DD Range finders

[sockeye]

It's been years that we've had the problem of the ranger finders on the DDs. The adjustments, as we all know, are global. That being, when one gun sight is changed they're all changed making it unnecessarily difficult to switch between gun platforms.

What has been done so far to correct this problem?

[GOPHUR]

Nada directly. That system is so weirdly built that no one here can decypher the art. Instead we're working on a new director function based on some of the Easy Mode stuff we've done for RA/China.

Here's how it could play out:

pos1 main guns + drive

pos 2 all A guns

What we can do here is have 1 external director view that all guns then aim to where he's pointing as opposed to how we have it now where the guns are all tied together with sorta cables in the art and the don;t really have true independent aiming. We can control convergence and parallelism as well with this.

But my CM team tells me that everyone hates EZ mode so this will probably only be for RA/China in 1.34. Too bad really because the mortar fire easy mode we're working on looks awesome.

[sockeye]

Nada directly. That system is so weirdly built that no one here can decypher the art. Instead we're working on a new director function based on some of the Easy Mode stuff we've done for RA/China.

Here's how it could play out:

pos1 main guns + drive

pos 2 all A guns

What we can do here is have 1 external director view that all guns then aim to where he's pointing as opposed to how we have it now where the guns are all tied together with sorta cables in the art and the don;t really have true independent aiming. We can control convergence and parallelism as well with this.

But my CM team tells me that everyone hates EZ mode so this will probably only be for RA/China in 1.34. Too bad really because the mortar fire easy mode we're working on looks awesome.

Thanks for the reply Gophur.

I've heard the concept of the AA guns being bound together before. I would encourage you to ask around the PB to see if folks really do believe this to be easy mode or not. It's true most people in DDS are most worried about bombers over other EDD out there, as least as far as I can tell. If only one person is in the DD and only manning one gun at a time, bounding both AA platforms is reasonable.

But the biggest pain is how the ranger finders very much hinder the AA ranges when using other guns and then switching back to AA.

[narg]

Nada directly. That system is so weirdly built that no one here can decypher the art. Instead we're working on a new director function based on some of the Easy Mode stuff we've done for RA/China.

Here's how it could play out:

pos1 main guns + drive

pos 2 all A guns

What we can do here is have 1 external director view that all guns then aim to where he's pointing as opposed to how we have it now where the guns are all tied together with sorta cables in the art and the don;t really have true independent aiming. We can control convergence and parallelism as well with this.

But my CM team tells me that everyone hates EZ mode so this will probably only be for RA/China in 1.34. Too bad really because the mortar fire easy mode we're working on looks awesome.

Mortars are already easy mode. How hard is it for people to use a lat/long calculator to find range? Takes me 1 minute to find range and start dropping rounds on top of AB Veh spawn entrances. At one battle in Sedan I had a sortie where i killed 13 and damaged 50+ by myself.

[GOPHUR]

The cool thing about easy mode is that it overwrites the range finding stuff built into the art. So the AA guns wouldn't change with the mains and such.

[sockeye]

The cool thing about easy mode is that it overwrites the range finding stuff built into the art. So the AA guns wouldn't change with the mains and such.

Thanks for responding Gophur. It's meaningful.

I'd be happy with your concept of EZ mode as you've presented it. It's a step forwards from having all the weapon range finders tied together as they are now.

If by default the range finders were locked at 700m, it might be ideal. Would that "fix" be simple to implement? Would it corrupt something else?