Rear sights: adjustable iron sights, and small holographic sights, which would generally be long gun rear sights, or slide mounted sights.
Front sight blocks: Which would be basically the same as the front sights currently in 4.X. Some front sight blocks would allow an iron sight to be attached, either allowing that iron sight to be canted or elevated.
Iron sights: small posts, beads, and concentric sights, for pistol front and rear sights, shotgun beads, and to attach to some front sight blocks.
Scope mounts: would act as an intermediary between certain scopes, and there attachment points, allowing an additional way to adapt those scopes to different weapons. Some antique rifles might have attachment points exclusively for scope mounts
I had a hard time following your post, I admit, but some of the suggestions look redundant as far as I could tell.
To start, I wasnât sure what this was supposed to mean or imply, though I got confused a bit before that anyways. Iâm kinda assuming Iâm just being thrown off by the whole " âfront sightâ attachments were renamed âiron sightâ attachments" and that youâre really just asking for it to be separated into front sight blocks and front sight posts.
Personally, Iâd rather just leave it as is since you could always just use the front and rear sights from the same gun anyways. That, and most iron sights probably wonât look unusable together anyways.
Iâm still confused as to what the whole âactually line upâ is about, but Iâm assuming you mean one vertically obstructing the view of the other, and not actual misalignment along the rail itself.
iirc this is still being considered/is likely and was mentioned by Nelson in the past.
Why couldnât it just use the normal optic attachment hook instead?
The Eaglefire front sight would be too tall to use with a pistol rear sight, so I suggest making pistol front and rear sights, and shotgun beads separate from the current âfront sightâ attachment point. To allow for more customization without redundancies, I suggest allowing the current front sights (canted and Eaglefire front sights) to be customized with different posts, beads, and rings. The rear sight attachments are larger and more complex than the small rear sights typically attached to pistols, although some pistols have been made to use larger tangent leaf rear sights or to use some of the smaller red dot sights on the market.
Generally slide mounted holographic sights are smaller than rail mounted ones and arenât compatible with rail systems.
Sorry about that, I was revising it when you commented (not sure what redundancies you were talking about, except maybe the TLDR)
So, what I mean is that each optic hook and optic attachment is configured for whatever rail it is meant to be, or meant to be placed on (ie: a Picatinny rail). However, it doesnât have to be an actual ârailâ per se.
Using Unturned 3 as an example: firearms have actions. There are some bolt actions, pump actions, etc., but there is also âString Actionâ (used by bows) despite not actually having an action mechanism.
So in a nutshell: it should work fine with the current systems, as pistol sights could just be straight-up restricted to pistols (and anything that would adapt it to compatible with rifles).
My apologies. I meant that it looked like some of your suggestions have have already been implemented into version 4, but I couldnât tell due to some difficulties I had with understanding the post.
Looking back at it now, a majority of what you are asking for is not already implemented or planned. HoweverâŚ
even though I believe Nelson may have said in some way that he didnât want to be overkill with the amount of sights you could have, it is already possible to make attachments that accept more attachments on them.
Handguards and barrels use this (which allows for things like front sights, tacticals, underbarrels, and muzzles). I donât think heâll use the system on too much else though, so it likely wouldnât fulfill to your suggestion.
Something planned/discussed/mentioned, however, is being able to make something meant for one rail fit on a different rail.
What? Unturned 3.X doesnât even have actions, the weapons donât even have bones. That section was completely unrelated to sights, and to everything youâre saying.
Iâm not saying any changes should be made to the rear sight attachment point already in 4.X, only suggesting that it doesnât seem compatible with pistols, except ones modified to attach precision iron sights and holographic sights, and that since such pistols exist, perhaps it could be the attachment point for some holographic sights.
Do you mean the amount attached to one weapon at a specific time, or the amount of attachments that are compatible with each weapon? If the latter I think you misinterpreted something. If the former, nothing I suggested would allow for more sights to be mounted than would already be possible, having the front sight block and post as separate items, wouldnât allow more sights to be attached, only more customization of the front sight, and having rail space on scope mounts (which I only tentatively suggested) wouldnât provide enough rail space to mount more scopes than already possible, only enough for something small like a light or laser.
All ranged weapons in Unturned 3 have an action (they cannot fire if one is not present in the .dat file), and was used as an example to explain that you donât need to make a new attachment hook just because something might not actually use typical rail systems.
(ie: The physical nature doesnât actually impact whatâs possible under preexisting hooks because itâs really just the itemâs file data in actuality.)
The former, regarding rail space on scope mounts (allow things like tacticals and stacked sights) as you tentatively suggested.
Even if you donât have full confidence in a suggestion, that wonât stop other people from discussing it to flesh it out more (or demolish it). Itâs nice to have a little bit of extra context anyways.
The rear sight attachment is already in 4.X. The front sight attachment is already in 4.X. Pistol iron sights and rifle front sight blocks would never occupy the same position as eachother on any weapon, so I see no point in the using the same attachment points.
I suppose I did have to flesh out the idea, in that I had to explain the fact that you canât just infinitely stack scopes. What did you demolish?
Lemme reword. I donât see a need to use a different hook (the rear sight hook) when one already exists for that purpose (the optic attachment hook), unless Iâm missing something (possibly need to be visually shown) that would restrict its usage like that. As far as the game is concerned technically, itâd work fine.
I did not assume this. I brought up that Nelson may have said he didnât want an âoverkillâ amount of sights on guns. I tried to refrain from giving my own thoughts on it.
I didnât demolish it either, thereâs just two ways to it (although one could technically flesh something out and then demolish it anyways). Most people (at least I) should(?) be responding on the forums quite openly and casually, so forgive me if some tidbits are more jokey than anything else.
âFlesh outâ pertains to anyone and everyone. Itâs a board for discussion, after all, so itâs nice to be able to just toss things around a bit, even hesitantly. I promise you I meant no ill intent or any such things within any of the above replies (although itâs hard for me to tell if you think thatâs the case).
Iâm suggesting that it wouldnât normally be usable on pistols, except pistols with a special slot for holographic sights and adjustable rear sights.
I didnât think you were attacking my ideas (though maybe you were attacking what you thought were my ideas) until you mentioned demolishing them.
I had a hard time following your post, I admit, but some of the suggestions look redundant as far as I could tell. 
Itâs nice to have a little bit of extra context anyways.
