G36K sight is off.

[Derelan]

In order to properly demonstrate how a scope should work in a 3d game, we'd need someone with a 3d editor (me) and a caustic+raytraced refraction renderer (also me) who knows how to use it (Anyone?), then we could check if any of these ideas are even possible in the 0.000001fps range.

 

[yurch]

Is it possible to make "paralax-free" scopes, or does the magnification make that impossible?

I think ELCAN makes something like that, but don't quote me on it.

 

[ravens_hawk]

ACOGs are parallax free on the ranging axis, but I think that's something else...

 

[Gnam]

Hopefully they'll probably make the Aimpoint's frame partly transparent in Inf for Source and perhaps investigate making the rear sights of all the other weapons somewhat transparent too.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. The carrying handle of the FAMAS deffinitely needs to be transperant.

 

[Psychomorph]

1) What is parallax?

2) As I read in the net, reflex sights have the same ability of being visible even if the weapon is not steady, same as Beppo described the Aim Point.
So what is the difference between the two?
I have read on one site, that their reflex sights use no batteries.

3) Scopes and Ironsights should be definitely not transparent, cuz those sights are made for using it monocular (right word?). If you want to have better view for observing, when aiming, you would take the head a bit up anyway, which would result in highready, or shouldered (how ever it is called).
As I always mean, fast aiming (short period between aim and unaim) is what would support this.

Reflex and Red Dot should definitely simulate binocular aiming somehow. Even if the result is less good compared to real life, it should b anyway.
Having a massive monocular aimed reflex sight if holding aimkey could work, but it's senseless, cuz aiming with both eyes open is not worse.


I tried on a dummy to test binocular aiming and it was just so good, that closing the left eye wasn't necessery.

I noticed, that since the weapon is more far away from the left eye (where it appears on the right side), looks far more massive, while the right eye centered image only has the noticeable sight itself (the drum of the aimpoint, or the arc of the reflex), but the weapons torso is not noticeable (unless you really look at it).

The attached pic describes pretty much exactly what I saw, with the only disadvantage, that by concentrating on the right side the right weapon model turnes invisible.

That could be probably simulated by this:
The red dot aiming is as on the pic, but holding aimkey (or another), the right weapon model turnes very very transparent, AND the red point also! This would simulate that you look to the right, see with the right eye 'through' the right model, but also do not concentrate on the dot and your aiming is bad (cuz no dot).
BUT if you release the key, the right weapon model turnes massive again and the red point too, that simulates that you concentrate yourself forward and the left eye sees the masive weapon in the right (cuz then it can't be transparent, only if you look with both eyes 'through' the weapon, that the left eye sees on the right).


The problem is, that the centered sight as in the pic, can probably don't be made that fluidly transparent, which looks the most aesthetic (as I developed the pic). A model can be probably have only everywhere the same transparency. But if the centered sight is moving parallel to the right model (behaving like a 3D object with sway), than it's ok, I think.


But I would really like to know what is the difference between reflex and aimpoint is and how reflex exactly works.

 

[Psychomorph]

I also would like to know, why this damn G36 Red Dot rear lens is so DAMN small?
Ok, if you look through it, the front lens is bigger, so the ovarall view is not that small, but you need to keep the sight very close to the eye.
Not a huge prob if having binocular view, but anyway, why those stupid HK designers made such a hell huge thing .

 

[Psychomorph]

*bump*

Cmon, I would like to know more about red dot and reflex sights.

 

[Thornhill]

Red dot is being projected onto a lens inside by a battery powered "projector", whereas reflex bring in ambient light to create the dot. A problem with reflex sights is they can wash out when hit with bright light inside/by a flashlight/outside on an extremely sunny day.

 

[Nukeproof]

I know very little about guns but beeing an engineer I know some technical stuff.

Parallax is an aparent shifting. I.e. it's the fault you get when you would try to read a big clock (analog one) by looking almost parallel to its surface.

On Reflexsights/aimpoint (I might be mistaking here):

Reflex Sights is basically glass with a painted crosshair.

An Aimpoint will send a laser beam in parrallel to the gun barrel toward your eye. Wherever you see the red dot the bullet will go. When you had missalignment the laser ray would no longer meet your eye.

 

[keihaswarrior]

Parallax is an aparent shifting. I.e. it's the fault you get when you would try to read a big clock (analog one) by looking almost parallel to its surface.

Yes, Parallax is just an apparant shift caused by the point of observation shifting (like looking through one eye then the other).

Reflex Sights is basically glass with a painted crosshair.

No, totally incorrect

An Aimpoint will send a laser beam in parrallel to the gun barrel toward your eye. Wherever you see the red dot the bullet will go. When you had missalignment the laser ray would no longer meet your eye.

No, mostly incorrect.

Red Dot scopes (Aimpoints) and Red Dot Reflex sights are the same thing in different forms. They both have a small red LED that has its light reflexed back into your eye by a special lens or series of lens. The LED light can be any shape or color, often Reflex sights have several different shapes you can switch between on the fly. The shape of the lens (its curvature) corrects for parallax.

Red dot scopes and reflex sights both use a battery to power the small LED light. It doesn't take much power so it can be left on the lowest brightness setting for weeks.

Trijicon and Meprolight reflex sights are slightly different. They use a combination of light catching fiber optics and tritium gas to make the aiming reticule glow. Trijicon ACOG scopes use ths combination also to cause the crosshairs to illuminate. The combination allows the sight to glow during the day by using the fiber optics and glow in total darkness from the tritium radioactive gas. This means they are always on and don't require any batteries.

 

[Nukeproof]

Ooops, seems I drew the wrong conclusions, but isn't the P90 amining device considered a 'reflex-sight' and basically a crosshair on a transparent surface?

 

[Psychomorph]

Thx Keihaswarrior. So those sights have the dot that acts similar to like a displayer laser point?
If a dot is painted on the glass, the dot will move to the left if you turn the weapon a bit to the left, but the weapons line is far more at he left than the painted dot, so aimpoint/reflex sights display the dot at the weapons line direction?

As I know Aimpoint is the company, but are those sights also called aimpoint, or only red dot?

I think the scope like aimpoint sight (that US soldiers mostly have nowadays) are just made so, because you can close the tops to save the lenses and the design is less fragile than reflex. Is that right?

If yes, for military the aimpoints are better, but for SWAT and CT the reflex are better.

P.S. as I kniow the G36 Aimpoint has a daylight reflexion dot, which is fed by a battery at night, or bad lightning.

 

[Thornhill]

Reflex isn't more fragile. It is prone to washout, like I said in my earlier post which everyone ignored. In very bright light, reflex sights don't work properly. The sight washes out.

 

[Psychomorph]

So red dot sights are overall better?

 

[Thornhill]

Yes, they're preferred by most militaries/LEOs etc AFAIK.

 

[Psychomorph]

RED DOT FOR INFILTRATION!!!

What are LEO's?

 

[yurch]

LawEnforcementOfficers/Organizations

 

[N'kEnNy]

I am aware that this is a dead topic. While reading through the forums older posts I came across the following statement to which I must respectfully disagree.
Edit: I've realised this post turned out longer than had I anticipated. For those with little time, or short attention spans look to the bottom of the post for the conclusion marked in RED.

the pros:
- AimPoint
- Scope
- higher caliber, so still effective against armor (unlike the only other Aimpoint weapon, MP5)
- very accurate on short to medium and even long ranges up to 400 meters and still accurate enough on 600 meters
- bulk
- high firerate
- low recoil

and the only con:
- view is blocked partially while aimed

The Pros
-AimPoint
IRL the aimpoint may offer superior handling characteristics compared to regular Ironsights. (in some situations) In INF on the other hand this is very much not the case, the reason being you have to approach it from a Game Balance view point.
The G36(k) Aimpoint offers horrible situational awareness compared to all other Ironsights or CQB optics in the game.

- Scope
Looks like an ACOG with low FOV to me, but then again I'm too newb to appriciate scopes in INF for anything other than target identification. The point is allowed to stand because of the unique Dual Scope feature of the G36

-High Caliber
An advantage is per definition something that offers you an edge compared to an opposition. As it stands, in INF most people will also be utilizing 5.56 (or better) weapons. Especially on the ranges where the G36 are supposed to excel. In other words. Average Caliber.

-Very Accurate
It is my experience that how accurate a weapon is comes down to the shooter. It should be noted that even if it is accurate, the low field of view renders this advantage a moot point.
(For the record I seriously doubt the G36 is, in INF terms, more "accurate" than a M16.

-Bulk
As it stands I'm not certain, neither am I going to check because I believe it does indeed have quite low Bulk. How significant low bulk is, is a discussion best left for another thread.

-High Firerate
Again an advantage is only an advantage if it offers you a definite edge over the enemy. I'd say the G36 mechanical firerate is similiar to a M4 or the SIG. Its effective firerate is lower, as the player has to spend more time to aquire a target.

-Low Recoil
Possibly, but then again I'd think the G36 features similiar recoil to all the other 5.56 rifles.

The Cons

-View is partially blocked while aiming
I feel that this is the MEAT of the problem one experiences while using the G36. In a game which revolves around finding and destroying the opposition, fielding a weapon which makes it hard to do just that seems very counter productive. Particulary when it is merely an average performer in all other categories. I'd say that this is a significant disadvantage.

- No attachment options
The lack of attachments is a serious loss. Most rifles (in INF) can equip some of these effective items ACOG and Grenade Launcher.

ACOG: In game terms an attachments which increases the effective engagement range of the weapon it is attached to. I've noted that the G36 already comes with one of these. I've also noted that the buildt in "Aimpoint" is horribly inefficient to use.
Would it be too much to ask to get something which could DECREASE the optimal engagement range of the G36?

Grenade Launcher: Pretty much a standardly equiped tool. Either as an attachment or as a portable stand alone one.
I've noted that the G36 has a low Bulk value, which could technically allow you to bring the HK69. A slow to draw GL is a poor replacement for a buildt in one.

- No suppressor
In this day and age of the FAMAS, the M4 and the M16A4. A suppressor is nearly a piece of standard equipment. Not having one is a serious drawback which only serves to mark the Rifle user as a "priority" target.
Yes, I am aware that the suppressor should fall under the Attachment category. My argument is that noone who plays seriously to "win" would leave the loadout screen without one.


New Pro vs Con List:

the pros
-Scope, unique poor FOV scope. Also gives the illusion of some CQB utility (by means of special buildt in aimpoint)
-Very accurate. The weapon shoots where it points.
-Low Bulk
-Low Recoil

the cons
-Seriously impaired target aquisition
-No attachments to increase the area of usage of the weapon.
-No suppressor.

Conclusion
The G36 is not effective. Be it because of Infiltrations map design, Inf Mod teams, or because it just isn't. The truth does not change. More to the point proven by how few people actually use it. Especially compared to other "new" weapons like the M4 (no comment) or the M16A4

It may not be directly Sentrystudios fault that the G36 is useless. Blaming anyone else doesn't affect the reality of the situation however, so it is hardly an argument.

I suggest that it is fixed. I cannot and will not suggest how it should be fixed unless specifically asked. Doing so will turn this into a dreadful clash of person ideas. In other words. Shouldn't the G36 recieve some actual advantage to make it actually useful?

 

[AlmostAlive]

I use the G36 a lot and I find it far from useless. It's all in personal preference and what suits your own style of play best. It may be useless with your style of play, for me it isn't. But then again, you can't please everyone. If the G36 isn't your cup of tea, use something else.

 

[Vega-don]

almost your biaised, your from the team or close to the team. nobody here is tring to bash SS. just saying that they hope a fix for this gun from -the mod team-.

this gun is totaly unrealistic and useless in inf. sure you can get some kills, but you can get kills with the robar in cqb if you use it well, or with the hk69 in siberia.that doesnt makes the gun good.

just look at the servers.. hardly anybody uses it. for one reason. you cant aim. nkenny summed it well.