That's how I make my calibration's for finding height measurements. You didn't think it was guess work did you? :rotfl:

The mission editor comes in handy putting ships at specific distances so a test can be made for range finding. I use a math formula to figure the correct measurement from the Stadimeter manualy found range to what ever reference point you want to set the mark to. The game only allows for one reference point though.

And yes your right, 15+/- meters is right on for the game. Some measurements will not get any closer, no matter what you do. It's in the fact that the game doesn't calculate beyond tenths. That's why I don't understand why RFB has some of their measurements to 10,000ths. Guess the guys didn't know.

I said if you got the HEIGHT right to within ~15 feet (~5 meters) you'd be doing GREAT in RL.

Not the target distance, the height.

I should add that it is REALLY useful to know the actual height of the mast/deck/funnel in game so that the number put into the rec manual can be accurately WRONG—or right for those cases where ONI was accurate.

Regarding the extra decimals, if the game doesn't use them, then why fret about it? The likely answer is that ONI was in FEET, and SH4 is in METERS. If they (RFB team) did a conversion, then there you go. The game goes past 10ths for everything else, but assuming that is the case, should your uncertainty be bigger than pixel snap? In RL, there would be maybe a few meter range just in heavy vs light draught for the target ship. Those values add/subtract from the mast height.

What is the error range for the pixel snap you discuss WRT your mod? Error in HEIGHT, not calculated distance? How does that compare with the light vs heavy draughts of the targets, which can produce variations on the order of several meters?

In the example you saw with the RFB, Manual Targeting and Realism thread the ship had a 5.4 meter (a little less than 18') HEIGHT difference that when calculated over a 1700 meter distance worked out to be a 857 meter error. Is that what you call doing great?

That's real life. I haven't seen one bit of difference to the ship presentation due to cargo displacement. I've tried to make them but it doesn't show.

Yeah, it doesn't show, so you add some error bars to height (ie:range) determination.

Regarding the height, YES, I do. I think in RL, if they got the height within 10-15% they were doing GREAT. Fabulous, in fact.

A BB might have a 100-140' mast. If you were +-20 feet, great job.

A ship could easily be a meter or 2 low or high in the water and you could not tell at a feww thousand yards. Add in that the mast was different than the one in the Lloyd's register, and a 9-12' difference in a merchant mast of 75' would be EASY. That's 3-4m.

That could easily happen.

Add in that the MAJORITY of claims were for the wrong size/class of ship, and it is clear that in RL, they could not possibly have had the mast heights as accurate as is possible with your mod on average. Sure, they sometimes did, but rarely since they usually thought the target was an entirely different ship.

Damn, edit not working again.


I'm fine with having all the values be within some reasonable range, like +-10% or something, BTW.

BTW, there is a simple reason that RFB uses numbers in meters like "6.096."

6.096 meters is exactly 20 feet. If you play imperial, you want integer feet, no ONI entry would say 19.7 feet (which is what it would say if you threw 6m in the cfg).

Exactly. I plugged in whatever value ONI gives (in feet) and entered the resultant metric value into each CFG file. It just so happens my unit conversion tool measures out to 14 decimal places.

Luke, lest I seem too strident about this, CapnScurvy's arguments do change my mind a little.

The problem with using the straight ONI value is that we are assuming the SH4 model is actually accurate. I have more doubts about that than ever given my current project.

We need to measure the SH4 models, then get the RL data for the ships (not hard for warships, virtually impossible for merchants I bet). We have ONI.

Then compare the real ship to ONI. If ONI is off by 10%, then we make the rec manual 10% off the SH4 model's actual height. See my point?

ONI puts Ise at ~123' to the top of the pagoda fir control director. Guess what? The stock SH4 model has no fire control director up there (it does now ;) ). It's a good 10' high, so if you put i8n 123' for Ise, it's 10' too high based on the SH4 model, assuming the rest of the model is perfect.

IMO, CapnScurvy's work is an already done baseline on the actual height of the SH4 models, at least from waterline. Actually, since the draught is in the sim, we can add the 2 together to get the model's height, then compare to reality.

So I have changed my tune a little. I still want the same inaccuracy as ONI gives, but I certainly do not want to compound it with SH4 model inaccuracies.

Just out of curiosity...can you dive below the max depth on the gauge with RFB (in say, a Balao)?

If 'yes', then how? Is it just using the 'd' (set dive planes for normal dive) key and then leveling out ad the depth you want with the 'a' (maintain depth) key?

[rant]
I had an experience where I killed myself by running too close to a couple of shore batteries while using TC. (I really should consider firing my lookouts...as they should have seen the guns before they saw me...). Ended up sinking (though I fought tooth and claw the whole way down...). Got to over 750 feet before I decided that there was nothing I could do to save the boat, at which point I loaded from a save and skipped the Marshall Islands entirely...frackin subnets forcing me to go around and get too close to shore guns that should be quite visible on that particular island, yet remained invisible to my lookouts...
[/rant]

This experience demonstrated that crush depth for the Balao is set much deeper than the depth gauge goes...would be nice to actually be able to use that when being DC'd...

I once fought a sinking Balao SE of Makin Island before I got the death screen. And hit bottom at 1750ft. I think hitting the bottom is what done me in. If it was a soft landing I may have been able to pump out the forward torpedoe room and resurfaced. It was the only damage I had after being hit by a shore battery after starting a crash dive....CH

There is delay between your sub having no HP or being crushed. Once the lights start flashing and crew screaming about massive amounts of destroyed equipment, your toast. I've seen what your talking about, and it annoys me, but is unavoidable. It should be quick....just....CRUNCH, your dead.

I know. I didn't get the flashing light's and babies crying until I nosed into the bottom at about 40 degrees downbubble:damn:. Hence the "soft landing" theory. Go figure....CH

You should occur 2 HP of damage per second below crush depth...Crush depth is listed as 330 in the .zon file for the Balao....Hmmmm

I'm all for it if you can use a fail-safe method to determine how well the in-game models scale to the ONI diagrams. Otherwise, I'm just not seeing huge differences in range that are outside of the historical spectrum.

Too bad...
Well not really... just a minor quirk in an awesome mod!:lol:

Keep up the fanstastic work!!!!:up: