Pitch Testing Renewed - New videos to watch

[panthercules]

Decided to resume my testing of settings to try to induce a more pleasing (and hopefully realistic-looking) pitching motion of the player's submarine.

As with the earlier tests, I have uploaded a couple of videos depicting a couple of different approaches - if you have time and inclination, it would be very helpful if you could take a couple of minutes to watch the 2 videos (about 1 minute each) and then vote in the poll to say which one you like better.

Take 1 can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eqHG87QgKI


Take 2 can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ap3f-fUWyM

Thanks for your help.

[The General]

Version 2 get's my vote by a long way because there is noticeable Pitch and Roll. The first one is just alot of Roll (side to side) and very little Pitch. Personally, in big seas I'd like to see the boat pitch so dramatically that the bow [and Stern] breaks the horizon from the bridge's P.O.V.

On another matter, is the T.D.T. on American Subs not gyroscopically balanced like it is on the U-Boats? 'Cos mine certainly doesn't behave like it.

[SteveW1]

definately take 2 looks better, to much roll in the first one and not enough pitch.

[rascal101]

Speaking as an ex sailor vers 2 is the one without a doubt, this mod looks real nice, was wondering if you have any idea how to make more realistic spray and surge around conning tower, deck gun and other deck structures when the sub dives and surfaces.

At present theres only a bit of spray and foam around the conning tower when you dive I cant help feeling this needs beefing up a bit

My two cents worth Vers 2 without a doubt

R

[TopcatWA]

Version 2 by a mile. :up:

[DrBeast]

Take 2. Looks more natural. Maybe the roll is a wee bit too much, but that's just my personal opinion. Looks great overall! :up:

[EAF274 Johan]

Both made me feel seasick :oops:

Another vote for #2: it has more vertical movement than the first, and thus feels more realistic.

[Digital_Trucker]

Ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto and ditto. Oh, did I say that I thought two was the best? Two definitely looked more realistic to me, too.

[ReallyDedPoet]

They are both well done, but the second just a little more.


RDP

[swdw]

Number 2 most definitely

[ReallyDedPoet]

Number 2 most definitely

Love your sig., go Packers :yep::up:


RDP

[jdkbph]

#1 makes the boat look like a cork bobbing in the waves.

#2 looks good for the first 12 seconds or so, and then the rolling gets ridiculous again. 3 seconds to go from 30 degrees port to 30 degrees starboard in anything less than a typhoon is a bit over the top. (pardon the pun) These are 1500 ton displacement (not DWT) vessels navigating open ocean swells, not cigarette boats bouncing through the chop in Biscayne Bay.

Having said that, it occurs to me the problem might not be the physics related to the sub, but the ocean itself. The waves do seem to be a bit exaggerated, in both amplitude and frequency. The waves in your video are more like what you might expect during storm conditions in very shallow water. Deep water waves just don't behave that way.

IMHO

JD

[ATR-42]

#1 makes the boat look like a cork bobbing in the waves.

#2 looks good for the first 12 seconds or so, and then the rolling gets ridiculous again. 3 seconds to go from 30 degrees port to 30 degrees starboard in anything less than a typhoon is a bit over the top. (pardon the pun) These are 1500 ton displacement (not DWT) vessels navigating open ocean swells, not cigarette boats bouncing through the chop in Biscayne Bay.

Having said that, it occurs to me the problem might not be the physics related to the sub, but the ocean itself. The waves do seem to be a bit exaggerated, in both amplitude and frequency. The waves in your video are more like what you might expect during storm conditions in very shallow water. Deep water waves just don't behave that way.

IMHO

JD

Great post lots of good points here...
Id have vote for number two but tone the rolling down just a touch.

I agree with JD in some respects, that these boats were 300' long and HEAVY, however they were rounded hull boats, not a deep v, so im sure they got tossed around roll wise significantly. Its just really hard to 'ball-park" how exactly a wwII sub would behave in a sea. Like we discussed earlier, at 15m/s were looking at around a 15' sea.

Its a tough call. But its a improvement to stock for sure. And even if it is a bit exaggerated from real life (a little) im still in! :) after all its supposed to be fun.

[Sailor Steve]

I think jdkbph hit it right on the head: the problem with the roll isn't that there's too much; it's that it happens too fast. Other than that, of course I agree with everyone else that number 2's pitching is much better.

[Weather-guesser]

Number 2 most definately is better. I think the roll is a bit much.

[ANTARES]

I like video #2.... it reminds me of my old navy days on the destroyers.

Antares

[hyperion2206]

Number 2 gets my vote as well, it looks really good!:up:

[capt_frank]

Number 2 be certain

Edit: NOW I look like Festus!

[Karbo]

I like number 2 the best.

[Nuc]

I like the second one also.

[M. Sarsfield]

I modified the game to use the wave values from SHIII. It's definitely difficult to use the TBT in rough seas.

[Marko_Ramius]

The Num. 2 for me, too :up:

The fact that it seems a little bit exaggerated is not a problem IMHO. It compensate the fact that we are looking at a monitor, rather than to be in the conning tower.

It's a lot better than stock !! Good work :rock:

[The General]

I currently have a mid-patrol saved game in some of the highest seas I think SH4 is capable of generating and this sub-on-rails business is driving NUTS! So, I took the liberty of trying to adjust the following element:

GATO

[Properties]
PeriscopeDepth=18.3;meters
SnorkelDepth=210;meters
CrashDepth=48.8;meters
MaxDepth=90;meters
SurfaceDepth=5;meters
TorpLaunchMaxDepth=30;meters
StormConditions=15,0.2;max wind speed [m/s], max rain intensity [0,1]

__________________________________________________

and it seemed to have no effect, even when I made the value 10 or 20 meters! Can anybody tell me what I'm doing wrong? I clearly don't know what the hell I'm doing and shouldn't be monkeying around with the programme but I just can't bare seeing my Sub behave like it just had a brand new anti-gravity drive fitted!

[momo55]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=129049

Episode 21 part 1 around 04:40 - 05:25 pitching U.S.sub
Episode 21 part 2 from the start - 00:23

Take a look at the spray ...take a look at the waves etc....etc.....probebly more RL examples to find in here....

Num.2 for me with this poll

( I must say that the worst storm conditions in SH4 are a real laugh for me compared with the RL experiances i had when i served )

[Savvy]

Yep, take 2 for me:rock:

Sav.

[Wilcke]

#2 Awesome!

[Reinhard Hardegen]

Yes number 2 is the better of the two. If you could just slow down the roll some it will make a great mod, that we will enjoy.

Great work...:up:

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Take #2 looks best.

Just a thought though that should help reduced the later violence of the roll.

(Maybe you are doing this already... apologies if this is common knowledge to you.)

You can lower the center of gravity in the .sim file to reduce the roll a bit. The measurement there should be in meters. I recommend testing in half-meter increments.

Also, maybe testing should be done using semi-calm seas. There should be a little bit of pitch and roll in these conditions too. Once you feel you have it correct in these circumstances, then switch to heavy seas where violent rolling should be expected.

Just my two cents. Good luck mate.:up:

[Doolittle81]

#2 for certain...

[panthercules]

Thanks for the votes and posts - encouraging to see that I'm on the right track at least.

Unfortunately, I've had to abandon the most promising avenue I had found so far to try to dampen the roll speed, as it turned out in my "stress testing" of the setting for the "take 2" video in this poll that it dramatically increased the time it took to turn the sub on the surface - this reduction in maneuverability was unacceptable, so I've been experimenting with other avenues and I think I've found another approach that may work almost as well without the side effect (or at least, without that particular side effect - I may find some other problem when I stress-test this latest approach).

I still haven't found the "magic bullet" that will really slow the roll without also dampening the degree of the roll, but so far the latest combo seems like it might be achieving a reasonable compromise. Over a longer time of viewing than the short videos I've been able to post, the behavior is pretty varied, with some periods of relatively stable action and some of more vigorous action, which I think is tied to the way the waves are moving out there, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing. However, it does make it hard to figure how or whether to try to dampen the vigorous end of the spectrum without making the stable end of the spectrum too stable. I suspect I may have to settle for something that gives pretty good action most of the time, and occasionally (but not very often) gets a trifle more vigorous or stable than I would like as long as neither extreme is really bad when it happens.

It's been frustrating getting very close to a great result only to find some hidden drawback - so far my other really good ones have sent my sub plunging below crush depth, stood it on its nose at periscope depth, and doubled the time it took to make a 90-degree turn on the surface. :damn:

I'll report back on the latest combo later tonight or tomorrow if I can finish the stress-testing. If that works, I may put out a call for a few testers to help me put the rest of the sub classes and major mod packs through their paces without taking too much longer (all my testing so far has been on my Salmon class RFB/ROW test bed, but it'll obviously have to be tested on the other subs and with TM before it'll be ready for release). If the combo proves out after testing, I anticipate releasing JSGME-ready versions based on both the RFB/ROW and TM/ROW underlying files, as well as a list of the specific tweaks so that folks who want to do so can just make the changes manually to their own setup.

Thanks again for "pitching in" by viewing and voting. More to come :D

[DrBeast]

as well as a list of the specific tweaks so that folks who want to do so can just make the changes manually to their own setup.


Man, oh man am I waiting to see what you've changed in there! :D

[fvd]

this will be no surprise i think: number two is the best to my opinion.

[Torps]

your time, the best work is never rushed. Oh and yah ...um. number 2 by a long shot.:up:

[donut]

Your videos show only roll ? #2 maybe,but still on a rail.

[panthercules]

You do know,pitching is bow,up-down movement. Your videos show only roll ? #2 maybe,but still on a rail.

Yes, of course I know that - you can't tell that there's more pitching in #2 than #1? That's disappointing. I know it's not as good even in #2 as it should be - I'd love to get even more pitching action going, but at this point I'd settle for anything noticeably better than pre-tweaked #1 that doesn't have some material adverse side effects.

Unfortunately, stress testing uncovered an odd game behavior anomaly that invalidated a lot of my progress so far for #2 (I didn't realize it, but the sub's behavior after loading in a saved game on the surface is not the same as after diving and surfacing again), so I've had to modify my testing procedures and discovered that the settings which looked pretty good (to most folks anyway) in #2 messed up the behavior after diving and resurfacing. So, I'm back to the drawing board so to speak, yet again.

I've gotten to another group of settings that is giving some pretty good looking results, but yet another side effect has reared it's ugly head :cry: I'm now having a problem with losing too much speed on the surface (I would expect some speed loss in heavy seas but it's still a bit extreme at this point). Also got a reminder of one of my other early disasters, when I managed to flip my sub upside down again during one sensitivity test :lol:

And to add insult to injury, I've picked up some kind of stomach bug that has me kinda queasy, so I've had to suspend testing for a while - the last thing I want to do now is spend hours looking at a sub pitching and rolling in heavy seas :doh:

I'll pick it up again over the weekend and see if I can solve this latest problem. But, don't expect miracles here Donut - nothing I've come up with, even the best-looking stuff that broke something else, has shown the kind of really pronounced pitch I'd love to see, but I do think that they've looked better than "stock" and I think that'd be worth having if it doesn't break anything else.

[Travis Reed]

#2 for sure, pitching definitely more evident and natural looking. Rolling wasn't bad either, but a tad too fast I think.

Remember these boats had bilge keels to help improve stability (all but the s-boats). Now, while they won't help as much on the sub as they would on a regular boat/ship, they should at least give it the roll characteristics of a V shaped hull of that approximate size. Also remember that the pitch won't be as pronounced due to the length of the vessel as it helps to counteract some of that (depending on water conditions, of course).

[SS-18rider]

I´m voting for number 2, if you can keep it that way. Good Luck:up:

I´ve also been manipulating pitch roll etc. and noticed that submerging and then surface the sub screws up the settings for pitch etc. In my case it seems to be conected to the manipulation of waveheights. I´ve tried higher waves than default, which causes the sub to pitch violently when resurfaced again. The sub also seems to loose it´s surfacedepth as well which makes the waves splashing over the conningtower. I´ve used the S-button, klicking 0 meters on the depthmeter is a temporary solution getting the sub higher in the water.

[donut]

Yes, of course I know that,really pronounced pitch I'd love to see,My comment,was kinda harsh.I know several modders have tryed to get that bow plunging effect,& suspect it's a bitch. Give it a shot when you feel fresher.
I recall,on the surface,not being to get to sleep in my rack,because of hull pounding seas.:sunny: After you get your sea legs the pitching can be fun R/L:rock:

[panthercules]

Well, I finally got a combination that seems to be pretty decent and, as far as I can tell so far, doesn't seem to have broken anything I can find. I think this is about as good as it's going to get, at least for now, since trying to go further in any directions seems to be breaking something different along the way. Here is a link to a video of my "release candidate" settings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDX4apAI7lM

At the moment, the only one I have JSGME-ready for testing is the Salmon Class using what I believe to be the latest RFB/ROW files as the base. I could use a couple of folks willing to test out that setup just to doublecheck and see if they can find anything broken with it.

I'm going to start tweaking the other sub classes with my RFB/ROW base, and then I'll try doing some with the TM/ROW files as the base, and I'd like to be guided as far as priority goes by whatever types I get volunteer testers for (e.g., if I get more volunteers wanting to test Gatos with RFB and Porpoises with TM, I'll try to do those first).

If you want to take a crack at testing some of these, please PM me and be sure to specify which sub class you want to test and whether you want to use the RFB/ROW version or the TM/ROW version, and I'll PM you back with the link to the test package when I get it worked up. There's so many earlier versions out there, I'll only be making versions using the latest files from those two combination mod packs, so if you're not running the latest versions it may not be worth testing these (they may work, but if they don't I won't be able to help figure out why 'cause I'll only be working with the latest versions).

I guess I'll have to have a talk with the RFB, ROW and TM modders to make sure they're going to be OK with me using their files before I actually release anything here. Ultimately, if the testing doesn't reveal any real problems I'd love to see those mod teams consider incorporating these changes into some upcoming version of their mods - easier for me (not having to keep trying to update this stuff as those mods evolve) and easier for all the RFB/ROW and TM/ROW users as well. In fact, if it all works out and they want to use this, then depending on the update/release schedules for RFB/ROW and TM/ROW, I might not even have to release anything separately at all (other than the list of changes for the do-it-yourself types out there). It will take a while for the testing cycle to run its course, so there'll be time to deal with that down the road - just didn't want anybody to think I was planning to just grab and use those Mods' files for a release without permission or anything like that.

[Doolittle81]

Will you be doing these Mods for StockSH4 +RSRDC?

[panthercules]

Will you be doing these Mods for StockSH4 +RSRDC?

If the generalization process of expanding from my initial Salmon Class RFB/ROW test bed to the other sub classes on RFB/ROW and on TM/ROW turns out to be reasonably simple and testing doesn't uncover any real problems, then yes I will also put out a "stock" version as well. So far I almost have my first additional sub ready to test (S-class boats on RFB/ROW), and it hasn't taken very long yet, so if testing of that one goes well and RL doesn't interfere too much then I'm hopeful the others will as well and it shouldn't be that much extra effort to do the "stock" versions too.

I'll have to check out the RSRDC files and see if they have any impact on this - I was using RSRD before the 1.4 patch and really liked it, but I haven't figured out whether it's ready to mesh with the latest RFB/ROW stuff yet so I'm not currently running it on my test bed.

[panthercules]

Just checked the download for the latest RSRD for RFB, and it didn't touch any of the files that I'm tweaking for this pitch work, so if that's true for the stock and TM versions of RSRD then my pitch stuff should work fine with RSRD (which is good, 'cause I was really enjoying using RSRD before the patch)

[Gunfighter]

Hope you realise I have allready been SeaSick with Roll left/right now it's gona go Pitch up/down aswell thanks I'll need a bigger Bucket :rotfl: Version 2 looks about right
there's alot of people who will not know what RSRD,RFB,TM,STOCK means So hears the question will it work with SHIV + Patch1.4 and ROW.I think the work you guys are doing for us all is great and I know Dave would of loved it.:up:

Gunfighter

[panthercules]

Hope you realise I have allready been SeaSick with Roll left/right now it's gona go Pitch up/down aswell thanks I'll need a bigger Bucket :rotfl: Version 2 looks about right
there's alot of people who will not know what RSRD,RFB,TM,STOCK means So hears the question will it work with SHIV + Patch1.4 and ROW.I think the work you guys are doing for us all is great and I know Dave would of loved it.:up:

Gunfighter

Yes, this Pitch Mod should work with any type of install/setup that uses the latest ROW modules (and why would anybody run SH4 without ROW?) and that installed ROW last. This will install (via JSGME) after ROW - it is built using the latest ROW files so when you let JSGME install this and over-write the ROW files you will still get all the ROW goodies and will also get my Pitch tweaks.

So, bottom line - yes, it will work with SH4 + Patch 1.4 + ROW, whether or not you also run either of the big mod packs (RFB or TM, with or without RSRD), as long as you installed ROW last.

If/when RFB and/or TM release newer versions that are also built on the latest ROW files and call for something other than ROW to be installed last, I'll probably have to update my Pitch Mod to build versions for use with those mod packs, but I'll deal with that down the road after I get the basic version released, hopefully sometime this weekend if all goes well in my final testing.