ARMA 3 - still unrealistic optics

[Leopardi 0]

If you mean the part outside the scope not being zoomed, that wont happen because it requires rendering the scene twice, basically 2x resource requirement during aiming.

It is possible to get the realistic scope effect and no performance decrease at all since it's just a blur trick basically. Tell me why couldn't this be implemented? Much better than a black texture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHr-GNBYMts

Edited January 31, 2013 by Leopardi

[cyclone83 6]

Well, searching the environment for enemies or mounted low zooming optics on assault rifles, those examples may in fact appear more realistic.

BUT when it comes to snipe (not searching the environment) in RL as right-handed person you have your left eye closed while you're with your open right eye directly pressed to your scope.

This is the fact why you see the scope's view as big and the rest beside the scope just black as it is displayed by now. No need for any changes here except for the distance clutter and shadow problem as already mentioned.

[-Coulum- 35]

It is possible to get the realistic scope effect and no performance decrease at all since it's just a blur trick basically. Tell me why couldn't this be implemented?

Yes but this isn't technically realistic - Outside the scope "should" be clear and unzoomed while inside is zoomed. I personlly don't mind what your vid shows because it does save performance and looks nice enough. And this saved performance could be used towards other features that make more impact on gameplay...

It would be the same if you were using anything with 2d optics in arma. Camouflage does not work in arma unless you run max graphics and its 24:00.

Camaflauge doesn't work if the soldier is outside the draw range of the clutter and shadows. But when the draw range is increased, it does work, as clearly shown in this picture - you can barely see the guy. But this is what I am arguing needs to be fixed instead of rtt/3d scopes. If we are going to cut down framerates, do it to increase the draw range of shadows and clutter not to make fancy scopes that don't really offer much gameplay value.

This thread is about realistic optics - shouldn't it be more important that what's inside the scope be depicted accurately and realistically rather than whats outside of it?

[slatts 1978]

OOhhh that AUG is so wrong..criiiiinge

[soldia 1]

Well, searching the environment for enemies or mounted low zooming optics on assault rifles, those examples may in fact appear more realistic.

BUT when it comes to snipe (not searching the environment) in RL as right-handed person you have your left eye closed while you're with your open right eye directly pressed to your scope.

This is the fact why you see the scope's view as big and the rest beside the scope just black as it is displayed by now. No need for any changes here except for the distance clutter and shadow problem as already mentioned.

^this...definitely. And if you sum it up, the moments where you scan the environment with a magnified scope are really mere. If we want it the realistic way, we have to consider that the optics wouldn't be in the middle of the screen plus the head would be tilted etc.

[maddogx 13]

If we want it the realistic way, we have to consider that the optics wouldn't be in the middle of the screen

Actually, yes they would.

plus the head would be tilted etc.

Doesn't matter. The brain compensates for head tilting.

[cyclone83 6]

@MadDogX

I think he meant while searching the environment ;) Sure in scope mode it has to appear centered. But for the other case the scope, in fact the whole rifle is to your right. Same view as for aiming view with the outside drawn crosshair OR the scope would be directly under your right eye. But it wouldn't look like in the pictures posted here before ^^

[Kamov 1]

Yes but this isn't technically realistic - Outside the scope "should" be clear and unzoomed while inside is zoomed. I personlly don't mind what your vid shows because it does save performance and looks nice enough. And this saved performance could be used towards other features that make more impact on gameplay...

Camaflauge doesn't work if the soldier is outside the draw range of the clutter and shadows. But when the draw range is increased, it does work, as clearly shown in this picture - you can barely see the guy. But this is what I am arguing needs to be fixed instead of rtt/3d scopes. If we are going to cut down framerates, do it to increase the draw range of shadows and clutter not to make fancy scopes that don't really offer much gameplay value.

This thread is about realistic optics - shouldn't it be more important that what's inside the scope be depicted accurately and realistically rather than whats outside of it?

They do offer gameplay value. So many times in RO I've been sniping and I saw something in the corner of my eye because of the realistic optic.

[nodunit 397]

eye directly pressed to your scope.

The recoil is going to hurt quite a bit if you do that.

[soldia 1]

Actually, yes they would.

@MadDogX

I think he meant while searching the environment ;) Sure in scope mode it has to appear centered. But for the other case the scope, in fact the whole rifle is to your right. Same view as for aiming view with the outside drawn crosshair OR the scope would be directly under your right eye. But it wouldn't look like in the pictures posted here before ^^

Exactly. If we talk about having both eyes open, there is a shift to the right. That would be the normal shooting position reflex and red dot scopes.

I think ArmA assumes that the shooter has only one I open if in scoped mode.

Doesn't matter. The brain compensates for head tilting.

Again...one I opened: yes. Both eyes opened: no.

IMHO there are far more important issues to care about if we talk about ArmAIII

[Smurf 12]

They do offer gameplay value. So many times in RO I've been sniping and I saw something in the corner of my eye because of the realistic optic.

That is the point.

I would suggest the use of RTT a la RO2 but with the outside of the scope all blured\worst LOD\decreased view distance just to offer a periphical vision.

But I don't think that is that simple and lod changing problems comes to mind.

[Kamov 1]

That is the point.

I would suggest the use of RTT a la RO2 but with the outside of the scope all blured\worst LOD\decreased view distance just to offer a periphical vision.

But I don't think that is that simple and lod changing problems comes to mind.

But then when you move your head you won't be able to look around.. Plus your eyes naturally focus at the optic so there is no need at all to blur it.

[chortles 263]

I think ArmA assumes that the shooter has only one I open if in scoped mode.

Pretty much -- BI-through-Arma makes a lot of assumptions which are reflected in the gameplay and settings, no matter how many hardcores may disagree or complain "my immersion!"

IMHO there are far more important issues to care about if we talk about ArmAIII

It sounds like BI agrees, based on past dev comments (i.e. Vespa's response to Robert Hammer on weapon attachments) which is why "still unrealistic optics".

[froggyluv 2136]

IMHO there are far more important issues to care about if we talk about ArmAIII

Well thats the problem - we all have different ideas of what BI should be focusing on and the list is massive! Personally, i'd be thrilled if they announced new and improved sights and would be a major selling point for me. Not that I ain't buying it Day 1

regardless.

[chortles 263]

Well thats the problem - we all have different ideas of what BI should be focusing on and the list is massive! Personally, i'd be thrilled if they announced new and improved sights and would be a major selling point for me. Not that I ain't buying it Day 1 regardless.

The flip side of that is that since "we all have different ideas", some of which would be directly contradictory, inevitably BI's disagreeing with the majority of the fans by making any (coherent) development priority hierarchy at all, simply because of the lack of consensus among fans about what that should look like. :p

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Yes well I could live with it, but I see where you're coming from. However I would much rather have a "fake 3d scope" by having not only inside the scope zoomed, but also outside.Not exactly realistic, but if outside the scope is blurred it will not allow for unrealistic advantages. Plus, it wouldn't require the resources that RTT does - ideally this could be used instead towards increasing draw distance of grass and shadows while zooming. End result would look something like this at 200 metres. I would be pretty happy to play with that any day.

RTT scopes would look something like this at 200 metres in the exact same situation. While it does look neat and very authentic, it still does nothing to really address the problems with magnified weapons - they are far to easy to acquire targets with.

Not sure if those distant shadow will actually cover up objects though. My understanding was that their solutions to long range shadows was to simply draw them onto the map - so they don't actually project, but they appear to be on the ground. Maybe they found away to cover up units with these "map" shadows as well though...

........ Does everyone disagree with me?

I think this is a good comprimise, though I'd still like to see RTT as a graphic option, in fact I'd be happy with anything thats not a black background with a cut out. cringe

[-Coulum- 35]

They do offer gameplay value. So many times in RO I've been sniping and I saw something in the corner of my eye because of the realistic optic.

Yes that's why I said they don't offer much gameplay value. Being able to see things out of the corner of your eye is great and realistic but I see it as a small improvement, and more importantly, it just makes magnified optics even more effective/overpowered than they are already. Like I have already said, having a more realistic view within the sight, will change the way combat plays out drastically, and for the better (assuming you want more realistic firefights). And using the fake 3d sights like I suggest looks almost as nice and still gives you a bit of peripheral vision even if it is a bit "gamey".

I guess you still disagree with me though and would rather real 3d sights but with arma's default "cardboard" battlefield?

I think this is a good comprimise, though I'd still like to see RTT as a graphic option, in fact I'd be happy with anything thats not a black background with a cut out. cringe

Yeah I am of the same opinion - getting rid of the black overlay would be good enough for me. If cheating a bit means better performance that's fine - and as always providing users with high end computers the option to use the real deal is always great.

Well thats the problem - we all have different ideas of what BI should be focusing on and the list is massive! Personally, i'd be thrilled if they announced new and improved sights and would be a major selling point for me. Not that I ain't buying it Day 1 regardless.

Poor BIS. The thing is I don't think they are even at the point where they can pick and choose what suggestions they want to invest in - They just want to get a game out that runs smoothly out of the box...

[chortles 263]

Poor BIS. The thing is I don't think they are even at the point where they can pick and choose what suggestions they want to invest in - They just want to get a game out that runs smoothly out of the box...

Which is all too low on the fans' priority lists, hence remarks like "let's not be afraid of that word: streamlined" having to be said by the game's own creative director or keywording "optimized, polished, stable" as goals for this to be the "most <insert slogan> Arma release ever". :p

[cyclone83 6]

But then when you move your head you won't be able to look around.. Plus your eyes naturally focus at the optic so there is no need at all to blur it.

This ^^

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Have any of you ever actually fired a weapon with any sort of magnified optic? This peripheral vision is nearly nonexistent, if not completely depending on the shooter and how they first started training. It actually takes quite a bit of practice to fire with both eyes open, and even when you do manage it while reliably hitting your targets, imagine having only about 20-30 degrees of view left to gather all your 'peripheral' information. Any vision you do have is blurry, dark, and almost worth closing the other eye for to get rid of the distractions. There's nothing realistic about how Red Orchestra does their optics, it just happens to look pretty to gamers who've never picked up a weapon in their lives.

On the other hand, I think Arma desperately needs parallax-free reflex sights. You can find an example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflex_sight The image in the top right hand corner of the article shows the behavior I'm talking about.

[chortles 263]

Have any of you ever actually fired a weapon with any sort of magnified optic? This peripheral vision is nearly nonexistent, if not completely depending on the shooter and how they first started training. It actually takes quite a bit of practice to fire with both eyes open, and even when you do manage it while reliably hitting your targets, imagine having only about 20-30 degrees of view left to gather all your 'peripheral' information. Any vision you do have is blurry, dark, and almost worth closing the other eye for to get rid of the distractions. There's nothing realistic about how Red Orchestra does their optics, it just happens to look pretty to gamers who've never picked up a weapon in their lives.

On the other hand, I think Arma desperately needs parallax-free reflex sights. You can find an example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflex_sight The image in the top right hand corner of the article shows the behavior I'm talking about.

I believe that that's what a bunch of people were intending by "RTT scopes" but also what has not yet (and 'at this rate' I would expect won't) been implemented in Arma 3.

[Kamov 1]

Have any of you ever actually fired a weapon with any sort of magnified optic? This peripheral vision is nearly nonexistent, if not completely depending on the shooter and how they first started training. It actually takes quite a bit of practice to fire with both eyes open, and even when you do manage it while reliably hitting your targets, imagine having only about 20-30 degrees of view left to gather all your 'peripheral' information. Any vision you do have is blurry, dark, and almost worth closing the other eye for to get rid of the distractions. There's nothing realistic about how Red Orchestra does their optics, it just happens to look pretty to gamers who've never picked up a weapon in their lives.

On the other hand, I think Arma desperately needs parallax-free reflex sights. You can find an example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflex_sight The image in the top right hand corner of the article shows the behavior I'm talking about.

You have obviously never used a low magnified optic before. You can shoot with two eyes open quite comfortably. I've even done it with a Kashtan on a SGL-31.

[Minoza 11]

Blur and/or darken for high magnification optics, no blur and no black for low magnification = everyone happy? :D

Only thing I'm stretched between now is, RTT with crap draw distance for grass, or cheap zoom with mooaar render distance for weed.

[Tes 1]

Darken for high magnification/blur and fake 3d for low, realistic and moving reflex/holo sight (aiming where actualy gun aims, staing on target when head moves and more) No RTT,instead grass distance incrased while zooming. It's the only way(read in Vader voice). If it can be done- 4x incrased for ACOG, 8x for sniper scope etc.

[Kamov 1]

Fake 3d is trash.