Jungman, question on your wonderful work [Archive]

View Full Version : Jungman, question on your wonderful work

nattydread

08-16-05, 04:15 PM

Captain America

08-16-05, 04:23 PM

Have you had a chance to go back and take a lok at your RF_Detect Mod. Do you feel its within reason? I want to try it but I dont want to be on "easy" mode, I'd like something as close to historically accurate as possible.

I think Jungman's sensor work is a great contribution to the community. Regarding his RWR mod: His initial values used were more for testing so they are slightly overkill. I have been using some custom values and find these to suit well:

RWR:
METOX = 8KM @ 15 SEC
BORKUM = 10KM @ 10 SEC
NAXOS = 15KM @ 10 SEC
TUNIS = 20KM @ 10 SEC

Visual:
PRECISE RANGE = 8000 (was 6000)
MAX RANGE= 10000 (was 8000)

This is with a visibility of 10km and not the 20km one Jungman uses, since I noticed if you use a high visual range it kinda cancels out any benefit of the RWR tweaks if you understand the way it works in the game.

nattydread

08-16-05, 05:02 PM

Hmmm. Does anyone know how far a typical merchant would have to be before it disapears below the horizon? How far before its smoke would also be below the horizon?

Maybe it isnt unreasonable to have surface search radar and visual range be roughly the same. I would think the radar emmisions would have negligible bending due to gravity or atmospheric conditions, so once a vessel drops below the horizon, the radar couldnt pick it up anymore, but the human eye may still be able to detect the smoke of that vessel. Thus during the day, naked-eye may in fact have better potential at detecing vessels(atleast coal burning ones). Air search is something complete differnet, it will always have better potential detection ranges.

Perhaps we(or maybe just myself) arent truly understanding the ability and roles of the various radar. Perhaps surface search radar is best for subs for night detction and range finding. Why because all but non-coal burning DD size and smaller vessels would be seen by the naked eye due to its smoke before the radar picked them up in the first place. Perhaps of the vessels that radar woul dbe benefical for, only the DD/DE is a real threat, but using your radar basically gives him a beacon to home in on anyway...giving you away, perhaps before you detect him. Instead, using a radar detector during the day would be best, since you'd pick him up before he picks you up allowing you submerge and hide.
While for the DD/DEs surface search was best for day and night because the uboat could always be detected first using radar since it was hard to see visually. Who cares if your radar gives your position away if you can keep the uboat well out of attack range once detected.

I guess what Im saying is that it may not be unheard of for naked-eye to have a greater potential visual detection range than radar. But depending on your vessel and what your hunting the radar may have a higher range for reliable detection. If you are hunting clean-burning vessels, use radar always, it'll be better than naked-eye, but if you are hunting dirty-burning vessels, use naked-eye, you'll see the smoke before any metal form the target comes over the horizon for the radar to pick up on.
So uboats could have visual sighting ability approaching that of surface search radar, but for the DD/DEs in game this wouldnt be the case since they are only hunting us(uboats, no smoke and lower profile).

Man...does this even make sense? I think im just thinking out loud(in print). The issue of uboat radar detectors detecting DD/DE radar emissions outside of the DD/DEs detection range may be moot if the detection range for radar is comparable or greater than the distance for a uboat to disappear below the horizon.

Anyway, maybe I can make some sense of all this once the initial questions at the beginning of the post are answered.

Pablo

08-16-05, 06:09 PM

Hmmm. Does anyone know how far a typical merchant would have to be before it disapears below the horizon? How far before its smoke would also be below the horizon?
Hi!

It all depends upon the height of the observer and the height of the object being observed. For a rough geometric solution, the square of the distance to the horizon from your eye is equal to the height of the eye above the water times (2 x the radius of the Earth); the Earth's radius may be averaged as ~6372 km). The distance from the observed object to its horizon works on the same principle. Note this approach does not take into account the effects of atmospheric refraction, which "bends" light around the earth's curvature, thus extending the range at which objects can be seen; nor does it take into account the curvature of the earth, which has only a small effect unless you're almost in space.

For example, assume the observer's eye is 5 meters above sea level (maybe he is standing next to the UZO), and he is trying to observe a column of smoke just over 50 meters tall, under which chugs a coastal steamer.
distance (U-boat to horizon) = sqrt(0.005 km x 2 x 6372 km) = roughly 7.98 km
distance (horizon to top of smoke) = sqrt(0.05 km x 2 x 6372 km) = roughly 25.24 km
total distance = (U-boat to horizon) + (horizon to top of smoke) = 7.98 km + 25.24 km = about 33.2 kmHope this helps!

Pablo

Rubini

08-16-05, 07:46 PM

Captain America,

Can you post you modified sensors to me? I think that your options is the same that I want. If you can attach a readme, ok? :know:

Regards,

Rubini.

nattydread

08-16-05, 08:05 PM

Of the above listed recievers, which are for detecting ground search and which are for detecting air to ground radar?

Are any of them radar sets themselves, if so which are surface and which are air search?

Captain America, I think I'd be interested also in your customization*edit* of Jungman's wonderful and much appreciated sensory mod.

Jungman

08-16-05, 10:58 PM

Have you had a chance to go back and take a lok at your RF_Detect Mod. Do you feel its within reason? I want to try it but I dont want to be on "easy" mode, I'd like something as close to historically accurate as possible.

On another note, there are other possible sensory issues, have you considered trying to tackle them?

Have you looked at the possible issue of DD/DEs using passive detection at high-speeds.

Have you looked at the possible issue of relayed sightings being almost as accurate as radar? ex: While in low-vis/obscurred conditions, being sighted by merchant seems to allow them to relay your position so accuratly that a non-visible DD/DE can accuratly fire at you through the fog as if they had radar(happened to me in 1940). It seems once alerted AI visual sighting ability increases(which is understandable), but can this be toned down, atleast in obscurred/low vis conditions.

edit:
I hope this isnt seen as an insult Jungman, really its a request for your help.

Alot of stuff is the game engine such as firing through fog once you are picked up by radar. Had no time to investigate, trying to solve 'Vampire vision' in the Visibility Mod.

Passive hydrophones detection at high speed, there is a noise factor setting, it may work to increase it in AI_Sensors.cfg though I doubt it does anything.

The RF_Detect Mod as, Captain America says, was made too liberal as I stated in the readme for it. His values are good enough for me for a quicky. :cool:

There is an important reason , and this MUST be taken into account, why I have not done anything yet. If the Visibility Mod for long range spotting has its issue with night vision fixed, the fog ranges are changed. For gameplay reasons, the RWR should be set to take into acount the fog ranges wether that is in the stock game or that mod. Gameplay means your RWR should go off just before the DD is coming out of the fog.

Thus for a stock game, I would set the values for the stock fog values somewhat to pick up the DD before the fog clears. The RWR does not work like a true detector, it will detect a DD or AC outside the enemy radar range.

I was waiting to see how the Visibility Mod issues would pan out. If sticking with the stock game, use value similar to what America says, but maybe take into account the enemy DD and AC active radar ranges and natural fog distance in heavy, medium, and light to achieve a decent gamplay balance, whether that is reality or not, just for the excitement factor. The values being quoted by Captain America is not that far from the truth. :yep:

Jungman

08-16-05, 11:07 PM

Apocal

08-16-05, 11:47 PM

The RWR does not work like a true detector, it will detect a DD or AC outside the enemy radar range.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but (assuming equal rcvr sensitivity for both the RWR and radar) shouldn't the RWR go off long before they can get a return off your sub? Or do you mean it will detect an enemy radar beyond twice it's rated range?

nattydread

08-17-05, 12:16 AM

Dont take it personal Jungman, you get all the credit, but since your current version is more for testing, I need one thats set for realistic gameplay(as real as possible considering the limits of the game). Of course I'd love to get it from you if you have the time to make one thats compatiable with your other sensory mods. Unfortunatly Im unable to edit/customize your current RF_Detect mod, so I have to get it from someone.
Right now correct sensory values are top of my list for mods...Im anxiously waiting for you to continue modding them(lucky for me, Im still pre-radar).

Captain America

08-17-05, 03:28 AM

Rubini
Of the above listed recievers, which are for detecting ground search and which are for detecting air to ground radar?

Are any of them radar sets themselves, if so which are surface and which are air search?

Captain America, I think I'd be interested also in your customization.

Oh no thanks for my RF_Detect Mod idea? :hulk: :damn:

And people -spank me!- about X1 stealing stuff.

Please, give me some credit for the first version. :roll:

Jungman,

Maybe I shouldn't have posted the values that I use....I didn't mean to stir anything up nor did I intend to cast a shadow on all the time that you have spent on this mod.

I stated like everyone else how much I appreciate all the work you have done with the various sensors. The reason I can make the changes that I did was because of your findings. The only reason I posted my values was because even you stated that the current values were still preliminary and that it would take many tests with different values to get this right. I was hoping to contribute.

Anyway, my point is that this is YOUR mod...I have always been respectful of other modders work in this community and the various other 'mod' communities I belong to. I would never post a "Sensor mod" for download without your approval. I was actually going to pm you tomorrow from work and tell you about my settings to see if you would release another "test" version.

Whether you use a "10" or someone else uses a "5" the credit is still yours. My apologies if it seemed otherwise.

-Captain America

Rubini

08-17-05, 10:19 AM

Jungman ,

So sorry, we all like your mod and my intension when I ask Captain America it's only for the values that he comment here. I'm very busy in the last days doing the traffic mod and at my work. :cry:

I want to use your mod but with more modest numbers. As I'm short in time I asking him about the numbers, ok?. Please continue to work on these issues, SH3 will be a better game after we fix the sensors and the visibility problem.

Thanks again and all we here are awaiting your progress on this great mod! :up:

Rubini.

Jungman

08-17-05, 03:53 PM

I am sorry to be so tart :oops: . I tried to edit my post, but that new net worm nailed my computer. Just now got access back. I am editing my post.

I should be more careful what I say in a hurry.

I would be careful to balance the fog distances in for gameplay. But for a quick mod, the values you are using are on par what I was going to use:

Metox 8km 15sec
Borkum 12 km 10 sec
Naxos 16 km 10 sec
Tunis 20 km 5 sec

I never had a chance to play balance in game. I was waiting to see if the Visibility mod night vision problem could be solved. It has different fog setting. Heavy 600m, Medium ~4000m, light ~9500m.

If you have numbers that seem to work well, 8, 10, 15, 20 might be as good as any until all these can be fully tested. One for stock game, and another version for Ortega's Visibility Mod.

Another question, should we make airplane detection only for some of the early units just for gameplay sake? Seeing a DD like magic from 15 km may take some of the 'fun' away. I wonder if the RWR was better at picking up AC radar than ship born radar.

nattydread

08-17-05, 04:44 PM

I could have swore that some radar detectors were type specific. Maybe Im mixing up th einfo from all the books I read last year. I thought there were seperate detectors for air to ground and surface search, maybe not until later was there a unit or bundled unit for detecting both...maybe that was a US sub thing, its all running together in my head now.

Either way, I think there should certainly be differnet detection ranges with respect to air and surface radar. In theory aerial sources of radar would have line of sight from much farther out, while surface radar could be blocked by the horizon, preventing line of sight until the surface vessel is much closer.

Id think max range should be based on the DD/DEs radar mast height(maybe average hieght for the all DD/DEs if thats too complcated) and the height of the conning tower(maybe average height for Uboats). Whatever horizon range these values give should be the absolute max possible for that surface radar's range. The actual radar detector range would be roughly twice the radar users max effective detection range, provided it its less than the horizon range.

Example, lets say a DD has a radar that is determined to be effective out to 1000m, but the horizon range is 5000m, then the max uboat radar detector range would be about 2000m from the DD(double the radar user's effective range). But if the DD has a radar set that can in theory detect out to 6000m, it will only be able to detect ubouats out to the 5000m horizon, the uboat's radar detectors would also detect the DDs radar at about 5000m(maybe give or take 100m or so). Unfortunatly for the uboat detecting the DDs radar also means the DD has likly found him also.

On the other hand, uboat radar detectors would routinly detect allied air to ground search radar roughly twice the effective range of the allied air to ground search radar.

whew, im long winded...im sure all this is obvious anyway

Jungman

08-17-05, 06:58 PM

I thought it may be fun to make the RWR older models only detect airplanes, maybe ships if real close.

Looky here, using Captain America's values for ranges and visual.

RF_Detect2 :sunny:

http://rapidshare.de/files/4093004/RF_Detect2.zip.html

See if it works correct, I double checked the numbers, but no time yet to test, working on the Visibility mod night vision testing now.

Pablo

08-17-05, 09:42 PM

I could have swore that some radar detectors were type specific.
They are actually frequency-specific. You may want to investigate this website (http://www.vectorsite.net/ttwiz4.html) for more information on the "microwave radar war." If a radar detector works against a specific frequency range it will detect all radars in that frequency range, whether carried by ships or aircraft, assuming the radar warning receiver is sensitive enough to detect the radar signal..
Either way, I think there should certainly be differnet detection ranges with respect to air and surface radar. In theory aerial sources of radar would have line of sight from much farther out, while surface radar could be blocked by the horizon, preventing line of sight until the surface vessel is much closer.
Their line of sight is indeed greater; however, the other things to consider is the strength of the radar signal and the sensitivity of the radar warning system - at what range can the RWR detect the radar? The power-aperture of a radar carried by an aircraft is likely less than that of a warship, since warships generally has more power and surface area available for its radars than do aircraft, so while it might be in line-of-sight it might still be undetectable.

Id think max range should be based on the DD/DEs radar mast height(maybe average hieght for the all DD/DEs if thats too complcated) and the height of the conning tower(maybe average height for Uboats). Whatever horizon range these values give should be the absolute max possible for that surface radar's range. The actual radar detector range would be roughly twice the radar users max effective detection range, provided it its less than the horizon range.
This sounds OK for a surfaced U-boat; what do you do when the U-boat is showing a periscope, a schnorkel, or a combination of the two? What about if the periscope is just above the waves, or several meters above the waves? The U-boat's radar cross-section that controls the amount of radar energy reflected back to the ship or plane is significantly different in each of these situations.

Example, lets say a DD has a radar that is determined to be effective out to 1000m, but the horizon range is 5000m, then the max uboat radar detector range would be about 2000m from the DD(double the radar user's effective range). But if the DD has a radar set that can in theory detect out to 6000m, it will only be able to detect ubouats out to the 5000m horizon, the uboat's radar detectors would also detect the DDs radar at about 5000m(maybe give or take 100m or so). Unfortunatly for the uboat detecting the DDs radar also means the DD has likly found him also.
Actually, the submarine might detect the destroyer at greater ranges if its radar warning receiver were sensitive enough to detect scattering of the radar beams. A ship's radar is pretty powerful, so even the scattered energy of the beams could have a lot of power at relatively short ranges.

On the other hand, uboat radar detectors would routinly detect allied air to ground search radar roughly twice the effective range of the allied air to ground search radar.
It's not a bad rule of thumb, but you might want to really understand the performance of the different radars and radar warning receivers before being able to set realistic values. One way to skip the radar equation calculations would be to find sources that told you the rough ranges at which aircraft and ships could detect conning towers, periscopes, and schnorkels could be detected, and the ranges at which the RWRs could detect aiborne and shipborne radars, and call it "close enough."

Pablo

nattydread

08-18-05, 01:01 AM

Pablo:
Thanks for the reply, though my understanding is a bit primative, atleast it made sense to someone .

Jungman:
Dude, your the greatest. I'll certainly be looking forward to your continued sensory mods.

Captain America

08-18-05, 05:32 PM

I thought it may be fun to make the RWR older models only detect airplanes, maybe ships if real close.

Good idea...I'm gonna check it out this weekend and do some tests. :up:

@Jungman, I aslo forgot to mention in my first post that I also changed the visual range for the periscope to be more inline with the new visual numbers...it seems to be working well so far.

Persicope Visual Ranges to:
PRECISE RANGE = 7000m (was 5000 default)
MAX RANGE = 8000m (was 6000 default)

Edit: I just noticed in another thread that you use 7500m for precise range as per the Duke of Earl's request. I know this was chosen because of the torpedoe's max range is 7500m. But since the max surface visual range was reduced to 10km, I wanted to keep the periscope max range under that and found 8km to work well. For precise range, I went back down to 7000m because I want to be able to see a long range target slightly before the AI crew does and find a 1000m difference to work well. Anyway, I think most captain's wouldn't fire an eel at that distance unless ofcourse the target is motionless (i.e. moored). This setting I guess is more a matter of preference but regardless I believe the max visual range for the peri should be slightly less that the max surface visual range (IMO).