RFB, Accurate Manual Targeting and Realism

[CapnScurvy]

I know a bit about Mast Heights, Manual Targeting, the relationship between the Stadimeter reading and the Position Keeper, and what results one gets with a poor firing solution (SCAF). May I say, with some of RFB 1.52's mast heights, you couldn't hit a bull's behind with a base fiddle!!! OK, so maybe you could if you were 600 yards from target; the torpedo's don't arm themselves before 400 yards!!

I've spent a lot of time testing, calibrating, retesting, finding manual range using the stadimeter, to know the stock mast heights are on average 25-35% incorrect. Enough so that one meter (the internal game files are all in meters) on average, will produce a little less than 50 yards of difference for a manual targeting solution compared to an automatically found one. This is with the range being taken at a standard 1200 to 1300 yard distance, and with an average mast height of 19-23 meters.

If you use the auto targeting feature you can stop reading now. The relationship of correct range finding with auto targeting compared to manual targeting is like day and night. The devs developed auto targeting to keep accurate track of targets for you. In this regard they did it very well. You can still screw up, but most of the hard work is done for you. In auto targeting the game doesn't use the mast heights to find range but rather object coordinates to find the correct relationship's between one another. The game keeps track of hundreds of objects, so finding the distance between just two is a piece of cake.

In manual targeting the player makes the inputs for a firing solution. The one I'm most concerned about is mast heights since this one figure is out of the players control (it is placed in the game through the ships .cfg files), and yet it makes part of the equation for manually finding accurate range when doing it yourself. The game crunches the numbers for you, but the solution is only as good as the input figures you use. So let's look at some of these mast height figures from RFB compared to stock; compared to what they would be if you wanted accurate range finding. I'm only going to list a few.

German Lrg Tanker using the tallest mast
RFB=28.0416 meters tall
Stock=29.6
Accurate=24.2

T3 Tanker (for those that plan to play the German side, more to come below)
RFB=28.956
Stock=29.6
Accurate=25.5

Medium Old Composite Freighter
RFB=27.432
Stock=29.3
Accurate=29.2

BUT here's where the differences really don't add up (edited note: these RFB figures are for Warship funnel heights, the other's are for mast heights. My mistake, read the post further down for comparing apples to apples)

Asashio DD
RFB=12.192
Stock=27.0
Accurate=27.1

Minekaze DD
RFB=10.2108
Stock=21.0
Accurate=21.75

Yamato BB
RFB=27.432
Stock=44.0
Accurate=42.5

Sub Chaser
RFB=7.62
Stock=18.0
Accurate=17.9

Lrg MineLayer
RFB=13.716
Stock=21.0
Accurate=28.56

And for those using the Allied ships for targets (edited note: again the RFB figures are for funnel heights, the others are showing mast heights. My mistake.

River DE
RFB=11.2776
Stock=19.5
Accurate=25.5

Fletcher DD
RFB=14.3256
Stock=27.8
Accurate=27.8

Brooklyn CL
RFB=20.4216
Stock=31.7
Accurate=32.4

Colorado BB
RFB=21.6408
Stock=42.2
Accurate=43.6

OK, that's enough for now. The point is if you plan to use RFB and manual targeting you had better get close enough to see the whites of their eyes or your going to be disappointed in the results. For some, this is "realism" as it's intended to be. I don't agree. This intentionally bends the muzzle of the gun and tells you for the sake of realism, to use it as is. This is like the old Don Knots movie playing his role as sheriff in the old west. He couldn't hit a thing if his life depended on it. In real life, if a sub Captain was issued the same weapon he would have corrected it because his "real life" and those of his crew depended on it.

This is a game, meant for entertainment, not frustration. You want frustration, chances are you can find plenty of it in your own "real life". To model the inability to accurately find range does not create realism, it creates frustration and doubt in your make believe abilities to simulate a sub Captain. If this was all that was found in "real life" during WWII we would have never won the war.

RFB creates "realism" by tweaking AI sensors, and ship physics; and in this case the ship mast heights that make a solution for firing. The efforts can be better served by removing the time compression from the game if that's what RFB is all about. We could spend an evening heading West and after 3 hours still look over our right shoulder to see Pearl.

[banjo]

I'm not currently using RFB, but didn't I see a mod for that mod concerning mast heights and the manual?

[Donner]

Originally Posted by banjo

I'm not currently using RFB, but didn't I see a mod for that mod concerning mast heights and the manual?

You are correct.

From RFB 1.52 User's Manual (page 39):

Determining the Correct Distance Measure Reference Point

In order to reduce confusion while remaining true to the data presented in the ONI manuals, the following reference points are used for each class of ship. Note that one can also find this data when moving the mouse cursor over the check box in the recognition manual:

• Merchant ships: top of the tallest mast
• Aircraft Carriers and Aircraft Transports: flight deck
• All Other Warships: top of the tallest funnel

[jazzabilly]

That's why I have a post-it note slapped to my computer monitor that reads:

Merch's: top of the tallest mast
w/ships: top of the tallest funnel
cv's/cve's: flight deck.

I'm hitting 'em, I just ain't sinkin' em....working on selective targeting skills....

[Paul Roberts]

So, just to be clear: for warships, the "mast height" listed in the Recognition Manual is not really the height of the mast, but rather a number worked out so that placing the Stad line on the tallest funnel will calculate the target's correct range?

[Donner]

Originally Posted by Paul Roberts

So, just to be clear: for warships, the "mast height" listed in the Recognition Manual is not really the height of the mast, but rather a number worked out so that placing the Stad line on the tallest funnel will calculate the target's correct range?

Correct. Some of the info is off in the RFB manual by design. I know of at least one warship in particular that doesn't follow the 'distance reference point' outline above. But by using sonar and/or radar, you can establish the proper reference point for stadimeter range.

I know it works because I have bagged this particular ship several times!

[Paul Roberts]

Originally Posted by jazzabilly

That's why I have a post-it note slapped to my computer monitor that reads:

Merch's: top of the tallest mast
w/ships: top of the tallest funnel
cv's/cve's: flight deck.

I'm hitting 'em, I just ain't sinkin' em....working on selective targeting skills....

I think RFB is set up so that precisely this reminder pops up when you hover the mouse over the Recognition Manual check box.

[Rockin Robbins]

If even CapnScurvy is getting confused about how RFB works, maybe it would be better to rethink the whole process. I wonder if it's not just too confusing to have many different height references depending on what kind of target. Why not make the top of the highest stack standard for all?

On the other hand, in real life they checked out the ONI manual and used the reference of their choice. The reason we are disposed toward the mast height is that the taller the reference point the more accurate the range measurement. If we accurately know the real height of the mast...

[CapnScurvy]

So here are some Warships funnel heights. Stock figures are removed since it doesn't offer anything other than the tallest mast height.

Asashio DD
RFB=12.192 at funnel
Accurate=11.5

Minekaze DD
RFB=10.2108
Accurate=11.2

Kuma CL
RFB=14.6304
Accurate=17.4

Fubuki DD
RFB=14.0208
Accurate=13.2

Shiratsuyu DD
RFB=13.1064
Accurate=9.6

Deck Heights

Taiyo CVE
RFB=13.716 at deck
Accurate=15.29

Casablanca CVE
RFB=12.4968
Accurate=13.9

Bougue CVE
RFB=16.4592
Accurate=11.3

As I've stated before, at an average distance of 1200 yards, 1 meter difference in height will produce about 50 yards difference in range. The further away you are the greater the inaccuracy. This occurs no matter where you place the Stadimeter as long as it relates to the correct spot the Ship_Name.cfg mast height figure is calculated for.

Originally Posted by Paul Roberts

So, just to be clear: for warships, the "mast height" listed in the Recognition Manual is not really the height of the mast, but rather a number worked out so that placing the Stad line on the tallest funnel will calculate the target's correct range?

Yes, that's right. As long as the "mast height" figure in the "ship_name.cfg" file relates to a spot on the ship that is calculated for accuracy the position that you place the Stadimeter must use that spot for accurate range finding. Unfortunately, the game only recognizes one spot.

[Bilge_Rat]

I found this thread while searching for something else, but while relooking at RFB 2, I still have problem with this whole issue.

When I play the "torpedo tutorial" in RFB 2.0, the recognition manual and the 1.52 manual tells me to use the funnel height to determine the range of a heavy warship. If I use that standard, the range to the CA Mogami is way off, around 2700 yds instead of around 1500 yds actual.

On the other hand, if I use the top of the tallest mast, the range is always within 10% of the actual range.

So what is the proper method, always use tallest mast or do we have to guess with each ship?

[TorpX]

My understanding, is that the tallest funnel is the proper point for warships. But, as CapnScurvy says, the numbers are dubious. I encountered a Chitose seaplane tender, and I didn't know if the reference pt. should be the flight deck (for aircraft carriers), or tallest funnel (other warships).