Another set of videos in this series has been released. This time it covers an infantryman-type mixed armor of the mid 15th century and newer arrow types. Perhaps most interestingly, in the main video Tod has 7 longbow hobbyists shooting at the suit of armor from 60, 40 and 20 meters. In terms of strength and skill the archers are probably a pretty good proxy for a gamut of historical longbowmen ranging from raw to professional.
First video is a controlled test of various arrowheads against a flat plate to test penetration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBbVWqA45fI
Second video covers the main test with multiple archers and a suit of armor. If you are going to watch just one, watch this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFFgcTzCvMo
Third video is a detailed look at the damage to armor pieces and how the arrows fared.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMzSx9Pdyc4
Fourth video is an in depth look at some of the arrows used in the the tests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfdZUEa7Sc0
My personal takeaways from these videos have been that the "primary" armor generally wins against any arrow at any range and secondary/tertiary armor loses against arrow at any practical range, and that shooting for the eye slits etc is not something that would systematically happen in battlefield conditions (which should not come as surprise to anyone). Brigandine, in combination with underneath mail worked even better than I would have expected based on some other (less comprehensive) tests I have seen. It's worth noting that the target takes a lot of shots, i.e. you have a ~15 meter front of archers shooting at one target rather than at a 15 meter front of targets, but those shots are disproportionally aimed at the best armored parts rather than the unarmored legs for the sake of the test.
Regardless of theoretical maximum ranges, the preferable shooting range against armored targets is as close as possibile. In wargaming terms, bows (and other missile weapons) would very much be a part of the "melee" as long as the bowmen remain steady and organized (which your average massed bowmen unit in the open likely wouldn't), the melee itself being a prolonged probing back and forth rather than a constant physical push and clash. In FoG2 the longbowmen fighting over stakes or other obstacles seems like a good proxy for this close shooting and from top down perspective things also work out for the missiles mixed in warbands, shieldwalls, Late Roman/Byzantine infantry, Sparabara and Immortals etc.
In low level medieval combat games like Mount & Blade or Mordhau you also see this kind of close range shooting where it ironically could be thought of as gamey (though in fairness, the armor is also always too ineffective in those games). On the other hand, in games like Total War the archers tend to hot swap to daggers as soon as some edge of their formation touches an enemy, which showcases the issues of bottom up approach in historical wargaming: despite the greater number of moving parts, the parts that are left out or inaccurate by practical necessity push inaccuracies to the top level.
Another takeaway from the videos is that I remain perplexed by the seemingly common late medieval practice of combining a full amor protection above hip to next to nothing below. In the test, vast majority arrows that caused combat relevant damage were to hips and thighs. Those hits would both immobilize and be very close to a lot of major blood vessels. If I had to pick as few pieces of armor to wear as possible, I'd definitely take cuisses as the first thing after helmet, chestpiece and some type of metal neck armor. Only then would I look at arm and hand protection and a mail layer.