Quote:
Originally Posted by maillemaker
So what sort of "grouping" would you get at, say, 5000m direct fire?
|
Accuracy was detirmined by many factors that I've already discussed in a general sense. At 5000 meters without electronic/computer assistance... (roughly three miles using iron sights and bubble-leveled scopes and collimeter) direct fire and observed indirect fire would likely have about the same level of accuracy.
Regardless, land-based field artillery... using iron sights and unaided by modern devices... is far more accurate than that of un-aided ship-borne gunfire in similar conditions. Field artillery doesn't have to worry about sea state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maillemaker
Because what I'm seeing in-game, when manning the gun myself, is a variance of about +/-400m in the horizontal axis at about 3400m range. That's about a +/- 8 degree variance in the horizontal axis. Pitch and roll of the u-boat should certainly have a large effect on the accuracy in the vertical axis, but unless the u-boat is yawing or the gun is traversing the accuracy in the horizontal axis should be pretty consistent, I would think.
|
Re-read my analogy to the shotgun in my post above. It is correct regarding any weapon that fires a projectile... be it a .22 rifle or a battleship cannon. This effect is exacerbated with range, environmental conditions, and motion of the firing unit and the target. The same is true in SH3 with GWX.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maillemaker
But it should be consistent, and it currently feels random. With one shot it fires to 200m to the left of center, with another it's 50m to the right of center.
|
If it feels random... then that is a good thing IMHO. However the code entries that determine the variable percentage of accuracy are linear in nature... and are affected by the elements I've already listed. The code modified and subsequent development testing during the construction of GWX... showed results that overall, were indeed consistent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maillemaker
I always man the gun myself, because I can shoot far more accurately than the AI can. For one thing, the AI does not wait for the pitch and roll to come into a good firing condition. It seems that as soon as a round is loaded, the AI fires the gun as best it can, rather than timing the waves for a good shot. Makes me wonder what I invested in the gunnery training for, other than faster reloading times.
|
The AI does indeed wait for an acceptable firing solution and you are incorrect about this matter. If it cannot achieve a solution that provides an opportunity to hit the target... it does not fire. Reloading time is constant in SH3 because only one value can be entered for each weapon. However, the rate of fire does slow markedly in relation to worsening sea state as the AI will not fire given an impossible solution... It will instead wait until the solution is acceptable.
ALL projectile fire is inherently inaccurate. It is simply a question of how inaccurate given many factors.
The surface-bourne weaponry in GWX was as consistent as we could make it in three dimensions. I don't disbelieve you that you've experienced a greater impact variance to the left or right of the target... but I will say that it is
your experience and is not consistent with GWX developmental testing and many other annecdotal findings following release.
If your gunfire is unacceptably inaccurate for your liking in GWX, my suggestion is to simply get closer to your target. If your target is still firing at you... then you are engaging with the wrong weapon.
At any rate, debates surrounding the deck guns in SH3 (and likely SH4) have gone on here ad-nauseum. We have implemented our interpretation of things to the best of our ability in GWX... and that's why things are the way they are in GWX.
Cheers