RFB, Accurate Manual Targeting and Realism [Archive]

CapnScurvy

01-07-09, 10:23 AM

I know a bit about Mast Heights, Manual Targeting, the relationship between the Stadimeter reading and the Position Keeper, and what results one gets with a poor firing solution (SCAF (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=126016)). May I say, with some of RFB 1.52's mast heights, you couldn't hit a bull's behind with a base fiddle!!! OK, so maybe you could if you were 600 yards from target; the torpedo's don't arm themselves before 400 yards!!

I've spent a lot of time testing, calibrating, retesting, finding manual range using the stadimeter, to know the stock mast heights are on average 25-35% incorrect. Enough so that one meter (the internal game files are all in meters) on average, will produce a little less than 50 yards of difference for a manual targeting solution compared to an automatically found one. This is with the range being taken at a standard 1200 to 1300 yard distance, and with an average mast height of 19-23 meters.

If you use the auto targeting feature you can stop reading now. The relationship of correct range finding with auto targeting compared to manual targeting is like day and night. The devs developed auto targeting to keep accurate track of targets for you. In this regard they did it very well. You can still screw up, but most of the hard work is done for you. In auto targeting the game doesn't use the mast heights to find range but rather object coordinates to find the correct relationship's between one another. The game keeps track of hundreds of objects, so finding the distance between just two is a piece of cake.

In manual targeting the player makes the inputs for a firing solution. The one I'm most concerned about is mast heights since this one figure is out of the players control (it is placed in the game through the ships .cfg files), and yet it makes part of the equation for manually finding accurate range when doing it yourself. The game crunches the numbers for you, but the solution is only as good as the input figures you use. So let's look at some of these mast height figures from RFB compared to stock; compared to what they would be if you wanted accurate range finding. I'm only going to list a few.

German Lrg Tanker using the tallest mast
RFB=28.0416 meters tall
Stock=29.6
Accurate=24.2

T3 Tanker (for those that plan to play the German side, more to come below)
RFB=28.956
Stock=29.6
Accurate=25.5

Medium Old Composite Freighter
RFB=27.432
Stock=29.3
Accurate=29.2

BUT here's where the differences really don't add up (edited note: these RFB figures are for Warship funnel heights, the other's are for mast heights. My mistake, read the post further down for comparing apples to apples)

Asashio DD
RFB=12.192
Stock=27.0
Accurate=27.1

Minekaze DD
RFB=10.2108
Stock=21.0
Accurate=21.75

Yamato BB
RFB=27.432
Stock=44.0
Accurate=42.5

Sub Chaser
RFB=7.62
Stock=18.0
Accurate=17.9

Lrg MineLayer
RFB=13.716
Stock=21.0
Accurate=28.56

And for those using the Allied ships for targets (edited note: again the RFB figures are for funnel heights, the others are showing mast heights. My mistake.

River DE
RFB=11.2776
Stock=19.5
Accurate=25.5

Fletcher DD
RFB=14.3256
Stock=27.8
Accurate=27.8

Brooklyn CL
RFB=20.4216
Stock=31.7
Accurate=32.4

Colorado BB
RFB=21.6408
Stock=42.2
Accurate=43.6

OK, that's enough for now. The point is if you plan to use RFB and manual targeting you had better get close enough to see the whites of their eyes or your going to be disappointed in the results. For some, this is "realism" as it's intended to be. I don't agree. This intentionally bends the muzzle of the gun and tells you for the sake of realism, to use it as is. This is like the old Don Knots movie playing his role as sheriff in the old west. He couldn't hit a thing if his life depended on it. In real life, if a sub Captain was issued the same weapon he would have corrected it because his "real life" and those of his crew depended on it.

This is a game, meant for entertainment, not frustration. You want frustration, chances are you can find plenty of it in your own "real life". To model the inability to accurately find range does not create realism, it creates frustration and doubt in your make believe abilities to simulate a sub Captain. If this was all that was found in "real life" during WWII we would have never won the war.

RFB creates "realism" by tweaking AI sensors, and ship physics; and in this case the ship mast heights that make a solution for firing. The efforts can be better served by removing the time compression from the game if that's what RFB is all about. We could spend an evening heading West and after 3 hours still look over our right shoulder to see Pearl.

banjo

01-07-09, 10:41 AM

I'm not currently using RFB, but didn't I see a mod for that mod concerning mast heights and the manual?

Donner

01-07-09, 10:54 AM

I'm not currently using RFB, but didn't I see a mod for that mod concerning mast heights and the manual?

You are correct.

From RFB 1.52 User's Manual (page 39):

Determining the Correct Distance Measure Reference Point

In order to reduce confusion while remaining true to the data presented in the ONI manuals, the following reference points are used for each class of ship. Note that one can also find this data when moving the mouse cursor over the check box in the recognition manual:

Merchant ships: top of the tallest mast
Aircraft Carriers and Aircraft Transports: flight deck
All Other Warships: top of the tallest funnel

jazzabilly

01-07-09, 11:22 AM

Paul Roberts

01-07-09, 12:16 PM

Paul Roberts

01-07-09, 12:17 PM

That's why I have a post-it note slapped to my computer monitor that reads:

Merch's: top of the tallest mast
w/ships: top of the tallest funnel
cv's/cve's: flight deck.

I'm hitting 'em, I just ain't sinkin' em....working on selective targeting skills....

I think RFB is set up so that precisely this reminder pops up when you hover the mouse over the Recognition Manual check box.

CapnScurvy

01-07-09, 12:23 PM

So here are some Warships funnel heights. Stock figures are removed since it doesn't offer anything other than the tallest mast height.

Asashio DD
RFB=12.192 at funnel
Accurate=11.5

Minekaze DD
RFB=10.2108
Accurate=11.2

Kuma CL
RFB=14.6304
Accurate=17.4

Fubuki DD
RFB=14.0208
Accurate=13.2

Shiratsuyu DD
RFB=13.1064
Accurate=9.6

Deck Heights

Taiyo CVE
RFB=13.716 at deck
Accurate=15.29

Casablanca CVE
RFB=12.4968
Accurate=13.9

Bougue CVE
RFB=16.4592
Accurate=11.3

As I've stated before, at an average distance of 1200 yards, 1 meter difference in height will produce about 50 yards difference in range. The further away you are the greater the inaccuracy. This occurs no matter where you place the Stadimeter as long as it relates to the correct spot the Ship_Name.cfg mast height figure is calculated for.

So, just to be clear: for warships, the "mast height" listed in the Recognition Manual is not really the height of the mast, but rather a number worked out so that placing the Stad line on the tallest funnel will calculate the target's correct range?

Yes, that's right. As long as the "mast height" figure in the "ship_name.cfg" file relates to a spot on the ship that is calculated for accuracy the position that you place the Stadimeter must use that spot for accurate range finding. Unfortunately, the game only recognizes one spot.

Rockin Robbins

01-07-09, 12:25 PM

If even CapnScurvy is getting confused about how RFB works, maybe it would be better to rethink the whole process. I wonder if it's not just too confusing to have many different height references depending on what kind of target. Why not make the top of the highest stack standard for all?

On the other hand, in real life they checked out the ONI manual and used the reference of their choice. The reason we are disposed toward the mast height is that the taller the reference point the more accurate the range measurement. If we accurately know the real height of the mast...

Donner

01-07-09, 12:26 PM

So, just to be clear: for warships, the "mast height" listed in the Recognition Manual is not really the height of the mast, but rather a number worked out so that placing the Stad line on the tallest funnel will calculate the target's correct range?

Correct. Some of the info is off in the RFB manual by design. I know of at least one warship in particular that doesn't follow the 'distance reference point' outline above. But by using sonar and/or radar, you can establish the proper reference point for stadimeter range.

I know it works because I have bagged this particular ship several times! :ping:

CapnScurvy

01-07-09, 01:02 PM

E.B. Fluckey

01-07-09, 01:37 PM

tater

01-07-09, 02:36 PM

That's great except for the fact that Real skippers had ONI, not superdetail models researched by japanese guys.

In other words, they GUESSED.

Read Alden's book. COmpare US skipper CLAIMS of ships sunk to what they actually sunk. 8000 ton CA? No, Akizuki DD. ONI? 120' mast height for the claimed CA, 75' mast height for "Unknown" Class DD.

That's not 1 meter off, it's 13.7m off---none the less, the target ended up on the seabed.

For merchants, we have ~16 in SH4. With the exception of the late war "standard types" (not yet in game), it was rare for more than 10 to be in any given class. Instead of 16 targets, we should have HUNDREDS. This is in sharp contrast to the ATO where the US built so many standard types that they literally became the majority of shipping seen. Add to that that much of the data for these hundreds of slightly different targets is not rated "A," but a lower B or C in intel quality, and the mast hieght becomes a GUESS. You eyeball a deck height, then have the periscope assistant set the height at 100' or whatever.

Given this guess work, a few meters off in mast height would be EXCELLENT estimation in RL.

To sum up:

In RL, they set the stadimeter to a height in feet.

They got this figure from either ONI (41-42, 208J, etc), or by guestimating it based on features they could make out.

In the latter case, their guestimate had to do with how big they thought she was. I've gone through Alden putting stats in a spreadsheet, guess what, they almost universally overestimated target size. In many cases, considerably. That means they almost universally overestimated mast height.

tater

01-07-09, 02:39 PM

Sorry, edit no worky.

I pulled the wrong ONI page. UK DD 75', claimed CL, 90'

4.57m difference, not the 13 I said above. Mea culpa.

tater

01-07-09, 02:55 PM

Random page spread in Alden. Note that I will only check ships that have been definitively linked to the actual target using japanese records for obvious reasons. Also, I'll round the tonnages.

APR 1944

Claim___________Actual
7200t AK.............3800t AK
3600t AK.............7600t AK
5500t AK.............216t XAM (yes, 216 tons, I didn't drop a zero)
3500t AK.............6900t AK
9300t AK.............2100t AK
7000t AK .............976t AK
4000t AK.............6600t AK
4000t AK.............5400t AK
5000t AK.............4900t AK (woot! finally, something close!)
5700t AK.............2300t XAP
4100t AK.............806t APK
7500t APK...........11,700 XAP
7500t AK.............5200t AK
9800t APK............8800t AK
900t ODD.............870t PF (ODD in ONI lingo, this is spot on)

I'd be willing to bet that the mast height different between a 7000 ton AK and a <1000 ton sea truck is pretty profound. ;)

<EDIT> BTW, that random page seems to put the lie to my saying they universally overestimated, lol. I still think that overall, this is somewhat true, these 2 pages out of 226 not withstanding. Of the above 15 stats, 8 are over-estimates, 2 are accurate, and 5 are underestimates. Of the misestimates the smallest error is 1000 tons, and the largest is 7200t. So if they were not universally overestimated, they were almost universally MISestimated. For the mast height issue there is no difference, since it's the relative difference that results in a mast height estimation error.

sckallst

01-07-09, 03:20 PM

Well, reality in any of this is hard to come by once you come to grips with the fact that no matter what in-game command decisions you make, you can always exit to Windows and reload without worry of dying. I think RFB does a pretty decent job of levelling the playing field despite it all.

That said, I think one point to be made is that if getting a good range on a target is a problem such that increased range will introduce increased error of an unacceptible degree into the firing solution, one obvious solution to the problem is to get closer to the target. If you can't you have a tougher decision to make. I think that is pretty realistic.

Active sonar, when safely available in a tactical situation, even if depending on the operators and not using a DIY approach, can be used in tandem with your stad readings. Get a few readings, set the PK in action, then ping once after a minute or two and check the report against the PK. Once you get radar on your boat, there is a good chance that if you've got it all plotted right and you plan on using the PK, you'll know if your stad reading is right as soon as you take it. There is even a good chance you will be able to manually target without the TDC using your radar-generated /passive sonar-verified plot without even coming up to look if . For further realism, keep a patrol log and document your experiences and findings as you go. That's how real intel is gathered. You'll know from experience when to take extra steps to verify range to target.

Another solution is to use largely range-irrelevant firing solutions, such as vector analysis methods. Get yourself on a converging course, and or two decent though not exact range estimates, along with an anayisis of the rate of bearing change can give you pretty much all the info you need to set up a decent spread.

Which brings me to another point: In game most of us fire spreads so that when it all comes together we get three or four perfectly placed holes in the target. I think most skippers in most situations fired spreads hoping that one or two of the fish might find the target given the uncertain nature of the data used to compute a solution.

Finally, most of us bag more targets in a couple of patrols than many boats fired at for the duration of the war. If we miss a few because of uncertain data (that problem being not unrealistic at all), I can live with that in the name of realism.

Not banging on anyone, as given the first point 'realism' is a pretty hard target to range, and we all try to get that 'enjoyment' out of it which is satisfiying to each of us. Just offering a different perspective on some of these range 'realism' issues.

CapnScurvy

01-07-09, 05:15 PM

Ok, I'm going to make a point about realism; how it relates or doesn't relate to the game.

1) There's the contention that figuring out manual targeting and all of it's aspects is simulating real life (least the best the game can do).

2) There's the fact that in real life not every firing is going to create a hit.

So to balance out game play some ringers are thrown in to throw off accurate range finding and create realism. My problem with this approach is that the figures your using will always be inaccurate. No matter how good you get in manual targeting, no matter how well you master navigation map plotting with the game settings for map contacts turned off. The ship you want to make range on will always give you an inaccurate reading because the height figure is incorrect.

There's also this idea that having the real life measurements will create realism. Measurements are put into the game because it says so from the ONI, so this makes for good game play?

First off why in the world would anyone think that the real life measurements are the least bit accurate within the game? Your assuming a lot to think a nautical mile is represented to be 1852 meters, and that it is accurately displayed on the navigation map. Or that an object that is 10 meters tall can be displayed through the periscope image to really be measured as 10 meters tall. The comparison of real life measurements to what is in the game is just a "representation". It's not accurate. To make them accurate the game 10 meters has to be calibrated to what is represented to be 10 meters, then you've got accuracy.

I know there are those that say we don't want the game to be too accurate. Well neither do I. The fact is if your using manual targeting there are all kinds of ways to screw up; forgetting to open the tube doors, not figuring the speed right, AOB off a bit. When you make a stadimeter reading you flinch off the left click of the mouse throwing off the mark, giving you an inaccurate range. The fact that the ships stadimeter height (where ever it is) shouldn't be one of them.

tater

01-07-09, 05:53 PM

Except that the stadimeter mast height was a GUESS in RL. The mast height SHOULD be one of those many possible errors, IMO.

I completely agree that it always being off is undesirable since sometimes a skipper might guess right. In the random stats I posted, 1 of the 15 attacks had the skipper picking the right target for sure. If ONI was right on the ODD mast height compared to reality, then THAT attack should have had an accurate mast height for sure. The other 14? Random. 1 was close to the right tonnage, and presumably coding, so maybe that had a similar height mast. The other 13 attacks would only have had the height right by pure luck since the target sizes were grossly misestimated in many cases.

A better solution would be to have the rec manual give NO mast heights, and have a series of dummy entries for mast heights in the recmanual. You then have a printed rec manual that only gives ranges for the mast heights for merchants (ie: "50-65'"), and one value for warships, but offset from the game mast height by the same % the ONI was off the RL ship (if it was). So if the RL height of a BB was 123', and ONI said 113', but the in-game ship is 140', then the game manual should say 128.6' so it's off the same amount.

We make the PDF manual such that there are loads of extra merchant ships, too. We also completely dump the pictures of ships taken from the game, and use crappy line drawings. We make some clones and alter them, too. Some of the ships in the manual will look close, but won't actually be in the game. If the ONI for the game ship is off, then it is also off in the pdf.

If you want to be more accurate than the manual, estimate deck heights, etc, and use the dummy mast height entries instead.

That'd be cool.

The simple reality check was mentioned already. Look at tonnages sunk by players using RFB/RSRDC—complete with flawed mast heights—and compare to reality. If players sink more than RL, then it's not a hardship. If the wrong mast heights result in lower tonnages than RL, then they need fixing.

BTW, I agree that manual targeting is NOT realistic. The player should make observations, and his junior officers should plot it for him. The automagical system of contacts on is also not realistic since it's 100% accurate. With those on and updating, you can shoot from the plotting map without ever looking out the scope in fact. Easily.

vanjast

01-07-09, 06:52 PM

LukeFF

01-07-09, 10:57 PM

Just an FYI for those that don't know: one doesn't have to use the mast height as listed in the recognition manual. You can actually set the mast height by dragging the outer ring on the range measurement tool until the transparent arrow lines up with the value you want to use:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/LukeFF/SH4/MastHeight.jpg

Rockin Robbins

01-08-09, 06:40 AM

For this reason (and the lock issue) I uninstalled RFB and installed TMO and SCAF. Manual targetting is a joy now. I tried installing SCAF and RFB without luck.

So until this is fixed I'm sticking with TMO, RSRD, and SCAF configuration. This works really well.

But has it occurred to you that manual targeting is not supposed to be a joy? It is supposed to be realistic, and that means that you are guessing a lot and much of your information is just plain wrong or misleading. Watch TMO move in this direction. Your joy is to be short-lived. Muahahahahahaha!!!!:rotfl:

Rockin Robbins

01-08-09, 06:46 AM

If even CapnScurvy is getting confused about how RFB works, maybe it would be better to rethink the whole process
Yep, my mistake to lead anyone down the wrong path. Lash me to the yard arm Double R, I feel a whoopin' is in order. I must be feeling full of piss and vinegar today to start this.

Except that in this case, Capn, I'm not whoopin' on you. I'm using you as the supreme example of someone who is incredibly familiar with manual targeting, but was confused by the RFB stadimeter procedure. I'm suggesting that shows RFB needs to think about returning to a single standard for all targets.

Here's the question for you. If the top of the tallest stack is half the height of the tallest mast (probably it is more like 2/3), doesn't that have implications for the range accuracy? For instance, if at 1000 yards a one pixel error made a 50 yard error in range at the masthead, wouldn't that be proportionally greater for the lower elevation of the tallest stack, yielding a range error of 75 to 100 yards with the same one pixel measurement error? There doesn't seem to be a free lunch anywhere around here.

CapnScurvy

01-08-09, 04:26 PM

Here's the question for you. If the top of the tallest stack is half the height of the tallest mast (probably it is more like 2/3), doesn't that have implications for the range accuracy? For instance, if at 1000 yards a one pixel error made a 50 yard error in range at the masthead, wouldn't that be proportionally greater for the lower elevation of the tallest stack, yielding a range error of 75 to 100 yards with the same one pixel measurement error? There doesn't seem to be a free lunch anywhere around here.

Boy-O-boy Rockin R, I had to read this question a time or two to understand what your asking. For a minute I was picturing a similar question "If Tom leaves his house and heads west for 22 minutes at a speed of 15 mph, and Fred leaves his house and heads east....................." then I snapped out of it!!

Yes, there are implications for range accuracy. There are a couple of factors that make the difference. One is the height in the periscope image when the Stadimeter is being used. The higher up from the water line the stadimeter second image is placed, the less difference in range there will be. The game was developed with this in mind to simulate a target farther away will appear smaller in the scope image. This is to make it more difficult to get a correct range when the target is farther away. When the target is nearer, it fills up more of the screen, and the difference in one pixel line to another is less when making a stadimeter reading.

The second factor is the actual Mast Height figure (from this point on I'm going to just call it height, it really doesn't need to be the mast at all). I found that differences in adjacent pixel lines were made do to the size of the height measurement. The larger height measurement created less range difference between adjacent pixel lines. The smaller the measurement the greater the difference. I believe the devs did this to balance out the playing field, to make each ship as equal in range finding, even though on ship is small the other is large.

So the truth is there is almost a wash between the two factors, one balances out the other. Here's an image of what I'm talking about, just read the green highlights for now.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/SH4Img2009-01-08_111909_074.jpg

This image displays the first factor I mentioned, the stadimeter placement within the scope image. The differences are gradual from the waterline to the top. So don't misunderstand my poor drawings, thinking the pixel line differences only occur within the green marks.

An example for the second factor, the height measurement. A figure of 10 meters could produce a difference of 6 meters to 1 meter difference between adjacent pixel lines. The 6 was toward the waterline, the 1 towards the top of the above image. For a height measurement of 25 meters, the differences were doubled. The lower towards the waterline you would get 12 meters range differences between pixel lines, the higher you would get 2 meters difference.

You may wonder where these points were taken. Although RFB did away with the horizontal center line, there are three larger hash marks above the center of the scope. I used those three hash marks to check the differences within the scope image. Believe me, the closer to the water line you get the much larger the difference becomes. The differences of 6 meters or 12 jump real quick as you lower the stadimeter mark point.

I'm going to kill two birds with one stone so I have a reason to point out the red marks on the first image. You'll notice the Base Height is set to the RFB figure of 16.5 meters. I had just completed a range check and the PK shows the found manual range as 2605 meters. That's all fine and good except the actual range to target was 1748 meters!! That's an 857 meter difference off target. Did I say you couldn't hit a bull in the as.................... Yep, I did. And no you couldn't!! Oh yea, if you would shoot at point blank range, but I don't want to kiss 'em.

The following image shows the corrected height as 11.1 meters. The PK now shows a found range to target of 1757 meters, just 9 meters off. Anything under 15+/- meters off, is right on target, the game really won't calculate it any closer.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/SH4Img2009-01-08_123600_023.jpg

I thought I'd show you what one adjacent pixel line will do when using the same corrected height.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/SH4Img2009-01-08_123624_079.jpg

Can you see the difference in the position of the stadimeter waterline mark? That's one pixel line. I mentioned the horiziontal hash marks on the scope, there are 3 pixel lines to the thickness of one hash mark line.

A 43 meter difference with a height measurement of 11 meters over a distance of a little over 1700 meters. I know you guys think that height measurements shouldn't be dead on, because this gives us too much accuracy, but for a long time I've known there isn't any way fool proof range finding will occur. Can you see what a difference would be if the seas were rough, it's dark, you have an escort breathing down your neck, you miss the speed by a knot, or the AoB is off a bit. Good height measurements do not guarantee a thing.

And one last thing, if RFB uses official documents like the OMI to input base height measurements in game, why is the Bogue American Carrier not correct? We don't know what our own ships heights are? And don't feed me some line of bull about real life would have given false information to the enemy as standard practice!!

A couple of other range inaccuracies in an approximate distance of 1700 meters.

Victory Freighter was off 95 meters too long

Fletcher DD 138 meters off target too short

Somers DD off 91 meters too long

Wasp CV off 152 meters too long

River Class off 281 meters too short

Hogs Island Freighter off 213 meters too long

OK, long enough for now.
VANJEST, YOUR TIMES COMING. I GOT A RESPONCE FOR YOU 'OL BUDDY. :rotfl:

tater

01-08-09, 05:08 PM

What difference would a US CVE make, who'd shoot at her? If it was a u-boat, you'd need to know what height the germans thought she had. I've never looked at the US ships at all, myself (they ain't targets).

When Shinano was attacked, they had no idea how big—or tall—she was. The skipper made some observations, perhaps assumed the island was XX feet tall, then set up the shot.

I agree that you should have a fairly accurate range under the assumption that the skipper has the actual height of the target. In RL, this was simply not the case. GIGO.

ONI has Shokaku's deck as ~50' above the waterline with a 21' draught. More accurate sources have ~56' for the deck, with a 29' draught. That's ~2m difference, and assumes an average draught. If the ship wasn't at that load (which is a special case) the deck height could be off by another couple meters easily.

So again, in RL, you'd pretty much be guaranteed to never have the right height data from your rec manual. For virtually every single attack, if you wanted an accurate range, you'd need to make estimates yourself about the target's height. Have to.

Fully loaded? Overloaded? High in the water (unloaded)? Ship look the same as pre-war images (some perhaps 10+ years old)? The ship's draught being spot on is a special case. If they use an average, half the time it should be lower (a few meters, perhaps), half higher. Virtually never the average itself.

ONI serves as a reference, then you adjust the height based on what you see.

So, under the assumption that as skipper you either perfectly estimate the height, or you have that rare target where the height you get from a rec manual is 100% accurate, then yeah, the error should be as small as the game allows.

CapnScurvy

01-08-09, 10:47 PM

What difference would a US CVE make, who'd shoot at her? If it was a u-boat, you'd need to know what height the germans thought she had. I've never looked at the US ships at all, myself (they ain't targets).

What the hell does it matter wether it's American, Japanese or a floating bathtub?!? The range found on it is off by over 850 meters, over a distance of only 1700.

CapnScurvy

01-08-09, 11:54 PM

GIRLS... If you payed more attention to myMOD you'd
see the light.:know:

Here we go.
Look at this 'orrible image' below... Wot do you see ???

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v297/vanjast/ObsSextant1.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v297/vanjast/ObsSextant1.jpg)

If you orrible lot opened your eyes, you'd notice that the vertical scale was not linear (that's if half you retards knew what this meant). So asumming you lot had half a grey matter between yourselves, WOT can you tell me about the Horizontal Scale?

I'd leave up to you PRATTS to work it out.......
:rotfl:

Let's see, you write like you just woke up from a drunkin' binge and you think you can tell us a thin or 2? Well shut your pie hole for a damn minute, you might just learn sumpin.

You got pictures? I got pictures. If you can keep one eye open Vanjast take a look at my pictures. See anythin??

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/SH4Img2009-01-08_111016_226.jpg

You'd be right to say it's a boat. Smack in the middle of the periscope. What's that? You want to know what are those red lines fer?? Very good lad, your quite the sharp fellow. Those lines show the range to target after taking a manual stadimeter reading using the RFB Base Height of 27.4. Hope I'm not going too fast for you.

You know though, there's a problem with the range Vanjast. The actual true distance to the target is 1577 meters. That's an error difference of 213 meters. Yep, your right, that's a couple of football fields put end to end. Did you ever play football Vanjast? Every get knocked in the head lad??

Well lets see, I've got another picture for you.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/SH4Img2009-01-08_120445_250.jpg

This picture looks a bit different. The boat is waaaaay up in the top of the scope. We were still able to get a stadimeter reading on it though and guess what? The found range is 1577 meters. That's right on the money!!!! 'Course you probable noticed that the Base Height is set at 24.2 meters, sure you did. Can't get notin' past you!! Even though it's waaaaay up on the top of the screen.

Well, how about down on the bottom. Surely that must give some kind of a problem for getting a stadimeter reading!!

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/SH4Img2009-01-08_120546_180.jpg

Nope, the bottom of the scope doesn't change a thing. Still reads the stadimeter just fine, aaaaaand the range to target is still the same. Dead on. Must have been the height change don't you think. HEY!!! ........... Vanjast, Your still with us ain't ye?

Here, I'll throw in one of these to make it all better :rotfl:

jazzabilly

01-09-09, 12:43 AM

tater

01-09-09, 02:01 AM

What difference would a US CVE make, who'd shoot at her? If it was a u-boat, you'd need to know what height the germans thought she had. I've never looked at the US ships at all, myself (they ain't targets).
What the hell does it matter wether it's American, Japanese or a floating bathtub?!? The range found on it is off by over 850 meters, over a distance of only 1700.

Because you'd never be shooting at it. If I were going over mast heights to correct them, myself, I'd not have even bothered looking at the US ships.

Just like I work on IJN ASW capability, but not USN. Why? Because I don't interact with USN A/S forces in a fleet boat.

tater

01-09-09, 02:05 AM

Personally, I'm unloading RFB because I don't buy the realism claim. I personally don't believe that many merchantmen took 5 hits (and detonations) from torpedoes and remain afloat.

I personally know several veterans of the merchant marine, and next Remembrance Day (if they're still around) I will ask them how many ships they knew of could take 4 torpedoes and stay afloat. Not trying to be a pill, but it just doesn't add up.

I find that the contact fuses work roughly 10% of the time, the magnetics about 80%. On the last patrol I was forced to use 4 torpedoes on one (large old/split merch) and the large modern I tried to sink took 5 hits and detonations and stayed afloat.

I don't play games to be frustrated. I give up! Sorry, RFB cats. I really love most parts of it, but I find the damage model a bit of a stretch.

How long are you waiting for them to sink before giving up? I rarely see any merchant survive even 2 hits in RFB right now. Of course I'm willing to wait.

BTW, FWIW, if you look at all the US submarine attacks during the war, they fired spreads. Later in the war, bigger spreads since targets were rare, so they'd make sure. 5k ton merchies having the entire nest let lose on them. In RL, maybe 2 hit and she sinks. Targeting is so rediculously easy in the sim (even on manual) that we'd fire 6 and most would hit, then we'd cry about wasting fish :)

tater

01-09-09, 02:11 AM

Wow, a 3m base height difference is 200m range change? 3m is nothing. If they lashed a radio aerial to the main mast, that'd add 3m alone (a possible event if it was one of the 2/3 of ships commandeered by either the IJN or IJA).

Personally, the big issue to me is that we have so very few ships, that I can pop the scope up, and instantly ID the ship at this point. Wither perfect range finding... I might as well put magical targeting on and be done with it.

BTW, how do you find the range on the rear Kasagisan?

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o222/tatersw/SH4/merchies.jpg

LukeFF

01-09-09, 02:29 AM

Personally, I'm unloading RFB because I don't buy the realism claim. I personally don't believe that many merchantmen took 5 hits (and detonations) from torpedoes and remain afloat.

I personally know several veterans of the merchant marine, and next Remembrance Day (if they're still around) I will ask them how many ships they knew of could take 4 torpedoes and stay afloat. Not trying to be a pill, but it just doesn't add up.

I find that the contact fuses work roughly 10% of the time, the magnetics about 80%. On the last patrol I was forced to use 4 torpedoes on one (large old/split merch) and the large modern I tried to sink took 5 hits and detonations and stayed afloat.

I don't play games to be frustrated. I give up! Sorry, RFB cats. I really love most parts of it, but I find the damage model a bit of a stretch.

1. This thread isn't about damage modeling in RFB.

2. You've obviously not been keeping up with changes we've made recently and are testing with regards to ship damage modeling.

Blood_splat

01-09-09, 02:30 AM

I remember reading Clear the Bridge and sometimes they just had to make an educated guess on what type of ship they sunk. They didn't just see a ship and instantly ID it.

tater

01-09-09, 02:47 AM

CapnScurvy, you have bent my path a bit. I still want exactly what I said before, that the heights are just as inaccurate as the ONI stuff our skippers had. What I realize now is that we need to make damn sure the SH4 models are accurate in height, or we need to scale any inaccuracies in ONI to the SH4 model.

Ie: Pretend SH4 model of Ise might be 103' high, but the RL Ise was 130 (made up number), and ONI said 123 (it does). So if we use straight ONI, we're 7' short of RL, but 20' taller than the SH4 model, lol. Those were made up numbers, but you get the idea. If the SH4 model was 103' in this case, the SH4 manual should use 97.5' (same % off).

<S>

tater

CapnScurvy

01-09-09, 08:54 AM

I understand what your saying tater, and that makes sense to me. You use the ONI as a guide to mimic the percentage of inaccuracies in it's measurements with how the game sees its measurements and in-turn create the same percentage's for the ultimate outcome for correct (or incorrect) range. That's a good way of looking at the problem of just throwing real life numbers in and thinking they will be close in game.

I used the Bogue CV for the example earlier because for one, the height measurement for the deck had to come from some sort of document (I don't know what LukeFF used but for the American side to not know the correct height of the deck of their own carrier is surprising).

And two, if that really is the correct height for the carrier deck why doesn't the game produce an accurate manually found range to it, at a reasonable distance?
1700 meters is not too far from the point the last prep for firing would take place. At this point in the attack the last thing you want is to be off as much as 200 meters let alone 800. Unless inaccuracy is what you hope to achieve.

My point has been that to deliberately throw off numbers for the sake of creating a more real life simulation is (in my opinion) wrong. Do it through other means like creating the atmosphere of doing extra tasks. Doing manual plotting of ship positions in prep for attacks could be one. But to permanently have the numbers skewed so you would never correctly hit a target at a reasonable range is again (in my opinion) wrong.

vanjast

01-09-09, 09:11 AM

AVGWarhawk

01-09-09, 09:21 AM

Personally, I'm unloading RFB because I don't buy the realism claim. I personally don't believe that many merchantmen took 5 hits (and detonations) from torpedoes and remain afloat.

I personally know several veterans of the merchant marine, and next Remembrance Day (if they're still around) I will ask them how many ships they knew of could take 4 torpedoes and stay afloat. Not trying to be a pill, but it just doesn't add up.

I find that the contact fuses work roughly 10% of the time, the magnetics about 80%. On the last patrol I was forced to use 4 torpedoes on one (large old/split merch) and the large modern I tried to sink took 5 hits and detonations and stayed afloat.

I don't play games to be frustrated. I give up! Sorry, RFB cats. I really love most parts of it, but I find the damage model a bit of a stretch.

Yeah, the new patch does wonders. A couple of torps well placed does the trick. As far as the contact fuses.......that is a strange % you have. I sent out four the other night. 2 duds and 2 good hits. 50%. At the beginning of the war, the mark 14 contact was not dependable either but more dependable obviously later on. I have sunk the super tankers with two torps. Have you installed the new patch?

AVGWarhawk

01-09-09, 09:26 AM

I remember reading Clear the Bridge and sometimes they just had to make an educated guess on what type of ship they sunk. They didn't just see a ship and instantly ID it.
That seals the deal for me. The ONI was not dead on accurate. Simple as that. One might want to ponder the doctrine to get within 1500 yards of the target before firing. One might think that getting within 1500 yards reduces inconsistency in ONI and human error. I can honestly say, the ONI presently in the game is just fine. Also, we are looking at pixels. What is a few pixels amongst friends or the target going down?

AVGWarhawk

01-09-09, 09:50 AM

On a personal note, giving me a dead nuts accurate ONI manual and dead on perfect solutions all the time will ruin just about any sense of accomplishment in sinking a vessel. It becomes mechanical and boring quickly just like auto target. Use the methods peddled by Rockin Robin, use the stadimeter. Us your imagination.

Leave me manual alone:smug:

tater

01-09-09, 11:11 AM

No comments on my merchant steaming unloaded in the image above?

:)

What I will do deliberately is to alter the masts, mwahahaha. ;)

CapnScurvy

01-09-09, 11:29 AM

Yeah I was plastered...:doh:
sorry about the name calling.. frustration...:damn:

and it's still the same thing... If the scope is not scaled correctly the firing solutions will not be accurate in manual targeting..
:cool:

Thanks for the come back Vanjast, ........we'll kiss and make up later. :o

I too feel there's something amiss in the camera file in regard to scale for the periscopes. I've had a hunch for quite some time but since I know very little about the AngularAngle parameter and how it relates to actual display I've left it alone. I know RFB's AngularAngle figure is different from stock. In a good way or not I don't know.

I can tell you the cameras.dat Periscope Optical, Min & MaxZoom=parameters don't effert range finding one bit. It has no effect to calculating accurate range using the stadimeter. What it does do is bring in the view to a better, closer image and the marking of the stadimeter waterline is much easier. I realize that if you wanted to use the scope hash marks for making range (as the SH4 manual says) the scope image and the camera.dat parameters need to be in sync. I guess that's what your mod does?

CapnScurvy

01-09-09, 12:18 PM

No comments on my merchant steaming unloaded in the image above?

:)

What I will do deliberately is to alter the masts, mwahahaha. ;)

OK, I think your fishing, I'll bite.

Looks like the boys are out of the water a bit. So your making my point that if I have an accurate height measurement that will give me dead on range finding, say for a loaded ship. The unloaded ship will be differently displayed (being higher out of the water) and create an inaccurate range finding from the original. That's because the game only offers one height measurement, no matter what the ship displacement may be.

So, isn't that another variable that gets thrown into the mix pointing out there's no certainty involved with dead on measurement figures?

Along with:

1. The Stadimeter pixel difference discussed a couple of posts back.

2. The fact that the ships are heaving and thrashing about making a good stadimeter range finding difficult.

3. The Speed and AoB figuring.

4. The lack of a Navigation Map that shows targets course and positions(you realism purists do play with the "No Map Contacts Updates" option set on don't you?).

5. The dud torpedoes, and an escort that's breathing down your neck.

6. At night, when you can hardly make out the ship 1000 yards ahead; or fog.

7. You asked earlier

BTW, how do you find the range on the rear Kasagisan?
That too is a problem (you don't) if you can't get a lock on the target when another is in the way. Neither can you bend the torpedoes under the first one to get to the second.

8. That brings up another variable that's thrown in. When a merchant ship is coming at you at say a 20 or 30 AoB which mast do you use. The front or the back? Each one will give you a different range reading.

Probably a few more variables that don't make accurate measurements a done deal. Either the fish broke the hook, our I'm landed. Your move tater head :p

tater

01-09-09, 12:52 PM

I was just thinking that if you use the rec manual, instead of dragging your own mast height for unloaded version, you'd have a grossly wrong range.

As for map contacts... that's tough. From a realism standpoint my crew should be doing the plotting based upon MY measurements (even if they are wrong). OTOH, the map contacts are 100% accurate. The only choice is unfortunately to plot yourself, even though this is too much of a workload, frankly. It's unrealistic either way.

I'm thinking of a mod that might well add laden and unladen ships in addition to mast and other variations I'm already working on (based on variants noted in ONI, plus some real examples). Unfortunately, their is almost zero control over the rec manual—and the rec manual is terribly thought out, IMO, it's not at all the way it should be arranged, I should never have to see a Liberty Ship, etc in the jap ship rec manual.

LukeFF

01-10-09, 01:05 AM

I used the Bogue CV for the example earlier because for one, the height measurement for the deck had to come from some sort of document (I don't know what LukeFF used but for the American side to not know the correct height of the deck of their own carrier is surprising).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/LukeFF/Bogue.jpg

tater

01-10-09, 02:25 AM

Looking at the in-game pictures, the game version sits VERY much deeper in the water.

msalama

01-10-09, 02:40 AM

It's unrealistic either way.

Hmmm... is there a way to make visual contact map updates disappear and still retain radar / sonar contacts? I would _think_ that'd be more realistic... :hmm:

LukeFF

01-11-09, 04:23 AM

Looking at the in-game pictures, the game version sits VERY much deeper in the water.

I think so. I just ran a test, and the Bogue comes out with a margin of error of about +445 yards (i.e., the range is shown as being that much greater than the true range). Given that this ship would only ever be targeted by the Axis, I think that is fine, since I doubt they would have had more accurate targeting type data available to them for a ship such as this.

Rockin Robbins

01-11-09, 05:29 PM

When Shinano was attacked, they had no idea how big—or tall—she was. The skipper made some observations, perhaps assumed the island was XX feet tall, then set up the shot.
Tater:

Enright left his radar on through the entire encounter and used radar range in his attack. No sane skipper used the stadimeter unless there was absolutely no alternative.

tater

01-11-09, 07:50 PM

True, cause it wasn't terribly accurate ;)

tater

Rockin Robbins

01-11-09, 09:25 PM

Also, field distortion, such as CapnScurvy shows in the game, was rampant in lenses used for submarine and tank periscopes. I'm an amateur astronomer and our first wide field eyepieces were refugees from tanks. They were of Erfle design and gave us incredible (for the time) wide apparent fields of about 60º. Unfortunately, there was a cost: incredible, nausea inducing field warpage! It made the field warpage in the SH4 periscope look like excellent optics. I have one of those "Awful Erfles" and if you look at the moon it looks like it survived (or maybe didn't survive) a collision with a brick wall. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the field in a real sub periscope wasnt MUCH worse than CapnScurvy's couple of pixels anomaly from the SH4 periscope.

A linear field isn't one of the things I would expect from WWII optics. I wouldn't expect a flat field either. Actually I would expect plain and simple junk.

LukeFF

01-11-09, 11:22 PM

A linear field isn't one of the things I would expect from WWII optics. I wouldn't expect a flat field either. Actually I would expect plain and simple junk.
The war patrol reports are full of defects related to the periscopes. Excessive vibration, lenses fogging up, complaints about the scopes being too short for the job, etc., were all commonplace grievances filed by the skippers in their reports on the boat's mechanical condition. Trust me, we have it very good when it comes to equipment reliability in this game.

AVGWarhawk

01-13-09, 09:45 PM

To put some closure on the ID manual. From "The Depths of Courage", Flint Whitlock and Ron Smith:

"Following Sealion II's departure, Tang sailed to Korea, where the crew would get the chance to celebrate the Fourth of July in typical American fashion, complete with fireworks. At dawn, a large ship hove into view. "I liked a part of what I saw," said O'Kane, "the massive bow, broad superstructure and bridge, the great, heavy masts. Perhaps we had forgotten what a big ship looked like, but everything suggested an auxilairy warship. It would take a broader angle, uncovering more details, before we could further identify her." A quick study of ONI-14, the Warship Recognition Manual, brought a difference of opinion as to what their target might be. Some of the officers said it was the Kuroshio Maru, but O'kane wasn't so sure: he thought it might be a conversion to a seaplane tender or perhaps an aircraft transport."

What Tang really could not identify beyond a shadow of a doubt was the Asukazan Maru. 6,886 tons sunk on nothing but know-how!

On the same patrol:

"The range to target closed to 7,500 yards-a little over four miles. As the ship zigged and presented her flank to Tang, the identification party leafed quickly through the silhouette book but could find no match. It would be learned later that the ship was the 7,500 ton Yamaoka Maru, Laden with 7,000 tons of iron ore and heading from Tientsin to Kobe. "

With nothing but a ship in his scope, O'Kane did the deed with what he knew and visually could see. It is highly unlikely his solution was dead nuts accurate. Specifically when his ONI manual was only good for toilet paper on this patrol. Dead on accuracy made little difference in getting the job done as witnessed in this passage from the patrol report. A dead on recon manual makes for an easy game. The fog of war makes for an imaginative game and one that develops a sense of accomplishment.

Read this thread here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1025180&postcount=1

Develop a second or third line of solution to a sinking. Trust your eyes and instinct :up:

heartc

01-14-09, 05:55 AM

And two, if that really is the correct height for the carrier deck why doesn't the game produce an accurate manually found range to it[...]

My point has been that to deliberately throw off numbers for the sake of creating a more real life simulation is (in my opinion) wrong. Do it through other means like creating the atmosphere of doing extra tasks. Doing manual plotting of ship positions in prep for attacks could be one. But to permanently have the numbers skewed so you would never correctly hit a target at a reasonable range is again (in my opinion) wrong.
The point is that in real life, they didn't gather range, AOB and speed in a single initial observation just like that and had an instant firing solution. In reality, they would enter their initial guesstimates and then OBSERVE the target to increase the accuracy of their solution. That means they would compare the observed relative target bearing over time to the relative target bearing the TDC put out. The fun thing is except for a prolonged period of time or unless your own boat changed positions dramatically, it almost doesn't matter which of the three factors (AOB, speed or range) you would then "correct" in order for the observed and generated relative bearing to match. But most easily it is done by "correcting" the target speed setting.
When you target a specific point on the target ship, and this point is neither "outrunning" the relative bearing generated by the TDC, nor is it lagging behind, then you have a VALID firing solution, since the gyro angle is then the proper lead angle.

Say, because of inaccurate masthead height data on the Jap ship you come up with a range that is actually too short. What this would mean for your initial solution is that the generated relative bearing on the TDC would slowly outrun the actual relative target bearing. You observe this, and "correct" the speed value in the TDC by say -0.5 knots (adjust it manually in the speed dial). The more the generated and observed bearings stay close to each other, the more accurate the solution is (optimum is when they stay identical), and depending on how far out you are, it will be accurate enough for a hit. They did like to get within 1500 yards or less in real life.
What is important too is that just before taking the shot, you have to take one last actual relative bearing measurement, so that when there is an error in your solution, it will be "reset" to zero for that moment and only develope anew from there, which is better than taking the shot based on an already further developed bearing error. Does "This is a firing observation. Match bearings and shoot!" say anything to you? It's exactly based on the process I described.

This might all sound much more complicated than it really is. If you picture that process and try it out in game a few times, you will see how easy it really is. The important clue here is to play with the target speed input value to make the generated bearing match the observed bearing, so that they are identical (optimum) or only very slowly walk away from each other over a period of time, then take one last bearing measurement before the shot.

What makes this process more complicated than it was in real life is SHIV's extremely GAMEY data gathering mechanics. Since this game was out I was wishing / demanding for a way to enter the target data, and especially the observed target bearing, in a more simple and direct way by - well - simply entering it in the TDC. There should be some sort of MARK button when you have the target in your sights for the relative target bearing to enter into the TDC, just like iRL the skipper called out "MARK" when he wanted to enter it. In SHIV, bearing gathering is tied to the range measurement. It will only enter into the TDC when you take a range measurement of the target. That is beyond ridiculous. The game is almost forcing you to take the observation data in its gamey way, which makes correction of individual data extremely cumbersome. I know you can turn the bearing dial on the TDC directly, too, but the input as well as the readout on that dial is way too inaccurate due to the small size of the device. You CAN get a digital relative bearing readout by hovering the mouse over the 12 o'clock position on the inner ring of the bearing dial though (otherwise this whole method would be impossible to apply). But for entering a bearing you have to take a gamey range measurement, which is stupid.
iRL there was a readout directly on the periscope mast in the conning tower, exactly to make it more accurate because of the bigger scale then, the XO for example would read it when the Skipper said "MARK".

In SHI you could enter all the data manually and directly into the TDC, with the bearing readout being a digital number, only way to make it accurate enough on a PC monitor, unless the dial is about the size of the whole monitor. Even though SHI wasn't "designed" to use full manual targetting, you could do it better there than in SHIV. Some smart guy back then came up with the masthead heights of the ships. You could then get the range by actually calculating it based on the angle from the horizontal plane to the masthead, guesstimate speed with an initial value, and enter bearing simply by hitting a mark button when the target was in the crosshairs. SHI (wrongly) used target course instead of AOB, which you could gather from the overhead map (godseye view...) or calculate it by adding or subtracting the observed AOB to own heading +/- 180° (which was highly inaccuarte though because SHI was actually 2D, and the ships AOBs would change suddenly in roughly 10° increments lol!). Then the same process applied: Comparing generated TDC bearing to observed bearing, adjusting target speed, last bearing update before firing, shoot.

I wish there was a mod for SHIV that would enable a more direct TDC interface like in SHI instead of the gamey and in fact restricted one we have now, which almost forces the gamey "notepad" data gathering process on you. But I guess this stuff is hard coded. In their quest to make the manual firing method available to people who don't REALLY know what they are doing and why, the devs came up with a solution that makes it more difficult in fact than it was in real life. SHIII allowed for more direct inputs in the Torpedovorhalterechner, and getting target bearing was not tied into range gathering, which is a really retarded way to do it.

AVGWarhawk

01-14-09, 08:25 AM

Oh definitely! A more interactive TDC would be key!

CapnScurvy

01-14-09, 10:34 AM

Heartc, you've made a very good point regarding TDC interaction. I haven't played SHI in so long I forgot what I liked about it. May have to dust it off to remind myself. I know the eye candy is great with the newer versions, but I still remember there were some game play aspects that were outstanding with the older games. It's like the developers knew they had to make game mechanics worth while since the graphics were only so well developed.

I remember one of the neat game play mechanics for Epyx's Sub Battle Simulator game was you had to type in the latitude and longitude coordinates to get to your way-points and destination. Made you to have to learn the process of global positioning on a map, which is a good thing for RL. The draw back to the game was the graphics. I thought I was flying high when I bought my first RGB monitor to play Sub Battle on. For a good while I'd been playing on an Amber colored monochrome monitor (which was a step up from the black and white monochrome). Graphics does make a difference, but good game play should never be cut short.

AVGWarhawk

01-14-09, 10:45 AM

I find it strange that you can only move the TDC dials just so far for range. For lack of a better way to say it, although the TDC is wonderful in the game, it is dumbed down. Only a fully interactive TDC would really lend itself to the true reality of the use of the TDC. I find the attack map to be worthless really. No tools to make a mark and really attempt to make a very real simulation of plotting the attack course, etc. CapnScurvy, what a cool idea it would be to have a fully interactive TDC were a hot key could bring up the TDC to full screen so the player could read it and dial in the numbers.

tater

01-14-09, 11:08 AM

I'd like to have an interactive TDC so I could experiment with playing the TDC officer, but as skipper, I want to say (command key), "Bearing. Mark" (which in effect is the L key now), "Range. Mark" (which would be assumed should I use the stadimeter) and have my men plot them and even work up elements of the solution.

tater

01-14-09, 11:13 AM

As an aside I was testing something in RSRDC last night, and I entered all the mast heights myself as guesses. I fired one spread of 3 and got 2 hits, though 1 was a dud, and the other was not quite so good as I misjudged the target's speed by a knot or so, I literally went past the bow by inches ) contact setting since the spread of 2 I had just fired at this target looked like good shots, but both prematured on me.

tater

01-14-09, 02:00 PM

I was looking at the heights of things in the dats with S3D by placing nodes on top of masts, funnels, pagodas, etc, then reading off the heights.

Anyway, cherry-picking the place you set as the lock can have some goofy effects vs what RL skippers had.

Fuso, for example. RFB uses the funnel---which makes sense, it's right amidships, so is more AOB independent than the pagoda or mast. Trouble is, ONI was grossly wrong on the funnel height of Fuso, but they were dead on for the pagoda and mast heights.

Me' I'd likely use the pagoda, myself, since I'd be getting ranhges while she was hull-down.

Look at a real ONI doc:
http://members.spinn.net/%7Emerrick/Stuff/cvs3-4pg1.jpg

What might make sense would be to add a few height marks (appropriately off if ONI is off from RL) for the various features. The default "lock" point can still be whatever, but the player can always dial the superstructure, etc, and use that if they prefer.

AVGWarhawk

01-14-09, 02:14 PM

The hardest part for me is getting the speed down. AOB and range can be fudged some for a good hit but if you are off a knot, things can go horribly wrong. I do my best to get within 1500 yards. This makes the fudge factor not quite as damning.

Munchausen

01-14-09, 09:51 PM

I find it strange that you can only move the TDC dials just so far for range.

Modded, TDC range can be set to any value on the dial.

Nisgeis

01-15-09, 08:36 AM

it almost doesn't matter which of the three factors (AOB, speed or range) you would then "correct" in order for the observed and generated relative bearing to match. But most easily it is done by "correcting" the target speed setting.

That's only valid as long as your range estimate is close to the actual figure. From a static point, a ship steaming East at 5 knots at a range of 5,000 yards will have the same bearing change rate as a ship steaming East at 10 knots, at a range of 10,000 yards. This is a problem if you spend some time observing your target whilst running a parallel course.

Munchausen

01-15-09, 06:50 PM

From a static point, a ship steaming East at 5 knots at a range of 5,000 yards will have the same bearing change rate as a ship steaming East at 10 knots, at a range of 10,000 yards. This is a problem if you spend some time observing your target whilst running a parallel course.

:hmm: I think that's the point of adjusting speed.

Say you judged your target to be 5,000 yards away. But it's a bigger ship and actually 10,000 yards away. Your approach officer plots the correct bearing but at the estimated range of 5,000 yards ... then a second plot gives him a speed of 5 knots.

Plugging the data into the TDC and engaging PK, the actual target will cross each successive bearing sooner than indicated on the TDC. So you increase target speed. Eventually, you'll cancel out the error generated by incorrect target distance ... although the geometry in the TDC won't necessarily look anything like the real approach.

A good way to test this is by plotting sonar. With map contacts on, mark the tip of one sonar line ... then do it again after about three minutes. Measure length of the sonar line and take an educated guess at target speed. Then insert range, bearing, AOB (target heading) and speed into the TDC. Turn on PK and track target bearing via sonar. If the target runs ahead of PK bearing, increase target speed. If it runs behind, decrease speed.

One good thing about this technique is that you can change target speed on the TDC without messing up any of the other data (changing range and bearing always changes target heading ... setting it to whatever heading corresponds to last-set AOB).

The bad thing is you can find yourself chasing the speed dial. If your target bearing is advancing slower than the TDC, you need to memorize a good speed, then dial down to near-zero and wait for the target to catch up ... then set the new speed. If your target bearing is advancing faster than the TDC, you need to insert a speed higher than required and let the TDC catch up ... then set the correct target speed. (Instead, you could, of course, adjust bearing directly ... but that would then throw off your estimated range and target heading.)

pragr

01-22-09, 05:33 PM

I'm noob and maybe I'm discovering the wheel only, but after I read this thread, I begun use this method (at least during submerged attacks).

As soon as the ship reachs the range where I can use the stadimeter for estimate the distance, I use the reco manual and set the distance to the target with it's data. When I have the distance this way, I switch to the sonar and use it for the accurate measurement of the range. So now, I have three numbers. Two for distance, one for the mast/funnel/deck high. All the other things are easy. The ratio between the "sonar"(most accurated I can get) distance and the "stadimeter" distance is the same as the ratio between the real high of mast/funnel/deck and the one I used.

e.g. I used 90ft for the mast in stadimeter. So I got 7000yards as the distance through the stadimeter, but sonar distance is only 5000yards. It means I overrated the high of the mast about 30% (5000/7000). So I reset the high of the mast to the 63ft (0.7*90) and any next measurement through periscope will be accurate.

The best thing on this method is, that you don't need to use the pre-set reference point. If you want, you can use the high of the funnel for merchents or bridge for the warships. You not even need the recognition manual.

I haven't had enough time to test it, but these several encounters I used it, it worked great. At least enough I could hit the targets even from 3000yards.

Pragr.