View Full Version : [TEC] Adding new sensors
Is adding a new sensor as easy as cloning (copying one already there, and pasting it in as a new node, assuming that is "cloning") a sensor node in AI_Sensors.dat?
I can see the stuff in there with S3D, but I'm unclear on if it will work, and how to do it.
I had an idea which was to make a new visual sensor, AI_Visual_Naval, and that would replace AI_Visual on most warships. It would be set where AI_Visual is now, and the old AI_Visual would then be dropped to a lower sensitivity, range, etc. The difference would be the number of crew, and their training. One goal would be to make it so that if you managed to get past the escorts, the merchants would have a lesser ability to detect you, ideally making night surface attacks possible where they are not currently.
tater
skwasjer
08-28-07, 07:36 PM
Yes, you can. Export the nodes and reimport them back (use insert). Change the id's/parent id's so you have an exact copy (no clone function yet in S3D), but differently identified. You'll have to clone all related nodes too (in this case 4 total). Then, once you've got the copy, rename the label to AI_Visual_Naval. Then, edit the ships .sns file (with notepad) and modify the O01 node section. :up:
Be advised, this is based on my insights, not on actual tests :P
I might try this tonight.
tater
Should I change the IDs, THEN export it (without saving), then open the original copy again and import?
I have to admit, this confuses me, lol
I can change the IDs on 2 nodes, but the stuff below belongs to them, and I only have a link, nothing I can edit.
Ah ha!
export them.
change IDs in working version for new sensor.
import them, since they have old IDs, they nest
The trick is you need to switch from tree to list for it to show!
tater
skwasjer
08-29-07, 04:01 AM
With id's shown as links, use CTRL + click on link to switch to edit mode.
I know the export/import procedure is a bit wonky but it should work.
Right now I've done some control tests to start. Single large merchant amd a SC in a line. I approach from the front quarter. I tested stock, and the stock sensors DAT combined with the 2 cfg files from TM1.6. All at 8 knots.
In both control cases, the detection is VERY sensitive to aspect ratio. If I keep my nose at the SC, I can get inside 500 yards before I get a reaction. I can steam parallel at 1nm with no problem in either., too. With the TM cfgs, I get detected showing more than the bow at 0.7nm. I haven't even tried the altered dat yet since I got so damn close in both stock and TM values.
I think I need to make a bigger convoy so I can't control what I present to the target so easily, this is very hard to test.
tater
Convoy of 8 merchants in 2 columns, 800m apart, escorted by 4 Minekaze (all set to AI=3). The escorts were at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock. Radar fix mod in place to assure visual not radar sighting.
Control (TM cfgs), stock dat:
DD detected me ~2000 yards at 8 knots.
Modded dat (AI sensitivity set to 0.03, range set to 6000 max), TM cfgs:
DD detected me (quartering aspect) at 1400 @8knots.
Note that I didn;t set the DDs to have better AI, everyone was using the dumbed down version. So if the mod was done right now, the warships would have detected me at 2000, and the merchants at 1400 in the last example. This was in the default weather conditions, so pretty easy viewing.
I think I coudl have gotten closer to the DD had I given him less to look at, but at some point I'd have to show him a broadside.
You'd have to play this many times to get a feel. I noted with the dumbed down sensors, the DDs kept their lights on when I was in the convoy, but didn't shoot as much as I'd expect. Another test would be the same convoy minus the DDs, then also try various AI levels and see how that moderates things. If AI skill has any bearing at all, I bet you can get withing spitting distance of "Novice" merchants.
I'll make a quick mod with 2 sensors, AI_Visual, and AI_Visual_Naval insde the dat, and I'll throw in a DD sns with Naval set, and maybe a merchant with Naval set. I can make a mission with the "Naval" merchie convoy north, and a dumbed down visual merchie convoy south. That will simplify testing because it'll all be in 1 mission.I can even have it generat a convoy every 2 hours or something, so we can test a few times with 1 mission load.
Then we can test different AOBs, etc, and see how the sensitivity affects detection on the good vs crappy AI settings. More eyeballs on this are better, and I have other stuff I need to do, lol.
If it appears to be about right, then a 2d mission can be in there with the same convoys, but with escorts set to "Naval."
Tested a convoy (no escorts) with "naval" visual sensors (current stock setting renamed), and another with the sensitivity dropped to 0.03 and range 600 max.
The naval (stock) I got detected at 1500 yards (EDITED, i remembered wrong) , and the dumbed down version was under 1000 yards. Both were about 45 degrees AOB and 8 knots using the TM cfg settings.
http://mpgtext.net/subshare/434AI_sensors%20mod.rar
ALPHA test mod. This is the first time I ever cloned anything, or inserted a node in a dat. Might blow everything up, lol. Entirely not ready for prime time.
Makes 2 sensors, the default AI_Visual becomes dumbed down, and current stock becomes "Naval." There are 2 cfg files taken from TM in there, too.
The mission is 2 convoys steaming west, one North, one South. North is "Naval" visual (stock), South is dumbed down. No escorts, AI=competent. If you want to make a test mission, I included a minekaze with "naval" visuals and no other sensors, and a Mutsuki with stock sensors (dumbed down with the mod), and also no other sensors. The Nagara sns in there is to eliminate the hydrophone, I wanted the test to be purely visual.
Note that this only works as a test since to work generally, I need to alter every single warship sns in the game. I suppose doing it the other way might make more sense since there are more warships than merchants...
skwasjer
08-29-07, 03:27 PM
I can't test for you because I'm working on ehm well, you know, but I'm glad you got a bit further using my tip ;)
I intend to update this test mod in the somewhat near future.
A few questions for anyone who might know:
1. will the game recognize 2 of the same general sensor type installed? I tried cloning the O node on a DD, and renaming it O02 to add a 2d visual sensor, but it didn't seem to work. It could very well be a failure in my ability to properly work the nodes, however. The goal here would be 2 concentric AI_visuals on 1 ship. One longer ranged version, and one very short ranged version. In my tests I didn't have them overlap, so one goes from 2000m to max rannge, the other goes from 0 to 1999m.
2. Any insights into proper settings for AI visuals to detect a certain cross sectional area at a given range X% of the time?
3. Does "alert" status for AI ships alter their detection probabilities at all?
4. The default game has the "use crew skill" (whatever it's called in sensors.cfg) set to false. What's the effect with this on?
Musings about the requirements for such a mod in terms of realism:
Strictly speaking, with no consideration but a detector at the highest point on the ship, detections ranges should be 100% reciprocal. I see your eyeball, you see mine. That said, the eyeball in space at the tip of the mast is not reality. This boundary case does apply to first detection, however.
The detector (the watch crew) are not at the very top of the ship. So all things being equal, the ship with the largest cross sectional area above the watch crews gets detected first. I am in the shears with 2m^2 of metal above my eyeballs, and the Fuso I'm observing has 20m^2 of pagoda above the observer there. I suppose we could get into typical resolution limits for the naked eye, or even normal telescopes (those without adaptive optics) and figure out what minimal cross section should be invisible at a given range—actually, that might be a useful calculation for a boundary condition... (it'll give me a chance to brush up, I'd almost forgotten I was an astronomer in training once :) )
Luckily, for submarines this is somewhat straightforward, anyway. The guys in the shears are still close to the water, and the cross sectional areas involved are tiny in the case of a sub compared to a ship. The short answer is that a submarine should, barring a human failure, ALWAYS visually detect a ship first. This is particularly true if you consider smoke, which functions as a large, detectable cross section (even for pretty non-smokey ships) that resides well above the ship's watch crew.
Seriously, I cannot imagine a realistic case where this is not true, with the only exception being crew skill. Put a myopic guy without glasses in the shears, and all bets are off (assuming tojo in the BB's mast isn't the coke bottle wearing ww2 stereotype), but assuming equal AI skills, the ship should always be seen first IMO. The game limitation of visual limit IS an issue here, because even set to 16km, the sub would have detected the ships outside the visual limit (capital ships, anyway). At 7-8km, we are in a situation where the targets may very well have already detected the sub in RL, but the sub should still be aware of them first.
Once inside the extreme range case (top of masts or smoke on the horizon), things change a little. Once both ships' watch crews are well above the horizon to each other, you have to take the cross sectional area above the horizon (to the other observer) into account. So the next obvious test case would be a range at which the sub is entirely hull up.
It's still a small target, so the chances of any given set of eyeballs on the ship looking for it should be lower than the chances for the sub to see the part of the ship above the horizon. The ship "wins" in terms of simple geometry (higher mast), but the cross section of the sub is smaller than the hull-up portion of the ship. The difference happens when you look at watch crew numbers, and their eqipment. At a certain point, the ships start having more watch crew. So the smaller instantaneous chances of detecting the sub are mitigated by more eyeballs. Better optical gear could have an effect as well.
In general, I'd expect the sub to always spot ships visually first at extreme range (clear days). There are zero plausible exceptions to this, IMO.
Once the sub is hull up to the ships, it becomes more complex. The ships should always be visible to the sub, obviously, but their chance of seeing him should increase. As more of the ship is hull up, more eyeballs come to bear. It might be interesting to know how many watch crew a typical IJN DD stood vs a CA, BB, etc. Comparing that to a sub's watch would give a relative number of eyeballs, and that would scale in some fashion to detection.
Right now internally I have 4 AI visuals (or 5, depending on which version I use, lol). I might increase this a bit.
My thought was to set them primarily based upon the expected number of watch crew, which would also scale to ship size/height (all things bein equal, the higher the watch, the better).
IJN BBs had watches up as high as 150 ft, though perhaps 100-120 was where the bulk of them would be. CAs perhaps 60-75'. DDs have what looks like a crow's nest in the mainmast at ~60', but that would be only a few of the watch crew, the bulk look to be more like 30', tops. Subs look to have a watch someplace in a similar range up in the shears, 20-30'. Merchants have some height to work with, but in most cases they'd simply not have the large number of trained eyeballs as a warship.
So I'm thinking (some should be combined if they are similar in effect):
1. Merchant (few watch crew (30 - 45' max watch, few crew))
2. Merchant 2 (more watch crew (45' - 60' max watch))
3. Small warships (subchasers (45' max watch))
4. DD (60' max watch)
5. CL/CA (CVs would be here, too (75' max watch))
6. BB (150' max watch)
7. Single crew aircraft
8. multi crew aircraft
They are arranged in order of detection probability/distance. All but the aircraft should have the sub detecting the ship first, no exceptions. The planes are smaller, and on top of that occupy a large volume of space instead of a linear position on the horizon. Getting jumped by a plane if you don't have radar should be likely, getting jumped by a ship in clear weather should be completely impossible.
2 and 3 should probably be combined. I might use that level only on certain merchants of high value. That would make 7 visuals. A simple way to create variability for warships would be to "BP-clone" warships to make an additional class for a few. The class would get a ship name within the real class. The clone would be identical except for having the visual set 1 notch lower. Then you might come across 2 asashios with std DD visuals, and 1 Kagero, Isokage, whatever, with "small warship" visuals (crew had too much sake on liberty ;) )
The goal would be accurate outcomes, not strictly accurate visual limitations since there are simply not enough variables to work with set them to what we know a RL limit is, and they might be superhuman in game in terms of spotting.
To start I will assume the stock view distance, for example. The benchmark is sub detection for the AI, and ship detection for the sub. The sub should always see ships first, and the bigger ships should pick up the sub faster than the smaller ones all things being equal. We know from patrol reports that it should be possible to conduct night surafce attacks, and even that some subs got within under 1000 yards of escorts undetected. This should be possible with good sub handling, but it should not be automatic, IMO.
I'll add a couple more to my test.
Note when I release this as a test, I will likely simply make a set of ships with 1 of each sensor type, and a test mission for you. To control the test, I will eliminate all other sensors from the test ships so we can get decent results.
Rockin Robbins
10-16-07, 12:42 PM
http://mpgtext.net/subshare/434AI_sensors%20mod.rar
ALPHA test mod. This is the first time I ever cloned anything, or inserted a node in a dat. Might blow everything up, lol. Entirely not ready for prime time.
Makes 2 sensors, the default AI_Visual becomes dumbed down, and current stock becomes "Naval." There are 2 cfg files taken from TM in there, too.
The mission is 2 convoys steaming west, one North, one South. North is "Naval" visual (stock), South is dumbed down. No escorts, AI=competent. If you want to make a test mission, I included a minekaze with "naval" visuals and no other sensors, and a Mutsuki with stock sensors (dumbed down with the mod), and also no other sensors. The Nagara sns in there is to eliminate the hydrophone, I wanted the test to be purely visual.
Note that this only works as a test since to work generally, I need to alter every single warship sns in the game. I suppose doing it the other way might make more sense since there are more warships than merchants...
Tater, I'm sure you realize how BIG this is. It's like being in the room when Alexander Graham Bell says "Watson, come here, I need you." Ok, maybe not quite that big... lol
It's already been done, actually, that's my understanding. I'm just using a similar notion for SH4.
There are other novel approaches to visual detection possible as well, but they need to meet certain standards to be realistic.
Goals:
Sub should always detect ships first assuming distant visual range, ideally. Ship size vs sub size, plus smoke ensure this is the case.
Given the short visual limit compared to RL (the view distance well below the max possible range to see a ship), there are some issues to be addressed. A sub could very well be detected by a ship beyond what the player can see in game. OTOH, the sub should know about it first. That's really the problem. If a TF should have spotted the sub on the surface at 15km and the vis range is 8km, the DDs should ideally be heading your way with a bone in their teeth. OTOH, you should know this before the shells are raining down since you'd have been watching them charge in for 7km. Unfortunately even a 16km view distance is not far enough. Bleeding edge limit for an IJN DD is likely ~22km based on geometry to be able to see the hull up conning tower of a sub. 14-18km is more likely. That's not a certain detection, just possible. For larger ships it's farther, it in fact pushes the render distance where ships are no longer abstracted (20nm or so I believe).
In game this means relying on the watch crew. They'll call out a target bearing 237, and you will look and not see it.
tater
http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/range_table_sm.jpg
This will give some baseline geometry. You can find ranges at which it become theoretically possible to see a target. You can see how weather might affect it, too. Say the shears are the only part of the boat hull up to the target. If the sea state has 12 ft swells, you might only be visible a fraction of the time, so the enemy watch not only has to see a tiny area, but has to happen to be looking at that small solid angle between swells. You, OTOH, have a target that subtends a larger solid angle, the chances of spotting it between swells is much greater.
tater
Hum, the report I remember right now with a longest range detection was some 25000 yards. As you say, smoke or very high superstructures give away any large ship (Specially battleships). IMHO -and I have been working on something similar for SH3- the best way to have an interesting gameplay mod (I deliberately steer away from the dreaded "realism" word) is as follows:
1.- Decide which maximum visual distance you want to work with. I would suggest something between 16000 and 20000
2.- Sub always sees first. Yes I know a high lookout on a ship, geometry, blah, blah, blah... I have never readed a report where the sub was spotted first in normal daytime conditions (Fog and night time are another matter, since optical devices count a lot here and the japanese had good ones) instead of the opposite. For merchanst anyway that should be the rule.
It is to be noted here that while a lower in the water sub will see an enemy ship silhouetted againts the horizon, the enemy ship will see most of the submarine -the low hull profile- against the dark water background except in the special case of the sub being exactly over the horizon, which is a rather rare situation given its low profile.
3.- Decissions in compromises must always be taken in favour of a submarine point of view game. If you must allow Battleship long range sensors for having gun battles but that means detecting submarines in a way that spoils gameplay, then to the hell with the gun duels. We are willing to have a good submarine game, not a Hollywood blockbuster!
4.- It is yet to be determined if SH4 has carried over from SH3 the dreaded "vampire vision" bug :damn: , which becomes very noticeable when you increase spotting ranges.
That's my 2 cents for now. I'll be watching this thread with interest :up:
EDIT:
I forgot: Even if you clone sensors, you are limited to only one CFG file for the main parameters. And those are what counts more.....
Regarding sub always sees first. There is no possible argument against that based in reality, so that's the first rule to me. It should ALWAYS be true, because it is in reality. (I know you agree)
I assume from the way you posted it's some kind of rehashed discussion that has happened. That's actually kind of funny, because it's practically self-evident. If the lookouts that are high see the conning tower, the conning tower sees THEM, too. And the high watchers are sitting under a large cloud of smoke, lol. Even if they are making zero smoke, they have radars, radio aerials, etc above them.
The only possible scenario for a ship spotting a sub first (aside from human error like the watch sleeping on the job) would be weather conditions that have the first contact well inside hull up range for the sub (by definition more area of the larger ship will always be hull up to the sub, however). At that point, the number of eyes looking, or the equipment they have might start to tell (bigger binos, etc). At that point you look at the number of watchers, and the area of the 2 targets. Of course we'd probably have read about such an encounter, and it never happens that way in patrol logs. If the first you see of a DD is tracers, the visual ranges are pretty screwy. :D
The geometry is such that both units see equally relative to the observer positions in question. If the guy 120' up on Kongo can see 30' of sub below the watch crew in the shears, the watch crew on the shears can see 30' below the observer on Kongo---and there is a ton more stuff in that 30' than the sub's 30'.
It's simple geometric optics where both sight lines are tangent to the horizon (and coincident with each other there).
BTW, I have seen people claim wakes matter, but that would not be true for first detection. By definition, the observer on say, a BB, would be sighting the TOP of the sub, and the rest would be hull down. The wake is the most "hull down" part of all, and would be invisible. The only mitigating factor is platform stability and optics quality. I think that smoke and increased cross section will always win out for the sub, however.
tater
I assume from the way you posted it's some kind of rehashed discussion that has happened.
LOL well none that has involved me personally :lol:, but anyway it certainly has been subject of much discussion. In the end, realism is a too slippery term, so I prefer to go for the exprience or gameplay style I expect after having readed many books on the subject.Real or not? I don't care, and I find it pointless to argue about it, I for one certainly am not interested in the discussion, but in improving the game to suit my taste:yep: .
What's evident to me is that a sub that can follow a convoy only seeing tip of the masts over the horizon -before radar of course- has a challenge and an interesting gameplay there, (And one who fits what you can read on the subject, f.e. in the U-Boat commander's handbook :roll: ) while the sub who is playing russian roulette with the other ships in the game is not giving a satisfactory gameplay from my point of view. Am I right or wrong in historic reality terms? Honestly, I don't care :arrgh!:
What about those airplaines battleships ..heavy cruisers etc. carry with them ?
Wouldn't a task force have at least alway's one in the air to recon the direct area by daylight?
What was there use in RL at that time ?
( sry for my basic english .)
leovampire
10-16-07, 04:52 PM
What about those airplaines battleships ..heavy cruisers etc. carry with them ?
Wouldn't a task force have at least alway's one in the air to recon the direct area by daylight?
What was there use in RL at that time ?
( sry for my basic english .)
That should have them just like you would for the carrier's. Checked in the musium to see how many they had and what ship's then added them to those ship's.
But they only seem to use them once you or any enemy has been detected or if there is an attack on a task force they will bomb the area they suspect your in.
I sugested that for Duciums in T.M. but he said there were enough plane's in the game to deal with.
The USN always flew ASW CAP off of CVs from the earliest days of the war (easy to check in Lundstrom). This is possible because they can take of and land while underway. The IJN seems to not have done this, at least not as much. Their ready CAP was usually fighters (sensible), but since they frequently had no, or bad, radios, they'd not be much use for ASW (they also carried no bombs).
As for floats planes, that's tricky as well. If they expected combat, sure, they'd cat off the floats, but the problem with this is recovery. The CA (or BB) has to stop to pick them up, which leaves them vulnerable to subs. SH4 can't really deal with this aspect of flight ops (it doesn't deal with flight ops for CVs well, at all, either—not just on a compulsive accuracy level, but in terms of what you see as a player. You'd simply not ever see so many planes buzzing around, if they were airborne off a CV, it would be because they were going someplace to attack).
Personally, I'm using a mod that uses cloned planes with VERY short range for the CVs, and only has 1 or 2 per CV. For the IJN even this is likely overkill.
I think for the most part, you'd only see BB floats in anticipation of combat as gun control spotters (I believe this was their purpose in IJN doctrine). The specialized CAs like Tone and her sisters (later Mogami) might have been a different matter. They clearly were used to fly search patterns for the enemy. There's the rub, though. The whole of IJN doctrine revolved around attacking Fleet units. ASW was considered "defensive", so they'd likely not "squander" floats on ASW patrol—they'd be holding them so that when they caught word of the enemy, they'd be ready to go.
My best guess would be that you shouldn;t see CA floats on ASW patrol, ever, or at least very very very rarely.
tater
leovampire
10-16-07, 05:23 PM
The USN always flew ASW CAP off of CVs from the earliest days of the war (easy to check in Lundstrom). This is possible because they can take of and land while underway. The IJN seems to not have done this, at least not as much. Their ready CAP was usually fighters (sensible), but since they frequently had no, or bad, radios, they'd not be much use for ASW (they also carried no bombs).
As for floats planes, that's tricky as well. If they expected combat, sure, they'd cat off the floats, but the problem with this is recovery. The CA (or BB) has to stop to pick them up, which leaves them vulnerable to subs. SH4 can't really deal with this aspect of flight ops (it doesn't deal with flight ops for CVs well, at all, either—not just on a compulsive accuracy level, but in terms of what you see as a player. You'd simply not ever see so many planes buzzing around, if they were airborne off a CV, it would be because they were going someplace to attack).
Personally, I'm using a mod that uses cloned planes with VERY short range for the CVs, and only has 1 or 2 per CV. For the IJN even this is likely overkill.
I think for the most part, you'd only see BB floats in anticipation of combat as gun control spotters (I believe this was their purpose in IJN doctrine). The specialized CAs like Tone and her sisters (later Mogami) might have been a different matter. They clearly were used to fly search patterns for the enemy. There's the rub, though. The whole of IJN doctrine revolved around attacking Fleet units. ASW was considered "defensive", so they'd likely not "squander" floats on ASW patrol—they'd be holding them so that when they caught word of the enemy, they'd be ready to go.
My best guess would be that you shouldn;t see CA floats on ASW patrol, ever, or at least very very very rarely.
tater
Tater you know I respect your dedication to your work and persistant persute to realizme for the game and what you do.
But you are the most unyielding man I have ever met in my life without meeting!
It is your way or the highway without consideration to pepole's request to things they would like to see and use in their own game play that would allow you to touch more of the people in the comunity out there with your hard modding work.
BTW I found away for you to kill the light houses only in the game for your Realizm modding work if your interested in it. Data/Library Harbor_Kit.dat file node #2114 Generic light house open it up and put day and night intensity in the city light's R to 0 then go to the node particle generator properties and in bit map particles all 3 nodes of them put the creation rate to 0. That will kill all the light houses in the game for your black out you wanted for your mod work.
Hey, I make gameplay compromises, too. In my airbase/airgroup mod I didn't completely eliminate the planes :D I just reduced their range so they'd stay on CAP (meaning over the fleet, which is where Combat Air Patrols take place), and I reduced the numbers hugely because with the tiny radius, they cover the area very effectively with almost no planes.
I think that in a campaign like RSRD (or the similar TROM elements in mine) one way is scripted planes. You could actually have them spawn in, fly around, then the TF can stop, and they come back and despawn.
It all becomes compromise at some point, the question is where :)
tater
leovampire
10-16-07, 05:50 PM
Hey, I make gameplay compromises, too. In my airbase/airgroup mod I didn't completely eliminate the planes :D I just reduced their range so they'd stay on CAP (meaning over the fleet, which is where Combat Air Patrols take place), and I reduced the numbers hugely because with the tiny radius, they cover the area very effectively with almost no planes.
I think that in a campaign like RSRD (or the similar TROM elements in mine) one way is scripted planes. You could actually have them spawn in, fly around, then the TF can stop, and they come back and despawn.
It all becomes compromise at some point, the question is where :)
tater
BTW I found away for you to kill the light houses only in the game for your Realizm modding work if your interested in it. Data/Library Harbor_Kit.dat file node #2114 Generic light house open it up and put day and night intensity in the city light's R to 0 then go to the node particle generator properties and in bit map particles all 3 nodes of them put the creation rate to 0. That will kill all the light houses in the game for your black out you wanted for your mod work.
Cool.
Thanks, leo.
<S>
tater
Thank you Tater and Leo for the quick and comprehensive (for me) repley :up:about those floatplanes.
One reason to redo the aircraft visual spotting is that I plan on actually placing all the planes by hand in my campaign at some point. I'll likely then drop the airstrike % very low so that the planes on the air bases are reactive. Meaning a pseudo-random patrol planes that fly waypoints. If they spot you, they can not only attack, but they'll phone home, and the nearby airfield can launch planes to attack you.
Then ASW patrol would be concentrated in the sea lanes, etc.
tater
leovampire
10-16-07, 07:04 PM
Thank you Tater and Leo for the quick and comprehensive (for me) repley :up:about those floatplanes.
In the CFG file for the ship that has the float plane's under the ship's main info add this.
[AirGroup 1]
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19451231
Squadron1Class=FSF1M
Squadron1No=2
Just change the Squadron1No=?? to what ever number of plane's they are supose to have.
Leo, you gave me an idea (gotta love how I OT my own thread, lol)
The planes from CV act one way, they divide up all (some?) of the planes into a circle at max range, and fly silly ASW patrol with all of them all the time. Get within 100 miles of a CV, and it's a mess. Unrealistic, and makes attack impossible.
The planes on a CA, OTOH, act in a different way, they REACT to detection, launch (spawn) and attack, right?
Arguably, the float planes behave more like the CV planes should.
So my idea.
Make a CA with an airgroup of a few CV planes. Not all 80, they'd never use the whole hanger deck full. Just 3 kates, 3 vals or something. Dump all the CV airgroups to 1 or maybe 2 un-bombed zeros. Range dropped to 40km or so.
Only use the new CA as an escort for CVs.
So the CV planes fly CAP, and if they spot you, only then do the CV planes launch since the CA planes follow different spawning rules.
I can test to see if made up unit types behave like CAs in this respect, too. Cause if you make the 'CV escort Cruiser" a type 17, for example, it, one, won't randomly appear on generic CA calls. Two, won't show up as a new type in the rec manual.
Alternately, change a CV to a CA type number and it will act like a CA.
:)
Best of both worlds, it's not like you see the planes taking off.
tater
Haven't had time to test the "fake" carrier airgroup idea, but I have been testing new sensors.
I have several working, and I'm dialing them in. On a clear, dead calm night with a big ole moon, I just picked a path between to subchasers escorting a convoy. I got within 1500 yards of a merchant before a SC picked me up at ~2000 yards. That's about what I'm used to for the escorts, maybe a little closer than usual, but the merchants hadn't seen me at all at 1500. Had their been some chop i'd have gotten closer.
Honestly, on a clear night like that, I felt like I should have been seen sooner.
tater
sergbuto
10-19-07, 02:20 AM
Thank you Tater and Leo for the quick and comprehensive (for me) repley :up:about those floatplanes.
In the CFG file for the ship that has the float plane's under the ship's main info add this.
[AirGroup 1]
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19451231
Squadron1Class=FSF1M
Squadron1No=2
Just change the Squadron1No=?? to what ever number of plane's they are supose to have.
In SH3 that was not enough to spawn the plane. The Type of the ship had to be set to carrier or escort carrier.
BTW, it is impossible to read yellow font for people who use haylazblue settings for their forum profile.
AI_Visual
MinRange
MaxRange
MinHeight
MaxHeight
MinBearing
MaxBearing
MinElevation
MaxElevation
MinSurface
Sensitivity
I've mostly been messing with range so far. MinSurface and Sensitivity have me a little confused.
In Cfg, there is the Sim.cfg file, which contains:
[Visual]
Detection time=0.5
Sensitivity=0.01
Fog factor=1.0
Light factor=1.0
Waves factor=1.0
Enemy surface factor=400
Enemy speed factor=15
So, which gets used?
Since the stock values in the dat are 0, could it be that if the value is 0, it uses Sim.cfg, else it uses the dat value?
MinSurface (Enemy surface factor) is self explanatory, it's a cross sectional area. How does sensitivity work? Are larger numbers are worse or better? Guess there is only one way to find out, lol, test (unless someone else knows).
skwasjer
10-19-07, 01:18 PM
Yes, tater, from my understanding if the values in the .dat are 0, the .cfg values are used. Otherwise the .dat is used.
[edit] Description of sensitivity (from .act file)
The sensity of the sensor. At (Sensitivity * MaxRange) distance we have a double detection time. If 0, then the value from sim.cfg file is taken.
Ah, extremely useful. Is double detection time good, or bad, lol?
Am I right in thinking detection time shorter makes the sensor more effective?
AFAIK in SH3 the external CFG was dominant. In any case, I have been able to noticeably change the results just by tweaking the latter, so I can at least assure it worked like that in SH3.
The dat overrides in SH4 if >0.
I tested a sensitivity of 10 in the dat, and I rammed a Fuso and started blowing up her float planes and lifeboats and she still didn't see me.
Since previous ests I did had assumed 0 was the best, I need to adjust a little. Defaul in the cfg is 0.1 or so, so I will change my BB to 0.001 and see what happens.
bigboywooly
10-20-07, 11:32 AM
Thank you Tater and Leo for the quick and comprehensive (for me) repley :up:about those floatplanes.
In the CFG file for the ship that has the float plane's under the ship's main info add this.
[AirGroup 1]
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19451231
Squadron1Class=FSF1M
Squadron1No=2
Just change the Squadron1No=?? to what ever number of plane's they are supose to have.
In SH3 that was not enough to spawn the plane. The Type of the ship had to be set to carrier or escort carrier.
BTW, it is impossible to read yellow font for people who use haylazblue settings for their forum profile.
Not strictly true Serg
Any ship will spawn an aircraft ( inc merchants ) PROVIDING there is an airbase in range - Steibler tested that one IIRC
Type 8 and 9 escort and fleet carriers will spawn them anywhere
Have not had time to test whether the type of airbase affects spawning from any unit
@ Tater
It may be the CA aircraft act differently due to the classifications being different
IE a Pete is a type=304 - Patrol aircraft
Also the amount of aircraft on the CV is way too high
As the game WILL spawn the lot
Not sure if tis the case in SH4 as not played a lot but in SH3 ALL aircraft tend to fly to the furthest range aircraft in a group
An aircraft that has a range of 350 miles in the cfg has been seen a lot further than that if another aircraft in the airgroup has a larger range
The aircraft ranges while somewhat realistic (strictly speaking) don't work well with the weak airbase/airgroup paradigm. I've already made mods fixing this issue by reducing the airgroups, as well as altering plane ranges so that they are at least in a reasonable CAP radius.
Leo did experiments and found that the floats would attack detected targets. I'll have to check the type issue though. If 304 does the trick, it's easy enough to make a "ASW Patrol" version of the kate and val, point them at the stock models, and change the types. I'll test that later. :yep:
tater
Not strictly true Hitman
It was sergbuto :p Sharing the icon has sometimes its downsides, you are blamed for what someone else did :88)
bigboywooly
10-20-07, 02:17 PM
Not strictly true Hitman
It was sergbuto :p Sharing the icon has sometimes its downsides, you are blamed for what someone else did :88)
lol hardly blame
My apologies to you and Serg :oops:
I am so used to seeing that avatar with you posting
IIRC Steibler got Hurricanes to show from the CAM ship
MOOSE! :lol:
Im really sorry matey I couldnt resist, lord knows I tried!
Aircraft are tricky.
Leo discovered that the floats seem to act differently than CV airgroups. Apparently they are always reactive, instead of flying patrols, they react to reports made by other units.
tater
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.