Tripwire Interactive Forums

Go Back   Tripwire Interactive Forums > Red Orchestra 2 / Rising Storm Forums > RO2/RS General > Ideas and Suggestions

View Poll Results: Disable freeaim in ironsight ?
Yes, make it fell like RO:OSTFRONT 12 19.05%
Yes, but make it a server option 2 3.17%
Yes, but make it a client option 8 12.70%
No, I like the ironsight as it is 41 65.08%
Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-15-2012, 11:24 AM
Partisan]Brice's Avatar
Partisan]Brice Partisan]Brice is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: France, near Lyon
Posts: 86
Default Disable freeaim in ironsight

The freeaim while hipshooting is really nice but the freeaim in ironsight feels so weird. That felt far better in RO:OST, that was the conclusion of an article about aiming in FPS from Nooky / NoFrag : http://translate.google.fr/translate...F22%2F37366%2F.

About RO2's ironsight :
« The sights are aligned. The field of view moves similarly to freeaim from hip.

This aiming is not impossible to achieve in reality, but it is equally unlikely and impractical that freeaim rectangle / deadzone (Arma 2 system). Here, as the field of view is not fixed, you will be able to move your head, but it will provide a huge effort of concentration and a lot of work on the arms and shoulders to keep a steady target. »

About RO:OST's ironsight :
« The sights are aligned in a realistic manner. The field of view moves with the weapon when moving the mouse.

This type of iron sight is both the simplest and most realistic. When you're aiming your weapon, you will position yourself to stabilize the entire upper body. To do this, you will create a block that will include both the weapon and the upper body. The head will position the eye in the axis of the gun and not move. To remain stable, you'll use multiple points of support: the hands, of course, but also where you hold the chest and the butt cheek that builds on top of the butt. This set is obviously not perfectly rigid, but is made to move in unison. Thus, when you're aiming at an objective, that is the entire upper body that will move and not the weapon or arms. This is because when you move the handlebars of your weapon, your field of vision will move exactly the same time as it, as in the game. »

Please check also that video that explaining it : [Dossier Nofrag] Visée iron sight - Video Dailymotion

edit : Erf poll mistake, "feel" of course and not "fell"
__________________


Last edited by Partisan]Brice; 04-15-2012 at 11:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-15-2012, 06:25 PM
Zetsumei's Avatar
Zetsumei Zetsumei is offline
Anti-Matter Games
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Falmouth UK
Posts: 12,457
Default

I don't like the implementation of free aim in ironsights. I have a lot of control over my arms in real life, even when carrying different forms of weight.

I know exactly through sensors in my body how much I move my arm or body to the left right. By making the movement of your gun actually varying dependant on its position of your screen you somewhat loose the connection to use the real life knowledge of your arm position.

So personally I don't mind free aim as long as moving your mouse x cm always corresponds to the same movement on screen. For smgs its not really important as you can quickly correct but for rifles its kind of annoying.

This is both easier for newer players, more intuitive and feels more realistic to me.
__________________

Last edited by Zetsumei; 04-16-2012 at 01:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-16-2012, 03:36 AM
Kerc Kasha Kerc Kasha is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 293
Default

I didn't like the free aim in ironsights at first coming from Ro1 but it grew on me and I found it much easier to make precise shots with the freeaim. So I'd be either for leaving it as is or making it a client option.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-16-2012, 01:11 PM
Mekhazzio's Avatar
Mekhazzio Mekhazzio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,104
Default

I think the constant freeaim is a great feature. It feels natural, and it gives you a way to seamlessly introduce simulationist behavior that would otherwise require intrusive (and counterintuitive) view adjustment.

I not only don't think it's excessive, I have the opposite perspective: I think RO2 under-utilizes it. Freeaim influence would be a great way of countering unrealistic mechanical accuracy on maneuvers like bolting, cover pop-up, snapping to aim out of a run, that sort of thing.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-16-2012, 07:47 PM
Golf33 Golf33 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 922
Default

Mekhazzio has it right. Snapping your aim quickly from one target to another is not at AFL easy in real life - weapons have weight and momentum, you overshoot and correct back and this involves dealing with the weight of the weapon.

Similarly, changing posture while trying to keep sights aligned is another thing that's just not going to happen in real life.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-17-2012, 10:29 AM
Vyllis's Avatar
Vyllis Vyllis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Versailles, France
Posts: 595
Default

Quote:
I think the constant freeaim is a great feature. It feels natural, and it gives you a way to seamlessly introduce simulationist behavior that would otherwise require intrusive (and counterintuitive) view adjustment.

I not only don't think it's excessive, I have the opposite perspective: I think RO2 under-utilizes it. Freeaim influence would be a great way of countering unrealistic mechanical accuracy on maneuvers like bolting, cover pop-up, snapping to aim out of a run, that sort of thing.
For this, i agree with you at 100%.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-21-2012, 07:10 PM
Partisan]Brice's Avatar
Partisan]Brice Partisan]Brice is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: France, near Lyon
Posts: 86
Default

So, in this case, most people seem to prefer an unrealistic feature than a realistic one ? Feel free to explain why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekhazzio View Post
I think the constant freeaim is a great feature. It feels natural, and it gives you a way to seamlessly introduce simulationist behavior that would otherwise require intrusive (and counterintuitive) view adjustment.
In a simulation, as explained above, in order to aim accurately and master the recoil, you have to form a rigid block with your upper body, your arms, your head and your weapon. Then if you move your weapon, your view will naturally move the exact same way, otherwise you lose on rigidy and you can't be accurate enough by aiming.

I can admit that for pistols and revolvers, the freeaim could be correct as it's quite impossible to form that rigid block, but it's insane about long guns the stock is braced against the shoulder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekhazzio View Post
I not only don't think it's excessive, I have the opposite perspective: I think RO2 under-utilizes it. Freeaim influence would be a great way of countering unrealistic mechanical accuracy on maneuvers like bolting, cover pop-up, snapping to aim out of a run, that sort of thing.
Soldiers aren't accurate machines but individuals made ​​of flesh and bones who can't reproduice the same exact movements. OK. I fully agree that those issues need to be adressed and that would be a progress for the Red Orchestra franchise but introduicing an unrealistic feature in order to solve all these issues isn't the way that I feel. We can try others solutions and avoid distort the gameplay. A bit of random could be introduiced in the position of the view after performing a shift from cover, a change of stance etc... A better solution could be found.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-21-2012, 10:00 PM
Cwivey's Avatar
Cwivey Cwivey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: In the hills! (of England)
Posts: 2,511
Default

Mm, after playing a tad on the RO Action server, I kinda like the fixed Iron sights, especially with the sniper rifles. Making me regret my decision in voting no in the poll.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-22-2012, 03:51 AM
Golf33 Golf33 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 922
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Partisan]Brice View Post
In a simulation, as explained above, in order to aim accurately and master the recoil, you have to form a rigid block with your upper body, your arms, your head and your weapon. Then if you move your weapon, your view will naturally move the exact same way, otherwise you lose on rigidy and you can't be accurate enough by aiming.
I take it you don't have much actual range time then? Real people are kind of squishy and flexible, not "rigid". Marksmanship principles talk about position and hold being able to support the weapon "without undue effort on the part of the firer". A "rigid block" requires undue effort and is the opposite of good marksmanship.

"Mastering the recoil" is an interesting way to describe it. Can you explain what you mean by this?

Quote:
Soldiers aren't accurate machines but individuals made ​​of flesh and bones who can't reproduice the same exact movements. OK. I fully agree that those issues need to be adressed and that would be a progress for the Red Orchestra franchise but introduicing an unrealistic feature in order to solve all these issues isn't the way that I feel. We can try others solutions and avoid distort the gameplay. A bit of random could be introduiced in the position of the view after performing a shift from cover, a change of stance etc... A better solution could be found.
Those ideas are fine, too, and could all be added. Freeaim however is a perfectly realistic representation of good marksmanship and should be kept.

I'd also like to see (as an experiment) what happens if you introduce a realistic amount of movement into the rear sight, so that shooters in the game need to coordinate both rear and front sight onto the target. I suspect that would just be unpleasant to look at though.

Last edited by Golf33; 04-22-2012 at 03:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-22-2012, 04:04 AM
Mekhazzio's Avatar
Mekhazzio Mekhazzio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golf33 View Post
I'd also like to see (as an experiment) what happens if you introduce a realistic amount of movement into the rear sight, so that shooters in the game need to coordinate both rear and front sight onto the target. I suspect that would just be unpleasant to look at though.
The problem with doing that is that you then need a control system that can handle the front and rear sight indepedently, which is difficult when you only have a single 2-axis device providing continuous input. You might want to check out the old Jurassic Park-based game Trespasser. It tried to do a control system where front and rear sights were handled independently, and it was interesting, but extremely awkward. Certainly not realistic.

If you have the game automatically controlling it (pretty much as we have now, but more extreme) then all you're really getting is some extra float on rapid movements...which would be neat for atmosphere, but not really a functional impact on gameplay, since RO combat is already conducted at ranges that, combined with the freeaim, make flick snapshots rather difficult to pull off already.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-22-2012, 06:12 AM
Jorg Biermann's Avatar
Jorg Biermann Jorg Biermann is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Buckinghamshire, UK
Posts: 1,031
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyllis View Post
For this, i agree with you at 100%.
I completely agree with him aswell.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-22-2012, 07:03 AM
Proud_God's Avatar
Proud_God Proud_God is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Belgium
Posts: 3,188
Default

I'm cool with free aim IS. It also make recoil more realistic: you're not looking at the sky as fast as you would without free aim.
__________________
Supporting:
Disapproving: progression, zoom, spawn on SL, spawns close to cap (RSOD)
Since: beta 1.0 UT2003
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-22-2012, 08:23 AM
Golf33 Golf33 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 922
Default

@Mekhazzio: a bit of extra float and movement on the rear sights is pretty much what I was getting at. I agree that a front and rear control system would be too awkward. The extra float wouldn't just apply to rapid movements though, but would be present during normal sighting sway. As I say, I doubt it'd work in practice - my guess is that it would actually make people feel a bit seasick when trying to aim.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-22-2012, 12:08 PM
barakas's Avatar
barakas barakas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Partisan
Please check also that video that explaining it : [Dossier Nofrag] Visée iron sight - Video Dailymotion

edit : Erf poll mistake, "feel" of course and not "fell"
Does anyone know what game is playing at 1:10 in that video?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-23-2012, 03:07 AM
Golf33 Golf33 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 922
Default

Looks like Infiltration mod to me.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-23-2012, 04:06 PM
luciferintears luciferintears is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,121
Default

i agree.

when you shoulder your weapon it should be properly aligned and centered
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2005 - 2014, Tripwire Interactive, LLC