View Full Version : Moving crew forward when diving
Will this have a effect on the boats diving time in SHIII, as in the real WWII boats (Das boot)?
Edit: I was wondering, because i suffered from heavy flooding, and the sub was almost vertical in the water. I placed the crew so the boat would "balance" (im not an engineer, but i placed them where i thought it would be best..). The boat actually leveled out, for some reason..
Safe-Keeper
12-10-06, 08:58 PM
I've always wanted that, too, the crew moving forward in the boat when you order "Crash Dive" or backward when you order "Blow Ballast" and it actually having an effect on diving/rising speed. I wonder why no one's brought it up yet but _Seth_.
Hopefully in Silent Hunter 4:up:.
It does work to a point. there was a post a while back about moving everyone spare forward when running decks awash at speed to reduce the bow wave splash. I tried it and it works!
peterloo
12-11-06, 12:27 AM
No, I don't think the engine have included this effect
You may try to ask the GWX team to do it for you:lol:
Try the effect with the bow wave when running decks awash. It works in TGW1.1a.:yep:
As far as i'm aware, it is possible to add weight to crew members, so it would have an affect on your sub, like placements...evenly place your crew and your sub should be balanced, put alot of crew members to the front of the sub you should get the affect like in "Das Boot"
Jimbuna
12-11-06, 07:06 AM
As far as i'm aware, it is possible to add weight to crew members, so it would have an affect on your sub, like placements...evenly place your crew and your sub should be balanced, put alot of crew members to the front of the sub you should get the affect like in "Das Boot"
So I guess with there only being limited crew places it'd be best to move the fattest ones first (j/k) :rotfl: :rotfl: :up:
Holy cow, is this true?
I am starting to feel SH3 is a living, breathing thing, and not software.
The Noob
12-11-06, 10:23 AM
I am starting to feel SH3 is a living, breathing thing, and not software.
"It's life Stabiz, but not as we know it...." :up: :rotfl:
AVGWarhawk
12-11-06, 10:30 AM
Try the effect with the bow wave when running decks awash. It works in TGW1.1a.:yep:
Yeah, I remember that thread. It made the splashing water off the bow go away when in deck awash. Personally I never messed with it myself. I'm still just submerging in the harbor and surface after two weeks like I was out the whole time:smug:
Wow, cna't believe what you mates doing to this sim.:up:
It worked in vanilla as well as long as you could go decks awash.
nightdagger
12-12-06, 09:46 PM
What's the point of keeping it from splashing?
Lanzfeld
12-12-06, 09:52 PM
Just better visual effect I think. I always hated the huge bow splash when creeping decks awash. It kinda ruins the point of decks awash if you have this huge breaker at your bow all the time. :oops:
It lets you get closer to the target as well. I've done a number of test and with crew scattered or in the stern they sometimes see me at around 1200m but I've gotten as close as 300m with everyone forward. Where would you prefer to shoot from?:arrgh!:
To be honest, I´d prefer 1200m because at 300m my torps´warheads probably wouldn´t activate... Yours, Wiseguy AS
Jimbuna
12-13-06, 08:57 AM
In the majority of cases (using GWX) I honestly don't think you have that much of a choice other than to shoot from further away :hmm:
AVGWarhawk
12-13-06, 09:39 AM
I do not send out the torpedos under 500m. I stick between 2000m and 500m.
Sailor Steve
12-13-06, 11:48 AM
US boats didn't move the crew forward for diving, but then they had fast-acting trim tanks and pumps moving 50 tons of water back and forth in a few seconds.
In the majority of cases (using GWX) I honestly don't think you have that much of a choice other than to shoot from further away :hmm:
I'm sure that if I had GWX my tactics of firing from between 800m and 500m may have to change. Given that I've still only got GW1.1a I'll keep doing what I'm doing. Yes I know not long now....
My point was that with a smaller bow wave you can get closer to the target before being detected.
Jimbuna
12-13-06, 03:18 PM
:roll: :gulp:
US boats didn't move the crew forward for diving, but then they had fast-acting trim tanks and pumps moving 50 tons of water back and forth in a few seconds.:o:o:o Thats a lot of water, Steve...
Regarding the fast acting trim tank in Germasn subs, I'm not sure what they called it but in British subs it was called the 'Q' tank. You may notice in films the captain will order 'Flood Q' when he wants fast dive. No doubt most subs had something similar.
Jimbuna
12-13-06, 04:12 PM
This explains the science of it :up:
http://www.rnsubmus.co.uk/alliance/control.htm
Hartmann
12-13-06, 04:16 PM
US boats didn't move the crew forward for diving, but then they had fast-acting trim tanks and pumps moving 50 tons of water back and forth in a few seconds.:o:o:o Thats a lot of water, Steve...
But U.S boats were bigger and need more time to dive than german submarines.
withouth this 50 tons of water can be worse.
US boats didn't move the crew forward for diving, but then they had fast-acting trim tanks and pumps moving 50 tons of water back and forth in a few seconds.:o:o:o Thats a lot of water, Steve...
But U.S boats were bigger and need more time to dive than german submarines.
withouth this 50 tons of water can be worse.
What was the size of the pumps on these boats? I guess that the whole boat was shakin' when they fired it all up...:yep:
Sailor Steve
12-13-06, 07:37 PM
Trim Pump performance:
http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/trim/chap2.htm#2A
Oops, I was way off. The negative tank was only 7.51 tons. The fore and aft trim tanks were 24 tons and 20 tons respectively.
http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/chap4.htm#4A
Tanks:
http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/appendix/pages/figa-05.htm
http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/appendix/pages/figa-06.htm
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.