Aim-Down-Sight is unnecessary for realism

[Davey Woo]

Guns in games will never be realistic until they can properly simulate recoil. I don't want bullets coming out of the barrel at jaunty angles, I want the gun to kick the aimer to somewhere else so you have to work to keep the gun shooting straight.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

snip

I tried using a couple of my rifles to test your theory, but it doesn't really work. Obviously, there is a parallax effect when switching from right eye closed to left eye closed. However, if I line up the iron sights with my right eye, the rifle appears far larger in my left field of vision than what you propose it to be. With my left eye, the visual field is still largely obscured by the rifle and the sights appear at far less of an angle than what is typically represented as the non-ADS view of the player's firearm. Any videogame which stayed true to your proposal (right FOV represented by the reticle while weapon model represents the left FOV) would be extremely irritating/impractical as the majority of the screen would constantly be obscured by the weapon model.

By forcing the player to take a moment to switch to ADS view, it realistically simulates that a combatant cannot constantly keep his/her weapon sights perfectly aligned at all times. Soldiers are trained to keep their weapon shouldered (ie sights are not aligned in either left or right fov, no cheek weld) while scanning for targets. When a target is found, the soldier repositions his/her weapon and head to form a cheek weld and align the sights. If stationary or moving very slowly, you can scan for targets by peering slightly above the sights without breaking your cheekweld, but if a videogame is attempting to simulate movement through a battlefield or a zombie apocalypse (rather than hunting from a deerstand or shooting paper from a bench), a toggleable shouldered position to cheekweld would be the most sensible choice. The current ADS systems is not perfect, the shouldered position often shows too much of the firearm, the ironsight view often does not obsure enough of the screen, and the standard FOV simulated on a computer screen or TV is not the same as that of the human eye (hence the rather awkward zoom feature found in the ADS view of Red Orchestra 2, the weapon sights are shifted to the FOV created by the human eye). Anyways, these ADS systems are FAR more realistic than the hipfiring-only nonesense found in games like L4D2 or Half-Life 2. Your proposal would not be particularily realistic, as it would imply that the shooter can maintain constant alignment of the sights regardless of movement or circumstance. In reality this just isn't possible, nor prefferable (impractical when scanning for targets in vast majority of situations).

As an aside, shooting with both eyes open would be extremely difficult to simulate in videogame, in my case I find both fields of view overlap (with the visual field of my dominant eye appearing opaque, while the visual field of my other eye appearing transparent).

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

None of this crap ever came up when I played Doom.

 

[Smagmuck_]

Aiming is unnecessary for a realistic FPS?

What's next? Is walking unnecessary too?

 

[General Twinkletoes]

Think about it, the right eye would be looking down the weapons sights and out around at the enviroment. The left eye would be looking around with a better view at the environment and see the left side of the gun in your hand.

Your left eye would see something like this:

While your right eye looking down the sights sees this:

That's how that makes me feel. I'm already self concious man..

Yep, that's pretty much how I felt too. Our eyes are no where near far apart enough to make that big of a difference. Human eyes don't stick out at the sides.

 

[WanderingFool]

The only nitpick I have for aim-down-sights is how unrealistically it does it. You want to look dead centre down a rifle? Don't come crying to me when your front teeth are missing and your sternum is shattered.

Do you know how aim a gun?

Yes, I've grown up hunting and shooting.

If they could put some proper alignment on the guns, I wouldn't mind, but in all games with iron sights, it looks like the protagonist is sticking the stock under his chinny chin chin.

Huh... thats weird, cause when I look down sights on a gun, it looks pretty similar to what I see in most FPSs with ADS. I tried to visualize what having a gun under my chin would look like, and thought that there was no way that was even sensible, I couldnt even see how it was similar to how you describe it.

I just cant visualize this...

Spoiler: This is slightly off topic, but I just had a thought:

Everyone calls firing without ADS in most games as "hip-fire". But that would imply the gun was at your characters hip, which would mean that they have no chest or stomach to speak of, if you are firing from the hip, you wouldnt be seeing most of your gun unless you were looking down. So I would argue that the gun is most likely pressed against you characters shoulder, but when they fire without the sights, they are actually eyeballing it. This actually makes sense from a position of how the "squinting" aim function seen in some games works (think Bodycount for the latest example, I know there are more, but I cant think of them right now.) You are actually still aiming the gun, just without using the Iron sights.

Just something that came to me...

 

[Stryc9]

Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe this has already been mentioned but doesn't using the iron sight aiming in games that have it actually increase the mathematical likelihood that you'll hit your target and do increased damage because of a more "accurate" shot than not using iron sight aiming?

 

[BodomBeachChild]

I'll give you five bucks to shoot any rifle or pistol from the hip very accurately. Go set up 5 pop cans at different distances and try and nail them all.

Same works for games. I turn my recticle off any time I canbecause it's annoying and unrealistic so I kinda need ADS unless I want to spray n' pray all day.

 

[Deathmageddon]

ADS is necessary for realism because for a shooter to be realistic, it has to accurately portray how guns work. Go shoot one IRL (safely and legally and not AT anyone). You'll have to look down sights if you want to hit anything.

 

[Pyro Paul]

So then what is with the cross hairs?

Well, Any shooter with a bit of experience can tell you where they 'feel' the bullets will go simply by how they are holding a weapon. we, ourselves, create mental projection on the general location bullets would fall based on how a gun is being held and our own knowledge on how the gun works.

They call it 'Aiming down the Barrel'

And this is what is represented in FPS games.
You mentally visualize where the bullets will go. (cross hairs)
It is harder to visuallize this when moving (Accuracy loss while moving)
Holding in a more comfortable or stable position makes it easier to visuallize (accuracy gain while crouching)

It's called "point shooting" and it's only truly effective for a few feet. Longer than that and you're just as accurate as if you were shooting a Nerf gun - you know where you're aiming at but you won't be able to control where the projectile actually lands.

Crouching has fuck-all to do with your accuracy from point-shooting.

Any shooter with a bit of experience will tell you that there are no "real world" crosshairs. You just learn how to have consistency and use reference points to be able to use a longer rifle inside compact spaces.

In video games crosshairs actually allow you to control where a projectile is going.


But you're right in the part about the eyes and the image shown.

well it techincally is called 'Unsighted shooting' but i've heard it called many things... shooting over the barrel, shooting down the barrel, shoot by feel...

and yes, distance does come into play.
But the thing is the distance you usually use unsighted shooting in is the distance we see portrayed in video games.

of course i know there is this huge disconnect of distance, even with in the shooting community... but i came from a school of thought where 'If it is closer then 25 meters, don't bother shooting, throw your gun at it.'

 

[snekadid]

Dieing... if you repeatedly use a shotgun to snipe you are doing it wrong... If you are repeatedly using sprint in a way that is getting you killed you are doing it wrong.

Killing floor would like to disagree with you, shotgun sniping is awesome.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

Why do some many people have a problem with ADS, but not guns having a zoom function? (Not zoom as in with a scope, zoom as in the camera just moves forward a bit, giving you a bit more accuracy).

They are the same goddamn thing, its just one of them actually has a separate animation. If my recollection is correct a lot of PC games have a zoom feature with their guns

 

[JochemHippie]

From which planet are you that your eyes are that far apart?

Anywho, I like it.
Infact I'd like it more, even closer to the irons. Putting your eye to the irons, instead of zooming in on the irons in your screen.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

I just can't quite visualise someone walking around with their eyes always down the sights. It just doesn't seem right.

But it is right.

No it's not.

Trained combatants shoulder weapons when they expect contact but they don't aim down the sight unless they're aiming at something.

This is more what I thought. You'd have the gun shouldered properly, but wouldn't move your eyes to the sights until actually aiming. Though that probably wouldn't work too well in a game to shift your view point when you aim as when I play I tend to have already started lining up the shot before I even bring the sights up. I dunno, I've kind of grown bored of this discussion now, I think ADS in games is fine as it is.

Perhaps introduce the viewpoint shift for something like ARMA or Red Orchestra.

 

[TrevHead]

Iron Sights are fine in stop and pop FPS games. But can go to hell in traditional run and gunners

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

ADS isn't there for realism, it's to give the option of slower movement for more accuracy. Some might even call if a gameplay mechanic. If it was about realism, they'd have a number of other stupid ways you can look at your gun, like side-on held in front of you with two hands, because you can do that in real life.

 

[Treblaine]

List of very popular PC games without any standardised ADS mechanic:
-Left 4 dead 1 & 2
-Team Fortress 2
-Half Life series
-Tribes Ascend
-Quake Live
-FEAR and FEAR Combat
-STALKER series (OK, a little bit of ADS, sometimes)
-Minecraft? (it's got a bow)

I think it is the mouse and lack of Aim-assist which is a factor.

STALKER has ADS for sure, not just "a little bit, sometimes", it's there on all weapons.
First FEAR didn't have ADS, however IIRC it had a slight zoom for all weapons (where your weapon stays to your side), FEAR 2 and 3 both had ADS.
When charging your bow in Minecraft, your FoV changes and your aim slows down, not too far away from ADS.

Also, don't mix in ADS with aim-assist and "poor console controls". Left 4 Dead 1/2 had aim-assist on consoles, yet they don't have ADS.

And as a bonus, I'll mention ArmA 2. What? A very popular realistic PC exclusive game that doesn't have aim-assist, yet it has ADS? Yes.

My point about aim-assist was not it existing at all, but the way it is used in COD and so many console games of having the ADS as a cue for a much more powerful ADS "stickiness". Not that ADS comes with aim assist necessarily, but that the most popular form of aim-assist comes with ADS.

And though STALKER did have aim-down-sights for some weapons (though I'm sure loads of them didn't), it still had such tight crosshairs, tighter than you could get just from "feeling" where the weapon was being pointed and accurate enough for general use. Almost as if the right eye was aiming down the sight always telling where the barrel was pointing.

I definitely think modern games don't need Aim-down-sights to be modern or current or up to the current standards of realism, except maybe for the console port where the ADS mechanic would be there just to compensate for the lack of mouse aim speed/precision. It CAN have ADS, but it's not a vital component.

 

[ElPatron]

Honestly this is one of the best sighting systems I have ever seen in a game. Zoom is minimal, the ironsights/optics are not locked to the center of the screen, etc.

I would love tho see how this would work on a console.

Go get a broom or something, shoulder it and then shove your cheek right up against it and tell me it wouldn't inhibit movement.

Shouldering a weapon =/= cheeking it.

Why use a broom when I went out of my way just to handle a real stock this morning? There is literally a difference of an inch or so between keeping my neck straight and just press my cheek to the stock. My point of view shifts a little to the side.

It does not inhibit movement. Maybe I am just talented, maybe I am doing something wrong.

But it does not magically restrict my movements any more than a shouldered rifle/shotgun.

But the thing is the distance you usually use unsighted shooting in is the distance we see portrayed in video games.

However the use of Counter-Strike style crosshairs allow for near pinpoint accuracy at longer ranges. I can't get headshots from 25m away in real life.

And though STALKER did have aim-down-sights for some weapons (though I'm sure loads of them didn't), it still had such tight crosshairs, tighter than you could get just from "feeling" where the weapon was being pointed and accurate enough for general use. Almost as if the right eye was aiming down the sight always telling where the barrel was pointing.

I never got to finish STALKER but most initial guns had ironsights. After that there were a lot of optics.

I don't remember the crosshairs being tight, and using crosshairs was almost impossible in that game. Maybe we played different STALKER games or mods, but trying to use the crosshairs = waste of ammo after 7 meters.

This is more what I thought. You'd have the gun shouldered properly, but wouldn't move your eyes to the sights until actually aiming.

There is no right or wrong. It heavily depends on your school of thought.

If I expect a target to appear, I am not going to look trough the sights when the target shows up. I just keep the eyes on the sights because of my personal preference - it allows me to shoot quicker.

Why do some many people have a problem with ADS, but not guns having a zoom function? (Not zoom as in with a scope, zoom as in the camera just moves forward a bit, giving you a bit more accuracy).

They are the same goddamn thing, its just one of them actually has a separate animation. If my recollection is correct a lot of PC games have a zoom feature with their guns

Operation Flashpoint even has both zoom and ironsights. During zoom you have some crude "ironsights" painted on your HUD.

Which is much better than having a bulls-eye painted on the center of the screen.

 

[Treblaine]

(Snip)

Aww, come on. "from the Cheek" and "from the shoulder" are so close.

Still the thing is I can see why you couldn't find ANY game characters shooting from the cheek is how polygon models look crap when you try to get in that tight. The models are stiff and don't deform and bend very realistically. The cheek just clips through the gun model.

I am going by the perspective and position seen in the first-person view-model, not the third person viewmodel which can have all sorts of inconsistencies.

I'm not saying it's right on, but it's so damn close.

I'm just pointing out how there there can be aiming without a decidated aim-down-sight perspective,

Why do some many people have a problem with ADS, but not guns having a zoom function? (Not zoom as in with a scope, zoom as in the camera just moves forward a bit, giving you a bit more accuracy).

They are the same goddamn thing, its just one of them actually has a separate animation. If my recollection is correct a lot of PC games have a zoom feature with their guns

Well the "zoom" thing is not that widely implemented in game and more rarely used, I always found walk/crouch key to be as effective in shrinking crosshairs in games where such a mechanic is used.

The thing about ADS (as it is usually implemented) is how it breaks the flow of the play, a critical pause in ability to fire for a quarter/third of a second is annoying, even though the gun should be shouldered the whole time with my finger over the trigger and my eye is inches from the rear sight if not already looking through it.

And the weapon often being made so inaccurate without using ADS, yet to use it I suddenly move as slow as if someone tied my shoelaces together.

This might be fitting for some weapons like a sniper rifle or a heavy machine gun, BUT NOT EVERY WEAPON!

 

[Treblaine]

snip

I tried using a couple of my rifles to test your theory, but it doesn't really work. Obviously, there is a parallax effect when switching from right eye closed to left eye closed. However, if I line up the iron sights with my right eye, the rifle appears far larger in my left field of vision than what you propose it to be. With my left eye, the visual field is still largely obscured by the rifle and the sights appear at far less of an angle than what is typically represented as the non-ADS view of the player's firearm. Any videogame which stayed true to your proposal (right FOV represented by the reticle while weapon model represents the left FOV) would be extremely irritating/impractical as the majority of the screen would constantly be obscured by the weapon model.

By forcing the player to take a moment to switch to ADS view, it realistically simulates that a combatant cannot constantly keep his/her weapon sights perfectly aligned at all times. Soldiers are trained to keep their weapon shouldered (ie sights are not aligned in either left or right fov, no cheek weld) while scanning for targets. When a target is found, the soldier repositions his/her weapon and head to form a cheek weld and align the sights. If stationary or moving very slowly, you can scan for targets by peering slightly above the sights without breaking your cheekweld, but if a videogame is attempting to simulate movement through a battlefield or a zombie apocalypse (rather than hunting from a deerstand or shooting paper from a bench), a toggleable shouldered position to cheekweld would be the most sensible choice. The current ADS systems is not perfect, the shouldered position often shows too much of the firearm, the ironsight view often does not obsure enough of the screen, and the standard FOV simulated on a computer screen or TV is not the same as that of the human eye (hence the rather awkward zoom feature found in the ADS view of Red Orchestra 2, the weapon sights are shifted to the FOV created by the human eye). Anyways, these ADS systems are FAR more realistic than the hipfiring-only nonesense found in games like L4D2 or Half-Life 2. Your proposal would not be particularily realistic, as it would imply that the shooter can maintain constant alignment of the sights regardless of movement or circumstance. In reality this just isn't possible, nor prefferable (impractical when scanning for targets in vast majority of situations).

As an aside, shooting with both eyes open would be extremely difficult to simulate in videogame, in my case I find both fields of view overlap (with the visual field of my dominant eye appearing opaque, while the visual field of my other eye appearing transparent).

Well here is the tricky part that I am struggling to explain.

What the screen is TRYING to show is what a character with two eyeballs sees onto a single frame, but can't just superimpose both without a load of blurring. And the character has two eyelids as well but would so quickly open and close either when they need to look around.

You need to get abstract to start representing this. Not "simulate" both eyes open but "represent".


This outlines how you have two eyes open and the illuminated reticule is in the mind superimposed over the target, even over what the left eye sees.

This is starting to look a bit familiar right?

Just consider the sights are always raised and maybe not a cheek weld but the right eye sees through the scope or over the illuminated reticules and when the two eye's images are merged in the brain the bright reticule stands out.

This just establishes the idea that you can have the wide unobstructed field of view AND know where the rifle is pointed because you see where the reticule is.

And I think this is - or could be - being represented when you have that crosshair in game.

Yeah, looking at the rifle held that close on one size you'd get double-vision but the idea is the game character would automatically close one eye or will a shift in occular dominance (I can do this somewhat) to view the left side of the gun without a blurry double vision.

And these games often do have mechanisms for less movement and crouched having better aim but it is continuous, not jarring from "can't hit broad side of barn" when non-ADS (known as "hip" firing) to laser accurate ADS. The

Also food for thought: