Originally Posted by John Pancoast (Post 2779417)

Real world vs. computer screen, etc.
I'm more of a fan of does something work in the game to simulate it's subject vs. strictly historical specs, etc.

Originally Posted by John Pancoast (Post 2779417)

I'm not sure a "wrong" this or that is strictly correct.
Real world vs. computer screen, etc.
I'm more of a fan of does something work in the game to simulate it's subject vs. strictly historical specs, etc.
To often, plugging in historical performance specs of equipment, weapons, etc. (which many times are inaccurate anyway, being based on lab specs vs. real world use) causes more problems than it solves in a computer simulation of such. Many times, putting in historical specs for x, breaks function y of some other system, weapon, etc. in a game that was designed to work with the original specs of x.
What is more important is how does it perform in the sim, especially in the "big picture" of the entire sim.
I.e., iirc, GWX's attack scope had a mag of 10x. Historically correct ? No. But a good idea for the limited view of a computer game ? I think so.
Another example is the "pinpoint accuracy" of depth charges originally found in SH3. Historically correct ? No. But it helps make up for the dumb as bricks AI escorts and poor damage modeling. I like it myself, even with the sensor/damage model work since done to the original game, and it's actually not difficult to escape from anyway.

Originally Posted by diego_gut (Post 2779844)

What I did was to make the graticle for 1.5x zoom as in real life but it is calibrated for 6x too. That is, if a ship measures 2 degrees using 1.5x, it will measure 8 degrees using 6x zoom. The same applies for the vertical scale.

Originally Posted by diego_gut (Post 2779844)

The graticle in DGUI uses milliradians but the graticle in DGUI Hardcore uses angular radians (16 per degree instead of 17.45) as in real life. I even included real life tables that you can use to convert to distance.

Originally Posted by diego_gut (Post 2779943)

there is no way to change the vignette when you change the zoom

Originally Posted by ybar (Post 2779708)

It's a shame if we have to move away from reality to adapt a simulator to a computer game ...
Out of curiosity, I can't wait to see how "Crush Depth" will handle this.

I don't know which eyepieces were placed on the Uboote.
But I am almost convinced that the engineers of ZEISS, have placed "wide angle".
I use a terrestrial telescope to watch the birds, and I use an eyepiece of this type (for the same zoom level, the panorama can be seen better)
On our French forum, a member with a refracting telescope has also just confirmed his change from the inexpensive eyepiece to a wide-angle eyepiece.

Originally Posted by Efshapo (Post 2779831)

Well, "wrong" is not subjective here since we're talking about a game of the simulation genre. The game is either "right" (historically accurate), or it is not.

The magnification I'm talking about in my table is only related to the field of view (the one restricted by the vignette effect, not the in-game FOV), it is not related to the player screen size. There is no way for the devs to control that (unless they add a slider in the setting screen for a kind of "magnifying glass" effect). About that 10x magnification in GWX, I don't see how it could have been computed given what I just said, but I agree that the bigger the ship on screen the better the gameplay: I did the math and found out that for the magnification to be optically accurate, I had to stand as close as 38 cm from my 27" display! And Wolfpack devs actually did an amazing job at that by having chosen to ditch the upper and lower parts of the image circle so it can appear bigger.

Considering your expressed concerns, I haven't found how those modifications would break any current gameplay mechanics. Did you have something specific in mind?

Originally Posted by John Pancoast (Post 2779978)

My comments were general nature, not at your examples. I'm of the opinion that "historically accurate" does not necessarily need, demand, nor require verbatim "historically accurate" figures, specs, etc. to be used, for "historically accurate" and "right" results to occur.

Your mileage may differ. :)

Originally Posted by Efshapo (Post 2779997)

In any simulation, a wrong model can yield right results in almost all studied cases, that does not make the model right, just "good enough" at best. I don't think that should make us stop striving for the best. But let's agree to disagree I guess. :]

Originally Posted by John Pancoast (Post 2780004)

Well, if a model produces "right" results, by that very action it is then "right".
After all, that's the end result desired or should be. I.e., better to have that vs. a "right" model that produces "wrong" results.
But I understand what you're saying. Interesting work and effort you've done, thanks ! :salute:

Originally Posted by diego_gut (Post 2723465)

In Sh3 it works like you say, there is a direct and inverse relationship between zoom and field of view. However, it is not like that in real life, it depends on the construction of the optical device.

In this particular case, the zoom ratio was 4 ( 1.5 to 6 ) but the field of view ratio was 4.22 ( 38 to 9 ). Since the graticle is just a 2d overlay it can't be accurate for both.

To give more examples, the field of view for the 7x50 binoculars was 7.1 but some 10x80 binoculars had a field of view of 7.25 even though they had 10x zoom. The field of view was different even between different models of the 10x80 binoculars.

What I did for DGUI was to use a 36 degree field of view for the low power, this way the periscopes can be calibrated at both magnifications. This is not historically accurate but I think it is more useful.

Regards