VampireNightVision Bugfix

[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

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by makman94

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

Agreed...in an ideal world but I think my opening remark in #100 has passed over you.

No matter...let us all move on and focus on the topic of debate.

PM inbound.

[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.

[makman94]

Originally Posted by 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.

very nice and absolutely correct spotting H.sie ! .....(and its getting ...dark right now...but you 'saw' very far !!)

[reaper7]

I think its time to step back and realize what a monumental mod this is in regards to the future of SH3 no matter which side of the fence your on : more realistic/less realistic.
What has been done here is no small thing - these guys have taken what most of us here considered a major bug within sh3 and with great determination and ingenuity have brought us a wonderfull solution.

And the beauty of it is you can either use it or not

But think about it, this fix and the ones before it by means of exe edits are moving sh3 to newer and deeper waters previously impossible.

I for one am glad to have guys like these spending hours upon hours each day of their own time to bring us each new addition as small or as big as they may be.
Only for them I would have left the Sub genre years ago for other pastures.

So guys Thanks for everything and Keep it up

[makman94]

Originally Posted by reaper7

.....

I for one am glad to have guys like these spending hours upon hours each day of their own time to bring us each new addition as small or as big as they may be.
.....

only me ,H.sie and Rubini knows the hours and tests and thoughts -changing 'routes'(you all see just the result) that was spent on this mod !
we ,also, 'discovered' some hidden and really 'crazy' features in sh's engine that maybe will mod some day me or H.sie or Rubini if find the will

thank you John , it is nice to 'see' that some people (you know that becuase you are moding) realize the ...'background'

end of ...story

[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...

[Obltn Strand]

From U-977 by Heinz Schaeffer.

They spot a ship at 16-14 nm (26,6-25.9 km).
During night they spot it again at 4 nm (7,4 km)

Moon was visible and occasionally covered with intermittent clouds.

[Rubini]

Originally Posted by Obltn Strand

From U-977 by Heinz Schaeffer.

They spot a ship at 16-14 nm (26,6-25.9 km).
During night they spot it again at 4 nm (7,4 km)

Moon was visible and occasionally covered with intermittent clouds.

Thanks mate by the info. It's clear that at night (even bright ones )the practical visual detection is much less than day. I will use 50% in my game when the fix is released. Is a very good compromisse IMHO.

[makman94]

Originally Posted by Obltn Strand

From U-977 by Heinz Schaeffer.

They spot a ship at 16-14 nm (26,6-25.9 km).
During night they spot it again at 4 nm (7,4 km)

Moon was visible and occasionally covered with intermittent clouds.

thank you very much Obltn Strand,
very usefull info !

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by SquareSteelBar

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

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

A couple of hours matey...a couple of hours.