Weapon Model Issues

[Lemonater47]

Widening & blurring the aperture is simulating how real eyes work, because that's exactly what happens when you use peep sights in real life, the hole widens significantly until sides are very thin and semi transparent.

Which you can achieve in a game without touching the model lol. That's what I've been saying this whole time.

And yeah we've done it again mate lol. Derailed a thread. You wanting the sights changed in every thread, me getting triggered because I think the devs are going to listen to you for some reason and we just go round in circles.

Can you make like an M16 sights thread. Instead of using everyone else's barely related threads.

 

[FR4NCH3K]

This thread is going circles and circles. It's the same topic, the same posts on 4 pages. Could some moderator please close this thing or a dev answer and make a clear statement if any of those suggestions would be realistic for Rising Storm 2?

While I agree that it is currently going in circles and the two people who are bickering about sights need to stop, I think closing this thread is a disservice to those in the community who care about the quality of the models, especially given the mission statement of the development team and publisher.

All of these suggestions are realistic as they are based on reality. It only takes a few minutes of searching to verify most of the suggestions in this thread.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Which you can achieve in a game without touching the model lol. That's what I've been saying this whole time.

You want to simulate how the eye works, that's exactly what I've suggested with an animation opening & blurring the rear aperture upon entering aimed view. That you keep missing this suggests you have a very serious problem with interpreting text.

That aside, it's obvious that many of the ingame weapon models need an update, esp. the AK series, it goes for everything from sights, to barrels to magazines, the AK looks particularly bad. Right now however it is the sights on many weapons which not only look wrong but also affect gameplay, hence the continued mention of these for some weapons.

 

[Lemonater47]

You want to simulate how the eye works, that's exactly what I've suggested with an animation opening & blurring the rear aperture upon entering aimed view. That you keep missing this suggests you have a very serious problem with interpreting text.

That aside, it's obvious that many of the ingame weapon models need an update, esp. the AK series, it goes for everything from sights, to barrels to magazines, the AK looks particularly bad. Right now however it is the sights on many weapons which not only look wrong but also affect gameplay, hence the continued mention of these for some weapons.

Yeah lets start insulting each other. That solves problems.

Maybe you could consider that I don't think touching the model is changing how the eye works. Changing how the eye works with something that globally affects all weapons is maybe what I'm talking about. Rather than doing it for one or a few weapons by doing really wierd changes to them. Maybe that's what I've been saying this whole time and maybe you just haven't understood me.

Or do you just want to call me stupid to somehow justify how you are correct in your mind?

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Changing how the eye works with something that globally affects all weapons is maybe what I'm talking about. Rather than doing it for one or a few weapons by doing really wierd changes to them.

And exactly how do you intend to achieve this? afaik EU3 can't simulate such complex lens effects.

Also how is what I suggested a weird change when it's exactly what happens when you look through the sights in real life, i.e. aperture hole widens, sides thin out & turn semi transparent etc ?

 

[Lemonater47]

And exactly how do you intend to achieve this? afaik EU3 can't simulate such complex lens effects.

Also how is what I suggested a weird change when it's exactly what happens when you look through the sights in real life, i.e. aperture hole widens, sides thin out & turn semi transparent etc ?

It's called focus lol. You can do it with a camera. And yeah you can do focus like that lol. No game I've heard of changes the model when aiming. That's why its weird.

 

[-Moody-]

What the heck. I don't know any game where DOF leads to bigger holes in peep sights or smaller holes. This discussion is so useless. I don't know why Lemonater47 cares so much how a certain effect is achieved. Even if it is somewhat "cheating" to do this because you actually animate the model when using the sights. It is a common practice to simulate certain things in videogames with totally different approaches. What's your problem? What Unus Offa, Unus Nex is asking for is Peep Sights which don't distract your view just as in real life. It doesn't really matter how it is achieved. Even if it means to animate the small holes and make them blurry by filter or DOF. A more realistic approach with really realistic DOF just like eyesight might be a very expensive solution for this.

 

[Lemonater47]

The realistic approach of making the model itself unrealistic.

That's the issue I have. That's what he's suggesting.

The hole doesn't physically get bigger. Currently the game is focused both on the gun and everything else. When really you don't want the gun to be in focus. Meaning you can see through it better.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

The realistic approach of making the model itself unrealistic.

That's the issue I have. That's what he's suggesting.

The hole doesn't physically get bigger. Currently the game is focused both on the gun and everything else. When really you don't want the gun to be in focus. Meaning you can see through it better.

What?!

You just don't get it. My suggestion doesnt have the model made unrealistic goddamnit, it has the rear aperture open up ONLY when aiming so you get a REALISTIC sight picture. What this means is that the model itself stays absolutely 100% realistic in both view modes. How is this so damn hard to understand??

To be realized this demands an animation however as video games can't create the effect the same way the human eye does it - it's simply not how videogame graphics work. Hence why most games choose the lazy option of simply making peep sight apertures permanently wide, rightly emphasizing a realistic sight picture, and therefore usability/gameplay, over aesthetics - the casual playerbase of these games won't notice it anyway. However RS caters to people with a higher interest in realism (there are a lot of gun nuts around here, myself included) , thus simulating the sight effect and having the weapon looks correct in both view modes suddenly becomes important. That's the issue AMG needs to solve, and it can only be done so through an animation effect.

 

[Lemonater47]

What?!

You just don't get it. My suggestion doesnt have the model made unrealistic goddamnit, it has the rear aperture open up ONLY when aiming so you get a REALISTIC sight picture. What this means is that the model itself stays absolutely 100% realistic in both view modes. How is this so damn hard to understand??

This solution however demands an animation to be realized as video games can't create the effect the same way the human eye does it - it's simply not how videogame graphics work. Hence why most games choose the lazy option of simply making peep sight apertures permanently wide, rightly emphasizing a realistic sight picture, and therefore usability/gameplay, over aesthetics. The casual playerbase of these games won't notice it anyway, however RS caters to people with a higher interest in realism (there are a lot of gun nuts around here, myself included) , thus simulating the sight effect and having the weapon looks correct in both view modes suddenly becomes important. That's the issue AMG needs to solve, and it can only be done so through an animation effect.

You're changing the size of the model.

Therefore making it unrealistic.

How are you not seeing that lol.

 

[-Moody-]

You're changing the size of the model.

Therefore making it unrealistic.

How are you not seeing that lol.

Yeah, just like the moon in RO2/RS maps is a 2D plate in the sky, like 30 meters wide. So unrealistic.

 

[Lemonater47]

Yeah, just like the moon in RO2/RS maps is a 2D plate in the sky, like 30 meters wide. So unrealistic.

He wants the weapon model to be wrong just so he can see slightly better.

You're fine with that?

Don't go around calling it realistic then lol.

 

[-Moody-]

He wants the weapon model to be wrong just so he can see slightly better.

In all the recent posts he is trying to explain a system which is way more than changing the sights like so many arcade shooters do. Seriously, he is explaining it over and over again and you just seem to not get it at all. I could just point at the posts above but I'll try it again with you one last time:

The standard model of a weapon with peep sights looks exactly like the weapon is built up in reallife. Same proportions and everything. We all know that this leads to certain problems while aiming down the sight in a videogame. Many game-developers just change the proportions of the sights to ensure better visibility. This is not something you want. And this is not something "Unus Offa, Unus Nex" wants(!). Clear?

Your suggestion or your solution would be to simulate the human eyesight by an intelligent DOF-Engine which widens the hole of the peep sights. That's very cool. But very unlikely to happen. TWI or AMG just don't have the budget for this. If it was that easy more games with large budgets would do that.

"Unus Offa, Unus Nex" is suggesting a different solution to this because the intelligent DOF-Engine is hard to do. Just like a 3476 km wide moon with a distance of 384.400 km would be a bit overkill to render in a multiplayer shooter. That's why they use a small plate which looks like a moon and place it beneath the skybox. "Unus Offa' Unus Nex"'s suggestion goes into the same direction:

His suggestion would be to animate the peep sights of weapons when you press "aim", so that the hole in the peep sight will open up a bit so that visibility is ensured. But this alone wouldn't be immersive, right? No, of course not. This is why the inner ring of the holes should be blurred additionally so that it looks like a blur produced by a human eye.

The results of those two suggestions are very similar while the approach of the solution is very different. But the second suggestion comes with less cost on development-time and render-time. Just like the 2d plate of the moon in the sky comes with the same result like a fully rendered moon.

If you still don't get it then we should stop this discussion immediately.

 

[Beskar Mando]

In all the recent posts he is trying to explain a system which is way more than changing the sights like so many arcade shooters do. Seriously, he is explaining it over and over again and you just seem to not get it at all. I could just point at the posts above but I'll try it again with you one last time:

The standard model of a weapon with peep sights looks exactly like the weapon is built up in reallife. Same proportions and everything. We all know that this leads to certain problems while aiming down the sight in a videogame. Many game-developers just change the proportions of the sights to ensure better visibility. This is not something you want. And this is not something "Unus Offa, Unus Nex" wants(!). Clear?

Your suggestion or your solution would be to simulate the human eyesight by an intelligent DOF-Engine which widens the hole of the peep sights. That's very cool. But very unlikely to happen. TWI or AMG just don't have the budget for this. If it was that easy more games with large budgets would do that.

"Unus Offa, Unus Nex" is suggesting a different solution to this because the intelligent DOF-Engine is hard to do. Just like a 3476 km wide moon with a distance of 384.400 km would be a bit overkill to render in a multiplayer shooter. That's why they use a small plate which looks like a moon and place it beneath the skybox. "Unus Offa' Unus Nex"'s suggestion goes into the same direction:

His suggestion would be to animate the peep sights of weapons when you press "aim", so that the hole in the peep sight will open up a bit so that visibility is ensured. But this alone wouldn't be immersive, right? No, of course not. This is why the inner ring of the holes should be blurred additionally so that it looks like a blur produced by a human eye.

The results of those two suggestions are very similar while the approach of the solution is very different. But the second suggestion comes with less cost on development-time and render-time. Just like the 2d plate of the moon in the sky comes with the same result like a fully rendered moon.

If you still don't get it then we should stop this discussion immediately.

I'd like to point out that Lemonater's Idea is more sound from a development perspective, DOF or via materials. And not hard to do in-comparison to attempting to implement polygon morphing.
Also am I the only who the M16 sight seems fine?

 

[Lemonater47]

Yeah your suggestion about animating the gun to make the hole wider and hiding it with blur would be an artists nightmare and to top it off you may not get the desired effect. At least in the transition.

In terms of the sights being fine I think practically the are. Haven't heard anyone in game complain about the sight ring either. Wonder if Beskar has heard many complain with his 250 hours in RS2. But that's not what we're talking about here.



In the grand scheme of things it's probably not going to change. And rather than starting a thread about things here's another hijacked Thread. We've ruined it and now the devs will probably ignore this all entirely. Even the stuff that was on topic. They probably see 2 idiots fighting each other.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

In all the recent posts he is trying to explain a system which is way more than changing the sights like so many arcade shooters do. Seriously, he is explaining it over and over again and you just seem to not get it at all. I could just point at the posts above but I'll try it again with you one last time:

The standard model of a weapon with peep sights looks exactly like the weapon is built up in reallife. Same proportions and everything. We all know that this leads to certain problems while aiming down the sight in a videogame. Many game-developers just change the proportions of the sights to ensure better visibility. This is not something you want. And this is not something "Unus Offa, Unus Nex" wants(!). Clear?

Your suggestion or your solution would be to simulate the human eyesight by an intelligent DOF-Engine which widens the hole of the peep sights. That's very cool. But very unlikely to happen. TWI or AMG just don't have the budget for this. If it was that easy more games with large budgets would do that.

"Unus Offa, Unus Nex" is suggesting a different solution to this because the intelligent DOF-Engine is hard to do. Just like a 3476 km wide moon with a distance of 384.400 km would be a bit overkill to render in a multiplayer shooter. That's why they use a small plate which looks like a moon and place it beneath the skybox. "Unus Offa' Unus Nex"'s suggestion goes into the same direction:

His suggestion would be to animate the peep sights of weapons when you press "aim", so that the hole in the peep sight will open up a bit so that visibility is ensured. But this alone wouldn't be immersive, right? No, of course not. This is why the inner ring of the holes should be blurred additionally so that it looks like a blur produced by a human eye.

The results of those two suggestions are very similar while the approach of the solution is very different. But the second suggestion comes with less cost on development-time and render-time. Just like the 2d plate of the moon in the sky comes with the same result like a fully rendered moon.

If you still don't get it then we should stop this discussion immediately.

A noble effort nilsmoody, but unsurprisingly he still didn't get it.

I think Lemon & Beskar need to study up upon how 3D graphics work and what affects performance most, cause this is embarrasing.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

I'd like to point out that Lemonater's Idea is more sound from a development perspective, DOF or via materials. And not hard to do in-comparison to attempting to implement polygon morphing.

Are you actually being serious?

Also am I the only who the M16 sight seems fine?

It's utterly unrealistic. but you and Lemon are fine with it, we get that. Us who own & shoot rifles almost everyday are not.

 

[Beskar Mando]

I was talking from a gameplay perspective. And yes I am being serious. There's a big difference between moving a bone (like the sights going/down) and morphing polygons.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

I was talking from a gameplay perspective. And yes I am being serious. There's a big difference between moving a bone (like the sights going/down) and morphing polygons.

Trying to simulate the lens effects of the human eye globally will come at a FAR higher cost to performance than animating the widening & blurring of an aperture, that much should be clear to anyone with even a basic understanding of computer graphics.

 

[Beskar Mando]

I did specifically specify post process. And I never said anything along the lines of doing a total modification to depth of field. Show me where I said the word "global" or heavily implied it.