Map suggestion

[andqui]

For SH5, please, please, please make the map a round globe, like in fs9 and fsx, rather than a projection, so Greenland is not the size of the rest of North America combined. Both sh3 and sh4 use a projection for the map, which means at latitudes away from the equator, distances are very exaggerated, in some cases grossly so at the extremes like the norwegian coast. I would by this game if that was the only improvement.

[GoldenRivet]

I have been a big proponent of this "spherical world" idea for about as long as SH3 has been out.

i think it is a great idea, and is one of the "must have" environmental corrections for SH5. :up:

without the spherical world environment, "realistic" navigation becomes impossible and U-boat and surface ship ranges must be tweaked to astronomical values in order to sail a relatively short distance.

With spherical world, navigation by the stars / sun etc becomes highly accurate. and the real world distances between point A and point B also shorten to realistic lengths.

[Schultz]

Now comes a tricky part , who would put a globe in a U-Boat, you are right its more accurate, but even the ground troops used maps and charts, and in my opinion its more realistic with the maps and charts.

P.S:Maybe they should put a G.P.S in the U-boat :haha: its far easier then charts and maps (just jocking)

[GoldenRivet]

Now comes a tricky part , who would put a globe in a U-Boat, you are right its more accurate, but even the ground troops used maps and charts, and in my opinion its more realistic with the maps and charts.

P.S:Maybe they should put a G.P.S in the U-boat :haha: its far easier then charts and maps (just jocking)

your a pretty smart guy apparently ;)

dont you think that nautical charts correct for the curvature of the earth?

nautical and aeronautical charts MUST correct for curvature as a rule.

if you get nautical charts and connect them end to end while tacking them to a wall you will notice that they form an arc... they are not straight. :up:

eventually... all of the given charts for a given latitude set - given a tall enough wall to tack them to, would form a complete circle.

see this image.

The aeronautical charts of the USA

http://stoenworks.com/images/VFR%20Flight-Images/Sectional%20Chart%20Master.jpg


each square represents a different chart.

notic how they follow curvature?

the curvature is less pronounced at the equator and more pronounced at the poles.

notice the greater curvature of canadian charts as you near the polar regions

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/graphics/sectionalChart.jpg


even wider zoom

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/graphics/wacWorldChat.jpg

thats the difference betweem "MAPS" and "CHARTS"

Maps are typically Mercator_projections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection) however charts follow the earths curvature as illustrated above.

the flaw with SH3 and SH4 is that not only was the "earth" a Mercator projection of itself, but so were all of the maps in game.

this means that the distance from Brest france to New York is nearly TWICE the actual distance in real life.

by using "charts" and a spherical world... the distances in SH5 would be true to real life, as would all of the shore lines and continental sizes, expanses of the oceans etc.

and Greenland wouldnt be as big as all of asia (in reality its only a fraction of the size which it appears to be in game)

this is something which requires critical and immediate correction for any "Simulation" series which is to be taken seriously

[Ilpalazzo]

I would love this, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

I can't help but wonder why they haven't done it in the first place? Just not that important?

[Rip]

Now it makes more sense why the Chief Quartermaster on my boat used to get so mad when guys called his charts, maps.

[DarkFish]

thats the difference betweem "MAPS" and "CHARTS"

Maps are typically Mercator_projections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection) however charts follow the earths curvature as illustrated above.

the flaw with SH3 and SH4 is that not only was the "earth" a Mercator projection of itself, but so were all of the maps in game.

this means that the distance from Brest france to New York is nearly TWICE the actual distance in real life.

by using "charts" and a spherical world... the distances in SH5 would be true to real life, as would all of the shore lines and continental sizes, expanses of the oceans etc.

and Greenland wouldnt be as big as all of asia (in reality its only a fraction of the size which it appears to be in game)

this is something which requires critical and immediate correction for any "Simulation" series which is to be taken seriouslyI think a combination of both would be best. Make the game world spherical, but keep the 2D navigation maps as they are. How would you want to set an accurate course using an orthographic or winkel projection? You can't. The mercator projection at least shows a true compass course, which makes it IMO the only useable projection for small scale nav maps.

[GoldenRivet]

I think a combination of both would be best. Make the game world spherical, but keep the 2D navigation maps as they are. How would you want to set an accurate course using an orthographic or winkel projection? You can't. The mercator projection at least shows a true compass course, which makes it IMO the only useable projection for small scale nav maps.

to the contrary, you would have to use a plotter, then correct for any magnetic variation of the magnetic field of the earth, then for any compass error of the boat.

its a basic mathmatic equation of (A plus or minus B, plus or minus C equals D)

[JU_88]

Well, what ever they have gone for now (flat or round) its gonna be far too late to change it.

[GoldenRivet]

Well, what ever they have gone for now (flat or round) its gonna be far too late to change it.

if thats the case i hope the boys over at the Grey Wolves Lair are cracking their knuckles and putting their heads together.

going to have to mod the fuel ranges right out of the box.

shame that :shifty:

[ETR3(SS)]

I've spent my fair share of time BSing with the Quartermaster of the Watch and learned a thing or two about charts. This is definitely one of those things that needs to be in the game. Anything less would be uncivilized. Oh and while they're at it they should include buoys as well, and make everyone learn the Rules of the Road.

[Frederf]

Just have the course tool for the map connect the waypoints with a properly curved line and let the helmsman follow it?

[JScones]

A spherical world is more critical than wolfpacks IMHO...

[karamazovnew]

A spherical world is more critical than wolfpacks IMHO...

True, but only if the entire navigation aspect of the game is done right. Things like a sextant, proper configurable base time, star maps and almanachs, real coastlines, real depths and hazards, water currents etc. Not REAL real but simulated real. We wouldn't want them remaking the entire atlantic based on the true thing ofc. If they hadn't planned on them from the start, we can already kiss them goodbye. Unless they allow us to mod them into the game. And by the way, they should also stick to using real charts, not just one big zoomable thing. It would help the sales a lot too, every man with salt water in his veins would buy it just to practice old-school sailing. And if they include realistic weather and wind, they could release a true sailing game with just a few modifications of the base game. :up: I'd love to sail around in the USS Constitution :rock:

[GoldenRivet]

True, but only if the entire navigation aspect of the game is done right.

well...

hardcore navigation aside.

even if the navigation system is a bit dorked up...

your VIIC which is supposed to be able to cruise from France to New York and Back with plenty of reserve wont be mysteriously running out of fuel 1/3rd of the way into the return voyage :roll:

[Highbury]

A spherical world is more critical than wolfpacks IMHO...

+1

Wolfpacks will only encompass a very small percentage of your game time if they are implemented in the game. Navigation will encompass every second you are at sea, wolfpacks or not. Getting it right this time is far more important, and certainly more important than having the cook ask me to try the soup!

[Pisces]

I'm afraid we are all barking up the wrong tree trying to convince Ubisoft putting in a spherical world. Ubisofft didn't make this game for hardcore players. It's targeted for (average) Joe Gamer, who doesn't even know how to plot targets manually. Plotting an intercept course is something he has yet to learn. Let alone how to deal with different map projections. Mostlikely he will ditch the game before he has to do that. I just hope they simulate this spherical world better, by rendering ships lower on the horizon, or reduce fuelconsumption (along longitude only) nearer to the poles. That's alot more simple and actually helps immersion. Eventhough the latter suggestion only solves the historical endurance issue. A trip around the polar circles still takes as long as along the equator. Propper point-to-point distances also requires a serious modification to the physics engine. No way they'll get that done including testing before Q1/Q2 2010. It will remain wishfull thinking.

[karamazovnew]

and certainly more important than having the cook ask me to try the soup!

"You don't know what you're missing."

[Frederf]

You don't have to modify the physics engine to have a spherical world, silly. The ocean in SH3 is only some 30km circle of flat water around the submarine. A merchant 100nm away isn't bobbing up and down in water and listing side to side, it's a few numbers for position, speed, course, and ship class.

In fact motion of ships in spherical coordinates is cake mathematically. The course has a N-S component and an E-W component. The ships can easily travel straight lines since they don't have to deal with chart projections at all.

The only, only slightly goofy or tricky part is rendering the paper nav map on the player's UI. I figure straight lines work ok for short ranges. After a cuttoff range the lines would have to curve according to the projection like for long course tool lines.

[GoldenRivet]

I'm afraid we are all barking up the wrong tree trying to convince Ubisoft putting in a spherical world. Ubisofft didn't make this game for hardcore players. It's targeted for (average) Joe Gamer, who doesn't even know how to plot targets manually. Plotting an intercept course is something he has yet to learn. Let alone how to deal with different map projections.

average joe settings can be implemented.

if a player wants point and shoot targeting and point and click navigation... there are and should be options for that.

If another player wants hard core navigation or targeting... there are options for that.

ubi has been wonderful about gameplay adaptability in the past.

what on earth do game options have to do with whether or not the "earth" in the game is round or flat?

[JScones]

FWIW tank sims usually have an option to consider or ignore "real world curvature" when targetting, for the "point-and-shoot" crowd.

Can't see why a sub sim should be any different.

[Pisces]

Sure they can model it in a subgame. DrSid did it in his ComSubSim, in a matter of days if I remember. (community subsim: http://www.commanders-academy.com/comsubsim/index.php?title=Main_Page ) But he wrote his simulator from the ground up. Coordinate systems and their equations are a core part of such games/simulators. If Ubisoft decides to use a different kind of coordinate system, they would also need to change the AI and how it responds to situations near the poles. My guess is that they are reluctant to pursue that. But I'd love to be proven wrong. :salute:

[SteamWake]

The Earth is Flat FLAT I tell you ! FLAT !!!

(Wanders off muttering)

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/flat_earth1.jpg

[CNA0]

SH2, with a very simple navigation map/chart and very bad tools, used a spherical earth.
It also had an implement lost on SH3 and SH4: when you come to a point out of your ship, you could get distance and cap to go there.

I realised that earth was spherical running a single mission in the American coast: the cap and the distance to return to Brest was the orthodromic solution, and in the way back, you had to correct the cap every 6 or 8 hours to reach yout base.

When I switched to SH3 I couldn,t believe this step back (many other things were far better), and I keep missing this capability with SH4

[andqui]

really? Well good, I hope it won't be that hard to put back in.

[karamazovnew]

Actually, the map in SH2 blew the later versions in high water. Remember the layers for "navy grids"/"geographic grids"? Or the calendar with sun/moon rise/set times? :up:

[tiger shark]

Oh I want this so bad!!Real navigation!Round world this is a must!!
80% of the time in the game i spend on the nav map so this is
one of the most important things for a simulation ,where navigation is
crucial.I hope Ubi is reading this and will try to come up with a solution
for at last better navigation than in SH3/4.

[PL_Andrev]

I think SH3 and SH4 have original German map...
But in fact real distance on subpolar region should be different to terrestrial equator...
Map is ok, but the real speed on east-west direction should be corrected to the real distance...

[Jaeger]

for me, to implement a knob for getting position and mark on map (WO, take the sextant and give me position) sounds easy to implement for the devs. of course, they have to implement a second one in the realism menu: turn of the gps on map.

that would be nice. the quality of the position could depend on the weather, the skills of the WO, day or night, etc.)


same with the plotting by crew: add a knob like this to the maps view: Note on map, distnace is ..., bearing is...!

easy to implement and a great immersion factor, me thinks.


Jaeger out

[Snestorm]

What about The World projected as a chubby diamond.
Fat at The Equator, and pointed at The Poles.
Would this not solve The Artificial Distance problems?

[IanC]

A spherical world is more critical than wolfpacks IMHO...

Yikes, not for me! Shadowing a convoy while a wolfpack forms up, then getting the 'go' for attack, seeing the convoy getting hit by other U-boats, hearing other boats getting depth charged, intercepting distress calls etc... are (for me) more important than if point A to B is a straight or curved line. I'd rather a more realistic combat experience than a more realistic navigation experience.
Of course, we might have both... :hmmm:

[Navarre]

For SH5, please, please, please make the map a round globe, like in fs9 and fsx
FSX and FS9 in common with all previous versions will not let you fly directly over the north pole because it is not a spherical world environment :03:

[prowler3]

FSX and FS9 in common with all previous versions will not let you fly directly over the north pole because it is not a spherical world environment :03:

But that is the only area where the problem occurs...everywhere else the World in FS is round. You fly using Great Circle navigation. Look at any flight plan in FSnavigator or FScommander rendered on the optional "flat map"...it's a big curve!

[Seeadler]

According to a dev-answer on the german ubi-forum, the earth is again a cylindrical projection. They have tried other projections, which used a real globe, but the barriers to usability, freedom and clarity were just too big to develop this further. There were also some technical difficulties which arised in connection with other geographic projections.

[GoldenRivet]

According to a dev-answer on the german ubi-forum, the earth is again a cylindrical projection. They have tried other projections, which used a real globe, but the barriers to usability, freedom and clarity were just too big to develop this further. There were also some technical difficulties which arised in connection with other geographic projections.

Unfortunate :nope:

understandable ;)

but unfortunate :nope:

[looney]

Somethin for SH6 then :)

maybe have different maps to navigate on.. so you have to change them during your mission.

[Kaleun_Endrass]

Somethin for SH6 then.
I hope so. Can't be really that difficult, or at least not impossible. FSX has it, Google Earth has it... there are more for sure.
If you restrict zoom levels, then some sort of RenderToTexture could calculate our maps and the engine could display them on a rectangle surface in 3D or 2D. I don't think that would confuse anyone because it would still look the same. In fact, with the according love to eye-candy, it would look like original ones.

[thesarunat]

I really would not reiterate on this stuff as it could be seen as whining by the developers (which I dearly thank for their effort).
However, I really cannot understand what is the problem with these charts. I think the following compromise could be extremely easy to implement and the newbie will not even notice the complexity. So, let's start.

I guess that, as pointed up before, far away ships are not floating by in the oceans but are just entries in a database.
The latter contains the informations that are used to generate the 3D local bubble which is centered on the player's sub, which is probably itself an entry in this database.

Now, I can see no reason why the map that we are to see in the command room HAS to have the same "geometry" as the database. I will explain more in detail.

The objects are located by two coordinates on the (mercator) map, let's say X and Y. The geometry is that of a flat plane, so this generates the well known distortions of distances and speeds the further we move from the equator.
BUT, the map has only to provide our position! We do not want to LIVE on the map ;)

So: in the internal database use the real latitude and longitude coordinates (say, Phi and Lambda).
The corresponding projection on our map will be then given by (Wikipedia + me):

X = Lambda
Y = Ln[ Tan(Phi) + Sec(Phi) ]

The movement are computed with the true coordinates (and updated in the database) with the formula:

V = R d_Phi / d_t + R Sin(Phi) d_Lambda / d_t

(also wikipedia or any bachelor-level geometry book).


This would be completely masked to the user (hence no problem with newcomers), and this will work the same way as the system which is used now to compute the movement of the objects. Only, much more accurate for the people who care.

This also will not prevent you to click on the map to plot your course, as before. But this time taking the straight line will not be the shortest one. A simple geodetic calculator can also be implemented in the navigator AI so that when you click on the map, instead of drawing the straight line, the guy plots an approximation to the good geodesic (say, using 10 or 20 intermediate points).

Thanks for reading :)
...and thanks again to the developers :cool:

[rosentorf]

This also will not prevent you to click on the map to plot your course, as before. But this time taking the straight line will not be the shortest one. A simple geodetic calculator can also be implemented in the navigator AI so that when you click on the map, instead of drawing the straight line, the guy plots an approximation to the good geodesic (say, using 10 or 20 intermediate points).

Thanks for reading :)
...and thanks again to the developers :cool:

I second that. And for attack-ploting one could have a attack-map that is plain flat andhas plotting tools...it's just like plotting on an empty sheet of paper.

[don1reed]

I must add my voice to those who desire SH5 to include an accurate chart and celestial firmament for the years 1939-1945.

As all navigators know, real progress over/under/on sea during WWII was conducted on paper, using real “tools”. All through SH3 and SH4 I was content to use Stellarium and Phython to obtain my Line of Position off screen on real paper, using dividers, compass, parallel rule, and protractor and making my own charts; and for the last two years have been playing TC x1. I’ve been taking my dawn, forenoon, noon, afternoon, evening twilight sights to get my boat around the F5 screen. I also have a ton of recycled paper to prove it.

My accuracy varied with the weather, sleepy helmsman and my own mistakes converting game time to UTC (GMT). Many times my position was unknown due to overcast skies, but through it all, it was great immersion. It was one of the reasons I enlisted, (bought the game).

I’m one of those players, now closer to 70 than to 60, who will admit the thing that would pinch my cheeks is an accurate sextant tool, like the one featured in Virtual Sailor-7, to compliment whatever is doable for the Devs.

[fireship4]

Here is the actual quote from the Q&A:

Will the navigation map handle the earth as a cylinder like in SH3?

Yes. Although not geographically correct, the cylindrical view is the easiest to understand and use of all cartographical projections, especially if we consider the possibility that the player could roam all the seas as he / she wishes. We investigated other projections as well, using a globe or specific maps of several locations (like they did in reality) but the drawbacks in terms of usability, freedom and understanding were too big to consider them further. Also, there is a number of technical problems associated to other geographical projections, which we chose not to tackle for now.Will someone explain to me the impact of a cylindrical map as opposed to a flat one?

UPDATE: Also, If they dont have a globe, and its possible to mod the map (but not change it's shaper) maybe some team can stretch the land masses in the right way so as the effect would be the same? Would that work? Like taking the surface of a globe and placing it flat?

UPDATE 2: So the nav map (and world itelf as im proposing) would look like this:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a155/fireship4/256px-Wulffnetsvg.png

From the above quote this image below may be what the team are doing currently:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a155/fireship4/mercator_transverse.jpg


I don't know... the cylinder looks an ok solution now that i see it, but if the in-game world will still be flat still (just with the landmasses altered) why not use the first diagram I posted?. Or is that what we've been asking for/talking about all along? A flat world that works like the real thing? I thought we were talking about wanting a real 3D globe up to now, one where you would have real lines of sight to ships partially over the horizon and was only projected flat for the nav. map.

[Jaeger]

ha! great idea!!! i know some modders are able to alter terrain... if the distances arent correct because of a flat world, why not correct them by altering the terrain?? imo this should be possible... but i think it would be tons of work... perhaps a modder can give an idea here... :up:

[Seeadler]

Will someone explain to me the impact of a cylindrical map as opposed to a flat one?

this can not happen with a cylindrical map unless you try to go over the poles:rotfl2:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fITLksHNFPY/SLVunqBZ-MI/AAAAAAAAAlk/BFrgyogWyQg/s1600/FlatEarth.jpg

If someone want to know more about the techniques, the data structures, sourcecodes and many more about virtual earth rendering in realtime application, go investigate the links here: http://www.vterrain.org/

[fireship4]

Well Im sure that if you reach the edge you appear on the other side of the map - like asteroids. Apeearing on the other side obviously doesn't work if you have an incomplete map (the cylindrical map above doesnt include austrailia) as you would be warping hundreds of miles instantly.

That pic reminded me of the discworld just now.

[thesarunat]

To fireship4:

Mathematically, a plane and a sphere are two completely different animals. It means that, if you want to represent a spherical surface on a flat one you have to give up something. What you loose depends upon which kind of projection, or chart, you choose.

I guess the developer wanted to say that the map that you see in the simulation MUST be a Mercator projection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection

The advantage to the casual user is enormous. It is the only chart which allows you to plot constant bearing courses as straight lines.
If you depart from ol'Mercator, you loose this and I can see why the developers do not want it.


to Jaeger:

You can try and correct some areas and distances for some precise parallels, say the 45, as in the Gall-Peters projection, but you screw up elsewhere (along the equator typically, as the poles are already screwed due to the cylindrical projection)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection

However, due to the inherent difference between a sphere and a plane you will always have distortion on the distances.

To rosentorf:

For what I understand, the only viable solution would be to have all the internal computations done in a true spherical surface and then showing the results on a flat map by projecting the positions.
This way is actually what happens in reality, when you use ANY map to keep track of your position. Its chart will introduce errors in distances, shapes, areas, directions. But if you move, these will not affect you because you move in the true spherical surface.

Besides, on a sphere you always have a flat enough neighbourhood, so that if you really wanted to go for ultimate precision you could transform to local coordinates when you plot the attack map. This would be the best IMHO. However it will introduce an additional level of complexity for the developers to program.
I believe that since you will engage targets at most 2000-3000 meters away you will not miss the target due to approximations due to plotting a "rectangular" attack run on a "curved" world. We could therefore obtain the best of the two worlds with very simple modification to the existing code.
This, of course, if there are no other showstoppers I may have naively missed in this digression.

What I would love to see, maybe for modders to attack, is a distinction between the database of objects and the actual map, and maybe with the database programmed in human-readable format.
In this way the programmers could give us a working cylindrical projection (so a flat map) coming out from a flat world (with appropriate boundary conditions). But if the two are distinct, maybe (a big maybe), modding could introduce later a different database and the relative chart to show it in the commands room map. But these are just speculations, we really need a developer to tell us if it is feasible or not, etc.

Thanks again for reading, you all :rock: :arrgh!:

[Frederf]

For what I understand, the only viable solution would be to have all the internal computations done in a true spherical surface and then showing the results on a flat map by projecting the positions.
This way is actually what happens in reality, when you use ANY map to keep track of your position.

Exactly, the developers have completely missed the point. They have decided to make the world into the map and then have the game play on the map. It's dumb because what should be happening is you model everything in a spherical world and then only the actual map suffers the problems with projection since it's an independent passive display.

[TheDarkWraith]

ha! great idea!!! i know some modders are able to alter terrain... if the distances arent correct because of a flat world, why not correct them by altering the terrain?? imo this should be possible... but i think it would be tons of work... perhaps a modder can give an idea here... :up:

moving an entire 'port' is easy....change it's location and voila, done. Since everything is 'put' onto the base 'port' via cloning from a master list of items (the harbor parts list) you only have to move one object to get everything else to move with it. Now the problem comes in updating the map used to display the port. I'm not sure what else would be affected but moving the 'port', 'harbor', 'city', etc. is easy to do (in SH3/4 - we'll have to see about SH5)