Periscope detections are hosed [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

neilbyrne

01-23-14, 05:40 PM

I'm really getting disgusted with having brief exposures of my periscope detected immediately and at very high rates of probability by merchant ships, day or night. Had one detect me last night at 4000 yards in heavy seas. This has been happening for about a week. They get to 4,000 yds and start to zigzag for no apparent reason.
I served on active duty in the USN for 31 years mostly in frigates and destroyers. I had command of a frigate, BRONSTEIN, and a destroyer, BRISCOE. Persicope detections are very hard and you get lots of false contacts. For most of my time as a junior officer, seniors kept telling me that periscope detections by lookouts were a training problem. Then I got a look at about 30 years of SHAREM ASW exercise results and the opportunities vs. detection numbers were just dismal. Obviously, I can’t put classified numbers out here, but suffice it to say that the US Navy has ultimately decided that this is a job for a machine.
A warship has about seven folks looking out full and part time. Three are full time lookouts, port, stbd and aft. Then you have the OOD and JOOD who look out when they can. Last you have the two signalmen who are supposed to be looking out when not signaling; although, in fact, they hardly do. The lookouts have 120 degree sectors that do not overlap. The officers, when they are looking, normally search the forward 180 degrees. The aft lookout has no one else looking where he searches and his primary responsibility is to be the last line of defense for a man who falls overboard, so often he is searching in the near field which the others are not.
In eighteen years of sea duty, I saw less than half a dozen unalerted visual periscope detections that actually turned out to be submarines. Now admittedly, we weren’t worried about being torpedoed, and so our attention was less focused than that of our WWII brethren, but still, not great. This is not to say that I only saw three or so periscopes in 18 years of sea duty. I saw a lot more than that, but they weren’t initial detections. When sonar gets a contact, they call the bridge and CIC requesting a bearing clear or foul report to determine if what they've got is a surface ship or not. The bridge watch standers then look down the bearing sonar gave. Sometimes there’s a periscope there, but these are cued not unalerted detections. If I had to attach an unclassified number to uncued detections, I’d say a warship had no better than a 10% chance, perhaps less, of detecting a periscope that wasn’t way high out of the water and then only in daylight within 4000 yds and merchant ships would certainly do no better. At night, or in low visibility, or heavy seas, forget it; zero percent. The issues at night and in low viz are obvious. In heavy seas the lookout has two problems. First, the eye is most often drawn to the periscope feather, its wake. In heavy seas, foam presides and feathers are insignificant. Second, you can't search with binoculars because you can't steady the field of view. IJN warships had wonderful optical equipment and most destroyers had two sets of big eye mounted binoculars in the pilot house. USN big eyes run to 20X power and are useful for ship recognition, but relatively not for periscope detections because of their narrow field of view.
Surface search radar, until the relatively recent advent of one and two second scan rates in systems like SPQ-9, was only a little better than visual. This was mostly because with six to ten second scan rates, everything as small as a periscope looks to the operator like sea clutter. And we didn’t get good at sea clutter rejection features until after the war. Plus radar sea return clutter is worst right where you’re wanting to look, within 6kyds of own ship.
I wrote two longer posts about ASW for Ducimus about five years ago that contained some of this. In any case, does anyone know where the periscope detection numbers reside so I can examine those and see if what I perceive is happening is in fact the case?

Sniper297

01-24-14, 12:55 AM

That I couldn't tell you, but since I've been fooling with the SH4 mission editor I found that by default every new ship I place is classed as "Veteran", with the choices being Elite, Veteran, Competent, Novice, and Poor. "Veteran" apparently means psychic, making a beeline for you from far beyond any reasonable detection range. In other words the AI cheats so I'd hate to see an Elite crew.
:gulp:

I too was in ASW, an AX in a heavy helicopter antisubmarine squadron, so I totally agree with your gripe here.

TorpX

01-24-14, 01:37 AM

neilbyrne, I certainly agree with your reasoning. Whenever someone posts about their scope being spotted at > 1,000 yd, I have to scratch my head. I feel the same way about the way enemy ships are able to spot torpedo tracks. It seems to defy logic.

Someone posted about the same problem a few months ago. They said the instant he put up his scope, the target started to evade. Later, he said he changed up his mod order, and the problem went away. What mods are you using?

Armistead

01-24-14, 08:32 AM

I used the keys to control the scope so I can move it as I please, this way I can leave it under the water line and just barely move it up to break water enough to see. Beats all the up and down all the way during an attack.You really need to just break the waterline with you scope in calm waters, can get by more in rougher waters, fog and night of course.

I haven't messes with files in a long time, seems there is some sim files that deal with the scope, also possible different min/max heights that may could be adjusted and I believe there's a value regarding speed, the wake your scope leaves, so be careful about speed when scoping.

Obvious, use the attack scope during the day..

Scury would probably be the one to ask about this.

Sniper297

01-24-14, 11:23 AM

I'm still working on Manilla Raid and Resupply, so I've been observing the behavior of one Fubuki over and over. The group is one Hiryu, two cruisers, and I eliminated all but one escort. Manila Bay is shallow, the spot I attack from is 120 feet deep, so there's no going deep to evade. Got three wrecks screaming the breakup sounds of tortured metal all around, but I put the scope down and switch to external view to watch - I go north, south, west, or settle on the bottom, kick out decoys, nothing changes. He makes a beeline for me every time. I changed his path to put him 4000 yards away from the group, he still knows exactly where I am and where I'm going. Changed him from Veteran to Competent, there's STILL no evading him.

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1696x1082q90/28/64j4.jpg

I know a lot of tricks to fool ASW operators, but I have to change him to Novice and place him way outside sonar detection range when I start the attack to get an even chance of actually evading this poltergeist. Periscope exposure and noise are irrelevant, the AI cheats.

Armistead

01-24-14, 04:57 PM

Haha, the AI doesn't cheat, it just follows the values set for it. It takes time to understand those values and how to deal with them, but the AI, even difficult settings like TMO or worse can be defeated..

neilbyrne

01-24-14, 10:48 PM

I've been having the same problems detailed above with escorts zooming in from all quarters for no apparent reason. Two nights ago I encountered a very large convoy (6 columns of 5) east of Formosa. I made three attacks on these guys all using the same tactics just to make sure I wasn't being paranoid about uber capable escorts. In each case I would run around them on the surface. Get twelve or so miles ahead, go to radar depth and track them in until the closest escort was 8nm distant then go to PD and silent running. Oh yeah, this was all at night. The only strong escort was an OTORI, the rest were corvettes and trawlers. The OTORI was on the convoy's stbd wing so I stayed to their port. I had their speed from radar and I'd lay out a speed vs. bearing track on the main body so I would pick up any major course change and keep periscope obs. to a min. Layer depth was 230ft. None of these tactics, nor keeping the lead escort pointed made any difference. At about 4kyds fm the nearest escort, the closest three escorts would turn right at me. Happened every time. This is OCT '44.
So sonar detections are as hosed as periscopes. Here I’d like to go into sub detection by escorts with sonar. I have a lot of experience with this, and it is very difficult. It's why between us and the Brits, we built 1600+ destroyers/escort vessels in WWII. There is strength in numbers, because the individual capability just sucks. In 1970 ASW School, we were taught the capabilities of all the sonars then in the US surface fleet. There were still some WWII ships active, mostly old FLETCHERs and SUMNERs that hadn’t been through the FRAM (Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization) refit that installed newer systems. As I recall, these old girls had the SQS-46V sonar. We did a day or two in the attack trainer using this system. In absolutely beautiful water, isothermal (no layer) to 400ft, it had a reliable detection range of 2000-2500yds. Now remember this was the best sonar we had toward the end of WWII. In worse water, it was less. And a good rule of thumb about subs below the layer is that range across the layer is no better than 33-25% of range above the layer so that an above layer range of 2kyds yields a below layer range of 650-500yds. The IJN had nothing better than this, and in my research in Morison’s 15 volumes History of USN Ops in WWII and Roscoe’s histories of US Sub & DD ops, I never found a sub detection at greater than 2,500 yds on active sonar. Most IJN detections were at 2,000 or less. On passive sonar, those sonars could detect thermal (steam/oxygen) powered torpedoes pretty well but close in to own ship; electrics not at all. The only condition when a sub on her battery would be at all vulnerable to passive detection was if she were cavitating her screws, normally at 7kts or more and only above 150ft depth, or at 15kts or more below 150 but above 300ft. Deeper than 300ft, water pressure keeps the cavitation bubbles from forming. And even those detections were a long way from a sure thing.
Max sonar speed for WWII escort ships was 10-12 knots and it was not graceful degradation above that. From 10-12, count on losing half your range, go faster and you were deaf as a post in both active and passive.
The idea that the IJN could passively detect a non-cavitating sub on her battery is fantasy. The USN did not field a surface sonar with a really decent passive capablilty until the SQQ-23 (PAIR) IN 1969. PAIR had two completely rubber sonar domes, much more acoustically transparent than the conventional steel and enormously improved signal processing and displays. The PAIR test ship was USS BROWNSON (DD-868) in which I was CIC and then ASW officer. We took PAIR thru OPEVAL, the tests required to determine acceptance for service use. The sub we tested against was USS JALLAO (SS-368) a BALAO GUPPY. We did months of test runs together. JALLAO would open range on us with all her top hamper, periscopes, radar, comm antennae way out of the water so we could track her out to ~30kyds on radar. Sonar was kept in the dark as to her position. Then she would turn toward us and energize an acoustic augmenter to sound like a Soviet nuke boat. CIC would pass word to sonar the run had commenced and they'd try to detect. PAIR passed OPEVAL based on the results, but the reason I went into all this detail is that on the conclusion of the run, JALLAO would secure the augmenter and she'd be GONE off our sonar displays. I mean we wouldn't even have to wait for her to tell us she'd secured; we knew immediately.
So there we were in 1970 with a state of the art sonar, rubber domes, cabinets full of jacked up signal processors, JALLAO shuts down the augmenter and we can't detect her just on her battery. Plus detecting her on battery wasn't even part of the PAIR spec because everybody knew it couldn't be done. Even today, conventional subs on battery are the hardest passive ASW target there is. The idea the IJN could passively detect twenty-five years earlier is fanciful.
So where are these 4kyd detections coming from? In reality they can't be active or passive sonar or periscope detections at night; so what are they?

My mods:
Generic Mod Enabler - v2.6.0.157
1_TriggerMaru_Overhaul_2-5
1_TMO_25_small_patch
RSRDC_TMO_V502
RSRDC_V5xx_Patch1
Convoy Routes TMO+RSRD
1.5_Optical Targeting Correction 031312 for RSRDCv502
1.5_OTC for 16 to 9 Aspect Ratio RSRDCv502
Improved Stock Environment_v3_TMO&RFB
#2 ISE Realistic Colors
Easier AI for TMO 2.5 by Orpheus
EZ Plot V1.0

Sniper297

01-25-14, 01:43 PM

The AI cheats, there's no other way. :salute:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1/532066_476970262347259_226249781_n.jpg

AQS-13/A from a Sikorsky SH-3D antisubmarine helicopter, 1978. Max range 20,000 yards, but only under ideal conditions, and in passive mode you MIGHT hear a noisy surface ship at 10k yards. They would have loved that in WWII, but regardless of how good any sonar is - you can't hear what's not making noise. Soviet nukes back in the 70s had some pretty noisy reactor pumps, that's why they went back to diesel electric with the KILO class. Our subs were really quiet unless they were running fast and shallow, I know exactly what you mean about the augmenter.

WWII the technology just wasn't there, the way the hunter-killer groups in the Atlantic found Das Boot was by flying radar equipped Avengers off of jeep carriers - at night. On the surface. After that stick a pin in a chart and draw a 100 mile radius circle, patrol that circle - he has to come up somewhere in that circle within 48 hours. Every time he pops up to recharge batteries the TBMs get him on radar, attack again to force him under, repeat until power is gone and he can't stay submerged.

In SH4:

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1138x1082q90/850/odjm.jpg

With wussie mode on you click on a tin can, and get the circles. Outer is visual detection (in good weather), 5500 yards. Inner is passive sonar, 3800 yards (really optimistic for WWII), the wedge cut out of the back is the dead zone (from screws and machinery noise, good place for a sub to sprint). The half circle in front is active sonar, 550 yards (again in ideal conditions, sub shallow and at a 90 degree angle).

Again, I've done some testing on this, if a destroyer is 10,000 yards away when you torpedo a nearby ship, no matter which direction you go, how fast or slow, how many decoys you kick out or how deep you go, the clairvoyant AI will make a beeline straight for you every time unless the crew is set for novice or poor.

The problem may be programming limitations, but every aspect of the AI is oversimplified. Worst example is your own crew's limited intelligence;

"SHIP SIGHTED! BEARING 065! LONG RANGE!"
Yeah, that's the 83rd time you reported the same ship, we're in the middle of an end-around, if you lose sight of him for a few minutes you don't need to report him as a new contact every time you reacquire him.

BAM!!! "WE'RE UNDER ATTACK SIR! WE'RE TAKING DAMAGE SIR!"
Cripes, where did that evil destroyer come from?
"I REPORTED HIM 15 MINUTES AGO, SIR! FIVE MINUTES AGO HE TURNED TOWARD US AND WENT TO FULL SPEED, BUT I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT TO MENTION THAT SINCE HE WASN'T A NEW CONTACT!"
Scurvy dog, go walk the plank.
:arrgh!:

Webster

01-25-14, 03:25 PM

The AI cheats, there's no other way.

yes the AI cheats, there is no denying it.

its designed like that to make the game challenging to players. the trick is to learn how the game cheats and the ways you can fool or get around its attempts to cheat. you can even use its cheating against it to cause it to chase ghosts.

its a skill set to learn and it takes time but once you get used to it you learn how to limit the things you do in the game so it isn't able to be as successful at cheating you.

bottom line is, it is a learning curve you must master to be able to balance the games cheating with things you can do to limit how the game can cheat.

think of night as a clear bright day because they can always spot you at night just as if it was a clear bright day.

even when there is no way for the enemy to know your position and you are making no noise with the scope down and all engines at full stop and are completely silent, a DD will still be able to zoom in from 6000m away and park exactly on top of you and drop charges when it isn't possible to ever detect you to that level of accuracy. the enemy ships deck guns can hit a nail on the head from 10,000m away 3 out of 5 shots so your periscope or conning tower are both spotted and hit by shells beyond any realistic human degree of detection. these gunners that are more accurate from a moving deck platform have to be the best snipers in the world to make such blatently unrealistic shots.

the only thing that can help you beat the games AI in most cases is the thermal layer and to a lesser extent the weather like storms and fog because it misdirects the enemy sensors enough so you can escape detection.

the game does many unrealistic things to try and keep you challenged and into the game and give you a realistic "feeling" of impending doom even though the way things function and happen in the game is very often far from being realistic about the things subs did in real life.

you cant do night attacks under cover of darkness because the games AI doesn't detect you any less at night then during daylight. you try a surface night attack, even in bad weather, and your dead.

there is a long long list of things wrong with the AI in the game that isn't realistic but its not as much about the settings and how they work as it is about the overall feel you get when playing. they are trying to give you the "feeling" that you are really there facing things real captains did.

another thing I hate about the game is when you are inside a convoy or task force, how every ship in the game always knows exactly where you are at periscope depth, even without ever putting your scope up, and manages to be able to drive right on top of you and ram your tower every time. battleships, cruisers, carriers, and freighters all will play pinball with your tower.

sometimes when a ship is near you, the AI tells it to stop and mirror your movements to stay "too close" for your torps to arm so you stop they stop you turn they turn and it is not possible for then to have that close a fix on you speed, position, and range or be able to create a Mexican stand off like that. its simple to break free by suddenly hitting full reverse and break free to avoid it but the realism killer for a battleship to stop dead in the water just so you cant get enough space for your torps to arm is beyond a realism killer for me.

the truth is, if the game didn't cheat it would quickly become boring and no challenge to play it.

the first thing I suggest is do a mod soup cleanup then try again and see if things are better, the game will always cheat "some" so don't expect it to stop all the unreasonable detections. also as torpx mentioned there is a mod conflict issue that if you combine certain mods it can cause you to be constantly detected all of the time even when you shouldn't be so list your mods and the install order lets see if anything is wrong with it.

neilbyrne

01-25-14, 04:46 PM

Armistead

01-25-14, 07:22 PM

Mods listed in order shown above.

Sniper, where is it that I can set escort performance values? Can you get to something that borders reality? I don't find giving the AI freebee detections at 6kyds to be fun.

This explains enemy values and how to change them. However, I wouldn't do much, the fact is the AI basically makes up for other flaws of the game. Most long time players can use the hardest mods and still rack up unrealistic tonnage per patrol.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=111395&page=2

neilbyrne

01-25-14, 09:33 PM

Sniper297

01-26-14, 12:26 AM

Don't get me started, the whole thing is goofy. When I examine files I find many many that are not used at all in the game - they're leftovers from Silent Hunter III. Another example of oversimplified programming is layers - as former subhunters, you and I understand the nature of thermal layers and all the reflection/refraction/reverberation stuff. In game the thermal layer works like another surface layer, line of "sight" from sonar. If you're on or above the surface or any part of the sub or periscope sticks up, the enemy can see you. If you're completely under the surface you're "invisible".

Layers work the same way, the bathythermograph sensor is on the keel, so when the stage whisper comes "PASSING THERMAL LAYER!", only the KEEL has passed the thermal layer, so if you stop there sonar can still "see" you. Note the depth when the whisper comes, go down 60 feet deeper than that, now the whole sub is "submerged" under the layer and can't be detected at all. Come up 20 feet so the periscope shears are above the layer, and you will always be detected at the same range that you would be visually if the shears were sticking above the actual surface.

In other words the thermal layer in the game is a kind of "virtual surface" for sound, simply a flat plane you're either above or hidden below. I know real layers are nothing like that unless there's a seriously sharp difference in temp and/or salinity, but I take advantage of them anyway - the enemy cheats so why shouldn't I? :arrgh!:
In fact when there's time I make a deep submergence before the target arrives so I can note the depth if there's a thermal layer, add 60 feet and make a mental note of where I'll go after the attack - usually I avoid being depth charged at all that way. Fire all tubes, observe hits if there's time, then kick out a decoy, go to flank speed, head for 60 feet below the layer, then slow down to avoid wasting battery juice. I don't even order silent running, let the crew clang and bang while reloading tubes, if I'm under the layer they won't hear it. :know:

Armistead

01-26-14, 06:10 AM

Armistead, thanks for the lead.

I don't care about tonnage or that folks learn to work around these fantasies. What I'm trying to get to is something that's more real. I sometimes play this with my best friend who is a retired USN CDR; one of us on the keyboard and the other running manuevering board solutions on escorts & targets. It's fun but we're growing very weary of having something crazy happen where we look at each other and say, "Now that's bull****; I mean not a chance that happens."

But from what I can read so far, the AI is based on concrete that was poured on oozing ground. It won't go active unless it detects passively for some period which was impossible at the time. So if I turn off passive sonar, the escorts will go blind in both eyes.

I'm going to have to play with this some I guess.

I played thru the war three times on TMO 1.5/RSRDC several years ago and don't remember it being this bad for realism. Occasionally something goofy would happen, but nothing like this.

It's a balance of numerous values, I seldom had a problem getting found out with TMO until I got my attack off and could always evade unless I did something stupid. I did fine tune all my values, some harder, some easier, but I don't recall having a problem with the scope being seen unless I leave it up too long or going to fast. However, I do just raise it above the waterline. I haven't played in a long time, but maybe the visual sensor in the sim file has a min/max height value that could be adjusted, I just don't remember.

The AI sonar will only come on if you fall within its sonar cone, give it the right angle and depth. As long as I stay narrow to an escort, I seldom get pinged unless I get within 1000 yards. Someone did make a exe file mod/cheat of sort that you have to run after you start the game that turns active sonar off until you're found out another way.

With most sensors, to get found out you have to do several things for a period of time before they activate or sense you. What you don't know is the crew rating of each escort, which determines the amount of sensor used.

Raven Morpheus

01-26-14, 12:28 PM

I share in neilbyrne's frustration with the AI. I run only the GFO mod (my other mods are graphical and sound related, so I believe they are unlikely to affect the AI).

I too find the AI to be clairvoyant.

My latest example of this is trying to do a "quick mission" provided by the GFO mod for the German side (the mission is called Ocean Danger).

You start off at least 6k away from a 4 merchant ship convoy with a 2 DD 3 armed trawler escort, at periscope depth and it's just getting to night time. I immediately upon starting the mission give the order to dive to what I think is under the thermal layer (90m or lower (I usually set 100m)), and sure enough on the way down I get the "passing thermal layer" message. All the time I'm either moving at half speed or less and trying to get into position.

When I am in position 9/10 times when I come up to periscope depth as soon as I take a look I can see that the AI has spotted me (in the dark!) and the 4 merchant ships in the target convoy have started to circle and seem to have been doing so for at least a few minutes because the convoy is all broken up?!

I've also had with the same mission the same thing neilbyrne gets - where a DD seems to automagically know where you are and starts depth charging you?!

Conversely so far in my US campaign I've not had such a problem, or at least not as much of a problem - perhaps that is because I've only done 2 missions and all the AI ships are set to the lowest value (Novice and below?) at the start of the campaign?

I really wish one of the talented modders out there would come up with a fix for this sort of clairvoyant behaviour, or if that's not possible perhaps a short guide to "best standard practice" could be written by one of the "experts" at not getting detected?

Armistead

01-26-14, 01:19 PM

Raven, I assume GFO still uses the stock campaign, at that distance its possible you were spotted before you dived and you're only noticing the behavior later thinking it's your scope.

One thing to remember about the AI, escort will come searching for you at your last known position or they will come directly to where torps are spawned.

The AI doesn't cheat, it follows parameters set by values. Simply, it passive sonar has a value for that time, it doesn't alter that to another setting.

The game can be frustrating until you learn all aspects of it, more so if you run harder mods like TMO. I use a version of TMO that I tweaked, because play long enough, even TMO becomes too easy.

One thing you need to do if you're learning is use the exterior cam a lot. Put it on nearby escorts and watch their behavior as you change speed, raise scopes, etc...Find out what you're doing and try something else.

More importantly, learn when to attack and when to wait. If water is shallow and calm during the day, bad time to attack. Try to attack when the values are in your favor, not in theirs. Sometimes it's best to shadow until you find a better advantage.

Even when you get good, often the goal is simply to get off your attack before spotted, knowing you're going to come under attack and it becomes a matter of proper evasion.

It takes time, when I played, I used a very hard AI, edited numerous escort to elite status and still found methods to beat the AI...With any game, once you understand the AI, you can find ways to beat it...if you don't make mistakes.

They're probably 100's of threads on this subject, so try the search function. Take time to read peoples patrol reports, such as paulhager, he gets detailed, but you can pick up good tips.

Raven Morpheus

01-26-14, 01:36 PM

Raven, I assume GFO still uses the stock campaign, at that distance its possible you were spotted before you dived and you're only noticing the behavior later thinking it's your scope.

OK, so how can they spot you at >6k, at dusk, when you're starting (in the case of the "quick mission") at periscope depth with the periscope down? I didn't think their sonar was supposed to be that good?

After the start of that quick mission I'm diving to what I believe is below the thermal layer, and I don't come up again until I'm in position and the convoy is within 3k and even then I only come up to periscope depth and by that time it's night time with only the moon providing light. So they must "spot" me as I'm coming up from below the thermal layer - so again clairvoyant or incredibly unrealistic and good sonar skills.

Sniper297

01-26-14, 02:14 PM

Sniper297: "The AI cheats, there's no other way."
Webster: "yes the AI cheats, there is no denying it."
Armistead: "The AI doesn't cheat"

Two AYEs and one NAY, any other districts voting? :sunny:
Monica, come out from under the podium and call the roll. :03:

Maybe we need to redefine what the definition of "IS" is, the programming is oversimplified to the point where detection and tracking are so unrealistic it might as well be called cheating. I see nothing, I know - WAIT! I see you now, I see you perfectly, I have your GPS coordinates and exact depth, I planted a LoJack in the crew's head so I'll never lose you unless there's a layer. In which case I'll lose you completely and never find you again unless you come up above the layer inside five miles. :88)

If they took this exact same graphics engine with no changes to art, and merely reprogrammed the physics and AI, I would buy that in a minute.

Main trouble with trying to play full realism is your OWN crew AI - and I do take time at each career start to get rid of all the lubbers like the lookouts with a watchman rating of 9 and replace with the pick of the non-rate recruits which don't cost any renown. The problem is simplified logic and limited canned messages, the crew will report new contacts (all too often if they're zigzagging and enter/leave the detection range frequently) but they have no standing orders to report if a known contact suddenly does something you should know about - like turning toward you at 38 knots and firing ranging shots. Even with a watchman rating over 100 they won't do that one important task, it's not programmed into them. With a really competent crew in your sub you can reduce these problems a little, but not much.

neilbyrne

01-26-14, 04:29 PM

Sniper,
I vote aye.:D
What you wrote about the whole layer thing is really interesting. I mean real submariners have it practically branded across their foreheads that "best depth", defined as best depth to avoid detection, is below the layer plus 200ft. I've been playing this way for years and turns out not to matter; layer plus 60 is fine. Who knew? You I guess.
Plus as you will no doubt appreciate, the idea that an IJN escort, which at the time had no passive capability worth talking about, needs cuing from another sensor to go active just shows you that the folks who designed this had no tactical understanding whatsoever for how real ASW works. In reality those escorts would be actively pinging constantly. An escort with no passive capability that's not active on her sonar is next to worthless and would be so without these give away detections to the AI because not knowing where or if the sub is about, she'd have to ping all the time. The active ranges of the day were so short as to preclude what we refer to today as beaconing. That is the sub homing on the escorts' pings. A good rule on beaconing is the sub can hear the ping at 3-4 times detection range. So if the then detection range was 2,000 yds, the sub hears the ping at 6-8,000. This doesn't pass the so what test in WWII because a convoy of noisy merchant ships of the day sounds like a washing machine full of rocks detectable way beyond the sonar's counter detect range. So there's no penalty for the escorts pinging all the time; the sub's going to hear the convoy long before she hears the escorts' sonars.

Look, Armistead, I apppreciate your answers here, but I don't give a husky crap about what workarounds long term players have come up with to cope with this level of unrealism. You keep telling me ways to win the game against the bogus AI; I'm not interested in that. I could do that if I wanted to already. That's not the origin of my gripes here; I'm not frustrated because I can't easily win. I'm frustrated because it's utterly unrealistic. What I'm trying to find out is how to change it to get more real. So far unfortunately it doesn't look doable.

aanker

01-26-14, 08:07 PM

neilbyrne since you served, you know what the realistic expectation is for even an Elite watch to spot a low scope a mile away.

Unless other files were changed to nullify this method, you can adjust the AI by dumbing down the numbers in sim.cfg to more 'realistic' levels.

Below, is a quote from my notes - I forget who I was talking with but these are the numbers he used.

You can also experiment... find mods that make the AI harder, see what was changed, and adjust yours a little in the opposite direction.

It isn't 'cheating' - you know from real experience how difficult it is to spot a scope, barely above the surface, and moving less than 2 kts, PLUS running silent. With that in mind:
If you are dissatisfied with the way SH4 handles the passive detection (Which I also was) you simply need to adjust in sim.cfg (Plain text file, no special tools required) the values for all sensors general sensitivity to your liking, like I did:

[Visual]
Detection time=2 ;[s] ;was 0.5
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1)
Fog factor=1.25 ;[>=0]
Light factor=2.8 ;[>=0] ;was 2.0
Waves factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=350 ;[m2]
Enemy speed factor=15 ;[kt]

[Radar]
Detection time=1 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.9 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=5.0 ;[m2]

[Hydrophone]
Detection time=10 ;[s] ;was 1
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1) ;was 0.04
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=0.55 ;[>=0] ;was 0.75
Speed factor=15 ;[kt] ;was 20
Noise factor=0.2 ;[>=0] ;was 0.5

[Sonar]
Detection time=15 ;[s] ;was 10
Sensitivity=0.005 ;(0..1) ;was 0.01
Waves factor=0.6 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=100 ;[m2]
Lose time=30 ;[s]

Now I can also attack surfaced at night

Happy Hunting!

Sniper297

01-26-14, 11:19 PM

Captain (SIR!), I've been hacking computer games since 1980, I don't consider myself a programmer but I understand the basics of how it works. Making a layer into a flat opaque plane is simple, programming a realistic variable layer which undulates up and down, has holes and thin spots, and is sometimes found by driving horizontally into it and seeing the temperature change requires a lot more ones and zeros. Ideally we should have an actual BT display rather that the whisper, but again more programming required. Alas kids who play computer games are more interested in pretty graphics rather than accurate simulation, so they make what sells the best.

My suggestion, looking over aanker's post, is to open windows explorer, browse to \WhereEverYouGotIt\Silent Hunter 4 Wolves of the Pacific\Data\Cfg folder, copy sim.cfg and paste to a backup. Open sim.cfg in notepad. scroll down to line 20, the datablock labeled [Visual]

Change back to aanker's post, click and drag across his text from [Visual] down to Lose time=30 ;[s] to highlight.

Hold down the CTRL key and hit C (copy).

Change back to sim.cfg in notepad, click and drag to highlight the same four datablocks.

CTRL V to paste and overwrite.

File, Save (not save as) to overwrite, answer yes, I want to overwrite it.

See if that helps in the game, if not then copy your backup sim.cfg and paste into the folder to overwrite the hacked one.

Armistead

01-26-14, 11:35 PM

Look, Armistead, I apppreciate your answers here, but I don't give a husky crap about what workarounds long term players have come up with to cope with this level of unrealism. You keep telling me ways to win the game against the bogus AI; I'm not interested in that. I could do that if I wanted to already. That's not the origin of my gripes here; I'm not frustrated because I can't easily win. I'm frustrated because it's utterly unrealistic. What I'm trying to find out is how to change it to get more real. So far unfortunately it doesn't look doable.

Well, you're refusing to accept how the AI works, it operates off set values which you can adjust to your liking. However, it takes a understanding of how all the values work together, because tweaking one thing to your liking may cause something else you don't like.

Again, I don't have these issues with the scope being seen or being heard from unrealistic distances. It's not a matter of using tricks to fool the AI, because if you follow realistic behavior, you can attack with success. Yes, much about the stock game is fubar, but with the right mods and tweaks you can get a fairly realistic game...

One thing that might help is for you to knock the speed factor down for hydrophone and sonar. Most escorts with convoys travel the speed of the convoy unless they go looking around and most convoys travel at 9kts, so you could set it to say 8kts.

When I get home I would be glad to send you a mod I made, it was mostly to pull off realistic night surface attacks which can hardly be done with stock or other mods, but I also adjusted sensors, some in your benefit, some worse, the goal was to reward you for correct tactics, punish you for mistakes.. I did decrease the visuals of ships to a more realistic level and increased visuals for your crew.. It is for fleetboats, based off TMO/RSRD, but should work with any mod...

Again, the AI isn't bogus, it does what it's told based on values, but because so many play different and have different opinions of what is realistic, take time to learn to tweak values to your liking.

Armistead

01-26-14, 11:39 PM

TorpX

01-27-14, 12:59 AM

Sniper297: "The AI cheats, there's no other way."
Webster: "yes the AI cheats, there is no denying it."
Armistead: "The AI doesn't cheat"

Two AYEs and one NAY, any other districts voting? :sunny:

TorpX: I haven't caught the AI cheating........er ....... too often........

The biggest problem I've noticed with RFB, is that it is possible for aircraft to see, and attack you at 200 ft., though it doesn't happen often. Most other things are minor.

If they took this exact same graphics engine with no changes to art, and merely reprogrammed the physics and AI, I would buy that in a minute.

You can put me down for a copy also.

It seems like the longer one plays this game, the more "broken" pieces we find. It isn't encouraging.

... I don't give a husky crap about what workarounds long term players have come up with to cope with this level of unrealism. You keep telling me ways to win the game against the bogus AI; I'm not interested in that. I could do that if I wanted to already. That's not the origin of my gripes here; I'm not frustrated because I can't easily win. I'm frustrated because it's utterly unrealistic. What I'm trying to find out is how to change it to get more real. So far unfortunately it doesn't look doable.

I feel the same as you do.

If you cannot get your TMO setup to work, or have exhausted your patience with it, you should consider trying RFB.

neilbyrne

01-27-14, 05:35 PM

Aanker, thanks for the help; I'm going to try it.

Sniper, you too and I'm retired so call me Neil...please.

After I've had time to do these mods and test, I'll post the results.

Again thanks all for the help.

aanker

01-27-14, 09:00 PM

Let us know how it goes...

Happy Hunting!

Tombomsee

01-29-14, 11:33 AM

After I've had time to do these mods and test, I'll post the results.

Very interesting thread, Neil ! I am very curious about your results. :yep:

Hinrich Schwab

01-29-14, 11:54 AM

I am probably making a big mistake stepping into this thread, but the argument that the computer cheats and that the computer is not cheating are both accurate. The computer does cheat because it has capabilities that are above and beyond, even when accounting for challenge upgrades, what IJN ASW could do. However, Armistead is correct that the AI is only doing what it is told.

The problem is actually hard coded into the game and the modders can't touch it because Ubisoft will not release the source code. There is no cavitation model in the game, which directly affected detection rates. The sea state model does not affect detection rates like its should due to coding simplification. Thermal layer emulation is actually both oversimplified and allows the player to cheat because the player's sonar is not affected by the thermal layer. Themoclines, in terms of sound reflection, work both ways. Even without a bathythermograph, the obscuration of a sonar contact should tell the player of passing the thermal layer.

I am a stickler for realism and I certainly do not believe in uber units. However, there is no direct way to resolve the issues because of the hard coding. All mods can do is tweak with the detection ranges to emulate as best as possible with what can be changed to come as close as feasible. The detection model will never be historically accurate without proper sea state and cavitation emulation. These are not in the game and we can only take our mods so far.

merc4ulfate

01-29-14, 01:51 PM

You all do realize that by the time period mentioned in the OP post the Japanese had the type 13, 21, 22 and the Tase-2 Type 4 radar units?? I am fairly certain the mod modeled it as well. Maybe not specific types but at least detection ranges.

The Type 22 could spot a ship 13nm away and was installed on many destroyers by 44.

The Tase-2 Type 4 was built as an anti submarine radar unit had these specs:

Wavelength:15.7 cm

Pulse width:3 microseconds

Pulse repetition frequency:1875 Hz

Peak power:1 kW

Range:
1.2 miles (2 km) against submarine periscope
6 miles (10 km) against surfaced submarine
20 miles (30 km) against surface warship

Antenna:Horizontal dipole with 2.5 meter parabola

Weight:4400 lb,2000 kg

By the way if your looking for a perfect simulator you should try the one at Groton. This is a game it is not a simulator. To complain it is not realistic is to lose sight of this fact. Yes many good persons have contributed many hours to creating "more realistic" attitudes from the game platform but in the end it is neither realistic nor a simulator.

I remember many of the same sentiments spoken of 688 when it was released and how many thought it was a simulator. It was simply a game based off what Sonalysts thought might be a good platform as a game/simulator scenario.

I enjoy the more realistic aspects to any type of quasi-simulator. I want it harder to win, I want to be challenged to get better at tactics. I enjoy the escorts as hard as they can be. It only makes me find new ways of winning which is what we all want in the end. Even with the mods I run it is rare an escorts picks me up submerged unless the range is below 2000 yards. I have had some get as close as 800 yards without being detected. I sank one of Karita's Heavy Cruisers as they moved through the narrow Surigao Straight during the Battle of Leyte Gulf. The lead escort never even heard me.

We want to beat the game without dying a single time. A whole career with our fabulous crew racking up a good bit of tonnage and show O'Kane and Morton a thing or two about running a fighting boat.

You just can't let yourself get so caught up in winning that you lose sight of the fact that we are playing a game ... If you do not like the mods francis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMtvnAmfuf8 do not use them.

By the way I am all for making mods more realistic ... I look forward to seeing what you come up with neil. I am really hoping someone finds a way of modeling all the random failures and fogged scopes that skippers had to deal with as Captains of submarines. All you have to do is read through the actual reports from the Captains themselves and see how our little game is nothing close to what they had to deal with.

You can find them here:

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/subreports.htm

================================

Generic Mod Enabler - v2.6.0.157
1_TriggerMaru_Overhaul_2-5
1_TMO_25_small_patch
RSRDC_TMO_V502
RSRDC_V5xx_Patch1
Traveller Mod v2.6 TMO
#1 Real Environment mod install
Traveller Mod 2.6 Patch 1 - ISE v3 Patch
#4 Warships retextured
Traveller Mod 2.6 No Midway Transfer
Traveller Mod 2.6 No DC Camera Shake
Traveller Mod 2.6 Larger Search Patterns
Traveller Mod 2.6 Harder Enemy AI Escorts
Traveller Mod 2.6 Automatic Ship ID
Traveller Alternate Main Loading Screens
Convoy Routes TMO+RSRD
tambor198's TMO+RSRDC missions pack

P.S. :

I forgot to mention that it would a great mod to have if someone created one where when you sink a ship it removes it from ever showing up in the game again during a career. I had one career where I sank the Yamato 5 times ... since there was only one of her and her sister ship the Musashi it really makes it not realistic to have 5 ... then again the way I run my boat there might not be much for Halsey to sink with me around LOL

aanker

01-29-14, 05:10 PM

...... it would a great mod to have if someone created one where when you sink a ship it removes it from ever showing up in the game again during a career. I had one career where I sank the Yamato 5 times ... since there was only one of her and her sister ship the Musashi ....
Just as in the SH1 - SHCE games, I didn't feel that I needed to attack everything, the same can be done with SH4.

I didn't attack every convoy or task force in SHCE, a person can attack one out of five, one out of twenty, whatever they choose - to eliminate the complaint of too much traffic.

Regarding capital ships, if a player uses a Warship Restriction List, once the two Yamato class SBB's are sunk, I pretend I don't see any more, even if I see them. Same with CV's of various classes, once they are sunk, I pretend I don't see them.

I wish SH4 had made a 'restriction list' in the game engine but they didn't, so I use the WRL.... lol

Happy Hunting!

merc4ulfate

01-29-14, 07:32 PM

I bet they and their escorts do not pretend to not see you LOL

neilbyrne

01-29-14, 07:51 PM

Merc4ulfate, Pacific War Encyclopedia states that of the 80 Tase-2 Type 4 sets built only two were installed on ships because it was deemed a failure. All the others were installed ashore.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/T/a/Tase-2_Type_4_antisubmarine_radar.htm

The article doesn't list the scan rate. As I wrote above, the key radar attributes for periscope detection were clutter rejection and high scan rates neither of which came until well after the war.

If you could look at standard surface search radar detections on periscopes before that it would be only fractionally better than visual, not a capability to be counted on. It would and did take away the night surface attack from the sub, but I've never been able to pull one of those off in the game.

I know the difference between a sim and a video game. I was the game designer for two war games at the tactical level and program manager for one of those, both adopted by the USN, NAVTAG in the '80s and KillChain in the last decade. I don't expect to see that level of SECRET NOFORN realism in a video game and a dated one at that. I know what the AI does; it just follows orders. That doesn't mean you can't have a good one. The purpose of the thread was to see if someone had found a way to hold down grossly inaccurate detection ranges.

I've put in Aanchor's suggestions, but haven't had a chance to play with it yet.

Armistead

01-29-14, 11:12 PM

[INDENT]

It seems like the longer one plays this game, the more "broken" pieces we find. It isn't encouraging.

I somewhat disagree, I don't mess with files much anymore, happens in spells, but the more I do, the more encouraged I am that this game is far from its potential..

The hard thing is so many files and values interconnect and it can take 100's of hours tweaking them all to work together, so modders find a more generic balance...For instance, night surface attacks connecting to visuals with a realistic night env...I put over 100 hours just working on that....mostly testing changes and bubblehead was nice enough to test for me, probably more hours than I. We also reworked radar, just tweaking taters mod, visual, etc...numerous changes. bubblehead has played it a lot and night surface attacks feel very realistic. We differ a lil on how hard it should be based on light, so I made him one version and me another.

I think the frustration is that many things people complain about have been fixed, just they're in bit and pieces in numerous mods. No one as of yet has pulled them all together, so players start building their own mod setups they're happy with...It's really the best way to do it.

I agree, some things left out, hard code, flaws....it's an old game. That's why modders like Ducimas made TMO like he did, you have to make some aspects much harder to make up for stupid things and some things easier to make up for harder issues. It makes you play more realistically...

Anyway, the game is far from its potential...the flaw is the hours it takes to get the game more realistic and not sure the interest is there.

TorpX

01-30-14, 05:05 AM

I somewhat disagree, I don't mess with files much anymore, happens in spells, but the more I do, the more encouraged I am that this game is far from its potential..

Well, I was thinking about the game in general, more than the sub/DD detection stuff.

I tried my hand at modding the ship acceleration characteristics of the boats. I won't go into detail; suffice it to say, I didn't get anywhere. I was looking at the file entries of 'max eng force'. Apparently, it doesn't do anything. At least, nothing constructive. Why is it even there? I can see why people give up on fixing this game. :/\\!!

There are other things I would really like to have fixed, but I don't want to start a OT rant.

merc4ulfate

01-30-14, 07:48 PM

"The purpose of the thread was to see if someone had found a way to hold down grossly inaccurate detection ranges."

Perhaps you would have had better success by posting it in the mod section:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=219
instead of the general section. There are many, yes some in this thread I know, who might have steered you into a better direction. There are good people there who have had many experiences with grossly inaccurate data sets.

Everything from Ship fired torpedoes, Default depth settings or simply reskinning your boat. All you have to do is read through the post. There is a ton of information already there.

I would have started there with mod questions.

neilbyrne

01-31-14, 01:36 AM

I implemented the changes suggested by Aanchor above with the exception that I also reduced escort's effective sonar speed to 12kts both active and passive in accordance with (IAW) actual capability as I outlined earlier. Previously it had been 15kst for passive and 20kts for active which are just nuts. As I recall for PAIR in 1970 with rubber domes and a compartment full of signal processor cabinets it was 15kts for both; so 12kts for WWII IJN may actually be generous.

TROUT's location was in the East China Sea in OCT'44. Recd an intell rpt on a convoy. We steamed to intercept at 18kts and picked them up on radar from well ahead at 18nm. Seas were running about 12-15ft on a clear night with a fairly bright half moon astern of us. Normally, I wouldn't have engaged because water depth was 127-165ft, but I wanted to test. So I positioned to end around the stbd wing escort. It was a three column convoy of 3, 4 & 5 ships. The escort was six ships, all Type Bravo & Charlie coast defense corvettes except for an OTORI as tail end Charlie and a HOSHO Class CVE as last (5th) ship in the stbd column altho I didn't know that when I decided on my tactic. I picked the stbd side because that was the closest side to deeper water. Convoy speed was 8.5kts. We were getting an ESM green bearing line from what turned out to be HOSHO indicating she had radar altho she was the only one.

I went to radar depth w/ the closest escort 8nm away and went to PD with her about 6nm distant. I stayed at PD thereafter with the least scope showing possible, but the scope up almost continuously. When I lost radar contact the stbd wing corvette was 2000yd from the track of the stbd column on the same course as the convoy. Plan was to open that track to 4000yds and then end around that escort outside her detection range then coming in astern of her to pick off the last ships in that column. But as you know, no plan survives the first contact w/ the enemy. As I'm moving out from the convoy track, the stbd wing escort alters course and starts out toward us distant about 6kyds. I'm thinking, "Here we go again w/ these goofy detections." She was on our stbd beam target angle 20 degrees to port. I was doing 2kts and put the rudder over hard right to point her. She started swinging to her port and I was figuring we'd been had for sure. But she kept swinging until we were on her stbd beam. Her bearing rate was climbing fast so I got a quick speed check on her and she was doing 13.5kts. Deaf as a post. She CPA(Closest Pt of Approach)'d us at 2650yds and cruised on out to the head of the convoy.

By then I was perpendicular to the stbd column track, bow on at 3100 yds off the stbd beam of the third ship, a medium sized freighter, with a small tanker in station 4. We were well into the wing escort's baffles so increased speed to close the firing point. I let both merchies go by and fired five fish at the CVE from about 2600yds. Two were duds, peculiar in late '44, but the other three hit and she blew up.

At this point the tail end OTORI detected us at 2650yds and started signalling "Contact detected" on flashing light. I actually started in the navy as an enlisted signalman 3/c :haha:. She was fine on our port beam and we still had a 2/3 bell on. She was bow on to us and appeared to be almost DIW. Not a detection I'd quibble with. We turned away w/ hard right rudder and put a Cutie into her which didn't sink her but allowed us to get away clean.

So that's the first run with these numbers in sim.cfg. I saved this at the pt where we were in first radar contact w/ this convoy so I'm going to keep trying various tactics and reporting the results.

aanker

01-31-14, 12:30 PM

Sweet :)

Happy Hunting!

Hinrich Schwab

02-01-14, 09:31 AM

neilbyrne

02-01-14, 03:46 PM

When you find the settings that you feel emulate historical realities to the best of your knowledge, feel free to share them with the rest of us. While having a good challenge is nice, I am also one to loathe psychic units. :)

That's my intention. I don't get to play daily so it may take a while to test thoroughly. Also I'm not all that sure what to tweak so I may have to come back to the forum w/ questions along that line.

neilbyrne

02-03-14, 01:47 AM

In this second test, I shaded toward the convoy's port hand intending to split the lead escort and the port wing escort, both corvettes patroling at 10kts. Environmental conditions same as first test altho water depth on this side of the convoy was 115ft. Again I submerged at 8nm to RD and PD at 6nm; periscope up the whole run.

Both escorts were aggresively patroling, never really steadying up for any appreciable time. The center corvette scared me a couple of times by pointing us, but then always turned away. I was careful to keep him constantly pointed. Her final CPA was at 1900yds dead on our bow. After that we were quickly in her baffles. The port escort never got closer than 3600 yds. We crossed the bow of the port convoy column in which there were just ash and trash small freighters. Then set up and shot the lead ships in both the other columns a large tanker and a large freighter putting three into the tanker and two into the cargo ship sinking both.

We then hid under the convoy until the tail end OTORI came up the stbd side of the convoy and we slunk out to the port rear.

In the next run, I think I'll go right at an escort and see at what range they detect.

neilbyrne

02-04-14, 12:36 AM

As intended, I attempted to penetrate the convoy's screen by closing directly on an escort just to see when she detected. I selected the center lead corvette. Same as above, RD at 8nm, PD at 6nm. This corvette was not patroling at all; she was on station 4kyds ahead of the lead ship in the center column and that's where she stayed. When she was distant 3800yds, we had her bearing 350 from us and her target angle was 345. We were at 2kts and she was at 8kts. I didn't alter courset thereafter trying to keep her pointed. We just closed each other on reciprocal courses. She detected us at 400yds by which point we held her bearing 310 and her target angle was 300 or so.

The convoy then scattered like billiard balls in all directions. We got some snap shots off at lousy angles. Hit two escorts eventually with Cuties. I then got to watch one of those get rammed and sunk by a tanker, big explosion, escort's capsized stern bouncing down the tanker's side, very cool. Hadn't seen that before.

I'll try this again with the same approach, but showing the corvette more of a beam all the way instead of a bow angle and see when she detects. So far, I'm pretty content with these numbers.

After that we then need to find a convoy in daylight to test periscope detections.

neilbyrne

02-05-14, 12:36 AM

Tonight I did as above, but ran across the convoy's track ahead and went to all stop right on the track of the center column with that column bearing 090 on our stbd beam. The center escort was patrolling more than last night, at one pt turning thru 180 degrees pointing back toward the convoy then turning back toward us distant 3750yds. Thereafter she stayed on course heading slightly ahead of our DIW position. We held her at 080 and her target angle was 345. We stayed DIW nearly beam on to her and she detected at 800yds. Since this was somewhat rough seas, 12-15ft, range seems about right. Pounding on the sonar dome in heavy seas reduces detection range.

Need to now find a convoy in nice weather during daylight.

neilbyrne

02-05-14, 05:38 PM

Last night after the above convoy test, I encountered and sank two single sailer merchies, one in daylight and one at night, without them detecting our periscope in either case. In the night case, I kept the scope up throughout the approach. In daylight, I made a lot of short observations, but didn't keep it up continuously.

Leon West

02-09-14, 04:20 PM

Using TMO 2.5, with TMO 2.5 Small Patch and Easier AI for TMO, I was able to sneak into a very very large taskforce, broad daylight at about 9 AM.

Actually, they about drove into me. My lookouts alerted me to a warship. I immediately submerged to periscope depth and went to silent running. I was able to ambush the convoy, picking out a colossal Fuso Battleship and several other cruisers to shoot at, never diving deeper than periscope depth. My attack was interrupted when another large warship actually ran over my periscope, knocking the boat around and damaging our flak gun and our paintjob.

The escorts only knew I was in the middle of their task force when my volley landed a shot on the Fuso and another ship I didn't get to see.

I took one hell of a depth charging from the 3 escorts after my brazen attack, eventually having some damage to my batteries and electrical engines that was extremely minor.

How I didn't get spotted so much sooner is beyond me. I did raise and lower my periscope periodically. The ship that ran me over didn't actually seem to even notice, and by then I left my scope up to finish the last of my shots off. It was only once my torpedoes started hitting and detonating that the task force realized something was up. Sadly, I never did sink that damn Fuso, and I couldn't reacquire the taskforce after the 3 escorts gave up as they were cooking at 20 knots and I was already quite low on fuel.

This was on my first patrol near the end of January of 1942. How did I drive right into the middle of a gigantic taskforce undetected at periscope depth? I'd like to say it's the Easier AI for TMO mod, which really just lowers the unrealistic periscope spotting of default TMO 2.5. Because I had to play quite the strategy game to shake those escorts. A few of their shots got incredibly close.

Sniper297

02-09-14, 08:59 PM

I've been trying Aanker's hack, and it seemed a bit too easy, so I toned it down a bit;

[Visual]
Detection time=1.1 ;[s] min detection time.
Sensitivity=0.05 ;(0..1) min detection threshold double detection time.
Fog factor=1.5 ;[>=0]
Light factor=3 ;[>=0]
Waves factor=4.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=250 ;[m2]
Enemy speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=1.0

[Radar]
Detection time=1 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=5.0 ;[m2]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=1.0

[Hydrophone]
Detection time=7 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.05 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Noise factor=0.4 ;[>=0]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=2.0 ;[>0], 1 means no signal reduction, 3 equals signal reduction to 33%

[Sonar]
Detection time=10 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.8 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=150 ;[m2]
Lose time=30 ;[s]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=3.0 ;[>0], 1 means no signal reduction, 5 equals signal reduction to 20%

So far it looks like a good compromise, I always thought the thermal layer was way too good to be true so I increased the detection capability under the layer, while reducing the general detection.

Playing stock game if I was unable to sneak inside the screen through a gap without being detected, I would dive 60 feet below the layer directly on the leading escort's path, wait until he passed over before coming up to periscope depth to start shooting. I'll try that with this hack and see if I'm still undetectable when he steams directly over me.

Interesting tactics while playtesting my Manilla Raid and Resupply campaign hack (V2 WIP), I added more destroyers to the mix, but with the leading US element two groups of 3 each light cruisers. If I take out the first BB and at least one of the heavy cruisers and time it just right the US light cruisers get the enemy cans off of me pretty quickly. If I'm too late the US light cruisers are toast, leaving me to deal with enemy escorts alone in shallow water, if I'm too early I got the same problem.

One tactic that worked well with a P class recently was getting close in to a BB or carrier, fire some shots from the bow tubes, then go as deep as possible (100 to 120 feet most parts of Manilla Bay) and go to all ahead flank cutting right across the bow of the oncoming target. Got enough enemy ships in the formation the cans don't dare come directly at you due to risk of collision with their own ships. :arrgh!:

neilbyrne

02-10-14, 02:34 AM

It's been a while until I could get directed to a convoy in daylight. Finally, got an intell report on a convoy transiting the Formosa Straits and camped there for two days until I intercepted them from their stbd quarter. Went to flank and ran down their stbd flank until 10nm ahead then went to RD at 10nm in the early afternoon. Went to PD at 7nm.

Seas were slightly lower than above, 8-10ft. Water depth was 68ft!

It was a sixteen ship convoy (4x4) w/ seven escorts mostly Type D coastal defense corvettes plus an Akikaze on the port quarter. My intended tactic was to penetrate between the lead and stbd wing escorts. However, as often occurs, this didn't work out; the convoy altered course to port which put us dead ahead of the stbd wing escort. We kept the lead escort pointed and he CPA'd us at 3600yds right on our bow. Escorts were not patrolling, but on point stations doing same course/spd as the convoy, southerly at 9kts. At this point the lead escort had ceased to be a problem, but the stbd wing corvette was on our port beam at 2200yds, target angle 330; so she became the immediate threat.

We abandoned the idea of splitting the two and concentrated on showing minimum aspect to the stbd wing corvette. We put the rudder over hard right and tried to get and keep her directly astern. By constantly adjusting the rudder angle this worked until we were past CPA on her stbd beam at 900yds with her at our 180. So we essentially ended around her by stern pointing.

Periscope was up altho just barely the whole time and not detected.

So this wasn't exactly what I was looking for; seas were still too high; I really wanted calmer conditions. So will keep testing.

I'm satisfied that the lead escort didn't detect with a CPA of 3500 yds regardless of aspect altho we held her directly on our bow so no way she detects. I'm ambivalent about the stbd wing corvette. Yes, we kept her pointed astern from 2200yds inward. And astern pointing is actually more effective than bow pointing because of the acoustic interference of the sub's wake. I'm not sure that TMO/SH4 takes this into consideration. I would not have been surprised to be detected in this instance and am not surprised not to have been.

In the real world today, the sub would be almost undetectable in water this shallow except by aircraft. Our mostly lower frequency sonars are optimized for long range open ocean detections. In shallow water, the bottom reverberations just kill you; you can't distinguish the sub from the echo returns from the bottom. The Brits have actually figured this out better than we have and often emplace two sonars on their escorts, one long range and one higher freq for shallower conditions. I can't imagine that the game cares tho.

Sniper, my experience w/ across layer ranges is that below layer ranges are no better than 25-33% of above layer ranges. Does that square w/ your numbers?

Sniper297

02-10-14, 07:06 PM

Hard to say, at 60 I'm too senile to keep track, and math was never my strong point. If I'm reading the comments in the file correctly, 1 equals no signal loss, 5 is 20% as in 80% loss, 3 is 33% as in 66% loss. I'd try to extrapolate all that if I could remember how, but basically the lower the number the less loss of signal therefore 1 = easy for them to hear you, 5 = hard for them to hear you.

As for shallow water, unless I'm in a harbor I try to shadow a convoy or task force that's heading into deeper water rather than attack in the shallows. My real life experience with water less than 100 feet is passive sonar was only affected if there were a lot of shrimp or something on the bottom making noise, active sonar was hopeless with all the reverb.

Wake turbulence I dunno, but bow masking was something that shocked the hell out of me when I first experienced it. Sonar station in the SH-3D was about 10 feet aft of the pilots on the starboard side, two seats with a passageway to port, small square window next to the outboard seat. I was sitting in the inboard seat one day listening with the transducer down at 250 feet, and the AW looks out the window and says "Here comes the Forrestal". I leaned over to look, and sure enough she's coming straight at us less than 2 miles away, I never heard a thing until she turned and unmasked the screws. Never realized until that day that there was a dead zone directly in front of a ship which blocks all the noise from the screws, either they didn't mention it in ASW school or I slept through it. On advice of counsel I decline to say which is more likely. :up:

aanker

02-10-14, 07:52 PM

I've been trying Aanker's hack, and it seemed a bit too easy, so I toned it down a bit;
:arrgh!:
Please, "suggested hack" : ) - taken from my notes of a conversation with someone(??) .... we were discussing night surface attacks, specifically Gene Fluckey's method of night surface attack that is quoted in this excerpt on Tom Martin's site:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tlm/silent/barb_report.html
..... and frustration that this method I used numerous times in SH1 SHCE wasn't possible in SH4 using the stock or mega-mod settings.

Fluckey used this method in real life and it is fun to successfully use it under the right conditions in SH4 - or - SH1 SHCE (pick your poison)

Years ago as soon as I read it I had to try it, and I used it many times. Great fun.

This thread is good, I've been following neilbyrne's updates with great interest : ) Thank you.

Happy Hunting!

merc4ulfate

02-10-14, 08:54 PM

It is to bad there is not a mod to reduce sonar signals from AIs to the boat when under layers. It reduces the signal to the boat but in the game it doesn't model that.

neilbyrne

02-12-14, 03:25 AM

My friends,

Seas have remained high; TROUT was down to five torpedoes. So I sank some single sailers and am back in Guam rearming. Then back to testing in calmer waters hopefully.

bandit484

02-12-14, 02:50 PM

bandit484

02-12-14, 02:56 PM

Also I want to add that was able to intercept a fast convoy of troop ships - 2 Conte Verdes & 2 Horai Marus with a 4 ship screen of destroyers in calm water conditions at night in the Formosa Straits. I got all troop ships then evaded the area without being detected by the escorts !:arrgh!:

merc4ulfate

02-12-14, 04:44 PM

Isn't it a shame there are no mods that simulate the Phosphorus glow in some waters around the world. You wouldn't believe how a scope above water gets lit up when there is Phosphorus present.

When you are talking about scope detection there are so many factors that influence how far away it can be seen at night and during the day.

Haze, moon light, time of day or night, chemical composition of the water, speed, waves, mens eye sight, optics used ... all are factors when trying to observe at sea ... many just do not think about them or know about them.

When you have been there ... you remember. :Kaleun_Salute:

aanker

02-12-14, 07:23 PM

Isn't it a shame there are no mods that simulate the Phosphorus glow in some waters around the world. You wouldn't believe how a scope above water gets lit up when there is Phosphorus present.
Like this beach is lit up with them... I stole this from Subsim's Facebook to post here:

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p157/ptcbupers/SH4_stuff/Maldives_beach_zps526a4ea3.jpg

Still, the ASW should not be detecting submarines like they do in SH4 from miles away when the boat is running Silent @ 2 kts and presenting a small profile.

Furthermore I have read 100's of night periscope attacks, and many night surface attacks from real WW II reports that are impossible to duplicate without messing with the files in SH4.

Thank you bandit484 - glad I could help.

Happy Hunting!

Sniper297

02-13-14, 01:28 AM

Testing with a sugar boat (best use of that, drive your 12 torpedoes at 12 knots to the deepest part of the South China Sea, scuttle the leaky rattletrap and head for Groton to get a real sub!:har: ) fired all four (weakassed slowpoke mark 10) bow tubes, stopped a battlewagon dead in the water. Gotta wait for the tubes to reload but attracted the attention of some patrolling cans.

https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/q80/s720x720/1013992_686653134712303_2043679601_n.jpg

Shallow water, no layer to hide under, but here's a good spot;

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1/q84/s720x720/1620868_686653304712286_486215207_n.jpg

They know where I am, but can't touch me. :arrgh!: So after reloading all four I sank the cans one at a time, then finished off the BB. :salute:

merc4ulfate

02-13-14, 12:52 PM

LOL ... I hid like that once ... until it sank on top of me and crushed us.

If anyone wishes to read the words of the Captain ... there are plenty of war reports here:

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/subreports.htm

Armistead

02-13-14, 01:21 PM

I've hid under ships many times, one time near Savo under a dead in the water Kongo. I had several DD's trying to get to me, but was safe. I had cams off, so used the periscope to get there. I then heard bombs going off and took a peek with scope coming up near the ship, US planes were bombing it....It took many hits and it crossed my mind if it exploded I would die...so I took off to chance it. They finally got a hit and it exploded and blew me up..

Sniper297

02-13-14, 05:18 PM

It can be hazardous in deep water, I once ran a Gato at full tilt boogie under a sinking cruiser to get away from a pursuing tin can. The can rammed the cruiser and made it roll over and go down like an express elevator with me tangled in the superstructure, blowing tanks and back emergency I managed to get out from underneath at 800 feet.

Which of course wrecked everything on board, even after getting back up to a reasonable depth there was no saving it after that.

neilbyrne

02-16-14, 11:58 PM

At last I got a tactical situation I wanted to test against. The target was a four ship convoy, all medium to large cargo ships in two columns seperated by 700yds. There were five escorts, all corvettes except for one MINEKAZE (on the convoy's port bow) and all equipped with radar. Convoy speed was 8kts; escorts patrolling at 10.5kts.

Environmentals were perfect; weather clear in broad daylight with seas at 1-2ft, thermal layer at 165ft; water depth 1,000+.

I did five runs. In all cases went to RD with the lead escort at 13nm and went to PD with her at 5.9nm. Was never detected on radar which is realistic. The USN purpose built surface search radar at the time, the Sugar George or SG, had a reliable range when mounted on a destroyer of 8nm vs. another DD. So catching a surfaced sub, bow on at 13nm not happening.

I left about two feet of scope up constantly in all runs and stayed at 2kts throughout.

Run #1. I planned to approach from just off the convoy's bow to stbd, keeping the lead escort pointed and shoot the lead ship in the stbd column before the stbd wing escort could detect. We CPA'd the lead escort bearing 020 at 1600yds target angle 090. Once in her baffles, we came around perpendicular to the convoy's track and put one fish into the lead freighter in the far column and three into the near lead sinking her. I hung around admiring my work for too long and the stbd wing and tail end corvettes both detected at around 1400yds and we had to run for our lives.

Run #2. In this approach we made no attempt to point the lead corvette, showing her a beam to test. The stbd wing corvette was not patrolling but on a point station off the convoy's beam. The lead escort was patrolling off the convoy's port bow and we CPA'd her bearing 090, range 2700yds, target angle 135. No detection which is believeable. We then went hard right rudder to deliberately present the stbd wing corvette with a beam aspect to see when she'd detect. She started pinging at 1800yds and got contact at 1650yds which is nothing to bitch about.

Run#3. Same approach as #2. CPA'd the lead corvette at 2050yds on our stbd beam, target angle 130, no detection, fine, could have gone either way, but with this layer condition I'd say it's realistic. Remember, the max detection range of these sonars is 2000-2500yds in wonderful conditions, isothermal to 400ft. With the layer at 165ft, you'd be lucky to get half that. The stbd wing corvette detected on our port beam at 1350yds and the tail-ender at 1300 from dead astern. No problem.

Run #4. Here I wanted to see if the MINEKAZE could detect better than the corvettes. So after going to PD, put the convoy on our port beam with the intent of crossing ahead, keeping the lead corvette pointed and present a beam to the MINEKAZE. Didn't work out that way. The leader detected us at 800yds directly on our bow. No problem.

Run #5. Same attempt as #4. This time it worked and we CPA'd the lead corvette bearing 180 at 1800yds target angle 270, no detection, again could have gone either way. With the leader now past CPA and opening, we kept her directly astern while presenting a beam to the MINEKAZE. When she was bearing 280 range 2450yds, target angle 020, she started pinging and flashing "contact detected". This range is long for a layer depth of 165ft, but given all the closer detections in the runs above, I think the random number generator just pulled a great number for the IJN in this case. So in the odd case, it's acceptable given the above averages are about right otherwise. Once in a while a hotshot will detect at better than predicted range, but the average needs to fall into acceptable parameters which in the above cases it did.

So overall, I'm pretty satisfied with these numbers.

Spider, I'm curious as to what you're seeing for detection ranges since you made your changes?

HertogJan

02-17-14, 06:36 AM

SilentPrey

02-17-14, 08:56 AM

I believe it's the line now in blue.

I'm wondering where I can change the passive sonar settings in these values, I see where I can change the active sonar (red line) but not the passive.
Could someone please tell me which line is passive sonar?

[Visual]
Detection time=2 ;[s] ;was 0.5
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1)
Fog factor=1.25 ;[>=0]
Light factor=2.8 ;[>=0] ;was 2.0
Waves factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=350 ;[m2]
Enemy speed factor=15 ;[kt]

[Radar]
Detection time=1 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.9 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=5.0 ;[m2]

[Hydrophone]
Detection time=10 ;[s] ;was 1
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1) ;was 0.04
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=0.55 ;[>=0] ;was 0.75
Speed factor=15 ;[kt] ;was 20
Noise factor=0.2 ;[>=0] ;was 0.5

[Sonar]
Detection time=15 ;[s] ;was 10
Sensitivity=0.005 ;(0..1) ;was 0.01
Waves factor=0.6 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=100 ;[m2]
Lose time=30 ;[s]

HertogJan

02-17-14, 09:11 AM

Ah, thats why I couldn't find it...:) Passive sonar is Hydrophone

Thanks for the info! :salute:

bandit484

02-17-14, 12:32 PM

In my honest opinion I think these newer values that Aanker has shared with us are much more acceptable than the stock settings. Now I can atleast contemplate taking on convoys in shallower waters now. Where before I would never have even considered patrolling in areas such as around Singapore, now I feel confident of having a fighting chance against escorts in shallower waters!:arrgh!:

neilbyrne

02-17-14, 04:28 PM

Agreed; BZ to Aanchor!

Ducimus

02-17-14, 06:50 PM

I probably shouldn't respond to this because it deals with modding, (and my new SOP with modding is, My hands = off), but a couple off the cuff responses:

brief exposures of my periscope detected immediately and at very high rates of probability by merchant ships, day or night. Had one detect me last night at 4000 yards in heavy seas. This has been happening for about a week. They get to 4,000 yds and start to zigzag for no apparent reason.

I know some merchants have passive sonar. I thought about removing that in TMO, but was told that was historically correct so i left it in. Although the heavy seas confuses me. However, if your using RSRD, that probably altered something I did in ways that I did not intend, anticipate, or account for. Not a dig on the author of RSRD, it's just when you go overlaying mods on top of another large mod, the results are a caveat emptor situation. I take no responsibility beyond my own work.

I served on active duty in the USN for 31 years mostly in frigates and destroyers.

You know, there is absolutely no way that a former Air Force Construction Engineer with slightly less then 7 years TIS is going to have the knowledge of ANY former naval personnel regardless of specialty or TIS. Just sayin'. Hell, I have to constantly refer to a rank/grade chart when looking at Naval ranks because they never made any sense to me.

In the end, any game modification about naval warfare will probably best be done by people with experience in that area, and the technical expertise to do it. I had the latter, but not the former.

I wrote two longer posts about ASW for Ducimus about five years ago that contained some of this.

Five years ago is a long time ago for me. I honestly can't remember. Maybe I missed it. Maybe I was being pigheaded and just didn't pay attention. Maybe I just took what was said from an anonymous person on the internet with a grain of salt. I dunno.

I ran out of time, patience, and motivation; but I did my best. There's nothing else for it.

neilbyrne

02-17-14, 07:34 PM

Ducimus, TMO is a great mod which I've enjoyed for a long while. You did a wonderful job which I could in no way duplicate. I wouldn't know a line of C++ if it was floating in my breakfast cereal.

Thanks for all your work. Fair winds and following seas.

Ducimus

02-17-14, 07:50 PM

You don't need C++ knowledge unless you delve into the shader files. As programming goes, id say maybe having an idea of the basic principles of object oriented programing could help, but probably isn't required. Any mind that works mechanically, or simply having the will to do it, can mod this game with the tools available. (notepad, winmerge, S3D, Gimp, etc)

Sniper297

02-17-14, 10:28 PM

Yeah, I don't think anyone is pointing fingers at TMO specifically, I get psychic escorts with telescopic X-ray vision in the stock game. And there's nothing wrong with the Air Force, they're ALMOST as cool as the Navy. :up:

My latest test I cruised on the surface right up to a couple battleships within 1000 yards at night without being seen, but these are part of the WIP career mod I've been working on for a year so I'll have to check if I changed all the enemy crew ratings to novice and poor while I was barking up the wrong voice tube.

"Sniper, you too and I'm retired so call me Neil...please."

Aye Aye, Sir! :O:

Sniper297

02-18-14, 12:27 AM

Nope. Before looking into Aanker's idea I had set some of the tin cans to novice and poor, but the Kongo BB was set for the default Veteran crew. The difference is in the sim.cfg visual hack, at night I motored up to him within 1000 yards on the surface before whacking him with a couple of fish, in the daytime I get to about 4500 yards and he starts throwing everything in his shot lockers at me and I gotta pull the plug. While poking around in the mission editor I reset the poor and novice destroyers to competent and veteran, see how much of a rough time they give me with that. :dead:

neilbyrne

02-18-14, 03:33 AM

Did some more testing tonight w/ same scenario as above. Tactics the same as for Run #1 w/ same result, one merchie hit and the other sunk. We went to flank speed and dove to 500ft fwd of the sinking cargo ship. Dropped a false target can (FTC) decoy just as we approached the layer. The escorts got in some licks and we took some systems damage from DCs close aboard, but only suffered 1% hull damage. We managed to sneak away as the escorts appeared to be boiling seaweed astern around our FTC. I made the mistake of surfacing with the MINEKAZE 5nm distant forgetting that these guys had radar. She and a corvette started to close us immediately, but we evaded easily back below the layer before they could get close to marking atop our datum and they eventually rejoined the convoy.

We then ran around the surviving convoy positioning ahead at 13nm, went to RD at 11nm and PD at 6nm. The surviving merchants had been consolidated into a single column of three with the damaged ship in the lead all doing 4-5kts. The escorts were now more tightly arrayed around this reduced frontage patrolling vigorously. We tried to penetrate between the lead and port wing corvettes, but both detected us at about 1400yds. The screen was just too tight. As before we dropped FTCs as we neared the layer and they dropped about sixty depth charges, but mostly astern, again likely seduced by the FTCs.

SUBPAC has ordered us up into the East China Sea so I believe I'll follow orders and let these remnants proceed on without further attempts on their virtue. Five escorts around three ships is a mighty tight cordon, just a very tough nut to crack unless they decide to wander far off station which none did tonight. I guess we could try to do the penetrate below the layer and surface behind the screen tactic, but truthfully I've never liked it and my conversations with modern day submariners indicate that they don't abandon the above layer regime until forced to do so by escort detections because the layer works both ways. The escorts lose detection range, but the submarine does as well and her very meticulously developed passive tactical picture goes to pot, something not all that well modeled in SH4.

As stated above, these detection ranges and difficulty seem to be about right to me. Nothing has transpired in these multiple runs than doesn't seem fairly realistic.

Hats off once more to Ducimus; we're just tweaking around the edges of his fantastic mod. As well as another well done to Aanchor.

Spider, I know from nothing about the mission editor; haven't tried it. Likewise I haven't yet tested what Aanchor's suggestions have done to surfaced night approaches.

Sniper297

02-18-14, 09:23 AM

Yeah, my results are somewhat skewed by the fact that what I'm testing over and over is a career start mission I'm working on, fictional scenario where the player starts an Asiatic career in Manila under air attack with an invasion force coming into the harbor. The idea is to get to the narrows south of Corregidor soon enough to kill incoming battleships and heavy cruisers before the US surface ships (light cruisers and a few heavies) is completely wiped out. Trying to balance this so the US ships are outnumbered and outclassed enough to need lots of help from the player, but not to the point of hopelessness. I've changed types, speeds, numbers, crew rating and timing a zillion times over the past year trying to get difficult but not impossible.

Last night with a Sargo departure was about 1600, as I said the first BB opened fire on me at 4500 yards. After sinking him I surfaced and bent on some knots to stay ahead of the US cruisers, went to decks awash and got within 2000 yards of an enemy Takao before he opened fire, but he wasn't shooting at me, there was an Omaha light cruiser boiling up behind me at 30 knots. Once the two of them started trading punches a Maya 1500 yards behind the Takao, which wasn't in range of the Omaha yet, noticed me and started shooting.

A sub on the surface is a small target, even more so when flooded down decks awash, so some of these were situations where I'm running flooded down to 25 feet (max depth the diesels will still run) within 2000 yards of a couple of enemy heavies, but they're ignoring me and firing at US light and heavy cruisers that are also within range. I'm running at 15 knots with a US light cruiser nearby and as soon as he gets sunk the jig is up and the bad guys shift fire to me, which makes it hard to tell when they first actually SAW me. This one;

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/q71/s720x720/1948252_689326397778310_2099748667_n.jpg

Was a novice crew, near sunset, with me running decks awash and no US ships nearby. The combination of the sim.cfg hack with the novice crew is obviously a bit too much, even in poor light and flooded down with just the conning tower showing he SHOULD be able to see me at 900 yards.

"We then ran around the surviving convoy positioning ahead..."

Ain't you never heard discretion is the better part of valor? :03: Hee-hee, stir up a hornet's nest once it's a bad idea to come back for more! I get detected before attacking a convoy I go deep and evade, let them all get away and wait for the next convoy. He who chickens and runs away lives to chicken another day. :arrgh!:

Armistead

02-18-14, 10:39 AM

I probably shouldn't respond to this because it deals with modding, (and my new SOP with modding is, My hands = off), but a couple off the cuff responses:

I ran out of time, patience, and motivation; but I did my best. There's nothing else for it.

Damn, so you're not gonna make a mod to please everyone?:haha:

Sniper297

02-18-14, 11:34 AM

Ran another this morning, this one started about midnight (career start it's random). While tweaking this to try to balance between player choice of S-18, Porpoise, Salmon or Sargo I came to the conclusion that the S boat would arrive at his first engagement about 2 years after the sunken US fleet had rusted away. :timeout: So I added three torpedo bombers to help the surface fleet, they usually get two or three small holes in the first BB (Kongo) to soften him up a little. Doesn't usually help much, even DIW he makes scrap iron out of any light or heavy US cruiser that comes within range.

But this time surprise surprise, them three TBDs actually SANK the Kongo with them itty bitty mark 13s. :huh: Okay, so there's a group of 1 Takao and two light cruisers coming in behind, go to decks awash and see how close I can get to them.

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/q71/s720x720/1959341_689385124439104_764089628_n.jpg

2000 yards at 12 knots, they can't see all that spray?

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/q71/s720x720/1012038_689385131105770_1255021554_n.jpg

Inside 1000 yards, them lubbers are all asleep. Fire one, fire two!

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/q71/s720x720/1899940_689385111105772_1338880516_n.jpg

At least the light cruisers woke up and started hammering away when the Takao blew up, but I still think the lookouts should have seen SOMETHING at 2000 yards even in the dark. I can see sneaking up to 1000 yards from a merchant ship in the dark, but not a man-O-war.

[Visual]
Detection time=0.8 ;[s] min detection time.
Sensitivity=0.07 ;(0..1) min detection threshold double detection time.
Fog factor=1.2 ;[>=0]
Light factor=2.6 ;[>=0]
Waves factor=2.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=150 ;[m2]
Enemy speed factor=18 ;[kt]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=1.0

[Radar]
Detection time=1 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=5.0 ;[m2]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=1.0

[Hydrophone]
Detection time=5 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.07 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=0.7 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Noise factor=0.7 ;[>=0]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=2 ;[>0], 1 means no signal reduction, 3 equals signal reduction to 33%

[Sonar]
Detection time=10 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.009 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=100 ;[m2]
Lose time=30 ;[s]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=2 ;[>0], 1 means no signal reduction, 5 equals signal reduction to 20%

That's what I'm running now, maybe the light factor needs to be adjusted downward?

Leon West

02-18-14, 12:31 PM

aanker

02-18-14, 02:11 PM

Forgive me, but I think I'm just really bucking for that "Stupidest Question of the Year" award. It's so shiny!

Erm, anyways, the above code looks like a lot of work has gone into it, and I would really like to give it a try with my game, but sadly, I don't know which file to edit. Can someone please point me in the right direction for this one?

Thanks in advance.
It is easy - there are no silly questions.

The file is sim.cfg
It can be opened with Notepad a plain text editor - NOT Word or any formatted text program.

Values I posted here make a night surface attack possible under the right 'use your common sense' conditions/situations.

Here is the post:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2168476&postcount=20

sim.cfg is in:
Silent Hunter Wolves of the Pacific\Data\Cfg\sim.cfg

Be sure you back your file up so you don't lose it.

Happy Hunting!

neilbyrne

02-18-14, 09:11 PM

Spider, I did a lot of research on WWII visual detections at night in the Pacific for my surface game with ship models. It was a holy terror because there are numbers all over the place from various battles.

At Savo Island in AUG '42 on a moonless night, the IJN flagship, heavy cruiser CHOKAI, detected the USN picket DD, BLUE, at 10kyds. The entire IJN force of seven cruisers and one DD then passed astern of BLUE w/ CPA 5kyds without BLUE detecting any of them. In the engagement following, allied cruisers did not detect until the IJN opened gunfire against them at 5kyds. This was the first night action for combatants on both sides, but the IJN had been practicing same for years where we hadn't.

Contrast this with the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in NOV '42 where the lead DDs of both sides, IJNS YUDACHI & USS CUSHING, detected each other simutaneously at 3kyds. Both sides knew there were enemy ships in Ironbottom Sound that night so vigilance was high. Several US ships w/ SG radars had been tracking the IJN formation from 16kyds, but CUSHING had no SG and her SC wasn't working. So lookouts and officers on both would have been straining to detect, not an unalerted situation yet you still got ranges way off from Savo, for the IJN at least.

Moonlight makes a large difference, almost doubling detection range if not masked by overcast. And again all my research was for warships DD size and larger against each other. The IJN was better at this than we were, largely due to having started training at it from the mid-'30s on. The number I finally put on this, looking at all the Solomons night actions in '42-43, was that they would detect at 30% greater range than us despite the instance of CUSHING/YUDACHI above. Altho after '42 it became almost a non-issue for us because the majority of our combatants had SG radar which might have cushioned our lookouts' vigilance to some unquantifiable degree.

What about the sub case? In YUDACHI/CUSHING, YUDACHI was target angle ~ 045. Now contrast the visual cross section of a 1,700 ton DD with a sub running decks awash bow on. So do I think a sub running decks awash could get within 2kyds of an IJN CA without being detected, unalerted? Yes, not always and not on a moonlit night, but doable on occasion. Within 1kyds, not likely. The thing that could queer the deal here for the sub is what you said, speed. Start throwing a lot of white water around and you'd be toast.

I don't know if that's helpful.

Sniper297

02-19-14, 01:49 AM

Recent one unrelated to the mission mod, two separate contacts on the same day - a small old split and medium old split freighter started their zigzags at 2800 yards. Slightly hazy overcast day but good visibility, sea state heavy swells with lots of foam, which would make a difference. Running on the surface (or rather roller coasting on the surface) at 15 knots, watched in map view until zigzag started (at 6 knots why bother?) around 2700 to 2800 yards. Visual detection circle on the map is about 5600 yards for all ships, but they do mention that merchies tend to be more lackadaisical about lookouts. And I have had BBs open up on me at 8000 yards, outside the detection circle, but I suspect that circle is just an average.

Also had one "psychic" escort come boiling at me doing 34 knots from a lot further away than I would have expected, but I was too busy diving to measure the distance when I first noticed him. It was well outside that 5600 yard circle, but it was clear daylight.

Japanese night detection - everything I've read indicates the IJN had night optics and training that were far superior to ours, in fact the British Navy had superior night fighting skills in 1939 to what we had at the end of the war. Si vis pacem, para bellum, we've learned that lesson time and time again but have short memories.

Armistead

02-19-14, 07:15 AM

I found you couldn't get a realistic night surface attack adjusting just the cfg and have it match the env realistically. Most of the envs are too bright at night with no moon and the light values really aren't used. Nights should be about pitch dark with no moon, with the clouds only lighting up near the moon, instead of the entire sky. My approach was to redo the night envs darker and adjust numerous env light values, sim visuals, then tweak the cfg. You can see SS in the Screenshots and Video thread post 3864.

Sniper297

02-19-14, 11:59 AM

All my haze gray and underway time was in the North Atlantic, where it was always cloudy rainy with pitch black nights. The few training flights I made from NAS North Island at night, the Pacific was pretty well lit just by starlight. Might have just been lucky timing, but most of the west coast guys claimed it was like that all the time. Never spent more than a couple months at a time in San Diego for assorted service schools, never actually sailed in the Pacific, and never flew more than 100 miles from the west coast over the Pacific, so I can't actually swear that the weather is better than the Atlantic on average.

merc4ulfate

02-19-14, 03:21 PM

Armistead

02-19-14, 04:06 PM

The only black night I saw in the Navy was during heavy squalls. Even a moonless night will show plainly a silhouette against a clear sky. They will actually show up better at a distant against the sky rather than closer but that will depend upon the height of the ship.

A taller ship will not see as well closer to it because the incoming ship has a tendency to blend in with the water. At a distant they silhouette lovely against the starry sky.

You would be surprised how much light the inner section of the galaxy gives off on a moonless night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM5lM5WEY3Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hPiG1fr68Q

http://setsail.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/1Pinetop-Cruising-in-the-clouds-115-of-18.jpg

That is the problem in game, the atmosphere/ night colors are too light, instead of using enough env light values for better lights and reflections. The other problem is clouds stay highlighted with light from one horizon to the other, when it should be around the moon and fade out from the moon. This causes a lot of light at night that shouldn't be there. With the right env light values you can still have some brightness using darker colors for a more realistic env look and you can much better adjust night visuals for night only and your cfg tweaks have a much greater impact.

The bigger problem is the game world view, you can be 5000 yards from the enemy, stand on the enemy deck at night without binocs and usually see your sub without a problem.

merc4ulfate

02-19-14, 04:55 PM

Anyone know if there is a value for the sky itself? The clouds I would think would be easy enough with retexturing or an illumination value if they have one.

Anyone ever see star density values?

Leon West

02-19-14, 05:04 PM

It is easy - there are no silly questions.

The file is sim.cfg
It can be opened with Notepad a plain text editor - NOT Word or any formatted text program.

Values I posted here make a night surface attack possible under the right 'use your common sense' conditions/situations.

Here is the post:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2168476&postcount=20

sim.cfg is in:
Silent Hunter Wolves of the Pacific\Data\Cfg\sim.cfg

Be sure you back your file up so you don't lose it.

Happy Hunting!

Thank you very very much! I'll add this to my game and see what sort of trouble I can get myself into. :rock:

Armistead

02-19-14, 05:07 PM

Anyone know if there is a value for the sky itself? The clouds I would think would be easy enough with retexturing or an illumination value if they have one.

Anyone ever see star density values?

Yes, you can adjust the sky itself..... I haven't opened files in several months, but it's a seperate sky folder. Clouds are easy to adjust with color and different light on cloud values in env and scent dat and you can use or make different shaders from transparent to an almost solid cloud that lets little light through. You can adjust cloud size with textures or just tweak or add more arrays in scene dat. You can also adjust how much light the moon puts out, whereas most mods use a simply halo texture with zero moonlight. This SS is extreme moonlight, but you get the point..

http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu235/Armistead1424/SH4Img2004-03-02_224403_671.jpg
No star density values..

Sniper297

02-19-14, 05:17 PM

Had a weird day today, started with a night surface attack on one of them medium European composite ships that I usually submerge for since they have that big honking turret on the fantail that looks like a 5 inch 54. With the new visual hack I decided to try it, closed into 2000 yards and hammered him with HE from the 4 inch until he blew up. He never fired a single shot in return.

After sunrise I got one of those high speed huge European liner with 3 escorts (which they call a "TASK FORCE", but they also call a subchaser and a couple of those stupid little gunboats a "TASK FORCE" instead of an antisubmarine patrol), decided to make a high speed submerged attack from the starboard bow after the lead escort passed by. Then I had a crazy piece of luck, the lead escort decided to run a circle around the liner, got too close and got rammed. Two easy torpedo shots from close up and personal, down she goes. By this time the lead escort was 4000 yards behind him, so I switched to external free cam to go back and see how badly damaged he was.

That's when it got surreal - CAVU day that suddenly changed to rainy foggy with visibility down to 1000 yards so I could no longer find the damaged escort. :huh: No gradual change at all, it was clear and sunny one second then CAT II IFR the next.

Well, I took advantage of that and the SJ-1, surfaced with the wing escort 1500 yards away and got outta Dodge on the surface.

Rest of the day was foggy rainy, so I proceeded to find unescorted merchies to gun down on the surface.

An aside here, I might get court martialed for aiding and abetting the enemy, but if they're gonna keep sending cargo ships out with no escort during a shooting war I figure it's my Christian duty to give them free lessons in why that's a bad idea. It also conserves torpedoes. :know:

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/q77/s720x720/1962628_689975577713392_124799681_n.jpg

Chasing down two "convoys" of two merchants and zero escorts by radar, here's the first visual sighting.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/q71/s720x720/1662644_689975621046721_1338143880_n.jpg

I'm looking at this guy open sights within 1000 yards, he never zigged.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/q79/s720x720/1911704_689975587713391_2008155513_n.jpg

Get in to 500 yards and it's a little more clear.

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/q79/s720x720/1795603_689975547713395_155262103_n.jpg

Anything further away and it's hard to make out what you're looking at.

Main surprise was the sudden weather change, I always assumed the game was programmed to do that type of thing gradually, but this was instant fog.

Armistead

02-19-14, 05:27 PM

Weather changes are gradual, in that if you catch it, it can be sunny with a light rain that picks up, but still goes to a full storm in about 1 minute...gradual, but fast...

Sniper297

02-19-14, 05:48 PM

Yeah, I dunno if I'd call a minute "gradual", but this was less than a second. Might have been something to do with the free external cam, I rotated the view so I'm looking at this destroyer clearly visible 4000 yards away, hit SHIFT up arrow to fly toward him to examine him close up, and he just vanished and I was in fog. I swear on Holy Father Neptune I was stone cold sober! (HIC!)

Armistead

02-19-14, 06:49 PM

Some of the wind values in the scene dat may play a lil role, so env mods may differ. The weather changes can certainly ruin an attack.

merc4ulfate

02-19-14, 08:18 PM

No star values but what is the sky and star field coming from ... file wise I mean?

neilbyrne

02-20-14, 07:25 PM

Spider, been busy for a few days with RL. Loved your screenies.

I spent almost equal amounts of time in Lant and Pac and your perceptions are correct in my opinion. Lant is rougher as a general rule.

I did a WestPac cruise as an SM3 in HENDERSON (DD-785) in '67 and for the most part the weather was pretty good as I remember altho we did ride thru the fringes of a typhoon south of Japan. The only thing about it that I remember clearly was pitching live fish off the signal bridge. At the end tho, I figured being a signalman outside was a racket compared to the poor snipes down in engineering.

The most miserable weather I've been in for a long period was in the North Atlantic in FEB-MAR '71. As mentioned above, BROWNSON was the first ship to have solid rubber sonar domes. They were a single piece casting and no one was sure of their durability. So we went out for a month and the Fleet Wx Center sent us from one filthy storm to the next for the entire period. The domes did fine; ship & crew not so much. After two weeks everybody was dead dog tired. We had a constant 1-2" of sea water sloshing in the midships passageway from superstructure cracks. My roommate was so seasick he had to go to sickbay for several days on an IV to rehydrate.

The fastest I ever saw wx change was in a North Wall Storm off Hatteras in '76. I was chief engineer in FAIRFAX COUNTY (LST-1193) and we were coming back fm the Med. I relieved as OOD at 1545 and the sky was mostly clear with a light chop running. By the time I got relieved four hours later we were in sixty foot seas. I know this because height of eye from the bridge was 60ft and we were watching wave crests go by at eye level. That got pretty sporty before we were done.

I'm glad I wasn't a signalman in Lant.

Sniper297

02-21-14, 12:02 PM

I'm glad our helos were too big to deploy on destroyers, I remember several occasions on the Independence coming up from the mess decks unaware of any movement until I got to the hangar deck, then looking out an elevator door and seeing a destroyer alongside for UNREP. We're steaming along with a slow ponderous pitch and roll, but the destroyer alongside is imitating a half drowned berserk roller coaster with green water over the weather decks half the time. I'd be seasick too on one of them things.

Back on topic, I'm looking to reduce the hack values yet again - mainly the thermal layer attenuation. The visual looks like it's pretty close to reality but sonar is still way too easy. I attack, I dive until I hear "passing thermal layer" then go 60 feet deeper, reduce to ahead slow and never get a depth charge. If 1 is no attenuation and 3 is reduction to 33%, 5 is down to 20%, what would 2 be? 50%? Will it accept decimals like 1.5%? Ideally something like 60% to 80% of the above-layer signal would be better, some advantage to hiding under the layer but not too much - the stock values for thermal layers are a bit too much like a Klingon cloaking device.

Sniper297

02-21-14, 12:33 PM

I'm looking at what Aanker originally posted and what my stored original 1.4 backup says, this file date is 11/12/2007 and some of the values don't match what the comments say is original.

[Visual]
Detection time=0.5 ;[s] min detection time.
Sensitivity=0.1 ;(0..1) min detection threshold double detection time.
Fog factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Light factor=2.5 ;[>=0]
Waves factor=4.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=50 ;[m2]
Enemy speed factor=25 ;[kt]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=1.0

[Radar]
Detection time=1 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=5.0 ;[m2]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=1.0

[Hydrophone]
Detection time=1 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.15 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Noise factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=3.0 ;[>0], 1 means no signal reduction, 3 equals signal reduction to 33%

[Sonar]
Detection time=5 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.1 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=20 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=200 ;[m2]
Lose time=30 ;[s]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=5.0 ;[>0], 1 means no signal reduction, 5 equals signal reduction to 20%

Main concern is the visual, anyone got an explanation for some of these? Most are self explanatory, but the waves factor - higher number is harder to detect, or higher number means how much the waves are increased over a flat calm before they become a factor in detection? And what does "Enemy surface factor" do?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2168476&postcount=20

[Visual]
Detection time=2 ;[s] ;was 0.5
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1)
Fog factor=1.25 ;[>=0]
Light factor=2.8 ;[>=0] ;was 2.0
Waves factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=350 ;[m2]
Enemy speed factor=15 ;[kt]

original I'm looking at;

[Visual]
Detection time=0.5 ;[s] min detection time.
Sensitivity=0.1 ;(0..1) min detection threshold double detection time.
Fog factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Light factor=2.5 ;[>=0]
Waves factor=4.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=50 ;[m2]
Enemy speed factor=25 ;[kt]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=1.0

Light factor doesn't match what he says was original, possibly what he thought was original came from a mod or earlier SH4 version before the 1.4 patch. Anyway, the two in red are what I'm wondering about, what's a "surface factor", and do higher or lower numbers make it more or less difficult for the enemy to detect you?

Akotalaya

02-21-14, 01:17 PM

i dont see how so many people are having problems with being detected, ive had a small task force with DD's try and hunt me and there very unsuccessful..ive had them pass within 500 yards of me and never detect me..course ill throw out a decoy then order ahead flank to pick up speed then cut my engines and coast while making a sharp port or starboard turn..i spend hours sometimes toying with them like that. i made it into a bit of a sport..harassing the japs and i always send at least one to the bottom, oh and im using the stock sh4 1.5 with no mods when i do this!!

aanker

02-21-14, 02:37 PM

For the 3rd time, I was having a conversation - with Hitman in this post and another. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

So, I just now did a search and found the post where he listed his setting to make a night surface attack possible for him in SH4.

Here is the post. For the 3rd time, these are not my values, I said I got them from my notes:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1064392&postcount=18

This post is where I copied and pasted the info/settings into my notes. I have a massive collection of notes and miscellaneous files relating to SHCE, (SH1) & SH4.

I didn't post Hitman's name because I didn't think it was necessary. The values were important, not bothering Hitman.

merc4ulfate

02-21-14, 04:33 PM

Wouldn't it be easier and less confusing to have a conversation between the two of you in PM instead of using the open forum??
As to night attacks. I too do not understand how anyone could have difficulty achieving it. Even with TMO and Travellers Harder escorts I have gotten in between escorts and went right into the middle of a convoy ... fish the targets and then dove deep to avoid the escorts and got away out of the back of the convoy.

Armistead

02-21-14, 05:38 PM

Sniper

Per Ducimas

"Surface factor means how much surface area of your sub you must be presenting to the AI in order for him to notice you."

Keep in mind the importance of keeping your bow at the enemy, the more flank of profile you show, obvious the more he can see you. I haven't looked at values in months, but as I recall the lower the number the easier he can spot you.. as he has to see more surface before the AI responds.. Play with it. It's basically the same with sonar, that's why it's always important to keep you bow pointed at the nearest escort.

One of the difficult issues with night surfaces attacks with mods like TMO, you might get in close for an attack, but when you have to turn to escape, you show your flank and get spotted.

People need to keep in mind that numerous values work together before a AI response happens. They're numerous values in the sim, sensors, cfg,ect that work with env settings. You can spend numerous hours getting something that feels right for a certain time or weather, only to find it screws up during a different time. You can spend 100's of hours testing and fine tuning and the fact is you can go about things numerous different ways to get the same outcome.

Just remember, none of this is new, people have been arguing, debating and modding the AI and env for years...they're numerous mods from easy to impossible based on the modders intent and many work in some situations but are unrealistic in others because enough testing wasn't done under every possible env. situation.. Visuals and light factors can get real tricky at dusk and dawn...

neilbyrne

02-21-14, 05:40 PM

Spider, I haven't found the layer to be that much protection at least last night. Was approaching a three ship convoy w/ five escorts. Looked like the one I'd attacked twice before as described above, but that was SE of Formosa w/ them headed NE and this was several hundred miles away N of the Formosa Sts. Got detected prior to firing and dove beneath the 195ft layer. Dropped FTCs just before going beneath. Bottom was at 435ft and we dove to 425. Couldn't get away from these guys. They clearly decided killing us was more important than getting the convoy where it was going. The merchies went off and milled about 4-5nm north and all five escorts came after us. Eventually we bottomed and stopped. Didn't matter. Was depth charged for an hour and a half of real not game time. Eventually, got sunk.

Sniper297

02-21-14, 11:07 PM

Aanker, what we have here is failure to communicate. I'm not crediting or blaming you for the hack, I fully understand and I think everyone else does that you quoted someone else. And I'm not bashing the hack, it's a good starting place.

Akotalaya, the idea is not making it easier because it's too hard, the idea is making it more realistic because some elements of the enemy AI are UNrealistic. For example the psychic escort who suddenly and coincidentally decides to leave his position ahead of the convoy and make a high speed sweep 15 miles southwest exactly where you happen to be - that occurs far too often to be random chance.

Neil (SIR!) :03: I haven't run across anything like that, my usual was (1) sneak inside screen, (2) fire all tubes, (3) fire decoy, (4) go to all ahead flank and head for 60 feet under the layer, (5) make 90 degree turn and go to ahead slow, (6) draw 5 mile circle with compass and (7) creep to outer edge of circle before coming back up for a periscope peek. My problem is it's so easy it's getting boring, I'm not earning my hazardous duty pay. Visual detection on the surface is a whole different story, trying to do an end-around fails all too often because I'm detected way beyond what would be a realistic detection range. Or the escort gets a phone call from the Psychic Friends Network and decides to make a beeline directly for me from 15 miles away, not sure which.

Armistead, thanks - just what I was looking for, so increasing that number should mean I'd be harder to see on the surface? What about waves factor, is that a multiplier of how much high waves affect detection, or a threshold for how high the waves have to be before that value has an effect? I have "snorkel depth" activated so when I hit the ; key it goes down to decks awash, so far it seems like having only the conning tower exposed makes them see me at much shorter ranges.

aanker

02-22-14, 12:11 PM

When I conduct a night surface attack it is exactly that, I use Fluckey's method; move in on the surface, attack, turn away, track & follow on their beam while reloading, and move in again firing on the next maru or two up the column. No end around required and the DD's can't spot me unless they get within 1,500 yards.
This is much easier with radar and low light is essential.

Gene Fluckey's description of his method of night surface attack:

To stimulate discussion of new methods of approach and attack, the following is offered, of possible interest, from our meagre [sic] experience, for what it is worth. It is a special situation of a dark night, poor visibility convoy attack.

Fault was found with the standard off bow attack in that an end around was required; usually only two targets presented themselves at the optimum torpedo accuracy range which were readily taken care of by the bow tubes; shifting nests for low parallax stern tube salvo resulted in no suitable target for the stern salvo at a satisfactory range of 1,500-3,000 yards; escorts were passed close aboard; another end around was required for the next attack; and the formation turned, or was so fouled up, another lengthy tracking period was required.

To obviate this second end around on our last patrol, we changed our off bow attack tactics so that our next shift would be a high parallax stern tube set-up, though contrary to doctrine, and we would emerge ahead of the convoy, ready for a reload and another attack. Again no stern tube target was immediately available at hitting ranges, and, while pulling out ahead, we had to cross in front of the convoy to fire the stern tubes at the leader of another column. Per usual the formation became disorganized. It was two hours before targets and escorts were sufficiently settled for another attack, and even then it was poor. Disorganization of the formation, with the targets wandering about, continually changing position, course and speed, was a distinct disadvantage.

Realizing the advantage of maintaining convoy organization, new tactics were developed and tried, which we label the "Barbarian Attack."

Briefly it consists of a quarter attack firing three bow torpedoes at the trailing ship of an outboard column. The sub then turns out at a 60 degree angle from the convoy course and opens out on the flank to 4,000 yards. Paralleling the formation at this range, fifteen minutes is utilized in tracking and reload while moving up on the next ship. This ship is then attacked from the flank or quarter with a three torpedo bow tube salvo, and the sub again opens out and reloads while tracking the next ship ahead. If this ship is not the leading ship of the column, the procedure is repeated. Assuming it is the leader, a stern tube off bow salvo is fired, and the sub pulls out ahead of formation, ready to reload the stern tubes and proceed with any type of attack desired.

The above method was tested on this patrol with such ease and lack of expected difficulties that attack was only secured to give the rest of the pack a chance. The convoy was contacted at 20,000 yards with the Barb broad on its starboard quarter. Forty-two minutes later the trailing ship was attacked.

The convoy remained organized, used same zig plan and increased speed slightly. Twenty-one minutes after the first attack, the second attack was made on the next ship up the line. Twenty minutes later, the second attack was made, and the Barb passed the next ship ahead at 2,160 yards, foregoing an attack in deference to the rest of the pack. Thus in less than 1 1/2 hours after contact, we found ourselves ahead of the convoy, without making an end around, with all tubes reload, and with two concentrated attacks under our belts. Trouble from escorts which were stationed astern, on the flank and off the bow, was nil. As we had anticipated, not seeing us they turned towards the stricken ship to drop depth charges, maintained course and speed to hold gunnery practice, or, in the case of the exploding AE, were intent upon saving their own necks. If they had turned out to chase us, we had the advantage of a head start on our departure course and at full speed before the torpedoes hit.

Consequently, to us, the tactics of this attack appear ideal in its particular sphere; no end around; the accuracy of concentrated fire; requires only one-third of the time normally used; automatically takes care of reload; minimum escort trouble; maximum convoy organization, and best possible position of sub upon completion of first wave of attacks. Obviously it is flexible and easily adaptable to special circumstances.

Roscoe, "United States Submarine Operations in World War II" page 444
Posted on Tom Martin's site:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tlm/silent/barb_report.html

I've learned not to mess with scene.dat, it is too easy to screw something unintended up. I use the scene.dat as configured by whatever super-mod I am using.

merc4ulfate wrote:
"Wouldn't it be easier and less confusing to have a conversation between the two of you in PM instead of using the open forum??"

Read the linked thread, I thanked Hitman for posting his values that helped steer me in the right direction to alleviate a major flaw with SH4; Escorts with ESP and other unrealistic detection special abilities.

No RW sub report I am aware of describes diving to 200' - 250' prior to an attack, and then rising to PD inside the screen to fire. The noise from all of the marus would deafen/mask any Hydrophone detection once the sub is close to the convoy.

I want to attack in a realistic manor whether it is a submerged periscope attack or a night surface torpedo attack. I also want to evade and elude in a realistic manor too.

Happy Hunting!

CapnScurvy

02-22-14, 02:29 PM

[Visual]
Detection time=2 ;[s] ;was 0.5
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1)
Fog factor=1.25 ;[>=0]
Light factor=2.8 ;[>=0] ;was 2.0
Waves factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=350 ;[m2]
Enemy speed factor=15 ;[kt]

original I'm looking at;.........This is stock 1.5

[Visual]
Detection time=0.5 ;[s] min detection time.
Sensitivity=0.1 ;(0..1) min detection threshold double detection time.
Fog factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Light factor=2.5 ;[>=0]
Waves factor=4.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=50 ;[m2]
Enemy speed factor=25 ;[kt]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=1.0

The two in red are what I'm wondering about, what's a "surface factor", and do higher or lower numbers make it more or less difficult for the enemy to detect you? The waves factor - higher number is harder to detect, or higher number means how much the waves are increased over a flat calm before they become a factor in detection?

Think of these figures in the Data/Cfg/Sim.cfg file as "additional" factors that get added/subtracted from the original parameters that are found within the basic Data/Library/AI_Sensors.dat file. Within this file sit's the "base line" for the various sensors used by the AI (visual being one of them).

The way you look at the "Waves factor=" parameter is if you increase this figure, [>=0] (means greater than zero), you increase the AI's visual efficiency during higher wind states (meaning something greater than a calm, zero mph wind state). The higher the factor, the greater the chance of being spotted during a storm.

The "Surface factor=" [m2] (a square meter) parameter is like what Armistead/Ducimus state. This is the size of the detectable object. The greater the size of the surface showing to the AI, the greater the probability of having it detected. It makes sense the greater the size, the greater the chances of being seen. However, just what is the base line for the size point that won't be detected? I don't know. I suspect there was a particular distance the dev's used for determining just how large a surface area had to be in order to be seen....its at that distance the surface area factor comes into play.

What I've seen is there is a maximum figure to these numbers that will make no change to the factor it relates to. In other words, there is a maximum figure that going beyond it will make no difference to the sensor. Just what it is for each sensor is pure speculation. For instance the stock [Sonar] "Enemy surface factor= 200" is just a number if you can't relate it to something (like a distance). It could be this figure is only a fraction of what its maximum really is.......OR, its already maxed out, to its limit of detection possibilities.

Sniper297

02-22-14, 03:04 PM

If you have "no map contacts update" unchecked so the target appears one the map, when you click on a target it has a ring around it. On destroyers with active sonar (I've seen a few with only passive) the inner ring with the wedge is the passive sonar area, the half circle at the front is the active sonar area.

Best I recall the outer ring on all ships is 5600 yards radius, I believe this to be the "standard" visual detection area. It's not the gun range because I've had battleships and heavy cruisers open up on me at 8000 yards, still 1400 yards outside the circle. It would make sense that a higher observation point would increase visual range on a clear day, so being seen outside the circle on ships with higher lookouts would be realistic, and warships detecting a surfaced sub beyond the average range that a merchie would detect same is also kosher.

With that in mind, assuming that ring is average detection range, that number is probably the benchmark - an object this size will be seen at a range of 5600 yards assuming normal visibility and the standard veteran crew, smaller objects will not be seen until closer, larger objects will be seen further away. So increase the number and the "standard size" object won't be seen until closer than 5600 yards, decrease the number and it will be seen farther away. I think.

Aanker, Fluckey sounds good on paper, but as I recall the Germans were doing something similar for the initial attack - but once the star shells started firing, the jig was up and they had to dive. I suspect the competence of the escorts would come into play, Fluckey does mention that they assumed a submerged attack and weren't looking for a surfaced sub outside the convoy. Always helpful when the enemy screws the pooch.

I can never resist a pun, maybe Fluckey was a fluke. :har:

Sniper297

02-22-14, 06:12 PM

Okay, probably a bit too much on the visual.

[Visual]
Detection time=0.9 ;[s] min detection time.
Sensitivity=0.09 ;(0..1) min detection threshold double detection time.
Fog factor=1.2 ;[>=0]
Light factor=2.6 ;[>=0]
Waves factor=4.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=50 ;[m2]
Enemy speed factor=20 ;[kt]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=1.0

That's what I got now, and on the latest test with my mission mod I decided to press my luck as far as it would go. In the narrows south of Corregidor I have a Kongo BB steaming at 1 knot (wanted to have him anchored but that creates weird respawning later) as the first contact. Flooded down to decks awash (25 feet) at 8000 yards, continued closing at 15 knots. I'm pretty sure the game takes zero notice of how much spray you're kicking up, which is a lot at 15 knots decks awash and should be more noticeable. I double checked in the mission editor, and I do have this Kongo set for the default Veteran crew.

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/q71/s720x720/1891134_691405570903726_1705931138_n.jpg

About 3000 yards, he SHOULD have seen me by now even end on, it's high noon and clear.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/q71/s720x720/1972393_691405594237057_2042143727_n.jpg

The Val saw me and made a bombing run, even if the Kongo lookouts were full of sake, the Val dive bombing me should have at least made them curious enough to look in this direction.

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/q71/s720x720/1656014_691405627570387_443384438_n.jpg

500 yards and still oblivious - he HAS seen the torpedo wakes and sped up, how can he see wakes but not me?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/q77/s720x720/1621757_691405587570391_936097513_n.jpg

Slowed to 1/3 because a ramming contest between a BB and a sub is not a good idea if you're the sub. Two fish hit (further aft than I aimed due to his speed increase) NOW he decides maybe there's a war and he should be shooting at a sub 200 yards away.

Either I got too much topspin on this hack or the veteran crew status should be downgraded. Decks awash should make a difference, but not THAT much.

TorpX

02-22-14, 09:08 PM

Could it be that the waves factor is too high?

500 yards and still oblivious - he HAS seen the torpedo wakes and sped up, how can he see wakes but not me?

I think the torpedo detection is automatic. Even the most clueless merchant crews can spot them on a dark night. :doh:

Sniper297

02-22-14, 09:35 PM

Dunno, default waves factor is 4.0, I didn't change it. Later in the same mission I was charging at a Maya decks awash trying to get him before he sank the US light cruisers coming up behind me, at 3000 yards the Maya opened up, but on the Omaha behind me, which was 4000 yards further away. A Minekaze saw me from about 5000 yards and turned toward me, bent on 34 knots and opened up at 4000 yards. By this time the second Omaha was right in my wake and he opened up on the Minekaze so I didn't have to dive right then - but the Maya started firing at me about 2000 yards so I had to pull the plug.

It DOES make a difference;

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/q71/s720x720/1797443_691467527564197_603943639_n.jpg

Fully surfaced;

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/q71/s720x720/1620683_691467524230864_819553335_n.jpg

Decks awash (25 foot depth) from about the same distance.

Main thing is the spray, if I'm chugging along at 5 knots it should be harder to see than when I'm booking along at 15. Same thing with periscope feathers, in real life they went down to 100 feet to sprint, so there wouldn't be a wake disturbance visible on the surface, then slowed to 2 knots (even backing the motors to slow quickly sometimes) before coming back up and raising the scope. In game it doesn't seem to matter, even at night when a huge white bow wave makes you visible from farther away.

CapnScurvy

02-23-14, 10:16 AM

[Visual]
Detection time=0.9 ;[s] min detection time.
Sensitivity=0.09 ;(0..1) min detection threshold double detection time.
Fog factor=1.2 ;[>=0]
Light factor=2.6 ;[>=0]
Waves factor=4.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=50 ;[m2]
Enemy speed factor=20 ;[kt]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=1.0

Flooded down to decks awash (25 feet) at 8000 yards, continued closing at 15 knots. I'm pretty sure the game takes zero notice of how much spray you're kicking up, which is a lot at 15 knots decks awash and should be more noticeable. I double checked in the mission editor, and I do have this Kongo set for the default Veteran crew.

I can't help but notice your "Enemy speed factor=20". Enemy in this file means you, the sub. The figure of 20 kts means the AI will not be very efficient in detecting you, unless your doing 20kts or greater. Since your not traveling at 20 kts, your speed (wake) will have little effect on the AI detection capabilities.

Your "Detection time=0.9" can throw things off too. At 0.9 this means the AI may see you, yet not react to your presence for nearly a minute in game time (0.5= to 30 seconds). You can travel a large distance in a minute, making it seem the AI isn't responding when in fact this figure is holding back the AI from doing just that. On this same note, your stock game Sim.cfg file also contains these entries:

[AI Cannons]
Max error angle=3
Max fire range=6000
Max fire wait=12

[AI AA guns]
Max error angle=5
Max fire range=1500
Max fire wait=7

This "Max fire wait=12" can easily be why your not getting a response from the Kongo. Its waiting for 12 minutes before doing anything about the detection (if anything is detected).

Its possible if the Kongo is going to detect you, it will be through one of the other possible sensors (Radar, Sonar {Active}, Hydrophone {Passive}). Or, from detection by some other means....like the the plane spotting you. Again, if any of these are the possible detection source, there are still other factors that will come into play before getting a response.

One thing you should do to narrow down your "control" of the tests your doing is eliminate the other possible sensors playing a part in detection. This means removing a test subjects sensors....other than the sensor you wish to examin.....then making changes based on the lone sensor factors.

Sniper297

02-23-14, 11:00 AM

Yikes, I assumed those were seconds rather than minutes. And I thought Enemy speed factor was the max speed the enemy could go and still hear noise on the hydrophone, I wondered about the visual speed factor. The suggested detection time was to increase from 0.5 to 2.0, if 0.5 is one minute then that would be four minutes - I decreased it from the suggested 2.0 because that seemed too easy. Same with sensitivity, default 0.1, suggested 0.01, mine 0.09 since that was only a slight decrease from stock. Obviously I still don't have a full understanding of what goes where and why.

Sniper297

02-23-14, 11:13 AM

Hold the phone. I know I'm senile but something here is skewed.

"I can't help but notice your "Enemy speed factor=20". Enemy in this file means you, the sub. The figure of 20 kts means the AI will not be very efficient in detecting you, unless your doing 20kts or greater. Since your not traveling at 20 kts, your speed (wake) will have little effect on the AI detection capabilities."

A Gato on the surface has a max flank speed of 21 knots, "the AI will not be very efficient in detecting you, unless your doing 20kts or greater" would mean that in the stock game the Japanese would almost always have difficulty seeing any sub on the surface, and the Porpoise and S class would be practically invisible. And it makes absolutely no sense for the hydrophone or active sonar, hydrophone speed factor = 15 and sonar speed factor = 20 in the original sim.cfg.

"Enemy in this file means you, the sub."

If that's gospel, what sub exceeds 15 knots submerged other than a nuke, which wasn't available in WWII?

CapnScurvy

02-23-14, 11:40 AM

I pointed out there are many factors in determining AI detection. The [Visual] "Enemy speed factor=" (your sub), is just one of them. You can have this factor non existent, yet the AI will detect you through other means (such as "Enemy surface factor=") within the [Visual] category. Or, one of the other sensors (Hydrophone, Radar), or a detection by another [Visual] modeled object like a plane, or shore battery.

Remember, these figures are not the "baseline" for detection.....the baseline comes from the AI_Sensors.dat file. The Sim.cfg file are "multipliers" or "handicapper's" if you will, to the baseline sensor in question.

The fact that the stock game has all of the "Enemy speed factors=" greater than the subs normal traveling range should show one thing.....it doesn't make a difference what your speed is, the AI isn't increasing its detection capabilities using speed as the only basis for detection. I think it should be obvious that the game does not equally give weight to all aspects of detection. Some aspects have greater weight in making a detection than others. I'm thinking the Sub's speed is down the hierarchy.

Sniper297

02-23-14, 12:22 PM

Hmmm, if that's the case maybe we're screwing with the wrong file. Just did a search for "AI_Sensors.sim", no gots. Is that the actual file name?

CapnScurvy

02-23-14, 12:56 PM

I assumed those were seconds rather than minutes. And I thought Enemy speed factor was the max speed the enemy could go and still hear noise on the hydrophone?

When the Sim.cfg file referrers to "Enemy Speed factor=" it referrers to your sub (or any AI friendly ship/plane). When it uses "Speed factor=" it referrers to the AI's speed for increasing or decreasing the particular sensors capabilities. Think of the "Speed factor=10" this way. Up to 10kts the AI will get a boost in detection properties for the sensor.....traveling faster, the AI won't get the boost.....it may even get handicapped (getting less detection capabilities) with the sensor.

I wondered about the visual speed factor. The suggested detection time was to increase from 0.5 to 2.0, if 0.5 is one minute then that would be four minutes?.

The "Detection time=0.5" is not one minute. Its half a minute (30 seconds). To answer your question "What's four minutes?" It's "Detection time=4.0".

.....sensitivity, default 0.1, suggested 0.01, mine 0.09 since that was only a slight decrease from stock. Obviously I still don't have a full understanding of what goes where and why.

The "Sensitivity=" factor is a "multiplier" to the sensors "Maximum Range:" figure (its baseline number) found in the AI_Sensors.dat file. With regular detection time, all things being equal, the detection time is doubled if the object detected is at the Maximum Range. The detection time is less if the distance is less than the Maximum Range. (By what percentage, I don't know....some things the dev's just don't tell us.) By adding the "Sensitivity=" multiplier to the detection time, you're decreasing the detection time even further (you're essentially pushing out the Maximum Range=Double Detection Time further than what the AI_Sensors.dat file states).

So, as you can see, one parameter increases detection time, the other decreases it. Oh what a fine line we walk when messing around with these figures.

CapnScurvy

02-23-14, 01:04 PM

Hmmm, if that's the case maybe we're screwing with the wrong file. Just did a search for "AI_Sensors.sim", no gots. Is that the actual file name?

Sorry, my fault. Its found in the Data/Library/AI_Sensors.dat file, not .sim file (there isn't one of those). :oops:

As I've said, this file contains the baseline for the sensors capabilities. The Sim.cfg file are parameters that change the baseline figures to suit the various variables that come into play.

Sniper297

02-23-14, 03:05 PM

Egad, Holmes, the game is afoot! :salute:
That looks like it, max range numbers in particular.

Radar - 25000
Visual - 9500

Radar is okay but visual 9500 is about 4.6 NM - that's kinda pushing it for an object the size of a WWII sub, even if it was painted florescent orange. Original complaint from Captain Neil was they were seeing the periscope from unreasonable distances, so reducing that number to 8000 or so might be the simplest cure.

After that it gets weird, hydrophone/sonar are sdrawkcab;

10:Node - AI Hydrophone lists "type" as "sonar".
14:Node - AI Sonar lists "type" as "Hydrophone".

Max range for the hydrophone labeled as sonar is 6000, max for the sonar labeled as hydrophone is 4000. So I suspect the type labels were reversed, the first actually is hydrophone and second actually sonar regardless what the "Type" says - passive sonar (hydrophone) has a much greater range than active sonar (ping pong), in fact for WWII 4000 yards range for return echos from active sonar is pretty optimistic.

I'm gonna make a copy of the original backup and leave sim.cfg alone, try cutting the range numbers in AI_Sensors.dat in half and see what that does.

Sniper297

02-24-14, 01:16 AM

Okay, that seems to work a lot better - the enemy is behaving competently but they're not psychic supermen. I restored the original sim.cfg file, fired up Silent 3ditor, opened the AI_Sensors.dat and just changed a few things;

AI Radar - 25000 - reduced to 15000 (Japanese radar was non existent when the war started, never did get halfway decent and wasn't common on destroyers)
AI Visual - 9500 - reduced to 7500
AI Hydrophone - 6000 - reduced to 4000
AI Sonar - 4000 - reduced to 2000

I thought about increasing the minimum range for sonar to more accurately simulate the loss of contact in WWII (150 to 300 yards ahead of the destroyer at periscope depth, more if the sub is deeper) but the present settings seem to be realistic enough to warrant further testing without any more changes.

Sniper297

02-24-14, 03:31 PM

Here's a weird one, in my WIP mission I decided to mix some destroyers rather than the ever constant Fubuki.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/q80/s720x720/1911885_692295774148039_1151554627_n.jpg

That's the usual arc you see on destroyers, outer ring visual, inner ring with the wedge cut out passive sonar, little semi circle in front active sonar. One of the older cans, Minekaze, doesn't look like it has active sonar, only the basic hydrophone;

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1/q80/s720x720/1972494_692295760814707_1801811643_n.jpg

I'll have to poke one with a stick and see if he has a pinger. :ping:

Odd thing during one test, a Mutzuki was getting hammered by a US light cruiser, and I saw this;

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/q80/s720x720/1925248_692295777481372_1081473563_n.jpg

The outer ring is gone, did the Omaha kill all their lookouts, or destroy the bridge? Dunno, I switched to external cam to fly over and look, but before I got there a US heavy cruiser had joined the party and blew the destroyer into fragments. :up:

neilbyrne

02-24-14, 04:16 PM

Sniper, where do I get Silent 3ditor?

HertogJan

02-24-14, 05:27 PM

Just reading through and knew the answer.

http://s3d.skwas.com/

neilbyrne

02-24-14, 06:58 PM

HertogJan, thanks.

anotherdemon

02-26-14, 08:24 AM

Somewhat related:

If I wasn't so adapt at popping the anchor and pulling it up, I would have been run over twice by dumb freaking [massive] tankers out in the ocean in mah mighty 16 foot aluminium fishing boat* as they circled around an island.

Granted, not wartime, but if a literal boat is missed, I don't see how merchants could spot a scope from a boat not moving.

*I wish I had a pair of torps on my boat....

Sniper297

02-27-14, 02:18 PM

Worst trouble with modern superships is they're bigger than carriers with a lot less power - so their maneuverability is pretty much non existent. By the time they see a collision hazard it's too late to do anything about it. :dead:

Well, March 42, went back to Manila to see what kind of docked ships are available for sitting duck targets. :arrgh!: As I was closing on Cavite a convoy was coming out from Manila with 3 escorts. Edged away to avoid contact, but the wing escort on my side detected me on passive sonar at 2000 yards, sped up and came in pinging. Five hours later I had six destroyers and one sub chaser making runs on me while I'm trying to evade in 100 feet of water, no magic thermal layer cloaking device available. :ping: So with the six cans a few thousand yards west I came to periscope depth and fired two stern tubes at the subchaser, came up to decks awash and went to flank speed to the east - and ran head on into a gunboat. Wasn't about to dive again until them six evil destroyers were far behind, so I engaged the gunboat with the forward BOFORS and sank him with a few clips. Closest tin can was 6500 yards east heading my way so I turned north and kept her going flank speed until they were all out of sight, then turned back southeast to Manila.

Found two carriers, 1 battleship, 1 heavy cruiser anchored just off Manila, sank same. Headed back west toward open ocean, spotted two destroyers circling about 5 miles north of where I sank the gunboat, about the same location where I lost contact with the closest can so I edged further south (into shallower water!) to avoid them. Now here comes three sub chasers from the Cavite, spread out in a line. Turned south again so I'm practically scraping bottom at periscope depth, the middle one passed about 500 yards off without detecting me, but now I'm broadside to the south one too close to speed up. Naturally he pinged me, so two more hours of evading depth charge runs while heading for deeper water. Finally shook them off after getting to 100 feet in 110 feet of water, kicking out several decoys and heading northeast away from the exit to the South China Sea. Apparently they didn't expect that since they continued to head toward Corregidor. Once they were out of range I surfaced (battery down to 10% with all the flank speed sprinting to avoid the ash cans) to air out the boat, then back to decks awash to recharge batteries. Waited until nighfall then headed west again, I've had enough of the Manila Bay sightseeing tour for now. :doh:

In conclusion, the latest AI_Sensors.dat range hack with default sim.cfg does NOT make it TOO easy - for the two days in enemy occupied Manila Bay it was pretty realistic. :up:

Sniper297

02-28-14, 11:02 AM

Okay, on this;

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/q80/s720x720/1925248_692295777481372_1081473563_n.jpg

Apparently my speculator was speculating specorrectly, it happened again while I was looking at one on the map, outer ring vanished while it was under fire from two US light cruisers. This time I managed to get there in time for a pic;

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/q82/s720x720/1010994_694123410631942_1499950916_n.jpg

No bridge apparently = no lookouts which in turn = no visual sensors. Not a very good graphic, the bottom deck of the bridge structure is even and undamaged like it was sawed off, searchlight and mast are hovering in space right where they would be if still attached to the bridge. Anyway it does confirm what I always suspected, the outer ring on the map is the visual average.

Sniper297

03-01-14, 11:43 AM

Gonna need to hack sim.cfg anyway, the thermal layer is still too much of a cloaking device, under the layer = Harry Potter cloak of invisibility.

Other thing I noticed one night after resupplying at Spectre 42 was this;

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1/q71/s720x720/1240400_694689357242014_186807382_n.jpg

Sub tender and both cruisers visible from 7500 yards, could you see a periscope at that distance? On radar;

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/q77/s720x720/1979615_694689340575349_2124226505_n.jpg

There's a PT boat next to the tender, can't even see that at 7500 yards. At 80 feet long with a 20 foot beam, a PT boat is a little bigger than a periscope. :up:

neilbyrne

03-01-14, 05:12 PM

No chance for visual at that range. Or radar at that time.

Sniper297

03-01-14, 06:01 PM

Funny that the US sub radar has an 80 Kyard setting on it, seems to me that would be over the horizon even for a BB. IIRC the range you normally picked up big targets on radar was between 10,000 and 15,000 yards, 5 to 7 1/2 miles. Real life example:

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/39929_128127483898207_8312742_n.jpg

Pic taken at Harlem Avenue and Lake Street looking toward downtown Chicago, distant building on the far right is Sears Tower. Roughly 9 statute miles away, 15,840 yards. The monstrous antenna masts on top of the building (which are a LOT bigger than a periscope, probably bigger than a fleet boat stood on end) are barely visible at that range.

Armistead

03-01-14, 08:26 PM

Sniper, they're several radar mods and fixes, some built into mods, some not. You can play with the heights of radar {min/max} to adjust what height above sea level it will pick up...some other factors involved of course. You can set it just so radar won't pick up your sub at decks awash, nor your scope if that even comes into play.

Can't remember the radar types now, been too long, but one type in game should act as air alone and the stock game has it as air and surface, so it reaches very far with good contact on your sub a long range. Tater has a mod fix for this, but you can open it up and figure it out easily and play with heights until you get it to your liking for your setup.

Sniper297

03-01-14, 09:21 PM

Yeah, for my purposes the slight reductions in range seem to work well enough, and in February 1942 I seriously doubt any Japanese destroyer would have even a radar detector. I have an SJ, I hacked some files to get me a radar at career start in 1941 because I got tired of doing end-arounds within visual sight with the idiots on watch who sound like parrots reporting the same zigzagging escort every five minutes as a new contact, but completely miss it when he turns toward us, bends on knots and opens fire. My radar guy doesn't have any more sense than the deck watch, "What? It wasn't a NEW contact, was it important to mention he turned around and came back to us at high speed? Wasn't in my standing orders, sir!"

Just a few minutes ago I hit a task force sinking 3 out of 3 BBs, then ducked under the layer (still too easy) and surfaced 10 miles away. Still had them on radar 20 miles north heading north, with me heading east on the surface and distance increasing rapidly I went to ahead standard and headed for base (read the bible but the miracle of the fishes and loaves is beyond my skills, got enough bread to feed the US Army but still only two fish left in the tubes). Then turned on time compression with the closest destroyer 25 miles northwest now, and still headed north while I'm going east. After a few minutes running 2048 X speed I suddenly get WHAM WHAM WE'RE TAKING DAMAGE SIR and there's two destroyers within 3000 yards and more coming at me - the rest of that task force is now 30 miles away but the escorts suddenly decide NOW would be a good time to break off and head 30 miles southeast at high speed on a hunch?! Psychic Friends Network, there's no other rational explanation. Why one of the lubbers in my crew didn't say anything before the shells started hitting IS rational - they already had them on radar, didn't think it was important to mention the range was now closing instead of opening because their only orders are to report NEW contacts. :down:

TorpX

03-02-14, 12:14 AM

Don't really know, but I'm thinking that high TC makes it easier for them to detect you.

Sniper297

03-02-14, 02:24 AM

No habla "TC", what's a high TC? Anyway my latest example ain't about being detected, not from 30 miles. An escort making the occasional sweep a few miles from a convoy/task force is realistic, but for one to make a beeline to exactly where you happen to be 10 or more miles away could only be a coincidence if it happened once - but it happens way too often to be random chance. And 30 miles is either psychic or they had a time machine to go into the future and bring back a Grumman E-2 Hawkeye.

Armistead

03-02-14, 08:09 AM

High time compression TC can easily get you killed, moreso if the enemy is within the contact zone. Escorts often make sweeps, sometimes several nms and if you're in TC you can easily get found out and dead before you know it....

Mods vary, but as I recall only the best radar can pick up at the 20nm range, other factors apply, but I've played for years and never had a escort come from 22 nms or more to chase me. Even with my harder settings, I'm generally safe at 12nms from enemy radar and visuals during the day. You have to pay attention if you have contact, planes may spot you or the enemy may change course and head your way, see you, the group turns away, but escorts come on...

Sniper297

03-02-14, 02:14 PM

Thanks, I'm mulling over Tin Can, Terra Cotta, and Toll Collector trying to figure that one out. Yeah, good possibility, after sinking 3 ships I'm leaving the area on the surface, turn on TC (Time Compression, silly me :doh: ) and it goes jerk-jerk-jerk keeping track of course, speed, range and bearing to every life boat and Carley float until they're all out of range. I've also noticed that coming out of TC you get the excitable adolescent screaming in a high pitched voice about radar contact ship sighted we're taking damage sir while the actor wannabe does the stage whisper about passing thermal layer, I suspect that's some kind of buffer the old messages are stored in while TC is on. Be nice if they kept better track of what was important instead. Buggy subroutine, I was sitting on the bottom with TC at 1024 waiting for some sub chasers to go away when I get a machine gun of 100 taking damage reports before TC automatically kicks off - sitting on the bottom apparently triggers the "run aground" program when TC is on.

Armistead

03-02-14, 04:20 PM

well, a lot can happen when you're at high TC, so it can take some seconds for the game to catch up when you come out of it...

HertogJan

03-02-14, 04:45 PM

Yup,

Even the weather and ocean can be messed up by TC, I never go over 512x when going to my patrol area or when I'm on patrol (read somewhere 256x is best but its too slow for me).
When I hit bingo fuel or run out of fish I head home at 1024x and from 680Nm out of Tokyo I warp home at 81..x (max TC) to Pearl.

Nisgeis

03-03-14, 12:33 PM

Funny that the US sub radar has an 80 Kyard setting on it, seems to me that would be over the horizon even for a BB. IIRC the range you normally picked up big targets on radar was between 10,000 and 15,000 yards, 5 to 7 1/2 miles.

In 'good conditions' range was given as 12 nm for a BB and 8 nm for a DD for the detection ranges of an SJ set. I have read in a few books that they could sometimes pick up targets at unusually high ranges if the weather conditions formed a 'tunnel' that would keep the radar signal bouncing along the sea with the curvature of the Earth.

Also, they used the radar for navigation and mountains show up, again I have read that sometimes they got echos from the previous pulse showing up on the scope at 120+ thousand yards (e.g. it showed at the 40k point).

Anyway, in game, ships don't spawn until about 36k yards, so there's no use for it to be that high and of course weather and terrain don't show up on it either.

Sniper297

03-03-14, 04:43 PM

Yeah, that's the one thing that always irritated me about SH4 radar - how hard would it have been to link it to the map to show land masses, and add some "grass" and sea returns in bad weather?

Armistead

03-03-14, 05:40 PM

neilbyrne

03-04-14, 05:58 PM

Southwest of Tokyo Bay in FEB'45, almost no shipping until an Aux gunboat/Q-ship, one of those 2400 ton merchie look alikes w/ two deck guns, ambles up. So I set her up for a shot in broad daylight and calm seas. We were DIW off the aim point with minimal scope showing when she detected at ~1600yds. Had to be on our glass since she has no sonar. We danced around for a while with us trying to set up a shot from the stern tubes, but couldn't do it so I dove and headed south to shake her, but couldn't do it. She pursued and hung around within 1000yds for an hour with us below 100ft. Never heard a ping so don't know how she was tracking us, goofy stuff.

Came back to PD with her 5kyds to the north when a 10,000 tanker comes in fm the NE. We sank her and then a large cargo ship minutes later, but the Q-ship responded to neither of those which were well within sighting distance, 4-5kyds from her. Passable strange.

aanker

03-04-14, 06:51 PM

Yeah, that's the one thing that always irritated me about SH4 radar - how hard would it have been to link it to the map to show land masses, and add some "grass" and sea returns in bad weather?
I'm with you. Land masses aren't that big a load. SH1 - SHCE showed land masses visually, on SJ, and they were nicely displayed, plus a visual SD air search radar, a visible bathythermograph for water density/temperature layers, and SH1 was a DOS & Win 3.11 game. Ran on a x86 computer.

I've been very disappointed with SH4, even when modded the best I could do - or anyone else, it still isn't as good as SH1. Did I mention SH1 had a working TDC too?

SH1 features a Captains cabin and logbook, a Calendar with sunrise, sunset, the moon phases, moonrise & moonset times to assist in planning actions; for attack, recon, etc. Also a working TDC that I always used to fire, SD A-Scope air search radar pictured below on the right, SJ-1 40,000 yard PPI on left, (in this pic it is showing a land mass) - earlier SJ was 20,000 yards PPI, and earlier still the 20,000 yard A-Scope.

. . . http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p157/ptcbupers/SHCE_99_zps9b92b96a.jpg

If UBI had the SH1 features above, the SH1 submarine operations, the SH1 Escorts' ASW performance to track your boat in a realistic manner (remember the wagon wheel?), combined with the graphics of the SH4 water & SH4's beautiful models of warships & marus, that would have been a product.

Land masses didn't slow SH1 down when displayed visually (there were things to see) or on the SJ.

I'll admit I prefer SH4 because of the graphics, but there is so much that could have been added to make it right that a primitive DOS game running on an old x86 had.

Sniper297

03-04-14, 08:33 PM

Problem there is kids (defined as those who weren't born yet when the first PCs came out, Zenith Heathkit TRS-80 Commodore 64 etc) have the attention span of a gnat and don't care about realistic operations. They want eye candy, they'll pay big bucks for eye candy, so eye candy is what the game companies focus on, because eye candy is what sells.

But don't get me started on that. :salute:

TorpX

03-04-14, 10:33 PM

Yes, SHCE was a fine sim. They put in the effort, on the things that matter the most. It's too bad Ubisoft didn't follow suit.

Sniper297

03-05-14, 02:27 AM

I've had them all, the original four color CGA "GATO" for the 286 back in the 80s, Microprose Silent Service 1 and 2, assorted others from obscure publishers and SH 1 through 4. SH4 LOOKS better than the old four color GATO, IIRC the sea was light blue, sky was magenta and everything else was black or white. Kinda like Chuck Yeager's flight sim or the original F-15 Strike Eagle.

Back on topic, I've got something pretty close in damage tweaks - deliberately slowed down to let a destroyer catch up with me (this is in my WIP mod, trying to figure out why they come pinging at 6 to 8 knots and don't speed up for a run, the tin cans in other missions don't let you outrun them submerged). WHAM WHAM WHAM 5 out of 8 tubes damaged with two forward and one aft damaged but still able to fire, one propeller shaft 90% damaged, 28% hull damage, both periscopes OK and nothing destroyed. Career start mission so not many decent mechs aboard, so it took a while before I was able to fire from any tube besides 3, 4 and 6. Detection seems pretty good except for that screwy thermal layer which I somehow can't put a dent in.

Visual detection seems right on, reducing the max visual range in the AI_Sensors.dat file from 9500 to 7500 was all it took. Changes a lot of other things about AI visual detection too, calm water sunny day the max range they can see a surfaced sub is 7500 yards, then the max range for everything else including night surface attacks and periscope detection is reduced correspondingly. :up:

AdamMil

04-28-14, 01:40 AM

If you guys ever get the numbers finally tweaked to your liking, please post the changes you made so I/we can duplicate them. :-)

aanker

04-28-14, 11:01 AM

If you guys ever get the numbers finally tweaked to your liking, please post the changes you made so I/we can duplicate them. :-)
I posted Hitman's settings to make a night surface attack more realistic - and possible. I also posted a link to Medal of Honor winner Eugene Fluckey's method of night surface attack, posted on Tom Martin's site that I like to use when conditions are right:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tlm/silent/barb_report.html

TorpX is tweaking scene.dat (I think)

I'm just subscribing to this topic in case anyone has better ideas or if TorpX finds a magical solution : )

In the meantime, Happy Hunting!

Armistead

04-28-14, 11:16 AM

Last year I made a mod for bubblehead where I reworked the env and tweaked cfg and other things for a realistic night attack. I spent more time adjusting light settings and colors in env than anything. I never really finished it, although Bubblehead tested it a lot and basically liked it as it was.

I don't remember all the changes. I did adjust where light keeping light on the clouds near the moon, instead of all clouds basically the same reflection from horizon to horizon. The goal was easier night attacks under low light conditions, more dangerous with higher light. I also nulled searchlights on all ships except escorts and adjusted those to be more reasonable.

Sseem I could pull off reasonable surface attacks from 1500-2000 yards and still be able to turn and escape, of course crew ratings effect that.

I made several versions because bubble and I differed some on distance, but probably could find the more recent two files I emailed Bubble. If someone wants to try and and work on it, just PM me..

I haven't played in several months, my PC with all my file blew up, just have them because Bubble was doing testing and I emailed them to him..

For TMO

neilbyrne

04-28-14, 04:54 PM

[Visual]
Detection time=2 ;0.5 ;[s] min detection time.
Sensitivity=0.01 ;0.1 ;(0..1) min detection threshold double detection time.
Fog factor=1.25 ;0.01 ;1.0 ;[>=0]
Light factor=2.8 ;3.0 ;[>=0]
Waves factor=1.0 ;3.5 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=350 ;40 ;50 ;[m2]
Enemy speed factor=15 ;[kt]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=1.0
[Radar]
Detection time=1 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.01 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.9 ;1.0 ;[>=0]
Enemy surface factor=5.0 ;[m2]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=1.0
[Hydrophone]
Detection time=10 ;1 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.01 ;0.12 ;(0..1)
Height factor=0 ;[m]
Waves factor=0.55 ;0.6 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=12 ;15 ;[kt]
Noise factor=0.2 ;0.60 ;[>=0]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=2.5 ;[>0], 1 means no signal reduction, 3 equals signal reduction to 33%
[Sonar]
Detection time=15 ;5 ;[s]
Sensitivity=0.005 ;0.05 ;(0..1)
Waves factor=0.6 ;1.0 ;[>=0]
Speed factor=12 ;20 ;[kt]
Enemy surface factor=100 ;200 ;[m2]
Lose time=30 ;[s]
Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation=5.0 ;[>0], 1 means no signal reduction, 5 equals signal reduction to 20%

This is the sim cfg that I've used since Aanker posted it including the only modification that I made which was to change the speed factor for both active sonar and passive (hydrophone) to 12 knots for reasons as stated in previous posts.

Spider subsequently came up with what he thought was the correct tables to change within the sensors file using the S3D - Silent 3ditor. I downloaded S3D, but couldn't figure out how to use it and the above was working so well that I never followed up with it.

Using this cfg I finished my last campaign, am half way thru another and have yet to have anything I'd regard as really unrealistic occur. So I'm content with it. Good hunting.:arrgh!:

TorpX

04-29-14, 12:42 AM

TorpX is tweaking scene.dat (I think)

I'm just subscribing to this topic in case anyone has better ideas or if TorpX finds a magical solution : )

I did tweak the scene.dat, but my changes were limited to those that would produce bigger waves. I really don't know enough to intelligently rework the whole file. The standard file I included is based on the RFB 2.0 file, and I included an alternate built on the most recent TMO file.

Right now, I am working on the ships, and this is proving to be difficult enough. However, if some of you want to develop a combination of scene.dat/Sim.cfg files, that are compatible with RFB, and that you consider better and more realistic, I would be happy to include these with the next ISP release.

[I]very[/B] good, but don't know if his file versions would work well with RFB.]

AdamMil

04-29-14, 10:47 AM

This is the sim cfg that I've used since Aanker posted it...Is this based on stock SH4? Or, perhaps more importantly, will this work with stock SH4? (I remember somebody said that the sim.cfg file just contains multipliers for the values in the sensors.dat file, so if it's based on a mod with a changed sensors.dat file, then I suppose that would need to be part of the solution...)

aanker

04-29-14, 11:50 AM

I did tweak the scene.dat, but my changes were limited to those that would produce bigger waves. I really don't know enough to intelligently rework the whole file. The standard file I included is based on the RFB 2.0 file, and I included an alternate built on the most recent TMO file.

Right now, I am working on the ships, and this is proving to be difficult enough. However, if some of you want to develop a combination of scene.dat/Sim.cfg files, that are compatible with RFB, and that you consider better and more realistic, I would be happy to include these with the next ISP release.

[I remember Armistead's screens of his work, and thought the night moonlight shots were very good, but don't know if his file versions would work well with RFB.]

TorpX, I don't dare edit what you and the RFB team released - or Ducimus' TMO either. They are what both mods worked hard and compromised many things to get in their end result. You guys did an outstanding job and had reasons for everything.

I stick to modding a personal modded install based on so much I learned from both RFB & TMO, and others' input too - like Hitman's.

So, it's like 3 - 4 different SH4 installs which is nice : )

Is this based on stock SH4? Or, perhaps more importantly, will this work with stock SH4?
Yes, this will work with SH4 Stock 1.5. Hitman modded his Stock files to get these values. I use these values - or real close, and can do night surface attacks to my satisfaction under the right conditions at night.

A skipper would be risking his command going after an escorted convoy on the surface in daylight. I do 95% of my periscope attacks on escorted convoys at dusk - dark too, and when a surface attack is out of the question.

I try to be realistic or what I think would be historically accurate, based on numerous patrol attack reports I have read. They are all on the internet now which is nice.

Happy Hunting!

Sniper297

04-30-14, 01:18 AM

"Spider subsequently came up with what he thought was the correct tables to change within the sensors file using the S3D - Silent 3ditor. I downloaded S3D, but couldn't figure out how to use it and the above was working so well that I never followed up with it."

If I'm the "Spider" you're referring to all I did was reduce ranges to something inside the orbit of Jupiter, they CAN detect you outside those ranges but only when you're really visible and conditions are just right. It feels more realistic to me.

As for Silent 3ditor it's not that complicated, assuming you're proficient browsing files with windows explorer and editing text files, Silent3ditor is merely a decompiler.

Open Windows Explorer, browse to the \Silent Hunter 4 Wolves of the Pacific\Data\Library folder. First file in the list should be AI_Sensors.dat. Copy that file and browse to a backup folder and paste it, now you have a safe copy of the file to restore if you blow something up.

Start Silent 3ditor, File, Open, a standard Windows Explorer opens, browse to the same place and open AI_Sensors.dat.

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/10308569_724289247615358_5333823668939533572_n.jpg

The first four nodes are the only ones really needed, the nodes expand just like folders in windows explorer. Expanding a node you find obj_sensor then another obj_sensor with the actual specs in that, find the range and reduce it. Do the same for all four, AI_radar, visual, hydrophone and sonar, then save and exit Silent 3ditor, test in game. If it seems too easy and/or the escorts can't see you until you ram them reload the file and increase the range. If the whole thing capsizes get the backup AI_Sensors.dat file and copy into \Silent Hunter 4 Wolves of the Pacific\Data\Library, yes to overwrites. As long as you make a backup copy of any file you try to edit before editing it's impossible to screw it up.

Even for an officer. :salute:

EDIT: almost forgot (one of my grandkids talked me into doing a simple mod for Oblivion, simple mod led to a more complicated one which led to another and chaos reigned all over the kingdom), the numbers I used;

AI_Radar: 25000 reduced to 15000
AI Visual: 9500 - reduced to 7500
AI Hydrophone: 6000 - reduced to 4000
AI Sonar: 4000 - reduced to 2000

Note that those are not absolute limits, a better than average operator in better than average conditions CAN pick you up outside those ranges, but it's really rare. If the max range is 25000 there's a slight chance they'll detect at 28000, a little better chance at 20000, good chance at 10000 yards. Reset to 15000 changes those to 16000 with an elite crew in a flat calm, 10000 with a veteran crew with small waves, 5000 for an average crew with a moderate swell. Again all the testing I did (before I got distracted with sword and sorcery) was with the default sim.cfg, combine both and the enemy would probably be a bunch of blind deaf lubbers who couldn't find a shark in a wading pool. Either the numbers on both would have to be adjusted upward or the original sim.cfg would need to be used to avoid going to the other extreme of never being detected.

neilbyrne

04-30-14, 11:53 AM

Even for an officer. :salute:

Now that's cold.

Thanks Sniper and sorry about the name confusion. I'll have to try the editor again.

bandit484

05-01-14, 01:28 PM

Is this based on stock SH4? Or, perhaps more importantly, will this work with stock SH4? (I remember somebody said that the sim.cfg file just contains multipliers for the values in the sensors.dat file, so if it's based on a mod with a changed sensors.dat file, then I suppose that would need to be part of the solution...)
Yes it will. I also use it in S.H.5 and it works quite well there to.:yeah:

Sniper297

12-10-14, 12:14 PM

Update to this, I started having frequent crashes trying to load save games in careers, so went back to stock game to troubleshoot. Got one of those huge European liners with a couple escorts, the escorts detected me well outside of five miles and came at me while the troopship started zigzagging. Fired fish at the escorts, sank one and damaged the other, apparently jamming his rudder so he couldn't turn. Fired one into the troopship who stopped DIW. After a few minutes raised the scope, located the damaged escort still steaming off to the horizon 5000 yards and increasing. Noted splashes around the scope, changed to external view to see what in the world that passenger liner was firing at me with.

It wasn't the passenger liner. It was that escort, over 5000 yards away, firing at my periscope and getting hits every time I raised it. Um yeah, the AI don't cheat. Much. :doh:

Copied the altered AI_Sensors.dat file into the new test copy and restarted a new career, we'll see how that goes.

Armistead

12-10-14, 04:11 PM

Never had that problem, cept within 1000 yards if I left in up too long and I use TMO with a much harder self mod AI...

Sniper297

12-10-14, 06:04 PM

Never had that exact problem before either, first time for me. I suspect a programming glitch; (1) the damaged escort was inside 1000 yards and firing at the scope when I shot a spread at him, then dunked the scope, (2) he was hit in the bow so his forecastle was awash, rudder and screws halfway out of the water, he continued at 9 knots on the same course after that, (3) I popped the scope up and looked at him, noted 5000 yards then turned to look at the liner to see if he needed the deck gun to finish him off, (4) saw splashes in the water and wondered what weapon the liner was firing at me with (she WAS within 1000 yards and COULD POSSIBLY have seen the scope).

My conclusion is the fact that the escort HAD seen the scope when he was inside 500 yards somehow got stuck in memory resulting in him seeing and targeting the periscope from the ridiculous distance of over 2 1/2 nautical miles. Why reducing the max visual range from 9500 to 7500 works I have no idea, but somehow it does. 1000 yards is half a mile, and with the attack periscope we're talking about something the size of a fence post. 500 yards is more realistic, 5000 yards is impossible.