Range Tables for Mortars

[beastcat 14]

Since mortars are no fun with the artillery computer, because they are to simple to use and offer no challange I was looking for a decent range table. However, I didn't find anything suitable so I decided to do my own.

Keep in mind, the artillery computer can be disabled with the "enableEngineArtillery false;" command. (https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/enableEngineArtillery)

82mm Mortar - Close

100m - 84.25

200m - 78.25

300m - 71.60

400m - 63.45

500m - 45.00

82mm Mortar - Medium

150m - 87.88

200m - 87.15

300m - 85.70

400m - 84.25

500m - 82.80

600m - 81.15

700m - 79.75

800m - 78.25

900m - 76.65

1000m - 75.00

1500m - 60.00

1750m - 45.06

2000m - 45.00

82mm Mortar - Far (Using the function from here)

100m - 89.297

200m - 88.594

300m - 87.890

400m - 87.185

500m - 86.478

600m - 85.769

700m - 85.057

800m - 84.342

900m - 83.624

1000m - 82.901

1100m - 82.174

1200m - 81.442

1300m - 80.704

1400m - 79.959

1500m - 79.207

1600m - 78.448

1700m - 77.679

1800m - 76.901

1900m - 76.113

2000m - 75.313

2100m - 74.500

2200m - 73.673

2300m - 72.830

2400m - 71.971

2500m - 71.092

2600m - 70.191

2700m - 69.267

2800m - 68.315

2900m - 67.332

3000m - 66.314

3100m - 65.255

3200m - 64.255

3300m - 62.984

3400m - 61.751

3500m - 60.432

3600m - 59.002

3700m - 57.424

3800m - 55.629

3900m - 53.483

4000m - 50.593

Tips and Stuff:

• The 82mm mortar elevation only goes up to 88!
  
• You can do more fine adjustments by holding the Shift key.
  
• You can get the approximate elevation for distances between the given ones easily with the following:
  (distance1 elevation + distance2 elevation) / 2 = distance3 elevation.
  Example:
  600m - 81.15
  800m - 78.25
  700m ≈ (81.15 + 78.25) / 2 ≈ 79.7
  As you can see its not far off from the actual number (79.75)
  

Edited July 13, 2014 by beastcat

[BL1P 35]

Nice keep up the good work !

[the_demongod 31]

actually you can calculate the elevation yourself with this trig equation:

θ = tan^-1 (v^2 +/- sqrt[((v^4) - g(g(x^2)+2y(v^2))/(gx)]

where v = velocity (ms^-1)

x = range (m)

y = difference in altitude

and g = the acceleration of gravity (9.81 ms^-2)

The only catch is that you have to know the muzzle velocity of the round you're firing.

For the mortar it is:

Short - 70 ms^-1

Medium - 140 ms^-1

Far - 200 ms^-1

Source

[j4you 10]

actually you can calculate the elevation yourself with this trig equation:

θ = tan^-1 (v^2 +/- sqrt[((v^4) - g(g(x^2)+2y(v^2))/(gx)]

where v = velocity (ms^-1)

x = range (m)

y = difference in altitude

and g = the acceleration of gravity (9.81 ms^-2)

The only catch is that you have to know the muzzle velocity of the round you're firing.

For the mortar it is:

Short - 70 ms^-1

Medium - 140 ms^-1

Far - 200 ms^-1

Source

There is even a video lesson about mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics?

Edited July 12, 2014 by j4you

[beastcat 14]

Well, thats not complicated at all!

Edit: I added the far range table for the 82mm using this method, tested it and it works!

Edited July 13, 2014 by beastcat

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

actually you can calculate the elevation yourself with this trig equation:

θ = tan^-1 (v^2 +/- sqrt[((v^4) - g(g(x^2)+2y(v^2))/(gx)]

Any chance of posting your sqf compatible formula for that?

How exactly is ± (plus or minus symbol) used in this formula? I take it that both results (either + or -) are valid numbers?

I split it up into multiple parts to avoid bracket errors and this is what I've got so far:

_gunner = player;
_target = _this select 1;
_getdir = [vehicle _gunner,_target] call BIS_fnc_relativedirto;
_maxspeed = getnumber (configfile >> "CfgMagazines" >> currentmagazine vehicle player >> "initSpeed");
_maxspeedoperator = getnumber (configfile >> "CfgWeapons" >> (currentweapon vehicle player) >> (currentweaponmode (player)) >> "artillerycharge");
_muzzlespeed = _maxspeed * _maxspeedoperator;

_altdifference = (getposaSl _gunner select 2) - (getposaSL _target select 2);
_distance = getposASL _gunner distance getposASL _target;
_v = _muzzlespeed;
_g = 9.81;
_y = _altdifference;
_d = _distance;

_solution1part1 = _v^2;
_solution1part2 =  sqrt (_v^4 - (_g * ((_g * (_d^2)) + (2 * _y  * (_v^2)))));
_solution1part3 = _solution1part1 + _solution1part2;
_solution1 = atan (_solution1part3 / (_g * _d));

_solution2part1 = _solution1part1 - _solution1part2;
_solution2 = atan (_solution2part1 / (_g * _d));



hint str [_getdir,_solution1,_solution2];

Shells are landing within 50m - 150m of the target, but they'll never hit dead center.

Maybe it's some minor oversight or the ± symbol I probably misinterpreted? (hence the split into 2 solutions)

Already double checked that the muzzlespeed is being calculated properly.

Cheers

[BL1P 35]

What are you trying to accomplish there Grumpy m8 ?

I dont understand where your getting _target from.

and does _target mean your not using indirect fire ?

Afaik the OP was attempting to give us range tables for artillery when using MANUAL INDIRECT fire, creating a script that simulates the artillery comp kinda defeats the objective no ?

@Beastcat create a mod that has the tables for all Artillery on pieces of paper we can read ingame that would be cool m8 or wait for ACE3 :)

Edited July 13, 2014 by BL1P

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

What are you trying to accomplish there Grumpy m8 ?

I dont understand where your getting _target from.

and does _target mean your not using indirect fire ?

Afaik the OP was attempting to give us range tables for artillery when using MANUAL INDIRECT fire, creating a script that simulates the artillery comp kinda defeats the objective no ?

@Beastcat create a mod that has the tables for all Artillery on pieces of paper we can read ingame that would be cool m8 or wait for ACE3 :)

the target is a preplaced object for testing purposes (to simulate a forward observer providing the artillery gun with target locations).

As of now the script calculates bearing and elevation needed to hit the target location with indirect fire.

The only issue right now is that the impact is a bit off, nothing a forward observer won't be able to fix ;)

[beastcat 14]

Yeah, sorry, but unfortunately I don't know how to mod. Maybe if someone who does know how to do it will see this thread and will be ready to help.

By the way, you get a laser designater in the first person view, when using a mortar. If you have eyes on target it will tell you the exact elevation you need, so there wouldnt be a need for a script, since its already in the game.

During testing I have also discoverd that the mortars are way to accurate at far range and that there is minimal to no dispersion between the low and far firemodes.

Edited July 13, 2014 by beastcat

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

If you have eyes on target it will tell you the exact elevation you need, so there wouldnt be a need for a script, since its already in the game.

There's missions where the artillery computer is disabled, so players have to rely on other players to commence artillery fire when no line of sight is given.

Hence this script.

[beastcat 14]

Or if you have enough players you could use the range table... That way you can get more player interaction, since your shots won't be as exact and you would require a spotter or you just bombard a whole area which would be more realistic. However we don't really seem to have realistic fragmentation in ArmA, so maybe one day we could get a mod or a patch, so bombarding larger areas would have a more realistic and effective outcome. Do you by any chance know how one might realize BL1P's idea?

Oh and good luck with the script!

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

Or if you have enough players you could use the range table... That way you can get more player interaction, since your shots won't be as exact and you would require a spotter or you just bombard a whole area which would be more realistic. However we don't really seem to have realistic fragmentation in ArmA, so maybe one day we could get a mod or a patch, so bombarding larger areas would have a more realistic and effective outcome. Do you by any chance know how one might realize BL1P's idea?

Oh and good luck with the script!

Player interaction is the final goal of this script, I did never claim that it's finished nor how its final state of interaction with players will be, as for now it's merely a test of the math formula.:)

As for BL1Ps suggestion to put the range tables into the game you could easily create a dialogue for that.

Bombarding larger areas is a simple thing to do from a scripting point of view, feel free to make a script request in the mission editing forum.

Cheers

[the_demongod 31]

About the +/-, I can't remember exactly, I thought only one way would work.

The other option I can imagine is if they are two different firing solutions.

Try aiming at a spot with the mortar camera, set up the shot elevation and everything

and then try to calculate. See if you can match the Elevation in game with your result.

[EricJ 761]

And it's time like this that I'm glad I'm a former FO. Stuff like that needs to be kept simple, and kept to the job of the FDC :D

[beastcat 14]

After some messing around I have discovered that the self propelled artillery behaves very strange. The muzzle velocity given does not translate correctly into the function and the shells hit up to a few hundred meters away from target. Does anyone know whats going on?

Edit: I have discoverd that the mortar shells are pretty effective against infrantry, however, the damage to vehicles is almost zero (Unless you get a direct hit). Is there any fix to this?

Edited July 13, 2014 by beastcat

[maturin 12]

Is it possible to get range tables for the self-propelled howitzers?

I was dismayed to see that both manual and artillery computer fire only give solutions with absurdly high elevations, thus maximizing the time on target for every shot. It's as if the gun only handles tiny little powder charges.

Or are those ballistics entirely bogus? I noticed that the maximum range shot still uses a near-vertical elevation, instead of the optimum 45 degrees.

[quantenfrik 10]

unfortunately it's not that easy (range tables) with the self propelled artillery due to two reasons: 1. the turret is not completely horizontal, if you aim to the front and it says 10° in reality you shoot at 11,6 degrees, same if you shoot to the back, it's around 8,4. degrees. 2. although the gun itsself is stabilized, the elevation number is not, which means if you face an hill upward and set your gun to 10° degrees you will get a different angle than if you face a hill downwards. there is also another absurdity i discovered: because the gun is stabilized, the shell is shot in the direction you look (and not the weapon direction), this is negligible at normal situations but produces some interesting outputs when you place a concrete ramp in the editor and drive with one track on it, you can actually see the shell leaving the barrel at a different angle than the one it is pointing at.

To get the real elevation of the gun you can use this code

_somevariable = vehicle player weaponDirection (currentWeapon vehicle player);
_n = 3;
_var1 = (_somevariable select 0);
_var2 = (_somevariable select 1);
_var3 = (_somevariable select 2);
_flach = sqrt (_var2*_var2 + _var1*_var1);
_angle = atan (_var3/_flach);
_anglerounded = round (_angle * (10 ^ _n))/(10 ^ _n);
hint format ["%1", _anglerounded];

But basicly because of this (and the lack of low angle fire solutions and MRSI) I decided to learn scripting and write some workarounds, but currently I am stuck at animating the barrel :/

[Jeeves 10]

Excellent. I don't know why these tables were not included with the game itself.... instead we have this 'artillery' computer.

[silentghoust 132]

Just a question, has anybody tested the motors at some of those distances? I almost never use motors beyond 800m for accuracy purposes. I can't imagine the motor has even the range to reach 4k with any accuracy.

[beastcat 14]

Just a question, has anybody tested the motors at some of those distances? I almost never use motors beyond 800m for accuracy purposes. I can't imagine the motor has even the range to reach 4k with any accuracy.

The mortars are actually way too accurate, which almost paradoxically makes it hard to hit targets at very long range. You can't really use normal mortar tactics and spam shells far away and cover a big area, because the mortars seem to be as accurate at long distances as in short distances, the only thing that makes a difference is the firing mode. That means that if you shoot in the "Far" mode for example the area in which the mortar rounds will land will be the same in size at 500m as it is at 4km.

[benargee 20]

Isnt drag a factor too?

[gibonez 18]

I truly wish the mortars in Arma 3 would completely dump the ballistic computer and instead just adopted the ACE mortar system.

Indirect fire should require skill not simply pointing and clicking on a map, nothing is more satisfying than using the ACE mortars successfully.

[maturin 12]

Okay, but back in the real world, game features are supposed to be used by more than 0.25% of players.

Speaking as a member of the 0.25%.

By 2035 they'll be using computers anyways.

[gibonez 18]

Okay, but back in the real world, game features are supposed to be used by more than 0.25% of players.

Speaking as a member of the 0.25%.

By 2035 they'll be using computers anyways.

The Arma community isn't exactly the dumbest community around. They would be more prone to learning advanced and complex game mechanics and only .25% percent of players knowing how to use indirect fire is not a bad thing its incredibly powerful and thus should be hard to use not unlike real life.

[benargee 20]

The Arma community isn't exactly the dumbest community around. They would be more prone to learning advanced and complex game mechanics and only .25% percent of players knowing how to use indirect fire is not a bad thing its incredibly powerful and thus should be hard to use not unlike real life.

I really think they should have both, leave it as a difficulty setting. While personally i prefer the ace system, its more technical and realistic. You still have to take beginner players into consideration though.