Holo gunsight...utter pap?

[TimRiceSE 10]

subsonic 5.56 would have something like 1/7 the KE of standard 5.56, since it is a light round, and probably wouldnt even cycle the action, making the trajectory of the silenced assault rifles very weird.

Edited August 13, 2009 by TimRiceSE

[galzohar 31]

subsonic 5.56 would have something like 1/7 the KE of standard 5.56, since it is a light round, and probably wouldnt even cycle the action, making the trajectory of the silenced assault rifles very weird.

Well that's what they seem to have tried to implement in the game, but unfortunately they don't allow non-SD ammo at all. IRL even if that ammo exists nobody in his right mind would use it. I mean, if you're going to fire something slower than the speed of sound, at least make it a 9mm (MP5SD)?...

A change to the whole "SD ammo" thing where relevant would be very much appreciated.

[Baff1 0]

I bought my first holosight this week.

Currently I am enjoying it a lot. I don't expect I will be returning to iron sights again in a hurry.

In game? They seem OK, I prefer a scope in game obviously.

A reflex on the shotguns and smg's would be OK.

I answered option A, so into this sight I would introduce it to my parents.

Only fair since I just have done. They weren't intrested in anything more than the price of a Kobra.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Baff1

[ICE-Raver 10]

In game the eotechs suck........................which well................. sucks.

Because I'd like to use the m4 with an ACOG. So as of now, I just go m/16 ACOG and avoid the Eotechs like the plague. I can't see anything when using them.

[galzohar 31]

Since weapon length isn't modeled in the game (yuck!), there's no real reason for an M4A1 over an M16A4 anyway.

[STALKERGB 6]

I seemed to find that i was caught at distance having to use the Eotech which made it quite a bit harder to use well but close up I don't really have a problem with it. Would have prefered the USMC riflemen to carry the RCO on their M16s to be honest.

[shwat 10]

Seeing as how removing the eotech would annoy plenty of people, and please plenty of people (my self included), why not keep it but instead change the way weapons are configured?

It's a little late for such a drastic change, but I'm just speaking hypothetically to see what sort of response the idea would generate.

Instead of picking a weapon configuration, the player would pick a base weapon (M16A4, M4A1, etc.) and would be taken to another menu. In this menu, there would be drop-down boxes for each rail. On your top rail, you could select from the sights available for your gun, in the case of an M16A4 you'd have ironsights, aimpoint, and ACOG. An AK101 could have ironsights, kobra, or PSO. Simple, right? You could also select grenade launchers and silencers/suppresors for weapons that can use them.

With a method like that, you could get a suppressed M4 with the M203 and you wouldn't have to deal with the eotech. You could have an aimpoint, ironsights, or RCO if you wanted.

For implementation in the editor so that a mission-maker could customize the weapons he gives to units, each weapon would be passed with an array. Something like...

[M16A4, #, #, #, #]

... where the #'s would be changed to customize the weapon. Hypothetical example:

[M4A1, 3, 1, 1, 0]

This would give you the base weapon of an M4A1, the next value would be the top rail selection with options ordered by increasing effective range (ironsights first, then aimpoint, eotech, RCO) with 0 being ironsights and 3 being the RCO. The third value passed would be true/false for a grenade launcher (1 being true, 0 being false) and the fourth value would be for silencers (also true false, 1/0). The fifth (and final) value could be for changing the skin (the M4A1 has matte black and a woodland camo pattern, for example).

Remember, this isn't a plea for "hey developers, look at this idea, can you pleasepleaseplease do this?" it's purely hypothetical, as I'm sure the devs would have one helluva hard time adapting the current system into this.

[sakura_chan 9]

That has been desired since the beginning of ofp. It just isn't possible because there is no way to change or access the weapon model when it is ingame. There is only the crazy possibility of making a model for each combination and selecting it through a script, but that would be very clunky.

[GoOB 0]

Not a fan of them in ARMA II but I've fired on range with a holo sight and it was rather comfortable. I am no big shooter but I found it slightly easier (and alot less straining on the eyes) to shoot accuratley over the range with the holo sight than with ye olde ironsights.

[echo1 0]

Since weapon length isn't modeled in the game (yuck!), there's no real reason for an M4A1 over an M16A4 anyway.

Im pretty sure that isn't true, considering that long weapons make it harder to move around indoors.

[Momaw 10]

In the real world reflex sights are all about how fast you can line up the target. Your aiming point is large, bright, and appears to be infinitely distant so that you don't have to focus your eyes between the sight at the end of your arm and the target at (presumably) some much further distance as you bring the sight up. The game doesn't really model these advantages to a real world degree. I don't like the holo sight in Arma2 at *all* for the reasons noted above; occludes too much of the target and surrounds, and its zero point is set way too ambitiously for what is intended to be a short range sight.

Meh.

[galzohar 31]

Im pretty sure that isn't true, considering that long weapons make it harder to move around indoors.

Even if it's modeled, it's not done right, because I hadn't noticed it. I've even seen weapons clipping through terrain multiple times.

[vasmkd 12]

Holo sights are quicker aiming than open sights in the real world.

Thats why they use them.

I also use them in real life and prefer them over open sights or scopes at closer ranges

They aren't very good at long range just like open sights.

U dont have to line them up to be on target like u do with open sights (u have to line the front and back up on open sights).

I can see that in the game the holo sight doesnt have an advantage because lets face it u don't have to line up the front and rear in games like u do in real life because the game takes care of that.

But leave them there on certain weapons as they are used in the real world.

Added

u do not need to have your eye aligned with the sight tube on holo sight

Edited August 16, 2009 by vasmkd
Forgot to add another point

[shwat 10]

That has been desired since the beginning of ofp. It just isn't possible because there is no way to change or access the weapon model when it is ingame. There is only the crazy possibility of making a model for each combination and selecting it through a script, but that would be very clunky.

I figured somebody else would've hit on the idea by now. Too bad that's the case, though. I suppose your post also clears up the issue of removable suppressors.

[NewfDraggie 10]

Ever try using them in night time without NVGs? The reticule is well illuminated alright, you just may have a problem trying to see anything :)

Oh you're one of those people that use the crosshairs instead of sights, you have no valid opinion, sorry.

[shataan 1]

The Holo AND the reflex deathdot should be labeled "for Quakers Only" . lolol Gods I hate both of these like the freaking plague. Great for CS kiddies tho.

[galzohar 31]

The Holo AND the reflex deathdot should be labeled "for Quakers Only" . lolol Gods I hate both of these like the freaking plague. Great for CS kiddies tho.

I do not understand where that statement is coming from. What does wanting to use a sight that is superior and more commonly used amongst infantrymen and SF have to do with CS kiddies?

[frederf 0]

Shataan, what you've said was true a while ago but nowadays red-dot and ACOG sights far, far outnumber plain old ironsights for basic front line units. The EOtechs and ELCANs are rare though.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Since weapon length isn't modeled in the game (yuck!), there's no real reason for an M4A1 over an M16A4 anyway.

Not sure about the collision detection differences, but you're right, currently there is no 'real' difference between them. There is little to collide with anyway in Arma2. Also I guess this part haven't been updated since Arma1, so I guess ammo is the sole driving force. Meaning that barrel lenght does not influence accuracy.

However, that will change with ACE2 I hope. So you're wrong, eventually there will be a difference between them.

---

The biggest problem with aimpoint/eotech isn't those sights themselves, but the fact that iron sights doesn't need realigning. It's as much point & shoot as eotechs. However, making them so would make them useless. So how can aimpoint/eotechs be given a real advantage over iron sights?

Make the frame/casing semi transparent while in aimed view. That way the sight doesn't obscure anything of the target, and it would simulate you firing with both eyes open.

Another way iron sights could be reduced in effectiveness compared to holo sights, could be to have iron sight versions with no mounting rails, where NVGs were automatically turned off when you lifted up to sight, and couldn't turn it on again until you get out of sight mode. That would require some more weapon versions though (especially MP5s with aimpoint). That would simulate not having any additional night optics if you don't have a mount for it. Try to aim using NVGs, it's impossible. It also makes battlefield illumination a better choice, instead of those all to powerful NVGs anyway.

Btw, I have not yet been in a situation where the delayed parallax on aimpoint/eotechs have an impact on combat outcome or self survival. I know it's there, but I don't understand the fuzz about it. 'Cryontech' vs real holographic image is a non issue for me. When does it make a difference?

[galzohar 31]

We're talking about the current state of Arma 2, not what it might be when some addons get released. When ACE2 is released or at least its features are officially announced we can discuss that.

Semi-transparent sight would be good, except it's near-impossible to do it with a weapon that is modeled in 3D. Notice that all games that did have a semi-transparent sight had the first person sight be a simple 2D texture and not a 3D model, which allows making it semi-transparent, but looks pretty ugly, especially when it moves.

The accuracy difference between M4A1 and M16A4 is almost negligible. Only really matters above 300m, and even there M4A1 can hit just fine with proper optics and proper stability. The main advantage of the M16A4 is higher velocity which makes it fragment over a slightly longer range (~100m as opposed to ~50m for M4A1, using standard green-tipped ammo). Of course the main disadvantage is length and weight, which aren't properly modeled (if at all), so there's no reason to take the shorter weapon even if you're only doing CQB.

The only reason right now to go with M4A1 is if you play on expert in an extremely short range map (where an ACOG is too much, which is pretty rare really), want an M203 and also don't want iron sights (which I see no reason to use).

[echo1 0]

Oh you're one of those people that use the crosshairs instead of sights, you have no valid opinion, sorry.

What makes you think I use the GUI crosshairs? Please illuminate me with your knowledge, good sir.

[galzohar 31]

It's worse than that, why do you think the GUI crosshairs are inferior to sights? In most situations they are quite superior (which makes me want servers to run expert even more).

[NewfDraggie 10]

What makes you think I use the GUI crosshairs? Please illuminate me with your knowledge, good sir.

You said so, I said it's for illumination because black iron sights in low-light doesn't work, then you said that the crosshair does that fine. This means, and I'm fairly certain you're not this stupid but I will explain it, that you either use the crosshair to shoot or don't understand the concept of illuminated sights.

[Baff1 0]

Shataan, what you've said was true a while ago but nowadays red-dot and ACOG sights far, far outnumber plain old ironsights for basic front line units. The EOtechs and ELCANs are rare though.

I'm not suprised, they cost more than most guns.

[LordSmurf 10]

Well, holos and reddots work very good in real life, but not in the game. in real life you keep your both eyes open and you "only" see the dot/crosshair. in the game it obstructs your view alot.