Custom law sights and ballistics

[Noose_ITO]

I have done some tests with custom LAW M72A3 sights I made and it seems to that I can not get it right. If I match range to target and visual size of sight then flight scanning field of rocket is wrong(doesn't hit right). If I match ballistics to those sights then rocket will come too slow. 4s to 200m. That's only 50m/s and way too slow.

If I tune rocket ballistics to mach real one (~150m/s) and scale sight size and zoom to match on different distances correctly. Then visual size of sight is wrong.

Here is some pictures to understand better what I meaned. Pictures presents situation "if fired it would hit"

Sight visual and real distance matched, wrong ballsitics(too slow rocket). Target at 200m:
http://stardesk.staroffice.com/www/Noose_ITO/normal200.jpg

Sight visual and real distance matched, wrong ballsitics(too slow rocket). Target at 300m:
http://stardesk.staroffice.com/www/Noose_ITO/normal300.jpg

Correct ballsitics, visual size of sight is wrong. Target at 200m. Aimed a bit front for clearnes:
http://stardesk.staroffice.com/www/Noose_ITO/Small200.jpg

Correct ballsitics, visual size of sight is wrong. Target at 300m. Aimed a bit front for clearnes:
http://stardesk.staroffice.com/www/Noose_ITO/Small300.jpg

I have played around these variables:

thrustTime
thrust
maxSpeed
simulationStep
opticsZoomMin
opticsZoomMax

It didn't find variable "maxSpeed" to affect on rocket? Any suggestion for this "problem"? BIS?

[arkadeyevich]

I think a good but hard way of doing it would be to first set the ballistics as close to the real LAW as possible, then draw a new sight with matching numbers and lines.

[Noose_ITO]

arkadeyevich:

Yes, I know. Actually imaginary sight is easier to do than match real looking sight. I want real looking LAW sight so imaginary sight is not an option now http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

BTW. That sight I use is straight from LAW M72A1-3 manual if not clear yet.

[arkadeyevich]

My idea was that a sight based on real world physics would not fit with the fussy-physics of OFP.
BTW I wish you good luck, this is something I have been missing from OFP since the start.

[Satchel]

Great idea, but i recon it will require alot of fiddling with ballistic values if you want to match an 1:1 sight without altering it (thus making it less realistic).
The easiest way is for sure to make the sight fit the values as arkadeyevich said, the hard way is to do it the other way around.
Good Luck.

[Noose_ITO]

Yes. Physics in OFP seems to eliminate the use of realistic sight. If I do compromises I can make sight to work up to 200m range perhaps(first two pictures). Then any target over 200m range... no way to hit if sight visuals are used (too flat scanning field of rocket, or so it seems to?). So whats left if "right" LAW rocket ballistics are used(correct speed)?

I can make sight that is totaly imaginary and it will fit OFP physics. That's not going to look realistic but it's functional.

Or I can use that realistic sight and just change range values. By doing that sight will look similar than real one but range values will be very high and sight's own visual range detector(curved line) wil not match at all after some range.

Or I can use that small sight which makes current range numbers in sight to make sense(last two pictures). Downside is that it needs a lot of zoom. It means that visual range detector lines in sight will not work at all and that exaggerated zoom looks funny for totally non optical sight.

It seems to that if I flatten out that real sight vertically it will fit perfectly. Doing so the ratio of real sight dimensions will become distorted and we are in that imaginary sight thing again.

BTW. I used very low "thrustTime" in my experiments. Like real LAW the rocket burning time is very short(burns inside tube only, so it's not actually a rocket). That means quite high "thrust" values. It caused some oddities in gameplay. Sometimes rocket exploded 10m behind me or rocket dropped 1m front of me. Playing with "simulationStep" value gived some stability.

I would like to hear your opinion of these things. And for sure I would like to hear opinion from BIS guys http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif. Is this the reason why realistic sights were left out of the game?

[WKK Gimbal]

I'd suggest going for something in between. First make sure you have a line that zero's the OFP LAW's impact point at every 100 meters. then draw (or bend and twist) the realistic sight to fit those lines. I don't think anyone will notice if the 100m line is slightly higher compared to the real thing or something like that. As long as the overall look is right and it hits the target http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I also think most people would prefer the standard physics for the LAW. After playing the game for a year, it would be tough to get used to different physics.

[Espectro]

Yo gimbal, check out my new coop mission.

I bet you will like it http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

http://www.dyrk.dk/upload/airsupport.zip

[morbid]

Perhaps it is the field of view which is causing these difficulties.
In real life we have a field of view that extends almost 90 degrees left and right.
In flashpoint it is considerably smaller and when zoomed it becomes even smaller, so a sight that looks fine with our large natural field of view IRL probably won't work in the restricted FOV we have in the game.