SCAF and TMO/RSRD with High Res
 

Hi,

I run SH4 at 2560x1600 resolution (16:10 aspect) and I'm having stadimeter problems with TMO2.2 and RSRD.

A ship only 2000yards away can have major errors in stadimeter range compared to radar range or map contact. I assume it's because of my resolution and aspect ratio.

My question is:
1. Will SCAF for TMO2_RSRD version improve my stadimeter in TMO2.2 with RSRD at all for any reason?
2. Does SCAF correct the issues that happen at from screen resolution or does it just correct the centered accuracy?
3. Alternatively is there a file I can edit or mod to help my resolution with the stadimeter?

I know there is a ship centered accuracy fix but I can't use it because it doesn't work with TMO or RFB, so I'm just looking for the next best thing if I can get any improvement even if slight then I'll do it.

Thanks for these mods by the way guys, they've made SH4 worth playing even though I'm years late to the party! SH5 doesn't seem like an option yet..

Cheers

Hello TaipaN

2560x1600 resolution....... Wow, that's big. There was another gamer named "Trebby" that has the same resolution and aspect ratio. He asked if one of the Aspect Ratios fixes I have with the Optical Targeting Correction (found HERE) would help him. It's my belief that the 8:5 mod would work for your resolution (16:10 aspect ratio would seem to be the same ratio as an 8:5).

But, there are a few underlying problems for you and the mods you're using.

First, I don't have a compatible OTC mod for TMO 2.2 (or any other version 2.0 or 2.1), and it's compatible RSRDC v502 mod. I'm working on a TMO 2.2 compatible OTC mod right now but it's not ready to be released. A compatible OTC for RSRDC v502 will come later. My SCAF for TMO 2.0 will not work with TMO 2.1 or 2.2 (too many changes to the TMO updates to think you won't have problems with a SCAF for TMO 2.0 compatible mod with the updates). So the bottom line is, there is nothing you can do for now, to improve your game.

To get specific with your questions:

Not necessarily, believe me resolution does play a part, but so does inaccurate mast heights listed for the particular target you are trying to get a Stadimeter reading on. TMO and RSRDC have a few mast heights that are so far off that at a 1000 yard distance, the stadimeter will produce an error of 500 yards difference!! RSRDC introduces about 50 new ships to the TMO bunch that adds about another 10 over stock, I'm guessing the mast height errors are probably the main culprit. You could have the resolution set just right for the system you use, but if the mast heights aren't reasonably accurate you won't get an accurate reading with the Stadimeter.

I wouldn't try it with TMO 2.1 or 2.2 unless you like being sent back to the desktop. Sorry, but SCAF is only compatible with TMO 2.0.

It does nothing for the resolution. That's why I consider OTC as the "next generation" fix for manual targeting. It not only fixes the various resolutions a gamer uses for optical views but corrects the accuracy of the height and lengths for the ships in the game. It also corrects the Stadimeter center point for calculating range to the independent periscope view that it uses for marking range. I found the position was off by several meters resulting in an additional error of up to 25 yards in 1000 yards distance depending whether you had the same target at the front of the sub or to the rear.

The Camera.dat file holds the key to correctly setting the resolution you use for accurate periscope and TBT/UZO views. The parameters need to be "scaled" to the particular periscope/TBT view size you are using at these stations. But as I've pointed out, there are other factors (like mast height) that have a lot to do with getting a stadimeter found range to be accurate. OTC takes the correction a step further by finally having the periscope and TBT telemeter divisions (the lens hash marks) accurately measure a targets height or length. This will give another type of "found measurement" that could be used for determining range or AoB, along with the stadimeter, radar, or sonar equipment. It's what the real life Captains used, but due to the issues of inaccurate game resolution rendering, stadimeter off centering, incorrect mast height measurements, incorrect Field of View size, you can not rely on manual targeting giving you a reasonable range figure based on either the stadimeter, or reading the telemeter divisions of the scopes. Unless you use OTC.

Hi Capn,

Yep a big res is very nice, I use it mostly for flight sims I'm a bit of a latecomer to Silent Hunter.

Yes the 8:5 is the same ratio, that should work great. If you're working on TMO 2.2 / RSRDC version of OTC in the long run that would be much appreciated!

In the meantime, I did end up trying SCAF and it's working with TMO2.2 and RSRDC! Only played for 1/2 hour so far with it but no crash to desktop.

I'm also running the max optics, very nice!

TMO 2.1 and 2.2 have quite a few changes but not much really in the scope department. Probably not much actually changed much in the camera that's not in TMO2/RSRDC version of SCAF already. The updates have these things as the major changes:
* Japanese plane/boat changes
* Visual sensors
* Crew changes
* Sub speeds, battery changes, crush depths
* Sub textures
* Sub damage model
* Sub upgrade paths and refit dates
* Sub conning tower flags
* Sub gato 3d TDC interior
* Environment
* Torpedo changes
* AI chanes

The only changes I think I would lose is:
* revert to stock bearing indicator
* added TBT with green illuminated cross hairs
* add missing "own ship" label to periscope TDC panel

And they are very minor, and SCAF/max optics doesn't need those things anyway.

Thanks, knowing it's not just resolution only means that SCAF will give me some improvements on lots of ships. In the short term, I can use SCAF and one day move to OTC.

I tried SCAF with a couple of ships, and compared the ranges reported on the map dots and it seems to be a big improvement.

For max optics, I had to do some edits to menu_1024_768.ini make the Chrono, Radio Map, and Gramophone not appear off the screen due to my resolution. Just the same changes I made for TMO in menu_1024_768.ini to work on my res:
[G2C I1]
Name=Page UserRadio
Type=1027;Menu page
ItemID=0x2C000000
ParentID=0x0
Pos=0,0,1024,768
Zone= 0 768 1024 768 2 1 0x0 0.5 -0.5 0x2C000000 -0.5 0.5 0 0
LoadingMode=1

[G2C I2]
Name=RadioDevice
Type=1026;Menu group
ItemID=0x2C010000
ParentID=0x2C000000
Pos=756,-256,268,256
Zone= 756 512 268 256 0 1 0x2C000000 1 -0.5 0x2C010000 -1 0.5 0 0
Color=0xFFFFFFFF

[G4B I1]
Name=Page Gramophone
Type=1027;Menu page
ItemID=0x4B000000
ParentID=0x0
Pos=0,0,1024,768
Zone= 0 768 1024 768 2 1 0x0 0.5 -0.5 0x4B000000 -0.5 0.5 0 0
LoadingMode=1

[G4B I2]
Name=GramophoneDevice
Type=1026;Menu group
ItemID=0x4B010000
ParentID=0x4B000000
Pos=756,-256,268,256
Zone= 756 512 268 256 0 1 0x4B000000 1 -0.5 0x4B010000 -1 0.5 0 0
Color=0xFFFFFFFF


[G29 I2]
Name=Chrono
Type=1026;Menu group
ItemID=0x29020000
ParentID=0x29000000
Pos=756,-256,268,256
Zone= 756 512 268 256 0 1 0x29000000 1 -0.5 0x29020000 -1 0.5 0 0
Color=0xFFFFFFFF

In campaign at the moment, with the dodgy 1942 torpedos.

Attacked from 2500 yards in rough seas, hits with 3 out of 6 torpedos! SCAF working well :yeah:



http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29331868/SCA...RSRDC_hits.jpg



Obviously would still appreciate a TMO/RSRDC version of OTC though ;)

Good to know that SCAF for TMO 2.0 isn't too far off with the newer 2.1 or 2.2 versions. It's just my knowledge that when a mod is activated over another, over another, over the stock game, unintended results can occur. Unless the last mod activated has been made compatible with the mods it over rides.


I will admit, some of the SCAF ship "heights" are off due to the stadimeter centering issue. Maybe only off by a meter or so, which will produce the 25 yard error I mentioned earlier over a 1000 yard true distance.

When I made SCAF I didn't know there was anything I could do to prevent the errors I ran into when correcting the ships height. In the mission editor I would put the target ships around a stationary sub, check, then correct, the mast height found. From time to time I'd place a second target ship of the same type in another position around the sub and noticed the height measurement was different due to the position used. It was only after placing the same target, at the same true distance around the sub did I discover where the range was different. Below is an image of the Hiryu with the noted found range from the stadimeter at the different positions.



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



As you can see, the two ships to the port and starboard sides read the same found distance, as they should. In this example, the forward facing Hiryu (the subs facing south) reads 12 meters difference than the rear facing targets. On other targets, there were greater differences found between the rear and forward positions. It depended on the actual height used that made up to a 25 yard/meter difference from front to back. The way to correct this was to center the camera view of the periscope to the position the game uses to calculate the stadimeter found range. Meaning the view needed to be moved toward the rear of the sub to match the stadimeter focal point. All but the S boats needed to have this position moved. Unfortunately, the stadimeter position can not be moved to match the view, so the view is moved to match the stadimeter.


So, when I say some of SCAF's measurements are off, it's because the particular target was placed toward the front or rear of the test sub when I made the correction, and this error was inadvertently put into the height correction SCAF shows. The targets that happen to be positioned at the port or starboard sides have accurate measurements.


You may be wondering why in my example the Hiryu's are reading over 200 meters difference in found range compared to the actual true distance of 919 meters? It's because the Hiryu's in this example are using the stock mast height of 31 meters tall. 31 meters tall gives you a stadimeter error of over 200 meters in only a 919 meters (1005 yards) true distance. You mentioned that TMO 2.2 is what you're playing. TMO 2.2 has the Hiryu mast height set at only 20 meters tall (this was the mast height of the Hiryu from the original SH4 version 1.0 game). This mast height will produce the 500 yard difference over a true 1000 yard distance with the stadimeter. Good luck in hitting the Hiryu at anything over 1000 yards true distance!

So when do we see the OTC for TMO2.2/RSRD?

I'll be happy to test it for you :DL

I have just about finished my checks for the basic combination of the TMO 2.2 and OTC. Things seem to be working fairly well. A couple of issues with the "Unit Type" configuration slowed me down with TMO. You would get a quick CTD when a couple of specific pages were opened in the Recognition Manual. I've run into this before with TMO, due to a change in the "type" of ship listed from the stock version. I know I'll have the same thing occur when I get into the RSRDC v502 mod. A couple of ship types are changed from the TMO version, which again are changed from the stock type. Can't anyone just leave this stuff alone!!

Anyway, it's working fine now. My next move is to test the heights for the TMO ships and correct them. I'll check some of the lengths too, but there isn't a lot of things a modder can do about changing the length of a target. It is what it is.

The height on the other hand is directly related to ship displacement and center of gravity parameters. When I say ship displacement I'm not talking about whether the ship is loaded or not. This is not an aspect of the game. The game has all ships "loaded" with a couple different types of freight and they never have a difference in height due to being empty.

The displacement I'm talking about is the weight of the ship (cargo not included since it has no bearing). This displacement figure has a direct effect on ship height. So if someone decided to change the displacement because it "just looks better", the height for manual targeting is going to be thrown off as well.

I ran into this with GFO some time ago with it's J Class Destroyer. In the image below notice how low the ship sits in the water. It's because the displacement value was set way too heavy for the ship. This was in calm seas, zero wind. The water was washing up over the deck. I wanted to see what the GFO J Class would do if I pushed up the wind speed on my test mission. It sank in a couple of minutes.

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


So, I'm compelled to look at the TMO ship heights just in case they have been changed from stock. Once that's finished I should be ready for a release for just TMO 2.2 after I also make sure the other "optional" mods packaged with OTC are compatible too.

RSRDC v502 is another story. It will need some attention much like TMO has; not to mention the 50 or so new ships that RSRDC brings to the TMO mod.

All in good time. :yep:

Duplicate..

So it sinks when the waves go over it? Do waves cause damage when hitting upper decks? I imagine only to ships and not subs..

I suppose GFO players won't see many J class destroyers patrolling around, they might even find a few unescorted convoys if the wind is up :)

Yep take your time to do it right, out of Fast, Good and Cheap it's best to pick Good and Cheap as we can only pick 2.

SCAF will keep me going for this campaign. Just being able to hit stuff is like a new game, I thought I was making real terrible mistakes before but it was just the fact that I used visual targeting and not map plotting. Now the fun of Visual targeting is there again as I don't have to go for Sonar and Map ranges anymore.

Quote:

So it sinks when the waves go over it? Do waves cause damage when hitting upper decks? I imagine only to ships and not subs.. I suppose GFO players won't see many J class destroyers patrolling around, they might even find a few unescorted convoys if the wind is up

I believe that's right. You probably would never know a J Class was in the game if it sinks on its own.

I've seen something like this due to the "Center of Gravity" with other modded ships as well. Moving the "displacement value" requires you to also change the ships "center of gravity value". If you don't, the ship may actually roll over in mid to heavy seas due to the change in balance. The other day I had a test mission with some RSRDC v550 ships and noticed a couple of the Japanese destroyers were rocking heavily left to right. I had the wind blowing about 10 miles an hour. A couple of the added DD's (I forget which ones were doing it) were rolling so heavily I wondered if they would capsize before I finished my testing of AI sensor capabilities. I don't know if I would have let the game run for an extended period of time, would they get worse and eventually sink or not?

I once set the "center of gravity" on the Fuso to a point that when I started the test mission and took a look at it, the ship was rolling so fast (like an alligator in it's death grip) that it eventually spiraled itself straight to the bottom after about a minute.

I don't know how the game addresses the factors of ship damage to the point of sinking due to water intake. I know it does for surface ships.

Hi Capn,

Thought you should know that I've been using SCAF with TMO 2.1 and now with 2.2 and not once has it crashed or even burped.

Congrats on Scurvy. It must be boring to test those parameters out, always loading and reloading and exiting and altering and starting the game... maybe the reason SH has so many flawed, is because it's own developers are not as patient as scurvy.

Too right mate.

Ever since I've loaded SCAF I've been hitting every damn thing I attack using less torps means more tonnage on the bottom of the Pacific. Just another day helping to save Australia from potential Japanese invasion ;)

Can't wait to use the final
RSRD TMO version of OTC when it comes, will have to crank up those destroyers to make it more difficult ;)