Yes, I am aware this was also a "feature" in ArmA2, but it still needs to be changed.
When you shoot a weapon with a proper grip, the weight of your arms and of the weapon itself should cause it to reset into approximately the same position it was in after each shot. Yes, recoil will throw off your aim, but it is idiotic that after 20 orso semi-automatic shots, my weapon is instead pointing straight up into the sky.
Yes, I am aware this was also a "feature" in ArmA2, but it still needs to be changed.
- Legacy ID
Shoot any weapon with recoil. The character's aim will be adjusted upwards after each shot, eventually leading to the gun pointing straight up into the sky. Correct behavior would have the aim reset to an approximation of the original position after each shot, so that if the mouse was never moved, probability would cause it to keep pointing in the same general vicinity.
I don't know about you, but I don't have a 10 foot mousepad to be constantly moving my mouse downwards while shooting. Please fix this unrealistic behavior before the full release. The more realistic approach to recoil that I described above will still force people to aim before shooting, but will greatly improve the feel of the gameplay.
...this is soo depressing, to see all these wannabees discussing just for the sake of ownage...
Guys, whatever experience you might have or not, SHOOTING is no longer "fun" in A3 so far...and by saying "fun" I still remember the feeling of my first m16 round fired in OFP, where I actually got the impression of my bullet flying through the game world.
Nowadays, the recoil pattern is screwed up completely, the weapon is tripping like in a 5€-game of 2001, the accuracy is inconsistent to the stances and firing modes, the weapon sound changes shot by shot fired, the ballistics is almost completely missing (jadajada f**k "Grendel"), the body of the shooter is acting like an accordion, BUT I can spam 10 "nades" in a few seconds...yay!!!
Since this discussion is completely out of direction, I stop hoping for a BIS-fix on this, and hope for the ACE guys instead...who (unfortunately) also seem to have some strange surprises in petto...^^
This is so exhausting, by now I know why buying the BIS releases around 10-12 months later was always a good idea...
present "workaround" of the insane stupid and inconsistent recoil behaviour:
- activate the deadzone (which is by the way completely messed up, too)
- narrow it as much as you can and
- use the "edge" of this deadzone to fix your muzzle at this position - recoil and inaccuracy gone...
Now it really feels like a "Military Game" (Quote: van 't Land) *sarcasm off*
And nobody mentioned the weight of a weapon an spring mechanics so far ...
The whole "arguing" on caliber X has more recoil as caliber Z, is just ridiculous at the moment. It would only make sense when you take in account alot more parameters other than only the load of pouder and caliber or super duper recoil eliminating weapon attachments like the ultimative non-beatable hollywood proven foregrip ........
The whole shooting mechanics is a huge step away from being realistic/authentic and I guess it was implemented on purpose to introduce a balanced feeling for everyone and thats fine for the basic game.
I'm surprised this hasn't been sorted yet. I've done a fair amount of rifle shooting and although you do get sufficient recoil your body takes care of it automatically so it doesn't actually climb up like this. As it stands the actual gun play in the game is quite poor.
Firearms in games are almost always broken...for "balancing" reasons.
Recoil is a method of making weapons difficult to use in an adversarial environment. Given the fact ArmA 3 is supposed to be a military simulation, recoil should be a no-brainer.
Using proper stance and shooting techniques (maybe adjustable and proportional to the skill slider?) the weapon returns to the former point of aim.
The shooter speaks of natural point of aim (NPA). There is an offset to your point of aim after shooting and you might not be able to fire another round at the exact same spot, but the difference between initial point of aim and the follow-up POA is, depending on the weapon used, way smaller than most games makes the player believe.
With a 9x19mm handgun you can double tap targets at 25m and have two shots within 50mm and less. Firearms with higher recoil forces do not always kick up the barrel. It depends on the weapon and recoil management of the shooter.
However, you will get used to the recoil and counter the effect without losing accuracy. A .45ACP has higher recoil forces due to higher projectile weight and is not as easily controlled as a 9x19. I am not talking about .50AE, which does kick up the gun even in trained hands.
Velocity does not increase recoil per se. A 5,56x45 is easily controlled in semi-auto and bursts do not cause you to lose sight of the target. Full-auto is only advisable in CQB encounters, since a trained soldier will use single shots to place precise shots where they count. Burst modes (2 or 3 rounds) are not used much or only in close combat scenarios.
Weight of the weapon significantly affects recoil. Inertia is a key factor. More mass needs more energy to be moved. A heavy rifle will absorb more of the recoil forces before the shooter is affected. Try shooting a snub-nosed titanium framed .44 Magnum with aluminium sleeved barrel, because "light is the new black"... Kids, do not try that at home!
In a prone supported position, recoil is lateral. The weapon does not kick or "hop" even when fired off a bipod. With a good and stable shooting platform, you can observe the impact through your scope. Most games make you believe you are "moved" off target, just to reduce the follow-up hits that would be possible.
However, shooting an EBR chambered 7,62x51 in full automatic on more than 50m is like watching Hellen Keller play basket ball with Steve Wonder. Entertaining and sad at the same time.
Back in the days, when quantity was better than quality, you only had to throw more bullets in the direction of the enemy because he might reconsider taking cover by those "arguments". In Vietnam the average engagement distance was below 50m. And still most soldiers were not able to hit a standing training target at 25m. Lack of training, no time for proper instruction and so on.
Now the distances significantly increased, because your average insurgent live in a wast countryside with long lines of fire.
What has that to do with recoil you might ask ?
It's all about training and knowledge of your firearm. One does not simply shoot full auto because you can, but because you must. Recoil management is not off the table, it is a thin red line. Most weapons do fire without much recoil under controlled conditions and within reasonable boundaries. Forcing the player to counter even the recoil of one single shot is punishment. Being forced to counter excessive use of full automatic fire is realism.
Don't forget that a slight movement of the barrel at the moment of firing has severe effects over distance. That's why fully automatic fire is sort of precise and controllable on short ranges and way off target at longer range.
No need to make a weapon unrealistic to hide poor game mechanics/ballistics.
Thanks for reading Mr. Smartarse comment of the day.
There's a lot of things that contribute to the weapon moving during recoil. We can argue fine details all day like the barrel harmonics or longitudinal torque twisting the rifle, left handed vs right handed shooters vs the bore twist direction etc etc. But IMO the whole point is we're supposed to be playing soldiers who are highly trained professionals. In fact their first deployment teams if I understand it correctly. Thus, they should be MORE than able to handle weapons accurately. The way the recoil is modeled now seems to me to be if the average guy were to shoot it and how he would deal with the recoil.
Also, all the fine details like that really only count for very long ranges. Body control has more effect than anything. And seeing as we're talking about the recoil in the game and the ability to control it, body control of our virtual soldier should be what the game tries to model. The way the system works now is like the soldier has zero affect on the weapon and it's all passed on to the shooter. I guess THIS would be why people get so caught up in talking about weapon physics etc in this thread. But, I think it could be streamlined a LOT by just adding a tiny bit of control given by the soldier. Because, while it's aimed at being a combat sim, it's also trying to be a FUN combat sim. And to be honest, if fighting the weapon while trying to shoot it accurately means you spend more time managing the recoil than putting rounds down range, then IMO at least it stops being FUN. To me, it's rather frustrating!
I personally don't like the whole rubber banding idea. I think that's too far in the other direction. But I like the way ArmA2/OA rendered recoil control.
Also, perhaps I missed something, but when did vertical foregrips become faux pas? To me the side ways out in front chicken wing people are promoting now seems preppy *shrug*
I personally would love to see things like damage and recoil based on the cartridge first. THEN modified by things like barrel length (now days that doesn't mean as much as it used to), and individual weapon characteristics or distance.
And as to the comment about most soldiers in Nam not being able to hit standing targets at 25m....I think my Dad who volunteered for two tours might take extreme offense to that. He was in the Army Corps of Engineers and to this day can outshoot most people I know with anything. Granted, he's had lots of experience AFTER the war in his civilian life just target shooting, but still I think you're probably thinking of troops under fire and in thick canopy environments having to cope with stress under fire and being green recruits. I'd not say that was the average soldier :)
@Streaks: The remark about the shooting skills is not an offense to the soldiers. It is a lack of training because the Army needed soldiers on the ground fast and did not really put much into training.
As I wrote earlier, recoil should be reduced to a simple mechanic: timing.
You fire one shot, the weapon recoils realistically and will return to almost the same point of aim as before. If you fire a follow-up shot while the weapon returns to zero, you will gradually lose your accuracy, as the weapon does not move back to the NPA.
That will make shooting weapons with some discipline precise and punishes firing like a mad man (which can also be a tactic for suppressing the opponent).
The time it takes for the weapon to return to zero depends on two things: weight and bulkiness. A heavy weapon, once brought out of battery, will need more effort to get to the initial POA. This is, however, an automated action that does not require user input. With some training, you could still accelerate the realigning.
A bulky weapon can not be handled as easy as a compact firearm.
Sights can be a factor too. It is way easier to aim with a holo/reflex/optical gun sight than with iron sights. So using iron sights will take a bit more time to realign the front post with your rear sight. To be realistic, everything else should be blurred, but no one wants that, eh?
I am talking about <1sec for a heavy hitter and high caliber handgun to get back to the NPA.
That way we have a realistic recoil and aiming mechanic without the user dealing with recoil beyond the soldiers abilities to do that automatically.
Recoils still not working properly.
LMGs still jump up to much(Zafir is fine for 7.62,also less MX SW and MK200).
IMO about recoils on LMGs - they should be less that on rifles because heavier weapon are much stable,they also have bipod,but this is another story :).
Also TRG series have super huge recoil,that pretty odd for such balanced gun and such weak caliber.
I just have to add that the behavior of the weapons is neither realistic nor satisfying. Its not even adding to the game.
One fundamental argument against the upwards climbing of the weapons without any movement down after a shot:
Imagine you place a rifle in your hand and rise it to shoot.
When the recoil comes into play the weapon will climb up.
BUT IF YOU DONT MOVE YOUR ARMS AND HANDS, THEN THE WEAPON WILL FALL DOWN AGAIN.
That alone is argument enough to abandom the stupid current system.
Weapons fall back towards the ground because of sth called "gravity".
In the end: Listen to what ThePredator said. He pinpointed most of the necessary stuff.
Ps: Red Orchestra 2 has very realistic and believable weapon handling. Way better than the current Arma 3 handlings.
The climb gives you a "I need to control this weapon" feeling. I kinda like it. The only disadvantage is the need of a larger mousepad if you spray a LOT, but that's really a tiny minor issue compared to the advantages of such a system.
This is not are RPG, and gamers expect some feelings from shooting. Someone can suggest something better than "dead stick" or "climbing stick".
- We need huge DoF to represent focus, and detach scope from backround(nice fake). But this must work with aiming deadzone. Now, it doesn't.
-->t's all about training and knowledge of your firearm.
But, how do you filter good shooters from bad shooters in such case? I don't want to meet hip-shooters again. They must training to play this game. Because this is the game. Not are cosplay.
I'm with lighthammer.
Sorry but the recoil in game is not realistic. Yes there should be some however it should return to its approximate aiming location.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNMJHMOTl0g No vertical recoil like in game.
Note our Avatar in game is holding the rifle correctly so there should be no control issues.
This shows at 500m the kind if thing we are looking for. Its like being able to transition to your sidearm while moving. Its not a high speed operator maneuver like returning to NPA isn't a sniper trait. its basic infantry skills.
@Anachoretes: An RPG does not have a recoil. Whatever...
Good shooters separate from bad shooters by their way of shooting.
Shooting from the hip puts you into the latter category. Shooting from the hip without crosshairs is difficult if you set your aiming deadzone to the max (if it is fixed someday).
Playing without a magical crosshair and a good recoil/dispersion system for weapons will reduce the chances of hitting far away targets (+25m) efficiently.
And hip shooting is a training issue. With some hours on the range you can increase the chances dramatically.
But this is pointless as you don't want to play a monkey snackbar simulator (firing your PKM from the hip with ammo belt wrapped around your arm and shouting at your enemy doing jumping while jacks wearing a funny hat)
Firing from Zafir with aiming deadzone, and from hip it's some kind of nice sector pressuring today. But i'm talking about DayZ style of playing which is demanded by most of new players.
Also - ballistics. It should be more readable for gameplay.
We need this http://www.astronaut.ru/bookcase/books/leonov01/foto/012.gif depend range and terms. But not are bullseye spray.
-->deadzone to the max (if it is fixed someday).
Few patches ago AD was drastically improved. Try it.
Excuse me, but when someone complains on such recoil, i think that the problem is clearly not in this game. But in general ability to play computer games.
Go away, go... ssshhh, go...ssshhh, go away, shush... stopp trolling, go hunting zombies...now!
It might even have escaped your attention, that this thread is a (almost desperate) try by experienced players to remember BIS what (among other things) made their series so longlasting! The shooting, the weapon handling, the ballistics (even without ACE it was not comparable)!
BTW, I think of it as absolutely funny, that you tried to prove your point by denying "gravity" in a "wannabe"-Simulation...LOL
Back to topic...
Introduce GRAVITY ...
Then weapons can return to their aproximate starting position after being fired.
The discussion here has already become totally ridiculous... BI, please finally start working over the recoil management!
We even didn't start talking about different springs in the weapon slides...whatever
People forget that this is not an ego-shooter where your "skills" in firing a weapon while rocket jumping beats the high score.
The scope of this game is the tactical and strategical element of modern warfare, mainly infantry combat.
So there is no need to make it difficult to aim or shoot, because it isn't. Everybody can shoot a weapon and with proper training you can do much more with a firearm than shooting bulls-eye targets in a static, relaxed yet competitive environment.
This is about combat engagements on distances from point blank to 2,5km, depending on the weapon used.
Recoil management is always part of the muscle memory. It is a reflex so to speak. Aiming, however is not. How does this work in a game?
Easy: All you have to do is aim properly and pull (click) the trigger at the best possible time. Rinse and repeat.
The game will take control of the "human" body as you don't have to move into the shooting stance yourself, you let your avatar do the work. So why do some people insist on recoil management, if they sit in front of a screen and press buttons instead of low crawling through tall grass in the middle of a firefight?
While other games focus on "fair play" and balancing, because in real life every arms has the exact same equipment and specifications, start at the same time, have the same distance between them and their goal and need to score points to advance, this game tries to be as arcady as possible to make you believe the world is unfair and not everybody can has the same weapon or advantage. This is fiction, mate. We do not want equality, we want dirty realism.
That requires a different skill set beyond who can move the mouse the fastest across his mouse pad, it is not about who has the best graphics card to reduce the scene to wire frames and low res textures to gain advantage. This is about who can outsmart the opponent and use the environment to their advantage. No one wants to fight his in-game body with simple and trivial things as recoil.
If we would fight gravity in real life as you suggest fighting a sudden force, we would all look like body builders on 'roids.
Now lets keep this topic to people that actually want a military simulation and not a sequel to CoD "Press X to be awesome" type of games. If you need a casual game to just steam off, go play BF, CoD, MoH, CS, Minecraft or pocket billard.
Thank you for your cooperation.
No it doesn't. Aiming and firing the weapon isn't hard what so ever. What happens the the bullet after it leaves the barrel is what makes hitting targets hard hence spotters even on shooting comps. Bullets need to move much more at distances over 300k from wind. Currently its just like an inch to the left or right regardless of how windy it is.
No one said it was easy. putting something that is a couple mm thick into a small area half a mile away I'm sure is no easy feat. Especially moving, but the actually firing of the weapon has little to do with the accuracy of your shot. You can even find guys on mil network explaining how they had to adjust their iron sights for wind and temp just for a 300k shot. These are the real things that should be implemented if you want realism not just some almighty unrealistic buck kick to the sky from a weapon designed for the complete opposite. All I'm saying..... make the recoil small, minimal prone, even minimize the weapon sway a bit(not much) and make the bullets less accurate at ranges due to nature. Things you can still adjust for....
If you don't care about accuracy you can pretty much say you are controlling the weapon with ease in ArmA as well. Even if I don't put too much effort to it in-game, the bullets still fly in the general direction of my target. In fact, in real life control of your weapon while shooting rapidly is much more difficult than in-game, so I really don't think the in-game should be made any easier.
Seems to me children can shoot m16's with ease. You can youtube the shit out of that if you want... Weapon definitely doesn't raise all that much, and that's with a 10 year old shooting. Now I'm no marine so I won't argue the point with you. But based of all ALL the other Marines posting, they seem to highly disagree with you.
You can try explain how "proficient" you are in real life all you want, but in the end the firefights in ArmA end much faster than ones in real life due to how easy it is to manage your weapon in-game and get place your shots exactly where you want. Making it easier will not do the game any good in terms of both realism and gameplay. Except for the COD/BF kids, of course, who are too used for not having any real recoil at all (other than some fake visual effect that barely affects actual gameplay).
Well,this looks better that current recoils.
Look at LMGs,while proned they're machines of the dead,not useless aimless junk.
P.S this is ACE recoils,can't share.
Samogon - They were just prone. The recoil in this video looks more like what you should get when firing with a tripod / from a vehicle-mounted MG...
Rapid fire IRL is very much NOT effective when it comes to actually hitting something at long distances. No reason for it to be effective in-game.
-->Seems to me children can shoot m16's with ease
"Shoot" not mean anything, but "Hit" is meaning this.
Existing recoil it's something for gamers, not for contused people who can't handle simple game mechanics.
Are we still discussing recoil or how easy/difficult shooting is?
I don't know why (ex)military folks think recoil is OK in ArmA. It isn't.
Firing a weapon is pretty simple: pull the trigger. Everything that comes after the bullet has left the barrel is set by the actions before taking the shot: stance, support, aiming and follow through.
Recoil is neglectable. It only comes into play when you plan to fire follow up shots in fast succession. And unlike many of you believe, recoil is not a mystical force you have to counter. It just happens. And most weapons do have less recoil than games and movies made you believe.
A 5,56mm has little recoil, nothing to worry about. Follow up shots are easy and fast, even unsupported. With 7,62mm you have to "work" a bit more to get the rifle back on target, but using your mouse to do so is the worst possible mechanic ever invented for adverserial game play. This has nothing to do with a military simulation, it was meant for balancing firearms against other makes and models. A simulation should make it realistic, not "fair".
Firing a .50 BMG standing, unsupported might look cool, but is highly ineffective. Recoil energy is about 100-120 Joule. This feels like bumping into the local club bouncer (not advisable) in a fast walk. The energy response will be much higher and surpassed that of the felt recoil of a .50BMG without muzzle brake.
So the player needs to think before shooting. Which stance is advisable, where is cover and/or concealment, how far is the target away, is it within effective range, is the weather a factor, what type of target, one shot or suppressive fire?...
Only then you get into position and prepare for the shot. You will have to control your breathing (not holding your breath!), slowing down your heart beat (relaxing), concentrate on aiming and trigger pull, follow through and realigning the sight, repeat as necessary.
This can be done either under "peaceful" conditions or under combat stress. The process is the same and automated by many hours on the range and live fire drills.
If you want to deal with all aspects of firing a weapon you have a mini game.
Just concentrating on the least controlled factor of the shot is simply stupid.
After the weapon has been fired it will return to its former point of aim with a small offset. But you don't have to use your mouse to compensate for fully automatic fire. The direction the barrel points in while the bullet is on it's way through the barrel will define the actual point of aim. And the cone of fire eventually results in larger and larger groups on distance.
There is absolutely no need to make the weapon rise unrealistically to make it "difficult" to shoot. Just use the realistic aspects of firing a weapon and you'll have a simulation.
Sadly, many players never fired real weapons but still suggest their "experiences" for realistic weapon handling. Military training is not always a proof of proper shooting skills. Not everyone is born a sniper or 11B with 20+ years of clandestine operation experience in tours from WW1 to WW3.
Just as everybody thinks of themselves as good car drivers, the streets tell a different story.
In the end, it all comes down to a good engine to deal with weapon weight, bulk, (barrel) length, caliber, muzzle velocity, bullet weight and energy. The character has a weight and is not a dead rag doll that only holds the weapon with the tips of his thumb and index finger.
But this feature request is full of BS and false statements that is is pretty difficult to give the Devs a proper overview what this is all about. So who knows what they might change.
No they are def hitting target. Which army were you in again?. And what the hell is simple game mechanics lmao. Is that excuse you give yourself for this busted ass system.. Regardless if you think shooting is hard you don't just pick and choose shit in the game to make it more difficult.
You can look some war tapes. Mostly they are shooting aiming. They shooting somewhere. Than americans throwing huge bomb on the two taliban's head and starting assault. And yes, i know that "shooting" is not so hard. But we don't have to rely on the opinion of galleries shooters.
In skirmish you penetrate into the fold of the ground like a little boy under the covers. In such circumstances, there can't be simple aimed fire. The game should hint at it. Because game about it.
Anachoretes, you just agreed. Aiming is more important than recoil. Focus on the one thing you can influence. The recoil is always there. You have to properly hold the gun and there is no issue to deal with.
But, i can't see proper ballistics right now. Soon,i hope, wind(or even temperature) will be a huge player in shooting. Also, resting and bipod. And then we can talk about decreasing or increasing.
Wind and temperature is very important for a common rifleman.
Oh wait, we only got hollywood-chair-commanders in Arma. That abviousely a totaly different thing ofcourse.
Cost–benefit ratio converging to null. (null)
Wind is not important to a common rifleman who isn't expected to hit anything beyond 100m in a real combat situation, not to mention above 300.
Temprature? Even for snipers it rarely matters.
Besides, this ticket is about handling the weapon after each shot, not about the bullets.
And again, it seems like a lot of people think they should be able to rapidly fire their weapon and actually have a chance to hit something at 300++ meters, while in real life shooting that way is unlikely to hit anything even at 100m. For slow fire there is no need to "drag the mouse down" as the recoil is really not that strong.
@galzohar - it's just a bipod,nothing like tripod or vehicle mount.If there was tripod - weapon would'n even snake,if vehicle mount - suspension will react(almost not visible for small calibers).
Anyway - weapon should not climb up,they recoil should hit shoulder,and as result climb up/right or snake.Well,my favorite recoil system was in ArmA1,weapon fall back to ALMOST same position after shoots.
Good example - ~10 rounds burst,and they didn't climb up,just hitting the shoulder
@Anachoretes - well,usually in casual games you can do this on the move,jump or other vanilla shit for childs.If you have holo sight,and your enemy uses covers,you still need to work hard to kill him.On vid was rested soldier,without fatigue,that why they shoots thats accurate.In combat situation this shooting would be not so much accurate.
P.S current recoil system are most casual ever I seen in ArmA series.
Actually, in a2/oa before the recoil patch (and I suppose in a1 too) the weapon would jump up and then return to the EXACT point it was, making quick followup shots unrealistically easy.
-->P.S current recoil system are most casual ever I seen in ArmA series.
harder = casual? A you sure that you know meaning of this word? Maybe, not relistic, but casual is another opera.
@Anachoretes yes casual.Remind me Counter Strike.Average recoil on Rifles,Heavy recoil on MGs at any pose,small recoil(For this caliber) form heavy caliber sniper rifles(When bullet is loaded - you already sighted to same point).
@galzohar - well,2 sides of medal.For ArmA1 handling,usage of OA-like recoil was pretty silly.Automatic fire is useless there,only single,MGs was useless.For ArmA3 usage of ArmA1 recoil type is silly,because control of weapon was enhanced,but still need something better.
Well todays patch makes me glad,looks like recoils are fixed.
Automatic fire is pretty useless in real life too, so I don't see why it should be highly effective in-game. In-game it is already more effective than in real life!
I do agree that MG recoil should not be any greater than a recoil of a rifle firing the same caliber - That is just silly. The only thing that should be different for MGs is how easy they are to point at the target (holding them up is difficult as they're heavy), but this has nothing to do with recoil.
Let's try to break down the processes relevant to firing a gun in ArmA 3:
Stance: The stance dictates how stable your aiming will be. Usually you could say the higher the stance, the less stable the shooting platform.
Aiming: Key to a proper hit. Pretty easy with optical gun sights, as long as the dope is correct for the distance taking into account the necessary hold over/under and/or lead.
Firing: in a game a single mouse click. The moment you click the button the bullet will travel down the barrel. The length of the barrel will delay the time of exiting the muzzle. Every movement within this split second will change your actual point of impact.
Recoil: The topic of this feature request... Recoil takes place as soon as the mouse button is clicked. The mass of the weapon will increase the time it affects the player character. Rule of thumb: heavy weapons need higher intertias to be moved. A small/light weapon will recoil faster, a heavy weapon will absorb recoil energy to move the weapon before it can move the shooter.
This should be taken into account in ArmA 3. The weapon mass and the soldier body mass, a hinge point for the buttstock or handgrip of the firearm and the recoil energy. A light handgun will turn in the hand and then move the arm (absorbing recoil). A rifle will recoil backwards and turn at the shoulder as the hinge. A higher stance increases the momentum and recoil will move farther up than shooting prone, which is basically a straight impulse backwards. Let's neglect the fact that not every rifle stock is directly behind the center of the recoiling mass.
To not make this a mathematical nightmare, just assume the calculus is already done and recoil is set manually.
Now let's take a look at accuracy on distance.
The usual combat engagement distance is about 200m and less. Nowadays most wars are asymmetrical, so one force outnumbers the other. In this case, the combat distance increases for the "superior" power and decreases for the "guerilla" force. This is proportional. If the guerillas attack, the regular army is forced to fight in close proximitry, if the regular forces fight, they try to keep distance. This was not the case in world wars. The distances were greaterr than today, 300m+ were not unusual for a common infantry man with open sights (!).
Firing a single shot is highly accurate, firing in fast succession reduces the effective range due to time to aim and recoil.
Firing fully automatic further reduces effective range to <100m.
Supported shots increase the effective range up to the projectile effective range (beyond that the accuracy decreases exponentially, mostly due to subsonic speeds, for example 7,62x51 drops below sonic speed at 700-800m, 1000m with special long range loads).
Shooting supported at the max. effective range is therefore a matter of your "cone of fire" generated by recoil and time to aim. While you might hit your target at 100m without any problems, the spread increases over distance, due to the inherited accuracy of weapon and ammo and aiming errors, movement while the bullet is in the barrel.
Point of the recoil request is vertical climb of a weapon after each shot.
Simple solution: do not make the weapon recoil vertically, make it recoil within a small cone and have it return to almost the same point of aim. In close quarters, you will still hit your target, on longer distances, you have to time your shots with the automatic return to battery. You could still use your mouse to speed up the process, but the next shot will return to the "corrected" point of aim, which will increase the cone of fire. This is realistic, as you adjust your stance/grib/aim out of the optimal position to squeeze another bullet out. Timing your shots won't change the point of aim, but takes a tad longer. You have to balance out your need for higher rate of fire (in semi auto) or accuracy. All that we have now is too much of a climb reducing the effective use of firearms on usual distances, a follow up shot at 200m with a 5,56x45 is not too difficult, if you know the drills.
If the target audience for this game is the DayZ community / casual adverserial player, there is no need for us OFP-fans to expect a simulation. If the goal is to make this a military simulation without being VBS, there is nothing wrong with proper weapon handling and firing drills.
Automatic return was in ArmA 2 and earlier OA versions (granted, it was returning to the EXACT same position and not approximately same), and it was bad enough that it got patched in OA to what we currently have in A3. Having played with both, I find the new one much more similar to real life, where you have to re-aim manually after each shot, rather than having the game do it for you.
@galzohar - well,depend what distance,and what weapon.
LMGs or GMPG are created for this,to shoot in full auto mode at same distances,as same caliber rifles.If automatic fire will be useless - no one(mean armies) will use it.What point to carry 30kg,when other riflemans have only 20kg.Let MGs used only in vehicles,or just always carry a bipod 5kg.
Current LMG role in game - overpowered WW2 SMG for city combat up to 50meters.Nothing more.
The current system is as far as you can get from real life.
The weapon will ALLWAYS go back down after each shot. Its called gravity. You dont have to push it back down - it will do it by itself.
Weapons climb only as long as they have the force of the shot applied to them. Its simple mechanic.
I agree that the aim point should not be the exact same after each shot. But the weapon MUST realign with the first shot again.
Ps; Oh and so much for the "a soldier is trained to hold the weapon down - otherwise it would climb like in ARma III currently".
I dont think so^^
PPs: And here you see a full auto G3 in the end of the movy. You can see that the force is pushing it INTO THE SHOULDER and not up.
This also happens when you get hit and survive an explosion (grenade or something) , the view with the gun points straight up to the sky and never comes back down .... and it gets even more hilarious when this happens while prone :D
Recoil is really wrong. I saw an enemy like 7 meters in front, holo sight aligned, started tapping the trigger like 5 times, the fist might have hit, the others went WAY above his head and I got shot. It's like there's a magnet above me pulling the muzzle upward.
As far as I can tell most of recoil in real life goes backward into your shoulder, the muzzle goes up and to the side a bit as it has nowhere further to go, based on the fact that you hold the gun at the bottom.
You should tap the trigger several times and still be able to land a tight grouping on closer ranges, but no, it goes UUPPP.
Also the scope sways like mad, even when lying prone.
@nord,you explain a lot.As I tried
@galzohar - ability to shoot accurate doesn't means that you should hit target every shot.But for sure,if MG are ready to fire at medium - you're dead,if you doesn't take cover and walking/running.
If this kind of weapon will be ineffective in real life - army would't use it,ingeneers doesn't develop it.And will be only bolt-action rifles and tripod-mount machineguns.
Reality is diffirent - modern army uses automatic assault rifles and LMGs as well as tripod with MMG/HMG/GMGs.Maybe in future,when US army will have weapon like XM25 - LMGs will be useless.
The recoil itself I don't have a problem with, however I will second, third, fourth... etc. the true issue which is the lack of "gravity" as I like to address it. If all you do is push the trigger and don't actually move the mouse, the final resting place of your red-dot shouldn't be the max elevation/sideshift of the recoil pattern. The weapon doesn't magically float in mid-air and the shooter simply needs to correct the recoil, but the shooter is constantly supporting the weapon or else it would simply fall to the ground. If I find a target, aim and the fire, gravity plays part in returning the 10-15 pound weapon (whose center of gravity is about 18 inches in front of the player character), back to the original position. I truly hope this is changed before the game is fully released because after purchasing this game last night and trying it out this morning, I found myself laughing when I came across this problem.
I located a rock about 100m away, and without moving the mouse itself just started shooting. If this is supposed to be a FPS simulator I don't know what planet it is meant for, because here on earth after shooting 20 rounds, there's no reason I should be now aiming at the sun which is at high-noon.
It plays as though there is either no gravity, or the weapon itself has no weight so there's nothing for gravity to affect.
It's baffling how many people do not realize that when standing and firing a rifle that spacing shots about 1 second apart will allow you to consistantly put lead on target at 100 meters as GRAVITY resets your weapon rather quickly after each shot. In one shooting session at the range I taught my 12 year old daughter how to be consistantly accurate with a proper stance and a slight delay between shots firing semi-auto with a 5.56 rifle.
Anyone who says you have to "pull down" during or after a shot has never actually fired a firearm in real life.
Gravity and Pull down argument, both, must have low-priority. First, this is are game, and we need to play with. IRL i feel the power that comes from rifle. I need something to feel it in the game. Because in A2 - weapons is "dead". And this is not good as for me.
Here is a video I filmed a few years ago, of a 200 round burst with a light machinegun. In the start you can see a short clip of shooting standing up, the first few rounds start to climb the muzzle higher, then the shooter compensates for the rise and he would hit roughly the same height after that. I have many more videos with full auto assault rifles instead of a MG but I'm not in the position to release them since they were made only for product development use for the company.
The problem with Arma 3 is that gun recoil moves your focus of attention. In reality recoil moves the gun, but does not move the point where the shooters attention is focused.
And this is especially frustrating cause there obviously is a mechanism in the game that allows the moving of the gun without moving the point of focus.
When you stand up and bring up your sights, the weapon will have a degree of sway. But no matter how long you stand there the point of focus will not move. And the weapon sights will just sway around the stationary point of focus.
Having to compensate the recoil with the mouse is dumb game mechanic that makes it harder to lead moving targets with auto weapons compared to semiautomatic weapons. Which is the complete opposite of how it's supposed to be. It also limitis the burst lengt to the length of your mouse mat.
And you can't even build up a muscle memory for compensating for the recoil, cause the angular sensitivity changes based on what sight you are using, whereas the recoil stays the same. So if you practice compensating the recoil using your iron sights, you're completely screwed when switching to, lets say, the MG optics.
Disagree. the recoil is pretty easy to control now. unless you go mad ass rambo on full auto. controlled shots and its all pretty regualr and the weapon does have a return - just not right to the same spot it started from. a little work and effort is required.
do you have muscle memory with your mouse? compensating for the recoil really isnt that hard but its expected that your avatar has better muscle memory than you? come on now, mouse is easier than rifle to control. nothing more imertion breaking than having weapon mechanically return to exact spot it started from. do you want the game to do all the work for you?
best solution though would be implmentation of weapon rests and bipods.
a big part of the percieved weapon recoil is that freeaim is off in settings. set it to just 0.1 or the lowest possible without being off. now check recoil.
Some do not get it, don't they?
It's NOT about "ingame handling", it IS about immersion!
And whoever has shot a real rifle cannot feel immersed when shooting A3 rifles...
And of course a rifle will not reset to the very original position after shot. Nope, this is where the muscle memory sets in, which is prevented in A3 (yes, your mouse hand also creates muscle memory) by the erratic reaction of the gun.
The very basic things that should have been introduced into A3 in the first place:
- Gravity (at all)
- reproducibility of the recoil (every fucking time I shoot, the gun decides erratically how it reacts, way different in real life! This is why people practice shooting!)
- Weapon control (while running around like mega pros, these avatars cannot even hold a 5.56 gun??? ridiculous!)
For those who have ever fired a gun, you will know that modern guns are built to recoil directly backwards, not up. There is going to be a little bit of upward recoil just because of the way the gun is held (and the fact that the barrel is on top), but the majority of the recoil is back into the shoulder. This is why you do not see shotgun like stocks on rifles as you did in older muzzle loading guns like this: http://www.thespecialistsltd.com/files/Replica_Charleville_Musket.jpg
a gun like this would recoil upwards because of the orientation of the barrel as compared to the stock.
Now compare it to the M16A4:
it is clearly built to absorb the recoil in a manner much more conducive to firing multiple shots far more quickly without straying too far from the point of aim.
I do not have a huge problem with arma 3's recoil, but it could use a little tweaking.
It's unrealistic, annoying and a gameplaykiller at the same time. There is not even a "deploy Bipod" thing as a small workaround. Maybe devs should actually try to play their own games insteqad of making A3 a DLC hell...
I am not an expert but what I have seen in 1.22 looks a bit strange. On auto fire mode the gun now goes more and more into the shoulder and after some rounds jumps forward again and so on .. do that with 100 rounds ..looks strange..maby thats the "jackhammer effect" Anachoretes talks about ? just saying
Early, when you firing in auto, weapon was move every shot like Jackhammer. Now it's move depend on artifical timer(or something). I hope in the end, it will depend on bursts(sum of multiple inertia)
...yeah... you touched the recoil, finally... and, you almost nailed it. At least the fallback of the weapon feels good enough, but.... BUT now the recoil is no longer consistent...
recoil only sets in every 3-5 shots... must be a timer, instead of being an effect of the shot...
Keep it up... you're on the right way... (still I am afraid of the Realistic-Recoil-DLC ^^)
added: stable version 1.22
In most real-world conflicts footage you could notice that an average rifleman tends to fire a lot without direct contact, yet he rarely shows himself up, engaging enemy directly is a primary reason snipers exist in a first place - that's their job. This mode of engagement is something that totally doesn't work in arma! Recoils and sways are one of the reasons why. Damage system is another reason, but it obviously could be worked around by various mods like ace or agm which do things well enough.
The third reason are its penetration capabilities. In arma bullets deterministically lose their damage as they lose speed, IRL speed matters only when there is some kind of body armor. The fact of penetrating it is binary: either bullet makes it to the physical body, or not, there is no such thing as passThrough parameter. There are wound channels though, they may vary.
I understand that arma is a military sandbox, not a simulation, thus BIs are doing their best to balance gameplay things up. But i still hate it. Shootouts just don't feel as they should. IRL weapon is a tool that fires bullets, allowing you to take it, point it in a needed direction, and employ it. Yes: you can get too tired to be effective at it. You can flinch, as your muscles are too tired to keep it in the same precise position. You can point your rifle more slowly for the same reason of being tired. But in arma it's not the case - weapons behave more like they are some animals that desperately try to free themselves from you and run into the forest.
Yeah ^ its good. I prefer to use reduce_recoil mods for this, but seriously, arma 3 should be much diferent than arma 2 in this case too, and i feel like i'm playing some port on other engine with a rain of bugs coming every way. Its very pity they selected this game engine, there was loot of other to choose. It will take years to fix all this issues, and then Arma 4 will come with next bugs creating something like barrier for Arma 3 with its bugs, and game will stay unfinished. :(