Just to pick a nit - remember the lookouts in the original message are using best estimation by strictly visual clues and experience - like the point system. When you use the Nearest Visual button it is presumed that the WO is now using the UZO (or something similar) to get a more precise reading of the initial contact report. That is for bearing - range is still an estimate as I believe only a periscope view has the markings to get any accuracy - the UZO didn't have any such, nor the binoculars used by the bridge crew.

There's no problem to patch the exe with the 4 GB patch after doing h.sie's lessons.
The other way around it works, too.

The 4 GB patch changes only one byte.

-

Great thanks! I haven't been paying attention sitting here in the back of the class for this lesson.

Hay whats the answer to question 5 C or D?

5c: RTFT

5d: RTFT

@Draka: If I understand you right, you say that Nearest visual contact should be equal or more exact than the normal "ship spotted" messages? That's what I think, too.

@H.Sie, i think that 5 degrees steps at bearings is too 'large' .

i tested today the mod and it is working as intended !
VERY good work H.Sie :up:

@H.Sie, can you confirm this ^^ ??

Yup. 4GB patch works, but must be applied AFTER patch V15A (or later ones from this coourse).

Yes, the initial "Ship Spotted" is actually being called out by the appropriate lookout - just Ubi made the WO repeat it instead of having to write a routine to have the correct lookout facing that ship being the one animated (Crew Member 13,14,15 or 16 as opposed to the WO number 0)- and the voice files to go with it! The followup "Nearest Visual" is you as commander asking the WO for a detailed report. So the first one is resonably accurate while the latter is more exact - again as to bearing. It is up to you whether you think his estimate of the range is better than the other lookouts.

Thanks, Draka. I'll let bearing untouched. I think the effect on gameplay is too small and does not excuse the effort reqired to fix. range will be fixed as described

Regarding 4GB patch.

In this point I have to disagree with Squaresteelbar who wrote that the patching sequence does not matter.

The sequence IS IMPORTANT:

• First check if sh3.exe has correct MD5 checksum.
• If yes: patch sh3.exe with V15A (or later patches from the course here).
• After that: apply 4GB patch.

If you change that sequence (first 4GB, then V15X) you'll shred the executable. Patching with bspatch requires that EVERY single bit of an exe is as expected. Otherwise it will shred the executable. That's the reason why it is necessary to first check the MD5 checksum.

h.sie

You're not quite right, mate.

The sequence doesn't matter. The result is always the same, since the 4GB patch changes only one byte from 0F to 2F. Just checked it out.

http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9072/000ip.jpg

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5907/001wde.jpg

Related to step 2 of your lesson you're right - the checksum will differ though it's possible to apply V15A patch and you'll get the same 4GB sh3.exe [byte for byte].

Prerequisite is the non-sf sh3.exe 1.331.200 bytes sized, Timestamp Tuesday, June, 14, 2005, 11:54:24.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe that improves confusion so I recommend to follow h.sie's advices.

@SSB:

I am aware that the 4GB patch only changes a single BIT in the PE header of the executable. But: After applying the 4GB patch, you cannot continue to patch your exe file with bspatch+V15A. Try it. It will result in a file that cannot be executed. it's simply shredded.

h.sie

I also recommend to follow my advices :-)

Tried it already, identic exe, not shredded.

It works since your patch depends on the correct file size not on the correct checksum, right?

ups. that surprises/confuses me, because I also tried that a week before without success. so maybe it (always? sometimes?) works to change the patch sequence. funny.

but in spite of that: I recommend to use the following sequence:

1) V15
2) 4GB-patch.

simply because that's the way I create and test the files. I do not support the other way around to make my life easier.

h.sie