Project Reality Forums

Please find proof (source) that eastern bloc tanks .50's have optics on them, and that the .50's for Abrams' also have it (not including CROWS)

Please also find me proof that the .50's used by Humvee's in Iraq and Afghanistan also have optics mounted on them.

I dont think he means optics, but he means like the deployable HMGs

How is that realistic though? The deployable HMGs don't have iron sights as they are awaiting optics to be placed afaik.

Cheditor wrote:How is that realistic though? The deployable HMGs don't have iron sights as they are awaiting optics to be placed afaik.

Exactly why I asked for him to provide proof that the HMGs on vehicles use optics, which they don't aside from a few SF vehicles.

this would be madness, it's vehicle and stationary machineguns are already nightmarrish beasts that can spray lead in a general direction and kill and supress a whole squad, while the gunner is virtually invulnerable to anything but the things that blow up his vehicle

4x zoom, besides that it's unrealistic - dtacs already covered this point because vehicle MG's in contrary to static machineguns generally have no optics, wouldn't be too good an idea, it would make humvee's etc. overpowered, and because they could be used by one man, it would make for a lot of renegade campers on alleys, hills or mountains.

@draakon:
the reason why static machineguns have 4x ironsight zoom is because they're placeholders for hmg's with optics.

Yey, Drakon said that what I wanted to say and I think that Commando Jenkins thought that, and yes that is true, human eye can concentrate on a certain spot.

This would increse considerable the firepower of Land hoevers and hunves alike, but after all is what they are up for. they alerdy stay away the field shoting enemy while stationary.

But i still like to have a few other whicht iron sings, because iron will win more in moving fire and close quarters that scope, SOMETHING YOU WILL NEED IN INSURGENCY, since you must run betwhen the midle city and run of the bomb cars, and of course shoot in then while running.

I not fully suport this sugestion, but giving 2 of those scope land hoevers in al barash will wont hurt, after all al barash deploy a huge ammount of land hovers. right?

PatrickLA_CA wrote:Yey, Drakon said that what I wanted to say and I think that Commando Jenkins thought that, and yes that is true, human eye can concentrate on a certain spot.

indeed, and something i up for is that iron sings back the zoon of BF2 vanila.

PatrickLA_CA wrote:Yey, Drakon said that what I wanted to say and I think that Commando Jenkins thought that, and yes that is true, human eye can concentrate on a certain spot.

Human eyes can concentrate at one spot, but not zoom into it. We ain't Arnold Schwarzenegger or something like that.

HAAN4 wrote:I not fully suport this sugestion, but giving 2 of those scope land hoevers in al barash will wont hurt, after all al barash deploy a huge ammount of land hovers. right?

Also a huge amount of APCs, a Scimitar and a Tank! Teamwork, man, teamwork!

(BTW won't is the past negative tense of "to will" therefore you can't say "will won't", it's like you were saying in Portuguese "will won't hurt" "irá não irá doer"...) lol


EDIT: Ops sorry double post.

No. Deployable mgs have this and I think theyre way overpowered now. On archer they place one MG on a mountain and it dominates the entire map. I tried to snipe the gunner from only just inside the visible range and he spotted me in like 2 secs, one burst from a mile away and bamm I was dead. Sure 50's are deadly IRL, but come on. It also depends on who's shooting it, and nobody can shoot that accurately that fast. I think they need more deviation or just be less accuracy idk. ??:

unless the US military has now developed the 'binocular eye transplant', i can't see this being implemented. i CAN see the increased zoom being taken from the HMG nest.

if this was implemented I'd prefer for gameplay and perhaps realism sake (though I don't know) that there be a mix of scoped and unscoped vehicles, for variety and to avoid overpowering.

Jonny wrote:From various posts around the forums, suggestions for factions that an MA is available for (ie, anything this is applicable to) are not being considered. This thread has probably already brought sights on vehicle mounted weapons to the MA's attention, so now has no purpose.

Lock?

Now, in this instance Jonny is correct. The PR Team are not accepting suggestions on equipment for factions for which we have an active MA, in this case primarily the British, US and Canadian factions for which we have numerous MAs. This has also been suggested before.

So yes, locked.

However:

I do not want to see posts like the one above. What is much more helpful is to take what was written above and copy and paste it into the "Report Post" feature. This flags it up for us to look at without spamming the thread with requests for a lock. For the record the only people who can decide for a thread to be locked are Mods, Devs and the OP himself.

Thanks