Sensors and AI Perception in SH3 and GWX

01-18-07, 05:31 AM

@priater

I agree wholeheartedly with your wise words old man.....but what about those people who feel GWX is too "easy" ?!! I know, I know...its blasphemie to say it but I still feel/think that NYGM is best mod out there from a realistic tonnage point of view and, even then, it too is not as hard as i'd like it.

A simple glance over U-Boat stats reveals that the tonnage we're all getting from all these mods is way too much historically speaking. That said, most U-Boat commanders never got as much "exercise" as we are....i mean we don't die when we make mistakes, so its only natural that our tonnage will increase over time as we "master" the elements required for making a good kill.

I have to ask though, in fact I really want to know....why did so many fish launched against ships in WWII fail to hit their target ? Torpedo problems not withstanding, I believe there must be other, perhapps more subtle, factors that influenced a firing solution which are not modeled in this game.

Wave motion effect on ship speed
Incorrect range estimates
TDCs mechanical component wear
Natural wave mechanics influence on torpedo trajectory

Any more ? There must be loads!

monsoonrat · 01-18-07, 10:31 AM

Any game that one buys, when you start your career, you are given a choice of easy, normal, hard, or realistic. This is an option that game designers know that some people want a closer to real life experience, but some people want an arcade experience. With that said, I would not stress the fact that some people are finding GWX too hard, what they need to do is play some other big mod or wait until someone else comes out with a addition mod that has the very thing that they are looking for. The other option is for them to learn to mod themselves, which they will quickly know how much time it takes to tweak and test, but they must also realize know that you might not come to bail them out when they painted themselves into a corner.

Now some people will want GWX dev team to provide them with an easy, harder version, but they must remember that you do not get paid for doing this and the fact that you do this between your job and your life does not leave much time to please everyone.

I myself know that one can get 10 positive comments about one's creation, but that 1 negative comment will put one big hole in my feeling good about a job well done. With the negative comments that I have read from various whiners you must be feeling like swiss cheese by now.

I haven't officially thanked the GWX Dev team for all their hard work, until I was waiting to finish my first mission. But, since you sound so down... THANK YOU very much GWX Dev Team, I really appreciate all your hard work as I am truely enjoying being pinned down in the english channel in 1939 (I know, everyone keeps saying, stay away from the english channel!) traveling at 2 knots and hoping that one of those 3 bastards (english and french) that are trying to kill me does not drop a depth charge directly on me, as I only have 40 sometime meters of water to hide in.

One last thing, thanks for the explanation about the sensors, it helped me better understand all the different variables and limitations.

Notewire · 01-18-07, 12:48 PM

@Uber

I have been struggleing with torpedo accuracy for a long time, and what I can't figure out is - how do so many people hit their targets? I have been playing this game since it came out, and I have come to the solution that I just suck at solutions

. I play on 100% realism, manual solutions, and I don't use the WO range estimates, as I think the fact that he can call the range down to the meter is completely inaccurate. Playing this way, I have had a heck of a hard time doing the Fast 90 method, as plotting course takes range and bearing, and using the periscope, it seems my ranges vary by about 5-10%, even when stopped. At very short range, this isn't a problem, but beyond 1000m - it gets pretty damn hard to estimate range down to the 100m increment, at least for me. So this leaves me with a gut feel for AOB, because enemy course is so inaccurate given a 5-10% range error. Anyway, even if I get it all right, within 3 min and 15 sec, and I get the fish to fly quick and true - I don't even know if it hits!!! Personally, I bet that German torpedo makers got a raw deal - I bet half of the duds were actually misses - because - how would you know? Seriously, I am a military guy, I can't imagine the crew watching me as I manuever, hunt, dive, hunt, manuever, calculate, set up a shot, and fire - and I am watching through the periscope and can't see crap because it's an electric - and no explosion - with the crew watching me holding their breath. I think I would be tempted to say "Damn, a dud". So my only option has been to close to knife-fighting range to fire - which - with GWX sensors (to come back on topic) has been very hard (as was realistic). So to bring my rant back on topic - given the above information on sensor accuracy and effeciency - anybody have any better torpedo advice than the Fast 90 - because I personally don't see how they hit as much as they did?!?

Tschuss,
Notewire

Ducimus · 01-18-07, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notewire

I have been struggleing with torpedo accuracy for a long time, and what I can't figure out is - how do so many people hit their targets?

Electric torpedo's? Those give me issues occasionally. I'll use WE assist once in awhile, and even then ill miss with electric fish. It has something to do with the targets speed, and the game possibly rounding internal calculations, im not sure.

But, once in awhile, no matter what range, the fish always falls aft of the target. I could shoot a steam fish at the exact same target, exact same position, exact same formula and hit. But the instant an electric fish goes out the tube, its a miss.

The best "fix" ive been able to come up with, is to take whatever the targets speed is, and set the TDC to 1 more kt then its acutal speed.

01-18-07, 02:58 PM

@notewire

I hear you mate, I really do....and as for not using the WO, well if you use NYGM, teh WO doesn't even give a range estimate....which means you're on your own with the stadiscope. At first I was resistant to this but now, well, I think it helps make the game more difficult....which is cool.

I will say this, please persevere with the manual targeting....don't bother trying to get ship speed from a target at 10,000M...just plot the contact and then take another plot after 3mins 15 secs. That should give the targets general course, whilst you're doing that, get the boat ahead and a little nearer. Take a couple of these "vague" readings and draw a line linking them up...this will give you a good idea of course.

Once the taget is 7000m or nearer, then start taking 3min 15sec plots to get the spead. Ducimus is right, you'll never get it spot on but you'll get a "feel" for for the speed....somehwere between 7 and 9 kts for eample. You'll also be improving the target course whilst doing these....then set the speed for something in the middle of your results and motor on to a position where you'll be about 600 to 900m AOB 90 of the projected course. Forget speed from now on, just get as near to 500m as you can, fire a spread of 2 fish with 1deg spread, no "under keel" shot...so 5M depth say and i bet my aunties nipples you get a hit. (Which is why even NYGM is too easy sometimes).

Of course, if the target is zigzagging then you should aim to get say 600 to 700 m from mean couse and adjust as he gets nearer. Also, use all your plots to appro speed, not just distance covered between 3mins 5 secs.

I'm probably telling a granny how to suck eggs here...buy hey, I like the way you play so feel the need to encourage it :-)

Also, joing WaW.....at least when you miss your target in WaW its, well, realistic :-)

And checkout these links for some very interesting target intercept techniques: http://hometown.aol.co.uk/dominicobaggio/intercept.html
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tp...3&m=5051056603
http://www.paulwasserman.net/SHIII/

Lookforward to seeing you in WaW!

Cheers, Hans.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-18-07, 05:31 AM	#1
Uber Gruber Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	@priater I agree wholeheartedly with your wise words old man.....but what about those people who feel GWX is too "easy" ?!! I know, I know...its blasphemie to say it but I still feel/think that NYGM is best mod out there from a realistic tonnage point of view and, even then, it too is not as hard as i'd like it. A simple glance over U-Boat stats reveals that the tonnage we're all getting from all these mods is way too much historically speaking. That said, most U-Boat commanders never got as much "exercise" as we are....i mean we don't die when we make mistakes, so its only natural that our tonnage will increase over time as we "master" the elements required for making a good kill. I have to ask though, in fact I really want to know....why did so many fish launched against ships in WWII fail to hit their target ? Torpedo problems not withstanding, I believe there must be other, perhapps more subtle, factors that influenced a firing solution which are not modeled in this game. Wave motion effect on ship speed Incorrect range estimates TDCs mechanical component wear Natural wave mechanics influence on torpedo trajectory Any more ? There must be loads!

01-18-07, 10:31 AM	#2
monsoonrat Watch Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 30 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	Any game that one buys, when you start your career, you are given a choice of easy, normal, hard, or realistic. This is an option that game designers know that some people want a closer to real life experience, but some people want an arcade experience. With that said, I would not stress the fact that some people are finding GWX too hard, what they need to do is play some other big mod or wait until someone else comes out with a addition mod that has the very thing that they are looking for. The other option is for them to learn to mod themselves, which they will quickly know how much time it takes to tweak and test, but they must also realize know that you might not come to bail them out when they painted themselves into a corner. Now some people will want GWX dev team to provide them with an easy, harder version, but they must remember that you do not get paid for doing this and the fact that you do this between your job and your life does not leave much time to please everyone. I myself know that one can get 10 positive comments about one's creation, but that 1 negative comment will put one big hole in my feeling good about a job well done. With the negative comments that I have read from various whiners you must be feeling like swiss cheese by now. I haven't officially thanked the GWX Dev team for all their hard work, until I was waiting to finish my first mission. But, since you sound so down... THANK YOU very much GWX Dev Team, I really appreciate all your hard work as I am truely enjoying being pinned down in the english channel in 1939 (I know, everyone keeps saying, stay away from the english channel!) traveling at 2 knots and hoping that one of those 3 bastards (english and french) that are trying to kill me does not drop a depth charge directly on me, as I only have 40 sometime meters of water to hide in. One last thing, thanks for the explanation about the sensors, it helped me better understand all the different variables and limitations.

01-18-07, 12:48 PM	#3
Notewire Soundman Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 143 Downloads: 75 Uploads: 0	@Uber I have been struggleing with torpedo accuracy for a long time, and what I can't figure out is - how do so many people hit their targets? I have been playing this game since it came out, and I have come to the solution that I just suck at solutions . I play on 100% realism, manual solutions, and I don't use the WO range estimates, as I think the fact that he can call the range down to the meter is completely inaccurate. Playing this way, I have had a heck of a hard time doing the Fast 90 method, as plotting course takes range and bearing, and using the periscope, it seems my ranges vary by about 5-10%, even when stopped. At very short range, this isn't a problem, but beyond 1000m - it gets pretty damn hard to estimate range down to the 100m increment, at least for me. So this leaves me with a gut feel for AOB, because enemy course is so inaccurate given a 5-10% range error. Anyway, even if I get it all right, within 3 min and 15 sec, and I get the fish to fly quick and true - I don't even know if it hits!!! Personally, I bet that German torpedo makers got a raw deal - I bet half of the duds were actually misses - because - how would you know? Seriously, I am a military guy, I can't imagine the crew watching me as I manuever, hunt, dive, hunt, manuever, calculate, set up a shot, and fire - and I am watching through the periscope and can't see crap because it's an electric - and no explosion - with the crew watching me holding their breath. I think I would be tempted to say "Damn, a dud". So my only option has been to close to knife-fighting range to fire - which - with GWX sensors (to come back on topic) has been very hard (as was realistic). So to bring my rant back on topic - given the above information on sensor accuracy and effeciency - anybody have any better torpedo advice than the Fast 90 - because I personally don't see how they hit as much as they did?!? Tschuss, Notewire

01-18-07, 02:58 PM	#5
Uber Gruber Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	@notewire I hear you mate, I really do....and as for not using the WO, well if you use NYGM, teh WO doesn't even give a range estimate....which means you're on your own with the stadiscope. At first I was resistant to this but now, well, I think it helps make the game more difficult....which is cool. I will say this, please persevere with the manual targeting....don't bother trying to get ship speed from a target at 10,000M...just plot the contact and then take another plot after 3mins 15 secs. That should give the targets general course, whilst you're doing that, get the boat ahead and a little nearer. Take a couple of these "vague" readings and draw a line linking them up...this will give you a good idea of course. Once the taget is 7000m or nearer, then start taking 3min 15sec plots to get the spead. Ducimus is right, you'll never get it spot on but you'll get a "feel" for for the speed....somehwere between 7 and 9 kts for eample. You'll also be improving the target course whilst doing these....then set the speed for something in the middle of your results and motor on to a position where you'll be about 600 to 900m AOB 90 of the projected course. Forget speed from now on, just get as near to 500m as you can, fire a spread of 2 fish with 1deg spread, no "under keel" shot...so 5M depth say and i bet my aunties nipples you get a hit. (Which is why even NYGM is too easy sometimes). Of course, if the target is zigzagging then you should aim to get say 600 to 700 m from mean couse and adjust as he gets nearer. Also, use all your plots to appro speed, not just distance covered between 3mins 5 secs. I'm probably telling a granny how to suck eggs here...buy hey, I like the way you play so feel the need to encourage it :-) Also, joing WaW.....at least when you miss your target in WaW its, well, realistic :-) And checkout these links for some very interesting target intercept techniques: http://hometown.aol.co.uk/dominicobaggio/intercept.html http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tp...3&m=5051056603 http://www.paulwasserman.net/SHIII/ Lookforward to seeing you in WaW! Cheers, Hans.