Epithany About "Magic" Zoom. Read if you hate it.

  • 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/

Wesreidau

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 10, 2011
254
197
0
At first I was like a lot of the old guard who hated it. Then I got used to it being "tunnel vision". Then I read on the forums someone say it simply made things ten meters away in game look ten meters away to you.

I hadn't considered that was possible in the slightest, so I did a quick check.

On my Perfectly Normal CRT Monitor, running 1280x1024, I held a gun up. Then I pulled out my Perfectly Normal Gewehr Model 1898 Karbine Kurz and held that up. Lo and behold, everything was half as big on my monitor as it was in real life. My hands and the weapon were much bigger in real life! Then I activated my bionic shift and looked around the room. Everything scaled correctly. A chair looked right about as big as a chair should look. So was the radiator. So was the window. And in my house, an 1850's one with high ceilings for the pre-air conditioning era, the dimensions were the same as in Apartments.

The truth is the game plays a trick of perspective on you to simulate the wide human field of vision on a tiny monitor. Quite simply, an ordinary monitor is about one third of your field of view. If the game world was displayed at 1:1, we would all be running around looking through 12x19 inch windows held at arm's length. To compensate, a lot of vets and RO players stick their noses to the glass and pixel hunt. This simply turns that 1/3rd field of view monitor into a full field of view display, just with horrible resolution and terrible eye strain. The zoom does this for us now. We have that 12x19 inch window to the world instead of everything appearing twice as far away.

Basically, we're so used to playing on the miniature scale that when we see full scale we cry foul.
 
Last edited:

kenijaru

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 17, 2009
182
53
0
Buenos Aires, Argentina
+1

also, nice forum name... *remembers guy sajer's book*

edit:
The main problem is the ease of shooting. I can headshot every long range contact I come across with COMPLETE ease in RO2. This would be nearly impossible in RO1. It's like being a human aimbot.

no! you were handicapped in RO1, and have your full potential in RO2. You may not like it, and i understand that, but still :p
 
Last edited:

LHeureux

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 24, 2011
562
175
0
The main problem is the ease of shooting. I can headshot every long range contact I come across with COMPLETE ease in RO2. This would be nearly impossible in RO1. It's like being a human aimbot.
I was able to do better in RO1.
 

Wesreidau

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 10, 2011
254
197
0
The main problem is the ease of shooting. I can headshot every long range contact I come across with COMPLETE ease in RO2. This would be nearly impossible in RO1. It's like being a human aimbot.

Define long range. In real life I can put five shots under a quarter inch at 50 feet. At 300 feet that translates to 1.5 inches. I'd only start missing a 9 inch human head at 600 yards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Teufel Hund

The DooD

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 3, 2011
177
0
0
Really not fond of shorter ranged weaponry (especially MP40s) getting the zoom. They seem to be the equivalent of assault rifles, they're so damn accurate.
 

Deek

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 28, 2008
218
12
0
I think the power of the zoom is offset by the zoom itself, wherein you "lose" a large chunk of real estate. If I spend any amount of time zoomed in, I become paranoid that someone is right there on my peripheral, approaching or popping into view just off to the side, but I'm too focused to notice ...

I'm still not sure I love it, but I certainly don't hate it.

Great post, OP.
 

Cpt-Praxius

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 12, 2005
3,300
1,667
0
Canadian in Australia
The main problem is the ease of shooting. I can headshot every long range contact I come across with COMPLETE ease in RO2. This would be nearly impossible in RO1. It's like being a human aimbot.

And falling back to RO1's technical shortcomings you have been used to is a good thing?

Back when I was going to the rifle range.... way back in Air Cadets at the age of 11-12 when I first started shooting Lee Enfields, we started on larger targets, one target on half a letter sized sheet of paper placed at your normal firing range distance against the wall....
yhst-59525373201481_1953_184304037.jpg

^ Similar to this

it was too easy for me to get good groupings in the black bullseye area. After a few weeks of training on those, they moved us up to a full letter sized paper with multiple targets on them, which were much smaller:
8may09overview.jpg

^ Similar to this but only the bullseyes were half-circled black and everything else was white. From the distance I was shooting at, my eyes couldn't see anything but little black dots through my sights.... the rest of the target just blended into the paper from that distance.

After a day or two, I was getting groupings in the black areas almost all the time after a few sight adjustments.

If a half-trained 11-12 year old can accurately hit those small black areas with a Lee Enfield from a standard rifle range distance.... I'm sure a fully trained soldier who used similar rifles in WWII could pick off someone's head very easily at even further distances, where their head would be of a similar size at further distances, or larger than that black dot at the same distance or closer.

Oh and I should also note that the Lee Enfields were modified to use 22.cal so they didn't blow off little kids shoulders ;)
 
Last edited:

dieterweber

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2011
62
101
0
And falling back to RO1's technical shortcomings you have been used to is a good thing?

Back when I was going to the rifle range.... way back in Air Cadets at the age of 11-12 when I first started shooting Lee Enfields, we started on larger targets, one target on half a letter sized sheet of paper placed at your normal firing range distance against the wall....
yhst-59525373201481_1953_184304037.jpg

^ Similar to this

it was too easy for me to get good groupings in the black bullseye area. After a few weeks of training on those, they moved us up to a full letter sized paper with multiple targets on them, which were much smaller:
8may09overview.jpg

^ Similar to this but only the bullseyes were half-circled black and everything else was white.

After a day or two, I was getting groupings in the black areas almost all the time.

If a half-trained 11-12 year old can accurately hit those small black areas with a Lee Enfield from a standard rifle range distance.... I'm sure a fully trained soldier who used similar rifles in WWII could pick off someone's head very easily at even further distances, where their head would be of a similar size, or larger than that black dot.


Nice, come into the thread with information and pictures that are clearly a fallacy. The reality is that RO1 was more realistic than any shooter ever.
 

LMAOser

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2011
178
103
0
Nice, come into the thread with information and pictures that are clearly a fallacy. The reality is that RO1 was more realistic than any shooter ever.

It's really not difficult to shoot a rifle with reasonable accuracy after a decent amount of instruction. I think that's the point that he was making.
 

Josef Nader

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2011
1,713
1,165
0
I'm talking 800+ feet.

Read: 300 yards.

Well within the effective ranges of these weapons and the distance most soldiers are trained to fight at.

In fact, the AK-47 was developed precisely BECAUSE most engagements took place within the 300 yard mark. They didn't need the incredible accuracy of a full rifle (that can hit a target well beyond 600 yards with ease) or the blistering RoF of an SMG. They needed a mix of both effective at the usual combat range.

And thus the assault rifle was born.