Help with RAOBF dis. My measurements are off.

[Compans57]

I'm using real navigation and trying to get a handle on the RAOBF disc, but my findings are consistently about 1500m to 2000m off. I've followed video and pictorial tutorials so I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong.

For example, I had a Nelson class battleship at 2 optics mast height. Actual mast height is 55m. This reads off as (IIRC) 8500m but (I'm testing results with map icons) when I use the map ruler the actual range is around 7000m.

Are there different optic graphics? I realize that optic height can be out due to waterline but not this much.

Anyone have any solutions?

[3catcircus]

The difficulty is in the fact that the graticules are not centered, which makes it very difficult to confirm the actual number of ticks. You might be at 2.2, or 1.9, or some other not exactly 2.

I'd work backwards. Get range on the map, dial it in to the mast height, and see how many ticks are shown at the hash mark. If it is slightly different than the 2 you've indicated, then you're just not being precise enough. If it is vastly different, it could be that you need to select a different multiplier or hash position on the disk for the magnification you are using.

That having been said, I've not seen *any* correct implementation of the RAOBF beyond karamazov's initial implementation up to and including Makman's. Everything after that seems to be off.

I've had problems moreso with determining AOB - the value dialed in and known to be good because I checked before hand with the map tools, doesn't match the value that shows up in the scratchpad.

[Compans57]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

The difficulty is in the fact that the graticules are not centered, which makes it very difficult to confirm the actual number of ticks. You might be at 2.2, or 1.9, or some other not exactly 2.

I'd work backwards. Get range on the map, dial it in to the mast height, and see how many ticks are shown at the hash mark. If it is slightly different than the 2 you've indicated, then you're just not being precise enough. If it is vastly different, it could be that you need to select a different multiplier or hash position on the disk for the magnification you are using.

That having been said, I've not seen *any* correct implementation of the RAOBF beyond karamazov's initial implementation up to and including Makman's. Everything after that seems to be off.

I've had problems moreso with determining AOB - the value dialed in and known to be good because I checked before hand with the map tools, doesn't match the value that shows up in the scratchpad.

Thanks mate. Could it be the magnification on the attack periscope? I seem to just have two magnifications - zoom in and out. I'm not sure of the power of this, ie 6X or 1.5 but I imagine that would affect things.

[Compans57]

Following your advice I find that if the contact is far off and fairly small in the scope, an addition of .5 of an optic height works. If the target is large in the scope an addition of 1 optic works.

For example: if the optic height in the scope is 2.5 and the ship is far away, I make the reading 3. This however is incredibly unscientific. Do other people have these problems? Range is not too important as regards torpedoes unless the range is beyond the capabilities of the torpedo. It's quite another matter with fats, as setting when the leg starts is vital.

Mt stadimeter readings seem way off as well.

Another question is when measuring mast height with ships that have a mast coming from the bridge, do you take this mast as the measurement or one of the ones on deck?

[3catcircus]

Typically the intent is to measure from waterline to the tallest mast.

Although range isn't that vital, a good range is needed to then determine AOB using the RAOBF.

[bstanko6]

I never zoom in when calculating with RAOBF. There are tick marks that allow you to use the zoom, but it complicates things.

[Able72]

Originally Posted by Compans57

I'm using real navigation and trying to get a handle on the RAOBF disc, but my findings are consistently about 1500m to 2000m off. I've followed video and pictorial tutorials so I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong.

For example, I had a Nelson class battleship at 2 optics mast height. Actual mast height is 55m. This reads off as (IIRC) 8500m but (I'm testing results with map icons) when I use the map ruler the actual range is around 7000m.

Are there different optic graphics? I realize that optic height can be out due to waterline but not this much.

Anyone have any solutions?

I'm having the same issue, but worse. Even paused and counting tick marks comparing it to the map distance, I'm coming up sometimes more than 1100m off of range. This makes AOB using the RAOBF way off. I remember using the original RAOBF with SH3 and it was a fantastically accurate tool. Perhaps, just my thoughts, we need to have someone take the time to rescale the reticle markers and replace the default ones in TWOS. Perhaps over time the scale has gotten off and a correction is needed.

Originally Posted by Able72

I'm having the same issue, but worse. Even paused and counting tick marks comparing it to the map distance, I'm coming up sometimes more than 1100m off of range. This makes AOB using the RAOBF way off. I remember using the original RAOBF with SH3 and it was a fantastically accurate tool. Perhaps, just my thoughts, we need to have someone take the time to rescale the reticle markers and replace the default ones in TWOS. Perhaps over time the scale has gotten off and a correction is needed.

The problem might be that your monitor is not 16x9. At one time, I solved this problem by activating TWoS Aspect Ratio Fix 5x4 in JSGME. Since then, RAOBF has been working fine with my 5x4 monitor. This also works fine with TWoS 2.2.24 for me.

[Able72]

Originally Posted by Alpheratz

The problem might be that your monitor is not 16x9. At one time, I solved this problem by activating TWoS Aspect Ratio Fix 5x4 in JSGME. Since then, RAOBF has been working fine with my 5x4 monitor. This also works fine with TWoS 2.2.24 for me.

Nope. My monitor is 2560x1440. That's 16:9.

By the way, the tops of the masts of some ships are especially thin and they just don't render at a great distance. They "suddenly appear" only at a distance of about 2000 m and closer. Measuring the distance over 2000 m to these ships, you will get an overestimated result for this reason.

[JerseySeven]

As Alpheratz said, pixel resolution, time of day, weather, all make it difficult to see mast height at longer ranges. It's why I like to check the range one last time shortly before firing.