Annatar
12-29-08, 06:00 PM
I've noticed in GWX3.0 that enabling and disabling this option has no effect on the realism percentage. I've been toying with having it turned off, but tracking a target without it is incredibly difficult. Still, I'm prepared to learn and to keep at it if it's the most historically accurate option, and that's the basis for my question really - although I guess neither on or off is truly accurate, what would you say best represents the experience of an historical captain?
My thoughts are that in reality the commander would obviously not have magical lines pointing the exact direction to his target, but then it also wouldn't be the commanders job to track them anyway - he would get range and distance information, perhaps with a suggested interception course (represented by those lines) from one of his subordinates, I guess?
Perhaps I'm way off.
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Also, while I'm here - I heard mention once that the swaying of the periscope in SH3 is not how they acted in reality and that clicking the option to stabilise it is probably more realistic than not - can anybody confirm or deny this?
My thoughts are that in reality the commander would obviously not have magical lines pointing the exact direction to his target, but then it also wouldn't be the commanders job to track them anyway - he would get range and distance information, perhaps with a suggested interception course (represented by those lines) from one of his subordinates, I guess?
Perhaps I'm way off.
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Also, while I'm here - I heard mention once that the swaying of the periscope in SH3 is not how they acted in reality and that clicking the option to stabilise it is probably more realistic than not - can anybody confirm or deny this?