(Shipping Lanes ) Curiosity note

[Hardigen]

In the Thread [ shipping lanes ] I was 12nm out of Naha waitin for nightfall to close, well ! I got a bit closer in daylight to about 8 nm,when I could see a smoke cloud coming from the port, nosing a bit closer but watching the draft cos the seabed comes up quite shallow there and a enemy Destroyer goin ape all around me , I saw a large Merchant blazing away with only its Prow touching the water ,the rest of the ship was in the air at an angle of about 70 degrees from the horizontal. I know its just a mistake made by the game producers but what struck me as odd is when I was studying navigation many years ago the distance to the sea horizon in miles is the square root of your height multiplied by 8 ,then divide by 7, the angle of dip in Minutes is the square root of the height of your EYE multiplied by .98. If these calculations are correct my scope must have been at least 49 feet up int air. Maybe sub scopes could do that , I don,t want to slag off my only enjoyment cause I really enjoy the hunt but maybe you lads out there can throw some light on the puzzle. Keep Huntin you Guys. H:hmm2:

[TorpX]

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that you were able to see much farther than you should have been able to.

Sadly, the game does not use a spherical model of the earth. You can see as far from a low periscope as you can from the bridge of a surface vessel. Additionally, one cannot see farther than 10 nm under any circumstances. This seems rather unfortunate, as in SHCE the simulation allowed one to see father from a high periscope than a low one. I can only hope that there will be a future sub simulation that takes these things into account.

[Sailor Steve]

I've also heard that SHCE modeled a round world. I don't remember.

Additionally, one cannot see farther than 10 nm under any circumstances.
In real life? Only at sea, or on land as well? From the signal bridge of a battleship to the mast of another battleship? Please clarify.

[Hardigen]

THanks Torp and Sailor for your prompt replies ,the reference books on Large circle trigonometry I no longer have ,no reference was made as to being on land so it is to be taken that we assume we are on board . Torp has mentioned that 10nm can only be seen under any circumstances and the fact that the game is on a flat plain answers the question, I never got to use these calculations in the real world but they were the easiest to remember . H

[CapnScurvy]

Here's a good scale graph I've used for determining "How far away is the horizon?" (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/How_far_away_is_the_horizon.png/734px-How_far_away_is_the_horizon.png)

Atmospheric conditions will of course interfere with your results (so will old age :O:).

[Hardigen]

You could be right about old age Capn and thnx for the Graph , Depending how clear the day is ,standing on a 100 foot cliff lookin out to sea you should be able to see about 11 miles ,of course if your eyesight is good ! take care all H:)

[Scurvy Dawg]

You could be right about old age Capn and thnx for the Graph , Depending how clear the day is ,standing on a 100 foot cliff lookin out to sea you should be able to see about 11 miles ,of course if your eyesight is good ! take care all H:)

I vividly remember as a child standing on the White Cliffs of Dover (St Margarets Bay/ Kingsdown) and looking across the English Channel and seeing France. The cliffs are around 300 feet and France is approx 20 miles away- so your graph is spot on!

Remember thinking that those 20 miles seemed so little yet they kept us British safe from invasion on more than one occasion!

[TorpX]

In real life? Only at sea, or on land as well? From the signal bridge of a battleship to the mast of another battleship? Please clarify.
I mean the game horizon goes no farther than 10 nm. (Unless someone has modded something better?) I certainly didn't mean to say that in RL, nothing can be seen beyond 10 nm.




This made me think of a passage in the book, Sunk!, by Capt. Hashimoto. In it, he mentions looking through the periscope and seeing a blur, which he took to be a cloud at first, then realized was Guam, from a distance of 26 mi. [The highest point on Guam is 1,332 ft. according to Wekipedia]. So, it is certainly possible to see large land masses at a much farther range than we can, in game.

This 10 nm. horizon was a pet peeve of mine, since I had formerly been trying to use "Celestial Navigation", and found, I could never see any mountains beyond 9.9 nm., or so.

[in_vino_vomitus]

Just to throw a mountaineering example into the mix - on a clear day on the summit of K2 the horizon is about 200 miles away

Shame I'll never get there :(

[Sailor Steve]

I mean the game horizon goes no farther than 10 nm. (Unless someone has modded something better?) I certainly didn't mean to say that in RL, nothing can be seen beyond 10 nm.
Ah, got it. I wasn't sure, so I asked. :sunny:

This made me think of a passage in the book, Sunk!, by Capt. Hashimoto. In it, he mentions looking through the periscope and seeing a blur, which he took to be a cloud at first, then realized was Guam, from a distance of 26 mi. [The highest point on Guam is 1,332 ft. according to Wekipedia]. So, it is certainly possible to see large land masses at a much farther range than we can, in game.
WOW! :o

That's pretty darned impressive! I wouldn't have thought that possible, through a periscope. Thanks for pointing that out.

This 10 nm. horizon was a pet peeve of mine, since I had formerly been trying to use "Celestial Navigation", and found, I could never see any mountains beyond 9.9 nm., or so.

I thought the SH4 default was 20 km, or about 12 nm. Not much of a difference, but still either one is far better than the SH3 default of 8 km, or 5 nm. I'm pretty sure they did it to account for computer limitations at the time, but I also agree that a realistic distance would be nice.

[Rockin Robbins]

Just to throw a mountaineering example into the mix - on a clear day on the summit of K2 the horizon is about 200 miles away

Shame I'll never get there :(
Heck, a good number of people who DO get there don't get there. There's no safe way up K2. If it wants to kill you (and much of the time it does) you're just dead. There's no mitigating hazards on that mountain. You just roll the dice and hope it doesn't come up snake eyes. If you made it, it isn't because you're better than the guys who didn't. It just means you were foolhardy but lucky.

It's much cheaper to juggle vials of nitroglycerin and you have a little bit more control with the nitro.:D

We had a guy on Subsim who walked across Antarctica, from one shore to the opposite and through the pole. That dwarfs any mountain climb in sheer human exertion and tolerance for pain. I'm glad someone did it, but have no desire to try something like that myself.

[Armistead]

I'm not smart as you guys with math, but I learned as a kid the higher I climbed a tree the further I could see.

[fireftr18]

Heck, a good number of people who DO get there don't get there. There's no safe way up K2. If it wants to kill you (and much of the time it does) you're just dead. There's no mitigating hazards on that mountain. You just roll the dice and hope it doesn't come up snake eyes. If you made it, it isn't because you're better than the guys who didn't. It just means you were foolhardy but lucky.

It's much cheaper to juggle vials of nitroglycerin and you have a little bit more control with the nitro.:D

We had a guy on Subsim who walked across Antarctica, from one shore to the opposite and through the pole. That dwarfs any mountain climb in sheer human exertion and tolerance for pain. I'm glad someone did it, but have no desire to try something like that myself.

You got that right. I like some good adventure. I even spent 23 years of my life going into burning buildings. To climb Everest or hike Antarctic, uhh, no thanks!

[in_vino_vomitus]

Heck, a good number of people who DO get there don't get there. There's no safe way up K2. If it wants to kill you (and much of the time it does) you're just dead. There's no mitigating hazards on that mountain. You just roll the dice and hope it doesn't come up snake eyes. If you made it, it isn't because you're better than the guys who didn't. It just means you were foolhardy but lucky.

It's much cheaper to juggle vials of nitroglycerin and you have a little bit more control with the nitro.:D

We had a guy on Subsim who walked across Antarctica, from one shore to the opposite and through the pole. That dwarfs any mountain climb in sheer human exertion and tolerance for pain. I'm glad someone did it, but have no desire to try something like that myself.

Yeah - they don't call it The Savage Mountain for nothing - but it looks so sexy, and something's going to get you - Might as well be pretty :)

[TorpX]

We had a guy on Subsim who walked across Antarctica, from one shore to the opposite and through the pole. ... but have no desire to try something like that myself.

Me neither. I'd settle for reading the book, or watching the movie.

Maybe SubSim should have an Athletic Award?



I thought the SH4 default was 20 km, or about 12 nm. Not much of a difference, but still either one is far better than the SH3 default of 8 km, or 5 nm. I'm pretty sure they did it to account for computer limitations at the time, but I also agree that a realistic distance would be nice.

I thought you might find this item interesting.


I was using the then current version of RFB; not sure about what the stock horizon is. I didn't try to pin down the exact limit, but I know I couldn't see anything beyond 10 nm.

I don't see why a computer game could not show distant land masses. I know large convoys, ports, and detailed landscapes make for a strain on the graphics end of things, but when we see distant mountains, all we really expect to see is a hazy gray shape, with little, if any, detail. So, perhaps they could configure a game with individual ships/planes/land units rendered out to 10 mi., convoys rendered as a puff of smoke or gray blurb, out to 20 mi., and land masses rendered out to 30 mi. Wouldn't this be possible?

[Armistead]

Seems my last test in TMO was about 12nms. I would assume we could extend the range of the flat would in game, but graphically, not sure what would render at further ranges. The game does render the effect at long range, where you may only see the mast, funnel or top part of the ship. I'm fairly sure for smoke to generate, you have to see some part of the ship.

http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu235/Armistead1424/SH4Img2010-10-12_013129_204.jpg

Be nice if we could see smoke onlyon the horizon, but it's not a hard object in game that can be IDed.

[TorpX]

I think I made my tests while looking at mountains, perhaps I would have had different results with ships. :hmmm:

[CapnScurvy]

Funny you're talking about mountains. I've been looking at a couple of environmental changes that I plan to incorporate into a new mod I'm thinking about. I decided to rework the games environmental parameters to make it more to my liking. One of the things I didn't like was the way distant scenery is displayed. The stock game has it too "hazed" to see it as it should be.

A test anyone can try is to use the first Pearl mission on Dec. 8, 1941 and have your sub start at the position "Outside the harbor". It doesn't matter what the mission is....just let the game load. Go to the bridge, or use the outside "free camera" to look around. You'll find the time of day is always 14:00 hours (just a couple of hours before sunset). Except for TMO, it starts the default mission at 13:00 hours.


Here's your position on the Navigation Map:

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/1STPIX_zps5aee1fb9.jpg


You're roughly 5nm from the mouth of Pearl Harbor.

With the stock game, if you look towards the island....this is what you'll see:

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/2NDPIXSTOCK_zpsaa2bbc4f.jpg



A dark water reflection of the island west of the harbor opening, but not much clarity of the mountains beyond.

Below is the TMO 2.5 mod loaded with the same view, same time of day:


http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/3RDPIXTMO_zps70e4c111.jpg



That dark blue water causes the island reflection to look light blue...almost non existent. The Island itself is truly non existent at the same distance of the stock view.

I've reworked the water color and the ability to see the distant island and its mountains:


http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/4THPIXMINE_zpsb73191a1.jpg


Yes it's a matter of "taste", but this is how I'm approaching the games environmental look.

Below is a Bridge binocular look at the T3 Tanker that sometime appears to the North of the sub (as in the previous picture):


http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/MyZoomT3_zpsc57eb183.jpg

Here's TMO's binocular image:


http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/TMOZoomofT3_zpsa4d2ef0d.jpg


The stock binocular image isn't much different than TMO's.


=========

To address the issue of the 10nm limitation, I've not looked at it just yet. Yes there is one, with distant stationary objects like island mountains not being visible beyond about 9 to 10nm. I've done a good bit of checking into just what the stock game allows and doesn't, but I've not started to see if there is something that can be done about it.

[Bilge_Rat]

I have seen smoke only on the horizon, before you see any part of the ship.

[HertogJan]

I have seen smoke only on the horizon, before you see any part of the ship.


Same here, wonder why the watch can't see the smoke tho.
Probablty outside the ingame 10Nm horizon

[HertogJan]

@CapnScurvy

In those screens the water looks a lot like stock or am I mistaken?
Is that the only way to get the Islands te show correctly like your third and fourth picture?

http://www.aotd-flottille.de/FOTRS/V2.0/ZerriJP/Ukuru3.jpg



I wonder if the Island would show the same way with this water color.
Took this from FOTRS thread, hope I didn't break any rules.

[CapnScurvy]

@ CapnScurvy,
In those screens the water looks a lot like stock or am I mistaken?
Is that the only way to get the Islands te show correctly like your third and fourth picture?


I don't think the water looks like the stock color.

Here's the stock free camera image:

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/STOCKWAVES_zps4542ce88.jpg


Here's what I've been working on:


http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/MYWAVES_zpse903047c.jpg


Here's TMO's:


http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w132/crawlee/TMOWAVES_zpsab50fb2c.jpg


I'm not a fan of water looking like its painted using a "royal blue" color. My color is more "aqua green". The shades will increase and decrease depending on what time of day it is.

In my opinion, the stock water color is a left over of the North Atlantic from SHIII....washed out, and life less. So is the wave action of the stock game. With TMO's environment, the waves appear too choppy for a "calm" sea. Just my opinion.

Water color has nothing to do with distant scenery being displayed. :D

[Armistead]

Yep, I never like the royal blue. Can't recall when he made the change, but I think people voted for it, but probably cuz it was something different. Course, they're pictures where the ocean is dang blue, just not my taste.

[Armistead]

I have seen smoke only on the horizon, before you see any part of the ship.

Well, technically, a part of the ship is there, smoke won't render without a ship part showing, it's not a hard object. However, even though the game is flat, it does a fair job of giving a ship below the horizon, often all you can see is the top funnel or flag.

I have increased visuals to where they call out ships on the horizon, but then you can lock on and if you use auto ID, easier ID a type not being able to make it out. Might have some value if you nulled the auto ID in TMO.

[TorpX]

That dark blue water causes the island reflection to look light blue...almost non existent. The Island itself is truly non existent at the same distance of the stock view.

I've reworked the water color and the ability to see the distant island and its mountains:


...


That's sure a big difference, Cap'n. Like night and day.

[HertogJan]

Now that you've put them close together I can see the difference.


I'm not a fan of water looking like its painted using a "royal blue" color. My color is more "aqua green". The shades will increase and decrease depending on what time of day it is.

In my opinion, the stock water color is a left over of the North Atlantic from SHIII....washed out, and life less. So is the wave action of the stock game. With TMO's environment, the waves appear too choppy for a "calm" sea. Just my opinion.

Water color has nothing to do with distant scenery being displayed. :D

I don't like the color either, it's almost neon, thats why I'd like to change them.
I'll start a topic of my own for that later this weekend.

Enough thread highjacking.