0mikr0n wrote:I like it; truly amazing.
One thing on the gunnery section, though... I work with M1 Garands on an almost daily basis, and I'll say that the ironsights in CoD2 are very poorly done, although I would understand it from a gamer's perspective to enjoy a wider range of view while in ironsights.
The M1 Garand's sighting hole is (in real life) two times smaller than the one displayed in CoD2 and is in no way rounded off as such; it's circular, but doesn't curve inward. Although I've never seen a real M1 Carbine before, I'm pretty sure the same thing stands with it's ironsights, as well.
I know what you're talking about here, it's the same with an AR-15/M-16 aperature sight (and I would imagine any aperature sights).
I think this is in some ways necessary due to the fact that we're playing these games on computers with relatively limited view resolutions. I've yet to see a game that hasn't modelled the rear aperature as being significantly bigger than it "should" be, but I believe this is done for valid reasons. Perhaps in the future someone will find a way around it, but for right now it seems to be the easiest way to go about modeling them.
You'll see the same oversized rear aperature in the OFP shots on the page - the M249 and M-16A4 ones in particular. It's not necessarily to the same degree as with the CoD2 M1, but it's close enough. If the M1 sight aperature is about the same size as the M1A (the civvie M14 from SA), then it's just about the same as the AR-15 aperature.
A lot of it also has to do with eye relief, perspective, etc. For the purposes of modeling the sights in games, I think we should expect that they'll be overscaled to some degree.
Does that make sense?
This is an exceptional guide, though, don't get me wrong. I am just troubled by the way the Garand's sights are depicted in games. Yes, like I said above, I acknowledge that it's widened for gameplay reasons, but it still bothers me.
I think we just have to live with this for now. Although, to be honest, it might be possible to make it more accurately scaled if we blur the aperature more (like in America's Army). That might make it possible to get the scaling better, but then again, a lot of it has to do with how much eye relief you personally use when shooting. Shouldn't we try to model the sights such that we're giving players the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they're using an eye relief that makes the rear sight aperature appear relatively large compared to what further eye relief would bring? Seems to be that given the choice between modeling near and far eye relief, near is better due to it fitting in with the restrictions of our viewing resolution.
But as to your comments about the M1 aperature not being rounded like that, I agree. That's a modeling error, and it should be corrected for the sake of authenticity.
Great work, at any rate. How long did it take you to work on it? It seems like a very involving project. Pat yourself on the back for a lot of hard work.
Glad you liked it
It took me about nine days to write it, get the screenshots, footage, make all the movies, edit it, etc etc.
