German tank optics seem lacking. Just a gripe

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Again, you have it backwards -- YOU have to present a model that shows that different optics made a significant difference in hitting power. No one has to prove anything about the way the system works -- you have to prove it does not work then offer a new system.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 10-02-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AHH !!!!!! thats it, I knew we were all missing something.........

John Waters

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

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-02-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

AHH !!!!!! thats it, I knew we were all missing something.........

John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you failed to read any of my earlier posts. No, you can question all you like -- but proof requires more than consulting your Aunt Hattie on her opinion and then posting a poorly done science project.

The question is -- are you interesting in proof or beer and pretzels argument. Beer and pretzels arguments I can deal with on a different level. The color of a helment liner requires a different standard of proof.

MKIV -- you posted the logical things that could modify accuracy -- certainly they are factors in modern rifle accuracy. The question that will have to be answered is if they have enough effect or if they cancel out in the variables.

[risc]

Why are we comparing gyros on some few Shermans with better gun optics being on every German tank ? How the heck are these same ?

So we have all Shermans in the game with gyros in the equation and Germans have no Zeiss optics in the equation at all...how the heck did the gyros made into the game is beyond me. Did anyone reed any books on how gyros were the key in the battles ?

And I believe Combat Mission falls into the trap of being the greatest since sliced bread fantasy. I don't believe it is, it is certainly great and one of the best but Tigers on the Prowl 2 and Panthers in the Shadows are amazing and are certainly there at the top. There is no way that CM is better than these 2 wargames I would say they are equal...at this point that I have observed, my personal view only.

When you connect to Battlefront this is what it says about CM:

"Combat Mission is the ULTIMATE simulation of Squad level WWII combat. There is no wargame in existence that offers the realism and value that this true 3D simulation powerhouse provides. "

Geee guys, you don't model Zeiss optics but CM is ULTIMATE simulation of WW2. How the heck it can be ULTIMATE when it doesn't support Zeiss optics being on every German tank ? What do you mean ULTIMATE ? You mean what's currently out there or what there will ever be ? Based on what do you give that statement ? It's just boldly stated that it is ULTIMATE but it never shows how it is better compared to other WW2 simulations.

I don't want to flame anybody, I like CM and I play a lot (I preordered in 1999), but what's currently happening is a bit too much.

Peter

[This message has been edited by risc (edited 10-02-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

Let me give everyone a reason why the people who want to change the current model are who have to prove their case, and not the other way around.

In any model of reality, endless critique can be made of how that model fits. In CM I can present a number of cases were the model may not fit the current understanding of reality.

1) According to Whitley and Schramm, United States soldiers received nearly twice the calorie intake of German counterparts in World War Two. This includes significant differences in intake of vitamin C and A, and in protien intake. US soldiers in combat weighed an average of 24 pounds more than German soldiers, and were consequently, "much more fit for combat....including hand to hand combat." American tanker and airmen also enjoyed "signifcantly better eyesight due to diet" with significant difference in scores for sight.

2) According to Kevin Dockery in the Armoury 1st Edition German grenades when tested were found to have half the blast radius and a quarter of the wounding potential of US grenades, leading them to be used more for suppressive than casualty causing reasons..

3) Postwar, US uniforms were found to be "significantly less visible in woods" than German grey or black uniforms, but US uniforms were, "much more visible than Axis" in winter time due to lack of camo smocks.

In other words I can point out a dozen places were there is one report which underlines how the game needs to be changed -- the question being does each of these effect the game in any meaningful manner. So the same people which will laud German optics will cry no fair on the fact that Germans, due to diet, had far worse vision than there US counterpart -- but neither is really able at this point to be proven one way or another.

Likewise, I can tell you eight places that the theory of gravity seems to break down, but unless I can prove it and build a new model I am not doing anything useful.

[Mark IV]

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

How the heck it can be ULTIMATE when it doesn't support Zeiss optics being on every German tank <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you haven't been reading along, but the issue is what do "Zeiss optics" mean, in qualitative terms, that can be accurately modeled?

Were you planning to make a contribution to that discussion?

[elementalwarre]

ok, german optics may not have a measurable effect on gun accuracy

however, they may have some measurable effect on spotting distant targets. if there's evidence for this, is it modeled in CMBO?

[Slapdragon]

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

ok, german optics may not have a measurable effect on gun accuracy

however, they may have some measurable effect on spotting distant targets. if there's evidence for this, is it modeled in CMBO?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, German optics may have had a small effect on accuracy -- as Mark IV points out there will be a number of variables to consider and weigh to decide if it is real or what I call a "Combat Urban Legend". Mark IV may actually show a model for accuracy that changes everyones mind -- it is just that you cannot use another game or Urban Legend in a technical subject the way you could for how many Puma's were made.

[Guest Big Time Software]

This is turing into one of the most ridiculous whiny, grognard, I can't see the forest through the trees threads of all times. Congrats

So... let me get this straight... we don't model German opitic bonus (which is, like it or not, up for debate) so Combat Mission is highly flawed and less realistic than a 2D wargame that was made, what, 5 years ago? Please... you are only insulting yourself if you belive this. A 2D set of equations, no matter what it tries to model, is less realistic than what is in CM, with or without a German optics bonus.

And now we have even been accused of being stuckup, nationalist American pigdogs by some rather new poster. Obviously he is entitled to his opinion, but as a recovering Pro-German guy myself I have to say that is about the biggest unsupported load of BS I have heard in a long time.

John... if your point is "how can an Allied tank hit what it can't see at 3000m" I ask you how it is that I have an account here of M-10s knocking out Panthers at 3000m? Did they just GUESS where the *moving* Panthers were and get lucky?

Gyros... there is test data at Aberdeen (or at least National Archives) that DID in fact do scientific tests on the gyros, unlike the case being made for the German optics. The only question is, how much of an effect, NOT "was their any benefit at all". The other question is if CM should simulate it because "many" Allied tankers disconnected it. The bonus we gave the Allied tanks for firing on the move is very, very small and we felt that not including this STANDARD piece of equipment was a worse choice than including it.

And as usual... when it comes to "Damnit, the Germans were better" issues, any logic or rational look at the case gets tossed out the window by the supporters.

Why don't we make everybody happy? We will put in a +10 modifier that will give the Germans unparalled accuracy at any range of 1000m. Why these numbers? Hey, they sound cool and manly, so why not? But then we will give German tanks a -10 modifier at ranges under 1000m. Why not just start modifying everything. Let's see... as Slapdragon pointed out, US crews had more spacious crew compartments. OK, they will get a +1 accuracy bonus, and Hetzers will get a -2. Uhm... German tankers were often worried about their big heavy tanks breaking down... so we'll give them a -1 modifier every time they speed up, which is when the most stress is put on the drivetrain and engine. OK... uhm... what other things can we think of to modify? Anybody got a pet thing they want simulated, we are in the mood to make stuff up, so let 'em rip...

---

Yup, you can see I am totally frustrated by the narrow minded, nit picking, illogical, irrational, and rather rude posts I have seen in this thread. No, not all of them, but enough of them. I have wasted far too much of my time arguing lately and not enough time doing other stuff, so I am taking myself out of this conversation (and others on this BBS) for the time being. I have probably wasted about 10 hours in the last 5 days arguing with 3-4 people about the most nit-picky things imaginable. That is 10 hours NOT put into CM2, customer support, or something even more important to me -> my life.

Disgusted in a way that has not happend in the last 1.5 years of managing this BBS,

Steve

[PzKpfw 1]

I have an account here of T-34's engageing German tanks at 1350ms on a regular basis Steve, it seems ir was their tactic of choice vs PzKpfw IIIs & PzKpfw IV shorts they would just sit their as they outranged both German tanks & destroy each German tank that tried to advance. Now this is contrary to everything I have read concerning Soviet WW2 optic abilities.

As to the Hellcats nope I believe you, theirs also numerous other accounts of problems over 1000yrds, Ie, couldn't engage 2 PzKpfw IVs @ 2000yds because couldn't observe shotfall, etc.

And I agree, I to have spent to much time here arguing in pointless discussions being personaly attacked,insulted, & labeled etc, & will take my leave from the forum for now, as well. Thx for the great game.

Asta all..

Rergards, John Waters

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-02-2000).]

[:USERNAME:]

Well at least we covered spotting and magnification well.

[Slapdragon]

Thanks for being on the BBS Steve. If it is any help, my students often cannot understand scientific method when I give them an "F" on a paper that they use conjecture on (maybe a "D" as am quite a sweetheart).

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Now I'm still waiting for some one to adress the magnification & filter difrences in US & UK optics vs the German optical devices. And someone explain to me how that if I can clearly see & observe shell fall @ 3000ms in my sight picture, & my sight is granulated for range by projectile type upto 4000ms & the oponets tank cant see clearly over 800 - 1000ms because of his optics, that the optics have no effect on gunnery accuracy.

La La La.........

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If combat was less than "800-1000" meters what good is seeing out to 4,000 meters?

Cav

PS Modern days sights have a hard time with "4,000" meter ranges.

[Guest machineman]

Well, if I played a part in upsetting Steve I do apologize. The Allied bias thing wasn't aimed at him, but a few other posters here.

Speaking of one such:

I've spent 10 years doing research, designing tests, working with researchers, using this to solve problems for people and getting a condescending lecture from the Ivory Tower on the subject sort of got my goat, especially by someone who doesn't seem completely perfect himself.

Next time I'll try and heed my own 'Don't feed the Trolls' advice.

[CavScout]

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

Anybody got a pet thing they want simulated, we are in the mood to make stuff up, so let 'em rip...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YES! I'd like to seem a "pre-game" random air attack and maintenance modeled. I love to have a German comander buy four Tigers only to lear two borke down and one was taken out by a roaming P51...

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-03-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

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

If combat was less than "800-1000" meters what good is seeing out to 4,000 meters?

Cav

PS Modern days sights have a hard time with "4,000" meter ranges.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What he was saying (not that I disagree that it was silly) was that Allied sights have a hard time resolving targets passed 800-1000 meters compared to a German sight which is good to 4000.

Of course, modern German tanks consider hits at 4000 meters with dumb ammunition unusual, and US gunners routinely engaged at 2000 meters with the 76mm/90mm (although not by choice ) as seen in most US tank oral histories (I am thinking 761, Hit Hard, Men of the 704th, History of the 76th Armoured and others), so the numbers expressed by John are likely bogus or out of context. All of which is not an issue at all since no information has been presented which so far says accuracy was all that different between US / German AFVs, at least good enough to build a model on. That is not to say that a model might not be built and pulled into shape, it might -- but the guys people have to convince with clear prose and science have fled the circus for higher ground .

[Slapdragon]

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

Well, if I played a part in upsetting Steve I do apologize. The Allied bias thing wasn't aimed at him, but a few other posters here.

Speaking of one such:

I've spent 10 years doing research, designing tests, working with researchers, using this to solve problems for people and getting a condescending lecture from the Ivory Tower on the subject sort of got my goat, especially by someone who doesn't seem completely perfect himself.

Next time I'll try and heed my own 'Don't feed the Trolls' advice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you really do all that then why are you on the anti-science gang? If you thought my basic science lecture was condescending, then god help your clients. This is no Ivory Tower theory of research and science -- it is the methods that brought you antibiotics, computers, and even optics. Although you may not be a scientific researcher (it is amzing the shoddy work that I run into as a consultant done by people who are worried about getting an answer that does not agree with their initial understanding) it is still how everyone from Arbitron to Gallup to Dupont does it -- except of course for your company or organixation.

However -- to help you with your next research design:

and you don't even have to tell your clients that I helped figure out their problem for you. Since I am not completely perfect though you may need to refer to your own deck.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 10-03-2000).]

[Simon Fox]

Ok class, now Professor Slappy has abseiled down from his ivory tower and given you a timely lecture on the scientific paradigm. To paraphrase: science may be logical but logic ain't necessarily scientific. Now it's time to read some real sources not just those one might find on a gaming website, unsubstantiated and unreferenced.

For your reading homework:

WO 185/195 "New type sighting for tanks"

German Military Technology: The Optical Equipment by Hans Seeger.

Eyes of the Wehrmacht by Steve Rohan.

Ordnance School. Foreign Materiel, volume 3. (fire control instruments & sighting equipment, German & Japanese, B.C. scopes, range & height finders) Published by The Ordnance School: Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, July 1943. (OS 9-61, vol. 3)

A bit of wisdom from an optics guru: "If good optomechanical design dictates 8 parts, the Japanese will do it with 3, and the Germans (Zeiss in particular) will use 67."

hehe

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

"Fatso-the battlers' prince"

[Ari Maenpaa]

Many people have already posted this, but anyway, here's some oral testimony of the superior German optics:

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

German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy.

-Brigadier General J. H. Collier, Commanding Combat Command "A"

The few undamaged German tank sights I have seen are definitely superior to our sights in clearness and speed in laying.

-Colonel S. R. Hinds, Commanding Combat Command "B"

The German sight is far better than anything we are using today. It takes a bright light in order to se them - and we do not have that. The same thing goes for our field glasses; if we could spot them, we could fire on them ourselves, or get artillery to fire on that spot. I know that we have the facilities to build better optical equipment - why don't we?

-Donald Morgan, T/4

We are of the opinion that the Tiger and Tiger Royal's 88-mm gun are far superior to our tank destroyer with the 90-mm gun. Our reasons for this assertion are:

1. Far superior sights which permits hitting a target at a great range, that is, 3,000 yards, usually without bracketing.

2. The "souped-up" ammunition of the Tiger permits penetration of our armor at long ranges.

3. The heavy armor plate combined with its slope and angles make them, tank for tank, harder to knock out.

-Sgt Zins and Cpl. Parr

We have fairly good sights, but the Germans must have it when they shoot as far and accurate as they do.

Binoculars are very important in tank warfare, yet we have seen better, but they weren't ours.

The Mark V and VI have our tanks out-gunned and out-sighted in all cases except the new sight M71D on the American M4E8. They can hit at 3,000 yards in the M4 with a good percentage of penetrations. I have actually seen ricochets go through the M4 at 3,000 yards.

-Charles Carden, Platoon Sgt.

At Oberamot, Germany, 27 February 1945, our second platoon on road block was engaged by two Tiger tanks, Mark VI, at 3,600 yards, and two of our Shermans were knocked out. Our 3,400 feet per second 76-mm HVAP ammunition was used and bounced off the side slopes, seven rounds. Definitely out-ranged due to better sights in the Mark VI and more muzzle velocity in their souped-up ammunition.

On 6 January 1945 in the vicinity of Samree, Belgium, fired at an enemy tank at a range of 2,500 yards. Due to poor visibility, could not sense the rounds or their effect. The enemy tank opened fire and the first round which hit the tank penetrated the front slope plate.

-Sgt Thomas Welborn

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

Pretty straightforward stuff, I would say. Still interesting is Platoon Sgt. Charles Carden's notice about the M71D-sight on the American M4E8.

Anyway if the actual gunnery accuracy can't be increased, wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable to boost the max spotting range of the German tanks due to better binoculars?

Thanks for several people pointing this out before me.

Ari

[Jarmo]

Looks like this ain't going nowhere.

I doubt there'll ever be a clearer proof of german optics superiority

than what has been shown here. Obvious enough for me, but clearly not

so for all.

I'll just bugger off now, but before I go, I'd like to restate that

this in no way challenges the "best ever" position of CM.

[Wilhammer]

When considering US Army from the field analysis of German tanks anf tank subsystems, you must remember we are a nation of salesmen, and a strong effort was being made to get theUS armor board to allow the US heavy tanks, tank-killing tanks. The armor board was dead set against it. They saw tanks as supporting infantry and the breakthrough. It was the TD battalions job to kill tanks. The proof is tha the MBT, as shown by the Germans and in the post war by US and the old Soviet Union, is optimal in all three roles.

So, all German guns and tanks were 88s, all tanks were Tigers or Panthers, and the optics were almost as good as X-ray glasses.

[Slapdragon]

Now we come to BTS's gripe -- the board gets stuck like a broken record in some things. Ari's anecedotal evidence says that their may be an issue -- while Willhammer's critique point's out why many of the textual comments don't really translate. Simon has a nice reading list though -- so all anyone has to do is translate this into a mathematical formula that can be used in the game. When someone comes at BTS and says, "I WANT MY UNSTOPPABLE GERMAN TANKS" or who thinks tank guns should be modelled like magic swords in some hack and slash game -- pile on pluses until until everyone is happy with their +8 88mm Holy Avenger, then they shut down. But if someone built a math model that worked backed by evidence I bet you would see it used.

So your next step is to actually model the diference, if any, optics had on spotting or gun fire, realizing that part of spotting is sound and wont be effected by aoptics.

[Guest rune]

From the Brits:

WO 194/616 Trials of German coincidence rangefinder Em34.

The German 70-cm baseline ×11 magnification coincidence rangefinder was tested against the Barr & Stroud no. 12 rangefinder with 80-cm baseline and ×14 magnification. Taking the relative baselines and magnifications into account, the German instrument was found more accurate in use by soldiers, though not by scientists. Mean times to obtain a coincidence were similar, 22.1 seconds for the Em34 and 22.7 seconds for the No. 11. At evening twilight, the time between light permitting accurate ranging to the targets becoming invisible was only about 10 minutes.

Also this:

WO 185/195 New type sighting for tanks.

At the start of the war, British tank telescopes gave a magnification of ×1.9 and a field of view of 22º. German telescopes were ×2.5, with a similar field, but lower light transmission.

Later telescopes had magnification ×3 and field 13º. For production reasons, moving graticules were replaced by fixed graticules. "Our optical industry was not equal to the task of producing telescopes of the German pattern in the quantities required." Later, it was possible to return to moving graticules, together with illumination, and an alternative eyepiece of ×6 power, needed to exploit the penetration performance of the 17-pdr.

German improvements were, first, two ×2.5 telescopes to give binocular vision, and later a single telescope with alternative powers of ×2.5 and ×5.

The Americans, "after the rather poor reception given to their first episcopic sights and to their earlier straight-through telescopes", produced the M10 dual-magnification sight (×1 and ×6), episcopic sight, and T122 variable-power telescope.

Other notes: I had the Patton Museum contact Teut for the Sherman Sight. All they did was to send them how the sight actually worked. This is for Panzer Elite.

Leitz and not Zeiss made the majority of German Tank Sights.

Rune

[This message has been edited by rune (edited 10-03-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

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

So your next step is to actually model the diference, if any, optics had on spotting or gun fire, realizing that part of spotting is sound and wont be effected by aoptics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What crap. There are literally DOZENS of examples where BTS fudged numbers when they designed the formuals for this game. This is not a bad thing, it is an inevitable thing. Why are they holding this optics issue to a higher standard than the standard they hold gyrostabilizers to?

A veteran infantry squad produces about 10% more firepower at 100m than a regular infantry squad in CM. Where did they get that number? How do they know it is ~10% and not ~5% or ~15% or ~50%? What "objective", "quantifiable" source did they use to determine that?

In CM, there is some chance that your air support will attack your own units. They came up with some formula to determine how often that occurred. Did they have "objective, quantifiable" data to determine the odds of that happening?

CM has decided that at night, there is some chance that your troops will get confused and fire on their own guys. How exactly did they obtian the quantifiable data to decide how often that happened?

I could go on and on with these kinds of examples. The point is that it is necessary to fudge numbers, simply because the hard data just plain does not exist. So you fudge the numbers, test the result, and see if you get results that are realistic. If you do not, you adjust them and try again.

The mark of a great game is one that is able to take all those fudges, add them together, and come up with something that actually resembles reality. CM does this extremely well.

I, for one, am rather dissapointed that despite the anecdotal evidence, despite the rather clear explanation of precisely why the Zeiss sight was superior, etc., etc., BTS has chosen to take the low road and just accuse everyone who has made an argument for change as German loving morons. Then, to top it off, you have Slappy accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being "anti-science". What the hell does that mean?

I am going to come right out and say it. I think the objections to the idea that optics could/should be modelled in CM are 95% based on the "CM is prefection incarnate" attitude that is extremely prevalent on this board, despite protestations to the contrary. This is a perfect example of that attitude, but hardly the first example, and probably not the last.

How can a game I love so much result in so damn much frustration?

Jeff Heidman

[risc]

"I, for one, am rather dissapointed that despite the anecdotal evidence, despite the rather clear explanation of precisely why the Zeiss sight was superior, etc., etc., BTS has chosen to take the low road and just accuse everyone who has made an argument for change as German loving morons. Then, to top it off, you have Slappy accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being "anti-science". What the hell does that mean?

I am going to come right out and say it. I think the objections to the idea that optics could/should be modelled in CM are 95% based on the "CM is prefection incarnate" attitude that is extremely prevalent on this board, despite protestations to the contrary. This is a perfect example of that attitude, but hardly the first example, and probably not the last.

How can a game I love so much result in so damn much frustration?

Jeff Heidman"

EXACTLY...I agree with Jeff 100%, I can't believe where is all this going. Why don't we all stop for a moment and then look at this issue purely from scientific/historical objective view and resolve this situation. Otherwise the way it goes it won't be good for anyone.

Peter

[Philistine]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

{snip examples of "fudged" abstractions)

So you fudge the numbers, test the result, and see if you get results that are realistic. If you do not, you adjust them and try again.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I both agree with you and disagree. First, there are any number of abstractions in the game where numbers seem to be "pulled out of the air." But I don't think that the use of abstractions in some aspects of the game necessarily justify the use of further abstractions.

I think the important part of your statement on actually trying to put it into game terms was "you fudge the numbers, test the result, and see if you get results that are realistic."

I think the problem is that BTS seems to be saying "we don't have a feel for what numbers would be realistic on the optics questions, so, even more than the other "fudged" numbers, quantifying an optics advantage would be throwing a dart at a dartboard."

What this really boils down to, once a lot of the hyperbole and name-calling on both sides (not saying its from you, Jeff) is that they don't have a way to judge whether the number they pick is a good number or not. 10% increase? 5%, 2%, 50%?

Also, where do you stop. Slapdragon made a good point, as pointed out by Steve,that there are any number of small ways in which one side was "better" than the other, from night vision to comfort in vehicles. Arguably, all of these could cause some arbitrary bonus to one side or the other. Why not include them?

At CM1's scale, it doesn't really make a difference in the vast majority of situations. It seems everyone agrees German optics are better. To what extent this should be implemented (if at all) seems to be a different question and one that doesn't really have an easy answer.

I do think that the optics question is a good one to debate for inclusion in CM2. Just maybe not one that should engender so much...passion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Then, to top it off, you have Slappy accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being "anti-science". What the hell does that mean?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must admit, this really pisses me off too. Not to give offense, Slapdragon, but since when are ad hominem attacks and exagerations "scientific" arguments? No one has come even close to an "anti-science" argument, and the continued referance to tarot cards and crystals (in this and other threads) to denigrate your opponents' arguments detracts mightily from your own arguments and reflects poorly on you (at least in my eyes, FWIW).

--Philistine