PDA

View Full Version : [WIP] The Offical Post of The Surface Warfare Super-Mod


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

ivank
11-27-08, 06:42 PM
For all persons interested in The Surface Warfare Super-Mod:

This is the Official Post for the Mod! You no longer need to look at the three other posts. This post contains all of the versions that will be released. And contains part of the Official Read-me. The list below has all of the ETA's and the Official Playable Navy and Ship list:

ETA:
TSWSM V1 Atlanic Action: IT WILL BE READY WHEN ITS READY
Hilfskreuzer and Armed Merchant Cruiser Mod: SEE ABOVE, WILL BE RELEASED WITH ABOVE

-The Surface Warfare Mod Team takes a break, no new mod, patches, etc to be released.

TSWSM V2 Pacfic Thunder: N/A
TSWSM V3 Elite Warship Add-on: N/A

-Another short break to reflect on the past and future mods, maybe talk about a possible V5:Carrier Warfare, V6: Cold Temp War (Cold War), and maybe even V7: Modern Warfare and V8: World War I
*v6, and v7 and not even 5% confirmed, but it is fun to toy with ideas. v8 is mostly likely to happen of all of these extra mods*-

TSWSM V4 Minor Navy Add-on: N/A


*Taken from the official Read-me*

Mod versions:

The Surface Warfare Super-Mod Version 1 Atlantic Action:
-Playable Navy's:
- Royal Navy
- Kriegsmarine
- Royal Australian Navy
-Playable Ships:
-King George V class (BB)
-Renown-class (BC)
-Admiral class (BC)
-Revenge class (BB)
-Queen Elizabeth class (BB)
-Nelson class (BB)
-County class (CA)
-York class (CA)
-Leander class (CL)
-Town class (CL)
-Dido class (CL)
-Flower class (PG)
-Black Swan (PG)
-V&W class (DD)
-Tribal class (DD)
-Mod Leander (CL)
-Bismarck class (BB)
-Scharnhorst class (BC)
-Deutschland class (CA)
-Admiral Hipper class (CA)
-K-class (CL)
-Type 34 (DD)
-Type 36 (DD)
-H-39 class (BB)

The Surface Warfare Super-Mod Version 2 Pacfic Thunder:
-Playable Navy's:
-United States Navy
-Imperial Japanese Navy
-Playable Ships:
-Iowa class (BB)
-North Carolina class (BB)
-South Dakota class (BB)
-Alaska class (BC)
-Baltimore class (CA)
-North Hampton class (CA)
-Cleveland class (CL)
-Fletcher class (DD)
-Somers class (DD)
-Yamato class (BB)
-Nagato class (BB)
-Kongo class (BB)
-Ise class (BB)
-Fuso class (BB)
-Maya class (CA)
-Takao class (CA)
-most of the CL's and DD's

The Surface Warfare Super-Mod Version 3: The Elite Warship Add-on:
-Playable Ships:
-USN Montana class
-IJN Super Yamato class
-RN Vanguard class
-RN Lion class
-KM H-44 class
-More TBD

The Surface Warfare Super-Mod Version 4: The Minor Navy Add-on:
-Playable Navy's:
-France
-Italy
-Russia
-Norway
-Sweden
-Finland
-Canada
-More TBD
-Playable Ships:
-TBD

Sledgehammer427
11-27-08, 11:02 PM
lmfao, im on the team and im the only one who voted...

ivank
11-28-08, 01:41 AM
Not any more!!!

Nippelspanner
11-28-08, 03:43 AM
Ok what does "playable" mean? Driving around with them, firing main guns and sitting in a Sub´s control room?

Or will there be new Interfaces, 3D Rooms, a command bridge etc.?

Will the player be able to use Hydrophones and Asdic to hunt subs and sink em with Depthcharges!?

You should provide more information, a lot more, before posting a very funny "ETA", covering dates in 2010...

Jimbuna
11-28-08, 04:32 AM
Quite a comprehensive wish list.....I'm wondering if it's realistically doable though :hmm:

I wish you every success :up:

tomhugill
11-28-08, 08:51 AM
At the moment its ships that are playable to the degree of subs , but there is work into things like simulating scout planes , changing the controllable units to move comprehensily help you. Things like 3d bridges should be do able to with the right 3d modeling skills:rock:
My playable yamato is where we're up to at the moment

tonibamestre
11-28-08, 09:10 AM
No Carriers planned for IJN,RN ans USN? Maybe a big Carrier mod in general for the 3 Navys once all this megamods have been completed?

ivank
11-28-08, 01:35 PM
This post is JUST a WIP for the Super-Mod!

@ tonibamestre: We are thinking of carriers but they are not going to be released until after v3.

@ jimbuna: Yes its doable we are working very hard on making it!

@ Nippelspanne: This post was just to put up the official WIP! By playable we mean, runing a ship/boat, with a 3D bridge and new captains room! New damage system, new guns and sounds! new interface! new everything!!!! Please dont pick on this post, its just a WIP!!!! I think I have provided a lot atm!

Sledgehammer427
11-28-08, 02:08 PM
I guess that means I should look into building a CAptains Room eh?

wheres my music...

Sledgehammer427
11-28-08, 02:12 PM
the only problems I can see is that with the minor navies, we will have to make EVERY one of those navies have a seelectable campaign...but, i don't think they had a very interesting campaign...you could make a Norweigan Resistance campaign where you drive a fishing boat, dodging german patrols, and dropping off commandoes....now that i just said that...sounds like a lotta fun!

ivank
11-28-08, 02:19 PM
I guess that means I should look into building a CAptains Room eh?

wheres my music...

Yea, but not until later! We had some one doing that but they just disappeared!

ivank
11-28-08, 02:20 PM
the only problems I can see is that with the minor navies, we will have to make EVERY one of those navies have a seelectable campaign...but, i don't think they had a very interesting campaign...you could make a Norweigan Resistance campaign where you drive a fishing boat, dodging german patrols, and dropping off commandoes....now that i just said that...sounds like a lotta fun!
I hear you there! Its just like a small addon give people command of various ships and stuff, small campaigns not to labour intensive for use! but still fun to play!

gile
11-28-08, 04:32 PM
I am just happy things are rolling. You shold really first finish #1 and give us something to play while we wait for other versions. Anyway, glad to see work is in progres.:p

ivank
11-28-08, 04:36 PM
Thanks gile! its coming together atm!

Sledgehammer427
11-29-08, 12:40 AM
Ivan, you have a Pm my boy

gimpy117
11-29-08, 01:32 AM
version 2

Japan VS. U.S. is much more epic than everybody else VS. Germany on the open seas.

Sledgehammer427
11-29-08, 02:27 AM
Yes...but we here in the TSWSM are looking into working the "highlights" of both theaters, like, the channel run, Bismarck sortie, and maybe throwing in little speedbumps here and there, or create a "what would you do?" kinda situation where you teleport into a Surface Ship's captains spot and take over where all those book you read left off

I dunno, i just Model/skin the poor lil ships

tonibamestre
11-29-08, 06:01 AM
I am absolutely impressed guys.This combined mods are going to be a great job in order to complete a sim like SH4.Now we ll see what we can expect from SH5,currently under development.Im wondering guys if in a future not too long several mods like these can be developed involving the postwar era.Imagine surface vessels like Belknap CG class,Leahy,Truxtun,Virginia,DDs like Charles F Adams,Spruance,......the refited and overhauled Missoury BB,.....ufffff,well,great mods like the ones under development covering the era lets say from 1960 to 1990 ?

What your opinnion is about this stuff? Is it a dream of mine?

ivank
11-29-08, 10:52 AM
I am absolutely impressed guys.This combined mods are going to be a great job in order to complete a sim like SH4.Now we ll see what we can expect from SH5,currently under development.Im wondering guys if in a future not too long several mods like these can be developed involving the postwar era.Imagine surface vessels like Belknap CG class,Leahy,Truxtun,Virginia,DDs like Charles F Adams,Spruance,......the refited and overhauled Missoury BB,.....ufffff,well,great mods like the ones under development covering the era lets say from 1960 to 1990 ?

What your opinnion is about this stuff? Is it a dream of mine?

SHH!! your not supposed to know about that!!!:D:p

Me and Shammer are talking about that know, but thats only after a long break and the 4 other versions are finalized

tonibamestre
11-29-08, 03:17 PM
Coming back to the 4 versions development,a nice feature would be the capability to walk through the visible areas and stations like Ship Simulator 2008 does,implementing some corridors and stairs to reach other decks etc.This way tou could visit from bow to stern while cruising for example.;)

Sledgehammer427
11-29-08, 05:57 PM
well, I do that with ROW/PE4, I'm sure you know it allows you to walk the decks...

tonibamestre
12-02-08, 12:02 PM
Hey Ivank,a feature that would be interesting for all this mods is to implement ocean and seas realistic streams,capability to control vessel anchors(at least one),and some kind of external lighting.

ivank
12-02-08, 03:53 PM
Hey Ivank,a feature that would be interesting for all this mods is to implement ocean and seas realistic streams,capability to control vessel anchors(at least one),and some kind of external lighting.

I would love to have currents but I dont know how to make them. If you know how or know someone who does please tell me.

As for anchors, we are implementing at least one bow and stern anchor, and for external lights I would like that too, but again I dont know how.

tater
12-02-08, 05:14 PM
BTW, you have, "-Playable Navy's:"

The plural of Navy is Navies.

(sorry, spent to long copy editing back in the day)

Looks cool, though. ANother nit would be that I'd call the KM a "Minor Navy" like Italy and France. The two 1st tier (fully capable of all naval warfare, including replenishment at sea, etc) navies were really the RN and USN, followed by the IJN which was probably the only 2d tier navy (fully capable, as the 1st tier but lower in numbers of combatants). The 3d tier would be all the rest of the navies. Course really Italy and the MarNat were actually fully capable since they had operational CVs. That would make the KM and everyone else 4th tier ;)

ivank
12-02-08, 06:35 PM
BTW, you have, "-Playable Navy's:"

The plural of Navy is Navies.

(sorry, spent to long copy editing back in the day)

Looks cool, though. ANother nit would be that I'd call the KM a "Minor Navy" like Italy and France. The two 1st tier (fully capable of all naval warfare, including replenishment at sea, etc) navies were really the RN and USN, followed by the IJN which was probably the only 2d tier navy (fully capable, as the 1st tier but lower in numbers of combatants). The 3d tier would be all the rest of the navies. Course really Italy and the MarNat were actually fully capable since they had operational CVs. That would make the KM and everyone else 4th tier ;)

lol my mistake will fix. KM is a major navy in the sense of number/size of battles and since Germany was a major part of the war

tater
12-03-08, 12:02 AM
That's OK, I had too many beers to write "too" instead of "to," myself :)

Self-pwnage, gotta love it :rotfl:

tater
12-03-08, 12:06 AM
Regarding major surface naval battles... still not seeing it. WThere were really not many engagements of surface forces (not counting minor combatant classes). There are single surface engagements in the PTO with more shots fired I bet than all the KM surface battles combined.

Just saying that for surface warfare, nothing beats the PTO.

tomhugill
12-03-08, 11:06 AM
Well if you think early war you have all the actions of the German surface fleet commerce raiding , battle of the river plate , actions involving the bismark , sinking of the Scharn etc. PTOs ok , but regarding actual ship to ship , rather than air to ship or actions involving carriers there isnt so much

tater
12-04-08, 10:57 AM
Well if you think early war you have all the actions of the German surface fleet commerce raiding , battle of the river plate , actions involving the bismark , sinking of the Scharn etc. PTOs ok , but regarding actual ship to ship , rather than air to ship or actions involving carriers there isnt so much

LOL.

Commerce raiding? Yeah, a warship vs unarmed merchants, there's a major naval engagement.

The other actions are a handful of ships at best.

Your understanding of the Pacific naval war is deeply flawed. There were many surface actions between major warships. The Solomons alone exceed all the surface actions between the Germans and Allies combined. Yes, there were a number of small engagements between BB/BCs in the ATO and Med. There were fewer pure BB/BC engagements in the PTO. Once you bother to include CA actions and smaller (still DDs and larger) it skyrockets in the PTO.

Just Guadalcanal stuff (only warships listed, total numbers for both sides together):

Savo 15 Cruisers, 16 DDs.

Battle of Cape Esperance, 7 Cruisers, 13 DD, 2 AS.

Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, 1 CV, 4 BB, 13 CA/CL, 28 DD.

Battle of Tassafaronga, 5 CA/CL, 12 DD.

That's 4 months in the PTO.

tater

Raptor1
12-04-08, 02:29 PM
The Naval Battle of Guadalcanal cannot be counted as 1 battle, it was 2 battles with different Task Forces fighting in both

Anyway, the Solomon Islands campaigns also had about a dozen engagements between the Tokyo Express and interdicting US TGs which were pure surface actions (No aircraft at night)

But...don't forget the Med battles between the Regia Marina and the Royal Navy (I would even go as far as saying the Regia Marina's surface fleet being more powerful than the Kriegsmarine's), these regularly involved several battleships on both sides

And the RM never had a CV AFAIK (Aquila was never finished)

tomhugill
12-04-08, 02:34 PM
Well im happy to be wrong , this is why im not writing the campaign :yep:

tater
12-04-08, 02:40 PM
Raptor, you are correct, I was generalizing the 1st/2d Naval Battles of Guadalcanal, and regarding the RM's CV. I thought she was finished. I do agree, however, that the RM was a more balanced navy than the KM, though. You're right about all the Cactus Express (aka Tokyo Express) engagements. I was just counting the major engagements.

I'm not down on surface actions anywhere, gotta love 'em, just that the PTO is often wrongly characterized as an exclusively CV show, when that is clearly not true.

W4lt3r
12-05-08, 04:20 AM
At least finland is there, and im damn happy about that. I cant wait to drive around the FN Ilmarinen or Väinämöinen.. Both are so pretty ships, small yet pack hell of a punch:)

Jimbuna
12-05-08, 04:52 AM
And the RM never had a CV AFAIK (Aquila was never finished)

That's right mate...she was never fully completed...not far from, but never fully.

http://www.comandosupremo.com/Aquila.html

Raptor1
12-05-08, 05:13 AM
And the RM never had a CV AFAIK (Aquila was never finished)
That's right mate...she was never fully completed...not far from, but never fully.

http://www.comandosupremo.com/Aquila.html

The Graf Zeppelin was ninty-something percent completed as well IIRC

Jimbuna
12-05-08, 07:33 AM
And the RM never had a CV AFAIK (Aquila was never finished)
That's right mate...she was never fully completed...not far from, but never fully.

http://www.comandosupremo.com/Aquila.html

The Graf Zeppelin was ninty-something percent completed as well IIRC

You could well be right.

This article stes 85% but either way, she was well on her way to completion.


Graf Zeppelin was an aircraft carrier of the Kriegsmarine, named in honor of Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin. Her construction was ordered on 16 November 1935, and her keel was laid down 28 December 1936 by Deutsche Werke of Kiel. She was launched on 8 December 1938, but was never commissioned.
In 1935, Adolf Hitler announced that Germany would construct aircraft carriers to strengthen the Kriegsmarine. The keels of two were laid down the next year. Two years later, Grand Admiral Erich Raeder presented an ambitious shipbuilding program called the Z Plan, in which four carriers were to be built by 1945. In 1939, he revised the plan, reducing the number to be built to two.
The German Navy has always maintained a policy of not assigning a name to a ship until she is launched. The first German carrier, laid down as "Carrier A," was named Graf Zeppelin when launched in 1938. The second carrier bore only the title "Carrier B," since she was never launched. Various names, including Peter Strasser and Deutschland, were rumored, but no official decision was ever made.
A review of the Führer's conferences on matters dealing with the German Navy, the minutes of which were captured after the fall of the Third Reich, reveals Hitler's vacillating interest in the carriers. Marshall Hermann Göring, Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, was resentful of any incursion on his authority as head of the country's air power and he frustrated Raeder at every opportunity. Within his own service, Raeder found opposition in Admiral Karl Doenitz, a submarine man.
By May 1941, the strain on manpower and raw materials was being felt in Germany. Raeder was still optimistic, however, and informed Hitler that Graf Zeppelin, then about 85 per cent complete, would be completed in about a year and that another year would be required for sea trials and flight training.
Though Hitler continued to assure Raeder that the carriers would be built, the Admiral's war with Göring had no truce and became increasingly bitter. Göring showed his contempt for the naval air arm by informing Hitler and Raeder that the aircraft ordered for Graf Zeppelin could not be available until the end of 1944. Göring's delaying tactics worked.
Construction on the carriers had been fitful from the start. "Carrier B" was abandoned in 1940 and broken up. Manpower and material shortages plagued the Graf Zeppelin.
Prodded by Raeder, Hitler ordered Göring to produce aircraft for the carrier and under this pressure, the air marshall offered redesigned versions of the Junkers Ju 87B and the Messerschmitt Bf 109E-3 which were at that time being phased out of the Luftwaffe first-line squadrons. Raeder was unhappy, but he had to accept them or none at all. This forced another delay in the construction of the carrier: the flight deck installations had to be changed.
By 1943, Hitler had become disenchanted with his Navy. Raeder was relieved at his own request and Doenitz, the submarine admiral, took the top naval post. Work on Graf Zeppelin stopped completely.
As the end of World War II neared, Graf Zeppelin was scuttled in shallow water at Szczecin (known to the Germans as Stettin) on 25 April, 1945. After Germany's surrender, though, her history and fate is unclear. According to the terms of the Allied Tripartite Commission, a "Category C" ship (damaged or scuttled) should have been destroyed or sunk in deep water by 15 August 1946. However, reports were received in 1947 that she had been raised by the Soviet Union and towed to Leningrad. She probably left Seeswinoujcie (the port of Szczecin, known to the Germans as Swinemünde) on 14 August 1947.
It is very unlikely that the hulk made it to Leningrad; the arrival of such a large and unusual vessel would have been noticed by Western intelligence forces. This assumption implies that the hulk was lost at sea between Swinemünde and Leningrad.
One account concludes that she struck a mine north of Rügen on 15 August 1947, but Rügen, west of Swinemünde, is not on the sailing route to Leningrad. Further north, in the Gulf of Finland, a heavily-mined area difficult for Western observers to monitor, is more likely.
Another account specifies that the Soviets designated Graf Zeppelin "PO-101" (Floating Base Number 101), towed a short way from Swinemünde, and anchored as a training target for dive-bombers and torpedo vessels. The tests began on 16 August 1947. Allegedly, the Soviets installed aerial bombs on the flight deck, in hangars and even inside the funnels (to simulate a load of combat munitions), and then dropped bombs from aircraft, fired shells, and shot torpedoes into her. This assault would both comply with the Tripartite mandate (albeit late) and provide the Soviets with experience in sinking an aircraft carrier.
General Characteristics (design)

Displacement: 23,000 tons
Length: 920 feet
Beam: 88 feet
Power Plant: geared turbines, four screws (unusual for Germany, which preferred triple screws)
Speed: 33.8 knots
Aircraft Complement: 42 Messerschmitt ME109TT fighters and Junkers Ju 87CC dive bombers</H1>

Raptor1
12-05-08, 07:43 AM
It says that the carrier was 85% completed in May, 1941, while work on it stopped completely in 1943

Either way, she was useless without being finished, though she could probably have given some potency to the Kriegsmarine's surface fleet

tater
12-05-08, 01:28 PM
1 CV is meaningless anyway. The IJN showed the world a lesson they didn't absorb themselves. Massing Carrier airpower. The Kido Butai was an unbeatable force in 1941/42 as long as all 6 CVs stayed together.

Single Axis CVs in the ATO/Med would have been wiped out in short order. The KM had zero capacity to maintain a CV Battlegroup at sea. The GZ was a waste of resources. To have a real navy, you need to at least be able to put to sea at will, LOL, not have to sneak out like thieves.

Jimbuna
12-05-08, 05:19 PM
1 CV is meaningless anyway. The IJN showed the world a lesson they didn't absorb themselves. Massing Carrier airpower. The Kido Butai was an unbeatable force in 1941/42 as long as all 6 CVs stayed together.

Single Axis CVs in the ATO/Med would have been wiped out in short order. The KM had zero capacity to maintain a CV Battlegroup at sea. The GZ was a waste of resources. To have a real navy, you need to at least be able to put to sea at will, LOL, not have to sneak out like thieves.

Good points.....I have to agree http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

Raptor1
12-06-08, 02:06 PM
I'd have to disagree, a single carrier would be useless if you're looking to create a carrier battlegroup, but as cover for a surface ship-based task force it could help a lot

Admiral Von Gerlach
12-06-08, 02:59 PM
First of all, THANK YOU to all involved in this fine mod work to enhance surface units, this is very exciting to read and see.

Interesting discussion. Re the mod packs, my humble suggestoin might be to do the carrier or carriers before group 4, in terms of game play and scenarios, there is much more purpose to have working carriers, even if their air groups must constantly circle than the small navies, interesting tho they are, and I too love the story of Finland.

Re the Kriegsmarine, it was a powerful and siginficant fleet far beyond its completion numbers due to the vastly superior watertight integrity, engineering advances in drive train, and gunnery, and training, and was a major influence on the naval war from the start.

Surface campaigns could and should include the Norway invasion that saw the loss of major units by both sides, including the loss of two British carriers at sea with almost all hands, and many other sorties, the battle at Narvik, and other events. A carrier arm would have greatly increased the potential of the KM in many ways, for a roving carrier fast battleship group at sea would have wreaked havoc on the convoy lanes, as the KM did not betray their positions at sea for surface units as they did with subs. And ys the Italian Navy was a very very fine fleet, some of the best ship designs of the time, and there were significant surface engagements and events, such as the torpedoing of the fleet at Tarento, many convoy engagments that were attempting to resupply Rommel, and many more possiblities. The evac of Greece comes to mind, and with that, hopes that some kind of air resources may be able to added to the game, mod wise, tho i know that is a long shot at this point.

and ys, the Pacific Theatre was a surface war as much as an air war and a sub war, and the doctrine, training and focus of tactics and strategy of both fleets showed that, for indeed the IJN perservered indeed in face of facts, in hoping for the great final conflict on the surface, which was deeply ingrained in them from the successes of the Russo Japanese War and their history of association with the RN and its heritage of surface fleet strategy and Mahan's overall philosophy.

This mod work is very exciting to see and great enhances the potential of this already amazing sim. I have the greatest admiration for all hands involved.

tonibamestre
12-06-08, 04:02 PM
Ivank, here is a wonderful site concerning 3d watercrafts for FSX.Maybe this guy can give you some help with vessel moving parts,lighting and more,he is really good !

http://www.deltasimstudio.com/index.htm

Best regards.

tater
12-06-08, 04:31 PM
Yeah, but it would be a single CV vs enemies with multiple CVs.

If you're within range of land-based air, the CV becomes the prime target, and quickly dead. If it's actually at sea for extended periods (sort of laughable as a concept for the KM), then it faces multiple CVs. On top of that, it has virtually no replenishment.

Single CVs have use, to be sure, but they are far more useful for a navy that has CVs to burn. If it's a precious unit, then a lone CV is indeed useless. Even the IJN with multiple fleet CVs was in this situation. Each carrier was effectively irreplaceable. As a result, using them onesy-twosy was a disaster. Using them attracts the enemy, yet a single CV (particularly one like GZ that would have had a tiny airgroup) cannot defend itself.

So useful, like Bismark, for one sortie.

Raptor1
12-06-08, 04:40 PM
Yeah, but it would be a single CV vs enemies with multiple CVs.

If you're within range of land-based air, the CV becomes the prime target, and quickly dead. If it's actually at sea for extended periods (sort of laughable as a concept for the KM), then it faces multiple CVs. On top of that, it has virtually no replenishment.

Single CVs have use, to be sure, but they are far more useful for a navy that has CVs to burn. If it's a precious unit, then a lone CV is indeed useless. Even the IJN with multiple fleet CVs was in this situation. Each carrier was effectively irreplaceable. As a result, using them onesy-twosy was a disaster. Using them attracts the enemy, yet a single CV (particularly one like GZ that would have had a tiny airgroup) cannot defend itself.

So useful, like Bismark, for one sortie.

Ah, but had the Bismarck a carrier for air cover, the Ark Royal's torpedo planes would not have been able to jam her rudder, thus allowing her to escape to occupied France...probably

The Royal Navy had more CVs, but they had to spread 'em to places like the far-east and the Med, so the GZ could have operated in the Atlantic

tater
12-06-08, 09:03 PM
Til the USN came to town. Then the GZ would have been talking to the fishes.

The KM had zero experience operating CVs. Zero. Had the GZ been finished, there is no reason to expect it would have been early in the war, otherwise, well, it would have been finished. Had they not done so when they were winning everywhere, you must assume she'd be commissioned after things went south. Think 1942 (late) earliest.

1943 is a bad time for "on the job training" in CV operations vs the USN.

Also, the KM had already picked navalized 109s and Ju-87s as the planes. Noobs. Water-cooled engines? WTF were they thinking? (yeah, I know about navalized Spits, they were stupid, too. You want planes that can come home with cylinders missing when the alternative is being shark food.

Another problem is that they followed the RN/IJN model for plane embarkation. The GZ was designed to stow her aircraft below. That might be OK from a weather standpoint in the North Atlantic, but it makes for slow turn around times, and dangerous CVs. It was gassing and bombing up planes below decks that caused the IJN disaster that was Midway (contrary to popular myth, there were not many planes on the IJN flight decks that day, they were warming up in the hanger spaces). USN doctrine was to embark all aircraft on the flight deck. They only went below to be worked on. This allowed USN CVs to carry considerably more aircraft.

Quantity has a quality all its own ;)

Admiral Von Gerlach
12-07-08, 04:47 PM
hmmm

IJN did both on that fateful day, rearmed below and on the flight deck from the sources I have talked to who interviewed survivors in the IJN during the techncial mission to Japan in 1946, and there was ordinance all over the place hence the vulnearbility.

The chance, huge once in a lifetime shot that hit the Bismark's rudder is still the subject of drinks at reunions as fewer and fewer gather.....everyone knew and knows that was not something that could have been planned or counted on . Without that event, the first cruise of the Bismark might have been only the first of many, for she was a formidable force and the doctrine they were testing might indeed have forced changes in doctrine on both sides. If indeed she had effective air cover much would have been different and the support for air for the navy would have gotten past the fat fool who convinced Hitler to allow substandard air for the GZ. Ah so many ifs.

There were more carriers planned, but as noted, only one that neared completion and training would have indeed been tough in the midst of all else that was going on.

tonibamestre
12-08-08, 05:24 AM
Another cool feature of all this mods would be to connect lets say the bridge and Commanders room via a corridor(at least on the biger units).This would give a more inmersive feeling,the dream is of course to create as more 3D stations as posible.
And at this point,tell me Ivank,would not be possible to modify the original interior subs and add some more realistic compartments ? That would be brilliant also :yep: .

Regards and very good job!!

tomhugill
12-08-08, 09:32 AM
I think the best that can be done at the moment is a detailed bridge , with crew and full interor , but I think this would add to the imersion greatly

ivank
12-08-08, 10:52 AM
Another cool feature of all this mods would be to connect lets say the bridge and Commanders room via a corridor(at least on the biger units).This would give a more inmersive feeling,the dream is of course to create as more 3D stations as posible.
And at this point,tell me Ivank,would not be possible to modify the original interior subs and add some more realistic compartments ? That would be brilliant also :yep: .

Regards and very good job!!

As tomhugill said we are working on the bridge, darkfish is working wonders with it atm. I dont see why we would not be able to change the compartment, but that would be later, like in a patch. We have just so much work to do atm

Alexace31190
12-08-08, 08:23 PM
Awesome looking mod!

I'd help if i knew jack about modding.

Keep it up, I'm looking forward to the release.

DarkFish
12-10-08, 02:40 PM
Well working wonders with it is a bit exaggerated..:)
Thought i'd post some pics here to show the general idea...
There's still a lot to do but it's already looking better than just an empty room with a few watches

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc333/DF_3852/Evarts_Bridge.jpg

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc333/DF_3852/Evarts_Bridge_2.jpg

For now I'm concentrating on changing the textures, as you can see the lightmaps don't fit.

tonibamestre
12-11-08, 08:55 AM
Yes,some more light and colour textures would be better I think.Anyway,dont you see this bridge a bit small or is my visual effect? And what about giving these bridges an eye candy atmosphere with furniture and all the stuff you can find in a bridge? Well. I think thats the final idea right?
The path is correct,you are doing a great job ;) :up:

iambecomelife
12-11-08, 01:04 PM
Very good job with the bridge & the figure placement. I agree that lighting sources need work. In all likelihood the additional instruments & furniture will be added later, after more important work is done. And the size looks correct for the bridge of a destroyer or a cruiser, IMO.

Alexace31190
12-11-08, 05:50 PM
That does look much better than the current blank interiors.
:up:
Looking forward to seeing more.

tater
12-11-08, 07:36 PM
That looks great!

BTW, I assume that torpedos can be used, right? IN that case, DDs offer some very fun possibilities.

Damage control is a whole other area of possible complexity...

tomhugill
12-12-08, 05:28 AM
I think we're pretty much nailed the damage control and damage modeling aspects as demonstrated on my playable Yamato , if you do have any feedback regarding this area let me know :up:

DarkFish
12-12-08, 09:48 AM
In all likelihood the additional instruments & furniture will be added later, after more important work is done. Yeah most instruments will be added later. BTW there weren't that much of instruments / furniture on a bridge, see for example http://www.usstexasbb35.com/All-Photos/Bailey-WWI/Bailey-WWI-Bridge-in-cagemast.jpg and http://jackwellsauthor.com/db1/00096/jackwellsauthor.com/_uimages/Bridge.JPG

And the size looks correct for the bridge of a destroyer or a cruiser, IMO. You're right, the bridge in the pictures is from the Evarts DE.


BTW, I assume that torpedos can be used, right? IN that case, DDs offer some very fun possibilities. Torpedoes can be used yes. It's quite fun to attack the IJN fleet with a John C Butler DE in the battle off Samar:arrgh!:
http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc333/DF_3852/JCB_Samar.jpg

Alexace31190
12-12-08, 06:44 PM
@Tom

Yeah, the Yamato damage model looked really good.
I assume you will be able to make similar ones for the other ships. If so, that looks good.

iambecomelife
12-12-08, 07:44 PM
In all likelihood the additional instruments & furniture will be added later, after more important work is done. Yeah most instruments will be added later. BTW there weren't that much of instruments / furniture on a bridge, see for example http://www.usstexasbb35.com/All-Photos/Bailey-WWI/Bailey-WWI-Bridge-in-cagemast.jpg and http://jackwellsauthor.com/db1/00096/jackwellsauthor.com/_uimages/Bridge.JPG

And the size looks correct for the bridge of a destroyer or a cruiser, IMO. You're right, the bridge in the pictures is from the Evarts DE.


BTW, I assume that torpedos can be used, right? IN that case, DDs offer some very fun possibilities. Torpedoes can be used yes. It's quite fun to attack the IJN fleet with a John C Butler DE in the battle off Samar:arrgh!:


Interesting how Spartan those bridges are. Still, I suppose that it's in line with the US Navy's policy after 1942 - they found that having too much furniture on board led to disastrous fires in combat.

It's good to hear there will be torpedo attacks. Do you expect that non-player units can be programmed to use them?

ivank
12-12-08, 08:05 PM
In all likelihood the additional instruments & furniture will be added later, after more important work is done. Yeah most instruments will be added later. BTW there weren't that much of instruments / furniture on a bridge, see for example http://www.usstexasbb35.com/All-Photos/Bailey-WWI/Bailey-WWI-Bridge-in-cagemast.jpg and http://jackwellsauthor.com/db1/00096/jackwellsauthor.com/_uimages/Bridge.JPG

And the size looks correct for the bridge of a destroyer or a cruiser, IMO. You're right, the bridge in the pictures is from the Evarts DE.


BTW, I assume that torpedos can be used, right? IN that case, DDs offer some very fun possibilities. Torpedoes can be used yes. It's quite fun to attack the IJN fleet with a John C Butler DE in the battle off Samar:arrgh!:

Interesting how Spartan those bridges are. Still, I suppose that it's in line with the US Navy's policy after 1942 - they found that having too much furniture on board led to disastrous fires in combat.

It's good to hear there will be torpedo attacks. Do you expect that non-player units can be programmed to use them?

I would love to have AI torpedo attacks

Task Force
12-12-08, 08:47 PM
sadly, I think the ai is too dumb.lol:lol:

DarkFish
12-13-08, 02:17 PM
afaik there have been a few attempts to let ai fire torpedoes, but all failed (so far). I've tried it myself too, but either the torpedoes always headed north or they detonated after a few 100 meters...

Alexace31190
12-13-08, 02:29 PM
I'm getting errors with the Pocket Battleship and the Scharnhorst and Bismarck mods. The texture of the ship is all black, except for the weapons and searchlights and crew, etc. The deck of the ship also is displayed but that is only part. Anyone have any possible fixes?

Thanks,
Alex

DarkFish
12-13-08, 02:44 PM
I'm getting errors with the Pocket Battleship and the Scharnhorst and Bismarck mods. The texture of the ship is all black, except for the weapons and searchlights and crew, etc. The deck of the ship also is displayed but that is only part. Anyone have any possible fixes? The Pocket Battleship, Sharnhorst and Bismarck mods have nothing to do with TSWSM, so your post is a little misplaced here. As I haven't made these ships I don't know of any possible errors and fixes for them.
If a ship is black it usually means SH4 was unable to successfully load the ships textures for whatever reason.
Try to reinstall the ships and see if that has fixed the problems.

ivank
12-13-08, 02:54 PM
I'm getting errors with the Pocket Battleship and the Scharnhorst and Bismarck mods. The texture of the ship is all black, except for the weapons and searchlights and crew, etc. The deck of the ship also is displayed but that is only part. Anyone have any possible fixes?

Thanks,
Alex

As darkfish said, those mods are out of place on this tread. We are making new playable ships, not editing already playable ones. As for the fixes, ships are not compatible with each other yet. I am working on this.

Alexace31190
12-13-08, 02:57 PM
Ah, okay. I thought that you were making new ones and importing some pre-existing ones. Thanks for the help anyway.

ivank
12-13-08, 05:04 PM
Ah, okay. I thought that you were making new ones and importing some pre-existing ones. Thanks for the help anyway.

We are making new ones, and EDITING old AI units. Not old playable ships, this ensures that everything is compatible.

tonibamestre
12-13-08, 05:55 PM
Tell me Ivank,you said in one post not very far that there will be future Carriers.Can we assume that some day we are going to be able to take command of a Yorktown class,Lex,Ilustrious,Essex,.......and manage around 50 or 60 aircrafts onboard?
And what about newer classes like can be Midway,Forrestal,Kitty Hawk,Nimitz and Gerald Ford?
The challenge can be incredible :ping: :ping: :ping:


:)

ivank
12-13-08, 08:11 PM
Tell me Ivank,you said in one post not very far that there will be future Carriers.Can we assume that some day we are going to be able to take command of a Yorktown class,Lex,Ilustrious,Essex,.......and manage around 50 or 60 aircrafts onboard?
And what about newer classes like can be Midway,Forrestal,Kitty Hawk,Nimitz and Gerald Ford?
The challenge can be incredible :ping: :ping: :ping:


:)

Yea, carriers are the last thing on our list. After all 4 other versions, we will take a look at the carrier/plane thing. If the carrier mod is released by us, and not someone else, it will include ONLY WW2 ships, and ships made right after(late '45- '47). Thats the max, I will ask of our 3d modeler team(currently one guy) If we get more 3d modellers than the possibility of more ships is high. Please note, that we will take a break between V2 and V3, and a long break after V4 is released.

DarkFish
12-18-08, 03:06 PM
Just showing the progress made..

I edited the textures/lightmaps and added a working telegraph.

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc333/DF_3852/Evarts_Bridge-1.jpg

The textures / lightmaps could still be a little better, but it's improved much since my last post

fair_weather
12-19-08, 12:38 AM
Wonder how the Devs of Battlestations Midway and Battlestations Pacific are doing...looking at this. I think you guys can give them a run for their money.

Rock on guys! :rock:

ivank
12-19-08, 01:04 AM
Wonder how the Devs of Battlestations Midway and Battlestations Pacific are doing...looking at this. I think you guys can give them a run for their money.

Rock on guys! :rock:

Lol, thanks mate!

ivank
12-23-08, 12:13 PM
I just finished multiple patrols with some ships that are 90% done(missing Tomhugill's damage model), I have posted the results and some conclusions:

USS Baltimore:
P1) Left Pearl Harbour for Luzon, running low on fuel expecting refit in Manila. Manila no longer base, instead of just stopping mid-ocean, I headed for China(ran out of fuel, mid-ocean anyway lol)

P2) Left Pearl for Luzon, ran low on fuel again, Manila no longer base, went after Task force thinking it was a convoy(no glasses=death), got the **** kicked out of me, beached my-self, hacked up by shore batteries.

USS John C Butler:
P1) Left Brisbane, for patrol area, turned around due to fuel, got home

USS Fulton:
P1) 1st ship not to run low on fuel before getting to patrol area, sunk by 3 DD, 1 CL off Japan.

Conclusions:
Need more re-supply bases in Pacific!

Next up:
Tribal Class
Fiji Class
Dido Class
New Mexico Class
Colorado Class

tonibamestre
12-23-08, 01:02 PM
And why dont you create several tankers or resuply ships that can be called via an interface or just heading combat units to them ?
The replenishment in open sea would be a quite good aspect of all these task forces within this mods.

tater
12-23-08, 01:19 PM
Darkfish, I have read many threads about trying to make AI shoot fish, but have yet to see anyone actually explain in detail what they did. It's always hush hush BS.

Do tell. I've tried a few times, and sort of blogged it in the sh4 mods forum. I tried placing air-dropped fish on boats. I made a "plane" that pointed at a ship model, even.

I'd be interested in seeing the tack others have taken in the hopes some lateral thinking might make it work (unlikely, but you never know).

DarkFish
12-23-08, 02:16 PM
Darkfish, I have read many threads about trying to make AI shoot fish, but have yet to see anyone actually explain in detail what they did. It's always hush hush BS.

Do tell. I've tried a few times, and sort of blogged it in the sh4 mods forum. I tried placing air-dropped fish on boats. I made a "plane" that pointed at a ship model, even.

I'd be interested in seeing the tack others have taken in the hopes some lateral thinking might make it work (unlikely, but you never know).well first i made a torpedo spawn by adding a WaterInteraction controller to the shell, but all torpedoes fired this way headed straight north.

Then I attached a torpedo model to the shell, with the shell having an UnderWaterFloatingObject controller. When fired the shell didn't lose any height and the torpedo headed into the right direction. But for some reason it just disappeared after a seemingly random distance...
Of about 20 torpedoes fired at a target at a distance of 1500 m only one made it to the target (and exploded as it should).

ivank
12-23-08, 02:40 PM
And why dont you create several tankers or resuply ships that can be called via an interface or just heading combat units to them ?
The replenishment in open sea would be a quite good aspect of all these task forces within this mods.

i just did

Task Force
12-23-08, 03:09 PM
You all are doing a great job on this mod.:yep: I am really happy that we are gonna have surface ships in SH4.:D

ivank
12-23-08, 04:45 PM
You all are doing a great job on this mod.:yep: I am really happy that we are gonna have surface ships in SH4.:D
Thank you, mate!

UPDATE:
USS Idaho: (New Mexico Class)
P1) Left Pearl Harbour for Marshall Islands, Got there with 64% fuel left, Refueled at a new moving re-supply ship(part of my new Re-supply ship chain). Engaged enemy shipping and task forces: sunk ~12,000 tons of cargo, ~23,000 of warships, sunk my Yamato class SBB.

USS Colorado:
P1) Left Pearl Harbour for Honshu, re-supplied twice, sunk by air attack.(:nope:)

HMS Tartar(Tribal Class):
ran out of ammo, sunk, many problems with ships

John_Molotov
12-23-08, 06:13 PM
This mod is something I've been waiting since Destroyer Command, but are you going to release the ships separately when they are completed or do we need to wait for them until the mod itself is released?

Raptor1
12-23-08, 06:19 PM
You really need to change the fuel values on these ships, they are supposed to last much more than submarines in the ocean

Also, change the missions, one doesn't send a BB to patrol off Honshu without air cover, not unless one wants the BB to die a horrible miserable death

Task Force
12-23-08, 07:43 PM
This mod is something I've been waiting since Destroyer Command, but are you going to release the ships separately when they are completed or do we need to wait for them until the mod itself is released?

These ships are gonna be released In diffrent versions from what Ive read.;)

tater
12-23-08, 08:56 PM
You really need to change the fuel values on these ships, they are supposed to last much more than submarines in the ocean

Also, change the missions, one doesn't send a BB to patrol off Honshu without air cover, not unless one wants the BB to die a horrible miserable death

This is not true at all. Some larger ships had pretty good endurance at reasonable speeds (like 16 knots), but Yamato, for example, could only go 7,200nm at 16 knots. DDs had MUCH shorter endurance, and if they ran around at flank (which they needed to do whenever the CV they were with conducted flight ops), their endurance literally dropped to hours. The bigger the ship, typically the better the range.

Heck, I'd be surprised if any large ship had the range of a fleet boat.

Asashio (DD) made 5700nm at 14 knots, but only 360nm at 34 knots. That means she'd use ~10% of her fuel for every hour at flank.

Refueling was a constant issue for navies, particularly in the PTO.

<edit> some CVs look to have had very long range.

Sledgehammer427
12-23-08, 09:40 PM
always an encyclopedia of ship info eh, tater?

Can't wait to get my 3D editor going again, lots of work to do!

ivank
12-23-08, 10:43 PM
always an encyclopedia of ship info eh, tater?

Can't wait to get my 3D editor going again, lots of work to do!

I cant wait either!

tater
12-23-08, 10:59 PM
There is a great article at combinedfleet.com about the Solomons campaign, and how bunker oil supplies (or lack, thereof) contributed to Japanese tactics. Look around there, you'll find it someplace. The gist was that the amount of oil required to sortie the whole fleet down the Slot was prohibitive to do often.

iambecomelife
12-24-08, 10:01 AM
You all are doing a great job on this mod.:yep: I am really happy that we are gonna have surface ships in SH4.:D
Thank you, mate!

UPDATE:
USS Idaho: (New Mexico Class)
P1) Left Pearl Harbour for Marshall Islands, Got there with 64% fuel left, Refueled at a new moving re-supply ship(part of my new Re-supply ship chain). Engaged enemy shipping and task forces: sunk ~12,000 tons of cargo, ~23,000 of warships, sunk my Yamato class SBB.

USS Colorado:
P1) Left Pearl Harbour for Honshu, re-supplied twice, sunk by air attack.(:nope:)

HMS Tartar(Tribal Class):
ran out of ammo, sunk, many problems with ships

Interesting patrol info. This may sound minor, but for British and Australian ships will you have appropriate voice acting? I remember that for the IL-2 series people from different countries volunteered to do new radio messages for UK/Aussie/NZ squadrons, and it was a major immersion booster. :ping:

peabody
12-24-08, 11:37 AM
And why dont you create several tankers or resuply ships that can be called via an interface or just heading combat units to them ?
The replenishment in open sea would be a quite good aspect of all these task forces within this mods.
i just did

We think alike, I did the same to resupply subs during the Solomon campaigns. Really neat the way it works. Got the idea during a discussion about moving airbases to try to get planes working.

Peabody

ivank
12-24-08, 11:54 AM
You all are doing a great job on this mod.:yep: I am really happy that we are gonna have surface ships in SH4.:D
Thank you, mate!

UPDATE:
USS Idaho: (New Mexico Class)
P1) Left Pearl Harbour for Marshall Islands, Got there with 64% fuel left, Refueled at a new moving re-supply ship(part of my new Re-supply ship chain). Engaged enemy shipping and task forces: sunk ~12,000 tons of cargo, ~23,000 of warships, sunk my Yamato class SBB.

USS Colorado:
P1) Left Pearl Harbour for Honshu, re-supplied twice, sunk by air attack.(:nope:)

HMS Tartar(Tribal Class):
ran out of ammo, sunk, many problems with ships

Interesting patrol info. This may sound minor, but for British and Australian ships will you have appropriate voice acting? I remember that for the IL-2 series people from different countries volunteered to do new radio messages for UK/Aussie/NZ squadrons, and it was a major immersion booster. :ping:

In the end I wanted to have a Aussie, UK, Japanese, Russian, French, and Italian voices. But, for now I just want Aussie, and English. Do you know how to do such things? We also need to redo the gun sounds.

Raptor1
12-24-08, 11:56 AM
You really need to change the fuel values on these ships, they are supposed to last much more than submarines in the ocean

Also, change the missions, one doesn't send a BB to patrol off Honshu without air cover, not unless one wants the BB to die a horrible miserable death
This is not true at all. Some larger ships had pretty good endurance at reasonable speeds (like 16 knots), but Yamato, for example, could only go 7,200nm at 16 knots. DDs had MUCH shorter endurance, and if they ran around at flank (which they needed to do whenever the CV they were with conducted flight ops), their endurance literally dropped to hours. The bigger the ship, typically the better the range.

Heck, I'd be surprised if any large ship had the range of a fleet boat.

Asashio (DD) made 5700nm at 14 knots, but only 360nm at 34 knots. That means she'd use ~10% of her fuel for every hour at flank.

Refueling was a constant issue for navies, particularly in the PTO.

<edit> some CVs look to have had very long range.

Hmm, that could be true, but a Battleship not running at flank speed should have enough range...

Sledgehammer427
12-24-08, 03:39 PM
We also need to redo the gun sounds.

sounds like someone needs to start digging through History Channel documentations, and Victory At Sea...


not it!

tater
12-24-08, 04:10 PM
Hmm, that could be true, but a Battleship not running at flank speed should have enough range...

16 knots is not flank speed. 7,200nm is what, 60% of the Fleet Boat's range.

Note also that real surface units would zig zag, pretty much all the time unless they were going FAST. That would significantly impact range.

The reality is that BBs had no where near the range of a sub. Particularly since in actual combat, they'd pour on the coal (figuratively ;) ). Also, since their smaller consorts burned fuel at a much faster rate, large ships like BBs and CVs routinely tanked up their DDs.

iambecomelife
12-24-08, 04:26 PM
You all are doing a great job on this mod.:yep: I am really happy that we are gonna have surface ships in SH4.:D
Thank you, mate!

UPDATE:
USS Idaho: (New Mexico Class)
P1) Left Pearl Harbour for Marshall Islands, Got there with 64% fuel left, Refueled at a new moving re-supply ship(part of my new Re-supply ship chain). Engaged enemy shipping and task forces: sunk ~12,000 tons of cargo, ~23,000 of warships, sunk my Yamato class SBB.

USS Colorado:
P1) Left Pearl Harbour for Honshu, re-supplied twice, sunk by air attack.(:nope:)

HMS Tartar(Tribal Class):
ran out of ammo, sunk, many problems with ships

Interesting patrol info. This may sound minor, but for British and Australian ships will you have appropriate voice acting? I remember that for the IL-2 series people from different countries volunteered to do new radio messages for UK/Aussie/NZ squadrons, and it was a major immersion booster. :ping:

In the end I wanted to have a Aussie, UK, Japanese, Russian, French, and Italian voices. But, for now I just want Aussie, and English. Do you know how to do such things? We also need to redo the gun sounds.

Trust me - you don't want me doing your voice acting! I can mimic a Cockney accent, but it's pretty bad; my Australian accent is even worse.:doh:

Regarding supply vessels, I too would like to have encounters with them, especially as an escort assigned to screen them. Even an "unglamorous" mission could be made interesting with enemy patrol boats, dive bombers, kamikazes & Ohkas... I have been trying to think of a solution to the time compression problem, but I can't think of anything. I suppose the game's bound to slow down if several friendly units are in close proximity...

ivank
12-24-08, 05:02 PM
I just finish testing some of my HK, and AMC's out, I found some problems and some interesting patrols!

HK Pinguin:
P1) Left Hamburg for Australian hunting grounds. (since there are no convoys in the Atlantic yet) no ships spotted. 1st ship attacked off Western Africa, large tanker, sunk after 7 rounds!!! Sailed to the cape of Africa, spotted 3 ships sailing, sank all, received minor damage from Liberty ship. 2 weeks later enter convoy sank 4 ships, lost after CL attack.

HK Widder: (new ship coming)
P1) SUNK BY BRITISH SHORE BATTERIES!

HK Orion: (new ship coming)
P1) Sunk by 3 DD, sank 1 of them.

HK Atlantis:
Left Hamburg for Australian hunting grounds, sank total of 15 ships(to long of a patrol to give details) sunk by Aussie air attacks, 2 bomb hits to forward cargo bay, sank in 15mins, heavy fog, very sad to see her go down by the bow.

HK Steir: failed to load, needs re working

HK Kormoran: failed to load, needs new ship, once SHammers427 gets new computer and can make new ship, I will re-do her.

Problems: Ships NOT compatible with each other!!!

ivank
12-24-08, 05:05 PM
We also need to redo the gun sounds.
sounds like someone needs to start digging through History Channel documentations, and Victory At Sea...


not it!

Just bought The World at War, and Victory at Sea lol

iambecomelife
12-24-08, 05:43 PM
I just finish testing some of my HK, and AMC's out, I found some problems and some interesting patrols!

HK Pinguin:
P1) Left Hamburg for Australian hunting grounds. (since there are no convoys in the Atlantic yet) no ships spotted. 1st ship attacked off Western Africa, large tanker, sunk after 7 rounds!!! Sailed to the cape of Africa, spotted 3 ships sailing, sank all, received minor damage from Liberty ship. 2 weeks later enter convoy sank 4 ships, lost after CL attack.

HK Widder: (new ship coming)
P1) SUNK BY BRITISH SHORE BATTERIES!

HK Orion: (new ship coming)
P1) Sunk by 3 DD, sank 1 of them.

HK Atlantis:
Left Hamburg for Australian hunting grounds, sank total of 15 ships(to long of a patrol to give details) sunk by Aussie air attacks, 2 bomb hits to forward cargo bay, sank in 15mins, heavy fog, very sad to see her go down by the bow.

HK Steir: failed to load, needs re working

HK Kormoran: failed to load, needs new ship, once SHammers427 gets new computer and can make new ship, I will re-do her.

Problems: Ships NOT compatible with each other!!!

Nice work with "Atlantis". It's good to know that you at least have a chance of raking up a nice score. IMO the game is likely to be slightly more difficult than real life - there is no way to fool the AI with historical ruses, like fake funnels or neutral paint schemes. Yet another AI improvement for SH5's designers to think about... :-?

ivank
12-24-08, 06:03 PM
I just finish testing some of my HK, and AMC's out, I found some problems and some interesting patrols!

HK Pinguin:
P1) Left Hamburg for Australian hunting grounds. (since there are no convoys in the Atlantic yet) no ships spotted. 1st ship attacked off Western Africa, large tanker, sunk after 7 rounds!!! Sailed to the cape of Africa, spotted 3 ships sailing, sank all, received minor damage from Liberty ship. 2 weeks later enter convoy sank 4 ships, lost after CL attack.

HK Widder: (new ship coming)
P1) SUNK BY BRITISH SHORE BATTERIES!

HK Orion: (new ship coming)
P1) Sunk by 3 DD, sank 1 of them.

HK Atlantis:
Left Hamburg for Australian hunting grounds, sank total of 15 ships(to long of a patrol to give details) sunk by Aussie air attacks, 2 bomb hits to forward cargo bay, sank in 15mins, heavy fog, very sad to see her go down by the bow.

HK Steir: failed to load, needs re working

HK Kormoran: failed to load, needs new ship, once SHammers427 gets new computer and can make new ship, I will re-do her.

Problems: Ships NOT compatible with each other!!!
Nice work with "Atlantis". It's good to know that you at least have a chance of raking up a nice score. IMO the game is likely to be slightly more difficult than real life - there is no way to fool the AI with historical ruses, like fake funnels or neutral paint schemes. Yet another AI improvement for SH5's designers to think about... :-?

I would love to fool the allies, I was so pissed, a perfect patrol, and boom!!! sad sinking, so slow and the fog, I almost cried.

tater
12-24-08, 06:14 PM
It is unfortunate that the game will not recognize the player unit if it is in a group, or leading a group. Least not when I tried it (had to hand-edit the mission).

ivank
12-25-08, 12:21 AM
I agree.

Does anyone know how to capture sound to use in the game?
I have the perfect main gun sound for the battleships, and battlecruisers, but I dont know how to get it into the game.

Sound:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj-15O-BTDw

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5ATYPrZnSQ&feature=related

ivank
12-25-08, 12:31 AM
I thought I release some tips for my fellow raiders out there. Even though only the HK Atlantis was released, I expect by mid to late Jan, to release all the raiders!

Hilfskreuzer tips:

1) Only attack solo ships.
1b) Never attack medium to large convoys, if you feel the urge to attack a convoy, go for the small ones!

2) Never go after liberty ships!!! they will mess you up!!! I dont know why, but they open up before your guns can, and they do heavy damage! I lost 3 raiders because of them.

3) Zig-Zag when under attack from the air! Though aircraft can be shot down rather easily, they can sink you!

4) End patrol when you get damaged! no matter how small the %, retreat! Enemy ships can sink you a lot faster if you have the smallest %. It adds up fast!!!!!

more to come

Good luck my fellow raiders!

Task Force
12-25-08, 12:40 AM
Hmmm, wernt those armed raiders armored.:hmm: small shells from a liberty ships deck guns shouldn't do too much damage. Also, couldnt you edit the gun files, Im sure you could change the range (and maby there accuracy.):yep:

ivank
12-25-08, 12:50 AM
Hmmm, wernt those armed raiders armored.:hmm: small shells from a liberty ships deck guns shouldn't do too much damage. Also, couldnt you edit the gun files, I'm sure you could change the range (and maby there accuracy.):yep:

The raiders received little to no amour. Those Liberty ships can f you up, they really are "gallant".

I don't know how to edit the gun files.

Task Force
12-25-08, 01:00 AM
Somebody here did for the yamato, if I remember it correctly.:yep:

tomhugill
12-25-08, 05:26 AM
Reporting for duty :arrgh!:

iambecomelife
12-25-08, 11:39 AM
Hmmm, wernt those armed raiders armored.:hmm: small shells from a liberty ships deck guns shouldn't do too much damage. Also, couldnt you edit the gun files, Im sure you could change the range (and maby there accuracy.):yep:

The Liberty Ship "Stephen Hopkins" sank a raider in 1942. It was a mutually destructive battle, like the one involving the "HMAS Sydney" & the "Kormoran":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Stephen_Hopkins

DarkFish
12-25-08, 12:45 PM
I don't know how to edit the gun files.Another one reporting for duty here:D
I edited the gun files for almost every ship i've done so far, changing range is a one minute job.
Accuracy isn't in the gun files but in a cfg file somewhere

The Liberty Ship "Stephen Hopkins" sank a raider in 1942. It was a mutually destructive battle, like the one involving the "HMAS Sydney" & the "Kormoran" Weird things those raiders.. strong enough to sink a cruiser but too weak to destroy a merchant without being sunk itself...

ivank
12-25-08, 12:55 PM
I don't know how to edit the gun files.Another one reporting for duty here:D
I edited the gun files for almost every ship i've done so far, changing range is a one minute job.
Accuracy isn't in the gun files but in a cfg file somewhere

The Liberty Ship "Stephen Hopkins" sank a raider in 1942. It was a mutually destructive battle, like the one involving the "HMAS Sydney" & the "Kormoran" Weird things those raiders.. strong enough to sink a cruiser but too weak to destroy a merchant without being sunk itself...

lol! So Darkfish, can you edit the AI guns?

Raptor1
12-25-08, 01:08 PM
The Liberty Ship "Stephen Hopkins" sank a raider in 1942. It was a mutually destructive battle, like the one involving the "HMAS Sydney" & the "Kormoran" Weird things those raiders.. strong enough to sink a cruiser but too weak to destroy a merchant without being sunk itself...

The battle with Sydney was at such close range that both ships were almost assured destruction

DarkFish
12-25-08, 01:08 PM
lol! So Darkfish, can you edit the AI guns?Well I guess so..
I could change things like range/max angles/reloading speed/traverse speed etc. without much ado.
If you tell me what has to be changed on which gun I can do it for you.
All the playable guns on the ships I've made so far already have historical ranges etc.

BTW Merry christmas to you all:up:

ivank
12-25-08, 03:34 PM
lol! So Darkfish, can you edit the AI guns?Well I guess so..
I could change things like range/max angles/reloading speed/traverse speed etc. without much ado.
If you tell me what has to be changed on which gun I can do it for you.
All the playable guns on the ships I've made so far already have historical ranges etc.

BTW Merry christmas to you all:up:

Yes Feliz Natal!

The liberty ships guns need to be changed, they open fire way to early!

I just went up againist open with the Admiral Graf Spee, and the liberty open fire 1st! she dealt out a lot of fire, before my guns even took aim!!!

ivank
12-25-08, 05:11 PM
Okay, I was going to re-do the Atlantic convoys but I can't find my convoy route map!!! does anyone know of a online map/guide, or can anyone scan and e-mail me a copy of the Atlantic convoy map from SH3?

DarkFish
12-26-08, 05:30 AM
SH3 map: http://etnies.muskatli.hu/sh/faq/SH3_MAP.jpg

Also check http://www.convoyweb.org.uk/chart/chart.php. This site has got maps of daily positions of 64 different convoys. There's also a lot more to find on this site if you're looking for info on convoys.

ivank
12-26-08, 11:33 AM
SH3 map: http://etnies.muskatli.hu/sh/faq/SH3_MAP.jpg

Also check http://www.convoyweb.org.uk/chart/chart.php. This site has got maps of daily positions of 64 different convoys. There's also a lot more to find on this site if you're looking for info on convoys.

Thanks!

iambecomelife
12-26-08, 05:09 PM
I don't know how to edit the gun files.Another one reporting for duty here:D
I edited the gun files for almost every ship i've done so far, changing range is a one minute job.
Accuracy isn't in the gun files but in a cfg file somewhere

The Liberty Ship "Stephen Hopkins" sank a raider in 1942. It was a mutually destructive battle, like the one involving the "HMAS Sydney" & the "Kormoran" Weird things those raiders.. strong enough to sink a cruiser but too weak to destroy a merchant without being sunk itself...

In an era when most merchant ships were no more than 450-500 feet long there was very little space to install high-powered machinery. Without large, powerful engines there was no way for a merchant to achieve a reasonable speed while carrying enough armor to protect itself from heavy shells. If/when I play this mod I am going to try and engage armed merchantmen at a distance. If a convoy is escorted by anything larger than a corvette, I will probably leave it alone.

ivank
12-26-08, 05:29 PM
I don't know how to edit the gun files.Another one reporting for duty here:D
I edited the gun files for almost every ship i've done so far, changing range is a one minute job.
Accuracy isn't in the gun files but in a cfg file somewhere

The Liberty Ship "Stephen Hopkins" sank a raider in 1942. It was a mutually destructive battle, like the one involving the "HMAS Sydney" & the "Kormoran" Weird things those raiders.. strong enough to sink a cruiser but too weak to destroy a merchant without being sunk itself...
In an era when most merchant ships were no more than 450-500 feet long there was very little space to install high-powered machinery. Without large, powerful engines there was no way for a merchant to achieve a reasonable speed while carrying enough armor to protect itself from heavy shells. If/when I play this mod I am going to try and engage armed merchantmen at a distance. If a convoy is escorted by anything larger than a corvette, I will probably leave it alone.

You can take on a single DD, may even two. My best was a Cleveland that I heavily damaged and it sank later, but I sank 45nm out of Surabaya

I recommend: either one DD, 2 DE's and 3 Corvettes

tonibamestre
12-28-08, 02:54 PM
Hello again Ivank,
I was thinking about these mods,and let me please ask you why not to implement Carriers into TSWSM v2? This kind of units played a MAIN role in the Pacific,and their lack into the game as controllable platforms would not be historicaly accurate,even more,it was the beginning of development of the Naval Aviation Projection as you know.

Please,now that you are still on time tell me that you will translate the proposal to the rest of your team and you all will think about it.

My best Regards and Happy New Year.

tomhugill
12-29-08, 06:51 AM
Hey , at the moments simply put , carriers can not function properly within the game , all you could do would be to sit with your task force and potter about , you cannot launch planes or have any control like that so it would seem slightly pointless within the context of this game as it is at the moment to use them. If it does become possible to get greater function from these unit then implementing them may happen

tater
12-29-08, 02:38 PM
I cannot see how proper carrier operations would EVER be possible in the SH4 engine.

The "airgroup" paradigm is fundamentally a bad one, and the game is completely incapable of modeling the real factors involved in carrier operations. Even a flight sim like Il-2 (or indeed ANY ww2 flight sim in existence, for that matter) cannot properly do CV air ops.

To be even a little realistic, it would require that the player:

1. Have to decide how to arm the planes, then fuel and arm them, then warm them up, then spot them for take off. The difference between USN and IJN doctrine need to be factored (warming up planes in the hanger then bringing them up for the IJN, mostly spotting planes entirely on the flight deck for the USN (early war we sometimes had to spot maybe 1/2 below to give SBDs more take off room). This whole proc\edure needs to take an appropriate amount of time We're talking maybe an hour anyway (+- with crew quality). During arming, ships are particularly vulnerable to damage because of all the avgas and ordnance all around the flight deck or hanger spaces. (can you say, "Midway?")

2. The CV must steam into the wind to launch OR recover aircraft. 30-60 minutes for take offs, probably, and more for recovery, particularly after a strike as damaged planes might limp in spread out over time. Any time you must evade risks losing aircraft in the air should they run out of fuel.

3. Take off and recovery need to be realistic, at least to the extent that the CV steams (likely at or near flank speed) in a straight line into the wind for the duration. This includes TO and recovery of Combat Air Patrols. (note that for the IJN, recon was usually tasked to CA-based float planes as they felt that recon flights from the CV weakened the air group).

4. Arming needs to be specific for ground vs ship targets as very different loads were used. GP bombs will damage ships, but not in the way the AP or semi-AP bombs used did. Also, the VT units (torpedo planes) were also tasked with level/glide bombing vs land targets.

5. Proper reloads of bombs, torpedoes, etc need to be carried for the aircraft. Meaning that the ship can run out. This happened to the US CVs in the Coral Sea since their earlier attacks on Tulagi expended most of their torpedoes for the VT squadron.

Note that I am assuming the air ops themselves are simplified. Even so, I see none of the above as remotely possible in SH4.

Bottom line is that CVs in SH are TARGETS, nothing more. Unmodified (by having their airgroups slashed) they are unrealistically powerful, too, as the entire CAG flies around to the limit of their range endlessly bombing stuff. They probably don;t even count hos many are shot down, lol. Properly for SH4, CVs need to have TINY airgroups (2-3 planes total per CV), and the planes need to be clones with vastly reduced range (since they represent the CAP or ASW patrol, and would stay within visual range of the TF at all times for the IJN (bad radios), and short radar range at most for allied CAPs).

iambecomelife
12-29-08, 04:13 PM
I agree that carriers should not be a priority. It will take a dedicated carrier sim to factor in all of the complexities needed to make things interesting. I'd love to see Ubisoft fund such a project, but I'm not holding my breath.

Sledgehammer427
12-29-08, 04:27 PM
me either, it would be an interesting venture, but it just doesnt seem fun enough to attract a large-scale chunk of the market...

but i agree with tater on all aspects, carrier ops seem downright impossible with the SH4 engine...you cant build castles on swamps

(haha, monty python)

ivank
12-29-08, 04:30 PM
me either, it would be an interesting venture, but it just doesnt seem fun enough to attract a large-scale chunk of the market...

but i agree with tater on all aspects, carrier ops seem downright impossible with the SH4 engine...you cant build castles on swamps

(haha, monty python)

again agreed!

tater
12-29-08, 04:40 PM
To put it in a Submarine sim perspective, the aircraft on a CV are its raison d'être, as the torpedoes are for the submarine. Any attempt at CVs needs the air operations at least as complex as the TDC, torpedo models, and indeed AI that fights this weapon system.

pozine
12-29-08, 08:04 PM
ok, now, is it possible to make the real hull strenght of all surface ship in this mod?

tater
12-29-08, 09:05 PM
Damage models start impacting, well, everything. The damage of all the weapons needs to be looked at... it's complex. Observer's mod for merchant shipping has moved on to warships, so I'd expect to see a comprehensive solution from that end at some point.

The stock damage system has hitpoints, so at a certain point, any weapon doing enough damage to actually do any damage (get past armor, etc) will eventually sink the target, it's just a matter of how many rounds. This is why in stock DDs are so ridiculously easy to sink with submarine deck guns and AA, you hit them until their hitpoints drop to 0, then BOOM!

tater

pozine
12-30-08, 01:12 PM
ok, i have an idea, this mod would be like natural sinking mechanism,
the hitpoint of all ship are 300000 and they can only sink by flooding...
if you make ennough hole in the hull, the ship sink...
semi-realistik

and for the weapon damage, check on google for the weapon strenght of any ship, ex : the main weapon of the BB bismark.
you need to look at the penetration of this gun at a XX km. ( i don't know what is the size of the bismark main gun, but ill say 300mm )
if the penetration is 400mm at 15 km,
make a little calculation and you'll have the weapon strenght of all ship,
ex a gun that is 150mm (size) will make penetration on a 200 mm hull at 15 km


i don't know if it is possible, but its just an idea...
maybe the physics are more difficult than that.

tomhugill
12-30-08, 01:33 PM
Im already implmenting the non HP style of damage model on the ships im making damage models for , the easiest way of doing the weapon balance is changing armor values , as the guns are overall too powerful but compared to each other they are ok

tater
12-30-08, 04:50 PM
Observer has done this HP wise.

Of course, should you mess with the warships, they might not work well with torpedoes.

ivank
12-31-08, 10:35 AM
The Holy Lemon Army is after all of us! Yes even you!!! RUN!

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/ext/senior/fruits/images/large/lemons.jpg

pozine
12-31-08, 02:40 PM
ok time to show my secret weapon :

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/7485/pressecitronssmalluo4.jpg

ivank
12-31-08, 05:36 PM
OH!!!! YOUR GOOD!!!
But can you stop my evil minion limes!? or my group of brainwashed goats!!!!!
or
Chuck Norris!!!!

Happy News Years

ivank
01-01-09, 08:38 PM
Starting new carrer with Prince of Wales.
Will update after 1 patrol.

W4lt3r
01-02-09, 06:36 PM
When someone mentioned the gun ranges, i think it was ivank.. I've done a small cfg altering mod that changes the gun ranges drastically. AI Fires at around 15km while player can engage at 16-17km ranges. Makes the battles lot more interesting, though i haven't updated it for a while, mostly to make the crew able to spot targets at longer ranges, but stock settings allow you to lock targets at around 18-19km i think.. :roll:

But yeah, if the thing isn't done already for this mod, i can provide this little alteration.

iambecomelife
01-03-09, 03:28 AM
When someone mentioned the gun ranges, i think it was ivank.. I've done a small cfg altering mod that changes the gun ranges drastically. AI Fires at around 15km while player can engage at 16-17km ranges. Makes the battles lot more interesting, though i haven't updated it for a while, mostly to make the crew able to spot targets at longer ranges, but stock settings allow you to lock targets at around 18-19km i think.. :roll:

But yeah, if the thing isn't done already for this mod, i can provide this little alteration.

That is an excellent idea. In most battles, ships would fire dozens of rounds for every hit, whereas in the SH3 series the battles end too quickly b/c of the artificially close range. IMO a more drawn-out battle is much more dramatic than the usual 5-minute slugfest that we get...

sabretwo
01-03-09, 08:23 AM
One question about the diesel animation...will the animation be toggled on and off based on the surface state of the uboat?

tomhugill
01-03-09, 09:49 AM
Wrong topic :)

iambecomelife
01-03-09, 10:52 AM
http://rasputin.physics.uiuc.edu/~wiringa/Ships/Period3/Germany/AuxiliaryFVs/pix/Orion.jpg


BTW - for the german raiders, how about including an upgrade/technology to simulate disguises (like the one for "Orion" above)? It could be equipped just like how you equip better weapons & radar for subs. Once enabled it could suppress the detection abilities of enemy units' sensors, simulating them being fooled by your neutral paint scheme. I know this is already possible for U-Boats with the rubber coating that impedes sonar - maybe you could dig around in the files and create a corresponding trick to impede visual sensors...

tater
01-03-09, 11:04 AM
^^^ that is a great idea. Lateral thinking in action. :up:

Task Force
01-03-09, 11:33 AM
Yes, that's a vary good Idea Iabc.:yep:

iambecomelife
01-03-09, 11:42 AM
Yes, that's a vary good Idea Iabc.:yep:

Do any of you guys know what files control the rubber coating in SH3 (and/or SH4)? I found it mentioned in Basic.cfg but I'm sure there are additional files. The entries in Basic.cfg seem to be concerned with availability - I would like to find out what controls the actual effect on ships' visual sensors.

ivank
01-03-09, 11:54 AM
Thats a great idea IABL! My team and I will look into, if you can help in anyway that would be great!

And any more suggestions would be nice.

tomhugill
01-03-09, 12:01 PM
A great piece of thinking IABL could be on to a real winner here:up::rock:

gile
01-03-09, 06:31 PM
Starting new carrer with Prince of Wales.
Will update after 1 patrol.


How is that patrol going on then?

ivank
01-03-09, 07:26 PM
Bad, not into the Indian Ocean yet

cgjimeneza
01-03-09, 07:40 PM
this patrol in Prince of Wales as in "beta"????

or did I MISS something?

happy new year!

Bad, not into the Indian Ocean yet

ivank
01-03-09, 09:11 PM
Edit: Ship Sank.

tater
01-05-09, 10:47 PM
What, if anything, have you guys done with ship physics? Meaning acceleration, turning radious, etc?

It should take quite a while to build up speed in a BB, for example. For Hood to work up to flank should take something like 20 minutes.

What values have you found useful in this regard in the propulsion part of the sim file?

tomhugill
01-06-09, 03:59 AM
Hey , another thing on the list im afarid as we all know the surface ships move far too quickly , its a pity phil thompson as left us as he did alot of good work on this in sh3

tater
01-06-09, 09:52 AM
I only found his thread last night (late) as I only tend to end up at SH3 forum by searches (and to look at IABL's pretty ships). I had been looking into the same thing after testing Ise's acceleration.

Ise goes from 0 to 20 knots in 35-36 seconds.

That should take perhaps 10 minutes or more at the very least. She took an additional minute to get from 20 to her max of 25.6.

I fired a fish at her, and she slowed from flank (25.6) to 11 knots inside a few ship lengths to avoid the fish instead of the X miles it should have taken, lol (fish missed, of course).

I was looking at decreasing engine HP when I found the thread, now I'm certainly going to—today. Nice thing is that his work means I can start testing around his final value.

DarkFish
01-06-09, 02:23 PM
What, if anything, have you guys done with ship physics? Meaning acceleration, turning radious, etc?

It should take quite a while to build up speed in a BB, for example. For Hood to work up to flank should take something like 20 minutes.

What values have you found useful in this regard in the propulsion part of the sim file?I haven't changed anything with the ship physics on the ships I've done. I've just copied the values from the original .sim file (and changed them where historically incorrect).
I've done a test with the New Mexico BB, it takes 2.5 minutes for it to reach its maximum speed. That seems to be ok IMO.
AFAIK even heavy ships like BBs could accelerate to flank speed that fast, but only rarely did, as it can damage the engine.

tater
01-06-09, 02:26 PM
I have data for HMS Hood, and she took about 27 minutes to work up to flank from zero. Even a DD can't get to that speed in 2 minutes. The min value on the chart I saw (used for pre-war wargaming purposes) was 4-5 minutes to 20 knots for some DDs.

I checked Ise, for example. She can get to flank in ~1.5 minutes. 35 seconds to 20 knots.

DarkFish
01-06-09, 02:56 PM
I have data for HMS Hood, and she took about 27 minutes to work up to flank from zero.Also in emergencies? Normally they wouldn't accelerate at max to avoid damage to the engine. 27 minutes seems more like a 'safe' acceleration, gently building up speed.

tater
01-06-09, 03:05 PM
It's a chart they used in wargames, so it might be the safe speed.

When I read accounts of PTO naval engagements, however, they usually refer (in combat) to ships "working up" to a speed for evasion, etc.

Regardless, the stock values are ridiculous, IMO. There is no way a BB goes from 0 to 20 knots in 35 seconds.

DarkFish
01-06-09, 03:56 PM
They indeed 'worked up' to a speed for evasion, whenever it became clear there would be an engagement they would immediately begin to gain speed. I agree though from 0 to 20 knots in 35 secs is a huge acceleration for a BB. I checked the sim file and its mass is a little lower and its engine hp a little higher than historical. So if this is corrected it'd probably take some 45 secs to get to 20 kts. Still very much, but not too unrealistic I guess, especially in real emergencies like a torpedo heading for the ship.

tater
01-06-09, 04:25 PM
I think that is way too fast. The screw count is wrong, too, big, slow props are more efficient. Iowa tried to keep her turns at no more than 200.

0-20 knots needs to take minutes.

Stopping a ship like Iowa is easier than most ww2 BBs because of electric drive. None the less, throwing her all back from 30 knots took over a mile to slow her. (~7 ship lengths). She could stop faster with a "barn door" stop (they could turn her rudders into each other to make a wall—Wisconsin did this once, and suffered for it thereafter, apparently). I have no timing on this, but starting with ~30 knots, that means ~4 minutes to stop.

Stopping should be faster because you also have drag working for you which goes like v^2.

Less advanced designs would have been slower stopping (and accelerating).

IMO, that means the boundary value would be a ship capable of accelerating as fast as she could stop, and that might be 4 minutes from 30 knots—and with an electric drive, reverse was just flipping a switch, you cannot do this as easily with a direct drive.

cgjimeneza
01-06-09, 05:17 PM
Remember in all our history books or novels:

when you will have an engagement you bring all boilers in line ("Destroyer Command") and yes, the acceleration values are crazy, I hate a ship going at 12 knots slowing to 7 knots in a length or more (no inertia?) and torps passing in front of the target missing by a whisker.

anyone has a copy of Janes Warships of WW2?

I think that is way too fast. The screw count is wrong, too, big, slow props are more efficient. Iowa tried to keep her turns at no more than 200.

0-20 knots needs to take minutes.

Stopping a ship like Iowa is easier than most ww2 BBs because of electric drive. None the less, throwing her all back from 30 knots took over a mile to slow her. (~7 ship lengths). She could stop faster with a "barn door" stop (they could turn her rudders into each other to make a wall—Wisconsin did this once, and suffered for it thereafter, apparently). I have no timing on this, but starting with ~30 knots, that means ~4 minutes to stop.

Stopping should be faster because you also have drag working for you which goes like v^2.

Less advanced designs would have been slower stopping (and accelerating).

IMO, that means the boundary value would be a ship capable of accelerating as fast as she could stop, and that might be 4 minutes from 30 knots—and with an electric drive, reverse was just flipping a switch, you cannot do this as easily with a direct drive.

polyfiller
01-07-09, 04:56 PM
Folks - if we want to achieve slower acceleration then I think it's going to take something more than just a shipname.sim file change. I tried playing with mass, drag etc. last night on the Yamato and could slow acceleration down ... but at the expense of reducing the top speed significantly (ahieved 6 minutes to accelerate to 11 kts ... and that's as fast as it would go). Also played with reducing number of engines etc. in the UPCGE file. Will have another go at messing with engine power, but susepct that it can't be done with the .SIM file.

Maybe there's a graph file or something somewhere to change. Am going to have a look around. Maybe a more experienced modder knows where to look ?

Sledgehammer427
01-07-09, 08:10 PM
im afraid i have to use the hyphenated deathnote for modding these games

perhaps ship acceleration and deceleration is hard-coded?

its not a big deal to me, like a single flea on a dog

tater
01-08-09, 12:35 AM
It may be that the best that can happen is a compromise with them being a little less speed-responsive.

ivank
01-08-09, 12:35 AM
im afraid i have to use the hyphenated deathnote for modding these games

perhaps ship acceleration and deceleration is hard-coded?

its not a big deal to me, like a single flea on a dog

I agree, if ship accel and decel is hard-coded and therefore un mod able, it will just be one issue people will have to live with. I understand the plight of the U-boot or US sub commander, but in TSWSM I fail to see the issue(other than historical)

A submariner, who fires slow torpedos(i think the fastest in SH4 is ~:-?44knts?) and the rapid accel and decel of a target can make or break a patrol, I can see getting mad.
But for us surface guys(And I hope if your complaining about this you are a submariner) that fire boardsides of shells that can cover a distance of 10miles in 15secs, I dont see the problem. No matter how fast a target accels or deccels that shell(if on the right trajectory) will hit

tater
01-08-09, 01:43 AM
Long Lance torpedoes.

I wanna try a DD vs a big critter :)

Sledgehammer427
01-08-09, 07:42 AM
a big critter? I hope you don't mean the Long Lance. That peice of work did like 50 kts and had a 1,217 lb warhead...your DD would be blown to Mars...pollsbly Jupiter...

that, or you can elaborate on "Big Critter" :lol:

tater
01-08-09, 10:11 AM
I meant I'd want to have a DD career, maybe in the Solomons and get to attack some CAs, BBs, etc with torpedoes.

iambecomelife
01-08-09, 07:25 PM
I meant I'd want to have a DD career, maybe in the Solomons and get to attack some CAs, BBs, etc with torpedoes.

The Solomons? Imagine having to go through the "Barroom Brawl"! :rotfl:

cgjimeneza
01-08-09, 07:53 PM
why do you think its called "ironbottom sound"

but it would be nice to tangle with the Tokyo Express

tater
01-08-09, 10:15 PM
I'd like to play both sides ion the Solomons. IJN DDs are sexy, though, you have to admit. IJN CAs are also particularly pretty ships.

Course my fave plane is the F4F, so maybe I'm aestetically broken. :D

ivank
01-08-09, 10:29 PM
I'd like to play both sides ion the Solomons. IJN DDs are sexy, though, you have to admit. IJN CAs are also particularly pretty ships.

Course my fave plane is the F4F, so maybe I'm aestetically broken. :D


:rotfl:, I too like IJN CA's are nice looking ships! but I do not like the IJN DD's or the F4F

Sledgehammer427
01-08-09, 11:29 PM
Me personally, among ship nuts, regard pretty much anything IJN to be sexy...Kongo class especially...maybe that means i have an affinity for the brit ships too?:rotfl:

Sledgehammer427
01-09-09, 06:51 PM
Hmmm. i was thinking, maybe making a New Mexico class BB playable?
i always like those

peabody
01-09-09, 10:17 PM
Folks - if we want to achieve slower acceleration then I think it's going to take something more than just a shipname.sim file change. I tried playing with mass, drag etc. last night on the Yamato and could slow acceleration down ... but at the expense of reducing the top speed significantly (ahieved 6 minutes to accelerate to 11 kts ... and that's as fast as it would go). Also played with reducing number of engines etc. in the UPCGE file. Will have another go at messing with engine power, but susepct that it can't be done with the .SIM file.

Maybe there's a graph file or something somewhere to change. Am going to have a look around. Maybe a more experienced modder knows where to look ?

Polyfiller,

I have not done any testing but thought I might throw out an idea. What if you used your numbers for drag, etc to slow acceleration but give it a false max speed. Don't increase the power on the engines just a higher max speed. For example lets just say max speed is 20 Knots and your drag numbers make it max out at 11knots. So if you set the max speed to 30 knots, without increasing engine power, could it be possible to decrease the acceleration but get the top speed back to 20 knots?

Just an idea.

Peabody

ivank
01-10-09, 01:45 AM
Hmmm. i was thinking, maybe making a New Mexico class BB playable?
i always like those

Darkfish already made it playable

pozine
01-10-09, 06:25 PM
I agree.

Does anyone know how to capture sound to use in the game?
I have the perfect main gun sound for the battleships, and battlecruisers, but I dont know how to get it into the game.


Sound

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5ATYPrZnSQ&feature=related


i dont know if someone answered your question but use : audacity

use the secound sound plz it is better



someone had ever tryed to make a better ai?
like to make them to "cross the T" ?
or other tactics...etc etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_T

tater
01-10-09, 11:13 PM
The AI don't do anything other than to follow waypoints, EXCEPT for Escorts (unit types 0-4).

It might be interesting to change surface units all to that type, and see if they will vary from their waypoints.

pozine
01-11-09, 05:52 PM
yes, its what i think too,
make all surface units have an attack path /patrol
it will take time but it will worth it.

also, make the destroyers fear you, trying to approach you, zigzagging to avoid shells and then release a salvo of torps.

make the collision model better, when you ram a DD at flank, the destroyer will break in two.

good luck!!

Sledgehammer427
01-11-09, 09:22 PM
make all surface units have an attack path /patrol
it will take time but it will worth it.

add it to the scripted chunks of the campaign, the hardest part is the waypoints.

make the destroyers fear you, trying to approach you, zigzagging to avoid shells and then release a salvo of torps.


they already do that, minus the salvo of torps, zigzagging little buggers:lol:

when you ram a DD at flank, the destroyer will break in two.

i can swear i wrote about this before, but, you only ram when you are out of torps, shells, and your decks are ablaze. otherwise, ramming will make you have to go into drydock for far longer than you need to. its better just to blow the guy to mars with ur guns. also, im sure most DDs won't break in half if rammed broadside.

Darkfish already made it playable
well, thats just great, im far behind on everything i guess. btw, nice job recruiting Chinese U-47, hell be a big help!

ivank
01-11-09, 09:27 PM
make all surface units have an attack path /patrol
it will take time but it will worth it.
add it to the scripted chunks of the campaign, the hardest part is the waypoints.

make the destroyers fear you, trying to approach you, zigzagging to avoid shells and then release a salvo of torps.

they already do that, minus the salvo of torps, zigzagging little buggers:lol:

when you ram a DD at flank, the destroyer will break in two.
i can swear i wrote about this before, but, you only ram when you are out of torps, shells, and your decks are ablaze. otherwise, ramming will make you have to go into drydock for far longer than you need to. its better just to blow the guy to mars with ur guns. also, im sure most DDs won't break in half if rammed broadside.

Darkfish already made it playable well, thats just great, im far behind on everything i guess. btw, nice job recruiting Chinese U-47, hell be a big help!

Chinese U-47 said he might be able to help us after his mod is done. So it is up to us to finish V1 atm

ivank
01-11-09, 09:33 PM
My patrol with the HMS King George V:

Left Liverpool, got to Fremantle, was attacked by 3CL's, 5DD's, sunk.

Thoughts: BB was a little weak to sink from the small force it was attacked by.

Sledgehammer427
01-12-09, 07:58 AM
that actually seems about right.
considering the force, even a human can die from so many beestings

DarkFish
01-12-09, 09:12 AM
My patrol with the HMS King George V:

Left Liverpool, got to Fremantle, was attacked by 3CL's, 5DD's, sunk.

Thoughts: BB was a little weak to sink from the small force it was attacked by.weird, I succeeded in sinking 3 enemy BBs a while ago...
Guess it were my fabulous tactics...
Running away with ahead flank and attacking the enemy beyond the AIs engagement range :oops:

pozine
01-12-09, 10:18 AM
i tryed a carreer with the North Carolina class ship and rammed a CL, the cruiser were destroyed and capsized ( i dont know if it is the appropriate term in english )

pozine
01-12-09, 12:03 PM
add it to the scripted chunks of the campaign, the hardest part is the waypoints.

[quote] make the destroyers fear you, trying to approach you, zigzagging to avoid shells and then release a salvo of torps.


they already do that, minus the salvo of torps, zigzagging little buggers:lol:


not really, they approach you, and then RAMM'M you at flak speed.

they think youre a sub and when they are at 10 meters of me BOOM, i relese a shell salvo and the DD explode.

DarkFish
01-12-09, 01:58 PM
not really, they approach you, and then RAMM'M you at flak speed.

they think youre a sub and when they are at 10 meters of me BOOM, i relese a shell salvo and the DD explode.hah when sailing a BB you don't even need to fire any salvo..
The force of the impact will barely damage you, but the ramming DD will explode...

Maybe some new Japanese superweapon - kamikaze ships to save on shells ;)

ivank
01-12-09, 03:09 PM
Thats pretty funny!
I love doing that to DD's and smaller size ships

@ Sledgehammer427: I dont know about that. I know a human can be stung to death, but a BB, I was exploding after about 30mins

P.S. How do I change the time it takes to get the death screen?
I want to see my ship sink! not just a fireball!!!!

ivank
01-12-09, 03:27 PM
Two questions:

Does anyone know how to edit the base icons? I got the naval bases in the game to work(Player can resupply at non-US bases) But the icon is just blank! No flag on them!

Does anyone know how to edit the smoke in the game? I am sick and tried of the white smoke coming from the warships guns! This mod is going to be great, but the white smoke is awful! How do I make it black?

DarkFish
01-12-09, 03:36 PM
How do I change the time it takes to get the death screen?
I want to see my ship sink! not just a fireball!!!!My guess is that it's hardcoded. The only way I can think of is to change the depth at wich the ship will reach full damage.
So in other words, using tomhugills damage models, the HP will be some huge number like 1E10. The death screen will only appear when this reaches 0. So if you set the CrashSpeed to the same number (or more) as the HP (in this example 1E10) and CrashDepth to 300 m the death screen will appear 1 sec after you reach 300 m and not any sooner.
This should allow to see the ship sink.

DarkFish
01-12-09, 03:51 PM
Does anyone know how to edit the base icons? I got the naval bases in the game to work(Player can resupply at non-US bases) But the icon is just blank! No flag on them!the files for the naval base icons are Data\Menu\Gui\StrategicBlue.dds and Data\Menu\Gui\StrategicRed.dds.
It'll look like this:

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc333/DF_3852/StrategicBlue.jpg
The build up is as follows:
top row: neutral
2nd: friendly units (for enemy units open StrategicRed.dds)
3rd: japanese
4th: german
5th: uk
6th: us

the left three columns are for naval bases, the right 3 for other units. the different icons are for other times of day and stuff.
hope I helped:know:

pozine
01-12-09, 05:59 PM
not really, they approach you, and then RAMM'M you at flak speed.

they think youre a sub and when they are at 10 meters of me BOOM, i relese a shell salvo and the DD explode.hah when sailing a BB you don't even need to fire any salvo..
The force of the impact will barely damage you, but the ramming DD will explode...

Maybe some new Japanese superweapon - kamikaze ships to save on shells ;)


XD
:rotfl:

ivank
01-12-09, 09:34 PM
Kgv Sunk By 5 Vals, 2 Ca, 1 Bb(ise Hybrid)

Outside Toyko,
Attacked By 2 Maya Class Ca, 1st Sunk In Under 10 Mins, Second Did Some Damage, Sunk After 10th Salvo. Ise Came From Rear, Fought For 20mins, Major Damage Taken, ~10 Degree List, Ise Went Down By Stern. I Turned For Australia. By Iwo Jima I Had A 15-20 List. Attacked By 5 Vals, Shot Down 3 Out Of 5, Took 4 Hits To Amidships, 1 To Bow. Lost Power, Drifted For 7 Miles. Capsized By Stern.*

*my Thoughts: I Was Really Sunk By Ise, Planes Just Hastened The Sinking. Still Get Instant Death Screen, I Use To Be Able To See The Kgv Hit The Bottom Of The North Sea. Now I Just See The Ship Start To Roll(if I Am Lucky) Otherwise I Just See Fireball And Deathscreen.

tater
01-12-09, 09:49 PM
Out of curiosity, how did 2 vals score 4 hits?

in an anti-shipping role they'd have carried a single, 250kg bomb (AP or semi-AP) each.

Actually, aside from various mods that fix the aircraft in SH4 (stock planes are grossly over armed), for your mod it might well be useful to make sure the bombs are appropriate from an AP standpoint, and maybe some land-bombers you come across might have only GP bombs.

cgjimeneza
01-12-09, 10:31 PM
Out of curiosity, how did 2 vals score 4 hits?

in an anti-shipping role they'd have carried a single, 250kg bomb (AP or semi-AP) each.

Actually, aside from various mods that fix the aircraft in SH4 (stock planes are grossly over armed), for your mod it might well be useful to make sure the bombs are appropriate from an AP standpoint, and maybe some land-bombers you come across might have only GP bombs.

maybe they were recovering after the dives¿
I want to try it!!!

Sledgehammer427
01-13-09, 07:55 AM
@ Sledgehammer427: I dont know about that. I know a human can be stung to death, but a BB, I was exploding after about 30mins

the Bismarck was sunk in less than an hour by an equal sized force of battleships.
i mean, you have at least 24 8" guns all aimed at you, and all of their secondary weapons. then all of the destroyers, 30 guns for most japanese DDs, that can easily equal the power of a BB or two

tomhugill
01-13-09, 08:03 AM
You running dark fished original KGV or my WIP one?

DarkFish
01-13-09, 08:12 AM
dark fishedCool! never new i'm so popular they made a verb out of my nickname!:D;)

I think ivank uses the 'unmodded' one I made, cause with your damage model there shouldn't be any problems with exploding.
My latest ships already use your dmg model.

ivank
01-13-09, 08:43 AM
dark fishedCool! never new i'm so popular they made a verb out of my nickname!:D;)

I think ivank uses the 'unmodded' one I made, cause with your damage model there shouldn't be any problems with exploding.
My latest ships already use your dmg model.

:rotfl:! you did not know!!!! your name is a verb!

Sledgehammer427
01-13-09, 08:52 PM
when i am getting my PC back, I'm SO testing these ships.

ivank
01-13-09, 10:24 PM
when i am getting my PC back, I'm SO testing these ships.

LOL! you are going to love them! the ships that have been darkfished are great! and the KGV that Tom edited(as from memory) was great!

ivank
01-14-09, 07:06 PM
Out of curiosity, how did 2 vals score 4 hits?

in an anti-shipping role they'd have carried a single, 250kg bomb (AP or semi-AP) each.

Actually, aside from various mods that fix the aircraft in SH4 (stock planes are grossly over armed), for your mod it might well be useful to make sure the bombs are appropriate from an AP standpoint, and maybe some land-bombers you come across might have only GP bombs.

it was 5 vals, after which I shot down 3 of them

Sledgehammer427
01-15-09, 12:35 PM
this means i must put together a super-sweet skin for the KGV too, i believe it will be my signature ship.

actually, the KGV was supposed to have another Quad turret where the dual is.
however, it presented problems with balance and other things, as well as size limiataions by Versailles.

SO, i was thinking, modify the KGV (ill come up with a really bitchin' class name later) with another Quad gun turret, with a deeper draught
sounds cool huh?

ivank
01-15-09, 01:22 PM
this means i must put together a super-sweet skin for the KGV too, i believe it will be my signature ship.

actually, the KGV was supposed to have another Quad turret where the dual is.
however, it presented problems with balance and other things, as well as size limiataions by Versailles.

SO, i was thinking, modify the KGV (ill come up with a really bitchin' class name later) with another Quad gun turret, with a deeper draught
sounds cool huh?

Yes you do need to come up with skins:D

And the KGV is a great ship for your TSWSMTM signature ship! I think I am going with the Bismarck or Prinz Eugen, maybe even a raider:cool: .I like your plans for your extra quad idea. good luck with that. any ideas for a name?

DarkFish
01-15-09, 02:19 PM
SO, i was thinking, modify the KGV (ill come up with a really bitchin' class name later) with another Quad gun turret, with a deeper draught
sounds cool huh?Yeah sounds good.:rock:
But why create another class visually similar to the KGV? Wouldn't it be easier to make that turret upgradeable so that the player can choose to either have a dual or a quad turret? This way the player can switch between them if he wants to. Maybe with some renown cost so that it's really an upgrade.
It would only be impossible to have a deeper draught then unfortunately.

Sledgehammer427
01-15-09, 02:26 PM
speaking of Raiders...I'm building a papermodel of the Graff Spee :smug:
I'll upload pics when im finished

ivank
01-15-09, 02:37 PM
speaking of Raiders...I'm building a papermodel of the Graff Spee :smug:
I'll upload pics when im finished

sounds cool! I can't wait.

When you get your computer?

Sledgehammer427
01-15-09, 03:02 PM
:hmm: probably sometime in mid next week, it shipped today

ivank
01-15-09, 05:24 PM
nice

Sledgehammer427
01-17-09, 09:22 PM
so. as a dev i have to ask how much IS done with part I?

ivank
01-17-09, 10:42 PM
Most of the campaign( I just need those ships you are going to convert, reskin, and edit done) the patrol files need to be done as well. Most of the ships(that we have) are done. and thats it

Sledgehammer427
01-18-09, 01:26 AM
mmmkay, I'll get down to converting those ships when my PC arrives, which should be on friday

ivank
01-19-09, 01:32 PM
Sounds good to me!:up:
I am currently attempting to work on the patrol objective.

ivank
01-19-09, 04:52 PM
Kent Class CA Patrol

Kent Class CA:
Made playable by Darkfish
Has Darkfish's temporary main gun texture fix
Lacks Tomhugil's damage model

Patrol ended after major damage from IJN Kongo class warship off Southern China.

I will give more info, later I am currently patroling with the Fiji class CL, no DM

polyfiller
01-19-09, 06:57 PM
Ivan - would it be possible to list olanned playable ships (or PM a list) along with status i.e. converted, damage modelled, tested, guns balanced etc.

FYI I've statred looking into ship physics so that the big ships move around in big wave (fore & aft) but don't bobble around port / starboard in the swell like demented corks. Not sure if anyone else is looking at this ? Trick seems to be to change the gc height and massively reduced the up/down & left/right drag.

Work on damage model supsended until; 1) Tom is back online and 2) Skwasjer releases the next version of S3D (with the damage zone editing functions).

Can anyone confirm whether or not they've tested a converted ship which slows to zero if/when engines are destroyed ?

I'm thinking of creating a basic checklist for damage to be filled out when testing ... so we can compare results and know what does / does not work on each ship in terms of taking damage.

ivank
01-19-09, 08:45 PM
The Surface Warfare Super-Mod Version 1:
-Playable Navy's:
- Royal Navy
- Kriegsmarine
- Royal Australian Navy
-Playable Ships:
-King George V class (BB) Completed
-Renown-class (BC) not started
-Admiral class (BC) not started
-Revenge class (BB) not started
-Queen Elizabeth class (BB) not started
-Nelson class (BB) not started
-County class (CA) not started
-York class (CA) almost done, needs DM, new guns
-Leander class (CL) not started
-Town class (CL) needs DM
-Dido class (CL) needs DM
-Flower class (PG)
-Black Swan (PG)
-V&W class (DD)
-Tribal class (DD) needs DM
-Mod Leander (CL)
-Bismarck class (BB) WIP(needs DM, to be made playable, etc)
-Scharnhorst class (BC) same as Bismarck class
-Deutschland class (PBB) needs one more ship, DM
-Admiral Hipper class (CA) see Bismarck class
-K-class (CL) not started
-Type 34 (DD) not started
-Type 36 (DD) not started
-H-39 class (BB) not started

pozine
01-22-09, 06:38 PM
any news from the capsizing mod??
and from the tswsm?

ivank
01-22-09, 10:23 PM
As asked here is a little update on the mod:

What's done:
KGV class BB
90% of campaign files
Damage model

What needs to be done:
3D modeling
converting
making ships playable
patrol files
convoy files
adding DM to all ships
translating mod into German

I don't what Tomhugill and his team are up to(I have been away since monday)
I know Slegdehammer427 will be resuming his work this weekend
I know Darkfish has like 2-4 ships to do before he needs to wait on more from SH427
I am waiting on the new ships for the convoys, and I just got a ship designing job so my work is going to be slow:down:

Sledgehammer427
01-23-09, 12:21 AM
first, i have my PC back

second, S3D works :D
dont ask how, i have NO idea.

third, a SHIP designing job?!
i have a college textbook that deals with all of thos trigonemetry numbers and hullslip coeffecients, again, dont ask how i got it, i have resources

pozine
01-23-09, 10:25 AM
maybe the guy who repaired your computer had repaired S3d and others programs...
maybe a bug in your pc

Sledgehammer427
01-23-09, 02:26 PM
thats my guess, it was a cracked windows XP, so that proly did it

ivank
01-23-09, 03:01 PM
thats my guess, it was a cracked windows XP, so that proly did it

Yea that would do it, then again I use a windows XP from Australia:p.

As for my job, I am in charge of taking this shipyards hull designs and converting them in to Patrol Boats, and making some designs of new PBs and crew boats for the Panama Canal! I have had the job for 24hrs and I already have 2 designs that I am fixing up now.(I was realy bored during triple free this morning!) Any ideas for some designs?

Sledgehammer427
01-23-09, 06:44 PM
go traditional
S-100 Schnellboot.
minus the torpedo tubes.
if they are patrolling strips of land, the s-boats design allows for shallow area entry, and have a very good radius, (700nm at cruising speed)

ivank
01-23-09, 07:21 PM
go traditional
S-100 Schnellboot.
minus the torpedo tubes.
if they are patrolling strips of land, the s-boats design allows for shallow area entry, and have a very good radius, (700nm at cruising speed)

I wish! But I was just told by my boss(3rd cousin) that the ships have to be designed off of this:

http://www.newtonboats.com/org_site/boats/50x16.htm

Sledgehammer427
01-23-09, 07:53 PM
cut down the deckhouses, put a fifty cal on the bow, and put a low deckhouse about midway

ivank
01-23-09, 09:21 PM
I was thinking about stuff very similar to that!:up: I was going to cut down the Deck house, move it to the centre, and since the ship is meant to carry 3-6 2cm cannons, I will put the housings as so: a twin up front, 2 in the deck house, and 1 on the stern. Hows that?

Sledgehammer427
01-23-09, 11:30 PM
even tho we are totally hijacking the thread, that sounds good

ivank
01-24-09, 02:31 AM
lol so true! Okay lets get back on subject

polyfiller
01-24-09, 12:59 PM
Folks - update on getting damage to actually impacty ships performance - I've managed to get engine damage to slow ship speed in proportion to the damage. Only trouble is my conclusions will prevent us from having different levels of engine redundancy from ship to ship. What I really mean by this is each ship we add must have identical numbers of engines configured. I got a really good rundown on how damage works from Observer over at sub sim cnetral forums.

The reason is that engine damage will only slow a ship if zones 21,55 & 29 are used. To make matters worse, the multiplier value has to be set in zones.cfg for zones 21 & 55. Seeing as we can only have one zone entry in zones.cfg for 21 & 55, wew can only have one multipler value. If we deviate form this, engine damage will result in only marginal reduction in speed.

Will provide full detail to Tom when he's online. I got a really good rundown on how damage works from Observer over at sub sim cnetral forums - worth a look if you want more info.

ivank
01-24-09, 01:21 PM
Folks - update on getting damage to actually impacty ships performance - I've managed to get engine damage to slow ship speed in proportion to the damage. Only trouble is my conclusions will prevent us from having different levels of engine redundancy from ship to ship. What I really mean by this is each ship we add must have identical numbers of engines configured. I got a really good rundown on how damage works from Observer over at sub sim cnetral forums.

The reason is that engine damage will only slow a ship if zones 21,55 & 29 are used. To make matters worse, the multiplier value has to be set in zones.cfg for zones 21 & 55. Seeing as we can only have one zone entry in zones.cfg for 21 & 55, wew can only have one multipler value. If we deviate form this, engine damage will result in only marginal reduction in speed.

Will provide full detail to Tom when he's online. I got a really good rundown on how damage works from Observer over at sub sim cnetral forums - worth a look if you want more info.

I see how that can be an issue. One question though; I don't know if Tom told you, but the shell damage needs to be changed. When a large shell hits a ship it causes a giant hole in the ship, this is NOT realistic! We need to change it to allow the same structural damage but yet make it so there is only a small hole in terms of visual damage. I will post pictures later.

Sledgehammer427
01-24-09, 11:19 PM
Ivan, i might have a line on that Montana-Class to make it playable
EDIT: we are allowed to DL the Montana, as well as the Alabama

polyfiller
01-25-09, 03:31 PM
Ivan - understand about the visual damage. I need to learn how to do the visual damage stuff .... all I've worked on thus far is functional damage stuff.

Am currently focussing on getting gun turrets to stop working when the damage system says they are destroyed (I mean the main armament .... from what I can figure, any AI controlled turrets are fine ... but you can't see them in damage screen because they are AI only items).

DarkFish
01-25-09, 03:43 PM
In my newest ships I've made all main guns into upgradepacks so that you can see them all in the dmg screen.
The only problem is that they all use the same damage zone id so they probably can't be damaged apart from each other.

ivank
01-25-09, 04:17 PM
Ivan, i might have a line on that Montana-Class to make it playable
EDIT: we are allowed to DL the Montana, as well as the Alabama

?what? From who?

polyfiller
01-25-09, 04:22 PM
In my newest ships I've made all main guns into upgradepacks so that you can see them all in the dmg screen.
The only problem is that they all use the same damage zone id so they probably can't be damaged apart from each other.

Darkfish - I am communicating with Observer over at Submarine Sim Central and believe I have a working solution to this based on the way RFB has implemented damage zones for the deck guns (there were none in stock). I really intend to wait for the next version of S3D before doing more on this - because the spheres / boxes need to be well placed. I have an alternate solution which results in damage showing up for each gun (seperately) but am not sure that this results in the gun ceasing to function once the damage screen says it's destroyed. Will be testing a fix to this tonight.

Also see my earlier comment - we need to agree how many engine of "batches" of engines we will configure for all ships .... the way engine damage is translated to loss of speed means we only have one level of configuration - i.e. if we want all ships to have four levels of redundancy e.g. 4 engines, then all ships will have to have 4 engines configured. Bit of pain, I know, but there is no way round this.

polyfiller
01-25-09, 04:26 PM
On a completely different tack, does anyone know whether sim.cfg or sensors.cfg control whether or not your deck watch pick up contacts i.e. warship spotted ? Reason I ask is one of my damage testing missions has windspeed set to 15ms and with the waves, the crew don't detect a bunch of cruisers at 6000 m.

Anyone know which file to mod (I think it's sensors.cfg) but anything I've tried does not make the crew spot the ships. I can manually target, but this really bugs me. Oh and the mission also has zero fog, medium clouds.

I guess we should also have a generic discussion about how far away we should be able to spot a target from a BB's spotting towers ? Ivan - have you played with any of this stuff yet for the campaign ?

nautilus42
01-25-09, 06:19 PM
On a completely different tack, does anyone know whether sim.cfg or sensors.cfg control whether or not your deck watch pick up contacts i.e. warship spotted ? Reason I ask is one of my damage testing missions has windspeed set to 15ms and with the waves, the crew don't detect a bunch of cruisers at 6000 m.

Anyone know which file to mod (I think it's sensors.cfg) but anything I've tried does not make the crew spot the ships. I can manually target, but this really bugs me. Oh and the mission also has zero fog, medium clouds.

I guess we should also have a generic discussion about how far away we should be able to spot a target from a BB's spotting towers ? Ivan - have you played with any of this stuff yet for the campaign ?

Hi polyfiller,
What Mods you installed? What Subs or Ship you played? Maybe I know this problem but imust know your information.
I have had the same bug since the sensors.dat .sim, .zon, .dsd, from SH3 integrated in OpsMonsun. I.E. I`ve deleted the Visual_Nodes from the sensors.dat and the problem is gone. All new SH3 Uboats in OpsMonsun used some sensors from the SH3_sensors.dat.

regards
nautilus42

ivank
01-25-09, 10:40 PM
On a completely different tack, does anyone know whether sim.cfg or sensors.cfg control whether or not your deck watch pick up contacts i.e. warship spotted ? Reason I ask is one of my damage testing missions has windspeed set to 15ms and with the waves, the crew don't detect a bunch of cruisers at 6000 m.

Anyone know which file to mod (I think it's sensors.cfg) but anything I've tried does not make the crew spot the ships. I can manually target, but this really bugs me. Oh and the mission also has zero fog, medium clouds.

I guess we should also have a generic discussion about how far away we should be able to spot a target from a BB's spotting towers ? Ivan - have you played with any of this stuff yet for the campaign ?

If I understand what your saying, that the crew does not spot ships in storms even if they are right next to you? Then yes I have met similar results, during my trials with my Hilfskreuzers(raiders) and AMC's I attacked a convoy in 15kt winds and heavy seas, and my crew did not spot a large tanker until it rammed me! This issue needs to fixed before a release of The Surface Warfare Super-Mod Version 1.

On other hand, I am currently patrol with the Fiji class CL off the southern tip of Australia, and I noticed that when damaged, I only get small, camp fire type, fires. I was even attacked by a Maya Class CA and was hit about 5 times. I received massive damage but only 2 small campfire size fires started. No smoke, and only small fires. In RL the fires on ships was much larger. I will post pictures of the fires I experienced and the fires that should be occuring. Does anyone know, if we can make the fires larger, and the smoke bigger, and darker?

DarkFish
01-26-09, 09:43 AM
Does anyone know, if we can make the fires larger, and the smoke bigger, and darker?It is possible. This could be done by editing the fire effects from Particles.dat.
But I'm not good in editing effects, I only say it can be done, not that I can do it.

polyfiller
01-26-09, 05:21 PM
A quicker fix to small fires for damage would be to look at the fire sizes allocated in zones.cfg for the ship being used - Ivan - mail be the package for the ship you are testing, inlcuding the zones.cfg and I'll take a quick look.

As for mods I'm running - only parts of EE5, plus my ships mod (which does include changes to sensors.cfg and sim.cfg) and a custom mission with 15 M/s wind but now other bad condiations (no fog, cloud rain etc).

DarkFish
01-26-09, 06:08 PM
It would be quicker yeah. But then you'd have one fire effect less to choose from (if I understand you correctly and the small fire effect will not be used in the ships anymore), so I'd go for the slower but better solution of enlarging the effects itself.

polyfiller
01-27-09, 06:47 PM
Erm - not sure what you mean by removing an effect - following is the damage zone for a deck gun;

[BBForeDG]
Multiplier=1.0
Flotability=0
HitPoints=200
Destructible=No
Armor Level=25
Critic Flotation=0.01
Critical=No
Effect1=#Splinter_explosion, 75
Effect2=#Fire_small, 90
Effect3=#Fire_big, 20
FloodingTime=60
CargoType=None

As you can see - different effects applied, including both small fires, large fire & explosion. If we're looking for something more spectacular, then a new effect would need to be generated (and I don't know how to do that).

ivank
01-28-09, 03:02 PM
Erm - not sure what you mean by removing an effect - following is the damage zone for a deck gun;

[BBForeDG]
Multiplier=1.0
Flotability=0
HitPoints=200
Destructible=No
Armor Level=25
Critic Flotation=0.01
Critical=No
Effect1=#Splinter_explosion, 75
Effect2=#Fire_small, 90
Effect3=#Fire_big, 20
FloodingTime=60
CargoType=None

As you can see - different effects applied, including both small fires, large fire & explosion. If we're looking for something more spectacular, then a new effect would need to be generated (and I don't know how to do that).

Cant we just change the values to 50, 10, 40.

DarkFish
01-28-09, 04:33 PM
If those values are the probability for that effect to appear it'd work yes. But then the small fire effect would hardly appear anymore, all fires would be big fires. For some variation it'd be better to upscale the small fire effect.
But then again, it would be much easier and quicker to do something like you suggest.

tater
01-28-09, 04:37 PM
I seem to recall from the old days that the damage templates are scaled to the damage value of the weapon, not the type. So if you make a big damage make a small hole, this will alter torpedo damage decals as well.

mickey117
01-28-09, 10:53 PM
Me personally, among ship nuts, regard pretty much anything IJN to be sexy...Kongo class especially...maybe that means i have an affinity for the brit ships too?:rotfl:i personally like the yamato bb more than any other ship it looks sleak and i like how when you look at the bridge from this angle it looks slanted :rock: http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/513/IJN_Yamato_trials_color.jpg:rock:

W4lt3r
01-29-09, 03:16 AM
That Yamato looks like to me the 1941 model, when it still had 4 pieces of 6.1" type 21 Triple turrets, but on later refits 2 on the midships were removed for more anti aircraft armament.. I wonder could someone remodel the yamato few times and make the proper refits appear on correct times..

ivank
01-29-09, 04:13 PM
That Yamato looks like to me the 1941 model, when it still had 4 pieces of 6.1" type 21 Triple turrets, but on later refits 2 on the midships were removed for more anti aircraft armament.. I wonder could someone remodel the yamato few times and make the proper refits appear on correct times..

I know we are correcting the textures to change based on RL, as for the 3d model, I dont see why not.

FIREWALL
01-29-09, 04:29 PM
I'M kinda lost here. How do I vote on something I haven't seen yet ? :hmmm:

ivank
01-29-09, 05:00 PM
The voting is for which version of TSWSM you want to see, the information on what each version has is on the first page.

tater
01-29-09, 05:15 PM
Yamato in game is a late-war configuration. All those main-deck level gun tubs need to go away. All of them.

Ideally, you'd just delete them. Then place Y nodes all over Yamato's deck where they go. The tubs can then be added in the eqp file by date. I need to release Real IJN for Stock (though why anyone would run the stock campaign escapes me).

ivank
01-31-09, 12:19 PM
I think you should release it!

miner1436
01-31-09, 09:56 PM
So would you guys be interested in this AA fix?
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8889/sh4img20090131215222373xa8.jpg

ivank
01-31-09, 11:10 PM
So would you guys be interested in this AA fix?
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8889/sh4img20090131215222373xa8.jpg

Hell yea!!!!
Where can I get that!?:D

vice_sinatra
02-08-09, 12:34 AM
Looking forward to this mod. I would like to put in a request for a subtender and landing ship tank with corisponding resupply/landing missions. Thanks in advance for this mod! Good luck

Senor_Droolcup
02-08-09, 09:29 AM
I'm really looking forward to this mod as well; please keep up the work!:arrgh!: