[REL] Real ASW Mod

[gap]

Originally Posted by padi

The bug is that due to an error in the mission editor the ships are driving with 1939 equipment for the whole war...

Really?

That's a lame bug. GWX has represented a standard and the state-of-art of SHIII modding for quite a long time. I am surprised that after all these years no one attempted to fix that error. Do you have any idea on its causes?

Originally Posted by padi

The mod isn't compatible with other mods because I had to change the .eqp-file of any included ship, so the new DCs really work.

That's true. Editing all those eqp files one by one can be a PITA. Not to mention the fact that some ASW vessels might need their equipment nodes moved or new ones added

[padi]

Originally Posted by gap

Really? [emoji5]



That's a lame bug. GWX has represented a standard and the state-of-art of SHIII modding for quite a long time. I am surprised that after all these years no one attempted to fix that error. Do you have any idea on its causes?

In LSH and Ccom the Date-Bug is corrected. I don't know, if that's the case for WAC, but I'm sure that it isn't corrected in GWX...
The cause is a error in the mission editor, you have to fix it manually in the files.

Originally Posted by gap

That's true. Editing all those eqp files one by one can be a PITA. Not to mention the fact that some ASW vessels might need their equipment nodes moved or new ones added

Thats right, for example the Fletcher need to have two more K-Guns added...

[gap]

Originally Posted by padi

In LSH and Ccom the Date-Bug is corrected. I don't know, if that's the case for WAC, but I'm sure that it isn't corrected in GWX...
The cause is a error in the mission editor, you have to fix it manually in the files.

I am not 100% sure but now that you make me to think about it, I might know what causes the problem and, if I am correct, the same issue might apply to SH5 too.

I am going by memory here: there is a series of parameters applying to each unit in campaign (i.e. camoufflage, equipment and sensors) whose value can be set to "early", "mid" and "late" within Mission Editor. In practice, these parameters overseed start/end dates in units' .cfg, .eqp and .sns files and they make the game to look for the 1st, 2nd or 3rd item in the sequence of upgrades applying to the same node/unit, regardless of date settings of that item. If I rememeber correctly, "early", "mid" and "late" visible in ME, translate to values of 0, 1 and 2 in the campaign/mission files, as we see them in notepad.

I have no proof of what I am going to say, but I think that for making date settings to be applied as supposed, those numbers must be set to -1. This is something that must be done manually, as ME doesn't allow this kind of setting.

Originally Posted by padi

Thats right, for example the Fletcher need to have two more K-Guns added...

[Hebe Vollmaus]

Originally Posted by gap

I am not 100% sure but now that you make me to think about it, I might know what causes the problem and, if I am correct, the same issue might apply to SH5 too.

I am going by memory here: there is a series of parameters applying to each unit in campaign (i.e. camoufflage, equipment and sensors) whose value can be set to "early", "mid" and "late" within Mission Editor. In practice, these parameters overseed start/end dates in units' .cfg, .eqp and .sns files and they make the game to look for the 1st, 2nd or 3rd item in the sequence of upgrades applying to the same node/unit, regardless of date settings of that item. If I rememeber correctly, "early", "mid" and "late" visible in ME, translate to values of 0, 1 and 2 in the campaign/mission files, as we see them in notepad.

I have no proof of what I am going to say, but I think that for making date settings to be applied as supposed, those numbers must be set to -1. This is something that must be done manually, as ME doesn't allow this kind of setting.

I am not shure of what bug from the MissionEditor ME you guys talking. Also i cannot find an equivalent of "early", "mid" and "late" in ME. But all "Big Modes" and even unmodified SH3 have Quirks (i wil not call them Errors) in the Campaigne_RND.mis as an failure of the ME, or maybe by intention.

In the past i was not able to see red rwr-lines (even if i doubled them) from an rwr-group on the NavigationMap with zoom 25 or greater, when only one ship in the group has a wrong CfgDate. Above i called this also intention, never will i forget these horrible moments came out of TC and WO tells something like "We are under attack, Sir", and a Destroyer around 1km behind me.

So for my own installation i have created a Tool wich is able to copy all GameEntryDate= to CfgDate= (in .RndUnit only) and these shocking moments are gone.

If this is not the Bug you guys talking about, please talk a bit more.

Greetings.

[Edit]
Have found old threads.
and 2 links in post 7 about "Cfg-Bug".
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show....php?p=2084630
Thanks.

[HanSolo78]

Originally Posted by padi

In LSH and Ccom the Date-Bug is corrected. I don't know, if that's the case for WAC, but I'm sure that it isn't corrected in GWX...
The cause is a error in the mission editor, you have to fix it manually in the files.

As I read only some specific units have these problems... WAC5.0 also uses almost only generic units in the random campaign layer.
So most of the units should not have the problem.

[gap]

Originally Posted by HanSolo78

As I read only some specific units have these problems... WAC5.0 also uses almost only generic units in the random campaign layer.
So most of the units should not have the problem.

Hi HanSolo, do you know what is causing the problem?

[rudewarrior]

Originally Posted by Slyguy3129

I suppose this doesn't work with GWX3?

Originally Posted by gap

That's true. Editing all those eqp files one by one can be a PITA.

So, I have been following a couple of mods here, and I just thought I should go ahead and post. I am not going to claim to be an expert modder, but I (think I) have done some modding to make this work. I am willing to accept that I could be completely wrong.

The mods I have been following are the Real ASW mod, the Depth Charge noise mod, and, to a lesser extent, the Torpedo Alarm Mod.

Basically, I play a heavily mod-souped version of GWX. I have managed to mod the Real ASW Mod into it. I went through and modified all of the .cfg files (at least some of the time working with MFM 3.3 .cfg files) and all of the .eqp files (at least some of the time working with RCB's SH4 effects for SH3 mod). I basically powered through the PITA and edited all the files to incorporate padi's mod, and, well, I think it works. Later in the war, the depth charges seem more powerful and reach depth to explode a lot sooner, as it should (this is not empirically determined, tho, it just seems that way). It is also stable, considering the soupyness of my mod list.

Now, I have been working(-ish) with schlechter pfennig on his Depth Charge noise mod. I haven't been doing near as much as he. It seems also he has started running into a CTD problem that I was experiencing too (and I also experienced it with TDW's Depth charge water disturbances). I am going to let that play out a little bit, since he seems to be focused on getting it to work with WAC as opposed to GWX.

What I would like to see, is not only this mod working, but also working with the Depth Charge noise mod (and also the Torpedo Alarm Mod, since it generates DC's, which would in turn generate Bold decoys). It would be nice to see this combination of mods such that more powerful DC's exist later in the war, but you can still escape escorts that are DC only (obviously, with hedgehogs, it can get really bad). As a side note, I think it would be nice to have your torpedoes create disturbances too ala the Torpedo Alarm Mod, but that doesn't absolutely have to happen.

Ultimately, I don't know if this information will help anyone. But it seems to me that:

1. It works with GWX (albeit modded).
2. It is a great idea (keep up the good work).
3. It seems to be an idea that could work well with the Depth Charge noise mod (and others).
4. I really like it.

Anyway, keep up the good work, and I hope my rambling might help or inspire you in some way.

[gap]

Thank you for your report rudewarrior.

Hopefully, when each new DC / DC dropping mechanism will have its own model, it will be a lot easier for us telling wether a certain upgrade has been applied when supposed. Talking about start/end dates though, we should keep in mind that the ones set in eqp and sns files seem to be randomized in game, as discussed in this thread:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...11#post2468211

[padi]

Originally Posted by gap

Thank you for your report rudewarrior.



Hopefully, when each new DC / DC dropping mechanism will have its own model, it will be a lot easier for us telling wether a certain upgrade has been applied when supposed. Talking about start/end dates though, we should keep in mind that the ones set in eqp and sns files seem to be randomized in game, as discussed in this thread:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...11#post2468211

Interesting, never realized that...
I have only checked the year and not the exact date...

[gap]

Originally Posted by padi

Interesting, never realized that...
I have only checked the year and not the exact date...

Apparently, start dates as set in game files are not to be considered the exact date that a certain equipment was fitted aboard a certain vessel, but the earliest date the said equipment started being fitted.

In other words, if you equip Fletcher-class destroyers with Mark 9 depth charges starting from March 1st, 1943, and then you run a mission with a little fleet of them taking place on the same date, it is possible that only a small number of vessels, or none at all, will have those DC's aboard. As in real life, it takes some time for upgrades to be fully adopted. If you change mission's date to mid March, you will see that an higher percent of destroyers will have the new DC model. I have not exact figures, but probably the game will require a few weeks, or maybe 2-3 months from its start date, for a new equipment to have a 100% chance of having been actually implemented

[padi]

Originally Posted by gap

Apparently, start dates as set in game files are not to be considered the exact date that a certain equipment was fitted aboard a certain vessel, but the earliest date the said equipment started being fitted.

In other words, if you equip Fletcher-class destroyers with Mark 9 depth charges starting from March 1st, 1943, and then you run a mission with a little fleet of them taking place on the same date, it is possible that only a small number of vessels, or none at all, will have those DC's aboard. As in real life, it takes some time for upgrades to be fully adopted. If you change mission's date to mid March, you will see that an higher percent of destroyers will have the new DC model. I have not exact figures, but probably the game will require a few weeks, or maybe 2-3 months, for a new equipment to have a 100% chance of having been actually implemented

Sonds very good and realistic!

[gap]

Originally Posted by padi

Sonds very good and realistic!

Yes, it is, at least for the purposes of this mod. Yet, it is not so realistic (but still not too bad) for those refits that are knows to have taken place within a certain timeframe, like gun refits aboard capital ships for instance. In those cases maybe it can be convenient anticipating the new equipments by 2-3 weeks compared to their historical appearance

[gap]

Originally Posted by Hebe Vollmaus

[Edit]
Have found old threads.
and 2 links in post 7 about "Cfg-Bug".
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show....php?p=2084630
Thanks.

Thank you Hebe, I had missed your edit. That should discard any compatibility issue between padi's mod and GWX

Originally Posted by Hebe Vollmaus

I am not shure of what bug from the MissionEditor ME you guys talking. Also i cannot find an equivalent of "early", "mid" and "late" in ME.

You are right: I have just checked SHIII campaign files and, unlike SH5, there is no unit equipment, sensor nor camouflage entries there. So what I wrote yesterday about Mission Editor only applies to SH5, and maybe SH4... I tend to make a lot of confusion between the three games

Originally Posted by Hebe Vollmaus

In the past i was not able to see red rwr-lines (even if i doubled them) from an rwr-group on the NavigationMap with zoom 25 or greater, when only one ship in the group has a wrong CfgDate.

I don't quite get you here: what is an "rwr-group"? To me and in the context of WWII, RWR only has two meanings: "Radar Warning Receiver" and "Russian War Relief", but neither of them seems to apply to your sentence

[Hebe Vollmaus]

Originally Posted by gap

I don't quite get you here: what is an "rwr-group"? To me and in the context of WWII, RWR only has two meanings: "Radar Warning Receiver" and "Russian War Relief", but neither of them seems to apply to your sentence

Oh, sorry about that. rwr-group was false, it shoult has to be RND-Group.
What i mean is an [Goup X] of Warships in Campaigne_RND.mis with one ship which have CfgDate less then GameEntryDate.
Normaly, on Navigation-Map you get RWR Radar Warning Receiver lines from the whole group regardless of the zoom. But in this special case on zoom 25km and up i was not able see these lines.

Greetings.

[gap]

Originally Posted by Hebe Vollmaus

Oh, sorry about that. rwr-group was false, it shoult has to be RND-Group.
What i mean is an [Goup X] of Warships in Campaigne_RND.mis with one ship which have CfgDate less then GameEntryDate.
Normaly, on Navigation-Map you get RWR Radar Warning Receiver lines from the whole group regardless of the zoom. But in this special case on zoom 25km and up i was not able see these lines.

Greetings.

Okay thanks, your explaination is totally clear now