A separate setting for water state

[CarbonFox]

I realize the state of water is determined by other weather factors but it would be really great if there was a separate settings tab for changing the condition of the water so a player can create a rough or calm sea state without guessing on what weather conditions to input.

[Shmegegge 1-1 Aero]

How about updated weather presets for certain water states+weather effects.

[AG-51_Razor]

I absolutely agree with this "wish"!!   It seems to me that it would be relatively easy for ED to seperate the Sea State from the wind setting in the ME. In reality, the sea state is influenced by many more things than just the wind. The depth of the ocean, current, weather from a fair distance away, etc.

[FoxTwo]

On 4/30/2022 at 4:05 PM, CarbonFox said:

I realize the state of water is determined by other weather factors but it would be really great if there was a separate settings tab for changing the condition of the water so a player can create a rough or calm sea state without guessing on what weather conditions to input.

I get the ask but wave height is entirely determined by wind, so if there's a "sea" preset then surface wind conditions would go along with it.

Conversely, you can set wind speed/direction at the surface to change water conditions.

Edited August 22, 2022 by FoxTwo

[AG-51_Razor]

I'm sorry FoxTwo but you couldn't possibly be more wrong about that. Wave height is NOT entirely determined by wind. Go spend some time at sea to figure that out for yourself!

[Limaro]

Please ED, this might be a very low hanging fruit.

[Dragon1-1]

On 8/22/2022 at 11:31 PM, FoxTwo said:

I get the ask but wave height is entirely determined by wind, so if there's a "sea" preset then surface wind conditions would go along with it.

It's not, or rather, it isn't by the wind that's blowing over the given body of water at the moment. Even then, currents also come into play with how waves behave. Most notably, sea state will lag behind the wind speed, and it takes a whole lot longer for the waves to calm down than for the wind to stop blowing. It's possible (and on inland seas, not uncommon) for waves to crisscross and come from two different directions, a situation which makes for a rather rough day if you happen to be sailing on it. Waves also carry further and are not affected by air pressure, so it's very possible to end up becalmed with a low to mid sea state, a horrible situation that will typically have the crew lined up on the rail even on a midsize vessel, and that's with the engine on. And that's not even getting into how tides and currents interact with them.

[Kappa-131st]

I'm agree.

Want some big waves, without having to configure the wind at max !
And colisionnable waves wil be the top !

Edited March 17, 2023 by Kappa-131st

[Leutnant_Artur]

Im looking forward for this request. 

[Bosun]

I think what you lubbers are referencing is the difference between 'swell' and 'wind-waves' which are both valid parameters.  

Swell can be quite large, but still hits limits, without wind.  Windwaves can be quite choppy, but still hit limits, without swell.  


They are both interwined in each other's states, and while you could set them separately, there would need to be parameters for what is possible.  You will not see 30ft swell on a dead-calm day.  You won't see 5 ft swell in a 60 knot gale.  The reason is energy.  

Think of a wave in the ocean as being a wave of pure energy. Because it is.  The water isn't moving - a floating duck on the top of the water doesn't travel with the swell.  The swell passes underneath it as an undulation, and if you're swimming underneath the surface, you won't feel that swell pass by, because that swell is simply potential energy, raw and pure.  The only time a wave becomes kinetic and tangible is when it piles that energy up in shallow water, and then breaks, usually close to shore, but sometimes during high-wind, high intensity storms.  

That also means that without a lot of energy, swell and waves do not form.  Storms and wind contribute to putting energy into the ocean quite a bit, and without that energy, swells are only formed through reverbration of energy from other places, and currents.  Unless an earthquake happens, those are not nearly as immediately impactful of sea state, as a storm, which dumps energy into the ocean in very short amounts of time, and can whip a sea state in a localized area like no energy wave bouncing off a coastal shelf and travelling back a 1000 miles over 3-mile deep water ever could.  

I think what would be easier, and better - implement the Beaufort Scale as a collection of presets, and have clouds be able to be a separate, but still related parameter.  You can have 40 knots of breeze on a clear day, with 15 ft seas.  You can have a thundercloud that only generates 5ft seas and mild winds - but even within those, there are scientifically studied norms that certain weather patterns fall within, and create.  It is necessary to adhere to those.  


Actually, what we're really asking for here, is to have pressure differences organically generate wind and cloud conditions that mimic real-life permutations.  To which, I imagine, is every developer's dream.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Bosun

[Limaro]

TL DR

we simply want separate settings for wind and for wave. Just because of having different water. The black sea has by default less waves than atlantic or pacific. I don't want ED to make perfekt wind-to-wave settings. to many variables.

just two more slides. One for what you call swell-waves and one for wind waves.

[draconus]

9 hours ago, Limaro said:

we simply want separate settings for wind and for wave.

unrealistic

[CageyLobster]

8 hours ago, draconus said:

unrealistic

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_currents/media/supp_cur03a.html

You can have small waves and high winds if the wind doesn't blow over a large portion of the water.  That is called fetch.

Im not, nor do I claim to be an expert.  But I dont think you are either to say no to a wishlist item, when the truth is it can happen in rare instances.  It may not be hugely important in DCS world, but it is also a wishlist item.  Until the community can grant a wish, I doubt they should be saying no to any of them.  Unless you work for ED.

I don't think the correct verbiage should be "unrealistic"  but more, "unlikely"  But, again if it was an option you wouldn't have to use it.

Edited June 14, 2023 by CageyLobster
Words

[draconus]

18 minutes ago, CageyLobster said:

Until the community can grant a wish, I doubt they should be saying no to any of them.  Unless you work for ED.

I work for Realistic Police and I guard DCS from unrealistic options like separating wind from waves. Improvements to both are welcome though.

[CageyLobster]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

I work for Realistic Police and I guard DCS from unrealistic options like separating wind from waves. Improvements to both are welcome though.

Well, you added zero value to the discussion with your one word post.  Something, I am pretty sure is against the rules. So perhaps you should just take a step back, and realize that you aren't representative of the community as a whole, just because you have time to comment on or in every post.  It was also in the "Wish" department of the forums.  This is the area you make bold requests to see if you can get something done to improve ones experience.  I think this can be a well simulated game, but it is a game nonetheless.   Don't get confused on what your position in this community is.  It is no more valuable than mine, and your opinion is not representative of what I would like out of my gaming experience.

So, please next time add something to the discussion, or dont respond.

Edited June 14, 2023 by CageyLobster
spelling/grammer

[Limaro]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb draconus:

I work for Realistic Police and I guard DCS from unrealistic options like separating wind from waves. Improvements to both are welcome though.

I did not write much, but I guess the point is clear. There are just too many factors, which a game can hardly consider.

- Current wind
- Wind of the last couple of days
- Stronger wind somewhere else (yes, waves are traveling).
- Deepness of water (black sea, vs. pacific. The just behave totally different)
- "Size of open water" (fiord vs. open sea)
- Underground geografical situation (google portual, nazare, thats not wind)

So to simplify things for us and ED (and let marianas water not look like the flat water of a swimming pool) we just wish this feature to be separated. Yes ok, maybe with checkbox to couple settings if whished.

[CageyLobster]

3 minutes ago, Limaro said:

I did not write much, but I guess the point is clear. There are just too many factors, which a game can hardly consider.

- Current wind
- Wind of the last couple of days
- Stronger wind somewhere else (yes, waves are traveling).
- Deepness of water (black sea, vs. pacific. The just behave totally different)
- "Size of open water" (fiord vs. open sea)
- Underground geografical situation (google portual, nazare, thats not wind)

So to simplify things for us and ED (and let marianas water not look like the flat water of a swimming pool) we just wish this feature to be separated. Yes ok, maybe with checkbox to couple settings if whished.

Don't defend yourself to someone who was wrong in the first place. @draconus didn't even bother spending the five minutes it took me to find out the very thing that is being talked about.  High chop seas can exist in low wind environments. Unlikely, yes.  Unrealistic, no.  Also, it was asked for as on option.  If @draconus doesn't want to use it, then he doesn't have to.  That's how options work.

[Bosun]

On 6/13/2023 at 1:40 PM, Limaro said:

TL DR

we simply want separate settings for wind and for wave. Just because of having different water. The black sea has by default less waves than atlantic or pacific. I don't want ED to make perfekt wind-to-wave settings. to many variables.

just two more slides. One for what you call swell-waves and one for wind waves.

This is a universal world modeling issue. The reason the Black Sea has differing swell structures than the Atlantic, is because it is a smaller, land-locked ocean.  Swell energy cannot build up the same way as it does across an ocean that is affected by current and massive weather depressions.  Furthermore - the depths of the Black Sea are overall more shallow, leading to more choppy wind-waves.  What we're really asking for here, is to have sea-state modeling specific to the Black Sea, or Mediterranean for the Sinia map, for example, that factors in the shallower depths, more localized currents, and smaller 'pool' from which wave energy is built.

The effect of separating wind from ocean state is akin to asking if you have rain or snow settings separate from clouds.  At that point you have ceased being a realistic simulator, and have gone into a purely science-fiction realm, which is not the goal of the sim.  

What you should properly ask for is accurate modeling of sea-state based on swell energy, fetch, and depth. If you're unfamiliar with those terms, do some reading on them. Then - look up The Beaufort Scale.  Wind, weather and wave energy are so tied into each other, that a set scale was created and is still in use today as a primary way to describe sea state based on wind. This is used by all professional mariners, from private yachts to massive CVNs. I would say, more realistic to model that scale and be able to 'select' a state of the scale on a slider, say, and then be able to change wind parameters within set limits for the silder scale you're on.  

A completely-separate control for wind, and sea-state, however, is only applicable if you're looking to create artificial conditions that are not physically possible - and just are not part of physics, like having aerodynamics in space, or precipitation from a clear sky.  Easier to have a simple tablet from which to scale the states of wind and sea as they realistically relate to one another, and allow modification of those settings within set limits.  Similar to what they've already done, perhaps but more refined.  

Edited June 20, 2023 by Bosun

[Limaro]

vor 23 Minuten schrieb Bosun:

The effect of separating wind from ocean state is akin to asking if you have rain or snow settings separate from clouds.  At that point you have ceased being a realistic simulator, and have gone into a purely science-fiction realm, which is not the goal of the sim. 

It's a tool. And you a re right, you would be able to do unrealstic scenarios. So what? Nobody is forced to do so. Currently you can set a wind speed, which led you land the F18 on the Heli-Pad in Dubay. That's in the same way unrealistic.

With this feature whish, I see to achieve two things:

- It's a low hanging fruit for ED, as both features, wind and waves, already exist.
- Let us doing what we need/want for realistic scenarios.

And please read my second post. How could a simulator simulate, that you've got strong wind yesterday, or a storm somewhere else.

 

[Ironhand]

On 6/14/2023 at 2:10 PM, Limaro said:

…So to simplify things for us and ED (and let marianas water not look like the flat water of a swimming pool) we just wish this feature to be separated. Yes ok, maybe with checkbox to couple settings if whished.

I know some people feel that decoupling the wind and wave height might allow unrealistic scenarios but what we currently have is unrealistic as well. If you use any of the publicly available wind/wave calculators out there, you will realize that, currently, significant wave height is roughly 1/4 of what it should be. As an example, a 20m/s (38.9 kt) wind with a decent fetch and bottom depth should produce a significant wave height of around 71ft. In the sim, you get about 17ft.

There are a number of other issues with the modeling of the sea state but, at least where wind driven wave height is concerned, allowing users to set the wave height would solve the wave height problem. Of course, simply adjusting the wave height to wind speed ratio would solve the issue, too. And that might be even simpler.

[Bosun]

17 hours ago, Ironhand said:

I know some people feel that decoupling the wind and wave height might allow unrealistic scenarios but what we currently have is unrealistic as well. If you use any of the publicly available wind/wave calculators out there, you will realize that, currently, significant wave height is roughly 1/4 of what it should be. As an example, a 20m/s (38.9 kt) wind with a decent fetch and bottom depth should produce a significant wave height of around 71ft. In the sim, you get about 17ft.

There are a number of other issues with the modeling of the sea state but, at least where wind driven wave height is concerned, allowing users to set the wave height would solve the wave height problem. Of course, simply adjusting the wave height to wind speed ratio would solve the issue, too. And that might be even simpler.

Those wind-wave calculators you're looking at are not correct. Can you link me to them?

Apologies, but I've wrung more salt water out of my hat than you've sailed across, and I can tell you on a 40 kt breeze with hundreds of feet of depth and a 40 mile fetch, 17-ft swell is actually right in the variable zone of what would be expected.

For example - see this attached video. It's an old one from the early 2000s on a crappy cell phone - but - wind here was about 25+ sustained, gusting 30kts.  Notice the swell/windwave. That was mostly wind-wave fetch, as the swell was not that high that day.  Why? We had stable weather and the 'energy' of swell had not been built up. This is 20 miles offshore in open water.

For reference - this was moving a 250-ton ship under lower-canvas (half it's available power) only, about 10 kts, fairly close to it's hull-speed of 11.  

 

 

 A few things to note here - The Beaufort scale marks this as a Force 6 (it was.) Look at what the Beaufort Scale has to say about this weather: 

A Force 8, the windspeed you're 'calculating' above: 
null

 

I would highly encourage everyone who wants to get to know actual sea-state conditions, to learn the Beaufort Scale, and go sailing. Not power-boating. Actual, hard sailing on a cruising sailboat - or tallships.  On a large powered vessel, you're not as aware of conditions because the ship doesn't rely on those conditions the same way. You'll get a much more 'grounded' experience of the sea, if I can turn a phrase.  If you've ever served on a smaller vessel, even powered, however, you'll have a good idea of it.  On a large cruise ship, massive carrier or battleship, however, it is difficult to learn the associations of sea-state to weather, because you just plow right through most of it all the same.

For the nay-sayers - yep - exceptions indeed exist to the scale's general descriptions of sea states.  However - those are exceptions to the correlated conditions that are so predictable -someone made a set scale out of them that has been used by professional mariners as a proper gauge for hundreds of years.  
So. 

Don't believe the movies.  (Except Master & Commander - nailed it.)

And don't believe online calculators that tell you a tsunami-force wave happens at 40 kts.  

Edited June 22, 2023 by Bosun

[Raisuli]

On 6/20/2023 at 1:35 PM, Bosun said:

A completely-separate control for wind, and sea-state, however, is only applicable if you're looking to create artificial conditions that are not physically possible - and just are not part of physics, like having aerodynamics in space, or precipitation from a clear sky.  Easier to have a simple tablet from which to scale the states of wind and sea as they realistically relate to one another, and allow modification of those settings within set limits.  Similar to what they've already done, perhaps but more refined.  

 

Ever been on the Caspian Sea?  Or off the coast of San Francisco?  Swells are not locked tight with wind.  The storm we went through between Pearl and Kamchatka was not wind driven, but the sonar dome and the screws came out of the water.  The North Sea has waves that will really rock your boat, even under water, but that's not wind, either (though there usually is a bit of that, too).

I've seen bright sunny days and twelve foot seas.  I've seen clouds, wind, and rain with four foot swells and a lot of spray.

Yeah, I would love a sea state slider.  You can adjust the limits on wind and weather, which does make sense, but saying 40 foot waves with 25 knot winds in deep water is physically impossible is simply not true.  Four days I won't forget, and that Hyundai freighter nearly rammed us.  Green water to the ASROC launcher, and we had to get a new ship's bell (we also had to hit the dry dock at PSNY to repair the sonar dome).  Gotta tell you, Petropovlovsk was a nice change from all that!  Cold and windy, but relatively calm seas with just the normal in-shore swells. 

Took a week to get everything re-stowed because not much got done during that storm, and we really shouldn't discuss the number of engineering logs gun-decked because the watch standers were too tired, or sick, to stand watch.  Five people on the mess decks during meals.  Captain up in his chair on the bridge puffing away at a pipe full of Captain Black with a huge smile on his face.  Pretty wild stuff.

As for 'impossible', ever see a carrier in the Black Sea?  Neither have I.  Seems to happen a lot in DCS.

[Bosun]

26 minutes ago, Raisuli said:

Ever been on the Caspian Sea?  Or off the coast of San Francisco?  Swells are not locked tight with wind.  The storm we went through between Pearl and Kamchatka was not wind driven, but the sonar dome and the screws came out of the water.  The North Sea has waves that will really rock your boat, even under water, but that's not wind, either (though there usually is a bit of that, too).

I've seen bright sunny days and twelve foot seas.  I've seen clouds, wind, and rain with four foot swells and a lot of spray.

Yeah, I would love a sea state slider.  You can adjust the limits on wind and weather, which does make sense, but saying 40 foot waves with 25 knot winds in deep water is physically impossible is simply not true.  Four days I won't forget, and that Hyundai freighter nearly rammed us.  Green water to the ASROC launcher, and we had to get a new ship's bell (we also had to hit the dry dock at PSNY to repair the sonar dome).  Gotta tell you, Petropovlovsk was a nice change from all that!  Cold and windy, but relatively calm seas with just the normal in-shore swells. 

Took a week to get everything re-stowed because not much got done during that storm, and we really shouldn't discuss the number of engineering logs gun-decked because the watch standers were too tired, or sick, to stand watch.  Five people on the mess decks during meals.  Captain up in his chair on the bridge puffing away at a pipe full of Captain Black with a huge smile on his face.  Pretty wild stuff.

As for 'impossible', ever see a carrier in the Black Sea?  Neither have I.  Seems to happen a lot in DCS.

Hence the "and allow modifications of those within set limits" - because of course exceptions exist, but those exceptions are still bound by the laws of physics.  I've seen small cruise ships get exposed screws from 15-20ft seas due to the timing of the swell, while being squarely in line with Beaufort Scale expectations. If you're travelling with the wind, it will certainly feel odd to meet a rolling sea, especially when modern cruisers can go 30-40kts, effectively creating conditions onboard deck of having 0 wind.  If your sea-state was 20-30 ft swell, you either had wind and were travelling with it - or you had a recent major storm nearby somewhere that piled that energy up - or - you were running against a high-flow current near the bay, and the wave action was piling into the shallower water and creating high swell.  That's a localized effect closer to shore or shallow water, and cannot be universally applied as a sea-state. 

San Francisco - sure. Been there lots.  San Fran is a cool case though, due to the Bay Area and the currents that move around it.  I would not be able to say that a large ocean like the Black Sea would behave the same way as being just outbound of the Bay.  The video I posted is just offshore of Monterey about 20 miles.   

Land topography has a lot to do with swell height, period and wind waves as well.  Shallow seas produce more choppy water as energy does not have the ability to expand into the depths beneath it.  You see a lot of localized water-states in Puget Sound, for example, due to all the eddies and currents and varying depths.  That doesn't mean that you can judge an entire sea-state from those.  They're very unique to localized conditions within a few miles. Exceptions exist.

Again - if anything - base it on the observed scales, and deviate from there for adjustments with depth and localized effects of the Black Sea.  Barring the ability to be that specific with the programming, they've not done a terrible job at modeling the states.  They could do better - but I would still say that having controls that let you put heavy rain on a clear sky would be silly, and being able to create 30ft swell on a calm day is equally illogical, barring some exception to land topography that would cause that kind of swell to pile up.  

Better to adjust the states to be more customizable within limits and relationships to each other, than to completely decouple them.  

I've been deep in the Coral Sea on a long-haul crossing that took 56 days with a loaded ship to the gunwhales, and I've seen swell state reach 12-15 ft on a gentle 15knt breeze.  Why?  We were crossing the Colverson Ridge (sp?), a sea mount where the depth goes from over several thousand feet, to several hundred in a short span.  The wave energy piled up and the swell exceeded the nominal range of expectation for the scale of windforce we had.  Exceptions exist.  But they are not rules by which to code a universe, and without the ability to only apply those exceptions locally to certain spots on the map - better to stick with the universals for now, would be my leaning.  

I don't want to start flying in servers were people are throwing 50 knt winds across a carrier deck on a flat-calm sea.  That just breaks my immersion.

[Raisuli]

3 minutes ago, Bosun said:

I don't want to start flying in servers were people are throwing 50 knt winds across a carrier deck on a flat-calm sea.  That just breaks my immersion.

Immersion is DOWN, the ability to VTOL an F-14 is UP! 

It would be nice to move that slider and pitch the decks, even with reasonable wind going the right direction.  Even in (relatively) calm seas the deck still moves, even if only a couple feet; Carriers are a big cork on a bigger ocean, and the closest thing you get to a stabilizer is a bilge keel.  Well, except the Enterprise seemed to have a contest to see how long it would take the navigator to scrape one off.  She was home ported on the pier next to ours for a few years, and seemed to spend a lot of time in dock getting those bilge keels replaced.

I think we're arguing the same thing.

[Ironhand]

2 hours ago, Bosun said:

Those wind-wave calculators you're looking at are not correct. Can you link me to them?

Apologies, but I've wrung more salt water out of my hat than you've sailed across, and I can tell you on a 40 kt breeze with hundreds of feet of depth and a 40 mile fetch, 17-ft swell is actually right in the variable zone of what would be expected.

Either they’re not correct or I’m using them incorrectly. Either can be true. A 40 mile fetch was much smaller than what I was using.

Anyway…here are two:

http://csherwood-usgs.github.io/jsed/Fetch and Depth Limited Waves, USGS.html
 

https://planetcalc.com/4442/
 

A 28-footer is the closest I’ve every gotten to a tall ship and I’ve only crewed at that. Never had a # for how hard the wind was blowing. Worst was with the main reefed and only the storm jib up. That was exhilarating enough. I also kayak. That’s a boat that will convince you that the sea lives and breathes in case you doubt it. Worst experience there was not seeing the boat I was wearing for what felt like a few hours at a time. I’m sure the latter experience was not a 40 kt breeze.