Floating zone poll

[Bad Pilot 0]

I have changed my float to about 70% which is as much as I can before the gunsight moves out to either side-screen and becomes mis-aligned with the viewfinder. Liking it!

[Dead3yez 0]

i use it dearly around 75%, allow me to swing my weapon faster in all directions.

Me too.

For sniping it also gives benefits by keeping body movement to a minimum.

[edit]

At times it will take longer to acquire your target if you're new to it, but eventually you will get used to it.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Dead3yez

[GoOB 0]

About 75-100% here - It is a lovely little feature, adds to immersion in a way that I can't really describe.

[Binkowski 26]

I use 100%, well because rifles aren't nailed into your shoulder in real life.

[weegee_101 0]

~5% floating zone, but mostly because I do a lot of CQB as opposed to long range combat.

Of course IRL I want to see you fire a sniper rifle with the agility that the Arma 2 soldier does. Especially the M107 (but also the M24 or even the DMR). Those things are not only heavy, but are hard to aim fast in CQB, with or without using the sights...

M107 maybe, but the M24 and M40 are easy to aim quickly. They come standard issue with Redfield Palma International emergency iron sights that are on top of the scope. Yeah they weigh a bit more, but you also train using the emergency iron sights since if you're surprised (or moving) it can mean living as opposed to dying.

[galzohar 31]

I don't know about US, but I definitely didn't have (and thus wasn't trained to use) any iron sights on my M24. Nor was I officially trained for firing from any position other than prone and from a tripod (though I'd have to blame that on the lack of time for training, and I did hit a target at 400m standing but that was incredibly hard and the next 4 shots missed). As a sniper if you have to get a quick shot going then something very very wrong must've happened, not to mention at least here we carry our M4A1s and keep the M24 packed until in position for the very reasons I mentioned in previous posts.

Though I have to say that in-game the agility of the M24 sniper is not that big of an issue because it still sucks for non-sniping purposes, unlike the M107 which unfortunately is a great CQB weapon in crosshair-enabled servers.

M24/DMR may be possible to aim quickly, but is not anywhere near as easy to aim quickly as an M4A1 or M16A4. There's even a noticeable difference in how easy it is to aim between a plain M16 to one that is heavy on attachments (M203+scope+laser makes a noticeable enough difference).

currently the only real difference between weapons is the sight, magazine size, ROF, trajectory and damage at different ranges. IRL there is *so much* more to it than that, most importantly the weight and size of the weapon.

Doing CQB with an M16A4 rather than an M4A1 is enough of a nightmare, I can't imagine going into CQB with an M24 or even a DMR, not to mention an M107. In this game you wouldn't hesitate before doing it, while IRL it's not even a realistic option.

[mosh 0]

0%

After reading through all the posts, I am testing it out at 100%... I don't hate it so far, we'll see how it goes.

[sic-disaster 311]

Put it around 50%.

To much makes me turn around slow, i've got an old mouse. Having it at 50% is just perfect for me.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Though I have to say that in-game the agility of the M24 sniper is not that big of an issue because it still sucks for non-sniping purposes, unlike the M107 which unfortunately is a great CQB weapon in crosshair-enabled servers.

And that's my biggest gripe about the crosshairs :( I have a couple of suggestions that would make wannabe 'snipers' think twice before trying to play like one:

1) No crosshairs (hardcoded to the weapon) for any dmr, sniper, or antimaterial (.50 cal) rifles. None whatsoever. Unfortunately you pretty much need crosshairs enabled for some kinds of weapons to be used safely. I use addon to remove weapon crosshairs, but naturally I can't play on [m]any servers but our own :(

2) Maybe also for ACOG equipped M16s. Maybe not for ACOG equipped M4s, but M4s should be less accurate. Don't have much experience with them in Arma2, but I suspect ammo is still the driving force. But ACE would fix that down the line. Then I would have less objections against weapon crosshairs for the remaining (more CQB'ish) stuff.

3) Double the size for the .50 cal sniper ammunition, making each magazine take up two slots. To compensate for the 'loss', add proper multipurpose ammunition so that these systems can be used properly. It would be insane to carry these around for any CQB.

Back to the OP question :)

I played with floating zone in OFP only, and I hated it. Haven't touched it since - still hate it. I run around with 20-30% of head bobbing though. At 20-30 nominal FPS (5-45 peaks) I feel my game lags behind if I put it up any further.

[Binkowski 26]

And that's my biggest gripe about the crosshairs :( I have a couple of suggestions that would make wannabe 'snipers' think twice before trying to play like one:

1) No crosshairs (hardcoded to the weapon) for any dmr, sniper, or antimaterial (.50 cal) rifles. None whatsoever. Unfortunately you pretty much need crosshairs enabled for some kinds of weapons to be used safely. I use addon to remove weapon crosshairs, but naturally I can't play on [m]any servers but our own :(

2) Maybe also for ACOG equipped M16s. Maybe not for ACOG equipped M4s, but M4s should be less accurate. Don't have much experience with them in Arma2, but I suspect ammo is still the driving force. But ACE would fix that down the line. Then I would have less objections against weapon crosshairs for the remaining (more CQB'ish) stuff.

3) Double the size for the .50 cal sniper ammunition, making each magazine take up two slots. To compensate for the 'loss', add proper multipurpose ammunition so that these systems can be used properly. It would be insane to carry these around for any CQB.

Back to the OP question :)

I played with floating zone in OFP only, and I hated it. Haven't touched it since - still hate it. I run around with 20-30% of head bobbing though. At 20-30 nominal FPS (5-45 peaks) I feel my game lags behind if I put it up any further.

I agree.

[galzohar 31]

The problem with crosshair elimination on certain weapons, is that it makes certain weapons WAY more accurate than others when not sighted, when in reality they should all be very inaccurate unsighted. Servers just need to play on expert if they want to be anywhere near realism... Sure it's still not 100% realistic but it's as close as this game can be. Being a bit less accurate than RL unsighted (actually, i think i am pretty damn accurate unsighted compared to RL at 0 floating zone) is more realistic than being as accurate unsighted as you are with aimpoints/ironsights, if not more (due to the crosshair being smaller than standard sights and thus doesn't obscure your target nor does it obscure your FOV).

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Ok, big blurry cirles of 'crosshairs' for CBQ weapons, with blur and visibility/opacity determined by the floating zone value then :) And maybe a faded/half transparent sight frame for holo based sights (to simulate the other eye still open). That way they would have more bonuses to use compared to iron sights, which today doesn't really have any drawbacks. Some mechanisms that makes the truly awesome weapons not so good in certain situations, and increases the useability of certain CQB weapons that doesn't really give that much of an egde.

I'm no expert, and I'm only guessing here. But I think the M4 is better suited for CQB compared to the longer barrelled M16. The M16 may have some better accuracy, but suffers from getting stuck. In Arma2 you don't have much to get stuck in, so why would anyone bother using something with less accuracy? Throw in semitransparent CQB sights, and you've increased the weapons useability/value. I as mission designer can give player a choice between M16 ACOG or M4 Aimpoint for a CQB mission. Suddenly the M16 ACOG isn't the only choice anymore.

Maybe some enforced mouse lag for the .50 cals to simulate their mass and inertia :)

Ehm, CQB isn't really a good point for Arma2, try to read it as MOUT instead. Still makes valid point I guess.

[LugNut 10]

I've played around with it from 0 - 100% and I like it, but not sure where it'll end up. I've got wicked mouse lag which doesn't help, so I feel like a big enough drunk already as I play. :p

I've got head bob off, with not so great FPS, I need all the help I can get fighting the blur.

[galzohar 31]

Mouse lag does not simulate weapon weight, it simulates a retarded soldier. Inertia does simulate weight, but the weapon inertia in the game is very minimal (if even existent? Maybe it's just max turn speed, not sure) and seems to be the same for all weapons (though mounted weapons definitely turn slower).

Any kind of crosshair will give you too much accuracy. It had been discussed to death. With 0 floating zone you and no crosshairs at all you still have too much accuracy (killing a man at 100m in a rather short burst from LMG is very possible). Give any additional aids and it's more accurate. Fading it doesn't make it harder to aim, it just makes it more annoying.

I don't see the big excitement about floating zone. While turning your weapon independently from your body is realistic, that's not all floating zone does. Floating zone also turns your weapon sights (which your eyes are aligned with and are focused at what they're pointing at) independently from your head/eyes, which obviously makes absolutely no sense. Also, if no-crosshair shooting is a problem for floating zone and BIS won't go with the "want floating zone? Your problem" approach, they could allow you to hold/toggle a key to disable floating zone for unsighted shooting, as IRL you'd also not look away from your target when shooting unsighted, but rather you will look and aim at the exact same place.

Edited August 16, 2009 by galzohar

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

it's a theory, that when you turn in the grass, the AI picks up the movement. So free look and floating zones stops that.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

True. I always use this feature (alt aiming) when I'm hiding and sighting, even though I play with no floating zone.

I think what we need are two separate things:

1) A floating zone like today which is enforced very very small, to disallow the "paint a dot on the screen". No controls for it, it should be a built in thing.

2) A new inertia system that borrows from the current floating zone, although to some it would "feel" like mouse lag, except it isn't. Weapon AND head (depending on slider control) turns, but with inertia. That way those who perfer current system gets theirs, and those who like to aim (about) the center of the screen gets theirs.

One thing: The player using todays system will know when his gun is about to enter the danger zone, at which point he starts to move his body around and take a stealth penalty. The player using the new system won't have this. How to achieve that for the head rotating player? I'm not a fan of a new onscreen gui element. Keep in mind, different zoom values in different scopes, and you can't stop movement completely (like you do when alt aiming) as you should still be able to turn your body.

With OFP, it was never the inertia that bugged me (if it was there, can't remember), it was only the "aimpoint not near center of screen" thingy that felt itchy coming from other action shooters at the time.

I want inertia especially on the heavier weapons, but I won't turn on floating zone to get it. But I will turn it up to about 5% to achieve non perfect center just to see what happens, don't think it shouldn't bother me too much even if I prefer to play without crosshairs.

[ffur2007slx2_5 11]

<10%, truer.

[LJF 0]

What about a system like the current one but smoother? Surely it would be possible to have a slow build up movement when you leave the floating zone, that's what I dislike about the current floating zone, it's too jerky and feels unnatural. The current system is like a square, if you were to blur the edges of this square is what I mean, wow, that's hard to explain :( I hope you get what I mean.

[ActionMan 10]

What about a system like the current one but smoother? Surely it would be possible to have a slow build up movement when you leave the floating zone, that's what I dislike about the current floating zone, it's too jerky and feels unnatural. The current system is like a square, if you were to blur the edges of this square is what I mean, wow, that's hard to explain :( I hope you get what I mean.

I know exactly what you mean!

There was a mod for Half-Life1, which was made by Op Flashpoint fans. They copied the "floating zone" straight out of OpF, but people complained about the "harsh edge" of the box. So, they added an option to have a smooth edge to it - when your cursor approaches the edge of the box, your view starts to turn slightly, then by the time your cursor actually hits the edge of the box, your view is turning at full speed.

There's no hard transition from one mode to the other, they blend together.

Here's some videos with the smoothing turned up to maximum:

Edited December 16, 2009 by ActionMan