G41 Scoped
- Thread starter Korn-Y
- Start date
The scope is for longer distances, so it is adjusted in a other angle
then the ironsights. So when you look threw the scope the rifle is
hold in another angle then when you look threw the iron sights.
The whole scope is wrong done, cause of humans stereoscopic view
its housing had to be nearly transparent and not solid.
And its a myth "snipers" only aims with one eye, you aim with both
eyes open and when you focused on a target, you close on eye.
Thats comparable to the effect when you hold one finger in front of
your face and it looks ghostlike.
then the ironsights. So when you look threw the scope the rifle is
hold in another angle then when you look threw the iron sights.
The whole scope is wrong done, cause of humans stereoscopic view
its housing had to be nearly transparent and not solid.
And its a myth "snipers" only aims with one eye, you aim with both
eyes open and when you focused on a target, you close on eye.
Thats comparable to the effect when you hold one finger in front of
your face and it looks ghostlike.
Um dude the flaws tend to be on the difficult to maintain and jams easily side, neither of which are reflected in any gun in the game because they're just not fun. As for their power, well yes they're powerful and that's how it was. There's a reason the Garand was known as "the rifle that won the war", and that's semi-automatic fire. These rifles really were just as powerful as the bolt action equivalents; seeing as how they fire the same bullets at the same muzzle velocities I'm lost as to how you think they weren't. At the ranges shown in this game they were just as accurate as the bolt action equivalents. You're not a sniper shooting out to 400, 600, 800 meters. I doubt this game would even bother rendering one pixel to represent a standing man at those distances. I would say that the vast vast majority of combat in this game takes place within 200 meters. If you can't hit a man sized target in real life at 200 meters with either of these guns, then that's your problem, not the guns'. And while I suppose you could fire 10 rounds in one second, I highly doubt you're actually going to hit anything with them...
If it's necessary in order to fix the semi-auto rifle scope then they ought to remove the option to use iron-sights. You wouldn't really need iron sights on the weapon if the scope worked properly (especially if we had the option to choose which upgrades to equip).
Assuming these scopes worked properly I really don't understand how its fair or balanced for the MKB to have a scope. All other scopes are exclusive to Marksman I believe. Assault is supposed to be a CQC class. The MKB really seems like a Hero class weapon they just decided to give out to any Assault player for no reason. I bet the AVT 40 doesn't even get a scope despite deserving it more for having 1/3rd the clip size.
I'll be honest, I didn't read past the part about jamming being the main flaw.
Jamming was implemented in FarCry 2 and worked well, it added suspense to battles just like it would here. But most of all the Gewehr 41 simply wasn't used at Stalingrad. I don't think 1 single soldier, officer or anything else used that weapon, it was barely distributed. The Sturmgewehr was only distributed in under half a million in number by end of war 1945, its prototype the Mkb wasn't distributed at all hardly, and not at Stalingrad.
They shouldn't be in the goddamn game, scope or no scope.
It's really F'ed up if you ask me. You cannot physically do that in real life without a periscope.
100% programmer error. Not a bug, but a math error on the part of TW to displace the viewport of the scope vertically from where it's really looking.
p.s. MKbIIh had a scope option IRL. It should be in-game, but it should be marksman class only.
/edit Actually, now that I look at it in-game, it seems that the scope is properly sighted down the barrel, since when you switch to ironsights you aim at the same target as the scope does.
The problem is with the weapon mesh. Because the scope and the barrel and the ironsights are all parallel, with a slight scope adjustment for range, the weapon should drop straight down when switching from ironsights to scope. Instead it angles up, so the scope is aiming high, but the rendered image in the scope is aiming dead on, which creates the effect of the image in the background not lining up with the image in the scope.
So it needs to be changed so that when using the scope the weapon drops straight down instead of at an angle, allowing for parallel view and a match between scope image and background image.
Last edited:
It's a fixed degree offset from scope to barrel.
I'm having trouble remembering my Trig :/
It's about 1/10 off, so at 100m the scope is 10m off, and at 10m the scope is 1m off. Can't remember how to turn that into an angle of degrees.
I think all TW has to do is remove the trigonometry.
I'm starting to remember... Wikipedia did not help except for converting rad to deg.
Which means 5.7 degrees high all the time. They mounted the scope at a 5.7 degree angle? wtf....
Now I'm wondering if the whole "your rifle shoots where the barrel is aiming, not necessarily where you are looking" is BS. If all the above is true, then the rifle is only shooting where I'm looking, and hitting dead on, even when the barrel is aiming 5.7 degrees off!
/edit it's probably 4.5 degrees or 5 degrees. Who knows, not important.
I'm having trouble remembering my Trig :/
It's about 1/10 off, so at 100m the scope is 10m off, and at 10m the scope is 1m off. Can't remember how to turn that into an angle of degrees.
I think all TW has to do is remove the trigonometry.
I'm starting to remember... Wikipedia did not help except for converting rad to deg.
Which means 5.7 degrees high all the time. They mounted the scope at a 5.7 degree angle? wtf....
Now I'm wondering if the whole "your rifle shoots where the barrel is aiming, not necessarily where you are looking" is BS. If all the above is true, then the rifle is only shooting where I'm looking, and hitting dead on, even when the barrel is aiming 5.7 degrees off!
/edit it's probably 4.5 degrees or 5 degrees. Who knows, not important.
Last edited:
Just be happy you get to play around with such rare weapons in a game, and one that actually tries to accurately replicate how they perform in real life. Both weapons existed during the time period, and both were distributed to soldiers at the front.
So no, they are not overpowered ingame, they perform as they should. They might be overrepresentated however, but that's another thing.
Last edited:
Really? The G41(w) was in Stalingrad... it's a fact.
I end up posting this image too often...
Man nearest front has a G41(w). He is crouching.
Maybe seeing this will make you calm down about what should and shouldn't be in the game. Somehow I doubt that though.
But this is getting off-topic, the point is the G41(w) Sniper's Scope is not functioning properly, this thread isn't about if the G41 was or wasn't in Stalingrad (which, it WAS.)
Last edited:
Really? The G41(w) was in Stalingrad... it's a fact.
I end up posting this image too often...
Man nearest front has a G41(w). He is crouching.
Maybe seeing this will make you calm down about what should and shouldn't be in the game. Somehow I doubt that though.
But this is getting off-topic, the point is the G41(w) Sniper's Scope is not functioning properly, this thread isn't about if the G41 was or wasn't in Stalingrad (which, it WAS.)
+1
Notice the StuG III in the background, must have been quite unnerving to be inside a turretless tank within the city of Stalingrad.
No. It was a self-propelled gun kinda like a tank destroyer. It didn't have the fire control system for indirect artillery fire. But it could pivot really fast so not having a turret wasn't that bad. Plus it had a low siluete.
"No?" Yes! It was an armored, self-propelled version of the then-traditional, 75mm light artillery piece used for close infantry assault support. Its advantage is that it was mobile and immune from small arms fire and resistant to many small calibre anti-tank weapons. It was EARLY self-propelled artillery. If you wanna get hyper-technical, a self-propelled "field gun." Later versions had anti-tank guns mounted to replace the short-barreled, 75mm ARTILLERY piece, in which case, then, yes, that later, specific version would be -- and were -- considered to be tank destroyers. Why the grief? It's common knowledge!
Last edited:
I knew someone would point this out
LOL, well "someone" above (COUGH! squadleader ... COUGH!) doesn't seem to think so.
The official term was assault gun, and later tank destroyer. The armour was basically the same as on the Pz.III, but up to 80mm thick at the front, so abit more than just resistant to small calibre AT weapons
And in basic nature, it truly is just a turretless tank.
The official term was assault gun, and later tank destroyer. The armour was basically the same as on the Pz.III, but up to 80mm thick at the front, so abit more than just resistant to small calibre AT weapons
And in basic nature, it truly is just a turretless tank.
Yes "assault gun." Thank you. It wasn't till later the germans had SPA. And the short 75mm was an "Infantry GUN" NOT artillery. Jeez
Last edited:
It's amazing what people come up with even though they have no idea what's actually in place to get this working.
I'd suggest saving your time and skipping the whole math analysis, "Tripwire made a coding mistake" nonsense.
That said, I have no idea either, but it looks to me that the scoped rifles in RO2 use one view model for when the weapon is aimed, and only animate differently so that the scope effect is visible. This would allow them to let players swap between ironsights and the scope without worring about making a scope that actively renders a totally different view through its optics while you're not looking through it.
To me it looks like a matter of both performance saving and development saving. I'm sure it could be changed so the scope has its own unique viewing angle separate from the weapon's true aim in ironsights, but it would be a lot of work for a very small detail.