Author Topic: Sight Design Discussion  (Read 14353 times)

Offline Shinkurex

  • CA Mod
  • Salutes: 102
    • [MM]
    • 45 
    • 20
    • 43 
    • View Profile
Sight Design Discussion
« on: November 01, 2013, 12:31:23 pm »
Rather than derail the Gun balance discussion further, please discuss Sight modifications here

Thanks,
Shink

Offline Lochiel

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • [GsC]
    • 10 
    • 25
    • View Profile
Re: Sight Design Discussion
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2013, 12:50:14 pm »
Someone suggested mechanics for changing the angle of the weapon independent of changing the POV; I think that is an unnecessary complication.

I'd be very happy if the markings on the sights corresponded with things like "Max range" "1/2 between Arming range and max range" "Arming range" "1/2 max Range" "1/2 Arming Range". Just take a "test sight" graphic out on the dev firing range, put targets at those ranges, mark the vertical location of the target in the sight picture, and move the markers  to those locations. The gunner will still need to adjust for differences in altitude and lead.

Edit: I'm not a big gunner; I think this would really help on the Hades but I don't think this is a big priority.

Offline The Djinn

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 19
    • [CA]
    • 25 
    • 41
    • 36 
    • View Profile
Re: Sight Design Discussion
« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2013, 01:21:35 pm »
I'd be very happy if the markings on the sights corresponded with things like "Max range" "1/2 between Arming range and max range" "Arming range" "1/2 max Range" "1/2 Arming Range". Just take a "test sight" graphic out on the dev firing range, put targets at those ranges, mark the vertical location of the target in the sight picture, and move the markers  to those locations. The gunner will still need to adjust for differences in altitude and lead.

This would be fantastic. I'm always worried about running the Flaks, Hades or Lumberjack on my ships because most gunners don't seem to have any idea of the real range or arc of those weapons. Even a simple thing of "if you're perfectly level with your target, perfectly stationary, and have them sighted into the 4 marker on your sight, a shot will hit them at approximately maximum range." It's only perfectly accurate in that vacuum, but it would help gunners of all skill levels have more accuracy without removing gunner skill from the equation at all.

Offline Sprayer

  • Member
  • Salutes: 14
    • [SPQR]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 27 
    • View Profile
Re: Sight Design Discussion
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2013, 02:42:58 pm »
I have always been using the LJ sights to determine the angle at which to shoot, that's why I noticed the change pretty quickly. The "1" notch and the "2" notch never really lined up with "1000m" and "2000m" distance to target (that is, put target in between these notches if it is that far away) as I first assumed, but were helpfull nevertheless after some experience with the gun.

If you use the map to determine distances, the max range and arming range markings wouldn't be as helpful as if the notches for 1 and 2 actually lined up with 1000m and 2000m but would still be as helpful as the sights were before, just with the additional info of arming range. Besides, do LJ shots even have a lifetime? I think there's no need to add a "max range" mark to it when you simply reach max range by pointing the gun 45° into the air.

For the Hades: There are a few notches on that gun, 6 I believe, but when the target is on the same height as the gun, the smooth arc makes using any notches besides the uppermost two useless. Removing the visorshield would help aiming that gun a lot more since it sucks to have to lead targets left thanks to that.

zlater75@hotmail.com

  • Guest
Re: Sight Design Discussion
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2013, 03:51:21 pm »

 ???

There was discussion there about the gun itself. The Lumberjack as the topic is "the gun and gunner skill" thread.. so how did it get derailed??
Also believe the matter of the sight numbers being swapped the wrong way (as the 2 is for short range and 1 for long range on the sight itself) was the point and was ackknowledged by awkm to put forward to the artists.
Only tried to help, say facts on how the original sight m203 vs LJ are different due to missing static front sight on the LJ which means there must be one static sight to be realistic not the direct copy of the rear sight. Sight design was not the issue at all if you read those posts again.

And no.. not telling you how to do your job, shinkurex, just that you are mistaken imo on why this thread had to be made. Pointing it out because it's valid info on the fault on the LJ sight. (wish Imagine could make that paint picture to adress the sight issue).

Offline N-Sunderland

  • Member
  • Salutes: 281
    • [Duck]
    • 15 
    • 45
    • 23 
    • View Profile
Re: Sight Design Discussion
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2013, 03:58:43 pm »
No back-seat moderating, thanks.

This has happened lots of times in the past with long discussions in the guns balance thread (e.g. lumberjack discussion a few months back), so there's no reason to be alarmed. It just allows the main thread to focus on other things.

zlater75@hotmail.com

  • Guest
Re: Sight Design Discussion
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2013, 04:06:22 pm »
 :-\ That wasn't my intention at all...

But if that's how it appears my sincere apologies.


The fact about the sight, i tried to discuss with others, that had the same point, in the sticky thread, about it here was the numbers on the sight are the wrong way. It has to be a larger number for the position of sight that gives you longer range on the LJ. Design is fine imho. No other "rants, derails or comments" about it. I just felt misunderstood here. Now twice.  :(

Offline N-Sunderland

  • Member
  • Salutes: 281
    • [Duck]
    • 15 
    • 45
    • 23 
    • View Profile
Re: Sight Design Discussion
« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2013, 04:14:04 pm »
Once again, you didn't do anything wrong. The discussion in general was just starting to take up a lot of space in that thread, so it was moved here.

Anyways, I don't want to derail this thread anymore.

zlater75@hotmail.com

  • Guest
Re: Sight Design Discussion
« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2013, 05:15:53 pm »
Just to say.. nvm the confusion.. was explained why this topic was made.

All i can say on topic is the LJ sight "2" should be "1" and viceversa from a gunners PoV.

Offline Lochiel

  • Member
  • Salutes: 2
    • [GsC]
    • 10 
    • 25
    • View Profile
Re: Sight Design Discussion
« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2013, 05:31:35 pm »
Not to disagree with Genozide; but to encourage the continuation of the discussion.

The marks on the sights need to correspond to something in game, otherwise their orientation don't matter.

zlater75@hotmail.com

  • Guest
Re: Sight Design Discussion
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2013, 01:09:44 am »
Well you aren't disagreeing. because that's what it was on about.

the m203 sight was said to be the model of the current LJ sight which is clearly visible when comparing pics. But the logic of using the mirrored rear sight without the static front sight is unlogical. That's why the numbers should be adapted to the game, not half the ironsight. Hence i posted the details of how the m203 aiming is done to compare with the LJ sight and a pic of another sight that has the range grow the higher you aim with one sight where the numbers go the other way.

Offline Sprayer

  • Member
  • Salutes: 14
    • [SPQR]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 27 
    • View Profile
Re: Sight Design Discussion
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2013, 05:17:23 am »
On all guns in the game the sight/target line and the direction in which the barrel points are identical, that is not the case for the sight/weapon system combination of the m203 which awkm linked before. I guess it would take some changes to how aiming works to include the front part of a sight which is impractical for vehicle mounted guns anyways. So reverting it to how the sight was before would be good enough for me, but if those notches actually corresponded to certain ranges, that would be even better.

Offline Letus

  • Member
  • Salutes: 34
    • [SAC]
    • 45 
    • 45
    • 33 
    • View Profile
Re: Sight Design Discussion
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2013, 06:49:46 am »
It was odd to see the numbers and red line switched on the Lumberjack.  The guns I use the Notches for "Lumberjack and Hades," however, did not change at all.
Ship looks this big...aim at this notch with this ammo in it...that's how I rolled.

Granted, the Typhon is probably the one that needs a new sight...we don't even need a drop sight on it...maybe...since it is a sniping gun...raise the sight over the gun, and perhaps add mills to the cross sights!  It feels off having to aim with a sight that never goes over the target...

Offline Chrinus

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 10
    • [Gent]
    • 32 
    • 38
    • 27 
    • View Profile
Re: Sight Design Discussion
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2013, 10:05:28 am »
Granted, the Typhon is probably the one that needs a new sight...we don't even need a drop sight on it...maybe...since it is a sniping gun...raise the sight over the gun, and perhaps add mills to the cross sights!  It feels off having to aim with a sight that never goes over the target...

I'd honestly like to see that circular grid sight placed within view to be useful (the sight between the gun's barrels). It would let you track momentum both vertically and horizontally if you play with it enough.

Offline Thomas

  • Member
  • Salutes: 80
    • [SPQR]
    • 20 
    • 44
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Sight Design Discussion
« Reply #14 on: November 02, 2013, 07:56:56 pm »
The only problem I have with the sights on the lumberjack (and hades) is that they obstruct the view. All the guns have a sight of some kind on them, but you never actually really use it. Your view is often to the side or above the gun/gun sights, using the circle thing to aim with instead. However with the hades/lumberjack, you get a dot with actual gun sights.


So my only issue is that the sights block the view, not necessarily how realistic or functional they are.


Pictures of the guns, and pictures of the mounted view below them:


(Some pictures have been stretched)