Game Uses Incorrect 1982 Sights on M16A1 -- WRONG

[exhausted]

This post isn't about other commonly discussed grievances on the sights, it's about the game using sights from the wrong rifle.

The M16, XM16E1 and M16A1 and XM177E used the same sights until the M16A2 succeeded them in 1982.

Right now RS2 uses the M16A2 sights from 1982.

What's the difference? While the game uses the correct range, the actual sights are completely different. In game we have an open close range sight (200 yds) and a tiny long range sight (500 yds). Sights on models produced before 1982 should have two IDENTICAL peep sights, one at 25/200 yds, one at 500 yds.

REAL COLT M16A1 SHORT RANGE SIGHT: NOTICE THE LONG RANGE SIGHT (the one facing upward) HAS A BEVEL WHICH COLLECTS LIGHT

REAL COLT M16A1 LONG: NOTICE THE "L" USED TO DENOTE IT IS A LONG RANGE SIGHT -- IT IS NOTHING LIKE THE GAME -- IT IS NOT BEVELED ON THE SIDE WE VIEW FROM

M16A2 SIGHTS BEGINNING IN 1982

IN GAME: M16A2 PEEP SIGHT, STILL INCORRECT BECAUSE THE CLOSE RANGE AND LONG RANGE SIGHTS STILL REVERSED IN GAME

As you can see, we need to update the M16A1 sights to improve historical accuracy and to eliminate sights that appeared 9 years after the war ended for the US.

 

[Sgt.NightFire]

I honestly hate peepsights in games, handy in real life, but in games you can't track your opponent enough, the peep sight on the grease gun is also making it a very bad weapon right now. The RO2/RS mod Heroes Of The West has done their sight perfectly.

 

[exhausted]

Don't mean to be a jerk, but I've made this complaint for months yet none of the developers seem to address it. I want to make sure readers know which problem I'm discussing. I'm not addressing the way the game does peep sights. If you haven't read my post, please understand that I am seeking to address a horribly inaccurate choice in modeling the M16's sights. The 3d model they chose is anachronistic because it wasn't fielded until 1982. None of the game's maps depict the battles of the 1980s, therefore the model should depict the period-correct M16A1 sights.

Now, if you want to debate the way ring/peep sights are modeled as a whole, then I agree with you. However, discuss it in the appropriate thread.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Nice catch exhausted, too bad that the current iteration of peep sights ingame make it so that having correctly modelled sights would make them useless for gameplay purposes, just as the M16's long range sight is atm, utterly useless.

It's exactly the same story with the M14 where the peep ring is actually modelled too large compared to the real thing, but the actual sight picture is still a lot more obstructive than in real life because the game doesn't simulate the eye focus which opens up & thins out the ring when aiming.

M14 sight with the focus on the weapon itself:

M14 sight with the focus beyond through the sight:

If only TWI/AMG could find a way to simulate this it would be truly glorious.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Another one, same gun:

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

The M14's sights ingame, not particularly accurate looking from afar either, but made so to make the sight at all useable when aiming (they're still too obstructive though, same as M1 in RS1):

 

[NorthDumpling]

Main problem of devs is that they did not managed to toss in eye vision simuation. If it would show the real sight picture while ADS on peep sight instead of taking liberties in favor of that exact eye vision, I think thick peep sight wouldnt be a problem at all.

 

[Grabbed_by_the_Spetsnaz]

How would you simulate peep sights without turning the entire gun into a blur?

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Main problem of devs is that they did not managed to toss in eye vision simuation. If it would show the real sight picture while ADS on peep sight instead of taking liberties in favor of that exact eye vision, I think thick peep sight wouldnt be a problem at all.

Indeed, but if they can't manage to do it now then I don't think the US weapons deserve to suffer for it - i. e. if all else fails then the crude solution of simply using permanently thin peep rings as done in other games should be used.

 

[exhausted]

the problem is obvious. IRL you focus on the front sight whereas the game focuses on the targets. If you made this mistake then you wouldn't be able to see through the peeps either.

Keep in mind the 3d model of the M16A1 uses sights from the M16A2, that's the problem I've been trying to address.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Keep in mind the 3d model of the M16A1 uses sights from the M16A2, that's the problem I've been trying to address.

Yes but the former is probably why that's the case. Imagine having to use the ingame M16 permanently using the long range sight in its current iteration, the weapon would become useless.

In short the problem with how all peep sights are rendered when aiming ingame needs to be resolved before they can ever make the sights look right from afar.

 

[Jagdwyre]

How would you simulate peep sights without turning the entire gun into a blur?

Why would blurring the whole gun while aiming be a bad thing? That's how sight pictures look in the real world, you aren't focusing on the gun(or the rear sight), you focus on the front sight.

And to a small degree Depth of Field already does this, if you hadn't noticed.

 

[Lemonater47]

Unus Offa, Unus Nex we got told off for derailing that other thread. This one ain't about what you can see through the sights either. Lets keep that to your thread alright?

 

[Grabbed_by_the_Spetsnaz]

Why would blurring the whole gun while aiming be a bad thing? That's how sight pictures look in the real world, you aren't focusing on the gun(or the rear sight), you focus on the front sight.

And to a small degree Depth of Field already does this, if you hadn't noticed.

Mostly just a personal thing really, computer screens lack any depth perception, and I hate it when games try to emulate it for you.

I turn DoF off all games, to me it looks ugly and just tanks the computer.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Unus Offa, Unus Nex we got told off for derailing that other thread. This one ain't about what you can see through the sights either. Lets keep that to your thread alright?

*sigh* No, we got told off for discussing what weapon was better, which basically was a pointless debate to continue without any real statistics to show.

This discussion however whilst being about the M16 using incorrect sights also instantly becomes about why, and obviously the reason is that using the correct sights with the current 3D implementation of peep sights ingame would make pretty much all the US weapons useless. It just goes to show how big of a problem this really is as it also affects how authentic the weapons can be made to look in general.

 

[Jagdwyre]

Mostly just a personal thing really, computer screens lack any depth perception, and I hate it when games try to emulate it for you.

I turn DoF off all games, to me it looks ugly and just tanks the computer.

I'm not a fan of DoF in most games either, just saying the concept is pretty widespread of burring the image of the gun when aiming.

 

[Jean_Luc_Picard]

Don't mean to be a jerk, but I've made this complaint for months yet none of the developers seem to address it.

Don't hold your breath. The rear sight of the Type 99 is wildly incorrect, but it's still in Rising Storm.

 

[Yoshiro]

I believe we are taking a look into this.

 

[exhausted]

Thanks, Yoshiro.

There is a big push among fans to get these sights right because, on one hand we have problems with the sight rings appearing too thick, and on the other hand the 3d model uses the sights from the wrong rifle.

Thanks again for bringing your attention to this issue.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

I believe we are taking a look into this.

Thanks Yoshiro, greatly appreciated.