TDC in Sh5

[Steeltrap]

Here's something I posted elsewhere that, in part, is about the experience of tracking and getting to point of firing. Just for some added thought.....

================================================== ==
Realism is king, with some caveats.

Yes we want technical realism, by which I mean the known performance of x piece of kit is reflected in the sim, as are the dates things became available etc etc. So, radar in SHV is not acceptable i.e. air search radar giving bearing when it was only ever an A-scope. That's just basic and shoody.

For every level of realism, there might be an option of choosing NOT to have it in your game. This solves the problem of "appealing to the casual gamer" that is, IMO, an excuse for "we couldn't be bothered to get it right".

Rather than rattle off a whole bunch of technical and other aspects, I'd like to mention a focus on something different: command. I'd like the sim to portray accurately what it was like to command a submarine.
- That means my CREW matters a great deal. I need people with skills. I need a good crew roster.
- As skipper, I make observations of a target's AoB, range etc and it's the fire control party that comes up with target course and speed and plot it on a map. I do NOT mean the same as the 'fire control officer assistance' in SHIII, mind you.
- I make firing observations but it's the crew that prepares the torps.
- I give precise depth/course/speed orders, it's the crew that does it.
In short, I do NOT want to have to go to all the different screens that are currently used to do manual fire control. It's NOT REALISTIC. The skipper didn't do all those things. So, when it comes to realism, I have 2 views:
1. technocrat realism - yes, I can go to all those screens to input everything.
2. command realism - no, I CAN'T do the input OTHER than the level of things controlled by the skipper.

A lot of people get excited over technical realism (such as controlling dive planes etc etc) yet ignore the fact that a skipper did not do all that stuff.

I want a revolution in that I command, and experience the pressures that go with that. I don't want to get bogged down in micro-managing TECHNICAL aspects a skipper didn't IRL. I'd like THAT to be an option in difficulty settings i.e. "realistic command Y/N". This would mean I'd need to think about sending crew members off to various technical schools while in base, and they might even miss the next patrol. That means I'm down an experienced person, but it also means they come back more skilled. Frankly, some R&R also becomes a factor. This sort of "strategic crew planning", looking at more than just the next patrol, was a factor in command, and I'd like to see it reflected in the sim.

Just some thoughts.

[rik007]

I'm not sure what the real TDC was capable of. In the picture below you can see that it is a complicated device. In the U-995 it is very simple one. So multiple versions excisted. In Das Boot you see that it was able to track multiple targets. That is something that is missing in SH3/4. Set solution - I never used it - should be available as well as the possibility to micro manage the torpedo's. You should be able of course to set the torpedo's yourself as it is one of the most thrilling aspects of an attack. What I read was that in reality the commander observed the targets and estimated speed and distance by 'seamen's eye'. The (nav) officer should than have entered the parameters into the system like in Das Boot.

[nattydread]

Originally Posted by Steeltrap

Here's something I posted elsewhere that, in part, is about the experience of tracking and getting to point of firing. Just for some added thought.....

================================================== ==
Realism is king, with some caveats.

Yes we want technical realism, by which I mean the known performance of x piece of kit is reflected in the sim, as are the dates things became available etc etc. So, radar in SHV is not acceptable i.e. air search radar giving bearing when it was only ever an A-scope. That's just basic and shoody.

For every level of realism, there might be an option of choosing NOT to have it in your game. This solves the problem of "appealing to the casual gamer" that is, IMO, an excuse for "we couldn't be bothered to get it right".

Rather than rattle off a whole bunch of technical and other aspects, I'd like to mention a focus on something different: command. I'd like the sim to portray accurately what it was like to command a submarine.
- That means my CREW matters a great deal. I need people with skills. I need a good crew roster.
- As skipper, I make observations of a target's AoB, range etc and it's the fire control party that comes up with target course and speed and plot it on a map. I do NOT mean the same as the 'fire control officer assistance' in SHIII, mind you.
- I make firing observations but it's the crew that prepares the torps.
- I give precise depth/course/speed orders, it's the crew that does it.
In short, I do NOT want to have to go to all the different screens that are currently used to do manual fire control. It's NOT REALISTIC. The skipper didn't do all those things. So, when it comes to realism, I have 2 views:
1. technocrat realism - yes, I can go to all those screens to input everything.
2. command realism - no, I CAN'T do the input OTHER than the level of things controlled by the skipper.

A lot of people get excited over technical realism (such as controlling dive planes etc etc) yet ignore the fact that a skipper did not do all that stuff.

I want a revolution in that I command, and experience the pressures that go with that. I don't want to get bogged down in micro-managing TECHNICAL aspects a skipper didn't IRL. I'd like THAT to be an option in difficulty settings i.e. "realistic command Y/N". This would mean I'd need to think about sending crew members off to various technical schools while in base, and they might even miss the next patrol. That means I'm down an experienced person, but it also means they come back more skilled. Frankly, some R&R also becomes a factor. This sort of "strategic crew planning", looking at more than just the next patrol, was a factor in command, and I'd like to see it reflected in the sim.

Just some thoughts.

This is what I want. A well oiled crew that performs their duties as skilled crewmen...with variations in ability and execution based on experience. Though i'd expect the greenist crew member to be of reliable skill toward the end of their first patrol.

I like the technical realism too, not because I want to always use it, but because I want the option when necessary. There are times where the expertise of a Skipper can be put to use to circumvent the short-comings of an inexperienced crew member...like showing a green crew member how to trim the boat in extreme conditions that exceed his skills.

Sometimes I just might want to micro-manage the boat's operations...or see everything in action as the crew operates.

Technical realism is important to me, but so is command realism...after all, I identify with the Skipper, I desire to have the experiences of a Skipper.

[Hitman]

- As skipper, I make observations of a target's AoB, range etc and it's the fire control party that comes up with target course and speed and plot it on a map.

In a fleet boat, yes. But in an U-Boat, that's not the way it worked. The commander (When submerged) or the IWO (When surfaced) provided the data for the firing solution, i.e. they observed target and gave the petty officer who operated the TDC the AOB, range and speed. All the petty officer did was to enter those values into the TDC.

The plot was conducted when the commander saw fit, normally when doing the end-around in the surface (The commander gave the navigator regular inputs on bearing and distance and that was plotted in the chart) and only rarely when submerged.

I agree with you however in that should be able to do the micro-managent ourselves or simply give the orders. For me, a button to send regular bearing and ranges automatically to the chart and have the navigator give you the resulting target data, as in SH4, is good enough to reflect this.

[MH]

I would like some kind of interface so that in manual targeting mode with realistic map update it will transfer the data to attack/nav map so that only the data gathered will be shown.
That would solve the map update problem vs marking all the data by the player which is too much workload.

[martes86]

I'd like the TDC screen to look like it did in SH2. Just the full dials of the TDC machine, nothing more. If I want a map, I'd go downstairs (from the conning tower to the control room). And the scopes should be just the scope view plain and simple. If I want a notepad, I have a bunch of paper at home, if I want a ship rec. manual, I can get one printed, or have it as an interface hide/show feature. But no need to add things where sometimes they're not needed or are not appropiately placed.

Cheers

[karamazovnew]

Yeah, SH2 had a nice 2d interface. I still miss some of it's features. Having movable and pinable frames was great. And the map tools... don't get me started on those. But as I said, I prefer having 2 types of 2d interface, a stylised one and a "photorealistic" one. As one said, having more options is the best option.

Hitman can you confirm thise?

In flank speed on periscope depth and with periscope up can not only be dangerous but also will be hard to aim due to high vibration. Is thise information is correct more or less? Thanks in advance

[don1reed]

If my memory serves me correctly, the following four sheets are sourced from one of the many books published by, Eberhard Rossler, regarding the U-Boat.

The torpedo firing solution triangle

The Optic connection to the Vorhaltrectner block diagram

Listed is an electric schematic of the torpedo Vorhaltrectner (T Vh Re)

The firing "Empfanger"

I've had these files saved tucked between pages of an old book and thought they may shed some light on the subject.

cheers,



NOTE: Press FULL SIZE once you get to Imageshack.

[Rosencrantz]

One thing I have always missed in every single SH TDC is spread angle calculator. Both US and German models were able to calculate this if target's estimated length was entered into the system.


Greetings,
-RC-