First and second person weapon orientation animation.

[anglomanii]

Now before anyone asks I have used the search feature, read the *** and have also checked with a couple of other people.

Now I have no idea if this is hardcoded. (and knowing my luck it will be) but if it's possible it might help with immersion. (please note I understand this may not be possible but I need to at least voice it)

At this moment in time, as I understand it,in the players first person view the players selected weapon is always in the “aimed or ready” stance. my proposal is to code into the animation a component, where if a friendly is in the line of sight of your center of screen out to a certain distance, the animation would adopt a non-aggressive or “safe” stance like the animation used when the 1st/3rd person animation is sprinting. This would apply only if the weapon is not being aimed, or there are no enemies in the center of screen zone. I make this suggestion on the basis of soldier weapon safety training,

I am aware there have been similar suggestions to this, https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... oting.html
it's similar but not the same. but it does bring up one of the problems I was encountering, in that case I figure there has to be a work around some how, and that has to do with firing while the weapon is in the middle of the “safe animation” and the unrealistic jump/jolt/instant return of the weapon into a firing position, chuc will probably set me to rights here but the only way I can counter this would be to add the first time you go to fire your weapon does not discharge it but brings it to the shouldered “ready position” the next mouse click fires the weapon, every successive click fires a round until you change position. But that's not what I am trying to achieve and is getting away from my point(and has been previously discussed I think). My problem is more to do with the position of friendlies in the players center field of view.

Here's my scenario

-players is walking, weapon is in the standard position.
-Enemy appears. (weapon animation does not change)
-players right clicks and sights weapon (aimed animation)
-Player fires weapon, and enemy runs away ( I am a very bad shot)
-A friendly crosses in front of the player near by (crosses the center field)
-there is no change to animation the 1st person animation stays the same
-friendly player leaves the front of the players center field and moves off
-player un-sights (unzooms) weapon
-the animation (1st person) returns the weapon to its standard position
-another friendly crosses in front of the player near by (crosses the center field)
-at this point the animation (1st person) drops the weapon as in the sprinting animation
-friendly player leaves the front of the players center field and moves off
-the animation (1st person) returns the weapon to the standard position.
-Game continues as before.

That being said I know there is the possibility this could be abused, but in my opinion I think something along these lines would help with play and general immersion feel. (might also stop a little fratricide)
look I know I will cop a lot for this as it most likely cant be done, but please just take my suggestion for what it is, a simple game play suggestion. If it cant be done I will understand and be more the wiser for it.

[Psyrus]

Pretty sure this is unpossimpible, specifically to do with the enemy being within your sights, although thinking about the way the air-to-air missiles work (HUD wise) it might have a chance, although even if it was able to ascertain if you were pointing at a friendly, I'm not aware that the engine allows you to have multiple weapon-holding stances/animations.

From what I'm aware, the following are the animations/stances that are done for first person:
- Standing unscoped
- Standing scoped
- Walking
- Sprinting
- [Crouched variants?]
- [Proned variants?]
- Reloading
- Firing unscoped
- Firing scoped
- Jumping

[Tim270]

I think the only real way of achieving that would be to only allow guns to fire when sighted in, so you avoid the 'snap shooting'. But only allowing people to fire when scoped is pretty impractical.

[Psyrus]

I think the only real way of achieving that would be to only allow guns to fire when sighted in, so you avoid the 'snap shooting'. But only allowing people to fire when scoped is pretty impractical.

Perhaps, and I'd be quite sad in that case because many a time I have been saved by turning a corner, seeing the guy and emptying my clip [unscoped] in his general direction while having somewhat of the following reaction

[Celestial1]

Causes a few graphical problems. Think about the following situation:
You are aimed to the left of a friendly. You swing your aim right, past the friendly, and you'll see the animation start to pull your gun down and then to snap it right back up.
Considering that we have 10+ friendlies in one area at times, this would become more and more irritating.

Mimicking third person animations could work, however; it's just the problem of it being triggered by looking at something. But it seems sort of trivial.






Also, there's no such thing as "second person" in visual space.

[Haji with a Handgun]

Friendly fire is one of the many hazards of PR, and this would almost eliminate FF.
I think for realism's sake, FF should ALWAYS be on. All you have to do is sight in on them for a few seconds.

[burghUK]

useless suggestion...Friendly fire can be sorted by having common sense and checking your map. Stop making suggestions that will make it easier for the "clueless mob" to play PR.

[GeorgRavioli]

Agreed. I find it perfect as it is. Plus, we would have to make it like ShellShock: 'Nam 67, where the weapon is raised the first time you click, and even if you hold it down, he just kinda holds it there, and you have to click again.

[Operator009]

Please no;

Game tactics and Real World tactics converge on the idea of friendly fire. They teach at West Point that the most clever assault is one that tricks the enemy into firing on his own troops in a choatic confusion.

Ex.
Get an rpg kit and fire it as a Stryker while next to enemy troops. Watch your upper left screen, because a lot of TKs are about to happen.

Ex.
Nothing is sweeter in PR than tricking the HMG into firing on friendly troops while you taunt them in all chat.

[HAAN4]

Friendly fire is one of the many hazards of PR, and this would almost eliminate FF.
I think for realism's sake, FF should ALWAYS be on. All you have to do is sight in on them for a few seconds.

what otherwise increse you acuracy since devaution sistem. i working hard to understand those elemets since i bough my new BAD *** PC!.

also i sugest to alert you fridelys via voip about you cotact it also come's handy all you squad firing the targuet, what can be autmost in all cases DEADLY!.

regards

[anglomanii]

i think i may not have explained my point sufficently, what i was trying to improve is the player immersion element in game.
if two soldiers (a couple of meters apart) turn toward each other, possibly to communicate or share the lattest gossip from the barracks . how then do they hold their weapons?, what do you do with a firearm when talking to someone? i would say these two soldiers lets call them "rudy" and "tom", i would say they'ed not be pointing their rifles at each other. now if rudy spies "terry the taliban" sneaking up behind tom he'd more then likely raise his rifle and give terry a good pasting, tom might not be happy and be partially deaf, but he'd still be alive. he'd also be aware that rudy was aiming atsomething behind him if tom notised the large rifle pointing in his general direction.

look all i was tring to do is enhance the immersion factor for the player, not try and change game play or tweak friendly fire problems.

[Operator009]

i think i may not have explained my point sufficently, what i was trying to improve is the player immersion element in game.
if two soldiers (a couple of meters apart) turn toward each other, possibly to communicate or share the lattest gossip from the barracks . how then do they hold their weapons?, what do you do with a firearm when talking to someone? i would say these two soldiers lets call them "rudy" and "tom", i would say they'ed not be pointing their rifles at each other. now if rudy spies "terry the taliban" sneaking up behind tom he'd more then likely raise his rifle and give terry a good pasting, tom might not be happy and be partially deaf, but he'd still be alive. he'd also be aware that rudy was aiming atsomething behind him if tom notised the large rifle pointing in his general direction.

look all i was tring to do is enhance the immersion factor for the player, not try and change game play or tweak friendly fire problems.

I feel like this decision would result in--indeed--increased immersion. But it also presents an element of potential abuse.

Plus, aint nothing shittier than having a friendly step into your line of sight to reset your deviation bcause your weapon moved.

[Dev1200]

Then wouldn't you be able to detect enemies because your friend will be looking more aggressive then passive?

[Smegburt_funkledink]

if two soldiers (a couple of meters apart) turn toward each other, possibly to communicate or share the lattest gossip from the barracks . how then do they hold their weapons?, what do you do with a firearm when talking to someone? i would say these two soldiers lets call them "rudy" and "tom", i would say they'ed not be pointing their rifles at each other.

Have you played PR recently? Players don't point their weapons at each other unless they 'sight in' their weapons. This suggestion does nothing for the game.

Then wouldn't you be able to detect enemies because your friend will be looking more aggressive then passive?

Yeah. If there's some sort of automated stance depending on if you're looking at enemy or friendly, it's easily exploitable as others have pointed out.

This suggestion has no real merit.

[Bob_Marley]

Thread locked at OP's request.