Jump to content
Casas5591

Optimal Crosshair Lead for Moving Targets? Requesting a Reference Point

Recommended Posts

This inquiry on the subject of leading targets is prompted to solve a dilemma in which there is a seemingly scarce availability of a FULLY encompassing reference to leading and successfully hitting targets with the least amount of wet work needed. There is a very agreeable recognition that experience eventually solves aiming difficulties but it doesn't hurt to make the process as transparent as possible. It's also because I'm bad@games and struggle with learning on the spot just out of laziness right now but I can imagine the answers you provide will lessen the frustration for newcomers who do things on a "read-first" basis.

How much lead do I give against targets using a time-based method against BB's, CA's, & DD's assuming that a user is using 1 second shell travel time = 1 tick minor/1 tick major against a target sailing broadside with Max Zoom/2nd High Zoom?

If there are other considerations that I left out then feel free to include them. Of course you can include your own format that you use to lead traveling targets. It will as well as all answers be appreciated.

Thank you for taking your time to read this thread. Apologies if I'm overlooking other factors in my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lead is quite easy actually, elevation is more a problem, because at least in high tiers the enemies will jiggle and dance a lot :)

As a general rule of thumb:

When firing at a BB:

1. Look at the shell flight time as displayed on the crosshair. Lets assume it says 11 seconds. Now if you put  the 10 marker plus 1  of the crosshair right on front of the bow of the ship you will hit it midships when it is going full speed in a straight line. When shooting at cruisers I add arrounnd 4-5 crosshair markers of lead. For DDs even more, When flight time reads 3, you can go with 10-11 markers. This is just a general rule of thumb. Adjust accordingly for fast BBs, slow cruisers etc. You will have to know that a Colorado is slow and a NC quite fast.

Not full speed:

2. Look at the smoke stack of your target. Many times they do not go full speed or even reverse (what is this shit actually with everyone driving backwards nowadays?. Adjust accordingly.

3. Look at the minimap and the angle your ship has to his. If he is angled away, give a bit less lead and more elveation. The other way around when he is angled towards you.

 

That's my aiming process in short. Works quite well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally I start with a 10 mil burst and correct from there with a vanilla client with full speed ships for pretty much any range but point blank.

If you want to get complex abt it: CA= 4 sec flight time, 8 mil lead. there's a modifier for distance and target speed as well but this is a rough approximate. 
DDs get 2X-3x+ flight time dependent on range. (or just put them on the edge of the screen to start with. its pretty close)
CAs get 2x flight time
BBs get 1X flight time dependent on target speed.

Elevation is a pain however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth noting that due to the long-range nature of WoWS, ping has an even more aggravating impact on this than in games like WoT.

I sometimes find it very hard to land hits at 180ms ping :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The formula I used for a straight-line target before I internalised most of it:

n=Tf + (s-25)

n is number of graduations at full zoom to aim at the bow of the ship, Tf is flight time, s is speed.

So for a ship travelling at 25 knots with a 10s flight time put grad 10 on the bow. 

A ship going 21 knots with a 7s flight time will give grad 3 on the bow. 

For very low speeds this breaks down a bit but generally if you're getting negative numbers firing at or just ahead of the citadel will score a hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, OnboardG1 said:

The formula I used for a straight-line target before I internalised most of it:

n=Tf + (s-25)

n is number of graduations at full zoom to aim at the bow of the ship, Tf is flight time, s is speed.

So for a ship travelling at 25 knots with a 10s flight time put grad 10 on the bow. 

A ship going 21 knots with a 7s flight time will give grad 3 on the bow. 

For very low speeds this breaks down a bit but generally if you're getting negative numbers firing at or just ahead of the citadel will score a hit.

Now I fully comprehend you choice of avatar.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use an established reference approach to aiming because I'm bad@quick-math. I can do math but I need time, a pencil and paper. So my solution is to come up with a quick standard aim-point with a known solution and then make adjustments to that aim point based on different variables. This is essentially the same solution as what Onboard post except I make an assumption about speed and adjust my aim point instead of estimating speed and finding a firing solution for that speed.  

Standard aim-point:

Assume IJN BB going full speed sailing parallel to you, then you want 1 gradation in front of the bow of the stock UI at full zoom for each km distance. So at 10km, you want 10 ticks in front of the bow, 15km then 15 ticks.

I then adjust from the standard aim-point based on different speed, angle and ship type. If they are going slower, then you have less ticks than the std aim point. If it is coming toward me, I form a right triangle with the enemy speed vector as the hypotenuse. If it's a CA +5 ticks to standard. 

It's crude, and starts to breaks down ~ <5km or >17+ km, but i've found it effective for majority of the engagements. The benefit of this is I just have to look at 1 number (range) and I can come up with a reliable firing solution. I'll see about attaching pictures when I get home. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BiggieD61 said:

Now I fully comprehend you choice of avatar.  :)

I'm actually pretty bad at math for an engineer. It's why I did digital electronics, even if I am a bit of a stats fan.

My other half is the one who is basically Finch ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I developed a method that works independently of the approach angle or the crosshair. Essentially you think in terms of visible ship lengths, so for example a full speed Minekaze will travel one visible ship length in around 2 seconds, with cruisers typically ~4 seconds and BBs ~6 seconds. Needs adjustment for percentage of maximum speed, but that's it.

Difficult bit was figuring out the size and speed scales in WoWS. After that you can throw the maximum speed and length of common ships into a spreadsheet and get an exact visible lead. I don't actually play the game against people but I tested the method by watching streamers and mentally correcting their aim :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, OnboardG1 said:

I'm actually pretty bad at math for an engineer. It's why I did digital electronics, even if I am a bit of a stats fan.

That's funny :) Same here, except I am a computer scientist, but I work for the electronics industry (high tech sensors).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PrivateBert said:

That's funny :) Same here, except I am a computer scientist, but I work for the electronics industry (high tech sensors).

I'm bad at math cuz I'm a computational fluid dynamicist.... and I use the computer to do all the math for me. Starting down this career path was the exact point when I started to losing the ability to do math in my head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ncc81701 said:

I'm bad at math cuz I'm a computational fluid dynamicist....

Isn't CFD just another name for "numerology", a mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 8_Hussars said:

Isn't CFD just another name for "numerology", a mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events? :P

I think FPGA engineering fits that bill too. There have been many 6pm finishes where I've found myself backlit in green by a waveform output going "wut?".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OnboardG1 said:

I think FPGA engineering fits that bill too. There have been many 6pm finishes where I've found myself backlit in green by a waveform output going "wut?".

Definitely. That parallel thinking is quite hard for humans. Are you using VHDL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, PrivateBert said:

Definitely. That parallel thinking is quite hard for humans. Are you using VHDL?

Yep, although we do quite a bit graphically. State machines are easier to get your head into when you can see a representation, even if the code it gens is often wank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am writing a code generator that produces c-code from xml. As many use fpgas too, I enhanced it to also produce vhdl code that worked with the mircroprocessor code right out of the box. But it had/has the same problem. The produced vhdl code is not always to the liking of the hardware guys :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 8_Hussars said:

Isn't CFD just another name for "numerology", a mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events? :P

Stands for "Curve Fit Data" or "ColorFul Data" Depending on who you ask:P. Whatever it is, it's got to be good if you used 300 processors to run your case right? ;).  

I had some run-ins with FPGAs in my first job, even I didn't want to go there and quit that job lol. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish I had a good way to explain how I lead, as it's mainly instinct and reflex at this point, especially vs maneuvering DD's.  Best way to summarize it is I think in terms of ship lengths and speeds, and completely ignore the measurements on the crosshair, using it only as a horizontal reference line, or making estimates using the end of it (I play vanilla), which I combine with my knowledge of how fast each ship can go, the smoke from its smokestack, and shell travel time of the gun I'm using, and how tight they can turn and how long it takes them to turn.  This gets me a fairly good 1st shot which will usually land at least something, and usually only requires minor corrections.  I can also determine the lead I need extremely fast, allowing me to fire at multiple different targets in rapid succession, or fire turrets that can't aim at my primary target (good on battleships and ships with slow moving turrets, I'll often lob a salvo at something in the middle of traversing rear turrets to the other side of the ship, for example).  I wish I could explain it better, but it just comes down to having lots of experience, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tedster59 said:

Wish I had a good way to explain how I lead, as it's mainly instinct and reflex at this point

 

^

I've never had to give it much thought.  I've played a lot of flight sims in the past 20 years, and WoWS is just deflection shooting with flattened dimensions and on a much slower pace.  It's always felt pretty natural, with the only real learning curve being the different shell characteristics of various guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

minor necro on this, because the latest update extended the stock horizontal line reticule, which is actually throwing off my aim, as part of my instinct was based on how many ship lengths past the end of the edge of the old reticule to aim for some higher speed ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish they would add some of the more popular gun sites to the game and be done with it. DEV's seem to like to make things harder than necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tedster59 said:

minor necro on this, because the latest update extended the stock horizontal line reticule, which is actually throwing off my aim, as part of my instinct was based on how many ship lengths past the end of the edge of the old reticule to aim for some higher speed ships.

It's messed me up a little too, but I'm sure we will get used to it eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Tedster59 said:

minor necro on this, because the latest update extended the stock horizontal line reticule, which is actually throwing off my aim, as part of my instinct was based on how many ship lengths past the end of the edge of the old reticule to aim for some higher speed ships.

We have the patch now too and I have the same problem. But I will get used to it and then it will be better than before.

But for the time being, I am missing much more than usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...