Jump to content

machineabuse

Member
  • Content Count

    313
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by machineabuse


  1. How many Tier 1 guys have you seen use their optics on Ops in this manner? :P  Pretty much all pictorial evidence doesn't support what you've said mate,  99% of the time I've always seen optics mounted and had them mounted midway on the upper receiver on M4 type platforms. I don't believe you would have the likes of Paul Howe, Pat MacNamara,  Kyle Lamb or Larry Vickers endorse the optics position so far forwards ;) :D

    Basic marksmanship principles still apply being the sight alignment/sight picture must be correct,  ie correct eye relief.

    Whilst I understand what you're saying, and there's an element of truth in there as well,with the military, most red dot/holographic sights tend to be used in conjunction with magnifiers these days,so mounting them so far forwards would make any magnifier moot.  

    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.

    • Like 1

  2. 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.

     

    • Like 1

  3. I'd say yes, because there's already a script command to set the animation speed.

    And Bohemia is releasing Legacy Fatigue Mod as an example mod for those who want to go back to the good ol' days.

    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.


  4. 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;
     

    If you are situated at a great distance from the enemy, and the strength of the two armies is equal, it is not easy to provoke a battle,

    [The point is that we must not think of undertaking a long and wearisome march, at the end of which, as Tu Yu says, "we should be exhausted and our adversary fresh and keen."]

    and fighting will be to your disadvantage.

    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.

     

    • Like 2

  5. Just played some Arma today and I noticed again how exaggerated this new weapon sway is. Sniper stance is pretty much useless since the sway is the same as in kneeled position. In addition, the difference between the sway when lightly exausted and heavily exausted feels the same. You sprint literally 1 meter and it's like you ran a marathon. Definitely needs some work, otherwise people will disable the new system because of that.

     

    Increasing sway as an effect of heavy breathing good and all, but currently it feels like my soldier's arms are made of pudding.

     

    https://youtu.be/N5xIcUH8f7w?t=5s

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5xIcUH8f7w

    embedding the video so it's more visible on the thread.

     

    • Like 2

  6. Man, you have just expressed a wholly original thought, never shared by any other member of humanity before. 

     

    It's what many artists and writers spend their whole lives striving towards. Congratulations.  :lol:

     

    (Seriously, for years the consensus around here was that sway should be a predictable figure-8 that mimics breathing.)

    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.


  7. Optic view should consume stamina (muscle fatigue) on stand up position a little bid less on crouch and none on prone.

    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.


  8. -snip-

    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. 


    • Aiming through scopes disables recovery (looking through optics == holding breath?)!

    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.


  9. Machineabuse, I don't think you get how it works currently: you can't shoot a prisoner and you can't shoot through / break the windscreen. They are transparant to the bullets currently and BIS have created the limits to make this less obvious.

    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.


  10. I'm inclined to assert that the FFV limits should actually allow the full seated firing art irrespective of passengers for three main reasons;

    1. When you are not full up in a vehicle, this allows you to fire in a more useful arc.
    2. If you need to shoot a prisoner  ;)
    3. 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!

    • Like 1

  11.  

    • \A3\Data_f\proxies\muzzle_flash
    • They're modelled in to the weapon as a proxy object, pointing to another model that contains the muzzle flash. Different weapons use different models.
    • Binarised ODOL .p3d for the models (we're on something like version 60 of the format now), textures are 32bit .paa with an alpha channel - same as every alpha texture in the game, they also have a .rvmat file to illuminate them.
    • The way I see it, you'll have to do a lot of hex-editing of the .p3d files and repacking of BIS's .pbo since the model paths to the proxies are hardcoded in the weapons. Releasing modified versions of the game's core .pbos is usually a recipe for disaster.

     

    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!


  12. 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;

    1. Where are the muzzle flash sprites located?
    2. Are they embedded in a per-weapon basis or referenced from a repository?
    3. What file format do they use and what type of Alpha Channel?
    4. 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 :)


  13. Just to be sure, this is a simplified reason, it depends on many other aspects. But generally speaking, this is the most common issue - as engine calculates states vehicles each frame, it's kind of a quantum physics - the helicopter may be above ground in one frame and under it in the next, that depends on time between frames. And as the helicopter "appears" under the ground, engine calculates force necessary to push it out (as a inverse force to force necessary to put it that deep). You may possibly imagine that results may be extreme with low fps.

    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.

×