Tank Reticule Elevation Marker

[Bluedrake42]

Ive worked on Tanks for 13 years now and the only time i have seen it on an MBT was on a Cheiftan then CR1, it was called Quadrant Fire Control (QFC) and was an absolute last ditch method of controlling the gun. To be honest it doesnt matter what elevation the gun is on unless its an artillary piece of some kind or similar. If you cant elevate onto the target its too low or too high, who cares how high an angle it sits at? If you cant aim at it you are a bad tank commander.

Edit: Tell a slight lie, there s of course a graticule pattern for correct aiming marks but that is very WW2 and is only used in auxilliary sighting systems these days.

but manual firing modes is all we have in PR... so compromise??

[Hunt3r]

I'd be in favor of adding an indication of elevation, with the gun pointed directly forward set to 0 degrees, with elevating gun upwards being positive, downwards going negative.

This would help go a ways towards compensating for the current lack of ability for the driver/TC to be able to either take over control to point the gunner where he needs to be, or a hunter-killer system.

It would be nice if in PR: ArmA 2 and PR2 if all AFVs had proper FCS and stabilization.

[nedlands1]

Protip: You can use the laser rangefinder to give you the range to the target which can be used instead of elevation in most circumstances.

[Hunt3r]

Unfortunately I've found that the laser rangefinder really isn't much help in this case, especially if the target is on an area where a significant area of the FOV is at the same range.

[Tarranauha200]

My picture was just example, fast drawn whit paint.

[DenvH]

I'd be in favour of adding an indication of elevation, with the gun pointed directly forward set to 0 degrees, with elevating gun upwards being positive, downwards going negative.

I think adding it will have some problems;

1. You would have to line up the commander's and gunner's angles since the POV is different.
2. The above means you will have to do some tricky coding, if it's possible in the first place.

As it is now, I would probably say something like, enemy tank, North 15deg, high, on top of the hill. That would get the job done. Range can be added to the contact report but it doesn't add much unless it's really close.

[Bluedrake42]

I think adding it will have some problems;

1. You would have to line up the commander's and gunner's angles since the POV is different.
2. The above means you will have to do some tricky coding, if it's possible in the first place.

As it is now, I would probably say something like, enemy tank, North 15deg, high, on top of the hill. That would get the job done. Range can be added to the contact report but it doesn't add much unless it's really close.

They're close enough that it wouldn't make a difference. The elevation grid wouldn't be that accurate. Once you get the target in the gunners screen he should be able to see it on thermals, so like 5 or so degrees won't matter. It wouldn't show up on the grid anyways, just like the compass, it would only number every like... 10 or 15 degrees.

So for this to be implemented, I wouldn't bother linking the angles.