Got an idea to make map contacts less accurate

[james_nix]

Everyone knows the debate about map contacts on or off.

Off doesn't really simulate the tracking party, and on is gps accurate.

Here is a TMO Akira at 1000 yards 0 degress:

http://i.imgur.com/DQg6OHe.jpg

Here is the same TMO Akira at 1000 yards 0 degrees, but on the map, it is at 900 yards 0 dergrees:

http://i.imgur.com/fRL9cJ5.jpg

By moving the image left or right, you can add a margin of error.

Do that for every ship at random, and you replicate human error with map contacts on.

Of course you could memorize the fact that the Akira is always 100 yards further than it appears on the map, but hey, nothing is perfect.

If you want to go nuts, make some copies of the mod, each one different, and randomly load them up each time you play!

Whaddya think?

EDIT: My other idea was no map contacts only during periscope view underwater, since you wouldn't have the benefit of the lookouts, but I'm not sure how to do that.

[Cybermat47]

Hmm, I like this idea.

[Rockin Robbins]

That doesn't fly at all. First of all it's a constant error and it would look just like the days when they used to fudge GPS coordinates. It was no problem. Just work from a known position, get the GPS coords for that day and there's your correction factor. All measurements after that were as accurate as the equipment could furnish.

Also consider that for a sub with radar, the position found was within 30 yards of reality whether it was 100' away or 20 miles away. That is much more accurate than your fudger, so the idea dies right there.

For a sub with radar equipped, plotted positions reflect the information available at the time. For visual observation, no constant error is going to cut the cheese.

To replicate the real situation we would have to come up with an error envelope for each method. Radar, for instance would have a linear error envelope of +-15 yards. Visual might have an error envelope of +-20%. Sonar, +-5%, go on down the line.

The way a game machine should plot the position would be to pick a random number within the error envelope using whatever calculations are necessary, and then plot the computed position. Note that with visual observations (this is the most easily understood but would apply to all measurement methods) the bearing measured would have a very tight error envelope because it would be very accurate, while the range measurement might be +-30%.

Given a bearing error range of +-.5º and a range error envelope of +-15%, you would take a stadimeter reading. The game would pick a random number between +.5º and -5º and add the result to the measured bearing. Then it would take pick a random percentage between 15% and -15%, add that to 100% then multiply by the measured range.

The calculated range and bearing would be plotted.

Short of such a procedure any corrective measures we apply introduce more problems than solutions.

[james_nix]

How would I go about the no contacts at periscope view, but regular contacts everywhere else? I assume I would just have to find the parameter that says whether the scope is up or down, and change it to think that the scope is always down.

I'm I on the right track? Do you know what I need to change?

Or another idea I was thinking, replace the sight contacts with hydrolines. They are perfect for giving the general direction and distance, without being perfect.