Project Reality Forums

That is part of the trade off. You get to reach out and touch people with the ACOG but are at a disadvantage close up. Balance.

gazzthompson wrote:then you hipfire...

Exactly, not always to effecftive but plausible

Dr2B Rudd wrote:it may be effective, but thats only because we've learned how to guess the center of our screens.

i.e. because of a game issue

You can't guess it THAT well, besides even if your not sighted you can still use your hand eye coordination to get the thing firing close enough to use it.

The problem with CQB is your weapon's either at your hip or your eyes right down the bloody things sight, there isn't a shouldered position. I don't know much about close quarters tactics, but I imagine that when your at very close range you wouldn't be using your sights but approximating anyway.

Also there aren't reflex sights that are usable under the ACOG and other scopes, to use in close quarters, so I think the whole things a worthwhile trade off in terms of having reasonable accuracy unscoped.

AnRK wrote:The problem with CQB is your weapon's either at your hip or your eyes right down the bloody things sight, there isn't a shouldered position. I don't know much about close quarters tactics, but I imagine that when your at very close range you wouldn't be using your sights but approximating anyway.

-You keep it shouldered, aiming with the barrel(Your brain can easily compensate at short distances). You'll be accurate to within at least 20cm at a 5-10m range.

-Are there any issues with adding a middle-"zoom" level for rifles, a shouldered mode where you have the tip of the barrel in close proximity to the center of the screen?

AnRK wrote:You can't guess it THAT well, besides even if your not sighted you can still use your hand eye coordination to get the thing firing close enough to use it.

The problem with CQB is your weapon's either at your hip or your eyes right down the bloody things sight, there isn't a shouldered position. I don't know much about close quarters tactics, but I imagine that when your at very close range you wouldn't be using your sights but approximating anyway.

Also there aren't reflex sights that are usable under the ACOG and other scopes, to use in close quarters, so I think the whole things a worthwhile trade off in terms of having reasonable accuracy unscoped.

In BF2, your weapon is always shouldered. Just look at the 3rd person soldier models. Anyway, I find hipfiring to be extremely deadly and accurate at close range, especially with M16/M4 burst fire. Reflex sites would be nice (I've read that the Germans in game are going to have both red dots and scopes on the G36, but no shovel for riflemen.), but I'm doing fine without them.

Cobhris wrote:In BF2, your weapon is always shouldered. Just look at the 3rd person soldier models. Anyway, I find hipfiring to be extremely deadly and accurate at close range, especially with M16/M4 burst fire. Reflex sites would be nice (I've read that the Germans in game are going to have both red dots and scopes on the G36, but no shovel for riflemen.), but I'm doing fine without them.

How can it be 'hipfiring' if the the weapons are always shouldered?

Cobhris wrote:In BF2, your weapon is always shouldered.

Oh yeah they are aren't they... nevermind. In that case I think it's fine, although unscoped should be a tad more accurate if you ask me.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:in .85 the scope in/out time is shorter iirc

Correct. Topic locked.