[TEC] Using SCAF for RSRDC v502 with RSRDC v575

Does anyone know of any problems running "SCAF for RSRDC v502" with RSRDC v575 AND RFB 2.0? Has anybody tried it?

TIA

[Armistead]

I have no problem using SCAF with TMO2/RSRD, just use the correct version. I also use Maxoptics with it, both work great. Not sure if he has a version for RFB, you would have to look.

[CapnScurvy]

NoGoodLandLubber, I would not use it!!

RSRDC v375 is compatible to only Real Fleet Boat (either their 1.52 version or 2.0). Lurker_hlb3 also has a RSRDC v502 that works with only TMO v2.0. There's a reason RSRDC has a Trigger Maru version (v502) that only works with it. One (of many) problem is the ship naming is different to both mods. If the game can't figure out which particular ship the mod refers to the old CTD blue screen appears. If you're trying to mix and match a modification, you're heading for big trouble. I don't have an RFB SCAF version (used to, even SCAF was incorporated with RFB at one time) but we've had a parting of the ways. The accuracy was too much for some of the other modders (not realistic they said).

I've kept SCAF up to date with TMO and any RSRDC mod that runs with it for a simple reason. They don't monkey around with the ship configurations. Least not the ship heights and weights that effect how the ship appears on the water. The essence of SCAF is to take the ships appearance and calculate how the game reads height and correct the height to match what the game give us. The game doesn't give us a true "real world" view, so making ship heights corrected to "real world" dimensions is crazy. I've been working on an optical correction to the game that should fix this with the "Optical Targeting Assist" found HERE. Until the optics are changed, we have little hope of making "real world" dimensions work.

I read earlier this year that someone for RFB was messing around with the way a ship sits in the water just to make it "look better". Changing the "ride height" just for the sake of looks throws out any calibrated effort to have corrected mast height. I realize this is some of the efforts being made at RFB lately, to keep a player guessing on accurate measurements. But, if you use manual targeting there's a whole handful of ways to trip a player up to get an accurate assessment for a firing solution. I just don't believe that getting a "ball park" estimate to a targets range should be one of them.

On a related note:
I don't know where Webster got the ship dimensions for the J Class destroyer found in his GFO mod but it rings true to the ship parameters of any mod that thinks changing the ride height is a good thing to do.

I ran across this when I was making a SCAF compatible mod for it.




The ships weight (mass) parameter was off by several hundred pounds, changing it's ride height to almost a "decks awash" condition. I suspect in normal sea state conditions this ship won't be found in the mission it's on. It will simply sink before anyone knows it was put into the game!!

Here's how it should look.




I'm not suggesting RFB has this type of problem, this file came from GFO. But, be weary of modders that make attempts to change parameters for the sake of "looks" alone. Sometimes, nothing good comes from it.

[Robin40]

IMHO...I have a better targeting without using SCAF, although McOptics is a MUST

TMO 2.0
TMO Beta Update
RSRDC v502
RSRDC Patch1

[MaddogK]

Ahoy CapnScurvy,
I'm a bit confused about which version of SCAF suits me best- I have SHIV 1.5 with GFO 1.1 and RSRDC v 5.50. Am NOT running TMO,RFB, or any other mods but need to patch the SCAF included in websters mod to play nice with RSRDC. The docs webster included have the original SCAF doc showing ver 1.5

Ship_Centered_Accuracy_Fix 1.5 for SH4 Addon, Patched 1.5
March 2009
By CapnScurvy, Leander (Lee) Crawford

Can you offer a suggestion ?

[CapnScurvy]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

Ahoy CapnScurvy,
I'm a bit confused about which version of SCAF suits me best- I have SHIV 1.5 with GFO 1.1 and RSRDC v 5.50. Am NOT running TMO,RFB, or any other mods but need to patch the SCAF included in websters mod to play nice with RSRDC. The docs webster included have the original SCAF doc showing ver 1.5


Can you offer a suggestion ?

Much like the difference between TMO and RFB, "neither the two will meet"; I don't have an RSRDC v550 SCAF compatible version (least not one I've released). RSRDC v550 is lurkers mod set to be compatible with a stock game, no TMO, no RFB, no GFO either (although it may run nicely with it). Since I've been busy doing other things I've not kept up with making SCAF compatible to the stock SH4 RSRDC v550 mod.

I have one on my computer but I would need to look at where I left off before releasing it.

Using the SCAF for SH4 1.5 mod won't cover the changes RSRDC v550 made, so that's out. Sorry, can't help you for now.

[CapnScurvy]

Originally Posted by Robin40

IMHO...I have a better targeting without using SCAF, although McOptics is a MUST

TMO 2.0
TMO Beta Update
RSRDC v502
RSRDC Patch1

Well, that could be true!!!!!!

I admit until recently, I would have argued with you. But, in learning what the different resolutions do to the game views I'm here to tell you SCAF is as inaccurate as the stock game, depending on the resolution you use!!

For a bit of background, I asked the question "What resolution do you use?" found HERE in this post. Go ahead and take a read of why I asked the question......... I'll wait.



(Turn on the musical interlude please )



Ok, you back?

The game has a different ratio of size when using the various screen resolutions. Well to be exact, it has two. The 1280x1024 compared to all the rest!! Why in the world did this happen? Well good luck in getting an answer from the devs. They've moved on to SH V and probably took their mistakes with them.

You may ask why is this important to SCAF? Because I used the 1280x1024 resolution to make the darn thing!! So anyone who uses SCAF with a 1280x1024 screen size sees what I see. The mod is capable of rendering accurate manual found range because it was calibrated on the 1280x1024 size.

The others, not so much.

Actually, I think I wouldn't use it unless you have the resolution set to 1280x1024. I found this stock game discrepancy out when I was making my first checks of an "Optical Targeting Assist" mod I'm planning on releasing (I put a link to its WIP earlier in this thread). I've been with this game since day one, and had never heard anyone mention this little fact about the resolutions not being consistent through out. Wouldn't you know it, it's on the native resolution I use for my modding!?!

Since I know it now, I'll have two versions of the "Optical Targeting Assist", one for 1280x1024, one for the rest. It's my plan to have the new mod carry on the SCAF ship calibration of both correct height and length, with the added correction to the optical world to see things as they should. I'm not looking forward to having to make additional versions for the various "supermods" as was needed with keeping SCAF up to date whenever a newer version was spit out. But, since the games getting long in the tooth, the patches and updates made by these mods are becoming fewer and fewer. So maybe I can keep up.

[Robin40]

Originally Posted by CapnScurvy

Well, that could be true!!!!!!

I admit until recently, I would have argued with you. But, in learning what the different resolutions do to the game views I'm here to tell you SCAF is as inaccurate as the stock game, depending on the resolution you use!!

For a bit of background, I asked the question "What resolution do you use?" found HERE in this post. Go ahead and take a read of why I asked the question......... I'll wait.



(Turn on the musical interlude please )



Ok, you back?

The game has a different ratio of size when using the various screen resolutions. Well to be exact, it has two. The 1280x1024 compared to all the rest!! Why in the world did this happen? Well good luck in getting an answer from the devs. They've moved on to SH V and probably took their mistakes with them.

You may ask why is this important to SCAF? Because I used the 1280x1024 resolution to make the darn thing!! So anyone who uses SCAF with a 1280x1024 screen size sees what I see. The mod is capable of rendering accurate manual found range because it was calibrated on the 1280x1024 size.

The others, not so much.

Actually, I think I wouldn't use it unless you have the resolution set to 1280x1024. I found this stock game discrepancy out when I was making my first checks of an "Optical Targeting Assist" mod I'm planning on releasing (I put a link to its WIP earlier in this thread). I've been with this game since day one, and had never heard anyone mention this little fact about the resolutions not being consistent through out. Wouldn't you know it, it's on the native resolution I use for my modding!?!

Since I know it now, I'll have two versions of the "Optical Targeting Assist", one for 1280x1024, one for the rest. It's my plan to have the new mod carry on the SCAF ship calibration of both correct height and length, with the added correction to the optical world to see things as they should. I'm not looking forward to having to make additional versions for the various "supermods" as was needed with keeping SCAF up to date whenever a newer version was spit out. But, since the games getting long in the tooth, the patches and updates made by these mods are becoming fewer and fewer. So maybe I can keep up.

Yep...I doubted it was a matter of resolution

Mine is 1440x900

However video settings of the game don't let me use 1280x1024

Last night SCAF made me missing two lonely CA's at 1350 yds (dunno why those stupid Japs sent two lonely CA's in the Java Sea without escorts)

Without SCAF in a previous engagement I sank 2 CA's

Now the question is

Why does targeting work with stock game at a resolution of 1440x900 and SCAF doesn't?