Red Dot/MARS vs Holographic

[toysrme]

seems the same to me, but next time i sit down to redo the RPM's ill take a look at it (Im lvl 67)

[saddaminsane]

iron sights tend to have perfect accuracy and if your weapon already has decent sights ( like the scar ) you should stick with them. I use the FAL all the time and when u add a RDS the bulet actually lands slightly off towards the bottem right ( not that big of a problem but noticable at long range) FAL with holgraphic doesnt seem to have a problem though.

I also noticed that the Holographic sight seems to have a hole inside the very middle dot itself. Holo graphic might be more accurate( or maybe the complete opposite) but it sure does help certain people out. It all depends on preference. Some people claim that the RDS is just akward to use and the holo is more "user friendly". It all ends up as personal preference

[mannon]

Technically all the sights have perfect accuracy even if they are misaligned they are consistent. ;p

[cptmacmillan]

All bombers are perfectly accurate too, 'cause they always hit the ground!

I don't think there's any actual difference between the sights statistically. I tend to go with holographic because I like how it looks more, although on the AK47 I'll use an RDS because that looks better IMO.

[saddaminsane]

in the end the natural iron sights are always the best for long range becuase you know exactly where the bullet will land and the sights wont block your target ( plus thats one more free attachment spot)

[mannon]

I like the slight zoom with Holo and RDS, but I find the Holo reticle too obscuring for long range targets. Maybe it's better at closer range, but I prefer to shoots them from far away. ;p

I find that I tend to only actually use the sights to unlock the holo and thermal for the exp, though and just go with iron unless I need kills using the sight. heh I actually kinda wish it would count sights as a separate type of attachment so I could use them, but I just generally find other attachments more useful, particularly HBS and grips.

[bshift]

I have a completely different opinion on the RDS and Holo Sights. I feel the RDS doesn't work at medium/long ranges so well because the dot is too bright and when you're aiming at a small target in the distance, the dot just covers it up too much. The Holo sight on the other hand is transparent, so whatever you aim over, you can still see behind it, making it easier to hold aim on a moving target in medium/long ranges.

[mannon]

Odd, what platform are you on? I'm on Xbox and run at 720p. For me only the very middle of the dot seems opaque and I can clearly see through the glow around it, but the reticle on the holo is nearly completely opaque to me. The middle part between the ring and the dot is transparent, but between the glow and the dot, ring, and hashes details I just can't make out any shapes through it. It's a big bright glowing blind spot. ;p I wonder if they perform differently based on brightness and contrast settings.

[mannon]

Or higher resolution might actually help see through the Holo better.

[bshift]

I play on PC at 1280x1024 reso. But I do feel it has to do with the placement of the opaque bits. RDS has most of it's opacity focused into the centre and Holo has a even spread of opacity. However, both do the job of bringing your eyes to the dead-centre of ADS, so it is a matter of preference in the end.

[toysrme]

Dec 6, 2009 20:56:00 GMT -5 kyucing said:

i read somewhere that the RDS is faster to scope than the holo..
tested it somewhat (not using any tools) and found it to be somewhat true, but not too sure =/

If someone has the tool to measure the time it takes to scope, that'd be another factor to consider?

too bad i mainly use TAR21 and the mars sight has very limited view for RDS. So i stick to iron.

absolutely not true. both shoulder at the same rate as the iron sight.

[mannon]

Okay guess what, I just got a new monitor and it being even higher resolution than the HDTV I switched my Xbox to it and guess what... I think I'm a convert.

When I was using component cables on an HDTV and running my xbox at 720p the Holographic reticle just looked nearly completely opaque and greatly obscured targets. Now on my new monitor with an HDMI input and running my xbox at 1080p (although I've heard that MW2 still runs at 720p) it's a whole other world. The RDS which seemed more like a very small point actually feels like it's bigger and more opaque in the middle, but the whole Holographic reticle is now more translucent and only the very small dot in the middle seems obscuring.

On top of that I also noticed something else. The dirty glass effect that is applied to both seems to affect the RDS much greater causing spots of the halo to dim out and even muddying the bright center of the dot. It's particularly apparent in the idle animation of an M16 as it will go from bright point to muddy red dot and back as you breath.

The Holographic reticle seems to have less of a drop out in brightness from the dirt and on top of that since the reticle it-self has a discernible shape you are less dependent upon the bright point in the middle.

The long and short of it is that if the holographic reticle is not too opaque on your display it actually does appear to be slightly superior for precision and to some extent even can be for clarity as well, although the frame is still more claustrophobic.

It's still down to personal preference, though, and I rarely roll with either except for challenges anyway. ;p Though when I get around to it the FAL has terrible iron sights because that big ring goes blurry and actually muddies up the entire inner area of the circle. ;-( If IW had just pulled it a little closer or something it would be fine, but meh... The depth of field effect just destroys that sight. I doubt it's the only one, but I was just using it and it annoyed me. heh

[brownviolet]

No one seems to have pointed out the reflective qualities of the two.

The HOLO tends to bloom very hard from reflecting direct light, much more so than the RDS IMO. Try playing Afghan with the sun at your back to see what I mean.

[Lexapro]

Playing the PS3 version, there's no bloom =)

Holo looks great, the smaller dot int the center lets me make more precise shots than the the RDS I find and the overall larger sights make close range target acquisition easier as well. I have no problem seeing through it (HDMI output at 1080p to a 58 inch plasma).

[mannon]

I've noticed the glare effect on the lenses before, but not compared them, though I recall the MARS being particularly bad in SP. ;p

There is one disadvantage of the RDS and Holo type sights which I should mebbe mention.

There seems to be something of an inaccuracy in that the dot and the reticle are not focused at infinity the way real ones are when the depth of field effect comes into play. Or rather it's more like an interaction between the way the dot and reticle are rendered and the depth of field effect.

If you ADS very close to something in the foreground while actually aiming at something in the distance then the foreground object becomes blurred. What does not work well with the sights is if you move your aim close to the foreground object but not so much to actually aim at it and bring it into focus your dot or reticle will become blurred too.

In reality the sights are focused at infinity so that when you are looking at distant objects the sight reticle and the dot it-self never goes out of focus unless you focus on something very close like the end of your nose. ;p MW2 actually only uses the blur effect on close objects, thus only simulating depth of field when focusing at distant objects. Focusing on near objects does not make the background blur. Inaccurate, but certainly done for gameplay reasons.

I also noticed that aiming at a teammate does not bring them into focus. I'm guessing that the game assumes I'm more interested in potential enemies behind the teammate and thus focuses through them. Either that or the depth of field will not adjust to any players in the foreground, which I certainly hope is not true.

Now that I actually like the holo reticle better I'm a little split because I really don't like the frame. heh But meh... I usually roll with iron anyway.

[infininja]

Dec 12, 2009 0:34:34 GMT -5 mannon said:

Technically all the sights have perfect accuracy even if they are misaligned they are consistent. ;p

All the sights are precise, but they are not equally accurate.

I too noticed the glare on the holographic sight and have a real problem with it. It even glared up inside the hotel on Karachi. :\ On the guns I like the most, the iron sights are best. Otherwise, I tend to prefer the red dot sight over the holographic because of the smaller reticle.

You are my bro, bro.

[mannon]

Ahh Good point.

Yeah I used to prefer the RDS for that too, but now that I've changed to the monitor it is as others described where the Holo reticle is mostly transparent and only the tiny dot in the center is opaque, and that dot in the center actually is smaller than the RDS dot.

[toysrme]

console cod456 runs 600p period. when you change your resolution&screen ratio setting all you are doing is stretching/clipping the base 600p image to fit the format selected. in the case of console cod you also change the fov setting.

now... im telling you from video testing, lots of competative experiance & owning lots of equipment.

do not:
play on an sd tv
play on an hdtv via hdmi/dvi
play through an a/v reciever even if it claims hdmi pass-through only

play on a 4:3 vga monitor using its native resolution and set to widescreen format. this will give you infinately less lag than playing on an hdmi hdtv which will have gigantic processing times.
being vga, 4:3 and set to widescreen will also allow much larger fov setting. like playing on pc wirh fov upped to 75-80.





again.... playing on an hdmi hdtv is the worst thing you can do. it opens the door to the tv doing massive amounts of pre/post processing thatabsolutely can not be disabled even via hidden menus. if your tv has vga try that. it will still waste time doing useless image processing, but not nearly as much.

[toysrme]

when scaled well you should see a tiny red dot in the center. see through red tinted ring around the dot & a small thin red ring around the visible portion.

[n1gh7]

Dec 22, 2009 11:38:43 GMT -5 toysrme said:

again.... playing on an hdmi hdtv is the worst thing you can do. it opens the door to the tv doing massive amounts of pre/post processing thatabsolutely can not be disabled even via hidden menus. if your tv has vga try that. it will still waste time doing useless image processing, but not nearly as much.

I'm pretty sure that if you play on a PC MONITOR you can avoid the post processing with HDMI. But yea play on a MONITOR not a TV, and there should be less input lag.

Also what the XBox does is just scale. The 720p and 1080i/p images are the same. Halo 3 is the same way. So in reality COD is not even "Full HD" (that term is bull doo-doo anyways)

Dec 22, 2009 11:40:43 GMT -5 toysrme said:

when scaled well you should see a tiny red dot in the center. see through red tinted ring around the dot & a small thin red ring around the visible portion.

This. Den made some comparative images on the first page. Those are correct, just look at them. Yes the sights do have some refection glare stuff going on. If you are on PC and turn all your settings down it goes away. hehehe

PS: toys do you still not know how to edit your posts?