Improving US Iron Sights.

[DavidP]

Does anyone else think that the US M16A4 and M4 Iron Sights need to be improved? I do. Here's a comparison of M16/M4 sights vs L85 and G3 Iron Sights.

M4


M16A4


L85a2


G3A3


As you can see the Latter 2 sites are superior. The Former are too bulky and it's too hard to land shots past 150m with these Sights. No Wonder RDS is so popular. Even though only Spec-Ops has them, I see more and more people as USMC using the M4A1 with RDS in Combat. Because Honestly the M16 Irons are **** in combat.


My question is, Should the Devs redo the M16A4 and M4 Iron Sights?


Also here's some COD4 Irons for comparison.

M16A4


M4A1


G3A4

[Caboosehatesbabies]

I actually prefer the M16A4/M4 ironsights to the G3A3's, I think it's more of a personal choice thing.

For me it goes. Aimpoint, M16A4/M4, L85A2, G3A3, QBZ-97

[Smegburt_funkledink]

My question is, Should the Devs redo the M16A4 and M4 Iron Sights?

If you can provide real life pictures for comparison, i might be able to comment here. i've never held an M16 or M4 for real.

Also here's some COD4 Irons for comparison.

I don't think COD4 has any use for comparison, there's far too many things in this game that aren't realistic to really use it as a reference.

[hexhunter]

I can't hit anything with irons, probably just that I forget to let my aim settle when I first spot an enemy, but the aimpoint made me really like engineer/mountaineer on EJOD/Korengal (though there need to be more breechable doors), but I have noticed that I prefer the G3 over other rifles while I am a medic, which is alot.

Edit: I should have said, I don't see what sets the M16 sights from the L85 sights...

[DavidP]

If you can provide real life pictures for comparison, i might be able to comment here. i've never held an M16 or M4 for real.

This us the only real one i have. http://www.ar-15.us/pic/shootout/001_00021.jpg

I don't think COD4 has any use for comparison, there's far too many things in this game that aren't realistic to really use it as a reference.

I know but i like the Irons from Cod4 alot better.

[Razick]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2170/154 ... f1ff_o.jpg

Long range peep sight.

[ReadMenace]

Okay, currently the iron sights on the M16 series of rifles is utilizing the low-light/cqb sight aperture, and is a realistic representation, seeing as we cannot simulate depth of field very well in BF2. Razick posted showing the long range aperture, which I would prefer to have in-game. Here's the rub, if we use the smaller sight aperture, people will gripe that it's too small, and somehow make a claim that it's not realistic (See: AK47 sights).

Again, I don't think you should use CoD4 as a reference for any sort of realism. Look at that iron-sight picture, see how the aperture protrudes above the protective sides of the carry-handle? If you were to drop that rifle, the likelihood that the aperture which would be protruding above any other point on the rear half of the gun, would impact on the ground, likely resulting in damage. And while some people may argue that Eugene Stoner was an idiot because he didn't design a gas-piston system for his rifle, he was smart enough to protect the rear & front sight from damage.

-REad

[DavidP]

@Read I know Cod4 aint realistic. But the Sights are thinner when looking through the Hole, Like the L85 thats why I posted them.

Also how much Realism has been already sacrificed for gameplay? Brits with(out) their Susats', Insurgents with their Binocs, US Army with their Blackhawks. Etc etc.

[Spuz36]

I despise the G3 irons, the area around the peep is enormous, and the kick is so huge that it takes a while to acquire the target again. Sure you can look low to find him then line up, but by then the M16 already has a bead on you and a shot in the air. The M16 sights aren't bad, and I like them better then the G3's.

[hiberNative]

the front post of the m16 and m4 needs to be a bit thinner imo, that's all.

[DkMick]

I actually prefer the M16A4/M4 ironsights to the G3A3's, I think it's more of a personal choice thing.

Agreed.

I don't think COD4 has any use for comparison, there's far too many things in this game that aren't realistic to really use it as a reference.

Agreed.

And, from just looking at the first pic posted from AR-15.us - it looks to me that the PR sights are pretty damn close to that.

[Gaven]

I don't think COD4 is a bad image for iron sights, as I don't see any of the complaints that people are making. They actually look more realistic from my point of view. Just because the game isn't realistic, doesn't mean an animation can't be.

I've never had a problem with any of the iron sights in this game though, only the bullet deviation and recoil.

[DavidP]

the front post of the m16 and m4 needs to be a bit thinner imo, that's all.

And the Hole abit more rounded like the L85. Because I honestly think that those are Perfect!

[ReadMenace]

I don't think COD4 is a bad image for iron sights, as I don't see any of the complaints that people are making. They actually look more realistic from my point of view.

Your view from Facepalm city?

Alright, here's a couple shots from my AR15.





Now, my carbine has a mid-length gas system, which places its front sight 2" forward of your standard M4, and about 3.3" behind those of the M16A4. That aside, you can see that it's not far off from those featured in-game.
Now, I can make a completely different argument about the M16/M4 sights, but it simply cannot be corrected in the BF2 engine.
Sure, the aperture on the M16 & M4 could be cleaner, but really doesn't matter.

-REad

[ratlover232]

It turns out that you really shouldn't use a videogame as a comparison. Using real pictures as a reference is the only way to go. Read's got the right idea.

Also, the M16 is a different gun than the L85A2 and the G3A3. Sights will vary from weapon to weapon, and PR isn't about perfect fairness, it's about realism.

[DavidP]

@Read I like the Second picture better. It's almost perfect.

@rat That's why i said it was for comparison. To Compare the Iron Sights to each other. To get a better idea.

And Don't the US and UK use the Same front posts? Have'nt they been doing that since the 50's?

Fairness no, Balance yes.

[ratlover232]

Balance doesn't equal realism. I have had no issues smoking targets with the current sights. Also, the second picture read posted is the large apeture sights, which I feel would reduce the M16A4's accuracy. Keep the sights as they are, changing them would involve a full remodel and import cycle, as the current sights are 3D IIRC.

[Chuc]

ratlover is correct. Should we wish to change the ironsights we would have to reimport the weapons of that series with the model changes.

By the way, we did have the small apeture sight when we started out .8 production, and holy **** if that made it in game then you guys would be spilling your guts in an uproar. *shudder*

[Katarn]

Yes, totally true. Just for you guys I rotated it to use the close-combat sight!

[ReadMenace]

Yes, totally true. Just for you guys I rotated it to use the close-combat sight!

Awww Shucks!

-REad