CQB Optics Concept Missed Badly

[Stalker_Zero]

I hope that this post doesn't get double posted I had trouble with my browser. anyways here goes.......

Ok, I think I've come up with a simple fix for the use of holosights. most fps games generally have an unzoomed view where it seems your holding the gun at your hip and a zoomed view where you have the gun scope shoved in ya eye socket. At that point all you can do then is either walk very very slowly or to do what is more practical and that is to stand still or go prone.

I propose a special zoom mode that is only activated when you use a holosight. When your "zoom" mode with a holosight the edges of the sight should be slightly opaque to mimic the open eye technique that was suggested by buffalo-6. And as well you also have the ability to walk and move very quickly so you can be useful in a cqb situation. You won't be able to run but at least you can now walk quickly.

I think this would work out very well.

Please, I would like to hear feedback on this especially from GRIN.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Stalker_Zero

[tangovictor]

I think a few of the ppl in this topic need to get laid 

←

you know what's worse than having these 'unrealistic rets'??? if you had to use a controller pad instead of mouse/keyboard! the horror.... the horror....

[REDMONSTER]

If thats all you are worried about mate then this games going to be great for you!

Im happy with rets ... they all look great.

Personnaly though im sad about the delay and all the latest news about GRAW being canned due to technical issues.

←

Hes not talking about the rets but how how the sights are used in the game. Because as it is now holosights in fps games now are really useless and do not mimic their real world features. Games treat holosights like their are super zoom scopes and you have to practically stand still to use them properly when they were meant for fast action use.

Apparently, GRIN is simply mimicking what is the standard when it comes to gun sights in a game.

That would have been incredible if they also created a new technique when it came to the use of gun sights like holosights in game that made it seem more realistic. Something new to coincide with their body awareness technique. But I guess this would be too much to ask for.

←

how do you know this? have you played the game yet? have you seen any IN GAME viedo? how can you say something about something when you havent seen anything ebsides still shots (which doest show everything) before assuming anything how bout you wait till you can actully see it?

ps. im not directing this at just you but to everyone who is complaning about things that they ahvent really seen fully implamented in the game

Edited April 6, 2006 by REDMONSTER

[Buffalo-6]

Has the GRIN team commented on this yet?  I would especially like to hear their thoughts on this one.

←

We Bo did comment that I didnt know how to program and that I may be an armchair commando. But I do think that was a defensive reaction because I was a little harsh in my opening post.

While I have not used any of this stuff in a life or death situation or the military, I am someone who has used these items and do so on a regular basis.

[Stalker_Zero]

Has the GRIN team commented on this yet?  I would especially like to hear their thoughts on this one.

←

We Bo did comment that I didnt know how to program and that I may be an armchair commando. But I do think that was a defensive reaction because I was a little harsh in my opening post.

While I have not used any of this stuff in a life or death situation or the military, I am someone who has used these items and do so on a regular basis.

←

So he got defensive huh? Well then recruits!! I guess you know now that they did exactly what we knew they did was to make the zooms like any other standard fps.

*sigh* Newbies.

Anyways, I see a GRIN developer online and I hope he comments in this thread. Preferably one who isn't defensive and is in a good mood to hang out and chat.

[agentkay]

watch:

http://groups.msn.com/TheL1A1Armourer/aasa...oto&PhotoID=913

and now this:

http://fz.se/bildarkiv/image.php?id=24931

Looks pretty realistic to me. Great job GRIN!

[Puros]

First,

I had a hunting buddy who was right handed but left eye dominate and for the longest time he could not hit water even if he fell out of a boat.

LOL, maybe he should have been a sailor.

2nd...

I get your point now, B-6. IMO, it may be a matter of making a better game. If you center the site off both eyes and your dominate eye takes over then it would be the same aspect as siting with the dominate eye only. This would give you the same aspect either way just a little more of the bigger picture. Now, if you are trying to give the gamer another view with a clearer view. You can go with a off eye and give the gamer a large picture of the combat zone.

Now, let's take this a little further, if your a general and looking to improve a soldiers field of vision to give him better critical awareness and keep accuracy, wouldn't you see if you can get tech assistance to gain that off eye view with tech assisted targeting. *shrugs*

3rd...

Hailz, fellow warrior. I noticed from your profile that your a fellow mech pilot. My clan is AlphA Strike.

[Stalker_Zero]

First,

I had a hunting buddy who was right handed but left eye dominate and for the longest time he could not hit water even if he fell out of a boat.

LOL, maybe he should have been a sailor.

2nd...

I get your point now, B-6. IMO, it may be a matter of making a better game. If you center the site off both eyes and your dominate eye takes over then it would be the same aspect as siting with the dominate eye only. This would give you the same aspect either way just a little more of the bigger picture. Now, if you are trying to give the gamer another view with a clearer view. You can go with a off eye and give the gamer a large picture of the combat zone.

Now, let's take this a little further, if your a general and looking to improve a soldiers field of vision to give him better critical awareness and keep accuracy, wouldn't you see if you can get tech assistance to gain that off eye view with tech assisted targeting. *shrugs*

3rd...

Hailz, fellow warrior. I noticed from your profile that your a fellow mech pilot. My clan is AlphA Strike.

←

Ok, before I go off to watch agentkay's video let me just ask.....but what about movement? in cqb its not just your vision but your ability to move quickly. Most games zoomed mode forces a player to just about stand still. Thats just not going to work in a cqb situation.

Now, if that video changes my opinion and questions then I will say so......but I doubt it.

[Stalker_Zero]

So they weren't video. My fault. I guess my opinion still stands.

[Buffalo-6]

agentkay...........

1st link was dead.

The 2nd link is not an ACOG. It is a EcoTech.

And since you are being snooty....how exactlly are you getting that up close view of said EcoTech when it is positioned about 7-8 inches away from your nose? Zoomable eyeware?

You have never had a sight like that in you hands on a rifle before correct? It's not Realistic as you state....its console-ish.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Buffalo-6

[Sup]

It's not Realistic as you state....its console-ish.

←

[HaDeZ]

But what I am now gathering is that with the OTS view we have, it cant be done.  I think this is what Bo was saying about balence.  If that is the case then in that view (OTS) the reitcle in the EcoTech should not be visable.  In my minds eye it is giving me 2 aimpoints.  Because, having learned to shoot with a real one, my eyes are drawn to it looking for the sight picture.  But if it is a game issue then so be it.

theres no OTS view in the pc version bud

[agentkay]

agentkay...........

1st link was dead.

The 2nd link is not an ACOG.  It is a EcoTech.

And since you are being snooty....how exactlly are you getting that up close view of said EcoTech when it is positioned about 7-8 inches away from your nose?  Zoomable eyeware?

You have never had a sight like that in you hands on a rifle before correct?  It's not Realistic as you state....its console-ish.

←

1. First link works, just checked it.

2. Not being snotty, but don´t have time to write much.

3. The sight is a "mod" ingame, its suppose to give you an advantage, therefore you can see a slight zoom.

4. This is a game ..... afterall.

[buddhiraja73]

Well .... Grin has added a lot of realistic features to the GR series and I am willing to overlook a couple of points that I would have liked in the game but are missing. After all ... we want the game as soon as possible and there is a limit to what a developer can do within a short time.

But I too would ideally and ultimately like to see an improvement in the way the aiming mechanism is implemented in FPS. Just 2 gun positions ( low-ready and aiming ) are not enough. Atleast one more position is needed where the gun is held at high-ready. In this position, there are no floating reticles and the bullet hits roughly where the reticle on the reflex sight is pointing. ( when such a sight is being used )

Buffalo --- you came across too strongly mate, but you have raised a couple of good points. To comment on your point about the zoom in the reflex sight -- the inclusion of the zoom, while using reflex sights in games, was explained by a RSE developer back in the IT days. He said that though there is no magnification in real life, it has been included because the objects that we see on a monitor are smaller than they are in real life and hence the magnification is provided for better visibility while aiming. Grin has perhaps thought of the same logic as it is a valid one.

I am not asking for this improvement, in aiming mechanism, just now. But later on, while working on the mission pack, it might not be a bad idea to consider. Implementing the both-eyes-open aiming, even in Acogs, a bit closer to real life, is something I would like, if Grin thinks that it is feasible to implement, from a developers' point of view.

Edited April 6, 2006 by buddhiraja73

[Brettzies]

I think there's a lot of uncovered ground for FPSs that will hopefully be accessible some day.

The thing is, it's still a game. Honestly, I don't know much about firing weapons in real life other then watching the behind the scene of the more authentic war movies and what my ex army buddy tells me.

The gun on the side, which is the "staple" of the FPS is a bit unrealistic. However, the closer you get to realistic, ie, the closer you have to a real firing position, the more boring the graphics look. This may be fine for some people, but not for a broad auidence. While they are trying to deliver as much as possible to appease the die hard realism fans they do have to balance opportunities to sell the game to a wider audience.

In modern games, to compete, you have to strike the right balance between what's fun, believable, balanced and what looks appealing. That's just not an easy thing to do to satisfy every single person. I like quite a bit of realism in these types of games but I know they have to make certain compromises, especially if they want to reach a deadline...even a pushed back deadline.

You all have some great ideas. Maybe in the future we'll see something which gets close to them yet still retains a certain degree of graphical appeal.

[Buffalo-6]

I get your point now, B-6. IMO, it may be a matter of making a better game. If you center the site off both eyes and your dominate eye takes over then it would be the same aspect as siting with the dominate eye only. This would give you the same aspect either way just a little more of the bigger picture. Now, if you are trying to give the gamer another view with a clearer view. You can go with a off eye and give the gamer a large picture of the combat zone.

Now, let's take this a little further, if your a general and looking to improve a soldiers field of vision to give him better critical awareness and keep accuracy, wouldn't you see if you can get tech assistance to gain that off eye view with tech assisted targeting. *shrugs*

←

I dont think you are following me here. It is tough to describe in words what you see with a CQB scope when you are using both eyes. With the optic mounted as far foreward as is comfortable (this is a comfort thing, and sometimes dictated by other equipment mounted on the top rail, NV equipment, BUIS, etc) you have as large of sight picture as you would have if you were using the iron sights, with 2 catches. 1st is that the red dot is much eaiser for the eye to see when over a dark background....like a torso. 2nd, if it is a quality optic, with non-parallaxing lenses, then you dont have to attain the consistan cheekweld, head position, eye posistion like you do with standard iron sights or a magnified scope. If the optic has been zero'd, then even if the dot is all the way to the right and top of the optic circle, the dot is still the point of impact and thus on target give or take the zero range. With both eyes open you have full view foreward minus the componets of the optic/FSB

With a ACOG it is a little different because now the sight picture has a magnified center due to the magnification of the optic, but you approch it the same way and the magnified portion of the sight picture kinda floats there with the reticle and the zoomed area over the target. Go to a gun show and look thru one. Make sure it is a named brand like Aimpoint, the 30$ red-dots are not non-parallaxing so the dot needs to be centered in the optic....thus the 30$ price tag.

[Parabellum]

I dunno... to me, the OP sounded like he's saying "I want to sound like I have a damned clue. I'll complain about this and sound smart". Valid argument or not, the post was useless.

[Buffalo-6]

theres no OTS view in the pc version bud

←

In GR1, our view was on the sight line...ie....right handed shooter with right eye ON the sights directly. Now we are above the sightline (which is a improvement) but in this picture.......

http://fz.se/bildarkiv/image.php?id=24927

What eye are you aiming thru as a right handed shooter? Take a gun if you have one, or a baseball bat or a tube or a yardstick....whatever, and put it in a firing position, line up like you are on sights, and then close one eye and then the other.....which eye left or right more closely duplicates the sight picture in that pic? Thats right the left eye does. If it was the right eye, and assuming the ghost has the gun at the shooting position, he would be looking down the sight line. We are currently, as depicted in that and other pics clearly shooting CQB from the left eye and focused/zoomed shooting from the right eye with optical zoomign glasses on the right eye.

It may be exactly OTS, but it still OTsomething......

[Parabellum]

Perhaps people should stop complaining about things, and offer some CONSTRUCTIVE feedback. Think about it. How many posts are there in a single day that could be summed up by saying "Hey GRIN, you don't know what you're doing! You guys suck!" A lot. Do you honestly expect Bo or ANY developer to receive comments like that and be ready to chat? You're a fool if you do.

Complaining about the sight on a weapon? Let's be a bit practical here. It would be a huge waste of time, money, and resources to spend the amount of time necessary to accurately and completely recreate the way, say, a Trijicon Reflex sight works. No developer with any sense is going to spend time on a sight, that they could spend programming something actually USEFUL. If they made the sights work the same way real sights do, a vast number of people would invariably complain that the game is radically different than what they're used to. Many people probably would not like the game.

Frankly, I'm amazed that the GRIN crew still come here and take the time listen to the ###### and moaning that goes on here. Like it or not, Mister or Misses Complainer, GR: AW is NOT being made for your personal tastes. Perhaps if a few more people get that through there heads, the developers can make the game, instead of come here and get their asses chewed by people who, as Bo so aptly put it, have never made a video game.

[calius]

Perhaps people should stop complaining about things, and offer some CONSTRUCTIVE feedback.  Think about it.  How many posts are there in a single day that could be summed up by saying "Hey GRIN, you don't know what you're doing!  You guys suck!"  A lot.  Do you honestly expect Bo or ANY developer to receive comments like that and be ready to chat?  You're a fool if you do. 

Complaining about the sight on a weapon?  Let's be a bit practical here.  It would be a huge waste of time, money, and resources to spend the amount of time necessary to accurately and completely recreate the way, say, a Trijicon Reflex sight works.  No developer with any sense is going to spend time on a sight, that they could spend programming something actually USEFUL.  If they made the sights work the same way real sights do, a vast number of people would invariably complain that the game is radically different than what they're used to.  Many people probably would not like the game. 

Frankly, I'm amazed that the GRIN crew still come here and take the time listen to the ###### and moaning that goes on here.  Like it or not, Mister or Misses Complainer, GR: AW is NOT being made for your personal tastes.  Perhaps if a few more people get that through there heads, the developers can make the game, instead of come here and get their asses chewed by people who, as Bo so aptly put it, have never made a video game.

←

Hooray!

[ZJJ]

I think this thread has run it's course. Closing for now, may open it later.

[Rocky]

What Para said.

Take a chill pill guys, I know this is a "fan" site with hardcore "fans", but take a step back and read what you are saying now and again. You are going way overboard, and about to cross the line.