Zooming Accuracy

[ToastedRipper]

So somebody once told me that if you zoom in on a target that is close, that zoom will alter the trajectory of the bullet as it is zoomed for a longer distance than what you are shooting therefore you should never zoom until it is absolutely necessary. Is this true? Sorry if this is hard to understand. Also how does the zeroing affect this zoom issue?

[creep_]

There is a skill/perk for zeroing the weapon. I always found that to be pretty dumb because it is a pretty basic thing to use a weapon effectively. In combination with a rangefinder you can hardly miss a target. I never saw any effects if zoomed in all the way or not.

If you mean point-blank-range, click the mousewheel to remove the scope in an instant to use ironsights.

[VictoriaHuntress]

Zeroing is like dialing the elevation turret on the scope to so that the bullet trajectory will cross the line of sight again at a particular (far point) distance. Magnification changes the apparent angular size of the image (so it looks closer).

Zooming in won't change the zero calibration, but it can change the angular measurement calibrations (those dots on the axes) if the scope is of second focal plane design (crosshairs don't change with magnification, and represent true angular measures at only one magnification). The scopes in the game look like SFP design (but it's anybody's guess if that matters to their calculations).

At close range, you have to take into account the 'line of sight is above the rifle bore' issue, that is the bullet leaves the muzzle below the reticle's horizontal axis. Yeah, zooming in will make matters worse in that case. For really close shots, I always set the lowest magnification, and if I have time, detach the scope and use the iron sights.

[ToastedRipper]

Originally posted by VictoriaHuntress:

Zeroing is like dialing the elevation turret on the scope to so that the bullet trajectory will cross the line of sight again at a particular (far point) distance. Magnification changes the apparent angular size of the image (so it looks closer).

Zooming in won't change the zero calibration, but it can change the angular measurement calibrations (those dots on the axes) if the scope is of second focal plane design (crosshairs don't change with magnification, and represent true angular measures at only one magnification). The scopes in the game look like SFP design (but it's anybody's guess if that matters to their calculations).

At close range, you have to take into account the 'line of sight is above the rifle bore' issue, that is the bullet leaves the muzzle below the reticle's horizontal axis. Yeah, zooming in will make matters worse in that case. For really close shots, I always set the lowest magnification, and if I have time, detach the scope and use the iron sights.

Ah I see... so basically it can make a difference, but probably not unless its at extremes such as way too close while completely zoomed.

[ToastedRipper]

See now this is the bs I hate about this game. Why can I see this doe only after zooming one more time, but to tag it I need to zoom in two more times? That is pretty stupid. If I see it I should be able to tag it regardless of my zoom. Or off topic... I down this doe in the video at this range of about 250m. Not right away, but it took only one, and it bled out a ways away. Same animal at about 50m from the opposite direction shot 3 times. Result was 2 missed shots, and one flesh wound. I know for sure all three bullets hit the mark. I saw blood on all three shot!!!

https://vimeo.com/839821987?share=copy

[VictoriaHuntress]

Well, yes, I've seen the same thing. I suspect that the spotting mechanism needs a certain minimum number of pixels to detect that there is an animal in view. If the animal is far enough away, it will be too small, but if you zoom in, the apparent angular size increases, and so the animal appears larger - more pixels for the algorithm.

This also happens if the animal is partially obscured by some foreground object or terrain feature. If the animal is just below the crest of a hill, say, you may only see a part of its back or head, but it's not enough for the spotter to recognize it. Same if the animal is the trees - not enough of it visible for the spotter, even if you zoom in.

On the other hand, I've seen the spotter detect an animal even when I can't make it out, although I think that's because it blends in with the surroundings and is hiding in plain sight LOL


It's not BS. In real life, you may see an animal in the distance, but it's too far away to see its antlers clearly enough to count the tines (if you want to make sure it's a legal target). You use the binos at low power - still not enough magnification to see enough detail, so you zoom in some more, and then, lo and behold!, now you can see enough detail to make the count.

[ToastedRipper]

Originally posted by VictoriaHuntress:

Well, yes, I've seen the same thing. I suspect that the spotting mechanism needs a certain minimum number of pixels to detect that there is an animal in view. If the animal is far enough away, it will be too small, but if you zoom in, the apparent angular size increases, and so the animal appears larger - more pixels for the algorithm.

This also happens if the animal is partially obscured by some foreground object or terrain feature. If the animal is just below the crest of a hill, say, you may only see a part of its back or head, but it's not enough for the spotter to recognize it. Same if the animal is the trees - not enough of it visible for the spotter, even if you zoom in. It's not BS. In real life, you may see an animal in the distance, but it's too far away to see its antlers clearly enough to count the tines (if you want to make sure it's a legal target). You use the binos at low power - still not enough magnification to see enough detail, so you zoom in some more, and then, lo and behold!, now you can see enough detail to make the count.

You can clearly see it in the video yet not close enough to tag? Come on now!

[creep_]

I think it's just a gameplay decision. If you could tag everything barely in range and visible it would take the challenge out of spotting an animal. No need for scannning the area carefully, just one glance through the binocs and everything shows up. On the other hand you can sometimes spot animals that ARE invisible to you lying low in high grass or drinking on a riverbank with high vegetation. The system often fails when trying to tag a specific animal in a herd which can be annoying. It's a game after all.

Always use the highest calibres available for a species. It is safer to use a 7mm 4-7 than a .223 2-4 range on a species rated 4. Especially when hunting long range. The 7mm Regent Magnum is one of the most versatile weapons available. Saves a lot of running around chasing bloodtrails.

[ToastedRipper]

Originally posted by creep_:

I think it's just a gameplay decision. If you could tag everything barely in range and visible it would take the challenge out of spotting an animal. No need for scannning the area carefully, just one glance through the binocs and everything shows up. On the other hand you can sometimes spot animals that ARE invisible to you lying low in high grass or drinking on a riverbank with high vegetation. The system often fails when trying to tag a specific animal in a herd which can be annoying. It's a game after all.

Always use the highest calibres available for a species. It is safer to use a 7mm 4-7 than a .223 2-4 range on a species rated 4. Especially when hunting long range. The 7mm Regent Magnum is one of the most versatile weapons available. Saves a lot of running around chasing bloodtrails.

Obstructions I can understand, this has no obstruction, and still requires a zoom even though you can clearly see the rack.... just ridiculous!

[VictoriaHuntress]

Originally posted by ToastedRipper:

Originally posted by VictoriaHuntress:

Well, yes, I've seen the same thing. I suspect that the spotting mechanism needs a certain minimum number of pixels to detect that there is an animal in view. If the animal is far enough away, it will be too small, but if you zoom in, the apparent angular size increases, and so the animal appears larger - more pixels for the algorithm.

This also happens if the animal is partially obscured by some foreground object or terrain feature. If the animal is just below the crest of a hill, say, you may only see a part of its back or head, but it's not enough for the spotter to recognize it. Same if the animal is the trees - not enough of it visible for the spotter, even if you zoom in. It's not BS. In real life, you may see an animal in the distance, but it's too far away to see its antlers clearly enough to count the tines (if you want to make sure it's a legal target). You use the binos at low power - still not enough magnification to see enough detail, so you zoom in some more, and then, lo and behold!, now you can see enough detail to make the count.

You can clearly see it in the video yet not close enough to tag? Come on now!

I didn't say they were using a particularly good algorithm LOL. The algorithm probably has an imaginary box near the center of your POV in the binos - that box has a certain size - if the animal is not in the box, the spotter won't see it, or if the animal doesn't fill enough of the box (some hard cutoff, say 90%) it won't spot it either. I doubt that they are using a sophisticated pre-trained deep neural network for image recognition, and they are not scanning the entire view, just what is in your direct line of sight.

[creep_]

There is also a skill that let's you tag animals with any scope on your weapons, even ironsights. Depending on the scope that might be more convenient.

[ToastedRipper]

Originally posted by VictoriaHuntress:

Originally posted by ToastedRipper:

You can clearly see it in the video yet not close enough to tag? Come on now!

I didn't say they were using a particularly good algorithm LOL. The algorithm probably has an imaginary box near the center of your POV in the binos - that box has a certain size - if the animal is not in the box, the spotter won't see it, or if the animal doesn't fill enough of the box (some hard cutoff, say 90%) it won't spot it either. I doubt that they are using a sophisticated pre-trained deep neural network for image recognition, and they are not scanning the entire view, just what is in your direct line of sight.

Ya.... but still my point is it's kinda not good, and very annoying!

[VictoriaHuntress]

Originally posted by ToastedRipper:

Originally posted by VictoriaHuntress:

I didn't say they were using a particularly good algorithm LOL. The algorithm probably has an imaginary box near the center of your POV in the binos - that box has a certain size - if the animal is not in the box, the spotter won't see it, or if the animal doesn't fill enough of the box (some hard cutoff, say 90%) it won't spot it either. I doubt that they are using a sophisticated pre-trained deep neural network for image recognition, and they are not scanning the entire view, just what is in your direct line of sight.

Ya.... but still my point is it's kinda not good, and very annoying!

Sure, but so far I haven't found it to be a major stumbling block to hunting effectively in the game. It's good enough - not good enough to put into a Tesla and let it loose on the road by any means, but it does what we need it to do. Perhaps you can write a better algorithm and sell it to EW? I could, but I'm not going to bother.

Enough said on this topic - I'm done

[ToastedRipper]

Originally posted by VictoriaHuntress:

Originally posted by ToastedRipper:

Ya.... but still my point is it's kinda not good, and very annoying!

Sure, but so far I haven't found it to be a major stumbling block to hunting effectively in the game. It's good enough - not good enough to put into a Tesla and let it loose on the road by any means, but it does what we need it to do. Perhaps you can write a better algorithm and sell it to EW? I could, but I'm not going to bother.

Enough said on this topic - I'm done

Agree to disagree. It definitely can be a deterrent from seeing the target that if working properly should have shown you it. Nuff said indeed.