machineabuse
-
Content Count
313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
-
Medals
-
Everything posted by machineabuse
-
This conversation reminded me of this; https://youtu.be/COL4yjufQL8?t=9m43s
-
The key to the sentence you highlighted is the middle sentence. The point highlighting weapon balance and reticule occlusion. In case that was difficult to understand by the way I wrote it the first time; to put it more simply (and state it explicitly) there is a point where putting the optic any further forwards makes the gun too front heavy and the dot/reticule too slow to acquire in the sight picture. Prior to the adoption of what was once jargoned the "flat top" receiver, they used to sell optic mounts that cantilevered forward of the carry handle, in fact famously this was how the M68 was mounted for a long while. Even after flat-tops (I'm so glad that jargon is dead) became commonplace there still existed cantilevered mounts to push the optic out over the foreend. Digression aside, my point was that it is still beneficial to push CCOs out to just inside the point of diminishing returns as it gives you the benefits as mentioned in my previous post. To give you a highlighted term to ponder; I don't know why you would bring eye relief up, since it's irrelevant for unmagnified optics. Not a tit for tat, I just found that conflating ;) On the same page now I hope.
-
To echo what some have already said; Having reflex optics closer to the eye is sub-optimal in reality for several more reasons unmentioned; 1. More of the optic is blocking your vision. 2. Optical parallax increases (and yes, with holosights and red dots there IS optical parallax despite the marketing.). 3. Any aberrations in the sight picture whether they be artifacts in the glass due to the reflections in the optic electronics, chromatic shifts, what have you become more noticeable. What you learn when you start messing with reflex optics is that the further out you can have them without adversely affecting the balance of the rifle or occluding part of the reticule (holo) the better. After all no matter how far the optic is you will still perceive the reticule being the same size. Added advantage is the further out the optic the more useful it is as a ghost ring in the event the optic dies/you forgot to turn it on/you can't see the reticule or dot because of lighting conditions.
-
Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)
machineabuse replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Good news, thanks for keeping us on the up. The only 2 concerns I have is how will conflicts between different mods stamina systems be addressed and how the AI will handle it. Hopefully this will be addressed at an infrastructure level. -
Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)
machineabuse replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
A stated goal of ArmA's gameplay was authenticity. Is an infantry simulation authentic without the consequences of physical exhaustion? To excerpt Sun Tzu's Art of War; How could exhaustion's dismissal be anything remotely authentic to infantry simulation? It's like calling dogfighting without energy management a flight simulator, when energy management is the entire point of Air Combat Maneuvering.- 1935 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- branch
- development
- (and 2 more)
-
Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)
machineabuse replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Anyone managed to get the exhaustion part of this to work(or figure out what this means)? As far as I can tell I can still jog infinitely on depleted stamina. -
Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)
machineabuse replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
If the restructuring of the weapon mass system to an even greater state of brokenness isn't a clear enough indication of spending dollars to save pennies I don't know what else to say.- 1935 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- branch
- development
- (and 2 more)
-
Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)
machineabuse replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5xIcUH8f7w embedding the video so it's more visible on the thread.- 1935 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- branch
- development
- (and 2 more)
-
Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)
machineabuse replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
To repeat my main concern; fine so what a mod can potentially do is add a 3rd state to the movement which slows the player down to a more sensible pace when the stamina bar is completely depleted. But how would AI would handle it? Would that be resolveable in anything other than a native solution? -
This is a neat idea. It would make a lot of sense as a diegetic way to indicate how fatigued your character is; the more tired the further back along the weapon his arm retreats.
-
Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)
machineabuse replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
To add to that, what are the implications as to how AI will handle a community created fatigue system? Will the aforementioned "hooks" extend into AI? A lot of question marks for cooperative mission design here.- 1935 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- branch
- development
- (and 2 more)
-
Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)
machineabuse replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
We can only hope that this mantle is taken up by a group that creates a singular standard for the majority of mods to balance themselves around. :( -
Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)
machineabuse replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
I wrote about the unauthenticity of sway and the mechanisms of realistic muzzle movement in detail months ago*. I suspect I wasn't the first to think of it and I doubt I will be the last for long to come. *Actually last year in the Weapon Inertia thread. -
Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)
machineabuse replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Again, there is no physical difference in what your character is actually doing between optic view and standing with the weapon up. If optic view consumes stamina than having the weapon raised at all should also consume stamina. -
Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)
machineabuse replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Being in weapon optics no longer prevents stamina regeneration Thanks BI guys! The system still needs work but this at least is a massive help! -
Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)
machineabuse replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
To bring back the designer's conundrum that was being discussed; I do not believe that was necessarily it as the easiest solution would have simply been to make it easier to turn fatigue off. -
Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)
machineabuse replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Appreciate you taking the time to post royaltyinexile. This new system is very frustrating for a lot of us especially because it breaks some use cases. The biggest gripe from some of our TrackIR users is that we can't regain stamina while the weapon is brought up to aim. Many of us keep the weapon up in aim while in overwatch positions while using TrackIR to do our looking around. The benefit to this is we always know exactly where the muzzle is pointing. The current system penalizes us doing this for bounding movements as we progressively lose stamina simply by bringing our weapons up to cover our team mates whether we want to shoot or not. Also lying prone with the weapon deployed and looking down the sight prevents stamina recovery. Why? This brings back the horribly frustrating situation that many new ArmA players have when they first start playing with the default controls before they realize they can split hold breath into a different binding from zooming, which are infuriatingly chorded together in the default controls. -
Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)
machineabuse replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
I must admit I am extremely annoyed by this. I can't even begin to imagine what the rationale for this design decision could possibly be especially because the practical expression of this involves zero actual movement of the weapon, just bringing the camera to the sights. Now, I'm in no way saying that shouldering a weapon isn't tiring, but shouldering it up to your eye shouldn't be any more tiring than shouldering it at all, which is what the game makes the player do all the time anyway. This is rather disappointing considering that the previous iteration of the fatigue system was quite excellent. The only thing I like about this new system is that stamina is visible in the UI. The rest feels like it fell off the back of an Elder Scrolls game. Aside from that, I too will echo the thoughts of what seems to be the majority in this discussion and say what the game had before was much better. -
Firing from Vehicles feedback
machineabuse replied to klamacz's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
If my previous statement was ambiguous, I meant to imply that you should be able to do the above with all that entails. I've built enough stuff for other games to know that actors are normally immune to their own projectiles because they spawn inside them thanks. Do an additional collision check ahead of the muzzle or whatever. -
Firing from Vehicles feedback
machineabuse replied to klamacz's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
I'm inclined to assert that the FFV limits should actually allow the full seated firing art irrespective of passengers for three main reasons; When you are not full up in a vehicle, this allows you to fire in a more useful arc. If you need to shoot a prisoner ;) Nowhere else in the game is there a system with hard limits for the friendly fire potential of infantrymen, therefore it seems rather strange that there should be one in FFV. ​Is there any necessity to mechanically abdicate responsibility of the player from muzzle discipline between the infantry simulation and being seated in a vehicle? My inclination is to say probably not. Yes, there is a benefit that provides a barrier between player frustration due to carelessness and good teamplay in many use cases, but it also prevents the potential of the system being used in more emergent circumstances, which arguable is what ArmA has been best at B) I will also add that this has a development benefit of potentially reducing the amount of work it will take to do FFV as it takes away some level of specificity in setting FFV limits for a given seating position. And look I can't be the only guy who wants to shoot through the windscreen in a car! -
Hello gentlemen. I'm loath to put this post here and get in the way of all the legit mods but for lack of a better place to start I may as well begin it here. After perusing the wiki and not finding much on the specifics, I do have a few things to ask. Goals The goal is to do a replacement for the muzzle flash sprite assets currently in the game which in my opinion aren't very convincing. The scope of my replacement scales depending on how much I will be capable of doing within my limited knowledge of how ArmA 3 modding works. So Level 1 Goal is to replace the default muzzle flash for small arms in the game with a generic muzzle flash that looks... more like a muzzle flash ;) Hopefully releasable as some manner of small FX mod. More goals set when it becomes clearer what I will be able to do with this. My questions for the community are thus; Where are the muzzle flash sprites located? Are they embedded in a per-weapon basis or referenced from a repository? What file format do they use and what type of Alpha Channel? What linked code is associated with muzzle flashes that may give me issues. As it stands, I have the necessary resources to generate the sprites and I have found a small snippet of information on the wiki about how coordinates and rotation for the muzzle flashes are set for weapons. Whether the end result of the muzzle flash will be more realistic (depends on whether I can create parameters that vary the muzzle flash with the environmental conditions) or just generically in a muzzle flash aesthetic remains to be seen. Collaboration is very welcome :)
-
Muzzle Flash Sprite Replacements
machineabuse replied to machineabuse's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION
I was worried that the muzzleflashes were hardcoded. That said I will experiment and see if it's possible to make some weapon addons that point to their own muzzleflash models. Thanks much for the answer! -
Advanced Helicopter FDM Feedback
machineabuse replied to aluc4rd's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
This reason made me both sad and at the same time the mental image of being violently rejected by Armaverse earth made me laugh :) I don't quite understand how most land vehicles are able to flip and roll at will while aerial vehicles need to explode though. -
[MELB] Mission Enhanced Little Bird
machineabuse replied to diesel5187's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
I shoot my way onto target with guns. The grease mark doesn't work very well with X and Y displacement for head tracking. Having to toggle or recenter head position works but isn't great. Again, I feel there should be options to scale this to taste. -
The new walk anim was a nice improvement. Felt more contextually versatile. The only tweak I think it needed was a shorter gait. The step seemed unnaturally far.