new tank optiks .....

[jgbtl292 0]

sorry i have with the message a little hope for better more realer sights ... and now absolutely the worst off nothing ...

now we have have future optik crosses targets far away go hide behind the cross, reproach with absolutely no marks in the optics is a lucky game ....

what is so hard to make the optic sights a little more real ? this helping for set a good hit on your target . markings in the optics are not for joke ...........

ok no hope the thought-out go forward in arma ..... bad bad bad ...

and the urban tank lol with the smaler caliber .. sorry a urban has a shorter gun ! not o a smaller caliber with the same long gun. have you a dreamer as military consultant - thats a joke .. and the gun has the same strong that the other 120 mm - for what this tank ? the better way you give the old slammer a command mg - this version is absolute a fail sry ........

2 shots ap and the big house is a ruin ........ dudes what make you with this game ? this is a serious question ....

[nodunit 397]

The tank optics are actually very realistic for what an actual tanks optics would look like, they are generally very barebones.

Now if only they could just remove the radar and set the turret angle and maybe bearing to be part of the optic rather than HUD, it would be perfect.

Still looking around for other optics, naturally they are rather tricky to find but its important to remember these the optics would be designed for modernized tanks with lasers and rangefinders rather than having numbers engraved that had to be used to estimate ranges because there was no such equipment.

[msy 22]

The tank optics are actually very realistic for what an actual tanks optics would look like, they are generally very barebones.

Now if only they could just remove the radar and set the turret angle and maybe bearing to be part of the optic rather than HUD, it would be perfect.

Still looking around for other optics, naturally they are rather tricky to find but its important to remember these the optics would be designed for modernized tanks with lasers and rangefinders rather than having numbers engraved that had to be used to estimate ranges because there was no such equipment.

At last the truth is that OP is out of date;)

[jgbtl292 0]

for the gunner sure ?? - sorry you have more than a simple cross in a gunner sight ! - nato standart in the most west tanks , apc , ifv , and automnom weaponsstations

or the east side -

arma has no firec ontroll computer only a stabilised mode. i need more for hits far away on a driving target then a simple cross ;)

Edited March 6, 2014 by JgBtl292

[nodunit 397]

Gunners generally have the crosshair which changes based on zoom level, readout of the laser rangefinder and some form of bearing, thats it. Elevation and other data is generally shown elsewhere inside the tank, through a fire control computer or something along those lines.

I don't know where you are getting "crosshair only" Looking at the slammers optics I see a crosshair, a mode indicator, FOV indicator, laser range and elevation.

The bearing is handled by the HUD's radar which I'll admit could do with some changing, I'd rather see a heading as opposed to rely on the radar.

The third video is from the primary optics of the M1A2, we can see it has a simple crosshair with no range indicator, the range finder below, bearing and some other things.

In another video I have which seems to not be hosted anymore, I see something labelled HFOM XXXX and SELF POSITION, and the FOV, other than that the rest of the info is likely handled inside of the tank.

Edited March 6, 2014 by NodUnit

[Heinrich Kramer 172]

Linked Pic with a too big resolution to embed

Looks pretty similar to me...

perhaps not exactly, but still..

[nodunit 397]

for the gunner sure ?? - sorry you have more than a simple cross in a gunner sight ! - nato standart in the most west tanks , apc , ifv , and automnom weaponsstations

or the east side -

http://www.kotsch88.de/allgemeines/t-95/SOSNA-U_02.jpg

arma has no firec ontroll computer only a stabilised mode. i need more for hits far away on a driving target then a simple cross ;)

So look at your range finder with the crosshair on the target, range your weapon and adjust accordingly :P I was making shots at 5Km in the M1A1 back in OFP, before we had all these gizmo's.

[raspu86 92]

I think the new optics are fine but just fine, BUT the BWMod guys nailed it with their representation of the gunners primary sight.

http://i.imgur.com/X2pX5OV.jpg (160 kB)

First of all it sports a nice and simple 2D background that at least gives you some impression of actually sitting inside a tank without the need of a 3D interior. Then it actually has a FCS (!!!). Press TAB to lase the range to the target (Come on BI do we really have to set the range to a target manually?). And it has a very nice indicator for the position of the gun relative to the tank chassis without the need of the ridiculous vehicle radar.

BTW we still have the issue that the main gun/machine gun doesn't hit the center of the crosshair all tough the gun is zeroed correctly. See pic (round hits slightly left of the target)

http://i.imgur.com/h0kMO1C.jpg (412 kB)

[Greenfist 1863]

BTW we still have the issue that the main gun/machine gun doesn't hit the center of the crosshair all tough the gun is zeroed correctly. See pic (round hits slightly left of the target)

http://i.imgur.com/h0kMO1C.jpg (412 kB)

Isn't that because the gun is not directly below the sights but a little on the left? So it shoots parallel to optics, therefore always slightly left of center.

There could be a lateral zeroing so that the line of fire would meet the reticle at the zeroed distance. But I guess that would be difficult to implement.

[nodunit 397]

I think the new optics are fine but just fine, BUT the BWMod guys nailed it with their representation of the gunners primary sight.

http://i.imgur.com/X2pX5OV.jpg (160 kB)

First of all it sports a nice and simple 2D background that at least gives you some impression of actually sitting inside a tank without the need of a 3D interior. Then it actually has a FCS (!!!). Press TAB to lase the range to the target (Come on BI do we really have to set the range to a target manually?). And it has a very nice indicator for the position of the gun relative to the tank chassis without the need of the ridiculous vehicle radar.

BTW we still have the issue that the main gun/machine gun doesn't hit the center of the crosshair all tough the gun is zeroed correctly. See pic (round hits slightly left of the target)

http://i.imgur.com/h0kMO1C.jpg (412 kB)

Depends on the type of tank, IFV's and tend to have computerized optics wherein you look through a screen whereas MBT's still retain the eyepiece and headrest.

[raspu86 92]

Isn't that because the gun is not directly below the sights but a little on the left? So it shoots parallel to optics, therefore always slightly left of center.

There could be a lateral zeroing so that the line of fire would meet the reticle at the zeroed distance. But I guess that would be difficult to implement.

I fear this is the case but the FCS should compensate the lateral offset (which it doesn't).

@NodUnit:

What do you mean the 2D background or the turret indicator?

Edited March 6, 2014 by Raspu86

[kuIoodporny 45]

what is so hard to make the optic sights a little more real ? this helping for set a good hit on your target . markings in the optics are not for joke ............

May I ask if you first actually measure thing, then do statements - instead of hoping nobody checks it and takes it as fact.

All the new optics are carefully calibrated - sizes of sights are done as precise as technology allows, and are based either on real life data or common sense. The biggest deviation from the reality is that Arma tank reticles are scaled 2 times to fit our FoVs better, but this should give you idea how to use them as well.

The obvious problem is lack of realistic Fire Control Systems to fix f.e. the issue of paralax error, but that's not issue with optics or reticles.

[Tonci87 163]

May I ask if you first actually measure thing, then do statements - instead of hoping nobody checks it and takes it as fact.

All the new optics are carefully calibrated - sizes of sights are done as precise as technology allows, and are based either on real life data or common sense. The biggest deviation from the reality is that Arma tank reticles are scaled 2 times to fit our FoVs better, but this should give you idea how to use them as well.

The obvious problem is lack of realistic Fire Control Systems to fix f.e. the issue of paralax error, but that's not issue with optics or reticles.

Do you think that you or someone else at BIS will get the permission to work on a realistic FCS or is that totally out of scope?

Also what do you think of the BW Mod immersion boosting interior?

http://i.imgur.com/X2pX5OV.jpg

I imagine something like this wouldn´t be that hard for BIS to pull off. Right?

[Damian90 696]

I agree with ZGuba, new optics are very realistic, actually for example M2A1/M2A4 Slammer optics looks like real optics used in Merkava Mk4. And in function like zoom, they are very similiar to M1A1SA/M1A2SEP optics, at least partially as they lack the powerfull 50x magnification for long range gunnery and targets detection/identification.

What BIS tanks actually lack, is a true fire control system with properly modeled laser range finder (in tanks, laser range finder does not meassure range constantly, this is because it needs to be powerfull enough to go through smoke, dust etc. and constantly working LRF would just burn out, which might actually happen in real tank if gunner "lazes" target too often without a break to cooldown) and dynamic lead, which is very important when firing to moving targets and if your own tank is moving.

[instagoat 133]

Do you think that you or someone else at BIS will get the permission to work on a realistic FCS or is that totally out of scope?

Also what do you think of the BW Mod immersion boosting interior?

http://i.imgur.com/X2pX5OV.jpg

I imagine something like this wouldn´t be that hard for BIS to pull off. Right?

I'd upvote that kind of thing. I've made an example ticket here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12555

I will possibly make some examples and update that ticket there with some new examples, if that would be okay?

Edit: Looking at it now, because of the way the masks work, I am not sure that you could make overlays that work with every screen resolution unless you fiddle with the reticles again.

They are good as they are now, and in general I'd rather see improvements to the driver and the way turning out and engine and weapons are handled, rather than these overlays that are purely cosmetic. Edit: this ticket http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13397

Edited March 6, 2014 by InstaGoat

[CrazyBaron 10]

Also what do you think of the BW Mod immersion boosting interior?

http://i.imgur.com/X2pX5OV.jpg

it looks cool but uses only 1/4 of the FullHD screen?

i bet optics have a way higher image guilty then 870x670 pixels when even phones have bigger... and this is why BI have fullscreen display

Edited March 6, 2014 by CrazyBaron

[CaptainObvious 95]

(in tanks, laser range finder does not meassure range constantly, this is because it needs to be powerfull enough to go through smoke, dust etc. and constantly working LRF would just burn out, which might actually happen in real tank if gunner "lazes" target too often without a break to cooldown)

At least in Kongsberg Protector there is continuous LRF, the beam itself is pulsed and it fires maybe twice a second or so.

I don't know how the FCS would be able to calculate the correct lead without constant range-data, of course none of this matters until (if) we get FCS.

Oh and one thing I'd like to see in Arma is the fact that the laser of the LRF can be seen with NVs, in one exercise our squad was discovered by the enemy when someone forgot the cLRF on during the night, imagine a pulsating laser in the woods, how embarrassing :o

[bakerman 247]

The tanks in game have accurate recticles.

T-100 (from T-90MS video feed, other Russian vehicles also use this)

http://i.imgur.com/4qjikvb.jpg

Leopard 2A4 (from Steel Beasts simulator)

http://i.imgur.com/MCQPIS4.jpg

Merkava Mk4 (from Merkava video feed)

http://i.imgur.com/96XL15f.jpg

FCS is another story, although I personally don't like it, it's good enough for your average gamer.

[jgbtl292 0]

.............. no questions more ^^ realy the optics are good ? then i have other gunnersight in the game ..... i have elevation and a single gross not more - thats good sure ?????????????????????????????????????

Edited March 6, 2014 by JgBtl292

[instagoat 133]

Merkava should look like this ingame:

[-=seany=- 5]

Do you think that you or someone else at BIS will get the permission to work on a realistic FCS or is that totally out of scope?

Also what do you think of the BW Mod immersion boosting interior?

http://i.imgur.com/X2pX5OV.jpg

I imagine something like this wouldn´t be that hard for BIS to pull off. Right?

Yeah the new sights look nice...but I agree with Tonci here. A really nice gift to the community (that is not that hard to achieve, especially those interiors) would be a nice FCS

[jgbtl292 0]

i have the last update and my sight as gunner in the merkaba ( slammer ) is not the same !!!! i have only elevation left up and a normal cross sight ! maby i make a reinstall .... mh

[nodunit 397]

The question is by last update is it the stable branch or dev branch? If you're using stable then that would explain the confusion.

[jgbtl292 0]

the new optics was with the new ol tank in the last stable branch update, last day or not ?

[Heinrich Kramer 172]

.............. no questions more ^^ realy the optics are good ? then i have other gunnersight in the game ..... i have elevation and a single gross not more - thats good sure ?????????????????????????????????????

you need to zoom in with the plus or minus buttons on your numpad.

also.. Satzzeichen sind keine Rudeltiere

("quotation marks don't travel in packs")