MOA of Handheld Weapons

icehollow · Post by **icehollow** » 2008-01-01 16:28

I would like to add to my clan mate's (nedlands) thread by saying that the new accuracy system, hasn't done too well so far. You can still sprint and insta prone and lose no accuracy whatsoever, urban combat is virtually the same, if not worse.

other then that im enjoying 0.7

BeerHunter · Post by **BeerHunter** » 2008-01-01 17:16

Do the formulas allow for such things as ping and packet loss online?

M1126 Stryker · Post by **M1126 Stryker** » 2008-01-01 18:29

I don't know about the new formula but it seems the recoil on many of the assault rifles is too high. Automatic or burst fire is pretty worthless even at short range unless you have a SAW.

nedlands1 · Post by **nedlands1** » 2008-01-02 01:51

*BUMP* See original post.

icehollow · Post by **icehollow** » 2008-01-02 03:30

another thing to add to my previous post , besides the fact that you can still sprint , insta prone and shoot with no accuracy loss , running also has the same accuracy penalty as walking with sights up does, which IMO is quite ****. The person walking with their sights up should have a distinct advantage over the knobhead who is just running and firing as he comes around corners, but alas you dont have that advantage.

VipersGhost · Post by **VipersGhost** » 2008-01-02 09:25

icehollow wrote:another thing to add to my previous post , besides the fact that you can still sprint , insta prone and shoot with no accuracy loss , running also has the same accuracy penalty as walking with sights up does, which IMO is quite ****.

I agree the running vs sprinting should be different but are you sure you can still insta-prone and fire accurately instantly? Seems to me that yes you can still throw rounds down field but not very accurately until after you've settled for a sec or two.

icehollow · Post by **icehollow** » 2008-01-02 10:16

VipersGhost wrote:I agree the running vs sprinting should be different but are you sure you can still insta-prone and fire accurately instantly? Seems to me that yes you can still throw rounds down field but not very accurately until after you've settled for a sec or two.

Im not sure if jogging then going prone will affect your accuracy , but sprinting then going prone , sighting up and firing all within half a second has no affect on your accuracy. Infact going into a crouch will sighted up and moving has more negative effect on your accuracy , which is silly because if you look at the prone dive animation , he's diving to the ground , which means he hasnt had time to steady the rifle , he has no sight picture. Whereas if you crouched while still having your sights up, you've still got the rifle shouldered , hands on , sight picture, etc.

Rico11b · Post by **Rico11b** » 2008-01-02 22:15

nedlands1 wrote:*BUMP* See original post.

Does this mean that you have re-ran you report to show the new MOA values now that .7 is out? Please tell me you did. If you didn't do it yet, please do

R

Lav69 · Post by **Lav69** » 2008-01-02 22:23

nedlands1 wrote:I have compiled a spreadsheet with the predicted values of weapon deviation measured in MOA. Currently I have done it just for handheld weapons which are firing one shot, are zoomed and are stationary. Also I have done it for weapons in various postions (standing, crouched and prone). The formula I have used is D=C*B*S*Z, where:

D=Deviation in MOA (Diameter not radius of group)

C=Constant
=No. of MOA in a degree x 2(x 2 converts from radius to diameter)
=60 x 2
=120

B=ObjectTemplate.deviation.minDev
=Baseline deviation

S=ObjectTemplate.deviation.devModStand, ObjectTemplate.deviation.devModCrouch or ObjectTemplate.deviation.devModLie
=Stance deviation multiplier

Z=ObjectTemplate.deviation.devModZoom
=Zoom mode multiplier
This formula can simplified when firing with these conditions mentioned. This is because the deviation due to realigning the sight on target, the deviation due to firing multiple rounds, the deviation due to recoil and the deviation due to walking are not considered.

You have entirely to much time on your hands. Get out much?

nedlands1 · Post by **nedlands1** » 2008-01-02 22:49

Rico11b wrote:Does this mean that you have re-ran you report to show the new MOA values now that .7 is out? Please tell me you did. If you didn't do it yet, please do

R

Yes. In response to Lav69, it literally took me 5 minutes to find out what the basic formula was online and then another 5 to find out, by tweaking ingame values, how much deviation each BF2 unit was. Getting the actual data took longer (turns out that the local 0.7 servers were down a lot anyways).

In the original version there were 57 weapons to gather data on. Of that, there are 24 different sets of data (eg M16 variants with the same values). The process of opening each weapon .tweak file probably took 10 seconds. Getting the data from each weapon tweak file took say another 10 seconds. Say 5 seconds per data input in and a 2 seconds to copy boxes. Add another 5 minutes of formatting. What do you get? I get 31.1 minutes to do this task, quicker the second time and third time with formatting already done pretty much.

After all that, what really takes time is replying to pointless posts.

VipersGhost · Post by **VipersGhost** » 2008-01-02 22:51

Yeah Rico the table is updated...just download the second file.

Should the G3 accuracy really be that far off from the M16 accuracy wise? I sure enjoy the recoil but I always thought the G3 was a pretty accurate gun.

Maybe this is the issue people have spoke about already...but imo the sniper and markmen rifles should be quiet a bit lower given that the soldier operating them is highly trained in the fine art. I'm pretty sure a trained sniper with a sub MOA rifle can put a 2inch pattern together pretty easily at 100yrds from a prone position.

Interesting seeing the numbers up here...I haven't had more than a few hours in-game but I definitely like the deviation for almost everything, except the pistols G3 (maybe) and DMR/Sniper. It feels good and I DON'T find myself saying "Ohh I should have hit that guy...BS, IRL I could hit that shot easily".

Rico11b · Post by **Rico11b** » 2008-01-02 23:04

DAM!!!!!!!!!!!!! There it is again in black and white

R

Rico11b · Post by **Rico11b** » 2008-01-03 15:34

This got me to thinking. Yes I know everyone could smell smoke coming from my ears

Did some testing last night on one of the pub servers. Now up to this point we only got the chance to test the L85 Brit assault rifle with scope. we were gonna the the AK rifles but the round ended. Anyway, we found that the rounds are landing to the left of the intended impact point on each and every shot. We also found that the shot group was about the same size regardless of stance. At 100 meters we could produce and shot group that "SEEMED" to have a fairly tight pattern of about 4 inches. Several times we noticed that you could put the rounds into the same hole at this distance. This is how we did it. Set the marker at the target and move back 100 meters. Then have one person fire slow controlled shots taking 3 to 5 seconds in between shots while trying to obtain the EXACT same sight picture (or pixel) using prone and then standing. Have the other player stand about 10 ft from the target to observe the impacts. Then the observer can take a screen shots of the shot group. That way we can study the screen shot and try to guesstimate what the approx shot group size may be. Because the whole scale of the game is off a bit you can't say that something is EXACTLY 12 inches in game cause there is no real way to measure that I have found. You just have to look at the size of the shot group and give your best guess as to the approx size of the group in diameter. If most guys seem to agree that something looks to be a certain size then that's good enough for government work

The prone L85a2 with scope is rated at 12 MOA in the spreadsheet so I was kinda expecting to see shots spread out to cover at space about 11 to 12 inches or so in diameter. But that didn't happen at all. Even single shot rapid fire produced fairly tight shot groups at that range. Most groups seemed to hover right about 4 to 5 inches regardless of who did the shooting at 100 meters. I will continue to look at this further but right now the only thing that does seem to be an issue (at least for me) with accuracy is "why are all the shots going to the left of the aim point at about 7 to 9 inches at 100 meters. Certainly by the time you get to 200 or 300 meters the spread to the left will be even more. Now the reason I say all this is... Now I"m not convinced that the spreadsheet is 100% accurate in it's findings. So far it does NOT look like the incredibly high MOA values in that spreadsheet for PR .7 are spot on. Of course more testing is needed. Something to ponder for sure...

R

nedlands1 · Post by **nedlands1** » 2008-01-03 17:05

You shouldn't have a tendency to one side. The rounds should be uniformly spread in a circular pattern. I did some testing myself with the M16A4 with the ACOG which has exactly the same deviation settings. I found myself a door, which I assume is about a metre wide. The door has a grille which is about half a metre in width. I positioned myself at ~145 m away which should give the prone steady shots(12 MOA deviation), a ~0.5 m spread (2 x 145m x tan(6/60)= ~0.506m). Watching the tracers I can say that the rounds don't seem to be too tight at all. They didn't seem to go past sides of the ~0.5m grille, indicating that the data seems to be about right.

To replicate this, you can make a local server on 16 player Daqing Oilfields and move between D5/6 facing West towards the warehouse and shoot the door there with the M16 from about 143m away while prone and still. Watch for the tracers which come out every 5th shot.

Screenshot

VipersGhost · Post by **VipersGhost** » 2008-01-03 18:30

OK so here is one of many screenshots I have of our testing at 96 meters. The red dot in the center is where Rico was aiming. Notice the tight pattern to the left. now I'm positive that some of the deviation of the pattern (which is small) was due to rico not hitting the perfect pixel everytime and NOT due to deviation. Other times we would shoot and the bullet would go in the exact hole. Eitherway thats about a 2MOA pattern (radius). Every single test we did the L85 shot about 6 inches or to the left exactly.

[/IMG]

VipersGhost · Post by **VipersGhost** » 2008-01-03 18:36

Here is another example, Rico's aiming was a bit high but you still see an even tighter pattern to the left again about 6 inches. Note, there are three shots there from 96 meters again (barrier was in the way limiting us from 100m). I was watching and he was shooting.

[/IMG]

VipersGhost · Post by **VipersGhost** » 2008-01-03 19:03

And here is Uncle Rico once again but this time shooting quickly. Less than 1 second intervals between shots. The red dot in the center is where he was aiming. The pattern has a fairly spreadout MOA but its center seems to be about 6 inches to the left again. Here it's to the right because I had to go inside the building he was shooting at to see the holes as they stopped rendering on the outside. I'm also looking at a slight angle...had to stay out of the way of Mr. TK

[/IMG]

ReaperMAC · Post by **ReaperMAC** » 2008-01-03 19:09

VipersGhost wrote:had to stay out of the way of Mr. TK

Better to stand behind him

But what you have found is interesting.

Rico11b · Post by **Rico11b** » 2008-01-03 19:48

nedlands1 wrote:You shouldn't have a tendency to one side. The rounds should be uniformly spread in a circular pattern. I did some testing myself with the M16A4 with the ACOG which has exactly the same deviation settings. I found myself a door, which I assume is about a metre wide. The door has a grille which is about half a metre in width. I positioned myself at ~145 m away which should give the prone steady shots(12 MOA deviation), a ~0.5 m spread (2 x 145m x tan(6/60)= ~0.506m). Watching the tracers I can say that the rounds don't seem to be too tight at all. They didn't seem to go past sides of the ~0.5m grille, indicating that the data seems to be about right.

To replicate this, you can make a local server on 16 player Daqing Oilfields and move between D5/6 facing West towards the warehouse and shoot the door there with the M16 from about 143m away while prone and still. Watch for the tracers which come out every 5th shot.

Screenshot

Yes I agree, it shouldn't be off to one side, but it is. You used the M16, switch to the Brit rifle and try again. The M16 used to have to same issue, but Katarn squared that away when he was perfecting the Acog sight picture. So I don't think the M16 has that left of center impact problem anymore, but I will double check when I get home tonight. We tested on Al Basrah. Also don't use the tracer or the dust puffs to determine where your shots landed as they can be missleading. You really need someone on the server that can be standing near the impact area and observe and get a screen shot of your shot group. Last night, each shot I took with the L85 showed that dust puss and tracer striking my aiming point, while VipersGhost said I was striking to the left. Sounds strange I agree, but that's what happened. Bullet marks from hits don't show up beyond 75 meters so you need an impact area observer to help. By the time you run up there the bullet marks will be gone.
Please don't get offended as this is not my intention. I'm not insulting anyone and trying to say that they are wrong or that they messed up. I'm just wanting a deeper look into things.

R

Uncle Blues · Post by **Uncle Blues** » 2008-01-03 19:52

I say: ballistics are good, the images of sights might be not perfectly centered.