sidwulf

I kill when needed. For example. I'm hiding in a shed fully geared and another fully geared player opens the door. He scared the shit out of me and since our M4s were lowered the tension was high. We didn't say anything. We opened fire simultaneously killing eachother. So far after over 30hrs play time this is the only player I killed.

You should really listen to AnarchyBrownies it appears he has deep insight where as the original post and all the other posts seem to be written in frustration.

I find the game more immersive in first person view and only switch to third person when I want to check out my sexy character or fashionable hat.

Ah yes, fire pits at night and hunting during the day. Cheers to that!

Nope.

Ah gotcha. Well he should change the thread title and the op at least. More people will flood in here not understanding.

So...your saying your mad because of a bug and want to dump the whole system all together. Good logic. Are you saying the design is bad? Or are you just saying a bug ruined your night? Please be Careful of thread titles that are misleading. They can have a Negative effect on the community. I confess I only read the OP.

You would think random sound bug would be easy to fix. Breaks immersion, needs to be critical status. Chain link fence and stick breaking are no help either. You cannot simulate live action sounds without a source of said action. Those kind of effects feel artificial (like background gun shots in some games). Looking around for a disturbed chain link fence or broke stick is trolling at its finest.

Oh great your still here. I can sum up your argument too. We want Inaccuracy! we want Inconsistency! We want lag! We want poor feedback! Huraa! Huraa! We wont stop until raw input is dead! GooooooOOOOOOOOO Ignorance! (Pink, because thats usually the color of pom poms. I'm speaking in absolutes here.)

You have nothing here of substance or merit. Most likely why I don't respond to certain parts of your posts. The mouse cannot provide proper feedback for human movement while holding different objects. It works in only 2 axis. You need an indirect solution that does not interfere with the original input. I am going to say again. your cheering with your pom poms for inaccuracy, inconsistency, lag and poor feedback.

I fail to respond because your trying to pick apart a rock solid argument. I am confident. I know exactly what I am talking about. I speak in absolutes on this subject. The thread is mostly technical anyway. Give me your best shot with a good argument against 1:1 raw input and quit being reactive. You want inconsistency, inaccuracy, mouse lag, and poor feedback. Because that is ALL you will get with anything other then raw mouse input. It needs an indirect solution, that's what i have been trying to say all along, yet don't you understand? Quit poking at the stone with a straw, your only mad cause I playfully called you ignorant. (Your first post was i-n-c-r-e-d-i-b-l-y ignorant almost as if you had not read the original post at all)

Okay so, if you dont agree with anything i say it can only mean one thing. You want inconsistency, inaccuracy, mouse lag and poor feedback. *Face into palm*

Oh ffs...Instead of constantly rehashing and refrasing my replies I will just copy and paste. "Thanks for pointing that out. Regardless of cross hair or not the same effect applies. A wider dispersion cone without cross hair would still apply. I use the cross hair as a reference point for the sake of brevity."

Thanks for pointing that out. Regardless of cross hair or not the same effect applies. A wider dispersion cone without cross hair would still apply. I use the cross hair as a reference point for the sake of brevity.

One of those reasons is that the mouse is a very simple analogue (one thing seen as comparable to another) to the human body. It is impossible to translate skill/strength/weight/momentum into acceptable feedback using the input of an unconventional (not based on or conforming to what is generally done) device. Hopefully this is making more sense. Because of these limitations an indirect method must be used to simulate realism. One such example of this is an expanding cross hair on movement and view panning.

You need to quit deflecting my argument. Did you even read the post?

I would like to add that a "360 no scope head shot" is not an inherited feature of raw mouse input in a game like Day Z. Consider the scale of Chenarus and the players walking speed. Consider third-person view and free-look lowering the chance of sneaking up on someone. Consider having to raise your weapon in order to shoot and the narrow field of view looking down the sight causes. lastly consider the inability to shoot on the move. Take a good few minutes thinking about these points and realize no scope head shots will be a very difficult feat to pull off. This is not Quake 3 with rail guns. It cant even pretend to be an arena style shooter. Also the indirect method involving an expanded cross hair on movement and view port panning will create bullet dispersion. A wide cone of bullet dispersion will make it even more difficult to perform a 360 no scope with a semi automatic rifle.

Speaking in absolutes when the person understands the topic they are discussing is not considered a matter of opinion. When a person uses "I think" in an argument they are putting themselfs at a disadvantage by admitting they are not confident about the subject. If I feel confident about a subject (input devices) I will speak in absolutes. If someone feels inconsistency/inaccuracy/lag is acceptable in an input device then they logically do not understand the subject.

Strange you took offence to that. They are really good cookies. I was also betting on the insertion of a smiley face making everything okay.Its a difficult subject to explain without using technical vocabulary. Run a quick search for the terms your unfamiliar with. If I explained this argument in lay-mans terms I'm afraid it would take paragraphs to translate properly. No one has the attention span to digest a wall of text. Technical terms are a concise and efficient way to pack meaning into a short amount of space.

Ignorance has its boundaries. Carefully read the original post and I might give you a cookie. :)

What your experiencing is most likely placebo. ARMA II uses UDP packets not TCP packets after all.

That is quite interesting but instead of redoing mouse acceleration it should really be removed completely. You cannot redo something that shouldn't be there in the first place. 1:1 mouse input is crucial for feedback and immersion. An input device such as the mouse is a very simple analogue to the human body. It is impossible to apply variables such as skill/strength/weight around the input of such an unconventional device without affecting the feedback in a negative way. A mouse and it's 1:1 relationship with the user's intended movement is essential. This issue of realism should be done in an indirect way that does not affect the mouse input. One good example is the expansion of the cross hair and bullet dispersion on view port panning and player movement (Which is how it is done in most games anyway).

I meant physically represented in third person by panning around normally. The free-look key would be independent of this where only your head turns. Thanks for pointing it out. That part will obviously confuse people.

Some responses seem to be missing the point of this topic including the argument and solution it represents. 1:1 raw input is essential for immersion. View port panning must be untouched and an indirect method needs to be used. The original post explains very accurately the issues with mouse post processing. There are methods available for control realism that do not interfere with mouse input. One of them is an expanding cross hair and bullet dispersion on view panning and movement. The other novel approach involves weapon momentum. It works like this: view port panning is 1:1 but weapon lags behind panning and eventually catches up. These are fairly common methods already used in certain games.

The issue is much to complex to even consider a direct solution. An indirect solution is needed as the mouse is an unconventional analogue to the human body. The myriad of variables to make a direct solution work is nauseating and will only serve to break the 1:1 synergy and thus cause a loss of immersion. You have suggested a novel mechanism for an indirect modifier though. Leaving the view port panning at 1:1 (which can be seen as head movement) then forcing the weapon to lag behind in account for weight/strength/skill.