Are the AC in 1943 a little too good or am I unlucky. [Archive]

Wulfmann

07-13-05, 10:14 PM

I am no rookie and I like it tough. In fact I changed all my escorts to 3 and 4 in the RND file from day one. But, I have tried a few missions with a 1943 campaign and the aircraft seem to be a little too good. After having learned to dive as soon as an air contact report comes in it does not seem to matter. If there is an AC report and I dive as fast as possible I am still sunk. Since the report comes from picking up a radar signal I would think that is way before any sighting and at 3 miles per minute (200MPH) it would take at least five minutes for the planes to arrive and I am being sunk in the middle of the dive. That does not sound right to me as that is much less than one minute from contact of a radar signal to destruction.
What have you found for AC in 43 or 44? Is it completely impossible or am I missing something?
Wulfmann

Beery

07-13-05, 10:27 PM

Do you routinely dive during the day and surface at night? I do this religiously and I have yet to be bothered at all by any aircraft in any career I've run.

CCIP

07-13-05, 10:58 PM

I'm doing a very interesting experiment right now. It's called "RealU-flak". When I'm done with it, I'll tell you what I think - but so far, it looks pretty acceptable... :hmm:

Syxx_Killer

07-14-05, 08:37 AM

I guess it depends on the aircraft's speed. I got a report of an aircraft sighted. It was a Sunderland. I was using a type IXD2 (which means Titanic sank faster). I was still able to dive before the Sunderland came up on me. Actually, I was already at about 30 or 40 meters.

One thing that is bugging me, though, is the fact that planes can detect the snorkel too easily. I was running subermged using the snorkel with a XXI. Those dumb planes ALWAYS ambush me. I don't see the point of a snorkel. I'd stand a better chance on the surface. :damn: :damn:

Wulfmann

07-14-05, 09:53 AM

So far, being sighted by a plane is sure death for me. I don't mind it being difficult but so far it seems impossible. I do not run submerged all day. In Jan 1943 I should not have too. In Jan 1944, I can see it but if that is required in Jan 1943 I would say that is not historically accurate. I believe being sunk within 60 seconds of getting a radar detected report is not right either. The planes spent many hours patrolling and did not have their finger on the trigger 24/7. They would have to adjust to make an attack approach while covering the distance from detecting the U-boat, the same as their radar signal being picked up. That can not be under 5 minutes but under the most rare of circumstances and certainly not the norm, as has been my case to date. It might be the 1024TC does not slow down fast enough when it changes by the signal report and therefore the plane has already gone the 4 out of 5 minutes needed to close and you have been unable to take any action as you would and should have.
Wulfmann

Beery

07-14-05, 10:57 AM

U-boat losses really started to mount as early as July 1942, with losses in double digits for almost every month after that. February 1943 saw 19 U-boats destroyed. The numbers of U-boats destroyed in the last 6 months of 1942 (75) are not a great deal lower than the losses encountered in any of the following 6 month periods - Jan to June 1943 (113), July to December 1943 (124), January to June 1944 (129), and the last 6 months of 1944 (112), yet they are vastly more than the losses in the first 6 months of 1942 (21). Clearly, late 1942 and early 1943 saw a huge difference in the Allies' ability to kill U-boats. Perhaps in reality, U-boats were not travelling submerged during the day in late 1942 and early '43, but if they weren't, they certainly should have been.

According to Uboat.net, 1942 was the year aircraft became a significant killer of U-boats, and aircraft accounted for 31 of the 96 U-boats sunk in that year, so I think it's a mistake to travel surfaced during the day even in 1942. It may have been a mistake that real U-boat crews made, but it's a mistake nonetheless.

The other thing that argues for travelling submerged in early 1943 is the fact that BdU initiated the flak boat program in early 1943. Clearly, air attack was recognized as a major danger by this time, which means that air attacks were having great success. In light of this, it has to be a mistake to treat aircraft lightly, even in 1942 and '43.

CCIP

07-14-05, 11:39 AM

Well, I tried that U-Flak career. U-Flak (Turm IV) is bugged :(

But I don't think they're uber. Over the course of that short experiment, I found that manuevering on the surface gives you a fair chance of escape if you act swiftly and play well.

Jace11

07-14-05, 02:00 PM

Pretty sure the U-Flak isn't bugged, your save games are.

CCIP

07-14-05, 02:06 PM

You think?

That's a possibility. But what on earth would cause that? :-?

I'm actually starting to suspect there may be some corruption going on either in my saves or in the game. I've had at least two other savegame bugs recently, whereas I've had none before...

Syxx_Killer

07-14-05, 02:20 PM

I'm actually starting to suspect there may be some corruption going on either in my saves or in the game. I've had at least two other savegame bugs recently, whereas I've had none before...

With SH3, anything's possible. :-? :D

Jace11

07-14-05, 02:22 PM

No sorry, I jumped the gun a bit. I thought the Uflak turm was only available later than September 1943 (your screenshot). However, in basic.cfg it is available to buy in

[CONING_TYPE8] ;VIIC/4
Idx=8
Year=1943
Month=6
SubNb=3
SubType0=1
SubVersion0=1
SubType1=1
SubVersion1=2
SubType2=1
SubVersion2=3
S01=4
S02=5
S03=5
Renown=1500

It isn't mentioned in the VIIC eqp file though. That may cause it. Don't know, but will try and find out.

CCIP

07-14-05, 02:36 PM

Actually, it's probably not the savegames. I remembered something else: when I was "bying" the equipement for it, I bought the tower, then I went for other upgrades... then I went to Flak guns, and realized that I had only the selections of a Turm II's config, including the deck gun, while the picture of the sub looked like a Turm II with Turm IV's flak guns (including the forward one 'hanging' in the air in front of the tower) :huh:

Yeap, might be that .eqp then :hmm:

Lane

07-14-05, 02:57 PM

Do you routinely dive during the day and surface at night? I do this religiously and I have yet to be bothered at all by any aircraft in any career I've run.

"Wow" Berry I must be the most unlucky capatain in the UB fleet :D
I have been using your RUB 1.42 with ver 1.4b April 1942 V11C
Out St Nazaire start 3 new patrols and have been hit at night on surface
Dive in day time and watch RAF planes overhead on patrol.
Try to move at night PD till batterys get low then surface dead in water
to charge batterys no wake and a PBY layed a bomb square on me.
Regards
Lane :D

Jace11

07-14-05, 04:20 PM

Jace11

07-14-05, 05:32 PM

Hmm,

Right, well I bought a UFlak tower, outfitted it and took it out to sea. 1944 and was attacked as soon as it got light. A single catalina, which I ripped to shreds, then a single Sunderland (using a new set of airbase files to give single plane encounters - but too easy by the looks of things).

Saved and reloaded and everything is fine. I did notice that while in port and outfitting, the Uflak tower disappeared from the upgrade screen and was replaced by Turm 3, with deck gun etc.

However, when I went to the barracks screen, the Uflak turret was there again. I have seen the Upgrades screen "forget" what I have purchased a few times before. Sometimes it resets my torpedo config, sometimes the radar I just purchased will disappear, and when I try and buy it it says I still have it or have it already. I have never seen a Turm be forgotten though.

Many moons ago, I tidied up these screens so the correct equipment would show when you buy it. Eg a rotating hydrophone on the deck near the bow etc. I learnt alot about how these screens work. There are seperate damage files for the barracks/damage screen, but despite my fixes, it would "forget" changes and revert back on entering the screen again. If you buy a radar while you have a certain Turm, it will reference the conning file to see where to show it. I think maybe something you buy is referenced wrongly and you see the wrong Turm, maybe. ANyway, so far it appears cosmetic. The Turm is there, with guns.. it just doesnt show...

I'll have a look at the menu screen for Turm4. Though at first glance everything looks ok.

I don't think it is the eqp, I think that contains default equipment for subs in a time period without addons you make during a campaign. As I said, other Turms are not referenced in other classes, meaning you have to buy them if you want them.

Tim

07-18-05, 09:45 PM

Lane you are correct, I just finished my 26th patrol, late August 1943 in my VIIC and was routinely attacked at night by aircraft. Beery must be one lucky Captain to never have been attacked at night.. Also upon return to St Nazaire, I had 9 bombers dropping bombs and depth charges near me. I was appx. 6000 mtrs from the docks, and I had to run at periscope depth all the way to the light houses. I would have thought the AAA at the docks would be shooting but the AAA crews must have been in the tavern drinking beer with Beery.

jasonb885

07-18-05, 11:09 PM

IC Version: 20050717
U-639
VIIC
Patrol 1
Grid AE89

Convoy Reports: N/A (I have max range enabled)
Single Merchants Reports: N/A (ditto)
Days at sea: 6

Moved through BF 41 on the way to patrol grid. Encountered two British merchants strangely stationary. Approached on the surface. Immediately attacked by two PBY long range planes. Engaged on the surface. For 30 seconds of action we paid dearly. Took heavy casulties and fought flooding for two hours. Seven crew dead. Batteries and scopes destroyed. Engaged British merchant ships on the surface, expending seven torpedos for four hits and three misses weaving in and out of their surface firing range. Two kills.

Notes:

Discovered two stationary merchants in BF 41. Most amusing. Or not. Sigh. Definitely don't want to be on the surface with RuB in '43! Hull integrity was actually 50% as it turns out, but without a scope engaging in '43 would be suicide anyway. Plus loss of radio is quite painful. Earned 322 renown for my trouble.

Beery

07-19-05, 06:44 AM

Lane you are correct, I just finished my 26th patrol, late August 1943 in my VIIC and was routinely attacked at night by aircraft. Beery must be one lucky Captain to never have been attacked at night...

Maybe so, but one thing is for sure, I've had two 1943 careers and I've never been touched by anything that came out of an aircraft.

Let me ask people this: out of all the careers you've had, how many of your U-boats were sunk by depth charges and how many by aircraft. If the DC sinkings outnumber the aircraft sinkings, then either aircraft aren't deadly enough or DCs are too deadly. Now I see threads where people are complaining that DCs aren't deadly enough, so I'm kinda confused.

Shadow9216

07-19-05, 06:50 AM

Speaking of night attacks, would have been nice to see the Leigh Light modelled. Has it been confirmed that we can't add a searchlight from a destroyer or land unit to a bomber?

Jace11

07-19-05, 09:22 AM

thats something to try when people become better at hex editing models

Wulfmann

07-19-05, 10:56 AM

So far with RUB1.42 it is 100% I will be sunk by aircraft. no chance of return. I must be unlucky
I see pairs of PBYs yet the PBY pilots I met that flew in the war patrolled alone. If these were single planes I might have achance. That does not mean PBYs could not have been paired, it just means it was not the norm. They could cover more space alone.
One guy I met was a cameraman and he took the movie (a famous still was widely publishde as well) of the PBY making a direct hit on a U-Boat. It was so good a shot it looked stagged but was not. That was 25 years ago so guess he is gone now?)
Wulfmann

Jace11

07-19-05, 11:52 AM

I heard that often a lone aircraft would radio in other planes, then wait and attack in force, paricularly when U-boats were sailing across Biscay in packs.

Wulfmann

07-19-05, 12:13 PM

That might be true.
But, if that were the case I would pick up a radar signal and submerge while he waits. I am attacked by more than one PBY within one minute of detecting a radar signal. I could see if I submerged and did not change course and came back up to peri depth that a multitude might then attack.
Not right away!
This needs a bit more tweaking, IMO.
Unless we inform how does any modder know?
Wulfmann

Beery

07-19-05, 12:20 PM

Is it possible to restrict PBYs, Wellingtons etc. to one plane per aircraft patrol?

I'm also wondering if the aircraft have a nice mix of AI efficiency levels? If we mixed up the levels a bit - reduce the numbers of elite pilots a bit, that might be a nice way to make aircraft less deadly overall while retaining a potential deadliness.

Egan

07-19-05, 12:37 PM

The system I have used for the ops mod is that there are only two airbases in the entire war that are Veteran: One that covers Britain and one that covers Biscay. All other bases after may '43 are no higher than Competent. None are Elite.

The big problem is that Skill and spawn rates are tied together and cannot be separated if you are using airbases. You could always script in Aircraft but, i have to say, i found trying to get this to work properly to be a real pita due to the way the AI spots.

Generally, in the Ops-Mod, I have yet to be attacked by any more than 1 aircraft at any time. I included a slightly altered version of the Airpower mod but I don't recall changing any of the sqaudron numbers from what Jace had put out.

I have to say I have been very happy with aircraft in the Ops-mod. So far, that is.....

I think the big problem is not with the aircraft spawning rates or even how dangerous they are. It is a problem with how soon your crew spot them, pure and simple. Far too often they are only spotting them at short range which, is fine occasionally, but should not be happening all the time.

Wulfmann

07-19-05, 12:45 PM

I did a fresh install on my second PC and ran a stock 1,4 before any mods. That is so lame I could not believe it!
I added some RUB but not the main cfg changes and my super heavily modded RND.mis file. Since I was more concerned I made a mistake with that RND I wanted nothing to detract from checking that. I have done a dozen careers and over 50 patrols without the slightest problem. It is not my RND. I am sure, as you said, it is a mod that, by itself is fine, but conflicts when mixed with another. But, which other? I will continue to add a couple more mods every few days.
I did run 1943 w/o your air file. I have been attacked by single PBYs and have had more damage by aircraft in these two patrols than by depth charging. I have had to dive 6-8 times a patrol from AC but if I dive by hitting flank speed to 50 meters right away I can get under fast enough. The slightest delay assures damage some serious and un-repairable. I just don’t see making multiple groups as correct for initial surprise attacks but that is MO.
Hopefully I will find what was causing a conflict before as I add things. But, my RND file is working great. Mainly it is about double what RUB and Unreal has for single traffic with almost all 3 at the beginning for escorts with even a few 4 but 1944 has the elite cut in half. There is better equipment and more ships that make it much tougher than early. Having useless escorts early is just boring and a turkey shoot, IMO.
I use to stay at peri and evade while I reloaded and trashed the convoy as escorst floowed me around. That would be certain death now and I amm lucky to loose all 5 fish and get away. Sounds more real to me as I must also make a proper entrance or I won't even get a shot off.
Wulfmann

Beery

07-19-05, 12:46 PM

I can't wait to see the end result of the Ops mod. :up:

Beery

07-19-05, 12:56 PM

I did a fresh install on my second PC and ran a stock 1,4 before any mods. That is so lame I could not believe it!
I added some RUB but not the main cfg changes...

I'm not sure what you mean by 'main cfg changes', but if it means that you didn't use any of RUb's config files that may be the problem. I think (not sure though) Airpower needs you to use its Airstrike.cfg and other cfg files, otherwise you will get more aircraft.

Of course I may be off base here. It really depends what RUb files you didn't use.

Egan

07-19-05, 01:03 PM

Wulfmann

07-19-05, 01:13 PM

Actually, I am spanning three separate installs in this and can see that might be a bit confusing. Originally this topic dealt with a full RUB1.42 and the aircraft attacks in 1943.
Since I mentioned some CTD and Berry mentioned other mods conflicting I did the fresh stock install to be sure I had no hardware problems. Then, to be sure my RND file, extremely altered, was not a cause. To do that meant I had to not add cfg files just graphics, sounds etc that could not give a false reason that would allow me to asses the new RND file properly. So, the last refers to the stock air attacks and was just for comparison.
Hope that clarifies what I am doing, testing a few things at a time, not all at once. If there are any RUB cfg files that are dependant on others please say so and I will be sure to add them as a group.
Right now, I have no problems at all, nada, Null!!! It runs perfect
Wulfmann

Beery

07-19-05, 01:31 PM

If there are any RUB cfg files that are dependant on others please say so and I will be sure to add them as a group.

I think all the files that have to be added as a group are listed in the RUb readme file. RUb is definitely getting complicated in terms of this.

Jace11

07-19-05, 01:37 PM

Well the truth is, I am running airbases that send out only 1 long range patrol plane at a time, instead of two :)

I was using it the other day when I was trying to find out what caused the U-flak bug CCIP had described. I found that with a U-flak, 1 plane of any type was easy meat. So I went back to 2 planes. Since then, I've removed the Uflak tower and gone back to one plane again. Seem to get less encounters though.. :(

Wulfmann

07-19-05, 02:19 PM

While it is great to add many interseting things, with all the other mods and possibilities, tracking problems should become a high priority regarding what is done to better ascetain what might happen, If that is at all possible.
I would like what I have running perfect to be more tweaked but not at the expense of a single CTD.
For some reason it never happens when you are about to be sunk but just when you finished bagging 50K and got away or you see, She's going down" on a battleship. Aw Murphy!!
I am surprised by how many SH3 players (in other venues I know them through) will not add anything but graphic and sound mods because there have been conflicts between mods.
Wulfmann

jasonb885

07-19-05, 02:24 PM

Wulfmann

07-19-05, 02:40 PM

Pretty much ever is not good enough, Absolutely never is the only thing I will accept and I would rather have a 90% variation than a 100% that can CTD even on rare occasion.
I do edit by hand (RND) which is why I did such an exhaustive test without a single CTD. I do not believe RUB is a problem. I just had be be certain my RND was not. Now that I know that I can add things in dribbles and test them. I meant I added the things that I knew could not conflict with me testing the RND file from RUB.
But, other mods may conflict with ones in RUB and that is another consideration.
Wulfmann

Beery

07-19-05, 03:15 PM

Pretty much ever is not good enough, Absolutely never is the only thing I will accept and I would rather have a 90% variation than a 100% that can CTD even on rare occasion.

I have yet to see a single CTD caused by RUb. I've seen three caused by the standard game (the crew exchange button bug), and I've seen hundreds of reports of CTDs that were caused by faulty installation procedures (like mixing mods that aren't compatible, or installing mods onto a version of the game that the mod wasn't made for). In my view, the idea that mods often cause lots of CTDs is nothing more than superstition. If RUb had any CTD-causing bugs, I would know about it REALLY quickly, because it has been downloaded tens of thousands of times, and with so many people using the mod if a bug was not reported and verified at least once, it would be so unlikely that I'd say it's impossible.

I've been modding games for 15 years and in all that time only one of the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of files I've altered has ever caused a CTD. That was over 5 years ago. Other mod-makers have similar records. Although we are amateurs our reputation is all we have, and if we make mistakes we are not long in the mod-making hobby because people have no patience for a mod-maker who can't be trusted. A bad mod-maker lasts about an hour in this business - that's how long it takes a player to load a mod, play it, find it doesn't work, and post a complaint to the internet. If the mod-maker can't give a satisfactory answer, he's finished.

'Absolutely never' is not something that can be guaranteed by any person who works in programming or modding, but the mods I assemble are ALWAYS much more stable than the games they are based on. If 'absolutely never' is the criterion, you are insisting on a level of perfection that no programmer, game developer, or mod-maker has ever achieved. Having said that, mod-makers have BY FAR the best track record.

Regarding mixing mods, that's a different matter - it's always likely to cause CTDs. This is the main reason why RUb is built as a stand-alone mod that doesn't need any other mods. It was created so that players could take the game, add RUb to it, and play. If players mix mods, they do that at their own risk. Game files are pretty resilient - you can often try to mess them up by deleting data or mixing files that aren't compatible, and often nothing bad will happen, but sometimes weird stuff does happen.

My advice is - people shouldn't mix mods unless they know exactly what the mods do and how they do it. If players add any mod to RUb, it's not RUb anymore, and the player basically has no one to blame but himself for what happens. When players mix my mod with another, they've just joined the mod-making hobby. What results is their creation, not mine.

Jace11

07-19-05, 03:22 PM

I agree entirely, no CTDs here, SH3 is one of the most stable games I have ever had.

I dont really have any problems at all.

Some mods can have obvious problems, campaigns and roster changes is an obvious one. If either is overwritten by a subsequent mod installed "on top" then one references the other and finds things missing or dates changed.

For example, I will not be installing Ops Mod when it finally comes out as I will lose various things that I don't want overwritten. I will miss out on a few extra bases, but heh, that's the way it goes.

Wulfmann

07-19-05, 03:34 PM

I thought I was clear, at least to me, that I was saying exactly that about RUB and that it was the mixing of Mods that caused problems. I do believe RUB alone will not cause any problems. I also believe the RND you use is so weak (Being direct and not trying to offend) that I would rather have my RND than RUB if I had to choose as it adds more to the game by itself than all of RUB, again if I had to choose. But, I love most everything in RUB and would be happy to just use it but I am greedy and can not stop trying new stuff which leads me to a mod conflict. That is why I am building this with first my RND unquestionable in its stability, then with RUB and if I find I can not have assured stability with other mods, I will stick with RUB and my RND (and of course the modded Stuka and Hurri LOL) :rotfl:
I intend on, once satified, adding other mods to my other set up and test them before adding them to the gaming PC.
Wulfmann

Wulfmann

07-19-05, 03:45 PM

OT, but speaking of bases. What is the point of some of the bases, say Salamis in Greece. Why would one go there, therefore, why is it even there? Can one simply end a mission at another base and then start from there? If not what was the point?
Wulfmann

Gammel

07-19-05, 03:45 PM

hello wulfmann,

i use a heavy modded sh3 and it runs fine. No crash so far with one exeption: the IX skin you can dl at realuboot.com is high suspiciuos for causing crash's in my eyes ;)

I would like to test your RND file. Is it possible to dl it?

please forgive my bad language skills.

Beery

07-19-05, 03:47 PM

I thought I was clear, at least to me, that I was saying exactly that about RUB and that it was the mixing of Mods that caused problems...

Yes, I realise that. I just worry that other people won't appreciate the nuance.

Gammel

07-19-05, 04:01 PM

mods i use:

- RUB 1.42 (first to install)

- nearly all eye candy mods (skins, interior, landscape,)
- a few sound mods (i'm carful with them, some cause crashes)
- harbour traffic SCR file with uboots (1.43)
- additional merchants and southampton cruiser + floatplanes
- airpowermod (zones.cfg merged with hollywood-mod)
- new aisensors.dat
- new sensors.dat
- improved conwoys RND file (17.7)
- update for plotting tools (Ast_Plot_Versions_v1)

works and looks like a charm, Never had crashes, exept the time i was testing the type IX skin.

Wulfmann

07-19-05, 04:04 PM

Gammel, PM me an email add and when I send it out to a small group in a few days I will put you on the list,

Berry, I can see that and agree it should be clear that RUB does not cause any problems itself. There is no doubt about that to me.

Wulfmann

Beery

07-19-05, 04:11 PM

Berry, I can see that and agree it should be clear that RUB does not cause any problems itself. There is no doubt about that to me.

I guess I'm overreacting a bit because I've had so many people saying "I never load any mods because in my experience they always cause crashes". I hate that, so I guess I was doing a pre-emptive strike. :88)

Wulfmann

07-20-05, 11:32 AM

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a program that could determine which mods would conflict?

I understand how some (hect, I bet it is 99%) don't want to mod for fear it will ruin their game. As you correctly said, some conflict but not RUB. That is what is good about RUB, it is a tested package that is more extensive than anything else. Just needs a good RND file and less bombs on the Stuka!!! LOL

I also feel you need to 'Over react" as compared to assume the average guy will overlook negative mod comments. Most people that DL and read these threads do not participate so I often over write things for their benifit. Sometimes the person I respond to gets offended as if I am explaining some basic thing he is way to advanced to be lectured on but it is to allow others to fully understand the discussion.
Jason got on me for mentioning the Hunt class inaccurate enter dates so much. That is why I repeat things seemingly to the same person.

In that regrad your "over reaction" is a service to those many read only people. Keep doing it!
Wulfmann