1 movement like call of duty 4 (I find those games fun aswell:)). In real life by the way once you did that once or twice you would be exhausted, it would actually be a few minutes, MINUTES before you moved again, NOT SECONDS like you have described.

BOXERS can only swing thier hands around for 3 minutes at a time before they are exhausted and they have to time thier fatigue thoughout that round so they dont get exhausted for the rest of the fight. Now imagine doing what boxers do , but jump around aswell with equipment on your back, well you can do all those things instantly , its called call of duty 4 and battlefield 2.

If you did the things that your explaining you can do in real life run, jump, run, jump you would be too exhausted to make decisions that will likely kill you in a few minutes. In real life YES , soliders run :):):), but they ONLY run at short bursts for very short distances to get to certain destinations which are likely just to be cover. like go to that wall, plan next move, go to next wall plan next movement then GO :> THAT IS A SOLDIER's movement. Then stop, collect yourself, before moving again and ..........GO. What the original poster has stated is VERY Unrealistic. You are trained to be quick and to move when your told to move if your ordered, not to rush in and do stupid stuff.

Do you seriously think in world war 2 guys were just running around? Attacks could take an entire day or 2 or a week to perform. Then once in the action the officers designed waypoints that had been laid out before battle and during by the officers if things got messy. They didnt just rush in , jump around do everything quick as and be home before breakfast it TOOK HOURS of quick decisions from the generals to pull an operation off. Oh yeah theres gun safety too, if you reload like an idiot you would probably accidently shoot yourself which actually happened because of FEAR from the battle and doing things without thought because of being scared or adrenalin.

Edited August 3, 2009 by nyran125

[mrcash2009 0]

I think the opposite it took some "Truemods" to make Arma1 less arcady with the way they moved on a dime and ran like chickens on speed.

As far as im concerned the speed Arma2 = BIS taking note of realism and feel to a point. I wouldn't want it changed one bit. Arma 2's feel while running etc it just about right for what this sim is.

Driving ... has anyone realised that using "w" key is fast forwards? If you actually use keys and use the "Q" (slow) and "E" key (full) you have different speeds. All you need to do on roads and curves is use the "Q" key to go slow and the cars handle fine. If your pummeling along with the "W" key and holding any turn keys you are in for a shock. You simply take your finger off the forwards keys on turns etc and it will balance out. Ive driven most of the island and hit a few things along the way (taking wrong turn) and driven fine.

Theres one anim move I would like to see in the game though and thats slide on the ground like in Ghost Recon 2 onwards .. as you run you can slide, but that would be borderline though.

Edited August 3, 2009 by mrcash2009

[Arty 10]

Must add something from myself.

We do need to add at least faster turns. In real life it wont take your head to turn from left to right about 4 seconds... thats nonsence. Also to turn around 180 aswell takes you loads of time. Again, in real life it will take 1 second thats if you are a rifle man not an MG.

[Fiya 10]

Must add something from myself.

We do need to add at least faster turns. In real life it wont take your head to turn from left to right about 4 seconds... thats nonsence. Also to turn around 180 aswell takes you loads of time. Again, in real life it will take 1 second thats if you are a rifle man not an MG.

I think you have trouble with your hands sir.

[afp 1]

i would like to see on the next patch , a much more faster reactions .....Could we make something like more turbo move , burst move whatever who fit to the reality ...

aiming is so unreal , there is a latency which does not exist with most of the weapons , if you want more realism make it like real . why does i feel the same aiming with a small rifle gun and a machine gun ...

Indeed, things like proning or switching to secondary weapons should be faster, we are talking about combat conditions when everything is done at maximum possible speed, not about medium time for such actions.

On the other hand, a simulation for a harder handling of a machine gun is missing it shouldn't be that easy to aim with a MG as with a pistol...

[dmarkwick 261]

I'm currently working on an addon that does a lot of testing with running units. It seems to me that running units run too fast for too long. I send a guy running and he can basically run at speed indefinitely.

Also, and this is a perception point, I think people generally assume a faster movement rate (turning, standing from crouch, switching weapons etc) than is actually the case. People might believe that they can turn about in a crouch 180 degrees in 0.5 seconds, but that doesn't happen IRL, and certainly not with any kind of precision aiming a weapon. The game is less about fast movements and reflex actions and more about how you GOT into the position where you have to rely on that stuff. More thinking, less twitching :D. I daresay those times when you DO need to swing about and fire at very close quarters it's all a bit hit & miss, lucky or not, I can recall as many times when I got really lucky in close quarters as when I got UNlucky.

Personally, I'm generally happy with the rate that units move, apart from the running as suggested above. As long as ALL units are subject to the same movement rules, it seems to be more or less OK.

Edited August 3, 2009 by DMarkwick

[Defunkt 431]

I like the movement very much and more the more I experience it. I have just two small gripes:

1. There needs to be a finer sideways step (when sighted AND walking) as it's too easy when trying to adjust aim around a corner to suddenly find you've taken a full step out of cover.

2. There are times when coming to a full stop to run the step over animation looks daft for many very low (say 1 foot high) obstacles. Dare I say; this would in fact be best dealt with by a low (and exhausting where repeated) jump.

[.kju 3241]

If you provide me a list of bullet points changes here,

I will look into it. Tweak anim speed is rather easy.

Just takes time..

[afp 1]

added two

[galzohar 31]

Currently the step-over animation is suitable for walls ~1m high. When you use it to step over a 0.5m high obstacle, the animation looks retardedly slow (plus I'm not even sure it would work on obstacles that are actually 1m high).

[pluton88 10]

Some of you guys are very funny ....:bounce3:

you are talking that there is nothing to change, that ARMA 2 is a real simulation and it is true to the real Combat Experience.

So just explain me how can you enter a Heavy tank and make it start, making it fully operational in something like 1 or 2 second like in the game .how can you change from driver seat to gunner seat in 1 second .

Come on let be serious .Ok i understand that having to go threw 5 to 10 minutes of starting process will be a little bit boring.

How about entering and starting a helicopter or even a jetfighter , 15 to 20 minutes ??? (and i am not talking for the flying ability , how many of you guys have ever fly a A 10 jetfighter or a Harrier ???

you can see that everything is not like real and not perfect.

it is not like real and it is better for the number of time we get kill , smashed and so on ...

But like i said in the original post the reaction , the aiming , moving , reloading or dropping weapon of the soldier is under fire and specially in urban and town mode combat not fast enough.

to be closer to the reality this power of adrenaline should last something like 4 to 5 minutes and then drop to a slower and slower moves like suggest correctly "DMarkwick".

And please stop to talk always of COD , i have mention Red Orchestra which is much more better game simulation but have an old graphic engine . a new one is coming i think it is call "heroes of Stalingrad"

will see....

Thanks specially "galzohar" who just explain me the tactics and strategy of a real fighting .i won't discuss on that tactic and strategy performance which is something have every good chess player and has nothing to do with real experience .

probably or maybe your tactic is better than mine.

But if you talking of experience , i do have some military experience and maybe or probably more than you .

i had the chance to shot every single weapons(and not a single shot) that does have a french military soldier from every single PA , to 5.56 NATO rifles ,7.5mm rifles,9 mm parabellum , FRF1 and FRF2 sniper , 12.5 mm machine gun , LRAC 89mm anti.tank rockets, grenades offensive , defensive , C4 , gaz , fire at night with and without NV , in every position and in any ambiance ,chimical , biologic , etc.

And believe the one who has shot at night in a stand up position after a 400 m run with a chimical mask on a moving target at only 50 meters know what it means by aiming .

20 years ago , i was Captain in the french army.

[MulleDK19 21]

There is an evasive forward move. that is enough. I don't want to sound like Walker here but what you're describing sounds arcadey rather than realistic, though this may be down to your English.

I agree with OP.

ARMA 2 suffer from the same failure OFP and ArmA suffered from. Animations needs to complete before you can do anything else.

If you're about to crouch, and then you're getting fired at, you have to wait until he's done crouching, before you can stand up and run.

It takes a very long time to change direction too. (Strafing left, then right)

Etc.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Imho many people reacting that way because they are bit afraid that if you suggest to make Arma2 faster this game could turn into somekind of jump-and-run fraggfest. ;)

Overall I would say there is a need for some more animations/movements.

Imagine the player or AI has to move very slowly in somekind of stealth/recon missions or if they have to use a very quick and fast sprint to get into cover.

Of course the player/AI shouldnt be able to sprint long distances or forever. Especially if they have AA/AT launchers on their back or carry machineguns or any other bulky/heavy weapons.

Keep in mind you dont jump over higher objects/walls - either you go around or you climb over them. Hmm there we need a proper climb animation... lets say two of them: one alone and the other with a buddy/teammate. :)

[Pyrodox 0]

It seems like people are sharing the same argument over two different points.

I don't see how making things "faster" would make it more realistic. The soldiers already run too fast in the game.

However, there's a big difference between making things "faster" and having to completely finish an entire animation before you can start another, or move.

In ArmA 1, you'd stop dead to reload, now you can reload on the move which is a major improvement. However, there are still things that stop you dead and require the animation to complete. I think this is one of the major things people percieve as being "too slow." While it's not really the speed of the animation that's at fault, it's that once you "commit" to doing something, you can't change your mind in the middle of it.

Combat situations are very dynamic, they change from milisecond to milisecond, and while it may take you a couple seconds to actually switch to an M136 in real life, say... If the situation changes in real life, you'd drop the M136 and grab your rifle if you saw an emeny pop out from a corner next to you.

I think if we had the option to "drop everything and grab your gun" at a moments notice should the situation change relative to the time when you started a "real life speed" animation, the same you'd do in real life, there wouldn't be as much of a perception of things being "too slow."

Maybe something as simple as "if you click your fire button while playing an animation, it stops your current animation and plays a quick grab your gun and shoulder it animation, then fires." It wouldn't introduce split second weapon changes that way, but would give you maybe a second more time to react than if you're playing the entire animation, then another entire animation to switch back to your weapon.

The same could be done with "step over" where you go to step over, but if you take fire or need to get down really fast you just hit forward or sprint or some other key you normally use to run, and you dive off/over whatever you were stepping over.

[Defunkt 431]

I think people underestimate how difficult it would be to create an interruptible animation system. It is done in other games but those generally (possibly always) have the disconnected first/third person views where your own view and that of others viewing you can differ and your entire perception of your own movement is based on two arms floating in space. For a simulation, the fidelity of what we have now is vastly superior as those engines are riddled with inconsistencies like players (apparently) shooting bullets out of their forehead while completely behind cover.

[pluton88 10]

yes , Pyrodox , i do agree with you ...

this possibility to cancel the action you are doing in one click and to just grab your gun faster as possible , that would be something more realistic ....

we are going on the right way .

Thanks Pyrodox :):):)

[nkenny 1051]

I think people underestimate how difficult it would be to create an interruptible animation system. It is done in other games but those generally (possibly always) have the disconnected first/third person views where your own view and that of others viewing you can differ and your entire perception of your own movement is based on two arms floating in space. For a simulation, the fidelity of what we have now is vastly superior as those engines are riddled with inconsistencies like players (apparently) shooting bullets out of their forehead while completely behind cover.

This is completely nonsense. Few modern games suffer any such 'problems'.

Traditional animations are not unlike a film reel. You can rewind, fastward, skip etc. No problems. Whether or not the same animations are used for third and first person view is immaterial.

Proper "skeletal animations" permit different body parts to play different 'tracks' of animations is old news. All modern games employ these reverting only to traditional "vertex" animations for the most simple of objects. Blending one series of animations into another is also ancient history. It has for instance been part of the Half-Life engine since what? year 2000?

Contemporary game animation techniques tend to take advantage of inverse kinematics. Which allows for proper physics handling, traction, and totally dynamic movement sequences etc etc. This is beyond anything we can hope for Arma2, but look to ET: Quake Wars for an excellent implementation.

-K

[Defunkt 431]

You must be referring to another Half-Life as the Half-Life I play has exactly the 1st/3rd person disconnect problem I'm referring to?

Q: What is this?

A: The only thing a Half-Life based game has to render (anywhere) in 3D to convince you of your own ease of movement.

COD4/5 (and I'll bet COD6 too; recent enough?) is another one, hide behind cover with nothing but the top inch of your helmet visible and you can still blast away with your shouldered weapon, because the two views don't actually have to match.

ET:QW may well have something better, you'll note I didn't say it was impossible but you can hold up a single feature from a truck load of other games and say "this is better than ArmA" when there are 10 other things those same games won't do as well (in ET:QW's case getting people to play it for a start). But please, don't let a few facts stop you from puffing up your forum ego.

[nkenny 1051]

Actually I slightly miss read his post. There is no questioning that most traditional first person shooters have separate first and third person models. (this to allow higher fidelity in animations and render quality of first person weapons/arms)

What I respond to is the ridiculous notion that because Arma2 has shared animations; we can't get smoothly flowing/interruptible ones.

-K

[Defunkt 431]

If Valve and EA can't rebuild a state-of-the-art animation system (skeletal, blended, utilising IK AND unified with the world view) into their engines then we must accept that it is difficult (my point above) for BIS also. Let's give them a little credit for the way they have cut their cloth, it's too easy to knock a game for not having the best of everything but you can over-invest in an engine (for instance) and end up with content and a game nobody wants to play (ET:QW for instance).

[nkenny 1051]

I agree.

I still want smoother animations/sequences like Operation flashpoint offered. More specifically as the latests version of @WW4 mod offered. As an end user, in this case, the technicalities don't really interest me.

This is another classic example of BIS having many good ideas, but botching the implementation in the USER INTERFACE part.

-K

[bangtail 0]

Some of you guys are very funny ....:bounce3:

you are talking that there is nothing to change, that ARMA 2 is a real simulation and it is true to the real Combat Experience.

So just explain me how can you enter a Heavy tank and make it start, making it fully operational in something like 1 or 2 second like in the game .how can you change from driver seat to gunner seat in 1 second .

Come on let be serious .Ok i understand that having to go threw 5 to 10 minutes of starting process will be a little bit boring.

How about entering and starting a helicopter or even a jetfighter , 15 to 20 minutes ??? (and i am not talking for the flying ability , how many of you guys have ever fly a A 10 jetfighter or a Harrier ???

you can see that everything is not like real and not perfect.

it is not like real and it is better for the number of time we get kill , smashed and so on ...

But like i said in the original post the reaction , the aiming , moving , reloading or dropping weapon of the soldier is under fire and specially in urban and town mode combat not fast enough.

to be closer to the reality this power of adrenaline should last something like 4 to 5 minutes and then drop to a slower and slower moves like suggest correctly "DMarkwick".

And please stop to talk always of COD , i have mention Red Orchestra which is much more better game simulation but have an old graphic engine . a new one is coming i think it is call "heroes of Stalingrad"

will see....

Thanks specially "galzohar" who just explain me the tactics and strategy of a real fighting .i won't discuss on that tactic and strategy performance which is something have every good chess player and has nothing to do with real experience .

probably or maybe your tactic is better than mine.

But if you talking of experience , i do have some military experience and maybe or probably more than you .

i had the chance to shot every single weapons(and not a single shot) that does have a french military soldier from every single PA , to 5.56 NATO rifles ,7.5mm rifles,9 mm parabellum , FRF1 and FRF2 sniper , 12.5 mm machine gun , LRAC 89mm anti.tank rockets, grenades offensive , defensive , C4 , gaz , fire at night with and without NV , in every position and in any ambiance ,chimical , biologic , etc.

And believe the one who has shot at night in a stand up position after a 400 m run with a chimical mask on a moving target at only 50 meters know what it means by aiming .

20 years ago , i was Captain in the french army.

Yah Yah the OP "probably" has more military experience than all of us according to him and judging by his suggestions, I'm guessing it was in The Salvation army :p

Seriously though, there are about 100 games with the kind of gameplay you seem to like. Your adrenaline idea sounds like "Maximum strength"! No thanks mate.

Why does every game have to be altered to suit your CoD4/RO play style? I wouldn't really consider RO that realistic tbh. It's a great game, don't get me wrong, and very well done with the limited engine resources.

If you don't like the way A2 is, go and play something else.

TiA :)

Eth

PS : Like some of you, I agree that it could use SOME work (a bit of tweaking here and there) but I certainly don't want it turned into Crysis like the OP.

Edited August 7, 2009 by BangTail