Project Reality Forums

I agree with this completely.

We're not in the Stalingrad era anymore. Commanders no longer send hordes of infantry into battle. In a single modern military battle, you can expect 10-30 KIA.

The battle in Somalia (mogadishu was the city I think) that inspired an entire movie had 18 total deaths throughout days of fighting. True, the militia had 2,000 killed - but you never truly play as militia in PR because the strength of a militia is usually in numbers. The militia in Somalia would never be able to put up a fight if they only came in to the battle with 150 soldiers like the US did.

Battles don't last long at all in PR because everyone is far too accurate while shooting. It makes the concept of the ambush completely pointless. Why ambush a group of soldiers at close range and risk the possible scenario of losing all of your men when you can snipe everyone from far away?

Too often I get that "lucky shot" to the head at long range. All I do is aim down the sights, and fire at the other soldier who only exposes his head.

A medium-to-long range, the advantage should be in a force strength and the amount of bullets your squad can unload down range. It should be very rare for a lone wolf to get a kill at long range.

At the moment, each soldier is like a mech warrior. If you're in a good squad, all you have to do is tell your guys to protect 1 corner and you can secure and entire perimeter with 4 people -- very unrealistic.

All of this comes from zoomed sights, IMHO.

Zoom it out completely and let those soldiers without scopes use amount of firepower to win a firefight -- or make sure the enemy gets close enough so that they can be very accurate.

Some may say that the zoom is not that big of a deal and it does not change the tide of the battle... but the few extra shots that you have to take to guarantee a hit is enough time for the other guy to take cover and vise versa. This precious time can make a battle last longer and give room for some tactical maneuvers that actually work in-game.

there is barely any ironsite zoom... the only weapons that have ironsite zoom are the m16 scoped, which is a placeholder until they get ACOGs...

[R-DEV]fuzzhead wrote:there is barely any ironsite zoom... the only weapons that have ironsite zoom are the m16 scoped, which is a placeholder until they get ACOGs...

What about the standard M16? I notice a considerable zoom with that weapon.. just imagination?

i think another biggie is that the whole sight "block" on the weapon appears too large...or the front post does.

i notice it much more with reflex sights- they are bigger than they should be

it is there to simulate focus for people with small monitors

make a blur effect on the outside of the vision?

Riflemen, officers, grenadiers have m16 scoped right now which is a placeholder.

yes the vanilla ironsites are not perfect, as we replace weapons we are replacing the ironsites as well.

the QBZ95 G3 and AT4 are examples of PR made ironsites.

'Artnez[US wrote:;519031']
All of this comes from zoomed scopes, IMHO.

Fixed.

i'd like to see that blurring effect..

like i said earlier- take a piece of paper in a tube and hold it 6 inches from your eye- concentrate down the middle and you'll notice everything else is blurred.

[R-DEV]fuzzhead wrote:Riflemen, officers, grenadiers have m16 scoped right now which is a placeholder.

yes the vanilla ironsites are not perfect, as we replace weapons we are replacing the ironsites as well.

the QBZ95 G3 and AT4 are examples of PR made ironsites.

And they rock! Fuzz how about US Army and their M4's? Will the medics have iron sights? And the M4 for spec ops will it be the same as USMC? Or will you replace it and it's sight with something else?

You guys! You can't realistically represent what you see in real life in an FPS game anyways. The standard FOV is 90. 90! FOV in real life is like 180 because of peripheral vision. The little zoom to make it give the feeling of focusing on your target is fine! If it wasn't there, then there would be no incentive to even use iron sites. A marker dot on your screen would be better than using them since there is a delay when you go to ironsights.

DavidP wrote:And they rock!

except the AT4 sigh , wich basicatly obstruct 90% of the target ...

how about we increase the field of vision for the first person model, and then blur the outside edges?

'[T wrote:BludShoT;519181']You guys! You can't realistically represent what you see in real life in an FPS game anyways. The standard FOV is 90. 90! FOV in real life is like 180 because of peripheral vision. The little zoom to make it give the feeling of focusing on your target is fine! If it wasn't there, then there would be no incentive to even use iron sites. A marker dot on your screen would be better than using them since there is a delay when you go to ironsights.

The incentive is less recoil and tighter groups.

GRB wrote: So to sum it all up I think on weapons without scopes there should be no zooming allowed. Or at least a VERY little amount of zooming.

On what weapons? Ironsight rifles? There's next to no zooming and one thing that annihilates your point is the fact that the resolution of the human eye allows you to be far more accurate in real life with just iron sights. Ever wonder why Armed Assault put 4x on their Iron sights and 16x on their ACOGS? It's because of that....

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:except the AT4 sigh , wich basicatly obstruct 90% of the target ...

Good point, changed to no zoom for 0.7.

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Jaymz;519201']There's next to no zooming and one thing that annihilates your point is the fact that the resolution of the human eye allows you to be far more accurate in real life with just iron sights.[/quote]

Yeah that is a major point that I was meaning to make. In the game the resolution is so low (especially on some people's computers, ie mine) that you need the bit of zoom just to be able to see the area you are trying to focus on well. In real life you could focus on a small area that was at quite a distance, and you'd see it with a much higher resolution than what you get in PR even with the iron sight zoom.

And for people talking about the Rifleman m16, well that's a huge zoom that is just there to compensate till they put a scope on it.



[quote="nedlands1""]The incentive is less recoil and tighter groups.[/quote]

Do guns actually shoot with less recoil and tighter groups in PR when you are in iron sights instead of from the hip?? (Of course it should be that way, but is it?)

I know that the first shot from the hip shoots to the exact same pixel as the first shot from iron sights does, which, already sucks and makes a dot on your screen really attractive. I wish it wasn't like that. There should be like a cone of fire in which the first bullet randomly gets shot off center if you aren't in iron sites.

'[T wrote:BludShoT;519212']Do guns actually shoot with less recoil and tighter groups in PR when you are in iron sights instead of from the hip?? (Of course it should be that way, but is it?)

I know that the first shot from the hip shoots to the exact same pixel as the first shot from iron sights does, which, already sucks and makes a dot on your screen really attractive. I wish it wasn't like that. There should be like a cone of fire in which the first bullet randomly gets shot off center if you aren't in iron sites.

Taken from the Scoped G3A3's .tweak file.

ObjectTemplate.recoil.zoomModifier 0.8
ObjectTemplate.deviation.devModZoom 0.4

These are modifiers indicate that the recoil amount is 80% of the "from the hip" value and the random deviation is 40% of it too.

Jonny wrote:After looking at the tweak files for the L85A2 (ironsight) there is a slight zoom when using the sights.

It is in fact a 1 1/9x zoom. In fact, from the looks of things, every weapon with iron sights has this level of zoom.