PDA

View Full Version : Realism of accuracy?


DaRealFunkyShyte
18th Jul 2004, 09:56 AM
Can someone with real armed forces experience tell me if it is realisitc that someone walking, looking right through the sights of an assault rifle, can reliably turn 90 degrees or more and accurately hit at a small target within half a second?

Thanks.

geogob
18th Jul 2004, 10:29 AM
asking the question is answering it.

DaRealFunkyShyte
18th Jul 2004, 11:51 AM
Welcome to Infiltration Instagib

spm1138
18th Jul 2004, 12:00 PM
Know the feeling :|

RaV2 with weapon disalignment helped a bit.

DaRealFunkyShyte
18th Jul 2004, 12:27 PM
A lot, even

yurch
18th Jul 2004, 02:25 PM
Just about ALL of my projects involve ease of lethality at the moment. I consider it a primary concern.

NTKB
18th Jul 2004, 02:39 PM
Yeah slowly but surely yurch is giving the options to admins of turning INF into "As balanced as it gets" to "As real as it gets." Just be patient know that INF will always be a long way behind other mods cause theres no mula backing it up.

DaRealFunkyShyte
18th Jul 2004, 05:06 PM
I have full faith in him :p

geogob
18th Jul 2004, 05:14 PM
Just know, with his new it system, it getting harder harder to do headshots "a la Counter Strike"... Aiming to kill becomes a real complex task. With vital organ hit detection, being a sniper will need skills closer to RL, including knowledge of the anatomy and its weaknesses. No more one-shot-one-kill-in-the-left-big-tow situations.

(SDS)benmcl
18th Jul 2004, 11:02 PM
So no more savaging UN17 with my 5-7? Damn.

DaRealFunkyShyte
19th Jul 2004, 03:51 AM
I dont' know, but Pistols are quick to aim. This is borderline - there might be some Billy the Kid out there who simply has the reflexes. With a rifle, it's more a matter of accellerating masses and re-aligning the (inevitably lost) sights, then taking aim. The timeframe needed for this is a lot more deterministic.

Also, if i remember right, UT is unable to handle a maximum Turn speed. (This had been discussed a while back). So i assume what you are doing currently with the Minimi et al is reducing the input scaling.

I ask thee tho *g* why not simply have Mr. Infguy incur a penalty for turning to fast? Certainly the turn speed can be determined? Or would this be to CPU-hoggy. The gun could "lag behind".

Cleeus[JgKdo]
19th Jul 2004, 04:13 AM
Also, if i remember right, UT is unable to handle a maximum Turn speed. (This had been discussed a while back). So i assume what you are doing currently with the Minimi et al is reducing the input scaling.

Haha, we actually have that feature in INF. Try a M249 and turn as fast as you can (in crouch). You'll see that there is a max turning speed.

NTKB
19th Jul 2004, 04:32 AM
I dont' know, but Pistols are quick to aim. This is borderline - there might be some Billy the Kid out there who simply has the reflexes. With a rifle, it's more a matter of accellerating masses and re-aligning the (inevitably lost) sights, then taking aim. The timeframe needed for this is a lot more deterministic.

Also, if i remember right, UT is unable to handle a maximum Turn speed. (This had been discussed a while back). So i assume what you are doing currently with the Minimi et al is reducing the input scaling.

I ask thee tho *g* why not simply have Mr. Infguy incur a penalty for turning to fast? Certainly the turn speed can be determined? Or would this be to CPU-hoggy. The gun could "lag behind".


That was actually a feature in RAv2. If you turned fast your gun misaligned alot more and took longer to realign.

DaRealFunkyShyte
19th Jul 2004, 07:38 AM
']Haha, we actually have that feature in INF. Try a M249 and turn as fast as you can (in crouch). You'll see that there is a max turning speed.
Yes, but is it a real limitation or do you just scale the mouse input down?

Cleeus[JgKdo]
19th Jul 2004, 07:43 AM
Its a limit afaik

yurch
19th Jul 2004, 01:04 PM
I don't see how limiting turn speeds really will help. And humans CAN turn around fairly fast.

ravens_hawk
19th Jul 2004, 01:23 PM
Yes humans can turn around really fast, but with a meter long object extended in their arms weighing upwards of 10Kg? Perhaps we could give the weapons some momentum (ie they will continue to travel after turning, at least within the freeaim zone) and thus force the player to either go slightly slower or decelerate it at the end of the turn. Of course if one did this I would recommend making it such that the momentum is based on the object's horizontal level, so one that is aimed lower and thus closer to the body will have less momentum (angular momentum that is.)

NTKB
19th Jul 2004, 02:21 PM
erm yes tehy can raven, especially when they know there lives depend on it. Yurch has alot of real armed forces personel in his clan so I would trust his judgment. Besides its not the turning speed that should be altered but the aim "throw off" that should be adjusted. You can spin around and still be perfectly aimed which should not be the case. I like RAv2s aiming system cause of that.

yurch
19th Jul 2004, 03:08 PM
Yes humans can turn around really fast, but with a meter long object extended in their arms weighing upwards of 10Kg? Perhaps we could give the weapons some momentum (ie they will continue to travel after turning, at least within the freeaim zone) and thus force the player to either go slightly slower or decelerate it at the end of the turn. Of course if one did this I would recommend making it such that the momentum is based on the object's horizontal level, so one that is aimed lower and thus closer to the body will have less momentum (angular momentum that is.)
I don't think the idea of 'momentum' can really be implemented in a game where we use use a mouse. Joysticks, maybe, but a mouse isn't really a constant input device. Momentum systems always seem to unrealistically favor pistols to an extreme degree as well. Weapon misalignments or other interesting penalties* are fine with me, but not with continued velocity in the same direction. I've never seen a form of this that I like.
Most weapons don't weigh over 10kgs, and they are usually balanced well enough that turning around isn't like swinging a bat.

Remember that limiting the player's rotation you also limit his ability to simply look around himself as well.


* insert maniacally evil laughter here

Midwinter
19th Jul 2004, 07:56 PM
Now that you are at it, maybe you could add that nifty inertia you had in RAv2 :p

ravens_hawk
20th Jul 2004, 04:15 PM
yurch

I know most weapons don't weight more than 5Kg if that, however the Minimi does weight close to 10Kg loaded (which was referred to above.) I have never tried a momentum system, but I agree with you it probably wouldn't work well with a mouse. Just an idea I was throwing out there.

Maybe we should have a way of looking around w/o aiming our weapons in that direction ala DN3D or MW3. ;) Of course both systems were horrible (at least for me who never used a joystick for MW3) and would require even more keybinds which some people don't like for some odd reason. ;)

So what other interesting penalties have you got in mind? :)

keihaswarrior
22nd Jul 2004, 05:55 PM
The scenario you are trying to stop: (INF soldier whipping around with a minimi and instantly blasting you), doesn't happen very often. The amount of time it takes to establish an accurate firing position from a jog is more of a problem IMO. I think that the weapon bob should gradually decrease from a run, instead of instantly switching to the "standing still weapon bob."

Arethusa
23rd Jul 2004, 01:00 AM
Why don't we have this legendary RAv2 for 2.9? I never stop hearing about this legendary thing, but I know nothing about it.

mat69
23rd Jul 2004, 02:06 AM
Because people are allways talking abou what they DON'T have rather than takling about what they have. So if there will be a RAV2.9 many people would bitch about the outcome. "You destroyed INF2.9! You destroyed this small community! Another community spilt ... bla bla bla balaber ...."
Yes I liked many features of RAV2 but I didn't like many as well.
I'm not sure how actual this version is, there were so many versions, all named RAV2:
What it does:
1) Removes all zoom-based sensitvity
2) posture-dependant factors to even it out
3) Recoil is reduced for crouch and prone
4) 2.86 support.
5) No gun in aim mode while running
6) No scoped gun in aim mode while jogging
7) Running speed tampered with, strafing and running backwards slowed. Stanima changed do drop faster.
8) Has now been changed to an auto-hip.
9) Jogging accelerations side to side has been lowered.
10) No more firing m203 through ACOG.
11) 40mm weapons now arm at a greater distance.
12) More 40mm's are given to players with launchers. Abuse this and I will hurt you. See 11.
13) Grenades are significantly more violent.
14) Weight is in the process of being tweaked for PSG and Robar.
15) PSG is substituted for Robar if another primary is found. *removed, see 22*
16) Surpressed P90 overpenetration fixed.
17) Shotgun pump/semi now does same damage.
18) Shrapnel can kill with headshots.
19) Shotgun brought into aiming position correctly.
20) More shotgun shells are allowed.
21) Shotgun aim penalties for moving have been enabled.
22) Only one primary is allowed.
23) M203 and ACOG cannot be added together.
24) Shotgun tweaked more. Should not shoot as low.
25) Crouch-walk is 1.6 times faster when not aiming.
26) Joggin with gun aimed drains more stanima.
27) Grenades are a bit weaker.
28) New recoil method for movement.
29) New scope bob effect. Bob (breathing) now effects aim
30) Jogging with gun in aim is less effecient.
31) Scope drift is fixed.
32) early randomdamage model
33) grenade physics
34) Pronecrawling is slightly faster.
35) Getting up and down from prone is slightly faster.
36) Walking/Running is marginally slowed.
37) Jumping or bumping on players no longer has a 10% chance of death.
38) Recoil is now the same for online and offline. It is 50% greater than normal online recoil.
39) Sideways element added to kick.
40) Accelerational movement system
41) BALLISTICS Drop, ToF, zeroes. Zeros are: Pistols 0y, subguns 50y, AR 200y, Sniperrifles 300y.
42) Time/damge based sensitvities/recoil. This has quite a significant impact on aiming, give yourself time to take a shot!
43) Real FOV and zoom for all scopes
44) Camo brightness fix
45) Admin option for irons sights only. 'mutate ironon' for irons sights only, 'mutate ironoff' to turn it off. this is saved in rav2.ini
46) Leanbug fixes
47) Movement recoil is tweaked
48) footsteps are redone in a manner that allows audiable jogging sounds as well as improved others
49) 40mm's are now effected my movement like all other weapons
50) Walking properties have been changed
51) Stanima has been tweaked further, jogging now takes stanima, and wounding penalties are stronger.
52) Netcode enhancements, an attempt to bring the less wasteful 2.85 methods of networking without the bugs
53) Angular based weapon movement. Shooting is now markedly harder.
54) Footstep sound fixes - Attempted fix again
55) 'Netcode' removed. Too much overhead and didn't work reliably enough
56) early bulletflight sound
57) long distance aiming has been made easier (argh)
58) 40mm shrapnel fix
59) Recoil lightened a bit (especially the rotational based one)
60) Forward running speed upped a tad
61) Stanima regenerates slightly faster
62) Sight offsets have been 'recalibrated' thanks to Duke. Weapons will shoot straighter now.
63) Gunsight mode. 2x zoom for irons toggle.

Cleeus[JgKdo]
23rd Jul 2004, 04:48 AM
Most of RAV2 improvements are already buildt into 2.9, but not the most experimental ones.

[UMC]Boron
23rd Jul 2004, 05:33 AM
I played yurchs new hit detection thing on GD server tonight. It's awesome. Fairly accurate and headshots are quite difficult (as mentioned above).

Snake13
23rd Jul 2004, 01:14 PM
I seriously doubt RAv3 would cause a serious split in the community, as it is the three servers that see regular use are Shan's and {GD}, which both use yurch's stuff. I think most of the vannilla crowd as departed a while back.

NTKB
23rd Jul 2004, 02:17 PM
If you want vanilla just go to INF_Germany. Those boys think anyhting custom is the plague. In fact most German servers o_0

yurch
23rd Jul 2004, 02:45 PM
The 'gunsight mode' version is not fully mine.

The politics behind RAv2 are something I wish to avoid. I do still consider, however, the interfaces between player and weapon to be a noble experiment.
I'd like to keep RAv3 extremely limited, and not disruptive to what 2.9 has going already, like a specific RA thursday or something.

Snake13
23rd Jul 2004, 05:35 PM
RA is what kept INF alive for many of us, I for one would love to see you continue INF's development via RAv3

gal-z
30th Jul 2004, 05:29 AM
Can someone with real armed forces experience tell me if it is realisitc that someone walking, looking right through the sights of an assault rifle, can reliably turn 90 degrees or more and accurately hit at a small target within half a second?

Thanks.
Yes, it is realistic to do it in less than 1 second if you're not running fast. The problem is knowing there's a target 90 degrees to the right...

Logan6
30th Jul 2004, 07:22 PM
Can someone with real armed forces experience tell me if it is realisitc that someone walking, looking right through the sights of an assault rifle, can reliably turn 90 degrees or more and accurately hit at a small target within half a second?

Thanks.

Not in half a second. Well, maybe if you were really used to your weapon and it was a lucky shot.

gal-z
30th Jul 2004, 08:25 PM
Well, of cousre it depends on how small the target is. 1 second is reasonable for a head target in 10 meters.

Logan6
31st Jul 2004, 12:52 PM
Well, of cousre it depends on how small the target is. 1 second is reasonable for a head target in 10 meters.

Yeah, I'll agree with you on that. I could probably do that with my AKM if I was using the lighter 30 round mags in it. If I had the drum in it, inertia of the weapon would probably cause me to overshoot the target.

Beppo
3rd Aug 2004, 01:47 PM
Just to the turning and accuracy...
well, a trained soldier can turn 90 degrees or even more very very fast and remains pretty steady then too. The longest part of this procedure is to actually aim for the target, not getting the weapon into a steady position, cause this needs only a split second for a trained person.
The heavier and bigger/bulkier a weapon is, the more it 'swings' during such a move, but if you trained how to handle the weapon properly then you actually know how to counter the weapons momentum properly.
If you have access to a pistol, MP or AR then try this on a shooting range. You will notice that you get very very accurate on 25-50 meters and accurate 'enough' even on longer distances to hit the target 'somewhere'.

Again, the main part of getting the accurate shot after turning, jogging or whatever is finding the target, not stabilizing your weapon.

And to the new hit/damage detection yurch is working on (not had the time to test it yet due to no internet at home right now)...
Does it really change the way you play or the outcome of a fire fight?
When I aim for my target I always aim for the chest with my AR, no matter if I know that the target is wearing a vest or not. So 2 or 3 single shots fired quickly in a row will do the job in most cases. On longer ranges I aim for the chest too.
So, for my type of play it would 'only' change something on longer distances where the target is partially covered. Well but even then I often aim for the chest trying to fire thru the edge of the wall or chest or whatever if possible.
The thing I guess it stops a bit would be the long range shotty shooting that can then not hurt you as much as with standard 2.9 I guess and maybe the firing into the legs to fire at unprotectable body parts.
Well, wrong place... if you have some knowledge to share about the damage/hit stuff yurch is doing, then please do in the proper thread and post a link here, thx.

geogob
3rd Aug 2004, 03:24 PM
Does it really change the way you play or the outcome of a fire fight?

It changes a lot of things. It's a whole new feeling and challange. check out the thread about it in the developement forum ( disturbingly differing dynamic displacement damage system of differentiatable doom (http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?t=138012))

jayhova
4th Aug 2004, 12:03 AM
I don't think the idea of 'momentum' can really be implemented in a game where we use use a mouse. Joysticks, maybe, but a mouse isn't really a constant input device. Momentum systems always seem to unrealistically favor pistols to an extreme degree as well. Weapon misalignments or other interesting penalties* are fine with me, but not with continued velocity in the same direction. I've never seen a form of this that I like.
* insert maniacally evil laughter here

Any system that used momentum would also have to take into account certain aspects of that weapon. For one pistols have a distinct disadvantage when it comes to momentum. Since the weapon is not balanced it will tend to twist in your hands while a light assault rifle is firmly seated on your shoulder and can use both hands quite effectively to aim and steady it. In addition to this they also have the advantage of having a greater space between the front and rear sight. This makes it much easier to get a proper sight picture. The end result is that though the pistol can be brought to bear quicker it won't be as accurate as a rifle or submachine gun.

I disagree that a mouse is not really compatable with a momentum system. I think the idea of making it kind of like pulling things around on a rubber band. that is to say that if you moved the mouse at a steady speed the weapon would be slightly slow to start moving and then would keep moving for a moment after you stopped.