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

  1. Posted

    No, but it remains a valid response to anyone whose sole complaint is something like, "I don't like the weapon sway because it's unrealistic and my gun doesn't sway this much in real life. Anyone who likes this has never shot a gun before in their lives."

    It is also frequently used in this discussion as justification to dismiss the discussion of realism despite many users frequently stating that the OPREP has been read and understood. Also, for many who have actually had trigger time (and because I know it will come up as a semantic argument that opinions are split on this, hence the word "many" and not "all") the weapon sway seems like a poor facsimile for what occurs in reality.

    The degree of how the discontent is expressed may vary depending on the level of frustration experienced. To dismiss it just because it sounds hyperbolic is tone policing at its lowest.

  3. Posted

    I didn't say it should be completely removed, it should just be tweaked. I agree there should be some kind of mechanism to represent weapon instability which is affected by breathing and fatigue, but not to the point of looking completely ridiculous, because right now... just watch that video. It looks comical.

    This. The issue is not the presence of sway, it's the choice of simulation is like a weight on a rubber band which is not what the organs in the human body do.

    You should only see the rise of fall in the sights from supported shooting positions, otherwise the behavior of "sway" would realistically be represented by the twitch reflex of your muscles as they attempt to keep alignment with the point in space the brain is telling it to. ArmA 2's "sway" was a more faithful and less abstract simulation of that specific behavior.

  4. Posted

    I think a native option to disable sway is rather extreme. A community based option will surely surface. I sympathize with the players who are having difficulties with the aiming system from a usability standpoint but it's difficult to dispute that it's a great equalizer between players who play more deliberately and players who have the twitch skills to exploit.

    I maintain though that the specifics of the simulation of both inertia and sway can and should be improved upon to be more natural and intuitive. The overall effect on target acquisition is correct but for many it feels worse than it is due to the choice of abstraction.

  7. Posted

    I think the thing in this thread that needs to stop is assuming that the people in this discussion need to be taught to play the game. The fact that we are having a discussion in the Dev Branch forum suggests to a fairly high degree that people joining the discussion are likely to know the topic they are discussing. A lot of this "instruction" attributes frustration and emotional hyperbole to ineptitude and all it results is a lot of talking-down-to which is disrespectful and derailing. To make matters worse is that it triggers confirmation bias of those who are already happy with the status quo and in the end the core of the discontent becomes misrepresented.

    At the end of the day, the BI Devs have the final say. The discussion here should give them a picture of what people are unhappy with in order to make improvements.

  9. Posted

    Speaking on behalf of my group we have been a big fan of VTS weapon resting as it brings to the game the advantage of positioning to the shooting game. A lot of what counts for accuracy mechanics in ArmA 3 currently centers around waiting for your avatar to recover from fatigue, movement, hold breath etc, etc. It's a lot of passive and not a lot of active.

    Being able to prone out and use the ground or a static object in the world to shoot from adds a mechanic our players can actively use to effectively send rounds downrange after having to sprint to position (as you do when bounding.). We also encourage out players to do things like spread equipment out amongst the fireteam like MG ammo/rockets and what have you. Personally I also organize my gear into 1st/2nd and 3rd line inside my uniform, vest and backpack in case I need to cache my pack to regain stamina.

    In ACE2 our group used to be in the habit of dropping the pack and use it as a sandbag rest in conjunction with deploying the weapon if we were setting up an ambush at distance. As always the 4 resources of a firefight we try to keep going for us are Time, Distance, Cover and Volume of fire.

    I'm sure there is some game changing stuff planned for the Marksmanship DLC but I hope they do come up with a weapon resting mechanic that is at least as accessible as VTS is.

  12. Posted

    You're missing the point.

    Your point stating the obvious was already covered in the discussion. We've been talking for the most part about both bettering the system, working along means of making the simulation better and some have been discussing the merits of an option to disable the system.

    In all cases realism is always worth discussing as long as it remains the basis for game mechanic systemizing in ArmA. Even the Inertia system itself is an effort to systemize reality. So it would be inane to NOT discuss it.

  13. Posted · Edited by Machineabuse

    Stop bringing realism into an argument when you're aiming with a mouse and not a gun

    With respect, I think you need to think about that statement in regards to the game this discussion is about. Also "the ends justifies the means" is by no means an ultima ratio.

    I agree that this is a valid motivation, but it's not strong enough. The weapon "dancing" is unrealistic that it detaches you from your avatar and affects immersion.

    If toned down a bit, and kick in only once you are HIGHLY fatigued, I think it will be ok.

    Agreed. It will probably be better after tweaking.

  14. Posted

    First of all, I doubt either of us put the practice into this drill in Arma that the guy in the video put into it in real life. Don't you think that if you shot it in Arma as often as would be required to get good at this drill in real life you would be able to bring that time down?

    Well you are talking about Kyle Lamb here. There are skill aspects that are handled by ArmA's simulation that we aren't in control of. Think of it as inhabiting the body of a guy who has already learned to control his body to certain degrees. Sight alignment while turning evidently not one of them ;)

    I would also like to note that I tried the same drill without sway (by toggling freelook whle in ironsights), and my results weren't significantly different. Although, to be fair, doing this changes the aiming sensitivity, so that probably threw me a little.

    What do you mean by "the 'bounce' as the sway kicks in?" Are you referring to what was happening in St. Jimmy's video

    Yeah, that exactly. It seems to behave sort of correct except in slow motion.

    This seems to just prove that the system can work, though, doesn't it?

    My original position was that the system CAN work it just needs more work done to it to meet the stated goals of the OPREP

    By the way, the stock isn't moving through the player's head not because of the front sight boundaries, but because the wepaon is pivoting from the shoulder, which is something that I think should be happening in Arma 3 as well.

    You didn't understand my sentence I think. To clarify; The weapon inertia system has the effect of looking like the weapon is going through the player's face because of the camera motion. In reality you face would be in cheekweld to the stock, hence you would never see the side of the weapon opposite your head unless you released the cheekweld to look over the gun.

  15. Posted · Edited by Machineabuse

    I got a little ahead of myself and hit pretty close to the edge of a target.

    Only A zone hits count. I shot the same drill with irons and my best time of 20 attempts was 12 seconds (My phone's shot timer app next to speakers). What I learned doing this drill is that yes you can be fast but the feel is still wrong especially when stopping the sights on a target to press the trigger off. My gut instinct is to not pull the trigger until the sights are absolutely aligned, ignoring that I shot faster but the real shooter in me kept telling me I SHOULD be missing.

    Again, it's not overly difficult but in some other drills I set up with near and far target transitions I got the feeling that the "bounce" as sway kicks in is animated too slowly. It isn't really clear how as a player I'm supposed to change my movement to get an ideal result but it doesn't seem to be like how I would naturally control stopping on target.

    This sounds like a description of learning how to shoot to me. Yeah, the system is kind of gamey, but this is a video game. Unless you hook a rifle up to your computer, you're not going to replicate the experience and skillset of shooting.

    Again; ArmA 2 ACE pretty much had standing sway spot on. Day Z standalone does a better job at inertia simulation from the standpoint of physically moving the gun and being able to shoot while turning with the sights aligned correctly. By way of your argument we should be happy with less but again I posit if the system can be improved why not?

    FWIW the indie game Insurgency uses a very similar system to simulate inertia, however in their model the limit of movement in the front sight is the boundary of the rear sight aperture. It does seem to feel a fair bit more natural as the stock doesn't appear like it's angling through the player's head when turning to the right. Call it the Gun-Through-Face-Effect.

  16. Posted

    I had a thought while using ABM;

    It would be kinda nice if there was possible to detect intractable handles nearby without activating them. Perhaps a bindable "reveal handles" key that showed them up in a small radius. One of the worse problems with ArmA's native action menu is not knowing where the handles are, where you need to be and how far you need to be to use them. This would be helpful answering a lot of those questions.

  17. Posted

    The Oprep may not have been linked but it has been referenced directly and indirectly in the conversation ad nauseum. So far no one has had an issue (even once) with the idea that differentiating the handling expression of small and large weapons. Be assured that people who have even found a thread called "Weapon Inertia & Sway Feedback (dev branch)" probably did not do so in a knowledge vacuum.

    It is that the method that the idea has been executed in leaves a lot to be desired for some.

    It is even more frustrating when one assumes that we are taking issue with the system that we somehow are lacking in knowledge or gaming skill or are unable to... adapt(eeuuuuuurrrrrrghghhhhh).

    For the nothing that it's worth, personally; my complaint coming from a person who has put a fair amount of trigger time behind guns for pleasure and sport is that it looks and feels wrong. I can live with it but since this thread exists I'm contributing in the chance it can be done better and I think it can.

  18. Posted · Edited by Machineabuse
    Somehow my formatting was all over the place.

    Why do think that? Personally, they seem equally "inauthentic". In reality your sights shouldn't misalign like in A3. But In reality your weapon doesn't lag like that Dayz vid either.

    It's a lesser of two evils really. Inertia in a firearm is a sensation that is felt and not seen. At very least weapon lagging still allows me to take a turning shot at a reasonable rotation speed. Misalignment on the other hand has me wondering if I should need to take a turning shot if I use the front sight or what if the rear sight is not aligned.

    I don't see why I should even need to think about that. Too many people here think that accurate shooting is all about waiting for sights to align, waiting for the hold breath to kick in or some other form of waiting. A lot of competitive shooting is flowing into the shot in a

    way that the inertia & sway system sucks pretty hard at.

    By way of disclaimer yes this system can be learned and you can get pretty good at it by building certain habits but those habits are for lack of a better word; gamey. Which I would have thought was what such a system was meant to move us away from.

    I do agree that the sway seems somewhat inconsistent however. I can't pinpoint why I get that feeling. Might be because the sway doesn't seem to kick in until after you stop your rotation. Or maybe its because the sway doesn't seem to be effected by the direction and force you swing your weapon. Or maybe my imagination.

    Both from what I can observe.

  19. Posted

    This is how inertia is done in DayZ. The gun only drags behind but it settles down where you stopped your mouse and doesn't make weird left and right movements like in Arma 3. That's more like it should be in my opinion. Pretty much the same as in my right part of the last video.

    I don't have DayZ but I must say that looks a lot more "authentic" than the method used in A3.

  23. Posted

    7th_Serf never said anything about having a problem with the sway only kicking in after the inertia has settled, so I didn't address it. I agree that it's not ideal, however. Would you feel better about the system if the sway was present throughout the sight misalignment period? This is a serious question.

    I posit porting the behavior from A2 for anything other than a supported position would be ideal.

    What are you talking about? How am I flinging accusations at anyone? I merely stated that his experiences don't line up with my own and that I suspect he is either exaggerating his experiences (not at all uncommon in this thread), or he is suffering from a bug in the inertia system (also not uncommon, and certainly not his fault).

    I'm sure asking him to further elaborate his position would be more fruitful.

    I don't really want to get into this again, but we have had as many military personnel (including one I know personally) saying that the system is closer to right than not as we have had saying the opposite. Could the system still be tweaked? Of course, but that doesn't mean that it's completely wrong or unrealistic.

    Either way, surely you would agree that the Arma 2 system resulted in battles at extreme and unrealistic ranges and made it trivial to engage targets at 500+ meters.

    I cannot speak for A2 vanilla as we played mostly ACE2, however in my experience in ACE2 weapon stability at all ranges was handled well. In optimal conditions hitting at 500+ is not particularly difficult especially if you have an ACOG. Things change as you get tired/wounded/suppressed and also due to the fact that ACE2 had included modeling for wind and more authentic weapon dispersion.

    Nowhere have I said that nothing can or should be done to improve the system. In fact, I have done the opposite. I have repeatedly stated that it is not helpful to simply claim the system isn't realistic, but that people should instead actually suggest ways of changing or improving the system while still accomplishing the things that BIS is trying to accomplish with the current sway and inertia mechanics.

    The first step to fixing a problem is acknowledging the presence of the problem. The frequency and recurrence of a complaint is also useful data. I'm sure BI will do what BI does regardless of the discussion, it does help though that complaints are heard and to a certain extent humored to see where they go. This is why I'm inclined to at least give 7th_Serf the benefit of the doubt with his observations ;)

  24. Posted · Edited by Machineabuse
    explanation

    To make it short, I observe as well that sway kicks in only after inertia has settled which again is not how it works in reality relative to authenticity in the game.

    I think we all can appreciate that you feel that the way Inertia and Sway is now is good enough for you mate. There are still many of us who feel it could improve. The system's merits speak for themselves and don't require a vicarious defense. We only want to have a better implementation of those merits.

    This discussion benefits nothing from flinging accusations around at other participants.

    The sway is only realistic insofar as anyone has read any instructional publication on how to be a more accurate shooter, which frequently omits the fact that the rise and fall of a breathing pattern is only observable in a supported position which they assume you will take when you want to maximize your stability. What involuntary body movement looks like when unsupported (and/or tired) is markedly different. Again; more like how A2 does it.

    Repeatedly bringing up that the current implementation did not aim to reflect reality is not a constructive counter argument. It leads to a place that presumes nothing can or should be done towards improvement.

  25. Posted · Edited by Machineabuse

    Ok, I guess nit pick I can throw out there, the M4 barrel is missing its distinctive barrel cut as shown in this example:

    http://stickman.rainierarms.com/galleries/Charles%20Daly%20Carbines/IMG_3574%201028%20WEVO.jpg

    and here is the barrel of the RHS M4:

    http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/49864244449480070/11C1016FFD979DBA149D10D8E96FECCCBC6C72E8/

    Not sure if this is intentional or not but it does look off.

    Also, for the record, it looks like the barrel cut was merely textured in rather than modeled into the barrel as the barrel in the M4 model is more pencil shaped.

    Little performance optimizations like this are always impressive to see in the modding community though. Looks like a conscious effort to minimize polys. Having the detail is aesthetically nice but smart poly spending adds up. Like the omission of the gas tube under the rail. I can dig it. :)

    What does look like an accuracy mistake is the flashhider seems to be 4 instead of 5 ports. That or the wrench flat in the flashhider is misaligned with the ports and the ports are canted left.

×