Periscope ranging seems ridiculous.... [Archive]

Platapus

07-03-11, 05:22 PM

I'm currently playing:
TMO 2.1
RSRDC 5xx patch 1

I came upon a convoy with a Hiryu type carrier. Couldn't have been a sweeter approach too. Night, decent vis, slight chop on the water. I took a bazillion ranges and charted them. They all looked halfway decent but I could never get a decent speed solution. It varied anywhere from 6 to 10 knots. These were all manual calculations, I never use the button to find it. I took 4 shots. Nevermind that 3 prematurely detonated (not the point of this thread). I missed way behind so he was either much faster or further away than I had ranged him. So I cheated and reloaded. Further ranges showed him almost 700 yards closer. I'm pretty confused. SH 3 always seemed to be much better at periscope ranging. Any mods that work with TMO and RSRDC to fix this?

Welcome aboard.

What you experienced was probably the most realistic thing about SH4. Ranging was difficult and was inaccurate until the advent of radar (even then there were errors). Captains seldom knew the height of the ship and the view from the periscope was not as clear as is sometimes depicted in the video game.

Speed estimation was, in many cases, solely based on the experience of the captain. I would say if you were estimating the speed between 6 and 10 knots you are doing great!

You did not mention what range you were shooting at, but since you mentioned that in your reload the ranges were 700 yards closer, it sounds like you were shooting from far away.

Personally, I find the "inaccuracies" of SH4 to add to the realism and forces me to get up close to the point where the errors have little impact (pun intended) on my firing solution. But everyone plays the game the way they want to. I hope you can find a nice mod that helps you shoot more accurately.

Welcome aboard and Be Agressive. oops, wrong game.:oops: Find em and Sink em. :D

Armistead

07-03-11, 11:41 PM

You can always check your solution on the attack map.

Rostbef

07-04-11, 01:55 AM

Thanks for the replies. I was about 2k yards from the carrier and less than that from his escort who was zigging all over the place. That was about as close as I dared to get. I have sort of a related question. since I've loaded RSRDC, the recognition manual has some red marks for some ships over the funnels and such. I'm guessing these are the measuring points for the published mast heights. Am I wrong?

commandosolo2009

07-04-11, 04:28 AM

I'm currently playing:
TMO 2.1
RSRDC 5xx patch 1

I came upon a convoy with a Hiryu type carrier. Couldn't have been a sweeter approach too. Night, decent vis, slight chop on the water. I took a bazillion ranges and charted them. They all looked halfway decent but I could never get a decent speed solution. It varied anywhere from 6 to 10 knots. These were all manual calculations, I never use the button to find it. I took 4 shots. Nevermind that 3 prematurely detonated (not the point of this thread). I missed way behind so he was either much faster or further away than I had ranged him. So I cheated and reloaded. Further ranges showed him almost 700 yards closer. I'm pretty confused. SH 3 always seemed to be much better at periscope ranging. Any mods that work with TMO and RSRDC to fix this?

If you aim for realism, you should be happy with the stadimeter error. Real life skippers had the ordeal of measuring the mast of the sighted ship, and the Length/Height Ratio which helped them call the AOB.

Another thing, is that the TDC feature is nice to keep on as soon as you start a plot. At least you have a projected path, which you may update conveniently. Alas, the TDC wont give you a precise ranging, but if the difference between expected stadimeter range and TDC generated range is off by 100 meters, the solution is valid.

For example you start plotting when the target is 20 kms away. 2 sound bearings and pings get you an estimate course and speed and a first-hand AOB. these you plug-in with a compensation of AOB (say at 19.7 km a ping ranged got him at AOB 13 starboard, so you adjust AOB to 14 starboard and range of 19.5 at the next bearing then you turn on the PK).

Works well if you track with sonar. Radar can be keyed to show range/bearing consistency and correct if necessary (mostly if the target is in deep waters and not facing a puddle or landmass ahead, the solution stays same with minor adjustments at pre-firing point).

By 'keying' the radar, I mean focus on a bearing ahead of the target an most importantly, recognizable on the PPI screen (30 degree bearing increments themselves,not the slices of pizza in-between) and when the target crosses that bearing, you check the A-scope for range and compare it to the TDC generated range, while also checking the generated bearing versus return bearing

:salute:

Pisces

07-04-11, 06:00 AM

Daniel Prates

07-04-11, 08:43 AM

Still the error is too big, something like 40% (700 yards out of 2000).

Are you sure you are using the stadimeter correctly? You have to find the tallest mast, and that is not always easy since sometimes there are flags and such things that confuse your data aquisition and makes you measure the hightes mast incorrectly - as it is the case with the Hyriu. Always chech the profile on the recognition manual and see if the flag is or isn't a part of the top mast.

Also, always zoom your scope to get the hightest definition you can.

It seems to me that the only explanation to this big distance errors is that you are not locking the stadimeter in the right position when you calculate distance.

Platapus

07-04-11, 08:55 AM

I'm guessing these are the measuring points for the published mast heights. Am I wrong?

You are not wrong, you are right. :up:

I'm goin' down

07-04-11, 12:17 PM

Use the Optical Training Correction by Capn Scurvy. It work with stock game and with RSRDC, You can fix up the stock game with Webster's GFO supermod.

I know. Your welcome.

Armistead

07-04-11, 01:47 PM

I use max optics and scaf, really too much info, but I feel it helps balance the turbo stops and starts of the ships. Within 3000 yards it works great, but with TMO's darker horizon lil harder. If you have visuals or radar it's easy to get course using your tools. After you click the stad it will give you range and course, I know my reading is good when the stad course matches the course I determined with my tools.

PortsmouthProwler

07-05-11, 08:12 PM

Did you take a speed average over multiple plots? 3 minute plots are too coarse to rely on if you shoot at anything over point blank range.

It is also important how far away those plots were when you took them. At 10 nm distance 1 degree of bearing is 350 yards wide. The target could have been anywhere in that 350 yards. There goes your 100 yard=1 knot rule flying out of the window.

???

100 yards per minute (I assume that is meant) times 60 minutes is 6,000 yards in an hour which is very close to 3 nautical miles an hour, i. e., 3 knots. Unless you meant three minutes...

Three minute plots? Why? More data? The futz factor in the range alone introduces enough error. Personally, I don't like to keep the scope up for very long, it does not pay to advertise.

I have the chart symbols on, but only for approaches. I don't correct off the chart, I go by eyeball.

I don't play as much as I used to, and use GFO when I do. Please let me wax eloquent:

* Numbah One: use common sense and Keep It Simple, Simon. I'm trying to enjoy a realistic experience. So, using my knowledge of the USN sub war in the Pacific (not inconsiderable, if I may), I try to have a 'realistic' approach and shoot. Oh, 82% Real, FWIW.

* Get ahead of them and ambush the enemy. Wait for them to walk into your parlor. Make everything as favorable as you can.

* Pick 'em up on radar, get ahead, cruise slowly to the meet. At the right time, drop the boat to radar depth. Track 'em, get a feel for speed. Confirm the 'Slow', 'Medium', messages on the radar icon (yes, I do use the 'on-chart' radar icons - that's my team plotting). Speed. AoB should be a snap, really, and don't sweat the angles, Pythogaros, as you'll see in a sec, within even 15 degrees can be good enough.

* OK, you're at 43 feet. Get the heck down at the right time. You didn't keep the scope up from last Wednesday, did you? Good. Go to 58 feet. Listen to Mr. Sonar, he is your friend, and yes, I use the sonar lines, that's my team again.

* You now are in a very good position to know where they are, how they're pointing, and how fast they're approaching. You are on Silent, right? Good skipper.

* Put your scope up and check out reality against Mr. Sonar. Pick out the best, usually closest, target. All else equal, this is the rule, take the closest, surest target. Do this quickly, very quickly. Get that target in your visual memory, while you lock and punch the Keeper. Put the scope down if it takes more than two Hail Marys.

* ID the target, put the scope back up, if applicable, lock, enter ID, pull Stad down, range her. Put in your best guess to AoB, check out the bow wake, keep in mind what the heck it is, what the intelligence said way back when about the convoy speed - most speeds are between 4 to 9 kts, maybe 12 once in a great while, but the big secret is...

* you did the approach right and you are Deadly Close, under a 1,000 yards, preferably 800, maybe 650. Being George Grider IV, you already have the torps set to Fast and you don't worry about depth settings too much, you already set them to Flavor of the Month two days ago.

* Put the spread from 1.5 to 2.5 degrees, a typical real life spread, and give two totally unexpected gifts to Mr. Merchant. You did open the door, right? Wait for 'Torpedo in the water', do it, it saves on prematures. Swing the scope and go for the second target if you're on a roll and already did the prep and homework for Target Two. Repeat.

*Get the scope down, belay Silent, dive like a banshee, get that temp layer, and reload. If you're good, you can come back for another round. If the IJN is good that day, get outta Dodge.

Don't forget to mark the Nav Map for stragglers and gun candidates.

Go home, be glad you're breathing, let Nimitz tell you what a good boy you are. Marry the girl of your dreams and tell your grandkids you'd rather not talk about it ('cuz you don't).

Daniel Prates

07-06-11, 12:00 PM

I still think the error is coming from the flag issue, it being either computed or not computed as it should.

PortsmouthProwler

07-06-11, 04:22 PM

Well, if the above is on the money, Webster's GFO mod has good optics and stadimeter and ranging - which, in my experience, it does.

And, per my notes above - when you're into 1,000 yards or less, you don't even have to ID the target. Just put in the range, AoB, and speed. Between proximity and even a two torp spread, you'll get good results with a little practice. Depending on the target, three or more. I was playing one of the canned missions and a smallish capital ship swam into view, dead ahead, athwart my course. I dropped all procedure and punched six fish as quick as I could. Scratch one CL.

Do I miss sometimes? Sure, I do. Do I even get killed sometimes? Yup, I do. I wouldn't play a duck shooting arcade game.

Armistead

07-06-11, 04:28 PM

The three minute rule is 100% accurate, why most use it .

TorpX

07-07-11, 02:10 AM

I'm currently playing:
TMO 2.1
RSRDC 5xx patch 1

I came upon a convoy with a Hiryu type carrier. Couldn't have been a sweeter approach too. Night, decent vis, slight chop on the water. I took a bazillion ranges and charted them. They all looked halfway decent but I could never get a decent speed solution. It varied anywhere from 6 to 10 knots. These were all manual calculations, I never use the button to find it. I took 4 shots. Nevermind that 3 prematurely detonated (not the point of this thread). I missed way behind so he was either much faster or further away than I had ranged him. So I cheated and reloaded. Further ranges showed him almost 700 yards closer. I'm pretty confused. SH 3 always seemed to be much better at periscope ranging. Any mods that work with TMO and RSRDC to fix this?

I agree with Daniel that it is hard to explain a 700 yd error in this case. In cases such as this, it is often helpful to go over the plot and consider where the error lies. In RL, the range estimates were considered to be error prone and the target's course, on the plot, was "faired" to reconcile it with observed data. If the plot shows the target zigging near and far, it is likely your ranges are bad. If the ranges are consistantly too long or short, your mast ht. reference may be off. There is another possibility however; that the target was not on the same course the whole time. This happened to me once. I assumed the observed ranges were in error, when they didn't jive with my plot, and missed with a four torp spread as a result. The point here is a careful study of your plot can yield valuble clues as to what went wrong. Also, how were your Aob estimates?

Daniel Prates

07-07-11, 01:37 PM

Do I miss sometimes? Sure, I do. Do I even get killed sometimes? Yup, I do. I wouldn't play a duck shooting arcade game.

Never before have I seen someone compliment this game with such eloquence.

Pisces

07-07-11, 04:14 PM

???

100 yards per minute (I assume that is meant) times 60 minutes is 6,000 yards in an hour which is very close to 3 nautical miles an hour, i. e., 3 knots. Unless you meant three minutes...

Three minute plots? Why? More data? The futz factor in the range alone introduces enough error. Personally, I don't like to keep the scope up for very long, it does not pay to advertise.
...
I gather you are not familiar with the 3 minute plotting rule. In 3 minutes a target moving at 1 knot moves about 100 yards. Since the ruler map tool can measure in these units easily many players like to plot in that interval. Just read off the digits it has moved thus far and you know speed after 3 minutes. It's a neat rule to get into manual plotting for beginners. No need to correct for odd time periods and leftover seconds. Simply on the 3rd minute, But I agree, accurate speed, especially when using optical ranging alone, is pretty bad in these short intervals. Averaging the target motion over a longer time is what I would advise at all times to make shot counts. (without spreads I mean)

The futz factor in the range really depends on your position relative to the target. If the AOB is around 90 (on his beam) then the range error leads to a course uncertainty between plots. But when you are infront or behind him, it leads to a uncertainty in how much it moved during the interval.(so uncertain speed) Therefore I like to parallel to his course while keeping on his beam out of sight. Bearing information is then reasonably good to provide a measure of speed. If the time interval is reasonably long for distant targets. And coincidentaly it's pretty much just like your own movement.

CapnScurvy

07-09-11, 03:10 PM

Tell me, is the Hiryu mast height for TMO 2.1 still set at 20 meters, or 65.6 feet tall?

It should read around 37 meters, or 121.4 feet tall.

This is an error in mast height for the stock game going back to when it was first released, and carried on by TMO by using the games file of the original release. UbiSoft patched the Hiryu some time ago to 31 meters mast height, but it still is not correct!

The point is, this target and many others have the mast height so screwed up you couldn't hit it unless you're so close the torpedo has no chance of missing!!

CapnScurvy

07-10-11, 09:52 AM

As a follow up, for those that may not believe the type of mast height error I described in the previous post exists in the game (or one modded into it), I suggest you check for yourself.

Use this "Hiryu Mission Test" (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=3283) to check the accuracy of the Stadimeter using the mast height of the stock game, or the TMO 2.1 mod, or any other mod you choose. It's JSGME compatible, just download it into the "MODS" folder of the Wolves of the Pacific folder and "activate" it like you would any other mod.

The "Hiryu Mission Test" will appear in the "Quick Missions" or "Single Missions" menu heading of the main game screen. Select the "Realism" option heading found along the bottom of the page, and set the options to nothing "enabled" ("zero" realism). This way you will have the game auto targeting provide you the true accurate range of the 8 Hiryu's positioned around the Porpoise class sub. Just read the range off the Position Keeper and keep track of each target at the 8 relative bearing positions around the sub. Then, use the "Escape" key to return to the main menu of the game and "Enable" manual targeting as the only option for running the mission again.

This time pop the periscope up and take a stadimeter reading of the top of the flag mast (actually you won't see the mast, it doesn't exist. Just use the top of the flag where it would have attached to the mast, figuring it has to be there, visible or not). Check the range found in the Position Keeper and compare it to the true actual range you recorded with auto targeting. Do the stadimeter check several times to get a good average of the range. You'll see the stadimeter found range is quite different than the true accurate range (use the sonar to recheck the true accurate range to the targets. You'll find the sonar, when done by you and sent to the TDC/Position Keeper, are exactly the same as the auto targeting range).

This "difference" is caused by several things. The largest being the Mast Height found for the TMO Hiryu (in the Recognition Manual) is off by 17 meters (56 feet) than what it should be. It's too short!! The stock game lists the Hiryu as 31 meters, or 101 feet tall. Still too short. You won't get an accurate range with the stadimeter if the mast height measurement is this far off. What some of you have stated regarding following "procedures in manual targeting" are correct, however the correct procedure does not make up for the inaccuracy of listing the incorrect mast height (or whatever reference position you use for taking a stadimeter reading).

While you're at it, using the stadimeter, check out the difference between the bow target and the stern target Hiryu's. Compare them to the two port and starboard Hiryu's. You'll find a difference in found range of the two front and back targets compared to the two left and right targets. This is a result of the stadimeter not being correctly positioned on the sub model, resulting in different range distances when comparing these bearing positions. A target will have a different range finding due to what relative bearing it happens to be on, even though the target is at the same true distance away from the sub (give or take a couple of meters/yards)! This was not the case in real life. The periscope itself was the starting position for the real life stadimeter function. In the game, this function is done with a separate "camera" view, independent of the sub model's position of the periscope. This independent view is not correctly positioned matching the position of what the stadimeter math equation uses for finding manual range.

Throw in the fact that the stock TBT/Periscope Telemeter divisions (the hash marks found on the scope lens) are not capable of giving the correct measurement due to the "Field of View" not being set correctly, only adds to the manual targeting inaccuracy. If you want to read more, look at this "Optical Targeting Correction" (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=181172) mods "Discussion" section found further down the page. It should show you what's wrong with the game (which no other mod has addressed) and what has been done to correct it (including corrected mast height/reference height measurements).

Armistead

07-10-11, 10:20 AM

I use SCAF with TMO and have no problems with TMO, but did notice the issue before, so I agree.

CapnScurvy

07-10-11, 10:54 AM

Armistead, with what I've found out with the optical issues of the game I'll be the first to admit that SCAF does not correct all the issues it should.

It does correct the "mast height/reference height point" to a degree, but when I found out that the stadimeter is not centered on the different sub models (yep, there's a difference to each class), the corrected measurement could be off depending on "where" the target was positioned when I used the mission test for calculating the stadimeter range.

When I check ships for mast height measurements I usually would put maybe 8 -10 targets around a stationary sub; get a true range from using the auto target option for each ship; then use manual targeting and the stadimeter to give me the manual found range. I have a math formula for correcting the "mast height/reference height position" height measurement, then check the measurement again for accuracy (give or take up to 8 or so meters). Not until recently did I know the stadimeter was not "centered" on the sub to read a range equally around the sub, no matter what relative bearing it was on. This in turn, has made some of the SCAF corrections inaccurate depending on where the target was placed in my mission tests around the sub. If the ship was placed to the port or starboard positions then the corrected mast height is fairly accurate. If the target ship was to the bow or stern of the sub, my correction is inaccurate due to the games stadimeter "centering" problem.

Like I said, I'll be the first to admit it. That's why the "Optical Targeting Correction" mod will be more accurate than SCAF and I would consider SCAF to be obsolete when OTC is finally updated with the corrected mast heights; centering the stadimeter to each sub; correcting the Field of View of the periscopes and TBT/UZO; and correcting the different resolutions the game runs in to provide the same Field of View for all aspect ratio's.

I'm goin' down

07-10-11, 11:29 AM

I can finally get some sleep now!

Daniel Prates

07-10-11, 04:33 PM

I was wondering when captnscurvy would show up, he devoted an entire mod to the Hyriu problem.

CapnScurvy

07-11-11, 06:24 AM

Well, you're right Daniel, reading this topic and seeing the Hiryu as the "main culprit" in the question of range inaccuracy came right into my "wheel house" (sort of speak). :O:

The Hiryu isn't the only ship with a large mast height problem, there are several others, but most are only a couple of meters/yards off, a few within a meter or so. This is using the stock game figures. Various mods change the mast height as well, some because they had a reason. Some for no apparent reason at all. As in the TMO reason, probably due to just an oversight in which file to use? An original, or a newer patched one?

Changing the ship model also effects the manual stadimeter range finding as well. Some mods try to get the ship model to "look" right; some to have it's model "act" right. Changing the "displacement" either has the ship sitting higher or lower in the water. Not having the mast height figure to be corrected to the actual height will produce an error every time.

Daniel Prates

07-11-11, 09:15 AM

This was actually a great discussion we had a few weeks ago. Scurvy, since you started the thread, can't you find the link and post it here? (quite the lazy bum I am).

CapnScurvy

07-11-11, 02:24 PM

This was actually a great discussion we had a few weeks ago.

Hey, it's never to late to learn something!!

Scurvy, since you started the thread, can't you find the link and post it here?

If your talking about the "Optical Targeting Correction" thread? Roll up a couple of replies back (on this page) and mouse over the link I have to the thread. It has the orange color, with the same name.

Guess I'm also too lazy to do it here since, I already have a link to the thread in this one!! :D

If that's the thread you're talking about?

0rpheus

07-11-11, 03:02 PM

This is a very useful thread to a skipper just trying out manual targeting like me. I've had awful trouble getting an accurate range, to the extent I started aiming the stadimeter deliberately high/low and swapping back and forth between F3/F6 to check until I got the distance right.

Does OTC work with TMO? Sounds like it's exactly what I need :) If that works, just gotta figure out the AoB and I'll be all set (but that's for a different thread ;) )!

AVGWarhawk

07-11-11, 03:04 PM

Get within in 1500 yards are better. Use the tools for range, AOB and speed. At this range you should be able to get accurate readings for a sinking. You have to remember that approach from a distance is guess work. Get the general direction of the target. Rough guess on speed and range. Start the PK and let the attack begin to develope. When in close the accuracy of your range/AOB can be generated quite easily. Send a spread of 3 torps as was the general rule.

PS. I use TMO. No issues getting range. Get in close and personal.

AVGWarhawk

07-11-11, 03:11 PM

Changing the ship model also effects the manual stadimeter range finding as well. Some mods try to get the ship model to "look" right; some to have it's model "act" right. Changing the "displacement" either has the ship sitting higher or lower in the water. Not having the mast height figure to be corrected to the actual height will produce an error every time.

These are the factors the skippers had to deal with. Many vessel were altered. Mast height was increased or decreased. Laden ships created issues. It was not an extact dead on solution all the time. A lot was good guess work and intuition. Throw in some rough seas and shooting from the hip was called for. Doctrine I believe was 1500 or better to target. This greatly increased the probablity of a hit. Having an accurate mast height figure everytime was not something the skippers had access too.

AVGWarhawk

07-11-11, 03:15 PM

In the precise prose of the era, "The basic principle of Surface Vessel recognition as with aircraft is familiarity with the total form of the object observed. The true character of a ship is not determined by a single feature or features, but by the familiarity we may have with the total mass of the hull and the superstructure, when viewed from great distances. ... The salient recognition characteristics are shown in their simplest form by silhouettes. ... In ship recognition, the use of beam, or side view silhouette, is by far the most important. If the beam silhouette is thoroughly known, the ship can be recognized from either the surface or the air."

http://acepilots.com/ships/main.html

Are you selecting the correct vessel from the recognition manual? Wrong vessel will screw up solution for sure.

0rpheus

07-11-11, 03:24 PM

Good advice AVG. :) I usually do, I can hit most of the time at 1000 yards (after much swearing and fiddling with the AoB) if my position's perfect, but if I even slightly fluff the approach, which happens occasionally when chasing fast targets, my torps tend to go all over the place... anything over a thousand and the ranging gets much much harder.

I know it's not really the thread but a little off topic probably won't hurt - the AoB is more of a problem. I think I now get the 'ship bearing 230' that I get occasionally when searching for ships, turning towards it and spotting them before the radar does... but I don't get how the smaller numbers on the same dial are also used/applied in terms of AoB. I came to SH4 having never played a naval game before in my life so I've no experience with this kind of thing.

I use map contacts (and probably always will) so I can plot a fairly decent course for my target and find its heading, but the AoB input on the top right of the scope never seems to correspond to what I'm reading as heading, and it changes constantly during the approach (which I get, because the ships is moving relative to me - but I thought the TDC was supposed to account for that) so I just end up twisting the dial until I get something that roughly corresponds with the ship's estimated course and tweak it with F3/F6 until it's right. I'm sure that's not the right way to do it but the documentation is a bit over my head! :doh:

It's a shame there's no way to leave manual targeting on (so you can enter all the info and do it yourself if you want), but still leaving the 'L' lock target key as activating auto-targeting. I started trying manual because I wanted a way to hit ships in heavy storms where getting a visible lock is impossible at torpedo range (too close to arm/often vis is 300 metres or so), so I checked out WernerSobe's vids (including the sonar only), but I just can't manage it (manual speed calcs are way, way beyond me)... so I've gone back to auto-targeting, and letting the buggers go if it's stormy weather. :88)

AVGWarhawk

07-11-11, 03:27 PM

0rpheus

07-11-11, 04:18 PM

This thread is your friend.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=108931

Also, I always go for the 90 degree approach. Always have the vessels side to my bow. The 90 degree approach under 1500 yards is very deadly. :DL

I'm also a loan vessel hunter. Battleships are cool to sink. Destroyers are not fun to play with. I go for the easy meat!

Same here, though I seem to rarely see military ships with RSRDC. Guess I must be sticking to merchant shipping lanes.

Thanks for the link. I've watched most of the vids (the ones that are still working, anyway) and I get the basic premise behind it all (I think) - but what I see doesn't correspond to what I get in game. I've just literally been trying it on the sub school third mission 'sink cruiser' and I'm now raging in frustration again. :(

The data doesn't correspond to the inputs. If I plot a target's course, and get their bearing, the bearing isn't actually the AoB..? I saw a vid where the target & sub angles were plotted with the protractor (say giving a 47 degree angle) and it looked like they used that for the AoB...

... but, the AoB input has numbers 1-18 for port & starboard sides, so how do I translate angles into those numbers!? When I set it manually to what looks right I'm often off by miles and have to spend several minutes readjusting it. I don't see how you get from a target's bearing to getting an AoB when the AoB seems to constantly change and visual/manual setting seems to produce such obviously wrong results!

Stadimeter's borked too I think - I usually lock the target with L to keep the view steady, put the middle line at the target's waterline and then range to mast top as directed. But this nearly always leaves my target on the position keeper 50 or more yards short of the target (behind it) and the torps miss. I don't understand why this always happens, even when I've got the speed right, and manually ranging it ahead of the target just screws up the position keeper and makes it difficult to keep the thing on target. :(

I love sims and I love this game but after tonight, and all the reading/watching videos and it still not making sense even at the most basic level (which I'm pretty sure is my fault, I'm just not a maths person), I can heartily say 'sod that' to manual targeting, which is a shame as it's the last part (and probably the best) of this sim left to conquer :(

EDIT: Oh, and re the recognition manual, I usually click 'identify target' :D Thinking of editing that last post to read 'can barely hit at 1000 yds!' ;)

CapnScurvy

07-11-11, 04:40 PM

Does OTC work with TMO?

Not yet.

To make it compatible for TMO without losing either the intent of OTC or TMO is no small task. There are many of the same files that are both modded in there own way, keeping Optical Targeting Correction from working with TMO, without specific merging of the two together.

I've been working to have it compatible with the stock game itself which lately has taken longer to do with the revelation of the stadimeter not being "centered" on the sub in relationship to the view that the periscope shows. They aren't the same.

Also, if you've read some of the OTC mod thread, you have also learned of the game resolution aspect ratio issue that renders the manual targeting optical views "size" differently depending on what resolution your game is displayed. Neither issue has an effect on auto targeting, but it will effect the use of the telemeter divisions of either the TBT or Periscopes, which OTC uses when in step with the Omnimeter.

Bottom line, I'll have OTC working for both SH4 versions (1.4 and 1.5) and a couple of other mods, before I make a TMO compatible version.

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

As far as the idea that having incorrect mast heights in a Recognition Manual should be considered "real life conditions" and that a 700 yard difference in found range due to those "fog of war" conditions is acceptable is BULL!! Any Captain that found out the RM was wrong with it's measurements and a couple of misses were the result, would have corrected the darn thing so he wouldn't miss in the future. And, if he was of the type that didn't mind telling the "powers to be" what he thought, he'd have them know the manual needed to be corrected so others didn't make the same mistake. I'm simply doing the same.

I believe the issue of having correct mast height was an oversight (much like the stadimeter centering issue, or the lack of consistent aspect ratio screen views) of the game. Why else would a couple of mast heights actually be accurate at all. Or, why would the mast height of the original version 1.0 Hiryu changed from 20 meters, to a later patched 31 meters, if the developers expected to introduce such "fog of war" play. They would have left it alone!! Content that you'd miss the target by huge amounts unless you're so close to the target that the nose of the sub could brush the target as it passes by. No, the target mast heights shouldn't be the "issue" in manual targeting that creates missed shots. There are other pieces to the solution equation that do quite well all on their own.

AVGWarhawk

07-11-11, 05:54 PM

As far as the idea that having incorrect mast heights in a Recognition Manual should be considered "real life conditions" and that a 700 yard difference in found range due to those "fog of war" conditions is acceptable is BULL!! Any Captain that found out the RM was wrong with it's measurements and a couple of misses were the result, would have corrected the darn thing so he wouldn't miss in the future. And, if he was of the type that didn't mind telling the "powers to be" what he thought, he'd have them know the manual needed to be corrected so others didn't make the same mistake. I'm simply doing the same.

And dazzle patterns never fooled a skipper with correct AOB or total misidentification of a ship either. :hmmm:

Only one that I know of told "the power that be what he thought". It concerned bad torpedoes. :DL

Ship misidentification happened all the time.

On 30 July, Tarpon again headed for Japanese home waters. On 16 August, she sighted a Japanese task force which reportedly included an aircraft carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier) of the Otaka-class (there was, in fact, no such class; intelligence had misidentified Taiyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Taiyo), but its high speed prohibited an attack

It was not an exact science.

May I direct all to this thread?

http://174.123.69.202/~subsimc/radioroom/showthread.php?t=138202

CapnScurvy

07-12-11, 10:28 AM

AVG, the point that RFB uses real life measurements from the ONI Recognition Manual is fine, IF the game renders the same real life optics for the periscopes/TBT that the measurements are based.

It does not.

The stock game Field of View (the width of the periscope view from edge to edge) is larger than the real life periscope view that would correctly render a range when using the Telemeter divisions. Depending on the game resolution one uses, the FoV is either 4 degrees too wide or 6 degrees too wide at low power. What this means to a gamer is the target will appear smaller than it should be when measuring the mast height (or what ever reference point you choose that you have a length/height measurement of). Having a measurement of "real life" ships will not give you accurate range findings if the measuring tool is not the same length as in real life.

I suggest one should read the "Discussion" section of the Optical Targeting Correction thread (found HERE (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=181172)) to understand what I'm talking about. Take the time to see for yourself this optical FoV inaccuracy using the mission test I have linked to in the thread. I'm not pulling this stuff out of thin air.

To understand what a "Fire Control" team does to make a firing solution, may I suggest this publication called Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual (found HERE (http://www.hnsa.org/doc/attack/index.htm)). Reprinted in the early 1950's but useful since the Fleet Boat was still the main sub for the Navy. The manual points out the various tools that the team would use (like the Omnimeter) for determining range with the periscopes Telemeter divisions and their specifications (look all you want, there's no reference to the "Dick O'Kane method, or whatever you want to call it). Notice on page 5-2 the periscopes (attack and observation) "True field low magnification" (Field of View) is 32 degrees wide. As I said, the periscopes FoV in-game for all resolutions (except one) is 36 degrees wide at low power. The 1280x1024 resolution is set to 38 degrees wide. The high power setting is scaled to be exactly 1 quarter of the size of the low power FoV. If one is off, so is the other. You'll not get an accurate range using "real life" measurements if the FoV is not set to "real life" dimensions.

Reading further in the "Discussion" section, I hope everyone will notice the issue regarding the games chosen resolution, and how the different Aspect Ratio's effect the periscope rendered size compared to the TBT. Completely unexpected but the TBT will change it's FoV size compared to the periscopes size depending on what resolution one uses for the game. A telemeter division measurement from the periscope will read differently than one made by the TBT, even though the target is positioned exactly the same for both views. There are at least 5 different aspect ratio's that create this problem, each with it's own size difference. So one correction doesn't fit the others.

Other issues have also been found to hamper correct range finding (perhaps this is the thread Daniel Prates was referring to). This thread called "Manual Targeting Problems" (found HERE (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=183764)) deals with the stadimeter not being centered on the sub at the modeled periscope location. This creates an unrealistic error in range finding depending in which direction (relative bearing) the stadimeter is used. I say unrealistic because in "real life" the stadimeter was a part of the periscope, like your fingers are to the hand. Where one goes, so does the other. The game has the periscope view "independent" of the stadimeter "centered" point that creates the formula for calculating range with the mast height figure. That's why the measurement of the bow target compared to the stern target is different to each other (even though the targets are about equal to the sub in distance). Compare the bow/stern stadimeter range to the port/starboard range and you get another difference in range distance. The point here is this kind of difference was never a problem in real life. The stadimeter was always a part of the periscope (no matter where on the sub an engineer decided to put it), the view matched the stadimeter calculating point. An engineer only needed to set the internal workings of the TDC for the difference of calculation between the periscopes position and the torpedo tube location and it's done. No matter in what relative bearing you looked the stadimeter would render the correct range, and the difference in position of the periscope to torpedo tube was already factored in.

What's it all mean?

You either play the game using the auto targeting option, and think "point and shoot" is the best thing since sliced bread. Or, use manual targeting and stick your nose so close to the target a blind man couldn't miss, no matter what measurement figures you use.

AVGWarhawk

07-12-11, 03:07 PM

You have done a nice job with your mod. Nice dissertation on the limitations of the game.

You either play the game using the auto targeting option, and think "point and shoot" is the best thing since sliced bread. Or, use manual targeting and stick your nose so close to the target a blind man couldn't miss, no matter what measurement figures you use.

This issue I have is playing with wire-fired torpedoes at 4000 yards in automatic mode. Like me. :DL Hence your mod. :DL Many Skippers did not fire at 4000 yards. For me, I like some realism. Ideal positioning is 90 degrees to the target at 1000 yards (close enough for a blindman to hit the target).

1. Get a good estimate of target course. This can be done with narrow limits. Hopefully the target is not zig-zagging.
2. Use the periscope to feed in the bearing to the TDC. At this point range mostly estimate at best is likely to be out.
3. Close to a good firing range.
4. Fire straight shots. Then a range error makes no difference.

Ouoted from:

"United States submarine operations in World War II."

By Theodore Roscoe, Richard G. Voge, United States. Bureau of Naval Personnel

With the advent of the S-boats, the standard U.S. submarine torpedo became the 21-inch Mark-10. While having a diameter only three inches larger that the old Mark-7, this was enough to allow an increase in warhead size from 326 pounds to 497 pounds. The Mark-10 was slightly faster, 36 knots vs. 35, though the range was reduced to 3,500 yards. Considering the state of aiming ability at the time, the shorter range was unlikely to be much of a problem. Most commanders would want to get the range under 1,000 yards in any case.

http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/torpedoes.html

Getting to within 1500 yards are closer was the order of the day. It leaves little room for error in the Pacific theater and our desktop patrols.:DL I attempt to run the boat as was dictated by command. I get in close and fire three. This affords me success with even the worst of scope resolutions the game has to offer.

I do have to give your mod a try. It is hard to give up the super mods though.

Daniel Prates

07-12-11, 07:41 PM

Great input, AGV.

CapnScurvy

07-12-11, 09:36 PM

This issue I have is playing with wire-fired torpedoes at 4000 yards in automatic mode. Like me. :DL Hence your mod. :DL Many Skippers did not fire at 4000 yards. For me, I like some realism. Ideal positioning is 90 degrees to the target at 1000 yards (close enough for a blindman to hit the target).

I'm not aware of advocating firing at 4000 yards? Please point out where I have said one should, in this thread or any other.

I agree a firing solution should be reasonable in distance; 1500 to 2000 yards is reasonable, and I follow that doctrine when I play. Your statement implies that my mod (SCAF or OTC) is like "playing with a wire-fired torpedo.... in automatic mode"?

You haven't played them have you?

There are more variables to getting an accurate firing solution than just having a height reference point giving you a reasonably accurate range when used. That's what the corrections in mast height does; gives a reasonably accurate range to target, but it's far from an "automatic" conclusion.

In this thread, Rostbef asked a simply question, why is a particular target (the Hiryu) reading at 700 yards difference in range?

The answer is the TMO 2.1 Hiryu has a mast height of 20 meters or 65.6 feet tall, when it should read 37 meters or 121.4 feet tall.

Running a quick check on just what is the stadimeter found range on a Hiryu sitting at just 1006 yards true distance, with the mast height set at 65.6 feet or 20 meters tall? The stadimeter found range is only 540 yards. So, in a distance of only 1000 yards, you're ok with having a 460 yard error, give or take a couple?

AVG, a reply or two ago you made the comment about my belief that a Captain would/should point out to his superior an error needing to be fixed. You said...

Only one that I know of told "the power that be what he thought". It concerned bad torpedoes.

Maybe the reason a real life Captain never pointed out an error in the ONI Recognition Manual was because there wasn't one! Least not one that threw off the stadimeter found range by half the true distance to target.

I'm goin' down

07-12-11, 10:39 PM

I follow a very basic philosophy,

Try to get close, and regardless, close my eyes and fire everything I got.

AVGWarhawk

07-13-11, 08:46 AM

I'm not aware of advocating firing at 4000 yards? Please point out where I have said one should, in this thread or any other.

I'm not aware of it either. I was not implying you were Capt. Your mod is excellent! It would seem players are attempting torpedo solutions at ranges that are beyond good solution. What you pointed out was getting in close so a blind man could get a hit no matter the data input. Less aggressive skippers were replaced with very aggressive skippers that would get in close. This greatly reduces the possible error that could occur in range/AOB/speed. Added a spread of three torps to assure a hit. What has frustrated me and still does it ranges around 2500-3000 yards are still buggered. As you know, range reading at that many yards are crap. Your mod has taken care of that problem as a result of getting correct magnification. For years I have taken long shots and watched my torpedoes go in front/behind the target or just die in the water at the end of the run. Ranges way off.

I agree a firing solution should be reasonable in distance; 1500 to 2000 yards is reasonable, and I follow that doctrine when I play. Your statement implies that my mod (SCAF or OTC) is like "playing with a wire-fired torpedo.... in automatic mode"?

Oh no! Not at all Capt! I was not implying that at all. I meant that playing with automatic solution feature provided from the developer in the game is like wire-fired torpedoes. Fire when the triangle is green. Never fire when it is red. Not much of a challenge IMO. Your mod makes the manual targeting realism that much more real! The challenge is getting closer to a level playing field inpart because of this mod. Your mod is one more step to getting the game where is should have been out of the box!

You haven't played them have you?

No, I have not. Unless it is part of TMO. Very hard for me to give up the larger mod package. :oops: This mod I do want to try. Reading the thread I see were other smaller mods can be activated with OTC in making a nice overall game to play.

There are more variables to getting an accurate firing solution than just having a height reference point giving you a reasonably accurate range when used. That's what the corrections in mast height does; gives a reasonably accurate range to target, but it's far from an "automatic" conclusion.

And from the looks of it the mod does give reasonably accurate range to target as you stated. Something the game has failed on out of the box. I understand it is far from automatic. :up:

The answer is the TMO 2.1 Hiryu has a mast height of 20 meters or 65.6 feet tall, when it should read 37 meters or 121.4 feet tall.

Running a quick check on just what is the stadimeter found range on a Hiryu sitting at just 1006 yards true distance, with the mast height set at 65.6 feet or 20 meters tall? The stadimeter found range is only 540 yards. So, in a distance of only 1000 yards, you're ok with having a 460 yard error, give or take a couple?

Am I satisfied with that error? No sir. However, during the war sometimes skippers had to be satisifed with this error because vessels were altered. Some were WW1 cargos converted or changed. Others vessels from other nations that had changes in deck structure. These added up to some uncertainty of what vessel was in the skipper sights.

Maybe the reason a real life Captain never pointed out an error in the ONI Recognition Manual was because there wasn't one! Least not one that threw off the stadimeter found range by half the true distance to target.

The ONI was good. I cannot answer if there was an error of up to half though. Intelligence sees a cargo ship being constructed and three months later it comes out of port a flat top. Ships were often misidentified. As noted a few posts back were ships were completely misidentified. There was some fog of war.

I will give your mod a go when I can. :up:

CapnScurvy

07-13-11, 03:34 PM

I'd like everyone to know that I'm a couple of steps closer to finishing the updates and fixes I've been promising for Optical Targeting Correction.

Working on a couple of new compatible versions. I've just bundled the stock SH4, patched to version 1.4 into a WinRaR compression file (told you guys I'd not forget about you) and have a compatible version for the RFB 1.4 mod also.

I'm doing some last minute documentation for the 1.5 stock version and a RSRDC v550 compatible OTC. I'm checking a couple of other things before I bundle these. The downloads will be large due to the different resolution/aspect ratio mods added to the main folders. These resolution/aspect ratio corrections will allow most/all resolutions the same sized periscope/TBT screens for using the telemeter divisions for range finding. You'll need to know your resolution and aspect ratio size the game is played on to correctly choose the mod correcting the differently rendered screens.

I didn't mean to "thread-jack" this post. But, it's important to note that when an issue arises it's not always a "procedural" thing. The game's short comings can be just as much at fault as a "perceived" lack of experience or technique.

AVGWarhawk

07-13-11, 06:15 PM

Excellent! So, there is a version that applies to the resolution the player uses? I would like to have RSRD along with it. The stock campaigns are horrible IMO.

CapnScurvy

07-14-11, 08:04 AM

So, there is a version that applies to the resolution the player uses?

Yes, the resolution/aspect ratio fixes are going to be an additional mod to add after the main Optical Targeting Correction mod. Not counting the main mod itself that corrects the 4:3 aspect ratio (the widest resolution covering aspect ratio), there are 5 other aspect ratios that will be fixed as well. Each needing to be in their own separate mod. I already have the "what and why" of them described in the "Discussion" part of the Optical Targeting Correction thread found HERE (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=181172).

I got a little ahead of myself when I added the resolution/aspect ratio part to the OTC thread without yet having them available for downloading. Documentation seems to be just as time consuming as actually fixing a problem. :doh:

The reality is, the particular resolution a player uses does effect the optical views he sees the game with. That's why the games telemeter divisions found on the periscope or TBT/UZO were really nothing more than decoration; unusable as a way of measuring the viewed world. My original game manual has a couple of sentences regarding the periscopes telemeter hash marks (what they do and how to use them), but in truth you can't use them as-is.

The various game resolutions that are used today create a different sized view for the periscope or TBT through the games optical screens. Playing the "auto targeting" option in-game has no effect from the various resolutions one could choose. However, the manual targeting option is greatly effected by the different resolution/aspect ratio sizes since manual targeting is so dependant on the optical views to provide the information needed to make a firing solution.