Real LAV25 Sight Reticle

[***LeGeNDK1LLER***]

Originally Posted by Hotrod525

Well in my sig' you can read : Me on a L2A4+C... and its not a piece of equipement you can be close at as civilian, [ well not yet ] even L1C2 are not that much accessible to public..

Anyway, sorry for confusing but yes, i'm an armor guy'

And LegendKiller, Abrams M1A2 TUSK and Leopard 2A6M-C had proven themself way much more safer than Leclerc. [ I dont even known if Leclerc ever seen combat... will do some research .. ]

sorry not to flame, but im trying just to understand.how did you know m1a2 tusk and leo
had proven...than leclerc. if leclerc has never seen a battlefield for the moment( in afghanistan they are using amx..)?well im not a tanker but just a funboy of tanks and a vet. of steel beasts, anyway by using the info avaible in internet the european tanks are the newer and the best at the moment(leo-chally-francois). they are new projects, they use a 3th generation composite steel..and leclerc has also an autoloader which is most of the times a vantage and ot the contrare, you can reload every shell with the same speed unlike with an human loader.

p.s im far away to be an expert as you are man but, personally, i think the "combat test" is a factor overrated now in the 2009.because we have the technologies and the knowledge to tests the reliability of a vehicle ,civilian or for military purposes,and we can have some real and effective indications even if they dont have see the bf.

did you know something more about the leclerc which the poor mortals don't know?

[[R-DEV]Ninja2dan]

Originally Posted by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

sorry not to flame, but im trying just to understand.how did you know m1a2 tusk and leo
had proven...than leclerc. if leclerc has never seen a battlefield for the moment( in afghanistan they are using amx..)?well im not a tanker but just a funboy of tanks and a vet. of steel beasts, anyway by using the info avaible in internet the european tanks are the newer and the best at the moment(leo-chally-francois). they are new projects, they use a 3th generation composite steel..and leclerc has also an autoloader which is most of the times a vantage and ot the contrare, you can reload every shell with the same speed unlike with an human loader.

p.s im far away to be an expert as you are man but, personally, i think the "combat test" is a factor overrated now in the 2009.because we have the technologies and the knowledge to tests the reliability of a vehicle ,civilian or for military purposes,and we can have some real and effective indications even if they dont have see the bf.

did you know something more about the leclerc which the poor mortals don't know?

If you spend time to read any of the reports issued during military trials of new equipment, the best method in selecting equipment is through combat trials. While non-combat testing can be thorough and detailed, it is still not possible of all factors present in a conflict. This is why almost all modern combat equipment, be it a canteen or a tank, is usually tested on the battlefield in some way prior to permanent issue.

There are many problems that in the past have turned up in combat from equipment that was supposedly "fully tested" outside of combat. Soldiers have a knack for tearing stuff up well beyond what was tested for. You also have to remember that a large majority of the people in charge of the testing are either civilians, or military officers that haven't had recent experience with field-grade equipment. Do you think some desk-jockey is really able to test a tank better than a seasoned tank crew?


And with any type of combat equipment, it's not always just technology that determines how successful or effective an item is. Past experiences and lessons learned can substantially improve item design even when sometimes using "older" or less-modern technology. Until something has proven itself on the battlefield against a real enemy, there is no true way to say it's superior or not.



@Nedlands -

My understanding of the BF2 engine is limited. So what you're saying is that using such a reticle with range marks will not work due to engine limitations and variances between resolution settings?

[[R-CON]nedlands1]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Ninja2dan

@Nedlands -

My understanding of the BF2 engine is limited. So what you're saying is that using such a reticle with range marks will not work due to engine limitations and variances between resolution settings?

Effectively yes. This is the problem I had with the UGL Leaf sight textures that are in-game. They worked well enough in 16:10 (my monitor's aspect ratio) but not in 5:4 or 4:3. IIRC the problem exists with models as well (such as reticles used in tanks). The BF2 1.5 patch was meant to fix the FOV issues but they still exist. Currently 4:3 & 16:10 are to scale, for a lack of a better word, and 5:4 is not. One solution could be to have HUD for users of 4:3/16:10 and another for people using 5:4.

Another issue is that the tracers in BF2 behave differently to normal rounds (either they travel faster or have extra gravity - I forget). Consequently they fall more than traditional rounds. The effect is negligible in-game currently because of the high deviation and low gravity but it would be significant if drag and proper gravitational effects were incorporated into the game.

[[R-DEV]Ninja2dan]

Thanks for the info. So I guess that settles the use of BDC reticles.

[[R-DEV]Rhino]

besides for most weapons ingame our view distances are not long enough for the reticles distance values to be of any use.

[PLODDITHANLEY]

All round what a interesting thread:

Real LAV sights with explanation from a real LAV guy...thx for taking the time to share with us mate
Serious looking physics/maths formula
Ballistics characteristics....

Who can say you don't learn anything with gaming?

[Hotrod525]

Originally Posted by PLODDITHANLEY

Who can say you don't learn anything with gaming?

Somone that never play P.R. and that dosent known that actualy REAL military does suggest thing.

And to Exiled, i was right, you where not. Right in the Chicklet [ just kiddin]

And to Rhino, its just a sight, for added realism... not to rebuild the entire 25/30mm ballistic xD

[Hunt3r]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

besides for most weapons ingame our view distances are not long enough for the reticles distance values to be of any use.

Well, if you can find an acceptable way to get it to work, why not? All for more realism, whether realistic gameplay or realistic textures/sights.

Oh, and it would be preferable to have all tracers, with realistic bullet drop in tanks. Otherwise, set the tracers to have same perf as the normal rounds. It's annoying to have tracers that don't actually tell you where your shots fly.