Alot of NICE feats for UT99!?!
- Thread starter Teq
- Start date
- Status
it made recoil feel a WHOLE lot more realistic then RO's currently is.
any unrealistic side effects are totaly secondary compaired to that.
Upvote
0
It's unrealistic from the point that you cannot pivot a rifle around in your plane of vision while keeping the sights perfectly aligned. The sights themselves are alignedby placing your eyes directly behind them and contacting the weapon with your head, which is referred to as a 'cheek weld'.
It's integrally flawed.
It's integrally flawed.
Upvote
0
so is your FOV going up and down with your gun when your fireing it because of recoil.
that not only is unrealistic if FEELS unrealistic aswell (see number of complains about weapon recoil).
personaly i'd go for the thing that FEELS the most realistic, and not what might be anotomicly correct.
Upvote
0
I don't think it feels realistic at all. ROs system isn't perfect but still better. Actually GRAW has a very good system imo: It makes the gun recoil independent from your view on single shot or for the first few shots of burst fire. But if you hold the trigger for too long your view would be affected as well, felt very realistic.
The point is: If the iron sights free-aim in INF was there to more realistically simulate recoil, then there is a much simpler solution: Make the gun recoil independent of your view and then recover to the center. No free-aim needed.
I beleive they added free-aim to the iron sights because they thought it was realisitic. Which it simply isn't.
The point is: If the iron sights free-aim in INF was there to more realistically simulate recoil, then there is a much simpler solution: Make the gun recoil independent of your view and then recover to the center. No free-aim needed.
I beleive they added free-aim to the iron sights because they thought it was realisitic. Which it simply isn't.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I don't want to interpret anything that's said between the lines but for me the comments Yoshiro made are clear:
- Tripwire will not even try to implement penetration for projectiles for whatever reason they or Ramm may have
- they count on the community or even non-community members like geo or myself to do it for them in form of a mutator for whatever reason they or Ramm may have
, period.
I don't get this really.
And to the free-aim while in ironsight view:
We haven't implemented it due to us thinking 'this is as real as it gets'. The resulting effect is comming way closer to what you are able to do in RL, that's all.
While in free-aim ironsights mode you can lower your weapon to give you a view over it, like you can do in real life too.
While in free-aim ironsights mode the recoil simply looks way more realistic compared to the 'view always following the weapon fully no matter what the weapon does' in the standard FPS model.
While in free-aim ironsights mode your weapon is not dead center pointing on the middle of the screen... the main reason actually... even if this is not realistic, and we know this.
Doing recoil as an animation like in some FPS out there is simply no option due to it automagically resetting the view for you without the need to actually use your mouse to compensate the recoil effect. We and many others, even RO, simulate recoil in a way so that the player needs to counter the effect by mouse movement and this is way more realistic than letting it magically return to its former position allowing you to fire dozens of shots in a row at the same exact spot. If you try to mix both systems, a recoil effect that changes the view plus an animation that returns to the former position then you still get the effect of your view following your weapons recoil.
Your arms, shoulder and weapon aren't a 100% steady combination while you aim with a weapon. And your view is not automagically following the recoil of it while firing in RL too, no matter if you 'cheek weld' perfectly or not. Head movement != eye movement.
Overall the feel of controlling a weapon in INF comes way closer to the real thing than compared to any other FPS out there, even if it is not 100% realistic.
Oh and KrazyKraut, do not try to 'believe' in (guessing or thinking would be better) something that I or another SentryStudios team member thought about...
- Tripwire will not even try to implement penetration for projectiles for whatever reason they or Ramm may have
- they count on the community or even non-community members like geo or myself to do it for them in form of a mutator for whatever reason they or Ramm may have
, period.
I don't get this really.
And to the free-aim while in ironsight view:
We haven't implemented it due to us thinking 'this is as real as it gets'. The resulting effect is comming way closer to what you are able to do in RL, that's all.
While in free-aim ironsights mode you can lower your weapon to give you a view over it, like you can do in real life too.
While in free-aim ironsights mode the recoil simply looks way more realistic compared to the 'view always following the weapon fully no matter what the weapon does' in the standard FPS model.
While in free-aim ironsights mode your weapon is not dead center pointing on the middle of the screen... the main reason actually... even if this is not realistic, and we know this.
Doing recoil as an animation like in some FPS out there is simply no option due to it automagically resetting the view for you without the need to actually use your mouse to compensate the recoil effect. We and many others, even RO, simulate recoil in a way so that the player needs to counter the effect by mouse movement and this is way more realistic than letting it magically return to its former position allowing you to fire dozens of shots in a row at the same exact spot. If you try to mix both systems, a recoil effect that changes the view plus an animation that returns to the former position then you still get the effect of your view following your weapons recoil.
Your arms, shoulder and weapon aren't a 100% steady combination while you aim with a weapon. And your view is not automagically following the recoil of it while firing in RL too, no matter if you 'cheek weld' perfectly or not. Head movement != eye movement.
Overall the feel of controlling a weapon in INF comes way closer to the real thing than compared to any other FPS out there, even if it is not 100% realistic.
Oh and KrazyKraut, do not try to 'believe' in (guessing or thinking would be better) something that I or another SentryStudios team member thought about...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
umm thats exectly that happens in INF with free aim, expect in inf its better because it also add's some side to side movement in a realistic fasion.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No. INFs recoil is of the non-recovering type like Day of Defeats: meaning you shoot and your weapon stays up, fixed at the highest point.
I pretty much don't give a damn what you "think" (sorry if i said "beleive", I didn't know this was a ****ing English lesson here) is realistic. I have shot enough weapons in real life to KNOW that it is not and so does Reddog iirc. Now of course you're going to tell me that the same applies to you, but if you really did then you'd be aware aswell that it simply does not represent reality. And it also doesn't "feel" realistic either. That's just my opinion, take it or leave it.
A rifle returns back to pretty much exactly horizontal level after every shot, without you compensating for it. Granted, if you pull it into you shoulder it won't jump as high and return faster, but the point is it will return to horizontal level even if the weakest high school girl shoots it. This has nothing to do with magic, it's called physics, gravity to be exact. Actually it would rather be magic, if a FAL stayed fixed at a 30 degree angle after each shot.
Therefor any non-recovering recoil system is unrealistic by default. Oh and it also "feels" unrealistic by default (e.g. DoD). So does your system.
RO also promotes pulling down the mouse on full auto weapons, btw, so the two factors (manual recoil control and realistic recoil behaviour) don't exclude each other. The program does the "automatic" recoil recovery that is caused by the laws of physics and you aid the process by pulling down the mouse (=pulling the rifle into your shoulder). Tada, just like in real life. Pretty much any tactical shooter uses this system and for a reason too. Come to think of it, I really only remember your mod, CS and DoD using non-recovering recoil. What I also don't get is the whining about the camera being fixed on the rifle as it is simply not the case. The muzzle DOES jump up in your view when you pull the trigger, it is merely represented via an animation. I would very much appreciate if this was calculated by a physics engine and not a random animation, but I assume this is either not possible with the engine or too hard to code. In any case, the current system is still okay.
Now recoil aside: Free aim while in iron sights is unrealistic for the mere fact that you would never aim your rifle in at one point while having your field of view centered on another, let alone align your sights that way. So even if you beleive the way INF handles recoil is realistic, this alone should convince you that the whole system is still off.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
pff minor details, fact remains INF's recoils feels a whole lot better then RO's
likewise
bull.
your arm is allready supporting the weapons weight, it dusnt magicly drop back down, (and MOST SERTANTLY dus not drop on exectly the same location as all auto recovery recoil systems would have you believe.)
the gun isnt lifted from your hand and then drops back down into, no it takes your arm up with it.
and as your arm is allready countering the effects of gravity on the weapon, YOU are the one that decides it needs to come back down again.
that that dicision comes automaticly, nearly instictively, and takes no concience thought is another matter but nore will moving it back down in the game after a little while.
and even with the effects of gravity on the gun, its still your arm that guides it down, and your arm isnt perfect it dusnt drop back down on exectly the same location as befor every time, to do that YOU need to controle it.
i want to be the one that dus the recoil controling, not have the computer do it automaticly for me and everybody else.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
If you really beleive what you just wrote there than we might aswell end this because it's pretty clear you have no clue. Noone said your gun would leave your grasp when recoiling, but it drags your arm up and drops with it again, AUTOMATICALLY. The "only" thing you do is pull the rifle into your shoulder to absorb as much of the energy into it as possible.
If you really think recoil recovery is solely a process of the shooter manually returning the rifle to it's former postion, then i really can't help you. I can only tell you to go out and shoot your rifle again. Or maybe to watch someone else shoot it.
But you might want to take a moment to think about ROs recoil again. You will remember that ROs recoil doesn't let the gun return to the exact same spot where it was before the shot.
If you really think recoil recovery is solely a process of the shooter manually returning the rifle to it's former postion, then i really can't help you. I can only tell you to go out and shoot your rifle again. Or maybe to watch someone else shoot it.
But you might want to take a moment to think about ROs recoil again. You will remember that ROs recoil doesn't let the gun return to the exact same spot where it was before the shot.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
arms dont drop automaticly unless you let them. it just dusnt happen.
it might look that way if your not looking carefully but its musules that do most of the work.
your arm want to hold the gun in place, it then fires, it moves up, your arms sence that and apply a force in the opposite direction (down), the force of the recoil ends, but your arms still applying that force (your arm reacts a lot slower) so the gun moves back down.
gravity alown is nowhere near fast enough to be the sole factor in what you see when someones fires a weapon. its far more of a jerk motion then a slow acceleration downward.
sure, gravity helps move the gun back down but it simply can not be the sole factor.
Upvote
0
Yes that is correct. Gravity alone doesn't make the gun come down, it's a mix of these effects, the dominant (probably) being your muscles wanting to retain the position.
The point is all this happens non-intentional although appreciated. You do not pull the gun down after every shot. And the gun will always return to pretty much horizontal level if you don't deliberately choose to keep it fixed up there. It will do so every time. And that is exactly my issue with INFs way of doing, as it does it the other way 'round: The gun won't return to horizontal level unless you choose to pull it down. It feels as if you had a pair of robotic arms keeping it up.
Upvote
0
@KrazyKraut...
it wasn't thought to become an english lesson... I just wanted to state that assumptions do not help here and you shouldn't assume anything on things that were not originally designed by you.
Oh and to the recoil vs gravity 'discussion' ...
Your arms hold the rifle and gravity is working against this trying to pull the rifle down.
At the moment the rifle is fired the recoil is working against gravity and against your arms trying to hold the rifle as steady as possible.
Sure gravity helps you a bit to get the weapon back to its former position but without your arms controlling this movement your rifle would fly off into your face before gravity wins and pulls it back down to the floor.
That's called very simplified physics also...
Any purely animation based recoil effect is simply off due to recoil being a very uncontrolable thing that is a bit random depending on the weapon fired. Some weapons tend to move almost exactly the same way all the time but most don't. You as an infantry man fe. learn how to control this recoil in an effective way. This then becomes an automatic procedure you simply got used to due to the training and numerous repetitions/iterations of the same procedure.
So we have two sides of the medal...
a) a game tries to simulate how the weapons and stuff do work and letting you the player control this behaviour fully till you actually learn how to handle the weapons implemented in the game
...and...
b) a game tries to simulate the infantry man who's able to do all this already and letting the player only decide at what time he should do this or that like actually firing the weapon leaving the rest to the codes that then automatically do the job
This has nothing to do with being realistic or not. It's just a philosophy question of what you actually let the player control.
Some like a) more and others like b) more. So there's no need to start a flame war here about who is right, cause both are, period.
it wasn't thought to become an english lesson... I just wanted to state that assumptions do not help here and you shouldn't assume anything on things that were not originally designed by you.
Oh and to the recoil vs gravity 'discussion' ...
Your arms hold the rifle and gravity is working against this trying to pull the rifle down.
At the moment the rifle is fired the recoil is working against gravity and against your arms trying to hold the rifle as steady as possible.
Sure gravity helps you a bit to get the weapon back to its former position but without your arms controlling this movement your rifle would fly off into your face before gravity wins and pulls it back down to the floor.
That's called very simplified physics also...
Any purely animation based recoil effect is simply off due to recoil being a very uncontrolable thing that is a bit random depending on the weapon fired. Some weapons tend to move almost exactly the same way all the time but most don't. You as an infantry man fe. learn how to control this recoil in an effective way. This then becomes an automatic procedure you simply got used to due to the training and numerous repetitions/iterations of the same procedure.
So we have two sides of the medal...
a) a game tries to simulate how the weapons and stuff do work and letting you the player control this behaviour fully till you actually learn how to handle the weapons implemented in the game
...and...
b) a game tries to simulate the infantry man who's able to do all this already and letting the player only decide at what time he should do this or that like actually firing the weapon leaving the rest to the codes that then automatically do the job
This has nothing to do with being realistic or not. It's just a philosophy question of what you actually let the player control.
Some like a) more and others like b) more. So there's no need to start a flame war here about who is right, cause both are, period.
Upvote
0
No need to villify tripwire here. Ramm said they already tried implementing penetration, and for whatever reason it didn't work in RO. Seeing how you and your friends from INF present yourselves as all knowing and all powerful, you were invited to do it yourself.
TBH there is too much mudslinging going on in this thread. Both tripwire and you may have made great games, but your selfish attitudes are ****ing disgusting.
Upvote
0
There are very nice and documented discussions from all the sides and I enjoy reading this thred.
A small technicall questions.
Implementing the penetration system includes also the material detection wich I see as the major problem(in my eyes). Each material (also the custom materials included in custom maps) should have a penetrability factor. At this moment there is no such attribute (as far as I know) defined in *any* of the stock and custom maps.
Is there a need to re-build all stock/custom maps if penetration is implemented?
As a mutator i can see that you hardcode the penetration table for each stock material so it should be not a big deal.
What it will happened with the custom maps wich has custom materials? (penetration works only wit stock materials?)
How will be affected the bulled trajectory by the penetration (changing exit angle, bullet aerodynamic factor a.s.o).
(ex. soft materials can change more the exit angle but less the aerodynamic coef (except the bullet is softtip) and hard materials change more the aerodymamic fator.)
A small technicall questions.
Implementing the penetration system includes also the material detection wich I see as the major problem(in my eyes). Each material (also the custom materials included in custom maps) should have a penetrability factor. At this moment there is no such attribute (as far as I know) defined in *any* of the stock and custom maps.
Is there a need to re-build all stock/custom maps if penetration is implemented?
As a mutator i can see that you hardcode the penetration table for each stock material so it should be not a big deal.
What it will happened with the custom maps wich has custom materials? (penetration works only wit stock materials?)
How will be affected the bulled trajectory by the penetration (changing exit angle, bullet aerodynamic factor a.s.o).
(ex. soft materials can change more the exit angle but less the aerodynamic coef (except the bullet is softtip) and hard materials change more the aerodymamic fator.)
Upvote
0
Well, it's not really like the game does the whole job for you. RO's system still gives you a good amount of control over it... just the amount of control that I think is realistic. But I see where you're coming from.
RO's problem is that all recoil, but especially the submachineguns' recoil, is way too harsh, for balancing reasons. I don't like it and I don't think it is necessary. INF does this better, but then INF doesn't have to balance bolt-action rifles against 900-rpm-submachineguns. 90 per cent of all INF players are equipped with rather hom0genous assault rifles. That makes it a lot easier.
EDIT: stupid curse control doesn't show ****genous
Upvote
0
You have it all wrong. Maybe it wasn't clear... I'll say it once again.
Over 2 years ago. In Unreal 1...
Maybe I can add this too, for clarity sake... "On servers with 16 players and bot, on P3 800 Mhz with 256 Mb of ram..."
--
With my experience, I feel very confident that the official voice saying it is not possible is full of bs. Not that much because he says it is not possible for him to do it, but because of the reasons he gave.
Maybe I don't know everything as you suggest, but I know that much.
Upvote
0
after just a few houres with the system you'd do exectly what you'd do IRL and pull it down automaticly.
what you'll learn to do is keep your eye on the target and keep adjusting the gun accordingly, just like you'd do IRL.
the thing is, instead of letting the game decide how good and how fast you are at instinctivly pulling the gun back down and resetteling it on target its YOU who decides that.
just like IRL, in inf its YOUR level of gun controles that determins how well you can shot, and not some abstract number hardcoded into the game.
i'm pretty sure we had 32 player servers in inf.
probably not on just a p3 800 thou.
Upvote
0
@radix...
a simple penetration system does not need to check the material at all if all it should simulate is the fact that projectiles are able to penetrate most materials if they aren't too thick.
Getting into such detail as to deformation or trying to simulate a proper flight path distortion is nothing a standard penetration system really needs, even if this would actually be pretty cool.
For a simple penetration system that does its job well enough for a game you only need projectiles that are able to penetrate thru thin obstacles like wooden fences, doors and house corners to let it have the desired effect gameplay wise. It is simply annoying in any FPS that doesn't feature penetration that people can litteraly hide behind a piece of paper without getting hurt by gunfire.
To the map rebuilding...
In good ol' UT'99 we used the textures footstepsound to recognize the 'material'. If there's nothing set up already to actually differentiate the different materials then this would mean to update the used texture/material packages to get the specific value into the maps out there.
@KrazyKraut...
seems you got our point even if you may not agree. It's not always black and white only and I haven't said that RO is using the wrong way. I simply dislike the 'view and weapon being stuck together' method that always lets your weapon point at the middle of the screen. It's somethng that doesn't need that much 'skill' due to it always being the center of the screen, nor a weapon model (remember those CS 'vets' with the weapon model turned off to get a better overview and a black dot marking the center of the screen... if not, many did and still do). The position of your weapon more or less doesn't matter at all and so most FPS then try to compensate this huge 'steadiness' by using conefire.
That's actually something I do not really like in RO. Not the conefireing in general, no, just the visualization of it. You simply have no visual clue about the fact that your aim is not 100%. Means your weapon moves a bit, but it doesn't actually show you that your next shot will be way off the point you are aiming at just cause you just stopped moving around and you are now standing upright. But I don't want to open up another can of worms here.
I'm just saying that the freeaim while in ironsights mode needs a bit more of actual aiming due to not always pointing at the middle of the screen at the time you raise your weapon. And this makes aiming a tid bit more realistic too.
In most FPS you can simply hit the proper key/button to raise your weapon into ironsights mode and your aim is dead center following your view. So all you need is to look at your target, hit a button to get into IS mode and then another button to fire a 100% steady shot... if there would not be conefiring.
Oh and we have a lot of different weapons that we needed to balance. We feature a lot of different pistols with each having its own pros and cons. Same for the MPs and ARs within the game. Each weapon has its pros and cons.
The shorter versions of some ARs are the favs for many simply due to them being usable in tight CQB situations and open terrain. And the fact that the community weapon pack addition gave them a huge amount of available attachments almost gave every player his personal fav version of them making them even more popular.
...
And INF features penetrating projectiles for more than two years... actually it was one of the first features in the UT'99 version of it. Just for the case some thought that geo added this to INF on UT'99 only two years ago.
a simple penetration system does not need to check the material at all if all it should simulate is the fact that projectiles are able to penetrate most materials if they aren't too thick.
Getting into such detail as to deformation or trying to simulate a proper flight path distortion is nothing a standard penetration system really needs, even if this would actually be pretty cool.
For a simple penetration system that does its job well enough for a game you only need projectiles that are able to penetrate thru thin obstacles like wooden fences, doors and house corners to let it have the desired effect gameplay wise. It is simply annoying in any FPS that doesn't feature penetration that people can litteraly hide behind a piece of paper without getting hurt by gunfire.
To the map rebuilding...
In good ol' UT'99 we used the textures footstepsound to recognize the 'material'. If there's nothing set up already to actually differentiate the different materials then this would mean to update the used texture/material packages to get the specific value into the maps out there.
@KrazyKraut...
seems you got our point even if you may not agree. It's not always black and white only and I haven't said that RO is using the wrong way. I simply dislike the 'view and weapon being stuck together' method that always lets your weapon point at the middle of the screen. It's somethng that doesn't need that much 'skill' due to it always being the center of the screen, nor a weapon model (remember those CS 'vets' with the weapon model turned off to get a better overview and a black dot marking the center of the screen... if not, many did and still do). The position of your weapon more or less doesn't matter at all and so most FPS then try to compensate this huge 'steadiness' by using conefire.
That's actually something I do not really like in RO. Not the conefireing in general, no, just the visualization of it. You simply have no visual clue about the fact that your aim is not 100%. Means your weapon moves a bit, but it doesn't actually show you that your next shot will be way off the point you are aiming at just cause you just stopped moving around and you are now standing upright. But I don't want to open up another can of worms here.
I'm just saying that the freeaim while in ironsights mode needs a bit more of actual aiming due to not always pointing at the middle of the screen at the time you raise your weapon. And this makes aiming a tid bit more realistic too.
In most FPS you can simply hit the proper key/button to raise your weapon into ironsights mode and your aim is dead center following your view. So all you need is to look at your target, hit a button to get into IS mode and then another button to fire a 100% steady shot... if there would not be conefiring.
Oh and we have a lot of different weapons that we needed to balance. We feature a lot of different pistols with each having its own pros and cons. Same for the MPs and ARs within the game. Each weapon has its pros and cons.
The shorter versions of some ARs are the favs for many simply due to them being usable in tight CQB situations and open terrain. And the fact that the community weapon pack addition gave them a huge amount of available attachments almost gave every player his personal fav version of them making them even more popular.
...
And INF features penetrating projectiles for more than two years... actually it was one of the first features in the UT'99 version of it. Just for the case some thought that geo added this to INF on UT'99 only two years ago.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You are right, at some time we had easily 32 players in INF, but I do not remember exactly what was implemented in these version. I know as much as basic external ballistic and perhaps penetration. Not sure though, that's why I prefered mentionning the current version conditons. But I did fill a P3 800 with a server and 16 bots. And it didn't even top the CPU.
Upvote
0
- Status