Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ice Forge
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jimmie
Not that I know of.
BTW, it's interesting, in the linked post he aligned the horizontal crosshair to the horizon (which is same to waterline in the case) but not to the waterline on the target ship.
Yeah, the mast is already very hard too see in SH3, and things get tougher because finding the waterline on the target ship is very hard, too, when the target is above 4km for the damn haze.
I wonder how they in history estimated the range with binoculars even without reference marks... (and the bearing, too. I don't think you can do "Ship spotted at 246!," you're not even holding a compass (and even then it must have been not that accurate) so I guess it must have been much more rough and inaccurate value in reality)
|
I guess that they had a fairly good idea where the bearings where...
they were standing on a sub and you have forward as 0 and behind is 180?
Try run on 100% and u get an idea of how it was like, you start to actually learn where the darn ships are just by standing on the bridge not using bino's |
Yes, even I can tell 0 and 180
But I couldn't tell a ship is spotted at 16 or 18, or 243 or 246, without a compass integrated into the bino or something. I was talking about unrealistic accuracy there... or if that was indeed possible I'd like know how they did.
BTW, I'm not running 100% but I turn off map and use weapon officer only for ID.