Jump to content
beppe_goodoldrebel

Aiming Deadzone

Do you want aiming deadzone in Squad?  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want aiming deadzone in Squad?

    • SIR! YES, SIR!
      31
    • OH GAWD NO!
      19


Recommended Posts

it is absolutely NOT fluid especially in RO/RS!

 

honestly i did not understand what this videos is actually supposed to show, wepon handling is wrong the way it's done and shown in the video.

every game that shows the weapon from the side (tilt) is simply doing it wrong.

 

i made a quick pic, this is how a shouldered weapon (no aiming down sights yet) should look like.

when moving/walking, the weapon should move from lef to right and up and down VERY VERY SLIGHTLY, and the background, as the eyes should be focused on it should be practically STILL.

 

you basically look over the rifle at the background. when you spot an enemy you move your head DOWN to the iron sights which produces something like it is shown in the second pic.

 

however i did a very quick iphone snapshot so don't take it as 100% accurate, it's somewhat correct, compared to 90% of all PFS games out there.

well, if you imagine a mix of the two pics where you have a scene of the first pic but with a focus on the front post, like in the second pic, this is what it should look like when aiming down sights.

 

GROUND BRANCH is the only game so far that does it somewhat correctly, still even there when you are not aiming down sights the weapon is shown from the side,

remember when aiming down sights your head moves DOWN. if you look at the player models in GROUND BRANCH this is exactly what you see, but when switching

to 1st person view the weapon is showed from the side, and when yxou aim down sights the weapon is magically moved to the center, this is WRONG.

 

the real life thing that comes close to "aiming deadzone" would be point shooting, which is nothing more than hip firing but with the correct "camera angle"

basically what i have described above.

 

as for aiming down sights most games do it exactly like in the second pic and this is simply wrong, you should be still able to see the charging handle and a bit of the stock,

in GROUND BRANCH this is shown/implemented quite well!

 

the example in the video looks like the operator is stretching out it's arms completely holding the rifle,

and like his head is not centered but sitting directly on the left shoulder, get it? :)

 

 

IMG_1873.JPG

 

IMG_1851.JPG

It's pretty fluid and does a good job of mimicking realism with what they've got to work with (as the dev said, there aren't enough pixels on your monitor to accurately represent reality). It's not the most true to life way of depicting things, but unless the game offers VR support alongside aiming deadzone there will never be a way of making everything proper because head movement needs to be a separate control from weapons movement to truly represent reality.

Your photo is also incorrect. It doesn't show what it's like to have the weapon shouldered without aiming down the sight, but instead shows what it's like to have your cheek on the stock of the weapon while shouldered and aiming down the sight, which is something most people don't do. The most realistic system for any game like this would be the low-ready position, but low ready doesn't make sense because it adds another layer of response time on top of the player's response time that takes away some of the skill involved in the game and adds an unnecessary barrier to gameplay. I'll probably take some pictures tomorrow of what it actually looks like to shoulder a weapon without aiming, but needless to day your representation is less than accurate and instead looks more like what old shooter games consider to be aiming back before 2d sprites were seen as a good way of rendering iron sights.

Once again, the next point is also invalid because the original stance itself is a bit out of whack. The Bindon Aiming Concept that many soldiers are taught now a days negates the need to ever NOT be looking down your iron sights when in the ready position, and while it might be different than the way it's taught in Germany (purely due to the funky carry handle/optic system that Germany uses on the G36) it's a whole other ball game here in the United States where almost every gun is issued an ACOG or a red dot where the Bindon Aiming Concept really shows its worth. There's no need to ever be looking above the sights.

Once again, the "magical" move to the center is something done because true emulation of weapons handling is impossible to implement with nothing other than a mouse and keyboard. When I go from shouldering a rifle to looking down the sights I will always move downward and to the right because that's just how it works, however in most games aiming dead zones allow for aiming far further to the left than you would be able to look in real life and as a result to get the weapon to point properly it might have to move upward and to the left. Granted the way that scope bounce and iron sight misalingment works in Red Orchestra is piss poor and I understand your description when it comes to that facet, I think to say that aiming dead zone is unrealistic is just outright wrong. Due to the wide field of view of the human eyeball when aiming a firearm the weapon feels like it's naturally gravitates toward the center of your field of vision even though it's very clearly on your right hand side, though it can stray from the center of your vision when you turn your head or when you point a weapon upward or downward without moving your head around but instead just moving your eyes a bit to follow the sights.

Once again, while aiming dead zone is not necessarily super realistic, it's a far more accurate way of depicting shouldering and aiming than the current method in game and I'd say a more common way to show movement while aiming than the way you talk about aiming, which is something I've never seen anyone do, including the many hundreds of ex-Mil people I've shot with all across the United States.

As for the second photo, I don't mean it in an offensive way but you need to learn how to shoot an AR. The stock should NEVER be in view and you should barely be able to see the charging handle at all. The way the US military teaches to shoot is called "nose to charging handle" or NTCH for short. Basically, you 'rest' your nose on the charging handle. This helps you get as close as possible to the rear iron and/or the optic. One of the reasons this is taught is because the US military issues the TA31 ACOG to a good majority of people, and the eye relief on the ACOG is somewhere between piss poor and non-existent. You absolutely have to get as close as humanely possible to make full use of the ACOG and, so, the military uses NTCH. NTCH is probably the most prevalent stance when it comes to shooting ARs and there's a good reason for it: it works the best. So no, you should NOT be able to see the charging handle when aiming down the sights nor should you be able to see the buffer tube/stock. Squad currently does a bad job in this field when it comes to both the AR and the AK as you can see the stock in both, which should not be happening. That being said, the devs have commented on this multiple times and have explained that it's not an easy fix because of the true first person view, but it seems they might be working on fixing it which is a good thing.

Here's a really shitty photo that I will retake tomorrow of how it SHOULD look when aiming down the sight of an AR:

 

GO5FNSC.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ComedyInK
i understand, though it's not about mimicing real life 100% accurately, it's about making current things better
and i see more potential in SQUAD, it can be done better, people just need to see what's actually not optimal atm
and work on it! :)

@VarenykySupreme
firs tof all, i am here for a discussion, not expecting agreement on everything, so absolutely no offense taken! :)

VR with free look inmplemented would be the next big step imho, but i don't think that we are there yet as there are
quite a few things that to not "fit" atm.

as i said i took the photos quickly, holding the rifle in one hand and my iphone in the other, finding a 100% accurate
position is quite impossible in this situation, it's more of a rough idea, which i did mention in the post above.
it's also fact that different cameras do not accurately represent what the eye is seeing, looking through the iron sights and taking a photo
from the same distance result in two quite different images due to the missing depth, peripheral vision effect etc. in the photo.

mentioning the low ready position is a good point, it's actually the next thing i was going to throw in here.
i agree that it is a game mechanic that would "complicate" and slow down the game even further, then again it would add realism
and maybe prevent people doing stupid stuff. having the low ready position implemented would also change the speed of the game.
right now we have, walk, run and sprint, where walking an running makes absolutely no difference to the appereance of the gun position
which seems quite wrong to me. you can also aim down sights and then walk which is good, but you can also run which results in
excessive weapon sway, which seems also absolutely wrong to me, nobody would do that. with the low ready position implemented you
would have the possibility of moving fast (run) and sprinting. when going into shouldering the weapon (point shooting) you should not be able to
run or sprint but walk. aiming down sights should slow down the movement evern further allowing very minimal and slow movement.
the movement speed should be determined by the weapon position and not the other way around. GROUND BRANCH does that quite nicely btw.

you have been mainlyy refering to optics but you clearly have to differentiate the handling of "iron sights" and "red dots/scoped weapons"
i was primarily talking about iron sights, that for i also remembered the nose to the charging handle concept, which
does actually show the charging handle in the peripheral vision, that's why said that my second
example was incorrect as it's way too close to the rear sight. a mix of the two images would be more accurate, but
definitively with a stronger relation to the second pic. man this sounds confusing i know...

you should not be able to see the stock/buffer tube at all that's correct but with NTCH the charging handle is
visible, blurry but visible, just as the rear sight as you would usually focus on the front post.

i honestly do not understand the dev's excuse about the true first person view, if it was really true then this problem would not
occur, so where is the mistake. i think that it might have something to do with the scaling of weapons, player models, environment etc.
most games can't get this right.

i have to admit, that the "weapon on right side" and "weapon centered" effect my be stronger on me as i am left handed,
however it still seems way to exaggerated in PFS games, it rather looks like the position of the players head changes drastically
and not the weapon itself.

in real life this effect is drastically weakened when using a red dot or scope as the position of the optic is much further away from the eye compared to
the rear sight, i guess that the main reason why we experience this so differently, however in SQUAD going from the basic stance (shouldered weapon)
to the optic looks absolutely ridiculous. it looks more like the soldier has the fifle resting on his hip in a typical western movie manner
and then the rifle is magically transitioned to the face, hope this makes any sense to you.

in general i think that things can be improved dev's just need to see where the flaws are, though right now i do not see
any step in the right direction but maybe i do not get the main goal and concept of the game. who knows, probably delivering
a game as close as possible to reality was never a goal for SQUAD, which at the end is OK for me.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be a little bit more like in Project Reality, where you can't be shooting a unbraced weapon like the SAW while walking and hit dead on targets as its possible right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forced free aim is a fantastic tool games devs could use alter the way players aim and behave.

 

Red orchestra and insurgency have both used it to great effect and it has lead to wonderful game experiences.

 

One thing is for sure, with forced free aim player accuracy in game is closer to that of real life as compared to your normal video game laser aim.

 

The only problem is that it must be forced for everyone no sliders or options to remove it.

For the sake of balance everyone gets it or nobody does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ComedyInK

i understand, though it's not about mimicing real life 100% accurately, it's about making current things better

and i see more potential in SQUAD, it can be done better, people just need to see what's actually not optimal atm

and work on it! :)

@VarenykySupreme

firs tof all, i am here for a discussion, not expecting agreement on everything, so absolutely no offense taken! :)

VR with free look inmplemented would be the next big step imho, but i don't think that we are there yet as there are

quite a few things that to not "fit" atm.

as i said i took the photos quickly, holding the rifle in one hand and my iphone in the other, finding a 100% accurate

position is quite impossible in this situation, it's more of a rough idea, which i did mention in the post above.

it's also fact that different cameras do not accurately represent what the eye is seeing, looking through the iron sights and taking a photo

from the same distance result in two quite different images due to the missing depth, peripheral vision effect etc. in the photo.

mentioning the low ready position is a good point, it's actually the next thing i was going to throw in here.

i agree that it is a game mechanic that would "complicate" and slow down the game even further, then again it would add realism

and maybe prevent people doing stupid stuff. having the low ready position implemented would also change the speed of the game.

right now we have, walk, run and sprint, where walking an running makes absolutely no difference to the appereance of the gun position

which seems quite wrong to me. you can also aim down sights and then walk which is good, but you can also run which results in

excessive weapon sway, which seems also absolutely wrong to me, nobody would do that. with the low ready position implemented you

would have the possibility of moving fast (run) and sprinting. when going into shouldering the weapon (point shooting) you should not be able to

run or sprint but walk. aiming down sights should slow down the movement evern further allowing very minimal and slow movement.

the movement speed should be determined by the weapon position and not the other way around. GROUND BRANCH does that quite nicely btw.

you have been mainlyy refering to optics but you clearly have to differentiate the handling of "iron sights" and "red dots/scoped weapons"

i was primarily talking about iron sights, that for i also remembered the nose to the charging handle concept, which

does actually show the charging handle in the peripheral vision, that's why said that my second

example was incorrect as it's way too close to the rear sight. a mix of the two images would be more accurate, but

definitively with a stronger relation to the second pic. man this sounds confusing i know...

you should not be able to see the stock/buffer tube at all that's correct but with NTCH the charging handle is

visible, blurry but visible, just as the rear sight as you would usually focus on the front post.

i honestly do not understand the dev's excuse about the true first person view, if it was really true then this problem would not

occur, so where is the mistake. i think that it might have something to do with the scaling of weapons, player models, environment etc.

most games can't get this right.

i have to admit, that the "weapon on right side" and "weapon centered" effect my be stronger on me as i am left handed,

however it still seems way to exaggerated in PFS games, it rather looks like the position of the players head changes drastically

and not the weapon itself.

in real life this effect is drastically weakened when using a red dot or scope as the position of the optic is much further away from the eye compared to

the rear sight, i guess that the main reason why we experience this so differently, however in SQUAD going from the basic stance (shouldered weapon)

to the optic looks absolutely ridiculous. it looks more like the soldier has the fifle resting on his hip in a typical western movie manner

and then the rifle is magically transitioned to the face, hope this makes any sense to you.

in general i think that things can be improved dev's just need to see where the flaws are, though right now i do not see

any step in the right direction but maybe i do not get the main goal and concept of the game. who knows, probably delivering

a game as close as possible to reality was never a goal for SQUAD, which at the end is OK for me.

 

 

I'm here for discussion as well, though sorry if at any point in my post I got irate or out of line, I was extremely tired when I wrote it and it wouldn't surprise me if I got angry during the course of writing it.

 

I agree that free look VR would be awesome, but I don't think it's necessarily something the devs should be focusing hard on right now. It would be cool to see them lay down the framework for it right now though so that it could be accomplished in the future, which they already have as the game is a true first person system. 

 

I also understand that the photos aren't 100% accurate, it's part of the reason I've got no good photos focused down my scope and, even if you take time to try and set up a picture properly, it's just really hard to do because it's not super easy aiming sights with one hand, even if you've got something to pivot the rifle on. I also understand that cameras cannot properly replicate the eye, but tomorrow I will try and attempt to take a photo, I just wasn't able to over the last few days as I've been swamped with shit, so that's my bad about making the promise to do so in my first post. 

 

I think the problem is that you're expecting a level of realism in this game that I personally don't think should be exhibited. I don't want this game to turn into ArmA or anything like it because, well, that game is a completely different style from Squad. I think that keeping some of the more arcade-y elements is a good thing that keeps the game in a genre all its own rather than turning it into a half-in-the-bag simulator. I understand where you're coming from, but in a game that's not trying to be a simulator I honestly feel that the best option on the table is a point-shooting stance at all times rather than a low-ready stance which dictates that you're either always on the move or always ready to shoot.

 

With iron sights you're also supposed to do a NTCH stance as it helps you get closer to the rear iron. Though there is a differentiation to a small degree, with an AR you're always supposed to shoot with your nose to the charging handle and with both eyes open for the best possible situational awareness. The AR's iron sights are designed this way and there's no way around that. When you have your nose to the charging handle you should BARELY be able to see the very tip of the right side of the charging handle with your right eye, but with NTCH you should never see anything about the left side of the charging handle because that's literally below your nose and your eye just cannot see it. It's very confusing and hard to comprehend, but I agree that your second photo is too close. That being said, being able to see the more than a small amount of the charging handle is too far back, and if you can see the buffer tube at all you're doing it wrong.

 

The problem is that they have to adjust the model of the player to change the iron sights which is a lot of work considering how many animations they'd have to change alongside it. It's not something that's quick and easy and while other things you've mentioned are probably problems as well, the largest problem is most definitely the fact that the entire head has to be moved.

 

The weapon in Squad looks like a point shooting stance, which isn't a major problem because from what I understand most soldiers are taught to be able to point shoot out to about 25m, so it's not super unrealistic to see it as a stance in game. That being said, I do agree that the red dots in game are a bit ridiculous and, while you might not have necessarily meant it this way, I believe that the red dot just bounces way too much when moving. It's not a realistic portrayal of weapons handling, and I can understand hamming it up a bit, but it's just way out of whack currently. That being said, the transition to the face is a bit weird, but remember it's also damn near impossible to truly get such effects reflected properly in a video game.

 

I do agree that when the devs start noticing and listening to where the flaws are they'll be able to improve them, and I'm sure they've started looking for and improving things, but it takes time and we in the community need to understand that. We're also here to point out such things and post them so the devs know what's wrong with the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or you know.. have it optional?

 

An optional aiming mechanic is a terrible approach, in my view. 

 

That would be like having the option to alter muzzle sway when aiming.  Now, it doesn't make any sense to just say "Eh, I want to have more controllable aiming than anyone else." and allow someone to crank the aim sway all the way down.  Similarly, everyone should have to work with the same uncertainty with the free aim deadzone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

but low ready doesn't make sense because it adds another layer of response time on top of the player's response time that takes away some of the skill involved in the game and adds an unnecessary barrier to gameplay

nope ...  the enemy player has the same system ;) this forgott all ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×