PDA

View Full Version : Still totally flat sea?



eobet
08-12-2005, 02:20 PM
I mentioned this game in another forum, but it occured to me that I hadn't actually checked news for it in a year or so.

So I must ask this question again:

Does the current version of the game still only have a totally flat plane for the sea, and do the carriers ever actually roll, tilt and move around in the water?

Also, were LSO's ever added to the deck of carriers?

eobet
08-12-2005, 02:20 PM
I mentioned this game in another forum, but it occured to me that I hadn't actually checked news for it in a year or so.

So I must ask this question again:

Does the current version of the game still only have a totally flat plane for the sea, and do the carriers ever actually roll, tilt and move around in the water?

Also, were LSO's ever added to the deck of carriers?

Chivas
08-12-2005, 02:25 PM
PF was never totally flat. Depends which weather condition you chose to play at. Its especially goood if you can run water=3 with an Nvidia 6800. Yes the Carriers do roll.

I've never used the LSO in any sim because there is no convincing way to implement the LSO on a computer. Once you practice enough, landing is no problem. It would be interesting to hear from real pilots who have alot of experience with carrier landings....how much attention they actually pay to the LSO, other than the emergency wave off.

Kuoster
08-12-2005, 03:43 PM
With Water=3 and A 6800 or better, The waves in PF have always been complete 3d waves that actually move in the direction of the real-time winds and such. With this, of course the Carriers fully roll, tilt, and lean in the water. Set the weather to a full thunderstorm, and it is very distinct.

Bearcat99
08-12-2005, 06:56 PM
Whitecaps and all....... even FB1.0 wasnt totally flat unless you had it on the barest of settings.

LEXX_Luthor
08-12-2005, 07:17 PM
Yes, PF waves are much MUCH more intense grafix-wise than FB Mississippie mud water.

With ATI-9800Pro I get great PF waves even without the Mythical water=3 setting. The PF waves really are suberb even at water=1, reflect the sunset/sunrise red and yellow colours, appear in motion, and change shadow effect with time of day. The PF water is very immersive especially when you float the A6M "Rufe" Zero floatplane in the stuff. Do it.

Carriers tilt side-to-side very well indeed, even in "good" calm weather. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Nice effect.

Sitting on a carrier with canopy open, stack smoke* cruising past your cockpit, slowly sailing beneath the puffy white clouds above, waves rolling beside, carrier tilting, etc... I tell you, the FB game engine is Superb for modeling the Pacific, if only somebody knew this. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


* Footnote
You have a new setting in "conf" file, effects=3 gives uber 3D flak and stack smoke, but kills fps. Try effects=1 and its still amazing smoke effects and very smooth framerates.

major_setback
08-13-2005, 07:25 AM
See, sea. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
These are shots previously found on this site showing 'water=3' (a setting that is only available with certain graphics cards).
By the way does anyone have any pictures of water=3 in a storm...any difference to the waves?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/USS_Lexington.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/041210grab0018.jpg

BSS_Vidar
08-13-2005, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chivas:
It would be interesting to hear from real pilots who have alot of experience with carrier landings....how much attention they actually pay to the LSO, other than the emergency wave off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

During WWII, you never took your eyes off the LSO during your approach other than to take a split second clance for line-up. However, the LSO had commands to adjust your line-up by lifting a leg and shacking it. Depending on the leg he shook indicated which direction to put a boot full of rudder in to correct your line-up. So, keeping you eye on the LSO platform back then was paramount! Looking too long at the flight deck is called "Spotting the Deck". And that's a No-No, even today.

In todays navy's, their are still LSO's that monitor safety on every approach to the deck. The Fresnel Lens system tells you almost everything you need to know about the quality of your approach, except speed and line-up. The Angle-of-Attack (AoA) indicators in you aircraft help you fly a precise speed and pitch at a specific weight. One set of AoA indications (AoA light box)is mounted in the windscreen so that the pilots head stays out of the cockpit during appraoch. A set of Droplights that extend downwards off the stern of the flight deck help you with line-up on the center-line of the recovery area. So, you see that a scan is required to excecute a safe approach. Your eyes are allways shifting from one source to the next. Glideslope, droplights, speed, glideslope, droplights, speed...

The LSO's today will on occation, talk to pilots during their approach, depending on the type of operations being conducted.

Examples are: Direction for line-up calls, power calls, clear or foul deck calls, and wave-off calls which can be made via radio. But during "Zip-Lip" recovery (radio silence) operations, these can be done via the lighting system around the Freznel Lens. For instance, white flashing lights triggered by the LSO are called "Cut Lights" which clear you to continue your approach. Flashing Red lights are a signal from ther LSO's platform to execute an immediate wave-off.

The whole Fresnel Lens and lighting sytems combined are frequently refered to as "The Christmas Tree."

There's a LOT more to it, but that's it in a nuttshell.

eobet
08-13-2005, 01:15 PM
Someone posted even better shots on a stormy sea in PF in another forum, so together with the carrier roll comments here, that's two questions answered, and with very positive answers indeed, thanks!

But what about the LSO, now? As BSS_Vidar pointed out, there was nobody more imporant on the deck, and to leave him out would be an utter travesty!

To Chivas, I can say that please try to locate a copy of U.S. Navy Fighter 97 for an absolutely brilliant implementation of a 3D LSO in a flight sim. To this day, I know of no other game with a better feeling of immersion than what that sim produced!

And if such an old sim as Navy Fighters could do it (and do it right), surely PF, with support of modern technology, would have no problems?

(But again, I still don't know if the LSO is in the game or not, but from the general reluctancy to answer, I have my suspicions.)

SaQSoN
08-13-2005, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But again, I still don't know if the LSO is in the game or not, but from the general reluctancy to answer, I have my suspicions </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, it is not.

Kuoster
08-13-2005, 04:46 PM
I still dont get how any pilot could manage seeing the LSO from that far out on approach.

Or do they just fly it down themselves, and then only look at the LSO once they acquire site of him at the last few seconds onto final approach.

major_setback
08-13-2005, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eobet:
Someone posted even better shots on a stormy sea in PF in another forum... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please could you post a link to those shots (of stormy sea), or if not tell me where you saw them. Lots of thanks if you could do this! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

major_setback

BSS_Vidar
08-13-2005, 11:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuoster:
I still dont get how any pilot could manage seeing the LSO from that far out on approach.

Or do they just fly it down themselves, and then only look at the LSO once they acquire site of him at the last few seconds onto final approach. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are a standard set of parameters for flight operations around the boat. The Blacksheep fly them religiously accurate, because I have tought them how to do it.

Senerio: A flight of four is entering the carrier's airspce for recovery. They enter from behind the ship, and fly the final bearing course (aka ships heading for straight deck WWII carriers) at 800 ft. They split up the formation by executing what is called the 'Carrier Break'. With no traffic in the ship's airspace, dash 1 (the lead) would break at the bow, then decend to 600 ft in the downwind. Dash 2 now leads the formation and breaks further up wind after 10-12 seconds, and so on with dashes 3 and 4. This sets up intervals (spacing) between the flight to ensure each aircraft can land, and taxi out of the arresting gear in time for the next guy to arrest with a clear deck.

With a moving carrier doing about 15-25 kts, you start your turn back in behind the carrier when you are abeam a-mid-ships. In a DF server with stationary carriers, you turn back into the boat when abeam the fantail. This is a continous turn back in to the ship for a short groove (final) behind the ship. If done correctly, you should never be wings level until flaring for the trap. By the time you're about to roll in on final bearing, your head is up looking for the LSO platform. You won't be able to miss him. He'll have on a bright international orange jump suit with reflective tape down his legs and accross his arms waving bright colored padels. His chest is the glide slop reference point. He'll move the padels up and down as a result of your position on the glide slop. Your goal is to fly your plane and make the LSO position his padals with his arms straight out. If you're high, his hands will come up, low, they'll come down.

To learn more, go to our site at: http://www.bss214.com/

Click on the Tactics tab, then select CQ/Formation Guide. Feel free to print it out, or download it. I wrote it right out of the US Navy's CQ NATOPS Manual, and modified for WWII straight deck operations.

S!

VFA-25_Peckens
08-14-2005, 02:48 AM
will my x800xl pci-e support it i know it can handle it but will it support it

EDIT: guess not it just defaults back to watter 1

vocatx
08-14-2005, 09:15 AM
For comparison screen shots of water 0 to water 3, look here: http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/graphicsil2.htm

Scroll almost to the bottom of the page.

I run water=3 on my Sapphire X800 PCIe. I never knew how many little details I was missing before I built this new rig.

BanaBob
08-14-2005, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by vocatx:
For comparison screen shots of water 0 to water 3, look here: http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/graphicsil2.htm

Scroll almost to the bottom of the page.

I run water=3 on my Sapphire X800 PCIe. I never knew how many little details I was missing before I built this new rig. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beieve that card has pixel shader 2.0b, which may allow you to run water=3 but you won't get the full effect unless you have pixel shader 3.0, i'm curious though what the water looks like on water=3 with ps 2.0b.

VW-IceFire
08-14-2005, 10:03 AM
Landing on a carrier in high seas in this game is the trickiest and most difficult thing I've ever done.

I can't run the fancy 3D water but it looks good enough and the deck is moving on all axis' so its really interesting!

BSS_Vidar
08-14-2005, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VFA-25_Peckens:
will my x800xl pci-e support it i know it can handle it but will it support it

EDIT: guess not it just defaults back to watter 1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If your settings are reverting back to default... Make sure your resolution is set to 32 bit, not 16. If you have 16 bit resolution set in your game graphics. The config.ini file reverts back to water=1. 32 bit example: 1024x 764x32, is the only thing that will allow you to process full real graphics.

SaQSoN
08-14-2005, 03:27 PM
ATI chips do not have hardware support for shaders 3.0, therefore, water=3 will not work with this cards.
It works only on NV 6800 family or newer NV chips.

Kuoster
08-15-2005, 12:29 PM
Stupid ATI, ripping people off with their line of next generation cards that dont even support SM3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Woot for the 6800GT!

STENKA_69.GIAP
08-16-2005, 05:02 AM
If you want to see an IL2 carrier roll check out the eye of storm movie

http://perso.club-internet.fr/ptthome/Tracks/eye-of-storm.zip

Download Xvid codec if you havent already got it

bogusheadbox
08-16-2005, 09:00 AM
So how do you turn on this water = 3 thingy?

Hologram3
08-16-2005, 09:36 AM
Boy, am I glad I saw this thread! I have a new puter on order, with the Radeon X850XTPE card, but I just changed it to an nVidia 6800 Ultra.

Call me superficial, but I LOVE eye candy, and judging by the water tests a few posts above, I WANT water=3!

Sehm
08-16-2005, 10:05 AM
Can i get the full effect with a 6600 GT card??

JadehawkII
08-16-2005, 01:05 PM
here is a shot I did of my setup. perfect setting and water set at 3. Really awesome to watch! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Onyxwing2004USA/A6M2-NRufe2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Onyxwing2004USA/Ki-61-1No23Hombau68Sentai.jpg

major_setback
08-16-2005, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bogusheadbox:
So how do you turn on this water = 3 thingy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You change the setting in the configurat√¬*on file (named 'conf') in the main Pacific Fighters or Forgotten Battles folder (which in turn is found either under 'program' or 'program files', then under 'Ubi Soft').

Water=3 only works with certain graphics cards. You can try water=2 though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BSS_Vidar
08-16-2005, 07:56 PM
I have water set to 3, and I have an Asus ATI 9800 Pro 256 mb card modified with two heat sink fans. My water looks just like that. I'm sportin' 60+ fps too.

Kuoster
08-16-2005, 08:28 PM
pic? Was curious bout' how it looks with SM2.

HellToupee
08-16-2005, 08:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
I have water set to 3, and I have an Asus ATI 9800 Pro 256 mb card modified with two heat sink fans. My water looks just like that. I'm sportin' 60+ fps too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if u mean by jade hawks pics they look like water 2 shots, even my cheapo 5900xt can look like that.

VFA-25_Peckens
08-16-2005, 11:06 PM
ok so x800s cant have water 3
6800s have disappearing objects on perfect unless they degrade their driver

that makes sense http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Kuoster
08-17-2005, 12:23 AM
Who cares if its a single particular driver causing it. You could simply revert back to any of the hundreds of other drivers that work perfectly fine. Different then being handicapped for "life."

bogusheadbox
08-17-2005, 03:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by major_setback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bogusheadbox:
So how do you turn on this water = 3 thingy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You change the setting in the configurat√¬*on file (named 'conf') in the main Pacific Fighters or Forgotten Battles folder (which in turn is found either under 'program' or 'program files', then under 'Ubi Soft').

Water=3 only works with certain graphics cards. You can try water=2 though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a 6800 ultra. So i should be able to do it.

Is there an easy "turn water to 3 for dummies" instructions anywhere?

major_setback
08-17-2005, 05:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">....I have a 6800 ultra. So i should be able to do it.

Is there an easy "turn water to 3 for dummies" instructions anywhere? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not very technical...just click on the file named 'conf';http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/config01.jpg

You'll see a list of objects, settings etc...scroll to the bottom of the list and where it says 'water=1' or 'water=2' just type a '3' instead (so that it reads water=3)
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/config02.jpg

If it doesn't work then right click on 'conf' then double click on 'open with', and then double click on 'wordpad'. This should open the configuration file 'conf'.

bogusheadbox
08-17-2005, 06:33 AM
Perfect,

You are a star.

Thank you very much.

Sehm
08-17-2005, 09:14 AM
Guys, I can't get it to work with my 6600GT... Help...

major_setback
08-17-2005, 09:22 AM
You might try the 'community help' forum instead of this one (more technically minded people over there, and you are more likely to get the help you are looking for).

Sehm
08-17-2005, 01:54 PM
ok, thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Benhur_C6
08-18-2005, 06:40 AM
you need to have also : hardwareshader=1 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

eobet
08-21-2005, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by major_setback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eobet:
Someone posted even better shots on a stormy sea in PF in another forum... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please could you post a link to those shots (of stormy sea), or if not tell me where you saw them. Lots of thanks if you could do this! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

major_setback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The shots I saw were posted in a link here in the thread (the comparison shots).

Not having the LSO in the game is not only a terrible historical oversight (one that I believe not only many real LSOs, but also real pilots, would be offended by), but it is also a major immersion & atmosphere killer (again, US Navy Fighters 97 managed the LSO brilliantly).

Anyway, thank you for your answers! I will hold off buying the game for now, though.

Oh, and Kuoster, I love your avatar! For the birds is one of the funniest movies ever!

Bearcat99
08-22-2005, 06:58 AM
You can also download IL2 Manager..... it is in the Essentials link... and do it that way. It is a great program.

Philipscdrw
08-22-2005, 07:23 AM
I can't believe that Oleg implemented a flat sea. IRL, the oceans were covered in rolling hills and valleys which played a major part in naval warfare. When launching aircraft, carriers would often sail downhill, to build up the airspeed over the deck. Ships could sail over the tops of the oceanic hills to get a higher vantage point, to spot the enemy fleets from further away, or hide in the valleys to avoid detection. Of course, the captains had to be careful when travelling along a steep slope. If the slope was too steep, it could capsize the ship.

EiZ0N
09-06-2005, 05:34 PM
wth?

Call me stupid, but I thought that the sea, generally speaking, and waves aside, was completely flat?

How can you say differently, it doesn't make sense?

Sorry to post in a 'dead'-ish topic.

Kuoster
09-07-2005, 01:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
I can't believe that Oleg implemented a flat sea. IRL, the oceans were covered in rolling hills and valleys which played a major part in naval warfare. When launching aircraft, carriers would often sail downhill, to build up the airspeed over the deck. Ships could sail over the tops of the oceanic hills to get a higher vantage point, to spot the enemy fleets from further away, or hide in the valleys to avoid detection. Of course, the captains had to be careful when travelling along a steep slope. If the slope was too steep, it could capsize the ship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wtf?

EiZ0N
09-07-2005, 08:39 AM
Yeah exactly - will someone please confirm that I am indeed NOT crazy and that the sea is flat?

Because wow, if water can have hills and valleys, I've had some serious kind of brain damage all of my life when it comes to physics.

Beirut
09-07-2005, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

* Footnote
You have a new setting in "conf" file, effects=3 gives uber 3D flak and stack smoke, but kills fps. Try effects=1 and its still amazing smoke effects and very smooth framerates. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ack! I just tried effects=3 and it looks great, but it beat the **** out of my FPS. All there was on screen was a B-25 and a US carrier. The smoke looked incredible but I really noticed a slowdown on my AMD64-3000/9800Pro. Only 512 RAM though, yes I know... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Going to try some flak now. Might have to lower the AA and AF and see if I can get it playable.

Triggaaar
09-07-2005, 07:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
Yeah exactly - will someone please confirm that I am indeed NOT crazy and that the sea is flat? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This is a joke right? It's flatish (apart from gradually going around a planet). Depending on the weather, it can roll a fair amount, but 'travelling along a steep slope'? In a dingy perhaps. Hiding an aircraft carrier in a rolling ocean would be impressive. The peaks and troughs come and go quickly, and move at different speeds to ships, so I'd be surprised if a carrier could ride a wave like a surfer. And when the weather is most severe, I wouldn't want to be taking off.

EiZ0N
09-07-2005, 07:55 PM
It wasn't a joke, no. I wanted someone to confirm that the guy was talking nonsense and that I hadn't lost my mind :P

Retrofish
09-08-2005, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
It wasn't a joke, no. I wanted someone to confirm that the guy was talking nonsense and that I hadn't lost my mind :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reading your post reminded me of this clip (http://www.fromtheflightdeck.com/videos/videos/planetakesoffintoawave.WMV) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bluedog72
09-08-2005, 11:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
I can't believe that Oleg implemented a flat sea. IRL, the oceans were covered in rolling hills and valleys which played a major part in naval warfare. When launching aircraft, carriers would often sail downhill, to build up the airspeed over the deck. Ships could sail over the tops of the oceanic hills to get a higher vantage point, to spot the enemy fleets from further away, or hide in the valleys to avoid detection. Of course, the captains had to be careful when travelling along a steep slope. If the slope was too steep, it could capsize the ship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They even used trenches in the Marianas campaign, by sailing along the bottom of the trench, warships could keep their masts below the surrounding surface and remain hidden.

EiZ0N
09-10-2005, 05:57 PM
?? :S :S

Triggaaar
09-10-2005, 09:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
It wasn't a joke, no. I wanted someone to confirm that the guy was talking nonsense and that I hadn't lost my mind :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I knew you weren't joking, I meant the info from the chap you quoted. He was either joking, or mad. The ships that did hide, were called submarines.

That clip's cool Retrofish. Shows how dangerous it is when a carrier is moving a lot. Imagine trying to take off while the carrier was in stealth mode.

major_setback
09-11-2005, 10:39 AM
The sea is not level: As we know it is fatter at the equator (elipsoid), furthermore...

'... Concentrations of mass in different parts of the earth's interior, and topography (mountains, seamounts etc) all result in a gravitational attraction which deforms the level surfaces. The level surface closest to the MSS*, known as the geoid*, departs from an ellipsoid by about 100 m in each direction, depending on position on the earth. For this reason, a map of the MSS measured from space, with the reference ellipsoid subtracted off, shows a very complicated shape reflecting to some extent (but at shorter wavelengths only) the undulations in the shape of the ocean floor (with each seamount below the ocean surface producing a gravitational attraction towards it, resulting in a small bulge in the sea surface above it).'

*[Note: Mean Sea Level (MSL) to a geodesist (a person who studies the shape of the Earth) usually means the local height of the global Mean Sea Surface (MSS) above a 'level' reference surface, or datum, called the geoid.]



From this site:

http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/puscience/

EiZ0N
09-11-2005, 08:24 PM
I don't know what to think anymore. I just cannot imagine ships sailing up and down hills...

Triggaaar
09-12-2005, 03:35 AM
The world isn't flat, but it still looks like it is.

For the purpose of the game, it is as it should be. If you fly a plane over the equator, you're not suddenly overwhelmed by how fat the sea is. Sure the sea isn't purely flat, but you can't hide a carrier from a plane that a mile away.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">originally posted by major_setback:
the undulations in the shape of the ocean floor (with each seamount below the ocean surface producing a gravitational attraction towards it, resulting in a small bulge in the sea surface above it).' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What? I see this quote has come from PSMSL, but this bit doesn't make a huge amount of sence. This is getting away from relevance to the game, but http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif below the sea surface, is either more sea, or earth crust, both of which have mass, and will have a gravitational effect on the sea above. The difference in sea level, due only to whether it's deep or not, would be tiny (a few centimetres) if anything at all.

major_setback
09-12-2005, 04:46 AM
Below the sea surface there is terrain much like that on land.

Large bodies (ex. the Earth, The moon, large mountains etc.) exert a strong gravitational pull on their surroundings.
Large mountains under the sea's surface will exert a gravitational pull on the surrounding water causing bumps in the surface.

Isn't this a well known fact? This is elementary science...or?

Any sailors out there that can confirm this?

Never underestimate the power of gravity! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Philipscdrw
09-12-2005, 05:16 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I love you guys...

major_setback
09-12-2005, 05:39 AM
Quote:
'It may seem surprising that Earth's gravity is not equally strong at all points of the globe. Instead, it varies by a small fraction due to the presence of such things as mountains or deep ocean trenches.'

From:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050504191450.htm

Also:

"The ocean's surface, while appearing flat, is actually covered with hills and valleys caused by currents, winds and tides, and also by variations in Earth's gravity field."

From:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/gravity-03g.html


Note: It seems though that the effect might be so small as to have have little or no practical implications for shipping (does anyone know?).


http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/students/jason1/images/altimetry_schematic_2.jpg

VVaFFenPanZZeR
09-12-2005, 07:45 AM
Hills, and valleys in the Oceans, can in fact occure, whilst a storm is blowin, wind is the major part in making huge waves, enough to hide a carrier, maybe not, BUT it will along with poor visiblity hide 1, and this is all scientific fact, no bs.

Philipscdrw
09-12-2005, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by major_setback:
Quote:
'It may seem surprising that Earth's gravity is not equally strong at all points of the globe. Instead, it varies by a small fraction due to the presence of such things as mountains or deep ocean trenches.'

From:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050504191450.htm

Also:

"The ocean's surface, while appearing flat, is actually covered with hills and valleys caused by currents, winds and tides, and also by variations in Earth's gravity field."

From:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/gravity-03g.html


Note: It seems though that the effect might be so small as to have have little or no practical implications for shipping (does anyone know?).

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Major-Setback, I didn't know about this! So there actually are gentle hills on the seas. Well well. I learn something new every day. Yesterday I learned that, by putting WD40 on the clutch pedal hinge, I can drive a whole lot more smoothly. Today I also learned that WD40 will mark automotive paint, or perhaps it's just where it's repelled the water and dirt since yesterday. I can never be certain.

major_setback
09-13-2005, 04:53 AM
Ocean topography maps showing variations in ocean height:

http://oceanwatch.pifsc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/map_altim


http://oceanwatch.pifsc.noaa.gov/

Japan:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/AT2005240_2005246_ssh_8D_kuroshio.jpg

Pacific Basin:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/0cc33545.jpg

Hawaii:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/510ab4d3.jpg

Triggaaar
09-13-2005, 06:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I love you guys... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Good this isn't it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by major_setback:
Below the sea surface there is terrain much like that on land. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yep, agreed.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Large bodies (ex. the Earth, The moon, large mountains etc.) exert a strong gravitational pull on their surroundings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Large bodies - the Earth and the moon, agreed. A mountain is tiny in comparison, but it will have a slight affect, agreed.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Large mountains under the sea's surface will exert a gravitational pull on the surrounding water causing bumps in the surface. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Barely. A mountain under the sea will exert a gravitational pull, directly related to it's mass. However, if there was no mountain under the sea, then there would be water in it's place, and that too would exert a gravitational pull, directly related to it's mass. The only difference in gravitational pull would be how much denser the mountain is, than the water (and note that the water would be denser than 1kg/litre because it would be under pressure).

A couple of quotes from the cool links you provided:
"In the Sumatran earthquake, Sabadini and Dalla Via found that the total geoid movement was some 18 mm -- a lot for a geoid!"
"Such deviations are far below the perceptible limits of humans but GOCE is equipped with a device called a gradiometer than can detect these ultra-subtle differences."

18mm, and perceptible limits of humans!
We're not talking 'hide a carrier' differences here.

Those topography maps you've posted are cool. But they show a difference in level of less than 3 metres, over thousands of miles. And these differences will be more due to the irregular shape of the earth (from your link: "which bulges out the planet's equator and makes its diameter 21 kilometres wider than the pole-to-pole distance") and the posittion of the moon, than any under water mountains.

EiZ0N
09-13-2005, 07:24 AM
Thanks, that makes much more sense.

I thought hiding a carrier seemed ridiculous and nonsensical http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Viking-S
09-13-2005, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chivas:
PF was never totally flat. Depends which weather condition you chose to play at. Its especially goood if you can run water=3 with an Nvidia 6800. Yes the Carriers do roll.

I've never used the LSO in any sim because there is no convincing way to implement the LSO on a computer. Once you practice enough, landing is no problem. It would be interesting to hear from real pilots who have alot of experience with carrier landings....how much attention they actually pay to the LSO, other than the emergency wave off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/Bentwings.html
Read all about it!

major_setback
09-13-2005, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Triggaaar:
...A couple of quotes from the cool links you provided:
"In the Sumatran <span class="ev_code_PINK">EARTHQUAKE</span>, Sabadini and Dalla Via found that the total geoid movement was some 18 mm -- a lot for a geoid!"
"Such deviations are far below the perceptible limits of humans but GOCE is equipped with a device called a gradiometer than can detect these ultra-subtle differences."

18mm, and perceptible limits of humans!
We're not talking 'hide a carrier' differences here.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see the relevance of this quote, it merely points out that an earthquake raised the sea level by 18cm locally (which as they state would be unnoticeable unless measured using a 'gradiometer').

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the effect that underwater mounts have on the ocean's height might be so small as to have little or no practical implications for shipping !!!

I really don't know why I'm arguing the point, I am really just agreeing with an earlier poster who claimed that the sea isn't flat; but...

However 3m is quite a variation in height tactically speaking, and differences of 1-2m might occur locally (up to 200km). Add to that any advantage provided by the earth's curvature. Submarines and smaller vessels might well benefit from these differences. The maps I posted are too large a scale too draw any conclusions about local height differences.

Does anyone know how far away a ship can be seen on the ocean? I know someone posted the answer earlier. I think I remember it being a surprisingly long distance.

EDIT: How far:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m...171032682#4171032682 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/9961002682/r/4171032682#4171032682)

major_setback
09-13-2005, 10:28 AM
I'm really just stirring trouble now, but make what you will of this statement. I'm not at all sure how to interpret it!

From this site:

http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Buff_012005-P1,00.html


'Gravity is an attractive force between masses. Because rock is much more dense that water -- more mass per unit of volume -- seamounts (undersea mountains) exert an extra gravity pull on the ocean around them, compared to an area of ocean where the bottom is uniformly flat. Since water is incompressible, that pull causes the local ocean to pile up over the seamount by as much as tens of meters.'

Philipscdrw
09-13-2005, 11:06 AM
It's possible, in some places, to waterski down the sides of an oceanic mountain in the same way as you ski down a land-mountain - no boat to pull you forwards, just gravity pushing you down the slope.

The Marianas trenches had one significant flaw - any torpedoes fired at the trenches would leave the side of the trench and hit the battleships in the superstructure, causing high damage.

major_setback
09-13-2005, 11:15 AM
As for tactical relevance I haven't found much, but...



‚‚ā¨ňúSea surface topography derived from the altimeter data will be used for tactical environmental aids and for boundary conditions for shipboard ocean models‚‚ā¨ô

From this site:

http://gfo.bmpcoe.org/Gfo/Mission/missione.htm

Triggaaar
09-13-2005, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by major_setback:
I don't see the relevance of this quote, it merely points out that an earthquake raised the sea level by 18cm locally (which as they state would be unnoticeable unless measured using a 'gradiometer'). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Relevance was just that I thought sea level differences were small - admitadly more than 18mm for underwater mountains, but still small. Note 18mm, not cm (that may have been a typo).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As I mentioned in an earlier post, the effect that underwater mounts have on the ocean's height might be so small as to have little or no practical implications for shipping !!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe I missed that, or forgot, but I agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I really don't know why I'm arguing the point </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Me neither http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It's interesting, especially when you're doing all the leg work.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However 3m is quite a variation in height tactically speaking, and differences of 1-2m might occur locally (up to 200km). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>1-2m over 200km could surely only make a difference with long range weapons, and be less relevant in this game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by major_setback:
I'm really just stirring trouble now, but make what you will of this statement.

'Gravity is an attractive force between masses. Because rock is much more dense that water -- more mass per unit of volume -- seamounts (undersea mountains) exert an extra gravity pull on the ocean around them, compared to an area of ocean where the bottom is uniformly flat. Since water is incompressible, that pull causes the local ocean to pile up over the seamount by as much as tens of meters.' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>****. So deep water isn't more dense, as I'd thought, and a dense mountain will make more difference than I thought. But tens of metres doesn't sound realistic, and doesn't match the graphs you showed earlier.

So:
The sea isn't perfectly flat, due to the shape of the earth, the moon, and underwater mountains (not to mention wind).
But is it possible to ride a carrier downhill, to keep up speed, to aid aircrafts taking off?
And is it possible to hide carriers in valleys, from the enemy (in WWII only, and ignoring stormy weather)?

Triggaaar
09-13-2005, 12:02 PM
I can't believe the word that I posted that just got sensored. It was like dash. Is dash allowed - soon see...

major_setback
09-13-2005, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Triggaaar:
I can't believe the word that I posted that just got sensored... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you on censorship of the FB forums. Yesterday I tried for forty minutes to get a link to work and found that the reason it wouldn't was because it was being auto-censored. The site I was trying to link to (BTW. also several pictures wouldn't load) was called 'coast_watch' (but without the dash), and the 5th to 8th letters were deleted so it read 'coas****ch' in the URL!! You can see which letters were deleted! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

major_setback
09-13-2005, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Triggaaar:
....
So:
The sea isn't perfectly flat, due to the shape of the earth, the moon, and underwater mountains (not to mention wind).
But is it possible to ride a carrier downhill, to keep up speed, to aid aircrafts taking off?
And is it possible to hide carriers in valleys, from the enemy (in WWII only, and ignoring stormy weather)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wish I knew the answer to those questions. It is a bit frustrating not being able to find any clear evidence one way or the other, especially as there must be thousands of sailors who know the anwser!
I have a friend who does lots of ocean sailing (tall ship, old style)...I'll see if he knows.

major_setback
09-13-2005, 01:50 PM
'Late in the Cold War, the United States Navy decided it would be a good idea to survey the altitude of the ocean surface, all over the world, to within a few inches. The point was not to measure waves. The ocean is not flat even where it is calm: it has hills and valleys that depart by as much as a few hundred feet from what we think of as sea level. The slopes of these features are so gentle--they extend over tens or even hundreds of miles--that no ship ever feels them. Yet the Navy decided that submarine commanders, of all people, would benefit from precise measurements of this imperceptible topography.

Why? Because the study of bumps on the ocean surface is a reliable kind of phrenology. it reveals deeper truths about the ocean. Small, shifting bumps are created by the shifting fronts between water masses- -between the warm Gulf Stream and the cold Atlantic, say--and those same fronts scatter sound, thus creating sonar shadows that can hide a Red October. The larger and more permanent hills and valleys are created by something else entirely: by Earth's gravity field, which varies slightly from place to place. Knowing those variations helps a submarine stay on course when it is underwater and sailing blind. And when the time comes to launch a missile at Minsk, knowing the precise direction of gravity at the launch site--it does not always point straight toward the center of Earth--is essential. If the missile starts out on a slightly wrong heading, it will miss its target, thousands of miles away....
....Through the action of gravity on water, then, the sea surface becomes like an attenuated visual echo of the seafloor, piling up over mountains, dipping down over trenches.'

From this site:

http://www.platetectonics.com/article.asp?a=19&c=4 (http://www.platetectonics.com/article.asp?a=19&amp;c=4)