manual range input

when you use this with the SCAF which fixes some inaccurate demensions and rec manual data, your targetting is much more accurate

[Rockin Robbins]

But more accurate shooting due to unreasonable means is not authentic at all! Real subs which lost their radar and were dependent only on their stadimeter would waste between half and two-thirds of their torpedoes just to get a hit. It took more than that to sink the target.

Here we are insisting on one torpedo, one sunk. Not reasonable within the framework of simulation. Why do our tonnage numbers dwarf that of a real sub? Then we're going to make it even easier? Why not play Ratchet and Clank instead? Reality was very messy and we just try to tidy it up so it all makes sense to us. Guess what? It didn't make sense to them.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

But more accurate shooting due to unreasonable means is not authentic at all! Real subs which lost their radar and were dependent only on their stadimeter would waste between half and two-thirds of their torpedoes just to get a hit. It took more than that to sink the target.

Here we are insisting on one torpedo, one sunk. Not reasonable within the framework of simulation. Why do our tonnage numbers dwarf that of a real sub? Then we're going to make it even easier? Why not play Ratchet and Clank instead? Reality was very messy and we just try to tidy it up so it all makes sense to us. Guess what? It didn't make sense to them.

true but then you get into the grey area of making numbers inaccurate only for the purpose of creating the illusion of reality because you have a game that doesnt allow you to get true random results with semi accurate info. how can you model accuracy of torps to change with sea states, too bad we dont have a gyro error node we could set to have wobbly torpedo courses effected by sea state. i think that would be the best and most realistic results.

even if the info is accurately inaccurate it is a game and in games if you aim properly you are suposed to hit things and that was the desired result.

i think the poor real life results were mainly from the shorter US torpedos not staying true to course from wave effects and not poor solutions. even though the data wasnt spot on, they would quickly make their own changes to the manual numbers with their own corrections and pass those on to others just like they would do their own torpedo mods and share those tricks as well. i dont think we give them enough credit for adjusting to an inaccurate rec manual and getting accurate targeting based on their own tweaks to it even though results werent great.

[DaveR]

i agree with webster. i did a radar tracked shot with 3 torp spread and only one hit (although, one just ran out of steam short of hitting the guy behind). my only problem is, when i spin in 6000yds, i would like it to say somewhere around 6000 and not around 5500 in the tdc.

i'm pretty sure i set authentic, not metric.

SCAF??

Originally Posted by DaveR

i agree with webster. i did a radar tracked shot with 3 torp spread and only one hit (although, one just ran out of steam short of hitting the guy behind). my only problem is, when i spin in 6000yds, i would like it to say somewhere around 6000 and not around 5500 in the tdc.

i'm pretty sure i set authentic, not metric.

SCAF??

ship centered accuracy fix by capnscurvy

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=126016

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

i think the poor real life results were mainly from the shorter US torpedos not staying true to course from wave effects and not poor solutions. even though the data wasnt spot on, they would quickly make their own changes to the manual numbers with their own corrections and pass those on to others just like they would do their own torpedo mods and share those tricks as well. i dont think we give them enough credit for adjusting to an inaccurate rec manual and getting accurate targeting based on their own tweaks to it even though results werent great.

Here we go again..."I think this," "I think that," etc., etc.

The Mark 14 may have had its share of problems, but they were not due to the ocean being so choppy and rough that it would make torpedoes run off course. If there were problems with torpedoes running off course (as was the case most often with Mark 10s) it was because of a faulty part in that particular torpedo or, in the case of the Mark 10, because the torpedoes had been used repeatedly in target practice, thus wearing down the steering mechanism of the torpedo. All of this is documented in the patrol reports and the research conducted to weed out the faults of the Mark 14.

Originally Posted by LukeFF

Here we go again..."I think this," "I think that," etc., etc.

are the stock rec manual numbers exactly correct for those used by fleet subs in ww2?

[vanjast]

RR, I would think that this depends on what % reality one plays at.

What I find at 100%+ that if I either enter the range with the stadimeter, or manually, there are errors in both. Which in a way is it's own reality - if not reality itself.

Ellimating these errors with the PK in the standard methods, helps with the final solution obtained.

There are a lot of times that I do not stick my scope out, due to that escort 50m away, and enter the stadimeter range manually on the last 'known range' of the target - without a target lock one's range is limited which is a bit cumbersome, so 'I asked the dockyard techies to change this'

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

are the stock rec manual numbers exactly correct for those used by fleet subs in ww2?

CapnScurvy would be the one to answer that.

[DaveR]

i have rfb,rsrdc and enviroment as major mods. SCAF states, doesn't have mod for rfb, so ?, would rsrdc mod work? sol?

thanks guys.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by LukeFF

CapnScurvy would be the one to answer that.

You can answer that too! In real life they didn't have a recognition manual with every single target that you could ever sight. They were lucky if half the targets they saw were in the manual. The US Navy did not have the ability to rent the entire Japanese naval and merchant fleets, take 'em to Pearl and measure them six ways to Sunday to produce a perfect manual. The ONI manual wasn't anywhere near correct. It's errors were not identical to ours, but ours is still dozens of times better than the real subs had.

When you check out claimed tonnage against actual, established after the war with Japanese records, you find that target after target was misidentified, often with the submarine claiming twice as much tonnage as reality. Almost alone was poor Joe Enright, who was given only a fraction of the true tonnage of Shinano. Everyone else didn't have a clue what they were shooting at.

But we demand perfect knowledge and perfect results. Then we claim we're still playing a simulation. Hell, we're a lot better sub captain than Dick O'Kane, look at his lousy tonnage score for his career compared to our last cruise. We're just darned good, that's all!

Bullschnitzel! We're a bunch of cheaters, unwilling to put up with reality or a reasonable facsimile of. A 30,000 ton cruise should be the cruise of a lifetime, never to be repeated. Instead that's a disappointing low point.

We DON'T NEED any Ship Centered Accuracy Fix, fixed masthead heights, improved recognition manuals, etc. If anything we should further trash the tools we have to make them less productive. Here I am yesterday, checking out Webster's ship physics mod (targets' behavior was much better, by the way. I'm enjoying the heck out of it!) without any of the above "fixes" making me even more deadeye than I am. My boat? The Starship Freakin' Enterprise!


I just outsunk the entire US submarine force's production for this week in the last hour, I'm surrounded by escorts and the only thing I'm worried about is running out of torpedoes! Yeah, like I need help hitting targets here...