TMO vs RFB

[IronPerch]

Hi, my first post... (hihihihi) ...fine.

First of all, a HUGE thanks for everyone who has spend their time by modding the SH4 and making it what it shoud be. With mods it's a great game that has made me to read historical books and loose my sleep... etc, you know what i mean.

Anyway i have been playing with the different kind of mods and thus i'm quite satisfied with the current setup (NSM+PE+EnvironmentalCombo+RFB+RSRD all v1.5), i have been wondering a few things:

1. What are the main differences between the supermods TMO+RFB if the user interface is not counted? I like the realism, manual charting etc. So which one is for me?

2. Is the NSM a part of RFB nowadays?

3. How "realistic" are the propeller sounds (sonar) on RFB? E.g. is it possible to estimate speed of the target by sonar?

4. I like the audiocandy, any recommendations for sound mod?

[Fish40]

Hi, and welcome!. I use RFB myself. Traditionaly, RFB has and still is the mod for the most realism. As far as NSM goes, I don't think a 1.5 version was ever developed yet, so if you're useing v1.5 of the game, there may be some problems with NSM.

As for sound, I believe that mixed in with the stock prop. sounds, is indeed recorded actual ship prop sounds. Don't know about accurately calculating speed from counting revs though. There are some sound mods available (use the search function on the forum), but to be honest with you the sounds that were done for RFB are all I need. Of corse that's just MO.

[Fincuan]

TMO wins by a fair margin:
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...=TMO&word2=RFB

[IronPerch]

Originally Posted by Fish40

Hi, and welcome!. I use RFB myself. Traditionaly, RFB has and still is the mod for the most realism. As far as NSM goes, I don't think a 1.5 version was ever developed yet, so if you're useing v1.5 of the game, there may be some problems with NSM.

I have been runnign NSM with RFB 1.5 without any problems so far and i remember reading that the NSM type of physics is going to be included in the next "release" of RFB?

[banjo]

The thing to do is play each for a while and decide which you want to stick with. Both are easily installed/uninstalled using JSGME. Both are excellent mods--one is not better than the other--they model certain things differently. RFB is considered to be more hardcore realistic and TMO is considered to be balanced more for realism vs gameplay. However, as each is updated it behooves one to try each update.

[DeepIron]

Originally Posted by IronPerch

I have been runnign NSM with RFB 1.5 without any problems so far and i remember reading that the NSM type of physics is going to be included in the next "release" of RFB?

Yep. Sinking physics is being completely reworked from scratch for the next evolution of RFB. There's a tremendous amount of work and testing going into this, (along with other aspects of RFB as well) so be prepared for some very realistic torpedo damage and sinkings!

BTW, you can use NSM with RFB but it's not totally compatible, but no show stoppers either. Just be sure to load NSM *before* RFB...

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by IronPerch

3. How "realistic" are the propeller sounds (sonar) on RFB? E.g. is it possible to estimate speed of the target by sonar?

The sonar sounds you hear in RFB were taken from JP-1 sonar training records made during the war. JP-1 was the standard listening gear of American submarines for the better part of the war. However, since these are standard WAVE files, you really can't judge a target's speed by them, though you can get a general idea if the target is moving fast or slow.

[IronPerch]

Originally Posted by LukeFF

The sonar sounds you hear in RFB were taken from JP-1 sonar training records made during the war. JP-1 was the standard listening gear of American submarines for the better part of the war. However, since these are standard WAVE files, you really can't judge a target's speed by them, though you can get a general idea if the target is moving fast or slow.

ok, i was wondering does the game-engine alter the play speed of wave files in relation to targets speed .

Can you tell me what are the numerical speed estimates for slow (= 6 knots?), moderate (= 9 knots?) and fast (> 9 knots?) speed reporst in RFB?

Yet another RFB issue... About the deck gun loading time. Was it really so slow in real life after the initial gun setup? According to my artillery experiences, when you are in firing positions the loading doesn't take so much time if you have ammo near by?

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by IronPerch

ok, i was wondering does the game-engine alter the play speed of wave files in relation to targets speed .

Yes, it does.

Can you tell me what are the numerical speed estimates for slow (= 6 knots?), moderate (= 9 knots?) and fast (> 9 knots?) speed reporst in RFB?

They are the same as in stock. Wish I could tell you which file stores that information, but I can't recall at the moment.

Yet another RFB issue... About the deck gun loading time. Was it really so slow in real life after the initial gun setup? According to my artillery experiences, when you are in firing positons the loading doesn't take so mucht time if you have ammo near by?

The loading times are averages that factor in things the game doesn't simulate (roll and pitch of the boat, weather conditions, etc.). Basically, when left to the AI, the gun will fire as soon as a shell is loaded, without taking into account the elevation of the gun. An interrogation report of a German U-boat prisoner stated the max firing rate of the 105mm deck gun was 6 rounds per minute, in ideal conditions (i.e., very calm seas, well-rested crew, etc.). Three rounds per minute was more the norm.

Otherwise, I suggest you do a search of posts by Beery in this forum and in the SH3 mods forum. I'll just say here that this issue has been discussed quite a bit in the past.

[IronPerch]

Ok, thanks guys and keep up the good work .

[Rockin Robbins]

Actually it's pretty amazing. The guiding principles of RFB and TMO are completely opposed.

Trigger Maru Overhauled
TMO came from Ducimus' migration from SH3 and his observation that challenges were few in his new game. So, for his own use, he developed Trigger Maru to increase the difficulty of the game. He did NOT stick with objective reality when he did so. ASW capabilities of Japanese escorts were ratcheted up to frankly unrealistic levels. They can find you and depth charge you with deadly accuracy without pinging sometimes. They are VERY aggressive. If you run into an elite crew on a Japanese escort you are dead unless you kill him. For that reason, there is only one elite crew in Trigger Maru: Bungo Pete.

The nav map was nerfed to reflect more accurately the info that would really be developed by the plotting crew for the captain. Ship silhouettes are gone, replaced by a position dot, because the radar did not tell you what kind of ship you had detected. Friend/foe/neutral colors are gone for the same reasons. Boats no longer have velocity vector tails that tell you without any analysis on your part what their course is. And the "x" for the projected impact point in the attack screen is gone. Although done for the purpose of increasing difficulty, these changes had an effect that possibly wasn't intended. Running SH4 with map updates on is now more realistic than leaving map updates off, especially if your sub has radar.

And what the heck is realism anyway? Tater observed that in Trigger Maru, unrealistic enemy behavior results in extremely realistic player behavior. You are properly operating in fear for your life. Wow! How authentic! Therefore you do not take stupid chances. You cannot just duck below the thermal layer, put it on silent running and go eat lunch. You will be dead when you return. When being depth charged, you MUST evade. They will kill you. Be afraid. Very afraid. It's wonderful

RFB
Real Fleet Boat was originated from the standpoint of reading patrol reports and attempting to reproduce the results reflected therein with accuracy, who cares about gameplay glitter. After war statistics said that only one of 20 boats were sunk. Therefore depth charges were nerfed to the point that you had a 95% chance of living through your career. Enemy AI was left alone. Attack map and nav map were left alone. Based on cruise reports from WWII, the deck gun was altered so its firing rate reflected the rates from actual combat use, not a test stand on terra firma. People had lots of fun fighting over that one, especially land lubber artillery experts. Then the effectiveness of deck gun shells was nerfed. If cruise reports said it took 85 shells to sink a small freighter, that's what RFB takes. You'll spend the greater part of an hour to sink one and you'll be just waiting to be plastered by a plane all that time. Welcome to reality.

The last version of RFB I played was Beery's last one. I switched to TMO during the uncertainty time and after SH4 went to patch 1.4 and RFB was no longer compatible enough. So I can't comment on later versions. I do know that with Beery's version I never had to go deep. I could stay at periscope depth and watch myself being depth charged. If they hit me it wasn't fatal. I just charged through the screen into the merchies and wrecked havoc. It didn't matter if I were detected or not.

As soon as I saw a ship or detected it on radar, I just went to my nav map. If it was green it was friendly, red it was enemy. The silhouette told me the general ship type so I knew speed capability, whether it was merchant or warship. I could immediately plot the course from the velocity vector without any investigation on my own part.

I'll leave it there as RFB has a lot of changes under Swdw's leadership and I'm in no position to comment on them. Much may have changed. I'll have to let one of the RFB team describe their mod better.

My own progression
Although I agreed with Beery's addiction to reality and faithfulness to it, I came to the realization that the final result wasn't realistic. I was Rambo, invulnerable enough not to fear, with superhuman shooting ability because of my stock nav plot. I was ready to change to a Trigger Maru I was prepared to hate because of its lack of realism.

My first cruise was brutal. I had Superman in those escorts charging me through the fog without pinging me first and dropping deadly accurate depth charges. I hopped right into the TM forum and blasted Ducimus, who set me straight with the simple observation of "who said TM was realistic?" In otherwords "get with the program." He also pointed out that in my account of what I did I had written a textbook on proper evasion tactics. And I realized suddenly that I had learned more in one test mission from hell than all the previous months I had played Silent Hunter 4. Suddenly I was not frustrated that I hadn't sunk the merchies. I was overjoyed that I had survived. And the thought hit me: THAT is real realism.

In its later incarnations, TMO has become more and more a realism mod. Ducimus has been influenced by the evil RFB crew (helped them even) and incorporated many realistic details into TMO: evil enemy aircraft that can depth charge you at periscope depth (also part of RFB if I recall correctly). Properly nerfed deck gun so you realize why they no longer appear on any submarines. They were a lousy idea that never worked, unless you count foolishly courting death as a good idea.

I think in the end, these two mods, originated for very different goals have converged to the point that it would be difficult even to say which is more realistic than the other. About the only thing you might say now is that TMO is definitely more challenging. And what is YOUR definition of reality.

Is it reality of enemy behavior and reality of results? Then RFB is your mod.

Is is reality found in YOUR behavior and attitude? Is fear part of reality in war that you want to experience? Are you willing to have your career without the assurance that you will probably survive all the way to the end of the war? Look at TMO then.

Disclaimer
I'm not an RFB expert any more. I have simplified the changes that TMO has made in the game (and RFB too) to convey my own subjective impressions of both. I can be wrong sometimes, and this comparison is very subjective. Even if I'm right, you might come to a different observation that is equally right. Especially the RFB guys should come and present their case better than I can. If Ducimus were here he could do the same. I'm not the best to do this but I'm what you got.:rotfl:

[Mush Martin]

Ive played both but I by and large am and RFB player
both are excellent mods though.&

[IronPerch]

Thanks for the comments i was looking for Capt. Robins!

I have spend most of my game time also with the TMO and i installed it due to forum/web references it had. Anyway round week ago i somehow messed my mod setup and i decided to reinstall everything and this time with RFB just to give it a try. I tested it with the torpedo training mission and i was sunk by a aircraft during the first minutes... in a training mission! One should watch his periscope behaviour... Hopefully it wasn't a bug.

It seems that there has been progress since your RFB trials, because the map information you spoke about is gone and it's quite similar to TMO (black dot, no trails...) also the whole attack map is gone so you can't optimize or fine tune your firing solution with it. I also like the control buttons and functions (+ compass rose etc) and the idea that you have to be in certain place (e.g. conning tower) to activate certain features. Also moving the camera inside the ship works better than in TMO (?). It also seems to run with the NSM wihout problems and the early war torpedo behaviour modelling makes you plan your attacs more carefully.

About the realism, for me it also the "fear" aspect that gives me shivers and makes the game worth of playing. Anyway after installing RFB i have been depth charged only once (one has to sleep and work sometimes...) and i managed to escape quite easilly (but i hope that was because i was between two convoys (!) crossing each others lines and i dove under the one i didn't attact), so i can't tell much about the ai behaviour. Hopefully it is not what you told me.

So, RFB so far so good, but i miss TMO's loading screens...

... the sound mod i spoke earlier... i decided to build my own mix.

[tigone]

Rockin Robbins wrote:

> The guiding principles of RFB and TMO are completely opposed. . . .

Thanks for a really helpful discussion of the two mods. I'm new to SH4, and opted for TMO to start, but you've reinforced my sense that I really must try RFB at some point as well. After having started several careers in TMO -- with exactly one patrol completed -- I can say with little hesitation that playing TMO with a "dead is dead" rule is, well an uphill climb.

But the observation that unrealistic enemy behavior prompts highly realistic player behavior is a critical one. You also noted, "and what is YOUR definition of reality?" It may be worth sharing a short anecdote that, I think, illustrates the difference between accuracy and realsim very, very well.

Years ago, I read an interview with the guy who designed the sets for the film The Hunt for Red October. The Navy had given him and his team unprecedented access to a 688 boat to take photos, measurements, etc., except for a few, highly-classified pieces of equipment. But the set designer discovered that, apart from a few high-tech gizmos, the inside of a modern U.S. submarine doesn't look hugely different than a World War II model. So instead of recreating U.S.S. Dallas in exact detail as it actually is, he made a number of small changes to conform to peoples' expectations of what it's like. And in keeping with the good guys v. bad guys theme, he fitted the interior sets with soft, almost pastel lighting, and added lots of small, informal props and touches that added to the personal, almost familial feel of the boat on screen. He was less recreating the actual physical reality of the boat (accuracy) than using that as a basis to create something that would "feel right" to the viewer (realism). In the article he said something to the effect that, it doesn't matter onscreen if something, in fact, is accruate; if it doesn't meet the audiences' expectations at least to some degree, it's going to be perceived as inaccurate.

Similarly with the Red October sets -- no one had any idea what the inside of a Typhoon looked like, so the set designer very consciously and intentionally made it look like a submarine Death Star: all black and chrome, with harsh lighting and lots of red glowing bits. Even the Soviet uniforms are suggestive -- all formal uniforms with brass buttons and high collars, in contrast to the shirtsleeve khakis on Dallas. The contrast between the two boats is neither subtle nor accidental.

But back to gaming, because I think this same principle applies here as it does in movies. Accuracy is objective; either the height of this ship's mast in the game is correct or it's not. Realism, though -- the feel, the affective domain in which the game connects with the player -- is much more subjective, and arguably harder to attain. While both accuracy and realism are criticial in an historical game like SH4, the realism factor remains even when there's no real-life counterpart to measure accuracy by (think of almost any science fiction game title). It's good to see that mod designers for SH4 really seem to understand this, and understand that there's more than one approach to attaining both accuracy and realism.

[Mush Martin]

Originally Posted by IronPerch

Thanks for the comments i was looking for Capt. Robins!

I have spend most of my game time also with the TMO and i installed it due to forum/web references it had. Anyway round week ago i somehow messed my mod setup and i decided to reinstall everything and this time with RFB just to give it a try. I tested it with the torpedo training mission and i was sunk by a aircraft during the first minutes... in a training mission! One should watch his periscope behaviour... Hopefully it wasn't a bug.

It seems that there has been progress since your RFB trials, because the map information you spoke about is gone and it's quite similar to TMO (black dot, no trails...) also the whole attack map is gone so you can't optimize or fine tune your firing solution with it. I also like the control buttons and functions (+ compass rose etc) and the idea that you have to be in certain place (e.g. conning tower) to activate certain features. Also moving the camera inside the ship works better than in TMO (?). It also seems to run with the NSM wihout problems and the early war torpedo behaviour modelling makes you plan your attacs more carefully.

About the realism, for me it also the "fear" aspect that gives me shivers and makes the game worth of playing. Anyway after installing RFB i have been depth charged only once (one has to sleep and work sometimes...) and i managed to escape quite easilly (but i hope that was because i was between two convoys (!) crossing each others lines and i dove under the one i didn't attact), so i can't tell much about the ai behaviour. Hopefully it is not what you told me.

So, RFB so far so good, but i miss TMO's loading screens...

... the sound mod i spoke earlier... i decided to build my own mix.

uhm I must be doing something wrong because my RFB still has an
attack map and I refine solutions with it constantly???????????