Yes, JANAC was not well received. I know there was at least one other list produced after the war that fell somewhat between the two. I had ready access to this particular table, and I think it shows the point.

If you'd like to ignore the tables, you can look at some other sources. I know I've read multiple times of task forces being reported with sightings of battleships, when in reality, there were only cruisers and destroyers present. Identification of targets with only quick looks through the periscope and out of date identification sources was simply not that accurate.

The question of JANAC and IJN records reminds me of similer questions about German fighter plane production in WWII. The Germans claimed to have produced very large numbers of fighters, but when the losses, captures and such are added up, the numbers don't square. One author forwarded the theory, that planes sent back to the factory for repair, were counted as new production, and thus double or triple counted. Possibly, they were simply inflated because of political pressures.

The point I'm trying to make is JANAC was based largely on IJN records, and these records may not be accurate. Given the magnetude of their problems, it is easy to see why, keeping neat and tidy records, may not have been the highest priority.

With a new mod I'm about to release the Recognition Manual will have ship lengths added for every ship (see image below). I realize there are a lot of you that think the game uses accurate figures when giving mast height, ship length (no matter where you find the results), or draft depth etc. You're wrong. The game has a bunch of figures that could have been verified from the back of a cracker jack box.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...undrange-1.jpg

These measurements mean nothing to a player who uses the automatic targeting method. The game happily calculates the targets position and speed (and why shouldn't it, the games the one that put the target in front of you in the first place!) and gives you a green light when its time to press the fire button.

Those of you who use manual targeting have to find range, speed, and Angle on Bow on your own to make a proper firing solution (or maneuver yourself soooooo close to the target, you can't miss). The point is the game didn't spend a lot of time putting in measurements that a manual targeting player could use. Nor, did it make the viewable game world correct to use any real world measurements. The Optical Targeting Correction mod will correct the game worlds view which was off by several degrees in width. In doing so, real world numbers may work as they should, I don't know, or care. The only factor I've every concerned myself about is what are the results of in-game play. If the games measurements read x amount high, x amount long and a correct range, speed or AoB can be attained with them, why do we need real world measurements added to a game that doesn't know how to use them correctly? As I said, the real world figures may work correctly with the optical changes to the game views after the OTC mod. What I've done is calibrated each height and length figure to provide as accurate a measurement as reasonably possible. The rest is up to the other factors in the game that make manual targeting the difficult process that it is (weather, lighting, detection, distance to target, movement of all factors involved).

In other words, if the game is wrong about the length of the real ship, but uses that wrong length for in-game plotting and calculation, you'd better use the game's wrong number for calculations or you could miss your shot.

When in Rome do as the Romans do!

What kind of length errors does the recognition have compared to the in-game lengths? Is the percentage ever consequential? I'd think the masthead height errors would have much worse effects on shooting.

Double R, I don't know if the ship lengths found in the game are correct or not based on real world figures. I've never compared what the game lists as a measurement (length or height) to see if it matches its real world counter part. I've only based my measurements of these points within the game itself. In other words I let the game tell me it has a ship measured at a specific distance (range) I then check the math to see what the angle (giving length) and height of the point of reference should be at that game distance. Is the game distance truly a measurement of an actual yard, meter, nautical mile in real life? Who knows? The point is the game says "this" is called a yard, or a foot, or whatever, and "this" is what gets used for our calculations. I just compare the calculations and match the correct figures to them so the game reads an accurate measurement. I couldn't care less if it matches real world figures or not.

Take for instance the German Pocket Battleship with a game mast height of 47 meters. The corrected measurement of the mast height should be 37.8 meters following my correction method. This just under 30 feet of difference is what keeps a manual targeting player from getting a correct firing solution when trying to find range to target. Is the 37.8 meters of the mast head correct to real world figures? Again, I don't know or care, but 37.8 meters will give you correct range when using the Stadimeter or using the Telemeter division marks (when the correct optical view is enabled) for finding range!! To me, that's the important thing.

As you point out RR, the height reference point measurements are indeed critical for range finding. The length measurements are basically for figuring Angle on Bow. If you know the targets length at an abeam (perpendicular) view at a specific range, you can gain its AoB by comparing the difference in length when the ship is at an angle at that same distance. To help calculate this an Omnimeter was used, found here. To answer your question regarding the length measurements and are they off as much as the mast heights figures in-game? No, luckily they are just about right on!! Oh, I've done a bit of tweaking, but once the optical views are corrected, the length figure found in the .cfg files were really pretty good to what an accurate measurement needs to be. Surprising but true.

And that begs the old question: are the game errors just plain sloppiness on the part of the devs or purposeful helter-skelter to make our lives more interesting?

After all, a 25% error in the mast height translates into a 25% error in range. A ship measured at 4000 yards could be at 3000 or 5000 yards (depending on whether the game masthead number is 25% too high or 25% too low), a deviation of 2000 yards.

Seems like the easiest way for that stadimeter to work would have been for it to grab the masthead height from the game's working parameters, not a separate and wrong table. That makes it seem to me that the errors are purposeful for some unknown purpose....something like that.:hmmm:

Perhaps an attempt to implement the uncertainty in target data?

Well, then you just read the game data and multiply it by a randomly generated uncertainty, say between +-120%, for instance. Then you get a different error for every measurement. THAT would make sense. But a hardwired error is much more thought provoking.

Eh, I don't think the errors are a part of "the fog of war" many would like it to be in this game.

The truth is the darn game was released using the metric system of measurements!!!! What kind of an American simulation of WWII warfare brings a totally bogus system of measurement to the table?!? The authenticity of the SH3 game was having German speaking crewmen using only the metric system for measurements. It took modders to fix the game so we could use it over here on this side of the pond!! But that was ok with me, the authenticity was great with SH3. With SH4, authenticity went out the window to appease the game promoter (UBISoft) who wanted to make a quick buck on their return. To their credit, the devs posted the first patch only a month after the release adding the Imperial set, but the problems of having the game not correctly convert the measurements back to the metric system wasn't fixed until about patch 3 or 4.

If the devs thought they had a "fog of war" thing going for them with wrong mast height measurements why in the world did they change many of them with the 4th patch?! They didn't correct them, they just changed some of the figures. Why bother at all if the idea was to give some since of unreliability???

Nope, the errors are an oversight (there are a couple of ships that are right on the money with their mast heights), but way too few to give a manual targeting player an even chance at getting a firing solution right. Again, if it wasn't for the ability to stick your nose up the targets backside and pull the trigger you'd play hell in ever hitting a target with manual targeting.

I made a list somewhere of the shiplengths.
I placed a sub and at 1nm placed each ship in turn, measured the scope angle, by rotating the scope. From this calced the ship length. I should have done the mast height as well, but didn't think of it.


I should redo this list..
:)

Vanjast, before you try using the periscope bearing to figure ship length you'd better take a look at this. Drift down to the part I have regarding "Game Optics" (the Omnimeter isn't important). The stock game is off by several degrees in its optical size of the periscope. Using the compass bearing to measure a ships length won't give you accurate results until you get the optics right. To check for yourself here's a "mission pack" that will set up a "backdrop" of ships for the purpose of measuring the Field of View of the stock game. As the thread states I've fixed the optical field of view and already corrected the ships length and height measurements.

The only reason I've not released the mod is I'm having the radar capable of giving a fairly accurate range finding added to the mix. I've completed an imperial version and will complete a metric version soon, then the release.

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

For those that still want to think the dev's had the "fog of war point of view" going for their errors with the game, What's the reason the optics are off by several degrees? To give the old dog a fighting chance when we got 'em in our sights? Or how about the miss naming of the A scope radar to the PPI radar and vise a Versa? Whats up with that, just testing our WWII electronic equipment knowledge?!! What about the medals and award problems?!

Ok, OK......... I've said my piece. :D

Yeah, I'd work out the fish-eye view that game had, but one can work with this.
:)

No No, I'm not talking about having the Periscope view needing a larger size. The size of the "port hole" isn't important, what you see within the port hole needs to be corrected.

I'm talking about the number of degrees the periscope view covers from the left side to the right (or up and down). In order for the periscope compass bearing to give you an accurate measurement of anything, the Camera.dat file has to be corrected to give the "world view" a correct size to fit the periscope. The American (and German) periscopes had a Field of View of 32 degrees at low power. In other words the compass bearing traveled 32 degrees from left to right. You can't judge how much the Field of View is when your using water as a measuring stick, I can't get my marking paint to stay put on the waters surface! So, having a group of stationary ships sitting in front of you WILL give you a reference point to measure.

The stock game is off by about 6 to 8 degrees too wide. This creates the effect of having the objects appear too small, smaller than what they should. Notice the stock periscope lens and count the divisions marks from top to bottom or left to right. They count 32 equally, but does the game world view give you a 32 degree width? Nope, not when the width is between 38 and 40 degrees. The dev's had a notion of what they need to do, the Telemeter divisions are set for a 32 degree FoV. The world view the dev's gave us is pooched, and until the game world is brought into perspective, measuring a ships length with the compass bearing is a lost cause.

Again the fix is on it's way.

I agree. There are too many examples of errors in the game for it to be some purposeful element. It's clear to me, that they were either too rushed, didn't consider it important, or thought it was "good enough".

Also, you are right about the RL/game numbers. There is no point in trying to use real life values, when the game is using different values of it's own. If the mast height figures cannot be used to obtain good range estimates, what purpose do they serve?

P.S: Has any consideration been given to including weapons?

In an earlier post I misspoke regarding the German periscope having a 32 degree Field of View. Their attack periscope had 38 degree FoV at low power magnification, 9 degree at high power. The magnification was the same as the American periscope; 1.5x at low power, 6.0x at high. Sorry for misleading you.

It's clear "Silent Hunter 4 Wolves of the Pacific" has too much of the German side of play left over from SH3. Although SH4 was meant to be an American Fleet Boat simulation the fact the game settled on giving us the German periscope FoV size of 38 degrees is only one of many oversights we have with the game. Although, this probably isn't as much an "oversight" as much as it was a calculated effort to provide a game for the metric minded German side of play. After all, we ended up paying for the games fifth and final patch that put the "Nazis into the Pacific"!! Doing so at the expense of losing the use of the Telemeter division lens marks which would give the American player a correct reading for range and AoB if used correctly.

CapnScurvy:
Ja, I've known this since doing my SH3 RealNav mod.
But you can still use this distorted measurement as a ship length/height. Although it is wrong in RL, in game it is 'correct' (if you get my drift).

I've noticed that whatever settings one uses in the cameras.dat file, you still get this 'fish-eye' lensing effect, and i thought the best was to live around this, accommodating measurements around this.

:)