Hello, sexy!!! (1.04)

[Molon Labe]

Isn't she pretty?
http://home.insightbb.com/%7Enotenoughsand/688I_newmodel.JPG
Not bad from the back end either!
http://home.insightbb.com/%7Enotenoughsand/688I_TAhousing.JPGhttp://home.insightbb.com/%7Enotenoughsand/688I_TAhousing_screwJPGhttp://home.insightbb.com/%7Enotenoughsand/688I_TAhousing_screw.JPG
Giving us a little peek inside!
http://home.insightbb.com/%7Enotenoughsand/688I_torptubes.JPG
http://home.insightbb.com/%7Enotenoughsand/688I_VLStubes.JPG
Someone got a new bow-job. And had some work done on the stern too!
http://home.insightbb.com/%7Enotenoughsand/FFG_sonar_screw.JPG
How's it hanging?
http://home.insightbb.com/%7Enotenoughsand/mh60_dipper.JPG

[Sea Demon]

Yes. :cool: She is. Thanks Sonalysts. :up:

[Sonoboy]

Holy ****! You can see the dipping sonar!! The 688i is so much sexier than before.

[Zerogreat]

wOW... happy :sunny:

[GakunGak]

I think I'm in love....:rotfl:
THNX Sonalysts, good job!:up:
688I & her props:rock:

[Kapitan]

Yes nice job how comes they did nout to the akulas :(

[goldorak]

Yes nice job how comes they did nout to the akulas :(

Hey Kapitan don't worry, I think XabbaRus is working on a graphical update to our beloved akulas and kilos. :smug:

[XabbaRus]

Well just to let you know I finally finished packaging the little graphics update and altering the dbase. I have used Lufts 3.03 release as he requested.

Bascially it is quite a few of the subs plus the Type 23.

I have a working Akula and Kilo model thing is the mast position. I feel my model has the sails in the right place but I am at odds with DW's programming. I also need to get the doors working right. I also need to get a decent paint job on both.

So if you want an Akula with oddly working doors and no useful sail view then I can give it out.

Besides the Kilo in DW isn't too bad.

[DivingWind]

Dont forget the "sexy" freighter :D I think it looks cool, it's only ship I'm hunting now... Ofcourse with 688 Improved (literally).

[Molon Labe]

I do like the new model, but there was no way I was putting a pic of that ugly hag in my sexy thread!

[DivingWind]

Did you all noticed how elegantlly ships are rolling when turned hard... :arrgh!:

[Mau]

For the FFG,

Yes the roll is pretty cool now on the frigate
However when conducting hard turn, the stern is going under the water (anyone noticed that)
- the reduction on speed during hard turn passed from 9 kts to 13 kts so slight improvement there
- The Nixie and Towed array should still be the other way around in the 3D view

BUt again, thank you very much
It is great to see that SCS is still working on it

[Fish]

On my monitor the first and third pic are just black, can´t see anything?

[goldorak]

On my monitor the first and third pic are just black, can´t see anything?

Are you using an lcd ?
Me too, the first two images afre pitch black. ;)

[DivingWind]

AI ships roll too...

[Iron Budokan]

Nice screws on her, too.

[Fish]

On my monitor the first and third pic are just black, can´t see anything?

Are you using an lcd ?
Me too, the first two images afre pitch black. ;)

No, normal monitor (old fashion) ;)

[Pirate]

Yes nice job how comes they did nout to the akulas :(

Oh man!!! That disapointed me a lot too! :cry:

Here we go, on patch 1.04 and still with akulas with oval hulls.

SONALYST: Akulas have round hulls, not OVAL!!! Just look at pictures that show them from the front, there are a lot of pictures in the internet.

[Wim Libaers]

On my monitor the first and third pic are just black, can´t see anything?
Are you using an lcd ?
Me too, the first two images afre pitch black. ;)
No, normal monitor (old fashion) ;)

Check the brightness settings. I'm using a CRT, and depending on brightness it goes from rather light blue to black.

[Fish]

On my monitor the first and third pic are just black, can´t see anything?
Are you using an lcd ?
Me too, the first two images afre pitch black. ;)
No, normal monitor (old fashion) ;)

Check the brightness settings. I'm using a CRT, and depending on brightness it goes from rather light blue to black.

Thanks Wim (my first name too) with brightness at 100% gives me a sub in pics one and three. :up:

[Ghost Dog]

Call me crazy, but I prefer the old L.A model. the new one looks too......fat?

[goldorak]

Call me crazy, but I prefer the old L.A model. the new one looks too......fat?

You're crazy :rotfl:
Seriously though, the old model looked like a sausage.
The 688i is nothing like that.

[Frying Tiger]

Nobody's noticed the MH-60 pilots are actual helicopter pilots now, not jet fighter pilots?

[goldorak]

Nobody's noticed the MH-60 pilots are actual helicopter pilots now, not jet fighter pilots?

Nope, up to now I had never realised the helo had in game pilots. :rotfl:
Its a nice touch, the pilot models.
Its the little things that matter and makes the game more enjoyable. :)

[Captain Norman]

Damn looks like im gonnna have to re-install DW and install this patch :D

[LoBlo]

Call me crazy, but I prefer the old L.A model. the new one looks too......fat?

Actually, did you know that the optimal lenght to width ratio for a submarine is actually 6:1 or 7:1?...Where's an LA lenth to width ratio is around 11:1, if a sub really wanted to be hydrodynamic, it would look even more "squatty" that they do right now.;)

[Bill Nichols]

Call me crazy, but I prefer the old L.A model. the new one looks too......fat?

Actually, did you know that the optimal lenght to width ratio for a submarine is actually 6:1 or 7:1?...Where's an LA lenth to width ratio is around 11:1, if a sub really wanted to be hydrodynamic, it would look even more "squatty" that they do right now.;)

Like the old Albacore or Skipjack boats...

[LoBlo]

Call me crazy, but I prefer the old L.A model. the new one looks too......fat?

Actually, did you know that the optimal lenght to width ratio for a submarine is actually 6:1 or 7:1?...Where's an LA lenth to width ratio is around 11:1, if a sub really wanted to be hydrodynamic, it would look even more "squatty" that they do right now.;)

Like the old Albacore or Skipjack boats...

Yep, especially the Albacore. Its length:width was around 7.5:1 (almost ideal) and the Skipjack was around 8:1.

The SW is the closest that an American sub has come in a while (8.6:1 iirc). Most countries deviate from the optimal shapes because its easier to fit equipment inside the longer hulls than shorter/fatter ones from what I understand.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

The reason for the cylindricial hullforms that the USN uses is simply ease of construction. The ease of construction was considered more important increase in hull efficency. I can't remember the exact number but I know the Skipjack/Albacore hull form was less than 10% more efficent.

The Skipjack/Albacore hullforms were VERY efficent hullforms. However, the constant changing of the interior volumn due to the shape of the hull made it difficult for placement of equipment in an efficient manner. There was all kinds of wasted space on them.

The 688 was designed around a propulsion plant. They wanted a boat that could run with the carrier fleet and act as a screening vessel, thus it had, at the time, the largest plant they could squeeze into a submersible hull. They could not make the hull larger in diameter due to metallugical and engineering technology at the time of ship design, so the made the space longer. With the length of the power plant and the ships center of gravity being the reactor vessel, the hull HAD to be so long to maintain stability.

[LoBlo]

The reason for the cylindricial hullforms that the USN uses is simply ease of construction. The ease of construction was considered more important increase in hull efficency. I can't remember the exact number but I know the Skipjack/Albacore hull form was less than 10% more efficent.

Yep, supposedly a sub can get away with stretching the ratio with only minor penalties in drag. The 'tapering' of the hull can be delayed a bit (to allow more of a cylindrical midsection instead of an immediate taper from the forward section) without excessive penatly as well. Here's the drag to lenght:width curve

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7393/lenghttowidethratioby7.png

The 688 was designed around a propulsion plant. They wanted a boat that could run with the carrier fleet and act as a screening vessel, thus it had, at the time, the largest plant they could squeeze into a submersible hull. They could not make the hull larger in diameter due to metallugical and engineering technology at the time of ship design, so the made the space longer. With the length of the power plant and the ships center of gravity being the reactor vessel, the hull HAD to be so long to maintain stability.

I was a little disappointed when I heard that the VA class would have the dimensions that it did. 10.8 x 115 meters went back to the long skinny tube whereas the SW had been more squatty at 12.2 x 105 meters (I like the squatty look... seems more 'athletic/nimble/sturdy' imho). I've always figured that it was because the VA would be optimized for littoral waters and the extra 4.5 feet shaved off the diamter may be helpful... that's what I've always assumed anyway.

[LuftWolf]

In the course of testing out the RBU's I've discoverered something rather interesting about DW 1.04.

When there are explosions near a platform, it is possible for a submarine to be killed without the damage meter showing any damage. Several times, the RBU's sank my submarine, I lost attitude control and plummetted to the bottom, but the interface was apparenlty intact.

However, I KNOW that the submarine was listed as Killed in the NavalSimEngine itself because other weapons and platforms ceased firing at my platform when this occured, although I was not "officially" dead yet or at least had not been informed of my dying, not I until went past crush depth. This is how I am able to rule out the possibility of a control or physics engine bug.

So, I think you all should be aware, you can lose control of your submarine when all systems appear to be in order, and you are already dead.

Cheers,
David

[GakunGak]

In the course of testing out the RBU's I've discoverered something rather interesting about DW 1.04.

When there are explosions near a platform, it is possible for a submarine to be killed without the damage meter showing any damage. Several times, the RBU's sank my submarine, I lost attitude control and plummetted to the bottom, but the interface was apparenlty intact.

However, I KNOW that the submarine was listed as Killed in the NavalSimEngine itself because other weapons and platforms ceased firing at my platform when this occured, although I was not "officially" dead yet or at least had not been informed of my dying, not I until went past crush depth. This is how I am able to rule out the possibility of a control or physics engine bug.

So, I think you all should be aware, you can lose control of your submarine when all systems appear to be in order, and you are already dead.

Cheers,
David
Does this mean that this ant http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=104894 are similar problems?:hmm:

[LuftWolf]

In the course of testing out the RBU's I've discoverered something rather interesting about DW 1.04.

When there are explosions near a platform, it is possible for a submarine to be killed without the damage meter showing any damage. Several times, the RBU's sank my submarine, I lost attitude control and plummetted to the bottom, but the interface was apparenlty intact.

However, I KNOW that the submarine was listed as Killed in the NavalSimEngine itself because other weapons and platforms ceased firing at my platform when this occured, although I was not "officially" dead yet or at least had not been informed of my dying, not I until went past crush depth. This is how I am able to rule out the possibility of a control or physics engine bug.

So, I think you all should be aware, you can lose control of your submarine when all systems appear to be in order, and you are already dead.

Cheers,
David
Does this mean that this ant http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=104894 are similar problems?:hmm:

I'm glad you made the connection, because that is exactly what happened in your case, only the event was caused by a collision with the DSRV.

Cheers
David

[GakunGak]

I'm making an impression that the whole patch is a bug....:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[LuftWolf]

I'm making an impression that the whole patch is a bug....:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I see you're new around here.

You have no idea what buggy patches really are... :x

Cheers,
David

[GakunGak]

I'm making an impression that the whole patch is a bug....:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I see you're new around here.

You have no idea what buggy patches really are... :x

Cheers,
David
I belive i do now...:smug:
However, I'm not new, just i was't present all the time... Sometimes it's just better to listen....:|\\

[Molon Labe]

In the course of testing out the RBU's I've discoverered something rather interesting about DW 1.04.

When there are explosions near a platform, it is possible for a submarine to be killed without the damage meter showing any damage. Several times, the RBU's sank my submarine, I lost attitude control and plummetted to the bottom, but the interface was apparenlty intact.

However, I KNOW that the submarine was listed as Killed in the NavalSimEngine itself because other weapons and platforms ceased firing at my platform when this occured, although I was not "officially" dead yet or at least had not been informed of my dying, not I until went past crush depth. This is how I am able to rule out the possibility of a control or physics engine bug.

So, I think you all should be aware, you can lose control of your submarine when all systems appear to be in order, and you are already dead.

Cheers,
David

There's nothing sexy about that!

[Ark]

Call me crazy, but I prefer the old L.A model. the new one looks too......fat?

Seriously though, the old model looked like a sausage.


Lmao