Is coincidence rangefinder just better then stereoscopic rangefinder in general?

[ohthot1227]

If I read the stats, I get the concept. A same generation Coincidence Rangefinder(CR below) is lighter then a Stereoscopic Rangefinder(SR below), and has a base accuracy buff and higher aiming speed, and SR has slower aiming speed, NO base accuracy buffs while it does have a long range bonus.

So to balance these two type of rangefinders, CR should have a higher accuracy at close range then an SR, but SR should gradually catch up and exceed CR's accuracy at longer ranges.....right?

But when I compare the accuracy of the two rangefinders by switching them in dockyard and see the accuracy stats of the gun by hovering my cursor over it, CR has higher accuracy at close range then SR as expected, but SR's accuracy just never catches up with CR even at extreme long ranges. Even with V-Gen rangefinders with radar, SR accuracy is almost always lower then CR at long range too.

So if this comparison is right, SR is heavier, slower aiming and inaccurate compared to CR. And there is NO reason to use it.

Is this really right? or is there any benefit using stereoscopic rangefinders and the accuracy stat of guns shown in dockyards wrong?

[ohthot1227]

Originally posted by Akhorahil:

I *think* you get a special Long Range bonus (or reduced penalty) applied later that isn't applied to the in-designs descriptions (you could test this by creating two otherwise identical ships and see what hit chances you get in actual combat).

It would probably be better if the effect *was* displayed, though.

I did think this too cuz this is the only sensible answer. Thanks
And yeah, I hope they put all the factors (rangefinder, thech buff, hull stability...etc) into count when they display the in-design accuracy

[ohthot1227]

Originally posted by Akhorahil:

Originally posted by ohthot1227:

And yeah, I hope they put all the factors (rangefinder, thech buff, hull stability...etc) into count when they display the in-design accuracy

A game this complex needs as much "What You See Is What You Get" as is humanly possible. On the plus side, this seems to have been worked out for gun lengths - it used to be that you could install a gun that looked as though it would turn that then wouldn't, but this has all been fixed now (I think).

I completely get that. I mean, this is one of the million "uncomfortable" parts of the game.
which is only so natural since this is basically a game still in development and it IS COMPLEX.
I just hope the developers have enough manpower and strength to keep up the work since this is a VERY interesting game.

[Bravo]

Coincidence is just better all around, it's been known for a while that SR is basically pointless.

[Signal 40]

Use it on ships with radar who stay out of LOS and Conv on your picket ships. Use the pickets to scout or keep LOS and shoot from safety. As of .08 the AI still just follows the closest ship so you can use them to keep them spotted and in a direction away from the mains and just pick them apart. Pickets with HE and auto can kill BB's pretty easy with fire as the AI doesn't seem to know how to armor control towers.

[ohthot1227]

Originally posted by Bravo:

Coincidence is just better all around, it's been known for a while that SR is basically pointless.

"In November and December 1941, the United States National Defense Research Committee conducted extensive tests between the American Bausch and Lomb M1 stereoscopic rangefinder and the British Barr and Stroud FQ 25 and UB 7 coincidence rangefinders, and concluded "that the tests indicate no important difference in the precision obtainable from the two types of instrument — coincidence and stereoscopic. They do indicate, however, that the difference in performance between large and small instruments is by no means as great as would be anticipated from simple geometrical optics. The report concludes with the belief that stereoscopic and coincidence acuities are about equal. Under favourable conditions existing instruments of the two types perform about equally well, and the choice between them for any given purpose must be based on matters of convenience related to the particular conditions under which they are to be used."


Maybe it is actually historically accurate hmm....