Iron Sight Problem

[SterrUwe321]

the iron sights really should have a slight zoom. I'm talking about 1.1 or 1.2 zoom. For the sake of aiming at your target.

When i was a teen i used to go to the shooting range in switzerland, we mostly shot targets at 300m.
I think it's a joke that i can't aim properly for the body at 200m distance, i was able to hit a 30x30cm target at 300m, which is a bit bigger than a head.

and a little question, why does the deployable 50cal, with iron sights, have a 3x zoom?

just saying.

[Henrique_Dalben]

I think 1.3x zoom would be nice. Even if if did screwed up CQB a little.

[Kerryburgerking]

Please give the iron-sights some semblance of a zoom. It's been one of my biggest gripes about PR since i started playing years ago. Now the fact most scoped rifles have a BUIS option has eliminated the small perk to ever having iron-sights in the first place.

Iron sights have been greatly improved in 1.0 Now i rather chose the Iron Sight M16 then the ones with the Aimpoint and before it was the opposite.

[BroCop]

We need less scopes overall and not bloody imaginary zoom.

[K4on]

I would like to see a small zoom, like x1.25 added to weapons without scopes as well.

The immersions does not really get killed IMO, and improves gameplay without taking the advantage of a x4 zoom Std Kit.

[Rhino]

The immersions does not really get killed IMO, and improves gameplay without taking the advantage of a x4 zoom Std Kit.

That's what Rivers said to before he tested it out waay before v1.0 release.

I know in concept this might sound like a good idea but in practice it really isn't and it really dose far more harm than good, even thou it might sound like its "good for gameplay", its really not.

[K4on]

I would like to see a small zoom, like x1.25 added to weapons without scopes as well.

The immersions does not really get killed IMO, and improves gameplay without taking the advantage of a x4 zoom Std Kit.

in practice it really isn't and it really dose far more harm than good, even thou it might sound like its "good for gameplay", its really not.

Had it been tested on a public server? Over a certain time frame? With enough time that people can get used to it?

If so, I'll better believe you.

[Careless]

Yeah, let's also change quantum physics, just because some of us can't work with it.

[Henrique_Dalben]

Yeah, let's also change quantum physics, just because some of us can't work with it.

Game mechanics aren't natural things that are out of our control. You weren't even CLOSE to making a point.

[Anderson29]

here is an old thread from 2009 discussing the same thing.

here is what i wrote then and i still think the same today

the minimum zoom(1.2/ 1.3/ 1.4/ 1.5/1.x) would simulate the closing of one eye and aiming at a medium range target(2-300m) and actually being able to identify it.. maybe.

the OP has a valid point and this slight zoom of iron sites was in earlier versions, but this has been suggested before and ignored so i wouldn't be surprised if that continues......though there could be some negatives to the above if implemented that we don't know about

this is coming from someone who actually owns 2 ar15s, 1 with an acog and the other just irons

but i have changed my view slightly on the whole zoom issue with regards to pr.

in my opinion everything should be scaled down for all weapon types, even those on vehicles.

everything is so point and click...even at long ranges. what if instead of all optics and weapons having their real life values put into this game we 2/3rd(.66) or 3/4th(.75) everything. and what i mean is for example....let us say the acog in real life is 4x zoom then in game we put acogs at 2.6x zoom in game if 2/3rd'd or 3x if 3/4th'd.

and just take that to include everything related to ballistics and zoom. 556 would start dropping from their zero at 200 or 250 instead of 300 and just do that with everything from tanks/apc/at4/rpg/50cal/small rifles/etc

this would fix that whole "getting shot my some random rifleman with just an acog and him not even rendering on my screen at 300m" i could understand if it was a marksman or sniper...but regular riflemen with scopes have to much of an advantage within the bf2 engine against those without scopes.

i say this because we can all feel something is slightly not right with the game as far as balance goes, right? i feel it. and it was felt way back in 2009 too

[Henrique_Dalben]

Removing the abilty of actually hitting stuff isn't the best option IMO. 200m is the bare minimum you need to shoot with irons to be considered a non-retareded human being in the military, nerfing the zoom on the optics would be just plain bad. 1.25x zoom as suggested by K4on would work flawlessly, but testing it during a single match on a closed dev server isn't enough to say it won't work. 1 week beta testing on an open server would do the trick.

[Careless]

Game mechanics aren't natural things that are out of our control. You weren't even CLOSE to making a point.

It's just a comparison.

My point being, there are more people that have no issues at all regarding this problem.

It's the iron sight that makes the (insurgence) game immersive and you have to think twice before doing anything.

[Anderson29]

Removing the abilty of actually hitting stuff isn't the best option IMO. 200m is the bare minimum you need to shoot with irons to be considered a non-retareded human being in the military, nerfing the zoom on the optics would be just plain bad. 1.25x zoom as suggested by K4on would work flawlessly, but testing it during a single match on a closed dev server isn't enough to say it won't work. 1 week beta testing on an open server would do the trick.

im sure its real easy to shoot something at 200m when your not getting shot at and not winded (out of breath). in fact i know it is!

anyways....all it is basically just changing the zero of the weapon. for example if ur zero is at 300 and u want to shoot something at 150...well u better aim low....but do u aim low for that shot in pr??...i think not!

what if i told u that a man at 100m on a acog in real life appeared to be further away than portrayed in game....then would "nerfing" the zoom be ok?...just a hypothetical

[AfterDune]

Can someone whip up a little Proof of Concept here?

[Mats391]

Can someone whip up a little Proof of Concept here?

This is how it would look like on 200m with 1x, 1.25x and 1.5x zoom, just like suggested here:
1x zoom


1.25x zoom


1.5x zoom


and to compare to scoped weapon:
3.25x zoom


The first 3 screenshots were all made from the same position and you can see how much peripheral vision you lose. I wouldnt want to have that in any CQB situation. Also i find the difference between them not really noticeable.
For me permanent zoom on ironsights is a no-go. However if it gets implemented with BUIS, it would be ok.

[K4on]

Can someone whip up a little Proof of Concept here?

for the luls, I made a quick video aswell:


watching in fullscreen recommended

[Rabbit]

I only support the iron sight zoom if it could be done as a back up iron sight, or as a secondary weapon. But I think even a 1.25 looks a LOT better

[Anderson29]

Agree with rabbit. In real life ...anyone who has ever shot a rifle will know when u aim u do move ur head slightly forward, a little left or right depending on which side u shoot on and close 1 eye if shooting at a distace. And when u aim at distant targets u do lose a little field of view....

That's all this little zoom is simulating....was that 1.5 k4on in the video?

[ghostfool84]

hm i think it looks nice in K4ons Video. but optimal would it be if you could switch it. maybe its possible that only fixed Iron Sight weapons can change the zoom while BUIS cant, but on the other side i dont think the impact smaller fov is not the big deal.