WO range cheat

[Keelbuster]

Hi all,

I'm using GWX 1.03. I try to go full manual everything - no ext cam, etc. The problem is, I'm a total sucker for the WO range cheat. No matter how hard I try, I can't resist clicking on him and asking for truth information about the target's whereabouts. I really need a mod that will remove this lock-on, get range from WO function. I would love to have it only work in visual range, and be approximate and error prone, and dependent on the WO's experience level, but I doubt that is possible given hard-coded constraints. Is there any way to get it so that it only works within visual range (i.e., after a 'ship-spotted'), and gives you coarse estimates like on the hydrophone (i.e., short, medium, long range)?

Thanks,
KB

[looney]

LOL on the surface it was the WO's task to torp those ships not yours :)

[Badger Finn]

Hi all,

I'm using GWX 1.03. I try to go full manual everything - no ext cam, etc. The problem is, I'm a total sucker for the WO range cheat. No matter how hard I try, I can't resist clicking on him and asking for truth information about the target's whereabouts. I really need a mod that will remove this lock-on, get range from WO function. I would love to have it only work in visual range, and be approximate and error prone, and dependent on the WO's experience level, but I doubt that is possible given hard-coded constraints. Is there any way to get it so that it only works within visual range (i.e., after a 'ship-spotted'), and gives you coarse estimates like on the hydrophone (i.e., short, medium, long range)?

Thanks,
KB

Wouldnt worry about it m8 for realism. Id guess real crews new there business in ship id, distances, repairs etc ...

:|\\

[Keelbuster]

Hi all,

I'm using GWX 1.03. I try to go full manual everything - no ext cam, etc. The problem is, I'm a total sucker for the WO range cheat. No matter how hard I try, I can't resist clicking on him and asking for truth information about the target's whereabouts. I really need a mod that will remove this lock-on, get range from WO function. I would love to have it only work in visual range, and be approximate and error prone, and dependent on the WO's experience level, but I doubt that is possible given hard-coded constraints. Is there any way to get it so that it only works within visual range (i.e., after a 'ship-spotted'), and gives you coarse estimates like on the hydrophone (i.e., short, medium, long range)?

Thanks,
KB
Wouldnt worry about it m8 for realism. Id guess real crews new there business in ship id, distances, repairs etc ...

:|\\

Yea, they were probably good, but I'm sure they can't _see_ the difference between 15400m and 15500m. My WO can though, and I shamefully exploit it.

[bigboywooly]

Well if you can find the right entry in the menu.ini for that button it can be disabled

Unfortunately I dont know which one that is

[Keelbuster]

Well if you can find the right entry in the menu.ini for that button it can be disabled

Unfortunately I dont know which one that is

Yea - i suppose so eh. But i wonder if that's a bit harsh - I need that button to orient to ships/aircraft spotted when they enter visual range.

[Jimbuna]

Ask your wife/partner or whoever to watch you whilst your playing and tell them you'll give them a dollar/pound or whatever your currency is every time you hit the button......You'll soon lose the habit ;)

[Keelbuster]

Ask your wife/partner or whoever to watch you whilst your playing and tell them you'll give them a dollar/pound or whatever your currency is every time you hit the button......You'll soon lose the habit ;)

Alas, I've yet to find a woman of that calibre. :shifty: But I spot one I'll be sure to plot the appropriate intercept course.

[Jimbuna]

Ask your wife/partner or whoever to watch you whilst your playing and tell them you'll give them a dollar/pound or whatever your currency is every time you hit the button......You'll soon lose the habit ;)

Alas, I've yet to find a woman of that calibre. :shifty: But I spot one I'll be sure to plot the appropriate intercept course.

Good hunting then :up:

[u.Prestige]

Ha, I have the same idea:smug:
WO range cheat sucks in manual targetting mode:arrgh!:

[onelifecrisis]

Alas, I've yet to find a woman of that calibre. :shifty: But I spot one I'll be sure to plot the appropriate intercept course.

:rotfl:

[rudewarrior]

Yea, they were probably good, but I'm sure they can't _see_ the difference between 15400m and 15500m.
But at that range does 100m make a real difference? :hmm: I wouldn't think it would really matter until <10km, considering torpedo ranges. I'm also willing to bet that they were pretty accurate to within +/- 500m, and I bet it was even better at closer ranges. Still, that's only 5% error. And I bet that would be good enough. Especially as the WO was constantly relaying tracking info downstairs, which would mean the data would actually approach the real value as you took more measurements, statistically speaking (this is what they did in Iron Coffins, and IIRC Das Boot (the book, I don't they communicate much about the actual attack process in the movie)). So as you took more measurements, the difference between your values and the values of the target would generally get smaller. :up:


I don't really think that using that button is really a "cheat" per se. Sure it would be better if you could work error in, but given the situation, I don't really think it is that far off. Especially since I really can't see how inexperience could produce random error, I would figure systematic error would be more likely. And if systematic error is the case, that means the WO would be off by a constant amount, not a random amount, i.e. he would always underestimate by 800m. Or another way to put it is that it would affect his accuracy and not his precision.:know:

But I couldn't really see that being an issue considering the level of training they went through.

If you want to make it more realistic, maybe you could lay off the button until visual contact has been made for a certain amount of time. However, the closer you are, the shorter this time should be.

It is important to understand that the eye is actually a very accurate aiming device, and I would hypothesize that these guys were very good at estimating range, speed, course, etc.:arrgh!:

If you want to try yourself, go submerged in choppy seas. Find a friendly ship and take measurements of range and bearing through the periscope, and plot that on the map. Do it once a minute for twenty minutes. Then once you've got several points with a good estimate of course, speed, and range, surface and use your WO, or take some measurements yourself. You'll probably be surprised at how accurate you wind up. It's actually just simple probability mixed with training. :cool:

Now think about how many measurements can actually be made per minute. Just makes it that much more accurate. Good luck.

[Keelbuster]

Yea, they were probably good, but I'm sure they can't _see_ the difference between 15400m and 15500m.
But at that range does 100m make a real difference? :hmm: I wouldn't think it would really matter until <10km, considering torpedo ranges. I'm also willing to bet that they were pretty accurate to within +/- 500m, and I bet it was even better at closer ranges. Still, that's only 5% error. And I bet that would be good enough. Especially as the WO was constantly relaying tracking info downstairs, which would mean the data would actually approach the real value as you took more measurements, statistically speaking (this is what they did in Iron Coffins, and IIRC Das Boot (the book, I don't they communicate much about the actual attack process in the movie)). So as you took more measurements, the difference between your values and the values of the target would generally get smaller. :up:


I don't really think that using that button is really a "cheat" per se. Sure it would be better if you could work error in, but given the situation, I don't really think it is that far off. Especially since I really can't see how inexperience could produce random error, I would figure systematic error would be more likely. And if systematic error is the case, that means the WO would be off by a constant amount, not a random amount, i.e. he would always underestimate by 800m. Or another way to put it is that it would affect his accuracy and not his precision.:know:

But I couldn't really see that being an issue considering the level of training they went through.

If you want to make it more realistic, maybe you could lay off the button until visual contact has been made for a certain amount of time. However, the closer you are, the shorter this time should be.

It is important to understand that the eye is actually a very accurate aiming device, and I would hypothesize that these guys were very good at estimating range, speed, course, etc.:arrgh!:

If you want to try yourself, go submerged in choppy seas. Find a friendly ship and take measurements of range and bearing through the periscope, and plot that on the map. Do it once a minute for twenty minutes. Then once you've got several points with a good estimate of course, speed, and range, surface and use your WO, or take some measurements yourself. You'll probably be surprised at how accurate you wind up. It's actually just simple probability mixed with training. :cool:

Now think about how many measurements can actually be made per minute. Just makes it that much more accurate. Good luck.

Thanks for the optimistic reply. I sort of agree. The +/- 500m thing would be good. I just hate how I often end up with a _perfect_ course/speed estimate. It feels a bit cheesy. Especially when the target's never even entered visual range:). But anyway. Yea. If I restrict myself to readings when the target's well within visual range, then I guess that's approximately fair overall. Compared to my stad readings, though, the WO estimates are like truth.