SUBSIM Radio Room Forums


SUBSIM: The Web's #1 BBS for all submarine and naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > Silent Hunter 3 - 4 - 5 > SHIII Mods Workshop
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-01-2018, 11:45 AM   #136
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 7,165
Downloads: 689
Uploads: 9


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by padi View Post
It was only beginner-style...
I had attemted to include a depthcharge-fire controller to the torpedo tubes and have added them into the .eqp.
As I know now that couldn't work...
Okay, in future we will work on it. Now, as you said, time for our families
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2018, 04:01 PM   #137
schlechter pfennig
XO
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 436
Downloads: 35
Uploads: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by padi View Post
Ok. Then, as you probably already knew from our PMs, my mod is based on the idea and, with your ok via PM, on your Mark 9 model...
Yup! And I have to say that what you've done is a huge improvement. I might have started work on increasing the realism of ASW, but you've taken it miles and miles beyond what I'd started.

schlechter pfennig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2018, 04:35 PM   #138
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 7,165
Downloads: 689
Uploads: 9


Default

Hi schlechter pfennig

have you seen these? #128 and #129

I realize that after many years since you last worked on your increased ASW mod, you might not have an answer to all my remarks on it, but since you offered to help with padi's mod, I ask you to do an effort and to give me your opinion about at least on of the topics I raised:

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
I am curious to know your [airborne DC sinking speed] settings. Unfortunately I couldn't find much information on this respect, except for the British Mk VII air depth charge probably had a terminal velocity equal or similar to its surface counterpart (i.e. 9.9 fps, 3.02 mps, source: United Kingdom / Britain
ASW Weapons @ navweaps.com
). Both navweaps.com and Campbell list the illogical figure of 600 fps (183 mps!) as terminal velocity of the streamlined Mark VIII 250-lb a/c depth charge, but I regard it as a typo. No information at all on the sinking speeds of US depth bombs.
Thank you
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2018, 10:35 PM   #139
schlechter pfennig
XO
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 436
Downloads: 35
Uploads: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
Hi schlechter pfennig

have you seen these? #128 and #129

I realize that after many years since you last worked on your increased ASW mod, you might not have an answer to all my remarks on it, but since you offered to help with padi's mod, I ask you to do an effort and to give me your opinion about at least on of the topics I raised:



Thank you
I had no intention of being rude or dismissive. All of my info came from online research and was at least two computers ago. I've been trying to resurrect my oldest pc that should have all my research materials on it. Basically, I can confirm that any and all of my decisions were founded on articles (the majority military in nature). I've also been distracted trying to debug the CTD issue with the depth charge noise mod, something that's been taking roughly 8 hours a day of focused time, and that also distracted me from a speedy reply.

I'll try and go through the noted posts and make replies to them in the next few days.
schlechter pfennig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2018, 05:10 AM   #140
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 7,165
Downloads: 689
Uploads: 9


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schlechter pfennig View Post
I had no intention of being rude or dismissive....
Schlechter pfennig you haven't been neither rude nor dismissive. I never thought that, and I am sorry if I gave you that impression. On the contary I realize how busy you have been with your other mod, and I share your frustration about it.

I should have started my post of yesterday night by saying that, but I forgot to. Anyway... just take it as a friendly reminder, and take your time on those replies.

I am not in a hurry
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2018, 09:11 PM   #141
schlechter pfennig
XO
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 436
Downloads: 35
Uploads: 6
Default

I resurrected my old XP; the files aren't on that one, so they must be on my old(er) 98 HD. That, I'm afraid, may take me quite some time to access.
schlechter pfennig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2018, 02:42 PM   #142
padi
Planesman
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 186
Downloads: 118
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
- creating a complete list of ASW ships and aircraft represented in game and in the megamods we want to feature. This list should include among the others: destroyers, minelayers, destroyer escorts, frigates, corvettes, sloops, submarine chasers, minesweepers, naval trawlers, torpedo boats, patrol vessels, patrol aircraft, carrier-based bombers and fighters and scout planes.
This part of the preparation is finished.
You could find the file here: http://www.mediafire.com/file/f9zxa1...alit%E4ten.ods

In the first tab you have the classnames of the ingame destroyers and the nations in which rosters they are included.
In the second tab I have faced the classnames and the real names.
In the third tab we have all the aircraft in game and their nationalities. I don´t know, if they carry ASW-gear, but I have written them anyway...

I´m now working on part three. What do you think which nationalities we could feature?

GB and US should be sure, whats about french, polish and italian DCs?
__________________
My Mediafire Page
padi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2018, 01:44 PM   #143
schlechter pfennig
XO
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 436
Downloads: 35
Uploads: 6
Default

I have been unable to ressurrect my oldest HD, so I'm going to try replying "off-the-cuff" to these as best as I can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
That would be correct for most bombs, including the (remarkably uneffective) British A/S bombs, used during the early part of the conflict. Matter of factly those bombs were commonly fitted with impact fuzes/pistols which could be set for triggering an explosion immediately or with a short delay, usually in the order of a few tens of seconds. Nonetheless, it must be noted that the US 500-lb and 1000-lb GP bombs could be fitted with hydrostatic fuzes, thus behaving as a normal depth charge.

Sources:
US Bombs and Fuzes Pyrotechnics, ed. June 44, pp. 45, 47 and 171
US Bombs and Fuzes Pyrotechnics, ed. September 45, pp. 51, 53, 251 and 253
That is a really good point. The major problem that I'd experienced (and this applies to several of the following points as well) is that SH3 gives a limited "palette" of choices, so at times I had to maximize effects by making assumptions. So, for instance, in this case, aircraft had a loadout choice of either depth charge or bomb; I elected to assume that if the designer wished for the aircraft's armament to explode at depth (either as a depth charge or a hydrostatic fuze-set bomb), then they would select "depth charge", and if they wanted it to explode on the surface, they would select "bomb". Therefore, I decided to set all bombs as surface impact.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
According to John Campbell (Naval Weapons of World War Two, 1985, p. 94):

"The original pistol setting of 50ft (15m) was too deep for aircraft attack on a surfaced U-boat and it was reduced to 25ft (7.6m) in 1942"

This is referred to the British Mk. VII airborne DC, but it probably applies to other aircraft depth charges used ny the British. An user in navweaps' discussion board quotes another source (a link to is provided, but it is no longer available online):

"In the first two years of the war depth charges were mainly set for explosion at a depth of 30/45 metres [this figure having being set years ago and never altered since]. Analysis of pilot reports by ORS showed that in 40% of attacks the U-boat was either still visible or had been submerged less than 15 seconds (these are the U-boats that we would expect to have most chance of killing as we have a good idea of their position). Since the lethal radius of a depth charge was around 5-6 metres it was clear that a shallower setting was necessary.

Explosion at a depth of 15 metres was initiated and as new fuses became available at 10 metres and then 8 metres."


This is probably referred to US depth bombs. The two pamphlets by Navy Bomb Disposal School I mentioned above (dated summer 1944 and autumn 1945) specify for all the hydrostatic fuzes used with air ordnance depth settings in steps of 25ft, from 25ft (7.6m) to 125ft (38.1m), but I think only the 25ft setting was used in practice.
This is extremely interesting. I hadn't encountered this information before, and had I known that I would have incorporated the depth setting change(s) for the applicable ordnance. I do know that I had used information I'd researched to decide on that setting, but it's obvious that here, as elsewhere, you'd done a lot more comprehensive research than I had.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
The 'explosiveness' of depth charges (and thus the damage they can cause at a given distance) should be roughly proportional to the cubic root of the weight of its explosive filling multiplied by its TNT equivalency factor. You can find the relevant formulas in any of the articles I linked towards the end of post #89 in this thread.
I hadn't had access to that article, and honestly I forget how I'd calculated the 'explosiveness' factor. However, that article is perfect for doing exactly that!


Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
I am curious to know your settings. Unfortunately I couldn't find much information on this respect, except for the British Mk VII air depth charge probably had a terminal velocity equal or similar to its surface counterpart (i.e. 9.9 fps, 3.02 mps, source: United Kingdom / Britain
ASW Weapons @ navweaps.com
). Both navweaps.com and Campbell list the illogical figure of 600 fps (183 mps!) as terminal velocity of the streamlined Mark VIII 250-lb a/c depth charge, but I regard it as a typo. No information at all on the sinking speeds of US depth bombs.
I had found several articles (all of which are on my deceased HD) that dealt specifically with air depth charges. They detailed how pilots were trained to aim, target and drop them, their design features and revisions, etc. I used the information gleaned there to set the characteristics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
I think you forgot here the embarked bombers, fighters and scout planes, which also played an important role in WWII A/S warfare.
GWX just had so many different aircraft, and roles they were used in, that I probably did overlook that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
That's probably a bit too late. According to navweaps.com, the Mark VII heavy depth charge was introduced in service in 1940. This is in accordance with Cambell (op. cit, p. 89) who states the end of 1940 as time frame for its introduction.
I used the dates provided by the research materials that I had access to at the time, which doesn't seem to be as comprehensive as your sources are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
There were two main versions of the Mark 9: the first version (depth charge Mk. 9 and Mk. 9 Mod. 1) had a terminal velocity of 14.5 fps (4.4 mps) and it entered service in spring 1943. The second version, called Mk. 9 Mod. 2, was further improved "by means of a finer setting of the tail and added lead". This came at the sacrifice of explosive power, but it resulted in a maximun sinking speed of 22.7 fps (6.9 mps). In a personal note, I have noted august 1943 as date for the introduction of this later version, though honestly I cannot find the source for it. For all the other information reported here, the sources are:

John Campbell, op. cit, p. 163
United States of America ASW Weapons @ navweaps.com
Depth Charge, Mark 9 and Modifications: Descriptinìon and instructions for Use, Bureau of Ordnance, February, 1944
Again, it seems as if your research sources are more detailed and comprehensive as mine are/were.


In closing, I cannot argue or dispute any of your points, or reasonings and, in fact, would have incorporated those into my mod had I been aware of them.

schlechter pfennig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2018, 11:29 AM   #144
gap
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 7,165
Downloads: 689
Uploads: 9


Default

Sorry for the late feed-back guys, family problems have absorbed most of my time during the last month; now I am slowly getting back to normality. I am preparing my replies to your unaswered posts. Just stay tuned and keep patient a few more days
__________________
_____________________
|May the Force be with you!|
...\/
gap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2018, 12:44 PM   #145
padi
Planesman
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 186
Downloads: 118
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gap View Post
Sorry for the late feed-back guys, family problems have absorbed most of my time during the last month; now I am slowly getting back to normality. I am preparing my replies to your unaswered posts. Just stay tuned and keep patient a few more days


No problem, I hope you will be fine soon.
I also was in holiday so I haven't made progress in the last month...
I think that it would take some time because I have personal problems since a few months and not that many time for research...
__________________
My Mediafire Page
padi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 07:38 AM   #146
Niume
Grey Wolf
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lithuania
Posts: 950
Downloads: 302
Uploads: 0
Default

IS this mod compatible with wac 5.1?
__________________
Niume is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 08:01 AM   #147
padi
Planesman
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 186
Downloads: 118
Uploads: 0


Default Real ASW Mod

Quote:
Originally Posted by Niume View Post
IS this mod compatible with wac 5.1?


Sadly no because I have experienced positioning problems with the DC Racks which I'm not able to fix...
There is anything different with the Racks than in vanilla and the other mods and even changing them to vanilla doesn't fix that.
__________________
My Mediafire Page
padi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 08:08 AM   #148
Niume
Grey Wolf
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lithuania
Posts: 950
Downloads: 302
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by padi View Post
Sadly no because I have experienced positioning problems with the DC Racks which I'm not able to fix...
There is anything different with the Racks than in vanilla and the other mods and even changing them to vanilla doesn't fix that.
So the only problem is bad dc rack positioning
__________________
Niume is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 11:02 AM   #149
schlechter pfennig
XO
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 436
Downloads: 35
Uploads: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Niume View Post
So the only problem is bad dc rack positioning
That probably explains the clemson dc rack problem I'd noticed.
schlechter pfennig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 04:49 AM   #150
padi
Planesman
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 186
Downloads: 118
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schlechter pfennig View Post
That probably explains the clemson dc rack problem I'd noticed.


Possible, but I also experienced the same problem when I reconfigured the racks to vanilla.
But I have only tested that on the Buckley and Evarts...
__________________
My Mediafire Page
padi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
asw , depth charge , mod , real , realismn

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2018 Subsim