Slava,Thunderer, Yamato, Kremlin dispersion

[Beastofwar]

Do the elipses say anything useful ?

 

LWM does this with displaying clutters of hits. Meaning repetitive clusters of  hits where a ship would be are much more meaningful then a spray of hits all around such an ellips even if it is smaller then that of another ship.  Because near the edge of the ellips they will miss a ship anyway obviously.

 

It is quite like the bomb reticule and bomb falling pattern........you can gloriously miss all bombs with GZ/EL divebombers if you do not regognise their widening X patterned bomb fall that typically land in the water on each side of a ships hull when you attack from bow/stern like other dive/carpet bombers. Yet their reticule is small among dive bombers giving the impression they are more accurate....But then again we often have to hear how "trash" these CV's are. So they are not accurate in a sense you would expect. Hit pattern clutters would make that much more clear. Empty ellipses do not.

 

 

[Miscommunication_dept]

21 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

Do the elipses say anything useful ?

 

LWM does this with displaying clutters of hits. Meaning repetitive clusters of  hits where a ship would be are much more meaningful then a spray of hits all around such an ellips even if it is smaller then that of another ship.  Because near the edge of the ellips they will miss a ship anyway obviously.

 

It is quite like the bomb reticule and bomb falling pattern........you can gloriously miss all bombs with GZ/EL divebombers if you do not regognise their widening X patterned bomb fall that typically land in the water on each side of a ships hull when you attack from bow/stern like other dive/carpet bombers. Yet their reticule is small among dive bombers giving the impression they are more accurate....But then again we often have to hear how "trash" these CV's are. So they are not accurate in a sense you would expect. Hit pattern clutters would make that much more clear. Empty ellipses do not.

 

 

Yes but they only show Horizontal and Vertical dispersion.

We have to also take into account the sigma value and the angle of shell fall as the dispersion ellipse is built on a plane rather than top down.

 

It's an incomplete picture but a useful guide.

[_HomTanks_]

2 hours ago, HassenderZerhacker said:

complaints about necroposting is symptomatic of what's wrong with today's people's attention span of a few minutes.

Necroposting is what’s wrong, not the complaints about it. Ask moderators why they lock down necro threads.

[Bellegar]

5 minutes ago, Execute0rder66 said:

Necroposting is what’s wrong, not the complaints about it. Ask moderators why they lock down necro threads.

There's nothing wrong with necroposting. If the original discussion is still relevant, I prefer using the same thread instead of cluttering the forums with new threads every time. 

 

That being said, I also enjoy posting necropost memes. So here's obligatory necromancy meme 

[_HomTanks_]

8 minutes ago, Bellegar said:

There's nothing wrong with necroposting. If the original discussion is still relevant, I prefer using the same thread instead of cluttering the forums with new threads every time. 

 

That being said, I also enjoy posting necropost memes. So here's obligatory necromancy meme 

Making a new thread is better. Necroposting is annoying as many things get irrelevant in time. 

[HassenderZerhacker]

25 minutes ago, Execute0rder66 said:

Making a new thread is better. Necroposting is annoying as many things get irrelevant in time. 

no, if the original topic of the old thread is still the current question being discussed, continuing the old thread is better.

 

 

[_HomTanks_]

5 minutes ago, HassenderZerhacker said:

no, if the original topic of the old thread is still the current question being discussed, continuing the old thread is better.

 

 

Yea well, how is Slava's pre-release shell distribution is relevant to now?

[HassenderZerhacker]

Just now, Execute0rder66 said:

Yea well, how is Slava's pre-release shell distribution is relevant to now?

well, has the distribution been changed?

[Miscommunication_dept]

Slavas dispersion has not been changed.

 

Or at least Wargaming hasn’t said they changed it.

[_HomTanks_]

25 minutes ago, HassenderZerhacker said:

well, has the distribution been changed?

Doesn't matter. Are the 10-15 posts back then questioning the dispersion relevant as it is already known now?

[Miscommunication_dept]

I'm not sure less than 4 months counts as a necro...

 

Anywho, This 3 year old post from Sub_octavian corrects some incorrect assumptions from previous posts:

 

 

 

[viceadmiral123]

Picture shows: Yamato has slightly better horizontal dispersion, but significantly worse vertical dispersion compared to Kremlin. So, Kremlin has better accuracy than Yamato at >15km ranges...

Same goes for Slava vs Thunderer - both ships have incredible accuracy, but Thunderer's vertical spread is noticeably worse.

[asalonen]

10 hours ago, viceadmiral123 said:

Picture shows: Yamato has slightly better horizontal dispersion, but significantly worse vertical dispersion compared to Kremlin. So, Kremlin has better accuracy than Yamato at >15km ranges...

Anybody who has played Yamato and Kremlin in game knows that the opposite is true. Yamato is great at long ranges and Kremlin is really quite awful. 

 

Picture seems deeply flawed... 

[Miscommunication_dept]

1 hour ago, asalonen said:

Anybody who has played Yamato and Kremlin in game knows that the opposite is true. Yamato is great at long ranges and Kremlin is really quite awful. 

 

Picture seems deeply flawed... 

That may well be due to their sigma rating (2.1 vs 1.8).

 

Wargaming have said before that IJN battleships have good horizontal dispersion  but poor vertical dispersion. Kremlin has far better vertical dispersion but still has decent horizontal dispersion.

 

 

[Bellegar]

16 hours ago, Execute0rder66 said:

Making a new thread is better. Necroposting is annoying as many things get irrelevant in time. 

Except when it doesn't get irrelevant 

 

I just told you in the post you quoted that the old thread is preferred if the discussion is still relevant. Your reading skills need some polish. 

 

15 hours ago, Execute0rder66 said:

Doesn't matter. Are the 10-15 posts back then questioning the dispersion relevant as it is already known now?

Dispersion didn't change, so yes they are. 

[_HomTanks_]

 

2 minutes ago, Bellegar said:

 

I just told you in the post you quoted that the old thread is preferred if the discussion is still relevant. Your reading skills need some polish. 

 

Dispersion didn't change, so yes they are. 

And i wrote people asking about dispersion pre-release Slava compared to today as it is released and everything is known about the ships makes it irrelevant. 

It is not my reading skills but your comprehension skills that suffer. Try re-doing elementary school.

[Echo_519]

Vor 22 Stunden, Beastofwar sagte:

LWM does this with displaying clutters of hits. Meaning repetitive clusters of  hits where a ship would be are much more meaningful then a spray of hits all around such an ellips even if it is smaller then that of another ship.  Because near the edge of the ellips they will miss a ship anyway obviously.

 

It is quite like the bomb reticule and bomb falling pattern........you can gloriously miss all bombs with GZ/EL divebombers if you do not regognise their widening X patterned bomb fall that typically land in the water on each side of a ships hull when you attack from bow/stern like other dive/carpet bombers. Yet their reticule is small among dive bombers giving the impression they are more accurate....But then again we often have to hear how "trash" these CV's are. So they are not accurate in a sense you would expect. Hit pattern clutters would make that much more clear. Empty ellipses do not.

The dispersion values, and therefore also the dispersion-elipses, only tell you where 50% of the shells will land. The other 50% of the shells will land outside the dispersion-elipse. 

I'd asume the same thing applies to bombers and rocketplanes... 

So, if you know what maximum dispersion actually means in this game, it's working as intended...

[__Helmut_Kohl__]

1 hour ago, Echo_519 said:

The dispersion values, and therefore also the dispersion-elipses, only tell you where 50% of the shells will land. The other 50% of the shells will land outside the dispersion-elipse. 

I'd asume the same thing applies to bombers and rocketplanes... 

So, if you know what maximum dispersion actually means in this game, it's working as intended...

 

Certainly not, at least with regard to the rockets/bombs.

[Echo_519]

Vor 2 Stunden, __Helmut_Kohl__ sagte:

 

Certainly not, at least with regard to the rockets/bombs.

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gunnery_and_Aiming#Shell_dispersion

Might want to read this then ;)

[__Helmut_Kohl__]

1 hour ago, Echo_519 said:

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gunnery_and_Aiming#Shell_dispersion

Might want to read this then ;)

 

There is a lot of BS in the wiki and l know for sure that IJN AP bombs do not land outside of the reticle 50% of the time. 

[22cm]

On 8/27/2020 at 4:11 PM, Beastofwar said:

 

It is quite like the bomb reticule and bomb falling pattern........you can gloriously miss all bombs with GZ/EL divebombers if you do not regognise their widening X patterned bomb fall that typically land in the water on each side of a ships hull when you attack from bow/stern like other dive/carpet bombers. Yet their reticule is small among dive bombers giving the impression they are more accurate....But then again we often have to hear how "trash" these CV's are. So they are not accurate in a sense you would expect. Hit pattern clutters would make that much more clear. Empty ellipses do not.

 

 

Maybe you missed the title...