[REL] Manual targeting Ship Centered, Accuracy Fix

[Captain Dave]

Take 'er easy Captn. All the best to you for a full recovery.:yeah:

[Tweety]

Get well Capt. Take it easy and get lots of rest :yeah:

[Laffertytig]

would i be right in sayin that the latest versions of TMO and RFB have fixes already in place so that this mod isnt really required?

[Webster]

would i be right in sayin that the latest versions of TMO and RFB have fixes already in place so that this mod isnt really required?

i dont believe they do

there was discussion where some thought that your not supposed to have accurate info and it was more realistic to use bad info to make your targetting not as accurate.

to my knowledge TMO and RFB chose not to use this accuracy fix for that reason.

[Apos]

Hey CapnScurvy (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=216764), thx for your answer. We wish you all best and remember health first!

[Armistead]

i dont believe they do

there was discussion where some thought that your not supposed to have accurate info and it was more realistic to use bad info to make your targetting not as accurate.

to my knowledge TMO and RFB chose not to use this accuracy fix for that reason.


There is a beta SCAF for TMO 1.9, not sure if it made it to the mods sections are not. Most ships were in it, if not back to the highest point, but worked fine.

[I'm goin' down]

If you have it, I will take it.

[CapnScurvy]

I'm goin' down, if it had been a snake you'd been bit!!! It's HERE (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=1730).

One note though, I've recently found out that a glitch with the stock game may make SCAF inaccurate depending on what screen resolution you play the game. If you use the 1280x1024 resolution you will be fine, any other resolution (1024x768 up to 1920x1080, including any other 1280x? resolution) and all bets are off for accuracy.

I just found this stock game problem with the game having two different Field of View (FoV) sizes depending what resolution you use. The 1280x1024 has a field of view of 38 degrees from left side of the scope to the right. ALL the others have a FoV of 36 degrees. When I made SCAF it corrected the mast heights using the 1280x1024 resolution (that's the resolution I use to play and work with the game). Little did I know the Devs let slip this two different sizes for FoV depending on which resolution you chose!! I had never heard of this before I began looking at the "3000 Yard Bearing Plotter" needing to have a different size for each game resolution. If a smaller game FoV is used (like the 36 degree width one), the accuracy is compromised due to the larger size of the objects, even though its placed at the same range distance from the sub!! A 38 degree FoV covers a distance of 5,968 feet from left edge to right at a range of 3000 yards. A 32 degree FoV covers 5,026 feet (that's 52.356 feet per degree of angle). When a FoV is larger in width, the objects appear smaller in size. Comparied to a smaller FoV width which increases the objects size, even though the object is at the same range distance!!

Bottom line, I'm affraid SCAF needs to be corrected for the other resolutions before I give it a thumbs up.

I'm working on a modification I'll call "Optical Targeting Correction" (the WIP is HERE (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=175729)). This mod will correct the ship heights (like SCAF); add corrected ship lengths to the Recognition Manual; correct the FoV of the game (the correct FoV is 32 degrees not 36 or 38); add an Omnimeter in-game to use the scopes Telemeter divisions to find range and Angle on Bow; and throw in a few more goodies along the way. Eventually, I'll try to get compatible editions for TMO, RSRDC, SH4 1.4 etc. My plan is to phase out SCAF for this comprehensive new mod.

[I'm goin' down]

The link in the first post for 1.9 is down. I already used your wonderful mod to sink a Hieto merchant at 4K yds., with slow speed torpedoes and a set up using Easy Aob. Thank you. :D

I play at your recommended resolution.

The WIP sounds quite interesting. It will be a pleasure to use it.

[CapnScurvy]

"I'm goin' down", it's a good thing you use the 1280x1024 resolution with the SCAF mod (like I said earlier, the others won't provide the same correction). You must have a CRT monitor that won't die like I have!?! This 50# boat anchor on my desk is an NEC 19 inch and just won't quit!! Some time ago I asked for a response to a question regarding "What resolution do you use"?, By and large, just about everyone has a wide screen LCD. Everyone, uses different resolutions to suit their needs and taste, but the fact that the game doesn't provide a consistent camera size for the scope views is a real stinker!! All but one are the same; It just so happens that one is the resolution I use, and created SCAF upon!!

I checked and fixed the links to the mods I have in this first thread. All are working now (must be mice getting into the works and chewing the links).

Oh, one more thing. The MaxOptics mods I have come close to the correct image sizes the game should use. Their not intended to be accurate, (I made them just for fun, didn't check them for accuracy or realism) but as it turns out (doing the work on the "Optical Targeting Correction" mod) their closer to being an accurate view of the world than the stock game provides. Again, who knew!?!

[bybyx]

Will this work with TMO 2.5?

Thanks

[CapnScurvy]

Will this work with TMO 2.5?

Thanks

Wow, you found an old thread didn't you?!

As you can see from the first post date of this thread, I've been concerned with manual targeting since the game has been released. Inaccurate mast heights were the main concern back in those days. For instance, the Hiryu CV had a mast height listed as 20 meters (65.6 feet). To accurately have the stadimeter read a range to target, the true mast height should have been 37 meters (121.4 ft). A huge difference in what the original game gave us and what it should have been. The result of a Hiryu stadimeter reading for a mast height of 65.6 feet would created an error of almost half the true distance the target was really positioned. Good luck in hitting anything with the stadimeter using those kinds of figures.

To the developers credit, they changed many of their mast heights with the 1.3 patch. The Hiryu now has a stock mast height of 31 meters (101.7 ft).

Will it give you a correct reading? Of course not! The 20 ft. difference will still produce an error for true range. You'll still need to rely on the technique of a "gut shot" to make a hit on the Hiryu. You'll need to be so close, the torpedo won't have time to miss it's target. In other words for a real life Captain, just throw out anything you learned in training school about how to judge range and target AoB. You just need to stick the subs nose so close you can't miss, and pull the trigger. A monkey could do it.

Your question was "Will this work with TMO 2.5?"

Maybe, I don't really know.

SCAF has been updated to Optical Targeting Correction 1.5 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=181172). The same height corrections are in the OTC mod, with several additions. For one, the fact that the stadimeter was not centered to the camera view allowed the stadimeter to give a different range to target depending on which direction the target was positioned. This made some of the SCAF corrections inaccurate due to where the test target was placed when I checked for accurate range. Having the stadimeter centered with the camera view allows for a correct range finding in all directions. There's also the ability to use the scopes Telemeter Divisions to determine range without using the stadimeter. Once the correct optical field-of-view was obtained, accurate measurements could be made with the tools at hand (just like the real life sub crews, monkeys included).

In short, use the Optical Targeting Correction mod found HERE (http://www.gamefront.com/files/21438544/1.5_Optical+Targeting+Correction+031312+for+TMO+2. 5.rar) for a TMO 2.5 game. It will accurately correct TMO's ship heights, which if you have ever checked, has the Hiryu CV back at the original stock 20 meter height??!

[Bilge_Rat]

Will this work with TMO 2.5?

Thanks

Yes, I use it and it works fine.

[bybyx]

Thanks Bilge_rat

[TorpX]

This made some of the SCAF corrections inaccurate due to where the test target was placed when I checked for accurate range. Having the stadimeter centered with the camera view allows for a correct range finding in all directions. There's also the ability to use the scopes Telemeter Divisions to determine range without using the stadimeter. Once the correct optical field-of-view was obtained, accurate measurements could be made with the tools at hand (just like the real life sub crews, monkeys included).


Just so I understand this, does this mean you found a solution for the peculiar problem where the orientation of the periscope/TBT resulted in varied range estimations? (If so, this is really good news. :DL)

[CapnScurvy]

Just so I understand this, does this mean you found a solution for the peculiar problem where the orientation of the periscope/TBT resulted in varied range estimations? (If so, this is really good news. :DL)



Yes.

When I made a test mission I'd have a group of stationary target ships circling a stationary sub. I would have the auto targeting feature (or personally take a sonar reading) give me the true distance between each ship. I then calculated the correct height the stadimeter should provide, from the error the ships.cfg height measurement read in-game. I'd recheck the "new" height measurement with the same test setup. Getting it as close as possible to the actual range the game stated the target truly was. That's how I checked and corrected each ship for correct mast height figures (actually, I'd call it "reference height" measurements since I don't always use the top of a mast).

For a stock game of more than 100 ships, I'd have to make maybe ten different test missions to have all ships represented. Sometimes I'd add the same target ship to a second test mission, but in a different bearing position around the sub. I remember scratching my head as to why my corrected reference height for the same ship was not accurate when it was checked the second time at a different bearing from the sub?! :hmmm:

I made a test mission using the same target incircling a sub, making sure the target was set at an equal distance at each bearing position. The target is a Hiryu CV set at approximately 919 meters away from the sub. I'm using just the stock game, with the stock game mast height of 31 meters for the Hiryu (can you imagine the error in found range using the TMO 2.5, 20 meter mast height?!).

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/Hiryucircled.jpg


As you can see, the stock game provides an error of roughly 155 meters. What's more telling is the difference between the front half of the subs bearing view compared to the rear (the sub is facing south). A difference of 12 meters between the front half and the rear half over just a 919 meter distance. This difference will grow exponentially as the distance widens between sub and target. At 2000 meters the difference is about 50-60 meters between the two halves. Enough to throw off a torpedo gyro angle when set using the uncorrected mast height, plus this difference of which direction you make a reading for range from.

For those that don't believe, make a test mission yourself. I don't have the corner market on this stuff. It's in the game, like it or not.

To correct the issue, the conning tower (with the camera view position) had to be moved to relate to the center position the stadimeter uses to calculate distance. It would have been better to move the stadimeter center position, but that's not possible. The stadimeter position is hard coded, along with the math equation that makes the range sum result from a known height figured, to the angle of height. We can't mod either. Since the optical camera view CAN be moved by modding, that's what I did.

The only draw back is shown in the below image.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/ScopeLowMag.jpg


That's the back of the attack periscope that you're supposed to be looking out of when you have the camera view match the stadimeter center position. It's like pulling your eyes out of your head and having someone hold them behind you about 15 feet, and viewing yourself as you view the world around!!

The only way to correct this was to move the whole conning tower (with the periscope; their attached-at-the-hip), to match the camera view, that matches the stadimeter centering position. I don't like it either, but that's the hand we're dealt with.

So you may ask, Why is SCAF not correct with its "corrections"? It's because some ships were corrected with them positioned towards the front half (or rear), throwing off the true height correction. For instance the SCAF Hiryu has a measurement of 37.5 meters in height. To be accurate for all positions of bearing (once the center stadimeter position is corrected) the accurate height measurement is 37.0 meters.

Optical Targeting Correction (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=181172) has these corrections.

[Bilge_Rat]

OTC is a very innovative and interesting mod, but it overwrites/disables too many mods for my taste. SCAF has a much smaller footprint. In tests I have run with TMO 2.5, SCAF gives you the exact range 90-95 % of the time (including with the Hiryu) and is within 10% the rest of the time. Not perfect, but good enough to consistently hit ships with manual targeting.

[I'm goin' down]

OTC is a very innovative and interesting mod, but it overwrites/disables too many mods for my taste. SCAF has a much smaller footprint. In tests I have run with TMO 2.5, SCAF gives you the exact range 90-95 % of the time (including with the Hiryu) and is within 10% the rest of the time. Not perfect, but good enough to consistently hit ships with manual targeting.

Besides the SCAF and Max Optics mods by CapnScurvy, the Easy Aob mod by Nicolas, and the 3D TDC Radar Range Mod by Nisgeis, what other mods does it interfere with? If you use the OTC mod, you do not need any of those, plus the US Radar from the Beginning mod that is an optional mod compatible with the OTC is terrific. If you want to use any of the mods with which OTC is not compatible, then OTC is not for you regardless.

Personally, I think the issue falls between OTC and the 3D TDC and Radar Range Mod, as they both terrific. With OTC you have to see the target or it is useless. With the 3D TDC and Radar Range Mod, you can attack in any weather, even submerged with the scope retracted, but if you screw up one of the myriad of steps involved with the mod you are back to square one. OTC is slightly more forgiving.

One other point, the 3D TDC and Radar Range Mod is authentic. (I saw the real one when I was watching Run Silent Run Deep, so I am an expert!(?)) The OTC mod is discussed in the submarine firing manual. Capn Scurvy posted a photo of the actual device he modded, but RR disputes if one was ever actually used. RR argues that for the OTC mod to work correctly, the target's length must be known, and proffers that the allies did not know the lengths of Japanese ships. I found the arguments for an against it so interesting that I decided to command a U Boat, so now I am in the ATO forum learning about bow recht and bow luft for purposes of the German TDC.

[CapnScurvy]

The OTC mod is discussed in the submarine firing manual. Capn Scurvy posted a photo of the actual device he modded, but RR disputes if one was ever actually used. RR argues that for the OTC mod to work correctly, the target's length must be known, and proffers that the allies did not know the lengths of Japanese ships.

The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) produced manuals prior and throughtout the war regarding enemy and friendly assets. Ship length of most warships were known down to the half foot (6 inches), and available within the ONI Manuals (http://www.coatneyhistory.com/drawings.htm). Were they accurate? Probably so, we didn't leave the war empty handed with insuficant tonnage sunk did we?

As far as the Omnimeter's use, it's documented within this document entitled "Current Doctrine Submarines (USF 25A) (http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/ss-doc-4.htm)" chapter 4:

4610. The following items of control apparatus and aids have been developed to expedite calculations and minimize errors in the solution of the mathematical computations incidental to the approach and attack:

a. Submarine attack course finder.
b. Mark 1 angle solver (for straight shots).
c. Mark 6 and Mark 8 angle solver.
d. Torpedo data computer.
e. Tube nest indicator.
f. Periscope stadimeter and telemeter scale.
g. Periscope stabilized azimuth.
h. Range-keeper.
i. Telemeter range table or slide rule lor range omnimeter (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//showthread.php?t=169857).
j. Distance to track table (or slide rule)...............plus a dozen more items.



AND, in this document "Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual (http://www.hnsa.org/doc/attack/index.htm)".

All legitimate documents from the period.

What makes the use of a tool like the Omnimeter authentic is the ability to have the optical view corrected so it measures accurately. In WWII, it was a "given" that when you measured a target through the use of the scopes Telemeter Divisions, a yard was a yard, a foot in length actually measured 12 inches. A Telemeter Division (one degree of measurement) will actually measure 52.3 ft wide at 1000 yards distance.

Without correcting the optical field of view to measure accurately, and doing so for the various resolution/aspect ratios the game is expected to run in, measuring anything with the Telemeter divisions was impossible. We wern't able to use a fundamental tool in submarine torpedo attacks (the periscopes telemeter divisions) because the optical views were varied (due to the different resolutions/aspect ratios), and the fact that none were scaled to real life sizes and magnifications.

[I'm goin' down]

CapnScurvy, I do not dispute your sources, and, as you know, I am a huge fan of the OTC with US Radar from the Beginning. I also admire the 3D TDC and Radar Range mod, but I am too impatient to follow all of the steps required to use it effectively. I get halfway through a setup, and make a mistake. Then I have to start over. Finally, out of frustration, I gave it up.

As for simplicity, nothing can beat the Easy Aob mod. Be able to spin the ship's dials when inputting a target's course was a huge break through. It is hard to believe that mod was introduced years ago. It seems like yesterday.

[CapnScurvy]

As for simplicity, nothing can beat the Easy Aob mod. Be able to spin the ship's dials when inputting a target's course was a huge break through.

I like simplicity too. Nothing more simplistic than looking at a blip on the radar screen and determining it's bearing/range just by knowing which range scale the radar is set by. It's not going to give you an accurate measurement down to the last yard, but I don't think the real life equipment did either.

As far as determining AoB with the Omnimeter, it's a matter of working within the same restraints the original slide rule had. If a reading is off the scale, you simply cut in half the sum and work with that figure, remembering to double the found sum when it's used against the AoB scale. You should also be plotting the targets course on the navigation map and determine AoB with the tools there. Both combined make for a check/recheck type of determination for AoB. A determination, that for the most part, would have been done using your eye to attain the perceived angle (a problem we can't overcome when we look at a 2 dimensional screen, trying to make a 3 dimensional observation).

I'm not aware that the stock "Attack Data Tool" game dials weren't available to be turned to input data. The AoB dial works the same, with or without the Easy AoB mod. Once a targets AoB is determined, you simply turn the dial to the angle estimate, and send the data to the TDC/Position Keeper to set the gyro angle. What's simpler than that?

[DrBeast]

I'm not aware that the stock "Attack Data Tool" game dials weren't available to be turned to input data. The AoB dial works the same, with or without the Easy AoB mod. Once a targets AoB is determined, you simply turn the dial to the angle estimate, and send the data to the TDC/Position Keeper to set the gyro angle. What's simpler than that?

I think what imgoingdown means is that, with Easy AoB, when you turn the dial to the angle estimate, the TDC dial turns in tandem. This means you don't have to click on the Send Data button to update it - once the TDC dial points to the ship's bearing, you give it a click so the changes "take", so to speak, and that's it. Slight change to how it works, but really makes a difference (btw, I've managed to incorporate Easy AoB with OTC just fine - quite easy to do with WinMerge).

[CapnScurvy]

Ok, so the TDC/Position Keeper dial turns with the AoB dial. I'm assuming its the upper, inner most dial of the Position Keeper. No need to "send" anything, it's already set to the target heading with the angle on bow you've estimated.

So, what makes the difference? Just the fact of not striking the "send" button to set the projected target heading?

Sorry to be so dense about this, but am I missing something else? :88)

[I'm goin' down]

I think Dr. Beast is close, if not right on the money. With the Easy Aob, you adjust to Aob dial on the Attack Dial to match the target course on the ships' dials screen. When you make the adjustment, the target ship's dial on the TDC screen (i.e. the ships' dials screen) will adjust to the target's corresponding course setting. Click the "send" button on the Attack Dial, and viola, the target's course in entered in the TDC.

The fact that the ship's dial adjusts when you move the Aob dial on the Attack Dials is what the Easy Aob brought to the game. It makes adjusting or correctking the Aob much simpler than before, when the ship's dial would not move until the you adjusted the Aob and clicked the send button on the Attack Dials. It is simplier, because you can tell from observing the setting on the ships' dials screen that you have input the correct course by the target's heading on the target ship's dial screen.

[DrBeast]

The Easy AoB mod thread is located here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=152945), along with the expanded version of this mod which adds functionality to the Speed and Range dials, as well. I think you'll find the modification to the Range dial of particular interest to you, Captain, since there's no longer need for an extra dial to input the range - this can be done with the existing dial just fine, and it only involves making a few adjustments to the Dials.cfg file.

[CapnScurvy]

The Easy AoB mod thread is located here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=152945), along with the expanded version of this mod which adds functionality to the Speed and Range dials, as well. I think you'll find the modification to the Range dial of particular interest to you, Captain, since there's no longer need for an extra dial to input the range - this can be done with the existing dial just fine, and it only involves making a few adjustments to the Dials.cfg file.

The "expanded" version link is broken.

I do have a couple of comments regarding the use of the stock Range dial on the Attack Data Tool. First off, it's too small. Second its not accurate. Set it on the 220 yard setting and you get 149 on the PK. The reason I've got a larger, separate Range dial is because of these two problems. It's easier to set and it's accurate.

Another thing about using the Attack Data Tool for setting height when using it for a stadimeter reading. The dial only goes up to 130 ft. What are you going to do if you run up on the Ise BB with a mast height of 164 ft?? You'll have to go into the Recognition Manual and "send" the Ise ID from there to have the stadimeter set up for the actual targets mast height. Might as well do that at the very beginning rather than trying to set the Attack Data Tool height marker.

Again, I don't see the value in moving the Position Keeper upper target dial without using the "send" button?! What's the difference? Both ways, your influencing the gyro angle (although this isn't the only item that effects the gyro angle) of the torpedo. With the Easy AoB way you don't use the "send" button; the other way you do. In both instances, you'll get the targets projected heading shown on the Position Keepers upper dial (as long as you know where to read it). I just don't see where this is a "game changer" for manual targeting.

[I'm goin' down]

where it affects the game is as follows. Before you plotted the target's course. Then you made and an adjustment to the Aob dial, and sent the adjustment to the TDC by clicking the send button. Then you read the target ship's dials to see if you had the target course input correctly. If not, you have to re enter the solution.

With the Easy Aob you can see course on the ship's dials before you click the send button. It is a simpler process because you know what course the TDC will generate when you click the send button. It may sound stupid, but the mod simplified the data entry by making it easier and more certain. If you don't think it is a big deal, then we have a difference of opinion.

The stadimeter readings and ship's heights issues: I belive you when you say they are screwed up in the stock game. You have spent more time on the issue than more than 99% of us.

[DrBeast]

Again, I don't see the value in moving the Position Keeper upper target dial without using the "send" button?! What's the difference? Both ways, your influencing the gyro angle (although this isn't the only item that effects the gyro angle) of the torpedo. With the Easy AoB way you don't use the "send" button; the other way you do. In both instances, you'll get the targets projected heading shown on the Position Keepers upper dial (as long as you know where to read it). I just don't see where this is a "game changer" for manual targeting.

Think of it as applying a filter to a photograph, and Easy AoB being the equivalent of Preview. Without it, you cannot see the effect of the filter until after you've applied it. With it, you see exactly how your photograph will look like, make your adjustments, and when you're happy with the results you just click on Apply.

[I'm goin' down]

Again, I don't see the value in moving the Position Keeper upper target dial without using the "send" button?! What's the difference? Both ways, your influencing the gyro angle (although this isn't the only item that effects the gyro angle) of the torpedo. With the Easy AoB way you don't use the "send" button; the other way you do. In both instances, you'll get the targets projected heading shown on the Position Keepers upper dial (as long as you know where to read it). I just don't see where this is a "game changer" for manual targeting.

Think of it as applying a filter to a photograph, and Easy AoB being the equivalent of Preview. Without it, you cannot see the effect of the filter until after you've applied it. With it, you see exactly how your photograph will look like, make your adjustments, and when you're happy with the results you just click on Apply.

Dr.Beast -- you nailed it. (I am not playing SH4. I am not captain of a US sub. I am a photographer!--just kidding.)

[CapnScurvy]

Ok, I see what your saying. Guess I've always looked at it differently.

Going back to my SHIII days I've always figured a target heading using my AoB Calculator and/or nav map plot. The calculator being a hand held device, I never saw the potential in using the Position Keeper upper "target" dial to do the same calculation (least wise not "before" sending the information to the PK/TDC). As described, you can use the PK target dial without using the "send" button and still get an estimated target heading.

It's important to note, the Position Keeper is just an extension of the TDC (in a condensed form). With the Easy AoB mod, what is "set" on the PK is being inputted directly to the torpedo gyro angle, with or without the "send" button. What you read on the PK is what you'll get for a torpedo track. Without the mod, the "send" button has the potential purpose of acting like a "fail safe" measure for the torpedo track (you'll not set the PK with the latest information untill after sending the information). Either way, the results the same. The torpedo is no smarter than the data that's inputted, and/or shown on the PK, just before firing.

[jakisdziad]

If you call your mod Ship_Centered_Accuracy_Fix people expect to get mod that fix the ship centred accuracy. If you want to sell your car, people expect that they will buy a car, not a jet.

Here (https://www.dropbox.com/s/8gphd850hcbomz8/SCAF%20for%20SH%201.5%20stripped.rar) you can get a stripped version of Ship_Centered_Accuracy_Fix Stock 1.5 that you can implement to ANY other mod through JSGME without ANY collision with other mod that does not change anything related to ships dds and cfg files in sea folder. Stripped of changes in: manual cover, gauges, loading screen, after loading screen text, medals, optical devices, HUD, nomograph etc...

(all mod credit to creator CapnScurvy (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=216764) I just deleted all not needed junk that he implemented with it)

[Agrippa]

So this is an incredibly old thread, but I was wondering if anyone has tried using this with Real Fleet Boat 2.0 yet. Since there isn't a specific version of it for RFB, I would assume that to try it out, one would just install the stock version. Anyone tried this?