VampireNightVision Bugfix

[Kafka BC]

@h.sie

Originally Posted by h.sie

@Kafka: Thanks for your post....

My post was not intended in any way to depreciate any of your fine and intensive work on this mod, and it was never intentionally directed at you or the mod, nor on it's merits as being realistic or not. I'm truly sorry if you thought it did.

Rather, I wanted to make others think before making a statement and declaring it a "fact" based on their own assumptions and without any valid proof, especially when making comments to others.

It was the post about using the sextant at night and declaring a "bare fact" that irritated me the most and prompted me to post. This was an attempt to support 'Noisy_Buoy', who was trying to make a point (admittedly inadequately) about facts and assumptions, it was obvious to me that he was getting a little frustrated.

When he spoke about seeing the silhouettes of ships on the horizon at night, he was stating something which I knew was closer to reality than what others believed. The problem is that others believe the visible horizon line for a real U-Boat is the game's 16km horizon when it is not, and they believe that clear moonless nights are pitch black, which it is not. That is why I posted about night vision and Kriegsmarine Night Vision Binoculars and the fact that they can amplify the tiny amount of available light to the point that the contrast against the night sky can be enhanced with the use of filters.

The balance / relations are more important than absolute values.

I'm in total agreement with you there.

So the main question is: Are visible ranges / detection ranges smaller at night or not?

Based on the articles I posted, yes they are, but they are not as small as people think, considering that nighttime spotting was done with the use of the previously mentioned Night Vision Binoculars and not with the naked eye. Again, based on the articles I posted, the effective average range of contact at night could be about 7.5 kilometers. Please note I said average, which would include the best and the worst night time light conditions, which would make the range longer and shorter respectively, by how much I can't say.

Regards,
Kafka BC

PS. Don't change the name of your mod on my account, people will know what you mean. I shouldn't have used the phrase "so called", sorry, it was a misuse of words on my part, happens to me all the time. I do think it is a bug, I just don't consider it as great a bug as others I encounter in the game.

[Kafka BC]

@Graf Paper

Originally Posted by Graf Paper

However, you must consider that your own direct observations regarding low-light visual acuity...

What is this? Nowhere did I mention anything about the sharpness of the horizon at night as seen by the naked eye, so why you are trying to give me a Pseudoscience lesson is beyond me.

You are also assuming that I have never been on the sea, or don't live near the ocean. I have lived nearly all my life next to the Atlantic Ocean, and when I said "in the country" it was to simplify into a shorter term so that I would not have to say "on the Coast of the Eastern Shore of Nova Scotia". What I posted about the contrast between the night sky and other objects applies there as well, the properties of light on the water has nothing to do with it.

You have so completely missed the whole point and context of what I posted and decided to focus on one thing.

My post was to point out that the night sky is not truly pitch black and with the combination of night vision and the use of Night Vision Binoculars with contrast enhancing filters "German seamen could clearly make out against the horizon the shape of ships sailing at night".

So if you are going to dispute anything, give me real facts and dispute that.

I don't recall any of them saying they could spot mastheads at 35 kilometers with the naked eye...

I don't recall me saying it either, I said someone else did. You didn't read again.

The u-boat lookouts primarily spotted ships by the smoke exhausting from a ship's funnel, not mast tops or superstructures.

Again, where did I say that ships were spotted by their masts or superstructures? You so very obviously did not read my post correctly or the articles that I linked to it, where smoke is mentioned and the number of ships in a convoy that produce it is the primary reason that larger convoys are spotted further away than smaller convoys.

Coal-fired vessels could be easily spotted from very great distances, some estimates around 50 miles, by the dense black smoke belching from their stacks.

I could tell you something about that often quoted and misleading misconception, but I won't. You see, long ago I studied to become a marine engineer, and in case you don't know, that means the engine rooms of ships. Now what was that about me and dry land again?

Also, this mod primarily deals with night vision using the unaided eye, a fact I think some have missed while attempting to prove some points...

The men that are on watch on a U-Boat don't use the unaided eye, that is my point. As well, you are talking about the mod, I am not.

PS. I would like to know where you get the balls to question my low-light visual acuity, and then assume that your powers of observation are better than mine.

[Kafka BC]

@makman94

yes it was me who wrote it and i will tell you the why . the 'calculator' at your link is a simple one and is not giving you very accurate results becuase it uses the geometrical formulas for calculating the distances...

Apples and oranges. 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.

that is very interesting finding and sure will help us but i want to ask: i assume that these ranges are for day, and i don't understand why a 8-ship convoy is spotted from 20.4 km (11miles=20,4 km) and why a 64-ship convoy is spotted from 42.6 km (23miles=42,6 km).
what makes the difference ? the tallest ship will be spotted first no matter if convoy has 8 or 64 ships , ....no ?

Boy, you are really fixated on mast height. You are assuming that all convoys were spotted by seeing their masts. They were not. Convoys were usually spotted by seeing their smoke. Bigger convoys produce more smoke that can be seen at longer ranges. Go ask 'Graf Paper', I'm sure he will confirm this.

so according to this article we have vissuality at night at about 9,4/2=4.7miles= 8,7 km ( 9,4miles = 17.4km)

I said the effective range of contact, not visibility. Read the article, although I don't understand the math, I understand what it is saying.

PS. 1 mile = 1.609 kilometers, 9.4 x 1.609 = 15.1246 kilometers, I rounded down.

so , by using your data Kafka i would say that...

I have no idea what you are getting on about, so I can't answer. Except that you seem to be talking about the Mod and I never was.

[Kaleun Cook]

Why is it so difficult for some of you to just exchanges opinions and facts in a calm way? It's not like the future of the world depends on the correct answers to the questions here...

Had to get that off my chest first. What I wanted to post originally was: There seems to have been a small misunderstanding about Makman's GUI. It does not create pitch-black nights per se. On my installation during the last patrols the night became pitch-black only if the sky was very cloudy.

[Jaeger]

i follow this thread for month now and the tone never was this aggressive it is now. please calm down, i think the input given here is very usable. remember, our goal is equal: we want to have the best results concerning realism. the mod is adjustable so this discussion will help the gamers to adjust it the way they think it is realistic (whatever it is). For me, the last posts show that absolut black nights are unrealistic and the range also is shorter at night, compared to daytime. the question we can discuss (and everybody can adjust in the mod for himself) is: what is a good value for this in the mod?

[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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Noisy_Buoy

Wow wow wow, carefull with the "facts" will u ? Why you always sound like you know everything or everyone ? I bet you just own very nice philosophy art. There are a lot of ppl who knows much more then you can imagine.

"Always"? For someone who's been here such a short time you seem to know (or think you know) some people very well.

[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

[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 !!)

[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.

[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