MRADs on binoculars

[CG-Delta]

Originally Posted by Deep Thought

Now I can assume as OP that a PR character is 1,8 meters tall. The dude in the first picture is also about half a line tall through OPs binoculars.

1,8 x 1000 = 3600 meters
0,5

OK WOW

Hi Deep Thought, welcome to the forum and thanks for the response
First I need to point out that the values like "550m+" and "5 MRADs" I wrote beneath the first picture is as far as I remember is not from the picture. The picture was taken to tell the story and thereby underline MRADs practical usage, and the data was taken from the multi-player scene. The picture is a recreation of the scene with bots on local server. The original target was one picture length left across the river. (+~100m).
You made some mistakes that I'll point out.
I prefer this version of the equation:
target size (m) = distance (km)
angle (MRADs)
You can get distance in meters or MRADs in whatever prefix as long as it goes up, but this is wrong:

Originally Posted by Deep Thought

1,8 x 1000 = 3600 meters
0,5

The equation is fine but from 0-1 in the binoculars is 10 MRADs, not 1. You made this mistake through the rest of your calculations.
As 0,5 is 10 times smaller than 5, your smurf being 0,275m tall should be a 2,75m high giant. He should be ~1,8m, but as the binocular grid is like a ruler with a too small scale, thus measuring thing bigger than they are.

Originally Posted by Deep Thought

I did fire up test airfield and line up a PR character model so it fits nicely in between two of my binocular lines. I then used a GTLD to get a some what accurate reading on the range, 262 meters...

That would make the character model 0,262 meters tall(ish).

I recreated this test and likewise got 261 meters. I see how you calculated that he then should be 0,262m tall: (262m * 1)/1000 = 0,262m tall, but if you used 10 MRADs instead of 1, you'd get a 2.62m tall soldier.

Originally Posted by Deep Thought

0,262 x 1000 = 524 meters
0,5

At first I though you just randomly got close to my old map-estimate, but I see now that 2.62 is (man height*scale correctionfactor in the y-axis)
So I tried to use 2.62 with surprising results, and measured 1.3km. SL-mark said 1350m. I tried again much closer and got 111m, and the fucking GTLD showed 111m. Case closed. I'm writing 2.62 down to use that.
However if you want to measure anything but a standing soldier, you still need a scale correction factor to y- or x-axis. Anyways, cheers.

[CG-Delta]

I should have written in the original post that I didn't suggest that all optics with any shown or hidden (that's a lot) MRAD references should be calibrated to the true angles. That's a waste of time IMO. The work would prove even more difficult for optics with already working ballistic markers. But this item: "Binoculars" is the same item used by all factions. All insurgents, crewmen and snipers has the binoculars. Along with it being a relatively easy fix, I suggested a scale up for "binoculars" and "binoculars" only.

Originally Posted by Wing Walker

I don't think any DEVs intended for the reticles in the PR-optics to be actually used for range estimation.

This is not real world physics, this is PR-fizics.

The PR-Sniper rifles have a point blank range of 600m, meaning center of the cross hairs is the hitting out to 600m.

On most maps you can't see past something like 450m or 550m anyway, so range estimation doesn't really matter.

If you really want an indicator of range the only constant would be the height and width of the soldier in a particular rifle's scope, at a certain range.

So you should put your test soldier at 625m or 650m and note the dimensions of the soldier compared to your reticle, so in game you will know when you need to aim above the head.

Put your test soldier next to some structure so you can GLTD/range finde it easier.

I agree that Devs didn't intend it to work. I they wanted, it would fit. They choose a nice usable zoom and put in the nice realistic/immersive grid (usable for difficult spotting). Mainly due to the high zoom, the grid doesn't fit.

Physics like ballistics is not what I'm concerned about. Math/geometry like this can be applied to.. like any virtual 3D space

I disagree that ranging within say 450m isn't useful. That's about as far as many grenade launcher zero to. 50m range means a lot. Being able to give ranges with more accuracy than 50m may enable you to hit a window in first shot. Also it can be used to locate something on the map which is hard to locate on the map without range, due to poor landmarks (example a hill in Biijar Canyons).

"If you really want an indicator of range the only constant would be the height and width of the soldier in a particular rifle's scope, at a certain range."

As that is surely a way to range and aim at the same time, I think it is highly overkill to make a small book of range-tables of all the optics in PR.

[Deep Thought]

Now there may very be a reticle standard out there that counts one line as 10 mrads, but that is something I personally never have encountered, be it inside or outside the military. Now I can assure you, that for the reticles we used, be it for binoculars, spotterscopes or x12 rifle scopes, the formula, and line count, previously described in my original reply is very much correct. I do not know what the reticles in PR are based on.(Not saying all reticles in PR use the same standard, but at least the binoculars, and sniper rifles for gb and ch use the same)

Now the scaling between different objects in PR may be a bit weird, but then again the actual height of the object you try to range is irrelevant, as long as you know the range to it at one(or be it ten) lines. Doesn't really matter what the object is, as you still would need to know how high something is anyway(although slightly more difficult to estimate if that was something you would want to do on the fly, unless you are a PR wizard of course).

[CG-Delta]

The reason why I initially used read the lines as ten's and not one's is because I recognize this same coordinate system layout (-5 to 5 and -3 to 7) from a binocular in the Danish Defence. I found some pictures on Goggle of the like to see if it was common. Not really, quite hard to find.
But if the binoculars in game had to fit 10 MRADs per line, then the zoom had to be about half of what it is. If it had to be 1 MRAD per line, then the zoom had to be 5 times more. So the zoom level fit significantly closer to 10-MRAD-lines. Though the DEVs choice of zoom probably was independent of the MRADs, it still suggests that the DEVs idea of a binocular zoom and size/design of MRAD grid doesn't fall too far from the original real-world source (where zoom and MRAD cohere) they were inspired from.

"...the actual height of the object you try to range is irrelevant, as long as you know the range to it at one(or be it ten) lines."
Sure. Using our previous example; making it Range (m) = 262m/lines. Easy to work with and comprehensive (at least for calculation). Setting up the lines as one unit, measuring the range to calculate a nice package containing [target size][correction factor][prefix].
1) It basicly says. Range is 262 m for each [soldier height]*[correction factor]*kilo (1000) fitting under one line, while the one I mentioned last in my last post to you was:
2) Range is 2.62 km for each [soldier height]*[correction factor] fitting under 1/10th of a line.
3) Likewise the original. Range is 1 km for each [target metre] fitting under 1/10th of a line.
I took me some time to comprehend what happened. But the difference between the first two is just 1 line vs. 1/10 of a line and the output prefix (m or km). Both remove target metres as a variable and replace it with a predetermined target.
You made me think for a long time, YOU. The least I could do would be to deliver you a shit load of badly written analysis. Not even that much compared to the time I used.

[Deep Thought]

NOPE

I'm dumb, ignore this.

Think I am done with this topic lol.

[CG-Delta]

I needed this to be over as well And really; what I wrote was not well written. It got became a bit complicated for me.. So thanks for the discussion.

[Psyko]

sorry for the necro

but this thread made me excited. thanks for doing this work man.

my only regret is that grenadier doesnt have binos now.