[TEC] Corrected ship dimensions (followup)

[GreyOctober]

Just noticed that someone noticed :hmm: ...anyway. As Krupp pointed out in this thread http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=109721 most of (almost all) ship measurements differ from the ones published in the printed SRM or on the SH4 website (http://silenthunter4.uk.ubi.com/ships.php). As i dont have the SRM, i fiddled with the jappanese freighters and see if it makes any difference to the firing sollution acuracy as some report. I just corrected the cfg files with the figures found on the website thats all. If anyone is working on this indepth..even better. Im not sure about the others ships.
It is possible that these inconsistecies may be due to the fact that the measurements in the cfg files are generated by the 3D modelling program and not copied into the cfg from the ship blueprint. Just my take, but well worth investingating further.

MODIFICATIONS (original values within brackets):

__________________________
NKMCS_Akita

Displacement=4070 (3936)
Mast=29.2 (22.25)

__________________________
NKMSS_Biyo

Length=121.9 (120)
Width=16.1 (15)
Draft=7.9 (7.5)

__________________________
NOM_Buzyun

Width=15.5 (15)
Mast=29.7 (30)
Draft=8.7 (7.5)

__________________________
NPL_Conte_Verde

Mast=42.5 (35)

__________________________
NKLSS_Hakusika

Length=135.6 (120)
Width=17.7 (15)
Mast=29.5 (30)
Draft=8.6 (7.5)

__________________________
NOS_Haruna

*NOTHING MODIFIED*

__________________________
NKMCS_Heito

Mast=26.2 (30)

__________________________
NPL_Horai

Mast=39.7 (33.5)

__________________________
NKSSS_Kasagisan

MaxSpeed=12 (12.5)
Mast=26.9 (22.56)

__________________________
NKMSS_Kinposan

Length=101.2 (107)
Mast=27.5 (23.77)

__________________________
NPL_Kiturin

Length=130.1 (135.94)
Mast=34 (31.7)

__________________________
NKLCS_Nagara

Length=143.2 (120)
Width=18.9 (15)
Mast=36.5 (30)
Draft=8.3 (7.5)
Displacement=7154 (7145)

__________________________
NOL_Nippon

MaxSpeed=20 (12)
Length=159.7 (120)
Width=19.8 (15)
Mast=28.9 (30)
Draft=9 (7.5)
Displacement=9974 (10000)

__________________________
NKSCS_Taihosan

Mast=22.6 (24)

__________________________
NPS_Tyohei

Mast=22.5 (27.4)
Displacement=1713 (1718)

__________________________
NKMCS_Zinbu

Length=121.9 (120)
Width=14.6 (14)
Mast=28.4 (24)
_____________________________________________

Cheers!

GO

[tater]

Is it possible this is intentional? The data in the ONI material that skippers had could easily be innaccurate for any given ships with modifications after it was in Lloyds. Adding a little inaccuracy (at least on the dimensions) would (assuming those numbers were used by the game to get range) would add a little fog of war that perfect ONI data would not.

Or am I off base?

[Krupp]

Nice GreyOctober, I'm so happy to see someone else seeing this too. Thanks for that list. The Japanese man-of-war's have also some strange values (in those CFG-files).

Like an 17850 ton, aircraft carrier that has a mast height of only 16 meters (should be 43.9 meters!). It is less than a 1200 ton destroyer has with 21.3 meters mast.
C'mon, how wrong it should look before it rings any bells here?

[Krupp]

Here's a list of Japanese man-of-war dimensions. Taken from publisher's printed rec book. There are bigger and smaller variations if you compare them to original cfg-values, in brackets ().

-----------------------------
Yamato
Displacement: 63200 tons
Lentght: 263.2 meters
Width: 38.9 meters (39)
Height: 43.5 meters (44)
Draft 10.9 meters (10)
------------------------------
Fuso
D: 34300
L: 212.7 (212)
W: 30.8 (30.8)
H: 50.6 (50)
D: 9.4 (9.7)
-------------------------------
Kongo
D: 32000
L: 225
W: 31.7 (30.8)
H: 43 (42)
D: 9.8 (9.4)
------------------------------
Ise
D: 31250 (33800)
L: 205.5 (220)
W: 28.6 31.6)
H: 50.3 (50)
D: 9.9 (9.5)
--------------------------------
Ise (hybrid)
D: 33800
L: 220
W: 31.6
H: 50.1 (50)
D: 9.5
---------------------------------
Taiho
D: 35000
L: 253.7
W: 27.8
H: 45.3 (46)
D: 9.5
----------------------------------
Shokaku
D: 28000 (hm, this should be closer to 20000 tons)
L: 250
W: 25.9 (26)
H: 31.4 (29.7)
D: 8.6 (8.7)
---------------------------------
Taiyo
D: 17830
L: 180.1
W: 22.5
H:43.9 (16) <----------------------------------!!! wtf?
D:7.5
-----------------------------------
Hiryu
D: 16000
L: 223.3
W: 21.3
H: 35.2 (20) <------------------------------!!! also, wtf?
D: 7.5
-------------------------------------
Akitsu Maru-Aircraft carrier
D: 11800
L: 143.7
W: 19.5
H: 35.2 (30)
D: 7.8
-------------------------------------
Takao-Heavy Cruiser
D: 9850 (15870)
L: 204.5 (204)
W: 19 (23)
H: 36.3 (36.5)
D: 5.1 (6.3)
--------------------------------
Maya- Heavy cruiser
D: 9850
L: 204.5
W: 19
H: 36.3
D: 5.1
----------------------------------
Mogami-heavy cruiser
D:9500
L: 200
W:20.5
H: 34.6 (34)
D: 4.4
------------------------------------
Furutaka-heavy cruiser
D: 7100
L: 188
W: 11.9
H: 31.9 (23)
D: 4.5
-----------------------------------------
Agano-Light cruiser
D: 6652
L: 174.5
W: 15.2 (15)
H: 25.2 (30)
D: 5.6
---------------------------------------
Naka-light cruiser
D: 5195 (5113)
L: 163
W: 14.2 (14)
H: 31.8 (35.6)
D: 4.6 (4.5)
----------------------------------------
Kuma-light cruiser
D: 5100
L: 163
W: 14.2 (14)
H: 35.6
D: 4.6 (4.4)
------------------------------------------
Akizuki-destroyer
D: 2701
L: 134
W: 11.6
H: 22.8 (23)
D: 4.1
----------------------------------------
Fubuki-destroyer
D: 2260 (1680)
L: 118.5
W: 10.4 (10.3)
H: 21.1 (21)
D: 3.2
------------------------------------
Asashio-destroyer
D: 1961 (2370)
L: 118.3
W: 10.4 (10.3)
H: 27 (21)
D: 3.6 (3.2)
-------------------------------------------
Shiratsuyu-destroyer
D: 1685
L: 108
W: 9.9
H: 21.9 (22)
D:3.5
----------------------------------------
Mutsuki-destroyer
D: 1313 (1772)
L: 102.4 (103.3)
W: 9.1
H: 23.6 (21)
D: 4.6 (3)
------------------------------------------
Minekaze-destroyer
D: 1215
L: 102.5 (102.6)
W: 8.9 (9.1)
H: 21.3 (21)
D: 2.9
-----------------------------------
No.13 Class - minesweeper
D: 511 (500)
L: 72.1 (70)
W: 7.6 (9.1)
H: 25.5 (21)
D: 1.85 (2.9)
--------------------------------
Okinoshima - minelayer
D: 4400
L: 123.4
W: 15.6
H: 28.1 (21)
D: 5
---------------------------------
Chitose-seaplane tender
D: 11200 (9000)
L: 192.5
W: 20.8
H: 31.8 (16)
D: 7.5
-------------------------------
Atami-gunboat
D:170
L: 45.3
W: 6.3
H: 19.8
D: 1.4
------------------------------------
Hira-gunboat
D:305
L: 56
W: 8.5
H: 28
D: 1.2
---------------------------------

[Redwine]

At first ... many thanks GreyOctober... for job and effort !!

One question...

The new measures you add, are based on real life, on another source... or based on game 3D modellation ?

what is my point...

Disregardong the historical data, or some book data, the important is to have the ingame size modellated as correct data.

In example if a ship has in real life, or into the contact book 300m long, but game modellates it as 280m, i need the 280m data for manual TDC instead the real 300m value.

I thnik so the correct way is to put a test mission, put the sub at a knowed range, and measure the angle, then detrmine the ingame ships sizes.

Sorry my ignorance, but if you can dlarify this i will aprecite it too much.

Mnay thanks in dvance....

[Krupp]

Originally Posted by Redwine

At first ... many thanks GreyOctober... for job and effort !!

Don't mention.

The measures are based on data, that is from the game developers. From their website and from a manual they printed for some editions. The reason for all this fuss. Is that there are so many ships that have almost similar dimension in the cfg-files and the sources mentioned above. And then those that seem to be more or less "wrong".

Reflecting that, it is difficult to believe that, when you compare different ships, you find that there are these oddities (in CFG-files). Like aircraft carriers with way too low heights, some ships drafts are too little and so on.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the values need to be those that the game 3D models have. Not ripped from a real life source. But, these values argued here, are from the dev's. And I'm trying to find out which are the correct ones.

I would be happy to test this in game, altho I have no idea how to put up a shooting range for different ships. Say, all merhants 90 degree AOB at 1000 meters. And then test the ranges with the stadimeter + shoot some magnetic torpedoes to test the drafts. But, I'll try if I can arrange this.

[GreyOctober]

Thanks guys. The problem is, i think, correcting these figues wont do much good as i feel they were intentionally put that way in the cfg files. In other words, the cfg may be generated by the 3d modelling program which reads the model and not simply written into the file. As for the printed rec manual, the figures you see there are the correct dimensions of their real life counterparts.
At any rate, we need to make sure that by altering these files we get correct readings from the stadimeter and not just a placebo effect. Needs further investigation.
@Krupp: Can you please post the jappanese warships cfgs and not just the figures? Thank you!
@tater: Youre not off base at all...It might be true. Any historians around with knowledge about this? How precise were the rec manuals? If thats the case, were not doing any good and we should leave them as they are.

Cheers!
GO

[GreyOctober]

Originally Posted by Jungman

But it was determined and proved the printed manual values are indeed wrong. Using the Config data numbers, the range was correct using the Stadimeter in game 3D.

______________________________

OOPS!
Fog has lifted. I can see now...
Well, sorry for all the commotion, and im glad that at least this part of the game is not affected. Removed download link just in case..

Great community!! Cheers!
GO

[Krupp]

edit: never mind

[Krupp]

Originally Posted by GreyOctober

Originally Posted by Jungman

But it was determined and proved the printed manual values are indeed wrong. Using the Config data numbers, the range was correct using the Stadimeter in game 3D.

______________________________

OOPS!
Fog has lifted. I can see now...
Well, sorry for all the commotion, and im glad that at least this part of the game is not affected. Removed download link just in case..

Great community!! Cheers!
GO

Ah, so it officially ends all this noncence then... phew.

[Krupp]

One final question tho, when you measure the distance to some aircraft carriers, do you put the stadimeter on the mast top or on the deck level? If on the mast top, then it still confuses me how can a carrier be only 16 meters high...

[Redwine]

Originally Posted by Krupp

Don't mention.

Come on Krupp... i readed it to quickly, and focusing attention on data not in the textx, i was thinking the mod was from GreyOctober.

Many thanks for your effort and job too !

Originally Posted by Krupp

The measures are based on data, that is from the game developers. From their website and from a manual they printed for some editions.

You dont understand my question...

Cfg files can say 300m, developers, its site and its printed manual can say 200m, but if the game has modelled 100m you will hit nothing in manual TDC.

And if the games had modelled 200m, the same has into cfg, it is the data we need for Manual TDC.

That was my question.... did you changed the values to put them in agree with the Historical/printed/website/ data or to put them in agree with "ingame size modellation" ?

Originally Posted by Krupp

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the values need to be those that the game 3D models have. Not ripped from a real life source. But, these values argued here, are from the dev's. And I'm trying to find out which are the correct ones.

Sorry but i feel a little lack of respect and consideration in your answer...

How can be you sure the ingame model has the web site/printed size ?

Sorry but i can see you dont understand my point...

Originally Posted by GreyOctober

Thanks guys. The problem is, i think, correcting these figues wont do much good as i feel they were intentionally put that way in the cfg files. In other words, the cfg may be generated by the 3d modelling program which reads the model and not simply written into the file. As for the printed rec manual, the figures you see there are the correct dimensions of their real life counterparts.
At any rate, we need to make sure that by altering these files we get correct readings from the stadimeter and not just a placebo effect. Needs further investigation.

Cheers!
GO

You understand my question GeryOctober

[Krupp]

Well, we are beating a dead horse here so no point to continue I reckon. My apologies Redwine, just my way of express things, no disrespect or anything.

Good thing is that the outcome was the point this all started, those in-game values are ok then. That's was the main objective here and problem solved.

Now, I'll just keep and leave these to people who know what they do We ( well. I am) have already wasted too much valuable time with this.

[Krupp]

Pls. Bear with me this time.

I just made a mission, where I put Taiyo escort carrier sitting (0knots) at exactly 1000 meters range, AOB 90 stb.

1.
I tested the value taken from the printed manual (the ones I have tried to proven right ones) , that gives you a mast height of 43.9 meters. Then I just measured the distance with the attack periscopes stadimeter, pointing it to the mast top. It showed exactly 1000 meter distance.

2. Then I went and edited the cfg mast height BACK to original value of 16 meters. Started up the same mission and measured the distance just like in 1st test. Result was: 343 meters when the ship actually was at 1000 meters away.

Well, I had and idea that maybe the stadimeter should be pointed to the deck instead of the mast top. So, I pointed it to the deck and it gave me the result of 1000 meters!

Looks like the dev's forgot to add the actual mast to some of those carriers.

Well, I'm of to go and do some more testing.

[Krupp]

I did some more testing. I put a Mutsuki destroyer as a target at 1000 meters. With the original value of 2.9 meters (draft) the torpedoes wen't right under it when torpedo depth was 3.0 meters. If I used the value (that I have been selling, those in the printed manual), i.e. 4.6 meters and set the torpedo depth to 4.8, the torpedo actually seemed to travel too deep. That would indicate that those original values are true ones. Well, not true but accurate enough for magnetics to explode.

At this point, it looks like there will be errors in your firing data, IF you aim your stadimeter to the mast top on some carriers ( see post right above). But, if you put the stadimeter on the deck level, you get the right range. Who, would even thought this? I always measure from the mast top.


Biggest difference between the mast heights are with these ships:

Hiryu
Taiyo

And some what smaller, but noticeable difference are these:
Asashio
Large minelayer
Conte Verde
Horai
Zinbu
Nagara
Akita
Kasagisan

I'll put all of them under test at 1000 meters, using both, the original and printed mast height values. It's worth to do, cos the carrier case showed that something is not right.