Ship Simulator
English forum => Development corner => Ship Dynamics => Topic started by: Stuart2007 on May 24, 2007, 23:49:29
-
Out of curiosity, is there anyone on this forum who has sea going experience. Do the ships really reflect reality (as far as is possible in a simulator).
As one who has flight experience, I have to say that the handling in flight sim has little resemblance to reality (if pitch control was that bad, they'd fall out the sky).
These ships seem believable to me. But I've never steered a ship...
Stuart
-
Good question - The acceleration and responsiveness of many ships in the original version of the game was something the developers and a few of the mods were talking about quite some time ago. We agreed certain ships needed "enhance" acceleration curves, handling and such. One example of this was the Titanic - many people would loose patience with the vessels poor acceleration rate as well as her terrible responsiveness. I think for the moment, considering that this project is trying to appeal to both gamers and hard core simmers, some sacrifices must be made - but yet realism still must be present. So it is a tough call, and a call the players of SS must understand and deal with . . .
And yes, the pitching issues on Flight Simulator have always driven me nuts as well. I have logged lots of times into MSFS and higher grade flight simulators and found the certain handling characteristics in MSFS really annoying and often have to rely on majorly trimming my controls and manipulating flight sensitivity characteristics just to make aircraft easier to pilot.
-
Hello Dave,
::) I agree with you, the question has surely been debated. And I completely disagree with the conclusions, if these conclusions apparently led to a poor simulation of the main characteristics of the ships!
I have not :( a great flight experience, and it was on obsolete planes, of course :-\ outdated. But ShipSim is not yet at the level of FS, at least for the kind of aircraft and ships that I know of. At least, these flight models can exist, probably do exist, and follow the laws of aerodynamics ;D even if trimming the controls is an uneasy task!
FS allows you :D to degrade the level of realism, starting from a correct simulation: Arcade games :-[ dont, and the difference between both kinds of games lies precisely there.
And I am sure that it is possible to do the same for ShipSim, if the modelisation ??? was based on correct laws.
That is why I very much >:( disagree with the degradation made of the dynamics of the ships, if done intentionally. Did any true (and impatient) Titanic fan ask for more responsiveness, ie less realism? Also, a quick realistic sinking probably? :o
From what I guess, ;) you dont necessarily support the point of view you seem to defend. It is indeed mostly supported by people unaware and un-interested by ships or simulation per se, and it could kill the game in the end, joining a great family of unrealistic simulations (ski, jetski, motorcycle, fishing ...).
From my readings of the forum, I never met a topic asking for less realism, or am I wrong? Perhaps are only "hard core simmers" on the forum, and gamers stay away of it?
Well, no need to tell you 8) I am in favor of a true simulation (with sailors, passengers, cargo,... if my pc can handle it).
Regards,
Luc
-
I agree, certain aspects of the game must be more realistic and eventually SS Should get closer to FS. I have spoken a couple of times with Mark and Pjotr, and they have explained what they have done. They intend to make the game as interesting as possible to the widest array of players - hence certain sacrifices. Much debate about vessel dynamics and such occurred on the old forum, their lack of realism, etc . . .
I can UNDERSTAND VSteps approach and thinking regarding the above topic. However, as a hard core simmer and ship fan I wish to see more realism, as you so noted "I am not for what I am defending" or the like. I am not. I am for more realism. However, I am torn because I, as a business owner, understand VSteps thought process and if I were in a tight spot I would try to come up with a way to get the most people to buy the game all the while the most realism. And it is a tough call and there are a lot of different options. In the end, my choice would be different from theirs. However, I do not criticize them for what they have done. For what it is at the moment, Ship Sim is a great product and has gathered a lot of attention - which is what they needed. Now, lets hope they find strategies to maintain our attention.
I hope decisions can be made in the future that will bring more realism to the game all the while be just as if not more effective than the current game in attracting a large array of gamers. VStep needs copies to sell, yet they need to appeal to their core gamers as well. It is a tough decision to make. If the game gets too specific and possibly too realistic, VStep may loose some gamers. If they get too arcade-gme like, they loose simmers . . . Tough choice. It is all about balance for now.
-
Well, if Vstep makes the gamers chose the realism, that would be the best.
Like difficulty levels: beginner, chiefmate, captain
Than all of the players got what they want.
-
Hello,
I agree, but the following is a citation from VStep.nl about Ship Simulator:
"Both the graphical quality of the ships and their dynamic behavior are completely realistic,..."
that is why any degrading of the realism in the simulation throws the above cit. in the dustbin ;D.
Of course, Sam's proposal is the best solution, or one of the best 8).
I can also imagine ::) futuristic "funships", nicely coloured with powerful engines and fully automated controls and nonetheless many many pushbuttons. These ships could then navigate together with classical ones in the same multiplayer environment: Think of the reskinned superpowered Patrolboat. :D
Regards,
Luc
-
I like the simple selection, like Gran Turismo has done - Simulation Mode, Arcade mode. Simple, easy.
-
Dave,
I think Titanic actually might be realistic (yes, that one bored me- I prefer the freighter) but it did smack a large ice cube due to poor handling... The freighter is really good, but I just didn't know how realistic its handling is.
But thanks for the comments to my Q.
Stu
-
Stu;
Actually, in the game, she performs FAR better than in real life. In real life it takes her an hour and a half to go from 0 speed to full speed. It takes her three miles to make a U turn at low speeds on her own. And it took between 1.5-2 miles for her to come to a complete stop. Her rudder is way too small for her to be responding how she is in the game. Mathematically, the rudder has at east 18 square feet of surface area too little for her to be accurately handled. EJ Smith even noted he had to have her and Olympic handled a lot but using tricks with the engines to help compensate with her rudder. However, at the time, the crew just assumed it was because they were not yet acquainted with her size and mass when it was in part incomplete and inadequate design work. That is one reason the original designer of the Olympic class abandoned the project (no one believe his claims the design was still flawed) and why Lord Pierre handed it to his nephew, Thomas Andrews, who is not the original designer of the design.
The Olympic class was built on the blood money of one family. Lord Pierre (builder), JP Morgan (financeer), Thomas Andrews, and Bruce Ismay are all related . . . . No wonder how Olympic and Titanic were built, eh? JP Morgan almost backed out of building Britannic after the lawsuits he and White Star faced after Titanic's sinking. Not to mention JP Morgan saw no profit off of Titanic . . . Anyways.
-
Thanks Dave. I read that there was a little bit of 'behind the scene' dealings with White Star... Probably the cause of all the conspiracy stories.
Stuart
-
Yeah - If only the Olympic class had the larger rudder they deserved.
-
Which decade did i become common to fit bow thrusters on big boats?
Stu
-
Hello,
Mid-eighties, if my memory is good?
More or less at the same time when dynamic positioning became more common?
Regards
Luc
-
Hello,
The problem of the Titanic rudder is indeed complex, not only because it was 4.5% undersized.
The rudder moment of an existing rudder is indeed linearly dependent of its surface, of its angle vs the wake (the water flow), the speed of the water to the square, well, just like the rudder of an airplane, or ailerons!
It is evident that when you reverse or stop the screw rotation (in casu the center screw?), the speed of the water around the rudder decreases, say 50%, and the moment is reduced to 25% of the original one.
Another factor affecting this moment is of course the angle of attack.
The linear increase is true up to some 7° to 10, 11° depending on the form ratio and profile, then it decreases to a more or less steady value. And then comes what you, as having flight experience, know as the stall angle of course.
It also means that to put "hard a-tit or tat" (signifying 35°) at once does not favor a best rudder moment. Just like pulling brutally on a stick. The rudder angle has to be increased gradually, in function of the RoT, so as to keep the turning moment at its maximum. The best would be strain gauges.... Perhaps does it exist today on some ships? Indeed, the RoT is also a measure of the angle of attack of the hull in the water.
Anyway, it would not have made a great difference.
Regards,
Luc
I am seemingly pessimistic about the maximum angle of laminar flow?
More details on this
http://www.ocp.tudelft.nl/mt/journee/Files/Lectures/ShipHydromechanics_Intro.pdf
(http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?chapselect=yo&page=632&record_id=9771&Jump+to+Specified+Page.x=0&Jump+to+Specified+Page.y=0
-
HA HA HA well said - a long, technical version of my "too small a rudder" statement. In her accident, there was more that went wrong than simply too small a rudder - as you pointed out. Of course, there are several eye witness reports where Captain Smith had a very angry meeting with Murdoch regarding how he handled this situation. Where he explained similar to what we are discussing now. He yelled at Murdock, "You would of better off ramming the berg! You should of gone ahead full and brought her hard about!"
Well, that is a quote for an anonymous source from the Titanic trials following the crash.
-
Greetings,
Yes,we al know now,that the design of the Titanic's rudder,was to small compair to the vessel,also the water-tight walls and doors,did not where build from the keel to the deck.Afther investigation of the plans,by experts,there was al lot more that stays unanwered.
Lokk at this,this way Titanic was a vessel of prestige,build in the wrong century,if this vessel was build now,they would make that vessel different,because of the knowledge of the present days.
Also the Red star line,wanted the blue ribbon,for the fastest crossing,very badly.Only just for the eyes of the world.Captain Smith was on his last journey,before he wanted to retired,he did not want to risk that vessel,just for that ribbon.He just wanted to get old,and enjoy his retiredment.
Why was there somebody of the company on that ship?Just to make sure that they could prove that this was the fastest ship ever,for that time.
For me Captain Smith did one mistake,he listen to the company,he wanted to please them.As far in history,he has been always a very good Captain.
A Captain is always responsible for the ship,crew and cargo at all times.If he had survived this tragedy,i'm sure we had heared a complete different story of this.For the Red star line,it was infact good that he did not survived the accident.It's always easy to blame a dead person.
Now,the last survivors of the Titanic,are also gone.We will never know for real,what has happend,that 14th April 1912.The only thing we can see is the result,which lies on the bottom of the ocean,about 4000 meters down.
This is my oppinion,i only can speak for myself.
Regards
Marc
-
Captain Smith was not always a safe Captain. He was commanding Olympic when she collided with the Hawke. After investigation they blamed Captain Smith for the incident and then it was changed to the a freak accident. In reality, it was Smith's fault.
-
Yes Aries,
I thought Hawke was reported to have been dragged towards Olympic by water turbulence and that Capt. Smith was held to blame for 'endangering other ships...' One would have suggested that Capt. Blunt of HMS Hawke would have been aware of the water displacement and would have moved his 7000 ton ship away from the 37000 ton Olympic.
To rely on the findings of the British Board of Trade (the Government) as to who was responsible for a costly collision with a Royal Navy ship (the Government) is, quite frankly, madness.
Ah well.. Our Government inquiries never change here.
Stuart
-
Luc,
thanks for the technical issue... Over my head ;)
I have read many reports by the marine acciddent investigation board (especally the Herald of Free Enterprise) and, like Titanic, it is too easy to say 'it sank because...'
In the case of the Herald, there were so many reasons for the capsizing, so many people to blame. Such a waste.
Stuart
-
Greetings,
Yes,that's what i mean,on my topic above,it's so easy to blame it on one person(it sank because......).
I've seen the documentary last Sunday of the Sinking of the Lusitania.
The admirality wanted to blame the Captain,so that the admirality came out good,in court.
Lucky that the judge,did not follow that line.So the Captain came out quite good.
It was a very good documentary,however i always think,that somany years afther a accident,with most of the crusual witnesses dead.You can not be sure of the accurasy by 100%.
Those court files are maybe still in some archive,but if you should read them,you cannot imagine in what context,it was said at that time in that court.
However it gives you an idea.
Regards
Marc
-
Basically when any political investigation is set up, you can't trust it.
Our marine accident Investigation Board is impartial and professional. I've read most of their reports into large shipping accidents in British waters. I especially read the Herald report, as I had the misfortune to see it not long after and always had a 'respect' for the sea from then on.
Stu
-
Yes - it is sad what happenes when an investigation gets political. The Olympic rounded the corner before the crash area moving at 19knots! 19 KNOTS!! Why was he manuvering in that area at 19 knots, especially when a ship of that size had never been piloted before and when many of era-large ships (Lusitania 775 feet) was piloted at much slower speeds. I am surprised how Smith could be so reckless. However, yet, the Commander of the Hawke should of been able to understand the common knowledge of the time. If you are passing or near a large vessel, which is likely to therefore cause a large cavitational sphere, you maneuver or signal to the larger vessel that they are acting in danger. ESPECIALLY with the Hawke being so small and a government vessel, you would think Smith and his officers would respond. IF that were to happen. . . .
Sigh . . . Of course in the game, have you noticed there is no such cavitational pools or spheres? TSK TSK! :p :P
Sorry, I could not help it.
-
Dave
You obviously know more of the history of this incident than I do, so I won't argue the point. However, my previous arguement still stands.
Corruption in Government enquiries is not something started since 1997... It has been going on forever. I wouldn't necessarily trust the findings of an enquiry so long ago.
If that were the case would he not have been stripped of his rank immediately?
Stu
-
Such an accident in the most :) reknown British waterway (except Dover harbor, ;D of course!) is strange enough ??? so that I tried to find the relative positions of the ships. How it was seen, probably from an Olympic point of view (no relation with Pierre de Coubertin ;) ) :
"On September 20, 1911, Olympic collided with the Royal Navy cruiser Hawke in a narrow channel off the Isle of Wight. According to accounts, the two ships were sailing in the same direction on courses that were at first converging and then parallel, with Hawke off Olympic's starboard side. Both were going at about 15 knots, with Hawke at first overtaking Olympic and then dropping behind as the liner increased her speed. Suddenly, Hawke veered hard to port, ramming Olympic. Hawke's bow was badly crumpled, and Olympic stern was gashed, which caused flooding in two compartments and damaged her starboard propeller."
At more than 15 nautical miles from Southampton, the narrowest part of the Deepwater channel is 1 nautical mile wide, so that Hawke must have been voluntarily :o and, strangely >:(, pretty close to Olympic when she was leaving the British coastal waters?
The "Edgar class cruiser" was not ::) a tiny ship, suffice to see the damage it inflicted to (or underwent from) Olympic. Nice ship, by the way: 110 m long, beam 18m
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_class_cruiser )
In these days, the gradient of pressure created by a passing vessel was a well-known effect, but even knowing it, a helmsman will always have some difficulties controlling the heading.
Your proposal to include the effect of the pressure fields in ShipSim is indeed very welcome. Modeling it will be as difficult as it is for the helmsman, but it would also enhance the realism of ships making way along asymmetric banks.
Regards,
Luc
-
Once again, Luc, I salute your impressive knowledge on these matters.
I nearly went for a sea going career, but was too old to join as a cadet officer by the time I found an interest.
Stuart
-
It is interesting to say there were heading in the same direction. From several printed sources, it informed me they were in face heading towards one another. One vessel heading in and the other out, Olympic being the later. Considering the width of the "channel" they were steaming through, Olympic at the time still did not need to be steaming at 19 knots at the time of the accident. That is practically full speed for the Olympic class (which was at the time recorded to be 21.23 knots - in 1925 it was later recorded at 25.47 knots.) So one has ask, why was EJ at such a speed in such an area? I would think at the time he would be more cautious, especially considering the massive size of the vessels, as well as her "newness".
My printed source (Titanic, Britannic, and Olympic as one source) quoted that the Hawke was "suddenly pulled towards" the Olympic, thereby causing the collision. They too stand that the ships were traveling in opposite of each other. Of course, I woll look at some of my other sources to confirm this.
However, yes, the incident did leave severe damage to Olympic. I have a series of photos of the damage. And she had a pretty good list going when she was brought to dry dock.
Nonetheless the story, the commanding officers at the scene were both being what I would consider quite careless at the time. The Olympic class liners even were bearing the warning signs on the stern railing before the incident, thereby advising ships to hold off from approaching the ships while the engines are in operation. . . .
Strange incident. It is too bad so much was tied to the Olympic class, I think that skewed the results of the investigation. Many believe it was EJ Smith was the commander who was at fault. Considering that no matter the direction Olympic was heading, he was moving the Olympic quite quickly in close proximity to another vessel. And if he indeed did pass the Hawke while heading on a similar course, it is even more so prooving he is at fault, assuming the vessels were close enough for Olympic to draw the Hawke in. EJ, by the time, with his experience at the time, should of known better than to bring the Olympic so close to another vessel when he is moving at such speeds.
This does bring a question, however - If he was 15 miles away from port and was already at 15 knots (one source) 19 knots (another), so assuming 17 knots - he would have been burining the boilers pretty hard and running the telegraph at full ahead to get her at that speed within that distance. Thoughts?
-
If the speed and distance holds true, EJ Smith would of gained, not calculating for the acceleration curve, but looking at an average acceleration over distance, an average of 1.13 knots per nautical mile.
Thoughts about this RoA?
-
A very good question, :-\ thank you very much ... for having asked
This does bring a question, however - If he was 15 miles away from port and was already at 15 knots (one source) 19 knots (another), so assuming 17 knots - he would have been burining the boilers pretty hard and running the telegraph at full ahead to get her at that speed within that distance. Thoughts?
After some estimates power-mass-thrust-resistance, and engaging the turbine around 17.5kts, etc.. and at max available power/thrust a speed of 10 kts could be reached after just less than 2.5 NM and 30 minutes, 15 kts after 7NM and 50 minutes. 19 kts after 90 minutes and 17NM
Her max speed just under 2 hours after departure and 25 NM?
It is only a rough guess, not knowing much about steam reciprocating engines. I think the thrust was readily available, because of preheating etc.. but the amount of work and time due to the coke furnaces, valves, etc.. is difficult to assess.
Anyway, quicker than my estimate of accelerations seems unlikely. Yours seem to have been taken around 19 kts... By definition, the acceleration is not a linearly accelerated movement: the initial acceleration for the first cable is over 20kts per NM, the first mile 7kts etc...
True, the value you gave seems indeed in agreement around 19kts although I dont understand from where you gained the acceleration. Did you know when she departed?
(Semantics!) RoA would not be my preferred choice. The RoA is indeed an acceleration per second, a third derivative of distance vs time. In our case, it moves somewhere between -0.1 to -1 mm/s² per second....
Now about responsibilities...
...Strange incident. It is too bad so much was tied to the Olympic class, I think that skewed the results of the investigation. Many believe it was EJ Smith was the commander who was at fault. Considering that no matter the direction Olympic was heading, he was moving the Olympic quite quickly in close proximity to another vessel. And if he indeed did pass the Hawke while heading on a similar course, it is even more so prooving he is at fault, assuming the vessels were close enough for Olympic to draw the Hawke in. EJ, by the time, with his experience at the time, should of known better than to bring the Olympic so close to another vessel when he is moving at such speeds....
It is the way by which you describe the accident that gives the responsibility to Olympic, not the described facts. It is like throwing one's chin on the gloves of your opponent!
In your text, you can interchange Hawke and Olympic without difficulty, let us try:
...Strange incident. It is too bad so much was tied to the Edward class, I think that skewed the results of the investigation. Many believe it was WF Blunt was the commander who was at fault. Considering that no matter the direction Hawke was heading, he was moving the Hawke quite quickly in close proximity to another vessel. And if he indeed did pass the Olympic while heading on a similar course, it is even more so prooving he is at fault, assuming the vessels were close enough for Hawke to draw the Olympic in. WF, by the time, with his experience at the time, should of known better than to bring the Hawke so close to another vessel when he is moving at such speeds....
Thoughts?
Regards,
Luc
-
Where precisely did this incident take place?
I'm assuming that on departure she would have been E->SE of Isle of Wight, so basically past spit head and out of controlled water. It is quite normal for a ship to run full ahead from that point.
I know Pride of Bilbao is a bit more manouverable and has navagation equipment etc, but my GPS showed us going about 17-18kts last time.
So, whats wrong with Olympic at this speed?
Stu
-
Where precisely did this incident take place?
I'm assuming that on departure she would have been E->SE of Isle of Wight, so basically past spit head and out of controlled water. It is quite normal for a ship to run full ahead from that point.
I know Pride of Bilbao is a bit more manouverable and has navagation equipment etc, but my GPS showed us going about 17-18kts last time.
So, whats wrong with Olympic at this speed?
Stu
Well, Olympic is MUCH less manuverable than Pride of Bilbao, much heavier, and due to her propulsion/propellor configuration, I believe she has a much large cavation zone. Aside that, no one knew how to yet handle a ship of her size and they were flying along with her like that, that along is dangerous even if you have todays technology. You need to know how to handle the ship before flinging her about.
-
A very good question, :-\ thank you very much ... for having asked
After some estimates power-mass-thrust-resistance, and engaging the turbine around 17.5kts, etc.. and at max available power/thrust a speed of 10 kts could be reached after just less than 2.5 NM and 30 minutes, 15 kts after 7NM and 50 minutes. 19 kts after 90 minutes and 17NM
Her max speed just under 2 hours after departure and 25 NM?
It is only a rough guess, not knowing much about steam reciprocating engines. I think the thrust was readily available, because of preheating etc.. but the amount of work and time due to the coke furnaces, valves, etc.. is difficult to assess.
Anyway, quicker than my estimate of accelerations seems unlikely. Yours seem to have been taken around 19 kts... By definition, the acceleration is not a linearly accelerated movement: the initial acceleration for the first cable is over 20kts per NM, the first mile 7kts etc...
True, the value you gave seems indeed in agreement around 19kts although I dont understand from where you gained the acceleration. Did you know when she departed?
(Semantics!) RoA would not be my preferred choice. The RoA is indeed an acceleration per second, a third derivative of distance vs time. In our case, it moves somewhere between -0.1 to -1 mm/s² per second....
Now about responsibilities...It is the way by which you describe the accident that gives the responsibility to Olympic, not the described facts. It is like throwing one's chin on the gloves of your opponent!
In your text, you can interchange Hawke and Olympic without difficulty, let us try:
Thoughts?
Regards,
Luc
So is this an exercise in showing how easily facts may be confused or is there another intention here?
-
Well, Olympic is MUCH less manuverable than Pride of Bilbao, much heavier, and due to her propulsion/propellor configuration, I believe she has a much large cavation zone. Aside that, no one knew how to yet handle a ship of her size and they were flying along with her like that, that along is dangerous even if you have todays technology. You need to know how to handle the ship before flinging her about.
But they were out of traffic seperation patterns and into open water. I'm no expert but at what point CAN they go full ahead?
Dave, I'm not saying you are wrong- I'm not qualified to do so. All I a saying is that to rely on evidence at a probably biased board of enquiry nearly 100 years later is not possible with any accuracy.
Stuart
-
So is this an exercise in showing how easily facts may be confused or is there another intention here?
In my reply, there were two parts, answering your 2 posts, in reverse chronological order:
The first part was an answer to the posts
If the speed and distance holds true, EJ Smith would of gained, not calculating for the acceleration curve, but looking at an average acceleration over distance, an average of 1.13 knots per nautical mile.
Thoughts about this RoA?
and also...
This does bring a question, however - If he was 15 miles away from port and was already at 15 knots (one source) 19 knots (another), so assuming 17 knots - he would have been burining the boilers pretty hard and running the telegraph at full ahead to get her at that speed within that distance. Thoughts?
Average acceleration over distance is a relatively less known concept, while the derivative of acceleration over distance has no particular physical meaning, it being the inverse of time squared.
An acceleration curve over time can be done, and the data you gave indicate that the Olympic could easily reach 19 knots before being even at the height of Portsmouth.
Also, Rate Of Acceleration is surely not a concept understandable by everyone. (How many m/s² per second).
Of course, be aware I tend for different reasons to remain too factual , perhaps because I tend to translate what I read, perhaps in a too litteral way?
The second part of the answer is that the responsibilities cannot be fixed today, the only well known fact being that the bow of Hawke rammed into the stern of Olympic (or equivalently that the stern of Olympic rammed into the stem of Hawke...), the speed of Hawke and of Olympic being somewhat equivalent, as was the initial heading.
Regards,
Luc
-
Luc
carry on being factual. There is nothing wrong with being factual.
It is people that spout the word 'truth' rather than 'opinion' that cause the confusion.
Stu
-
Well, Olympic is MUCH less manuverable than Pride of Bilbao, much heavier, . Aside that, no one knew how to yet handle a ship of her size and they were flying along with her like that, that along is dangerous even if you have todays technology. You need to know how to handle the ship before flinging her about.
Only about 7000 tonnes heavier.
The Olympic class may have been the biggest of their time, but surely previous ships were big enough to teach the basics. With respect you are making it sound like Capt EJ was a novice. Surely once ships reach a certain size there will be patterns to their sea keeping.
Stuart
-
Well, the Olympic class was not only heavier, but her dimensions in every fashion were also larger, which effects how she interacts with the water. Also, being she had too small a propellor, a center prop that only spun forward as opposed to both fore and aft, as well as new type of reciprocating engines (which were cleaner burning but also slower in response time), I would say she was still a wild card at the time EJ Smith commanded her. He was, by now means whatsoever a novice. However, I would say he certainly was not solid with her at the time of the incident.
Also at the time of the accident was around the period where they changed piloting operations. It was once tradition to saw you wanted the helm to turn one direction and he would do the opposite (something the crew of the Titanic were still coming to grips with, as reported by Mr. Lightoler, 2nd Officer, RMS Titanic).
Nonetheless, I do see your point, and it is my mistake to put him down. However, I feel the accident occurred to inexperience with a vessel such as the Olympic class, and possibly some lack of care on the part of both commanding officers.
I think it was an awesome exercise of how well the Olympic class could, or possibly could not, cope with collissions. I think it was am omen of sorts, hinding to the disaster to come to the Olympic class within the next 5 years. At least Olympic lasted until the 30s at which time she was scrapped, unlike her other two sisters which make wonderful homes for exotic fish. ;)
Regardless the fate of this class of ships, I take them all as a lesson to builders, designers, and mariners as a whole, of which their lessons still ring strong and true to this day. These ships all fulfilled a purpose in their careers, albiet at a high cost. They remind me of many things, most of which I am reminded daily as I have a Titanic painting hanging in my office . . .
-
.....I have a Titanic painting hanging in my office . . .
:D Same here, but at home....directly above my fish tank lol.
Looks great though, it's called 'Titanic's Last Sunset' :D
Regards.
DJM.
-
:D Same here, but at home....directly above my fish tank lol.
Looks great though, it's called 'Titanic's Last Sunset' :D
Regards.
DJM.
By?
-
Oops, sorry about that ::)
Adrian Rigby.
It's not technically accurate, the fourth funnel (as we all know) was only a steam vent, this picture shows it as a smoke stack ::)
Anyway, I still love the picture :D
Regards.
DJM.
-
Oops, sorry about that ::)
Adrian Rigby.
It's not technically accurate, the fourth funnel (as we all know) was only a steam vent, this picture shows it as a smoke stack ::)
Anyway, I still love the picture :D
Regards.
DJM.
Ahh . . . Mine is a Ken Marshall.
-
Ahh . . . Mine is a Ken Marshall.
Cool :)
It still amazes me how many people across the world have been, and still are influenced by Titanic's story. Gotta love that ship eh ;D
Regards.
DJM.
-
Regardless the fate of this class of ships, I take them all as a lesson to builders, designers, and mariners as a whole, of which their lessons still ring strong and true to this day. These ships all fulfilled a purpose in their careers, albiet at a high cost. They remind me of many things, most of which I am reminded daily as I have a Titanic painting hanging in my office . . .
The problem is they DON'T learn. Look at the Herald of Free Enterprise, Zeebrugge or the MV Estonia. Both sunk by certain gross negligence and possible design faults.
I feel very confident when going on a ship now (although different countries enforce different standards) but look back even 20 years and many ships were unsafe, due to design and crew competence levels.
Even now, our coastguard regularly detains ships (as do most countries I would think). When I was waiting for P&Os Bilbao, the competing service was detained on its maiden voyage due to safety issues.
Ive read a lot from www.maib.gov.uk which is the british marine investigation board
Stu
-
Even now, our coastguard regularly detains ships (as do most countries I would think). When I was waiting for P&Os Bilbao, the competing service was detained on its maiden voyage due to safety issues.
Stu
Detention within the UK falls to the MCA (Maratime and Coastguard Agency) www.mcga.gov.uk (http://www.mcga.gov.uk), H.M. Coastguard is part of that organisation and is responsible for search and rescue.
Regards
Mark
-
So, returning this thread to the original topic . . . Does this sim reflect reality, apparently with what we have discussed (Olympic and Hawke incident), the game does not reflect this, and therefore is prooven not to entirely reflect reality.
So . . . . what easily solutions are there? Luc and I already hammered out large wave behavior ideas, so what else?
-
Realistic?....Quick Answer, definitely not! But very entertaining... :)
Some constructive feedback. I've only had 2008 installed for a few hours but the unrealistic reaction of the vessels is immediately apparent.
Some things I have noticed so far;
1) No Reaction to wind; with a gale on my beam i just sat there as if i was running an incredible DP system or something....
2) Unrealistic reaction to anchoring; Seems to act more like poles than a chain, not really fluid and dynamic at all....Would also add tremendously if you could heave up and slack out (on mooring lines also!).
3) VLCC; you get some sense of inertia but it's not right for example once in a turn with the rudder hard over, Rate of turn comes off way too fast after returning the rudder to midships.
4) When you have anchors or mooring lines deployed, vessel motion is choppy sometimes just surging into motion after thinking about it for some time....Did i part a line?? :D
Anyway...like i said just installed it a few hours ago and these are some obvious things I've noticed. Hopefully these things can be tweeked but my guess is we won't see substantive changes until the next version. Seeing the difference from 2006, we're moving in the right direction, but there is a long long way to go before we can talk about realistic.
Regards,
Larse Klaoud
-
Hi,
I'm new to this forum, SS08, and piloting ships. My only experiences have been at the helm of a restored 2 masted sailing vessel (type, I don't remember - early 1900s), numerous sporting boats, and (my favorite) hands on the tiller of the Delta Queen for about 1/4 mile upstream (it was 1968, they responsible party is surely retired now).
Anyway, I have to admit it was the HMS Titanic that drew me to purhase this sim and take her for a test drive....uhm, sea trial. After one day of running around in free roam and completing the first few missions, I'm getting the hang of the key commands and interface. (..<-slow learner) My completments on a wonderful sim and look forward to all updates/patches!
Although I'm new to this platform, I'm a "veteran" M$ Flight Sim (2004) fan. I've noticed that issues with that platform and it's "popularity" among "gamer$" are influencing the development of SS08 too. It's economics 1.01. With FS, it was the Cessna from the original platform (pre-M$) that was and is the only reasonably accurate flight model that came with FS$ since Micro$oft bought the company. I'd hate to see the same happen here. Many forums and third-party designers (real engineers and real pilots) have since modified flight dymanics and built aircraft and dynamics from scratch that are "as real as it gets". I, for one, would be REALLY happy to see a 2 or 3 level "Reality" slider, or equivilant added to this sim for those of us (..and there seem to be quite a few here) that would appreciate "real world" time, weather, and functionality of the vessels.
For example, I love flying a B-314 "Clipper" to Hawaii, or the Graf Zepplin from Germany to Lakehurst, NJ. I would be overjoyed to pilot the Titanic from Southampton to New York in real-time (granted, it's a fantasy, but isnt' that why we're here?) I haven't gotten to any threads that address the issue, or missed them, but I hope this sim will, in future, seamlessly integrate the transitions from harbour to ocean to harbour. (Any ideas as to when? :D )
As to realistic operation of Titanic, I understand that things are the way they are right now. For those "purist" wannabees like me, if the rudder is more effective that it should be, what should the maximum deflection I should use to simulate the old girls' turn rate? ...maybe 35? As for slow manipulation of the wheel, whether by sail, steam, or gasoline, that was my FIRST lesson in all 3....but how fast is "too" fast? (Well, for HMS Titanic, I guess we'll never have a firm answer, but I'm open to suggestions) As for the telegraph, is there a time I should let lapse before sending down a change or advance in engine speed?
Oh, one suggestion I'd like to make as to recorded times... I'd think that would only be a factor for rescue missions, wether a drowning man, or a race with an oncoming storm. In other situations, I'd like to see accuracy in navigation and staying "within the speed limit" as the "Standard" for an excellent performance by a pilot/captain. (If this point should be posted elsewhere, please let me know where.)
Yours,
:)
-
OK, I know that I am repeating myself, but there seem to be quite a few threads on the same subjects at the moment (maybe some merges required mods?)
The physics involved in ship handling is incredibly complex and no two ships handle the same, even the same ship will handle differently in different conditions.
Yes realism would be great, but the game has to work within the following criteria:
a) it has to be playable by people who don't have the years of training needed to handle real ships (even qualified ships officers don't normally handle ships within port limits until they reach chief officer level)
b) it has to be enjoyable, if you cannot handle the ships or if it takes 4 tugs and 90 minutes to get Titanic off the Quay many people will get bored and give up.
c) it has to be able to run on a home PC or laptop. Real life ship simulators used for professional training require huge amounts of computing power.
As a few people have suggested, maybe there could be game play options which would allow slightly more realistic handling for those who want it, but it would have to be done within the limits of what can be achieved on a home PC.
-
Am professional seamen and defiantly game is not realistic.
Do not know why can’t be done, as we all know that MS Flight Simulator works very well, as I spoke with pro air pilots. (And do not require last generation of hardware.)
SOG, ROT, stop distance, advance and transfer are in every vessel maneuvering card, so do not know why the same are not used to make this game.
In this game all is going slow, by calculation cca half of the realistic (large vsls)
Hope that can be improved within next patch
Tks
-
Peopel writing to much! Have no time to read all of this! xD
-
Peopel writing to much! Have no time to read all of this! xD
Hi J3nsen,
Thanks for your important contribution... ::)
If you don't have time to follow this discussion, then simply don't follow it. ;)
Regards
groennegaard
-
Hello Clanky,
You are of course right, hydrodynamics of any ship is extremely complex, and one can thank or congratulate VStep for the work they did until now and the pleasure the sim gives us.
Also, to answer the objection of J3nsen, I shall try to stay brief on this thread started in May. It was indeed not the first one on the subject.
From a different point of view, flight aerodynamics are as complex as ship hydrodynamics, and there are ship simulations/games with very credible handling characteristics, as e.g. the Virtual Skipper series. Big or small, from hydrodynamics point of view, it makes no difference. Certainly, pc's are today able to simulate the motions of any ship in any situation.
Proof of that, is that (with the sim as it is now) all movements of the ships are mocked up now, although not realistically, and it means equations of movements exist and are implemented, mostly correctly. The wind forces are not simulated as yet, nor the field of streams and stream gradient derived forces.
Second proof is the Polaris bridge (Kongsberg) simulator (I have no idea of the graphics rendering) http://www.simrad.com/KS/WEB/NOKBG0397.nsf/AllWeb/E8B9781F14BE35D4C125711F004821A2/$file/Release_5_0.pdf?OpenElement.
Apart from that, propeller thrust, rudder forces, ship static and dynamic parameters are simulated, computed and rendered. Also, there are more than enough nautical and maritime references in the NL to be sure the developers know which equations they would have to use to simulate the behavior of a ship in any circumstance, and to check if the sim is correct with professional 2D programs.
So, why is it not yet realistic enough, so as to puzzle even people who have less experience, although competent beta-testers try to help?
The answer must be lying in the physics engine, capable of simulating any object undergoing any kind of forces, but ignoring hydrodynamic ones. The problem is how to incorporate smoothly and credibly these forces and the reactions of the ship. It is not that the developers tried to simplify ship manoeuvring, it is an ongoing development of the game.
Of course, handling a big ship without causing damage is an art necessitating much training. That is also why realistic simulations are needed. There are on our rivers many young men/women skippers of (?) not so small ships, even sometimes up to 110 m and 2300 to 3000 ton, who didnt quite qualify in Maritime Academies, and nevertheless manoeuvre their ship in narrow canals, rivers and harbors, crossing 10 locks a day, having gained the skills mostly through experience.
Also, dont you think mooring a VLCC could be enjoyable for 3 or 4 players, in multiplayer?
Of course, it is only an opinion about fun...?
Regards,
Luc
-
Just one thing, the last time that i was on a professional ship simulator, the guy was doing the introduction talk and he turned the weather effects on to show what could be done and then carried on describing ll the various nav aids on the bridge. After about 5 minutes I had to ask him to turn the weather effects off because I was starting to feel a bit seasick.
So be careful what you wish for, you just might get it :D
-
Thanks, never mind, I have the privilege of never being seasick (sometimes a disadvantage).
Also, have a pleasant voyage with nice sunsets and warm water,
Regards
-
Thanks Stuart, i wish i could say the same thing about sea sickness, as a professional seafarer it tends to be a bit of a pain in the ass :D
EDIT: just realised this was supposed to be for luc, not Stuart :o
Kinda stressful time :D
-
Thanks for your important contribution... ::)
If you don't have time to follow this discussion, then simply don't follow it. ;)
And here was me thinking sarcasm was a British invention ;)
Stu
-
Ive manouverd a p&o ferry once with the Polaris bridge simulator in the national maritime museum in Londen.
Now that was realistic! I took me ages to stop the ship and to let it turn.
Even just moving the rudder took a long time.
-
Hi,
Luc, and all, thanks for your input. Cheers!
:)
-
Even just moving the rudder took a long time.
That's what we even told VSTEP!
-
Ive manouverd a p&o ferry once with the Polaris bridge simulator in the national maritime museum in Londen.
Now that was realistic! I took me ages to stop the ship and to let it turn.
Even just moving the rudder took a long time.
Sounds realistic. I have tried the Polaris bridge simulator too which is something totally different than Ship Simulator that's for sure. ;D
-
Yes, but I suspect Polaris doesn't sell their simulator for £24.99
Next you will be comparing MSFS an a professional/commercial flight simulator :o
Stu
-
The answer must be lying in the physics engine, capable of simulating any object undergoing any kind of forces, but ignoring hydrodynamic ones. The problem is how to incorporate smoothly and credibly these forces and the reactions of the ship.
hear is an interesting physics engine that could do some good in ship simulation.
hydroengine
Up until now, water in games has been just a background effect. Smoke and mirrors have been employed to give the impression of surface ripples and waves, but the water itself has been static.
HydroEngine is the first fluid dynamics engine for games, developed over several years by Blade's R&D team to do one thing: bring water to games which looks and behaves exactly like the real thing.
HydroEngine Features:
· Water flows from one area to another
· Objects get carried realistically by the flow
· Surfaces and characters become wet when touched by the water, and dry out over time
· Emergent effects such as eddies and underwater currents occur just like real water
· Spray and splashes are generated dynamically according to forces acting on the water
· Surface foam and infinite underwater particles follow the flow
· Dynamic caustic lights cause walls and floor to shimmer as water passes through
· Water can apply forces to objects, walls, windows and doors, causing them to buckle under the
pressure
check out hydroengin at youtube
if properly implemented this could do wonders for a game like this.
-
hear is an interesting physics engine that could do some good in ship simulation.
hydroengine
Up until now, water in games has been just a background effect. Smoke and mirrors have been employed to give the impression of surface ripples and waves, but the water itself has been static.
HydroEngine is the first fluid dynamics engine for games, developed over several years by Blade's R&D team to do one thing: bring water to games which looks and behaves exactly like the real thing.
HydroEngine Features:
· Water flows from one area to another
· Objects get carried realistically by the flow
· Surfaces and characters become wet when touched by the water, and dry out over time
· Emergent effects such as eddies and underwater currents occur just like real water
· Spray and splashes are generated dynamically according to forces acting on the water
· Surface foam and infinite underwater particles follow the flow
· Dynamic caustic lights cause walls and floor to shimmer as water passes through
· Water can apply forces to objects, walls, windows and doors, causing them to buckle under the
pressure
check out hydroengin at youtube
if properly implemented this could do wonders for a game like this.
I doubt it, I feel like I know VSTEP already ::)
-
The ships are very realistic :2thumbs:, i've been on many and experienced the waves :captain:.
-
This topic is almost 6 months old, please don't raise old topics. ;)
-
Hehe why's everyone looking at me :doh:
Yes terry gave me the trophe of old topic raiser I was bored and hit pg 103 saw something interesting and posted in it lol.
I thought that terry would give me a jar of marmite :doh: but it was a slap in the face with a smoked herring :thumbdown: :lol:
So ill let old topics :sleepy:
Maybe...
Matt
-
Hehe already won the slap in the face but I thought that terry would give me a jar of Marmite :evil: :doh:
-
I saw that I was going to post in it but no point to post in that I saw a post what would you do if you died :doh: One of the choices is blame the Mexicans I think :doh:
Matt
-
I saw that I was going to post in it but no point to post in that I saw a post what would you do if you died :doh: One of the choices is blame the Mexicans I think :doh:
Matt
I am sure if I was a Mexican, I would find that very offensive. That was not a very good thing to say just then...
-
I dont know :lol: