Arma 3 Aim Down Sights
Is the aim down sight on toggle or hold to aim? Reason for my question is. Hold to aim, not toggled aim, is there hold to aim in this game or not. Well, i played arma with hold-to-aim and it didnt change my paste, it only. By Garand1987, June 3, 2018 in Help & Troubleshooting Start new topic. One setting is Aim/ADS, this is for toggling between aim and aim down sights. Set this with. June 3, 2018. On 6/2/2018 at 10:18 PM, Armastadt said.
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. quote='Draech' post='9.32728'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.
Gta V Aim Down Sights
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.
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 gunsOperation 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.
(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. SnipI 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.
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.I can handled two M99s and land shots with pinpoint accuracy with both even if I'm shooting them in two separate directions.See, I can shit bulls online too.There's a reason militaries teach their soldiers to shoulder weapons and only cheek them when they're aiming.You have a much freer arc of movement when the gun is shouldered in comparison to when you're cheeking it. And I think this is - or could be - being represented when you have that crosshair in game.But even in the Trijicon video their representation of both eyes open shows the shooter's view trough the optics, which is much more realistic than having a magical bulls-eye painted on the screen while the weapon's sights are an unrealistic foot away from the player's face.Take a look at Operation Flashpoint: the crosshairs are just ironsights that are not static and have to be lined up, which is definitely more realistic than a normal crosshairs. It also gives you the option of using the iron sights to get more accuracy (which I think would represent 'closing one eye' to focus on lining up the sights).I posted a video about True Combat before - Zoom is minimal, your movement is hardly obstructed and it kinda simulates 'both eyes open' as you retain peripheral view (most noticeable on handguns and SMGs).I think this is one of the best iron sight systems in use. I can handled two M99s and land shots with pinpoint accuracy with both even if I'm shooting them in two separate directions.See, I can shit bulls online too.' I can't do that so he must be lying!' EDIT: or you're just taking advantage of crossing eyesLook, grab any gun with a stock. The difference between shouldering and pushing the cheek against the stock is literally measured in inches.
How does placing your face a few inches to the side physically restricts your movement like in videogames?Also, have you considered that not all military forces teach the same, or that what they teach is sometimes just a quick 'patch'? I mean, instead of properly training soldiers how to handle full-automatic fire without spraying, the US introduced a piece of shit 3-round burst that would not reset a incomplete cycle and that forced soldiers to deal with 3 different trigger pulls on semi - which is used more often than full auto or burst.Or have you considered that the military simply has some equipment that makes it awkward to do what I do?Or have you considered that perhaps we two have totally different body types? Just because I can do it doesn't mean everyone can.And like I said, I might be doing something wrong. But I like not having to constantly re-position my cheekweld when I can just walk while aiming.
And I think this is - or could be - being represented when you have that crosshair in game.But even in the Trijicon video their representation of both eyes open shows the shooter's view trough the optics, which is much more realistic than having a magical bulls-eye painted on the screen while the weapon's sights are an unrealistic foot away from the player's face.Take a look at Operation Flashpoint: the crosshairs are just ironsights that are not static and have to be lined up, which is definitely more realistic than a normal crosshairs. It also gives you the option of using the iron sights to get more accuracy (which I think would represent 'closing one eye' to focus on lining up the sights).I posted a video about True Combat before - Zoom is minimal, your movement is hardly obstructed and it kinda simulates 'both eyes open' as you retain peripheral view (most noticeable on handguns and SMGs).I think this is one of the best iron sight systems in use.Well that video represents it in a way that wouldn't work so well for an unobstructed field of view. The same principal applies with a non-magnifying sight except you just focus on the reticule. It really would be the equivalent of a 'magic bullseye on the screen'. And plenty of games the sights are closer.
Remember, the screen is trying it's best to represent what you'd see with eyes not just locked dead forward but that can move around in their sockets left and right.What you see in the first-person perspective of video games in not necessarily supposed to be what a webcam mounted on their nose would see.In 'True Combat' when you go 'aim-down-sights' do you suddenly move way slower and as you are going into ADS, can you still shoot? Because that's what really peevs me off with ADS, it just invites campers to take a free shot at your while you are trying to bring your bullets on them.I am OK with a game that has dilating crosshairs for moving quickly, but not insanely big like assault rifles in COD, that just serves the campers who are already sighted in. I suppose it is compensated by insane rates of fire but then that makes it OP as you have a wide wall of high velocity death that you can't miss with. In 'True Combat' when you go 'aim-down-sights' do you suddenly move way slowerThe 'fast walk' and 'ADS' speeds are in no way comparable.Since in the game everyone is either sprining or crouching, the fast walk speed is a non-issue.
Counter Strike also had a 'walk button' if you wanted to be silent and have more accuracy than 'fast walking'.In fact, the ADS feature is called 'Tactical Mode' in this game because your weapon's accuracy is greater and you walk slower wile making less noise.and as you are going into ADS, can you still shoot? Because that's what really peevs me off with ADSI don't know, the ADS animation is so fast I never paid attention to it.Anyway, I just think that aesthetically speaking both True Combat and Operation Flashpoint are better representatives of sighting than a fixed crosshair.Its a harmless game mechanic, whats the big deal?
Arma 3 Aim Down Sights Work
People seem to rag on it because so-called 'good' FPS's don't use it and Call of Duty and Battlefield do. Why does it even matter? Does it honestly ruin your gaming experience because you can choose to aim more accurately?I can rag on modern games all day but I never understood the criticism of 'brown games' (it's a matter of perspective, everyone was sick of WWII a few years ago) and iron-sights.Game developers found that people liked a feature that made gunplay feel closer to real guns?
BURN THE HERETICS! I can handled two M99s and land shots with pinpoint accuracy with both even if I'm shooting them in two separate directions.See, I can shit bulls online too.' I can't do that so he must be lying!' EDIT: or you're just taking advantage of crossing eyesReplace that with 'It's not humanly possible so he must be lying.'
I'm not saying that no one could possibly do that quickly, but if you can cheek it and move quick then you can move even quicker without cheeking it. That's just a fact.When you cheek a weapon you lock your neck in place and that immediately inhibits movement. I don't care if you're stretch fucking Armstrong and have the skeletal structure of a cephalopod. It inhibits movement.Look, grab any gun with a stock. The difference between shouldering and pushing the cheek against the stock is literally measured in inches. How does placing your face a few inches to the side physically restricts your movement like in videogames?6 inches on the most part, and that's not the issue. It's what happens to your shoulders and your neck when you cheek it that's the issue.
They lock in place and you have to move your entire upper body as one. As opposed to simply shouldering it which allows for much freer arc of movement./biologyAlso, have you considered that not all military forces teach the same, or that what they teach is sometimes just a quick 'patch'?
I mean, instead of properly training soldiers how to handle full-automatic fire without spraying, the US introduced a piece of shit 3-round burst that would not reset a incomplete cycle and that forced soldiers to deal with 3 different trigger pulls on semi - which is used more often than full auto or burst.I'm obviously not counting militias or poor militaries. All the worlds leading military forces teach their soldiers to shoulder their weapons and cheek when aiming.Why? Because it fucking works.Or have you considered that the military simply has some equipment that makes it awkward to do what I do?Like a spine?Or have you considered that perhaps we two have totally different body types? Just because I can do it doesn't mean everyone can.From now on we'll just call you mister squid.And like I said, I might be doing something wrong. But I like not having to constantly re-position my cheekweld when I can just walk while aiming.Then you are certainly doing something wrong.
(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.usually this is known as 'Marksmen Mode' or 'Scoped In'the character is focused on shooting and is aiming down the sights of the weapon.Mostly used for scoped weapons in FPS, but in many TPS (third person shooters) this marksmen mode draws the camera in closer to your sholder and the weapon is drawn up towards the characters cheek as if aiming down the sights. (as seen in Max Payne 3 screen shot)Marksmen mode, Aim down sight, scoped in. Your science is a little flawed but I've been saying the same thing for years.
There are many instances of devs going for a superficially 'realistic' option instead of an actual representation of human perception. I do have to disagree with your jab at consoles though, the stick is not as precise as a mouse but its perfectly serviceable for the majority of people.Of course, I quite like playing with a thumbstick, even some FPS games. A gamepad is indispensable for many PC games.But thumbstick is so DIFFERENT from a mouse that certain gameplay mechanics should be treated differently, like including an ADS mechanic to help with aiming (increaded aim-assist) just causes consternation on PC ports if accuracy is then tied to using ADS.No question about that.
Devs keep thinking they can just straight port things from console to PC and vice versa when that's just not the case. Kind of like how Crysis 2 was built with both console and PC in mind and felt a litte 'off' in both cases. 6 inches on the most partYou really have a long neck. Translated to non-clown measurements, 6 inches is little over 15cm. Which is 68% of the length of my forearm.Really. Do you keep the stock on your shoulder or under your armpit?Because it fucking works.And where did I say that it was the wrong style of shooting? I never said my way was the only way that worked.Or have you considered that the military simply has some equipment that makes it awkward to do what I do?Like a spine?You're right, it was a stupid question.
Any equipment that would prevent me from shooting like I do would also prevent any human being with a normal neck from aiming down the sights.And like I said, I might be doing something wrong. Actually, no, your left eye would not be seeing anything like that.Your eyes aren't far enough apart for that.There is nothing remotely realistic about accurate fire from the hip. In the real world, if you want to hit a target at anything beyond point blank range you raise your weapon to your shoulder and aim down the bloody sights. That's what they're there for.This.Unless it's a shotgun, but even then you should really consider stocking the thing in order to avoid sudden and violent dislocation of the shoulder. 6 inches on the most partYou really have a long neck.
Translated to non-clown measurements, 6 inches is little over 15cm. Which is 68% of the length of my forearm.Really. Do you keep the stock on your shoulder or under your armpit?6 inches is about the length from the end of your thumb to the end of your little finger if you stretch them out.I don't know how you shoulder a gun but 6 inches from your eyeline is about average.Because it fucking works.And where did I say that it was the wrong style of shooting?
I never said my way was the only way that worked.When someone said'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.' Which it isn't. You cheek when you're aiming, or you're doing it wrong.Or have you considered that the military simply has some equipment that makes it awkward to do what I do?Like a spine?You're right, it was a stupid question. Any equipment that would prevent me from shooting like I do would also prevent any human being with a normal neck from aiming down the sights.Nothing prevents people from aiming down the sights. A spine on the other-hand prevents the freedom of movement you get from shouldering a weapon being present when you've welded your cheek to it.And like I said, I might be doing something wrong.
But I like not having to constantly re-position my cheekweld when I can just walk while aiming.Then you are certainly doing something wrong.Explain what I am doing wrong, then?No idea, I don't know how you shoulder a weapon.I can relocate my shoulder and face without leaving my shooting stance and without compromising my recoil absorption, which gives me a good arc of movement before I have to rotate my upper body.Yet you'd get a better arc of movement if your cheek wasn't welded to the gun. I don't even get how you're trying to argue this point. Are you made out of rubber or something?Again, I don't understand how walking with the sights superimposed on my view could ever restrict my movement more than just shouldering the weapon.Because your neck and shoulders lock when you're cheeking the weapon.You don't do that unless you're aiming at something or expecting to very, very soon.There are different positions for different situations.
But no one would be constantly cheeking their weapon. That's just lunacy. When someone said'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.' Because being successful with one method implies that all the others are completely wrong.If that argument was true then how come we have several disciplines of martial arts?Yet you'd get a better arc of movement if your cheek wasn't welded to the gun.
I don't even get how you're trying to argue this point. Are you made out of rubber or something?(.)Because your neck and shoulders lock when you're cheeking the weapon.Just because I like cheeking the weapon all the time doesn't mean I keep the shoulders and neck locked. I only do that when firing.Wow, imagine the fatigue if I was constantly 'locked'.But no one would be constantly cheeking their weapon. That's just lunacy.The point was 'walking while always aiming down the sights'. It's perfectly possible to do that when engaging.Not in patrols, not while running, not while you're hiding behind a wall.If you extrapolate the limited combat situations in videogames to real life (such as in a range you have set up some targets, no need to do anything else but walk and shoot), it's perfectly possible to do what I do. Compared to videogames, 'real combat' (that includes a lot more variables than a game or a private range) allows for a greater freedom of movement and placement.If you imagine a game like SWAT, if I had the option I would probably keep looking trough the sights rather than use the Call of Duty 'ADS, hip, ADS, hip, ADS, hip, ADS, hip'. Guy is clearly hoping we dont have a hand and two functioning eyes in which to test his theory.
Because I do and just did and guess what? About a centimeters difference. The difference seems wider when closer but even then it isnt even close to the difference you are claiming explains why the gun is so far over to the right when you are apparently aiming down the sight with your right eye. It just doesnt make sense, if the glove doesnt fit.
You must acquit.EDIT: Unless you are a hammerhead shark. Are you one of the Street Sharks?! The hammerhead being the worst one obviously, but still! Because being successful with one method implies that all the others are completely wrong.If that argument was true then how come we have several disciplines of martial arts?Seriously? Strawman much?Also relevance?What do martial arts have to do with this specific situation?Cheeking a weapon PROPERLY also requires you to shoulder it.
Which inhibits movement regardless of bodytype.Simply shouldering it allows you to fire safely and gives you a much freer arc of movement.It is the optimum way to handle a rifle whilst expecting engagement and still wanting to move relatively unhindered.Just because I like cheeking the weapon all the time doesn't mean I keep the shoulders and neck locked. I only do that when firing.Wow, imagine the fatigue if I was constantly 'locked'.So you un-shoulder it to cheek it?If the stock is on your shoulder and you have your cheek welded to the gun then both your neck and shoulders would have to move as one, which would inhibit movement.The point was 'walking while always aiming down the sights'. It's perfectly possible to do that when engaging.Yet still not as free as simply shouldering.If you extrapolate the limited combat situations in videogames to real life (such as in a range you have set up some targets, no need to do anything else but walk and shoot), it's perfectly possible to do what I do.
Compared to videogames, 'real combat' (that includes a lot more variables than a game or a private range) allows for a greater freedom of movement and placement.No it's not. There is tons of downtime in most shooters. Even CoD has a fair amount of movement when not engaging. And the shooters I play usually involve a lot of movement. (Crysis, Farcry, Metro.)If you imagine a game like SWAT, if I had the option I would probably keep looking trough the sights rather than use the Call of Duty 'ADS, hip, ADS, hip, ADS, hip, ADS, hip'.Swat teams specialise in very close quarters engagement. It's literally all going round corners and breeching doorways.And SWAT teams shoulder when they're not expecting to aim too.
They also use weapons suited to such combat like SMG's, which themselves aid with freer movement. The problem isn't that aiming down the sight is in games.the Problem is games like Modern War 2 where you can't shoot the gun with any degree of accuracy UNLESS if you aim down the sights.Yeah, that's my biggest problem with ADS, but it's superfluous if it isn't there.But I don't see the problem with just crouching or walk-key to tighten crosshairs if it's a representation of right-eye parallaxed view.PS: that dude was talking about 'headshot at 25m' like, one shot in the noggin. Kinda hard with a pistol. Not trivial with a rifle. 'Then why bother with Aim-down sights in games?'
Your science is a little flawed but I've been saying the same thing for years. There are many instances of devs going for a superficially 'realistic' option instead of an actual representation of human perception. I do have to disagree with your jab at consoles though, the stick is not as precise as a mouse but its perfectly serviceable for the majority of people.Of course, I quite like playing with a thumbstick, even some FPS games. A gamepad is indispensable for many PC games.But thumbstick is so DIFFERENT from a mouse that certain gameplay mechanics should be treated differently, like including an ADS mechanic to help with aiming (increaded aim-assist) just causes consternation on PC ports if accuracy is then tied to using ADS.No question about that. Devs keep thinking they can just straight port things from console to PC and vice versa when that's just not the case.
Kind of like how Crysis 2 was built with both console and PC in mind and felt a litte 'off' in both cases.Yeah, console got a better deal with Crysis 2. I played it on console first and thought 'hey, this ain't half bad, the PC version must be just what the doctor ordered'But noooo. God, Crysis 2 on PC was such a disappointment, it was just. I take back everything i said, I want to go back to Crysis 1!!!-STALKER series (OK, a little bit of ADS, sometimes)You've obviously never played Shadow of Chernobyl.If your face isn't glued to that sight in combat, you couldn't hit an elephant at point blank range.Although I haven't played the newer games, so they may have changed that.I saw a load of youtube videos of people taking long range shots with a pistol and never looking down sights. Was this user just too dumb to figure out which key to use? SnipOk, a rifle shouldered would 'limit' you but only mean you can't run at full pelt, a sprint. But it's pretty well established that you can't shoot while sprinting.
If the game has a sprint mechanic at all. It wouldn't slow you down, it's just as you try to move faster you lose shoulder.But you can definitely run or at least jog at a swift pace with a shouldered rifle just 'uncheeked'.
And this 'uncheeked' is kind of alluded to with how running in Counterstrike/L4D sees your crosshairs dilate. SnipOk, a rifle shouldered would 'limit' you but only mean you can't run at full pelt, a sprint. But it's pretty well established that you can't shoot while sprinting. If the game has a sprint mechanic at all.
It wouldn't slow you down, it's just as you try to move faster you lose shoulder.But you can definitely run or at least jog at a swift pace with a shouldered rifle just 'uncheeked'. And this 'uncheeked' is kind of alluded to with how running in Counterstrike/L4D sees your crosshairs dilate.Your reply literally has nothing to do with my comment.I was having an argument with ElPatron about the fact that cheeking a weapon inhibits movement more than simply shouldering it. SnipOk, a rifle shouldered would 'limit' you but only mean you can't run at full pelt, a sprint. But it's pretty well established that you can't shoot while sprinting. If the game has a sprint mechanic at all.
Arma 3 Aim Down Sights For Sale
It wouldn't slow you down, it's just as you try to move faster you lose shoulder.But you can definitely run or at least jog at a swift pace with a shouldered rifle just 'uncheeked'. And this 'uncheeked' is kind of alluded to with how running in Counterstrike/L4D sees your crosshairs dilate.Your reply literally has nothing to do with my comment.I was having an argument with ElPatron about the fact that cheeking a weapon inhibits movement more than simply shouldering it.Well it's relevant in how I think 'cheeking' might be automatic. Like whenever you don't move, move in crouch or move holding walk key the crosshairs constrict the weapon is automatically cheeked to constrict the size of the crosshairs. That's like moving from 'aiming over barrel' to cheeking with 'aim down sights'.Since 'in shoulder' and 'cheeking' are so similar, it's a reasonable conceit for this to be automatic and doesn't.need. a dedicated ADS button to be plausible.This is just a way of considering how you can hit anything at all in Counterstrike or Left 4 Dead. If you can, please report to some military research facility as soon as possible.If the target is a 22' diameter circle I can.probably.
hit it 1/3 of the time with a rifle.If the target is a human head I simply can't imagine a CS-style bulls-eye telling me exactly where my bullet is going. Yes, I will not be able to hit it.The only things I can 'point-shoot' are handguns, shotguns and Nerf. And obviously that at 25 meters I wouldn't miss with a 12ga.It begs the question.What range do you normally shoot at?I can plink soup cans off of a fence with a.22 breach loaded unsighted at that range 3/4ths of the time.
And most of my military/ex-military buddies can do the same with ease.it comes down to what range you normally shoot at.when 100 meters is your standard. A 1/4th of that distance is easy shooting.This argument is pointless because the crosshairs in CS do not depend on distance. The shots you can take at 25m are possible at 40-50m (possible the longest distance I ever got a HS on a Counter Strike map).Okay. And?the cross hair is a representation of what our mind normally does, weither you realize it or not.
But the cross hair is still a computer generated effect.