Let's Butt Heads With An Add-on [Archive]

View Full Version : Let's Butt Heads With An Add-on

CapnScurvy

03-01-08, 05:52 PM

I have some questions for those that have already purchased the Add-On. Can you tell me what are the mast heights of the Carriers Hiryu, Shokaku, the DD Mutsuki, the Large Minelayer, and the merchant Tug? I selected these partly at random, and partly because they (like others) have incorrect mast heights listed within the Recognition Manual. It doesn’t matter if you give me the figures either in Meters or Feet, but I would like to know if the problem of correct manual range finding has been addressed with the dollar’s you have shelled out for the purchase. It’s the Scottish background in me that prevents my paying for something that just isn’t worth the simple reach into my pocket.

The stock figures are:

Hiryu 31.0 meters
101.7 feet

Shokaku 29.0m
95.1ft

Mutsuki 32.0m
75.5ft

Large
Minelayer 21.0m
68.9ft

Tug 22.8m
78.8ft

I’m wondering if these figures are different, now that you have the latest paid for patch? I'm not trying to make you mad, I really want to know. I don't have the patch.

OK, OK there is a point here that I’m going to make, whether the 1.5 patch did a darn thing to correct some of the in game problems since it’s release almost a year ago, now or not. To best illustrate my point I have pictures!!!! Yeaaaa……. let’s look at the pretty pictures!!!! This game is full of pretty pictures.

First let’s look at the Hiryu. For those of you that read my “discussion” section of the “Manual Targeting Ship Centered, Accuracy Fix” (it’s floating around on this forum somewhere) I pointed out the mast height for the Hiryu was way off, gave you some figures to tell you what was what, but I didn’t illustrate the point. Below you will find the stationary Hiryu in one of my test setups at an actual distance of 1377 meters (1506 yards) from a stationary sub. The stock mast height of 31.0m (101.7ft) is showing in the Recognition Manual (RM). You’ll notice that a range of 1168 meters (1277 yards) is showing in the Position Keeper (PK). (I had just used the Stadimeter to find range at the top of the flag which I assume is the correct mast position the developers refer to for manual range finding). That’s 209 meters (229 yards) off!!!! How can you hit the target with a torpedo when the in game manual range finding calculations are so far off!!! I suppose that’s why you need to “brush whiskers” with the target before firing, to get as close as you can get.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/SH4Img2008-03-01_100959_000.jpg

The next picture shows the Hiryu with a corrected mast height of 36.4 meters (119.4 ft) showing in the RM. The PK is showing the manual found range to be 1372 meters (1500 yards) that’s more like it!! That’s just 5 meters (6 yards) off of the actual distance.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/SH4Img2008-03-01_133400_859.jpg

So my first question can be answered amongst yourselves, is the Hiryu showing a mast height of 36.4 meters or 119.4 feet in the RM? If it is, then maybe you should stop reading now, and feel content that you paid for a patch that’s worth its price. You can go ahead and gloat in a reply, I will stand corrected. If it didn’t, then go ahead and read on to see how you can correct the error.

The next picture has my Maxoptics2 (original creation of WernerSobe) in use (that’s why the image is magnified, makes the mast top much easier to see, doesn’t it?). To get a correct measurement for the Hiryu to read at the 1506 yard distance using the stock 101.7 ft mast height, you have to put the Stadimeter image down below the flag a bit. Go head and remember the approximate place, you can use it next time you run into the Hiryu. Heck, anywhere down in that area is better than what the top of the mast gives us.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/SH4Img2008-03-01_095046_125.jpg

This next picture is of the DD Matsuki with a stock game mast height of 75.5 ft (23.0 meters) the PK has a range of 1464 yards showing. The actual distance is 1499 yards. That’s a difference of 35 yards. Not bad, but I wouldn’t want to take a swing at this bad boy and miss with the first punch. I think he might come looking for you in a trot with prejudice and malice.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/SH4Img2008-03-01_095747_375.jpg

The next picture shows the corrected mast height of 77.8 ft (23.7m) and the actual manual found Stadimeter range to be 1498 yards. That’s just a yard off of what it needs to be to give this guy a bloody nose.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/SH4Img2008-03-01_105744_859.jpg

The next picture is of the Okinoshima, Large Minelayer. To keep this short I’ve only added the corrected change in mast height of 93.9 ft to the RM, from the stock height of 68.9. That’s 25 feet difference in mast height (no typo error here). The stock mast height gave a range to target of 1114 yards, except for the fact that the ship was actually sitting at 1518 yards away. Let’s see, if I count on my toes too, that’s a 404 yard difference!!!! You really didn’t want to hit this guy did you? The below picture shows a stadimeter found range to target of 1518 yards with my corrected mast height. Ummmm now the correct mast height you paid for in the 1.5 patch is 93.9 ft (28.6m) right???

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/SH4Img2008-03-01_105915_187.jpg

Next, I’m bringing up the Tug. Seems there’s a lot of modders that are using the tug to make a new enemy sub chaser. TMO has it, RSRDC has one. They call them different names, but the basic ship model is the same. So below is the Tug with the stock mast height of 74.8 ft (22.8m). With the stadimeter found range to be 1442 yards showing in the PK. The actual distance to target is 1500 yards, that’s a difference of 58 yards (almost the length of the tug).

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/SH4Img2008-03-01_104010_312.jpg

Now, with the corrected mast height of 77.8 ft (23.7m) in the RM, the found manual range is 1498 yards, just 2 yards off of dead on.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/SH4Img2008-03-01_114810_265.jpg

Lastly, the carrier Shokaku is sitting at an actual distance of 1384 meters (1513 yards) from the sub. The stock mast height is 29.0 meters. The manual found range is 1231 meters, that’s a 153 meter difference from what it should be.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/SH4Img2008-02-17_120240_046-1.jpg

This next picture has one of my versions of the Ship Centered, Accuracy Fix mod installed with the mast height correction of 32.5 meters in the Recognition Manual. The difference between this picture and the last is just eye candy. The manual found range is 1387 meters. That’s just 3 meters off of what the actual distance should be.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/SH4Img2008-02-17_115509_453-1.jpg

My point is simple, if these corrections have not been made to a product you just paid money for, then the eye candy is what you bought. Enjoy using the green triangle to tell yourself when to fire the red button thingy. If you want to use the Stadimeter to find manual range then you need to complain to the guys that took your money. Also, find someone who will give you the correct figures you’ll need. I’ve just given you a few correct mast heights, free of charge of course. I’ve had a mod released to correct this problem going back to the first of June ‘07.

If the corrections were made, then by all means tell me so. I can stand it. I’ll put my tail between my legs and whimper like a pup. I may even dig down and find 10 bucks for the improvements. Sometimes though, the best things in life are free!!

Rockin Robbins

03-01-08, 07:14 PM

CapnScurvy

03-01-08, 09:01 PM

And since the devs built the models of these ships and knew exactly what the mast heights were, I wonder what the reason is to have the stadimeter programmed wrongly. I know tater has told us that much of the info that was on the actual subs was either missing or wrong. I wonder if the erroneous information reflects historical erroneous information. Dan, any insight you might be able to share with us?

Yes, I know there's been a lot of nashing of teeth over historical figures in this game. But, historical figures means nothing to a game engine that has a problem counting 2+2. Although I spent much of my time looking at the Imperial measurement calculations, and how do you correct them. Others like Krupp were doing the same thing in the metric area. First he decided a different historical group of statistics were the answer. But, thats not the correct answer. The game still calculated incorrectly. I know there were folks that believed the Imperial calculations were wrong, but from my point of view the metric calculations were off. Long ago I saw the same imperial (yards) sums show up in the PK when running the game in the metric mode.?!?! I knew they were in yards since those were the same figures the game computer provided in its findings when in the imperial setting. That's one thing this game is accurate in, the computer found ranges in metric or imperial have always been correct. This error was corrected with the third patch by (what I believe was) eliminating a reduntant extra conversion of the base figure for the metric setting. This turd has floated down the river by now, so it's a moot point. However, the game still doesn't give the correct range for most ships. I just don't understand why this has slipped through for so long.

My process is simple, you calibrate the only variable figures you have (the mast heights) and match it to the constant figures (actual distance and the "whatever game engine calculator process") the game provides. It's a back door approach, but it provides the manual targeting gamer with accurate figures.

tater

03-01-08, 10:28 PM

maerean_m

03-02-08, 12:43 AM

CapnScurvy

03-02-08, 12:52 AM

As far as I'm concerned, I'd build the models with the right mast height, and give the rec manual number EXACTLY what was in the real USN ONI 41-42 manual. If ONI was off by 10m in height, then you get to be SOL and constantly miss.

Shooting is too easy by half at least, IMO.

In my opinion, a stationary target, sitting at a predetermined reasonable distance from a stationary sub, on calm seas should return an accurate measurement for range. If the correct range is off by as much as the Large Minelayer or the Hiryu is, then how in the world will you do when the seas are heavy, both ships are moving and you still have the other variables of AoB and speed to factor in?

I'm not so much worried about whether the target gets hit as I am if the gun shoots straight. Before you go hunting one of the necessary duties is to site in and calibrate your firearm. The other variables are out of your control like weather, sunlight, actual prey existance, and it's unpredictable movements. But having a firearm that is accurate is key to success, the rest, even your shot markmanship are variables. My point is the Stadimeter reading should be accurate under these controled conditions, there's plenty of other variables to cause a shot to go off target.

One other variable the game has are the differences in pixel lines that make up the screen. Depending on where on the screen the stadimeter is marked determines the difference in yards or meters that is found between one pixel line and it's adjacent pixel lines. For instance, the hash marks on the periscope are two pixel wide. You have a top edge line, a center line, and a bottom edge line. So within one hash mark there are three different lines that each could represent your placement of the stadimeter ship bottom placement. Depending on the mast height there can be as much as 7 to 12 yards or meters difference between each adjacent pixel line when the stadimeter is in the approximate center of the screen. Towards the top the difference is less, towards the bottom of the screen (meaning towards the water line) the difference in yards between pixel lines are greater. This results in having a wide variance in measurements when the target is marked towards the water line (usually at longer distances from the sub). When the target is close, the position marked is towards the top of the screen thus a less of a difference between pixel lines and a greater chance of accuracy.

Again, my opinion is there's plenty of variables to keep the game from being a shooting gallery.

tater

03-02-08, 12:56 AM

Wait til I start making merchant ships, you'll be very confused indeed <BEG>

Works, too, just waiting on s3d to make it easier.

CapnScurvy

03-02-08, 01:19 AM

CapnScurvy, what is the patch you're running?

There has been a bug in the game when using the stadimeter with imperial units, but that has been fixed in the 1.3 patch.

From the screenshots, it seems to be at least 1.3. In that case, the only explanation is that the mast heights are wrong (as the stadimeter module is working correctly now).

Is the range wrong for ALL the ships in the recognition manual?

I have the 1.4 patch. Yes, I know you made improvements with the 1.3 patch to the calculations and some of the ship mast heights. The Hiryu having a 20 meter mast height at the beginning was a real zinger. After 1.3 you improved it to the 31 meter height but it still isn't correct as the first post in this thread shows. The correct height when the ship is sitting at approximately a 1500 yard (1378m) distance is 36.4 meters. You need another 5.4 meters to add.

No maerean, not all ships are off, for instance the stock Sub chaser has a mast height of 18 meters, at the 1500 yard distance the actual stadimeter found range is only 6 yards off. That's quite good for that distance. Actually from what I can tell, if you can get to within 10 or so yards (plus or minus) of the computer found range to target that's about as good as the calculations will allow.

I'd say over half of the Japanese and merchants could have their mast heights tweaked to correct the kind of inaccuracy I'm talking about.

Rockin Robbins

03-02-08, 08:36 AM

As far as I'm concerned, I'd build the models with the right mast height, and give the rec manual number EXACTLY what was in the real USN ONI 41-42 manual. If ONI was off by 10m in height, then you get to be SOL and constantly miss.

tater
:up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up:

We certainly don't have any more right to good information than the real heroes had.:arrgh!: I always took it for granted that some of our information in the manual was wrong. That's why I was so happy to meet gutted from the Atlantik, aaronblood of MoBo and together developed the Dick O'Kane method, which cares not a hoot whether the ship has masts or (fill in your favorite anatomical part to make it funny).

During the war many accounts consider their ability to hit targets crippled if the radar didn't work. What does that say about THEIR ability to determine range with the stadimeter. They hated it as much as we do. That is called simulation.:nope: Frustration is one of the qualities simulated quite nicely here. Yuk.:rotfl:

By the way CapnScurvy, this is a great chance to give a shout out for your great Angle on the Bow and Speed calculator. Look for it folks. It is STILL the best banjo out there. Also Capn, your posts beginning this thread, illustrating the problem, are incredibly clear and not a bit too long. And they are also a great tutorial for the newbies on how to use the stadimeter and why they could still miss.

tater

03-02-08, 12:00 PM

I can give you the measurements from the ONI manuals, use those. If they are wrong, then they are wrong, just like RL. Some are pretty close to being right, though.

No more accurate than RL, and the real skippers has scopes not nearly as nice to look through by a long shot.

CapnScurvy

03-02-08, 12:30 PM

I can give you the measurements from the ONI manuals, use those. If they are wrong, then they are wrong, just like RL. Some are pretty close to being right, though.

If your pointing that offer at me, thanks Tater, but My main goal is to provide the gamer with any accurate tool to use when manual targeting. The mast height figures control directly the calculations of range distance when using the manual targeting option. The fact that the Large Minelayer is off by 400 plus yards because of the mast height figure just isn't right no matter how I look at it. Meters, Feet, Furlongs, or Fathoms it doesn't make much difference what measurement tool you use, as long as it's accurately calculated within the game. I can't speak for the Devs, but I have a thought that's the way they intended it to be.

Rockin Robbins

03-02-08, 12:48 PM

Scurvy would have been hell on earth as a sub skipper meeting with Admiral Lockwood complaining about the inaccurate ONI manuals. This is one confrontation I think the Admiral might have lost.:yep:

But then, being the iconoclast he was, Admiral Lockwood would be the first in line to take the complaints up the ladder and let the chips fall where they may. The only problem in RL was that there was no way to take the Hiryu out to a smooth spot, shut down its engines, pace off a precise distance and see how far the ONI manual was from reality. No American could sneak aboard with a tape measure and actually find the real height either.

The numbers we had were the numbers we had. There was no way to even know that they were wrong except by missing the shot. The sub captains were pretty sarcastic about the accuracy of their ID manuals, but realized that they could get no better.

My position is that if we are going to call this a simulation, we also have to simulate error. I'm assuming the devs used ONI numbers and didn't just err on their own.:damn: But the results are the same: accurately simulating the frustration of real US sub skippers. Job well done, I say!:rotfl:

That doesn't mean I won't snap up any mod CapnScurvy makes and try it out. But I'd rather get some numbers from tater and plug them in instead to experience the same consequences as the real captains.

Darn! I feel another Admiral Lockwood post struggling to be born. DANGER!!!!!!

tater

03-02-08, 12:49 PM

Without a "~" the exact value is given, or in the case of warships the mast seems to end on one of the 15' lines drawn. With a ~, probably +- 1-3 feet (different scale drawings, the bigger the ship, the larger the error).

Conte Verde 115'
Horai 110'
Kiturin 104'
Tyohei 90'
Heito 76'
Zinbu 82'
Hakusika 63'
Kinposan 78'
Biyo 82'
Kagasian 74'
Haruna 57'
Buzyon 80'
Nippon 87'
Nagara 100'

Minekaze ~70'
Mutsuki ~67
Fubuki ~77'-80' (several sub types in ONI, hard to tell apart)
Shiratsuyu ~75'
Asashio ~71'
Akizuki ~73'

Kuma ~118'
Takao ~130'-145'+ (different ships in ONI)
Furutaka 120'
Mogami ~112'
Tone ~105'
Naka 105'

Shokaku ~96'
Chitose ~88'

Kongo 135'
Fuso ~160-165' (ONI made 2 classes)
Ise ~130'

Okinoshima 107'
Subchaser ~32'
No13 ~64'

tater

03-02-08, 12:52 PM

If the height is exactly right, the range should be accurate, true. If the ONI manual was wrong, the value all US skippers would have plugged in would have been wrong, so they would have systematically misestimated the range.

So while it would be worth testing the stadimeter to make sure that with the height set right you get the right range, after that, I'd set the values the stadimeter thinks the height is to the ONI values and let everyone miss if it comes out that way. Fire spreads to hit.

CapnScurvy

03-02-08, 01:17 PM

Tater, to just quickly look at your figures, the ONI manual has the Okinoshima as a mast height of 107', my accurate distance of about 94 feet is pretty close to that. Whichever you use, it beats the measily 69 feet the game Recognition Manual reports.

I know you've done a lot of work on ship design and creation. I'm wondering if the ship.sim file/unit_ship/properties/mass changes the height of a ship as it's seen in the water? I'm just guessing it does, but I've never monkeyed with it to see what changes the ship makes. I have pushed the GC_height beyond normal and seen the unsettling results. Do you know what the FR_ratio parameter does? Just curious.

tater

03-02-08, 01:22 PM

No. It would be cool to BP-clone ships and have some riding lower, though...

That was actually a non-trivial matter with merchant ships. Their draft, and hence mast height could very easily change by many feet.

Biyo Maru, for example has a draft of 26' loaded, and 8' light, according to ONI-208 J!

Frankly, given the fact that the game doesn't seem to do this (does it?) I'd be inclined to treat the loaded vs unloaded values as an error bar on the mast height.

Biyo is 82' with a 18' slop. I'd set the mast height wrong by 9', lol.

tater

theluckyone17

03-02-08, 02:03 PM

Do all the ships *have* to have an entry in the I.D. book?

'Cause I'd personally love to see the ONI heights listed in the book, then 3 cloned ships for each merchant ship... one loaded, one unloaded, and one in the middle. Makes things a bit more realistic and problematic.

Having each show up in the I.D. book would be more than a little on the irritatin' side, however. Clicking three times to progress through one ship would drive me crazy.

tater

03-02-08, 02:13 PM

theluckyone17

03-02-08, 05:07 PM

I have plans to use this :D
I can feel the cursing and headache comin' on already :D. Sadly, that's a good thing :nope:.

CapnScurvy

03-03-08, 08:52 AM

Heheh. No, they don't. I can do this now, in fact. In Names.cfg you add new unit types. The ships appear, but they don't get a rec manual entry.

I have plans to use this :D It's in an old thread on adding ships in the mods forum.

;Merchant ships
Type100=Replenishment
Type101=Tanker
Type102=Cargo
Type103=Troop Transport
Type104=Coastal Vessel
Type105=Life Raft
Type106=Survivor
Type107=Environmental

Add:
Type108=CargoEmpty
Type109=CargoLoaded

You'd have to clone the ships, make the changes, then explicitly add those types into the campaign, then.

I have a version of this in my latest 1.2 "manual Ship Centered, Accuracy Fix" mod. The little easter egg I put in uses one of the Iceberg files for inputting the candy into the game engine. Whoever saw an iceberg in the South Pacific military field of operations anyway? North yes, South no.