• 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/

Iron Sights Zoom (Merged)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#61
I just ran RO with FOV 45..
My accuracy increased ALOT and it felt much more like I was moving in real life. ... Though at ranges below 75m I had a hard time situating my self and spotting around me.

Having the abillity to change between peripheral view and "focus" view is definently making some difference compared to what I experience IRL.

Like in OFP, you have wide FOV as standard, then you right click to fucus.
After you have focused (FOV 60 or something) you select IS, and you aim dead on the target, no problem hitting it at 300m.

In RO hitting enemies with my screen is ALOT more difficult than in my RL experience....

Atleast one should have this as an menu option.
So those who enjoy pixel hunting can just do this, while those who wants to be as precise as IRL can bind a Focus key.
 
Upvote 0
#65
to get a realistic distance perception aka to make something thats 100 meters away feel 100 meters away you'd need a zoom yes. But it should have been a permanent zoom your eyes can't zoom in. THe best solution would be for everyone to have a really big monitor. SO that when you look normally you can see action and when you want to focus youc an focus on the distance (this is kinda how ro is just get yourself a 30" monitor and it will be realistic).

Some other games want to give you the visual awareness you have when just walking around so they give you the high fov of your eyes their. And when focussed it gives you the zoomed view with low fov that shows the more realistical distance.

The problem is in reallife the distances don't change that easy. Ro went for a compromise between the real fov (thats different for every computer anyway) of both focussed and just looking around. Its more like a compromise, zooming in gives other problems. Although i'd personally love it if ro's fov from 85 (already lower than most games) would be made 75 or something just so guessing ranges gets more normal. Pixel sniping won't really change its just that the effective range of people will be more and ppl will just be able to pixelsnipe at longer ranges. The only advantage really is that when you think you've been sniped at 100 meters its actually 100 meters instead of 50 (depending on monitor size and viewing distance)

But a zoom or low fov is just as unrealistic as what ro got.

for most monitors 60 fov would be realistic but you can see around nearly 180 degrees with your eyes (you can detect motion). Wheter a game implents by a compromise (ro) or with a change of fov. Both are equally unrealistic. In the end its just what the devs think would give the best gameplay (a big zoom could cause problems so they probably went with the compromised fov)
 
Upvote 0
#66
Iron sights and some Zoom.

Iron sights and some Zoom.

First of all this is one of the best on line game i have ever played. People are very nice and give new poeple all the help they need to play the game and have fun. Buy reading the forums and asking for help when you need it i have found none better.Than RO.But the only thing i would like to see changed in the game would be some Zoom to the iron sights.Some zoom would be better than none at all.I know i have ask for this before but not a lot was said back. But if there is going to be a update for the game this may come into play.
 
Upvote 0
#72
An interesting discussion to be sure, unfortunately thus far it's mostly been a discussion of opinion and preference rather then the technical issues and limitation of scale and how games are viewed. A few have touched on valid technical points but no one has offered an explination of the science and veracity of adding zoom to realism games; so I'll give it a go.

The game world we are viewing is an anamorphic flat projection of 3D image data, this means that as FOV increases so to does anamorphic distortion, anything over an FOV of roughly 45
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#73
Real combat real sights and zoom in Games.

Real combat real sights and zoom in Games.

In real combat 300 to 400 meters is a good shot with open sights. (Vietnam Vet 69,72.) So i have been there and did that in real combat being a Disabled Army Vet.At 20 years old eyes were very good at 57 not so good Trying to make out a target at long range in RO when all you may see is a gun flash.Have shot player on my own side.All i ask was if it would be or not to be some ZOOM to make it more playable for some of us that do not see that well.But mostly i got jokes for such a dum ?.And being told that is not real life gaming.Well Ro is only a game and not real war. I play games to have fun and would like to make them more playable by asking how to inprove them.If zoom iron sights are a no go then thats the way it's going to be.
 
Upvote 0
#74
This discussion was over before it began in my opinion, but then the pro-magical-zoom-guys came and tried to argue.

Its not about iron-sight-zoom being realistic or not anymore, because everyone who has eyes knows that eyes can't zoom, no matter how hard you try. Why would it be realistic to be able to zoom, just because one is looking over a rifle?
Women can't zoom just because they are looking over their tits either. They seem to notice it magically when you are loooking over theirs though, but that'S another story.

The discussion now is about the general FoV being realistic or not.

The pro-magical-zoom-guys say no, based on the following argumentation (which has nothing to do with iron-sights, btw):

Look at this image:

You can see someone sitting in front of a monitor, playing Red Orchestra.
The colored area is the field of view that a human person can see. Its somewhere near 120
 
Upvote 0
#76
Murphy said:
This discussion was over before it began in my opinion, but then the pro-magical-zoom-guys came and tried to argue.

Its not about iron-sight-zoom being realistic or not anymore, because everyone who has eyes knows that eyes can't zoom, no matter how hard you try. Why would it be realistic to be able to zoom, just because one is looking over a rifle? Women can't zoom just because they are looking over their tits either.
Click to expand...

Enough with the petty insults and cheap shots, no where do I read anyone making an objective case for aim-zoom saying zoom is (your choice of words) "more realistic"... And there is a lot more to game realism, no less game depth and replayability than how it looks, or the aesthetic scale of a few of it's art assets. I doubt you'd argue that floating HUD elements are "more realistic", or do you see HUD elements floating in front of your 'big tits'? How about floating transparent maps? No? Are they "magical" or is that just your thinking about it? How about some reasonable (and readable) counterpoint and can the petty sarcasm...

There are many aesthetic elements of Red Orchestra and just as many aspects of it's game metrics that are not in the least realistic or to scale, the reason we endure them is because they can make for a game that plays more realistically, or in some cases just more enjoyable.

Games by design and definition: are intended as a balanced, fun, and a fair contest of skill; real combat is nothing of the sort where every means is sought to imbalance and completely obviate not only the skills of your enemy but to minimize the amount of skill required by your own forces with regard to its effect on outcome. The team work, tactics, movement and fire fights employed in Red Orchestra or any game for that matter with the exception of a few squad tactical shooters like Ghost Recon played in single-player and Full Spectrum Warrior don't remotely resemble reality as far as what's happening in the game and how it's really accomplished.

The aspect of realism that I, and other like minded Fans of tactical realism are discussing are those that regard how realistically a game actually plays as equally or more important then how realistic it looks. The fact that it is impossible to see and engage targets at anything even remotely approximating realistic distances in Red Orchestra for the reasons explained in my previous post has a profound effect on game-play that's far more unrealistic and sweeping in it's consequences then the zoom feature needed to obviate it...

Limited view distance and it's effect on game play is a fact, not an opinion; the outcome is obvious and the source of numerous threads regarding game-play issues that are the consequence. Red Orchestra suffers all the arcade game mechanics and issues of games like Counter-Strike and Unreal Tournament, from circle strafing, to game-play that too frequency degenerates into what I call 'Grenade Arcade', long rifles are used like pistol ammunition weapons and are useless at realistic ranges, as is realistic or more sophisticated squad maneuver due to the limited distances we can see in the game due to pixilation... And Red Orchestra's Developers tune, by further compressing the game's scale, reducing the very realistic and compelling performance differences of the game's weapons...

Red Orchestra is a fun game as is, it could be a more fun, replayable, and a lot more sophisticated and realistic in how it actually plays if more consideration were given to larger context issues that have more profound effects on overall game play then just superficially realistic aesthetics where it already surpasses most games of the genre...

omgwtf.gif
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#77
Hoak said:
Enough with the petty insults and cheap shots, no where do I read anyone making an objective case for aim-zoom saying zoom is (your choice of words) "more realistic"...
Click to expand...
O rly?
What about this:
Dslyecxi said:
The objective of this post is to clarify why the "magic eye zoom" of most games is actually realistic, and that Red Orchestra's no-zoom "feature" is unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Hoak said:
I doubt you'd argue that floating HUD elements are "more realistic", or do you see HUD elements floating in front of your 'big tits'? How about floating transparent maps? No? Are they "magical" or is that just your thinking about it? How about some reasonable (and readable) counterpoint and can the petty sarcasm...
Click to expand...
You should have fought yourself through my whole post instead of quoting only parts of it. How about this part:
Murphy said:
In my opinion, iron-sight-zoom is purely a question of the gameplay. Some like it, some don't, and everyone tries to argue about it throwing "realism" on the table. Just take it for what it is, a gameplay feature, and argue what it would help in RO and what it would destroy.
Click to expand...

Take it easy.:)
 
Upvote 0
#78
Murphy said:
In my opinion, iron-sight-zoom is purely a question of the gameplay. Some like it, some don't, and everyone tries to argue about it throwing "realism" on the table. Just take it for what it is, a gameplay feature, and argue what it would help in RO and what it would destroy.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing with your opinions, or feelings about how things are or should be -- there's little value in it as any argument of opinion is just a bickering contest of who's louder or goes on longer.

My point is that zoom can in fact be objectively argued in terms of realism and game play. While the zoom effect itself may not be any more aesthetically realistic then a HUD in a game like RO; being able to see at more realistic distances, while at the same time having more realistic peripheral vision and situational awareness is more realistic; this and other points regarding game feature/design outcome is the point I understood others were also making...

A corollary point of added realism is that zoom allows for and even enforces more realistic use of weapons, makes the use of more realistic fire/maneuver and cover tactics a requirement; and more realistic game-play outcomes. Qualitatively I qualify these and any facts as subject to preference, and acknowledge that a particular design outcome even if more realistic, may not be something everyone wants. In this case however a zoom feature is something that can be added as an option to RO -- server side and officially to satisfy the largest audience.

Moreover a simple aim-zoom feature is very easy to add to Red Orchestra, and the Unreal Warfare engine is capable of some unique portal and gradient anamorphic FOV scaling effects that could make offering a uniquely subtle and more realistic aim-zoom effect on RO a possibility. Offering something like this as an Official option rather then allowing it to be rolled as a 3rd party mutator will keep the largest audience playing together.

.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#79
SgtH3nry3 said:
Sure, but online that isn't really fair.

Unless it's a server sided option.



Why would you disable the crosshair to your disadvantage when the others have it on? ;)
Click to expand...

well i have it off and i used to own most people in BiA in the early days of its release. now ive been away for a while and when trying to play now all these people have 1: trained and 2: found lots of '1337' spots or ways to kill you in a way the game wasnt intended for, thus killing all my fun.
but back on topic: i have it off because even if they have it on, i like this feeling better then the crosshair bull**** running around. to me its about the feeling. and i still get them in ironsights so :rolleyes:

as for the zoom thing, for me: NO to zoom. i dont want it. what your eyes do isnt zooming, its merely making things sharper. when i concentrate on a point i want a better look at, i dont grow magical binocular eyes, but my eyes merely make that object a bit sharper. they dont zoom. ( a bit hard to explain maybe )
in a game, you cant make things more clear ( cause that would take more pixels, wich would be zoom i guess ), so they use zoom to make things more clear. but it doesnt make it any clearer, it just takes your perception closer to the object.
so IMO (!) physically speaking, zooming ingame is unrealistic because it is not what your body does.
gameplaywise, an ironsight zoom would make it even harder for a bolt action player in close quarters combat.
basically you go to ironsights, and the SMG dude is running circles around you while you are shoving your mouse around like crazy trying to keep up and shoot the f*cker. if this would be any other game i could allready hear the 12-year olds laughing out loud through their microphone
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#80
Hoak said:
I'm not arguing with your opinions, or feelings about how things are or should be -- there's little value in it as any argument of opinion is just a bickering contest of who's louder or goes on longer.
Click to expand...
Huh? Excuse me, but I thought I would have posted arguments, just as others have. Just because I said some of them are based on my opinion I'm just trying to be louder?
Hoak said:
A corollary point of added realism is that zoom allows for and even enforces more realistic use of weapons,
Click to expand...
That's what I wrote too, and in the case of the "Battlefield" games or the "Call of Duty" series this is true. However, in Red Orchestra we already have a huge advantage if we use the iron sights to aim, because hip-shots are extremely inaccurate. We don't need artificial bonuses like zoom, increased weapon-accuracy or additional damage and what-not.
So we already use the weapons realistically (excluding teamkillers, rambo-players or hip-shooting-gods :D).
So thats not a problem for me.



So I assume you want to say, that a zoom function would give us the accuracy we would have in real-life.
I could go ahead and point out that the soldiers were stressed, scared, hungry and cold so our in-game soldiers can shoot pretty well, given the circumstances but I don't want to, because almost every thread about weapons is full of this and I don't think that it belongs in any thread on here. Just my opinion...:)

I want to point out though, that we already have a feature that lowers our mousesensivity while we use the sights, and in terms of shooting and aiming, that's the same thing as a zoom, it just doesn't zoom visually.

When you zoom to a target, it is harder to miss it because it is bigger on your screen and you have to move your mouse farther to miss it. By decreasing the mousesensivity we get the same effect, just without a visual zoom.
As I said before, the bigger FoV is realistic (in my opinion), and a zoom just from looking over a weapon is not (in my opinion). So I still don't see a reason why we would need it? Surely the accuracy can't be the problem as I wrote above.



So maybe our ingame spotting skills are hampered as we don't have a zoomfunction?

As I said before, everything in the game is smaller on the screen as it would be in reallife, so we have to fight in a toy-world. That's part of the game's suspension of disbelief. You aren't a soldier, just from playing RO, but you can feel as one while you play it, although everything happens on a smaller scale.
As everything appears smaller, it is harder to spot objects that are far away.
We could possibly fight that with a zoom-function, but do we want that?

Do we want to stretch out the suspension of disbelief and implement a magical (because that's what it would be like!) eye-zoom just so we can see farther?

Many of us don't want that, some of us do. Here's were the argumentation stops and its little more than a matter of taste.


However, this all is based on the assumption, that the game-world of RO would be realistic and just the FoV was wrong.
But its not!

Take a look at the linked photograph and tell me all the places were someone with rifle could hide and wait to kill you:
http://homepage2.nifty.com/deutschlandseminar/berlin1.jpg
Now have a look at this famous image:
http://kora.host.sk/kpm/velkeobr/berlin.jpg
Tell me, where the 31 ROPlayers are on that one.

Its hard, isn't it? Here's a city-shot in RO as a comparison:
http://www.gamers.com.sg/uploaded/Image/RO1.JPG
And here's another one:
http://pix.nofrag.com/ba/41/43ad1b08a5ad8eef5982a2bf7f8d.jpg

That's a different league, isn't it? How many places are there, were enemies could hide or come from? Two? Four? Ten?

Is it really that unrealistic that we can't see other players from as far away as we possibly could in real life?

Or a desert:
http://www.sheltoweehikes.com/photogallery/Arizona/k40 Arizona desert.JPG
Behind which of the bushes are Fritzes?
And where are the bushes here, let alone the Fritzes?
http://www.2404.org/downloads/Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45/11384761164.jpg

Or here:
http://home.comcast.net/~ride4haiti/high desert with snow-capped mt. jefferson-1.jpg
Could you spot a hidden soldier here?
Now look here:
http://www.gamers.com.sg/uploaded/Image/RO3.JPG

Do you really think it would be more realistic if we could see (and hit) farther than we already can in RO?

Our maps are A LOT (just trying to be louder here, you know...) smaller than real battlefields, and if we try to create bigger landscapes we have to leave out details and we have huge, blank, hills, were an enemy is practically glowing while he would be perfectly hidden in the grass in real life.

I'd say that we can still see and hit much too far for the ranges we have in RO. And a zoom-function, that would be a matter of taste to begin with (a taste which many of us don't share, including the developers appearantly, or else the function would already be in. As you said, its easy to do, and we can already do it with a bit of .ini-magic although it only works offline) would make matters worse.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu