What scope mod do you use

[Trevally.]

Can you let me know what scope mod you use.
I aim to fix the graticules for use with ROABF for these.

Thanks:salute:

[col_Kurtz]

I`m using both (MRP+emtugf), maybe it`s bad idea... beacuase I`m losing the green cross (night vision). So now, I`m trying with MRP 1.3 + 5x4 patch.
You wrote... MRP 1.5?:hmmm: Yesterday I looked into this thread and I saw... 1.3. So... hard to vote. I`m not credible:oops:
(LCD native res. 1024x1280)

[Trevally.]

I`m using both (MRP+emtugf), maybe it`s bad idea... beacuase I`m losing the green cross (night vision). So now, I`m trying with MRP 1.3 + 5x4 patch.
You wrote... MRP 1.5?:hmmm: Yesterday I looked into this thread and I saw... 1.3. So... hard to vote. I`m not credible:oops:
(LCD native res. 1024x1280)

:hmmm:one must be overwritting the other.

sorry MRP is v1.3 - the 1.5 and 6 is the zoom level:up:

[ETsd4]

MRP-mod: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=165408
emtguf-mod: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=166329

[SashaKA001]

у меня разрешение экрана 1920 на 1080, и стоит MRP is v1.3 - the 1.5 and 6 is the zoom level:rock::rock::rock:

[Bilge_Rat]

Arclight's MRP. One of the best for manual TDC shooting... IMHO.

[stoianm]

I prefer manos scope - i have playied with al of them and this one is better for me:DL - i used the marks from RAOFB using TDW UIs and i had very acurate results for AOB

[THE_MASK]

Manos Scopes-SH5 (for TDW's Gui)

[Zedi]

Old thread...

Speaking about scopes, I messed up my files and Im not sure anymore which dds is for attack scope and which one is for observation one.. can any1 please help with the stock names?

[Magic1111]

Manos Scopes-SH5 (for TDW's Gui)

Me too....;)

[Poacher886]

I play with MRP 1x / 6x, the only real issue i have, is that at night you cant see the mills at all!, even with the green filter on the op scope, i cant see the mills what so ever!

I also think it would be good to have mills on the UZO, so you CAN make surface attacks.

[Bilge_Rat]

I play with MRP 1x / 6x, the only real issue i have, is that at night you cant see the mills at all!, even with the green filter on the op scope, i cant see the mills what so ever!

true. As a workaround, I lighten the gamma in the graphics option at night, until I can make out the mils.

From what I understand though, it was almost impossible to use any periscope at night, except under special conditions, say a full moon.

I also think it would be good to have mills on the UZO, so you CAN make surface attacks.

agreed. I hate using the UZO since I have to totally guesstimate the range.

[Vanilla]

I play with MRP 1x / 6x, the only real issue i have, is that at night you cant see the mills at all!, even with the green filter on the op scope, i cant see the mills what so ever!

I also think it would be good to have mills on the UZO, so you CAN make surface attacks.

In real life the graticules did have illumination, even UZO. Pity it is not in the game. UZO however did not have any range or mill marks or anything. It just had a vertical line, that's it. So the real 1WO or Kaleun had to judge it from what part of the field of view the ship covered or just get closer. :)

[Poacher886]

The other anoyance is the measured height of the ship...im not convinced it is always the top of the flag i.e the mast that is the correct aiming point!.

Also if the ship is on an angle the masts are at different heights..it would be better to have it "zeroed" to the top of a funnel!

Infact better still would be the manual including a difinative line showing the true aiming mark.

Also, i was advised the calculation for MRP x6 on my 1920x1200 monitor was for the Attack scope:

Mastx400
---------
Mill count

And for the Op scope:

Mastx100
---------
Mill count

I was'nt convinced that there was any difference between the Op scope and Attack scope, both being 1x and 6x and both Mills looking exactly spaced apart.
I decided while outward bound in the harbour to bring my boat to a complete stop a fair distance from a static ship (the more distance to exaggerate any error).

I took a reading through the Attack scope on x6 and it worked out 2.1, i then took a reading through the Ops scope on x6 and it turned out ......2.1! i even paused the game to get absolute accuracy with no bobbing!

My thoughs thus have been confirmed, there is, and should not be any difference in calculation when using either scope.

Then i worked out the distance using the above calcualtion and it came to about 4500m....i then went to the map and used the ruler which showed it as 4300m, close but not close enough, thus i have now revised my calculation to:

Mastx380
---------
Mill count

I've sunk a few since at 3000m+ but i've also missed a few (though using the new blck/copper torps) might be the issue. In fairness given the torpedo problems present in-game (and history) its to early to confim my calculations yet.

[Trevally.]

Not sure what mods you are using but I did a wee
auto called "tell me range and aob". This could help with your checking.

have you tried using the RAOBF wheel:06:

[Bilge_Rat]

The other anoyance is the measured height of the ship...im not convinced it is always the top of the flag i.e the mast that is the correct aiming point!.

Also if the ship is on an angle the masts are at different heights..it would be better to have it "zeroed" to the top of a funnel!

Infact better still would be the manual including a difinative line showing the true aiming mark.

Also, i was advised the calculation for MRP x6 on my 1920x1200 monitor was for the Attack scope:

Mastx400
---------
Mill count

And for the Op scope:

Mastx100
---------
Mill count

I was'nt convinced that there was any difference between the Op scope and Attack scope, both being 1x and 6x and both Mills looking exactly spaced apart.
I decided while outward bound in the harbour to bring my boat to a complete stop a fair distance from a static ship (the more distance to exaggerate any error).

I took a reading through the Attack scope on x6 and it worked out 2.1, i then took a reading through the Ops scope on x6 and it turned out ......2.1! i even paused the game to get absolute accuracy with no bobbing!

My thoughs thus have been confirmed, there is, and should not be any difference in calculation when using either scope.

Then i worked out the distance using the above calcualtion and it came to about 4500m....i then went to the map and used the ruler which showed it as 4300m, close but not close enough, thus i have now revised my calculation to:

Mastx380
---------
Mill count

I've sunk a few since at 3000m+ but i've also missed a few (though using the new blck/copper torps) might be the issue. In fairness given the torpedo problems present in-game (and history) its to early to confim my calculations yet.

If you are using MRP 1.3 w. 8x5 patch (I also play at 1920x1200), I can confirm the reading is accurate from the top of the highest mast. The correct formula to determine range is:

-at 1.5x zoom: (mast height in meters x 100) / horizontal bars

-at 6x zoom: (mast height in meters x 400) / horizontal bars

In version 1.3, there is no longer a difference between observation and attack scopes. Each "horizontal bar" equals 10 mils. for example, if a Liberty Ship is 4 bars high at 6x, the range is 27.2x400/4=2,720 meters.

This works with both the stock game and TDW's UI.

[GT182]

Using stock scopes cause for the life of me I can't get any of the scope mods to work.... so far.

Not sure if it's because I added them while in the campaign and not before I started it. I like the looks of TDW's, and the other scopes too. I just wish they were a separate stand-alone mod that you didn't have to fiddle with to get working. Install and it works with no cfg changes or searching thru UIs to find it.

[Poacher886]

If you are using MRP 1.3 w. 8x5 patch (I also play at 1920x1200), I can confirm the reading is accurate from the top of the highest mast. The correct formula to determine range is:

-at 1.5x zoom: (mast height in meters x 100) / horizontal bars

-at 6x zoom: (mast height in meters x 400) / horizontal bars

In version 1.3, there is no longer a difference between observation and attack scopes. Each "horizontal bar" equals 10 mils. for example, if a Liberty Ship is 4 bars high at 6x, the range is 27.2x400/4=2,720 meters.

This works with both the stock game and TDW's UI.


Thanks, that good to hear that the mast is always the point of aim, i am as you suggested using the same scope mod and resolution, thus its good to hear from others who have tested!

How can you confirm that 100 and 400 is the correct reading? certainly i can be sure of my visual v Map check was accurate and that told me this was about 250m out.

Is it just by use you suggest the above values?

[Bilge_Rat]

Thanks, that good to hear that the mast is always the point of aim, i am as you suggested using the same scope mod and resolution, thus its good to hear from others who have tested!

How can you confirm that 100 and 400 is the correct reading? certainly i can be sure of my visual v Map check was accurate and that told me this was about 250m out.

Is it just by use you suggest the above values?

You can find that formula discussed in the original Arclight MRP thread (at p. 4-5).

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=165408

When I reinstalled the game recently, I measured the range as calculated with the formula against the range as measured on the map, with map updates on, to confirm that the range reading was correct.

In my last campaign patrol w. map updates off, 100% realism, using that formula, I hit and sank 3 out of 3 ships, range 1200-1500 meters, target speeds 11-16 knots, w. 8 out of 9 eels hitting their targets.

[Poacher886]

I'll give it ago, though 1200-1500m is very short, and would allow for alot of error. Im finding im having to take shots at 3000m+ even in the dark.

That said, its the radio messages of "Submarine sighted" that are causing me to take immediate action at range, though i've not noticed the convoy's speeding up and veering off once they have "indicated" they have seen me!

[Xrundel]

I'll give it ago, though 1200-1500m is very short, and would allow for alot of error. Im finding im having to take shots at 3000m+ even in the dark.

That said, its the radio messages of "Submarine sighted" that are causing me to take immediate action at range, though i've not noticed the convoy's speeding up and veering off once they have "indicated" they have seen me!

On 1200m I don't even need TDC :rotfl2:.

Convoys don't speed up after spotting you because convoy's speed is adjusted to slowest ship speed (as in real life) and if speed of convoy 10 kts what they going to increase it to? 11-12? Instead they starting zigzagin as anti-torpedo maneuvers. And slow down usually to half of original speed.

I chose emtguf over Manos or MRP. It's like an eye -opener after others. Takes most of my 26" 1960x1200 screen, other scopes are like peeking through door lock hole compare to this one. I love MRP's crosshair (for some reason everyone is making lines and bars in FOV (Field Of View) as tick as a blue wale tongue). In real periscopes lines are thick enough for just to see them - thinner they are - more presicion with measurements taken via observations.

Another thing that I don't get at all - why Arclight after all that titanic work desided to darken view in his scope enough to watch spots on the Sun in real life? I am amateur astronomer (at least used to be) and know thing or two about optics. It's so God damn dark that he even came up with "Light" version of the mod but still too dark to my taste.
Where those ideas about "periscope is hardly usable at night" come from? If you think about it - ALL THE TELESCOPES HAVE TO BE TROWN AWAY because it's a night time.
Germans had BEST OPTICS during 20th century period. They optics were anti-light reflection coated way before anyone would even consider it. German naval artillery was feared by every British ship crew. Because of two factors. Krupp steel precision made guns, unmatched by anyone in the world. And Karl-Zeiss optical range finders. Also unmatched by anyone in the world. That's why German battleship was able to open EFFECTIVE fire BEFORE British were able to answer with more or less acceptable presicion. That's how HMS Hood was sunk by Bismark in the first salvo.
I've learn all of this from my teachers in Naval academy because my specialty was ship's firepower.

Now back to German periscopes and how dark image could be. Light entering optical tube (periscope is folded kind of tube, got two 90 degree light path bends) got reflected of any optical surface (like glass or aluminum used for mirror coating). Uncoated glass surface can reflect back about 15-20% of the light thus making passed light "weaker" (darker) letting about 80-85% of light pass trough. Light also could be dispersed inside of matter like thick glass (periscopes used prisms). There is 3 ways to fight it.

1. Reduce amount of lenses (need advanced optics design skills that Germans had).
2. Use anti-reflection coating (that Germans developed) that will let about 93% or more of photons to pass through.
3. Use highest quality aluminum coating for mirror parts (they got it covered as well) that allows 99% or more of photons to be reflected (redirected) down the light path.
4. Increase aperture of the objective.

Slight increase of aperture does miracles because it is proportionate to the square increase in light amount entered the scope. I do believe that German builders were able to create adequate aperture for the purpose.
Light will end up in 5-9mm circle. that represent size of the human's dark-adapted eye pupil. It can't be bigger than this - just no use for more. So if we just open tube on the front end a little - we got huge increase of photons reaching our retina.

Last thing. During night observations (astronomical or military etc.) it is very important to keep eyes dark adaptation. That's why all astronomical flashlights have red filter on. That's why any illuminated eyepiece have RED illumination inside of it. Not Green. Green kills dark adaptation, you have to spend another 15-30 minutes to get adapted to darkness again (eye's pupil opens as wide as possible).
Now you probably know why sub have red interior light at night, not the strobes or laser show like in night clubs? :haha:

[Sailor Steve]

Where those ideas about "periscope is hardly usable at night" come from? If you think about it - ALL THE TELESCOPES HAVE TO BE TROWN AWAY because it's a night time.
Before you lecture people it helps to get all the facts. For whatever reason, the fact is that attack periscopes were indeed not very good for night use, which is why they had the observation periscopes with larger heads.
The term attack periscope is applied to a periscope with a minimum diameter of head at the sacrifice of light transmission and diameter of exit pupil.
http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/pscope/chap1.htm#1A
Section 1A4: Useful Definitions.

Germans had BEST OPTICS during 20th century period. They optics were anti-light reflection coated way before anyone would even consider it.
And the Germans also had separate observation and attack periscopes, because the attack 'scope was made as small as possible to reduce the chance of it's being seen in the daytime, and it was pretty much blind at night.

German naval artillery was feared by every British ship crew. Because of two factors. Krupp steel precision made guns, unmatched by anyone in the world. And Karl-Zeiss optical range finders. Also unmatched by anyone in the world. That's why German battleship was able to open EFFECTIVE fire BEFORE British were able to answer with more or less acceptable presicion. That's how HMS Hood was sunk by Bismark in the first salvo.
1) Battleship rangefinders have stereoscopic prisms that are more than 13 meters apart. This is not at all comparable to the system used in submarine periscopes.

2) Bismarck opened effective fire earlier because the British mistook Prinz Eugen for Bismarck, and then tried to close the range rather than return fire.

3) If it was because of the superior rangefinders, then why several days later were King George V and Rodney devastatingly effective, while Bismarck didn't score a single hit?

I've learn all of this from my teachers in Naval academy because my specialty was ship's firepower.
I'll be glad to have that discussion with you in depth, because the design of warships and their armament is a favorite field of study.

Last thing. During night observations (astronomical or military etc.) it is very important to keep eyes dark adaptation. That's why all astronomical flashlights have red filter on. That's why any illuminated eyepiece have RED illumination inside of it. Not Green. Green kills dark adaptation, you have to spend another 15-30 minutes to get adapted to darkness again (eye's pupil opens as wide as possible).
Now you probably know why sub have red interior light at night, not the strobes or laser show like in night clubs? :haha:
It's my understanding that the eyepieces of submarine periscopes weren't illuminated at all. The lines were treated with a phosphorescent substance to make them glow in the dark, and to the best of my knowledge that phosphorescence was green. You could be right, but around here we consider it rude to laugh at people and lecture them like they were children. We're all working together to make the game as realistic as possible, and talking down to people won't make them listen.

[Torpedo]

I'm using Manos Scope with a change for gap - HD 1 deg Scope Bearing v 1.0. and a thiny crosshair also at night.

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww281/Torpedo_01/dayattack_x.jpg

If anyone is interested I can make a small mod.

Torpedo

[TheDarkWraith]

I'm using Manos Scope with a change for gap - HD 1 deg Scope Bearing v 1.0. and a thiny crosshair also at night.

If anyone is interested I can make a small mod.

Torpedo

Please do :yeah:

[Torpedo]

The purpose of this modification is only to make a very thiny crosshair, especially with the use of mod "gap - HD 1 Scope Bearing v 1.0 deg".
All my credits to Makman94 for his outstanding work.


http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww281/Torpedo_01/nightattack_x.jpg


The link of "Manos Scopes modded by Torpedo":

http://www.gamefront.com/files/20319241/Manos_Scopes_modded_by_Torpedo_zip

Torpedo

[Xrundel]

Very nice! That's what I am talking about.
Can you make it for emtguf's version of the scope?
Is that possible?
I had problems with Manos version being slightly off in calibration for RAOFB, emgulf is working perfectly for me.
Thank you for effort in any case!

[Torpedo]

Hi Xrundel!
This is a version of emtguf_rscopes whit thiny crosshair for the day and the night. I can make the other grids only in green. Tell me if you want that.

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww281/Torpedo_01/emtguf_rscopes.jpg

the link for "emtguf_rscopes whit thiny crosshair by Torpedo.zip" :

http://www.gamefront.com/files/20321442/emtguf_rscopes_whit_thiny_crosshair_by_Torpedo_zip

Torpedo :salute:

[Xrundel]

Thanks, man. It is perfect!
I am a control freak, sorry. My measurements got to be as precise as possible. I think it is all -my-early-life-psychological-trauma related thing. When I was 19 they told me that either I take my time and do good job with preparation to attack, or if I miss - they (Americans at that time in history) will hit me hard and I won't see my momma ever again :haha:. I remember one dude during lecture missed some info from teacher's "recon report" and dared to ask again. High-ranking Navy officer approach him, and yelled in his ear " I am dead, God damn it!!! Artillery shell just exploded 3 meters away from my balls! What are you gonna do now, sailor, after missing such a key information? There is no one to ask about it again!" And he hit his shoulder with wooden stick that was intended to use as a pointer. Stick broke in half and we were rolling on the floor laughing through tears.
I can go on and on, have so many funny stories... That "dude" by the way is now commander of escort ship in Pacific. His shoulder is OK. :)

[Arclight]

Right, to answer those "questions":

Scopes are as dark as they are because, to the best of my knowledge, that's how they were. I can't find the exact source right now (the report on a captured U-boot. Contains exact measurements regarding light transmission), but iirc 60 to 70% of the light was lost in the attack scope. Observation scope didn't fare much better. Both were pretty much useless at night, even under favorable conditions.

As an amateur astronomer, I'm sure you know telescopes are designed to gather as much light as possible. This is simply not the case for WWII submarine periscopes. First concern was to minimize detection, with stealth being a submarines main asset.

Color for the filters is, again, how it was. US used green, red and yellow while Germany opted for orange and a deep neutral iirc.

http://www.cyber-heritage.co.uk/cutaway/pic26.jpg
http://www.cyber-heritage.co.uk/cutaway/pic28.jpg
http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/pscope/chap6c.htm#6N
This should give an impression of how unliked the scopes were for night use: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5lTI_dF4jocC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=wwii+submarine+periscope+light+transmission&source=bl&ots=z7MUil4DYl&sig=LrvgPvIw3-eIpLjLE3tj7nfT0cA&hl=en&ei=U3vgTauzHMXO-Qbx74XLBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
And this actually lists some light transmission values, around 25-30%: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5lTI_dF4jocC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=wwii+submarine+periscope+light+transmission&source=bl&ots=z7MUil4DYl&sig=LrvgPvIw3-eIpLjLE3tj7nfT0cA&hl=en&ei=U3vgTauzHMXO-Qbx74XLBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you have any proof that I did something wrong, please show me. The aim is to make them as realistic as possible, so I'd certainly want to know if they were lacking in that regard.

[Xrundel]

If you have any proof that I did something wrong, please show me. The aim is to make them as realistic as possible, so I'd certainly want to know if they were lacking in that regard.
Take it easy - you did just fine.

Periscopes was not useless at night, trust me on that. Ghunter Prien would not be able to sneak in Scapa Flow at night without using one.
I've look throgh Russiam periscope of old (1956 project) Russian diesel sub with periscopes of same (stolen/copied after German's of course) optical train. They not so dark that you can not see anything at night.
I prefer instead of googling things speak up my own life experience.
When certain amount light enters hole 50mm diameter and ends up in hole 5mm diameter (size of your pupil) it got INTENSIFIED. It's a flow of photons - think about it as an air flow. even if 50% of the total amount photons entered got reflected back or dispersed due optical imperfections - still you receive more light looking through scope than just looking using naked eye.
That's just the laws of physics and light is nothing more than another short-wave radiation.

You did good job with your mod. Just my personal experiense and education made me make some suggestions about that maybe it is better under-do some thing than over-do. It just a suggestion, not personal insult. So please take it easy.

[Xrundel]

As an amateur astronomer, I'm sure you know telescopes are designed to gather as much light as possible. This is simply not the case for WWII submarine periscopes." As much light as possible" with given objective lens/primary mirror aperture

Majority of amateur refractors (lens design, not mirror) are in range of 60-80mm aperture. I had one with 175mm - just the objective assembly cost $10,000 US. Most people just can't afford it for hobby.

Think about that sentence of yours - just does not make much sense, Germans are the best in the world when it comes to engineering and they are very detail-oriented people. Putting anti-reflection coating on optics when no one in the world even consider that says everything to me. I don't know why I even need to explain myself in such a detail.

[Sailor Steve]

Periscopes was not useless at night, trust me on that. Ghunter Prien would not be able to sneak in Scapa Flow at night without using one.
As I said before, you should check your facts before saying things like "trust me". The entire Scapa Flow attack was conducted on the surface.
http://uboat.net/ops/scapa_flow.htm

You mention earlier about your considerable experience with telescopes. What you may have forgotten is that you are looking at light sources, or reflected light sources. In a night submarine attack you are looking at a source that is deliberately kept as dark as possible. On a moonlit night I'm sure the attack periscope would be effective, especially given the need to stay submerged in those conditions. On a starry night with no moon the observation periscope would become the method of choice. On overcast nights the surface attack was preferred. Why? Because the periscopes were indeed close to useless.

Here is an actual report on the strengths, and failings, of WW2 German periscopes.
http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-570BritishReport.htm

The relevant information is in Chapter VI, page 30.

[Xrundel]

As my grandfather told me when I was a little - better once see on your own eyes that 100 times hear from others.
Dude - it's not the first time that you read my post and then bombarding me with bunch of web links.
No one was talking about actual attack and how it was conducted.
No one argues with the fact that total darkness makes any optical device but night vision goggles useless.
If you like to post just for sake of arguing with anybody and anything (what is it - 31 000+ posts??! ) - find yourself somebody else, please. I would really value your personal opinion if you would be a real military high-ranking Navy officer (that means real professional) with this amount of posts here. If you are not - I am sorry. I am little bit higher ranked real sailor in real life than you. And I've seen more than you in this matter, I would dare to say.
Forgive me my ignorance, just would like to see you getting in torpedo tube with breathing apparatus and hope to survive in training excersice when they closing hatch behind you and start filling it with water on 60ft depth like I did in my life. That would definitively make me respect you opinion much more than thousands of posts that you have here.
I never took any crap from "theorists" that never experience real deal.
I am not about to change my rules now as well.

[stoianm]

As my grandfather told me when I was a little - better once see on your own eyes that 100 times hear from others.
Dude - it's not the first time that you read my post and then bombarding me with bunch of web links.
No one was talking about actual attack and how it was conducted.
No one argues with the fact that total darkness makes any optical device but night vision goggles useless.
If you like to post just for sake of arguing with anybody and anything (what is it - 31 000+ posts??! ) - find yourself somebody else, please. I would really value your personal opinion if you would be a real military high-ranking Navy officer (that means real professional) with this amount of posts here. If you are not - I am sorry. I am little bit higher ranked real sailor in real life than you. And I've seen more than you in this matter, I would dare to say.
Forgive me my ignorance, just would like to see you getting in torpedo tube with breading apparatus and hope to survive in training excersice when they closing hatch behind you and start filling it with water on 60ft depth like I did in my life. That would definitively make me respect you opinion much more than thousands of posts that you have here.
I never took any crap from "theorists" that never experience real deal.
I am not about to change my rules now as well.
the training that you speak about is KGB training... i caught you my friend ... so you are a russian that live in USA... had this training:hmmm:... i am from other side of spionage:DL... stay calm... soon FBI will knok on your door... do not panic:D:O:

[Xrundel]

the training that you speak about is KGB training... It's routing training exercise that you have to pass in Soviet Navy college on 3rd year of study. They submerged for 20m (60ft) and cadets entering greasy torpedo tube with "scuba diving gear" that I would not ever trust ( and I never did!:)) and have to escape from " damaged" sub. They put rope that attached to the floating piece on the surface. Rope have knot at every 50 cm. When you got out of tube you have slowly go up the rope counting knots and make sure that you do about no faster than 2 knots every 30 seconds or something like that I don't remember exactly.
My favorite though - was a machine shop at training vessel. You got everything there - welding equipment, steel table with wise saw and hummer. The only thing - it was 4 meters below the water surface. :rotfl2:

We got everything - fire compartment, flooding compartment (that was lots of fun! And lots of salty navy course words from team then patching those holes in the hull trying to stop flooding).
I lived interesting life...
And by the way - I was selected as a candidate for KGB position (Soviet/Russian Coast Guard units are reporting to KGB instead of High Naval Command) because of my academic scored. It was very sweet deal - higher ranking Navy officer is actually same rank as you, because you belong to KGB, best benefits ever and other stuff.. Sometimes I wish that great power would never politically collapse...

[Arclight]

Take it easy - you did just fine.

Periscopes was not useless at night, trust me on that. Ghunter Prien would not be able to sneak in Scapa Flow at night without using one.
I've look throgh Russiam periscope of old (1956 project) Russian diesel sub with periscopes of same (stolen/copied after German's of course) optical train. They not so dark that you can not see anything at night.
I prefer instead of googling things speak up my own life experience.
When certain amount light enters hole 50mm diameter and ends up in hole 5mm diameter (size of your pupil) it got INTENSIFIED. It's a flow of photons - think about it as an air flow. even if 50% of the total amount photons entered got reflected back or dispersed due optical imperfections - still you receive more light looking through scope than just looking using naked eye.
That's just the laws of physics and light is nothing more than another short-wave radiation.

You did good job with your mod. Just my personal experiense and education made me make some suggestions about that maybe it is better under-do some thing than over-do. It just a suggestion, not personal insult. So please take it easy.
I am taking it easy. I'm not calling you names and demanding an apology. I'd just appreciate something substantial, something factual.

We know pretty much everything needed to apply the proper formulae, make some calculations for the proper brightness of the final image. So if you know how to make the scopes more realistic, I'd gladly hear it.
" As much light as possible" with given objective lens/primary mirror aperture

Majority of amateur refractors (lens design, not mirror) are in range of 60-80mm aperture. I had one with 175mm - just the objective assembly cost $10,000 US. Most people just can't afford it for hobby.

Think about that sentence of yours - just does not make much sense, Germans are the best in the world when it comes to engineering and they are very detail-oriented people. Putting anti-reflection coating on optics when no one in the world even consider that says everything to me. I don't know why I even need to explain myself in such a detail.
Think I got it close enough for someone who has no education in or experience with optics. You're avoiding the point I was trying to make: you can't compare a telescope to a WWII submarine periscope.

You keep claiming the Germans were the best in the world, but that really doesn't mean much. Even if their scopes had 0,001% better light transmission, it would make them the best. The report Steve linked to states German scopes were comparable in performance to US ones at the time, so the difference wasn't big enough to be remarkable.

Besides, I modeled them using what knowledge I could gather on German scopes. Didn't just yank some random values from somewhere.

I would kill for a picture taken with a modern camera through one of those scopes. :hmmm:



btw thanks Steve. That's the report I couldn't find previously. :salute:

[Sailor Steve]

As my grandfather told me when I was a little - better once see on your own eyes that 100 times hear from others.
Dude - it's not the first time that you read my post and then bombarding me with bunch of web links.
I only used that tactic because you started your first post with an attack.
Another thing that I don't get at all - why Arclight after all that titanic work desided to darken view in his scope enough to watch spots on the Sun in real life? I am amateur astronomer (at least used to be) and know thing or two about optics. It's so God damn dark that he even came up with "Light" version of the mod but still too dark to my taste.
That was rude and insulting, so I responded in what I thought was an appropriate fashion. You talk about your personal experience with optics, yet you dismiss the personal experiences of the people who actually used those periscopes. Is your word better than theirs?

Where those ideas about "periscope is hardly usable at night" come from? If you think about it - ALL THE TELESCOPES HAVE TO BE TROWN AWAY because it's a night time.
Germans had BEST OPTICS during 20th century period. They optics were anti-light reflection coated way before anyone would even consider it.
You say things like this, yet you ignore the evidence given by the people who were actually there.

No one was talking about actual attack and how it was conducted.
Not true. You did exactly that when you tried to use Gunther Prien's attack on Scapa Flow to prove your point about periscopes not being useless at night. Since you prefer your real experience over something from Google you got it wrong.

No one argues with the fact that total darkness makes any optical device but night vision goggles useless.
But wasn't your original argument that periscopes aren't useless at night - a point you were so insistent on that you started swearing in your post?

If you like to post just for sake of arguing with anybody and anything (what is it - 31 000+ posts??! ) - find yourself somebody else, please. I would really value your personal opinion if you would be a real military high-ranking Navy officer (that means real professional) with this amount of posts here. If you are not - I am sorry. I am little bit higher ranked real sailor in real life than you. And I've seen more than you in this matter, I would dare to say.
So now you're saying we should trust you over the actual technical reports because you brag about your experience. My experience is that no on knows everything, and much can be learned from actual technical reports. They know more about their business than either you or I do.

Forgive me my ignorance, just would like to see you getting in torpedo tube with breathing apparatus and hope to survive in training excersice when they closing hatch behind you and start filling it with water on 60ft depth like I did in my life. That would definitively make me respect you opinion much more than thousands of posts that you have here.
So your experience inside a torpedo tube means you know more about periscopes than the people who wrote the reports on their actual investigation of U-570?

My time was spent as a radioman aboard a destroyer in the Vietnam war, yet I wouldn't pretend to be able to talk knowledgably about the radios I worked with after all these years. I'd have to look it up. As for post counts, I got mine by being here a long time and making a lot of posts, nothing more. When did I say you should listen to me and respect my opinion because of my post counts? I didn't, and I don't expect anyone to do that. You're the one who talked down to people and said we should listen to you because we're all wrong and you know more than those who were there at the time. All I did was read your posts claiming that your experience is more important than the actual reports, and point out the places where you were obviously wrong. I'll take their experiences and reports over anyone's word, including my own.

I never took any crap from "theorists" that never experience real deal.
I am not about to change my rules now as well.
I'm not a "theorist" at all. But when someone tells us we're all wrong, I tend to look at the known facts and compare the two. And when the person who flouted those reports only responds by claiming he knows more than I do, but doesn't actually address the places where he was wrong, then who should I trust?

I didn't pick a fight with you. You came in here insisting you know better, and I challenged that.

[Xrundel]

Arclight, buddy - I never had any intentions to upset you or feel bad. You did very good job transforming stock periscope into something much better and more historically accurate. You've made a mod and people are free to decide if they want to use it or not, correct? I installed your "regular" version of your mod first and I started historical mission that set up in clear day at 12 o'clock.
It looked to me like midnight with full moon. I even checked the clock on user interface. And this is all I was trying to say. I install your "light" version and naturally ask myself why you even needed to come up with "light" if everything is the way it suppose to be, but it does not matter. I found better solution and happy with it. It also have darker attack periscope compare to observation but it looks more natural to me. And it's only my opinion. And you have all rights to have yours. You like mathematical formulas and apply them to figure out outcome? That's very good, my friend. But if outcome is not exactly what it really is in practice - then maybe some input values are wrong or there is simple error in calculation. Such an errors cost NASA extra trip to Hubble on near-Earth orbit. If NASA can do it - I think every one else can :).
If you still insist that you have absolutely correct brightness interpretation in your scope mod - fine with me - my life won't change a bit. Maybe later in you life you will have opportunity to look through real periscope and that will be much better than thousands words from me or anybody else.

Now to quotes:

Think I got it close enough for someone who has no education in or experience with optics. You got it very close indeed, very good job! Especially darkening optics towards the edges.\, where light losses are greatest.

You're avoiding the point I was trying to make: you can't compare a telescope to a WWII submarine periscope.I was not avoiding this point. Probably I was not clear enough with my bad English. You CAN and you HAVE compare periscope of any historical period with the telescope. Because as long as there is magnification (1.5x and 6x as you know) it is long focal distance refractor with added two mirrors/prisms on it's optical path to bend it 90 degrees twice. You can call it viewing pipe, periscope, telescope, half of binocular spotting scope - it is refractor and principal is absolutely the same with only difference that telescope refractor can change eyepieces for more powerful ones(with shorter focal length) boosting magnification to hundreds x but accordingly reducing brightness of the image. So - less magnification - brighter image.

So if you know how to make the scopes more realistic, I'd gladly hear it.In my opinion (that you can just ignore if you want) rename "light" version into "regular" and make another slightly lighter - "light" and that would be more realistic. Just answering your question - I know you are not going to do anything.

And by the way - if TDW uses your version as default in his UI - it looks just fine. Maybe I've downloaded some original release that was much darker and all this talk here just as pointless as it could be.
With your permission I would leave this discussion - I really don't want wake up one morning and see that I have almost 32 thousands posts on some forum - I actually have a life. :haha:

[Sailor Steve]

With your permission I would leave this discussion - I really don't want wake up one morning and see that I have almost 32 thousands posts on some forum - I actually have a life. :haha:
So, unable to counter facts with facts, he turns to direct insults, again bringing up the post count for no good reason. I have that many posts because I've been here almost ten years, and I like the place. Never once have I used anyone's status here as an arguing point, and never once have I claimed that my opinion or my experience was a counter to actual facts. Anybody can claim anything, and it's all anonymous...at least for you.

I'm not afraid to say who I really am, where I really am or what I really do. A great many people here know my real name, where I live and the good and the bad of my life, and anyone who doesn't can find out by merely asking.

On the other hand we have someone who comes into a thread, doesn't politely disagree but rather arrogantly tells people what they got wrong, and when challenged with facts doesn't respond in kind but says we should trust him on his word, doesn't answer any of the things he was shown to be wrong about and then talks about post counts? Sounds like the average troll to me.

Sorry to be disruptive, but people who claim to know better than you do and expect you to believe them because they say so, but get their facts totally wrong and then make up for it with insults just set me off. My bad.

[Arclight]

Arclight, buddy - I never had any intentions to upset you or feel bad. You did very good job transforming stock periscope into something much better and more historically accurate. You've made a mod and people are free to decide if they want to use it or not, correct? I installed your "regular" version of your mod first and I started historical mission that set up in clear day at 12 o'clock.

It looked to me like midnight with full moon. I even checked the clock on user interface. And this is all I was trying to say. I install your "light" version and naturally ask myself why you even needed to come up with "light" if everything is the way it suppose to be, but it does not matter. I found better solution and happy with it. It also have darker attack periscope compare to observation but it looks more natural to me. And it's only my opinion. And you have all rights to have yours. You like mathematical formulas and apply them to figure out outcome? That's very good, my friend. But if outcome is not exactly what it really is in practice - then maybe some input values are wrong or there is simple error in calculation. Such an errors cost NASA extra trip to Hubble on near-Earth orbit. If NASA can do it - I think every one else can :).

If you still insist that you have absolutely correct brightness interpretation in your scope mod - fine with me - my life won't change a bit. Maybe later in you life you will have opportunity to look through real periscope and that will be much better than thousands words from me or anybody else.

Never insisted on anything. I've always stated I modeled them as accurate as I could get them, to the best of my knowledge. I never said they were 100% realistic. I mean, it's called "more realistic periscope". Picked that name rather carefully.

The problem we were having was because you introduced yourself a little rudely. You made quite a few asumptions, not nescesarily accurate ones at that, and the insults are just not nescesary... not here, anyway. Feel free to insult people at that /v/ or whatever it is.

Now to quotes:

Alright.
You got it very close indeed, very good job! Especially darkening optics towards the edges.\, where light losses are greatest.
Thanks.

I was not avoiding this point. Probably I was not clear enough with my bad English. You CAN and you HAVE compare periscope of any historical period with the telescope. Because as long as there is magnification (1.5x and 6x as you know) it is long focal distance refractor with added two mirrors/prisms on it's optical path to bend it 90 degrees twice. You can call it viewing pipe, periscope, telescope, half of binocular spotting scope - it is refractor and principal is absolutely the same with only difference that telescope refractor can change eyepieces for more powerful ones(with shorter focal length) boosting magnification to hundreds x but accordingly reducing brightness of the image. So - less magnification - brighter image.
I'm not arguing the principal isn't the same, the point is that on one of those periscopes there are severe restrictions regarding light coming in, since the head needs to be small to avoid detection.

It ties in to your remark on the scopes being impossible to use at night not being realistic. That's a statement I simply can't agree to. (at least, they would be useless unless you had a cloudless sky and the target within about a mile)

In my opinion (that you can just ignore if you want) rename "light" version into "regular" and make another slightly lighter - "light" and that would be more realistic. Just answering your question - I know you are not going to do anything.

And by the way - if TDW uses your version as default in his UI - it looks just fine. Maybe I've downloaded some original release that was much darker and all this talk here just as pointless as it could be.

Ah, see, you got me all wrong. You said yourself you don't just take someone's word for anything, neither do I. It's easy to come on a board and claim all sorts of things, so if some observations are a bit blunt, it gets greeted with some skepticism. Right?

But now you make a proposal. I'm open to those, and that one got me thinking: I've recently switched from an old CRT 4:3 monitor to a LCD 16:10. Would probably be a good idea to see how it plays on this one, especially considering most people use widescreen LCDs these days (God knows why though :P).

See what comes from that, pretty sure it's going to look a lot different on this monitor.


And the versions got progressively darker I think. TDW might have nabbed an earlier one for his project.

[Xrundel]

But now you make a proposal. I'm open to those, and that one got me thinking: I've recently switched from an old CRT 4:3 monitor to a LCD 16:10. Would probably be a good idea to see how it plays on this one, especially considering most people use widescreen LCDs these days (God knows why though :P).

See what comes from that, pretty sure it's going to look a lot different on this monitor.

That actually could be the reason. I am using LCD with factory default settings, didn't ever touch brightness adjustment or anything else.
I have SONY 26" CRT in garage - I used it for editing astronomical images - I could not use LCD at all because of very limited shadows and colors that it have compare to CRT.

Another thing that I was thinking about - I am not sure that snapping picture using modern camera will help you much in perception of how it really looks.
I had extensive discussions about it on Russian astronomical forum. Problem is that CCD and SMOS are accumulating photons over the time. But human eye is not capable of it. That's why we can take picture of nebulae in color, but to visual observer even in most powerful telescope it still in black and white - not enough photons enter retina to excite color-sensitive receptacles that is much less sensitive than black/white ones. Time of exposure have to be related to sensitivity of used chip and at the same time be equivalent to human eye sensitivity - practically impossible to reproduce.

[Arclight]

Yeah I had the same thought about a photo. Not a digital one, but still, getting the exposure and all that just right would take some effort.

Tinkering with it a bit, but the nights in SH5 are really bright by default. Need to test it with a environment mod. :hmmm: