Resolution of the eye-comparison

[Dempsey]

Resolution in reality is massively better than in BF2, just looking 200m you can detect movement in a window say... in PR with the new iron sights, thats just impossible.

The zoom effect that BF2 gave to certain iron sights and red dots in game was to counter balance this effect.

The 2d visuals in the new patch have totally diminished the balance, and its just useless using an iron sight at any intermediate distance.

I find myself getting my binoculars out aiming with those and then changing to my weapon... at distances near 100m IF THAT! its damn frustrating.

Does anybody agree?

[$kelet0r]

Completely.
I think I'll be harping on forever about the removal of default kit ironsights in the game - not just because of the potential for longer range combat (which should be reason enough) but also because you can't see a damn thing ingame further than you could throw a tennis ball without zoom

[random pants]

Iron sights are forever gimped, and gimped badly, because of the exact reasons you mentioned above. Scopes completely dominate iron sights, even in close range. I would be for at least a 1.5x zoom on iron sights to balance it out somewhat but I doubt that will ever happen.

Easy solution, never use iron sights

[Jaymz]

This is why armed assault allows you to have a 4x zoom at any time. To simulate real life eye resolution. To get this working, we'd have to mag-link two rifles and have one with the extra zoom. Having zoom on ironsights is pointless if it's the only way to sight in with them.

Funny though, we got countless amounts of bitching to remove all zoom from ironsights and now that we have, people want it back.

[Psyko]

umm wait a second here...yes its almost impossible to kill long range with Iron sites, i agree. But they are more effective in close quarters than any other weapon. Thate the whole point of having the choise between the two. You just want to be able to use your scoped weapon with close quarters which is made difficult so that the squads are made balanced. Thats the whole point dude...you get a friend to do close quarters while you support him at medium range, or vice-versa. Sounds to me like you want to have your cake...and eat it.

Dont forget like most people do, if you do manage to hit them at long range, then you have damaged them severly! they start bleeding and yelping, which gives you a decent chance to move in and take him out on your terms. Even if he is using a scoped weapon, once you have the drop on him, you have a massive advantage. i think you should stop blaming the equipment and look more closly at your tactics.

(i bet i know what your thinking "Thats too much work" lol )

[random pants]

Iron-sights effectiveness in close range over scopes really isn't that big of a difference. I have absolutely NO problem taking people out with 4x scopes in quick firefights from 10-40m, coupled with the fact that I fire from the hip up close (>10m), which scopes/irons have no bearing on. Iron sights really aren't a plus in any situation, at least for me.

[Defiyur]

BF2 has one of the worst looking 'outputs' I've ever seen. Seriously, 1024x768 1152x864 1280x960 STILL jaggies STILL terrible resolution of small things at distance. I really can barely tell the difference. About the having 2 'zoom' levels there would be no need for that artificial game aid if everybody had widescreen since you could set the 'zoom' to an appropriate permanent level without losing much peripheral. That's the dilemma. Too bad the BF2 engines poor image quality isn't helping the situation.

[cyberzomby]

I killed a guy at roughly 150/200 meters with an insurgent rifle. Yes the dot is smaller than in real life but its not that hard. You can guess pretty good where the enemy is. And ofcourse Iron Sights are worse aiming wise than scopes. Thats why they invented scopes.

[Scot]

I always suppress people with irons, and let my scopes take them out.

[Dempsey]

umm wait a second here...yes its almost impossible to kill long range with Iron sites, i agree. But they are more effective in close quarters than any other weapon. Thate the whole point of having the choise between the two. You just want to be able to use your scoped weapon with close quarters which is made difficult so that the squads are made balanced. Thats the whole point dude...you get a friend to do close quarters while you support him at medium range, or vice-versa. Sounds to me like you want to have your cake...and eat it...

A good point you have here. But it shouldnt be about changing between the two, i think you have missed my real point. In reality a iron sight is Far far more ffective than in PR, i can see movement in Built up areas and shoot accurately at 200m, its that comparison i was giving...

Iron-sights effectiveness in close range over scopes really isn't that big of a difference. I have absolutely NO problem taking people out with 4x scopes in quick firefights from 10-40m, coupled with the fact that I fire from the hip up close (>10m), which scopes/irons have no bearing on. Iron sights really aren't a plus in any situation, at least for me.

Absolutely, CQB in PR isn't that good, i find i have never used a rifle 'up to my eye' in a building. Hence Having iron sights or a scope in CQB has no effect upon me; Firing from the hip at targets less then 5m away simulate a more intense and fast paced fight, rather than having sluggish movement when using sights and BF2 engine, plus targets are a lot harder to identify when using sights, because the iron sight gets in the way, A LOT.

...Dont forget like most people do, if you do manage to hit them at long range, then you have damaged them severly! they start bleeding and yelping, which gives you a decent chance to move in and take him out on your terms. Even if he is using a scoped weapon, once you have the drop on him, you have a massive advantage. i think you should stop blaming the equipment and look more closly at your tactics.

I cant really agree with this... PR and ballistics somewhat baffles me, i regularly have to hit a guy 3 times with a .223. So when using the SA80 with iron sights, its not worthwhile even if you hit him twice.

Yesterday i hit a guy 4 times with a pistol at point blank range, and all he did was go prone, spin around and shoot the hell out of me.

Funny though, we got countless amounts of bitching to remove all zoom from ironsights and now that we have, people want it back.

I wasn't one of those people, I've always considered it would unbalance it, right from the start.

[frrankosuave]

I always suppress people with irons, and let my scopes take them out.

This can be taken two ways:
1. You purposefully intend to do this in the manner in which you describe.
2. With ingame irons you aren't able to accurately hit (at distance) what you are aiming at, but you are able to get close enough thereby suppressing; whereas, you do not have the same problem with scoped weapons and hits are more easily scored.

[random pants]

Really? I've found that in ranges from up in your face to about 100m (maybe a bit more then that, not sure) I'd rather have iron sights just for the quicker sight in time (and thus the quicker sight out time). 'Aim, shoot, scoot' is a lot easier when you don't have to take around 2 seconds sighting in, then taking your shots, then again waiting 2 seconds before you can maneuver properly. Plus with iron sights you can still move at a respectable pace while sighted in and crouched, which makes clearing rooms much easier then with a scoped rifle.

Nope, give me a scope for any situation, any time. Quicker sight-in time really doesn't matter for me because like I said, I hip fire at close engagements, and at medium engagements that little extra time it takes for me to sight in my rifle vs an ironsight doesn't matter when I shoot the ironsighted guy in the face, and he's struggling just to get a center-of-mass shot, because the iron's are blocking his vision.

Also, like the poster above me said, ironsights make it extremely difficult to quickly identify and engage a target at ranges past 70m. I see no real advantage irons have, and in many cases, scopes completely put irons to shame.

I was never for the total removal of ironsight zoom. I think irons need at least a 1.5x zoom (hey it could be your eyes really focusing in, right?) and less deviation from WASD movement than scope counterparts, since IRL irons are easier to move with while maintaining a steady sight picture.

[Brummy]

Jaymz;822053']This is why armed assault allows you to have a 4x zoom at any time. To simulate real life eye resolution. To get this working, we'd have to mag-link two rifles and have one with the extra zoom. Having zoom on ironsights is pointless if it's the only way to sight in with them.

Funny though, we got countless amounts of bitching to remove all zoom from ironsights and now that we have, people want it back.

As it's the same sight, why not use the system of the Sniper scope? Or would that result in the same size sights but magnified area?

[Jaymz]

As it's the same sight, why not use the system of the Sniper scope? Or would that result in the same size sights but magnified area?

What happens if you only want to snap-in for CQB purposes? You'll have to zoom in before you can sight out which is very clunky.

[Head Hunter]

Nope, give me a scope for any situation, any time. Quicker sight-in time really doesn't matter for me because like I said, I hip fire at close engagements, and at medium engagements that little extra time it takes for me to sight in my rifle vs an ironsight doesn't matter when I shoot the ironsighted guy in the face, and he's struggling just to get a center-of-mass shot, because the iron's are blocking his vision.

Also, like the poster above me said, ironsights make it extremely difficult to quickly identify and engage a target at ranges past 70m. I see no real advantage irons have, and in many cases, scopes completely put irons to shame.

I was never for the total removal of ironsight zoom. I think irons need at least a 1.5x zoom (hey it could be your eyes really focusing in, right?) and less deviation from WASD movement than scope counterparts, since IRL irons are easier to move with while maintaining a steady sight picture.

I like what RandomPants said....give ironsights a 1.5x zoom and give them less deviation from WASD movement since it IS easier to keep a sight picture with ironsights while moving than with a scope.

I find myself NEVER using ironsights because they suck so bad right now...

[Bushrag]

I actually find myself using iron sights quite often, while I admit, I prefer an ACOG when I'm taking medium range shots, I'll take iron sights over an ACOG when I'm in an urban conflict zone. Just the fact that you can shoulder with iron sights much quicker compared to the ACOG gives them a great benefit when fighting CQB.

[Brummy]

What happens if you only want to snap-in for CQB purposes? You'll have to zoom in before you can sight out which is very clunky.

Aye, True

Hmm, possible to map it to C/X? Or is that just possible with vehicles?

[hexhunter]

I certainly agree that I prefer the scopes much better, iron sights are now near useless.

Can the zoom for iron sights be set to increase slowly rather than almost immediately, that would replicate how the eye focuses, like many games replicate Iris Dilation when you walk into a dark room. And it shouldn't mess up your CQC ability...

[FFLaguna]

I certainly agree that I prefer the scopes much better, iron sights are now near useless.

Can the zoom for iron sights be set to increase slowly rather than almost immediately, that would replicate how the eye focuses, like many games replicate Iris Dilation when you walk into a dark room. And it shouldn't mess up your CQC ability...

If your eyes and brain take longer than a half second to focus on different area, you may have something wrong with you.