Shoho needs fixing. SCAF

[Armistead]

Not sure if it's stock, TMO or RSRD, but the Shoho has it's mast turned down in the game and no where will a stad measurement work.

It may have fixed with a later version of SCAF if one exist, but the Shoho in game looks like the Ryuho with no mast. The Shoho in the ID has mast, just not in game.

[CapnScurvy]

Just happen to be browsing and read your thread. To answer your question it's not a stock issue, Stock doesn't have the Shoho CV. Neither does TMO, (I'm assuming you're referring to TMO_2).

RSRDC does (the 502 version that's compatible with TMO of any version).

Here's a couple of in-game images of the carrier.









As you can see there's no mast above the flight deck.

With the SCAF version compatible to RSRDC_502 the reference point for Stadimeter use is the flight deck at 15.1 meters high. RSRDC has the mast height at 44 meters tall. That's quite a difference, and completely useless for figuring manual found range.

Thanks for thinking about SCAF as a tool for correcting reference point heights (no matter where or what they may be). I admit I do not have a version of SCAF that's compatible to the latest TMO_2 (I've just downloaded it and will have a version soon). There may be little in the way of changes I'll need to do between the TMO_1.9 and TMO_2, I'll just have to see.

Duci doesn't usually get into changing ship ride heights just for the sake of appearance like RFB has (this makes mast height measurements really screwed up, especially if you use the idea that the original ship identification manuals should be used in the game for mast height reference).

[Armistead]

Well maybe it can be fixed one day or switched out. I seem to run into it at least 4 times per career, twice go looking for it where it's supposed to be. You can set up a 90 degree on it, but if you're caught, zigs and speed changes would be nice to be able to stad it. I pinged it last time and guessed speed after the warship already heard me and got lucky. However the first time I missed it, didn't take long to figure no measurement point. The correct point seems to be where the mast would be.

[CapnScurvy]

Yep, with manual targeting sonar readings will give you an accurate range. It's just not the best option for a prized warship with escorts lurking about. They seem to come calling in a trot with your first ping.

What I don't understand is why ship builders don't make an effort to give the player a reasonable estimate of height for the reference point for manual targeting. Although there is more than one way to estimate range (stadimeter, telemeter scope marks, sonar etc.) having bogus height measurement's just adds frustration to a player who already is overwhelmed with the tasks of manual targeting. Oh sure, the first thing they'll say is the "fog of war" is what my intent was, or this is "realism" as it should be. Well, "realism" is this very conversation (thread). A Captain goes out on patrol and encounters a ship that he knows his ID manual measurements are wrong. His torps miss badly and he gets away from the escorts by the skin of his teeth. When/if he gets back to base, his first trip to the "Officers Club" is to tell anyone he runs into, "don't use the ID manual measurements". "Try these figures instead" he will say, and any Captain still able to hold a pencil will write down the corrected measurements and change "his" ID manual, ready for the "next time". Now THAT'S realism!!

Getting back to finding manual range and particularly the telemeter scope marks. I've been working on a project to make them work as intended, giving accurate measurements at various zoom settings. Let's just say what stock has is "off" as much as the height figures of the Shoho. It's little wonder why no one uses the telemeter scale for anything but give the scope view some sense of legitimacy. As they are now, their just for "show".

Anyway, I did look at TMO 2.0 and the compatibility of SCAF with it, plus RSRDC v502. It should be an easy one. I just like to check out the "pairings" before releasing.

[tater]

Great, except that no other captain would have accurate numbers for the other guy to pencil in.

If the ONI numbers were accurate, they'd hit, if they were inaccurate, the skipper would have to see the listed height, and decide to guestimate himself. I'd say for warships use the ONI numbers as long as the actual SH4 ship model is accurate to reality. So if the RL ship was 90 feet at the mast, and ONI said 75, then use 75', and hard cheese for the skipper. If the SH4 model is off by 15% in height, then keep the relative error of ONI vs reality.

In the case of merchants, it would be FAR more variable since many had masts changed, and the height was entirely dependent on how they were loaded. +-2-3 meters would be doing a great job, frankly.

[CapnScurvy]

Tater, I agree if a Captain missed his target he'd likely not have a clue as to what variable caused a miss fire (Speed, AoB, too rough a sea to get an accurate reading on range, ONI figures etc.). If he hit though, I'd guess he had a log that showed what action he took to achieve his hit. If his ONI measurement was thrown out the open hatch and he used a questimate for height I would think he'd be quite happy to share his findings with whoever he could.

And yes, +/- a few meters would be doing a stellar job for accuracy. I consider a SCAF measurement of 10 meters +/- to be dead on. Why? Because the slightest twitch of the mouse can throw a Stadimeter reading off by 20+ meters at distances just beyond 1000 meters. Bulls eye accuracy is not attained by SCAF. Throw in moving targets, rough seas, poor visibility and anything goes. What SCAF does is give you a chance to hit a target with a reference height measurement that's in the ballpark. Like the Shoho, a 15 meter flight deck beats a 44 meter non existent mast every time.

======


Since I'm on the subject, I've released a compatible SCAF edition for TMO 2.0; an edition compatible to RSRDC v502 (which is compatible with TMO 2.0); and a stand alone version of MaxOptics IV for TMO_2. The two SCAF editions have a separate download of the MaxOptics IV included. They can be found in the SubSim "Downloads" section of this forum.


======

[tater]

Yeah, except in the case of Shoho, ONI has no heights listed AT ALL. None. ONI lists a probable Zuiho class saying she's 660' long, 15,000 tons (followed by a "?") and 25 knots (also with a "?")

That's all the infor you get, plus a tiny silhouette. No heights, nothing. Oh, and the silhouette has a bridge, so they'd have to ID her as something else, lol.

MOST CV/CVE/CVL in ONI have 45' flight decks. That's about right for all of them, actually.

[Wilcke]

Capn,

Thanks for the SCAF update! Well done, and well thought out. The stadimeter is the biggest problem with SH4 as when you scroll that mouse wheel one pixel up or down and your 'off' especially beyond 1000 yards. I am always dubious of my solutions based on the stadimeter, even when triple checking and confirming. Plus, in the heat of battle, rough seas and high target speeds the thing is about useless and one just has to 'best guess' and go for broke.

[CapnScurvy]

Hi Wilcke, been a long time talking to you!!

Yes, the Stadimeter is the dullest tool in the shed when it comes to manual targeting! Up close you "might" get it right on. Further away and it's anyone's guess. The sonar of course works well but, escorts seem to like the signal.

I wish there were a way to set the parameters for the Stadimeter but I can't find them. The 'ole excuse, "must be hard coded". That's why I have the MaxOptics IV mod included with the SCAF download. The increase in the magnification we've gotten use to from the stock settings, DO help in making a Stadimeter reading.

I mentioned earlier I'm looking at the scope telemeter marks for height and length measurements. The optical settings to obtain the correct measurement is very close to what the MaxOptics uses. I'm surprised, but think the figures are very close. I'll be putting the ship length measurements onto the Recognition Manual and my final plan is to incorporate a tool to help you find correct AoB from the difference between an abeam ship measurement and one that's at an angle. Just getting it all together takes time.