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

I'd think it should work as nothing major was changed on the GWX 3 verses GWX 2.1 Sub stuff that I recall.


GWX 3 was just a compilation of the latest work at the time which should match mostly with the 2.1 release.
It was intended as the last SH3 release before GWX for SH4.

[Kaleun Cook]

Yep, seems to work as intended. Thanks again for the hint!

[NGT]

Originally Posted by LGN1

Hi NGT,

I'm not sure whether it has been really done. Please read page 8 of the thread and look here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...&postcount=104

Up to now I have not seen a single proof that the mod works as intended.

Regards, LGN1

Hello LGN 1,

I read again the whole thread, and I noticed your intention to make clear that the mod is useless.

However, I think, it works. For me, it works, and for the author works, and for Rubini works, despite your skepticism.

I never had CDT, and I can say that the “story” of every PC here is an individual story.

The good example: Despite Steeler’s findings (and I must say that I respect him a lot) I never had a CDT playing and saving patrols with NYGM.

Perhaps is something like the “flat sun” in graphic area: some people have it, some others no. (And nobody realy knows why?)

Thanks

P.S. Of course, I have nothing against that h.sie suggest his version (and perhaps with even better results).

[Olamagato]

Originally Posted by Sag75

Hi H.Sie is it possible modding a deafness DDs period when depth charges explode? it would be nice and realistic. Thx!

I would be very careful when modifying detectors escort work so hard while still so little known about how it works. While simple hydrophones operated by a man had to stop working, the more passive sonar receiving the beam reflected from the active sonar in a narrow frequency range does not have to stop working (especially in the later years of the war). A noise from the explosions could not affect the efficiency of detection. Unfortunately, SH3 can not separate the way in which hydrophone acted early in the war on passive sonar mode of action in conjunction with active sonar at its end.

Best regards.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't destroyers capable to drop DC on you, even when they can't ping you, cuz the boat is actually under the active sonar beam in SH3 ?

Even the smaller patrol boats who doesn't even have an ASDIC, except passive sonar, can easily put the barrels on u-boat. Because I think there is no difference much in SH3 between active/passive sonars WHEN they hunting.

In other words if they can't ping you because you're too deep, they can track your exact position by noise (if you're loud), moreover with deadly accuracy. This is bad, because passive sonar by it's nature can't give the sonar guy on DD the depth or pitch of the u-boat. So the DC attack (in those situations when boat is under active sonar beam), accuracy should not be always 100% as it is now.

This would also add to say first happy times, more happines, before improved ASDIC was introduced to Allied navy, later in war. Allowing to make critical repairs more relaxed, knowing you're under DD sonar beam, and chance that it drops DC right on your boat is more like coincidental, than a fact.

[LGN1]

Originally Posted by NGT

Hello LGN 1,

I read again the whole thread, and I noticed your intention to make clear that the mod is useless.

However, I think, it works. For me, it works, and for the author works, and for Rubini works, despite your skepticism.

I never had CDT, and I can say that the ***8220;story***8221; of every PC here is an individual story.

The good example: Despite Steeler***8217;s findings (and I must say that I respect him a lot) I never had a CDT playing and saving patrols with NYGM.

Perhaps is something like the ***8220;flat sun***8221; in graphic area: some people have it, some others no. (And nobody realy knows why?)

Thanks

P.S. Of course, I have nothing against that h.sie suggest his version (and perhaps with even better results).

Hi NGT,

thanks for your reply. I agree it might be a machine-specific issue. However, since nobody has yet come up with a test scenario that shows a clear difference when using this mod, I don't believe it works. It would be great if someone who claims that the mod is working repeats my tests and reports whether he observes different results than I do on my machine. But I guess nobody wants to do that

Anyway, everybody can have his own opinion about whether the mod works or not. I just wanted to point out that opinions differ about whether depth-charge disturbances exist for SH3 or not.

Regards, LGN1

Originally Posted by LGN1

I just wanted to point out that opinions differ about whether depth-charge disturbances exist for SH3 or not.

I bet you will never know this, since testing result may differ and are non constant and depends on various factors. SH3cmdr's thermal layer thing may also interract on tests results if used. So water disturbance is very hard and abstract thing to test.

[Olamagato]

Originally Posted by PapaKilo

I bet you will never know this, since testing result may differ and are non constant and depends on various factors. SH3cmdr's thermal layer thing may also interract on tests results if used. So water disturbance is very hard and abstract thing to test.

For testing the game should never use a thermal layer of "SH3 Commander" because if I'm not mistaken, they are created by changing the value of hydrophone (detector) minheight. This means that if you discover what is the depth, then below it we can swim safely under the escort ships, even at maximum speed with maximum noise and even reload torpedoes. Thus the thermal layer, implemented in this way, are completely unrealistic.

[Olamagato]

Originally Posted by PapaKilo

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't destroyers capable to drop DC on you, even when they can't ping you, cuz the boat is actually under the active sonar beam in SH3 ?

Submerged submarine to be detected in two ways:
1: He could generate noise (motion of ship propellers in the water, the sounds coming from the ship). It can detect both simple hydrophone or more sophisticated passive sonar (using hydrophone arrays).
2: He could not generate any noise (for example, could be completely stopped and no one on board seemed no sound), but if his body was hit by a beam active sonar, it became immediately detectable by the passive sonar coupled with active sonar (this was in indeed, a complex device).

Even the smaller patrol boats who doesn't even have an ASDIC, except passive sonar, can easily put the barrels on u-boat. Because I think there is no difference much in SH3 between active/passive sonars WHEN they hunting.

Small patrol boats were allowed to have only a hydrophone / sonar passive because they were not easy and profitable target for the U-boat, even standing motionless on the water and scan his presence. Then it did not generate any noise their own, so detection may be quite good.

However, the fast escort ships generate their own, a big noise, and stop by to listen for the U-boat could be deadly for them. Why did it only in the company of others rushing escort vessels.

Passive sonar hydrophones of the Allies were poor - especially when a ship generate its own big noise. However, active sonar sound reflected from the U-boat hull was so strong that even a weak passive sonar very well locate the target (direction and range).

Beam active sonar had no barriers, nor do they limit the distance. The only real determinant of coverage was the possibility of effective separation of the reflected beam from its own generated and open seas noise. In the later years of the war was used as a carrier of sound inaudible ultrasonic wave, which does not produce an escort ship almost all. Therefore, the quality of tracking has become a U-boat mortally dangerous. The more so that the crew did not know that was tracked (no audible ping).

In other words if they can't ping you because you're too deep, they can track your exact position by noise (if you're loud), moreover with deadly accuracy. This is bad, because passive sonar by it's nature can't give the sonar guy on DD the depth or pitch of the u-boat. So the DC attack (in those situations when boat is under active sonar beam), accuracy should not be always 100% as it is now.

The first reason for the loss of the bearing of the sonar, the ship that really accelerated to drop bombs accurately on the expected path of the U-boat was increasing its own noise. The second reason was the fact that, send the beam of active sonar did not include either horizontally or vertically 180 degrees, the front-bottom zone of attacking the ship, but usually consisted of a cone 65 degrees vertically and 90-130 degrees horizontally - depending on the type of sonar. A narrow beam of active sonar was the reason for the escort ships sailed zigzags to track the U-boat and did circles on the detected location.
Passive sonar scanning had a greater angle (theoretically 360 degrees horizontally and about 60 degrees vertically), but its effectiveness during rapid attack, if no other ship did not send the beam, it was low or none (and it was possible to determine a direction only).

This would also add to say first happy times, more happines, before improved ASDIC was introduced to Allied navy, later in war. Allowing to make critical repairs more relaxed, knowing you're under DD sonar beam, and chance that it drops DC right on your boat is more like coincidental, than a fact.

The reason for the weak U-boat detection by sonar (ASDIC) at the beginning of the war was the use of easy-to-noise acoustic wave in the audible range and a narrow beam of active sonar (for example, only 10 degrees vertically). Also, lack of experience escorting ships crews. The ships, which were only passive sonar (or hydrophone) must quickly find themselves over to the attack, but ships with ASDIC not have to do it. They could, slowly sailing, track the U-boat as long as their rate was significantly greater than the speed of the submerged ship.

Best regards.

[h.sie]

The VampireNightVision Bugfix will also go into V16B.

[Depth Charger]

Originally Posted by h.sie

The VampireNightVision Bugfix will also go into V16B.

Sorry have been quiet lately but work has been hectic.

Looking forward to V16B. When you planning to release it? It seems to be building into quite an update.

Kindest and hope you well

DC

[complutum]

Is there any date for V16B?
I'm waiting for it .

Many thanks for your great effort on SH3 realism.

[h.sie]

@DepthCharger, complutum:

Currently, I am hardcoding all my last Test-Versions (TorpedoFailures, DieselDamage, CollisionDamage, BatteryDischarge, TorpedoPistolSwitchBugFix) and some minor corrections into the sh3.exe V16B. Also, the new VampireNightVisionFix will be added after an appropriate test period. After that, V16B will be released. Estimation: About 1 - 4 weeks.

[Jaeger]

very nice, h.sie. will it be possible to incorporate stieblers fixes in this version, too? this would be easier to install. with the options selector, the players could switch each fix on and off and only one install routine would be needed.

[h.sie]

@Jaeger:

For mod development, it is better if Stiebler and me work independently on our own mods and Patch-Kits and are responsible for them. I'm sad that this leads to the current situation that it's difficult and confusing to add Stieblers patches on top of my patches.

I think there is a possibility for Stiebler to create a Patch-Kit that allows users to DIRECTLY patch sh3.exe V1.4b to a version that contains both his and my fixes in only ONE SINGLE step.

I'll contact him about that. If he's interested, I'll tell him details.