Thick Rifle Scope reticules...why?

The scopes are based on the actual scopes that were used. The reticules are as well.

Yep, that's the way they really were and you'll have to live with it. TWI know what they're doing and they'll get the scopes right.

Conscript said:

Were the rifle scopes of the day really subject to such thick reticules? Living in the UK, I've only ever used air rifles they had very fine, precise cross-hairs. The same goes for pictures I've seen of scope reticules. It just seems odd that they should be so thick, as I always felt it obscures a lot of the sight picture.

Click to expand...

Yup, most of them where that thick, i have used a Russian PU scope, and they do look like that.

Conscript said:

Also, will both German and Russian rifles use the same cross-hair layout with a single vertical post and two horizontal? That's purely a historical question, I've always wondered if they were the same, or if there were also traditional cross lines reticules.

Click to expand...

Yes, this style of riticle (aka "crosshair") is commonly referred to as the "European riticle", and was a common style of scope riticle in use all over Europe and in Russia in thouse days, and it still is to a lesser degree, some European and Russian manufacturers still offer versions of their modern hunting scopes with this riticle.

So yes they both used it, though the Americans did not, and the Germans did have a few scopes that used the + shaped riticle that became more popular after the war (and thease may or may not be an option for the German side in the game, who knows), but even thouse tended to be "fatter" than what's common on modern scopes.

Yeah, I complained about this as well in one of my posts. Don't expect anyone to agree with you here. lol After playing RO the over all design does not affect much. I think if they would just make the point a little sharper angle it would be great and would not take anything way. I agree though, it's as if the made the point more rounded, thicker and harder to use.

Here is actual screen of Mosin Nagant scope



So you got answer on your question

wahoo4 said:

Yeah, I complained about this as well in one of my posts. Don't expect anyone to agree with you here. lol After playing RO the over all design does not affect much. I think if they would just make the point a little sharper angle it would be great and would not take anything way. I agree though, it's as if the made the point more rounded, thicker and harder to use.

Click to expand...

Well, the lines being a bit thicker or smaller doesnt change gameplay all that much imo. You see a bit less, but imo this doesnt change the gameplay for the worse. The bullet would land in the centre of the scope still, at the tope of the middle line. You might think it obscures your target but it does not, because you dont put the lines over the target, but rather on top of the line.
The reticles being the way they are now means they are authentic, and this is a big point for many of us here, though you wont catch my arguing improperly placed stitches on soldiers uniforms or anything like that.
But for an aiming system, this isnt a mute point.
But somehow i get the feeling that what you are saying is that we dont care about gameplay at all, just about tiny details on models etc and would rather have a clunky game with weird-feeling gameplay with 100% authentic details to the real deal than reversed. This is not true, but it doesnt change the fact that many of us do care about said details even though you might not.
Part of what makes RO engrossing and involving is that attention to detail, making you feel that you are there, dealing with the stuff these soldiers had to deal with and almost makes it like a time machine. But in order to do that, it has to be authentic.

SiC-Disaster said:

Well, the lines being a bit thicker or smaller doesnt change gameplay all that much imo. You see a bit less, but imo this doesnt change the gameplay for the worse. The bullet would land in the centre of the scope still, at the tope of the middle line. You might think it obscures your target but it does not, because you dont put the lines over the target, but rather on top of the line.
The reticles being the way they are now means they are authentic, and this is a big point for many of us here, though you wont catch my arguing improperly placed stitches on soldiers uniforms or anything like that.
But for an aiming system, this isnt a mute point.
But somehow i get the feeling that what you are saying is that we dont care about gameplay at all, just about tiny details on models etc and would rather have a clunky game with weird-feeling gameplay with 100% authentic details to the real deal than reversed. This is not true, but it doesnt change the fact that many of us do care about said details even though you might not.
Part of what makes RO engrossing and involving is that attention to detail, making you feel that you are there, dealing with the stuff these soldiers had to deal with and almost makes it like a time machine. But in order to do that, it has to be authentic.

Click to expand...

I think you're confusing wahoo and myself. I'm the one who bashes on you guys for being obsessed with buttons on uniforms, it has no effect on the immersion of the game, the only thing it can do is upset those who care to look for it.

i think the russian one is a little pointier (more pointy?) than the german one and that was already reflected in RO:Ostfront. in fact, i will have to fire the game up after a long abstinence now to verify that. giving statements before verifying them ftw!
but all honestly i often was annoyed by the "fat" lines, especially when you had to compensate for bullet drop on larger distances, but iit really is nothing gamebreaking. i value the fact that they payed attention to historical correctness. it is one of the main features of red orchestra.
now that we will be able to adjust the sights in HOS, this won't be an issue anymore.

SiC-Disaster said:

Well, the lines being a bit thicker or smaller doesnt change gameplay all that much imo. You see a bit less, but imo this doesnt change the gameplay for the worse. The bullet would land in the centre of the scope still, at the tope of the middle line. You might think it obscures your target but it does not, because you dont put the lines over the target, but rather on top of the line.

Click to expand...

speak for yourself, I always have to put their ugly mug under the line

Knighted said:

I think you're confusing wahoo and myself. I'm the one who bashes on you guys for being obsessed with buttons on uniforms, it has no effect on the immersion of the game, the only thing it can do is upset those who care to look for it.

Click to expand...

You're also the guy who wants us to make the ppsh do less damage and have less accuracy, so in a hip-shooting fight against an mp40 they would be evenly-matched. And also nerfing them further so that if a bolter comes into the room and starts shooting at the victor, that they are also evenly-matched vs the smg, as is an smg shooting at a bolter 100m away

Jaesperson said:

i think the russian one is a little pointier (more pointy?)

Click to expand...

more pointy

Frostedfire said:

You're also the guy who wants us to make the ppsh do less damage and have less accuracy, so in a hip-shooting fight against an mp40 they would be evenly-matched. And also nerfing them further so that if a bolter comes into the room and starts shooting at the victor, that they are also evenly-matched vs the smg, as is an smg shooting at a bolter 100m away

Click to expand...

That's just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen someone attempt to put into my mouth. That couldn't be any more opposite of what I've been talking about.

I thought it looked more rounded when I saw John playing in the interview. It looked funny. Look at the angle, the real scope angles all the way to the bottom of the horizontal line. Russian/German, I don't care, I would like them better if they looked like Apos pic.

Sorry man, disagree, crosshairs do make a difference with distance shots at higher resolutions. Yes they work, but it bugs me that they blot out the rest of the object, but after watching the video I can see how a less angle may be better with pixle shooting. Personal preference I guess.

TE=SiC-Disaster;684012]Well, the lines being a bit thicker or smaller doesnt change gameplay all that much imo. You see a bit less, but imo this doesnt change the gameplay for the worse. The bullet would land in the centre of the scope still, at the tope of the middle line. You might think it obscures your target but it does not, because you dont put the lines over the target, but rather on top of the line.
The reticles being the way they are now means they are authentic, and this is a big point for many of us here, though you wont catch my arguing improperly placed stitches on soldiers uniforms or anything like that.
But for an aiming system, this isnt a mute point.
But somehow i get the feeling that what you are saying is that we dont care about gameplay at all, just about tiny details on models etc and would rather have a clunky game with weird-feeling gameplay with 100% authentic details to the real deal than reversed. This is not true, but it doesnt change the fact that many of us do care about said details even though you might not.
Part of what makes RO engrossing and involving is that attention to detail, making you feel that you are there, dealing with the stuff these soldiers had to deal with and almost makes it like a time machine. But in order to do that, it has to be authentic.[/QUOTE]

Don't really want to get into a debate about what scopes were available at what period of the war ('cause I don't know). But John's scope could be a version of a G/K43 ZF4 scope.

Heres a reticle view of factory coded "dow" zf4 scope...



Resolution is lost but here it is cropped and doubled in size:

the thick reticules should if anything be less of an issue due to the zeroing that is now possible, so no you shouldn't have to cover your targets.

I'll take John's then Floyd!!! lol That one looks even more round. lol As long as it has a nice clear point I don't think I care much. now

Knighted said:

That's just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen someone attempt to put into my mouth. That couldn't be any more opposite of what I've been talking about.

Click to expand...

Since you have yet to actually make a point, and have just repeated the phrase "the game must have weapon balance" ad nauseam, without any attempt to define or discuss anything tangible on the subject, present any points or arguments for or against anything of substance, or even attempt to clarify your position or goals in the slightest, this should not come as a suprice to you.

These look like historically accurate reticules, may not be the easiest to use in an FPS game however but im sure one can get use to that - Historically, thicker bars are much easier to discern against a complex background.