Adjustable iron sights?

[ralphwiggum 6]

I think I'll chime in

First, I fail to see why adjustable sights are needed. Although it would be intersting to have one, the implementation would be a nightmare. Sights need adjustment because each shooter is different. Some have different body size, some have different dominant eyes. The reason for adjustable sights is so that the shooter can get best alignment due to his unique body dimension. However, this would mean that each and every body in OFP has to be different. This is an unneccesary feature. By having a single body dimension, the weapons in OFP can be already assumed to be adjusted for the point of aim/impact.

When I try to clear house in OFP I prefer to walk instead of run. If I want to run, I can press 'E' key to sprint from one cover to another. When I have to slowly move, I just press 'F' key and slowly move. Some people might have problem with this as in a dynamic entry, in short distance, it is not that hard to shoot while on the move, if you are trained properly. However, with OFP's movement options, it is a tough call.

If we make another category where characters can run and gun, I bet there will be cases where people think they can do that like CS. And when the aim is that close, there is not much difference between OFP and CS. So it is somewhat better for OFP that there is no way to run and gun to get a good shooting even in 5-25 meters.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I think I'll chime in

First, I fail to see why adjustable sights are needed. Although it would be intersting to have one, the implementation would be a nightmare. Sights need adjustment because each shooter is different. Some have different body size, some have different dominant eyes. The reason for adjustable sights is so that the shooter can get best alignment due to his unique body dimension. However, this would mean that each and every body in OFP has to be different. This is an unneccesary feature. By having a single body dimension, the weapons in OFP can be already assumed to be adjusted for the point of aim/impact.

When I try to clear house in OFP I prefer to walk instead of run. If I want to run, I can press 'E' key to sprint from one cover to another. When I have to slowly move, I just press 'F' key and slowly move. Some people might have problem with this as in a dynamic entry, in short distance, it is not that hard to shoot while on the move, if you are trained properly. However, with OFP's movement options, it is a tough call.

If we make another category where characters can run and gun, I bet there will be cases where people think they can do that like CS. And when the aim is that close, there is not much difference between OFP and CS. So it is somewhat better for OFP that there is no way to run and gun to get a good shooting even in 5-25 meters.

One thing that have allways puzzled me... Was that using the F-key to walk... Not all weapons in OFP could use the iron sight, and it was very different how easy/hard it was to hit something. With some weapons it was pretty easy hitting things using the iron sight while walking. With other weapons it was downright impossible as the sight was all over the place.

[Dwarden 1125]

i would like to see 3D IS too but depends how hard is to implement this to ArmAs ...

someone was wondering bit back about breathing and need to "stay still" to improve aiming ...

if You look at OFP:E http://www.flashpointelite.com/did.php

you can find nice "hint"

Quote[/b] ]You can hold your breath for a couple of seconds in the game to aim more accurately? You can stabilize your weapon aim by slightly pressing the firing trigger.

most likely we see it or similar in ArmAs too ...

plus i hope ArmAs introduce supported aim position when placing gun on edges (like in Red Orchestra Ostfront 41-45) of walls, sandbags, pile of dirt, window edge, steel bars in windows and so on

and adjustable IS for long range encouters with MG at least

[dslyecxi 23]

Quote[/b] ]First, I fail to see why adjustable sights are needed.

Already mentioned. Snipers need them for a more realistic implementation of sniping. Right now it's purely hold-over based, and that's not all that realistic. Also, it'd be useful for machinegunners, and the implementation could also be utilized for sights like the M-203 and Mk-19 where proper sighting is absolutely critical to accuracy and CANNOT be acheived in OFP with the way the sights currently work.

Quote[/b] ]Although it would be intersting to have one, the implementation would be a nightmare.

No, not really. There are plenty of games that have this feature already - WWIIOL comes to mind. In it, it's just two keys. Range up, range down. If you add windage, that's really only necessary for snipers to use, and there are key combinations that could be implemented to make this as easy and painless as possible.

Quote[/b] ]Sights need adjustment because each shooter is different.

No. Once you've zeroed the weapon for yourself, sights can need adjustment for multiple reasons:

1. You're going from CQB to long-range shooting. For an M-16A2, you might toggle the smaller reticule and put your sights to 8/3 (small gap) or 400, 500, 600 yards depending on what range you expect to be shooting at. This might also be useful if you're defending an area and your area of responsibility happens to be a ridge 500 meters away, thus if you set your sights for 500 meters you can engage any enemies that appear on it with accuracy.

2. The wind has changed significantly. Windage adjustments would apply.

Quote[/b] ]Some have different body size, some have different dominant eyes. The reason for adjustable sights is so that the shooter can get best alignment due to his unique body dimension.

For the purposes of OFP and combat, this is completely irrelevant. For the purposes of actual real-life shooting, this has little application aside from an initial BZO for your own weapon.

Quote[/b] ]However, this would mean that each and every body in OFP has to be different. This is an unneccesary feature. By having a single body dimension, the weapons in OFP can be already assumed to be adjusted for the point of aim/impact.

No. You're missing the point if this is your argument against it.

Quote[/b] ] So it is somewhat better for OFP that there is no way to run and gun to get a good shooting even in 5-25 meters.

If by "better" you mean "it makes OFP a less realistic simulation", then I would agree with you. I don't understand the fixation some of you have with OFP's way being "The Way To Go" and refusing to acknowledge areas where the game needs dramatic improvement.

[ThePredator 0]

If there are adjustable sights, this could be used for many different things, such as artillery guns (adjusting the trajectory of mortars and big guns) and of course AT weaponry.

Imagine the AT-4 with adjustable sights.

I don't know if this applies to tank cannos too. Maybe someone can tell me more about the way those weapons are adjusted if not via computer.

3D sights, if possible, will get you closer to your alter ego in-game. You fell more like you are actually on the battlefield by yourself.

You can already turn your head, which no other game I know of features, you can see your body, which is in only a few games so why not use the weapon as your only "crosshair" with a special key to properly align the sights ?

To come back to my initial question about wind drift...the statement of placebo is just about the ballistic coefficient (BC) and the distance. Strange thing is, he did not mention factors directly relevant to the accuracy. Precision on distance is based on the ammunition type and the quality thereof. The BC determines the wind slippage. So a well designed bullet will decelerate less than a poorly made bullet. But this is not related to the wind drift. Only the energy transfer of projectiles to the target is indirectly mentioned in the statement.

Would be awesome if there was some interview to answer community questions. It's like we're left in the dark. However, they got good reasons to keep silent.

[herman01 0]

To determine windage also you will need some kind of gauge to measure or estimate the wind. (Flags etc.)

To answer the quesiton above me. Most modern tanks will adjust with laser range finder with information of ammo type. The system will automatically compensate and will. All the gunner has to do is point an pull. If you look at the end of Abrams barrel youll see a little peice that caculates this and all for barrel droop which happens after a tank fires a couple rounds.

I read comment earlier about the range of rifles being only 1-300m and anything futher is waste of ammuntion. It is true that the 5.56x45 round will blow around in the wind. A decent shot however can dial in his rounds within 500m in my opinion. The army just limits the markmanship training to 300m for the the common soilder.

In my final opinion I think that these real world sight adjustments would be just another amazing demision to ARMA and OFP

[dslyecxi 23]

Quote[/b] ]To determine windage also you will need some kind of gauge to measure or estimate the wind. (Flags etc.)

There are ways to do this on the battlefield. Look at rising smoke (from burning vehicles, buildings, whateveR), look at the puffs of dirt from bullet impacts and see how they move. Even without a seperate way to gauge it, those two things are already implemented in OFP and thus ArmA and would work in a pinch.

Quote[/b] ] I read comment earlier about the range of rifles being only 1-300m and anything futher is waste of ammuntion. It is true that the 5.56x45 round will blow around in the wind. A decent shot however can dial in his rounds within 500m in my opinion. The army just limits the markmanship training to 300m for the the common soilder.

The USMC trains out to 500 yards, but at the 500 yard line you're prone, with a loop sling, and firing at a full-size human silhouette with 10 minutes to put 10 rounds on it. Not exactly battlefield conditions, but it does illustrate that it's possible for a well-trained shooter to make hits on a target through iron sights at such a range. Throw in optics and a bipod or somesuch and you can see even lesser shooters making the same kind of hits.

Quote[/b] ]In my final opinion I think that these real world sight adjustments would be just another amazing demision to ARMA and OFP

I agree. It also opens up the possibility to properly model weapons like the AT-4, M-203, Mk-19, and doubtlessly many, many more. This is something that almost has to be implemented in Game2 if they're seriously going to improve over OFP/ArmA.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]Already mentioned. Snipers need them for a more realistic implementation of sniping. Right now it's purely hold-over based, and that's not all that realistic. Also, it'd be useful for machinegunners, and the implementation could also be utilized for sights like the M-203 and Mk-19 where proper sighting is absolutely critical to accuracy and CANNOT be acheived in OFP with the way the sights currently work.

It's always tempting to add something, but here's the problem. Everytime someone takes a long range shot, the scopes has to be adjusted. It's mainly due to the fact that in OFP, and to some extent in ARMA(my guess) is that winds are random. It would make players adjust scope every time in mission.

And on top of that since it's search reality, if someone picks up the dead sniper's scope. now the change in sight has to be accounted for when that someone now uses that weapon. That would require the game engine to designate each rifle to have unique sight setting. Waste of resource IMO

Quote[/b] ]If by "better" you mean "it makes OFP a less realistic simulation", then I would agree with you. I don't understand the fixation some of you have with OFP's way being "The Way To Go" and refusing to acknowledge areas where the game needs dramatic improvement.

You obviously did not understand. I fail to see how CQB, especially in house clearing scenarios require different sight adjustments. In house clearing situation, you more or less point and shoot with rifle. windage/elevation adjustment don't do anything for 5-25 meters.

When you start going beyond that then you might need it, but since engagement in OFP is pretty restricted, I fail to see why. Standard sight alignments are sufficient.

If you are thinking about elevation sights for say M203, then those could be useful, but then again, we run into problems I mentioned above regarding waste of resources.

[dreday 1]

If you are thinking about elevation sights for say M203, then those could be useful, but then again, we run into problems I mentioned above regarding waste of resources.

I am not sure that I agree with this being such a terrible waste of resources. Let's say that a good sized battle in ArmA would have all the soldiers carrying around 500 different weapons on them. Each weapon would require two variables (X and Y coordinate) to keep track of sight adjustments. So now we end up with 1000 extra variables that are infrequently updated and mostly just reside in memory. With the processing power of modern computer systems, this would have absolutely no impact on game performance. I might be oversimplifying this a bit, but not by much...

I think it's more of a concern of how much of developer's time would be need to implement this. Hopefuly not too much...

Peace,

DreDay

[dslyecxi 23]

Quote[/b] ]It's always tempting to add something, but here's the problem. Everytime someone takes a long range shot, the scopes has to be adjusted. It's mainly due to the fact that in OFP, and to some extent in ARMA(my guess) is that winds are random. It would make players adjust scope every time in mission.

Why? Why do you think this?

Let's imagine for a second that ArmA has wind affecting bullets (as in, throwing them off course in such a way that windage adjustments would be needed). This is what we call "realism". If wind affects bullets (which it should), it's only reasonable to have a way for a unit that relies on extremely precise shooting (such as a sniper) to compensate for such wind WITHOUT having to resort to "kentucky windage" or hold-over.

OFP, ArmA, Game2... they're all going for realism, and for the "Total Soldier Experience" or whatever you want to call it. I play these games because, as ex-military, I have a desire for realism in my gaming. OFP gives it to me, but what it does is by no means the end-all, be-all of combat simulations. They need to improve, and I expect them to do so in ArmA (to an extent) and Game2 (in a serious way). If they don't, I and many others will be sorely disappointed.

Quote[/b] ]And on top of that since it's search reality, if someone picks up the dead sniper's scope. now the change in sight has to be accounted for when that someone now uses that weapon.

So... if someone picks up a weapon, they're going to have the sight settings the dead person had. This is a problem... why? I fail to see your point.

Quote[/b] ]That would require the game engine to designate each rifle to have unique sight setting. Waste of resource IMO

Waste of RESOURCES? Are you kidding me? Do you realize how small of a thing an elevation/windage adjustment is to keep track of? We're talking about two things to keep track of... two seperate numbers. You think that's going to be a "waste of resources"? Haha, wow.

Quote[/b] ]You obviously did not understand. I fail to see how CQB, especially in house clearing scenarios require different sight adjustments.

Apparently I didn't understand what you were trying to say. You're right, CQB doesn't really require sight adjustments.

Quote[/b] ]When you start going beyond that then you might need it, but since engagement in OFP is pretty restricted, I fail to see why. Standard sight alignments are sufficient.

Are we playing different games here or what? As a sniper in OFP, I can take shots from hundreds of yards. As it stands now, I have to do "kentucky windage" to get hits. In a perfect world, I'd have elevation adjustments so that I could zero my weapon to a given range instead of being forced to stick with whatever range the weapons are zeroed at by default in OFP.

Quote[/b] ]If you are thinking about elevation sights for say M203, then those could be useful

It'd be more than merely "useful", it'd make that weapon actually USEABLE in the game, the way it's supposed to be, and would open up the possibility for other weapons, aimed in similar fashions, to be implemented properly. Maybe it's just because I've fired an actual M-203, and ran a simulator (with "real" weapons, set up to fire lasers and use Co2 as recoil simulation) with things like M-203's, AT-4's, etc, that I care to see such things implemented.

Quote[/b] ]but then again, we run into problems I mentioned above regarding waste of resources.

Your "waste of resources" excuse is one of the worst I've heard so far, sorry. There are hundreds of things in OFP that, by your logic, would be considered to be "wastes of resources". Strip all those "wastes of resources" out and you strip out most of the things that make me love OFP.

[Heatseeker 0]

In OPF we cant adjust scopes in a realistic fashion but we can use vertical mil dots and elevate the rifle to compensate for bullet drop, its an alternative that does the job but i will have to agree about adjusting the scopes elevation instead, it would be a nice option.

Windage i have my doubts about, it might be impractical due to other limitations of gaming in general, for example latency and lag in a MP environment over the internet.

Even if minor it will ruin your perfectly calculated shot and lead to frustration, and if you say "the netcode" should be perfect i say no netcode is perfect and Armas netcode already has to handle way above average, more events over distance, more units, vehicals, etc.

Example of the H&K adjustable cilinder sight, you can flip it in 4 positions in RL, 3 of them are for precise range and one is a V shapped sight for closer combat shooting (wich should be default in the case of MP5's), i dont remember the ranges though. I guess a way to see how it would work ingame would be to experiment but it might be too much hassle for little practical use .

[x al 1]

Hey,

any news concerning ironsights since E3?

BTW...look at my old thread  

all pros and cons listed there  

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=51436

[Twistedpretzel 0]

I hope the iron sights are better then the plain black colored ones in the original game that took up the whole screen, there are some much better 3rd party iron sites out there, and hopefully ArmA uses those as an example to make their own.

[ThePredator 0]

Since ArmA is not medieval combat, scopes should feature BDCs (Bullet Drop Compensator, which are actually engraved target turret rings for the cartridge your weapon fires, even available for hand loaded ammunitions).

You have numbered settings for specific ranges.

For example, on the Hensoldt 6-24x72 (my scope of choice on the .338LM chambered R93 Tactical II) you can dial to 6 on the target turrent and the scope is set up for 600 meter shots. So you don't even have to count clicks or remember those changes.

And if it eats up performance, hell, don't save the adjustment, but add this feature for realism.

To read the conditions affecting your shot (temperature, height above sea level, wind, inclination angle), you could employ a weather station. You already had GPS, a watch and a compass in OFP, so why no pocket weather station for wind speed / direction, barometric pressure, temperature?

I know this is getting detailed, but if we talk realism, I should write down everything that is needed in real life to hit your target, even if not relevant for ArmA.

Smoke, flags, grass, trees will indicate wind speed and direction (in)directly. If ArmA uses shaders (I doubt that) they could even add the mirage to the spotting scope (which could be set slightly off-focus to see the hot air blur and the wind conditions)

The sight adjustment was not meant to be used in CQB, like someone above stated. That's what the 3D sights are used for. Imagine the reflex and red-dot sights rendered on your gun with the correct point of aim even on the move, without paralax from any viewing anlge. Your head bob will not be the same as the weapon sway like in OFP. This would add possibilities to shoot from the hip with some accuracy, as long as you have some red dot attached.

Another thing I noticed on a screenshot. Ejected brass with smoke trail.

Can't say if this is just an image for your selection to re-incarnate on the battlefield or if the weapons actually eject brass with smoke and such.

Guess, shells won't stay long, like in OFP, even though you could track down used enemy positions by spent cartridges. A sniper should pick it manually after every shot. User-controlled bolt action like in Red Orchestra?

I love to see the weapon cylcing and ejecting brass, reminds you of the mechanics working like a charm.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]OFP, ArmA, Game2... they're all going for realism, and for the "Total Soldier Experience" or whatever you want to call it. I play these games because, as ex-military, I have a desire for realism in my gaming.

There lies the dillema. How much are we expecting from ARMA? This is a game, not a simulation. Although for a game, OFP and ARMA are pretty damn realistic, it is the interaction, the atmosphere that sets them apart and makes it more realistic.

For example, in rare but accepted situation, with a bolt action rifle, shell casings are retreived right outside of ejector port. Should this option be in ARMA too? not really. But for sake of realism, to prevent empty casings from giving away positions, it should be implemented along with certain angles of light shining on the emptying brass. But you don't see people asking for that.

Quote[/b] ]Waste of RESOURCES? Are you kidding me? Do you realize how small of a thing an elevation/windage adjustment is to keep track of? We're talking about two things to keep track of... two seperate numbers. You think that's going to be a "waste of resources"? Haha, wow.

When the windage/elevation change of a rifle is added in, it also has to adjust bullet trajectory from that rifle. Although the body dimensions are the same since the sight is adjusted, the bullet trajectory will be different. This has to be calculated by game engine.

Quote[/b] ]Are we playing different games here or what? As a sniper in OFP, I can take shots from hundreds of yards. As it stands now, I have to do "kentucky windage" to get hits. In a perfect world, I'd have elevation adjustments so that I could zero my weapon to a given range instead of being forced to stick with whatever range the weapons are zeroed at by default in OFP.

again, in games or even in simulations, there are limits on what can be achieved and what has to be left out. It certianly is impossible to have all the features of real world in to a game.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Example of the H&K adjustable cilinder sight, you can flip it in 4 positions in RL, 3 of them are for precise range and one is a V shapped sight for closer combat shooting (wich should be default in the case of MP5's), i dont remember the ranges though. I guess a way to see how it would work ingame would be to experiment but it might be too much hassle for little practical use .

In the HK G3 its:

1. Close combat

2. 100 metres

3. 200 metres

4. 300+ metres

When we had G3 in the danish army, it was allways set on 300+ metres except for city fighting or at night, where "Close combat" (the V) were used.

[dslyecxi 23]

Quote[/b] ]For example, in rare but accepted situation, with a bolt action rifle, shell casings are retreived right outside of ejector port. Should this option be in ARMA too? not really. But for sake of realism, to prevent empty casings from giving away positions, it should be implemented along with certain angles of light shining on the emptying brass. But you don't see people asking for that.

There are levels of impact that features would have on realism. What you're citing here would have a very small impact, whereas adjustable sights have a much larger and more noticeable impact, in the form of much-improved sniping, the possibility to have proper implementations of certain weapons like AT-4's, M-203's, etc.

Also, I don't know if you've ever seen expended brass on the ground, but it's EXTREMELY hard to notice in even short grass. After a string of fire on the pistol range in the Corps, we'd do a "police call" which is basically where everyone picked up all expended brass. In large quantities, it's noticeable, but once people got most of it up the last 10% was a true bitch to locate. This is with multiple people walking around specifically looking for it. Oh, and brass for military rounds isn't polished. It doesn't "shine" the way polished brass would, and thus implementing a feature like that would be fairly unrealistic.

Quote[/b] ]When the windage/elevation change of a rifle is added in, it also has to adjust bullet trajectory from that rifle. Although the body dimensions are the same since the sight is adjusted, the bullet trajectory will be different. This has to be calculated by game engine.

What? Adjusting sights doesn't adjust the ballistics of the round, it just changes where your point of aim is. The bullet follows the exact same ballistic path no matter what your sights are set at. It may end up being a bit "higher" or "lower" depending on what range you're aiming for (and having to aim the rifle "up" or "down" accordingly, depending on sight settings, but we're talking about minute differences here), but the actual path of the bullet, the ballistics of it once it leaves your weapon, are still the same.

Quote[/b] ]again, in games or even in simulations, there are limits on what can be achieved and what has to be left out. It certianly is impossible to have all the features of real world in to a game.

WWIIOL has adjustable rifle sights, and it works just fine. RO has adjustable weapon sights for the Panzerfaust, which works on the same principle as M-203's, Mk-19's, etc.

This stuff is NOT impossible or even that difficult to implement. This is NOT one of the "limits on what can be acheived".

[strango 5]

When the windage/elevation change of a rifle is added in, it also has to adjust bullet trajectory from that rifle. Although the body dimensions are the same since the sight is adjusted, the bullet trajectory will be different. This has to be calculated by game engine.

True, the exact path of the bullet will be different, but the impact on the game engine will not be that different than normal. The same equations are being calculated regardless of what range setting is being used. The difference is the values of the variables entered into the equation will be changed before getting the solution.

If what you said was true then it would be a major resource hog to use the M21 rifle in OFP which has variable zero based on scope zoom (as has been mentioned earlier in this thread).

[strango 5]

the actual path of the bullet, the ballistics of it once it leaves your weapon, are still the same.

I think he is refering to the minute differences of the actual x,y,z coordinates the bullets will traverse through en route to the target which will be different, but not very much. OFP actually computes the real path of the bullet and would need to show this, but as I stated in my post above the impact on the game engine will not be any different because it's going to be calculating the same equation regarless. It's just the values input into the equation that will be different.

[dslyecxi 23]

Quote[/b] ]I think he is refering to the minute differences of the actual x,y,z coordinates the bullets will traverse through en route to the target which will be different, but not very much. OFP actually computes the real path of the bullet and would need to show this, but as I stated in my post above

I edited my post after making it, once I realized what he was trying to say.

Quote[/b] ]the impact on the game engine will not be any different because it's going to be calculating the same equation regarless. It's just the values input into the equation that will be different.

Agreed.

[ThePredator 0]

In most parts you are right about military cartridges not being polished. My idea is pretty useless, actually, but since HDR is introduced, this was something possible for polished rounds. And despite the military use of sniper rifles, the match grade ammunition is very well polished. The drill is to pick up the empty brass from the breech, because you can actually see the shell flying in sunlight. The PSG-1 for example sends the cartridge flying like 10 m to your right.

Again, stupid idea.

Nevertheless, adjustable sights do not change anything in ballistic calculation, just the point of aim differs from the original, the same way a manual hold-over changes the POA.

[beedlo 0]

The only complaint I have with the original implementation of the iron sights is that CQB becomes a pain... especially if you have the crosshair turned off in the realism settings. It was a pain for two reasons:

1. POV worked for distant targeting, but it was too closed up for CQB.

2. In iron sight mode, its difficult to move the mouse fast enough to aim someone moving close around you... even if you don't want to aim at a specific area of the target.

[ThePredator 0]

That's what could be fixed with the 3D sights. You could make the 1st person weapon feature correct sights and vision, so you could use sights in CQB without unrealistic zoom (your issue mentioned) or fixed 2D image without depth.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

The only complaint I have with the original implementation of the iron sights is that CQB becomes a pain... especially if you have the crosshair turned off in the realism settings.  It was a pain for two reasons:

1. POV worked for distant targeting, but it was too closed up for CQB.

2. In iron sight mode, its difficult to move the mouse fast enough to aim someone moving close around you... even if you don't want to aim at a specific area of the target.

Those are flaud arguments because they can be solved/modified by addon makers per each weapon.

As for the rest... Iron sights in the game are just a 2d resource displayed on your screen - for the most part, it works exactly the same way a camera (like in cutscenes) works. In MP, it's client-side, not a single person on the server besides you is going to interact with it and uses no more resources than does your map (probably even less, unless the texture quality is above OFP/ArmA standards). This means that, if the method of adjusting them is simply vertical and horizontal shift (of the overlay, nothing else) values, it is perfectly feasable. But anything more than a simple shift is most likely too much and just not necessary. After all, you're only compensating for human error (showing the player where to aim to compensate for drop), not changing the tradjectory or anything drastic - a visual aid, and to the game you're just aiming in different spot because your point of view has changed.

[Friedchiken 0]

The funny thing about player zoom though is that it's one of the ways to compensate for monitor size.

Thanks to pixels, everythings has smaller dimensions than what you would see will regular eyesight, making 50m seem farther than it actually is.

I wonder if it would be a good idea to be able "zoom into" the regular 2-D m16 sights (among other rifles) just like with the m21.

You could zoom out to have good peripheral vision (smaller picture), and zoom in for precise shooting (large picture).