TDC in Sh5

[MRV]

I was wondering what peoples oppinions are about what is more realistic in terms of manual TDC: As someone mentioned in another thread, SH5 is done on top of SH4. Now what I really wish for is to have the "set solution"-order from SH3 back. It was in my oppinion the most realistic way for firing torpedoes because I cant imagine U-Boat-Commander did all the calculations on his own, thats what the torpedo officer is for.

Unfortunately I was removed with SH4 and you only had the option of either "arcade-point-and-fire" oder doing everything manually.

So please, Ubi, give us that one back.

[kstanb]

Although I no longer use it in SHIII/ SH4,
"Set solution order" should be included, however in my opinion, the solution shouldn't be 100% perfect as it is in SHIII

U-Boat-Commander didn't do all the calculations on his own, but he was in the end responsible for the final attack, it would be realistic to add mistakes in speed, AoB and range when ordering "set solution"

[maerean_m]

I do believe you'll be amazed by what Dan has prepared for you in the terms of TDC and manual targeting . I would have never thought of the idea he came up with.
We'll be previewing it at the Subsim meeting.

[Sledgehammer427]

you guys really make me wish I could join you at the meet!
as well as jealous

[nattydread]

There certainly was some short comings in the SH4 TDC...one being the ability to hold the solution, but de-couple the bearing so you could "aim" at specific parts of the ship.

We should have been able to gather all the required data and then place the pip where we wanted, "mark" the bearing and fire. Then move the pip at the desired aim point on the ship(bow, stacks, bridge, stern, etc), "re-mark" and fire again using the previous target data, but with the new bearing.

It allowed Skippers like O'Kane(if I remember correctly) to target the center/stacks of the ship, fire, then quickly re-set for the bow and fire, stern and fire, etc.

The manual TDC features is what bugged me the most about SH4...though there were others at the top of my list too.

[U2222]

I agree with everything Nattydread says.

I think the crew should be able to set the solution if the player wishes.
However the accuracy should be relative to the officers skill.
There should be an option for this to start poor and improve with the players input to that role. Manual targeting therefore improves the role of the weapons officer.
This option encourages interaction with and developement of the various crew skills.

[Hitman]

Well I myself sent to Dan a document with information and pictures about the historic periscopes, hope he can make some use of it. It is of great imporantce for targetting and determining the solution.

I cant imagine U-Boat-Commander did all the calculations on his own, thats what the torpedo officer is for

The commander when submerged or the IWO when surfaced actually gave the petty officer manning the TDC all inputs, i.e. speed, AOB, range. The navigator also kept a plot in the chart with the information given by the commander or IWO, but ultimately in night surface attacks f.e. it was the IWO alone who gave the target data.

The TDC calculated all the rest.

[fireship4]

Don't forget the TDC was a fleet boat device for storing and automatically updating target information by using your boat's movements and the predicted movements of the target, I don't know that the U-boats had an equivalent.

I understand you may all be using it to represent the targeting mechanism of whichever boat you are on though.

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by fireship4

I understand you may all be using it to represent the targeting mechanism of whichever boat you are on though.

that last sentence of yours is correct fireship4, thanks. It's just that TDC is so much easier to write than Vorhaltsrechner, and we (most of us) understand it just fine.

@ the debate in general

So in my readings, I came across suggestions that the TDC (Vorhaltsrechner) was able to account for changes in U-boat's own course.

You will all note that this was not a feature of the TDC as rendered in SH3 and SH4UBM, in which changes of U-boat own course messed up the TDC solution.

Hitman at one time confirmed with me that this is correct, that the TDC (VHR) could account for changes in U-boat heading, although i never saw any unequivical evidence to support it.

If this is true, it would be great if this feature were implemented in the SH5 TDC model

[karamazovnew]

Originally Posted by maerean_m

I do believe you'll be amazed by what Dan has prepared for you in the terms of TDC and manual targeting . I would have never thought of the idea he came up with.
We'll be previewing it at the Subsim meeting.

Any tool to help the newbies enter the joy of manul targeting is welcome . Both SH3 and SH4 lacked a easy to use intermediary "manual" targetting solution. But I do hope you're not forgetting us veterans. We really need that double split prism periscope conencted to the aob wheel. It was the main reason the germans used the Attack Periscope instead of the obs scope which didn't have that. I trust Hitman has provided you with all the info needed. Here's something I've come across a few times:

The periscope consisted of a long steel tube which extended out to about five meters from the housing. It had prisms and lenses at both ends. Periscopes suffered from two main problems, the most important was vibration. When fully extended, the long unsupported tube created turbulence on a moving U-boat. At 6 knots, it caused excessive vibration which rendered it almost impossible to use. This was dampened by using an extension bracket to reduce the unsupported length and the pointed end was redesigned to minimize the forward hydrodynamic resistance. Nevertheless, vibrations still occurred, but to a much lesser degree. The other problem was fogging of the lenses. Since the damp atmosphere of the U-boat caused fogging, it was especially important that the tube was not only watertight, but was airtight as well. Any fracture on the airtight casing caused by a depth charge attack would result in fogging of the tubes.

The important info in this is that you could not see through the scope unless it was fully raised. There were no intermediary positions. Keeping the boat at the proper depth was extremely important. Also, raising the scopes at high depth would result in damaging the scopes. Fogging was possible to fix when on the surface.

I have a preety good idea how to implement them (if not already implemented :rotfl.
- the periscope station (the 3d rotating one with the small seat) had the knobs/switches for rotating the scope, using color filters, zoom level, an aob/range finder wheel.
- the periscope bearing was only available at the top of the scope, on the static part. It was luminated by a small light bulb that rotated with the scope (easy to see in Das Boot, when the captain repeteadly looks up to see the bearing).
- the periscope did not have buttons for firing torpedoes (i think).
Since the periscope seat camera doesn't need to move too much with the boat, some clever use of the mouse can give us quick strafing for access to all of these and it can be stable enough to manipulate the 3d aob wheel with the mouse (actually it only had a knob for setting the height/length). Hmm.. maybe mousewheel over knobs and dials as in Flight Simulator?

The "2d" perisope view should be completely clear, and no, they didn't have periscope lines which changed color during the night. The only thing you would be able to show/hide from here are the orders to the WO and to the helm.
Since the man at the scope did not have access to the TDC, the notepad stylised method of entering data was not bad. It should be optional, allowing you to see the actual dials and manipulate them (such as in sh4 and ACM mod for sh3). But the stylised version would be better for immersion. It should consist of all necesary inputs (tdc and torpedo settings). It should have both stylised dials for quick input, but also text boxes for precise input. Each time you use them, since they don't need to act as temporary solutions, they would be sent imediately to the WO (and thus the TDC).
The aob wheel on the scope might've been actually linked to the TDC itself, but I doubt it, since it had to be reseted for normal viewing.

Now the AOB dial was in fact linked to both the Bearing dial AND the compass. Changing your course also changed the AOB. The link to the bearing (the auto tdc update feature) was indeed optional. But the link to the compass was not optional. If you say a target at 45 degrees bearing wich had a 45 degrees AOB to you, and then you changed the course by 45 degrees into it, at the end of the turn, you would not have a 0 AOB at 0 bearing on the dial (As you do in SH3 and SH4), you'd have a 45 AOB at 0 bearing as it should be. This greatly simplified using the TDC for getting very quick intercept courses (described here ). So the crew had quite a lot to do in fact:
- you could ask him for specific intercept courses, (since you shouldn't see the TDC dials updating in the notepad page), "Give me a bearing for 82 port intercept"... "Yes sir.... bearing 219 should be ok".
- you could give him timed bearing/range data when visibility is poor and he would pass that info to the Nav Officer for plotting (as a double check)
- the Nav Officer would calculate the torpedo travel time after firing.
- the order to fire a torpedo would take about 2 seconds to arrive at the torpedo room (the only place which actually had a button/lever to fire the damn things). But that was already implemented, i think.
- you could order the second officer to look thorugh the OBS scope (or your scope) for ship recognition.
- Actually, the officer should be able to take your place at the scope and conduct the same procedure as you. In the meantime you could stay at the TDC station (releaving the WO) and he would give the data to you .
- Of course, both SO and Nav Officer's experience would greatly impact all their calculations.

This would be as realisticaly as it is humanly possible, And it would allow you to sit back and enjoy the view while the others work, even at 100% difficulty.

[joegrundman]

It was the main reason the germans used the Attack Periscope instead of the obs scope which didn't have that

actually it's possible that in the early war all scopes included the AOB finder. The real reason for using the attack scope was the smaller head and therefore smaller feather wake and reduced visibility of the attack scope.

I think the obs scope was sufficiently good at light gathering to permit stellar navigation.

The important info in this is that you could not see through the scope unless it was fully raised.

if this is true, i don't see how it is deduced from the text you quoted just before. Could you please explain or else cite the document you sourced this information from?

The "2d" perisope view should be completely clear, and no, they didn't have periscope lines which changed color during the night.

Are you sure about this? I have repeatedly come across references to radium being used for the scope reticule (as is used for the glow-in-the-dark marks on an analogue wristwatch). Can you link to your reference for this, please?

Now the AOB dial was in fact linked to both the Bearing dial AND the compass

yes this is what i was getting at in the previous post - is it possible for you to link to your reference for this too

this would really help, as it is important and ought to be implemented if demonstrably true

best wishes

joe

[karamazovnew]

actually it's possible that in the early war all scopes included the AOB finder. The real reason for using the attack scope was the smaller head and therefore smaller feather wake and reduced visibility of the attack scope.

I'm always trying to think in terms of gameplay. So far the head size has not influenced detection. There HAS to be a reason for using the AP instead of the OP, right? SUre, it must've had a vertical stadimeter, excelent for navigation, but an AOBF too? Why the different sizes of the stations then? where would you fit the mechanics?

if this is true, i don't see how it is deduced from the text you quoted just before. Could you please explain or else cite the document you sourced this information from?

That's easy. The Obs scope viewfinder/station moved with the scope itself and came out of the floor. That preety much settles the problem, as the height of the scope is linked to the height at which you cant look through the scope. You might crowch down a meter or so.... But the AP viewfinder was fixed. Any change in lengths between lenses and prisms ruins the optics. Since the lenses and prisms were housed at the ends of the scope you had to line up thebottom lens to the station housing to be able to view through it. And again, in terms of gameplay, it adds to the difficulty.

Are you sure about this? I have repeatedly come across references to radium being used for the scope reticule (as is used for the glow-in-the-dark marks on an analogue wristwatch). Can you link to your reference for this, please?

I am in error, I had no idea they used fluorescent paint for the markings. I blame youtube for not having movies of night attacks . ANd refferences to greman scopes are rare. Wish we had a translated manual of operations as we have for the fleet boats . But since you know more about this, how did they work? Did they have a switch to turn them on? Or simply they became "lighter" as the surrounding became dark? And for how long would they last? Is it similar to fluorescent paint that needs to "recharge" with normal light?

yes this is what i was getting at in the previous post - is it possible for you to link to your reference for this too this would really help, as it is important and ought to be implemented if demonstrably true

It was back in 2005 while searching for tips on manual targetting that I found a decent article about the Vorhaltsrechner. It explained how the AOB dial was sitting on top of a compass dial. It was then connected to a gear link that included the bearing information and allwed for manual control through a knob. I tried to emulate it but the SH engine doesn't allow for rotation parrenting of dials. I've searched like crazy now but can't find it anymore. The best I can come up with now is: http://www.uboat.net/forums/read.php...1778#msg-61778.

[Hitman]

First of all, I would like to put well clear that I do not by any means claim to have the absolute knowledge about U-Boat optical systems. Far from that, there are way many things I still don't know, rather than know. However, I have been for several years already doing a research as in-depth as possible on the subject, and that includes not just the internet, but also exchange of e-mails with the Zeiss corporation historic archives, some questions to one of the few remaining U-Boat commanders (Through a guy who knows and meets him regularly) and a lot more.

That said, I want to start with the page you took that info from. It's this one, which I have seen already linked a few times, and which is in fact plaged with errors For starters, the zoom is stated as 1x/6x, which is not correct, as it was 1,5x and 6x. Now, according to what I know, I will make some comments (And keep in mind I could be wrong)

you could not see through the scope unless it was fully raised. There were no intermediary positions.

Not true. You could always see through the scope since it exited the protective housing. You would however not be able to see anything else as water until it broke the surface.

Keeping the boat at the proper depth was extremely important.

True. But keep in mind the commander worked continuously with the height switch for the scope (On his left hand in the fixed heigth attack scope) to show as less as possible.

Also, raising the scopes at high depth would result in damaging the scopes.

Correct

Fogging was possible to fix when on the surface.

Correct. The scopes had special drain holes that could be opened to dry the interior and eliminate the damp.

- the periscope station (the 3d rotating one with the small seat) had the knobs/switches for rotating the scope, using color filters, zoom level, and aob/range finder wheel.

Correct. AOB/Range finder however not implemented in all models.

- the periscope bearing was only available at the top of the scope, on the static part. It was luminated by a small light bulb that rotated with the scope (easy to see in Das Boot, when the captain repeteadly looks up to see the bearing).

Correct in certain models. Not true for all of them. All observation scopes f.e. had an internal partition in which you could read the bearing. All attack scopes equipped with AOB finder had it also.

- the periscope did not have buttons for firing torpedoes (i think).

Correct.

and no, they didn't have periscope lines which changed color during the night.

Not true. Graticles were made of radioactive material, and it looked pale green in the dark (fluorescent). However, only the lines were like that. Numbers did not light in the darkness.

The aob wheel on the scope might've been actually linked to the TDC itself, but I doubt it, since it had to be reseted for normal viewing.

It wasn't.

Now the AOB dial was in fact linked to both the Bearing dial AND the compass. Changing your course also changed the AOB. The link to the bearing (the auto tdc update feature) was indeed optional. But the link to the compass was not optional. If you say a target at 45 degrees bearing wich had a 45 degrees AOB to you, and then you changed the course by 45 degrees into it, at the end of the turn, you would not have a 0 AOB at 0 bearing on the dial (As you do in SH3 and SH4), you'd have a 45 AOB at 0 bearing as it should be.

Correct. Example Source= Heinz Schäffer, "The journey of U-977"

- the Nav Officer would calculate the torpedo travel time after firing.

The TDC did that more or less. It showed the travel distance. Chronometers with appropiate scales would automatically give the time.

- Actually, the officer should be able to take your place at the scope and conduct the same procedure as you.

They certainly were able to do that! As in US subs, where the IWO was also many times the substitute of the commander, in case of death or illness.

- Of course, both SO and Nav Officer's experience would greatly impact all their calculations.

VERY true!!! The german U-Boat waffe relied more than many other Navies (Except the british, probably) in naked eye estimations for many things. Seaman's eye, as it is also called.

So far the head size has not influenced detection. There HAS to be a reason for using the AP instead of the OP, right? SUre, it must've had a vertical stadimeter, excelent for navigation, but an AOBF too? Why the different sizes of the stations then? where would you fit the mechanics?

The obs periscope had a better light admission, hence its utility for night attacks. Vertical stadimeters and AOB finders could be implemented in any periscopes, they are attached externally. (See the link below, at the end of this post)

Any change in lengths between lenses and prisms ruins the optics. Since the lenses and prisms were housed at the ends of the scope you had to line up thebottom lens to the station housing to be able to view through it.

Not true. The prism and lenses travelled a certain distance together with the scope, keeping the proportions and the ability to see even if not fully raised. In the fixed heigth attack periscope this also happened for the whole travel of the lenses.

I blame youtube for not having movies of night attacks

Most movies and pictures I have seen were FAKED periscope views. There are still certain corretc ones, though, but in those you hardly can see the reticles. Seeing diagrams of reticles in authentic scope manuals and descriptions in technical reports, you can easily notice how they don't match at all with what you see in many films/pictures.

Or simply they became "lighter" as the surrounding became dark? And for how long would they last? Is it similar to fluorescent paint that needs to "recharge" with normal light?

Yes!

Finally, here is an excellent link with information (In german) about the periscopes: http://www.uboot995.homepage.t-onlin...__zubehor.html

[nattydread]

Originally Posted by fireship4

Don't forget the TDC was a fleet boat device for storing and automatically updating target information by using your boat's movements and the predicted movements of the target, I don't know that the U-boats had an equivalent.

I understand you may all be using it to represent the targeting mechanism of whichever boat you are on though.

So right, I was dissapointed that I couldnt "build" a solution with the TDC by plugging in data I had and observing & updating them over time.

I also hated how few and little fidelity the plotting tools and time stamps were on the map for plotting targets solution.

Ever try plotting a target's course using range data, bearings and time on the SH4 map?...it never gave a useable result...at least not for me. I think Ive even used passive and active sonar bearings and ranges...still no useable results...and this was on non-zigging targets.

I'd like to make use of all tools while stalking targets...for the love of crickets, there is certainly enough time to do it while running an end around.

[karamazovnew]

Awesome reply Hitman. Wish I knew german but the pics speak for themselves. I had no idea they could also move the lenses and show the bearing inside the viewfinder. German tech is simply awesome. I have already corrected my error about the line paint. Too bad they only used it for the main reticle, i guess I wasn't compeltely in error. But then again, the AOBF makes the numbered marks redundant.

But come on you have to agree that being able to see through the Obs Scope before it comes out of the floor is not realistic . I guess we just gave the devs another tree of upgrades to implement AND the need to differenciate between the OP and AP head detectability I just love upgrades.

So I take it you don't dislike my overall idea of how the 2d/3d interface should look like?