Deadly accurate enemy aircraft attacks.........

[suitednate]

Originally Posted by CapnScurvy

I had a hunch that RFB 2.0 had done some "tweaking" with the planes visuals and I'm right. LukeFF let the issue of planes "seeing" through water really get out of hand with this one. For my curiosity I followed up on what, if anything, RFB 2.0 may have done. Here's what I found.



This entry sets the "size" of an object seen by the sensor its linked to. In this case the Air2_Visual is what the RFB planes use. This -75.0 wouldn't mean anything unless you have a base number to compare it to. The stock parameter for this entry is 0.0. So, RFB 2.0 decided to make the size of an object seen really small. Which means it will see objects much easier than an 0.0 set entry.

Let's look at TMO 2.0 which has a known effect of having it's sub "seen" under water.




TMO 2.0 has this parameter set at only -2.2. Quite a difference from the -75.0 RFB entry. I suspect because of the chatter from TMO players this issue was changed with the TMO 2.1 patch. Here's the entry for it.




The entry is set back to stock again. So it looks like Duci heard some of your thoughts about having the sub seen through the water and did something about it. Good for him!

Now if he would only do something about the Hiryu having a 20 meter mast height?!

It seems as though there are more "air sensor" parameters for RFB than in stock or TMO. Do I switch all of them? Or just one? There's AirB, AirS, and Air2. Anyone know what the difference is?

[Hambone307]

Interesting about the change in the spotting code.
I lost 3 of my boats to "lucky" DC runs from planes. First one was in an S-Boat. I blame my watch crew for that SNAFU. Didn't spot the plane until he was about 8,000 ft away. Needless to say that I was hit with two charges before my conning tower was under.
The other two boats I lost were Porpoise class, and I could have sworn that there was an issue with my mod soup since I had been nailed with both of the charges at approx. 170ft.
The S-Boat incident was a sobering lesson to a skipper just out of submarine school!

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by suitednate

It seems as though there are more "air sensor" parameters for RFB than in stock or TMO. Do I switch all of them? Or just one? There's AirB, AirS, and Air2. Anyone know what the difference is?

I couldn't remember what values I changed for my game, so checking the file, I saw I only changed the one shown. Thinking about it, I decided to change all the Air sensors as to 0. I assume that they are associated with different models of aircraft, but don't really know. Maybe someone around here can say for sure.

[suitednate]

Originally Posted by TorpX

I couldn't remember what values I changed for my game, so checking the file, I saw I only changed the one shown. Thinking about it, I decided to change all the Air sensors as to 0. I assume that they are associated with different models of aircraft, but don't really know. Maybe someone around here can say for sure.

I just went ahead and changed all of them to 0 as well. We'll see how it goes. I was thinking about doing a "-1" value or something because I think it should be at least possible for them to spot you while submerged shallow.

[CapnScurvy]

Originally Posted by suitednate

It seems as though there are more "air sensor" parameters for RFB than in stock or TMO. Do I switch all of them? Or just one? There's AirB, AirS, and Air2. Anyone know what the difference is?

Yes.

You'll find the difference's are in which aircraft uses the specific type of visual parameters (Air2, AirB, AirS). Look in the specific aircraft .sns (sensor) file found in the Data/Air folders for each plane. The file is open able with Notepad. Specific aircraft use the different types of visual types. The RFB Kate and Val planes use Air2. The Betty, and the H6K/H8K search planes use AirB. The Zero uses AirS. These are specific to RFB, where TMO calls them something else (I don't remember for sure, but I think TMO has even more types than RFB). The stock game uses just one generic set of visual parameters for everything.....AI planes, ships, the whole kit-and-caboodle.

Why would one set of eye's be different for one type of plane over another?! Beat's me......sometimes modder's get carried away with their playing around with the game!

You guys found posts from me that I've long forgotten about!

[Crannogman]

Originally Posted by CapnScurvy

Why would one set of eye's be different for one type of plane over another?! Beat's me......sometimes modder's get carried away with their playing around with the game!

It's not so much the type of eye as the number of eyes, and their platform. A fighter has one set of eyes, dedicated to flying and looking for other planes to shoot down. A single-engine bomber like a Kate or Val has another set or two of eyes, for spotting planes and ships, so more likely to see you. A multi-engine plane, like a Betty/Mavis/Catalina, has many sets of eyes, with special obsevation bubbles on either side of the fuselage, dedicated to spotting you or other ships, and with nearly all-around visibility (including straight down)

[CapnScurvy]

Originally Posted by CapnScurvy

Why would one set of eye's be different for one type of plane over another?! Beat's me......sometimes modder's get carried away with their playing around with the game!

Originally Posted by Crannogman

It's not so much the type of eye as the number of eyes, and their platform. A fighter has one set of eyes, dedicated to flying and looking for other planes to shoot down. A single-engine bomber like a Kate or Val has another set or two of eyes, for spotting planes and ships, so more likely to see you. A multi-engine plane, like a Betty/Mavis/Catalina, has many sets of eyes, with special observation bubbles on either side of the fuselage, dedicated to spotting you or other ships, and with nearly all-around visibility (including straight down)

I agree with your logic, but that's not what was done with the visual sensors used in RFB 2.0.

The only difference between the three aircraft visual sensors is that two of them have a Maximum Range of 50,000 meters, one has a MaxRange of 25,000 meters (the AirS sensor for the Zero). The Zero also has a shorter Maximum Bearing sweep of 110 degrees, while the others have only 180. If you follow the idea that the Mavis flying boat could see in many directions, logic says put the Maximum Bearing to 360 degrees, not 180.

Also, if you use the logic that more crew members equal more eye's on watch, the only sensor parameter that could show this distinction would be the Minimum Surface entry. All three are set to a very high figure of -75.0, where stock equals 0.0. My point being, if a distinction is to be made for having better detection capabilities due to additional crew members.....why would you have the one parameter that represents this for the various planes to be the same? Just saying, RFB doesn't reflect this logic

[Crannogman]

Originally Posted by CapnScurvy

My point being, if a distinction is to be made for having better detection capabilities due to additional crew members.....why would you have the one parameter that represents this for the various planes to be the same? Just saying, RFB doesn't reflect this logic

"I was only speculating on a hypothesis, I know I don't know nothing." Maybe they intended to differentiate more, but didn't/couldn't for whatever reason

[CaptBones]

Originally Posted by CapnScurvy

...If you follow the idea that the Mavis flying boat could see in many directions, logic says put the Maximum Bearing to 360 degrees, not 180...

Also, if you use the logic that more crew members equal more eye's on watch, the only sensor parameter that could show this distinction would be the Minimum Surface entry. All three are set to a very high figure of -75.0, where stock equals 0.0...

Just to add a thought or two...or three...I don't have any particular insight and might be completely wrong, but I've tinkered with some of these things in both SH3 and SH4. The Maximum Bearing sweep seems to apply to the particular aircraft sensor's detection capability from either side of the nose, so 180 degrees covers the full view on either side from nose to tail.

The Minimum Surface seems to represent a "modifier" for the surface area of the observed object (your submarine) that is necessary for the observer (the aircraft) to see you. A value of 0.0 would seem to indicate that the target surface area required for the aircraft to be able spot the submarine is the actual surface area (of the digital model) visible to the aircraft based on the aspect or AoB of the target (your submarine). A "modifier" of -75.0 would seem to indicate that a target with a surface area 75 times smaller than the visible surface area of the target, as seen from the aircraft, can still be detected by the aircraft. In essence the "-" value here is like putting a magnifying glass or a telescope on the submarine and seeing an image much larger than the actually visible surface area. The whole thing then appears to be independent of whether or not the submarine is on the surface or dived to any depth, which would explain the transparency of the ocean.

I guess I would side with those that think -75.0 is way too much. Is 0.0 not quite enough, and does that make -2.2 a good value...or would something like -1.0 be a good compromise? It's probably open to experimentation and, as always, personal preference rules.

Plus, I'm looking at the values for Max Range, Max Height and Max Elevation and really scratching my head. I'm not sure I understand what they really represent or how they are used by the game engine.

But, if those values are really in meters, the "50000" range value is ridiculous...over 31 (statute) or 27 (nautical) miles. I can tell you that nobody can visually sight a surfaced submarine or small/medium ship at that distance with the naked eye...regardless of altitude or weather conditions...period. The "32000" value is even stretching it more than a little...almost 20 (statute) or 18 (nautical) miles is also a real challenge, even with binoculars or a good telescope, which restrict the field of vision and vibrate more than a wee bit, particularly if you're sitting in a piston/prop driven A/C trying to stay warm and keep from losing your hearing at the same time! It's why we put radar and other nifty gadgets in maritime patrol aircraft to begin with.

Max Elevation is a bit mysterious. Does it represent the (angular) elevation of the aircraft in relation to the target or the angular elevation of the target relative to the aircraft? In either case, how does it affect the ability of the aircraft to sight the target? Not looking for an answer...just thinking "out loud".

But, Max Height seems to be simple enough, at first...it appears to be the aircraft altitude above the sought-after target. So, is either 10000 or 5000 (meters?) a reasonable value? Well, 32,810 feet is more than six (statute) miles high...certainly more than the normal altitude (or the service ceiling) of the aircraft we find searching for us in this game. Again, this would seem to make the ocean very transparent; an aircraft flying at 10,000ft could spot a submarine diving to 22,810 ft, and our ocean is only 3,281 feet deep! Even 16,405 feet (3+ statute miles) is a bit more than I'd think is "realistic", given the above-mentioned Max Range...but that's just my opinion.

Ok...enough trying to "game" the game...time to play it for awhile instead.

"Find 'em, chase 'em, sink 'em!"

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by CapnScurvy

Yes.

You'll find the difference's are in which aircraft uses the specific type of visual parameters (Air2, AirB, AirS).

...

Thank-you Cap'n.

Is there anything which prevents us from putting in more than one visual sensor for a type of aircraft?

[CapnScurvy]

Originally Posted by TorpX

Thank-you Cap'n.

Is there anything which prevents us from putting in more than one visual sensor for a type of aircraft?

Well....the game only uses one o01 Visual sensor at a time from the specific object/craft its linked to.

You can however have different values for that sensor at different points of time during the game's time span. I don't know why you would do this, but you could for instance make a new entry in the Data/Air/ADB_B5N2_Kate/ADB_B5N2_Kate.sns file....Adding another [Sensor xx] entry....linking it to your Visual sensor found in the .dat file, but change the "StartDate=", "EndDate=" to have it start sometime after the usual 19380101 start date. Then having it run until the games usual end of 19451231.

Don't forget to change the existing [Sensor 1] (the original Visual sensor) dates that cover the entire game span time. You'll need to have the EndDate of the first Visual sensor to end one day prior to the StartDate of the second....and don't use some unreal date like 19430431. There's no such date as April 31, 1943!! Only 30 days in the month of April. Some of the stock entries do exactly this....have their dates either overlap, or have dates that don't exist. Believe me, the 'ole computer can count two plus two!!

Like I said, I'm not sure why we would want to change the visual sensor to have different values at different time periods? It's not like the Japs used some kind of X-ray vision half way through the war.

To Crannogman's credit, the idea of having a plane with specific values greater than others is a sound one. A Mavis with several crewmen, SHOULD be able to spot an object better than a single pilot. That's why the idea of linking a specific visual sensor, with greater capabilities, to specific craft makes sense. Why RFB 2.0 doesn't do a very good job of that.....don't know? What I do know is the MinSurface=-75.0 value for all of RFB's planes is like spotting a fly on the top of an ant hill at 1000 yards!!

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by CapnScurvy

Well....the game only uses one o01 Visual sensor at a time from the specific object/craft its linked to.

You can however have different values for that sensor at different points of time during the game's time span. I don't know why you would do this, but you could for instance make a new entry in the Data/Air/ADB_B5N2_Kate/ADB_B5N2_Kate.sns file....Adding another [Sensor xx] entry....linking it to your Visual sensor found in the .dat file, but change the "StartDate=", "EndDate=" to have it start sometime after the usual 19380101 start date. Then having it run until the games usual end of 19451231.

My thinking was that one could have two sensors on the aircraft; one that would look out over the water and detect any surfaced vessel (like we would expect), and another that would be oriented narrowly downward, to detect a shallow, submerged sub, at short range only.

I know that the AI will only use one sensor at a time, but my understanding is that it can change over in a heartbeat, so that shouldn't be an issue.