Meters or Yards??

[_Seth_]

As i live in Norway, i am used to the metric system. This makes it easy for me playing SHIII.. I guess SHIV wil use the Yard system (i dont know the name for this, sorry..), since this was the system used by USA in the pacific. Do you think this require a whole lot of calculations/convertions during gameplay, or will it be a possibility to select the measuring unit by yourself? Not that i find these calculations difficult, but considering that ubisoft wishes to reach out to as many as possible, i think this should be included.

[Sulikate]

I think there should be an option to choose between metric and imperial system (I think that's the name). Other game have it, and I always use the metric units because they are used in my country.

[JSF]

I can't imagine Ubisoft not including these options you are looking for.

[Rosencrantz]

Well, I'm european too, but for me meters vs. yards is not a question.

1 yard = 0.9144 meters = all most the same, especially in submarine war. After reading E. Beach books more than ten years ago, and playing with SHI, I can't even imagine to use meters in pacific. :)



You can allways try to learn something new! Right?


Greetings,

-RC-

[elanaiba]

I like the imperial system, in some ways it makes more sense.

1 yard = 3 feet (depth and heights are measured in feet)
1 NM ~ 2000 yards

Etc...

[Corsair]

Imagine if they used fathoms for the depth !!!:o

[elanaiba]

Why not? 1 fathom = 2 yards!

[Sailor Steve]

Being an American of course I was raised with the imperial system, but I have no trouble using meters in SHIII. I don't try to convert them in my head, I just take it at face value and accept it. That way makes it easy.

I agree, SH4 should have both, and I hope it will. If not, here are some more things to worry about:

1 fathom = 6 feet = 2 yards (already mentioned)
1 league = 3 miles
1 cable = 200 yards (mostly used with sailing ships)
1 ton = 2000 pounds, but 1 long ton (used to measure ship displacements) = 2240 pounds
1 hundredweight (cwt)(used by the British to measure the weight of guns) = 112 pounds
1 nautical mile = 6080 feet = 2026.6667 yards
1 statute (land) mile = 5280 feet = 1760 yards

Yes, metric is much easier, but as Tim Allen said in Galaxy Quest, "Never give up, never surrender!":rotfl:

[bookworm_020]

The US is one of only three countries that still use the imperial units for measurement. The others is Myanmar(Burma) and Liberia.

Talk about the US being third world:huh:

[Frateloder]

The US is one of only three countries that still use the imperial units for measurement. The others is Myanmar(Burma) and Liberia.

Talk about the US being third world:huh:

Well, we do use a few metric measurements alongside the "english" system. We use "liters" some of the time (i.e. 2 liter bottles of soda), although gallon is still the standard large volume measurement. I've noticed that some food companies are slowly switching from "pints" and "quarts" to "200ml" or "500ml" as well.

Almost all mechanics and technicians have a set of metric tools along with english tools.... and our military has gone almost completely metric (they don't even use miles anymore).

I'd say, judging by what I just wrote, that we're in the beginning stages of converting over to metric. I don't think the country can be pushed along without government regulation, though... and it would take a long time to convert since people can be so stubborn about such things.

So, in conclusion, we're more like "second world" :lol:

[Frateloder]

P.S. Just be aware that you shouldn't take a Gato much past 300 feet and you shouldn't take a Balao much past 400.

:up:

[_Seth_]

Great replys, mateys! Another question: Was there a Grid system used in the pacific (similar to the german), or can we navigate with degrees, minutes and seconds?

[TheSatyr]

They used patrol areas...not grids. I think there were around 14 patrol areas,which meant that US boats had to cover alot more territory while hunting than the U-Boats did.

Not quite sure how it was handled when multiple subs operated in the same patrol area...I think they used lattitude and longitude for the patrol boundaries in that situation.

[_Seth_]

They used patrol areas...not grids. I think there were around 14 patrol areas,which meant that US boats had to cover alot more territory while hunting than the U-Boats did.

Not quite sure how it was handled when multiple subs operated in the same patrol area...I think they used lattitude and longitude for the patrol boundaries in that situation.
:huh::huh: 14 areas??? Wow! Just 14 in all of the great pacific.. just imagine getting a radio message: "Convoy spotted in area xxxxx" ! LoL!!! Happy hunting, if we find anything! :rotfl:
I surely hope latitudes & longitudes are implemented, together with celestial navigation.....:yep:

[elanaiba]

They used patrol areas...not grids. I think there were around 14 patrol areas,which meant that US boats had to cover alot more territory while hunting than the U-Boats did.

Not quite sure how it was handled when multiple subs operated in the same patrol area...I think they used lattitude and longitude for the patrol boundaries in that situation.

Care to shed more info on this? Or point me to the right direction?

Re: the original thread.

I think you guys should see this as an interesting challenge, and the flavor of us subs. They measured this and that in the imperial system in RL, so you should accept it too. Are we simulating the US Silent Service or not?

Besides, if both instruments, available data and maps are measured the same way, it shouldn't be a problem.

[Sailor Steve]

They used patrol areas...not grids. I think there were around 14 patrol areas,which meant that US boats had to cover alot more territory while hunting than the U-Boats did.

Not quite sure how it was handled when multiple subs operated in the same patrol area...I think they used lattitude and longitude for the patrol boundaries in that situation.
I'm not sure either, but I think you're right about the boundaries within a patrol zone. I vaguely remember reading a discussion long ago in which someone mentioned that SHI's patrol zones were much larger than the areas subs were actually assigned to patrol. I know that "vaguely remembered" and "long ago" are hardly real evidence, but that's as close as I can come.

I do remember one account of two subs in adjacent areas colliding underwater, resulting in one being forced very deep and the other knocked to the surface, from United States Submarine Operations In World War Two.

[_Seth_]

I do remember one account of two subs in adjacent areas colliding underwater, resulting in one being forced very deep and the other knocked to the surface, from United States Submarine Operations In World War Two.

Did it end well?

[Sailor Steve]

Yep, ended fine. Neither one knew what had happened right away. The one on the surface was spotted and attacked by the Japanese, but escaped. The one forced deep heard noises in the distance, came to periscope depth and saw ships depth-charging somebody. After their respective patrols were over and the reports were compared they realized they must have hit each other. Until then it was just "collided with something".

When I have access to my books again I can give the full account.

[_Seth_]

Yep, ended fine. Neither one knew what had happened right away. The one on the surface was spotted and attacked by the Japanese, but escaped. The one forced deep heard noises in the distance, came to periscope depth and saw ships depth-charging somebody. After their respective patrols were over and the reports were compared they realized they must have hit each other. Until then it was just "collided with something".

When I have access to my books again I can give the full account.

Sounds good, mate, i found this story interesting! In all of the great pacific, they manage to collide...... Was Bernard involved....:hmm:

Looking forward to you update, when you have the books, mate!!! :up:

[TheSatyr]

And there was one incident where two subs were right at the boundary and one fired at the other thinking it was a Japanese sub. Fortunately they missed.

I do think the patrol areas changed later in the war...but I think they just went from being numbered to being named. (I always did like the "Maru Morgue" name. Heh).

[_Seth_]

Lets just hope SHIV has some missions in the bongo straits...:up:

[TheSatyr]

The Bungo Suido? Can't have a Pacific Sub game without it...*lol*

[stabiz]

This thread was a very interesting read!

[don1reed]

...another interesting thing about the "imperial" system for you manual TDC guru's...the RULE of 3 and/or the RULE of 6...

...its a straight 3 minutes measure (yards) instead of 3-1/4 as used in metric for determining speed.

-...-

as for as the Pacific...

Geo Coords (Lat & Long)

High-scoping (Modeled in orig SH)

PPI Radar (later in the war).

Sounds like a lot of nifty differences coming your way.

all the best,

[TheSatyr]

Oh yeah! For those not that familiar with US sub tactics,one of the things they used to do before SJ Radar came out was to use the periscope while on the surface. They would extend the scope as far up as it went and had a crewman using the scope as an extra lookout.

Doubt they will model THAT in game though...but you never know.

[_Seth_]

Oh yeah! For those not that familiar with US sub tactics,one of the things they used to do before SJ Radar came out was to use the periscope while on the surface. They would extend the scope as far up as it went and had a crewman using the scope as an extra lookout.

Doubt they will model THAT in game though...but you never know.

What the......:o:o`?????? How did he manage to stay up there? did they strap him onto the scope, or...?

[Sailor Steve]

No, no, no...he was in the control room using the scope. 'Twas what Don1Reed meant by "high-scoping".

Though they did have lookouts climb up into the support beams for the scopes.

[_Seth_]

No, no, no...he was in the control room using the scope. 'Twas what Don1Reed meant by "high-scoping".

Though they did have lookouts climb up into the support beams for the scopes.

Ok, i misunderstood....:lol: I thought they made him stay strapped onto the scope as a punishment for beeing "Bernard"... :rotfl:
Thanx for the great info, Steve!:yep:

[TheSatyr]

Nah,that's what they do to the guy who breaks the ice cream machine.

[TheSatyr]

Ok,back OT. Since it is supposed to be a realistic PTO sub sim,it should ONLY be in feet,yards and nautical miles.

After all,we got metric in SH3 because that's what Germany used.

[VON_CAPO]

Metric all the way. :smug:
Imperial system is obsolete, complicated and an aberrant anachronism. :shifty:

[WilhelmSchulz.]

Feet should be used since that was the system used by the U.S Naval forces.

With the metric system in SHIII I didint have a problem since I just memroized waht depths are imporent(ex 14m for perscope, 200m for DC doging) Seth yould could do the same. Memorize that 64 feet is P depth and so on.

[WilhelmSchulz.]

They used patrol areas...not grids. I think there were around 14 patrol areas,which meant that US boats had to cover alot more territory while hunting than the U-Boats did.

Not quite sure how it was handled when multiple subs operated in the same patrol area...I think they used lattitude and longitude for the patrol boundaries in that situation.
:huh::huh: 14 areas??? Wow! Just 14 in all of the great pacific.. just imagine getting a radio message: "Convoy spotted in area xxxxx" ! LoL!!! Happy hunting, if we find anything! :rotfl:
I surely hope latitudes & longitudes are implemented, together with celestial navigation.....:yep:
No thoes 14 areas where only used for "Empire areas" .

[Loaf]

I believe that using the "high scope" lookout while surfaced in SHI was supposed to extend your visibilty - or so people on the forums used to think. Don't know why the Germans would not have used this technique, but you never seem to hear of it...

Regarding metric/imperial: Nautical miles are used for navigation regardless of which system you employ. That is because the length of a nautical mile is derived backwards from the size of the globe and the use of 180 degrees east/west of the meridian on charts. To change this to km (or any other unit of measure) would require throwing out all of the traditional charting and navigational systems. In other words, a "nautical mile" does not really belong to any traditional system of weights and measurements - it is a byproduct of the mathematical decision to assign 360 degrees to a circle. Remember that an Imperial "land mile" is NOT the same distance as a nautical mile (NM).

For instance, I am a Canadian who sails on the Great Lakes. A US chart of the lakes will show depths in feet, and a Canadian "metric" one shows depth in meters - but distances on both charts are calculated in nautical miles.

This is why aviators of all countries use knots to talk about airspeed - they need to use NM for navigational purposes, for the same reasons mariners do. (Just to clarify, "knot" = 1 NM/hour).

None of this matters in-game of course (unless SHIV models real-world navigation in some way), but that's the way it is in real life... I was always perplexed by the use of kilometres to measure distance on the chart in SHIII. I suspect it is not historically accurate - you would just be doing conversions to NM all the time. If the German navy really had some oddball "metric" system of navigation (which I highly doubt) they would measure a ship's speed in km/hour, not knots.

However, the Germans could easily have used metres when estimating distance to targets... That has nothing to do with navigation or marine charts. It is strictly speed and distance calculations for the purposes of navigation that require the use of knots and NM - for any other purpose any system of measurement can be used.

[Loaf]

Further to my last post... For anybody who is interested, if a navigator needs to measure a distance of less than one nautical mile it still does not matter whether you normally use metric or Imperial for other purposes. You just use decimals...

So for instance you would measure the distance on the chart to your next waypoint, and write down "1.2 NM." You would never use yards, feet or metres on the chart (except for water depth measurements, or elevation of features on land).

[Safe-Keeper]

What the......:o:o`?????? How did he manage to stay up there? did they strap him onto the scope, or...?That's what I read it as, too. I was like, "Holy ****, to manage to climb up there and hold onto the thing!":rotfl:.

I noticed from the in-game movie that the navigation map sports co-ordinates now, though. That's good.

[Sailor Steve]

I noticed from the in-game movie that the navigation map sports co-ordinates now, though. That's good.
I didn not notice that. Now I have to go watch it again.

Darn.

[_Seth_]

I noticed from the in-game movie that the navigation map sports co-ordinates now, though. That's good. I didn not notice that. Now I have to go watch it again.

Darn.

Noticed it also just recently... Check between 02.42 and 03.00 into the video. This looks great! :up:

[Gorduz]

"High Scoping" was included in SH1

[WilhelmSchulz.]

Yea a high scope search would give you the same sight distance as being surfaced.

[Schatten]

Feet should be used since that was the system used by the U.S Naval forces.


It's just that simple no matter what the pros and cons of the metric vs. imperial systems are. Since the USN used yards in WWII that's what the scale should be in SH IV. So everything should be in yards for displays, feet for depth and nautical miles for distance.

As a matter of fact I'd be a little disappointed if there was a metric toggle in SH IV. One of the strengths of SH III is the immersion factor (SHIII uses German nomenclature, weights and measures, etc.) and that attention to how it really was for each service should remain for SH IV and beyond IMHO.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Yea a high scope search would give you the same sight distance as being surfaced.

Isn't a high scope search using the periscope while surfaced?

PD

[Sailor Steve]

Yes it is.

[AS]

I can imagine three reasons why German U-Boats didn´t use "High Scoping":

1. Unlike the Pacific, the Atlantic is quite rough and shaky, I guess you couldn´t make out anything when looking to a raised scope, the only effect would have been that you go dizzy in your head.

2. Keeping a LOW profile and being able to crash dive as quickly as possible was vital to survive, a raised scope might extent the sightline, but it could be detected by enemy ships as well (note that the shaft was shiny metal, which reflected in the sun)

3. The famous Zeiss company delivered the best (night)googles in the world - it is known that German watch crews who were using them could see farther than other Navys.

My two cents, AS

[VON_CAPO]

Feet should be used since that was the system used by the U.S Naval forces.

It's just that simple no matter what the pros and cons of the metric vs. imperial systems are. Since the USN used yards in WWII that's what the scale should be in SH IV. So everything should be in yards for displays, feet for depth and nautical miles for distance.

As a matter of fact I'd be a little disappointed if there was a metric toggle in SH IV. One of the strengths of SH III is the immersion factor (SHIII uses German nomenclature, weights and measures, etc.) and that attention to how it really was for each service should remain for SH IV and beyond IMHO.
I dislike to admit it, but you've got a point. :cool:

[don1reed]

http://img320.imageshack.us/img320/3022/ssheighteyeuk5.th.gif (http://img320.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ssheighteyeuk5.gif)

For those unfamiliar with "high-scoping".
Due to the inherent design differences between a US Sub and Uboats, the conning tower of the US boat was taller and if you look at the periscope sheers, the metal support casings for fore & aft scopes, there are "look-out" platforms on port & starboard sides and abaft of the sheers.

"High-scoping" was performed while the boat was surfaced by a watch stander inside the conning tower.

As you can see, 9 nm...Thats 18,000 yards(16668m) on a clear day. Gene Fluckey, in Thunder Below!, describes three instances of "Atmospheric phenomenon" occurring when travelling in the Kurile Islands and up along the Kamchatka peninsula, where they could see Japanese convoys 26-50 nm away through the scope. These same phenomena are known as Arctic Mirages, reported during the first Polar expeditions.

edit: sorry, didn't mean to drift from the topic.

The International Extraordinary Hydrographic Conference of 1929 set the standard of 1 nm = 1852m; however, individual nations all use nautical miles when measuring linear distances over water on charts. Why the Devs chose a land-based measure on the F3 chart is not in keeping with nautical protocol. So, we just live with it.

[don1reed]

I can imagine three reasons why German U-Boats didn´t use "High Scoping":

If I could, AS, let me add one more reason:

The UBoat Commander's Handbook
B. How to Prevent the Submarine from Attracting Attention.
I., 23). & 24). It is the raised periscope on the surface that makes the typical submarine silhouette...etc.

I guess a lot of the younger Kaleuns adheared to the Handbook religiously, (due to Allied radar) as well.

[Hylander_1314]

It doesn't matter to me, as I'm comfortable with both types of measuring. But since the U.S.N. used feet, yards, and nautical miles during WWII, the game should really reflect this. I know the metric system by design is easier as it is based on unit measures of ten equal incriments, and is actually easier for people to adjust to, than the other way around.

But the unit measurements are not really going to matter that much unless the Devs give us real navigation qualities with latitude and longitude (including the minutes) and accurate star charts, and a sextant for the navigator, along with ocean currents, and trade winds across the sea. And let's not forget north, and magnetic north on the charts, like my maps of the Great Lakes have. Which vary by approximately 12 to 13 degrees latitude. Dependinding on the quality of the protractor I use at the time.

For history, and accuracies sake, I would have to say that it should use the English system of measure, along with gallons for fuel remaining, and lbs for weight.

[Oesten]

The US is one of only three countries that still use the imperial units for measurement.

See!

The US is more imperial than Britain now!

;) :rotfl:

[marky]

The US is one of only three countries that still use the imperial units for measurement.
See!

The US is more imperial than Britain now!

;) :rotfl:


LOLZ!:rotfl:

id say yards, or make it so u can switchy for our backwards european friendz!

jk! :rotfl:

[TwistedFemur]

Why not? 1 fathom = 2 yards!


how bout leagues:smug: ?

[azn_132]

Why not? 1 fathom = 2 yards!


how bout leagues:smug: ?
U make me think about that one league story like 2000 leagues under the sea or somethang like that?

[Sailor Steve]

U make me think about that one league story like 2000 leagues under the sea or somethang like that?
You've never read 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea? It's one of the great classics of literature. It's by the great French author Jules Verne. You should read it. Or at least see the movie; it was good too.

[Schatten]

What Sailor Steve said, the book is a masterpiece and the movie is good old school Hollywood adventure fun.

Oh and a league is 3 miles, so...that was a long trip to take under the sea. :yep:

[Hylander_1314]

The best film version is the original Disney film with James Mason as Capt. Nemo, also starring Kirk Douglas, as Ned Land. One of my favorites since I was a little squid. Actually first read the book when I was 7 yrs old.

[azn_132]

U make me think about that one league story like 2000 leagues under the sea or somethang like that?
You've never read 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea? It's one of the great classics of literature. It's by the great French author Jules Verne. You should read it. Or at least see the movie; it was good too.
I was too busy sleepin late and play on SH3 all the time.

[Sailor Steve]

Oh and a league is 3 miles, so...that was a long trip to take under the sea. :yep:
When I was a kid I was quite confused; I knew that a league was three miles and I knew that the Earth was only around 7500 mile across, so I couldn't figure how they could go down 20,000 leagues, or 60,000 miles. It was one of my more embarassing moments when I finally realized that was how far they travelled, not how deep they went.:oops: :rotfl:

[Ducimus]

Ive never heard the English measurement system refered to as the "imperial" system before. Wierld.

Here were taught two different measurement systems. English and Metric. Truth of the matter is we use both systems, depending on what we're doing. Anyway, I think people from Europe can just as easly adapt to a depth gauge in feet, just as easily as ive had to adapt to a depth gauge in meters. We switch back and forth between the two systems over here daily ;)

[Schatten]

Oh and a league is 3 miles, so...that was a long trip to take under the sea. :yep: When I was a kid I was quite confused; I knew that a league was three miles and I knew that the Earth was only around 7500 mile across, so I couldn't figure how they could go down 20,000 leagues, or 60,000 miles. It was one of my more embarassing moments when I finally realized that was how far they travelled, not how deep they went.:oops: :rotfl:

Well if we're admitting stuff...yeah I wondered the same thing when I was a kid too. I still remember looking up "league" in my handy dandy Worldbook Encyclopedias that my mom bought me for my 7th birthday and going "Ohhhhhhhhh!" :rotfl:

That experience is probably why I still knew a league is 3 miles when that came up. :up:

Moral of the story: If you have kids buy them books, they'll still be able to conjure up essential information about things like leagues 3 decades later to post on the internet and look like they sometime have a clue. :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

Ive never heard the English measurement system refered to as the "imperial" system before. Wierld.
And just to make it worse, a US gallon is not the same as an imperial gallon.

Here were taught two different measurement systems. English and Metric. Truth of the matter is we use both systems, depending on what we're doing. Anyway, I think people from Europe can just as easly adapt to a depth gauge in feet, just as easily as ive had to adapt to a depth gauge in meters. We switch back and forth between the two systems over here daily ;)
Completely agree. I had no problem with metric in SHIII; it just feels natural, as imperial measure will feel natural in a US boat.

Here's something most folks don't think about: There are metric tons (tonnes) and standard tons (2000 pounds), but ships' displacements are measured in long tons (2240 pounds). This is why some early British systems (such as guns) are also measured in hundredweights. One hundredweight is 112 pounds, or 1/20th of a long ton.

[AS]

@ Sailor Steve: ...and now it´s a very embarrassing moment for me - I still thought that it meant how deep they were:oops: Well, strangely enough the German title of Jules Verne´s novel is "20.000 Meilen (miles) unter dem Meer (under the sea) which is highly ambigious. I thought Jules Verne believed one could go that deep since he couldn´t have known that the deepest part of the sea is "only" about 14 km (which is less than 8 miles approx.)

You live, you learn....

[Takeda Shingen]

Here were taught two different measurement systems. English and Metric. Truth of the matter is we use both systems, depending on what we're doing. Anyway, I think people from Europe can just as easly adapt to a depth gauge in feet, just as easily as ive had to adapt to a depth gauge in meters. We switch back and forth between the two systems over here daily ;)

I've always prefered the Imperial system when using depth control in sims like Sub Command or Dangerous Waters. The foot is a smaller degree of measurement than the meter, and, as such, allows for greater prescision in depth, and more importantly, sounding.

[Chaotic42]

Here's something most folks don't think about: There are metric tons (tonnes) and standard tons (2000 pounds), but ships' displacements are measured in long tons (2240 pounds). This is why some early British systems (such as guns) are also measured in hundredweights. One hundredweight is 112 pounds, or 1/20th of a long ton.

Thanks a lot, England! :p

[Sailor Steve]

WOW! You learn something new every day. While looking in The American Practical Navigator for info for the 8km vs 16km thread, I found that nautical miles are actually METRIC!:rotfl:

I always thought of a nautical mile as being 6080 feet, versus a statute (land) mile of 5280 feet. Turns out a nautical mile is actually kinda sorta 6076.11549 feet. It seems that way back in 1929 the International Hydrographic Bureau standardized the International Nautical Mile at exactly 1852 meters! And the United States officially standardized the yard at 0.9144 meters in 1959.

Who'd a thunk it?!

[hyperion2206]

What the......:o:o`?????? How did he manage to stay up there? did they strap him onto the scope, or...?That's what I read it as, too. I was like, "Holy ****, to manage to climb up there and hold onto the thing!":rotfl:.

I noticed from the in-game movie that the navigation map sports co-ordinates now, though. That's good.
You won't believe it but it was done and I even found a pic to prove I'm right.:D Sorry for the bad quality, I had to scan it.:shifty:

Here it is:

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1488/pic0001aen6.jpg

[DaMaGe007]

I dont think the smaller degree should make a difference, since they could use a decimal point ie 1.2m 1.3m...but they usually dont allow for it.

I dont usually find myself craving for a more acurate depth than Surfaced, Persicope, or DIVE DIVE DIVE !!!!

[Elder-Pirate]

They used patrol areas...not grids. I think there were around 14 patrol areas,which meant that US boats had to cover alot more territory while hunting than the U-Boats did.

Not quite sure how it was handled when multiple subs operated in the same patrol area...I think they used lattitude and longitude for the patrol boundaries in that situation.

Care to shed more info on this? Or point me to the right direction?

Re: the original thread.

I think you guys should see this as an interesting challenge, and the flavor of us subs. They measured this and that in the imperial system in RL, so you should accept it too. Are we simulating the US Silent Service or not?

Besides, if both instruments, available data and maps are measured the same way, it shouldn't be a problem.


Did all of you miss this post from a SH 4 Dev ????

You CAN count on "Imperial System Measure".

Also no one answered his leading question as I'd also like to see an answer.


btw his post was #15 of this thread.

[Takeda Shingen]

I dont think the smaller degree should make a difference, since they could use a decimal point ie 1.2m 1.3m...but they usually dont allow for it.

I dont usually find myself craving for a more acurate depth than Surfaced, Persicope, or DIVE DIVE DIVE !!!!

On the contrary, I have been frusturated numerous times in SH3 and DW when using meters to correct for sea state at PD. I can remember repeatedly wishing that I had my 'feet' back, so that I could adjust fractionally.

[irish1958]

If God had wanted meters to be used, He wouldn't have given everyone two feet.

[hyperion2206]

If God had wanted meters to be used, He wouldn't have given everyone two feet.

As an atheist I have to use the metric system then.:p:lol:

[Sailor Steve]

If God had wanted meters to be used, He wouldn't have given everyone two feet.

As an atheist I have to use the metric system then.:p:lol:
Does that mean you have 3.2808 feet? Cool!:cool:

[hyperion2206]

If God had wanted meters to be used, He wouldn't have given everyone two feet.
As an atheist I have to use the metric system then.:p:lol: Does that mean you have 3.2808 feet? Cool!:cool:

Yes, I've got an extra foot just for the case that one gets stuck when I kick @ss!:p:lol:

[Fat Bhoy Tim]

I like the imperial system, in some ways it makes more sense.

1 yard = 3 feet (depth and heights are measured in feet)
1 NM ~ 2000 yards

Etc...

But those aren't exact which is why imperial was, and is, such a pain to use. Luckily I can use both quite easily.

[nimitstexan]

[Almost all mechanics and technicians have a set of metric tools along with english tools.... and our military has gone almost completely metric (they don't even use miles anymore).




The US Army, yes (and they have been since WW2, I think), but the Navy and us flyboys are still quire happy with knots and feet, thank you very much . . .

I for one hope we never change because (a) just because France and Germany do something does not mean its better or that we have to do it either; and (b) all of our history is in miles and feet (if that makes any sense), so that if we were to switch future generations would have even more trouble appreciating our past than they do now.

[dlpayer]

Its not an issue of which system is "right" or "convienient", its an issue of which system was historically used. If one insists on a hight degree of realism in this sim, then its obvious which system to use.

[Elder-Pirate]

In SHIII every one had to use metric as was used by the Germans, I had no gripe with that whatsoever. Now SHIV comes out with the American as the heros of the sim and what happens we get metrics again ( allthough imperial measure was promised before the Sim was released ) untill a patch comes out with a use for both. Sorry but I think thats kind of wrong to have both for it is USA history and NOT Europe or any other country includeing japan for they are just the AI in this Simulation. Now if SHIII was coded for both metric and imperial then I would say haveing the two was ok, this way it is biased.

[elanaiba]

Having the game display units in the imperial system for release was something that we really wanted but we had to dump a few hours before GOLD. It created some unforeseen problems and we were forced to take it out.


With 1.1 of course we put it back in ;)

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/7564/danforumuy7.gif