Tim_Fragmagnet Posted March 4, 2023 Posted March 4, 2023 (edited) OK this subject is fun. FIRST OFF AS IMPLEMENTED our XM60 sight has the 50mil DIAMETER reticle HOWEVER A 50mil RADIUS reticle ALSO exists As does an 80mil DIAMETER reticle. all for the same sight. 3 Different reticles 1 sight Wild, right? Regardless. AS IMPLEMENTED Our sight is the 50 mil DIAMETER sight. As implemented, it IS correctly scaled. A 50m wide object at 1000m will fill the diameter of the 50mil diameter sight. Here is the proof, the C-17 has a wingspan of 53m There is nothing wrong with the reticle itself. The problem lies within the elevation knob. This thing. This knob is measured in mils. So if you increase or decrease it by 50 mils, the 50mil diameter sight should move so that the top is now where the bottom was, or vice versa The reticle should move by 50 mils if you change the knob by 50 mils, simple. HOWEVER. As you can see, to shift our 50mil diameter reticle by 50mils, we have to change the elevation by 95 mils. This is obviously incorrect. This isn't a matter of just changing the scale of the reticle either, as that doesn't fix the issue. The issue is that 5mils of elevation on the knob, does not equate to 5mils of rotation in the reflector sight. Changing the scale of the reticle won't fix that. This matters because the elevation table on the sight itself, this thing Asks you to adjust the elevation by mils. This means adjusting the elevation by 20 mils does not actually adjust the elevation by 20 mils, meaning your sight zeroing is incorrect for your chosen parameters. This needs a fix, either changing the scale depicted on the knob itself, or by changing the amount of elevation displacement so that it matches up to the number of mils on the elevation knob. I do not know which would be the correct option that would make it more like the real thing, however either option fixes the issue. Edited March 5, 2023 by Tim_Fragmagnet 9 5
Sardines Posted March 4, 2023 Posted March 4, 2023 This sounds significant. Sight zeroing is very important! 3
HILOK Posted October 2, 2023 Posted October 2, 2023 this is actually quite interesting. thanks for pointing it out! i wonder if the ballistics of the weapons match the aiming sights indication nonetheless? haven't seen any complaints about the aiming accuracy. personally not shooting much with the huey... 1
Flappie Posted October 6, 2023 Posted October 6, 2023 Thank you @Tim_Fragmagnet , I appreciate your efforts to simplify the description of this issue. The issue is now reported internally. Sorry for the delay. 3 ---
Xupicor Posted October 29, 2023 Posted October 29, 2023 (edited) Looks like to move 50mil according to the 50mil diameter circle you need to move the knob by about 94mil as indicated on the knob itself. Awfully close to x2 factor, so maybe it's my measurement error... Maybe it's some kind of conversion error somewhere or the two 50mil radius and diameter reticles were confused at some point and one was used for modeling the reticle while the other was used in modeling the elevation mechanism? On the side, IRL, seems a bit strange to have two reticles exactly identical but scaled x2 -- was one older and another a replacement for it? Or were they used side by side? Any history behind that? Edited October 29, 2023 by Xupicor Windows 11 Pro, RTX4090 (24GB), 5950X @ 4.3GHz, 64GB RAM @ 3000MHz, M.2 SSD 8TB, Pimax Crystal Modules and maps: All of 'em. (It's a problem...)
Terratrom Posted June 30 Posted June 30 (edited) There is another thing I don't understand: The table says for N.O.E. 500m / 15 MIL 1000m / 0 MIL 1500m / -25 MIL WHY? 2000 / -15 MIL 2 Reasons, why I think it is wrong: 1) those MIL-steps to change the target range by 500m are round about 10-15 MIL = round about 1 Deg = mathematically "nothing" that means in this range (500-2000m) MIL is nearly linear proportional to range So how can 1500m be correltated to -25MIL and 2000m to -15MIL when at the same time 1300m is also -15MIL? Conclusion: This is a magic helicopter, that, with a single shot at –15 MIL, hits a target both at 2,000 m and at 1,300 m (interpolated) I am sure no one can explain this table with a mysterious point of discontinuity or a dualism, like wave and particle. 2) I tried it out in DCS and it was difficult to freeze the heli in a locked on position Then I watched my projectiles fly in F11 My estimated empirical values are roundabout: 500m / 20MIL 1000m / -8MIL 1500m / -10MIL 2000m / -12MIL 2500m / -15MIL I can confirm, there is a nearly linear correlation between MIL and range - the table is wrong. Final conclusion: you dont need an accurate pilot's targetsystem anyway... WHY? 1) obviously it doesn't work correctly 2) the values as listet in the table are wrong 3) in reality there is no time to calculate and play around with dials 4) the helicopter is shaking while targeting way more than your 500m MIL-steps 5) if you can see a tracer, then just follow the track - at the end hopefully lies the target For the gunners reticle: don't care - you have a spray gun that hits everythig everywhere. Edited June 30 by Terratrom 1
MAXsenna Posted July 8 Posted July 8 On 6/30/2025 at 5:50 PM, Terratrom said: Final conclusion: you dont need an accurate pilot's targetsystem anyway... True, I never use the sight. Which we had a grease mark like in the Kiowa though.
Recommended Posts