xdmerciless

Adding to that list BDC limitations, they are typically designed at an average density altitude, so as soon as you operate on the lower or higher end of the envelope you'll get greater separation, especially at longer ranges. There are ways to calibrate/true even a BDC reticle, but you'll have to use mobile ballistic apps, I like Strelok Pro, as it has quite an extensive list of reticles. I'm not familiar with the Rapid reticle, otherwise, I'd use it as the example, but here's an Trijicon ACOG, TA11E: Just plug in your atmospherics, gun data and the mobile app can calibrate your reticle to the current conditions. I'm using this screenshot above as an example, but on mine, when I swap the H59 for an ACOG TA11E, to get the following calibration: Tip of the Chevron, 100 yds (0 Mils) Bottom of Chevron, 277 yds (1.3 Mils) #4 (First Subtension), 393 yds(2.4 Mils) Second Subtension, 528 yds (3.9 Mils) #6, (Third Subtension), 661 yds (5.7 Mils) Fourth Subtension, 808 yds (8.0 Mils) Last Subtension, 965 yds (10.9 Mils) Hope that helps, definitely be interesting to see if the calibration works in ACE3 for BDC reticles.

Yeah, I was speaking of our brothers up North. I have the same sentiments as you do - gun control only serves to disarm law abiding citizens and criminals will continue to have them or otherwise won't prevent mentally disturbed individuals from killing otherwise, you can't fix stupid or legislate it out of existence. It's regrettable to know the same asinine logic that some politicians and the media State side is even more pervasive up north, but for how bad we both might complain, I can't even imagine what it's like across the pond though. I've also heard the same, if I remember back from Shot Show 2014, which was just last year - but I don't recall the details on why. I've also noticed Todd has been working with Byran Litz quite a bit as of late, they've hosted a number of workshops and Q/A sessions together. Nice. A .300 Win Mag is definitely on my wishlist. Part of my reasoning for even wanting one is that the Surefire 7.62-RC I run is rated to designed and built for that cartridge. I selected the SF 762-RC as a multi-caliber rifle suppressor, although not optimal for weight and sound suppression for smaller calibers, it is cost-effective one size fits all approach, with one suppressor I am able to suppress .308, 5.56, 300 BLK, and occasionally 22 LR when I run a conversion kit, and then later down the road 300 Win Mag. What a coincidence! My XRS is also in FDE, but H59, I was able to get a total adjustment range of 33 mils for elevation and 18.6 mils for windage. I'm curious if yours the same? I've heard sometimes folks get a few clicks less than others, varies from lot to lot. Which reminds me I need to perform a box drill at the upper ends of the adjustment to verify or adjust/true the actual effective clicks available. As much as I can understand the reasoning for the H59 top section to be open, for spotting, or extreme long range shooting, I still would have liked subtensions up the vertical stadia. I was close to getting an H37 instead, but disliked that the center of the reticle wasn't in the optical center of the scope. Too bad, the T3 wasn't available when I was in the market, I think it addresses the complaints folks had with the T2, though I wish the wind dots were more transparent. That'd be an interesting option, for mil-sim, additional scope options with an added description of having an 5 or 10 mil canted base/rings installed, though in the market state side I'm only familiar to seen 20 MOA or 40 MOA rings/bases, I'm sure machine shops have made milliradian based cants too. At 100 yards, 7.1 mils equates to 25.56", which is quite a bit of adjustment. It's half of that a 50 yards, 12.78", and half of that at 25 yards. You laugh, but there been some shooting stages and courses that have you shoot ridiculously up close, some scopes can't even resolve the parallax/target focus at that distance. I run canted Barry Deuck Defense/SF offset irons for that reason. Been meaning to find a 34mm scope rings with a cantilevered MIL-1913 rail, so I can attach a mini-red dot to, but I think having it attached on the gun oppose to the scope rings would be better. Things on my to-do-list. Actually, I've only had first hand experience with thermal-clip ons. It was surreal. I still get goosebumps thinking about it. It was during an impromptu night vision and thermal demo in a 2-day precision rifle class. Those that lodged/camped with the instructors on the range got some extra instruction. It was surreal, driving at night to the 1400 yard range, in the back our instructor's pick up, while carrying a Badger Ordinance representative's MK12 w/ FLIR T70 (one of the sponsors for the class that day), in the back of the bed sitting next to our guest instructor, former Marine scout sniper, with a slightly green back lit face, kitted up w/ Ops-core FAST Helmet w/ PVS 14. It was my first time looking through NODs and thermals. I was amazed at how far we've come with technology, and the tools available to our war fighters today. I asked so many questions about the NODs to both instructors and our sponsors, and was so enthusiastic that Josh Stabler, designer of the Hog/Pig Saddle, finally asked if I ever looked through NODs before. I replied no, and he takes off his Ops-core helmet w/ PVS14, and passes it to me. I couldn't help but feel like I was becoming a killing machine, I wanted to kick down some doors, room clear, and perform some ninja-low-drag-high-speed stuff, especially with the AN/PEQ-15 IR illuminator. Even with a cloudy night with no moon, it was literally night and day, the sudden convergence of technology and guns that night, just gave me the greatest nerdgasm you can ever imagine. Regrettably I left my MK18 clone home that day though. Nice, I take it, you extracted from his Applied Ballistic book? He released a second revision/edition not too long ago too. Do you have his Applied Ballistic mobile app? I like how he allows you to upload/define custom drag profiles. I wonder if you could do the same? It would be awesome to be able to import real-world data, my dope sheet from my OBR or MK18, and practice in game for example.

Yes, "made dead-center of Texas". ;) Generally speaking yes, most firearms can be legally purchased, although certain States have an AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) which restricts ownership if you reside in that State, and certain categories of are considered Title II "weapons", which are further restricted and controlled items, machine guns, short barrels, and destructive devices that fall under the NFA of 1934. I've heard in Europe suppressors aren't as regulated or controlled, and considered common courtesy to have one, to protect the hearing of others around you, and that you can purchase them straight over the counter. If so, the process State side is definitely cumbersome in comparison, required ATF paperwork is relatively easy, but wait time for the paid tax stamp is ridiculous on something that is essentially a glorified muffler. Some folks have jokingly submitted paperwork registering a 2-litre pop bottle as a suppressor, it's would be comical if not for the hoops you have to jump through, the $200 tax and approval wait time. Spotter, what's the restrictions like up north? It maybe due to the newly released Tremor 3, which debuted with NF ATACR. http://nightforceoptics.com/atacr/5-25%C3%9756-f1 http://nightforceoptics.com/sites/default/files/styles/default-image/public/HorusTremor3_1_nonillum.png?itok=Yf3_2d2H It's essentially an H59 Horus with Todd Hodnett's, Accuracy 1st DG, wind TOF dots. At first I didn't like the Tremor reticle either, I thought it was way too busy. Hell the Horus and other Christmas tree reticles are busy enough. I especially dislike that it's difficult to use for spotting and calling wind as you only have wind dots from the main vertical stadia lines, and harder to count for another shooter. If you never intend to dial, DMR role, it's fast, as you simply calibrate the wind dot to the ammunition your shooting, each dot corresponds roughly to a multiple of 4 mph wind for most .308s, 5 mph for 300 Win Mag. If you use the Tremor 2 or 3, you can calibrate your wind dots using this website: http://www.horusvision.com/tremor_wind_dot_calc.php But as soon as you dial for elevation, the wind dots are no longer useful, well you could try to scale them/fraction them back by the amount dialed but, meh. Thus, from these user complaints and suggestions the Tremor 3 was born. If I could go back, I probably would have selected the Tremor 3, but manly to get the delignated lines across the complete vertical stadia. I've used Accuracy 1st wind formula with great success engaging targets from 300 to 1,000 yards, at a staggering constant 30 mph wind. I was simply amazed at the hit percentage we were getting that day. For example, at 300 yards, my hold for a 4 mph wind starts at .3 mils, and for every 4 mph wind multiple, I multiply by the count. So at 30 mph wind, I rounded down to 28 mph to make the division by 4 mph easier, so multiple of 7. So .3 mils times 7 gives a starting hold of 2.1 mils, if I bracket the wind assume it's 32 mph, then its a next multiple of 8, and so .3 mils time 8 yields 2.4 mils. So I bracket and center my target half way between 2.1 and 2.4 mils, send it and impact! Now if I'm using a Tremor 3, as shown above, I'd simply go to my hold over for 300 yards, which is 1.5 mils down, then count the number of wind dots there are on the horizontal line, for a 30 mph wind, which is half way between multiple of 7 and 8, and place the target there. As you can see that process is somewhat faster, and that's what I'm grateful for folks like Todd Hodnett, that think outside the box, to make long range precision easier, just another tool in the tool box, definitely beats the older wind formulas. Yes, but part of the problem is the institutional inertia, "the Core told me that's the way it's done, and it's always the way it's been done", so no one ever questions it, or pushes outside the box. But we're "big boys" and we can make our own decisions, and I think more schools and instructors should give more leeway by teaching the fundamentals, and allow us, to make our own judgement, and ultimately become better problem solvers. Yet at the opposite end of the spectrum, for the bean counters and command, I can also understand the reason for the standard, as you want to be able to pick up any standard issued rifle, without having to guess, what it is zeroed at. Yes, this definitely was problematic early on, with scopes with limited turret adjustments. One way the industry overcame this limitation was the development of canted scope rings and bases, 20 MOA (5.82 mils) and 40 MOA (11.64 mils). However, modern scopes, now feature a wider range of clicks. Take of example the Bushnell XRS that I use, I have a total of 33 mils of elevation adjustment, I also have the scope mounted on a 20 MOA canted base (OBR top rail incorporates a 20 MOA cant) and 20 MOA rings, for a total cant of 40 MOA. My greatest concern was I had too much cant to zero at 100 yards. Luckily though, I still have 7.1 mils remaining to the bottom of the turret to my zero stop, currently the center of my turret adjustment, factoring my set zero stop, is about 9.4 mils, 7.1+9.4 = 16.5 mils, half of 33 mils, so my max effective turret adjustment is 9.4+16.5 = 25.9 mils. Wow, you even factored in the inherent clip-on I2 limitations on magnification!? :blink: Amazing, not many folks know that placing NODs out front limits the power magnification range due to image resolution, let alone the possible shift in POA/POI. Great attention to detail! Yeah, for the average shooter, ground pounder, and the like, they typically don't have access to a longer ranges to refine their zeros and gather DOPE out to 1000 m or more. For awhile, before I got access to shoot at 1,400 yard range, I had to rely solely on my chronograph to give me the best predicted algorithm for my ammunition. Ideally you true your ballistic algorithm before transonic flight, you get the most separation/deviation prior to gyroscopic instability and drag takes effect when the projectile crosses the speed of sound, which varies with atmospherics, typically ~1,200 ft/s, most ballistic calculators will highlight in the chart the distance for which the projectile will pass sonic, and you simply select a range before that point. Then shoot, record the bullet drop/splash, and use the truing feature, that feeds back this value, and back calculates a muzzle velocity adjustment, or a BC adjustment, and new polynomial curve for your rifle and ammo setup. Initially I used Bryan Litz imperially tested G1 BC for a 175 SMK of 0.475 and my muzzle velocity adjustment was way too high, nearly 100 ft/s faster than what my chronograph reading gave. So I tried truing using BC, using the muzzle velocity my chronograph outputted and got a BC that matched manufacturer listed BC of 0.496. So although academically speaking the 175 SMK may very well be 0.475 on a G1 scale, using Doppler or other measurement techniques available to Bryan Litz to define an accurate drag profile curve, or perhaps the lot of 175 gr Sierra manufactured and was tested was a 0.475, but for the ballistic calculator I was using 0.496, the lot of projectiles, with hard data DOPE I shot, matched both manufacturer published BC and my chronograph, so that's the data I've been using. Point is, even with a chronograph, you still need to true pretransonic flight to really refine your ballistic algorithm, true your BC.

quickdagger, thanks for incorporating these add-on reticles! I especially like the addition of the Christmas tree reticles, like the Horus H59, as I just got into recreational precision shooting this past year, and it's the same reticle I selected when I was in the market looking for a FFP scope with mil turrets. There are many schools of thought on the optimum zero, BZOs at 25/300 m, 50/200 m, zeroing for maximum point blank range, but most of the instructors whom I've had the opporunity to take carbine and precision rifle classes with subscribe to "big boy rules" - in short, the best zero is the one which you know what your hold overs or unders are. I typically zero at 100 yards. I know, I know, I should switch to meters to make the math easier with milliradian based system, but majority shooters state side use the imperial based system (inches, yards, MOA adjustments, which I hate spotting for, as I have to convert milliradians into MOA, and by that time I compute a shooting solution, the wind has changed, forcing me to make another call and convert, even worst when calling shots for a shooter which isn't true MOA and are actually IPHY adjustments, but I digress), and most local rifle ranges out here only go out to typically 100 yards (91.44 m) max, though there are some 1,000 yard and even a 1,400 yard range a few hours away. Anyway, I know that with a 100 yard zero, dialing on elevation knob will always be up, to move the strike of the bullet up, or holding over the target, which simplifies the process in my opinion. Whereas if I were to zero at an average of my effective engagement range, say before subsonic flight, for 500 yards, I'd have to hold under the target for any engagements below 500. For example with a 500 yard zero, on an 18" 7.62 OBR [MV = 2537 fps, 175 SMK (G1 BC = 0.495), T=72 F, Baro = 28.6 in Hg], I'd be 3.6 mils high at 100 yards, 3.0 mils high at 200, 2.1 at 300, 1.1 mils at 400, and then zero at 500, after that I'll be striking low, 1.2-600, 2.7-700, 4.2-800, 6.0-900, and 8.1-1000. There are a couple of shootings drills that stress the shooter, like the 500 m, hold over and under drills, forcing the shooter to zero at 500 m, then using a dope sheet for 100 m zero, do math to find the proper hold at known distances to a variety of targets. But other than just a stress drill, in actual practice, for rapid engagements at varying known or unknown distances, I'd run my base line zero and do hold overs and won't dial. With a 100 yard zero, makes the count down the delignated reticle easier, all in one direction, especially with a H59 as you can't hold under but only 1 mil, but it's definitely user preference. I know some folks I've competed with that don't use mil-dot reticles, or Christmas tree reticles/Horus, use just a standard duplex, and will dial for every target and even for wind. I seldom dial for wind, generally hold for windage, but I do dial for elevation, even with a Horus reticle, to gather DOPE at 100 yard increments, or if I'm shooting long range, dial 10 and hold 10 for a shot at 1,300 yards for example, as I find going back on the power ring to find the 20 mil line makes a 12" plate ridiculously small and difficult to center while holding a wind call. Arkhir process translates pretty spot on in the real-world too, though you don't have to do it at 100 meters, you can do it at any known distance or even known inclines, as long as you can accurately measure the distance or inclination angle. Also important you have a good true ballistic algorithm/solution, known true MV, BC, or drag profile, before hand too. It's essentially a broken scope drill, where say under stress you're dialing, and lost count on how many mils you've dialed, and unfortunately aren't running a scope with a zero stop, where you can simply dial back to your mechanical stop/hard zero on the turret, and count your way back up. To rezero, simply find a target, lase it, know the exact distance to the target, (no milling to eliminate range est errors), shoot, and adjust the turret til your zeroed at that distance. Now go back into your ballistic software, and reset your zero distance to the target you just shot at, and now you can re-confirm your original zero based on the delta shown in the ballistic solver to your newly zero distance. For example, running a broke scope drill with the same 18" OBR from above (ammo and atmospherics), I re-zero the gun on an arbitrary target at 486 yards. Once I've confirmed hits at 486 yards, in the ballistic software, I reset my zero distance, in this example at 486 yards, then look at the table for the hold I have for 100 yards. In this case, it reads -3.4 mils, I then simply dial down 3.4 mils on my turret, and I now have reacquired my 100 yard zero once again. At this point, I remove the scope caps and reset the turrets to zero, and engage the zero stop if there is one. Not sure how that translates in ACE3, as I haven't installed ACE3 yet, didn't even know it was released or even has the functionality of simulating scope turret angular adjustments, opposed to just page up and down to set the zero distance! It's amazing and I'm impressed with what you devs continued to put out, keep up the good work!

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Btw, lovely LMT MWS in your signature. Is that addon part of some package available to download? I've been trying to find an OBR, perhaps an ARMA 3 port from MOH, but was surprised no one's gotten around to modeling one yet, at least a 7.62 variant. When I was in the market for an 308 AR, I almost got an MWS, when I was debating between sourcing parts and assembling it myself, versus buying one, discovered they aren't as standardized as AR15 platform. DPMS v. Armalite parts weren't necessarily as interchangable. So I narrowed my choices down to the KAC, LMT and LaRue, dimissed the KAC due to cost, they wanted $2k more, and almost went to the MWS, but at the time they didn't offer stainless steel barrels, just had their hard chrome lined barrels, which weren't guaranteed to be 1 MOA or less, though majority of users have been getting good groups, but ultimately went with the 7.62 OBR for semi-auto precision role, although the MWS was cheaper by a few hundred. Be nice to run one in game. I've thought about trying to extract the surface geometries, I've played around with AutoDesk 360 Recap, that allows users to upload pictures to the cloud and export an 3d file, I believe .obj, but I'm not proficient enough yet to cleaning up the mesh, from what I recall, the mesh density is quite high, can even detect paint thicknesses of a couple thou, and I lack the knowledge to export or apply textures, let alone what it takes to bring in muzzle flash, reload and bolt animation. Thanks for your work on the modularity of attachments and interchangable optics. Yeah, I can definitely see the impracticality here natively in ARMA 3, having a workaround with multiple reticle textures for different brightness levels, taking an EOTech for example, would mean 20 different reticle textures for the same optic, which would cutter the selection menu in supply crate. Perhaps BI devs will consider it in ARMA 4, a more streamline way of selecting reticle textures, oppose to having them uniquely assigned per optic model. Good point, in order for co-witness to work properly, means weapons and 1x optics, would need to be designed together. Actually, I should have known better, as we have to deal with it in reality too, finding the optimal scope height. Often times you can't get a cowitness on certain guns, because either the mount lacks the modularity, spacers, or head space/real estate, if the red dot/HWS mount isn't designed integral from the ground up to cowitness, a prime example being the MP5. Thanks for the suggestion, I've only played vanilla so far, I'll definitely take a look at it, when I start adding mods. Really? I'm going to have to test that out, see how much of a POI shift there is, and if it's consistent, or different with calibers, if so, excellent work on BI's part. Most games I've played the devs lazily just automatically reduce the damage model with suppressors, making a global assumption the shooter using subsonic rounds, but in reality, especially certain center fired rounds, in 223/556 guns don't properly cycle using subsonic rounds, and using typical powder loads through a suppressor doesn't change terminal ballistics much, with a ~15-50 fps increase, although some folks like to run red line, with +P+ ammunition, running as hot as they can get it. Although it does change the point of transitions from sonic to subsonic, transonic flight, approaching the speed of sound, which definitely changes POI in terms of trajectory at long range and when gyroscopic stability definitely comes into play. Related to suppressors, the LMT MWS in your signature, I especially like that it sports a Surefire flashhider too, which makes it compatible, or rather matches with RH's accessory pack that features Surefire legacy 7.62 K suppressors. Well, I mean in actual practice. It erks me a little that one can just quick detach any suppressor without consideration with the interface, the muzzle device - guess some things would be too real world to model for game/sim. Weapons should feature the correct brake or muzzle device, Silenerco trifecta, AAC 51/90T, or Surefire flashhider/brake to use with their corresponding suppressor. In game play, in the back of my mind I know the gun is modeled with say a A2 birdcage flash hider, but somehow I can attach a Ops In, AAC, Silencerco, or Surefire can. I know, small detail that won't break people's game play, most probably don't care about, but for any one that has used a suppressor knows, uh, you can't do that. Also laughed a little myself, I can quickly remove the suppressor, with no consequences. Been to a couple carbine classes, and you definitely become aware of your muzzle, especially when running suppressed while performing pistol transitions, don't ask me how I ruined a couple 5.11 pants that way. If you think I'm joking, I'm not the only one: http://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-153147.html I suppose if one can't easily script or add a heat mirage when shooting long strings of fire with a suppressor, is model in suppressor wraps. I run a TAB SAS 1 on the OBR, velcro easy on and off, but there are other variants for folks that go down range, in thick foliage, have added paracord retention. http://tabgear.com/files/7013/5423/7127/tab-gearjpg10.jpg (103 kB) There are also silicone based designs too, which are more heat resistant than fabric, though I hear they are a PITA to take off. It's more common to see them on suppressed precision rifles, due to mirage obstructing the target. It's a must have accessory. In my experience, it takes just 5 rounds, before you see the mirage, less so on 1x optics (20 rounds or so), but with magnified optics, you'll see it quite clearly. I'm considering getting one for my MK18 clone, because of safety, tremendous amount of heat generated in carbine classes while performing certain drills. I'm probably being too net picky, but these small details when using a suppressor, would be a nice feature set for immersion the next ARMA, or if possible, for ACE update.

Just got a chance to play some ARMA 3 over the weekend, having purchased it during the recent Steam summer sale, and have some observations to make for BI and modders that endeavor to make ARMA series as accurate as a military simulation as it can get, in no particular priority. Requested Feature Add-On: Toggling Brightness Levels of Optics Often times certain RDS/HWS/Illuminated optics in game the reticle blooms or is not representative of the actual illuminated reticle. Take for instance the current default in-game brightness level of the EOTech, seems to be at a level 14/20, which is extremely bright for indoor or low-light environments (though there is lesser possibility the reticule will be washed out by white light - flashlight), but makes the 1-MOA dot in the dreaded "Donut of Death", look like a 4 MOA dot, making hard to place shots at say 300 m as the dot will completely obstruct a head shot (equally holds true for the Aimpoints like the CompM4/M4s, what is supposed to be a 2 MOA dot but seems like the original CompM2 with a 4 MOA dot), small details that gamers may not recognize if they never looked through an EOTech, or Aimpoint. Having the ability to dial down brightness can also simulate the effect of making the dot smaller, which is a technique used in establishing BZOs in real world or low light environments, or in game play making it easier to make more effective precise shots with otherwise default thick/large reticles dots. So allowing the player to toggle down brightness, in game effect would be effectively minimizing the illuminated reticle size, apparent blooming, and/or opacity to get the effect. Requested Feature Add-On:: Co-witness Sights with BUIS and Parallax Free Optics One of the features I would definitely like to see added is the ability to co-witness sights with BUIS (Back-Up Iron Sights), where the red dot and irons line up. Real world, used as a backup when the HWS/RDS fails, have yet to see a video game that properly implements this feature. I prefer 1/3 Co-witness, as an absolute co-witness obstructs too much of the view in my opinion. In addition to this feature request, I’ve noticed the dot projected on the front lens element stays always centered in the optics. However, in actuality when shooting in supine and other unconventional positions the dot does move, minor discrepancy from in game versus down range with how near parallax free optics function. Requested Feature Add-On: Spotting Scopes w/ Integral LRF, ATRAG, Kestrel, NODs, and IR Illuminator The ultimate all in one ballistic solution package, that takes atmospherics, and distance – feeds data directly into solver and spits out hold overs or turret corrections. And while we’re at it, would be nice to mount NODs (I2 or Thermals) with IR Illuminator for additional force multiplier, so much easier to make calls, especially at night to guide a shooter on target, oppose to calling out headings, distances, or milling, just have the shooter aim at where the spotter has the IR laser temporarily illuminated, assuming the shooter is running a PVS 22 or similar clip on night vision device, hold over or dial, and send it. Requested Feature Add-On:: Long Range Shooting Overhaul - Christmas Tree Reticles, Dialing for Windage, and Actual Scope Turret Clicks Although BI and some modders have included a variety of “Christmas Tree†reticles, I’d definitely like to see a wider variety, and haven’t yet tested them to see if the holding over using the reticle is as effective as adjusting zero/elevation (Page Up/Down). Popular in precision rifle circuit is the GAP’s G2DMR, though my personal favorite is the Horus H59. See link below for recent trends in precision rifle community: http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/10/24/best-tactical-scopes-what-the-pros-use/ What’s missing is an option to also dial windage, though in real world application I typically hold for wind, as the conditions are dynamic, and also if you’re shooting a mover, trying to remember how much you’ve dialed or what you need to take off can be confusing, especially under stress and time constraints. But it’s still a nice option to have, especially if you’re gathering dope. Also instead of making gross adjustments, using Page Up/Down to control zero, in 100 meter increments, to have them based on actual angular scope turret adjustments, per 0.1 mils or whatever actually corresponds to each click adjustment on scope. This would help make ARMA 3 more of a precision long range training tool, as players actually need to gather dope, and have a chart of hold overs. I know this would be daunting to implement though, as even scope manufacturers make different turret adjustments for the same scope, whether mil, IPHY, or MOA based. Having also spotting scopes that matches shooters turrets is helpful too, a Leupold Mark 4 or Hensoldt 45 with H-32/36, TMR or traditional mil dot would be a nice feature. Requested Feature Add-On: Realistic Suppressor/Silencer Effects – Heat Mirage, Cyclic Rate and Muzzle Velocity Increase Since ARMA 3 and many modders endeavor to make all aspects of game play realistic, one area missing is the effect of using a suppressor/silencer. Suppressors can have an unintended effect of shifting POA/POI, the additional mass ahead dampens barrel harmonics, and also free bore boost from gases trapped in the baffles can cause an increase in muzzle velocity and pressures can increase cyclic rate tremendously. The effect varies from weapon system and suppressor manufacturers. So gathering performance metrics across various weapon systems and modeling/scripting it would be difficult to model each of these variables. Two things that folks that run “cans†can attest to, lingo for those in the US that reside in an NFA friendly state when referring to suppressors, is how dirty running suppressed even on a gas piston gun can be - how critical it is to properly lube the action, and also how hot they can get. An add-on that increases the chance of malfunctions with a suppressor mounted, and the modeling of heat mirage, especially in select or full auto fire that obstructs the shooter view would be awesome addition in terms of realism. End Notes: Those are just some noteworthy observations/suggestions I've made thus far, and I look forward to seeing what BI and the modding community is able to develop in the near future!

Nice work! But is it possible to natively access a unit's init field/window in Zeus? I wanted to add some sqf commands in a newly spawned unit as you can in the 2D editor. It may inherently be there, but I'm new to ARMA 3, just picked it up during the Steam summer sale, and didn't find an option as in the 2D editor for unit initialization parameters. After a quick google search, I was able to find some information - apparently having to first be logged in as admin (#adminLogged)? Or some toggling of options, that enables a more detail editor when clicking on a unit or spawning a unit in Zeus. http://i.imgur.com/gRkJh5y.jpg (130 kB) And some further searching, also discovered that you can apparently add a initialization module, though the original post sounds more of a request than actually demonstration of functionality in Zeus. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?184706-Init-Module-on-the-fly-Scripting Any comments or suggestions you can offer will be very helpful. Look forward to future iterations!

I stand corrected, upon deeper examination, my doubts were wrong with respect to the EAD engineers feeding back an RCS optimization parameter on the canard angle - the Eurofighter was indeed designed with low-observability in mind, and the engineers did implement it as Max Power suggested. ;) It seems ultimately you guys convinced me that the Chinese may have implemented successfully an low-observability canard plane design with an RCS on par with our Raptor. I was just speculating that the reason for the same shared swept angle of the canard and wing was that the Chinese engineers intended to superimpose the vortices. The canard could have had a different angle, yet still refract the radar waves. It's not just updating the radar systems on aging aircraft like the F-15, but the ability to employ the tactics that the article mentions with active radar blaring on the 4th gen fighter or other support aircraft, using them as bait or to invite an attacker to move to an unsuspecting area where F-22s/JSF lie in wait working in passive radar mode. Reminds me of scenes from The Hunt for Red October, but instead of sonar its radar. It's interesting article, if I can find it, I remember reading somewhere that a possible new role for the B1 along the same lines of what this article describes with the F15, but carries an complement of entirely air to air missiles. Picturing a B1B coming in supersonic and launching all its missiles would be an awesome sight. Always a cat and mouse. Yeah for the immediate future definitely UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles). Look forward to seeing what the aviation industry develops with these highly maneuverable planes that won't be held back because of the human factor - from blacking out or redding out while performing high-g-maneuvers, restrictions limited to the structure's ability to withstand limit loads and fatigue. Placing my self in the shoes of our future aerial adversaries, I'd already be scared enough to know I am going against something I can not only see, literally to my naked eye or instruments, but can pull 10+ gs with no sweat, and psychologically knowing that no pilot is physically in the opposing plane(s) either.

I believe this was part of the argument that Walker was making arguing that the J-10 flight controls were used in the development of the J-20s, that were derived from IAF Lavi development, and such consultation was a violation of technology export regs. As for including an optimization parameter for reducing radar cross section in the flight control system, I doubt the Eurofighter had RCS as a feedback to the canard cylinder controller or other control surfaces. The flight stability equations are hard enough to deal with, factoring in estimations for RCS based on the many permutations of distance, incident angles of waves, at varying amplitude, and wavelengths, coupled with varying flight conditions would be a night mare to develop. Not saying it is impossible, but just doubt it was developed for an aircraft, Eurofighter, which design criterion did not include low-observability. I suspect that that the reason the canard are swept at an angle similar to the wing is to take advantage of the interaction of vortices from canard to the leading-edge of the wing, which increases its strength and therefore augments the lift.

I agree to a certain extent, though the obvious largest contributor to radar cross section (RCS) is the exterior design of the aircraft, with respect to global size and local geometry on surfaces with varying angles to refract the returning waves away from radar receiver. It is fact, that the actuation of any control surface, flap, elevator, or stabilizer - whether it be a canard or traditional aft tail design will vary the RCS and correspondingly the probability of detection. Even the momentary release of ordinance through opening of the bay doors are governed autonomously to close after release to further mitigate the aircraft RCS. Assuming of course that radar coherence is sufficient (strength, distance, wavelength) to detect the aircraft in the first place. But I can agree, that if one were to compile a pie chart representing the % contribution from global size of the aircraft, local geometry of the exterior structure, control surfaces, etc, that one could argue they don't contribute to a significant increase in RCS. But what threshold is enough for a solid active radar lock, from say a AIM-120, or other active seeking air-to-air radar guided missile? Incorrect, the canards are constantly moving as are other control surfaces. On a control-canard aircraft, as the J-20, the canard is used to control the angle-of-attack of the wing and to balance out the pitching moment (torque) produced by the deflection of flaps. Such designs are highly unstable. Typically, canard configurations are design such that the aircraft is neutrally stable with the canards removed. Straight level-flight requires the canard to operate at zero lift condition/zero angle of attack and thus carries little of the aircraft weight. This produces a natural downward pitching moment which pilots as early as the Wright brothers were forced to constantly apply stick to, but now with computerized flight control systems such as fly-by-wire, can make these necessarily rapid changes of the angle of the canard to maintain stability. I can't quantify the particular frequency or amplitude in the canard angle, but to argue they hardly move is flawed. Even with at a constant airspeed and altitude, the air density, pressure, and temperature change, our skies are highly dynamic systems - resulting in turbulence, side shear, down shear, etc (why the weather man seems to never get it just right). To maintain straight and level flight the fly-by-wire will make necessarily angle of attack changes to the canard, resulting in a reduction or increase of lift at the forward fuselage station for pitch stability or stability in all operating regimes from take off, climb, ingress, combat, egress, loiter and land. Putting aside the mechanics of flight stability, aerial combat is also equally dynamic as well, fighter pilots will find any excuse to yank and bank.

It's interesting to see the the different designs. Some random observations after looking closer at the pictures of the three 5th gen fighters, the Russian PAK, which from afar looks very similar to a Raptor, lacks a conventional center barrel fuselage section, but instead uses a quasi-blended fuselage wing fuselage, which contributes more to lift than the latter. However, this severely reduces the amount of ordinance that can be carried internally to reduce the A/C radar cross section, which would then require additional pylons under the wings for weapon hard points for a multi-role oppose to air-interdiction mission. Whereas the F-22s and J-20s use relatively large fuselages to incorporate internal bays, and though the Chinese choose to use a conventional center fuselage, the control surfaces are interesting to say the least. The use of a canard will severely increase the A/C radar signature while transitioning rapidly to high AOAs, due to the entire surface deflecting at an angle offering a large surface for greater radar return. Moreover, the vertical stabilizers have very little structure to them, significant portion of it seems to moves entirely as one piece, and are unconventional - literally backwards. So from an logistics, flight maintenance perspective I'd imagine the inspections there would be more rigorous than other planes. From a stability standpoint with the canards, they are in the same water line, which would mean that if a pilot where to pitch hard up or down, the control surface would actuate to that position that would blanket and disrupt the airflow to the wings, which depending on the speed, altitude and angle of attack, could lead to an catastrophic unrecoverable stall and lost of the aircraft. I am equally curious here too. I would assume it, the J-20, would use an internal structure common with other fighter jets, with steel or titanium bulkheads for the wing carry through structure, aluminum longerons, and ribs that make the internal skeleton finishing with composite or aluminum skins. Be interesting to see if they use any special radar absorbent materials for the surfaces as well. For reference here is an internal cutaway of an F22:

Sounds a little on the low side. I'll confirm my FPS later on Zargabad, but if I remember right I was averaging roughly the same as you, but there were occasional stutters here and depends on the number of units. It definitely becomes unplayable with unoptimized epic battle with max 144 groups on BLUEFOR, OPFOR, and Independent, somewhere at <10 FPS. i7-950 @ 3.8/4.0 GHz (167X23/24 -TB & HT Enabled) @ 1.312 V 2X GeForce GTX 460 2GB (SLI) GeForce GTX 450 1GB (PhysX) 12GB (2GBX3) DDR3/1600 MHz *Ran at max settings w/ 4X AA @ 1920X1080, with a second monitor for productivity

Also re-tested, and confirmed the same results on a flat range opposed to the inclined plane. The discrepancy was I misjudged the distance, and didn't factor in the elevation that I was shooting from. Also oriented the targets in different directions, for COM hit but through a limb, and you're right doesn't simulate penetration through limbs properly. Back to the original post, could you provide more specifics? What gun, distance, etc. Sounds like you were shooting in low-light/night, and were relatively close at say <50m from targets?

I believe you can play with the weapon configs to adjust wounding factors, but I am also new to OA as well and haven't played around with these settings as of yet. However, with respect to accuracy - ability to hit where you aim, point of aim v. point of impact, the guns are dialed in at a specific distance, otherwise known as zero. You have to make sure you're dope is in, on some of the guns the zero is adjustable, pushing "Page Up" or "Page Down" will adjust the zero. This system simplifies the process in the real world of using a ballistic tables generated for the specific gun, ammo type, range, and windage, which is use for scope turret adjustments or knowledge for the shooter to hold-over make the shot. Precision wise - ability to hit the same point again and again, are dependent on recoil management, which is simulated by stance, and rate of fire. Stance, movement running or walking, higher rates of fire over time will cause a continuing shift in your point of aim and corresponding your point of impact. I also had a similar impression when testing and evaluating the game for the first time but not with respect to accuracy or precision, though I agree some of the recoil dynamics modeled could be tweaked more. Played with the weapons, see if I could actually use the BDC (Bullet Drop Compensator) on the ACOGs or mildot scopes for range estimation or hold overs currently, and was impressed with the attention to detail of what BIS incorporated. After some simulated range/weapons familiarization, I generated a couple simple force-on-force missions, to test the game play, and was disappointed at the simulated terminal ballistics. At a range of 300-500 meters, it took three shots of 7.62 to take a target down. All three hits were center-of-mass, I expected one COM hit should have dropped at least some of the targets I had engaged, as the issue with plunging-fire, rounds coming in at a steep angle to the target, wasn't an issue at this range with 7.62. But then again I had to keep in mind that in real-life hunters often run into this problem with deer or large game, shot a deer and they continue to sprint for 50 meters or more before falling, and holds the same for the "two-legged type". So I suppose it is plausible for that to happen, for it to take three 7.62 shots, and BIS developers purposefully configured the wounding characteristics as so. While T&E some more, I naturally switched to a larger bore in the mission editor, changed from using a SCAR H to M107, placed couple auto reset/spring steel targets past 1,000 meters, to dial in, and then placed some OPFOR roughly in the same kill-zone, and engaged with disappointment that it also took a couple 50 cal hits to take a target down. Keep in mind these are default game settings, but I believe the A.C.E., among the many milsim aspect it adds, resolves or revamps the entire wounding system, though I haven't tried it just yet. So if it bothers you enough try using the ACE addon.

Unsure on what operators are using in the field now, but some manufacturers of 7.62 cans that come to mind are: http://www.advanced-armament.com/ http://www.gem-tech.com/store/pc/HVT-QD-10p90.htm http://www.surefire.com/FA762K-Suppressor