Render To Texture + Scopes = ???

[Cwivey 1]

If your sights are set to 300 metres, you aim at something 300 metres away, your bullet will travel in an arc to the target, traveling up then down. This is because the sights setting has made your muzzle aim higher than the horizontal.

What he was saying with BF3 and BC2 is that the game doesn't simulate distant zeroing, merly that gun's sights are set to 0 metres (Or something very close), therefore, aiming with the sights perfectly horizontal will not result in any shot going higher then the sights during its flight.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Cwivey
Grammar

[metalcraze 290]

RO2 uses hitscan for Under 50 metres, simply because the bullet flies fast enough that it's next to pointless calculating it during those distances. After this distance, it uses a proper balistics system (Traveling bullet) with drop taken into account, but not wind.

That's not a proper ballistics system.

In reality the bullet first goes up from the barrel when it reaches the zeroing point and only then drops.

With the 50m hitscan it would mean it's just optics firing the bullet (like in BF3) not the barrel and only a drop is there, not the parabola.

[Smurf 12]

That's not a proper ballistics system.

In reality the bullet first goes up from the barrel when it reaches the zeroing point and only then drops.

With the 50m hitscan it would mean it's just optics firing the bullet (like in BF3) not the barrel and only a drop is there, not the parabola.

You can hit the target high, you have the parabola.

At least the third time I asked you, did you ever played this game?

[dmarkwick 261]

Bleah.

Edited August 13, 2012 by DMarkwick

[chortles 263]

That's not a proper ballistics system.

In reality the bullet first goes up from the barrel when it reaches the zeroing point and only then drops.

With the 50m hitscan it would mean it's just optics firing the bullet (like in BF3) not the barrel and only a drop is there, not the parabola.

My post was meant to say that ARMA is seemingly unique in simulating the parabola as opposed to just the drop like other games do, again due to the lack of zeroing in those other games.

[4 IN 1 0]

FPDR

What you guys saying are actually around the same thing: bullet trajectory crossing rifle line of sight twice

Without further going off topic I will do it quick here:

Rifle line of sight(rear sight, front sight and target in the same line) is higher then the barrel itself, due to this height over bore offset, rifles zeroed in a long range would actually have the trajectory crossing the line of sight once during its ascending stage towards the peak, then cross again during its descending stage where it meets the targeted zeroing distance.

Which is why you always heard about people talking about a 25/100 zeroing or a 50/300 zeroing(which by itself is somewhat misleading, but lets not go too deep into it)

Now back on topic, if BI can disable all other RTT function except the only one on your rifle scope, and give us a sharp RTT in scope with the exchange of a very low quality render of everything outside the eyepiece, they might have a chance, but it all based on IF BI can do this kind of dynamic switching between the 2 render mode.

[NoRailgunner 0]

What about possible trick shooting / aiming via vehicle mirror? ;)

[4 IN 1 0]

What about possible trick shooting / aiming via vehicle mirror? ;)

Forget about those perhaps?:p

[the_antipop 10]

The early RTT in the vehicles did have a massive FPS hit. At the moment it's slowed FPS and doesn't give as big of a FPS hit, from what I can see it's only 1-2 FPS. To make RTT on scopes useful it would have to be high FPS which would then give a big FPS hit (You couldn't make it as slow as the vehicle ones). Therefore I believe BIS just saw the FPS hit not worth it, which I'm happy with.

[chortles 263]

Makes sense to me, that RTT scopes are only worth it if they can consistently (always may be an impossibility) maintain the same frame rate as what's going on on the rest of the screen, and without dragging down the overall framerate i.e. of what's going on on the rest of the screen (although of course the notorious "hole in a black screen" method simply precludes the rendering/display of anything outside of that scope view to maintain that scope view as the sole "what's going on onscreen"), as such is more critical/necessary than "framerate matching" with RTT in other sources such as the vehicle interiors.

If this can't be achieved in RV4 to such a standard, then the lack thereof is a pity but oh well: either framerate-matching RTT scopes or no RTT scopes.

[Meek 10]

If frame-rate is an issue, wouldn't it make sense to reduce the frame-rate of everything except the scope?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

If frame-rate is an issue, wouldn't it make sense to reduce the frame-rate of everything except the scope?

I don't see how a single RTT scope would cause a performance issue, if done at full 60 Hz. RO2 does it,

Z4gWB10Bhy8

Notice how the back of the scope isn't showing anything - I have not been able to find the answer to a scenario, where 100 snipers simultaneously look through the scope - would an outside observer, standing as the 101st unit, suffer an FPS loss? Or would the RTT scope be client-based, and not visible from the outside/3rd PV?

As it stands right now, AFAIK, you can see through your teammates' optics, correct me if I'm wrong.

[dm 9]

Or would the RTT scope be client-based, and not visible from the outside/3rd PV?

This.

100 snipers looking through their scopes simultaneously wouldnt make any difference, because each scope is simulated locally to that sniper.