Apparently we have been aiming wrong.

[OBXandos]

iChase put out a new video a few hours ago. In it he detailed how the information most of us have been using/believing has been wrong for all of these years. I'll post it below.
https://youtu.be/cpkiLkJEqsE

[OBXandos]

The TLDR of this video is that the dynamic cross hair scales differently than as advertised. Supposedly each tick mark is supposed to represent 1 second of shell flight time for a target moving 30kn. That is only true for around 16KM. Farther than 16km you need to lead less, shorter than 16km you need to lead more.

Ryuu, would you be able to bring this to the attention of the devs and ask some questions?
1. Is ichase correct in his theory?
2. Has it always been this way?
3. Is this an intended functionality?
4. Is there going to be any investigation into changing the functionality to be as advertised.

Aiming is one of the most important skills in this game, and having the tools to do so consistently is something everyone needs. Let me know what you all think!

[Rockstone]

There is probably something there... When shooting DD's (relative close range at 6 km or so) I usually lead by a factor 2 (of the fligh time in seconds). Of course most DD's have higher than 30 knots speed, but still...
I applaud iChase for his work...

[endlessBoogie]

Originally posted by OBXandos:

The TLDR of this video is that the dynamic cross hair scales differently than as advertised.

It works as intended. it is dynamic. not that braindead aiminghelp this mod offers , but still dynamic.

[Flashshark]

It's good work and and an interresting insight into the mechanics.
But I think the mod goes to far and should net be allowed in the game.

[Formous]

I always read the ticks as a KM of distance. 10km foe, give a 10 tick lead. Never failed.

[Lavian]

Is that how the dynamic crosshair is supposed to work? I've actually been using it for estimations on a ship-to-ship basis without giving the ticks any particular value. After all, shell velocity is different, so it's to be expected that high-velocity French shells are going to have different leads than super heavy American shells. The number of ticks I use isn't the same for Alabama vs Dunkerque, for example. Aiming Alabama with the same number of ticks as Dunkerque just leads to disappointment.

[Ashardalon]

Originally posted by Lavian:

Is that how the dynamic crosshair is supposed to work? I've actually been using it for estimations on a ship-to-ship basis without giving the ticks any particular value. After all, shell velocity is different, so it's to be expected that high-velocity French shells are going to have different leads than super heavy American shells. The number of ticks I use isn't the same for Alabama vs Dunkerque, for example. Aiming Alabama with the same number of ticks as Dunkerque just leads to disappointment.

you use travel time to use the ticks
those slower shells will show a longer travel time so more ticks needed
if your not going to use the ticks there is no real reason to use the dynamic crosshairs

[Lavian]

Originally posted by Ashardalon:

Originally posted by Lavian:

Is that how the dynamic crosshair is supposed to work? I've actually been using it for estimations on a ship-to-ship basis without giving the ticks any particular value. After all, shell velocity is different, so it's to be expected that high-velocity French shells are going to have different leads than super heavy American shells. The number of ticks I use isn't the same for Alabama vs Dunkerque, for example. Aiming Alabama with the same number of ticks as Dunkerque just leads to disappointment.

you use travel time to use the ticks
those slower shells will show a longer travel time so more ticks needed
if your not going to use the ticks there is no real reason to use the dynamic crosshairs

I disagree. The fact that they're dynamic helps for making visual estimations based on zoom level. Otherwise, I would honestly probably stick with one of the static webs.

[s u p e r g r a m p s]

I just use the modded Nomogram Dynamic Sight[world-warships.com] instead lol.

It actually does a correct job of adjusting the ticks based on the ship's guns muzzle velocity compared to the range that you're aiming at. The normal dynamic sight is just garbage and doesn't do a thing compared to the basic static sight from what I can tell. The difference is like night and day. You can get it by itself or with Aslains[aslain.com].

I will mention it doesn't do everything for you, and you do still have to compensate for angle, and you will have to zoom out depending on how fast your target is moving.

[OBXandos]

The way it works currently, as far as I know.

Static - Single graphic that does not move or adjust based on zoom level. Supposedly it is calibrated for a target moving at 20kn, distance unknown.

Dynamic - This changes its graphic based solely on zoom level. Supposedly it is calibrated for a target moving at 20kn. This only seems to be accurate at ~16M distance.

Nomogram Modded sight - This changes its calibration based on shell speed and distance to target based on cross hair location or locked on ship.

The Nomogram sight is a much better sight and indeed takes some of the guess work out of aiming. You do still have to adjust for ship speed and angle. I like that you do not have to adjust for sight sloppiness, and I feel like that is a good thing. I feel like you should have accurate and precise equipment for the job you are doing, aiming.

[CMDR Sweeper]

I guess I am a bit crazy, I have always found the crosshair marks to be way off.
So currently I shoot mostly by feel, if it is a while since I sailed that ship, I will fire a gauge shot first and then adjust my fire.
So far that has worked at range...
Until the dreaded dispersion has half the shells land at the port side of the target, and the other half at the starboard side...
And my damage only results in salt water damage to the target :S

[OBXandos]

Originally posted by CMDR Sweeper:

I guess I am a bit crazy, I have always found the crosshair marks to be way off.
So currently I shoot mostly by feel, if it is a while since I sailed that ship, I will fire a gauge shot first and then adjust my fire.
So far that has worked at range...
Until the dreaded dispersion has half the shells land at the port side of the target, and the other half at the starboard side...
And my damage only results in salt water damage to the target :S

You are not crazy. Chase just proved that they were way off. I noticed it too when shooting close range fast DD. I just chalked it up to DD moving faster than 30kn but apparently that wasn't the only factor.

[Donegali]

Originally posted by CMDR Sweeper:

So currently I shoot mostly by feel, if it is a while since I sailed that ship,

Yeah, same. When I first started I always used to use the marks but found they weren't always accurate so now it's all on feel except for 20km plus. I also don't use any mods at all after having them break after a patch.

[old.school]

Havent watched the video yet, maybe will do so this weekend.

But i thought that with dynamic each tic represents a second. And that the sight is calibrated for a ship moving at 20 knots. So a ship that is moving perfectly perpendicular to your gunsight (giving you their full broadside) with a shell flight time of 5 seconds according to your gunsight data and at a speed of 20 knots puts the target on the #5 tic. If the ship is moving at 40 knots (ie a destroyer) then you double the lead to the 10 second tic mark (actually more like 9 since DD's move at 35-ish) since the ship is moving at or close to double what the sight is calibrated for. If the ship is moving at 30 knots then you go to 7.5 since the ship is moving at 1.5 times what the sight is calibrated for. Estimating the target ships speed of course falls on you and you would use things like the angle of the smoke leaving its stacks and the targets situation and what he could be doing in that instant (are they turning and bleeding speed etc).

Is the video saying something different?

[Donegali]

The dynamic crosshair was based on 30 knots, the standard ones are 20 knots.