PDA

View Full Version : Waterlines



E.Thang
11-17-2004, 08:16 AM
Has anyone else noticed the waterlines on the subs don't look very good? Overall the graphics look great, but the 'whitewater' along the side of the hull, especially where it contacts the hull itself just doesn't look right. Has anyone else noticed this??

Pr0metheus 1962
11-17-2004, 08:44 AM
I agree. I mentioned it in a couple of threads here and many people agree. Don't mention it on Subsim.net though, those folks will tear you apart if you criticise any part of the sim. I tried and the backlash was pretty ugly.

TASKFORCE1x1
11-17-2004, 09:36 AM
I think it will look better on our PC's when we have our graphics running the sim. In SHII you can turn on calm seas as not to be sea sick. I'm thinking some of the effects may have been tweeked down a bit to make a smaller sized video for the SHIII website so all can Download.
Thats only my opinion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Mitarbeiter
11-17-2004, 11:28 AM
I'm sorry, but turning on or off some graphical features is not going to make any difference to the size of a video file.

The dev team, if they read these forums, will hopefully be aware of the issue and may fix it, all one can do is keep an eye on future screenshots and vids.

Mitarbeiter
11-17-2004, 12:50 PM
Although, I think all this concern over waterlines might just be overegged. I had a quick scan over at uboatarchive.net and came across these photos:

(They all show fairly clearly an amount of white water around the whole of the boat consistent with screenshots)

http://www.uboatarchive.net/208592.jpg

http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-118FryattAtk.jpg

http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-172Circling.jpg

http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-569DBs.jpg

http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-860E.jpg

Pr0metheus 1962
11-17-2004, 01:46 PM
This thread isn't concerned with the amount of white water. I think this thread is more concerned with the quality of the white water graphics. When you see the pictures of the game's U-Boats taken from the bridge or close to the U-Boat, the white wake looks too blurry and the line where sub meets water is too straight. I think what we're saying here is 'something doesn't look right'. We're not saying the wakes are too big anymore - that was an older discussion.

negus1
11-17-2004, 02:49 PM
The problem is a lack of water spume (spray) alongside the boat. you can see it very well at the bow. there everything looks fine 'cause you see spume. but alongside the boat there is no spume which is not natural. spume should not be there as much as at the bow part, but still ... at least a bit. in the screenshots it looks like the boat would cut the water like a razor blade. in fact you would see spume there and no sharp line between boat and water.

Capt.LoneRanger
11-17-2004, 04:57 PM
There is no such thing as a spray from the sides of a ship, especially not a sub. The spray comes from the water that is displaced. This is very much stronger in ships, than in subs, because the main amount of water can actually flow above the pressure hull, as it is under water.
Ships, especially faster ones or those with special shaped bows, use this displacement effect to stand out of the water and decrease their overall displacement, to be more agile. Those ships cause a smaller amount of spray at the keel and a hughe amount of spray (over-turning waves, to be exact) at the sides.

The only thing that can and will cause a spray effect is the turret itself. This is especially the case, during crash dive from full speed. These were missing in some pics, but if you look at the second trailer, it looks pretty real, now.

I'd adjust the amount of "white sea", especially after surfacing. The night-pic with the FlaK in the background is an excellent example for that: The displacement from the turret, the balast tanks being emptied and the water pouring down should cause a "white sea" bigger than it is shown.
I'd also like to mention, from my time at the Germany navy, that this white water is visible for a LONG time at calm sea!

The pics are nice, but they're not really conclusive. Most of them show water pouring out of the balast tanks, causing the bubbles (white sea). This is not "spray" on the sides. But this effect would be nice, too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
11-17-2004, 06:20 PM
There might not be spray, but there should be some eddying and turbulence in the water as it goes past the hull. This seems to be missing. There's white water around the boat, but the turbulence that causes the white water is missing - it's almost as if the boat has no friction at all, yet it causes white water. Just as there's no smoke without fire, there should also be no white water without turbulence.

U-443
11-17-2004, 08:30 PM
I must confess I'd love to see a white water effect in the game.Perhaps it could be incorperated?

Capt.LoneRanger
11-18-2004, 01:14 AM
Agreed, the displacement waves (Kielwasser) should be there, but, hey, this is not spray but waves. To include this effect, you'd have to adjust the normal waves to the actions of the boat.

I don't know how they programmed the waves, but with my experience of some other games and 3D-progamms I fiddled around with, I know that this would mean a tremendous amount of additional work for a little, nice effect. With bump-mapping or manipulating the 3D-mesh, the CPU and GFX-processors load would increase further, which I think is exactly, what the devs try NOT to do. (and I'm personally glad for that, considering LOMACs performance when it was released, e.g.)

The white water effect is allready in the game and IMHO it is sufficient to "simulated" these waves. Please don't forget, that they are much less visible in the open sea. And again, those turbulences are not really big (as you can also see on the pics and sea is rather calm there)

You also gotta keep in mind, that this "turbulence" is not cause by waves on the surface! They're very small bubbles (that's why they stay so long under water), created by faster movement than the water can flow. Remember the cavitation effect on modern subs? It's dependent on the pressure, not on the waves, cause there are no overturning waves at 40m below surface.

Again, I agree, that the "white sea"-effect could be increased in some situation.

SailorSteve
11-18-2004, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
I agree. I mentioned it in a couple of threads here and many people agree. Don't mention it on Subsim.net though, those folks will tear you apart if you criticise any part of the sim. I tried and the backlash was pretty ugly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was one of the people who disagreed with you, and there was no backlash until you became rather insistent that you were right and those of us who felt differently didn't know what we were talking about.

I agree that the foam could be narrower and held close to the hull, but I would also like to see the disturbed water last longer, as seen in picture #2, with the wake twisting and turning for a great distance behind the boat.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-18-2004, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SailorSteve:
I was one of the people who disagreed with you, and there was no backlash until you became rather insistent that you were right and those of us who felt differently didn't know what we were talking about. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, I kinda figured it was the other way around. The backlash - including snide comments - happened first, and I never once said that anyone else didn't know what they were talking about.

In fact, you were one of the first to start with the ad-hominem attacks when you said "Obviously you're convinced you're right, and this is starting to feel like a religious argument." At that point I had never insisted that I was right. I merely pointed out the facts about the evidence, and I guess that level of critical investigation was too much for some folks to bear.

But that's okay. I've learnt my lesson: don't criticise too much and don't pursue an investigation rigorously (at least not on Subsim.com). Criticism is rarely valued as the tool for improvement it undoubtedly is, and there are many sycophantic forums where critical thinking is actively discouraged. But nothing ever improved through blind acceptance of the status quo, and those who don't ask the critical questions are never the ones who make (or help to make) improvements. Thankfully, this forum is a bit more welcoming of the pursuit towards excellence, which is why I'm here, and why I no longer post on subsim.com.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-18-2004, 12:59 PM
I think part of the problem is that the wake is too uniform. In all the photos of real boats that I've seen so far (that don't include spray from the holes in the decking) the wake is composed of lines (or areas tending towards linearity) of white water with bits of blue water inbetween. The whole wake of a real boat is very complex in terms of colour, shade, texture and form. In the images on the screenshots page, especially numbers 4 to 9, the wake is very undefined - almost pixellated (but with a 3D blurring effect) and very much one colour. There is no perceptible 'form' to the wake: it's almost as if someone just 'shook up' the water around the boat - there's no sense of forward movement there. In my opinion these are the major flaws - the wake is not detailed enough for it to look good up close, and it's too formless to give the sense that the boat is in motion.

Leif...
11-18-2004, 01:27 PM
Personally I don€t think it€s such a big deal, (which kind of surprises even myself as I€m sucker for graphical detail) but have you checked out the latest (I think) video from the game PT boats?

Even though SH3 water seems to be very good, PT boats water are even better. They have a real wake after the boats, real as in waves and not just a wake texture. That is currently state of the art, and as far as I know, has only been seen before in a few technical demos. (Very heavy on the cpu unless they have come up with some new technique.)

Leif€¦

Pr0metheus 1962
11-18-2004, 01:33 PM
Yes, PT Boats seems to do the wake texture very well indeed. Something bothers me about the boats themselves in that sim though. I wish SH3 could have PT Boats's wakes and I wish PT Boats could have SH3's quality of ship/boat models.

SailorSteve
11-18-2004, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:

Hehe, I kinda figured it was the other way around. The backlash - including snide comments - happened first, and I never once said that anyone else didn't know what they were talking about.

In fact, you were one of the first to start with the ad-hominem attacks when you said "Obviously you're convinced you're right, and this is starting to feel like a religious argument." At that point I had never insisted that I was right. I merely pointed out the facts about the evidence, and I guess that level of critical investigation was too much for some folks to bear.

But that's okay. I've learnt my lesson: don't criticise too much and don't pursue an investigation rigorously (at least not on Subsim.com). Criticism is rarely valued as the tool for improvement it undoubtedly is, and there are many sycophantic forums where critical thinking is actively discouraged. But nothing ever improved through blind acceptance of the status quo, and those who don't ask the critical questions are never the ones who make (or help to make) improvements. Thankfully, this forum is a bit more welcoming of the pursuit towards excellence, which is why I'm here, and why I no longer post on subsim.com. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have the entire thread in front of me now, and except for my "religious argument" comment (which I tend to trot out any time a discussion goes in circles, and for which I apologize), I really don't see a backlash at all, or any condemnation.

A couple of others commented that they had been at sea and disagreed with you. The subsim forum is hardly sycophantic, and on the thread in question no one accepted the status quo, some others just disagreed with you. Whether you post there again is your business, but I think your comments about it are a bit on the strong side.

E.Thang
11-18-2004, 06:47 PM
When is that PT sim gonna be released anyway???
I know the whole 'waterline' thing is nit picking, it just seems like they put so much effort into this game that they would have paid a bit more attention to the water! It is a naval game!

one.zero
11-19-2004, 02:14 PM
Simply put...the photos I have reviewed, which is everything availible at present, show only texturning and no parting of the water or the wake from it. Instead, it appears the water is flat and made of another color to represent aerated water (white). Another note of interest is that texturing or coloring of the water along the ship only seems to exist in the front and not along the lentght of the ship as it should be.

I noticed that in some SHIII photos that we had PT boats in the backgound with better wake and coloring to resemble aeration than did the submarine in the foreground. The best example I belive is the shots of partially submerged conning towers...they look really bad..this should be the most turbulent and aerated of all water and it should have very defined wake water.

This lack of detail should really be addressed. Given the high level of detail on so many other facets of SHIII, having flat water by a moving sub is really lame.

Nyberger
11-19-2004, 07:07 PM
posted Wed October 27 2004 11:13
http://www.subart.net/u-boat%20&%20leigh%20light.htm

Yes,werry important to the realism!