Steeltrap
04-17-07, 08:16 AM
Hi all.
This is copied from the patch 1.2 thread in which I made some comments in response to gmohr's post (see below). I've expanded on my original comments. Would be interested in feedback, especially how possible this would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmohr
The thing that's wrong with the current set of "tools" is that it either forces the player to accept a bunch of magic satelite view crud, OR it forces the player to act as the whole crew.
IMO, the best solution would be for an AI "track team" to use input from you the captain to plot solutions for you, using only the data you provide. For example you mark bearings, distances, and AOB, and the plotter uses that info (right or wrong) to build a plot and calculate speed over time.
This is exactly the distribution of effort on a real sub crew, and would make a great simulation.
This is exactly how I have wanted the thing done from day 1. It also allows for the improvement of your plotting team over time with experience.Reading various works by Dick O'Kane etc. makes it clear that this is more 'realistic' than doing everything yourself, although some people seem to think doing everything - including actual poltting - is realistic. Bollocks!
My preference would have the system plot a mark for your target on the map when you give the range (using stadimeter) and bearing (as read off the bearing ring on the outside of the scope, typically by an assistant). Continue to do this over time and you get course and speed estimates. You can then check those estimates against the poition keeper output. That's how I'd do it, and I could do away with all these imprecise plotting tools.
I call range and bearing, a mark automatically goes on map exactly based on that. That's how it 'should' be. Note this mark is based on my range and bearing reports. The point is the mark would be exactly where it should be, so any errors would be based only on my observations - not due both to my observations AND inability to plot precisely given the limitations of the available tools.
Oh well.....point is, something needs to be done about this as it is definitely too 'all or nothing' at present (i.e. map updates on/off and auto TDC on/off seem to be only real choices).
Cheers
This is copied from the patch 1.2 thread in which I made some comments in response to gmohr's post (see below). I've expanded on my original comments. Would be interested in feedback, especially how possible this would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmohr
The thing that's wrong with the current set of "tools" is that it either forces the player to accept a bunch of magic satelite view crud, OR it forces the player to act as the whole crew.
IMO, the best solution would be for an AI "track team" to use input from you the captain to plot solutions for you, using only the data you provide. For example you mark bearings, distances, and AOB, and the plotter uses that info (right or wrong) to build a plot and calculate speed over time.
This is exactly the distribution of effort on a real sub crew, and would make a great simulation.
This is exactly how I have wanted the thing done from day 1. It also allows for the improvement of your plotting team over time with experience.Reading various works by Dick O'Kane etc. makes it clear that this is more 'realistic' than doing everything yourself, although some people seem to think doing everything - including actual poltting - is realistic. Bollocks!
My preference would have the system plot a mark for your target on the map when you give the range (using stadimeter) and bearing (as read off the bearing ring on the outside of the scope, typically by an assistant). Continue to do this over time and you get course and speed estimates. You can then check those estimates against the poition keeper output. That's how I'd do it, and I could do away with all these imprecise plotting tools.
I call range and bearing, a mark automatically goes on map exactly based on that. That's how it 'should' be. Note this mark is based on my range and bearing reports. The point is the mark would be exactly where it should be, so any errors would be based only on my observations - not due both to my observations AND inability to plot precisely given the limitations of the available tools.
Oh well.....point is, something needs to be done about this as it is definitely too 'all or nothing' at present (i.e. map updates on/off and auto TDC on/off seem to be only real choices).
Cheers