Aim-Down-Sight is unnecessary for realism

[Spearmaster]

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.

I'm just speaking to the reality of a real shooting situation, I've handled guns all my life and know the difficulty of achieving 100% iron sight accuracy while moving over terrain. There is no magic training to have perfect accuracy with iron sights while moving, granted you can move and stay on target just not the way you can do it in a video game and not 100% of the time. I always thought the standard reticle was a shouldered ready position for a gun while not a hip shot it is less accurate but it is how most soldiers are trained to move for using iron sights they are trained to shoot from a rest if possible for accuracy. Shooting while moving is done in 2 instances, Hollywood and in desperation, never as a practical means for accuracy.

Shifting the balance? Ill tell you a fact, campers have all the advantage in real life to. if you want balance keep it the way it is now, but if they used the screen focus like I talked about it would be possible to get around a campers blind spot, then again even when people are using sights at a rest(camping) they usually don't use them for looking around, they pick their head up and use the sights only when ready to shoot. Games are games, I was just talking about uber-realism which we lack a control mechanism to achieve anyway so even the best will always seem fake.

 

[Frostbite3789]

List of very popular PC games without any standardised ADS mechanic:
-Left 4 dead 1 & 2
-Team Fortress 2
-Half Life series
-Tribes Ascend
-Quake Live
-FEAR and FEAR Combat
-STALKER series (OK, a little bit of ADS, sometimes)
-Minecraft? (it's got a bow)

I think it is the mouse and lack of Aim-assist which is a factor.

Those are all completely run and gun based games.

Counter point: Killing Floor and Red Orchestra.

If you don't use ADS in either of those, you're that idiot who dies really quickly and nobody wants to play with in both games. Both are PC exclusive.

It does sound like you like a style of game and think every game should follow that style. Also TF2 Sniper has a scope. That's ADS buddy. A scope is a type of sight.

EDIT: STALKER? Really? lolno.

 

[Frostbite3789]

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!

You're right! It was all a ploy to get his post count even higher! Run! Run for the hills!

 

[WanderingFool]

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!

You know what, you're right. This is just like any number of troll threads made on the Escapist...

Could a Mod close this shit? I think everything that can be said has been said by page 2.

 

[Bocaj2000]

snip

That's why I always like Rainbow Six: Vegas 2. If you like aiming down sights, you can do that; if not, it doesn't matter. The bullets always go where the cross-hair would be.

Good post btw. Sorry about all the butthurt from everyone else

 

[Kiju]

Personally? I like being able to aim down the sights of whatever weapon I'm using.

Perhaps it doesn't add realism, but it does add one thing that hip fire does not: Control.

If I am aiming down the iron-sights intentionally, it means that I will be having more control over where I'm aiming, and what I'm shooting at. If what you're saying is true, you technically shouldn't be able to aim at hip-fire without having completely wide shots with no accuracy and horrid recoil, save for when you're using a shotgun, where those two things don't matter at all.

Besides, the thing you don't quite get is that when you're using Iron Sights, you're taking the weapon from being at hip position, to being at shoulder position, where it is properly held for firing. It gives you more accuracy, more recoil control, and you can use the sights that were built into the gun instead of guestimating where the reticle is. The closest thing to actual realism I've found in a shooting game is through Killing Floor: there's no reticle at all, and you have didly for accuracy unless you put the gun in iron sights.

In other words, if they want actual realism, they'll have both hip fire and iron sights. Hip fire for spray and pray with no accuracy and horrid recoil, but it works for close range. Iron sights, meanwhile, will be the exact opposite: less reaction time to enemy movements, but more precision and less recoil, since you have the butt of the weapon against your shoulder.

 

[Treblaine]

I'm just speaking to the reality of a real shooting situation, I've handled guns all my life and know the difficulty of achieving 100% iron sight accuracy while moving over terrain. There is no magic training to have perfect accuracy with iron sights while moving, granted you can move and stay on target just not the way you can do it in a video game and not 100% of the time. I always thought the standard reticle was a shouldered ready position for a gun while not a hip shot it is less accurate but it is how most soldiers are trained to move for using iron sights they are trained to shoot from a rest if possible for accuracy. Shooting while moving is done in 2 instances, Hollywood and in desperation, never as a practical means for accuracy.

Shifting the balance? Ill tell you a fact, campers have all the advantage in real life to. if you want balance keep it the way it is now, but if they used the screen focus like I talked about it would be possible to get around a campers blind spot, then again even when people are using sights at a rest(camping) they usually don't use them for looking around, they pick their head up and use the sights only when ready to shoot. Games are games, I was just talking about uber-realism which we lack a control mechanism to achieve anyway so even the best will always seem fake.

So are you saying that even when using sights they shouldn't be laser accurate. Well that's the case with Left 4 Dead style crosshairs, they almost never completely constrict but still very narrow. The crosshairs dilate when moving and even more when firing to be very inaccurate.

The thing is there are always going to be more places where a camper can hide than there are paths people can storm in, narrowing field of view the way you cant favours the camper and is impractical as it acts like the user is unable to easily shift their eyeball and point of focus whenever they want.

 

[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!

You know what, you're right. This is just like any number of troll threads made on the Escapist...

Could a Mod close this shit? I think everything that can be said has been said by page 2.

Well thanks for ignoring the part on the binden aiming concept and eye dominance and the examples and counter examples.

The problem is so many people posting without reading the original post and telling me I am wrong when they think I said something I never said.

 

[Treblaine]

List of very popular PC games without any standardised ADS mechanic:
-Left 4 dead 1 & 2
-Team Fortress 2
-Half Life series
-Tribes Ascend
-Quake Live
-FEAR and FEAR Combat
-STALKER series (OK, a little bit of ADS, sometimes)
-Minecraft? (it's got a bow)

I think it is the mouse and lack of Aim-assist which is a factor.

Those are all completely run and gun based games.

Counter point: Killing Floor and Red Orchestra.

If you don't use ADS in either of those, you're that idiot who dies really quickly and nobody wants to play with in both games. Both are PC exclusive.

It does sound like you like a style of game and think every game should follow that style. Also TF2 Sniper has a scope. That's ADS buddy. A scope is a type of sight.

EDIT: STALKER? Really? lolno.

What do yo mean "Run and gun games"? Conventionally is means 2D bullet rain games like Contra or Metal Slug. If you are broadening that to it's literal definition then that would include the likes of call of duty as that is certainly about running and gunning.

You counterpoint doesn't mean much as my argument is not "there aren't any PC games without aim-down-sights" but "Look at all these hugely popular PC games without ADS showing it doesn't need it" whereas the big console FPS games are moving in a definite trend towards ALL having ADS as a standard mechanic. Even Halo 4, Bulletstorm that pandered so much to the console audience.

Red Orchestra uses aim-down-sight very differently from its most common console iteration, as part of their idea is no HUD elements at all and that you do need to directly manipulate the sights to adjust for bullet drop and windage. But if you aren't doing that but are instead trying to represent the likes of COD or Counterstrike realism.

Sorry, I haven't played much of stalker, I held the "zoom" button and the crosshairs on my pistol only constricted and it had no effect on my shotgun, I never tried it with a rifle before I ended up with a load of corrupted save files.

I can go on with my list of no ADS-as-a-standard-mechanic for PC centric games;
-Serious Sam 3
-Necrovision
-Serious Sam HD
-Painkiller
-Duke Nukem Forever
-RAGE
-Prey
-Counterstrike 1.6, Source, and Global Ops.
-Unreal Tournament 3
-Battlefield 2142 (unless a specific scope is mounted)
-Far Cry

Not saying these were all well received but on PC (DNF *shudder*) there was no clamour for Aim-down-sights like there was on consoles.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Well first of all I did say "something like that" not "exactly like that".

And YEAH, present you working. That's pretty fundamental. Answers without working is worthless.

And this bit doesn't make sense:

"The angle between the gun and the horizon in picture one is 32 degrees. Using Pythagoras the distance between the characters eyes in this case is: about 32 cm"

That doesn't make any sense, the angle from the horizon only says how much the head might be canted. You can see this for your self, close left eye and looking through right eye line up a ruler looking down the length of it. Now close your right eye and open left, if your head is level then the ruller will appear exactly to your right. But if you do this again but cant/tilt your head to the side, as if you are leaning your head over to use the sights, then the left eye view will see the ruler relatively lower and the angle between the ruler and the horizon has gone up from zero to about 30 degrees YET THE DISTANCE BETWEEN MY EYES REMAINS THE SAME!

You can't measure the angle from horizon and infer distance between eye and line of sight.

I think something is definitely off with your calculations as though you mock the idea of the eyes being 32cm apart, a 32cm distance would mean the weapon's rear sight would be 32cm to the right that means the weapon is WAY WAY off to the side of the body, the stck no in the shoulder, not under the arm but OUTSIDE the shoulder. And from this angle where you couldn't possibly see the rear sight yet in such images you can.

Right now I am trying to figure out how to ACTUALLY measure the distance between the centre-line of aiming and the right line of sight down the sights and it has nothing to do with measuring the angle from the horizon that changes continuously with however the head may be canted/tilted. I mean did you factor the field of view into your calculations?!?!?

 

[Treblaine]

*Angles I assert are irrelevant*

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.

I do in fact respond to such posts just not immediately, I give them meaningful consideration and with other things I'm busy with it takes time. And I don't appreciate such unsubstantiated allegations, how can I correct for something I am not doing????!?? I'm answering peoples questions and raising points.

"he just repeats himself and ignores the point."
2 sentences later:
"It's like simulating fishing by standing in water and just imagining the rod and the fish."

Post number 200 you said:

"it seems like trying to make a fishing sim more realistic by cutting out the rods-and-reels to make room for more realistic wind and waves. It's missing the core of the experience."

Now consider what you've said about me and how it might apply to you.

You repeat this irrelevant analogy as there isn't such significant parallax or obstruction with a fishing rod to remove it and has nothing to do with wind and waves, but there IS PARALLAX AND OBSTRUCTION when aiming down sights with both eyes open. That is the point you are ignoring.

Let me lay my prejudices bare. I'm not obsessed with guns. I'm interested in the mechanics of shooting but I don't get any kind of buzz from looking down weapon sights, I am highly utilitarian and objective focused and the obscuring aspect of aiming down sights is a problem that I know is solved by the shooting technique of keeping both eyes open. And how can the improved view of both-eyes-open be represented and the traditional FPS view is already 90% there.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

Workings will answer all the questions. Basically what we have at first is this:

When you look at something obviously both eyes focus on the same point. Your pupil is angled toward the point that you are viewing for both eyes. In this case this is the forward sight. We know the length of the gun is 838mm entirely and 603mm from sight to muzzle from using military specs and other sources i used to determine gun length. The red lines represnt eye line and the blue line represents distance. Field of vision isnt needed because both pupils must stare directly at the same thing. Failure to do this is a disorder called boss eyedness.

Now i use both images to determine the angles. Lets turn the image i posted first to be from the perspective of your left eye rather than of your right eye like image one:

The orange line is the horizon. I measured 32 degrees from horizon to the gun angle from that eye line. This means our angle at the top is 58 degrees.

Because we are dealing with the same angle on two different triangles we can use this 58 degrees in picture one. Its a right angle triangle so we know the angle between the eye and the gun is 32 degrees. Because we have a right angle triangle with an angle and a length we can apply trigonometry (my bad on saying Pythagoras, that's wrong):

Heres an image of what we are dealing with now:

Using trig, we have the opposite of our angle (32 degrees angle which i totally did wrong in the picture but eh) which is 608mm and want the adjacent which is the eye distance. So all i did was 608tan32 which actually gave me... 379mm. Balls i wrote that down wrong didnt i (i used pen and paper for this and must have seen that 7 as a 2). Oh well it still means we have 38 cm (give or take) of space between the eyes. Any questions?

EDIT: Please be aware that i have NO idea what level of math you are educated to. This isnt meant to be patronizing or overly complicated. I have no idea what applies for you. Ill explain as much as i can but theres only so much i can do. If you have any gifted maths friends get em to look over my working.

 

[Treblaine]

SNIP

Workings will answer all the questions. Basically what we have at first is this:

When you look at something obviously both eyes focus on the same point. Your pupil is angled toward the point that you are viewing for both eyes. In this case this is the forward sight. We know the length of the gun is 838mm entirely and 603mm from sight to muzzle from using military specs and other sources i used to determine gun length. The red lines represnt eye line and the blue line represents distance. Field of vision isnt needed because both pupils must stare directly at the same thing. Failure to do this is a disorder called boss eyedness.

Right, OK problem RIGHT AWAY. The front sight DOES NOT extend to the point where he lines of sight converge.

The lines of sight converge on the blue reticule which is exactly in the centre of the screen, it is projected off to infinity. If you could extend the barrel endlessly then the barrel would be infinitely long before it converged with the sight as the distance between them asymptotes with the barrel length.

Consider this:

A= point and angle of convergence
B= Right eye
C= Left eye

(a) = distance between eyes

The lines (b) and (c) lines of perspective from the left eye and down the weapon sights (that I propose the right eye looks down).

lines (b) and (c) are INFINITELY long.

Yes, the gun does follow the line but from the perspective it fills the majority of your view but the lines still go on forever. Knowing the length of the gun CANNOT tell us how long line (c) is as it only covers and indeterminate proportion of its length. Line (b) goes on forever, it is right straight down the line of perspective, and the line of the weapon sights eventually converge with that line.

So what is angle A? It is zero, or so close to zero it might as well BE zero. It has to be otherwise any number would lead to line (a) being astronomically huge or infinite, as infinity x tiny number = infinity. That means that Angle B is 90 degrees or as close to 90-degrees that it ever matters but pointing in the EXACT same direction.

I know the lines of perspective go off to infinity as the reticule's position never shifts in the screen no matter where it points and at extreme long ranges the bullets still land in the reticule.

Now i use both images to determine the angles. Lets turn the image i posted first to be from the perspective of your left eye rather than of your right eye like image one:

The orange line is the horizon. I measured 32 degrees from horizon to the gun angle from that eye line. This means our angle at the top is 58 degrees.

Because we are dealing with the same angle on two different triangles we can use this 58 degrees in picture one. Its a right angle triangle so we know the angle between the eye and the gun is 32 degrees.

It's clear you haven't read what I said, how the horizontal of the picture is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the angle where the perspectives converge. And think about what you are saying, you are saying that the line of camera perspective and line of the gun converge at an angle of FIFTY EIGHT DEGREES!! The weapon sights converge with the centre-line of the camera perspective with proportions like this:

the vertical line is the camera perspective, the diagonal line is the direction the gun is pointing. Who fires a gun pointing THAT direction relative to where they are looking.

That's obviously wrong. The weapon cannot be further than 20CM to the right of the perspective without being held way from the body without even trying to line up the right eye with the sights. I know the angle and the opposite length in a right angle triangle, so I can find the adjacent length, it's only 12 centimetres.

According to your calculations that gun has the bullets whizzing by the centreline of the perspective only 12cm from the face.

Your maths fails.

Because we have a right angle triangle with an angle and a length we can apply trigonometry (my bad on saying Pythagoras, that's wrong):

Heres an image of what we are dealing with now:

Using trig, we have the opposite of our angle (32 degrees angle which i totally did wrong in the picture but eh) which is 608mm and want the adjacent which is the eye distance. So all i did was 608tan32 which actually gave me... 379mm. Balls i wrote that down wrong didnt i (i used pen and paper for this and must have seen that 7 as a 2). Oh well it still means we have 38 cm (give or take) of space between the eyes. Any questions?

No, that line of perspective is NOT 608mm, the weapon does not extend to the point of convergence, it's an irrelevant measurement, you've just found a number and randomly stuck it in there and your angles are INSANE! You would have noticed this if you hadn't made the 58-degree angle appear smaller than the 32 degree angle. This is the worst trigonometry I have ever seen, this is atrocious. You've applied good maths tot totally illogical measurements.

This is the problem with an education system that just gives you unambiguous data and doesn't teach students to question and apply critical thinking, just plug in the numbers and see what comes out and not think for a second if it makes any sense. You're just following a conformational bias of "hurr, that's too far apart to be for the right eye" while it's ALSO too far apart to even hold the weapon!!! You'd have to extend your arm out the the side and precariously point the muzzle.

Could we please get someone in here who can glean ANYTHING accurate from such perspectives.

Actually no. It's not supposed to be exact, it's highly variable from where the weapon would be pointing as that would change where the point of convergence was.

 

[Guffe]

Funny how people are arguing about this xD
Just do like Samus Aran and have a handcannon instead, takes away all problems!

 

[duchaked]

the first bit just talking about the faux-realism of ADS was interesting, though the bit at the end about consoles-etc def derails it all
then again there's not as much to talk about based on the aiming system alone. it makes sense in real life, tho in video games you get the reticle regardless (not shown in example pic) sooo idk. game devs pick and choose, but it's the rest of the game that makes or breaks the game ultimately since I feel like both aiming systems are common enough in games.

 

[Mirroga]

Are Sniper Scopes not part of the Aim-down Sights? Sorry, I'm not very savvy when it comes to gun knowledge.

 

[Darkmantle]

I like how even after being proven mathematically wrong the OP is still fighting.

Aiming down sights is realistic, running with your head cocked to the side at full speed and accuracy is not.

I get the you like a certain style of FPS, but stop trying to shit on all the other styles please.

 

[Treblaine]

Are Sniper Scopes not part of the Aim-down Sights? Sorry, I'm not very savvy when it comes to gun knowledge.

I don't mean "Aim-down-sight" literally, I mean the mechanic that has been popularised on console by COD of EVERY WEAPON utterly depending on holding a button to aim down sights.

Weapons with such high magnification scopes should need such high zoom sight apparatus to be used or not used but it is entirely possible and practical to aim down non-zooming weapons sights almost constantly, only breaking when running or sprinting and looking back through when you need to.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Right, OK problem RIGHT AWAY. The front sight DOES NOT extend to the point where he lines of sight converge.

The lines of sight converge on the blue reticule which is exactly in the centre of the screen, it is projected off to infinity. If you could extend the barrel endlessly then the barrel would be infinitely long before it converged with the sight as the distance between them asymptotes with the barrel length.

Im treating this as a real picture of a real gun. As such the reticule in the screen isnt anything to do with my math. Im using the forward sight as the focal point (which is where your right and left eyes would be looking if it WAS a real gun) and working forward from there. The distance your eyes are focusing on is not infinite. It is the sight. The reticule is taking this into the field of the games rules. We are not talking about the games rules. We are talking about how real life rules look when applied to a picture of a game. Youve said the picure is meant to represent someone looking down the sight with their right and left eye. Thats fine. But it still means the real life focus point is the forward sight.

It's clear you haven't read what I said, how the horizontal of the picture is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the angle where the perspectives converge. And think about what you are saying, you are saying that the line of camera perspective and line of the gun converge at an angle of FIFTY EIGHT DEGREES!! The weapon sights converge with the centre-line of the camera perspective with proportions like this:

the vertical line is the camera perspective, the diagonal line is the direction the gun is pointing. Who fires a gun pointing THAT direction relative to where they are looking.

That's obviously wrong. The weapon cannot be further than 20CM to the right of the perspective without being held way from the body without even trying to line up the right eye with the sights. I know the angle and the opposite length in a right angle triangle, so I can find the adjacent length, it's only 12 centimetres.

According to your calculations that gun has the bullets whizzing by the centreline of the perspective only 12cm from the face.

The games maths fails.

Im saying the picture is ridiculous when actually thought about in real life dimensions? Yes. When did i deny this. Thats the entire point. According to the game this IS happening. And as you have rightly pointed out it IS ridiculous. It is obviously wrong isnt it? Shame the picture shows us thats how it is. Im taking the games (obviously inaccurate) measurements and talking about how silly they are in real life. It would mean stupidly far apart eyes. It would mean holding the gun to your side. It shows the picture doesnt stand up to real world math. At this point im no entirely sure what point youre trying to make. If i was talking about a real picture youd have a point. But im picking apart a game picture. They entire point of my exericse was to show it makes no sense in reality and how the angles and distances make impossible real world scenarios (like you pointed out). This game isnt constrained by real lifes rules since the perspectives can be warped to make no real sense but look practical. Obviously a real picture would show real perspectives.

All youve done is say "Well THATS impossible". Well no shit. Its a game. It isnt real life. The entire point im making is it IS impossible. This is a failure of the game being unable to properly simulate real life.

All youve done is attack me over the entire point i was trying to make: The picture makes zero sense.

No, that line of perspective is NOT 608mm, the weapon does not extend to the point of convergence, it's an irrelevant measurement, you've just found a number and randomly stuck it in there and your angles are INSANE! You would have noticed this if you hadn't made the 58-degree angle appear smaller than the 32 degree angle. This is the worst trigonometry I have ever seen, this is atrocious. You've applied good maths to totally illogical measurements.

Well youve been very rude and confrontational but whatever. Ill give you the fact a moving head would change measurements. I didnt factor in head turning either. Im trying to work with what i can see in the picture. The point where your vision (using real life rules) converges is at the front sight. Using real life rules im dissecting the picture. It obviously makes no sense as youve pointed out many times. If I dissected the picture and all the measurements made real life sense you would be right. But they dont. So my point that the picture is impossible and impractical is correct.

Ill go apply my maths to a real picture and see if i get real life results alright?

 

[Treblaine]

I like how even after being proven mathematically wrong the OP is still fighting.

Mathematically? Throwing irrelevant numbers together is not a mathematical proof. Do you understand the maths that BiscuitTrouser has used? How his calculations suggest the weapon is firing at such an extreme angle across the body rather than down the centreline of the vision?!?!

Aiming down sights is realistic, running with your head cocked to the side at full speed and accuracy is not.

I get the you like a certain style of FPS, but stop trying to shit on all the other styles please.

First you badmouth lack of ADS as unrealistic then you say I should not shit on other styles.

Do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion?

I am right now looking at perspective geometry at how from the camera perspective's FoV measure where the right rear sight actually is, what are you doing?