patch 1.4 bugs/issues to be fixed ONLY list

[Capt. Shark Bait]

since there are serious hints that 1.4 is forthcoming, perhaps the devs should know what remains to be taken care of. i've mentioned this before, however...destroyers, on dropping stern depthcharges will shortly there after sink by selfdestructing:ping: :dead: . the bug has likely something to do with the depth setting, atleast that's my guess

[McBeck]

Wheres these hints?

[Misfit138]

Wheres these hints?

Yeah, I would also like to know more about this one. All I can tell is that there was this little cryptic line from one of the devs that stated that you will gonna see the enemy cities red on the map but it was sometime ago...Based on that, I wouldn't hold my breath while waiting for another patch :roll:

Please forgive my cynicism

[SteamWake]

This bug has been discussed ad nausiem.

It typically occurs when they drop the DC's in shallow water.

Check the 1.3 patch issue thread stickied at the top of this forum.

As to the rumors of another patch... there still just that, rumors.

[Capt. Shark Bait]

these be quotes from maeream m from 2 seperate theads

Will get fixed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gutted
i hate not knowing where the battle lines are.

You don't know now, but you will :sunny:

[Excalibur Bane]

Honestly, if they had intended to do another patch, they would have announced it long before now. Making another patch months ago might have bumped up the sales, but I doubt it would do much to help sales now and I just don't see UBI allocating funds to the development team to create a new patch simply to boost customer satisfaction and loyalty. It's not UBI's style. I'd definately love to be wrong on this, but I wouldn't get your hopes up. :(

[Elphaba]

Well, I'll try and join in and be constructive...

I'd LOVE the switch on the torpedo panel that alternates between Contact and Contact / Influence to actually make SOMETHING HAPPEN... and for it to be VERY clear what kind of torpedos you have loaded / firing... so that one can better choose type of attack (under or impact)

And now that I've been posted from Freemantle to Midway I'd love the Dateline / Torpedo Run bug to get fixed.

<fingers crossed for a 1.4 patch>

BTW I'm LOVING this sim. I've been playing at 100% and I'm on my 5th mission and I've logged 72000 tonnes of metal headed for Davey Jones' Locker...

Is that good?

Elphaba

[SteamWake]

And now that I've been posted from Freemantle to Midway I'd love the Dateline / Torpedo Run bug to get fixed.


That wasent corrected in 1.3 ?

[Alex]

As to the rumors of another patch... there still just that, rumors.

Excuse me guys, I don't know very much the SH4 forum here at Subsim... But we're lucky to have Mr Elanaiba on here :huh:. Why don't you directly ask him if a new patch is in development right now ? :hmm:

[Elphaba]

And now that I've been posted from Freemantle to Midway I'd love the Dateline / Torpedo Run bug to get fixed.


That wasent corrected in 1.3 ?

I've not launched out of either Pearl Harbour or Midway yet - just about to as I've been awarded the first GATO class boat... but this is STILL a confirmed bug and not working according to Nomad_Delta who has made a really comprehensive and useful FAQ about this and other torpedo related issues...

If I am proven to be wrong, I apologise, and I'll edit my post, but I still stand by the first bug I mentioned.

Hope I've not caused any offense... so easy to do on forums...

Elphaba

[TDK1044]

As to the rumors of another patch... there still just that, rumors.

Excuse me guys, I don't know very much the SH4 forum here at Subsim... But we're lucky to have Mr Elanaiba on here :huh:. Why don't you directly ask him if a new patch is in development right now ? :hmm:

We have two regular Dev members here. Please don't PM them with questions that they are not permitted to answer.

[SteamWake]

As to the rumors of another patch... there still just that, rumors.

Excuse me guys, I don't know very much the SH4 forum here at Subsim... But we're lucky to have Mr Elanaiba on here :huh:. Why don't you directly ask him if a new patch is in development right now ? :hmm:

We have two regular Dev members here. Please don't PM them with questions that they are not permitted to answer.

How about if we ask em in the public forums :smug:

[mookiemookie]

How about we don't spam them with questions they aren't going to answer? Yes there's been hints of it. But we won't get confirmation of it until they're willing to give it, no matter how much you ask. Let's just hope for it and see what happens.

[Von Tonner]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=122285

From the man himself. See post #3 in above thread.

[switch.dota]

So marean_m is one of the devs?

[Von Tonner]

From what I understand. If he is not, he sure has an inside track into the development of the game and Ubisoft if you preview his previous posts.

[TDK1044]

So marean_m is one of the devs?

Correct. :D

[switch.dota]

Well nobody knows the code better than the devs. Who's to say 1.4 will be an UBIsoft patch? :P

[Alex]

@ TDK1044 : You have PM sir.

[switch.dota]

@ TDK1044 : You have PM sir.
Why would you post that here?

[TDK1044]

The two members in question can and do answer technical questions about the game, but they cannot answer questions beyond that, such as questions regarding additional patches. :D

[Steeltrap]

* AI - still horrible

* Inability to make surface attacks at night without being seen

* Ability to "hover" (maintain depth without any forward way)

* SD radar - should give a distance ONLY - no bearing. SD was always A-scope throughout war. Needs to have a reading somewhere prominent so you can see if a contact is closing or not

* Subs' motions on surface ("running on rails" effect.... SHIII looks more realistic when it comes to sub's interaction with waves)

* Depth changes - you change depth as quickly when stationary as you do when moving, and that's just plain wrong. Decreasing depth without forward motion MUST involve using compressed air (I'm yet to see sub use any, ever). Tests show you dive more quickly from surface at lower speeds.
As you can see, I think the whole physics of a sub's movement and depth-keeping is out of whack....

Well those will do for me. Fix them and I might start playing again. I've only been playing SHIII (which I picked up for $19.95, as against the $99.95 I payed for SH4....won't make that mistake again....).

[Capt. Shark Bait]

And now that I've been posted from Freemantle to Midway I'd love the Dateline / Torpedo Run bug to get fixed.


That wasent corrected in 1.3 ?

yup, but it didn't work out:-?, however it is there if you start out from Freemantle or Brisbane

also, the purpose of this thread is to bring to the attention of what's pretty much left to be done, which really isn't a whole helluva lot but there are stille some things. it's not to ask if one is in the works, cuz the devs aren't going to say, and if so when it'll be released

[SteamWake]

* Ability to "hover" (maintain depth without any forward way).

:doh:

One mans bug is anothers reality.

[ReallyDedPoet]

* Subs' motions on surface ("running on rails" effect.... SHIII looks more realistic when it comes to sub's interaction with waves)



LBO Mod has made major improvements on this one ^^^.


RDP

[bookworm_020]

A fix for moving the deck gun and not losing the crew list for it.

[switch.dota]

* AI - still horrible

* Inability to make surface attacks at night without being seen

* Ability to "hover" (maintain depth without any forward way)

Use some mods ;)

[Elphaba]

I don't want to take this thread off topic, but can I suggest 2 'improvements' that I believe might be useful - at least in my recent experience they would have been...


1. When plotting a course across a large distance sometimes you might have the map zoomed out so far that you don't notice a tiny little island. The first you know about it is when you've run aground and your ship is destroyed.

Couldn't the AI either cut down to 1x about 1nm from land directly ahead in the sub's path? Or couldn't your watch officer be smart enough to plot a manoeuver around it without any input from the Captain - surely that's more realistic? The Captain says... "Get me THERE" and the crew get the boat there safely in the most direct course?


2. Now that I'm suffering from fuel issues being based out of pearl in the new Gato class, I have to rely on a trick to maximise my fuel, and that is staying submerged at 2/3 on batteries until they are exhausted, then surfacing and running at 2/3 until they are recharged, before diving again - all to conserve diesel.

Wouldn't it be good to be able to tell the crew to do this automatically? Or am I losing the plot? I have read that great guide on fuel conservation but I thought that this tactic was more fuel efficient.

Any thoughts?

I hope the thread starter doesn't mind me putting these 'wishes' here.

Elphaba

[Capt. Shark Bait]

Elphaba, this is more for problems still outstanding with SH4 rather than a wishlist.. as for the 2 you mention, i'm not sure it can be done. i've run agound on account of that a few times, but it's never really good to be zoomed out that much anyway, and when entering shallow water the TC reduces to 4x anyway

[Munchausen]

* Ability to "hover" (maintain depth without any forward way)


Before some dev actually "corrects" this situation ...

"Safely out of Manila Bay and moving south in the South China Sea, Sculpin made her trim drive, one of the first items of business for a submarine on leaving port. The dive was necessary to adjust the weight of the submarine to a condition of neutral buoyancy so the sub could submerge and the diving officer could keep the sub at the desired depth with little or no headway ... The compensation was made through a system consisting basically of a forward trim tank, an after trim tank, and an auxiliary tank located near the center of the boat. By pumping sea water between these tanks and from or to the sea, the diving officer could reach a condition of neutral buoyancy where the boat would stay put, like a balloon, with no need to use speed or control planes to maintain the desired depth."

-- Submarine Diary, page 7, Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 1991, by Rear Admiral Corwin Mendenhall, U.S.N. (Ret.)

[Sailor Steve]

A nice note, Munchausen, but the real problem is with silent running - all pumps must be shut down. You can't "hide" by hovering.

Sorry to go off topic, but I thought that needed to be answered.:sunny:

As for Elphaba's second question, if you can conserve fuel that way I see it as something that should be addressed. That trick doesn't work in real life, and shouldn't work in a game.

[AVGWarhawk]

I find this thread interesting and wanted to watch it when it was first posted. I'm not trying to downplay remaining issues but it looks like there is not much. I can see about the deck gun issue and losing your crew. Not much else really. The only thing I believe needs to be worked on is the fuel issue and the deck gun issue. Everything else is in good order.

[THE_MASK]

Has anyone worked out why some times you get a huge around 1 gig save folder . Thats my only problem .

[pioleen]

I would like see the following improvements in a new 1.4 patch:

* Escort player has not chat window. Chatting with submarine’s player is not possible and vice versa.
* Warnings like “Player has left the game” would be very useful.
* In Multiplayer games, I can not see my sunken ships, Silent Hunter 4 does not show me which ship has been sunken.
* Triggers and events in multiplayer users missions do not work. If a user mission contains triggers, when it is played the triggers is not executed.

Some of these features are not bugs, but they are very important for gameplay in multiplayer tournament missions. :yep:

I hope that 1.4 path are truth.

Greetings.

[switch.dota]

Has anyone worked out why some times you get a huge around 1 gig save folder . Thats my only problem .
Yes, that was caused by changes in the Gar's config files.

@Elphaba: running on the surface at half of max speed is the maximum range setting. Alternating between 2/3 submerged and 2/3 surfaced results in about 60% of max range.

@Sailor_Steve: SH IV is quite bad at modelling the underwater behaiviour of the sub. That includes the effects of silent running.

[kiwi_2005]

Don't really need any fixes for me, since 1.3, except maybe one, :) Not a bug but very annoying, the devs need to cut down on the aircraft attacks! :damn:

Although ive found a solution that seems to work, play the game in Easy mode where at least my gunners can shoot them down, when they do come, which is not often. But in Normal or higher i get them all the time.

[TheSatyr]

The only things I feel need to be dealt with is the deck gun bug and I'd like to see the "depth charges in the water" voice warning added in.

[LtCmdrRat]

The only things I feel need to be dealt with is the deck gun bug and I'd like to see the "depth charges in the water" voice warning added in.
Agree. Some AI improvement is still needed. for Example to set enemy AI level ( or just more advanced difficulty settings)

[Elphaba]

Bath tub effect on Anti Air gun on Gato class?

I know there is a mod, but that removes it from the sub in all views. My point is that when 'at' that station the camera shouldn't be clipped by the walls of the 'tub'...that's a programmers fudge up.

Elphaba

[TheSatyr]

Two other things I think may need to be looked into is where you seem to dive faster at a slower speed. Could just be an illusion,but other people have mentioned that as well. Also,the devs might want to consider toning down the visual detection range for the Japanese. It does seem a bit high to me.

[Capt. Shark Bait]

wouldn't mind seeing the bow dive planes taken care of. they still don't deploy all the time when needed

[Leveche]

I would like see the following improvements in a new 1.4 patch:

* Escort player has not chat window. Chatting with submarine’s player is not possible and vice versa.
* Warnings like “Player has left the game” would be very useful.
* In Multiplayer games, I can not see my sunken ships, Silent Hunter 4 does not show me which ship has been sunken.
* Triggers and events in multiplayer users missions do not work. If a user mission contains triggers, when it is played the triggers is not executed.

Some of these features are not bugs, but they are very important for gameplay in multiplayer tournament missions. :yep:

I hope that 1.4 path are truth.

Greetings.

That’s right. I think that he wrote would be very interesting for who organizes multiplayer games with SHIV, and for that we played in them.
Greetings.

[joegrundman]

I'd like it if the batteries stopped recharging automatically, even if partially damaged

[mookiemookie]

A realistic crew! SH3 only let you have so many officers and petty officers. To get back to realistic numbers on this would be a great improvement.

[LukeFF]

A realistic crew! SH3 only let you have so many officers and petty officers. To get back to realistic numbers on this would be a great improvement.

I've been saying that for a lonnnnnnnng time. Worked perfectly in SH3, yet it was taken out for SH4. :nope:

[leovampire]

For example:

the moon will change it's cycle after a save is loaded when the moon is up from maybe a full moon to a half moon.

Damage effect's on ships from holes to fire's and so forth are not carried over in the save's

Crew still has sleep efficiancy problems when a save is loaded.

Dosn't remember your at silent running

weather environment changes and or dosn't carry over in a save or causes a weather loop so it will not change for longer period's of time.

dive planes do not work properly unless a save is made and loaded from a surface condition.

[momo55]

I had a few times that the hole crew was a sleep all the sudden (including the watchcrew).

Ditn't been on battlestations and forget to secure from it or anything else what could give an possible explenation.
Swapping the watchcrew with another solves the problem and wasn't a real problem till now , because it always happend with no enemy nearby.....like i said ...till now:D

couldn't be that the music on my radio makes them sleepy...GI JIVE ..BIG BANDS....etc..:rotfl:

[Steeltrap]

I HAVE been using mods. My list posted originally is despite the work of modders.

I find it hard to believe people aren't complaining about the AI. To me, it is abysmal.

I remember seeing some threads about the state of the game, and the suggestion that the developers were "forced" to release the game when they knew it wasn't finished (although they signed the contract, so they agreed to the date in the first place, so they should have known what was possible....but that's another topic). I bring this up because the post I'm thinking of in particular suggested that the devs knew what they wanted to do but weren't able to do it. As far as I'm concerned, they should just finish it as planned. If that takes another 1, 2 or 5 patches I don't much care. I simply don't play it as it is - I find SHIII far superior in every respect that matters to me. Nor would I buy another SH game at shelf price, given SH2 and SH4 were pretty woeful as released (fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice, shame on me...and I've been fooled twice, so no way will I do so again).

[Rockin Robbins]

Bump!

[tater]

Regarding multiplayer, it strikes me there needs to be a way to toggle off "instant success." Meaning that when a ship officially sinks, there should be a way to turn off all notification until you are in port/rtb/whatever.

This would be good for single play as well. I prefer fog of war.

[FAdmiral]

Regarding multiplayer, it strikes me there needs to be a way to toggle off "instant success." Meaning that when a ship officially sinks, there should be a way to turn off all notification until you are in port/rtb/whatever.

This would be good for single play as well. I prefer fog of war.

CONFIRMATION!! I Need Confirmation.......

[Capt. Shark Bait]

Regarding multiplayer, it strikes me there needs to be a way to toggle off "instant success." Meaning that when a ship officially sinks, there should be a way to turn off all notification until you are in port/rtb/whatever.

This would be good for single play as well. I prefer fog of war.

CONFIRMATION!! I Need Confirmation.......

*points out window toward battleship row* THERE'S YOUR CONFIRMATION!!!

[Lt commander lare]

the only thing i see that needs fixing is a return to base option and more lifeguard duties missions throught the game i have never seen one yet other than the lifeguard mission on the main page hope this helps

lt commander lare

[tater]

LukeFF is adding a bunch of lifeguard missions. :D

tater

[jean74]

In sub sim sounds are very important.

Please UBISOFT restore the voice messages like "depth charge in a water", "destroyer in attack run", "enemy is pinging us", "enemy ship engaging us",... :yep:

The simulation would be better...


Jean

[edjcox]

A look at the realistic physics of a BB, CV, or DD for that matter on a collision course and being able to stop dead in the water and even back up to let another pass..... This is as unrealistic as it gets.. A Sub skipper might blow a ships rudder and props to intentionally cause the "collision at sea".. I'd like that fixed if possible. Stupid to watch a CV and a BB on collision course both suddenly slow and stop or back up like dancers on a floor...

Like to get a few easy commands included into the behaviors like

Decks awash to run with just the conning tower and induction at surface to allow for low profile running. As it sits now the game will only allow you to run that on battery. Many a skipper ran that way allowing battery charging and a stealthy surface configuration throughout the war... Ubi should fix this.....

Debris release allowing one to deploy debris at depth to create confusion on attacking vessels..



Oil release allowing one to deploy fuel oil to creat a slick and confuse attacking vessels..

[THE_MASK]

Has anyone worked out why some times you get a huge around 1 gig save folder . Thats my only problem .
Yes, that was caused by changes in the Gar's config files.

@Elphaba: running on the surface at half of max speed is the maximum range setting. Alternating between 2/3 submerged and 2/3 surfaced results in about 60% of max range.

@Sailor_Steve: SH IV is quite bad at modelling the underwater behaiviour of the sub. That includes the effects of silent running. Ummmm , is there a fix then .:D

[Mil_tera]

The main reason I switched back to SH3 is that when your engines are destroyed or when you are out of fuel that there is no option at all to either be rescued/captured or to return to base. (In SH3 at least you could opt for the "return to base" option in a situation like that.

I can live with all the other flaws but this is imho the most important one to fix, especially when playing DiD (you don't want to reload a savegame because engines are destroyed:o)

:cool:

[GerritJ9]

Not sure if it is actually a bug or not......... but when modifying the armament in the .eqp file for the "Clemson" I replaced the two 4" guns between the funnels (Node name M02 and M03) with 25mm A.A., but only the starboard gun shows up. Tried this on three separate SH4 installations with separately made ships.

[LukeFF]

Some things I'd like to see fixed (sorry if they've already been posted here):
A proper "rudder amidships" command.
The conning tower camera tilts in the wrong direction.
The speed and RPM gauges do not work correctly in the fleet boats.
In the Porpoise class, there are two gauges at the dive planes station that have their textures improperly mapped (they are currently coming from the depth gauge textures instead of whatever one they should be coming from).
The sounds of explosions get cut off too soon, so it makes using the "Realistic Sound Travel" option not really an option at all. ;)
At widescreen resolutions the top edge of the TBT texture is covered by some sort of a black bar.
One of the animations for the sonarman is off: when he is following a target, he will call out the bearing (while still looking at the sonar display), and then he will turn and make a motion that looks like he is swatting a fly. ;)
The SV radar dish spins way faster than its historical maximum of 6 revolutions per minute (link (http://www.maritime.org/radio-sv.htm)).

[Vorkapitan]

I'd like to see this fixed if possible;

Being able to read periscope / binoculars etc beraing - directions at night.
Thank you!

[captiandon]

The only things I feel need to be dealt with is the deck gun bug and I'd like to see the "depth charges in the water" voice warning added in.

I have noticed when I am in the conning tower that the sonor and radar men duck when debth charges are being dropped. wouldnt this make it easer to make a voice command when they duck like that. I spend the entire attack in the conning tower so I can watch there reactions. They only do it when the dd's are at close to medium range. eather that or i run the sonor myself and can here the charges being dropped myeself.

[AVGWarhawk]

The only things I feel need to be dealt with is the deck gun bug and I'd like to see the "depth charges in the water" voice warning added in.
I have noticed when I am in the conning tower that the sonor and radar men duck when debth charges are being dropped. wouldnt this make it easer to make a voice command when they duck like that. I spend the entire attack in the conning tower so I can watch there reactions. They only do it when the dd's are at close to medium range. eather that or i run the sonor myself and can here the charges being dropped myeself.

'depth charge in the water' phrase is in the game but does not happen as you know. I understand Leo was working on getting some of these to work and did so successfully. Anyway, maybe the Devs can get it going.

[Silent Munter]

- The absence of damage noises when submerged (eg. steam venting, water leaking, dials smashing) How can this have been missed?

- My crew have no eyeballs. Very disturbing.

- The watch crew are also blind (probably because they have no eyeballs). The only notice I get of an attack is the sound of Japanese shells pinging off the hull.

[leovampire]

- The absence of damage noises when submerged (eg. steam venting, water leaking, dials smashing) How can this have been missed?

- My crew have no eyeballs. Very disturbing.

- The watch crew are also blind (probably because they have no eyeballs). The only notice I get of an attack is the sound of Japanese shells pinging off the hull.

Glass breaking leaks and what not but what would be cool is to see water building up on the deck inside of the sub.

But this isn't a bug just something that needs to be finished. There is a huge difference.

Fix's are more important than add on's guy's.

[LukeFF]

To add to the list of non-functional sounds:

The clock-ticking sound doesn't work! :nope: ;)

[fred8615]

Well, no one's mentioned my pet peeve, so here goes:

The radio cutting off after you cross the International Date Line, unless you have the station broadcasting at a "global" range setting.

[AVGWarhawk]

To add to the list of non-functional sounds:
The clock-ticking sound doesn't work! :nope: ;)

What clock ticking are you refering too?

[LukeFF]

What clock ticking are you refering too?

The clock in the control room, by the dive planes. Works in SH3, not in SH4.

[rcjonessnp175]

Sorry but i have to definately agree, the internal sounds need fixed, steam glass electrical spark, the sounds are thier in the sound folder they just dont want to come out and play:roll:

[LukeFF]

Others: (sorry if these have already been posted, as I've not kept up with this whole thread):

Switching the deck gun location from the bow position to the stern (or the opposite way) will sometimes result in the crew slots being eliminated. Right now the only fix is to manually edit the save game files.
The crew will man the deck gun and flack gun(s) in all weather, even when the officer tells you the seas are too rough for them to be manned. The player can also man these positions in all weather states.
The gun barrels do not have proper colliision modeling set up; in other words, they can move and fire through otherwise solid objects.
The well-known "Gato bathtub AA gun" camera problem.
The helmsman will often turn and give the "yes sir" reply while the CE is still giving the command.
Torpedo and engine noises can be heard in the boat's sonar "blind spot," covering the area of roughly Bearing 170-190 degrees.Not so much bugs but flaws that would be nice to have fixed:

The ability for the AI to home in on SD radar signals.
The ability to shut off the SD radar set.
The ability for the radarman to tell you whether it's air contact or a surface contact.

[Monty9]

My game sometimes freezes when i go from the insid of the sub to the out side. i want to see that fixed.

[Weather-guesser]

Sorry but i have to definately agree, the internal sounds need fixed, steam glass electrical spark, the sounds are thier in the sound folder they just dont want to come out and play:roll:


Nothing is worse than getting the hell pounded out of ya and seeing dials breaking, pipes bursting, sparks flying and NO SOUND coming from any of it. Please Devs, take the time to fix this big issue. It added so much in SH3. Thanks :ping:


EDIT: Hull creaking doesnt seem to work past level 2 either. Folder has levels 1-4

[PepsiCan]

Confirmed gameplay bugs:
- Switch for Contact/Contact Influence setting not working (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=118393)
- Subs at flank speed crash dive slower than subs that crash dive at 0 speed (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=118833)
- Making the "imperial measures" option truely imperial (i.e. deckgun range in yards instead of meters, the radar and sonar stations in yards)
- Fixing the 'ghost ship' issue: ships respawn quickly after you sank them and when you sink them again, you do not get the credit, but you have used up your torpedos
- Special missions, such as spy insertion, are still repeated even with the same destination. Although John Channing makes interesting observations here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...5&postcount=20 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=605905&postcount=20)
- With early war conning towers, you cannot use the AA gun when having to fire to port or starboard. The metal plating of the conning tower blocks the view.
- Damage reports are not accurate. You will receive messages that the pressure hull is repaired but when you dive you sink like a brick. Same for engine and rudder repairs. You receive the message but when you touch the throttle, nothing happens.(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=119742)
- Destroyers that ram or collide with the submarine will take severe damage to the point of exploding and/or sinking while to sub survives relatively unscathed (confirmed in various postings and been outstanding since 1.0). The desired behaviour should be that the destroyer/escort survives with some damage but that the sub can be damaged to the extend that it sinks. This should not impact the sinkability of destroyers and escorts by torpedo attacks.
- Japanese ships discover subs through their air radar. This means they can detect subs through radar well before japanese ships started using surface radar. (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=113010)
- The dateline bug is still not completely fixed in patch 1.3 for subs leaving from Pearl Harbor.

Confirmed graphical bugs:
- Ironing out some (serious) graphic glitches regarding sailors and objects becoming transparent when Volumetric Fog is enabled and the sun shining through metal
- Conning tower tilts the wrong way when diving/submerging. Control room shows no tilt at all.(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=119134)
- Anti-aliasing seems to be inoperative when the normal ship mappings are used. (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...4&postcount=31 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=623384&postcount=31))

Enhancements:
- A change request: Being in friendly territory, close to your base, running out of fuel and...well, and then never getting home as you can't ask for a tow (a tow should come with a serious penalty of course).

[Weigh-Man]

- The absence of damage noises when submerged (eg. steam venting, water leaking, dials smashing) How can this have been missed?

- My crew have no eyeballs. Very disturbing.

- The watch crew are also blind (probably because they have no eyeballs). The only notice I get of an attack is the sound of Japanese shells pinging off the hull.

Crew with no eyeballs is an anti piracy thing, do you have a legit copy or did you torrent it?

[CapnScurvy]

One of my pet problems with the game has been its inaccuracy in finding range. Both metric and imperial units of play have been off by considerable distances when comparing manually found ranges to computer found ranges (having the game play settings on low realism). Without correct range finding and distance calculating the game needed to be played in low realism if you wanted to consistently hit targets. Close firing ranges are great for grandma just pointing and shooting, even a blind hog will find an acorn once in a while. At longer distances, a few yards off will throw the shot wide of its mark.

The latest 1.3 patch has corrected some of the inaccuracy in using the Stadimeter to manually find range. Through my tests of stationary sub and target ships at known distances, the difference of range distance between manually calculating range and having the computer find range has dropped. After 1.3, the average difference is 10 to 15 yards (+/-), within 700 yard range for most ships. Some ships however, like the Okinoshima Large Minelayer, are off by 25 yards within a 700 yard range. If the inaccuracy in manually finding target range is captain error, so be it. But, to have the Stadimeter produce inaccurate range findings within controlled stationary positions, indicates there is still work to do.

Secondly, the Navigation Map does not accurately display range distance when using the ruler. The computer found distance to target from the Position Keeper, compared to the ruler distance is consistently off. Many times the difference is as much as 100 yards, half a Nautical Mile tenth (202.5 yards). At best using tenths of Nautical Miles are a poor choice for finding distance. I wish the measurement were in Yards not tenths of Nautical Miles but, if we use tenths of nm they should reflect the same distance the Position Keeper or the Sonar range to target show.

Thirdly, I have used the Imperial unit of measurement since its introduction with the first patch. This is an American WWII Campaign and to be realistic, I will use the same unit of measurement. I do not wish to use the Metric system for manually firing the deck gun. Please, have the deck gun range calculated and marked in Yards, not Meters.

[Silent Munter]

- The absence of damage noises when submerged (eg. steam venting, water leaking, dials smashing) How can this have been missed?

- My crew have no eyeballs. Very disturbing.

- The watch crew are also blind (probably because they have no eyeballs). The only notice I get of an attack is the sound of Japanese shells pinging off the hull.

Crew with no eyeballs is an anti piracy thing, do you have a legit copy or did you torrent it?

My copy is 100% legit, bought from a GAME store in Edinburgh. I believe the anti piracy measure you speak of results in bulging eyeballs, whereas mine are normal size, but lacking in the irises & pupils department.

EDIT: Well, hot damn. Returned to SH4 after a long absence and noted my command room crew now have eyeballs (cos of driver update maybe). THe watch crew still don't tho, so maybe its linked to the problem with them being translucent.

[AVGWarhawk]

so maybe its linked to the problem with them being translucent.

The developers said the crew on deck are not part of the scene and as a result the rendering of the crew as translucent occurs. Apparently this is not fixable and thus remains.

[maerean_m]

Secondly, the Navigation Map does not accurately display range distance when using the ruler. The computer found distance to target from the Position Keeper, compared to the ruler distance is consistently off. Many times the difference is as much as 100 yards, half a Nautical Mile tenth (202.5 yards). At best using tenths of Nautical Miles are a poor choice for finding distance. I wish the measurement were in Yards not tenths of Nautical Miles but, if we use tenths of nm they should reflect the same distance the Position Keeper or the Sonar range to target show.

This is by design. The precision of locating a ship on the map was poor back in the WWII. The ruler in the Navigation Map is not meant for measuring ranges (with great precision).

If you could determine the range using the ruler, there would be no need to use the periscope. You would be able to play the entire game using only the map.

[CapnScurvy]

Maerean_m, It's good to know you guys are out there. I understand what you mean regarding making the game too easy for play if the Navigation Map is used solely to find range to target. This would be the case if the Game Play settings were set with the "no map contact update" disabled.

However, enabling this setting takes away any computer generated target ship recognition from the map, and places that responsibility with the player. To accurately plot a ship's course (after using the periscope or sonar to find it) and make attack plans on the navigation map is a step toward realism that goes beyond point and shoot. For some of us who look for the more realistic approach to a problem, having accurate measuring tools is a necessity.

Since your here, may I ask for an explanation as to the different range findings from a stationary target ship. I have seen the range differ between 3 and 6 yards within 2 to 8 Stadimeter readings. Is this the sea state making a difference in the stationary ship range findings?

[tater]

Nice to know about the ruler, fog of war is good. I'd prefer if the position of the enemy ships was off (or not updated in real time at all, frankly) and the ruler was right, however.

The ideal way would be that there would be a mode where no ships were marked on the map at all, until you took a bearing and range. Then, and only then, a ship mark appears (static).

When you take a second range/bearing, it marks it and connects the points---which is in effect what the stopwatch icon on the tdc getting the speed from 2 bearing/ranges is doing.

That would be the most realistic plotting system because it would allow the skipper to chose what ships to observe, and let the crew plot it for him (instead of it either being 100% auto-GPS data or the skipper doing everything by hand)

tater

[CapnScurvy]

The ideal way would be that there would be a mode where no ships were marked on the map at all, until you took a bearing and range. Then, and only then, a ship mark appears (static).

When you take a second range/bearing, it marks it and connects the points---which is in effect what the stopwatch icon on the tdc getting the speed from 2 bearing/ranges is doing.

Tater, as you know, enabling "No map contact update" works pretty well for blanking the map of ships, other then your sub.

You may remember a fellow named Paul Wasserman who had a procedure for manual plotting with the aid of a AoB Calculator (wiz wheel). This was for SHIII, and by using the pencil tool to "mark" the position of the target ship you could plot the ship heading with a second "marked" reading. After taking the elasped time the ship took to reach the second position "mark", you could measure between the two points, and figure the speed of the ship. I made my own Calculator and designed a procedure for its use, found at:

http://mysite.verizon.net/ress1z18/ (shameless plug)

To accurately plot target ships however, finding correct range and using accurate measuring tools are a must. Yes, you have to do a lot of manual figuring within the game for yourself but, the game is designed to be a solo effort for those who play it anyway.

Cheers

[tater]

Yeah, I know I can do it manually, but I'd like to have my junior officers do that scut work for me. :)

[LukeFF]

The ideal way would be that there would be a mode where no ships were marked on the map at all, until you took a bearing and range. Then, and only then, a ship mark appears (static).

When you take a second range/bearing, it marks it and connects the points---which is in effect what the stopwatch icon on the tdc getting the speed from 2 bearing/ranges is doing.

That would be the most realistic plotting system because it would allow the skipper to chose what ships to observe, and let the crew plot it for him (instead of it either being 100% auto-GPS data or the skipper doing everything by hand)

That would be very nice to have, though at this point in SH4's development cycle I imagine it's not likely to happen. :cry:

[maerean_m]

Since your here, may I ask for an explanation as to the different range findings from a stationary target ship. I have seen the range differ between 3 and 6 yards within 2 to 8 Stadimeter readings. Is this the sea state making a difference in the stationary ship range findings?

The sea state has little to no effect on the stadimeter readings (because is a tool that uses relative data: if the sub moves up and down, the 2 images move at the same time). And I think 3 (and even 6) yards to be a very small error for a distance of, let's say, 700 yards. That's about 0.4% (0.8%). If the AOB and speed are correct, the torpedo will hit even with a range error of 5%.

[CapnScurvy]

And I think 3 (and even 6) yards to be a very small error for a distance of, let's say, 700 yards. That's about 0.4% (0.8%). If the AOB and speed are correct, the torpedo will hit even with a range error of 5%.

Yes, I agree. The difference is very small and negligible to the overall gameplay. Curiosity killed the cat, I was just wondering what made the difference in range readings for a stationary target after multiple checks. Thank you!

From a previous question regarding tenths of nautical miles being used for measuring on the Navigation Map:
This is by design. The precision of locating a ship on the map was poor back in the WWII. The ruler in the Navigation Map is not meant for measuring ranges (with great precision).

If you could determine the range using the ruler, there would be no need to use the periscope. You would be able to play the entire game using only the map.

For the Navigation Map to have a more accurate ruler, is it possible to incorporate the measuring device that the Mission Editor uses into the game when the "No map contact update" is enabled? I realize a conversion would have to be made as well for Imperial game play. A ruler that measures in meters or yards, rather than tenths of nautical miles would be a great help. Particularly when the target ships are not shown on the map and the input is coming directly from the player and his findings from other sources like sonar or periscope observation.

I know at this late date in the game's life cycle this may be asking too much, but there can always be next time.

Thanks again, to you and the rest of the team for a great game experience.

[maerean_m]

1. the difference (between 2 consecutive results from the stadimeter) comes from the fact that the player will almost never place the mouse cursor at the same vertical coordinate on the screen on the second attempt. One pixel is enough to cause a difference.

2. when playing using "no contact update" you want great(er) precision on the ruler tool so you can manualy place the "contact" on the map (using a distance reading from the sonar or radar or stadimeter or whatever). am I getting it right?

[CapnScurvy]

[2. when playing using "no contact update" you want great(er) precision on the ruler tool so you can manually place the "contact" on the map (using a distance reading from the sonar or radar or stadimeter or whatever). am I getting it right?

Yes indeed. By having an accurate measuring tool, a player can manually plot on a map the tactical situation (where is the target ship? where is the target ship in relation to my sub, and its heading? how can I best position myself for an attack?). Using the various ways to gain needed information (range, speed, heading) the situation comes together in front of you on the map, with the intended outcome to be a properly planned attack. It's a piece of reality that most captains (at least his control room crew) used when setting up for an attack. The map tools like the protractor, ruler, compass all aid in this planning.

[Munchausen]

The ideal way would be that there would be a mode where no ships were marked on the map at all, until you took a bearing and range. Then, and only then, a ship mark appears (static).

When you take a second range/bearing, it marks it and connects the points---which is in effect what the stopwatch icon on the tdc getting the speed from 2 bearing/ranges is doing.

At 100% realism, you get this on the attack map. Why would you want to use the navigation map instead? The only thing the attack map doesn't do (but probably should do) is automatically adjust AOB after a speed check is inserted. The navigator gives you speed and heading but only the speed is input to the TDC.

[Steeltrap]

2. when playing using "no contact update" you want great(er) precision on the ruler tool so you can manualy place the "contact" on the map (using a distance reading from the sonar or radar or stadimeter or whatever). am I getting it right?

The imprecision with the plotting tools is why I don't play with map off. There's little point in getting stadimeter ranges if you can't accurately plot what you've just determined. I found the inaccuracies in plotting and stadimeter in SHIII so irritating I always play with map contacts 'on'.

Tater has stated exactly what I have in the past (not that I'm claiming credit). The real challenge should lie in determining range, speed and AoB, NOT in your ability to plot those using inaccurate map tools.

Ideally, I think you should be able to look at a target then do the "bearing: mark" and input (estimate) AoB and range. Then do it again later and have the results appear on map. Dick O'Kane made the point that the plot and TDC were compared to ensure that there wasn't anything obviously crazy in the readings. He noted also that, with experience at sea, he could estimate speed fairly accurately by looking at the target. The info contained in ONI-208J (ID manual of Japanese merchant ships) was used to confirm speed was reasonable.

Would be really nice if we could also use the 'constant bearing' firing method, where the bearing is held constant in TDC to match the bearing of the periscope. That way you can then fire as the target crosses that bearing in your view. It's how Mush Morton/O'Kane in Wahoo did it, and O'Kane continued that way in Tang. I far prefer that to using the 'spread knob' to direct the torps fore and aft of centre of a target.

Oh well....nice to see you're reading/responding to posts. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say it's very encouraging!

[PepsiCan]

Hi

The battery life for all subs is inacurate. This could be fixed by a mod but it seems that as of version 1.3, the mod is no longer working.

cheers!

[RICH12ACE]

a captains cabin is what we need in 1.4 update! please dont say no OR the radio room like sh3 it makes the game more real! and more playable.:yep: :up: .

[tonschk]

I hope with the patch 1.4 we will be able to see the SCORE of the Game (the SCORE was represented in SH3 with the "Hull IntegrityPercentage" ),I have many other war Games ,Pacific Fighters,Blazing Angels,Panzer Elite Action,etc etc etc and all the War Games the player can see the SCORE ,SH4 was the first War Game in the History without a SCORE this situation is silly ,by at least the player must be able to see the Hull IntegrityPercentage as an realism optional

[tater]

The ideal way would be that there would be a mode where no ships were marked on the map at all, until you took a bearing and range. Then, and only then, a ship mark appears (static).

When you take a second range/bearing, it marks it and connects the points---which is in effect what the stopwatch icon on the tdc getting the speed from 2 bearing/ranges is doing.

At 100% realism, you get this on the attack map. Why would you want to use the navigation map instead? The only thing the attack map doesn't do (but probably should do) is automatically adjust AOB after a speed check is inserted. The navigator gives you speed and heading but only the speed is input to the TDC.

It does? The map gets "written on" with a mark automatically when you take a bearing/range on a target at 100%? A second such bearing/range on a target makes a second mark, connects the two, and writes down the speed?

tater

[tomoose]

OK, I'll jump on the bandwagon;
While Trigger Maru has given this software new life I'd still like to see the following fixed "officially" (i.e. without a mod).

1. Fix the collision sound for the rubber boat, please!!!! (and the capsizing).
2. Institute the 'free text' for the map as it stated in the manual (i.e. being able to actually 'write' text on the map instead of just an 'X' would be VERY handy).
3. Aircraft flight AI needs an overhaul.
4. Slow down the clouds when popping out of timewarp (I know there's a mod but that's not the point).
5. The AA bathtub view blockage needs fixing as stated by many, many people.
6. Get rid of that chronometer during timewarp, why does it appear at all (I shouldn't need to press the 'x' key)?
7. "Rudder Amidships" voice should be fixed.
8. Better damage assessment method (what do those numbers mean???).
9. Flashing message indicator should cease after a few seconds, it's distracting and serves no purpose considering the message appears in the text box.
10. Bailed out pilots should probably look Japanese instead of Italian, LOL.
:up:

[swdw]

Campaigning on Taters behalf . . .

1 allow override of the AI for depth charge detonation depth- allows pre mid 1943 simulation

2. allow a damage table to be applied to a DC that enables scaling the damage according to depth.

The 2nd will allow tater to deal more effectivbely with the DC damage vs depth issue he replied about in another post.

[Munchausen]

The map gets "written on" with a mark automatically when you take a bearing/range on a target at 100%? A second such bearing/range on a target makes a second mark, connects the two, and writes down the speed?

No ... that it does not do. Perhaps a more practical mod would be to add a pencil and ruler to the attack map. Then, all you'd need to do is place your mark over the plotted "x" ... wait, do it again ... and measure the distance & track between the two marks. Using rule of thumb, you could calculate the speed and crosscheck your results against the speed and heading given to you by the navigator.

Btw, since players are still listing bugs, here are a few reminders:

The rapidly blinking lights on the torpedo status panel
The numerous gauges with German labels
The helmsman's gyrocompass frozen at due north (repeater works fine)
The inoperative depth gauges and telegraphs at the navigator's station (clock works fine)

Also, does Darwin ever recover from being bombed so it can be used for refueling and resupply?

And I miss the periscope wake of SH3.

[tater]

I want the plotting to be accurate, but entirely dependent on MY measurements/estimates. I want the plotting to be done by my CREW though, I shouldn't have to do it myself, I'm the skipper.

:)

[The General]

While you guys are fixing stuff. How 'bout fixing the lighting from searchlights, signal lamps, lightning, star-shells and explosions? All surface craft do not properly reflect light when they are in close proximity of one or more of the above phenomenom. Using the freecam that's part of the Reflections on the Water MOD, I discovered that you get the proper affect when you set the camera immiedietly in front of a ships signal lamp and look down at forward deck (try it!). You will see what I'm talking about. This means that the DEVs went some way towards achieving this only for it not to be implemented properly in the [un]finished product. All this time everyone has assumed the way the lighting is now is just the way it was meant to be, it isn't. This is just one of several key flaws that make SH4 less than it could've been.

[Prof]

2. when playing using "no contact update" you want great(er) precision on the ruler tool so you can manualy place the "contact" on the map (using a distance reading from the sonar or radar or stadimeter or whatever). am I getting it right?That's exactly what I would like to see! I play with map contacts off and plot my contacts using stadimeter range and bearing. It's quite frustrating trying to plot things when you've only got 200 yard increments!

Actually, what I would really like to see is some combination of the attack map and the navigation map. I'd like to see ships plotted on the map according to periscope/radar/sonar information (so if you make a mistake with the stadimeter the ship will be plotted in the wrong place) AND with the ability to draw on the map using the tools.

[leovampire]

While you guys are fixing stuff. How 'bout fixing the lighting from searchlights, signal lamps, lightning, star-shells and explosions? All surface craft do not properly reflect light when they are in close proximity of one or more of the above phenomenom. Using the freecam that's part of the Reflections on the Water MOD, I discovered that you get the proper affect when you set the camera immiedietly in front of a ships signal lamp and look down at forward deck (try it!). You will see what I'm talking about. This means that the DEVs went some way towards achieving this only for it not to be implemented properly in the [un]finished product. All this time everyone has assumed the way the lighting is now is just the way it was meant to be, it isn't. This is just one of several key flaws that make SH4 less than it could've been.

For the ROW mod. Starting to get some good results with them The General. When I put out the vs_3 of the ROW Effect's folder's they will and should be working well.

[Torps]

There are a few bugs that drive me nuts, I feel should be considered.

1. Merchant deck gun crews are the best in the fleet
2. The land based artillary hardly misses you or your engines at all
3. CV's, BB's, CA's that stop on a dime.
4. Japanese DD's find you no matter what, *always*(example silent running, engines stopped, lowered periscope, 2000 yards away)
5. Searchlights that go through ships or that are on after being sunk
6.Internal sounds (mentioned before)
7. Vocal commands (mentioned before)
8. When I try to get in to a position to attack a target of opportunity (task force) some how I am detected by escorts that are at the farthest reaches of my radar and out of the blue seem to charge in my exact direction at flank speed.

Anyone have the same problems, especially with bug fix requests 1,2,3, and 8?

[The General]

@leovampire

Thanks, that's great news! You should be on the Ubi payroll.

[swdw]

Although you can really crank up the time compression compared to the original release, I noticed the biggest problem with not dropping out of time compression automatically on a aircraft/ship spotting or radio message is when the time is set to >2048.

Autimatic drop to a time compression value of 1 is very sketchy when running this fast. It seems to be pretty solid at 512 an 1024. Misses a couple at 2048, which may have been due to clicking on something around the same time, and the farther you go over 2048, the worse the problem gets.

[LukeFF]

Not so much a bug, but it's an important fix, nonethless: bring the back the minimum/maximum crew limit feature for officers, petty officers and sailors! Otherwise, it looks totally ridiculous being able to have a boat full of nothing but officers and petty officers.

[leovampire]

So that new changes to the game will be accepted that involve Global setting's with out having to delete the entire save game file then add the modifications to the game before you start the game and let a new save file be built.

Example is a mod that was made for torpedo's to make more accurate dud's and deep runner's for the proper time period's.

The game would not read this properly and make the changes work until the save game file was first removed and a new one was built after the changes were installed in the game.

Same thing with some of the Environmental changes not all of them are accepted and used in the game unless the data is read right from the first save file that the game builds.

This is an example of results before the same game file was touched and after it was removed and rebuilt by the game:

The results with Mark 14 before Save file was rebuilt:

Code:
1. Ok
2. Ok
3. Ok
4. Ok
5. Ok
6. Ok


The date was december 9th 1941 and these torpedoes should be a piece of junk but every single one of them worked perfectly. Didn't even bother to do another test with this setup because this clearly shows that this isn't correct

Now, I cleaned my saves and ran the game. As I ran the game at this time, it creates a completely new cache based on the mods I had now enabled. This time the base was completely clean for torpedo hardcore mod

The results with Mark 14 after save file was rebuilt when deleted:

Code:
Set 1 Set 2
1. Ok 1. Premature
2. Premature 2. Circle Runner
3. Ok 3. Dud
4. Ok 4. Ok
5. Dud 5. Ok
6. Dud 6. Unknown (Game crashed before this reached it's target...)


Although I made only a few tests all in all, there is a clear difference when you look at the results with different setups

[RICH12ACE]

a captains cabin in 1.4??? :rock: :rock: :rock: :o I WISH!

[mookiemookie]

Visual detection ranges, even while being tweaked by our talented modders, still seem a bit dodgy. A night surface attack is all but impossible as you're spotted at ridiculous ranges.

[SteminDemon13]

Well, I am not one to ask for much, we should be able to control the port and starboard engines independently. Can that be added to the game? One other thing, more of a question. I was out on patrol and my port diesel and electric engines were destroyed, but the stb side engines were shown to be in working order in the damage control screen, I was not able to get underway though. Can that be fixed also?
Can we please get living breathing engine room station with some interactive controls? I know I am the captain, but they too visit the engine rooms. Also, the people in the engine room should not look like they just showered, and shaved either, some grease/oil stains and some scrapes and bruised or busted knuckles would be accurate.
More on the crew side of things, how about instead of magically appearing when you order GQ, or hit the DC repair party button they actually run to their station. Watch turnovers would be cool also. Where the crew walks up and gives a turnover then the other ones leave. Where is the coffe machine? And why doesn't anyone have a coffee cup:o ?
Thanks to all you modders out there, I appreciate your dedication.

[-Pv-]

I don't normally post in these wish lists but here is what still bothers me in what I otherwise consider a very satisfying game:

1) Loss of torpedo aiming track line in stragegic map when cross IDL from Hawaii.
2) I need a hull damage indicator.
3) Explanation or removal of unexplained loud "steam" audio effect when starting a saved game after patrol is several days in duration and no apparent damage to sub.
4) Proper restoration of crew fatigue status after restoring a game. When a save game is restored, the crew fatigue is not what it was when the game was saved. Half the crew gets their fatigue levels set to near death with no apparent damage to sub. If it's weather that's causing it, need to know this has occured and how to avoid it. Either the fatigue status when saved is innacurate, or is innacurate when restored. I suspect a detractor is being applied on restore.

Notice I'm not asking for an army of graphic artists to change how the game looks, just need some logic cleaned up.

-Pv-

[Capt. Shark Bait]

I don't normally post in these wish lists but here is what still bothers me .... -Pv-

when i started this thread, it wasn't meant to be a wish list, cuz that's what modders are for:D , but rather something to bring to the devs attention as hints had been dropped here and there

[Powerthighs]

1. Fix visual detection at night to make surface attacks possible.
2. Fix crew and internal sound issues.
3. Have crew alert you if a ship turns toward you while you are on the surface.

[jdkbph]

Not so much a bug, but it's an important fix, nonethless: bring the back the minimum/maximum crew limit feature for officers, petty officers and sailors! Otherwise, it looks totally ridiculous being able to have a boat full of nothing but officers and petty officers.

Agree. This is something that needs to be addressed... one way or another.

I've actually adopted the practice of purging every third man on my crew (I sometimes count off every 2nd and 4th, sometimes every 1st and 5th, with a random starting location based on the least significant number in my current renown total <g>) every time I complete a patrol. I then back fill using only enlisted rank 1 (Seaman 3rd) and officer rank 10 (Ensign), as appropriate, with a cost of 0. Then I apply promotions and awards where needed.

A good system I think, but it would really work and feel better if it were enforced ;)


JD

[Capt. Shark Bait]

Not so much a bug, but it's an important fix, nonethless: bring the back the minimum/maximum crew limit feature for officers, petty officers and sailors! Otherwise, it looks totally ridiculous being able to have a boat full of nothing but officers and petty officers.

Agree. This is something that needs to be addressed... one way or another.

I've actually adopted the practice of purging every third man on my crew (I sometimes count off every 2nd and 4th, sometimes every 1st and 5th, with a random starting location based on the least significant number in my current renown total <g>) every time I complete a patrol. I then back fill using only enlisted rank 1 (Seaman 3rd) and officer rank 10 (Ensign), as appropriate, with a cost of 0. Then I apply promotions and awards where needed.

A good system I think, but it would really work and feel better if it were enforced ;)


JD

yeah, i wouldn't mind that at all, except for officers. d@mm near had a boat load of POs and chiefs:-?

[leovampire]

Not so much a bug, but it's an important fix, nonethless: bring the back the minimum/maximum crew limit feature for officers, petty officers and sailors! Otherwise, it looks totally ridiculous being able to have a boat full of nothing but officers and petty officers.

Agree. This is something that needs to be addressed... one way or another.

I've actually adopted the practice of purging every third man on my crew (I sometimes count off every 2nd and 4th, sometimes every 1st and 5th, with a random starting location based on the least significant number in my current renown total <g>) every time I complete a patrol. I then back fill using only enlisted rank 1 (Seaman 3rd) and officer rank 10 (Ensign), as appropriate, with a cost of 0. Then I apply promotions and awards where needed.

A good system I think, but it would really work and feel better if it were enforced ;)


JD

yeah, i wouldn't mind that at all, except for officers. d@mm near had a boat load of POs and chiefs:-?

Just take control of it and change them out or do not promote them. Not a fix that is needed just a wish list from you all.

I think actual fix's should be more important don't you?

[jdkbph]

Just take control of it and change them out or do not promote them. Not a fix that is needed just a wish list from you all.

I think actual fix's should be more important don't you?

Absolutely. When I said it should be addressed one way or another, I had (an unfortunately hypothetical) SH4 Commander in mind.

:)

[LukeFF]

Just take control of it and change them out or do not promote them. Not a fix that is needed just a wish list from you all.

I think actual fix's should be more important don't you?
I agree actual fixes take priority, but IMO it would be nice to have built-in crew type limits, instead of having to try to remember the historical officer-petty officer-sailor roster limits for an early fleet boat (such as a Porpoise) versus a Balao versus an S-boat. I'm not going to jump up and down and shake my fists if it doesn't get re-implemented, though. ;)

[LukeFF]

Back to bugs that need to be fixed:

Enemy ships do not detect the torpedo wakes of steam-powered torpedoes (this makes acquiring the "wakeless" electric torpedoes a waste of time).
Enemy ships do no react to active sonar pings (both when trying to acquire the range to a target and the depth below the sub's keel).

[leovampire]

Back to bugs that need to be fixed:

Enemy ships do not detect the torpedo wakes of steam-powered torpedoes (this makes acquiring the "wakeless" electric torpedoes a waste of time).
Enemy ships do no react to active sonar pings (both when trying to acquire the range to a target and the depth below the sub's keel).

That is a good fix needed.

[LukeFF]

Another one:

The logbook in the Captain's Office shows the types of ships sunk as the internal code name, instead of it's common name (such as "BBYamato" instead of "Yamato Class Battleship").

[jdkbph]

Although you can really crank up the time compression compared to the original release, I noticed the biggest problem with not dropping out of time compression automatically on a aircraft/ship spotting or radio message is when the time is set to >2048.

Autimatic drop to a time compression value of 1 is very sketchy when running this fast. It seems to be pretty solid at 512 an 1024. Misses a couple at 2048, which may have been due to clicking on something around the same time, and the farther you go over 2048, the worse the problem gets.

And I'm pretty solid right up through 6144 (or whatever it is). Sometimes things like you describe happen if I'm playing around at 8192 for some reason. I don;t think this is a bug... I suspect it has to do with the processing power of our computers. I don't know what you're running, but 2048 may simply be too much for it.

Or if it is a bug, it more likely related to the game's set up function... eg, the game did not properly identify or classify our machine's capabilities and failed to limit the max TC accordingly.


JD

[pythos]

Not sure about this. Have the conning tower upgrades been addressed. In other words, is it updated mid career? Or are you stuck with the same tower for the rest of your career with that boat?

I have had no luck in this area.

[LukeFF]

Bugs:

SV radar dish spins way faster than it's historical maximum (6 rpm)
Ships are automatically spotted by the crew when raising the periscope, making searches by the player unnecessary when preparing to surface.
Compressed air is not being used by the submarine when rising towards the surface.
The camera tilt in the conning tower is reversed in both directions, and it is tilted incorrectly in one direction in the command room.
No collison detection for the deck guns and AA guns. That is, the weapons can be elevated and traversed without regard for any objects in the way.Feature request:

The ability to enter in a new depth/course/rudder/speed setting by typing the value on the keyboard.

[SilentOtto]

Feature request:
The ability to enter in a new depth/course/rudder/speed setting by typing the value on the keyboard.

Hell yes! You should be able to order 200 feet depth, or course due north, or ENE 45º... I have wished this for a long time, the possibility was not there in SH3 either...

[maerean_m]

Compressed air is not being used by the submarine when rising towards the surface. Compressed air is being used when surfacing by the means of "blowing balast" and playing with unchecked "Unlimited compress air" in gameplay settings.


No collison detection for the deck guns and AA guns. That is, the weapons can be elevated and traversed without regard for any objects in the way. This not an easy fix and may affect performance (FPS) while being at that station.


Feature request:
The ability to enter in a new depth/course/rudder/speed setting by typing the value on the keyboard. Isn't it faster to just click (3 times) on the dials in the HUD?

[THE_MASK]

Get out of Bangkok and back to romania .

[LukeFF]

Feature request:
The ability to enter in a new depth/course/rudder/speed setting by typing the value on the keyboard. Isn't it faster to just click (3 times) on the dials in the HUD?

Not when one wants a precise heading or depth. Currently it's a guessing game as to whether or not our mouse cursor is pointed over the value we truly want:

"New course, 157!"
"New course, 159!"
"New course, 162"
"New course, 156!"

"160 will do just fine, ensign." :shifty:

[LukeFF]

No collison detection for the deck guns and AA guns. That is, the weapons can be elevated and traversed without regard for any objects in the way. This not an easy fix and may affect performance (FPS) while being at that station.

Nonetheless, it is something that should be fixed, should the time be found for it. In this day and age of computer gaming it looks downright silly being able to depress a gun barrel through a solid sheet of metal or steel cabling.

[LukeFF]

Bug: sampans and junks sound their collision alarm when another boat gets too close. Somehow I don't think these simple vessels were equippped with such a device. ;)

[DrBeast]

Yep...definitely time for my first post...
I spent a week or so pouring through this forum, getting the "feel" of the place so to say. Verdict's in: I like it here! :cool:
I don't know when the patch is due, but it souds like it's not very far away. Which means that probably all the fixes have already been done, and all that's left is the "fine tuning" (beta testing etc). Which means that everything said in here might apply to a 1.5 patch, as it is too late to add anything left out/not spotted already. Of course, I might be talking out of my exhaust pipe right now! :lol:
Anyway, what I've spotted and looks like a bug (and has also been mention in other threads, don't have time to dig up the links right now, sorry!), and appears in both vanilla (or stock as you call it over here ;)) and modded game, is that sometimes your sub will just sink like a stone, even when there's no apparent damage to it! In my latest mission, I've been surfaced for weeks now, because whenever I dive I really dive, all the way to the bottom, at an almost 90 degree angle! I've checked my damage with the Damage Analyzer, and there's nothing but Light Hull damage reported there, which cuts off my crush depth only slightly (about 10%).
Oh damn, there goes my bus...gotta ruuuuuun!!!

[Sailor Steve]

Glad you finally put your head up! WELCOME ABOARD!:sunny:

[JimRat]

No one has stated it here in this thread, but have seen this discussed before in other threads. Maybe there is no way to fix this, but could be something to keep in mind if ever they do another WWII Pacific Theater SubSim.

ALL US fleet type submarines after the Perch Class, (Porpoise in Game), had 4, (read four), Diesel Engines
The lose of even three of them meant that the sub could still be driven home. I get very annoyed that this was not addressed in this Sim. Overall I love this game, especially after applying several of the MODS created by the Wonderful and very talented modding community here, (TM, ROW, NSM, LBO, etc.) These are great and really add to the immersion factor of the game.:up:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH ALL THE MODDERS! Maybe UBIsoft should consider hiring some of you for their forthcoming projects.

However if there is any way that this could be fixed then this game would be much more realistic. US Naval Designers gave the Fleet Subs four engines for only one real purpose, REDUNDANCY. Subs were expected to take damage and were designed to be survivable. This should have been modeled into the game.

Sorry for ranting on about this, but it really drives me nuts sometimes.:damn:

[leovampire]

No one has stated it here in this thread, but have seen this discussed before in other threads. Maybe there is no way to fix this, but could be something to keep in mind if ever they do another WWII Pacific Theater SubSim.

ALL US fleet type submarines after the Perch Class, (Porpoise in Game), had 4, (read four), Diesel Engines
The lose of even three of them meant that the sub could still be driven home. I get very annoyed that this was not addressed in this Sim. Overall I love this game, especially after applying several of the MODS created by the Wonderful and very talented modding community here, (TM, ROW, NSM, LBO, etc.) These are great and really add to the immersion factor of the game.:up:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH ALL THE MODDERS! Maybe UBIsoft should consider hiring some of you for their forthcoming projects.

However if there is any way that this could be fixed then this game would be much more realistic. US Naval Designers gave the Fleet Subs four engines for only one real purpose, REDUNDANCY. Subs were expected to take damage and were designed to be survivable. This should have been modeled into the game.

Sorry for ranting on about this, but it really drives me nuts sometimes.:damn:

Redwine busted his butt for the longest time trying to set the damage controls up for the subs so that ther left and right side engines would work and act seperatly in the damage department but nothing he did or tryed ever made a difference nor would the game recognize the changes like it is hard coded.

[DeepSix]

My comments are mainly about bases, transfers, and equipment upgrades. Although overall I think the game is very well done, there are still a few issues that make it look a little "sloppy." Some are not what I'd call bugs, but they don't seem like design descisions, either. I think I'll call them "Bernards.";) In no particular order, mine are:

Bernard #1. Base transfers in general. Switching from Perth-Fremantle to Pearl only costs you 1 day, during which you are teleported to your new base without having to sail there. Also, your first patrol from your new base will send you to the same place you went last time - pretty dumb to get assigned to patrol Java Sea from Pearl, partly because it isn't historical and partly because it's pretty much impossible to do in the game anyway (at least early on when there aren't any advance refueling bases).

Since quite a number of boats made their transfers by going on patrol from one base with one commander and ended that patrol at a new base with a new commander (see Blair's description of switching subs from Pearl to Australia and vice-versa), and since this is more or less how transfers were done with SH3, I'm wondering why it doesn't work this way in SH4.

Lastly, San Francisco - and this I know must be a decision, not a bug - major refitting (like having your con cut down or getting the H.O.R. engines replaced) should require a sailing from Pearl (or Australia) to Mare Island. Not really a ship-sinking, renown-earning mission, but more realistic. Some players might not care about this; it's just my two cents.

Bernard #2. Equipment upgrades and saving the game while in base. If you upgrade your gear - say, going to improved SD from regular SD - or promote crew, and then save the game in base and quit before starting your next patrol, you lose the upgrade and the renown you spent to get it. You have to go back and make all the changes again. The game remembers that you spent renown but forgets you should have something to show for it. Sometimes the stuff you want to upgrade even disappears from the available upgrades list. So you've lost your renown and now have to make another patrol (or start one and dock immediately) just to see them on the list again. This has been an issue since the release of SH3, and is, I think, the single most excuseless Bernard in the whole game.:damn:

Bernard #3. Mios Woendi. This is probably the one that bugs me most. I realize it may be an intentional design decision but I think it needs reexamining. Unless I'm mistaken, MW didn't become an advance submarine base until September or October of 1944. In the game it appears a full year earlier, in Sept. or Oct. of 1943. Again, I know some things are introduced early in the game (as they were in SH3) and I agree with that decision in general. There are some practical, "playability" reasons for flexing the historic chronology of things sometimes. But the problem with MW coming in that early is that you still have Amboina and other places that are still Japanese. It's a matter of areas of control. How are those sub tenders and tankers surviving up there at Mios Woendi, surrounded by the enemy and with no air cover or supply line? You have so much enemy territory to cross before you get to it that it's much less useful than it's intended to be.

My suggestion would be that, if you can't activate Mios Woendi in 1944, and you really want it activated early, then adjust the "frontline" of the campaign accordingly. In other words, less Japanese air cover between Australia and Java/Timor/Celebes, no surface ships, no targets, etc. Keep advance areas "advance" and rear areas "rear."

Also on this note, what happened to Majuro? It ought to be available in Sept. or Oct. of '43, instead of Mios Woendi.

Bernard #4. Deck gun. I second what others have already noted about moving the deck gun and the consequent inability to man it as a result. The way we have to deal with it now is sacrifice one patrol (start the patrol and then dock/end it without going anywhere) and it'll work normally next time (at least it did for me), but it's no fun giving up a patrol. Or else trying to go on patrol anyway without stuff you really need, like working air search radar!

Also - the enemy's gunners (on cargo ships) are too good. Mine aren't good enough. I like that you can still man the gun in rough weather (even if some consider it a cheat), and I try to play fair by only using the gun on targets of 1000 tons or less, but if the big freighter is crippled, motionless, and half-sunk anyway, I think I ought to be able to surface and deliver a coup-de-grace with the gun and not have to deal with quite such accurate gunfire from the target.

Bernard #5. Transparent crew. Seems like I read a few pages back that this was unfixable. Which doesn't make sense to me but if it's true I still want to go on record as saying "it sucks.":)

Lastly.This is minor, though. Patrols don't seem to fit into the grand scheme of the war as well as the player might expect after watching the cut scenes. You're based at Brisbane, you get a short movie about the advances our side is making (say, into the Marshalls), but your patrol orders don't actually take you there. Then enroute to your generic patrol station, you keep getting radio reports saying "All patrol craft assist" - well, you're never in the area that needs assistance. I suppose it was decided that this sort of in game experience was more suited to a single mission rather than a dynamic career component, but I'd prefer to actually get ordered to a lifeguarding station. Or even better, sent out toward one station and then diverted to another - have the patrol objectives changed instead of my doing it on my own time if I feel like it.

Anyway, that's enough from me. There are lots of things I do like about the game; things I think have been done right, so I don't want to sound like I'm down on the game. Thanks very much for listening to the comments from Subsimmers and taking them into account thus far in the patches!

[Steeltrap]

Compressed air is not being used by the submarine when rising towards the surface. Compressed air is being used when surfacing by the means of "blowing balast" and playing with unchecked "Unlimited compress air" in gameplay settings.


Feature request:
The ability to enter in a new depth/course/rudder/speed setting by typing the value on the keyboard. Isn't it faster to just click (3 times) on the dials in the HUD?
Couple of things:

1. I give 10/10 to you and other developers for actually entering this site and posting directly to we punters. That's too rare in games - no doubt, in part, to the behaviour of punters in forums!

2. I have played the game and NEVER used compressed air. With all due respect, that is impossible. Subs always used some compressed air on surfacing, even without a major "blow everything" command (such commands were rare as they weren't used unless there was an emergency - such as water where there shouldn't be any :rotfl: or for a "battle surface"). They then achieved surface trim using "turbos". I have always used realistic settings, yet never use compressed air. Sure, not a show-stopper, but incorrect nonetheless.

3. Commands via typing would be good for the accuracy they give. As pointed out, trying for an accurate course isn't possible due to the inaccurate nature of the compass - a matter of scale. If we had voice commands installed that would address it, but most don't/won't. As an aside, I use the periscope to set course by using the " = " command to see what course I'm on, then moving the view by the number of degrees required to get the course I want and using " = " again. Typing '200' in course would be a big improvement in terms of ease of use.

4. Very interested to see what 1.4 produces. People here know I'm a critic of SHIV, but it's due to a desire to see it be what it might be, not out of an inherent bitchiness on my part (I hope).

5. I hope you read http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=123547

Again, special commendation to the active participation of developers - long may it continue!

Cheers all.

[LukeFF]

Bernard #1. Base transfers in general. Switching from Perth-Fremantle to Pearl only costs you 1 day, during which you are teleported to your new base without having to sail there. Also, your first patrol from your new base will send you to the same place you went last time - pretty dumb to get assigned to patrol Java Sea from Pearl, partly because it isn't historical and partly because it's pretty much impossible to do in the game anyway (at least early on when there aren't any advance refueling bases).

Since quite a number of boats made their transfers by going on patrol from one base with one commander and ended that patrol at a new base with a new commander (see Blair's description of switching subs from Pearl to Australia and vice-versa), and since this is more or less how transfers were done with SH3, I'm wondering why it doesn't work this way in SH4.

Not to mention, our boats are rearmed and refueled instantly, instead of taking a couple of hours, as was the historical reality.

[DeepSix]

^Good point; forgot to mention that.

On a happier note, though, I can scratch one item off my "list" - Majuro appeared after all (May 1944).

[tater]

The MW sub base is easy to fix.

[-Pv-]

Gunnel made it all the way home at 5 knots on auxiliary (also providing high pressure air and battery/AC) on one patrol when all four engines chewed through their reduction gears. An aux engine to simulate all four engines running on extremely reduced output would provide the type of redundancy we expect to see in these boats in the sim. I would think this type of fix would be easy. 2 or more engines damaged = 4 engine power 10%. I suspect then there would be a complaint there was no aux engine graphics or repair priority item detail, etc. ad-infinitem. Leave it as it is and you don't open a can of worms requiring additional support for the next 6 months.

From the game designer side, I can see some reasoning behind not spending work on additional engine redundancy code. A strong incentive to keep the player from throwing all caution to the wind with no repercussion to taking extreme risk is the chance you'll have to restart from a save when you lose all propulsion power or damage excedes boyancy. This is what we all want right? A sub that cannot be damaged beyond the ability to repair and super-human crew that cannot be killed and can see through walls.
-Pv-

[DeepSix]

...This is what we all want right? A sub that cannot be damaged beyond the ability to repair and super-human crew that cannot be killed and can see through walls.
-Pv-

LOL:rotfl:

I do think, though, that the out-of-the-box damage model is a bit off. Seems like there's an unrealistic gap between how easy it is to suffer extreme damage and the crew's ability to repair it. Every depth charge hit seems to cause critical flooding. You get four compartments flooding and each one says something like "time to flood 3 minutes/time to repair 35 minutes." Simultaneously, the efficiency and health ratings for the damage repair team gets cut in half. I mean, come on. Of course there should be some chance that the player's sub will get killed by a direct hit from DC - but VERY few DC should be a direct hit. As it is, it seems like it's a little too easy to evade the destroyers, but a little too easy for them to kill you if they do find you. I'm basing this on accounts from surviving subs and from patrol reports of subs that did not survive the war.

There were 52 U.S. subs lost in the war. There were a lot more than 52 depth-chargings....

2c.

[capt_frank]

I know I'm kinda late here, but i really wouldn't mind a few things:

1. I really liked the "return to base" option in SHIII;
2. A surrender option would be good for those hopeless moments;
3. If my rudder get blown off as it has, it would be nice to have another option other than to end game;
4. "Rudder, Rudder";
5. Really wouldn't mind the assistance of the WO in figuring solutions in part or in whole without being in the auto target mode, and
6. A major future development would have the torp rooms modeled.

I'm not really into technical issues, besides they have surfaced before. However, thanks to the continued efforts of the developers and the fantastic modding community, the enjoyment I receive from this sim on a daily basis far exceeds the monetary outlay I extended to acquire it...and I bought two! :up:

Edit: Can I have another avitar? That Soundman looks a little je ne sais quoi!

[Ulx]

On the navigation map, you see a large amount of land east of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. These are polders. The norteastern part was water until 1957, and the southern part until 1968.
It would make SH4 -and SH3 as well- more accurate if that got fixed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuiderzee

[Sniper297]

I installed SH 3 and lost the ability to play DVD movies on my computer. So when I went to get SH 4 I bought the Direct2Drive version, figuring I wouldn't have to deal with that anti piracy hassle. Nope. With the D2D version of SH 4 installed, I get sound but no video from any DVD movie I try to play.
Uninstall SH 4 and the video works, reinstall SH 4 got a black screen with any movie.

Item 2 - ET phone home, what in the world do you want?! Every time I start SH 4, my firewall pops up and tells me it's trying to access the internet. I deliberately did not activate the multiplayer option because I only play single player, why would SH 4 need to access the internet for a single player game? I activated it online because manual activation didn't work, kept telling me my keycode was invalid. Isn't a problem with the keycode itself, cuz the online activation happily accepts it. Once it's activated why would it need to access the internet after that?

Item 3, why does loading and unloading take so long? Nearly 3 minutes even after hitting escape twice to blow past the intro stuff, and exiting takes 5 minutes worth of whirring hard disk before I have my system back. Actually faster to just push the button to shut down to cold iron and restart, what could exiting the program possibly need to read or write to disk that takes five minutes on a Maxtor 6L160M0?

[maerean_m]

1. The game includes a checkbox in the installer related to Windows Media Codecs needed to run the intro movies and the history telling movies. There should be no connection with the DVD software. As a fix, try and install Windows Media Player 11 after installing SH4.

2. The game includes a 3rd party component that communicates to a server to determine how long people play the game. As far as I know, no other information is being send (so no personal data of any kind).

3. that's because you have very little RAM memory installed. possibly just 512 mb... The minimum requirement is 1 Gb and the recommended quantity is 2 Gb. The data being read from the harddrive when exiting is information that Windows retreives from the swap file and brings back into the RAM.

[tater]

I have issues with video and SH4 as well. I tried installing WMP 11, no dice.

When I restart my machine, WMP will play video, and it plays the opening videos on SH4—the first time I play SH4 after restarting. After I close SH4, I can only hear the audio part of a video, I get no picture. Oddly, even though the 2 intro movies won't show on SH4, the briefing movies DO show.

Restarting the machine cures the videos, and they will continue to work as long as I don't start SH4. BTW, it's not just WMP, I went and got a few other players after this problem started and they have the exact same issue.

One possible thing, I updated my nvidea driver, though the breaking video is 100% linked to running SH4. Perhaps some incompatibility there...

tater

[Sniper297]

"1. The game includes a checkbox in the installer related to Windows Media Codecs needed to run the intro movies and the history telling movies. There should be no connection with the DVD software. As a fix, try and install Windows Media Player 11 after installing SH4."

Got that, since my DX9c was from 2005, I let it go ahead and install the DX and Media codec updates.

"2. The game includes a 3rd party component that communicates to a server to determine how long people play the game. As far as I know, no other information is being send (so no personal data of any kind)."

Spyware is spyware, personally I don't care if everyone on the planet knows my mother's kindergarten teacher's hat size (6 7/8), problem is hackers can use spyware and adware as a pipeline. After that remote procedure call trojan a few years back, I whipped out the credit card and spent $35 bucks to call MS tech support, they didn't have a clue. A week later they weren't answering the phones, and issued a massive security patch to plug the hole in XP service pack 1. Since then I have automatic updates disabled, because that's what downloaded the trojan. They want to know how long the game is being played they should take a survey, much safer. Sneaky approach even for a subsim game, they couldn't ask if you want to participate in a marketing survey or disable the "feature"?

"3. that's because you have very little RAM memory installed. possibly just 512 mb... The minimum requirement is 1 Gb and the recommended quantity is 2 Gb. The data being read from the harddrive when exiting is information that Windows retreives from the swap file and brings back into the RAM."

That's possible:

http://forums.flightsim.com/ts/user_files/124942.jpg

At or near recommended specs for most things, but 1 gig of RAM I'm right at the minimum. About time to upgrade, hey? :yep:

As for rebooting, tried that - since I started from cold iron this morning and haven't run SH 4 yet, I put in a couple DVD movies, black or gray screen (depending on realplayer, powerDVD, or windows media player) with sound, no video. I'll take a shot at reinstalling (more sure-fire to uninstall and install the latest, all too often the updates are buggy) the codecs.

__________

[maerean_m]

Oddly, even though the 2 intro movies won't show on SH4, the briefing movies DO show.
The intro movies are in WMV format and played using the installed codecs, briefings are in BINK format and played with a specific dll installed with the game.

[bruges]

the resetting of the message box every time you start the game. it gets repetitive and annoying when you have to fiddle with it every time you start the game. roger on the "return to base option"

[LukeFF]

the resetting of the message box every time you start the game. it gets repetitive and annoying when you have to fiddle with it every time you start the game.

You can adjust that in the menu 1024_768 file. Do a search in the mods forum or just ask over there on how to to it. I'd tell you how, but I'm not on my home computer right now.

[Sniper297]

I should probably mention here, don't have the same symptoms as Tater - I have the D2D version so it don't access the DVD drive when SH 4 starts, the intro movies in SH 4 play perfectly every time. Running DVD movies with SH 4 installed I get a blank screen, uninstall SH 4 the DVD movies play fine. Totally lost as to what the connection might be, the D2D version don't even require a DVD AFAIK.

[The General]

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/8451/sh4wotp032xn7.th.jpg (http://img127.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sh4wotp032xn7.jpg)This image is taken from the review for SH4 that Neal just posted on the Front Page. Now, it may be an old photo or whatever, but you can clearly see that a depth of field effect is at work in this version. Any ideas on what happened to this and will it be restored with Patch 1.4?

[tater]

maerean_m,

The range for reporting enemy ships in contact reports (from the player's sub) is something like 4500m. With the improved visual range being added, can this be changed to the limit of visual range?

No RL sub (US, anyway) would EVER turn on a radio that close to the enemy to broadcast back to base. Late in the war they might use it at very low power with a special short "wolfpack" code to other, nearby pack members, but even then 4500 yards is way way too close for comfort.

Ideally the value would be added to a cfg file someplace so that it could be modded.

tater

[maerean_m]

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/39.gif we're thinking about it

[tater]

The benefit of making it a cfg value would be you could leave it as is for the current campaign.

I realize there is a lot of connection to the DynamicMiss stuff, and you might be wary of breaking it. By making it a cfg and keeping it at default (4500m) you'd not break your current campaign, but would allow new campaigns to work with it.

I've messed around enough to know that such a campaign change is non-trivial for you guys :D

That said, it would be a nice tool for modder built campaigns. Instead of having a report usually result in orders to attack, a new campaign might have a different set of orders to the player. Say, attack first, report after, or report if attack is impossible (more realistic).

BTW, is there any way to get a rough outline of exactly what is going on with the DynamicMiss.cfg file? I've spent hours and hours trying to figure it out, and I have to say I'm at a total loss. I know there is a lot of powerful stuff in there, too. :up:

I think people are unaware of how truly powerful the campaign system is in SH4. Even the few of us that have really beat it up making campaigns have yet to do more than scratch the surface I think...

tater

[The General]

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/39.gif we're thinking about itOhmyGod! I think a Dev actually spoke directly to me! I'm so blessed :oops: While I have your attention, you guys rock!:rock:

[THE_MASK]

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/39.gif we're thinking about itOhmyGod! I think a Dev actually spoke directly to me! I'm so blessed :oops: While I have your attention, you guys rock!:rock: What do you expect from the worlds best simulation team :rock: .

[SHARKMEAT]

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/39.gif we're thinking about itOhmyGod! I think a Dev actually spoke directly to me! I'm so blessed :oops: While I have your attention, you guys rock!:rock: What do you expect from the worlds best simulation team :rock: .

Will there be a Patch befor the expansion Pack for SH4 ships:hmm: .......CHEERS

[LukeFF]

The scaling of the creaking noises when submerged is not scaled properly for American submarines (i.e., it still follows the parameters for SH3). At most of the boat's maximum depth, currently only the "Creaks Level 2" plays, when in reality levels 3 and 4 should have come into play long before that.

[LukeFF]

Can we finally please get a proper "rudder amidships" voice reply from the OOD instead of "rudder, rudder"? ;)

[Capt. Shark Bait]

Can we finally please get a proper "rudder amidships" voice reply from the OOD instead of "rudder, rudder"? ;)

didn't you know? that was fixed in 1.3:know:

[LukeFF]

Another one: there is some sort of limit in place for the number of names that can be entered into CrewMembersNames.upc. When one goes above this limit no names will show up on the Crew Management page. This keeps modders (like myself ;)) from adding in a more thorough list of names used by USN submariners during the war.

[tater]

How many characters is the player name, and why is is the length it is? Can't use my own name, too long :)

tater

[tater]

Something I tried to mod a while ago, to no avail: the number of fish available.

The current in port model has a certain number of every single torpedo available at that date. Hard to tell witht he poor way scrolling works, but it's a substantial number. More than any sub can hold of each type.

It would be really nice to be able to control the total number by date, or ideally even by date and flotilla.

Renown doesn't have much utility, but if torpedo availablity were limited, it would be more useful. (then the mod I have that adds mines becomes way more useful).

tater

[SteamWake]

Hard to tell witht he poor way scrolling works,

QFE one of my pet peeves.

[Ducimus]

That scrolling was THE biggest reason i removed the Mark 10 torpedo from all boats but the S class.

[maerean_m]

The scrolling has been optimized for all lists (including this one with torpedoes and with a greater effect for the patrol radio messages).

Also, for the add-on, the philosophy of the torpedo list has been changed.

[Capt. Shark Bait]

The scrolling has been optimized for all lists (including this one with torpedoes and with a greater effect for the patrol radio messages).

Also, for the add-on, the philosophy of the torpedo list has been changed.

i take it that means that there's no more searching for the torpedoes you want, which are near the bottom by the time the forward tubes and reloads are stowed

[hyperion2206]

Bernard #1. Base transfers in general. Switching from Perth-Fremantle to Pearl only costs you 1 day, during which you are teleported to your new base without having to sail there. Also, your first patrol from your new base will send you to the same place you went last time - pretty dumb to get assigned to patrol Java Sea from Pearl, partly because it isn't historical and partly because it's pretty much impossible to do in the game anyway (at least early on when there aren't any advance refueling bases).

Since quite a number of boats made their transfers by going on patrol from one base with one commander and ended that patrol at a new base with a new commander (see Blair's description of switching subs from Pearl to Australia and vice-versa), and since this is more or less how transfers were done with SH3, I'm wondering why it doesn't work this way in SH4.
Not to mention, our boats are rearmed and refueled instantly, instead of taking a couple of hours, as was the historical reality.

I totally agree with you on this point, would be cool if that would be changed.
One thing I'd love to see implemented: You don't really know if you sunk a ship unless you see it sink (through periscope or binoculars). In reality skippers often didn't know if they hit a ship and if they did they often didn't know whether they damaged or sunk it.
Another thing: you should get credit for damaged ships, like getting half the renown and half the tonnage of the ship you damaged.

[tater]

The scrolling has been optimized for all lists (including this one with torpedoes and with a greater effect for the patrol radio messages).

Also, for the add-on, the philosophy of the torpedo list has been changed.

The bigger issue (IMO) is that every port has the same number of all torpedo types. Early in the war, there was a shortage of torpedoes, it would be nice to be able to represent this somehow in the campaign...

[mcarlsonus]

...how about an option for a tow should one run out of diesel fuel within sight of Midway? I've had to turn down realism due to fuel problems. Some patrol zones are so far, I'm half empty by the time I get there - and this is despite "porpoising" and running at absolute 1/3 speed on the surface!

[tater]

Running slower than optimal speed uses too much fuel.

10-11 knots is ideal. Assuming you tank up at Midway outbound, you should egt to Japan with 3/4 of a tank left.

Regardless, I think there should be a sort of "abandon ship" or "Assistance requested" button. Might be as simple as this, you send a status report, and if your fuel state is zero, or if your engines are destroyed, or if you have no rudder, it rolls a die and tells you about being picked up by a friendly sub, or there is nothing they can do (based on your position).

tater

[Sailor Steve]

One thing I'd love to see implemented: You don't really know if you sunk a ship unless you see it sink (through periscope or binoculars). In reality skippers often didn't know if they hit a ship and if they did they often didn't know whether they damaged or sunk it.
Good point. Sometimes a ship would sink much later. More often than not, though, a captain would 'see' a ship sink, only to find out later that he was mistaken. That could be frustrating in a game. It might be neat to have the option of realistic scoring: you sink a ship, you get credit for it, and then when the war is over some of those are removed because they didn't really sink at all. Conversely, you watch a ship escape, only to find out later that it did sink and you get the credit.

Another thing: you should get credit for damaged ships, like getting half the renown and half the tonnage of the ship you damaged.
I completely disagree on this point. Why would anyone award you half tonnage for a ship that made it safely to port? Renown? You let it get away; maybe they should take away renown for not finishing the job.

[SubSuck]

I don't know where to begin. All I know is that the game crashes randomly and it prevents me from playing the game without cheating. Maybe I need a 50 core processor to help stablize the game??

[maerean_m]

The bigger issue (IMO) is that every port has the same number of all torpedo types. Early in the war, there was a shortage of torpedoes, it would be nice to be able to represent this somehow in the campaign... The shortage is modeled by the renown cost (that drops as time goes by).

PS: the thing you mentioned will not be an issue in the add-on.

Have you noticed that there aren't two people whose "bigger issue" match?

[tater]

Sailor Steve, in RL credit was given for damage.

maerean_m... LOL. True.

I know renown cost can sort of simulate shortages, but it's backwards sort of. Late in the war they had loads of fish. The real shortage was at the BEGINNING of the war.

Early on, many boats were sent on special missions or mining missions simply because they didn't have the torpedoes to send them on a war p[atrol. All the "commando" and supply missions in real life would have involved the sub getting rid of every single fish except those in the tubes, BTW.

The only simulation possible with renown is to up the cost of the mk14 and mk10 torpedoes. The problem is the timing. I could make a patrol objective for a date range that only allows special missions, then try to get the torpedo cost such that the skipper simply cannot afford more than a handful of fish... gets complicated.

I can make my tube-launched mone free, too.

BTW, is it possible to reduce the size of a torpedo in C:\Program Files\Ubisoft\Silent Hunter Wolves of the Pacific\Data\UPCData\UPCUnitsData\Ammunition.upc such that more can be stored aboard the sub? I'd like to make a mine with considerably larger storage, like 2-3 mines per fish normally stored.

[hyperion2206]

One thing I'd love to see implemented: You don't really know if you sunk a ship unless you see it sink (through periscope or binoculars). In reality skippers often didn't know if they hit a ship and if they did they often didn't know whether they damaged or sunk it. Good point. Sometimes a ship would sink much later. More often than not, though, a captain would 'see' a ship sink, only to find out later that he was mistaken. That could be frustrating in a game. It might be neat to have the option of realistic scoring: you sink a ship, you get credit for it, and then when the war is over some of those are removed because they didn't really sink at all. Conversely, you watch a ship escape, only to find out later that it did sink and you get the credit.

Another thing: you should get credit for damaged ships, like getting half the renown and half the tonnage of the ship you damaged. I completely disagree on this point. Why would anyone award you half tonnage for a ship that made it safely to port? Renown? You let it get away; maybe they should take away renown for not finishing the job.

Now I have to disagree with you, Sailor Steve.;) In RL boats were credited for damaging ships and they were credited for the whole tonnage. It makes sense IMHO: By damaging a ship, especially a man-of-war, you hampered the enemies ability to to strike you. The enemy needs more time, men and resources to repair that ship that could have been used to build new ships.
But I'm glad that you agrred with me on my first point and you made some pretty good "amendments".:yep:

[tater]

I'd like to see the "instant success" go away. Ie: no ship sunk information put in the log automatically.

Too bad no games have a realistic kill accounting system. Meaning one that isn't 100% accurate, and one that has real rules for the kill to count.

That'd be cool.

tater

[Reaves]

I'd like to see the "instant success" go away. Ie: no ship sunk information put in the log automatically.

Too bad no games have a realistic kill accounting system. Meaning one that isn't 100% accurate, and one that has real rules for the kill to count.

That'd be cool.

tater

Can you imagine how many people would complain when their kills aren't recorded though?

[tater]

Same folks who'd complain when they sink fewer than 4 CVs per patrol, I'd imagine ;)

tater

[Reaves]

I'd settle for 2 personally. :p



Nah, keep em rare and you keep them special. When I come accross a CV or BB I like getting excited about it.

[Snuffy]

Can't say I've seen this mentioned before so here goes ...

I want an option to surrender my boat.

Rather than being blown to hell because of an emergency surface due to major damge.

Yeah, it may not the manly way out, but then I don't want to drown everytime my boat is no longer sea worthy.

[rodan54]

Turn that into an abandon ship option with appropriate chances of being captured or rescued and I'm with you. :up:

Now, one thing I'd like to see is the ability to adjust ship spacing distances in convoys/taskforces; along the lines of what can be done currently with speed. For example, TF 'A' with 6 ships has an initial spacing of 500 meters. They then reach waypoint 'X' which designates a new spacing of 1500 meters. At which point the ships gradually shuffle themselves into their new positions.


I had another idea (feature) too, might be a bit of a stretch though. Basically it would entail allowing ships/groups to join up or detach from other ships/groups.

Example, TF 'A' with a BB and 6 DD's sails along and reaches a certain waypoint 'X' which has a radius of 10km to allow for "combining". At the same time another TF 'B' with 2 CA's enters this radius approximatly in synch with TF 'A'. Now that this criteria has been meet, the waypoint 'X' can have the option of "Groups to Join" or something. At this point TF 'B' is selected for "combining", and is linked up with the lead unit of TF 'A', in this case the BB.

This same scenario could then work in reverse. In which case the 2 CA's, TF 'B', are chosen for detachment from from TF 'A' at waypoint 'Y'. Thus when waypoint 'Y' is reached TF 'B' falls out of line and sails along a new set of waypoints that branch off of TF 'A's initial route.

These features could really open up a whole lot of new possibilities within the campaign layers. And in addition to ship lauched torpedoes :smug:, are the features I'd most like to see implemented.

[Capt. Shark Bait]

Can't say I've seen this mentioned before so here goes ...

I want an option to surrender my boat.

Rather than being blown to hell because of an emergency surface due to major damge.

Yeah, it may not the manly way out, but then I don't want to drown everytime my boat is no longer sea worthy.

and was the little paper hanger worth dyin for?. i'ld think that most Uboat commanders were more loyal to the country and navy, than the paper hanger

[leovampire]

For the ship's and shore light's. I finaly got it done and posted with the new object reflections for the game.

I am sorry it took so long to do this but there are over 3000 node's alone for the Harbor kit to go through.

All smoke effect's for Houses building's and factories have been set to the same wind coef as all the other smoke effect's in the game changes we made to match them up.

All light's for building's have been adjusted because originaly they were set to be dimmer at night time than day time basicly you couldn't see them at all at night and now you can but they are not over bearing in nature.

All light houses are more effective and cast a better reflection on the water plus have a much greater range in effect.

All land base search light's have been repaired and are more effective in range.

All ship search light's have been repaired and adjusted to range and better effectivness. Originaly all search light's max range was 200 meters I have now adjusted them accoriding to their size and what type of light it is for both ship's and land base light's.

Enjoy everyone.

ROW_Object_Reflections_and_All_Searchlight_Repairs _vs_2 (http://files.filefront.com/ROW+Objects+Reflections+v2rar/;9005103;/fileinfo.html) This file contains the reworked shore line object reflections with enhancments and reapirs to all in game search lights from light houses to land base search lights and ship search lights in efective ranges and reflection capabilities and a lot more.


This is also posted on the main thread download.

I am now trying to finish up all the ship work about half way done.

[pythos]

I would like the "silent" crush problem to be fixed.

What I mean by this is as the boat exceeds its saftey depth, you do not hear straining of the hull or popping rivets, like was heard in SH3 to an extent. Instead your boat has small creaks and silent damage starts happening along with the crew reporting so and so damaged, or destroyed and so on. This is followed by the death scene camera. Mind you, this all happens in near silence as far as the boat is concerned.

I really don't like this little oversight on the part of the devs. Sh3 modeled this well. Sh4, not so well. With SH3 you could tell when you were taking the boat beyond its limits, just by the moaning of the hull, not to mention your Chiefe telling you you are exceeding critical depth.

[R3D]

SUN GLARE ON RADEONS.... please. :rotfl:

[The General]

Why is it that the 3D interior model isn't actually inside the Sub? I'd be willing to see a far simplified interior model as long is it was actually inside the Sub. I'd wanna see a representation of each compartment too. I feel that the immersion factor would be increased dramatically. Any thoughts?

Also, in direct reference to 1.4 Patch, why is it that when a particle emitter is offscreen it resets? i.e. Smoke, spotlights, reflections, all disappear when you pan left or right with the virtual-camera. Very distracting to see a huge cloud of smoke suddenly disappear because the vessel emitting it is just off-screen etc. If I met the guy responsible for this, I think I'd punch him in the face!

Also, Merchant ships detect me at night, whatever the weather, almost the moment I'm within visual range, what's up with that!?

Also, I don't wanna see various Radar masts and Sonar attachments fitted to the Sub before the relevant year. For example, my early Porpoise class has a Radar mast when I have no Radar fitted! I don't think this particular type was even invented 'til later on in the War!

Also, why in God's Holy Name are the clouds moving at beyond the speed of sound during the 'Sub Destroyed' sequence?! We all no that the clouds have been a problem since the beginning, this surely should be sorted out by Patch 2.8 or whatever we're up to now!

If the Volumetric fog is not fixed with this Patch (Including the making objects transparent issue), I'm flying over to Romania at my own expense to find those responsible and remove their internal organs with a rusty can opener.

Who play-tested this game before release, Stevie Wonder!?

[hyperion2206]

Why is it that the 3D interior model isn't actually inside the Sub? I'd be willing to see a far simplified interior model as long is it was actually inside the Sub. I'd wanna see a representation of each compartment too. I feel that the immersion factor would be increased dramatically. Any thoughts?

I have no clue what you're talking about, could you perhaps explain it a bit further?



If the Volumetric fog is not fixed with this Patch (Including the making objects transparent issue), I'm flying over to Romania at my own expense to find those responsible and remove their internal organs with a rusty can opener.

Who play-tested this game before release, Stevie Wonder!?

I doubt that threatening the DEVs is helping.:roll:

[hyperion2206]

@Hyperion2206

Yeah, thanks Genius. Let me do the thinking.

You're welcome!:rotfl::rotfl:

[John Channing]

@Hyperion2206

Yeah, thanks Genius. Let me do the thinking.

Easy there.

JCC

[leovampire]

Can you add caustic and shadow node's to the conning tower's for the sub's?

And this is a fix Please Please Please fix the lightning for the game so it work's in all aspect's of the game not just the single missions.

And this to me is a fix as well.

Can you make the Ballest guages work on all the sub's interior's not just on 3 of them?

[LukeFF]

Bug: radio messages can still be sent and received when either the radio antenna or radio receiver is destroyed.

[John Channing]

On the Japanese Escort carriers the rudder sails with the ship, but it is not attached. It is about 5 yards behind and to the left of the ship.

JCC

[leovampire]

The smoke that is supose to be comming from the funnel is not lined up with the funnel it come's out of the forward bridge instead.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well since everyone else is adding things - here is my biggest current "bug" in SH4.

Please seperate the internal and external damage models for subs! This would enable modders to tweak the damage model as needed. I am not asking for the patch to properly balance these two models - just seperate them so we can!

With two distinct models, things like flooding or a serioud hit could damage equipment and crew properly, as well as simulate individual crew casualties. As it is now my electric engines still work when the room is totally flooded - not to mention the crew assigned to the room also seems to be able to grow gills whenever necessary.

These are things we as a community could and would gladly work on - if we could. Make it possible for us to - and we will continue to help make SH4 the best subsim!

[Anvart]

Can you add caustic ... to the conning tower's for the sub's?
...

You can make it your hands ...:D

[Anvart]

I would like to have more dial controllers for different devices in an interior of a submarine...

[leovampire]

Can you add caustic ... to the conning tower's for the sub's?
...

You can make it your hands ...:D


I havn't mastered the art of importing and exporting node's yet from one thing to another to make this happen.

I have tryed to do it a lot over time using the S3D tool but still at a loss here other wise I would have done it already. I guess I just need to keep pluging away at it.

[Anvart]

Can you add caustic ... to the conning tower's for the sub's?
...

You can make it your hands ...:D


I havn't mastered the art of importing and exporting node's yet from one thing to another to make this happen.

I have tryed to do it a lot over time using the S3D tool but still at a loss here other wise I would have done it already. I guess I just need to keep pluging away at it.
Goodluck! :up:

[Biggles]

Please fix bug where torpedoes get a speed boost so they suddenly travels faster than the Millenium Falcon?

[LukeFF]

The range given by the watch officer when asking for "Nearest Visual Contact" is in meters instead of yards, even with the switch set to Imperial in the Gameplay Options menu.

[LukeFF]

The SV radar should be hooked up to the PPI and A-scope displays:

http://www.maritime.org/radio-sv.htm

Indication and data output:

Range: SV uses SJ-1 indicator (5 inch A scope with 10, 30 mi. ranges). SV-1 uses SS range indicator (3 inch A scope 10, 30 mi. ranges).

Bearing: SV-1 uses SS bearing indicator (3 inch B scope with 4,000 yd. range).

P.P.I.: 5-inch scope. Provision for four radar repeaters.

[THE_MASK]

Question for a dev . Will the deck crew damage be fixed in patch 1.4 . Not simply linked to the sub damage somehow .

[kapitan_zur_see]

Can you add caustic and shadow node's to the conning tower's for the sub's?

And this is a fix Please Please Please fix the lightning for the game so it work's in all aspect's of the game not just the single missions.

And this to me is a fix as well.

Can you make the Ballest guages work on all the sub's interior's not just on 3 of them?

I second that!! ;)

[loreed]

I originally posted this in the observations thread but I think it should have been here instead. 1.4 resulted in the program continually looking for a file that's not there (File not found: data/menu/gui/RecManual/CovFlagAlbania.dds) and the program freezes up. Its right there is no CovFlagAlbania.dds file there.:damn:

[BaronDeKalb]

If someone could please confirm this. I have a Porpoise class (USS Plunger) while in home port i moved the Deck gun from the Stern to the Bow in the in game interface for x amount of renoun.

Now my men will no longer Man the Deck gun.

[Demon777]

Hi guys!

I've installed 1.4 over 1.2, but is it possible to install 1.4 over 1.0, i.e. over original version?


Brgds,

D777

[LukeFF]

Hi guys!

I've installed 1.4 over 1.2, but is it possible to install 1.4 over 1.0, i.e. over original version?

Yes, that has been answered here already many times over.

[Overkill]

My appoligizes if these have already been addressed:

(1) 1/4 fuel used to reach Sea of Japan from Midway...run out of fuel try'n to use the other 3/4 to get back to Midway. :doh: Some kind'a super current that I'm unaware of in the Pacific?

(2) Hit'n CTRL N causes any fog, rain or other bad weather to vanish and if you are in visible range of an enemy DD this can really, really suck. :dead:

[Anvart]

At shooting by torpedos, time of a course of a torpedo up to the target is more than time which shows a stop watch ...

[Overkill]

At shooting by torpedos, time of a course of a torpedo up to the target is more than time which shows a stop watch ...


That's normal. The stopwatch time is just an educated guess on the time it would take for the torpedo to hit the target.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Hi guys!

I've installed 1.4 over 1.2, but is it possible to install 1.4 over 1.0, i.e. over original version?


Brgds,

D777
Yes, the patch is cumulative.

By the way, welcome to SUBSIM :up:


RDP

[Anvart]

At shooting by torpedos, time of a course of a torpedo up to the target is more than time which shows a stop watch ...


That's normal. The stopwatch time is just an educated guess on the time it would take for the torpedo to hit the target.
Difference twice it is normal?

[Capt. D]

Sorry if this has already been covered - though have not seen mention as I was reading the multi comments,

I loaded 1.4 over the other patches and am running "stock" version of SH4. Since the load I no longer have gauges in the conning tower - all blacked out. Also it seems that when I submerge - either with a crash dive C, normal D, or periscope depth P, the bow dive planes now rig IN rather then rig OUT???????

Also there still seems to be an issue with radar. I am in a Tambor class 1941 supposedly have SD radar and the radar screen for the SD in the tower does not operate?????

Just a note on graphics - Am currently off Honshu and the wind is a whistling and the sea is rough to say the least. The deck is continuously swamped but my crew is braving it all in Short Sleeves???????? :rotfl:

Also on a slightly different note. Why is it when one uses the "tools" in the map screen north / south / east / west are completly opposite of what is really the case. E.G. one centers the "compass" over your boat and north points down or to the south????? Even if you are on a course of 000 the compass when placed on your boat shows north at 180??????

Am I reading into this or am I doing something wrong? Thought the "compass" should point in the correct position regardless of what your course is.

To all
Have a Happy Holiday Season and Merry Christmas
and to all
Happy Hunting :ping:

[tomoose]

1. Did you load 1.4 over any mods? Any mods you had with 1.3 have to be disabled prior to patching. I think I saw a similar post somewhere in the sea of posts here, try a search using the word "gauges" or "gages". The dive plane graphics glitch has not been fixed from what I can tell. They'll work fine up to a point and then they go strange.

2. If memory serves, SD radar is air-search radar. There is no screen for air contacts despite the fact that the radar station is accessible it is only for surface-contact radar. This is not so much a bug as a large oversight by the devs. When you finally get SJ radar then you'll see what I mean.

3. The Pacific was warmer than the Atlantic so short sleeves were worn longer, LOL. I haven't really seen this yet, I know they'll switch to wet-weather gear once it starts raining. In SH3, you had to change the crews around before they'd put on their foul-weather gear.

4. The compass. That is an excellent point, you are correct. I've never understood why the compass rose help tool is 180 degrees out of whack. Perhaps one of the sub gurus can explain that one. I've wanted to use it to get a proper bearing etc but as it's upside down and can't be manipulated in any way, I find it next to useless. Now if the rose could be rotated in any way while using it, it would be even more handy but that's just wishful thinking on my part.
:hmm:

[Capt. D]

1. Did you load 1.4 over any mods? Any mods you had with 1.3 have to be disabled prior to patching. I think I saw a similar post somewhere in the sea of posts here, try a search using the word "gauges" or "gages". The dive plane graphics glitch has not been fixed from what I can tell. They'll work fine up to a point and then they go strange.

2. If memory serves, SD radar is air-search radar. There is no screen for air contacts despite the fact that the radar station is accessible it is only for surface-contact radar. This is not so much a bug as a large oversight by the devs. When you finally get SJ radar then you'll see what I mean.

3. The Pacific was warmer than the Atlantic so short sleeves were worn longer, LOL. I haven't really seen this yet, I know they'll switch to wet-weather gear once it starts raining. In SH3, you had to change the crews around before they'd put on their foul-weather gear.

4. The compass. That is an excellent point, you are correct. I've never understood why the compass rose help tool is 180 degrees out of whack. Perhaps one of the sub gurus can explain that one. I've wanted to use it to get a proper bearing etc but as it's upside down and can't be manipulated in any way, I find it next to useless. Now if the rose could be rotated in any way while using it, it would be even more handy but that's just wishful thinking on my part.
:hmm:

No mods have ever been used since I first installed SH4 and began to play the sim.. I then loaded 1.2 then 1.3 and finally 1.4 as they became available. So until 1.4 was loaded all graphics within the sub were visable.

As far as SD radar - it was my understanding that it too had a scope but never to the extent of the SJ especially when it (SJ) moved to a PIP type indicator. I remember from SH1 that both radars had scopes.

You are right on:up: when it comes to the rose compass having the ability to rotate. Then the navagation map and the combat map stations would really be true to what actually was available and would truly be usefull. Now they are just short of being another "picture" we see - though the combat map does show some usefull information.

Well guess I will wait and see what becomes of all the comments within this and other threads regarding some issues with 1.4. You would think that the devs would have played the sim for a time now and would have made note and corrected some of these most obivous concerns.:damn: If a 1.5 is ever in the picture we can then only hope.....

However thanks for the input tomoose and Happy Holidays to you and yours!

Happy Hunting to all :ping:

[tater]

Dunno why I never posted this before, but it's always been there.

I move some of my deck watch to damage control routinely before I go to GQ.

If you look at the top green bar that shows their total ability/skill/whatever, you'll notice it is low. irst I thought it was cause I moved some out. If you then move the men around within the deck watch, it rises. I mean vertically, but in the same columns. Move the compartment leader up one, then back where he was, and magically, they are more skilled.

[Powerthighs]

I loaded 1.4 over the other patches and am running "stock" version of SH4. Since the load I no longer have gauges in the conning tower - all blacked out.

This is a known bug in 1.4. There is a mod that fixes it.


Also there still seems to be an issue with radar. I am in a Tambor class 1941 supposedly have SD radar and the radar screen for the SD in the tower does not operate?????


Both radar screens (the A-Scope and PPI) are for the SJ radar. If it's not installed they won't work. The SD radar only manifests itself when a crew member tells you that there is a radar contact. There is no screen to look at.

Why is it when one uses the "tools" in the map screen north / south / east / west are completly opposite of what is really the case. E.G. one centers the "compass" over your boat and north points down or to the south????? Even if you are on a course of 000 the compass when placed on your boat shows north at 180??????

The compass is oriented like that so it can be used to measure absolute bearing when you draw lines from your sub. For example, turn on the compass, then select the ruler and draw a line from the center of your sub to an imaginary target NE of your sub. As you move the line to the northeast and place it over the imaginary target, you will see the line passes throught the 45 degree marking on the bottom left of the compass circle. This is telling you that the imaginary target is at absolute bearing 45 degrees.

[tomoose]

Powerthighs,
I get what you're saying but wouldn't the same thing be accomplished by drawing those same lines and laying the compass rose, right-side-up ('zero' to the top), centered over your sub? You would still get the true bearing where the line intersects the compass graduated markings (i.e. the line would pass through the top, right 45 degree marking).:hmm:

Either way this would only handy for manual navigation. I don't see a use for it other than that.

[stlkrash]

FIX THE BSOD's every 10 mins. That would be where I would start. From all the "fixes" to a Format. It's still junk. And it's a shame too, during those ten minutes it looks good. Had since day one and no good.....:down: :nope:

[Powerthighs]

Powerthighs,
I get what you're saying but wouldn't the same thing be accomplished by drawing those same lines and laying the compass rose, right-side-up ('zero' to the top), centered over your sub? You would still get the true bearing where the line intersects the compass graduated markings (i.e. the line would pass through the top, right 45 degree marking).:hmm:

Either way this would only handy for manual navigation. I don't see a use for it other than that.


Yes, you could draw the line first and then use the compass to see what the line's true bearing is, adjusting it if necessary. Where the inverted compass helps is when you are drawing a line at a specific true bearing from your sub, say 47 degrees. You place one end on your sub, then as you move the line outward you can place it exactly at 47 degrees before you click it down. Otherwise you would have to make a best guess with the line, pull out the compass, and adjust the line to cross 47 degrees.

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

I hate to whine and complain but this seemed to be the place to issue it. Ever noticed when sometimes a ship is on fire the smoke drifts opposite to the flag's wind direction?:hmm:

[tomoose]

LOL, yup you're not the first to mention it. It's just one of those quality control things (like the ship collision sound) that the devs let slip by and we are stuck with.
On the subject of quality control or "quality assurance" etc, I just finished Call of Duty 4 and was watching the credits scroll by while watching the cool background video and I noticed they (Electronic Arts) had over 60 people in their "Quality Assurance testers" section! Somehow I don't think SHIV used that many, if any LOL.;)

[LukeFF]

Old bug, still there:

SJ-1 radar dish seen from the front:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/LukeFF/SH4/SH4Img2007-12-20_004227_468.jpg

And then from the back:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/LukeFF/SH4/SH4Img2007-12-20_004246_093.jpg

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

Hey, Tomoose CoD4 is the best game of 2007 IMHO.:cool:

(Sorry, bit off topic).

[tomoose]

I thoroughly enjoyed COD4 particularly with the couple of twists thrown in (did you play the quick mission after the credits?).
To drag the subject back to SHIV though, that was my point in my previous post, COD4 is the relatively bug-free product it is on release due to things like 60+ people doing quality assurance testing as opposed to the silly bugs that slipped through on the SHIV release due to the lack of that type of QA!

Having said that it's evolved, albeit a tad painfully, into a great game despite some remaining cosmetic quirks.

[badaboom]

Hello,I just reinstalled on a different PC,Installed 1.1 out of box and it ran fine,I then installed 1.4 and get terrible freeze ups and corrupt graphics[black screen] when I'm in outside/periscope or bridge view,inside the sub everything is o.k.

and yes I did try the SEARCH function and had no luck,any ideas? Thanks

[tomoose]

If you patched to 1.4 and are trying to play games you saved in 1.1 it will crash. You have to start a fresh campaign from home port and forget (i.e. delete any previous save games).

[Dogzero1]

FIX THE BSOD's every 10 mins. That would be where I would start. From all the "fixes" to a Format. It's still junk. And it's a shame too, during those ten minutes it looks good. Had since day one and no good.....:down: :nope:

I and most others have never had a BSOD, so what needs fixing other than your PC?:smug:

I'm loving the sim, only a few small niggles for me, thats all.:arrgh!:

[capthelm]

noticed a minor bug when the interior lights flicker in the sub, the light shading on the crew gets all messed up..?

..next time i will grab a screen.

[capthelm]

also seen that the crew are transparent on deck?

if you look very carefully you can see they are see through..,again another minor bug.

[LukeFF]

also seen that the crew are transparent on deck?

if you look very carefully you can see they are see through..,again another minor bug.

Welcome to SH4 version 1.0. ;)

[capthelm]

lot of sound issues as well i dont hear the air tanks blowing or the hatch cover ?

when diving? also no damage sounds are played steam or water sounds?
bulbs breaking pipes, like sh3?

[LukeFF]

lot of sound issues as well i dont hear the air tanks blowing or the hatch cover ?

when diving? also no damage sounds are played steam or water sounds?
bulbs breaking pipes, like sh3?

Again, see my above post.

[SNAKE1937]

The whole mission is made very slow do to the mass of ships in the area that have nothing to do with the outcome. GET RID OF THEM so the mission is can run at normal speed instead of grinding to a studder herky jerky SLOW pain in the u-know -what.

[Red Devil]

Still in training mode on this. Is patch 1.4 incorporating 1.1,1.2,1.3 ??? I have yet to install any patches as game newly loaded.

[kv29]

yes red devil, the last patch is always cumulative.

[moose1am]

I agree with the statments below:
I purchased SH2 and Destroyer command based on the developers telling us that they could be played together over the internet. That never really happened. I swore that I would not buy anymore Ubisoft games after that.

I like to read about all the flaws in the computer games and thank my stars that I didn't buy anohter game that didn't work and was full of bugs.

No other industry can make products full of faults like the computer gaming industry.

The laws need to be changed to make computer programmers responsible Financially for their bugs and non working programs. If they want to make programs that cost money they should be reponsible for their products and if they don't work they should pay back any money they charged for said program

Change the laws to my way of thinking and you won't have as many buggy programs.

Doctors have to be responsible for their actions and do teachers and other professionals. They can't say that it's not their fault that the medical treatment they provided comes without any warranty implied.


I say it's high time to make the programming industry stand behind their programs.

We should not have to wait years for patches to fix programs that are not ready to go on sale.


I HAVE been using mods. My list posted originally is despite the work of modders.

I find it hard to believe people aren't complaining about the AI. To me, it is abysmal.

I remember seeing some threads about the state of the game, and the suggestion that the developers were "forced" to release the game when they knew it wasn't finished (although they signed the contract, so they agreed to the date in the first place, so they should have known what was possible....but that's another topic). I bring this up because the post I'm thinking of in particular suggested that the devs knew what they wanted to do but weren't able to do it. As far as I'm concerned, they should just finish it as planned. If that takes another 1, 2 or 5 patches I don't much care. I simply don't play it as it is - I find SHIII far superior in every respect that matters to me. Nor would I buy another SH game at shelf price, given SH2 and SH4 were pretty woeful as released (fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice, shame on me...and I've been fooled twice, so no way will I do so again).

[moose1am]

This is by design. The precision of locating a ship on the map was poor back in the WWII. The ruler in the Navigation Map is not meant for measuring ranges (with great precision).

Precision is the wrong word to use here. You should use the word "accuracy" in this phrase above.

Accuracy is what you are tying to infer.

Precision is when you can repeat the same thing over and over again the same way.

You can play darts and miss the target completely with ever dart and be precise if all the darts hit in the same area outside the target.

To be accurate you must hit the bullseye in the center of the target. To be accurate and inprecise you can hit the bulls eye with a few darts and miss the target with a few darts. Those darts that all hit the bullseye were accurate throws but your precision is off because all the darts landed in different areas of the wall. Some hit the bs and some missed the bs .

To be accurate and Precise all the darts must hit the bullseye.

You precision can be excellent and the accuracy is way off at the same time when all the darts land out side the target area but all in the same spot.

If your darts all miss the target but area scarttered all over the way then you are both inaccruate and Imprecise at the same time.

I hope this discussion of the meaning of accurate and precise helps people use these terms properly.

These are two different words and they have entirely differnet meanings.

Say you fire at a moving ship and miss by 1000 yards with one torpedo and 500 yard with the second torpedo and then miss again by `1500 yards with the last torpedo. Now you would say that you were not only inaccurate in your aiming but your precision was way off too.

Now if you fired three torpedoes at a ship and miss by 1500 ft in each case you could say you were inaccurate but very precise. You repeated the mistake the same way in each shot. But all three shots missed the target.

Now if you hit the target with three straight torpedoes you would be accurate and precise.

Now do you folks see the difference in the meaning of these two words?

I gave examples to make it more clear to you.

Most people just use the term precise to mean accurate but that's dead wrong. They don't have the same meaning. I can be precise and still inaccurate.

[Red Devil]

yes red devil, the last patch is always cumulative.Thanks, looking for 1.5 but cannot find it. A pm to gaffers never got answered :down:

[Vorkapitan]

HI All,

I didn't see these mentioned;

Subs do not ride in the water properly....too high! (Uboat and American)
especially in storms.

My radar keeps shutting off.

Men still on deck after diving underwater.

No lightning in campaigns.

Damage does not always show up graphically.

[Pikes]

bizarrely pathetic bug.... in version 1.4 on the American subs ...

If you set AoB to 0 and set position keeper it wobbles clicking away like its alive. i wanted to hit it like a real mechanical object! It usually goes quiet after a while but if you change solution it pipes up again. I think its rather cute actually! [Edit, now im doing it on purpose to keep me entertained whilst this destroyer buggers off and leaves me!]

But the thing that REALLY gets on my goat and think its by design so im calling it a major annoyance until someone corrects me...

To get a solution updated if you are manually entering really is awful. Firstly manually entering details is limited to a range of 1225. No idea why, just swinging it round only goes that far. Secondly, to get a manual solution to update bearing to target you have to update from the range page. Now i KNOW it says that it the mouse over but i have no idea why the update button needs to be seperate for bearing/range, speed and AoB, why cant it just be integrated so you dont have to switch to that page on the wee round circle in the top corner. And whilst we are at it, repeatedly pressing the position keeper could perform the same task... If anything ive found times when i wanted the bearing to be updated but not the range when im doing point blank firing because it resets the position keepers range when you press to update bearing.... :s (its taken me a week to work out the targetting!)

The other thing is that when you set to fire on bearing 000, AoB at 0, range 500 (or anyhting) and no speed the position keeper's little arrows showing the relative courses of the torps leaving your boat and arriving at target are not always correct. Sometimes it doesnt correctly switch between bow and stern tubes and gives point blank shots from your nose coming out of your arse! And you should see the tiz it gets in if you run over your target!

A feature request:hmm: .... I would dearly love to hear pings through my hydrophones as well as through the hull. Since i dont have surround sound i would like to know which of the sound contacts is pinging me.

Oh and on the subject of pings. Why are there such gross differences between asking for a distance from the sound man and asking him to send it to TDC? and it jams too. you can repeatedly hit update range and it sticks to one range. to clear it you have to get him to estimate it again. And he actively pings it. so he's cheating really :) Then states 1500 when you ask for an update it goes more accurate to something like 950....totally weird.


Heck maybe i just like uboats :)

[theflyingcloud]

Ok, so here's my strange encounter story. Was sneaking into a harbor on some small island, got caught by a destroyer. He Dc'd me and the rudder just plain fell off the boat (btw wouldn't you know I was pointed directly at mainland Japan at that moment although a few thousand miles away). Anyway I was unable to manuever and had to go back a few game days.
Any real multi-screw ship/boat would still be able to turn by using different engine settings on the oposing screws. Is this changeable?
I have some dialog bugs, "yes sir" instead of the proper US Naval "Aye aye Sir" when acknowledging an order, no confirmation for 'rudder amidships'.
Almost forgot, changing out all the fish in port is awfully cumbersome and time consuming (removing each one, then scrolling through the stock list to get the one I want).

[Anvart]

Greetings guys.
At each release of SH4 we are forced to correct the same mistakes ...
I have a question ...
What else mistakes to you are known in Gato interior SH 1.4 ... 1.5 (only mapping and geometry), except for those which are shown on pictures ... ???

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/2211/gatoint01gh4.jpg
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/5715/gatoint02py1.jpg
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4841/gatoint03zq2.jpg