U-Boot Periscope Telemeters

[diego_gut]

Hello,


Sorry for the late response.


What I did was to make the graticle for 1.5x zoom as in real life but it is calibrated for 6x too. That is, if a ship measures 2 degrees using 1.5x, it will measure 8 degrees using 6x zoom. The same applies for the vertical scale.


The graticle in DGUI uses milliradians but the graticle in DGUI Hardcore uses angular radians (16 per degree instead of 17.45) as in real life. I even included real life tables that you can use to convert to distance.


Regards,
Diego

[Efshapo]

Originally Posted by diego_gut

What I did was to make the graticle for 1.5x zoom as in real life but it is calibrated for 6x too. That is, if a ship measures 2 degrees using 1.5x, it will measure 8 degrees using 6x zoom. The same applies for the vertical scale.

Of course the magnification ratio should be exactly 4, that's the minimum required!
As you can see in my table, the only game that does not respect that is Uboat.

Originally Posted by diego_gut

The graticle in DGUI uses milliradians but the graticle in DGUI Hardcore uses angular radians (16 per degree instead of 17.45) as in real life. I even included real life tables that you can use to convert to distance.

Sure, but my question was about the vignette (the dark circle around the image). If you use the same image displayed at the same scale on screen for the graticle (as you should), a 9° and 36° FOV means you also used the same vignette. To correct for the 1.5x one and make it 38°, you just have to make a dedicated vignette with a slightly bigger diameter. That's what I meant.

[diego_gut]

I don't take into account the vignette and there is no way to change the vignette when you change the zoom. I use it to make the attack periscope darker than the observation periscope and both of them darker than the UZO.

[Efshapo]

Originally Posted by diego_gut

there is no way to change the vignette when you change the zoom

Then the historical field of view cannot be implemented (38° at 1.5x and 9° at 6x).
The next best thing to do is then to make a vignette that fits at least in one zoom level, without getting too far away from the second (36° at 1.5x and 9° at 6x).

[John Pancoast]

Originally Posted by ybar

It's a shame if we have to move away from reality to adapt a simulator to a computer game ...
Out of curiosity, I can't wait to see how "Crush Depth" will handle this.

I don't know which eyepieces were placed on the Uboote.
But I am almost convinced that the engineers of ZEISS, have placed "wide angle".
I use a terrestrial telescope to watch the birds, and I use an eyepiece of this type (for the same zoom level, the panorama can be seen better)
On our French forum, a member with a refracting telescope has also just confirmed his change from the inexpensive eyepiece to a wide-angle eyepiece.

A shame ? Not at all. It's on a pc; by it's very nature it's not realistic.

[John Pancoast]

Originally Posted by Efshapo

Well, "wrong" is not subjective here since we're talking about a game of the simulation genre. The game is either "right" (historically accurate), or it is not.

The magnification I'm talking about in my table is only related to the field of view (the one restricted by the vignette effect, not the in-game FOV), it is not related to the player screen size. There is no way for the devs to control that (unless they add a slider in the setting screen for a kind of "magnifying glass" effect). About that 10x magnification in GWX, I don't see how it could have been computed given what I just said, but I agree that the bigger the ship on screen the better the gameplay: I did the math and found out that for the magnification to be optically accurate, I had to stand as close as 38 cm from my 27" display! And Wolfpack devs actually did an amazing job at that by having chosen to ditch the upper and lower parts of the image circle so it can appear bigger.

Considering your expressed concerns, I haven't found how those modifications would break any current gameplay mechanics. Did you have something specific in mind?

My comments were general nature, not at your examples. I'm of the opinion that "historically accurate" does not necessarily need, demand, nor require verbatim "historically accurate" figures, specs, etc. to be used, for "historically accurate" and "right" results to occur.

Your mileage may differ.

[Efshapo]

Originally Posted by John Pancoast

My comments were general nature, not at your examples. I'm of the opinion that "historically accurate" does not necessarily need, demand, nor require verbatim "historically accurate" figures, specs, etc. to be used, for "historically accurate" and "right" results to occur.

Your mileage may differ.

In any simulation, a wrong model can yield right results in almost all studied cases, that does not make the model right, just "good enough" at best. I don't think that should make us stop striving for the best. But let's agree to disagree I guess. :]

[John Pancoast]

Originally Posted by Efshapo

In any simulation, a wrong model can yield right results in almost all studied cases, that does not make the model right, just "good enough" at best. I don't think that should make us stop striving for the best. But let's agree to disagree I guess. :]

Well, if a model produces "right" results, by that very action it is then "right".
After all, that's the end result desired or should be. I.e., better to have that vs. a "right" model that produces "wrong" results.
But I understand what you're saying. Interesting work and effort you've done, thanks !

[Efshapo]

Originally Posted by John Pancoast

Well, if a model produces "right" results, by that very action it is then "right".
After all, that's the end result desired or should be. I.e., better to have that vs. a "right" model that produces "wrong" results.
But I understand what you're saying. Interesting work and effort you've done, thanks !

A model is right if it produces right results in all studied cases, not if it's "only" almost all cases.
Also, a model that produces wrong results cannot, by definition, be a right model.
But well... Thanks for your support. ;]

[Efshapo]

Originally Posted by diego_gut

In Sh3 it works like you say, there is a direct and inverse relationship between zoom and field of view. However, it is not like that in real life, it depends on the construction of the optical device.

In this particular case, the zoom ratio was 4 ( 1.5 to 6 ) but the field of view ratio was 4.22 ( 38 to 9 ). Since the graticle is just a 2d overlay it can't be accurate for both.

To give more examples, the field of view for the 7x50 binoculars was 7.1 but some 10x80 binoculars had a field of view of 7.25 even though they had 10x zoom. The field of view was different even between different models of the 10x80 binoculars.

What I did for DGUI was to use a 36 degree field of view for the low power, this way the periscopes can be calibrated at both magnifications. This is not historically accurate but I think it is more useful.

Regards

Kudos to you sir, you win the contest so far:

[John Pancoast]

"This is not historically accurate but I think it is more useful."

[diego_gut]

Thank you!!

[Efshapo]

Here's the updated table with the new Wolfpack 0.25n reticle:

[u crank]

Reported^^^.

[Jimbuna]

Sent packing to Lucknow.