Holo gunsight...utter pap?

[galzohar 31]

M4s are less accurate than M16s in A2 and the difference in turning is minimal, so I'd rather say there's no reason to take the M4. If you run my Muzzlevelocitymod the difference is even bigger in favor of the -16s.

How are they less accurate? I mean, I didn't make thorough experiments, but while playing I did not notice a difference. And due to how the engine works, ballistics depend only on ammunition which is the same for M4A1 and M16A4. I hadn't seen anyone mention a config value that reduces their accuracy - only the dexterity value and the range AI thinks he can use those weapons at.

ACE2 is supposed to fix the ballistics issues, but I don't know if they'll do anything to improve the differences in actual handling of weapons.

[fincuan 0]

How are they less accurate?

M4A1's dispersion on single shot in the config is 75% larger than that of all M16s, that's how. On full-auto there's no difference, but you can't hit anything that way anyway :)

Edited November 2, 2009 by Fincuan

[galzohar 31]

How much is the actual dispersion though?

[Recce81 10]

Alright firstly, its called an EOTECH. ONLY the acog and higher are called scopes, everything else is a sight...

If your complaining about the circle surrounding the dot, its to help guide the sight directly so the circles surrounding the body. I want to say at 100m the human body should just fit in that circle.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Recce81

[Assasin93 0]

It's OK for me. I sometimes use the eotech, and it's pretty accurate. I still prefer standard aimpoint in night ops.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I did a good game (kills:death ratio) last night on a Domination server using an M16 aimpoint. ACOG is more convenient for quick zoom compared to binoculars, but I have no problems if I didn't get a scope.

[nkenny 1051]

*shrug* I think way to many people lean too heavily on the ACOG and other scope systems. I usually play with ironsights only and do plenty well. In fact I prefer simpler 'interface' provided by ironsights.

The most difficult PvP situations are also the CQB ones (most variables) hence it makes sense to have an adequate solution for that as well.

The greatest advantage offered by ACOG is in FoF recognition, I find most 'dangerous' engagements take place at sub-200 meters anyhow. On a busy server volume of fire easily deals with "static" AI at ranges beyond 200 meters.

- k

[galzohar 31]

*shrug* I think way to many people lean too heavily on the ACOG and other scope systems. I usually play with ironsights only and do plenty well. In fact I prefer simpler 'interface' provided by ironsights.

The most difficult PvP situations are also the CQB ones (most variables) hence it makes sense to have an adequate solution for that as well.

The greatest advantage offered by ACOG is in FoF recognition, I find most 'dangerous' engagements take place at sub-200 meters anyhow. On a busy server volume of fire easily deals with "static" AI at ranges beyond 200 meters.

- k

I have to completely disagree with that. Most of the areas in this game are not only are non-urban and even the urban ones aren't really all that "urban", on top of that the terrain is quite "smooth" with little cover and you can get a shot at enemies at pretty long ranges most of the time - that is provided you can distinguish their pixels from their surroundings. An ACOG goes a long way for that.

Aimpoints are also more useful than ironsights, as even though they don't have their true RL advantage (very easy 2-eye-open shooting), ironsights do obscure the target in a much more annoying way than aimpoints do.

Volume of fire is generally the worst way to tackle AI and should be avoided whenever possible. AI (and players to a small degree) are much easier to hit with the first shot - after that they will know they're being shot at and start acting on it (players are less affected because they will possibly notice you even if you don't shoot). One of the reasons that against the AI I'd carry a DMR even for urban combat.

[nkenny 1051]

I should have specified. With ironsights I meant "3d model" encompassing both Aimpoints, eotechs, and traditional 'irons'. My bad. However as I've also expressed earlier some regret at the poor implementation (user interface) of Ironsights. Certainly better than some games, but still a long shot away from Infiltration.

I did however specify 'busy' servers. Its an all too common occurance on active Domination-type servers that the AI, completely oblivious to what happens around it, essentially freezes @ long range encounters. A high volume of reasonably accurate shots produce sufficiently effective fire to kill.

As you also note, the chief benefit of the ACOG (or any type of scope really) is in FoF recognition. That is Friend or Foe recognition. Having a weapon pointed at a potential enemy is inherently practical too.

---

Yes. Effectively engaging the enemy at ranges beyond the AIs ability to respond is a win-win scenario. But is it fun? and once the shit hits the fan and you are stuck in a dangerous CQB situation. That is anywhere when you've potentially got less stuff to jump behind, need to act quickly, and keep multiple objects in sight. The aimpoint & Ironsights show their merit.

Ultimately its largerly a matter of preference. ACOG/scope is unquestionably better for long range encounters. But I find Aimpoints and Ironsights superior when tackling that most dangerous beast. MOUT/CQB operations. Also the current implementation of both leaves something to be desired, to say the very least.

-k

Edited November 4, 2009 by NkEnNy

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Volume of fire is generally the worst way to tackle AI and should be avoided whenever possible. AI (and players to a small degree) are much easier to hit with the first shot - after that they will know they're being shot at and start acting on it (players are less affected because they will possibly notice you even if you don't shoot). One of the reasons that against the AI I'd carry a DMR even for urban combat.

I disagree wildly. Let SAW and MG stay behind supressing the shit out of the AI. Even if you don't hit much, AI will be busy with supressing elements who hopefully have very good cover, while the rest of the team (non scoped) flanks for the kill, in cover mind you. A good supression will cause AI to aim badly, improving survivability for the supressing units greatly.

When everyone is carrying DMRs, like in Domination, you end up with a distance turkey shoot, not a firefight. The amount of armor here makes firefights difficult to achieve though. Nobody is willing to wait until the armor is tackled before going in and opening up on the softies. Or prepare a simultanious attack.

If you watch real life footage, there is a shitload of bullets going both ways, most not doing anything good. No army kills as much as we do in games. Establishing fire superiority is a priority, for a reason. For that, you need volume of fire.

Also, I like the "feeling" of a decent firefight with heavy shooting. My best experience is still 600+ MG rounds fired via help of MG assistant gunner (also ammo bearer), ending up topping the board with only 7 kills :)

In Domination, why aren't the lighter vehicles used to enhance the firefight feeling? Get rid of the armor and highly capable shooters, then suppress the shit out of AI by using that bushmaster near enemy positions, while the footies prepare an ambush for the those trying to flank. It would add SO much to the feeling than when everyone is doing accurate shooting from distances the AI don't work well at.

[galzohar 31]

Fun is subjective, but you're definitely going to end up with more casualties if you go with sub-optimal weapons. Of course the reason a DMR or even an ACOG is so superior against the AI (and even against players) is not because it is also the case in real life, but because of deficiencies in the game. In real life the disadvantages of those weapons is much more obvious and significant, as well as the advantages of other weapons (especially machineguns). In real life suppression works because the enemy thinks you might hit them even if it's a very low hit chance, so it's worth doing even from a very long distance where hit chances are low so that the rest of the forces can move up. Suppressing the AI in Arma 2 is almost pointless, as if you can shoot so close to them to trigger the suppression effect you might as well just hit them.

Arma 2 may be one of the most realistic games out there, but it still does a lot of things wrong, and by forcing yourself to play realistically even when it's not effective is just fooling yourself. The best you can do (without fooling yourself / dipping into the realm of roleplaying) is try make/play as realistic missions as the game allows.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I think early ACE for Arma1 handled "supression" just perfectly :) We had severe weapons sway making it hard to hit. That also ment AI was really bad shooters. This increased the firefights tenfold. But then there was A LOT of complaining that people couldn't shoot straight. Then the sway was reduced, and we were back to the turkey shoot.

Personally, I'd rather have inaccurate supressing elements doing their work, while the rest of us do a manouver. Since the AI shoot badly, it increases the survivability of trying to move. This is important due to lack of natural covers in the game.

There will be a lot of shooting, and a lot of misses. For me, this increases the sensation of being on a real battlefield. When everyone does range shooting (AI AND players), the firefight cease to exist. When all hell is breaking loose, you're not capable of delivering accurate shots.

Well, that is my feeling about it anyway, and yes I'm into roleplaying whatever slot I pick as best as I can, as long as it is possible at the time.

Yes I agree that it very much depends on the mission, how it is designed etc. But I also think the game could be improved in general on some of these issues. Hopefully ACE2 might bring the firefights back somehow, because I really miss being in a war (includes manouvers) instead of always ending up on a shooting range with moving targets.

[galzohar 31]

How many times am I going to have to say it? The game is all turkey-shoot not because of lack of artificial suppression effects, but rather because you can hold the rifle steady even in the standing position (heck prone is probably much steadier than it should be). Just go to the nearest shooting range near you and you'll get it.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I agree on the steadiness. However, there must be a way to get off steady shots as well, or snipers wouldn't have a game at all. Or, having an ambush setup where you can shoot rather accurately while enemy is in panic state. So, holding breath effect should take a lot longer to achieve but also have better effect. But if you are suppressed, it would cancel the effect and you would have to start all over. Maybe classes like snipers and marksmen would have a bonus on this, don't know.

Makes it possible to get off awesome shots, until the enemy starts returning fire. Now your aim will be much less accurate. And turkey shoot is avoided/prevented.

[galzohar 31]

it's called "go prone and manage your breath lining up your shot". You're not supposed to hit something at 500m when standing with an M24, not to mention with an M107. Heck it would be very difficult at much much shorter distances. Especially with how fast you can do it currently.

[nkenny 1051]

I think ACE1 had it right. Sights were more stable while moving than default Arma. However as recoil was slightly exaggerated and the ballistics code less forgiving. It was harder to make follow up hits. This meant that making the first hit count was important; and that you couldn’t just spray and pray. (as you can easily do in ARMA2)

I felt this was a highly entertaining balance between game-feel, realism, and learning curve. Someone who spent some time with the ACE weapons could become deadly proficient, often to a truly impressive degree, yet not overwhelmingly so.

In terms of ‘suppression effects’ I must express the same sort of scepticism Galzohar to any blatantly artificial “suppression†values.

- k

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I agree. Steady aim was far better than vanilla Arma1. But I think I only want it when going directly forward, as imho you are much more wiggling when strafing, moving diagonally, or walking backwards. But not as good as OFDR has it.

The suppression effects can be felt really nicely in Arma2 if you set yourself "this allowDamage false". There is nothing artificial about it. It's hard to hit a target at 50 meters even. For me this mimics a firefight.

So, suppression effect is not a "value", it's a realistic set of effects applied to your avatar when bullets land nearby you.

I would however like to have the effect last longer, bullets further away affecting it, and also general activity nearby affecting it. In a chaotic environment, you're more prone to weapons sway.

The biggest problem with todays suppression is AIs inability to remain hidden while we suppress, but instead walk right into the line of fire. No deep flanking maneuvers attempted. No smoke screen relocation attempts. Anything of this sorts have to be scripted, which might be too hard for most.

So, if general activity nearby affects sway in a similar fashion as while being suppressed (although not as heavy effect), it will reduce our ability to turkey shoot. We will have to move in closer for the kills while SAW/MG suppresses, but also keeps AI pinned down.

And very very very important. AI should be affected the same way. It should pay off to suppress AI so they loose their aim.

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/range.html

"This claims that 72% of rifle shots are made at 200m or less and that only 3% of shots are made beyond 400m."

In Arma, I would say the opposite is true. If changes was made to "enforce" this, there would be a shitload of complaints on how they can't shoot like they do on the range. They want accurate range shooting back, they get it, and we're back to square one - turkey shoots at dumb AI instead of maneuver and firefights.

That being said, Chernarus for the most part is not very suitable for the firefights. Let's hope OA can bring some of this, by providing better cover opportunities especially for those in the offense.

I like playing with grass, since it forces you to think twice about avenue of approach. You can't just advance in a cornfield simply by turning off grass. Staying on the road would be better. You can't setup or prepare a lasting firing position. You can flatten grass, but only for a very short while. You can't see from behind twigs or snap them for a better view, only move out of concealment in order to see something yourself.

So, "go prone and manage your breath lining up your shot" doesn't always work. You can still be able to shoot quite decently while standing or crouched, as long as you can do it calmly.

And that's my only problem with ACE1. The sway (in earliest versions) was great during firefights, but was off the chart if you tried to setup a surprise coordinated attack. You *had* to be prone to hit anything. Once the initial phase was done and a firefight emerged, I would be happy with the original values.

Bah, long post, but... I don't think we disagree, I just think there is more to "firefight simulation" (turkeyshoot prevention) than just increasing sway on a general basis.

[galzohar 31]

In Arma the map is poorly designed which is what causes the engagement ranges to be so big. Even if you'd fix the accuracy you'd still have people *trying* to hit from far away, because that's the distance at which you can see enemies. IRL there's much more cover available due to terrain (in forms OTHER than trees and weed that doesn't even get rendered - ex. more rocks, less "smooth" terrain etc), and thus you can't really shoot someone at 400m because he'll likely not be in your line of sight.

[AlecDelorean 10]

I hope that one day we can have zoomed scopes that can zoom only a circular portion of the screen instead of todays black border.

hmmm, i think that's almost impossible. it will cost very much performance in an open world game of the size like arma. the engine has to render a second overlayed 3D-window (don't know the exact tech. term). in all these mainstream shooters thats not a problem, they can use plenty of renderpower & shaders to do the trick. but that is only possible, because their levels are confined spaces like a tunnel with a max visibility of a couple of hundred meters. in most cases, their vast visib.-ranges are completely faked.

[HyperU2 11]

Is the old Delta Force kind of scope view what people want?

[mattxr 9]

Me? I hate it, and belive it should be removed, destroyed and then stamped on by each member of the nearest battalion, the pieces the rolled under a handy tank, then all those bits swept up, placed in a small can, taken to 30,000ft in a c30, then scattered over the atlantic ocean. Twice.

Well mr rant! why dont you make some weapons with better HALO sights or what ever sights u like! then you dont have to make stupid posts such as this one!

1. You just sound like an idiot

2. This kind of post hardly help anyone! especially the developers

3. State you problem, good points bad points then maybe even a solution

After you have done that then people may actually take you seriously.

[AlecDelorean 10]

HAHAHA, HyperU2, thats it. nice one!

funny example. a long time ago we're used to play games which didn't have any lights or shadows, or even tons of polygons and textures. all we needed was a cpu and not one of those fancy 3D-accelerators...

[AlarmedBread 10]

I <3 the Holo sight and use it the most.

IMO it depends on your screen resolution too, at low res it is hard to see anything without an optic, but on a larger screen with better res it is much easier to work without an optic sight. I used to dislike the red dots, but that was only because everyone next to me had a dmr and was shooting at stuff 500m out. Now I know better and move in close for the fun stuff.

[Nutlink 10]

Is the old Delta Force kind of scope view what people want?

More like what is seen in

[AlecDelorean 10]

yes, insurgency is the best example. nice looking shader for the magnification of the optics. but don't forget, with the black border arma wants to simulate the limited FOV when using scope. it doesn't look cool, but does the job delivering a minor disadvantage.