[REL] Repaired Equipment MOD by Xrundel and TheBeast

[gap]

4th act: is audible range affected by the MaxRange property of the last SendorData, or rather we can just hear at any range, as far as its Min/Max heights are set appropriately?

PS: are you writing from the Bolshoi?

[volodya61]

Originally Posted by gap

4th act: is audible range affected by the MaxRange property of the last SendorData, or rather we can just hear at any range, as far as its Min/Max heights are set appropriately?

Not sure that I understand your question correctly.. it was long "test" night .. if you meant - human audible then see below..

Second - Fourth Acts

GHG

Depth 62 m, single ship - 35-36 km, convoy - 37-38 km
Depth 32 m, single ship&convoy - 24 km
Depth 12 m, single ship&convoy - 16 km

Human audible at all ranges! at long range the sound gradually fades

KDB

Depth 62 m, single ship - 34-35 km, convoy - 36-37 km
Depth 32 m, single ship&convoy - 24 km
Depth 12 m, single ship&convoy - 16 km

Human audible at all ranges! at long range the sound gradually fades

Originally Posted by gap

PS: are you writing from the Bolshoi?

Nope .. from Mariinsky

PS: WE DID IT!


@Whiskey

If you are using TDW's New UI (because this file based on TDW's revision of R.E.M) you can replace your sensors.sim with this one - http://rghost.ru/43782340

if something goes wrong please let us know

[gap]

Originally Posted by volodya61

PS: WE DID IT!

Better than expected!
I knew there was a way to fix those broken hydrophones, but I was ready for a longer trial and error process

Let's talk about settings now:

for a start:

• I think all the hydrophones should have the same depth (Min/Max SensorHeigh) settings. What in real life mattered was obviously hydrophone depth, not sub depth. And SensorsData Min/Max heights are just relative to the depth of the sensor... Equal height settings will imply that, due to KDB position, for getting a good detection range with it, we would be forced to go deeper than using the GHG, exactly like it really happened
  
  
• I don't think that real hydrophones started working suddenly when they reached 3 or 8 m of depth. They had to receive some faint signals as soon as they had one or so meters of water above them. Too weak signals for being of any use, indeed. We can simulated it by adding another shallower layer with very short range, long sweep period and low ProbInsideArc. What do you think?
  
  
• According to an Admiralty interrogation report I have read, at least in Mediterranean the best listening depth was 80 m I would add one last layer for this depth, or increase the min depth of the deepest one.

I have several other suggestions based on my readings, but for this moment I think the ones I have listed above are already enough for giving you a serious headache

[volodya61]

Originally Posted by gap

for a start:

start? again? oh noooo!

Originally Posted by gap

I don't think that real hydrophones started working suddenly when they reached 3 or 8 m of depth. They had to receive some faint signals as soon as they had one or so meters of water above them. Too weak signals for being of any use, indeed. We can simulated it by adding another shallower layer with very short range, long sweep period and low ProbInsideArc. What do you think?

What I think? I think that we need NASA computers if we want to simulate the real conditions in this game..

BTW, what is ProbInsideArc?

Originally Posted by gap

...I think the ones I have listed above are already enough for giving you a serious headache

You did

PS: I will think about all this things after wakeup..

[gap]

Originally Posted by volodya61

start? again? oh noooo!

stubbor guy

Originally Posted by volodya61

What I think? I think that we need NASA computers if we want to simulate the real conditions in this game..

Do you think two more controllers will make that much difference?

Originally Posted by volodya61

BTW, what is ProbInsideArc?

The probability (in percent, from 0 to 1) of detecting a contact inside the SweepArc.

Originally Posted by volodya61

You did

lazy guy

Originally Posted by volodya61

PS: I will think about all this things after wakeup..

have a nice rest

[Obelix]

Originally Posted by volodya61

What I think? I think that we need NASA computers if we want to simulate the real conditions in this game..

Computer rover Curiosity: 200 MHz, 256 KB of EEPROM, 256 MB DRAM, and 2 GB of flash memory. In Houston, of course, is much more powerful computer around, but the surprise is that the rover's computer when such characteristics copes with its task and not "slow" and 400 mips.
It is clear that the whole point of the highest quality hardware and software manufacturing. And in code optimization, of course.

[Fifi]

Guys, can't wait to try your hard work on my list!

[volodya61]

Originally Posted by gap

..but for this moment I think the ones I have listed above are already enough..

Something like this?

1st SendorData:
PreciseRange=25,000
Max Range=100,000
MinSesorHeight=-500
MaxSesorHeight=-78
ProbInsideArc=1

2nd SendorData:
PreciseRange=25,000
Max Range=100,000
MinSesorHeight=-500
MaxSesorHeight=-48
ProbInsideArc=0,60

3rd SendorData:
PreciseRange=17,000
Max Range=25,000
MinSesorHeight=-500
MaxSesorHeight=-28
ProbInsideArc=0,95

4th SendorData:
PreciseRange=0
Max Range=17,000
MinSesorHeight=-500
MaxSesorHeight=-8
ProbInsideArc=0,95

5th SendorData:
PreciseRange=0
Max Range=8,000
MinSesorHeight=-500
MaxSesorHeight=-2
ProbInsideArc=0,50

Originally Posted by gap

Do you think two more controllers will make that much difference?

I talked about global improvement of this game.. the game already requires resources far greater than many of the new and higher quality games.. I think any developer will not release now to the market a product that requires 8GB and even more of RAM.. this game requires.. I think this is wrong way.. modmakers should to think about how their mods will work together with other mods..
IMO

Originally Posted by Fifi

Guys, can't wait to try your hard work on my list!

This is not our work.. this is great work by Xrundel and TheBeast.. we are just making a small rework..

[gap]

Originally Posted by volodya61

Something like this?

still elaborating... I will reply asap

[Illyustrator]

Originally Posted by volodya61

...I talked about global improvement of this game.. the game already requires resources far greater than many of the new and higher quality games.. I think any developer will not release now to the market a product that requires 8GB and even more of RAM.. this game requires.. I think this is wrong way.. modmakers should to think about how their mods will work together with other mods..
IMO...

That's what I always wanted to say, but I'm shy.

[gap]

My proposed GHG settings.

1st SensorData:
PreciseRange=0
Max Range=45,500
MinSesorHeight=-500
MaxSesorHeight=-80
SweepPeriod=28
ProbInsideArc=0,93

2nd SensorData:
PreciseRange=0
Max Range=39,200
MinSesorHeight=-104
MaxSesorHeight=-56
SweepPeriod=29
ProbInsideArc=0,92

3rd SensorData:
PreciseRange=0
Max Range=28,000
MinSesorHeight=-80
MaxSesorHeight=-32
SweepPeriod=31
ProbInsideArc=0,89

4th SensorData:
PreciseRange=0
Max Range=14,000
MinSesorHeight=-56
MaxSesorHeight=-8
SweepPeriod=35
ProbInsideArc=0,85

5th SensorData:
PreciseRange=0
Max Range=4,000
MinSesorHeight=-500
MaxSesorHeight=-2
SweepPeriod=44
ProbInsideArc=0,77

Comments later

[gap]

Originally Posted by gap

Comments later

• MaxSesorHeight: adjusted to have a constant spacing of 24 m between two consecutive layers in the range 8-80 meters.
  
  
• MinSesorHeight: adjusted for SensorData's 2 to 4, so to have layers of 48 m in depth. The first 24 meters of each layer are overlapping with the last 24 on the following one.
  
  
• PreciseRange: set to 0 for all the layers.
  
  
• MaxRange: see graph:
  
  
  
  Question: should we model reduced or null hydrophone ranges under the thermocline
  
  
• SweepPeriod: seconds for a full sweep (stock setting: 30 sec). Adjusted for all the layers, so to simulate faster detection speed at higher depths. See graph:
  
  
  
  
• ProbInsideArc: stock setting: 0.95 (95%). Adjusted for all the layers, so to simulate better detection at higher depths. See graph:
  
  

[whiskey111]

I will test the file today. Is it the final version ? Any bugs I can expect ?

[volodya61]

Originally Posted by gap

My proposed GHG settings.
....
Comments later

This is what I would call a strict scientific approach

Do you want me to test it?

Originally Posted by gap

Question: should we model reduced or null hydrophone ranges under the thermocline

Do you think still not enough changes?

Originally Posted by whiskey111

I will test the file today. Is it the final version ? Any bugs I can expect ?

Yes.. it's final version for now.. but if you want you can help us to test the versions with the new changes ..
EDIT: all the settings of this file you can find in previously posts..

[volodya61]

Originally Posted by gap

..should we model reduced or null hydrophone ranges under the thermocline..

Maybe we can to model somehow the hydrophone's work with the running engines..