[Improvement] LMG Sights (Trjicon vs Elcan)

[Apocalypse 31]

 

For some reason the Trijicon sight (MG4) is much smaller than the Elcan (M60). So much so that you can't even read the reticule numbers on the Trijicon.

 

Before someone can tell me I'm wrong - I've used both of these sights in real life for years - YES, the Trijicon sight is physically smaller. NO, it doesn't change the size of the reticule when you have proper sight picture. 

[Ssnake]

These sights - barring not yet identified bugs - have the field of view as specified by our army customers. These may reflect a desired training effect.

[Apocalypse 31]

Just now, Ssnake said:

These sights - barring not yet identified bugs - have the field of view as specified by our army customers. These may reflect a desired training effect.

 

Ok. That is very weird and not how it works in real life.

 

Can we see a change in the PE version?

[Volcano]

Well, this is certainly something that was internally brought up as a bug a long time ago (I believe I reported it, actually). If you notice though, this is (or should be) exactly the same back in 4.363. A new update doesn't always mean that things are broken, but I guess the natural tendency is to check everything again (which is fine, as long as we all understand that not every observation is something new and all parties should be patient and level headed when it comes to feedback).

 

Now as to what happened when we looked into it as a "bug", well, it has something to do with FOV and monitor size limitations, to the degree that it feels like you are looking into a keyhole when you have the correct zoom with the correct FOV. The same is true for the Shot Kal gun sight which has a very peculiar zoom and FOV, requiring that it be much smaller in comparison to other sights. For these two sights in particular they apparently do not have the typical field of view / magnification ratio (I am not an optics technical expert to explain it well).  Now we can think (like I did) - 'just make it bigger in the view', but apparently that is not how it fundamentally works within the engine. 

 

Still, we want to improve this behavior for these odd sights, but just aren't quite sure what to do about it at the moment. I guess that is the long version of saying that it is a known issue but with no easy solution at the moment. 😑

 

 

[Apocalypse 31]

I'm confused. 

 

Snake says this intentional.

Volcano says its a bug.

 

I was testing the new lmg recoil and i noticed that it just looks bad and seems unnecessary. 

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by Apocalypse 31

[Volcano]

Maybe this is a case of TMI on my part. 

 

As I mentioned -- I reported it as a bug a long time ago, because I thought it was. What I guess I didn't explain well after that, was that after investigating it, it wasn't a bug, but rather a limitation of how it works in relation to the monitor and view size.  This might be a situation where explaining it less is better.  

[Apocalypse 31]

16 hours ago, Volcano said:

Maybe this is a case of TMI on my part. 

 

As I mentioned -- I reported it as a bug a long time ago, because I thought it was. What I guess I didn't explain well after that, was that after investigating it, it wasn't a bug, but rather a limitation of how it works in relation to the monitor and view size.  This might be a situation where explaining it less is better.  

Still confused. The guy that answered before you told me that this was requested by mil customers. But you're saying now that it's a game limitation. 

 

I guess it doesn't matter because it won't be fixed. I guess I'm just trying to understand "won't" be fixed vs "can't be fixed"

Edited March 4, 2023 by Apocalypse 31

[Ssnake]

5 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

The guy that answered before you told me that this was requested by mil customers.

The guy that answered before is operating from memory because he doesn't have the time to look up every detail that one user declares as the most important detail onf the week. It was developed because a .mil user wanted this, they told us how they wanted it, we made it that way, they accepted the delivery. This was, when, 2016?

At some point I file it mentally as "done, next". The idea that I memorize everything that has been done seven years ago is rather optimistic.

If Volcano tells you a different story, maybe it's because he's right, maybe it's because recollections vary. I will readily concede that in this case, he's probably right.

[Apocalypse 31]

25 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

declares as the most important detail onf the week

Well, it's not like you actually consider anything I post. You usually just write it off, exactly like you did here.

[Volcano]

Well, I wasn't trying to contradict the original post, just trying to provide more context and this sent a mixed signal. But as I said, it's a known issue that is not a bug per se, and I was simply trying to explain that.  

 

Anyway, whether anything can be done about it, only time will tell, but no one is ever writing anything off. Let's all keep calm and carry on, but at least you know it isn't a bug.  🍺

[Mezentius]

On 3/3/2023 at 3:30 PM, Volcano said:

Now as to what happened when we looked into it as a "bug", well, it has something to do with FOV and monitor size limitations, to the degree that it feels like you are looking into a keyhole when you have the correct zoom with the correct FOV. The same is true for the Shot Kal gun sight which has a very peculiar zoom and FOV, requiring that it be much smaller in comparison to other sights. For these two sights in particular they apparently do not have the typical field of view / magnification ratio (I am not an optics technical expert to explain it well). 

 

I don't mean to open a can of worms here-- this is really more of a question for my own edification. Ultimately, after "baking in" the magnification ratios of the internal optics, every sight just has some apparent field of view (FOV) that it covers, right? So is it not possible to set the render camera FOV dynamically so that it produces the correct sight FOV through a fixed overlay, based on the user's monitor resolution?

 

In other words, if you were to make the sight picture overlay occupy the same proportion of vertical space on every monitor (say, 80%), then wouldn't it just be an issue of setting the render camera's horizontal FOV to (<screen width> * <sight FOV>) / ( 0.8 * <screen height>)?

 

If the answer is, "yes, but we can't do this for various reasons relating to engine architecture," fine -- but was just wondering if my reasoning was correct in general, or if there are more interesting/complicated optical factors being modeled here.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Mezentius

[Volcano]

I don't think any of us could answer that effectively, at least right now.

 

The way the FOV works was something implemented back in SB1, and SB has grown since then. So buried down deep in the code would be that answer, where only the certain programmers would be able to delve in there to evaluate and see (and any sort of checking and evaluating how it all works would take time that we really don't have at the moment, with an update released, a patch in the works, and military contracts under development).