When I tested for trying to make a difference in day/night visual detection I made a single mission (actually there were two, one for night....the other for day. Both were exactly the same except for time of day). There were 2 enemy DD's to my front (one sitting broadside to my sub, the other facing directly towards my subs profile). Another set of two DD's to my perpendicular (set in the same stance as the two ahead). These 4 were at 2000 yards distance from the sub. I had another pair to my other side at 4000 yards distance, yet another pair at the same distance to my rear. All were the same stock Fubuki Class DD with their sensors diminished to only their visual capabilities.

An easy way of removing the Fubuki's radar/sonar sensors for testing.... leaving only its visual capabilities.... is to remove the following from its "NDD_Fubuki.sns" file:

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...ps09541390.jpg

The H01 are the Hydrophones, N01 are its sonar, R01 is its surface search radar. Without these the only detection capabilities are in its [Sensor 1] slot.....its AI_Visuals. Change the [Sensor 10] to [Sensor 2] and further down the remaining list before saving the file.

After making a mod with the two single mission setups (both day and night) and dumbing down the DD's detection capabilities, I set out to tweak the AI visual sensors found in the following "Data/cfg/Sim.cfg" file:

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...ps17678894.jpg

It's these [Visual] figures that allowed me to see that tweaking the "Light factor=xxx" parameter caused the exact opposite of what should be expected from the game for the night test compared to the day.

========

Sorry, but they don't.

If you run a search on the "Parent ID" of the three visual sensors you'd find they are the "Attack Periscope" visuals as below:

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...psc7580479.jpg

The next is the "Observation Periscope" visuals. The third is for the "ST Periscope" visuals (when the ST radar head is in the Observation Periscope):

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...psee7d20b0.jpg

All three have the same parameters for visual range, surface area detection size etc. These three nodes are for the subs view through the periscope.

========

Mind you, this is for the AI visual sensors part.....but, when I look at the following stock file (I like comparing stock files rather than TMO of RFB or some other modded file) I see something I hadn't noticed before:

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...ps5565b5f7.jpg

The Minimum surface size for a detected object is 0.0......in other words the AI is going to detect an object at the smallest size that it could be displayed. This doesn't seem right to me, considering the subs visuals state the following:

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...ps42ca747e.jpg

What the subs visuals state is that at the Maximum range (in this case 15,000 meters) a surface area of 100 meters (I'm assuming square area)can be detected. Anything less.....there's no detection. Seems like the AI has an advantage from the start? How this plays out with the night/day comparison, I don't know, but it's worth looking into.

My problem is that I've got enough irons in the fire to keep me busy. But, if someone would like to take a look for themselves by all means do so. Make a couple of test missions as I've done, and time (with a stop watch) the difference in time it takes for the enemy to fire upon the sub when it surfaces. Tweaks to the "Data/cfg/Sim.cfg" [Visual] file seem to make some difference, but not as I expected. Maybe someone will have better luck.

Glad you agree. I certainly mean no slam on any enviroment mod, but most ignore what I feel is proper moonlight, light on clouds, etc. My guess is because all the testing to tweak sensors to yet another env. mod. I can only guess how much time it took Duci to tweak the sensors to existing env. mods.

Anyway, enviroments are easy to make, just time consuming, so that's not really an issue, I've got several looks I like tweaked with sensors fairly well. Still, I think so much more could be done with realistic sensors to env connection. My last peeve is sub visuals, just don't like being spotted and shot at before my crew spots a ship I can clearly see shooting. Plus I never felt the game was realistic regarding night attacks. The more I tweak and test, the more I feel it can be resolved. I've made numerous small mods for individuals, one day I want to get my env done, but properly tweaked. I think I have all the pieces, just putting them together.
I could use some help testing if you're interested...

Thanks for the detailed response. Yea, I figured today those 3 nodes were as you said when I tested radical ranges. It seems most visual values that have effect is the sensorvisualsub.sim further tweaked by the sensors.cfg connected to the many env/scene dat values. Am I missing any others?


Could you tell me what the following values do?

Visual aspect, seems it may have to do with the profile. If so, is it the visual aspect of your sub or the enemy ship to you? Also the "Visual noise" factor....

Visual range factor=1.5 ;[>=0]
Visual fog factor=1.0 ;[>=0]
Visual light factor=1.5 ;[>=0]
Visual waves factor=1.2 ;[>=0]
Visual speed factor=0 ;[>=0]
Visual aspect=0.9 ;[>=0]
Visual enemy speed=0.2 ;[>=0]
Visual noise factor=0 ;[>=0]
Visual sensor height factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Visual already tracking modifier=600 ;[detection probability modifier], most accurate, once a contact is detected it will lose it very hard
Visual decay time=250 ;[>0] already tracking bonus decay, in seconds
Visual uses crew efficiency=true

I think you're on to something with the minsurface, I never noticed that, but seems it would have great impact on visuals overall, not sure about day or night.

I can get the crew to spot targets to the horizon on a clear day, basically 10 nms, but still hate they can lock and ID a ship that you can't make out. Still, who wants to have to use the book when they know all ships by heart. At night I'm getting crew visuals up to 6nms depending on moonlight and position.

Course with my env with more moonlight and light around the moon in general, that alone increases visuals for both sides. Still not sure about visuals in relation to moon position. I placed two escorts using TMO values with the moon silhouetting behind them at 6000 yards from me. They didn't see me narrow, but did when I gave them my flank. However, if I place an escort behind me at 6000 yards with the moon silhouetting me, they open up. My crew didn't call out the escort behind me, but I could barely make him out against the dark horizon. In fact, with me in the moon, they saw me to 8000 yards narrow. Now with the moon high in the sky not silhouetting the horizon, ranges stay consistant regardless. All the escorts factors/values were the same, including crew rating. This effect alone about gives me what I want.

You said " It's these [Visual] figures that allowed me to see that tweaking the "Light factor=xxx" parameter caused the exact opposite of what should be expected from the game for the night test compared to the day."

Are you saying when you increased the light value, it increased range during the day, but decreased range at night or the opposite....or something else?

Thanks for your help....

The "Visual aspect=xxx" does have to do with the modifier for detection depending on the targets profile to the sub. Less of a figure, gives less of a modifier to the detection capabilities....greater the figure an increase in detection capabilities.

The "Visual noise factor=xxx" is used for the other sensors (like the hydrophone or sonar). Why it's even listed here is probably an oversight. Believe me, there are plenty of "oversights" in this game!!

Here's what you need to remember about this game. There are lot's of files that are easily accessible by us to tweak, but do they mean anything to the hard coded system that the developers have running in the background that could possibly use these tweaks?? We don't have a blueprint of what the game uses, or doesn't use, with these figures. Just tweaking them in the direction we think they should go doesn't make it so. As I pointed out a few posts ago, the dev's had the hard coded calculation conversion of yards to meters reversed back in 2007, not getting it right until the 3rd patch. Without seeing for yourself what a particular modification may do (or doesn't do) is only giving you a hint to what the hard coded system really does. We can change some of these figures until we're blue in the face, but it doesn't matter if the coded system doesn't recognize the values, or implements them in reverse to what they should be.


http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...ps1c5b3f1e.jpg

What I found was the values (this is with all the modifiers) seemed to have an effect only within 0.0 and 5.0. Anything less or greater than this margin had no effect at all. The modifier categories either added or subtracted from the games default detection capabilities. As an example, the "Visual fog factor=xxx" decreased the default detection capabilities. The larger the number above >0.0 the greater the decrease in capability. Makes sense. But, when increasing the "Visual light factor=xxx" from 0.0 to 3.0 the enemy didn't respond to my subs surfacing at all. In either night time of day light. I had expected this lack of detection for the night test, but I hadn't expected to have it during the daylight test. I have (I'm surprised I found my notes from these tests) pages of test results that report this same type of behavior. When you get the night detection to work as expected, the day results are non existent...their blind as bats. Lowering the figure gives you daylight detection, but the night time detection stays the same as the day time, or even gets better. Completely opposite to what it should be.

That's why I say the day/night difference in this modifier seems backwards to what it should be. The night time response acts as if it should be daylight, the day time response acts as if it should be night.

By timing when the enemy goes on "alert" (you can hear an alert siren from the DD's....you also see the subs crew bend over a bit in the command room when the crew detects the enemy), then timing when the enemy fires upon your sub gives you a reasonable idea of its detection capabilities and its "Sensitivity=xxx" (the time it takes to respond) to your sub.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...ps22deba85.jpg

The AI "Sim.cfg" file has this Sensitivity=xxx modifier. The subs "Sensors.cfg" file does not, but I'm suspecting the modifier "Visual uses crew efficiency=xxx" does the same thing.

I haven't gone that drastic with the light visual to see that effect, but I understand, that does sound backward.

Yep, just through trial and error I've found several values that don't seem to have effect regardless of how radical.

I've got to test more, but your opinion on the moon position in the sky effecting visuals? With added moonlight, etc., it does seem to have great effect.

I never got into the possibility of moon light making a difference. As I remember, my tests had no moon at all.....just wasn't the right time of month I guess. Makes sense though. :up:

Again, the factors for the moon making a difference could be in the hard coded aspects of the game. Right off the top of my head I've not seen a modifier for the moon making a difference. That's not to say there isn't one though (least wise on the hard coded side of things). The only way we can tell is by trying different things and making a list on what we observe.

I've never seen a value for the moon itself, cept in env, at night what values work for the sun, work for the moon as well to create lighting effects. As stated, the more light at night, the visual range increases and it does seem position of the moon also has great effect, as does width of reflection. Course numerous other env/scene dat values effect night visuals as well.

As far as I know most mods use a halo texture and don't add moonlight.

If you want to put it up, I am sure some will test it. I will be going back to SH 4 soon and would give it a try. I play TMO 2.5 and agree the visual detection could use some tweaking.