How realistic do you play SH3

[Klaus_Doldinger]

Originally Posted by aaronblood

There seems to be two different varieties of GWX 100% players...

Those that really play 100% and leave map updates off, and those who call themselves 100% players but leave on the map update cheat.

So which are you?

100% with map contacts update. I´ve played without map contacts, but without them I got tremendous errors in the calculations with the TDC, unfortunately a not very useful tool. So I got bored of that and began to use a time/distance table that allows me to get quite accurate estimations about the target speed.

[XLjedi]

Originally Posted by Klaus_Doldinger

100% with map contacts update. I´ve played without map contacts, but without them I got tremendous errors in the calculations with the TDC, unfortunately a not very useful tool. So I got bored of that and began to use a time/distance table that allows me to get quite accurate estimations about the target speed.

So you measure the distance between the perfect map updates and use a lookup table for a TSD solution? Where'd those GWX pull down tables come from anyway? I guess they don't really bother me... I just ignore em.

[Klaus_Doldinger]

Originally Posted by aaronblood

So you measure the distance between the perfect map updates and use a lookup table for a TSD solution? Where'd those GWX pull down tables come from anyway? I guess they don't really bother me... I just ignore em.

When I spot a target or a convoy, I zoom the map to 50 meters, make a cross with the pencil tool in the bow of the target icon and switch on the chronometer. The time meausres can be 30, 60, 90 or 120 seconds. When time has passed, I make another mark in the new position of the target bow. Then I measure the distance between the two marks with the compass tool and I get the approximate distance travelled by the target.

Example: 200 meters travelled in 60 seconds: target speed=6,48 knots.

The system is not, of course, 100% accurate (who wants a 100% chance of hitting the enemy?) but gives you a reasonable/high chance of getting a hit.

[XLjedi]

Originally Posted by Klaus_Doldinger

When I spot a target or a convoy, I zoom the map to 50 meters, make a cross with the pencil tool in the bow of the target icon and switch on the chronometer. The time meausres can be 30, 60, 90 or 120 seconds. When time has passed, I make another mark in the new position of the target bow. Then I measure the distance between the two marks with the compass tool and I get the approximate distance travelled by the target.

Example: 200 meters travelled in 60 seconds: target speed=6,48 knots.

The system is not, of course, 100% accurate (who wants a 100% chance of hitting the enemy?) but gives you a reasonable/high chance of getting a hit.

uh huh...

Yeah, I'd say it gives you pretty close to 100% accuracy... may just as well turn on auto-targetting. You're allowing God-eye mode to give you the target true course.

The real test of a tracking party is in determining target true course and speed passively.

[Puster Bill]

Originally Posted by aaronblood

uh huh...

Yeah, I'd say it gives you pretty close to 100% accuracy... may just as well turn on auto-targetting. You're allowing God-eye mode to give you the target true course.

The real test of a tracking party is in determining target true course and speed passively.

Exactly! You aren't really doing manual targeting if you leave map contacts on, or weapons officer assistance.

I tend to make a reasonable first guess using two observations and either the KM whiz wheel, a linear slide rule, or I use a protractor and ruler on graph paper. I do at least one method, and if I have time I cross check with another.

At longer ranges, it isn't that accurate because of limitations with the range finding mechanism (as it would have been in real life). As you get closer, you can get more accurate ranges, and hence more accurate solutions, until hopefully by the time you are close enough you have an accurate solution.

It doesn't always work out that way (especially in bad weather), but that is how I do it.

[XLjedi]

Originally Posted by Puster Bill

Exactly! You aren't really doing manual targeting if you leave map contacts on, or weapons officer assistance.

I tend to make a reasonable first guess using two observations and either the KM whiz wheel, a linear slide rule, or I use a protractor and ruler on graph paper. I do at least one method, and if I have time I cross check with another.

At longer ranges, it isn't that accurate because of limitations with the range finding mechanism (as it would have been in real life). As you get closer, you can get more accurate ranges, and hence more accurate solutions, until hopefully by the time you are close enough you have an accurate solution.

It doesn't always work out that way (especially in bad weather), but that is how I do it.

There's a huge difficulty gap between 100% GWX players that have God-eye turned on/off. They shoulda modded it so God-eye is like a 15% penalty... at least.

[Heibges]

I would say the real difference in SH3 (SH2 and AoD) tonnage wise, is those who routinely use their hydrophones to find targets, versus those who don't.

If you routinely use your hydrophones, you will score almost 300% more over the course of an average career, than someone using the hydrophone guidelines from the U.Kdt.Hdb.

Should there be a -%300 penalty, for those who overuse hydrophones. Therefore you could at best play a -%200 realism.

[Puster Bill]

Originally Posted by aaronblood

There's a huge difficulty gap between 100% GWX players that have God-eye turned on/off. They shoulda modded it so God-eye is like a 15% penalty... at least.

I have God's eye (update map contacts) off, and I play GWX. The only thing is that I do keep stabilized view enabled, so I'm only at 95% realism.

[ddwayne]

GWX 1.03 90% realismus,manual targeting,malfunctions+sabotage