View Full Version : [TEC] Corrected ship dimensions (followup)
GreyOctober
03-29-07, 07:33 PM
Just noticed that someone noticed :hmm: ...anyway. As Krupp pointed out in this thread http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=109721 most of (almost all) ship measurements differ from the ones published in the printed SRM or on the SH4 website (http://silenthunter4.uk.ubi.com/ships.php) (http://silenthunter4.uk.ubi.com/ships.php%29). As i dont have the SRM, i fiddled with the jappanese freighters and see if it makes any difference to the firing sollution acuracy as some report. I just corrected the cfg files with the figures found on the website thats all. If anyone is working on this indepth..even better. Im not sure about the others ships.
It is possible that these inconsistecies may be due to the fact that the measurements in the cfg files are generated by the 3D modelling program and not copied into the cfg from the ship blueprint. Just my take, but well worth investingating further.
MODIFICATIONS (original values within brackets):
__________________________
NKMCS_Akita
Displacement=4070 (3936)
Mast=29.2 (22.25)
__________________________
NKMSS_Biyo
Length=121.9 (120)
Width=16.1 (15)
Draft=7.9 (7.5)
__________________________
NOM_Buzyun
Width=15.5 (15)
Mast=29.7 (30)
Draft=8.7 (7.5)
__________________________
NPL_Conte_Verde
Mast=42.5 (35)
__________________________
NKLSS_Hakusika
Length=135.6 (120)
Width=17.7 (15)
Mast=29.5 (30)
Draft=8.6 (7.5)
__________________________
NOS_Haruna
*NOTHING MODIFIED*
__________________________
NKMCS_Heito
Mast=26.2 (30)
__________________________
NPL_Horai
Mast=39.7 (33.5)
__________________________
NKSSS_Kasagisan
MaxSpeed=12 (12.5)
Mast=26.9 (22.56)
__________________________
NKMSS_Kinposan
Length=101.2 (107)
Mast=27.5 (23.77)
__________________________
NPL_Kiturin
Length=130.1 (135.94)
Mast=34 (31.7)
__________________________
NKLCS_Nagara
Length=143.2 (120)
Width=18.9 (15)
Mast=36.5 (30)
Draft=8.3 (7.5)
Displacement=7154 (7145)
__________________________
NOL_Nippon
MaxSpeed=20 (12)
Length=159.7 (120)
Width=19.8 (15)
Mast=28.9 (30)
Draft=9 (7.5)
Displacement=9974 (10000)
__________________________
NKSCS_Taihosan
Mast=22.6 (24)
__________________________
NPS_Tyohei
Mast=22.5 (27.4)
Displacement=1713 (1718)
__________________________
NKMCS_Zinbu
Length=121.9 (120)
Width=14.6 (14)
Mast=28.4 (24)
_____________________________________________
Cheers!
GO
Is it possible this is intentional? The data in the ONI material that skippers had could easily be innaccurate for any given ships with modifications after it was in Lloyds. Adding a little inaccuracy (at least on the dimensions) would (assuming those numbers were used by the game to get range) would add a little fog of war that perfect ONI data would not.
Or am I off base?
Nice GreyOctober:D, I'm so happy to see someone else seeing this too. Thanks for that list. The Japanese man-of-war's have also some strange values (in those CFG-files).
Like an 17850 ton, aircraft carrier that has a mast height of only 16 meters (should be 43.9 meters!). It is less than a 1200 ton destroyer has with 21.3 meters mast.
C'mon, how wrong it should look before it rings any bells here?
Here's a list of Japanese man-of-war dimensions. Taken from publisher's printed rec book. There are bigger and smaller variations if you compare them to original cfg-values, in brackets ().
-----------------------------
Yamato
Displacement: 63200 tons
Lentght: 263.2 meters
Width: 38.9 meters (39)
Height: 43.5 meters (44)
Draft 10.9 meters (10)
------------------------------
Fuso
D: 34300
L: 212.7 (212)
W: 30.8 (30.8)
H: 50.6 (50)
D: 9.4 (9.7)
-------------------------------
Kongo
D: 32000
L: 225
W: 31.7 (30.8)
H: 43 (42)
D: 9.8 (9.4)
------------------------------
Ise
D: 31250 (33800)
L: 205.5 (220)
W: 28.6 31.6)
H: 50.3 (50)
D: 9.9 (9.5)
--------------------------------
Ise (hybrid)
D: 33800
L: 220
W: 31.6
H: 50.1 (50)
D: 9.5
---------------------------------
Taiho
D: 35000
L: 253.7
W: 27.8
H: 45.3 (46)
D: 9.5
----------------------------------
Shokaku
D: 28000 (hm, this should be closer to 20000 tons)
L: 250
W: 25.9 (26)
H: 31.4 (29.7)
D: 8.6 (8.7)
---------------------------------
Taiyo
D: 17830
L: 180.1
W: 22.5
H:43.9 (16) <----------------------------------!!! wtf?
D:7.5
-----------------------------------
Hiryu
D: 16000
L: 223.3
W: 21.3
H: 35.2 (20) <------------------------------!!! also, wtf?
D: 7.5
-------------------------------------
Akitsu Maru-Aircraft carrier
D: 11800
L: 143.7
W: 19.5
H: 35.2 (30)
D: 7.8
-------------------------------------
Takao-Heavy Cruiser
D: 9850 (15870)
L: 204.5 (204)
W: 19 (23)
H: 36.3 (36.5)
D: 5.1 (6.3)
--------------------------------
Maya- Heavy cruiser
D: 9850
L: 204.5
W: 19
H: 36.3
D: 5.1
----------------------------------
Mogami-heavy cruiser
D:9500
L: 200
W:20.5
H: 34.6 (34)
D: 4.4
------------------------------------
Furutaka-heavy cruiser
D: 7100
L: 188
W: 11.9
H: 31.9 (23)
D: 4.5
-----------------------------------------
Agano-Light cruiser
D: 6652
L: 174.5
W: 15.2 (15)
H: 25.2 (30)
D: 5.6
---------------------------------------
Naka-light cruiser
D: 5195 (5113)
L: 163
W: 14.2 (14)
H: 31.8 (35.6)
D: 4.6 (4.5)
----------------------------------------
Kuma-light cruiser
D: 5100
L: 163
W: 14.2 (14)
H: 35.6
D: 4.6 (4.4)
------------------------------------------
Akizuki-destroyer
D: 2701
L: 134
W: 11.6
H: 22.8 (23)
D: 4.1
----------------------------------------
Fubuki-destroyer
D: 2260 (1680)
L: 118.5
W: 10.4 (10.3)
H: 21.1 (21)
D: 3.2
------------------------------------
Asashio-destroyer
D: 1961 (2370)
L: 118.3
W: 10.4 (10.3)
H: 27 (21)
D: 3.6 (3.2)
-------------------------------------------
Shiratsuyu-destroyer
D: 1685
L: 108
W: 9.9
H: 21.9 (22)
D:3.5
----------------------------------------
Mutsuki-destroyer
D: 1313 (1772)
L: 102.4 (103.3)
W: 9.1
H: 23.6 (21)
D: 4.6 (3)
------------------------------------------
Minekaze-destroyer
D: 1215
L: 102.5 (102.6)
W: 8.9 (9.1)
H: 21.3 (21)
D: 2.9
-----------------------------------
No.13 Class - minesweeper
D: 511 (500)
L: 72.1 (70)
W: 7.6 (9.1)
H: 25.5 (21)
D: 1.85 (2.9)
--------------------------------
Okinoshima - minelayer
D: 4400
L: 123.4
W: 15.6
H: 28.1 (21)
D: 5
---------------------------------
Chitose-seaplane tender
D: 11200 (9000)
L: 192.5
W: 20.8
H: 31.8 (16)
D: 7.5
-------------------------------
Atami-gunboat
D:170
L: 45.3
W: 6.3
H: 19.8
D: 1.4
------------------------------------
Hira-gunboat
D:305
L: 56
W: 8.5
H: 28
D: 1.2
---------------------------------
Redwine
03-30-07, 08:31 AM
At first ... many thanks GreyOctober... for job and effort !! :up:
One question...
The new measures you add, are based on real life, on another source... or based on game 3D modellation ?
what is my point...
Disregardong the historical data, or some book data, the important is to have the ingame size modellated as correct data.
In example if a ship has in real life, or into the contact book 300m long, but game modellates it as 280m, i need the 280m data for manual TDC instead the real 300m value.
I thnik so the correct way is to put a test mission, put the sub at a knowed range, and measure the angle, then detrmine the ingame ships sizes.
Sorry my ignorance, but if you can dlarify this i will aprecite it too much.
Mnay thanks in dvance.... :up::up::up:
At first ... many thanks GreyOctober... for job and effort !!
Don't mention.
The measures are based on data, that is from the game developers. From their website and from a manual they printed for some editions. The reason for all this fuss. Is that there are so many ships that have almost similar dimension in the cfg-files and the sources mentioned above. And then those that seem to be more or less "wrong".
Reflecting that, it is difficult to believe that, when you compare different ships, you find that there are these oddities (in CFG-files). Like aircraft carriers with way too low heights, some ships drafts are too little and so on.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the values need to be those that the game 3D models have. Not ripped from a real life source. But, these values argued here, are from the dev's. And I'm trying to find out which are the correct ones.
I would be happy to test this in game, altho I have no idea how to put up a shooting range for different ships. Say, all merhants 90 degree AOB at 1000 meters. And then test the ranges with the stadimeter + shoot some magnetic torpedoes to test the drafts. But, I'll try if I can arrange this.
GreyOctober
03-30-07, 09:08 AM
Thanks guys. The problem is, i think, correcting these figues wont do much good as i feel they were intentionally put that way in the cfg files. In other words, the cfg may be generated by the 3d modelling program which reads the model and not simply written into the file. As for the printed rec manual, the figures you see there are the correct dimensions of their real life counterparts.
At any rate, we need to make sure that by altering these files we get correct readings from the stadimeter and not just a placebo effect. Needs further investigation.
@Krupp: Can you please post the jappanese warships cfgs and not just the figures? Thank you!
@tater: Youre not off base at all...It might be true. Any historians around with knowledge about this? How precise were the rec manuals? If thats the case, were not doing any good and we should leave them as they are.
Cheers!
GO
GreyOctober
03-30-07, 09:17 AM
Originally Posted by Jungman
But it was determined and proved the printed manual values are indeed wrong. Using the Config data numbers, the range was correct using the Stadimeter in game 3D.
______________________________
OOPS!
Fog has lifted. I can see now... :lol:
Well, sorry for all the commotion, and im glad that at least this part of the game is not affected. Removed download link just in case..
Great community!! Cheers!
GO
Originally Posted by Jungman
But it was determined and proved the printed manual values are indeed wrong. Using the Config data numbers, the range was correct using the Stadimeter in game 3D.
______________________________
OOPS!
Fog has lifted. I can see now... :lol:
Well, sorry for all the commotion, and im glad that at least this part of the game is not affected. Removed download link just in case..
Great community!! Cheers!
GO
Ah, so it officially ends all this noncence then... phew. :dead:
One final question tho, when you measure the distance to some aircraft carriers, do you put the stadimeter on the mast top or on the deck level? If on the mast top, then it still confuses me how can a carrier be only 16 meters high...
Redwine
03-30-07, 09:34 AM
At first ... many thanks GreyOctober... for job and effort !!
Don't mention.
Come on Krupp... i readed it to quickly, and focusing attention on data not in the textx, i was thinking the mod was from GreyOctober.
Many thanks for your effort and job too ! :up:
The measures are based on data, that is from the game developers. From their website and from a manual they printed for some editions.
You dont understand my question...
Cfg files can say 300m, developers, its site and its printed manual can say 200m, but if the game has modelled 100m you will hit nothing in manual TDC.
And if the games had modelled 200m, the same has into cfg, it is the data we need for Manual TDC.
That was my question.... did you changed the values to put them in agree with the Historical/printed/website/ data or to put them in agree with "ingame size modellation" ?
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the values need to be those that the game 3D models have. Not ripped from a real life source. But, these values argued here, are from the dev's. And I'm trying to find out which are the correct ones.
Sorry but i feel a little lack of respect and consideration in your answer... :-?
How can be you sure the ingame model has the web site/printed size ?
Sorry but i can see you dont understand my point...
Thanks guys. The problem is, i think, correcting these figues wont do much good as i feel they were intentionally put that way in the cfg files. In other words, the cfg may be generated by the 3d modelling program which reads the model and not simply written into the file. As for the printed rec manual, the figures you see there are the correct dimensions of their real life counterparts.
At any rate, we need to make sure that by altering these files we get correct readings from the stadimeter and not just a placebo effect. Needs further investigation.
Cheers!
GO
You understand my question GeryOctober :up:
Well, we are beating a dead horse here so no point to continue I reckon. My apologies Redwine, just my way of express things, no disrespect or anything.
Good thing is that the outcome was the point this all started, those in-game values are ok then. That's was the main objective here and problem solved.
Now, I'll just keep :ahoy: and leave these to people who know what they do :lol: We ( well. I am) have already wasted too much valuable time with this.
Pls. Bear with me this time.
I just made a mission, where I put Taiyo escort carrier sitting (0knots) at exactly 1000 meters range, AOB 90 stb.
1.
I tested the value taken from the printed manual (the ones I have tried to proven right ones) , that gives you a mast height of 43.9 meters. Then I just measured the distance with the attack periscopes stadimeter, pointing it to the mast top. It showed exactly 1000 meter distance.
2. Then I went and edited the cfg mast height BACK to original value of 16 meters. Started up the same mission and measured the distance just like in 1st test. Result was: 343 meters when the ship actually was at 1000 meters away.
Well, I had and idea that maybe the stadimeter should be pointed to the deck instead of the mast top. So, I pointed it to the deck and it gave me the result of 1000 meters!
Looks like the dev's forgot to add the actual mast to some of those carriers.
Well, I'm of to go and do some more testing.
I did some more testing. I put a Mutsuki destroyer as a target at 1000 meters. With the original value of 2.9 meters (draft) the torpedoes wen't right under it when torpedo depth was 3.0 meters. If I used the value (that I have been selling, those in the printed manual), i.e. 4.6 meters and set the torpedo depth to 4.8, the torpedo actually seemed to travel too deep. That would indicate that those original values are true ones. Well, not true but accurate enough for magnetics to explode.
At this point, it looks like there will be errors in your firing data, IF you aim your stadimeter to the mast top on some carriers ( see post right above). But, if you put the stadimeter on the deck level, you get the right range. Who, would even thought this? I always measure from the mast top.
Biggest difference between the mast heights are with these ships:
Hiryu
Taiyo
And some what smaller, but noticeable difference are these:
Asashio
Large minelayer
Conte Verde
Horai
Zinbu
Nagara
Akita
Kasagisan
I'll put all of them under test at 1000 meters, using both, the original and printed mast height values. It's worth to do, cos the carrier case showed that something is not right.
uhm...sry. wrong buttons...
Update:
Since DD Asashio is one of those ships with signifigant variation in mast heights, I tested her.
1. First, I used the mast height (printed manual, that, again, I've been fussing about) of 27 meters. Result was very accurate: 993 meters.
2. With the original cfg value of 21 meters, the result was 772 meters.
So, if you are using those file originally in the game, you WILL get wrong firing data for you TDC. You can imagine how much you will miss your target if it's going like 15 knots, at 1500 meter distance, and your range is almost 25% wrong because of the faulty mast height in your game cfg files.
And what comes to the draft of those ships, mags seem to fine with the printed manual values. I will absolutely positively change all ship dimensions like they are in the printed manual.
Looks like the horse ain't dead yet.
I'd be curious to know how accurate the USN ONI manuals were compared to the real ships. They have a photo taken by a moving aircraft in combat of a jap DD. Analysts then calculate the mast hight and enter it into the next addition. How accurate is it?
I think it's really interesting that the data is screwed up, but I'm not sure a variation with reality isn't a good thing, it's not like it's hard to sink stuff now compared to RL. Again, this goes to outcome simulation, not technical simulation.
I'd be curious to know how accurate the USN ONI manuals were compared to the real ships. They have a photo taken by a moving aircraft in combat of a jap DD. Analysts then calculate the mast hight and enter it into the next addition. How accurate is it?
I think it's really interesting that the data is screwed up, but I'm not sure a variation with reality isn't a good thing, it's not like it's hard to sink stuff now compared to RL. Again, this goes to outcome simulation, not technical simulation.
well, the data you have from the collecors edition recognition book, is accurate. The data in the game ain't. Some ships are correct and others are wrong. I could understand your point and agree with it, if the variation in data would be with small tolerances. But, take a look at Taiyo carrier, it will give you like 65% error in 1000 meter distance, and DD Asashio would give error of nearly 25 %. That is just too much I think.
And besides, gathering firing data is difficult enough when you plot courses and speed estimates and AOB's etc.
akdavis
03-30-07, 04:48 PM
I get consistently better ranges when I measure using the first crosstree instead of the tip of the tallest mast. Easy to check your stadimeter range versus actual range by using the attack map with map contact updates on.
Jungman
03-30-07, 05:29 PM
Hello all! Good work Krupp.
I was just requote information to the other Canadian guy (Yllekm) who made a nice manual for those who want /did not get one. He wondered about the values if they are accurate. I said no, there are not. They are being worked on. Plus add in the ship length (and this one is in Imperial units and not Meters).
My statement that the in game config values are correct and the printed one are wrong, is rather backwards statement of what you all were stating. Sorry, I correct myself.:oops:
A better statement would be we need to make sure the ingame 3D models data agree with Config data so the TDC and Stadiameter will give you correct results.
Now wether the ingame 3D model data actually matches real life print material is another story. I believe for playing the game, the Recon manual being made should match the true ingame 3D models -not so much the real life dimensions.
Jungman
03-30-07, 07:19 PM
Mogami Heavy Cruiser in the training mission. The draft says 4.4 meter or 14.4 feet.
I shoot torpedos just under it to miss. 28 feet depth hits, 29 feet misses. So I assume the draft the 3D model is sitting into the water deeper than the manual would indicate. Which would mean your apparent mast heigth may look to be lower than normal because the 3D model is sitting lower in the water.
The .sim file for that ship has it at draught = 28 41 hex = 10.5 sitting into the water. So maybe on some ships this may cause the Mast heigth in game to be too low, or too high depending upon that setting.
Edit: wrong value for .sim draft depth. Set it zero and the ship floats above the water. Good for testing.
Mogami Heave Cruiser in the training mission. The draft says 4.4m or 14.4 feet.
I shoot torpedos just under it to miss. 28 feet dpeth hits, 29 feet misses. So I assume the draft the 3D model is sitting into the water deeper than the manual would indicate. Which would mean your apprent mast heigth may look to be lower than normal because the 3D model is sitting lower in the water.
The .sim file for that ship has it at draught = 1b hex = 27 feet sitting into the water. So maybe on some ships this may cause the Mast heigth in game to be to low or to high depending upon that setting.
Could this be related to the TDC aft shooting bug???? A bad mast height would affect range... but it in manual I can hit her dead center so I guess not..
Jungman
03-30-07, 07:49 PM
Jace11
The Aft hitting torp is a bug in the torpedo speed. The high speed torp setting M14 and M23 suffer from this, the devs made a statement on this bug today.
The wrong apparent mast height would though, cause error in the range using manual TDC and the stadiometer.
I think the modders here krupp and GreyOctober are testing the values in the .cfg files, printed recon manual values, and (as for me) trying to ascertain the true in game 3D numbers.
I wish I had a ruler and fly around inside the game to measure things. :lost:
Mogami Heavy Cruiser in the training mission. The draft says 4.4 meter or 14.4 feet.
I shoot torpedos just under it to miss. 28 feet depth hits, 29 feet misses. So I assume the draft the 3D model is sitting into the water deeper than the manual would indicate. Which would mean your apparent mast heigth may look to be lower than normal because the 3D model is sitting lower in the water.
The .sim file for that ship has it at draught = 28 41 hex = 10.5 sitting into the water. So maybe on some ships this may cause the Mast heigth in game to be too low, or too high depending upon that setting.
Edit: wrong value for .sim draft depth. Set it zero and the ship floats above the water. Good for testing.
Good point. I tested mogami mission too, and found the same thing. It looks like the Mogami is actually swimming around 8 meters deep, instead of 4.4 meters. Strange. Strange because I measured the distance to Mogami in the mission editor, and it was 1000 meters. Which seem really odd cos the stadimeter gave same distance.
I looked all the sim files and the ship draughtsubmerged values. For example, for mechants the value seems to be roughly the double that the actual draft we have in our rec manuals.
Then there is Kasagisan Maru, her draughtsubmerged sim-value is only 1 (she looked ok, not swimming too high at all) and when I put her under the 1000 meters test, it showed exact range to her and the magnetic torpedo was right on spot (about 20 feet) and destroyed her totally.
When I changed the value for heavy cruiser Mogami (from 10.5 to 4.4, which is the announced draft) she looked really hilarious swimming almost top of the water. With the depth of about 5 meters the magnetic torpedo went too deep. The right value is between 10.5 and 4.4, but it's different thing how does she look like (too high?) and problem remains, the draft is still too much. So what's the point to do any changes?
In my opinion, if I get the correct ranges by editing the cfg values, the draft is still wrong. Draft would be wrong even with the original values.
I'm very confuced :doh:
But it is quite serious, that this problem makes pretty much all magnetic torpedo shooting pointless.
Immacolata
03-31-07, 05:51 AM
According to Wikipedia here the mogami cruiser Suzuya had 5.5 meter draft.
Try that for test?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Suzuya
According to Wikipedia here the mogami cruiser Suzuya had 5.5 meter draft.
Try that for test?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Suzuya
Roger, I'll test it right away. "The Illustrated Directory of Warships" gives 5.5 draft too. "Jane's" gives the same as dev's ,4.4 meters.
edit: Nah, with 5.5 meters, she is floating way too high.
I'm preparing a tutorial for targeting with 100% realism, based on the aspect ratio of the target to get the AOB, and it would really be essential for me to have the real length and mast height values the game is using. I'll try to keep an eye on this topic, but please if someone is really making an updated list, notify me as I would be very grateful and include it in my manual:up:
Cheers
I'm preparing a tutorial for targeting with 100% realism, based on the aspect ratio of the target to get the AOB, and it would really be essential for me to have the real length and mast height values the game is using. I'll try to keep an eye on this topic, but please if someone is really making an updated list, notify me as I would be very grateful and include it in my manual:up:
Cheers
Try these:
http://www.speedyshare.com/485726177.html
In this mod, I have corrected the ship dimensions. There still is a problem with the draft issue, but it has nothing to do with this mod. The original sim files are somewhat biased.
If you find something that's wrong let me know.
I put Fuso, Ise and Kongo on my shooting range (1000m) and tested some mag's. The draft values were: 9.4m, 9.9m and 9.8m (the sim-file draughts were: 14.8, 15.2 and 16). Using depth setting of 11 - 11.5m showed that the torps swimmed pretty well. One confirmed mag detonation with the good old "Torpedo missed sir". Others actually hit the bottom right before the keel (others running sligtly deeper didn't detonate). There seem to be a small variation between the depths, they don't run the same path in continuous shots with the same settings. Anyways, with these BB's the fixed ship draft seem to work "ok".
Back to shooting range...
Those mag's are really unreliable even with no-dud's setting.
Redwine
03-31-07, 08:35 AM
Just one thinng....
Not an affirmation, just a dude....
I remember SH2, i modified completelly its TDC, the SH2 TDC was a piece of problems, offset, small instruments.... and... the badest.... the dev team take a nautical mile as 2000m !!!!!! :damn:
Then into its TDC a knot was 2000m in one hour, instead 1851.75m in one hour... a big error.
Looking into the files of this sim (SH4) , i note ... in example, the submarine range surfaced was given in "TERRESTRIAL" miles instead of Nautical Miles.... but the speciphic speeds are in "Knots"
Of course, a knot is a Nautical Mile at one hour...
But data is in terrestrial miles.... :hmm:
I resist to think the Team take a knot as an Terrestrial mile at hour... instead a nautical mile at hour.... :doh:
But it is a posibility.
If this "mistake" is done.... we will have lot of TDC missed shots specially at long range shots.
In SH2, i made tests, launching torps, and measuring the time with a cronometer, they take to run a determined distance, and looking the speed showed by the map.....
I think so we need to do the same here, in example with the sub... just put the sub in a calm sea, at constant speed, in example just 10 knots....make a line marks on its path, in ine hour it must to run 18.5 km....
If it runs 18.5km, all is OK :up: , but if it runs only 16.5km.... :damn:
May be done using 10 hours for more precision.... values will be 185km or 165km.
I do not made the test... i am full tweaking another files.
But i made the same with SH2, i can share my previous experiences...
With this sim, i am thinking to enjoy, not too much modify, not too much manual shooting, i note, i expend more time personalizing then enjoying... but i can help sharing my previous experience into SH2, and SH3.
just my little sand grain to make a mountain.... :up:
Try these:
http://www.speedyshare.com/485726177.html
In this mod, I have corrected the ship dimensions. There still is a problem with the draft issue, but it has nothing to do with this mod. The original sim files are somewhat biased.
If you find something that's wrong let me know.
Thank you very much. I downloaded them already and will conduct tests soon. :up:
Roadsweeper
04-01-07, 07:34 AM
I looked all the sim files and the ship draughtsubmerged values. For example, for mechants the value seems to be roughly the double that the actual draft we have in our rec manuals.
Then there is Kasagisan Maru, her draughtsubmerged sim-value is only 1 (she looked ok, not swimming too high at all) and when I put her under the 1000 meters test, it showed exact range to her and the magnetic torpedo was right on spot (about 20 feet) and destroyed her totally.
When I changed the value for heavy cruiser Mogami (from 10.5 to 4.4, which is the announced draft) she looked really hilarious swimming almost top of the water. With the depth of about 5 meters the magnetic torpedo went too deep. The right value is between 10.5 and 4.4, but it's different thing how does she look like (too high?) and problem remains, the draft is still too much. So what's the point to do any changes?
In my opinion, if I get the correct ranges by editing the cfg values, the draft is still wrong. Draft would be wrong even with the original values.
I'm very confuced :doh:
But it is quite serious, that this problem makes pretty much all magnetic torpedo shooting pointless.
OK just a point I'd like to make here.....
I may be completely wrong here, I dont know how moch realism was coded into SH4, but in rl, the US torps suffered from incorrect depths for the first few years of ww2, they ran a couple of meters too deep.....
IF this has "error" has been coded into SH4 to match true realism, could thos be upsetting your calculations Krupp and explaining why your test torps are running too deep still? Big emphasis on that "if" though, I have no idea of it was coded into SH4.
@Roadsweeper
I think that the torpedo failure etc. settings are modelled to the torpedoes themselves, Nvdrifter has released torpedo sim-files, that contains this data, and can be modded with the Tweaker program. I'm sure he can give you more detailed answer.
Mav87th
04-15-08, 06:56 AM
Did Redwine ever come up with a result on the terrestial vs. nautical miles pr. hour ????
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.