Sonar Realism

[auknight]

Hey all! This is my first post, and I am relatively new to the subsim genre. My experiance is limited to Enigma: Rising Tide (sucks) and SH4, that's it!!

Anyway, I wanted to bring up the whole sonar/environmentals/detection thing. When I first started playing, I was curious how accurately sound propogation and such were modeled in this game. I read a few of the other threads related to the thermal layer.

Now, from my experience, I think there is no complex oceanographic modeling. There seems to be a simple implementation of a 'thermal layer' which I assume to be the sonic layer depth. When you pass this depth, the game simply tones down the sound your sub emits. In reality, the layer depth will quiet you significantly due to the fact that your props pretty much stop cavitating. You'd have to go much faster in order to cavitate at lower depths. The primary sound source for a sub running silent is the screws turning. I don't think subs back then had THAT many auxiliaries that could emit sound, other than the transients like the rudder, and dive planes moving, and I'm sure those were kept to a minimum.

So before I go further, what do the rest of you guys think? About ocean modeling, sonar detection, thermal layers, and the enemies ability to track you via passive/active sonar.

[ryu1940]

As a sonar tech, I wish there were more complex sound propagation models and dynamic ocean environments.

[Mush Martin]

in practice in the game the layer is simulated by programming
a dimiinishment of efficiency in the enemy sonar model so that
below a given depth they dont "see" that well how poorly can
be changed and at what depth can be changed as well as
detction range. surface clutter is also simulated in the game
code.

in reality in the US. campaign operational experience reduced
noise signatures almost 90 percent over pre war levels.

M

[SteamWake]

Yes the sound propigation models in SH series is vastly simplified. Shame but thats just the way it is.

They put there efforts into what to them (and others) felt were more important.

You sound guys might want to take a look at the sonalyist titles specifically Dangerous waters. It has a much more inticate sonar model.

[Rockin Robbins]

We begin with a simple non-quantified observation: when things are released into the air they fall to the ground.

They progress to intuitive speculation: it is obvious that the heavier an object is, the faster it must fall faster because of the greater force exerted on it.

At some point the intuitive speculation is confronted by a crisis: a bowling ball and a ping-pong ball are rolled down an inclined plane. They both arrive at the bottom simultaneously! WTF!!!!! (Why, That's Funny)

Now actual experimentation is done to measure this unexpected result and construct a mathematical model that will predict other analagous situations. When a method of making new predictions in order with the observed anomaly emerge, a new theory is born. Although it conforms with new observations, it may no longer solve old problems. It may not be grounded in truth, but only be an artificial construct that is useful for answering questions. Newton's law of gravity is one such analogy which in no way explains the reality of what is going on there.

This useful theory or paradigm continues until a new crisis emerges, requiring yet a new way of describing reality which answers a new set of questions.

Simulation progresses along the same line of wow this is great, I can do this to oh, shift I can't do that, to complete rewrite and new hardware back to the beginning. Each crisis results in a totally new underpinning of the simulation. But never will the simulation be reality. It will always be no more than a mathematical model, a mathematical description of reality. It will always have problems needing to be solved and problems that cannot be solved with the present paradigm.

OK, I'm finally done so everybody WAKE UP!!!!!!!

[auknight]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

We begin with a simple non-quantified observation: when things are released into the air they fall to the ground.

They progress to intuitive speculation: it is obvious that the heavier an object is, the faster it must fall faster because of the greater force exerted on it.

At some point the intuitive speculation is confronted by a crisis: a bowling ball and a ping-pong ball are rolled down an inclined plane. They both arrive at the bottom simultaneously! WTF!!!!! (Why, That's Funny)

Now actual experimentation is done to measure this unexpected result and construct a mathematical model that will predict other analagous situations. When a method of making new predictions in order with the observed anomaly emerge, a new theory is born. Although it conforms with new observations, it may no longer solve old problems. It may not be grounded in truth, but only be an artificial construct that is useful for answering questions. Newton's law of gravity is one such analogy which in no way explains the reality of what is going on there.

This useful theory or paradigm continues until a new crisis emerges, requiring yet a new way of describing reality which answers a new set of questions.

Simulation progresses along the same line of wow this is great, I can do this to oh, shift I can't do that, to complete rewrite and new hardware back to the beginning. Each crisis results in a totally new underpinning of the simulation. But never will the simulation be reality. It will always be no more than a mathematical model, a mathematical description of reality. It will always have problems needing to be solved and problems that cannot be solved with the present paradigm.

OK, I'm finally done so everybody WAKE UP!!!!!!!

Sorry, I'm not smart enough to understand a single word of your psycho babble. The way I see it, if someone has a problem with differentiating reality from a game or "simulation" that's THEIR issue, not yours. Myself, I know the difference between reality and fantasy, but I am curious just how "real" this particular aspect (sonar) is in this "game". That's it. If you have a problem with that, I'm sorry, I'll go crawl behind a rock and cry myself to sleep for having offended you in such a manner.

As far as mathematically modeling complex ocean environments, yeah, I don't see that happening in a game like this. I've used programs that generate sonar progation paths, basically using mathematical formulas to model sonar ranges based on user input. Knowing that it is possible, I also know it takes a LOT of input, and processing power to generate. However, just as in the game the thermal layer is simulated, how about under the layer, the detection range is significantly less than the surface layer? How hard is THAT to model? That's how it is in "reality". Or is that hoping for too much? Am I being too idealistic? Am I formulating new theories to match my desire for a specific outcome?

See, I thought these forums were open for people to talk about stuff related to, in this case, Silent Hunter 4. Should I not have started a discussion about sonar? Was it over the edge? Should we start pulling all threads that are considered "stupid questions"? My interest in sonar and USW/ASW tactics a no no for this forum?

Hey man, if you think people are delusional because they want to know just how "real" it can get, than feel free to stay away from this topic. It's as easy as that. It'll either start an interesting dialogue, or it will die. In the end, we still live our lives beyond Silent Hunter IV.

(Also, give me two months reading a thesaurus and I'll be able to edit this into $20 wording and sound very smart and sophisticated.)

[Elder-Pirate]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

OK, I'm finally done so everybody WAKE UP!!!!!!!

ZZ
ZZ
ZZZZ...HUH ??
Whud he say?





RR is alright, besides I get a kick out of some of his ( long winded ) post. And it doesn't hurt to learn something new in life.




Now be quiet RR while I finish my nap.

[auknight]

Thank you for the replies!

I also wanted to touch on tactics. I try to stick with tactics I think a real sub commander would use. To me, the primary concern is stay quiet and get the hell out of the area when being DC'ed after a torpedo run. I'm pretty sure due to simplified sound modeling, I can turn and dive all I want with no consequence. But I do believe turning your rudder and pumping water/relasing air for depth changes creates sound, thus increasing your probability of detection. Therefore, I usually go deep and stay at the same depth and course till I get out.

There's actually more to say, but didn't realize the time, and have to get to work. But feel free to let me know what you guys think tactics-wise till I get back!

[JSF]

RR....I swear, everytime I read one of your explanations I'm reminded of of my physics lectures in school....... Great reading and instruction...but I begin to get sweaty palms thinking about the exam that inevitably follows.......