again bipods and realistic wounding will not take much time to implement as those systems are already developed

also again, this is not a place where you decide the development pipeline, its just a place where you say "yes i want that" or "no i dont want that"

im afraid we have gone past that, DisasterMaster. Due to scarcity in additional features, downvoting not priority features (from a personal point of view) may upvote the one the want.

I am afraid none of them will ever get implemented, tho. Their focus is on adjusting what already is featured and is buggy or not completely functional.

the thing with this is that there is marketing power behind this feature, which tells me there is a good chance BI will consider it

It´s not even close to real life optic and is pure for arcade games. RL you have to put eye to the optic to see. I would hate to see that implanted and lower the standard to arcade level to please arcade gamers.

@Otto "It´s not even close to real life optic and is pure for arcade games. RL you have to put eye to the optic to see. I would hate to see that implanted and lower the standard to arcade level to please arcade gamers."

No, you don't place your eye to the optics. There is two things what many are not familiar:

1. Eye relieve
2. Idiot mark

First one is depending from scope manufacturer and type and you keep distance between scope and your eye, you can not keep your head too close or too far as you are not accurate.

The second is a scar on eye brown or nose ridge from rookies who have fired a powerful rifle by pushing their eye on scope as kickback leaves a scar. That is one reason why there are rubber around sport optics to protect little first timers but you don't want to see the results when you have iron optic without any bumper and someone is idiot to aim wrong.

In reality you have pretty good vision to surroundings. Only things what are narrow angle behind the optics is not visible to you. And you will learn to shoot both eyes open and you are aware your surroundings, especially for movement. The only difference what makes you vulnerable is that you focus to targeting too much. And that happens with ANY weapon, when you focus to target far away, you might not spot what is 10 meters away 11 a clock.

Arcade is that the whole FOV is narrowed or you get a black surrounding.

We don't need "PIP" technic as it is for rendering other direction than what player already see (like behind car while looking forward) but simply rendering what is far away but zoomed and clipped.

Red Orchestra 2 manages to do it easily, Delta Force game managed to do that as well decade ago. Some space simulators have done it as well....

ya anyone who votes this ticket down basically i dno, like why? stop pretending you have some special priveledged knowledge about how human vision works. we all know that you can use optics without losing peripheral vision so just upvote the ticket and move along

@Disaster Master
Some people don't see this as important and believe this would eat too much resources. Some are happy that BIS even tweaked the scopes like what we have now. Those are the main reasons to vote down.

ya but how can u not see this as important in a tactical shooter? thats like saying its not important to have ink in a printer before you print a book

the current BIS tweak has no tactical benefit. if anything is a waste of resources it was that tweak because it achieved nothing functional

I have fired several scoped rifles and the way BIS did it, is more real than this Red Orchestra way. I´m still convinced thats a wrong way to go.

So YES we do like the tweaked scope BIS and are voting the ticked down.

lol i dont think u understand how percentages work

DisasterMaster: I did not down-voted this ticket, I did the exact opposite. And no, I am not here to decide "development pipeline". So please stop being an a-hole and start respect other people opinions. All I said was that there are also other features that should be implemented and this is not the ONLY one.

mk

Otto, so your eyes zoom when you raise your weapon on cheek?

The way how red orchestra does it is a realistic way.

yaeh its totally realistic that the whole world zooms in when actually you are just looking into a small set of lenses but its realistic that everything zooms in also sniper scopes IRL are made so that if you look sideways whilst holding 1 your eyes will lazer in 65x wherever you look even though the objects are not inside the scope

the chance of BI doing this in arma3 is very small which sucks

@DisasterMaster: "yaeh its totally realistic that the whole world zooms in when actually you are just looking into a small set of lenses but its realistic that everything zooms in also sniper scopes IRL are made so that if you look sideways whilst holding 1 your eyes will lazer in 65x wherever you look even though the objects are not inside the scope"

Are you kidding? Please say you are joking.

@ThePredator: "First of all, the most part of your field of view is consumed by the scope, as the eye relief is about 70-90mm from the ocular to the eye."

Depends from scope. It can be anywhere from 20-500mm (Yes, 2-50cm).

"The target is focused and therefore clear and sharp, the peripheral vision is blurred and out of focus."

On normal person, but many shooters have trained eye so they can see normally surrounding AND trough scope. Games try too hard to blur surrounding and add even some motion blur what both are too unrealistic. Even that human eye has very small portion accurate, you don't notice it so.

"Modern shooters are trained to shoot with both eyes open to retain a certain situational awareness."

That has been trained so long as firearms have been manufactured, it isn't "modern shooters" thing. It is just that some people adapt the training and some people needs to close/block the other eye.

"Your eyes would focus on far away objects with the same resolution as close by objects. However, in games you only have one focus and the same resolution for short and long distances."

Eye resolution does not change (you still have exact same amount of photoreceptor cells in your eye) but target resolution change depending distance. When a man stand 2m of you, you see it clearly. When same man stands 200m of you, you don't see at all so accurately him. The ARMA III does not have problem (or any other game) that they are viewed trough display with low resolution (most common now is the 1366x768, but players usually have higher) as after objects size variation by distance in games is realistic, problem is just that the actual resolution is way lower than on human eye.

"Do not mistake the pictures posted as realistic, as a camera can make it appear that everything is on the same focal plane, the human is binocular and can only focus on one focal plane with both eyes. A scope makes it impossible to focus on a target hundreds of meters away with the non-enhanced eye (not looking through the scope)."

Not true. On avarage person yes, but human can focus on target with both eyes and maintain accurate view with left and right eyes while example right is looking trough scope.
Your other eye does not lose capability to focus same point where you are looking trough optics.

"The PIP solution in 3D scopes would tackle this issue, as the image in the scope has the same high resolution as the short range vision, because they are rendered separately."

That is true and it is required. As shooters who have optics should have only the benefit to aim accurately far distances, while others need to aim for smaller target.

"But now there are holographic-, reflex- and red dot sights that do not have a reduced field of view aka magnification."

Rifle scopes DOES NOT reduce your field of view at all. Your eyes do not zoom, your FOV does not get any narrower when aiming trough optics. Only thing what happens is your view forward is blocked because there is object on way and it is just bigger because it is closer. I repeat, your FOV does not change when you bring rifle scope closer your eye.

"but sorry, this is the real deal from a scientific point of view."

Nope, just your opinion :)

yes fri i was joking

let me put it this way;

if i went to war, there is no fucking way i would use a scope that works like the ones in arma3 0.76 work because they will get you so hard killed

i will buy a scope from acog with good collinator or what the fuck ever - i am not a rifle optic designer so i wont quote wikipedia at you - scope there is that allows me to shoot accurately at distance and maintain situational awareness

again, scopes from TrueCombat are good

here is the image again

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5183/5598391964_9e81232841_b.jpg

the image outside the scope isnt even blurred because you are focusing on the image presented to you by the scope which is no more than 1 meter from you

"again, scopes from TrueCombat are good"

Yes it is a good one. And if player has a depth of field -effect enabled, then game needs just to render all with same DOF.

"the image outside the scope isnt even blurred because you are focusing on the image presented to you by the scope which is no more than 1 meter from you"

Actually it is blurred already, as human eye does have only very small area accurate and rest are unsharp. It is natural thing and it does not require any artificial effect from game itself as human eye itself does it already. Example if player look the car tire on left, player can not same time see accurately the 2x4 timber, but requires player to specifically focus to them and same time again losing focus of everything else.

What the TrueCombat would need to change is that rifle should not be middle of the view but more on left and position the optics on left part.

Same thing is with ARMA III, the weapon should not be in middle but more on right/left depending with which hand you are shooting.

And ARMA III scopes shadowing/shading is unrealistic, when you look trough scope, you see clearly a bright area. Now it is vignetting like someone has placed a cardboard with very small hole front of the optics (anti-reflection to present your position to enemy).

---

The optics should be very clear without any vignetting or without such reflections

1. Nothing http://i.imgur.com/18j3jiG.jpg
2. Vignetting http://i.imgur.com/FTA2Rkt.jpg
3. Vignetting + Blur http://i.imgur.com/FTA2Rkt.jpg

The first is realistic one, you don't get any vigneting (unless your eye relief is wrong and you are not accurate then). And games should don't make any blurring as human eye does it naturally when player focus to specific point in display.

The optics position should be about 2/3 or 3/5 position of screen, not middle. As you are shooting with both eyes open, seeing surrounding and spotting if something moves or has higher contrast.

Delta Force game did this 1998 http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=t9h-INl2vtE&t=119

And it really worked very well. FOV was kept intact (no zooming), the optic was on right side where it is when shooting both eyes open. Surrounding was sharp but blurred naturally by human eye when focusing to aiming (just throw that video to fullscreen and look). And there was no vignetting as optics does not cause such in correct shooting position.

A game from 1998 managed to do this, why not today? Having a weapon middle of screen is like everyone would have only one eye and other is blind and everyone is shooting positioning weapon stock middle of chest instead on shoulder either side (left/right handed firing).

"A game from 1998 managed to do this, why not today?" - exactly

@ThePredator "Damn this ticket system! Wrote a loooong answer to the false assumption of Fri13, opened a link in the same tab and *poof* half an hour of typing gone."

Always copy any input box content on any system before you send it.

And you are one who are having lots of false assumptions.

"I had this discussion several times and the truth is: you can not simulate the human eye as you'd like it to be. You don't have 178° vision in-game, as you'd have in real life, you have only one monitor but two eyes in real life...and so on."

First of all, I am not claiming such. As you don't even know human FOV is not 178° but over 180° actually FOV is 180-230 degrees horizontally and 120-135 vertically depending of course person face structural. Example my FOV is 193° horizontally and vertically 127°.
And secondary, human eye focal length presentation is ~56mm what is 35x24°. So are you playing games with FOV being 35 horizontally and 24° vertically? I don't think so :)

I was not talking anything about realistic FOV, or can you proof that in my mockups my FOV is set to such? As I kept default FOV in those as there is no need to change FOV wider as it would just twist more the view because display.
So don't try to correct me from things what I have not said.

"Things do not work out if you pretend to only choose the good aspects of binocular vision and merge it with a very, very limited game engine."

Yes it does work out, there are already games where it does work out.

"Trust me, you don't want to play with 178° field of view."

I have not claimed such thing, you are claiming now such things. And for record, I have played games home with high as 145 degree FOV and way faster and more accuracy demanding than what ARMA is with a single display (So no dual/triple screen setups or such).

"The 75° FOV will have to suffice."

Actually in games 90° is better, especially when playing with 16:9/10 display rations. Consoles use 75° FOV as it is required to zoom in the view so player further than 1m can see what is happening on screen. Different thing is when you are playing with >20" display 50-75cm of your face.

"And with that FOV your scope will block most of your monitor space (compared to a part of your 180° vision)."

No it will not. You are again first claiming I have said anything about 180 degree FOV claim, then you are claiming that it would even then take most of screen space. You can even test that yourself, keep only one eye open and raise rifle with scope on normal aiming position, your FOV does not change on your eye and scope does not block most of your view even then.
Games does the scopes wrong, again in reasons for gameplayer to give more details by making scope too big so player can see more where aiming and then even decreasing FOV (zooming in).

"As in the real world, you don't see sharp in your peripheral vision, as you won't see sharp in your peripheral vision in game."

At least something you managed to get right from my writing, as I was not claiming otherwise. As I said, everything can be 100% accurate without any blur effects in game, as your eye does not suddenly see anything else sharp than the small part (~5 degree) and when you play a game focusing targeting in it, everything else around the small area (distance of screen etc) is blurred.

"But we do not have anything peripheral, other than the "dots" to simulate situational awareness. And your eye is focused on the reticle (focal plane) of your scope, so is the other eye."

In game or reality? I take it that you mean in game, and you are wrong in it. As it has already done in other games, rendering rifle scope separately with zoomed view and positioned to side and presented the "side of the weapon" same time and it actually gives more realistic view of the weapon aiming with two eyes.
You just want game to be like everyone is one eye blinded/folded and thrown with a torch goggles so the FOV is limited while everything in game is presented as 2D and on flat surface, 3D models in game can be presented in more realistic positioning than you seem to understand. Question is really only about modeling and virtual viewpoint positioning etc.

"Been there done that. Sadly not possible to implement the way you argument."

Sorry, it has already been implemented and done. It is not magic, no tricks or anything. :)

"The second of your images with less blur is what it "looks" like in real life, if you pretend to only have one eye, which we have (only one monitor)."

Sorry, the second was meant to be other (without blur like the first one). I mixed up the links so it is same as third.
Even with one monitor it is possible to do enough realistic scope as second eye is used for distance what would require hardware capable to do 3D effect (3D glasses or 3D display) by rendering two different focal points so player could see different depth but without 3D technology the normal display can present weapon as I made the mockup.

The realistic way still would be 1. and not the 2 as scopes does not have vignetting unless manufactured badly or eye relief isn't correctly maintained.
As now when you are looking that image in fullscreen and you focus for aiming trough scope, your eyes render everything else than just that ~5x5mm area unsharp. There is no need any artificial blurring effects in games because player eyes already does it realistically. Blurring (Motion and so on) in games is so gimmick and unrealistic that many would be angry for it if most players would even remember their basic biology lessons from schools.

When everything in game is rendered sharp, player looking different parts of display makes everything else unsharp than that very small eye focus point. And using blur is just one of the stupidest effects to limit player possibilities and force to look only specific part of screen and falls to exactly same category as artificial story rules where player character is killed if player pass some invisible line or door has appeared what was blown in pieces just few seconds before story animation.

And same thing is with scopes filling the screen, weapon being middle of the screen, decreasing FOV (zooming in) and many many other features what ARMA III and many other common games does.

Just understand that in games, 3D models what are presented in screen for player and what is presented to other players does not need to follow rules of physical world shooter being cyclops or looking trough normal single lens camera.

Edit: This was the mockup (vigneting only) http://i.imgur.com/3WBff6Q.jpg

ps. Even with a single lense physics can be "bend" in funny ways. Example you can use camera with single lense (single focal point) to take photo what looks taken directly front of the mirror without you being visible from the mirror. Same thing can be done easily in games (what some has done) as you just apply a physics in digital form what would result rifle and optics being side of the screen (like in my mockup) and still see perfectly trough the optics and see surrounding as shooting both eyes open like you would in real world shooting with rifle.

@ThePredator the problem is that trijicon have already got 2-eyes-open scopes which have illuminated reticle and allow for shooting with eye relief of 50cm

http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product1.php?id=ACOG

look under features - both eyes open design

it is obvious that both-eyes-open is a better way to shoot. it is also standard in many marksman training manuals, people however mainly ignore it.

20 years forward trijicon will have perfected both-eyes-open optics and they will be more mainstream than they already are because any smart person given a choice will choose to shoot with both eyes open

talking here about RCO magnification and less ie 12x and less. sniper scopes can stay with no peripheral.

also if you "couldnt care less about realism in vanilla arma 3" you wouldnt be posting here

yeah look my government is shit so its not easy to get guns here

the reason to render the image outside the scope (peripheral image) clearly is because when people are looking physically at a point on their computer monitor ie the in-scope image, the peripheral will naturally blur. you dont need to render it blurred

riflemen, not marksman, scopes should have full 3D scopes ingame with full, focused peripheral image. marksman scopes should have full 3D scope with full, blurred peripheral image, and sniper scopes should have no peripheral image.

i cannot imagine a situation where a sniper would shoot with both eyes open until fibre optic or other new methods of delivering a magnified and zeroed target to the human eye is invented/developed

my point is though once you switch to the eye that is not looking through the optic, doesnt the peripheral image become clear?

dude u have to adjust ur FOV in config to like 100 otherwise its terrible

google it for arma2 its the same for 3

i think there might be a fov slider coming in full release

also i have a 32inch monitor so if i looked into the magnified scope image the pperipheral would be out of focus

all i can say is im happy that this ticket is high voted because i want BI to make proper 3D scopes because i think that would basically complete infantry combat in arma and really lock arma into a lot of marketplaces which means new players, more players, more exposure, more people moving to arma which is what i want

also obviously for myself i want proper 3D scopes

@ThePredator
"Sure you could render the whole scene as if it was in focus. But to be honest, that's not what you get behind a scope. We only have one screen to merge every aspect of two eyes, that work completely different than the "in-game" eyes.
You do not have any control over the focal plane of your vision, you can not move the eyes, you can not close one eye or adapt to offset parallax in scopes.

We only have that one monitor to simulate two eyes. Regardless of the distance to objects in-game, they are all rendered on the same monitor, which has the exact same distance each and every time. Your field of view is larger than 180°, good for you, try to simulate that in-game."

It would be realistic when rendered in game whole FOV (what is default and) area sharp. When game adds blur around scope or sights, it is unrealistic. Why?
As I already explained, when monitor is normal distance from your view (could be closer or further), your eyes already blurs everything else than very small area, actually smaller area than the reticle in game.

I am ex-sniper, I have three very rare capabilities what most humans don't have. One of them is that I don't have dominant eye, I can choose with which eye I look or even if I look with both eyes simultaneously.

Do you know what it means? When I am aiming, I see sight and target with both eyes. When I use scope, no matter is it 1.5-2x or 12-50x (or even longer), I see target perfectly fine same time with both eyes. See, when have perfect eye relief for either eye with example 4x scope (I'm not either left/right handed as both sides are as good on me after years of training) and I am aiming to 600m range, I see with both eyes and I usually prefer to look in way where scope view cast over the other eye.
It is hard to explain as I see same time the rifle from side, and as well from behind. :-)

I am as well ex-stereographer, so I can already say I know lots of things about 3D calculations and cameras than you. :)

"If you look at your monitor, you probably see a lot more than just your screen content. This is what your peripheral vision is used for. Is it sharp and clear? No. So why render your peripheral view sharp in-game? Looking through a scope is just that. You look through the scope, not left nor right. If you want to look left or right of your scope, you have to move your eyes or head."

As I already explained, only very small part of your vision is sharp. In reality you look elsewhere and it is sharp as you focus to that part. For normal person it does not matter what distance it is as human eye focus so quickly.

Why render scope surrounding blurred in game? It is not realistic.
When everything is sharp in game and you look trough scope, everything else is already blurred. When you look outside of scope (on monitor) you see it sharp and clear exactly like you would in reality. You don't look and see things blurred until you lower your weapon like in games these days with artificial blurring.

Most people believe that everything what they see is sharp, that whole display what they see is sharp. On normal viewing distance only few pixels are sharp, rest are blurred so much that they only believe it is sharp but it is psychological misconception.

In game everything needs to be sharp, so when you look reticle everything else is blurred, when you look somewhere else, it becomes sharp but reticle turns blurred. It is because in reality your eyes are not sharp at all around that small specific position, we don't need artificial blurring around sights to give realistic look but it would be like looking trough bottle in real life.

We can not simulate actual depth in games, not well even with 3D displays or glasses etc. Not even Oculus Rift offer that feature what real eye is capable. (Oculus Rift takes normal gaming to next level but it is other thing).

"In direct comparison looking through my scope with only one eye is exactly what you see in ArmA 3 with the ELCAN (ARCO). Now blur the image around the scope just a tad and create a magnified image inside the scope ocular. Increase the overall field of view to 180+° and you have a realistic image of being behind a scope. Moving your eyes will sharpen the surroundings (depth of field would be required to simulate the actual focus)."

For me it is not, if I close one eye scopes are far smaller than what they are in ARMA. In ARMA they are done bigger for gameplay reasons so they get the better accuracy and feeling they are using scope. Even when cropping my one eye view to correspond games typical 75 FOV, scopes are way too big.

It is unrealistic to have blurring around any reticle as human eye already does it perfectly naturally even when it is on screen.
And fact is, when artificial blurring is added, it takes away the realism where shooter can look other direction without dropping aim, what is player forced to do in game to get artificial blur away.

"No harm done, Fri13. Continue. We might end up playing different games later on."

We are not enemies, otherwise you would have been behind other end of my rifle and already dead without knowing what hit you ;). So we are cool :-)

@Distastermaster
"sniper scopes can stay with no peripheral."

You do have peripheral vision even with rifle scopes. You don't stick your eye ball inside scope.

If you want to limit your peripheral then you need to block your other eye and attach some annoying caps rear etc.

In reality there are few things what actually blocks your peripheral view and most of them are already in game. You can have grass or something else on your way, you have no trained eye and you are not relaxed and aware when shooting so you only see where you are aiming and psychologically you are blind to everything else.
And that happens even in games, player focus so much to sniping that it does not even notice that something is moving just little bit next to reticle because it is blurred naturally already by human eye and player is trying to get a kill on moving target etc.

Adding artificial blurring and making bigger scope or changing FOV are just unrealistic. The human already is the problem in the combination.

Only reason to add those is to balance the gameplay between skilled players and un-skilled players. Building a artificial limitations so all players are on same level.

"my point is though once you switch to the eye that is not looking through the optic, doesnt the peripheral image become clear?"

Only the position where you look is clear, was it in reality or on screen. Very small area in human eye is actually capable to see accurately. And there is no difference are you holding a weapon in your hands or looking trough screen holding a weapon in your hands as the sharp part in vision is exactly the same. The difference comes that in display resolution is smaller than human eye can see but it is not such a problem in games.

@ThePredator
"On a monitor it is a bit different to the real world as you do not need to focus on two different distances, so you actually see both scope image and periphery sharp (Red Orchestra style). That's why I suggest a slight blur for mag. optics over non-magnified ones."

Nope, that does not happen. They are already blurred naturally normally in eye when hold you weapon in your hands in real life or looking it on display.
Example of my mockup: http://i.imgur.com/18j3jiG.jpg

WHen you look trough optics the guard post, everything else is in blurred naturally. If you look guard post middle of the screen, the optics is blurred.
But if you now compare them in that image, you can say that they are both 100% sharp. You know it is static image and it is displayed on computer display.
But when you step outside with real rifle in your hands, you have exactly the same situation, you can look trough scope seeing target sharp or you can look it directly and see target sharp. Only thing is that you probably don't have trained eye so you can choose do you look trough left eye, right eye or with both eyes simultaneously so you probably need either to close other eye or even move your head.

If you now look again my mockup (it was very hastily done, guilty for that) and focus to look trough optics waiting a target to get up to guard post any second now (Just think that it is a game, not a image). You don't notice if other target would raise and aim at you in control tower or far on left at building corner.

Now what happens if you notice the movement in your peripheral view? You look that area when eyes accurate area shifts to that location, exactly like in real life. Now you need to go and move your weapon over the new target and then focus again to optics to locate where your weapon actually is aiming etc. And at that moment again everything else is blurred naturally by your own eyes. No artificial blurring needed. No need for artificial FOV changes. And no need to artificially make so huge sights that it fills your screen.

"I removed the "zoom" and left increased the field of view. But we are talking about vanilla games here. So this should be mandatory."

Increased over the default (non-decreased when aiming) or just back to default?

I wish BIS would remove all FOV changes when aiming trough any sight, make sights smaller on player screen (as I mentioned, in games you are not limited to game physics but you can alter them to get realistic view for player and still give good looking for other players around you), add feature to have zoomed view in optics like decade ago it was done without problems and many other does it today, remove all shading and vignetting from scopes (unless they want to include a feature where player needs to get eye relief to get accuracy in control before firing, what would make snipers slower in game and require some skills from them) and move the reticles to 2/3 or 3/5 part of the screen edges (depending which side you are firing).

@DisasterMaster
"all i can say is im happy that this ticket is high voted because i want BI to make proper 3D scopes because i think that would basically complete infantry combat in arma and really lock arma into a lot of marketplaces which means new players, more players, more exposure, more people moving to arma which is what i want"

If BIS would make optics and other sights realistic and position weapon more realistic manner slightly to side (not to middle) it would be huge signal to gamearea that ARMA III tries to be more realistic than just follow Wolfestein 3D generations where weapon must be middle of screen.

@ThePredator

I didn't talk only about distances. And if you can not see close and far without glasses, you just have bad eye sight

Can you see example 10x10cm object at 600m range? Can you see .1x.1mm object at 5cm range?

Don't try to be sarcastic if you can not see so well, as you even missed every point I made. Don't know did you make it by mistake or deliberately.

I missed every point you've made because they are bullshit. Sure it seems realistic to render everything on screen sharp because you only focus on one spot, but as the pro sniper you were you should know better. So please continue with this crap and try to make people believe whatever you want. I won't argue with you anymore. There is no point.

I won't even call you out, because if you really were a sniper you'd dishonor all those that are and were active duty professionals. With your attitude and disrespectful behaviour (no professional would ever even think about threatening someone the way you did) but maybe that is the reason for you being ex-.

But none of this is relevant to the ticket and I am wondering which course the game will take if more of your kind try to influence a once great simulation.

If people want the screen to be all sharp with the limits of a monitor, so be it. They probably won't even notice how unrealistic it will be. I actually start to grin every time I look through my scopes because I know what bullshit you wrote. As long as there is no realistic field of view, the peripheral view could be coloured pink and upside down, your "peripheral" vision still is a fraction of the real deal. But you know that, of course, because you have secret mall ninja knowledge.

@fri that was a crazy long response

that mockup u made http://i.imgur.com/18j3jiG.jpg shows almost exactly what i want and well done for training to have no dominant eye that is basically shooter equivalent of being equally strong in standard and southpaw fighting stance which

right now i have the choice to play arma or watch tv series and i choose to watch tv series because i think about the terrible 3D scopes in arma right now and i dont want to play

@ThePredator
"I missed every point you've made because they are bullshit."

Good that you already made your mind that all is BS and then you skipped all points and jumped to reply.

"Sure it seems realistic to render everything on screen sharp because you only focus on one spot, but as the pro sniper you were you should know better."

You are claiming that you see everything perfectly accurate until you aim and suddenly everything else around you gets blurred until you lower your weapon.
You don't accept that your eyes actually can move without your head moving or your weapon moving.

As I have already counted your claims, I don't copy them here. But you already just countered them all with your respectful tone and intelligent respond.

"I won't even call you out, because if you really were a sniper you'd dishonor all those that are and were active duty professionals. With your attitude and disrespectful behaviour"

Say a person who reply starts "Everything you said is bullshit".

You don't have respect and your attitude is very negative what others say.
You can not even follow your own sayings as when you say "I won't argue with you anymore. There is no point" then you don't even click the reply button as you don't even write the message anymore that person but you simply keep your speeches on yourself.

"But none of this is relevant to the ticket and I am wondering which course the game will take if more of your kind try to influence a once great simulation."

ARMA has never been simulator and will not be. It is just a game with some features made more realistic than others and some not so much.
So maybe you should actually start putting your skills in use and make mockups showing what you really want, I have made my (quick and dirt but point is shown), where is yours?

@DisasterMaster:

"that mockup u made http://i.imgur.com/18j3jiG.jpg [^] shows almost exactly what i want"

What you would change in that mockup?

"and well done for training to have no dominant eye that is basically shooter equivalent of being equally strong in standard and southpaw fighting stance which"

I can say that it has benefits and drawbacks. When you don't anymore have differences (well, maybe 5% difference) which hand you use, which leg is stronger, with which eye to look, but in daily life you get annoyed from it. Like I can write with left hand my signature with a pen what doesn't dry so quickly only to smudge the paper as I had used to write with right hand.
But yes, it does have benefits like the southpawn stance you mentioned :)

That mockup is close to my preference.
But I think the scope is a bit too small. When aiming it should be in the middle of the picture and closer to the eye but the rest of the picture should still be at 0% zoom.

The 3D ingame scopes of course still have the problem that the entire picture is zoomed.

The scope has to be on either the left or right side of the screen (depending on shooting eye). With the scope in the middle, your chin would rest on the cheek piece instead of left/right of the stock.

With a real 3D scope, you could turn your head, breaking your cheek weld but always have a definite shadow free sight picture. Slightly too high/low/sideways and you have a shadow crescent which causes the point of impact to shift.

Actually we'd need parallax adjustment, too.

And barrel mirage when the rifle is hot and the warm air causes disturbances in front of the scope.

@ghostDOC

"But I think the scope is a bit too small."

It is pretty close the realistic size as scopes does not fill whole view.

"When aiming it should be in the middle of the picture and closer to the eye but the rest of the picture should still be at 0% zoom."

The scope should be on either side of the screen 2/3 or 3/5 position, typically on right side. If it would be middle it would be like shooting with one eye closed and even then the scope should be 1/3 from the left while visible area would be on right because one eye shooting, head positioning, shooting position etc. And you don't place your eye too close.

"The 3D ingame scopes of course still have the problem that the entire picture is zoomed."

Everything is zoomed, scope is middle of the screen, blurred surrounding, no parallax adjustment, eye relieve adjustment, bullet trace or vapor trails (so you could work as spotter) etc.

It would make snipers game harder but more pleasant as they would not be so "effective" like usually in FPS games they are and would require moment players time to actually do other things as well than just check stance and breathing.

Examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrFj2zR0mdI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sZHWkdfqrxU#t=156 & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJWLP81qCAE

I think PiP optics would give more advantage since you get more peripheral vision while firing. Now everything is zoomed in and you don't have that so you cant see whats going on on the sides.

Would be nice as a option (might be too heavy of many systems).

"it should be in the middle of the picture"

You heard about "aiming deadzone".

No please, don't do this... Or maybe... Before FIX SLI flickering in PiP... And then maybe do this...

I have never held a rifle, so you can ignore this if I am wrong, but, shouldn't the scope be on the right. And nothing visible to the right since the scope would block the "free" left eye being able to focus. But it could focus on the left field of vision, and see peripheral objects.

When you aim you focus on sights of your rifle and your target, so your brain will make it look like it's in center.

Val, I just mean that the whole right screen beside the scope should be blanked out, becuase you wouldnt be able to see that side because the scope will be in the way of the left eye field of view. Assuming the Right eye is in the sight.

That would mean moving the sight to the side of the image. That doesn't look realistic, and what is much more important that would harm Arma's playability.

I like this, but fix the CPU/GPU utilization first. Do not want more Frame drop.

dippysea is right and that is how it should be implemented but i have serious doubts this issue will be dealt with until arma 4

As this feature appears in game:
http://youtu.be/mij9Fy2VRcI

In my opinion, current implementation isn't a good substitute. I think old 2D scopes would work better, until/unless proper PiP scopes would be implemented.
Ticket to revert to old sights system: #17275

The PIP would kill the frame rate. This would only be good if you have the option to disable it.

AWESOME!... the more realistic the better :-)

Upvoted +

if the devs could tell us if it's a yes/no or a "we're thinking about it", that would be really great

No, they won't do it. If it turns out that they can't implement it or that it's too difficult, people will start saying that the devs promised it and didn't fulfill their promises.

that's the problem with people, I tried.

Hi, Astaroth. I appreciate the efforts of the Bohemia interactive team, and love that you listen to the community. I'd still like to see scopes of the sort that I described in my original post (That can be toggled on or off in the options menu for those with poor computer hardware) that use PiP to create their sight picture - As it stands now, having the area around the scope zoomed in as well looks very bad, and it reminds me too much of arcade titles like Call of Duty and Battlefield.

There is probably better idea than render-to-texture:
It should be possible to achieve the same result with the help of geometry shader of some kind (I might be wrong about the correct type of shader though)that will increase sizes of objects (distance between vertexes)that must be seen through sope.

Pros:
Visually the same result as using PiP but without need to render the picture again (much better perfomance than PiP).
Cons:
Probably it's more difficult to implement than PiP.

Val, you are correct. Baseline game hardware requirements do support geometry shaders. It would have almost no performance hit. But, as it stands, if Bohemia did implement it using geometry shaders, it would be first AAA game I know of that utilizes modern GPU capabilities in such way (read: highly unlikely to happen).

I believe that going ahead with this and making so that the edges are unzoomed much like in Red Orchestra 2 and Insurgency would not only strike a blow for gameplay excellence in ArmA3's favour but also would make for a snippet of much-needed reality in this game.

upvoted. I love the scopes in RO2!
Would be great to see such in ArmA, especially because it increases realism.
Also, nice that it is assigned! Maybe we will see it in the Marksman DLC? ^^

Upvoted. Any news on this?

arma NEEDS this!

only the scope (or rather the sightpicture of it) should be magnified, and not the periphal vision around it aswell

It would be great to have, but there should be an option where you can enable/disable it.

This sucks up alot of fps on not so powerful computers... ^^

Hope this can describe what we want in this issue.
http://i.imgur.com/QLctNeW.jpg

Related to http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=20953

PiP in ArmA seems to have a lot of problems.
For one thing, it has a low frame rate. The quality isn't too good, and I feel like its one of the causes for the DirectX crashes. (device removed, internal error). My game seems to only crash when PIP is used. UAV Terminal, CTAB's helmet cams, HEMMTs. Anyone else think that PiP is one of the causes for those crashes?
I know BI said they can't fix it.

Could it work by using PIP for the outside area of the scope and regular view for zoomed scope?

I ask this because the pip view can be quite blocky and blurry and this wouldnt matter if it was the out of focus foreground as apposed to what your aiming at in the scope.

Just saw that ticket, and would HIGHLY appreciate it!

This would add enormous immersion to the game for me.

I hate it when you look through a scope and EVERYTHING even outside the scope gets zoomed in.

I mean, come on guys, if even CoD can do it, then it should be no problem for you :)

Infinity Ward is a lot bigger than Bohemia. Also, COD got rid of those scopes because of the amount of lag it caused. You can already see how picture-in-picture works in ArmA 3, and it doesn't work to well. Causes the game to crash, has a very low frame-rate and low quality even on the Ultra setting.

if modder can do this :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXyIH8whWpo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIbsRbp1B3o

BIS can do better !

so its no impossible , and it works well !

Man this is lower priority than this :
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=22220
This need to be fixed, beacuse this is serious bug. please vote for that, this is making game totally unplayable

Val: you can get same visual with geometry shader. Because they work with the vertices passed to the gpu. If they make zoom with geometry shader, they have to use higher lod at the zomed area, which makes the whole preparing complicate. Plus, if your weapon is not at your sholder, it would be pain in the ass to do! The only way is the pip. Maybe if they move to DX12,they could make the whole scope image rendering on separated thread/core parallel without major fps impact. :-)

Down vote. As cool as it might look, it's actually less realistic than 2D scopes. Your FOV is already fairly limited on a monitor and the issue is compounded by the limited resolution as well. Until VR headsets allow us to position one eye in front of a physically modeled scope, a full screen, animated 2D reticle is the the most accurate representation of what it's like to shoot with a scoped rifle. They could do the same in 3D, at the expense of more resources for a very similar effect.

[quote]so its no impossible , and it works well ![/quote]
It doesn't work well with how players resolved it, that's why BIS should take on it. Upvoted.

Disappointed it didn't happen with Marksmen DLC...

Just look how they have done it in Insurgency. Perfect. Would really like that in ArmA.

Hi.
I just want to add this video of a mod for the mrc scope that an Arma 3 modder made:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mij9Fy2VRcI
This proves it is possible, and can be implemented without massive frame rate loss.
I'm all for this idea!
It would make the game so much more immersive and enjoyable!
Cheers