Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

SaBrE_UK

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    996

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by SaBrE_UK

  2. Posted

    As for transitions, if you read the interview again, you will notice these are being worked on. The transitions handled by animations would lag the controls making it it even more clunky and unresponsive (tested even in ArmA2) so they should be rather engine-side enforced (so definately not animators job).

    The only major animation/transition issue I think exists is how quickly the characters accelerate and decelerate. Aiming at an enemy who is sprinting horizontally who then stops dead just feel completely wrong, similarly one who is stopped dead then proceeds to reach 12mph instantly kills it, too. In your opinion can it be fixed without having animations tied to movement rather than movement tied to animations like in games like CoD/BF3? Their downfall is having feet sliding all over the place when changing direction or speed etc., which Arma on the other hand, nails.

  3. Posted

    About weapon accuracy will arma III feature weapon resting? For now it's a pain to use machine-guns when there is grass, you are forced to lie down, so you can't see anything but others players can see and kill you.

    Indeed, highly necessary. I know it'll be modded in, yes, but some default functionality and visual feedback would be great and make machine guns a joy to use!

  4. Posted

    and of course it can be used for suppressive fire while moving at a a fair pace. I can see how it would be useful.

    But I really hope that it is done so that it doesn't make run and gun viable. I trust that Bis knows what its doing though.

    Yes I hope it's not set to default or too difficult to transfer to normal jogging (e.i. double tapping Ctrl), or multiplayer games will look like every other shooter on the planet with the players' weapons constantly propped up aiming ahead. I've always admired the 'weapon down' look in OFP and Arma. Perhaps jogging normally will be faster and so still useful.

  7. Posted

    I would like to see a slightly faster or smoother 'zoom in' transition (holding right mouse button). I just think it'd make things a bit more streamlined, and that it's small things like this that hold Arma back from what could be really polished.

    I know animations are being improved but a slower sprint, swim, jog and perhaps even walk would make things feel more real, and to me, more fun. Also, acceleration and deceleration are a must, so that you can't sprint and stop-dead; this is especially important for AI.

  10. Posted

    Blurring & transparency is good, but I'd assume my ingame avatar to be able to handle the ironsight alignment automatically, as he's a supposed trained soldier.

    I would subscribe to this as long as the alignment isn't always perfect like it is in Arma. Having the weapon subtly out of alignment in most situations, leading to a small lack of precision would be good, and staying still for a few seconds, resting your weapon or going prone should allow the 'perfect' alignment Arma has currently. I just think it'd be better having front sight sway than the whole weapon sway whilst alignment is still perfect. Maybe holding breath/focus mode brings the sights into better alignment?

    IMO the focus should be on the target not the front sight. So some DoF on the ironsights might be appropriate. But to be honest I'm fine without DoF in games, it's difficult to implement properly as you cannot know what the player will decide to look at.

    Apparently (I have not used a rifle myself) people have to focus on the front sight to align, then afterwards on the target. This is slower than a reflector sight, of course. Maybe a short time (less that a second) where the background is out of focus could simulate this and make reflector sights more advantageous in-game.

    With these ideas realistic variance between ironsights would affect the gameplay, too, with rifle sights being more accurate than pistol sights due to the distance between the front and back sights. Also, for instance, an out-of-focus self-illuminated front sight would be easier to keep aligned than a black front sight in a dark setting.

  11. Posted

    that doubling up of images is too far imo but your first examples are a good step in what could be.
    However, I don't think the gaming world is ready for simulated doubling up of nearby objects. too many people would simply not understand it.

    Yes I'd agree it's questionable, but if done better than me and more unobtrusively it could work imo. However, it certainly isn't worth the time it would take to create as of yet. Maybe VBS6 will have it?

    I think the other features I discussed are reproducible and beneficial, including transparency on reflector sights and perhaps the quick 'mouse squiggle' to realign ironsights (what do you think?).

    Not sure how to simulate the focus on the front ironsight and not on target without really annoying the player. Any ideas? Maybe the background is still out of focus, but not immediately in front of the sights, so you can still focus on front sight and enemy, just not periphery.

  13. Posted · Edited by SaBrE_UK

    First of all, I know it's unlikely and maybe years off but I can dream! The following list shows [some] real life pros and cons for the three main rifle sight types:

    Ironsight pros and cons:

    + Reliable

    + Adjustable

    - Focussing on front sight can mean shooter loses track of enemy

    - Front and rear sights can easily misalign, especially after movement, suppression, nearby explosion etc.

    - Takes time and effort to realign front and rear sights

    - Have to shoot with one eye closed, thereby losing situational awareness

    - Can be slow to take aim

    Reflector sights pros and cons:

    + User can aim with both eyes open increasing situational awareness

    + Fast to take aim as reticle shows where bullet will impact (or near enough) meaning no alignment of front and rear sights is necessary

    + Can focus on target instead of front sight, meaning greater awareness of target

    + Allows for more precise shooting that ironsights

    - Perhaps not as reliable as ironsights

    - Not ideal for different ranges

    - Reticle brightness needs tweaking from daylight to night

    Magnified scope pros and cons:

    + Magnification allows for most precise shooting and detailed view

    + Adjustable

    - Not ideal for close quarters

    - One eye shut so situational awareness is low

    - Can take time to take aim depending on magnification

    Any more pros and cons you can think of feel free to correct me.

    My attempt to simulate the above is thus, as an animated gif first showing ironsights, secondly a reflector sight and finally a scope view:

    th_ironsightideas.gif

    (Click for bigger)

    Iron sights have a blurred rear sight and background, with front sight in focus. In game it could be that the background isn't blurred as this could be too annoying and artificial. Reflector sights are transparent as you can use both eyes. I find that the edges of the sight are easier to distinguish Background is also not out of focus. With scopes the background is out of focus, but the scope view is very clear. When eye is moved away from viewing position, view should be obscured.

    Even more accurately for the reflector sight is the following image:

    th_irnsgs4_jpg.jpg

    (click for bigger)

    Shown is both the simulated right eye's view as well as left eye's view. Where the two views overlap, the background is obscured as per real life. However, this could be disorientating for the player as the two images overlap and bob around.

    ...I can hope...

  15. Posted

    Maybe there will be a limit on the amount of ragdoll bodies at one time; after a certain limit normal animations could take over until those bodies are still. We'll have to see.

  16. Posted

    But you are rendering in 1920x1200, you're just occupying a smaller percentage of the screen. I think that if you rendered a full scene in any game, then rendered that to a small texture, the overhead would be the same. Of course, I could be wrong. I think what's more important here is the camera's parameters.

    Just an idea: would it be possible (without huge performance impact) to render the scope view at the high resolution (not necessarily taking up the whole monitor's resolution), and then rendering the periphery at a lower resolution, which is then heavily blurred to make up for the fact it would look upscaled? This way the total resolution displayed wouldn't necessarily be that high, and the periphery is viewable as well as the detailed scope view.

    However, I guess problems might be noticeable lag on going in and out of scope view, or noticeable transitions in the process.

×