[AlChick]

Opti-Logic has recently added a third mode to their XT line of rangefinders. In addition to straight line distance and horizontal distance from an uphill or downhill reading, Mode 3 offers angle compensated ballistic range for archers. The new mode agrees with Archers Advantage cut sheets within 1%.

 

[TAP]

Opti-Logic has recently added a third mode to their XT line of rangefinders. In addition to straight line distance and horizontal distance from an uphill or downhill reading, Mode 3 offers angle compensated ballistic range for archers. The new mode agrees with Archers Advantage cut sheets within 1%.

The Leupold RX II, III, and IV have had this since January.....???? Plus they have 3 Bow speed groups and will do Rifle true ballistic range as well.

I think this type of technology is AWSOME for the discerning sportsman!

 

[442fps]

I think Opti-Logic has the angle compensated ballistic range since more than 2 years now .

 

[AlChick]

Not exactly correct

I think Opti-Logic has the angle compensated ballistic range since more than 2 years now .

Up 'till recently (circa. Outdoor Nationals) Opti-logic only computed the horizontal distance to a target given a straight line distance and an inclinometer (angle) reading. The computation was simply distance times cos(A) where A is the interior angle of a right triangle.

The new mode takes into account the ballistics of an arrow and whether the angle is uphill or downhill.

 

[AlChick]

Sorry Tony, I didn't mean to intentionally ignore TAP I just happened to know for sure about AA.

You are right about this technology being awsome!

BTW, one more thing about Opti-Logic; it's made in the USA!

 

[I BOW 2]

Until they improve the reflectivity variables it will only get you close to actual distance. Color and texture can vary as much as 2 yards at the same distance. It is a start but only a start. and if you are wondering I have the new version in my hands right now.:wink: Ken

 

[kiser]

opti-logic

Has the size changed? They are a little bulky.
Any attachment points? Or,... do you still have to carry it in the case?


Great product, but needs some fine tuning.


Leupolds is way to busy looking through....

 

[field14]

I just had mine upgraded to the new firmware a few months ago. This was done after a long conversation with a top shooter that shoots for Opti-Logic. He had confirmed that the new firmware has his opti-logic agreeing dead on with his "experience" on a few field ranges that he knows like the back of his hand..... and also with the use of the "cut-charts" computed distances.

I was told that on the ranges he knows like the back of his hand that the new Opti-Logic gets him even better "solid X" hits than what his experience is giving him....and if he shoots it for what the Opti-logic and/or "cut charts" say...and he executes, it is a deadX. He also says that he only uses the Opti-Logic if he thinks he needs verification of what he "reads" the target to be, OR, if he is stumped on a particular target....

I'm happy with my new upgraded 120XTA up to this point. Now, if I was so inclined, I don't need to have a rangefinder, an inclinometer, AND a Palm Pilot and cut chart to take care of the ups and downs....the 120XTA in Mode 3 will do it as well as all that other stuff.

field14

 

[centerx]

and If it popped out a little Umbie all would be square with the world :darkbeer:

 

[field14]

and If it popped out a little Umbie all would be square with the world :darkbeer:

CenterX,

Now THAT is funny. ROFLMAO! You oughtta market that one....an umbie popping out of a rangefinder would sure save on having to carry around so much extra baggage....you might invent a way that it holds itself up to block the wind for you, however....since you know that if you are shooting with me, I won't! hahahahahaha

field14

 

[Jbird]

Optilogic

The one I played with at Yankton with the new software was not consistant in it's readings. Other people I talked to that tried it reported the same thing. They are making great strides in this market but have a little more hair to shave off before I would choose it over an inclinometer and AA Palm. They also need to move ahead with their new "match box" version so that you can stick it in your release pouch or shirt pocket.
Jbird

 

[AlChick]

The one I played with at Yankton with the new software was not consistant in it's readings. Other people I talked to that tried it reported the same thing. They are making great strides in this market but have a little more hair to shave off before I would choose it over an inclinometer and AA Palm. They also need to move ahead with their new "match box" version so that you can stick it in your release pouch or shirt pocket.
Jbird

Did you try the 120 XTA or the 400 XTA? My experience with the 120 was that it was very sensitive to differences in reflectivity, hence less consistant. I swapped my 120 for a 400 XTA and got extremely good repeatability and much faster readings. The difference is a much stronger laser. Definately worth the extra bread.

 

[Jbird]

Model

I believe it was the 120 XTA.
Jbird

 

[AlChick]

400 Xta

If you get your hands on a 400 XTA I'd be interested in your opinion. I think you'd see a dramatic difference.

 

[AlChick]

Until they improve the reflectivity variables it will only get you close to actual distance. Color and texture can vary as much as 2 yards at the same distance. It is a start but only a start. and if you are wondering I have the new version in my hands right now.:wink: Ken

Ken, is yours a 400 or a 120?

 

[rsw]

I have been playing with the new version for some time now. So far it is dead nuts. I haven't compared it with AA, but haven't found a need to do so either. Dean's affirmation should be enough for all, especially if you have seen the range he used to evaluate the rangefinder.

 

[field14]

I have been playing with the new version for some time now. So far it is dead nuts. I haven't compared it with AA, but haven't found a need to do so either. Dean's affirmation should be enough for all, especially if you have seen the range he used to evaluate the rangefinder.

Roger,
I guess it was pretty obvious to whom I was referring? hahahaha.

Comparing it to AA doesn't mean much to me (other than verification on a cut chart). Of course, I don't use a clinometer or Palm Pilot either, ha.....

I would rather compare it to what the yardage is marked for, what I think I need to shoot it for from "experiences", and what the instrument says to shoot it for. So far, I haven't had the instrument lead me astray.

Like you've previously stated above...When it is all said and done, Dean's assessment and evaluation, with his experience level, knowledge, and expertise means more to me than trusting as gospel what a computer has to say about it, since the TRUE evaluation is when you KNOW exactly what it is SUPPOSED to be shot for (for certain), and then having the instrument return that same value!

You can't evaluate any instrument on an "unknown" standard; it doesn't work that way. You must have a KNOWN variable, and then "test" the instrument to see whether or not it consistently provides that "number" within the tolerance range of the instrument's accuracy. According to Dean and our long discussion, this unit does just that. I also haven't found any inconsistency or serious problems with it yet...if I think it is questionable, I hit the button again and take yet another reading. I have found that you do need to make sure to "center up" on the object and get the instrument steady and not be floating around a lot.

field14

 

[I BOW 2]

Al it is the 400 version. Ken