What scope mod do you use

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Poacher886

The other anoyance is the measured height of the ship...im not convinced it is always the top of the flag i.e the mast that is the correct aiming point!.

Also if the ship is on an angle the masts are at different heights..it would be better to have it "zeroed" to the top of a funnel!

Infact better still would be the manual including a difinative line showing the true aiming mark.

Also, i was advised the calculation for MRP x6 on my 1920x1200 monitor was for the Attack scope:

Mastx400
---------
Mill count

And for the Op scope:

Mastx100
---------
Mill count

I was'nt convinced that there was any difference between the Op scope and Attack scope, both being 1x and 6x and both Mills looking exactly spaced apart.
I decided while outward bound in the harbour to bring my boat to a complete stop a fair distance from a static ship (the more distance to exaggerate any error).

I took a reading through the Attack scope on x6 and it worked out 2.1, i then took a reading through the Ops scope on x6 and it turned out ......2.1! i even paused the game to get absolute accuracy with no bobbing!

My thoughs thus have been confirmed, there is, and should not be any difference in calculation when using either scope.

Then i worked out the distance using the above calcualtion and it came to about 4500m....i then went to the map and used the ruler which showed it as 4300m, close but not close enough, thus i have now revised my calculation to:

Mastx380
---------
Mill count

I've sunk a few since at 3000m+ but i've also missed a few (though using the new blck/copper torps) might be the issue. In fairness given the torpedo problems present in-game (and history) its to early to confim my calculations yet.

If you are using MRP 1.3 w. 8x5 patch (I also play at 1920x1200), I can confirm the reading is accurate from the top of the highest mast. The correct formula to determine range is:

-at 1.5x zoom: (mast height in meters x 100) / horizontal bars

-at 6x zoom: (mast height in meters x 400) / horizontal bars

In version 1.3, there is no longer a difference between observation and attack scopes. Each "horizontal bar" equals 10 mils. for example, if a Liberty Ship is 4 bars high at 6x, the range is 27.2x400/4=2,720 meters.

This works with both the stock game and TDW's UI.

[GT182]

Using stock scopes cause for the life of me I can't get any of the scope mods to work.... so far.

Not sure if it's because I added them while in the campaign and not before I started it. I like the looks of TDW's, and the other scopes too. I just wish they were a separate stand-alone mod that you didn't have to fiddle with to get working. Install and it works with no cfg changes or searching thru UIs to find it.

[Poacher886]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

If you are using MRP 1.3 w. 8x5 patch (I also play at 1920x1200), I can confirm the reading is accurate from the top of the highest mast. The correct formula to determine range is:

-at 1.5x zoom: (mast height in meters x 100) / horizontal bars

-at 6x zoom: (mast height in meters x 400) / horizontal bars

In version 1.3, there is no longer a difference between observation and attack scopes. Each "horizontal bar" equals 10 mils. for example, if a Liberty Ship is 4 bars high at 6x, the range is 27.2x400/4=2,720 meters.

This works with both the stock game and TDW's UI.

Thanks, that good to hear that the mast is always the point of aim, i am as you suggested using the same scope mod and resolution, thus its good to hear from others who have tested!

How can you confirm that 100 and 400 is the correct reading? certainly i can be sure of my visual v Map check was accurate and that told me this was about 250m out.

Is it just by use you suggest the above values?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Poacher886

Thanks, that good to hear that the mast is always the point of aim, i am as you suggested using the same scope mod and resolution, thus its good to hear from others who have tested!

How can you confirm that 100 and 400 is the correct reading? certainly i can be sure of my visual v Map check was accurate and that told me this was about 250m out.

Is it just by use you suggest the above values?

You can find that formula discussed in the original Arclight MRP thread (at p. 4-5).

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=165408

When I reinstalled the game recently, I measured the range as calculated with the formula against the range as measured on the map, with map updates on, to confirm that the range reading was correct.

In my last campaign patrol w. map updates off, 100% realism, using that formula, I hit and sank 3 out of 3 ships, range 1200-1500 meters, target speeds 11-16 knots, w. 8 out of 9 eels hitting their targets.

[Poacher886]

I'll give it ago, though 1200-1500m is very short, and would allow for alot of error. Im finding im having to take shots at 3000m+ even in the dark.

That said, its the radio messages of "Submarine sighted" that are causing me to take immediate action at range, though i've not noticed the convoy's speeding up and veering off once they have "indicated" they have seen me!

[Xrundel]

Originally Posted by Poacher886

I'll give it ago, though 1200-1500m is very short, and would allow for alot of error. Im finding im having to take shots at 3000m+ even in the dark.

That said, its the radio messages of "Submarine sighted" that are causing me to take immediate action at range, though i've not noticed the convoy's speeding up and veering off once they have "indicated" they have seen me!

On 1200m I don't even need TDC .

Convoys don't speed up after spotting you because convoy's speed is adjusted to slowest ship speed (as in real life) and if speed of convoy 10 kts what they going to increase it to? 11-12? Instead they starting zigzagin as anti-torpedo maneuvers. And slow down usually to half of original speed.

I chose emtguf over Manos or MRP. It's like an eye -opener after others. Takes most of my 26" 1960x1200 screen, other scopes are like peeking through door lock hole compare to this one. I love MRP's crosshair (for some reason everyone is making lines and bars in FOV (Field Of View) as tick as a blue wale tongue). In real periscopes lines are thick enough for just to see them - thinner they are - more presicion with measurements taken via observations.

Another thing that I don't get at all - why Arclight after all that titanic work desided to darken view in his scope enough to watch spots on the Sun in real life? I am amateur astronomer (at least used to be) and know thing or two about optics. It's so God damn dark that he even came up with "Light" version of the mod but still too dark to my taste.
Where those ideas about "periscope is hardly usable at night" come from? If you think about it - ALL THE TELESCOPES HAVE TO BE TROWN AWAY because it's a night time.
Germans had BEST OPTICS during 20th century period. They optics were anti-light reflection coated way before anyone would even consider it. German naval artillery was feared by every British ship crew. Because of two factors. Krupp steel precision made guns, unmatched by anyone in the world. And Karl-Zeiss optical range finders. Also unmatched by anyone in the world. That's why German battleship was able to open EFFECTIVE fire BEFORE British were able to answer with more or less acceptable presicion. That's how HMS Hood was sunk by Bismark in the first salvo.
I've learn all of this from my teachers in Naval academy because my specialty was ship's firepower.

Now back to German periscopes and how dark image could be. Light entering optical tube (periscope is folded kind of tube, got two 90 degree light path bends) got reflected of any optical surface (like glass or aluminum used for mirror coating). Uncoated glass surface can reflect back about 15-20% of the light thus making passed light "weaker" (darker) letting about 80-85% of light pass trough. Light also could be dispersed inside of matter like thick glass (periscopes used prisms). There is 3 ways to fight it.

1. Reduce amount of lenses (need advanced optics design skills that Germans had).
2. Use anti-reflection coating (that Germans developed) that will let about 93% or more of photons to pass through.
3. Use highest quality aluminum coating for mirror parts (they got it covered as well) that allows 99% or more of photons to be reflected (redirected) down the light path.
4. Increase aperture of the objective.

Slight increase of aperture does miracles because it is proportionate to the square increase in light amount entered the scope. I do believe that German builders were able to create adequate aperture for the purpose.
Light will end up in 5-9mm circle. that represent size of the human's dark-adapted eye pupil. It can't be bigger than this - just no use for more. So if we just open tube on the front end a little - we got huge increase of photons reaching our retina.

Last thing. During night observations (astronomical or military etc.) it is very important to keep eyes dark adaptation. That's why all astronomical flashlights have red filter on. That's why any illuminated eyepiece have RED illumination inside of it. Not Green. Green kills dark adaptation, you have to spend another 15-30 minutes to get adapted to darkness again (eye's pupil opens as wide as possible).
Now you probably know why sub have red interior light at night, not the strobes or laser show like in night clubs?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Xrundel

Where those ideas about "periscope is hardly usable at night" come from? If you think about it - ALL THE TELESCOPES HAVE TO BE TROWN AWAY because it's a night time.

Before you lecture people it helps to get all the facts. For whatever reason, the fact is that attack periscopes were indeed not very good for night use, which is why they had the observation periscopes with larger heads.

The term attack periscope is applied to a periscope with a minimum diameter of head at the sacrifice of light transmission and diameter of exit pupil.

http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/pscope/chap1.htm#1A
Section 1A4: Useful Definitions.

Germans had BEST OPTICS during 20th century period. They optics were anti-light reflection coated way before anyone would even consider it.

And the Germans also had separate observation and attack periscopes, because the attack 'scope was made as small as possible to reduce the chance of it's being seen in the daytime, and it was pretty much blind at night.

German naval artillery was feared by every British ship crew. Because of two factors. Krupp steel precision made guns, unmatched by anyone in the world. And Karl-Zeiss optical range finders. Also unmatched by anyone in the world. That's why German battleship was able to open EFFECTIVE fire BEFORE British were able to answer with more or less acceptable presicion. That's how HMS Hood was sunk by Bismark in the first salvo.

1) Battleship rangefinders have stereoscopic prisms that are more than 13 meters apart. This is not at all comparable to the system used in submarine periscopes.

2) Bismarck opened effective fire earlier because the British mistook Prinz Eugen for Bismarck, and then tried to close the range rather than return fire.

3) If it was because of the superior rangefinders, then why several days later were King George V and Rodney devastatingly effective, while Bismarck didn't score a single hit?

I've learn all of this from my teachers in Naval academy because my specialty was ship's firepower.

I'll be glad to have that discussion with you in depth, because the design of warships and their armament is a favorite field of study.

Last thing. During night observations (astronomical or military etc.) it is very important to keep eyes dark adaptation. That's why all astronomical flashlights have red filter on. That's why any illuminated eyepiece have RED illumination inside of it. Not Green. Green kills dark adaptation, you have to spend another 15-30 minutes to get adapted to darkness again (eye's pupil opens as wide as possible).
Now you probably know why sub have red interior light at night, not the strobes or laser show like in night clubs?

It's my understanding that the eyepieces of submarine periscopes weren't illuminated at all. The lines were treated with a phosphorescent substance to make them glow in the dark, and to the best of my knowledge that phosphorescence was green. You could be right, but around here we consider it rude to laugh at people and lecture them like they were children. We're all working together to make the game as realistic as possible, and talking down to people won't make them listen.

[Torpedo]

I'm using Manos Scope with a change for gap - HD 1 deg Scope Bearing v 1.0. and a thiny crosshair also at night.



If anyone is interested I can make a small mod.

Torpedo

[TheDarkWraith]

Originally Posted by Torpedo

I'm using Manos Scope with a change for gap - HD 1 deg Scope Bearing v 1.0. and a thiny crosshair also at night.

If anyone is interested I can make a small mod.

Torpedo

Please do

[Torpedo]

The purpose of this modification is only to make a very thiny crosshair, especially with the use of mod "gap - HD 1 Scope Bearing v 1.0 deg".
All my credits to Makman94 for his outstanding work.





The link of "Manos Scopes modded by Torpedo":

http://www.gamefront.com/files/20319...by_Torpedo_zip

Torpedo

[Xrundel]

Very nice! That's what I am talking about.
Can you make it for emtguf's version of the scope?
Is that possible?
I had problems with Manos version being slightly off in calibration for RAOFB, emgulf is working perfectly for me.
Thank you for effort in any case!

[Torpedo]

Hi Xrundel!
This is a version of emtguf_rscopes whit thiny crosshair for the day and the night. I can make the other grids only in green. Tell me if you want that.



the link for "emtguf_rscopes whit thiny crosshair by Torpedo.zip" :

http://www.gamefront.com/files/20321...by_Torpedo_zip

Torpedo

[Xrundel]

Thanks, man. It is perfect!
I am a control freak, sorry. My measurements got to be as precise as possible. I think it is all -my-early-life-psychological-trauma related thing. When I was 19 they told me that either I take my time and do good job with preparation to attack, or if I miss - they (Americans at that time in history) will hit me hard and I won't see my momma ever again . I remember one dude during lecture missed some info from teacher's "recon report" and dared to ask again. High-ranking Navy officer approach him, and yelled in his ear " I am dead, God damn it!!! Artillery shell just exploded 3 meters away from my balls! What are you gonna do now, sailor, after missing such a key information? There is no one to ask about it again!" And he hit his shoulder with wooden stick that was intended to use as a pointer. Stick broke in half and we were rolling on the floor laughing through tears.
I can go on and on, have so many funny stories... That "dude" by the way is now commander of escort ship in Pacific. His shoulder is OK.

[Arclight]

Right, to answer those "questions":

Scopes are as dark as they are because, to the best of my knowledge, that's how they were. I can't find the exact source right now (the report on a captured U-boot. Contains exact measurements regarding light transmission), but iirc 60 to 70% of the light was lost in the attack scope. Observation scope didn't fare much better. Both were pretty much useless at night, even under favorable conditions.

As an amateur astronomer, I'm sure you know telescopes are designed to gather as much light as possible. This is simply not the case for WWII submarine periscopes. First concern was to minimize detection, with stealth being a submarines main asset.

Color for the filters is, again, how it was. US used green, red and yellow while Germany opted for orange and a deep neutral iirc.

http://www.cyber-heritage.co.uk/cutaway/pic26.jpg
http://www.cyber-heritage.co.uk/cutaway/pic28.jpg
http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/pscope/chap6c.htm#6N
This should give an impression of how unliked the scopes were for night use: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5...page&q&f=false
And this actually lists some light transmission values, around 25-30%: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5...page&q&f=false

If you have any proof that I did something wrong, please show me. The aim is to make them as realistic as possible, so I'd certainly want to know if they were lacking in that regard.

[Xrundel]

If you have any proof that I did something wrong, please show me. The aim is to make them as realistic as possible, so I'd certainly want to know if they were lacking in that regard.

Take it easy - you did just fine.

Periscopes was not useless at night, trust me on that. Ghunter Prien would not be able to sneak in Scapa Flow at night without using one.
I've look throgh Russiam periscope of old (1956 project) Russian diesel sub with periscopes of same (stolen/copied after German's of course) optical train. They not so dark that you can not see anything at night.
I prefer instead of googling things speak up my own life experience.
When certain amount light enters hole 50mm diameter and ends up in hole 5mm diameter (size of your pupil) it got INTENSIFIED. It's a flow of photons - think about it as an air flow. even if 50% of the total amount photons entered got reflected back or dispersed due optical imperfections - still you receive more light looking through scope than just looking using naked eye.
That's just the laws of physics and light is nothing more than another short-wave radiation.

You did good job with your mod. Just my personal experiense and education made me make some suggestions about that maybe it is better under-do some thing than over-do. It just a suggestion, not personal insult. So please take it easy.