Project Reality Forums

Make scopes 3d for 2 reasons:

1. Remove retarded tunnel vision and represent having 2 eyes open (sort of).

2. Have realistic range markers on the guns for ballistics.

Also we did what Mcluv said in Combined Arms, where we removed sprinting, increased walking to a jog which allowed you to move with your gun raised. Then for scopes we decided to add a 1.0x magnification level which represents the combination of shoulder firing and backup irons which are on most rifles.



I`m the chinese soldier at 9:11 shooting edible. Here I can advance with my gun raised ready to fire. In PR or BF2 I would probably have to either charge him with my gun at my hip, hold still with my scope zoomed, or sprint away to dodge the incoming grenade. In this scenario I have the option to move to his position at a moderate speed and can fire the moment he presents a target. He probably forgot that this was possible and decided to throw a grenade expecting I would either sit still and eat it or have to run away unable to fire.

Viper.Sw wrote:Scope now is FAIL imo! Accuracy is shit ====> You should hit what the crosshair is pointing at when scoped. At least for like 300 meters or more. As for now you need to shoot like 3 shots after each other and hope one of em hits the target!

For CQB the scope rifle is like walking around with a zoomed in sniper rifle. Imagine a sniper using his scope while clearing a small room LOL!
To solve this issue: Add a mode to see just above the scope without zoom in like the LMG BUT to be more centered in the middle of the screen so that it is easier to aim.
And DO NOT make two weapon modes for rifle since then when switching between scope and non scope it will take an extremely long time.

Dude irl soldiers fire far more than that without hitting. Mostly because they are more preoccupied with keeping a leadshield up to keep the enemy from taking aimed shots. Also unlike irl its rare to have a scope on your wepon that is alligned with the rifle. Usually you take it to the range try to adjust it as good as you can if you are allowed to tinker with the scope and try to compensate based on experience.

Yes, irl the ACOG does not eliminate the ironsights, or has an aimpoint for close quarter battles over the scope, my guess is the problem is implementing having both modes avaiable in game and thats why it has not been implemented yet.

Some improvements are necessary to close quarter fighting; We need to include a similar mode to the undeployed but pointing the LMG but for all rifles. Slot 3 is the mode were you can run around but shoot with **** accuracy. Slot 4 is the "aiming above the scope" mode, similar to LMG undeployed, where you move slower but with decent accuracy. Press right mouse button while in slot 4 "scopes in" with best accuracy.

To free a slot, get rid of the incendiary and give some more to the engineer but let normal grenades destroy caches.

I quite like what McLuv said on the previous page.
Sort of agree with 1. but I've never properly used a scope so I'm not sure.
Also sort of agree with 2 as it would show that you were focusing on the target and might offer some sort of visable way of seeing when the deviation has settled. Not too sure how much zoom would be too much though.
But I don't really agree with 3. I like the speeds of moving the way they are more, but I agree with the close combat currently having nothing truely suitable for it.

I've not voted though as I'm not completely sure and I do quite like the scopes as they are, but anything can be improved somehow. I'm just not quite sure myself how.

It seems pretty decent to me at the moment, it's about 50/50 for me which sights I want. IRL though I'm sure soldiers prefer scopes to irons pretty much all the time really, seeing as you still have to raise the sights to your eye whether they're optical or not.

Surely Rudd you didn't find it hard to make a poll after 8334 posts

McLuv wrote:Solutions:

1) Hollow out the magnified scopes à la Red Dot, zoom in the entire screen while leaving only roughly 50 % of the screen's area taken up by the scope, and then adding FH2 style blur.
2) Add a slight, slow zoom to ironsights to all for focusing of the eye. A zoom of 1.3-1.5 times taking a second or two to complete is an excellent solution.

Really great ideas, i would like to see both of those done.

ACOG scopes and the equilivant like SUSAT sights in particular.It Should take up only a circle in the center of the screen, at now seems like you stare directly in like a binocular, not good with recoil and you loose "side vision", which makes it poor for CQB weapons. I'm pretty sure it's hardcoded in the bf2 but i've seen FH2 this style where the entire screen is zoomed in, just add some blur on the sides.

Iron sights and red dots are fine for now, though on the M16 and M4 it would be nice to be able to switch the ironsight hole in the back (forgot completely what it's called ).

Surely Rudd you didn't find it hard to make a poll after 8334 posts

just never saw the need to post a poll before now

Though, as much as I love some of the combined arms stuff that they have made. I am opposed 100% to the double zoom feature of the assault rifles as it feels very gamey and unrealistic. I'd preffer PRs scope and being forced to hip fire to that . One of the other solutions is much better, though harder to do ofc.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:2) An undeployed mode like the LMG, being done for Marksmen now. Clearly so teh Scopes can have a longer scope in time like now for long range, and a LMG style side view for short range.

This is the option that I personally would want to see. I don't know how easy it would be, but it's the method of using optics that I do in the real world. When I engage targets at say 50m or less, I always aim over the sights, never through them. This goes with using magnified optics or iron sights. I think that blurring the edges when in a "zoomed" or "concentrated" view would work well too.

As for times to actually bring the "scope" up to eye level, it shouldn't be too instant. While most of us are able to gain proper optics picture very quickly, even then there are times when you might need to adjust your cheek slightly or nudge your face forward or back. I think it's fine to have a slight delay in optic focus.

The problem with option number 2 is that with two weapon slots, an animation delay would be required for both slots in order prevent instant fire "quick draw" when switching from other items. This would cause an annoying delay in switching from "side-view"/backup iron/undeployedLMG-style sighting to the scope sighting slot. The biggest downside of course is the need for another slot; this forces us to lose something from the scoped Officer kits.

A fantastic altenative IMO is to have two levels of zoom as the CA mod does, except the 1x view is the "sideview"/backupirons/whatever-you-wanna-call-it is realistically animated, not simulated. The first right click would bring up this 1x zoom as quickly as the iron sight rifles bring up the iron sights. The SECOND right click would bring the shooters eyes down from the 1x zoom to look through the actual 4x scope.

The animation between the 1x "side view" and the 4x scope view would be timed just right so that in combination with the animation time to bring up the 1x view from hip fire, the time to zoom to 4x scope view would be the same as it is now in .87
Thus the scope in time for scope assault rifles is the same, but scoped assault rifle users will no longer have to run around with **** deviation unrealistically hip firing their rifles in cqb. The 1x zoom level with the "side view LMG" or "back up iron sight" view would offer the speed and wide FOV and less deviation-due-to-slower-movement that iron sight rifles benefit from, but iron sight users would still win out in close to close-medium ranged combat due to centered, more precise sights.

right click once to bring the rifle "to your shoulder" and look down the barrel or "back up iron sights" (the latter would would require more work in terms of animation). right click a 2nd time quickly if you had wanted to use the scope itself.

It all sounds great in the head, but in practice..
You can't split zoom animations into two parts, or create another set of zoom animations triggered by a second stage trigger. So any suggestions about having dual 'zoom functions' are immedietely nulled.

I want modification #3.
It would feel more like an actual scope and less like a black screen with a circle on it.

Definitely third modification - after playing COD4, Crysis and Far Cry 2 I can say it's absolutely better.

Agree on the 3.

My only problem is with the aimpoint sights, the scope is kinda useless and covers 2 much of the screen compared to the simple (and more effective) iron sights.

Im sure CA is great in many aspects, but that video show soldiers moving and taking aimed shots like vanilla on crack.

Nebsif wrote:My only problem is with the aimpoint sights, the scope is kinda useless and covers 2 much of the screen compared to the simple (and more effective) iron sights.

While that is true, that same effect would actually be good for the x4 scopes

TheLean wrote:Im sure CA is great in many aspects, but that video show soldiers moving and taking aimed shots like vanilla on crack.

There's no sprint so I don't see how it is at all similar to vanilla. Incidentally one of the main complaints against BF2 (anecdotal) has been the random deviation and overall ineffectiveness of the weapons. Although I think that saying "Its like vanilla BF2, it must be bad" is a complete logical fallacy, to humor you I will compare the raw numbers from BF2, PR, and Combined Arms.

BF2 (walking with scope) = 1.2

PR (walking with scope) = 1.35

CA (walking with scope) = .36

Second shot deviation (Just on the x axis as I am lazy. Standing + Walking):

BF2 (walking with scope) = 2.4

PR (walking with scope) = 1.89

CA (walking with scope) = .45

Ballistics Gravity Coefficient (I used snipers as an example since this affects them the most. Rifle of choice was the M24):

BF2 (usrif_m24_Projectile) = 0

PR (762_51_sniper) = 0.1

CA (762_51_sniper) = 0.66 (measured as earth)

*Edit: While I was at it I decided to measure the maximum footspeeds of the soldiers in PR. While on average they are probably all much closer, no one cares about that because usually you are moving from cover to cover. Also taking into account Combined Arms slower acceleration + deceleration these numbers will vary. But still this is about CQB.

BF2 = 6.33n/s

PR = 5.83m/s

CA = 4m/s

I ask you which of those numbers makes the most sense for a soldier in full kit with possibly blistered feet or a twisted ankle trying not to slip on a rock or step on a root?

I displayed these numbers to prove one thing: Combined Arms can be validly criticized for a lot of things, but being closer to Vanilla BF2 than PR is not one of them.

I think the scopes are fine, but it sucks that you need to post before you can send PMs.