- User Since
- May 6 2013, 12:23 PM (472 w, 4 d)
May 10 2016
zGuba, please read all info in the report before commenting. The report is in relation to POA/POI in relation to the ARCO optics and the given references in the BDC.
This said, the 100 and 200m reference points are not accurate to current ballistic trajectory. This has been stated in the initial report, as well as in notes.
Also notice, when determining MOA drop from line of sight, you must be using the same dope on optic. So you can not compare the same line of sight top of an optic at 100 yard zero and 36y/300meter zero.
I believe it's honestly a combination of both, but it's honestly hard to tell. Even more so, because the primary round in the game (6.5mm and 6.5mm caseless) is an unknown cartridge with an unknown weight. There's a HUGE difference between the 6.5mm Grendel and the 6.5mm Swedish in terms of trajectory.
However, this is an issue that's been reported since Arma 2 days (see thread here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?104715-More-Thermal-Scopes-and-Zeroing&p=1728790&viewfull=1#post1728790 ).
I would also like to see, different trajectories for different caliber bullets, but I don't know how taxing that would be on the game.
I also changed the title to more closely reflect the issue I'm describing.
Heruon: I have been told that on certain modded weapons the POA/POI is different and seems to emulate this better (in particular the HK 417 from the R3F pack). However, I JUST tested this using the default guns in the current stable release.
At 100m POI seems to be slightly higher, but not much (about what it should be for 200m. At 200m it is poa/poi. At 300m it is POA/POI, and from here the BDC accounts for accurate drop.
We should be seeing, with a 300m zero, in the case of a 5.56x45 62gr m855, a variance of about 5inches at 200m. This is not reproduced.
Get 200m away from a building. Use windows as a xy axis. Shoot. Move to 300m. Shoot. The poa/poi is almost identical.
The heavier the round, the more drastic the arc. A 6.5mm round would be hitting even higher.
Also note, if the Devs had this implemented they probably would have said so by now stating that I'm crazy.
Whether or not there IS an arch, if there is, it is negligible compared to a true ballistics arc. I should not be able to shoot, and hit a target at 200m in the head poa/poi with a 6.5mm round.
If you truly want to test this, you must use the ARCO. The TIP of the chevron is the 100m mark, Middle is 200m, and center is 300m.
Heruon: I tested it using the stairs at the airport. At 100m, using the 100m aiming point on the ARCO reticle. I'll aim ABOVE the stair using the proper portion of the chevron, and it hits the stair. I put it at the 300m hashmark, and it goes right where I want it.
I'm not going to say there is NO arch, however, as I stated in the original report... the trajectory is not lined up to the ARCO's reference points, which makes it an absolutely useless optic. Why put an optic in the game, on a set of rifles, which it can't be doped in for?
Either the reticle needs to be reworked, or preferably, they increase the curve of the trajectory to make it match.
To clear something up, the failures of the M4/m16 weapon system is not due to the Direct Impingement gas system. The DI gas system increases the risk, due to the increase of carbon and unburnt powder in the gasses being shot back into the bolt carrier group. A piston gas system seperates these two.
The majority of malfunctions are caused due to the bolt system in the rifle, which utilizes rotating locking lugs. Any dust/mud/dirt will cause the bolt to not seat upon extracting the round, causing a failure to fire. Severe build up carbon/dust/dirt can cause failures to feed. I just want to get that debate settled.
I would, however, love to see a malfunction system implemented. I would prefer it to vary standard FTF/FTE's where immediate action is required (SPORTS/Tap Rack Bang), and the occasional double feed requiring remedial action. Only one button to fix, but the time to fix is drastically changed.