Back up sghts - Page 3

BroCop · 2013-08-22, 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wheres_my_chili

But, dont several factions already have that vantage point?

Huh? Not a single faction has the ability to view over a scope. Unless you are referring to people using CCO's, for which I really doubt needs explaining on why its not the same thing as having a scope on your rifle.

Wheres_my_chili · 2013-08-22, 17:09

The elcan and british scopes have a backup sight that is functionally just looking over the scope. I just dont understand why they cant just do the same thing for all weapons but just not have an actual marker to show where the bullet would go. Its already in game so it wouldnt be unfair, would be in really useful to some players despite arguments that it wouldnt, and would really even the playing field.

But i'm not a dev so what do i know?

Lugi · 2013-08-22, 17:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wheres_my_chili

The elcan and british scopes have a backup sight that is functionally just looking over the scope. I just dont understand why they cant just do the same thing for all weapons but just not have an actual marker to show where the bullet would go. Its already in game so it wouldnt be unfair, would be in really useful to some players despite arguments that it wouldnt, and would really even the playing field.

I fully support this idea, helps scoped kits in cqb a lot.

Predator.v2 · 2013-08-22, 17:14

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/dgWu79fA9So/maxresdefault.jpg

If you look over the weapon, you could set the aiming point somewhere "in" the scope, so a "dot in the middle of the screen" wouldn't help at all. As for this Arma 2 ACE example, set the aim point within or even below the red part of the acoq.

I'd still like to get some feedback about the russian BUIS. What do other players and the Devs think about it?

[R-MOD]Nate. · 2013-08-22, 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Predator.v2

I'd still like to get some feedback about the russian BUIS. What do other players and the Devs think about it?

If you have a scope on your weapon AK it is of course getting in your way when you use the BUIS. If you want proper iron sights, just use the other AK.

It's just the way it is, nothing wrong there imo.

Walmarx · 2013-08-24, 13:08

I have often wished for this as well. I don't see this being any more effective than actual BUIS, excepting those weapons with nigh-useless irons anyways, such as the EBR, or AK-74Ms. Those setups are difficult to use because they attempt to faithfully recreate the actual shape of their real-life counterparts, not as a result of development balancing efforts. So why not reflect the real-life ability of a soldier to ready his weapon without sighting into the scope?

As for the AK-74M BUIS, this functionality is really only a tacked-on bonus to the way AKs must mount optics, which is from the side of the receiver. As far as I know, the mounting system used is quick-detachable, should CQC be inevitable. Having two eyes also helps, i'm sure.

BroCop · 2013-08-24, 13:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wheres_my_chili

The elcan and british scopes have a backup sight that is functionally just looking over the scope. I just dont understand why they cant just do the same thing for all weapons but just not have an actual marker to show where the bullet would go. Its already in game so it wouldnt be unfair, would be in really useful to some players despite arguments that it wouldnt, and would really even the playing field.

Except your entire post relies on a false pretense that the feature is already ingame. Elcan and SUSAT have backup sights on their scope, yeah but thats a massive difference from what you gents here are bloody proposing as those BUIS still obscure your vision (although I will admit its minimal with the elcan)

Wheres_my_chili · 2013-08-24, 14:05

Please elaborate on how it massively different.

Walmarx · 2013-08-24, 15:04

The intended drawback of the BUIS over optics is obviously the lack of magnification, not an obscured field of view (although this is often a side-effect of only having one eye). Without an indicated point of aim, as proposed, the shooter will have only the geometry of the top of the optic's exterior to rely on, which can only offer horizontal aid at best. Then tracers/impacts would be the only guide to get on target, wherein a rifleman with iron sights or proper buis could aquire and engage accurately with his first shot.

I also seriously doubt anyone would mark or adhere anything to his screen in hopes of exploiting this feature, and if he would, then he'd not be much worse off than an Elcan user, and he'd then have trouble actually using his scope.

spawncaptain · 2013-08-24, 15:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walmarx

I also seriously doubt anyone would mark or adhere anything to his screen in hopes of exploiting this feature

So did I until I saw this thread:

Quote:

I put a transparent tape with a little dot and place it on my screen where the bullet would land. That way I have aiming without actually aiming, though it's not as accurate as aiming because of the recoil. But in close combat situations, having not to push the right mouse button which take a half second to aim can mean life or death.

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10...eat-not-2.html

2013-08-22, 17:09	#22
Wheres_my_chili Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 235 United States of America	Re: Back up sghts The elcan and british scopes have a backup sight that is functionally just looking over the scope. I just dont understand why they cant just do the same thing for all weapons but just not have an actual marker to show where the bullet would go. Its already in game so it wouldnt be unfair, would be in really useful to some players despite arguments that it wouldnt, and would really even the playing field. But i'm not a dev so what do i know?

2013-08-22, 17:14	#24
Predator.v2 Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 377 Germany	Re: Back up sghts http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/dgWu79fA9So/maxresdefault.jpg If you look over the weapon, you could set the aiming point somewhere "in" the scope, so a "dot in the middle of the screen" wouldn't help at all. As for this Arma 2 ACE example, set the aim point within or even below the red part of the acoq. I'd still like to get some feedback about the russian BUIS. What do other players and the Devs think about it?
Predator.v2 Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 377 Germany

2013-08-24, 13:08	#26
Walmarx Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 130 United States of America Location: Memphis	Re: Back up sghts I have often wished for this as well. I don't see this being any more effective than actual BUIS, excepting those weapons with nigh-useless irons anyways, such as the EBR, or AK-74Ms. Those setups are difficult to use because they attempt to faithfully recreate the actual shape of their real-life counterparts, not as a result of development balancing efforts. So why not reflect the real-life ability of a soldier to ready his weapon without sighting into the scope? As for the AK-74M BUIS, this functionality is really only a tacked-on bonus to the way AKs must mount optics, which is from the side of the receiver. As far as I know, the mounting system used is quick-detachable, should CQC be inevitable. Having two eyes also helps, i'm sure.

2013-08-24, 14:05	#28
Wheres_my_chili Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 235 United States of America	Re: Back up sghts Please elaborate on how it massively different.

2013-08-24, 15:04	#29
Walmarx Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 130 United States of America Location: Memphis	Re: Back up sghts The intended drawback of the BUIS over optics is obviously the lack of magnification, not an obscured field of view (although this is often a side-effect of only having one eye). Without an indicated point of aim, as proposed, the shooter will have only the geometry of the top of the optic's exterior to rely on, which can only offer horizontal aid at best. Then tracers/impacts would be the only guide to get on target, wherein a rifleman with iron sights or proper buis could aquire and engage accurately with his first shot. I also seriously doubt anyone would mark or adhere anything to his screen in hopes of exploiting this feature, and if he would, then he'd not be much worse off than an Elcan user, and he'd then have trouble actually using his scope.