Hull Integrity number

[charlesmester]

Can anybody tell me if this has been remove in gwx? When I go to the inside of the boat where you move the crew around the number use to be at the top right, now there is none. If so can it be replaced? Would like to know, before I crash dive how much hull integrity I have left so I do not crush the hull.

Regards

Chuck

PS

Happy Holidays to You All.

[Samwolf]

Can anybody tell me if this has been remove in gwx? When I go to the inside of the boat where you move the crew around the number use to be at the top right, now there is none. If so can it be replaced? Would like to know, before I crash dive how much hull integrity I have left so I do not crush the hull.

Regards

Chuck

PS

Happy Holidays to You All.

I believe GWX removed this but if you use SH3 Commander there is an option to turn it back on.

[bigboywooly]

Yeah can be added back through SH3commander
Though why would you ?
The poor old Kpt's of WW2 never had such a readout
Dive and hope for the best

[charlesmester]

Thanks for the reply guys, but I do not use ship comm. Is there any way to get it back thru jgsme or any file I can add or the change the configs. Anything?

Regrards

Chuck

[Pants]

Yes as the guys have stated it can be turned back on via SH3C, I had a shock i can tell i you,I thought i was ok after getting through Gib in my VIIB i took some incoming rounds and also some DC's, i finally got home only to realise i had less than 19% hull left :o

[AVGWarhawk]

I like not having it. But in a way, one would think that the repairmen would say, "Gee Captain, the last DC made the hull very weak over here and we do not recommend diving too deeply". Something like that I'm sure was said after an attack. So having the hull integrity scale is ok in my view only because you are not told by the repairmen just how bad it is.

[Jimbuna]

To hell with decorum...install SH3Commander and out it back in :arrgh!: :rotfl:

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

Yeah can be added back through SH3commander
Though why would you ?
The poor old Kpt's of WW2 never had such a readout
Dive and hope for the best

True. But I'm pretty sure seeing a buckled pressure hull was a good sign that things weren't too spiffy.

Instead of a percentage rating, might there be a way of having a message area that rated the hull integrity as 'excellent', 'good', 'fair' and 'poor'?

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah can be added back through SH3commander
Though why would you ?
The poor old Kpt's of WW2 never had such a readout
Dive and hope for the best
True. But I'm pretty sure seeing a buckled pressure hull was a good sign that things weren't too spiffy.

Instead of a percentage rating, might there be a way of having a message area that rated the hull integrity as 'excellent', 'good', 'fair' and 'poor'?

Yeah, we do not get any input other than the hull integrity meter.

[Ducimus]

I like not having it. But in a way, one would think that the repairmen would say, "Gee Captain, the last DC made the hull very weak over here and we do not recommend diving too deeply". Something like that I'm sure was said after an attack. So having the hull integrity scale is ok in my view only because you are not told by the repairmen just how bad it is.


My thoughts exactly. In reality, im quite sure a crew could gauge the integrity of their hull, and knew what, and what not to do. The representation of this in game is the hull integrity number. That said, i do admit it takes away an element of gambling and risk taking in some scenario's in game. Particuarlly where crush depth is concerned.

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

I like not having it. But in a way, one would think that the repairmen would say, "Gee Captain, the last DC made the hull very weak over here and we do not recommend diving too deeply". Something like that I'm sure was said after an attack. So having the hull integrity scale is ok in my view only because you are not told by the repairmen just how bad it is.


My thoughts exactly. In reality, im quite sure a crew could gauge the integrity of their hull, and knew what, and what not to do. The representation of this in game is the hull integrity number. That said, i do admit it takes away an element of gambling and risk taking in some scenario's in game. Particuarlly where crush depth is concerned.

I agree, which is why I suggested a message area that rated the hull integrity as 'excellent', 'good', 'fair' and 'poor' to replace the hull integrity percentage rating which gives an exact number. For instance, excellent might be 91% - 100%, good be 76% - 90%, fair be 51% - 75% and poor 1% - 50%.

Instead of where the hull integrity percentage is displayed now you'd have 'hull integrity condition' that would display one of the four conditions. As 'fair' and 'poor' cover the bottom three-quarters of the percentage rating you'd never truly be sure what the exact remaining percentage of hull condition was; you'd only ever have a general idea of the state of the hull condition. I think this would be a good blend between having no idea at all (which is what occurs when the hull integrity field is completely disabled) and having an exact idea of the condition (which is what occurs when the hull integrity field is enabled), and would also feel more 'real', to boot.

What the exact percentile range the four descriptors would cover should be discussed, of course, until a general consensus was reached.

[Preuss]

Hi charlesmester

I play the german gwx version.

I have activated the hull integrity in my german gwx version
in Data/menu/de_menu.txt.
The Number 589 ist empty.
There you can write this command:
589=RUMPFZUSTAND %s %

Then is the hull integrity on.

I think in the english version is it nearly the same:

Data/menu/en_menu.txt.
The Number 589 ist empty.
There you can write this command:
589=hullintegrity %s %


Preuss

[charlesmester]

Thank you preuss, I will give it a try when I get home from work.

Regards

Chuck

[Kpt. Lehmann]

I like not having it. But in a way, one would think that the repairmen would say, "Gee Captain, the last DC made the hull very weak over here and we do not recommend diving too deeply". Something like that I'm sure was said after an attack. So having the hull integrity scale is ok in my view only because you are not told by the repairmen just how bad it is.


My thoughts exactly. In reality, im quite sure a crew could gauge the integrity of their hull, and knew what, and what not to do. The representation of this in game is the hull integrity number. That said, i do admit it takes away an element of gambling and risk taking in some scenario's in game. Particuarlly where crush depth is concerned.

I agree, which is why I suggested a message area that rated the hull integrity as 'excellent', 'good', 'fair' and 'poor' to replace the hull integrity percentage rating which gives an exact number. For instance, excellent might be 91% - 100%, good be 76% - 90%, fair be 51% - 75% and poor 1% - 50%.

Instead of where the hull integrity percentage is displayed now you'd have 'hull integrity condition' that would display one of the four conditions. As 'fair' and 'poor' cover the bottom three-quarters of the percentage rating you'd never truly be sure what the exact remaining percentage of hull condition was; you'd only ever have a general idea of the state of the hull condition. I think this would be a good blend between having no idea at all (which is what occurs when the hull integrity field is completely disabled) and having an exact idea of the condition (which is what occurs when the hull integrity field is enabled), and would also feel more 'real', to boot.

What the exact percentile range the four descriptors would cover should be discussed, of course, until a general consensus was reached.

Well, I tell you what we will do. (No promises as to when it will be done.)
We will look into creating a variation of the hull integrity indicator that gives a general impression but nothing specific... as you say, "good, fair, poor, critical."

I do not yet know if this can be done... if it can we will. As far as discussing how much percentage = what damage lavel... discussion isn't necessary. I'll just make an executive decision and save a load of time.

However, the exact percentage number will not return to the GWX default installation itself... that's just too "Star Trekky!" The whole idea behind it is to keep you guessing.
Individual players who want to sail using the exact percentage will need to add it back in... simple affair really.

You still do get an impression of how bad off your U-boat is based on components destroyed etc... and honestly... one lucky DC can ummm "end your mission" shall we say.

Knowing too much removes the "fear factor." :arrgh!:

Removing the fear factor = BOREDOM!!! :|\\

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

Well, I tell you what we will do. (No promises as to when it will be done.)
We will look into creating a variation of the hull integrity indicator that gives a general impression but nothing specific... as you say, "good, fair, poor, critical."

I do not yet know if this can be done... if it can we will. As far as discussing how much percentage = what damage lavel... discussion isn't necessary. I'll just make an executive decision and save a load of time.

However, the exact percentage number will not return to the GWX default installation itself... that's just too "Star Trekky!" The whole idea behind it is to keep you guessing.
Individual players who want to sail using the exact percentage will need to add it back in... simple affair really.

You still do get an impression of how bad off your U-boat is based on components destroyed etc... and honestly... one lucky DC can ummm "end your mission" shall we say.

Knowing too much removes the "fear factor." :arrgh!:

Removing the fear factor = BOREDOM!!! :|\\

Awesome! :D

Thanks for your considering the idea. And I agree about the 'fear factor', too . . . which GWX has added to quite nicely! --shudders, mentally replaying several recent frisky escort attacks in my mind--:arrgh!:

[AVGWarhawk]

Kpt makes a good point, after a DC attack all the yellow and red areas can give you a good idea of just how bad things are. It still gives you your best guess on what will happen if you try another DC attack. I'll buy that logic and with that said, I believe I will leave it just the way it is:up: Thanks Kpt, you made up my mind for me:D

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

Kpt makes a good point, after a DC attack all the yellow and red areas can give you a good idea of just how bad things are. It still gives you your best guess on what will happen if you try another DC attack. I'll buy that logic and with that said, I believe I will leave it just the way it is:up: Thanks Kpt, you made up my mind for me:D

In the past I've had damaged compartments without losing any hull integrity. In reverse, if you deep dive in a desperate bid to escape, your hull can start gradually (or quickly :o ) taking damage without any visible 'yellow/red' compartment indications.

To each his own. My personal preference would be to not have an exact indication percentage-wise, nor have no approximate indication, but to have a general, possibly even inaccurate, description of hull integrity. Especially if my patrol lasts over several real-time days, and I'm trying to recall just what compartment(s) days ago I remember got tagged. :-?

[AVGWarhawk]

True Hesse but like the Kpt said, it keeps you guessing. I'm sure it was a craps shoot in the real u-boat. The engineers were giving their best guess on the extent of the damage. I bet they were off by a long shot in most cases. Metal stress etc. I'm sticking with no meter at all. Read my sig and you will understand why LOL!

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

True Hesse but like the Kpt said, it keeps you guessing. I'm sure it was a craps shoot in the real u-boat. The engineers were giving their best guess on the extent of the damage. I bet they were off by a long shot in most cases. Metal stress etc. I'm sticking with no meter at all. Read my sig and you will understand why LOL!

I agree, yep yep. That's why I think a general indication would approximate a 'best guess' scenario, as compared to just pulling-a-rabbit-out-of-the-hat guess. ;)

However, one shoe does not fit every foot, after all, and what works for one doesn't appeal to all. And I'm certainly not going to cry if we don't see a mod for this. I'm certainly pleased with GWX as it is! :up:

[AVGWarhawk]

are'nt you supposed to be working on a FIDO or something :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: