The bullets go where the lower notch points. That’s pretty much all you need to learn to be able to use it, and half the time even that isn’t needed considering the ranges it works best at, you just need to aim vaguely at people’s torsos and fire. Also possible is either shouldering but not sighting it, which is what happens if you tap right click, and generally makes it easier to see in front of you at the cost of making finding exactly where bullets go a bit harder, or even just hip firing.
Frankly for any gun, bad sights usually just increase the learning curve a bit until you get a sense of the zero point. Sure the OVP sights obscure visibility somewhat, but its not a big deal after some practice.
That’s not the issue, the issue is that they basically blind you. It’s just like the bren sights. I just can’t use them, since they force you to tunnelvision really hard.
Its a matter of only bringing up sights when you already have a good idea of where your targets are, and then lowering them as soon as you are done dealing with those targets. If you need the sights up to be able to acquire your targets in the first place, you probably don’t want to be using an OVP in that situation.
For the Bren I can see it being more of an issue, though, because LMGs tend to work best in situations where you do want to be scoped in all the time, but its kind of like having hair in your face. Eventually your brain gets better at patching up the blocked part of your vision. You still have a blind spot, but as long as you scan around it doesn’t hamper you too much.
Edit: Oof, yeah those bren sights are nasty. Almost totally eats the right side of the screen. The OVP is significantly less problematic than that, I’d reckon.
Bonus fun fact: Video games generally depict sight apertures as much wider than they actually are. In real life, stuff like Garand sights have tiny little openings at the back, which actually helps the user focus down range more effectively, making accurate aiming easier. In a video game where the subconscious process by which your brain focuses your vision down a narrow gap doesn’t exist, those tiny holes go from being helpful to hurtful.
I mean, sure, but I’d say that in a situation like that, you can just hipfire. For midrange, that’s not a very effective strategy, as it lowers your reaction time considerably. The sights are a clear disadvantage, and imo just make the gun feel like a discount PPD box.
Oh the OVP is absolutely a discount PPD. I mean, it has a similar reload time, and nearly a third the ammo capacity, sights disregarded. It hits a bit harder per shot, and might be more accurate, but if I were outfitting a particular squad and had both as options, I’d pick the PPD every time. In context though, the OVP offers an option of giving up magazine capacity and sights for overwhelming firepower compared to the two berreta options, and that’s what makes me like it so much. Its a really cool side grade that offers capabilities that surpass everything else in the campaign in a few respects, at the cost of suffering in others.
I’ve not gotten to the M1A1 myself, but I for sure prefer the OVP over the Sten and Lanchester. The sten is generally a mess, being inaccurate and hard to control without upgrades, and the Lanchester is serviceable but otherwise unremarkable. They just don’t have the lethality of the OVP.
Also, I desperatly want to datamine enlisted myself to get to the bottom of PPD vs MP40 accuracy. The only real evidence I’ve seen of that claim was a screenshot that showed “Offset” values for the two guns, which, importantly, is not how the game files actually describe accuracy (My understanding is that its a fixed offset from where the sights are and where the bullets come out, or something to that effect, rather than the random spread that is accuracy). Sadly, the tool that people used to use for it seems to not be up to date for enlisted these days, and I’ve not had the time to try fixing it myself.
Ok. I quite like the lanchester, and I don’t mind the sten either. Nothing amazing and innaccurate, but for a starter smg it feels suprisingly usable.
I’d say the PPD is more accurate simply from experience. Also did a range test once and I hit a lot better with it. And that was with the PPD-38, which is the worse one.
My poor, data obsessed brain remains unsatisfied with ingame experience or testing in terms of accuracy, even when comparing weapons that I myself have used extensively. The numbers are there! The hard, factual truth! It taunts me by being just barely out of reach, the information on my computer but in a format I can’t read. Getting a hold of the numbers at this point is as much or more about satisfying my demanding curiosity as it is about helping me make an informed statement about balance.
(But yeah, even if the mp40 does have an accuracy advantage, which it may not, the difference probably isn’t large enough to seriously impact their relative power. Hitting 20% more doesn’t mean much if the other guy fires 3 times as much, after all. I just want to actually know that, instead of believing it.)