Project Reality Forums

Hotrod525 wrote:Here you go whit the sight... as you can see, HE and AP do not had the same graduation. Anyway, here you go. If you need the whole picture just PM me.

O.T. sorry
jesus christ you are using 1 of the best tanks in the world probably the best with the leclerc!!
soooooo jealous, you can and i can't!

i will wait for christmas maybe..

octo-crab wrote:
EDIT: Ahhh you tried to trick me, you didn't say you were an army crewman when I originally wrote this post so I thought you were referring to the PR LAV-25.

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 .. ]

cant help but feel there must be something iffy to do with opsec when posting stuff like that?

Burton wrote:cant help but feel there must be something iffy to do with milsec when posting stuff like that?

Images of a reticle are in no way against OPSEC in this case. There is nothing that could be gained from enemy knowledge of the device, therefore there is no threat to security.

In fact, MCWP 3-14.1 [Light Armored Vehicle-25 (LAV-25) Gunnery and Employment], which is one of the USMC field manuals for the LAV-25, is approved for public distribution and available for review and download on the internet.


Besides, if some kind of terrorist or enemy soldier was to get their hands on a LAV-25, I think we'd have more serious security concerns than them knowing what the reticle looks like.

'[R-DEV wrote:Ninja2dan;1204303']Images of a reticle are in no way against OPSEC in this case. There is nothing that could be gained from enemy knowledge of the device, therefore there is no threat to security.

In fact, MCWP 3-14.1 [Light Armored Vehicle-25 (LAV-25) Gunnery and Employment], which is one of the USMC field manuals for the LAV-25, is approved for public distribution and available for review and download on the internet.


Besides, if some kind of terrorist or enemy soldier was to get their hands on a LAV-25, I think we'd have more serious security concerns than them knowing what the reticle looks like.

"- Hey Mohammed, do you know how to aim one of those things?
- No problem, I played Project Reality online for two years! I got very good K/D with this!"

Th3Exiled wrote:Actually It would be around 5m. If we were to say that acceleration is exactly -9.8 ms^-2, a constant value, which would be equivalant to a=-9.8t^0=dv/dt, then when we integrate to get the velocity we get: v=-9.8t + c. c would be substituted for u (v=-9.8t + u) however initial vertical motion will be considered 0 (hence u=0). Integrate ds/dt=-9.8t to get s=(-9.8/2)t^2.
when t= 1, s=-4.9*1=-4.9
Alternatively, we could have just used the displacement formula for constant acceleration; s=ut+at^2. This approach would have taken less time, but it is much more restrictive(and I felt like integrating).

Exiled.

Yea goddammit I was using the wrong kinematics equation, I should have been using d=v1*t*1/2at^2.

Th3Exiled wrote:Math is correct, your interpretation is wrong. Don't forget that the (horizontal) velocity isn't constant (due to drag) therefore time, t, can not be calculated by t=s/v. However, if we assumed that horizontal velocity is constant:

t=2400/1100
S=ut+1/2at^2 (ut obmitted, initial vertical motion assumed 0 for simplicity [otherwise it would take longer and would require using the quadratic equation])
Sy=-9.8/2(2400/1100)^2 (acceleration, g, is negative)
Sy=-4.9*4.76
Sy=-23.32m

Which is different to your 14m which would require t=1.69, since:
Sy= ut+1/2 at^2
-14=0-9.8/2 t^2
-14=-4.9 t^2
14/4.9=t^2
t^2=2.86
t=1.69

Also since it covers 2400m in 1.69 seconds, if we assume constant velocity:
t=s/v
1.69=2400/v
v=2400/1.69
v=1420.12 ms^-1
However, that is larger than the stated initial velocity of 1100ms^-1 and since it would be exposed to air resistance, the initial velocity, u, would have to be > 1420 ms^-1.

If you wanted to get even more technical, besides accounting for air resistance, you could also take into account the elevation of the barrel needed to hit the target. This would in effect make the initial horizontal velocity smaller thus taking more time to reach the target and being a larger drop on the round. Though unless we had some data such as how long it takes for a round to reach a target at various distances, it would be impossible to incorporate drag, even with the data you still need to use quite a bit of calculus.

Exiled.

what does this have to do with the suggestion? it would be sweet to have thermal on lav though

illidur'd

read the quote at the top of his post, then read the thread.

From FM 3-22.1 (BRADLEY GUNNERY) (23.08 megabytes of PDF) regarding the M242 25mm cannon (see part 2-13),

The time of flight is as follows:

M791 APDS-T Rounds

Range, Time (s)
1000m, 0.8
1500m, 1.2
2000m, 1.7
2500m, 2.2


M792 HEI-T Rounds

Range, Time (s)
1000m, 1.2
1500m, 2.2
2000m, 3.6
2500m, 5.3

At 2400m, the time the round has been in the air is 2.1 seconds (from spline interpolation) for M791 APDS-T rounds and 4.9 seconds for M792 HEI-T rounds.

Using the constant acceleration equations which were kindly provided by Exiled and assuming the gun is fired at the horizontal and there are no other external effects on the projectile (eg drag, wind etc), then the drop is roughly 22m and 118m respectively at 2400m.

Back on topic. Stadiametric sights would be cool but BF2 has some weird issues with scaling things for various aspect ratios which would make it difficult to implement effectively.

Hotrod525 wrote: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?

***LeGeNDK1LLER*** wrote: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-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote:@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.

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

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

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?

PLODDITHANLEY wrote: 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

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote: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.