deck gun inacurate.

[maillemaker]

A quick addenda though, in my personal experience with perfectly zeroed and computer-assisted light, medium, and heavy land-based field artillery fires... it is an infrequent thing to hit the exact point of aim repeatedly. (Even when the firing unit is stationary in "direct-fire" mode/configuration... and the target is also stationary... in perfect environmental conditions.)

So what sort of "grouping" would you get at, say, 5000m direct fire?

Because what I'm seeing in-game, when manning the gun myself, is a variance of about +/-400m in the horizontal axis at about 3400m range. That's about a +/- 8 degree variance in the horizontal axis. Pitch and roll of the u-boat should certainly have a large effect on the accuracy in the vertical axis, but unless the u-boat is yawing or the gun is traversing the accuracy in the horizontal axis should be pretty consistent, I would think.

Remember, your point of aim is just that... a 'point of aim.' Adjustment of your fire should typically be necessary... be it azimuth or deflection... or reducing your range to the target.

But it should be consistent, and it currently feels random. With one shot it fires to 200m to the left of center, with another it's 50m to the right of center.

[EDIT: If you are a player manning the deck gun yourself, the deck gun sights remain 'inertially stabilized' and this is a stock SH3 bug. Deck gun sights do not pitch and roll with the U-boat and deck gun itself as they should. The 'inertial stability' of the deck gun sight is a separate issue from the accuracy of deck gun fire point of impact variance. At any rate the deck gun sights simply show your point of aim. In GWX, for those that are interested in playing with a more historical approach, it is recommended to let your crew do the shooting. U-boat captains had additional responsibilities during use of the deck gun as it was, and this method allows you to avoid the gunsight bug altogether.]

I always man the gun myself, because I can shoot far more accurately than the AI can. For one thing, the AI does not wait for the pitch and roll to come into a good firing condition. It seems that as soon as a round is loaded, the AI fires the gun as best it can, rather than timing the waves for a good shot. Makes me wonder what I invested in the gunnery training for, other than faster reloading times.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by maillemaker

So what sort of "grouping" would you get at, say, 5000m direct fire?

Accuracy was detirmined by many factors that I've already discussed in a general sense. At 5000 meters without electronic/computer assistance... (roughly three miles using iron sights and bubble-leveled scopes and collimeter) direct fire and observed indirect fire would likely have about the same level of accuracy.

Regardless, land-based field artillery... using iron sights and unaided by modern devices... is far more accurate than that of un-aided ship-borne gunfire in similar conditions. Field artillery doesn't have to worry about sea state.

Originally Posted by maillemaker

Because what I'm seeing in-game, when manning the gun myself, is a variance of about +/-400m in the horizontal axis at about 3400m range. That's about a +/- 8 degree variance in the horizontal axis. Pitch and roll of the u-boat should certainly have a large effect on the accuracy in the vertical axis, but unless the u-boat is yawing or the gun is traversing the accuracy in the horizontal axis should be pretty consistent, I would think.

Re-read my analogy to the shotgun in my post above. It is correct regarding any weapon that fires a projectile... be it a .22 rifle or a battleship cannon. This effect is exacerbated with range, environmental conditions, and motion of the firing unit and the target. The same is true in SH3 with GWX.

Originally Posted by maillemaker

But it should be consistent, and it currently feels random. With one shot it fires to 200m to the left of center, with another it's 50m to the right of center.

If it feels random... then that is a good thing IMHO. However the code entries that determine the variable percentage of accuracy are linear in nature... and are affected by the elements I've already listed. The code modified and subsequent development testing during the construction of GWX... showed results that overall, were indeed consistent.

Originally Posted by maillemaker

I always man the gun myself, because I can shoot far more accurately than the AI can. For one thing, the AI does not wait for the pitch and roll to come into a good firing condition. It seems that as soon as a round is loaded, the AI fires the gun as best it can, rather than timing the waves for a good shot. Makes me wonder what I invested in the gunnery training for, other than faster reloading times.

The AI does indeed wait for an acceptable firing solution and you are incorrect about this matter. If it cannot achieve a solution that provides an opportunity to hit the target... it does not fire. Reloading time is constant in SH3 because only one value can be entered for each weapon. However, the rate of fire does slow markedly in relation to worsening sea state as the AI will not fire given an impossible solution... It will instead wait until the solution is acceptable.

ALL projectile fire is inherently inaccurate. It is simply a question of how inaccurate given many factors.

The surface-bourne weaponry in GWX was as consistent as we could make it in three dimensions. I don't disbelieve you that you've experienced a greater impact variance to the left or right of the target... but I will say that it is your experience and is not consistent with GWX developmental testing and many other annecdotal findings following release.

If your gunfire is unacceptably inaccurate for your liking in GWX, my suggestion is to simply get closer to your target. If your target is still firing at you... then you are engaging with the wrong weapon.

At any rate, debates surrounding the deck guns in SH3 (and likely SH4) have gone on here ad-nauseum. We have implemented our interpretation of things to the best of our ability in GWX... and that's why things are the way they are in GWX.

Cheers

[maillemaker]

Accuracy was detirmined by many factors that I've already discussed in a general sense. At 5000 meters without electronic/computer assistance... (roughly three miles using iron sights and bubble-leveled scopes and collimeter) direct fire and observed indirect fire would likely have about the same level of accuracy.

Regardless, land-based field artillery... using iron sights and unaided by modern devices... is far more accurate than that of un-aided ship-borne gunfire in similar conditions. Field artillery doesn't have to worry about sea state.

So what sort of accuracy would you say you got at 5000m, roughly speaking?

Re-read my analogy to the shotgun in my post above. It is correct regarding any weapon that fires a projectile... be it a .22 rifle or a battleship cannon. This effect is exacerbated with range, environmental conditions, and motion of the firing unit and the target. The same is true in SH3 with GWX.

I read it, but a cannon is not a shotgun. Like I said, A submarine floating on the water should experience considerable variations in elevation control, due to the boat pitching fore and aft and rolling side-to-side in the water.

But unless the boat is yawing left-to-right, I would think it should be pretty consistent in the horizontal axis, relative to the vertical reticule of the gunsight.

I would think that yaw would be the most stable axis of movement of a floating ship.

The AI does indeed wait for an acceptable firing solution and you are incorrect about this matter.

I believe you, but why, then am I a much better shot than the AI? It must be, then that the AI does not take into account the inaccuracy of the gun when it shoots 5 ticks to the right, and instead continues to fire as if the gun were shooting straight.

So is there a mod that puts the gun back to stock condition?

Steve

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by maillemaker

So what sort of accuracy would you say you got at 5000m, roughly speaking?

Tough to say. Each scenario was dynamic. We estimated and adjusted to correct as necessary. Usually our first round was darn close even if we didn't destroy the target with the first round. Additionally, it would be a bad idea to walk out onto an impact range to obtain exact measurements.

Naval gunnery is far more dynamic as I've explained... and as you already know.

Originally Posted by maillemaker

I read it, but a cannon is not a shotgun.

Obviously a cannon is not a shotgun... but you've also missed the whole point of my analogy: Projectiles fired from even the steadiest of barrels will have a point of impact variance in three dimensions. It is only a question of how much variance. Using a shotgun as a reference was an intentionally extreme example meant simply to illustrate my point.

"Think of your deck gun as being a shotgun... a shotgun that fires pellets that scatter as you would expect... but only one at a time instead. Just because your scopes are on target... doesn't mean your shells will all hit the target."

Originally Posted by maillemaker

So is there a mod that puts the gun back to stock condition?

Not that I am aware of, but you can use S3D to compare/copy/paste stock SH3 elevation and traverse tolerances to your own GUNS_SUB.sim file.

Doing so should help facilitate the total destruction of further convoys as you seem to enjoy.