ACC. vs MOA.
WARNING: Gun Geek Question
I'm looking for comparability between the two. I.e. 1-1.5 MOA = ACC 6 MOA 4 = ACC 2 ect... Anybody have any details or info? |
Re: ACC. vs MOA.
Quote:
Slap that into Excel and doing a power law curve fit: Acc = 5.17 x MoA ^ -0.275 |
Re: ACC. vs MOA.
Since total accuracy is a combination of the weapon's MOA and the shooter's MOA, couldn't accuracy also reflect how easy or awkward the weapon is to shoot?
Frex, a 1.5 MOA rifle that you can just flop down behind and be in perfect sight alignment might give better real world groups than a .5 MOA rifle that you have to fidget behind just the right way to get it aligned. |
Re: ACC. vs MOA.
I believe that is modeled by weapon bond and familularity. If not the AK's ACC would be 2 or maybe less because of ergonomic's and semi-auto pistols would be 5 or 6 becuse pretty much anyone can "point and click".
|
Re: ACC. vs MOA.
Quote:
It was a neat effort, and partially successful. Would have been a fun Visual Basic implementation or something. Anyway your point about MoA not just being the clamped-in accuracy is a good one, although it might perversely be as an "interface" penalty (probably not more than -1) to skill. the barrel/bullet combo itself is 0.5MoA, but when you put it on your shoulder, your skill degrades by some amount. |
Re: ACC. vs MOA.
The ability to convey the shooter's precision to the shot plays as significant a role as mechanical precision in Acc. Considering only the mechanics won't work out very well for you when the game system slaps on ±1 for after-market add-ons like target grips, for using/not using a folding stock, and so on. Various "interface" issues can easily account for a two- or even three-point Acc difference on weapons with identical barrels, actions, iron sights, etc. This effect can often exceed the weapon's inherent contribution, which might only be 1-2 to begin with. A supremely pointable but mechanically cruddy weapon and a clunky but super-precise weapon can end up with the same Acc because Acc really rates how well you can strike fairly broad targets -- like the human torso -- after a mere second of squinting at them.
|
Re: ACC. vs MOA.
Quote:
|
Re: ACC. vs MOA.
WTF is MOA?
|
Re: ACC. vs MOA.
In general, MOA should play absolutely no role in Acc, except at extreme ranges; instead, it limits your absolute skill, because no matter how good you are with a gun, and no matter how fine your sights, you can't reliably hit a target that's smaller than your group size with the weapon. This skill limit is on the order of 26 - 6 * log10(MOA), and will thus be rarely encountered by normal characters, though it's easy to hit if you build the Sniper Of Doom character.
|
Re: ACC. vs MOA.
Quote:
|
Re: ACC. vs MOA.
Quote:
This will rarely be encountered for real-world characters with rifles, but can limit the utility of handguns at practical engagement ranges. Handguns have inherent accuracies from about 8MoA to as much as 25MoA for some short barreled or lower quality pistols. At 25yds, a 6" diameter target (head shot) MoA starts to become a limiting factor; at 50yds with a handgun (not a typical engagement distance in the real world, but quite doable for PCs) the odds of actually hitting the target can easily be maxed out at 50%-80%, limiting skill to the 10-13 range (for Pcs, still worth taking). I agree with the MoA acting as a limiting agency on max effective skill. I believe I posted a similar formula in a different thread, although yours makes better use of the actual math from the speed/range table, where mine was a lookup. |
Re: ACC. vs MOA.
Quote:
(Plus these additional letters to make the computer-machine go.) |
Re: ACC. vs MOA.
Quote:
|
Re: ACC. vs MOA.
Quote:
As for mods, it depends. Sometimes it's purely cosmetic, just because the person thought it'd help, or even just liked the looks of it. Sometimes it's helpful, especially for internal mods. For the most part, those ones are treated as making the weapon Fine or Very Fine, with the coresponding increase to ACC, though sometimes they affect other things (ROF, for example). And sometimes it's just stupid. I remember some of your stories... |
Re: ACC. vs MOA.
Thinks I got all I need to roll with it. Thanks for all of your sugestions.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.