Will the MP5 sights finally be fixed?

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Aug 12, 2000
488
0
0
47
Switzerland
This comes up every now and then and I've read rumors they would be fixed, but I scanned Warren's update in vain looking for mention of it. -The way they are now you might as well have crosshairs.

Anybody know any details?
 

rgreene

frag bait
Oct 16, 2000
697
0
0
It might be a wild guess but if they redo the sights on the MP5 they might move the weapon over to using the skeltal system since they will have to rebuild the entire animation set anyway...
 
Apr 27, 2001
886
0
0
41
Visit site
we'll need to move to the U2 engine befor that can be implemented in a usable fasion (@least i presume they will fix the problem in that engine)

to use that you'd have to put your eye close to the rear sight
that is something you cant do in the UT engine because your gun will disapaer if it gets too close to the camara (your eye's)

even the skeltal system wont fix that

still i dont see how using the mp5 sights are simalar to crosshairs
the sig and AK's sight are just as eazy and the p90's is even eazyer
 
Aug 12, 2000
488
0
0
47
Switzerland
Originally posted by The_Countess

still i dont see how using the mp5 sights are simalar to crosshairs
the sig and AK's sight are just as eazy and the p90's is even eazyer

1) The MP5 has a diopter. The current sight picture is very open and you practically only see the front post, which is much less affected my weapon bob etc. The MP5 hence doesn't obstruct your view as much as it should and all you need to do it line up the front post with the target and pull the trigger. Even the FAMAS would be easy to aim that way. The MP5 is easier to shoot mid-range than most assault rifles for this very reason. That is wrong. The MP5 aimpoint is harder to use than the regular, because it obstructs your view more. That is actually a perversion of reality.

2) The MP5 has a diopter, and hence should have one in the game too. It's a fantastic weapon in real life, but in INF it's even better, because you don't have any rear sight aperture obscuring your view. It's not on the same track as the rest of the weapons in INF, namely that, for better or for worse, their sight pictures correspond more or less with real life. - They all do, except the MP5. The FAMAS and M16 have a similar sight concept but differ in design and were rendered without problems. It can't be a technical issue.

3) The SIG has a diopter too, and I wish it were in the game with a diopter. The sight with the 100m zero however is open on the SIG and this is the one rendered, although without the tritium inserts. Since most engagements in INF take place at such ranges there may be some justification for having the 100m open sight and not the 200m, which is just like the MP5's. SOP however would be to have the 200m aperture sight. I'm for changing that, too, someday, but at least the SIG *has* a sight of the type that is rendered. The AK has easy sights but recoil automatically - and realistically - balances it. The P90 has easy sights but the sight-block compensates somewhat, again, realistically.

I believe it was scheduled for 280 but then got dropped for some reason. As long as it isn't forgotten that's fine with me, although I am nonetheless a little irritated by the fact that new weapons are being added while the MP5 has been waiting for repairs for ages... Hostile Intent does them nicely though. :)

[edit: put the last paragraph in twice... :rolleyes: ]
 

rgreene

frag bait
Oct 16, 2000
697
0
0
The_Fur is right. U2 won't solve the problem of being able to draw polys near the camera. This is an inherent flaw in computer graphics. This represents the near clipping plane in your view frustrum, it is possible to move it close to the view point, but if it gets too close you start approaching a FOV of infinity, which doesn't really work well with your standard projection matrix. U2 might allow you to change where the near clip plane is: if so, it will help the problem, but really the best option is to optimize the geometry for the given projection matrix. In order to make things look nearer than they are (like looking through the near portion of a gun's ironsights) you have to increase their size. Now if U2 offers the scripter a window to it's vertex shadder this would be very easy (and damn that'd be a powerful scripting language), although I HIGHLY doubt that UScript would expose such a low-level function. Another thing which the team might be able to do (if they have the oportunity to directly mess with the projection matrix) is to fudge it a bit. Make things that are nearer look bigger by making the far clipping plane a little smaller than it should be. That will taper everything inward as the distance increases, and if you up the FOV a bit you can acheive a "correct" looking vanishing point, and things which are close to the view point will look bigger -- Again I don't know what U2 will expose to the scripter.

Anyway, the team will figure out how to fix this whole "small ironsights" problem eventually, they've just got bigger fish to fry right now :)
 

FiringAimlessly

NOT going to waste another minute on CS!
Sep 18, 2001
2,692
0
0
41
Thanks for the info... I've been wondering why my new MP5 loadout has scored me so obscenely many kills... (well, many for me anyway)

Making the weapons bigger would result in the same problems, since larger weapons at the same scale would still result in too-close polys... and then we'd have another problem with scaling when your weapon bumps against other objects...
 

rgreene

frag bait
Oct 16, 2000
697
0
0
No... you wouldn't have the same problem. If a poly is bigger and at the same distance (just outside the near clipping plane) it will still look bigger in screen space. As a result you will acheive the same visual effect as a small poly closer to the view point. And no, it wouldn't have any impact on the weapon collision system as there is no method of doing per-poly collision detection anyway in the UT codebase. Even if there was per-poly collision detection, the polys which would need a change in size would be towards the rear of the gun, and only a select few, therefore they wouldn't affect the collision detection anyway. The only real problem with it would be the odd looking large polys when not in 1st person mode. That's why I said it'd be cool to expose a vert. shadder which could simply do a linear scale of certain verts based on it's interpolation between 3rd and 1st person views. What the team is trying to accomplish is a pretty unique method of aiming, and why most FPS rely on the crosshair: it's very easy to draw and very hard to introduce any sort of visual errors.
 

Doyve the Royve

Quite simply the best Royve around!
Is it possible to curve the near clipping plane? So it's like a watch glass? Then the closest point on the plane to the sight would be inside the sight, and the sight would obstruct more of the view. Just an idea, feel free to chuck it straight in the bin since i dont have much knowledge at all of the engine and UScript. I just play the stuff everyone else makes!
 

rgreene

frag bait
Oct 16, 2000
697
0
0
No. The plane really doesn't exist, it's simply a way to visualize the view frustrum. Effectivly it is just a parameter to help build the projection matrix (a 4x4 set of numbers). There really is no good way to deal with polys that are extemely close to the view point, so most 3d engines and models are built to completely avoid the problem.
 

{Ghetto_Ghepetto}

I am #1 Asian big boob queen!
Jun 4, 2001
501
0
0
CA
I still don't get it. Can somebody in plain engrish (english) explain why the MP5 needs to be fixed? It is my prefered weapon of choice for most battles, so...let me know please =0)
 
Apr 27, 2001
886
0
0
41
Visit site
because the back end dusnt look like this like its supose too
sights4.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator: