Realism hit? with stabilized view

[Paul Riley]

I am considering enabling stabilized view,to simulate stabilizers that MUST have been installed in U-Boat scopes,however,I just did a google search on the matter,and it seems apparent that stabilizers were made by the Americans,and in the 50's.Is that right?

Thanks.

[onelifecrisis]

I dunno. But I know the german scopes had split prism stadimeters, which meant the scope rolling around wasn't really such a problem. It is a problem for us in the game, because SH3 doesn't simulate the split prism stadimeter. In other words, IMO, SH3 is more realistic with "no scope stabilisation" unchecked in the realism options.
:up:

[Paul Riley]

Sorry,just let me clarify ;) you would have stabilization off?

Do you remember the scene in Das Boot,where the captain was about to fire at the incoming destroyer they had just spotted,and the waves were rolling all over the scope,yet the actual crosshair remained quite stable,if not perfectly still.The boat was clearly bobbing up and down because he shouts to the chief "watch the depth chief",but his crosshair was pretty stabilized.I think we can only get that effect with stabilized view 'on'.

I'm not sure what to think on this,due to so many different opinions about various aspects of the game,but I think its important to play the game in what feels real to you.I think having god view and stabilized view is not too much of a realism hit,do you?I only use the map anyway mainly for getting range estimates for my plotting,as far as using it for situational awareness I prefer to do all that upstairs :03:

:up:

[onelifecrisis]

Sorry,just let me clarify ;) you would have stabilization off?

Nope. I said I would have "no scope stabilisation" unchecked.
SH3's use of double nagatives is annoying!

Do you remember the scene in Das Boot,where the captain was about to fire at the incoming destroyer they had just spotted,and the waves were rolling all over the scope,yet the actual crosshair remained quite stable,if not perfectly still.

I've not seen Das Boot, but I know it's a movie and therefore unlikely to be in any way realistic. ;)

Not that a videogame is realistic either, but, yeah... er, whatever.

[Paul Riley]

I've not seen Das Boot, but I know it's a movie and therefore unlikely to be in any way realistic. ;)

You've not seen Das Boot? :o ,man i'm surprised,I thought that was under the belts of everyone in here.I know what you mean about movies though.

[Hitman]

Das Boot is a good film based on a good book, but there are still some obvious shortcomings when it comes to reflecting reality accurately. German periscopes had split prism stadimeters in many models, others (mainly the observation periscopes) didn't. But even so, once you have the hang of it it isn't that difficult to get range to target -not completely accurate, but at least accurate enough for our purposes-. The problem is that convincing people who are still not veteran with this game that practice will make masters out of them, is very difficult :haha:. But trust me, if you understand the mechanics of how it worked in real life, and practice a LOT, somewhen it all will suddenly fall in place. :up:

[Sailor Steve]

I agree that the stabilized views are not historical, but also agree that while SH4 gives us a realistic split-image view, SH3 does not. Stabilized Views is the only way to get it to hold still, at least for me.

[Paul Riley]

Steve

So using stabilized view would not exactly appear as cheating then?,it could simulate having some stabilizing mechanism in the periscope.

Were these devices available in the 1940s?

[Hitman]

Using the image stabilization should NOT be considered cheating in scopes with split-prism stadimeter (Like the one simulated in OLC's GUI) and should be considered cheating in mods that do not simulate split prism periscopes like for example my Optics mod.

When you have a split prism stadimeter in your periscope -which was used already in the 20s by Zeiss f.e. and only later incorporated by the US submarines, despite the stadimeter being an american invention by Lt. Fiske- the image still moves, but because it moves exactly the same in both split images, you don't notice it and can anyway measure the angle subtended with high accurancy.

Does this clarify the matter for you? :hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

Steve

So using stabilized view would not exactly appear as cheating then?,it could simulate having some stabilizing mechanism in the periscope.

Were these devices available in the 1940s?
What Hitman said. Stabilizers weren't available, but the split image device was. Take a look at SH4 - it's just right there. Since SH3 doesn't have it, use the stabilized view.

And "Cheating" is in the mind of the player. I do things a certain way because anything else seems like cheating to me. But I do things that others consider cheating, so there you are!:sunny:

[Coyote88]

Do you remember the scene in Das Boot,where the captain was about to fire at the incoming destroyer they had just spotted,and the waves were rolling all over the scope,yet the actual crosshair remained quite stable, if not perfectly still.

I notice that in almost every movie or tv show that features a view through a rifle scope. It's almost like they filmed the scene with a camera firmly attached to a dolly and then superimposed the cross hairs or something! ;)

[Paul Riley]

Does this clarify the matter for you? :hmmm:

It sure does,case closed! :know:
Stabilizers are,ON! :yeah:

[Paul Riley]

But I do things that others consider cheating, so there you are!:sunny:

Steve,I guess we all do things that feel right to us eh? :yep:
I mean,stabilize view is the only thing I have enabled now,oh and god view ;) , which I will be having off someday as I get used to manual plotting without god putting them there for us. Thats not so bad is it.

Anyway,thanks all.

[danlisa]

Now you have decided on the best course of action, perhaps you would like to remove the % hit in using your choice.;)

Open up GamePlaySettings.cfg and scroll to the bottom to see this:

[RealismPercentage]
LimitedBatteriesRealismPercentage=5
LimitedCompressedAirRealismPercentage=1
LimitedO2RealismPercentage=12
LimitedFuelRealismPercentage=6
RealisticVulnerabilityRealismPercentage=5
RealisticRepairTimeRealismPercentage=8
RealisticShipSinkingTimeRealismPercentage=2
ManualTargetingSystemRealismPercentage=0
NoMapUpdateRealismPercentage=11
RealisticSensorsRealismPercentage=10
DudTorpedoesRealismPercentage=5
RealisticReloadRealismPercentage=10
NoEventCameraRealismPercentage=3
NoExternalViewRealismPercentage=0
NoStabilizeViewRealismPercentage=10
NoNoiseMeterRealismPercentage=12
NoWeaponOfficerAssistRealismPercentage=0

You can change any of these % figures to suit your needs, just as long as all the lines add up to 100 after your changes.

I edit mine so that I am forced to 100% and can't 'teleport back to base.

P.S The usual blurb about modding while at sea etc.........

[Paul Riley]

Thanks danlisa,i'll look into them later :up:

[Sailor Steve]

I edit mine so that I am forced to 100% and can't 'teleport back to base.
I edit mine so it ends up being 99%. I always sail back to base, because I like to; but if my rudder is gone and the game won't let me steer with my engines, then I'm the one being cheated.

So there.:p2:

[AVGWarhawk]

I did a quick read through on depth keeping and theory, etc. It would seem that the real trouble was not keeping the submarine stable on the horizontal but the vertical, ie rising or decending. It is written that experienced helmsmen did a great job in keeping depth mechanically on the old subs. (therefore, the screaming in Das Boot to watch the depth is not entirely unfounded) Surface wave effects are not experienced the same as a surface vessel. Only under extreme conditions on the surface would the submarine have trouble keeping stable on the horizontal while at periscope depth.

I would leave the stable view checked. Reading about it, I suspect the scope was relatively stable at periscope depth.

[Paul Riley]

Cheers warhawk,

That's what i'm thinking also,that the PS would be more stable than what it is with stabilize view off,and others seem to be thinking on them lines too.

[Synthfg]

IMHO having the stabaliser off, compensates for other enviromental factors
ie you are sat in your house well fed and rested, your life is not on the line etc.

[onelifecrisis]

IMHO having the stabaliser off, compensates for other enviromental factors
ie you are sat in your house well fed and rested, your life is not on the line etc.

That's a pretty weird compensation. :hmmm: It's like saying a lemon is roughly equal to a wednesday. :haha: But, whatever rocks your boat (awful pun, sorry). :yeah:

[Paul Riley]

Sorry,you both have me confused here now :o:06::88)

[Sailor Steve]

I did a quick read through on depth keeping and theory, etc. It would seem that the real trouble was not keeping the submarine stable on the horizontal but the vertical, ie rising or decending. It is written that experienced helmsmen did a great job in keeping depth mechanically on the old subs. (therefore, the screaming in Das Boot to watch the depth is not entirely unfounded) Surface wave effects are not experienced the same as a surface vessel. Only under extreme conditions on the surface would the submarine have trouble keeping stable on the horizontal while at periscope depth.

I would leave the stable view checked. Reading about it, I suspect the scope was relatively stable at periscope depth.
Good point, and one I didn't think of. wave action is going to affect the boat at periscope depth, but as you say the motion will be up and down and side-to-side - not rolling but swaying, which still leaves the sub on an even keel.

Now what we need most is a report from somebody who's been there and done that - and not with a modern stabilized periscope.:sunny: