FHQ Accessories pack

[Spaceman0372 19]

What Savage said. The ACOG reticule is designed so you can adjust your point of aim based off the range (hence why the numbers are on the reticule). If someone is 400m away, you put the "4" line on the target. It works the other way, as well... If there's a man standing x meters away and you line up one of the reticules and it goes from shoulder to shoulder, that reticule tells you how far away the guy is in meters. It's not perfect, but it gets you on target pretty quick.

I know how an ACOG works but BIS had the sighting right for the other optics set for 300m. Thats what myself and most people I know keeps ours set at on deployments because its the perfect middle. Most engagements happen 350m+ and if you need, you have the CQB sight up top. Its just difficult to use in the game set for 100m because the aimbot AI start firing from 500m+ away and before I know it, I have to raise high enough that the enemy isnt even in the sight at all.

[Alwarren 2767]

Alwarrn If you ever get the time for new mods here is one Iam sure we would all like to see.

http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product2.php?id=ACOG&mid=6%20x%2048

I'll think about it, right now, I didn't want to invest too much time into the accessories and concentrate on the ACR's, I am trying to make a custom reload animation for that but animating in O2 is a PITA, and I might look into adding animation support to my Blender toolbox

I know how an ACOG works but BIS had the sighting right for the other optics set for 300m. Thats what myself and most people I know keeps ours set at on deployments because its the perfect middle. Most engagements happen 350m+ and if you need, you have the CQB sight up top. Its just difficult to use in the game set for 100m because the aimbot AI start firing from 500m+ away and before I know it, I have to raise high enough that the enemy isnt even in the sight at all.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the zeroing for an ACOG depends on the retcile. This particular reticle has the center at 100, the first drop marker at 200, etc. The red chevron type has the tip at 100, the inner edge of the chevron tip at 200 and the top of the red line at 300, at least typically so. Any other zeroing will mess with the numbered drop markers...?

[LemTheGentleman 11]

I'll think about it, right now, I didn't want to invest too much time into the accessories and concentrate on the ACR's, I am trying to make a custom reload animation for that but animating in O2 is a PITA, and I might look into adding animation support to my Blender toolbox

Correct me if I am wrong, but the zeroing for an ACOG depends on the retcile. This particular reticle has the center at 100, the first drop marker at 200, etc. The red chevron type has the tip at 100, the inner edge of the chevron tip at 200 and the top of the red line at 300, at least typically so. Any other zeroing will mess with the numbered drop markers...?

The US Marine Corps zeroes their weapons at 300 meters, and this is also the default zero that BIS has set for the in-game weapons. I think changing the zero for the optics to 300 meters would be a welcome and much appreciated tweak. Love the optics alot Al, just wanted to ask though, would you consider making an Aimpoint Comp m3?

---------- Post added at 10:50 ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 ----------

I'll think about it, right now, I didn't want to invest too much time into the accessories and concentrate on the ACR's, I am trying to make a custom reload animation for that but animating in O2 is a PITA, and I might look into adding animation support to my Blender toolbox

Correct me if I am wrong, but the zeroing for an ACOG depends on the retcile. This particular reticle has the center at 100, the first drop marker at 200, etc. The red chevron type has the tip at 100, the inner edge of the chevron tip at 200 and the top of the red line at 300, at least typically so. Any other zeroing will mess with the numbered drop markers...?

This optic that you have modelled in the addon comes with two different reticles calibrated for the .223 round. You modelled the one zeroed to 100 meters. http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA01NSN-RMR

What people want is for the reticle to be changed to this http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA31F-RMR as this one is much more widely adopted by the military as far as i know and a whole lot more useful.

[Alwarren 2767]

The US Marine Corps zeroes their weapons at 300 meters, and this is also the default zero that BIS has set for the in-game weapons. I think changing the zero for the optics to 300 meters would be a welcome and much appreciated tweak. Love the optics alot Al, just wanted to ask though, would you consider making an Aimpoint Comp m3?

As I said, I might add some stuff later but right now have other priorities. As for the zeroing...

This optic that you have modelled in the addon comes with two different reticles calibrated for the .223 round. You modelled the one zeroed to 100 meters. http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA01NSN-RMR

What people want is for the reticle to be changed to this http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA31F-RMR as this one is much more widely adopted by the military as far as i know and a whole lot more useful.

I would have wanted the red chevron, and as a matter of fact, I already did one, but it had issues with rendering. da12thmonkey gave me a few pointers I will have to try out to fix the issue. The chevron was zeroed at 300, with the top of the red line being in the center (300). It had problems with the illumination (BIS retciles don't have illumination).

[LemTheGentleman 11]

As I said, I might add some stuff later but right now have other priorities. As for the zeroing...

I would have wanted the red chevron, and as a matter of fact, I already did one, but it had issues with rendering. da12thmonkey gave me a few pointers I will have to try out to fix the issue. The chevron was zeroed at 300, with the top of the red line being in the center (300). It had problems with the illumination (BIS retciles don't have illumination).

Oh alright, thats understandable. Could you not just try doing it like the ARCO optic?

[Alwarren 2767]

Oh alright, thats understandable. Could you not just try doing it like the ARCO optic?

I'm weird in that respect (well I admit, in a lot of other aspects as well :)), I want it to work correctly if at all possible, or I won't do it :) I'll try it again with what da12thmonkey said, we'll see how that goes. Currently, though, my time is limited.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

This optic that you have modelled in the addon comes with two different reticles calibrated for the .223 round. You modelled the one zeroed to 100 meters. http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA01NSN-RMR

What people want is for the reticle to be changed to this http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA31F-RMR as this one is much more widely adopted by the military as far as i know and a whole lot more useful.

Al modelled the first one (TA01), so the reticle he has used is correct for the version of the sight he has modelled.

You'll notice that the second sight (TA31) has a red fibre-optic strip running across the top for illuminating the chevron reticle - something that is not present on Al's ACOG model so it shouldn't really have the red chevron reticle.

The big difference between BIS RCO+ARCO and TA01 reticles is that the horizontal line of the crosshair which shows the median of the vertical axis of the optics, is moved down to the 300m aiming mark, rather than the 100m aiming mark on the ACOG - This is why the BIS sights are given a 300m zero. The top of the reticles (tip of the green chevron on the ARCO and the tip of the red-bar above the dot in the RCO/HAMR) still indicate the point-of aim for 100m shooting - they are just pushed above the horizon line.

Giving the TA01 a 300m zero would be senseless without arbitrarily moving the horizon lines of the reticle down to the 300m aiming mark and moving the whole reticle up again to align the new horizon position with the median of the vertical axis.

I suppose you could do it more readily on the TA31 optic as it doesn't have a horizon line - you'd just have to make sure the bottom of the chevron was aligned with the median and it'd function the same as the ARCO.

[Alwarren 2767]

Al modelled the first one (TA01), so the reticle he has used is correct for the version of the sight he has modelled.

You'll notice that the second sight (TA31) has a red fibre-optic strip running across the top for illuminating the chevron reticle - something that is not present on Al's ACOG model so it shouldn't really have the red chevron reticle.

I chose that one since the red strip ACOG's are prohibited in Germany :)

I suppose you could do it more readily on the TA31 optic as it doesn't have a horizon line - you'd just have to make sure the bottom of the chevron was aligned with the median and it'd function the same as the ARCO.

To be honest, I don't really see the big issue with the zeroing. You'd adapt to the sight anyway, i.e. you need to know the reticle and act accordingly. With the drop markers, you'd not care about the zeroing but rather to pick the right line I suppose :)

[LemTheGentleman 11]

Al modelled the first one (TA01), so the reticle he has used is correct for the version of the sight he has modelled.

You'll notice that the second sight (TA31) has a red fibre-optic strip running across the top for illuminating the chevron reticle - something that is not present on Al's ACOG model so it shouldn't really have the red chevron reticle.

The big difference between BIS RCO+ARCO and TA01 reticles is that the horizontal line of the crosshair which shows the median of the vertical axis of the optics, is moved down to the 300m aiming mark, rather than the 100m aiming mark on the ACOG - This is why the BIS sights are given a 300m zero. The top of the reticles (tip of the green chevron on the ARCO and the tip of the red-bar above the dot in the RCO/HAMR) still indicate the point-of aim for 100m shooting - they are just pushed above the horizon line.

Giving the TA01 a 300m zero would be senseless without arbitrarily moving the horizon lines of the reticle down to the 300m aiming mark and moving the whole reticle up again to align the new horizon position with the median of the vertical axis.

I suppose you could do it more readily on the TA31 optic as it doesn't have a horizon line - you'd just have to make sure the bottom of the chevron was aligned with the median and it'd function the same as the ARCO.

yeah I know all that bud :P

---------- Post added at 14:29 ---------- Previous post was at 13:23 ----------

I chose that one since the red strip ACOG's are prohibited in Germany :)

Don't you just love those awesome gun laws? :P

[Alwarren 2767]

Don't you just love those awesome gun laws? :P

Believe it or not, it's because the illumination strip is radioactive, and the emission is over the acceptable maximum in Germany. At least that is what I read somewhere.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Weird - my understanding was the strip was just a piece of fibre-optic material (plastic or glass usually) that uses sunlight to make it glow in the day.

I'd have thought the radiation concern would be the tritium lamp used to illuminate the reticle at night (Tritium being a radioactive isotope of Hydrogen) but all ACOG models use Tritium. Unless there's something about the TA31's construction with the fibre-optic line that means the Tritium 'leaks' a bit more than on other models of sight.

[Alwarren 2767]

Weird - my understanding was the strip was just a piece of fibre-optic material (plastic or glass usually) that uses sunlight to make it glow in the day.

I'd have thought the radiation concern would be the tritium lamp used to illuminate the reticle at night (Tritium being a radioactive isotope of Hydrogen) but all ACOG models use Tritium. Unless there's something about the TA31's construction with the fibre-optic line that means the Tritium 'leaks' a bit more than on other models of sight.

I'll take your word for it, I don't really know. I had checked a few web sites for reference images and never saw any of the fibre optic'ed ones on German sites, and had previously red about the restrictions, so I assumed the material was in there.

Just guesswork though.

[instagoat 133]

Just wanted to note this, the new dev version has added new sights for the SMG's. When using the extension pbo from the last version of the optics, these new sights do not work anymore (They´re Identical to the normal versions, apart from zeroing, so I don´t mind much since I do not use the SMG's a lot anyways. Just wanted to note this.)

I think the inflexible config setup is fouling things up, isn´t it? Has there been any feedback on the ticket by a dev?

[gatordev 219]

This optic that you have modelled in the addon comes with two different reticles calibrated for the .223 round. You modelled the one zeroed to 100 meters. http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA01NSN-RMR

What people want is for the reticle to be changed to this http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA31F-RMR as this one is much more widely adopted by the military as far as i know and a whole lot more useful.

Ahh, I see where the "confusion" is now. Didn't realize the TA31 had a 300m zero (I only have a TA01NSN).

The US Marine Corps zeroes their weapons at 300 meters, and this is also the default zero that BIS has set for the in-game weapons. I think changing the zero for the optics to 300 meters would be a welcome and much appreciated tweak. Love the optics alot Al, just wanted to ask though, would you consider making an Aimpoint Comp m3?

---------- Post added at 10:50 ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 ----------

As 12th said, the USMC zeros for 300m on optics that actually zero. The ACOG "zeroes" for the center of the cross hair, which could be 100 or 300, depending on the reticule. But I get you know that. Again, just clarifying. At the end of the day, if the ballistics worked correctly in-game, if you zeroed at 100m, you'd still hit at ~300m (for 5.56), but I've found the game engine doesn't completely agree with reality in that sense.

Sorry for the OT, Alwarren...regardless of the above, I'm still a big fan.

[LemTheGentleman 11]

At the end of the day, if the ballistics worked correctly in-game, if you zeroed at 100m, you'd still hit at ~300m (for 5.56), but I've found the game engine doesn't completely agree with reality in that sense.

Sorry for the OT, Alwarren...regardless of the above, I'm still a big fan.

Yeah not completely :P but yeah Al, you don't need to go out and make a whole new optic if you're busy but changing the zero on some of the other optics would be appreciated. Regardless, great addon bud.

[Alwarren 2767]

Just wanted to note this, the new dev version has added new sights for the SMG's. When using the extension pbo from the last version of the optics, these new sights do not work anymore (They´re Identical to the normal versions, apart from zeroing, so I don´t mind much since I do not use the SMG's a lot anyways. Just wanted to note this.)

I think the inflexible config setup is fouling things up, isn´t it? Has there been any feedback on the ticket by a dev?

Unfortunately, yes. The way things are implemented now I will need to update the pack each and every time something in the main game changes, and even after release of the game, it will still be impossible to use one pack in conjunction with another unless someone makes a combined pack, which is made horribly difficult by the number of different combinations. Bottom line, the current system is and remains broken, and it will be a horror for users and modders alike once more attachment packs become available, or weapons that come with their own attachments.

No feedback on the ticket as far as I am aware. I PM'ed DnA about it once, and he replied but no change either. What bothers me is that the problems we're facing now were entirely foreseeable, and as a matter of fact the first thing that went through my head when I saw how it works was "this is going to be problematic". I am really not sure why it was done like this, more so since we already had the same issues with the magazines in Arma 2.

@all no worries about the OT. As I said, the zeroing depends on the reticle, and the one I picked has a zero line of 100, not much I can do about that other than remaking the reticle, which, at this point, I'd like to avoid :)

[gatordev 219]

@all no worries about the OT. As I said, the zeroing depends on the reticle, and the one I picked has a zero line of 100, not much I can do about that other than remaking the reticle, which, at this point, I'd like to avoid :)

So, I'm an idiot. I still spend more time in A2 than A3, so I hadn't really messed a whole lot with the default optics and guns, mostly with A2 guns and your M4s and optics. Last night, after reading here, I started playing around and now see what the others are saying. I didn't realize all the other BIS fixed optics had a 300m zero on the reticule. I thought you guys were just talking about the guns themselves. Last night was the first time I got to mess with the RHARD guns, and now I see what everyone is talking about.

FHQ optics on FHQ guns...perfection

FHQ optics on BIS/RHARD guns...the reticule doesn't remotely match due to the zero.

BIS optics on RHARD guns...good to go.

NOTE: This isn't a complaint, as neither Alwarren or RH/Ardy said they were supposed to be compatible. I just didn't catch the difference and was arguing the wrong thing earlier. Sorry about that.

An easy fix (for me, anyway): don't mix and match when making missions. Problem solved, for now, at least.

[Alwarren 2767]

FHQ optics on BIS/RHARD guns...the reticule doesn't remotely match due to the zero.

Well that is weird since the zeroing should be on the optic, not the gun. I'll have to try that out. It should tell you the zeroing in the ammo panel, though...?

[LemTheGentleman 11]

Also, the Micro T1 and the Comp M4 are pretty useable for me because those two are zeroed to 200 meters but really, it would be good if all the non magnified optics were set to 300. Maybe in the next update?

[instagoat 133]

Unfortunately, yes. The way things are implemented now I will need to update the pack each and every time something in the main game changes, and even after release of the game, it will still be impossible to use one pack in conjunction with another unless someone makes a combined pack, which is made horribly difficult by the number of different combinations. Bottom line, the current system is and remains broken, and it will be a horror for users and modders alike once more attachment packs become available, or weapons that come with their own attachments.

No feedback on the ticket as far as I am aware. I PM'ed DnA about it once, and he replied but no change either. What bothers me is that the problems we're facing now were entirely foreseeable, and as a matter of fact the first thing that went through my head when I saw how it works was "this is going to be problematic". I am really not sure why it was done like this, more so since we already had the same issues with the magazines in Arma 2.

That sucks. I´d hoped that somebody actually talked to somebody at some point, but it wasn´t adressed in the Alpha, and we´re already in the beta now.

I am beginning to think that we won´t see this changed anymore. So much for community attachments working universally.

[gliptal 25]

Oh god finally:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2766

Can we get a statement on this? We are already beginning to see problems with addons for the weapons as far as compatibility, and weapon creators will be pretty restricted for the attachments if this remains as it is... it´d be really neat to get something official on this at some point.

We are aware of the issue and would like to implement some generally useful solution, but I cannot tell anything about possible schedule of that :icon_twisted:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?122794-ARMA-3-development-blog-amp-reveals&p=2443687&viewfull=1#post2443687

Yay!

[gatordev 219]

Well that is weird since the zeroing should be on the optic, not the gun. I'll have to try that out. It should tell you the zeroing in the ammo panel, though...?

Correct. Most of my "testing" (sitting 100m from a building and shooting at a fixed point on the wall) was with the RHARD guns and yours, but I did mess with the MXsssss's a little bit. The zero would be in the ammo counter to the right and wouldn't "match" your optic's performance.

Let me mess with it again tonight in a little more scientific manner so I can give you a better explanation. Again, I understand there was never an intention for them to be compatible (due to BIS' lack of standardization of attachments that you've worked to try and address), so I'm just offering the info for informational purposes.

[brandylion 10]

Love this mod! :D

[gatordev 219]

I didn't get a chance to mess with the optics as planned until this afternoon.

Here's what I came up with. This was done at 100m from the control tower on Stratis so I could see the impact. All zeros are determined from the in-game ammo counter. I used the RHARD M4 instead of the MX just because I like it better:

Using RHARD M4:

FHQ ACOG point of impact was at ~4 mark on the reticule (400m) with 100m zero.

FHQ EOtech impacts low (on lower dot) with 200m zero. Same thing happens with BIS EOTech on RHARD. This is opposite of reality for the 5.56 cartridge, but I can live with it given the BIS engine limitations.

FHQ EOTech w/ G33 point of impact is at the center dot with 300m zero. This totally makes sense with 5.56.

FHQ MK 4 is good to go with various zeros.

BIS optics on FHQ M4:

All points of impact match the zero.

FHQ ACOG on MX (just to confirm):

Point of impact is at the ~4 mark on the reticule (400m) with a 100m zero.

So it looks like the ACOG is really the only one that doesn't cross over. Certainly not the end of the world and easily overcome with some planning on the mission maker's part.

[Spaceman0372 19]

Any chance of modeling an actual Elcan Specter DR? I know the game has the ARCO but its so bland compare to a sprecter. Pic for reference: http://s684.photobucket.com/user/JSK_2009/media/ElcanB.jpg.html