[Baldo_the_Don]

The first screenshot is a frame from an Operator Drewski Arma 3 video. The illuminated TA31-CH reticle in all its glory. Note the width of the reticle, the width of the sight housing, the width of the screenshot, and the 4.0x label to the upper right.

The second, third, and fourth screenshots show my interpretation of the TA31-CH in the dark, the NVGs, and daylight with a man 100m away. Proportions seem correct, BDC placements are different, but since I trial and errored my POA hashes thoroughly to within a pixel of POI, I'll brook no complaints about that.

So arguably, I've interpreted the size and proportions correctly, but what isn't labeled is the fact that I had to put 11x magnification on this to get the dude-wide (0.4826m) hashes to actually be dude-wide.

I suspect that when it comes to interpretations and labeling of magnification levels from game to game, there's, like, just so much wonk.

11x mag. makes CQB engagements a bit more exciting than I like, so I reserve the TA31-CH for semi fire mode, and auto has 2x mag. with the red dot I made that was inspired by the one I saw in an XBox Ahoy Call of Duty weapon guide. It's fat, but sharp. See the fifth attachment for yourself.

Or maybe I should do up an illegible, barely functioning 2x version of the TA31-CH for auto?

Hm.

Edit: The 2x didn't work out. But a version of the TA31-CH for 4x is close enough to perfect in my opinion.

Another 4x - 11x pairing. I swear, I didn't do this intentionally.

Edit again: Black with red dot, and other attempts at improvements, like slightly redesigning and repositioning the 4, and lightening some of the lines to imply subpixel fineness.