Project Reality Forums

'USMC[KILLER wrote:;479035']These are photos of acog's taken by US Marines.

So is this what your planning for the new M16 sights in 0.07 if so thumbs up I like it very practical sight aim point sight looks promising. At the moment US teams are getting owned by Mec and china Rifles because with there scopes they can spot there targets and shoot them more accurately the M16's. Personally I don't like the M16's cross hair system there cross hair obstruct the view of what you’re trying to shot at the Mec and china Rifles with the scopes have no such problem.

Hotrod525 wrote:Army and Marines allow soldier to use every mod in the SOPMOD... except for Grenade Luncher, Regular soldier can have Aimpoint, Acog, EOTech, handgrip, heatshield, bipod, ANPEQ (laser & flashlight...) if the mod is not standart like foward handgrip and the soldier want a "Sure Fire handgrip" whit light integrated it would have to buy it by itself...

Now its pretty touchy to talk about that cause in fact DEV of PR cannot make each version of the sopmod....

So... how it would be ? SF got M4 whit Acog ? no foward handgrip ? no suppresor ? So then... any of US Army soldier would have the same loadout ? M4 Acog stuck...or it would be more something like :
Officer - Riffleman : Acog, S.F.: EOTech, Medic - Engineer : Aimpoint ?

Riflemen/officers/grenadiers will undoubtubly have ACOGs (to match all the other conventional factions 4x zoom for riflemen/officers/grenadiers), the SF will have some kind of RD or holo sight. As for the others who knows. They may well have Aimpoints to compensate for the comparitive inferiority of the M4 in PR (Lower accuracy, less damage, no full auto, etc) and the fact that none of its advantages can really be implimented. Also don't forget that even if both SF and regular grunts get holosights or RDS the SF still have full auto to make them "special"

WNxKenwayy wrote:Pretty much. In the US Army,out of a platoon of 30, 2/3 will have M68's (red dot no zoom aimpoints) the others will have ACOG's. That's a rough estimate based on current equipment levels.

I knew I was seeing more and more M68's mounted on the M16 via photos from the troops. Kenway, are you fellas allowed to mod your weapons?

Bob_Marley wrote:Riflemen/officers/grenadiers will undoubtubly have ACOGs (to match all the other conventional factions 4x zoom for riflemen/officers/grenadiers), the SF will have some kind of RD or holo sight. As for the others who knows. They may well have Aimpoints to compensate for the comparitive inferiority of the M4 in PR (Lower accuracy, less damage, no full auto, etc) and the fact that none of its advantages can really be implimented. Also don't forget that even if both SF and regular grunts get holosights or RDS the SF still have full auto to make them "special"

Well that a pretty big deception... other army gonna all have Automatic ? did you know how muck time i got killed cause MEC spayed me he's 20 rounds and my M16 recoil as hell after 1 burst ? Thats unfaire... ALL M4 used by US Military are full Auto... M4 is not concept to make Long Range fighting AS M16 thats a fact... Shortest Barrel mean Shortest Effectiveness but ! got a Burst M4 is realy annoying... at least make them as real life : Single, Burst, Auto.... then the player will choose... Yeah the M4 is shooting 900 Rounds minutes Thats A REAL LIFE FACT so it would not be "unfaire" at all to every US Soldier to got there full auto M4...

Anyway dosent care how much bullet/min a thing can shoot... as long is the REAL LIFE specs used... AK : 600R/Min M4 : 900R/Min Thats It !

Hotrod525 wrote:Well that a pretty big deception... other army gonna all have Automatic ? did you know how muck time i got killed cause MEC spayed me he's 20 rounds and my M16 recoil as hell after 1 burst ? Thats unfaire... ALL M4 used by US Military are full Auto... M4 is not concept to make Long Range fighting AS M16 thats a fact... Shortest Barrel mean Shortest Effectiveness but ! got a Burst M4 is realy annoying... at least make them as real life : Single, Burst, Auto.... then the player will choose... Yeah the M4 is shooting 900 Rounds minutes Thats A REAL LIFE FACT so it would not be "unfaire" at all to every US Soldier to got there full auto M4...

Anyway dosent care how much bullet/min a thing can shoot... as long is the REAL LIFE specs used... AK : 600R/Min M4 : 900R/Min Thats It !

No, the M4A1 has a safe-semi-auto trigger group. And the M4A1 is issued only to special forces. The M4 (note the lack of A1) has a safe-semi-burst trigger group. This is the carbine issued to regular troops in the US army.

The M16A2 and M4A1 currently in game fire at 900 RPM as their cyclic rate of fire. No doubt they will continue to do so in future versions of PR.

In real life Regular troops in the United States Armed Forces are not issued full auto rifles or carbines (with the sole exception being bradley crews who have the M231 FPW, which is full auto only). This will be reflected in PR.

$kelet0r wrote:I disagree obviously but hey
It's incredibly stupid and irresponsible to use the aimpoint without a forward aperture or rear cowitness - essential relying completely on human judgement for accuracy rather than utilising the natural benefit of having an extremely accurate third point of linearity when aiming at a target.
And finally compare:


with the hilarious DICE aimpoint and then tell me that the laser dot monocle ingame is realistic

Congratulations on being retarded.

That's not the standard army issue m68. Wtf are you arguing with me? Do you HONESTLY think you know more about the m68 than I do? I mean, wtf are you basing your 'knowledge' off of?

Seriously, you know how many arguments I've gotten into on these boards about whats realistic and whats not? Neither do I. but I DO know how many I've been right on, and that's all of them.

The M4/M68 you show in your pictures is so far from a standard issue M4/M68 it's not even funny. What your vision through a m68 is like will differ depending on where a soldier mounts it on their rail. Some mount it up close for more sight vision, others, like me, mount it more forward for more accuracy. Plus its easier to tie down.

With the M68 you can use both eyes open, and after a bit of training you can 'merge' the two images together to create an effect where it appears that you are using an actual laser on your target. This is how we are taught to shoot in CQB situations, so my field of view is greater than that represented in game. Since the classes we got about CQB shooting were taught from guys from 5th Spec Force Group here at Ft.Campbell, I'm pretty sure they'd do the same thing.

If you still want to argue the point, feel free to go get a 5 year old to type out a message because it has just as good a chance of being 'right' as you think you are.

Feck sake Kenwayy, the only other Dubliner on the forums besides me and you have to lay into him like that. In relation to 0.7, we currently don't have an M68 modeled but we do have an eotech. Though I don't know what's going to happen, might just be iron sight M4s with the ACOG for Rifleman/Officers/Grenadiers but I'm not sure.

'[R-DEV wrote:Jaymz;479654']Feck sake Kenwayy, the only other Dubliner on the forums besides me and you have to lay into him like that. In relation to 0.7, we currently don't have an M68 modeled but we do have an eotech. Though I don't know what's going to happen, might just be iron sight M4s with the ACOG for Rifleman/Officers/Grenadiers but I'm not sure.

You want me to model one?

WNxKenwayy wrote:Congratulations on being retarded.

Haha lol.

Cheeseman wrote:You want me to model one?

PLEASE!

Go Cheeseman! Go Cheeseman!

Bob_Marley wrote:In real life Regular troops in the United States Armed Forces are not issued full auto rifles or carbines (with the sole exception being bradley crews who have the M231 FPW, which is full auto only).

Just to clarify, the M231 Firing Port Weapon is only issued to be used as just that- a firing port weapon. It has no sight posts and is aimed using tracers from the vision block a foot or so above the firing port; it's pretty much a "hip-fired" weapon. If you're trying to use it dismounted as a shoulder arm, things must have gone to sh*t on a non-stop flight. Bradley crewmen are infantry riflemen (11Bs) or cavalry scouts (19Ds) who have gone through additional training to operate the vehicle and they are issued M4s like their dismount elements. The two FPWs in the Bradley IFV (M3 Bradley CFV has no ports) stay stowed in the troop compartment until placed in the firing ports.

Right this is ridiculous - I'm arguing with a braindead GI
Observe exhibit A:
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/5065/m4scoped6rc.jpg
Now observe the actual ingame model


The diameter of the housing of a Comp 2 is 55mm - 2 inches give or take. Now look at the picture. In your expert opinion how close does that have to be to your eyeball? Is it even defensible to lean your face almost on top of the fire selector? Let alone contort your body so that you can scratch your cheek with your trigger finger?

If you're going to correct someone and go about it like an ***, at the very least try and be right./end

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PM I just got from Skeletor. Normally I keep PM's to myself, but screw that. This moron wants to call me a braindead GI, so here we go.

Now his argument isn't that the m68 in game is wrong because the dot is different, its because it's 'to big'.

Okay, fine.

Your view in game is what, MAYBE 90 degree's? Tops? Get off your computer, go ask your mom upstairs for a piece of paper, and hold it up to your eye. Be careful not to poke yourself. Have the papers corner setup so you are splitting the angle in half. THAT is what your view range in PR would be. Notice something? Dun dun dun.

Next, how the holy hell would you know where a soldier puts their weapon sights up? Mounted full to the rear, the m68 would be right over the charging handle, which given how most soldiers are taught to shoot (nose touching the charging handle so as to maintain the same sight picture every time) would create a rather large view range.

Also, because of the design of the M68, if a target is within 50m you don't have to maintain the same sight picture every time to hit the target, a massive advantage if you've ever done CQB shooting, which I'm guessing you haven't.

Next, distance in PR is fubar as well, 300m irl is DEFINITELY not 300m in game, so there's that argument.

But frankly, that's all to easy of arguments to use. How about this one. IRL a soldier would use a M68 with both eyes open unless engaging targets at ranges over 200m or so, depending on the conditions. So with both eyes open, IRL, I have the full average human peripheral view distance, which as I showed you earlier was way more than in PR, along with my handy dandy red dot.

The M68 in game blows compared to using a M68 IRL. I would never have the red dot at that high of a setting IRL unless it was extremely bright out (we always wear sunglasses over there) but at that setting the dot would literally block any target over 200m, which is retarded.

*edit*
Forgot to mention, that in game there is a slight zoom for a variety of reasons, but that also makes for a bit off from IRL.

Any other forum and you would be banned for taking a private message public without consent but hey ... I try to say the ingame M68 is wrong because of how it is irl, you try to say I am wrong because of the field of view on a computer monitor? I'm sorry - I thought you were a serving/recently serving soldier. If I was wrong at the least could at least you back it up with a teensy bit of real life experience but I guess not. There is always a better way of doing things, and settling for an incorrect representation of an aimpoint sight which you just pointed out above is completely wrong but seem happy to put up with it for contrived reasons like my monitor is too small or a metre ingame is not the same as a real metre, is well ... ridiculous. Anyway seeing as you want to prolong this debate by further proving me correct case in point

Next, how the holy hell would you know where a soldier puts their weapon sights up? Mounted full to the rear, the m68 would be right over the charging handle, which given how most soldiers are taught to shoot (nose touching the charging handle so as to maintain the same sight picture every time) would create a rather large view range.

Right
So basically where the camera is in this picture with the lens placed just above the forward assist where it actually appears that the shooter retains peripheral vision and has a good sight picture. There is always a better way.



PS Yes I know it's not an M68 as you seized upon, it's the consumer variant. Whoopdidoo. If you have any more pointless personal attacks to throw my way be a good gentleman and take it to private message and respect forum etiquette.

having a camera close to a thing is not the same as having your eye close to that thing .

BTW, poe2 has a great sight for the m4

When googling pictures of Marines I saw a good amount of soldiers using M16A4's with red dot sights. I don't think it would be totally insane to have a requestable kit with a red dot scope that has a high limit. I think it would actually make it a little more realistic.

Cheeseman wrote:You want me to model one?

Yes PLEASE!

$kelet0r wrote:Any other forum and you would be banned for taking a private message public without consent but hey ... I try to say the ingame M68 is wrong because of how it is irl, you try to say I am wrong because of the field of view on a computer monitor? I'm sorry - I thought you were a serving/recently serving soldier. If I was wrong at the least could at least you back it up with a teensy bit of real life experience but I guess not. There is always a better way of doing things, and settling for an incorrect representation of an aimpoint sight which you just pointed out above is completely wrong but seem happy to put up with it for contrived reasons like my monitor is too small or a metre ingame is not the same as a real metre, is well ... ridiculous. Anyway seeing as you want to prolong this debate by further proving me correct case in point
Right
So basically where the camera is in this picture with the lens placed just above the forward assist where it actually appears that the shooter retains peripheral vision and has a good sight picture. There is always a better way.



PS Yes I know it's not an M68 as you seized upon, it's the consumer variant. Whoopdidoo. If you have any more pointless personal attacks to throw my way be a good gentleman and take it to private message and respect forum etiquette.

I took it public because you decided to insult me. And I know I wont get banned for it here, so care-o-meter = 0.

Next, your argument that the m68 sight is to big is retarded.

1. The picture you post has the sight mounted far forward, at least going by the second picture. If it was mounted more to the rear, different outcome.

2. You use both eyes open when using a m68 for the most part. We can't model this ingame. Therefore, having a open sight compensates for the lack of peripheral vision you would have. Thats why I pointed out the differences IRL compared to PR, fairly sad I had to spell it out like that, gave you some measurement of competence, my mistake.

3. "teensy bit of real life experience"..........
Before I answer this, what is your experience/information source besides that 1 picture of presumably a weapon that you own?

Enough. Thread has served its purpose. There will be reflex sights for the US in 0.7 but most likely on one or two kits only.