PDA

View Full Version : I tire of this!!!


pythos
06-29-2009, 03:59 PM
How the hell can a ship 5000meters away see my boat when it is running awash, in night time conditions, with rough seas, and no moon?

This is another problem I have with SH4 after reading that Donitz, got less than 500 meters from his targets, on the surface, at night, in still waters, and never get sighted.

What parameter controls the AI's night visual capabilities?

Submarines are low in the water, and small, they should be near impossible to see at night in rough seas, yet the merchants are spotting my boat 5000 meters out, when I am near bow on, proceeding at 2/3rds ahead.

This is ruining the game for me.

These are the mods I have.
RFB_v1.52_102408
RFB_v1.52_Patch_18Jan09
RFB_v1.52_RadarHotfix
RSRDC_RFBv15_V420
RSRDC_V420_Patch2
RFB_German Audio Files
DBSM_SH4
OpsMonsun_V705
Csengoi's EnemiesOfGermany
OMv705_Patch1

Stormende
06-29-2009, 04:03 PM
Stock or modded?

I have played RFB and the sighting is quite decent, TMO has super watchers for what I have tested.

Red Devil
07-01-2009, 07:00 PM
I was stationary, p depth, upped scope and a destroyer found me in a squall!!! Why are we so addicted to a sim thats infested with bugs? Answers on the back of a $99 note to the webmaster!

Buddahaid
07-01-2009, 07:38 PM
Because perfecting a simulation of reality is near impossible, and would need a massive investment, so we spend a few dollars on the next best thing.

Buddahaid

Stealhead
07-01-2009, 07:47 PM
If you cant take the games quirks then dont play it is that simple.

SteamWake
07-01-2009, 07:50 PM
I was stationary, p depth, upped scope and a destroyer found me in a squall!!! Why are we so addicted to a sim thats infested with bugs? Answers on the back of a $99 note to the webmaster!

What the hell does that mean? :o

You got spotted, deal with it. Its a freakin game.

Oh btw and stationary at periscope depth... yea thats realistic.

Stealhead
07-01-2009, 08:39 PM
I say things not going to plan makes the game more fun. Things dont always go to plan in a real submarine but the skipper does not cry about getting spotted he adapts and keeps fighting.You can never be sure how far you will be seen given certain condtions sometimes the guy that eats carrots all day and has orange skin from it is on watch.And you are reading from a book you cant be sure that things have not been embelished a bit.

captgeo
07-01-2009, 08:59 PM
I can understand the whole point of being a bit upset about being seen in these conditions, I myself thought the same thing about being spotted under almost the same, but I understand that when parameters are set, they are hard to change for every situation, In fact I think it would be asking for too much. I feel the same way about having a camo on a boat, and still being seen at the same distance's.:hmmm:

pythos
07-01-2009, 09:45 PM
Common modders. How can we tweek the AI's night vision.

and for those that said we shouldn't play if we can't put up with the bugs. Your support is not needed. Go away with such nonsense.

I for one want to contribute to this game being the best. Ships able to see a sub, bows on in a storm at 5 km, is not realistic.

Stealhead
07-01-2009, 10:08 PM
Wait a minute now which is it 5,000 meters as in your 1st post or 5km as in your last that is a huge diffrence.5,000 meters is not that far what 3000 some odd yards not that far unless it is 100% pitch dark then I say yes it is possiable that an alert lookout could see you even in a storm or is it just rough seas? yor story is changing each time.

I have never seen a ship spot me at 5km but in the most clear condtions in daylight or a very high moon.
I think the modders have got the AI vision down to as good a level as it will get anyway.
And no matter what you will have bugs with a PC game no matter what it is written in the PC bible.;)

It just seems here lately that you are complaing about everything that most people take in stride I mean you posted about the damage model in RFB and also you complained about the way the game reports enemy postions and those 2 where not even bugs or probelms at all. Would you like some cheese with that wine?
I agree there are things that would be nice like what captgeo said but most things gameplay wise that have not been modded by now are hard coded and cant be changed.
I am not trying to say that you arent good at the game hell I myself dont play at the hardcore level either but it just seems that your complaits are down to how you are playing the not bugs with the game.

Buddahaid
07-01-2009, 10:19 PM
Common modders. How can we tweek the AI's night vision.

and for those that said we shouldn't play if we can't put up with the bugs. Your support is not needed. Go away with such nonsense.

I for one want to contribute to this game being the best. Ships able to see a sub, bows on in a storm at 5 km, is not realistic.

And for those, who from there acme of perfection, call any aspect of a game not modeled to their liking a bug, and speak to the lowly masses "I tire of this", use your god like powers to fix it yourself, or learn to ask for help in a constructive manner. It works better here, and everywhere else. This thread is closed for me. :down:

Buddahaid

Armistead
07-02-2009, 12:04 AM
Part of the problem is the AI is somewhat connected surfaced and submerged.

That is one of the flaws of this game, not being able to pull off surfaced night attacks. I've tried in every possible situation and closest I could get was 2500 yards before being attacked.

Still, this remains the best sub game ever made, a few bugs doesn't ruin it for me.

dcb
07-02-2009, 12:12 AM
Slightly off topic:
I can't understand those who voice arguments like "If you don't like it, don't play it." Based on this kind of judgement, we would still play the game in its vanilla version, no mods included, because... everybody who didn't like some aspect of the game would leave it and go play The Sims, rather than start modding it:down:

On topic now:
Yes, I can understand pythos' problem, because I experienced it myself. OM escort visual sensors are pretty uber and never allow in game to use the RL uboat tactics (early in war) of closing to the convoy on surface, during dark nights, without being detected.

A quick (and possibly dirty, still under testing) fix I found:
in the sim.cfg file, the - Sensitivity - parameter under the [Visual] group of values controls surface detection by enemy. Based on testing, on a calm day, 11:00 hours AM, wind 5 km/h, here are the values I obtained:

Sensitivity=0,2 results in detection at 2500 meters
= 0.15 at 4200
= 0.1 at 6000

I personally use 0.15 - looks most realistic to me.

This is a starting point for anyone wishing to tweak visual detection himself.

Now, if we speak about AI detection (OM 705), I also noticed the AI hydrophone to be pretty useless. Test scenario: my sub at 20 meters depth, going flank speed. Above me, two destroyers set to elite. Year 1941. I am able to evade them at flank speed every time, they never can hear me, even though I make a hell of a noise.

XTBilly
07-02-2009, 02:22 AM
Common modders. How can we tweek the AI's night vision.

and for those that said we shouldn't play if we can't put up with the bugs. Your support is not needed. Go away with such nonsense.

I for one want to contribute to this game being the best. Ships able to see a sub, bows on in a storm at 5 km, is not realistic.

What are you talking about? Have you heard the word "radar"?
What year are you playing? Allied escorts had radar far before the Japanese did...

You are posting continously about game and mod flaws that are not realistic for you. Everyone has his thoughts about how a computer simulates real warfare.

Been rude also doesn't do much good.

From what I see, you're expecting the modders here to produce special "Pythos" versions for you to be happy.
God, i'd love having a crack team of modders to mod the game the way "I" feel it's realistic.:D:haha:

johntarmac
07-02-2009, 05:16 AM
Wait a minute now which is it 5,000 meters as in your 1st post or 5km as in your last that is a huge diffrence.

I may be having a senior moment here and I had very little sleep last night so I had to think about this for a minute or two but there are 1,000 meters in a kilometer.
Therefore 5,000m does = 5km.

Cheers

DarkFish
07-02-2009, 05:23 AM
Wait a minute now which is it 5,000 meters as in your 1st post or 5km as in your last that is a huge diffrence.5,000 meters is not that far what 3000 some odd yards not that far unless it is 100% pitch dark then I say yes it is possiable that an alert lookout could see you even in a storm or is it just rough seas? yor story is changing each time.5000m = 5km so actually his story stays quite the same:up:

For me the AI visual detection is generally fine, usually I can get within a few 1000 m from a warship before being detected (when surfaced). If you want the AI to be less good you can change it in Data\Cfg\Sim.cfg as dcb says.
there's also a 'Light factor' entry there (in the Visual section), increasing (or maybe decreasing?:-?) its value should make you harder to spot at night.
Anyway, play a bit around with it and you should come up with something fine for you.

Rockin Robbins
07-02-2009, 05:28 AM
I have performed dozens of successful night surface attacks in TMO, which is MUCH more sensitive than RFB. Usually I fire from between 2500 and 3000 yards (2300-2750 meters). I have approached with decks awash to 1500 yards on occasion. The key is dead slow if completely on the surface, smallest silhouette at all times, decks awash at 10 knots or below.

Mostly, I don't see a problem against Japanese shipping and escorts. I gallivant on the surface outside 3000 yards with no regard to my speed and don't recall ever being spotted.

If you check out my poor quality John P Cromwell instructional video you'll see a fully surfaced attack from under 1500 yards in rain during the day.

In real life our submarines encountered situations when they were spotted from unbelievable distances. The Japanese were great night fighters. One sub was tagged by a deck gun from 5,000 yards with the second shot. It was very lucky to get away. I've NEVER been tagged by a DD's deck gun from 5000 yards in the game.

Clearly to correctly model reality, situations must be wildly variable, and you should not be able to predict with certainty whether you will be spotted or not or just how good those gunners are going to be.

Once you start putting numbers into the game engine, saying .1 means you're sighted in this many yards, you've stopped playing SH4 and are now playing with yourself.:hmmm: The only one who has done a lot of that, Ducimus, did it to make the game HARDER, not easier. There's a clue there.

Red Devil
07-02-2009, 06:13 AM
What the hell does that mean? :o

You got spotted, deal with it. Its a freakin game.

Oh btw and stationary at periscope depth... yea thats realistic.

oh come on, don't take it so seriously. I was being sarcastic. And why not stationary, zero noise, nice and quiet? Squall conditions, visibility in mere yards and waiting for a merchant I knew was coming in at 350 degrees. The DD came in from a good 2000+ yards!!!

SteveUK
07-02-2009, 06:39 AM
Came across an invasion force of the West coast of Manila last night, all stationary after dropping off their troops I guess, was in the depths of the night, pitch black outside somehow my lookouts managed to spot the ships. No complaints there!

Was at a range of 5030 yards was on the surface at the time so went to periscope depth and slowly closed to them at one knot.

Got to about 4200 yards and all the escorts woke up and started charging towards me had been listening on sonar and they weren't moving at all just sitting there quietly.

Know I wasn't making too much noise myself being at silent running so guess one of those escorts didn't partake in the sake party! Tried a couple of long range shots at a liner but she got up steam rather quick and moved before my fish got there and the escorts drove me off.

What I'm trying to say is that sometimes they can just pick you up I guess it's random but I know little of the game runs it's just my hunch.

Running TMOwtw 1.7 and RSRDC no other mods.

AVGWarhawk
07-02-2009, 07:22 AM
TMO visual is fine in my book and RFB is fine as well. Last nights excursion got me to 1200 yards of 2 DD...I was surfaced at full throttle!!!! :03: Sure, sometimes there is eagle eye GI Joe on the warships and you get spotted like a deer in the headlights. IF THAT IS THE CASE....you just found yourself the elite warship:o Run like hell...just do it slowly, quietly and as deeply as you can:D

Arclight
07-02-2009, 10:39 AM
And why not stationary, zero noise, nice and quiet? Squall conditions, visibility in mere yards and waiting for a merchant I knew was coming in at 350 degrees. The DD came in from a good 2000+ yards!!!Because it's very difficult to control depth when stationary, without waterflow over the dive-planes. Probably would be impossible in rough seas. ;)

For realisms sake, maintain speed at all times when submerged.

Real skippers never stopped to wait in place (afaik), they calculated a course to steer and set speed to arrive on a firing point at the same time the target arrived at desired postition. It's about syncing you're aproach with the targets movement.

dcb
07-02-2009, 02:22 PM
Once you start putting numbers into the game engine, saying .1 means you're sighted in this many yards, you've stopped playing SH4 and are now playing with yourself.:hmmm: The only one who has done a lot of that, Ducimus, did it to make the game HARDER, not easier. There's a clue there.

Actually that's how modding began, RR, by putting numbers into the game engine and seing what happens, so that to bring the game to one's liking. Proof stands this old post, in the pre-SH4 era, which shows values pretty similar to what I found myself. Even before Ducimus got involved with SH4, there were a lot of people who tweaked the AI sensors & settings back in the SH3 era, in the quest for realism, for recreating the tactics of those days. Once again here is the living proof.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=93771

pythos
07-02-2009, 03:26 PM
5km=5000meters. Where is the confusion?

As for using my god like powers, I did ask in my OP which parameter controlled the AI's night vision.

For the guy that asked about radar, they do not have radar yet. it is early 1941, and the ship in question was a lone merchant, not an escort. Read the original post please.

Do not get me wrong. I love this game, otherwise it would be off my computer with the bugs it has.

I want to play historically accurate. It is bad enough it does not take into account the closer the boat is to the bottom of the ocean the less accurate the sonar, or the fact you can't bottom out without taking loads of damage, but not being able to carry out the attacks that made the U-boats notorious is pretty bad. My complaints are based off what I have read in novels written by actual war time commanders. U-boats up until the implementation of the radar sets on all escorts did night surface attacks, and did them within 500meters, hull down (awash). This is noted in Donitz's book along with a book on British submarines I have read. When I try to do this sort of attack, every time I am detected. This makes me have to resort to a totally un realistic night PERISCOPE attack, which was not possible unless there was a full moon and even then the chances were low for success, hence the idea of the surface night attack.

Another thing. I am playing the U-boats right now. As I am sure you know the early type VII, which I am currently running had very minimal towers, and sat much lower in the water, than the American fleet boats. American fleet boats were also painted all black, which is surprisingly not good for night work. The fleet boats were also MUCH bigger and sat higher in the water (from the top of the deck to the waterline of the bow, was higher than the entire bow of a u-boat.) than the relatively smaller type VII. That is why American boats were not so good at night surface attacks.

To those that gave the parameters to adjust, thank you. You may think me a complainer, but you helped, which is more than some here.

SteamWake
07-02-2009, 03:38 PM
5km=5000meters. Where is the confusion, steamwake?.

I believe you have mistaken me for someone else :cool:

Only thing I had to say was its a game :doh:

pythos
07-02-2009, 03:52 PM
Sorry steamwake, I corrected my goof.

To those that say I should stop playing if I don't like the bugs. So when you first played SH4 you liked it. You thought it was great, and accurate. Your sub took a tini tiny bit of damage, and when you went to submerge, you went for a uncontrolled dive to the bottom? That was really realistic, wasn't it?

Or how about odering level off at the current depth and having the game crash to desk top? That was great fun.

And let's not forget, Avro Lancasters painted in American colors flying around Hawiaii and plowing into the island's moutains.

Oh, and the real bugger, EVERY LAST airplane (which there were far too many to be accurate) knowing exactly where your boat was, and having near perfect acuracy when it came to bombing your boat AFTER it had dived.

All of these problems were addressed due to someone saying "hey, that ain't right", and voicing a complaint. The game is never going to be perfect. We have no wolf packs, we cannot really call in air attacks, and our own side's AI seem dumb as stumps.

That being said, the mods have made this game better and better. I don't mind the fluke Uber escort, or eagle eyed merchant look out, but I don't like having them being the rule rather than the exception.

The U-boat would have been an abject failure had actual watch crews had the capability the crews in the game have.

AVGWarhawk
07-02-2009, 04:07 PM
The game is never going to be perfect.


Never a truer statement. Although everyone modding strives for perfection the hard coded parts is a barrier. But, the love of the game 99.99% overlook the oddball escort, the unexplained damaged to sub amongst a convoy every now and then.

Stealhead
07-02-2009, 04:40 PM
5000m = 5km so actually his story stays quite the same:up:

For me the AI visual detection is generally fine, usually I can get within a few 1000 m from a warship before being detected (when surfaced). If you want the AI to be less good you can change it in Data\Cfg\Sim.cfg as dcb says.
there's also a 'Light factor' entry there (in the Visual section), increasing (or maybe decreasing?:-?) its value should make you harder to spot at night.
Anyway, play a bit around with it and you should come up with something fine for you.


Yeah sorry they dont teach us that there metric system here the US of A.;) That was a brain fart I thinking that pythos had said 500m in the first post when I typed that.But I like RR and AVG have pulled of surface attacks in even half moon condtions and been able to get within 5,000yds much closer sometimes on a moonless night.

The bugs are the bugs kind of like the Yugo(that car they sold here in the US that was from Yugoslavia)it the quirks that make the game to me i like unplanned things i never planned to meet my wife it just happend bugs make life more fun at least I think that they do but maybe I am crazy but at least Im not insane.

Buddahaid
07-02-2009, 06:01 PM
Pythos, I apologize for my outburst. A bug is when something doesn't work from some failure, I see this as more of a design limitation. Anyway, hope you can tweek it to your liking.

Buddahaid

Webster
07-02-2009, 09:56 PM
And why not stationary, zero noise, nice and quiet?


he was refering to the fact that when a sub is stationary in real life it cant hold steady at any depth so staying at periscope depth while stationary was impossible in reality.


on the subject of detection, as others have eluded to already, if you change the detection for a surfaced sub to be close to what you consider realistic (not everyone will agree on what really is a realistic detection range) then the flip side is you make it equally impssible for you to be detected when submerged so the game becomes so easy its unplayable for most peoples liking.


there are quite a few things in the game that we put up with for the sake of most things working as they should be so we put up with some things just not being able to do even though they were done in real life.


there is an unspoken rule of thumb that after you've posted a dozen complaint threads its time to learn modding and create mods to fix the things you are complaining about. im not being sarcastic here, im being honest.

people here will bend over backwards to help you learn and understand anything you need to know if you are willing to try to make the game better.

only by people fixing the things that bother them do we have all the mods you see today so join in making this game better and use your frustration as motivation to find solutions or understand the games limitations better and along the way im sure you will make a few mods of your own that we can all enjoy. :up:

XTBilly
07-03-2009, 01:40 AM
5km=5000meters. Where is the confusion?
For the guy that asked about radar, they do not have radar yet. it is early 1941, and the ship in question was a lone merchant, not an escort. Read the original post please.


Ok captain, sorry for the misunderstanding!:salute:
Maybe it's that odd thing with the environmental mods that's doing this...:hmmm:
Visibility issues are not uncommon...

Frame57
07-05-2009, 01:57 AM
What the hell does that mean? :o

You got spotted, deal with it. Its a freakin game.

Oh btw and stationary at periscope depth... yea thats realistic.yeah I have...Its called trimming the boat:salute:

Red Devil
07-05-2009, 01:28 PM
For realisms sake, maintain speed at all times when submerged.. Fairy snuff, but if the 'simulation allows it, why not?

Armistead
07-05-2009, 04:13 PM
he was refering to the fact that when a sub is stationary in real life it cant hold steady at any depth so staying at periscope depth while stationary was impossible in reality.


on the subject of detection, as others have eluded to already, if you change the detection for a surfaced sub to be close to what you consider realistic (not everyone will agree on what really is a realistic detection range) then the flip side is you make it equally impssible for you to be detected when submerged so the game becomes so easy its unplayable for most peoples liking.


there are quite a few things in the game that we put up with for the sake of most things working as they should be so we put up with some things just not being able to do even though they were done in real life.


there is an unspoken rule of thumb that after you've posted a dozen complaint threads its time to learn modding and create mods to fix the things you are complaining about. im not being sarcastic here, im being honest.

people here will bend over backwards to help you learn and understand anything you need to know if you are willing to try to make the game better.

only by people fixing the things that bother them do we have all the mods you see today so join in making this game better and use your frustration as motivation to find solutions or understand the games limitations better and along the way im sure you will make a few mods of your own that we can all enjoy. :up:

There are several things the game doesn't do to match exact realism. However, if one desires he can work around many of these things. Simply, it's true the boat won't hold depth with no speed, so you can just give it 1/2 to simulate reality. There are several things like this you can do.

Overall, this is the best sub sim. However, it may not be for everybody. If I had nothing but complaints over and over, I would find another game.

Red Devil
07-05-2009, 04:35 PM
Like you quite rightly state, there is rarely anything like perfection in sims. I say that we should enjoy it for what it is, and has to offer. I am currently still running on stock 1.4, but hope to be back up and running on the full RSRD as soon as possible.

Its ok to ask questions but not in a 'moaning' way. The genius type people who deliver these Mods, don't have too. They could site at home and play 'keepsie' with their Mods, but they don't, they share it with all of us. For that I am very grateful.

My only 'complaint' is the forum in so much that I find it very hard to navigate to something that 'I think was there, but no its not, now where was it again' type of thing. I know its me, but .........................

Arclight
07-06-2009, 12:55 PM
Fairy snuff, but if the 'simulation allows it, why not?I agree, play however you want. Just intended as an explanation to Steamwake's post which you responded to. ;)

lurker_hlb3
07-06-2009, 07:00 PM
In reference to this post:


How the hell can a ship 5000meters away see my boat when it is running awash, in night time conditions, with rough seas, and no moon?

This is another problem I have with SH4 after reading that Donitz, got less than 500 meters from his targets, on the surface, at night, in still waters, and never get sighted.

What parameter controls the AI's night visual capabilities?

Submarines are low in the water, and small, they should be near impossible to see at night in rough seas, yet the merchants are spotting my boat 5000 meters out, when I am near bow on, proceeding at 2/3rds ahead.

This is ruining the game for me.





SH4 does not differentiate if your boat is fully surfaced or decks awash
The only way your going to be detected at 5000 meters is if you are presenting the merchant with a “broadside” view of your boat. If you were presenting a “head-on” view then it will detect you at about 1200 meters.
The SIM.cfg controls the “AI's night visual capabilities”


In reference to this post:

OM escort visual sensors are pretty uber

as designed, I wanted to be “hard”

In reference to this post:


Now, if we speak about AI detection (OM 705), I also noticed the AI hydrophone to be pretty useless. Test scenario: my sub at 20 meters depth, going flank speed. Above me, two destroyers set to elite. Year 1941. I am able to evade them at flank speed every time, they never can hear me, even though I make a hell of a noise.


If you would do a little research, you would find that the escorts for that time period [ 1941] use the Type 123 ASDIC which was a World War I era piece of equipment and not that good against modern subs [ detection range set to about 3000 meters ], also based on a test case I did, using a Type A&B and a Type G&H class DD under the conditions describe ( except DD’s were set to Veteran vice Elite ) , the DD’s were able to detect me and engage.


In reference to this post:


Actually that's how modding began, RR, by putting numbers into the game engine and seeing what happens, so that to bring the game to one's liking. Proof stands this old post, in the pre-SH4 era, which shows values pretty similar to what I found myself. Even before Ducimus got involved with SH4, there were a lot of people who tweaked the AI sensors & settings back in the SH3 era, in the quest for realism, for recreating the tactics of those days. Once again here is the living proof.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=93771


Ducimus was involved back then with the rest of us. If you want to read a "serious" thread on this subject, look at this


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=86629




Last as I've stated before, "If you don't like the way it works, Fix it yourself."



Oh by the way, if you' re too lazy to fix it yourself you can try this:

http://wwwnew.filefront.com/13983377/New_SIM_CFG_for_OMv710.rar


It is a SIM.cfg file I built for my "custom" SH3 install some time ago. I would recommend trying it out on the 'RUM 400921 U100' single mission. If you play your cards right you can "thread the needle" between the escorts and attack HX-72 up close and personnel. If your not happy with the results, just de-install it

dcb
07-06-2009, 11:47 PM
as designed, I wanted to be “hard”


Yes, I know about your "as designed" policy and I have no problem with it. It's your mod, you do it your way, nobody should ask you to change it. That's why I started to fix it myself to my own liking, so that I can recreate the realistic tactics of the time, within the limits of the game engine.


If you would do a little research, you would find that the escorts for that time period [ 1941] use the Type 123 ASDIC which was a World War I era piece of equipment and not that good against modern subs [ detection range set to about 3000 meters ].


Yes, I understand your point, but going flank speed at 20 meters depth, 2000 meters away from the destroyer, should wake up even a deaf hydrophone operator. If you put your naked ear in the sea you should still be able to hear the noise and cavitation. It's flank speed!!!!!
Once again, I know it's "as designed" and have no problem with it, as long as I can mod it myself (which is what I'm doing right now, in a long series of test scenarios).


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=86629


Thank you for the link, I'll read it tonight, because it's pretty long. And I'm all aware about Duci's involvement here, I appreciated what he did, I'm using part of his FTT mods (remember?) in my SH3 install. I was just proving that he wasn't the only who approached sensors here, as stated by a previous poster.



Last as I've stated before, "If you don't like the way it works, Fix it yourself."


That's precisely what I'm doing and what I'm helping others to do, like pythos in this thread. Many people here tell newcomers "don't like it, mod it yourself" but don't give them a hint about where to start from. Need proof? Just read this rather long thread. The OP question was "could you please help me mod it to my taste?"
First, answers were like "don't like it, play something else". Then it came to "don't like it, mod it", with the short variation of "don't start putting numbers into the game, because you don't know how to do it."
Then it came to various chatter and general advice, nothing concrete to answer his plea.
In a 36-post thread I was the only one who gave the OP the answer he needed in the first place: i.e. how he should mod the game himself!


Oh by the way, if you' re too lazy to fix it yourself you can try this:


Just check my previous posts, starting back from 2005, and see whether I'm too lazy for modding or not. The simple fact that I'm not very active here doesn't mean I am inept or lazy about modding. BTW, I even contributed to a major SH3 supermod some time ago and I beta-tested for another in the past (yes, I know, vanity is ugly).:D
Anyway, thank you for the file. I will try it tonight.

Red Devil
07-07-2009, 07:07 AM
Can I just say one thing. Lets not be, or appear to be, too hard on the excellent Mod manufacturers in this premium site. They do not have to do this. Should a mod have a glitch, bug, whatever you want to call it, just report it as fact, with as much detail as possible, without moaning. We, the punters, do not have a right to these software updates. Appreciate what you have, and enjoy. :know:

lurker_hlb3
07-07-2009, 05:15 PM
Yes, I understand your point, but going flank speed at 20 meters depth, 2000 meters away from the destroyer, should wake up even a deaf hydrophone operator. If you put your naked ear in the sea you should still be able to hear the noise and cavitation. It's flank speed!!!!!
Once again, I know it's "as designed" and have no problem with it, as long as I can mod it myself (which is what I'm doing right now, in a long series of test scenarios).



Would you please provide the parameters your using in your test case:

1. Location ( Lat / Long )
2. Date and Time
3. Type of Escorts, Number of escorts, part of a group or a single unit
4. Type of Uboat

My concern is that are you 'above' or 'below' the "layer" ?

As someone who use to chase subs for a living, I do understand how sound travels underwater.

Red Devil
07-07-2009, 06:23 PM
The thermal layer is a massively valuable asset - to the submarine. It is a virtual barrier for asdic waves, most are deflected back from it, allowing the submarine that much more of a chance to be undetected.

Once submerged, a World War II vintage submarine was severely limited in its options. With the exception of the late-war German Type XXI and Type XXIII, capable of a submerged speed of 16 to 18 knots, and the even more sophisticated Japanese I-201 class, which could manage 19 knots submerged, and none of which had any significant effect on the war, World War II submarines were limited to a top underwater speed of 9 to 10 knots. At that, such speeds would quickly drain the batteries with the result that the effective speed of a submerged fleet submarine was barely three knots.

With these limitations on speed and endurance, a submarine couldn't effectively run away from a pursuer. The only option was to hide, trying to maneuver to avoid being caught in the escort's active sonar.

Research had discovered that water temperature often varied with depth. Even more importantly, the changes in temperature were frequently fairly abrupt, so that the sea water would form layers. It was soon discovered that these thermal layers affected sonar performance.

Below a thermal layer, a submarine's active sonar performed poorly when trying to acquire a target. Conversely, a surface ship's sonar pings were reflected and scattered by the layer as well, allowing the submarine to hide beneath it.

More: http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/bathythermograph.html

dcb
07-08-2009, 03:48 AM
Would you please provide the parameters your using in your test case

Yes, of course I will, actually I'll send you the whole test mission, but please wait until tonight (hopefully), because now I am at work, and my Internet connection at home didn't work yesterday and was still down this morning. I hope they'll fix it today.
BTW, I tested your NYGM sim file and I like it. It's definitely closer to what we are used here to call "realistic."

Nexus7
07-08-2009, 05:10 AM
Maybe a silly question but i wonder: why do you need MOD's to fix bugs, and don't have the game developer fix them instead ?

I can understand that MOD's frenzy in DW as Sonalyst has gone AWOL, but what about Ubisoft ?

AVGWarhawk
07-08-2009, 07:29 AM
Maybe a silly question but i wonder: why do you need MOD's to fix bugs, and don't have the game developer fix them instead ?



Not a silly question but a very good one. I'm guessing those that look at dollars and cents only wanted to go so far in patching. I would say the major bugs were patched. Other minor annoyances were left alone. Why? Probably because UBI knew these would be modded into nothing resembling what was originally created by the developers so why bother? To casual gamers these minor bugs would not be noticed. That's my take on it.

The game will never be dead nuts perfect. Then again, no simulation is dead nuts perfect. In a way that is a good thing because those who like to create and make mods continue to look at and improve the game all the time. SH3 is an excellent example.

Rockin Robbins
07-08-2009, 07:44 AM
We have mods because we will never all agree on what is "right." And there are always multiple ways to do it "right" anyway. We're dealing much less with objective realism and much more with personal preference and prejudice.

If the game were "perfect" we would have as many mods as we do now. Modding is half the fun of the game. The better the game the more fun the mods are.

Looking at mods as nothing more than fixing defects is a very limited way of looking at what mods are and what they do. "Bug" (because we can't agree on what a bug is) fixing is a tiny and insignificant part of what modding is all about.

dcb
07-08-2009, 09:51 AM
Modding is half the fun of the game. The better the game the more fun the mods are.

I wholeheartedly agree, 100%, to this. :salute:
To me, at least, it is even more than half the fun, as I actually spend more time modding than playing the game.:D

Munchausen
07-08-2009, 02:15 PM
"Bug" (because we can't agree on what a bug is) fixing is a tiny and insignificant part of what modding is all about.

:hmmm: Webster might disagree with that assessment ... and rightly so.

AVGWarhawk
07-08-2009, 02:24 PM
Bug?


http://home.comcast.net/~sbse/images/sport_bug.jpg

Bug?

http://thailand-adventure.com/images/insects-5/bug.jpg

Rockin Robbins
07-08-2009, 04:15 PM
:hmmm: Webster might disagree with that assessment ... and rightly so.
No, Webster is and has been way beyond fixing bugs for a long time. The name of his mod is only a holdover from the days when he was pretending to do nothing but fix bugs.

However, even then he was customizing the game beyond fixing bugs, as does everyone who loves this game and mods it. You'll recall that Webster, when he realized I'm right, sought to change the name of the mod. He, like Ducimus, Kapt Lehmann, LukeFF, AOTD Mad Max and all the rest, mod the games out of love for the games and to answer additional questions of "what if?"

Fixing the bugs is only a small part of any extensive mod. Sometimes, perhaps often, as in the case of the "why does the sonar work on the surface" whiners, when the research is done, we find that the devs had it right to begin with. Sonar did work on the surface and sonar operators were expected to develop contacts when surfaced.

Never mind that in that configuration, other methods, radar and visual sighting would find contacts first, the sonar still worked. Others, in the name of fixing bugs have eliminated all air attacks from the game. This is clearly wrong, but still was done with a straight face, in the name of bug fixes. The fact is that often personal preference is excused away as a so-called bug fix.

Personal preference has no need of such lame excuses. "It's my personal preference and I'm eliminating air attacks" is just fine and acceptable. Modders have a right to flavor the game any way they see fit and we have the right to choose which mod we will use. I choose to use TMO, RFB, GFO and FOTRS and love 'em all!

Nexus7
07-08-2009, 06:27 PM
Modders have a right to flavor the game any way they see fit and we have the right to choose which mod we will use. I choose to use TMO, RFB, GFO and FOTRS and love 'em all!

I have two significant experiences with simulators undergone modding:
- dangerous waters (DW)
- panzer general 2 (PG2)
- a database where i work

While for me (sorry Luftwolf and Amizaur) modding DW resulted in killing the fun and the simulator, it is the countrary in PG2 where little modding but first of all campaign creation helped keeping the game alive for more than 10 years.

DW was sufficently difficult as stock version to learn. The whole story is long and I don't know everything anyway. As a fact, the great majority of the people started playing with the MOD installed (multiplay). That's when i left (2 years ago +/-). One of the reasons was, I never managed to tune-up my knowledge to the ever coming new modifications because of theyr frequency, and later because of the game becomeing unplayable (to me) and unexplainably complex. To explain better, to tweaka little the array's sensitiveness or the platforms emitted noise results in the need of brand new tactics to be developed.

So, the modding community has an huge power, especially if the game is complex and not many people master it.

About Panzer General 2... basically it was not modified, it is 99% still the same game as the stock version (and still has bugs). What made it stay alive for so long, it was the community bringing up for example the so called Campaign Challenges and constantly producing new scenarios.

And i don't see it 100% correct and good, to tweak someone else's code without to have access to the whole code. Not having access to the whole code forbids to reconstruct the thoughts behind every choice...

Dangerous waters, yep !

pythos
07-08-2009, 07:17 PM
Well I adjusted the params stated. And have been able to get within 800meters of a merchant and not get spotted (close enough), at night.

Sorry lurker but SH4 indeed notices when someone is decks awash, and fully surfaced. I found this during the test of which I mentioned above. When I surfaced I was immediately noticed, when with only the tower and tip of bow visible they did not see me. Do not quite know what controls this, but it is definite that it is a factor. This was a legitimate tactic for fleet boats as well as U-boats.

Also for those talking about thermal layers. They are indeed a barrier for sound waves, including asdic beams. The whole reason for diving deeper and deeper was to find that hallowed are where the sub disapeared to the asdic. It is not a mere 20% reduction but in fact a reduction to 20%. It also messed with the submarine's hydrophones though.

I understand wanting to make it hard, and that is fine. But please don't get angry at someone wanting to adjust parameters to make the game more realistic according to what they have read.

If was quite good doing a night torpedo surface attack like the actual gray wolves did. It became quite interesting when the first torpedo hit, and seconds later getting lit up by the star shells, and later spot lights.

It was just like the scene described and shown in Das Boot when they get spotted by the excorts.

In other words the simulation was realistic, and thrilling. Like a sim should be.

I am grateful for the work by the mods, but please realize, there are those that go for realistic as possible and are not looking for an impossibly hard game where the escorts already armed with unfair advantages (No degradation of deph charges with depth, being able to detect a sub at flank even when charges are going off. Being able to hear a sub even when moving at more than medium speed, and constantly firing off an omni directional asdic beam, even when a sub is not detected yet, or a sonar that is not effected by the target's vicinity to the sea floor.) getting more advantages like little to no degradation caused by thermal layers, or super sensitive, tin eared hydro phone operators.

Remember most German subs were lost to either surface or air action, not many were lost to depth charges dropped by destroyers.

Buddahaid
07-08-2009, 07:28 PM
I'll apologize again in case you missed it. I just thought it seemed arrogant at first and have realized my mistake. Good hunting.

Buddahaid

Red Devil
07-08-2009, 08:41 PM
Regarding the sighting of decks awash submarines. I note that in all the books I have read on the U Boat in the Atlantic and books of the ace U Boat hunter/killer himself, Capt Johnnie Walker RN, U boats only showing conning towers were virtually impossible to spot, especially at night. They were able to close quite close to convoys at night pre attack and fire torps on the surface. U Boats during the 'happy time' off the east coast of America sat on the surface watching fun fair enjoyment at Coney Island and nobody spotted them, the same for U Boat commanders sailing in the reflective glare of the illuminated shoreline.

lurker_hlb3
07-08-2009, 10:21 PM
Sorry lurker but SH4 indeed notices when someone is decks awash, and fully surfaced. I found this during the test of which I mentioned above. When I surfaced I was immediately noticed, when with only the tower and tip of bow visible they did not see me. Do not quite know what controls this, but it is definite that it is a factor. This was a legitimate tactic for fleet boats as well as U-boats.



As I asked dcb:

Would you please provide the parameters your using in your test case:

1. Location ( Lat / Long )
2. Date and Time
3. Type of Escorts, Number of escorts, part of a group or a single unit
4. Type of Uboat

. But please don't get angry at someone wanting to adjust parameters to make the game more realistic according to what they have read.


I'm not angry, you can make what ever changes you like to your personnel setup. I use to do it all the time with my SH3 setup


Also for those talking about thermal layers. They are indeed a barrier for sound waves, including asdic beams. The whole reason for diving deeper and deeper was to find that hallowed are where the sub disapeared to the asdic. It is not a mere 20% reduction but in fact a reduction to 20%. It also messed with the submarine's hydrophones though.


As I stated earlier, I was a Operations Specialist / Radarman in the US Navy for 23 years. I'm well aware of the thermal layer and how it effects sound underwater for both the sub and surface escort. However SH4 and the "real world" are two different things


Lastly

Why don't you download this and give it a "test drive"

http://wwwnew.filefront.com/13983377/New_SIM_CFG_for_OMv710.rar

as stated in my previous post, it is a SIM.cfg file I built from my "custom" SH3 install some time ago. I would recommend trying it out on the 'RUM 400921 U100' single mission. If you play your cards right you can "thread the needle" between the escorts and attack HX-72 up close and personnel. If your not happy with the results, just de-install it.

pythos
07-09-2009, 12:29 AM
I may be mistaken on this but, Radar doesn't get effected by thermal layers because of the fact it is not used, nor can it be used, under water.

I also think that the asdic of the 40s was absolutely nothing compared to the whale brain smashing active sonar we have these days, and may be affected less by thermal layers and have far longer range. Sort of like comparing a match to a spot light.

As far as time and place of the incident where I crept up on a merchant before getting spotted. It was a campaign mission, off the coast of Africa, type IXb boat, around midnight, no moon. I saved before heading in, so one was the one where I surfaced after approaching decks awash, and then replayed the thing all the way through. The incident with the convoy was just played all the way through with one save before the engagement. I am currently re-overhauling that convoy as we speak.

Red Devil: I have been trying to convey this point many times. I read of this in Donitz's book when he described his attack on a convoy in WWI. He states getting almost right up to the hull of a passing freighter without being spotted. The term he used was "hull down", and describes this as flooding the deck, which prevented manning the guns, so I take this as the German version of the American "decks awash", which was used by several American and British skippers. My understanding of the U-boat was that the matte grey paint made the boat all but disappear in low light, and light fog conditions. Which is what made the surface torpedo so devastating, and absolutely without warning.

Buddahaid: I saw your previous apology, I thought I mentioned "no hard feelings" or something in one of my posts, if not then consider this...that. Good hunting to you too.

Red Devil
07-09-2009, 06:23 AM
Red Devil: I have been trying to convey this point many times. I read of this in Donitz's book when he described his attack on a convoy in WWI. He states getting almost right up to the hull of a passing freighter without being spotted. The term he used was "hull down", and describes this as flooding the deck, which prevented manning the guns, so I take this as the German version of the American "decks awash", which was used by several American and British skippers. My understanding of the U-boat was that the matte grey paint made the boat all but disappear in low light, and light fog conditions. Which is what made the surface torpedo so devastating, and absolutely without warning. Yes 'hull down' and 'decks awash' are the same thing. A U Boat (U 131) surfaced in the midst of convoy HG76, still light, due to faulty hydrophones, he did not realise until he came on deck, they dived rather quickly but were never spotted. The hydrophones, by the way, had been installed by forced labour in Bremen!! Nuff said!

Astern, now dark, the U-131 had surfaced and sent in a location report. Walker knew he had been spotted and informed the Admiralty accordingly.The two main give aways for surface ships to spot a U boat were the phosphorescent wash and 'huffduff' - direction finding equipment. Captain Walker's ships had this and, together with a triangulation from land, ccould pin point a broadcasting U Boat to within visible range. UBoat captains were obliged to send in regular lengthy weather reports, they hated this, knowing full well they were being detected. If a U Boat failed to radio in, after 3 days, it was listed as missing. Then, if they were lucky enough to return, a right royal roasting!

In spite of all this, their chances were slim - 75% of all U Boat sailors never went home. There is a beautiful example of the HF/DF direction finder used by Walker in the National Maritime Museum, Liverpool, in the Battle of the Atlantic section.

U 131 (http://www.uboat.net/boats/u131.htm)

lurker_hlb3
07-09-2009, 06:35 AM
I may be mistaken on this but, Radar doesn't get effected by thermal layers because of the fact it is not used, nor can it be used, under water.


I don't believe radar has been brought up in this thread, why do you bring it up now ?

karamazovnew
07-09-2009, 10:14 AM
I'm playing with TMO at the moment and after 3 very interesting patrols in a Sargo class intercepting fast Task Forces (downed 3 battleships, 6 heavy cruisers, 3 light cruisers, various merchants with mark 10 torps :yeah:) I 'm preety happy with the difficulty. They seem to know I'm there and start zigzagging (radar?), they spot me at around 6-8000 yards during night time and 10k during the day. Since the US subs were so high and bulky it's no wonder. Submerged, they pick me up at around 4000 yards if I don't run completely silent, much more if i go at flank. However i'm way dissapointed by the escorts. I've had 5 DD's asdicking me around for about 20 minutes, and that was the worst case. I had to dive to an incredible 300 ft (about 90m) and they started depthcharching the poor whales :arrgh!:. So even though this is not a TMO thread, I'd like to know a few things:

- does the height/class of the sub matter for AI sensors? i guess it's the same as asking if decks awash really works.
- do ships listen "behind" them?
- what's the arc of the asdic? they seem to ping me even at 160 degrees.
- can they see you underwater if you're too close?
- do they hear you when you're above water? when do they get radar?
- does the height/class of the ship matter? Somehow I have a hunch that the battleships were the first to see me since they're so tall and have so many eyes.
- do escorts always run with asdic working? I met a lone "thing" in the middle of the ocean, dived deep (250 ft) and went silent(he hadn't spotted me yet), I went to 128x and suddenly i get a charge that kills me. And he was at my 340 constantly.
- and about that. Why can't we hear pings from far away to know which escorts are actively pinging.
- can they listen while they ping?
- how long after a DC run do they start listening again? I've had pinging resume after 20 seconds.
- does masking yourself with other ships sound work? In other words, can I go flank speed in the middle of a convoy?
- Pythos might be right, in SH3 the sonar wasn't affected that much at 300 meters, yet alone 90 meters. DDs did miss a bit but mostly because of the extra time we had to dodge the bullets.

Last but not least: why on earth would 10 escorts in a 15 knot convoy abandon a wounded battleship which can only go 14 knots (thanks to me)? I almost felt sorry for the poor guy as he was slowly overtaken by the last escort while i was chewing at his props.

pythos
07-09-2009, 10:24 AM
Lurker, I brought up radar because you posted this.

"As I stated earlier, I was a Operations Specialist / Radarman in the US Navy for 23 years"

So with the word Radarman being used in a a side discussion about sonar and thermal layers, I felt it was prudent to point out radar does not get affected by thermal layer.

lurker_hlb3
07-09-2009, 06:15 PM
Lurker, I brought up radar because you posted this.

"As I stated earlier, I was a Operations Specialist / Radarman in the US Navy for 23 years"

So with the word Radarman being used in a a side discussion about sonar and thermal layers, I felt it was prudent to point out radar does not get affected by thermal layer.



Since it appears that you are unfamiliar with what a Operations Specialist / Radarman does, you may want to read the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_Specialist_%28US_Navy%29

and

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

One of the jobs I did for 10 years was as a Antisubmarine Air Controller (ASAC) which requires a expert knowledge of ASW operation and one element of that knowledge is underwater acoustics ( i.e. where’s the “layer” ). If you need more info read the following:

http://motomom.tripod.com/107esws

lurker_hlb3
07-09-2009, 06:16 PM
So even though this is not a TMO thread, I'd like to know a few things:



I relay from Ducimus

does the height/class of the sub matter for AI sensors? i guess it's the same as asking if decks awash really works. No/yes

do ships listen "behind" them?No

what's the arc of the asdic? they seem to ping me even at 160 degrees.- Wide by neccessity. AI routine is stupid and needs the crutch.


can they see you underwater if you're too close?- No


do they hear you when you're above water? when do they get radar?- don't think so. Early 44 i think.



does the height/class of the ship matter? Somehow I have a hunch that the battleships were the first to see me since they're so tall and have so many eyes.- YES.

do escorts always run with asdic working? I met a lone "thing" in the middle of the ocean, dived deep (250 ft) and went silent(he hadn't spotted me yet), I went to 128x and suddenly i get a charge that kills me. And he was at my 340 constantly.- yes

and about that. Why can't we hear pings from far away to know which escorts are actively pinging.- Ping is only heard when you are in active sonar cone, presenting a favorable aspect for good surface factor, and doing both for a predetermined length of time.

can they listen while they ping?- No.

how long after a DC run do they start listening again? I've had pinging resume after 20 seconds.- If not pinging, they are listening. Period.

does masking yourself with other ships sound work? In other words, can I go flank speed in the middle of a convoy?- Not really, no.

Pythos might be right, in SH3 the sonar wasn't affected that much at 300 meters, yet alone 90 meters. DDs did miss a bit but mostly because of the extra time we had to dodge the bullets.- Effectiveness of depth to evade, directly correlates between the maximum dowwnard angle of the beam and range of the active sonar being used. Even after ramping up JP sonar a little bit, its still a joke compared to stock allied sonar settings. Stock downward angle is 100, i made it 115, allied goes up to 155 degrees.

karamazovnew
07-10-2009, 06:41 PM
Imba reply, thanks a bunch :yeah:. Seems very consistent with what I've experienced so far and it's great to know for sure.