First Person Weapon Models?

[Burke]

I saw the iron sights, but I didnt see any first person weapon models. Is it confirmed that this has been overlooked again?

I'm still buying it regardless.

[KRP 56]

No first person weapon models in GR2. Never had them don't need them now.

[Brainman2k]

No first person weapon models in GR2. Never had them don't need them now.

...not to forget the ots we don't need either.

i will not particulary miss the fpvw, but it would have been a nice touch. thats what i liked about rvs and the previews of bia. although not implemented completely the right way concerning "ready-postion" (we had that discussion before), it gives a nice touch, especially, when zooming virtually into the iron-sights or scope.

[whoa182]

I would prefer to see my weapon, i know we all been through this before but the ghosts are moving in " ready position " so the weapon should be in view. mabey not while running but you know what i mean..

It doesnt feel complete without seeing what gun im holding lol.

UBI/Redstorm has everything to gain and nothing to lose to allow FPWV as an optional thing.

If you have played Joint Operations its clear that they are not firing the weapon from the waste, its in a ready to fire position and then u bring up the scope when u wanna use it for more accuracy when firing.

If you say NO to FPWV being an optional thing, then you are just being selfish since its not going to hurt or affect any1 els is it?

Edited August 13, 2004 by whoa182

[osokdfgr]

HEAR! HEAR!

[ruggbutt]

Weapon view is lame. They won't implement it. Be happy they put in the OTS view.

[Cull]

Weapon view is lame.  They won't implement it.  Be happy they put in the OTS view.

The exact reply I'd have expected from somebody who was selfish.

Edited August 14, 2004 by Cull

[Brainman2k]

Weapon view is lame.  They won't implement it.  Be happy they put in the OTS view.

The exact reply I'd have expected from somebody who was selfish.

please explain to me, why weapon view is lame? not everything you dislike has to be "lame". for instance, i think doom 3 is lame.....99% of all the other pc-players might think different....

i'd be happy with a fpwv which bia will offer. imho thats more realistic than running around with a reticule in the middle of the screen....

that they won't implement seems pretty clear for me...and i don't expect a fpwv in a red storm game...but nevertheless it would be a nifty feature (me thinks).

[Dan]

well having a FPWV is realistic, and last time i checked, they were trying to make GR2 realistic.

Try this simple test.

1. Pick up a broom

2. Hold that broom up to your shoulder like a rifle.

3. Observe

You should notice that the broom obscures your sight to the left or right, depending where u put it.

Now say you are holding a Javelin rocket launcher. A massive tubve big enough to fit a watermelon inside. Now that is gunna make lookin to the right difficult. Half of your vision is obscured, you'd have to compltley turn your shoulders, or lower the lancher, to look to the side.

Think about it, it makes sense

[osokdfgr]

Games dont offer 180 degrees of visiblity, so unfortunetly SN, having a RPG on your shoulder is closer to looking like a game...

Edited August 14, 2004 by osokdfgr

[Brainman2k]

Games dont offer 180 degrees of visiblity, so unfortunetly SN, having a RPG on your shoulder is closer to looking like a game...

i thought the human field of view was only 160°...anyways...i think some of the things silentnight said were pretty obvious. nevertheless the game-view on screen will always be limited. personally, i would rather see things like fwv although they might not be 100% correct.

btw. i wanna see my feet when looking straight down... did any game implement that yet?

Edited August 15, 2004 by Brainman2k

[Hatchetforce]

btw. i wanna see my feet when looking straight down...    did any game implement that yet?

Yes they did. It's called Breakdown and it is on the Xbox. Completely first person. Feet, fists. Everything.

I do not see what the big argument against the first person weapon is about. A simple toggle is all that is required. If you do not like it do not use it. Why rail against someone else also getting what they want in a title? As for first person weapons views I am for them. Titles such as Vietcong, Flashpoint, and H&D have a better immersion IMO when you see the weapon and snap it up from a low ready and you actually sight down the scope or iron sights.

[WytchDokta]

Vietcong has an excellent FPWV when you go prone - you can't shoot whilst crawling, and while you crawl you are holding your weapon in one hand and helping to move yourself along with the other hand. The iron sights view in Vietcong is pretty messed up though, especially the M60 iron sights considering the M60 in Vietcong has no front sight

Other games have implemented feet when you look straight down - Breed had it and so did Will Rock.

[Hatchetforce]

Yeah, that was a big issue with Vietcong. But the good far outweighs the bad in that game. Didn't know about Will Rock and Breed. Saw them come and go though.

[WytchDokta]

They also messed up the weapon stats in Vietcong, but that's another story....

Here's how they got it in Vietcong:

- M16 is more powerful than the AK47

- M14 (from Fist Alpha expansion) is way too weak....it takes literally 4-5 rounds to take down an enemy compared to the M16 which only takes 2 round to take down an enemy

- M60 is too inaccurate and way too weak

- M1A1 Carbine is also too weak

etc

....that said, it's still an amazing game, one of the best so far.

[ruggbutt]

well having a FPWV is realistic,

How often have you actually shot a gun? I've posted numerous times about this in the past but it looks like I have to again.....

I shot semi pro in combat matches for many years. Never in running to cover to shoot did I ever see my rifle like in RvS or FarCry. The only time you see the rifle is when you have it shouldered to fire. And then if you're doing it correctly you only see the sights.

When snap shooting (buttstock shouldered, muzzle down so as not to obstruct your view) you still don't see any of that B.S. that so many people are accustomed to in movies and vid games. Please quit stating that it's realistic. It's so far from it that those of us who use real guns at work, for sport or for leisure cringe when a statement like that is made.

I'm an NRA certified Pistol, Personal Protection, Rifle and Shotgun qualified instructor. I was a CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) instructor for the state of Arizona for many years. I had an FFL (Federal Firearms License) and sold guns for a living for a while too.

[Cull]

Well perhaps it is unrealistic, you have more then enough qualifications to make that type of statement but i'm sure you wouldn't be that selfish, not to allow the FPWV and make it an option, for those that like it...would you?

[Brainman2k]

btw. i wanna see my feet when looking straight down...    did any game implement that yet?

Yes the did. It's called Breakdown and it is on the Xbox. Completely first person. Feet, fists. Everything.

thx for the info. i do not play xbox tho and do not know the game either.

Titles such as Vietcong, Flashpoint, and H&D have a better immersion IMO when you see the weapon and snap it up from a low ready and you actually sight down the scope or iron sights.

i'm 100% with you!

The iron sights view in Vietcong is pretty messed up though, especially the M60 iron sights considering the M60 in Vietcong has no front sight

i agree. cod is imo better on that. and what i saw from the trailers of bia.....i like it already.

Other games have implemented feet when you look straight down - Breed had it and so did Will Rock.

really? i played the breed-demo, but that didn't occur to me. maybe because the game itself was to bad, so i overlooked it...

Never in running to cover to shoot did I ever see my rifle like in RvS or FarCry. The only time you see the rifle is when you have it shouldered to fire. And then if you're doing it correctly you only see the sights.

like i said: you cannot implement fpwv correctly, because with a monitor you do not have a full field of view, like irl. but running around with a reticule in the middle of the screen isn't realistic either. i prefer a "wrong" fpwv myself. that you don't see your rifle while running is pretty obvious and is btw done pretty good (from what i saw from the trailers) in BIA.

thats one reason why i'm looking forward to that title...

ah, and btw: it's a game.....so not everything is meant to be realistic...

[Kurtz]

BIA will have weapon view and iron sights. It will beinteresting to see what is incorporated into the Close Combat FPS.

[ruggbutt]

i'm sure you wouldn't be that selfish, not to allow the FPWV and make it an option

You wouldn't be that selfish to ask thousands of original GR gamers across the world to have to wait for the game release to have that implemented would you?

[GRT]

*takes cull behind the grocery store* .....*heya cull just hmm follow me really quick..i wanna show you something i found*.....

[Hatchetforce]

First person weapon view adds realism in another sense. In a game with no weapon view I can fire instantly. Depending on my movement, if any, I may be dead on target with no aiming needed. The fact is it doesn't work like that. Be advised when I say first person weapon view I am not talking about a side or 3/4 angle view ala Quake. When I speak of weapon view I am talking animations whereby the weapon is actually brought up and aimed with optical or iron sights. Most FPS titles do not snap the weapon up and allow an actual shot utilizing the sights. In that case, where the weapon is there for appearance, it is no better than the view without a weapon except it provides more immersion for some people, less for others. Having those floating cross hairs in front of you , or firing as most FPS titles do with the weapon almost at the hip provides instant trigger pull with no need to bring the weapon up to ready. Instant trigger pull in real life would be the equivalent of putting the rounds in the dirt in front of you because at best you would have your weapon at the low ready. This is of course if you were expecting imminent contact. If not then the weapon (for a right hand shooter) is hanging across your chest on an assault sling and the rounds just went into the ground at about a 7 o'clock or so. If one of your buds was close by, you just took his right foot off.

Personally when it comes to realism, I think anti-weapons view people have no where to stand. The ability to see the weapon in the game is far more realistic than not seeing it. I would wager I have shot more than just about anyone on this board. People have about a 160 degree view cone. Even at the low ready I am always aware of my weapon in my peripheral view. It is not exactly in focus as I am concentrating my view in front of me, but then again the majority of your field of view is defocused almost all of the time. Devs have not found a way to accurately portray this. The monitor does not provide the same field of view as real life. But it does so with enough encompassed that a great deal of the time, not always, but most of the time I am going to view my weapon in the periphery.

Here is how shooting during room clearing occurs. This is a situation where contact and weapons fire is expected. The gun is ON SAFE held at the low ready. Even in a combat zone the weapon is safed. Forget what you saw in BHD, that was a cool Hollywood moment but it was irresponsible. We rarely use the high ready position. I will use the M4 here. In the low ready the stock is extended, the butt of the weapon is seated and held back into my shoulder pocket firmly, but not overly tense. The assault sling normally holds the weapon diagonally across my body but is rigged so this happens when the weapon is pulled down by it's own weight. In this case there is enough slack so it extends out comfortably. The weapon is pointed down about 4 o'clock.

If we are in a stack it will point more directly down as you are close to the man in front of you. Remember in a stack you will have your non-trigger hand on the shoulder of the guy in front of you for control and communication through pats and squeezes. My right hand is gripping the pistol grip with the thumb on the selector switch. My right index finger is across the side of the trigger and slightly around it. Normally you would have your finger along side the trigger but in this case hostility is imminent. As the stack begins to move my left hand is switched to the foregrip on the weapon. I turn the corner and enter the room, clearing the fatal funnel in a controlled but rapid manner. I will split opposite the direction of flow from the man in front of me.

I enter check my sector and flow to my point of domination. If I have a shot , in one fluid motion as the weapon snaps up - the head does not go down - I thumb the safety to semi and sight with both eyes open. I put two rounds center mass in the target in a double tap. If there is another target I index to that target and engage without lowering and safeing the weapon.

When that target drops if there are no additional targets in my sector I re-index back to the first target. If the target is down I re-index back to the second target then drop the weapon to low ready thumbing the selector to safe as I do so. If the first target is not down or is moving I fire a safety drill, two rounds to the chest in a double tap followed by a rapid third shot in the head. I then re-index back to the second target.

I am aware during this time of other activity in the room but my first responsibility is my sector and I trust my Team Mates to handle theirs. When my sector is clear I will sweep to theirs in the low ready. Calling clear is standard when your sector is clear. So is calling shot which means you have a hostile target not in your sector that presents imminent danger. When shot is called everyone freezes as they know this engagement may be into their flow or point of domination.

The best solution for gaming I can see would be a key toggle I call Readiness. At zero readiness your character can run full tilt in the game for limited amounts of time because the weapon is slung. Hit the key again and the weapon becomes slightly visible across the the body - you'll see mostly buttstock on one side - and your run speed is reduced. You also cannot crawl in this toggle. The third position is the low ready. Movement and lateral or strafe speed is greatly reduced and again most of the weapon view is going to be the rear of the weapon. When the weapon snaps up to shoot, the entire weapon is visible most of the time because in close engagements I am shooting with both eyes open. Aimpoint, Reflex, and Holo sites are all true parallax scopes. With an Acog or the like matters of view will differ. For the PEQ2A you will certainly see the entire weapon because you do not assume a stock weld to fire. And you cannot crawl and fire at the same time in these states.

Pressing the right mouse button in any Readiness position will bring the weapon up to fire. The difference is the amount of time to bring the weapon to the firing position.

With a pistol you are going to see the end of it as it will be held in close in the number 3 postion and as you punch out you begin the trigger draw so the round goes off on extension.

ADDENDUM: Shooting positions for other types of weapons will vary while principles remain the same. When my primary weapon was an MP5SD back in the mid-80s, we did not have the plethora of sights that we have now. Allot of it was simple iron sight shooting. Full extension sling shooting was used as well as placing the closed butt of the MP5 against your voice emitter on the pro mask and sighting directly over the weapon. Shooting with a pro mask on is an entirely new set of techniques. When using the MP5SD, we did fire on auto as countless drills allowed extremely accurate and controllable 2-3 round bursts.

[WytchDokta]

I am always aware of my weapon in my peripheral view

When I play games with a FPWV I am aware of the weapon too, but.... When I'm concentrating I'm looking and scanning straight ahead NOT at the weapon in the bottom right corner. So basically, I see the weapon when I want to see it, but I don't see it while concentrating on what's ahead (becuase I'm concentraiong on the action NOT the weapon), although I am aware it's there.

[whoa182]

well having a FPWV is realistic,

How often have you actually shot a gun? I've posted numerous times about this in the past but it looks like I have to again.....

I shot semi pro in combat matches for many years. Never in running to cover to shoot did I ever see my rifle like in RvS or FarCry. The only time you see the rifle is when you have it shouldered to fire. And then if you're doing it correctly you only see the sights.

When snap shooting (buttstock shouldered, muzzle down so as not to obstruct your view) you still don't see any of that B.S. that so many people are accustomed to in movies and vid games. Please quit stating that it's realistic. It's so far from it that those of us who use real guns at work, for sport or for leisure cringe when a statement like that is made.

I'm an NRA certified Pistol, Personal Protection, Rifle and Shotgun qualified instructor. I was a CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) instructor for the state of Arizona for many years. I had an FFL (Federal Firearms License) and sold guns for a living for a while too.

really?

that yellow reticule and reloading ret is SO realistic tho hu and when i hold a Pistol up ready to fire at a target all i see is a yellow ret ??

Edited August 17, 2004 by whoa182

[Dannik]

that  yellow reticule and reloading ret  is SO realistic tho hu and when i hold a Pistol up ready to fire at a target all i see is a yellow ret ??

That's exactly the point Rugg was trying to make, if I dare put words in his mouth.

It's not realistic, but it's obviously not trying to be. FPWV's are never realistic either, but they try to pretent to be. Until a game can accurately model what it really looks like to be carrying the firearm like it really happens, why pretend a picture of a gun stuck in the bottom right of your screen is "more realistic" than simply disposing whatsoever with the entire deal, and working with a depiction of action (i.e. the GR reticule) as opposed to an utterly fake depiction of "real".

Neither is "realistic" in any way, but at least with a simple reticule aiming system like GR, and RS and R6 before it, you're not trying to fool yourself with the fake display. It's this design ethic that really made (and makes) Red Storm Entertainment titles stand so far apart from the crowd. It's smart first, then it's pretty.