Well, we might as well get rid of all Minmatar weapons. They all use modern technology (I.E gun powder). We can't go overly futuristic or the game gets too boring, not to mention easy.

SEE, the iron sights should do that. More future stuff! I agree 100% with op but not on how to get there. You hit it on the spot though, the design hasn't changed but we've made advances. So, art team go!

I feel like the AR could do with the cool flip-up sight the minmatar smg has. Howeve, I believe it has more to do with racial design philosophy than function.

every kind of sights is redundant, because suits like the caldari don't even seem to have eyes to begin with.

Funny thing, the minmatar SMG and I assume AR has an awesome sight. And it's not a scope.

That's not the point I was making. The point is, they are as good today as they are ever going to get. Iron sights were first illuminated with a spot of bright green paint back in the 60s. Today, we use glow in the dark stuff which was developed in the 70s.

But but but...that would turn dust into a CoD clone...WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

/sarc

I like all the old demo videos people have been posting over the last 2 days....and how in everyone of them ARs have red dot sights.

Your trolling is redundant.

I will have to disagree with you on this one. The fact that just about every U.S. Service Person that goes into a combat zone today is issued night vision equipment goes against your 'cheap' theory. I know... I was a GS-11 that dealt with that stuff. On top of that, being a Vietnam Combat Veteran with over 12 years of service as U.S. Marine Corp Infantry/Special Missions, the amount and cost of the equipment U.S. Service Personal drag around is a lot. Hell, I watched them test and issue weatherproofed computer keyboards that could be strapped to the Service Personnel's chest for data entry. You want to guess the cost of that? This was part of the Future Combat System the U.S. Military is using and developing now.

However, what is real today may or may not reflect in today's FPS's... especially the futuristic ones. But I do find it ironic that one would spend so much ISK on a Dust Dropsuit, its Equipment and Weapons... and then just give out iron sights [grins]. But hey, this is a game and people come here to have fun. So whatever is wanted by the players. So I understand and agree that iron sights are here to stay, as I mentioned in one of my replies above.

I just would like to see a more futuristic touch to the way weapons are used in Dust 514... else, it just ends up being another FPS, imo. That is all I am saying. I also understand Dust is still in the development phase and who knows what it will look like a year from now... or even ten... right? Perhaps discussions like this will help.

Well, in the Australian army, you're trained for combat without having to rely on fancy equipment, even though you get it later anyway. Of course, we all know the US spends way too much on military, and the government really only cares about the death of a soldier because it costs them money in the equipment that goes down with them (no disrespect to the servicemen intended), so they aren't really the best example of effective, efficient fighters, just an example of how to beat your enemy with superior firepower and/or technology alone. Everyone being issued night vision equipment does not go against the idea of making warfare as cheap as possible through expendability. It only makes your soldiers more expensive to lose.

Iron sights make a lot of sense in a world of the super high tech. Keep it simple with iron sights and tritium sights to reduce failure in combat.

You missed the obvious point.

ARs use Iron sights when plenty of other weapons have better sights.

Even the internal logic of saying "this is the far future, who knows how weapons will evolve" does not work.

Why can't i take the AGOG sights off my TAC and put it on my regular AR again?

Why can't i put the scrambler sights on my AR again?

Why can't i take off the sights of my sniper rifle and use it as a high powered mid range weapon again?

I can't wait till weapon customization comes out and renders this all moot. The ironsight guys can enjoy them all they want, and the rest of us can use sights that actually make sense.

T

...and what makes you think iron sights will not go away eventually? Seems a bit presumptuous.

When I was in Vietnam in '68-69, I had two R&R's in Sidney. Great city and people. I loved going there. You Aussies also maintained a battalion in Vietnam as well, I believe. I am sure they served with distinction. I would expect nothing less.

I think we can both agree that an army that is better equipped and trained will usually do well against a poorly equipped and trained one... until modern unconventional warfare. Having personally felt the sting of knowing where I once stood as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam is now controlled by the enemy is not a good feeling. But then, Vietnam is a major producer of Kenyan coffee... so that is an unexpected plus.

However, I would hope that a Warrior that is more expensive to lose would be deployed a tad more carefully, so that is a big plus... don't you think?. As for U.S. Service Personnel not being an example of effective and efficient fighters... I just hope you do not have to run up against one of us to find out. I think you will find we are just as deadly with or without the technology. I had qualified as an expert with the M16 using the old iron sights many times over... and one would need to be more than 500 meters away from me not to be in my personal killing zone. I was generally 10/10 at the 460m line on a man size target. When it comes to marksmanship, never question the U.S. Marines. Our history stands for itself. We do not need a computer to put a round between someone's running lights. The Germans in WWI did not call us 'Devil Dogs' for nothing. It was because our 1903 Springfields were hitting them at 700-800 yards. Put a little scope on our rifles, and we are really nasty. Technology only adds to our effectiveness... it does not replace it.

So anyway, back to Dust... Sorry for the rant.

Well said. As an Army and Navy vet, having been deployed to both Kosovo/Bosnia and Iraqi Freedom I can tell you boys and girls that US Troops are not trained in using weapon scopes in basic training, we are and were trained to use Iron Sights on we had to do our semi-annual (Army) weapon qualifications with Iron Sights. I dare say that a properly trained Army or Marine soldier with a properly sighted in weapon will consistently outperform a scope user within visual range.

Iron Sights allow for better CQB than scopes do, even red dots. A soldier moving with his weapon in the ready position can aim and fire more accurately than a scope user. The brain has a tendency to want to position the cross hair or red dot, while with an Iron Sight, what the brain sees the brain gets, there is no visual tomfoolery going on for the brain to compensate for. That being said, there is a place for scopes in weapon uses, but scopes can never replace iron sights for quick action aim and fire.

And as I stated earlier as well, iron sights don't limit your field of view quite as much as a scope does.

In 500+ years of the gun, not much has changed about it. We still use a black powder and projectile system and the only great improvement to weapons in those 500 years of barrel rifling. Iron sights or Patridge Sights have been around since the 1800's. So it's pretty safe to assume that while different SCOPES have been invented, Iron Sights will ALWAYS be around, they are a fundamental part of guns and if you are unable to shot 35 meters without a SCOPE then perhaps you should go back to COD.

Thanks for the name calling... great conversational encouragement... or did I use too big of words here for you to understand?

...and what makes you think iron sights will not go away eventually? Seems a bit presumptuous. Oh there I go again with the big words again... sorry.

If we're talking about rifle scopes from the future, why aren't they built into our eyes? We're purpose built war clones after all. On a more serious note, why has my SR not got this:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/17000-linux-powered-rifle-brings-auto-aim-to-the-real-world/

I am sorry, but you are dead wrong about this. If you knew anything about sniping, you would not had said this. The idea of placing a round down range has changed... with the invention of scopes and night vision devices. The invention of the boat-tail round in the early 1900's improved range and accuracy out to 600 yards because of aerodynamics. Using high powered rounds increased round stability out to 800 yards for the 7.62 rounds. One of the exercises I used for my snipers when I was a U,S. Marine STA Platoon Sergeant was putting out a cigarette at 300m at night using a night vision scope. If you do not have any idea of the difference between hitting at a distance with iron sights verses a scope, then I am wasting my time speaking to you.

When it comes to close combat for real, I have never used iron sights. I have always used the 1" above the sights rule... and it is very effective out to 100m... where firing from the hip is only about 25m. But there is no equivalent to this in Dust. In Dust Close Combat, firing from the hip is generally one's best option if one is not fully prepared for an enemy being dead center in front of them. This is to get a quick shot off to hit the enemy before they hit you. This is why I say RPM and quick reactions is the big thing in FPS games when close in. What I try to do is learn to put my target dead center on my computer screen when I fire... that is usually the point of impact, not the end of the weapon. So I use my Light or Heavy Weapon at range, and my Sidearm when close in. For me, this is an assault weapon for range and a SMG for close in.

As for going back to CoD... sorry... no dice. I am going to stay here and make life miserable for the likes of you. When I kill you, you can proudly say you were just outgunned by a 63 year old man.