How to calculate ACCURATE range without having to use the stadimeter?

[Paul Riley]

As you may know,I am playing my current patrol for the first time at 100%,without the god's eye mode.In the training academy I am finding it quite difficult in getting the target courses,due to not being able to calculate range very well with the stadimeter.The stadimeter is ok for a rough range value,but in order to verify the target course you obviously need to be able to verify the precise range at each plotting mark.I need to know if there is a better,more accurate way to get range,after which I will no doubt enjoy the game more once I am proficient with map updates off.

Can you also tell me how the real captains obtained range also?,and what tools they used.I understand a lot of time it may have been guessed by visual cues only,like how big the object appears in the scope.For example,on a clear day with a distant ship just visible on the horizon you can pretty much say it is between 6-7000m.

Thanks a lot :up:

[Platapus]

The OLC mod takes away the Stad an implements a circular slide rule device to calculate range and AoB.

I like the OLC mod a lot, but it is, in my humble opinion, a rather advanced mod. It does not make the game any easier, but much more challenging (and to some extent more realistic -- if such a term can ever be used for a game)

Check out that mod. Like any mods it adds stuff and takes stuff away from the game. A good mod is one that takes stuff you don't like and adds stuff you do like in the game.

Good luck and good hunting

[Paul Riley]

Thanks a lot for that platapus.

Can I just ask,what does OLC stand for,and do I need to meet any specific requirements in order to use the mod?.

And lastly,what method do you use for getting range,and could you explain a little how that would work?.At the moment I am just making visual estimations on range,based on how big the ship appears in the scope.

The range factor is the only thing that is stopping me from making accurate course verifications :nope:

I almost forgot,can you give me a link to that mod?

Thanks mate :up:

[Pisces]

OLC is short for Onelifecrisis. The person that made the mod goes by that handle here on the forum.

I am not sure anymore about compatibility with different flavours/mods of Sh3. He used to have different versions for each flavour. But at some point he managed to make a version independant release. He made several mods that contain these periscope changes:

OLC Gui 1.2.7 (modified scope optics and completely overhauled interface) (uploaded on my filefront page in a subfolder)
OLC Ubermod 2.43 (Environment changes plus single-magnification attackcope in OLCGui fashion) (uploaded on my filefront page in a subfolder)
OLC Gold (OLC environment2 plus OLC Gui for GWX 3 only) (not uploaded to my filefront page)

Here is a link for the OLC Gold so you can get an idea of what it is:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147667

The rangemeasurement is still a sort of stadimeter. Except the moving line is gone and you need to asses which mark is near the mastheight. The sliding scales then calculate the actual range. Following that the same scales can be used to calculate the AOB based on the appearant width. I think pretty similar like you seem to do using the mk1 eyeball. But this is more like the actual attackscope used by the germans.

[Paul Riley]

Thanks for that pisces,yer a great help mate :yep:

One problem I,if not others,seem to be having with the stadimeter is the unstable platform,due to the rocking of the sea,which is understandable,but is this realistic?.Would the scopes in WWII have had some sort of device/mechanism for steadying the scope?

Would it be feasible then in the realism settings to check the box that deals with this unsteadiness?

I am seriously considering having map updates back on though,if I keep having problems getting accurate range data :nope:

Again,thanks :up:

[Pisces]

Good point. OLC suggests the stabilised periscope view is a reasonable approximation of the ease real commanders had. Because they too had a split-prism mechanism in the periscope as the Americans had and is modelled in Sh4. (except that it could also rotate 90 degrees for AOB measuring) With that split-prism you have 2 identical images of the sea and ship moving up and down in the same rate. It would be alot easier for your eyes to follow it and put one mast on the waterline of the other. Than to keep the waterline leveled (by hand-eye coordination) and also measure the height of the mast. Keeping your eyes at 2 places at the same time is very difficult.

[Paul Riley]

Then,in your opinion,it would not be much of an issue to have the 'stabilze view' checked? I imagine the real scopes to behave far more reliably,instead of bouncing up and down all the time,I mean if the Germans could build rockets back then,i'm sure designing a steadying device for a periscope to be a walk in the park.

Thanks.

[Platapus]

As for requirements for these mods, I would highly suggest you download JSGME JS Generic Mod Enabler. It makes activating and more importantly deactivating the different mods you may be using.

Being able to selectively activate and deactivate mods is very important if you run into problems.

I had a problem with my SH3 set up. I *thought* it was a GWX3 problem. But by using JSGME to selectively turn in and off, I was able to identify the actual mod that was causing my problem. After that it was a simple matter to contact the specific MOD designer and get specialized help.

I agree with you about the contact icons on the map. I do with that the OLC Gold gui still had them (this is an example of a mod taking something out that I liked).

From a realism standpoint, I think it is reasonable to assume that I do have a crew that can do their jobs. Command may be lonely but a commander is seldom alone. We do have a crew to do some of the work. One of those jobs should be to take the information the commander gives and graphically plot it on a chart.

To me, the realism is not whether we have contacts on our chart or not. The realism issue is the accuracy of the charted contacts.

Instead of making charted contacts a binary choice i.e., you either have them or not, I think a better way would be have contact being plotted enabled, but the only information that goes into the contact plot is information the commander gatherers (including all the errors I will gather)

This is in contrast to the "god-like view" of the stock contacts being charted.

Either extreme

No automatic plotting
"god like" plotting

is unreasonable and unrealistic and our choices should not be forced into either of the extremes.

The latest version of OLC did a wonderful job of addressing this. When zoomed in Hydrophone bearings are automatically displayed. :yeah:

But if you want the contacts displayed, you have to manually put them on the chart. Depending on the range, this can involve several steps and different plotting tools. But worst of all, it takes time. While I am plotting the contact, I am losing my situation awareness which can be a bad thing.

A change I would like to see implemented in a future mod would simulate my having a smart crew capable of plotting stuff, but keep them isolated (which they are as they are inside a sub!). A good plotter can only plot based on the information they are given. Since it would be unrealistic for the plotter to have independent information ('god-like", I feel it is realistic for the plotter to have dependent information... dependent on the observations and judgement of the observing officer -- commander.

This, in my humble opinion, would be the best of both worlds. I am not getting any "unfair" advantage of the stock "god-like" plotting, but I am also not being forced to do two distinct jobs at the same time (command and plot)

[Paul Riley]

Thanks platapus.

So,from a realism point of view,having map updates on is not much of an issue then,as you say it sort of simulates the crew doing their job,freeing up the commander to see to other pressing matters at that moment.
I only started with map updates off yesterday,after years of playing with full realism except for the god view.I noticed straight away that having it off was ruining my concentration on other things happening around me,becoming tediously time consuming,not to mention quite difficult,with a stadimeter that acts more like a bloody bouncy castle.
I don't think having map updates on to be much of a cheat,if thats what people view it as,because even if you have the initial contacts on the map,in 3 or 4 hrs,or more,the contacts may have changed course anyway.And actually engaging the target efficiently and safely is made no easier either,as all this still has to be maintained by the player alone.
I am going to restart my patrol I think now,and enable the map contacts,and maybe the stabilize view,to simulate what was mentioned earlier,about periscopes with stabilizing mechanisms,which i'm sure they must have had

:up:

[onelifecrisis]

OLC GUI won't make your range calculations from the periscope any more accurate, I'm afraid. But you really don't need any more accuracy than you have. If you have accurate target course and speed data then the range does not need to be super-accurate in order to get an excellent firing solution.

The reason you're having difficulty getting an accurate course is because (if I understand your post correctly) you're trying to get it in five minutes. IRL commanders spent hours (sometimes days) tracking a ship/convoy in order to get accurate course data, and this is what works best in SH3 also. Spot a ship/convoy, mark it's position and approximate course on the map as you are doing now. Then track it at the edge of visual range for... lets say 50km. This is quite arduous and requires constant adjustments to your course to make sure you don't get too close or too far away, so if you're feeling lazy/lucky just flank it and position yourself 50km ahead of it and wait for it to re-appear. Either way you mark it's position again once it's moved 50km. You now have two marks separated by at least 50km, which means each mark can be innacurate by a couple of kilometers and you'd still have good course and speed data. For even more accurate data go another 50km... but beware of the ship/convoy changing course!

When such manouvers are impossible (because the target is moving too fast to be flanked, or is heading into dangerous/shallow water, or whatever) you can use the tools in the OLC GUI to get an immediate firing solution without any prior course or speed data, provided you can get into a firing position (and the mod is "historically accurate/realistic" as well).

This video (http://files.filefront.com/OLCU+Convoy+Attack+March417z/;12864372;/fileinfo.html) shows that with accurate course and speed data gathered over a long time/distance, the range doesn't need to be that accurate to score perfect hits.

HTH
OLC <- (that's me ;))

[Platapus]

This video (http://files.filefront.com/OLCU+Convoy+Attack+March417z/;12864372;/fileinfo.html) shows that with accurate course and speed data gathered over a long time/distance, the range doesn't need to be that accurate to score perfect hits.

HTH
OLC <- (that's me ;))

Anyone else having problems with the audio on this clip?

[onelifecrisis]

Anyone else having problems with the audio on this clip?

Do you have DivX installed?
www.divx.com

[Paul Riley]

Thanks OLC (finally got round to speaking with yer) :|\\

My main problems (with god view off don't forget) are getting accurate range plots,in order to get my course estimate,as you can no doubt appreciate,being new to 100% realism.I found that by turning on the stabilize view this improves the stadimeter considerably,at the expense of realism %.Ultimately,playing in super realism and playing practically realistic there is a very fine margin,if any.And for all I know stabilizers might have been used,so enabling it ingame is feasible.

Your 50km method is a good one,for getting a very definite result on the ship's course,but as you said not very practical for when you need to fire under emergency conditions.
I never realised such time and effort (IRL) would have gone into sinking just one ship (observations over days),but aginst a convoy it is perfectly justifiable.

:up:

[Platapus]

Do you have DivX installed?
www.divx.com


Yes. I get the background game sound but no voice over.

[onelifecrisis]

Yes. I get the background game sound but no voice over.

Oh, lol, there is no voice over. It's just a gameplay recording.

[Hitman]

The reason you're having difficulty getting an accurate course is because (if I understand your post correctly) you're trying to get it in five minutes. IRL commanders spent hours (sometimes days) tracking a ship/convoy in order to get accurate course data, and this is what works best in SH3 also. Spot a ship/convoy, mark it's position and approximate course on the map as you are doing now. Then track it at the edge of visual range for... lets say 50km. This is quite arduous and requires constant adjustments to your course to make sure you don't get too close or too far away, so if you're feeling lazy/lucky just flank it and position yourself 50km ahead of it and wait for it to re-appear. Either way you mark it's position again once it's moved 50km. You now have two marks separated by at least 50km, which means each mark can be innacurate by a couple of kilometers and you'd still have good course and speed data. For even more accurate data go another 50km... but beware of the ship/convoy changing course!


Very, very well summed up :up:

From the U-Boat commander's handbook (The official doctrine for the U-Boot commanders in WW2):



112.) The overhauling maneuver requires a high degree of tactical ability; its success is the pre-condition of the following underwater attack, and therefore the success of the operation. As a tactical masterpiece, the overhauling maneuver is therefore the exclusive business of the commander, and its preparation and execution require his unremitting attention.
113.) In fighting its way forward to the position ahead of the beam of the enemy, in borderline conditions of visibility during the day, the submarine is engaged in a long, drawn-out and extremely tiring overhauling operation. It is an incessant "nibbling at the horizon" [i.e.; to keep the enemy on the dip of the horizon] - going in again and again as soon as the tops of the masts get smaller, and sheering off again at once, as soon as they rise higher again. These strenuous efforts to overhaul the enemy are continued, in the Atlantic, hour by hour, and can only succeed as a result of indomitable resolution and an unchanging, obstinate refusal to let the enemy escape, even when the submarine finds that progress is very slow. Any change of course on the part of the enemy, or engine trouble, etc., occurring on board the enemy ship, may immediately alter the position in favor of the submarine.
114.) The overhauling maneuver should always be exploited, in order to obtain the particulars of the enemy (course, speed, pattern of the zigzag course) by careful observation of the course of the submarine itself, exact D/F of the enemy ship, estimation of range and position at regular intervals of time. These particulars are almost always more reliable than those obtained underwater.


You will never get good and accurate values if plotting quickly in 5 minutes, as OLC said, and that is correct because nobody got them like that in real life. If needed to shoot quickly, real commanders (and IWOs) just estimated with the MKI eyeball. And trust me, once you have practiced enough it is not a bad method at all :smug:

A suggestion that will not decrease realism, but will make life much easier: When overhauling at surface, ask your IWO each 3:15 minutes to tell you range and bearing to target, you will be able to plot it fairly well that way.

And in any case, AVERAGE the results of the plot. Never, never, plot the enemy in two observations and take the data from them. This can only work in ideal (And unrealistic) conditions.

Good hunting :salute:

[Paul Riley]

Thats exactly what I wanted to hear Hitman.

Using the WO to give you reports every 3m.15s seems a great and easy way to get the plots needed (with god mode off) .Is he fairly accurate then,and are his reports to be relied upon?

I have seen copies of the UBCH on Amazon,and it is extremely rare to get hold of,do you know any other places that might sell it?,ideally UK suppliers.But if it can only be ordered overseas I may have to open a paypal account,something i'm not too thrilled about doing...still :nope:

Again,cheers! :up::up: <-- double thumbs up for that mate!

[Platapus]

Oh, lol, there is no voice over. It's just a gameplay recording.


That would make it very difficult to understand if no one is explaining all the lines and circles would it not?

[Hitman]

Using the WO to give you reports every 3m.15s seems a great and easy way to get the plots needed (with god mode off) .Is he fairly accurate then,and are his reports to be relied upon?

He does round up the values to the next hundreths, i.e. 5634 metres is 5600 metres, but that is not just close enough, but also realistic for what you would expect when using a small hand-held rangefinder (In fact may be even more at long distances) and is good enough for plotting while surfaced. Once you are underwater, at periscope depth, it will be just you who can look through the periscope and construct the firing solution -again realistically-

I have seen copies of the UBCH on Amazon,and it is extremely rare to get hold of,do you know any other places that might sell it?,ideally UK suppliers.But if it can only be ordered overseas I may have to open a paypal account,something i'm not too thrilled about doing...still :nope:

Get it here for free and print it:

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/uboat/index.htm

But be aware that there are some minor translation errors in the text.

Good hunting :salute:

[Paul Riley]

Guess what Hitman,

I just ordered a brand new copy of the UBCH at amazon UK,for about £12.00! They finally have some copies,so I snapped one up while I could!

Here is the link for anyone wanting this elusive gem
http://www.amazon.co.uk/U-Boat-Commanders-Handbook/dp/0939631210 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/U-Boat-Commanders-Handbook/dp/0939631210)

:yeah::up::salute:

[Paul Riley]

He does round up the values to the next hundreths, i.e. 5634 metres is 5600 metres, but that is not just close enough, but also realistic for what you would expect when using a small hand-held rangefinder (In fact may be even more at long distances) and is good enough for plotting while surfaced. Once you are underwater, at periscope depth, it will be just you who can look through the periscope and construct the firing solution -again realistically-

That all makes sense now mate,and thanks.Getting accurate ranges to targets with the naked eye or as you say a small rangefinder would have took nothing short of god-like abilities.

Just one last little question about this now.Lets say you got your range wrong by about 100,or 200m,how far out would that be after about 50km of tracking,would the contact still be in either visual or audible range?.Getting the ranges wrong,would naturally give you a slightly incorrect course angle,and after 50km or more even a 1 or 2 degrees shift could be quite substantial.But probably not that much,he should still be in sound range,at least.

[Hitman]

In SH3 the visibility is just 16-18000 metres when using the 16 k environment mod (And only <9000 metres without it), so you must consider the 50 km figure that OLC said more as a real life matter than something usable in the game.

If you plot the target using the IWO and make an average after say, 6-10 estimates, you should have a fair degree of accurancy and be able to do a good end around at full speed plotting a paralell course in the limit of visibility, i.e. a course parallel at 15000 metres to the target/convoy (in good visibility), so you never lose the sight of the tips of the masts, or at least the smoke plumes.

[Paul Riley]

16-18000 metres? and,the stock game vis. limit is on a clear day about 8-9000m.That is about double,is that correct then?,that is bloody far :o
Would someone be able to see that far with the naked eye?

[onelifecrisis]

16-18000 metres? and,the stock game vis. limit is on a clear day about 8-9000m.That is about double,is that correct then?,that is bloody far :o
Would someone be able to see that far with the naked eye?

You can see the moon, right? ;)

In very clear weather the limiting factor on visibility is how high up you are vs how high the ship mast / smoke column is (because of the curvature of the earth). On the ocean, with your eyes just 5m above the surface of the water, the horizon is 8km away (which means that - on paper - you can see things that are 5m tall up to 16km away, and things taller than 5m can be seen further than that).

And of course your crew are not really spotting "with the naked eye" - they have binocs.

[Paul Riley]

I guess that makes sense.
Strange the developers never considered all these technicalities in their stock game,I would have thought the visibility of distant objects to have been an important aspect in the tactical nature of the game.The same goes with the sometimes awful observation skills of the watch crew,who sometimes miss objects clearly coming into view on the horizon line,and you really don't want that if its a warship steaming towards you.

Thanks for that.

[onelifecrisis]

I guess that makes sense.
Strange the developers never considered all these technicalities in their stock game,I would have thought the visibility of distant objects to have been an important aspect in the tactical nature of the game.The same goes with the sometimes awful observation skills of the watch crew,who sometimes miss objects clearly coming into view on the horizon line,and you really don't want that if its a warship steaming towards you.

Thanks for that.

No problem. And I'm sure they did consider it. Extending the environment to 16km takes quite a toll on the performance of a typical 2005 gaming machine. Also, in SH3 the world is flat (a little shortcut the developers took). With an 8km atmosphere, and your eye at 5m above sea level, you can get away with a flat ocean... but extend the visibility further out and it becomes quite obvious that the world is not curved like it should be. Let's hope they address the problem in SH5 (and the dodgy crew ship-spotting as well).

[Hitman]

Well I would guess they did, but back then in 2005 they probably thought it would put a too high stress on computers and make the game unplayable for those on low spec systems. :hmmm:

EDIT:

OLC and me cross posted, but we said the same :up: !!

[Paul Riley]

Thanks for that both of you.

I can see now why the viewing distances were brought nearer (maybe),a consideration for those on lower end systems.Having said that though,do you think it would be that much of a performance hit having the distance extended to 16000m or so?,after all you can lower most settings on your graphics card,like full screen AA,or Anis.Filt,and other eye candy effects,that could alleviate performance problems.

I myself use 1x AA,8x Anis.Filt (important for distant objects in games),Catalyst AI,geometry instancing (renders objects of the same type much quicker),and Trilinear Filtering (giving 3 draw buffers as opposed to just 2 as in bilinear).With the above settings my game runs very smooth,and when I got the most current version of Direct X9c the game improved even more.

I think the only minor performance issues I have noticed is during rough seas,as at a certain compass point when looking from the c.tower the fps drop slightly.Seems to be just during storms/high waves.And this problem has already been observed by many people in here I think.

Well,thanks again,and I think that concludes all my questions and queries :yep:

[Pisces]

Even if they kept the world flat for simple motion dynamics or navigation sake, they could still have made a convincing approximation by rendering the horizon and ships lower with increasing distance. Heck, even Sh1 did that, and that was on puny little 386/486 cpus with barely over 1MB ram. It would have made a world of difference.

[onelifecrisis]

@Paul
If you are into realism you should really try one of the supermods (e.g. GWX) if you haven't already.

@Pisces
The SH3 engine does allow for the water to be curved (up or down) to a sphere of any radius, using EarthRadius (make it negative to make the water curve down like it's supposed to) but that's no use on its own because the ships all float on a perfectly flat plane. Maybe it was a planned/unfinished feature?

[Pisces]

@Pisces
The SH3 engine does allow for the water to be curved (up or down) to a sphere of any radius, using EarthRadius (make it negative to make the water curve down like it's supposed to) but that's no use on its own because the ships all float on a perfectly flat plane. Maybe it was a planned/unfinished feature?Oh cool, I didn't know that. It's not as bad as I thought then. Oh well, still no points for unfinnished business. (Which reminds me of something I neglected to do. :oops: )

[Paul Riley]

OLC

I will be planning on installing GWX and other realism mods just as soon as I finish my current campaign.I've come too far already to cancel my current campaign for the other mods out there.For the time being though,and I know its only a small adjustment,I am enjoying the commander add on,as there are some interesting tweaks inside that alone.

Cheers.

[GinoC]

16-18000 metres? and,the stock game vis. limit is on a clear day about 8-9000m.That is about double,is that correct then?,that is bloody far :o
Would someone be able to see that far with the naked eye?On a very clear day, you can see the superstructure of another ship above the horizon with binoculars at 15 NM or ~28km. That being said, how much you can see all depends on your height of eye above the surface. I can't imagine a Type VII could have been much more than 5m or so. That would give you a distance to the sea horizon of 8km. Anything further than that would start to dip below the horizon.