sidwulf

Original post edited for clarity.

It is impossible to simulate weighted weapons correctly using the mouse as a much simpler analogue to the human body. Any direct method would create unintuitive controls and would be a complex undertaking. The accuracy and suitability of such a method would also constantly be of discussion. The only solution is to find a method that accounts for the real world problem of weight/skill/strength in an indirect way. An example of this is the expansion of the reticle and dispersion while panning around the view port or moving. The mouse input should never be modified to work against the player as any direct method would be doing. The mouse is the interactive connection between man and machine and needs to accurately translate your unconventional hand movements into 1:1 view panning. Day Z does not equate directly to twitch gaming because of 1:1 view panning. Consider the scale of Day Z and the open air world of Chernarus also keep in mind the characters movement speed including the Inability to shoot on the move. These aspects of the game drastically limit arena style gameplay.

Consider the scale of Day Z and the freelook/third person views which already invalidate the advantage of sneaking up on anyone. Yes, mouse movement looks unrealistic with raw input but does it feel intuitive? does it convey that mind-character connection? In Day Z we want immersion and the added immersion of having 1:1 mouse input makes up for those unrealistic side effects.

Modern first person shooters realistic or not often employ indirect solutions such as expansion of the reticle and dispersion (Can you not agree?) hence it appears to be an acceptable solution.

What you are explaining is an extremely complex direct solution to a problem that needs a simple indirect solution. Remember the mouse is a u-n-co-n-v-e-n-t-i-o-n-a-l analogue for translating your entire body and its mechanics. Your hand movement in the X and Y axis is the only thing the mouse is recording and this raw data cannot be realistically translated. The only solution is to find an indirect way to translate the data into something realistic.

Yes that sounds quite difficult, but please understand that the mouse is an unconventional analogue which needs an unconventional (indirect) solution. Expansion of the reticle and dispersion is an acceptable solution.

Exactly. The mouse input should not be modified directly. What you are suggesting is an acceptable indirect solution. Will be added to the original post.

I understand all of your points and sympathize with what a military simulation tries to achieve. Undoubtedly compromise should be made when it comes to an accurate and responsive input device such as a mouse. Raw input is more practical compared to finding a solution to a problem with seemingly infinite variables such as weapon weight, solider skill, soldier strength, centre of gravity. ARMA II is trying to simulate something that is impossible to simulate correctly using an unconventional analogue (the mouse).

Negative acceleration is not the problem. ARMA II's Turn speed limitation (Weapon weight penalty) is commonly mistaken for negative acceleration. And this modifier is highly unintuitive and unsuited for an input device such as the mouse.

Incorrect. the issue this topic deals with is not acceleration. Turn speed limitation and vertical weapon weight simulation is what is being discussed. It is okay though, this as a common misconception.

I am referring to real world physics and their interpretation in game.

Try an experiment. Get out of your chair and pretend your holding a weapon and then a comparable heavy object. Now jump into a 180 degree spin to face the other direction. Most often this will take less then a second. There is a noticeable difference compared to moving the mouse 180 degrees (moderate sensitivity) but it does not appear to be of great significance. Also note: the higher the mouse sensitivity the more inaccurate your aim tends to be. Your muscle memory will have far less room for error after completing a 180 turn to land on target. This should be considered when thinking of the real life instability.

Your logic is sound but you should take note most modern first person shooters with raw input take care of this problem by applying large bullet spread to LMG's without bi-pod deployment. It is believable that LMG's would be hard to control without the bi-pod deployed and cause a dramatic effect on bullet spread. In essence this takes care of the problem while preserving raw input.

I do not agree. you will find the explanation in the last post.

The higher firing rate of close quarters weapons should be enough of an advantage in most situations. Lining up a single shot using a sniper rifle in close quarters with you target strafing about can be disorientating. Most often the target will land more hits before you get off a shot. Handling a weapon of moderate firing rate you are not overly concerned about getting it "right" with the first bullet. As for light machine guns, a large bullet spread while standing will have a decent effect on accuracy to further balance things out.

I figured the original title was to demanding and did not match my argument. I do understand how that could be irritating. Apologies.

This is a shame raw input is perceived this way. I argue that it increases immersion. The fear of DayZ turning into a twitch shooter is unfounded. Raw input will not compromise fair game play because everyone will have the same advantage. Also considering the scale of DayZ and the players walking and running speed it is hard to see a situation in which a twitch shooter inspired deathmatch would arise. Possibly indoor combat would present a casual link but this effect would be small.

I believe you have misunderstood, my argument is in support of raw mouse input, not against.

DayZ Commander is great for getting the patches right away http://www.dayzcommander.com/ Everyone is switching over, you can update too 1.7.2.5 through DayZ Commander.

A very tense standoff with surprising results. Even with our assault rifles trained on 2 of the 3 survivors we died immediately after the shooting started. All was not lost because our camera man / makarov wielding negotiator pulled through O.K.

There were only three bandits not four as i was calling them out. The first shot killed me, thats when I yelled "OMG!" The bandit talking to Ceremor in the doorway shot a round right past Ceremor and aced me. The bandit who shot Serenade was on the left side of the barn prone. This bandit also shot out his squadmates legs as his squadmate was running towards him. haha.

DayZ is the perfect name no matter how you say it.

I really like this, especially the look on his face. Cool.

Leave it up to DayZ to invoke irrational fears. You can't see me over voice chat but I was physically shaking, sweating and enduring a long winded surge of adrenaline. This is because minutes before i had just iced a well armed bandit running straight at me. I also closed a gate on myself which was almost my death. I was ready to shoot ANYTHING.

This thread has me thinking... take away the server messages about player deaths. I don't want to know who i killed via an SMS, I only want to inspect the body like a real survivor.