RFB, Accurate Manual Targeting and Realism
 

I know a bit about Mast Heights, Manual Targeting, the relationship between the Stadimeter reading and the Position Keeper, and what results one gets with a poor firing solution (SCAF). May I say, with some of RFB 1.52's mast heights, you couldn't hit a bull's behind with a base fiddle!!! OK, so maybe you could if you were 600 yards from target; the torpedo's don't arm themselves before 400 yards!!

I've spent a lot of time testing, calibrating, retesting, finding manual range using the stadimeter, to know the stock mast heights are on average 25-35% incorrect. Enough so that one meter (the internal game files are all in meters) on average, will produce a little less than 50 yards of difference for a manual targeting solution compared to an automatically found one. This is with the range being taken at a standard 1200 to 1300 yard distance, and with an average mast height of 19-23 meters.

If you use the auto targeting feature you can stop reading now. The relationship of correct range finding with auto targeting compared to manual targeting is like day and night. The devs developed auto targeting to keep accurate track of targets for you. In this regard they did it very well. You can still screw up, but most of the hard work is done for you. In auto targeting the game doesn't use the mast heights to find range but rather object coordinates to find the correct relationship's between one another. The game keeps track of hundreds of objects, so finding the distance between just two is a piece of cake.

In manual targeting the player makes the inputs for a firing solution. The one I'm most concerned about is mast heights since this one figure is out of the players control (it is placed in the game through the ships .cfg files), and yet it makes part of the equation for manually finding accurate range when doing it yourself. The game crunches the numbers for you, but the solution is only as good as the input figures you use. So let's look at some of these mast height figures from RFB compared to stock; compared to what they would be if you wanted accurate range finding. I'm only going to list a few.

German Lrg Tanker using the tallest mast
RFB=28.0416 meters tall
Stock=29.6
Accurate=24.2

T3 Tanker (for those that plan to play the German side, more to come below)
RFB=28.956
Stock=29.6
Accurate=25.5

Medium Old Composite Freighter
RFB=27.432
Stock=29.3
Accurate=29.2

BUT here's where the differences really don't add up (edited note: these RFB figures are for Warship funnel heights, the other's are for mast heights. My mistake, read the post further down for comparing apples to apples)

Asashio DD
RFB=12.192
Stock=27.0
Accurate=27.1

Minekaze DD
RFB=10.2108
Stock=21.0
Accurate=21.75

Yamato BB
RFB=27.432
Stock=44.0
Accurate=42.5

Sub Chaser
RFB=7.62
Stock=18.0
Accurate=17.9

Lrg MineLayer
RFB=13.716
Stock=21.0
Accurate=28.56

And for those using the Allied ships for targets (edited note: again the RFB figures are for funnel heights, the others are showing mast heights. My mistake.

River DE
RFB=11.2776
Stock=19.5
Accurate=25.5

Fletcher DD
RFB=14.3256
Stock=27.8
Accurate=27.8

Brooklyn CL
RFB=20.4216
Stock=31.7
Accurate=32.4

Colorado BB
RFB=21.6408
Stock=42.2
Accurate=43.6

OK, that's enough for now. The point is if you plan to use RFB and manual targeting you had better get close enough to see the whites of their eyes or your going to be disappointed in the results. For some, this is "realism" as it's intended to be. I don't agree. This intentionally bends the muzzle of the gun and tells you for the sake of realism, to use it as is. This is like the old Don Knots movie playing his role as sheriff in the old west. He couldn't hit a thing if his life depended on it. In real life, if a sub Captain was issued the same weapon he would have corrected it because his "real life" and those of his crew depended on it.

This is a game, meant for entertainment, not frustration. You want frustration, chances are you can find plenty of it in your own "real life". To model the inability to accurately find range does not create realism, it creates frustration and doubt in your make believe abilities to simulate a sub Captain. If this was all that was found in "real life" during WWII we would have never won the war.

RFB creates "realism" by tweaking AI sensors, and ship physics; and in this case the ship mast heights that make a solution for firing. The efforts can be better served by removing the time compression from the game if that's what RFB is all about. We could spend an evening heading West and after 3 hours still look over our right shoulder to see Pearl.

I'm not currently using RFB, but didn't I see a mod for that mod concerning mast heights and the manual?

You are correct.

From RFB 1.52 User's Manual (page 39):

That's why I have a post-it note slapped to my computer monitor that reads:

Merch's: top of the tallest mast
w/ships: top of the tallest funnel
cv's/cve's: flight deck.

I'm hitting 'em, I just ain't sinkin' em....working on selective targeting skills....

So, just to be clear: for warships, the "mast height" listed in the Recognition Manual is not really the height of the mast, but rather a number worked out so that placing the Stad line on the tallest funnel will calculate the target's correct range?

I think RFB is set up so that precisely this reminder pops up when you hover the mouse over the Recognition Manual check box.

So here are some Warships funnel heights. Stock figures are removed since it doesn't offer anything other than the tallest mast height.

Asashio DD
RFB=12.192 at funnel
Accurate=11.5

Minekaze DD
RFB=10.2108
Accurate=11.2

Kuma CL
RFB=14.6304
Accurate=17.4

Fubuki DD
RFB=14.0208
Accurate=13.2

Shiratsuyu DD
RFB=13.1064
Accurate=9.6

Deck Heights

Taiyo CVE
RFB=13.716 at deck
Accurate=15.29

Casablanca CVE
RFB=12.4968
Accurate=13.9

Bougue CVE
RFB=16.4592
Accurate=11.3

As I've stated before, at an average distance of 1200 yards, 1 meter difference in height will produce about 50 yards difference in range. The further away you are the greater the inaccuracy. This occurs no matter where you place the Stadimeter as long as it relates to the correct spot the Ship_Name.cfg mast height figure is calculated for.

Yes, that's right. As long as the "mast height" figure in the "ship_name.cfg" file relates to a spot on the ship that is calculated for accuracy the position that you place the Stadimeter must use that spot for accurate range finding. Unfortunately, the game only recognizes one spot.

If even CapnScurvy is getting confused about how RFB works, maybe it would be better to rethink the whole process. I wonder if it's not just too confusing to have many different height references depending on what kind of target. Why not make the top of the highest stack standard for all?

On the other hand, in real life they checked out the ONI manual and used the reference of their choice. The reason we are disposed toward the mast height is that the taller the reference point the more accurate the range measurement. If we accurately know the real height of the mast...

Correct. Some of the info is off in the RFB manual by design. I know of at least one warship in particular that doesn't follow the 'distance reference point' outline above. But by using sonar and/or radar, you can establish the proper reference point for stadimeter range.

I know it works because I have bagged this particular ship several times! :ping:

Yep, my mistake to lead anyone down the wrong path. Lash me to the yard arm Double R, I feel a whoopin' is in order. I must be feeling full of piss and vinegar today to start this.

Donner, your exactly right. With manual targeting you can still get an accurate range by using the sonar to "send" the found range to the TDC (Position Keeper). Don't let your sonar man do it for you though, go find the range yourself, then send it along. Those boys aren't to accurate, to much gazing at the wall hangings down there in the sonar room. Just don't ping away without figuring on an escort to not come looking for you in a trot.

For this reason (and the lock issue) I uninstalled RFB and installed TMO and SCAF. Manual targetting is a joy now. I tried installing SCAF and RFB without luck.

So until this is fixed I'm sticking with TMO, RSRD, and SCAF configuration. This works really well.

That's great except for the fact that Real skippers had ONI, not superdetail models researched by japanese guys.

In other words, they GUESSED.

Read Alden's book. COmpare US skipper CLAIMS of ships sunk to what they actually sunk. 8000 ton CA? No, Akizuki DD. ONI? 120' mast height for the claimed CA, 75' mast height for "Unknown" Class DD.

That's not 1 meter off, it's 13.7m off---none the less, the target ended up on the seabed.

For merchants, we have ~16 in SH4. With the exception of the late war "standard types" (not yet in game), it was rare for more than 10 to be in any given class. Instead of 16 targets, we should have HUNDREDS. This is in sharp contrast to the ATO where the US built so many standard types that they literally became the majority of shipping seen. Add to that that much of the data for these hundreds of slightly different targets is not rated "A," but a lower B or C in intel quality, and the mast hieght becomes a GUESS. You eyeball a deck height, then have the periscope assistant set the height at 100' or whatever.

Given this guess work, a few meters off in mast height would be EXCELLENT estimation in RL.

To sum up:

In RL, they set the stadimeter to a height in feet.

They got this figure from either ONI (41-42, 208J, etc), or by guestimating it based on features they could make out.

In the latter case, their guestimate had to do with how big they thought she was. I've gone through Alden putting stats in a spreadsheet, guess what, they almost universally overestimated target size. In many cases, considerably. That means they almost universally overestimated mast height.

Sorry, edit no worky.

I pulled the wrong ONI page. UK DD 75', claimed CL, 90'

4.57m difference, not the 13 I said above. Mea culpa.

Random page spread in Alden. Note that I will only check ships that have been definitively linked to the actual target using japanese records for obvious reasons. Also, I'll round the tonnages.

APR 1944

Claim___________Actual
7200t AK.............3800t AK
3600t AK.............7600t AK
5500t AK.............216t XAM (yes, 216 tons, I didn't drop a zero)
3500t AK.............6900t AK
9300t AK.............2100t AK
7000t AK .............976t AK
4000t AK.............6600t AK
4000t AK.............5400t AK
5000t AK.............4900t AK (woot! finally, something close!)
5700t AK.............2300t XAP
4100t AK.............806t APK
7500t APK...........11,700 XAP
7500t AK.............5200t AK
9800t APK............8800t AK
900t ODD.............870t PF (ODD in ONI lingo, this is spot on)

I'd be willing to bet that the mast height different between a 7000 ton AK and a <1000 ton sea truck is pretty profound. ;)

<EDIT> BTW, that random page seems to put the lie to my saying they universally overestimated, lol. I still think that overall, this is somewhat true, these 2 pages out of 226 not withstanding. Of the above 15 stats, 8 are over-estimates, 2 are accurate, and 5 are underestimates. Of the misestimates the smallest error is 1000 tons, and the largest is 7200t. So if they were not universally overestimated, they were almost universally MISestimated. For the mast height issue there is no difference, since it's the relative difference that results in a mast height estimation error.

Well, reality in any of this is hard to come by once you come to grips with the fact that no matter what in-game command decisions you make, you can always exit to Windows and reload without worry of dying. I think RFB does a pretty decent job of levelling the playing field despite it all.

That said, I think one point to be made is that if getting a good range on a target is a problem such that increased range will introduce increased error of an unacceptible degree into the firing solution, one obvious solution to the problem is to get closer to the target. If you can't you have a tougher decision to make. I think that is pretty realistic.

Active sonar, when safely available in a tactical situation, even if depending on the operators and not using a DIY approach, can be used in tandem with your stad readings. Get a few readings, set the PK in action, then ping once after a minute or two and check the report against the PK. Once you get radar on your boat, there is a good chance that if you've got it all plotted right and you plan on using the PK, you'll know if your stad reading is right as soon as you take it. There is even a good chance you will be able to manually target without the TDC using your radar-generated /passive sonar-verified plot without even coming up to look if . For further realism, keep a patrol log and document your experiences and findings as you go. That's how real intel is gathered. You'll know from experience when to take extra steps to verify range to target.

Another solution is to use largely range-irrelevant firing solutions, such as vector analysis methods. Get yourself on a converging course, and or two decent though not exact range estimates, along with an anayisis of the rate of bearing change can give you pretty much all the info you need to set up a decent spread.

Which brings me to another point: In game most of us fire spreads so that when it all comes together we get three or four perfectly placed holes in the target. I think most skippers in most situations fired spreads hoping that one or two of the fish might find the target given the uncertain nature of the data used to compute a solution.

Finally, most of us bag more targets in a couple of patrols than many boats fired at for the duration of the war. If we miss a few because of uncertain data (that problem being not unrealistic at all), I can live with that in the name of realism.

Not banging on anyone, as given the first point 'realism' is a pretty hard target to range, and we all try to get that 'enjoyment' out of it which is satisfiying to each of us. Just offering a different perspective on some of these range 'realism' issues.