TDC in Sh5

[MRV]

I was wondering what peoples oppinions are about what is more realistic in terms of manual TDC: As someone mentioned in another thread, SH5 is done on top of SH4. Now what I really wish for is to have the "set solution"-order from SH3 back. It was in my oppinion the most realistic way for firing torpedoes because I cant imagine U-Boat-Commander did all the calculations on his own, thats what the torpedo officer is for.

Unfortunately I was removed with SH4 and you only had the option of either "arcade-point-and-fire" oder doing everything manually.

So please, Ubi, give us that one back. :03:

[kstanb]

Although I no longer use it in SHIII/ SH4,
"Set solution order" should be included, however in my opinion, the solution shouldn't be 100% perfect as it is in SHIII

U-Boat-Commander didn't do all the calculations on his own, but he was in the end responsible for the final attack, it would be realistic to add mistakes in speed, AoB and range when ordering "set solution"

[maerean_m]

I do believe you'll be amazed by what Dan has prepared for you in the terms of TDC and manual targeting :arrgh!:. I would have never thought of the idea he came up with.
We'll be previewing it at the Subsim meeting.

[Sledgehammer427]

you guys really make me wish I could join you at the meet!
as well as jealous:stare:

[nattydread]

There certainly was some short comings in the SH4 TDC...one being the ability to hold the solution, but de-couple the bearing so you could "aim" at specific parts of the ship.

We should have been able to gather all the required data and then place the pip where we wanted, "mark" the bearing and fire. Then move the pip at the desired aim point on the ship(bow, stacks, bridge, stern, etc), "re-mark" and fire again using the previous target data, but with the new bearing.

It allowed Skippers like O'Kane(if I remember correctly) to target the center/stacks of the ship, fire, then quickly re-set for the bow and fire, stern and fire, etc.

The manual TDC features is what bugged me the most about SH4...though there were others at the top of my list too.

[U2222]

I agree with everything Nattydread says.

I think the crew should be able to set the solution if the player wishes.
However the accuracy should be relative to the officers skill.
There should be an option for this to start poor and improve with the players input to that role. Manual targeting therefore improves the role of the weapons officer.
This option encourages interaction with and developement of the various crew skills.

[Hitman]

Well I myself sent to Dan a document with information and pictures about the historic periscopes, hope he can make some use of it. It is of great imporantce for targetting and determining the solution.

I cant imagine U-Boat-Commander did all the calculations on his own, thats what the torpedo officer is for

The commander when submerged or the IWO when surfaced actually gave the petty officer manning the TDC all inputs, i.e. speed, AOB, range. The navigator also kept a plot in the chart with the information given by the commander or IWO, but ultimately in night surface attacks f.e. it was the IWO alone who gave the target data.

The TDC calculated all the rest.:up:

[fireship4]

Don't forget the TDC was a fleet boat device for storing and automatically updating target information by using your boat's movements and the predicted movements of the target, I don't know that the U-boats had an equivalent.

I understand you may all be using it to represent the targeting mechanism of whichever boat you are on though.

[joegrundman]

I understand you may all be using it to represent the targeting mechanism of whichever boat you are on though.

that last sentence of yours is correct fireship4, thanks. It's just that TDC is so much easier to write than Vorhaltsrechner, and we (most of us) understand it just fine.

@ the debate in general

So in my readings, I came across suggestions that the TDC (Vorhaltsrechner) was able to account for changes in U-boat's own course.

You will all note that this was not a feature of the TDC as rendered in SH3 and SH4UBM, in which changes of U-boat own course messed up the TDC solution.

Hitman at one time confirmed with me that this is correct, that the TDC (VHR) could account for changes in U-boat heading, although i never saw any unequivical evidence to support it.

If this is true, it would be great if this feature were implemented in the SH5 TDC model

[karamazovnew]

I do believe you'll be amazed by what Dan has prepared for you in the terms of TDC and manual targeting :arrgh!:. I would have never thought of the idea he came up with.
We'll be previewing it at the Subsim meeting.

Any tool to help the newbies enter the joy of manul targeting is welcome :up:. Both SH3 and SH4 lacked a easy to use intermediary "manual" targetting solution. But I do hope you're not forgetting us veterans. We really need that double split prism periscope conencted to the aob wheel. It was the main reason the germans used the Attack Periscope instead of the obs scope which didn't have that. I trust Hitman has provided you with all the info needed. Here's something I've come across a few times:
The periscope consisted of a long steel tube which extended out to about five meters from the housing. It had prisms and lenses at both ends. Periscopes suffered from two main problems, the most important was vibration. When fully extended, the long unsupported tube created turbulence on a moving U-boat. At 6 knots, it caused excessive vibration which rendered it almost impossible to use. This was dampened by using an extension bracket to reduce the unsupported length and the pointed end was redesigned to minimize the forward hydrodynamic resistance. Nevertheless, vibrations still occurred, but to a much lesser degree. The other problem was fogging of the lenses. Since the damp atmosphere of the U-boat caused fogging, it was especially important that the tube was not only watertight, but was airtight as well. Any fracture on the airtight casing caused by a depth charge attack would result in fogging of the tubes.
The important info in this is that you could not see through the scope unless it was fully raised. There were no intermediary positions. Keeping the boat at the proper depth was extremely important. Also, raising the scopes at high depth would result in damaging the scopes. Fogging was possible to fix when on the surface.

I have a preety good idea how to implement them (if not already implemented :rotfl:).
- the periscope station (the 3d rotating one with the small seat) had the knobs/switches for rotating the scope, using color filters, zoom level, an aob/range finder wheel.
- the periscope bearing was only available at the top of the scope, on the static part. It was luminated by a small light bulb that rotated with the scope (easy to see in Das Boot, when the captain repeteadly looks up to see the bearing).
- the periscope did not have buttons for firing torpedoes (i think).
Since the periscope seat camera doesn't need to move too much with the boat, some clever use of the mouse can give us quick strafing for access to all of these and it can be stable enough to manipulate the 3d aob wheel with the mouse (actually it only had a knob for setting the height/length). Hmm.. maybe mousewheel over knobs and dials as in Flight Simulator?

The "2d" perisope view should be completely clear, and no, they didn't have periscope lines which changed color during the night. The only thing you would be able to show/hide from here are the orders to the WO and to the helm.
Since the man at the scope did not have access to the TDC, the notepad stylised method of entering data was not bad. It should be optional, allowing you to see the actual dials and manipulate them (such as in sh4 and ACM mod for sh3). But the stylised version would be better for immersion. It should consist of all necesary inputs (tdc and torpedo settings). It should have both stylised dials for quick input, but also text boxes for precise input. Each time you use them, since they don't need to act as temporary solutions, they would be sent imediately to the WO (and thus the TDC).
The aob wheel on the scope might've been actually linked to the TDC itself, but I doubt it, since it had to be reseted for normal viewing.

Now the AOB dial was in fact linked to both the Bearing dial AND the compass. Changing your course also changed the AOB. The link to the bearing (the auto tdc update feature) was indeed optional. But the link to the compass was not optional. If you say a target at 45 degrees bearing wich had a 45 degrees AOB to you, and then you changed the course by 45 degrees into it, at the end of the turn, you would not have a 0 AOB at 0 bearing on the dial (As you do in SH3 and SH4), you'd have a 45 AOB at 0 bearing as it should be. This greatly simplified using the TDC for getting very quick intercept courses (described here ). So the crew had quite a lot to do in fact:
- you could ask him for specific intercept courses, (since you shouldn't see the TDC dials updating in the notepad page), "Give me a bearing for 82 port intercept"... "Yes sir.... bearing 219 should be ok".
- you could give him timed bearing/range data when visibility is poor and he would pass that info to the Nav Officer for plotting (as a double check)
- the Nav Officer would calculate the torpedo travel time after firing.
- the order to fire a torpedo would take about 2 seconds to arrive at the torpedo room (the only place which actually had a button/lever to fire the damn things). But that was already implemented, i think.
- you could order the second officer to look thorugh the OBS scope (or your scope) for ship recognition.
- Actually, the officer should be able to take your place at the scope and conduct the same procedure as you. In the meantime you could stay at the TDC station (releaving the WO) and he would give the data to you :haha:.
- Of course, both SO and Nav Officer's experience would greatly impact all their calculations.

This would be as realisticaly as it is humanly possible, And it would allow you to sit back and enjoy the view while the others work, even at 100% difficulty.

[joegrundman]

It was the main reason the germans used the Attack Periscope instead of the obs scope which didn't have that

actually it's possible that in the early war all scopes included the AOB finder. The real reason for using the attack scope was the smaller head and therefore smaller feather wake and reduced visibility of the attack scope.

I think the obs scope was sufficiently good at light gathering to permit stellar navigation.


The important info in this is that you could not see through the scope unless it was fully raised.

if this is true, i don't see how it is deduced from the text you quoted just before. Could you please explain or else cite the document you sourced this information from?

The "2d" perisope view should be completely clear, and no, they didn't have periscope lines which changed color during the night.

Are you sure about this? I have repeatedly come across references to radium being used for the scope reticule (as is used for the glow-in-the-dark marks on an analogue wristwatch). Can you link to your reference for this, please?

Now the AOB dial was in fact linked to both the Bearing dial AND the compass

yes this is what i was getting at in the previous post - is it possible for you to link to your reference for this too

this would really help, as it is important and ought to be implemented if demonstrably true

best wishes

joe

[karamazovnew]

actually it's possible that in the early war all scopes included the AOB finder. The real reason for using the attack scope was the smaller head and therefore smaller feather wake and reduced visibility of the attack scope.
I'm always trying to think in terms of gameplay. So far the head size has not influenced detection. There HAS to be a reason for using the AP instead of the OP, right? SUre, it must've had a vertical stadimeter, excelent for navigation, but an AOBF too? :hmmm: Why the different sizes of the stations then? where would you fit the mechanics?


if this is true, i don't see how it is deduced from the text you quoted just before. Could you please explain or else cite the document you sourced this information from?

That's easy. The Obs scope viewfinder/station moved with the scope itself and came out of the floor. That preety much settles the problem, as the height of the scope is linked to the height at which you cant look through the scope. You might crowch down a meter or so...:03:. But the AP viewfinder was fixed. Any change in lengths between lenses and prisms ruins the optics. Since the lenses and prisms were housed at the ends of the scope you had to line up thebottom lens to the station housing to be able to view through it. And again, in terms of gameplay, it adds to the difficulty.

Are you sure about this? I have repeatedly come across references to radium being used for the scope reticule (as is used for the glow-in-the-dark marks on an analogue wristwatch). Can you link to your reference for this, please?
I am in error, I had no idea they used fluorescent paint for the markings. I blame youtube for not having movies of night attacks :haha:. ANd refferences to greman scopes are rare. Wish we had a translated manual of operations as we have for the fleet boats :wah:. But since you know more about this, how did they work? Did they have a switch to turn them on? Or simply they became "lighter" as the surrounding became dark? And for how long would they last? Is it similar to fluorescent paint that needs to "recharge" with normal light?

yes this is what i was getting at in the previous post - is it possible for you to link to your reference for this too this would really help, as it is important and ought to be implemented if demonstrably true

It was back in 2005 while searching for tips on manual targetting that I found a decent article about the Vorhaltsrechner. It explained how the AOB dial was sitting on top of a compass dial. It was then connected to a gear link that included the bearing information and allwed for manual control through a knob. I tried to emulate it but the SH engine doesn't allow for rotation parrenting of dials. I've searched like crazy now but can't find it anymore. :wah: The best I can come up with now is: http://www.uboat.net/forums/read.php?20,61773,61778#msg-61778.

[Hitman]

First of all, I would like to put well clear that I do not by any means claim to have the absolute knowledge about U-Boat optical systems. Far from that, there are way many things I still don't know, rather than know. However, I have been for several years already doing a research as in-depth as possible on the subject, and that includes not just the internet, but also exchange of e-mails with the Zeiss corporation historic archives, some questions to one of the few remaining U-Boat commanders (Through a guy who knows and meets him regularly) and a lot more.

That said, I want to start with the page you took that info from. It's this one (http://www.uboataces.com/periscopes.shtml), which I have seen already linked a few times, and which is in fact plaged with errors :down: For starters, the zoom is stated as 1x/6x, which is not correct, as it was 1,5x and 6x. Now, according to what I know, I will make some comments (And keep in mind I could be wrong)

you could not see through the scope unless it was fully raised. There were no intermediary positions.

Not true. You could always see through the scope since it exited the protective housing. You would however not be able to see anything else as water until it broke the surface.

Keeping the boat at the proper depth was extremely important.

True. But keep in mind the commander worked continuously with the height switch for the scope (On his left hand in the fixed heigth attack scope) to show as less as possible.

Also, raising the scopes at high depth would result in damaging the scopes.

Correct

Fogging was possible to fix when on the surface.

Correct. The scopes had special drain holes that could be opened to dry the interior and eliminate the damp.

- the periscope station (the 3d rotating one with the small seat) had the knobs/switches for rotating the scope, using color filters, zoom level, and aob/range finder wheel.

Correct. AOB/Range finder however not implemented in all models.

- the periscope bearing was only available at the top of the scope, on the static part. It was luminated by a small light bulb that rotated with the scope (easy to see in Das Boot, when the captain repeteadly looks up to see the bearing).

Correct in certain models. Not true for all of them. All observation scopes f.e. had an internal partition in which you could read the bearing. All attack scopes equipped with AOB finder had it also.


- the periscope did not have buttons for firing torpedoes (i think).

Correct.

and no, they didn't have periscope lines which changed color during the night.

Not true. Graticles were made of radioactive material, and it looked pale green in the dark (fluorescent). However, only the lines were like that. Numbers did not light in the darkness.

The aob wheel on the scope might've been actually linked to the TDC itself, but I doubt it, since it had to be reseted for normal viewing.

It wasn't.

Now the AOB dial was in fact linked to both the Bearing dial AND the compass. Changing your course also changed the AOB. The link to the bearing (the auto tdc update feature) was indeed optional. But the link to the compass was not optional. If you say a target at 45 degrees bearing wich had a 45 degrees AOB to you, and then you changed the course by 45 degrees into it, at the end of the turn, you would not have a 0 AOB at 0 bearing on the dial (As you do in SH3 and SH4), you'd have a 45 AOB at 0 bearing as it should be.

Correct. Example Source= Heinz Schäffer, "The journey of U-977"

- the Nav Officer would calculate the torpedo travel time after firing.

The TDC did that more or less. It showed the travel distance. Chronometers with appropiate scales would automatically give the time.

- Actually, the officer should be able to take your place at the scope and conduct the same procedure as you.

They certainly were able to do that! As in US subs, where the IWO was also many times the substitute of the commander, in case of death or illness.


- Of course, both SO and Nav Officer's experience would greatly impact all their calculations.


VERY true!!! The german U-Boat waffe relied more than many other Navies (Except the british, probably) in naked eye estimations for many things. Seaman's eye, as it is also called.

So far the head size has not influenced detection. There HAS to be a reason for using the AP instead of the OP, right? SUre, it must've had a vertical stadimeter, excelent for navigation, but an AOBF too? :hmmm: Why the different sizes of the stations then? where would you fit the mechanics?

The obs periscope had a better light admission, hence its utility for night attacks. Vertical stadimeters and AOB finders could be implemented in any periscopes, they are attached externally. (See the link below, at the end of this post)

Any change in lengths between lenses and prisms ruins the optics. Since the lenses and prisms were housed at the ends of the scope you had to line up thebottom lens to the station housing to be able to view through it.

Not true. The prism and lenses travelled a certain distance together with the scope, keeping the proportions and the ability to see even if not fully raised. In the fixed heigth attack periscope this also happened for the whole travel of the lenses.

I blame youtube for not having movies of night attacks

Most movies and pictures I have seen were FAKED periscope views. There are still certain corretc ones, though, but in those you hardly can see the reticles. Seeing diagrams of reticles in authentic scope manuals and descriptions in technical reports, you can easily notice how they don't match at all with what you see in many films/pictures.

Or simply they became "lighter" as the surrounding became dark? And for how long would they last? Is it similar to fluorescent paint that needs to "recharge" with normal light?

Yes!

Finally, here is an excellent link with information (In german) about the periscopes: http://www.uboot995.homepage.t-online.de/index.htm/Sehrohre_u__Zubehor/sehrohre_u__zubehor.html

[nattydread]

Don't forget the TDC was a fleet boat device for storing and automatically updating target information by using your boat's movements and the predicted movements of the target, I don't know that the U-boats had an equivalent.

I understand you may all be using it to represent the targeting mechanism of whichever boat you are on though.


So right, I was dissapointed that I couldnt "build" a solution with the TDC by plugging in data I had and observing & updating them over time.

I also hated how few and little fidelity the plotting tools and time stamps were on the map for plotting targets solution.

Ever try plotting a target's course using range data, bearings and time on the SH4 map?...it never gave a useable result...at least not for me. I think Ive even used passive and active sonar bearings and ranges...still no useable results...and this was on non-zigging targets.

I'd like to make use of all tools while stalking targets...for the love of crickets, there is certainly enough time to do it while running an end around.

[karamazovnew]

Awesome reply Hitman. :up: Wish I knew german but the pics speak for themselves. I had no idea they could also move the lenses and show the bearing inside the viewfinder. German tech is simply awesome. I have already corrected my error about the line paint. Too bad they only used it for the main reticle, i guess I wasn't compeltely in error. But then again, the AOBF makes the numbered marks redundant.

But come on you have to agree that being able to see through the Obs Scope before it comes out of the floor is not realistic :haha:. I guess we just gave the devs another tree of upgrades to implement AND the need to differenciate between the OP and AP head detectability :salute: I just love upgrades.

So I take it you don't dislike my overall idea of how the 2d/3d interface should look like?

[John Channing]

There certainly was some short comings in the SH4 TDC...one being the ability to hold the solution, but de-couple the bearing so you could "aim" at specific parts of the ship.

We should have been able to gather all the required data and then place the pip where we wanted, "mark" the bearing and fire. Then move the pip at the desired aim point on the ship(bow, stacks, bridge, stern, etc), "re-mark" and fire again using the previous target data, but with the new bearing.



Sure you can... I do it all the time.

Once you have a viable solution running with the PK wait until you are the firing point. Make sure you are in Range/Bearing mode on the TDC and then unlock the target, point your scope at the point of the ship you want to hit and hit the "Send" button once. Fire. Move the scope to the second position, hit the send button again and Fire. Rinse, later repeat.

Been working like a charm for me for a couple of years.

JCC

[Dimitrius07]

You know i willing to accept anything as long as don`t need to do writings on pice of paper. I belive someone else spoke about it before.:03:

[nattydread]

Sure you can... I do it all the time.

Once you have a viable solution running with the PK wait until you are the firing point. Make sure you are in Range/Bearing mode on the TDC and then unlock the target, point your scope at the point of the ship you want to hit and hit the "Send" button once. Fire. Move the scope to the second position, hit the send button again and Fire. Rinse, later repeat.

Been working like a charm for me for a couple of years.

JCC


Its been some time since I played, but I know there was some long round about way I had to do it....maybe I dont have the mechanics of my complaint right. I seem to remember needing to re-send the range or something, in order to get the new bearing for the pip to enter into the TDC....now Im going to have to re-load it and see.

I remember not being able to select range manually too, my range ring would only allow me to go up to like 900m or something. I just remember it being buggy as heck.

[joegrundman]

Now the AOB dial was in fact linked to both the Bearing dial AND the compass. Changing your course also changed the AOB. The link to the bearing (the auto tdc update feature) was indeed optional. But the link to the compass was not optional. If you say a target at 45 degrees bearing wich had a 45 degrees AOB to you, and then you changed the course by 45 degrees into it, at the end of the turn, you would not have a 0 AOB at 0 bearing on the dial (As you do in SH3 and SH4), you'd have a 45 AOB at 0 bearing as it should be. Correct. Example Source= Heinz Schäffer, "The journey of U-977"i already came across this source, i was wondering if you had reference to a more definitive source, since this one is a little too "anecdotal"

[Hitman]

But come on you have to agree that being able to see through the Obs Scope before it comes out of the floor is not realistic :haha:No, no, of course not, I misunderstood you, then. The first time the commander could see something was of course when the scope came out of the floor and he was able to crouch and look through the ocular. That's why I meant, and now I think what you also meant:up:.

Since the observation scope travels as a whole up and down, the distance between the prisms is always the same. Hence you can crouch down and look through it even before completely raised -as long as you can put your eye against the ocular, of course.

In the fixed heigth attack scope however where the travelling prisms that ensured that you could always see well through it, no matter how high/low it was.

Read here more about that : http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-570BritishReport.htm and look at the schemes. This is qualified as a most authentic source :DL

I highlight the following:

The main feature of the periscope is that it can be raised and lowered through a distance of approximately 17 ft. while in any position over that distance, the observer can view the target without altering his position vertically relative to the deck.
2. To arrive at this arrangement, the periscope is built in two separate portions:
(i) The upper portion, which contains the usual periscope features, namely change of magnification and top reflector operating gear, is the portion which is raised and lowered. In performance and construction it closely resembles an orthodox periscope, the chief difference being that in place of an ordinary eyepiece, the lower end of the tube is open and fitted with a projecting lens as a window.
(ii) The lower portion of the periscope is within the submarine and is fitted with traveling prisms, situated below and directly in line with the optical axis of the upper portion. These prisms reflect the optical beam to the fixed eyepiece, at the same time maintaining a constant optical separation between part (i) and part (ii) of the periscope.
3. The fixed eyepiece, all the controls and the observer's seat are carried on the outer casing of the lower portion, which rotates with the periscope when training.
4. Hoisting wires are provided to raise the upper portion in the usual way. To the lower end of the upper portion one end of a chain is attached. The chain hangs down in a loop and its other end is brought up and fixed to the lower portion. Cradled in the loop are reflector prisms so that, as the upper end is hoisted, the prisms will follow at half the speed. This ratio of speeds keeps the total optical path the same between the fixed eyepiece and the upper portion.

[Hitman]

i already came across this source, i was wondering if you had reference to a more definitive source, since this one is a little too "anecdotal"

Yes I had somewhere another source, must look through my documents as I can't remember now where it appeared.:hmmm:

[karamazovnew]

I love you Hitman :D. That report will keep me busy for some time. Sure hope the devs are watching this too :salute:. And maybe even implement it as realisticaly as possible (if they haven't already). Maybe the Subsim Meeting will clear this up.

[Steeltrap]

Here's something I posted elsewhere that, in part, is about the experience of tracking and getting to point of firing. Just for some added thought.....

================================================== ==
Realism is king, with some caveats.

Yes we want technical realism, by which I mean the known performance of x piece of kit is reflected in the sim, as are the dates things became available etc etc. So, radar in SHV is not acceptable i.e. air search radar giving bearing when it was only ever an A-scope. That's just basic and shoody.

For every level of realism, there might be an option of choosing NOT to have it in your game. This solves the problem of "appealing to the casual gamer" that is, IMO, an excuse for "we couldn't be bothered to get it right".

Rather than rattle off a whole bunch of technical and other aspects, I'd like to mention a focus on something different: command. I'd like the sim to portray accurately what it was like to command a submarine.
- That means my CREW matters a great deal. I need people with skills. I need a good crew roster.
- As skipper, I make observations of a target's AoB, range etc and it's the fire control party that comes up with target course and speed and plot it on a map. I do NOT mean the same as the 'fire control officer assistance' in SHIII, mind you.
- I make firing observations but it's the crew that prepares the torps.
- I give precise depth/course/speed orders, it's the crew that does it.
In short, I do NOT want to have to go to all the different screens that are currently used to do manual fire control. It's NOT REALISTIC. The skipper didn't do all those things. So, when it comes to realism, I have 2 views:
1. technocrat realism - yes, I can go to all those screens to input everything.
2. command realism - no, I CAN'T do the input OTHER than the level of things controlled by the skipper.

A lot of people get excited over technical realism (such as controlling dive planes etc etc) yet ignore the fact that a skipper did not do all that stuff.

I want a revolution in that I command, and experience the pressures that go with that. I don't want to get bogged down in micro-managing TECHNICAL aspects a skipper didn't IRL. I'd like THAT to be an option in difficulty settings i.e. "realistic command Y/N". This would mean I'd need to think about sending crew members off to various technical schools while in base, and they might even miss the next patrol. That means I'm down an experienced person, but it also means they come back more skilled. Frankly, some R&R also becomes a factor. This sort of "strategic crew planning", looking at more than just the next patrol, was a factor in command, and I'd like to see it reflected in the sim.

Just some thoughts.

[rik007]

I'm not sure what the real TDC was capable of. In the picture below you can see that it is a complicated device. In the U-995 it is very simple one. So multiple versions excisted. In Das Boot you see that it was able to track multiple targets. That is something that is missing in SH3/4. Set solution - I never used it - should be available as well as the possibility to micro manage the torpedo's. You should be able of course to set the torpedo's yourself as it is one of the most thrilling aspects of an attack. What I read was that in reality the commander observed the targets and estimated speed and distance by 'seamen's eye'. The (nav) officer should than have entered the parameters into the system like in Das Boot.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y77/rik007/Duitsland237_resize.jpg

[nattydread]

Here's something I posted elsewhere that, in part, is about the experience of tracking and getting to point of firing. Just for some added thought.....

================================================== ==
Realism is king, with some caveats.

Yes we want technical realism, by which I mean the known performance of x piece of kit is reflected in the sim, as are the dates things became available etc etc. So, radar in SHV is not acceptable i.e. air search radar giving bearing when it was only ever an A-scope. That's just basic and shoody.

For every level of realism, there might be an option of choosing NOT to have it in your game. This solves the problem of "appealing to the casual gamer" that is, IMO, an excuse for "we couldn't be bothered to get it right".

Rather than rattle off a whole bunch of technical and other aspects, I'd like to mention a focus on something different: command. I'd like the sim to portray accurately what it was like to command a submarine.
- That means my CREW matters a great deal. I need people with skills. I need a good crew roster.
- As skipper, I make observations of a target's AoB, range etc and it's the fire control party that comes up with target course and speed and plot it on a map. I do NOT mean the same as the 'fire control officer assistance' in SHIII, mind you.
- I make firing observations but it's the crew that prepares the torps.
- I give precise depth/course/speed orders, it's the crew that does it.
In short, I do NOT want to have to go to all the different screens that are currently used to do manual fire control. It's NOT REALISTIC. The skipper didn't do all those things. So, when it comes to realism, I have 2 views:
1. technocrat realism - yes, I can go to all those screens to input everything.
2. command realism - no, I CAN'T do the input OTHER than the level of things controlled by the skipper.

A lot of people get excited over technical realism (such as controlling dive planes etc etc) yet ignore the fact that a skipper did not do all that stuff.

I want a revolution in that I command, and experience the pressures that go with that. I don't want to get bogged down in micro-managing TECHNICAL aspects a skipper didn't IRL. I'd like THAT to be an option in difficulty settings i.e. "realistic command Y/N". This would mean I'd need to think about sending crew members off to various technical schools while in base, and they might even miss the next patrol. That means I'm down an experienced person, but it also means they come back more skilled. Frankly, some R&R also becomes a factor. This sort of "strategic crew planning", looking at more than just the next patrol, was a factor in command, and I'd like to see it reflected in the sim.

Just some thoughts.


This is what I want. A well oiled crew that performs their duties as skilled crewmen...with variations in ability and execution based on experience. Though i'd expect the greenist crew member to be of reliable skill toward the end of their first patrol.

I like the technical realism too, not because I want to always use it, but because I want the option when necessary. There are times where the expertise of a Skipper can be put to use to circumvent the short-comings of an inexperienced crew member...like showing a green crew member how to trim the boat in extreme conditions that exceed his skills.

Sometimes I just might want to micro-manage the boat's operations...or see everything in action as the crew operates.

Technical realism is important to me, but so is command realism...after all, I identify with the Skipper, I desire to have the experiences of a Skipper.

[Hitman]

- As skipper, I make observations of a target's AoB, range etc and it's the fire control party that comes up with target course and speed and plot it on a map.

In a fleet boat, yes. But in an U-Boat, that's not the way it worked. The commander (When submerged) or the IWO (When surfaced) provided the data for the firing solution, i.e. they observed target and gave the petty officer who operated the TDC the AOB, range and speed. All the petty officer did was to enter those values into the TDC.

The plot was conducted when the commander saw fit, normally when doing the end-around in the surface (The commander gave the navigator regular inputs on bearing and distance and that was plotted in the chart) and only rarely when submerged.

I agree with you however in that should be able to do the micro-managent ourselves or simply give the orders. For me, a button to send regular bearing and ranges automatically to the chart and have the navigator give you the resulting target data, as in SH4, is good enough to reflect this. :up:

[MH]

I would like some kind of interface so that in manual targeting mode with realistic map update it will transfer the data to attack/nav map so that only the data gathered will be shown.
That would solve the map update problem vs marking all the data by the player which is too much workload.

[martes86]

I'd like the TDC screen to look like it did in SH2. Just the full dials of the TDC machine, nothing more. If I want a map, I'd go downstairs (from the conning tower to the control room). And the scopes should be just the scope view plain and simple. If I want a notepad, I have a bunch of paper at home, if I want a ship rec. manual, I can get one printed, or have it as an interface hide/show feature. But no need to add things where sometimes they're not needed or are not appropiately placed.

Cheers :rock:

[karamazovnew]

Yeah, SH2 had a nice 2d interface. I still miss some of it's features. Having movable and pinable frames was great. And the map tools... don't get me started on those. But as I said, I prefer having 2 types of 2d interface, a stylised one and a "photorealistic" one. As one said, having more options is the best option.

[Dimitrius07]

Hitman can you confirm thise?

In flank speed on periscope depth and with periscope up can not only be dangerous but also will be hard to aim due to high vibration. Is thise information is correct more or less? Thanks in advance :salute::03:

[Hitman]

Hitman can you confirm thise?

In flank speed on periscope depth and with periscope up can not only be dangerous but also will be hard to aim due to high vibration. Is thise information is correct more or less? Thanks in advance :salute::03:

Yes, that's correct :yep: The spiral bounded wire on the periscope tube was a mean of reducing vibrations by changing the frequency of them.

[Kaleun_Endrass]

In flank speed on periscope depth and with periscope up can not only be dangerous but also will be hard to aim due to high vibration.
The peri of type XXI got an additional supporting stand because during testing with the very first boats they found out that there was heavy vibration on the raised periscope at 6 knots and it could not be used as a "sensor" at all.
The older boats didn´t had such problems because noone was aiming at 6kn. As you know this speed was "Große Fahrt" which was very loud and would have alerted the escort vessels.
But the new elektro-boats could run 6kn even with the motors for silent running (Schleichmotoren).

(So stated in the book U-Boottyp XXI (http://www.amazon.de/U-Boottyp-XXI-Eberhard-R%C3%B6ssler/dp/3763762183/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252909435&sr=8-1))

[Hitman]

The older boats didn´t had such problems because noone was aiming at 6kn

Actually, the problem with the old boats was that the periscope vibrated already at 3 knots! That was solved with the wire I mentioned before, but then when the Type XXI came out, it was able to reach with ease speeds where the vibration appeared again, and hence the additional stand you talked about :D

[Steeltrap]

I remember Dick O'Kane mentioning several times that at 5kts you could 'see' enough to gain an approximate bearing on the blur, but any meaningful observations weren't possible above 3kts in a fleet boat. Clearly a problem in all navies (not surprising).

[Leif...]

One easy detail for them to implement (but important imho) is to focus on the fact that it’s a mechanical “computer” that is, the dials will not instantly pop into the right fire solution, but slowly turn while the internal gears and cams work out the solution. Add some lowkey well greased electrical motor noise while the tdc is working as well.

[Hitman]

Hey Leif!! Long not seen you you :DL How is all going?


You are completely right in your comment, and the TDC had in fact a lamp that lighted when the calculation was done and the solution was ready :yep:

[joegrundman]

yes there was a time delay while the TDC calculated the data, but once set the TDC instantly updated for changes in periscope angle, i think

[Leif...]

Hi Hitman, yes I´m back. I stumbled on the news of SHV and had to drop in for some insight. Looks good so far…

[darby]

I like calculating my own firing solution. I see a lot of you like to just command but I want to try the lesser posts at my whim. I love figuring the best shot and waiting for the explosions based on when they should get there. I also anjoy listening at the sonar. I don't like managing the crew so much.

Too bad we can't maintain multiple stations on one sub. I could have a second computer set up as the sonar station and let my son listen while I captain.

[looney]

Question:

Did the TDC or any other navies counterpart changed / upgraded during the war?

[IanC]

Nice thread guys! A little over my head but very interesting :yep:

[Donkey-Shot]

I want an accurate command simulation, I want my crew to be able to do, reliably, what it would have been able to do in RL.

That said, I do want the option to do everything (regarding plotting/targeting) manualy: should I choose.

It seems to me that plotting shouldn't rely heavily on crew skill. It's not some magical skill that requires years and years of training by some sort of magician.
I went to fishery school (we have those in Holland) and was tought how to plot one or multiple radar targets, plot the CPA (closest point of approach), changes in own ship course and speed, changes in target(s) course and speed.

With a good plotting table and, most importantly, with accurate range, bearing and time readings, its pretty simply. I mean, I was 16 years old when taught and we learned how to do this in a couple of afternoons. And we wheren't math geniuses by any stretch of the imagination. With a plotting table it's a matter of being able, litteraly, how to interperate the picture you're drawing on it and know what the logorithimic scales on it mean. (Wich, btw, is explained on the very plotting table!)

No fancy math calculations, just the ability to use a ruler, a compass a pencil and, well, being able to read.

If barely interested, barely attention paying 16 year olds can learn it in a few afternoons, I'd imagine a fully trained and quillified U-boat nav officer, with the right tools and accurate readings should, who ever the hell is on watch, bloody well be able to do this basic task.

If not, he isn't much of a navigator.

[Snestorm]

One problem with tha above statement is that they didn't have radar in the early years. A second problem is, when they did get radar, it wasn't all that good.

No disrespect, Donkey-Shot. You impress me as a pretty cool guy, with some knowledge behind your words.

[Donkey-Shot]

One problem with tha above statement is that they didn't have radar in the early years. A second problem is, when they did get radar, it wasn't all that good.

No disrespect, Donkey-Shot. You impress me as a pretty cool guy, with some knowledge behind your words.


no they didn't have radar, they did however have tadimeters.
so a reasonably accurate range reading is definitly possible. The accuracy of that reading depends on the skill of the person taking it. The actual plotting is something a 16 year old could do if taught.

No disrespect taken.

[FIREWALL]

I do believe you'll be amazed by what Dan has prepared for you in the terms of TDC and manual targeting :arrgh!:. I would have never thought of the idea he came up with.
We'll be previewing it at the Subsim meeting.


I have yet to see a detailed post about the TDC and manual targeting that Dan prepared for all of us that was previewed.

Care to share that with us ? :DL

[Rip]

i have yet to see a detailed post about the tdc and manual targeting that dan prepared for all of us that was previewed.

care to share that with us ? :dl

+ 10001111011

[don1reed]

If my memory serves me correctly, the following four sheets are sourced from one of the many books published by, Eberhard Rossler, regarding the U-Boat.

The torpedo firing solution triangle

The Optic connection to the Vorhaltrectner block diagram

Listed is an electric schematic of the torpedo Vorhaltrectner (T Vh Re)

The firing "Empfanger"

I've had these files saved tucked between pages of an old book and thought they may shed some light on the subject.

cheers,

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8285/vhr1.th.jpg (http://img209.imageshack.us/i/vhr1.jpg/)http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/407/vhr2.th.jpg (http://img514.imageshack.us/i/vhr2.jpg/)http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5346/vhr3.th.jpg (http://img195.imageshack.us/i/vhr3.jpg/)http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8933/vhr4.th.jpg (http://img101.imageshack.us/i/vhr4.jpg/)

NOTE: Press FULL SIZE once you get to Imageshack.

[Rosencrantz]

One thing I have always missed in every single SH TDC is spread angle calculator. Both US and German models were able to calculate this if target's estimated length was entered into the system.


Greetings,
-RC-