Ready for something REALLY far out? I doubt seriously that lookouts gave bearings by compass - more like "Fine on the port bow" or similar. I know that until recently both the UK and US navies did this - until no one knew them anymore and the "clock" system came in. I am not familiar with the system used by the KM - but as they were in many respects founded on the UK system during the eternal wars with France (and as the ruling family in GB was the Hanovers ...) I suspect that they also used a 32 point system. And as for distance - the usual close, medium and far will do - anything more accurate required the UZO or 'scopes with their markings.

Any chance of limiting the direction to the 32 point system? Ya'll would have to larn to box the compass .......

32 points correspond to an accuracy of approx. 11 degrees. I guess 10 degrees is close enough and should be easily realized just by rounding the number :06:

The best thing for the distance would be a distance-dependent accuracy. But I guess that's difficult (more accurate when closer). I think an experienced officer could estimate the distance up to 1km if the ship is not too far away (again could be done by just rounding to 1000m :06:). Here is an old discussion about the issue:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=167741

Cheers, LGN1

oh ,oh...H.Sie , if you manage to control the WO will be just...wonderfull !!

i will,also, suggest to contact(exept Neal) Elanaiba in order to give you some tips on where exactly are 'hiding' the parts for the WO . if he helps a little, you will save a lot of time of just...searching .you never know....give him a pm

about the range accuracy ...i would suggest a 500 m difference would be ok.
and about bearing accuracy i would say that is ok to be left as it is becuase ,i suppose , they had the uzo back then to get the accurate bearings

Phew. Thanks for the responses. What is 32 Point? Is it N, NW, NNW, NO, NNO and so on? Good idea, but not easy to program.

My first thougt was (easiest solution of all - I'm tired):

Bearing: 10 Degrees steps:
0, 10, 20, .... 350, 360.

Range: 1 instead of 2 significant digits and rest zeroes:
100, 200, 300, ... , 800, 900, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000....

Using text instead of numbers (NNO, NNW, Long range, and so on) is easy to do in C++ or similar, but not in assembler (for me). But worth to try.

Who is Elanaiba? One of the programmers? Nice idea. He will surely be pleased. Maybe it's a better idea to directly contact the UBI customer service with some questions regarding programming details.

:D

@LGN1: Thanks for the CO2-research. I'll use that information in the next days/weeks.

h.sie

oh , you don't know Elanaiba...i see....does 'Dan' means something to you ?:D

anyway...he is saying that he is helpfull to modders so give it a try...you never know !

On the other hand: What is when I am not interested in the nearest but in the second nearest contact? no chance. so it's a not very useful function at all, or am I wrong?

Dan .........Dan Dimitrescu the lead designer?

And Ubi

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...3/m/5941041408

But not could be better release the exe and other files from the starforce free versions for owners of the original SH3 DVD and not use ***-sh14.rar ?? :06: :doh:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/%22h...0System.jpg%22Ayup - 32 points was used to set a course - North by Northwest and all that. But for lookouts - the bow was dead ahead, stern was right aft, half way between was On the Port/Starboard Beam, halfway between those was Fine on the Port Bow, On the Port Quarter, On the Starboard Quarter, Fine on the Starboard Bow - etc. I'll try and find a diagram and post it here. I know - REALLY far out there and so salty it be nearly pure salt ..........

Here is a decent diagram:

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5926/pointsystem.jpg



http://www.filefront.com/17291126/Point%20System.jpghttp://www.filefront.com/17291126/Point%20System.jpg

That is really great h.sie...the possibility to have inacurated WO readings!

So, here my 2 cents:
1. The bearing could stay untouched, they had very precise optical equipament and probably the readings were very precise too. Or perhaps just a bit of uncertanty, let´s say, one to five degress of error (in RL this tiny error is probably determinated by the sea state). But, obviously, if in the end, you have the necessary time, then for the first "Ship spotted", just an estimated direction is the better: N, NNW, NW, etc.

2. But the estimated distance is another history...it must be estimated only...so perhaps in steps of 500m, even 100m is already good. Much better than the always dead precise as in the stock game.

And to finish: check if these new estimated values (bearing and distace) will not mess with the weapons office solution in game. Also think about the dialogue and the lipsync. Just reminders to you think about if this or that aproach is better than another, etc.:up:

And Dan already helped a lot of modders here: ask to Der Teddy Barr, Privateer, ref, etc. Der Teddy Bar even had access to some mathematic formulas used by the game engine and so on (all them given by Dan)

That sounds fine for me. I guess the only drawback would be that for larger distances than 10 000m you will always get a distance of 10 000m. This might be problematic while shadowing a contact and using the WO to keep the distance at max. range (the contact might come as close as 10 000m without you being warned).

Regarding CO2: Do you think it might be possible to couple the CO2 build-up to the silent running setting (maybe a factor of 2 between using silent running and normal life/repairs...)? That would be great. It would also make the silent running setting more than just eye-candy.

Cheers, LGN1

@Draka: Sorry, but I prefer the current output in degrees. Thanks anyway for helping.

@Rubini: At the moment we are only talking about the "Nearest visual contact"-Button for the 1WO, not about the automatically generated messages "Ship spotted, Bearing .... Range .... . For that, other routines are responsible.

I also think that NNW, SSO and so on are only for absolute courses but not for bearings, which are relative to my U-Boat.

I fear a little bit to also make the automatically generated firing solution in TDC more inaccurate. Additionally, since I will play with manual targeting, this is not my first priority. But I put it on my todo-list.

AFAIK the nearest visual contact message has no sound so that no lips sysc is necesssary.

Is Dan still working for UBI? I personally would not like it, if someone changes some more or less significant bits in a program I wrote.

@LGN1: Very good idea. Could be possible to do! That idea makes the CO2 issue high priority for me.

@ALL: Thanks for the comments. I'll start programming now and I'll see what is possible.

h.sie

Now I understand Rubinis problem: The discrepancy between inaccurate 1WO message and accurate TDC solution.

That problem occurs only for those who play auto-targeting but not for those who use manual targeting (as I do or better: plan to do).

So I plan to make that 1W0 inaccuracy mod switchable. Those who don't want to use inaccurate 1WO messages can switch it off by setting a certain bit to zero. detailed description will follow.

h.sie

I think you don't need to worry about Dan's affairs... ;)

No problem, mate - all your efforts are highly appreciated. Just a bugaboo of mine as to reality - a dream as it were.

Sometime during the transition from sail to steam the lookouts (at least in the USN) starting using the clock system - as in "Ship bearing 8 o'clock" as everyone was familiar with clocks. During my time on a sailboat in the Bay area - 80's and 90's - I started getting kids that only knew digital readouts on clocks - no idea of a clockface! So I started teaching the true old system - worked a charm.

First knowledge: my AV guard doesn't like the V15A patched exe... :hmph: