Blindfire.

[Harrm]

Okay, I feel this needs to be said, so here's the dreaded rant tags:

[rant]

Is it me, or are new weapons just getting harder and harder to shoot with?

The new AKM, the sight at the end of the barrel is very, very small. In fact, at 640x480 resolution, it's almost impossible to shoot with on full auto to any degree of accuracy whatsoever, even in short bursts. The FAL has this little pindot sight that makes it impossible to see what the **** you're shooting at after the first round, since the gun kicks up about a foot and a half. The new MP5A2 sights aren't much better, and dont get me started on the G3 and M4 handle sights.

I understand that the primary goal of INF is realism. And I realize that everyone on the board is going to retaliate by saying "It's realistic! It's model accuracy!" or "The M4 and MP5 have other attachments!" To that I say, "yeah, that's great, but you're going from weapons with abysmal sights to weapons with sights that enable you to kill with almost no effort."

In any case, that's my piece. I just wanted to voice my opinon on the fact that not seeing what I'm shooting is disgrutling me a bit. Sure, most of these guns have stellar qualities that make up for the fact that you cant see **** while firing them, but really, do I need another 15 incarnations of the FAMAS from the stock INF weapons?

[/rant]

--Harrm

 

[Crowze]

You need to practice. Partly on the range, and partly in-game. I'm capable at handling the FAMAS, M4A1 with carrying-handle sight, MP5A2, AKM... well, pretty much anything really . Except the FAL, I agree with you there it is very difficult to use.

I can't believe you're playing Inf at 640x480 . Even my old Geforce 2 could handle 1024x768 easily enough.

 

[Vega-don]

well if the mp5a2 didnt had the sight attachement it would be hard to use. because the sight is too small to see if the ennemy is dead or not. (with a 9mm gun sometimes you need alot of bullets).
the FAL.. mm some belgian made the sight


and HOURAH FOR GEFORCE 2. my card.

 

[(SDS)benmcl]

It really does come down to practice. I have spent a lot of time on the range doing a wide varity of things. Target shooting in all positions, moving and shooting, snap shooting where you turn, aim and fire as fast as possible. Also single shot, burst, auto, auto but firing controled bursts.

I don't seem to have a problem with any of the sites.

Now I will point out I usually run at 1024X768 and actually been using a bit higher lately so it may be a problem with your resolution.

 

[geogob]

Actually I find the new weapons too easy to use compared to the old ones...

 

[Derelan]

Actually I find the new weapons too easy to use compared to the old ones...

Ditto. M16A4, M4, AKM, they're all better than the default weapons.

*with aimpoint attachments, of course.

 

[Psychomorph]

Playing a bit offline last days I have the same problem as Harrm. I have res 1024X768 and I clearly see the sights, but anyway I find it pain to use.
I love INF, but damn, I finally want the real aiming (closer, bigger sights, slightly less mouse sensitivity, ...). And no, I don't want the True Aim Mutator.

I hope next INF will finally have true sights and their true use.

 

[Derelan]

Anyone want game balance?

 

[yurch]

I love INF, but damn, I finally want the real aiming (closer, bigger sights, slightly less mouse sensitivity, ...). And no, I don't want the True Aim Mutator.

Closer weapon models means more view obstructed.

This means more FAL/FAMAS/G36 style sites for people to bitch about.

Realize now that 'true sights' and 'true use' are invalid concepts.

 

[Derelan]

I believe for "realistic sights", we would need two displays, the left one without the sight and the right one with it, since you can open both eyes and have a relatively unobstructed view from the other eye.

 

[Lethal Dosage]

Anyone want game balance?

Hell no!

The M4a1, G3, AKM, etc sights are just fine, you just need practice firing them.

As for the FN FAL and the FAMAS, well they are a bitch to use, and so best to avoid them if you cant use em.

I used to play plenty of offline games on 1024x768, and the sights are just fine, as i said... you need the practice

 

[Burger]

There are 6 guns that I stay away from:
Famas: The ironsights are hard to use.
M16A2: The Ironsights, in comparison to the 'A4 doesn't look modeled right (my opinion only, don't take it personally). I even took out the M16A2 loadout and replaced it with an 'A4 one.
FAL: The ironsights are hard to use and obstruct the immediate view (unless you're using a high resolution. I use 1024 x 768, btw)
G3: Due to my graphics card generating a default hate of the G3, It clips heaps (and OpenGL doesn't fix the problem either. It make other guns that don't originally clip screw up.)so i don't use it.
G36K: The view takes up too much space.
FiveSeven: The Aimed view makes it look like a oversized block.

But these are my opinions. I Don't rant and rave about it, I just go and use another gun.

And fot the record, the primary weapons that I use are mostly added ones (M4A1, M16A4, AKM, MP5A2, Both Uzis) The only Initial ones are the AKMSU, M1S90, MK23 and M9.

 

[Psychomorph]

Closer weapon models means more view obstructed.

This means more FAL/FAMAS/G36 style sites for people to bitch about.

Realize now that 'true sights' and 'true use' are invalid concepts.

Thats why it can't work in the actual INF, at least it would break the actual concept.

Thats why call my quote as 'whining for a better future'. Nothing more can I do...

I hope next INF will finally have true sights and their true use.

...thats why I had to say that.

And I will bitch around untill the Sentry Studios confirm that this will happen .

 

[Psychomorph]

@Burger:
I find the famas sight is very comfortable to use on larger distances, due to the closer sight. It is possible to see more inside the hole, exactly how the real diopter sights work.
But it is just the aesthetic look, functionally the famas sight is an disadvantage in the game overall (in coparison to other).

So I hope for the future that they will be a good shouldered weapon position with close and big sights.

Funny thing is, that the real famas rearpart is near same big in size as the rearpart of the M16 style sight. In INF they is a huge difference, that is just a balance thing.

-edit- oops double post

 

[Harrm]

I can't believe you're playing Inf at 640x480 . Even my old Geforce 2 could handle 1024x768 easily enough.

My computer has herpes.

Actually, I have to overclock my computer with coolbits to run it at 1024x780, that way I usually get about 4 hours of gaming time before my PC is hurting. I dont normally play at 640x480, but there are definately maps (like Ruin) where it's absolutely necessary for me to do this to get any sort of framerate at all, and even then it's choppy as hell.

I never said it was impossible to handle these weapons. But the general trend definately seems to be making extremely powerful weapons that are less fun to handle. Why do you think some of the best players still use the Sig551? It's got reletively low power and damage, but it's an absolute monster in the field. Same with the P90 (the best gun in the game in my opinion, but that's another rant entirely).

Actually I find the new weapons too easy to use compared to the old ones...

That's because by the time you got the new weapons, you where already experienced with the old ones. Now being presented with superior options with less relative disadvantages, you have a higher skill base to start on.

Closer weapon models means more view obstructed.

Closer view means the view obstructed also moves towards the outside of the screen, so in theory you can see more of the target area you are shooting at. Of course, with the exaggerated recoil in INF, after the first shot the gun would kick up so high you'd be firing blind...

Anyone want game balance?

You know, shortly after the M4 was released I stopped caring.

You need to practice.

Good advice.

--Harrm

 

[Nukeproof]

I have to admit I'm playing 1600x1200 but my opinion on sights is pretty different.

The new AKM has one of the best sights of all weapons for me: close to non obstructive, decent for 'rough' aim in CQB and very precise for long range shooting. (only contrast to dark bakround is a little bad)...

The G3 is is similar (but blockig more view...)

I just can't stand the blocky aiming devices like FAMAS, G36, FN-FAL and partly P90... good to have a long list of alternative choices

But I gotta agree that the SIG still rocks for it sights.

 

[Vega-don]

i find the sig recoil heavy. not hard to control but hard to maintain on target.
the famas... is good. especialy with IWE. it needs a aimpoint to be real good but crowse said they wont do changes to SS weapons. i think the famas is like a secret treasure . if you know it you know its good.

 

[messe]

Being an FAL owner, I do find that the INF one is very difficult to aim. The rear sight overall is way too big and the peep is too small. Also the recoil is way to high in semi mode. I am only speaking from experience.

 

[{GD}Ghost]

I guess I would have one question/statement: As long as looking down the sites of the modeled weapon is nearly identical to looking down the sites of the real weapon, isn't that good enough? If this is done as closely as possible, the arguments of too hard or too easy are kinda.....invalid if realism is the goal. Weapons are made and improved upon for ease of use, not to make it more difficult to use, because in real fire fights, real lives are on the line and you don't get to just respawn and say, "**** it, I"m not using that weapon anymore." As long as the site picture on the in game weapon is pretty much identical to the site picture you'd see in real life on that same weapon, I call it good and well done. If that's not the case, the there needs to be some changes made. Weather or not it makes that weapon easier or harder to use should NOT be an issue. Nor should game balance be an issue. You cannot have a game that professes realism and then make unrealistic changes to "balance" things out.

So I guess my question would be to people who have used each and every one of these Mod Team and S.S. weapons in real life. How accurate is the site picture on these weapons?

 

[Nukeproof]

Well, I won't disagree here, but the problems start once you look at advatages and disadvatages certain aiming systems/devices have in RL but can't be reproduced on a 2d screen propperly especially on the old UT engine.

There is no one/two eye view, there is no focusing or blurring in depth, so the most simple ironsights (i.e. AK) work way better than sophisticated aimpoints (i.e. G36) which isn't realistic either (although what you see down the barrel might be perfectly allright)