Stadimeter: Where to put horizontal crossline?

[Drakken]

Allright, stadimeter problems have been discussed through and through in the last year. I think everyone, beginner and intermediate players alike (me included), still struggle with the stadimeter to the point of madness, especially when you cannot check your solution using the attack map (like in RFB+RSRD mod).

I was so frustrated with the wide ranges of estimation even at closer range, that I admit I have left the game in disgust. But now I am back...

I've been thinking... Since stadimeter measures angle, from which the range is infered, I was wondering if, perhaps, part of the problem was the position of the horizontal crosshair line in TBT/Attack periscope sight. Since a stadimeter measures the angle between the tip of the mast and the waterline, the periscope's crossline should be lined with the waterline. If not, when the double image is put on the tip of the highest part of the ship, of course the angle will be too short or too wide...

Am I making sense, or does the stadimeter ignore the position of the crossline when calculating the angle?

[Seminole]

I admit I have left the game in disgust. But now I am back...


I'll probably be pillaried as a heretic for saying so but you have alternatives to using impossible mods that give you grief. These range from not using them at all to using parts of them that appeal to you..which is what I do.

As for the stadimeter it has been discussed to death. I learned to use it by trial and error in the Artillery sub school and in campaigns. It can be ,often is, frustrating but it can be mastered with practice and patience.

There is an alternative to using it however:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=897224&postcount=167


Try the Dick O'Kane method. It is easy manual targeting. You can mix it up with full manual to relieve some of that frustration while you master the full manual. Doing that either saved me from Auto targeting or quiting all together...I'm not sure which...:lol:

You might also try learning the sonar attack and approach...doing so might help shed some light on the whole process. Believe it or not I have had a higher rate of success with sonar attacks than with stadimeter assisted attacks. :yep:

Good Luck...and stick with it.

[Drakken]

Will check the O'Kane method... but was it really used by Dick O'Kane historically? Seems too simple to be true. :hmm:

Just wondering, because it is really only with the range estimation that I struggle with, thus the damn stadimeter. :p

[Rockin Robbins]

the damn stadimeter. :p That's nice compared to some of the names I've called it. I understand in SH3 the line should be at the waterline, but in SH4 it does not matter. After all you aren't superimposing the masthead on the line, but on the waterline. That angle stays the same no matter what part of the field of view the waterline is in. Your horizontal centerline doesn't have any part of the calculation.

You can't use the attack map to check your setup? I use it all the time in TMO and I can't imagine RFB is harder. There is a line showing the lead angle of the shot. The end of that line closest to your target and extending ahead of it on the target's course (if you're set up right that is!) is the impact point. I don't have RFB installed so I can't check it out right now.

Did Dick O'Kane use the Dick O'Kane technique? Aaronblood and I have done enough research to know that he COULD have. What we do know from Wahoo and Clear the Deck is that O'Kane would follow the target around with the PK on making sure that the PK and the target were in agreement. In SH4 parlance, he switched to the attack screen and adjusted target range, course and speed until the PK perfectly tracked the target.

Then he sighted ahead of the target, turned the PK off, sent that bearing to the TDC and fired as juicy parts of the target "passed the wire." He mentioned approaching at 90º to the track also. Put all the pieces together and you get something very close to the Dick O'Kane technique.

The funny thing about it is that Aaronblood, gutted and I invented the technique first and then fished around for an appropriate name. Aaronblood was reading Clear the Deck and connected the dots. Although he may not have used the precise technique, it is appropriate that we named this devastating procedure after the master of the Torpedo Data Computer, Dick O'Kane.

[Drakken]

You can't use the attack map to check your setup? I use it all the time in TMO and I can't imagine RFB is harder. There is a line showing the lead angle of the shot. The end of that line closest to your target and extending ahead of it on the target's course (if you're set up right that is!) is the impact point. I don't have RFB installed so I can't check it out right now.

I have RFB v1.5 plus RSRD, and the Attack Map isn't keymapped anywhere, and not even accessible through the GUI. I have looked everywhere for a way to access it, but to no avail.

So until I can find a way to access the Attack Map with these two mods. I am basically blind as far as target solutions are concerned. :-?

[Frying Tiger]

I have RFB v1.5 plus RSRD, and the Attack Map isn't keymapped anywhere, and not even accessible through the GUI. I have looked everywhere for a way to access it, but to no avail.

So until I can find a way to access the Attack Map with these two mods. I am basically blind as far as target solutions are concerned. :-?

I use TM, but there's one trick I use to check out the solution without using the attack map. (I only use the attack map to judge the closest point of approach anyway) The tool tip that pops up over the torpedo gyro angle dial on the TDC gives the relative bearing. If your range and speed are close to correct, over time this bearing will track the direction on the scope to the target. I check each time I raise the scope (as it's coming up I put it on the generated bearing) to see if my solution is lagging or leading the target. The error can be speed or range (or they might cancel each other out!) but I can usually tell how close my solution is. I've been shooting over 75% on the first shot unless I get all happy and fire before I'm confident in my speed and range!

[Rockin Robbins]

@Drakken: Here's your solution there! It's nothing more than the Trigger Maru Keyboard layout, which is similar to the SH3 keyboard layout. Puts things on the function keys where you'd want them, especially including F6 is the attack map. I'm sure the attack map must be somewhere in their button bars. So here's my modded keyboard layout (http://files.filefront.com/Alternate+Key+Bindings7z/;9762884;/fileinfo.html), stolen fair and square from TM, with shift-i for crew identify target for good measure.

@Frying Tiger that's gotta be the greatest handle in all forums! You're just the latest in a long line of people who tell me that I HAVE to make that attack map tutorial video. You are the last straw. Ima gonna do it. Dick O'Kane would beat me about the head if I didn't. Checking periscope bearings is only part of the puzzle. The attack map consolidates all of the puzzle in one place, giving you to tools for almost 100% probability of hitting that shot. Proviso: you need to have enough time!

So you've shamed me into it. I've been busy playing with my Ubuntu setup, marveling at how much more I enjoy everything but playing SH4 on it. When games start being published for Linux, watch out Bill Gates! Linux is definitely ready for your desktop.

[Drakken]

Thanks, RR! I'll still test your Dick O'Kane technique later tonight, as in my current save game I know that there is a troop transport contact at a few hours distance. I'll arrive quite a few hours in front of his bearing, so I should be able to trace his range, calculate its speed, and plot a 90deg intercept course! :up:

Also, I have just read that the creators of RFB have integrated the "SCAF" mod, allowing the player to align the stadimeter angle-shooter to a more centralized location, rather than the highest mast. I don't know if the RFB+RSRD version has it included, however...

[Rockin Robbins]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the SCAF mod. It's way too easy for us to find the range of a target because our recognition manual has every ship in the ocean with fairly accurate measurements. Contrary to popular opinion, the Japanese Navy did not rent us the Akagi to take it to San Fransisco bay and measure the heights of all its masts, the length of the ship and take great pictures of. And they sure didn't rent us their merchants for the same purpose!

The fact is, our ONI manual was a by guess and by golly thing with a small subset of the ships likely to be encountered within its pages. If you found your target there, you could almost guarantee then information was wrong: wrong length, wrong masthead and cabin top heights, etc., because the Japanese knew what we knew. Then they changed funnels, altered mast heights, actually built scale model ships of larger ones so we would misidentify and get the range wrong by a factor of 3 or 4!

So you can see that the SCAF mod is THE OPPOSITE of the way we should be going. We sit around grousing about how we can get 100,000 tons in a cruise when very few subs did that during the entire wartime. Well, there's a large part of the answer. We cheat.

The real answer is to get rid of SCAF and introduce the Real Recognition Manual, with the exact crap our sub captains were forced to deal with in WWII. And watch those tonnage totals go down!:up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up:

This has been a paid announcement of the Dick O'Kane Targeting Company, seeking to cripple all other forms of targeting leaving players with no choice but to use the vastly superior Dick O'Kane targeting technique. There is method to our madness.

[Drakken]

But then, if the information are always wrong in the ONI Real Recognition Manual, how could anyone use the stadimeter in-game to set the range in the TDC in the game? We'd need some sort of means to calculate the mast height, wouldn't we?

After all, if the mast height is always bogus in the Manual, thus the calculation becomes automatically erronous all the time, and the player will find him or herself totally unable to guesstimate range save by manually entering each digit of the estimated range (which is currently unfeasable over 1500 yards or meters via the stadimeter).

In short, the tool is rendered even more useless to the point now it would be best just to remove it from the game altogether and estimate the range with the ruler/compass and manually enter it in the TDC. As for my hydrophone listener I always seem to get more than the double of the real range when I ping the target with the sonar. :doh:

[LukeFF]

The fact is, our ONI manual was a by guess and by golly thing with a small subset of the ships likely to be encountered within its pages. If you found your target there, you could almost guarantee then information was wrong: wrong length, wrong masthead and cabin top heights, etc., because the Japanese knew what we knew. Then they changed funnels, altered mast heights, actually built scale model ships of larger ones so we would misidentify and get the range wrong by a factor of 3 or 4!

So you can see that the SCAF mod is THE OPPOSITE of the way we should be going. We sit around grousing about how we can get 100,000 tons in a cruise when very few subs did that during the entire wartime. Well, there's a large part of the answer. We cheat.

The real answer is to get rid of SCAF and introduce the Real Recognition Manual, with the exact crap our sub captains were forced to deal with in WWII. And watch those tonnage totals go down!:up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up:
Well, as you probably know, that's exactly what were doing with RFB. As it turns out, the ONI mast/funnel/other height values were actually pretty accurate.

[Rockin Robbins]

Regardless of whether it was accurate or not, that is exactly what we should have. I know that real captains who were caught without radar just assumed that meant they were going to waste half of their torpedoes. It should be no better for us.

[Fearless]

Oh well, what's made up accurately in the ONI is most certainly offset with the number of faulty torpedoes around in the early part of the war. :yep:

[Drakken]

Just a feedback after trying the Dick O'Kane technique: It was a success! Despite the fact I was probably too close from my target due to post-flank inertia. Two eels on three have smashed through the bow of the Small Passenger ship, and it sank almost immediately! :up:

Indeed, it is much easier to touch a target with this technique. However, if it doesn't sink or the torpedoes miss, one must be ready to resort to classical manual targeting. But since we are now quite closer to the target, it shouldn't be very hard to pursue the target! :ping:

[Rockin Robbins]

Congratulations, Drakken on your great success. I'm one who says that there can be no such thing as being too close to the target unless you are too close for your torpedoes to arm.:arrgh!:

And please, NEVER limit yourself to one technique and say that's the best. The best technique is the one that will put the enemy on the bottom of the ocean now. It could be conventional, down the throat, Cutie on a Leash (although Ducimus seems to have nerfed Cuties in his latest release, making them relatively deaf), Dick O'Kane, up the poop chute or yet another technique that gives your success in any given situation. The more tricks in your bag of trick, the more successful you will be.

[Drakken]

Congratulations, Drakken on your great success. I'm one who says that there can be no such thing as being too close to the target unless you are too close for your torpedoes to arm.:arrgh!:
I suspect that, somewhere, the target slowed down.

When I first took the marks and compared to the nomograph it clearly showed 10 knots. That is the speed I computed in the TDC. However, when my solution was ready and I was in periscope immersion waiting in ambush, I clearly remember my sonar operator reporting that it was slowing. I should have immediately rechecked the target's speed, but as it stayed on course I thought there was no reason for it to slow down.

When it finally reached my targeted bearing I aimed below its chimney, but the two torpedoes hit its bow instead. Result, the torpedo were too fast for the target's speed. Probably slowed to 9 or 9,5 knots. :shifty:

And please, NEVER limit yourself to one technique and say that's the best. The best technique is the one that will put the enemy on the bottom of the ocean now. It could be conventional, down the throat, Cutie on a Leash (although Ducimus seems to have nerfed Cuties in his latest release, making them relatively deaf), Dick O'Kane, up the poop chute or yet another technique that gives your success in any given situation. The more tricks in your bag of trick, the more successful you will be.
I think that the Dick OKane is used best as a first attack approach against a lone target, especially when the weather makes it very difficult to use the TDC tools. Afterwards, it becomes difficult to use this technique as a second strike, but the closeness to the target makes it easier to use the stadimeter.

[CapnScurvy]

Sorry to be late to the discussion. As I have read the previous posts within this thread there seems to be particular bias towards one set of ideas as to what is realistic and what is not. I’m not surprised that RR and others feel that SCAF gives a player an unrealistic advantage. After all the idea behind it was to correct the inaccuracy of the stock range finding results when a manual Stadimeter reading was made. If you read the “Discussion” section of the SCAF (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=126016) thread you will have an idea what I found true within the game and what I did to correct this inaccuracy. What I find amusing is the logic behind a persons claim that a modification of accuracy is unrealistic to what would be true in real life, and this accuracy should be avoided.

When I was a police officer, if I found I had a weapon that shot to the left or right when I was calibrating it for accuracy, I would either fix the Damn thing or throw it out. A weapon is useless if it is inaccurate in its aim. When I checked the various mast heights within the stock game to the actual found distance a ship was positioned from the sub, I found 23 out of the 50 Jap nationality ships had mast heights off by greater than 1 meter in height. Several had mast heights differences much greater, like the Hiryu carrier having a stock mast height of 31 meters. The corrected mast height should be 36.3 meters. Or the Small Split Freighter with a stock mast height of 22.6 meters, when the accurate height of the mast should be 27.4.That’s a 4.8 meter difference. So what does a meter difference in mast height mean to range finding at a 1500 yard actual distance? The difference in range can be up to 50 yards +/- depending on the over or under measurement of the given mast height. It is little wonder that accurately placed firings can not be made with such figures.

When a point is made that this inaccuracy is “realistic”, I say BULL!!! Any Captain worth his salt wouldn’t put up with an inaccurate Recognition Manual. If he found the “book” wrong he’d rewrite the thing because his life and the crew’s life depended on accurate decisions. When he returned to port, you can bet your front tooth his findings were made known to the proper authorities. If they failed to act, there wouldn’t be a skipper down at the Officers Club for a week that wouldn’t have heard the findings and changes needed to be made. That gentlemen is realistic!!

What I find to be contradictory to some of you is the Recognition Manual should be inaccurate for the game, yet the Sonar gleaned range which is always accurate when you manually find it, is just fine. People have even gone to the point of making a “How to” video for the Sonar attack procedures. Look, this game can be as complicated as you care to make it, but to make it deliberately inaccurate is wrong and totally unrealistic.

[Rockin Robbins]

Cap'n where do I begin?

Any Captain worth his salt wouldn’t put up with an inaccurate Recognition Manual. If he found the “book” wrong he’d rewrite the thing because his life and the crew’s life depended on accurate decisions. When he returned to port, you can bet your front tooth his findings were made known to the proper authorities.
You hit the nail on the head there! They did. Admiral Lockwood requested that the Japanese rent us their vessels for accurate measurements so we could sink them properly. He relayed your policeman story and said that his captains refused to shoot any more torpedoes without accurate information. The Japanese replied that it sounded like the captains were on the right track.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Seriously, as a captain you would only know your torpedoes were missing. You would have no way of knowing if the masthead measurement in your recognition book were a meter off. Actually as an American sub captain in WWII, you wouldn't know what a meter was if it bit you. The reality of the situation was that the captains blamed themselves for their non-production and resigned in large numbers. Those who stuck it out found ways to hit targets in spite of the torpedo problems and inaccurate ONI information.

I’m not surprised that RR and others feel that SCAF gives a player an unrealistic advantage. After all the idea behind it was to correct the inaccuracy of the stock range finding results when a manual Stadimeter reading was made. If you read the “Discussion” section of the SCAF (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=126016) thread you will have an idea what I found true within the game and what I did to correct this inaccuracy.
You took Japanese ships out of the war zone to a carefully measured range and under perfect controlled conditions, measured the mast heights of each ship in the game. Some of them were grossly out of line. In that you are 100% correct.

To claim historical accuracy for the SCAF mod you have the burden of proving that the US military did exactly that with every Japanese ship. It did not happen. Our ONI ship recognition manuals were based on information released by the Japanese, reports of spies, overheard conversations (if any), rumor and conjecture. The Japanese knew what info was oficially released, so they took steps to ensure the information was no longer valid. Much of the information we collected was just plain wrong.

In our spoiled rotten society we are used to making a fuss and throwing a temper tantrum to demand what we want no matter how unreasonable or impossible that is. And our societies are so rich that for the most part we get what we demand. In World War II they realized that they were living under strict limitations and it was their personal responsibility to overcome any obstacles in their way with their own resources. They for the most part accepted that the information they got was the best they were going to get. They then found ways not to have to rely on the faulty data or just accepted the resulting misses as a cost of doing business, as O'Kane did when his radar broke. He didn't just run back to port because he had a boo-boo.

The captains who took their lumps and kept slugging are the ones we read about and admire today. The ones who wouldn't put up with the bad torpedoes or "wouldn’t put up with an inaccurate Recognition Manual" are the ones deservedly lost in the dustbin of history. Life ain't fair. Tough toenails!:arrgh!:

I don't have a problem with SCAF itself at all! Capn Scurvy did long research to correct every ship in the manual so it measured correctly, making your shooting as accurate as it can be. If you miss, you made a mistake.

I have a problem with it being in Real Fleet Boat, a mod which uses historical reality as its yardstick. If SCAF were plugged into TMO I'd be praising it. In Real Fleet Boat it belongs right next to the dilythium crystals and photon torpedoes.

[CapnScurvy]

You took Japanese ships out of the war zone to a carefully measured range and under perfect controlled conditions, measured the mast heights of each ship in the game. Some of them were grossly out of line. In that you are 100% correct.

To claim historical accuracy for the SCAF mod you have the burden of proving that the US military did exactly that with every Japanese ship.



What in the world are you ranting about? I have never said my figures are historically accurate. They are a correction to the game that has been flawed from day one. You may remember it was just about day two of it's American release that the first patch followed introducing the U.S Customary (should never had been called Imperial) measurement system, bringing new flaws to the game. But the fact remains this American Campaign game was put to press using the metric system!! Your right the metric system was hardly a thought in the minds of the American servicemen, but we are stuck with it within the game. But, at no time have I ever said or heard anyone else say (besides you) the SCAF figures are historically accurate

The SCAF figures will give greater accuracy when manually finding range but they are not guaranteed spot on. The Stadimeter uses the water line of the locked target ship to mark the reference point (mast top, funnel top, whatever) for figuring range. This reference point marked range can be greatly changed by just a couple of pixel lines off center. How wide is a pixel line? There are three to every vertical 'hash mark" on the scope's image, one at the top, center, and bottom of the hash mark. Just marking the waterline off by a couple of pixel lines can throw off the range to target by many yards (depending on where within the scope image the marked point is made, towards the top, center or towards the waterline of the view). Not to mention the variables of other inputs such as Speed or AoB. The mast height correction is far from "Cheating" as you have implied below.

So you can see that the SCAF mod is THE OPPOSITE of the way we should be going. We sit around grousing about how we can get 100,000 tons in a cruise when very few subs did that during the entire wartime. Well, there's a large part of the answer. We cheat.


I for one have always believed in using the game at its most realistic settings. Where you advocate using the map to give you a ship's position, I've pushed for turning off any map contacts with my High Realism Tutorial (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=128134). To put the target at a 90 degree angle from the sub is called common sense, not exclusive to the "Dick O'Kane's" method.

The captains who took their lumps and kept slugging are the ones we read about and admire today. The ones who wouldn't put up with the bad torpedoes or "wouldn’t put up with an inaccurate Recognition Manual" are the ones deservedly lost in the dustbin of history.

RR, you surely know that the only way you will every win a fight is by giving “lump’s” not taking them!! Any captain that didn’t learn by a near miss "lumping" didn’t last long enough to be written about.

[Rockin Robbins]

Capn, I have no problem with your mod. I have a problem with it being used in Real Fleet Boat. It is Real Fleet Boat that is supposed to be historically accurate. Your mod is under no obligation whatever to be historically accurate, or even, as the Dick O'Kane method is, historically feasible.

In a "gameplay" mod, such as Trigger Maru (which is my chosen mod as you know) your mod would be a great "table evener" in a mod filled with superman escorts and evil airplanes that bomb you at periscope depth. I'd applaud it and jump on my soapbox to sell it then!

My beef is not with you but with the RFB guys who adopted a great but inappropriate mod for their stated goal of historical accuracy. Playing RFB should be like shooting a pistol that has been bounced off concrete several times: wildly inaccurate and possibly dangerous.

My personal ideal for Trigger Maru would be very sharp teeth against very sharp teeth. My ideal of TM would be very receptive to using your mod and if you weren't so damned pissed at me right now and if I had anything to say about what was in Trigger Maru I'd be begging to use SCAF in it. I'd also eliminate torpedo problems with guidance, depth, circle runners, etc.

Now Ducimus is going to jump on me! I've got two of my friends ready to beat on me. Help!!!:rotfl::rotfl:

[joegrundman]

Miaow boys!
Anyway, you who need to know exact ranges are not real men:arrgh!:. I've actually stopped using the recognition manual at all, and guesstimate the mast height and ship length from observation only.

You can obtain perfectly accurate targeting data with inaccurate range measurements.

If for any reason you strongly doubt the accuracy of your range estimate, just point your boat in such a direction that the gyro angle is roughly 0. This will render the range estimate unimportant.

Then fire a spread, longitudinally (Dick O'kane) or fan shot

And then quit complaining:p