Clipping issues

[GShock 10]

While a firing obstruction could be better aided with visual cues (since we haven't got a clear 3d view of the objects around us), I think the clipping problem is connected to another MAJOR issue this engine has which is somehow also depicted in my video.

When there is an unobstructed line of sight between 2 objects it means there's also an unobstructed line of fire.

Saying this is not true would mean you can shoot at something you can't see (bullets that turn round the corners? Bullets boucing off a wall and hitting a target you can't see?).

We must never forget that when you bring the sights up to your eyes, the line of sight coincides with the line of fire so, if you have an unobstructed LOS you also have an unobstructed LOF. The possibility of there being a LOS but not a LOF applies only when your rifle is at the hip. <-- Angle shift: Hip height is LOWER than eye height so eye sees different from hip.

The angle shift does not apply to my video because i am prone so there can't be a difference in height.

When you look carefully at the video, you'll see that the AI below can shoot at me long before I can see it. So it can see me but I can't see it. This is a clear indicator something is wrong.

As I move forward I am still exposed (and under fire) and suddenly, the target also appears in my sight.

You would assume at this point that, having a clear line of sight, by having the eye in the sight, I would also have a clear line of fire but that doesn't happen. My bullets hit the ground just ahead of me.

Here's the problem, it's not just a matter of clipping.

If that obstacle is not in my LOS when I have the sights up (I am prone, there's no angle shift between eyesight and hip shooting). How comes I hit that instead of hitting the target which is in my sight?

You will say: the scope is 5 cm above the muzzle so it sees over the obstruction so I will tell you: is the AI below shooting at my scope then? Is my scope the only thing it sees of me? I don't think so. :)

Why does that target have a LOS=LOF when I have no LOS=LOF with sights up and prone position? <-- No angle shift: LOS = LOF

This is a lot more than just clipping.

[andersson 285]

Just look at the earlier 101 geometry pictures provided by other members and give it some serious thought.

When there is an unobstructed line of sight between 2 objects it means there's also an unobstructed line of fire.

Wrong. The barrel is not on the same line as your eyes/sight. The barrel is lower down and can be obstructed while you have a clear LOS.

You will say: the scope is 5 cm above the muzzle so it sees over the obstruction so I will tell you: is the AI below shooting at my scope then? Is my scope the only thing it sees of me?

The AI is shooting at your head that is behind your sight. Your head is bigger that your sight and can easily be shot. In addition if you are laying down prone on relatively flat ground so there's also a big chance of the top part of the shoulders to be exposed.

As this has been explained before, even on the level of crayon/paint-level, I have a feeling I'm feeding a troll...

[Sniperwolf572 758]

While a firing obstruction could be better aided with visual cues (since we haven't got a clear 3d view of the objects around us), I think the clipping problem is connected to another MAJOR issue this engine has which is somehow also depicted in my video.

When there is an unobstructed line of sight between 2 objects it means there's also an unobstructed line of fire.

Saying this is not true would mean you can shoot at something you can't see (bullets that turn round the corners? Bullets boucing off a wall and hitting a target you can't see?).

We must never forget that when you bring the sights up to your eyes, the line of sight coincides with the line of fire so, if you have an unobstructed LOS you also have an unobstructed LOF. The possibility of there being a LOS but not a LOF applies only when your rifle is at the hip. <-- Angle shift: Hip height is LOWER than eye height so eye sees different from hip.

There is no major issue, this is not true. You can shoot something that you do not see. LOS is not equal to LOF in this game or in real life. You do not shoot bullets out of your eyes. Your rifle is also not on your hip.

If I fire at this point, that guy is getting shot. I do not see him. My barrel is clear of the wall and that's all that matters.

On the other hand, if this happens:

Then I will not be able to shoot him because my barrel is pointing at the wall, no matter what my sight or eyes see. He can still shoot and kill me perfectly fine.

But, holy Armstrong and Berghoff, what's this:

I have done the impossible. I have adjusted my stance to the left with CTRL + A, instead of leaning, I'm a wizard. I'm barely exposing myself, but I can still shoot him and see him!

The angle shift does not apply to my video because i am prone so there can't be a difference in height.

When you look carefully at the video, you'll see that the AI below can shoot at me long before I can see it. So it can see me but I can't see it. This is a clear indicator something is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with what's happening in your video. You are arguing with infant logic.

Is this BLUFOR soldier invisible to this OPFOR soldier?

As I move forward I am still exposed (and under fire) and suddenly, the target also appears in my sight.

You would assume at this point that, having a clear line of sight, by having the eye in the sight, I would also have a clear line of fire but that doesn't happen. My bullets hit the ground just ahead of me.

Here's the problem, it's not just a matter of clipping.

If that obstacle is not in my LOS when I have the sights up (I am prone, there's no angle shift between eyesight and hip shooting). How comes I hit that instead of hitting the target which is in my sight?

You will say: the scope is 5 cm above the muzzle so it sees over the obstruction so I will tell you: is the AI below shooting at my scope then? Is my scope the only thing it sees of me? I don't think so.

He sees your entire damn forehead and the helmet because you can see him. But he can't the barrel of your weapon, the place where the bullets come out of, because it's being obstructed by ground you shoot at.

Here's a test for you. Imagine that there is a guy in your room, aiming an MX with an ARCO at the distance. You stand next to him.

• If you place your finger on either of his eyes and he fires the rifle, will your finger be blown off by the bullet?
  
• If you place your finger on his scope and he fires his rifle, will your finger be blown off by the bullet?
  
• If you place your finger on his ironsights and he fires his rifle, will your finger be blown off by the bullet?
  
• If you place your finger on the tip of his barrel, like Bugs Bunny does to Elmer Fudd, and he fires his rifle will your finger be blown off by the bullet?
  

Edited October 26, 2013 by Sniperwolf572

[Ezcoo 47]

I'd like to add that you have maybe learned the LOS = LOF equality from other FPS games like COD or BF (or a bunch of others). The bullets indeed spawn between your eyes/scope when you're looking through it in those games, so LOS is equal to LOF in them. Additionally many FPS games don't simulate the ballistics at all, which might confuse even more. Unfortunately this is not how things work in real life (see the exhaustive explanations above), and Arma simulates the behaviour of real life in this part. LOS is not equal to LOF in Arma, which is the case in real life too.

You might wonder now how do the scopes work then? Why can you hit enemy accurately by using your scope in some circumstances but not always? The reasons: the fact that the bullets come out from the barrel of your gun instead of your scope, and the gravity (and therefore the ballistics, external ballistics to be exact).

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CE100Nl6bjE/TuBFa-VkiJI/AAAAAAAAAHI/dGWJHndKByo/s1600/100yzero+copy.jpg

The thick black line is extrapolation of barrel. Note that the barrel points actually little bit upwards (note that the angle is exaggerated here to make the difference easier to see, that's why the actual barrel is not level with the black barrel extrapolation line), while the scope line (the thin red line) is perfectly level with horizontal line. The blue curve is the ballistical curve of bullets, the path that bullets will follow till they hit something. Yes – it's a curve, not a line, because the gravity keeps pulling the bullet/projectile down through the whole flight of it.

Basically your scope zeroing determines the distance where the direct line of your scope (the thin red line) intersects the ballistic bullet curve. The point where they intersect is called "far-zero". Let's say you set your zeroing to 250 m, so the scope line and the ballistic curve intersect at 250 m distance, so you will hit the target at 250 m distance by aiming directly to the target.

The zeroing (or the dots or such marks in the scope) just determine specific points where the scope line and the flight path of bullets happen to intersect. The vast majority of FPS games that unrealistically make LOS and LOF equal and make bullets fly in straight line instead of ballistical curve make people confused even more. That explains why LOS seems to be equal to LOF in some situations. Note: it seems like it was equal, but it's just an illusion.

Edit: here's another pic, hope it clears things more:

Edited October 26, 2013 by Ezcoo

[GShock 10]

I have ridiculized myself in discussing with people who are into such denial.

Keep the rifle clipping and everything the way it is. It's just perfect.

[Smurf 12]

1 vs the world, yet, the world is in denial. lol

But I get you, this is what you mean, right? (skip to 4:20)

It doesn't feature shooting out of windows in tight spaces in this video, but it's the same concept.

Don't think is possible in Arma, few games have it (RO1, kind of in RO2, Vietcong and not much more) but it is nice

[GShock 10]

Smurf, I am not discussing anymore with people who believe what happens in this joke of an engine is right and proper.

We have helicopters that almost go vertical when accelerating/decelerating, moving in defiance of any law of physics.

Been like that since ArmA.

Then we have this damage model:

My eye in the sight when I am prone means my eye is 5cm above the muzzle and the muzzle is not clipping, it's resting on the contour line of the ridge for increased stability.

It's a one shot one kill situation with no chance for an unaware target to even know what killed it much less to turn, react and even dream of shooting back. This is COMBAT.

What happens instead everybody can see it : my cover only hinders my line of sight but the target sees me. If I move forward I become more exposed and it still hinders my line of fire when it doesn't hinder my LOS any longer (5cm above muzzle x 300m distance).

The only way to shoot at that target below is to stand up/crouch... why shouldn't I do it, after all that cover is only hurting me. This is the ArmA3 joke.

Good video Smurf but, as I said, it's pointless to further discuss about this issue: Keep the rifles clipping, the UFOs flying, the peashooters shooting and... the LOS/LOF completely fucked up as it is now. Ah... don't forget to use sniper rifles in CQB. :)

[progamer 14]

Don't give up. Things take time to fix. BI is a smaller dev team than most.

And they will not make your eyes shoot the bullets. Your complaining about clipping and an actual bug that has two different views from first person and third person. Meaning you think you can shoot in first person, but you can't. Use the stance system as well rather than just using the normal 3.

Edited October 26, 2013 by ProGamer

[mr_centipede 31]

You're complaining about clipping issue but what you're describing and your example has nothing to do with clipping at all. Its about LOS and LOF... sure clipping is an issue but your example only shows that you did not use the stance adjustment control, not clipping issue. So colour me confuse...

[ProfTournesol 956]

Anyway one good thing with this topic, is that i've learnt a lot of things :)

[Smurf 12]

(...)

Now I understand what you wanted all along. Well, it's just a game with a limited set of movement and until some future tech comes true, you can't have control over all your body, not here or anywhere else.

Nothing is perfect and, compared to others things, it is a small issue.

[GShock 10]

Nothing is perfect and, compared to others things, it is a small issue.

Play the Elite level.

You're entering a world of pain with only one game save.You can be killed at any moment because you THINK you're shooting the enemy but you're only shooting the rock ahead of you.

You want to kill that enemy? DARE YOU GET OUT OF COVER?!

Go ahead... see how small this issue is. :)

[Smurf 12]

Elite level is for masochists.

If you are in a situation like that, without buddy cover, needing for a pot shot to stay alive, you made a mistake earlier. Lucky you that AI don't use fire\supression and movement. So yes, minor issue in the grand scheme.

Edit: Doesn't mean I'm against it!

Edited October 26, 2013 by Smurf

[dmarkwick 261]

So I guess the main thrust if the thread (seeing as the others are non-issues) is that you (OP) wish for the game to adapt you to cover, rather than you adapt yourself?

[Greenfist 1863]

So I guess the main thrust if the thread (seeing as the others are non-issues) is that you (OP) wish for the game to adapt you to cover, rather than you adapt yourself?

Yes. That is, the weapon rest, in essence. Nothing more. Would be cool, but will never be seen in this game.

Auto-correcting muzzle position when gun is not clipping anything is what he's expecting but that's nonsense and unreal.

[GShock 10]

Gone to RECRUIT level with all HUD ON and external views (fancy eyecandy useless junk to me)

http://imageshack.com/a/img542/1360/3unz.jpg

This is the first useful spot to shoot at (Any lower than this will hit this rock I am hiding behind).

This aiming position would only be possible if the rifle was resting on the top of the rock and the funny thing is that because of breath holding, I still may hit my rock.

Since I have no lower limit (I can aim straight down, clipping through the rock)...

http://imageshack.com/a/img19/6108/t4sw.jpg

Observe the muzzle which appears to be unobstructed even though the rifle is halfway inside the rock ahead. The firing line keeps looking clear

...

Even if we forgot that my targets are fully capable of hitting a target which is lying prone above them, without zoomed sights at 300m, you can't forget the fact that a soldier would know what the limitations of his firing arch are because he has a proximity 3d view that judges obstructions and postures in a much faster way than we can do behind a 2d monitor. Well I mean that YOU can because I have no cues here. :)

There is no indicator of clipping when the sight is up. The muzzle ALWAYS looks unobstructed.

Do you think it's normal that in order to know whether you hit a target or your own cover the only way is trial and error?

I am starting to feel like I am talking with clowns.

[progamer 14]

The problem is you are either explaining things not clearly enough. It sounds like you think bullets should come out of your weapons sights. And you ignore the issue that because of some synchronization issues between first and third person, you cannot accurately tell were you weapon is and were you can shoot.

[dmarkwick 261]

Do you think it's normal that in order to know whether you hit a target or your own cover the only way is trial and error?

No I don't. And, I hardly ever do.

I am starting to feel like I am talking with clowns.

I know the feeling.

[GShock 10]

The problem is you are either explaining things not clearly enough. It sounds like you think bullets should come out of your weapons sights. And you ignore the issue that because of some synchronization issues between first and third person, you cannot accurately tell were you weapon is and were you can shoot.

If the engine keeps showing a clear muzzle despite the rifle being almost entirely inside the rock there is no way to tell.

Do you think it's normal that in order to tell whether I am shooting on my cover or on my target past it my only way is trial and error?

[progamer 14]

If the engine keeps showing a clear muzzle despite the rifle being almost entirely inside the rock there is no way to tell.

Do you think it's normal that in order to tell whether I am shooting on my cover or on my target past it my only way is trial and error?

You mean there is an issue were first and third person are rendered differently. 3rd person shows when you can and cannot shoot while first person does not. First person should be rendered the same as third person.

[GShock 10]

You mean there is an issue were first and third person are rendered differently. 3rd person shows when you can and cannot shoot while first person does not. First person should be rendered the same as third person.

The difference between locations in 1st and 3rd person rendering might be the cause of the fact the AI can shoot at me whereas I can't even see it (I am prone, my head is forward and the AI shoots at my head because it sees it above the ridge line but I can't see the AI below because my head is NOT above the ridge line) but that's not the only problem.

With the sights up your muzzle always looks unobstructed, even when your rifle is halfway through a rock. You are clipping but you can't see it and there's no way you can see it.

Yet, even when you're not clipping, there are no cues telling you of obstructions to LOF in close proximity.

Regardless of whether you're clipping or not, with the sights up, you can shoot and hit either the target or the rock you're using as cover and the only way you know is by opening fire.

That video speaks loads about this problem that makes this engine look like a complete joke and if those clowns keep this state of denial there's no hope BIS is ever going to fix it.

Unfortunately from this design choice many bad things come into place (AI logics, posture adapting, lower-down of weapons, CQB)... nothing will ever change not just the clipping.

That's sad.

[dmarkwick 261]

The difference between locations in 1st and 3rd person rendering might be the cause of the fact the AI can shoot at me whereas I can't even see it (I am prone, my head is forward and the AI shoots at my head because it sees it above the ridge line but I can't see the AI below because my head is NOT above the ridge line) but that's not the only problem.

With the sights up your muzzle always looks unobstructed, even when your rifle is halfway through a rock. You are clipping but you can't see it and there's no way you can see it.

Yet, even when you're not clipping, there are no cues telling you of obstructions to LOF in close proximity.

Regardless of whether you're clipping or not, with the sights up, you can shoot and hit either the target or the rock you're using as cover and the only way you know is by opening fire.

So are we getting closer to what your particular problem is now? It sounds, to me, like it's been eventually reduced to simply not having a clipping effect in 1st person yes? For you, it's the only method you have to indicate that you're going to hit the obstacle yes?

If you cannot tell, from those images & videos you posted, that you're going to hit an obstacle when you fire, then all I can suggest is practise a little more. Quite honestly, there are not very many people who have this problem of not being able to dissociate los with lof, if I might make a practical/pragmatic suggestion, it would be use the crosshairs for a few weeks to give you that missing visual cue you're needing.

That video speaks loads about this problem that makes this engine look like a complete joke and if those clowns keep this state of denial there's no hope BIS is ever going to fix it.

Unfortunately from this design choice many bad things come into place (AI logics, posture adapting, lower-down of weapons, CQB)... nothing will ever change not just the clipping.

That's sad.

Jokes & clowns, clowns & jokes. Your dismissive and sniffy assessment of people who are trying (unsuccessfully) to explain some things to you that you cannot apparently appreciate, does you no favours. perhaps you might like to take a step back and see if you're describing your problem in a meaningful way, because it seems to me that as you're learning about some things, you're gradually changing the nature of your complaint, until we have at last the single complaint that you don't like the clipping problem in 1st person.

Or, you can continue your petulant namecalling & dismissing of information given by people trying to help out. I'll try not to hold it against you, the unwillingness to process new information that alleviates a problem you insist is there is a common enough experience on the internet :)

[Deadfast 43]

If the engine keeps showing a clear muzzle despite the rifle being almost entirely inside the rock there is no way to tell.

Do you think it's normal that in order to tell whether I am shooting on my cover or on my target past it my only way is trial and error?

Why of course, this is something I've posted a long while ago, yet you dismissed it in favor of some other mysterious problem which you have yet to explain 7 pages later.

[GShock 10]

I've tried for 10 pages to explain that many things depend on this failing design choice.

It's not just a clipping issue or a los/lof issue or a 1st person/3rd person location problem. There's AI logics involved, adaptive postures, CQB, the damage model and a hundred more things that are connected to how the player (and the AI) handles cover.

This is the wrong way to handle it and the DEVs can't move on to those other things if this is not fixed first.

This is a game-breaking issue to me but lack of a proper solution cuts down any hope of improvements to the other departments in the long term.

[dmarkwick 261]

Eesh. This is getting more esotric & confusing :)

So... I guess that you wish for an auto-cover system, and you don't like the game because it doesn't have one? Otherwise, you just seem to be waving your hand about and saying "something" is broken, but are unable to say what. Quite honestly, I cannot fathom it. All your points have been addressed, but you make no meaningful responses.