Ok, I'm going to make a point about realism; how it relates or doesn't relate to the game.

1) There's the contention that figuring out manual targeting and all of it's aspects is simulating real life (least the best the game can do).

2) There's the fact that in real life not every firing is going to create a hit.

So to balance out game play some ringers are thrown in to throw off accurate range finding and create realism. My problem with this approach is that the figures your using will always be inaccurate. No matter how good you get in manual targeting, no matter how well you master navigation map plotting with the game settings for map contacts turned off. The ship you want to make range on will always give you an inaccurate reading because the height figure is incorrect.

There's also this idea that having the real life measurements will create realism. Measurements are put into the game because it says so from the ONI, so this makes for good game play?

First off why in the world would anyone think that the real life measurements are the least bit accurate within the game? Your assuming a lot to think a nautical mile is represented to be 1852 meters, and that it is accurately displayed on the navigation map. Or that an object that is 10 meters tall can be displayed through the periscope image to really be measured as 10 meters tall. The comparison of real life measurements to what is in the game is just a "representation". It's not accurate. To make them accurate the game 10 meters has to be calibrated to what is represented to be 10 meters, then you've got accuracy.

I know there are those that say we don't want the game to be too accurate. Well neither do I. The fact is if your using manual targeting there are all kinds of ways to screw up; forgetting to open the tube doors, not figuring the speed right, AOB off a bit. When you make a stadimeter reading you flinch off the left click of the mouse throwing off the mark, giving you an inaccurate range. The fact that the ships stadimeter height (where ever it is) shouldn't be one of them.

Except that the stadimeter mast height was a GUESS in RL. The mast height SHOULD be one of those many possible errors, IMO.

I completely agree that it always being off is undesirable since sometimes a skipper might guess right. In the random stats I posted, 1 of the 15 attacks had the skipper picking the right target for sure. If ONI was right on the ODD mast height compared to reality, then THAT attack should have had an accurate mast height for sure. The other 14? Random. 1 was close to the right tonnage, and presumably coding, so maybe that had a similar height mast. The other 13 attacks would only have had the height right by pure luck since the target sizes were grossly misestimated in many cases.

A better solution would be to have the rec manual give NO mast heights, and have a series of dummy entries for mast heights in the recmanual. You then have a printed rec manual that only gives ranges for the mast heights for merchants (ie: "50-65'"), and one value for warships, but offset from the game mast height by the same % the ONI was off the RL ship (if it was). So if the RL height of a BB was 123', and ONI said 113', but the in-game ship is 140', then the game manual should say 128.6' so it's off the same amount.

We make the PDF manual such that there are loads of extra merchant ships, too. We also completely dump the pictures of ships taken from the game, and use crappy line drawings. We make some clones and alter them, too. Some of the ships in the manual will look close, but won't actually be in the game. If the ONI for the game ship is off, then it is also off in the pdf.

If you want to be more accurate than the manual, estimate deck heights, etc, and use the dummy mast height entries instead.

That'd be cool.

The simple reality check was mentioned already. Look at tonnages sunk by players using RFB/RSRDC—complete with flawed mast heights—and compare to reality. If players sink more than RL, then it's not a hardship. If the wrong mast heights result in lower tonnages than RL, then they need fixing.

BTW, I agree that manual targeting is NOT realistic. The player should make observations, and his junior officers should plot it for him. The automagical system of contacts on is also not realistic since it's 100% accurate. With those on and updating, you can shoot from the plotting map without ever looking out the scope in fact. Easily.

GIRLS... If you payed more attention to myMOD you'd
see the light.:know:

Here we go.
Look at this 'orrible image' below... Wot do you see ???

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...bsSextant1.jpg

If you orrible lot opened your eyes, you'd notice that the vertical scale was not linear (that's if half you retards knew what this meant). So asumming you lot had half a grey matter between yourselves, WOT can you tell me about the Horizontal Scale?

I'd leave up to you PRATTS to work it out.......
:rotfl:

Just an FYI for those that don't know: one doesn't have to use the mast height as listed in the recognition manual. You can actually set the mast height by dragging the outer ring on the range measurement tool until the transparent arrow lines up with the value you want to use:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...MastHeight.jpg

But has it occurred to you that manual targeting is not supposed to be a joy? It is supposed to be realistic, and that means that you are guessing a lot and much of your information is just plain wrong or misleading. Watch TMO move in this direction. Your joy is to be short-lived. Muahahahahahaha!!!!:rotfl:

Except that in this case, Capn, I'm not whoopin' on you. I'm using you as the supreme example of someone who is incredibly familiar with manual targeting, but was confused by the RFB stadimeter procedure. I'm suggesting that shows RFB needs to think about returning to a single standard for all targets.

Here's the question for you. If the top of the tallest stack is half the height of the tallest mast (probably it is more like 2/3), doesn't that have implications for the range accuracy? For instance, if at 1000 yards a one pixel error made a 50 yard error in range at the masthead, wouldn't that be proportionally greater for the lower elevation of the tallest stack, yielding a range error of 75 to 100 yards with the same one pixel measurement error? There doesn't seem to be a free lunch anywhere around here.

Boy-O-boy Rockin R, I had to read this question a time or two to understand what your asking. For a minute I was picturing a similar question "If Tom leaves his house and heads west for 22 minutes at a speed of 15 mph, and Fred leaves his house and heads east....................." then I snapped out of it!!

Yes, there are implications for range accuracy. There are a couple of factors that make the difference. One is the height in the periscope image when the Stadimeter is being used. The higher up from the water line the stadimeter second image is placed, the less difference in range there will be. The game was developed with this in mind to simulate a target farther away will appear smaller in the scope image. This is to make it more difficult to get a correct range when the target is farther away. When the target is nearer, it fills up more of the screen, and the difference in one pixel line to another is less when making a stadimeter reading.

The second factor is the actual Mast Height figure (from this point on I'm going to just call it height, it really doesn't need to be the mast at all). I found that differences in adjacent pixel lines were made do to the size of the height measurement. The larger height measurement created less range difference between adjacent pixel lines. The smaller the measurement the greater the difference. I believe the devs did this to balance out the playing field, to make each ship as equal in range finding, even though on ship is small the other is large.

So the truth is there is almost a wash between the two factors, one balances out the other. Here's an image of what I'm talking about, just read the green highlights for now.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...111909_074.jpg

This image displays the first factor I mentioned, the stadimeter placement within the scope image. The differences are gradual from the waterline to the top. So don't misunderstand my poor drawings, thinking the pixel line differences only occur within the green marks.

An example for the second factor, the height measurement. A figure of 10 meters could produce a difference of 6 meters to 1 meter difference between adjacent pixel lines. The 6 was toward the waterline, the 1 towards the top of the above image. For a height measurement of 25 meters, the differences were doubled. The lower towards the waterline you would get 12 meters range differences between pixel lines, the higher you would get 2 meters difference.

You may wonder where these points were taken. Although RFB did away with the horizontal center line, there are three larger hash marks above the center of the scope. I used those three hash marks to check the differences within the scope image. Believe me, the closer to the water line you get the much larger the difference becomes. The differences of 6 meters or 12 jump real quick as you lower the stadimeter mark point.

I'm going to kill two birds with one stone so I have a reason to point out the red marks on the first image. You'll notice the Base Height is set to the RFB figure of 16.5 meters. I had just completed a range check and the PK shows the found manual range as 2605 meters. That's all fine and good except the actual range to target was 1748 meters!! That's an 857 meter difference off target. Did I say you couldn't hit a bull in the as.................... Yep, I did. And no you couldn't!! Oh yea, if you would shoot at point blank range, but I don't want to kiss 'em.

The following image shows the corrected height as 11.1 meters. The PK now shows a found range to target of 1757 meters, just 9 meters off. Anything under 15+/- meters off, is right on target, the game really won't calculate it any closer.


http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...123600_023.jpg



I thought I'd show you what one adjacent pixel line will do when using the same corrected height.



http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...123624_079.jpg


Can you see the difference in the position of the stadimeter waterline mark? That's one pixel line. I mentioned the horiziontal hash marks on the scope, there are 3 pixel lines to the thickness of one hash mark line.

A 43 meter difference with a height measurement of 11 meters over a distance of a little over 1700 meters. I know you guys think that height measurements shouldn't be dead on, because this gives us too much accuracy, but for a long time I've known there isn't any way fool proof range finding will occur. Can you see what a difference would be if the seas were rough, it's dark, you have an escort breathing down your neck, you miss the speed by a knot, or the AoB is off a bit. Good height measurements do not guarantee a thing.

And one last thing, if RFB uses official documents like the OMI to input base height measurements in game, why is the Bogue American Carrier not correct? We don't know what our own ships heights are? And don't feed me some line of bull about real life would have given false information to the enemy as standard practice!!

A couple of other range inaccuracies in an approximate distance of 1700 meters.

Victory Freighter was off 95 meters too long

Fletcher DD 138 meters off target too short

Somers DD off 91 meters too long

Wasp CV off 152 meters too long

River Class off 281 meters too short

Hogs Island Freighter off 213 meters too long


OK, long enough for now.
VANJEST, YOUR TIMES COMING. I GOT A RESPONCE FOR YOU 'OL BUDDY. :rotfl:

What difference would a US CVE make, who'd shoot at her? If it was a u-boat, you'd need to know what height the germans thought she had. I've never looked at the US ships at all, myself (they ain't targets).

When Shinano was attacked, they had no idea how big—or tall—she was. The skipper made some observations, perhaps assumed the island was XX feet tall, then set up the shot.

I agree that you should have a fairly accurate range under the assumption that the skipper has the actual height of the target. In RL, this was simply not the case. GIGO.

ONI has Shokaku's deck as ~50' above the waterline with a 21' draught. More accurate sources have ~56' for the deck, with a 29' draught. That's ~2m difference, and assumes an average draught. If the ship wasn't at that load (which is a special case) the deck height could be off by another couple meters easily.

So again, in RL, you'd pretty much be guaranteed to never have the right height data from your rec manual. For virtually every single attack, if you wanted an accurate range, you'd need to make estimates yourself about the target's height. Have to.

Fully loaded? Overloaded? High in the water (unloaded)? Ship look the same as pre-war images (some perhaps 10+ years old)? The ship's draught being spot on is a special case. If they use an average, half the time it should be lower (a few meters, perhaps), half higher. Virtually never the average itself.

ONI serves as a reference, then you adjust the height based on what you see.

So, under the assumption that as skipper you either perfectly estimate the height, or you have that rare target where the height you get from a rec manual is 100% accurate, then yeah, the error should be as small as the game allows.

What the hell does it matter wether it's American, Japanese or a floating bathtub?!? The range found on it is off by over 850 meters, over a distance of only 1700.

Let's see, you write like you just woke up from a drunkin' binge and you think you can tell us a thin or 2? Well shut your pie hole for a damn minute, you might just learn sumpin.

You got pictures? I got pictures. If you can keep one eye open Vanjast take a look at my pictures. See anythin??


http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...111016_226.jpg

You'd be right to say it's a boat. Smack in the middle of the periscope. What's that? You want to know what are those red lines fer?? Very good lad, your quite the sharp fellow. Those lines show the range to target after taking a manual stadimeter reading using the RFB Base Height of 27.4. Hope I'm not going too fast for you.

You know though, there's a problem with the range Vanjast. The actual true distance to the target is 1577 meters. That's an error difference of 213 meters. Yep, your right, that's a couple of football fields put end to end. Did you ever play football Vanjast? Every get knocked in the head lad??

Well lets see, I've got another picture for you.


http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...120445_250.jpg


This picture looks a bit different. The boat is waaaaay up in the top of the scope. We were still able to get a stadimeter reading on it though and guess what? The found range is 1577 meters. That's right on the money!!!! 'Course you probable noticed that the Base Height is set at 24.2 meters, sure you did. Can't get notin' past you!! Even though it's waaaaay up on the top of the screen.

Well, how about down on the bottom. Surely that must give some kind of a problem for getting a stadimeter reading!!



http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...120546_180.jpg


Nope, the bottom of the scope doesn't change a thing. Still reads the stadimeter just fine, aaaaaand the range to target is still the same. Dead on. Must have been the height change don't you think. HEY!!! ........... Vanjast, Your still with us ain't ye?

Here, I'll throw in one of these to make it all better :rotfl:

Personally, I'm unloading RFB because I don't buy the realism claim. I personally don't believe that many merchantmen took 5 hits (and detonations) from torpedoes and remain afloat.

I personally know several veterans of the merchant marine, and next Remembrance Day (if they're still around) I will ask them how many ships they knew of could take 4 torpedoes and stay afloat. Not trying to be a pill, but it just doesn't add up.

I find that the contact fuses work roughly 10% of the time, the magnetics about 80%. On the last patrol I was forced to use 4 torpedoes on one (large old/split merch) and the large modern I tried to sink took 5 hits and detonations and stayed afloat.

I don't play games to be frustrated. I give up! Sorry, RFB cats. I really love most parts of it, but I find the damage model a bit of a stretch.

Because you'd never be shooting at it. If I were going over mast heights to correct them, myself, I'd not have even bothered looking at the US ships.

Just like I work on IJN ASW capability, but not USN. Why? Because I don't interact with USN A/S forces in a fleet boat.

How long are you waiting for them to sink before giving up? I rarely see any merchant survive even 2 hits in RFB right now. Of course I'm willing to wait.

BTW, FWIW, if you look at all the US submarine attacks during the war, they fired spreads. Later in the war, bigger spreads since targets were rare, so they'd make sure. 5k ton merchies having the entire nest let lose on them. In RL, maybe 2 hit and she sinks. Targeting is so rediculously easy in the sim (even on manual) that we'd fire 6 and most would hit, then we'd cry about wasting fish :)

Wow, a 3m base height difference is 200m range change? 3m is nothing. If they lashed a radio aerial to the main mast, that'd add 3m alone (a possible event if it was one of the 2/3 of ships commandeered by either the IJN or IJA).

Personally, the big issue to me is that we have so very few ships, that I can pop the scope up, and instantly ID the ship at this point. Wither perfect range finding... I might as well put magical targeting on and be done with it.

BTW, how do you find the range on the rear Kasagisan?

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o...4/merchies.jpg

1. This thread isn't about damage modeling in RFB.

2. You've obviously not been keeping up with changes we've made recently and are testing with regards to ship damage modeling.