TDC in Sh5

[John Channing]

Originally Posted by nattydread

There certainly was some short comings in the SH4 TDC...one being the ability to hold the solution, but de-couple the bearing so you could "aim" at specific parts of the ship.

We should have been able to gather all the required data and then place the pip where we wanted, "mark" the bearing and fire. Then move the pip at the desired aim point on the ship(bow, stacks, bridge, stern, etc), "re-mark" and fire again using the previous target data, but with the new bearing.

Sure you can... I do it all the time.

Once you have a viable solution running with the PK wait until you are the firing point. Make sure you are in Range/Bearing mode on the TDC and then unlock the target, point your scope at the point of the ship you want to hit and hit the "Send" button once. Fire. Move the scope to the second position, hit the send button again and Fire. Rinse, later repeat.

Been working like a charm for me for a couple of years.

JCC

You know i willing to accept anything as long as don`t need to do writings on pice of paper. I belive someone else spoke about it before.

[nattydread]

Originally Posted by John Channing

Sure you can... I do it all the time.

Once you have a viable solution running with the PK wait until you are the firing point. Make sure you are in Range/Bearing mode on the TDC and then unlock the target, point your scope at the point of the ship you want to hit and hit the "Send" button once. Fire. Move the scope to the second position, hit the send button again and Fire. Rinse, later repeat.

Been working like a charm for me for a couple of years.

JCC

Its been some time since I played, but I know there was some long round about way I had to do it....maybe I dont have the mechanics of my complaint right. I seem to remember needing to re-send the range or something, in order to get the new bearing for the pip to enter into the TDC....now Im going to have to re-load it and see.

I remember not being able to select range manually too, my range ring would only allow me to go up to like 900m or something. I just remember it being buggy as heck.

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Now the AOB dial was in fact linked to both the Bearing dial AND the compass. Changing your course also changed the AOB. The link to the bearing (the auto tdc update feature) was indeed optional. But the link to the compass was not optional. If you say a target at 45 degrees bearing wich had a 45 degrees AOB to you, and then you changed the course by 45 degrees into it, at the end of the turn, you would not have a 0 AOB at 0 bearing on the dial (As you do in SH3 and SH4), you'd have a 45 AOB at 0 bearing as it should be. Correct. Example Source= Heinz Schäffer, "The journey of U-977"

i already came across this source, i was wondering if you had reference to a more definitive source, since this one is a little too "anecdotal"

[Hitman]

But come on you have to agree that being able to see through the Obs Scope before it comes out of the floor is not realistic

No, no, of course not, I misunderstood you, then. The first time the commander could see something was of course when the scope came out of the floor and he was able to crouch and look through the ocular. That's why I meant, and now I think what you also meant.

Since the observation scope travels as a whole up and down, the distance between the prisms is always the same. Hence you can crouch down and look through it even before completely raised -as long as you can put your eye against the ocular, of course.

In the fixed heigth attack scope however where the travelling prisms that ensured that you could always see well through it, no matter how high/low it was.

Read here more about that : http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-570BritishReport.htm and look at the schemes. This is qualified as a most authentic source

I highlight the following:

The main feature of the periscope is that it can be raised and lowered through a distance of approximately 17 ft. while in any position over that distance, the observer can view the target without altering his position vertically relative to the deck.

2. To arrive at this arrangement, the periscope is built in two separate portions:

(i) The upper portion, which contains the usual periscope features, namely change of magnification and top reflector operating gear, is the portion which is raised and lowered. In performance and construction it closely resembles an orthodox periscope, the chief difference being that in place of an ordinary eyepiece, the lower end of the tube is open and fitted with a projecting lens as a window.

(ii) The lower portion of the periscope is within the submarine and is fitted with traveling prisms, situated below and directly in line with the optical axis of the upper portion. These prisms reflect the optical beam to the fixed eyepiece, at the same time maintaining a constant optical separation between part (i) and part (ii) of the periscope.

3. The fixed eyepiece, all the controls and the observer's seat are carried on the outer casing of the lower portion, which rotates with the periscope when training.

4. Hoisting wires are provided to raise the upper portion in the usual way. To the lower end of the upper portion one end of a chain is attached. The chain hangs down in a loop and its other end is brought up and fixed to the lower portion. Cradled in the loop are reflector prisms so that, as the upper end is hoisted, the prisms will follow at half the speed. This ratio of speeds keeps the total optical path the same between the fixed eyepiece and the upper portion.

[Hitman]

i already came across this source, i was wondering if you had reference to a more definitive source, since this one is a little too "anecdotal"

Yes I had somewhere another source, must look through my documents as I can't remember now where it appeared.

[karamazovnew]

I love you Hitman . That report will keep me busy for some time. Sure hope the devs are watching this too . And maybe even implement it as realisticaly as possible (if they haven't already). Maybe the Subsim Meeting will clear this up.

[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