Guy above me is the troll or just too caught up in the 'go back to COD' thing.
I too would love to see the X/Y acceleration difference gone.
Guy above me is the troll or just too caught up in the 'go back to COD' thing.
I too would love to see the X/Y acceleration difference gone.
As far as the acceleration differential, that's fine.
However being able to edit acceleration values, I fundamentally believe that the ARMA series should always take into consideration actual human constraints, as they already do.
So long as acceleration values apply solely to the mouse moving the perspective, and are capped off in a way that doesn't facilitate somebody snapping their neck at mach 3, or worse yet, implying that the inertia that some guns are constrained by should be removed.
No. Nooooo.
The cons outweigh the benefits of keeping negative acceleration. I'd sacrifice a bit of "realism" for a lot more smoother controls. Keeping negative acceleration on makes a very little impact in normal Arma engagement distances other else than adding in a lot of clumsiness. High mouse sensitivity will mess up a player in Arma. People turning up mouse sensitivity will actually impair themselves in a normal Arma firefight due to the long engagement distances, which require low sensitivity and pixel precision aiming. Even professional Counter-Strike players keep mouse sensitivity very low in order to be more accurate.
Disabling mouse deacceleration and turning rate cap = win-win situation
Last edited by Cookieeater; Jul 22 2012 at 07:02.
Define "smooth"?
Having mechanically accurate dexterity when trying to simulate soldiers holding weapons isn't sacrificing a little bit of realism. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater in that respect.
---------- Post added at 07:07 ---------- Previous post was at 06:58 ----------
Good god, the last thing this game needs to play like a Quake engine mod.
I would argue in favor of removing ways that make aiming cumbersome in ways that aren't natural, although I would advocate simulating human error via attaching tensor, flexor and weight values to firearms, and actual "arms" respectively.
People who want to play as if weapons weigh nothing and have no physical constraints to speak of have plenty of other games to enjoy than ARMA.
Honestly the mouse controls in Arma 2 for me, are fine. I use a Razer Naga and just customize my settings out of the game with my mouse program features to get the exact values of precision and sensitivity that I want.
Not sure if this is needed.
¤ৡ-ÅrchÃñgέlÁlíi€ñ-ৡ¤
Lol all fine and dandy for you but what about the casual arma gamer who doesn't own such fancy equipment?
The system requirements don't say:
Minimum:
OS: Windows Vista SP2, Windows 7 SP1
CPU: Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz or AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT or ATI Radeon HD 3830 or Intel HD Graphics 3000 with Shader Model 4 and 512 MB VRAM
RAM: 2 GB
HDD: 15 GB free space
DirectX®:10
Mouse: Razer NagaThey clearly aren't fine if you had to use external software to fix it.
CPU: i5 2500k @ stock speed + Antec Kuhler H2O 620
GPU: ATI Radeon 5870x2 Crossfire 1GB VRAM
RAM: 16GB Patriot Gamer Series 1600mhz DDR3 RAM
Motherboard: Biostar TZ77XE3
Hard Drive: 160GB Samsung x2 + 250GB Hitachi 7200RPM + 80GB Wester Digital 7200RPM
PSU: 1050W OEM HP XW9400 Workstation
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit
Case: HP XW9300 Workstation
Settings for ArmA 2:
Everything at very high, HDR effects at normal, Post Processing at low, default (1600) view distance; 60+ fps
Settings for ArmA 3:
Everything maxed, view distance = 1500, object distance 1200, AA = 2x, Post Processing = Low, PIP = Normal; 25-45 FPS
The way ArmA 2 feels isn't right, it's easier to aim a real firearm in real life.
In E3 videos where they shoot pop-up targets aiming seems very tight. Of course I havent tried it my self but judging from videos it looks much better.