Arma 2 Weapon Ranging and Correction Tables

[zoldatpizdat 10]

The optics is adapted what to correspond to the engine of game. In ARMA2: in 2-3 times the scale is reduced,Speed of bullets and shells are reduced in 3-4 times ( probably for Realistic Perception of a shot on a long distance 1-2km in game (but it is real 300-600m) ;) But the most sad monstrous (very bad) the ballistics of all weapon is created impression that all rifles use 9mm para ( probably for Realistic Perception of a shot on a long distance !!!!!!!!! ):mad: Example: in ARMA2 you see the tank in 100 meters, aim from RPG at a tower but blow up yourselves to devils!!!!!! Because you have overlooked that in game 100m=300-400m + you sit!!! You need to aim above the tank or to climb on a roof of a house (improves ballistics :()!! For this reason in game there is no opportunity to shoot from RPG If You lay on the ground.

In ARMA2 the optics has no anything Similar with real (it simply increases the image on the monitor even an Aim string!!!!!!!:D)

On KSVK standardly are not established PSO1

[BoxiouS 10]

Just to echo everything above my post, thank you for an excellent guide. i hope you expand on it:)

[Alex72 1]

Good work on this. :)

Aiming will get better soon im sure. Through addons aiming will be very good. Just like we got in ArmA1 through addons ACE, Sight Adjustement addon etc.

Alex

[zoldatpizdat 10]

Has overlooked to inform in ARMA2 it is shown not PSO1 It POSP Byelorussia makes (in game it is named Chernorussia)

[mutters 10]

Ace guide ty

[BadBoy_Killa 10]

Just wanted to say thanks Malloy, I know you posted

it else where as will, or at least others have copied it

and referenced it to you.

I have done a similar table for the Barrett but boy what a difficult weapon

to make a correction table for! untill 300 meters everything below the range is at

Meters / Mills : 100= +1 150= +2 200= +2 250=+1 300=+1 zoomed

Unzoomed :100= 0 150= 0 200= 0 250=0 300= 0.5

mapped it all the way to 700 but not very accurate although it took me hours

hitting unmoving target accurately.

can't wait to see what you come back with after testing this weapon!

may I suggest going to 1500 meters, this weapon is powerful enough you wont run out of scope :)

[Daniel_Malloy 10]

Thanks everyone for your compliments, I will try to continue making as many of these as are neccessary.

I have created ranging tables for the M107, MK12, DMR, and tested the M40. I have found that the M40 ranging and correction is the same as the M24 (at least, I couldn't tell any difference). Here are the word files for each weapons containing the files. I figured this would be easier than posting a picture until I post my complete guide/tables. I have also included a link to the M24 tables so that those not wanting to wait for me to make them more printer/user friendly can modify these.

NOTE: When the variable scopes are zoomed in, the mil-dots appear to be accurate assuming a 2 meter tall target like with the M24. Another thing to be noted here is that the zero ranges for zoomed and unzoomed are different.

DMR Tables

M107 Tables

MK 12 Tables

M24 Tables

Also, for the printer-friendly tables to come in the compiled guide, what details would you want in them and in what order? I was thinking of making them with Target Height, Correction, and then Range. I was thinking about using only height and correction, but I remembered that you might need to know the ranges and corrections for shooting from an incline. Would you guys also want them to list ranges in 50 or 100 meter increments?

[hoak 0]

Outstanding and thank you again Daniel! I think your formatting ideas are fine, but would suggest you include 50 and 100m increments as the terrain is rather varied in ArmA II; and there will be some that just want some rough numbers to remember as a rule-of-thumb -- and others who always crave as much detail as possible.

You may also want to compile your final work to PDF, as DOC or RTF files often get edited and/or corrupted before getting passed along... Paste your signature or avatar in there too, I like to remember the folks that put time and effort into something I benefit from.

:)

[galzohar 31]

Either Marines use ammunition with a MUCH flatter trajectory than the IDF, or the in-game ballistics are simply off compared to RL. M24 with standard IDF ammo would require 33 clicks, or ~9.43 mils, while in-game only needs 7, which is a major difference. Hope ACE2 comes to the rescue ;)

[KJGJ 10]

Thank you very much for this, it helps tremendously.

[BadBoy_Killa 10]

This is great! thanks again DM!

I agree with HOAK, PDF it so that it is protected, your work is greatly

appreciated just make it will be! :)

Any chance for Russian rifles tables? personally I am intersted in the Dragunov

[Bad Pilot 0]

This thread is a revelation. Thankyou very very much Daniel Malloy! I have never understood the first thing about the 'funny marks' in huds and sights in over a decade of gaming :D.

[bricks 6]

Either Marines use ammunition with a MUCH flatter trajectory than the IDF, or the in-game ballistics are simply off compared to RL. M24 with standard IDF ammo would require 33 clicks, or ~9.43 mils, while in-game only needs 7, which is a major difference. Hope ACE2 comes to the rescue ;)

Ummm, where do I start?

First, what range are you referring to when you say "33 Clicks"? You're probably saying 33 clicks (33 MOA which equals roughly 9.78 mils) from bottomed out. In-game the rifle is zeroed to 250 m so you can't compare the mils from bottomed out to X range with to the hold off (in mils) from 250m zero to 800 m (which I'm assuming is where you got 7 mils from).

Second, the Marines use the M40 not the M24. The M40 can only use 7.62x51mm, the M24 can be adapted to other calibers but typically and in-game uses the same 7.62x51mm.

Third, there is a ton of other concerns aside from bullet's ballistics that will affect the trajectory and thus affect the correction/hold off. Factors like wind, tgt/shooters elevation, hot/cold barrel, eye relief, shooter's hold will all have an effect. Again you can't compare an in-game weapons zero and hold off to a real weapons range correction and assume BI screwed up the ballistics.

I'm not saying the in-game ballistics are correct I'm saying your method of comparing them is completely wrong. ;)

Edited July 23, 2009 by Bricks

[galzohar 31]

- It's for 800m, of course.

- While I forgot to substract the clicks for 250m (I was using standard 100m zero), it's only 3.5 clicks difference between 100m and 250m (1 mil), which means the game is still quite a bit off, though not as much.

- The size of a click is 3cm at 100m, which is also approximately 1 MOA. How accurate it is I'm not sure, but accurate enough to not make such a huge difference. Same goes for inaccuracies in the definition of a mil.

- Other concerns are so irrelevant here that I don't know where to start. Sure those things affect ballistics, but not anywhere near the kind of difference we're talking about here. Especially since the values are from tables (both in-game test values and IRL table values) which use both use standard conditions, so a lot of those effects would end up being the same anyway, on top of being negligible.

-M40 and M24 is practically the same thing. The differences are minor. They (the standard-issue, non-modified ones) use the same barrel and shoot the same ammo.

So I'm saying both the in-game ballistics are incorrect unless the US somehow has access to 7.62 sniper rounds with significantly flatter trajectory, which may or may not be true), and that my methods of comparing them, while only 97% accurate, are more than good enough.

[Daniel_Malloy 10]

In response to making them PDFs, I will be doing that on the final guide after I have collected the other weapon corrections. I will be working on a ranging table for the russian weapons, but I have to figure out exactly how to do it since they use chevrons zeroed at certain ranges. I am thinking of creating them like I did the M203 grenade launcher instead of a traditional "table"... I am wondering if a mod like ACES would be able to write numbers down next to every other chevron with its zeroed range (to be realistic, one would have to be able to change the zeroed range of the weapon. If we couldn't do that, maybe it wouldn't be considered unrealistic to do so)...

[galzohar 31]

If you're already modding, might as well simply implement scope adjustment for scopes that allow it (like the US non-ACOG scopes, dunno about the Russian scopes).

[BadBoy_Killa 10]

yeah no zoom in the sniper Russian scopes,

and as for the discussion about accuracy in game, I think it is

close enough for 50ish dollar game, if you want 99% accuracy and manual

adjustment and wind factor in a shot you should look at the VBS2 or Virtual Battle Space 2.

I didnt know about this game until a teammate today told me about it, very impressive

but way to complicated and very realistic no campaign though,

it is also made by BI. I think it sells for $2500 for the military version

and $500 for personal.

[frederf 0]

Eh, I can pull out $5 games from a bargain bin that have adjustable elevation and windage. Delta Force 2 for example. This "oh that's so complex it is only justified in VBS2" garbage is showing a lack of understanding.

[mr.g-c 6]

Eh, I can pull out $5 games from a bargain bin that have adjustable elevation and windage. Delta Force 2 for example. This "oh that's so complex it is only justified in VBS2" garbage is showing a lack of understanding.

Very well said! ;)

[galzohar 31]

Yeah, we're not asking for inter-gallactic ballistics here, just that the in-game ballistics will be close enough to RL that the RL ballistics tables can be used, and that we can adjust the elevation on the scopes that allow that IRL (basically change zero range on the fly, no animation needed, only 2 keybindings and a maybe a number on the HUD (at least on lower difficulties) depending on the exact implementation).

[BadBoy_Killa 10]

Eh, I can pull out $5 games from a bargain bin that have adjustable elevation and windage. Delta Force 2 for example. This "oh that's so complex it is only justified in VBS2" garbage is showing a lack of understanding.

over the top if you ask me for a reply for what it was, but gives an idea

or two of what type of person you are.

any how I would appreciate more accuracy and real life experience when taking

shots and factoring in the rotation of the earth maybe? it is just not happening

and I dont expect it to happen here. especially when you have MM servers

limiting view distance to 800, that is what I can call "garbage",

anyhow rant over. :D

Edited July 25, 2009 by BadBoy_Killa

[mils 10]

Hi, Sorry for sounding like a numpty, I've read the links and I'm still 'missing' something to fully get this.

I understand using the mils to get the range, that's fine, 1 mil at 1 meter high target = 1000 meters (or yards? get a metric system lads :P)

What I miss is the 'adjustment' I've been trying hard to get this right but every time I think I have the calcs right I'm always wrong and end up trial and erroring it till the opfor are down :(

Can anyone run me through 'adjustments' as the calcs I use seems to be off :(

[galzohar 31]

1 mil is indeed 1 meter high target at 1000m. Keep in mind a person in game seems to be 2m (or is it 1.8m? Current tables don't seem accurate enough to tell for sure). Once you know the range to the target, use the offset correction from the appropriate table made by the OP.

[mils 10]

what do you mean correct offset? to raise the aiming by 1 mill if the correction is -1 mil?

[galzohar 31]

Yes. 10characters