Wohful

void

Hey Pred, thanks for the excellent work so far on sounds and configuration. It's very much appreciated. I assure you that many people share your preference for a more realistic and tactically oriented experience (especially in multiplayer). While the 'fisheye' effect is certainly not realistic, it certainly is the lesser of two evils (the other being 'magic zoom') in regards to immersion and gameplay. Thank you. Hopefully some talented realism nuts will pick up on this and help you to either expand the scope of this project or make it complimentary to add-ons. Good luck!

I found it -easier- to hit targets at range when I used to play at 1024x768. One big pixel is easier to hit than a few small ones. Then factor in that I'm playing with a +100 degree FOV to preserve a natural aspect ratio, and you'll see if anything I'm at a disadvantage at range. RO deals with real ranges too, and I'm able to make some pretty long bombs if I properly account for lead & bullet drop. However, I do agree it should be easy to spot targets at 200m. Sorry, I'd assumed this wasn't a problem as someone earlier said this game uses a rather small FOV (around 45 degrees). RO's default FOV is 85 and it's not impossible to make someone out at 200m (provided they're not camouflaged to their background), so I'm not sure why it's so difficult here. If this is the case though, I understand why the zoom is a necessary compromise. meyamoti, you misunderstand. I would prefer it if there were no crosshairs in the game (only the actual weapon sights). So as an alternative for people who need to fire in close quarters and emergency situations, a semi-shouldered position (weapon drawn to a braced firing position, but without looking down the sights) would be nice. Obviously this wouldn't be too accurate, but then it's not supposed to be. I know crosshairs will be optional, but I think this position could elegantly remove the need for them at all, making the whole experience that much more realistic.

I respect what you guys are saying, but I don't agree that the zoom is necessary or desireable. Take RO again, as an example. There is no shift in perspective at any time, and it feels completely natural. If you get in the back of a vehicle, it stays the same (why would it change?). If you're driving, it still doesn't change, you can look around the interior, open/close the viewport and in some vehicles adjust how close you're sitting to the viewport, that's it. I actually play RO at a resolution of 2304x1440 and have no trouble with distant targets. Far off targets -should- look small... Just line up your iron sights on that speck, adjust a little high for bullet drop and squeeze off a round into his chest. As for the tunnel vision thing... When I sight down a rifle, I lose a bit of peripheral vison (not much, a little more on the side I tilt my head towards), but it's not a large enough change to warrant an in-game representation. Again, the crux of the matter is that objects in the distance shouldn't grow under any circumstances unless you're using a scope. Regardless of any other considerations, perspective should stay fixed or the whole concept of standard marksmanship will seem a bit dodgy. You've got to use the iron sights, that's why they're there (besides, it's far more satisfying to do so). I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just sharing what I think would make ArmA the best possible game. On a small but related tangent, I think a great alternative to crosshairs for people who want to shoot on the move would be a shouldered position. A shouldered position would steady the gun somewhat and make the length of it visible (so you had a general idea of the line of fire). This way you could move at a walking pace and lay down somewhat effective fire within 20m or so.

Sure, but if that 'zoomed out' position is there to simulate what you'd see with peripheral vision, there shouldn't be any zooming in to a 'normal' view as you draw the weapon close. Consistency is key here... If you've got a system that simulates what a person can actually see with their peripheral vision (realistic), then you don't add in the ability to zoom in on distant objects as you bring a weapon close (unrealistic). Perspective shouldn't change.

By 'zoom', I meant literal zoom. In some games when you draw a gun closer to your face, you get a zooming effect (i.e. you can see more clearly at range) along with or instead of a change in FOV. Obviously the weapon itself is going to take up much more of your screen when sighted, but there's nothing realistic about having objects in the distance grow larger. Also, I'm not assuming this is an effect in the upcoming ArmA, I'm just saying it's an effect I hope won't be there. If all you're trying to say is that it won't be, thank you.

I'm hoping for a really robust ironsight/optics system. In my opinion this alone has the capacity to make or break the tactical realism of the game. I'd hate to see people walking around shooting at eachother with magical screen-zooming crosshairs. That shouldn't even be an option. Red Orchestra, the game I currently play, is a great example of iron sights (and weapon modeling in general) done right. Unfortunately, the other game elements of RO aren't as tactical as OFP's. I know any game that combined these philosophies would garner a -lot- of attention from the RO crowd (hint hint). P.S. This has probably been suggested already, but a silent gesturing system (hand signals) between squad mates would be wayyyyyyy cool.