[REL] FOTRS Ultimate Project

[keltos01]

Sending Keltos01 a link to v0.54!

thanks !!!

and I'm sure don't worry Moonlight it'll soon come your way !

See FB page Aleutian campaign: posted video of a nice encounter between my S-18 and a very large 4 funnel Old Liner, well nice for me and for my mk10's anyways

[CapnScurvy]

Originally Posted by Moonlight

Hey RR why aren't the rest of us getting a link to the latest version, we're supposed to be beta testers you know, or is that not the case anymore.

Good point, but let me assure you there are some things yet to go into the 0.54 version. I've not sent in my fix for ALL "Yes Sir" phrases to stop their repeats yet. Nor, am I done with the Power On/Off of both the Radar Antenna's (SD, SJ) for all subs. This feature is meant to allow a player to "Turn Off" power to both radar antenna's, so you won't get the constant drop in Time Compression when entering/leaving a friendly port. You'll still get warnings from your Watch crew, but not from the Radio/Radar man. I'll also be adjusting the Radar/Sonar detection parameters to better follow authentic behavior.

We still need all hands on deck!! Thanks for your help!!

[Rockin Robbins]

0.54 is a work in progress. When we get all our desired features locked down, it will become the public beta and the next version is the private beta, sort of the present workshop for the team.

The FOTRSU Team doesn't believe in patches for public release. Internally we work with patches so we can compare, cooperate and eliminate conflicts. But when it's ready for public beta use, it's all melded into a new version: one 7zip file and much less confusion. It's a sign of disorganization and laziness that RFB, TMO and RSRDC all require patches in order to be played correctly. As a player, you deserve a complete mod and shouldn't have to hunt around for patches.

[Rockin Robbins]

I've been looking at the .cfg files in \Data\Cfg. Here's the Meld Diff Viewer look at FOTRS, TMO 2.5 and stock \Data\Cfg\Sensors.cfg files side by side with differences flagged. Although this is only part of the file, it contains all of the differences, so the rest is irrelevant.


This is the file governing submarine player sensors. First of all, you'll notice that there are no differences between TMO 2.5 and FOTRSU at all. Their files are identical. Changes from stock are interesting.

Most importantly, you'll notice that in the stock game your crew efficiency level has no effect on the acuity of visual or radar sensors: "uses crew efficiency=false." This has been set to true for visual and radar in TMO and FOTRSU. Hydrophone, active sonar and radar warning are already set to use crew efficiency in stock, TMO 2.5 and FOTRSU. Radio DF is set not to use crew efficiency in any of the three. So early in your career, when all your crewmembers are low on experience your radar and visual sensing will be not so good.

In short, there is no clue in this file why sometimes FOTRSU escorts are at Bungo Pete levels. It is very interesting though and gives you some insight into how the game works.

[CapnScurvy]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

In short, there is no clue in this file why sometimes FOTRSU escorts are at Bungo Pete levels. It is very interesting though and gives you some insight into how the game works.

No not there, those are for the Subs (I guess......... the image that's posted doesn't show??). The AI ships (warship/merchants) are in another .cfg file....in the same folder.

BUT, you'll find a whole lot of added detection capabilities in the ShipParts/Sensors.dat and sim files of FOTRS. I'm not home now to look up these files (I think those are the correct folders/files) but there is quite a bit of added content for the AI ships (opposing warships/merchants). Not to mention their capabilities are highly increased in each of the specific radar/sonar/visual sensors for them.

When I do testing for the subs sensors, I put those .cfg figures you've mentioned to zero......that's so the only thing I'm testing is the straight sensor itself. No modifiers, which is what's in those .cfg files. These "modifiers" are to change the specific sensors detection capabilities to suit things like...... your crew efficiency level, wave action, light/dark visual conditions, time from when a detection first took place before the AI gives up on looking for you, etc. The true "meat and potatoes" of the sensors are in their .dat and .sim files. The .dat file having the physical "body" of the detection unit, the .sim file giving it its capabilities. The modifiers are just "added" parameters to them.

I'll also "remove" the other sensors completely from the game, so as not to interfere with detection tests I'll run. Whether it for the sub or AI ships.

For instance, I want to check the sonar detection parameters for the sub. I don't want the other detection sensors to influence the sonar (the visual AI watch crew, or radar). The watch crew will be using their visual detection capabilities if your submerged through the use of the periscope (yes, you'll get a visual detection from your crew if you left the periscope up; or if you're surfaced, the crew will detect ships/planes too). So, turning the other sensors "off" (or removing them) will narrow down the detection results to just the sensor I'm wanting to look at....giving me a better chance to get it right without outside interference of other detection devices.

[keltos01]

wow that's thorough to you ! impressive CapnScurvy!

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by CapnScurvy

No not there, those are for the Subs (I guess......... the image that's posted doesn't show??). The AI ships (warship/merchants) are in another .cfg file....in the same folder.

BUT, you'll find a whole lot of added detection capabilities in the ShipParts/Sensors.dat and sim files of FOTRS. I'm not home now to look up these files (I think those are the correct folders/files) but there is quite a bit of added content for the AI ships (opposing warships/merchants). Not to mention their capabilities are highly increased in each of the specific radar/sonar/visual sensors for them.

When I do testing for the subs sensors, I put those .cfg figures you've mentioned to zero......that's so the only thing I'm testing is the straight sensor itself. No modifiers, which is what's in those .cfg files. These "modifiers" are to change the specific sensors detection capabilities to suit things like...... your crew efficiency level, wave action, light/dark visual conditions, time from when a detection first took place before the AI gives up on looking for you, etc. The true "meat and potatoes" of the sensors are in their .dat and .sim files. The .dat file having the physical "body" of the detection unit, the .sim file giving it its capabilities. The modifiers are just "added" parameters to them.

I'll also "remove" the other sensors completely from the game, so as not to interfere with detection tests I'll run. Whether it for the sub or AI ships.

For instance, I want to check the sonar detection parameters for the sub. I don't want the other detection sensors to influence the sonar (the visual AI watch crew, or radar). The watch crew will be using their visual detection capabilities if your submerged through the use of the periscope (yes, you'll get a visual detection from your crew if you left the periscope up; or if you're surfaced, the crew will detect ships/planes too). So, turning the other sensors "off" (or removing them) will narrow down the detection results to just the sensor I'm wanting to look at....giving me a better chance to get it right without outside interference of other detection devices.

It does, however give a BIG clue as to why targets on radar might vanish. If you have a low rated crew they'll miss targets with TMO and FOTRSU. Also note that wave height is a factor in FOTRSU and TMO submarine radar capability, where it makes no difference to the stock game.

[Rockin Robbins]

One step at a time here, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Now let's look at \Data\Cfg\sim.cfg, the enemy surface ships AI configuration file.



Again, please note that FOTRSU and TMO 2.5 are identical. That means that Ducimus made no adjustments between TMO 1.7 and TMO 2.5 to the file. So again, we have to say that we can't see any reason here either that FOTRSU is more vicious than TMO. But there's lots of interesting stuff here.

Looking at enemy guns, the stock game has "cannon" shots missing you by a maximum of 3 degrees. That's plus or minus 3 degrees. In TMO and FOTRSU, you can see that the error envelope has been increased by 33% to 4 degrees. Surprisingly, the stock guns are MORE ACCURATE than TMO or FOTRSU. But you'll be shot at much more often. In the stock game they open up on you from 6,000 meters. In TMO and FOTRSU they start shooting at 10,000 meters. Increased volume of fire means increased chances of feeding the fishies, even with the slightly less accurate gunnery.

AA guns in the stock game open up at 1,500 meters. TMO and FOTRSU double that to 3,000 meters. Both have a plus or minus 5 degree error envelope.

The rest I'm going to have to research to figure out what speed factors and surface factors do and what their possible range is. I know that with Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation 1 means no difference and 3 means that 33% of the signal gets through the layer. I imagine that means that 1/Attenuation Factor is the portion of the signal that gets through a factor of 5 would mean 20%.

But there is nothing earth shaking here anyways. We should expect the same level of gameplay as TMO if these two files were all there is to it. They are not.

I'm going to have to jump on a Windows machine in order to run S3D to check out the sensors themselves. Interestingly, FOTRSU has a file, \Date\Library\ASW_AI_Sensors.dat, which neither the stock game nor TMO has.

The fog thickens.....

[CapnScurvy]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

It does, however give a BIG clue as to why targets on radar might vanish. If you have a low rated crew they'll miss targets with TMO and FOTRSU. Also note that wave height is a factor in FOTRSU and TMO submarine radar capability, where it makes no difference to the stock game.

Oh that's true. That's why I turn them off when testing.

You can't forget the "Options" menu also has settings that reflect a "modifying" factor to the base sensors capabilities either.

To further explain my tests, I'll have all game "Options" set to zero too. Sea state will be calm....no wave action to interfere either. When I've said something doesn't seem right when the hydrophone isn't picking up targets, or the radar misses detectable targets....its due to the parameters set in their respective .sim file are wrong or lacking. You take away all the other possible modifiers......there's only a couple of other possibilities that would cause the poor detection results.

Once the sensor works as expected (the actual "detection" of a target when you would expect a detection to take place; at the right distance from target, etc), then the "modifiers" can be manipulated to change the "base" sensor capabilities. It's those base parameters we need to get correct, the rest is just "gravy" to the potatoes.

OK, I'm getting hungry!!

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

Originally Posted by RockinRobbins

I'm going to have to jump on a Windows machine in order to run S3D to check out the sensors themselves. Interestingly, FOTRSU has a file, \Date\Library\ASW_AI_Sensors.dat, which neither the stock game nor TMO has.

The fog thickens....

Yes, that file and MANY other changes in their .sim files are what's making the difference in detection. Again I'm not home to show you.......for instance, there's at least a half dozen different "visual" sensor units for various ships/planes/bunkers etc. in FOTRS. Stock game uses one. That's from just within the stock "sensors.sim" file.

That ASW_AI_Sensors.dat and its corresponding .sim file are extras....one of several other extra files that FOTRS has added. I'm suspecting there are more "visual" sensor units, specific to AI ASW ships found within that file too. Not to mention the radar/sonar/hydrophone sensor units that have been added/changed. Lot's of different units, with a wide variety of parameters.

To know what goes with what. For a visual sensor unit of a particular plane for example, look through the specific planes "sensor.cfg" file to see which "o01_visual" (usually the first) unit is used for that plane. Then look through the various sensor.dat files to find it's "ID". You then take the "ID" to the corresponding .sim file to find the units parameters for detection capabilities. You'll find the same kind of thing for the AI "visuals" of different ships, and land units too.

[Moonlight]

^All that mumbo jumbo you 2 are talking about is way over my head, meanwhile on the bug front the ALBS_PBY5A is missing its _shp DDS file in the v0.54 version.

[JoeSnow]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

The rest I'm going to have to research to figure out what speed factors and surface factors do and what their possible range is.

I know that with Thermal Layer Signal Attenuation 1 means no difference and 3 means that 33% of the signal gets through the layer. I imagine that means that 1/Attenuation Factor is the portion of the signal that gets through a factor of 5 would mean 20%.

The fog thickens.....

I'm pretty sure surface factor relates to sea state (0-15 weather) and speed factor is a detection factor of the speed of a specific target/ship.

Thermal layers unfortunately, are not dynamic in SH and are hard coded as far as I know. I don't believe fractions work ie--it has to be a whole number 1/2/3. Your numbers look right as I recall.

I don't remember exact names of Japanese sonar systems in WWII but they are in the files (Type 93 and 95?). I do know that Japanese active systems had a range of ~2500 yards with an angle down of about 16 degrees. Sensitivity/Surface Factor/Aspect of submarine (Angle on Bow)really play into these ranges. Their sonar was actually quite good.

Passive systems were excellent but rarely were a factor of making initial contact with a submarine unless they already suspected one was in the area. Even then, active systems prevailed for making initial contact.

It's been years since I messed with this sim. Just got the hankering to do a little patrolling so reinstalled 3 days ago with RFB and my modified campaign. Read through quite a bit of this project thread today and it looks good. I used to mod a LOT but it's been years. My 1st subsim was Gato for the C64.

If you want any tech stuff on sonars, let me know. I'm familiar with Allied systems but I think I can dig up something for Japanese as well.

Impressive project RR!

[keltos01]

Originally Posted by JoeSnow

I'm pretty sure surface factor relates to sea state (0-15 weather) and speed factor is a detection factor of the speed of a specific target/ship.

Thermal layers unfortunately, are not dynamic in SH and are hard coded as far as I know. I don't believe fractions work ie--it has to be a whole number 1/2/3. Your numbers look right as I recall.

I don't remember exact names of Japanese sonar systems in WWII but they are in the files (Type 93 and 95?). I do know that Japanese active systems had a range of ~2500 yards with an angle down of about 16 degrees. Sensitivity/Surface Factor/Aspect of submarine (Angle on Bow)really play into these ranges. Their sonar was actually quite good.

Passive systems were excellent but rarely were a factor of making initial contact with a submarine unless they already suspected one was in the area. Even then, active systems prevailed for making initial contact.

It's been years since I messed with this sim. Just got the hankering to do a little patrolling so reinstalled 3 days ago with RFB and my modified campaign. Read through quite a bit of this project thread today and it looks good. I used to mod a LOT but it's been years. My 1st subsim was Gato for the C64.

If you want any tech stuff on sonars, let me know. I'm familiar with Allied systems but I think I can dig up something for Japanese as well.

Impressive project RR!

Se Fischer tropp archive us mission to Japan 1946
They are scanned documents and you will get all technical data

E-10 Japanese Sonar and Asdic

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/prima...ort%20E-10.pdf

[THEBERBSTER]

A Warm Welcome To The Subsim Community > JoeSnow
Subsim <> How To Donate <> See The Benefits <> Support The Community
Support The New SH4 Mega Mod Project FOTRSU > 100_FalloftheRisingSun_Ultimate_v0.53_PublicBeta_E N
Steam Conversion SH4 Installation Instructions By ValoWay

[CapnScurvy]

Originally Posted by Moonlight

^All that mumbo jumbo you 2 are talking about is way over my head, meanwhile on the bug front the ALBS_PBY5A is missing its _shp DDS file in the v0.54 version.

Yep, I've got that fixed with the work I've been working on lately (the "Yes Sir"/ Sensors work). I noticed it too when I was doing my tests......plus another.


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


Welcome to JoeSnow!

Originally Posted by JoeSnow

I'm pretty sure surface factor relates to sea state (0-15 weather) and speed factor is a detection factor of the speed of a specific target/ship.

Your interpretation of the "Speed factor" parameter is correct for what it does. However, the "Surface factor" has to do with the readable size of an object at its maximum distance....based on square meter measurement.

[torpedobait]

I'm whining again! My v.053 campaign has progressed to July 1944. I took the offered Twin 40 AA guns, hoping that there was something in my system that had caused the CTD when attempting to fire one of them. No joy. In fact, the last CTD came when I personally manned the gun and attempted to train it up to the left.

I had started this campaign with a total reload and cleansing of my system with anything suggesting SH4, whether in a directory or the Register. I also ran GameBooster4, that turned off all unnecessary Processes and Services my Win7 Pro was running, leaving only the essentials for video, sound, and keyboard/mouse, plus a few I cannot readily associate with an application. The only mod running in the clean game was v.053.

What I noticed about having the Twin 40's (other that the CTD) was that there was only one available crew slot per gun in the F7 display (shouldn't there be two?), the same as for the single barrel 40's, and those were in a manned and ready status. Then, when I looked at the forward Twin 40 mount from the bridge (F4), there were no gunners present (in view). Someone a ways back I recall a theory being advanced that there was something in the crew slots that may be causing the CTDs. In any event, my attempts to use the Twin 40's failed with a CTD. I am hoping one of the mod team can delve into this, as I'd really like to have the extra firepower the Twin 40's should provide. Thanks!