Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 59

Thread: physics based aiming system | Forums

  1. #1
    One thing I loved about RSE games such as R6 and GR is that they pioneered the redicle system. It was a very good abstract representation of weapons handling as a whole. It meant that the skill of weapons handling was passed along to the player. You could move faster and jerk your weapon around to create an unstable weapon platform. To me it represented everything from body position and balance, etc that goes into weapons handling.

    But much like early flight Sim flight models it is very abstract and table based. Numbers are used to represent different charactoristics of a weapon.

    What I would love to see is an actual physics based weapon handling model. Much like there is momentum in moving yourself within a game, you have mass and you can't change direction on a dime, imagine the individual weapons being modelled with mass and a center of gravity. Jerk them around on the screen and their movement will have momentum and would break a stable weapon platform. Also a heavier weapon would need more mouse 'push' to start it to move and then to change direction, creating a lag for movment.

    A system like this would reward SMGs and carbines in CQB as they have less mass and bulk, so moving them quickly and changing direction would be easier. Heavier weapons would recoil less as their mass would abosrb the energy, etc.

    An iron sight system would be needed for this to work porperly, and then front and back sight alignment would become an issue. Moving your weapon around quickly and changing direction would cause the front and back sights to come out of alignment. This way an instinctive shot in CQB would be possible, but a momentary pause would be needed to let the sights to realign for longer, aimed shots.

    I doubt that something like this would ever been in GR3, but I can dream.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  2. #2
    Hi Dayglow, it's good to hear from you after a long time. I agree with your suggestion. Also, if an optical sight is used then the advantage that is got because the front and back sights do not have to be aligned, must also be reflected in the shooting mechanism. In fact there are so many things that can be included in the shooting mechanism of a gun to make it realistic and fun. I hope the GR series does it.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  3. #3
    To correctly implement weapon physics, it is important to model FPW. Whether the player sees it all the time or not is a different discussion but they must be modelled to get the mechanism right.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  4. #4
    agreed. The weapon model is needed as it's actually a physical object in the game universe with it's own properties. I don't care about position on the screen for astheitic reasons. I know in OFP I often have iron sights on, but angle my view downwards so I'm looking over the sights for a target, then snap up onto it.

    What would be perfect, but not possible on a PC is an analog sensor on the mouse. Slight pressure on the mouse button would move the weapon from low ready to sighted mode. Gamepads have analog buttons, but I detest the course control they give you in a FPS.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  5. #5
    Originally posted by DayGlow:
    An iron sight system would be needed for this to work porperly, and then front and back sight alignment would become an issue.
    This would quickly turn people off. Yes, that is exactly how I aim with a real weapon, but in a game where AI is your enemy and are just as good a shot as you or better, by the time you get a proper sight picture on said enemy, you are gonna be dead. This is one of those gameplay issues I alluded to previouisly buddhiraja and why RSE went with the reticle system as DayGlo stated was done so well in representing how weapons were fired (and yes, I have fired a few in my life including M16s).

    To make a game totally realistic with how you aim and fire, along with how an SF team actually is used (though they are becoming more involved with DA), is used for winning the minds of the local people and building and training of the indeginous peoples how to fight would make for a boring game. Would you buy it if all you did was teach someone how to fight or grow corn? There are going to be unrealistic aspects to a game no matter how we look at it.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  6. #6
    If we have reflex sights for both eyes open aiming then there should not be any gameplay problem. Also , having enemies who are not accurate unless they aim, can be an easy solution to this issue.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  7. #7
    Who says the AI has to be laser accurate? That's one thing GR1 was really lacking, and most Tatical Shooters of the day, is a 'fear for life' in the AI. Really, the AI should have to take time to get a aimed shot off as well and if rounds and suppressing fire is landing around them, then it should disrupt their aim.

    That's the one thing BIA got right. I could come out from cover and snap a few quick shots off in the direction of the enemy and it would effect them, giving me a chance to move, or to cover teammates moving.

    Part of being an elite soldier like you are playing in GR is fire disapline and aimed shots. We do it know when we wait a moment for the redicle to close, and with a iron sight system, for the sights to allign.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  8. #8
    just drop this nonsense... comparing everything to how it is in real life. if you start considering all those factors, why leave out the human characterirstics then? everything from breathing and blinking to shooting accurately from the hip... or is that too real for you? well, where do you draw the line then? what about a 200 lb dude who handles an M60 quicker than your aiming with an M4? or if you're constantly shooting on the run, the recoil would slow you down... heck, what about when your teammate's weapon's hot shells fly into your face? should that leave a burn mark on the screen?

    i'm not saying games shouldn't strive for realistic results in simulating battles, but at the moment these physics properties of yours can only be roughly simulated, if you want to keep somewhat acceptable performance in a multiplayer game. that brings us back to the "abstract and table based". have you noticed that only a few shooters out there developed actual bullet drop effect to date? judging from one example, i wouldn't say the results were impressive. my guess is it'll be a while untill those PPU cards are widespread and game designers start concentrating on physics so much. i'm sure in the near future, your ideas could work great if done right, except the mouse lag thing... i just don't think any of them are gonna make it into GR3.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  9. #9
    @th33f

    If you were a developer, with your ambitious and progressive mentality as shown by your last post, modern FPS would have the gameplay of original Doom and the graphics of Wolfenstein, because according to you, you are making a GAME.

    Games have made tremendous progress, my friend, and in a couple of years you will see all the features you are ridiculing. All this improvement, which was difficult to imagine in the late 90s, has happened because there are demanding customers like Dayglow, Whiteknight and myself.

    If you had read the forums a few years back, some people were ridiculing the features that we are seeing today.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  10. #10
    The Firehouse's Finest
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,831
    I dont know how you got that at all.

    What I got was at some point, you have to understand that it IS a game, and you have to make some allowances for that.

    There is a fine line between realism and good gameplay. To me RSE has always walked right down that line.
    Dago
    Weapons, Tactics, and Firepower
    TEAM WTF a new clan with some old faces
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •