Realistic?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

[Stuart2007]

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

[AriesDW]

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.

[LucAtC]

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I have not  a great flight experience, and it was on obsolete planes, of course  outdated.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    even if trimming the controls is an uneasy task!
FS allows you  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? 
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  I am in favor of a true simulation (with sailors, passengers, cargo,... if my pc can handle it).

Regards,
Luc

[AriesDW]

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.

[Sam]

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.

[LucAtC]

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  .
Of course, Sam's proposal is the best solution, or one of the best  .
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. 
Regards,
Luc

[AriesDW]

I like the simple selection, like Gran Turismo has done - Simulation Mode, Arcade mode. Simple, easy.

[Stuart2007]

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

[AriesDW]

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.

[Stuart2007]

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

[AriesDW]

Yeah - If only the Olympic class had the larger rudder they deserved.

[Stuart2007]

Which decade did i become common to fit bow thrusters on big boats?

Stu

[LucAtC]

Hello,
Mid-eighties, if my memory is good?
More or less at the same time when dynamic positioning became more common?
Regards
Luc

[LucAtC]

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

[AriesDW]

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.

[marcstrat]

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

[AriesDW]

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.

[Stuart2007]

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

[Stuart2007]

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

[marcstrat]

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

[Stuart2007]

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

[AriesDW]

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

Sorry, I could not help it.

[Stuart2007]

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

[LucAtC]

Such an accident in the most  reknown British waterway (except Dover harbor,  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  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

[Stuart2007]

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