100% realism - WO information - Is this cheating?

[mark2398]

I am playing SHIII with GWX 3.0 @ 100% (actually 97%, because I like to watch the event camera).

So as I am trying to do my best in being as manual as possible (targeting, range finding, manual TDC etc.), I need your advice whether the following behaviour is cheating under those settings:

Due to some limitation in SH3 engine, I sometimes have difficulties in visually spotting the Sound Contacts. I run my game typically in 1:32 time compression (max), dropping to 1:1 as soon as I receive a contact report.

Depending on the situation, let us asume it is advisable to chase the contact on the surface by using the UZO or the binoculars.

So I head into the direction of the contact, but of course within bad weather it is sometimes difficult to see the ship-pixels at long range. For example, I am currently in the English Channel at Night, it is pitch dark and Wind is @ 15 m/s. You can imagine the difficulties I have to spot anything.

Also to speed up things, I tend to go increase time compression to 1:4 or 1:8 while still watching the scene through the UZO or Binouculars.

In situations like that, I also like to click onto the WO Button every 5min to call out any visual contacts he sees, that might have slipped through my limited field of vision.

Now, calling the WO to tell me the closest Visual Contact (and if he indeed has seen something), the WO will usually come up with something like: "Nearest visual contact at bearing 354, range 2900m."

Aaarghh! I am happy to learn about the bearing, but the isn't this range finding method considered cheating?

I would rather like to find out about the distance myself. Also how, accurate is that information? I hope I cannot use it in the TDC anyway, but can somebody confirm?

Mark

[Sharkley]

Nope, in real life they had tools to get the range, that we don't have in game or at least that is my understanding. If it was a "cheat" it would not be in GWX

[Hitman]

How they obtained distance when being on the surface is somewhat still a mistery to me, even if I have done a huge research on all matters optics (periscopes, uzo, binocs...). The periscope -which has range finding device and/or reticles for that purpose- wasn't used in teh surface, the UZO has absolutely no rangefinding capabilities and the commander binocular had in some models a simple reticle. Yet I have seen many accounts and U-Boat patrol reports where they specify how they folloed contacts on the surface and determined range to them with certain accurancy.

I am yet unable to confirm it to a 100%, but I highly suspect that U-Boat crews were equipped with hand-held stereoscopic rangefinders for those purposes. In any case, it is not unrealistic to have the IWO tell you range, the unrealistic part is just how accurate his estimates are probably a mod that removed from the message you see in the bar the last three cyphers (i.e. you just get something like "8 kilometres" instead of "8064 metres") would be more authentic, at least for large ranges.

My 2 cents

[Sharkley]

Originally Posted by Hitman

How they obtained distance when being on the surface is somewhat still a mistery to me, even if I have done a huge research on all matters optics (periscopes, uzo, binocs...). The periscope -which has range finding device and/or reticles for that purpose- wasn't used in teh surface, the UZO has absolutely no rangefinding capabilities and the commander binocular had in some models a simple reticle. Yet I have seen many accounts and U-Boat patrol reports where they specify how they folloed contacts on the surface and determined range to them with certain accurancy.

I am yet unable to confirm it to a 100%, but I highly suspect that U-Boat crews were equipped with hand-held stereoscopic rangefinders for those purposes. In any case, it is not unrealistic to have the IWO tell you range, the unrealistic part is just how accurate his estimates are probably a mod that removed from the message you see in the bar the last three cyphers (i.e. you just get something like "8 kilometres" instead of "8064 metres") would be more authentic, at least for large ranges.

My 2 cents

That would be cool to add a little in-accuracy to the range finding.

[Hitman]

This is the relevant entry in the menu_en.txt file (SilentHunterIII/Data/Menu):

4616=Nearest visual contact at bearing %03.0f, range %.0f meters!

By removing the last part of the sentence, and leaving it like this:

4616=Nearest visual contact at bearing %03.0f!

You will get just bearing reports, and no range information at all. Unfortunately it is impossible to show only a part of the range

EDIT: Cross posted with h.sie

Yes, you have a point there, I will check how accurate the IWO actually is

[mark2398]

Originally Posted by Hitman

This is the relevant entry in the menu_en.txt file (SilentHunterIII/Data/Menu):
By removing the last part of the sentence, and leaving it like this:

You will get just bearing reports, and no range information at all.

Excellent. That is what I am looking for.

Mark

[h.sie]

Hi Hitman,

perhaps the range "8064m" only suggests an exactness, which is not really given? I remember my old and cheap digital voltmeter with four digits, but the last two digits were useless and unexact.

it could be interesting to check, how exact the range really is, depending on the WO experience (novice, expert, veteran).