VampireNightVision Bugfix [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

Rubini

01-28-12, 07:29 AM

Great news!

But I just saw that my sensor settings are completely different:

;Visual.
Visual range factor=1.4
Visual fog factor=0.9
Visual light factor=1.6

Is that normal and you suggest changing to the settings you recommended or do you mean that the settings should have been like those you recommend from the beginning? I'm just wondering if one of my mods messed with the sensors too much.

Maybe t becomes more clear if I ask in German:

h.sie, meinst Du, dass die Sensoren normalerweise so eingestellt sein sollten, wie du im ersten Post schreibst? Oder sollte man nur die Sensoren so einstellen, um mit dem Fix die besten Ergebnisse zu haben? Nicht, dass irgendeiner meiner Mods die Sensoren zu sehr verstellt hat.

Hi kaleun cook,

These crazy settings on sensors.cfg that some mods or super mods have was exactly a try to "fix"the vampire night vision bug at the past. But obviously none of then fixed it.

The h.sie's fix moves the fog wall itself accordingly the sun position, so we suggest that now you stick with the stock settings plus the ones that h.sie wrote on the first post. Obviously some fine tunning could be needed for each combination on yours mods/monitor settings. I use for example fogfactor=1.05 and lightfactor=0.05, because these settings behave better for me (with the fix). Try it a bit to see what is better for you.

Also the Ai behaviour (I mean: if Ai ships will attack you first or not) is adjusted on sim.cfg; some will need adjust, others not. Anyway this fix don't changes the Ai behaviour or Ai visual detection, only the player/crew ones.

h.sie

01-28-12, 08:00 AM

Contact persons / responsibilities:

Problems, incompatibilities, questions: Makman94, Rubini.

Commendation, praise: h.sie

:D

Rubini

01-28-12, 08:04 AM

Contact persons / responsibilities:

Problems, incompatibilities, questions: Makman94, Rubini.
Commendation, praise: h.sie

:D
You are the boss, so the above is good!:DL

Kaleun Cook

01-28-12, 09:18 AM

Thanks for the advice, Rubini! And sorry for the wrong addressee in my initial post.:oops:

I'll just use the recommended settings then on my next game and see how that works. The only problem that could come up would be to figure out whether I need to adjust the AI-behaviour or not - and if so then which settings to pick. But I should probably worry about that if I stumble into any weird AI-behaviour at all. :doh:

makman94

01-28-12, 09:27 AM

One question: is this also improving nightly surface attacks? Ie we can better sneak into convoys?

it depends how you mean this '' ...improving nightly surface attacks..'' .
now ,your crew 'sees' much more shorter so i am guessing that thing is getting harder now (as it should)

the AI on the other side are not altered by this mod . AI continues to 'see' at the ranges that you allready know so if it was easy for you (depending on which supermod you use) will continue to be that way too

Hi kaleun cook,

These crazy settings on sensors.cfg that some mods or super mods have was exactly a try to "fix"the vampire night vision bug at the past. But obviously none of then fixed it.

The h.sie's fix moves the fog wall itself accordingly the sun position, so we suggest that now you stick with the stock settings plus the ones that h.sie wrote on the first post. Obviously some fine tunning could be needed for each combination on yours mods/monitor settings. I use for example fogfactor=1.05 and lightfactor=0.05, because these settings behave better for me (with the fix). Try it a bit to see what is better for you.

Also the Ai behaviour (I mean: if Ai ships will attack you first or not) is adjusted on sim.cfg; some will need adjust, others not. Anyway this fix don't changes the Ai behaviour or Ai visual detection, only the player/crew ones.

it is important to understand that we didn't give specific sensors settings exactly becuase the mod is universal for all enviros .
each one of you has to adjust his visual settings at his own sensors.cfg
forget and delete everything you read there at the visauls factors in sensors.cfg
as Rubini says there are some tiny adjustments that must be taken care (especially at FogFactor value and at LightFactor).this is necessery exactly becuase of different monitor settings-enviros. ALL other values must be setted back at STOCK VALUES
these are the settings i am using on GWX-16km enviro as my monitor is setted up and have the best results:

;Visual.
Visual range factor=0.5
Visual fog factor=1.03
Visual light factor=0.05
Visual waves factor=0.8
Visual speed factor=0
Visual aspect=0.9
Visual enemy speed=0.2
Visual noise factor=0
Visual sensor height factor=0.5

as Rubini allready told you ,something else that is really important is that AI visuals are not altered at all by this mod . in most of the supermods AI visuals needs corrections too (especially at the situations of extreme fog weather) so if you find situations that enemy is spotting you before you do ...you have to edit the sim.cfg

makman94

01-28-12, 09:33 AM

Contact persons / responsibilities:

Problems, incompatibilities, questions: Makman94, Rubini.

Commendation, praise: h.sie

:D

yes sir ! :salute:

rik007

01-28-12, 09:45 AM

it depends how you mean this '' ...improving nightly surface attacks..'' .
now ,your crew 'sees' much more shorter so i am guessing that thing is getting harder now (as it should)

the AI on the other side are not altered by this mod . AI continues to 'see' at the ranges that you allready know so if it was easy for you (depending on which supermod you use) will continue to be that way too

it is important to understand that we didn't give specific sensors settings exactly becuase the mod is universal for all enviros .
each one of you has to adjust his visual settings at his own sensors.cfg
forget and delete everything you read there at the visauls factors in sensors.cfg
as Rubini says there are some tiny adjustments that must be taken care (especially at FogFactor value and at LightFactor).this is necessery exactly becuase of different monitor settings-enviros. ALL other values must be setted back at STOCK VALUES

I'll just try it. Testing is the best way to experience it instead of asking :know:. Surface attacks are already pretty hard by the way. Maybe the light factor will soften it a bit.

makman94

01-28-12, 10:02 AM

I'll just try it. Testing is the best way to experience it instead of asking :know:. Surface attacks are already pretty hard by the way. Maybe the light factor will soften it a bit.

lightfactor for which one ? for own crew or for the AI ?

h.sie

01-28-12, 10:22 AM

I was joking regarding responsibilities. Seems this got lost in translation.

To repeat what Rubini & Makman said: This isn't a Sensor Fix at all - neither for crew visuals, nor for AI-visuals. It's an environment fix. Reduced visibility at night was realised by moving the "fog curtain" closer to the Uboat. But the fog isn't visible as fog at night. A ship that goes through the fog curtain and thus comes in visible range, looks like as if it comes out of the dark.

Looks very good in environments that use very dark nights. But even with NYGM environment, with its brighter nights, it looks good on my monitor/PC.

The Supermods crew sensor settings in Sensors.cfg were chosen as a compromise to have realistic watch crew detection at daylight (long range) and nights (low range) - without satisfying success. This compromise is not necessary anymore, because now the environment (the fog curtain) itself forces lower visibility at night.

Jaeger

01-28-12, 10:40 AM

that means the supermods need new sensor settings? in this case, i will wait for nygm (stiebler) to adjust this.

Kaleun Cook

01-28-12, 11:09 AM

I'm just trying this and am not sure if this is the intended result. It is night, but I am north of Scotland so the night is a bit bright. My lookout tells me that there'S a ship sighted at soandso degrees - but there is no ship to be seen. I speed up tc again until he yells again. Now I can see the ship and it is definately nearer than it would have been before.

I've always had ths behaviour that the lookout spots a ship that I cannot see yet and that it then gets spotted a second time when it is in my viewing range again. But doesn't this contradict the intensions of this fix?

I'm using the MEP-20km-environment - could that be the reason?

[...] so if you find situations that enemy is spotting you before you do ...you have to edit the sim.cfg

Alright, so that's the problem to look out for, thanks.

makman94

01-28-12, 11:22 AM

I'm just trying this and am not sure if this is the intended result. It is night, but I am north of Scotland so the night is a bit bright. My lookout tells me that there'S a ship sighted at soandso degrees - but there is no ship to be seen. I speed up tc again until he yells again. Now I can see the ship and it is definately nearer than it would have been before.

I've always had ths behaviour that the lookout spots a ship that I cannot see yet and that it then gets spotted a second time when it is in my viewing range again. But doesn't this contradict the intensions of this fix?

I'm using the MEP-20km-environment - could that be the reason?

Alright, so that's the problem to look out for, thanks.

this is happening becuase in MEP v3 exists a feature (trick) that ship is vanished to horizon ,trying to 'simulate' the curvness of the earth .especially when ships's smoke is light colored or not high enough or has no smoke at all,your crew 'sees' it but not you

ps: the 'solution' for this is not at sim.cfg

rik007

01-28-12, 11:24 AM

lightfactor for which one ? for own crew or for the AI ?

The AI. But I realize that that one is not affected by this mod.

Kaleun Cook

01-28-12, 11:29 AM

this is happening becuase in MEP v3 exists a feature (trick) that ship is vanished to horizon ,trying to 'simulate' the curvness of the earth .especially when ships's smoke is light colored or not high enough or has no smoke at all,your crew 'sees' it but not you

ps: the 'solution' for this is not at sim.cfg

So this means I should deactivate MEP for the best result? Or does your small hint there mean there's a way to get both MEP and this fix work together?

makman94

01-28-12, 11:39 AM

So this means I should deactivate MEP for the best result? Or does your small hint there mean there's a way to get both MEP and this fix work together?

this fix here has nothing to do especially with MEP . if something is 'wrong' at MEP will not be cured by this fix .

about MEP : make sure that you are running a fix that i released for it long time ago and it was dealing exactly with the detection ranges . the fix is called ''M.E.P v3-fix pack+Sensors'' .
if you are allready running this fix then pm and i will tell you what to edit and get rid from this 'curvness trick'.
and of course ,don't forget that in any case, you have to edit the sensors.cfg of MEP files and apply the visuals settings that we are suggesting here for this mod

reaper7

01-28-12, 05:36 PM

Well done guys on the release of this important fix to Sh3. :woot:

My next priority is getting my exe updated with this :yeah:

h.sie

01-28-12, 05:43 PM

@reaper: there is no code for the exe. it's for envsim.act and sh3sim.act.

reaper7

01-28-12, 06:13 PM

@reaper: there is no code for the exe. it's for envsim.act and sh3sim.act.

Hi Mate, yes spotted that once I downloaded it :D

Did some testing and its working great.

Used the Standard version 25% and got these results:

Tests run with stock Environment and included single mission:

First few test with VampireNights Off

1: Ship spotted @ 5900 Meters
2: Ship spotted @ 4900 Meters
3: Ship spotted @ 5300 Meters

Next tests with VampireNights On

1: Ship spotted @ 3300 Meters
2: Ship spotted @ 1600 Meters
3: Ship spotted @ 2800 Meters

Major Improvement :up:

Also My own visual detection ranges knowing where the ship was going to be are:

Spotted by Bioc @ 4400 Meters
Spotted Visually @ 2900 Meters

So results for standard addon bring the crews detection range to more realistic detection ranges that compare with my own visual range.
And this can only be improved with a suitable Environment like Makmans MEP for darker nights and lower visual range for the player :yeah:

Outstanding :yep:

reaper7

01-28-12, 06:34 PM

Some further testing using M.E.P.V3 and sensor fixes bring perfect results:

M.E.P.V3

Test 1
Spotted by Binoc @ 4700 Meters
Spotted Visually @ 3400 Meters (Visually = On wintergarten no Binoc's)
Crew spotted @ 2000 Meters

Test 2
Spotted by Binoc @ 4300 Meters
Spotted Visually @ 4000 Meters
Crew spotted @ 4000 Meters

Test 3
Spotted by Binoc @ 4500 Meters
Spotted Visually @ 3900 Meters
Crew spotted @ 4500 Meters

This is one the money, for me this is an outstanding fix, crew now have the same visual range as myself using standard 40%.
One word Perfect :yeah:

Edit: Was actually using the Harder of the 2 versions for these test, switching to the easier version now to test further.

LemonA

01-28-12, 07:10 PM

2 different versions:

1) STANDARD: Reduction of visible range at night to 40%.
2) HARD: Reduction of visible range at night to 25%.

What version is the most realistic one?

2) This Alpha is currently not compatible to Stieblers and/or h.sie's BadWeatherFix, but the final version will be made compatible of course.

Good. Looking forward to version which is compatible with BadWeatherFix.

h.sie

01-29-12, 09:08 AM

jaxa

01-29-12, 10:42 AM

Jaeger

01-29-12, 11:18 AM

i understand him this way: all you need is mepv3 + sensorspack (of your supermod) and the h.sie fix installed. the fix only changes your own detection, so you need the mep sensors pack to adjust the opponents detection.

h.sie

01-29-12, 11:26 AM

reaper7

01-29-12, 12:00 PM

@reaper: Thank you for your detailed test results. IMHO you do not have to change MEPv3. If you use the 25%-version, you'll see the ships later, because the fog-wall is automatically closer to you, compared to the 40% version.

@LemonA: I don't know which one is more realistic. This could be discussed (hopefully with facts) here in the thread. I'm only sure that a visible range of 15km at dark night isn't realistic.

Ah, so the fog wall influences both AI visual and onscreen visual ranges together.
A very clever fix indeed - will switch to Harder 25% and test range detection. :DL

Edit:
Just Noticed I was using the 25% version all along so results I posted are for the Most reduced version.

Will test the standard 40% version now.

Edit2:

Ok here are the results for both versions (25% is the same from previous post)

Standard 40%

Test 1
Spotted by Binoc @ 7100 Meters
Spotted Visually @ 5600 Meters (Visually = On wintergarten no Binoc's)
Crew spotted 5500M

Test 2
Spotted by Binoc @ 7700 Meters
Spotted Visually @ 5400 Meters
Crew spotted 6200M

Test 3
Spotted by Binoc @ 6200 Meters
Spotted Visually @ 5300 Meters
Crew spotted 5300M

Harder 25%

Test 1
Spotted by Binoc @ 4700 Meters
Spotted Visually @ 3400 Meters (Visually = On wintergarten no Binoc's)
Crew spotted @ 2000 Meters

Test 2
Spotted by Binoc @ 4300 Meters
Spotted Visually @ 4000 Meters
Crew spotted @ 4000 Meters

Test 3
Spotted by Binoc @ 4500 Meters
Spotted Visually @ 3900 Meters
Crew spotted @ 4500 Meters

So both sets of result show that this fix brings the Crews detection range into that of the players detection range. So I can confirm this fix is working as intended.

Goodbye Vampire Vision. :Kaleun_Cheers:

jaxa

01-29-12, 01:58 PM

jaxa: if one uses MEPv3 and wants to change from 40% to 25% version of our VampireFix, no changes are necessay in MEPv3, because the VampireFix changes (reduces in this case) the visibility for player and watch crew accordingly.

So, I can use MEPv3 with no changes and VampireFix on top of MEP. Do I understand it correctly?
Is it chance for merge VampireFix with your realistic patch for sh3.exe?

h.sie

01-29-12, 02:15 PM

@jaxa: yes, use the fix on top of MEP or any other environment mod.

After testing, the final version will go into V16B hardcode packet.

Makman94 will help you with questions regarding MEP.

jaxa

01-29-12, 02:32 PM

Thanks a lot :up:

BTW, don't you plan to polish your hsGUIv3.1 and create its widescreen version? I like this gui very much and use it with SH3/GWX, I'm sure it would be very good alternative for MaGUI widescreen. So?

h.sie

01-29-12, 03:13 PM

@jaxa: What about you? Feel free to enhance my hsGUI to wide-screen. You might say now: "I don't know how to do so". My answer: "Everyone can learn if he really wants".

makman94

01-29-12, 04:52 PM

@Reaper (and for the rest that are intererest in MEP)

Be patient and when i have the final version of the fix (sorry H.Sie but i can't keep my mouth closed: the final version will contain also one more feature), i will release a full package of the visuals sensors (for own crew and AI).
it is necessery to make some changes to scene.dat too in order to make the sensors working 100% properly at MEP v3 (with the current scene.dat can't be setted properly becuase of some issues that are discovered during the development of the vampire fix).
also , i will add some 'fixes' at the horizon line (took me long time to discover the cause for this),maybe i will change some colors too if i got the will and will release it as a MEP v4

reaper7

01-29-12, 05:23 PM

Jaeger

01-29-12, 05:30 PM

Victor Schutze

01-29-12, 07:19 PM

Hitman

01-30-12, 11:03 AM

Ok here are the results for both versions (25% is the same from previous post)

Standard 40%

Test 1
Spotted by Binoc @ 7100 Meters
Spotted Visually @ 5600 Meters (Visually = On wintergarten no Binoc's)
Crew spotted 5500M

Test 2
Spotted by Binoc @ 7700 Meters
Spotted Visually @ 5400 Meters
Crew spotted 6200M

Test 3
Spotted by Binoc @ 6200 Meters
Spotted Visually @ 5300 Meters
Crew spotted 5300M

Harder 25%

Test 1
Spotted by Binoc @ 4700 Meters
Spotted Visually @ 3400 Meters (Visually = On wintergarten no Binoc's)
Crew spotted @ 2000 Meters

Test 2
Spotted by Binoc @ 4300 Meters
Spotted Visually @ 4000 Meters
Crew spotted @ 4000 Meters

Test 3
Spotted by Binoc @ 4500 Meters
Spotted Visually @ 3900 Meters
Crew spotted @ 4500 Meters

So both sets of result show that this fix brings the Crews detection range into that of the players detection range. So I can confirm this fix is working as intended.

But isn't the crew supposed to see the same as you WITH your binoculars?

Except at test 3, I see that the crew compares very well with the player naked eye, but they should compare with your binoculars ... am I missing something? :hmmm:

h.sie

01-30-12, 11:46 AM

@Hitman: True. But visual detection very much depends on your monitor settings and thus must individually be fine-adjusted with the Parameters in Sensors.cfg, especially via Visual Fog Factor. Reaper should reduce FogFactor a little bit. Also, lower values for Visual Light Factor and Visual Range Factor result in a lower randomness of detection from test to test.

Additionally - but I'm not sure in this point - it depends on how "transparent" the fog-curtain is rendered in the different environments.

Thus, we cannot give commonly valid Sensors.cfg values that fit for all users. Individual adjustment is necessary.

Hitman

01-30-12, 12:56 PM

Ah I see. And I suppose that crew rating will still have an effect, right? I mean, an elite experienced crew will probably see better :)

reaper7

01-30-12, 03:03 PM

But isn't the crew supposed to see the same as you WITH your binoculars?

Except at test 3, I see that the crew compares very well with the player naked eye, but they should compare with your binoculars ... am I missing something? :hmmm:

Hi Hitman, What I found during testing was that I generally spotted the Target by Binoc's before the Crew did and that they generally detected them at my normal visual range on average.
I'm currently discussing it with makman and hes checking my sensors.cfg to tweak it perfectly so that crew and myself both detect using binocs at the same range.

But what my Test results show which is most important is that the crew no longer detect targets at max range as the do without the fix.

And so this fix works 100% as intended :up: - just needs tweaking for different environments and monitors setups. :yep:

EDIT: Should have read all the posts h.sie answered it already.

Rubini

01-30-12, 07:14 PM

Despite the big amount of differents environments files spread in the community, the basic step to have the crew and the player (your eyes) see almost at same time is to just follow the directions on the first posts for sensors.cfg:

Fog factor is the most important: at 1.0 it makes the crew detect very quick, at big values lets´say 1.5 the crew will have a long time before detect something. Low values (less than 1.0) will make the crew see into the fog wall. So between 1.0-1.1 is a good value.

The light factor isn´t more important, as the fix moves the fog wall at night, so make it a small value (0.05 is a good one). The others values must be the same (or very similar) as stock.

Others files can have influency too, like scene.dat, sensors.dat, env files...but unless you have made a mess with these files settings the most important is really the sensors.cfg.:up:

Stiebler

01-31-12, 05:23 AM

The Vampre-Vision Fix works well with NYGM.

Using the standard sensor.cfg file from NYGM, or using Rubini's recommended settings, the range at which the crew spots the battleship HMS Nelson in the supplied Single Mission mode is reduced from around 12000-14000m to around 5000-6500m.

One issue that troubles me is whether this fix will have a material effect on game-play balance when the warship escorts have radar. Previously, the U-boat could rely on high waves and darkness to approach a convoy and to see it, before the escorts detected the U-boat with radar.

Now the U-boat must get closer to see the convoy, and therefore it is more likely to be located by radar before it sees the convoy. Of course, radar could locate a U-boat in darkness and high waves in real-life, but usually the U-boat would see the convoy first. So game balance may have been affected here.

In particular, it will certainly now be harder to shadow a convoy with H.sie's Wolf-pack mod.

Stiebler.

h.sie

01-31-12, 09:46 AM

@Stiebler: Thanks for testing. The additional "feature" that Makman already promised, is the possibility to manually adjust via .ini file, how much the visibility is reduced at night, so that everyone can configure the fix as he likes.

makman94

02-01-12, 07:50 PM

.....

One issue that troubles me is whether this fix will have a material effect on game-play balance when the warship escorts have radar. Previously, the U-boat could rely on high waves and darkness to approach a convoy and to see it, before the escorts detected the U-boat with radar.

Now the U-boat must get closer to see the convoy, and therefore it is more likely to be located by radar before it sees the convoy. Of course, radar could locate a U-boat in darkness and high waves in real-life, but usually the U-boat would see the convoy first. So game balance may have been affected here.

In particular, it will certainly now be harder to shadow a convoy with H.sie's Wolf-pack mod.

Stiebler.

hi Stiebler ,

if the target has a radar then it is very normal to not be able to approach surfaced .
for example , the Nelson in NYGM has a type286 till /41 and then a type273 till /end of war .
type286 = 3km radious and
type273 = 8,5 km radius

so , whatever you do you will be detected by the type273 during night if you are surfaced.
now, speaking about visuality at nights , i believe that even with the 25% version of the fix (which is the one that i highly recommend ,of course with the sensors settings that we posted) , the detection ranges(about to 4km) are still ,imo, way larger than the reality ones . (in reality the vissibility during moonless night is ,if not complete, almost zero. so for this qouted i think that this may was possible,for a surfaced uboat, only when nights were really bright and only when targets had no radar...early times).
but ok..its a game and lets play it at night too but having detection ranges at night more than 4km is way more arcadish than a...sim so there is where the 'first' decision must be made:how much 'arcadish' or 'sim' want to make your set up.
having the visual detection ranges during night to 12-14km is not a 'balanced' game,(thats why it was possible this qouted), its a much more arcadish set up . now ,we have the option to correct things and by reducing the visual detection to about 4km (25%) i would say that yes,if target has a radar ...you don't go surfaced to him ! ( without having any historical background on these themes ,i would say , by using the common logic that this seems the more possible to was at reality too back then).

even more at extreme fog situations(talking for daytime here) ,where the fog distance is at 1050m ,you can imagine what will happen to uboat if target has radar which seems absolutely logical to me.

imo, a complete rework of all sensors ranges is needed here ( own boat and AI) and given the fact that ,indeed, the visual ranges are NOT even close to reality (at clear weather daytime ,a 35m mast ship is vissible from more than 31 km distance ) so all sensors must be adjusted accordinally . (i mean that if the x type radar had in reality a 8km radius is wrong to be setted at 8km radius ingame.i don't know about real sonar-radar-hydro ranges but is this done ,allready ,in game ?)

anyway, that is my thoughts on this theme so what do you think guys ?
what is your thoughts ?

makman94

02-01-12, 08:10 PM

But isn't the crew supposed to see the same as you WITH your binoculars?

Except at test 3, I see that the crew compares very well with the player naked eye, but they should compare with your binoculars ... am I missing something? :hmmm:

yes Alberto , thats the correct thing that must be happen (bino view = crew spotting)
the golder rule is :at your enviro: follow the settings that we (me and Rubini) posted . after that start adjusting the fogfactor from 1 (starting value) to 1.1 (or more if needed.each time ,increase the factor by 0.01 becuase this factor is very 'sensitive') till you 'sychronize' your own bino view with crew spotting range .use the included test mission for that. this is necessery to be done(for the reason that Rubini described) individually on each ones set up becuase of different enviro-monitors

John (Reaper7) obviously is doing something wrong at his tests (these are not the detections ranges in MEP v3 and also there is no such randomness at detection results 2-4,5km at 25%).
John has send me his setting but i haven't find yet some free time to look for the cause of these wrong results

Hitman

02-02-12, 09:24 AM

OK, understood Manos, that explains it :up:

in reality the vissibility during moonless night is ,if not complete, almost zero

That is correct, but what about the rest of the nights? I mean, will the ambience light be enough in moon lit nights and the crew adjust accordingly? I think that only few attacks were done in such pitch dark moonless nights, as the difficulty and risks involved made it too dangerous for the own uboat -if it could even locate the convoy! Some kind of ambience light must be present, as otherwise it is simply impossible to see the target at enough distance to shoot (In real life and in Sh3).

From what I have readed, what mostly happened is that there was actually a bit of ambience light in the sky, veeeeery subtle but enough to silhouette the enemy ships against the background as shadows. While the uboat, seen from the high point of a ship's bridge, was instead hidden by the darker water.

Somehow this should be correctly reflected in the game ...

Chisum

02-02-12, 10:41 AM

Wow, it looks great !
Thank you to this job mates.
I gonna try it soon.

Tell me: if I undertand well, now I can watch myself in the coning tower to find ennemy ? I can be sure that the crew can't watch ennemy before me ?
If yes, it's giant !

:yeah:

EDIT

Huh...what is it "sh3.exe V16A3" ? Is that means it's not GWX 3.0 compatible ?

Stiebler

02-02-12, 03:06 PM

I need not have worried about warships detecting U-boats too easily with radar in the darkness.

In two tests in NYGM with the 40% patch, with wind speeds at 11-15 m/s and 'light fog', October 1942, I could manoeuvre the U-boat almost on top of escorts without being detected.

Both attacks were made on convoys in full campaign mode, close to midnight.

It seems that the Vampire Mod may also affect the sensitivity of Allied radar.

Stiebler.

h.sie

02-02-12, 04:25 PM

i didn't change anything regarding radar sensor.

h.sie

02-02-12, 05:55 PM

@Chisum: For info about V16A3 stuff see this thread:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=174225

and this one:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=191695

Sorry, one must patch to V16A or later in order to use the VampireFix.

You should be able to fine-adjust your sensors, so that your visible range is approx. the same as the crew's visible range. See 1st post.

Obltn Strand

02-03-12, 02:46 AM

Once again dudes you are seriously cutting down my tonnage.:nope:
As realism fixes should do for those ridiculous high scores.:up:

I have vague memory from my meagre military training that vision range drops to between 1/3 and 1/4 from that during daytime. I also vaguely recall that one u-boat book gave similar deductions.

The Vampre-Vision Fix works well with NYGM. Good.
:Kaleun_Salivating::Kaleun_Los:

Olamagato

02-03-12, 09:37 AM

Clear daylight and clear night, does not have much difference in spoting bigger ships on horrizon line. (AT CLEAR WEATHER)
Only if at all you can see the horizon. At lower latitudes, nights can be pitch black, so you see not only the horizon, but his own legs. At least until your eyes are not accustomed to complete darkness, because then you look very much better.
It seems that the SH3 maps to some extent the difference in the appearance of the night at low and high latitudes.

ETsd4

02-03-12, 10:28 AM

Every head will have it's own opinion or believe in it's "imaginable truth" when there are no facts
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
At 24:00, on a clear night and the full moon is not very very close to the horizon you can not exactly detect the horizon.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

That's why a sextant shot with stars (celestial navigation) generates false results at night and should not be done.
Sextant shots with STARS gives you only exact results during twilight (sunrise, sunset) when the EXACT horizon is becomming visible and the stars are still visible.

Those are the bare facts and think of it when you are looking at your unmoded SH3 night screen.

Victor Schutze

02-03-12, 01:07 PM

@ Noisy_Buoy:

Herr Kaleun,

Please don't use words such as "silly" or "very bad". They could be interpreted as offensive.

Try to be a bit kinder to fellow Kaleuns and in particular to h.sie.
He is trying to help the Subsim community to the best of his ability.
And yourself as well of course.

Peace :salute:

Victor Schutze

02-03-12, 02:26 PM

hear hear, with every other empty bottle of beer I'm getting kinder. :woot:

However remarks shouldn't be taken for offense, that's how my common sense tells me.

Cheers Herr Kaleun! :Kaleun_Cheers:

The next round is on me... if I can find my wallet... :rotfl2:

Capt. Morgan

02-03-12, 03:43 PM

...if there is a mod that makes horizon invisible during clear night, I would like to take a look at it.

Makman94's environment, V2 (the 16KM version) gives pitch-black nights if there's no moon - you can hardly see the crew on the bridge, let alone the horizon or a ship.

available here I should think...
http://www.gamefront.com/files/user/makman94 (http://www.gamefront.com/files/user/makman94)

Rubini

02-04-12, 08:47 AM

In my sig i have some words from an old (no offense Steve!) Kaleun here from subsim that resumes this discussion.

The vampire night fix just works flawless, it just moves the fog wall accordingly sun position. Seems that in the final mod h.sie will include a customisation for the mod (amount of fog wall movemment). Someone can think in something better?

The reallity is that we have so much mods on sh3 that changes the environment and sensors, also we have different monitors, is virtually impossible to have a best solution for all just out the box. So, the customisation is the best way to go and it´s done!

Also i can say that h.sie tested a lot others approachs to fix the problem, for example, messing with the visual sensors directly but neither works so well and mainly - no side effects - than the fog wall fix.

Hopes that a lot of ppl can use the fix and feel that his Sh3 have done one more step ahead!

Good hunting for all!

Jimbuna

02-04-12, 11:24 AM

This mod was created based on an assumption - not based on knowledge - by Makman94, Rubini and me.

We started this thread in order to discuss about the extent of reduction of visibility at night, exactly because we don't have facts so far.

Thus, constuctive comments are welcome and I don't have any problem with funded arguments - I have often considered them in my fixes. Many of the hardcode fixes I programmed result from discussions here.

But I have a problem with your behaviour. In your 1st post ever in this forum you say that the fix is "very bad". Only because your personal opinion does not agree with the personal opinions of others. That is not sufficient to be taken seriously and it's not the Fix that is disqualified.

Carry on with your good work...PM inbound http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif

Kaleun Cook

02-04-12, 11:52 AM

The reallity is that we have so much mods on sh3 that changes the environment and sensors, also we have different monitors, is virtually impossible to have a best solution for all just out the box. So, the customisation is the best way to go and it´s done!

Maybe you guys should have made that a bit more clear in the first post. I remember it said something like: If it doesn't work correctly then adjust your values in the cfg - I had no clue what the incorrect behaviour would be nor how to adjust which values. It only became clear to me after an explanation of Makman via PM.

I don't intend any offense - I just think that a small explanation might have avoided some trouble with people like me who aren't used to edit around with the games files like you experts are.

Thanks again for all the efforts! The fix is working great on my installation.

Rubini

02-04-12, 01:11 PM

Maybe you guys should have made that a bit more clear in the first post. I remember it said something like: If it doesn't work correctly then adjust your values in the cfg - I had no clue what the incorrect behaviour would be nor how to adjust which values. It only became clear to me after an explanation of Makman via PM.

I don't intend any offense - I just think that a small explanation might have avoided some trouble with people like me who aren't used to edit around with the games files like you experts are.

Thanks again for all the efforts! The fix is working great on my installation.

This is just an alpha and our intention is to get feedbacks on how the fix behaviour on more sh3 installations - as it happens with any mod that have an open alpha/beta. It´s to we know if it have some hidden problem/bug that needs fix or not.

The main intention was not to we discuss the best night detection distance (but no problem in do that if we all want), as this will be totally customizable and also because this is a bit to the "each one taste" side.

The final mod will have then a player´s adjustable fog wall barrier from nothing (as it is now on unfixed sh3) to 100%, to be adjustable to any player´s taste. Obviously with the offcial release we will add also a readme with more info/advices on the matter.

Anyway, with the directions on the first post it already works very well, enough to anyone play a complete career from beggining to the end without problems.:up:

Capt. Morgan

02-04-12, 02:56 PM

Thanks for the link Morgan, will check it out tomorrow :salute:

Yer welcome, and that's Capt. Morgan to you, buoy.

Graf Paper

02-04-12, 05:21 PM

Again, we're back to the old debate of realism versus playability.

Some players will prefer an absolutely pitch-black night, where you can barely see your own hand in front of your face on a moonless night. They'll be happy as a clam, knowing the crew will have to practically run over a convoy to see them.

Others will prefer less dark nights, where targets can still be spotted and stalked. After all, what fun is it to waste your free time staring at blackness when what you want is to see burning ships slipping beneath the cold Atlantic?

In truth, even stars offer enough light to see, if they're the only light source around. A sailor whose vision is well adapted to his environment can distinguish objects by starlight alone. It is also historical fact that u-boat crews could even spot ships simply by the glow of a lit cigarette being smoked by a sailor on that ship... from a distance of several miles.

At higher latitudes, where the sun never sets as completely as it does near the equator, there is enough ambient light from atmospheric diffraction to allow distinction of the horizon, except during the middle hours. During this time, the diffraction is also reflected by the ocean surface, blending with the horizon so completely that sky and sea become one to the human eye. However, stars are a steady light source that can be used for silhouetting a target, with a very practiced eye.

Since SH3's engine does not take latitude into account, this fix is as good as it gets and I'm amazed it could be done at all.

Very well done, h.sie, Rubini, and Makman! :up:

Weather, and its affect of vision is another question entirely. Something I do not believe this mod is meant to address, if I've read correctly. As such, citing cloudy conditions, or other weather phenomena, has no bearing on the mechanics involved with this mod.

Rubini

02-04-12, 11:47 PM

At higher latitudes, where the sun never sets as completely as it does near the equator, there is enough ambient light from atmospheric diffraction to allow distinction of the horizon, except during the middle hours. During this time, the diffraction is also reflected by the ocean surface, blending with the horizon so completely that sky and sea become one to the human eye. However, stars are a steady light source that can be used for silhouetting a target, with a very practiced eye.

Hi mate,

During the test phase of this fix I runned a mission on very high latitude (even above grids) and i noticed that Sh3 make this effect very well: the sun never completely set on summer and the night is toooo long in the winter. As this fix uses the sun position (not the hour of the day) to changes the fog wall it then works very well also on this extrem environment, much better than stock.:up:

Kafka BC

02-05-12, 05:03 AM

Because people are making assumptions and declaring their certain perceived truths as facts in this thread, I thought I would jump in with some facts of my own for people to ponder, and as a way to defend Noisy_Buoy in his contentions about seeing ships at night.

Regarding the pitch black of clear moonless nights and night vision, here is a quote from an article on using Diffused Lighting as Camouflage (http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/navres/10/10-n_eng.asp?category=183&title=1587) on ships during WWII:
In the fall of 1940 Burr had to evaluate military optical instruments designed for night observation for the National Research Council. While observing aircraft flying at night without navigation lights, he noted that their shapes were easily visible using special binoculars. He attributed this visibility to the contrast that exists between a completely blacked-out plane and the slight luminosity of the sky, which is never completely black even when the darkness appears total.Having, in my youth, been out many times on clear moonless nights with plenty of stars (something no one seems to have considered as a light source) in the country away from lights and the glow from a city, I can attest to the fact that you can see the contrast difference between the sky and land. After about forty to fifty minutes a person's night vision becomes fully acclimatized and the shapes of large objects can be discerned. Night vision is one of the reasons why red light is used at night on warships because it has the least effect on it.

Another quote from the same article:
Being smaller than the ships of a convoy, with a compact superstructure and a low profile, U-boats sailing on the surface at night could, in effect, see their targets from further away than the escort ships protecting convoys could see the U-boats. Equipped with excellent night vision binoculars, German seamen could clearly make out against the horizon the shape of ships sailing at night.Regarding those night vision binoculars, here is the section on Night Glasses from Wikipedia's article on Night Vision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision):
Night glasses are telescopes or binoculars with a large diameter objective. Large lenses can gather and concentrate light, thus intensifying light with purely optical means and enabling the user to see better in the dark than with the naked eye alone. Often night glasses also have a fairly large exit pupil of 7 mm or more to let all gathered light into the user's eye. However, many people can't take advantage of this because of the limited dilation of the human pupil. To overcome this, soldiers were sometimes issued atropine eye drops to dilate pupils. Before the introduction of image intensifiers, night glasses were the only method of night vision, and thus were widely utilized, especially at sea. Second World War era night glasses usually had a lens diameter of 56 mm or more with magnification of seven or eight. Major drawbacks of night glasses are their large size and weight.And here is a thread from PanzerGrenadier.net where you can see some Kriegsmarine binoculars from WWII (http://www.panzergrenadier.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=8205). Scroll down to see the color photographs of the various Night Vision ones. The first thing you should notice is the size if the main objective lens (the ones at the front), they are pretty big in comparison to your normal "daytime" binoculars. Now every knowledgeable photographer or astronomer will tell you that the light-gathering power of a camera or an optical telescope is directly related to the square of the diameter of the objective lens or mirror, thus a telescope with a lens which has a diameter three times that of another will have nine times the light-gathering power...in layman's terms, and to reiterate Wikipedia, larger lenses gather more light.

Someone here mentioned about the difficulties in using a sextant on the horizon at night, and by his "bare facts" reasoning you cannot see anything on the horizon at night at all. Using a sextant as an example is the same as comparing opera glasses to these powerful babies...pointless.

Now, to discuss ship and convoy spotting distances since I have seen some astronomical claims in these forums on how far a ship can be spotted visually from a U-Boat.

One of the great shortcomings of the U-boats, which sat very low in the water, was their limited visual range, with the visible horizon for the bridge lookouts being only 8km (5 miles) away. I have seen this figure a number of times in things that I have read, but if you care to check it use this simple Distance to the Horizon Calculator (http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm) and enter 5 meters (16 feet) as the observers height above sea level. The average range that the bridge lookouts could spot a SINGLE ship was not much more than that.

Somewhere in this thread I read a statement that you can see a 35 meter high mast at 31 kilometers. I wrote that down just so I can check it, so lets do that using the previously mentioned Distance to the Horizon Calculator. A 35 meter height gives a figure of 21.1 kilometers for the over the horizon distance, add that to the 8 kilometers from the bridge lookouts yields 29.1 kilometers.

Even if the mast was higher, without taking into account atmospheric haze caused by distance, and having personally used both hand-held and tripod mounted cameras equipped with telephoto lenses, I can state with confidence that it is impossible to see the barest tip of a mast on the horizon at that distance. A ship would have to be an awful lot closer before the image seen in binoculars on a rocking and vibrating U-Boat can resolve itself enough to be discernible as the mast of a ship. If they are painted white, you probably can't see them until you start to see funnels or superstructure, but I won't declare that as a "fact".

It is true that a battleship or a heavy cruiser can clearly see and fire on a ship at 30+ kilometers, but they have spotting tops and large stabilized range finders of great optical efficiency that are located considerably higher than the bridge of a U-Boat.

Although highly technical this article on Antisubmarine Warfare in World War II (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/ASW-51/ASW-10.html) gives the following average spotting distances based on a number of factors (including smoke):

- Single ship 6 miles (9.6 kilometers)
- 8-ship convoy 11 miles (17.6 kilometers)
- 64-ship convoy 23 miles (36,8 kilometers)

The previous chapter to the above article (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/ASW-51/ASW-9.html) is interesting in that it shows that the sweep width (which is double the the effective range of contact) around a submarine at night is 9.4 miles (15 kilometers). Halving that gives 7.5 kilometers which is close to the visual distance to the horizon from a U-Boat's bridge.

And this article on U-Boat Strategy and Tactics (http://www.uboatarchive.net/KTBNotesTacticsCumulativeEdition.htm) states:
The average range at which a convoy is sighted is 10 to 15 miles.To conclude, without trying to sound "bitchy", I think people should do a little homework before stating things as "fact".

I personally have no problem with the so called VampireNightVision Bug because I don't think it is that much of a bug and the visual spotting distances can be adjusted in the config files. If you read a lot on convoy battles you will find that the big bugaboo for U-Boats was not the night. The scary creature for them was fog, which drastically reduced visibility and allowed escorts to get close enough to spot them on radar.

Now, if someone could fix the problem of the visual sensors spotting smaller ships at greater distances before spotting larger ships which are closer, that would make me happy.

Your neighborhood Grouch :salute:

Graf Paper

02-05-12, 05:05 AM

That's the truly astounding part of your mod, linking the fog wall to the sun's position. You have effectively caused latitude to become a factor in the game mechanics.

Following that same logic, could it also be possible to somehow link the weather controllers to the sun, making it more likely to have stormy weather in temperate and polar latitudes at times of the year when the sun's position relative to the horizon indicates the seasonal changes when such foul weather was common?

Once more, you have demonstrated the mastery you have developed and the exceptional craftsmanship that has brought new dimensions to SH3 that none thought were ever possible. Please keep up the good work! :yep:

I most certainly hope you have documented everything you've learned, in the hope there may come a day when it can be released for the benefit of future modders. :know:

h.sie

02-05-12, 05:49 AM

@Kafka: Thanks for your post. You don't sound bitchy and your post and research work is very much appreciated and helpful for further discussions.

Only 2 comments:

1) It was not my/our intention to present anything as a fact. Exactly because of this, this thread was opened in order to discuss what we don't know so far: visible ranges at night. We don't say: This fix is realistic - anyone has to use it - all others are wrong. The fix is an offer for those who are not satisfied with the current situation regarding night-visibility. Those who are satisfied should not use it. It will be customizeable via .ini file so that it can satisfy different opinions of "reality".

But I must admit that I should have not called the mod VampireVisionBugFix, which implied that a bug is present. I should rename it! Good point. I apologize.

2) The sh3 environment cannot represent real environment, because of restricted visible range of 16-20km in-game even at clear day (compared to > 30km(?) in reality). Thus, the real environment IMHO has to be scaled down to sh3 game dimensions. Ranges between reality and game cannot be compared directly. If in reality visible ranges at night are smaller than at day, this must also be modelled in the game.

The balance / relations are more important than absolute values.

As I already wrote: The mod was created out of the assumption that at night one cannot see as far as at daylight.

So the main question is: Are visible ranges / detection ranges smaller at night or not?

By the way: I added the following note to the 1st post of the hardcode fixes sticky thread:

Personal Note
The term "realistic" in this thread is not meant as "absolute realistic". Instead, it has to be understood as "what h.sie assumes to be realistic".

Graf Paper

02-05-12, 06:32 AM

Kafka BC, I believe you'll notice many statements regarding visual detection ranges, some being allegorical. Your assertions regarding spotting ranges are well thought and backed by historical and technical sources.

However, you must consider that your own direct observations regarding low-light visual acuity in distinguishing a horizon were done on dry land. Light behaves differently on water, which is both a highly reflective and refractive surface that redirects and absorbs light in some interesting ways that is not at all similar to how trees, grass, and terrain interact with light. Most ambient and direct light is absorbed by foliage and earth, making dimmer lights like stars stand out more brightly, thus emphasizing the horizon. Couple water's behavior with the atmospheric effects on light, and the greater haze in the air over large bodies of water, and you will find the horizon on the open ocean can be very indistinct at night, especially without landmarks to use as a referent. I have seen this in action with my own eyes on open ocean.

My statements regarding visual acuity are taken directly from testimony made by both u-boat crewmen and merchantmen. Since they were actually there and we were not, I'll have to take their word as the final authority. I don't recall any of them saying they could spot mastheads at 35 kilometers with the naked eye. Although one thing is interesting to note: The u-boat lookouts primarily spotted ships by the smoke exhausting from a ship's funnel, not mast tops or superstructures. Coal-fired vessels could be easily spotted from very great distances, some estimates around 50 miles, by the dense black smoke belching from their stacks.

Also, this mod primarily deals with night vision using the unaided eye, a fact I think some have missed while attempting to prove some points. This is why you must tweak the sensors configuration to properly account for special optics, be they ordinary binoculars or low-light lenses. You must also bear in mind that SH3's engine is rather incomplete and limited in the data and factors that allow for a more realistic simulation, as h.sie has said. This mod is a compromise that attempts to ameliorate one particular shortcoming (if not a bug).

I wholeheartedly agree with you that surface ships seem to visually spot my u-boat far too easily. I must endure enough abuse later in the war, thanks to radar and ASDIC, but the visual powers of the enemy serve only in adding insult to injury. It's bad enough that the enemy radar, ASDIC/sonar, and hydrophones are not the least bit impaired by land masses, ships, or other solid bodies while I'm forced to sail in an ocean that has no thermoclines, currents, or inversion layers.

h.sie

02-05-12, 08:51 AM

I fear we'll never get a final truth about what is realistic and what not. I remember discussions regarding my first ever hardcode fix "realistic repair times" with two serious guys:

1) One of them (who served on a surface ship) believes that the stock repair times (1-8 minutes) are realistic, since the crew is trained to repair the essential machinery and equipment as soon as possible.

2) The other (commander of a surface warship and, before that, crew member of a modern submarine) said that repairs normally take time in hours and days dimensions.

But since all the fixes are ON/OFF-switchable and will also be customizeable - there is no problem at all.

makman94

02-05-12, 09:32 AM

.....

Since SH3's engine does not take latitude into account, this fix is as good as it gets and I'm amazed it could be done at all.

Very well done, h.sie, Rubini, and Makman! :up:

......

ahoy there Graf Paper ! nice to see you around again after so long time ! how are you mate ?

yes , Graf Paper ,given the limitations of sh3's engine what you see here is way much more than the one we were looking for during the development of this mod . H.Sie found the best solution we can ever hope and as for the detection ranges during night...etc this is something that now can be easily adjusted ! But before it was just impossible and without doupt this mod is a huge step forward !

in fact , you have in front of you the best (and i mean it 100%) mod ever made for sh3 and most of people are failing to 'see' it !
anyway ...it will take time but sooner or later you will see it to be at the no1 of 'must have' mods

....

Somewhere in this thread I read a statement that you can see a 35 meter high mast at 31 kilometers. I wrote that down just so I can check it, so lets do that using the previously mentioned Distance to the Horizon Calculator. A 35 meter height gives a figure of 21.1 kilometers for the over the horizon distance, add that to the 8 kilometers from the bridge lookouts yields 29.1 kilometers.....

hi Kafka ,
yes it was me who wrote it and i will tell you the why . the 'calculator' at your link is a simple one and is not giving you very accurate results becuase it uses the geometrical formulas for calculating the distances.

go to this link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
read carefully the article there and then scroll down a bit where it says ''Effect of atmospheric refraction'' were it gives some simplified formulas that are taking in account the atmospheric refraction
there i used the simple formulas d=3.86*sqrt(h)
so
d1=3.86*sqrt(5)= 8,63 km
d2=3.86*sqrt(35)= 22,836 km

d1+d2= more than 31 km
and that is a more valid distance than the geometrical one thats why i said more than 31 km
(of course the theme is much more complicated but i think that the above formulas are the best for using and giving fast-good accurate reality results)

.....

- Single ship 6 miles (9.6 kilometers)
- 8-ship convoy 11 miles (17.6 kilometers)
- 64-ship convoy 23 miles (36,8 kilometers)

that is very interesting finding and sure will help us but i want to ask: i assume that these ranges are for day, and i don't understand why a 8-ship convoy is spotted from 20.4 km (11miles=20,4 km) and why a 64-ship convoy is spotted from 42.6 km (23miles=42,6 km).
what makes the difference ? the tallest ship will be spotted first no matter if convoy has 8 or 64 ships , ....no ?

The previous chapter to the above article (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/ASW-51/ASW-9.html) is interesting in that it shows that the sweep width (which is double the the effective range of contact) around a submarine at night is 9.4 miles (15 kilometers). Halving that gives 7.5 kilometers which is close to the visual distance to the horizon from a U-Boat's bridge.

thats also an interesting finding Kafka !
so according to this article we have vissuality at night at about 9,4/2=4.7miles= 8,7 km ( 9,4miles = 17.4km)

so , by using your data Kafka i would say that if the max range that we can see at day is 42,6km and this is reducing to 8,7 km at night then ,accordinally, a 16km environment (vissuality at day = 16km max) must be reduced to 3,27 km at night (if we want to have 'balanced' day-night).
don't you agree with this or i missed something ? please explain

Rubini

02-05-12, 09:54 AM

Randomization is obviously a very desired and important part of any game to try to simulate our real environment. And it isn´t easy to implement correctly as we can see in various games overthere.

Sh3 already have some degree of randomization in various aspects of the game (the visual detection is one of them), but seems that they don´t work very well.
This fix, for example, already have (or preserve) a randomness on it, and it can be raised or lowered by sensors.cfg settings.:up:

All mods on Sh3 (probably the same for any game) is a compromisse between what the game engine allows and realism (without speak also on what the modder desire with the mod:DL). This fix is the unique opportunity (and a very good one!) until now to bypass another odd stock sh3 behaviour - at least for the guys that are annoyed with this crew vampire night vision issue.

Also i should like to say that even with all our community cummullative experience/knowlegde on sh3 files that using only the sh3 files settings isn´t possible to have a good behaviour on visual detection issue (well, perhaps for some it is...personal preferences again). This is were this fix shines.

Graf Paper

02-05-12, 06:09 PM

Hello, makman! I'm doing well and glad to see many of the Subsim crew still around. I hope you're well and most happy to see you, Rubini, h.sie, and many others still giving so much to the community. :DL

I had to take a forced vacation away from SH3, due to real life obligations, plus the necessity of a complete system rebuild. I am glad my favorite Silent Hunter is still thriving, more than ever thanks to the ongoing efforts in this thread and others.

With SH5 being such a washout, I wish the Grey Wolves would come out of retirement to resume GWX4. I'll keep that hope alive.

As for this Vampire Nightvision Fix, I just don't understand all the fuss.

We can sit here and debate the minutiae of real versus perceived horizon, earth's curvature, the properties of light, water, and atmosphere... ad nauseum... but, it's all a moot point, aside from the fun of the debate itself.

Any measure of "realism" is entirely subjective when considering that SH3 is first and foremost a game. I hesitate to call it an actual simulator because it is only an approximation of a real world experience built upon the inevitably faulty assumptions and technical limits of the game programmers.

We have many people here that have never served aboard WWII vessels, let alone been at sea, making all kinds of assertions with whatever logic can be mustered, regardless of any fallacies in the basic reasoning. I dare say that, for most of us, our only reference for how "real" this game is would be "Das Boot". :haha:

Too often, I have seen mods and their creators criticized for not meeting some imposed criteria for what is deemed "real", despite the fact that not one of us actually knows what that is from firsthand knowledge. :nope:

God save us from all these armchair admirals! :yawn:

IF you like the mod, use it. If you hate it, leave it alone. I plan to enjoy every minute of it, happily tweaking away until I achieve results that suit my desires.

Regardless of any modifications that you use, the important thing is that you walk away with the experience you were anticipating after the mission is complete. If you feel like you just spent several tense hours in a rusty, stinking tin can under the crushing weight of the ocean while being rewarded with the thrill of engaging a convoy, suffering the blind terror of enemy depth charges, and the dread creeping up your bones as you hear the ping of ASDIC with the surging motors of a destroyer... that is all that matters.

I say go ahead and make this mod compatible with the other fixes and release it immediately. It's just perfect as it is now. Leave it up to the individual to use the settings they feel work best and quit worrying about pleasing the nitpickers.

Time to leave this in your hands. I have to go look up Niels to see if he wants to get a multi-player game going. Wolfpacks are always better than being a lone wolf. Then again, I've always been biased toward SH3 multi-player. :arrgh!:

Kafka BC

02-06-12, 04:40 AM

@h.sie

@Kafka: Thanks for your post....

My post was not intended in any way to depreciate any of your fine and intensive work on this mod, and it was never intentionally directed at you or the mod, nor on it's merits as being realistic or not. I'm truly sorry if you thought it did.

Rather, I wanted to make others think before making a statement and declaring it a "fact" based on their own assumptions and without any valid proof, especially when making comments to others.

It was the post about using the sextant at night and declaring a "bare fact" that irritated me the most and prompted me to post. This was an attempt to support 'Noisy_Buoy', who was trying to make a point (admittedly inadequately) about facts and assumptions, it was obvious to me that he was getting a little frustrated.

When he spoke about seeing the silhouettes of ships on the horizon at night, he was stating something which I knew was closer to reality than what others believed. The problem is that others believe the visible horizon line for a real U-Boat is the game's 16km horizon when it is not, and they believe that clear moonless nights are pitch black, which it is not. That is why I posted about night vision and Kriegsmarine Night Vision Binoculars and the fact that they can amplify the tiny amount of available light to the point that the contrast against the night sky can be enhanced with the use of filters.

The balance / relations are more important than absolute values.I'm in total agreement with you there.

So the main question is: Are visible ranges / detection ranges smaller at night or not?Based on the articles I posted, yes they are, but they are not as small as people think, considering that nighttime spotting was done with the use of the previously mentioned Night Vision Binoculars and not with the naked eye. Again, based on the articles I posted, the effective average range of contact at night could be about 7.5 kilometers. Please note I said average, which would include the best and the worst night time light conditions, which would make the range longer and shorter respectively, by how much I can't say.

Regards,
Kafka BC

PS. Don't change the name of your mod on my account, people will know what you mean. I shouldn't have used the phrase "so called", sorry, it was a misuse of words on my part, happens to me all the time. I do think it is a bug, I just don't consider it as great a bug as others I encounter in the game.

Kafka BC

02-06-12, 04:50 AM

@Graf Paper

However, you must consider that your own direct observations regarding low-light visual acuity...

What is this? Nowhere did I mention anything about the sharpness of the horizon at night as seen by the naked eye, so why you are trying to give me a Pseudoscience lesson is beyond me.

You are also assuming that I have never been on the sea, or don't live near the ocean. I have lived nearly all my life next to the Atlantic Ocean, and when I said "in the country" it was to simplify into a shorter term so that I would not have to say "on the Coast of the Eastern Shore of Nova Scotia". What I posted about the contrast between the night sky and other objects applies there as well, the properties of light on the water has nothing to do with it.

You have so completely missed the whole point and context of what I posted and decided to focus on one thing.

My post was to point out that the night sky is not truly pitch black and with the combination of night vision and the use of Night Vision Binoculars with contrast enhancing filters "German seamen could clearly make out against the horizon the shape of ships sailing at night".

So if you are going to dispute anything, give me real facts and dispute that.

I don't recall any of them saying they could spot mastheads at 35 kilometers with the naked eye...I don't recall me saying it either, I said someone else did. You didn't read again.

The u-boat lookouts primarily spotted ships by the smoke exhausting from a ship's funnel, not mast tops or superstructures.Again, where did I say that ships were spotted by their masts or superstructures? You so very obviously did not read my post correctly or the articles that I linked to it, where smoke is mentioned and the number of ships in a convoy that produce it is the primary reason that larger convoys are spotted further away than smaller convoys.

Coal-fired vessels could be easily spotted from very great distances, some estimates around 50 miles, by the dense black smoke belching from their stacks.I could tell you something about that often quoted and misleading misconception, but I won't. You see, long ago I studied to become a marine engineer, and in case you don't know, that means the engine rooms of ships. Now what was that about me and dry land again?

Also, this mod primarily deals with night vision using the unaided eye, a fact I think some have missed while attempting to prove some points...The men that are on watch on a U-Boat don't use the unaided eye, that is my point. As well, you are talking about the mod, I am not.

PS. I would like to know where you get the balls to question my low-light visual acuity, and then assume that your powers of observation are better than mine.

Kafka BC

02-06-12, 04:52 AM

@makman94

yes it was me who wrote it and i will tell you the why . the 'calculator' at your link is a simple one and is not giving you very accurate results becuase it uses the geometrical formulas for calculating the distances...Apples and oranges. You missed the whole point. Did you read the paragraph following. I will repeat:

"Even if the mast was higher, without taking into account atmospheric haze caused by distance, and having personally used both hand-held and tripod mounted cameras equipped with telephoto lenses, I can state with confidence that it is impossible to see the barest tip of a mast on the horizon at that distance. A ship would have to be an awful lot closer before the image seen in binoculars on a rocking and vibrating U-Boat can resolve itself enough to be discernible as the mast of a ship. If they are painted white, you probably can't see them until you start to see funnels or superstructure, but I won't declare that as a "fact"."

If you can find a pair of Kriegsmarine binoculars with the kind of resolving power where you can see the top 1 meter of a mast on the horizon at 31 kilometers, and then find a man that can hold it steady enough to see it, then I will retract my statement and say I lied.

that is very interesting finding and sure will help us but i want to ask: i assume that these ranges are for day, and i don't understand why a 8-ship convoy is spotted from 20.4 km (11miles=20,4 km) and why a 64-ship convoy is spotted from 42.6 km (23miles=42,6 km).
what makes the difference ? the tallest ship will be spotted first no matter if convoy has 8 or 64 ships , ....no ?Boy, you are really fixated on mast height. You are assuming that all convoys were spotted by seeing their masts. They were not. Convoys were usually spotted by seeing their smoke. Bigger convoys produce more smoke that can be seen at longer ranges. Go ask 'Graf Paper', I'm sure he will confirm this.

so according to this article we have vissuality at night at about 9,4/2=4.7miles= 8,7 km ( 9,4miles = 17.4km)I said the effective range of contact, not visibility. Read the article, although I don't understand the math, I understand what it is saying.

PS. 1 mile = 1.609 kilometers, 9.4 x 1.609 = 15.1246 kilometers, I rounded down.

so , by using your data Kafka i would say that...I have no idea what you are getting on about, so I can't answer. Except that you seem to be talking about the Mod and I never was.

Kaleun Cook

02-06-12, 06:15 AM

Why is it so difficult for some of you to just exchanges opinions and facts in a calm way? It's not like the future of the world depends on the correct answers to the questions here...

Had to get that off my chest first. What I wanted to post originally was: There seems to have been a small misunderstanding about Makman's GUI. It does not create pitch-black nights per se. On my installation during the last patrols the night became pitch-black only if the sky was very cloudy.

Jaeger

02-06-12, 08:34 AM

i follow this thread for month now and the tone never was this aggressive it is now. please calm down, i think the input given here is very usable. remember, our goal is equal: we want to have the best results concerning realism. the mod is adjustable so this discussion will help the gamers to adjust it the way they think it is realistic (whatever it is). For me, the last posts show that absolut black nights are unrealistic and the range also is shorter at night, compared to daytime. the question we can discuss (and everybody can adjust in the mod for himself) is: what is a good value for this in the mod?

Hitman

02-06-12, 09:41 AM

Ehmm yes, some replies could certainly wellcome a bit less of assertiveness, but the discussion itself is well backed up and at high level, so I hope it can be continued.

Me, I just want to say three things:

a) I have readed several times that WW2 submariners (German and US) clearly stated seeing masts over the horizon. I have never myself figured out, while standing on a beach or at sea, how the hell they managed to see such a thin line in the horizon, as Kafka BC says. There must be a reason for this, though damn me if I can figure out which one.

b) Pitch black nights must be something exceptional, with covered skies precluding even star light. Otherwise, almost none of the WW2 might surface action can be explained. There is a chance for the uboats to see ships silhouetted against the horizon, or they would not be able to attack. And they not only were, they actually seeked that situation and rarely missed their shots!

c) VERY important:

Scaling things down to the 16/20km SH3 world the whole thing is probably NOT a good idea. Why? because we are not scaling down our uboat, its turning circle, the torpedo turning circles and arming distances, the sonar, radar, etc. and as such we are screwing the whole tactical game. We will never be able to employ realistic tactics with capped down sensors in a world that otherwise keeps its proportions. To be honest, we should probably allow the crew to see up to 40 km in daytime, even if we don't see a ship rendered on screen until much closer. It is bad enough not to have other uboats actively scouting the sea, to even let our vision radius decrease so much over the real life figures. Smoke could be seen at 40 kms, so our crew should be able to see that, and you as captain would only start making true tactical decissions when your are 20 kms or less close to the enemy -which is also what you can effectively see in the game.

Jimbuna

02-06-12, 12:13 PM

I agree with Hitman entirely but my spider senses are starting to tingle and I'm getting this uneasy feeling based on posting patterns and rhetoric.

The bad post reports are also something we could do without...so please debate but do so without resorting to terminology you would not welcome being presented toward oneself.

None of us is as clever as all of us.

makman94

02-06-12, 12:32 PM

come on Kafka...relax !
i am not a 'boy' for you (only my girl is calling me like this with a ....meaning) and i bet that if i called you the same way ...you will ,also, don't like it ! no ?
i just tried to discuss with you and ask some things on some points of your post which seemed interesting to me and,as i nowhere insult or 'attack' you , i really don't understand your reaction.
anyway, i will make one more effort but please ,try to be polite this time.(really there is no reason to get upset!)
i see where the misunderstanding is between us: i am talking ONLY for the mod and i am not interested to get a diploma on range vissualities during day or night ! the theme is so complicated and so variable that even a kid can understand that there are no 'fixable' visual distances during day or night.

all these about spotting smaller ships to shorter distances than taller ships (which is absolutely correct) or all these about 'bigger-higher smokes' from a 64-ship convoy than 8-ships convoy (which also is absolutely correct) maybe are very interesting and a good idea to discussed seperately at one other thread but sure is not the object of the mod-thread here.
we are doomed to follow sh3's engine rules and the devs had not modeled the curveness of earth so FORGET the spotting smaller ships to shorter distances than taller ships and the higher smokes from a 64-ships convoys. the sh3's engine will spot at the same range even a fishboat or a battleship...i don't like it ,it is wrong but thats it and that is the 'rule' that we will obey.

it is very easy for me to dig at internet and find links concerning u-boats vissualities during day or night and come back here to make the 'expert' at forums. the point is that i will just make the 'expert' without trully have deep researched the theme. everybody can do that...it is the easy!(so reading only the links that you posted will not really help me or make me 'helpfull on discussions about such themes). what we are looking for(at least me) is someone that have made some deep research on the theme (vissualities during day and night) and give us a good COMPROMISE value for a max detection range during day and one good COPROMISE value for max detection during CLEAR night as concered the REALITY. i thought ,by reading your post, that you have make that deep research thats why i tried to discuss with you these themes.
given the way that engine works ,we have ONLY ONE option :
we need ONE good COMPROMISE value for a max detection range during day and one good COPROMISE value for max detection during CLEAR night as concered the REALITY. all the rest will be scaled down to 16 or 20km enviros

@Hitman : this includes ALL sensors Alberto ! all sensors (hydro-sonars-radars) will be scaled down to 'follow' the propotions of the environment. scaling down the sensors it will take for me less than 1 hour so don't think that it is something enormous to be done ( i allready have made it to my rivate enviro)

@Kafka: i want to reply to some of your comments .

@makman94

Apples and oranges.

when you implied that the 31km that i said was wrong and the correct was (after your check) 29.1km it wasn't for you this difference...''apples and oranges''. after that i showed you that the 31km is more correct it 'became'....''apples and oranges''. please...

You missed the whole point. Did you read the paragraph following. I will repeat:

"Even if the mast was higher, without taking into account atmospheric haze caused by distance, and having personally used both hand-held and tripod mounted cameras equipped with telephoto lenses, I can state with confidence that it is impossible to see the barest tip of a mast on the horizon at that distance. A ship would have to be an awful lot closer before the image seen in binoculars on a rocking and vibrating U-Boat can resolve itself enough to be discernible as the mast of a ship. If they are painted white, you probably can't see them until you start to see funnels or superstructure, but I won't declare that as a "fact"."

If you can find a pair of Kriegsmarine binoculars with the kind of resolving power where you can see the top 1 meter of a mast on the horizon at 31 kilometers, and then find a man that can hold it steady enough to see it, then I will retract my statement and say I lied.

i read it and i am thinking that the article in wikipedia (which i trust more than you---no offence here) is talking for observer with naked eyes...no binos at all
but even if it is not like that ,how far would you say that it is a good AVERAGE COMPROMISED MAX range for visuality at clear day for using it ingame?

PS. 1 mile = 1.609 kilometers, 9.4 x 1.609 = 15.1246 kilometers, I rounded down.

1mile = 1.852 kilometers . at miles in sea ,they mean the nautical miles so you need to check this too one more time

..... Except that you seem to be talking about the Mod and I never was.

yes , i am only interested at the mod so please post things about it here .this thread is for getting info for the mod

Ehmm yes, some replies could certainly wellcome a bit less of assertiveness, but the discussion itself is well backed up and at high level, so I hope it can be continued.

.....

I agree with Hitman entirely but my spider senses are starting to tingle and I'm getting this uneasy feeling based on posting patterns and rhetoric.

The bad post reports are also something we could do without...so please debate but do so without resorting to terminology you would not welcome being presented toward oneself.

None of us is as clever as all of us.

i will disagree with you two here , guys !
the only reason that this thread is still at 'high level' is thanks to me,H.Sie and Rubini and by no meaning thanks to the 'attackers' !

Jimbuna

02-06-12, 12:44 PM

i will disagree with you two here , guys !
the only reason that this thread is still at 'high level' is thanks to me,H.Sie and Rubini and by no meaning thanks to the 'attackers' !

That is your right and one I accept and respect but when I see bad post reports it is my right/position to appeal to ALL contributors to act in a respectful manner toward one another and conform with the requirements as set out in the rules of this forum.

Now back to what is really an interesting debate please.

Sailor Steve

02-06-12, 01:01 PM

Wow wow wow, carefull with the "facts" will u ? Why you always sound like you know everything or everyone ? I bet you just own very nice philosophy art. There are a lot of ppl who knows much more then you can imagine.
"Always"? For someone who's been here such a short time you seem to know (or think you know) some people very well.

makman94

02-06-12, 01:02 PM

That is your right and one I accept and respect but when I see bad post reports it is my right/position to appeal to ALL contributors to act in a respectful manner toward one another and conform with the requirements as set out in the rules of this forum.

Now back to what is really an interesting debate please.

yes , i know what you mean Jim and you are right but my point is that noone needs the 'bad posts' button to figure out which are really the bad posts .they are obvious and no hitting buttons are needed at all

h.sie

02-06-12, 01:03 PM

we are not discussing about historical facts. visibility at sea at night didn't change from 1942 to now. so this can surely be investigated.

makman94

02-06-12, 01:10 PM

we are not discussing about historical facts. visibility at sea at night didn't change from 1942 to now. so this can surely be investigated.

very nice and absolutely correct spotting H.sie !:up: .....(and its getting ...dark right now...but you 'saw' very far !!)

Jimbuna

02-06-12, 01:15 PM

yes , i know what you mean Jim and you are right but my point is that noone needs the 'bad posts' button to figure out which are really the bad posts .they are obvious and no hitting buttons are needed at all

Agreed...in an ideal world but I think my opening remark in #100 has passed over you.

No matter...let us all move on and focus on the topic of debate.

PM inbound.

reaper7

02-06-12, 02:17 PM

I think its time to step back and realize what a monumental mod this is in regards to the future of SH3 no matter which side of the fence your on : more realistic/less realistic.
What has been done here is no small thing - these guys have taken what most of us here considered a major bug within sh3 and with great determination and ingenuity have brought us a wonderfull solution.

And the beauty of it is you can either use it or not :03:

But think about it, this fix and the ones before it by means of exe edits are moving sh3 to newer and deeper waters previously impossible.

I for one am glad to have guys like these spending hours upon hours each day of their own time to bring us each new addition as small or as big as they may be.
Only for them I would have left the Sub genre years ago for other pastures.

So guys Thanks for everything and Keep it up :up:

makman94

02-06-12, 04:34 PM

.....

I for one am glad to have guys like these spending hours upon hours each day of their own time to bring us each new addition as small or as big as they may be.
.....

only me ,H.sie and Rubini knows the hours and tests and thoughts -changing 'routes'(you all see just the result) that was spent on this mod !
we ,also, 'discovered' some hidden and really 'crazy' features in sh's engine that maybe will mod some day me or H.sie or Rubini if find the will

thank you John , it is nice to 'see' that some people (you know that becuase you are moding) realize the ...'background'

end of ...story

complutum

02-06-12, 04:44 PM

I am a user of hardcode h'sie and i must agree that all of you have taken SH3 to a new level no matter if someone doesnt like it just dont use it and let all people like me that loves those amazing mods use them.

Thanks for your great job

Sailor Steve

02-06-12, 04:44 PM

I know him quite well, we used to play SH3/GWX multiplayer matches ages ago. And I can say he always knew how to piss ppl off in his high-mannered way :)
"Ages ago". And yet you never registered here at subsim.

Now it's high time for you to listen to those like Jim and take his advice into account

"Now back to what is really an interesting debate please."
And now you're "advising" people you supposedly don't even know?

Interesting.

h.sie

02-06-12, 06:33 PM

From captain logs of U-575

http://www.u575.de/1Feindfahrt.html

Dark night without moon.
Visible contact to destroyer in 4000m distance.
Shot torpedo at merchant in 3000m distance.

(So visible range is definitely > 4000m)

http://www.u575.de/3Feindfahrt.html

Good visibility, about 7sm, bright moon night.

EDIT: I made a mistake here. It seems he always gives distances in meters and speeds in sm.
So the value 7sm must be a speed, either of own or enemy.??

http://www.u575.de/8Feindfahrt.html

Very bad visibility at night: 200-500m

Kafka BC

02-06-12, 07:25 PM

@Hitman

I guess I touched a nerve here, sorry to bring you into this.

I don't believe my first post was offensive and was intended to give some supporting "facts" for 'Noisy_Buoy', and as I said at the start of it, it was for other people to ponder, especially about the Night Vision Binoculars.

Nor was the second one to h.sie, in which I apologized for possibly unintentionally offending him.

My third one to 'Graf Paper' I will wholeheartedly admit was agressive. His highhanded use of assumptions over facts in his response to my first post, which he so obviously did not read, really offended me. I can not tell you how much of an insult I consider that to be.

I have readed several times that WW2 submariners (German and US) clearly stated seeing masts over the horizon. I have never myself figured out, while standing on a beach or at sea, how the hell they managed to see such a thin line in the horizon, as Kafka BC says. There must be a reason for this, though damn me if I can figure out which one.On a day with good visibility I am sure they could see masts over the horizon when using binoculars. If you note in my first post in this thread, the horizon for a U-Boat watchman is about 8 kilometers (5 miles). That is not very far, how far over the horizon, I can't say, it would depend on how much of the mast can be seen and other factors, but it is certainly not 31 kilometers from the bridge of a U-Boat.

Kafka BC

02-06-12, 07:27 PM

@makman94

i am not a 'boy' for you (only my girl is calling me like this with a ....meaning) and i bet that if i called you the same way ...you will ,also, don't like it ! no ?...Sorry, I did not see that you were from Crete.

I was not calling you a 'boy', in the English language using 'boy' at the start of a sentence is commonly used as a way of adding emphasis to the whole sentence. It is like saying Gosh, Wow, My God, or Damn, or a host of others. I guess I should have used one of them...it was not intended to be an insult.

it is very easy for me to dig at internet and find links concerning u-boats vissualities during day or night and come back here to make the 'expert' at forums. the point is that i will just make the 'expert' without trully have deep researched the theme. everybody can do that...it is the easy!(so reading only the links that you posted will not really help me or make me 'helpfull on discussions about such themes). what we are looking for(at least me) is someone that have made some deep research on the theme (vissualities during day and night) and give us a good COMPROMISE value for a max detection range during day and one good COPROMISE value for max detection during CLEAR night as concered the REALITY. i thought ,by reading your post, that you have make that deep research thats why i tried to discuss with you these themes.Those articles that you seem to be dismissing as not 'expert' are documents from the Operations Evaluation Group Report No. 51 of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations of the United States Navy. Are you telling me that you are more 'expert' than them?

....''apples and oranges''"Apples and Oranges" is a shortened version of the English phrase "It is like comparing apples and oranges", both are fruit but which one tastes better, and where the answer is "it does not matter". I guess you are not familiar with the phrase. My apologies again.

i read it and i am thinking that the article in wikipedia (which i trust more than you---no offence here) is talking for observer with naked eyes...no binos at allSo, by your reasoning, I should be able to see the Empire State Building from 50 miles away (you can) and with the naked eye be able to count the windows as well (you can't). There are things like atmospheric turbulence and human eye resolution that you have ignored, and the wikipedia article does too.

but even if it is not like that ,how far would you say that it is a good AVERAGE COMPROMISED MAX range for visuality at clear day for using it ingame?I am not going to talk about the mod. Nor do I wish to make any suggestions.

1mile = 1.852 kilometers . at miles in sea ,they mean the nautical miles so you need to check this too one more timeIf they were using nautical miles they would have said 'nautical miles' and their diagrams would be using the abbreviation NM instead of MI, so I think you should check one more time.

yes , i am only interested at the mod so please post things about it here .this thread is for getting info for the modI see, others can post assumptions regarding the mod, but I can't post facts that you can use in the mod.

the only reason that this thread is still at 'high level' is thanks to me,H.Sie and Rubini and by no meaning thanks to the 'attackers' !Are you implying that my initial post here is not 'high level' and that I am an 'attacker'?

I'm through discussing this.

Graf Paper

02-07-12, 01:37 AM

My own remarks and observations pertained to the general conversation and were not necessarily directed specifically at everything you had to say, Kafka. Context is at least as important as grammar. However, since you insist on coming at me like this...

What is this? Nowhere did I mention anything about the sharpness of the horizon at night as seen by the naked eye, so why you are trying to give me a Pseudoscience lesson is beyond me.

Having, in my youth, been out many times on clear moonless nights with plenty of stars (something no one seems to have considered as a light source) in the country away from lights and the glow from a city, I can attest to the fact that you can see the contrast difference between the sky and land. (emphasis added).

That is the definition of a horizon.

Also, you say sky and land. I believe the discussion here concerns sky and sea.

I don't recall any of them saying they could spot mastheads at 35 kilometers with the naked eye...
I don't recall me saying it either, I said someone else did. You didn't read again.

Actually, it was you who failed to comprehend. I used the collective pronoun "them" in reference to the testimonies of crew serving aboard u-boats, which is plainly obvious by the active pronoun "they", as in "the persons who perfomed this action" in regards to the actual spotting of the mastheads in question.

Coal-fired vessels could be easily spotted from very great distances, some estimates around 50 miles..
I could tell you something about that often quoted and misleading misconception, but I won't.

Actually, one source for this figure comes from the direct statements of Lt. Robert Atkinson, DSC, RNR of K-137, H.M.S. Pink. I'd dare say that a commanding officer of a WWII Royal Navy corvette, serving as convoy escort, knows a few more things about ship's smoke and u-boat tactics. He ought to be ashamed of himself for misleading us all!

long ago I studied to become a marine engineer

You prove nothing by this statement. Being a such a mechanic does not qualify you for anything other than to work on marine power trains. Additionally, in studying to be a marine engineer, it in no way follows that you actually became one or served aboard any ocean-going vessels. This is pure grand-standing on your part, meant to intimidate others into silence by the perception this somehow makes you an authority on the matter. All sources you have cited thus far also happen to be among the first twenty or so hits one finds when typing "u-boat visual range" into Google's search engine.

You may belittle my reasoning by labeling it as "pseudoscience" yet you use your photography hobby as the basis for your "expertise" on visual properties as applied to u-boat tactics. Taking pictures of sunsets does not give your arguments any additional weight over what others here have said.

And then you attempt to humiliate me further by calling my use of language "High-handed"? You read into it only what you wish. If you feel intimidated by complete sentences and florid words, like "diffraction", that should not be my problem. It is the way I speak when using the written word and I owe no man an apology for it.

I have been polite and even supported some of the points you made. Then you repay that by tearing into me? What I say next must be said.

Disagreement with you is not an attack on your character, but you seem to wish to respond as though it were. "Overly aggressive", indeed! The only two things you have managed to prove thus far is the boorishness of your behavior and the cunning to suck up to Hitman while you continue to dish out insults to the rest. He is no more blind than the rest of us.

You even succeeded in raising the anger of Makman, one of this mod's authors and someone I rarely have seen respond with anything other than civility. You top that dubious achievement by marginalizing h.sie and Rubini, as well. All three of them have made real, lasting contributions to this community and should be shown respect, if only for their generosity.

The intent behind this entire thread, as stated by the mod's authors, was to reveal some measure of accuracy from the aggregate of opinion and knowledge contributed by this community. Your combative stance stifles that. You are free to disagree with others, but there is no reason it cannot be done with polite discourse.

You may continue to draw insult where there is none, bully your way over others, and shout down those who contradict you. However, I would advise that you reconsider your undirected anger before you make yourself unpopular.

As a postscript, I apologize to everyone here for contributing to any further derailment of this thread. I feel it necessary to not only stand up for myself publicly in the face of this hooligan, but for h.sie, Rubini, Makman, and others I hold in high regard because they have always been gentlemen, even when I have not. Keep the colors flying! :salute:

I've had my say and promise, henceforth, to stay on topic.

SquareSteelBar

02-07-12, 03:53 AM

That is your right and one I accept and respect but when I see bad post reports it is my right/position to appeal to ALL contributors to act in a respectful manner toward one another and conform with the requirements as set out in the rules of this forum.

Now back to what is really an interesting debate please.These 'bad posts' started with the appearance of a 'Heulboje'.

It's behavior brings a certain inmate to my mind... :hmmm:

Obltn Strand

02-07-12, 04:46 AM

From U-977 by Heinz Schaeffer.

They spot a ship at 16-14 nm (26,6-25.9 km).
During night they spot it again at 4 nm (7,4 km)

Moon was visible and occasionally covered with intermittent clouds.

Jimbuna

02-07-12, 05:48 AM

These 'bad posts' started with the appearance of a 'Heulboje'.

It's behavior brings a certain inmate to my mind... :hmmm:

A couple of hours matey...a couple of hours.

Rubini

02-07-12, 08:54 AM

From U-977 by Heinz Schaeffer.

They spot a ship at 16-14 nm (26,6-25.9 km).
During night they spot it again at 4 nm (7,4 km)

Moon was visible and occasionally covered with intermittent clouds.

Thanks mate by the info. It's clear that at night (even bright ones )the practical visual detection is much less than day. I will use 50% in my game when the fix is released. Is a very good compromisse IMHO.:up:

Hitman

02-07-12, 09:14 AM

Yeah, we thought he might behave a bit more this time, but I guess some people never learn :88)

makman94

02-07-12, 10:09 AM

@makman94

Sorry, I did not see that you were from Crete.

I was not calling you a 'boy', in the English language using 'boy' at the start of a sentence is commonly used as a way of adding emphasis to the whole sentence. It is like saying Gosh, Wow, My God, or Damn, or a host of others. I guess I should have used one of them...it was not intended to be an insult.---ok Kafka , i am sorry too ..case closed :up:

Those articles that you seem to be dismissing as not 'expert' are documents from the Operations Evaluation Group Report No. 51 of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations of the United States Navy. Are you telling me that you are more 'expert' than them? --- i said exactly the opposite but thats ok too

"Apples and Oranges" is a shortened version of the English phrase "It is like comparing apples and oranges", both are fruit but which one tastes better, and where the answer is "it does not matter". I guess you are not familiar with the phrase. My apologies again.---no need for apologies ,i just explained where i found the '31' km (as you saw it was not my 'imagination' ) and i did it (the explaination) becuase you asked for it and it was against 'your' '29.1km' and not against your 'bino' knowledge. i told you just this and nothing more than this: the 29.1 was found by geometrical formulas (the calculator you posted is using these formulas) and the '31km' is more correct value becuase it uses formulas that taking in account the atmospheric refraction.
i read this phrase at wikipedia : ''Results (from the spoken formulas) are sufficiently accurate for many purposes.''

So, by your reasoning, I should be able to see the Empire State Building from 50 miles away (you can) and with the naked eye be able to count the windows as well (you can't). There are things like atmospheric turbulence and human eye resolution that you have ignored, and the wikipedia article does too.---i repeat again here that i am not 'expert' on real situtations so i can't say what (how far) you can see from Kriegsmarine binos and thats why i 'need' the experts to give us some real ranges so i can't continue this further (my knowledge stops here) and thats why i asked you to give us an average copromise max visual range for clear day

I am not going to talk about the mod. Nor do I wish to make any suggestions. --- so , continue this conversation here will be just off topic. PM me if you like to tell me something more on this

If they were using nautical miles they would have said 'nautical miles' and their diagrams would be using the abbreviation NM instead of MI, so I think you should check one more time.---thats really very 'strange' for me. they talk for miles on sea and they are using the international mile ? i can't say anything more...it is just 'strange',thats it what i was thinking as i was glancing to the link

I see, others can post assumptions regarding the mod, but I can't post facts that you can use in the mod.

Are you implying that my initial post here is not 'high level' and that I am an 'attacker'? ---no, it was not for you and i don't believe that you are 'attacking' the thread . :up:

I'm through discussing this.

look above ,
bye

makman94

02-07-12, 10:46 AM

Jimbuna

02-07-12, 11:01 AM

AAAAHA! The footprints! Something's very fishy around by here! :)

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/3523/37422828.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/37422828.png/)

Yep...looks like someone has saved me the bother :salute:

Sailor Steve

02-07-12, 11:45 AM

As for the sailor steve I wonder who has bitten this no lifer anyway ?

Sailor does it realy bothers you that I registered only few days ago or what ? :)
No, it doesn't bother me at all. I was just trying to draw you out, because we knew you were PapaKilo, and it worked. You couldn't help being the same old troll as always.

Victor Schutze

02-07-12, 11:47 AM

So after a much heated debate, what is your conclusion concerning visibility?
:Kaleun_Los:

Sailor Steve

02-07-12, 11:48 AM

My conclusion? H.sie had a problem with the way things worked, and he fixed it. Never a bad thing. :sunny:

Rubini

02-07-12, 11:54 AM

So after a much heated debate, what is your conclusion concerning visibility?
:Kaleun_Los:
IMO, by what i have read here my conclusion is that 50% is the best compromisse for sh3 (with its limited environment). But this is only for ping, as the mod will allow any value.

h.sie

02-07-12, 12:07 PM

http://www.u575.de/6Feindfahrt.html

Weather getting better. Moon visible from time to time. convoy sighted. Distance: Approx. 5sm. (9km).

Graf Paper

02-07-12, 01:04 PM

A 50% reduction seems fine. It would fit fairly well in the 8 km and 16 km environments. I am unsure if it's as good for the 20 km environment, but 10 km isn't too much of a stretch for visual contact, given the range of distances quoted by everyone.

I know the SH3 developers settled on 8 km as the environment size after several WWII historical sources cited 5 miles as the maximum visual range one has while standing on the bridge of a u-boat. Given the surviving diaries, log books, and statements of actual sailors of the U-bootwaffe, it does make me wonder how this absolute number of 5 miles was ascertained. Was it done with mathematics or some other source? From what I have read of the books that often quote this number, there seems to be little clarification. The authors make no mention if this 5 mile limit is with or without optical aids. There is no specificity to define exactly when a ship is considered to be "spotted", either. Is it when the masthead, all or part of the superstructure, or the hull is in plain view?

When weighing this matter, I must lean strongly in favor of the testimony of men who were actually there. No scholar working amid stacks of books, rather than the stacked rollers of an Atlantic storm, can ever claim to have definitive knowledge. This leads me to conclude that the SH3 developers and historians got it wrong while the fans and modders of this community have always been right.

SquareSteelBar

02-07-12, 01:08 PM

...I'm gonna haunt this place till I die =] ...

some kind of pathological personality... :yawn:

Jimbuna

02-07-12, 01:31 PM

Add to the list Kentas and Infamous CONTACT. (can't even remember all my temporary nicks already):arrgh!: Your efforts to stop me from being here is nothing compared to my wish to stay here no matter what nickname I own =]

This fight you will never win, I'm gonna haunt this place till I die =]

You tracked me, just because I wanted so, do not expect it will happen

again in the close future =] :shucks:

P.S. I always hold my word!

Every time you show your hand you can rely on myself or fellow moderators to ban you.

P.S. I always keep my word too.

h.sie

02-07-12, 01:58 PM

http://www.u575.de/8Feindfahrt.html

May 5th, 1943, North-Atlantic

21:30: Visibility getting worse, fog, rain.
22:20h: convoy sighted in 12000m distance, suddenly coming out of haze.

Örps!

Rubini

02-07-12, 03:08 PM

http://www.u575.de/8Feindfahrt.html

May 5th, 1943, North-Atlantic

21:30: Visibility getting worse, fog, rain.
22:20h: convoy sighted in 12000m distance, suddenly coming out of haze.

Örps!
North Atlantic at spring-summer have long days...:DL

Kafka BC

02-07-12, 10:00 PM

@Graf Paper

My own remarks and observations pertained to the general conversation and were not necessarily directed specifically at everything you had to say, Kafka.
Really, then you should have said so.

Context is at least as important as grammar.From my perspective, you fail at understanding context, at least mine anyway.

Also, you say sky and land. I believe the discussion here concerns sky and sea.And I believe my discussion involved the night sky, the light gathering properties of large objective lenses, the fact that you could see ships on or near the horizon at night with the Kriegsmarine Binoculars in use at the time, and that the horizon for a U-Boat was 8 kilometers.

As I said, it was a way to simplify. If you could not get the gist that it was part of a lead-in to discussing Night Vision Binoculars...then that is not my problem. I was providing facts for consideration, some of which were not considered in previous discussions where assumptions were being made.

Right from the get go in your first two paragraphs you went off on a tangent totally unrelated to the points I was making. You assumed I knew nothing about, had not seen an ocean, nor been to sea, and questioned my 'visual acuity' and then proceeded to 'teach' me on something irrelevant. Your whole tone sounded demeaning and that you knew better than me. I found it offensive.

Actually, it was you who failed to comprehend. I used the collective pronoun "them" in reference to the testimonies of crew serving aboard u-boats, which is plainly obvious by the active pronoun "they", as in "the persons who perfomed this action" in regards to the actual spotting of the mastheads in question.If you were agreeing with me, I could not tell, perhaps if you had clearly said so. From the first sentence and the way you structured the paragraph it appeared that you were contending something I did not say. Maybe I did misunderstand, but you contributed to that misunderstanding.

Actually, one source for this figure comes from the direct statements of Lt. Robert Atkinson, DSC, RNR of K-137, H.M.S. Pink. I'd dare say that a commanding officer of a WWII Royal Navy corvette, serving as convoy escort, knows a few more things about ship's smoke and u-boat tactics. He ought to be ashamed of himself for misleading us all!That is what it is - a statement, which it prone to misinterpretation and exaggeration. Did he say a single ship or a convoy of many ships? Did he have a long base range-finder that can accurately tell the distance out to 50 miles? A corvette didn't have them.

Actually the misleading misconception I was referring to is the belief that all coal-fired ships belch dense black smoke. My mistake there, I should have pointed that out, but I didn't want to start an argument about it.

You prove nothing by this statement. Being a such a mechanic does not qualify you for anything other than to work on marine power trains. Additionally, in studying to be a marine engineer, it in no way follows that you actually became one or served aboard any ocean-going vessels.That statement was to refute your assumption that I was a total landlubber.

So you think my Diploma and Certificates from The Nautical Institute of Nova Scotia are meaningless, and everything they taught me about marine diesels, steam turbines, triple-expansion engines, ship buoyancy and loading, and coal and oil fuel are as well. I must go tell them to stop wasting taxpayer's money.

And to show how little you know on the matter, part of the training to become a Marine Engineer involves actually going to sea, and I did for a bit, as a 4th class engineer cadet (meaning unpaid) to get my required sea-time, on board an oil tanker that went between the ports of Halifax, Montreal and St. John's. I did not pursue the career, turned out I didn't like being in the "bowels of the ship", and I needed a job that paid more than the meager stipend I was getting from the Government.

You may belittle my reasoning by labeling it as "pseudoscience" yet you use your photography hobby as the basis for your "expertise" on visual properties as applied to u-boat tactics. Taking pictures of sunsets does not give your arguments any additional weight over what others here have said.No. I was using it as the basis of my "expertise" in regarding the resolving power of the human eye, the size and distance of an object, and the fact that optical devices such as binoculars with long focal lengths are subject to something called "camera shake", which becomes more acute when viewing objects at longer ranges, especially if they are hand held or if there is the slightest vibration of any kind. Tell me that doesn't happen on a moving U-Boat. Tactics has nothing to do with it.

It wasn't just a hobby, I actually made a few bucks doing it, not enough to live on though.

And then you attempt to humiliate me further by calling my use of language "High-handed"?I said your "high handed use of assumptions". Read what I said about your first two paragraphs and your assumptions.

If you feel intimidated by complete sentences and florid words, like "diffraction", that should not be my problem.Childish. I believe my big words can match your big words any day.

I have been polite and even supported some of the points you made.Again, you did not make that clear. The first sentence of your forth paragraph:
Also, this mod primarily deals with night vision using the unaided eye, a fact I think some have missed while attempting to prove some points.That sounded to me like you were discounting the information I provided on the Kriegsmarine Binoculars, sticking with using "the unaided eye" as a basis, and a jab at the points I was making. The rest of the paragraph sounded patronizing...like I didn't know these things and that I was a newbie. This again I found offensive.

Now, your last paragraph you did agree with me...on a conclusion I never made.

EDIT: I take that back, I now realize you were talking about the 'fog being the big bugaboo for U-Boats'. I didn't interpret it that way.

As for the rest of your speech I say "No Comment". I will let you and others make of it as their will.

Victor Schutze

02-08-12, 12:10 AM

:gulp:

Kafka BC

02-08-12, 12:53 AM

@makman94

--- i said exactly the opposite but thats ok too

I messed that up. I now believe that part of our difficulties is the language barrier and I am not understanding your wording because of it. I will try to look closer to see what you are saying from now on.

Concerning my first post about our different calculations of 29.1 and 31. I looked at it again and I should have said they were close enough. I was thinking it but I did not do it. I thought that people would understand that they were, that is why I said the "Apples and Oranges" phrase. In the following paragraph I should have said "at those distances" instead of "at that distance".

I am sorry for that confusion, I was too focused on trying to say that the tip of a mast is too small to see that far away. In actual fact, I was surprised that they were that close together because elsewhere in other threads I had seen people saying you should see further based on the height of the extended periscope.

The reason I don't want to talk about the mod and make any suggestions is because I do not know exactly what is being done on the mod and my speculating on ranges would not be helpful. From what I see from the log entries being posted, I believe that a good average may be arrived at, and they certainly don't need me.

---thats really very 'strange' for me. they talk for miles on sea and they are using the international mile ? i can't say anything more...it is just 'strange',thats it what i was thinking as i was glancing to the linkYes, documents like those are prepared for more than just the Navy, there are others like politicians, bureaucrats, and scientists who may have no understanding of a nautical mile when they are familiar with other measurements. Even though my country has been using the Metric system for a long time, I still find it hard to judge measurements since I grew up using using the Imperial system.

Regards :up:

Kafka BC

02-08-12, 01:04 AM

No, it doesn't bother me at all. I was just trying to draw you out, because we knew you were PapaKilo, and it worked. You couldn't help being the same old troll as always.

Noisy_Buoy was PapaKilo!!!!

Now, I am so truly and unimaginably embarrassed. :damn:

Hitman

02-08-12, 05:41 AM

Kafka BC

02-08-12, 09:29 AM

He was Papakilo, Kentas, Contact ... when your paranoid these things happen. He will return, and we will ban him again, that's life ... simply ignore him and do not reply to posts from "new" members that appear as veterans when talking about the game. We will take care of the rest ;)

I have been using the Internet since the days before there were forums and used newsgroups for discussion. In all that time I have never encountered an actual troll, just people calling others that name.

This is a certainly a lesson for me :o. I bow to you Sensei.

u crank

02-08-12, 09:46 AM

ReallyDedPoet

02-08-12, 03:30 PM

makman don't feed the trolls.

http://legacy-cdn.smosh.com/smosh-pit/112010/main-troll.jpg

He'll be gone soon enough :yep: And the next time, and the next time...

As long as it takes.

h.sie

02-08-12, 03:34 PM

isn't is possible to remove spam posts?

(but not mine :D)

HunterICX

02-08-12, 03:46 PM

Guys,

Just ignore him and don't give him any form of attention and just press this button (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/report.gif) to bring him up to our radar.

Thanks,
HunterICX

Victor Schutze

02-08-12, 05:12 PM

vampirenightvisionbugfix -> name calling

:wah:

h.sie

02-08-12, 05:25 PM

@victor: i don't understand....

Jimbuna

02-08-12, 05:28 PM

Simply ignore :yep:

Victor Schutze

02-08-12, 05:53 PM

troll... lier... idiot... is name calling.

To suggest that this behavior is "normal" goes beyond me. I am out of here.

:down:

Capt. Morgan

02-08-12, 08:38 PM

The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

Takeda Shingen

02-08-12, 09:09 PM

troll... lier... idiot... is name calling.

To suggest that this behavior is "normal" goes beyond me. I am out of here.

:down:

He's been canned. I don't know what more you'd expect us to do.

Let's all get back to topic.

Graf Paper

02-09-12, 01:49 AM

Kafka, my entire reason for pressing the point regarding the unaided, or naked, eye is because this "bug fix" deals only with that.

What this mod does is to link the distance of the fog wall to the position of the sun. "Fog wall" is used in referring to an invisible barrier that limits clear vision to the distance at which this wall is set from the point of view of the player and his watch crew on the bridge of the u-boat. The basic measure used by the game engine for this is the unaided eye. That is why the other visual settings that account for optical aids must be edited in addition to the use of this mod, as specified near the beginning of this thread.

Since normal visual acuity is used as the baseline, that is the number for which the authors are seeking some measure of accuracy.

As for the rest, we can agree to disagree.

h.sie

02-09-12, 02:57 AM

I can only repeat myself: This fix will be user-adjustable via .ini file.

A factor of 1,0 will have no effect at all on visibility -> same visibility as in unpatched sh3.
A factor of 0,5 will reduce night visibility to 50% compared to unpatched sh3 for both the player and the watch crew.
A factor of 0,0 makes crew and player completely blind.

So values between 0,0 ... 1,0 contain the whole span of possibilities and personal taste regarding night visibility, from "no change at all" to "crew completely blind", with a little change in an .ini file.

It is not required to have studied mathematics to immediately reason, that this mod cannot be worse than the unpatched sh3, because it also contains the situation of the unpatched version, if you set the value to 1,0. But values below 1,0 offer a new perspective for those who are not satisfied with the visibility of the unpatched sh3.

If now someone says this mod is "very bad", he either did that:
A) because he didn't understand anything what I/we have written here, or,
B) out of negative intentions.

SquareSteelBar

02-09-12, 03:56 AM

http://www10.pic-upload.de/09.02.12/oqvy464cb5s.gif

:up:

Kafka BC

02-09-12, 04:56 AM

As for the rest, we can agree to disagree.

Agreed.

Let us both back off on our bad first impressions.

Anvart

02-09-12, 08:03 AM

I can only repeat myself: ...

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/6565/prayan7.gif
...
:yeah:

makman94

02-09-12, 01:00 PM

hello guys,

is there any subsimer that is having a list of the real effective ranges for the radar,sonar and hydrophone types devices that sh3 is using ?

or ,can direct me to any good sites for getting these data ?

one more question : does any moder knows why the game's engine is not rendering ships to more than 20km ? (is this correct ? i have read something like this at forum).
maybe ,now, by hacking,we could manage to make the game rendering to larger than 20km distances (i guess that creating the 3d models for larger than 20km enviros will not be a problem)

h.sie

02-09-12, 01:35 PM

...regarding new 'projects': I make a rest now after V16B release.

makman94

02-09-12, 01:46 PM

...regarding new 'projects': I make a rest now after V16B release.

sure H.sie , as long as you like ! you allready have done much more than the expected :yep:
just wondering why is not possible to have ships rendering further than 20km

reaper7

02-09-12, 01:55 PM

sure H.sie , as long as you like ! you allready have done much more than the expected :yep:
just wondering why is not possible to have ships rendering further than 20km

Hi Mate, I'd Imagine the Dev's placed a limit on the ship rendering distance due to PC limitations at the time.
So in theory with today's more powerful PC's this limit could be increased much further.

Is there a method to test the actual player bubble (The sphere around the uboat at which ships are rendered by the engine) to confirm it is 20KM, or how can I find the actual player bubble distance.
If I can get the exact figure I may be able to trace back into the code to see if we can change it :hmmm:.

makman94

02-09-12, 02:04 PM

Hi Mate, I'd Imagine the Dev's placed a limit on the ship rendering distance due to PC limitations at the time.
So in theory with today's more powerful PC's this limit could be increased much further.

Is there a method to test the actual player bubble (The sphere around the uboat at which ships are rendered by the engine) to confirm it is 20KM, or how can I find the actual player bubble distance.
If I can get the exact figure I may be able to trace back into the code to see if we can change it :hmmm:.

don't even know if sh3's engine is rendering till 20km .
will send you some files to test John in which you will be able to see further than 20 km. just need to prepare them

Hitman

02-09-12, 02:19 PM

It is 20km, I checked it when doing the extended version for GWX3. The ships vanish exactly at the distance and it is noticeable that the rendering of them stops.

Furthermore, no units is even taken into account by the game if it is more than 40km away. At more distance it is just a theoretical dot from which only its position is calculated. But even if it finds another enemy unit nothing happens.

makman94

02-09-12, 02:31 PM

It is 20km, I checked it when doing the extended version for GWX3. The ships vanish exactly at the distance and it is noticeable that the rendering of them stops.

you have 'moved' the 3d fog model Alberto to more than 20km (by creating a bigger 3d model) ? also the objectrelativeZmax must be set to 1 in order to be at max the rendering of ships
have you tried these experiments in order to avoid redoing them ?

i am suspecting that ships are not rendered, exactly becuase we have altered these objectrelativeZmax values to be close to the max of fog's 3d model . (the sky dome is about 25km radious in 20km enviros so the smaller fog 3d model is determing the 'limits' so far ,afaik)

Furthermore, no units is even taken into account by the game if it is more than 40km away. At more distance it is just a theoretical dot from which only its position is calculated. But even if it finds another enemy unit nothing happens.

can you explain this more detailed ? seems it is the key to our theme ...but i can't understand exactly what you mean

Gammel

02-09-12, 05:36 PM

I'd vote for a beta release of VampireNightVision bugfix -> compatible with stieblers addon for 16A3 :D
SH3Sim.act is altered by both mods.
Can someone tell what will i loose from Stieblers mod when overiding with the VampireNightVision bugfix Sim.act? Thanks and Advance.
h.sie and stiebler - those are great mods you did, thx for all the work.

h.sie

02-10-12, 02:02 AM

@Gammel:

Thanks. Please wait until the release of V16B during February. After release, I'll work together with Stiebler in order to create his "Addon" and make his amd my Fixes compatible.

Currently, overwriting his Sh3Sim.act can cause problems, even CTD.

Magic1111

02-10-12, 04:45 AM

I'll work together with Stiebler in order to create his "Addon" and make his amd my Fixes compatible.

That´s very good news that you do a "Joint Venture" with Stiebler! :yeah:

Best regards,
Magic

Hitman

02-10-12, 06:29 AM

you have 'moved' the 3d fog model Alberto to more than 20km (by creating a bigger 3d model) ? also the objectrelativeZmax must be set to 1 in order to be at max the rendering of ships
have you tried these experiments in order to avoid redoing them ?

This was a long time ago, so I can't say which size I tried. What I remember is that there was a hardcoded limit, and that the ship effectively dissapeared from render before the fog wall, and in a very different way to how it did when it vanished in the fog -it was like suddenly cutting it with scissors, not difussing it. I positively know from trying later in SH4, that in that sim the limit was 20 kms -and I doubt that it was cut back from SH3, instead it was the opposite. Sh4 was expanded to 20kms in the 1.4 patch because the devs also confirmed that the game wouldn't anyway render the ships further away.

But yes, making a test could be worth it.

can you explain this more detailed ? seems it is the key to our theme ...but i can't understand exactly what you mean

If you look at the campaign/mission editor you will better understand what I mean. Units are simply moving dots along the programmed waypoints and the computer only keeps track of their position. When the player is 40 kms away from any of those "dots", the computer starts taking into account what the dot really is, i.e. a friendly or hostile unit, convoy, etc. At more than 40 kms from the player, it's just a neutral moving dot. Otherwise the game would be lagging if, on the other side of the world, there was an engangement between axis and allied units that got too close together :)

This is confirmed by the devs and also when we worked on the radar mod for SH4 --> The real life radar could detect things up to 80 kms away, but in the game any unit placed in the mission more than 40 kms away did not appear in the radar. It simply was considered by the comnputer a "position", and unless the player gets inside that 40 kms radius, the game doesn't bother looking at what it is. So it doesn't appear in the radar, because it is not physically placed in the game.

Kafka BC

02-10-12, 08:14 AM

...the ship effectively dissapeared from render before the fog wall, and in a very different way to how it did when it vanished in the fog -it was like suddenly cutting it with scissors, not difussing it.

Are you fellows talking about the 20 km environment?

I imported the sky and fog models from a 16 km environment (I don't remember which one) into a stock scene.dat in the environment I made for my use. I noticed somewhat the same effect that you stated at somewhere around 17,200 meters. A ship looked like it was being pulled through a wall. I wondered what was causing it. Is it because the game stops rendering at that distance with a 16km environment or does it still render out to 20km and it was the fog model that I was observing? I am very curious.

Hitman

02-10-12, 03:48 PM

@Kafka:

No, that's not the rendering limit. What happens is that the fog wall is there.

Let me explain a bit:

In SH3 you have three 3D models that make the environment you see.

-First is the sky dome. That's where the stars, sun and moon are rendered and it's the one most far away from you.
-Second is the clouds dome. This one goes parallel to the first, but on a smaller size, so the clouds are rendered obstructing the view or sun, moon, stars
-Third, at sea level, is the fog model. This one has a slight curvature upwards at the limits, where it joins the sky & clouds domes. That way there is no "blank" space between sky and sea.

What happens is that as ships reach the point of that curvature upwards, they vanish into the "fog" as they get cut by the 3D model. Clever tweaking of the fog values/colours in the environment files makes this a good transition where the ship just becomes faint and dissapears, but overall what happens is that it gets cut by a solid plane.

Now, independently from that, no 3D model will be rendered beyond 20 kms, so even if you stretch the clouds, sky and fog domes to, say, 50 kms, you will still not see ships that are more than 20 kms away.

Here is an excellent post from Seeadler with graphics explaining how it all works:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1100429&postcount=70

Kafka BC

02-10-12, 07:33 PM

@Hitman

Thanks for the explanation and Seeadler's post :up: ...ended up reading most of the thread. I kind of figured it worked something like that, now I'm sure. I did not know that there was a 20 kilometer rendering limit though, good to know.

I'll have to try importing your 20 km models and fool around with them when I have a chance.

makman94

02-12-12, 07:28 AM

This was a long time ago, so I can't say which size I tried. What I remember is that there was a hardcoded limit, and that the ship effectively dissapeared from render before the fog wall, and in a very different way to how it did when it vanished in the fog -it was like suddenly cutting it with scissors, not difussing it. I positively know from trying later in SH4, that in that sim the limit was 20 kms -and I doubt that it was cut back from SH3, instead it was the opposite. Sh4 was expanded to 20kms in the 1.4 patch because the devs also confirmed that the game wouldn't anyway render the ships further away.

But yes, making a test could be worth it.

If you look at the campaign/mission editor you will better understand what I mean. Units are simply moving dots along the programmed waypoints and the computer only keeps track of their position. When the player is 40 kms away from any of those "dots", the computer starts taking into account what the dot really is, i.e. a friendly or hostile unit, convoy, etc. At more than 40 kms from the player, it's just a neutral moving dot. Otherwise the game would be lagging if, on the other side of the world, there was an engangement between axis and allied units that got too close together :)

This is confirmed by the devs and also when we worked on the radar mod for SH4 --> The real life radar could detect things up to 80 kms away, but in the game any unit placed in the mission more than 40 kms away did not appear in the radar. It simply was considered by the comnputer a "position", and unless the player gets inside that 40 kms radius, the game doesn't bother looking at what it is. So it doesn't appear in the radar, because it is not physically placed in the game.

i did some tests ,
you have a pm Alberto :yep:

one question about radar's tracking ranges: i read somewhere that some radars could locate a large ship at distance of 45000y (41km) . is this correct ?