Feedback - Infantry Aim Pop Up and Combat Stance

[romzburg]

For the next release I've changed the prone heights to all be the same and the standing heights too. I might out a little variation in them for moving but still experimenting.

Crouch?

I crouch in bushes all the time. Better concealment. Same fix needs to be done for crouch.

Also, currently, crouch then move while crouched changes eye height and you can't see how you are adjusting, because once you stop moving your eye height changes again. Its as bad as the aim-blockage thing.

Thanks.

_________________

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

[GOPHUR]

Robots on rails isn't the best metaphor IMHO.

[GOPHUR]

problem is then there's issues with the 'combat stance' as it pops down it gives the player in the combat stance an advantage because he can no longer be seen if he's view point is still at the 'aimed' perspective but his head is not over the wall and cannot be shot but he can see and shoot. So' date=' this is the dilemma, which will go back and forth a little more just wanted to make sure folks know the drawbacks for both.[/quote']

But his head is over the wall in combat stance.

[GOPHUR]

We'll figure out how to deal with it, so long as our view isn't changing.

That's the biggest and worst issue, you try to aim and your eyes change.

So if it stays low, or stays high, we'll be ok since we can shoot what we can see.

If a guy can see over a wall but he isn't showing enough for me to shoot him, that's also ok, so long as he can't shoot at that height. But when he goes to aim, his avatar will pop-up a bit and now I can see him enough to shoot him.

That actually sounds like a good thing to me, makes it easier to peek over stuff, since now infantry don't blend with the environment like in real life, and so we kind of stick out like sore thumbs too much.

So keep the viewpoint in the high position even when the avatar isn't, and when aiming, bring the avatar height up to match.

That's pretty much where were going now. I'll look at crouch if I get time and someone posts in here to remind me =]

I do still want some head movements but i put it on walk and it seems pretty jerky. Not sure where else I can use it that won't screw with aiming. Wish I could have some head bob when sprinting...

[romzburg]

That's pretty much where were going now. I'll look at crouch if I get time and someone posts in here to remind me =]

I do still want some head movements but i put it on walk and it seems pretty jerky. Not sure where else I can use it that won't screw with aiming. Wish I could have some head bob when sprinting...

The problem is that our eyes compensate for head-bob in real life, so if you do ANYTHING to screw with eye height or make a head bob, it is not good.

Not good for realism's sake, and not good for the game.

Strap a camera to your head and walk down the hall. Concentrate on what you see with your eyes.

Then take the footage you shot, and look at it on a monitor. It will be bouncing all over the place, because your head moves when you walk.

But do you remember having that experience with just your eyes?

Did the hallway bounce all over?

No.

Our eyes compensate for the movement of our heads.

There should NEVER be any head bob stuff in the game when walking/jogging/sprinting.

Also, don't forget to make the crouch eye-height the same when crouched, when moving while crouched, and when aimed while crouched.

____________________

motormouth:

Much as Romzy's posting style can give me headaches (and the fact that he's "NEVAR WRONG!!"), that post pretty much nails it on the head.

sgtchief:

romz you['re] my damn hero

sydney:

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

irelandeb:

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

pete, linc & julie:

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

owilde:

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

Edited May 6, 2010 by romzburg

[romzburg]

Crouch reminder.

____________________

motormouth:

Much as Romzy's posting style can give me headaches (and the fact that he's "NEVAR WRONG!!"), that post pretty much nails it on the head.

sgtchief:

romz you['re] my damn hero

sydney:

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

irelandeb:

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

pete, linc & julie:

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

owilde:

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

[GOPHUR]

Romz I'll give you the crouch, today, for now, but not why you think because you are quite wrong in your assumptions.

1) Our eyes do not compensate for head bob. Our view frustum changes as we walk or as we go tip toeing. Our eyes do remain focused on the same thing giving this illusion you allude to. A monitor cannot do this as you mostly point our with the camera.

2) A monitor, like a movie screen cannot effectively transfer immersion while trying to duplicate reality. Hollywood in fact has to happen to make the simulation believable. Head bob can do that and many games and the blair witch project use it to great effect. Just doesn't work in our game with bushes and iron sights.

Edited May 12, 2010 by GOPHUR

[romzburg]

Well, if our eyes stay pointing at the thing we are looking at while we walk and our head bobs, I'd call that compensating.

My head height changes, but the thing I am looking at stays in the exact center of my view because the muscles of my eyes slightly adjust them as needed to keep the focal axis culminating on the subject.

Not sure what you think I was saying, or if maybe you have different definition for "compensating".

Bobbing a picture like crazy doesn't give "immersion". Tons of people got motion sickness from Blair Witch because that camera bouncing was NOTHING like reality. People don't get motion sickness when they run through the woods at night.

The Hollywood-walking-camera simply communicates to the audience "This is the POV of the character. Now you see what he sees, and ONLY what he sees". It is an effect that works on psychology when attempting to manipulate the audience by REMOVING the omniscience and external observer attitude that is the norm. The POV shot is intended to introduce uncertainty and discomfort by taking the movie viewer OUT of his comfort zone, and taking away his all-knowing and/or simple observer status.

This is not to be confused with immersive reality.

Immersion comes from the simulation NOT calling attention to itself.

Anyway, thanks for making the view be consistent so I don't aim my rifle and see leaves instead of my target, and then sit there like a retard who can't figure out where the bad guy went.

____________________

motormouth:

Much as Romzy's posting style can give me headaches (and the fact that he's "NEVAR WRONG!!"), that post pretty much nails it on the head.

sgtchief:

romz you['re] my damn hero

sydney:

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

irelandeb:

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

pete, linc & julie:

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

owilde:

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

[GOPHUR]

Anyway' date=' thanks for making the view be consistent so I don't aim my rifle and see leaves instead of my target, and then sit there like a retard who can't figure out where the bad guy went.[/quote']

Damn you Romz! If you'd have only worded that slightly differently I'd have a new sig.

Point taken and well said. I'll not debate the finer points because basically we are both right and we're not sitting down having a beer.

As this no longer has any merit I'll close this thread.