• 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/

Disable freeaim in ironsight

Disable freeaim in ironsight


  • Total voters
    63
Last edited:
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:
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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%.
 
Upvote 0
So, in this case, most people seem to prefer an unrealistic feature than a realistic one ? Feel free to explain why.

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.

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.
 
Upvote 0
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?

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:
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
@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.
 
Upvote 0