SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- SHIII Mods Workshop (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=195)

- - rub = ?? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=84214)

Ok which part of "RUB = BORING" dont u understand, the "RUB" or "BORING" bit ???

So from that statement alone 1 can tell that :

A) I dont give a flying fek about realisim.

so

B) why would I care to make ur game more supposedly realistic ???

I just know when some1 is full of it.

Cdr Gibs

Quote:

I just know when some1 is full of it.

Out of the mouth of babes. :rotfl:

I think many of us would agree with your comment, but not the way you meant it. :know:

Goodbye.

:lurk:

many of beery's so called facts are a bit somewhat out there like so long on the deck gun reload...even with a green crew they go through training to get faster firing and more acurate even if they dont hit the target 40% of the time the fire rate is faster than what it is, and on another post about AA

Quote:

Aircraft did indeed dive into anti aircraft gunfire all the time. They did it because anti-aircraft fire was virtually useless, especially at ranges over 300m. This is the main reason why why FlAK boats were so unsuccessful

ofcourse aircraft dived into AA because most of their targets are the ones firing the AA, ranges over 300m, 8.8mm AA had 2,590 fps (790 mps) even with the ammo types
HE, noze fuze - 19.8 lbs. (9.0 kg)
HE, incendiary - 20.94 lbs. (9.5 kg)
AP - 22.5 lbs. (10.0 kg)
Range @ 43 degrees 15,420 yards (14,100 m)
AA Ceiling @ 70 degrees about 30,000 feet (9,150 m)
the 3.7mm AA had a higher muzzle velocity than the 8.8 due to it being a smaller round however this was the best high ROF AA gun the germans had until the last few weeks of WWII when the ostwind, werblewind and later u-boats and main ships had the improved 4.7mm dual AA's the quad 20's were almost less than usless.

also the 8.8 had a rof of 15 rounds per minute of sustained fire. if AA was so useless then why did all ships/subs from ALL nations keep thier AA. as for U-Flacks being so unsuccessful was due to allied total air superiority, the enigma code been broken and the allies working together with the latest anti sub devices.

Ohh so witty......NOT

Try next time, do TRY to keep it in context

Dont let the door smack ya in the back of the head on the way out.

*WHACK!!*

Well I guess thats what ya get for not opening ya eyes hey !!!

I am no expert on navel AA technology but I do not think it was super effective. When the Swordfish planes attacked Bismark not one was shot down if I remember correctly and that was a modern battleship with loads of AA I would have thought. Also ever seen those black and white films of Kamikazi pilots attacking US ships in the pacific, the sky is chok full of AA fire must be dozens of guns firing at once, still many of the Jap planes make it through.

midway, first wave of the Akagi 42 torpedo bombers attack the us fleet not one hit the target and not one survived due to AA the us fighters were attcking the Jap dive bombers and also escorting the US torpedo and dive bombers.

Ok ok, just calm down everybody... RUb or no RUb, there ain't no big deal...

RUB rules, I played the normal version of the game for a long time and chasing radio contacts all over the map gets really boring after many patrols. Its cooler when you actually have to hunt down prey, but I know how some people want constant hollywood action and visual stimulation so whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marhkimov

Ok ok, just calm down everybody... RUb or no RUb, there ain't no big deal...

yea I agree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Trespasser

I totally agree,
plus the shells from enemy ships actually hurt your hull, not bounce of it like pingpong balls.

Personally,
RUB gave SH3 a new lease of life for me

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teho

I tried it.

1.water is too dark
2.No contact icon on map
3.needs more traffic

you can use unrealboat mod that takes out of RUB some hardcore options like the map without contacts, the dark water, deck gun rate of fire, aa range, ...

the enemy traffic... i donÂ´t know yet,, because i start using RUb now.

i use rub "unrealed" with some options mixed with a pack of mods made for myself , like some map tools.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Realism is in the eye of the beholder gentlemen.

Well, I think everyone has a right to play the game the way they want to. What ever turns your crank! But to say that RUB is realistic is NOT true! RUB is berrys opinion of how the game should be played. Anything outside of HIS way of thinking is wrong. :stare:

Who is he? The dev team? NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :down:

Berry has a right to play the game how he wants to but so dose everyone els!

http://img242.echo.cx/img242/9361/mesub6qj.jpg

I am going to repeat a post I made before, which is something I would prefer not to do, so I apologise for repeating myself.

Firstly, my repeated post appears to be a genuine thread-killer, which is why we need it now. I seriously doubt that anybody here is equipped to argue with it successfully.

Secondly, it applies precisely to the comment make by Kpt. Lehmann.

"Realism is in the eye of the beholder gentlemen."

Another forum user named Pablo said exactly the same thing, so if I refer to Pablo, that's where it comes from.

Anyway, here goes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twelvefield

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo

By the way, "realism" in the eye of the beholder and is based on personal opinion - don't let anyone tell you otherwise. :)

Pablo

And I quote...

REALISM 1. As opposed to NOMINALISM, the metaphysical doctrine that universals, or abstract concepts, have a real existence as entities... this would be associated with the claim that concepts such as society, culture, group, value, etc., refer to real entities that may be empirically investigated.

2. As opposed to epistemological IDEALISM, the doctrine that the external world exists in reality independantly of perception and the mind, and is reflected with reasonable accuracy in sensory experiences.

Pablo, your concept of reality is firmly based on Idealism. Basically, the universe exists. What we percieve as "real" comes to our consciousness through the human senses. "Realism is in the eye of the beholder".

More convolutedly:, and I quote again:

IDEALISM... [covers] a wide range of metaphysical and epistemological doctrines that view mind or spirit as the ultimate reality or the basis of experience and knowledge. Kantian Idealism holds that what we percieve of the external world and believe to be real or true reflects the internal organization of the mind an thought processes. Hegelian Idealism... seeks to eliminate the duality of mind and object by regarding an object as an expression of an essential idea... the perception of the object is unimportant; significance lies in the suggestion to the perciever of an essential idea.

So, Pablo, I believe you would be closer to Hegel than Kant in your Idealism,as you feel that percieved reality is "based on personal opinion". There may be Kantian SHIII kaleuns who are lurking in the forum right now, waiting to pounce on your version of reality, but I beat them all to it.

Still, let's be even-handed. I quote-again:

NOMINALISM [is] a philosophical doctrine holding that general or abstract concepts or terms are merely names, referring to particulars. Reality is regarded as composed of particular things, and universal ideas or abstract conceptions, such as "goodness" or "The State", have no independant or distinct identity. The Nominalist position... is that of extreme Empiricism, which in the study of human behaviour, would involve an emphasis upon the study of sensory data using operational concepts and statistical correlations.

Basically, "reality" is a function of what we can study through testing. Personally, I would suggest that while there seems to be value in accumulating data on realistic particulars, how do we know that the tests themselves are real?

A lot of argument as to what makes a "realistic" game mod seems to be based on nominalism: for example, here is the data on how a torpedo should work, and here is my mod to make it so. Yet, if we don't all agree on the plausibility of the data, the reality falls apart due to its un-empirical nature. Is the test at fault, or is the data? Or is it the fault of the limitations of the game universe created for SHIII? We will never know, becasue there always seems to be a layer of uncertainty over anything we dare to call "real".

So, Pablo, people can tell you otherwise. If they do, you can produce this argument to back up what you feel reality is.

I hope this helps in dealing with the perpetual discourse over what is "real" or not in SHIII, or in anything else.

My quotation source is from "A Modern Dictionary of Sociology" by Theodorsen & Theodorsen. If you want to win humiliating bar-bets with cute Philosophy majors, or better still, Sociology or Psych majors, this book is a must-own.

BobV_07,

EXACTLY!!! I agree with you 100%

:ping:

Never feel bad about making your own decisions based on the information you see or experience.

It is quite okay to think for yourself.

TWELVEFIELD! I LOVE THAT POST! I'm glad you quoted it.

Cheers mates! :know: