Benny Moore

Did you check out the four screenshots I posted? Even zoomed in fully with the M-16, there are two-pixel increments (at 1024 by 768) where you cannot aim with maximum mouse sensitivity. I don't know how many degrees it is. Is there a mouse acceleration option in Armed Assault? I generally use acceleration when it is available, but in Armed Assault the only mouse option I know of is mouse sensitivity. I require sensitivity itself to be at maximum because of hand surgury; at low sensitivies, the increased mouse movement required causes hand pain.

Also, have any of you who say that you do not experience the problem taken a pair of screenshots to compare and measure the distance in pixels? If you indeed are not experiencing the problem, then the distance should be a single pixel. If there is more distance then that, you are experiencing the problem and just do not realize it. I strongly suspect that this is the case.

I often do. It's usually when it's a group of soldiers. But that's not the point anyway; the point is that the increments make aiming at distant targets difficult. In the case of this two-pixel wide soldier, it can be actually impossible to aim at him. I just took this series of pictures in the game. Yes, that's an actual soldier in the middle of my gunsights. Try it yourself in the editor. The picture was taken looking from the base of the castle towards Mercalillo. Monitor resolution was 1024 by 768. Game version was 1.12.5252. http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/2091/armaaimingincrement1tv5.png Here's a close-up. http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/4442/armaaimingincrement2cj7.png Here's an even closer look, and I've added red dots to show the aiming increments that I measured with a pixel-wide antenna on top of a control tower. http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/8163/armaaimingincrement3ia4.png And here I move the soldier to show that it can be literally impossible to aim directly at him. He can fit completely between the increments. In this situation have no choice but to shoot on either side of him and hope that some of my bullets don't go exactly where I'm aiming. http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/4244/armaaimingincrement4qq9.png I hope very much that someone at Bohemia Interactive has taken note of this. If one of them were to simply post a single word in this thread, I would be enormously relieved just to know that they are aware of the problem's existence.

[ignore.]

As Sosna says, you must not only be looking through the M-16's iron sights but also be fully zoomed in (two seperate actions). Again, I measure the increments to be about three pixels at maximum mouse sensitivity (I do have mouse smoothing on from Windows Control Panel, by the way). I've tried three different mice. It's not the mouse; if the mouse simply wasn't sensitive enough, I would have this problem in Windows and in other games, but I don't. Also, the fact that it only affects the horizonal axis indicates that it's an Armed Assault-specific problem and not a mouse problem. Incidentally, I didn't have this problem with Operation Flashpoint or Resisitance. To people who say that they don't have the problem, I think that you do but that you aren't aware of it. Try Sosna's suggestion of trying to align your iron sights, while zoomed in fully (not the default iron sights zoom), on a distant single-pixel-wide object such as the antenna on top of the airport control tower. Use maximum mouse sensitivity and you'll see the increments. I just tested it with a HMMVW-mounted M2 fifty caliber machine gun. Since it's mounted, it is not affected by the one-pixel weapon sway. This enabled me to determine with two screenshots that the increment when fully zoomed in on the M2's iron sights is indeed three pixels at 1024 by 768 monitor resolution. It may be four pixels for other unscoped weapons which are able to zoom in further. Also, it may be twice as many pixels at twice the resolution. Since my monitor is incapable of higher resolutions, I am unable to test this. Just as many players seem to be unaware of this problem, I suspect that Bohemia Interactive Studios is as well. The fact that they've been diligently fixing most or all of the other major bugs with patches but haven't addressed this one indicates to me that they're oblivious of its existence. I truly hope that someone in development takes note of this.

Another reason I don't play Armed Assault nearly as much as I played Operation Flashpoint is that Armed Assault was nearly totally missing a story. Operation Flashpoint (and Resistance) had unique, original, and immersive stories with plot twists. Armed Assault really didn't have much of a story at all. The Armed Assault campaign felt like a chore, and I kept wondering when the story would get interesting. Then the campaign ended. Where are the memorable characters? Where are the cutscenes?

It wouldn't be a problem if it were just graphical, but when the clumsiness affects the gameplay (for example, players getting shot because the animations cannot be aborted, or because the animations make them halt briefly when switching default stances or the direction of travel), then it's a big problem. I'm hoping that Armed Assault 2 amends this problem, or else I won't be getting Armed Assault 2. It was bad enough in Operation Flashpoint, but Armed Assault actually made the movement worse. Also, Dudester has a point; saying "both sides are affected, so it's not a problem" is not a valid argument. If the game featured frame rates of no greater than two frames per second, then both sides would indeed be affected equally. But that would obviously not mean that there wasn't a problem!

Oh! Well, I've tried it out, and the problem remains (though only at high mouse sensitivities). I took screenshots and measured the difference; the increment is about three pixels. So if you're far enough from the enemy that he is only two pixels wide (it happens), you can't aim directly at him. You can only aim beside him and hope that one of your bullets goes astray. Incidentally, this problem is not present in the vertical, which is strange. In the vertical, it's quite possible to raise the sights a single pixel. It's only the horizontal which has these three-pixel increments.

That's very good news. What is 1.12b, though? The latest patch I'm aware of is the 1.09 beta patch. I assume that 1.12b is an upcoming beta patch that hasn't yet been publicly released. Is it for Armed Assault or only Queen's Gambit?

When will the incremental aiming problem be addressed? The beta patch seems to have fixed a great deal of the aiming problem, smoothing out the mouse movement nicely. But the horizontal increments remain; it is impossible at high zoom levels to move the sights a single pixel in the horizontal plane. Rather, it jumps by several-pixel increments. This means that sometimes it is impossible to aim exactly at some distant targets.

Armed Assault does model autorotation. You must lower the collectively instantly, and I mean instantly, upon engine failure, or you will plummet like a rock. In fact, if you have the collective raised when the engine fails, you can't recover; the R.P.M. lowers too quickly. The result of this modelling (whether or not it is correct) is that you need a tachometer to be able to tell exactly when the engine fails. In the Blackhawk, autorotating safely down after an engine failure is much easier than in the Cobra, because the Blackhawk has a tachometer. You can detect an engine failure sooner with the tachometer than by ear; the needle starts dropping before the sound does. As for "low down observation windows," the Cobra doesn't have these. At any rate, visual cues aren't enough; often one must know his exact speed to correctly judge something, such as how far you must pull up to be able to clear a hill without either going too high and being painted by S.A.M.s, or else slowing down too much and being hit by flak. Looking up and over at your speed means that you're no longer looking at where your helicopter is going, and is a large liability.

I can no longer hear my breathing when sprinting, using the first-person camera. I still hear my men breathing, and I can hear myself if I use an external camera. I observed a BMP sitting stationary with its treads both moving in the same direction, as if it were travelling forward at high speed. The engine was at idle. Also, after shooting out a BDRM's tire, the vehicle began to slowly spin in place. The crew had left the vehicle, and the vehicle shouldn't be capable of spinning place regardless. I've never observed either phenomenon before. Movement halting, as described in the thread linked below, is still present. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=70526

Actually, the tachometer is all-important for detecting engine failures early enough for a successful autorotation. But my main gripe is the airspeed indicator and altimeter. When I'm flying carefully down the main street of a city, below rooftop level, the last thing I need is to have to look up and to the side to check my altitude and airspeed. I fly N.o.E., and I can't tell you how many times I've hit something because I was unsure of my airspeed and altitude, or because I looked up and over to check it and didn't see something coming. That's exactly why, in the real deal, the airspeed and altitude are directly in front of the pilot's eyes instead of in the upper left corner.

Nor is it effective. The entire point of a heads-up display is to allow the pilot to check his instruments without having to look away from the aircraft's direction of travel. In Armed Assault, the airspeed indicator and altimeter are as far from the aircraft's direction of travel as the conventional instruments are in a real airplane.

... Which has a H.U.D. on it, and which we're missing altogether. Why is this?