19 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
 |
| 18. |
Cornershot |
Oct 10, 2004, 17:55 |
Paranoid Jack |
|
|
Is a pistol with a camcorder and assult rifle stock... nothing more. Unless there is an FM radio they didn't mention. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 17. |
Re: Ghost Recon 2 |
Oct 10, 2004, 17:42 |
eunichron |
|
|
it just seems that with traditional iron sights it would be impossible to accurately hit anything when sticking a weapon around the corner. No doubt. With iron sights the sight picture needs to be dead on to be accurate. With the M16, at 25m any error in alignment is multiplied 50 times. A textbook example, at 300m, a misalignment of 1/10 of an inch will cause you to miss the target by 5 feet.
But then with devices like the M68 red dot CCO, and PAQ-4 infrared laser, there's no alignment needed, and the lasers are calibrated to the barrel of the weapon. They don't account for bullet trajectories of course, but the majority of the time the bullet will hit wherever you put the dot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 16. |
Re: Ghost Recon 2 |
Oct 10, 2004, 17:30 |
Scottish Martial Arts |
|
|
Not true. As long as the aiming system used by the weapon doesn't require anything to be lined up (like typical iron sights on a rifle), you can hit anything from pretty much any position. Using a PAQ-4 (infrared aiming device) I've hit targets at 75m holding the rifle above my head and upside down. Firing around corners without exposing yourself is definately possible, even without much marksmanship training.
Interesting. Us ROTC guys are lucky to get the M-16s we've got, the high tech stuff is way beyond our means. My experience with the M-16 so far is that the more supported the rifle is, the more likely you'll hit your target. In a fighting positon I can hit a 75m target pretty much all of the time and with tight groupings, at 175m and 300m it's more like 4 out of 5 and 1 out of 2 respectively. From a standing positon I can hit a 25m target 50% of the time, at greater ranges it's just a matter of luck. Now granted I'm not the greatest Marksman in the world but it just seems that with traditional iron sights it would be impossible to accurately hit anything when sticking a weapon around the corner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 15. |
Re: Ghost Recon 2 |
Oct 10, 2004, 16:48 |
cia |
|
|
Looking forward to Operation Flashpoint 2. I don't think they will consolize it and ruin it, but who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 14. |
Re: Ghost Recon 2 |
Oct 10, 2004, 16:43 |
Marvin T. Martian |
|
|
Too much 3rd person view for me!!!!
FPS all the way! or no money from me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 13. |
Re: Ghost Recon 2 |
Oct 10, 2004, 16:01 |
Bunko |
|
|
All these new technologies are taking the skill out of life
We bury our sins here, Dave. We wash them clean. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 12. |
Re: Ghost Recon 2 |
Oct 10, 2004, 15:44 |
eunichron |
|
|
It doesn't matter that there is a camera, by not bracing the rifle against your shoulder you will not be able to hold the weapon steadily enough to accurately hit anything. Not true. As long as the aiming system used by the weapon doesn't require anything to be lined up (like typical iron sights on a rifle), you can hit anything from pretty much any position. Using a PAQ-4 (infrared aiming device) I've hit targets at 75m holding the rifle above my head and upside down. Firing around corners without exposing yourself is definately possible, even without much marksmanship training.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 11. |
Re: Ghost Recon 2 |
Oct 10, 2004, 15:24 |
[AIX]Hood |
|
|
Here's one technology: http://www.cornershot.com/ Here's a picture of a soldier wearing the Land Warrior system that's featured in the game: http://www.dod.mil/news/Mar2004/200403254a.jpg I'm not going to argue with you about how good a marksman you can be without shoulder bracing, but obviously there's merit to it if the DoD is looking to outfit most soldiers with this eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10. |
Re: Ghost Recon 2 |
Oct 10, 2004, 14:54 |
Scottish Martial Arts |
|
|
If you paid attention during the video, you'd see that it's future technology with a camera mounted on the gun.
Apparently you've never fired a rifle. It doesn't matter that there is a camera, by not bracing the rifle against your shoulder you will not be able to hold the weapon steadily enough to accurately hit anything. It is a huge challenge to shoot accurately standing up, that's not to say it can't be done but it is infinitely easier to shoot from a fighting position or while prone. Unless the rifles of the near future have some sort of auto tracking bullet I can't imagine it being physically possible to accurately fire a rifle in such a manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 9. |
Re: Ghost Recon 2 |
Oct 10, 2004, 14:48 |
[AIX]Hood |
|
|
If you paid attention during the video, you'd see that it's future technology with a camera mounted on the gun. They mention that several times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Re: Ghost Recon 2 |
Oct 10, 2004, 14:38 |
Scottish Martial Arts |
|
|
Okay now that's just fucking stupid. Holding a gun around a corner and being able to actually hit anything? Not gonna happen on an M-16. It's hard enough to hit even a twenty five meter target standing up but to then just stick the weapon around a corner and expect to hit something is just fucking stupid.
This comment was edited on Oct 10, 14:38. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 7. |
Re: Ghost Recon 2 |
Oct 10, 2004, 13:50 |
Viranth |
|
|
I think they should rename the Long wolf mode into Rambo mode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6. |
Ghost Recon 2 |
Oct 10, 2004, 13:05 |
Paranoid Jack |
|
|
And jeez did Ghost Recon 2 look stupid
I think the look of the game has improved. Not sure how good the gameplay will be since it appears to be far different from the original; as far as Lone Wolf goes... but I am more receptive to it now then I was after seeing a console video early this year.
That doesn't mean I am ready to buy it. I want to see a demo with both versions of play before I commit to a purchase.
I must say it looks like they turned it into a console shooter. I hope I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. |
Re: lack of organisation |
Oct 10, 2004, 12:53 |
Jim |
|
|
hey blue, could you finally format the movie news in a similiar manner as the other news?
it's impossible to tell apart quickly what game movies there are in the newspost
Yes, please do. I was about to skip this section after reading the first game title, until I saw that the "screenshots section" link was gray/visited. If it weren't for this I would have missed the PF movie.
This comment was edited on Oct 10, 12:54. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Re: lack of organisation |
Oct 10, 2004, 12:22 |
Mr Gar |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
lack of organisation |
Oct 10, 2004, 11:55 |
S_Hole |
|
|
hey blue, could you finally format the movie news in a similiar manner as the other news?
it's impossible to tell apart quickly what game movies there are in the newspost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 10, 2004, 11:03 |
tacomodo |
|
|
And jeez did Ghost Recon 2 look stupid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1. |
No subject |
Oct 10, 2004, 11:00 |
tacomodo |
|
|
That Pacific is going to rule!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
19 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
