[TEC] Using SCAF for RSRDC v502 with RSRDC v575 [Archive]

View Full Version : [TEC] Using SCAF for RSRDC v502 with RSRDC v575

NoGoodLandLubber

10-28-10, 11:36 AM

Does anyone know of any problems running "SCAF for RSRDC v502" with RSRDC v575 AND RFB 2.0? Has anybody tried it?

TIA

Armistead

10-28-10, 01:32 PM

I have no problem using SCAF with TMO2/RSRD, just use the correct version. I also use Maxoptics with it, both work great. Not sure if he has a version for RFB, you would have to look.

CapnScurvy

10-29-10, 08:13 AM

NoGoodLandLubber, I would not use it!!

RSRDC v375 is compatible to only Real Fleet Boat (either their 1.52 version or 2.0). Lurker_hlb3 also has a RSRDC v502 that works with only TMO v2.0. There's a reason RSRDC has a Trigger Maru version (v502) that only works with it. One (of many) problem is the ship naming is different to both mods. If the game can't figure out which particular ship the mod refers to the old CTD blue screen appears. If you're trying to mix and match a modification, you're heading for big trouble. I don't have an RFB SCAF version (used to, even SCAF was incorporated with RFB at one time) but we've had a parting of the ways. The accuracy was too much for some of the other modders (not realistic they said).

I've kept SCAF up to date with TMO and any RSRDC mod that runs with it for a simple reason. They don't monkey around with the ship configurations. Least not the ship heights and weights that effect how the ship appears on the water. The essence of SCAF is to take the ships appearance and calculate how the game reads height and correct the height to match what the game give us. The game doesn't give us a true "real world" view, so making ship heights corrected to "real world" dimensions is crazy. I've been working on an optical correction to the game that should fix this with the "Optical Targeting Assist" found HERE (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=175729). Until the optics are changed, we have little hope of making "real world" dimensions work.

I read earlier this year that someone for RFB was messing around with the way a ship sits in the water just to make it "look better". Changing the "ride height" just for the sake of looks throws out any calibrated effort to have corrected mast height. I realize this is some of the efforts being made at RFB lately, to keep a player guessing on accurate measurements. But, if you use manual targeting there's a whole handful of ways to trip a player up to get an accurate assessment for a firing solution. I just don't believe that getting a "ball park" estimate to a targets range should be one of them.

On a related note:
I don't know where Webster got the ship dimensions for the J Class destroyer found in his GFO mod but it rings true to the ship parameters of any mod that thinks changing the ride height is a good thing to do.

I ran across this when I was making a SCAF compatible mod for it.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/JClasstoolow.jpg

The ships weight (mass) parameter was off by several hundred pounds, changing it's ride height to almost a "decks awash" condition. I suspect in normal sea state conditions this ship won't be found in the mission it's on. It will simply sink before anyone knows it was put into the game!!

Here's how it should look.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/JClasscorrection.jpg

I'm not suggesting RFB has this type of problem, this file came from GFO. But, be weary of modders that make attempts to change parameters for the sake of "looks" alone. Sometimes, nothing good comes from it.

Robin40

10-29-10, 08:28 AM

IMHO...I have a better targeting without using SCAF, although McOptics is a MUST

TMO 2.0
TMO Beta Update
RSRDC v502
RSRDC Patch1

MaddogK

10-29-10, 09:44 AM

CapnScurvy

10-29-10, 10:57 AM

Ahoy CapnScurvy,
I'm a bit confused about which version of SCAF suits me best- I have SHIV 1.5 with GFO 1.1 and RSRDC v 5.50. Am NOT running TMO,RFB, or any other mods but need to patch the SCAF included in websters mod to play nice with RSRDC. The docs webster included have the original SCAF doc showing ver 1.5

Can you offer a suggestion ?

Much like the difference between TMO and RFB, "neither the two will meet"; I don't have an RSRDC v550 SCAF compatible version (least not one I've released). RSRDC v550 is lurkers mod set to be compatible with a stock game, no TMO, no RFB, no GFO either (although it may run nicely with it). Since I've been busy doing other things I've not kept up with making SCAF compatible to the stock SH4 RSRDC v550 mod.

I have one on my computer but I would need to look at where I left off before releasing it.

Using the SCAF for SH4 1.5 mod won't cover the changes RSRDC v550 made, so that's out. Sorry, can't help you for now. :wah:

MaddogK

10-29-10, 11:05 AM

OUCH !
Looks like I'm sunk.
Thanks anyway.

CapnScurvy

10-29-10, 01:21 PM

IMHO...I have a better targeting without using SCAF, although McOptics is a MUST

TMO 2.0
TMO Beta Update
RSRDC v502
RSRDC Patch1

Well, that could be true!!!!!!

I admit until recently, I would have argued with you. But, in learning what the different resolutions do to the game views I'm here to tell you SCAF is as inaccurate as the stock game, depending on the resolution you use!!

For a bit of background, I asked the question "What resolution do you use?" found HERE (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=174652) in this post. Go ahead and take a read of why I asked the question......... I'll wait.

(Turn on the musical interlude please :ping:)

Ok, you back?

The game has a different ratio of size when using the various screen resolutions. Well to be exact, it has two. The 1280x1024 compared to all the rest!! Why in the world did this happen? Well good luck in getting an answer from the devs. They've moved on to SH V and probably took their mistakes with them.

You may ask why is this important to SCAF? Because I used the 1280x1024 resolution to make the darn thing!! So anyone who uses SCAF with a 1280x1024 screen size sees what I see. The mod is capable of rendering accurate manual found range because it was calibrated on the 1280x1024 size.

The others, not so much.

Actually, I think I wouldn't use it unless you have the resolution set to 1280x1024. I found this stock game discrepancy out when I was making my first checks of an "Optical Targeting Assist" mod I'm planning on releasing (I put a link to its WIP earlier in this thread). I've been with this game since day one, and had never heard anyone mention this little fact about the resolutions not being consistent through out. Wouldn't you know it, it's on the native resolution I use for my modding!?!

Since I know it now, I'll have two versions of the "Optical Targeting Assist", one for 1280x1024, one for the rest. It's my plan to have the new mod carry on the SCAF ship calibration of both correct height and length, with the added correction to the optical world to see things as they should. I'm not looking forward to having to make additional versions for the various "supermods" as was needed with keeping SCAF up to date whenever a newer version was spit out. But, since the games getting long in the tooth, the patches and updates made by these mods are becoming fewer and fewer. So maybe I can keep up.

Webster

10-29-10, 03:55 PM

OUCH !
Looks like I'm sunk.
Thanks anyway.

after all this time with so many using GFO without reporting this CTD i must think there is more to it then GFO or the minor changes i added from SCAF but if you really need to remove SCAF from GFO then you must open the "Sea" folder found in GFO and open every ship folder then delete the cfg file found there, that is all there is of SCAF that is in GFO.

@ CapnScurvy - up until this case i havent had anyone report any issues yet using GFO with your fix along with RSRDC v550 + RSRDC v550 Patch1.

i did note a caution to users that some ships that were newly added by RSRDC v550 wouldnt have my manuvering fix or your accuracy fix added to them

MaddogK

10-29-10, 06:50 PM

after all this time with so many using GFO without reporting this CTD i must think there is more to it then GFO or the minor changes i added from SCAF but if you really need to remove SCAF from GFO then you must open the "Sea" folder found in GFO and open every ship folder then delete the cfg file found there, that is all there is of SCAF that is in GFO.

@ CapnScurvy - up until this case i havent had anyone report any issues yet using GFO with your fix along with RSRDC v550 + RSRDC v550 Patch1.

i did note a caution to users that some ships that were newly added by RSRDC v550 wouldnt have my manuvering fix or your accuracy fix added to them

TY sir, I love the mod thats why I'd like to try anything to keep it. It's given me NO problems till now and I can duplicate the CDT every time as someone else who seems to have pinned it down to something included in GFO.

I'll let you know how it turns out. It could be only 1 cfg file, or maybe a funky DDS.

Webster

10-29-10, 07:31 PM

well im certaian its triggered by a ship spawning but after that you will need to follow the clues by a process of elimination.

my thought for a shortcut is since you know the cfg's added by RSRDC then try taking those out of RSRDC then see if it runs ok, if not then i would say its not the cfg's but something RSRDC is calling on to be spawned and by your observations its random so it will likely be the randomly generated traffic. not to say by itself but maybe as a random elimate of a group that is spawned.

i think its safe to say if you had no issues with running RSRDC v401 then you can isolate this to only the changes made by RSRDC v550

MaddogK

10-29-10, 07:56 PM

As GFO was installed first then RSRDC im guessing it's something 'residual' or one of the patches. I did a fresh install as well as saved my old install so I can compare.

I don't mean to make an issue of this as it's easier to simply disable GFO and do my business around Midway, then leave and put it back to the way it was before but I'm too used to the GFO buttons.
:)

CapnScurvy

10-29-10, 11:19 PM

This kind of stuff is what I call "opening up a can of worms"!

MaddogK what you're asking for is a mod, to overlay a mod, that overlays a mod, that runs on the SH4 game.

Not to make light of your request, but in the simplest terms, this is what you need to get RSRDC to run over GFO, that's intended to work on the stock game. I'm one to limit the amount of confusion my computer goes through, so when a request comes along to add more files to make something work I'm wondering what kind of gain would you get in return?

The thing I see as the most likely outcome is a game crashing without knowing from what source and fingers being pointed as if "I paid good money for this and look at what I got!". My advice is to play with GFO and be happy that the game is changed for the better. Or play with RSRDC and be happy the game is changed in its missions and ship movements. This idea that I want everything added to my game and they should all play nice together just isn't realistic. If you read Lurkers own compatibility warning he admits "It's NOT my problem". So just keep your game mods simple and try avoiding openning that can of worms.

============

Hey Webster, I do want to show you the Javlins .sim file and where it causes the ship to sit too low in the water. The stock games .sim file is overlaying the file from GFO 1.1. Notice the "Mass:" entry of the stock game is 1688.5 tons. GFO has 2330.0 tons. I don't know where this figure came from (I don't mess around with this file) but putting the stock tonnage back into the file raised the ship back to its regular height. Just thought I'd pass it on.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/SimComparision.jpg

MaddogK

10-30-10, 12:16 AM

Aye Capn, I'm tempted to agree. spent all day installing/uninstalling/re-installing/disabling ad-nausium and I'm to the point I'm going to go back to the original config and bypass Midway completely. This is what I got with the latest fresh install of the game and ONLY RSRDC 550 with patch:
http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/7162/jun142.th.jpg (http://img808.imageshack.us/i/jun142.jpg/) Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
at initial spawn 20 miles west of island 15:15 1 jun42, and later in the game after I did a 1000 mile loop to the west, northwest and back:
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/1013/jun942.th.jpg (http://img442.imageshack.us/i/jun942.jpg/) Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
These pics are taken at the same spot on the island looking in the same direction (I used freecamera to get to this position).What you're not seeing is sand island completely submerged in the first pic but miraculously above water (normal) in the second pic. Ya, that PT boat in the top pic is floundering around like it's beached, and could find no trace of it later in the second pic. Also of note- NOTHING moved, ships didn't move, planes didn't launch on patrol, no 'call for help', no Jap fleet, NOTHING. It looks like something is hosed in RSRDC but not bad enough to CTD, but whatever is going on GFO is choking on it and Crashing. GFO is too big to dissect and with it disabled indicates SCAF is not an issue. My apologies for wasting your time.

Nbjackso

10-30-10, 01:15 AM

This is what I got with the latest fresh install of the game and ONLY RSRDC 550 with patch:
http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/7162/jun142.th.jpg (http://img808.imageshack.us/i/jun142.jpg/) Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
at initial spawn 20 miles west of island 15:15 1 jun42, and later in the game after I did a 1000 mile loop to the west, northwest and back:
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/1013/jun942.th.jpg (http://img442.imageshack.us/i/jun942.jpg/) Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
These pics are taken at the same spot on the island looking in the same direction (I used freecamera to get to this position).What you're not seeing is sand island completely submerged in the first pic but miraculously above water (normal) in the second pic.

Maybe it's high tide and low tide. ;)

Robin40

10-30-10, 01:25 AM

Well, that could be true!!!!!!

I admit until recently, I would have argued with you. But, in learning what the different resolutions do to the game views I'm here to tell you SCAF is as inaccurate as the stock game, depending on the resolution you use!!

For a bit of background, I asked the question "What resolution do you use?" found HERE (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=174652) in this post. Go ahead and take a read of why I asked the question......... I'll wait.

(Turn on the musical interlude please :ping:)

Ok, you back?

The game has a different ratio of size when using the various screen resolutions. Well to be exact, it has two. The 1280x1024 compared to all the rest!! Why in the world did this happen? Well good luck in getting an answer from the devs. They've moved on to SH V and probably took their mistakes with them.

You may ask why is this important to SCAF? Because I used the 1280x1024 resolution to make the darn thing!! So anyone who uses SCAF with a 1280x1024 screen size sees what I see. The mod is capable of rendering accurate manual found range because it was calibrated on the 1280x1024 size.

The others, not so much.

Actually, I think I wouldn't use it unless you have the resolution set to 1280x1024. I found this stock game discrepancy out when I was making my first checks of an "Optical Targeting Assist" mod I'm planning on releasing (I put a link to its WIP earlier in this thread). I've been with this game since day one, and had never heard anyone mention this little fact about the resolutions not being consistent through out. Wouldn't you know it, it's on the native resolution I use for my modding!?!

Since I know it now, I'll have two versions of the "Optical Targeting Assist", one for 1280x1024, one for the rest. It's my plan to have the new mod carry on the SCAF ship calibration of both correct height and length, with the added correction to the optical world to see things as they should. I'm not looking forward to having to make additional versions for the various "supermods" as was needed with keeping SCAF up to date whenever a newer version was spit out. But, since the games getting long in the tooth, the patches and updates made by these mods are becoming fewer and fewer. So maybe I can keep up.

Yep...I doubted it was a matter of resolution

Mine is 1440x900

However video settings of the game don't let me use 1280x1024

Last night SCAF made me missing two lonely CA's at 1350 yds (dunno why those stupid Japs sent two lonely CA's in the Java Sea without escorts:DL)

Without SCAF in a previous engagement I sank 2 CA's

Now the question is

Why does targeting work with stock game at a resolution of 1440x900 and SCAF doesn't?

Armistead

10-30-10, 04:59 AM

Robin40

10-30-10, 05:12 AM

What were you aiming points? Many of the ships still use the highest points, so it helps to check, I do know the CA's have various measuring points, highest point, wheel house, ect....

Doubt that's it, but a common mistake many others have made.

Aiming at red line in SCAF

I replayed the engagement already cited in my second patrol in the Java Sea without SCAF

Well...I sank the first Takao cruiser with 3 hits

The second Takao one went circling around the first...dunno why it did so...maybe to rescue survivors?:salute:

well...I sank it with 2 hits

Difficulty realistic...except event camera ON and update contacts on Nav map ON

I coudn't resist to have event camera ON:DL

CapnScurvy

10-30-10, 08:36 AM

Yep...I doubted it was a matter of resolution

Mine is 1440x900

However video settings of the game don't let me use 1280x1024

Last night SCAF made me missing two lonely CA's at 1350 yds (dunno why those stupid Japs sent two lonely CA's in the Java Sea without escorts:DL)

Without SCAF in a previous engagement I sank 2 CA's

Now the question is

Why does targeting work with stock game at a resolution of 1440x900 and SCAF doesn't?

Robin40, did you take the time to read the thread I linked to earlier? The one where I asked "What resolution do you use"?

Here it is in a nutshell. The image below shows an Akita Maru (Medium Old Composite) at a distance of 1001 yards (check the Position Keeper). The game is completely in stock, NO MODS. The resolution of the game is set to 1280x1024. Measuring the length of the ship, the stock Telemeter divisions (that's the black marks on the stock scope) count 21 and 1/3.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/Stock1280x1024.jpg

OK, lets take the same ship at the same distance (how do I do this? I've got test missions I've made through the mission editor with ships specifically "anchored" off from my stationary "anchored" sub), and now lets read the Telemeter divisions. 22 and 3/4 (could be read 23). So the image above reads 21 & 1/3 and the image below reads almost 23. What makes the difference?

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/Stock1024x768.jpg

The second image is running the game in a resolution of 1024x768!!! See the difference in size of the objects on the image? The position keeper is a bit larger at 1024x than at 1280x.

The point is the stock game has a different "Camera" size (that's what they call the changeable "world" image shown in the periscope lens) for the 1024x768 compared to the 1280x1024.

You may say, "So what!? Makes sense to have different sized targets at different resolutions"!! Yes it would, if the game offered different measurements for the two different sizes. It does not!!! One ship height (or length) per ship is what you get, even though the size of the ship is seen differently. Making Stadimeter readings for one resolution size DIFFERENT, compared to making Stadimeter readings for another. Even when the ship is sitting at the same distance away from the sub you will get a different manual found range. The position of the Stadimeter is different because the mast top is different (like the length of the ship in the two above images).

Robin40, you said you use the 1440x900 resolution. When I was going through the different resolutions, my two computers (the one I use for mod making has a 19' screen, yes it's not an LCD "wide screen", the other I push the game through a 32" 1920x1080 HD TV) found the same size difference between the 1024x768 and the 1280x1024.

What I also found out was the only difference in ship size came from the 1280x1024.

All the other resolution:
1024x768
1152x864
1280x768
1280x800
1280x960
1360x768
1360x1024
1490x900
1600x1200
1680x1050
1792x1344
1920x1080

All had the same ship size when compared to each other.

They all read at the 23 Telemeter division on the scope (even though some of the resolutions were distorted). None of them read 21 1/3. The only resolution that read 21 1/3 (on both my computers) was the 1280x1024!! And if you have read what I've said, it's on the 1280x1024 resolution I made SCAF. That's been my working and playing computer for SH3 and 4 for years.

I admit it, I'm convinced by my own tests, SCAF will correct manual targeting IF YOU USE THE 1280x1024 RESOLUTION. If you wish to see for yourselves, download this JSGME compatible "Optical Missions Test Pack" found HERE (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=2860) and run the "Test 21" mission that will appear in the Single Missions folder of the game menu. Try it on different resolutions to see the difference. No difference until you get to 1280x1024.

All the others like your 1490x900 not a chance!!!! Yes, you may be able to do better with the stock heights at these other resolutions. Although the stock Hiyru mast height of 31 meters is off no matter what resolution you use!!

It was just a chance finding when I discovered this resolution anomaly. But what makes me sad is the devs never did a thing to patch this glitch. Because I looked at my game world through a 1280x1024 lens, I just assumed the game resolutions for the rest of you saw the same things I did.

I was wrong.

Robin40

10-30-10, 09:06 AM

Robin40, did you take the time to read the thread I linked to earlier? The one where I asked "What resolution do you use"?

Here it is in a nutshell. The image below shows an Akita Maru (Medium Old Composite) at a distance of 1001 yards (check the Position Keeper). The game is completely in stock, NO MODS. The resolution of the game is set to 1280x1024. Measuring the length of the ship, the stock Telemeter divisions (that's the black marks on the stock scope) count 21 and 1/3.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/Stock1280x1024.jpg

OK, lets take the same ship at the same distance (how do I do this? I've got test missions I've made through the mission editor with ships specifically "anchored" off from my stationary "anchored" sub), and now lets read the Telemeter divisions. 22 and 3/4 (could be read 23). So the image above reads 21 & 1/3 and the image below reads almost 23. What makes the difference?

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/Stock1024x768.jpg

The second image is running the game in a resolution of 1024x768!!! See the difference in size of the objects on the image? The position keeper is a bit larger at 1024x than at 1280x.

The point is the stock game has a different "Camera" size (that's what they call the changeable "world" image shown in the periscope lens) for the 1024x768 compared to the 1280x1024.

You may say, "So what!? Makes sense to have different sized targets at different resolutions"!! Yes it would, if the game offered different measurements for the two different sizes. It does not!!! One ship height (or length) per ship is what you get, even though the size of the ship is seen differently. Making Stadimeter readings for one resolution size DIFFERENT, compared to making Stadimeter readings for another. Even when the ship is sitting at the same distance away from the sub you will get a different manual found range. The position of the Stadimeter is different because the mast top is different (like the length of the ship in the two above images).

Robin40, you said you use the 1440x900 resolution. When I was going through the different resolutions, my two computers (the one I use for mod making has a 19' screen, yes it's not an LCD "wide screen", the other I push the game through a 32" 1920x1080 HD TV) found the same size difference between the 1024x768 and the 1280x1024.

What I also found out was the only difference in ship size came from the 1280x1024.

All the other resolution:
1024x768
1152x864
1280x768
1280x800
1280x960
1360x768
1360x1024
1490x900
1600x1200
1680x1050
1792x1344
1920x1080

All had the same ship size when compared to each other.

They all read at the 23 Telemeter division on the scope (even though some of the resolutions were distorted). None of them read 21 1/3. The only resolution that read 21 1/3 (on both my computers) was the 1280x1024!! And if you have read what I've said, it's on the 1280x1024 resolution I made SCAF. That's been my working and playing computer for SH3 and 4 for years.

I admit it, I'm convinced by my own tests, SCAF will correct manual targeting IF YOU USE THE 1280x1024 RESOLUTION.

All the others like your 1490x900 not a chance!!!! Yes, you may be able to do better with the stock heights at these other resolutions. Although the stock Hiyru mast height of 31 meters is off no matter what resolution you use!!

It was just a chance finding when I discovered this resolution anomaly. But what makes me sad is the devs never did a thing to patch this glitch. Because I looked at my game world through a 1280x1024 lens, I just assumed the game resolutions for the rest of you saw the same things I did.

I was wrong.

HI Cap...we may only say:
Why on hell did you use the 1280x1024 resolution?:DL

My SH4 video options don't let me use the 1280x1024 resolution:down:

Thus the only thing you have to do is to make a revised SCAF version for the rest of the world:DL:DL

CapnScurvy

10-30-10, 09:57 AM

HI Cap...we may only say:
Why on hell did you use the 1280x1024 resolution?:DL

And, why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other......!!!

Yep, using the only resolution that has this problem didn't help me a bit!!

In my defense, at one time before LCD's and wide screen monitors, 1280x1024 resolutions were the "native" resolutions of many monitors that had gotten away from the 800x600 limitations. CRT monitors were set to a specific aspect ratio and had been for years going back to the "Which color screen do you want? Amber or Green"? (Ok, I'm really dating myself now!!). But, there had been no reason to think UBISoft would have let one screen resolution through that was different from the rest.

So yes, making another SCAF to fit the other resolutions is a possibility. For right now I'm putting my efforts towards the "Optical Targeting Assist" that will be much like SCAF except it corrects the "world view" through its optic changes and calibrates the correct mast heights to read correctly with those changes. Kind of like an overall correction to the game world. It won't fix the resolution problem I've found, but now that I know it exists I can have two versions to suit the different resolutions it effects.

Webster

10-31-10, 04:31 PM

============

Hey Webster, I do want to show you the Javlins .sim file and where it causes the ship to sit too low in the water. The stock games .sim file is overlaying the file from GFO 1.1. Notice the "Mass:" entry of the stock game is 1688.5 tons. GFO has 2330.0 tons. I don't know where this figure came from (I don't mess around with this file) but putting the stock tonnage back into the file raised the ship back to its regular height. Just thought I'd pass it on.

wow :o thanks for noticing that :up: i'll add it to my notes of things to tweak in hopes one day i find time to redo a new version of GFO

the sim file changes are most likely from my manuvering fix and mass wasnt part of the changes i used so that must be something from the experimental tests that somehow got mixed up with the good files.

i wish i had time to redo all the small stuff and fine tune GFO as things get reported but i barely have time for even checking in here once in a while so i dont even get time to play silent hunter much less mod it.