Do your like BI's Mk17 holo sight reticle?

[ljcsteam 45]

I love holo sights. However, I hate that 2 dots reticle, as the reticle often covers a whole man's body, especially when aiming with NVGs. While the second 500 yards small dot is not useful in game with out a 3X magnifier. I guess that's why SOCOM chose EXPS3-0 as their SU-231A/PEQ. Why don't BIS just make a holo sight like what they do in Arma 2?

[Janez 507]

It is pretty bad indeed. Similar problem was in BF4 but not as much. Operation Arrowhead had clean, thin reticle. Arma 2's was way too thick. But yeah, having only one dot would render Holo sight much more useful.

[road runner 4344]

The circles and dot is representative of the Minute Of Angle, or MOA, it's a real life feature.  It looks pretty accurate to the real deal.

The Eotech 552 dot covered the body too at a certain range, forget now but it was about 200-300M's. 

http://nssf.org/video/facts/MOA.cfm

[ljcsteam 45]

2 minutes ago, road runner said:

The circles and dot is representative of the Minute Of Angle, or MOA, it's a real life feature.  It looks pretty accurate to the real deal.

The Eotech 552 dot covered the body too at a certain range, forget now but it was about 200-300M's. 

http://nssf.org/video/facts/MOA.cfm

It's real and I understand what you say. But one single dot is much better for a close combat sight in military operations, right?

 

19 minutes ago, Janez said:

It is pretty bad indeed. Similar problem was in BF4 but not as much. Operation Arrowhead had clean, thin reticle. Arma 2's was way too thick. But yeah, having only one dot would render Holo sight much more useful.

Generally, A3 is far more better than A2OA. But I do miss some assets back to OA instead of something like the current CSAT Viper aliens.

[road runner 4344]

1 minute ago, ljcsteam said:

It's real and I understand what you say. But one single dot is much better for a close combat sight in military operations, right?

 

Generally, A3 is far more better than A2OA. But I do miss some assets back to OA instead of something like the current CSAT Viper aliens.

There's a reason for the double dots. but off the top of my head I can't remember what it is, I think the 552 I had was a single dot, and with NVG capability, in cqb at night It wouldn't make much difference really if you have a PEQ mounted, as everything is fast and fluid, it's more instinctive shooting, than wondering if the reticule is a 1 or a 3 moa, I think the old Aimpoints, the M68's were maybe 3 moa, I didn't really like it, as that obscured the target even more, especially when you had to adjust the brightness up.

I get what you're saying though.

[ljcsteam 45]

38 minutes ago, road runner said:

There's a reason for the double dots. but off the top of my head I can't remember what it is, I think the 552 I had was a single dot, and with NVG capability, in cqb at night It wouldn't make much difference really if you have a PEQ mounted, as everything is fast and fluid, it's more instinctive shooting, than wondering if the reticule is a 1 or a 3 moa, I think the old Aimpoints, the M68's were maybe 3 moa, I didn't really like it, as that obscured the target even more, especially when you had to adjust the brightness up.

I get what you're saying though.

2 or 4 dots reticles is only available on the new XPS and EXPS series. In fact, all dots have the same size, 1 MOA, unlike the one in Arma 3. I believe EoTech produce them for usage with magnifiers. It seems that operators do like the one dot reticle. As combat gets tough, a clear weapon sight is always a reilable option.

[war_lord 934]

It is indeed for drop compensation when coupled with a magnifier. The idea is that either you're at a distance and thus using a x2 times flip up, or you're at close range and the target is large enough that you just center the ring on their chest. Holographic sights really aren't designed for long distance shooting. Operator types are typical shooting in close quarters anyway.

[ljcsteam 45]

1 hour ago, war_lord said:

It is indeed for drop compensation when coupled with a magnifier. The idea is that either you're at a distance and thus using a x2 times flip up, or you're at close range and the target is large enough that you just center the ring on their chest. Holographic sights really aren't designed for long distance shooting. Operator types are typical shooting in close quarters anyway.

At some certain situations, maybe 100 yards at night, when you needn't a magnifier, the vanilla holo sight perform bad. What makes things worse is the ring seems smaller than the real one, it should be 68 MOA. I will use RHS XPS3 if I can choose.

[omL 24]

My issue with the holosight (and pretty much all sights in Arma and most FPS games) is that the housing of optics and such just takes up too much of the screen. I mean the great thing about these kind of optics is that you can keep both eyes open very easily and have an amazing field of view whilst your brain pretty much ignores the rest of the optic and superimposes the reticle on target.

 

A good shot of how it kind of looks :

 

Good example of it in a very old game :

 

[road runner 4344]

7 hours ago, omL said:

My issue with the holosight (and pretty much all sights in Arma and most FPS games) is that the housing of optics and such just takes up too much of the screen. I mean the great thing about these kind of optics is that you can keep both eyes open very easily and have an amazing field of view whilst your brain pretty much ignores the rest of the optic and superimposes the reticle on target.

Because it represents accurately where the human eye is when you shoulder the weapon?

These type of scopes are limited to game engine, there's a single eye memory point.

The Use of Novalogic BHD to make a point is bizarre, it's totally unrealistic.

[omL 24]

2 hours ago, road runner said:

Because it represents accurately where the human eye is when you shoulder the weapon?

These type of scopes are limited to game engine, there's a single eye memory point.

The Use of Novalogic BHD to make a point is bizarre, it's totally unrealistic.

 

It's the only example of anyone using semi-transparent optics in a game that I know of, what's your issue with me linking that? 

[road runner 4344]

9 minutes ago, omL said:

 

It's the only example of anyone using semi-transparent optics in a game that I know of, what's your issue with me linking that? 

There's no problem linking it, it's completely unrealistic is what I said.

Your field of view is also limited to what is represented on your screen, unless you have a VR system, or using 3 monitors, it's impossible to replicate.