Project Reality Forums

I think this looks outstanding!

I'd just make a couple suggestions:

1. Make sure the eye relief for each weapon is correct.
2. Maybe a slight FOV reduction to represent the focus of the eye over the sights.

Other that that... can't wait!!!

Too bad only Mosquill got R-Con?

To me it seems that Jonny and Mosquill always work together on things so i'd say they both deserve em.

Just my 2 cents.

Good job guys

Looks hawt.

Hope we get 3D sights in .8!

Celica` wrote:Too bad only Mosquill got R-Con?

To me it seems that Jonny and Mosquill always work together on things so i'd say they both deserve em.

Just my 2 cents.

Good job guys

I pretty much agree with this statement.

he sent me a picture of the saw and the pkm thought i would share it.

Very nice, now that's more like it

nice

Now add depth of field!

El_Vikingo wrote:Now add depth of field!

http://forgottenhope.filefront.com/scre ... ader01.jpg

http://forgottenhope.filefront.com/scre ... ader02.jpg




Like these ones here !



And again, nice work.


And Zangoo for R-CON !

I didnt think bf2 engine could manage depth of field? That would be nice, I often ignore the ironsight/scope and just use the zoom to look at everything else tbh

I could have the solution for the blur thing like in FH2 but without any shaders just need someone to help me with the stupid dds/aplha channels thing.

I searched at youtube and I found it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RREEwWTLp7k[/youtube]


sweeeeeeet, I see the hands now ! It is perfect !

So mosquil any new "Speak Peeks" for your buddys ?

OMG MARRY ME!

Those Iron Sights look amazing. I really hope someone can do them all so we can have this sexy feature in PR 0.8

Yes guys the concept of 3D iron sights is very nifty but I think we are missing what could be a major drawback in the aesthetics department. It is my understanding that there are several models for each weapon for various view distances (further the distance, the lower the quality of model) in third person (geom_1 -> lod_0 and geom_1 -> lod_1). On top of that there is a unzoomed geometry (geom_0 -> lod_0) and a zoomed geometry (geom_0 -> lod_1) for handheld weapons.

Now I am also under the assumption that these 3D iron sights bypass the zoomed geometry and use the unzoomed geometry. So now you are using a model which has been designed to use a certain amount of tris/polys and have a certain amount of it visible (namely everything except the base and the right side). The problem is that with the 3D sights you are focusing on only a proportion of this model which results in a lot of detail which is not visible and thus going to waste. An analogy to this situation is taking a digital photo and zooming up very close so that you can see the individual pixels. You can see this happening with the mounted machine guns. They use the unzoomed 1P geometry (geom_0 -> lod_0) and look terrible compared to the dedicated zoomed geometry (geom_0 -> lod_1). Then again I am talking about low quality BF2 models being used in ways they weren't originally intended to be used compared to much higher quality PR models being used in a similar manner .

[R-CON]nedlands1 wrote:Yes guys the concept of 3D iron sights is very nifty but I think we are missing what could be a major drawback in the aesthetics department. It is my understanding that there are several models for each weapon for various view distances (further the distance, the lower the quality of model) in third person (geom_1 -> lod_0 and geom_1 -> lod_1). On top of that there is a unzoomed geometry (geom_0 -> lod_0) and a zoomed geometry (geom_0 -> lod_1) for handheld weapons.

Now I am also under the assumption that these 3D iron sights bypass the zoomed geometry and use the unzoomed geometry. So now you are using a model which has been designed to use a certain amount of tris/polys and have a certain amount of it visible (namely everything except the base and the right side). The problem is that with the 3D sights you are focusing on only a proportion of this model which results in a lot of detail which is not visible and thus going to waste. An analogy to this situation is taking a digital photo and zooming up very close so that you can see the individual pixels. You can see this happening with the mounted machine guns. They use the unzoomed 1P geometry (geom_0 -> lod_0) and look terrible compared to the dedicated zoomed geometry (geom_0 -> lod_1). Then again I am talking about low quality BF2 models being used in ways they weren't originally intended to be used compared to much higher quality PR models being used in a similar manner .

don't be hatin

=Romagnolo= wrote:I searched at youtube and I found it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RREEwWTLp7k[/youtube]


sweeeeeeet, I see the hands now ! It is perfect !

Your eye isnt that far back IRL...

Waaah_Wah wrote:Your eye isnt that far back IRL...

i think it is, check where this dudes eye is

http://www.ak47videos.com/vid/00-AK47CQB-0017.jpg
and here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HKerZU8dR4

The thing with the AK-47 is that the sight radius is so small (since the rear sight is so far forward). This means that changes in alignment between the sights are less obvious and hence you are more likely to shoot wide, high or low.