Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
GraySlayer

Dynamic Crosshairs how do they work?

61 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
578 posts
3,150 battles

Hi Guys

 

Can someone explain to me how this works please?

 

is it this..

 

1. The normal crosshair is fixed at 30 knots and you have to guess how fast the ship is going and then lead accordingly by looking at time to target on shells so BB is flat out 10 secs to target and I put the 10 check mark on his first gun and I'm good. Cruisers I lead more and DD's even more?

 

The dynamic adjusts itself according to the ship speed you're targeting so if time to target is 7 secs you just put 7 on the first turret and you're good as it is auto adjusting?

 

The reason i ask is ive gone from normal to dynamic and now my shooting is all over the place.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
281 posts

as far as i know normal one is at 20 knots and dynamic is calibrated for 30 knots speed in an unmoded scope ofc (main reason why i dont use modded ones) , dynamic just has the advantage of having ongoing numbers in all zoom levels instead of an fixed scale were no matter what zoom you use you always have the same numbers, for example your Target is an 20 knot Bb and flight time is 9 seconds with the dynamic you should aim midships  at the 6 secong mark as its 1/3rd of the calibration of your scope

 

but in general to get used to the dynamic one it helps to make yourself some" rules" for the first shot on an enemy thats going full speed and broadside, I for example will always aim and fire at the enemys bow with half of Flighttime if its an BB and with the full flight time on the frontal turrets in the Case of an CA

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,087 posts
11,852 battles

Dynamic scales with zoom, unlike static, which is, well, static and doesn't change with zoom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,359 posts
10,665 battles
2 hours ago, GraySlayer said:

The dynamic adjusts itself according to the ship speed you're targeting

No

 

Dynamic is calibrated to 30 Kts (irrespective of zoom - this is the dynamic part - zoom in and out with the roll on your mouse and you will see what I mean)

This means that if for example as ship is doing 30 Kts and the shell flight time to target is 10 seconds you lead by 10 tics. (the ship that is doing 30 Kts will be at the 10 tic mark in 10 seconds)

If the ship is doing 20 Kts and the time to target is 10 you lead by 6.67. The ship is doing 2/3 of the calibration speed - hence you lead at 2/3 of the time to target as the ship that is going slower will have covered less distance.

For our example of 20 Lead Time = 10 X 20 / 30 = 6.67

If your target is doing 40 and shell time to target is 10 then you have to lead more as that ship will cover more distance in the given time. Lead Time = 10 X 40 / 30 = 13.33

 

Hope this is helpful 

 

Regards

Saltface

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
578 posts
3,150 battles
9 minutes ago, Saltface said:

No

 

Dynamic is calibrated to 30 Kts (irrespective of zoom - this is the dynamic part - zoom in and out with the roll on your mouse and you will see what I mean)

This means that if for example as ship is doing 30 Kts and the shell flight time to target is 10 seconds you lead by 10 tics. (the ship that is doing 30 Kts will be at the 10 tic mark in 10 seconds)

If the ship is doing 20 Kts and the time to target is 10 you lead by 6.67. The ship is doing 2/3 of the calibration speed - hence you lead at 2/3 of the time to target as the ship that is going slower will have covered less distance.

For our example of 20 Lead Time = 10 X 20 / 30 = 6.67

If your target is doing 40 and shell time to target is 10 then you have to lead more as that ship will cover more distance in the given time. Lead Time = 10 X 40 / 30 = 13.33

 

Hope this is helpful 

 

Regards

Saltface

 

Ah ok. So just so im clear here.

 

Dynamic

Ship flat out side on doing 30kts

Time to target 10 secs

I am the 10 tic mark on say his first gun turret at water line and thats where my shells will land? Ish

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RNSF]
Players
1,401 posts
15,058 battles
19 minutes ago, GraySlayer said:

 

Ah ok. So just so im clear here.

 

Dynamic

Ship flat out side on doing 30kts

Time to target 10 secs

I am the 10 tic mark on say his first gun turret at water line and thats where my shells will land? Ish

Yes, precisely. 

 

That's where ship maximum speed and smoke stack can hint you of the actual speed or you adjust with second salvo.  Also if your ship is equipped with torps you can use the torp aim to see if target speed is constant, increase or decrease. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
1,202 posts
15,796 battles

I have very mixed feelings about the intuition and explanations given in some of the tutorials about the dynamic crosshair.

 

We had a heated discussion in my clan lately. Obviously I am risking a fatwa just describing my findings. Initially I was a strong "believer". I think believer is the right word, cause when you watch tutorials you believe everything is right, you don't jump into trainig room and test the robustness. So I want to make clear, I don't feel superior to any sensitive soul who went with these explanations. I went with them myself for a long time. I just over time realized the DC was very unreliable at distances shorter than ~10km. When you go into brawls and that time to target is shown to be 2-5 seconds, you still hit at a lead indicator of 9-10 on average ships, up to 13-14 for shooting russian DDs.

 

So I spent a few hours in training room, shooting at Montanas that do exactly 30 kts and other ships that are close to 25kts/20kts, to come up with a hypothesis. It appears to me that indicator is pretty much constant for a given ship-ship combination under a certain range. The indicator gets slightly smaller, around half, up to one unit, at close ranges (depending on caliber) as compared to medium ranges. I would explain that with drag.

I have yet to experience an instance, where I would even closely hit to that indicator given by the "time to target" at shorter distances.

 

The corresponding observation holds true for the other direction. When I shoot shells at very long distance, specifically large calibers that are decelerated less by air drag, they again land almost at that indicator for medium distances. The "time to target" would indicate leading by 15, yet the shells hit at 11. If anything, drag should make the shells land behind the indicated marker. Yet they don't.

 

The thing is the "time to target" seems to be correct. It is not a generic estimation. The shells are in the air for the estimated time and that is specific to the ship/guns you use. So that time accounts for drag and the shells should land on the spot, if the numbers actually meant hitting a ship at 30 kts showing perfect broadside.

 

So my alternative hypothesis is that the lead indicator does not change proportionally with time to target. My experiments suggest it is almost constant for a given ship-ship combination, with a slight quadratic adjustment for air drag, that is more pronounced with "drag queens" (e.g. USN light cruisers).

 

That's it. Don't kill the messenger.

 

 

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,133 posts
7,085 battles
1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I have very mixed feelings about the intuition and explanations given in some of the tutorials about the dynamic crosshair.

 

We had a heated discussion in my clan lately. Obviously I am risking a fatwa just describing my findings. Initially I was a strong "believer". I think believer is the right word, cause when you watch tutorials you believe everything is right, you don't jump into trainig room and test the robustness. So I want to make clear, I don't feel superior to any sensitive soul who went with these explanations. I went with them myself for a long time. I just over time realized the DC was very unreliable at distances shorter than ~10km. When you go into brawls and that time to target is shown to be 2-5 seconds, you still hit at a lead indicator of 9-10 on average ships, up to 13-14 for shooting russian DDs.

 

So I spent a few hours in training room, shooting at Montanas that do exactly 30 kts and other ships that are close to 25kts/20kts, to come up with a hypothesis. It appears to me that indicator is pretty much constant for a given ship-ship combination under a certain range. The indicator gets slightly smaller, around half, up to one unit, at close ranges (depending on caliber) as compared to medium ranges. I would explain that with drag.

I have yet to experience an instance, where I would even closely hit to that indicator given by the "time to target" at shorter distances.

 

The corresponding observation holds true for the other direction. When I shoot shells at very long distance, specifically large calibers that are decelerated less by air drag, they again land almost at that indicator for medium distances. The "time to target" would indicate leading by 15, yet the shells hit at 11. If anything, drag should make the shells land behind the indicated marker. Yet they don't.

 

The thing is the "time to target" seems to be correct. It is not a generic estimation. The shells are in the air for the estimated time and that is specific to the ship/guns you use. So that time accounts for drag and the shells should land on the spot, if the numbers actually meant hitting a ship at 30 kts showing perfect broadside.

 

So my alternative hypothesis is that the lead indicator does not change proportionally with time to target. My experiments suggest it is almost constant for a given ship-ship combination, with a slight quadratic adjustment for air drag, that is more pronounced with "drag queens" (e.g. USN light cruisers).

 

That's it. Don't kill the messenger.

 

 

That's actually extremely interesting observations. Thanks for your input, I'll do some tests myself. I'm not that surprised, I was having some identical feelings since some time, without any proof yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
312 posts

I use the Nomogram dynamic crosshair (with spider, but the spider's not too good on it.  Might revert to traditional) in Aslain's modpack.  It's indispensable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,352 posts
On 5/22/2019 at 5:13 PM, Saltface said:

No

 

Dynamic is calibrated to 30 Kts (irrespective of zoom - this is the dynamic part - zoom in and out with the roll on your mouse and you will see what I mean)

This means that if for example as ship is doing 30 Kts and the shell flight time to target is 10 seconds you lead by 10 tics. (the ship that is doing 30 Kts will be at the 10 tic mark in 10 seconds)

If the ship is doing 20 Kts and the time to target is 10 you lead by 6.67. The ship is doing 2/3 of the calibration speed - hence you lead at 2/3 of the time to target as the ship that is going slower will have covered less distance.

For our example of 20 Lead Time = 10 X 20 / 30 = 6.67

If your target is doing 40 and shell time to target is 10 then you have to lead more as that ship will cover more distance in the given time. Lead Time = 10 X 40 / 30 = 13.33

 

Hope this is helpful 

 

Regards

Saltface

I know you are a DD man,but say when you play a BB, and yous end up the spotter plane,and you want to land a perfect long range shot if for nothing else to make the other guy scream 'WTF just hit me.'

 

What is the best advice for this?

 

Btw, I use static N'o 8, I find dynamic quite hard to get used to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Moderator
4,000 posts
10,815 battles
2 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I have very mixed feelings about the intuition and explanations given in some of the tutorials about the dynamic crosshair.

 

We had a heated discussion in my clan lately. Obviously I am risking a fatwa just describing my findings. Initially I was a strong "believer". I think believer is the right word, cause when you watch tutorials you believe everything is right, you don't jump into trainig room and test the robustness. So I want to make clear, I don't feel superior to any sensitive soul who went with these explanations. I went with them myself for a long time. I just over time realized the DC was very unreliable at distances shorter than ~10km. When you go into brawls and that time to target is shown to be 2-5 seconds, you still hit at a lead indicator of 9-10 on average ships, up to 13-14 for shooting russian DDs.

 

So I spent a few hours in training room, shooting at Montanas that do exactly 30 kts and other ships that are close to 25kts/20kts, to come up with a hypothesis. It appears to me that indicator is pretty much constant for a given ship-ship combination under a certain range. The indicator gets slightly smaller, around half, up to one unit, at close ranges (depending on caliber) as compared to medium ranges. I would explain that with drag.

I have yet to experience an instance, where I would even closely hit to that indicator given by the "time to target" at shorter distances.

 

The corresponding observation holds true for the other direction. When I shoot shells at very long distance, specifically large calibers that are decelerated less by air drag, they again land almost at that indicator for medium distances. The "time to target" would indicate leading by 15, yet the shells hit at 11. If anything, drag should make the shells land behind the indicated marker. Yet they don't.

 

The thing is the "time to target" seems to be correct. It is not a generic estimation. The shells are in the air for the estimated time and that is specific to the ship/guns you use. So that time accounts for drag and the shells should land on the spot, if the numbers actually meant hitting a ship at 30 kts showing perfect broadside.

 

So my alternative hypothesis is that the lead indicator does not change proportionally with time to target. My experiments suggest it is almost constant for a given ship-ship combination, with a slight quadratic adjustment for air drag, that is more pronounced with "drag queens" (e.g. USN light cruisers).

 

That's it. Don't kill the messenger.

 

 

I told you this may be five times,
and will tell it here the last time,

do you really believe that, WG would put angles on crosshair instead of seconds..
and expect his own community to calculate firing angles including the ship angles they are firing, and speed and his/her own shell type and drag?

do you really think that WG believes that much in their community?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
1,202 posts
15,796 battles
23 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

Do you really think that WG believes that much in their community?

WG believes enough in their community to give it ballistic gun trajectories and a sophisticated and ship-specific armor layout, all of which require some basic understanding of physics to make it work for you. If they deemed us that stupid, WoWs would be a 3D-version of Space Invaders.

 

And you don't understand that aiming according to my theory doesn't make things more complicated. You just need to find that ship-specific lead indicator and adjust it for drag, the speed and the relative angle of the target, which is what you did up to now anyway. I find it actually more complicated to see a time to target of 2-5 seconds and come up with a weird explanation as to why I have to double/triple that all of a sudden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
1,202 posts
15,796 battles

It's very nice that you link those discussions. I mean I see the effort and I appreciate it. This is how the internet works. Someone reads something and he cites it and then somebody cites that guy and through multiple cross-references something becomes an omnipresent verified truth. The bit about the ship's speed is beside the point as I also say speed and angle matter. You know me, I am not the guy to go to claims and counter-claims and at the end everybody is stubborn and tries to be right just for the sake of being right. I started with these very same informations that you cited, more than a year ago. Back then I switched from static to dynamic crosshair.

I initially used the method as described by iChase, which says you got to imagine a battleship and aim for its imaginary bow to hit at the center of any ship. That seemed to work sometimes at a limited range. Then I came across Notser's video who talked about the seconds. Funny fact: When I recently watched that video again, while Notser shoots at certain targets and talks about leading it by a certain amount, you see him leading it differently and hitting.

 

So again, I did not come up with my hypothesis out of thin air. I did not start by ignoring everything that was there. I used what was there for a long time and eventually found it dissatisfying. So I did what seemed the right approach, come up with a test environment that replicates results for normal and extreme conditions. I don't spend hours in training room to test a theory if it was roughly accurate, just for fun, it's not that thrilling.

 

Also I did not just make some claim, I tried to show you. We went into training room and I told you my time to target to your Monti was 3 seconds. So you told me to aim at 6 for whatever reason. And the shells hit at 9, just as my theory had predicted. Before that we did the same at long range and the time was 15 seconds. So, if I remember correctly, you told me to aim at 15. And the shells hit at 11, just as my theory had predicted. And you saw that as a verification of the existing theory and told me to shut up and refused to switch seats to see for yourself. How is that a "scientific"? The replay of our first try (long range, Musashi vs. Monti) was deleted, but I still have the close range replay (NO vs. Monti). See for yourself.

20190623_175717_PASC107-New-Orlean-1944_00_CO_ocean.wowsreplay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,359 posts
10,665 battles
5 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I have very mixed feelings about the intuition and explanations given in some of the tutorials about the dynamic crosshair.

 

We had a heated discussion in my clan lately. Obviously I am risking a fatwa just describing my findings. Initially I was a strong "believer". I think believer is the right word, cause when you watch tutorials you believe everything is right, you don't jump into trainig room and test the robustness. So I want to make clear, I don't feel superior to any sensitive soul who went with these explanations. I went with them myself for a long time. I just over time realized the DC was very unreliable at distances shorter than ~10km. When you go into brawls and that time to target is shown to be 2-5 seconds, you still hit at a lead indicator of 9-10 on average ships, up to 13-14 for shooting russian DDs.

 

So I spent a few hours in training room, shooting at Montanas that do exactly 30 kts and other ships that are close to 25kts/20kts, to come up with a hypothesis. It appears to me that indicator is pretty much constant for a given ship-ship combination under a certain range. The indicator gets slightly smaller, around half, up to one unit, at close ranges (depending on caliber) as compared to medium ranges. I would explain that with drag.

I have yet to experience an instance, where I would even closely hit to that indicator given by the "time to target" at shorter distances.

 

The corresponding observation holds true for the other direction. When I shoot shells at very long distance, specifically large calibers that are decelerated less by air drag, they again land almost at that indicator for medium distances. The "time to target" would indicate leading by 15, yet the shells hit at 11. If anything, drag should make the shells land behind the indicated marker. Yet they don't.

 

The thing is the "time to target" seems to be correct. It is not a generic estimation. The shells are in the air for the estimated time and that is specific to the ship/guns you use. So that time accounts for drag and the shells should land on the spot, if the numbers actually meant hitting a ship at 30 kts showing perfect broadside.

 

So my alternative hypothesis is that the lead indicator does not change proportionally with time to target. My experiments suggest it is almost constant for a given ship-ship combination, with a slight quadratic adjustment for air drag, that is more pronounced with "drag queens" (e.g. USN light cruisers).

 

That's it. Don't kill the messenger.

You are not a believer. You just displayed critical thinking.

I ll do some tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,359 posts
10,665 battles
3 hours ago, NoobySkooby said:

What is the best advice for this?

The biggest problem of the spotter plane view is that it changes (increases) the altitude of the observer.

 

The altitude of the observer when you go in binocular view is that of the gun camera altitude. It appears that every gun (or gun group) has a camera view and you can alternate between cameras with the C key. Check the settings to enable or disable automatic camera view change. It also shows on the Compass which camera you are using.

 

Now, you (your brain) are used (accustomed) to this perspective (binocular) and your brain has adjusted to it. So, most estimations of course, speed and so on are "unconscious". By changing the perspective you add a significant difficulty factor. You now have to "calculate consciously". where the target will be after a given time.

 

Training is one solution if not the only solution. Also, I could suggest you use one of those cross-hairs that have diagonal lines. This will help you better estimate the motion vector of the ship.

 

I tried spotter planes. I never liked them. But I have managed to land a few WTF shots. Mind you that damage is an inverse function of distance. The further away the less damage. And...your detectability radius is extended as well.

 

Hope I helped

Regards

Saltface

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,359 posts
10,665 battles

@HMS_Kilinowski

 

From some research it appears that the dynamic cross-hair is calibrated for 30 kts at 15 km. So it is not so dynamic after all.

So a ship that is sailing flat broadside doing 30 Kts at 15 Km distance will cover one tick per second.

Having that in mind if the target is closer you need to lead less and if the target is further away you need to lead more.

Same applies for target speed. If target is doing less than 30 Kts you need to lead less.

 

As a rule of thumb the following can be useful (for a ship that is making 30 Kts)

At 20 Km Distance you must lead by 4/3 of the time to target, at 10 Km by 2/3 and at 5 Km by 1/3.

 

Now if you want to make calculations (LOL) your lead is (for a ship that makes 30 Kts):

 

L = D/15 * FT

where:

L is the Lead

D is the distance to target

FT is the flight time

 

Now add the Speed and your formula becomes

 

L = D/15 * FT *S/30

where:

S is the speed of the target

 

I think you better aim a few thousand times and get the feel of it.

 

The attached is a graphic solution to the problem

Vertical axis marks the distance of the target. Diagonal lines mark the speed of the target.

Find the intersection point of your diagonal line representing the speed and the horizontal line representing the distance. Count the ticks on the horizontal axis, divide by 30 and multiply by the time to target. You just found your lead.

 

Conclusion - Practice and learn to aim

 

676969303_graphic001.thumb.jpg.2a4c419c2657c41f779458bade7d59cf.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by Saltface
NEEDS VERIFICATION - TESTS ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
[BYOB]
Players
4,609 posts
20,415 battles
5 hours ago, Ace42X said:

I use the Nomogram dynamic crosshair (with spider, but the spider's not too good on it.  Might revert to traditional) in Aslain's modpack.  It's indispensable.

I like the spider, it helps with firing when using the spotter plane. And I can't live without the double calculation for two speeds.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
312 posts
13 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

I like the spider, it helps with firing when using the spotter plane. And I can't live without the double calculation for two speeds.


I think my issue with the spider is it confuses me.  Ideally I'd want radial lines across the spider legs, and interval dots along them - possibly with the legs extending a bit further.  As it stands, if I want to aim in the path of a ship, I simply look at the minimap and put the ranging circle along the bow-line of what I'm shooting at.  I find using that as a rule of thumb generally works better than using the dynamics to try and deduce lead when at that distance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
1,202 posts
15,796 battles
44 minutes ago, Saltface said:

@HMS_Kilinowski

 

From some research it appears that the dynamic cross-hair is calibrated for 30 kts at 15 km. So it is not so dynamic after all.

So a ship that is sailing flat broadside doing 30 Kts at 15 Km distance will cover one tick per second.

That is interesting. I will have to test that.

 

Only one thing strikes me right now: If a ship traverses one tick per second that would be like lining up a straightedge along the path of the ship.

In fact, when I go into the center of a cap and zoom out, so I can see the maximum length of the crosshair (it ends with a marker of 70) and I look at the buoys they seem to be in equal distance towards each other and they are also in equal distance along the crosshair. Now if the crosshair was straight, the distance of the bouys would increase along the ticks going away from the center, cause of the way you project an arc on a straight. That however is not the case. The distance stays the same. So I think that crosshair is more like an arc if you were to look at it from the top. Practically it makes no difference as the angle the crosshair covers is so small, it converges to a straight line. Call it a side note.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTR3M]
Players
134 posts
9,348 battles
12 hours ago, peoplescavalry said:

Or just SWAG it( scientific wild arsed guess).

That`s what i do and dynamic crosshair (or any other that you are used to) is good enough for that.

 

All those descriptions are more like guide lines, not an absolute rules, because there is "unknown" or "guess" variables.

For example, ship speed, you can`t be absolutely sure about that - does target have "go faster" signal, NoS in use (if equipped), accelerate, decelerate, micro corrections of heading can also shave some speed ... and it is all about hitting ship in game, not in training room.

 

btw @HMS_Kilinowski despite my last remark, i do not think that you wasted time there.

If more detailed understanding helps you to hit target more consistently, it is well spent time.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
1,202 posts
15,796 battles
2 hours ago, biker_618 said:

That`s what i do and dynamic crosshair (or any other that you are used to) is good enough for that.

 

All those descriptions are more like guide lines, not an absolute rules, because there is "unknown" or "guess" variables.

For example, ship speed, you can`t be absolutely sure about that - does target have "go faster" signal, NoS in use (if equipped), accelerate, decelerate, micro corrections of heading can also shave some speed ... and it is all about hitting ship in game, not in training room.

That is one point. Ofc there is is hardly ever a lab experiment situation in the game, which is why players accept certain tutorials on mechanics easily. You don't run frequently into the obvious situations, where you think the presented explanation is insufficient.

Still, as blurry as ingame situations may be, the models on gunnery are well-defined and specific. There certainly are no lines of code overcomplicating the flight characteristics of shells more than necessary. As I understand it, there is a term in that equation that randomizes the aiming point by a variance parameter "maximum dispersion" and a kurtosis parameter "sigma". The reason it is there is not to create an accurate model of gunnery, but to introduce an element of uncertainty, that levels the field a bit between the good players hitting citadels at max range and the beginners.

 

So, if I shoot targets at close range and I suddenly have to add double or triple the amount of lead suggested by the crosshair, I highly doubt there is some hidden mechanic at work. How should I picture that model? That there is a huge initial drag at the first few kilometers that slows down the shell, so it lags behind and then suddenly the shell accelerates to hit on the marker at around 10 km, overtakes the marker to finally be dragged again and hit on the marker? There is no physical intuition behind that idea at all.

2 hours ago, biker_618 said:

 

btw @HMS_Kilinowski despite my last remark, i do not think that you wasted time there.

If more detailed understanding helps you to hit target more consistently, it is well spent time.

Well, actually in these situations that I missed before, I now hit very consistently. The problem is that the tools we get from WG to test ideas, are very limited. You cannot put a bot into trainings room, set a specific route, speed and behaviour. You cannot make ships visible at an arbitrary range. So, many times you will need a second, equally motivated person, to control the other ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,352 posts
1 hour ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

That is one point. Ofc there is is hardly ever a lab experiment situation in the game, which is why players accept certain tutorials on mechanics easily. You don't run frequently into the obvious situations, where you think the presented explanation is insufficient.

Still, as blurry as ingame situations may be, the models on gunnery are well-defined and specific. There certainly are no lines of code overcomplicating the flight characteristics of shells more than necessary. As I understand it, there is a term in that equation that randomizes the aiming point by a variance parameter "maximum dispersion" and a kurtosis parameter "sigma". The reason it is there is not to create an accurate model of gunnery, but to introduce an element of uncertainty, that levels the field a bit between the good players hitting citadels at max range and the beginners.

 

So, if I shoot targets at close range and I suddenly have to add double or triple the amount of lead suggested by the crosshair, I highly doubt there is some hidden mechanic at work. How should I picture that model? That there is a huge initial drag at the first few kilometers that slows down the shell, so it lags behind and then suddenly the shell accelerates to hit on the marker at around 10 km, overtakes the marker to finally be dragged again and hit on the marker? There is no physical intuition behind that idea at all.

Well, actually in these situations that I missed before, I now hit very consistently. The problem is that the tools we get from WG to test ideas, are very limited. You cannot put a bot into trainings room, set a specific route, speed and behaviour. You cannot make ships visible at an arbitrary range. So, many times you will need a second, equally motivated person, to control the other ship.

As the king of potatoes, I offer my services, it seems everyone else can hit lickety split, I sometimes feel like a target drone:Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×