![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
![]() |
#11 | |
Silent Hunter
![]() Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: AN9771
Posts: 4,904
Downloads: 304
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
Stock SH3's solution with a horizontal line moving up and down the scope isn't actually very far off the truth from what I understand. You just have to imagine the thin line is actually the bottom of the second image of the target. OLC or Joegrundman's solution seem both to be a solution that is a strep backwards technology wise (IMHO), but appearantly required because of the limitations sh3 has. If you want to do without the notepad. They had to resort to measuring the objects size relative to a fixed scopemarks in the optics. Joegrundman then seems to separate range measurements from the AOB calculation, where as OLC tried to integrate them as best as possible. I prefer the latter, but whether either was historically correct I don't know. Anyway, I think OLC had to use doubled mastheight values because range calculations are done with the full observed mastheight, whereas he did AOB based on only halve the ship's observed length. So he needed to stuck a factor of 2 somewhere. This must have been the easiest solution to him, a modder's perogative. If one used a procedure using all the horizontal marks from bow to stern this would not have been neccesary. However, it's tricky counting marks that way, and the inside marks on the middle wheel are not enough in most 'near' situations. But I stand ready to be corrected if I am wrong in any of my assumptions. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|