Quote:
Originally Posted by TorpX
None of these options are ideal. In the first case, we are likely to have errors aplenty, range and AoB, often being very uncertain. This is realistic, but also laborious. Many don't like the work involved, or are not especially good at math. In the second case, errors are likely to be almost eliminated, unless we make a mistake in our calculations/measurements. This would be realistic if Ubisoft had designed some human factors into the process, but they did not. In the third case, errors are zero, since Ubisoft didn't see fit to model any errors in the plotting, or observations. This makes the game highly playable, but also very unrealistic. So, what can be done?
|
The ideal way to fix the problem would be to have a scalable error envelope for each observation method with your measured number modified by a random number within the error envelope. That way you could have radar accurate to within 30 yards, visual within a certain percentage, stadimeter the same, sonar within a certain percentage with error envelopes tailored for each data acquisition method.
Then there would be the random errors in torpedo performance and user input that you've dealt with.
Too bad we can't do anything about the first part, data acquisition and measurement errors.