Acog reflex sight PLEASE!

[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]

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{} -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{} -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{} -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{} -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.

{LOD}WolfBear{} -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]

Lookin' good

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{} -my daddy was a pistol and I am a son of a gun-