Haha. :D'

No, i take the first authentic source for comparison and it seems o.k.:
http://www.hs-bremen.de/internet/hsb..._bierwirth.pdf
See Page 23.
A display of A N Cockcroft, A Guide to the Collision Avoidance Rules, 2004, S 233, by the Author

At Emergency full Reverse.

This is where I find myself constantly drawn back to SH3.I feel like the waves and the way the boat handles in the water are better than SH4.When I blow ballast in SH4 the boat comes to surface and then rides a bit underwater sometimes causing me below deck again.In SH3 the boat rockets out of the water and then crashes down with this huge wake(never see a huge bow crash in Sh4/5)) that nearly comes over the bridge and is accompanied by what seems better bow wave crash sounds.Example is below which shows how good SH3 was(is) and begs the question....wtf happened?Can we,as Petersen is trying,just move all the water/wave parameters and ship parameters over?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggcP3...eature=related

EDIT.....just reinstalled RFB and it now has bow wave crash and huge spray over the boat.I have no idea why it works sometimes and not others.Great mod either way!!

The Mod is from Vickers, it change the Movement of the Ships like in SH3 was.

I'm only make a little Adjustment, for more Movement in the Sea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v0TacrrJ-U

Typ IX D2, with the Mod, small Changes. Medium Sea (Flak Testmission for the Walther Uboat):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXnJIowM8v4
isnt the Optimum, but better than before.

Vickers Mod is linked on the first Page.


B.t.w. Nice Vid, really good Effect.

Hope you guys like playing with the unrealistic auto targeting game play.

Changing the "specific_ship.sim" settings (mass, dispalcement etc.) will throw out any chance of using manual targeting for getting a stadimeter range reading. Not that it was great before but, unless you check and correct the height measurements you won't have a chance in using the stadimeter for range finding.

A good Point. Which value is incorrect if i change the Mass of the Ship?

And yes, i like the auto targeting. I have not enough time and will to play at 100%. I'm more interested in Seamanship and Navigation. :ahoy:

In the Data/Sea/Specific_ship.cfg file you will find the "Mast=" parameter (it's in meters). This value does more than set/change the height of the mast found in the Recognition Manual. It is also used as the "base" figure in making the Stadimeter check with manual targeting. Unfortunately, the math is done internally (within the game engine) so the only "control" we have to the process is with the "Mast=" figure in this configuration file.

That's where you change the height figure to make a correction for whatever changes you make to how the ship sits in the water. The point is how much do you change this figure to make it right is a whole another thing. I've spent years in fixing this problem with the stock game (the mods Ship Centered, Accuracy Fix; Optical Targeting Correction well document the problems). When there's folks that want to simply change the "looks" or "action" of a ship model, they need to be aware that their modifications (well intended as they are) will throw off the manual targeting aspects of the game.

Your next question may be "How much do I change the "Mast=" figure to make it right?". Here's (in a nut shell) what I do. Using the "Mission Editor" take a sub and put several ships around the front half of the sub about 914 meters (1000 yards) at a 90 AoB. Put a check mark at the "Docked Ship" entry to keep them stationary. Save the "test mission" in the "Single Missions" folder of the game. Start the game with the options of realism set to 0, all options are unchecked, then start the test mission. Record the ships name and range found on the Position Keeper. The game set at the "automatic targeting" option will provide the exact distance between you and the target. Now, exit the mission this time check marking the "Manual Targeting" option and restarting the test mission. Use the stadimeter to check the distance of the same ships again, if your around 5 to 8 meters off consider your "on the money". Anything more and the "Mast=" figure of the ships .cfg file needs to be corrected for accurate manual targeting.

Sound simple? Try it for all 100 plus stock ships. Add RSRDC to the mix with his 50 plus more ships and you got a handful. Put OM, TMO, RFB into the equation, "See you next year!" :doh:

Mmh, my english is a little poor, but i think we are speaking about different Things. I change the Mass of the Ship, not the Value of "Mast=" or anything similar. This does not influence the Height of other Ships, and the Difference between Stock and my Changes is only seen in higher Waves, not in the Port.
I think if you lower your Periscope (in calm Sea for instance), you have a greater Difference in Measure Height (if the Height of your Periscope is a used Value in manual Targeting) than with my Mass Changes of my own Ship.
I changed only the Values in the Mod of the Ships, not any global adjustments.

Edit:
In the sim.cfg of Vickers Mod i changed this:
I read this here (didnt know where) and test it. But i cannot think, that this values influence the manual Targeting. But this Mod, like the other Destroyer Mods, can be deactivated if you want it.

If your changing the "Mass" of the ship in the file below, we are indeed talking about the same thing.


http://www.abload.de/img/silent3ditor1uuec.jpg


By changing the "Mass" or "Surfaced and/or Submerged Displacement" parameters of the above file the ship will sit at a different level. Throwing off the manual targeting ability of using the stadimeter to get an accurate range to target, unless you correct the "Mast Height" figure in the .cfg file that I pointed out.

The height of the periscope makes no difference in manaul targeting, neither does the height of the sub. At periscope depth, or using the periscope fully extended while on the surface, makes no difference to the stadimeter reading. What makes a difference is the mast height figure in the Recognition Manual, and the true height of the target ship as it sits in the water.

As I said, using auto targeting will give you a correct firing solution. Manual targeting will be made unusable.

=====================

However, I may be wrong. Are we talking about modding ships in general, or are you using the Fubuki through a self controled playable modification? If your changing the "Mass" or "Displacement" parameters to just make a playable ship work better this is quite different than changing a "target" ship for the sake of looks. I pointed out the problem thinking this was for changing a Fubuki used by the games AI. If your doing it to control a specific ship then I'm mistaken. I would suspect the last thing you would want is to have the thing shot out from under you.

Aahh... o.k., now i get your point. You see the Fubuki as a Target! :o
I never think about that. :D So you are right, if you want to torpedo a Fubuki it is better to deactivate the Mod, if anything changed there.

With the Fubuki there is another Problem. She takes Water in High Sea and sink after a while. Didnt know why, they forget to build in some pumps?
The Asashio doesnt have the Problem, i sail over the whole Pacific and it is o.k..
Panama Canal, western Approach
http://www.abload.de/img/panamaruaz.jpg

Ok then, I stand corrected. I've been comparing apples to oranges!! :88)

One thing I notice about your Fubuki.sim file is you have commas (,) between many of the numerical entries. They need to be changed to decimals or dots (.) as sometimes they are called now. Take for instance the parameter in the lower "Value" changing area called "The objects up-down drag coef", it should read 0.05 not 0,05 (if that's the value you want?). Not using the right syntax will have the computer overlook the entry. Could be why the Fubuki isn't doing what's expected.

Also, I'm not entirely sure you need (or want) two different values in the "Mass = 1730" parameter and the "Submerged, displacement = 1819" parameter. I think you can eliminate the "Mass = 1730" value completely from the file and only the "displacement = 1819" will be needed. I'm no expert, but I think you should only have one of these two entries listed.

From an 'outsiders" point of view why would the Fubuki want a "Submerged displacement" value anyway? Wouldn't it need a "Surfaced displacement" value instead? Of course, I realize the object is to have the Fubuki playable (like a submarine) so maybe that's why the displacement value is placed there? Just wondering out loud.

I wonder about these entries too, but i'm also an outsider. :woot:
The Mod is from Xantrokoles, but he is no more active here in the Forum i think.
I will replace the commas with dots and test it.

The Advantage of the Fubuki over the Asashio Mod from peabody is only, that she is playable in Career. The Asashio is more detailed and has playable Guns. So i prefer the Asashio, but cannot make her playable in career, altough i make all Entries in Career start and campaign.
So i have two ships which doesnt make what i want. :88)