Mariana map water depth

[BenniBraker]

And if you're using the F9 or F6 camera...

 

 

 

The resources to do an accurate sea floor is marginal so long as you have the data (which is trivial to come by, you can just google it).

 

The sea floor doesn't need to be high resolution at all, detail can be made absent, just so long as it's the right depth.

 

Well, actually that is what I am talking about, details are not relevant if are not going to be seen, or are going to be seen very small, I think we are talking pretty much the same ...:)

[Snapage]

Wouldn't need it to be modelled down to 10000 meters would we? I think modern submarines cant do more then 1000 meters deep.

[kotor633]

Sometimes it's always amazing what kind of topics you are dealing with here. This is completely irrelevant for a FluSim ...

[3WA]

Submarine simulator NOW!

 

Actually, I think a submarine simulator would be awesome!

Edited February 23, 2021 by 3WA

[Tank50us]

On 2/18/2021 at 4:57 PM, 3WA said:

Submarine simulator NOW!

 

Actually, I think a submarine simulator would be awesome!

 

 

Many people think it would be.... until they get it and find out that the only time things get exciting, is when things go *horribly* wrong

[Xilon_x]

how deep can a modern military submarine go?

it certainly does not reach 11000m of depth.

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, Xilon_x said:

how deep can a modern military submarine go?

 

Those are military secrets of highest classification level, so public doesn't know.

 

1 minute ago, Xilon_x said:

it certainly does not reach 11000m of depth.

 

The only known information is "at least 400 meters" but how much deeper, that is classified.

11 000 meters would be silly to even think about. More like 500 meters is already serious crush depth. 

 

Every 10 meters adds 1 bar more pressure, so 500 meters would be 50 bars pressure.

Considering that WW2 Uboats had crush depth below 250-300 meters that puts very severe limitation for over 500 meters even for modern. 

[Tank50us]

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

11 000 meters would be silly to even think about. More like 500 meters is already serious crush depth. 

 

Yeah, if my math is right, a submarine going that deep would be going to about 36,000ft, which only a handful of unmanned submersibles can dive to, and only a couple manned submersibles have manged to come close. Most modern military submarines have test depths of about 1,000-2,000ft, but rarely operate that deep except in extreme cases, and even then, they can't stay that deep for long (maybe a few hours) for safety reasons. Large submarines just can't take the pressure at anything deeper than that. And sadly, this is a matter of physics in play, and physics does not know what mercy is.

 

All that said however, as I've said before, people think that submarine simulators would be cool, until they play them and find out that they really aren't. Cold Waters is a pretty good simulation as it does make things easy to understand and does some of the hard stuff for you (like IDing sonar contacts), but at the same time, it's not exactly a game known for its heart racing action. After all, if things get interesting, you screwed up somewhere. For example, a perfect attack on a convoy should result in the ships you fire on never knowing you were even there to begin with until things start blowing up.

[Fri13]

On 5/30/2020 at 12:36 PM, Northstar98 said:

Nobody is expecting it to be detailed, going any more detailed than the mesh of the pre 2.5 era Caucasus map would be overdoing it.

 

I would gladly take a ocean floor mesh resolution of 2 km for generic flat areas, and then 200-500 meters for the ridges and deep slopes.

This is of course case for ONLY if we would get at some point a sonar displays, as then we would have nice hunting to do. We anyways would hit to the thermal layers very often and see nothing more than flat

 

 

 

 

This, because I still sometimes launch the submarine simulator Dangerous Waters.

 

And if we talk about anyways this SONAR topic, it is required for the DCS because that exact system is then transferrable to the every SAM systems, AND not just SAM systems but for whole electronic warfare in the DCS including all Chaff, Flare, ECM, ECCM etc. 

 

So we can go and take even the old 60's (and 70's and 80's) EW material and build like thousand times more complex and demanding EW for the DCS, including air-to-air, air-to-ground/surface and SONAR.

DCS stands for Digital Combat Simulator. Its primary subject is the Aviation. But it shouldn't be limited to that, as combat part is about everything. You have unit on ground, unit on surface, unit in under water and unit in air. 

And considering that we would have few people sitting front of their computer in DCS, watching their display as SONAR or RADAR scope is a lot more interesting concept than having a few players as a soldiers on ground somewhere, shooting at something... Like, no! DCS doesn't work as infantry simulator. But it works great as vehicle to vehicle simulator.

 

This is what makes F-14 so amazing to fly when you have a friend who likes to be a RIO. Now take the view outside away and make that RIO sit in a radar wagon or radar compartment in a SAM, a boat or a submarine. If there is nothing happening in some area, those players can jump to elsewhere to do other tasks where are aircraft flying, submarine or ships moving. 

 

If someone is so crazy about launching a AIM-54 Phoenix from 50 nm to the target, there are even more stuff about launching torpedo with various guidance methods, timers etc. A real cat and mouse game. 

Where some players could be flying in their Hornets and Tomcats fighting a fleet defender or strike missions etc, some people are in ships operating surface-to-air radars, surface-to-surface radars and SONAR.

 

And that is where the ocean floor height map would really come to play when you have places closer to shore where you don't to get dive deeper than 200 meters, 

 

https://earth.google.com/web/@43.31585097,39.65992957,-58.24506499a,1129019.80318129d,35y,23.4365339h,58.23762529t,360r/data=Ci4SLBIgYjczNzM1Y2E0Y2FiMTFlODhlMTU3MTM3ODRlMDYzMjMiCGxheWVyc18w

 

On 5/30/2020 at 12:36 PM, Northstar98 said:

Finding accurate data and translating that into a mesh isn't too difficult a task either AFAIK.

 

It isn't. That is public domain data.

[Fri13]

47 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

And sadly, this is a matter of physics in play, and physics does not know what mercy is.

I am so going to steal that from you....

 

47 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

All that said however, as I've said before, people think that submarine simulators would be cool, until they play them and find out that they really aren't. Cold Waters is a pretty good simulation as it does make things easy to understand and does some of the hard stuff for you (like IDing sonar contacts), but at the same time, it's not exactly a game known for its heart racing action. After all, if things get interesting, you screwed up somewhere. For example, a perfect attack on a convoy should result in the ships you fire on never knowing you were even there to begin with until things start blowing up.

 

That is true that DCS would never be able simulate a submarine to real level. Just impossible for any game ever because you have hundreds of men doing their own stuff and couple dozens are critical for combat procedures phases. So two player aircraft is so much easier to simulate. 

 

But let's face it. If Cold Waters or Dangerous Waters would be implemented to DCS World, there would be lot of players for those ocean tasks. We would suddenly need a lot bigger sea maps. Those games does very good job for adding enough simulation of the submarines, surface ships and their operations that it doesn't need to go deeper than that really.

 

Similar is with the RTS community for ground warfare, where we might have Combined Arms for the individual vehicle operation as commander/driver or gunner, but it really should be limited to that and more about commanding a platoon at smallest size, and really be a large scale RTS game.  There are always more RTS players than there are flight simulation players or sea warfare players. But if you get to combined air, ground and water together for big RTS game, you would have people flying sorties with Spitfire or Hornet where someone is micromanaging a MBT platoon or submarine etc.

 

As important the ground terrain shapes are, as important are then that we have other than just flat ocean floor. Sure we never need to know what is below 500 meters depth, but 500-10 meters and it becomes important one. Like how to perform a attack on shore and push forward from there.

 

We have already aircraft like AV-8B N/A that is capable to drop sonar buoys.

Having submarines in the Mariana map going deep etc would generate many different missions for detection. But we don't need for that the ocean floor height map details.

But eventually it is easy to add when we have no in last few years started to have proper air-to-ground radar modes like soon coming M2000C terrain radar. 

 

There must be someone would be very ready to do a "Hunt for the red October" version of the Soviet Burevestnik-class anti-submarine frigate event, but in all maps.

 

 

 

[Silver_Dragon]

The detail has build some "realistic" on sonar environment.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221916142_Sonar_Data_Simulation

 

[Tank50us]

9 hours ago, Fri13 said:

We have already aircraft like AV-8B N/A that is capable to drop sonar buoys.

Having submarines in the Mariana map going deep etc would generate many different missions for detection. But we don't need for that the ocean floor height map details.

But eventually it is easy to add when we have no in last few years started to have proper air-to-ground radar modes like soon coming M2000C terrain radar. 

 

There must be someone would be very ready to do a "Hunt for the red October" version of the Soviet Burevestnik-class anti-submarine frigate event, but in all maps.

 

Or even have an AI task where a helicopter or ASW aircraft patrols a designated area, looking for submarines and dropping depth charges or torpedoes on them if they find them. The method of search would be using sonobouys, and dipping sonar. This provides a good mission for us fixed wing pilots to protect these assets while they work from air or surface threats.

[Northstar98]

9 hours ago, Fri13 said:

I would gladly take a ocean floor mesh resolution of 2 km for generic flat areas, and then 200-500 meters for the ridges and deep slopes.

This is of course case for ONLY if we would get at some point a sonar displays, as then we would have nice hunting to do. We anyways would hit to the thermal layers very often and see nothing more than flat.

 

In most of our new maps we do have an accurate depth map, the only thing we're missing is the ability to take the cameras underneath the surface of the water without resorting to clipping it through wakes.

 

9 hours ago, Fri13 said:

And if we talk about anyways this SONAR topic, it is required for the DCS because that exact system is then transferrable to the every SAM systems, AND not just SAM systems but for whole electronic warfare in the DCS including all Chaff, Flare, ECM, ECCM etc. 

 

So we can go and take even the old 60's (and 70's and 80's) EW material and build like thousand times more complex and demanding EW for the DCS, including air-to-air, air-to-ground/surface and SONAR.

 

Hmmm, you'll have to approximate recordings though, you're also looking at implementing many things that don't have a lot of cross-over to other technologies.

 

Mostly concerning sound propagation, as well as things like convergence zones, thermoclines and surface ducts.

 

There's also the problem of overhauling the sound set for every single naval unit (though it can be guesstimated). Right now every single naval unit sounds exactly the same: a small petrol/gasoline motorboat sounds the same as a gas turbine powered fast attack craft, which sounds the same as a diesel powered bulk carrier, which sounds the same as a nuclear aircraft carrier, which sounds the same as a submerged, diesel electric submarine.  

 

9 hours ago, Fri13 said:

DCS stands for Digital Combat Simulator. Its primary subject is the Aviation. But it shouldn't be limited to that, as combat part is about everything. You have unit on ground, unit on surface, unit in under water and unit in air. 

 

I absolutely agree.

 

9 hours ago, Fri13 said:

And considering that we would have few people sitting front of their computer in DCS, watching their display as SONAR or RADAR scope is a lot more interesting concept than having a few players as a soldiers on ground somewhere, shooting at something... Like, no! DCS doesn't work as infantry simulator. But it works great as vehicle to vehicle simulator.

 

I agree.

 

9 hours ago, Fri13 said:

This is what makes F-14 so amazing to fly when you have a friend who likes to be a RIO. Now take the view outside away and make that RIO sit in a radar wagon or radar compartment in a SAM, a boat or a submarine. If there is nothing happening in some area, those players can jump to elsewhere to do other tasks where are aircraft flying, submarine or ships moving. 

 

Hmm, I'm not sure about full-fidelity submarines, though I'm more hopeful for something else.

 

9 hours ago, Fri13 said:

It isn't. That is public domain data.

 

Yeah, that's what I thought + ED's TDK seems to do it automatically, at least based on a fairly old video.