Wrong optics in Tiger I late, KT and JT?

[Ari Maenpaa]

Hello BFC, some nit-picking feedback coming on optics...

Not sure if the following things have already been considered when the different tank optics categories have been implemented in CMBB, but to me it seems that some of them may have been missed.

For all I know the differences in the game engine between different German optics systems may be subtle and the current characteristics may be the most fitting for these tanks, but the actual terms used in CMBB seem to be in conflict with reality IMHO.

Let’s see...

Tiger I late model: In reality majority of these had a dual-magnification gun sight T.Z.F. 9b.

In CMBB the Tiger Is have “good optics”. But wouldn’t “dual-magnification optics” be more fitting?

King Tiger: In reality the KT production begun with the T.Z.F. 9b/1 binocular telescopic gun sight, but starting in April ‘44 the T.Z.F. 9d, a monocular telescopic sight with dual-magnification, replaced it. The 9d-model was used in majority of the King Tigers that actually were in combat.

In CMBB the KTs have “good optics”, but possibly “dual-magnification optics” would be more accurate. Or, by very conservative thinking, “binocular optics”.

Jagdtiger: JT’s gun sight was the W.Z.F. 2/1 with 10x magnification (seem to be monocular in this photo). The SF14Z stereo binocular periscope with magnification of 10x was mounted in a rotating circular plate in front of the TC’s hatch.

In CMBB the JT has “narrow optics”, but sounds more like “long-range” or even “very long-range optics”.

Sources of Tiger I & II info:

Germany’s Tiger Tanks

D.W. to Tiger:

Design, production & modifications

Thomas L. Jentz & Hilary L. Doyle

Germany’s Tiger Tanks

VK45.02 to Tiger II:

Design, production & modifications

Thomas L. Jentz & Hilary L. Doyle

Germany’s Tiger Tanks

Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics

By Thomas L. Jentz

Source of Jagdtiger info:

Jagdtiger

The Most Powerful Armoured Fighting Vehicle of World War II

Technical History

By Andrew Devey

Every now and then I get a feeling that Tom Jentz’s very detailed books don’t belong to the basic bibliography used in the development of CM series. Maybe there’s a good reason. Enlighten me.

Ari

[Sigurd]

Wow ! what precision !

It seems BFC definitely doesn't have read the same bibliographical sources as you.

I was surprised too to see my king tiger only equipped with "good optics", when he can KO a rusian MBT from 2 000 m.

[Warphead]

It seems BFC definitely doesn't have read the same bibliographical sources as you.

That was a joke, wasn't it? :confused:

Ari: As far as I understand it you don't like the way the game describes the optics? I think that is a very minor thing. Of course you can go into much more detailed descriptions. But where is the point? "good optics" will satisfy everybody except for a handfull of grogs.

[Jagdratt]

Originally posted by Warphead-:

Ari: As far as I understand it you don't like the way the game describes the optics? I think that is a very minor thing. Of course you can go into much more detailed descriptions. But where is the point? "good optics" will satisfy everybody except for a handfull of grogs.[/QB]

I am by no means a grog, but if this information is correct, obviously it should be incorporated. BFC has gone to some trouble to identify different standards of optics. If the data used within CMBB isn't accurate - that is one tank is credited with a higher quality sight while a second with the same sight is not - then this should be changed.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but the original post was a very sensible one. Your response, Warphead, puzzles me. It seems to offer little to the discussion other than "I agree with BFC, anyone who doesn't is quibbling". If that wasn't what you were trying to say, please excuse my inaccuracy in summarizing your post. I have seen a lot of posts like that, but I may be mistaken in thinking that was what you intended to say.

A reply which does little other than criticize the person posing the question is all the more surprising when BFC themselves have not responded to the comment or question. Questioning BFC is not heresy. Questions and discussion build up everyone's knowlege of the subject matter. I don't think anyone should presume to try and stifle those discussions by questioning the motives of the original post.

I agree with the original post that when this information is available in what most of the forum's readers here would consider standard texts - Jentz - this is a surprising omission on BFC's part. Perhaps there's a reason for it - let's see what BFC has to say. After all, discussion is what the forum is for.

[Andrew H.]

Nothing is more important than satisfying a handful of grogs.

Seriously, Ari's post is a model for how people should ask BTS to change things in the game - it is a concrete suggestion backed up by research and objective sources, and it's simply asking for certain values in the game to be changes (as opposed to asking for something not in the game to be added to the game).

Given the clarity and the reasonableness of the request, I can only imagine that BFC will chose one or more of the following four responses:

(1) These books are wrong, and here's why; or

(2) These books are not completely wrong, but the optics we chose were more common than the optics described in Jentz, et al., and the game can only model one set of optics per vehicle; or

(3) The books are correct, but our descriptions of optics don't mean exactly what you think they mean; or

(4) We were wrong.

[aka_tom_w]

Martin?

I was under the impression Moon was the BFC optics expert and would be interested to hear his side of the story.

where does the truth lie here?

-tom w

[Aussie Smith]

The Truth Tom is "In the eye of the monocular gun sight"

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

(2) These books are not completely wrong, but the optics we chose were more common than the optics described in Jentz, et al., and the game can only model one set of optics per vehicle; or

Probably some variant of this, considering that all these tanks had uberoptics as a-late-in-life/late-production add-on.

I'm betting a nickel on 2, anyone else up for a little betting?

The number of Tigers after the new optics were introduced as posted in the earlier discussion on this topic:

Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa

Numbers given by Jentz:

new - rebuilt

094 - 03 - Apr44

085 - 05 - May44

104 - 05 - Jun44

065 - 08 - Jul44

016 - 11 - Aug44

000 - 06 - Sep44

000 - 01 - Oct44

000 - 18 - Nov44

000 - 04 - Dec44

000 - 02 - Jan45

000 - 03 - Feb45

Total of 430 Tiger Is built or rebuilt after the new sight came into production, but I'm not sure if all the rebuilt ones got the new sight.

Now we don't know how many of thes tanks recieved those new optics, so production figures of the T.Z.F. 9b sight might be usefull

[ October 07, 2002, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

(2) These books are not completely wrong, but the optics we chose were more common than the optics described in Jentz, et al., and the game can only model one set of optics per vehicle; or

Probably some variant of this, considering that all these tanks had uberoptics as a-late-in-life/late-production add-on.</font>

[Foxbat]

I thought this might be worth dredging up from the past:

Moon posted August 15, 2002 05:45 PM

Administrator

Member # 386

Some good and correct points about binocular systems. Perception of depth IS improved, even without "donkey ears" binoculars systems, and especially when one has to look through the sight for more than just a few minutes. All the points mentioned (ease of use, eye strain etc.) really combine into making binocular systems somewhat superior to a monocular system in viewing quality, which really is what is rated in CMBB, with various implications on gameplay.

The reason why the binocular sights were dropped from what I read was due to ease of production and complexity of design more than anything else.

Dual-magnification optics are taken into consideration, as well as optical fillers (which only the Germans used in a way that it actually improved sighting it seems) and even glass quality (affecting among other things edge sharpness and contrast, the most visible thing are the "bubbles" somebody mentioned in this thread, which were often found in poor Allied sights, especially early war).

[aka_tom_w]

Hey Foxbat

Can you post the link to the thread where you found that?

I think a few of us here might like to re-read that thread.

Thanks

-tom w

[busboy]

Without digging out my book on the Tiger, I thought that the Binocular site was phased out in its production, so a CM "late" Tiger (if meaning late production, not just late serving). I could simply be wrong here, just what I recall.

But in general, I salute the post for bringing forth the question in an excellent manner not often seen in gaming communities.

Furthermore, I do think it is an important issue, not just as it satisfies the "hardcore" players, but as optics do have actual effects on the game.

I'm looking foreward to future debate and BTS comment.

[Sergei]

***bump***

[Moon]

Hello Ari,

thanks for the excellent post. Some answers:

Tiger I late model: In reality majority of these had a dual-magnification gun sight T.Z.F. 9b.

In CMBB the Tiger Is have “good optics”. But wouldn’t “dual-magnification optics” be more fitting?

"Good optics" is a "better" rating (game-wise) than "dual-mag optics". The Tiger I optics, while certainly dual-mag, were also among the best optics out there from what I have seen, and therefore qualify for "good optics". In other words - the rating in the game is primarily based on the game and combat performance, and not (only) the feature(s) of the optics.

King Tiger: In reality the KT production begun with the T.Z.F. 9b/1 binocular telescopic gun sight, but starting in April ‘44 the T.Z.F. 9d, a monocular telescopic sight with dual-magnification, replaced it. The 9d-model was used in majority of the King Tigers that actually were in combat.

In CMBB the KTs have “good optics”, but possibly “dual-magnification optics” would be more accurate. Or, by very conservative thinking, “binocular optics”.

Hmm, the TZF 9d, according to my sources (various, but for example the "Bildermappe optisches Gerät", page 28, an original Wehrmacht source) is a binocular dual-magnification sight.

Jagdtiger: JT’s gun sight was the W.Z.F. 2/1 with 10x magnification (seem to be monocular in this photo). The SF14Z stereo binocular periscope with magnification of 10x was mounted in a rotating circular plate in front of the TC’s hatch.

In CMBB the JT has “narrow optics”, but sounds more like “long-range” or even “very long-range optics”.

"Narrow optics" basically includes the "long-range" feature, as most optics with a narrow field of view are optics with high magnification. However, "narrow" is "worse" than "long-range", meaning that the overall optical quality was poor and/or that the field of view was extremely narrow. In the case of the 2/1, it's mainly the latter. The field of view was extremely narrow according to my sources (FOV 4°), among the most narrow sights there were. As a comparision, the TZF 12 (Panther) has a FOV of 27°-28°.

Martin

[TSword]

Ari,

You're right on the spot.

Those dual magnification optics were the Standard tankoptics in 1944 and produced in large quantities for Tiger, KT and Panther series. Standardization lead to them.

I've the number of produced Tzfs at home, will dig em out tonight.

Also wondered about the designations of optics in late war german tanks in CMBB already.

However, i'm conviced that the current "superiority" of german tanks in CMBB is already sufficient and much more would kill the game. IF the correct optics don't distort the picture to much in favor of the germans they should be in.

Greets

Daniel

[Sigurd]

To sum up, the third idea of Andrew concerning this thread would be correct for Tiger and JT:

(3) The books are correct, but our descriptions of optics don't mean exactly what you think they mean;

And concerning the KT, you think the current CMBB model suit the Ari remarks too ?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Moon:

Hello Ari,

thanks for the excellent post. Some answers:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Tiger I late model: In reality majority of these had a dual-magnification gun sight T.Z.F. 9b.

In CMBB the Tiger Is have “good optics”. But wouldn’t “dual-magnification optics” be more fitting?

"Good optics" is a "better" rating (game-wise) than "dual-mag optics". The Tiger I optics, while certainly dual-mag, were also among the best optics out there from what I have seen, and therefore qualify for "good optics". In other words - the rating in the game is primarily based on the game and combat performance, and not (only) the feature(s) of the optics.

King Tiger: In reality the KT production begun with the T.Z.F. 9b/1 binocular telescopic gun sight, but starting in April ‘44 the T.Z.F. 9d, a monocular telescopic sight with dual-magnification, replaced it. The 9d-model was used in majority of the King Tigers that actually were in combat.

In CMBB the KTs have “good optics”, but possibly “dual-magnification optics” would be more accurate. Or, by very conservative thinking, “binocular optics”.

Hmm, the TZF 9d, according to my sources (various, but for example the "Bildermappe optisches Gerät", page 28, an original Wehrmacht source) is a binocular dual-magnification sight.

Jagdtiger: JT’s gun sight was the W.Z.F. 2/1 with 10x magnification (seem to be monocular in this photo). The SF14Z stereo binocular periscope with magnification of 10x was mounted in a rotating circular plate in front of the TC’s hatch.

In CMBB the JT has “narrow optics”, but sounds more like “long-range” or even “very long-range optics”.

"Narrow optics" basically includes the "long-range" feature, as most optics with a narrow field of view are optics with high magnification. However, "narrow" is "worse" than "long-range", meaning that the overall optical quality was poor and/or that the field of view was extremely narrow. In the case of the 2/1, it's mainly the latter. The field of view was extremely narrow according to my sources (FOV 4°), among the most narrow sights there were. As a comparision, the TZF 12 (Panther) has a FOV of 27°-28°.

Martin</font>

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Hey Foxbat

Can you post the link to the thread where you found that?

I think a few of us here might like to re-read that thread.

Thanks

-tom w

How are optics better in CMBB?

The thread where the game mechanics for optics in CMBB was first explained

[PJungnitsch]

Nice link. Have been wondering how the optics thing was resolved, after all those arguments in CMBO

[Warphead]

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but the original post was a very sensible one. Your response, Warphead, puzzles me. It seems to offer little to the discussion other than "I agree with BFC, anyone who doesn't is quibbling". If that wasn't what you were trying to say, please excuse my inaccuracy in summarizing your post. I have seen a lot of posts like that, but I may be mistaken in thinking that was what you intended to say.

Uhm, I think you are mistaken. The second part of my post concerned Ari's original post. And I think it is rather sensible and as it turns out correct as it was a misunderstanding concerning the designations. The "joke" comment referred to Sigurd's post.

[Warphead]

1st time double post...

[ October 08, 2002, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Warphead- ]

[Moon]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Would it be possible to ask if you could rank (in order of game performance) the order from best to worst of the optics descriptions?

For instance is "Good Optics" the best rating for modifying the accuracy bonus in the "chance to hit" algorthym?

Can you can the optics ratings and tell us if they have any special advantages or disadvantages and exactly how that impacts accuracy and spotting within the game? (Just be because some of us are curious about the ranking system )

Thanks?

-tom w[/QB]

Hey Tom,

actually it's really hard to rank the optics in order of game performance, because it's not a simple fixed bonus. What I meant with "better" is that one type has more advantages and fewer disadvantages than another. For example, are "very long range" optics *better* than "long range optics"? Certainly so for extreme ranges, but quite the contrary at shorter ranges. So which one is better really depends on the situation and environment.

Martin

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Moon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Would it be possible to ask if you could rank (in order of game performance) the order from best to worst of the optics descriptions?

For instance is "Good Optics" the best rating for modifying the accuracy bonus in the "chance to hit" algorthym?

Can you rank the optics ratings and tell us if they have any special advantages or disadvantages and exactly how that impacts accuracy and spotting within the game? (Just be because some of us are curious about the ranking system )

Thanks?

-tom w

Hey Tom,

actually it's really hard to rank the optics in order of game performance, because it's not a simple fixed bonus. What I meant with "better" is that one type has more advantages and fewer disadvantages than another. For example, are "very long range" optics *better* than "long range optics"? Certainly so for extreme ranges, but quite the contrary at shorter ranges. So which one is better really depends on the situation and environment.

Martin[/QB]</font>

[JonS]

Moon,

right, but you know that because you know the way the game handles optics with those various definitions.

We don't, and can't, know that, because the internal mechanics of the optics - and everything else - are hidden from us. We can guess, I suppose, but that is rather unsatisfying.

I too would appreciate some sort of table/ranking/explanation of just how the various terms relate to Real World definitions, and what that all means in game terms.

Regards

JonS

[PJungnitsch]

Here's a small article on how complicated rating the optics on just binoculars can get: binocular buying guide

It is really interesting to go to a store that has a good selection of various types and qualities of binoculars to see what difference optics can make. Power, field of view, clarity, brightness, ease of use....