I have first generation hunting NV (Passive) and it does not have any noise and it is otherwise sharp from middle but from edges it is blurry. The angle of view is about 30 degree. It is selfpowered with own trigger what you squeeze.

With its self generating power you can not manage its level other than keeping a protection cup on or off (small hole in cup for day/bright environment use) and then adjusting power amount manually. If brightness gets up or too much power, it will turn off and have a safety timer to keep it off for couple seconds.
It is as well black and white.

NV goggles what I used in military were totally different. No noise, no blurry but totally sharp from edge to edge. Digital and functional in 0 LUX, possibility to even attach to head, helmet, rifle, different weapons (from AA to MGs etc) or kept in hand. Illumination was green

Difference in prices were 300 euros and 10 000 euros and size, where cheaper is size of 0.5L bottle, the military version was size of two fingers and you could keep whole device in your fist. Weight were ~600g and ~200g.

The problem with night vision goggles is that you need to get use to turn your head with them. Many has just single lense so you lose stereo vision and because the focal point in goggles is about 10-20cm (depending now models) of your eyes, turning your head gives you totally different feeling than being without.

Do we have realistic NV goggles in game? Not so.... As with typical military NV goggles, if someone even smokes, you can see it from 1km range like a bright dot middile of night, you could right away just wave a flashlights and fire to air yelling "HERE I AM!".

To get NV system work better, I would be willing to accept a blurred surroundings of the view, not the black lines etc but just blurring the surrounding. Then rise the contrast more so you most darkest and most brightest difference is stronger and then finally, move the vision point of character then forward and lower FOV from 80-90 to 60-70. That would cause head turning etc to be different feeling.

In 2035 I bet there would be totally different NV technology, what would include what already exist, meaning automatic adjustments from different light sources in different parts of view (no more getting bright light blinding you), colors and more likely even thermal views.

But would those be in each soldier gear? Maybe a B/W/Green/Orange but not color and definitely not the thermal versions. Those would be for special forces and special personnel.

@Dale
"The funny thing is those who are arguing against it are saying go back to BF3, yet suppression and impacts are more milsim than BF3 yet even they have it, how can you claim to be a milsim enthusiast when you don't even know what its like being on the receiving end of a rifle or at least let those who know tell you."

Yes, the sound impact to player being shot at is very low.
It would be interesting to see if that effect volume would be boosted dramatically.

Still for gameplay reasons I would go to blurring and other visual distractions so player itself gets distracted but not limited by own skills, so eventually some players would be better dealing getting shot at.

I read first 20 comments and skimmed rest so bare me.

It looks like the feelings are in two separate groups:

Group 1) People wanting effect to get target suppressed more effectively and feel the suppression forcing them to seek cover when they are shot at no matter of respawn or travel time.

Group 2) People wanting higher respawn time and travel time to give them reason to feel suppression and seek cover by their own knowledge of penalty.

The first group seemed to like idea of blurred vision etc, second group blamed about wanted to bring ARMA 3 as a CoD or BF3.

Many games have brought the blurred vision to suppression effect, way before CoD2/3 or BF3 were under development.

It does work well in many games, as it is the fear for the player.

What the suppression is suppose to do?
It should be a warning to person under fire that there is no wise thing to rise head. In multiplayer games it is a reason to get team give own suppressive fire for enemy and get pinned squad member out of the position.

Without any visual effect, the player only thinks "Nah, it is just 3-5 minutes waiting and trip to back" so I seek cover, wait a little to get position and then kill the enemy.

With visual effect, the player needs to seek cover at that moment, not to focus to who is firing or where. Think only about getting to cover as when being suppressed, you are no use for your squad.

How much use there is now in firing on move toward enemy? Nothing, as if you don't hit the enemy then there is no use to fire. If enemy is kneeled and fires toward you few shots and you are moving, you will be scared about getting hit and you think way to get cover and maybe fire a few shots at that direction to suppress shooter so you get to cover.
Now when you move and enemy is still, enemy has better change to aim and hit at you. Players know they can just jump on the ground, aim and shoot few rounds accurately without them getting any real panic being shot at.

In battlefield 3 the idea to bring suppression effect was great. It was just implemented badly as it was not so effective.

I would say, bring the blurring as suggested but tie it to difficulty settings. Where players who play at lower difficulty will get it but those who want to play as them being in total control getting it off.

The mod what was linked here what blinks screen black/white is my my opinion a bad one.

Blurring is way better. It can be done in few different ways, example blur the whole vision all the time, so player can not see anything anywhere.

Give the "tunnel vision" where edges of vision is blurred but the middle is more accurate so player can move and see where is heading.

Or add a motion blur, where moving head causes blurring but vision gets clear once looking at one direction longer (> 1 second). It would give a player change to fire back if wanted, but it is not possible just jump up and fire accurate shots right away.

One of the problems is that game doesn't have foliage cover (alpha blending currently) for long distances. Meaning who is shooting at long distances is almost bring like a red dot on night and targets moving as well. The enemy who is doing suppression should have the benefit to keep the targets down.

Changing accuracy or slowing down reloading breathing etc isn't good by my opinion. As my gun accuracy doesn't change when I am being shot at. The suppression needs to be a affective way to distract the target from fighting at that moment. To cover your buddy what is being shot at enemy and you fire at that enemy, you should get your buddy saved and force enemy to take cover and stop firing.

Soldiers are not trained to withstand suppression. That is experience what comes from battlefield when your senses and courage grows to the situations being shot at. You don't anymore get in panic or such adrenaline bursts of it but you can work under fire better.

It should be difficulty setting, skill level of the character.

Harder difficulty == everyone are more experienced in battle == less effect
Easier difficulty == everyone are less experienced in battle == more effect

When player sets AI character skill in game, it as well sets the effect amount. So if player takes control of that character, it gets the effect no matter of game overall difficulty settings.

When host set server overall difficulty setting for person versus person gaming, it enables/disabled the effect based level.

Personally I would enable in difficulty settings the blurring effect for suppression even on hardest difficylty levels (custom levels) as it would make more meaningful combat situations where everyone can suppress others better.

And I am against by making the effect always on, no change to change setting. As clearly many player doesn't like it but same time many likes it, so setting is good thing.

Most attack helicopters (KA-50, AH-64, Mi-24V) have moving cannons (or Heavy Machine Gun like 12.7mm) but assault helicopters (like Mi-8) have fixed cannons or HMG (etc).

Rocket pods are stationary and some missile racks are tilted (like in KA-50) down when target is closer.

There are attack helicopters with fixed cannons like Mi-24P what has twin-barreled 30mm autocannon mounted to right side of fuselag. In KA-50 and KA-52 there is 30mm autocannon what has horizontal movement about -2 to +9 degrees and vertically about +15 to -45 degree.

Co-axial helicopters like KA-50 (or Mi-48 in game) have specific feature what allows them to change pitch without gaining lots of speed if not wanted.
It is easy with them to pitch down and maintain position while firing with cannon or firing rockets and missiles.

And co-axial design gives possibility to KA-50/KA-52/KA-27 etc to perform easily a "Funnel" what is strafe around the specific point (target) like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVW3yhFGFYs

In helicopters the trimming works little differently than in fixed wings.
Example trimming in KA-50 is little special.

You change collective in wanted position and then you press trim button and thats it. If you need to correct trim you again just change collective and you press trim again. You can hold trim button and release it in wanted flight to keep it. Then there is a trim reset function what clears trimming.

In KA-50 the trimming is actually commanding autopilot. The helicopter is very easy to fly and operate in combat as all what you actually do is you plan your flight path and then you let autopilot to fly and you only focus to aiming and firing.
With KA-50 it is actually just that you program autopilot to do what you want and then you aim and watch how stuff blows up.
The autopilot is as well different from fixed wings etc in manner that it only has 20% control. Meaning that you don't need to turn off autopilot to do corrections but you only program it to do it in new way with trim button and with PVI-800 by assigning wanted waypoints and headings.

The trim is not just for cyclic in KA-50 as it as well adjust collective and pedals. So it is very easy to actually do funnel or maintain specific pitch trough whole attack run with wanted altitude etc. Or if you are in directional flight and you spot enemy on right, you can simply use helmet mounted sight to assign a new target heading and with a flip of a switch KA-50 turns on that point while continues flying in original heading and you can just aim and fire.

PhysX is proprietary and only for Nvidia cards so it is a no go.

But vehicles physics are still too "light". You can take a armored car and drive full speed anywhere, over common rocks and only get in the air when having enough speed and driving over big slope. Cars never turn over and only slows down at high slopes. It just is too easy to drive around island avoiding all enemies while car is tilted even 60 degree and it does not fall off from hill.

Any just tested and any armored vehicle can be driven in any terran and in any angle sloped terrain.

This makes infantry too inferior as vehicles can avoid roads and travel easily anywhere and infantry has harder time to move even over rough terrain where all vehicles just slide over them without problems.

If there would be situations that armored vehicles would flip over 20-25 degree slopes, it would give causes to make ambushes. And if bigger common rocks would slow down/stop vehicles, they would need to be careful where they drive.

@ThePredator

"7,62x51 -> 740-850 m/s, max. effective range: <800m, sound level: 156.2dB"

On what do you base that example?

Suppressor should only make it more difficult to pinpoint shooter in first shots and lower the max range from people hearing you shooting (like 500-700m).

Silencers with lower caliber weapons (.22 etc) are really silent with subsonic cartridges but penetration is terrible and range drop is huge.

After 700m a suppressed rifle doesn't reveal for target your location and bullets don't "whisle" because their speed is so low unless windspeed is non-existent and environment sounds as well in minimum, but that range it is hard to get a accurate hits.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=66d_1298423219

22. caliber pistols with silencers would be like in movies, generating just "click click" sounds on each shot, a 9mm VSS vintorez would be a very silent but still causing sound for ~200m range when you have line of sight to shooter. Shooting behing obstacle what blocks sound waves to other directions would limit the hearing possibilities.

There should have been functionality in graphics engine to have Voxels. Then just draw voxels where ever you look. It is quick, low impacted on todays computers and gives a great use of camo/staying still.

I would not want to see any "Take All" button unless it then forces player to spend a lot of time there waiting that character picks one by one each object.

As that is the reality, when you are in horry (placing mines for ambush while enemy is rolling toward you any time, trying to get a clip from fallen friendly under fire etc) you need to think what you take and how many based your situation.

@ghostDOC

"But I think the scope is a bit too small."

It is pretty close the realistic size as scopes does not fill whole view.

"When aiming it should be in the middle of the picture and closer to the eye but the rest of the picture should still be at 0% zoom."

The scope should be on either side of the screen 2/3 or 3/5 position, typically on right side. If it would be middle it would be like shooting with one eye closed and even then the scope should be 1/3 from the left while visible area would be on right because one eye shooting, head positioning, shooting position etc. And you don't place your eye too close.

"The 3D ingame scopes of course still have the problem that the entire picture is zoomed."

Everything is zoomed, scope is middle of the screen, blurred surrounding, no parallax adjustment, eye relieve adjustment, bullet trace or vapor trails (so you could work as spotter) etc.

It would make snipers game harder but more pleasant as they would not be so "effective" like usually in FPS games they are and would require moment players time to actually do other things as well than just check stance and breathing.

Examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrFj2zR0mdI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sZHWkdfqrxU#t=156 & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJWLP81qCAE

@ThePredator
"I missed every point you've made because they are bullshit."

Good that you already made your mind that all is BS and then you skipped all points and jumped to reply.

"Sure it seems realistic to render everything on screen sharp because you only focus on one spot, but as the pro sniper you were you should know better."

You are claiming that you see everything perfectly accurate until you aim and suddenly everything else around you gets blurred until you lower your weapon.
You don't accept that your eyes actually can move without your head moving or your weapon moving.

As I have already counted your claims, I don't copy them here. But you already just countered them all with your respectful tone and intelligent respond.

"I won't even call you out, because if you really were a sniper you'd dishonor all those that are and were active duty professionals. With your attitude and disrespectful behaviour"

Say a person who reply starts "Everything you said is bullshit".

You don't have respect and your attitude is very negative what others say.
You can not even follow your own sayings as when you say "I won't argue with you anymore. There is no point" then you don't even click the reply button as you don't even write the message anymore that person but you simply keep your speeches on yourself.

"But none of this is relevant to the ticket and I am wondering which course the game will take if more of your kind try to influence a once great simulation."

ARMA has never been simulator and will not be. It is just a game with some features made more realistic than others and some not so much.
So maybe you should actually start putting your skills in use and make mockups showing what you really want, I have made my (quick and dirt but point is shown), where is yours?

@DisasterMaster:

"that mockup u made http://i.imgur.com/18j3jiG.jpg [^] shows almost exactly what i want"

What you would change in that mockup?

"and well done for training to have no dominant eye that is basically shooter equivalent of being equally strong in standard and southpaw fighting stance which"

I can say that it has benefits and drawbacks. When you don't anymore have differences (well, maybe 5% difference) which hand you use, which leg is stronger, with which eye to look, but in daily life you get annoyed from it. Like I can write with left hand my signature with a pen what doesn't dry so quickly only to smudge the paper as I had used to write with right hand.
But yes, it does have benefits like the southpawn stance you mentioned :)

@ThePredator
"Sure you could render the whole scene as if it was in focus. But to be honest, that's not what you get behind a scope. We only have one screen to merge every aspect of two eyes, that work completely different than the "in-game" eyes.
You do not have any control over the focal plane of your vision, you can not move the eyes, you can not close one eye or adapt to offset parallax in scopes.

We only have that one monitor to simulate two eyes. Regardless of the distance to objects in-game, they are all rendered on the same monitor, which has the exact same distance each and every time. Your field of view is larger than 180°, good for you, try to simulate that in-game."

It would be realistic when rendered in game whole FOV (what is default and) area sharp. When game adds blur around scope or sights, it is unrealistic. Why?
As I already explained, when monitor is normal distance from your view (could be closer or further), your eyes already blurs everything else than very small area, actually smaller area than the reticle in game.

I am ex-sniper, I have three very rare capabilities what most humans don't have. One of them is that I don't have dominant eye, I can choose with which eye I look or even if I look with both eyes simultaneously.

Do you know what it means? When I am aiming, I see sight and target with both eyes. When I use scope, no matter is it 1.5-2x or 12-50x (or even longer), I see target perfectly fine same time with both eyes. See, when have perfect eye relief for either eye with example 4x scope (I'm not either left/right handed as both sides are as good on me after years of training) and I am aiming to 600m range, I see with both eyes and I usually prefer to look in way where scope view cast over the other eye.
It is hard to explain as I see same time the rifle from side, and as well from behind. :-)

I am as well ex-stereographer, so I can already say I know lots of things about 3D calculations and cameras than you. :)

"If you look at your monitor, you probably see a lot more than just your screen content. This is what your peripheral vision is used for. Is it sharp and clear? No. So why render your peripheral view sharp in-game? Looking through a scope is just that. You look through the scope, not left nor right. If you want to look left or right of your scope, you have to move your eyes or head."

As I already explained, only very small part of your vision is sharp. In reality you look elsewhere and it is sharp as you focus to that part. For normal person it does not matter what distance it is as human eye focus so quickly.

Why render scope surrounding blurred in game? It is not realistic.
When everything is sharp in game and you look trough scope, everything else is already blurred. When you look outside of scope (on monitor) you see it sharp and clear exactly like you would in reality. You don't look and see things blurred until you lower your weapon like in games these days with artificial blurring.

Most people believe that everything what they see is sharp, that whole display what they see is sharp. On normal viewing distance only few pixels are sharp, rest are blurred so much that they only believe it is sharp but it is psychological misconception.

In game everything needs to be sharp, so when you look reticle everything else is blurred, when you look somewhere else, it becomes sharp but reticle turns blurred. It is because in reality your eyes are not sharp at all around that small specific position, we don't need artificial blurring around sights to give realistic look but it would be like looking trough bottle in real life.

We can not simulate actual depth in games, not well even with 3D displays or glasses etc. Not even Oculus Rift offer that feature what real eye is capable. (Oculus Rift takes normal gaming to next level but it is other thing).

"In direct comparison looking through my scope with only one eye is exactly what you see in ArmA 3 with the ELCAN (ARCO). Now blur the image around the scope just a tad and create a magnified image inside the scope ocular. Increase the overall field of view to 180+° and you have a realistic image of being behind a scope. Moving your eyes will sharpen the surroundings (depth of field would be required to simulate the actual focus)."

For me it is not, if I close one eye scopes are far smaller than what they are in ARMA. In ARMA they are done bigger for gameplay reasons so they get the better accuracy and feeling they are using scope. Even when cropping my one eye view to correspond games typical 75 FOV, scopes are way too big.

It is unrealistic to have blurring around any reticle as human eye already does it perfectly naturally even when it is on screen.
And fact is, when artificial blurring is added, it takes away the realism where shooter can look other direction without dropping aim, what is player forced to do in game to get artificial blur away.

"No harm done, Fri13. Continue. We might end up playing different games later on."

We are not enemies, otherwise you would have been behind other end of my rifle and already dead without knowing what hit you ;). So we are cool :-)

@Distastermaster
"sniper scopes can stay with no peripheral."

You do have peripheral vision even with rifle scopes. You don't stick your eye ball inside scope.

If you want to limit your peripheral then you need to block your other eye and attach some annoying caps rear etc.

In reality there are few things what actually blocks your peripheral view and most of them are already in game. You can have grass or something else on your way, you have no trained eye and you are not relaxed and aware when shooting so you only see where you are aiming and psychologically you are blind to everything else.
And that happens even in games, player focus so much to sniping that it does not even notice that something is moving just little bit next to reticle because it is blurred naturally already by human eye and player is trying to get a kill on moving target etc.

Adding artificial blurring and making bigger scope or changing FOV are just unrealistic. The human already is the problem in the combination.

Only reason to add those is to balance the gameplay between skilled players and un-skilled players. Building a artificial limitations so all players are on same level.

"my point is though once you switch to the eye that is not looking through the optic, doesnt the peripheral image become clear?"

Only the position where you look is clear, was it in reality or on screen. Very small area in human eye is actually capable to see accurately. And there is no difference are you holding a weapon in your hands or looking trough screen holding a weapon in your hands as the sharp part in vision is exactly the same. The difference comes that in display resolution is smaller than human eye can see but it is not such a problem in games.

@ThePredator
"On a monitor it is a bit different to the real world as you do not need to focus on two different distances, so you actually see both scope image and periphery sharp (Red Orchestra style). That's why I suggest a slight blur for mag. optics over non-magnified ones."

Nope, that does not happen. They are already blurred naturally normally in eye when hold you weapon in your hands in real life or looking it on display.
Example of my mockup: http://i.imgur.com/18j3jiG.jpg

WHen you look trough optics the guard post, everything else is in blurred naturally. If you look guard post middle of the screen, the optics is blurred.
But if you now compare them in that image, you can say that they are both 100% sharp. You know it is static image and it is displayed on computer display.
But when you step outside with real rifle in your hands, you have exactly the same situation, you can look trough scope seeing target sharp or you can look it directly and see target sharp. Only thing is that you probably don't have trained eye so you can choose do you look trough left eye, right eye or with both eyes simultaneously so you probably need either to close other eye or even move your head.

If you now look again my mockup (it was very hastily done, guilty for that) and focus to look trough optics waiting a target to get up to guard post any second now (Just think that it is a game, not a image). You don't notice if other target would raise and aim at you in control tower or far on left at building corner.

Now what happens if you notice the movement in your peripheral view? You look that area when eyes accurate area shifts to that location, exactly like in real life. Now you need to go and move your weapon over the new target and then focus again to optics to locate where your weapon actually is aiming etc. And at that moment again everything else is blurred naturally by your own eyes. No artificial blurring needed. No need for artificial FOV changes. And no need to artificially make so huge sights that it fills your screen.

"I removed the "zoom" and left increased the field of view. But we are talking about vanilla games here. So this should be mandatory."

Increased over the default (non-decreased when aiming) or just back to default?

I wish BIS would remove all FOV changes when aiming trough any sight, make sights smaller on player screen (as I mentioned, in games you are not limited to game physics but you can alter them to get realistic view for player and still give good looking for other players around you), add feature to have zoomed view in optics like decade ago it was done without problems and many other does it today, remove all shading and vignetting from scopes (unless they want to include a feature where player needs to get eye relief to get accuracy in control before firing, what would make snipers slower in game and require some skills from them) and move the reticles to 2/3 or 3/5 part of the screen edges (depending which side you are firing).

@DisasterMaster
"all i can say is im happy that this ticket is high voted because i want BI to make proper 3D scopes because i think that would basically complete infantry combat in arma and really lock arma into a lot of marketplaces which means new players, more players, more exposure, more people moving to arma which is what i want"

If BIS would make optics and other sights realistic and position weapon more realistic manner slightly to side (not to middle) it would be huge signal to gamearea that ARMA III tries to be more realistic than just follow Wolfestein 3D generations where weapon must be middle of screen.

@ThePredator

I didn't talk only about distances. And if you can not see close and far without glasses, you just have bad eye sight

Can you see example 10x10cm object at 600m range? Can you see .1x.1mm object at 5cm range?

Don't try to be sarcastic if you can not see so well, as you even missed every point I made. Don't know did you make it by mistake or deliberately.

@DisasterMaster: "yaeh its totally realistic that the whole world zooms in when actually you are just looking into a small set of lenses but its realistic that everything zooms in also sniper scopes IRL are made so that if you look sideways whilst holding 1 your eyes will lazer in 65x wherever you look even though the objects are not inside the scope"

Are you kidding? Please say you are joking.

@ThePredator: "First of all, the most part of your field of view is consumed by the scope, as the eye relief is about 70-90mm from the ocular to the eye."

Depends from scope. It can be anywhere from 20-500mm (Yes, 2-50cm).

"The target is focused and therefore clear and sharp, the peripheral vision is blurred and out of focus."

On normal person, but many shooters have trained eye so they can see normally surrounding AND trough scope. Games try too hard to blur surrounding and add even some motion blur what both are too unrealistic. Even that human eye has very small portion accurate, you don't notice it so.

"Modern shooters are trained to shoot with both eyes open to retain a certain situational awareness."

That has been trained so long as firearms have been manufactured, it isn't "modern shooters" thing. It is just that some people adapt the training and some people needs to close/block the other eye.

"Your eyes would focus on far away objects with the same resolution as close by objects. However, in games you only have one focus and the same resolution for short and long distances."

Eye resolution does not change (you still have exact same amount of photoreceptor cells in your eye) but target resolution change depending distance. When a man stand 2m of you, you see it clearly. When same man stands 200m of you, you don't see at all so accurately him. The ARMA III does not have problem (or any other game) that they are viewed trough display with low resolution (most common now is the 1366x768, but players usually have higher) as after objects size variation by distance in games is realistic, problem is just that the actual resolution is way lower than on human eye.

"Do not mistake the pictures posted as realistic, as a camera can make it appear that everything is on the same focal plane, the human is binocular and can only focus on one focal plane with both eyes. A scope makes it impossible to focus on a target hundreds of meters away with the non-enhanced eye (not looking through the scope)."

Not true. On avarage person yes, but human can focus on target with both eyes and maintain accurate view with left and right eyes while example right is looking trough scope.
Your other eye does not lose capability to focus same point where you are looking trough optics.

"The PIP solution in 3D scopes would tackle this issue, as the image in the scope has the same high resolution as the short range vision, because they are rendered separately."

That is true and it is required. As shooters who have optics should have only the benefit to aim accurately far distances, while others need to aim for smaller target.

"But now there are holographic-, reflex- and red dot sights that do not have a reduced field of view aka magnification."

Rifle scopes DOES NOT reduce your field of view at all. Your eyes do not zoom, your FOV does not get any narrower when aiming trough optics. Only thing what happens is your view forward is blocked because there is object on way and it is just bigger because it is closer. I repeat, your FOV does not change when you bring rifle scope closer your eye.

"but sorry, this is the real deal from a scientific point of view."

Nope, just your opinion :)

@ThePredator "Damn this ticket system! Wrote a loooong answer to the false assumption of Fri13, opened a link in the same tab and *poof* half an hour of typing gone."

Always copy any input box content on any system before you send it.

And you are one who are having lots of false assumptions.

"I had this discussion several times and the truth is: you can not simulate the human eye as you'd like it to be. You don't have 178° vision in-game, as you'd have in real life, you have only one monitor but two eyes in real life...and so on."

First of all, I am not claiming such. As you don't even know human FOV is not 178° but over 180° actually FOV is 180-230 degrees horizontally and 120-135 vertically depending of course person face structural. Example my FOV is 193° horizontally and vertically 127°.
And secondary, human eye focal length presentation is ~56mm what is 35x24°. So are you playing games with FOV being 35 horizontally and 24° vertically? I don't think so :)

I was not talking anything about realistic FOV, or can you proof that in my mockups my FOV is set to such? As I kept default FOV in those as there is no need to change FOV wider as it would just twist more the view because display.
So don't try to correct me from things what I have not said.

"Things do not work out if you pretend to only choose the good aspects of binocular vision and merge it with a very, very limited game engine."

Yes it does work out, there are already games where it does work out.

"Trust me, you don't want to play with 178° field of view."

I have not claimed such thing, you are claiming now such things. And for record, I have played games home with high as 145 degree FOV and way faster and more accuracy demanding than what ARMA is with a single display (So no dual/triple screen setups or such).

"The 75° FOV will have to suffice."

Actually in games 90° is better, especially when playing with 16:9/10 display rations. Consoles use 75° FOV as it is required to zoom in the view so player further than 1m can see what is happening on screen. Different thing is when you are playing with >20" display 50-75cm of your face.

"And with that FOV your scope will block most of your monitor space (compared to a part of your 180° vision)."

No it will not. You are again first claiming I have said anything about 180 degree FOV claim, then you are claiming that it would even then take most of screen space. You can even test that yourself, keep only one eye open and raise rifle with scope on normal aiming position, your FOV does not change on your eye and scope does not block most of your view even then.
Games does the scopes wrong, again in reasons for gameplayer to give more details by making scope too big so player can see more where aiming and then even decreasing FOV (zooming in).

"As in the real world, you don't see sharp in your peripheral vision, as you won't see sharp in your peripheral vision in game."

At least something you managed to get right from my writing, as I was not claiming otherwise. As I said, everything can be 100% accurate without any blur effects in game, as your eye does not suddenly see anything else sharp than the small part (~5 degree) and when you play a game focusing targeting in it, everything else around the small area (distance of screen etc) is blurred.

"But we do not have anything peripheral, other than the "dots" to simulate situational awareness. And your eye is focused on the reticle (focal plane) of your scope, so is the other eye."

In game or reality? I take it that you mean in game, and you are wrong in it. As it has already done in other games, rendering rifle scope separately with zoomed view and positioned to side and presented the "side of the weapon" same time and it actually gives more realistic view of the weapon aiming with two eyes.
You just want game to be like everyone is one eye blinded/folded and thrown with a torch goggles so the FOV is limited while everything in game is presented as 2D and on flat surface, 3D models in game can be presented in more realistic positioning than you seem to understand. Question is really only about modeling and virtual viewpoint positioning etc.

"Been there done that. Sadly not possible to implement the way you argument."

Sorry, it has already been implemented and done. It is not magic, no tricks or anything. :)

"The second of your images with less blur is what it "looks" like in real life, if you pretend to only have one eye, which we have (only one monitor)."

Sorry, the second was meant to be other (without blur like the first one). I mixed up the links so it is same as third.
Even with one monitor it is possible to do enough realistic scope as second eye is used for distance what would require hardware capable to do 3D effect (3D glasses or 3D display) by rendering two different focal points so player could see different depth but without 3D technology the normal display can present weapon as I made the mockup.

The realistic way still would be 1. and not the 2 as scopes does not have vignetting unless manufactured badly or eye relief isn't correctly maintained.
As now when you are looking that image in fullscreen and you focus for aiming trough scope, your eyes render everything else than just that ~5x5mm area unsharp. There is no need any artificial blurring effects in games because player eyes already does it realistically. Blurring (Motion and so on) in games is so gimmick and unrealistic that many would be angry for it if most players would even remember their basic biology lessons from schools.

When everything in game is rendered sharp, player looking different parts of display makes everything else unsharp than that very small eye focus point. And using blur is just one of the stupidest effects to limit player possibilities and force to look only specific part of screen and falls to exactly same category as artificial story rules where player character is killed if player pass some invisible line or door has appeared what was blown in pieces just few seconds before story animation.

And same thing is with scopes filling the screen, weapon being middle of the screen, decreasing FOV (zooming in) and many many other features what ARMA III and many other common games does.

Just understand that in games, 3D models what are presented in screen for player and what is presented to other players does not need to follow rules of physical world shooter being cyclops or looking trough normal single lens camera.

Edit: This was the mockup (vigneting only) http://i.imgur.com/3WBff6Q.jpg

ps. Even with a single lense physics can be "bend" in funny ways. Example you can use camera with single lense (single focal point) to take photo what looks taken directly front of the mirror without you being visible from the mirror. Same thing can be done easily in games (what some has done) as you just apply a physics in digital form what would result rifle and optics being side of the screen (like in my mockup) and still see perfectly trough the optics and see surrounding as shooting both eyes open like you would in real world shooting with rifle.

"again, scopes from TrueCombat are good"

Yes it is a good one. And if player has a depth of field -effect enabled, then game needs just to render all with same DOF.

"the image outside the scope isnt even blurred because you are focusing on the image presented to you by the scope which is no more than 1 meter from you"

Actually it is blurred already, as human eye does have only very small area accurate and rest are unsharp. It is natural thing and it does not require any artificial effect from game itself as human eye itself does it already. Example if player look the car tire on left, player can not same time see accurately the 2x4 timber, but requires player to specifically focus to them and same time again losing focus of everything else.

What the TrueCombat would need to change is that rifle should not be middle of the view but more on left and position the optics on left part.

Same thing is with ARMA III, the weapon should not be in middle but more on right/left depending with which hand you are shooting.

And ARMA III scopes shadowing/shading is unrealistic, when you look trough scope, you see clearly a bright area. Now it is vignetting like someone has placed a cardboard with very small hole front of the optics (anti-reflection to present your position to enemy).

---

The optics should be very clear without any vignetting or without such reflections

1. Nothing http://i.imgur.com/18j3jiG.jpg
2. Vignetting http://i.imgur.com/FTA2Rkt.jpg
3. Vignetting + Blur http://i.imgur.com/FTA2Rkt.jpg

The first is realistic one, you don't get any vigneting (unless your eye relief is wrong and you are not accurate then). And games should don't make any blurring as human eye does it naturally when player focus to specific point in display.

The optics position should be about 2/3 or 3/5 position of screen, not middle. As you are shooting with both eyes open, seeing surrounding and spotting if something moves or has higher contrast.

Delta Force game did this 1998 http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=t9h-INl2vtE&t=119

And it really worked very well. FOV was kept intact (no zooming), the optic was on right side where it is when shooting both eyes open. Surrounding was sharp but blurred naturally by human eye when focusing to aiming (just throw that video to fullscreen and look). And there was no vignetting as optics does not cause such in correct shooting position.

A game from 1998 managed to do this, why not today? Having a weapon middle of screen is like everyone would have only one eye and other is blind and everyone is shooting positioning weapon stock middle of chest instead on shoulder either side (left/right handed firing).

Otto, so your eyes zoom when you raise your weapon on cheek?

The way how red orchestra does it is a realistic way.

@Otto "It´s not even close to real life optic and is pure for arcade games. RL you have to put eye to the optic to see. I would hate to see that implanted and lower the standard to arcade level to please arcade gamers."

No, you don't place your eye to the optics. There is two things what many are not familiar:

1. Eye relieve
2. Idiot mark

First one is depending from scope manufacturer and type and you keep distance between scope and your eye, you can not keep your head too close or too far as you are not accurate.

The second is a scar on eye brown or nose ridge from rookies who have fired a powerful rifle by pushing their eye on scope as kickback leaves a scar. That is one reason why there are rubber around sport optics to protect little first timers but you don't want to see the results when you have iron optic without any bumper and someone is idiot to aim wrong.

In reality you have pretty good vision to surroundings. Only things what are narrow angle behind the optics is not visible to you. And you will learn to shoot both eyes open and you are aware your surroundings, especially for movement. The only difference what makes you vulnerable is that you focus to targeting too much. And that happens with ANY weapon, when you focus to target far away, you might not spot what is 10 meters away 11 a clock.

Arcade is that the whole FOV is narrowed or you get a black surrounding.

We don't need "PIP" technic as it is for rendering other direction than what player already see (like behind car while looking forward) but simply rendering what is far away but zoomed and clipped.

Red Orchestra 2 manages to do it easily, Delta Force game managed to do that as well decade ago. Some space simulators have done it as well....

Just add a hunting bow and arrows to game and give them possibility to move 5-10 meters below water surface and you get divers panicking.

I would only give possibility to shoot when mounted in few vehicles like "Little Bird" so players can give support while hovering. From APC/IFV the firing port could be used but only when vehicle is stationary. You can not fire from those accurately when they move off-road (or even on sand roads) as they shake too much.
And even then it could be just simple animation change (swap) from sitting to otherway around.

Firing trough firing port would be useful only in ambushes, clearing mines and in defensive positions (if someone wants to be in huge danger to be killed).

Oh and if AH-9 gets it, then Mi-48 needs it as well as it should have firing ports and possibility to open doors when flying (and mounted 30mm autocannon inside).

@Val

"First of all when you get ambushed and your vehicle is immobilized you don't need to leave your cover (the car's hull is better cover than nothing) and can shoot back right away."

When you are ambushed, driver is better to get vehicle in cover in few seconds or you are all dead as someone just fires a rocket or missile at you.
And safest thing is to be behind the vehicle not in the vehicle, and that so you all have good safe distance between each other so no one is a good target for multikill.

"If you can't fire accurately through the firing port -- fire not accurately. This is still better than just wait until you get killed by an RPG."

It is smarter to jump out, run in cover (even just visual cover) or even so the vehicle is between you and enemy. And simply work with fire and move tactics.

"To sum up all what I've said: just adding the possibility to fire from any vehicle where it's possible (APC, helicopters, pickup trucks, civilian vehicles and much more) will be really great and will make already good game even better."

It would make it nicer, but many would learn it hard way that it isn't smart in most cases. Tactically firing from portholes or hatch is viable in rare cases but then they are very great help, why example Russia has included both in all their APC/IFV vehicles while western countries have relied more often only to hatches if even to that.

Still incapable to fire from helicopters doors/windows/board is serious missing feature.

it still would need to be a own tick instead careless. as careless is a needed behavior as is but se need a override to ai movement.

careless isnt a problem. it is a condition as well how a unit moves as well. like MBT crew drives buttons up and helicopters fly lights on etc.

we need a he check box what forces unit to follow waypoint orders, no matter what. I don't wanna see helicopters not trying to fly slow and stealth and avoid landing because I should use "careless" in landing. I want to have helicopters firing when landing and then continue firing when on ground loading.

This has been problem all the time, at least since ARMA II. There currently simply is no way to get AI to follow orders under fire or around enemy in 100% possibility.

Doesnt work. Helicopter doesnt even try to get to area but hovers even further under fire.

I hope there comes a tick to waypoint settings [Force orders] what will mean the group will complete that task no matter of what.

It would help to get vehicles to move on roads while being shot at, infantry to move trough openings while shot at and helicopters to land or leave.

Sometimes it is preferred that AI would avoid the zone if there is a enemy, not just stay there freezed there being shot at but most times you just want to get vehicle/group move somewhere and do something.

Think about getting a vehicle column to move on roads and shooting at enemy in combat reaction times without them starting to chase ("GREEN" mode) enemy or stop to fire.

So it is nice it will be looked at, but it isn't just for helicopter landings where AI refusing following waypoints/commands is frustrating.

@Odie

"in regards to launchers though if its allowed it should appear to be incredibly awkward."

It does not appear awkward when in move you swap assault rifle to single user AT weapon (what Titan etc launchers are in game). You can do it perfectly well even while sprinting but you don't prepare the weapon while sprinting so easily.

Those who have been hunting tanks (MBT, IFV, Recons etc) or any other AFV in urban area or woods knows that you don't have a two seconds to stay still while switching weapon or staying at that location after firing at the target. You can be just 50m from target and having a 2-3 seconds to pop-up, aim and fire and run like hell from that location, especially if you have a light AT weapon what most likely just makes target angry at you.

In games your controls should not be limited without good reason. Like giving a first aid to yourself is one what should immobilize you (now the rotating while doing so is silly) but swapping a weapon shouldn't, only to slow down either task.

And there are good and bad features with three point slings or typical sling and I prefer typical one. If players could choose those in game, it would be awesome.

Way too accurate now on release version. In very early Alpha versions they were almost perfect, you could have MH-9 flying over you firing with miniguns and bullets hitting around you on ground very well in scary way and easily being hit.

Now it is from 500m range you have 30cm pinpoint accuracy what is useless as you dont' hit anything and you can not give support. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juUJdzFFORs

In mounted machineguns/miniguns you want spread so the pilot can actually hit targets better than just trying to fly whole aircraft as accurately as people fire rifles.

I so much hated add-ons for ARMA 2 as they brought forced HDR function what rendered visibility on 200 degree direction of sun impossible to look as contrast got so high that you didn't even see a flying objects on sky or soldiers on ground and every optical attachment had huge white flares rendering them un-usable to be used for aiming. Or how about being in helicopter or fighter and you couldn't see out of your cockpit because the cabin was white!

I agree that WHEN player looks DIRECTLY at sun the effect can be there, meaning when reticle is on sun then HDR kicks in. But otherwise HDR should not kick in because sun is "so bright".

I can wear protection glasses what are in bad condition or look directly a air object what flies between sun and my position without getting blind or any white ghosting to my view.

In cars I do get prolems from reflections on winter when sun shines and it hits to dashboard from where then reflects to windshield and as everything is white already, the white windshield is a problem but it is problem because dashboard is light grey instead dark/black.

It is just weird that so many future helicopter in game now has no actual slaved weapons to helmet like these days they are.

When South Africa developed the aiming system for their fighter pilots it made dog fights (etc) much easier.

In helicopters targeting systems the helmet is huge help as you can promote specific target/area and then just adjust more accurately the aiming if needed.

I would accept that FaceTrackNoIR/FreeTrack/TrackIR users gets the benefit as they do have the weapons system slaved to helmet HUD.
You don't need expensive TrackIR but just a webcam (now suggestion is Logitech C525, 625 or 925 as they have wide angle from 68 degree to 75 degree) and even C525 is cheap (30-40€) and FaceTrackNoIR works very well as long face is lighted from front.

It would raise the game immersion way better but would require that helicopters weapons can be changed. Even on miniguns on wings should have a small angle (+/- 5-10 on X axis and +5/-20 on Y angle) possibilities for aiming.

Over 20 years from now, wouldn't it be expected to see that current technology would be more widely used even in more common vehicles? Soldiers have fancy helmet systems with visors but then helicopters don't have slaved weapons to that?

Mi-48 and RAH-99 would turn to be more powerful attack helicopters because pilot and gunner can control their primarily weapon (cannon) just by turning head.

And eventually it would not be so huge blowback to those who don't have webcam and any Track system combo, as freelook (Alt/2xAlt) would give them exactly same benefit.