S3 Series

I vote for the current Grid system.

I have asked questions and received detailed responses on how to use the Radial system. I understand it and think it would be good to have. In the future, I would like to have the option to use both interchangeably. I do want to see continued development for this method, but I do NOT want to see it used exclusively in place of the grid. The Radial system has been said to aide in creating a mental map and improve the ability to intercept. The same can be said of the grid system.

I think we can merge the radial with the grid over the next year and let use and common practice by all players determine which should be the standard.

Ni Yen.

Either system can be used. When I am on GCI, I call out both Radial and Grid, that lets the player decide which they prefer to use for location(s).

Regardless of which navigational system is used, I would like to see a navigational aid added to the map; if nothing else, to the map when in the tower. I would like a bearing/distance feature added to the map that would allow a player to click (or right-click; CMD-click) anywhere on the map and then move the mouse over the map away from that location and instantly be shown bearing and distance. Given this feature, GCI players could readily transmit pertinent information to airborne units. This readily fits into the realm of realism as any GCI--historical or otherwise--would have the navigational instruments in-hand to quickly produce this needed information. With this information, even the newest player would quickly be able to learn to provide more accurate intercept information.

Grid vs. Bullseye? Heck, we can't even get people to agree on using metric vs. imperial!!

<S>

-tmoa-
Untereffengee
JG-51 Mölders

LOL! Plane Specific. And since we're Axis - Metric!

A dragable compass rose and string would be excellent.

The ruler tool from SIlent Hunter is basically what I imagine

6:30 in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_XOYLy0nSE

It would not need to be this visually elaborate, but yes, this is the type of tool to which I was referring.

Maybe I'm off subject a little bit here. But I can recall several instances in which Allied squads were flying Axis during an S3 and were quite adamant in telling everyone they would post alt in feet and request alt in feet since they were Allied. To me, I can automatically do the math conversion from feet to metric in my head but some find it difficult to do that. So I would do my best to translate metric to imperial so the Allied squads could perform. Kind of similar to the discussion we are having right now; bullseye vs. grid.

FWIW, I have no problem with the bullseye system but prefer the grid system because it's easier to type 2.7 47 in the buffer than what the bullseys system requires.

rat...

We are flying axis, and since the axis guys are used to axis we arn't bitching (externally at least) about metric:)

However, https://www.dropbox.com/s/5g16kojz3bj4p5k/conversion%20chart.xlsx?dl=0 for those who need it.

Dobs

Bullseye requires you type

"300/230"

or

"B300/230"

I don't see the difference.

The difference for me is, without looking at the ETO map, I know instantly where 300 degrees 230 miles is in relation to Berlin while I am not able to do the same with a grid reference of 2.7 47.

Conversion Chart added to High Contrast BUllseye Map


https://www.dropbox.com/s/g7fud38caaq82 ... t.dds?dl=0