Translation from the Devs - no more patches

[Seaboy]

:rotfl: I was a bit early saying that last month, but now its official.
:rotfl:

[CCIP]

Um... OK. We knew that, more or less.

What does that have to do with SHIII mods that we didn't know before? Namely, that many things need to get fixed and we've always been up here exactly for that. :roll:

[flyingdane]

:rotfl: I was a bit early saying that last month, but now its official.
:rotfl:

Hi Seaboy" how official is it, I mean where did you find your info? :cry:

[LukeFF]

Nothing new to see here, folks. Move along. It's just Seaboy acting like his normal self. :roll:

[gdogghenrikson]

that kinda stinks because look at diablo 2 (old game I know) game went from 1.01 to 1.02, 1.03 all the way to 1.10 thats 10 patches in like 3 years I believe

[Oesten]

that kinda stinks because look at diablo 2 (old game I know) game went from 1.01 to 1.02, 1.03 all the way to 1.10 thats 10 patches in like 3 years I believe

Diablo 2 sold FAR more copies than SH3.

[JBClark]

that kinda stinks because look at diablo 2 (old game I know) game went from 1.01 to 1.02, 1.03 all the way to 1.10 thats 10 patches in like 3 years I believe

Diablo 2 sold FAR more copies than SH3.

Far, far more.

[Capn Tucker]

Well, if there are no more official patches, that stinks on ice! That means the IXD2 and XXI will never be fixed.. :down:
Unless the add-on does something about it. Maybe one day we'll see an SDK; then the remaining problems can finally be fixed...

[Beery]

It's great news for mod-makers. It means we won't have to reverse-engineer mods to suit the seemingly never-ending stream of official patches.

As for the XXI and the IXD2, as far as I can see they should be easily fixed by modding. As I understand it, the XXI's problem is simply that its batteries don't last long enough - should be as easy as pie to fix that (but maybe people were too busy worrying about whether the devs would do it that they never asked a modder to do it, LOL). Not sure what the IXD2's problem is, but mod-makers may be able to fix that too.

Tell me what the exact problems are and I'll see what I can do about them.

[User 1834]

Beery, there is another problem with the type XXI. The battery doesn't last long enough, true (easily fixed), but the battery also never fully recharges and it takes much longer to recharge than it historically did.
If you could, and considering your track record, I don't doubt that you could, fix those two bugs the sub would; for the most part be fixed. There is still the issue of the snorkel radar being destroyed at port and the defective active sonar, but I can live with those. I just would like the battery bug to be fixed.

[rulle34]

There is still the issue of the snorkel radar being destroyed at port and the defective active sonar, but I can live with those. I just would like the battery bug to be fixed.

Considering the time you use the XXI, -44-45, you can't run surfaced due to all airpatrols/attacks. The game also make detection far to easy for the enemy when you run with schnorchel.

That's probably the reason that they developed this snorchel mounted device, so if it's possible to mod that too it'll be great

/Rulle

[R48]

Beery, much as User 1834 said:

!. Battery life and recharge rate.

2. Snorkel radar destroyed.

3. Active Sonar not working.

4. Some are still not happy with the torpedo reload times.

These are the problems I've read about. They were more than enough to keep me from ever playing with the XXI.

[Beery]

So what's wrong with the IXD2?

As for the battery life, I was looking at the Type XXI battery last night, and it seems about right to me (285 miles at 6 knots). Of course that's just the nominal range. I haven't tested it in practice.

[CCIP]

So what's wrong with the IXD2?

I think it's the always-broken radar, sonar and a flak gun, too. Plus range, but that's easily fixed.

[Beery]

So what's wrong with the IXD2?

I think it's the always-broken radar, sonar and a flak gun, too. Plus range, but that's easily fixed.

I'll see if I can spot any obvious bugs in the cfg files. If not, then maybe we can try replacing the flak guns with the type of guns used on other boats. Radar and sonar might be harder, but heck, the aircraft and deck gun problems seemed impossible to fix before we focused on them, so it should be possible to find a solution to this, if we can motivate people to look at it. The main problem (at least as far as the XXI goes) is that many (including me) see the XXI as a superfluous distraction from what the game's focus should be. It may be hard to get other serious modders truly motivated to fix it. The IXD2 is a different matter.

Anyway, I'll look into it later today. If you're into it, CCIP, maybe you could look into it too? If we can't find any simple solutions, maybe we can do a call for a combined effort to get this stuff fixed, like we did with the deck gun and ASW issues.

[Manuel Ortega]

What we want is the SDK now :hmm:

[CCIP]

Well, I'm suspecting it to be something with the equipement files.

Here's a useful post I found in the thread about the XXI:

I have been using the Type XXI since the day I bought SHIII, yes it HAD problems but now NO problems at all. How u ask, easy just FIX these lines in ur Basic.cfg file to whats below and ur gtg.

Year 1943
SuperCharger_00=1260
Snorkel_00=1262
Batteries_00=1269
AftBatteries_00=1269
Hydrophone_00=1272
Sonar_00=1274
Radar_00=1278
RadarWarningReceiver_00=1283
Decoy_Launcher_00=1288
SonarCoatings_00=1304
RadarCoatings_00=1305

Year 1944
SuperCharger_10=1260
Snorkel_10=1262
Batteries_10=1269
AftBatteries_10=1269
Hydrophone_10=1272
Sonar_10=1274
Radar_10=1278
RadarWarningReceiver_10=1283
Decoy_Launcher_10=1288
SonarCoatings_10=1304
RadarCoatings_10=1305

Year 1945
SuperCharger_20=1260
Snorkel_20=1262
Batteries_20=1269
AftBatteries_20=1269
Hydrophone_20=1272
Sonar_20=1274
Radar_20=1278
RadarWarningReceiver_20=1283
Decoy_Launcher_20=1288
SonarCoatings_20=1304
RadarCoatings_20=1305

These "bugs" on the type XXI are so simply fixed and I had done so, so long ago, that I'm some what surprised that ppl are still unable to figure it out.

I'd have a look into this, Beery (if you have any concern about the XXI at all) - and same for the IXD perhaps...

As far as battery recharge times, I'm not totally sure about this... but for torpedo reloads I'm pretty sure I could reduce them overall - but I'm entirely convinced on whether it would really work as it's supposed to. So far as I'm aware, the XXI's auto-reload system worked in a way that it had one reload done within a couple of minutes for all six tubes simultaneously, and then after that the reloading/preparing the 2nd load would be manual again... but like I said, if someone gives me a good reason and a good possible reload time, I can probably adjust this :)

Personally, I haven't touched the XXI in the game and don't really plan to. And I'm not too sure about the IXD, but I suppose we may as well try and see if their issues can be fixed.

[Capn Tucker]

The other problem with the IXD I've read about is it starting with the stern stuck inside the concrete of the sub pen. Was this fixed in a patch, or someone's mod? I haven't made it as far as having one of these boats yet (all the patches and new mods have me constantly reinstalling), but hope to get one soon, and would like to know if the "Philadelphia Experiment" bug, the destroyed sonar and flickering control room lights are/can be fixed...

[August]

The other problem with the IXD I've read about is it starting with the stern stuck inside the concrete of the sub pen. Was this fixed in a patch, or someone's mod? I haven't made it as far as having one of these boats yet (all the patches and new mods have me constantly reinstalling), but hope to get one soon, and would like to know if the "Philadelphia Experiment" bug, the destroyed sonar and flickering control room lights are/can be fixed...

The IXC has the flickering lights problem as well. Irritating.

[Beery]

I'd have a look into this, Beery (if you have any concern about the XXI at all) - and same for the IXD perhaps...

I'll certainly check into it, and enable it in RUb. Maybe even issue a standalone mod for it.

Personally, I haven't touched the XXI in the game and don't really plan to. And I'm not too sure about the IXD, but I suppose we may as well try and see if their issues can be fixed.

It's beginning to seem as if these issues are mostly fairly simple bugs to fix. Just a matter of focus. When I get some time, probably after the weekend, I'll see how many of these issues I can fix quickly, and if some can't be fixed I'll present the remaining issues to the mod community and put a challenge out there to fix them. There are plenty of mod makers who are more talented than me, so I'm sure the issues can be solved.

As for my own concern regarding these issues, the XXI hardly concerns me at all, but I may as well fix these things since they are of concern to a number of folks. The IXD2 is a larger concern for me, since the IXD2 did actually serve in combat, so I'd like to get it fixed.

[Beery]

The other problem with the IXD I've read about is it starting with the stern stuck inside the concrete of the sub pen. Was this fixed in a patch, or someone's mod?...

I think this was fixed in RUb a while ago, and I believe it was fixed in an official patch too, but I may be mistaken on that. If the problem is still around, there is definitely a very easy fix for it.

[Capn Tucker]

The other problem with the IXD I've read about is it starting with the stern stuck inside the concrete of the sub pen. Was this fixed in a patch, or someone's mod?...

I think this was fixed in RUb a while ago, and I believe it was fixed in an official patch too, but I may be mistaken on that. If the problem is still around, there is definitely a very easy fix for it.

Beery, when I get my IXD2, and if it is stuck, I'll be in touch for that fix..

[rulle34]

The other problem with the IXD I've read about is it starting with the stern stuck inside the concrete of the sub pen. Was this fixed in a patch, or someone's mod?...

I think this was fixed in RUb a while ago, and I believe it was fixed in an official patch too, but I may be mistaken on that. If the problem is still around, there is definitely a very easy fix for it.

Wasn't that fixed already in patch 1.3? :hmm:
/Rulle

[Syxx_Killer]

All this talk of fixing the IXD2 and XXI is very promising! I sure hope you talented modders can fix these problems. I was able to change the range (23,700 miles) for the IXD2 with timetraveller's crush depth tool. I also changed the crush depths for all the subs to their historical levels. The XXI can go 340 miles at 5 knots. I'm not sure how long they had oxygen on the boat. Can that be modded to historical levels if someone knows the stats? When the battery gets low it will charge itself up in a decent amount of time - up to a point. I'm guessing about 90% charged, the battery starts to slow down when charging, and seemingly never charges. It takes forever. I'm not sure how that is bugged (maybe hard-coded?). That is my main gripe with the XXI. I guess, from what I have heard, the Nibelung is the bugged sonar. I don't have that right now, so I'm not getting the sonar destroyed messages. I am using a IXD2 right now, and got the sonar destroyed message for the first time. It has the SGerat device. Is it normal for the sonar destoyed message to be sporadic? I haven't tried it in game yet, but I heard that using Wolfie's Tweak Pack you can fix the IXD2 inventory screen. You can change the external reserves from 8 to 6 and add to internal slots. I've done that, but like I said, I haven't tried it in game yet. Where in the basic.cfg is that value edited (in the readme the Tweak Pack states it changes the basic.cfg)?

I sure wish I knew what I was doing with this modding stuff. I'd love to try and take a stab at the XXI and IXD2 fixes.

[Beery]

I've used Cdr Gibs's fix in the upcoming version of RUb. Now to look at the IXD2.

[User 1834]

Beery, his fix simply gives the XXI infinite battery power. Which is hardly realistic. The current version is more realistic then being able to travel at flank speed on your batteries indefinitely. We need to try to find a better, more realistic, fix.

[Beery]

Beery, his fix simply gives the XXI infinite battery power. Which is hardly realistic. The current version is more realistic then being able to travel at flank speed on your batteries indefinitely. We need to try to find a better, more realistic, fix.

Ah, hehe. Okay. I'll figure something out. It must be the supercharger that does it.

[gonzman]

I'd like to thank all of the mod makers for producing what i consider the items that keep SH3 on my hard disk drive.

You do a brilliant job at keeping alive a sometimes unplayable game.

Cheers.

[Beery]

Testing the XXI. Results:

It takes the battery about 16 hours to expire at 1/3 speed.
Takes about 13 hours to charge the battery to about 90%.
The battery only ever gets to 98% after about 20 hours charge.

I don't have any real world figures for battery charge, so if anyone has info that can verify the above results, that would be great. I must say one thing, and that is that in the real world batteries don't charge up to 100%, so if anything the Type XXI is the only boat to model that aspect correctly. In other words it's not a bug in the Type XXI - it's a feature. The other boats are the ones with the bug, since their batteries all recharge to 100%.

At 10kts the battery takes you about 250km
At 7kts the battery takes you around 470km.

It's kinda weird that 3knots can make so much difference in the 'reichsweite' (whatever that is in English (distance? Endurance?). Anyway, these figures seem generally about right compared to the figures at Uboat.net.

In short, it seems to me that the XXI battery issue is not an issue. It works, it works about right, and in fact in some ways it works more realistically than the batteries of the other boats.

[Syxx_Killer]

This is taken from u-boat.net:

It took the boat 3-5 hours to re-charge the batteries with the Schnorchel once every 2-3 days if travelling at moderate 4-8 knots and was thus much less in danger from aircraft which sank about 56% of all U-boats lost in the war.

The rest can be read here:

http://www.uboat.net/types/xxi.htm

The battery is still bugged. :rotfl:

Speaking of schnorchel, the boat, I think, is in more danger from aircraft rather than less. I still think something needs to be worked out with that. I could live with the battery issue if this wasn't such an issue.

[Beery]

It took the boat 3-5 hours to re-charge the batteries with the Schnorchel once every 2-3 days if travelling at moderate 4-8 knots and was thus much less in danger from aircraft which sank about 56% of all U-boats lost in the war.

Are we sure that's a full recharge? I just want to be sure. Some batteries last longer with a partial charge. Plus, if U-boats were under threat from air attack they might only recharge using the snkorkel during hours of darkness (3-5 hours). The other thing is, if they're travelling at 4-8 knots, they will get up to 2 days' travel from a partial charge. Unless it says it's a full recharge it may not be bugged, since 5 hours will get you half a charge, which may well last 2-3 days at 4knots.

I think we need harder facts before we're rolling on the floor laughing about the supposed 'bugged' state of the game. :lol:

[User 1834]

I must say one thing, and that is that in the real world batteries don't charge up to 100%, so if anything the Type XXI is the only boat to model that aspect correctly. In other words it's not a bug in the Type XXI - it's a feature. The other boats are the ones with the bug, since their batteries all recharge to 100%.

True, I suppose. Although, it is quite annoying to have to manually switch over to standard propulsion and if you forget, you lose fuel efficiency. Perhaps we could mod it so it does charge to 100% just to simulate the engineer switching over when it wouldn't charge any more?

Also, the way U-Boat.net phrases its information on the XXI’s ability to recharge (and it does say recharge, not partially recharge. U-Boat.net seems to be fairly meticulous so I doubt they would have missed that) it seems to me that they mean recharge fully. I think we should proceed along that assumption unless information that states otherwise comes out. I will be looking for XXI battery recharge rates and I will let you know if I find anything.

[Beery]

I just did another test:

5 hours recharge gets you to 55% charge.
At 4 knots, the boat can travel for almost exactly 3 days on that 55% charge.

The boat is not bugged. It does exactly what Uboat.net says it should do on a 5 hour charge.

[Syxx_Killer]

Ok, here is from Wikipedia:

They could travel submerged at about five knots (9 km/h) for two or three days before recharging the batteries, which took less than five hours on the snorkel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_XXI_U-boat

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/T/Type-XXI-U-boat.htm

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/t/ty/type_xxi_u_boat.html

http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/lookup/encyclopedia/ty/Type_XXI_U-boat.html

http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/uboat20.htm

With all these sources, and I'm sure more are out there, I am pretty sure it was only 3-5 hours for a full recharges. That's one of the things why XXI was so revolutionary. Now, about those airplanes... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Beery]

the way U-Boat.net phrases its information on the XXI’s ability to recharge (and it does say recharge, not partially recharge. U-Boat.net seems to be fairly meticulous so I doubt they would have missed that) it seems to me that they mean recharge fully...

We can't assume that, especially given that in 1945 even a snorkel at night was visible on radar - they would have charged for as little time as possible, especially given that there's a law of diminishing returns whenever you charge a battery - the first 50% gets you much further than the last 50%. Besides the word recharge does not necessarily mean full recharge. Given the fact that (as I've just tested) the game's Type XXI does exactly what Uboat.net says it should do, I'm pretty confident that the boat isn't bugged.

[Beery]

With all these sources...

Clearly, these are all based on the same source. The wording is almost identical. You can't quote the same source 5 times and claim it's convincing evidence.

Your 'sources' (or more accurately, your source):

Wikipedia:
"Improvements in battery design yielded a storage capacity roughly three times that of a Type VIIC, giving these boats enormous underwater range. They could travel submerged at about five knots (9 km/h) for two or three days before recharging the batteries, which took less than five hours on the snorkel."

WorldHistory.com:
"Improvements in battery design yielded a storage capacity roughly three times that of a Type VIIC, giving these boats enormous underwater range. They could travel submerged at about five knots (9 km/h) for two or three days before recharging the batteries, which took less than five hours on the snorkel."

BrainyEncyclopedia:
"Improvements in battery design yielded a storage capacity roughly three times that of a Type VIIC, giving these boats enormous underwater range. They could travel submerged at about five knots (9 km/h) for two or three days before recharging the batteries, which took less than five hours on the snorkel."

Ebroadcast.com:
"Improvements in battery design yielded a storage capacity roughly three times that of a Type VIIC, giving these boats enormous underwater range. They could travel submerged at about five knots for two or three days before recharging the batteries, which took less than five hours on the snorkel. "

Battlefleet.com:
"Improvements in battery design yielded a storage capacity roughly three times that of a Type VIIC, giving these boats enormous underwater range. They could travel submerged at about five knots for two or three days before recharging the batteries, which took less than five hours on the snorkel. "

These are ALL identical. None of these are corroberating sources. They are copied word-for-word from the exact same source. This is one source, and it does NOT contradict what I've surmised. In fact it may agree with my point. There's nothing in there that says a 'full recharge'.

This is not even very good quality sophistry. It's blatantly disingenuous.

[User 1834]

It seems we have come to an impasse then. Your tests are inconclusive. When you began recharging the batteries, what was their charge? (0%, 5%, 10%?) Were you running on the snorkel? The average underwater cruise speed for the XXI was 6 knots, not 4. (I can, and will, find the source that states that) And as you pointed out, 2 knots can make a large difference. We need to know exactly the circumstances when you began your test so we can repeat it.

In fact it may agree with my point. There's nothing in there that says a 'full recharge'.

This same logic could be used against you. I have not found a single source that states it could do a partial recharge in 5 to 6 hours. Also, if it is just a partial recharge, why not only charge for 2 or 3 hours? It could still run for atleast a day or two. And they wouldn't have to worry about enemy aircraft as much.

[jasonb885]

Sigh.

I don't care how realistic a bug is.

If something doesn't work the way it was obviously _intended_ to work, the game is bugged.

:roll:

[Syxx_Killer]

Boy, Beery, you're impossible to work with! :P :rotfl: :rotfl: j/k

The sub can go 340 miles at 5 knots. I've used the crush depth tool to change that. Is there a way to lenthen the time it takes the oxygen to deplete? I think the XXI could stay down a lot longer in regards to oxygen, too.

Those "sources" don't say a partial recharge either. :P :lol:

[User 1834]

Okay, looking further on U-boat.net we can see exactly what type of battery the XXI carried (372 cells 44 MAL 740 ) and its Ah rating (33900 Ah). All we need to figure it out for our selves is the strength of the generator onboard the XXI. Anyone have that information?

[Beery]

It seems we have come to an impasse then.

We're not at an impasse. I've shown conclusively that the game matches the data that we've found. You can test it for yourself.

Your tests are inconclusive.

Surely only to someone who has a religious belief in a battery that fully charges in 5 hours.

When you began recharging the batteries, what was their charge? (0%, 5%, 10%?)

They were at the point when the crew says that they are out. I believe that's about 2%.

Were you running on the snorkel?

Of course. That is what U-boat.net describes. I copied what Uboat.net said to the letter.

The average underwater cruise speed for the XXI was 6 knots, not 4.

But Uboat.net states 4knots as the speed, which gives the longest duration. Your assertion is invalid. It doesn't matter what the cruise speed was because Uboat.net didn't state that the boat was to be travelling at cruise speed - it said 4-8 knots. Check it out:

Uboat.net
"It took the boat 3-5 hours to re-charge the batteries with the Schnorchel once every 2-3 days if travelling at moderate 4-8 knots"

The other thing to test is the duration at the other end of the scale. Uboat.net claims 2 days duration with 3 hours charge at 8 knots.

We need to know exactly the circumstances when you began your test so we can repeat it.

And I'll provide the exact circumstances with pleasure:

Use up batteries fully until the crew says they are out.
Recharge them for 5 hours using the snorkel.
Sail at 25m depth at 4knots (I actually did it at 5 knots) for 72 hours. You will need to come up once for air.

The boat can do exactly what Uboat.net says it can do, and it does it on a 5 hour charge. I'm not sure what else you need from me to be convinced. Just do the tests yourselves.

This is looking like a religious argument on the part of my opponents. If that's the case I'm not going to spend any more time on it. In my opinion the Type XXI shouldn't even be in the game, and I am busy enough as it is without trying to argue against people who have already made up their mind and are searching for facts to fit their agenda. I was more than willing to change the Type XXI - in fact I did change it based on the data presented earlier, but I will not change the boat to suit an 'uberboat' agenda.

[User 1834]

It seems we have come to an impasse then.

We're not at an impasse. I've shown conclusively that the game matches the data that we've found. You can test it for yourself.

Your tests are inconclusive.

Surely only to someone who has a religious belief in a battery that fully charges in 5 hours.

When you began recharging the batteries, what was their charge? (0%, 5%, 10%?)

They were at the point when the crew says that they are out. I believe that's about 2%.

Were you running on the snorkel?

Of course. That is what U-boat.net describes. I copied what Uboat.net said to the letter.

The average underwater cruise speed for the XXI was 6 knots, not 4.

But Uboat.net states 4knots as the speed, which gives the longest duration. Your assertion is invalid. It doesn't matter what the cruise speed was because Uboat.net didn't state that the boat was to be travelling at cruise speed - it said 4-7 knots.

We need to know exactly the circumstances when you began your test so we can repeat it.

And I'll provide the exact circumstances with pleasure:

Use up batteries fully until the crew says they are out.
Recharge them for 5 hours using the snorkel.
Sail at 25m depth at 4knots (I actually did it at 5 knots) for 72 hours. You will need to come up once for air.

The boat can do exactly what Uboat.net says it can do, and it does it on a 5 hour charge. I'm not sure what else you need from me to be convinced. Just do the tests yourselves.

This is looking like a religious argument on the part of my opponents. If that's the case I'm not going to spend any more time on it. In my opinion the Type XXI shouldn't even be in the game, and I am busy enough as it is without trying to argue against people who have already made up their mind and are searching for facts to fit their agenda. I was more than willing to change the Type XXI - in fact I did change it based on the data presented earlier, but I will not change the boat to suit an 'uberboat' agenda.

How amusing, you now insult me. *sigh* Very well, we will play your silly game. As you can see in my above post we can find the exact capacity of the XXI batteries. We can scientifically find the recharge rate if we know what kind of generator the XXI carried. Then we can end this child-like debate. I do not care about an "uber-boat", nor do I care about your obvious bias. I started my career in a IIA and was quite happy with it. I merely want the boats in the SHIII to match their real life counterparts.

Now, moving past that pointless clarification, U-boat.net states a range of possible speeds. 4-8 knots. That is quite a large range and could have a large impact on the battery discharge rates. However, 6 knots, their average cruising speed, actually is within that range. One test at 5 knots is hardly "conclusive" So, my assertion is hardly "invalid", unless of course if you have an agenda, and your conspicuous hatred of the XXI and its users makes it obvious you do. I don't care about that though, I merely want the boats to be historically correct. Now, lets stop this pointless and child-like bickering and fix this game.

Surely only to someone who has a religious belief in a battery that fully charges in 5 hours.

Look around man! There are many batteries that can charge in less than 30 minutes to an hour, and these are in little consumer devices! Do you really believe that a military state of the art, for its time, battery would take a day or more to recharge?

Edit - Also, it seems unlikely to me that the U-boat crews would allow their battery to discharge completly. Not only would this badly damage their battery but it would also leave them defensless for a considerable amount of time. I say again, your test is inconclusive.

[Beery]

How amusing, you now insult me.

I'm not insulting you any more than you are insulting me. I've done the tests. No one else has bothered, yet they still dispute the results. Don't take my word for it - just do the test. It's simple. It shows what it shows.

One thing is for sure, and that is that Uboat.net, if it is indeed claiming a 'full recharge', is astonishingly vague about it. I mean is it 3 hours or 5 hours? That very vagueness argues that it's an arbitrary charge time meant to give the boat a certain range, or to allow recharge at a certain safe time, and not necessarily based on a full recharge.

Anyway, I've spent enough time on this. I've gone out of my way to test a boat that I feel shouldn't even exist in the sim, simply because I thought that if it was bugged, I could make some folks happy by fixing it. Now it seems that people don't care whether it's bugged or not - they want a certain mythical Type XXI, and if facts get in the way, that's too bad. I don't much like being fooled into spending time looking up data and doing tests, when the folks who supposedly want to find out the facts get all uptight when the results of the investigation don't match what they want to see. I try to find facts, and I'm not going to blithely adopt any agenda and join any crusade. Nor will I ignore the results of my enquiries just because some folks want to bully me into it. My tests show that, on a 5 hour charge, the boat does what Uboat.net says it should do. You can ignore that, I won't.

[Average Joe]

Hi,

Much like many other posts mention, the bugs that bother me most are:

1. The 'null' area patrol (this is a minor problem for me).

2. Torpedo-load screen problems with IXD2 sub.

3. Battery-recharge problem with XXI sub.

4. FUMO-391 snorkel-radar not working correctly ('Radar/radar-antenna Destroyed').

5. SU-Apparat Nibelung sonar not working correctly ('Sonar Destroyed').

I'm pretty sure the above radar/sonar models become available only for the XXI, and VII-C/42 subs. Someone please post if this is wrong.
___

Torpedo-reload screen glitch with IXD2 is not too bad, as others have offered several workarounds.

XXI battery-recharge can be manually shut-off, but it's a big headache for the long run.

FUMO-319 ('radar-destroyed' problem) can be avoided, simply by not using this model radar.

As many mentioned before, submerging and going 'snorkel' in late-war can be very hazardous! :ahoy: I keep imagining a fully-functioning FUMO-319/snorkel during 1944/45, and receiving 'Radar-Contacts' while submerged! :arrgh!:

Btw, SU-Apparat Nibelung sonar ('sonar-destroyed' problem) can be avoided by using 'S-Gerat' instead, but I'm pretty sure there is no other sonar-selection for the XXI(?).

___

It's just my opinion, yet I hope the SH3 devs make 1 last-effort and fix these most glaring bugs. They are basic features of the game and should work correctly.

Back to VIIC, late-1943. Things are heating up! :ping:

--edit--
p.s. Thank goodness SH3 is so open to mods, mod-fixes, etc. It really makes the game!

[User 1834]

Fooled into looking up data and doing tests? You have "looked up" 1 thing, and then distorted that to meet your anti XXI agenda (I don't understand that, it is little more than a submarine. How can you hate a submarine so passionately?) Your "tests", one actually, did not prove much of anything. You assumed that a u-boat crew would critically damage their batteries by completely discharging them. In reality they would probably try to recharge their battery at about the 25 to 50% mark. Plus the average cruise speed of the XXI underwater was any where from 4 to 8 knots, although I have found a source stating it was 6 knots. Your test was at 5 knots. If you really wanted the XXI in SHIII to perform like the real thing you would have performed more tests at different speeds.

As it is now, all you have conclusively proven is how little you care about the accuracy of the XXI boat. I don't care about an "uber-boat", as I pointed out before. If I did. I would have loved the infinite battery charge mod, wouldn't I? I only want it to match the performance of the real XXI.

Thank you Beery, defender of accuracy, protector of all things realistic! You have let down the users of the XXI by inconclusive testing, inadequate information, and heavy, obvious bias. *sigh* I should have known you would do this when I saw your anti XXI bias at the Ubisoft forums. Very well, do not trouble yourself with the XXI. Others, me included, will find out how it performed and make the appropriate modifications. We, quite frankly, don't need you to hold our hands to get historical realism.

(Note) – As I have mentioned before. Had your tests actually been conclusive I would have been very happy with how the XXI is right now. In fact, had you REALLY proven that the XXI took several days to charge I would have congratulated you on your hard work. Although, heh, I might still have tried to fix the 100% battery charge bug.

Also, does anyone know what kind of generator the XXI u-boat, or any u-boat actually, carried and what its charging ability was? Lets get some real numbers.

[CCIP]

As much as I don't want to pass as a "Beery fanboy", I think you're making a wrong kind of approach here altogether. I do think this is useless bickering and I do think you're going into slightly personal territory which doesn't belong in this context.

We, quite frankly, don't need you to hold our hands to get historical realism.

There you go. Get your figures, get cracking on implementing them.

The fact is, and I know this from having discussed mod ideas with Beery a lot of the time - you give a modder an argument, and he chooses his own response. They're not under obligation to follow others' ideas, if they're not convinced. And if you can do it yourself - all the power to you. But please don't start bickering senselessly and trying to undermine other people's credibility.

[User 1834]

The fact is, and I know this from having discussed mod ideas with Beery a lot of the time - you give a modder an argument, and he chooses his own response.

I could hardly agree with you more. However, historical realism is not an "opinion" or an "argument". It is a fact. A fact that can be proven. I would not care if the current XXI was correct. I would actually be quite happy, because then there would be one less thing to fix. What bothers me is his cavalier attitude towards the XXI and ITS realism. It is in this game, just like all the other boats, and it too needs to function like the real XXI. Be it an "uber" (that word is overused these days) boat or a piece of laminated cardboard that can't even leave port. You can't simply disregard realism of a boat, even if you do hate it with all your heart, when you are the sole proprietor of the largest and only realism mod in existence.

[Cdre Gibs]

Beery, his fix simply gives the XXI infinite battery power. Which is hardly realistic. The current version is more realistic then being able to travel at flank speed on your batteries indefinitely. We need to try to find a better, more realistic, fix.

I posted 2 "Fix's" for the Type XXI. The firt 1 was a LIST of known working upgrades that didnt give us a "XXXX Destroyed" msg.

The 2nd Post was HOW u can fix the battery issue and what settings I USED not what any1 ELSE should use (but they r free to do so of course)

Pls before u comment on what I have posted - get it into context.

I stated that the Battery issue can be addressed by "FIDDLING" with the multiplyer in the Battery Upgrade settings. I also stated that " My setting wont do u any good but for the record its 1000"

I also made mention that the battery Charge/Discharge rates are a Direct proportional ratio, Not an INVERSE ratio so the bottom line is, the longer the battery will supply power, the longer it will take to recharge ( I maybe wrong on that part but thats what MY experiments show)

Also any battery of a LEAD ACID type that it Discharged below 20% PD (Potential Differance) is basicly screwed - U just killed it. So The thing is U need to Start from a FULLY charged battery and run untill no LESS that 20% charge. Then Recharge the battery to FULL again. This needs to be done at 4Knts, 5Knts, 6knts, 7knts & 8knts. The mean average recharge rate for each test run SHOULD be somewhere in between 3-5 Hours . The reason for the varible in recharge time is mainly to account for the SPEED u are at whilst recharging, and those speeds SHOULD be again at 4Knts, 5Knts, 6knts, 7knts & 8knts. Reason being is back then it was a Generator and NOT an Alternator that did the charging PLUS the subs supply of power to all electrical devices and generators are speed dependent on recharge rates. The other contributing factor's are things NOT modeled into the game, and that is Tidal & Ocean current's that will speed up or slow down a ship/boat/uboat moving along and also effect its recharging ability.

And why a FULL recharge and not a partial recharge, because any good Eng worth his salt know's that to keep dicking around with a Lead Acid battery is not a smart move.

I may not have the correct settings ATM in my Battery upgrade group, but just because I dont, doesn't mean I dont know how to or give any1 any reason NOT to do the above and change it.

[Oddball]

Wow,

I can only think of what my namesake would say about all this.

"Always with the negative waves, Moriarty....Always wit da negative waves!"

LOL.....
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Facts...you want FACTS...you can't handle the FACTS! (Yet another movie quote {paraphrased quite badly}...but from a far different movie.)

Ok..here's a fact. There were 1411 Uboat Commanders during WWII. There were only 118 Type XXI's commissioned. Thus, if the game were accurate and factual like some demand it to be, then each player should only have a 8.3% chance of even commanding a Type XXI.

The game should be modded as follows.
1) You have enough renown to get a XXI and you put in for it.
2) The game 'rolls the dice" and 92% of time you are told "NEIN, Zee boat ist not fur you!"
3) Yer Captain is put back in his Type VII or IX.
4) If yer Captain complains, he is sent to the Russian Front with a Rifle.
5) Now you have to purchase Call of Duty to see if yer Uboat commander survives the war....LOL.

Beery, I think yer doing a GREAT JOB with yer mods. Keep up the good work. In fact, this reminds me of another quote from my namesake.

"How come you ain't helpin' them fix the tank?"
"Ohhh, man.... I just drive 'em, I don't know what makes 'em run...."

Beery, I don't know what makes them mods run of yers, but keep em coming.


Oddball Out!

Woof Woof....thats my other dog imitation.

[User 1834]

Beery, his fix simply gives the XXI infinite battery power. Which is hardly realistic. The current version is more realistic then being able to travel at flank speed on your batteries indefinitely. We need to try to find a better, more realistic, fix.

I posted 2 "Fix's" for the Type XXI. The firt 1 was a LIST of known working upgrades that didnt give us a "XXXX Destroyed" msg.

The 2nd Post was HOW u can fix the battery issue and what settings I USED not what any1 ELSE should use (but they r free to do so of course)

Pls before u comment on what I have posted - get it into context.

I stated that the Battery issue can be addressed by "FIDDLING" with the multiplyer in the Battery Upgrade settings. I also stated that " My setting wont do u any good but for the record its 1000"

I also made mention that the battery Charge/Discharge rates are a Direct proportional ratio, Not an INVERSE ratio so the bottom line is, the longer the battery will supply power, the longer it will take to recharge ( I maybe wrong on that part but thats what MY experiments show)

Also any battery of a LEAD ACID type that it Discharged below 20% PD (Potential Differance) is basicly screwed - U just killed it. So The thing is U need to Start from a FULLY charged battery and run untill no LESS that 20% charge. Then Recharge the battery to FULL again. This needs to be done at 4Knts, 5Knts, 6knts, 7knts & 8knts. The mean average recharge rate for each test run SHOULD be somewhere in between 3-5 Hours . The reason for the varible in recharge time is mainly to account for the SPEED u are at whilst recharging, and those speeds SHOULD be again at 4Knts, 5Knts, 6knts, 7knts & 8knts. Reason being is back then it was a Generator and NOT an Alternator that did the charging PLUS the subs supply of power to all electrical devices and generators are speed dependent on recharge rates. The other contributing factor's are things NOT modeled into the game, and that is Tidal & Ocean current's that will speed up or slow down a ship/boat/uboat moving along and also effect its recharging ability.

And why a FULL recharge and not a partial recharge, because any good Eng worth his salt know's that to keep dicking around with a Lead Acid battery is not a smart move.

I may not have the correct settings ATM in my Battery upgrade group, but just because I dont, doesn't mean I dont know how to or give any1 any reason NOT to do the above and change it.

Hmm...... interesting. This might be exactly what we are looking for then. Although, I thought that the modifier for battery upgrades only changed the type of battery. You have found that it actually has a direct impact on battery capacity? Also, the sim file (in the NSS_Uboat21 file) contains range data. Do you, Cdr Gibs, think it might be possible to lower the available battery power in your CFG file, thus reducing the recharge time, and compensating by changing the value in the sim file?

Edit - I have looked through the cfg files some more and it seems like the IX has the same battery modifier as the XXI. Wouldn't it have the same recharge rate problem?

Also, there was someone posting that they had managed to fix the snorkel radar bug on the XXI. I don't remember their name though, if you are here can you please post in this forum. Lets fix this boat.

[mpugsley]

Sigh.

I don't care how realistic a bug is.

If something doesn't work the way it was obviously _intended_ to work, the game is bugged.

:roll:

Fair enough. That seems a reasonable usuage of the term "bug". But even so, and assuming that the game isn't working as intended, it only follows that the game is bugged. It doesn't follow that every bug (this bug in particular) is bad and needs to be fixed. I'm not saying that you were saying that the bug was bad. Your point may have just been to insist that we call a bug a bug. In which case, I completely agree. I just wanted to argue that Beery is at least this much right: we can treat the bug like a feature. If the developers have unintentionally made the game more realistic than it would have been had their intentions been realized, we should celebrate the event, not mourn it.

Edit - Also, it seems unlikely to me that the U-boat crews would allow their battery to discharge completly. Not only would this badly damage their battery but it would also leave them defensless for a considerable amount of time. I say again, your test is inconclusive.

This is the best argument I've seen yet for the claim that Beery's test is a good one. (At least that it sufficiently approximatese a good one to be a good one.) As I understand it, the argument in the thread (recently) has been whether it should take 3-5 hours or 13 hours (as Beery found) to fully recharge the battery. (For the moment, let's count 98% as full. It's close enough. There is still a huge difference between whether the 98% [or so] should take 3-5 hours or 13 hours.)

Beery says 13 hours is reasonable. Lots of other people are unhappy because this seems too long. Data is cited to support the claim that the entire battery should be recharged within 5 hours (i.e. 0% to either 98% or 100% in 5 hours).

What Beery's test shows is that a 5 hour recharge (from 2% to 55%) allows the XXI to run at 25m and at 5 knots for 72 hours. (I am curious if it really stayed at 5 knots the whole time or whether the battery ran out after 72 hours, in which case, the sub would be moving slower than 5 knots during the final hours.) This is consistent with the idea that the sub must recharge every 72 hours (for 5 hours) before being able to repeat the routine.

The claim that no sub crew would ever fully discharge the battery strongly supports Beery's conclusion because the 5 hour recharge would be applied well before the battery ran out. Thus, the 5 hour recharge (even if it were to a full 100%) wouldn't be a recharge of the entire battery. Thus a 13 hour recharge of the whole battery (or at least, 98% of it) is quite plausible.

What matters is this: a 5 hour recharge gives you that portion of the battery which is used during the 2-3 days of submerged travel (at 4-8 knots). That portion of the battery would be less than the entire battery since no crew would fully discharge the battery. Thus it should certainly take longer than 5 hours to recharge the entire battery. How much longer depends on how much of the battery is used in 2-3 days of travel (which is regenerated in 5 hours).

I think a more interesting version of Beery's test wouldn't have the boat operate from 0% to a percentage reached after 5 hours (which has turned out to be 55%). Rather, we should have the boat start at 98% (which is the game's max after a little use), and then go for 2-3 days. Stop there. Assume that that is where the U-boot crew would say "The battery has had enough. We could push it further, but we would damage it. It is time to recharge." Then recharge back to 98%. See if it takes 5 hours. If so, then we have a fairly reasonable model of the operational data provided to us by Uboat.net.

In other words, test the 'top' half of the battery, which is the part that would be used. The results should be about the same.

Of course even if the test verifies the data from Uboat.net, the test won't be completely conclusive. There are multiple ways of achieving the same operational results.

A)The XXI might use the top 60% of the battery in 2-3 days of submerged travel at 4-8 knots, leaving the battery at 40%. Further assume that it is important to take the battery no lower than 40%. This would explain why the crew chooses to charge the battery after 2-3 days. It isn't empty, but it's at 40%, which is the minimum safe charge (as far as not damaging the battery goes). Let us further assume that a 5 hour charge is sufficient to get the crew back to where they started, namely at 100% so that they can repeat this routine (i.e. travel submerged at 4-8 knots for 2-3 days and recharge to their original charge after 5 hours). The conclusion would be that the 5 hour charge is sufficient for charging the top 60% of the battery.

B)The XXI might use the top 70% of the battery in 2-3 days of submerged travel at 4-8 knots, leaving the battery at 30%. Further assume that it is important to take the battery no lower than 30%. This would explain why the crew chooses to charge the battery after 2-3 days. It isn't empty, but it's at 30%, which is the minimum safe charge (as far as not damaging the battery goes). Let us further assume that a 5 hour charge is sufficient to get the crew back to where they started, namely at 100% so that they can repeat this routine (i.e. travel submerged at 4-8 knots for 2-3 days and recharge to their original charge after 5 hours). The conclusion would be that the 5 hour charge is sufficient for charging the top 70% of the battery.

In either case, the 5 hour charge is *not* of the whole battery, precisely for the reason stated by Ariel, namely that no U-boot crew would *try* to charge the whole battery. The crew would never entirely discharge the entire battery. The 5 hours is sufficient for completely recharging the operational portion of the battery. So in a sense, the 5 hour recharge is complete, but it is only the complete recharge of that portion of the battery which is safe to use (without damaging the battery).

The point of my examples A and B is to show that we don't yet know exactly how much of the battery would be used by the XXI in 2-3 days of sumberged travel at 4-8 knots.

Conclusions:
If we put our faith in this one line from Uboat.net, then we can be confidant that the XXI is (roughly of course) operationally realistic. We cannot be sure that the battery needle accurately represents what the battery would be like after x hours of travel/recharge. We don't know how far it is to go down after 2-3 days of submerged travel at 4-8 knots, and so, we don't know how much it's supposed to go up after 5 hours of recharge. All we know is that it goes down to some degree (presumably not all the way down), and then, after 5 hours of recharge, it goes all the way back up.

How much does this further worry about accuracy matter? So long as we're in the territory of 'reasonable' numbers and the operational results are (roughly) accurate, then shouldn't we be happy? I'd say so, although I concede that representational accuracy does matter some.

Our situation is like the man in Plato's dialogue "The Theatetus". (I think it was "The Theatetus". I'm too lazy to look it up.) Anyways, there's a man who wants to go to the city of Larissa. He believes (falsely) that Larissa is the north. It isn't. It's to the south. But he's also confused about which way is north. He thinks north is south and south, north. So he ends up travelling south, thinking that (a) he's headed north and (b) Larissa is to the north. He ends up actually getting to Larissa with these two false beliefs. His beliefs are false. And it would be 'better' if he had true beliefs. But he did, after all, get to Larissa. So is it really such a big deal that he had false beliefs?

Similarly, it would be nice to have our battery work perfectly--max charge should decrease with not only the first recharge, but presumably every recharge (and in a realistic way), and recharge and discharge rates should be perfectly accurate (which would include variable rates, depending on the current state of charge). Our battery surely isn't perfect. (Hopefully it's closer to being correct than the beliefs of the man who was going to Larissa.) But it does (at least it seems to me) get the operational data correct. It's not at all clear to me that we need more than that (or better, it's not clear to me that it's worth much work to get the 'perfectly accurate' battery representation which successfully models the operational data, when the present model (although not perfectly accurate) seems to do a fairly good job of successfully modelling the operational data.

To compare this issue with others and perhaps bring a bit of acceptance to the 'bug', 'feature', whatever: Why are we so content with the other Uboots? Even if they are operationally reasonable, they may be completely wrong. They might 'work' only because the discharge and recharge rates are *both* wrong (like the beliefs of the man travelling to Larissa). Additionally, we're allowed to go near 0% without damaging our batteries. Isn't that extremely unrealistic? I haven't seen lots of angst about those issues, but worry seems to be equally well warranted about them (if not more warranted).

[Syxx_Killer]

Wow. I guess I have been a bit ignorant of the facts regarding the battery issue. If I said anything wrong in this thread I apologize. Now, let's get to the more pressing matters at hand, shall we? Like the self-destructing radar and sonar for the XXI, IXD2 and whatever other boats are affected. :lol:

[User 1834]

An interesting post, to be sure. Sadly though, I don't really have time to respond at the moment, but I will later after some in game tests.

Oh, by the way, thanks for calling me "Ariel". Its much better than "User 1834" :) Hey, I was running out of options!

[TteFAboB]

@Oddball, we're talking about a game, or a simulator if you prefer, it is not a matter of being 100% realistic parallel universe or a complete fantasy dream. Your suggestions on the XXI availability are honest but think of "Flight Simulator", there are very, very few Boeing 747-XXX Pilots out there if compared to the massive masses of civil and smaller planes pilots, should Microsoft or modders work less hard to present a realistic 747-XXX only because it is a rare plane and if you wish to be a 747 pilot in real life your chances are very slim?

No, and especially because it is a rare, and more importantly, UNIQUE, aircraft it must be special and as realistic as possible to fly one in the simulator.

The same goes for the XXI, it is rare and special, "Silent Hunter III" is not only a realistic captain career simulator, it is open and flexible and allows you to play through your career as you wish, you can play as historically as possible and as unhistorically as possible or anywhere in between the two, you can choose historical boats but operate in unhistorical grids or rebase to unhistorical bases and so on, all with the same level of realism.

You find it negative to ask for a realistic XXI? Fiddling with the XXI could lead to new discoveries of the game mechanics which could lead to realism improvements on the other boats aswell, no modding is ever negative, if the in-game battery recharge operation on the XXI is "different" from the other boats it is an issue valid for investigation too.

[Cdre Gibs]

Hmm...... interesting. This might be exactly what we are looking for then. Although, I thought that the modifier for battery upgrades only changed the type of battery. You have found that it actually has a direct impact on battery capacity? Also, the sim file (in the NSS_Uboat21 file) contains range data. Do you, Cdr Gibs, think it might be possible to lower the available battery power in your CFG file, thus reducing the recharge time, and compensating by changing the value in the sim file?

Edit - I have looked through the cfg files some more and it seems like the IX has the same battery modifier as the XXI. Wouldn't it have the same recharge rate problem?

Also, there was someone posting that they had managed to fix the snorkel radar bug on the XXI. I don't remember their name though, if you are here can you please post in this forum. Lets fix this boat.

Ok to get a few things straight, the battery Upgrade Group looks like this

NameIdx6=1269
Year6=1939
Month6=1
NbSub6=2
Sub60=2
Sub61=3
Renown6=0
Name6=AFA44MAL740
Energy6=1000

The Upgrades are sorted by an ID in this case its NameIdx6=1269.
Its energy multiplyer is Energy6=1000 (as in my case). However, this is a Multiplyer applied to the ELECTRICAL recharge rate of the sub that the battery is put into, in this instance the Type XXI. The Type XXI Recharges via its EL Propultion HP rating and RPM of 1 of its Generator/Electric motor's when driven by its coupled Diesel Engine. The Diesel is Governed by the Speed(Knts) at which the Type XXI is currently at since the Diesel Engines are operated in Parrallel. There for Its just a case of changing the Energy6=XXXX to a different value. YES it will impact upon any other Boat that the Battery is placed into (NameIdx6=1269).

On the other hand u can play around with the EL Propultion settings for the sub and make the sub more EFFICIENT (less drain on the battery) I also have done this to all the subs in the SS Mod.(except mine are more along the lines of grunt !) and also reset ranges and speeds. If I was to make the sub more efficient I would lower the HP rating and the RPMS and extend the range. But if u go to far then it will take even longer to recharge the battery. This is why I said its a direct ratio on Charge/Discharge.

What the correct settings would be I have no idea as I dont mod the same way say like Berry. I'm at the other end of the scale u might say. But still I do know its not a simple issue to fix to be 100% Anal :D

[Catfish]

Hello,
don't want to be a wisea**, but because i have been on the U-2540 and also have a book (Eckard Wetzel: "U 2540", ISBN 3-86070-556-3) about it, i only add some facts - do with it what you want ;) .

The U-2540, later named "Wilhelm Bauer" after being raised in 1957 is a type XXI boat that was thoroughly tested by the german Navy from 1960 to 1982. It is now moored at the port of Bremen (Bremerhaven) as a museum. The batteries have recently been removed, so it does not have its original waterline:
http://www.dsm.de/3ubor.htm

Ok, to the facts as listed in the book:

Surfaced drive with Diesel propulsion (2 propshafts)
Range at cruise speed:
17000 seamiles at 8 knots
15000 sm at 9 knots
14000 sm at 10 knots
11000 sm at 12 knots
Range at high speed:
5000 sm at 15,6 knots

Submerged drive with electric propulsion (2 propshafts)
Range at slow speed:
480 seamiles at 3 knots
420 sm at 4 knots
330 sm at 5 knots
250 sm at 6 knots
Range at high speed:
130 sm at 8 knots
90 sm at 10 knots
30 sm at 15 knots
(top speed submerged 18 knots, no range tested. Some boats only able to run at 16,2 knots due to production and fitting problems)

Submerged drive with snorkel (2 propshafts)
15500 seamiles at 6 knots
11000 sm at 8 knots

An increase of range at slow speed (~6 knots) was possible with Diesel-electric drive, meaning one Diesel charging, and propulsion by both electrical "creep" engines.
All other combinations were certainly possible like in the other "conventional" U-boats.

Battery charging:
Problem is the boat had six engines: Two Diesels, two main electric engines and two "creep" engines which were "rafted" and coupled to the propshafts via belt gears, so vibrations would not be transferred to the hull. The latter used very few energy, thus the long endurance at slow speeds.
The charging times differed depending on how much discharged the batteries were, and if there were the Diesel-driven Junkers compressor or the other electric compressors switched to "load" the pressure tanks, or better compress air. If the boat was at full stop submerged, the Askania automatic hovering device that held the boat at an exact depth would also use some electricity as did other minor engines and devices. If the boat ran submerged with snorkel, using only it's creep engines for propulsion, and one Diesel charging (the other at full stop) it would take appx. 5 hours to recharge.
As well voltage, acid density of the batteries and temperature had an impact on the recharging times.

Normal charge (quick charge did not really change the recharging times):
(previous de-charging/emptying with 2750 A = 8250 Ah)

Full charge:
9488 Ah = 115 % 6 hours 45 minutes
9075 Ah = 110 % 6 hours
8890 Ah = 100,5 % 4 hours 30 minutes

So for what i see, a recharge time of 3 hours would be impossible, even under best conditions.

Greetings,
Catfish

[mpugsley]

If the boat ran submerged with snorkel, using only it's creep engines for propulsion, and one Diesel charging (the other at full stop) it would take appx. 5 hours to recharge.

Can you clarify if this is from roughly 0% charge to roughly 100% (i.e. the whole of the battery, not just some portion that was safe to use)?

Did the crews use the whole battery or only a portion? It seems that with many rechargeable batteries, if you push them too low, you can't recharge them. I don't know if this applies to the Uboot batteries or not.

[User 1834]

Catfish, thank you for that information. That was EXACTLY what I was looking for. Although, I am not sure what you mean about the recharge times. Are those recharge times from completely discharged batteries? If so, then those are some bloody fast charging batteries. Even faster than I thought, in fact. Does your source happen to have the maximum capacity of the XXI batteries so I can confirm the numbers I found? Also, would you mind please stating the source of this information so we can avoid any childish arguments about the validity of the information? Thanks.

Using this new information I am going to put the XXI in the game through a battery of 60 endurance and charge time tests. I will post the results of the tests as soon as I have them. Then we can compare those numbers to the real XXI and see if the XXI in SH3 is a hit or a miss. Again, Catfish, I can not thank you enough for those numbers.

Cdr Gibs, you have the most information on the electrical system in SH3 and how to mod it. I might need your help if I find that the current XXI is wrong. Also, do you have any idea what might be causing the battery to only charge to about 98-99% and how we can fix this fantastic, realistic, "feature" :roll: ? Thanks for all the help Cdr Gibs.

Also, I still haven't heard from the person who proposed a snorkel radar fix. If you are reading this thread, please post. I want to set up one mod to completely correct the bugs of the XXI and possibly the IX-D2.



Ariel (AKA User 1834 :-? )

Edit - Also, if any of you think that you can help us make the XXI more realistic, should we find it is not currently, feel free to post and let me know. We can use all the help we can get.

[Syxx_Killer]

User 1834, Jungman was working on a mod in this thread:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=40248&start=50

The mod itself is on page 3 (which is what the link starts at).

[User 1834]

Update - I am about 65% finished with my testing and have about 26 tests left to go. I must say though, I am getting some interesting numbers, and a bad headache. I have been doing these monotonous tests for about 5 hours so far. :dead: It appears that the current SH3 charge times are very far from the mark if I am interpreting Catfish's data correctly. I should have the tests finished in 1 to 2 hours. After I finish the tests and take some Advil I will post the results up here in both chart and table format.

[Catfish]

Hello,
just wanted to add to sth. i said before:

Normal charge (quick charge did not really change the recharging times):
(previous de-charging/emptying with 2750 A = 8250 Ah)

Full charge:
9488 Ah = 115 % 6 hours 45 minutes
9075 Ah = 110 % 6 hours
8890 Ah = 100,5 % 4 hours 30 minutes
new -- > 7310 Ah = 88,6 % 3 hours 45 minutes

I took the numbers out of graphs describing grades of effectiveness and battery-graphs. The times may differ depending of all those other influences mentioned before and losses during transfer, mechanical and electrical. However the numbers above are what was observed and tested in reality, so no theoretical calculations.

Tested battery type: 44 MAL 740 E/21, 6 x 62 cells

From what i understand the batteries had been emptied with 8250 Ah here, a full new charge (115%) would be 9488 Ah (this is Ampère per hour, so it was discharged with one A for 8250 hours, or 8250 A in one hour, or most probably something in between). Don't know whether this is correct, but if i substract one number from the other, the emptied battery would still have had some 1238 Ah - maybe this is not a "deep discharge", but a level that would be usual during a normal cruise without draining the very rest out of the batteries and probably damaging them.

I'm still looking through the book, but please bear with me, the information is scattered over all those pages ;) - i'll post again if i find something new.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[User 1834]

Excellent job, Catfish. I just finished my tests so we can start comparing the SH3 XXI with the real life XXI.

On your battery discharge information, does that mean the battery still had about a 14 percent charge? I must admit, it has been some time since I studied electronics. :oops: If that is what it means then the XXI charged even faster then I thought.

The information from my tests is in a series of tables that I can't really post here on this forum without a lot of effort. I am going to host it on one of my webservers and post a link to it. - Edit - Hmm, my free web hosts seem to have forgotten who I am. :shifty: I will have to find another way to do this.


Ariel (AKA User 1834 :-? )

[terrapin]

Excellent job, Catfish. I just finished my tests so we can start comparing the SH3 XXI with the real life XXI.

On your battery discharge information, does that mean the battery still had about a 14 percent charge? I must admit, it has been some time since I studied electronics. :oops: If that is what it means then the XXI charged even faster then I thought.

The information from my tests is in a series of tables that I can't really post here on this forum without a lot of effort. I am going to host it on one of my webservers and post a link to it. - Edit - Hmm, my free web hosts seem to have forgotten who I am. :shifty: I will have to find another way to do this.



Ariel (AKA User 1834 :-? )

Send the tables over to me (contact me through PM if you need an email addy), I'll host them

[Catfish]

Hello,
just found full capacity of batteries is 11300 Ah, full battery weight 240 tons.
So the test was done with batteries fully charged, then 3-hour discharge with 2750 A, so 3x 2750 = 8250 Ah. We have to substract 8250 from 11300, which is 3050 Ah left in the battery, this is a bit less than one third overall capacity left.
Greetings,
Catfish

[terrapin]

Here are the tables:

http://server4.realsimulation.com/BatteryInformation.htm

[User 1834]

Thanks, Terrapin and Catfish.

Okay, I think then that we can confirm with all of this information that the XXI in SH3 does not charge at a historically correct rate. Now we just have to figure out how to fix it. Ideas anyone?

[User 1834]

Update - I have tried several fixes suggested by SeaSlug but they have not had any effect. I am going to continue trying different combinations of diesel engine power and electric motor power.

[Average Joe]

Wow. I guess I have been a bit ignorant of the facts regarding the battery issue. If I said anything wrong in this thread I apologize. Now, let's get to the more pressing matters at hand, shall we? Like the self-destructing radar and sonar for the XXI, IXD2 and whatever other boats are affected. :lol:

Syxx_Killer,

Thanks for mentioning problems with IXD2 'radar/sonar destroyed'. I thought this problem occured only with XXI and VII-C/42 subs.

I have not used the IXD2 much, and never saw an (F3-screen) scrolling radar/sonar-destroyed 'text' message, but the (F7) sub display radar-compartment will show a 'Sonar Destroyed' in red. I'm not sure sonar is really destroyed but it says it is :)

[Syxx_Killer]

Thanks for mentioning problems with IXD2 'radar/sonar destroyed'. I thought this problem occured only with XXI and VII-C/42 subs.

I don't think the IXD2 had self-destructing radar. I know my choice of wording may have eluded to it, but I'm just not sure. :-? I'm using the IXD2 in a career, but have only got the sonar destroyed message (S-Gerat).

I have not used the IXD2 much, and never saw an (F3-screen) scrolling radar/sonar-destroyed 'text' message, but the (F7) sub display radar-compartment will show a 'Sonar Destroyed' in red. I'm not sure sonar is really destroyed but it says it is

I'm not sure what the F3, or F7 screen is. I never use the F keys to switch stations. :oops: The text message appears immediately upon start of a career mission (not sure about single missions as I hardly every play them). The sonar in the game is really active sonar. Getting the sonar destroyed message, and consequently, the destroyed sonar only affects you ability to ping a contact. You can still use your hydrophones. I guess this self-destructing sonar bug really doesn't bother me because I very rarely, if ever, use the sonar. Now, if it were the hydrophones that were bugged, then that would be disastrous and downright mean! :88)

[SeaSlug_U999]

Ariel, I'm sorry it didn't work (E_prop adjustment).

Now here's the logic behind it. Type IX for example, has an E_Prop of about 1000, whereas the diesel puts up 4000. The XXI has a diesel of 5500 and E_prop of 4400 (or something like this).

Anyway, as some people in the thread you posted me said, the more efficient E_prop is (lower HP that is), the slower it will recharge. Could make sense.

I did increase the diesel to 10.000 and the batt recharged significantly faster. However, it'd burnt the fuel like hell. So it is a no win - no win situation.

As to the FUMO 391, it seems no one found a way to fix it. Damn, in 44, it is the only way to use the radar (atop the snorkel), otherwise a bunch of Lancs or Catalinas are gona send ya right to the bottom. Besides, it is the only way to see them in time to dive and run like hell.

[User 1834]

Hmm. Perhaps there is some way to compensate for the increased diesel usage? I am going to try the 10,000 diesel power setting and see how long it takes to recharge. If it does work then there must be a way to compensate for the increased speed and diesel usage.

[Cdre Gibs]

Ok, I'll say it again. Fiddle with -" SHP PLUS RPM "

E Propultion = DRAIN

D Propultion = CHARGE

Battery Multiplyer = RATE

Ok example - increase SHP, decrease RPM = Same consumption same speed, but different Drain/Charge properties or increase RPM, decrease SHP.
However, be aware that a FASTER D Propultion RPM with more SHP than an E Propultion RPM and SHP resualts in a faster speed at snorkel depth.

The Type XXI is REVERSE to all other Subs in that it has a Better E Propultion than its D Propultion.

Ohh PS : The Type XXI does NOT have a RADAR mounted ontop of its Snorkel, its ment to be the Radar Warning Reciever IIRC. A radar ontop of the snorkel at sea level is rather redundent as it would have a VERY limited range, BUT a reciver to pickup the aircraft radar is of course self explanertory !
However placing a Radar emmiter ontop would be nice for when ur surfaced to get a tad more range :)

[SeaSlug_U999]

OK, thanks, I thought the RPM are purely decorative.

PS: Apropos de Radar. :roll: The SH3 files say the FUMO 391 RADAR was put on top of the snorkel. Hystorical accuracy? Dunno?!!

Anyway, since these people figured out jet engines, rockets, and other nice gadgets, I find it hard to believe they never figured out how to put an extensible antena on the sail?! :rotfl: You may snorkel, but while you snorkel you're a sitting duck (whale) :hmm: Hard to believe...

So whatever goes on top of the snorkel, I'm happy with, as long as it gives me a bit of warning!!!!!!!! :stare:

[User 1834]

I never heard of them putting, or planning to put, a radar on the snorkel. What they DID place on the snorkel however was the Naxos radar detector.
http://uboat.net/types/illustrations/schnflv.gif
"The Floating valve type (top) is seen here with the rare but sophisticated Naxos radar detector mast."

[Cdre Gibs]

Actually they had 2 extra, 1 for the Radio Mast and 1 for the Radar MAST.

Now heres the kicker, in SHIII BOTH masts are modeled, but u just cant RAISE them !

I have seen INSIDE the Sail, and yes BOTH masts are there !!!

[Seaboy]

Amazing how this silly thread grew into such a rope. Talk about bumping. I had even forgot I posted the silly thing. I think I was having one of my OLD SELF - Ornery Mood Attacks at the time. But I see many good things grew over it and some really interesting things at that. I suppose the title got to everyone - cause it is a pain to all players of SH3 - which is a great game. But I really have quite the game now for weeks - burned it off my PC. Now I am just waiting for SH4 - which will hopefully be SH3 with all the missing parts added.

[Syxx_Killer]

I never heard of them putting, or planning to put, a radar on the snorkel. What they DID place on the snorkel however was the Naxos radar detector.

Same here. I wasn't aware of radar, either. Seeing all this "radar on top of snorkel" talk has got me confused. :oops:

[Jace11]

This thread has turned into another XXI bug thread. There is the XXI "sucks" thread in the main SH3 forum, and the 8km workaround thread covers some of the same stuff.

Also someone else started another thread on batteries, snorkel and radar in the XXI

Great!

Except its bloody confusing and difficult to keep track of everything...

[SeaSlug_U999]

Yeah, I've seen them myself, but the extension is not coded. (e.g. look at the beginning of XXI.sim file, and you'll see obj_extensible (snorkel and periscopes). You can even alter the lenght of the extension (I made my scope & snorkel in the XXI rise another 3m - up to 20m on the scale). <32bit float>

I'm afraid something has been omitted in the original code. (i.e. the extensible FUMO/FUMB masts).

[SeaSlug_U999]

I never heard of them putting, or planning to put, a radar on the snorkel. What they DID place on the snorkel however was the Naxos radar detector.

Same here. I wasn't aware of radar, either. Seeing all this "radar on top of snorkel" talk has got me confused. :oops:

So I guess you never read what the <help> sais for FUMO 391?:) It's not a matter of historical accuracy for me, it is just something it is advertised in the game but bugged. Personally I don't care if the 'real' uboat had or not ESM masts. I wish the one in the game would work though.

PS: for all the die-hard fans out there, I really appreciate your entusiasm and respect your choice of gaming. For me, however, it is just a great game, which will never compare to being a real uboat captain. So I'd like to take advantage of all it's features. For all I care they (devs or modders) could put up a bizarre nazi-virginia-class sub in 45, I'd play it.

[Syxx_Killer]

So I guess you never read what the <help> sais for FUMO 391?

Actually, no I haven't. Since it is bugged I never even bothered. :P :oops: :lol:

[Average Joe]

I don't think the IXD2 had self-destructing radar. I know my choice of wording may have eluded to it, but I'm just not sure. :-? I'm using the IXD2 in a career, but have only got the sonar destroyed message
(S-Gerat).

Hi Syxx_Killer,

Yes, with the IXD2, that is what I see too; S-Gerat Sonar-destroyed, no problem with Radar.

I'm glad you posted about it, because I just don't see that initial text-message ('sonar-destroyed') when starting a patrol with IXD2. After you mentioned, then I checked and found it shows as 'destroyed', in the sub-compartment display.

Getting the sonar destroyed message, and consequently, the destroyed sonar only affects you ability to ping a contact.

If you're talking about pinging for range(?) I don't see this problem with the IXD2. I can ping a contact and receive proper range. Like you, not too often used, but it does seem to work.

Unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible! :)) all equipment seems to function on the IXD2, even though sonar is destroyed. Then again I don't get that initial text-message (though I see it with XXI or VCII/42 subs).

p.s. Hope you don't mind my quoting only part of your reply.

[Syxx_Killer]

If you're talking about pinging for range(?) I don't see this problem with the IXD2. I can ping a contact and receive proper range.

Hmmm... That's odd. I thought sonar in the game was actually active sonar? Does this anomaly still occur on the on VIIC/42 and XXI subs? I've never used the sonar on the XXI and never even used the VIIC/42.

Hope you don't mind my quoting only part of your reply.

I don't mind. That's what the quote feature is there for. :D

[Average Joe]

Syxx_Killer,

Active sonar (compared to passive?), to be honest I don't know. :oops:

I have not used the XXI either, except to see what it was like (really big!). Pretty sure it comes equipped only with SU-Apparat Nibelung' sonar though. If also using FuMO-391 radar, I see a 'Sonar/Radar/Mast Destroyed' text-messages.

With the VII-C/42 (really enjoy this sub!), this is the best equipment I have found that works okay (with no 'Destroyed' messages):

Sonar: S-Gerat
Radar: FuMO-61 or FuMO-64
Radar-Waring: FuMB-26
___

...Someday I hope to be a 'quote'n-machine!' :-j

[rulle34]

Where is the info about "no more patches".
It would be nice to know and I also want to turn back to the subject this thread was started for.

/Rulle

[Catfish]

Hello,
nobody said there were no more patches, but Ubirazz (i guess it was him) stated the devteam would currently be working on a different project (most probably Pacific theatre or an add-on to the current sim), so no patches next time - maybe there will be one, but it'll take some time.
Have patience, there are so much mods (and good ones!) and maybe the new expansion coming out in august is worth it.
Greetings,
Catfish

[rulle34]

Hello,
nobody said there were no more patches, but Ubirazz (i guess it was him) stated the devteam would currently be working on a different project (most probably Pacific theatre or an add-on to the current sim), so no patches next time - maybe there will be one, but it'll take some time.
Have patience, there are so much mods (and good ones!) and maybe the new expansion coming out in august is worth it.
Greetings,
Catfish

Thanks Catfish! :up:

[U301]

UBI Soft did not make £750,000 in the first month so...
"No more patches!"
:k_confused:
KUrtz