Game Uses Incorrect 1982 Sights on M16A1 -- WRONG

[FR4NCH3K]

Glad to hear it's being looked into. Hopefully the DoF suggestion on how to make rear peep sights useful is also at least taken back to the team as well, because that would really make American iron sights so much more useful in game.

 

[exhausted]

Despite the new update stating 'new M16 model including sights' the problem of having 1982 sights in a 1960s game persists. No bueno.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Sadly I don't think we will see that unless they use some post process effect for the sight picture as we talked about earlier. So all they can do now I guess is make both apertures, long and short range, identical.

As for the sight picture now, I don't see any real difference from earlier, perhaps they added a tiny bit of blurr and less glare on the aperture, i.e. pretty much no change. So no bueno there as well.

 

[mbrooksay]

Nothing for nothing but I personally would prefer if the front sight was blurred.

cod4 modern warfare did this and it really upped the immersion for me.

did tripwire say they cant add this feature previously?

 

[exhausted]

Nothing for nothing but I personally would prefer if the front sight was blurred.

This is not how aiming works. Aiming works by focusing on the front sight post and not focusing on the rear sights or target. Snap shots are different, but not all shots are snaps.

 

[mbrooksay]

This is not how aiming works. Aiming works by focusing on the front sight post and not focusing on the rear sights or target. Snap shots are different, but not all shots are snaps.

**** i meant the rear sight! Like a few other games do it

 

[exhausted]

OK so there was a SLIGHT change in the M16A1 sights in 6.1.

But how do you NOT REALIZE the short and long range sights literally are exact same size?!?!

Short range in real life

Long range in real life

Short range in game

Long range AFTER CHANGES in game

What the game keeps on imitating are the two different sized peeps from the 1982 version of the M16A2

STICK WITH THE CORRECT MODEL OF M16 FOR THESE SIGHTS BECAUSE HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED TO SEE WHY IT'S THE WRONG MODEL.... thank you for taking the time to read this

 

[StmRtn]

STICK WITH THE CORRECT MODEL OF M16 FOR THESE SIGHTS BECAUSE HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED TO SEE WHY IT'S THE WRONG MODEL.... thank you for taking the time to read this

Why is this so important to you ?.

 

[FR4NCH3K]

I don't like this new sight change in 6.1. It's almost as if they're purposefully disregarding all the information in this thread.

Why is this so important to you ?.

Because it should be important to developers who have the mission statement of realism and being "gun nuts" yet have continuously messed things up in a way that doesn't really effect gameplay nor does it portray reality.

 

[exhausted]

Yes, it's like they considered the information but didn't understand it and therefore made a half-measure in the latest build.

Whatever happened to doing it right in as few attempts as possible? How much more can I break it down in pictures?

The solution is freaking easy AF: make both sights the size of the close range sight, and give the long range sight a slight zoom. And don't forget the L at the sight base.

Why is this so important to you ?.

Because the in game sights are at least 10 years from the future. They were introduced with the rifle that replaced the M16A1 in service and these sights were never in Vietnam. It would be like making a flight simulator where the vintage plane has a modern cockpit. It's wrong.

 

[FR4NCH3K]

Yes, it's like they considered the information but didn't understand it and therefore made a half-measure in the latest build.

Whatever happened to doing it right in as few attempts as possible? How much more can I break it down in pictures?

The solution is freaking easy AF: make both sights the size of the close range sight, and give the long range sight a slight zoom. And don't forget the L at the sight base.

I'd actually be happier if they left it at the thickness of the long range sight rather than the current close range sight. Would be far nicer if it were a little more restricted.

 

[exhausted]

I'd actually be happier if they left it at the thickness of the long range sight rather than the current close range sight. Would be far nicer if it were a little more restricted.

Right now the long range sight uses the wrong model because it's beveled in the back (real one is flat), lacks the 'L' and has a different size peep than the short range sight.

Whichever thickness they choose for both, they need to use the correct model for the long range sights.

 

[FR4NCH3K]

Right now the long range sight uses the wrong model because it's beveled in the back (real one is flat), lacks the 'L' and has a different size peep than the short range sight.

Whichever thickness they choose for both, they need to use the correct model for the long range sights.

I know it has the rear bevel, but the close range sight is so large that there isn't any room for a bevel. Take off the bevel and use a hole the size of the long range sight and you're good to go.

 

[exhausted]

If you think there needs the bevel's placement is the issue, then you've missed the point. There is no visible bevel anywhere on the part of the sights you actually see.

 

[exhausted]

You're still using the wrong sights on the M16A1. It hasn't really gotten better, even though Yoshiro acknowledged it. Why don't we actually try to fix the model instead of hoping people will get used to the weapon as it never existed?

 

[Pvt.pile]

This guys OCD level must be through the roof.

 

[exhausted]

Yes, anytime you get military people involved with something that is military related, you are going to find we are hawks on details. Attention to detail is integral, and getting this iconic rifle right is clearly worth doing.

 

[Spillo2382]

Sure, but it's a game, autenticity and gameplay needs a compromise IMO.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

You're still using the wrong sights on the M16A1. It hasn't really gotten better, even though Yoshiro acknowledged it. Why don't we actually try to fix the model instead of hoping people will get used to the weapon as it never existed?

The obvious reason is that they then will be forced to redo how all the peep sights are rendered ingame (just as Ive been advocating all along) , otherwise all the peep sighted weapons would become useless.

The ingame M16's peep sight, the largest ingame, is already too obstructive to your FOV compared to the real thing.

 

[Beskar Mando]

The obvious reason is that they then will be forced to redo how all the peep sights are rendered ingame (just as Ive been advocating all along) , otherwise all the peep sighted weapons would become useless.

The ingame M16's peep sight, the largest ingame, is already too obstructive to your FOV compared to the real thing.

I still disagree with you, except for the 200m/400m sight.
Probably has one of the better sight pictures, at least for me. New sight model? Don't care either way, from dev. perspective it's doable, but I'd assume there are other priorities than fixing a sight's aesthetics. Redoing the way that sights are render like you suggested? **** that, no way in hell. A mod that redoes the textures & edits the material with an opacity layer w/ a var. referenced in the code when in iron sights? That's a possibility, I doubt AMG will do this, which means it'd be a mod.