Noisy Hydrophone Normal?

[cherbert]

I have just started putting more time into a modded SH5. I have noticed that using the Hydrophone is very noisy if you have your engines going and this pretty much is all I can hear. Yes - I am doing it submerged.

Is this how its meant to be? i.e realistic?

I only ask because I don't recall this being the behaviour in SH3/GWX? I always seem to remember you could only hear the engines if you pointed your hydrophone toward the prop.

I have DarkWraith's .exe fixes applied too.

P.S What the hell is going on with my avatar? lol

[V13dweller]

I am pretty sure it is meant to be like that, because the Hydrophone is is welded to the hull meaning it gets all the vibrations the engine produces causing noise, so I would expect noise.

You should turn off your engines when using the Hydro. :salute:

[gap]

I am pretty sure it is meant to be like that, because the Hydrophone is is welded to the hull meaning it gets all the vibrations the engine produces causing noise, so I would expect noise.

You should turn off your engines when using the Hydro. :salute:

:sign_yeah:

@ cherbert

if you really can't switch your engines off, switch at least to electric propulsion and set engine revs as low as possible. :yep:

[Vanilla]

If you have ever dived you know that if there is a boat around, even far away, its engine noise is pretty much all you can hear. Now imagine being like only 40m away from this annoying boat then add that there's not one but two not 250hp but 3000hp diesels turning two cavitating screws and if that was not enough add water splashing and metal clink, clank and screak of the sea-going vessel - then you'll get the idea of how much you can hear.

Dive and switch the e-motors off or to slow - then you'll hear alright.

[Danoffski]

I have just started putting more time into a modded SH5. I have noticed that using the Hydrophone is very noisy if you have your engines going and this pretty much is all I can hear. Yes - I am doing it submerged.

Is this how its meant to be? i.e realistic?

I only ask because I don't recall this being the behaviour in SH3/GWX? I always seem to remember you could only hear the engines if you pointed your hydrophone toward the prop.

I have DarkWraith's .exe fixes applied too.

P.S What the hell is going on with my avatar? lol

Yes I remember that there was more attention to realism in SH3, in general for example the if you shoot down a plan in SH5 it gets vaporised like a "space invader" NOT exactly what you would call realistic in SH3 they hit the water and sink when shot down if I remember.

This is a good question that none here truly know the answer to, I would say in my opinion that the hydrophone is designed to be highly directional and would behave more like it did in Sh3, its no accident that its located on the top side and forward away from the noise and most likely sound insulated as well.

[gap]

Yes I remember that there was more attention to realism in SH3

If you are talking about the game out of the box, this is probably true. But since the release of the game, it has been made avery effort to increase its realism (see what is going on at present in the RSD thread, for an example of it), and this process is still far from finished :yep:


in general for example the if you shoot down a plan in SH5 it gets vaporised like a "space invader" NOT exactly what you would call realistic in SH3 they hit the water and sink when shot down if I remember.

You have obviously missed the patch by TDW which fixed that problem: :03:

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/8184/88659532.jpg

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/2833/79292396.jpg

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=669&pictureid=6597


This is a good question that none here truly know the answer to, I would say in my opinion that the hydrophone is designed to be highly directional and would behave more like it did in Sh3, its no accident that its located on the top side and forward away from the noise and most likely sound insulated as well.

Hydrophones' directionality was more aimed to increase their bearing-detection accuracy than to counter internal noises. The most significant improvement of German WWII hydrophones over their WWI predecessors, was probably the introduction of electronic sonic filters. Cutting off high frequencies and aplifying low band frequencies (the ones travelling further away from their source), they highly increased passive listening detection range, and reduced to some extent the negative effect of internal and external sources of interference.

Yet, quoting the article Some hardly known aspects of the GHG, the U-boat's group listening apparatus (http://www.cdvandt.org/GHG1996.pdf) by Arthur. O. Bauer (if we got to trust him), noise interferences were still the main "limiting factor in the use of listening systems". A couple of excerpts from the above article:

"Hydrophones are very sensitive and are easily subject to interfering sound from both inside
(eg by: man made noise, powering, generators etc.) and outside exterior of the vessel.
External sources of interference, could include propeller, cavitation, and water flow obstruction
noise and these noises had to be strictly avoided. There is thus a need for meticulous system
design."

"Noise interference, from both inside and outside the submarine was, and
today still is, a limiting factor in the use of listening systems. (Herkovitz, 1996 38-40) It became
possible to counter this by reducing the speed to 'Schleichfahrt' or slink speed. The electrically
powered underwater boats had to reduce their speed to a few knots only (< 3 knots). If they were
submerged and powered by a Diesel engine, in combination with a 'Schnorkel', the engine(s) had
to be completely switched off. Because the standard GHG system proved unable to receive sonic
information adequately, when the submarine was sailing submerged (because of the use of the
schnorkel the U-boat had to steer just under the interfering water surface). To improve the
interception of sonar, the boat had to steer at a minimal depth of 20 m, disregarding the use of a
periscope."