Uploading RFB 2.0 now... :D

Expect the download link to be up in about an hour.

Oh, great. No sleep for me tonight.

I ran Anvarts post through google translate.

In my opinion, Anvart is arguing semantics. He's not saying it should be 2 overlapping circles, but that the single circle shouldn't be perfectly round and that the FoV (field of view) is not a perfect circle.

True, the binoculars give a view that is not a perfect circle if you want to get nitpicky, but it is so close to being a perfect circle that the brain sees it that way.

Nikon gives an example showing an exaggerated oval view on one of their pages. Funny thing, my Nikons do not have an image that is as out of round as the example on their site.

My other set which are 8-24x40's are the same way. Set up the interpupillary distance correctly and I'd swear it was a perfect circle.

Plus in order to figure out the correct vertical and horizontal FoV, you'd need to take into account the lens size, magnification, and distance.

Leave the view as is Hitman, and just ignore Anvarts post. I wonder how much time he's spent actually looking through binoculars.

I can tell it about your post... simplified concept...
... enough for understanding..., but your brain prevents to understand it...
My thought is simple... horizontal FoV more than vertical ...
The distance between objectives of the sea Porro-prism binocular is more than distance between eyepieces in 2.5 and more...

Looking forward to RFB 2.0. Thanks to you LukeFF and your team for all your hard work.


Happy New Year to you all. :salute:

Please note: the file and link for RFB 1.52 has been removed from the server, due to RFB 2.0 being released. All further support and discussion about RFB should be directed to this thread:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=159709

Thanks!

bump because someone dug up an old thread instead of this one

keltos

german periscope wiew
 

Not sure if doing this right, hope i ,am in the right forum. Question: Can a change the german periscope wiew back to vanilla, whith the grades and lines, as in sh3, still keeping rfbf which i think is a great mod.

actually THIS is the old thread for RFB v1.52 which was replaced by RFB v2.0 (1yr ago) and a brand new thread was started for it so all the old issues from the previous versions wouldnt need to be rehashed to confuse people over what issues has or hasnt been resolved.


the thread for the RFB mod v2.0 that is in use today can be found here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=159709

Can anyone tell me why it takes a minute and a half to reload the deck gun in RFB 1.4??? I'm trying to figure out if this is a historical reload time or not. Thanks everyone!
:salute:

We need...

Mod list
Sub
Month/Year

RFB is now in version 2.0. Is there a reason you are running RFB 1.4?

thanks
 

this mod is one of the bests

It's based on a number of factors which the SH4 engine does not simulate directly. And yeah, RFB is at version 2.0 now. :D

How deep are the IJN a/c supposed to be able to spot you and bomb you accurately?

I keep getting sunk at about 190' while cruising during daylight submerged.

RFB 2.0 has this setting way off.

Here's TMO 2.0's air plane visual setting for depth capabilities:

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...wlee/TMO20.jpg


TMO 2.1 and 2.2 decided to return to the stock game parameter of zero:


http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...wlee/TMO21.jpg


Here's RFB 2.0 setting for air plane visuals:


http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w.../RFBvisual.jpg


If you haven't figured it out yet, the greater the figure below zero (in the minus range) the better the planes will spot you. Just how far into the depths -75.0 takes it, I don't know. As you pointed out 190 feet isn't enough.

Wow. I wonder if that was maybe supposed to be -7.5 instead.

-7.5 would still be over 3 times the setting TMO use to have (which is one of the reasons many gamers called the TMO planes "wicked"). It's certainly conceivable that a decimal point was placed wrong. Who knows?


I should point out that this modifier (MinSurface=) is not referring to the amount of depth below the surface of water an object can be seen.


No, no, this modifier refers to the minimum surface area size an object must be, in order for "whatever" it's modifying (in this case visual detection) to trigger the event. This modifier appears in several other possible "events" that set off an AI response, so it's not just for planes visual attributes. Since were talking about the problem of having a sub detected at unbelievable distances while underwater, I can see where a person may get the wrong idea about this modifier. You have to relate the function of the event (visual detection) to a default occurrence (visible/invisible). Once that default threshold is met, different modifiers can change the event (visual detection) either one way or another. In this modifier, an object meets the threshold point for the event by setting the minimum size, or surface area it needs to be (in this case it's -75.0 smaller than what the stock size would be to trigger the event).


Does water play a factor in the ability/inability to be visually detected? My personal belief, it doesn't at all. Water isn't the deciding factor. The object size and distance between objects plays the deciding factors that will trigger the event. Think of it this way, the sub can't fly, and the planes don't swim. There's a point in vertical height that neither will cross. To "see" an object beyond this barrier requires knowing what size an object must be to be detectable and the distance between one and the other.

Thanks for educating us, CapnScurvy. :)

I play RFB 2.0 and recently came across a juicy convoy at night coming out of Semarang. I hit a couple of freighters on my first attack and then waited for the onslaught by the destroyers- which never materialised.

One of the two freighters continued on with the convoy, the other was incapacitated and slowly sinking. One of the two destroyer (there may well have been more) escorts continued with convoy, now zig-zagging, the other remained behind with the sinking ship, stationary. Neither destroyer appeared interested in locating me.

It occurred to me that the second destroyer may have been acting as a rescue vessel for the sinking freighter. I can think of no other reason for the destroyer sitting stationery like that.

I was a little surprised that I could make the attack with no repercussions.

And yes, I did sink the stationery destroyer:arrgh!:

this thread is closed in the interest of causing less confusion so please go to the current RFB thread

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...eal+fleet+boat

link has also been updated on the mod lists page