Tell me about Free aim please

[Palexon]

Could someone please tell what is free aim used for and how? (show a video if you can) I need to understand the problem with it, and why some doesn't want it, so I can decide if I want it or not.

[Valor]

Basically, your weapon's crosshair is no longer locked to the center of your screen.

There were some abuses with this such as being able to shoot through walls.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Guest

[Daedhart]

Its a toggle switch in the original Renegade that releases the camera from the mouse. In other words, once toggled, it allows the trigger crosshairs of whatever gun/vehicle youre in to be moved by the mouse around the screen without the camera changing its position/angle.

I would make you a video, but atm Im not able to play Renegade.

The reason people like/dont like it is because it generally gives no-scope snipers an advantage since it can make it significantly easier to predict your opponents movements. It also tends to favor wall huggers moreso than normal third person views.

[Kil]

It can be used to keep a better view of a certain direction while you are using your weapon in another direction, such as an engineer wants to keep his eye on the enemy direction while he aims at various teammate vehicles to repair them.

Also, some people find it easier to aim by having the crosshair move rather than the camera.

It is generally easier to track close targets in third-person as your camera is further away, so you don't have to move it as sporadically. Free aim furthers this by keeping the camera static, so there is generally less dis-orientation.

[Ban4life]

Free aim is best explained with a tank. With the old Renegade you could lock the camera to either the chassis or the turret. Locking to the turret gave you a view that looks like being in a normal character. You can look behind you and the turret follows.

Locking to the chassis is like free aim. The camera now only looks forward. If you move the mouse, you keep looking forward, but your reticule goes over the screen. You cannot look behind you, but you can look in one direction and aim in the upper right corner for example.

Free aim is achieved by pressing "v". You keep looking in the same direction, but you are free to aim anywhere on your screen. It is a handy tool, but requires some skill before you can gain it's potential.

One of the problems that some people have, me included, is an aim advantage in certain situations. When in third person view, you have a small advantage. This is because if you aim just above a player, due to the perspective the reticule snaps onto the head, giving a slightly taller area where you can hit the head. Free aim increases this unintentional perspective bonus the further you aim to the sides of the screen. Free aim has many uses that do not exploit this, but any firearm, especially snipers, benefit from free aim if you are familliar with it.

[Palexon]

Basically, your weapon's crosshair is no longer locked to the center of your screen.

There were some abuses with this such as being able to shoot through walls.

Its a toggle switch in the original Renegade that releases the camera from the mouse. In other words, once toggled, it allows the trigger crosshairs of whatever gun/vehicle youre in to be moved by the mouse around the screen without the camera changing its position/angle.

I would make you a video, but atm Im not able to play Renegade.

The reason people like/dont like it is because it generally gives no-scope snipers an advantage since it can make it significantly easier to predict your opponents movements. It also tends to favor wall huggers moreso than normal third person views.

It can be used to keep a better view of a certain direction while you are using your weapon in another direction, such as an engineer wants to keep his eye on the enemy direction while he aims at various teammate vehicles to repair them.

Also, some people find it easier to aim by having the crosshair move rather than the camera.

It is generally easier to track close targets in third-person as your camera is further away, so you don't have to move it as sporadically. Free aim furthers this by keeping the camera static, so there is generally less dis-orientation.

Free aim is best explained with a tank. With the old Renegade you could lock the camera to either the chassis or the turret. Locking to the turret gave you a view that looks like being in a normal character. You can look behind you and the turret follows.

Locking to the chassis is like free aim. The camera now only looks forward. If you move the mouse, you keep looking forward, but your reticule goes over the screen. You cannot look behind you, but you can look in one direction and aim in the upper right corner for example.

Free aim is achieved by pressing "v". You keep looking in the same direction, but you are free to aim anywhere on your screen. It is a handy tool, but requires some skill before you can gain it's potential.

One of the problems that some people have, me included, is an aim advantage in certain situations. When in third person view, you have a small advantage. This is because if you aim just above a player, due to the perspective the reticule snaps onto the head, giving a slightly taller area where you can hit the head. Free aim increases this unintentional perspective bonus the further you aim to the sides of the screen. Free aim has many uses that do not exploit this, but any firearm, especially snipers, benefit from free aim if you are familliar with it.

I see, so instead of the players use their skills to completely relay on their own aiming and shoot, they kinda relay on the crosshairs to aim for them, and some will also abuse it in Renegade X the same way they did in Renegade.

[Daedhart]

It still takes skill; they arent putting all their chips on free-aim. Its mostly a preference thing, I personally dont use free aim.

All else equal, somebody with a specific amount of skill with free aim can best somebody with an equal amount of skill without it. In Renegade, though, all else is not equal. Thats why its a controversial topic; because its pretty much impossible to prove somebody is better because of this advantage and not just because their better.

[Ban4life]

I see, so instead of the players use their skills to completely relay on their own aiming and shoot, they kinda relay on the crosshairs to aim for them, and some will also abuse it in Renegade X the same way they did in Renegade.

Yes and no. It is a good addition in many situations, making it no exploit or anything.

In firefights it is hard to learn. When learned how to control it, you automatically shoot heads easier when in third person. So you neex to have skill first before you can have easuer targets.

In Renegade-X it will probably not be as bad, as high powered single shot weapons have a little weapon spread. This makes aiming down sights important, negating any effect from free aim/third person view. Still a consideration though.

[Palexon]

It still takes skill; they arent putting all their chips on free-aim. Its mostly a preference thing, I personally dont use free aim.

All else equal, somebody with a specific amount of skill with free aim can best somebody with an equal amount of skill without it. In Renegade, though, all else is not equal. Thats why its a controversial topic; because its pretty much impossible to prove somebody is better because of this advantage and not just because their better.

That's why I now believe that it's better to not add free aim to Renegade X. Many other new FPS and TPS games don't use free aim so why should Renegade X have it? and as you said the only way to prove that someone is more skilled than the other is by having one of them which is by default (in any FPS or TPS game) making the mouse locked with the screen.

[Palexon]

I see, so instead of the players use their skills to completely relay on their own aiming and shoot, they kinda relay on the crosshairs to aim for them, and some will also abuse it in Renegade X the same way they did in Renegade.

Yes and no. It is a good addition in many situations, making it no exploit or anything.

In firefights it is hard to learn. When learned how to control it, you automatically shoot heads easier when in third person. So you neex to have skill first before you can have easuer targets.

In Renegade-X it will probably not be as bad, as high powered single shot weapons have a little weapon spread. This makes aiming down sights important, negating any effect from free aim/third person view. Still a consideration though.

But still, as long as there are players who will exploit it, it is exploitable, which won't be fair for other players who don't exploit it or use it.

[HaTe]

All it does it lock the camera to a certain angle. Don't over complicate it to make it seem like it gives some other sort of huge advantage...

[Havoc89]

How can I explain free aim? Play a shooter on the Wii

[Valor]

It still takes skill; they arent putting all their chips on free-aim. Its mostly a preference thing, I personally dont use free aim.

All else equal, somebody with a specific amount of skill with free aim can best somebody with an equal amount of skill without it. In Renegade, though, all else is not equal. Thats why its a controversial topic; because its pretty much impossible to prove somebody is better because of this advantage and not just because their better.

That's why I now believe that it's better to not add free aim to Renegade X. Many other new FPS and TPS games don't use free aim so why should Renegade X have it? and as you said the only way to prove that someone is more skilled than the other is by having one of them which is by default (in any FPS or TPS game) making the mouse locked with the screen.

Well it was in the original Renegade so people who used it back then will want it in Renegade X.

But keep in mind too that there's no option that enables this in UDK, so the devs will have to program this manually.

[ErroR]

Basically, your weapon's crosshair is no longer locked to the center of your screen.

There were some abuses with this such as being able to shoot through walls.

If you put it in this light of course it would look like a major advantage. All you do is flick shot.

But free aim has a ton of other important uses that has nothing to do with snipers. Mostly keeping an eye into a direction while repairing. For example you're looking at the wf door while repairing it's mtc.

It also greatly helps with aiming automatic weapons.

[Ban4life]

Can you upload pictures to this site? It would greatly support my argument.

All it does it lock the camera to a certain angle. Don't over complicate it to make it seem like it gives some other sort of huge advantage...

To clarify a perspective angle and how much it can boost your aim, lets make this simple. Think about a dark room. The character has a gun, which is just a big light source, giving off a bright light. The moment an opponent comes into your field of view, you cannot see it's shadow, as that is directly behind this person. You can see this extremely well with flash photo's in dark environments, as you can barely see any shadow.

This means that if you aim at that person, you can only hit if if you reticule is directly on that person.

Now lets change to third person view. Now you are slightly above the light source, and you are able to see parts of the shadows. First thing you notice is that if objects come closer, they cast a larger shadow. The further they are, the smaller the shadow is, but it will never be smaller than the character (due to one small point light source). If the opponent is dead ahead, you can see over him and see some of his shoulders and his whole head as a shadow.

Now you aim. Aiming directly at the target, and the light source starts aiming there. So if the reticule is aiming at the head, the light source aims there and you hit the head. Simple, just like the normal view.

Now third person allows you to target a part of the shadow. If you aim at the shadow's head, the light source will aim straight for it. The light source however is blocked by the real head. So when you fire, the light source fires in a trajectory straight through the head at the shadow head. Simply put, shooting at the shadow hits its the respective real part of the body. In effect, this gives you a greater surface area where you can fire, while still hitting a head or maybe the shoulders.

Remember when the target comes closer, the shadow becomes bigger? This can give a surface area that is enormous, multiplying the surface area where you can aim and hit by I don't know how many times. It goes well over 5x the normal surface area from what I can see, and that is a very, very conservative estimate. My own bet is up to 12x from a second away. Oh and the character itself of course also gets bigger (duh) giving all perspectives a surface area "advantage". Just to mention that for a full picture. If someone stands right against you and you are in third person view, you can shoot practically everywhere on the screen and still hit.

Even if the shadow gives "only" 5x more surface area, would you want to fight against someone who could fire at 5x more surface area? Yes it is not 5x easier to hit statistically, but it is still more than enough to win much more fights. Imagine someone with a headshot one hit kill rifle and you are pretty screwed. If the opponent is very far away, the worst you can do is that the shadow and the head have the same pixel, giving no bonus. But before that, you have a great distance that you have one extra pixel to shoot at, giving 2x more surface area. It might be just enough for that head shot.

Now that is from just third person with the target dead ahead. Many people use this perspective.

Now if the target is moved the exact same distance from you, but to your far right (imagine a circle and they just move on the line to your far right, staying the exact same distance from you). Now you would need free aim. What happens? You can see the whole shadow! Not accounting for the greater size of the shadow, it gives 2x more surface area to hit! If you do account for shadow size, it gives much more than 2x. The closer the target is, the greater the shadow....

Every thing between the far right and the middle of the screen exposes a little more of the shadow. So if someone made a perfect half circle around you, never coming closer, they would have the largest exposed shadow to either side of the screen, and the least when dead ahead.

Now the distance of any object behind the opponent does not matter, as the shadow is cast anyway and just increases in size the further it goes. For your screen and aiming, this won't matter. Anywhere you shoot in that shadow, and the light source will try to fire there. Any light will hit the opponent first.

Moving opponents does not matter, even if your bullets aren't instant. The shadow moves with them, meaning that if they move to a part you just fired, they will still cast that shadow, getting hit by any bullet you just fired within the shadow that wasn't there until recently.

The only disadvantage of third person view is that the characters get smaller. [sarcasm] Wow. By so much [/sarcasm]

This is why I'm not a supporter of free aim. It goes against my fair play instincts as it just makes for greater area's where you can still hit a person under the same conditions. If it is only used in ways that Error suggests, I have no problem, but with any firearm it just plain increases the surface area where you can hit, making it a no-go for me.

Oh and any suggestions of "it's not in other FPS, so why would we add it here" is not a good argument. It should be viewed in this game and this game alone. Any glitch advantages like shooting through walls will be solved in Renegade-X, so that is no argument either.

[HaTe]

Except you aren't aiming for a shadow or behind an enemy....you're aiming at him. It doesn't make him bigger or make him easier to hit in any way at all. I'll make a video and show you (I would know...). Literally all it does is lock the camera to a certain angle. All that does is change your fov (which gives advantages and disadvantages equally, since you can use third person regardless), and makes the fov not constantly turning when aiming on a high sensitivity like I use. The only direct aiming advantage this gives is for hugging because you can target the enemy and have his target box visible before ever coming out. I proposed a solution to this already that would effectively solve this though, and make it so hugging with free-aim wouldn't enable the target box.

[Demigan]

Except you aren't aiming for a shadow or behind an enemy....you're aiming at him. It doesn't make him bigger or make him easier to hit in any way at all. I'll make a video and show you (I would know...). Literally all it does is lock the camera to a certain angle. All that does is change your fov (which gives advantages and disadvantages equally, since you can use third person regardless), and makes the fov not constantly turning when aiming on a high sensitivity like I use. The only direct aiming advantage this gives is for hugging because you can target the enemy and have his target box visible before ever coming out. I proposed a solution to this already that would effectively solve this though, and make it so hugging with free-aim wouldn't enable the target box.

Please check the following 3 pictures:

Legend: the circle is the player, the triangle is the camera, the bar is the gun.

Blue lines represent the area the weapon can fire at to hit the enemy

red lines represent the area of wall you can fire at that still counts as a hit for your weapon

green lines represent the total area you can fire at to hit the other person.

Note that the actual representative area is actually a bit smaller, as you cannot see everything that your weapon can hit. and here is the kicker. The pictures are a bit misleading: if you look solely at the green area they represent on the wall it's way, way bigger. The actual area you can hit is the surface area of your enemy, combined with the entire visible 'shadow' of your weapon on the wall and floor behind him.

As you can see, the more you offset your camera the larger the area you can hit him with. The third picture shows something very important: At some point you have effectively doubled your hit-area, as you can hit your enemy's full body... but also the full 'shadow' that his weapon projects. The closer your enemy is, the larger this area becomes. The last situation in picture 3 shows this best: anywhere you shoot in the green area, you hit your enemy.

What's more, this doesn't just increase the area you can fire in the horizontal plane, but also vertically. If you offset your camera very high and very far to the side you can double your 'hit area'... from long ranges. The closer you are, the larger the 'shadow' your enemy leaves on the wall behind him, the larger the area you can aim for and still hit.

This gets pretty weird, actually. It's not just on the wall behind him, but also on the ground... so anywhere his foot would leave a shadow on the ground, you can hit him there if you can see that shadow and aim for it. The bullet will have to pass through your enemy. Just look at picture 6.1, it illustrates it perfectly: you can either fire straight at your enemy... or fire at the wall behind him, creating a massive area you can hit him

[Ban4life]

Except you aren't aiming for a shadow or behind an enemy....you're aiming at him. It doesn't make him bigger or make him easier to hit in any way at all. I'll make a video and show you (I would know...) (...)

Please do, but to convince me, you need to have a set of the same data.

Show it with the same distance from you to the target with and without free aim, and a situation where you will fire at the imaginary shadow of my example.

The shadow is my greatest concern and you will need to prove that the advantage you get is incredibly small. Just to be sure, for me you need to prove the effective area where you can shoot is much smaller than anticipated. My own quick experiments showed otherwise, but if you put a more thorough examination in a video I'll drop all complaints and free aim gets a green light from me.

[HaTe]

Except you aren't aiming for a shadow or behind an enemy....you're aiming at him. It doesn't make him bigger or make him easier to hit in any way at all. I'll make a video and show you (I would know...). Literally all it does is lock the camera to a certain angle. All that does is change your fov (which gives advantages and disadvantages equally, since you can use third person regardless), and makes the fov not constantly turning when aiming on a high sensitivity like I use. The only direct aiming advantage this gives is for hugging because you can target the enemy and have his target box visible before ever coming out. I proposed a solution to this already that would effectively solve this though, and make it so hugging with free-aim wouldn't enable the target box.

Please check the following 3 pictures:

Legend: the circle is the player, the triangle is the camera, the bar is the gun.

Blue lines represent the area the weapon can fire at to hit the enemy

red lines represent the area of wall you can fire at that still counts as a hit for your weapon

green lines represent the total area you can fire at to hit the other person.

Note that the actual representative area is actually a bit smaller, as you cannot see everything that your weapon can hit. and here is the kicker. The pictures are a bit misleading: if you look solely at the green area they represent on the wall it's way, way bigger. The actual area you can hit is the surface area of your enemy, combined with the entire visible 'shadow' of your weapon on the wall and floor behind him.

As you can see, the more you offset your camera the larger the area you can hit him with. The third picture shows something very important: At some point you have effectively doubled your hit-area, as you can hit your enemy's full body... but also the full 'shadow' that his weapon projects. The closer your enemy is, the larger this area becomes. The last situation in picture 3 shows this best: anywhere you shoot in the green area, you hit your enemy.

What's more, this doesn't just increase the area you can fire in the horizontal plane, but also vertically. If you offset your camera very high and very far to the side you can double your 'hit area'... from long ranges. The closer you are, the larger the 'shadow' your enemy leaves on the wall behind him, the larger the area you can aim for and still hit.

This gets pretty weird, actually. It's not just on the wall behind him, but also on the ground... so anywhere his foot would leave a shadow on the ground, you can hit him there if you can see that shadow and aim for it. The bullet will have to pass through your enemy. Just look at picture 6.1, it illustrates it perfectly: you can either fire straight at your enemy... or fire at the wall behind him, creating a massive area you can hit him

It locks the camera at an angle, not a position. You can't aim outside of the 180 degree view you are locked at regardless. It doesn't narrow or widen your view at all. It literally just locks it at one angle. Meaning you have to have been looking at that angle in the first place in third person. It changes up the angle you are shooting, so yes, naturally the area behind the enemy will be more or less visible, depending on the situation. It isn't an advantage though, because it can be a disadvantage in that aspect just as easy...

[HaTe]

I wish people would try it in practice rather than make assumptions in principle:

0:00-0:13

Showing that the reticle does not "snap" any more when using free-aim than when not using free-aim. It has the same exact tendencies.

0:14-0:20

Showing that the FoV is only altered by angle, nothing more. You have to create that angle by viewing that angle first. You cannot turn or widen your view passed 180 degrees while locked in on free-aim whatsoever.

0:21-0:25

Showing that the reticle movement has the same tendencies while in free-aim than when not using free-aim. Literally the only thing it does it lock your camera at a specified angle and allow you to move your reticle around the screen freely. It doesn't change the tendencies of the reticle. So while, yes, it is true that your reticle will work differently, it does not provide any sort of advantage in aiming. The only advantage that can possibly be argued with free-aim is the ability to target through walls - which I have already proposed a logical working fix for.

No need for any pictures or drawings. If you're looking to prove something, find out how it actually works by using the real thing. Then make a video from that if you still decide that you disagree with me...

[R315r4z0r]

Demigan is correct. I've noticed this as well and it becomes insanely easy to hit enemy targets with free aim when they are close to you on your left or right.

The simplest way I can think to explain it is just paraphrasing something that he said. At a certain point when the enemy is close enough to you, you can aim your weapon clearly behind your target but you still will hit the target since the bullet needs to pass through your target in order to reach your pointed area.

So yes, it does effectively increase your effective target area when aiming at things off to the side of the screen. There is actually a sweat spot that you want to keep your target at on your screen so that you can aim your cursor behind them that way the retical dot will always land on them, no matter how much they try to move away.

I wouldn't say it's an advantage though... since everyone can do it.

[HaTe]

The area (width/height) that you can effectively hit the target does not increase from free-aim though. It may look like it does, because you seem to apparently be aiming behind him, but the only reason you're able to see behind him is because of the angle. Meaning that if you were using normal third person, you'd effectively be aiming at that same exact spot, just from the different angle. The area does not increase because of this fact.

[Ban4life]

I can't make video's atm, but I still see what I meant in your video's. You were aiming I don't know how many pixels above the block, but your gun pointed at the block. This gives you that much more room where you still hit the block. If it where a head, you would be aiming about 2 heads above it. If you aim directly at the block, you will hit it right at that spot, so there is no change there. I've made 2 pictures, yes again pictures, to make it very clear.

Here it is in short. The light is the FOV of the GUN (which is also your first person view). Your own FOV is different and a little behind the gun, so you can see things that the gun can't. The shadow is out of the FOV from the gun. You can see parts of the shadow. Aiming at the shadow will let the gun aim there, but is blocked by the opponent. Like the light shooting from the lamp, you can see the bullet will impact the opponent before getting to the spot where you aimed.

The first is normal third person view.

Green gives the outline of what you can hit in first person.

Red gives what you can aim at and still hit the opponent in third person.

The red cross is where I'm aiming.

The blue line gives the trajectory of the bullet.

Your view can look past it, the gun will try to aim at that spot, but is simply blocked by the opponent.

With free aim you can get the next shot.

Here you can see that much more of the shadow. So you can aim at much more that is not in the FOV of the gun. Anywhere you shoot that is outside this FOV, makes you hit the target.

So here you see that the red and green outlined is where you can aim and hit. This will make the total surface area where you can shoot and hit bigger.

I kept the distance from the wall to the object and the distance from the object to the light the same. Also the distance of the camera behind the light source is the same, but I cut in the first picture to make it bigger.

In the game there is only an imaginary shadow.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Guest

[ehh]

whats even happening in here

[Ban4life]

whats even happening in here

Education?

[Demigan]

whats even happening in here

[Palexon]

whats even happening in here

I have no idea, all what I wanted is to know what free aim is...

[Ban4life]

whats even happening in here

I have no idea, all what I wanted is to know what free aim is...

I hope you now know

We are now just nitpicking about if free aiming is a significant advantage or not over third or first person shooting. I think this discussion is needed atm.

[Palexon]

whats even happening in here

I have no idea, all what I wanted is to know what free aim is...

I hope you now know

We are now just nitpicking about if free aiming is a significant advantage or not over third or first person shooting. I think this discussion is needed atm.

I do know what it is now .. And yea sure feel free to debate, I don't mind at all

I agree that it has an advantage and I'm with using it for example while repairing vehicles to look out for the enemy, but if it can be used in Renegade X in a way that it can't be abused then it's fine with me to be included in the game.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Guest

[HaTe]

Watch the video again. I showed that the same exact thing happens in third person without free-aim. Clearly I need to make another video for you to understand. You dont aim at shadows. You're assuming that this "light source" and camera angle are coming from the same spot and comparing that to the camera angle and gun coming from the same spot. The gun has to be aimed regardless of free-aim or not, and where the shot comes from doesn't change that fact. So while you may be able to see more of this imaginary shadow, you aren't able to use it to increase the area of which you are able to hit your enemy. You seem to have trouble on this part.

[Demigan]

Watch the video again. I showed that the same exact thing happens in third person without free-aim. Clearly I need to make another video for you to understand. You dont aim at shadows. You're assuming that this "light source" and camera angle are coming from the same spot and comparing that to the camera angle and gun coming from the same spot. The gun has to be aimed regardless of free-aim or not, and where the shot comes from doesn't change that fact. So while you may be able to see more of this imaginary shadow, you aren't able to use it to increase the area of which you are able to hit your enemy. You seem to have trouble on this part.

HaTe, I actually see support in my/ban4life's explanation in your video.

I have agreed with Ban4life to create a video showcasing what we mean. We can shoot the video hopefully this evening, expect it done this weekend with a good explanation.

I think until then there is nothing really to talk about. We have both supplied (almost) all the evidence we can think off, and haven't swayed each others view. I hope the video can prove it, if not then we will stay at odds.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[HaTe]

I completely get what you guys are saying and know exactly what sort of evidence you will be providing. I even created a recording myself of exactly what you guys will probably show.

Just keep in mind: If you're aiming behind the free-aim target, you'd also be aiming THROUGH that target while aiming at the same location in third person without free-aim. So while it does increase the effected area of the reticle, you'd still be aiming at that object without free-aim when aiming at that same location as well. So while it does appear to increase the dimensions and area you are able to effectively hit an enemy, it is really just a visual thing. The size and movement of units in Renegade makes sure of this. So you're basically sacrificing a mid screen shot and the ability to turn for the ability to aim behind an enemy and shoot him (but you'd also be aiming behind that enemy without free-aim if he weren't there - meaning you're already aiming "through" him as well). Trust me, I completely see where you're coming from and see why you think it's an advantage. But it's really not. You're still aiming at the same spot. The only difference is that you can see behind a close up enemy while aiming at that spot and essentially be aiming at him as well because of trajectory. So while it's true that you will be able to hit a stationary target with more ease with free-aim, as long as a character is moving side to side, it doesn't make him easier to hit. You would have to switch between a left angle and a right angle per his movement in order for it to be an advantage - which is literally impossible. You have to take movement into consideration. How many enemies are going to be standing still?

[Demigan]

I completely get what you guys are saying and know exactly what sort of evidence you will be providing. I even created a recording myself of exactly what you guys will probably show.

Just keep in mind: If you're aiming behind the free-aim target, you'd also be aiming THROUGH that target while aiming at the same location in third person without free-aim. So while it does increase the effected area of the reticle, you'd still be aiming at that object without free-aim when aiming at that same location as well. So while it does appear to increase the dimensions and area you are able to effectively hit an enemy, it is really just a visual thing. The size and movement of units in Renegade makes sure of this. So you're basically sacrificing a mid screen shot and the ability to turn for the ability to aim behind an enemy and shoot him (but you'd also be aiming behind that enemy without free-aim if he weren't there - meaning you're already aiming "through" him as well). Trust me, I completely see where you're coming from and see why you think it's an advantage. But it's really not. You're still aiming at the same spot. The only difference is that you can see behind a close up enemy while aiming at that spot and essentially be aiming at him as well because of trajectory. So while it's true that you will be able to hit a stationary target with more ease with free-aim, as long as a character is moving side to side, it doesn't make him easier to hit. You would have to switch between a left angle and a right angle per his movement in order for it to be an advantage - which is literally impossible. You have to take movement into consideration. How many enemies are going to be standing still?

You say that if the character wasn't there you would still be aiming at the same spot. This isn't true.

If that character wasn't there, your aim snaps to the exact spot you are aiming at, since you aren't aiming at the spot behind that person you aren't hitting that spot.

You are saying, the surface area of the TARGET never varies. This is correct. No matter what you do, the bullet still has to hit the same small person.

However, the actual surface area on your SCREEN that allows you to hit him is bigger. Even in simple 3rd person, you now can aim straight at him, or straight through him. The area straight through him is additional area you can hit him at.

Just go into the game (will show this in the video as well) and aim next to someone in 3rd person/free aim while he is walking towards you at some point through your line of fire. Watch what your character is doing...

Let's see what happens if he comes from the left, you are free-aiming, in first person, to the right.

First, that person will enter your direct line of fire. You aren't aiming at them, your weaponwill just hit them if you fire since you are aiming at the wall behind him.

Then they will come to stand in direct line of your reticule, and suddenly you character moves! He stops aiming at the wall, and starts aiming at the character instead since your reticule is aimed at him.

So there are 2 places on the screen (2 surface area's) where you can hit him. The target remains the same size, but due to the automatic change in position of the character to aim at your enemy once the reticule is on him, you now have 2 surface area's where you can effectively hit him.

Again, I'll show this with stills and tekst in a video later.

Edit: Please understand that your video showcases the 3rd person problems mostly. To showcase that free-aim does nothing to your aim you should have used 1rst person view.

[HaTe]

It only happens when an enemy is very close to you or at a completely different elevation though. In that case, you're literally locked into that angle until you release the free-aim button. So the enemy can simply go around you and you would have to reset your angle or stop using free-aim entirely. That's what I'm saying....there is an advantage in pure free-aiming at a stationary close target, but when you take movement into consideration - it also has a disadvantage, which equals out the advantage.

There is no real advantage in long range, because you shouldn't be able to see a different area behind that enemy either way. The only advantage in aiming comes from short range, but so long as that target is moving - there is also a big disadvantage for that person. 1.0 advantage - 1.0 disadvantage = 0 (or no) advantage. PM me when you plan on doing these tests and perhaps I will join you to try to show/explain to you in game.

[Ban4life]

We will probably do the tests on a LAN server, as we live in the same city and Want to record more while we're at it. Many people don't understand the flame tank has an alt fire for example, so we want to showcase it.

Later we will invite you in later tests if we go on public servers.

I have to say that I miseed something for moving targets and guns with a bullet velocity. I can't explain it in a few words yet, and as Einstein said "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough". You might be right it makes next to no difference for bullet velocity guns and perspective. I'll look into it.

[HaTe]

Flame tank doesn't have an alt fire with newer scripts. You'd have to host your own stock settings server to accomplish that.

[Demigan]

It only happens when an enemy is very close to you or at a completely different elevation though. In that case, you're literally locked into that angle until you release the free-aim button. So the enemy can simply go around you and you would have to reset your angle or stop using free-aim entirely. That's what I'm saying....there is an advantage in pure free-aiming at a stationary close target, but when you take movement into consideration - it also has a disadvantage, which equals out the advantage.

There is no real advantage in long range, because you shouldn't be able to see a different area behind that enemy either way. The only advantage in aiming comes from short range, but so long as that target is moving - there is also a big disadvantage for that person. 1.0 advantage - 1.0 disadvantage = 0 (or no) advantage. PM me when you plan on doing these tests and perhaps I will join you to try to show/explain to you in game.

In case of Free-Aim, the advantage of the bigger surface area could quite possibly be negated by movement speed and trying to get behind your enemy (which you don't know as the other player). In long range there is an advantage, same as close range. I haven't tested it out but it could very well be so small to be negligible, just like the offset of your camera compared to your gun in first person gives a negligible shadow.

In case of 3rd person aiming, I think you also agree that it gives an advantage. I haven't seen any real arguments for or against it from your side.

If everything you say about free-aim is true, both that the shooting through walls thing and the fact that the advantage is just as big a disadvantage, then I have no qualms adding it in. I do have my doubts.

[Demigan]

Flame tank doesn't have an alt fire with newer scripts. You'd have to host your own stock settings server to accomplish that.

Oh thanks for that info, I already have the vanilla Renegade version installed here to prove (and fail) that C4 had a delay between detonation and throwing (there was no delay).

[HaTe]

Third person gives the advantage of seeing around corners and seeing the sides of your character. I didn't think that was ever part of the discussion - that is pretty widely known throughout third person shooters.

[Ban4life]

Flame tank doesn't have an alt fire with newer scripts. You'd have to host your own stock settings server to accomplish that.

I know this if off-topic, but:

WHAT!? I know I haven't played with the flame tank in a while, but surely they didn't remove the only aspect that made it better against tanks and characters? Without it is only good for buildings and flanked tanks...

That aside, we want to showcase the potential that it had for non-believers and uninstall the scripts. We both play without any skins already so that is also no problem. Not that skins are problems.

Thanks for the update.

[Demigan]

Third person gives the advantage of seeing around corners and seeing the sides of your character. I didn't think that was ever part of the discussion - that is pretty widely known throughout third person shooters.

Well, it also gives the advantage to hit people easier with HITSCAN weapons. It was one of the reasons why I could own just about anyone in the first few minutes of the game: anyone using 3rd person would have a larger area where they aimed directly at me, which meant they weren't leading and would miss due to the slow bullet velocity.

[HaTe]

Scripts made a lot of different changes to different things. I was a part of the beta testing for them before they were released publicly, so I know of all of them basically. I've also studied gameplay strategy and balance immensely, both in game and from the damage calculations perspective. Its almost frightening how much I could tell you about the game. Not to brag - but I also happened to have been pretty darn good (both publicly and competitively).

Flame tank alt fire was proven to be an error in the code and unintended.

What do you mean by hitscan weapons?

[Demigan]

What do you mean by hitscan weapons?

Raptor assault rifle: bullet weapon. It fires a physical bullet that travels through the world until it hits something, then location of hit and damage are calculated

Ramjet rifle: Hitscan weapon. Upon firing the damage is immediately done to the point where the reticule is aiming (and any subsequent hits on people and surfaces). There is no bullet that travels around. The 'bullet' is only a tracer that is draw instantly to show the line where damage is done.

[HaTe]

Okay so you're referring to a 400 velocity weapon (which is the highest in renegade). Renegade x actually has altered velocities for different weapons too though. 11 normal renegade weapons fit into the 400 velocity category.

Velocity does effect a lot, but I don't think instant hit weapons are any easier to use than not instant hit weapons in third person, though. Obviously it'd be easier to hit the target, but the same is true for first person as well.

[R315r4z0r]

The area (width/height) that you can effectively hit the target does not increase from free-aim though. It may look like it does, because you seem to apparently be aiming behind him, but the only reason you're able to see behind him is because of the angle. Meaning that if you were using normal third person, you'd effectively be aiming at that same exact spot, just from the different angle. The area does not increase because of this fact.

I understand that the target's size isn't increasing. What I mean by saying "target area" is the size of the zone you can place your cursor and still hit your target.

If you're in free aim and you point to a player in the middle of your screen, they have the smallest possible target area. However, as they move off center to the left or right, the target area gets bigger. I know exactly why it happens, so you don't have to explain that to me. But the point is, as a person gets closer to your left/right, the amount of space you're free to move your cursor and still hit them increases greatly. It gets to a point where you don't even need to mouse your cursor over their character in order to hit them anymore.

You even see it in the video you posted. You clearly move the cursor behind that concrete block but the reticle dot stays on the block. In first person, you have to point exactly at the spot you want to hit in order to hit it. But in third person, you can point your cursor anywhere behind your intended target and still hit it, meaning your target area is bigger.

But why this happens is irrelevant. The point is, it's easier to hit a target in free aim than it is without, at least in my opinion. But, like I said, it's not an advantage since everyone can do it and your screen is locked at a certain angle.

[SFJake]

Its (in theory) an "advantage" over someone that does not bother learning this gimmicky ability that has no reason to exist in the first place.

Thats my personal view of that.

[R315r4z0r]

Then it's also an "advantage" if you have a larger monitor than another player. Or if you have a dedicated gaming mouse/keyboard. Or if you play with a higher resolution or better graphics settings.

Everyone has access to it. Just because someone chooses not to use it doesn't mean it's an advantage. It just means that person is at a disadvantage. And that's their own choice, not because of the mechanic.

[TopDawg]

I don't have a strong opinion either way on fee aim's inclusion or not (but seems unlikely since it's not built into UDK3), but I don't know if I consider it an advantage in that vein you illustrated. If something is in game and you have to use it to be competitive, it's not so much an advantage as it is a must. Similar to turning camera shake off vs. those that do not.

[Valor]

In the latest dev Q&A it was said that free aim will be added later.

http://www.twitch.tv/thegunrun/b/503949627

Personally I'm glad it's coming back. Helicopter fights weren't really interesting without free aim.

[Demigan]

Here is our (me and Ban4life's) proof, just watch the entire thing.

What you should notice, is that with 3rd person and free-aim you increase the surface area on the screen where you can hit a person. Since there is a larger area on your screen, you can hit him easier.

The closer you get, the larger this area becomes. In case of Free-aim the farther your enemy is to the side of the screen, the larger area you have to hit.