Project Reality Forums

I think this would help alleviate a lot of the arcadeness within the game, insta-proners wouldn't be AS effective and CQB would be more realistic.

This was posted by Anark but I thought it warrented a new post.


"Probably not very practical but It might be more realistic (I think) 2 have two zoom modes for all weapons e.g.:

Weapon at hips: Un-zoomed normal view no movement restrictions

Weapon shouldered: Not zoomed, much greater control without sights being used, impedes movement slightly, much more screen taken up by weapon but not as much as Iron sighted/Scoped view.

Aiming: Regular Ironsight/Scoped View with regular movement resrictions."

So for an easy but not perfect fix, you could just add in two zooms like on a sniper rifle. Tap the button once to shoulder your weapon, tap it again to look down the sites. This is much more realistic IMO. It doesn't have to be a bunch of fancy animations etc for now either. I think it's a doable thing and within the limits of the mod.
I hope someone has suggested this before...if so then -bump

I really like it, if the main focus is to slow down arcadism moments ( operation pheonix bum rush anyone? )

Then this will make things ( as long as the accuracy is on par with hip/shoulder firing ) a lot better, could even solve insta-proning .. I mean if you fire your gun at your hip prone not even shouldered... that accuracy would be ( opinionated! ) less I think.

Wholeheartedly agree this isn't a bad idea to LOOK at.

Well it will indeed slow things down but I dunno... I mean, if you look at the character in game, the only time when you lower your gun to hip level is while sprinting and jumping, in other words, only when he needs to. Now I'm no soldier but if I were in a mission (not on a patrol ), I know I wouldn't take my gun away from the shoulder unless running, jumping, changing stance to prone and other actions for which I would need my hands for balance. Now if there was a mouse sensitivity change between the zoom levels, then I'd be all for it, but I really don't think thats possible nor would it practically have much of an impact (I for example, can change sensitivity between 400 800 and 1600 dpi at the push of a button ).
I'm really not sure as to how useful this would be...

jerkzilla wrote:Well it will indeed slow things down but I dunno... I mean, if you look at the character in game, the only time when you lower your gun to hip level is while sprinting and jumping, in other words, only when he needs to. Now I'm no soldier but if I were in a mission (not on a patrol ), I know I wouldn't take my gun away from the shoulder unless running, jumping, changing stance to prone and other actions for which I would need my hands for balance. Now if there was a mouse sensitivity change between the zoom levels, then I'd be all for it, but I really don't think thats possible nor would it practically have much of an impact (I for example, can change sensitivity between 400 800 and 1600 dpi at the push of a button ).
I'm really not sure as to how useful this would be...

you wouldn't want it always at your shoulder, that would make your arms really tired after a couple hours.

and as far as i know, the only time you have it on your shoulder is during combat.

TexLax wrote:you wouldn't want it always at your shoulder, that would make your arms really tired after a couple hours.

and as far as i know, the only time you have it on your shoulder is during combat.

90% of your time in PR is spent in combat. You don't exactly stand guard at the entrance of the base, checking everyone's papers. It makes sense that when in a battle, everyone is fully alert with their rifles shouldered.

On the other hand, it would be nice to have a walk feature, between current aiming and non-sprint running speed. For CQB simulation, there could even be additional animations for the weapons, that would put weapons in the lower middle part of the screen but wouldn't use the ironsights (to simulate pointing your weapon at someone in CQB without using the sights). Of course, you probably wouldn't be able to do such a thing with the BF2 engine...

You never shoot from the hip.
You never wear your gun at the hip.
Your gun is always attached to your breast. When you grab your weapon the butt goes automatically to your shoulder.

Maybe a suggestion for the insurgents but not for a regular army

It's a limitation with the BF2 set up that we will have to put with for the duration of the time PR remains on this platform

On the other hand where I would have expected Arma to have done it properly BIS failed.
Rather than have the default rifle position very high in your view, held in to your shoulder, with just a quick movement needed to move the eye to ironsights (with no zoom - what were they thinking?) and the option to lower the barrel for an unobstructed view, the weapon is instead in the classic FPS and unrealistic bottom righ corner mode and going to ironsights or optic zooms in killing situational awareness.

l|Bubba|l wrote:You never shoot from the hip.
You never wear your gun at the hip.
Your gun is always attached to your breast. When you grab your weapon the butt goes automatically to your shoulder.

Maybe a suggestion for the insurgents but not for a regular army

Yes but judging by the fact that the default bf2 gun position is at the hip, I think this idea is still could bring another level of immersion to the gameplay.

$kelet0r wrote: On the other hand where I would have expected Arma to have done it properly BIS failed.
Rather than have the default rifle position very high in your view, held in to your shoulder, with just a quick movement needed to move the eye to ironsights (with no zoom - what were they thinking?) and the option to lower the barrel for an unobstructed view, the weapon is instead in the classic FPS and unrealistic bottom righ corner mode and going to ironsights or optic zooms in killing situational awareness.

I think you should play ArmA again. You clearly didnt play long enough to figure out all the controls. Ctrl + R lowers your weapon , and whilst looking anywhere (including down an ironsight) holding left ctrl zooms in a bit.

EX.

Fenix16 wrote:Yes but judging by the fact that the default bf2 gun position is at the hip, I think this idea is still could bring another level of immersion to the gameplay.

Where do you see weapons at the hip in BF2?
They always hold there weapons in front of them.

http://www.ixbt.com/games/images/battle ... eld2_2.jpg

Fenix16 wrote: I think you should play ArmA again. You clearly didnt play long enough to figure out all the controls. Ctrl + R lowers your weapon , and whilst looking anywhere (including down an ironsight) holding left ctrl zooms in a bit.

lol
I'm well aware that there is a useless patrol style stroll animated ingame (by pressing control only - where are you getting control + reload from? Also x is the default zoom iirc)
Ideally in PRM and what they should have implemented in Arma is 1) no zoom at all when going to ironsights and holding breath only steadies aim and increases the focus by blurring the edge of the screen and sharpening the detail in the centre 2) a much higher default weapon position so much so that it obstructs your view but with an option to lower the barrel while keeping the weapon shouldered out of the screen for an unobstructed view 3) with ironsight freeaim, strafing should be much much slower and smoother. There are just so many problems with Arma.
Operation Flashpoint I can look at and say - first time studio, revolutionary features, great story and campaign, atmosphere and AI outstanding for 2001
Arma - the graphics are 'better' but otherwise the game is a dinosaur
But that's way off topic

I would have hoped that with PRM creating all new weapons that the weapon position would have been made more plausible - higher in the point of view as if the weapon is by the cheek and far more central recognising that vision is not limited to the width of the neck.

l|Bubba|l wrote:Where do you see weapons at the hip in BF2?
They always hold there weapons in front of them.

http://www.ixbt.com/games/images/battle ... eld2_2.jpg

I cant view that pic for whatever reason, but if you shoulder a rifle in real life, and then look at the screen in BF2, there is a very noticible difference (ie. the gun is in the bottom right of the screen, and considering where your head is, would appear to be somewhat close to hip level. 3rd person perspectives may be a different story but that only applies to watching other characters rather than you yourself shooting at a target.).

Fenix16 wrote:I cant view that pic for whatever reason, but if you shoulder a rifle in real life, and then look at the screen in BF2, there is a very noticible difference (ie. the gun is in the bottom right of the screen, and considering where your head is, would appear to be somewhat close to hip level. 3rd person perspectives may be a different story but that only applies to watching other characters rather than you yourself shooting at a target.).

And you would waste realism for a not exactly aligned model in the first person view?

The problem with first person weapon models is that in real life, you're not forced to keep looking forward at all times. Even if you have a rifle shouldered, you can still position your head in all sorts of ways that will make the rifle less obstructive to your vision. In PR, you are forced to keep staring forward, with the rifle always in the same place.

sometimes i think people who make suggestions should know that the BF2 engine has limits... mostly hardcoded

2) Iron-sights walking should be faster and without zoom. If I had my way I'd spend most of my time walking around with iron sights up. That'll teach the prone diving fools.
3) All weapons need a support-gunner-style delay to iron sights. I'm aware of the lack of an animator though.

http://realitymod.com/forum/showpost.ph ... stcount=29

To be honest I dont care how it looks or feels....it just needs to "work". Is there seriously no way to add 2 zooms to a regular rifle? A sniper rifle obviously has 2. All it needs is a modified version of that, with the final zoom being an iron site. I'd like to see what Eggman says about this.