Scopes vs. Holo Sights

[jmdecc 12]

So, here is something I'm trying to understand. Almost every soldier in ArmA 3, with the exception of Squad Leaders, Team Leaders, Marksman, Snipers, and Spotters (might have missed one or two units here, I apologize), use the RCO Scope on their MX/Katiba/FN2000. All of the rest of the troops use Holo or Iron Sights. My question is, why is this?

Altis and Stratis are both so large and vast, with lots of wide open spaces. Contact almost always begins at a pretty decent distance. Many times I find myself struggling to either A) Locate where fire is coming from, or B) Return fire effectively. This is often because like I stated, most regular troops are not being equipped with optics that help them sight in at long range. I'm kind of wondering why this isn't changed up.

If you look at most NATO troops in Afghanistan right now, not many of them are using close quarters red dot/holo/iron sights. A large majority seem to be using optics that allow them to see at great distances. US Army and Marines are both typically seen sporting ACOG's. In 2035, why wouldn't such a practice carry over? I can understand why the AAF may not have them, but CSAT and NATO sort of baffles me.

Something else I've always sort of wondered about, is why NATO is using the particularly holo sight that they are. The ACO. I understand that with the current setting there is a lot of room for freedom and creativity, but I mean you have an EoTech look alike already in game. Seems to me like it'd make more sense if that was the type of holo sight in use now. Considering its use within NATO countries today, one would think it'd make sense to see it improved upon and continued to be used throughout the years. That and I think they look pretty cool on the MX.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Or am I just being too knit picky. Not a slam thread or "WHYYYYYY BI???" or anything, just genuinely curious as to what the thought process was when using/assigning certain assets.

[-Gews- 1]

Seems like many first-world armies these days try to issue magnified optical sights as standard, if they can afford it.

-ACOG

-SUSAT

-G36 optics

-Elcan

Etc.

[jmdecc 12]

Exactly what I was getting at. That's why I am a little confused as to why holo sights are the standard among all three armies. I can justify AAF, maybe not enough funds. I can even justify CSAT, maybe they lack the combat expirence. But NATO? They've been doing this now for a loooooong time. You'd think magnified sights would be the standard, especially in A3. And with the backup doctor red dot on top of the RCO, you already have a cqb optic built in. Just seems like it'd make far more sense to equip them all with RCO's instead.

[MavericK96 0]

Yeah, in the future you would think they could afford RCO sights for everyone. :p

Given that it's a dual-purpose sight, as well, it works just as well for close-range.

[Tacti-Cool 10]

maybe in the future the economy is a lot worse than it is today, thats what the campaign setting mentions anyway..

[scrim 1]

Maybe there's no reason for why it is like that other than that the devs simply made it that way, without any sort of reasoning as to why? I mean, it doesn't seem to matter for the AI (which is weird), and I've never known a mission not to give the player to ability to chose some parts of his loadout.

[warlord554 2065]

Exactly why I don't use vanilla setups on any mission, first thing I'll do is script realistic loadouts for all units. And don't forget that every infantry platoon has a Squad Marksman. I dunno if they would have them in 2035, but I can't see why they wouldn't. I knew a Marine Squad Leader who loved to carry a Javelin, and if he came across a soldier out of engagement range, he'd fire his Javelin at targets up to 2 miles away!! :cool:

[-Coulum- 35]

I have a feeling its for gameplay purposes. Especially against ai there is very little need to maneuvre when you have magnification and can just sit and plink away from 500 metres at an ai that simply stays stationary in the open rather than actually duck in and out of cover and hide. Put on top of it that scopes are far easier to use in arma than in reality and you're going to find that gameplay a bit unrealitstic. Not saying I wouldn't prefer everyone to have magnification (wasn't it like that at one point in the alpha), or everyone not having optics is any more realistic. Just that I think it was done purposed with gameplay in mind.

Sort of like shacktack never uses magnification except for the rare sniper.

[tinter 184]

I know more soldiers used to have RCO in the alpha, but they changed it.

[progamer 14]

maybe in the future the economy is a lot worse than it is today, thats what the campaign setting mentions anyway..

Not the "future" excuse... It's not like they would be new, we have them now but they magically disapear later on?

[roberthammer 582]

I guess bis wanted to use more optics on the MX/Katiba than only RCO and the iron sight

[chortles 263]

I have a feeling its for gameplay purposes. Especially against ai there is very little need to maneuvre when you have magnification and can just sit and plink away from 500 metres at an ai that simply stays stationary in the open rather than actually duck in and out of cover and hide. Put on top of it that scopes are far easier to use in arma than in reality and you're going to find that gameplay a bit unrealitstic. Not saying I wouldn't prefer everyone to have magnification (wasn't it like that at one point in the alpha), or everyone not having optics is any more realistic. Just that I think it was done purposed with gameplay in mind.

Sort of like shacktack never uses magnification except for the rare sniper.

Wouldn't be surprised, especially when Zipper5 outright said that the campaign was "gameplay-driven" first (in the sense of coming up with gameplay and then bending/manipulating the story instead of the other way, because "In the past, there were many instances when we were somewhat hindered in what we could do by what had been set-in-stone by the narrative. We decided gameplay should have priority."), if this was the rationale behind the default loadouts... especially since, as WarLord554 said, the loadouts are changeable in custom missions anyway.

[dnk 13]

Certainly this is the easiest-to-solve issue ever.

this addPrimaryWeaponItem "optic_DMS";

[metalcraze 290]

Since we are talking about scopes another question is why scopes work with NVGs still? It's been 4 months and the issue is still not fixed.

(so please support this ticket for BIS to finally notice it: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10188 )

I'm actually surprised that some people don't understand why it's impossible to use a "monocle" scope with a stereoscopic NVG.

What's worse is that there are NV scopes in the game but of course unless you have a scope-fetish there's zero point in using them.

[MissionCreep 12]

Since we are talking about scopes another question is why scopes work with NVGs still?

I'm guessing its an "arcade" feature that people like ....

[nicolasroger 11]

I know for sure that the new opforce sniper scope doesn'T work with NVGs.

I have no idea in real life if it is suposed to work or not.

[almanzo 144]

I have a feeling its for gameplay purposes. Especially against ai there is very little need to maneuvre when you have magnification and can just sit and plink away from 500 metres at an ai that simply stays stationary in the open rather than actually duck in and out of cover and hide. Put on top of it that scopes are far easier to use in arma than in reality and you're going to find that gameplay a bit unrealitstic. Not saying I wouldn't prefer everyone to have magnification (wasn't it like that at one point in the alpha), or everyone not having optics is any more realistic. Just that I think it was done purposed with gameplay in mind.

Sort of like shacktack never uses magnification except for the rare sniper.

My first thought as well.

[dav 22]

I think the real problem with the holo sights is the fact that the zoom is too far out to give you any kind of an advantage. The holo scope when right clicked is around 4 inches from your eye. In real life you would be looking closer into the holo sights hence giving you a clearer more accurate picture through the lens. It's ridiculous that the holo sights is so far away from your eyeball, makes them useless.

[-Gews- 1]

This topic also reminded me: comparing ArmA3 to ArmA2, I found objects appeared 1.5 times smaller, from the same distance.

So, if there is someone in ArmA2 who is 300 meters away - in ArmA3, the same person would appear 450 meters away, using ArmA2 scale. At least this is true for my monitor - it is much harder to see targets in A3. I'm sure this is an intentional feature.

Anyways, holo sight + harder to see people = perhaps trying to make shorter average engagement ranges?

[progamer 14]

Wouldn't be surprised, especially when Zipper5 outright said that the campaign was "gameplay-driven" first (in the sense of coming up with gameplay and then bending/manipulating the story instead of the other way, because "In the past, there were many instances when we were somewhat hindered in what we could do by what had been set-in-stone by the narrative. We decided gameplay should have priority."), if this was the rationale behind the default loadouts... especially since, as WarLord554 said, the loadouts are changeable in custom missions anyway.

Seems like all the content is campaign driven. And feels like all content is gameplay driven first and realism second.

Which has caused many to go back to Arma 2 while waiting for mods to change it.

Edited November 15, 2013 by ProGamer

[MANTIA 55]

So, here is something I'm trying to understand. Almost every soldier in ArmA 3, with the exception of Squad Leaders, Team Leaders, Marksman, Snipers, and Spotters (might have missed one or two units here, I apologize), use the RCO Scope on their MX/Katiba/FN2000. All of the rest of the troops use Holo or Iron Sights. My question is, why is this?

Altis and Stratis are both so large and vast, with lots of wide open spaces. Contact almost always begins at a pretty decent distance. Many times I find myself struggling to either A) Locate where fire is coming from, or B) Return fire effectively. This is often because like I stated, most regular troops are not being equipped with optics that help them sight in at long range. I'm kind of wondering why this isn't changed up.

If you look at most NATO troops in Afghanistan right now, not many of them are using close quarters red dot/holo/iron sights. A large majority seem to be using optics that allow them to see at great distances. US Army and Marines are both typically seen sporting ACOG's. In 2035, why wouldn't such a practice carry over? I can understand why the AAF may not have them, but CSAT and NATO sort of baffles me.

Something else I've always sort of wondered about, is why NATO is using the particularly holo sight that they are. The ACO. I understand that with the current setting there is a lot of room for freedom and creativity, but I mean you have an EoTech look alike already in game. Seems to me like it'd make more sense if that was the type of holo sight in use now. Considering its use within NATO countries today, one would think it'd make sense to see it improved upon and continued to be used throughout the years. That and I think they look pretty cool on the MX.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Or am I just being too knit picky. Not a slam thread or "WHYYYYYY BI???" or anything, just genuinely curious as to what the thought process was when using/assigning certain assets.

The unit (US Light Infantry) I was with in Afghanistan a year ago was made up mostly with this template (not as many longer range optics as you might think, and there is a reason):

SLs with ACOGs

Alpha Teams

TL-acog

MG(mk-48) 145 scope

Grenadier- M68 red dot

SDM- Sos type scope on EBR M14s

*some Alphas had a regular rifleman with a m68 instead of the SDM

Bravo Team

TL-ACOG

MG (SAW with iron sights)

Grenadier- M68 red dot

SDM- SOS

Weapon squads featured

1 M240L w/ 145 scope

1 M240L w/ iron sights

1 SDM

all other roles with M68s

The reasoning (not that I necessarily agree with it but) was that soldiers with magnified optics tend to look for point targets. They wanted more roles with M68s and iron sights for this reason: AutomaticRifles: so they will use more suppressing fire rather than look for point targets Grenadiers: so they focus more on deadspace with their M320s. The reason some MGs had magnified optics was basically to more precisely engage and being allowed to do so because the other un magnified MG was no doubtedly suppressing.

Like I said before I don't necessarily agree with this 100% but it does keep the M4s from wasting their rounds at 600+ meters and allowing the autorifles and SDMs to do work and forcing those M68 and iron sight systems to cover close or suppress depending on their weapon system.

*One thing this real life scenario has over the Arma world is the effects and importance of suppressing fire. Its hard to effectively suppress in Arma with the player on the other end knowing hes not going to feel the pain of those rounds hitting him. Hearing rounds crack 10-20 feet above your head in real life have a "thats going to hurt" sound, lol.

Edited November 16, 2013 by DoRo

[galzohar 31]

You can use the scopes with NV because of the weird way in which 3d scopes were implemented. Scopes that didn't get converted to "3d scopes" (such as the NLAW scope) still work the same way they do in OA - Not allowing use along with NV. I'm sure BIS intended no scopes to be used with NV and these carelessly slipped in when they implemented the 3d scopes. Not that I like the implementation of 3d scopes, as I think zooming in your peripheral vision is the worst thing you can do, and I'd much rather have either the performance hit of PIP or the ugliness of the old scopes.

[-Coulum- 35]

The unit (US Light Infantry) I was with in Afghanistan a year ago was made up mostly with this template (not as many longer range optics as you might think, and there is a reason):

SLs with ACOGs

Alpha Teams

TL-acog

MG(mk-48) 145 scope

Grenadier- M68 red dot

SDM- Sos type scope on EBR M14s

*some Alphas had a regular rifleman with a m68 instead of the SDM

Bravo Team

TL-ACOG

MG (SAW with iron sights)

Grenadier- M68 red dot

SDM- SOS

Weapon squads featured

1 M240L w/ 145 scope

1 M240L w/ iron sights

1 SDM

all other roles with M68s

The reasoning (not that I necessarily agree with it but) was that soldiers with magnified optics tend to look for point targets. They wanted more roles with M68s and iron sights for this reason: AutomaticRifles: so they will use more suppressing fire rather than look for point targets Grenadiers: so they focus more on deadspace with their M320s. The reason some MGs had magnified optics was basically to more precisely engage and being allowed to do so because the other un magnified MG was no doubtedly suppressing.

Like I said before I don't necessarily agree with this 100% but it does keep the M4s from wasting their rounds at 600+ meters and allowing the autorifles and SDMs to do work and forcing those M68 and iron sight systems to cover close or suppress depending on their weapon system.

Thanks for sharing, interesting stuff. I guess that magnified optics might also push soldiers to get tunnel-visioned if they aren't careful - everyone sighting in on a specific point they think an enemy is going to pop up while not watching where they don't think the enemy will be. Of course this is probably not going to be much of a problem in a well trained unit.

*One thing this real life scenario has over the Arma world is the effects and importance of suppressing fire. Its hard to effectively suppress in Arma with the player on the other end knowing hes not going to feel the pain of those rounds hitting him.

Definitely. My understanting is in reality killing an enemy isn't the only way to sway a firefight - putting down accurate enough fire to intimidate the enemy into hiding (thus loosing his ability to return fire, maneuvre and observe you) is just as effective. Where as in arma it is quite different, killing a target is really the only way of providing effective fire and contributing to a firefight (In PVP and even more so against Ai) because there isn't any intimidation factor to bullets made of pixels. This is why in arma magnification and snipers are by far the most effective parts of a team and LMGs are well... they make the firefight sound cooler but really aren't as effective as in reality.

Hearing rounds crack 10-20 feet above your head in real life have a "thats going to hurt" sound, lol.

Haha, never mind the pain, what about the fact that it might actually kill you for good whereas in arma it just means you might have to wait till the next mission round or even worse respawn.

But what you say actually makes the whole situation with the current loadouts seem much more reasonable even if not overly effective for game purposes.

[13islucky 10]

You can use the scopes with NV because of the weird way in which 3d scopes were implemented. Scopes that didn't get converted to "3d scopes" (such as the NLAW scope) still work the same way they do in OA - Not allowing use along with NV. I'm sure BIS intended no scopes to be used with NV and these carelessly slipped in when they implemented the 3d scopes. Not that I like the implementation of 3d scopes, as I think zooming in your peripheral vision is the worst thing you can do, and I'd much rather have either the performance hit of PIP or the ugliness of the old scopes.

Just to point this out but Alwarren's 3D scopes cannot be used in conjunction with NODs, and automatically disable them when you sight in. If BIS #D scopes could do that it would sure be neato.

[lev 21]

The unit (US Light Infantry) I was with in Afghanistan a year ago was made up mostly with this template (not as many longer range optics as you might think, and there is a reason):

SLs with ACOGs

Alpha Teams

TL-acog

MG(mk-48) 145 scope

Grenadier- M68 red dot

SDM- Sos type scope on EBR M14s

*some Alphas had a regular rifleman with a m68 instead of the SDM

Bravo Team

TL-ACOG

MG (SAW with iron sights)

Grenadier- M68 red dot

SDM- SOS

Weapon squads featured

1 M240L w/ 145 scope

1 M240L w/ iron sights

1 SDM

all other roles with M68s

The reasoning (not that I necessarily agree with it but) was that soldiers with magnified optics tend to look for point targets. They wanted more roles with M68s and iron sights for this reason: AutomaticRifles: so they will use more suppressing fire rather than look for point targets Grenadiers: so they focus more on deadspace with their M320s. The reason some MGs had magnified optics was basically to more precisely engage and being allowed to do so because the other un magnified MG was no doubtedly suppressing.

Like I said before I don't necessarily agree with this 100% but it does keep the M4s from wasting their rounds at 600+ meters and allowing the autorifles and SDMs to do work and forcing those M68 and iron sight systems to cover close or suppress depending on their weapon system.

*One thing this real life scenario has over the Arma world is the effects and importance of suppressing fire. Its hard to effectively suppress in Arma with the player on the other end knowing hes not going to feel the pain of those rounds hitting him. Hearing rounds crack 10-20 feet above your head in real life have a "thats going to hurt" sound, lol.

Thanks for chiming in. I knew that Arma simulates real life loadouts but was not sure why soldiers weren't being issued magnified optics since they seem superior to unmagnified ones. Thanks!