Well there seems to be many people saying that the 2D ironsights look very bad. Although they may, its realistic. When looking through a sight in real life you eye is focused on something further away in the sight thus causing the sight to look blurred and 2Dish in real life. If you dont believe me, make a circle with your fingers and then try look at something further away and tell me how crappy ur fingers look when looking at the far away object. So for all you people who wanted realism here is another clash. 2D Ironsight = blurred which is realistic. 3D iron sight = unrealistic but Fun. depends what you want i think EA just tried to add something more realistic rather than fun. Since alot of people in the real armies say alot of the stuff is incorrect, i recall a post about a Tank having a training thing on top of it that should only be there if its in training, not in real war. link to a screen of a ironsight http://battlefield1942.filefront.com/screenshots/News/18315/6 Post your debate here if you wish.
Lord of the Peach
19th April 2004
I think either one will be fine as long as I can get my kills:p I think the one pictured there need more anti-alasing and need to be more circular.
ya and remember u can change all the graphics and such so maybe with a better gfx card u can make them look better. Its just a minor thing i think i dont really mind about it.
I would die without GF
20th May 2002
The latest video had some ironsight use in it and they looked pretty good to me, however you will never get EVERYBODY to agree on a particular implementation. So I suggest the devs do it the way THEY like it and I am sure the modders will do it the way they prefer and everybody will be happy.
6th December 2004
as long as the iron sighs have motion like in cod i will be happy
GF makes me horny
7th April 2003
The problems with 2-dimensional ironsights are:
1: They are static (not moving); this is unrealistic as no sharpshooter can avoid moving his rifle a bit, especially when walking.
2: When taking aim though a gun-sight, the shooter focuses first on his target (far away) and then on the sights (close) in order to make the shot accurately. Therefore the ironsights should not be blurred all the time; it is neccessary to focus on them to fire.
3: It is hard to make a smoothe transition between having your gun down and taking it up to the eyes to fire when the aiming mode brings up a separate 2D sight.
Solution: partially blurred, 3D ironsights!
Here & There
4th June 2004
They're blurry in AA, aren't they? Either way, it looks fine. Its nice to see the ironsights.
i really dont think its a huge deal to freak out about as what ive seen people do in comments of screenshots.
From the van down by the river
31st August 2004
either is good. the 2d ironsights in americas army work and so do the 3d sights in cod
Resistance is futile
29th May 2004
'[77Twisted']Since alot of people in the real armies say alot of the stuff is incorrect, i recall a post about a Tank having a training thing on top of it that should only be there if its in training, not in real war. Post your debate here if you wish.
Yeah, I posted about that. I am a M1A1 tank commander in real life, and it really bugged me that the developers would be so wrong. So after I e-mailed them, they apparently took it off. As far as shooting a rifle in real life, the back sight becomes blurry, almost invisible, while you are focusing on the front post.