Historical Gunsights

[Cthulhu]

But I do agree with tanks' optics being made to match their relative historical advantages/disadvantages.

100% in agreement there. 
Not very knowledgeable about the ranging features or zoom limitations on the tank optics of the time, but if at all possible, the capabilities of the original vehicle should be mirrored in the game. (Ex. Tigers & Fireflys should have a much higher 1st rd hit probability than say a T-34/76)

[moot]

So we agree.

[Klauss]

moot, why do you say luftwaffe gunsights suck?

[1pLUs44]

If it HAD to happen, I'd prefer the option of default/none, or just only US, only RUS, JP, GER gunsights globally for the US, Russian, Japanese, and German planes. For some reason, I can't stand the Navy Mk8 Gunsight, so I'd rather put on a US Mk. 9 or K-14.

[Anaxogoras]

moot, why do you say luftwaffe gunsights suck?

I mean the gunsight pattern sucked.  Garbage.  The only thing I like about LW gunsight systems that I've "used" is optional tinted glass.

Sounds to me like he doesn't like their crosshair style, and so that's a subjective preference.  I use the historical revi design in all of our Luftwaffe aircraft and it suits me just fine.  For that matter, I could use a single dot and I would probably do ok.

[moot]

Klauss, the notches are useless, and so just distractions.  The center of the gunsight is inaccurate.  Those two are the last things you need when the planes depend on very accurate shots without more than a split second of hesitation.  I'm surprised the LW would have such quality tech designs and yet have such a weak link in their chain. 

[Saxman]

Moot,

Are you sure the accuracy isn't just a problem with the artwork rather than the design itself? Maybe raise/lower the position of the gunsight in the image?

[moot]

No... Like I said, the bullseye sucks. The rest of the pattern is equally useless.  Another totaly crap gunsight pattern is one of the russian ones.. It blinds you more than anything. I literally asked myself outloud what the hell this thing is for, the first time I "sat" in that cockpit. I'm going by what I saw in what's probably close to what we'd get if we got this "wish" - Il2 cockpits. 
The best dogfighting gunsight to me, is either a dot, or some variation on the simple circle-dot.  The circle needs to be the right size so that it doesnt get in the way but also helps guide your eyes to the bullseye as you're looking at a target that's maneuvering somewhere else in the windscreen/canopy.  All those rube goldberg notches and tiny, blurry circles are no use.  Conversly.. I probably wouldnt have had this pov if I'd learned the historical 1939 airman way.. But eventualy I would have. 

[SectorNine50]

I like this idea.  Just another part of the aircraft that would change it's dynamics.  People will get used to the gun sight in an aircraft if they like it enough.  I've used the German ones in-game before, it's not all that bad, the mil lines are actually nice for measuring lead on snapshots.  I'm all for this, I actually changed all my gun sights to be country accurate (with what sights I have at least).  Would add to the immersion factor.

Also, IIRC, to change the gun sight pattern you would have to replace the entire sight it's self.  I saw an article about the K-14 somewhere (I'm looking for it as we speak) and the units weren't built to be customizable, specially with the gyro and such.  I'm assuming all the units were this same way.

[moot]

Immersed in a castrated tool of war. No thanks..  
The K-14 was a gyro sight.. The Revis weren't, and weren't american designs.  I don't think it's a safe assumption that the two are comparable.

[SectorNine50]

Immersed in a castrated tool of war. No thanks..  
The K-14 was a gyro sight.. The Revis weren't, and weren't american designs.  I don't think it's a safe assumption that the two are comparable.

Perhaps, but I feel like field modifications of the sights would have been more well-known if they happened.  If there are some of us that don't like certain gunsights, I'm sure there were pilots that didn't like them.  Of course, once again this is an assumption.