US Sniper (PICTURE) - Updated

[synxer]

Crosshair is way to fat in the center, barely able to see targets at 100 yards... This will make the US Sniper useless after 100 meters. Please reduce the size or even go back to the old scope. If needed I will place pictures.

Edited October 7, 2011 by synxer

[synxer]

Please make the crosshairs like this.

Because never in my life have i seen crosshairs like the ones on the left and in the game before. Not even the cheap 10$ ones at walmart I had on my BB guns when I was 5 years old.

Edited October 7, 2011 by synxer

[fxmmauser]

Please make the crosshairs like this.

Because never in my life have i seen crosshairs like the ones on the left and in the game before. Not even the cheap 10$ ones at walmart I had on my BB guns when I was 5 years old.

I have play other games with the Springfield scope and it has that scope like BGE has. We are talking about WW2 were technologies and weapons had to be rushed in order to impact the war.

[timmy41]

I have play other games with the Springfield scope and it has that scope like BGE has. We are talking about WW2 were technologies and weapons had to be rushed in order to impact the war.

What other games have is irrelevant. We want what is correct.

[synxer]

You ever look threw a weaver or a unertl scope before? Unertl scopes that were issued in ww2 and even Vietnam were teloscopic sights. Which is just the . (dot) in the middle or fine xhairs.. (see below)

IF this scope in the game is the Unertl scope it needs the . or a fine very fine xhairs (Mainly issued to USMC)

IF this scope is the weaver 330 or 440 (which was used in ww2)

It is the single post or X-hairs which increase their finest near the Center.

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?17320-WTS-Weaver-k4-1-and-440

Here are 2 pictures of Weaver optics.

Unertl 8X scope (WW2 Issued to USMC)

Edited October 7, 2011 by synxer

[timmy41]

Well that's a hormone rage induced post if I've ever seen one.

I did not say what was in game was correct, I did not say it was incorrect either. My post was not for posting research. Since all that testosterone seems to have clouded your thoughts I'll repost it.

"What other games have is irrelevant. We want what is correct. "

[synxer]

Well that's a hormone rage induced post if I've ever seen one.

I did not say what was in game was correct, I did not say it was incorrect either. My post was not for posting research. Since all that testosterone seems to have clouded your thoughts I'll repost it.

"What other games have is irrelevant. We want what is correct. "

But I wasn't the person who brought up other games

Plus the pictures I posted should be more than enough to provide that the X hairs for the US sniper is incorrect.

Edited October 7, 2011 by synxer

[timmy41]

But I wasn't the person who brought up other games

Plus the pictures I posted should be more than enough to provide that the X hairs for the US sniper is incorrect.

Neither was I.

I did not dispute that.

[wildcat5]

Neither was I.

I did not dispute that.

Timmy, I believe Synxer posted his research to disprove what Fxmmauser was saying when he was comparing the sight to other games. His research post was not aimed at you (ha get it aimed)...

So before using what "another game has" as a justification for your arguement... Maybe you need to conduct some research such as Synxer has done.

[synxer]

Anywho lets get this one fixed, it should be a easy fix. Cut out a few pixels of the Xhairs width\thickness.

[synxer]

No RAT comment on this?

[GOPHUR]

I'll have too ask Bloo. The beta research did not match this but I do like this one better. There might be problems if it gets that thin though.

[synxer]

Thanks Gophur, the current sight makes it so hard to see EI at the moment :\

[svt40]

The M1903A4 used the civilian Weaver 330c (x2.75) very early in the war and later on was changed to the M73b1 (exactly the same as the Weaver but made under govt contract) and had the crosshairs.

The Weaver 440 (x3.5) was the same scope but with a tapered post reticule. It was basically a copy of the Lyman Alaskan which was also used as the M8 scope in limited quantities

By wars end you could also find the M82 (x2.5) on the A4 which is a copy of the Lyman Alaskan M81. Once again the M81 had crosshairs and the M82 had the tapered post.

The M84 (x2.2) was also very rarely seen on the A4. But that usually was a result of replacing the scope and often in the Korean war and beyond. (1945 introduction date)

Edited October 9, 2011 by svt40

[romzburg]

I'll have too ask Bloo. The beta research did not match this but I do like this one better. There might be problems if it gets that thin though.

Let's remember we are playing a *game*.

Just make them skinny as possible so we can *play* the game we are *paying* to play.

On small issues like this, screw historicity.

By all means, be historical as hell when choosing calibers, and bombs, and engine horsepower, etc.

But, come on, we have enough difficulty playing a 2 dimensional version of a three dimensional world, just give us skinny damn crosshairs, and don't waste any time researching jack.

____________________

motormouth:

Much as Romzy's posting style can give me headaches (and the fact that he's "NEVAR WRONG!!"), that post pretty much nails it on the head.

sgtchief:

romz you['re] my damn hero

sydney:

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

irelandeb:

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

jw:

If you're going to argue with Romz, do your homework before you post. He gets it, and you can't teach common sense, you have to be born with it.

pete, linc & julie:

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

owilde:

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

[synxer]

As long as I can see EI and not haft to guess where they are at behind the (+) i'm happy.

[jeffdak]

Why the american sniper sight is more big and clear (clean) than the german sniper sight?

Somebody explain to me

JeffDAK

[stankyus]

Why the american sniper sight is more big and clear (clean) than the german sniper sight?

Somebody explain to me

JeffDAK

Because this is BETA.... lots of things change in BETA.

[jeffdak]

Because this is BETA.... lots of things change in BETA.

Lol, it's true..sorry

[GOPHUR]

Why the american sniper sight is more big and clear (clean) than the german sniper sight?

Somebody explain to me

JeffDAK

Ticketed. Thanks for the report.

If I could explain it then it wouldn't be a bug. Remove your tin hat before reporting for duty.

[rafaelbr]

playability, right, but haveing a BETTER scope than its counterpart would be a bit too much, since we a *paying* to be killed with allways better weapons, while ours are nerfed and softened.

the sherman is a indestructable killing machine while Tiger Kubelwagen cant hold a burst of machine gun without having its main gun broken.

the american sniper get a Nikon superbright brand new wide lens with a tiny X-hair while the Axis sticks with his huge post and bars.

it is not right. i am *paying* too. so, for my happiness while i am *playing* i would like to see the historicaly adequate difference between the two wepons.

the alies already have a historical advantage that is the higher quantity of resources and people. this is historicaly adequate. and well represented on the game. you want to have a "better" weapon when is not historicaly adequate.

As a last point, i will let the two sights an YOU tell me if there isnt a bias toward the allies.

Edited November 17, 2011 by rafaelbr

[ratatosk]

As a last point, i will let the two sights an YOU tell me if there isnt a bias toward the allies.

Trust me, my friend, bias accusations will just get your post ignored by CRS, they are hardened veterans of online gaming where those are constant. I generally play axis other than intermissions or when allied have been getting their asses waxed (which has been a lot lately) and the sniper is probably my favorite infantry weapon, so I am not unsympathetic to your actual point which is that some degree of historical accuracy should be maintained.

Personally, I think that they hit the Easy Mode Button with the new US sniper scope view, but don't really care even if it is clean as a whistle and the others have mock smudges which have been repeatedly discussed as somewhere between impossible and unlikely for years.

At any rate, the sniper does not feature an aim-bot, so the task for anyone who manages to reach E7 will be to figure out how to estimate range and how to lead targets at distance. I don't claim to be a ninja master at either skill, but am perfectly happy to use the dirty German scope because I know it pretty well by now (669 kills on infantry, plus whatever doesn't show up while I was KM ground since CRS doesn't reflect those in unit vs. unit).

[rafaelbr]

Acconding to Doc

We don't "balance" things they way that most people like to think. Most people that care to comment on this will never agree that anything is balanced at all no matter what we do and more often than not there are 17 different opinions on the subject at any given time and they all don't agree. There is however, only one game implementation to meet all those differing opinions.

Since the game employs historically based advantages and disadvantages without concession to things like the Tiger having much better armor protection than any Allied tank except the Churchill VII and anti armor gun performance that eclipses that tank by magnitudes. The Sherman M4a3(76) has improved gun performance over the Churchill VII but inferior armor protection and again, the Tiger eclipses that tank in both areas.

Well, say one thing, do another.

Edited November 17, 2011 by rafaelbr

[rubbish]

You're an idiot

[Fallsjgr]

heeeey... I resemble that!