Acog reflex sight PLEASE!

[{LOD}WolfBear]

I am begging for an acog reflex sight and the ability to add it to various weapons (IE mp5 m16 etc etc etc) It would allow for better target acquisition at a faster rate than iron sights (for some of us anyway) and still be useful at extended range and close range both because of the FOV. (Not to mention the illuminated dot makes it a nice add on for shadowy places.)

this is a link to trijicons site where they display the unit and some info on it.

http://www.trijicon-inc.com/index_reflex.htm

{LOD}WolfBear{:D} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-

The added pol is for my own curiosity not a means of trying to get it done.

[{LOD}WolfBear]

I cannot believe I used the wrong spelling of sight in the question. Sheesh I think I will pack it up for the day and just go home.

{LOD}WolfBear{:D} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-

[Kisen_K]

It LOOKS good, even tough I have absolutely no idea about the performance...

[Pleuresaap]

i want it i want it i want it!!!!!!!!!!
and, it can fit on almost all weapons in inf:
mp5
m16
m4
sig
maybe even akmsu

that would be great! i would like to see more attachments for weapons already in game anyway. like a flashlight for the mp5.

[Luminuis]

sounds good to me, more sights the better, and the MP5 needs more than the AImpoint

[Shrap]

I think that a wide selection of scope/aimpoint should be added but after the bullet drop system ( I heard of a new one...) because there will be too much sniping with mp5 and things like that...

[{LOD}WolfBear]

Thing about this reflex sight is more I read on it more I love it. (I have used a poor quality one and even it was ok) Apparently (according to trijicon) you can also mount this thing on pistols to (this is usually done as a match upgrade, but a silenced mk23 with this on it would ROCK)

and yes Pleuresaap according to trijicon this thing will mount on danged near anything. (will adapt to ANY weaver mount, plus has mounts for alot of other weapons.) this could even be used in conjunction with say a silenced mp5 with a flashlight. giving you a clear dot for aiming, and a flashlight to brighten the area in dark maps, PLUS as I said it does not obstruct your FOV (field of veiw) or narrow it the way a scope does. (although granted you dont get magnification out of it either just a faster easier target aqcuisition)

If you read this please vote (particularly if the vote is yes) even though it is for my curiosity if this proves to be a popular enough idea the team might even go for it (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GROVEL SNIVEL WHINE)

{LOD}WolfBear{:D} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-

[Pleuresaap]

yes, please vote! preferably yes :D
i would really like more attachments for all weapons like i said: for example one would have an m16/203 with acog, one a supressed mp5 with reflex, flashlight and frags, one a sig with reflex and frags, and so on. wouldn't that be great?

[Kisen_K]

MP5 and SIG511 with frags ????

[Nukeproof]

I like the idea but IMHO these attachments should be limited to a few weapons and be used as a 'balancing tool'.

Under-used weapons would be improved easily.

What would be the point of having iron sights, if every weapons could be equipped with superior reflex sights...?

[Dr.Dase]

Price, that's the way to balance things, if you make it dead expensive, ppl would think twice before buying...

[poaw]

I like the idea of a Reflex sight.
I agree it should be used as a way to further balance the weapons and reinforce their roles within the game.
The prices so far, have been based on reality, and I'm against making prices unrealistic just to balance the weapons.

And I have a pic of one mounted on an SAR-21.

[Nukeproof]

Yes price is one point but it would still make ironsight 'rarely used'. Why not make reflex sights a special feature of few weapons...?

[WarrioRRR]

I'd love to have this thing mounted on my Mp5 or M16
I would be great,
Hoping that the infiltration team think like me

[The_Fur]

IMO attachments should be used to give weapons character, A mp5 with acog could do the same job of a 516 with acog in the average ramges INF combat takes place. A Supressed mini uzi could be used just as well as M4 with supressor in CQB.

IMO every weapon should have as many attachmentys as possible as it allows more weapons to do the same job which gives the players more freedom of choice and adds to the individualism of each player.

[LordKhaine]

Its very hard to have *too* many attachments. I'd like to see more guns added before the team consider adding more attachments to current weapons tho.

[Snakeye]

The question for more and more new attachments has reminded me of a thread, that was discussed a long, long time ago, when I was fresh to the forums. Everybody(me too) stated that we needed more attachments because that's what special forces add to their weapons - then ShakKen or Gryphon dropped in and ruined our little civie dreams; he stated that most military forces tend to keep their weapons free of almost any attachments - for obvious reasons.

Reading the masses of attachments that could be added, I start to think the armory would start to look like a competition shooters armory rather than a military one; scopes, bayonets, bipods flashlight and such seem quite alright to me, but do we really need that much more?

Another point is, that those guns with attachments will become overused - would anyone take a naked M9 if he could have a SOCOM with all the fancy stuff? Perhaps the amount of attachments, especially those for new weapons should even be reduced, so INF don't becomes a 'who-gets-the-most-attachments' game, but remain a military simulation.

Apart from that, how many 'normal' soldiers do you see running around with an AR with reflex sight, GL, LAM, flashlight, supressor, bipod and god knows what else? Last time I checked 'normal' soldiers get an AR perhaps with a GL.

Snakeye :D

[SoSilencer]

I think I'm one of the only people who disagree's with this.

Personally I have never, ever found a need for an ACOG site in this game. For CQB to medium range shots a simple iron sight is far superior as it provides just as much accuracy without any loss of your field of view. Once you start getting into the ranges where iron sights become difficult to use you also start getting into the range where it is extremely difficult to place more than one or two bullets from a burst onto a target. The acog might allow you to aim better but using a burst you'll miss anyways so you have to use semi to effectively hit your target. Of course when using semi at these ranges the target almost always has enough time to get behind cover. At these ranges you should be using a sniper rifle because it's far more accurate and far more powerful.

Apart from the lack of use of the ACOG in the current INF maps I think that the team NEEDS to use attachments to balance out weapons. I mean look at the m16, it has the ACOG and the m203 and it's by far the most widely used weapon in the game. At any given time it's likely that half the players on a server are using this weapon. Other weapons like the SG see relatively little use. Sure it has the ACOG and auto, but how many people prefer auto fire over a grenade launcher? With a grenade launcher you don't need auto and you can handle more situations with indirect fire. Imagine what would happen if we gave the mp5 a flashlight and laser, or even a grenade launcher (though I'm pretty sure the launcher attachment isn't for an mp5 but for a similar HK weapon). Why use anything else? Attachments, that's why. If you want a laser you'll have to use the SG. If you want a supressor you need the mp5. You can have one or the other but not both (at least not once they fix the bulk).

Attachments are one of the only realistic ways to balance a game and if we were to add something like an ACOG for virtually every weapon, or a launcher or a laser or flashlight or anything else we would be seriously limiting the diversity of the weapons. Everything would have roughly the same attachments and therefore you could take the best gun every time. There would be no reason to take a slightly inferior weapon and everybody would be running around with the same thing. At least with attachments there is a reason to use a weapon other than the 'best' for that map.

I say no major changes to the attachment system. As much as I'd love a supressed mp5 with a flashlight, laser, and extended mags or something loadout like that it would be unbalancing and would ruin the diversity of the game.

[The_Fur]

Attachments are one of the only realistic ways to balance a game and if we were to add something like an ACOG for virtually every weapon, or a launcher or a laser or flashlight or anything else we would be seriously limiting the diversity of the weapons. Everything would have roughly the same attachments and therefore you could take the best gun every time. There would be no reason to take a slightly inferior weapon and everybody would be running around with the same thing. At least with attachments there is a reason to use a weapon other than the 'best' for that map.

I'm afraid you contradict yourself a bit here.
If every gun has every attachment available there wouldn't be a best gun now would there, there would only be personal preference so it would INCREASE the diversity of weapons used.

[Luminuis]

The_Fur has a point.

[NotBillMurray]

I think he means that if there was a weapon that provided you all of the attachments of the M16 with a trigger group capable of burst and full auto, do you think the M16 would become the rarity on the battlefield?

I think that providing the Sig as the only fully automatic weapon with a LAM they make it a unique alternative to the M16, at the cost of a grenade launcher. When the LAM is online capable, this difference will be more apparent, and could result in it being used more.

But I think the M4 will be the true test of the concept, because it has every attachment available in the game short of a suppressor. If your theory holds true, the M16 will not drop off of the top of the armory list. If SoSilencer is correct, the M4 will eclipse all other weapons.

We'll have to see the final outcome to be sure.

[Pleuresaap]

a fact is: lasers will encourage ppl to aim from the hip, in my opnion this is a bad thing. i'm not going to go on with this until i've seen the lasers on the p90 and sig in 2.86 but i think shooting from the hip should be made far less accurate. someone stated that most military forces keep their weapons as clean as possible on the attachments side. but they DO use a flashlight on the mp5. the mp5 "tactical forearm" even has an integrated surefire so i think we should have a flashlight for the mp5.
another fact: You can't use a reflex and an acog at the same time. you can only have one scope so if there are more attachments available you will have to choose. for example: m4 with m203 or m4 with shotgun. You will have to think: what will i most likely need on this map. if you then chose the shotgun you chose a cqb attachments wich makes it a strange choice to have a telescopic sight. so it would be no scope at all or a reflex scope. this will as Fur said make weapon choice more individual.

[JaFO]

Did you try to use the LAM on the Sig in Infiltration ?

As it is now the only good the laserdot is for the 1st shot when shooting from the 'unaimed' position, anything else is not as accurate compared to the 'aimed' position.

// ----
As for the 'reflex' sight / more attachments : it would allow you customize your own weapon, which is a good thing.

But will it prevent the 'M16/M203'-syndrome ?
Once there are enough different weapons it might, but with the current armory I doubt it will.

IMHO there will always be a weapon which every 'newbie'/'unskilled' player will use for 90% of the maps. Having some unique attachments only available to certain weapons might give this type of player a reason to use another weapon under some circumstances.

Unless the game awards points (or something else) to players using 'lesser' weapons with/without attachments, few players will even consider alternatives to their personal favorite.

[Lolo Konijn]

I'm for as much attachements and weapons as possible.
Arguements such like: the weapon is to powerfull, it would unbalace the game, other weapons aren't used @ all. These things make no sense: If there is a weapon, in RL, which is superior in every way (price, firepower, ROF, low recoil, accuracy, reliabilty etc..) why wouldn't every soldier in the world use that gun? Think about that...

Every gun has his drawbacks. As long as the drawbacks of every gun are implanted properly there wouldn't be a "best" weapon for every situation. If you like to add 3 attachements to your gun make it possible (as long as it could be done in RL), but it would be more heavy so it's harder to aim quickly, it could get dirty more easily (add an dirt indicator). And if the weapon is thrown to the floor or something like that, it could get damaged: cracked scope, displacement of scope/nadelauncher/laserattachement, etc...

People will choose the weapon which fits their fighting style, just like in RL.

So I can't see why not every weapon availeble shouldn't be implanted.

If someone could tell me where I missed a point please tell me....

[Col.Sanders]

http://us.st3.yimg.com/store5.yimg.com/I/botach_1634_48392776

WolfBear: The Tasco Optima 2000 is so small, it can be mounted in place of a handgun's rear sight. Special holsters are available which protect the sight and switch the sight on as the gun is drawn.

On attachements:
The reason the average soldier is not issued a weapon with sixty attachements is primarily cost, and secondly, training.

The whole M4 costs $650. All those attachements triple and even quadruple the cost of the rifle. Do all those attachements get more lead downrange? In most armies, the money is better spent on more rifles. This is also why sidearms are not issued as often. Modern handguns can equal or exceed the cost of a rifle. Why arm one man well when two can be armed "OK"?

The average recruit isn't a good enough shot to make use of a tricked-out rifle. Also, think about the extra training: he has to be taught how to use the scope, how to tell the scope is busted, how to remove it, and then how to use the regular iron sights. For what? So he can hose down suspected enemy positions to cover his teammates.

The reliability of the attachements adds to the training cost-- how many $500-800 ACOGs will break in training?

That said, I believe that INF is more a model of SpecOps than "average" soldiers-- we get to pick our loadouts, even use the enemy's weapons, and fight in small groups without airsupport or resupply. And SpecOps troops can make good use of attachments, because millions have already been spent on training them, so why skimp on the weapons? The heart of SpecOps is making each member of a small group as effective as possible to suprise and overcome a larger force. From this comes assault rifles, grenade launchers, scopes, lasers, suppressors, etc.

I stand behind the try-it-and-see principle: let's see the M4 and it's golf-bag of gadgets in the game before we start condemning it. If they suck, they will suck in the game. If they school people, then maybe they need to be balanced, or maybe they are that good in real life and people need to adapt and overcome.

And back to the first post, there are some weapons which stand above all others with a lack of drawbacks. Everything is a tradeoff in engineering, but when it comes to tools used to kill people before they kill you, some guns suck and some don't.

[{LOD}WolfBear]

Yeah the tasco is pretty cool, there is also one out there (cannot remember who makes it) called a halo. Strange thing on it is the Dot seems to move as you do, kinda causes a little vertigo till you get used to it.

ANYWAY the thing about limiting the reflex is I think it is a BAD idea to limit it. Some people prefere and are more acurate with iron sights (a reflex is not more acurate just allows for slightly faster target aquisition, and is a little more helpful in varying light situations thna iron sights, my opinion on that btw)If you want to talk about a limiting factor the dang thing costs like $379 PLUS the mount (usually ending up in the $600-$800 range) It can be mounted on practically anything so why limit realism in a game that promotes realism?

I don't think adding the reflex is going to suddenly make the m16 or any other gun obsolete because I think it will give everybody the ability to use the gun of their preference with a GOOD sight (if you only make it available for a couple of weapons THEN you are tettering on making others unused by a large majority) Iron sights will still be kept in my loadout for several weapons (ie I like iron sights on the m16, but hate em on the mp5). But I REALLY would like to see this in the game. (My loadout as an example would wind up consisting of a silenced mk23 with a reflex, and a m16/m203 without, with an alternate loadout of the berretta without the reflex, and a silenced mp5 with the reflex. add a couple of hand grenades, and I have two GREAT loadouts(again my opinion), with one sniper loadout just in case)

I would love to see more attachments, more flashlights in particular (sicilynights is a bear otherwise, no pun intended), and I think the reflex could be a fast and easy way of really expanding that list.

{LOD}WolfBEar{:D} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-

[{LOD}WolfBear]

For those who did NOT click on the link this is a pic of SEVERAL different weapons mounted with the trijicon reflex. (most of which just happen to be in INF)

{LOD}WolfBear{:D} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-

[The_Fur]

wow that sight would do wonders for the AKMSU, the sights on that thing simply suck, same with the shotgun.

[{LOD}WolfBear]

Agrees with Fur

{LOD}WolfBear{:D} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-

[Kisen_K]

Agree, the AKMSU should have at least one attachment (don't count the drummag. in here)...

[Nukeproof]

600$-800$ Acog on the AKMSU... sounds like I Porsche 'Tiptronic' Gearshift inside a Volkswage Beetle...;)

(This is not meant to tell anyone anything about ACOG usage in RL nore in future INF Versions... was just my first assoziation;))

[{LOD}WolfBear]

well considering you can mount it on a $300 shotgun I don't think the AK is all that far fetched. Besides 2/3s of my expense on almost all my really nice pieces irl was not the base gun itself, but the mods and add ons afterwards.

{LOD}WolfBear{:D} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-

[JaFO]

Could anyone post a picture so we can see what such a sight looks like IRL ?
The site only shows the outside, but not the effect/enhancement such a thing would give ...

[{LOD}WolfBear]

ok it sucks but this is the best I can do in thirty seconds in paint at work while trying to avoid my boss. :P

{LOD}WolfBear{:D} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-

[JaFO]

:( all I get is 'attachment not found' ...

[The_Fur]

lol@Wolfbear


Anyway how does that differ from an aimpoint?

[The_Fur]

double post

[Ham Tyler]

Yeah - more attachments... please

Also, what does anyone think of being able to snap a sight on and off a gun? For eg - the M16 with Acog. I'd like to be able to sit at range, use the sight and pick people off, then remove it and use iron sights for close in kills. Anyone agree?

[Nukeproof]

Shakken has already made clear (several times) that removing acogs during battle is not what soldiers do in RL, because it would take a difficult procedure to realigning the sights...

I can't judge about this myself... but that's what the team states...

[{LOD}WolfBear]

Well Fur in that I have never actually used an aimpoint I dunno. Does the aimpoint project? If so that is one BIG difference, the Dot only appears on the lens monical of the Reflex, also most good reflexes use light gathering fiber optics to power the Dot, thus you wind up with a slightly brighter image through the sight as well.

Also if I remember correctly (from the game not RL) an aimpoint has more of a waver to it (kinda like the halo sight) where the reflex dot does not appear to move (unless the monical moves IE it is appears to be fixed in positioning)

As for the question about removable sights, in certain cases I would not be opposed to a removable scope (like on the m16 but NOT the psg-1 or robar) However while you think about this, even with advancements in mounts etc, it still takes a period of time to switch the scope out (trying switching drum mags on the ak for awhile and you will get my drift) Now in real life this presents another problem in that after the scope is removed it is fairly easy to knock it out of adjustment, in most cases. (although I have heard there are mil spec mounts that don't suffer from this problem as a general rule)

Oh and Jafo I had to reattach the image on the post shortly after the first time I posted it you might try refreshing your page now (it should display without a download as it is now a jpg where for some reason beofre it wanted to download because it was a bmp)

{LOD}WolfBear{:D} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-

[JaFO]

Thanks for the help :)

So the dot stays centered & you get a brighter view ?
The aimpoint in Inf moves as you walk, don't know if that's the same effect.

Apart from the 'brighter' view it looks the same as the Aimpoint-attachment for the MP-5 in Inf.

Sounds like an useful addition to the armory to me, but will there be anyone who wants to use the 'pure' iron sights after (almost every) weapon has such a thing available for it and ppl are able to aim without the attachment at shorter ranges ?

[{LOD}WolfBear]

Actually I think in theory yes, people will still want to use iron sights in many situations. For example I would not want the attachment on the berretta, but I do want it on the mp5, I would not want it on the m16, but I do want it on the mk23 and the akmsu. It is mostly a matter of preference, and how much the sight bothers you in certain situations. The plus to the sight is, in fact faster target acquisition, but it is not ALL up side. Even in my poor drawing if you look you should be able to figure out that at a GREAT distance there IS going to be a little FOV blockage due to the ring itself. What does this mean? Well if all that is sticking around a corner at the other end of the map is your head, and I have the reflex on, I have a blind spot in front of me that I DON'T really have with iron sights. On the flip side once I DO spot you it is easier to trail in on you (again theoretically) and zap you. When you consider that the size of the Dot does not change, how much of your FOV is IT going to take up at 100 yards? Well depending on which reflex they put in (I am hoping for one of the fine dot moduals myself) anywere from 4.5 inches to nearly a foot of FOV at 100 yards that is blocked my the Dot itself.

The reflex really is designed for close up work, but the fine dot versions will more that work at longer ranges effectively. It all boils down to personnel choice. By no means will it replace an acog scope on the m16 for distance, nor will it replace a sniper rifle. But for tight corners, narrow halls, lots of obsticals etc. It makes for a FINE addition. (there is still no way in heck I will every have all my loadout weapons mounted with it EVEN if it does work with them.) And if you DO get a fine dot modual it is effective up to several hunderd yars without to many problems.

Again this is all about preference, loadout and add-on. Personally I think it would work, and work well, but I also know that not everybody wants or needs it. And all in all that is a good thing. If it was the undeniable best way to go for everybody what would be the point? And if there was no downside would you want to be on the field with somebody who has it? The sight itself is made to allow a highly reflexive person a good target acquisition, particularly in low light, without the concentration you need with iron sights. This is what I personnaly want.

{LOD}WolfBear{:D} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-

[Snake13]

Originally posted by Pleuresaap
a fact is: lasers will encourage ppl to aim from the hip, in my opnion this is a bad thing.

Actually if you look at the models in INF they do not aim from the "hip", they have the gun aimed from the shoulder but have there head upright, when they are "aiming" they have there head tilted to the side aligned with the iron sites. Take a baseballl bat and hold it to your shoulder like a gun but don't look down it.
Now the bat sshould be in the bottom right (or left if ur lefty) of your vision, if you tilt your head and look down the shaft of the bat and close one eye, you'll see that the baseball bat is centered in your vision.


I was fooling around with a whiffle ball bat the other day when i noticed how exactly like infiltration is too this.

[Col.Sanders]

The only difference between the Reflex and the Aimpoint is the power source; the Reflex is tritium-and-ambient-light, the Aimpoint is battery-powered. Aside from that, the Reflex is just missing the tube.

Both do not "project" a dot, they suspend one inside the tube just like a telescope's crosshairs.

[{LOD}WolfBear]

I don't think aiming from the hip is a bad thing (particularly with lasers) I just think it is and SHOULD be more inaccurate.

As for the removable scope if it has already been said no they won't do it then no they won't do it. I agree that many times it is nearly impossible to get the sucker back into the 100% correct position, and even if you do there is a good chance that the aim has been knocked outa wack.

I started this post about the reflex sight, I would kinda like to get the input of some of the moderators/team as well (ie do I have a hope in hell of ever getting to see it used in INF, are there engineering questions I can help with etc etc)

Any more questions on the reflex sight?

{LOD}WolfBear{:D} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-

[{LOD}WolfBear]

The reflex also does not "flit" around when runnin like the aimpoint does in INF, it would sway with the motion of the gun where the aimpoint seems (at least to me could be my mistake) to have alot more play in the motion.

{LOD}WolfBEar{:D} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-

[{LOD}WolfBear]

erm when I asked for team or moderator input (and yes I realize you guys are busy) I didn't mean for everybody else to stop talking about it. Come on guys I wanna know what your opinion on it is. Really I do

{LOD}WolfBEar{:D} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-

[Col.Sanders]

It's not so much a difference between the Reflex and the Aimpoint as it is a mistake in the way the Aimpoint is handled in INF.

In both sights, the dot floats at optical infinity, just like the crosshairs in a telescope. The dot always lies on the target, even if the sight is angled away from the target. The dot will dissappear because you can't see into the scope, but the dot is still on target. This is the major advantage of Dots over iron sights. Rather than align 3 points (front sight, rear sight, and target) you align 2 points (target and dot). And unlike a magnified telescope, the position of your head, as long as you can see the dot, is not critical.

[{LOD}WolfBear]

true, and I agree it could just be a problem in the way the aimpoint is handled as I said I have never used an aimpoint.

{LOD}WoflBear{:D} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-

[{LOD}WolfBear]

Not trying to dig this back up just wondering if the team had ever processed it.

{LOD}WolfBear{:D} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-

[DarkBls]

You know it is easier to add a new weapon than an attachement !

BTW, read this post (http://forums.planetunreal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46883)

[DredDamo]

More weapons! GOOD!

More attachments! Not so good! Esp. if it takes the same amount of time, duh!

I, for one, don't use attachments at all, except the scope on the Robar :D I find the limit on the FOV too unacceptable. Then again, I play an Escort/Assault role, so it kinda makes sense :)

I think we have plenty to play with as is - suggest to the team (which you've done) and trust them to make the right choice, as they have again, and again, and....

[L]-Damodred

[{LOD}WolfBear]

actually no I had no idea it was harder to add an attachment, like I said I don't have to code the thing if it is accepted. Although it does make sense because you only have to setup a weapon for a weapon to work where with an attachment you have to modify the code for all the weapons it is going on. Just wanted a response from the team about it, thanks

{LOD}WolfBear{:D} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-

[{LOD}WolfBear]

btw I had read the thread ealier thats why I went back and asked about this one, I had never seen a processed on it.

{LOD}WolfBear{:D} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-

[zefran]

Okay, lets talk about the general infantry. When I was in 2-35th battalion in hawaii, I had a M4 with a 203 mounted on it. I also had my own Infrared Laser I could mount on it, a Red Dot Sight, and night vision scope, plus the head mounted night vision I had.

If we were going to go train with the red dot and laser, that crap was tied taped bolted and what ever else we could do to secure it to the weapon. It did not get removed in the middle of a fight. Now, the red dot sight in game is alot different that real life. One, you had a larger field of view in rl, and two, the dot was alot smaller. Until the can fix what they have, including all the bugs, I dont advocate making more attachments or weapons. Now, when doing cqb, having the red dot was nice, but, did I need it? Did it improve my skill? Not really, but we did look pretty high tech and cool :-) Did the red dot mounted in front of my night sight or the infrared laser with my head mounted NODS imrove my skills at night? hell yes.

-Jason