Stadimeter

[btaft]

I a starting to make the transition to full manual tracking but have kept map updates on to check my results for the time being. I have found my ranges to be off by a decent amount (typically short) when using the stadimeter. My understandng is that I ID the target, check the box, line the cross hair to the water line of the first image and then bring the second image's water line to the top of the mast of the first image to obtain the angle. Even in calm water I seem to get shorter ranges. I am not looking to complain, just looking to see if I got it right. Any help is appreciated

[AVGWarhawk]

Seems to be a known issue of stadi not reading correctly. For some that is. Mine is pretty good. It is found that the closer you are the better the reading becomes. I take my final reading at 1500 yards out. For me, this seems to be accurate enough for a score. It does take practice and is a very good feeling when you score a hit by making it all happen by yourself.:up: But, like I said, the stadi needs some work from the developers.

[Snuffy]

If you want to just use the running path of a torp for AOB attacks, I found that if you draw the second image down over the original view the TDC gives you a 6 and a half minute Torp run.

The projection line is enough to help you get a feel for deflection shots and the like. :)

[maerean_m]

I a starting to make the transition to full manual tracking but have kept map updates on to check my results for the time being. I have found my ranges to be off by a decent amount (typically short) when using the stadimeter. My understandng is that I ID the target, check the box, line the cross hair to the water line of the first image and then bring the second image's water line to the top of the mast of the first image to obtain the angle. Even in calm water I seem to get shorter ranges. I am not looking to complain, just looking to see if I got it right. Any help is appreciated

Please have a look at http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=508996&postcount=19 for the full explanation.

[btaft]

Thanks to all the input.

Maerean_m: I actually read your post the other day and found it pretty informative. The only problem is that I am using the metric system so according to your argument I should be right on target. I will have to play around some more. Perhaps it is linked to specific vessels and might be a simple data base issue aside from the conversion issue you identified.

[maerean_m]

Thanks to all the input.

Maerean_m: I actually read your post the other day and found it pretty informative. The only problem is that I am using the metric system so according to your argument I should be right on target. I will have to play around some more. Perhaps it is linked to specific vessels and might be a simple data base issue aside from the conversion issue you identified.

Ya, it's a known issue. Some ships have a smaller value for mast height than the real ships, but the stadimeter doesn't know that, so...

[btaft]

Ya, it's a known issue. Some ships have a smaller value for mast height than the real ships, but the stadimeter doesn't know that, so...


Thanks, I am ok with that. I imagine that the data wasn't perfect on the subs at the time as well, let alone there was probably a much wider variety in vessels than what we have in the game (which is significantly improved over SH III in my opinion.....either that or I am just starting to learn them), so getting a proper identification would probably be a little tricky and some guess work would have to be used for the mast height.

I guess I will consider this a "feature" for the time being :D

[AVGWarhawk]

Ya, it's a known issue. Some ships have a smaller value for mast height than the real ships, but the stadimeter doesn't know that, so...

Thanks, I am ok with that. I imagine that the data wasn't perfect on the subs at the time as well, let alone there was probably a much wider variety in vessels than what we have in the game (which is significantly improved over SH III in my opinion.....either that or I am just starting to learn them), so getting a proper identification would probably be a little tricky and some guess work would have to be used for the mast height.

I guess I will consider this a "feature" for the time being :D
Thinking like that will let you sleep good at night. I have always been a big fan of being close to the target because it increased the chance of a hit even with if you solution is off a bit. For me range is much less important than getting the speed of target accurate. If you are very close and your speed is off my 1 kt, you will probably still score a hit. If you were very far from the target that 1 kts could miss by a football field. Get close and personal, best way to assure a reasonably accurate solution will still work.