SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
01-10-21, 12:22 PM | #1 | ||||
Sailor man
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 43
Downloads: 4
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
You are saying that the stadimeter and the adjustable stand scope never actually coexisted in one unit, is that right? I am curious, why could they not, say, take the boat one or two meters deeper, and use the normal, full length scope, with the same effect of it sitting low? Especially in quiet weather, when scope is most visible, but depth control is also easier and more precise... Quote:
But plotting itself requires reasonably accurate ranges, right? Did they get those from telemeter tables? Or was there some other way still? And for the fixed wire, they did use U-Jagd, right? I remember reading somewhere that they had tables, listing the linear, rather than angular, torpedo parallax, which allowed shooting at any angle without knowing range to the target, using the target length as a rough yardstick. Quote:
Very interesting indeed. I think a lot of people now believe it is historical. Do you know why the whole device was simulated in Silent Hunter the way it was then? Why the tick counting, instead of linking it to the stadimeter, which is simulated already anyway? Why are the two marks and the Kurswinkel ring fixed? How did the real thing function in terms of scope magnification? Did you have to divide everything by four in low power, like with the American stadimeter? As you said yourself, this version was reproduced pretty much everywhere. No pressure, of course, just wandering. Quote:
According to the American Fleet Submarine Torpedo Fire Control manual, those scopes are marked in degrees, not mils, as one degree is 50 feet at 1000 yards. A rough approximation, sure, but something you can compute in your head. I guess it is a matter of whether you prefer to multiply by two or divide by three. Last edited by Nikdunaev; 01-10-21 at 12:51 PM. |
||||
01-10-21, 02:10 PM | #2 | |||
Grey Wolf
|
Quote:
Quote:
Probably not. U-Jagd means the hunting of subs, ASW. That watch was actually used by German ASW to plan depth charge approaches. Now, it just so happens that it is handy to use for this method, because the principles are the same, distance traveled over time. They had tables to help with this, but may have also used some form of stopwatch, there is reference made to that in at least one source. Quote:
The reticle was designed for 1.5x. In game you can multiply by 4 in 6x but IRL this was more complicated due to nuances in the optics. Rangefinding at 1.5x only was recommended.
__________________
Ask me anything about the Type VII or IX! One-Stop Targeting Shop: https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...WwBt-1vjW28JbO My YT Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIJ...9FXbD3S2kgwdPQ |
|||
01-15-21, 07:40 PM | #3 | |||
Sailor man
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 43
Downloads: 4
Uploads: 0
|
Sorry for the late reply
Quote:
Quote:
I honestly thought it was designed for this specific purpose. Those scales look very much like reasonable ship lengths and speeds... What is the use for depth charging purposes? What do the scales represent in that case? I am no expert in German, but the name, does it not stand for "unterwasser jagd" or "unterseeboot jagd"? Submarine hunting. Does it actually say if the hunting in question is for or by the submarine itself? I am curious. By this point I am afraid to ask further. Does the Silent Hunter community actually use any historical tool correctly? Quote:
Cause for the latter, as far as I know, multiply or divide by four was the "officially endorsed" method in real life. Both for the stadimeter and the telemeter scales. The optical zoom, does it not change the angular field of view by that factor? 4 times in our specific case? |
|||
01-15-21, 09:35 PM | #4 | |
Grey Wolf
|
Quote:
To your question about there being anything realistic used by the community, yes, these concepts are all historical, it’s just sometimes the devices that are used to get there are a little different than what they actually used. The recognition manual is overused though, that didn’t have that kind of data that these games have, so that’s probably the biggest diversion. And using the manual assumes that the very good vision we have out of the periscopes in game was how it was, and it certainly was not. Viewing a target with the head of a periscope just at the waterline, with fogging, and waves etc. was apparently very difficult. Hence the emphasis on gathering data on the surface while overtaking. Multiplied by four is correct for 6x, however, there was something with the optics that made that not so straightforward. To the extent that the commander’s handbook recommends rangefinding only at low power. I can answer the second part of your question to Pisces, only because I know the answer at the ready about the multiple oculars. So the one on the left, with the wire going out of it, inside of that one there was apparently a depiction of the torpedo triangle in colors. This allowed the user to visualize the lead angle. It was linked, at least by my understanding, to the AOB finder, since AOB is an angle in the torpedo triangle (gamma). The only other critical pieces of information are target and torpedo speed, and I’m not clear on how those were entered exactly. The ocular on the top inside of the RAOBF I believe was how the prisms were viewed for the stadimeter. These sound like great features, and they are very innovative, but with the TDC it’s easy to see how they are somewhat superfluous.
__________________
Ask me anything about the Type VII or IX! One-Stop Targeting Shop: https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...WwBt-1vjW28JbO My YT Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIJ...9FXbD3S2kgwdPQ |
|
01-16-21, 03:42 PM | #5 |
Soundman
|
"Multiplied by four is correct for 6x, however, there was something with the optics that made that not so straightforward. To the extent that the commander’s handbook recommends rangefinding only at low power."
The zoom and field of view had different ratios, perhaps that made it impossible to calibrate the graticle for both. |
01-21-21, 11:04 AM | #6 | |
Sailor man
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 43
Downloads: 4
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
The optical magnification in telescopes is increasing the apparent angular size of an object by a certain factor, compared to what would be seen by the naked eye. The decrease in field of view, looking through the same eyepiece, is a direct consequence of that, right? So, it seems that zoom and field of view are proportionally linked to each other by definition. If not, than the magnification power number is just meaningless. |
|
01-21-21, 07:22 PM | #7 | |
Soundman
|
Quote:
In Sh3 it works like you say, there is a direct and inverse relationship between zoom and field of view. However, it is not like that in real life, it depends on the construction of the optical device. In this particular case, the zoom ratio was 4 ( 1.5 to 6 ) but the field of view ratio was 4.22 ( 38 to 9 ). Since the graticle is just a 2d overlay it can't be accurate for both. To give more examples, the field of view for the 7x50 binoculars was 7.1 but some 10x80 binoculars had a field of view of 7.25 even though they had 10x zoom. The field of view was different even between different models of the 10x80 binoculars. What I did for DGUI was to use a 36 degree field of view for the low power, this way the periscopes can be calibrated at both magnifications. This is not historically accurate but I think it is more useful. Regards |
|
01-21-21, 11:32 AM | #8 | |
Sailor man
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 43
Downloads: 4
Uploads: 0
|
That one looks really amazing...
A highly detailed and accurate, historically and physically, submarine simulation, representing the actual particulars of the boat, as they functioned in real life? Yes, please! Quote:
Or was it automated, with TDC-like functionality? So, the stadimeter prisms were only visible through one eyepiece, but not through the other, is that right? Why not just align the ghost image, or move it all the way out of sight, when not being used? In the scope photo on the first page, the ring sits on the bottom ocular, whereas on the photo above, it sits on the top. Otherwise they seem to be pretty much identical. Is there any significance to that, in terms of functionality? Last edited by Nikdunaev; 01-21-21 at 11:55 AM. Reason: Referenced images for clarity |
|
01-21-21, 11:41 AM | #9 |
Silent Hunter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: AN9771
Posts: 4,892
Downloads: 302
Uploads: 0
|
@derstosstrupp and Nikdunaev:
You are both talking about this image? http://www.tvre.org/images/02_fot_07.jpg
__________________
My site downloads: https://ricojansen.nl/downloads |
01-21-21, 11:45 AM | #10 | |
Sailor man
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 43
Downloads: 4
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
|
|
01-16-21, 03:58 PM | #11 |
Pacific Aces Dev Team
|
Ignore the film footage, those were overlays added on post-production to the film. When you looked through teh scope the reticles were noting like what you see in Youtube or Das Boot.
__________________
One day I will return to sea ... |
01-16-21, 03:59 PM | #12 |
Ocean Warrior
|
I was wondering if you'd chime in. Hope all is well.
__________________
"Realistic" is not always GAME-GOOD." - Wave Skipper |
01-16-21, 04:01 PM | #13 |
Pacific Aces Dev Team
|
Yes John all is OK thanks God
I check daily here but I don't usually have much time to read or reply.
__________________
One day I will return to sea ... |
01-16-21, 04:02 PM | #14 |
Ocean Warrior
|
__________________
"Realistic" is not always GAME-GOOD." - Wave Skipper |
01-16-21, 04:10 PM | #15 |
Grey Wolf
|
Hitman is the reason I ventured down the path of wanting to learn more - his research back 10 years ago or so was what got me initially curious. Thanks Hitman!
__________________
Ask me anything about the Type VII or IX! One-Stop Targeting Shop: https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...WwBt-1vjW28JbO My YT Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIJ...9FXbD3S2kgwdPQ |
|
|