While the vote on the thread speaks for itself -- as obviously many voting here have actual experience with the instruments described, apprehend the facts correctly, and don't use unsupported evidence to make a case; the two subjective posts above should be addressed to avoid vote confusion; though I'm not in any way criticizing personal preference...

The 'benefit' of correctly converged optics shadow mask include that (contrary to samsamm777's comment) a circular shadow mask is technically correct, more realistic, more authentic, and is easier to scale to the FOV limitations of the game across different resolutions and aspect ratios. The 'advantage' offered is scale is preserved in the game across all mechanics of unaided, monocular/scope, or binocular optics and the correct converged shape is used. 'Advantage' as in out of scale 'advantage' can and should be obviated and is easier to scale correctly (and fairly), across more displays and resolutions using a round mask.

Inimical_rize's comments about quad tube NVG like the L-3 GPNVG-18 are also technically wrong, when you look through a system like the L-3 GPNVG-18 you are primarily looking through the two center tubes that like all NVG have to be properly converged to be useful. Looking forward you're view is quite conventional and appears as a circle, with two 'side view' mirror like images that you really have to turn your eyes to properly see or use.

Panoramic NVG are impractical; they: weigh more then twice the equivalent binocular NVG, have less then half the battery life per unit weight of binocular NVG, the peripheral optics are of only marginal value adding useless exhausting mass and inertia to an already overly encumbered helmet, a rifle can not be aimed through the peripheral optics, and the added optics constrict the Operator's pupils with useless stray light impairing acuity. Most importantly panoramic NVG are not depicted in ArmA III (so far) so are not even germane to the tracker article.

Reference:

http://tnvc.com/shop/l-3-gpnvg-18/

The direction more advanced NVG optics are taking is along the lines of the O'Gara Group AN/PVS-21; these are very compact, very rugged, long endurance, low mass, low inertia (mass is closer to the Operator's face), and achieve very useful non distorting high resolution FOV of 40° that don't constrict the Operator's pupils with excessive useless illumination.

Reference:

http://www.sts-eo.com/ANPVS21.php

Only known game to do this correctly to date is R6 Raven Shield...

Per Blu3sman's remarks: the 'issues' can be atomized even further per his comment with respect to incorrect:

· character lean kinesiology
· weapon handling/canting animation
· camera axis rotation
· infinite camera and animation translation speed
· ballistic performance of canted weapons

The scope and context of the issue is offering idealized, standardized presentation of infantry weapon handling and perspective that that reflects the real intentions of infantry weapon handling.