German tank optics seem lacking. Just a gripe

[TeAcH]

Well, Steve, that is somewhat of a rhetorical question now isn't it. Hmmm. Nice one.

I don't profess to be an expert on tanks and their attributes. When the people in the "know" began to debate, I watched. Although I am not an expert on AFVs, I can sense sarcasm when I see it. Thank you very much. Ouch BTS

Regards,

TeAcH

[This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 10-06-2000).]

[Simon Fox]

For what's its worth TeAcH, I disagree with you. I just wanted to publicly display my

lack of support for your efforts to stir up more trouble in this discussion.

Now that Lewis seems to be returning to an even keel it seems totally unnecessary. I am not saying that Slappy is totally without fault but your response is somewhat oversensitive since his comments generally seem to show a genuine interest in seeking a realistic basis for discussion. As for Jeff, as others have pointed out his intemperate debating style detracts from his ability to convince.

[This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 10-06-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

TeAcH,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Although I am not an expert on AFVs, I can sense sarcasm when I see it. Thank you very much. Ouch BTS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well... I was not pleased to see you post for what appears to be the first time since the thread started simply to bash about Salpdragon. As the target for most of crap in this thread, I must say that Slapdragon was NOT the cause of it. He simply responded to it. Now... you can have your own opinion about his response, but to absolve Jeff for his part in starting it is not only unfair but inaccurate.

Steve

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

amungst?

Lewis wrote:

Hey Lewis. First Step is admitting you have a problem. If you could just get past the dennial stage perhaps you could get to it.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the first step would be aquiring the problem. The second step would then be "dennial" and the admitting.

OK. My name is Lewis and I have a problem with the way optics are percieved by the developers of CM.

Phew! I feel so open and free.

Lewis

PS "Pro-Optics" would be a good name for a company.

[Combatboy]

I LOVE A CIRCUS!!!!!!!

You all don't understand Jeff. You think he is crazy -- but he aint. I have a theory -- he is screwing with all of your heads. I mean really -- he jumps in and acts all foaming at the mouth and all the crazies line up with him, then he discredits the whole optics thing in one blow! He is actually on BTS's side!

I think everyone could take a cue from John. Since he and Slappy got slapped down, he has been handing out the information and a real posters. I think John deserves a lot of credit here.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

For what's its worth TeAcH, I disagree with you. I just wanted to publicly display my

lack of support for your efforts to stir up more troubble in this discussion.

Now that Lewis seems to be returning to an even keel it seems totally unnecessary. I am not saying that Slappy is is totally without fault but your response seems somewhat oversensitive to his comments which generally seem to be a genuine interest in seeking a realistic basis for discussion. As for Jeff, as others have pointed out his intemperate debating style detracts from his ability to convince. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you Simon, I am definately with fault -- I let myself get dragged into the flames, and I am intolerant of poor arguments sometimes to an extreme. I will always be the first to admit that.

[The DesertFox]

Hmmm how nice and warm it is here

OK back to the topic:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>WAS THERE ANY HELP IN THE AMERICAN SIGHTS TO DETERMINE RANGE ?

YES OR NO ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Danielh,

Of course the US/UK sights had rangefinders, that isn´t the point here. Neither is it the point if one side or the other had a higher acurracy below 1000m due to their optics. I think we all can agree (can we ?) that quality of optics below 1000m did not influence acurracy, at least not enough to be quantificable in game terms.

The question is:

Were both sides able to exactly measure the distance of the target with help of their optics up to...let´s say 3000m ? Or was one side limited in their ability to measure target distance due to the limitation of their rangefinder equipment ?

If this limitation was existant you have a difference which can be modelled. This difference is between exactly measuring target distance and guessing target distance or braketing. Only thing we need is to agree that exact measurement of target distance is more exact than guessing/braketing.

Furthermore we need someone who knows how the US/UK optics worked and if it was possible with them to measure target distance up to 3000m. Isn´t this stuff published somewhere ?

Cheers

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>OK. My name is Lewis and I have a problem with the way optics are percieved by the developers of CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent! What a breakthrough. OK, so what exactly is this perception problem that we have, and how does it relate to the way CM is modeled? I have my guesses, but I'll let you explain in your own special way

Steve

[Guest Madmatt]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

PS "Pro-Optics" would be a good name for a company.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahem: http://search.excite.com/search.gw?search=Pro-Optics,Inc

Apparently 9 million other people thought so too.

"Irrational Thoughts" would also be a good name...

Madmatt

------------------

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

Combat Mission HQ

CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission

CMHQ-Annex

Host of the Combat Mission WebRing

[TeAcH]

Well if it isn't my old buddy Simon Fox waiting in the wings.

Steve: Anyway, thanks for allowing the derailed discussion to continue despite the mudslinging that took place.

I'm heading back to play the game.

[This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 10-06-2000).]

[John Kettler]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman:

Cough, um, how about going back to about where this excellent post was and forgetting about what is inbetween? This thread DOES have the potential to be an excellent topic to learn about ALL optics/firing solutions.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

machineman,

Thank you for noticing! I note with great regret that the slanging match has yet again succeeded in drowning out and displacing what I thought was a useful addition to a fascinating topic.

BTS waded into the fray several times, to correct historical errors as to who said what, when, as well as lambaste those deemed out of line, but in several pages of posts since I made mine, yours is not only the only constructive response, but also the ONLY response I've gotten.

This thread seems to be suffering from the BBS equivalent of Gresham's Law. This time, though, instead of bad money, it consists of bad posts driving out good ones.

A pity, really. We've uncovered so much information, not just on optics. I'm anxious to see what else turns up.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Combatboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TeAcH:

For what's its worth Jeff, I agree with you. I just wanted to publicly display my support for your efforts in this discussion.

I think the whole flaming war started when Slap subtly accused some of us who were for the optics advantage as being part of some secret nazi lovers party then saying that we were anti-science lovers. BTS even made a comment to that end that there are those that are devote freaks of German ww2 military might. An "optics supporter" could easily infer that they were being painted with that brush.

Then when the warmth got returned to Slap, he posted fifty times a minute and pointed the finger at everyone else, namely Jeff. Sad.

Slap, you were even being snide in your response to my post back on page 7 or so (about the search warrant issue). Funny thing is, and I wont go into it, but there you were trying to use a police related, search warrant example like you knew what you are talking about. It was innacurate at best.

Overly presumptious of you, wasn't that? But that appears to be right up your alley. I would not even begin to tell you about, or make examples out of, your field of expertise, because I have not studied it nor have I practiced it for any length of time.

If I had a nickle for every person I met who thought they were smart because a certificate on their "I love me wall" says so, well..you know the rest.

I realize my post is off topic, but I really found it disturbing that Slap (you) would make subtle snide remarks towards others (Jeff) and their arguments, then cry fowl when they respond in kind. Unfair.

I agree with the poster who said this forum would have gone a lot smoother had slap been missing from it.

So now what? Slap quotes my whole post and disects it piece by piece? Who cares.

Good going Jeff.

[This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 10-06-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This post is GREAT!!! I mean really great. Really. For a second I read it and took it seriously, so I went back and read the posts about detectives, then I read this one again, and then I got it totally! Cause at first I said, this guy is a cop? He must be that funny little guy who gives parking tickets out at school who gives you a ticket even if you have your sticker.

Then it struck me, he can't be crazy too, or else how do they give the guy a gun?

Now, not that I have figured out what he was trying to say mind you, but I think you all are reading it wrong, or else he posted to some other thread by accident.

Thanks for listening!

Tom

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK...

I respectfully ask everybody, participants and peanut gallery members, to knock it off. To aid in that goal, I am *finally* locking this thread up. If someone wishes to start up a new discussion about optics, one that is based on rational and thoughtful exchange of ideas, fantastic. Please start it up. But if we are going to just have another slug match between folks more interested in fighting than discussing... please don't bother.

Steve