Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
A few days ago I watched the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_veHO0QCdig
In this video I see the men lean and "cant" their weapons quite often.
If you're serious you should make more effort to understand what you've linked here, and at least read the comments and see that just about every rule of range safety, no less CQB order of battle rule of engagement was abrogated in this TE.
If this had been a live fire exercise, more then half of these trainees would likely have died or sustained injuries from friendly fire, and they'd have killed all their instructors. I grant this is a lot like what we see on Insurgency servers, but their clumsy weapon handling pales next to the total lack of fire safety here.
What was your question?
Maybe you should write pages of text if you can get around that jargon; some of the OP was confusing or didn't register at all. IMO it would be more effective communication, and you would reach a greater audience, by using the dumbass vocabulary that the rest of us are confined to. Are you saying:
IRL, leaning:
- doesn't tilt the world when you tilt your head
- messes up aim
- is slower
- is useful for peeking around corners
Apologies if I got that completely wrong..
You are welcome to your opinion, but I'm not in the least interested in reaching a 'greater audience'; I'm interested in reaching the Developers; using the most accurate and correct venacular Developers use to accurately potray what's being discussed. No one is 'confined' to a 'dumbass vocabulary' -- it's a conscious choice.
Are you asking a question? Unfortunately you got most of it wrong, but no apology sincere or sarcastic is required.
So maybe you thought I was being hostile. I bumped your idea because it seems like you want the game to progress in the direction I also feel would be most appropriate. I was only asking for a clarification on what you meant, sincerely apologising for any offence you might've taken by me not understanding you.
You didn't consider that
- devs wouldn't be able to understand the OP either. There is no guarantee that they have a full understanding of the technical terms you used in the OP.
- more people responding to you on the forum increases the chances that a dev will see your idea.
I explained Hoak's point in layman's terms multiple times on NWI's forums and months later got an IM from one of the devs saying "hey we're working on that lean thing you mentioned" with a link to a screenshot. I found it when I came back from work and was confused to see that everything was still totally canted. I assumed it was just some kind of WIP issue, but then the update finally came out and you can see today that all they did was write a new system that still tilts.
This brings me to the conclusion that the devs quite simply won't understand unless you're in their studio explaining it to them in person and watching over their shoulder while they implement it. I don't mean this to be derogatory, but some people simply can't grasp things based solely on text and need a live conversation to ensure they didn't misinterpret.
It's not the first time this has happened either...I was harping about M855 fragmentation for a long time, and you can see in the comments of the theater code that they tried to implement it and their implementation is just a compromise and a half-measure. The M203 finally got implemented and can't be fired using iron sights or optics, probably because the devs saw some pic like this[usarmy.vo.llnwd.net] and just assumed that was the standard procedure for using it.
What my mod taught me is that really this kind of stuff only gets done right if you go in and rewrite it yourself. Honestly I don't have the interest or patience anymore to try to fix this game from the outside for free. I hope to see you guys around again when Ground Branch gets released.
Whats ground branch? a new dlc?
Completely fair and vaild points, so here as simple as I can make each relevant point:
· the world does not cant when we tip our heads (NWI fixed this much already)
· canting a firearm is very undesirable and repudiated in all firearms training
· an operator can not 'see' his weapon is canted*
· a third person training & correcting is required to learn the above*
· canting decreases shooter accuracy as it's impossible to accurately guess angle of cant
*for many just proper weapon handling intuitively obviates canting but for some, their physical build, size, bony shoulders, or all sorts of things can lead to canting, and if a shooter habitually canting, they can not see or preceive the weapon as tilted, and must find a way to adjust their posture and hold for consistency, a trainer instructor is needed.
The sensory part of this aspect of a lean aiming system is more elaborate to explain. In the real world we get instantaneous proprioceptive and kinesthetic sensory cues:
· that we are standing behind something that 'covers' &/or 'conceals' us
· we 'know' where our feet positioned very precisely without even looking
· we can feel if we're pressed up against boundary exactly how much it covers us
Proprioceptive cues are the sensory information our brain gets about our bodies are positioned in the world, without looking... Kinesthetics is how our brains integrate this information with other sensory input from what we see, feel and hear relative to proprioceptive and vestibular information.
In games we lack real proprioceptive input because we're not there, but there are analogous inputs in games our brain can and use to interpret kinesthesia (depth cues, proper use of scale, positional audio, and proper scale player model kinematics) and with greater exposer and immersion in a game, they become very intuitive and are analogous.
Correctly portrayed, a leaning aimed perspective as seen in games like RO2 works like a caliper; a sort of smooth and linear yard stick that helps the player gauge how much cover they have moving into the lean position.
The way your brain uses this presentation (kinesthesia) is much more congruent and analogous to what you'd actually see in the real world, which is why it 'feels' (kinesthesia again) better and players learn to use cover with it properly, more consistently and more quickly.
Welcome back Doc! Glad to see you in a thread with this topic again, hope you help keep it on top -- Noobsurf might be right here on all counts! And while I think Ground Branch will be a decent game, they have their problems with this topic as well...
=O)
Well I can't really add much, since I don't know much of anything. I will probably buy RO2 and play more ArmA3 to get a feel for the different systems. Interesting stuff though.. makes me question a lot about how standard fps mechanics actually function irl. Definitely not finished reading :(
No, NWI already fixed the lateral displacement animation, and it's spot on. The only failing is that the gun still cants. For the sake of simplicity in scale realism, a lean or cover fire stance shouldn't effect accuracy significantly, so the only thing that needs 'fixing' is the weapon canting, there are enough metrics in place effecting accuracy for congruent realism with other scale limitations of the game
One of the things about making any suggestions, even if the suggestion corrects a shortcoming or inaccuracy is it's typically going to creat a lot of work for someone, and that's not always welcome, so I like to offer suggestions that are the shortest path to results that count.
Taking this to the next level of realism, being winded holding any fire position except prone for any sustained amount of time will effect accuracy. As well if you're peeking and aiming in and out of cover as quickly as you can, you shouldn't be able to snap off as accurate a shot as someone that's fully focused on the mechanics of aiming. The latter would also help sustain fire fights from cover.
RO2 will in many ways remind you of Insurgency, in fact there was even some Developer talent crossover from at least the RO mod (which I worked on) to the Ins mod; though I can't speak to the commercial projects.
And you are right to question -- FPS mechanics even in some of the most advanced sims (and weapon handling add-ons for them) are crude and simplistic.
To be fair this is hard to avoid as this isn't a real 'first person' perspective we have, those aren't your hands on the screen, and all input and sensory latency is completely off scale and position -- we're obviously not using the same body parts, with the same dexterity, that experience the same inertia, resistance and encumbrance to do the same things.
For one, the camera ducks down too far during a standing lean, which means you frequently can't see or aim over obstructions that you remained standing specifically to shoot over. At that point, you may as well just crouch because you're not getting any angle advantage by standing. IRL, when leaning there is much less effect on vertical height...also IRL we can go lower if we want to by bending our knees. This could be easily fixed by adding Ravenshield-style fluid stance.
Lastly some weapons since the update have alignment problems and last I checked the FAL, when using certain optics, will shoot into the obstruction you're leaning around instead of properly angling around it, where it appears you have cleared the instruction.
Problems like this are part of what made me give up the mod and the game all together...every "fix" and "improvement" in each update brought us a step forward and two steps back.
The US field manual for M1903 is worded in pretty black-and-white terms.
http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/docrepository/FM23_10.pdf
Once gas masks were introduced, wording regarding canting becomes much more ambiguous because it's assumed the soldier will HAVE to cant in certain situations. However, the key point is that "the rifle should always be rotated the minimum amount necessary to clear the mask".
There is one other case where canting is actually recommended, and that is the kneeling supported position; "When firing from the weak side, the firer should cant the
weapon approximately 45 degrees and thrust the hips forward to minimize exposure to the
enemy."
http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm3_22x9.pdf
However, there are many other examples even in the modern manuals which stress training against canting, especially when using CQB optics.
Anyway one thing worth pointing out is that a lot of literature on the topic, particularly in the civilian firearms world, tends to assume that shooters will always accidentally cant a tiny amount by accident, and that the amount of cant is based on the shooter's experience and practice, just like marksmanship.
After all, the M1903 manual specifically says "never shoot until the target is perfectly aligned in the sights". Indeed this is the best doctrine to strive for, but if this was always practiced with 100% success, no one would ever miss. Alas, human error happens.
So the one idea worth proposing is that the amount of cant could be implemented as a variable based on the physical condition of the players' avatar, similar to breathing sway.
A perfectly healthy soldier might not cant their rifle at all during lean, but a heavily winded one with depleted stamina might, in the heat of the moment, exhibit just a hint of unintended rifle cant. Similarly, a wounded soldier who is lucky to be conscious at all might exhibit a more severe cant, because he can barely stand and is just trying to get some fire down range to keep the enemy at bay until help arrives.
While this variable may not be entirely necessary, it may help to convey the human error associated with canting, and create a natural feel which preempts misdirected allegations that an un-canted view is "too robotic".
Yes I was disappointed in the fanboy apologist zealotry too... There's really no 'chage' in how canting has been regarded, the manual only states this for the benefit of Drill & Training Instructors that are often too brutal in their methods of 'training' and 'educating' a boot that doesn't observe proper form, and usually the only ones that will even read the thing.
In fact there are many other fire positions a more advanced T1 Operator will practice intensively that will include deliberate cant -- many that aren't documented in these older FMs. But all are expedient fire positions making the best of, and practice for the worst situation.
In fact, in most scenarios where you'd deploy with a mask or any gear that might obstruct proper, uncanted weapon handling (NVG for example), you'll typically have optics forward mounted on a rail, or something like Nights sights moved forward on the rail, explicitly so you can avoid canting...
Well, most MC Riflemen (like those represented in this game) have fired so many rounds, drilled so hard, and have such strong habits of muscle memory you could (and instructors have) set a small spirit level across their weapons that will typically reveal a perfect bubble. Any small variation is going to be sub MOA.
I think this would be a good idea for a 'gun trainer' like Receiver, but the premise and assumptions Tactical Realism games (that I perfer) make are that firearms are the primary instrumentality of the game, but not the only one; squad tactics are a close second that is or should be almost tied for first, they assume highly trained or even elite operators -- so form and reaction is idealized subject operator/gamer failure, not virtualized role based induced failure.
As well and mentioned elsewhere -- we're not using the same body parts, that experience the same inertia, resistance and encumbrance to do the same things in handling a weapon.
And lastly I prefer granularity to-scale across a game's feature set, or even a simulator like VBS-2 which I do a fair amount of work with. Drilled down to the level of the less then competent or exhausted virtual operator you adding layers of 'virtualization' between player and game pawn that is more role playing then functional tactical interaction at a high level.