Aim-Down-Sight is unnecessary for realism

[Treblaine]

The double vision of the gun never goes away,

My expert source that I cited contradicts you on that. I hope you did the extra research I provided for you to look over.

 

[Treblaine]

I'm not going in circles. The traditional FPS view is not anything like what a shooter sees with either eye or both. That's where I've been this whole time. I haven't moved an inch. And so far you refuse to address this.

Hmm, I think you are overvaluing your own perspective that focuses so much on right eye looking down sights.

-The objective with both eyes open shooting it to have a less obstructed view, and this is highly valued

Granted. Don't know why you think it is relevant, but granted.

-in depicting both-eyes-open shooting you therefore cannot dedicate the one frame to the "Gun's arse" view of looking down the sights as that OBSCURES!

Why not? You're getting rid of the iron sights themselves, so who is even going to notice that you bothered to realistically represent the minutia of human perspective? You know, even if you were. I don't get this hangup you have have about parallax and obstruction. Everything else can go to hell but as long as you get the parallax and obstruction the way you want it you call it realistic. I'm totally mystified by this.

this is what I'm talking about with circles. You ask why not then you admit to the obscuring factor but act like it is nothing. Do you no see how a perspective like this:

... is obscuring? How this is a problem? This IS a problem!

Factoring Parallax of both eyes open shooting SOLVES this problem while still giving the accuracy you could only get of seeing where sights line up with a target.

Who cares what the game character sees? What matters is what the player sees.

the PLAYER does see what the character sees. The Characters sees where front sight is pointing over and is shown to the player with the on-screen reticule.

That is not combining the fields, that is displaying one field and getting rid of the other while using abstractions on the screen to represent the information normally gained from the excluded field of view. It's a good way to make a shooter but no one will believe you are trying to convey the experience of shooting realistically if you take that approach.

The only part of the right field that is discarded is the dark static gun's arse view. Both right and left eye looking at targets further away each field is indistinguishable so can be merged.

It's simple to make people believe this, they just have to stop and THINK for a second. it could be introduced in the training part where they introduce the gun.

You can't just assume everyone is an idiot and have it like Call of Duty that gives no consideration to Parallax of two eyes. Look at how they handle stereostopic 3D;


You can see in side-by-side mode when they aim-down-sight mode... when the sight is brought close up to the right eye... yet suddenly there must be two identical weapons as both eye is looking almost dead down the sights!!!

It's an elaborate Chewbacca defense.

Nope.avi

I tried to keep things clearly and simply explain a complex concept, you have made this complicated with fractured quoting of point by point.

It is impossible. No amount of training will cause me to see a view that I don't see with either eye or both. No amount of training will paint a reticle on my vision. However, I require no further training to shoot with both eyes as I am already proficient at it. Better with one eye, I admit, but proficient.

The experts are in agreement in disagreeing with you.

I read every word. You have not provided a way to realistically portray the minutia of having two eyes, nor have you provided an equally realistic alternative to iron sights in games. I have dismissed your concern with parallax and obstruction because those things are negligible given the goal of portraying shooting realistically to the player, and because your proposed solution to the problem is far less realistic than just leaving it unsolved.

To dismiss something is to make clear it isn't worth consideration. Yet it IS worth consideration of the problem of how much the COD iron sights view obscures and how parallax perspective can solve that.

It's not unrealistic considering everything, such as how the Bindon Aiming Concept works. That IS realistic.

The thing it is is diverging from your narrow view of reality and you - quite literally - cannot consider other perspectives.

The iron sights are used by the in-game character. But not by me. I'm the one who needs to experience the... experience of shooting. It doesn't matter what the in-game character sees. It doesn't matter what the purpose of both-eyes-open shooting is.

No. You are again making the "shooting = iron sights only perspective" assumption. You aren't considering how with training the environment view dominates and obscuring perspective of the gun is ignored.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I'm not going in circles. The traditional FPS view is not anything like what a shooter sees with either eye or both. That's where I've been this whole time. I haven't moved an inch. And so far you refuse to address this.

Hmm, I think you are overvaluing your own perspective that focuses so much on right eye looking down sights.

-The objective with both eyes open shooting it to have a less obstructed view, and this is highly valued

Granted. Don't know why you think it is relevant, but granted.

-in depicting both-eyes-open shooting you therefore cannot dedicate the one frame to the "Gun's arse" view of looking down the sights as that OBSCURES!

Why not? You're getting rid of the iron sights themselves, so who is even going to notice that you bothered to realistically represent the minutia of human perspective? You know, even if you were. I don't get this hangup you have have about parallax and obstruction. Everything else can go to hell but as long as you get the parallax and obstruction the way you want it you call it realistic. I'm totally mystified by this.

this is what I'm talking about with circles. You ask why not then you admit to the obscuring factor but act like it is nothing. Do you no see how a perspective like this:

... is obscuring? How this is a problem? This IS a problem!

Factoring Parallax of both eyes open shooting SOLVES this problem while still giving the accuracy you could only get of seeing where sights line up with a target.

Who cares what the game character sees? What matters is what the player sees.

the PLAYER does see what the character sees. The Characters sees where front sight is pointing over and is shown to the player with the on-screen reticule.

That is not combining the fields, that is displaying one field and getting rid of the other while using abstractions on the screen to represent the information normally gained from the excluded field of view. It's a good way to make a shooter but no one will believe you are trying to convey the experience of shooting realistically if you take that approach.

The only part of the right field that is discarded is the dark static gun's arse view. Both right and left eye looking at targets further away each field is indistinguishable so can be merged.

It's simple to make people believe this, they just have to stop and THINK for a second. it could be introduced in the training part where they introduce the gun.

You can't just assume everyone is an idiot and have it like Call of Duty that gives no consideration to Parallax of two eyes. Look at how they handle stereostopic 3D;


You can see in side-by-side mode when they aim-down-sight mode... when the sight is brought close up to the right eye... yet suddenly there must be two identical weapons as both eye is looking almost dead down the sights!!!

It's an elaborate Chewbacca defense.

Nope.avi

I tried to keep things clearly and simply explain a complex concept, you have made this complicated with fractured quoting of point by point.

It is impossible. No amount of training will cause me to see a view that I don't see with either eye or both. No amount of training will paint a reticle on my vision. However, I require no further training to shoot with both eyes as I am already proficient at it. Better with one eye, I admit, but proficient.

The experts are in agreement in disagreeing with you.

I read every word. You have not provided a way to realistically portray the minutia of having two eyes, nor have you provided an equally realistic alternative to iron sights in games. I have dismissed your concern with parallax and obstruction because those things are negligible given the goal of portraying shooting realistically to the player, and because your proposed solution to the problem is far less realistic than just leaving it unsolved.

To dismiss something is to make clear it isn't worth consideration. Yet it IS worth consideration of the problem of how much the COD iron sights view obscures and how parallax perspective can solve that.

It's not unrealistic considering everything, such as how the Bindon Aiming Concept works. That IS realistic.

The thing it is is diverging from your narrow view of reality and you - quite literally - cannot consider other perspectives.

The iron sights are used by the in-game character. But not by me. I'm the one who needs to experience the... experience of shooting. It doesn't matter what the in-game character sees. It doesn't matter what the purpose of both-eyes-open shooting is.

No. You are again making the "shooting = iron sights only perspective" assumption. You aren't considering how with training the environment view dominates and obscuring perspective of the gun is ignored.

Well ad hominems won't convince me. All this about parallax, obscuring and the technique of shooting with both eyes is a giant red herring. It does not describe the difference between the traditional FPS view and the iron sight view. It does not provide justification to call the left eye view a realistic way to convey the experience of shooting to the player. All it does is create a word soup so elaborate, nonsensical and full of non sequiters that no can even figure out how to engage your argument one way or the other and provide endless fodder for lengthy, irrelevant non-responses to people's objections. And it supplies you with convenient ad hominem's and appeals to authority to levy against anyone who disagrees or points out that what you say the left eye sees isn't what the left eye sees. A point you continue to evade by intentionally misrepresenting it as a rejection of the possibility of shooting with both eyes open.

Your whole argument is that the traditional FPS view represents a shooter's left eye view with a crosshair on the screen representing where the gun will fire and is therefore realistic. THAT'S IT. Everything else is an elaborate evasion to ensure that no one addresses your point because no one can figure out where to grab hold of it. And if they attempt it you just repeat yourself fifteen different ways until they give up.

You provide no answer to the problem of portraying realistic, two eyed human vision in games. All you have done is choose one eye over the other eye. And you justify the realism of this by claiming the traditional FPS view is a realistic approximation of that eye's view, which it most certainly is not. And the eye you have chosen is the eye that is not involved in doing the business of shooting. It has it's uses, but there is no denying that the other eye's view is doing the business of aiming the weapon where it needs to be aimed regardless of the proficiency of the shooter. If we must choose one view, that is the obvious choice. If you have an alternative, I'm sure I'm interested, but you certainly have not provided one so far.

 

[Treblaine]

Well ad hominems won't convince me. All this about parallax, obscuring and the technique of shooting with both eyes is a giant red herring. It does not describe the difference between the traditional FPS view and the iron sight view. It does not provide justification to call the left eye view a realistic way to convey the experience of shooting to the player. All it does is create a word soup so elaborate, nonsensical and full of non sequiters that no can even figure out how to engage your argument one way or the other and provide endless fodder for lengthy, irrelevant non-responses to people's objections. And it supplies you with convenient ad hominem's and appeals to authority to levy against anyone who disagrees or points out that what you say the left eye sees isn't what the left eye sees. A point you continue to evade by intentionally misrepresenting it as a rejection of the possibility of shooting with both eyes open.

Your whole argument is that the traditional FPS view represents a shooter's left eye view with a crosshair on the screen representing where the gun will fire and is therefore realistic. THAT'S IT. Everything else is an elaborate evasion to ensure that no one addresses your point because no one can figure out where to grab hold of it. And if they attempt it you just repeat yourself fifteen different ways until they give up.

You provide no answer to the problem of portraying realistic, two eyed human vision in games. All you have done is choose one eye over the other eye. And you justify the realism of this by claiming the traditional FPS view is a realistic approximation of that eye's view, which it most certainly is not. And the eye you have chosen is the eye that is not involved in doing the business of shooting. It has it's uses, but there is no denying that the other eye's view is doing the business of aiming the weapon where it needs to be aimed regardless of the proficiency of the shooter. If we must choose one view, that is the obvious choice. If you have an alternative, I'm sure I'm interested, but you certainly have not provided one so far.

Well I have made my argument and you have variously rejected it and ignored it in different parts, mostly having to discredit my points in isolation out of context rather than giving whole collective consideration.

You aren't adding anything to this calling my explanation an "elaborate word soup". Your convenient incredulity is no argument, it's a contrived excuse.

I've provided plenty of answers and you've just flatly rejected anything that doesn't suit your prejudices only backed up with baseless statements of impossibility, you cite your own authority yet cry "FALLACY! Argument from authority" when I give more qualified sources that contradict you.

"If we must choose one view, that is the obvious choice."

Surely not the one with the most obscured view... with none of the added perspective of the open left eye? This circular argument again. I get it, you love the gun's arse more than actually seeing your opponents and the environment you are fighting in but I think we can agree that is a misguided preference.

Including the left eye view is the answer. But your denialism, oh dear. Well I don't really care that much if you are not convinced, I'm not going to lose any sleep over you refusing to accept this.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Well ad hominems won't convince me. All this about parallax, obscuring and the technique of shooting with both eyes is a giant red herring. It does not describe the difference between the traditional FPS view and the iron sight view. It does not provide justification to call the left eye view a realistic way to convey the experience of shooting to the player. All it does is create a word soup so elaborate, nonsensical and full of non sequiters that no can even figure out how to engage your argument one way or the other and provide endless fodder for lengthy, irrelevant non-responses to people's objections. And it supplies you with convenient ad hominem's and appeals to authority to levy against anyone who disagrees or points out that what you say the left eye sees isn't what the left eye sees. A point you continue to evade by intentionally misrepresenting it as a rejection of the possibility of shooting with both eyes open.

Your whole argument is that the traditional FPS view represents a shooter's left eye view with a crosshair on the screen representing where the gun will fire and is therefore realistic. THAT'S IT. Everything else is an elaborate evasion to ensure that no one addresses your point because no one can figure out where to grab hold of it. And if they attempt it you just repeat yourself fifteen different ways until they give up.

You provide no answer to the problem of portraying realistic, two eyed human vision in games. All you have done is choose one eye over the other eye. And you justify the realism of this by claiming the traditional FPS view is a realistic approximation of that eye's view, which it most certainly is not. And the eye you have chosen is the eye that is not involved in doing the business of shooting. It has it's uses, but there is no denying that the other eye's view is doing the business of aiming the weapon where it needs to be aimed regardless of the proficiency of the shooter. If we must choose one view, that is the obvious choice. If you have an alternative, I'm sure I'm interested, but you certainly have not provided one so far.

Well I have made my argument and you have variously rejected it and ignored it in different parts, mostly having to discredit my points in isolation out of context rather than giving whole collective consideration.

You aren't adding anything to this calling my explanation an "elaborate word soup". Your convenient incredulity is no argument, it's a contrived excuse.

I've provided plenty of answers and you've just flatly rejected anything that doesn't suit your prejudices only backed up with baseless statements of impossibility, you cite your own authority yet cry "FALLACY! Argument from authority" when I give more qualified sources that contradict you.

"If we must choose one view, that is the obvious choice."

Surely not the one with the most obscured view... with none of the added perspective of the open left eye? This circular argument again. I get it, you love the gun's arse more than actually seeing your opponents and the environment you are fighting in but I think we can agree that is a misguided preference.

Including the left eye view is the answer. But your denialism, oh dear. Well I don't really care that much if you are not convinced, I'm not going to lose any sleep over you refusing to accept this.

These aren't arguments, this is just name calling.

I have rejected much but ignored nothing. I have given your argument as a whole due consideration and determined that it does not stand, as a whole, because it is built on bad premises. Calling your arguments bad arguments is not an excuse. You dismiss any disagreement with an ad hominem. Calling me prejudice is an example. Saying anyone who disagrees with you just doesn't have the experience to know what you know is another. I don't think you understand what the logical fallacy known as the "appeal to authority" is, and it's quite annoying to be accused of it myself when my statements describing my qualifications were dragged out of me by an ad hominem. None of the videos or sources you provided contradicted me in the least. They only contradicted the straw-man version of me that denies the advantages of shooting with both eyes, thus affording you the opportunity to continue to ignore the fact that the traditional FPS view does not look like what the left eye sees, which, astoundingly, you continue to do. What's the matter, is the avalanche of pointless paragraphs and videos not making it go away this time? "If we must choose one view, that is the obvious choice" is not circular logic and if you believe otherwise I would be interested to find out why.

The traditional FPS view does not introduce the left-eye view. And even if it did, such a view would be inadequate to the task of portraying the act of shooting with both eyes open realistically to the player more than the right eye view. Disagreeing with you does not constitute "denialism". Every time I disagree with an argument you say I am "ignoring" it, no matter how thoroughly I attempt to address it. The irony of course is that you are accusing me of ignoring your arguments as a method for ignoring mine. It was never my intention to deny you of sleep, and I'm sorry you're so exasperated that I disagree with you.

I get it, you love the gun's arse more than actually seeing your opponents and the environment you are fighting in but I think we can agree that is a misguided preference.

Seriously?

 

[Treblaine]

The traditional FPS view does not introduce the left-eye view. And even if it did, such a view would be inadequate to the task of portraying the act of shooting with both eyes open realistically to the player more than the right eye view.

That is just flat out wrong. Consider this:

-The purpose of both eyes open shooting is to get a less obstructed field of view
-Of both eyes, the left eye is the eye with the much less obstructed field of view

The COD ironsight view gives absolutely no hint at all of both eyes being open in aiming. The classic FPS perspective with reticule suggests both eyes open with Parallax of the right eye giving the reticule which is all the more plausible with any red-dot or illuminated sight arrangement.

-Classic FPS shooing perspective you see the left side of the gun + less obstructed view of the surroundings
-Aiming with both eyes open left eye sees the left side of the gun + less unobstructed view of the surroundings

Yet you say: "the traditional FPS view does not look like what the left eye sees" as a keystone of your argument. This is your bad premise. I have told you this and you have ignored it before.


PS: Ad Hominem is more than mere criticism, it's some extreme like "You can't believe this guy, he doesn't even believe in *something-valued*", not merely postulating on prejudice as the basis of your "obvious" assertions.

PPS: "They only contradicted the straw-man version of me that denies the advantages of shooting with both eyes"

Yo dawg, I heard you like straw men, so I put straw men fallacies in your straw men fallacies. Straw manning that I straw manned. No. I never knowingly stated you didn't see the advantage of both eyes open shooting. What I have criticised you for is your obsession with depicting what the rear of the gun looks like simply because, you never give a reason and act as if it is just "obvious" which is circular.

With both eyes open shooting the focus is going to be MUCH LESS on the rear of the gun and much more on the dynamic and changing environment and enemies.

 

[aruntisa]

Actually

Your eyes aren't far enough apart for that.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

The traditional FPS view does not introduce the left-eye view. And even if it did, such a view would be inadequate to the task of portraying the act of shooting with both eyes open realistically to the player more than the right eye view.

That is just flat out wrong. Consider this:

-The purpose of both eyes open shooting is to get a less obstructed field of view
-Of both eyes, the left eye is the eye with the much less obstructed field of view

The COD ironsight view gives absolutely no hint at all of both eyes being open in aiming. The classic FPS perspective with reticule suggests both eyes open with Parallax of the right eye giving the reticule which is all the more plausible with any red-dot or illuminated sight arrangement.

-Classic FPS shooing perspective you see the left side of the gun + less obstructed view of the surroundings
-Aiming with both eyes open left eye sees the left side of the gun + less unobstructed view of the surroundings

Yet you say: "the traditional FPS view does not look like what the left eye sees" as a keystone of your argument. This is your bad premise. I have told you this and you have ignored it before.


PS: Ad Hominem is more than mere criticism, it's some extreme like "You can't believe this guy, he doesn't even believe in *something-valued*", not merely postulating on prejudice as the basis of your "obvious" assertions.

PPS: "They only contradicted the straw-man version of me that denies the advantages of shooting with both eyes"

Yo dawg, I heard you like straw men, so I put straw men fallacies in your straw men fallacies. Straw manning that I straw manned. No. I never knowingly stated you didn't see the advantage of both eyes open shooting. What I have criticised you for is your obsession with depicting what the rear of the gun looks like simply because, you never give a reason and act as if it is just "obvious" which is circular.

With both eyes open shooting the focus is going to be MUCH LESS on the rear of the gun and much more on the dynamic and changing environment and enemies.

This is bordering on self-parody. It's like you know you are evading the arguments, you know you are repeating yourself without addressing anything anyone says to you, you know everyone else knows, and you just don't care.

Anyway, back on the merry-go-round. The traditional FPS view gives absolutely no hint at all of both eyes being open in aiming. Putting a reticle on it does absolutely nothing whatsoever to diminish or address this, though it may help convey information to the player. It absolutely certainly does not approximate parallax, two-eye view. Taking a right eye iron sight view and putting graphics all over it to represent what the left eye sees is not addressing the problem of parallax, two-eyed vision in terms of realism. Parallax, obstruction, and shooting with both eyes has nothing to do with any of this. You want to talk about that so you don't have to talk about the fact that iron sights are essential to shooting with iron sights. It's a red herring.

The left eye view aids in shooting, the right eye view does the essential business of aiming the gun where it needs to go, making it the obvious choice for representing the experience of shooting to the player. A shooter aims the gun with the iron sights. This makes depicting the iron sights necessary to the convey the experience of shooting to the player.

In order for something to be a criticism, you have to be criticizing something. Not just calling names. And you only called me prejudiced to attack my qualifications for disagreeing with you. What you said was effectively equivalent to "you can't believe this guy, he's prejudiced". My supposed prejudices, even if true, are no basis for an argument. My postulating that the basis for your argument is you being a dooty-head is classic ad hominem. This is not an isolated incident, ad hominem is obviously a strategy for you.

"The traditional FPS view does not look like what the left eye sees" is not a keystone of my argument. It is the opposite of a keystone of your argument. And I am absolutely flabbergasted you were able to concoct yet another way to get out of addressing this. I wonder how many more ways you can come up with? I'm almost starting to root for you. If I were to identify a keystone to my own argument, I would say it is "a shooter aims by lining up the iron sights".

"I never knowingly stated you didn't see the advantage of both eyes open shooting"

Yes you did.

"What I have criticised you for is your obsession with depicting what the rear of the gun looks like simply because, you never give a reason and act as if it is just "obvious" which is circular."

If I didn't give a reason then my reasoning obviously can't be "circular". And I did give a reason. I address all your arguments. You address none of mine and then tell me I'm ignoring you.

With both eyes open shooting, you see iron sights, and you even use them to aim the gun. So they are the most important part of the view of the shooter along with the target itself. If you get rid of that, it really doesn't matter what else you display because you are not showing the tools the shooter uses to aim the gun.

By the way, the insults don't get to me. I assume they're just there to avoid addressing people's arguments, like everything else.

 

[Spearmaster]

The double vision of the gun never goes away,

My expert source that I cited contradicts you on that. I hope you did the extra research I provided for you to look over.

You can train to ignore it but its always there, the shooter always sees it, suppression just fades one more than the other and suppression also suppresses parallax as well so think on that. If your source claims that you can focus on 2 things at different distances at the same time clearly(I'm sure he does not) then even your source would be discredited which discredits your argument. I know what your source is talking about, apparently you must have misconstrued it.

The problem is what you are trying to explain and show us is nothing like anything Ive ever seen through my eyes while shooting, one eye or two, which makes it unrealistic to actual shooting, I am an experienced shooter, many different guns and bows for many years, your source describes a technique for shooting, it does not change the way a humans eyes work nor does it reference views in video games at all. What are your credentials in shooting by the way?

What you have been describing is further away from realism than ADS views, and the way you try to explain/justify it actually makes it even less realistic than before, your view is of the gun readied up to the shoulder, the reticule is video game magic, not a two eye shooting view.

You can say that I'm just rejecting your argument if you want but you have ignored, dismissed or rejected every counterpoint offered to your idea by just stating you are right...well you are wrong...sorry.

 

[Treblaine]

This is bordering on self-parody. It's like you know you are evading the arguments, you know you are repeating yourself without addressing anything anyone says to you, you know everyone else knows, and you just don't care.

Anyway, back on the merry-go-round. The traditional FPS view gives absolutely no hint at all of both eyes being open in aiming. Putting a reticle on it does absolutely nothing whatsoever to diminish or address this, though it may help convey information to the player. It absolutely certainly does not approximate parallax, two-eye view. Taking a right eye iron sight view and putting graphics all over it to represent what the left eye sees is not addressing the problem of parallax, two-eyed vision in terms of realism. Parallax, obstruction, and shooting with both eyes has nothing to do with any of this. You want to talk about that so you don't have to talk about the fact that iron sights are essential to shooting with iron sights. It's a red herring.

The left eye view aids in shooting, the right eye view does the essential business of aiming the gun where it needs to go, making it the obvious choice for representing the experience of shooting to the player. A shooter aims the gun with the iron sights. This makes depicting the iron sights necessary to the convey the experience of shooting to the player.

In order for something to be a criticism, you have to be criticizing something. Not just calling names. And you only called me prejudiced to attack my qualifications for disagreeing with you. What you said was effectively equivalent to "you can't believe this guy, he's prejudiced". My supposed prejudices, even if true, are no basis for an argument. My postulating that the basis for your argument is you being a dooty-head is classic ad hominem. This is not an isolated incident, ad hominem is obviously a strategy for you.

"The traditional FPS view does not look like what the left eye sees" is not a keystone of my argument. It is the opposite of a keystone of your argument. And I am absolutely flabbergasted you were able to concoct yet another way to get out of addressing this. I wonder how many more ways you can come up with? I'm almost starting to root for you. If I were to identify a keystone to my own argument, I would say it is "a shooter aims by lining up the iron sights".

"I never knowingly stated you didn't see the advantage of both eyes open shooting"

Yes you did.

"What I have criticised you for is your obsession with depicting what the rear of the gun looks like simply because, you never give a reason and act as if it is just "obvious" which is circular."

If I didn't give a reason then my reasoning obviously can't be "circular". And I did give a reason. I address all your arguments. You address none of mine and then tell me I'm ignoring you.

With both eyes open shooting, you see iron sights, and you even use them to aim the gun. So they are the most important part of the view of the shooter along with the target itself. If you get rid of that, it really doesn't matter what else you display because you are not showing the tools the shooter uses to aim the gun.

By the way, the insults don't get to me. I assume they're just there to avoid addressing people's arguments, like everything else.

This is the important part.

"With both eyes open shooting, you see iron sights, and you even use them to aim the gun."

This is the part of MY ARGUMENT that YOU are refusing to address, is that that the of course the sights should be shown... but NOT the entire body of the gun so close to the face and obscuring targets when the left eye.

I'm talking about "gun's arse" (the large body of the gun) and you are talking about "gun sights" (small important structure) but you don't seem to address how they can be separate.

You CAN have JUST the weapon's sights but NOT the entire body of the gun so close to the face obscuring so much. Both eyes open you tune out everything but the sight and combine holistically with the left eye's view. Just because the gun sights HAVE to be depicted doesn't men the whole body of the gun has to be depicted as well.

Why can't that be the crosshair reticule?

Before you have just asserted that it simply is not. I want you to EXPLAIN why it could not. Not based on you experience but how it could never be perceived that way at all.

See the Iron sights ARE being depicted, just not with the entire obscuring body of the weapon that would be faded out with the left eye perspective providing more relevant information of the environment.

If I were to identify a keystone to my own argument, I would say it is "a shooter aims by lining up the iron sights".

Fine. The sights can be viewed SEPARATELY from the bdoy of the gun, when left and right fields combine the static dark gun body is ignored and the surrounding view is seen what the right eye sees with reticule over target is combined with the left eye view, both left and right see the target the same but right eye superimposes sights.

So sights ARE being used. They ARE being depicted.

Your problem is your ONLY answer to this reasoned explanation is that this isn't what is being depicted.

PLEASE CONSIDER THIS: The weapon's sights can be depicted WITHOUT depicting the body of the gun IF it is a perspective of the gun that obscures!!!

Spoiler: and here to address the personal crap that is irrelevant to the argument

You keep saying I am "avoiding the argument" but "Putting a reticle on it does absolutely nothing whatsoever to diminish or address this" is not an argument, it is just an assertion. No explanation. This is just one of many examples of where you think there is an argument for me to address when you make a baseless assertion that 'no, it's not that way, just isn't'

Addressing prejudice is not an ad hominem, especially as you so often depend on personal assertion your prejudice is made relevant by your own decision to argue with how you make snap unreasoned judgements on things. You may have reasons, but you don't give them, you simply repeat 'no, it does absolutely nothing'.

I do criticise your assertions, your over-valuing of the gun's rear view even though it obscures is a prejudice for what the gun looks like over the gameplay: seeing the environment and enemies better. This is an unavoidable result of that.

"The traditional FPS view does not look like what the left eye sees"

I DID address this. Remember this:
-The purpose of both eyes open shooting is to get a less obstructed field of view
-Of both eyes, the left eye is the eye with the much less obstructed field of view

"By the way, the insults don't get to me."

WHAT INSULTS?!!? I have addressed your arguments in the few places they are but you don't give alternative explanations, you just repeat assertions that you act as if are obvious.

 

[Treblaine]

The double vision of the gun never goes away,

My expert source that I cited contradicts you on that. I hope you did the extra research I provided for you to look over.

You can train to ignore it but its always there, the shooter always sees it, suppression just fades one more than the other and suppression also suppresses parallax as well so think on that. If your source claims that you can focus on 2 things at different distances at the same time clearly(I'm sure he does not) then even your source would be discredited which discredits your argument. I know what your source is talking about, apparently you must have misconstrued it.

The problem is what you are trying to explain and show us is nothing like anything Ive ever seen through my eyes while shooting, one eye or two, which makes it unrealistic to actual shooting, I am an experienced shooter, many different guns and bows for many years, your source describes a technique for shooting, it does not change the way a humans eyes work nor does it reference views in video games at all. What are your credentials in shooting by the way?

What you have been describing is further away from realism than ADS views, and the way you try to explain/justify it actually makes it even less realistic than before, your view is of the gun readied up to the shoulder, the reticule is video game magic, not a two eye shooting view.

You can say that I'm just rejecting your argument if you want but you have ignored, dismissed or rejected every counterpoint offered to your idea by just stating you are right...well you are wrong...sorry.

"If your source claims that you can focus on 2 things at different distances at the same time "

No source claims that. The focus as always is on the target several metres away or whatever else you are looking at in the environment. I don't claim that. In practice, video games put everything in crisp focus and there is always a certain amount of abstraction with how both eyes are supposed to change their point of convergence.

Proof of abstraction even in Call of Duty: when not in ADS the weapon sights aren't raised, right? So both eyes would be open, yet you don't see double-vision view of the weapon by your side, each eye would view the gun from a slightly different angle so both should be shown superimposed. But it doesn't. It picks one solid perspective. It cannot just superimpose both eye's perspectives or just act like there is only one perspective (as if every game character everywhere only has a functional right eye).

This abstraction is no more an affront to realism than every other FPS games that doesn't show close objects in double vision.

The point of that source is showing that you'd have:
-a view of the sights over target
-a wide unobstructed view of the surroundings

And combine the two, sights represented with crosshair reticule, only left side of gun shown.

The idea is NOT just to do the equivalent of filming a camera down the iron sights, and filming a few inches off the the left and then simplistically combining the two images on screen with two faded views of the gun. No. That combines the perspectives in a way that are impossible to separate. No, they are perceived with the mental focus (not ocular focus) on getting a clear view of the surroundings and where the sights are pointing at in the environment.

 

[Spearmaster]

The double vision of the gun never goes away,

My expert source that I cited contradicts you on that. I hope you did the extra research I provided for you to look over.

You can train to ignore it but its always there, the shooter always sees it, suppression just fades one more than the other and suppression also suppresses parallax as well so think on that. If your source claims that you can focus on 2 things at different distances at the same time clearly(I'm sure he does not) then even your source would be discredited which discredits your argument. I know what your source is talking about, apparently you must have misconstrued it.

The problem is what you are trying to explain and show us is nothing like anything Ive ever seen through my eyes while shooting, one eye or two, which makes it unrealistic to actual shooting, I am an experienced shooter, many different guns and bows for many years, your source describes a technique for shooting, it does not change the way a humans eyes work nor does it reference views in video games at all. What are your credentials in shooting by the way?

What you have been describing is further away from realism than ADS views, and the way you try to explain/justify it actually makes it even less realistic than before, your view is of the gun readied up to the shoulder, the reticule is video game magic, not a two eye shooting view.

You can say that I'm just rejecting your argument if you want but you have ignored, dismissed or rejected every counterpoint offered to your idea by just stating you are right...well you are wrong...sorry.

"If your source claims that you can focus on 2 things at different distances at the same time "

No source claims that. The focus as always is on the target several metres away or whatever else you are looking at in the environment. I don't claim that.

Proof of abstraction even in Call of Duty: when not in ADS the weapon sights aren't raised, right? So both eyes would be open, yet you don't see double-vision view of the weapon by your side, each eye would view the gun from a slightly different angle so both should be shown superimposed. But it doesn't. It picks one solid perspective. It cannot just superimpose both eye's perspectives or just act like there is only one perspective (as if every game character everywhere only has a functional right eye).

This abstraction is no more an affront to realism than every other FPS games that doesn't show close objects in double vision.

The point of that source is showing that you'd have:
-a view of the sights over target
-a wide unobstructed view of the surroundings

And combine the two, sights represented with crosshair reticule, only left side of gun shown.

The idea is NOT just to do the equivalent of filming a camera down the iron sights, and filming a few inches off the the left and then simplistically combining the two images on screen with two faded views of the gun. No. That combines the perspectives in a way that are impossible to separate. No, they are perceived with the mental focus (not ocular focus) on getting a clear view of the surroundings and where the sights are pointing at in the environment.

"In practice, video games put everything in crisp focus and there is always a certain amount of abstraction with how both eyes are supposed to change their point of convergence."

Yes very true, more video game magic, so it does not add to realism but ill let you have that one.

"The point of that source is showing that you'd have:
-a view of the sights over target
-a wide unobstructed view of the surroundings"

OK, in which of your proposed examples does it show a view of sights over the target? you say just to have a reticule represent the iron sights which means by your own logic you are NOT showing the right eye view therefore NOT showing a 2 eye style of shooting, just a left eye that's mounted like 10 inches off the side of their head, and how would you use a scope in this view? Magically zoom the left eye and say its because the right eye is looking down the scope? To remain consistent you would have to.

Again you dodged my question about your shooting credentials/experience, again what are they?

 

[Treblaine]

"In practice, video games put everything in crisp focus and there is always a certain amount of abstraction with how both eyes are supposed to change their point of convergence."

Yes very true, more video game magic, so it does not add to realism but ill let you have that one.

"The point of that source is showing that you'd have:
-a view of the sights over target
-a wide unobstructed view of the surroundings"

OK, in which of your proposed examples does it show a view of sights over the target? you say just to have a reticule represent the iron sights which means by your own logic you are NOT showing the right eye view therefore NOT showing a 2 eye style of shooting, just a left eye that's mounted like 10 inches off the side of their head, and how would you use a scope in this view? Magically zoom the left eye and say its because the right eye is looking down the scope? To remain consistent you would have to.

Again you dodged my question about your shooting credentials/experience, again what are they?

"which of your proposed examples does it show a view of sights over the target?"

The in-game-character's right eye would see down the sights, so would be able to have precise visual feedback on where the bullets were firing.

"you say just to have a reticule represent the iron sights which means by your own logic you are NOT showing the right eye view"

Nope.

Let's go through this slowly: the environment is much further away than any part of the gun, so much that the parallax is insignificant.
That means both right an left eye see the same ENVIRONMENT but the right eye is much more OBSTRUCTED by the gun.
If BOTH EYES see the environment effectively the same way all you need to do to represent to right-eye view is show where the right eye would see the sights as being over.

Really both left and right eye views of the environment are shown, the left eye view of the gun plus the right eye view of the front sights as the reticule. Some layout the right sight may appear 10 inches off to the right, but left4dead2 it really does look a lot like the right eyecould be over the sights relative to how if the left eye is viewing the relative position of the weapon viewmodel.

"how would you use a scope in this view?"

Magnifying scopes would be the one exception where you have to activate a button to use them, but even then you wouldn't black out all the view around the scope. With high magnification the right eye's view OF THE ENVIRONMENT is so different that the right and left field views of the environment cannot be simply combined plus the reticule. No need for such arbitrary consistency, you'd use a high magnification scope very differently.

Again you dodged my question about your shooting credentials/experience, again what are they?

Irrelevant. My argument stands on it's own. It doesn't matter who I am. Consider my EXPLANATIONS, not my AUTHORITY! There is no need to get into a fruitless and unverifiable pissing match of who has more experience, but to say the least I DO have experience with shootign sports and not airsoft.

 

[Joby Baumann]

I'm one of those folks that doesn't give a right (or left) shit about realism in games, so I have to put the question of whether the realism is ever really gonna be real anyway, and if it's not...does that invalidate even the need for this argument?

"What? He's crazy, this guy must be crazy to suggest that hipfire with a mysterious reticule in the middle of the screen is in any way realistic."

Well, not so crazy when you think about how the screen perspective is a single 2D perspective yet humans have 2 eyes meaning you'd get two shifted 2D perspectives, that means the parallax must be represented combining the two views into one frame.

"What? I don't follow, Parallax?"

Basically, both your eyes look the same direction but because your eyes are a few inches apart they get a different view. Like how if you look at a tree with your finger held up, your right eye sees what is slightly shifted from what your left eye sees:

Remember this picture. How does it look familiar? The finger in line to the tree, like the sight post on a gun, and then the off the the side view...

When we see the the world around us with two eyes we combine this together what each eyeball sees as the images are processed separately. But how would you Represent this in a First-person perspective which has only a single 2D frame?

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:

Now take the important part of what the right eye sees, where the sights line up and indicate where the bullets go, and lay that superimposed over the wider less restricted view of the Left eye. Then you have the classic "unrealistic" representation of aiming a weapon with a reticule in the centre of the screen:

EDIT = different picture from mode recent in the series, on PC with 90-degrees FOV.

"These games are so unrealistic, you can't aim without using the sights. Where does the reticule on the screen come from?"

The reticule comes from using the gun. It is a game REPRESENTATION of your right eye using the sights while your left eye is open.

You can do this yourself with a ruler though preferably something more gun-like, With your right eye look down the ruler/sights then close your right eye and open your left. It's more obvious with your head canted to the right so your left view of the gun is a little lower.

-------​

Spoiler: Then why bother with Aim-down sights in games?

Why? I think it's a con, with faux-realism and a crutch for much more unrealistic things like instantaneous zoom with iron sights and super-powerful aim-assist when activating iron-sights.

It's most valuable for on consoles where the thumbstick is just so crap for aiming, not a problem if a proper aiming device like a mouse is used.

OK, some hyper realistic games might need aim-down sights like Red Orchestra or ARMA for how you have adjustible sights and other things, but certainly the vast majority of FPS games, including war games the ADS mechanic is a crutch for gameplay, not for the level of realism they are aspiring to.

Here's the thing, your right eye is closed when looking down sights, I agree that iron sights aren't perfect in games, they should be more to the right in your field of vision, although this doesn't work due to the aspect ratio of of your exes is much wider than that of a screen.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

This is bordering on self-parody. It's like you know you are evading the arguments, you know you are repeating yourself without addressing anything anyone says to you, you know everyone else knows, and you just don't care.

Anyway, back on the merry-go-round. The traditional FPS view gives absolutely no hint at all of both eyes being open in aiming. Putting a reticle on it does absolutely nothing whatsoever to diminish or address this, though it may help convey information to the player. It absolutely certainly does not approximate parallax, two-eye view. Taking a right eye iron sight view and putting graphics all over it to represent what the left eye sees is not addressing the problem of parallax, two-eyed vision in terms of realism. Parallax, obstruction, and shooting with both eyes has nothing to do with any of this. You want to talk about that so you don't have to talk about the fact that iron sights are essential to shooting with iron sights. It's a red herring.

The left eye view aids in shooting, the right eye view does the essential business of aiming the gun where it needs to go, making it the obvious choice for representing the experience of shooting to the player. A shooter aims the gun with the iron sights. This makes depicting the iron sights necessary to the convey the experience of shooting to the player.

In order for something to be a criticism, you have to be criticizing something. Not just calling names. And you only called me prejudiced to attack my qualifications for disagreeing with you. What you said was effectively equivalent to "you can't believe this guy, he's prejudiced". My supposed prejudices, even if true, are no basis for an argument. My postulating that the basis for your argument is you being a dooty-head is classic ad hominem. This is not an isolated incident, ad hominem is obviously a strategy for you.

"The traditional FPS view does not look like what the left eye sees" is not a keystone of my argument. It is the opposite of a keystone of your argument. And I am absolutely flabbergasted you were able to concoct yet another way to get out of addressing this. I wonder how many more ways you can come up with? I'm almost starting to root for you. If I were to identify a keystone to my own argument, I would say it is "a shooter aims by lining up the iron sights".

"I never knowingly stated you didn't see the advantage of both eyes open shooting"

Yes you did.

"What I have criticised you for is your obsession with depicting what the rear of the gun looks like simply because, you never give a reason and act as if it is just "obvious" which is circular."

If I didn't give a reason then my reasoning obviously can't be "circular". And I did give a reason. I address all your arguments. You address none of mine and then tell me I'm ignoring you.

With both eyes open shooting, you see iron sights, and you even use them to aim the gun. So they are the most important part of the view of the shooter along with the target itself. If you get rid of that, it really doesn't matter what else you display because you are not showing the tools the shooter uses to aim the gun.

By the way, the insults don't get to me. I assume they're just there to avoid addressing people's arguments, like everything else.

This is the important part.

"With both eyes open shooting, you see iron sights, and you even use them to aim the gun."

This is the part of MY ARGUMENT that YOU are refusing to address, is that that the of course the sights should be shown... but NOT the entire body of the gun so close to the face and obscuring targets when the left eye.

I'm talking about "gun's arse" (the large body of the gun) and you are talking about "gun sights" (small important structure) but you don't seem to address how they can be separate.

You CAN have JUST the weapon's sights but NOT the entire body of the gun so close to the face obscuring so much. Both eyes open you tune out everything but the sight and combine holistically with the left eye's view. Just because the gun sights HAVE to be depicted doesn't men the whole body of the gun has to be depicted as well.

Why can't that be the crosshair reticule?

Before you have just asserted that it simply is not. I want you to EXPLAIN why it could not. Not based on you experience but how it could never be perceived that way at all.

See the Iron sights ARE being depicted, just not with the entire obscuring body of the weapon that would be faded out with the left eye perspective providing more relevant information of the environment.

If I were to identify a keystone to my own argument, I would say it is "a shooter aims by lining up the iron sights".

Fine. The sights can be viewed SEPARATELY from the bdoy of the gun, when left and right fields combine the static dark gun body is ignored and the surrounding view is seen what the right eye sees with reticule over target is combined with the left eye view, both left and right see the target the same but right eye superimposes sights.

So sights ARE being used. They ARE being depicted.

Your problem is your ONLY answer to this reasoned explanation is that this isn't what is being depicted.

PLEASE CONSIDER THIS: The weapon's sights can be depicted WITHOUT depicting the body of the gun IF it is a perspective of the gun that obscures!!!

Spoiler: and here to address the personal crap that is irrelevant to the argument

You keep saying I am "avoiding the argument" but "Putting a reticle on it does absolutely nothing whatsoever to diminish or address this" is not an argument, it is just an assertion. No explanation. This is just one of many examples of where you think there is an argument for me to address when you make a baseless assertion that 'no, it's not that way, just isn't'

Addressing prejudice is not an ad hominem, especially as you so often depend on personal assertion your prejudice is made relevant by your own decision to argue with how you make snap unreasoned judgements on things. You may have reasons, but you don't give them, you simply repeat 'no, it does absolutely nothing'.

I do criticise your assertions, your over-valuing of the gun's rear view even though it obscures is a prejudice for what the gun looks like over the gameplay: seeing the environment and enemies better. This is an unavoidable result of that.

"The traditional FPS view does not look like what the left eye sees"

I DID address this. Remember this:
-The purpose of both eyes open shooting is to get a less obstructed field of view
-Of both eyes, the left eye is the eye with the much less obstructed field of view

"By the way, the insults don't get to me."

WHAT INSULTS?!!? I have addressed your arguments in the few places they are but you don't give alternative explanations, you just repeat assertions that you act as if are obvious.

""The traditional FPS view does not look like what the left eye sees"

I DID address this. Remember this:
-The purpose of both eyes open shooting is to get a less obstructed field of view
-Of both eyes, the left eye is the eye with the much less obstructed field of view"

Now you're just baiting me. That has nothing to do with my point and you know it. It's a red herring. But when I point this out, you'll use it to say I am "ignoring" your arguments. So you have yet to address the fact that the left eye view of a person shooting from iron sights is not similar to the traditional FPS view.

"and here to address the personal crap that is irrelevant to the argument"

Oh yea, you never evade anything lol. You really have no shame.

Anything you disagree with you just pretend it doesn't exist or call it "denialism", "personal crap", whatever. Just so long as you don't have to address it. You dump ad hominems all over then act like it's over-sensitive or something to call you out. And all the red herrings lead to endless, pointless paragraphs. All this is just evasion. Win the discussion by not discussing. Alright then, run away and call me chicken.

 

[Spearmaster]

"In practice, video games put everything in crisp focus and there is always a certain amount of abstraction with how both eyes are supposed to change their point of convergence."

Yes very true, more video game magic, so it does not add to realism but ill let you have that one.

"The point of that source is showing that you'd have:
-a view of the sights over target
-a wide unobstructed view of the surroundings"

OK, in which of your proposed examples does it show a view of sights over the target? you say just to have a reticule represent the iron sights which means by your own logic you are NOT showing the right eye view therefore NOT showing a 2 eye style of shooting, just a left eye that's mounted like 10 inches off the side of their head, and how would you use a scope in this view? Magically zoom the left eye and say its because the right eye is looking down the scope? To remain consistent you would have to.

Again you dodged my question about your shooting credentials/experience, again what are they?

"which of your proposed examples does it show a view of sights over the target?"

The in-game-character's right eye would see down the sights, so would be able to have precise visual feedback on where the bullets were firing.

"you say just to have a reticule represent the iron sights which means by your own logic you are NOT showing the right eye view"

Nope.

Let's go through this slowly: the environment is much further away than any part of the gun, so much that the parallax is insignificant.
That means both right an left eye see the same ENVIRONMENT but the right eye is much more OBSTRUCTED by the gun.
If BOTH EYES see the environment effectively the same way all you need to do to represent to right-eye view is show where the right eye would see the sights as being over.

Really both left and right eye views of the environment are shown, the left eye view of the gun plus the right eye view of the front sights as the reticule. Some layout the right sight may appear 10 inches off to the right, but left4dead2 it really does look a lot like the right eyecould be over the sights relative to how if the left eye is viewing the relative position of the weapon viewmodel.

"how would you use a scope in this view?"

Magnifying scopes would be the one exception where you have to activate a button to use them, but even then you wouldn't black out all the view around the scope. With high magnification the right eye's view OF THE ENVIRONMENT is so different that the right and left field views of the environment cannot be simply combined plus the reticule. No need for such arbitrary consistency, you'd use a high magnification scope very differently.

Again you dodged my question about your shooting credentials/experience, again what are they?

Irrelevant. My argument stands on it's own. It doesn't matter who I am. Consider my EXPLANATIONS, not my AUTHORITY! There is no need to get into a fruitless and unverifiable pissing match of who has more experience, but to say the least I DO have experience with shootign sports and not airsoft.

"Irrelevant. My argument stands on it's own. It doesn't matter who I am. Consider my EXPLANATIONS, not my AUTHORITY! There is no need to get into a fruitless and unverifiable pissing match of who has more experience"

No pissing match here just trying to understand how you could think your view is as or more realistic than ADS.
I have considered all of your EXPLANATIONS and have asked of your AUTHORITY to see if you have the authority to make the claims you are making, seeing as you have dodged the question many times and still give no reference to your shooting experience other than "shootign sports" and have to quote an alternate source which you misconstrue and manipulate weather unintentionally or intentionally to try and make your argument, I must conclude that you do not have the AUTHORITY to make the claims you make and have not provided any sound application of science to prove yourself right. You state sound scientific facts like parallax but fail to properly apply them in your argument so they give you no help. You cant prove the argument of "realistic" when the view is actually a less realistic view than ADS. With some tweaking you view could be sound but it will never be more realistic than ADS.

"If BOTH EYES see the environment effectively the same way all you need to do to represent to right-eye view is show where the right eye would see the sights as being over."

Explain how this is more realistic than seeing what the game character would ACTUALLY be seeing?

 

[Treblaine]

Now you're just baiting me. That has nothing to do with my point and you know it. It's a red herring. But when I point this out, you'll use it to say I am "ignoring" your arguments. So you have yet to address the fact that the left eye view of a person shooting from iron sights is not similar to the traditional FPS view.

Wait, HOW is it a red herring? You just depend on assertions, not explanations, just assert that it has nothing to do with it. It may seem obvious to you but how is it irrelevant in describing how what the left eye sees when aiming-down-sights with the right eye is similar to what is seen in the classic FPS view.

I did make clear that the traditional FPS view wasn't necessarily exactly in line with a left eye view but close enough and pointless to quibble over how far apart the eyes actually were.

 

[Treblaine]

"Irrelevant. My argument stands on it's own. It doesn't matter who I am. Consider my EXPLANATIONS, not my AUTHORITY! There is no need to get into a fruitless and unverifiable pissing match of who has more experience"

No pissing match here just trying to understand how you could think your view is as or more realistic than ADS.
I have considered all of your EXPLANATIONS and have asked of your AUTHORITY to see if you have the authority to make the claims you are making, seeing as you have dodged the question many times and still give no reference to your shooting experience other than "shootign sports" and have to quote an alternate source which you misconstrue and manipulate weather unintentionally or intentionally to try and make your argument, I must conclude that you do not have the AUTHORITY to make the claims you make and have not provided any sound application of science to prove yourself right. You state sound scientific facts like parallax but fail to properly apply them in your argument so they give you no help. You cant prove the argument of "realistic" when the view is actually a less realistic view than ADS. With some tweaking you view could be sound but it will never be more realistic than ADS.

I do have the authorit to make an argument that DOES NOT DEPEND ON PERSONAL ASSERTIONS!

I depend on fact, examples, science and other actual experts who I have not misrepresented. If you are going to allege that I have misrepresented my sources then be specific. Use quotes from what I said and from the relevant articles, not just a general dismissal. I cannot correct for such a general dismissal.

"If BOTH EYES see the environment effectively the same way all you need to do to represent to right-eye view is show where the right eye would see the sights as being over."

Explain how this is more realistic than seeing what the game character would ACTUALLY be seeing?

Well welcome to page 1 of this discussion.

Because when aiming with both eyes open that is for the purpose of a less obstructed field of view. Showing the "guns arse" view OBSCURES.

Don't get so attached to CoD's perception of realism in games.

 

[Treblaine]

"Irrelevant. My argument stands on it's own. It doesn't matter who I am. Consider my EXPLANATIONS, not my AUTHORITY! There is no need to get into a fruitless and unverifiable pissing match of who has more experience"

No pissing match here just trying to understand how you could think your view is as or more realistic than ADS.
I have considered all of your EXPLANATIONS and have asked of your AUTHORITY to see if you have the authority to make the claims you are making, seeing as you have dodged the question many times and still give no reference to your shooting experience other than "shootign sports" and have to quote an alternate source which you misconstrue and manipulate weather unintentionally or intentionally to try and make your argument, I must conclude that you do not have the AUTHORITY to make the claims you make and have not provided any sound application of science to prove yourself right. You state sound scientific facts like parallax but fail to properly apply them in your argument so they give you no help. You cant prove the argument of "realistic" when the view is actually a less realistic view than ADS. With some tweaking you view could be sound but it will never be more realistic than ADS.

I do have the authorit to make an argument that DOES NOT DEPEND ON PERSONAL ASSERTIONS!

I depend on fact, examples, science and other actual experts who I have not misrepresented. If you are going to allege that I have misrepresented my sources then be specific. Use quotes from what I said and from the relevant articles, not just a general dismissal. I cannot correct for such a general dismissal.

"If BOTH EYES see the environment effectively the same way all you need to do to represent to right-eye view is show where the right eye would see the sights as being over."

Explain how this is more realistic than seeing what the game character would ACTUALLY be seeing?

Well welcome to page 1 of this discussion.

Because when aiming with both eyes open that is for the purpose of a less obstructed field of view. Showing the "guns arse" view OBSCURES.

Don't get so attached to CoD's perception of realism in games.

 

[SillyBear]

You're making it sound like ADS is solely a realism thing. It isn't, it's just as much of a gameplay mechanic.