laplacian on 29/4/2002 at 21:24
Okay, I have read all of the old threads on this issue (I think), but I am still a bit unclear. Some people have pointed out that if you put a scope and a laser sight on the pistol, then the *dead-on* accuracy of the laser sight vanishes. My question is:
Do you lose the *dead-on* laser sight accuracy just by having a scope mounted on the pistol?
Or do you lose this accuracy just when the scope is engaged? (So it is okay to have both the scope and laser sight on the pistol, just as long as you don't use them at the same time.)
And does anyone have any hints or tricks that they use to see the red dot at medium or far distances?
Singing Dancing Moose on 29/4/2002 at 22:28
My own experiences with this matter are that the laser sight alone gives any weapon instant pin-point accuracy, but attaching a scope to the weapon (or having attached laser sight to a weapon that already had a scope) completly nullifies this effect. It doesn't matter whether you're zoomed in or not, the laser sight is nothing but a red dot once you have a scope attached.
As for using the laser sight at long range, remember that the dot usually appears right in the middle of the crosshairs as it is, so even if you can't really see the dot, you can still fire as if you could.
A bit off your original topic, I believe the scope gives weapons pin-point accuracy as well, at least in that the bullet will always strike right on the crosshairs while it is enabled (of course the wobbling of the scope can throw your aim). If you really need a weapon for long range attacks, you might just try equiping one pistol with the scope, and the other with the laser sight.
laplacian on 30/4/2002 at 22:14
Okay, then if the red dot appears right in the middle of the crosshairs, why bother having a laser sight at all? Would you get the same accuracy if you aim the intersection of the crosshairs at the target? Or does the laser sight increase the accuracy just by being there? I guess my real question is the following: does the bullet always go to the spot marked by the crosshairs whether or not there is a laser sight?
Thanks for the tips.
Singing Dancing Moose on 30/4/2002 at 22:32
Without the laser sight, the bullet will always hit somewhere within the area the crosshairs encompass, not necessarily right where the cross-hairs intersect though. With the sight attached and turned on, the bullet will always strike where the dot is, namely dead center in the crosshairs, so yes, just having the laser sight there increases accuracy. As I mentioned before though, having both the scope and the laser sight on one weapon nullifies the accuracy granted by the sight.
Of course, if you are a rifles master with an assault rifle you've modded for accuracy you might not need the sight, as you're skilled enough to be perfectly accurate without it. However, I find that neither of the two pistols available will ever gain perfect accuracy without a laser sight regardless of how many mods you give them and how high your skill, so it's worth sticking a laser on them.
laplacian on 30/4/2002 at 22:48
Ahhh, very good, very helpful. I will have to try that on a new game. Thanks.
ICEBreaker on 1/5/2002 at 06:42
Does this mean that with the laser sights activated, there is no need to steady the aim and let the reticles close?
Dragonclaw on 1/5/2002 at 11:35
Exactly.
Though you don't want to shoot while running, the laser moves around then.
But as soon as you stand still, it will return to it's notrmal point, and no need to close in.
ICEBreaker on 1/5/2002 at 17:29
Wow this makes it a very powerful mod especially early in the game when we are low on pistol skills.
SubJeff on 3/5/2002 at 08:16
No no no no no.
The stealth pistol + laser sight = very accurate.
The problem is you this.
Mounting scope on the pistol, AFTER you have the laser sight, NULLIFIES the laser WHEN THE SCOPE IS NOT ENGAGED.
In other words in normal pistol mode.
Why is it important? Because the pistol with laser is very, very accurate. This is NOT neccessarily the case with pistol + scope.
Singing Dancing Moose on 3/5/2002 at 15:38
I don't believe anyone said otherwise, SE.
