Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

-Coulum-

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1790

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by -Coulum-

  1. Posted · Edited by -Coulum-

    Actually it can alert units even farther away. What distance you think would be reasonable? (the units around are only alerted, don't receive any details about the threat)

    Its not so much a question of distance but rather of time and los. If the group can see the hit, and is within 40m or so it should be instant as it is. If they can't see the guy get hit however than it should take time before they become alerted, even at 40m. You know to represent info travelling up the chain of command. The way info is passed around so instantly within and I guess sometimes between groups gives that "hive mind" feel to the ai.

    TBH I've noticed since the new stable patch that I'm getting mercilessly slaughtered. I too also use the RHS mod and Leights OPFOR. I also use bCombat. Prior to the update, everything was quite enjoyable, but after the update--for whatever reason--the opfor are like doped up hulks with ak's. Getting hit from nowhere a mile away from some ak wielding maggot. Not sure what is going on, personally.

    Assuming you are exaggerating about the "hit from a mile away by an ak", I experienced similar difficulty increase in devbranch when this change was introduced:

    • Fixed: AI reaction to danger should be faster

    Quite descriptive. The last one being a fix of a bug when the AI wouldn't acquire the target correctly even though it already had enough info about it. (E.g. units under fire looking somewhere else and not turning to the source of the fire)

    I am pretty sure the ai accuracy itself was never changed. Rather the ai is now much more able to acquire targets (especially based off sound). Basically, before, the ai was deaf. If you fired a shot and were not in their los they wouldn't attempt to turn in your direction. Now they do. So when you open up on a squad you'll have a whole lot more lead coming your way.

    An easy example comparison of before and after:

    • Before: Ai is around the corner. You run up to it. Ai doesn't react to hearing your footsteps and is oblivious. You round it. He sees you and tries to engage, but since he is not ready he is initially inaccurate. You kill him before he can get accurate shots off.
    • Now: Ai is around the corner. You run up to it . Ai hears footsteps around the corner. He raises his weapon and aims it at the corner, incase it is an enemy. You round it and he blows you away because he was expecting you and already has his weapon lined up.

    The accuracy is not any different than before. Its just the ai are more aware of sound (and not at all in an unfair way).

    They aren't any more terminator than before. Just not quite so braindead. That is a good thing.

  2. Posted · Edited by -Coulum-

    Here you go. It sounds mostly the same, albeit a bit better, but the sound is a bit more drawn out this time. This is from around 300 meters

    That is a kinda "weird" sound. Its not bad - I have heard something like that before in the combat vids, but usually it seems to only be from really distant fire/sonic cracks. I guess this somewhat resembles it...

    But even that is more poppy and less clicky. And I don't think those bullets are coming anywhere near the camera. Their distant. For close by sonic cracks I would have expected more like these:

    Anyhow I trust it is being tweaked. Thing is, bullet cracks in real life never seem to sound the same. Probably because there is alot of variables effecting the sound. In arma on the other hand they are very repetitive, making them boring. It would be awesome if they could be more varied depending on things like the calibre or speed of the bullet (at least I don't think that is modeled currently). Sonic pops are loud like gunshots too, so ideally they would be effected by environment like the gunshots are.

    I am not knowledgeable about sound though, so these are just ramblings of the uneducated. Not sure how much sense it makes.

  3. Posted · Edited by -Coulum-

    i'm talking about inertia - aka not such angular changes of direction when moving the weapon. when the weapon is sights up then inertia is apparent and changing direction feels like the weapon has mass and thus a curve to its motion, but then when you are unsighted it follows your movements robotically.

    Yes. In addition the extra inertia sway that happens due to quick turns, doesn't seem to take effect when not looking down the sights. So an effective tactic is to make your turns unsighted and then bring up your sights to avoid the inertia sway while rotating quickly. Obviously I don't think it should be this way. The inertia sway should work whether using sights or not.

    However this was at least a month ago when I noticed this. Maybe it has been changed since.

    Doesn'y work like that anymore, seems to be all good.

  4. Posted

    I am pretty confident BIS is going to put in some form of optional indicators based on the overwhelming feedback.

    Now I know I am probably the only one, but I think there is some flaws in the current resting system that make it somewhat "arcadey". Mainly the instant speed at which resting takes place and the unlimited range of motion you have while resting your weapon. I made a video to better explain/demonstrate:

    What do you guys think?

  5. Posted

    I'd like to see more depth to shooting as well. Wind would be awesome though I think its just a dream for vanilla. I think the hold breath system could be tweaked to make shooting require more "skill". Having magnified sights harder to use would be great as well. The devs did mention something about working on scope function when weapon inertia feature dropped (they wanted inertia to effect magnified sight in a more significant way I believe) but it certainly wasn't a confirmation of anything.

    Whenabouts is the marksman dlc planned to release? I wonder if there is still time for more goodies than the awesome stuff we are seeing so far...

  6. Posted

    Guys and gals, I just realised that what I have been asking for in this thread earlier, actually exists in the new system, sort of.

    I'm talking about making the first few shots more difficult while firing full auto.

    So I started experimenting with the new recoil, and one particular config parameter kind of does what I have been asking for.

    It looks like this:

    temporary = 0.01;

    What this parameter seem to do is to displace the aiming point away from the center of the camera. Increasing this value makes the first few shots harder because the muzzle rises more, but when the limit is reached and you keep firing full auto, the effect stops, so then you have only the normal (old) muzzle rise.

    Makes sense. I have been trying to figure out what makes this new recoil different than the old. That probably has something to do with it.

  8. Posted · Edited by -Coulum-

    To point out, as a side comment, that everyone involved was acting as if they were ignoring those features were already present, stable, and available since a long time in the modding community, didn't sound stupid to me.

    Putting a title to this topic, that were not my words at all, you think that's OK?

    I'm pretty sure most on these forums are aware of the modded versions of these features. However, for me, those are not optimal. Yes you could use them and they did add alot, but there are many reasons why vanilla implementation is such a big deal. One is that it is constantly maintained by the devs. It is therefore much less likely to encounter problems or bugs. Next is that everyone can now use these features. It is a standard. So when you discuss arma everyone is on the same page. Not: well if you play arma with x and y and z then you can do a, b c. You can hop on any server and use the feature. And probably the biggest reason is the performance and consistency of it being ingrained into the engine rather than being slapped on through a mod. Take TPWCAS for example. Yes it is efficiently designed to scale itself to maintain performance. The devs did great work with it. But the truth is that when shit hits the fan, the system does lag or doesn't work as it does in less intensive situations. Thats not because the mod is bad but simply because there is only so much you can via modding. Same goes for most any mod. JSRS, Blastcore. Put it into more intense situations and you have laggy sounds, effects etc. Of course this happens in vanilla as well, but it takes alot more to reach that point.

    I am by no means trying to bad mouth any mods / maker. All the mentioned mods are absolutely amazing. But having these features integrated into the engine has many benefits. And on top of this, mod makers can still use these new features to build even better mods.

    So all in all, whether there were mods that had these features before or not, it is absolutely fantastic news that they are being integrated into the engine now (the features that is, not the mods themselves)

    title of this thread isn't exactly fair to the OP imo...

  9. Posted · Edited by -Coulum-

    Every recoil impulse from the gun is the same of course, it's just about the way your body adapts. Before firing you kind of lean forward a little bit but not to much because then you will fall on your face, but once you pull the trigger your body will lean even more because there's a slight force pushing you backwards (recoil) which your body is trying to counteract. The time it takes to adapt to this is about 3 or 4 shots with an average full auto rifle.

    What I'm saying is I want muzzle rise to be large during the first shots, then smaller for the rest of the duration. The muzzle should still wander around, but not just up. It should also wander off to the sides, which it kind of does with the new system.

    I know what you mean, but this kind of already happens naturally via the mouse (At least for me). You get used to the recoil after the first burst and are able to drag the mouse downwards to compensate better for the rest of it. If anything, having recoil taper would probably mess me up, because I would be dragging the mouse based on the first couple shots, which would be higher recoil than later shots, causing me to drag too much and going below target.

    Didn't do military service, never shot military grade weapon. From i heard of my comrades in Airsoft, the 7.62 have a big recoil its very difficult to master it in full auto (L1A1 only have semi).

    Yes the 7.62's seem a wee bit weak imo. Should have more kick to them in game.

  10. Posted

    Unfortunately as I noted above, the group command (and possibly the AI implementation) to to conscious attempt to cause suppressive fire -- instead of suppressive fire being a happy byproduct of attempted kill shots -- is what remains most lacking compared to VBS3's implementation.

    IMO what the devs seem to have planned is even better than VBS. I don't think that vbs ai are actually effected by near missed/ overwhelming fire are they? So having the ability to order ai to do it, isn't much more than for show. In coop you don't even need those orders because you are actually communicating with people and can tell them where to lay down fire. And with the ai accuracy decreasing when under fire, it actually means something to lay down fire on a position.

    For single player the VBS3 command would be nice, yes. Guess my point is the command is worthless without the effects.

  11. Posted · Edited by -Coulum-

    It'd be like having to hit a button every time you wanted to blink, or inhale and exhale. Some things just come naturally and don't need a lot of manual adjusting.

    Compensating with the mouse becomes pretty natural too though. Even to me it was a pretty easy skill to develop (I don't play many games). If you can master real shooting so recoil is a natural extension of your body like you describe, you should be able to do the same with a mouse no? That's the way I see it. When I first started playing pc games, just using the WASD keys to walk was disorienting and unnatural compared to walking in reality. But with a tiny bit of time it become second nature. Now it is even easier than reality. I think the same goes for recoil. Once you get the hang of it the current recoil results in a pretty fair system imo. Definitely better than an other system arma has had to offer.

    What are peoples thoughts on 7.62 (EBR) and the submachines' gun recoil. I find that the 7.62 seems a wee bit weak in full auto. And the submachineguns seem to really kick alotmore than I was expecting. Never fired a submachinegun however. Is that at all realistic? I thought they were supposed to be relatively easy to control. But maybe their small size makes it harder? What do you guys think?

  14. Posted

    Glad to see this finally in. Detection of surfaces seems to work really well. I would like to see a couple additions/imitations:

    • As mentioned, a "weapon rested" indicator would be extremely beneficial.
    • Weapon resting shouldn't be instantaneous. It should take a second or two to reap the benefit of it.
    • Inertia should not be decreased. If anything it should be increased. Just like with a bipod, shooting from a rested position isn't as "flexible/non-restrictive" as shooting normally.

    Its a good system and works really well with the recoil as is. My main dislike is that its too easy and quick to use. It should be more accurate than shooting normally, but not faster. Right now it is both more accurate and faster. Make it take a moment or two set up, and inertia not nerfed by it and I think resting would be much more realistic.

  15. Posted

    On a related note, recent changelogs have contained notes relating to the detection of bullets impacting / flying around units. Let's take a quick look at how it all fits together. The first changes (released for a wee while now) were adjustments to pathfinding. If an area is under heavy fire, the AI will now prefer (in direct contradiction to the Kenny Loggins school of thought) to plan around such danger zones. More recently, the detection of bullets passing close by units was enabled. This information is now mapped to the behaviour of a unit reacting to threats. The next step will be to connect this to penalties in AI aiming accuracy. Although we're at an early stage, we can say that our goal is to improve the experience of firefights by refining their lethality and promoting / rewarding the use of legitimate tactics / maneuvers. However, making changes to core mechanics is not without risk. If we're not satisfied with the results, this work may yet not make it into Marksmen DLC.

    Awesome.

  16. Posted · Edited by -Coulum-

    • Fixed: AI reaction to danger should be faster

    The last one being a fix of a bug when the AI wouldn't acquire the target correctly even though it already had enough info about it. (E.g. units under fire looking somewhere else and not turning to the source of the fire)

    This seems to have done the job well enough. Ai will turn around to face the general direction that a sound comes from. However, the way the rotating/spotting works isn't exactly as expected. Take a situation where you fire a shot off (say from 100m), past the ai while in the open. Currently their reaction is:

    • Immediately go prone. Pause and do nothing. This can last several seconds depending on the distance to you. Then they spin to your direction and immediately spot you and open fire.

    The expected behaviour would be:

    • Immediately go prone. Immediately spin to the direction of the gunshot. Then pause for a few moments (as they are now "spotting you"). Then after that they can open fire.

    Overall results would pretty much be the same but the latter seems more human and gives the player a better idea of what the ai is doing.

    Also I believe that after this latest dev patch (EXE rev. 129341 (game)) the ai seem more accurate in comparison to earlier devbranches.. Never mind. I think the ai appear more accurate at close range because they can hear you coming running up to a corner, so when you round it they are ready for you unlike before this dev branch. This is good.

  17. Posted

    For me it's harder to come up with a "core features Arma 4 must have" list due to the devs' own recent record of "unannounced/unpromoted" upgrades within Arma 3, to the point that I have no clue how many of them wouldn't be superseded/made redundant (if one defines said "core" features in part by them not​ being in Arma 3) in the near future!

    Yeah, this.

  18. Posted

    Switched over to to dev last night and really like the AI hitting the deck when bullets in their proximity. Their reaction seemed to be the biggest when the where in safe mode and you fired the first round of bullets near them. After they switched to combat mode it was much harder to get them to keep their heads down with suppressive fire.

    I think the current extent of the feature is that ai simply go to danger mode when bullets pass nearby (rather than before, when close impacts or wounds/death were needed to get them to enter danger mode). Otherwise I believe they are still using their regular danger routine. There is no new "suppression routines" as of yet. Nonetheless the new additions are a great step because it likely gives modders a much more efficient method of detecting flyby's (to trigger their own scripted routines) and comments like this: "Similar to recent work on pathfinding, these commits are part of longer-term AI development." indicate that devs are going to build upon this, hopefully making the suppression effects you are expecting.

    Please try in game how far the AI reacts to bullets flying by

    Only really tested flybys, and it seems ai detect all supersonic flybys at the same proximity: 7-8 metres and less. Only the subsonic had a different suppressionradius, which was far less. Generally I think that the 7-8m is a fair medium radius for all weapons. However I would have expected that different claibre's would have a different suppressionradius's. ie. bigger the bullet the louder it is, further you can detect it, and larger suppression radius. This should also apply to bullet impacts - bigger the bullet, more visible and frightening impact it will make.

    Thats my feedback so far, I haven't really devised a way to test out nearby explosions and bullet impacts.

    I made sample for the slow reacting AI even skill slider is set 0.7. Issue seem to be much bigger if the enemies are in 1 man groups and in safe mode. In the sample mission, try letting the enemies walk bit by, then shoot one or few at back. After that you can basically walk behind them toward their waypoint, they keep scanning only toward their waypoint. Would seem they hear very bad. When speedmode wasnt set to Limited, one of them ran behind the wall where I was hiding. I could run then behind him ~100m, watch him using medicpack (behind his back) and follow again around 100m and he still didnt look back.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/4k7plr7erq....Altis.7z?dl=0

    I am using much one man patrol teams in mission so this issue have big effect. I dont remember this issue being there in official build, noticed it when switching to dev-build recently.

    Last edited by SaOk; Today at 12:01.

    Yes I am finding this as well. In general ai seems to lack the ability to use sound to shift their facing in order to search for an enemy. Stand behind an ai and fire an entire magazine over their head and they will just go prone and continue facing forward. Even without sound they should be occasionally looking around checking their surroundings.

  19. Posted

    DATA
    • Added: New danger cause (dcbulletClose) to danger.fsm

    ENGINE

    • Added: Detection of bullets flying close to unit

    Wow. was not expecting this at all. But now its really got me excited for marksman. I am interested how/if you devs plan on further utilizing this. I won't get my hopes up, but this could be the start of something I have been wishing/harping on for ages - so long I had simply given up on it.

    Can't wait. I am sure there are alot of coop players with similar feelings

  20. Posted

    - Standard run speed should be reduced to more appropriate speed, and stamina loss rate greatly reduced accordingly.

    - Sprint speed should depend on weight, since sprint is the maximum speed your soldier can run at, and in real life it would depend on weight (unlike other mods which would be consistent regardless of weight but drain more/less stamina dependent on weight, so that you can keep up with your squad most of the time).

    - Stamina gain while prone is way too fast while stamina gain while standing and walking is way too slow. Stance should only have a minor affect on stamina gain, and all should have pretty close stamina gain rate to something slightly faster than the current crouch stamina gain rate.

    - Maximum sway is a bit too much. Especially while crouched (almost the same as standing, should be slightly better).

    Yeah I agree with all of this. It's pretty much the conclusion Bad Benson and I came to over the past few pages. Only thing I disagree strongly with is:

    - Currently even losing just a little bit of stamina causes extensive weapon sway. The level at which you start seeing significant weapon sway should be slightly increased.

    I feel it is fine as it is. First off, its not that bad now. do a quick sprint and you have a tiny bit of extra sway for a whole 3 seconds. And secondly it just feels real to me. You run a bit, and you aren't going to be instantly shooting accurately the moment you stop. Like I said that bit of sway lasts like five seconds max. I think it works quite well as is.

    I think it's unreasonable that the default pace is not a "managed" pace, and we need to manually use a rotation to "average it out". Default pace should be made reasonable, and if you want to be extremely fatigue-efficient or extremely fast, then you should have the walk and sprint options. Jogging should not be something you have to toggle on and off to keep fatigue reasonable. Jogging should use jogging pace, and nothing else. Currently it's not that much slower than a sprint, which is in itself too fast.

    Yeah, as we just discussed, that whole "rotation pacing" is not ideal. But my point was basically that it is possible to maintain a realistic pace in arma. Ergo the fatigue system is not excessively punishing. In fact its a bit lax in some respects. But that doesn't mean that the way in which we control our pace is optimal or realistic. I totally agree with you that the player should have more/better options as to how to pace themselves. I really like Bad Benson's idea of the game automatically slowing down your pace when jogging, based on weight, to prevent any fatigue build up. That would be much better than the jog walk jog walk we have to do now.

  21. Posted

    i really appreciate the helpful attitude but i think i made it clear that finding the system lacking has nothing to do with being ignorant about how it works.

    Okay then, I didn't mean to imply you were ignorant. Just the way you described being at a disadvantage when attacked at the end of a cycle indicated that you might not have tried it. Because you really aren't.

    the problems occur in situations where you can't pace yourself due to the problems and simplicity of the system i described before. and pacing yourself like that is not fun to me at all. i'd rather have the game dictate my pace properly instead of playing minigames to avoid frustrating situations. it would be much better if the pacing would just happen and the fatigue value would be reserved to control sway and sprint limits. but looking at typical arma animation problems it's kind of a scary prospect to be forced into weapon lowering. i guess i'd be fine with speed only.

    So basically we both want pace to be more controlled, so we can maintain some sort of zero fatigue speed. Right? Well lets hope BIS do it some time. But for now, what if the default jog was made slower maybe 60% of what it is now and then there was zero fatigue while doing that pace (with standard kit). Would that be reasonable to you if you couldn't have the "adjust speed based on loadout"?

    Personally I think that would work well. Even more so if you could have it in addition to the current jogging pace.

    not convincing, when you on the one hand agree with his numbers and then go on talking about 30 meters (which i'd call midrange at least in terms of a video game). he clearly talked about <5m. also keep in mind that we shouldn't talk about this as if we're discussing each single situation ingame. i was talking about max or near max sway. hence we emphasising that it shoudl NEVER be like that no matter how fatigued.

    Yeah I guess I switch between CQB and close combat pretty loosely. But I say 30m and under because I assumed that was the ranges you were talking about. Point remains. Its not neccesarily a point and win affair in reality.

    But if you are talking specifically about max/near max fatigue sway... yeah it is bullshit. 60%+ fatigue and sway is way to high. Totally agree. Once it gets to 55%, sway should stop stacking up. Is that the only situation where you feel the sway is too much?

    sorry but that's simply not what i would want a game to be like. especially if it's not done with cone of fire like in other games but with shakiness. i don't want to play a game where i hit 2 of 8 bullets at distance<5m. i won't bother looking up your numbers or finding others. if you want something like that, good for you. but i think it's safe to say that most people wouldn't want that.

    well then it is a good thing that in the majority of arma engagements at that range, that stat does not hold true.

  22. Posted · Edited by -Coulum-

    that's why i think that fatigue should not happen when jogging. it's just not working right. and by leaving recovery on 0 there would be a penalty for not taking a quick breather after a sprint and keeping jogging afterwards.

    i mean i personally don't care that much about the numbers thrown around here. but if all you can give me is that it improves gameplay because it makes you "Jog weapon down for 10 seconds, walk for three, repeat" then i gotta tell you that it fails at both gameplay and realism.

    I do care about the numbers. Right now the jogging pace is simply too fast, to have it incur zero fatigue, and claim it as realistic. Consider: You have your plate carrier, boots, ammo, helmet and rifle on you. You jog half a kilometre. At less than 5 min/km pace. You arrive and you are totally rested, as if you hadn't done anything at all. That isn't going to happen. When I was competing, with no gear on but my nice light running spikes and singlet, The heart would be pumping and breathing faster. A soldier with gear on isn't going to be able to keep that pace indefinitely. However if you could some how slow that pace down... like you suggest:

    i also think controlling speed based on load rather than fatigue would not even be better for gameplay but also more realistic. with a big load the game forces you to get fatigued (getting drunk aim) by set animations when in real life you would just move slower.

    Yes, that would work. In fact, that is what that whole jog 10 walk 3 is for. Its to maintain a pace that doesn't build up fatigue. If the game could do that for you, as you suggest in this idea, that would be great. This is why it is not so much the fatigue system that is the problem. Its the inability to choose an exact pace. If you could adjust your pace to slower than jog, faster than walk, and have zero fatigue at that pace, I think that would solve many of your problems no?

    for example. in your described cycle, there's a big difference if you get attacked right after the jogg or right after the walk. so you are always almost getting totally exhausted, quickly recovering and repeat. does that seem right to you? that exactly the reason for situations where your avatar is going nuts without a good justification. like when you have to actually flank someone after travelling and you just happened to be at the peak of said cyclic ritual.

    As I say, its just a work around way of pacing oneself. Your "slow down based on weight" would be much better. For now though, I encourage you to try it. You will always be less than 3% fatigue, and recover to 0 fatigue within 2 seconds.

    Overall: If the jogging pace was slowed based on load, or you could manually slow it then I wouldn't have a problem with it being 0 fatigue, at those slower paces. Right now though, jogging it is too fast to justify 0 fatigue.

    I think it would be worth it to tweak the way weight effects fatigue more. Maybe make it so that with no gear on, jogging sits nearer to or at 0 fatigue, and when weight is added, that fatigue increases.

    mostly the crazy sway. there is simply no real situation where you would move like that unless you are wounded (which the game already does) or highly intoxicated. this comes to mind

    Well, haha, okay. but can you be more specific? Because I don't think I have the same idea of crazy as you. If you're talking about cutting all sway in half, well, I just straight up disagree. However I would agree about reducing it in certain situations. If you can, show us this "crazy sway". (maybe best in the other thread?)

    that should NEVER happen unless you are severely wounded maybe. it's those situations where in real life an intuitive general point in the right direction would do it, while in arma you have to carefully align.

    You might be surprised just how hard it can be to hit in CQB. Especially in fast, high stress situations. To kind of put it in perspective, imagine if the ai were able to aim with such ease in close range, as to only to "point in the right direction would do it". I can guarantee you that there would be complaints of "ai are aimbots, its not realistic". Well the same goes for human. Even at ranges under 30 metres, shooting is not just point and hit. DNK's law enforcement stats are true. And I can attest, that rounding a corner, pulling up a rifle, acquiring a target, aiming and shooting takes time (To do accurately). Out of any video game, that time is best reflected in arma. In other games its crazy how fast you can shoot someone. Near instant. In real life shooting that fast often just results in you missing. Which is often what happens, because not many people have the nerves to slowly and calmly line up a shot when there is someone pointing a gun at them only 10 metres away. However...

    The thing I don't like about the sway in CQB is: In real life, when handling a weapon at those ranges (10 - 100ft) I start off inaccurate, I eventually zero in on my target and I lock onto him. And stay locked. Where as in arma I start off inaccurate, eventually zero in... then I am taken off target again because of the sway. I have to repeat the whole process again. and again and again. This could probably be limited, to some extent, by shortening the time inertia sway sticks around for (As it is that side to side inertia sway that causes that problem mainly).

    You don't have to swtich between speeds at all. You can just use the tac pace with the weapon down, and you're pretty much good to go at 0% fatigue. It's the run speed that needs to be offset by occasional periods of walk/tacpace. Tacpace gets you where you need to go at around 9.5min/mi, which is very reasonable for long-distance.

    You sure? I can't find any pace that has zero fatigue, that is faster than walking...

  23. Posted

    when people bring up SF operators then because they are trying to say that even after 6 hours of travelling they wouldn't suffer from that much sway. maybe they would after a sprint for a much shorter amount of time but currently arma is far from being able to simulate that properly.

    But what DNK is pointing out, is that you don't have to suffer from extra fatigue sway, while maintaining the "real SF" pace. Jog weapon down for 10 seconds, walk for three, repeat and you will never go above 10% fatigue, while maintaining a approx. 5min/km (8min/mi) pace, with basic gear. I know the constant stop start isn't exactly realistic, but that is not so much the fatigue system's fault, as it is the inability to go at a pace between walking and jogging. I agree with you that the effects of anaerobic vs aerobic activity should be different, but when it comes down to it, it is possible to work around without it I believe. Unless I am neglecting other situations where it is not.

    another thing that could improve the system a lot would be decreasing the amplitude (or whatever) of the sway by maybe even 50%. it's just overdone no matter from what perspective you view it, because it makes it retardly difficult (pls no more videos, i can hit shit but i feel stupid while fighting the guy pulling the string that is attached to my barrel randomly) to even hit very close targets when very fatigued due to the extreme movements, when in reality you could easily hit the target just by pointing in its general direction without even squinting one eye and consciously aiming. these are the kind of details that make it feel forced and cause disconnect.

    So are you talking about the sway being too much strictly when you are fatigued, or just in general? Would you want all sway cut in half, or is it just that crazy high fatigue sway?

    Decreasing the amplitude, could go along with what roshnak was saying about more pattern in the other thread (crazy overlap between threads). smaller amplitude = shorter sway cycle = easier to distinguish sway pattern. At least in theory... But please, what exact parts of the sway do you dislike? Is it everything or just in certain situations (certain range of fatigue, wounds, inertia...)

  24. Posted

    I do kinda think the sway pattern goes on for too long, though, if that makes sense. It makes it a bit harder to learn to predict or counter the sway than I think is really necessary.

    I wouldn't be opposed to that. Sometimes you get lucky and the sway just happens to pass over your target. Other times you don't and and it feels the crosshair will never go the direction you thought or want it to. Making the pattern more predictable might make it easier to "get a feel" for it, assuming you aren't fatigued, wounded etc.

    Its so complex as it is because there are two parts to the sway. The up and down component which repeats approx. every 4 seconds, and side to side component which repeats approx. every 8 seconds. Combined, it is very hard to notice any pattern, let alone memorize it. Add in fatigue, wounds, and inertia alter the two components individually... and there really is no precisely repetitive pattern at all, though you can generally get a feel for each swing the weapon makes.

    Its is why its really important to make sure you're in a calm shooting position and making use of hold breath, which virtually eliminates up and down sway. It is easy to predict the sway when it is only moving side to side. And when bipods come in, I am pretty sure they will mostly eliminate all side to side motion. So you will be left with pretty much no sway when using the bipod and hold breath.

    When I say this, and it isnt meant to be laying down and challenge or anything stupid like that, next time your on the range or in the field think about the sway pattern in arma and see if it looks similar or not.

    I found it looks nothing like it, so I'm saying it is nothing like it, with that in mind it doesnt matter how much "proof" etc people try to give me about how I'm wrong it will not change my mind.

    Thats not me being arrogant its just me not concerning myself with others opinions when I comes to this, least of all do I expect anyone to care about mine, I'm just hear to say what I feel so BIS might read it not to force anyone else to change their minds which is how I felt some were behaving, hypocrytical of me? maybe so.

    Well I just hope you realize I was actually agreeing with you about "it looks nothing like it", and only trying to point out why that is acceptable in the grand scheme of things. If you don't "care to concern yourself with other's" opinions, well, I guess you were never looking to discuss anything in the first place, and I am wasting my time. Fair enough, to each his own. btw, SOS pure is sweet, best way to improve sound and get playable fps. Thanks for all your work on that!

    I think I said this before (or in a different thread), but they really need to lock the view to the center of the scope in the "3D scope" views. As a TrackIR user, it makes me want to look up to the left when the scope sways to the upper left of the screen, which then screws up my view/aim even more. It is far better with 2D scopes (and ironsights for that matter), where the reticule stays centered and your overall view just sways. I don't have a major problem with weapon sway/inertia as-is, but it just exacerbates this issue.

    PLEASE considers this, devs.

    YES! THIS!

  25. Posted

    Your shoulder and hands control the weapon your body supports, its called a firing postion, and you can take my video any way you like its ridiculous because.... it is.

    Haha! Way to ignore any and every argument made against. And post a video that doesn't really support anything. Whatever.

    This i because a magnified optic magnifies the apparent sway by the same amount as the magnification. I've done it too, when I'm firing I feel like I'm recoiling loads, but then I watch a video back and it looks like I'm not even moving.

    This. However the way the sights bob around on the screen rather than the entire view bobbing and the sights staying centred (closer to what one experiences in reality), makes the sway appear even more drastic and crazy. This is something I hoped is changed to be more like a traditional shooter.

    If you took that video you posted earlier and took a version from third person at the same angle and range as this video, you'd see no movement.

    The only time you can really see the sway from third person in arma, is when you are like 50%-60% fatigued. And I think at that point it is a bit excessive, especially the speed at which you sway. But for unfatigued to slightly fatigued, yes, it is barely noticeable in third person and that's without even using hold breath or trying to keep the sights stable. System and magnitude are not unreasonable.

×