Update on the combat diver

[Matthijs 40]

Walker contacted me. Because we are both working on a rebreather, we may join forces on this project.

The model of the LAR VII is finished, as far as I am concerned. Anyone who used the real thing, and think my model sucks, mail me. I would like to know what needs improvement.

The LAR VII now explodes when the rebreather unit or oxygen tank are hit by gunfire, which looks rather cool.

Uncool and unsolvable (?) are the following issues:

- Bicycle-like animation can not be done together with floating, only BIS has the power to change this. (I'm not complaining people, it's just a statement.)

- The "driver" dies instantly when hit in the legs

- The "driver" can take several shots in the head, before kicking the bucket.

BTW: Those last two points cannot be solved by rotating the "driver hitpoint" 180 degrees.

Here is an image:

I'm converting and improving Ne0-Rae's SIG SG552 commando from Half-Life:Counter-Strike. (It looks just soooooo good)

The main effort will be to decrease the poly-count, with minimal loss of detail, and making look it more realistic. (the original looked more like a SIG SG551 SWAT with a short magazine)

I also replaced his scope by a zero-magnification Aimpoint sight, also taken and tweaked from HL:CS

here is a render from 3DSMax:

Here is a render in

Like the Elcan on my C7 series, the Aimpoint will be as realistic as possible. Take a look at this mock-up of the optics:

You may notice the following:

off-center red dot - in this the mock up it's a bit overdone, the final version will be less off center, but it represents as it is in real life: the dot moves around when you move your head, so it's hardly ever exactly in the middle. Too bad I cannot let the stuff move around when the player is walking.

left side of optics translucent - this represents "both eyes open" of the gunner. In real life, when using the Aimpoint you should keep both eyes open. The red dot will appear as if it's a laser dot on your target.

less than 100% black - in real life, when focussing on your target, you can still see the contours and lightreflections on your gun.

slightly grey lens edge - glass is never perfectly translucent. To represent this, the edge of the lens appears to be slightly (hardly noticable) darker.

Now it's "just" a matter of creating a combat diver unit and stuffing it all into a PBO. The unit will be called "SBS" for Special Boat Squadron. English fans can use the HK pack to make it a realistic UK SBS combat diver.

[edit]

Oh, almost forgot!

The red dot emits light of course! You will be able to see the red dot as brightly as ever when it's dark.

But beware, the light emitting diode that makes the dot visible, is also visible from the front. What makes it worse, is that the lenses work as a magnifier, making the front lens glow up bright red. So you should keep your gun pointed down when entering indian territory after dark !!!

[/edit]

[Fenix83 0]

Your SIG552 commando looks damn cool but the magazine is not so realistic as you're saying. It looks like a M16 magazine. The real magazine is translucent and contain 20 rounds but 30 rounds magazines are also avalaible.

Check it here. I've got the model 550

[Matthijs 40]

I know. Like the handguard around the barrel, the magazine will be reskinned.

Also, remember the gun is not my work. Credits go to Ne0-Rae.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(...) Check it here. I've got the model 550  (...)<span id='postcolor'>

Well.... you were either very rich, or are now very broke I guess.

[granQ 293]

not sure but i think all citizen in swiss get a rifle.. no matter if they in the army or not.. civil defense thingy..

[Fenix83 0]

No, you've got to be in army. Every men must go to army except if you're crazy or somthing like that.

You can also get one at 16 years old ans keep it at house ~6 month/years. They lend it for an instruction until you go to the army. You must go to the army at 19 years old.  

EDIT : They called the instruction "Jeunes tireurs" (Young shooters)

Sorry for my bad english  

[Supah 0]

Heh they even make one thats red I wonder about the use of that. Seems like something out of a link avon posted somewhere . Wouldnt this make you standout more?

They call it "Red Devil" heheheh marketed at what? Belgian soccer fans? And also there's the "Heavy metal" For all you AC/DC fans out there

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Matthijs @ Nov. 21 2002,16:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Like the Elcan on my C7 series, the Aimpoint will be as realistic as possible. Take a look at this mock-up of the optics:

<span id='postcolor'>

Superb attention to detail. I love it!

[TheOmega 0]

The aim dot is offline, and u gathered it as so, because u had your "hed" in the wrong position all along... and this was not pointed out. That or from whichever source u took it from. Namely to the right and slightly down.

So dont assume it is off centre by default. It is an optical illusion when the eye level position is changed in relation to the sights. So it may appear to move around, when in reality your loosing the retinal reference,... like moving your head.

If u want to keep the bug in, and think its realistic, be my guest. If u still have doubts, look at the pic ask yourself this: "Does it make any ballistic sense that when the barrel of my weapon is pointing at the tree, and the red dot is correctly zeroed and is pointing at the sky... i hit the sky?".

Just use your common sense on that one...

Only trying to help you out.

[Matthijs 40]

No, you are wrong. Rest assured, the gun IS pointing towards the dot.

Here is how I made it, in 3D Studio MAX:

- First created a "hollow" version of the Aimpoint.

- Placed a big red disc well away from the gun.

- Made sure gun is pointing EXACTLY towards the centre of the disc.

- Placed a camera behind the Aimpoint, just off-center

For all the unbelievers (or people who want to create their own Aimpoint sights), here is a recreation of of the 3DS scene I used:

[ CLICK TO SEE THE SCREENSHOT ]

FYI: I got my information from using the sight on the firing range.

[TheOmega 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Matthijs @ Nov. 25 2002,15:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, you are wrong...

- Placed a camera behind the Aimpoint, just off-center<span id='postcolor'>

No i am not wrong, you opinionated ignorant. If i did not know about optics, or wasnt sure, i wouldnt have posted anyway. One tries to help and u get an opinonated response like that... geez. Dont go calling others wrong just to prove your point. This is hardly an issue to exercise argumentative discussion.

Besides u just demonstrated what i was saying... "just off center". Your head level, and your camera... was NOT in the correct postion.

Instead of contradicting yourself u should have checked how optics work... or bothered to ask why.

Btw... good innovative method for the sights, I congratulate u Mat. Looks very good otherwise. Just a pitty... if u want to be stubborn.

Good luck on completing the thing, whichever way u want to finish it. You can take what i said to improve that, or leave it.

[Matthijs 40]

Ignorance... thank you for that.

The dot always points out the place where the bullet will hit, no matter what position your head is in.

Go see the manufacturer of these sights:

http://www.aimpoint.com

Or better still, go see the commercial:

http://www.aimpoint.com/video/video.htm

Maybe you can point out a document from a testing center, stating that the parallax free sights from Aimpoint don't work?

[DragoFire 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (TheOmega @ Nov. 26 2002,05:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Matthijs @ Nov. 25 2002,15:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, you are wrong...

- Placed a camera behind the Aimpoint, just off-center<span id='postcolor'>

No i am not wrong, you opinionated ignorant. If i did not know about optics, or wasnt sure, i wouldnt have posted anyway. One tries to help and u get an opinonated response like that... geez. Dont go calling others wrong just to prove your point. This is hardly an issue to exercise argumentative discussion.

Besides u just demonstrated what i was saying... "just off center". Your head level, and your camera... was NOT in the correct postion.

Instead of contradicting yourself u should have checked how optics work... or bothered to ask why.

Btw... good innovative method for the sights, I congratulate u Mat. Looks very good otherwise. Just a pitty... if u want to be stubborn.

Good luck on completing the thing, whichever way u want to finish it. You can take what i said to improve that, or leave it.<span id='postcolor'>

For your info. Matthijs, if your dot is of to the side ( say the right a little bit) your shot will be off to the same side farther(to the right of dot in the scope ).

So at 10m's this might be about 1/4m - 1/2m out, and as you get farther away the worse the shot is away from dead center.

The rule in targeting with sights is to get the cross-hairs (or in your case Dot) dead center of the scope, if not you'll miss your target, and how badly you miss is controlled by where the Dot/cross-hairs are placed in the scope at the time firing.

I've not fire a sniper fire or scoped assault rifle for more than 10 years, so I'm going by what I was trained when I was in the army.

DragoFire

PS

I've also checked the AIMPOINT site and is a nice scope, but the scope uses the standard rule as I've stated above.

Have a close look at the 3D test at AIMPOINT, you'll see that the point is still dead center of the "FRONT" lense, and as there is "NO" dot on the rear lense you did know that it wasn't point in the correct spot.

At close range you might be able to hit the target, but the farther away the target the less the chance, due to the fact bullet is travelling along the dead center path of the scope tube and barrel.

[TheOmega 0]

Ok then,... but u aint using any common sense or seeking to make a full analysis. Since u r taking the time to inform yourself through some research. I can tell u the following: Your references are incorrect. Not wrong, incorrect!

As i said before, it is an optical illusion, and as all illusions they appear to be "truths". Until u bother to check out the why of the anomaly.

This is very simple Matt: the eye level to the sight.. will present a centre target. If off slightly, it will not. Anything like hand movement or breathing will make the seem to dance around in the sights. This AGAIN is an optical illusion on your retina. If u tried it on the range, go try again... and check all angles.

For crying out loud, go learn some basic optics... and make the calculations yourself... for scientific proof. You just demonstrated that with your own pic. Now go find out why.

Just trying to save u some time, instead of wasting mine.

[TheOmega 0]

I must be the idiot in pursuing this conversation...

... that video, and the NEW PARALLAX free optics mumbo jumbo from AIMPOINT, is just demonstrating everything u dont have there. It always keeps its centre. lol.

Thats the whole "point" Matt...

[Matthijs 40]

I'm getting the feeling we are talking about totally different things here... Did you actually measure the image of my Aimpoint optics?

Here is the image again, only now 50% covered by black symmetrical blocks.

The dot is centered, the rifle is pointing towards the dot, the observers view is slightly off-center, and it's making it seem the dot being off-center. Of course it's always centered from the gun's point of view, but the player sees the soldier's point of view.

[edit]Now that I think of it, with firearms, "center" is the bullet trajectory, not the line between eye/optics.... which would probably be the end of the misunderstanding... You are right! [/edit]

[Matthijs 40]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DragoFire @ Nov. 25 2002,20:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(...)

Have a close look at the 3D test at AIMPOINT, you'll see that the point is still dead center of the "FRONT" lense, and as there is "NO" dot on the rear lense you did know that it wasn't point in the correct spot.<span id='postcolor'>

The discussion with TheOmega is probably fed by a misunderstanding about "off center" being relative to either the bullet trajectory and the line between eye/optics.

I'm pretty sure that TheOmega can agree with me that the 3D model is far from accurate. It would be very hard to model in a 3D presentation. (not impossible though)

Have you ever fired a gun equipped with the Aimpoint optics?

[Guest]

I am sorry to say, Matthijs, but your 3d model is wrong. You are confusing a red dot sight and a laser sight. The red dot of the red dot sight is projected inside the scope (as opposed to the target) which means that when you move your head so that your view normal differs from the sight normal, the dot will not point in the direction of the muzzle.

Here is the correct model:

The red dot is, well, the red dot. The box is the target.

We draw a line for the normal of the sight (direction of muzzle):

Now, if we move the camera, you can see that the projection of the red dot is no longer centered on the target.

Edit: This is also the reason why there are fiber optics red dot sights. They don't show any dot unless the sight is alligned with the fiber (i.e scope).

[VXR 9]

i had a Diemaco C8 in my hands with a aimpoint on it i aimed with it and runned and at the same time i aimed and its cool to see it working

Aimpoint Movie shows how it works in real life

[Matthijs 40]

Denoir, it actually does work much like a laser. By using lenses, the dot is always seen on a point in infinity, straight in front of the barrel.

There would be a problem if you could look into such a sight at great angles, you would aim at a close range target, actually firing at the horizon behind the target.

But that is not the case, with the Aimpoint there a only a very small area in which you can actually use the sight: about 2cm left-right/up-down at any distance from the sight.

Maybe you must have seen it work to understand it.

[Guest]

7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Matthijs @ Nov. 25 2002,237)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe you must have seen it work to understand it.<span id='postcolor'>

I have used red dot sights countless of times in the military. I have one for my P99 too.

Look at the video that Vixer provided. Without any parallax compensation (it is a very rare feature that most rd sights don't have) or the use of fiber optics (also rare), the dot will point in the wrong direction if the normals of your head and the muzzle are not aligned.

Sorry mate you are very wrong here, as the others have pointed out

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, it actually does work much like a laser. By using lenses, the dot is always seen on a point in infinity, straight in front of the barrel.

<span id='postcolor'>

The big difference is that the laser projects on the target while red dot sight projects on the scope. The big difference is when you misalign the scope there will be a difference in angle (look at my third picture - if it had been a laser, the dot would be on the target istead of inside the scope).

[Matthijs 40]

Sorry, but I think I have named the trademark Aimpoint? We are discussing the Aimpoint, not the generic red dot scope. Read my first post. The only instance where I used "red dot" was when I was talking about the dot in the Aimpoint.

The Aimpoints may be rare, but Dutch CT units, the one I model uses the Aimpoint we are discussing.

Or doesn't the Aimpoint have parallax compensation? Is the Aimpoint commercial I (and Vixer) pointed out total crap? Why do I hit bulls-eye on the firing range on each shot with the Aimpoint???

[Guest]

No, there is no problem with the Aimpoint, the problem is that you can't simulate it in OFP.

What you can do in OFP is a standard red dot sight with a red dot projected on a transparent surface in the scope with no parallax compensation.

[TheOmega 0]

Look forget the mumbo jumbo of whos right or wrong with measurements (mine is longer btw)... go read or practice it.

It is very simple, just put the damn dot in the centre... unless u r simulating a rookie with a serious case of the gits... so the rest of us fogies can use the damn thing for once.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (TheOmega @ Nov. 25 2002,17:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look forget the mumbo jumbo of whos right or wrong with measurements (mine is longer btw)... go read or practice it.

It is very simple, just put the damn dot in the centre... unless u r simulating a rookie with a serious case of the gits... so the rest of us fogies can use the damn thing for once.<span id='postcolor'>

No no no... run a test Matt... offset the dot to the outermost part of the scope. Aim and fire. See if you really do hit your target.

Matt, do you believe that OFP renders the dot at infinity?

[Matthijs 40]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look forget the mumbo jumbo of whos right or wrong with measurements (mine is longer btw)... go read or practice it.

It is very simple, just put the damn dot in the centre... unless u r simulating a rookie with a serious case of the gits... so the rest of us fogies can use the damn thing for once. <span id='postcolor'>

Ok I will. And mine is stiffer btw.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No no no... run a test Matt... offset the dot to the outermost part of the scope.  Aim and fire.  See if you really do hit your target.

Matt, do you believe that OFP renders the dot at infinity? <span id='postcolor'>

Uhm... no, I was talking about real life...

It's not a bad idea though...

Maybe I can change the "pipper" that's visible in "non optics" mode, to a red dot when switching to optics. That way it would move all over the place when walking in optics mode. The only problem that would remain is that it will also be visible outside the "lens"...

[edit]And the OFP pipper has no parallax compensation

[/edit]