The MaGui mod - Final version

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by makman94

hi P_Funk,
there is nothing wrong if the circles are 'stretched' or not . for years i was playing my sh3 at widescreen (without the widescreen version) at 1024x768 resolution . when i saw the sh3 on a friends pc (who had a non widescreen monitor ) and i saw the cirles...exactly as circles i was sure for one thing : i liked better the stretched images ...looked better at my eyes .
of course , i can't tell (and i don't know) if all the monitors are stretching with the same way (or amount) the circles so ,have in mind , that i am talking for my own experience here.
at widescreen version though ,at my pc, the circles are.... circles but this has to do afaik with monitors,connections ...etc ...that i am not the expert to help you more on these things

Well the thing is the widescreen resolution that was selected for this is a 16:9 aspect ratio, while my monitor is a 16:10. When I launched the game the image was definitely stretched and when I looked at screen shots I'd taken through the game's screenshot button they however were definitely not stretched. This leads me to believe that my aspect ratio, which is actually less and less available these days, actually stretches the image even if its a widescreen aspect ratio since its a different widescreen resolution, and therefore its still stretching the image.

My monitor is 1680x1050, which is 16:10, while 1360x768 is 16:9 as it stretches to fill monitors that are 1920x1080 which are also 16:9 aspect ratio. My gut tells me that this is true, but I'll never be able to test this until I get a monitor thats 16:9. In either case its not a big deal for me, its just something I noticed and was kind of surprised when I saw my screenshots were widescreen but not stretched even though they appeared so on my widescreen monitor.

------------

As for the spread angle problem, I never expected my 'method' to be perfectly accurate. It strikes me that if the spread angle is in degrees and its spreading from the centre of the reticle that as long as you're not spreading it generally more than the width of the target in the scope it will still hit the target. I don't really think salvo shots are meant to be pin point and are more about firing a shotgun blast in case your solution isn't perfect or if you just want to put put as many holes in a ship rather than trying to hit an engine room or ammo stash.

Now you say that there are formulas you can use, but obviously I doubt u-boat commanders used these. Also if and when a commander, or 1WO with the UZO, fired a salvo shot how DID they judge spread angle? I'm fairly certain that sumariners trained in torpedo attacks wouldn't just wing it. Using single shots to aim at different parts of the target is obviously a way to create a salvo shot, but the salvo function still exists and as such there much have been a quick and dirty way to pick the spread angle and there must have been an 'official' way as well (unless the official way is the quick and dirty way). My question is, while the method I mentioned is not strictly accurate becuase the AOB changes during the torpedo run, wouldn't it still be a roughly accurate way to estimate spread angle? I don't suppose there is there a more accurate way that doesn't involve breaking out a calculator.