Jump to content
Nightingale

First Person Weapon Collision

Recommended Posts

In my opinion, weapon collision is best implemented when it focuses on when the player is allowed to fire rather than when the player is allowed to move.  

 

Some examples:

1) Navigating a tight hallway with a long rifle may pose certain restrictions as to when the weapon can be raised and fired, but not directly impede the movement of the player.  The player can turn, walk in all directions, etc solely based on the parameters established for character movement. The raising a lowering of the firearm, then, is incidental/secondary to the movement and merely functions as a visual cue of the player's ability to fire.

2) In the instance where the player's barrel or arms are extended into a doorway or window, movement should not be restricted if the character decides to "turn into" the obstruction.  Rather, the character should be allowed to move freely, but the weapon's position may be adjusted or lowered to account for the close barrier.

***This third point may be more controversial and is not required for the first two points***

3) To mimic natural behaviors in real life, it may be worth experimenting with a movement system that provides a certain "buffer" range for the character's front-facing distance to barriers. This is to prevent the all too common occurrence in FPS games where the player steps so close to a wall that he's mashing his nose against the bricks.  Realistic?  Sure, in real life people **CAN** get that close to an object, but they rarely (read: never) do in real life, much less in a hostile situation. To represent this natural sense of spatial awareness, the player's positioning may be slightly modified when directly facing a surface. When combined with raising/lowering of weapons, this may provide for a very natural and fluid sensation of seamlessly maneuvering a rifle when near a wall, etc.  Rather than "blocking" a player's movement (ala Arma 2), the movement is allowed though may be slightly modified in certain conditions.  In this way, the game "knows" what the player is intending to do and allows it, rather than interfering with the player's intent and breaking the immersion through a hard-stop.

 

Here's a shittypaintdrawing to summarize:

ZWMbys2.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I respond to your post Spectator6, I just want to say that I enjoyed reading your post and I like having these kinds of in-depth nitpicky discussions with other forum members here. :) I disagree with some of the stuff you say, but you presented it well and I liked that you even included a diagram. I look forward to reading more of your posts in the future.
 

Navigating a tight hallway with a long rifle may pose certain restrictions as to when the weapon can be raised and fired, but not directly impede the movement of the player.

The thing is, I don't see how you can have one without having the other. Unlike RO2 or PR, SQUAD has a true first person system. So if the devs implemented a collision system to prevent players from aiming their weapon through a wall (clipping), then by definition, it will also be impossible for a player to walk in such a way that would cause the weapon to clip through a wall. I don't think you can separate aiming from moving. It seems to be a peculiarity of games that use a true first person system.
 

In the instance where the player's barrel or arms are extended into a doorway or window, movement should not be restricted if the character decides to "turn into" the obstruction. Rather, the character should be allowed to move freely, but the weapon's position may be adjusted or lowered to account for the close barrier.

aQKSkX9.png
Personally, if I was aiming a rifle out a window with the weapon literally sticking out the window, and I was trying to aim further left than the windowframe can physically allow, I would not want the game to automatically lower my weapon for me to prevent a collision. Instead, I would prefer to be simply blocked by the window frame (unable to aim the rifle more left, or move my body more left). I want to have to manually step backwards or aim rightwards to deal with the windowframe collision.

 

I'm probably in the minority for preferring it this way, but I think I have a good reason for having this preference: The reason is that if I am aiming my rifle out a window and rotating my weapon to the left, then I am most likely try to aim as far left as I possible, while trying to expose as little of my body as possible. So I am making these tiny little adjustments to where my body is while I am adjusting how far left I am aiming. But if I accidentally aim 1mm too far to the left, the game will automatically lower my weapon for me, and then I have to do something (either move or aim to the right) to get my rifle back up and in ADS again. Now, what if an enemy were to enter my view during this brief moment where I was trying to get my rifle back up and shouldered? I'd probably not have enough time to reacquire the target and shoot him. I'd feel like the game, although it was trying to be helpful, it actually forced me to make a mistake that I wouldn't otherwise have done. So I would prefer to just manually control where my weapon is pointing myself, and just be personally responsibly for not trying to point my weapon where can't physically go. And I understand that not a lot of players want to do this kind of micromanaging of their weapon, so I think it should be a game option to decide where or not you want the game to automatically lower the weapon for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I respond to your post Spectator6, I just want to say that I enjoyed reading your post and I like having these kinds of in-depth nitpicky discussions with other forum members here. :) I disagree with some of the stuff you say, but you presented it well and I liked that you even included a diagram. I look forward to reading more of your posts in the future.

 

The thing is, I don't see how you can have one without having the other. Unlike RO2 or PR, SQUAD has a true first person system. So if the devs implemented a collision system to prevent players from aiming their weapon through a wall (clipping), then by definition, it will also be impossible for a player to walk in such a way that would cause the weapon to clip through a wall. I don't think you can separate aiming from moving. It seems to be a peculiarity of games that use a true first person system.

 

aQKSkX9.png

Personally, if I was aiming a rifle out a window with the weapon literally sticking out the window, and I was trying to aim further left than the windowframe can physically allow, I would not want the game to automatically lower my weapon for me to prevent a collision. Instead, I would prefer to be simply blocked by the window frame (unable to aim the rifle more left, or move my body more left). I want to have to manually step backwards or aim rightwards to deal with the windowframe collision.

 

I'm probably in the minority for preferring it this way, but I think I have a good reason for having this preference: The reason is that if I am aiming my rifle out a window and rotating my weapon to the left, then I am most likely try to aim as far left as I possible, while trying to expose as little of my body as possible. So I am making these tiny little adjustments to where my body is while I am adjusting how far left I am aiming. But if I accidentally aim 1mm too far to the left, the game will automatically lower my weapon for me, and then I have to do something (either move or aim to the right) to get my rifle back up and in ADS again. Now, what if an enemy were to enter my view during this brief moment where I was trying to get my rifle back up and shouldered? I'd probably not have enough time to reacquire the target and shoot him. I'd feel like the game, although it was trying to be helpful, it actually forced me to make a mistake that I wouldn't otherwise have done. So I would prefer to just manually control where my weapon is pointing myself, and just be personally responsibly for not trying to point my weapon where can't physically go. And I understand that not a lot of players want to do this kind of micromanaging of their weapon, so I think it should be a game option to decide where or not you want the game to automatically lower the weapon for you.

 

Let me make sure I get where you're coming from first before I clarify myself further...

 

Your mains points are:

 

1) Movement of the player character and aiming are directly tied together since Squad doesn't separate the two perspectives, so you see weapon collision and movement as going hand-in-hand

2) You don't like the idea of the "game" taking over your weapon placement when perched in a window just because you happen to look a tad too far to the side.  You'd rather have direct control over this.

 

(Do I have those right?)

 

And to both of those I agree 100%!  Let me add some more flavor to my post, maybe that will help flesh out the discussion...

 

When I talk about movement I'm more talking about footwork (ie WASD), not so much mouse movements.  Let me reference two examples and then I'll expound: 

 

1) In Arma 2, if the player was not properly aligned so his model passed through a door, his character would be stopped, and the player would have to fiddle with the controls to get things back in order, which totally broke the immersion and made the player feel like he was wrestling with finicky game rules.  Obviously, in real life, if I want to move through a door, I will move through a door without much thought at all.  I just **BOOM** move through the door and go about my work. 

 

2) In Infiltration, which has some really solid mechanics, if the player has his weapon raised and turns sharply into a doorway, etc. the barrel contacts the sidewall and the player is NOT allowed to turn until the player either steps back a bit or quits aiming down the sights.  As a technical feature, this is pretty neat, but for gameplay I find it unnecessary.  In real life, if I have my weapon rested in a window and suddenly want/need to dash to the side to get behind solid cover, I'm not dumb enough (at least I hope I'm not haha) to smack the rifle against the wall and then stop in a moment's confusion wondering why the heck I wasn't allowed to step to the side. No, I'd instinctively pull the rifle in and get the heck outta dodge without a moment's thought.  Same for a narrow hallway.  The player shouldn't be forced to solve an Austin Power's moment to accommodate his rifle (http://wwwcache.wralsportsfan.com/asset/voices/2014/08/29/13936685/Austin_Powers_stuck-360x173.gif). The same can be said for your example too in regard to pivoting/pointing the rifle.  I agree the character should **DEFINITELY** be free to move about the boundaries of the window/etc without the game taking over anything in regard to mouse movements and if the player is perched in an opening, it's better for the rifle hit the wall than suddenly move to a lowered state.  As you said, once the player has that proper feedback, he can then decide whether he wants to adjust his position and/or quit aiming down sights :)

 

For these reasons, I feel that movement should be kept as seamless and intuitive as possible.  If the player wants to step into a narrow hallway, either the character can fit or he can't.  In my limited opinion, It shouldn't require further thought or input by the player to "line things up" appropriately.  If he fits, the player should be allowed to enter and the "game" should then make any small (?) necessary adjustments to make that course of action possible.  Obviously, if it's too cramped, the rifle may be brought up to high/low ready, but again, that's more to do with the ability to fire than the player's ability to move his feet.  The main idea is that it may be best for footwork to be "auto correcting" if that makes any sense.

 

Anything we're possibly overlooking?  How could it be improved further?

 

EDIT: Here's an idea on cornering a barrier

RQzuRyM.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what an idea!!!!  this would be amazing! would definitely shave some cheesiness factor off. 

 

Easy to differentiate when weapon collision would/ or wouldn't have affect on your soldier:  have a hotkey/toggle(a wpn collision "safety" so to speak, so your Heavy caliber MGs aren't hitting the walls ;) ) set up for the weapon being at the low ready(able to ADS) and slung/carried for maneuvers/movements.  But before you say that wont work, because how can you fire when not on "low ready"?...thats just it, you would be firing from the hip(MAJOR ACCURACY PENALTIES), and depending on type of weapon system, would determine if you have any chance of hitting or just "sprayin and prayin" (IE, shooting from hip with a shotty vs a rifle).

 

Not sure if an adaptive "lowready" toggle could be coded, like if you are ADS and wpn collision happens(lets say a doorway/window/wall etc..), you drop to low ready or aim high when crouched behind cover. to avoid collision...Unless you were proper distance from obstacle.....sorta like "cutting the pie" for you military guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**caveat** to the carbine/smg class weapons, obviously these weapons should give incentives to utilize, such as quicker "draw" times, less chance of collision, or ACC bonuses while shooting from hip etc..etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some really good ideas in this thread.

 

I agree with Nightingale about the preference that movement would be restricted rather than the weapon raised in the event of a collision.

 

I like that Sub Rosa video, and I think that mechanic would work well in conjuction with an Insurgency-esque "Aiming deadspace" where the object would force the weapon out of center at an increasing resistance to motion, much like a spring force-feedback system. It would smoothen the interaction.

I have no idea how one would program that. But I like the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ No doubt a combination of INS free aim and an effect similar to Sub Rosa would be very neat! I would love to see this, and I imagine it could be dialed in to feel natural without needing to develop some insane amount of skill to utilize these mechanics.

 

***I hope the coding for that isn't too ridiculous to be worth the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the Sub Rosa weapon to act wierd, the way a player seems to get tangled on a pillar is very unrealistic. I haven't trained in MOUT but I am fairly certain a soldier rarely, if ever, gets his gun caught in a window/door frame. A shooter will naturally drop and raise his weapon depending on the situation, it looks really clunky and unnatural to lose a tussle for your barrel with a wall/support beam. The concept is very neat but I feel Sub Rosa went in a little too far, RO2 with a bit of "sticky collision" would be a nice middle ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the Sub Rosa weapon to act wierd, the way a player seems to get tangled on a pillar is very unrealistic. I haven't trained in MOUT but I am fairly certain a soldier rarely, if ever, gets his gun caught in a window/door frame. A shooter will naturally drop and raise his weapon depending on the situation, it looks really clunky and unnatural to lose a tussle for your barrel with a wall/support beam. The concept is very neat but I feel Sub Rosa went in a little too far, RO2 with a bit of "sticky collision" would be a nice middle ground.

 

I have played airsoft at MOUTs and places like steal plants that have narrow corridors and lots of windows/chest high walls. I did tend to bop my gun a few times and when I carried an M240 it would get snagged on all sorts of shit. However, at no time did I have sub rosa noodle arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noodle arms are just a work around. It limits free movement anywhere against any obstruction without requiring burdensome key binding to achieve a similar effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Would you developers be so kind to weigh in on this awesome video?

 

I don't want to get to personal, but how come tooner isn't working for you guys?

 

Those physics alone should grant him the highest security clearance level.

 

Are you able to talk about this in the current state of development?

 

Do you intend on implementing such a system later down the road in time for launch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Would you developers be so kind to weigh in on this awesome video?

 

I don't want to get to personal, but how come tooner isn't working for you guys?

 

Those physics alone should grant him the highest security clearance level.

 

Are you able to talk about this in the current state of development?

 

Do you intend on implementing such a system later down the road in time for launch?

Before you jump to conclusions buddy, search "Tooner..." in the search bar. He has a lot of great concepts, and his videos are posted there. The reasons for him leaving is also suggested there, and IronTaxi mentioned just cos they were tested there doesn't mean they can all be implemented.

 

Anyway, weapon collision will be a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you jump to conclusions buddy, search "Tooner..." in the search bar. He has a lot of great concepts, and his videos are posted there. The reasons for him leaving is also suggested there, and IronTaxi mentioned just cos they were tested there doesn't mean they can all be implemented.

 

Anyway, weapon collision will be a thing.

 

Now that's what i like to hear!

 

All hail the developers!

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

×