No more GPS

[Donkey-Shot]

It would be nice if 100% accurate navigation and continuous accurate projection of own ship position on the map would be optional.

Give us a sextant! You wouldn't have to use it personaly if you're not so inclined. But you could tell your crew, say through a set of standing orders to use it at regular times.

Let the map not show an accurate postion, but a projected, approximate position from your last known position. Not having 100% accurate navigation would add another dimention to this game. A good navigation officer would realy make a difference.

It would also be nice if you, or your crew, would be able to navigate visualy using landmarks. Let's say you're near a coastline. On -any- good sea chart, there's tons of info on easily recognisable landmarks to navigate by (I should know, I used to do it). Landmarks aren't neccisarly just building, but terrain features that stand out as well.

Take a bearing of two (or more) landmarks and where the lines meet, that's where you were at time x (when you took the bearings). Could be similar to my Manual plot post. Instead of a target mark, have nave mark button. And let the crew draw the position on the map.

As with my manual plot suggestion: the more accurate your reading, the more accurate the crew can draw plot your position on the map.

[GoldenRivet]

100% agree.

there have been hard core navigation mods for past releases... probably will be one for SHV as well.

however one important thing i will point out.

many of your exploits as a u-boat commander will take place in the northern latitudes of the atlantic.

SH3 and SH4 both used "mercator worlds" which are flat projections of a round earth... so far we have seen no indication that SH5 will be any different in this regard.

this causes significant distortion of the dimensions of the surface of the playable world.

for example... Brest France and New York City are almost twice as far apart in SH3 and SH4 as they are in real life due to this Mercator issue.

for the "hard core" navigation to be considered on any accurate scale - the Devs and Ubisoft must adopt a spherical world like those found in many popular flight sims.

otherwise there would be a substantial amount of tweaking and modding to make any hard core navigation work in the game with any degree of remote accuracy.

as of this date... we have received more indication that the old Mercator world will be used in SHV than we have indications of a round world.

[Donkey-Shot]

Excelent point GoldenRivet!
Any Dev's listening in: please make the earth round!!

This hasen't anything to do with being hard core or not.
The earth simply ís round.

It would be nice touch to have to do great circle courses.
Fore anyone unfamiliar with this, it isn't halve as scary as it sounds.
Actualy, there's a very simple solution: great circle maps.
A straight line on one of those, automatically is an greatcircle course.

They could do it this way, zoom the map out far in enough to have it change to a great cicle map, do your course plotting on that for long distances. And you don't have to do any calculations what so ever. Zoom back in and you'll see the course line start to curve.

[GoldenRivet]

Donkey... i think you will find good reading here

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...light=Mercator

[The General]

I also think this is a great idea, but worry that it maybe to late for The Devs to change or add anything too drastic.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by The General

I also think this is a great idea, but worry that it maybe to late for The Devs to change or add anything too drastic.

the other worrying thing is that i have heard this will be built on the SH4 engine.

while aesthetically pleasing... the SH4 world was far from *******n' round

[Jaeger]

second very good point of donkey the devs should read and think about. these marks on map depending on your own accuracy of taken measurements would give a huge amount of immersion i think.

Some good idés but, I don't really want to go back to being a full time QM.
However, like you, I would like to see more emphasis on Nav, and a-little less automated perfection.

So, how do we achieve this, without overtaxing the devs, the simmers, and the number of objects that would have to be placed on the chart? Not an easy thing.

On a negative, with SH3 type wheather, and the constraints of when we can surface, Celestial Fixs, could be few and far between.
On a brighter side, uboats did have RDF equipment. Perhaps this can helpful?

IMO, having two Bearing Takers and a Plotter, is pushing our luck, and the knowledge base of the devs.
Perhaps, just having land within visual range can provide the only automatic Fix.
Everything else would have to be our own DR Plot, until it can be updated by some means.
(Visual, Celestial, RDF).

I think we can agree that a full fledged Sea And Anchor would be as much of a PITA in SH5, as it is for real. Just manualy driving my boats out of Lorient, instead of using Nav Points provides enough tension for me. Driving back in, the same way, during low visability provides more than enough. But, I admit, I like it.

I'm a pesamist by nature, but I'm with you.

Perhaps, being able to plot our Intended Course, without the boat automaticaly following it, and erasing it, would be a good starting point.

How good the QMOW is, should have a huge impact on the accuracey of the DR Plot.

The enlisted QMs should be manning the Navigation Slot. Not an officer.
On most, if not all, boats the Chief Quartermaster was the Navigator. The junior QM was his assistant. (The man has to sleep sometime).

For those not so familiar with naval ratings.
The Quartermasters (QM) are the guys SH3 calls Helmsman. They generaly DO NOT man the helm. That task is usualy left to a Seaman. Their main job is to keep the plot current, as in Navigation. (This is something the devs really need to fix).
Better add this too: QMOW = QuarterMaster Of the Watch.

So, the question would be, how far can we go, without crossing the line?

[nattydread]

I'd like that. With with "auto plot" position accuracy being based on the skill/profficieny level of the crew member charged with the task.

I'd like the ability to make use of landfall bearings and radar rangings to supplement position plotting too(if and when applicable)

[Ilpalazzo]

All this talk about what we want in sh5 is starting to depress me. I feel like I'm going to hate the game if the navigation is the same. The round world and realistic/plausible navigation have become absolute must haves over everything else for me.

[Pisces]

Less GPS accuracy for Navigator/QMOW, let him make a dead reckoning plot.

But at the same time let the helmsman (the guy on the wheel) keep it steady as she goes, instead of taking a nap when he reached the designated course. As it is now ownship wanders ofcourse over time due to wave action.

These are reasoably simple things to add. But I'm pretty sure the Ubisoft team want's to adhere to a feature fix policy.

[NoLine]

i agree with this, i always liked the system used in b17 mighty 8th, where the navigator could get lost

Noline

[CNA0]

Agreeing a 100%, we need a set of improuved tools to draw the intended track, to add time, speed, DR and observed fixes, and so on.
Why the pencil can only draw a cross? why not a circled cross, half a circle, and some other marks? Is it a difficult task?
A sextant on the bridge (and at scope station) not only to get a star altitude; also to measure an horizontal angle on the land.
A mark from UZO or the scope at Capt. requirement as stated in http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=156347.
and so on.
The SH2 capability to get the lat-Long coordinates of a point (or to mark a point given the lat-Long coordinates) and the great circle path from a departure point to an arriving point.
And an easy mode to draw landmarks (mountain peaks, lihthouses, and so on) on the maps.
For the attack plot, we already have http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=158098

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CNA0

Agreeing a 100%, we need a set of improuved tools to draw the intended track, to add time, speed, DR and observed fixes, and so on.
Why the pencil can only draw a cross? why not a circled cross, half a circle, and some other marks? Is it a difficult task?
A sextant on the bridge (and at scope station) not only to get a star altitude; also to measure an horizontal angle on the land.

This has all been discussed many times before. I don't say it shouldn't be discussed again - it should. I just wanted to point out that there should also be an 'in-between' option.

1) Hard ('Realsitic'): Full navigation requiring sextant and compass, just as in real life.

2) Medium (My 'In-between'): The sub is shown on the map, and navigation is left up to the 'Navigator', but reliability depends on his skill level and whether stars, sun and land are visible for shooting, with the possibility of the sub marker being more and more off course the longer you go without a sighting.

3) Easy: Pretty much what we have now, optional for those who don't want to worry about it.

[karamazovnew]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

1) Hard ('Realsitic'): Full navigation requiring sextant and compass, just as in real life.

Realistic navigation doesn't imply just a sextant and the crew keeping a fixed course. To go from one point on the globe (A Latitude and B Longitude) to another (C Longitude and D Longitude) requires spherical trigonometry, not only to find the course you need to take (and update) but also the length of the trip. While this can be a LOT of fun in a game, it does require 2 things:
1. Spherical World with real regional maps and perfect ground mesh
2. Tools and order system for the crew.

Unfortunately Ubisoft has already stated that:

We investigated other projections as well, using a globe or specific maps of several locations (like they did in reality) but the drawbacks in terms of usability, freedom and understanding were too big to consider them further. Also, there is a number of technical problems associated to other geographical projections, which we chose not to tackle for now.

This was a huge mistake, because SH5 would've been the first naval game to allow real navigation which, combined with currents and tides would've been in itself is more challenging and rewarding than simply sinking ships. Plus it would've given the attack map a reason to exist, because of it's simplicity due to the small distances traveled during an attack.

The number 2 option is the best we can hope for, but just in case they give us a sextant and allow us to play with it, I want to point that just a minor change needs to be made to the map for it to work and turn number 2 into a pseudo number 1. There should be 3 types of sub markers that you (or the navigator) should place on the map:
1. Current "accurate" position of the sub. Available when you use the sextant or when the navigator can use it. If you ask him to place it on the map it should take a few minutes for him to do it. If you ask for a course change, the course should start from this position.
2. As the sub moves along the course, a dead reckoning estimated sub marker that updates along the course every 10 minutes or when you ask the navigator (should only take around 30 seconds for him to place it). Every time he takes another accurate position reading, he would automatically place icon the map and update the course to correct any errors.
3. A layer of the old "accurate" markers with a connecting line between them or "bread crumbs" as some call them.

Apart from that, the only difference between nr.2 and this pseudo nr.1 would be that you could tell the the navigator to rest and only allow you to take the precise markings (the estimated ones should still be up to him to allow the sub to change course at waypoints automatically), so it could be switched in-game without any loss of difficulty percentage.

The skill of the navigator is not nearly that important. Sextant readings are very well documented and it's hard to mess them up. But his skill would be incredibly important when the sub makes small maneuvers during attacks. On long trips, the helmsman's skill would be adamant to keeping a course (altough without wind factor and currents I guess his errors need to be "forced").