Annoying Crosshairs

[Silencer 0]

ok in the next patch they need to make this an option...

the crosshairs on flashpoint demo are kinda annoying,the out lines of crosshair on the out side makes it not show my target.

its hard to explain but the lines around the dot in the center gets in the way of the target if you're pointing at a target like 600m away.

On some realistic games I use nothing but a  red dot as my crosshair.The lines around the dot don't help infact they make me miss the target...

anyone else sometimes get this when you're shooting targets 700m away?

(Edited by Silencer at 5:49 am on Dec. 2, 2001)

[PV 0]

I use the optics ('V' key) for any engagements over 100 meters.

[charles 0]

i think the red dots on some games r good for CQBs, but some times its hard to find that tiny dot! so i still prefer the traditional crosshair, i mean the one that's really a cross.....but it's nice to have that real gun sight thing in this game, i use it all the time, for long range fire fights

[vitoal125 0]

the actual gunsight is one of the big reasons why I bought this game and its also the best sight. It gives you the best accuracy no matter the range, the only problem is it is time consuming. So if your trotting along and find yourself like 2 meters from an enemy, dont switch to the sights, just use the spray and pray method.

[zovirl 0]

Yeah, you have to use the actual sight if you want to be acurate. Try this little experiment:

Start a game, don't use the sight. Move the mouse back and forth. See how the crosshair thingy moves in big jumps? You'll never be accurate with that. Now bring up the sight. Move the mouse around. See how smooth it is now? That is why you want to use the sight. (Well, that and the fact that is zooms in).

Or maybe that is just my computer...don't know

[Hindhunter 1]

This is the second game that I know of that uses ironsights, the first being Hidden & Dangerous. I sure hope they will use the same kind of ironsights in H&D2 as in OPF. Strange that other developers haven´t choose to do the same.

[BravoYankee4 0]

I think it's most unlikely that you engage enemies at a range of 600m with an assaultrifle in real combat.

Up to 200-300m maybe...

But if you still want to, then you should use a sniperrifle with some optic sights (with magnification)?!

BY4 - OUT!

[RN Malboeuf 12]

I can drop a guy on a hill with the AK's Iron Sites at about 500-600 M

he has to stopped or moving left or right on a clear day

many of you might not beable to even see him, much less shoot him if your not runing at 1200x1024 or 1600x1200 Res like I do

[MrLaggy 0]

Infiltration (mod for UT) did it before OFP, and does it with 3D models rather than bitmaps... personally I prefer that method. However, I certainly agree that the crosshairs are solely for close-range shooting and I almost always use the sights at over 75m or so; or closer if I have surprise and time to set up the shot.

[Silencer 0]

how do you switch you're gun to iron sights?

I cn ony find the tactical view of the gun which just zooms in...

is ironsights in the demo?

[Black Op 0]

0 on the num pad, or V are iron sights, yes they are in the demo

[IrraIwan 0]

We had the Steyer STG-77 (AUG) here in Austria, the Rifle has x1.5 Optics, and mater of factly CROSSHAIRS have been banned by the geneva convention, so what you get is a little bead ring inside which is sized as to encompass a 1.8m Man at 300m.

The rifles were adjusted to 300m, sure the deadly range is a LOT higher but you won't be able to hit anything sized like a man further out than say 400m...

Cheers

IrraIwan

[RN Malboeuf 12]

>>>>>>>CROSSHAIRS have been banned by the geneva convention

lol

[762WorldOrder 0]

Hmmm, I never really use the iron sights on the assault rifles, because the sights aren't accurate enough, and the vertical bar I'm supposed to use to target ends up just obstructing my view of the target, plus its accuracy isn't very good. I almost always use the regular crosshair view zoomed in, and I've never had a problem hitting people from hundreds of meters away.

Sniper rifles and AT weapons are different, they actually have good sights that I do use. But as for assault rifles, their iron sights obstruct the view so much I don't even bother, and I don't seem to have any problem coming out on top in most of the online matches I play.

[eyes 0]

why exactly have they been banned?

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from eyes on 3:54 am on Dec. 4, 2001

why exactly have they been banned?<span id='postcolor'>

The reason why you haven't heard of this is because the Geneva conventions (there were several) don't discuss crosshairs.

[IrraIwan 0]

They do however discuss, that it should not be allowed to KILL all your opposition with aimed "kill shots" (headshots for example", whilst it is allowed to wound them -> a crosshair would make targeting for kill-shots possible, while the ring in the Steyers Optic would only make sure that you would hit the target but not enable you to target specific portions -> at range that is ... sure from 50 meters it's pretty simple to kill someone with a headshot even with the iron sight ontop of the optic..

-> i'm not making this up, that's what we were taught in basic training ... even tho they also told uns to count to 60 after a nuklear warhead explosion and then stand up and continue fighting :rolleyes:

[Dawdler 0]

So the geneva convention is that little small group of people that decide that wars should be FAIR?

Oh, please.

Come on.

Get real.

Nobody would follow it anyway, snipers would be a warcrime then.

Becides, when in a war, do you think "Heres comes the enemy, a clear headshoot... OH DARN, forgot it wasnt allowed, HEY YOU CAN YOU STAND STILL SO I CAN WOUND YOU?! PLEASE? NO? WHAT THE #### DO YOU MEAN NO? HAVENT YOU READ THE RULES MAN?!"

As they say, that is the kind of behaviour that get one killed...

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from IrraIwan on 8:41 pm on Dec. 4, 2001

They do however discuss, that it should not be allowed to KILL all your opposition with aimed "kill shots" (headshots for example", whilst it is allowed to wound them -> a crosshair would make targeting for kill-shots possible, while the ring in the Steyers Optic would only make sure that you would hit the target but not enable you to target specific portions -> at range that is ... sure from 50 meters it's pretty simple to kill someone with a headshot even with the iron sight ontop of the optic..

-> i'm not making this up, that's what we were taught in basic training ... even tho they also told uns to count to 60 after a nuklear warhead explosion and then stand up and continue fighting :rolleyes:

<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not saying that you are making it up, but what you were told is still incorrect.

For starters, the Laws and Customs of War were defined in the Hague Accords, not the Geneva conventions; the Geneva conventions cover things such as the treatment of prisoners of war.

[Whargod 0]

A red dot at 600m? That is about as accurate as iron sights at that range. You can't use a red dot at that distance and expect any kind of accuracy, you need a scope.

[ScreamingWithNoSound 0]

LMAO! What a load of s**te!

"Can't use the floating weapon sight on a target 600m away." WTF are you on about? Are you some kind of a whinging puff? FFS! Put it on Veteran and start playing the game properly! Jesus.

"Can't make deliberate kill shots." WTF!?!?!? That's the biggest load of s**te I've heard in years! Despite what poloticians say, the object of war is to kill your enemy! An interesting side note... the SA80 is sighted, so that you can aim at the chest of your target and it will hit them in the head. Somehow, I don't think that's designed to injure... OMG! Are you some kind of softy socialist!?!?!?!?!?!? I'm SICK to death of people saying 'war shouldn't be fought this way', 'war shouldn't be fought that way'. It's just out and out retarded! If you tie your hands by saying "We're not going to use powerful weapons on tanks, because if we hit it with this weapon, it will explode, killing everyone inside and because we're at war, we can't kill people, because that's not right."

?

Is it just me or is that a complete contradiction?!

"War is not nice."

Maybe that's why we don't fight all the time??

War is using force to support political ambitions. When you go to war, you set your Generals their objectives. "Re-take the Falklands.", "Take Berlin." and then let them get on with it. You don't castrate them by saying "You can't use ground troops." or "You can go to war with this country, but you can't sink any of their ships." All it seeks to do, is make people believe that you're not prepared to go all the way and, as was demonstrated in both the Falkland conflict and Kosovo, you end up doing the opposite anyway, because when the crunch comes, you cannot achieve your objectives without it.

Falklands:

Thatcher imposed an "Exclusion Zone" around the Falklands, no action would be taken against Argentinian shipping unless they were in the area.

What a silly cow she was for that. What happened? The Belgrano was sunk, outside the zone, while moving away from it. Militarily, it's great - crush your enemies, but politically, it was a disaster. Thatcher was confrunted on live, national television by a member of the public. It goes down as one of the greatest TV moments in history. Thatcher has never lived it down. No Primeminister has given a live, question and answer with the general public since.

The Falklands:

I believe that there should have been total war against Argentina. All Argentinian shipping and assest should have been declared fair game. Maybe less British servicemen would have lost their lives - the Argies would have more likely negotiated a settlement sooner.

Kosovo:

"We will not send ground troops into Kosovo."

Result? An in-effectual bombing campaign, because the Serbian army could hide from air attack without having to worry about being caught on the hop by a sudden ground invasion. Fiasco, with public argument over "who's going in first". A mockery of the professionals (soldiers) who were doing the dirty work.

The concepts of "Total War" and "Combined Arms" do not seem to be compatible with politics.

(Edited by ScreamingWithNoSound at 10:35 pm on Dec. 4, 2001)

[charles 0]

this reminds me the stupid ROEs in Vietnam, let the enemies find the best spot to shoot u before u can shoot them back