Adjustable iron sights?

[Commando84 0]

nah i think that would ruin the whole feeling of joy and panicing "rambo rage" when you see multiple enemy soldiers running towards your hill or house or ect. and you aim slowly first and fire off a shot or two miss , miss ,miss and then turn totally panicked and aim a little bit higher fire off a burst fire , then go aim aim a little bit to the left, no thats not it , then aim a little bit diagonally to the right or something and manage to get a killing shot but by then the a.i's really closing in so you start spraing, or burst fireing all over them and sometimes manage to kill 'em all and sometimes you died like a gun hoo hero death

besides i think that would make the gap too big between veteran players and new players that maybe got the game later on.. i just hate games where pro guys know exactly how to adjust the sights and stuff and similar small advantages while newbie players got like no chance in hell to spot enemies or take them down.. one thing i really liked in ofp was the whole trajectory thingy that you had to shot a few shots in ranged combats until you hit something instead of like aiming and then maybe do some hax tricks and you got 200 x zoom and kill off your enemy with a perfect head shot

[Friedchiken 0]

nah i think that would ruin the whole feeling of joy and panicing "rambo rage" when you see multiple enemy soldiers running towards your hill or house or ect. and you aim slowly first and fire off a shot or two miss , miss ,miss and then turn totally panicked and aim a little bit higher fire off a burst fire , then go aim aim a little bit to the left, no thats not it , then aim a little bit diagonally to the right or something and manage to get a killing shot but by then the a.i's really closing in so you start spraing, or burst fireing all over them and sometimes manage to kill 'em all and sometimes you died like a gun hoo hero death  

besides i think that would make the gap too big between veteran players and new players that maybe got the game later on.. i just hate games where pro guys know exactly how to adjust the sights and stuff and similar small advantages while newbie players got like no chance in hell to spot enemies or take them down.. one thing i really liked in ofp was the whole trajectory thingy that you had to shot a few shots in ranged combats until you hit something instead of like aiming and then maybe do some hax tricks and you got 200 x zoom and kill off your enemy with a perfect head shot  

I don't really see how windage would affect that.

If anything, maybe an improved ballistics system would make moments like that even more exciting.

This isn't communism where everyone is the same skill level.

[andersson 285]

Quote[/b] ]Ballistic kinetic energy: Bullet accuracy and damage are dependent on a number of factors such as wind resistance and distance to the target.

Is that a confirmation that SIDE-wind affects the bullet? Cant it mean air-friction, that the bullet slows down?

I hope the wind will affect the bullet sideways too..

[andersson 285]

edit. doublepost... Sorry

[Heatseeker 0]

It's 2006 so I'd say they will include 3D ironsights. And they have to if they want the game to be taken seriously. (In my opinion).

I'll keep my fingers crossed...

I dont find 3d sights to be very realistic, Americas Army comes to mind, if you stand still the sights line up so why bother ?

[echo1 0]

It's difficult enough, if the scope sway is still random in every stance. I hope they will introduce bipods or some other way of supporting the rifle in sitting and prone position.

As it is, you can hold down Alt to hold the scope in one place.

[Friedchiken 0]

It's 2006 so I'd say they will include 3D ironsights. And they have to if they want the game to be taken seriously. (In my opinion).

I'll keep my fingers crossed...

I dont find 3d sights to be very realistic, Americas Army comes to mind, if you stand still the sights line up so why bother ?

I kinda wish though that there was some sort of way to have two pictures representing the sights so that the slight wavering with aligning the sight picture could be shown. Something to show that the person's head remains steady while the gun "floats" in the general direction of aim.

[dslyecxi 23]

I dont find 3d sights to be very realistic, Americas Army comes to mind, if you stand still the sights line up so why bother ?

You don't find 3d sights to be realistic? What universe are you living in?

One of the benefits of 3d irons is that you can make it so that the player moves, and his sight alignment/point of aim changes, WITHOUT having his view bob and shake like crazy like it does when you move in ironsight mode in Flashpoint. The method OFP currently uses is ridiculous, as it implies that the player has his head glued to his weapon's stock, with a perfect, unchanging sight alignment regardless of his movement. It's totally unrealistic, and 3d irons would go a long way towards fixing it. If 3d irons aren't in ArmA, they had better be in Game2 - if not, I (and I'm sure many others) will be sorely disappointed.

Games that do 3d ironsights well, off the top of my head, are...

Call of Duty 2, Red Orchestra... hell, even America's Army has a fairly decent implementation of them.

[Friedchiken 0]

I dont find 3d sights to be very realistic, Americas Army comes to mind, if you stand still the sights line up so why bother ?

You don't find 3d sights to be realistic? What universe are you living in?

One of the benefits of 3d irons is that you can make it so that the player moves, and his sight alignment/point of aim changes, WITHOUT having his view bob and shake like crazy like it does when you move in ironsight mode in Flashpoint. The method OFP currently uses is ridiculous, as it implies that the player has his head glued to his weapon's stock, with a perfect, unchanging sight alignment regardless of his movement. It's totally unrealistic, and 3d irons would go a long way towards fixing it. If 3d irons aren't in ArmA, they had better be in Game2 - if not, I (and I'm sure many others) will be sorely disappointed.

Games that do 3d ironsights well, off the top of my head, are...

Call of Duty 2, Red Orchestra... hell, even America's Army has a fairly decent implementation of them.

My thoughts exactly.

It may have been possible that: you could press "v" and then there is an animation and view reposition that represents the iron-sites in 3d. This could be a special lod for precision aiming. Then, the movements of the character translate exactly to the movements of the weapon and where you point you hit. A similar system was done a little strangely in the later Metal Gear Solid games.

[Heatseeker 0]

Yeah but if your running you dont use the sights and if you walk there isnt much diference from having the sight disaligned (3d) or waving around (2d) .

I used them in americas army M4's and VC2 and i dont see any advantage that justifies having a modeled sight.

Adjusting the sight for distance would be nice with the mouse scroll whell but we need it for the comand menu. Then again we can always compensate by aiming higher or lower .

[Guest Ti0n3r]

One advantage; It would look better. 2D ironsights are so 2001

[Friedchiken 0]

Well, imo some of the art for mod 2d ironsites are absolutely pieces of art (no polygons to worry about). It's just that when I did some real shooting, aligning the sight picture was not as easy as pressing "v".

[dslyecxi 23]

Yeah but if your running you dont use the sights and if you walk there isnt much diference from having the sight disaligned (3d) or waving around (2d) .

I just don't understand how you can feel this way. Have you ever handled a rifle in reality?

There's a massive difference between having a steady viewpoint while moving (with 3d irons, where your VIEW can be steady while the SIGHTS move independantly) and having a jittery, jumpy, funky fixed-to-the-PERFECTLY-ALIGNED-sights viewpoint ala OFP. It's just.. massive. CoD2's 3d irons are fantastic, and I'd love to have a similar system implemented into Game2 if not ArmA. Anyone who honestly doesn't want 3d irons probably has never used a real rifle before, and thus doesn't understand how real weapons handling works.

Edit: One of the reasons OFP's CQB is so clumsy and awkward is because of how they modelled the 2d sights. The jittery/jumpy thing is completely not at all realistic in any sense of the word, and it needs to go away as soon as possible. I doubt it'll be gone for ArmA, but I expect it to be gone in Game2.

[martinovic 0]

In OFP ironsight zoom a little, that's why you can't use them indoors.

Would be nice if rifles were harder to handle. The AI tries to simulate the time it takes to aim properly in real life a lot and if rifles were hard to aim with for the players that would even things out for the AI.

[Heatseeker 0]

Yeah but if your running you dont use the sights and if you walk there isnt much diference from having the sight disaligned (3d) or waving around (2d) .

I just don't understand how you can feel this way. Have you ever handled a rifle in reality?

There's a massive difference between having a steady viewpoint while moving (with 3d irons, where your VIEW can be steady while the SIGHTS move independantly) and having a jittery, jumpy, funky fixed-to-the-PERFECTLY-ALIGNED-sights viewpoint ala OFP. It's just.. massive. CoD2's 3d irons are fantastic, and I'd love to have a similar system implemented into Game2 if not ArmA. Anyone who honestly doesn't want 3d irons probably has never used a real rifle before, and thus doesn't understand how real weapons handling works.

Edit: One of the reasons OFP's CQB is so clumsy and awkward is because of how they modelled the 2d sights. The jittery/jumpy thing is completely not at all realistic in any sense of the word, and it needs to go away as soon as possible. I doubt it'll be gone for ArmA, but I expect it to be gone in Game2.

In Flashpoint i only "shoot" from a stationary position, thats why 3d sights seem rather pointless. Sounds good on paper but...

To answer your question i have fired an assault rifle before, just never tried to walk and look thru its sights, it seemed smarter to see where i was going or what was ahead, so i dont remember seeing the two sights wobling left and right, sorry .

But shooting from a stand up position and having dificulty keeping the barrel straight because my left arm would get tired fast, no real problems keeping the rifle shouldered.

Americas Army 3d sight is (i think there is only one?) more unrealistic than flashpoints 2d ones, its too big and far from the view for acurate shooting, and it takes too much peripheral view, its a useless pos. I cant tell about CoD2 but when i think Cod or Mohaa... meh.

Anyone got any pics of good/realistic 3d iron sights?

[Friedchiken 0]

In my case, I would bet that the range master would clobber me if he saw me walking around and looking through the sights, for safety's sake.

I did try aim-walking with the family Daisy airgun but that gun is fairly light.

[dslyecxi 23]

Quote[/b] ]In Flashpoint i only "shoot" from a stationary position, thats why 3d sights seem rather pointless. Sounds good on paper but...

For CQB, or general MOUT, shooting from a "combat glide" is definitely a valid tactic. In OFP it's crippled by the wacky IS movement issues. 3d irons would go a long way to fix that problem, as long as they can un-weld your view from a perfect sight picture 100% of the time regardless of anything else. Meaning, if I'm moving at a walk in IS mode, my irons should shift and move a bit due to my movement, but my view should stay steady. I can get good hits on a person at close range with imperfect sight alignment.

Quote[/b] ]To answer your question i have fired an assault rifle before, just never tried to walk and look thru its sights, it seemed smarter to see where i was going or what was ahead, so i dont remember seeing the two sights wobling left and right, sorry .

I've fired AR-15's on the move more than a few times, and it's easy to get good hits while moving forward at a good rate ("combat glide", like I said above). Hell, I have a video of me doing it - advancing forward, firing at a rapid rate, crouching, firing some more, getting back up and firing the whole way. The movement depicted in said video is not possible in OFP, yet it's the kind of thing you would definitely want to use in combat (situation dictating).

Quote[/b] ] But shooting from a stand up position and having dificulty keeping the barrel straight because my left arm would get tired fast, no real problems keeping the rifle shouldered.

Standing is generally the most fatiguing position. There are ways to make it less so - such as doing a "hasty sling", that's great help for support and is the way we were taught to shoot on the rifle range during the 200 yard standing portion of it.

Quote[/b] ]Americas Army 3d sight is (i think there is only one?) more unrealistic than flashpoints 2d ones, its too big and far from the view for acurate shooting, and it takes too much peripheral view, its a useless pos.

I'm having a hell of a time finding a picture of the AA 3d irons, but from what I recall they were done fairly well.

Quote[/b] ]I cant tell about CoD2 but when i think Cod or Mohaa... meh.

Regardless of what you think of the rest of the game, the ironsights in CoD2 are fantastic. This is not to say they're perfect - the fact that the game was developed for the XBox at the same time seems to show through in the size of the weapon models - but the whole package (the irons, and how they react when you move, and how the recoil is, etc etc) is extremely well done.

[Heatseeker 0]

Hmm, would you draw atention to yourself, waste ammo and risk a weapon malfunction shooting on the move in a combat situation, while beeing shot at? I wouldnt unless i wasnt trying to hit anything but im no experienced shooter. Or are we talking about house clearing and cqb?

I will tell you this, Americas Army is more realistic concerning

the movement and handling of the weapons but being a game it just doesnt work, its exploited ala CS, strafe runs, latency, etc.

OPF is diferent and it works, you can do some cqb on the move, inside some buildings, on the outside the acurate, carefull shooter will have the advantage. CQB works, i made a mission recently that involved some urban combat and if you go walking and shooting down the street you will very likely be shot from a rooftop or from someone behind cover much like RL. You can walk inside a building and shoot on the walk, even with the sights up to eye level, it takes practice but it works, the colision detection and the buildings are what need to be fixed .

OPFR is clumsy and what not but it works for me, better than swat4, GR, AA:SF, CoD, R6 and everything else. I dont want none of that.

In real life you might be able to shoot and reload on the move, in other games these features are exploited, in OPFR you choose a safe spot to reload your weapon and you aim to score a kill, it works, i like it and want it to be keept this way .

edit:

This sight is not 100% realistic but it works very well in both mid range and close combat, being very familiar with the game one can guesstimate where the rounds will hit without even using the sight or crosshair but it involves a risk.

This works better than any 3d sight i ever tried, problably because there isnt much mid range shooting (300/400M) in most other tactical wannabe games.

[dslyecxi 23]

Quote[/b] ]Hmm, would you draw atention to yourself, waste ammo and risk a weapon malfunction shooting on the move in a combat situation, while beeing shot at? I wouldnt unless i wasnt trying to hit anything but im no experienced shooter. Or are we talking about house clearing and cqb?

Like you said, you're not an experienced shooter. We're not dealing with civilians running around with guns they've never used before in OFP and ArmA/Game2, we're dealing (generally speaking) with trained soldiers. I'm a former Marine, and yes, I can think of situations where I would shoot while on the move. CQB is one of them, MOUT is another. Anything closer than, say, 50 meters would be a viable time to fire while moving. There is no "risk (of) a weapon malfunction" just because you're moving while shooting, I don't know what gave you that idea. Putting a lot of fire onto something acts as suppression, and suppressing an enemy while moving towards him is a good way to put him out of the fight for good. Now, bear in mind that there are TONS of variables to take into account when deciding whether to fire on the move or find cover/return fire from a fairly static position. However, it SHOULD be possible to shoot on the move in ArmA/Game2.

Quote[/b] ]OPF is diferent and it works, you can do some cqb on the move, inside some buildings, on the outside the acurate, carefull shooter will have the advantage. CQB works, i made a mission recently that involved some urban combat and if you go walking and shooting down the street you will very likely be shot from a rooftop or from someone behind cover much like RL. You can walk inside a building and shoot on the walk, even with the sights up to eye level, it takes practice but it works, the colision detection and the buildings are what need to be fixed

I love OFP, don't get me wrong. It's easily my favorite game of all time. However, to say that OFP CQB "works" is silly. OFP has one of the clumsiest, least realistic CQB models of any game I've ever played, it's one place where the series needs DRAMATIC improvement for future titles. OFP shines at outdoors stuff, and to a lesser extent, MOUT. When you get all the way down to CQB it falls on it's face.

Quote[/b] ]

In real life you might be able to shoot and reload on the move, in other games these features are exploited, in OPFR you choose a safe spot to reload your weapon and you aim to score a kill, it works, i like it and want it to be keept this way .

If you want to keep it the way it is, please, just continue to play OFP. Those of us that are striving to get the best possible combat simulation around don't want to keep this clumsy, awkward, unrealistic OFP CQB for the next-gen game. I would be highly disappointed in BIS if they don't do a massive reworking of CQB/MOUT for Game2... the way it is now won't suffice. It was ok back in 2001, but these days it's one of the weakest areas of OFP and desperately needs improvement.

Quote[/b] ]

This sight is not 100% realistic but it works very well in both mid range and close combat, being very familiar with the game one can guesstimate where the rounds will hit without even using the sight or crosshair but it involves a risk.

This works better than any 3d sight i ever tried, problably because there isnt much mid range shooting (300/400M) in most other tactical wannabe games.

I guess I'd have to make a video of the differences between a good 3d sight implementation and the 2d type that OFP has to really pound in the point I'm trying to make. You don't seem to understand that I'm not concerned with the actual LOOK of the sight, but rather the BEHAVIOUR when moving around.

[Heatseeker 0]

Quote[/b] ]There is no "risk (of) a weapon malfunction" just because you're moving while shooting, I don't know what gave you that idea.

I meant that if your shooting on the move and your rifle fails on you, you might find yourself without supression and without cover, but like you said there is alot to take into acount in such situations and we are discussing a game.

Quote[/b] ]However, it SHOULD be possible to shoot on the move in ArmA/Game2.

It should be possible but you shouldnt be able to hit the broad side of a barn, like i said Armed Assault is still a game and games can be exploited, i want to enjoy Arma for the same reasons i enjoy OPFR and expect it to be better, not worse, instead of telling me to stick with OPF you could go play DF:BHD instead, OPFR is the thinking mans shooter, i wouldnt want none of that crap in it .

Quote[/b] ]You don't seem to understand that I'm not concerned with the actual LOOK of the sight, but rather the BEHAVIOUR when moving around.

The behaviour is irrelevant, im familiar with some 3D sights, the rear and front sights disalign when your on the move/walk and you cant see thru it so you have to spray and pray, use the crosshair or stop before you shoot. .

[dreday 1]

I have to agree with Dslyecxi on this...

Shooting while moving is a valid technique that is utilized by numerous infantry organizations all around the world. It does not work too well in OFP, because the suppression is not modeled. Hopefully we will see that change in Game2. Still, even in the current version of OFP, it is very useful when fighting in built-up areas.

I also prefer 3d sight to fixed sprites for all the reasons that were stated above. BTW, Brothers In Arms series are another example realistic 3d sights (although they made them less accurate in order to balance the game play).

Finally, I find it impossible to believe that someone actually thinks that the handling of CQB in OFP is better than SWAT3 and 4. Did I read that correctly, Heatseaker? Is that what you were really trying to say?

Peace,

DreDay

[strango 5]

You know, one thing I haven't seen mentioned is the proper modelling of M-203 sights and any sights that work on a similar principle. Meaning, you elevate the muzzle to line up the front sight post with whatever range you're trying to shoot for (which is indicated on the leaf sight for the 203, or if we want to get fancier, you could have the quadrant sight which is aimed in a different but similar fashion, without the use of the front sight post).

Although it was for the H&K 69 and not the M203, but Infiltration (a mod for UT) modeled this system very well. You used your change rate of fire key to cycle your aiming position on the ladder to the next range.

[dslyecxi 23]

Quote[/b] ]It should be possible but you shouldnt be able to hit the broad side of a barn, like i said Armed Assault is still a game and games can be exploited, i want to enjoy Arma for the same reasons i enjoy OPFR and expect it to be better, not worse, instead of telling me to stick with OPF you could go play DF:BHD instead, OPFR is the thinking mans shooter, i wouldnt want none of that crap in it

It shouldn't be pin-point precise, but it should be good enough to get hits in CQB and MOUT at ranges under 50 yards with multiple shots fired. I know you like OFP the way it is, but your suggestions are for things that will hinder the game's evolution towards a more comprehensive and realistic combat environment. Thus, you should stick with OFP if that EXACT style of gameplay is what you prefer. I want more realism, and the suggestions and comments I'm making are geared towards that effect. You're welcome to disagree.

Quote[/b] ] The behaviour is irrelevant, im familiar with some 3D sights, the rear and front sights disalign when your on the move/walk and you cant see thru it so you have to spray and pray, use the crosshair or stop before you shoot.

The behavior is what forces you to fire hasty, rough-aimed shots in certain situations; thus, it is by no means "irrelevant".

Quote[/b] ]Although it was for the H&K 69 and not the M203, but Infiltration (a mod for UT) modeled this system very well. You used your change rate of fire key to cycle your aiming position on the ladder to the next range.

Red Orchestra does that for the Panzerfaust, actually.

[Heatseeker 0]

Finally, I find it impossible to believe that someone actually thinks that the handling of CQB in OFP is better than SWAT3 and 4. Did I read that correctly, Heatseaker? Is that what you were really trying to say?

Peace,

DreDay

We all know there is no real CQB in OPFR, we dont have flashbangs, the colision detection is dodgy, no complex building structures and interiors, a.i. doesnt behave well and shoots thru walls, hit detection and body armor..

Its fair to say that diferent games have their advantages (SWAT games dont even have sights btw).

Arma mout should be improved with new colision detection and physics, bullet penetration and maybe a.i. behaviour...maybe .

If BIS includes a SWAT unit in Arma i will be the first one to chase them with a hind helicopter .

Improved OPF engine.. i always keep that in mind .

Quote[/b] ]If you truly believe OFP CQB is more realistic than SWAT 4 or RvS, you're delusional.

You cant walk with sights in SWAT4, there arent any? .

Gheyvenshield was a good SP/coop game, MP consisted of runing & guning with scopes and cmags though, i really wouldnt like none of that in Armed Assault, mout and urban combat are fine with me.

[dreday 1]

Finally, I find it

Arma mout should be improved with new colision detection and physics, bullet penetration and maybe a.i. behaviour...maybe .

If BIS includes a SWAT unit in Arma i will be the first one to chase them with a hind helicopter .

Improved OPF engine.. i always keep that in mind .

Fair enough! I agree, that's the most that we can expect to see in ArmA with regards to CQB. Allthough I would put AI improvements on top of that list (I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic about it...)

However, I am also hopefull that BIS will take some inspiration from SWAT series when designing CQB AI and command structure for Game2.

Peace,

DreDay