Separate wave height slider in ME

[Minni]

There was some discussion about ocean physics regarding the pitching decks and such in the Supercarrier section of the forums but I'd suggest the wave height/length made optionally independent of the wind condition in the editor pending any large changes to the actual physics.

 

This way we could uncheck the box tying the wave height to wind speed and setting the waves through a 0-100% slider allowing for rougher seas without placing unrealistic 90kts winds across the sea level. If left checked the wind would affect the waves in the same way they do now.

Edited June 1, 2020 by Minni

[norman99]

+1000 Absolutely needed!

[MikeMikeJuliet]

Or simply have both. A slider for sea roughness/size of swells or waves, and have the wind affect the waves on top of that.

 

Then you just mix and match to get what you want.

 

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

[Northstar98]

+1 I quite like this idea as an override option.

[ngreenaway]

I'd suggest the wave height/length made optionally independent of the wind condition in the editor pending any large changes to the actual physics.

 

.

 

This is precisely why there shouldn't be a separate slider, wave height is a function of wind speed & duration & fetch.

 

I don't know if fetch is significant enough in the cacusus or PG map, on Normandy map it runs all the way to north America

 

Because wave height is coupled to wind speed the way it is, there's no reason for ED to separate them in ME

[unltd]

Ocean wave energy remains long after the event/wind that created it dissipates. Many days I enjoy surfing waves in California created by storms many thousands of miles away in the southern hemisphere. Local conditions are mostly insignificant in comparison and usually only generate minor surface effects. If someone is actually considering recoding this in the ME then it should be decoupled.

[ngreenaway]

Black Sea =/= ocean

 

Virtually all waves in the Persian gulf are <1.5 meters high

[ngreenaway]

 

Persian gulf wave data. Wave energy can remain past the wind that created it, but the gulf geography reduces a lot of that energy as the swell refracts around oman

[ngreenaway]

Black Sea wave energy

 

And PG wave energy

 

Regardless of what's possible in blue water situations, it doesn't warrant decoupling wave height to wind speed in the littoral areas we have

[Minni]

Let's play a game of "what if" and some people want to try landing their planes in crappy weather. You saying it doesn't warrant any change in the name of realism has the same weight as anyone saying +1 so how about you just... let people wish? It's an option, no one is going to take your precious charts away from you :)

 

If the wave physics are how they are now when Marianas map drops and we actually need to place ~70kts winds to get a swell that feels like anything, ED is either going to have to visit the wave setting through "how to model a sea" or "how to make this a slider" and do we wanna guess which is probably easier?

[ngreenaway]

Let's play a game of "what if" and some people want to try landing their planes in crappy weather. You saying it doesn't warrant any change in the name of realism has the same weight as anyone saying +1 so how about you just... let people wish? It's an option, no one is going to take your precious charts away from you :)

 

 

Sure, and if they wish, let em sling amraams from a mig-15 , by that same logic...I mean, what if someone shoehorned some modern electronics into a relic like that, give people what they want

[Minni]

Sure, and if they wish, let em sling amraams from a mig-15 , by that same logic...I mean, what if someone shoehorned some modern electronics into a relic like that, give people what they want

 

That's stretching it a bit, eh? I'm fairly certain you can actually see my logic and reasoning here without being snarky.

[ngreenaway]

Look, do we ground DCS in reality of not? If it is, there's no justification to have a separate wave height slider.

There's no appropriate place to get your carrier crews sea-sick until perhaps marianas map. Until then, anywhere the SC can go on DCS maps conceivably (without time travel to be off the coast of Normandy) you're going to have take waters. If you want realism, that's a fact of life you'll have to live with

[Kang]

That's stretching it a bit, eh? I'm fairly certain you can actually see my logic and reasoning here without being snarky.

Ironically there has been a thread just last week in which somebody complained that ED ripped him off entirely on his A-10C because it didn't carry any AMRAAMS, which it totally should, as some bizarre mod on BMS let him do just that...

[ngreenaway]

Ironically there has been a thread just last week in which somebody complained that ED ripped him off entirely on his A-10C because it didn't carry any AMRAAMS, which it totally should, as some bizarre mod on BMS let him do just that...

 

That was an enjoyable one

[ngreenaway]

What's ironic is ED gets flack when they do something wrong:

" You screwed up gun dispersion, here's the data!"

 

Or people want something unrealistic

" Screw the data, give us what we want!"

 

I realize the community isn't a monolith, and different people want different things, there's certainly no pleasing everyone

[Juuba]

Wave size slider sounds like a good idea.

[divinee]

Absolutely want this! Would be nice to make some pitching decks landings!

[joelsi]

+1 for a separate slider

[Marin3r]

It's a commonly acknowledged fact among all sailors - professional and recreational alike - that wave height can vary greatly depending on other factors, even if wind speed is the same at two separate moments. And for example, I've seen wave height of over 1m in wind conditions that would've normally caused only about 0,5m wave height in the Finnish Archipelago. In that case the cause was strong winds that had been blowing for the two earlier days, which still caused the sea to be quite rough despite light winds.

So the separate wave height slider would in fact allow for much more variety while still remaining perfectly realistic. And even more realistic than current situation which only allows for one kind on sea state for a given wind speed.

I would strongly welcome this addition!

[Juuba]

https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/sustainability/sustainability-09-01875/article_deploy/sustainability-09-01875-v2.pdf

 

Black Sea receives nice swells, depending on location and wind/storm directions. Reading/skipping some links on mobile here, maximum was something like 5-8 meter Significant Wave heights during 38 years measurement period.

3 meter was “average maximum” IIRC from that document.

 

PG is more closed a sea, still gets some 2 meter “Hs” - calmer than the Black Sea.

https://www.ann-geophys.net/23/2031/2005/angeo-23-2031-2005.pdf

 

Here’s one that has some formulas for predicting wave sizes. Might be helpful?

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0066.1

Edited June 1, 2020 by Juuba

[ngreenaway]

Parts of black Sea have quite a bit of wave energy, but the areas on our map are calmer. In any case, the PG is for all intents and purposes the primary useful area for us. The Kuz can access the black Sea thru a loophole , however short of breaking international treaties , the nato carriers can't transit the Turkish straits to the black sea

[Juuba]

Why are you so much against this?

[ngreenaway]

Why are you so much against this?

 

Because I see no reason to be for it. Additionally, if all we get are a while bunch of "+1s" & "agree! we need this" , it skews the perception of whether something is really wanted or needed. I have zero problem being a dissenting opinion if I have data to back it up.

 

We all have different things we key in on...just look at the threads on gun dispersion

Edited June 1, 2020 by ngreenaway

[=Mac=]

I have sailed a 26 foot sloop on Lake Ontario for the past 15 years. The fetch from Niagara-On-The-Lake to Toronto is about 30 or so miles. With determined winds of about 20 kts from the south, we can see open water waves going over 3 meters occasionally.

 

For the record, too, I would point out the famous SS Edmund Fitzgerald, an American Great Lakes freighter that sank in a Lake Superior storm on November 10, 1975, with the loss of the entire crew of 29. When launched on June 7, 1958, she was the largest ship on North America's Great Lakes, and she remains the largest to have sunk there.

 

Type: Lake freighter

Tonnage:

13,632 GRT

8,713 NRT (from 1969: 8,686 NRT)

26,000 DWT

Length:

729 ft (222 m) overall

711 ft (217 m) between perpendiculars

 

En route to a steel mill near Detroit, Edmund Fitzgerald joined a second freighter, SS Arthur M. Anderson. On that November day, the two ships were caught in a severe storm on Lake Superior, with near hurricane-force winds and waves up to 35 feet (11 m) high. Shortly after 7:10 p.m., Edmund Fitzgerald suddenly sank in Canadian (Ontario) waters 530 feet (88 fathoms; 160 m) deep, about 17 miles (15 nautical miles; 27 kilometers) from Whitefish Bay near the twin cities of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario—a distance Edmund Fitzgerald could have covered in just over an hour at her top speed.

 

Now, for Lake Superior:

 

Max. length 350 mi (560 km)

Max. width 160 mi (260 km)

Surface area 31,700 sq mi (82,000 km2)

Average depth 483 ft (147 m)

Max. depth 1,333 ft (406 m)

 

While I was aboard the Forrestal (CV-59) along the coastal waters of Virginia, we encountered the edge of a heavy storm. She headed into the wind for safety yet, I saw with my own beady little eyes the occasional wave blowing over the bow as we plunged into them. For the record, the Forrestal's freeboard is about 100 feet.