Quote:
|
pdiddy, I guess you're using OTC for RFB, the 1.4 version?
|
That's OTC with RFB 2.0 for SH4 v1.5.
I had to "futz" with it a bit, had a few CTDs, but I appear to now have a stable version (more testing required). Your changelog was extremely helpful. (I have OTC installed over a stock RSRDC version and over a TMO version so have some familiarity with the files.)
Using your Hiryu test mission verified the stadimeter accuracy initially.
And that screen shot is from your AOB test mission. All seems to be well so far. (I haven't ported over the whole mod, e.g. I left out the AI sensor tweaks, the ship*.sim files because of ISP, and the weapons/sensor upgrade tweaks.) I concentrated on the radar screens, corrected visual world, corrected rec. manual, omnimeter and range dial.
Although I've read/skimmed through the RFB manual and the thread here on Subsim, I didn't realize the RFB rec. manual was rigged until reading one of your posts. (I had read about the A-B-C ratings of reliability, but since they weren't in the rec. manual, had assumed that idea had been abandoned.) Anyway, I'm sure some love it, but I can't live with a rigged rec. manual. If the A-B-C ratings had been included, that would be one thing, and I get that ships changed their mast height and had different heights based on different drafts, many more ships to identify, etc. RFB is an outstanding mod, but having purposely incorrect values with no way of knowing the reliability of any given piece of information is its worst feature imo. The real manual (late war at least) had more and better information than what we get anyway (as I'm sure you know):
Besides it is way better sinking a "Nippon Maru" than a "Large Modern Tanker" or whatever!
Thank you for making this great mod which has added so much to SH4. (And thanks for the quick lesson in its use in the previous post.)