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.

[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).

[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

[Hitman]

Be aware that if you are running SH3 in german, it's in the german_de.txt file were you need to look into

[Pisces]

Hmm, would it be possible to make the game use these. Or is it that awful word 'hardcoded' in the air?

4708=Range to target, %02.0f hundreds!
4709=Range to target, under one hundred!
4710=Range to target, %02.0f thousands!
4711=Range to target, over ten thousands!

[Sailor Steve]

I too use the Weapons Officer Assistance. It is sort of a cheat only because he is instant, and never makes mistakes. I wish SH4 had a similar function.

@ Hitman: I think a large part of it is experience. In real life when you are at sea every day you get used to judging distances, and if you know the ship type you can guage his distance quite accurately just by observation. In the game it's hard to even identify the ship sometimes, let alone guess its range.

[Hitman]

I wish SH4 had a similar function

IIRC it certainly has it, only it's not enabled in the key commands

In real life when you are at sea every day you get used to judging distances, and if you know the ship type you can guage his distance quite accurately just by observation.

Yes, that's understandable, but still in open sea it is difficult when you have no references. And by night....I think too difficult - yet the IWO does it equally well as by day

[NeonSamurai]

The problem pretty much as mentioned is that the WO is like the terminator, he is perfectly accurate and makes his judgments instantaneously. This applies to ranging and targeting. Which is why he is considered a cheat.

[mark2398]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

The problem pretty much as mentioned is that the WO is like the terminator, he is perfectly accurate and makes his judgments instantaneously. This applies to ranging and targeting. Which is why he is considered a cheat.

But if you use the file-modification above, it is perfectly fine to use him w/o being considered as cheating.

If the WO just gives the bearing, it is good enough for me.

I will figure out the range via my own traditional methods. But I need the WO to avoid missing a ship spotting while it is dark or due heavy weather.

Mark

[UberTorpedo]

Quote from Hitman: "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."

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Yes, that's understandable, but still in open sea it is difficult when you have no references. And by night....I think too difficult - yet the IWO does it equally well as by day

I agree, the biggest problem with him is his perfection.

I missed your comment on hand-held rangefinders until now, and I was going to agree that would be a good idea, but now that UberTorpedo posted that picture...COOL! Works for me.