Out of my depth!

[Melonfish]

Torpedo's are nice. they make big boom and splashy noises. however for me they regularly travel clean under ships without stopping to splode..

my issue. a ship in the ident book has a draft of 7.5m (Metric cause i'm used to it in sh3 but i have tried imperial, i just wasn't sure if the range was in feet or yards?) i set my torp to 8.5m it passes under the craft by about 2-4m?
whats the deal? bad depth keeping on the torps or am i off on my aim?
also my AA and deck gun crews won't autofire. they're manned and they're on fire at will but they sit there like lemmings ?

sorry for being the noob at this. Damn i miss my type VII :doh:
pete

[SteamWake]

It is a known 'issue' that espically so early in the war the torpedoes would run about 10 foot deeper than what you had them set for.

This has been discussed many many times. Im sure the search feature will turn up lots of information for you ;)

About the deck gun crew. You do know you have to either set them to "Fire at will" (hot key button) or designate a target by looking at it throught your binocs and pressing space bar.

Lots of discussion on this topic as well.

Good luck with the hunt.

[Melonfish]

ah, i shall use the forums "periscope" function.
ta
pete

[Sailor Steve]

Range is always in yards. Ship dimensions are always in feet.

Metric is easier, and does make more sense. That's exactly why we don't use it.:rotfl:

[SteamWake]

Range is always in yards. Ship dimensions are always in feet.

Metric is easier, and does make more sense. That's exactly why we don't use it.:rotfl:

Its all about that King thing that happend back in the 1700's ;)

Curiously enough most engineering drawings at least technical documents show both metric and english units where architectural drawings still only show english :hmm:

I always get a kick out of something that is 4.5 feet :doh: instead of 4'-6".

[maerean_m]

I always get a kick out of something that is 4.5 feet :doh: instead of 4'-6".

I never thought of it that way.

How about 4.5 yards?

[SteamWake]

I always get a kick out of something that is 4.5 feet :doh: instead of 4'-6".

I never thought of it that way.

How about 4.5 yards?

13.5 feet or 13'-6" (4.5*36/12)

[maerean_m]

I always get a kick out of something that is 4.5 feet :doh: instead of 4'-6".
I never thought of it that way.

How about 4.5 yards?
13.5 feet or 13'-6" (4.5*36/12)

I'm talking about displaying ranges (measured in yards).

[SteamWake]

I always get a kick out of something that is 4.5 feet :doh: instead of 4'-6".
I never thought of it that way.

How about 4.5 yards?
13.5 feet or 13'-6" (4.5*36/12)

I'm talking about displaying ranges (measured in yards).

Typically you dont see things listed in yards/feet/inches let alone miles. What truely seperates the two systems is metric has incriments of 10 or 100.

When a call is made "Ship spotted 2,500 yards" it is generally rounded off as 18" either way is not that big of a deal. Now when it comes to calculations, and precise dimenshions you typically see a decimal equalivelent such as 13.5 feet or 162" in lieu of 4.5 yards.

The only place I commonly see yards as a common unit of measure is on a golf course and carpet. The carpet folks use alot of that rounding off stuff to their profit.

[Rockin Robbins]

Range is always in yards. Ship dimensions are always in feet.

Metric is easier, and does make more sense. That's exactly why we don't use it.:rotfl:
I'll grant you that using decimal portions of a unit is more convenient than using halves, quarters, eighths, and sixteenths, but nothing keeps you from using decimal portions as 4.5 yeards, 4.5 inches, 4.5 miles. It is in converting from one unit of measurement to another that the metric system was better up until now. But we have computers which care not whether they divide by 10 or 16.

The real difference between metric and imperial measurements is their relationship to the things we measure. Everything we build is intended to fit the humans who use them, submarines, buildings, roads, automobiles, airplanes, everything is based on the size of a human being. Well guess what? That is also the origin of the imperial measurement system. The foot is too obvious. The inch is the length of the second segment of your index finger. The cubit is the distance from the elbow to the end of a clenched fist. A yard is the distance from your chin to the tip of an outstretched upturned thumb. After the move to standardize humans was rejected by King Henry VII, who liked his women slightly smaller than he was, imperial measurements were standardized. But they still roughly correspond to the length of their origins. Human derived dimensions are much more accessible and make great sense for making items designed for human use. If man is the measure of the world, then imperial measurements rule!

Now let's take the meter. It was supposed to be a nice even fraction of the distance between the equator and the pole of planet Earth. First of all, why do we give a rip about that?:stare: Secondly, they blew the measurement, leaving us with a meter based on......... Well, they did make a standard meter bar and it seems to be shrinking.:rotfl:

If metric is such a great idea, why do we measure latitude and longitude in degrees, minutes and seconds? I don't hear anybody clamoring for their ouster. How about time? Same deal. As we abandon job titles that actually contain any description of our function, it only makes sense that we abandon an intuitive and human based measurement system for one that bears no relationship to anything we care about! Onward, into the fog!:arrgh!: