Realism- and gameplay-related hardcode fixes for SH3.EXE - Page 47

coronas · 12-13-10, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dani

I'm interested for the NYGM V15D patch ....please.

Me too, please!

Stiebler · 12-14-10, 12:17 PM

Here is an interesting new problem for H.sie:

When the U-boat goes to silent-running, the pumps are turned off and the U-boat should sink very slowly. However, the U-boat in SH3 does not sink at all. This problem is not fixed with any mod, and it cannot be mimicked in any way by the player. Therefore, when the U-boat attacks any convoy, the easy (and unrealistic) procedure in SH3 is to go to silent-running at once. It would be much more interesting for the player if he has to judge when to turn silent-running on and off, in order to avoid detection and also to avoid sinking. (The old 'Aces of the Deep' program had this feature.)

One solution to this problem would be to alter the parameter 'mass' loaded from file NSS_Uboatxy.sim (where 'xy' = 7c, 9c etc). The value loaded from the .sim file is zero in stock SH3 and NYGM (a high value with GWX), and represents 'negative buoyancy'. That is, the *lower* the figure, the more the U-boat will sink. The parameter needs to become negative when silent-running to ensure a slow sinking. Then restore the value to its original value when silent-running is cancelled.

I think H.sie has already discovered the silent-running code routines for his realistic repairs mod, so I hope that this problem would not be too difficult for him.

Stiebler.

LGN1 · 12-14-10, 02:11 PM

Hi Stiebler,

I have also thought about this a bit, but I am not sure how useful it is. The main reason is that in real-life you could use the explosions of the depth charges to use the pumps without getting detected. However, in SH3 there is no 'noise shadow' of the depth charges, so you cannot take advantage of this.

It would be great if the effect of the depth charge noise was modeled in SH3. However, I think adding this feature is a huge task (I think there is a variable that contains the probability that you are detected, however, I have no idea how to determine that a depth charge has exploded sufficiently close to the sub and then change this variable).

At the moment neither repairs nor running pumps do influence the probability that you are detected (really weired, you have a destroyer above you and you can repair diesels without getting detected

). It would be great if h.sie could fix this issue. In this case running the pumps (when you have flooding) would also increase the probability that you are detected

Having the 'noise shadow' of the depth charges and the noise of the pumps modeled would be definitely fine, however, I think it requires a lot work and also testing because it would change the whole sensor/detection setting (it might become too easy to evade

).

Cheers, LGN1

Hitman · 12-14-10, 04:17 PM

Stiebler has again put the finger on a very important aspect of the game, which NYGM already adressed partially with the anti-humming bird mod.

I also would like to see a more realistic buoyancy behaviour without having to mod the game in a forced way as has been done until now due to the only alternative available.

h.sie · 12-14-10, 05:02 PM

I already thought about to program negative buyouncy similar to the NYGM anti-hummingbird mod, but without "abusing" the XXI-pump, as the NYGM team did as only possible (conventional) workaround. and hopefully without crash-dive-blues.

But the problem is to keep the compatibility to both supermods NYGM and GWX (which I personally prefer) WITHOUT making two different versions of my patch. If I fix an issue that is common to both supermods, this will be no problem. but if I fix an issue that is only present in one of both supermods, the fix will not be compatible to the other supermod. Example: Repair time fix works well in GWX but conflicts with NYGM. Problem can fortunalely be solved by disabling repair times fix for NYGM.

But the pumps/buoyancy systems of NYGM and GWX are totally different from each other (NYGM made deep changes I don't understand) and this would require to program two different versions. I don't like this.

Lets now assume I manage to program negative buoyancy.

1) It will work with GWX but it will of course break the old positive buoyancy settings and reqires changes in all Uboat types .sim files ("mass" entry). Okay, no big problem.

2) It will conflict with the old anti-hummingbird mod currently integrated in NYGM, so that someone first has to remove it from NYGM. But what if someone really removes old anti-hummingbird mod from NYGM? This forces all NYGM users to use my fix in order to still have negative buoyancy. I don't like the idea that people are forced to use my fix. This would only make sense if I take money for my work. :-)

h.sie · 12-14-10, 05:21 PM

Question: Would it make sense to restrict speed/rpm while in Silent-Running? Currently, speed is reduced to 50 (?) rpm when you order Silent-Running, but after that you can order higher rpm and Silent Running is still active. I never understood this. Is that a bug?

@LGN1: While we are discussing about buoyancy and so on, my next job is to consider repairs for detection probability, as I promised months ago. That will take time, since I have to re-write some fixes to make them position-independent and thus compatible to Win7-successors.

LGN1 · 12-14-10, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h.sie

Question: Would it make sense to restrict speed/rpm while in Silent-Running? Currently, speed is reduced to 50 (?) rpm when you order Silent-Running, but after that you can order higher rpm and Silent Running is still active. I never understood this. Is that a bug?

@LGN1: While we are discussing about buoyancy and so on, my next job is to consider repairs for detection probability, as I promised months ago. That will take time, since I have to re-write some fixes to make them position-independent and thus compatible to Win7-successors.

Hi h.sie,

great that you are looking into the detection probability issue! Thanks!

Concerning the silent-running setting: I don't think one should limit the rpm in silent-running mode. Of course, if you use higher rpms it's not silent anymore, however, I regard the setting more in the way of 'Guys, stop any repairs, don't reload torpedoes and rest/be quiet'. If you limit the speed you cannot use the command for just conserving O2 when running submerged over a long time without any direct threat (ok, probably you run out of batteries at higher speeds than the CO2 will limit you

).

Anyway, I think it's not really necessary to limit the speed and the present situation gives you more flexibility than if you tie max. speed and silent-running together.

Cheers, LGN1

NGT · 12-14-10, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h.sie

Question: Would it make sense to restrict speed/rpm while in Silent-Running? Currently, speed is reduced to 50 (?) rpm when you order Silent-Running, but after that you can order higher rpm and Silent Running is still active. I never understood this. Is that a bug?

No, I think, is "normal": You can change speed, but you can't repair damages or put torpedoes in the tubes. So, less noise anyway. And, anyway, with higher speeds you will be easier detected.

h.sie · 12-14-10, 05:50 PM

@NGT, LGN1: Great, Thanks. Now I understand.

h.sie · 12-14-10, 06:13 PM

Question: Is there any reason to NOT include the 4GB patch into my patches?

So there would be no need to apply the 4GB patch after patching the patch of the patch.

h.sie · 12-15-10, 01:52 AM

@LGN1: Currently thinking about repairs/detection:

I thought about a simple fix like:

If (REPAIRS) then RISE_DETECTION_PROBABAILITY

or similar. But: Let's assume the following situation: A destroyer is hunting you and throws depth charges everywhere without exactly knowing where you are. Let's now assume, one depth charge causes a minor and uncritical damage. In sh3, the crew immediately begins repairs. This is dumb in this situation and will rise detection probability and the destroyer now can locate you. In GWX life is hard for a kaleun even in the current state, but this change would make it impossible to escape from this situation. Only idea: Delaying the effect of repairs on detection, so that the user has enough time to order silent-running and thus stop repairs.

Hitman · 12-15-10, 02:12 AM

Quote:

I already thought about to program negative buyouncy similar to the NYGM anti-hummingbird mod, but without "abusing" the XXI-pump, as the NYGM team did as only possible (conventional) workaround. and hopefully without crash-dive-blues.

But the problem is to keep the compatibility to both supermods NYGM and GWX (which I personally prefer) WITHOUT making two different versions of my patch. If I fix an issue that is common to both supermods, this will be no problem. but if I fix an issue that is only present in one of both supermods, the fix will not be compatible to the other supermod. Example: Repair time fix works well in GWX but conflicts with NYGM. Problem can fortunalely be solved by disabling repair times fix for NYGM.

But the pumps/buoyancy systems of NYGM and GWX are totally different from each other (NYGM made deep changes I don't understand) and this would require to program two different versions. I don't like this.

Lets now assume I manage to program negative buoyancy.

1) It will work with GWX but it will of course break the old positive buoyancy settings and reqires changes in all Uboat types .sim files ("mass" entry). Okay, no big problem.

2) It will conflict with the old anti-hummingbird mod currently integrated in NYGM, so that someone first has to remove it from NYGM. But what if someone really removes old anti-hummingbird mod from NYGM? This forces all NYGM users to use my fix in order to still have negative buoyancy. I don't like the idea that people are forced to use my fix. This would only make sense if I take money for my work. :-)

But it's not just supermods, even if the majority of users have them. For example, I myself have been working slowly for a long time in a "custom" supermod built from the old RUB, which basically has just the addition of many separate mods I have been collecting and some work by me. For me adding that to your fix would be most useful, in fact I am considering using my mod package intentionally as a basis for your patch, so that all posibilities can be fully used

Also, I think that if you add the buoyancy, we could rip it off NYGM in a future patch as optional or whatever.

Of course, if the programming of this buoyancy is too complicated, then it will not be worth the effort, but if you find it to be a relatively simple thing, then I would beg to add it so that all posibilities are open.

Again I'd like to raise the question of creating in teh future a very simple interface for your tool, where you would be presented with a screen listing all possible fixes and you simply tick/untick those you want to use, then press the button to apply them

h.sie · 12-15-10, 02:55 AM

@Hitman: I'll look into the buoyancy issue (in conjunction with silent running, as Stiebler suggested), and if it can be fixed in a halfway easy way, I'll try to do it. It will be switchable in order to prevent from conflicts.

And I also planned to make a configurator program (user interface) which makes switching (activating/deactivating) some or all of my fixes easy. This I'll do if I finished patching - what could mean: never!

By the way: There have been five (5!) requests from users for "co-operation" regarding this "project". My callback, how such a co-operation could look like, have never been answered concretely. Really funny. So I decided to work on my own. But such a configurator program would be a good starting point for a co-operation. All the young and highly motivated programmer needs can be seen in post #679:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...&postcount=679

NGT · 12-15-10, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h.sie

Question: Is there any reason to NOT include the 4GB patch into my patches?

So there would be no need to apply the 4GB patch after patching the patch of the patch.

The real question is: how many SH3 players here with less than 4 GB RAM?

Probably, all with XP 32 bits.

Fader_Berg · 12-15-10, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h.sie

By the way: There have been five (5!) requests from users for "co-operation" regarding this "project". My callback, how such a co-operation could look like, have never been answered concretely. Really funny. So I decided to work on my own.

?!? Yeah right...

Well done deriding it in public b.t.w...

that really makes sense.

I offered co-operation because a) I want to contribute to this community b) It's fun and creative c) I come from years in open source development and this is the way things get done d) why not.
As I said, I respect that you want to go on your own, and don't want to share your findings (yet?). Please respect me back and don't ridicule my offer.

I wish you the best, good luck and keep up the good work.

12-14-10, 12:17 PM	#692
Stiebler Fuel Supplier Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,237 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 4	Here is an interesting new problem for H.sie: When the U-boat goes to silent-running, the pumps are turned off and the U-boat should sink very slowly. However, the U-boat in SH3 does not sink at all. This problem is not fixed with any mod, and it cannot be mimicked in any way by the player. Therefore, when the U-boat attacks any convoy, the easy (and unrealistic) procedure in SH3 is to go to silent-running at once. It would be much more interesting for the player if he has to judge when to turn silent-running on and off, in order to avoid detection and also to avoid sinking. (The old 'Aces of the Deep' program had this feature.) One solution to this problem would be to alter the parameter 'mass' loaded from file NSS_Uboatxy.sim (where 'xy' = 7c, 9c etc). The value loaded from the .sim file is zero in stock SH3 and NYGM (a high value with GWX), and represents 'negative buoyancy'. That is, the lower the figure, the more the U-boat will sink. The parameter needs to become negative when silent-running to ensure a slow sinking. Then restore the value to its original value when silent-running is cancelled. I think H.sie has already discovered the silent-running code routines for his realistic repairs mod, so I hope that this problem would not be too difficult for him. Stiebler. __________________ NYGM Tonnage War Mod - More than a mod: it's an experience!

12-14-10, 04:17 PM	#694
Hitman Pacific Aces Dev Team Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Spain Posts: 6,099 Downloads: 109 Uploads: 2	Stiebler has again put the finger on a very important aspect of the game, which NYGM already adressed partially with the anti-humming bird mod. I also would like to see a more realistic buoyancy behaviour without having to mod the game in a forced way as has been done until now due to the only alternative available. __________________ One day I will return to sea ...

12-14-10, 05:02 PM	#695
h.sie Admiral Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 2,192 Downloads: 131 Uploads: 0	I already thought about to program negative buyouncy similar to the NYGM anti-hummingbird mod, but without "abusing" the XXI-pump, as the NYGM team did as only possible (conventional) workaround. and hopefully without crash-dive-blues. But the problem is to keep the compatibility to both supermods NYGM and GWX (which I personally prefer) WITHOUT making two different versions of my patch. If I fix an issue that is common to both supermods, this will be no problem. but if I fix an issue that is only present in one of both supermods, the fix will not be compatible to the other supermod. Example: Repair time fix works well in GWX but conflicts with NYGM. Problem can fortunalely be solved by disabling repair times fix for NYGM. But the pumps/buoyancy systems of NYGM and GWX are totally different from each other (NYGM made deep changes I don't understand) and this would require to program two different versions. I don't like this. Lets now assume I manage to program negative buoyancy. 1) It will work with GWX but it will of course break the old positive buoyancy settings and reqires changes in all Uboat types .sim files ("mass" entry). Okay, no big problem. 2) It will conflict with the old anti-hummingbird mod currently integrated in NYGM, so that someone first has to remove it from NYGM. But what if someone really removes old anti-hummingbird mod from NYGM? This forces all NYGM users to use my fix in order to still have negative buoyancy. I don't like the idea that people are forced to use my fix. This would only make sense if I take money for my work. :-) __________________ My Mediafire page: http://www.mediafire.com/hsie Last edited by h.sie; 12-14-10 at 05:47 PM.

12-14-10, 05:21 PM	#696
h.sie Admiral Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 2,192 Downloads: 131 Uploads: 0	Question: Would it make sense to restrict speed/rpm while in Silent-Running? Currently, speed is reduced to 50 (?) rpm when you order Silent-Running, but after that you can order higher rpm and Silent Running is still active. I never understood this. Is that a bug? @LGN1: While we are discussing about buoyancy and so on, my next job is to consider repairs for detection probability, as I promised months ago. That will take time, since I have to re-write some fixes to make them position-independent and thus compatible to Win7-successors. __________________ My Mediafire page: http://www.mediafire.com/hsie

12-14-10, 05:50 PM	#699
h.sie Admiral Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 2,192 Downloads: 131 Uploads: 0	@NGT, LGN1: Great, Thanks. Now I understand. __________________ My Mediafire page: http://www.mediafire.com/hsie

12-14-10, 02:11 PM	#693
LGN1 Ace of the Deep Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,138 Downloads: 147 Uploads: 12	Hi Stiebler, I have also thought about this a bit, but I am not sure how useful it is. The main reason is that in real-life you could use the explosions of the depth charges to use the pumps without getting detected. However, in SH3 there is no 'noise shadow' of the depth charges, so you cannot take advantage of this. It would be great if the effect of the depth charge noise was modeled in SH3. However, I think adding this feature is a huge task (I think there is a variable that contains the probability that you are detected, however, I have no idea how to determine that a depth charge has exploded sufficiently close to the sub and then change this variable). At the moment neither repairs nor running pumps do influence the probability that you are detected (really weired, you have a destroyer above you and you can repair diesels without getting detected ). It would be great if h.sie could fix this issue. In this case running the pumps (when you have flooding) would also increase the probability that you are detected Having the 'noise shadow' of the depth charges and the noise of the pumps modeled would be definitely fine, however, I think it requires a lot work and also testing because it would change the whole sensor/detection setting (it might become too easy to evade ). Cheers, LGN1

12-14-10, 06:13 PM	#700
h.sie Admiral Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 2,192 Downloads: 131 Uploads: 0	Question: Is there any reason to NOT include the 4GB patch into my patches? So there would be no need to apply the 4GB patch after patching the patch of the patch. __________________ My Mediafire page: http://www.mediafire.com/hsie

12-15-10, 01:52 AM	#701
h.sie Admiral Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 2,192 Downloads: 131 Uploads: 0	@LGN1: Currently thinking about repairs/detection: I thought about a simple fix like: If (REPAIRS) then RISE_DETECTION_PROBABAILITY or similar. But: Let's assume the following situation: A destroyer is hunting you and throws depth charges everywhere without exactly knowing where you are. Let's now assume, one depth charge causes a minor and uncritical damage. In sh3, the crew immediately begins repairs. This is dumb in this situation and will rise detection probability and the destroyer now can locate you. In GWX life is hard for a kaleun even in the current state, but this change would make it impossible to escape from this situation. Only idea: Delaying the effect of repairs on detection, so that the user has enough time to order silent-running and thus stop repairs. __________________ My Mediafire page: http://www.mediafire.com/hsie

12-15-10, 02:55 AM	#703
h.sie Admiral Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 2,192 Downloads: 131 Uploads: 0	@Hitman: I'll look into the buoyancy issue (in conjunction with silent running, as Stiebler suggested), and if it can be fixed in a halfway easy way, I'll try to do it. It will be switchable in order to prevent from conflicts. And I also planned to make a configurator program (user interface) which makes switching (activating/deactivating) some or all of my fixes easy. This I'll do if I finished patching - what could mean: never! By the way: There have been five (5!) requests from users for "co-operation" regarding this "project". My callback, how such a co-operation could look like, have never been answered concretely. Really funny. So I decided to work on my own. But such a configurator program would be a good starting point for a co-operation. All the young and highly motivated programmer needs can be seen in post #679: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...&postcount=679 __________________ My Mediafire page: http://www.mediafire.com/hsie