[TorpX]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

How many modders are going to fall into the trap ...?

One more, I guess.


Since this item has sparked so much controversy, I'll outline why I decided to do it this way.

In my view, the stadimeter is already handicapped by the monitor resolution limitations. We simply can't see details like masts very well. Same applies to aircraft, btw. When I was testing them, I found it very hard to locate them at any distance, even though I knew in advance where they were coming from. I don't see the sense in giving the player a double penalty.

I don't share your view that the RL rec. manual was worthless. In fact, I consider it was a better resource, overall, than what we have. For example, they had info related to speed vs. rpm's that we can't use. Were there errors? I'm sure there were, but I don't consider it sensible to sabotage the whole deal.

I started that part of the mod, because of RFB's inconsistent reference points. It wasn't clear to me that the extra ships in RSRDC used the same logic. Anyway, I decided to opt for a consistent reference point. The tabulation and changes in the listed mast heights had to be done to complete this. If the RFB system had been consistent, and was roughly accurate, I wouldn't have bothered to open the matter up. However, I wasn't going to all the trouble of doing the measurements, and then dump nonsense numbers on everyone. I can just imagine the reaction if I threw in inaccurate data. People would say, I wanted to use ISP, but then heard it messes up the stadimeter/rec. manual, so you can't do manual targeting, so I decided not to use it. I think most people would prefer the accurate numbers.

If you, or others don't like my system, you have several options:

1. You can use an earlier version.
   
2. You can alter the mod to your taste.
   
3. You can accept the stock or RFB physics, as is.
   
4. You can build your own physics mod.

No. 2 can be done easily by going into each ship's folder, and taking out the *.cfg file. Or, you can substitute your own numbers, providing a increased error factor.

I'm not really sure why you have such an issue with this. You have frequently advocated for the use of 'map-contacts'. This provides more accurate data than you can ever hope to obtain with the stadimeter, whatever numbers are used for the mast height.

I agree that it is easier for us to ID ships, than it was in RL, but I consider that this is a matter better addressed in other ways. Perhaps, someone who is good at building digital models can make some doppelganger ships. These could look very similar to standard merchants, but not be exactly alike. I think it would even be possible to design them, so the same type of ship would have different mast arrangements (in the same manner that ships might be armed, or not); meaning a positive ID would not always be possible.




************************************************** ************

Back to my development notes....

7. I had the idea of putting in sub laid mines. Others have talked about this here and there. I gather it has been done in SH3. However, to glean anything from this, I would have to redo the campaign, so I dropped this. Most players would probably find mine-laying missions dull, anyway. If I had my own campaign to build, I would put them in, though.

8. I did more experiments with the good ol' scene.dat., trying to get wind speeds higher than 15 m/s. Didn't work. I sure would have liked to fix this issue. There is a checkbox 'use mission controllers' or something like that. Unchecking allows higher wind speeds (with other changes in file), but also causes the game to 'forget' about the matter, so they end up changing once or twice, then getting stuck.

9. I considered redoing the waves parameters in the same file, but decided it wasn't productive. Some didn't like my weather, but there are actually two scene.dat files. One produces what I call 'mild' weather. It is still stronger than RFB or stock, but is hardly unbearable. The whole point of having weather changes is to challenge the player. If the weather is always nice and easy, what's the point?

10. I restored map-contacts in the game. That is, even the pointy ship silhouettes that you have when zoomed-in. I'm not an advocate of using them in careers, at least not for experienced players, but there are situations where they are desirable. Like for new, or rusty players, mission development, mod development, things like that. I find them very useful in studying and testing the physics of things. This also includes all the aircraft, and the torpedoes and attack map stuff. Some people in the past have stated they liked RFB overall, but used other mods because of this. I figure people can suit themselves in this matter.



More later.................