Periscope ranging seems ridiculous....

[AVGWarhawk]

In the precise prose of the era, "The basic principle of Surface Vessel recognition as with aircraft is familiarity with the total form of the object observed. The true character of a ship is not determined by a single feature or features, but by the familiarity we may have with the total mass of the hull and the superstructure, when viewed from great distances. ... The salient recognition characteristics are shown in their simplest form by silhouettes. ... In ship recognition, the use of beam, or side view silhouette, is by far the most important. If the beam silhouette is thoroughly known, the ship can be recognized from either the surface or the air."

http://acepilots.com/ships/main.html


Are you selecting the correct vessel from the recognition manual? Wrong vessel will screw up solution for sure.

[0rpheus]

Good advice AVG. I usually do, I can hit most of the time at 1000 yards (after much swearing and fiddling with the AoB) if my position's perfect, but if I even slightly fluff the approach, which happens occasionally when chasing fast targets, my torps tend to go all over the place... anything over a thousand and the ranging gets much much harder.

I know it's not really the thread but a little off topic probably won't hurt - the AoB is more of a problem. I think I now get the 'ship bearing 230' that I get occasionally when searching for ships, turning towards it and spotting them before the radar does... but I don't get how the smaller numbers on the same dial are also used/applied in terms of AoB. I came to SH4 having never played a naval game before in my life so I've no experience with this kind of thing.

I use map contacts (and probably always will) so I can plot a fairly decent course for my target and find its heading, but the AoB input on the top right of the scope never seems to correspond to what I'm reading as heading, and it changes constantly during the approach (which I get, because the ships is moving relative to me - but I thought the TDC was supposed to account for that) so I just end up twisting the dial until I get something that roughly corresponds with the ship's estimated course and tweak it with F3/F6 until it's right. I'm sure that's not the right way to do it but the documentation is a bit over my head!

It's a shame there's no way to leave manual targeting on (so you can enter all the info and do it yourself if you want), but still leaving the 'L' lock target key as activating auto-targeting. I started trying manual because I wanted a way to hit ships in heavy storms where getting a visible lock is impossible at torpedo range (too close to arm/often vis is 300 metres or so), so I checked out WernerSobe's vids (including the sonar only), but I just can't manage it (manual speed calcs are way, way beyond me)... so I've gone back to auto-targeting, and letting the buggers go if it's stormy weather.

[AVGWarhawk]

This thread is your friend.


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=108931


Also, I always go for the 90 degree approach. Always have the vessels side to my bow. The 90 degree approach under 1500 yards is very deadly.


I'm also a loan vessel hunter. Battleships are cool to sink. Destroyers are not fun to play with. I go for the easy meat!

[0rpheus]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

This thread is your friend.


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=108931


Also, I always go for the 90 degree approach. Always have the vessels side to my bow. The 90 degree approach under 1500 yards is very deadly.


I'm also a loan vessel hunter. Battleships are cool to sink. Destroyers are not fun to play with. I go for the easy meat!

Same here, though I seem to rarely see military ships with RSRDC. Guess I must be sticking to merchant shipping lanes.

Thanks for the link. I've watched most of the vids (the ones that are still working, anyway) and I get the basic premise behind it all (I think) - but what I see doesn't correspond to what I get in game. I've just literally been trying it on the sub school third mission 'sink cruiser' and I'm now raging in frustration again.

The data doesn't correspond to the inputs. If I plot a target's course, and get their bearing, the bearing isn't actually the AoB..? I saw a vid where the target & sub angles were plotted with the protractor (say giving a 47 degree angle) and it looked like they used that for the AoB...

... but, the AoB input has numbers 1-18 for port & starboard sides, so how do I translate angles into those numbers!? When I set it manually to what looks right I'm often off by miles and have to spend several minutes readjusting it. I don't see how you get from a target's bearing to getting an AoB when the AoB seems to constantly change and visual/manual setting seems to produce such obviously wrong results!

Stadimeter's borked too I think - I usually lock the target with L to keep the view steady, put the middle line at the target's waterline and then range to mast top as directed. But this nearly always leaves my target on the position keeper 50 or more yards short of the target (behind it) and the torps miss. I don't understand why this always happens, even when I've got the speed right, and manually ranging it ahead of the target just screws up the position keeper and makes it difficult to keep the thing on target.

I love sims and I love this game but after tonight, and all the reading/watching videos and it still not making sense even at the most basic level (which I'm pretty sure is my fault, I'm just not a maths person), I can heartily say 'sod that' to manual targeting, which is a shame as it's the last part (and probably the best) of this sim left to conquer

EDIT: Oh, and re the recognition manual, I usually click 'identify target' Thinking of editing that last post to read 'can barely hit at 1000 yds!'

[CapnScurvy]

Originally Posted by Orpheus

Does OTC work with TMO?

Not yet.

To make it compatible for TMO without losing either the intent of OTC or TMO is no small task. There are many of the same files that are both modded in there own way, keeping Optical Targeting Correction from working with TMO, without specific merging of the two together.

I've been working to have it compatible with the stock game itself which lately has taken longer to do with the revelation of the stadimeter not being "centered" on the sub in relationship to the view that the periscope shows. They aren't the same.

Also, if you've read some of the OTC mod thread, you have also learned of the game resolution aspect ratio issue that renders the manual targeting optical views "size" differently depending on what resolution your game is displayed. Neither issue has an effect on auto targeting, but it will effect the use of the telemeter divisions of either the TBT or Periscopes, which OTC uses when in step with the Omnimeter.

Bottom line, I'll have OTC working for both SH4 versions (1.4 and 1.5) and a couple of other mods, before I make a TMO compatible version.

================

As far as the idea that having incorrect mast heights in a Recognition Manual should be considered "real life conditions" and that a 700 yard difference in found range due to those "fog of war" conditions is acceptable is BULL!! Any Captain that found out the RM was wrong with it's measurements and a couple of misses were the result, would have corrected the darn thing so he wouldn't miss in the future. And, if he was of the type that didn't mind telling the "powers to be" what he thought, he'd have them know the manual needed to be corrected so others didn't make the same mistake. I'm simply doing the same.

I believe the issue of having correct mast height was an oversight (much like the stadimeter centering issue, or the lack of consistent aspect ratio screen views) of the game. Why else would a couple of mast heights actually be accurate at all. Or, why would the mast height of the original version 1.0 Hiryu changed from 20 meters, to a later patched 31 meters, if the developers expected to introduce such "fog of war" play. They would have left it alone!! Content that you'd miss the target by huge amounts unless you're so close to the target that the nose of the sub could brush the target as it passes by. No, the target mast heights shouldn't be the "issue" in manual targeting that creates missed shots. There are other pieces to the solution equation that do quite well all on their own.

[AVGWarhawk]

As far as the idea that having incorrect mast heights in a Recognition Manual should be considered "real life conditions" and that a 700 yard difference in found range due to those "fog of war" conditions is acceptable is BULL!! Any Captain that found out the RM was wrong with it's measurements and a couple of misses were the result, would have corrected the darn thing so he wouldn't miss in the future. And, if he was of the type that didn't mind telling the "powers to be" what he thought, he'd have them know the manual needed to be corrected so others didn't make the same mistake. I'm simply doing the same.

And dazzle patterns never fooled a skipper with correct AOB or total misidentification of a ship either.

Only one that I know of told "the power that be what he thought". It concerned bad torpedoes.

Ship misidentification happened all the time.

On 30 July, Tarpon again headed for Japanese home waters. On 16 August, she sighted a Japanese task force which reportedly included an aircraft carrier of the Otaka-class (there was, in fact, no such class; intelligence had misidentified Taiyo, but its high speed prohibited an attack

It was not an exact science.

May I direct all to this thread?

http://174.123.69.202/~subsimc/radio...d.php?t=138202

[CapnScurvy]

AVG, the point that RFB uses real life measurements from the ONI Recognition Manual is fine, IF the game renders the same real life optics for the periscopes/TBT that the measurements are based.

It does not.

The stock game Field of View (the width of the periscope view from edge to edge) is larger than the real life periscope view that would correctly render a range when using the Telemeter divisions. Depending on the game resolution one uses, the FoV is either 4 degrees too wide or 6 degrees too wide at low power. What this means to a gamer is the target will appear smaller than it should be when measuring the mast height (or what ever reference point you choose that you have a length/height measurement of). Having a measurement of "real life" ships will not give you accurate range findings if the measuring tool is not the same length as in real life.

I suggest one should read the "Discussion" section of the Optical Targeting Correction thread (found HERE) to understand what I'm talking about. Take the time to see for yourself this optical FoV inaccuracy using the mission test I have linked to in the thread. I'm not pulling this stuff out of thin air.

To understand what a "Fire Control" team does to make a firing solution, may I suggest this publication called Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual (found HERE). Reprinted in the early 1950's but useful since the Fleet Boat was still the main sub for the Navy. The manual points out the various tools that the team would use (like the Omnimeter) for determining range with the periscopes Telemeter divisions and their specifications (look all you want, there's no reference to the "Dick O'Kane method, or whatever you want to call it). Notice on page 5-2 the periscopes (attack and observation) "True field low magnification" (Field of View) is 32 degrees wide. As I said, the periscopes FoV in-game for all resolutions (except one) is 36 degrees wide at low power. The 1280x1024 resolution is set to 38 degrees wide. The high power setting is scaled to be exactly 1 quarter of the size of the low power FoV. If one is off, so is the other. You'll not get an accurate range using "real life" measurements if the FoV is not set to "real life" dimensions.

Reading further in the "Discussion" section, I hope everyone will notice the issue regarding the games chosen resolution, and how the different Aspect Ratio's effect the periscope rendered size compared to the TBT. Completely unexpected but the TBT will change it's FoV size compared to the periscopes size depending on what resolution one uses for the game. A telemeter division measurement from the periscope will read differently than one made by the TBT, even though the target is positioned exactly the same for both views. There are at least 5 different aspect ratio's that create this problem, each with it's own size difference. So one correction doesn't fit the others.

Other issues have also been found to hamper correct range finding (perhaps this is the thread Daniel Prates was referring to). This thread called "Manual Targeting Problems" (found HERE) deals with the stadimeter not being centered on the sub at the modeled periscope location. This creates an unrealistic error in range finding depending in which direction (relative bearing) the stadimeter is used. I say unrealistic because in "real life" the stadimeter was a part of the periscope, like your fingers are to the hand. Where one goes, so does the other. The game has the periscope view "independent" of the stadimeter "centered" point that creates the formula for calculating range with the mast height figure. That's why the measurement of the bow target compared to the stern target is different to each other (even though the targets are about equal to the sub in distance). Compare the bow/stern stadimeter range to the port/starboard range and you get another difference in range distance. The point here is this kind of difference was never a problem in real life. The stadimeter was always a part of the periscope (no matter where on the sub an engineer decided to put it), the view matched the stadimeter calculating point. An engineer only needed to set the internal workings of the TDC for the difference of calculation between the periscopes position and the torpedo tube location and it's done. No matter in what relative bearing you looked the stadimeter would render the correct range, and the difference in position of the periscope to torpedo tube was already factored in.

What's it all mean?

You either play the game using the auto targeting option, and think "point and shoot" is the best thing since sliced bread. Or, use manual targeting and stick your nose so close to the target a blind man couldn't miss, no matter what measurement figures you use.

[AVGWarhawk]

You have done a nice job with your mod. Nice dissertation on the limitations of the game.

You either play the game using the auto targeting option, and think "point and shoot" is the best thing since sliced bread. Or, use manual targeting and stick your nose so close to the target a blind man couldn't miss, no matter what measurement figures you use.

This issue I have is playing with wire-fired torpedoes at 4000 yards in automatic mode. Like me. Hence your mod. Many Skippers did not fire at 4000 yards. For me, I like some realism. Ideal positioning is 90 degrees to the target at 1000 yards (close enough for a blindman to hit the target).

1. Get a good estimate of target course. This can be done with narrow limits. Hopefully the target is not zig-zagging.
2. Use the periscope to feed in the bearing to the TDC. At this point range mostly estimate at best is likely to be out.
3. Close to a good firing range.
4. Fire straight shots. Then a range error makes no difference.

Ouoted from:

"United States submarine operations in World War II."

By Theodore Roscoe, Richard G. Voge, United States. Bureau of Naval Personnel

With the advent of the S-boats, the standard U.S. submarine torpedo became the 21-inch Mark-10. While having a diameter only three inches larger that the old Mark-7, this was enough to allow an increase in warhead size from 326 pounds to 497 pounds. The Mark-10 was slightly faster, 36 knots vs. 35, though the range was reduced to 3,500 yards. Considering the state of aiming ability at the time, the shorter range was unlikely to be much of a problem. Most commanders would want to get the range under 1,000 yards in any case.

http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/torpedoes.html


Getting to within 1500 yards are closer was the order of the day. It leaves little room for error in the Pacific theater and our desktop patrols. I attempt to run the boat as was dictated by command. I get in close and fire three. This affords me success with even the worst of scope resolutions the game has to offer.

I do have to give your mod a try. It is hard to give up the super mods though.

[Daniel Prates]

Great input, AGV.

[CapnScurvy]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

This issue I have is playing with wire-fired torpedoes at 4000 yards in automatic mode. Like me. Hence your mod. Many Skippers did not fire at 4000 yards. For me, I like some realism. Ideal positioning is 90 degrees to the target at 1000 yards (close enough for a blindman to hit the target).

I'm not aware of advocating firing at 4000 yards? Please point out where I have said one should, in this thread or any other.

I agree a firing solution should be reasonable in distance; 1500 to 2000 yards is reasonable, and I follow that doctrine when I play. Your statement implies that my mod (SCAF or OTC) is like "playing with a wire-fired torpedo.... in automatic mode"?

You haven't played them have you?

There are more variables to getting an accurate firing solution than just having a height reference point giving you a reasonably accurate range when used. That's what the corrections in mast height does; gives a reasonably accurate range to target, but it's far from an "automatic" conclusion.

In this thread, Rostbef asked a simply question, why is a particular target (the Hiryu) reading at 700 yards difference in range?

The answer is the TMO 2.1 Hiryu has a mast height of 20 meters or 65.6 feet tall, when it should read 37 meters or 121.4 feet tall.

Running a quick check on just what is the stadimeter found range on a Hiryu sitting at just 1006 yards true distance, with the mast height set at 65.6 feet or 20 meters tall? The stadimeter found range is only 540 yards. So, in a distance of only 1000 yards, you're ok with having a 460 yard error, give or take a couple?

AVG, a reply or two ago you made the comment about my belief that a Captain would/should point out to his superior an error needing to be fixed. You said...

Only one that I know of told "the power that be what he thought". It concerned bad torpedoes.

Maybe the reason a real life Captain never pointed out an error in the ONI Recognition Manual was because there wasn't one! Least not one that threw off the stadimeter found range by half the true distance to target.

[I'm goin' down]

I follow a very basic philosophy,

Try to get close, and regardless, close my eyes and fire everything I got.

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm not aware of advocating firing at 4000 yards? Please point out where I have said one should, in this thread or any other.

I'm not aware of it either. I was not implying you were Capt. Your mod is excellent! It would seem players are attempting torpedo solutions at ranges that are beyond good solution. What you pointed out was getting in close so a blind man could get a hit no matter the data input. Less aggressive skippers were replaced with very aggressive skippers that would get in close. This greatly reduces the possible error that could occur in range/AOB/speed. Added a spread of three torps to assure a hit. What has frustrated me and still does it ranges around 2500-3000 yards are still buggered. As you know, range reading at that many yards are crap. Your mod has taken care of that problem as a result of getting correct magnification. For years I have taken long shots and watched my torpedoes go in front/behind the target or just die in the water at the end of the run. Ranges way off.

I agree a firing solution should be reasonable in distance; 1500 to 2000 yards is reasonable, and I follow that doctrine when I play. Your statement implies that my mod (SCAF or OTC) is like "playing with a wire-fired torpedo.... in automatic mode"?

Oh no! Not at all Capt! I was not implying that at all. I meant that playing with automatic solution feature provided from the developer in the game is like wire-fired torpedoes. Fire when the triangle is green. Never fire when it is red. Not much of a challenge IMO. Your mod makes the manual targeting realism that much more real! The challenge is getting closer to a level playing field inpart because of this mod. Your mod is one more step to getting the game where is should have been out of the box!

You haven't played them have you?

No, I have not. Unless it is part of TMO. Very hard for me to give up the larger mod package. This mod I do want to try. Reading the thread I see were other smaller mods can be activated with OTC in making a nice overall game to play.

There are more variables to getting an accurate firing solution than just having a height reference point giving you a reasonably accurate range when used. That's what the corrections in mast height does; gives a reasonably accurate range to target, but it's far from an "automatic" conclusion.

And from the looks of it the mod does give reasonably accurate range to target as you stated. Something the game has failed on out of the box. I understand it is far from automatic.

The answer is the TMO 2.1 Hiryu has a mast height of 20 meters or 65.6 feet tall, when it should read 37 meters or 121.4 feet tall.

Running a quick check on just what is the stadimeter found range on a Hiryu sitting at just 1006 yards true distance, with the mast height set at 65.6 feet or 20 meters tall? The stadimeter found range is only 540 yards. So, in a distance of only 1000 yards, you're ok with having a 460 yard error, give or take a couple?

Am I satisfied with that error? No sir. However, during the war sometimes skippers had to be satisifed with this error because vessels were altered. Some were WW1 cargos converted or changed. Others vessels from other nations that had changes in deck structure. These added up to some uncertainty of what vessel was in the skipper sights.

Maybe the reason a real life Captain never pointed out an error in the ONI Recognition Manual was because there wasn't one! Least not one that threw off the stadimeter found range by half the true distance to target.

The ONI was good. I cannot answer if there was an error of up to half though. Intelligence sees a cargo ship being constructed and three months later it comes out of port a flat top. Ships were often misidentified. As noted a few posts back were ships were completely misidentified. There was some fog of war.

I will give your mod a go when I can.

[CapnScurvy]

I'd like everyone to know that I'm a couple of steps closer to finishing the updates and fixes I've been promising for Optical Targeting Correction.


Working on a couple of new compatible versions. I've just bundled the stock SH4, patched to version 1.4 into a WinRaR compression file (told you guys I'd not forget about you) and have a compatible version for the RFB 1.4 mod also.

I'm doing some last minute documentation for the 1.5 stock version and a RSRDC v550 compatible OTC. I'm checking a couple of other things before I bundle these. The downloads will be large due to the different resolution/aspect ratio mods added to the main folders. These resolution/aspect ratio corrections will allow most/all resolutions the same sized periscope/TBT screens for using the telemeter divisions for range finding. You'll need to know your resolution and aspect ratio size the game is played on to correctly choose the mod correcting the differently rendered screens.

I didn't mean to "thread-jack" this post. But, it's important to note that when an issue arises it's not always a "procedural" thing. The game's short comings can be just as much at fault as a "perceived" lack of experience or technique.

[AVGWarhawk]

Excellent! So, there is a version that applies to the resolution the player uses? I would like to have RSRD along with it. The stock campaigns are horrible IMO.

[CapnScurvy]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

So, there is a version that applies to the resolution the player uses?

Yes, the resolution/aspect ratio fixes are going to be an additional mod to add after the main Optical Targeting Correction mod. Not counting the main mod itself that corrects the 4:3 aspect ratio (the widest resolution covering aspect ratio), there are 5 other aspect ratios that will be fixed as well. Each needing to be in their own separate mod. I already have the "what and why" of them described in the "Discussion" part of the Optical Targeting Correction thread found HERE.

I got a little ahead of myself when I added the resolution/aspect ratio part to the OTC thread without yet having them available for downloading. Documentation seems to be just as time consuming as actually fixing a problem.

The reality is, the particular resolution a player uses does effect the optical views he sees the game with. That's why the games telemeter divisions found on the periscope or TBT/UZO were really nothing more than decoration; unusable as a way of measuring the viewed world. My original game manual has a couple of sentences regarding the periscopes telemeter hash marks (what they do and how to use them), but in truth you can't use them as-is.

The various game resolutions that are used today create a different sized view for the periscope or TBT through the games optical screens. Playing the "auto targeting" option in-game has no effect from the various resolutions one could choose. However, the manual targeting option is greatly effected by the different resolution/aspect ratio sizes since manual targeting is so dependant on the optical views to provide the information needed to make a firing solution.