UPDATE: : Further reading lead me to the conclusion that RFB 2.0 sonar ranges are both right and wrong. In case of active sonar there isn't a noticeable mistake, but in case of passive sonar there are arguments that can be discussed (it seems that the values in rfb 2.0 are for detection and identification at worst conditions). Basically the range for passive are much greater than the 7 km when it is about detection, for target identification the range decreases but still greater. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that sh4 handles this distinct difference.
OLD STUFF:
Nobody answered me about how to edit dat files thus i found out by myself.
That said i see no mystery here on why sensors in RFB works badly, these are the real values :
stock - 15/20 km for hydro and 5 km for sonar
tmo - 10.5/15/16/21 km for hydro and 5k for sonar
rfb - 7/10 km for hydro and sonar 5k
My question is, are these rfb values replicating the reality? I mean currently according to rfb the hydro range not only is low but also had a slight improvement through the war.....is that so? (i mean historically speaking)
Obviously that file shows that i cannot simply overwrite with tmo or stock files, i should clearly work on the original rfb files, which i'll do. But first as i said i would like to have information about real life ww2 us subs hydro, sonar and radar performance.
Last edited by xXNightEagleXx; 12-09-15 at 11:59 AM.
|