- User Since
- Mar 13 2013, 8:11 PM (480 w, 2 d)
May 10 2016
Agreed, having a brand new physic engine means interaction with it at the player level, is a must have. Modders will make use of it anyway for SWAT battering rams and various melee mods, plus it's useful in vanilla to right flipped vehicles and push zodiacs into water.
So why not make modders life easier with implementing some physical correctness in player physical interactions and some mo'caped push/pull/fall animations ?
If I remember correctly, some very old game (Half Life ?) had already basic push/pull commands and primary focus wasn't on authenticity.
autosave and save2 files rar'd an uploaded
<b>@NK</b> good to hear about prone left, <b>TL;DR highlighted</b> with maniac use of bold :)
<b>@Smookie</b> Hope you now understand the issue better ! if movement vector is the same as crosshairs/torso orientation vector, I have the feeling it makes a solution easier, doesn't it ? So... possible ?
Oh god I love being on the customer seat of an issue tracker :) ... Hope all those requests will have some effect though :/
@ShotgunSheamuS : nope, I don't agree. Aiming deadzone is quite useful for exposing as little body parts you can while in cover or concealment. You find good position and expect to stay protected or hidden as long as you don't move around too much. Aiming deadzone allows this, but I hate the effect especially when it's maxed out. This would allow me to stop switching it on and off constantly.
Actually, with track IR, I would love to bind ALT to some "free aim" control instead of freelook, that would let me move the torso and arms only while keeping movement direction. Of course that's pushing it a lot.
Of course one can say it's a tiny detail. But to me, a new Arma is all about the details that will make it more thorough than any other shooter. It is a difficult task to make the game enjoyable both for casual and hardcore players. Paying enough attention to details is part of the solution to avoid making unnecessary compromises.
Despite the graphics and animation overhaul, A3 doesn't feel like a major improvement over A2. Feels like Arma 2++ with a new content DLC. Sometime it's even a regression compared to A2 + mods.
No deployable bipods (ACE2...) ? No running vault (smk_anim, st_bunnyhop...) ? Come on guys. It can't be that hard !
No anims for entering vehicles (10 years of GTA 3+...) ? No scaling walls (smk_anims) ? Smookie, I understand scaling was too buggy, that it is challenging to implement. I understand that GTA-like animations for vehicles is simply over the top. So I don't expect to see them in Arma 3 final... Given the current status :/.
But at least... address this issue ! It looks doable without HUGE rework, right ? Right ?
Oh and BTW... what about bringing back urban prone LEFT :P ????
deserves <b>TL;DR</b> : solution in NordKidchen gif would work : <b>in normal aim, you just have to copy aiming deadzone <i>animation behavior</i> AND <i>move the head as well to negate aiming deadzone visual effect</i></b> : the <b>crosshairs remain at the center of the screen</b> without "delayed crosshairs effect". On movement start, align the leg orientation with the body crosshair orientation, and voilà !
Hmmm, I think I get what NordKindchen says, or want to get at, or maybe a more doable method than his (or not, that's for Smookie to say :)
I also think I get Smookie's answer. I bet the difficulty to implement is related to the lack of different skeletons for 1st and 3rd person (hence the wish to add one in DayZ standalone). This is why the crosshair position will always be related to the gun direction on the character model. Now, make no mistake :
<ol><li>I will disable separate skeletons in DayZ standalone if I even buy it, as I think having a 1-to-1 relationship between 1st and 3rd person is actually a feature. Actually I won't even buy the game if disabling it is not possible.</li><li>I still believe there is room for improvement. First by solving issue 2980 (http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2980), leg movement in intermediate stances. Then, the curent issue, that has no impact on aiming deadzone by itself and no need for intermediate skeleton.</li></ol>Now let's dig into the problem by looking at the controls and their effect on both gameplay and animation :
<ol><li>Aim<ul><li>Control : mouse movement</li><li>Gameplay : set crosshair position/movement direction, view vector</li><li>Animation : orient lower body, whole body it is locked so it turns as well</li></ul></li><li>Aiming Deadzone (optional)<ul><li>Control : mouse movement</li><li>Gameplay : set crosshair position up to <b>configured</b> threshold, then 1.</li><li>Animation : orient upper body only up to <b>configured</b> threshold, then 1.</li></ul></li><li>Freelook<ul><li>Control : ALT + mouse movement</li><li>Gameplay : set view vector</li><li>Animation : orient head </li></ul></li></ol><b>Expected behavior</b>
(controls and freelook stays the same)<ol><li>Aim<ul><li>Gameplay : set crosshair position, view vector, movement direction</li><li>Animation : <i>orient upper body and head up to <b>maximum</b> aiming deadzone threshold, then</i> orient lower body with whole body turning </li></ul></li><li>Aiming Deadzone (optional)<ul><li>Gameplay : set crosshair position up to <b>configured</b> threshold, then 1.</li><li>Animation : orient upper body only up to <b>configured</b> threshold, then 1.</li></ul></li></ol>I think that expresses in a codable form what N.K had to say :) Now a small detail : <i>upper body orientation must sets the walking direction</i>, so that :
<ol><li>Move<ul><li>Control : W, A, S, D...</li><li>Gameplay : moves the player relatively to forward movement direction vector</li><li>Animation : if upper body direction differs from leg direction, adjust and orient legs to body direction (really fast !), then play normal movement animation</li></ul></li></ol>Doable ?
Hope it may not have funny, large and unmanageable impacts on A.I controlled character animations :)
Just saw the pics while I was writing to try and express better what you mean, NK !
I think there is still a problem with your approach, however ;) Would you guess what ? Spoiler in 10 minutes while I finish ;)
May 9 2016
It's an animation problem, not a speed problem. The "animation overhaul" advertised in infantry SC needs to be overhauled much more, that is all.
As some reporter said, in-game sprint speed is 17kph, which is a pace SF are supposed to put up with during 10km (uh... not with full gear... ???). So this "sprint" duration on flat ground could even be made longer.
yup, and what's more... We've seen under barrel GL is not an attachment, which is quite disappointing. The only pro I could think about, is that you could perhaps mount a forward grip under the GL quite easily, because everything is hardcoded...
Now with a object-oriented weapon system + generic mounting points + mounting coordinates, you could even have a recursive structure with attachments that have mounting points themselves : underbarrel GL with bottom mount(grip...), ACOG with top mount (RDS...) OK that's pushing it a bit.
Or not ?
Oh, and UI rework... A gun can only have 4 attachments ? A flashlight, an IR Laser, but not both ? What about mounting a night sight in front of an ACOG ? A PVS-14 behind an EOTech ?
Sorry for being sarcastic as well, but hell, where did you get those ideas... Battlefield 3 ?
Yup, not very used in real war, and yup, it might be just that kind of "flag".
Yup, BIS campaign designers don't have to put 50% female soldiers in every single combat unit in the SP campaign. Yup, they can keep to what they think is realistic or what they wish will be in 2035 (actually, could be more women than now in armed forces around the world, or no women at all anymore !)
Now it's supposed to be a sandbox game, an MP game, a moddable game. Restricting it to the SP Campaign is pretty shallow.
Now again, if I'm a girl (i'm not) and want to play a girl in MP, I should be able to do it.
Now at last, in my the moddable sandbox I expect from A3, if I want to make an unrealistic scenario with an all-women army or a pseudo-realistic scenario featuring Colonel Ghadaffi Amazonian Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazonian_Guard), I should be able to do it.
If you don't like it, don't download it, and don't play it.
That being said, I would agree that, to portray things as authentically as possible, it would be better if female presence in ranks was, in the official SP campaign, in line with realistic statistics (projected to 2035 of course). That way you could expect no to exceptional presence of women in combat infantry platoons, and more in support roles, aircraft crews, sniping teams, etc. Corona2175 for instance made some very valid points about this (and as a side note, people who can't understand his morbid humor should maybe stay out of war games anyway, or stay away from tough things in life in general).
Spawning randomization should take these statistics into account, those should be configurable (at a global level, or in the editor "add group" function for instance)
In MP, an option to disable female models could be added, for male-supremacy servers or "high-risk of 12 yo players who RP as whores" servers I won't play on anyway.
First, the "dude it's an alpha, wait for the beta" comments by people who obviously don't know what alpha means are getting very boring. Actually the aim of alpha stage varies between companies, but the one we use at my workplace is :
Alpha : expect critical bugs, feature set is not final and can be changed anytime. In other words, this is the time to sensibly add/remove/rework/replace features.
Beta : expect major bugs, feature set is to be considered stable. Goal of the stage is bug-hunting and fixing, feature modifications should ideally be tweaks only, additions non-existent with highly restricted exceptions.
Following that definition, I don't see why glitches and texture bugs should have more priority than this kind of feature request. Actually this feature is a major one because it implicates a lot of production issues such as modelling/texturing numerous assets, recording mo'capped animations and voice acting. Not much code I guess, but still quite a lot of money.
Secondly, saying this isn't high priority now is just bollocks. Priority largely depends on what the customers want. As this is now the third most upvoted issue on the community tracker, I guess that makes it a high priority issue...
To sum up : yes, it is, by software development standards, a high priority, major feature request totally consistent with what you would expect from alpha stage feedback.
Lastly, even if my/your purely personnal statistics says most women aren't interested in combat or not fit for it, it doesn't mean it's an universal truth. Some women are ready, willing, and more adequate to combat ops than the average Joe. European armies have women, even in non-combat units, I wouldn't want to get in a fight with.
"I don't want to shoot women" was the stupidest thing I've heard in ages and was only beaten by the argument about game ratings in western countries, in which the legislator that ban a game just because you shoot women in it would get sued in no time by feminist lobbies. Or even by me, because it is so moronic I would gladly make a case against it.
I actually could make my female friends more interested in combat just by showing them this page, as I bet they would then gladly learn how to kick the shit out of some very "knowledgable reporters" commenting on this feature request.
A shame, really.
Is there a wall climb feature request somewhere ? Climbing is different from vaulting. I think both are mandatory features, but remain separate issues.
That's why I'd like to upvote them separately :)