length of the weapons in CQC

[Krator]

Reise - in every FPS game I've ever played you can turn 360 in a split second and stop. Just stop. Not slow down-> stop moving, but simply from fullspeed to stop in a milisecond. I can stop quite rapidly with my body, but I'm quite sure, that if I did a 90 degrees turn with a 5kg rifle at my hip, it would move a bit before stopping. And I'm quite sure that unless you're 200kg strong-man, 10+kg Machinegun would affect your turn speed and movement.
BTW russians of WW2 were basically skinny guys, who were born mostly during hunger of civil war and 20-ties. They were by no means "tall" and "muscular". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think their average weight was pretty low by todays standards - so inertia affected them even more than big, strong, well fed US marines or Wehrmacht soldiers (who were smaller than people of today anyways).

How do I see inertia in ROHOS working?
Simple, you rapidly turn right, stop and fire. If you don't wait a split second, your bullet goes to the right by considerable amount. The faster you spin (10x360 degrees in less than a second while prone - love you RO ) the longer it takes for the weapon point of aim to "reset". So, I do a realistically fast turn with kar98k - no problem. I do crazy spin to the right and rapid stop - whoaaa, my gun for a good 100ms is going from far right to center.
If you do the same with ironsights on (crazy spin) - the weapon points off-center for those 100ms (just a random number).
Limiting maximum turn speed would be nice, but I can see, why it can't work this way.

 

[Reise]

Reise - in every FPS game I've ever played you can turn 360 in a split second and stop. Just stop. Not slow down-> stop moving, but simply from fullspeed to stop in a milisecond. I can stop quite rapidly with my body, but I'm quite sure, that if I did a 90 degrees turn with a 5kg rifle at my hip, it would move a bit before stopping. And I'm quite sure that unless you're 200kg strong-man, 10+kg Machinegun would affect your turn speed and movement.

BTW russians of WW2 were basically skinny guys, who were born mostly during hunger of civil war and 20-ties. They were by no means "tall" and "muscular". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think their average weight was pretty low by todays standards - so inertia affected them even more than big, strong, well fed US marines or Wehrmacht soldiers (who were smaller than people of today anyways).

Eh I wouldn't underestimate the strength people from WW2. They may have been shorter and slightly stockier, but if anything, that should mean even easier weapon handling due to a lower center of gravity. (I can't believe I'm writing this.)

Thing is, even a 90 degree turn has very little extra movement to compensate for, and there's no way Tripwire can be expected to account for people pulling 360s while in ironsights mode. The only way they could do this I think is if they implemented earlier suggestions of allowing weapons to become misaligned while making fast movements. This would ensure that excessively fast motion isn't more effective than it should be.

Real soldiers trained with their rifles to overcome control issues like this.

 

[Mormegil]

Inertia is totally unnecessary. Rifles don't weigh 25lbs each.

Rifles, maybe not. MG-34 - 27 lbs.

 

[Zetsumei]

stopping people from doing silly 360 spins can be done by setting a maximal turning speed when moving over a certain angle. But people should be careful while a 360 turn isn't easy to do, you can easily turn your head around to look behind you, something that can only be done in games with head tracking.

As your mouse doesn't only control your gun, but your eyes as well (one of the fastest moving parts in your body!). I wouldn't want the game to force delays on me, especially as my arms are already much slower than my eyes for looking around.

If you really want to induce something similar to inertia then its best to change how the gun is coupled to your vision aka the free aim by for instance changing the free aim radius or weapon speed relative to the camera speed. (of course inertia would give torques so it should in that sense be acceleration, but in real life you have quick position feedback from your muscles, while in a game you need to rely on slow visual feedback which would make acceleration based stuff too difficult).

Imposing delays, simply makes things harder to control, and makes things feel clunky and annoying. When handing real heavy things you have a lot of help from information you get from your muscles, and your years of experience as a human being.

You don't have that information in game, and cannot feel how heavy a gun is, making it hard to adapt on the fly to different weights, while you could easily do so in real life.

 

[Krator]

@Zetsumei: Oh come on. By some logic Quake 3 is the pinnacle of "control", because you can do endless midair spins etc. etc.
RO 1 was to some degree "slow and clunky", compared to "faster paced shooters"
You seem to forget, that too much control is just as bad as too little control.
The key is to balance both. I don't think current system guarantees this. It's too much about control.
And BTW people can adapt to 150ms lag and aiming at thin air in front of their opponents all the time, but they suddenly cannot adapt to a bit more of realism during movement?
But it seems the only possible solution isn't available anyways...


@Reise: from what I've seen, those people were more "skinny" than stocky. I know this isn't perfect example, but think of Ethiopia. That times were really bad for ones health. First - low food rations thanks to WW1, then revolution, great famines, several milions of people die of hunger. They were lighter, less strong, but more energy efficient. Malnutrition isn't good for body development.
And center of mass has nothing to do with it, since we're speaking about inertia when turning. In our case center of mass is in the axis of turn, which is vertical, so it doesn't matter whether center of mass is high or low.
And we can both agree that no amount of training will let you to make crazy turns with heavy weapons. We're not speaking of "I turn to the right, I flip over", but "I turn rapidly to the right, barrel of my gun travels a bit to the right before it stops and re-centers because NOBODY is strong enough to stop moving 10+lbs in 1ms dead". Think of force needed to do this. The differences aren't huge, but noticeable. You can stop your empty hand much much faster than your hand holding 2kg. So, if it takes you 100ms to accelerate your rifle to "fullspeed" it should take you some time to stop it. We can stop our characters dead with basically no time to deccelerate. If so - rifle, body are still spinning for a while. We can stop our head/eyes much faster than the rest of the body. And those 5kg from Ppshz don't help at all.


I agree with you both on the most important part - you can't model this properly without misaligning weapon and "center of screen", so this argument is kind of pointless.
If it was 2010, ehhh...

 

[Zetsumei]

Its not about whether you can adapt to somewhat cope with something. Its whether things feel natural.

The easiest things to do in real life consists generally of using your arms to do something. Controlling your character through a mouse is already more difficult than it is in reality, making things more difficult is the opposite of where you would want to go.

You can stop things such as 360 spinning by limit boundaries, but when possible you should always try to make people feel like they are in direct contact with the world.

There is a difference between a game being slow paced with realistic boundaries and limitations, and a game being slow and clunky. If unrealistic behaviour must be stopped it should be done without touching the mouse movement interaction.

In the terms of killzone (pre patch) any forms of inertia, are just a bad excuse for a .5 second frame lag due to post processing. Heck even pressing the fire button it simply takes .5 seconds to fire.

There is a difference between 150ms lag in sense of a multi player game's net delay and 150ms input lag. Although there is a big delay between moving your arm and actually seeing a movement with your eyes (about a 150ms delay), your body over your lifetime of practise is very accustomed to that exact delay.

Quake3 the old UT etc are indeed pinnacle of control in the ability to make your character act as an extension of your arm. Those games are probably the most easy and natural to control. You can see that in that those games have always been very popular for e-sports that focus a lot on twitch based reflexes. Of course that says nothing about the game play and experience you have with the game.

But if ROHOS would go to the path and remove the position based input of the mouse to have terms based on acceleration and velocity. Then that would be the reason why I wouldn't play it. I care for HOS and want to have fun, and actually be able to use the position feedback from my muscles just like you would in real life.

 

[Reise]

Rifles, maybe not. MG-34 - 27 lbs.

Yeah but who is hipfiring MGs?

Should we have an in depth inertia system for just when somebody decides to hipfire the DP or MG34?

 

[Landrik]

Yeah but who is hipfiring MGs?

Should we have an in depth inertia system for just when somebody decides to hipfire the DP or MG34?

Hell, I know for a fact that the MG42 had it's sling available to be hung around the neck and the bipod gripped in one hand for available hip firing and movement. (Think Panzer Cops)

 

[Ossius]

The Browning 30 had a bridal fitted to the barrel for hip firing. "The pacific" mini series actually went out of its way to show this off several times. Not sure if that means anything to the current discussion, but I found it interesting.

 

[FBOTheLiuetenant]

If the weapon collision is anything similar to Infiltration then shorter weapons will have a definite advantage in CQC. Also you should think about how first-person weapon collision will effect movement in general, you'll have to keep an eye out for every random piece of clutter in the level and make sure you don't get stuck.

About the upper body strength of battle-hardend soldiers, I'm sure a person who has spent years moving around with a specific firearm can handle it with ease. I'm not a fan of this inertia idea, but it does raise an interesting question. Should HoS allow players to handle weapons in the manner of a highly experienced shooter, or force the player to learn how to operate their firearm effectively? I lean more towards forcing the player to adapt, but it bares discussion IMO.

Also just for lol'z [url]http://youtu.be/O5MAg5feoUQ[/URL] go to 9:00 and you can see an MG42 being hip-fired and shoulder-fired.

 

[nebsif]

Blabla

Agree more or less I hate how ARMA tries to be over realistic, ye its not realistic to spin around 180 degrees in 0.5 sec, but its better than moving ur mouse and then waiting 2 seconds for it to happen as the soldier turns around around like IRL. On the other hand LMGs shouldnt handle like SMGs as they do in BF games and such.

Games are supposed to transfer what a d00d out there would feel only with visuals and sounds. Thats why (imo) some things should stay unrealistic or exaggerated so the game wont feel (passive) like watching cheap helmet cam footage on apache clips (=ARMA2) instead of being a soldier.

Edit: You can fire a LMG from the hip/shoulder, but im pwetty sure u cant do it while walking/runing like you can in most games.

 

[Actin]

Everybody seems to forget one thing, and that is that the turnign speed is pretty constant. mouse sensitivity is the key.

In COD it was very high so I could react and headshot in a split second (unrealistic turning)
In RO1 it is veeeery slow, because otherwise long-range accuracy is extremely hard to do.

So people with high sensitivity and fast turning have a distinct disadvantage already and (I guess) most people have the sensitivity low anyways.

But to limit the mouse sensitivity would be one option, but implement inertia would really be killing.
I hate any delay in games I am not in control over (like Iron sights, want to be able to shoot before it is fully zoomed -low accuracy of course- which normally takes a sec).

I think it is not needed, maybe scramble free aim on rapid turning or something, but not a delay.

 

[Krator]

I think there's a bit misunderstanding.
I don't want any delay too. Those 150ms was a example amount of time needed to get weapon back to aiming at the screen center.
So, you turn rapidly and fire - weapon shoots to the right by some amount and is inaccurate for those 150ms (example). It wouldn't take away control from the player, such shot would just be inaccurate. You can shoot or wait a bit and fire accurately. This inertia could be visualised by sights getting misaligned to the left/right for a split second.

"About the upper body strength of battle-hardend soldiers, I'm sure a person who has spent years moving around with a specific firearm can handle it with ease." - who in Soviet Union spent "years" handling specific firearms? It's not US marines. Just a bunch of conscripts with extremely limited training. Even soviet veterans by 1942 wouldn't have "years" of such experience. Especially considering the fact that most of military service in the eastern block (post-war though) consisted of polishing floor and toilets

 

[Actin]

I think there's a bit misunderstanding.
I don't want any delay too. Those 150ms was a example amount of time needed to get weapon back to aiming at the screen center.
So, you turn rapidly and fire - weapon shoots to the right by some amount and is inaccurate for those 150ms (example). It wouldn't take away control from the player, such shot would just be inaccurate. You can shoot or wait a bit and fire accurately. This inertia could be visualised by sights getting misaligned to the left/right for a split second.

You're right, I didn't get the message apparently.
As long as the looking is something else than the rifle moving, then it's pretty ok