One of the selling points of this feature is "if you can see it you can shoot it", however for some weird reason it only works with aimed shot or when kneeling down... why limit it to only certain conditions?
Realism in games is controversial topic. One should mark a line somewhere, and we're talking about the game where enemies take turns, and collision models for units are cylinders. I conceive the idea of different LoS/LoF for auto/snap fire both as a game convention and gameplay element, and a little bit as tribute to original game. It's kind of tradeoff: you have better cover, peeking out safely - but you can't open rapid fire as easy as someone staying in the open field with his finger on the trigger. I fired up the game just to make sure and can say it still looks justified.
Your opinion makes sense, I just wanted to elaborate mine. If needed, menu option could be easily implemented ))
Spread being affected by type of shot - maybe it'd be better to have it affected by chance to hit?.. my personal preference would be to have chance to hit dictate the spread
It does, to extent. Overall, the whole topic is extremely complicated. I spent weeks figuring it out, and had numerous heated discussions with people)) Imagine being me, trying to make accuracy mod for 30 years old game. What should it looks like? First of all, people who would possibly want to play mod are the same people who played OG and OXC and they are used to "old" accuracy. You couldn't change numbers arbitrarily. But the worst part is "realism" - in real life, distances of typical XCom gunfight are too short to miss. Be sure, first iterations of RA design were based on calculating realistic probabilities - but that didn't work well for close-range combat. So, after a while I came to current RA where bullets whizz around the target with (I hope so) "realistic" feel, for a price of fire spread cone changing with distance.
In a nutshell, spread depends on weapon 1/2-hand type, shot type, and distance. Chance to hit doesn't affect it 'cause for similar mentioned conditions, 100% visible target should get the same spread as almost fully covered, albeit chance to hit would be absolutly different.
100%+ shots... was brought back because mods and stuff, but well, I do play modded (x-files) and I don't like these guaranteed shots... 95% cap is something I guess.
Yes, I changed that back and forth... Firstly there was no cap, then I made it 95%, then I removed it again. 100%+ accuracy in mods like XCF sometimes affects damage so it's crucial to keep. If I recall right I was trying to add cap option to menu but decided to ditch the idea 'cause the algorith was already buggy and overcomplicated at the moment. I mean, I spent days and weeks in debugger. I could consider adding that option but it gives me flashbacks ))
Horizontal vs vertical spread
It should be less in vertical I guess, but maybe the rate is insufficient? OK, I've checked the code, basic (unmodified) vertical deviation is equal to unit's radius (except for big units, where it's radius/2). I could change it to 3/4 or 2/3 of radius, so spread shape will be elliptical. Statistically, round shape should've been working good, due the way it's used. When there's a rolled miss in accuracy - the game looks for valid missing trajectory. For round spread shape with center on the unit and radius equal to 1/2 of its size - most missing shots go to the sides, even after increasing spread - it's much more likely to miss to the side than to narrow areas above and below the unit.
===
As for bugs - I must confess there are known ones, but I didn't have time, will and energy to fix them. For example, suicide protection fails sometimes when shooting from Skyranger ramp, and off-center shooting is broken for a good amound of cases, including reaction fire. It feels in narrow passages.
I have long overdue obligation to make video tutorial for Freecad on YT, and couldn't devote myself to RA support until it's done, but I could at least make small updates. I guess it's time. I should say, positive feedback is encouraging. It's really is. Thank you)
