Unreal Engine 4 sub sim project: Sub^3

[nopoe]

Originally Posted by Hawk66

Is that sound engine not more or less a bunch of functions, that is does it really need to be tightly integrated into your application?

In my cold war sub sim project I've currently implemented my own engine, but it is pretty rudimentary...so I might later have a look . It is in .NET, so writing a c++ bridge would be an option....I think there are tools available to autogenerate wrapper.

And concerning .NET....if you have programmed with that framework and its rich set of languages, you do not wanna go back.....it is so 'easy' to write code, running on multi-cores.

You should be able to write a wrapper for it pretty easily. If I manage to speed it up at all I'll push it to my github and let you know so you can use my version as well. Also if you have trouble building it on windows that you can't figure out feel free to send me an email (listed on my github page). It's not exactly trivial but definitely possible.

This page should list what you need to know: http://oalib.hlsresearch.com/Rays/USML/usml_frontpage

I'm a fan of C#, but for a game I like having most of the work already done for me, which is why UE4 made the most sense. Unity was the other option, but I if I could choose between having to write a wrapper and not having a source license for my engine or not having to write a wrapper and having a source license for my engine, I'm going to pick the latter.

[magicstix]

USML is not designed to run "real-time," though in your case what this means depends on how you're using it.

If you're just using it to control how bright lines are on your sonar display, you should be OK with it producing results every few seconds.

If you're trying to use it to generate actual acoustics (sound), you'll definitely run into problems. For one, it's designed to give more of a qualitative overview of the ocean environment, so it doesn't necessarily provide the kind of detail you'll need to generate the actual sound you'd hear. The fact that it is also slow means it'll be very difficult to generate acoustics without extensive interpolation/extrapolation of the model's output.

Using the eigenrays will pose a big challenge to you as well. Expect the model to generate thousands of eigenrays for a single point-to-point run. How you use those eigenrays will dramatically affect the overall presentation of the ocean, and will be important especially for how multipath effects show up.

[Aktungbby]

nopoe!

[nopoe]

Originally Posted by magicstix

USML is not designed to run "real-time," though in your case what this means depends on how you're using it.

If you're just using it to control how bright lines are on your sonar display, you should be OK with it producing results every few seconds.

If you're trying to use it to generate actual acoustics (sound), you'll definitely run into problems. For one, it's designed to give more of a qualitative overview of the ocean environment, so it doesn't necessarily provide the kind of detail you'll need to generate the actual sound you'd hear. The fact that it is also slow means it'll be very difficult to generate acoustics without extensive interpolation/extrapolation of the model's output.

Using the eigenrays will pose a big challenge to you as well. Expect the model to generate thousands of eigenrays for a single point-to-point run. How you use those eigenrays will dramatically affect the overall presentation of the ocean, and will be important especially for how multipath effects show up.

Yeah, I know it's not a real-time modeling engine, but I think I'll probably be ok. As far as I can tell from the unit test code, it gives you a bunch of propagation losses for the frequencies you propagate. I'm going to propagate a frequency vector and store the propagation losses and approximate travel times on a per-vessel basis. Then the USML worker thread will move on to modeling another vessel's sound. Meanwhile the sonar display will iterate through all vessels taking the most recent propagation loss and then use that, combined with the amount of sound the contact was making in each frequency band n seconds ago to find the "brightness" of the line on the broadband display, where n is the travel time. So if the other vessel makes a ton of noise for a split second, you'll still hear it even if there was no wave propagation happening during that time.

From my tests on Linux I think this is pretty doable real-time on a fast, modern quad core as long as you don't need to update propagation losses too fast and you have a reasonable number of vessels nearby. I've been testing with the malta-movie unit test as my benchmark, which (I think) uses eigenrays so I should be fine.

On Linux it took 4 seconds or so to finish the malta-movie unit test, which included time to load the bathymetry and temperature data from disk (though I removed the saving of the netcdf data). The test itself propagates a wavefront with 90 individual rays for 60 simulated seconds. If you say the average contact distance is going to be 60 seconds away, that means you can update one contact's propagation losses every 4 seconds using one core. Using multiple independent USML worker threads (assuming I can set that up) you can average an update frequency 1/n where n is the number of vessels.

With 20 vessels, which seems like a lot to me, that's one update every 20 seconds. 20 seconds seems like a very long period of time to go without updating propagation losses, but keep in mind the sonar display will still track the sound they've been making during that time. Additionally, that's for contacts that are almost 50 nautical miles away. Even if the two contacts are racing towards each other at 30 knots each they're barely going to cover 600 meters in that time. To put that in perspective, 600m is 0.6% of the total seperation, roughly. That's not going to change their acoustic situation that much. Sound from contacts closer to the sonar array will require (approximately) proportionally less time to propagate. From what I can tell, the complexity per timestep really depends on what the rays are doing in the ocean, but roughly speaking the closer contacts can be updated more frequently.

I'm by no means an expert on submarines, computational acoustics or anything else that this project involves, but I do think I did the benchmarks and the math right.

Like I said, though, it's too slow on windows. Way too slow. And I think OpenCL is probably the wrong choice because there's a lot of overhead associated with it, so I'm currently looking at Eigen as an alternative.

The current status is that most of the stuff in the "ublas" subdirectory is rewritten to use Eigen and I've started moving the rest of the library over. I'm currently puzzling as to how to best handle the seq_vector class. I know it's a pretty big undertaking and stuff, but the project is dead already otherwise so it's worth a shot. If I do get it working I think performance should be as good or better on windows as it was on linux with uBLAS. That's not a small "if" though. It would be really nice if visual studio had better performance...

[Jimbuna]

Welcome to SubSim nopoe

[ReallyDedPoet]

Welcome to SUBSIM nopoe

[nopoe]

Technical details on what I managed to accomplish:

While poking around in the USML codebase I figured out there are faster but more approximate ways to do some of the things that I was doing, so using those I managed to get the average time between updates down to 0.7 seconds per contact at 20nm spread across all cores. Instead of replacing the linear algebra library, I decided to eliminate one very expensive matrix operation and replace it with a bunch of individual scalar operations. That brought computation time per contact down to 0.5 seconds. I'm thinking that's adequate.

These computation times are calculated based on the average time for 4 separate benchmarks to run to completion divided by 4. There's a little more to it than that, but it's important to note a single computation actually takes around 2 seconds, but there are 4 happening at once so you'll get one update every 0.5 seconds on average.

So now all that remains is creating the actual game.

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by nopoe

So now all that remains is creating the actual game.

That's a very important point. Usually what I see sinking hobbyist projects like these is focusing on the wrong things too early. Yes, it's good and cool to have a super accurate acoustics model that makes former sub sailors think they're at sea, but if you spend all your time on that early and burn out, where's the rest of the game?

The best thing to do is focus on the fundamentals early on. Get your entity system done, get your network communications done, get a game going before adding the flash and bling. Don't worry about the ocean modeling until you have a sonar display, use 20 log R propagation and get dots stacking on your simulated broadband waterfall first. Playability beats pretty any day.