Jump to content
steffenbk1

Iron sight zoom better in post scriptum

Recommended Posts

On 23/01/2020 at 6:34 PM, warrior6 said:

 

the zoom is meant to represent 'focus' which you can't do through a game monitor. when aiming in real life you don't zoom but you can change your focus on your eyes so that things further away are easier to see. The only way for the game to represent this is with zoom. 

This is absolutely untrue and a completely out of date justification. It was true 20 years ago on 20 year old engines, but it's completely untrue now. The hyperfocal distance for humans is only about 6m. If you're looking at something any further away from that, the focus of your eyes will not substantially change if you focus on something even further away.

 

I already addressed the resolution limits of human vision compared to unzoomed vision in 1920x1080 Unreal 4 above; the zoom in game unequivocally represents superhuman vision and people who argue that it's necessary to replicate human visual acuity have seldom tried to spot camouflaged, obscured or partially occluded objects at long ranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Vewt said:

This is absolutely untrue and a completely out of date justification. It was true 20 years ago on 20 year old engines, but it's completely untrue now. The hyperfocal distance for humans is only about 6m. If you're looking at something any further away from that, the focus of your eyes will not substantially change if you focus on something even further away.

 

I already addressed the resolution limits of human vision compared to unzoomed vision in 1920x1080 Unreal 4 above; the zoom in game unequivocally represents superhuman vision and people who argue that it's necessary to replicate human visual acuity have seldom tried to spot camouflaged, obscured or partially occluded objects at long ranges.

That is untrue.

The "focus" isn't all about the eye; it's about what your mind processes.

Same reason why you notice more of what's going on(or at least in more detail) in center of screen as opposed to edge of screen. (how games get away with VRS)

Since this is a game; the only way to increase the amount of detail you can notice is by zooming(or increasing resolution but that only works up to a point until hardware improvements are required - which widens the gap between different levels of hardware, which is not such a great thing, almost all decent competitive fps games make resolution almost irrelevant or even detrimental - as in case of CSGO at times, when people use stretched-out lowres for competitive edge)

Remove the "focus" zoom and you're basically telling people to get better monitors.  Because in-game(even at 4k) ironsight without zoom is *far* from what the naked eye can see.

Thus, to better represent the capability of naked eye,  a bit of zoom is needed.  (doubles to lower competitive edge of better-resolution monitors) 

So it's more realistic and gameplay-friendly(on top of lowering differences in monitor resolutions, it also makes scopes less dominant, which is only a good thing as scopes are less tired to gameplay balance and instead can be distributed more for realism) to have the zoom.
Same reason why the guns were made to sit closer to screen when ADS because your eyes are not physically touching the screen.

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Vewt said:

the zoom is meant to represent 'focus' which you can't do through a game monitor. when aiming in real life you don't zoom but you can change your focus on your eyes so that things further away are easier to see. The only way for the game to represent this is with zoom

11 hours ago, Vewt said:

This is absolutely untrue and a completely out of date justification. It was true 20 years ago on 20 year old engines, but it's completely untrue now. The hyperfocal distance for humans is only about 6m. If you're looking at something any further away from that, the focus of your eyes will not substantially change if you focus on something even further away.

 

I already addressed the resolution limits of human vision compared to unzoomed vision in 1920x1080 Unreal 4 above; the zoom in game unequivocally represents superhuman vision and people who argue that it's necessary to replicate human visual acuity have seldom tried to spot camouflaged, obscured or partially occluded objects at long ranges.

 

I think the truth is in between. With picture in picture you could simulate a focus and replace zoom by supersampling. Theoretically of course. 

 

EDIT: Basically what ecchi says in the post above.

Edited by Pharanaiton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, EcchiRevenge said:

That is untrue.

The "focus" isn't all about the eye; it's about what your mind processes.

Same reason why you notice more of what's going on(or at least in more detail) in center of screen as opposed to edge of screen. (how games get away with VRS)

Since this is a game; the only way to increase the amount of detail you can notice is by zooming(or increasing resolution but that only works up to a point until hardware improvements are required - which widens the gap between different levels of hardware, which is not such a great thing, almost all decent competitive fps games make resolution almost irrelevant or even detrimental - as in case of CSGO at times, when people use stretched-out lowres for competitive edge)

Remove the "focus" zoom and you're basically telling people to get better monitors.  Because in-game(even at 4k) ironsight without zoom is *far* from what the naked eye can see.

Thus, to better represent the capability of naked eye,  a bit of zoom is needed.  (doubles to lower competitive edge of better-resolution monitors) 

So it's more realistic and gameplay-friendly(on top of lowering differences in monitor resolutions, it also makes scopes less dominant, which is only a good thing as scopes are less tired to gameplay balance and instead can be distributed more for realism) to have the zoom.
Same reason why the guns were made to sit closer to screen when ADS because your eyes are not physically touching the screen.

This is inaccurate and illogical in the extreme. If increased visual acuity when aiming down sights is a matter of mental focus as your premise states then players can apply that without any in game zoom because it's a mental process.

 

Your assertions that the naked eye can see better than a squad player with a 4k monitor are contradicted by experimental observation even at 1080p, and are theoretically contradicted by even cursory knowledge of optical theory, human anatomy and how graphics engines work. Aiming over open sights doesn't result in any kind of increased acuity or clarity in real life. Aiming down optical sights and peep sights does, but that's because of perfectly mundane optical properties. The phenomena you're describing is neither a mental nor a physical process because it doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Vewt said:

This is inaccurate and illogical in the extreme. If increased visual acuity when aiming down sights is a matter of mental focus as your premise states then players can apply that without any in game zoom because it's a mental process.

 

Your assertions that the naked eye can see better than a squad player with a 4k monitor are contradicted by experimental observation even at 1080p, and are theoretically contradicted by even cursory knowledge of optical theory, human anatomy and how graphics engines work. Aiming over open sights doesn't result in any kind of increased acuity or clarity in real life. Aiming down optical sights and peep sights does, but that's because of perfectly mundane optical properties. The phenomena you're describing is neither a mental nor a physical process because it doesn't exist.

This is inaccurate and illogical in the extreme.

It doesn't matter how mentally focused you are at center of screen if the pixel count remains the same.

No, they don't.
You don't actually know how it works.

It works IRL.
https://www.wideopenspaces.com/shooting-1000-yards-iron-sights/ 

 

In Squad...good luck even seeing anything without zoom at 500m+ (even with 4k monitors; I don't even play at anything as low as 1080p anymore so I don't remember exactly how shitty it was, just that it was shit) even assuming viewrange extends that far in first place.


" experimental observation " - That means nothing...  Since I see no real data from you, it's probably because you're just making it up as you go.

To think you could have avoided all this embarrassment if you had just tested in firing range in Squad.

Nice try at hiding the lack of substance with fancier wording, though. ;)

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Ecchi. From experience irl hitting a stationary man-sized target at 500 yards with iron sights is easy even with an AK. In squad, hitting a target at 300 yards with iron sights is near impossible even with the zoom feature. Scopes are already too dominant. If they removed the zoom feature for irons, scopes would need a rebalance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/01/2020 at 11:49 AM, EcchiRevenge said:

This is inaccurate and illogical in the extreme.

It doesn't matter how mentally focused you are at center of screen if the pixel count remains the same.

No, they don't.
You don't actually know how it works.

It works IRL.
https://www.wideopenspaces.com/shooting-1000-yards-iron-sights/ 

 

In Squad...good luck even seeing anything without zoom at 500m+ (even with 4k monitors; I don't even play at anything as low as 1080p anymore so I don't remember exactly how shitty it was, just that it was shit) even assuming viewrange extends that far in first place.


" experimental observation " - That means nothing...  Since I see no real data from you, it's probably because you're just making it up as you go.

To think you could have avoided all this embarrassment if you had just tested in firing range in Squad.

Nice try at hiding the lack of substance with fancier wording, though. ;)

Those are peep sights in your link. I already talked about peep sights ("Aiming over open sights doesn't result in any kind of increased acuity or clarity in real life. Aiming down optical sights and peep sights does, but that's because of perfectly mundane optical properties."). Peep sights do provide increased acuity. There are no peep sights in game.

 

I shoot competition open sling at 500m using peep sights. I also have qualifications in optics (Cert IV) and ten years of military service. You could have saved yourself the embarrassment by reading the whole thread before posting about experimental evidence and telling me to go to Jensen's Range:

To demonstrate, go to Jensen's Range and look at the man-sized targets; each are about 0.3m wide. This is convenient because human ocular resolution is 0.0003 radians which subtends to 0.3 meters at 1km. In other words the smallest thing that a human with normal vision can register is 0.3m at 1km. Focus on the 1000m targets and knock two over then unzoom and take a screenshot - the final target is rendered and is visible in 1920x1080 (by far the most common resolution) even at max FOV despite the fact that a 0.3m target at 1km is less than 1/3 of a pixel wide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vewt said:

Those are peep sights in your link. I already talked about peep sights ("Aiming over open sights doesn't result in any kind of increased acuity or clarity in real life. Aiming down optical sights and peep sights does, but that's because of perfectly mundane optical properties."). Peep sights do provide increased acuity. There are no peep sights in game.

 

I shoot competition open sling at 500m using peep sights. I also have qualifications in optics (Cert IV) and ten years of military service. You could have saved yourself the embarrassment by reading the whole thread before posting about experimental evidence and telling me to go to Jensen's Range:
 

 

Peep sights are only part of the equation, and only demonstrated the fact that it's possible.

"There are no peep sights in game." - funny how you pretend to have years of military service yet never heard of M4/M16 ironsights.

To think you could have avoided all that embarrassment if you had just dropped the sad attempt at insisting on a strawman argument(that somehow I was referring to visual acuity).

You little quote pretends it's visible when it's a dot on a screen that you wouldn't have known was a "man sized target" if you did not already look at it with zoom(plus knowing it's on the range)...
Now tell me how focusing on the screen manually, without zoom, would tell it's actually a target if it's just a dot?
You can't.  That's why zoom is needed.

1km target through Kornet:
JgUi6Qb.png

1km target ADS no zoom:
fTWP1KD.jpg
1km target ADS no zoom (AA off):
zlbkbPp.jpg

Btw, that's at 1440p(CAS: 80%).

You clearly didn't actually play the game.

You tried; you failed, leave discussion about the game to people who actually play the game, m'kay?

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EcchiRevenge said:

Peep sights are only part of the equation, and only demonstrated the fact that it's possible.

"There are no peep sights in game." - funny how you pretend to have years of military service yet never heard of M4/M16 ironsights.

To think you could have avoided all that embarrassment if you had just dropped the sad attempt at insisting on a strawman argument(that somehow I was referring to visual acuity).

You little quote pretends it's visible when it's a dot on a screen that you wouldn't have known was a "man sized target" if you did not already look at it with zoom(plus knowing it's on the range)...
Now tell me how focusing on the screen manually, without zoom, would tell it's actually a target if it's just a dot?
You can't.  That's why zoom is needed.

1km target through Kornet:
JgUi6Qb.png

1km target ADS no zoom:
fTWP1KD.jpg
1km target ADS no zoom (AA off):
zlbkbPp.jpg

Btw, that's at 1440p(CAS: 80%).

You clearly didn't actually play the game.

You tried; you failed, leave discussion about the game to people who actually play the game, m'kay?

Firstly, M16 and M4 irons are not peep sights - they are rear aperture and front post which produces no increased acuity in the way that rear and front apertures do. Secondly, we are talking about visual acuity. Thirdly, the targets are visible in your pictures. Fourthly, a 0.3 meter target at 1000m is at the absolute limit of human perception - not human identification - ie you should just be able to make it out if you know it's there and conditions are good, which is exactly how the game portrays it.

As I said earlier:

Spotting something at such a range for a human is not easy but it's possible and it's the same in modern game engines - it's possible but only if you're trying very hard and conditions are good. In other words, giving ironsights and unmagnified optics zoom is actually giving players "super" vision equivalent to something like 20/15 vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Vewt said:

Firstly, M16 and M4 irons are not peep sights - they are rear aperture and front post which produces no increased acuity in the way that rear and front apertures do. Secondly, we are talking about visual acuity. Thirdly, the targets are visible in your pictures. Fourthly, a 0.3 meter target at 1000m is at the absolute limit of human perception - not human identification - ie you should just be able to make it out if you know it's there and conditions are good, which is exactly how the game portrays it.

As I said earlier:

 

1. peep sights are just another name for those.  Only the rear needs to be ring(don't tell me you forgot M16 carry handle rear sight has a smaller aperture for longer ranges...).
2. no, you're trying to attack a strawman.  I was referring to mental focus while you were referring to "visual acuity."
3. false, you literally can't see it until you moved your mouse just enough for the game to decide that particular pixel is supposed to be black.
You only pretended to "perceive" it after I made it known, otherwise you wouldn't have.

The game can't even decide which colored pixel it wants to show at that range:
7YQA25M.png

This my picture previous(no AA) zoomed-in:
HVqYH7r.png

Here it is captured from 1080p(still no AA, zoomed in, 90deg fov):
345eSYW.png
What you don't like to admit is that at this kind of distance, game can easily decide that this particular pixel is same color as the ground and *not* let you see anything there. 

I bet you took a while fishing for the correct angle at which game finally picks a distinguishable color to draw there...

And I even gave you a huge handicap as all of my screenshots were taken while ADS...

Nice try.

4. as above, even assuming you were right about that one thing - this still doesn't fit 1km perception range(as pixel literally disappears from view).
Finally, I never said it was identification range...game engine has trouble at 1080p(not that 1440p is much better) even drawing a pixel in perceptibly-different color.

In conclusion, game mechanic/graphics failed, so did you.

 

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EcchiRevenge said:

1. peep sights are just another name for those.  Only the rear needs to be ring(don't tell me you forgot M16 carry handle rear sight has a smaller aperture for longer ranges...).
2. no, you're trying to attack a strawman.  I was referring to mental focus while you were referring to "visual acuity."
3. false, you literally can't see it until you moved your mouse just enough for the game to decide that particular pixel is supposed to be black.
You only pretended to "perceive" it after I made it known, otherwise you wouldn't have.

The game can't even decide which colored pixel it wants to show at that range:


This my picture previous(no AA) zoomed-in:


Here it is captured from 1080p(still no AA, zoomed in, 90deg fov):

What you don't like to admit is that at this kind of distance, game can easily decide that this particular pixel is same color as the ground and *not* let you see anything there. 

I bet you took a while fishing for the correct angle at which game finally picks a distinguishable color to draw there...

And I even gave you a huge handicap as all of my screenshots were taken while ADS...

Nice try.

4. as above, even assuming you were right about that one thing - this still doesn't fit 1km perception range(as pixel literally disappears from view).
Finally, I never said it was identification range...game engine has trouble at 1080p(not that 1440p is much better) even drawing a pixel in perceptibly-different color.

In conclusion, game mechanic/graphics failed, so did you.

 

I'll do this a little out of order since it's necessary to perhaps get it through to you why you're wrong:

2. We are literally talking about visual acuity. Visual acuity is literally the term for the topic we're discussing. Visual acuity is your ability to discern objects using you eyes. Whether "mental focus" in the sense you're talking about plays into it or not is irrelevant to whether or not visual acuity is the term. Concentrating really hard on things doesn't make your visual acuity superhuman; superhuman visual acuity in the context of what we're talking about is better than 0.0003 radians acuity.

1. I haven't heard single aperture sights called peep sights, and I shoot a lot, but I might be wrong. Either way it's irrelevant to the conversation: A single aperture will not give you superhuman acuity. A single aperture will at, at best, correct your vision if you have eyesight problems. Double apertures will increase acuity beyond 0.0003 radians acuity and produce a slight magnification effect.

3. I have recorded it as a video this time, because I think you're cooking your screenshots. You will see that at 1000m a .3m wide target remains very much discernible. Its precise characteristics do change depending on viewing angle, but even while moving around or changing point of focus it remains visible and I can't get it to disappear.
https://streamable.com/iqrhm
4. The pixel doesn't ever disappear when I record. You can go frame by frame and it's visible. Its optical qualities change because it's a subpixel entity so the graphics engine can't necessarily decide exactly what it should be showing me, but it's always visible. It actually shouldn't be visible at all unless it's at the exact centre of your screen; even 1 degree away from your exact optical centre it would be invisible in real life. At two degrees from your optical centre the target would need to be .6m across to be visible and at four degrees from centre it would need to be 1.2m wide. Halfway to the edge of your screen on 90FOV even a tank sized target would be invisible at that distance in real life. You, like many people who have never spent time trying to camouflaged things at reasonable distances, massively overestimate how good a MK1 eyeball is.

 

If you really, seriously think that you can spot targets more easily than you can in this game, or hell, take 1000m standing shots as easily as you do in this game, you're on drugs. Every piece of evidence out there will tell you that you can't including people that know far better.

 

Finally, for your edification I went to the shed and dug out my competency logbook so that you can stop slinging around your belief that I mustn't have been in the Army since I'm telling you that your beliefs about things are wrong. Unfortunately I can't find my 84 RoA or a few others so you'll just have to make do with my GSMG qual and take my word for the other thread that I qual'd 84 live fire and range supervisor for direct fire support weapon ranges.
https://imgur.com/a/0YvBG7S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Vewt said:

I'll do this a little out of order since it's necessary to perhaps get it through to you why you're wrong:

2. We are literally talking about visual acuity. Visual acuity is literally the term for the topic we're discussing. Visual acuity is your ability to discern objects using you eyes. Whether "mental focus" in the sense you're talking about plays into it or not is irrelevant to whether or not visual acuity is the term. Concentrating really hard on things doesn't make your visual acuity superhuman; superhuman visual acuity in the context of what we're talking about is better than 0.0003 radians acuity.

1. I haven't heard single aperture sights called peep sights, and I shoot a lot, but I might be wrong. Either way it's irrelevant to the conversation: A single aperture will not give you superhuman acuity. A single aperture will at, at best, correct your vision if you have eyesight problems. Double apertures will increase acuity beyond 0.0003 radians acuity and produce a slight magnification effect.

3. I have recorded it as a video this time, because I think you're cooking your screenshots. You will see that at 1000m a .3m wide target remains very much discernible. Its precise characteristics do change depending on viewing angle, but even while moving around or changing point of focus it remains visible and I can't get it to disappear.
https://streamable.com/iqrhm
4. The pixel doesn't ever disappear when I record. You can go frame by frame and it's visible. Its optical qualities change because it's a subpixel entity so the graphics engine can't necessarily decide exactly what it should be showing me, but it's always visible. It actually shouldn't be visible at all unless it's at the exact centre of your screen; even 1 degree away from your exact optical centre it would be invisible in real life. At two degrees from your optical centre the target would need to be .6m across to be visible and at four degrees from centre it would need to be 1.2m wide. Halfway to the edge of your screen on 90FOV even a tank sized target would be invisible at that distance in real life. You, like many people who have never spent time trying to camouflaged things at reasonable distances, massively overestimate how good a MK1 eyeball is.

 

If you really, seriously think that you can spot targets more easily than you can in this game, or hell, take 1000m standing shots as easily as you do in this game, you're on drugs. Every piece of evidence out there will tell you that you can't including people that know far better.

 

Finally, for your edification I went to the shed and dug out my competency logbook so that you can stop slinging around your belief that I mustn't have been in the Army since I'm telling you that your beliefs about things are wrong. Unfortunately I can't find my 84 RoA or a few others so you'll just have to make do with my GSMG qual and take my word for the other thread that I qual'd 84 live fire and range supervisor for direct fire support weapon ranges.
https://imgur.com/a/0YvBG7S

2. irrelevant because this is the simple concept of "paying attention."
1. They have always been used interchangably when referring to M16 rear sight.
Still yet to see you provide evidence this is the case.  (not to mention it's more about squeezing out accuracy by being more easily, intuitively, centered)
3. congratulations, you made closer targets disappear too:
PhOtqj1.png
There's your "frame by frame."

Next you're going to tell me you're a qualified hacker who can read in-between the matrix codes...
4. yes it does; pixel is what's displayed to you and, as proven above, it does disappear.
I literally just told you graphical engine has trouble deciding which color it displays...that's why it disappears.
That's a stretch about 0.6m target disappear when being so slightly off-center. [citation needed]

Implying others can't have spotted half-camouflaged targets out to 1km...which isn't even that far IRL.

Funny how you tried to throw in "take 1000m standing shots" into this as if this was ever about actually hitting the target(which this game has more bs mechanic for; such as unrealistic "ballistics").
I'm not on drugs and everything here just proves that you can spot something better IRL than in game, period.
The fact is that eyes are not seeing in large pixels.  Even if you pretend you can notice the disappearing black dot..., you're still missing rest of the information that the MK1 eyeball can acquire.

Except we're not talking about camouflaged things, these are black and white targets.
And your own video proved that this game doesn't make spotting these high contrast targets reliable at 1000m, even when knowing they're there.


Oh we're showing off our made up certs now?
I got one here: https://i.imgur.com/53kNP0k.png

 

Then again, you being from Australilag probably explains why you never heard of M16 rear sight.

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't keep discussion level headed and civil, then maybe drop the conversation. No point carrying on something when you both are clearly not going to meet in the middle and come to some sort of agreement.

If this discussion does continue, and continues down the road of personal jabs and willy swinging, time outs will be given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- IRL iron sight work even at 500yard , which is not the case in squad or any game (past 200m you are "pixel hunting" with your face at 5cm of your screen) : 

 

- IRL we dont have pixel or resolution. That why a game CANT be realistic for this kind of things and thats also why since the creation of the GPS genre, there is always a zoom (even a small) on iron sight.

- do you think this kind of gameplay is a "feature"?

- Its also the main cause of lot of imbalance in the game and why militia/rebel faction are rare. Its also the reason why nobody take kit/roles when there is no zoom. Its ridiculous, even when it work perfectly IRL (I'm looking at you m249 red dot), etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×