Make Radar and Sonar more realistic

[22cm]

Ok, so now that we have in game both Radar and Sonar, how about make them closer to reality? Neither of them can see through solid objects (islands). Also Sonar could not spot torpedoes.

[Z_OnkelE]

I'm with you on the radar page but I concerning the sonar (hydro acoustic search) I am under the impression that the game mechanics resemble reflection and/or dispersion and thus also giving some information "around a corner" (but only for short ranges). This search not only detects echos but also actively send out sounds, even distorted. Therefor I am ok with the hydro-spotting. However this does not apply for radar.

 

Regarding the torpedoes: even nowadays sonar seems to be the detection method of choice (although I can't verify the wiki source... citation needed, as always). And if you think about it: a torpedo with regard to sonar is just a very, very small ship made of metal and thus may provide surfaces which lead to echos (detected by sonar).

[JapLance]

Despite the sound the game makes when activated, I'd say that Hydroacoustic search is more based in hydrophones (passive method) than sonar (active pinging). Hydrophones detects sounds in the water, like the screws of ships and torpedoes, so I think it's more or less OK.

 

I agree that it shouldn't be accurate enough to give the perfect position of the sounds (actually, probably only a bearing) or detect through islands, but I consider it OK for an arcade game.

[22cm]

Both radar and hydrophone can not detect anything through an island or a mountain.

[shulzidar]

Sonar through obstacles is perfectly fine... It's just an "arcade license" (one could wonder how an hydrophone can pickup a ship that has killed its engines or how sonar can detect a ship behind an island without an obstacle to reflect the sound waves back on the other side of the "channel").

 

Radar is a bit more problematic... The problem is the range. If enough URSS CA are around we could take the risk of changing all maps into glorified copies of OCEAN, that lovely masterpiece of map design. The current implementation has a VERY LONG CD compared to active period, but even in this case I really don't like mechanisms that remove hard cover as a tactical factor (Seeing through smoke is fine... Ship Skill vs Ship Skill CD management is nice to have)... Tends to encourage map-independent tactics. Radar should pierce smoke but obey LoS against terrain (Like real ones), imo.

 

With the above modifications BOTH ship skills would make sense... ATM gameplay-wise, GE hydrophones are a downgraded version of URSS Radar, which OFC, is another synthom of bad game design.

[shamelesscreature]

Regarding the torpedoes: even nowadays sonar seems to be the detection method of choice (although I can't verify the wiki source... citation needed, as always). And if you think about it: a torpedo with regard to sonar is just a very, very small ship made of metal and thus may provide surfaces which lead to echos (detected by sonar).

Torpedoes are detected by passive sonar as they emit significant noise themselves (propeller cavitation, first and foremost). This technology was available during WW2, examples include the Kriegsmarine's GHG and NHG. 

[22cm]

Torpedoes are detected by passive sonar as they emit significant noise themselves (propeller cavitation, first and foremost). This technology was available during WW2, examples include the Kriegsmarine's GHG and NHG. 

 

During WW2, the technology was able to detect the torps engine running in the water and if they hit, but predict the trajectory of the torps?

 

Edit: changed direction with trajectory.

[shamelesscreature]

Yes. GHG and NHG consisted of arrays of microphones on both sides of the ship's hull. As all of these microphones are in different locations, an incoming signal is registered by them at different times. This information can be used to determine the azimuth of the signal.  

A detailed decription can be found in chapter I b) of this Kriegsmarine manual (+ attachments).

 

Regarding their performance, this source (top of page 26) claims that all torpedoes fired from more than 2 km during post-war trials could be avoided. 

 

[Loc_Doc]

 

During WW2, the technology was able to detect the torps engine running in the water and if they hit, but predict the direction of the torps?

 

Got a friend who worked as acoustics operator on board Soviet warships and he verifies that you can easily tell from which direction(bearing) torpedo comes. Fun fact, he said that torpedo sounds like Harley Davidson underwater. 

 

Speaking about nowadays, you don`t even need active radar to be able to spot other ships. Using electronic support measures you can passively detect enemy radar esm bearings and get bearing from which it is emitted, while yourself being out of his detection range.

[22cm]

Got a friend who worked as acoustics operator on board Soviet warships and he verifies that you can easily tell from which direction(bearing) torpedo comes. Fun fact, he said that torpedo sounds like Harley Davidson underwater. 

 

Yeah, my bad, I should have said torpedo trajectory or path, not direction (that is really easy to tell, you just have to see where the sound comes from), and do this for each torpedo from a salvo.. I will edit it.

[Loc_Doc]

 

Yeah, my bad, I should have said torpedo trajectory or path, not direction (that is really easy to tell, you just have to see where the sound comes from), and do this for each torpedo from a salvo.. I will edit it.

 

It was somewhat possible, if you put hydrophone on one end of a ship and another on second end of a ship then you might compare sound changes and draw assumptions from that. That requires pretty trained acoustics personnel tho, but in general it was possible I think. 

 

Easy example - imagine car driving towards you or going parallel to you. The sound is quite different. To calculate precise trajectories one has to be very experienced tho. 

 

Is here anyone serving/has served on subs? Those guys should know how this actually work/does not work.

[BadGene616]

Just play silent hunter three and use the hydrophone a lot. You can triangulate pretty easily.

[chaosrealm93]

Also Sonar could not spot torpedoes.

 

really? i always thought they could...

[Cit_The_Bed]

I work with sonar on a daily basis.

 

Triangulation is easy with sonar, and using a technique called Target Motion Analysis (TMA), you can get the course, speed and range of the contact. It's never 100% accurate, but it's good enough.

 

The way sonar works in game is inherantly flawed, compared to real life. A ship travelling at full speed will never detect anything on its passive sonar due to the sound of water flowing over it. Equally, it is much harder to detect a ship that is travelling very slowly and thus not making much noise. However this is an arcade game, so it's good enough. A sensitive enough hydrophone can detect anything, all it does it pick up sound.

 

There are instances of ship-mounted hydrophones being used to detect other surface ships in WW2. The details escape me, but I believe it was Scharnhorst that detected an RN cruiser at something like 11k yards in poor visibility.

 

Radar on the other hand, is line of sight only, and is easily detectable outside of the range at which it will "spot" things.

[moggy242]

My problem with the radar is the plain simple fact that everyone on 1 side sees the instant results of everyone else's radar. Yes ships could radio the information but the poor overworked radio operator wouldn't be able to keep up with updating everyone else continuously. Can't we have radar only giving a solid picture to the active ships. Maybe give all other ships an on map vague area.

 

 

 

Also radar of the period was pretty crude. Maybe by the end of 1945 it gave a rough area. It didn't allow you to 'SEE' the target. Not being a naval historian when did radar controlled guns come into use? Anyone know this?  I am pretty sure it wasn't until after 1945 anyway.

[Yuzral]

Like a lot of things (synchromesh gearboxes and push-button starters, for example) radar-assisted surface-surface gunnery (surface-air was an earlier development) came in a lot earlier than most people think.  The Royal Navy was fielding the Type 284 in 1940, while the US Navy deployed its first sets in the autumn of 1941.

[th3freakie]

 

Got a friend who worked as acoustics operator on board Soviet warships and he verifies that you can easily tell from which direction(bearing) torpedo comes. Fun fact, he said that torpedo sounds like Harley Davidson underwater. 

How does your friend know the sound of a Harley Davidson underwater? Seems like a stupid thing to do with such an expensive motorbike. 

[shotgun_mary]

Ok, so now that we have in game both Radar and Sonar, how about make them closer to reality? Neither of them can see through solid objects (islands). Also Sonar could not spot torpedoes.

 

Well the Torpedoes are hardly realistic in themselves and a Destroyer taking an 18 inch shell and being fine is hardly realistic. You are on the wrong game if you want realism. 

[moggy242]

Very true

[warsinger2]

Speaking of realism in a game with as arcade and arbitrary spotting and "cloaking" mechanics as WOWS, hint invisible DDs shooting ships etc.... 

Unlimited torpedo and shell reservoirs...... 

Hypocrisy much???

[EsaTuunanen]

Well the Torpedoes are hardly realistic in themselves and a Destroyer taking an 18 inch shell and being fine is hardly realistic. You are on the wrong game if you want realism. 

Destroyers of the time could take lots of overpenning APs unless those happened to hit critical spots or plunge through bottom.

(and with gunnery accuracy of the time hits to DDs would have been mostly at flat horizontal trajectory ranges for any bigger guns)

[Hauptbahnhof]

Agreed.

 

Sonar should only give warning and crude direction if there are torpedoes in the water. ( the small beeping icons but not the torps themself spotted and rendered )

 

Neither radar nor sonar should be able to see objects on surface through islands

 

Radar should also be able to detect incoming airplanes earlier. ( Maybe reduce ships spotting airplane distance by max 1km and increase it with 5km when radar is active? ).

[Hedgehog1963]

My ping isn't good enough for Sonar...

[moggy242]

Like a lot of things (synchromesh gearboxes and push-button starters, for example) radar-assisted surface-surface gunnery (surface-air was an earlier development) came in a lot earlier than most people think.  The Royal Navy was fielding the Type 284 in 1940, while the US Navy deployed its first sets in the autumn of 1941.

 

 

Thank you for the information. Would these have been capable of networking all other ships in the flotilla/fleet in live time of exact positions/distance bearing/speed/damage state? I very much doubt this which is why I feel radar should only give the information in detail to the scanning ship. Maybe have other ships gain the approx. position but no more.

[Hauptbahnhof]

Speaking of realism in a game with as arcade and arbitrary spotting and "cloaking" mechanics as WOWS, hint invisible DDs shooting ships etc.... 

Unlimited torpedo and shell reservoirs...... 

Hypocrisy much???

 

So I guess that you are a proponent of adding more arcade, arbitrary and fantasy game mechanics then if you don't want the game to go more to the realism side then?

 

You have to pick a side, either you want the game to be more realistic, or less.