Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

machineabuse

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    313

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by machineabuse

  6. Posted

    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.

  8. Posted

    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.

  9. Posted

    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

  11. Posted

    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.

  14. Posted · Edited by Machineabuse
    deprecated

    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 :)

  15. Posted

    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.

  16. Posted

    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.

  17. Posted

    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? ;)

  18. Posted

    That's not a good test, a better test is you should hear people the same volume point blank (like face to face) with the plugin off and the plugin on, actually technically they should be slightly louder with the plugin on because we actually amplify the voice cone instead of subtract from outside the cone.

    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!

  19. Posted

    We are positive TS3 is doing something different with downmixing strictly because JVON (Which I wrote) does not have the volume issue evident in test subjects which very definitely DO have it in TS3. I do nothing special for downmixing in JVON; I strictly provide the channels to ACRE and let it do its thing - and it just works. TS3 is very definitely doing something differently, causing this issue. We are back to the drawing board determining what that might be; considering Nou boosted volume by up to 75% depending on surround sound setup and that still did not fix the issue, that means TS3 is still reducing volume after the fact.

    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?

  20. Posted

    Are you still getting the volume issue? Most people reporting the volume issue said radios were also very quiet.

    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.

  21. Posted

    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.

  23. Posted

    Is this a suggestion for the sway pattern, or the amount of sway, or both? Do you just think that they should revert the changes to weapon sway altogether and go back to the old method?

    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.

    These two things seem contradictory to me. It seems like you are saying two conflicting things are good here. Or are you saying that the old way was flawed because the there was no natural point of aim?

    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.

    Either way, there is a natural point of aim in the Arma 3 system in that the sway follows a distinct pattern, so you could argue that the bore will always return to every point within that pattern at some point in its cycle. Is it possible that the sway pattern is just too long/complicated, and it would be better if it was shortened so that the weapon returned to a given point quicker?

    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.

    I'm also pretty certain that your aim point would not wander away like you're describing in the old system (I could be wrong on this, I don't have Arma 2 installed so I haven't had the opportunity to test it).

    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.

    I may have really misread this section and, if so, I apologize.

    Nope, you read right the first time. No worries.

  24. Posted

    I was referring to comments that, by your own admission, are hyperbolic (i.e. not reasonable or accurate).

    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.

    other words

    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.

    Machineabuse how would you create difference between machinegun/sniper rifle and standard rifle/bulpup rifle?

    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.

    If we forget for a second sway we are on page one where snipers and machinegunners excels at clearing

    indoors areas.

    There is a reason why in fireteams MG is the last person in stack while clearing in Urban areas as you know.

    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.

  25. Posted

    Who is dismissing people's discontent? It's fine to be frustrated with the system, but at some point people have to actually start being reasonable or there can be no discussion. All you do in this thread is defend people's right to make false statements and hyperbole. How is your post about other people's posting any better than anyone else's post about other people's posting?

    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.

×