Aim-Down-Sight is unnecessary for realism

[mateushac]

(Snip)

snip

snip


That is a 25 meter pool.
You're telling me that you couldn't accuratly hit a target on the opposite side of that unsighted?[/quote]

Yes. If you can, please report to some military research facility as soon as possible.

 

[ElPatron]

When someone said

"I just can't quite visualise someone walking around with their eyes always down the sights. It just doesn't seem right."

You said.

"But it is right."

Because being successful with one method implies that all the others are completely wrong.

If that argument was true then how come we have several disciplines of martial arts?

Yet you'd get a better arc of movement if your cheek wasn't welded to the gun. I don't even get how you're trying to argue this point. Are you made out of rubber or something?

(...)

Because your neck and shoulders lock when you're cheeking the weapon.

Just because I like cheeking the weapon all the time doesn't mean I keep the shoulders and neck locked. I only do that when firing.

Wow, imagine the fatigue if I was constantly "locked".

But no one would be constantly cheeking their weapon. That's just lunacy.

The point was "walking while always aiming down the sights". It's perfectly possible to do that when engaging.

Not in patrols, not while running, not while you're hiding behind a wall.

If you extrapolate the limited combat situations in videogames to real life (such as in a range you have set up some targets, no need to do anything else but walk and shoot), it's perfectly possible to do what I do. Compared to videogames, "real combat" (that includes a lot more variables than a game or a private range) allows for a greater freedom of movement and placement.

If you imagine a game like SWAT, if I had the option I would probably keep looking trough the sights rather than use the Call of Duty "ADS, hip, ADS, hip, ADS, hip, ADS, hip".

 

[Kinguendo]

Guy is clearly hoping we dont have a hand and two functioning eyes in which to test his theory... because I do and just did and guess what? About a centimeters difference. The difference seems wider when closer but even then it isnt even close to the difference you are claiming explains why the gun is so far over to the right when you are apparently aiming down the sight with your right eye. It just doesnt make sense, if the glove doesnt fit... you must acquit.

EDIT: Unless you are a hammerhead shark... are you one of the Street Sharks?! The hammerhead being the worst one obviously, but still!

 

[Vigormortis]

Please, OP, let me hope you're not saying you aim your guns with both eyes open... That would be awkward.

Unless you can shift your mental focus to the sight-image from one eye over the other.

I can do it, to a degree. Not enough to make it significant but I am training my eyes.

I've met a few very good exhibition shooters who can do just that. In fact, using both eyes often helps them not only aim accurately but also helps them keep track of the fast moving targets they're aiming for.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

-STALKER series (OK, a little bit of ADS, sometimes)

You've obviously never played Shadow of Chernobyl.
If your face isn't glued to that sight in combat, you couldn't hit an elephant at point blank range.
Although I haven't played the newer games, so they may have changed that.

 

[Treblaine]

The problem isn't that aiming down the sight is in games...
the Problem is games like Modern War 2 where you can't shoot the gun with any degree of accuracy UNLESS if you aim down the sights.

Yeah, that's my biggest problem with ADS, but it's superfluous if it isn't there.

But I don't see the problem with just crouching or walk-key to tighten crosshairs if it's a representation of right-eye parallaxed view.

PS: that dude was talking about "headshot at 25m" like, one shot in the noggin. Kinda hard with a pistol. Not trivial with a rifle.

 

[LetalisK]

Holy shit. A lot of people in this thread who've evidently never shot a real weapon.

Don't call for more "realism" in weapons in video games. You don't want it. Unless you think Arma 2 isn't dry enough for you.

 

[Tharwen]

"Then why bother with Aim-down sights in games?"

Why? I think it's a con, with faux-realism and a crutch for much more unrealistic things like instantaneous zoom with iron sights and super-powerful aim-assist when activating iron-sights.

It's most valuable for on consoles where the thumbstick is just so crap for aiming, not a problem if a proper aiming device like a mouse is used.

OK, some hyper realistic games might need aim-down sights like Red Orchestra or ARMA for how you have adjustible sights and other things, but certainly the vast majority of FPS games, including war games the ADS mechanic is a crutch for gameplay, not for the level of realism they are aspiring to.

Swing and a miss.

What happens is fairly simple.

What happens when you sprint in a modern fps? Your gun is disabled for the duration of the sprint. You are given a tactical choice. Move faster, but you cant shoot.

What happens when Aim down sights? You move slower. Sacrifice mobility for accuracy. defence for offence if you will.

Its not about it being needed to aim with an thumbstick or realism. It is about giving the player a tactical choice when presented with an engagement. It is about gameplay.

Dammit, you said exactly what I was going to say, only better.

*Brandishes fist*

 

[Treblaine]

Your science is a little flawed but I've been saying the same thing for years. There are many instances of devs going for a superficially "realistic" option instead of an actual representation of human perception. I do have to disagree with your jab at consoles though, the stick is not as precise as a mouse but its perfectly serviceable for the majority of people.

Of course, I quite like playing with a thumbstick, even some FPS games. A gamepad is indispensable for many PC games.

But thumbstick is so DIFFERENT from a mouse that certain gameplay mechanics should be treated differently, like including an ADS mechanic to help with aiming (increaded aim-assist) just causes consternation on PC ports if accuracy is then tied to using ADS.

No question about that. Devs keep thinking they can just straight port things from console to PC and vice versa when that's just not the case. Kind of like how Crysis 2 was built with both console and PC in mind and felt a litte "off" in both cases.

Yeah, console got a better deal with Crysis 2. I played it on console first and thought "hey, this ain't half bad, the PC version must be just what the doctor ordered"

But noooo. God, Crysis 2 on PC was such a disappointment, it was just... eruuugh... I take back everything i said, I want to go back to Crysis 1!!!

-STALKER series (OK, a little bit of ADS, sometimes)

You've obviously never played Shadow of Chernobyl.
If your face isn't glued to that sight in combat, you couldn't hit an elephant at point blank range.
Although I haven't played the newer games, so they may have changed that.

I saw a load of youtube videos of people taking long range shots with a pistol and never looking down sights... was this user just too dumb to figure out which key to use?

 

[Treblaine]

snip

Ok, a rifle shouldered would "limit" you but only mean you can't run at full pelt, a sprint. But it's pretty well established that you can't shoot while sprinting. If the game has a sprint mechanic at all. It wouldn't slow you down, it's just as you try to move faster you lose shoulder.

But you can definitely run or at least jog at a swift pace with a shouldered rifle just "uncheeked". And this "uncheeked" is kind of alluded to with how running in Counterstrike/L4D sees your crosshairs dilate.

 

[Treblaine]

snip

Ok, a rifle shouldered would "limit" you but only mean you can't run at full pelt, a sprint. But it's pretty well established that you can't shoot while sprinting. If the game has a sprint mechanic at all. It wouldn't slow you down, it's just as you try to move faster you lose shoulder.

But you can definitely run or at least jog at a swift pace with a shouldered rifle just "uncheeked". And this "uncheeked" is kind of alluded to with how running in Counterstrike/L4D sees your crosshairs dilate.

Your reply literally has nothing to do with my comment.

I was having an argument with ElPatron about the fact that cheeking a weapon inhibits movement more than simply shouldering it.

Well it's relevant in how I think "cheeking" might be automatic. Like whenever you don't move, move in crouch or move holding walk key the crosshairs constrict the weapon is automatically cheeked to constrict the size of the crosshairs. That's like moving from "aiming over barrel" to cheeking with "aim down sights".

Since "in shoulder" and "cheeking" are so similar, it's a reasonable conceit for this to be automatic and doesn't *need* a dedicated ADS button to be plausible.

This is just a way of considering how you can hit anything at all in Counterstrike or Left 4 Dead.

 

[Pyro Paul]

Yes. If you can, please report to some military research facility as soon as possible.

If the target is a 22" diameter circle I can *probably* hit it 1/3 of the time with a rifle.

If the target is a human head I simply can't imagine a CS-style bulls-eye telling me exactly where my bullet is going. Yes, I will not be able to hit it.

The only things I can "point-shoot" are handguns, shotguns and Nerf. And obviously that at 25 meters I wouldn't miss with a 12ga.

It begs the question...
What range do you normally shoot at?

I can plink soup cans off of a fence with a .22 breach loaded unsighted at that range 3/4ths of the time. And most of my military/ex-military buddies can do the same with ease.

it comes down to what range you normally shoot at.
when 100 meters is your standard... a 1/4th of that distance is easy shooting...

This argument is pointless because the crosshairs in CS do not depend on distance. The shots you can take at 25m are possible at 40-50m (possible the longest distance I ever got a HS on a Counter Strike map).

Okay... and?

the cross hair is a representation of what our mind normally does, weither you realize it or not... but the cross hair is still a computer generated effect.

 

[Kopikatsu]

So, is there anyone else who thinks that aiming down sights makes it HARDER to aim? Between the gun itself and the muzzle flash, I can't see shit when I'm shooting in most modern shooters. This goes double for handguns for some reason.

 

[Murmillos]

heh, I can tell the OP never fired a real weapon in his or her life, or shot with the intent of hitting a target.

So, is there anyone else who thinks that aiming down sights makes it HARDER to aim? Between the gun itself and the muzzle flash, I can't see shit when I'm shooting in most modern shooters. This goes double for handguns for some reason.

Its true that in most games, there is too much muzzle flash for daylight operations.

 

[ElPatron]

Seriously? Strawman much?

Also relevance?

What do martial arts have to do with this specific situation?

At least it was a strawman from your part. I said "but it is right" and you started giving me crap on how you feel about my way on doing things.

I never wanted you to stop shooting the way you do. It was you who started implying things about my posts but honestly I am tired of pointing out strawmen at this point.

Martial arts have several disciplines and styles. You can't dismiss Shorinji Kempo because you prefer Russian Sambo, and Savate isn't wrong because you consider Hwa Rang Do right.

So you un-shoulder it to cheek it? quote]

No it's not. There is tons of downtime in most shooters. Even CoD has a fair amount of movement when not engaging.

And movement involves speed in most shooters. I think I mentioned that there is no need to use the sights when someone is running around.

In real combat the "downtime" (time spent not shooting) can involve a myriad of things I probably never even read about. In CoD it's mostly running around or completing objectives.

And SWAT teams shoulder when they're not expecting to aim too. They also use weapons suited to such combat like SMG's, which themselves aid with freer movement.

I said SWAT game, not THE real SWAT.

 

[ElPatron]

It begs the question...
What range do you normally shoot at?

Depends on the private property and weapons I have access to. I don't live in the US so... it usually depends on my friends. I don't have certain licenses for certain weapons.

Anyway, anything from point blank to 600m.

Okay... and?

the cross hair is a representation of what our mind normally does, weither you realize it or not... but the cross hair is still a computer generated effect.

And? Can you consistently shoot a human sized head at 50m? Or even at 100m?

Because the crosshairs in a game *allow* you for a 100m shot, even if in CS you have to shoot 6 or 7 times to get it right. They are unrealistic in the way they represent point shooting - True Combat shows you the direction of the bore-line and no crosshair, which honestly requires more skill and consistency from the player than lining up a magical crosshair.