VampireNightVision Bugfix

[Kaleun Cook]

Why is it so difficult for some of you to just exchanges opinions and facts in a calm way? It's not like the future of the world depends on the correct answers to the questions here...

Had to get that off my chest first. What I wanted to post originally was: There seems to have been a small misunderstanding about Makman's GUI. It does not create pitch-black nights per se. On my installation during the last patrols the night became pitch-black only if the sky was very cloudy.

[Jaeger]

i follow this thread for month now and the tone never was this aggressive it is now. please calm down, i think the input given here is very usable. remember, our goal is equal: we want to have the best results concerning realism. the mod is adjustable so this discussion will help the gamers to adjust it the way they think it is realistic (whatever it is). For me, the last posts show that absolut black nights are unrealistic and the range also is shorter at night, compared to daytime. the question we can discuss (and everybody can adjust in the mod for himself) is: what is a good value for this in the mod?

[Hitman]

Ehmm yes, some replies could certainly wellcome a bit less of assertiveness, but the discussion itself is well backed up and at high level, so I hope it can be continued.

Me, I just want to say three things:

a) I have readed several times that WW2 submariners (German and US) clearly stated seeing masts over the horizon. I have never myself figured out, while standing on a beach or at sea, how the hell they managed to see such a thin line in the horizon, as Kafka BC says. There must be a reason for this, though damn me if I can figure out which one.

b) Pitch black nights must be something exceptional, with covered skies precluding even star light. Otherwise, almost none of the WW2 might surface action can be explained. There is a chance for the uboats to see ships silhouetted against the horizon, or they would not be able to attack. And they not only were, they actually seeked that situation and rarely missed their shots!

c) VERY important:

Scaling things down to the 16/20km SH3 world the whole thing is probably NOT a good idea. Why? because we are not scaling down our uboat, its turning circle, the torpedo turning circles and arming distances, the sonar, radar, etc. and as such we are screwing the whole tactical game. We will never be able to employ realistic tactics with capped down sensors in a world that otherwise keeps its proportions. To be honest, we should probably allow the crew to see up to 40 km in daytime, even if we don't see a ship rendered on screen until much closer. It is bad enough not to have other uboats actively scouting the sea, to even let our vision radius decrease so much over the real life figures. Smoke could be seen at 40 kms, so our crew should be able to see that, and you as captain would only start making true tactical decissions when your are 20 kms or less close to the enemy -which is also what you can effectively see in the game.

[Jimbuna]

I agree with Hitman entirely but my spider senses are starting to tingle and I'm getting this uneasy feeling based on posting patterns and rhetoric.

The bad post reports are also something we could do without...so please debate but do so without resorting to terminology you would not welcome being presented toward oneself.

None of us is as clever as all of us.

[makman94]

come on Kafka...relax !
i am not a 'boy' for you (only my girl is calling me like this with a ....meaning) and i bet that if i called you the same way ...you will ,also, don't like it ! no ?
i just tried to discuss with you and ask some things on some points of your post which seemed interesting to me and,as i nowhere insult or 'attack' you , i really don't understand your reaction.
anyway, i will make one more effort but please ,try to be polite this time.(really there is no reason to get upset!)
i see where the misunderstanding is between us: i am talking ONLY for the mod and i am not interested to get a diploma on range vissualities during day or night ! the theme is so complicated and so variable that even a kid can understand that there are no 'fixable' visual distances during day or night.

all these about spotting smaller ships to shorter distances than taller ships (which is absolutely correct) or all these about 'bigger-higher smokes' from a 64-ship convoy than 8-ships convoy (which also is absolutely correct) maybe are very interesting and a good idea to discussed seperately at one other thread but sure is not the object of the mod-thread here.
we are doomed to follow sh3's engine rules and the devs had not modeled the curveness of earth so FORGET the spotting smaller ships to shorter distances than taller ships and the higher smokes from a 64-ships convoys. the sh3's engine will spot at the same range even a fishboat or a battleship...i don't like it ,it is wrong but thats it and that is the 'rule' that we will obey.

it is very easy for me to dig at internet and find links concerning u-boats vissualities during day or night and come back here to make the 'expert' at forums. the point is that i will just make the 'expert' without trully have deep researched the theme. everybody can do that...it is the easy!(so reading only the links that you posted will not really help me or make me 'helpfull on discussions about such themes). what we are looking for(at least me) is someone that have made some deep research on the theme (vissualities during day and night) and give us a good COMPROMISE value for a max detection range during day and one good COPROMISE value for max detection during CLEAR night as concered the REALITY. i thought ,by reading your post, that you have make that deep research thats why i tried to discuss with you these themes.
given the way that engine works ,we have ONLY ONE option :
we need ONE good COMPROMISE value for a max detection range during day and one good COPROMISE value for max detection during CLEAR night as concered the REALITY. all the rest will be scaled down to 16 or 20km enviros

@Hitman : this includes ALL sensors Alberto ! all sensors (hydro-sonars-radars) will be scaled down to 'follow' the propotions of the environment. scaling down the sensors it will take for me less than 1 hour so don't think that it is something enormous to be done ( i allready have made it to my rivate enviro)

@Kafka: i want to reply to some of your comments .

Originally Posted by Kafka BC

@makman94

Apples and oranges.

when you implied that the 31km that i said was wrong and the correct was (after your check) 29.1km it wasn't for you this difference...''apples and oranges''. after that i showed you that the 31km is more correct it 'became'....''apples and oranges''. please...

Originally Posted by Kafka BC

You missed the whole point. Did you read the paragraph following. I will repeat:

"Even if the mast was higher, without taking into account atmospheric haze caused by distance, and having personally used both hand-held and tripod mounted cameras equipped with telephoto lenses, I can state with confidence that it is impossible to see the barest tip of a mast on the horizon at that distance. A ship would have to be an awful lot closer before the image seen in binoculars on a rocking and vibrating U-Boat can resolve itself enough to be discernible as the mast of a ship. If they are painted white, you probably can't see them until you start to see funnels or superstructure, but I won't declare that as a "fact"."

If you can find a pair of Kriegsmarine binoculars with the kind of resolving power where you can see the top 1 meter of a mast on the horizon at 31 kilometers, and then find a man that can hold it steady enough to see it, then I will retract my statement and say I lied.

i read it and i am thinking that the article in wikipedia (which i trust more than you---no offence here) is talking for observer with naked eyes...no binos at all
but even if it is not like that ,how far would you say that it is a good AVERAGE COMPROMISED MAX range for visuality at clear day for using it ingame?

Originally Posted by Kafka BC

PS. 1 mile = 1.609 kilometers, 9.4 x 1.609 = 15.1246 kilometers, I rounded down.

1mile = 1.852 kilometers . at miles in sea ,they mean the nautical miles so you need to check this too one more time

Originally Posted by Kafka BC

..... Except that you seem to be talking about the Mod and I never was.

yes , i am only interested at the mod so please post things about it here .this thread is for getting info for the mod

Originally Posted by Hitman

Ehmm yes, some replies could certainly wellcome a bit less of assertiveness, but the discussion itself is well backed up and at high level, so I hope it can be continued.

.....

Originally Posted by jimbuna

I agree with Hitman entirely but my spider senses are starting to tingle and I'm getting this uneasy feeling based on posting patterns and rhetoric.

The bad post reports are also something we could do without...so please debate but do so without resorting to terminology you would not welcome being presented toward oneself.

None of us is as clever as all of us.

i will disagree with you two here , guys !
the only reason that this thread is still at 'high level' is thanks to me,H.Sie and Rubini and by no meaning thanks to the 'attackers' !

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by makman94

i will disagree with you two here , guys !
the only reason that this thread is still at 'high level' is thanks to me,H.Sie and Rubini and by no meaning thanks to the 'attackers' !

That is your right and one I accept and respect but when I see bad post reports it is my right/position to appeal to ALL contributors to act in a respectful manner toward one another and conform with the requirements as set out in the rules of this forum.

Now back to what is really an interesting debate please.

[makman94]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

That is your right and one I accept and respect but when I see bad post reports it is my right/position to appeal to ALL contributors to act in a respectful manner toward one another and conform with the requirements as set out in the rules of this forum.

Now back to what is really an interesting debate please.

yes , i know what you mean Jim and you are right but my point is that noone needs the 'bad posts' button to figure out which are really the bad posts .they are obvious and no hitting buttons are needed at all

[h.sie]

we are not discussing about historical facts. visibility at sea at night didn't change from 1942 to now. so this can surely be investigated.

[SquareSteelBar]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

That is your right and one I accept and respect but when I see bad post reports it is my right/position to appeal to ALL contributors to act in a respectful manner toward one another and conform with the requirements as set out in the rules of this forum.

Now back to what is really an interesting debate please.

These 'bad posts' started with the appearance of a 'Heulboje'.

It's behavior brings a certain inmate to my mind...

[Kafka BC]

@makman94

i am not a 'boy' for you (only my girl is calling me like this with a ....meaning) and i bet that if i called you the same way ...you will ,also, don't like it ! no ?...

Sorry, I did not see that you were from Crete.

I was not calling you a 'boy', in the English language using 'boy' at the start of a sentence is commonly used as a way of adding emphasis to the whole sentence. It is like saying Gosh, Wow, My God, or Damn, or a host of others. I guess I should have used one of them...it was not intended to be an insult.

it is very easy for me to dig at internet and find links concerning u-boats vissualities during day or night and come back here to make the 'expert' at forums. the point is that i will just make the 'expert' without trully have deep researched the theme. everybody can do that...it is the easy!(so reading only the links that you posted will not really help me or make me 'helpfull on discussions about such themes). what we are looking for(at least me) is someone that have made some deep research on the theme (vissualities during day and night) and give us a good COMPROMISE value for a max detection range during day and one good COPROMISE value for max detection during CLEAR night as concered the REALITY. i thought ,by reading your post, that you have make that deep research thats why i tried to discuss with you these themes.

Those articles that you seem to be dismissing as not 'expert' are documents from the Operations Evaluation Group Report No. 51 of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations of the United States Navy. Are you telling me that you are more 'expert' than them?

....''apples and oranges''

"Apples and Oranges" is a shortened version of the English phrase "It is like comparing apples and oranges", both are fruit but which one tastes better, and where the answer is "it does not matter". I guess you are not familiar with the phrase. My apologies again.

i read it and i am thinking that the article in wikipedia (which i trust more than you---no offence here) is talking for observer with naked eyes...no binos at all

So, by your reasoning, I should be able to see the Empire State Building from 50 miles away (you can) and with the naked eye be able to count the windows as well (you can't). There are things like atmospheric turbulence and human eye resolution that you have ignored, and the wikipedia article does too.

but even if it is not like that ,how far would you say that it is a good AVERAGE COMPROMISED MAX range for visuality at clear day for using it ingame?

I am not going to talk about the mod. Nor do I wish to make any suggestions.

1mile = 1.852 kilometers . at miles in sea ,they mean the nautical miles so you need to check this too one more time

If they were using nautical miles they would have said 'nautical miles' and their diagrams would be using the abbreviation NM instead of MI, so I think you should check one more time.

yes , i am only interested at the mod so please post things about it here .this thread is for getting info for the mod

I see, others can post assumptions regarding the mod, but I can't post facts that you can use in the mod.

the only reason that this thread is still at 'high level' is thanks to me,H.Sie and Rubini and by no meaning thanks to the 'attackers' !

Are you implying that my initial post here is not 'high level' and that I am an 'attacker'?

I'm through discussing this.

[Graf Paper]

My own remarks and observations pertained to the general conversation and were not necessarily directed specifically at everything you had to say, Kafka. Context is at least as important as grammar. However, since you insist on coming at me like this...

Originally Posted by Kafka BC

What is this? Nowhere did I mention anything about the sharpness of the horizon at night as seen by the naked eye, so why you are trying to give me a Pseudoscience lesson is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Kafka BC

Having, in my youth, been out many times on clear moonless nights with plenty of stars (something no one seems to have considered as a light source) in the country away from lights and the glow from a city, I can attest to the fact that you can see the contrast difference between the sky and land.

(emphasis added).

That is the definition of a horizon.

Also, you say sky and land. I believe the discussion here concerns sky and sea.

Originally Posted by Graf Paper

I don't recall any of them saying they could spot mastheads at 35 kilometers with the naked eye...

Actually, it was you who failed to comprehend. I used the collective pronoun "them" in reference to the testimonies of crew serving aboard u-boats, which is plainly obvious by the active pronoun "they", as in "the persons who perfomed this action" in regards to the actual spotting of the mastheads in question.

Originally Posted by Graf Paper

Coal-fired vessels could be easily spotted from very great distances, some estimates around 50 miles..

Actually, one source for this figure comes from the direct statements of Lt. Robert Atkinson, DSC, RNR of K-137, H.M.S. Pink. I'd dare say that a commanding officer of a WWII Royal Navy corvette, serving as convoy escort, knows a few more things about ship's smoke and u-boat tactics. He ought to be ashamed of himself for misleading us all!

Originally Posted by Kafka BC

long ago I studied to become a marine engineer

You prove nothing by this statement. Being a such a mechanic does not qualify you for anything other than to work on marine power trains. Additionally, in studying to be a marine engineer, it in no way follows that you actually became one or served aboard any ocean-going vessels. This is pure grand-standing on your part, meant to intimidate others into silence by the perception this somehow makes you an authority on the matter. All sources you have cited thus far also happen to be among the first twenty or so hits one finds when typing "u-boat visual range" into Google's search engine.

You may belittle my reasoning by labeling it as "pseudoscience" yet you use your photography hobby as the basis for your "expertise" on visual properties as applied to u-boat tactics. Taking pictures of sunsets does not give your arguments any additional weight over what others here have said.

And then you attempt to humiliate me further by calling my use of language "High-handed"? You read into it only what you wish. If you feel intimidated by complete sentences and florid words, like "diffraction", that should not be my problem. It is the way I speak when using the written word and I owe no man an apology for it.

I have been polite and even supported some of the points you made. Then you repay that by tearing into me? What I say next must be said.

Disagreement with you is not an attack on your character, but you seem to wish to respond as though it were. "Overly aggressive", indeed! The only two things you have managed to prove thus far is the boorishness of your behavior and the cunning to suck up to Hitman while you continue to dish out insults to the rest. He is no more blind than the rest of us.

You even succeeded in raising the anger of Makman, one of this mod's authors and someone I rarely have seen respond with anything other than civility. You top that dubious achievement by marginalizing h.sie and Rubini, as well. All three of them have made real, lasting contributions to this community and should be shown respect, if only for their generosity.

The intent behind this entire thread, as stated by the mod's authors, was to reveal some measure of accuracy from the aggregate of opinion and knowledge contributed by this community. Your combative stance stifles that. You are free to disagree with others, but there is no reason it cannot be done with polite discourse.

You may continue to draw insult where there is none, bully your way over others, and shout down those who contradict you. However, I would advise that you reconsider your undirected anger before you make yourself unpopular.

As a postscript, I apologize to everyone here for contributing to any further derailment of this thread. I feel it necessary to not only stand up for myself publicly in the face of this hooligan, but for h.sie, Rubini, Makman, and others I hold in high regard because they have always been gentlemen, even when I have not. Keep the colors flying!

I've had my say and promise, henceforth, to stay on topic.

[makman94]

Originally Posted by Kafka BC

@makman94

Sorry, I did not see that you were from Crete.

I was not calling you a 'boy', in the English language using 'boy' at the start of a sentence is commonly used as a way of adding emphasis to the whole sentence. It is like saying Gosh, Wow, My God, or Damn, or a host of others. I guess I should have used one of them...it was not intended to be an insult.---ok Kafka , i am sorry too ..case closed

Those articles that you seem to be dismissing as not 'expert' are documents from the Operations Evaluation Group Report No. 51 of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations of the United States Navy. Are you telling me that you are more 'expert' than them? --- i said exactly the opposite but thats ok too

"Apples and Oranges" is a shortened version of the English phrase "It is like comparing apples and oranges", both are fruit but which one tastes better, and where the answer is "it does not matter". I guess you are not familiar with the phrase. My apologies again.---no need for apologies ,i just explained where i found the '31' km (as you saw it was not my 'imagination' ) and i did it (the explaination) becuase you asked for it and it was against 'your' '29.1km' and not against your 'bino' knowledge. i told you just this and nothing more than this: the 29.1 was found by geometrical formulas (the calculator you posted is using these formulas) and the '31km' is more correct value becuase it uses formulas that taking in account the atmospheric refraction.
i read this phrase at wikipedia : ''Results (from the spoken formulas) are sufficiently accurate for many purposes.''

So, by your reasoning, I should be able to see the Empire State Building from 50 miles away (you can) and with the naked eye be able to count the windows as well (you can't). There are things like atmospheric turbulence and human eye resolution that you have ignored, and the wikipedia article does too.---i repeat again here that i am not 'expert' on real situtations so i can't say what (how far) you can see from Kriegsmarine binos and thats why i 'need' the experts to give us some real ranges so i can't continue this further (my knowledge stops here) and thats why i asked you to give us an average copromise max visual range for clear day

I am not going to talk about the mod. Nor do I wish to make any suggestions. --- so , continue this conversation here will be just off topic. PM me if you like to tell me something more on this

If they were using nautical miles they would have said 'nautical miles' and their diagrams would be using the abbreviation NM instead of MI, so I think you should check one more time.---thats really very 'strange' for me. they talk for miles on sea and they are using the international mile ? i can't say anything more...it is just 'strange',thats it what i was thinking as i was glancing to the link

I see, others can post assumptions regarding the mod, but I can't post facts that you can use in the mod.

Are you implying that my initial post here is not 'high level' and that I am an 'attacker'? ---no, it was not for you and i don't believe that you are 'attacking' the thread .

I'm through discussing this.

look above ,
bye

[Kafka BC]

@Hitman

I guess I touched a nerve here, sorry to bring you into this.

I don't believe my first post was offensive and was intended to give some supporting "facts" for 'Noisy_Buoy', and as I said at the start of it, it was for other people to ponder, especially about the Night Vision Binoculars.

Nor was the second one to h.sie, in which I apologized for possibly unintentionally offending him.

My third one to 'Graf Paper' I will wholeheartedly admit was agressive. His highhanded use of assumptions over facts in his response to my first post, which he so obviously did not read, really offended me. I can not tell you how much of an insult I consider that to be.

I have readed several times that WW2 submariners (German and US) clearly stated seeing masts over the horizon. I have never myself figured out, while standing on a beach or at sea, how the hell they managed to see such a thin line in the horizon, as Kafka BC says. There must be a reason for this, though damn me if I can figure out which one.

On a day with good visibility I am sure they could see masts over the horizon when using binoculars. If you note in my first post in this thread, the horizon for a U-Boat watchman is about 8 kilometers (5 miles). That is not very far, how far over the horizon, I can't say, it would depend on how much of the mast can be seen and other factors, but it is certainly not 31 kilometers from the bridge of a U-Boat.