Aim-Down-Sight is unnecessary for realism

[Treblaine]

"
While your right eye looking down the sights sees this:

Now take the important part of what the right eye sees, where the sights line up and indicate where the bullets go, and lay that superimposed over the wider less restricted view of the Left eye.

....

"These games are so unrealistic, you can't aim without using the sights. Where does the reticule on the screen come from?"

The reticule comes from using the gun. It is a game REPRESENTATION of your right eye using the sights while your left eye is open.

Iron sights are for more accurate aiming.
Sure firing from the hip might make you hit a target, but if you're like me and you want to hit a guy in the head every time making quick kills using the iron sight is awesome for picking them off.

also in real life you would always aim down the sight because real life doesn't have reticules

You just basically said "it's not realistic because it's realistic"
Take a game like dayZ for example, on a lot of servers you DON'T have a reticule you only have the iron sights you can fire blindly without using the iron sights but you will be wasting ammo and lose most fights

edit: also the ironsight allows you more focus (the reticule is not a specific guarded area it fluctuates, you can't accurately see within a circle for example if your target is in or out of view (you can train yourself at it and try but it won't always work)

You're like the 20th person to post saying the same thing, seemingly assuming that you don't need to use sights.

You don't seem to have read my post that you are quoting. What I halfe left behind of what you quoted from me makes this explicit.


You Seem to have just assumed that because you not seeing this:

Then therefore it is "Hip-fire"

No. Hipfire is hanging the weapon off your arms around your "hip" it would be too low to be visible in your view model (which only has a degree of vision down of about 50-degrees off the centreline of the perspective).

No. It is firing with the weapon well shouldered and the right eyeball would be lined up almost exactly with the rear sight.

You can shoot - while looking down and using sights - with both eyes open, it takes a very moderate amount of training and is very useful for anyone shooting in combat.

"also in real life you would always aim down the sight because real life doesn't have reticules"

Actually with both-eyes-open shooting the brain merges the images so that there is actually a floating reticule made from the right eye's view of the sights.

Look up the Bindon aiming concept that mainly focuses on magnifying sights but also applies to non-magnifying sights.

 

[Treblaine]

Counterstrike since 1999 and numerous other FPS games have implemented such a trade off where crosshairs dilate as you move without being in crouch, like shifting from "looking through sights" to "looking over top of barrel".

I'd ask the obvious question of "Who cares?" but apparently you do much more than you should. Shifting and dilating crosshairs is just means to the same end: forcing the play to tactically choose between the ability to be mobile or the ability to be accurate. It's a mechanic meant to balance gameplay. The same way that I can run around with my Browning in Day of Defeat and hope that firing from my hip could work or I could make the choice to go prone, drop by bipod, and have accuracy but lose my ability to move quickly if spotted and attacked. It is meant to facilitate a choice between two incomparables for the player, both of which affect their ongoing survival.

Iron Sights are the exact same principle with a different mechanic to bring about the choice.

I have explained this.

They are NOT exactly the same because inherently ADS obscures your view of the target when you should get a good look at the target out of your left eye and still see if the sights are lined up with the target through the right eye.

Also it is one less button, the occupation of one less finger, to activate this greater precision, it is automatic.

A Belt Fed Machine gun like a Browning M1917 REALLY WOULD have to be fired from the hip as it doesn't have a shoulder stock, weighs 14 kilograms and doesn't have any good points to lift it up to eyeline. Hipfire, true hipfire with the weapon hanging around the hip level, would be the only way to fire this weapon while standing. You'd have to get down to a solid surface and deploy bipod/tripod to use the weapon's crude sights to shoot the weapon while aiming.

I don't think such huge and cumbersome weapons such as heavy-calibre belt-fed machine guns should be compared with the likes of a 2.5kilo M1 Carbine or Sub-machine Gun.

 

[Squilookle]

My god- 8 pages later and this thread is still just going around in circles! This thread, in a nutshell, is this:

Treblaine: Gun aiming in real life is like crosshair aiming due to the parallax effect.

Everyone else: Disagree. Parallax is not what crosshair aiming is simulating at all.

That's IT! That's all that's being said, over and over again! Nobody will be able to convince Treblaine he's got it wrong, and he's not going to be able to convince anyone else that he's right!

 

[Treblaine]

First off, you're saying that the shooter's non-aiming eye would see something like the side view of the weapon shown in traditional FPS games. As many have pointed out much more sarcastically, the width between your eyes is not great enough to show that much of a perspective change. The distance between the inside tips of your eyes is probably little over an inch. If you take a ruler and put the end of it over the center of your right eye, and see what part of it is over the center of your left eye, you will probably get something around 2.5"-3.5". That is nowhere near enough to justify that perspective difference. Hell, on some of those games' weapon models, you can see part of the stock on the "shouldered but not ADS" view. If you were really using the weapon sights, your cheek would be there, so you would not be able to see that part of the weapon.

The distance between each eye may seem small, parallax doesn't need much of a shift for a huge difference in perspective. It may not be exactly on but it is close enough in principal.

What makes more sense is if you cant your head towards the aiming side a bit. This lowers and moves the weapon further away in the left-field perspective.

Part of your claim is that the weapon placement in traditional FPS layouts could be viewed at the view seen from the non-aiming eye while the actual aiming is done with the other eye. The issue with this is that the eye with which you are aiming is almost always your dominant eye, meaning that the image from it is going to be a bit more prominent. That's the reason why you are using it to aim. You would not just aim through the sights, get a good sight picture and then focus entirely on your left eye. Aiming through the sights, especially offhand with no rest, and moving around, can be quite difficult. You have to constantly readjust as your body movements and breathing shift the weapon around.

True I did say that, I now realise the perspective would still have to show significantly what the right side of the right eye sees that would be obscured by the bridge of the nose from the left eyeball. The weapon stock is then shown in the gap as it is a square television and its more complexity than it is worth explaining that that part under your cheek wouldn't be visible. Again, it's more realistic to be abstract than to try to be literal with a forced one-eye perspective.

Remember, with both eyes open you have a 90-degrees field of view to fill on screen.

Games do this in different ways but I still think it's been highly retro-active (after A.D.S. mechanic became popular) to declare that such classic perspectives "aren't ever using the weapon sights".

That's my argument, that a games does not have to show a COD style ADS view for the in-game-character to actually be using the sights.

The point I'm getting at is this: what you actually see when using two-eyes-open shooting while aiming down the sight (I'm talking about real-life, now) is the weapon's iron sights, much like you would see in a video game, except a bit faded. Now, one of you main gripes with ADS perspectives is that you can't see the areas where the weapon's sights are. I can understand this, and it's true if you did shoot with both eyes open in real life you would have a bit of peripheral vision there, but your focus would still be on the sights (am I stressing that too much? If I am it's because it's important). Personally, in my experience in airsoft and target shooting when I was a kid, and in the Army when I got older, I use two-eyes-open for shorter ranges (especially in close quarters when speed is more important than pin-point precision accuracy), while using only one eye at longer ranges; say, anything 200m or over with an M4. I just feel like I get a clearer view of the front sight post with one eye.

SIDE NOTE: This is why I *LOVE*LOVE*LOVE* reflex sights like an Aimpoint M68 or EOtech. With these it is extremely easy to keep both eyes open, since the aiming reticle only really shows up for your aiming eye, AND you have an unobstructed view for a decent-sized area around your point of aim anyway. And on top of all that, you don't need to worry about lining up sight posts. Too easy.

Yes, the moment you pull the trigger to fire your focus is on the sights, but you don't need a separate button for every minutia of eye movement and focus, just show both on screen. It's too much using up finger space for "am I focusing on the sights or surroundings" when the game can put both in focus. You (the human at the screen) just focuses on a different part of the screen.

Now I realize I may have sounded a bit pedantic earlier, but stick with me here. Back in the day, when I was playing Counter-Strike and Medal of Honor: Allied Assault on my PC (two games without iron sight aiming, except for scoped weapons) I eventually found myself simply fixating on the crosshairs, and feeling like the weapon was just this immovable *thing* in the lower right. With Counter-Strike I always preferred weapons with a slight zoom (like the AUG and the SIG) because I felt like I was actually aiming and being more tactical. When the original Call of Duty came along (first game I played with iron sights on all weapons), I immediately preferred it over MoH:AA because the weapons felt more "real". You could place the front sight post of your weapon exactly over the point you wanted your shot to go, rather than putting your enemy in the middle of the space your crosshairs are surrounding. I'm getting into aesthetics here, but to me looking through a sight is almost as important a part of firing a weapon as pulling the trigger. It also fit my play style better. I still remember stalking through the hallways in Stalingrad, peering through the sights of my MP44, relying on my ability to quickly engage and eliminate targets before they can shoot me, rather than trying to shoot them and simultaneously dodge out of the way as you see in more run-and-gun-style games.

Well they didn't just give more "realistic aiming" but an actual advantage too in significant zoom and also apparently a reduction in recoil. How much were you liking the better weapon because they facilitated your marksman like tactics with your zoom advantage, they are a bigger target while to them you are smaller? What suits a player hanging back and waiting for targets doesn't make it suitable for EVERY WEAPON IN THE GAME! Such as for directly storming the strongholds making the M4 is so inaccurate unless an ADS mechanic is implemented. Which is my problem with the likes of COD.

Think about it, the A.D.S mechanic suited YOUR tactics "peering through the sights of my MP44, relying on my ability to quickly engage and eliminate targets before they can shoot me" but forcing such a mechanic on more mobile player suits YOU, who sounds like you are being quite campy and discourages direct assault. And that's what I'm against, gameplay mechanics that favour the camper when really you can move quite swiftly with being fairly accurate with your weapon and still with great clarity while aiming.

I'm sorry for this to become personal but you brought your personal preferences into this as a basis of why you like such things, I am looking at how a game can't give such an accuracy advantage to campers. There is nothing wrong with PLAYERS who camp, it genuine is a legitimate strategy you are playing by the rules of the game, my problem is wit a GAME that rewards such camping. Camping has to have its pros and cons as if there is no disadvantage then it becomes a camp fest.

I get that you have a weapon preference and playstyle, but think about how it would be to force your playstyle on those who don't play in your role that cannot be the only role.

Which kind of brings me to my last point. Really, your problem with ADS shooting is that you just don't like it, and that is why you came up with this justification why you think the traditional FPS view is just as/more realistic. For me, ADS just feels more realistic and the traditional FPS view feels less so, in my case because I've handled a weapon enough that my brain has a preconceived notion of what to expect when I'm using one. That's really what it comes down to, is personal preference (which is why we're seeing so many argumentative posts in this thread). And if an aspect of a game like ADS makes the experience more immersive for some players, then why can't we have games that include it?

Finally, let me just add that I'm not saying all FPS games should have ADS. Hell, as much as I like being all TactiCool in a Call of Duty-type game (for absolute realism, my favorite game is still the original Operation Flashpoint), I can have just as much fun in Unreal Tournament or another run-and-gunner. Instagib rifle FTW

OK, if you read that entire thing, you are awesome.

TL;DR: For many people, myself included, the ADS adds an aesthetic of realism (because it IS more realistic than the traditional FPS view), and that is as important a part of making a realistic-feeling game as any other.

"you just don't like it, and that is why you came up with this justification why you think the traditional FPS view is just as/more realistic"

You are putting the cart before the horse that the case with me is:

"I don't like it, therefore I misrepresent is as unnecessary to realism"

But it really is:

"I find it it IS unnecessary to realism, hence I dismiss it and dislike it's being seen as necessary"

Look if you are using both eyes open aiming then you don't need a button or key-hold to switch between using sights and a clear view, you can get both at once as your eyes with both eyes open would perceive the world.

You still never addressed how "both eyes open" perspective could be properly depicted, I made the case that the classic depiction does serve that very well.

" And if an aspect of a game like ADS makes the experience more immersive for some players, then why can't we have games that include it?"

OK, have it as an OPTION. Have it there as a key that you can map to shift should you want to and have it do the equivalent of merely closing the left eye, but don't have it make the weapon more accurate, more controllable or more aim-assist than otherwise.

A matter of gameplay preference, not gameplay advantage.

 

[Darkmantle]

When a real soldier is moving his gun is low, by the hip. When he shoots he brings the gun so he can properly aim. Saying that ADS is unrealistic is silly. Saying firing from the hip should be accurate is silly and unrealistic. No solider walks around with his weapon up and his head cocked awkwardly to the side all the time.

It sounds like you just want to go back to the days of perfect accuracy no matter what you are doing, running, jumping, firing from the hip, etc. I hate playing those games because of the pieces of shit that jump everywhere they go to present a harder target. THAT WAS SOOOOOOOO REALISTIC.

 

[Viking67]

My god- 8 pages later and this thread is still just going around in circles! This thread, in a nutshell, is this:

Treblaine: Gun aiming in real life is like crosshair aiming due to the parallax effect.

Everyone else: Disagree. Parallax is not what crosshair aiming is simulating at all.

That's IT! That's all that's being said, over and over again! Nobody will be able to convince Treblaine he's got it wrong, and he's not going to be able to convince anyone else that he's right!

"Nothing to be done."
"I'm beginning to come round to that opinion."

 

[minimacker]

I never really got the whole "super close aiming thing". Especially with handguns. You don't put your handgun to your cheek to aim. You have your arms straight out and your gun at the end.

A rifle, however, you use your shoulder to hold it high, allowing you to tilt your head and aim through a scope, or the sights.

So, in the fashion or TL;DR. When you go into "ironsights mode", the gun shouldn't move to the center; your HEAD should move to the right.

 

[Treblaine]

My god- 8 pages later and this thread is still just going around in circles! This thread, in a nutshell, is this:

Treblaine: Gun aiming in real life is like crosshair aiming due to the parallax effect.

Everyone else: Disagree. Parallax is not what crosshair aiming is simulating at all.

That's IT! That's all that's being said, over and over again! Nobody will be able to convince Treblaine he's got it wrong, and he's not going to be able to convince anyone else that he's right!

Not forgetting all the posts that don't even register the part where I talk of the parallax effect and don't think the weapon sights are being used at all. Like for exmple this post:

On a realism note, have you ever gone paintballing or fired an air rifle atleast? I wouldn't even dream of firing from the shoulder without also aiming down the sites because my eyes don't know where the gun is going to fire (hint: no crosshairs in real life)

I think a possibility is that so many are so conditioned by Call of Duty and all the derivatives that hammer home the point that only when you hold the aim-down-sight button can you possibly be using the weapon's sights and that any crosshair on screen are just a representation of "feel" when firing from the hip without the weapon being shouldered.

Anyway. Both eyes open is the advanced way of shooting that is most highly valued and not hard to learn. And with that there is a wide unobstructed field of view and aiming with the sights. I'm addressing the points that others aren't.

 

[Treblaine]

When a real soldier is moving his gun is low, by the hip. When he shoots he brings the gun so he can properly aim. Saying that ADS is unrealistic is silly. Saying firing from the hip should be accurate is silly and unrealistic. No solider walks around with his weapon up and his head cocked awkwardly to the side all the time.

It sounds like you just want to go back to the days of perfect accuracy no matter what you are doing, running, jumping, firing from the hip, etc. I hate playing those games because of the pieces of shit that jump everywhere they go to present a harder target. THAT WAS SOOOOOOOO REALISTIC.

"Saying that ADS is unrealistic is silly."

No one in this thread has said that, have they. The title of this thread is that ADS is UNNECESSARY for realism, so if it wasn't there, that doesn't make it unrealistic. Not that it being there IS unrealistic.

"Saying firing from the hip should be accurate is silly and unrealistic."

Where did anyone say that? Do you not get the parallax part? Do you think I said that? Where did you get this idea from? CoD?

For one you are quite wrong that soldiers ever fire their rifle from the hip, they shoulder the weapon always if just to control the considerable recoil that comes from such high power cartridges and high rate of fire. Soldiers are trained to hold a rifle with it shouldered, Military style 3-point slings are all about making it easier to hold the weapon in the shoulder constantly, in a combat zone their weapon is always ready and pointing where they are scanning for enemies.

You may hate hitting moving targets as that means they are being active players bringing the fight, at least they are doing something more active than camping. If you are having trouble hitting moving targets and you aren't moving yourself, you are camping. You cannot demand even more advantage above and beyond sitting and waiting in position. And it's not like this isn't balanced adequately with dilating crosshair if you go run and leap around like a fool.

 

[GloatingSwine]

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

The point has never been about realism.

The point of aim-down-sights in an FPS is to make a tradeoff between increasing your accuracy (doing it usually reduces the spread of your weapon) and reducing your mobility.

Make yourself more vulnerable to make your shooting better, are you in a position to safely do that or are you willing to risk making yourself an easier target?

Counterstrike since 1999 and numerous other FPS games have implemented such a trade off where crosshairs dilate as you move without being in crouch, like shifting from "looking through sights" to "looking over top of barrel".

The thing is the good old was was not to the extreme extent of COD where the shifting into ADS so clearly favours campers who got into position before and wait..

Aim down sights also reduces your FOV though, it's not the same as standing still in CS (and, indeed, most games still do the same conefire expansion if you move), because you're not just moving slower, you're seeing less. It only favours campers in a game where the maps and game structure is set up to reward camping otherwise (or, y'know, quickscoping, which is less about aim down sights and more about officially sanctioned aimbotting)

 

[TotalerKrieger]

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

The point has never been about realism.

The point of aim-down-sights in an FPS is to make a tradeoff between increasing your accuracy (doing it usually reduces the spread of your weapon) and reducing your mobility.

Make yourself more vulnerable to make your shooting better, are you in a position to safely do that or are you willing to risk making yourself an easier target?

Counterstrike since 1999 and numerous other FPS games have implemented such a trade off where crosshairs dilate as you move without being in crouch, like shifting from "looking through sights" to "looking over top of barrel".

The thing is the good old was was not to the extreme extent of COD where the shifting into ADS so clearly favours campers who got into position before and wait..

Aim down sights also reduces your FOV though, it's not the same as standing still in CS (and, indeed, most games still do the same conefire expansion if you move), because you're not just moving slower, you're seeing less. It only favours campers in a game where the maps and game structure is set up to reward camping otherwise (or, y'know, quickscoping, which is less about aim down sights and more about officially sanctioned aimbotting)

Have to agree with GloatingSwine, ADS generally reduces peripheral vision by having the weapon obscur a large area of the screen while also blurring the surrounding area. In your system, you could have the screen zoom in and blur around the edges when the player is stationary or crouching signifying that the he/she is aiming down the sights, but it still does not account for the fact that a simple reticle is far less of a hinderance than being forced to actually use ironsights. It makes run-and-gun gameplay unrealistically easy.

As for camping..camping behaviour is far truer to actual combat than running around like a bunch of headless chickens or having two teams repeatedly crash into each other head on. IMO, the more realistic the game, the slower the pace becomes (ie more "camping", recognizing distant movements, predicting enemy postions, realistic engagment ranges, marksmanship which actually borders on difficult, etc). If a COD or BF player joins a Red Orchestra 2 game and starts complaining about "campers", they are typically mocked by the entire server. In RO2, proper defence requires a team to find a good positions and hammer anyone who comes into sight...the "best defence is a good offense" strategy typically results in the defenders being annihilated. It is suicidal for attackers to charge positions head on, requiring them to use cover/smoke to flank the defenders or rely on artillery, MGs and snipers to clear/surpress defenders before moving into position.

I would say your system is indeed better suited to more action oriented shooters such as COD or BF as the playbase seems to have certain notions as to how firefights should be conducted (ie no camping, massive focus on reaction times and close quarters combat, etc)...however, there is no way you could claim that the resulting gameplay is in any way realistic.

 

[Treblaine]

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

The point has never been about realism.

The point of aim-down-sights in an FPS is to make a tradeoff between increasing your accuracy (doing it usually reduces the spread of your weapon) and reducing your mobility.

Make yourself more vulnerable to make your shooting better, are you in a position to safely do that or are you willing to risk making yourself an easier target?

Counterstrike since 1999 and numerous other FPS games have implemented such a trade off where crosshairs dilate as you move without being in crouch, like shifting from "looking through sights" to "looking over top of barrel".

The thing is the good old was was not to the extreme extent of COD where the shifting into ADS so clearly favours campers who got into position before and wait..

Aim down sights also reduces your FOV though, it's not the same as standing still in CS (and, indeed, most games still do the same conefire expansion if you move), because you're not just moving slower, you're seeing less. It only favours campers in a game where the maps and game structure is set up to reward camping otherwise (or, y'know, quickscoping, which is less about aim down sights and more about officially sanctioned aimbotting)

Come on, even in COD there isn't consistently an FOV reduction with A.D.S and it isn't very great, only the equivalent loss in FOV you'd get from closing one eye, which kind of supports my argument that ADS is closing one eye when most highly trained shooters (like thoe who have to shoot to survive) aim with both eyes open.

And all this FOV reduction ever does is give even more of an advantage to campers, in "room clearance" operations it just takes that little bit longer to scan around for a target while the guy aimed at the pathway not only heard you coming but has such an advantage in getting the first accurate burst off.

Maps don't reward camping, game mechanics do. And by game mechanics, I don't mean guys in overalls who fixes games, Patches to multiplayer games are almost always done to characters and weapons not to map design and for maps only when there is a game breakign glitch like the ability to spawn camp from the other end of the map.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

And all this FOV reduction ever does is give even more of an advantage to campers, in "room clearance" operations it just takes that little bit longer to scan around for a target while the guy aimed at the pathway not only heard you coming but has such an advantage in getting the first accurate burst off.

Isn't this realistic though?...a defender SHOULD have a massive advantage, they are typically concealed if not positioned behind cover, aware of an enemy approaching and have their weapons in a stable stationary position. Is that not why fragmentation and flashbang grenades are routinely used in room clearing operations, so as to give an attacker a fighting chance to succeed? Why should he be able to stumble through a doorway unharmed and blast a bunch of guys in sort sort of tacticool old-west style showdown.

Any bottlenecks created by campers CAN be fixed by good map design (more than one way to advance, ability to flank and engage camper, blah, blah, blah).

 

[Treblaine]

And all this FOV reduction ever does is give even more of an advantage to campers, in "room clearance" operations it just takes that little bit longer to scan around for a target while the guy aimed at the pathway not only heard you coming but has such an advantage in getting the first accurate burst off.

Isn't this realistic though?...a defender SHOULD have a massive advantage, they are typically concealed if not positioned behind cover, aware of an enemy approaching and have their weapons in a stable stationary position. Is that not why fragmentation and flashbang grenades are routinely used in room clearing operations, so as to give an attacker a fighting chance to succeed? Why should he be able to stumble through a doorway unharmed and blast a bunch of guys in sort sort of tacticool old-west style showdown.

Any bottlenecks created by campers CAN be fixed by good map design (more than one way to advance, ability to flank and engage camper, blah, blah, blah).

I am talking about gameplay mechanics, you cannot get out of this with a hypothetical un-campable map.

And the point about the REAL TECHNIQUE OF AIMING AND SHOOTING WITH BOTH EYES OPEN is that it is realistic to have such a wide un-obstructed view, and the only practical way to represent that is with a floating crosshairs that represent the front sight.

Yes, campers/defenders have SOME inherent advantage from how they can get to position and point their reticule right in the correct place, but the cod style aiming mechanics give them EVEN MORE advantage on top of that.

Yet US and allied forces have been raiding terrorists hideouts at a highly successful rate for over a decade now, that is because they move fast and aim accurately. I don't know precisely how they do this but they do, and they do use advanced training techniques that involve things like aiming with both eyes open. I don't want to beggar the point of how the Marine Corps might do things but it bears mentioning that games don't have to pander to this supposed "realism" of camping like a claymore being a sure fire strategy. It can be done and not just through flash bang spam.

I thing CoD mechanics have tied in far too much with non-professional shooting techniques (closing non-dominant eye) to create the false impression that a dedicate COD-style aim down sight mechanic is necessary to avoid being totally pants-on-head unrealistic, that games like Counterstrike and Left 4 Dead are so ridiculous for not having aim-down-sights that they might as well also have jet packs and rocket jumping, that onscreen crosshairs on on the same level as that.

I'm arguing that that is not the case. That ADS isn't necessary for that kind of realism considering what is the only way to depict the important parts of both eyes open Aiming.

 

[Treblaine]

I think ADS systems were added for a more realistic feel, not realism, of putting a person in the sights when you pull the trigger for dramatic affect and to make it worth using in an FPS it had to have an advantage which was increased(perfect) accuracy and in some cases aim assist and coincidentally(purposely) gave a better advantage to consoles than it did to PCs.

The problems that I have are:

1. ADS systems do not have proper negative affects to claim realism, you move slower, that's it, if anyone has tried walking at all with the iron sights of any gun trained for perfect accuracy they know that it is a struggle to keep the sights aligned at all let alone perfectly. Although all gun aiming in games has the same problem.

2. To concentrate on keeping your iron sights accurate you cut your field of view by at least a third and a quarter of whats left is a fuzzy out of focus nose.

I'm willing to accept most things as gaming magic but if any company claims ADS use for realism here is what they need to do.

Iron sights should have the accuracy of the normal reticle when moving at all and also shift with motion and movement only becoming as accurate as they are now when not moving at all.
Put a third of the FOV out of focus.
Decrease normal reticle accuracy by 100-150%, so people will have a reason to use iron sights again.
Remove the slight zoom it gives you, I know the zoom doubles as the decreased FOV but it gives an unfair advantage.

In most games these days using ADS almost turns your gun into a laser, so much for that gritty realism.
That's my 2 cents

WHAT!!!!!

That shifts the balance EVEN MORE toward the campers who have an inherent advantage of moving to the ideal position and pointing themselves in the right direction in advance, now they can shoot straight and the other person cannot!?!? This is like trying to play chess where the opponent always get 2 turns for every turn you get.

All the effects you describe as necessary for realistic ADS come from amateur shooting practices that are ironed out with the training a character would have in a game where they have to shoot to survive. For example both eyes open would be open to give a clear view, and you can aim quite well while moving swiftly if you practice rather than just try it once. It is in fact possible to ride a bike, yet people riding a bike for the first time will think it impossible for how often they fall off.

Yes at any instant whe aiming down sights there is blurring where you aren't focusing, but the practicality is that in real life you can shift your focus any time very quickly, and it would be impractical to have a control under you fingers to change precisely where the focus is for what is an almost automatic action by your eyeballs. Just put it ALL in focus. Remember, your eyes will put the peripheral of the screen out of focus to some extent, don't need double blurring by your eye AND the camera.

 

[R0cklobster]

I'd like to point out that having a zoom function isn't necessarily unrealistic; it gives a better approximation of the real thing because when you're looking at a screen, there's a very large difference in 'resolution' b/w that and real life. In essence, a firearm on screen is much smaller than in real life, hence why it's harder to shoot w/o zooming in slightly. This is why such a feature is included in the Arma games.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Your left eye would see something like this:

While your right eye looking down the sights sees this:

The gun in this picture is 603 MM long according to the sources i could dig up, this is from the sight to the end of the barrel so in this picture from the characters eye to the end of the gun. The whole gun is 838mm including stock. The angle between the gun and the horizon in picture one is 32 degrees (i actually used a protractor to do this).

Using Pythagoras the distance between the characters eyes in this case is: about 32 cm for it to be possible to see the gun at this angle. That is NOT realistic. Its also a hilarious image. Imagine being able to fit an entire wooden spoon between your eyes. This is the distance required to see the gun at this angle.

So basically for your left eye to see that your head has to be half a meter wide. Okie dokie.

Realistically firing from the hip is sometimes a practical solution. Arma2 is the most realistic though, combat with real guns takes place at 100's of meters away because being shot in real life is fucking scary so soldiers keep their distance and dont blindly charge in. You would never fire from the hip at this distance. Its almost inconceivable.

EDIT: Incorrect math corrected, still rediculous eye distance.

Will present workings if asked.

 

[m19]

It does help realism because (at least when done this way) it takes time to bring the sight to your eyes just like in real life.

But more importantly it helps with the feeling of authenticity. Because feeling is what it's all about. No such thing as a realistic game.

 

[Laurents van Cauwenberghe]

I'm one of those folks that doesn't give a right (or left) shit about realism in games, so I have to put the question of whether the realism is ever really gonna be real anyway, and if it's not...does that invalidate even the need for this argument?

brother?

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Your left eye would see something like this:

While your right eye looking down the sights sees this:

The gun in this picture is 603 MM long according to the sources i could dig up, this is from the sight to the end of the barrel so in this picture from the characters eye to the end of the gun. The whole gun is 838mm including stock. The angle between the gun and the horizon in picture one is 32 degrees (i actually used a protractor to do this).

Using Pythagoras the distance between the characters eyes in this case is: about 32 cm for it to be possible to see the gun at this angle. That is NOT realistic. Its also a hilarious image. Imagine being able to fit an entire wooden spoon between your eyes. This is the distance required to see the gun at this angle.

So basically for your left eye to see that your head has to be half a meter wide. Okie dokie.

Realistically firing from the hip is sometimes a practical solution. Arma2 is the most realistic though, combat with real guns takes place at 100's of meters away because being shot in real life is fucking scary so soldiers keep their distance and dont blindly charge in. You would never fire from the hip at this distance. Its almost inconceivable.

EDIT: Incorrect math corrected, still rediculous eye distance.

Will present workings if asked.

You're wasting your breath (so to speak), the OP does not respond to posts that point out that this:

is nothing like what you see with your left eye or with both. Or he just repeats himself and ignores the point. He also does not respond to posts that point out that iron sights are essential to the experience of aiming down iron sights and cannot be realistically portrayed with a view that does not include iron sights. It doesn't matter if that is what you see with your left eye (you know, even if it was). It's like simulating fishing by standing in water and just imagining the rod and the fish.

That's the only reason this thread is still going. If you just type enough words, maybe the obvious will go away. Good work with your investigation though, hehe.