• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Will RO2 have correct Weapon Sight/Camera position relationship?

When sprinting you cannot be in iron sight likely just like how it was in RO :\
Do you just play stupid today? :D

I'm not, and never was, talking about the iron-sights, I'm talking about that your soldier clearly has his eyes located at the chest, IE. you see the gun obscuring half the monitor while sprinting, you see most of the gun when having the gun hipped etc.

This shouldn't be the case if your eyes are actually located where, well, your eyes are.
 
Upvote 0
Do you just play stupid today? :D

I'm not, and never was, talking about the iron-sights, I'm talking about that your soldier clearly has his eyes located at the chest, IE. you see the gun obscuring half the monitor while sprinting, you see most of the gun when having the gun hipped etc.

This shouldn't be the case if your eyes are actually located where, well, your eyes are.

Since you ignored what Hypno Toad was saying, I will repeat a simplified version of it for you: IT'S A ****ING GAME!
But maybe you are lucky and it's possible to disable 1st-person models via console, like in many other shooters.
So you can have the Hinkel bind:
rightmouse=ROIronsights|set showweapons 1|onrelease ROIronsights|onrelease set showweapons 0
:troll:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pectus
Upvote 0
Do you just play stupid today? :D

I'm not, and never was, talking about the iron-sights, I'm talking about that your soldier clearly has his eyes located at the chest, IE. you see the gun obscuring half the monitor while sprinting, you see most of the gun when having the gun hipped etc.

This shouldn't be the case if your eyes are actually located where, well, your eyes are.

Compared to BFBC series and MW2 the gun doesn't take up half the screen, try one of those games with a default FOV at about 55 .. damn the gun is like a ..... its huge. Thankfully this is a PC only title and we'll have a default fov at around 84-85 i think it was mentioned.

As for your needs for no weapon while running, i agree with a lot of the other posts, that its still a game and a flat empty screen would be rather boring. Arma 2 does it correctly, you see the gun abit which is what you do in real life as well.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I still agree with lemon, and it is not going to be boring when nothing is obstructing your view as you sprint. And it is not a big thing to ask. Everybody is complaining that we get very little situational awareness, well this is the way to improve it. When the player is hip shooting, the gun needs to be visible so he can see where the barrel is pointing whereas in reality you only see the gun with your peripheral vision. My view on hip shooting is completely different though.
 
Upvote 0
The amount of things some realism enthusiast are willing to sacrifice to the unholy altar of "realism" is scary. An fps where you barely can see your weapon unless ironsighted ? Like stated above, its a ****ing game,
join the army if you want the most realistic weapon view while sprinting ratio.
It isn't about realism, I just hate it when my gun obscures most of my monitor for the sake of "looking cool".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apos and Ralfst3r
Upvote 0
It isn't about realism, I just hate it when my gun obscures most of my monitor for the sake of "looking cool".

It doesn't.

Hold a gun at your hip and tell me you can't see it while looking ahead.

Same concept.

We can go into an argument about monitors not accurately representing the eye's FOV but honestly, they have made it so your weapon collides with the world. The least they could do is make it fire from whatever position it's actually in, instead of where your avatar's eyes are.

TBH I think this whole thing has much more to do with world models than the stuff in first person. Aiming heights in 3rd person are probably changed so that you can't poke your helmet out and have your sights on someone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SQBsam and heady89
Upvote 0
The amount of things some realism enthusiast are willing to sacrifice to the unholy altar of "realism" is scary. An fps where you barely can see your weapon unless ironsighted ? Like stated above, its a ****ing game,
join the army if you want the most realistic weapon view while sprinting ratio.

they're complaining that you see too little of the weapon. you must be one of the people who think "hip" shooting actually refers to shooting your weapon from waist level.

next time you want to offer your opinion, get with the program and learn what people are actually discussing. thanks.
 
Upvote 0
they're complaining that you see too little of the weapon. you must be one of the people who think "hip" shooting actually refers to shooting your weapon from waist level.

next time you want to offer your opinion, get with the program and learn what people are actually discussing. thanks.

I think you're the one who needs to learn what people are discussing in this thread ;)
 
Upvote 0
Hold a gun at your hip and tell me you can't see it while looking ahead.

Well, from someone who actually owns a firearm, when firing my Smith and Wesson M&P 15 M-4 Carbine 5.56 NATO, 16" Heavy Barrel with 8" quad rail, lower forward pistol grip, convert into gas piston recovery system, and a AimPoint Red Dot sight, I will answer this question, but from reading your post you will not like the answer.

Unless I'm looking down at a 45 degree angle, the answer is NO. And by no I mean 90% of the rifle is "out of vision". I can see the flash suppressor on the end, THATS IT.

Now the AR-15 is a very short rifle, Infact it's about the same length in total as the Thompson depending on shoulder stock.

Now Grab my Kar98k Turkish Mauser which is 4ft long, its a different story, but to Hip fire that and actually hit what your aiming at, you dont need a gun, just go break someone's neck. 8mm Mauser is one hell of a round to be shooting, much less from the hip. But back to the question you ask, You only see about the from 8-10 inch's of the rifle firing from hip, Looking straight forward. (target roughly 30-50meters ahead)

But in the end, Hip fire is for Hollywood and horrible FPS games...anyone that can actually hip fire and hit their targets with WWII ammo doesn't need a gun. And don't tell me you can because there are plenty of people out there who know better.
 
Upvote 0
my Smith and Wesson M&P 15 M-4 Carbine 5.56 NATO, 16" Heavy Barrel with 8" quad rail, lower forward pistol grip, convert into gas piston recovery system, and a AimPoint Red Dot sight
With that few infos about your weapon, no one will be able to approve if your observations, about the visibility of a weapon in hip height, are valid or not. Please give more specs.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Well, from someone who actually owns a firearm, when firing my Smith and Wesson M&P 15 M-4 Carbine 5.56 NATO, 16" Heavy Barrel with 8" quad rail, lower forward pistol grip, convert into gas piston recovery system, and a AimPoint Red Dot sight,


You realize you could have just said "Well, from someone who actually owns a firearm, the answer is no" you really didn't need try to show off for the forum.

and a turkish mauser? Why a turkish mauser, not a fan of 'em.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atomskytten
Upvote 0
You realize you could have just said "Well, from someone who actually owns a firearm, the answer is no" you really didn't need try to show off for the forum.

First off, I apologize, I forget how much of an abrasive smart a** I am. Sometimes I forget my mouth is actually speaking! :/

and a turkish mauser? Why a turkish mauser, not a fan of 'em.

Mainly circumstance. It's a mauser, a very fine design for a weapon. Most of the German mausers where shorter as well. Turkish WWII Mauser is still the original length of the 1898 karbanier rifle, but bored to 8mm Mauser.

With that few infos about your weapon, no one will be able to approve if your observations, about the visibility of a weapon in hip height, are valid or not. Please give more specs.

Barrel is 16" from front of chamber to beginning of muzzle flash. Muzzle Flash is 1". Lower reciever is roughly 10". Shoulder stock is 3 position, short is 6", medium is 7-1/2", long is 9". So at most you have 36" long firearm.

Shouldered you have all 36".
Chest you have all 36".
With hip the shoulder stock aligns roughly with your back, as for better grip by holding it into your side.

A SMG or a short assault rifle you would actually see close to nothing looking straight forward, as the question I responded to asks.
Hold a gun at your hip and tell me you can't see it while looking ahead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atomskytten
Upvote 0
Interesting thread, I hate this as well and hope TWI can fix it. I would like to make a few points about "hip" or better known as point shooting. No one really shoots from below the waist line. It's not a natural way to shoot. You lose too much control over the weapon. The arms should be bent and the weapon in the upper midsection area. What I would like to see is proper techniques when hip shooting. It's called the ready position. This is where a short weapon is held at/above the navel, center mass and the barrel is pointing in the direction of sight. It's a good postion in the lesser threat situation. It's interesting that the Germans were taught to hold it one handed. I would want to hold it close to my chest, for protection and so that I don't drop it. It kept you alive. lol

With a rifle the butt of the long gun should be just below the nipple line and the barrel pointed center mass. Theses are the proper technigues for point shooting. In both cases, you should see much of the weapon. The weapons do seem a bit too large in representation in the lower posistion, but it don't bother me any. I have to say the weapon detail looks amazing in RO2. :D I'm not sure how they were taught, but I'm sure many of the soldiers went to this more natural position.

This is off topic, but does anyone know how the long guns will work with the weapon collision? Will long guns be affected in close quarters, expample walls, sand bags, lower windows and etc? Will the user have to stand back or will the rifle be slanted when near cover? Or will they only be affected by certain objects in the environment?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I never minded the whole being able to see gun whilst sprinting/ not holding up to the eye thing. I think it just gives a visual confirmation of what you really see in your peripherals, because you can see your stomach even when looking straight ahead but only in terms of light/dark (and therefore movement) and you can see anything being held against your chest (or if you really are taking waist shooting too literally, stomach) in full vision, including colour.

anyway, my 2 cents :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0
Yeah very slow running and sight aiming may be somewhat possible. The gun would be jumping around so bad you may as well hip shoot. Now sprinting while holding the weapon as I suggested above could be possible and more realistic. I think sprinting and shooting will be considered point shooting. It's comes down more to where/how the weapon is on the screen. The question, is it worth more time and effort to make it more realistic? :confused: I'm sure TWI talked to some historian, how they trained then, so I'm sure it was different than now. I think people revert to what is more natural though.
 
Upvote 0
Well, from someone who actually owns a firearm...

You'll find there are quite a few people around here who do.

Maybe my peripheral vision is better, but I wear glasses and I have no trouble seeing my rifles when I hold them in a firing position at the hip.

It's not exactly like it is in either game, but it's close, especially when you consider having your whole first-person view compressed to the scale computer monitors allow.
 
Upvote 0