SH3 realism nazis - got to love them

[Wave Skipper]

Every game that comes out dealing with war always has a bevy of 'realism nazis' that hang around to dog the feet of the common player. I admit to being one myself. Before Sh4 came out I was quite strident about how I thought the thing ought to shape up to be. But the truth is most realism nazis gripe about many gnats while swallowing huge camels by the mouth fulls. Take the issue about opening the torpedo room hatches to bring in the outer store of torpedoes. Yes, there was a time when I would not allow that on my boat if the waves were over the deck. Let's face it, it would take a super jet engine bilge pump to make that work. But it would likely suck your crew out with the water. Had Ubi added an animation of the job being done - most of everyone would quickly see the silliness of allowing that action in heavy storms. And as I recall that was early complained about in 2005.

But the trouble is realism nazis always take themselves too seriously and image in their heads that they have attained some level of realism with games like SH3, when it is nearly impossible to do so. They cry about minor flaws and seem to be oblivious to the major flaws. The largest flaw in SH3 - one that taints every combat situation and the outcome of almost every career is the inertia issue. I recall being shocked when I tried out my first Type VII and Type IX and found that they maneuvered at sea like a top notch speed boat!! Look up the tonage of a Type IX - it weighs as much as a short frieght train - and ask your self how long it would take to get a small freight train to go from 15 knots forward to say 5 knots in reverse. Actually the train with steel on steel traction would have more control over its inertia than a couple of screws hacking at the water.

Sh2 was much more realistic and I can remember many a time I would be going along at 2 knots when a sudden DD coming in would force me to rev up my engines to flank speed. And I recall waiting an endless amount of time for my sub to CREEP up to full speed - it caused a lot of excitment and kept you on your toes. But in SH3 the subs blast off like small PT boats. You've hopefully have seen the old Youtube clip about the SH3 sub mimicking the Das Boat intro. It looks great and sounds great right up until the captain gives the order to move forward and suddenly you see the U-boat jumping out of the subpen like a race horse out of a racing gate! The mood is shattered for anyone with the slightest understanding of physics. This flaw was highlighted in 2005 almost from the get go by many modders - but to my knowledge nothing was ever done or could be.

The point is that this flaw is 1000 times worse than the loading outer torpedoes in heavy seas flaw. It is because it falsely colors all your combats with victories and survivals that should not happen - the old "I can't understand how we sink 100,000 tons per mission'" gripe. Having dancing and prancing U-boats mainly explains all that. But the ships dance and prance too. No U-boat ever missed that aimed correctly at a heavily laden Oil tanker that was 800 meters away - even if the tanker captain was aware of his danger. You simply don't suddenly scoot your thousands of tons tanker a bit faster here or make sudden screaching halts to avoid a torpedo at that range!!! But in SH3 if the captain of the tanker is a veteran or even just average he can do just that! I have seen it happen. The DDs also dance around and make sudden stops when ever they please. In fact I have seen them reverse direction so fast I always imagine sailors in its hull flying in mid air across their cabins.

The inertia is a total JOKE and it makes all the combat into a cartoon.

Now I actually did try to fix this during my realism nazi period. I used to slowly rev up my sub to full speed even when suddenly attacked by a DD. I would slowly cycle through the higher speeds to bring my sub to full speed slowly. How many of you modern 'realism nazis' do that?

Another major flaw in SH3 is the forever Flank speed ability. In real life flank speed was not something you could use for days at a time - you'd burn out your diesels. In Sh2 if you tried that silly trick your engines would break down. In fact in real life subs did have normal engine trouble on long missions and SH2 (perhaps too much) accounted for that too. SH3 has none of that.

Here is a question for the so-called realism priests - when your engines are damaged do you sit on the bottom not moving while your engineers work HOURS to repair them??? In Sh2 I recall waiting hours to fix serious damage. In sh3 my repair crew can repair everything in less than 3 minutes average!!

Now you wimps call other people chicken who don't follow your small gnat sized realisms. But if you don't follow JUST the ones I list above you are chicken too. Chicken - chicken - chickens! See I can name call too - be just as nasty as you.

Anyone who has read real U-boat war accounts knows that even small break downs could take hours to fix. Major ones might take a day or more.

These are just a FEW of the things about SH3 that are unrealistic and cannot be fixed. Trying to be a realism nazi in SH3 IS like trying to be a nun in a whore house. I have seen guys who would rant and rave about realism in Red Orchestra - again about the tiny things - who didn't understand that in WWII soldiers did not have 1990s com-links and that they could not realistically talk to one another when they were out of shouting range or in different buildings!! One guy thought he was so totally cool and realistic in his play - even though he did not know that in real life a Tiger driver could not back up his tiger while turning without throwing a tread (see the book by Otto Carius).

My basic motto now is play the game I have and not the game I wish I had.

[Sailor Steve]

True, I've complained about realism problems in every sim I've played. I was going to mention that I never complained about realism in Tomb Raider, but then I reread and noticed you said "about war".:lol:

There is the 'Longer Repair Times' mod. I don't know how well it works, as it came out after I lost my ability to play. It's funny to refer to the good points of SH2, but in spite of the lack of career mode it did have them. I don't know what the answer is, but I agree, there are still things in SH3 that need direct code fixing.

[Wave Skipper]

If anyone has a right to complain its guys like you. Thanx for the update on repair times mod. I'll look for it. Truth is I wish I had parts of SH2 fused with SH3. I wish SH4 was a better game. Over all I find SH3 a good play every few months or so. I even plan to play the WWI sub game in August - though for the life of me I can't imagine how the war could be interesting until the allies get real depth charges. I think the real danger for a WWI U-boat should be their difficulty in control of dives - as many were lost that way. Donitz nearly stood his U-boat on its nose while making a sudden dive. (which is actually the best argument against my practice of using a snorkel to make sudden power dives in my WWII Type IX. Even in WWII - heck even now - sudden power dives can stand a sub on its nose!)

[Hadrys]

Very true, I use flank very rare, most of the time I go Halbe Fart max. For short periods Grose. If this could be fixed it probably would have been done. But what can we do? Crawling is not an option as a DD can go backwards in no time from 20+ knots...

About repairs. Currently I'm testing longer repair mod and it is awsome but there is a serious problem - loading a game with damage means instant death... currently trying to put only library and zones.cfg. Game loaded correctly, I went to 140m so it works but attacking a huge convoy being inside of it gave me complete immunity so they didn't drop even one DC so can't check repair times right now. But as looking into the files it should be those responsible. It requires lots of test to adapt to GWX1.03.

BTW there was a thread VIIB or VIIC? After switching to C... this boat goes like crazy. 45° dive angle is a normal thing, it turns around its own tail... isn't that too good?

[johan_d]

If some bright hex coder looks into Sh3Sim.act then he sees that it is somewhere stored inthere.

"The object's drag (water resistance) coefs [F=C*v^2]"

Above is in that file, litteraly, and much more.
It can be edited, not by me too stupid, but somewone can!

[Heibges]

The one complaint I have about realism in SH3 is that it is too easy to find targets with the hydrophones. The hydrophones in SH3 are as effective as the surface search radar in SH2.

Fortunately, it's an easy workaround: I just don't use my hydrophones for general target searching.

This is what really gives folks the huge tonnage figures.

[Reece]

Your right Johan, would be great if there was a mini tweaker file for SH3Sim.act, have a look at some of the other settings in this file:

Diveangle: %.1f deg Divespeed: %.1f m/min T: %.1f s unit_Submarine Submarine Render Controller. Front_diveplane Front diveplane settings. Visual front diveplane objects. Propulsion (propeller) influence factor (should be 0). Rear_diveplane Rear diveplane settings. Visual rear diveplane objects. Diveplane's efficiency coeficient. E_propulsion Electric propulsion settings. Max submerged speed [kt]. Engine's max power [shp]. Ranges Range settings. Surfaced range. Surfaced max range [miles]. Surfaced speed for the given range [kt]. Submerged range. miles Submerged max range [miles]. knots Submerged speed for the given range [kt]. Ballast Ballast tanks settings. ManBT_flood_speed Max main ballast tanks flood speed [l/s].

We need someone to say "Yes I can do it!":yep:

[oRGy]

Want realistic WW2 subsim, stop complaining and start working:

http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/

[ichso]

Want realistic WW2 subsim, stop complaining and start working:

http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/

Those screenshots look awesome! :O
And as I know such open source freaks will that sim not only look hardcore, it will play like that too ;). I wouldn't be surprised if they tend to an all realism gameplay from the scratch.

Getting involved anyone ? I will definitely read the docu about that project, this looks very interesting.

[Wave Skipper]

it would come out with SH3-Ultimate. It would redo and fix many of the weak spots and make the game easier to mod. I'd pay 3 times the asking price for SH4 for an SH3 like that. Or Ubi could just sell a standard version with supported tools for modders to really fix it up - and I'd pay 4 times the price for even that.

As for this other U-boat game - it is looking better - now like SH2 with real water - and I see some hope there.

[ref]

Your right Johan, would be great if there was a mini tweaker file for SH3Sim.act, have a look at some of the other settings in this file:

Diveangle: %.1f deg Divespeed: %.1f m/min T: %.1f s unit_Submarine Submarine Render Controller. Front_diveplane Front diveplane settings. Visual front diveplane objects. Propulsion (propeller) influence factor (should be 0). Rear_diveplane Rear diveplane settings. Visual rear diveplane objects. Diveplane's efficiency coeficient. E_propulsion Electric propulsion settings. Max submerged speed [kt]. Engine's max power [shp]. Ranges Range settings. Surfaced range. Surfaced max range [miles]. Surfaced speed for the given range [kt]. Submerged range. miles Submerged max range [miles]. knots Submerged speed for the given range [kt]. Ballast Ballast tanks settings. ManBT_flood_speed Max main ballast tanks flood speed [l/s].

We need someone to say "Yes I can do it!":yep:


Those text lines you're seeing in the act files are actually tip lines for the editor tool the devs use, that files are executables and can't be tweaked, for example the drag coeficients mentioned before are applied in the .sim files, and that can be tweaked, in fact GWX subs takes much longer time to change speed then the stock ones, the problem with that kinf of tweaks is that they take long sesions of trial and error tests, you can alter most of the ships physics behaviour with minitweaker.

Ref

[ichso]

Will there be any further changes to those specific physics in GWX 1.04 ? I don't want to read through all those threads about it in the mods forum :>.
If GWX 1.04 will change them anyways there would be no need to tweak something in that area before it's release.

[Hitman]

I even plan to play the WWI sub game in August - though for the life of me I can't imagine how the war could be interesting until the allies get real depth charges. I think the real danger for a WWI U-boat should be their difficulty in control of dives - as many were lost that way. Donitz nearly stood his U-boat on its nose while making a sudden dive

WWI was truly fascinating, and full manual targeting (No TDC, which meant 99% of the torpedo shots were done from 90º of the target) and tactics make it very fun to play in that era. If you can understand german I recommend you a book (9€) currently easily available with a first person account of one of the top WWI aces, Max Valentiner ("Todesgefahr über uns: U38 im Einsatz" - Ullstein Verlag). Shows pretty well how WW1 was also dangerous and challenging :up:

As for the realism, I said it many times and I must repeat it: The constraints of a computer simulation can only ensure you will get realistic outputs from realistic inputs. I hate to say this, but I'm pissed off when I see someone f.e. yelling that he outgunned a destroyer in a surface duel and claiming for the lack of realism in SH3. OK, the game engine might have allowed that irrealistic outcome, but it is the player who decided to stay out of the historic realism and engage the destroyer. Anything else from that point onwards is simply irrealistic and can't be blamed on the game. After all, it is just that, a game.:down: Only realistic inputs shall guarantee realistic outputs, that's my POW:yep:

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Hitman, I will take your statement one step further as well.

Inputing "real-life" data NEVER guarantees that "realistic" results are achieved in our preferred sim.

Hours and hours of problem element isolation and small incremental changes/tweaks must be made to reach a desired effect.

Often hours, days, or even weeks of work must be SCRAPPED and thrown away due to more favorable work-arounds or even total failure.

Furthermore, concerning whining critics. I think that individuals who sit back and wait for mods to be released... only to whine that "this" or "that" is SOooo wrong...

... may have been away from stock SH3 for so long that they've forgotten how far things have come. Modders have spoiled them.

To this kind of critic we say "GO JUMP IN THE LAKE! Mod it yourself. There is nothing magic about modding SH3. If it was easy, everyone would do it. What have you done to fix the problem?"

Let me also say, that constructive criticism is an entirely different animal that allows for conference and either ends in solution or at the very least, understanding why things are the way they are. I think also, that the constructive critic may also realize that if his point is proven... it may also mean that the modder(s) either drop or reconstruct matters that require a great deal of work and time. Constructive critics have caused the GWX dev team to conquer great obstacles.

VonHelsching is a great example of a constructive critic. VonHelsching joined the GWX Dev team and spent six months reconstructing ship damage models and faced HOURS of boredom observing... and correcting. (Not to mention late war player sensor options, battery life fixes, the Averof... and many other things.)

The difference between the two types of critic though, I think may be as simple as attitude. One simply to bitches loudly until "his issue" is fixed... and the other looks for a way to understand or fix things.

[Hitman]

Very well said:up:

Inputing "real-life" data NEVER guarantees that "realistic" results are achieved in our preferred sim.


Actually I just wanted to highlight that realistic outputs are programmed expecting realistic inputs - and of course even so sims do not always in any case give you those realistic outputs from realistic inputs- and that what the game sure does not expect and is not made for, is unrealistic inputs:yep: For those, no one should ever expect good results except by pure luck:shifty:

[ichso]

From that point of view no simulation ever got any realistic inputs as those would have contained the exact behaviour of water for example.
Everything that can be (economicly) programmed for such simulations are certain rules how an object should behave under certain (ingame-) conditions and even those are very limited.
If we would have an exact physical simulation at the basis everything a developer would need to do would throw a submarine into it and every propellor pulse it would do would have an impact on it's surroundings and itself. THIS would be realistic but that wouldn't produce any playable framerate ;).

So everything that gets simulated is just some abstraction from the reality and therefore even most simulation input lacks heavily in detail and the outcome of a simulation are just some rules for everything in it to behave some certain ways. And this is where all the tweeking starts to get it as close to real life behaviour as possible.

[bigboywooly]

Remember that this " game " or " sim " however you want to term it is played on a PC not in real life
As such limitations are placed due to the handling of things by the computer and the game engine

FI
Ideally if you damage a ship so it has stopped and you mark it on the map then go chasing the convoy its reasonable to expect the ship to be there when you go back
Well if you sail 35 to 50 KM away the ship will disappear from the players rendered units area
Entering the rendering distance of the damaged unit again will see the ship is as good as new
If the distance that ships were rendered to the player was increased to 100 or 150km the effect on the computer would drag it to a stop

Limitations

Similary with AI watch crews
No account is taken in for tiredness or lack of crew on a ship
The game goes by its programmed rules
Treating all instances the same

Meh
Not perfect but still hugely playable
And a tad addictive

[Packerton]

Silent hunter 2 is alot more realistic in the Physics Department.


The only thing I disliked about SH 2 was the Deck Gun did the same damage to a ship no matter where you hit it....so it took ages just to sink a damaged tanker with it.

[MarkShot]

I don't think there is a single ultimate subsim or game in any genre. Each has its strengths and weaknesses and/or different focus.

This is not just in the area of realism, but also in the area of game play, and atomosphere. So, I know Herr Kpt. Lehmann says "Sink them all!". I say "play them all!". As has been noted in various threads on Subsim.com and else where it is a lot easier to make older games run well on newer machines than new games run well on older machines. So, you can patrol in SH3 one day, AOD the next, SHCE the next, SC the next, DW the next, SH4, ... Enjoy each for what it does best. In fact, it is much easier to have multiple games/mods set up on one system, then try to make one game do everything the way you want it done. Also, switching between games can be very refreshing.

I find myself getting a lot less frustrated with my games by enjoying a buffet of only the best portions of each. Of course, the difficult part of this is finding adequate time for all of them and maintaining an adequate skill level in each that you are not continuous noob at the conn bumbling around. So, many here will probably play SH3/GWX for six months exclusively ... ultimately burn out ... abandon it for the next six month fixation. Myself, I will probably be playing SH3/GWX for the next four or more years on and off. Save games and patrol logs make this a cinch do.

Play them all!

[Iron Budokan]

It's true simulations are an abstraction of reality, but as computer processing power becomes greater and greater the gap of abstraction will narrow.

Think of what sims were like ten years ago. Now try to imagine what they will be like ten years from now. You can't, because it's an asymptotic curve, not linear.

Ten years from now the new Silent Hunter release (fingers crossed) will make what we have now look like it came from a box of Cracker Jacks.

Fifty years from now? You really will get to play DiD....

[MarkShot]

Actually, the games of 10 years ago had better game play (AI), balance, and software quality. Mainly what 10 years had gotten PC gamers is staggering improvements in graphics and moderate improvement in sound. However, that didn't come for free. Other areas of projects schedules and budgets suffered to make it happen.

Ten years from now, you will be able to walk through a virtual sub that is photo realistic. However, there will still be no wolfpack and the escorts will hunt for you using an algorithm that could be coded in 50 lines of BASIC.

[Crimguy]

I agree with that sentiment Mark. My biggest gripe with SH3 has nothing to do with the inertia (although it is pretty lousy), but the sonar model in this game. The DD's are much too capable, and can hear a uboat at all stop with hydrophones despite themselves chugging along at 12 kts. I don't think the Reuben James could accomplish that feat unless the Kaleun was piping Enter Sandman through the comm system.

The GWX boys seem to indicate in their literature that SH3 models active sonar to some extent, but my experience is that it's a little more simple than that.

I'm all for graphics upgrades, but it kills me that develpers stop working on the underpinnings of their products. War in the Pacific has one of the most moronic AI's in existence, and as far as I can tell is unchanged from PacWar other than having fancier scripting for the first 3 months of the war (I think PacWar's interface was more serviceable too - and this is coming from a guy who thinks WitP is the greatest game ever despite the flaws).

[Iron Budokan]

Okay, I'm going to be a realism nazi here. It's the stars. They twinkle too fast. They often look like signal lights up in the sky. Yes, stars twinkle, but not like that.

Also, when I'm in the conning tower I should be able to see glare from the lights on the glass over the dials, depending on what angle I'm viewing from. Yes, glare. I want it.

Also, I should be able to get a dose of the clap when I'm in Lorient. I mean, really. Is this a sub sim or not? More like an arcade game to me, if I can't simulate catching a dose. Some games are so shoddy nowadays. This oversight is outrageous and I hope it's fixed in the upcoming GWX mod.

Another thing. The crapper. Everyone is always whining about how they want the torp room or engine room modded. Puh-leeze. We must have the crapper modded, and it must be fully functional with working components.

These things are important, people!

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Notes to self for SH5:

Must model random chance of contracting venereal disease in port. Process must also include chance of crab epidemic at sea.

Olfactory engine must allow for initially foul scent emenations with each opening of the hatch that increase until boat is aired.

Perform product acceptance study on possible introduction of real freezing water and depth charges.

[Reece]

foul scent emenations with each opening of the hatch
The way technology is going it wouldn't surprise me if they came out with a computer periferal called "Smellavision", then you could open the hatch and ...... :dead: :lol:

[Crimguy]

foul scent emenations with each opening of the hatch The way technology is going it wouldn't surprise me if they came out with a computer periferal called "Smellavision", then you could open the hatch and ...... :dead: :lol:

Television will never be replaced by Smellivision(tm), despite Bugs Bunny's predictions.