Jump to content

CQB Optics Concept Missed Badly


Recommended Posts

I can see that they still insist on that ugly/useless stock GR1 reticle for anything other than zoom mode. Disapointing that Bo and crew seem to have missed the concept of both eyes open aimed fire. Shooting from the carry position is for gang bangers which is what is implied by the GR1 reticle and the weapon at carry or low ready. When you are in the stack or moving, you have the weapon up at the ready and are on the sights, not telescoped thru the peep or optics, you have both eyes open and are scaning your zone, once you see a target, you narrow the focus but you leave both eyes open. This is the whole concept of the red dot tactical sighting system. What this pic implies is that you are shooting from the ready position and not using any sights...ie Using the Force.

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

Hey it might be a limitation of the way things are viewed in a PC game, because you cant yet duplicate the human eye and the periferial vision aspect (at least I dont think you can) and if that is the case so be it. Bo can answer that.

This same pic of the EcoTec and the truck/badguy is a prime example, the optic has the aimpoint at the tire but the GR1 reticle is far to the left behind the vehicle.

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

Optics like Apoints and ACOGs, EcoTec's have a non-paralaxing lense setup. Meaning if the optic is zero'd per say USMC 25m battle zero, then it does not matter where your head/eye is in relation to the optic....if you can see the dot, the dot is point of aim/point of impact. This is the halmark of CQB optics, fast both eyes open targeting.

That picture is showing me 2 things. One is that while the shooter is right handed, he is verymuch left eye dominate.

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

Second, the Devs dont understand CQB optics. You dont zoom into a CQB optic....it is always there, just like your FSB or Front Irons, and if that front iron is up and in the vertical position, it should co-witness the optic. Even on a ACOG with it's fixed 3x, you dont zoom and you leave both eyes open and the reticle (the donut of death or the triangle of death in a ACOG) will super-impose itself over the target, point of aim....ie/ the dot....equals point of impact. What the above pic implies is that somehow the shooter has moved his head foarward on the gun to the point of almost having his nose touch the optic, remember that the optic is mounted as far forward on the upper rail, and in the case of a SCAR somewhere right at the barrel nut beacuse of the continuous top rail. When I had a EcoTech 1500 mounted on my SHTF (S*(feces)Hits The Fan) AR, the end of the optic cover actually hung over the end of the upper reciever in thegap between the reciever and the handguard. I have since gone to a Aimpoint ML-2 setup with the optic mounted as far foreward on the rail as possable with a canatlever 1" foreward as well. This allows me to retain a larger sight picture and co-witnesses my FSB irons. There is no ZOOMING for these type of optics. Aimpints are 1x, as are EcoTechs. ACOG's are 3X fixed but you use them the same way, both eyes open. Only difference is that the area defined by the eyepiece is at 3x surrounded by normal 1x views (ie...mark 1, Mod 0, eyeballs). It is called the "Bindon Aiming Concept" After all this delay....frankly I was kinda expecting a better understanding of shooting mechanics.

Somebody is seriously not doing their home work. But eyecandy wise it looks amazing.

Also dont get me started over that POS XM8. Did they model in the forearms and upper reciever melting? There is a reason why the Army has dropped it....by the time they got it properly sheilded for the heat....it weighed more than a loaded M14.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second, the Devs dont understand CQB optics.

I get your point about the aiming, but saying that the devs don't understand optics is to pull it too far. Bo is an ex special forces operative isn't he?

Or maybe it's just gameplay...

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see that they still insist on that ugly/useless stock GR1 reticle for anything other than zoom mode. Disapointing that Bo and crew seem to have missed the concept of both eyes open aimed fire. Shooting from the carry position is for gang bangers which is what is implied by the GR1 reticle and the weapon at carry or low ready. When you are in the stack or moving, you have the weapon up at the ready and are on the sights, not telescoped thru the peep or optics, you have both eyes open and are scaning your zone, once you see a target, you narrow the focus but you leave both eyes open. This is the whole concept of the red dot tactical sighting system.  What this pic implies is that you are shooting from the ready position and not using any sights...ie Using the Force.

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

Hey it might be a limitation of the way things are viewed in a PC game, because you cant yet duplicate the human eye and the periferial vision aspect (at least I dont think you can) and if that is the case so be it. Bo can answer that.

This same pic of the EcoTec and the truck/badguy is a prime example, the optic has the aimpoint at the tire but the GR1 reticle is far to the left behind the vehicle.

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

Optics like Apoints and ACOGs, EcoTec's have a non-paralaxing lense setup. Meaning if the optic is zero'd per say USMC 25m battle zero, then it does not matter where your head/eye is in relation to the optic....if you can see the dot, the dot is point of aim/point of impact. This is the halmark of CQB optics, fast both eyes open targeting.

That picture is showing me 2 things. One is that while the shooter is right handed, he is verymuch left eye dominate.

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

Second, the Devs dont understand CQB optics. You dont zoom into a CQB optic....it is always there, just like your FSB or Front Irons, and if that front iron is up and in the vertical position, it should co-witness the optic. Even on a ACOG with it's fixed 3x, you dont zoom and you leave both eyes open and the reticle (the donut of death or the triangle of death in a ACOG) will super-impose itself over the target, point of aim....ie/ the dot....equals point of impact.  What the above pic implies is that somehow the shooter has moved his head foarward on the gun to the point of almost having his nose touch the optic, remember that the optic is mounted as far forward on the upper rail, and in the case of a SCAR somewhere right at the barrel nut beacuse of the continuous top rail.  When I had a EcoTech 1500 mounted on my SHTF (S*(feces)Hits The Fan) AR, the end of the optic cover actually hung over the end of the upper reciever in thegap between the reciever and the handguard.  I have since gone to a Aimpoint ML-2 setup with the optic mounted as far foreward on the rail as possable with a canatlever 1" foreward as well.  This allows me to retain a larger sight picture and co-witnesses my FSB irons.  There is no ZOOMING for these type of optics.  Aimpints are 1x, as are EcoTechs.  ACOG's are 3X fixed but you use them the same way, both eyes open.  Only difference is that the area defined by the eyepiece is at 3x surrounded by normal 1x views (ie...mark 1, Mod 0, eyeballs).  It is called the "Bindon Aiming Concept"  After all this delay....frankly I was kinda expecting a better understanding of shooting mechanics.

Somebody is seriously not doing their home work. But eyecandy wise it looks amazing.

Also dont get me started over that POS XM8. Did they model in the forearms and upper reciever melting? There is a reason why the Army has dropped it....by the time they got it properly sheilded for the heat....it weighed more than a loaded M14.

All I hear is "I never developed a game" When you do you need to balance stuff. I've been in the forces and shot as many rifles as you (if you havent just read a lot of magazines...) - but I know when to say stop and let the player enjoy the game rather then the replica. XM8 melting SHCHES! Do you honsestly think in 2013 that the M8 would still have that problem.

Come on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm well that reticule is far too big and chunky - hope you can change it...

The rets are fine, might be a good idea to try the game, and then if you still dont like it, ask one of the modders to change it for you.

And any thing else you might not like :)

Its way too late for changes like this.

Colin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know i'm pretty new to the community, but I have played the [Ghost Recon] for a few years now, and the reticule was actually something I really liked about the game when I first started playing. I of course also really like all the modded ones too. I don't know, I guess reticule to me doesn't seem all that important when there are so many other things about a game to focus on.

I also don't mind when the guns are not 100% authentic. If I was really wanted to be super realistic I guess I would go join the military and get shot at, but that doesn't sound that fun to me. For me it all boils down to game play. If I am having the time of my life I couldn't care less about the reticule or if the animated gun I am firing really exists in real life. $.02.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know i'm pretty new to the community, but I have played the [Ghost Recon] for a few years now, and the reticule was actually something I really liked about the game when I first started playing.  I of course also really like all the modded ones too.  I don't know, I guess reticule to me doesn't seem all that important when there are so many other things about a game to focus on. 

I also don't mind when the guns are not 100% authentic.  If I was really wanted to be super realistic I guess I would go join the military and get shot at, but that doesn't sound that fun to me.  For me it all boils down to game play.  If I am having the time of my life I couldn't care less about the reticule or if the animated gun I am firing really exists in real life.  $.02.

Well said and true too.

I expect though the Dev Team have put an awfull lot of work into the Weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, have some respect! If I were you I would wait until I had played the game before rudely criticizing something that you dont know all that much about. If you have a problem with it you could offer constructive criticism, though admittedly it seems a little late now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I've never liked about the GR1 reticle was getting precision, distant shots, as most of the time the reticule itself would cover what I was shooting at. Most often, forcing me to move the reticule off a little bit and watch for when what I was going to shoot would poke it's head. But I've gotten so used to that that I don't really care. I really like the color of this reticule and when I'm playing GRAW it's going to be one of the things that just screams ... "GR Classic."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Bo. I think I came off stronger than I wanted to. If it's a game/balence playability issue then thats ok. It is just something that really bugged the heck out of me in GR1 and the RVS series. That and I hate that GR1 reticle :P

I shoot just about every weekend here once the temp gets up to the point you dont loose feeling in your fingers (because whats the fun in that?) and I am bleesed that I have a family friend who has a 200 yard range in his backyard. Yes the joys of rual Kansas. This summer I will begin shooting NRA Highpower on the service rifle side. I am currently working up loads for it, when the Kansas wind cooperates (last weekend I gave up when the gusts got to 40 mph) And I have used EcoTechs, ACOG's and Aimpoints in the past for sport shooting and 3 gun matches, and as I said my SHTF gun has a Aimpoint ML-2 on it. So I understand and have used the concept.

On the XM8, yes I believe it will still have problems because it has been dropped from trials because of poor performance. You are correct, they fixed the heating/melting of the handguards and the upper reciever, but now it weighs over 14 lbs empty which is about what an M14/M1A comes in around. The XM8 debacle is where the SCAR came out of. While I think the buttstock on the scar is uber ugly, if it works in the field then it works, and initial reports are that it is doing well. I did like how it seems that ya'll are using a Novesky style flash hider on the that SCAR in the one pic. A couple of weekends ago I got to play with a 10.7" "Afgan" AR shorty CQB rifle and it had one of those on it, very effective at deflecting the sound and flash down range instead of at those beside you.

ANyway Bo, bottom line none of this is going to keep me from buying GRAW. It just bugs me is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

complete realism wouldn't be fun at all. if you want realism join the army.

reticules are all personal preference, some like dots, some like big rets, some like no rets. it's all just aesthetics and probably can be changed without much effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I hear is "I never developed a game" When you do you need to balance stuff. I've been in the forces and shot as many rifles as you (if you havent just read a lot of magazines...) - but I know when to say stop and let the player enjoy the game rather then the replica. XM8 melting SHCHES! Do you honsestly think in 2013 that the M8 would still have that problem.

Come on.

Burrrned. ;)

I might have an idea though (I know it's too late for GRAW), and since I can't use it it's free... :rolleyes:

Can't the weapon be placed in a low ready position in the middle of the screen without killing gameplay? When you hit the aim or fire button the weapon would raise directly, the time the sights would take to align could depend on the weight of the weapon. If you hit the fire button instead of aim, the weapon would fire as soon as the front sight is where the reticule would have been. (That's maybe a half a second delay from clicking to firing if you aren't moving. Nothing to complain about, especially for a slow game. :) )

This would of course remove the need for reticules and by doing that alienating the slightly ...dumb... part of the gamer population. :shifty:

Maybe it would be a bit boring seeing only the sights and rails except for when you're reloading and stuff like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

complete realism wouldn't be fun at all. if you want realism join the army.

Because some people aren't fit for military service but still want to experience the fun and exciting part (the rest would make a crappy game) of military life. :)

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I hear is "I never developed a game" When you do you need to balance stuff. I've been in the forces and shot as many rifles as you (if you havent just read a lot of magazines...) - but I know when to say stop and let the player enjoy the game rather then the replica. XM8 melting SHCHES! Do you honsestly think in 2013 that the M8 would still have that problem.

Come on.

Burrrned. ;)

I might have an idea though (I know it's too late for GRAW), and since I can't use it it's free... :rolleyes:

Can't the weapon be placed in a low ready position in the middle of the screen without killing gameplay? When you hit the aim or fire button the weapon would raise directly, the time the sights would take to align could depend on the weight of the weapon. If you hit the fire button instead of aim, the weapon would fire as soon as the front sight is where the reticule would have been. (That's maybe a half a second delay from clicking to firing if you aren't moving. Nothing to complain about, especially for a slow game. :) )

This would of course remove the need for reticules and by doing that alienating the slightly ...dumb... part of the gamer population. :shifty:

Maybe it would be a bit boring seeing only the sights and rails except for when you're reloading and stuff like that.

yeah, that would be a good idea. there was a swat 4 mod that added a toggle button for low ready and ready posistions (though there were no iron sights).

the problem with this is that many people wont like it, and in order to develop a multi million dollar game you have to have guaranteed sales.

hopefully graw will have the modibility because this would be worth looking into

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume the retcles can be changed thru mods, at least they were with GR1.

I love all these people saying realisim is not important when for the last 3+ years we have been screaming for it, and is pretty much why GR2 got canned. If because of the OTS view they cant get the red dots to "present" right...then thats fine, its a game issue. But the zoom thing is strange unless the ghosts have wet-ware mods to the eyes.

I guess I will just have to suspend my dis-belief when I'm running a red dot in game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i didnt say realism wasn't important..

my point is that implementing rifle control like you are talking about is impractical without manual control.

implementing manual control will drive away more people than it would bring in.

graw costs millions upon millions of dollars to develop and risks like that cannot be taken.

if you want to see gr4 you've got to make sacrifices

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

:ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am repeating what was already said please chalk it up to not knowing the lingo as needed.

This same pic of the EcoTec and the truck/badguy is a prime example, the optic has the aimpoint at the tire but the GR1 reticle is far to the left behind the vehicle.

Not to sure on that. I can't see your point B-6. If you are focusing off both eyes then wouldn't you think the scope to be off. If you put your finger up like we did when we were kids and which back and forth with closing lt or rt eye, the aspect is dramatically changed. Crude? Yes but the example works. It seems to me that you can take just out any open face site like that and make it look as if it is off. It is a matter of where the camera is. Below is an illustration of what I mean.

Bottom line, Grin as given us a clearer field to shoot from in which is enhanced by modern warfare tech. Not too much of a stretch for me.

Just my two cents.

camera.gif

Edited by Puros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see that they still insist on that ugly/useless stock GR1 reticle for anything other than zoom mode. Disapointing that Bo and crew seem to have missed the concept of both eyes open aimed fire. Shooting from the carry position is for gang bangers which is what is implied by the GR1 reticle and the weapon at carry or low ready. When you are in the stack or moving, you have the weapon up at the ready and are on the sights, not telescoped thru the peep or optics, you have both eyes open and are scaning your zone, once you see a target, you narrow the focus but you leave both eyes open. This is the whole concept of the red dot tactical sighting system.  What this pic implies is that you are shooting from the ready position and not using any sights...ie Using the Force.

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

Hey it might be a limitation of the way things are viewed in a PC game, because you cant yet duplicate the human eye and the periferial vision aspect (at least I dont think you can) and if that is the case so be it. Bo can answer that.

This same pic of the EcoTec and the truck/badguy is a prime example, the optic has the aimpoint at the tire but the GR1 reticle is far to the left behind the vehicle.

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

Optics like Apoints and ACOGs, EcoTec's have a non-paralaxing lense setup. Meaning if the optic is zero'd per say USMC 25m battle zero, then it does not matter where your head/eye is in relation to the optic....if you can see the dot, the dot is point of aim/point of impact. This is the halmark of CQB optics, fast both eyes open targeting.

That picture is showing me 2 things. One is that while the shooter is right handed, he is verymuch left eye dominate.

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

Second, the Devs dont understand CQB optics. You dont zoom into a CQB optic....it is always there, just like your FSB or Front Irons, and if that front iron is up and in the vertical position, it should co-witness the optic. Even on a ACOG with it's fixed 3x, you dont zoom and you leave both eyes open and the reticle (the donut of death or the triangle of death in a ACOG) will super-impose itself over the target, point of aim....ie/ the dot....equals point of impact.  What the above pic implies is that somehow the shooter has moved his head foarward on the gun to the point of almost having his nose touch the optic, remember that the optic is mounted as far forward on the upper rail, and in the case of a SCAR somewhere right at the barrel nut beacuse of the continuous top rail.  When I had a EcoTech 1500 mounted on my SHTF (S*(feces)Hits The Fan) AR, the end of the optic cover actually hung over the end of the upper reciever in thegap between the reciever and the handguard.  I have since gone to a Aimpoint ML-2 setup with the optic mounted as far foreward on the rail as possable with a canatlever 1" foreward as well.  This allows me to retain a larger sight picture and co-witnesses my FSB irons.  There is no ZOOMING for these type of optics.  Aimpints are 1x, as are EcoTechs.  ACOG's are 3X fixed but you use them the same way, both eyes open.  Only difference is that the area defined by the eyepiece is at 3x surrounded by normal 1x views (ie...mark 1, Mod 0, eyeballs).  It is called the "Bindon Aiming Concept"  After all this delay....frankly I was kinda expecting a better understanding of shooting mechanics.

Somebody is seriously not doing their home work. But eyecandy wise it looks amazing.

Also dont get me started over that POS XM8. Did they model in the forearms and upper reciever melting? There is a reason why the Army has dropped it....by the time they got it properly sheilded for the heat....it weighed more than a loaded M14.

I totally totally agree with you.

TOTALLY!

But, my suspicion is that its because of the limitations of playing a game through a small little box window. Perhaps someday something could be done......someday. :(

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

:ph34r:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sort of........Puros

If in your example, you have both eyes open and are on the sight (gun at the shooting position and you are on the sights) then the reticle for the optic should overlay the GR1 reticle. Your example is what happens when you close one eye or the other, you have one dominate eye (mine is rightside dominate) which really helps in a both eyes open sighting, the Dominate eye superceeds the weaker eye. 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. He was always behind the bird or way in front, because as you pointed out, hes left eye was changing his persepctive. He had to train his eyes to not do that and he is now a heck of a shot.

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.

The zoom thing might be solved by not having a zoom factor take place with a non-scoped, non magnified optic. The animation remains the same but with no zooming your nose to the optic. In other words, you go to the shooting position, and are on the sights but there is no zoom effect or lost sight picture.

But heck its maybe too late for that also.

Edited by Buffalo-6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...