naval [NAVAL] Better FCS for naval

[Shadow__CZ 2,198]

With current shift to larger ships and much bigger maps especially with recent EC tests. Current FCS is starting to be insufficient because it makes long range aiming extremly difficult and next to impossible.

 

I know that I already suggeted improvements for FCS (back in CBT) but because it got passed to devs right after CBT it is rather outdated and most of it is already in game and current FCS need different improvements so I am creating different suggetion for different improvements. It is completly different suggestion.

 

I by no mean think that FCS should be made easier by limiting player imput but it should make long range fire easier by providing players more info for precise aiming even at large ranges.

What info should FCS provide?

• Current bearing
• Target direction
• Own ship speed (at FCS area)
• Target speed
• Estimated shell flight time (based on range)
• Target offset (based on both speeds and flight time)

All this info doesn´t make FCS extremly (read: too) easy (like lead markers would) but it makes aiming much easier when you know what are you doing.

 

Another problem with current FCS is identifying what splashes are yours and how far off they are. To fix the identification problem is to implement colored splashes and the offset problem use special radar view or optical view with scale showing offset and being centred on firing bearing/range.

 

So how it would work I will describe each element in more detail but first what is what:

Fire control computer

Spoiler

FCC "on" - target locked

FCC "off" - no target

Locking target would work to similary to now. 

The FCC would now provide:

• View bearing
• Target direction
• Target speed
• Your speed (bit unncesary but why not)
• Range to locked target (with automatic updates)
• Final range based on correction imput from you (scroll wheel)
• Estimated shell flight time (based on final range)
• Target shift (based on target speed and shell flight time)
• Final shift (target shift+its direction and your ship speed+flight time+its direction (-))
• Final shift direction 

View bearing, target direction + speeds will provide much needed info for long range firing providing very good info for players to asume quite accurate lead.

As I suggested before the range imput should change into system where player just imputs correction offset and game automatically update the range and final range is range + offset.

Another clue to accure lead would be the shell flight time which would be based on selected weaponry and final range.

 

All this info would already hugely improvement to current FCS but there is problem most of this info isn´t so easy to directly imput into aiming by players so I decided that FCC would provide shift of target which is basically range which target cover during shell flight time and also final shift which would apart of target shift also take into account the shift of shells created by ship speed and would basically provide final lead. Because addition of two speed vectors with different direction outputs vector with different direction the FCC would also provide players with the direction of this final shift.

All this info would make aiming much easier but it wouldn´t make it too easy or braindead and the FCS would still need player imput and player would still need to properly imput and utilize this data.

 

I also would like to suggest new differentiation of AB, RB (and SB)

Spoiler

AB

In adition to this basic lead indicator would beincluded and basic FCS would be same. Because current AB FCS useless.

RB

I suggest RB version

SB

The FCC wouldn´t provide final shift and instead of it only target shift and shell ofset. (SB should comment on this)

 

Target view/radar 

Spoiler

Target radar 

 

 

Target view

Suggested FCC can provide players with enough data to calculate and imput proper lead but even right now many wrong leads are caused by players triming the aim after missing target while they have correct lead and just spread causing shells to fall around target.

So I suggest Target view/radar which would be separate "window" which would:

• Radar view - be radar interface which would be centered around aiming spot. Radar wouldn´t have basically no vertical angle segment and therefor it wouldn´t be shown. Only range and ofset which will should be limited in range (maybe could be set as scale on air radars) And as IRL it would show target with proper direction even water splashes.
• Optical view - be very zoomed view centered on aiming spot. Based on range and the sector angles the range scale would be used (basic cotg function) again zoom could be set by player as in other cases

For ships without targeting radar only optical view would be allowed for other ships player would be allowed to switch between them.

This view would allow players to see splashes more clearly and see their ofset.

 

Bearing compass and other changes

Spoiler

The bearing compass would provide another basic info player so player wouldn´t need to look at DM view and bearing display in FCC.

 

The whole layout is changed:

• Because FCC doesn´t fit into current location and also even now it can obstruct view on targets.
• The crosshair is changed again to provide more "info" especially the horizontal lines are numbered.
• The time buzzer is changed in way to provide more info (more salvos are included) and also large red warning is added so players wont miss the impact (currrent buzzer isn´t distinct enough and clock can be overlooked)

[SAUBER_KH7 3,326]

Open for Discussion.

[POSADA 15]

Adding this would be a great help for naval especially as we get bigger guns and longer reloads. 

[Vianochka 368]

This seems like dream for those campers who hide behind small island or rock and keep pushing X. Then shoot across half map thanks to that xray we have in game. 

[malaquey 2]

This looks fantastic, it would actually make long range gunnery viable and allow battleships to actually work.

[Shadow__CZ 2,198]

On 16/01/2020 at 13:54, GunFetish said:

This seems like dream for those campers who hide behind small island or rock and keep pushing X. Then shoot across half map thanks to that xray we have in game. 

It wont make the situation worse in fact it could make it better. Because like now you need to have LOS to target but this should allow easier targeting of ships on which you have LOS but you don´t have good visual. And after all it is easier to hit people behind island as long as you can lock and get the lead on them

 

On 20/01/2020 at 19:22, malaquey said:

This looks fantastic, it would actually make long range gunnery viable and allow battleships to actually work.

That is main target of this suggestion.

[FouManchou 2,463]

How anyone can think ships in WarThunder Naval aren't accurate enough, when experienced players seem to have little difficulty landing all their shots on target at over 10km range is beyond me. 

When you think of the several incidents during WW2 where ships shot very much not even close to their target (such as that event where IJN ships engaged by destroyers completely overshot them, misinterpreting them to be cruisers), and see this suggestion that would give all ships, well, pretty much 100% of the information (heading, speed, distance, shell travel time, and even "target offset" which I can only understand as "the position the ship will be at when the shell lands")... 

 

A) How does that represent actual WW2 tech, and actually WW1 tech since several of the larger ships we have are actually from that era?
B) Why is it even played by players at this point? Just fire up the Auto-Bot and relax while enjoying the cinematic gameplay.
C) Why do "ranging shots" even exist at this point?


In that other boat game, do players need this level of hand-holding to land shots at 25km? No. Because most ships, especially the bigger ones, tend to not manoeuver that well, will typically be going at about their cruise speed, and can be large enough that even a 150m-to-the-left "miss" still hits some part of the ship (not to mention the height).

Okay, that other game has artificially increased shell velocity and illogical final trajectories (w. the sudden steep dive at the end), but that first fact only changes the amount of lead you have to give without making shooting any easier otherwise, and the second actually makes it more difficult to land hits at long range.

 

 

Gunnery is already way too easy (too low shell dispersion, no ammunition quality variation, excessive accuracy on the rangefinder*, perfect turret convergence, gun-cam floating 20-30m above the ship, accurate-to-the-decimal-second shell travel time, lack of wind, lack of significant waves, lack of curvature of the earth, perfect visibility at pretty much any range**) ; no need to give even more handholding and make 1920s ships as accurate as a 2000s CAESAR).***

*somehow a Coincidence rangefinder on a WW1 destroyer is more accurate and at longer ranges than a laser rangefinder on a modern MBT?
**pretty sure neither the level of zoom or the clarity of view we have were, if available at all, standard on WW1 - WW2 ships.

***Admittedly I am primarily an SB player, and I tend to err on the side of "make the game require more brains and skill, ergo more difficult".

[Shadow__CZ 2,198]

20 hours ago, FouManchou said:

How anyone can think ships in WarThunder Naval aren't accurate enough, when experienced players seem to have little difficulty landing all their shots on target at over 10km range is beyond me. 

Did you try to get shots beyond the 15km range? Fire beyond this is impossible (abart from) lucky hits and it isn´t because of how hard would be getting correc lead and aim point but because it isn´t possible to get feedback from your previous salvos.

The proposed system would provide very little help for current ranges.

 

Quote

When you think of the several incidents during WW2 where ships shot very much not even close to their target (such as that event where IJN ships engaged by destroyers completely overshot them, misinterpreting them to be cruisers), and see this suggestion that would give all ships, well, pretty much 100% of the information (heading, speed, distance, shell travel time, and even "target offset" which I can only understand as "the position the ship will be at when the shell lands")... 

 

A) How does that represent actual WW2 tech, and actually WW1 tech since several of the larger ships we have are actually from that era?
B) Why is it even played by players at this point? Just fire up the Auto-Bot and relax while enjoying the cinematic gameplay.
C) Why do "ranging shots" even exist at this point?

It is funny that you are telling me this gives people too much info and other people are telling me that this is doing too little and even WW1 ships got better FCS.

All the your side imputs (shell travel time, heading, speed, distance) are very simple to optaing and to take into account (basic trigonometry) with good understanding the enemy side imputs are quite easy to get too (but needs bit more calculating) all these things were possible to calculate even in WW1 but you needed the tables, rulers ect.

But players can´t really calculate this during battle, the development of FCS wasn´t focused on ability to calculate lead/firing solution that much but on automation of these calculations.

B:

Player still needs imput range and make the actual firing the game just tells them what is approximate lead (we all know that lead markers aren´t that precise) and gives them ability to better check accuracy of their previous salvos. 

C:

Why do "ranging shots" even exist now? 

 

Quote

In that other boat game, do players need this level of hand-holding to land shots at 25km? No. Because most ships, especially the bigger ones, tend to not manoeuver that well, will typically be going at about their cruise speed, and can be large enough that even a 150m-to-the-left "miss" still hits some part of the ship (not to mention the height).

Okay, that other game has artificially increased shell velocity and illogical final trajectories (w. the sudden steep dive at the end), but that first fact only changes the amount of lead you have to give without making shooting any easier otherwise, and the second actually makes it more difficult to land hits at long range.

As I said it isn´t really about the lead but the accuracy check + expainging players the momentum calculation and other aspects of the aiming.

 

Quote

Gunnery is already way too easy (too low shell dispersion, no ammunition quality variation,

That isn´t correct as far as I know gaijin is using realistic dispersion patterns.

Quote

excessive accuracy on the rangefinder*,*somehow a Coincidence rangefinder on a WW1 destroyer is more accurate and at longer ranges than a laser rangefinder on a modern MBT?

That is true but I don´t talk about this here.

Quote

perfect turret convergence,

I don´t want more RNG messing my aim.

Quote

gun-cam floating 20-30m above the ship

Not true here in WT. In WT the gun cam is at rangefinder height or right on top of the ship mast.

Quote

accurate-to-the-decimal-second shell travel time,

As if that really mattered...

Quote

lack of wind

Again unnecesary element which would only cause dissatisfaction.

Quote

lack of significant waves

GIB now

Quote

lack of curvature of the earth

GIB now

Quote

perfect visibility at pretty much any range**) ;**pretty sure neither the level of zoom or the clarity of view we have were, if available at all, standard on WW1 - WW2 ships.

I have different experience (mainly in weather different then clear). But yes things like optics clarity/distorsion isn´t in game and I don´tthink that it should be.

Quote

no need to give even more handholding and make 1920s ships as accurate as a 2000s CAESAR).***; ***Admittedly I am primarily an SB player, and I tend to err on the side of "make the game require more brains and skill, ergo more difficult".

My suggestion wont make the FCS unrealisticly powerful the lack of other factors like turret alignment, wind, waves and so on will/does. As I said the effect on aiming and hitting targets at 10kms ranges wont be big. 

 

Also tell me how can you provide feedback on FCS when you have only boats? And you weren´t part of NF CBT?

Edited January 27, 2020 by Shadow__CZ

[FouManchou 2,463]

On 27/01/2020 at 18:51, Shadow__CZ said:

Also tell me how can you provide feedback on FCS when you have only boats? And you weren´t part of NF CBT?

There is this thing called "Youtube" which shows me how it is played by regular players.
There is also this thing called testsail which allows me to use vehicles I don't own because I completely despise boats with machineguns, and I'm not willing to pay for ships that I only have modest interest in (any ship whose name isn't preceded by MN), and more crucially, because I play SB, largely for the thrill of flying, and Gaijin doesn't want to give us ships SB (even though all I really ask for is EC with planes locked in cockpit view and realistic controls).
And there is finally this thing called "knowing ships IRL didn't sink after 2 minutes of engagement, which must mean something isn't quite right with their depiction in WT"

 

On 27/01/2020 at 18:51, Shadow__CZ said:

I don´t want more RNG messing my aim.

It's not RNG, it's the fact all turrets aim at exactly the same point, rather than at the same bearing. This makes it way easier to overload a specific ship section.
 

On 27/01/2020 at 18:51, Shadow__CZ said:

as far as I know gaijin is using realistic dispersion patterns.

What's a "realistic dispersion pattern" anyway? The standard divergence of the gun when in the trials range? Or the dispersion when in combat conditions? When you are considering a whole ship, you can't just expect every sailor to be a terminator with 1000% reliability.

 

On 27/01/2020 at 18:51, Shadow__CZ said:

t is funny that you are telling me this gives people too much info and other people are telling me that this is doing too little and even WW1 ships got better FCS.

All the your side imputs (shell travel time, heading, speed, distance) are very simple to optaing and to take into account (basic trigonometry) with good understanding the enemy side imputs are quite easy to get too (but needs bit more calculating) all these things were possible to calculate even in WW1 but you needed the tables, rulers ect.

But players can´t really calculate this during battle, the development of FCS wasn´t focused on ability to calculate lead/firing solution that much but on automation of these calculations.

B:

Player still needs imput range and make the actual firing the game just tells them what is approximate lead (we all know that lead markers aren´t that precise) and gives them ability to better check accuracy of their previous salvos. 

C:

Why do "ranging shots" even exist now?

And precisely, in WarThunder just as much as in the other boat game, you don't need that additional info. Just like in tanks and planes, it is perfectly reasonable to estimate using your big brain, and then rinse and repeat. And if you aren't confident, use ranging shots. 

 

On 27/01/2020 at 18:51, Shadow__CZ said:

it isn´t possible to get feedback from your previous salvos.

The proposed system would provide very little help for current ranges.

That's the big issue WarThunder has with rendering and render distance. I'd rather they fix that, than implement unneeded FCS.

[Shadow__CZ 2,198]

1 hour ago, FouManchou said:

There is this thing called "Youtube" which shows me how it is played by regular players.
There is also this thing called testsail which allows me to use vehicles I don't own because I completely despise boats with machineguns, and I'm not willing to pay for ships that I only have modest interest in (any ship whose name isn't preceded by MN), and more crucially, because I play SB, largely for the thrill of flying, and Gaijin doesn't want to give us ships SB (even though all I really ask for is EC with planes locked in cockpit view and realistic controls).

Yes the only one youtuber which uploads in something to regular manner is napalmratte (and is lets say not the common player/youtuber when it comes to naval) and in most of these videos you can see what  I would call medium range gunnery which is very easy compared to long range gunnery.

But that isn´t really important what is important that is your zero experience of gunnery in battle conditions (beacuse test sail isn´t representing factor here). 

 

1 hour ago, FouManchou said:

And there is finally this thing called "knowing ships IRL didn't sink after 2 minutes of engagement, which must mean something isn't quite right with their depiction in WT"

I, other players and you know (even though youtubers keep mostly ignoring it ) that isn´t problem of FCS but of the DM.

 

1 hour ago, FouManchou said:

It's not RNG, it's the fact all turrets aim at exactly the same point, rather than at the same bearing. This makes it way easier to overload a specific ship section.

You didn´t talk about turrets firing aligned to bearing you talked about turrets being too perfectly aligned that implies that you would suggest some chance for slight deviation of turrets from right direction.

 

1 hour ago, FouManchou said:

What's a "realistic dispersion pattern" anyway? The standard divergence of the gun when in the trials range? Or the dispersion when in combat conditions? When you are considering a whole ship, you can't just expect every sailor to be a terminator with 1000% reliability.

Of corse I talk about the standard divergence of the gun during trials.

To the other point I will again respond with: I don´t want more RNG messing my aim.

 

1 hour ago, FouManchou said:

And precisely, in WarThunder just as much as in the other boat game, you don't need that additional info. Just like in tanks and planes, it is perfectly reasonable to estimate using your big brain, and then rinse and repeat. And if you aren't confident, use ranging shots. 

And here I can clearly see the you didn´t play NF.

I will say it again but I have no problems with getting proper lead but there are situations where current FCS starts lacking - long EC ranges, bad weather (because of this we are geting only clear weather in NF), high speed lead and ability to adjust the aim + many players have problems with momentum compensation (just look how often it is asked about on reddit) and I don´t think there is better solution to this giving players more info the auto compenstion is clearly bad idea.

 

1 hour ago, FouManchou said:

That's the big issue WarThunder has with rendering and render distance. I'd rather they fix that, than implement unneeded FCS.

Even if the rendering would work it wont help because at the ranges where we have problems with rendering the range and scale compression (perspective) is so big that you cant clearly check your accuracy. Not even talking about fact that sometimes you need to lead so much that you wont see the ship in view.

[HK Reporter 1,213]

+1 we NEED improvements on FCS

 

The proposed UI design in this suggestion is really nice, especially where it reflects the real fire control table display. The only thing I'm concerning about is that if some concepts (for example the "final shift") a bit unintuitive for a MMO game, which I've commented in another thread before.

 

So i just copy and paste that comment to this thread:

Quote

What I'm concerning about is that the "FInal shift" and final "direction" (the result of target's and own ship's movement if I understand correctly) is kinda unintuitive to comprehend (in this game there even might be some players who were too young to learn vector calculations in school).

 

What I'm thinking about is to give a "relative" perception rather than an "absolute" (like tachymetric FCS irl) . For example instead of giving the absolute heading and speed of the target, relative range rate and bearing rate might be easier to understand because it only cares about target's relative movement to your ship which is directly observable in your binoculars.

 

Give an example, the FCS locked on a target, range 20,000 yds, let's say the flight time would be 32 sec, and the FCS measures the range rate and bearing rate are -10yds/s and +0.2°/s, so if the target's bearing is 100°, estimate aiming point will be bearing 100°+0.2°/s*32s=106.4°, range 20,000yds+(-10yds/s*32)=19680yds

 

Furthermore, the FCS could even calculate these info for the player and indicate the result via UI. Of course by this method the result won't be very accurate but it gives players an estimate aiming point so their initial test shot won't miss too far away.

 

But regardless giving the absolute info as your suggested or the relative range/bearing rate in my idea, I think it's important to give a reference aiming point to the player in the UI. It doesn't need to be very accurate so players still have to correct the aiming by observing splashes, but such indicator will make the FCS a lot more intuitive imo.

Just my personal opinion tho.

 

 

 

Also, I think it would be nice and worth to add the fire-control processing time into the FCS. irl FCS needs considerable time to react. Firstly the target needs to be designated by gunnery officers and then director operators would try to lock the director on target and track it manually (for US and UK FCS they have automatic tracking mode when director operators got smooth manual track on target), the range and bearing rate data would be transmitted into plotting room downwards and the FCS computer operators would turn it into training and elevating data for each turrets and finally gunners in turret would follow the order to fire. All these process requires TIME.

 

For WW2 FCS they normally requires at least 20 sec to react before openning fire, and IIRC USNTMJ mentioned that Japanese Type 94 HA FCS requires 40 sec to get a fire control solution. Even modern FCS with electrical computer requires a few sec to react. But in WT you just magically get everything sort out in one second after pressing X and that's not a good idea at least for me.

 

My idea to simulate this is, by changing the way of locking target. Currently you just need to press X and the locking bracket would immediately show up (you don't even need to point your crosshair exactly on target) and your camera start to follow the target. I think this needs to be changed. 

 

In my suggestion, now you need to put your crosshair exactly on target, press and HOLD X, a count down icon would show up:

 

• During the count down, player is supposed to keep his crosshair tracking the target smoothly (in this phase there will be NO automatic camera follow). Fail to do so would result in an inaccurate or even completely wrong "target shift" measurement. If the crosshair is not exactly on target when the count down ends, the FCS will fail to lock on target.
• During the count down, turret crosshairs should turn yellow, indicating that they're unable to open fire since fire control solution are not ready. In case of emergency when player needs to open fire quickly, he would have to switch to other weapon groups (e.g. small calibre AA guns) to pass the main guns to AI local control.
• Once the count down finished and everything was done correctly, locking bracket would show up and camera start to automatically follow the target.

 

I realise this method will not only simulate the FCS reaction time but also help to eliminate those campers who hide behind rock or island and shooting others across terrain, because now you will need actual visual contact to continueously follow your mouse cursor on target for a while before being able to fire. It also eliminate the possiblity when some lucky players randomly press X around and his cursor happens to be pointed on someone so he got a lock without visual contact.

 

My suggested count down/reaction time for ships:

 

• PT boats - 2 sec
• Gunboats/subchasers/small frigates - 5 sec (main gun)
• Postwar/Cold War gunboats and frigates - 5 sec (main gun)
• Destroyers - 10-12 sec (main gun), 2 sec (AA)
• Cruisers - 15-20 sec (main gun), 10-12 sec (secondary gun), 2 sec (AA)
• Battlecruisers/Battleships - 20-25 sec (main gun), 10-15 sec (secondary gun), 2 sec (AA)

 

For ships above DD size, reaction time should be different across nations. For instance, RN and USN had superiority in terms of FCS and radar equipment, thus their reaction time should be shorter.

However, some old destroyers (such as Clemson, Frunze, Type 1924 etc) which only had primitive fire control, their reaction time should be shorter but the fire control data provided to players should be limited (for instance, no "target shift" displayed).

Edited January 31, 2020 by HK_Reporter

[Tim4499 58]

+1 for we REALLY need these improvements

 

Also, I think it would be great if the optimization below was added.

 

Auto Aiming System

It is basically a function that will automatically adjust range and lead angle, while the current FCSs don't. It's annoying that you still have to adjust in close-combat at less than 3 km while you have to mind torpedos, small boats, and perhaps, aircrafts. While you are firing at ranging target, manually adjusting range and lead angle is boring in most of time. As long as the target didn't change its direction and speed, this job is gotten into a rut. Thus,we might assume that on a large ship those jobs has already been done by our crews.  But this function is not without error, and players should do the correction themselves. The degree of error depends on range and type of FCC on ship.

 

But this function is not available for all ships, there are three types of auto aiming:

1. No Auto Aiming (e.g. PT boats) - you have to adjust range & lead angle by yourself

 

2. Primitive Auto Aiming (e.g Pre-war ships, Corvette) - auto adjustment for range only

 

3. Auto Aiming (e.g Destroyers, Cruisers, Post-war ship) - auto adjustment for range & lead angle

 

I think it's a way to make the game experience easier and more relaxing for the players when these "Better FCS for naval" were implemented, since the current experience is annoying and sometime makes people feels stupid. 

[Joram 283]

Rather depressing to see that this still hasn't been acknowledged as a major issue that needs resolving.

[Fireraid233 4,274]

Add please

[corevino 308]

I don't play much and I don't like to play with the ships, except for the EC mode but here I have to say that I had no problem with the long distance. And I am clearly against this simplification. With a good graphic setting I also had no problems to see my impacts at a distance of more than 10km and to correct the next shots. We already have enough simplifications in the game which is the skill first thing I don't like at all, I want to be challenged and not have everything served up ready.

 

 

[Magiaconatus 1,679]

3 hours ago, corevino said:

I don't play much and I don't like to play with the ships, except for the EC mode but here I have to say that I had no problem with the long distance. And I am clearly against this simplification. With a good graphic setting I also had no problems to see my impacts at a distance of more than 10km and to correct the next shots. We already have enough simplifications in the game which is the skill first thing I don't like at all, I want to be challenged and not have everything served up ready.

 

 

You are not going to say this when you are engaging battleships at 25 km away with shell travel time around a minute or more.

[Gunship 508]

+1 we need something better when aiming past 10km, so this looks like some great suggestions. If done well it will really add value to the game play.

[angelomorte 1,369]

On 31/01/2020 at 15:30, HK_Reporter said:

+1 we NEED improvements on FCS

 

The proposed UI design in this suggestion is really nice, especially where it reflects the real fire control table display. The only thing I'm concerning about is that if some concepts (for example the "final shift") a bit unintuitive for a MMO game, which I've commented in another thread before.

 

So i just copy and paste that comment to this thread:

Just my personal opinion tho.

 

 

 

Also, I think it would be nice and worth to add the fire-control processing time into the FCS. irl FCS needs considerable time to react. Firstly the target needs to be designated by gunnery officers and then director operators would try to lock the director on target and track it manually (for US and UK FCS they have automatic tracking mode when director operators got smooth manual track on target), the range and bearing rate data would be transmitted into plotting room downwards and the FCS computer operators would turn it into training and elevating data for each turrets and finally gunners in turret would follow the order to fire. All these process requires TIME.

 

For WW2 FCS they normally requires at least 20 sec to react before openning fire, and IIRC USNTMJ mentioned that Japanese Type 94 HA FCS requires 40 sec to get a fire control solution. Even modern FCS with electrical computer requires a few sec to react. But in WT you just magically get everything sort out in one second after pressing X and that's not a good idea at least for me.

 

My idea to simulate this is, by changing the way of locking target. Currently you just need to press X and the locking bracket would immediately show up (you don't even need to point your crosshair exactly on target) and your camera start to follow the target. I think this needs to be changed. 

 

In my suggestion, now you need to put your crosshair exactly on target, press and HOLD X, a count down icon would show up:

 

• During the count down, player is supposed to keep his crosshair tracking the target smoothly (in this phase there will be NO automatic camera follow). Fail to do so would result in an inaccurate or even completely wrong "target shift" measurement. If the crosshair is not exactly on target when the count down ends, the FCS will fail to lock on target.
• During the count down, turret crosshairs should turn yellow, indicating that they're unable to open fire since fire control solution are not ready. In case of emergency when player needs to open fire quickly, he would have to switch to other weapon groups (e.g. small calibre AA guns) to pass the main guns to AI local control.
• Once the count down finished and everything was done correctly, locking bracket would show up and camera start to automatically follow the target.

 

I realise this method will not only simulate the FCS reaction time but also help to eliminate those campers who hide behind rock or island and shooting others across terrain, because now you will need actual visual contact to continueously follow your mouse cursor on target for a while before being able to fire. It also eliminate the possiblity when some lucky players randomly press X around and his cursor happens to be pointed on someone so he got a lock without visual contact.

 

My suggested count down/reaction time for ships:

 

• PT boats - 2 sec
• Gunboats/subchasers/small frigates - 5 sec (main gun)
• Postwar/Cold War gunboats and frigates - 5 sec (main gun)
• Destroyers - 10-12 sec (main gun), 2 sec (AA)
• Cruisers - 15-20 sec (main gun), 10-12 sec (secondary gun), 2 sec (AA)
• Battlecruisers/Battleships - 20-25 sec (main gun), 10-15 sec (secondary gun), 2 sec (AA)

 

For ships above DD size, reaction time should be different across nations. For instance, RN and USN had superiority in terms of FCS and radar equipment, thus their reaction time should be shorter.

However, some old destroyers (such as Clemson, Frunze, Type 1924 etc) which only had primitive fire control, their reaction time should be shorter but the fire control data provided to players should be limited (for instance, no "target shift" displayed).

heheheheh tiem for op af italian optical rangefinders and trackers.....auto cross reference of  both coincidence and stereoscopic range finding to get insanely good range(littorio strattled a dd at max range repeatedly at sirte).

[CokeSpray 7,274]

Suggestion passed to the developers for consideration.