Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hvolute

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader
  1. Ridiculous accuracy.

    And here again we are not accounting for the fact that the wind effect is almost certainly not fully felt. And you also keep picking very high wind speeds, when the standard speed used is usually 10mph.
  2. Ridiculous accuracy.

    -No I am not. You are dead set on thinking it wasnt a joke because you need it to make your self look smart. You dont know what you are talking about. Obviously any statement, like the one I made earlier, that generalizes about the effects of wind is assuming all relevant data. Your response to this was to claim I was wrong and vacuously post a ballistics chart as if that proved me wrong. If you had known what you were talking about beyond a face value reading of a data table you would not have responded by trying to refute my broad statement with something so stupidly specific.
  3. Ridiculous accuracy.

    K. Here we go. "I said it didnt have a significant effect under most conditions at NORMAL COMBAT RANGES." That bit about the hurricane was obviously hyperbole. I did not literally mean a 75mph wind. That should have been fairly obvious given context. I guess am going to keep having to break down this statement, word by word, until you figure this out. BTW, your entire quoted post here is a perfect example of what I meant by how you use data incorrectly, most likely because you do not have much experience on the real thing. IN REALITY: You rarely see the full effects of wind. Actual end result bullet drift is rarely the full effect for a given wind speed because several other factors contribute. For starters, only wind perpendicular to your bullets flight path is going to give you the full effect of the wind. For a 10mph wind, M855 has about 12 inches of drift. Anything less than a direct crosswind results in less than 12 inches of drift. Also the wind speed at the target, and the wind-speed at the muzzle are often not the same, and terrain is almost always such that the wind interference along the bullets flight path is not consistent. Even if you use holds at these ranges, they are tiny. Wind UNDER MOST CONDITIONS is a negligible effect when firing at a man sized target. It isnt just a factor of pure wind speed. Under 300m it is unlikely that, given all the other factors involved, wind will affect whether or not you hit the target. But you keep on posting charts like you know what you are talking about.
  4. Ridiculous accuracy.

    You are a defensive narcissist of the highest order. Your ego is showing. And you continue to misquote me. I did not say wind had no effect at ANY range under 1km. I said it didnt have a significant effect under most conditions at NORMAL COMBAT RANGES. You would have to have one hell of a wind at 300m or less. The U.S. army does not even really bother with training people on wind compensation for qualification. There is a reason for this: at typical ranges the only thing that matters is getting the fundamentals down. Trigger squeeze, sight picture, getting good zero, breathing technique, etc. You can take a civilian who has never fired a rifle and have him knocking down 300m pop ups without teaching him a thing about wind. I qualify several times a year and I have never once needed to screw with wind adjustments even on windy days. So unless Im fighting in a hurricane, I dont know what you are one about. Again, my suspicion that you have no time on a real rifle, continues to increase. Your accent and flag give me a pretty good idea of your chances of owning one of these weapons for your private use. And as I have already said the manner in which you use facts out of the context real experience would give you increases my suspicion. Ill let people make their own decision about whether I am being a pretender or not. Quite frankly, I could care less if you believe me or not. Anyone who also has my experience will know who is telling the truth here. I joined in 2008 and I am still in.
  5. Ridiculous accuracy.

    Good, it will be nice to see you finally show yourself out.
  6. Ridiculous accuracy.

    -I said that there was virtually no discernible misalignment. Not none. If there is some error that actually matters, its an issue of technique and the shooter can fix this on the fly. If you introduce some kind of varying sight misalignment you wont be able to tell on a 2D screen between that and the weapon sway what is going on. This puts too many layers between the gamer and his actual controls. Your shift-key idea wont work because it will presumably be limited in time, otherwise it would just be on all the time. The end result of this will be players whose ability to fix their sight picture will be completely out of stem with tactical needs, since the actual battle is likely to night sync with the intervals between shift periods. -The point on user error is that any non-negligible (for a given practical range at a given practical stance) sight picture issue is purely a technique issue. It is not some random thing IRL, at least not to the degree that other issues would outweigh it so much that it would be meaningless to model. If the stance is stable enough that the weapon sway is not too great for a predictable shot at a given range, than any error in sight picture is a predictable technique based issue that the shooter can correct before he fires. Modeling this in a game is stupid because you dont have the controls in a game to do this, much less many other things. Doing some shift key thing is ridiculous because of the reason I stated above and the reason I stated here. The bottom line is that modeling sight picture in a video game is asinine. You are just going to end up with the RNG gun from hell, and players who cannot consistently predict the accuracy of their own shots. Since you want to go on about how I supposedly see eye to eye with you, let me clearly tell you where I dont disagree with you. I DO think that the completely stable standing and crouched focus is absurd. And I also think that MOA should be modeled. What you were calling "barrel inaccuracy ." But I do not agree with all of your suggestions in your first post, especially regarding how you specifically want to implement them in a game. Trying to represent every aspect of marksmanship will not result in realistic results in a video game. -I am also not the person who is showing ignorance here. I have qualifying on rifles and machine guns for my job for about 10 years. Your posts repeatedly make reference to fundamentals in a way that strongly suggests that you dont have much if any first hand experience. (and your accent and avatar suggest your nation of origin would make it next to impossible for you to have any significant experience.) Starting with your ridiculous use of shots per kill statistics and your most recent suggestion regarding wind Wing would affect the shots at 1000m but would be negligible under most circumstances at typical engagement ranges.
  7. Please Fix the visibility.

    -Yes accurate fire at 800m. Both with and without optics. Its really not remarkable at all. -The way squads work right now is not highly accurate. It functions like I said before, with a squad leader acting more like a forward observer than anything else. Everything the squad does is highly restricted because everything is so hard to see. -A zoom is not lazy. It is simply a fact of life when it comes to video games. Quite frankly a zoom takes me out of the game far less than being completely blind all the time to things that I should have been able to see. Squad right now feels alot like you are walking around in a haze compared to reality. The zoom is a analogue to things in the real world. Your eye does this without you noticing. See my above posts. There is no other way to fix this problem other than a zoom. The other things that need done like the LODS are also needed, but not because the zoom can be disregarded. Rather all of the fixes are needed to fix the problem as well as it should be. They all work together. The zoom is simply the thing with the biggest single effect that is the easiest and quickest to do. -People put optics on their rifles because optics give a number of advantages, especially depending on optic. BUT they do not have anywhere near the effect they do in squad. In squad a person with a 4x is a god and a person with irons is helpless. This is not the case IRL at ranges under 300m. And Squad does not show at all the advantages of red dots. -I have seen groups of people in different camo patterns moving and standing at distances of over a 1km. Its not that hard to spot them if they are just standing in the open. Concealment from camoflage does not at all work as well IRL as it does in squad, where a person who is simple the right color might as well have active camo. -
  8. Ridiculous accuracy.

    Another factor is that the M68 CCO is for some reason zeroed to 100m instead of the appropriate 300m.
  9. Please Fix the visibility.

    I cant stand war thunder, but I will give credit where credit is due. Despite not being a sim, the dev team for war thunder blew everyone out of the water when in comes to fixing vision in games. To be clear, I am not saying we need need any of the things WT did to fix vision. Im just linking this because it is a concise explanation of the general problem. https://warthunder.com/en/devblog/current/836 Some quotes: Nonetheless, practically 100% of games have a game resolution in the region of around 90 degrees. This is something of a compromise between the ~130 degree view of the human eye and the 30-40 degree view at which a human will correctly perceive the size of an object. The most noticeable thing that this compromise leads to is the corruption of perception of all sizes. For example, in the popular game Counter Strike, the size of the majority of maps does not exceed 200 meters, which is significantly less than the distance of an aimed shot from the majority of rifles, and even less than the use range of sniper rifles. As you probably realize now, the task of showing things in the game “like in real life” is extremely difficult. This is because technically realizing the quality of an object as perceived by the sharp human eye is impossible by more than a factor of two without sacrificing the angle of view (“zooming in” in the game does exactly that – turns the game camera’s viewing angle into one that roughly corresponds to the real resolution of the human eye). For this reason, most games use certain tricks for in-game objects.
  10. Please Fix the visibility.

    People shouldnt have to change their screens in order to play the game. Even a 4k 50 inch TV does not match human vision fidelity. I dont remember the exact specifics but to "match" human vision you need something like a 32 mega pixel screen that is the size of a move theater screen. Besides this, not everyone can afford to run high resolution or absurdly huge screens. I have both 4k and 1440p 27 inch screens. Neither fixes squads issues, or any other games for that matter. In fact, higher resolution in some cases leads to worse vision because of the corresponding pixel size. The game needs to developed from a software side to give realistic vision for a range of common displays. Its completely silly to insist that the user buy some monster screen that wouldnt fix the problem anyhow.
  11. Ridiculous accuracy.

    The problem with the logic of this is that you are trying to introduce RNG based on a large number of things that are not actually random in real life. A good shooter can establish a stable sight picture in which there is virtually no discernible variation. If the shooter has a proper cheek weld and knows what he is doing, the sight picture does not vary in the fashion you describe. Additionally, if there is an error in the sight picture, it is correctable by the use of proper technique. In a video game you would be forcing error on the player that the shooter should be removing themselves. It does not make any sense what so ever to induce error based on something the shooter controls IRL that the gamer has no control over what-so-ever. You might as well add different variations based on "training" to different factions. At which point you have reduced player agency to a degree that it makes playing nearly meaningless. In real life, if you point your weapon and miss inside of the weapons effective range, it is the shooters fault. You control sight picture, breathing, stability etc. If you miss, you screwed up. If you add random variation to sight picture, the player cant fix it. Whether or not their sights are on the moment they need to shoot will be dictated by chance, not player agency. The game should always assume that the player did certain things right. In other words, you are a competent rifleman. Sight picture should be assumed to be correct. Adding reasonable sway in crouched and standing unsupported positions will make things plenty accurate enough. Sway in supported positions should essentially be nothing. You have to consider that even if there is a minuscule amount IRL, copying that 1 to 1 doesnt necessarily make sense because we are working through a different interface with its own issues. -Having the mechanic as visible or not btw doesn't really matter to me. I just want a delay on how long it take for the sight picture to be in that "correct" position.
  12. Ridiculous accuracy.

    I think it is being forgotten that accuracy like this in game only happens when you know the exact range. The longer the range the more that matters. That is why alot of you are just now noticing this, because this isnt what happens in matches. That being said, I agree that the perfect accuracy in a standing position is inappropriate. For a prone position, I am fine with perfectly steady aim. For crouched or standing it is a bit absurd. However. I do not agree with the OP's specfic solutions. Especially the idea of having sight picture modeled. The best system to me would just be a delay on a perfect SP, not actually screwing with peoples sights. The reason for this being is that any attempt to do this in game will not be realistic at all due to differences between how we control games and how this works IRL. It also needs to be considered that the extremely accurate standing aim might exist as a stand in for the fact that we cant rest our weapons on objects as of yet, which is a major issue.
  13. Please Fix the visibility.

    -With regards to engaging enemies at 200m: Absolutely. 200m isnt even all that far. basic rifle qual is a 300m. It is relatively easy to hit a sub-man sized target at 300m with a M4 (from the prone that is). Qualifications for machine guns get out past 800m. Etc Etc. Typical combat ranges are dictated by terrain more than anything else. -The binos arent a substitute for a zoomed freelook, or vision fixes in general, because you have to get off your weapon and it takes too much time. Its turns spotting things into a weird meta game. -The big problem with incorrect viewing distances (whether you shoot or not) is how it affects tactics. People in squad right now are far too aggressive over open ground. They can also move too freely over areas because they cannot effectively be observed. It also creates a stupid effect where the squad leader is basically leading his squad of merry blind mend around. The squad leader right now is more of a forward observer for his 8 direct fire artillery than he is a infantry leader. -You cant fix the vision properly without a zoom. contrast and lod adjustments and AA adjustments will solve much of the default FOV issues, but not others. These fixes would for example, general spotting at range, but only to a point. They would not fix at all the much needed ability for people to pick out details at realistic ranges. Like uniforms, gear, cover etc. -The issue of reflex sniping is a problem for sure. This is why I advocate a delayed invisible cross-hair like PR had. This forced the player to track the target for a second or so before firing if the engagement wasn't point blank. It prevented snap shots and alot made reflex sights like the M68 more realistic since they had much faster alignment since they do not really require proper sight picture. -I still dont get really why you dont like the zoom. You seem to be fine with a more substantial ADS zoom, just not one outside of ADS. The problem with this is that you could not freelook, and you would be stuck ultra zoomed in ADS. Which means I can use unzoomed ADS when im close to the enemy. I still fail to see what seems so unnatural to you about a toggle zoom for observation. To me it seems like a fairly standard game feature. It also makes alot of sense from the perspective of the human eye. Your eye has a small focus area (I think its like 30 degrees or something) and like 160 degrees of perifperal vision. So to me it makes perfect since to simulate this with two different FOV.
  14. Please Fix the visibility.

    Not at all. A video game is an abstraction. Its literally impossible to do a 1 to 1 simulation of every thing in the game even if you wanted to. So said abstraction (the game) must be designed so that the many abstractions that make up the game (the mechanics) sum total to effective realism. So for squad, effective realism more or less means equivalent tactics to the real world as close as possible. We want rifles to act like rifle. We want infantry to fight as close as possible to how real infantry would fight. The same for tanks, artillery etc. So you always must design around this. This is the entire logic around the suppression system. And it is the reason that when the DCS devs implemented a extremely sophisticated missile aero model without a equivalent guidance model, you ended up with missiles that were NET less realistic. Air combat went from taking place at 20nm to taking place at 6. This sort of thing applies to all "sims" to use that word lightly. Every mechanic must be designed so that the end result mirrors real world functionality as close as possible.
  15. Please Fix the visibility.

    hold right clock, not just click. I dont see how this is kinky. I mean how does that word even apply here? The entire game engine is kinky, and as is every other game for that matter. Presuming waht you meant by kinky was cheesy. It isnt any more kinky than not being able to properly see things above 100m. Or Toss grenades like Brett Favre. Or having a suppression effect that disturbes your vision in order to simulate a need to keep your head down. Abstractions require abstractions in order to gain effective realism.