Does anyone play at max difficulty?

[jcope]

Did RFB incorporate Optical Targeting Correction?

[CapnScurvy]

Originally Posted by jcope

Did RFB incorporate Optical Targeting Correction?

No, there are no corrections to the periscope optical views in RFB. LukeFF took great efforts to list known authentic measurements in RFB. The problem is, the scope views aren't rendered with the correct Field of View. You can list all the correct measurements you wish, but if the yard stick doesn't measure 36 inches (three feet) you'll never measure accurately with it. Having the periscope measuring divisions not measure accurately makes the whole process fruitless.

I'm working on a compatible OTC version for RFB 2.0 with RSRDC v575.

[jcope]

Good to know. When your OTC upgrade for RFB is complete, I'll be first in line.

I assume the problem is with the range measurement and not bearing/azimuth.

I know there is a thread on this somewhere... I need to go read it again.

[I'm goin' down]

There is nothing better than having your ass kicked at the end of the day.

[CapnScurvy]

Originally Posted by jcope

Good to know. When your OTC upgrade for RFB is complete, I'll be first in line.

I assume the problem is with the range measurement and not bearing/azimuth.

I know there is a thread on this somewhere... I need to go read it again.

The inconsistently rendered periscope/TBT views create the problem of not getting an accurate range to target when you use the Telemeter Divisions (the hash marks on the scope lens) for measurement. There's no problem with getting the relative bearing of a target.

The lens themselves never change in size......the outside ("camera") view of the world does. Depending on what you've set your screen resolution/aspect ratio to, each of them have the world view "sized" differently. A target will measure differently at a specific distance depending on the screen option you choose. This issue occurs for both American and German side of play, and for all I know, is found in both SHIII and SH5.

The OTC thread points out the particulars further down in the first post of the thread.

As far as gleaning the range with the stadimeter, the world view doesn't make any difference. The measurement can be made accurate (least as accurate as can be done with a steady hand of placing the waterline onto the exact point that's supposed to be used) with having correct height measurements. Do each target height measurements need to be corrected? Well, they need to be checked.

Take for instance TMO's 2.5 measurement of the Japanese Hiryu CV. It's listed at 20 meters tall to the top of the mast. To get an accurate range measurement at ANY distance, the mast height needs to be set to around 37 meters tall. Nearly double what it's listed measurement is. This means the TMO stadimeter range taken for the Hiryu is going to be only half the true distance it should be. You'll not get a good firing solution with that kind of measurement.

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by msumpsi

Hi,
I am trying to play the game (RFB+RSRD) with everything off, no extarnal camare, no map concact update, no nothing and it really is full of frustration. The main problem with no map contact update is how to approach a target close enough to get his course in order to incercept, without being spotted. ...

Yes, I play at max difficulty.

In a way, No Map Contacts, is not that much different. You need the same data that the Map Contacts would provide, but you must obtain the info yourself and accept that there will be a degree of error in your data. And, of course, it is more work on your part.

Tip #1
Your initial observations at long range will be only rough approximations. The idea is to give you enough information to decide what to do, not furnish a complete firing solution.

Tip #2
You need very little info to start on a Normal Approach Course. When I spot a distant target at long range, I will usually make the first observation at once before I start moving (or before I change course) and start on a NAC within two minutes (before I've made the second observation. Waiting to make a series of static observations is unnecessary, and could very well allow the target to get by.

Tip #3
The last 3 or 4 observations are critical in giving you what you need for the firing solution. Don't expect long range observations to be of much help here. In fact, your plot will not usually be very neat or tidy. Errors are to be expected. Making more observations helps to "iron them out".

Tip #4
Once on a NAC, you will soon know whether or not you will be able to intercept. If you can't intercept (or at least come close), let them go by, and decide if it is worthwhile to attempt an end-around.

Tip #5
In spite of your best efforts, some targets will get by. It is not possible to intercept every target.

If your are approaching a target during daylight, you should plan on submerging soon if you haven't already done so. Don't attempt an end-around until after they have gone by. Your enemy shouldn't know you are around until, your torpedos explode under their ships.

[msumpsi]

[QUOTE=TorpX;1961635]

Yes, I play at max difficulty.

In a way, No Map Contacts, is not that much different. You need the same data that the Map Contacts would provide, but you must obtain the info yourself and accept that there will be a degree of error in your data. And, of course, it is more work on your part.

Tip #1
Your initial observations at long range will be only rough approximations. The idea is to give you enough information to decide what to do, not furnish a complete firing solution.

Tip #2
You need very little info to start on a Normal Approach Course. When I spot a distant target at long range, I will usually make the first observation at once before I start moving (or before I change course) and start on a NAC within two minutes (before I've made the second observation. Waiting to make a series of static observations is unnecessary, and could very well allow the target to get by.

Tip #3
The last 3 or 4 observations are critical in giving you what you need for the firing solution. Don't expect long range observations to be of much help here. In fact, your plot will not usually be very neat or tidy. Errors are to be expected. Making more observations helps to "iron them out".

Tip #4
Once on a NAC, you will soon know whether or not you will be able to intercept. If you can't intercept (or at least come close), let them go by, and decide if it is worthwhile to attempt an end-around.

Tip #5
In spite of your best efforts, some targets will get by. It is not possible to intercept every target.

If your are approaching a target during daylight, you should plan on submerging soon if you haven't already done so. Don't attempt an end-around until after they have gone by. Your enemy shouldn't know you are around until, your torpedos explode under their ships.

Thanks, i am getting better with playing with all off, though i really have a problem hitting task forces. Lonely merchants are peacemeal, but i found a task force of 4 CA and 2 CL with no escorts at all, and they are doing all kind of strange moves changing raws, the ship on the back comes to the lead, the lead crosses to one side, all change speed in unpreictble ways an they have not detected me.

[TorpX]

Enemy naval vessels are always the most difficult and are intended to be. If the sim is even half way capable, and the AI is doing it's job, the odds will be against you.

This reminds me of one patrol I had when I was playing SHCE. I was patrolling off a small island and there was plenty of deep water, but little shipping. IJN cruisers and destroyers periodically went north and south along the sea lanes. At least twice I made approaches, carefully plotting out their course and adjusting for the zigs, only to have them zig away and leave me with nothing. It was very frustrating. They didn't detect me; it was just a matter of their speed and course changes making it almost impossible to get a good shot. They just left me behind. The next time, I spotted another CL, and positioned myself as close to his track as possible. I kept thinking they would do the zig-zag thing again, but this time they held a straight course. It was his undoing. I was able to put a spread of four into his side and he sank like a stone. If he had zigged like the others, he most likely would have gotten by. After this, I could see why so few captains were able to sink capitol ships.