machineabuse

I'm inclined to say PR is a bit over the top. In reality, your brain takes out a lot of the movement associated with recoil. As a matter of fact that's also why I play without head bob as when you run in reality you don't perceive it; you just lose your peripheral vision.

I will echo RobertHammer that the recoil animation in 3rd person is not the best ;)

I got to say that I really appreciate the new recoil system. Subjectively to me it feels more like firing a gun than pretty much every iteration before it and any mod that I've used in ArmA. Massive props BIS!

I can see changing the mouse sensitivity would be very detrimental when doing dynamic entries and having to button hook.

@Roshnak & SilentSpike Nice :) Thank you gents. I'm guessing Dslyecxi's input in the mix probably has a lot to do with it too!

The discussion is in danger of falling into a trap where we begin to see a forced dichotomy between "resting" and "weapon deployment" for the sake of mechanical differentiation. I will agree that as a passive mechanic, "Resting" confers a just bonus to aiming by passive interaction with the environment by way of naturally positioning one'self as a player. BUT... ...before mounted bipods there were marksmen who tied two sticks together to steady their muskets and before that no doubt more than a few crossbowmen came across the idea of placing the ends of their crossbows through the crotch of tree branches. I too am interested to see is where the line for "weapon deployment" will be drawn. Specifically; I hope that we will not see weapon deployment as the sole realm of weapons with bipods. Should we get a weapon deployment mechanic that is also universally considerate of weapons to environment regardless of type, I too would agree that no indication of weapon resting beyond WYSIWYG is needed.

I would like to add a community reminder to test these features in missions and not just muck around in the editor. When you have more in your head to mind than the feature at hand you are intent on testing usability of said feature changes dramatically.

I'm finding auto works fine. I do however agree with the other users who think that better feedback is needed for the state of being in a weapon rested position. For the most part if I am always consciously looking out for things to rest my weapon on it seems fine but when thinks heat up and I start to lose fine motor control under stress I find myself squidging myself around objects struggling to find a good position not knowing if the shot I'm about to fire is as good as it's going to get. With VTS there is no such ambiguity. I don't think the design itself NEEDS a HUD element per se, but the overall reliability of proximity detection currently in game kind of necessitates it. That kind of comes with the territory of oddly shaped rocks and ethereal guard rails :) Credit where credit is due though I got to say that the values feel pretty spot on. I had a little bit of an internal debate on whether or not the degree of stabilization would be useful to have indicated but I think that should be more a factor of the time a player spends getting a good shooting position. But for the time you need to go to ground, dig your elbows into the dirt and press a shot in haste yes better clarity for that would be good. Personally it would be nice if I could hold a key down to force my player avatar to stay in the weapon-rested state. Some of the frustration is when you are tracking a moving target as they move and right as you want to fire your shot you move your weapon out of the weapon resting boundary and you only realize after the fact you aren't doing what you thought you were doing. That's a failure to translate player intent.

For everyone who has problems with deleting .PBOs and getting your stuff sync'ed up across your gaming groups, this is what our group has been using for the past couple months now. It's just a couple of .bat files you can open and configure in a text editor to save everyone a whole bunch of time. Also included is a second batch file to restore the original filenames. I just spent a little time cleaning it up and annotating for public use. Hope this helps everyone out :) AGM .PBO Rename

I just came onto the thread to see if this was a known issue, good to know it's not just our group that's experiencing this lol

Functionally, 3D scopes in ArmA are still horribad. They do not take into consideration cheekweld nor is the presentation of the sight picture around and through the optic correct. A well executed 3D scope system would in theory be superior in many ways, but what ArmA 3 has at the moment is anything but well executed. On the other hand, we have what is a close to perfect execution of a 2D scope with Tao's Modular Realism which really should be the community standard. Frankly, until a well performing PIP solution is to be had; 3D scopes lack the simulation required to be worth considering IMO.

The tears! They come non stop! :') You guys are awesome, I can't wait to try this out with the group!

Ermagad ermagad ermagad :D y u du dis <3

Our group loves this weapon :) Any chance we can get a config for STANAG magazine compatibility with RHS Escalation? We previously wrote our own but we have since globally moved to PW6 as our de facto mod synchronization tool and are avoiding using homegrown configs for our modset. *Actually don't worry about this. RHS uses the same magazines with their own classname so they work fine in the MK18s. One of our members wrote a config to use the RHS sounds for their M4s which we think sound pretty good for our internal use. If there was one thing we'd like to see, it would be some sort of sight model for the M203 :)

After a full reinstall of ArmA and all the mods I can now confirm I am in the same boat as everyone else where the Direct Voice volume and ACRE radio volume are equally soft. The some exception being the ACRE radio beep, which adjusts with system volume but nothing else. Normalization with ArmA's volume excluding the beep is to set everything at 10% volume ingame.

Inertia and Sway today is what the expanding crosshair was 12 years ago; a refinement of a stepping stone. Back then I recall the devs of Raven Shield saying; "iron sights aren't fun". So much for that :p Now as then; there really isn't much good reason we can't have better. Inertia would be better if it were acceleration based and sway behavior would benefit greatly with refinement to work more organically based on the way the player last moved their mouse. I will say I have no qualms with stamina and fatigue as it stands. It seems pretty reasonable to me.

TiborasaurusRex no idea you played ArmA and glad you're in good health! I think you may actually be one of the few posters here with the facilities available to you to actually demonstrate how sway and inertia should be. On your Youtube channel mayhaps? ;)

So if I understand you correctly the volume should be (at least) equal to the proximity voice feature native to ArmA 3 at point blank? Alrighty, will test that and see if I can glean anything new!

I do recall there being mention that ACRE2 is meant to bypass TS3's volume settings and default to system volume. I wonder if TS3's volume boost settings are somehow being tied to the radio only? That would account for why only radios are loud for me. Will do some testing later to ascertain whether this is the case. But just to confirm, I should be hearing people speak at the same volume in point blank proximity voice and also radio if everything is running normal right?

See, this I have been wondering about for some time. For me, the radio volume is perfect but only direct voice is really quiet. Our members have been setting the game volume really low so we can hear people talk in direct but as result the radios become extremely loud until their volume is dialed down in their ingame diegetic interface. We also run into problems when exiting the game as one would expect. One of our members had a quiet radio that was fixed with the patch but direct voice volume remains very low in the last few days of testing. If normalized to the radio volume I would guess that the volume of direct voice is perhaps 12db quieter with someone standing right next to me ingame speaking.

Nouber, sorry for bringing up the volume thing again but I just had a thought; if the problem is caused by the TS downmixing why is the radio volume loud but the direct voice volume soft? Also, as an intermediate fix for the volume issue is it possible to have a user configurable volume preset for radio volume in the options so we don't blow out our eardrums every time we pick up a new radio? :) Or better yet; a user configurable playback volume for direct voice.

Hate to be the Johnny-come-lately to the discussion, but any plans for SOPMOD Block 2s? ;)

I actually do think that the A2 sway simulation being driven by the new inputs in A3 would work nicely. I did say this a couple of times already but I doubt that they'd do it. The thing with the current A3 rubber bandy behavior of sway is that you can strong arm it and force the sights where you want them to be relatively easily. With A2's system that's harder, but on the flipside, A2's simulation only required a comparatively small amount of sway amplitude before shooting started to get challenging. With ACE2, when you're injured, tired and suppressed making hits past 50m is seriously difficult. That felt about right. I think a lot of the people complaining about the nauseating effects of current sway are related to the sway pattern and amplitude. Especially when using a magnified optic the effect is akin to being on a boat in the ocean. It doesn't *feel* to me that there is a natural point of aim in either A2 or A3. A2 definitely had the phenomena of the aim sway eventually pointing you in a random direction. A3's sway on the other hand in effect; doesn't seem to gravitate to a single point in space so much as around it. When you hold up a pen tip and try to keep it on an object notice how the tip intersects the intended "point of aim". That's because your muscles are working toward centering onto the point your brain is telling it to. Think of natural point of aim as the player intent. The player intends to aim right there and the sway is the mechanic that balances it's acquisition. It is analogous to the way expanding crosshairs work in old Rainbow Six games but the difference is you always know where the bore is physically pointing. You just need to drive the point of aim onto the target and either strong arm the sights onto target OR wait for your body to center on point of aim naturally. Yup, I suspect it is both too long and the pattern too orbital. I think a shorter, more jittery pattern would work as well practically and also represent player intent better. Neither have I. I think I saw that once in the issue tracker during Alpha but I haven't followed up on whether or not this still holds true with the current sway system. For all I know the point of aim in space is a fixed point now but it would not surprise me that it isn't. When I have more time I will run a test with time compression and see what that does. Nope, you read right the first time. No worries.

The definition of hyperbolic is a rhetorical method of exaggeration of expression. Just because the statement is emphatic it doesn't invalidate its content nor does it need constant restraining. If you must transliterate the statements for your own use by all means but don't think you need to do it for anyone else. For the sake of keeping on topic you are right solely in the part we should stay to the thread intent. If you'd prefer we can PM. I don't mean to pick a fight nor do I mean you disrespect but it's genuinely frustrating that you don't seem to get what I'm trying to tell you. I did miss enex's post though, thanks. There is nothing terribly wrong with the scaling of values between weapons of various configurations and formats in ArmA 3. The issue I have is the execution of the simulation. I think that sight misalignment should function on acceleration and not velocity like how it currently does. If you turned at a steady rate you should be able to maintain your sight picture (in reality, until it becomes necessary to reposition your feet.). Sight misalignment is fine if you are constantly changing the direction of aim but not if you are smoothly moving from target to target. As far as sway goes the aspect of the simulation I think isn't great is that it meanders around the target. Again, what I think it should feel like is more of a twitching motion around a point of aim. Your brain fires signals to your muscles when you hold a contraction at intervals (rate coding). As you make conscious corrections to the muscles, say in your arms to hold a position your arms will bounce around as they twitch. The best way to illustrate this is to pick up a pen and hold it tip up at arms length and with your dominant eye align this with another object around you. As you can see, the behavior you will observe is the that the pen twitches in all directions around that point. This same twitch is what a shooter sees when they acquire natural point of aim in an unsupported position. ArmA 2's "sway" behavior actually was a pretty reasonable facsimile of this. The heavier, more unwieldy the weapon and the more tired you are naturally should exacerbate the twitch motion. From an inertia standpoint sudden acceleration and deceleration of the weapon as you turn should also exacerbate the twitch momentarily, with the physical characteristics driving the effect. I also think that the bore should always gravitate back to a single "natural point of aim" that the player is trying to shoot at. I don't know whether it still holds true, but used to be that if you left ArmA 2/3 on and walked away you eventually find your player avatar aiming some random direction. I don't see why you couldn't simulate the unweildlyness of machineguns and other heavy small arms with my suggested system (or another). Also, supported firing positions should be a thing. Keeping a rifle up unsupported for long periods of time is tiring. This will also be where weapons like the Tavor will come into their own as the ergonomics were purpose built for overwatching positions with the weapon up. Conversely, if you kept a weapon like the Negev shouldered you ought to find yourself losing the ability to stay on target in relatively short order.

Since when is it roshnak's sole right to judge what is reasonable? What I have been doing is respecting people's experiences as they come. On the other hand you've been the primary apologist of a system that requires none, continually derailing any discussion for change before any alternative ideas can come to fruition because you can't tolerate entertaining the *slightest bit* of hyperbole. Come on man, if you are going to call people out on being unreasonable you have to be reasonable too.