Realism hit? with stabilized view

[Paul Riley]

I am considering enabling stabilized view,to simulate stabilizers that MUST have been installed in U-Boat scopes,however,I just did a google search on the matter,and it seems apparent that stabilizers were made by the Americans,and in the 50's.Is that right?

Thanks.

[onelifecrisis]

I dunno. But I know the german scopes had split prism stadimeters, which meant the scope rolling around wasn't really such a problem. It is a problem for us in the game, because SH3 doesn't simulate the split prism stadimeter. In other words, IMO, SH3 is more realistic with "no scope stabilisation" unchecked in the realism options.

[Paul Riley]

Sorry,just let me clarify you would have stabilization off?

Do you remember the scene in Das Boot,where the captain was about to fire at the incoming destroyer they had just spotted,and the waves were rolling all over the scope,yet the actual crosshair remained quite stable,if not perfectly still.The boat was clearly bobbing up and down because he shouts to the chief "watch the depth chief",but his crosshair was pretty stabilized.I think we can only get that effect with stabilized view 'on'.

I'm not sure what to think on this,due to so many different opinions about various aspects of the game,but I think its important to play the game in what feels real to you.I think having god view and stabilized view is not too much of a realism hit,do you?I only use the map anyway mainly for getting range estimates for my plotting,as far as using it for situational awareness I prefer to do all that upstairs

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Paul Riley

Sorry,just let me clarify you would have stabilization off?

Nope. I said I would have "no scope stabilisation" unchecked.
SH3's use of double nagatives is annoying!

Originally Posted by Paul Riley

Do you remember the scene in Das Boot,where the captain was about to fire at the incoming destroyer they had just spotted,and the waves were rolling all over the scope,yet the actual crosshair remained quite stable,if not perfectly still.

I've not seen Das Boot, but I know it's a movie and therefore unlikely to be in any way realistic.

Not that a videogame is realistic either, but, yeah... er, whatever.

[Paul Riley]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

I've not seen Das Boot, but I know it's a movie and therefore unlikely to be in any way realistic.

You've not seen Das Boot? ,man i'm surprised,I thought that was under the belts of everyone in here.I know what you mean about movies though.

[Hitman]

Das Boot is a good film based on a good book, but there are still some obvious shortcomings when it comes to reflecting reality accurately. German periscopes had split prism stadimeters in many models, others (mainly the observation periscopes) didn't. But even so, once you have the hang of it it isn't that difficult to get range to target -not completely accurate, but at least accurate enough for our purposes-. The problem is that convincing people who are still not veteran with this game that practice will make masters out of them, is very difficult . But trust me, if you understand the mechanics of how it worked in real life, and practice a LOT, somewhen it all will suddenly fall in place.

[Coyote88]

Originally Posted by Paul Riley

Do you remember the scene in Das Boot,where the captain was about to fire at the incoming destroyer they had just spotted,and the waves were rolling all over the scope,yet the actual crosshair remained quite stable, if not perfectly still.

I notice that in almost every movie or tv show that features a view through a rifle scope. It's almost like they filmed the scene with a camera firmly attached to a dolly and then superimposed the cross hairs or something!