[REL] RFB/Real Fleet Boat for 1.5

[DeepIron]

What is up with this mod, I just sank a freighter, had difficulty with locking onto him all through the attack, watched him sink and it didnt report him as being sunk so I didnt get credit for the ship :nope:

Is this patch to thi smod going to fix stuff like failure to lock onto a ship depending on the angle you are to them and resolve the no credit to there sinkings:hmm::hmm:

The "lock" issue is being discussed and a remedy is being researched... It may also have some effect on your not being credited with the tonnage but that is an unknown at the moment.

Yes, the RFB Team releases patches that address bugs and other issues in a timely manner.

Cheers!

[Wilcke]

What is up with this mod, I just sank a freighter, had difficulty with locking onto him all through the attack, watched him sink and it didnt report him as being sunk so I didnt get credit for the ship :nope:

Is this patch to thi smod going to fix stuff like failure to lock onto a ship depending on the angle you are to them and resolve the no credit to there sinkings:hmm::hmm:

Regardless of the "lock no lock issue", I have lost credit for a ship sunk with any of the RFB Beta's or the latest release.

One of the best ways to get around the "lock no lock issue" is to refine attack tactics to reflect "real world" WWII. This involved extensive tracking and plotting of the target or targets and setting up the boat for an optimal attack well ahead of the unsuspecting target.

This is not in anyway a criticism of those folks wishing to have a working "lock" 100% of the time. The folks that put together RFB are trying to get to as realistic a sim as is possible with the limitations and restrictions of the engine and code.

Remember the skippers limited there scope observation times to under 7 seconds from what I have read.

My 2 cents guys. What I have found with RFB is that if I go out and apply the real world tactics used by the skippers it can be a really rewarding and sometimes utterly scary sim. Soapbox and all I will take my leave.

Happy Hunting!

[vanjast]

If I wanted to modify the amount of time it takes to reload the deck gun, where would I do that??? :rotfl:... the 'shell supply chain' has come back to haunt RFB once again.. :arrgh!:
Yep, thats right, I mean I dont have all night to shell one sampan, the loading of that gun is crazy slow. Another thing I am trying to figure out is the fact that I can get onto the gun, load it, aim it at the hsip, fire and hit the target but when I turn the gun over to the crew they aim high and either miss the ship altogether or dont even fire on the ship??

Still would like to know though how to modify that one setting, other than that I think the mod is great. Maybe you want something like this...http://www.vanjast.com/NavalStuff/DeckGun.avi (8MB)
:know:

[vanjast]

Yes this happened to me, too. I shoot at a sampan, got a hit, and that was all. After five or six shots i got so angry :nope::nope: that i decided to pile this bas**rd....
btw i dont like the sampans at all :88)

Remember the Sampans are made of light materials. An AP shell will go right through it, making only a small hole (if it doesn't hit anything solid - I don't think this is modelled) resulting in little damage. So with fishing boats/sampans use HE shells or the AAA gun.
:up:

[DeepIron]

As well, from the historical perspective, sub skippers avoided most sampans for a few reasons:
1. US subs wanted to keep their location and presence in an area secret. Some sampans were used as pickets, and others could report the sub once they made port.
2. It's a waste of ammunition. As remarked, sampans are wooden vessels and can take a number of hits. So, blazing away with the deck gun is really a waste of ammunition...
3. Despite the intense hatred Americans had for the Japanese due to Pearl Harbor, most skippers didn't make it habit to destroy unarmed fishing vessels. Unrestricted warfare against the Japanese was directed at the more significant maritime and IJN vessels...

Cheers!

[vanjast]

1. US subs wanted to keep their location and presence in an area secret. Some sampans were used as pickets, and others could report the sub once they made port.

Silent Service is the name of the game - submerged at day time - prowling on the surface at night
:|\\

[DeepIron]

1. US subs wanted to keep their location and presence in an area secret. Some sampans were used as pickets, and others could report the sub once they made port.
Silent Service is the name of the game - submerged at day time - prowling on the surface at night
:|\\Precisely... though, if memory serves me, I seem to recall a patrol where the Barb stuck her periscope up and found herself in a "flotilla" of sampans one morning... ;)

[vanjast]

Precisely...
Thank you... :arrgh!:

[banjo]

As far as the lock/no lock problem goes, after three completed patrols I have found the following:

a. it doesn't happen much--only at night submerged I think--but not often.
b. I am used to it. It's not the problem I thought it was going to be. I just try to look at it as a wartime vagary.

So, my advice--keep on playing. It's not so bad.

Just my 2 cents...

[Sledgehammer427]

happened around 7:30 AM in one of my games...

but the lock mechanism was, what i always fgured, the skipper himself tracking the target with the periscope. not some auto lock mechanism fitted into a Fleet Sub

[Orion2012]

As far as the lock/no lock problem goes, after three completed patrols I have found the following:

a. it doesn't happen much--only at night submerged I think--but not often.
b. I am used to it. It's not the problem I thought it was going to be. I just try to look at it as a wartime vagary.

So, my advice--keep on playing. It's not so bad.

Just my 2 cents...

Same way I felt, after you run a couple patrols and sink something with it not working it dosen't seem so bad.

[Quagmire]

Loving the mod guys. Its what SHIV should have been in the first place.

One little FYI... The Tench boat doesnt have a 360 deg range ring around it on the NAV map. No biggie, just thought you would want to know.

Also, speaking of the Tench, any thoughts on how to dive deeper than 450 ft?

And while I'm at it... LOL. What do you think about that depth charge splash mod? Feel like putting it into RFB? It really is nice to have since the sonar man does not report depth charge drops like he did in SHIII..

THANKS!
.

[Arclight]

To people who don't get credit for a kill; The kill only gets listed in your log if you see it sink (or rather, the AI sees it sink), which may be problematic with the locking issue and a target not being visible on the map. However, when you end the mission and have a look at the log in the office, I think you'll find all your kills listed, even the ones not listed initially.

There's a bit about "uncertainty" in the manual, IMHO this (perhaps unintended) feature fits in with that nicely. You may not get credit during the patrol, but afterwards you'll get confirmation. I think this is how it was for real as well.:hmm:

[vanjast]

Maybe it works the same as SH3 - You have to be within visual range (this changes with weather conditions), whether under water or on the surface to get credited with the kill.
:arrgh!:

[AVGWarhawk]

To people who don't get credit for a kill; The kill only gets listed in your log if you see it sink (or rather, the AI sees it sink), which may be problematic with the locking issue and a target not being visible on the map. However, when you end the mission and have a look at the log in the office, I think you'll find all your kills listed, even the ones not listed initially.

There's a bit about "uncertainty" in the manual, IMHO this (perhaps unintended) feature fits in with that nicely. You may not get credit during the patrol, but afterwards you'll get confirmation. I think this is how it was for real as well.:hmm:

Excellent point Arclight! I like the idea of the unintended feature you formulated.

[Sledgehammer427]

yup. i found that to be true, did you know mush morton sank a destroyer,got credit for it, then, the japs raised it, and they took the credit back....poor mush

just got back from destroying a regular merchant, small split merchant, i think.
never got to evaluate the ship sinking mod implemented into the new game.

holy crap...that is genius. i loved the uncertainity provided by it. i put two torps in it, even though it looked like one did it, after about 12 rounds of deckgun. even though a couple torpedos failed to explode, (four shots, 1 dud, one hit and blew up, two misses, d*** good japanese watchmen) loved it, i almost can't wait to get home to play it again.

[IronPerch]

First of all:

Thank you RFB team!

I have had 1.52 installed since the release, but so far i have had only time to play some "tests" with it. Anyway, according those tests i like the new damage models very much and they are just the "thing" that your mod was "missing". Also having an "embedded" graphical mod simplifies installation and everything seems to work fine (at least in my case). + The manual is great and usefull.

So tonight i'll have a glass of whisky, start a new carreer and enjoy your work. Thank you for that.

[LukeFF]

Yep, thats right, I mean I dont have all night to shell one sampan, the loading of that gun is crazy slow.

There are a trillion posts here about how and why this is set up the way it is. Long story short, it's set up like is because of limitations in the game's coding.

[Wilcke]

Yep, thats right, I mean I dont have all night to shell one sampan, the loading of that gun is crazy slow.

There are a trillion posts here about how and why this is set up the way it is. Long story short, it's set up like is because of limitations in the game's coding.

Plus the sampans sink after 2-3 proper hits with the deck gun, RFB 1.52. Non issue.

[Arclight]

Excellent point Arclight! I like the idea of the unintended feature you formulated.:smug: :lol:

Did crew interaction change or something? For a close up view of, say, the sonar gear, I have to click the equipment instead of the guy. If I click the guy, he just turns to face me (which IMO is good, "popping" into his view breaks the illusion of you as captain).

New immersion feature, or avoiding camera bugs? Whichever, I like it. :up:

[AVGWarhawk]

Click the station gets you into that crewmans position. :up:

[sckallst]

Just another quick thank you to the entire crew for all the work on this mod.

Have to say that i really like the new ship damage model. Put 3 (and two duds) into a 6500 ton European merchant flying a Japanese flag and finally took her down after a fairly long wait (made longer by the first 2 coup de grace duds).

Question: Does the engine or the mod take into account 'system damage' (i.e, proplusion, weapons) for targets? I guess it's at least implied by allowing the deck gun to aim at, for example, weapons, but just wondering if that was more for show than effect.

Another thing I'm really liking is what seems to be a more noticeable interaction between the PE mod and the sighting changes. Getting a much more immersive feel crusing teh surface as teh morning mist/fog burns off, among other times.

Really enjoying SH4 again after waiting out this release.

[LukeFF]

Question: Does the engine or the mod take into account 'system damage' (i.e, proplusion, weapons) for targets? I guess it's at least implied by allowing the deck gun to aim at, for example, weapons, but just wondering if that was more for show than effect.

Glad you're liking it!

Currently we model systems damage only for the propulsion system (e.g., completely flooding an engine compartment or destroying a propeller or propeller shaft). We do, however, plan on updating the damage model so exposed weapons can be destroyed by gunfire.

[Webster]

what if i liked the older version of RFB and felt it was more to my liking than this latest 1.52 version?

is there still a way to download the older version of RFB and where can i find a link for it?

[msalama]

Installed RFB 1.52 yesterday. On my 1st patrol now and so far no enemy sightings, but the overall package seems really impressive and the manual is a welcome addition.

There's however not enough room for everyone in the Hogan's Alley, because there're only 11 slots there altogether. Is it just me, or is there something wrong?

[ncorpuz34]

Installed RFB 1.52 yesterday. On my 1st patrol now and so far no enemy sightings, but the overall package seems really impressive and the manual is a welcome addition.

There's however not enough room for everyone in the Hogan's Alley, because there're only 11 slots there altogether. Is it just me, or is there something wrong?

Taken from the manual: "Thus, to avoid exposing the bridge watch to injuries caused by depth charge explosions, you need to move your enlisted bridge crewmen to Hogan's Alley and the officers to the conning tower."

[LukeFF]

is there still a way to download the older version of RFB and where can i find a link for it?

Nope

[msalama]

"...and the officers to the conning tower."

Yes, I've read the manual and this is exactly what I'm doing, but I'm still stuck with 12 crewmen and only 11 slots in the Hogan's Alley... :hmm:

[Fish40]

I was able to put all my guys in there:yep: The three officers go into the conning tower, and there should be enough spaces in Hogan's for the rest. I'm in a Balao right now, and there are twelve spaces in Hogan's for the crew. I don't know if each sub has a different number of spaces though:hmm:

[msalama]

I just started a new career in a Tambor and I'm sure there're only 11 bunks in Hogan's. But hey... I can always leave Bernard out, now can't I :hmm:

[Sledgehammer427]

well, unfortunately, a run-in with a japanese merchie armed with 20mm guns made bernard's day/life end, so from now on, any gato/gato subclasses i use i leave a spot out in damage control to accomodate that last crewman.

[chris455]

Do ALL the watchmen need to go into Hogan's alley, or just the ACTIVE watch?

[msalama]

The manual says all IIRC.

[Wilcke]

I just started a new career in a Tambor and I'm sure there're only 11 bunks in Hogan's. But hey... I can always leave Bernard out, now can't I :hmm:

Could be a screen render resolution issue and your missing spot #12? Fish40 what rez do you run at, sir?

Happy Hunting!

[Fish40]

I just started a new career in a Tambor and I'm sure there're only 11 bunks in Hogan's. But hey... I can always leave Bernard out, now can't I :hmm:
Could be a screen render resolution issue and your missing spot #12? Fish40 what rez do you run at, sir?

Happy Hunting!


I'm playing at 1280x960. I double checked again as far as the spaces go. The three watch officers went into the available three spaces in the conning tower, and the twelve enlisted guys(four on each of the three shifts for the bridge), all fit in Hogan's alley.

[Fish40]

To Luke, and the rest of the RFB Team: Just wanted to say thanks for a job well done:up: RFB hooked up with RSRD, and OM takes SH4 above and beyond. I had the pleasure of observing the new damage mechanics in action, as I reeked havoc on a Japanese convoy at anchor outside the harbour on Saipan.

And now if I may, a small request: Is there any chance/way to be able to impliment the WO to identify a target? I don't think it was out of the ordinary to have these guys aid in the ID'ing of targets on both Fleet Boats, and U Boats. Just my 2cents worth. Once again, thanks for your hard work:yep:

[msalama]

Yah Wilcke & Fish40, that would explain it b/c I'm running at 1024x768 - the only possibility w/ this c**ppy machine of mine. But what if I resized the bitmap; I'd need to reconfigure the "hotspots" or slot locations as well, no?

[Wilcke]

Yah Wilcke & Fish40, that would explain it b/c I'm running at 1024x768 - the only possibility w/ this c**ppy machine of mine. But what if I resized the bitmap; I'd need to reconfigure the "hotspots" or slot locations as well, no?

Yeah, thats going to be a tough job. What size monitor or lcd do you run on? I still have a 21" CRT and run just about all my apps at 1280 by 960.

[Quagmire]

Loving the mod. However the damage model needs a little tweaking. Have you guys noticed that ships seem to plow ahead at full steam a long time after huge holes have been blown in their sides? The only way I have been able to stop a ship is to be lucky enough to blow off a prop. Check this screenshot.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8114/damage1ui7.jpg

As you can see I scored a great spread of hits on this liner. I even got two hits under both funnels. The engine room was clearly destroyed. Here is another angle.

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/8160/damage2pm8.jpg

However it maintained its 10 kt speed for over an hour before it sank. Here it is with its after deck completely awash and it still was managing 10 kts.

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/1056/damage3zw6.jpg

Are the engine rooms damaged only if they flood? And is the engine destroyed only if the engine room is completely flooded? In the example here the boilers would have gone offline shortly after the first hits due to damage/flooding.

Also, as a side note. I think the HOG ISLAND freighter has its draft set to low. In heavy seas it takes damage from waves crashing over its decks and catches fire. :doh:

BY THE WAY, PE4 is beautiful, isnt it? :rock:
.

[Frederf]

Any reason I cannot hear contacts manually inside the max audio range in RFB1.5 while the AI sonar operator can track then just fine?

[ncorpuz34]

Loving the mod. However the damage model needs a little tweaking. Have you guys noticed that ships seem to plow ahead at full steam a long time after huge holes have been blown in their sides? The only way I have been able to stop a ship is to be lucky enough to blow off a prop. Check this screenshot.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8114/damage1ui7.jpg

As you can see I scored a great spread of hits on this liner. I even got two hits under both funnels. The engine room was clearly destroyed. Here is another angle.

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/8160/damage2pm8.jpg

However it maintained its 10 kt speed for over an hour before it sank. Here it is with its after deck completely awash and it still was managing 10 kts.

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/1056/damage3zw6.jpg

Are the engine rooms damaged only if they flood? And is the engine destroyed only if the engine room is completely flooded? In the example here the boilers would have gone offline shortly after the first hits due to damage/flooding.

Also, as a side note. I think the HOG ISLAND freighter has its draft set to low. In heavy seas it takes damage from waves crashing over its decks and catches fire. :doh:

BY THE WAY, PE4 is beautiful, isnt it? :rock:
.

I've encountered the same problem multiple times throughout my campaign. I would put 4 perfectly placed shots all along the length of the ship and it happily steams along at full speed while I start up the engines and start having to CHASE the ship down. While I'm directly behind the ship, I take potshots at the now zigzagging ship in hopes to score a propeller hit. 3 more torps later, I finally do, and I cut engines and finally wait peacefully for an hour as she sinks and I get my confirmed kill.

...Im temporarily using WEBSTER's increased torpedo power V1 to offset this problem. Sink times are now just right for my taste. Hopefully the devs will get tweaked abit.
Im assuming the engine room will only count as destroyed if the compartment becomes 100% flooded. Which can take about an hr by then the ship has already sailed about 10 miles away!

[Arclight]

Yeah, you really have to work for your kills now. :lol:

Maybe you can argue you just destroyed the port/starboard engine room, and the intact one is still powering the ship. What's the top speed on that liner? 18, 20 knots? Bet it wasn't moving away from you at that speed, so you could say there clearly was damage to the propulsion.

On the other hand, I've seen a ship go down with the stern high in the air, "she's going down" message received and the screws still spinning away (in the air). :-?


Also, I've seen secondary explosions from boilers exploding if I accidentally put 2 torps in the same engine room, so I think you can directly damage the propulsion with torpedo damage, not just by flooding. IIRC Luke confirmed this a couple of posts back. :hmm:

[LukeFF]

And now if I may, a small request: Is there any chance/way to be able to impliment the WO to identify a target? I don't think it was out of the ordinary to have these guys aid in the ID'ing of targets on both Fleet Boats, and U Boats. Just my 2cents worth. Once again, thanks for your hard work:yep:

We decided against this, as we felt it gave the player too much information about what type of ship they were targeting. The Japanese merchant fleet was very diverse, and getting an exact ID on a particular merchant ship was a very difficult task.

[LukeFF]

Loving the mod. However the damage model needs a little tweaking. Have you guys noticed that ships seem to plow ahead at full steam a long time after huge holes have been blown in their sides? The only way I have been able to stop a ship is to be lucky enough to blow off a prop.
A fix for this long-standing issue (it dates back to SH3) is in the works as we speak.

Are the engine rooms damaged only if they flood? And is the engine destroyed only if the engine room is completely flooded? In the example here the boilers would have gone offline shortly after the first hits due to damage/flooding.
Engines are destroyed only when the compartment is deemed destroyed by the game, which happens when the compartment is fully flooded.

Also, as a side note. I think the HOG ISLAND freighter has its draft set to low. In heavy seas it takes damage from waves crashing over its decks and catches fire.
Can you take some pics of this?

[LukeFF]

...Im temporarily using WEBSTER's increased torpedo power V1 to offset this problem. Sink times are now just right for my taste. Hopefully the devs will get tweaked abit.

Not likely. As Observer, the mastermind behind the damage mod, puts it:

Regarding the ship sinking physics...

Don't expect any major changes. Please keep in mind that the version you have today is the result of nearly a year of planning, testing and effort. Thousands of torpedoes and hundreds of man-hours have been invested in the merchant ships. That's 37 of the 165 ships included in RFB. I may increase the compartment critical chance by a few percent, but I wouldn't expect very many changes to the fundamentals of the mod. (Recall from the manual that critical chance is used to simulate the rare (emphasis on the word rare) chance that other factors could cause any ship to sink with a single torpedo.)

Second point. Simply increasing the torpedo "damage" (in reality the torpedo min and max HP damage) is not the way to make ships sink easier. The ship compartments are designed such that a torpedo, any torpedo, will cause enough damage to flood the compartment. Always. If you hit the ship, you will damage something, and you will cause flooding. Always. The issue at hand is how many compartments will be damaged, and how quickly they will flood. Increasing the torpedo damage will have two effects: (1) it will make the affected compartments flood faster, and (2) it will make it more likely to damage adjacent compartments from poorly aimed, or "unlucky" (e.g. low HP) torpedoes. These factors are present intentionally because they add uncertainty and variability to the way ships sink. Simply stated, this means the player must actually "sink" the ship, which is accomplished by flooding compartments on the ship. The bigger the ship the more compartments must be flooded. And it is possible to damage multiple compartments at the same time, though it takes a good solution to do it since the shots must be "aimed".

On the propulsion issue, TB has given me some ideas, and I have a few ideas of my own.

Basically, the issue is very simple. I have modeled the "engine room" on the merchants as two compartments: an auxiliary machinery space and the boiler room. When the player damages the ship in the engine room, they are really only damaging the aux machinery space. This is where all of the, mostly mechanical, equipment is located (e.g. the reduction gear, turbines, steering gear, electrical switchgear, etc.). The boiler is located in another compartment. This compartment is exactly 3 meters inside the hull on every ship. Because of the way torpedo damage is applied to the zones, it is possible for the torpedo to impact the right area, but due to distance not cause enough damage to the boiler compartment to cause it to start flooding. Ships in SH4 will not stop moving unless: (1) all propellers are destroyed, or (2) all engine room zones (e.g. the boiler) are fully flooded. Keep in mind that there must be an associated engine room for each propeller. What is likely happening is with ships that continue to move despite apparent crippling damage to the engine compartment is that the torpedo did not cause enough damage to the engine room to start flooding. There are several possible fixes for this including:
-reduce the engine room critic flotation so that flooding will start with less damage
-change the size of the engine room zone, specifically to make it wider and/or longer therefore increasing the probability that a hit will cause enough damage to start flooding.
-remove the aux machinery room and replace it with an associated engine room.

The easiest change is probably to simply lower the critic float for the ER zones. Removing the aux machinery room is the least desirable because it would cause a complete rework of everything done to date.

This is the detailed answer as I see it. Do keep in mind that sending another torpedo into the same area will likely cause enough damage to start the ER flooding since all damage is cumulative. It won't cause the ship to "sink" more, though it will increase the sinking speed, but it should stop the ship from moving.

I will evaluate the feedback and implement a change for the propulsion issue in a future RFB patch.

http://forum.kickinbak.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&p=10316#p10316

[Sardaukar67]

I like the mod, but it was bit annoying to have Large Old Split freighter (or what the name was, c.8000 t) to speed away after 4 torpedo hits. It finally sunk after 3 more torpedo hits and 40 rounds from 3" gun (most I managed to place waterline)...something like 4 hours later.

I know that's a big ship...but 7 torpedos and 40 rounds from 3" gun feels for me bit excessive. That was my first patrol in Dec 41...so considering all duds and misses, I spent whole torpedo load of USS Gar to one ship.

I would have happily left it to sink on it's own, but after 4 hits along the side, it did speed up from 10 knots to 12 knots !

Anyway...I guess that is one way to prevent me getting renown...:p

Other thing, I do not use manual targetting and I lost the lock repeatedly, even during the day, under 1000 yrds from ship. Deck gun does not fire automatically (which would have been nice since I was manouvering after speeding ship...) if lock is lost... I can use deck gun manually, but it's annoying to jump between bridge and deck gun to be sure that course adjustments are correct. Especially when deck gun does not stay in it's alignment, but resets back pointing aft every time you leave the station...:damn:

[Kruger]

The very best example that this damage model is not necessarily realistic, is the fact that you always have to hit 5-6 different compartments for a large freighter in order to sink it. Check some historical data and see if this is the real number of torpedo hits.

Secondly, in this new damage model if you hit again in the same spot, you gain nothing. Again, not like in reality, where if you hit the same spot, it's most likely that you will cause fatal structural damage.

So, a combination of flooding and HP better mixed would have been more realistic than expending half your torpedoes on a merchant.


I have also played with webster;s improved torpedo mod over RFB, and these are my findings.

All military vessels take major damage, so they will be very close to stock in sinking. I played the shooting gallery mission and experimented with all the japanese ships. Basically, it takes 1 hit in the machinery room, or 2-3 hits dospersed, in order to sink a japanese light cruiser. \

A DD is blown to pieces, and sinks in about 1 minute if you hit it in the machinery room



But, on the other hand, regarding the merchant fleet, the more powerful torpedoes do not seem to have major effect. Maybe this is due to the extensove compartimentation of these ships.

[Lopo]

Hi all,
Just looking for an explanation because I love too much this mod...:up:
In advance, sorry for my english.

Feb. 1943, USS Balao, Northeast of Iwo Jima (playing RFB 1.52 + RSRD... the right version of course):

Find an enemy task force, track them for two hours, approach to attack at periscope depth... identify one CVE and two DD, concentrate my torpedoes on CVE, fire six, dive and clear off, two missed and four supposed hits (I hear the four explosions). Elude the revenge and see on the large map the symbol of ship sunk but nothing in my log. Surface, return to the battle place and can see some pieces of wreckage floating but still nothing in my log. I'm certain I have sunk the CVE!
So, someone here have written that it was not a problem because when he was back to his base, he had credit for the ships sunk even if they were not in his log.
But when I return to base... nothing! Why?
In reality, subs commanders got credit for supposed ships sunk when there were enough pieces of evidence. So, why not me?

Thanks in advance

[gumidekcz]

Please, need advice.
I have instaled SH4 with 1.4 patch and than thru jsgme RFB 1.52
But it dont work, I think I need 1.5 patch intaled before RFB 1.52.
Where I can found it? or what is the sequence of instalation?

[kylesplanet]

Please, need advice.
I have instaled SH4 with 1.4 patch and than thru jsgme RFB 1.52
But it dont work, I think I need 1.5 patch intaled before RFB 1.52.
Where I can found it? or what is the sequence of instalation?

You must have 1.5 to run RFB. It is the U Boat missions add-on. It cost ten bucks and you can get the download version through direct2drive.

[LukeFF]

The very best example that this damage model is not necessarily realistic, is the fact that you always have to hit 5-6 different compartments for a large freighter in order to sink it. Check some historical data and see if this is the real number of torpedo hits.

Secondly, in this new damage model if you hit again in the same spot, you gain nothing. Again, not like in reality, where if you hit the same spot, it's most likely that you will cause fatal structural damage.

As you state later on in the thread, it's because of the ship's large compartmentalization. You cannot expect to sink a large freighter like the Large Old Freighter by flooding just one or two compartments.

Check the manual again in regards to damage incurred with two torpedoes hit in the same spot.

All military vessels take major damage, so they will be very close to stock in sinking. I played the shooting gallery mission and experimented with all the japanese ships. Basically, it takes 1 hit in the machinery room, or 2-3 hits dospersed, in order to sink a japanese light cruiser.

A DD is blown to pieces, and sinks in about 1 minute if you hit it in the machinery room.

Again, read the manual. We have not touched the warships yet.

But, on the other hand, regarding the merchant fleet, the more powerful torpedoes do not seem to have major effect. Maybe this is due to the extensove compartimentation of these ships.

The more powerful torpedoes have a perfectly normal effect. You, like others here, are likely not spreading out your shots correctly. And yes, the compartmentalization of the ships does play a part.

[LukeFF]

Please, need advice.
I have instaled SH4 with 1.4 patch and than thru jsgme RFB 1.52
But it dont work, I think I need 1.5 patch intaled before RFB 1.52.
Where I can found it? or what is the sequence of instalation?

Read the first post in this thread again.

[LukeFF]

I like the mod, but it was bit annoying to have Large Old Split freighter (or what the name was, c.8000 t) to speed away after 4 torpedo hits. It finally sunk after 3 more torpedo hits and 40 rounds from 3" gun (most I managed to place waterline)...something like 4 hours later.

I know that's a big ship...but 7 torpedos and 40 rounds from 3" gun feels for me bit excessive. That was my first patrol in Dec 41...so considering all duds and misses, I spent whole torpedo load of USS Gar to one ship.

I can sink this ship with 3 torpedoes properly targeted, every time (just did it on my last patrol, in fact). Set up a test mission with the ship sitting stationary. Go to external view and see where the compartments are located. Now, using auto-targeting, place 3 torpedoes in the three locations that will cause the most damage (hint: they're the masts and the funnel area). This is the methodology we used to make sure all was working right with this mod.

And again, like Observer writes above, we put a LOT of effort into getting this right. Upping the power of the torpedoes in order to try to get the ships to sink faster is nothing but a crutch. If we felt the torpedoes needed an adjustment in power we would have done this, but it flat out isn't necessary. THINK about where you want to place your torpedoes before pressing the firing button. Yes, we concur there is an issue with ships continuing to steam on after taking damage to the engine spaces, but as I wrote above, we are looking into adjusting this. However, in the meanwhile, you shouldn't have any problems sinking the majority of the merchant ships with some prudent targeting.

[Rockin Robbins]

You know, Luke, these guys are almost as frustrated as real submariners! Real Fleet Boat is genius!:up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up :

[Monica Lewinsky]

Real Fleet Boat is genius!

I love IT- Great job, guys. Keep up the great work, it has given me TONS of hours of the real thing in a short period of time.

Can not seem to come with the right words of thanking you.

Just want to say THANKS to your team and have not one word of "you should of done this" - BS.


I am LOVING it.

Kisses. Kiss-Kiss-kiss.

I know you guys worked hard on this and just wanted to say:
Playing your MOD ... well, how can we thank you?

It's GREAT !!! and I am putting some [not all] on the BOTTOM of the ocean.

Thanks to the RFB Team.

[cgjimeneza]

You know, Luke, these guys are almost as frustrated as real submariners! Real Fleet Boat is genius!:up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up :

I concur Rockin Robbins... its extremely frustrating yet fun in the same time.... call me a masochist maybe????

:damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:

and Lurker has used the same damage model in V500 of Op Monsun.... so once more
:damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:

aint submarining great?

[Te Kaha]

Regarding the gun and the damage model of RFB 1.52 and the discussions about it, let me tell you something about RFB 1.51, which I am still using (I want to complete my war career before switching to RFB 1.52).

Here, 99% of the time, it is 1 torpedo per merchant. The ships always slow down after a torpedo hit. It takes about 8 to 10 hits with the deck gun to sink a junk. I sink betwenn 10 to 15 enemy ships per patrol.

I am not advertising RFB 1.51, but it is clear it behaves differently.

So why don't the folks who dislike the new damage model/deck gun/whatever simply switch back to RFB 1.51? When the direction RFB is going, towards more realism and less shot-em-up-gallery-style, doesn't suit one, switch to another mod or another version, it's as simple as that.

I myself am looking forward using RFB 1.52, sure it maybe needs some tweaking, but hey what doesn't.

[LukeFF]

Glad you like it, ML!

To everyone:

We have a patch now in testing that addresses some issues with the mod, namely submarine damage and merchant ship damage. Now, when an engine compartment is completely flooded it will result in the loss of propulsion for that particular engine.

[LukeFF]

We have added a new download location for RFB, thanks to the great guys at Beyond the Shadows. :up: See the first post for the new links.

[ancient46]

But I am getting better at placing my shots as Luke has advised us. If I could shoot better maybe I would sink more. So I guess the RFB team has forced me to practice getting my targeting right for each ship, teaching the old dog some new tricks. I installed this Mod because I wanted an even better experience, so whatever I need to do I will just have to learn how to do it. Someday I WILL beat Observer's "diabolical":D Ship Damage Model and send those ships hurtling to the bottom. Thanks to Luke for his hints, I managed to quickly sink a Large Old Split Freighter with torpedoes under each mast and one under the funnel.

I wonder if the manual should have had a generic example of Observer's ship models as a starting point for people like me who are not up to speed on compartment layouts.

As far as the engine room discussion goes. I served on a Fletcher class Destroyer and was aboard a lot of other ships during my time at sea. You could damage the boiler room and knock out a boiler but I can not see how a single hit could damage all the boilers at once. The propulsion equipment is placed near the top of the engine room which would also be hard to kill both engine systems on one shot or even multiple shots. Once the crew deals with the fires, the ship slowed by flooding should begin to speed up and escape. Will this ship sink with the hits you alread gave her or will she recover and get away? Watch it sink or fire a few more fish to be sure? Maybe this is what the team meant by uncertainty.

[LukeFF]

I wonder if the manual should have had a generic example of Observer's ship models as a starting point for people like me who are not up to speed on compartment layouts.

There's one in there, showing the German tanker.

As far as the engine room discussion goes. I served on a Fletcher class Destroyer and was aboard a lot of other ships during my time at sea. You could damage the boiler room and knock out a boiler but I can not see how a single hit could damage all the boilers at once. The propulsion equipment is placed near the top of the engine room which would also be hard to kill both engine systems on one shot or even multiple shots. Once the crew deals with the fires, the ship slowed by flooding should begin to speed up and escape. Will this ship sink with the hits you alread gave her or will she recover and get away? Watch it sink or fire a few more fish to be sure? Maybe this is what the team meant by uncertainty.

Nice observations there. I like to think of the flooding/damage system in similar terms. A hit to an engine space or cargo hold that doesn't completely flood could in reality be due to a number of factors, such as good damage control, the ship's layout, etc. I'm not a Navy veteran (Army, sorry :D), but I imagine most modern ships have redundancy/backup systems in place in case one fails or is destroyed. With a little bit of reasonable imagination, then, it's not hard to understand why that one torpedo hit didn't put the ship under. :yep:

[Sardaukar67]

Glad you like it, ML!

To everyone:

We have a patch now in testing that addresses some issues with the mod, namely submarine damage and merchant ship damage. Now, when an engine compartment is completely flooded it will result in the loss of propulsion for that particular engine.

Very good news !! :up:

Is there anything to be done with losing target lock problem ? Or should I just have to learn to live with it ? :doh: Ships taking lot more effort to sink are ok, especially if it's addressed a bit. :rock:

[The General]

As you probably know, I've uninstalled RFB for the time being. I am currently playing 1.5 with PE4 and somebody's Aircraft config overhaul. The problem with the aircraft is a hardcoded one I believe, but you can tweak the config file to minimise the encounters. Does RFB have a air.cfg of it's own built in?

If a patch is in the works and it fixes the problem with the 'Lock', then I'd like to take another look at RFB. Sinking anything is hard enough without that thankyouverymuch! :o

[ancient46]

I finished watching the History Channel's show on the real cause of the Maine's sinking and that got me thinking about WW2 ship's coal bunkers. It got me wondering if the coal fire that ignited a magazine on the Maine could happen on a WW2 ship. there would already be a fire and the addition of a torpedo explosion would set the reaction off. It would be a real treat if this were a plausible scenario and the game engine would allow this to be modeled on a rare occasion. After all, an explosion that blasts a huge hole in the ship causing it to sink quickly would be satisfying.

[Arclight]

There's already a chance for a "critical" hit. I don't know the actual numbers, but say 5% of engine room hits cause a boiler explosion causing massive damage. I think this percentage represents cases like you described.

[sckallst]

Anyone seen a ship (i.e target) settle down perfectly flat and level until she had about a foot of freeboard, then seemingly efuse to go further?

I had another run in with an old European last night. Down to four fish at roughly 2200h, I popped off two at her. First one dudded. Was fortunate to knock out the stern with the second and render her immobile. Surfaced and fired off the last two, one under the funnel, second under the forward mast. Both exploded on impact. Expended what was left of the deck ammo on both sides of the ship at the waterline. She took a long time to start going down. After several hours she was literally looking like a superstructure built on a floating table.

Day started breaking and I figured I'd bug out for home. Never got credit for sinking her on getting back to port. Guess I should have stuck around to see her actually go down (if in fact she did). Maybe I should have rammed her. LOL

Anyway, not meant to criticize the damage model at all. She was a good size target. I 'cheated' and took a look in side with the external camera and she flooded out evenly along her entire length and all compartments. Maybe I was just unlucky, or maybe I should have just waited around a bit longer.

[LukeFF]

Is there anything to be done with losing target lock problem ? Or should I just have to learn to live with it ? :doh: Ships taking lot more effort to sink are ok, especially if it's addressed a bit. :rock:

We're still looking into the matter.

[ancient46]

Well I finally went and did it, a small freighter with one shot. It must have been a critical shot since it blew a massive hole in the engine room and the next compartment, with an impressive ball of fire. Time from firing to ship sinking message was 24 minutes. This picture was taken just after the "ship sunk" message appeared. This shows the team really nailed their design goals, great work RFB team. :up:

http://home.comcast.net/%7Eancient25/Pictures/Sinking.jpg

[DaveP63]

Anyone seen a ship (i.e target) settle down perfectly flat and level until she had about a foot of freeboard, then seemingly efuse to go further?

I had another run in with an old European last night. Down to four fish at roughly 2200h, I popped off two at her. First one dudded. Was fortunate to knock out the stern with the second and render her immobile. Surfaced and fired off the last two, one under the funnel, second under the forward mast. Both exploded on impact. Expended what was left of the deck ammo on both sides of the ship at the waterline. She took a long time to start going down. After several hours she was literally looking like a superstructure built on a floating table.

Day started breaking and I figured I'd bug out for home. Never got credit for sinking her on getting back to port. Guess I should have stuck around to see her actually go down (if in fact she did). Maybe I should have rammed her. LOL

Anyway, not meant to criticize the damage model at all. She was a good size target. I 'cheated' and took a look in side with the external camera and she flooded out evenly along her entire length and all compartments. Maybe I was just unlucky, or maybe I should have just waited around a bit longer.

Yep, sure have. A Hog Island. After one under the stack and one under the rear boom. It was still under way (maybe drifting?) with the aft end completely under and the front deck awash. A third torpedo and about half of my deck gun supply finally put it under after about 45 minutes.

[R1830]

Maybe not common but possible. In 1942 a Japanese submarine torpedoed the SS. Ft Camosun of the coast of Vancouver island. My grandfather was on a corvette that responded. His account, and photos show a large freighter with about a foot of freeboard. The crew had abandoned ship when the submarine surfaced and started shelling the ship. Anyway, long story short the ship was boarded by my grandfathers ship, some deck cargo removed, and it was towed to port and repaired. I'm sure the Japanese submarine captain also thought he had a confirmed sinking.

[Arclight]

Well I finally went and did it, a small freighter with one shot. It must have been a critical shot since it blew a massive hole in the engine room and the next compartment, with an impressive ball of fire. Time from firing to ship sinking message was 24 minutes. This picture was taken just after the "ship sunk" message appeared. This shows the team really nailed their design goals, great work RFB team. :up:Agreed, the smaller ships really take it hard. :lol:
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj2/EZatHome/SH4Img2008-11-04_011301_765-1.jpg


If RFB goes on to include warships in the new damage-model, please start with the big ones. DDs snap like a twig, but I can't seem to sink a Yamato-class. :D :lol:

[vanjast]

...but I can't seem to sink a Yamato-class. :D :lol:
This ship had a thick armour belt below the waterline for most of the length of the ship

from wiki...
Both vessels of the Yamato class were designed to be capable of engaging multiple enemy battleships,[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_class_battleship#cite_note-17) and as such were fitted with significant quantities of armour plating. The main belt of armour along the side of the vessel was 410 millimetres (16 in) thick,[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_class_battleship#cite_note-johnston123-8) with additional bulkheads 355 millimetres (14.0 in) thick beyond the main-belt.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_class_battleship#cite_note-johnston123-8) The armour on the main-turrets surpassed even that of the main-belt, with plating 650 millimetres (26 in) thick.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_class_battleship#cite_note-johnston123-8) In addition, the relatively new procedure of arc welding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_welding) was used extensively throughout the ship, strengthening the durability of the armour plating.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_class_battleship#cite_note-fitzsimons2609-18) Through this technique, the lower-side belt armour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_armour) was used to strengthen the hull structure of the entire vessel.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_class_battleship#cite_note-fitzsimons2609-18) In total, the vessels of the Yamato class contained 1,147 watertight compartments,[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_class_battleship#cite_note-fitzsimons2609-18) of which 1,065 were beneath the armoured deck.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_class_battleship#cite_note-fitzsimons2609-18)
However, the armour of the Yamato class still suffered from several shortfalls—many of which would prove fatal in 1944-1945.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_class_battleship#cite_note-underwaterarmour-19) Of particular note, poor jointing between the upper-belt and lower-belt armour created a weak-point just below the waterline, causing the class to be susceptible to air-dropped torpedoes.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_class_battleship#cite_note-underwaterarmour-19) Other structural weaknesses existed near the bow of the vessels.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_class_battleship#cite_note-steinberg54-14)

[Arclight]

In total, the vessels of the Yamato class contained 1,147 watertight compartments, of which 1,065 were beneath the armoured deck.:huh: Now I know why warships haven't been included yet.

[Sledgehammer427]

just finished reading A Glorious Way To Die, and that is absolutely correct, the list the Yamato developed in operation Ten-ichi in her last hours were because an aerial torpedo ruptured the "blister" on the side of the hull, allowing deadlier shots to reach the hull

[Arclight]

Allright, I'm confused. :-?

I came across a Shokaku-class carrier. My subsequent attack was wildly inaccurate, dispite a good firing position and a meticulous setup. Refusing to believe I messed up big time (:roll:), I set up a test mission with such a carrier at 1000m from my sub and made a range-reading with the stadimeter.

The manual states that with carriers you measure the height of the flightdeck, however when I did this in my test mission it returned a range of over 1600m (TDC always displays range in meters, right?). Measuring the top of the bridge (structure, not entenna) returned a range of a little over 900m.

Is this a result of the "fog of war" the manual talks about, or is there something wrong here?

I can imagine the range measurement being of by 10% (as when measuring the top of the bridge structure), but the range being of by more then 60% (as when measuring the flightdeck) seems a bit excessive. :-?

[Sledgehammer427]

Is this a result of the "fog of war" the manual talks about, or is there something wrong here?


hmmm, a pickle indeed(:damn: now i want pickles)
but i believe the fog of war idea is correct, i wouldnt know, since i am not one of the devs.

but a second error could have been the speed setting...sometimes, i forget to punch in the speed, or range, or AOB, and my shots go haywire...

[DeepIron]

but a second error could have been the speed setting...sometimes, i forget to punch in the speed, or range, or AOB, and my shots go haywire...That's been my failiing on a lot of missed shots... incorrect AOB or speed. The stadimeter seems to work fairly well, sometimes with a little fudging, but I always seem to underestimate the speed...

[Sledgehammer427]

you do know about the "measure range twice" rule right?

i only eyeballed speed twice...and only because that ONE tanker coulda pulled 19 knots.

and if you don't know, the range twice rule is where you get the range on initial observation...send it to the TDC
then, wait until it traverses about 10 degrees from your initial observation, take range #2, send it to the TDC
bring up the speed dial, and click the clock button, and BAM, estimated speed, but it IS an estimate, so i would double check...dont forget to send it to the TDC

[Arclight]

Well, I "cheated" and reloaded the game after posting here. From a paralel course trying to get ahead of the taskforce, I turned in 90deg and went through the same drill as before. Same data, roughly same firing position, same spread. Only thing I did different is make the range-reading by measuring top of the bridge, instead of flightdeck height; 5 out of 6 torps were on target, the 1 miss passing just in front of her bow as she turned away from the incoming fish.

I'm fairly convinced that the previous attack went wrong purely because of incorrect range, so the question remains whether this was because of the fog of war or there is something wrong in the files. I still think a deviation of 60% is just too much, can't imagine ONI getting such poor intel/data.


*btw; is it normal to see this much lifeboats? :o
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj2/EZatHome/SH4Img2008-11-08_204123_937.jpg

[LukeFF]

Just so you guys know, we've eliminated the problem with the flickering textures one sees on ships when viewing them through the deck gun scope or the periscopes. We plan to test the patch over the next couple of days and hopefully have it released by the end of the week.

[LukeFF]

Allright, I'm confused. :-?

I came across a Shokaku-class carrier. My subsequent attack was wildly inaccurate, dispite a good firing position and a meticulous setup. Refusing to believe I messed up big time (:roll:), I set up a test mission with such a carrier at 1000m from my sub and made a range-reading with the stadimeter.

The manual states that with carriers you measure the height of the flightdeck, however when I did this in my test mission it returned a range of over 1600m (TDC always displays range in meters, right?). Measuring the top of the bridge (structure, not entenna) returned a range of a little over 900m.

Is this a result of the "fog of war" the manual talks about, or is there something wrong here?
It's likely due to the fog of war. American intelligence data on the Shokakus was never that great. The range displayed in the TDC is whatever measurement system you are using (I ran a test mission with a stationary Shokaku, and the range difference was about the same that you came up with). In the case such as this ship you are, then, much more wise to measure from a higher point, such as the top of the bridge.

This was the intelligence information the Allies had on the Shokakus:

October 1942:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/LukeFF/ONI2.jpg

The mast height shown in the 1945 intelligence manual was practically the same (I'd show the pic, but I'm having a problem with my PrintScreen function at the moment).

[Arclight]

Looking at that, it makes sense. :)

Comparing that picture to the actual ship, I get the impression that the manual indeed estimates the flightdeck to be a fair bit higher then it actually is. Thanks for clearing that up. :up:

I had no idea the intel could be so far off. Then again, in hindsight, it can't be easy to get a good, detailed look at a warship accompanied by a substantial escort and a squadron of fighters overhead providing aircover. :hmm:

[IronPerch]

I would like to start my modding experiments by adding ship lengths to recognition manual (RFB compatible, so that's why i post this here...). I edited the names.cfg file in SH4 folder, but somehow i can't see the results. I quess that should be enough or is there something that i'm missing?

[RollingRock]

hey guys...long time lurker here and have a quick question. Sorry if this is answered somewhere in here but I can't quite find the answer. by the way great mod! this brought me back to playing this game.

I'm playing this with the map contact updates turned on and was wondering if when a visual contact shows up on the nav map if there is some error coded in so that it's not an exact distance? i'm assuming there is otherwise why would you ever need the stadimeter but am curious how reliable it is to plot course and speed with??

[DeepIron]

I'm playing this with the map contact updates turned on and was wondering if when a visual contact shows up on the nav map if there is some error coded in so that it's not an exact distance? i'm assuming there is otherwise why would you ever need the stadimeter but am curious how reliable it is to plot course and speed with??Some players, using the manual targeting options, will use the map contacts and plotting tools to double check their torpedo input settings. It's generally good enough... not exact, which is the way it was historically. There was almost always a "fudge factor" unless the target and sub were both stationary. ;)

[Bosje]

While I don't know much (anything) about coding and the game engine, I have two cents to share at this stage:

After running a couple patrols and sinking a couple ships, I have to say that this mod is really very impressive. A few gripes and weirdnesses to overcome due to being a spoilt brat but when you take the lock issue etc as read, it makes for a very intense gaming experience. The damage model in particular is very impressive.

Much has been said about the ships sailing away after being hit and about the fix which is currently being worked on and I was wondering: Is is possible to trick the AI into thinking that the ship is not, in fact, alright?

What I mean is this: history tells me that most crews would abandon ship after being hit. Sometimes, if the lifeboats weren't picked up, they found the ship still afloat at daybreak and might try to get her underway again, but I never seem to read much about ships running away after being hit. It strikes me that the realistic and most satisfying damage model results in extremely unrealistic and unsatisfying AI behaviour because even the smallest vessel will keep going after being struck. So that's why I thought: could it be possible to trick the game into abandoning ship (cutting the engines) upon torpedo impact with maybe a 10% chance of bravely sailing on, while the actual sinking of the ship is left to the damage model.

This way, we would all still have to hang around to actually nail them and be credited, but we won't have to spend many frustrating hours trying to get a decent solution on a 8000 ton ship which zigzags at 12 knots, despite the three large holes under the waterline. Randomness and defiance are still cool of course, and we wouldn't want to have every single ship sitting dead in the water after a torpedo hit, but i'm personally quite bored with chasing every single ship as they run away.

I think that this sort of solution would be satisfactory from both a gameplay and realism point of view

If i'm completely wrong, don't hesitate to flame me, lol ;)

[DeepIron]

The biggest issue regarding the game AI is that a lot of it is hard-coded. The RFB mod changes a number of settings in config and other external files that get called by the engine, but the core control code is compiled, therefore somewhat out of reach...

That been being said, we're discovering new "tweaks" almost daily. The RFB Team is working on quite a few aspects of sinking and ship propulsion physics, so we're hopeful we'll have something for the next release...

Cheers!

[Admiral Von Gerlach]

Two quick questions from a noob, with greatest thanks for this remarkabla mod, which looks very very detailed and accurate.

can someone tell me what this means>..... i am going thru the Changes list carefully


Rock & Roll submarine added to RFB files- Leovampire (Leo's changes, I just copied them into the RFB files- give him the credit)

and i noted a early change that said that it is almost impossible to now sink a large frieghter with the deck gun....is this still tru of the mod?

thanks

[Observer]

While I don't know much (anything) about coding and the game engine, I have two cents to share at this stage:

After running a couple patrols and sinking a couple ships, I have to say that this mod is really very impressive. A few gripes and weirdnesses to overcome due to being a spoilt brat but when you take the lock issue etc as read, it makes for a very intense gaming experience. The damage model in particular is very impressive.

Much has been said about the ships sailing away after being hit and about the fix which is currently being worked on and I was wondering: Is is possible to trick the AI into thinking that the ship is not, in fact, alright?

What I mean is this: history tells me that most crews would abandon ship after being hit. Sometimes, if the lifeboats weren't picked up, they found the ship still afloat at daybreak and might try to get her underway again, but I never seem to read much about ships running away after being hit. It strikes me that the realistic and most satisfying damage model results in extremely unrealistic and unsatisfying AI behaviour because even the smallest vessel will keep going after being struck. So that's why I thought: could it be possible to trick the game into abandoning ship (cutting the engines) upon torpedo impact with maybe a 10% chance of bravely sailing on, while the actual sinking of the ship is left to the damage model.

This way, we would all still have to hang around to actually nail them and be credited, but we won't have to spend many frustrating hours trying to get a decent solution on a 8000 ton ship which zigzags at 12 knots, despite the three large holes under the waterline. Randomness and defiance are still cool of course, and we wouldn't want to have every single ship sitting dead in the water after a torpedo hit, but i'm personally quite bored with chasing every single ship as they run away.

I think that this sort of solution would be satisfactory from both a gameplay and realism point of view

If i'm completely wrong, don't hesitate to flame me, lol ;)
See my first post on this page:
http://forum.kickinbak.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1110&start=20

[Bosje]

:o
exactly what i was looking for. and i noticed some more things on that forum which make me very very happy

I prostrate myself humbly before you, people. you rock :rock:

[MDV_4life]

Two quick questions from a noob, with greatest thanks for this remarkabla mod, which looks very very detailed and accurate.

can someone tell me what this means>..... i am going thru the Changes list carefully


Rock & Roll submarine added to RFB files- Leovampire (Leo's changes, I just copied them into the RFB files- give him the credit)
and i noted a early change that said that it is almost impossible to now sink a large frieghter with the deck gun....is this still tru of the mod?

thanks They made the deck gun look crappy!!
Loads very slowly and doesn't do any damage at all almost.

Yesterday I attacked two fisherboats with my deckgun and they didn't even caught on fire at my 10th shot ! They were like undestroyable :damn:

NOTE: The only way to sink fisherboats is to bash in to the boat, then it rolls , caught fire and voila you are a really notorious u-boat captain :up:

And plotting system is alsow different, more in a negative, more difficult way.

I'm not saying that RFB is crappy but it sure does have it's down side

[DeepIron]

Two quick questions from a noob, with greatest thanks for this remarkabla mod, which looks very very detailed and accurate.

can someone tell me what this means>..... i am going thru the Changes list carefully


Rock & Roll submarine added to RFB files- Leovampire (Leo's changes, I just copied them into the RFB files- give him the credit)
and i noted a early change that said that it is almost impossible to now sink a large frieghter with the deck gun....is this still tru of the mod?

thanks They made the deck gun look crappy!!
Loads very slowly and doesn't do any damage at all almost.

Yesterday I attacked two fisherboats with my deckgun and they didn't even caught on fire at my 10th shot ! They were like undestroyable :damn:

NOTE: The only way to sink fisherboats is to bash in to the boat, then it rolls , caught fire and voila you are a really notorious u-boat captain :up:

And plotting system is alsow different, more in a negative, more difficult way.

I'm not saying that RFB is crappy but it sure does have it's down side
How many times does it have to be said? RFB is a REALITY mod, that's it. It's modeled as well as can be done within the confines of SH4 to reflect more closely the operations of actual WWII subs... If RFB is not your liking, may I suggest you play stock or TMO and cut the negativity crap?

Anyone who enjoys running over fishing boats to sink them is probably NOT the kind of person who would enjoy the level of realism RFB affords. :shifty:

[tater]

I always thought that watching boats burst into flames was sorta weak, myself.

I've read a few real reports of attacking small craft with submarines, and they specifically talk about putting many hole in them, and they float on (being made of wood).

I also know they'd go right alongside and torch them as a reliable way of setting them ablaze.

[MDV_4life]

Two quick questions from a noob, with greatest thanks for this remarkabla mod, which looks very very detailed and accurate.

can someone tell me what this means>..... i am going thru the Changes list carefully


Rock & Roll submarine added to RFB files- Leovampire (Leo's changes, I just copied them into the RFB files- give him the credit)
and i noted a early change that said that it is almost impossible to now sink a large frieghter with the deck gun....is this still tru of the mod?

thanks They made the deck gun look crappy!!
Loads very slowly and doesn't do any damage at all almost.

Yesterday I attacked two fisherboats with my deckgun and they didn't even caught on fire at my 10th shot ! They were like undestroyable :damn:

NOTE: The only way to sink fisherboats is to bash in to the boat, then it rolls , caught fire and voila you are a really notorious u-boat captain :up:

And plotting system is alsow different, more in a negative, more difficult way.

I'm not saying that RFB is crappy but it sure does have it's down side
How many times does it have to be said? RFB is a REALITY mod, that's it. It's modeled as well as can be done within the confines of SH4 to reflect more closely the operations of actual WWII subs... If RFB is not your liking, may I suggest you play stock or TMO and cut the negativity crap?

Anyone who enjoys running over fishing boats to sink them is probably NOT the kind of person who would enjoy the level of realism RFB affords. :shifty:I do like the level of realism. In fact I play on 92% Reality except of the dud torpedoes. I'm just saying that it is completly nuts that a deck gun of a submarine can't even sink a fishing boat, and be honest. The attack map is completly worseless. It doesn't provide information at all. If you're using nav. map to attack ( wich probally be the case ) you will find it more difficult than the stock game. Believe me or not. So why don't u cut with giving critism to my opinion.

[MDV_4life]

I always thought that watching boats burst into flames was sorta weak, myself.

I've read a few real reports of attacking small craft with submarines, and they specifically talk about putting many hole in them, and they float on (being made of wood).

I also know they'd go right alongside and torch them as a reliable way of setting them ablaze.
If you're not using RFB, you CAN sink those fishing boats.
But common, you should be able to sink them, right ? <- not using my technic.

[AVGWarhawk]

I always thought that watching boats burst into flames was sorta weak, myself.

I've read a few real reports of attacking small craft with submarines, and they specifically talk about putting many hole in them, and they float on (being made of wood).

I also know they'd go right alongside and torch them as a reliable way of setting them ablaze.
If you're not using RFB, you CAN sink those fishing boats.
But common, you should be able to sink them, right ? <- not using my technic.

To what end sinking fishing vessels? More eye candy to me than anything. Search this forum for a cannon mod and drop it in your set up. Problem solved!

[tater]

AA guns were found to be more effective than poking 3 or 4 inch holes in wooden boats.

One thing about the "fishing boats" and "sampans" is that they are also all we have to fill the role of more legitimate targets, the Luggers, Wooden Sea Trucks, Steel Sea Trucks, Fox Tare Dogs, Sugar Charlie Sugar, and even barges that plied around the south pacific. These range from a couple hundred tons to 1000 tons.

http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/cargo_carriers.jpg

Wooden sea trucks were built in thousands to fairly standardized design.

tater

[Arclight]

I still don't get the bitching about the DG. Put just 1 or 2 shells in a sampan below the waterline (granted, before you get those hits, a few others might hit the hull) and down they go. Finishing off cripples can be easily done as well. Pick a compartment without damage, put 5 to 10 shells in it and you're gonna see some results... it can take a while, but results non the less. :lol:

Seriously, if you ask me, the gun is working like it should.

If you want easier kills on fishing vessels wasting less shells, hit them once and then run them over. ;)

[Wilcke]

I still don't get the bitching about the DG. Put just 1 or 2 shells in a sampan below the waterline (granted, before you get those hits, a few others might hit the hull) and down they go. Finishing off cripples can be easily done as well. Pick a compartment without damage, put 5 to 10 shells in it and you're gonna see some results... it can take a while, but results non the less. :lol:

Seriously, if you ask me, the gun is working like it should.

If you want easier kills on fishing vessels wasting less shells, hit them once and then run them over. ;)

Correct! In the current version of RFB, the DG will sink a sampan with 2-3 hits at the waterline. Its a non-issue.

Thank you, sir! Well said.

[Orion2012]

Why would you want to kill fisherman anyway?? I seriously doubt the IJN had personnel escourting local fisherman. Save your ordnance for something of some value folks.

As was stated earlier the deck gun would not have been the most efficient weapon to attack. The AA guns or if outfitted with one, a .50cal or .30cal machine gun. If you notice the loading screen for RFB there is a machine gun mounted on that tower. I'd say any captain who did attack fisherman, if any ever did, would have flanked the men aboard with either a machine gun, be it the .50 or .30 caliber, or AA gun. It does not serve any purpose to sink the vessel, the war won't be one by sinking a fishing boat.

Maybe at one point the game was intended to have the .50 cal for that purpose but didn't get completed.

[vanjast]

They made the deck gun look crappy!!
Loads very slowly and doesn't do any damage at all almost.

Put a full experienced gun crew on the gun and watch your load times reduce drastically. Try using torpedoes for big damage :up:


Yesterday I attacked two fisherboats with my deckgun and they didn't even caught on fire at my 10th shot ! They were like undestroyable :damn:

I bet you were using AP shells... :rotfl:


NOTE: The only way to sink fisherboats is to bash in to the boat, then it rolls , caught fire and voila you are a really notorious u-boat captain :up:

You're on the wrong side...:hmm:


And plotting system is alsow different, more in a negative, more difficult way.

Wait for my new Real Nav Mod.... you're really going to suffer :arrgh!:

[LukeFF]

can someone tell me what this means>..... i am going thru the Changes list carefully

Rock & Roll submarine added to RFB files- Leovampire (Leo's changes, I just copied them into the RFB files- give him the credit)
That's an old part of the mod that's been changed since that was written.

[Fish40]

[quote]Why would you want to kill fisherman anyway?? I seriously doubt the IJN had personnel escourting local fisherman. Save your ordnance for something of some value folks.



The fact of the matter was, that indeed in the later years of the war, after seeing hundreds of thousands of tons of their merchant fleet sunk, the japanese used the small fishing boats of the locals either with their help or simply by takeing them over to transport weapons and supplies between some of the occupied islands. I've seen footage of US subs actually haveing to conduct search missions of said vessels to determine if they were friend or foe.

As for attacking them in the game, firstly I'll do it only if it's late in the war to try to keep it historical. Secondly, I've had better success useing the AA guns than the DG in destroying them:yep:I've actually had a couple of them go up pretty nicely! Mabey carrying ammo:hmm:

[Nisgeis]

The Japanese used radio equipped sampans and fishing vessels to report on the movement of enemy submarines. Late in the war when they had radar, they started using radar picket vessels, which were heavily armed fishing vessels. They weren't big, but they were effective against the submarine's chief weapon - stealth.

[<Jason>]

The Japanese used radio equipped sampans and fishing vessels to report on the movement of enemy submarines. Late in the war when they had radar, they started using radar picket vessels, which were heavily armed fishing vessels. They weren't big, but they were effective against the submarine's chief weapon - stealth.

exactly why you avoid them or send them to the bottom.

i just downloaded this mod yesterday for the first time and i am liking it so far. i have it on 100% realism with the only unchecked box being the camera (so i can get some nice screenshots). and not to add fuel to the fire, but i came across a junk boat yesterday and put 3 HE shells in her and she went down....so...yeah.....:shifty:

but anyway, im liking the mod so far. the only thing i dont like so far is the removal of the up/down axis of the exterior camera which was previously used by pressing the 7 or 1 key on the number pad respectively. but other then that, i havent found any hick-ups. now to find some merchants ;)

happy veterans day btw.

[Ivan Putski]

I made it to May of 1945, and liking this mod alot, toward the end of the war major shipping was hard to find, RFB portrays this nicely. You`ll see a lot of sampans, junks etc. as the war draws to a close. On a side note, I watched a video of a US Sub take out a couple of large sampans with the deck gun. They came alongside them, pulled 3 nips out of the water, machine gunned the rest with a 50 cal, and a Thompson, the Thompson had the old drum mag on it.

The deck gun made a shambles out of both sampans, one was on fire, and sinking, the other was going under, with the nip crew hanging onto it`s wreckage. Thats when the sub crewman opened up with that Chicago Typewriter, and left the sharks lunch. Puts

[AVGWarhawk]

For those that are still wondering why the deck cannon is they way it is in RFB:

World War II U.S. Submarine
Armament and Firepower
U.S. Navy Weapons and Armament 1941-1945

The Deck Guns
© Valor at Sea.com

Initially, deck guns were considered by many to be an extraneous and dangerous piece of hardware for submarines at the beginning of the war. Principally, the reasoning was that a submarine is basically a poor platform for a deck gun. Owing to the fact that the vast majority of the sub fleet's war patrols within 500 miles of Japanese bases were conducted submerged, the value of the deck gun was severely questioned. Additionally, it was reasoned that a submarine in a head to head gun battle with an enemy in possession of equal (or greater) firepower was at serious risk. Any enemy hits on the submarine which could impede or prevent her ability to submerge was justification enough to avoid a surface gun action. That's not to say that submariners didn't take advantage of some welcomed target practice when the opportunity arose. US Submarines that were scouting the Japanese Empire waters frequently came upon sampans, which were often suspected of being naval lookouts or anti-submarine pickets. By April of 1942, submarine skippers decided to start thinning out the sampan fleet and a periscope contact often resulted in the order of "Battle Surface". The results of a piboat going up against a lightly armed, floating bundle of wood one would think could be easily determined, however sinking these pesky little vessels was not a simple as first thought. Theodore Roscoe, in his book US SUBMARINE OPERATIONS IN WW II, states: "They could be riddled with .30 and .50 caliber machine gun bullets and holed several times by 3 or 5 inch shells and remain afloat like a box of Swiss cheese". More often than not, a submarine's deck gun was of greater value for overall morale than it was for combat effectiveness. A submerged boat that was damaged by an enemy surface vessel could, as a last ditch effort to survive, surface and engage in a gun battle, although with the odds generally stacked heavily against it. The deck gun was the ultimate weapon of last resort and it has been suggested that the 3, 4 or 5 inch guns (used for both anti-aircraft and surface actions and typically located abaft of the the conning tower), was therefore justified.




It is very clear from the discription above why RFB has chosen to render the cannon as it is in RFB. I'm not one to argue their point after reading this.

[MDV_4life]

I still don't get the bitching about the DG. Put just 1 or 2 shells in a sampan below the waterline (granted, before you get those hits, a few others might hit the hull) and down they go. Finishing off cripples can be easily done as well. Pick a compartment without damage, put 5 to 10 shells in it and you're gonna see some results... it can take a while, but results non the less. :lol:

Seriously, if you ask me, the gun is working like it should.

If you want easier kills on fishing vessels wasting less shells, hit them once and then run them over. ;)
Correct! In the current version of RFB, the DG will sink a sampan with 2-3 hits at the waterline. Its a non-issue.

Thank you, sir! Well said. Ok before i read on this tread, wich is the current version of RFB because I downloaded it like 4 month's ago.
Mine is 1.51_062308.

And sorry for bitching about those fishing vessels, maybe it was an issue in that version I use...

EDIT: Oh I see , 1.52

Wich issues or bugs are fixed with this version??

[Admiral Von Gerlach]

Sorry i opened that issue, but the read was very interesting. Yes indeed DG's were used from what I have heard for small surface craft of all kinds, and the IJN did indeed use them as pickets and transports.....and I have heard the same as that last long quote about them being not as useful as originally thought but still beloved by the crews....there were some exdtreme examples, of large caliber guns being included in some sub designs, thankfully not US but the Brit's had one that I know of ...very large caliber indeed....had to be fired very carefully. :)

[MDV_4life]

I bet you were using AP shells... :rotfl:
I don't know, I couldn't chose between any shells.
And i've even tried with High explosive gunningfire with my AA gun. :-?

Wait for my new Real Nav Mod.... you're really going to suffer :arrgh!:That problem is solved, i downloaded a mod that put things back togheter.
And for the smartasses around here. Ricky robbins or something like that also told said that the authers didn't know what to do with the attack map ! I could get used to it but it is really a huge difference than the stock game.

[AVGWarhawk]

I bet you were using AP shells... :rotfl:
I don't know, I couldn't chose between any shells.
And i've even tried with High explosive gunningfire with my AA gun. :-?

Wait for my new Real Nav Mod.... you're really going to suffer :arrgh!:That problem is solved, i downloaded a mod that put things back togheter.
And for the smartasses around here. Ricky robbins or something like that also told said that the authers didn't know what to do with the attack map ! I could get used to it but it is really a huge difference than the stock game.

IMO, the attack map is useless. Much as you have found. In all reality, what use is it if you can not draw on the attack map creating a solution? Well none that I can find. The attack map is fun eyecandy if you are using auto-solution and watch you little torpedoes speed off to their destiny at the little white X on the map. Other that that, I find no real use for the attack map. I do it the old fashioned way, pencil and paper on my desk :know:

[AVGWarhawk]

Sorry i opened that issue, but the read was very interesting. Yes indeed DG's were used from what I have heard for small surface craft of all kinds, and the IJN did indeed use them as pickets and transports.....and I have heard the same as that last long quote about them being not as useful as originally thought but still beloved by the crews....there were some exdtreme examples, of large caliber guns being included in some sub designs, thankfully not US but the Brit's had one that I know of ...very large caliber indeed....had to be fired very carefully. :)

The issue gets opened quite a bit because the stock game the cannon is like the phasers from the USS Enterprise and Sulu at the switch. When new users of RFB get to the cannon, all of a sudden, it is not as effective as stock and the RFB user has to be careful when surfacing to use the cannon because said merchant might be armed and that can end your career right there. It is a different sort of reality other than speeding through the Pacific blasting everything that moves with 120 rounds of Uncle Sam's finest. Sure, there is real world data of effective deck guns on subs but SH4 if far removed from the real world and we are very limited as to what can be done with the cannon compared to reality. RFB would much prefer you use your best weapon (stealth) and cunning to get a good torpedo solution. Having a wiz-bang deck gun just makes the game a battleship game. No fun in that IMO.

[<Jason>]

i have run into my first bit of trouble with real fleet boat.

i was doing the torpedo training mission and i cant hit a thing. :lol: actually i take it back, i hit it once, ill explain now.....

all my shots end up 20yards to the left of the right moving target.

Which part of the parascope should i put at the bottom of the target? i hit it once because i had the spread so far right. and it was on my 3rd attempt of the tutorial mission. im doing everything the same way ive always done.

help :oops:

[Arclight]

Like AVGWarhawk said, the issue gets opened quite a bit. I'm sorry if I came across a bit harsh with the "bitching" comment, nothing personal. :oops:

Several people drew the wrong conclusions on this matter for all the wrong reasons, it just annoyed me a bit and then set me off. :-?

It's perfectly fine to be inquisitive and interested in the matter, but going around stating the RFB-team screwed up, just because you don't like the way it's modeled IMO is not a valid argument. A lot of time and effort goes into a mod like this. Sometimes it just seems like that fact doesn't get the respect/appreciation it should.

[Quagmire]

Well let me be the one that changes the tone here. It must be said that the RFB submarine damage model is AWESOME!!!! In my entire time in the SHIV world I have been either dead or untouched after an encounter with depth charges. Never have I been damaged. That all changed last night...

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/5580/damage8za7.jpg

This was the situation after one of the four destroyers that was hammering me placed a string of charges close enough to do what you see above. Shortly after this I was severely down by the stern and I could only maintain depth at FLANK speed. Therefore I spent the next 45 mins dodging depth charges since my attackers had no trouble finding me at that speed. The whole time I was juggling repair priorities since I needed to get the compartments fixed before I could pump the water out. The Ice Cream Machine kept creeping up the priority list, LOL! Finally the depth charges stopped since my attackers probably ran out of DCs and decided to return to the convoy. Here is a hunch. I think they give up if they chase you and wind up farther than 5 km from they convoy they are protecting. I dont know this for sure but I have had destroyers break off the attack before when I was very easy to find but far from the convoy.

Anyway I thought I was in the clear but just to make sure I cut my engines to ALL STOP so I could listen behind me. Well that was a mistake. The boat started dropping like a rock and the stern slammed into the bottom!. I quickly blew ballast and ordered flank speed and we eventually rose off the bottom. However I received 3% hull damage from that incident. Naturally I was now worried about diving to deep so I blew ballast again and popped to the surface. Fortunately the destroyers were out of visual range by now (thank God for the new fog modelling!) and I high tailed it out of there on the surface.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/28/damage6bc0.jpg

As you can see my men were able to stop the flooding in the engine room and start pumping out. They succeeded in pumping out the after torpedo room as well but that took 2 days! It took most of the two week voyage home to fix everything else!

THANK YOU RFB TEAM!! This is the first time I have ever had to fight to save the ship!
.

[Quagmire]

Also, as a side note. I think the HOG ISLAND freighter has its draft set to low. In heavy seas it takes damage from waves crashing over its decks and catches fire.
Can you take some pics of this?

Sure. This HOG ISLAND has not been attacked at all. However there is a huge fire on the after deck. The waves crash over the deck a lot in high seas so the game engine probably registers damage from this. Could the draft be too low maybe?

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/9109/hogislandmj9.jpg
.

[Observer]

Also, as a side note. I think the HOG ISLAND freighter has its draft set to low. In heavy seas it takes damage from waves crashing over its decks and catches fire.
Can you take some pics of this?
Sure. This HOG ISLAND has not been attacked at all. However there is a huge fire on the after deck. The waves crash over the deck a lot in high seas so the game engine probably registers damage from this. Could the draft be too low maybe?

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/9109/hogislandmj9.jpg
.

Thanks for the picture. It's a simple problem to address.

[Observer]

Well let me be the one that changes the tone here. It must be said that the RFB submarine damage model is AWESOME!!!! In my entire time in the SHIV world I have been either dead or untouched after an encounter with depth charges. Never have I been damaged. That all changed last night...

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/5580/damage8za7.jpg

This was the situation after one of the four destroyers that was hammering me placed a string of charges close enough to do what you see above. Shortly after this I was severely down by the stern and I could only maintain depth at FLANK speed. Therefore I spent the next 45 mins dodging depth charges since my attackers had no trouble finding me at that speed. The whole time I was juggling repair priorities since I needed to get the compartments fixed before I could pump the water out. The Ice Cream Machine kept creeping up the priority list, LOL! Finally the depth charges stopped since my attackers probably ran out of DCs and decided to return to the convoy. Here is a hunch. I think they give up if they chase you and wind up farther than 5 km from they convoy they are protecting. I dont know this for sure but I have had destroyers break off the attack before when I was very easy to find but far from the convoy.

Anyway I thought I was in the clear but just to make sure I cut my engines to ALL STOP so I could listen behind me. Well that was a mistake. The boat started dropping like a rock and the stern slammed into the bottom!. I quickly blew ballast and ordered flank speed and we eventually rose off the bottom. However I received 3% hull damage from that incident. Naturally I was now worried about diving to deep so I blew ballast again and popped to the surface. Fortunately the destroyers were out of visual range by now (thank God for the new fog modelling!) and I high tailed it out of there on the surface.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/28/damage6bc0.jpg

As you can see my men were able to stop the flooding in the engine room and start pumping out. They succeeded in pumping out the after torpedo room as well but that took 2 days! It took most of the two week voyage home to fix everything else!

THANK YOU RFB TEAM!! This is the first time I have ever had to fight to save the ship!
.
Thank you.

You may be interested in this (2nd post on page): http://forum.kickinbak.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1091&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=40

[45_South]

Is the RFB manual (version 1.52) to be updated in the immediate future (I heard it might be due to typo's etc)? The reason I ask is that I want to print it out and didn't want to kill too many trees if an updated version is just around the corner.

Also, I would like to say well done and thanks to all the effort you've put - I think it's great. Hats off to you!

[LukeFF]

Is the RFB manual (version 1.52) to be updated in the immediate future (I heard it might be due to typo's etc)? The reason I ask is that I want to print it out and didn't want to kill too many trees if an updated version is just around the corner.

Also, I would like to say well done and thanks to all the effort you've put - I think it's great. Hats off to you!

Glad you're liking it. :)

We don't plan on any manual updates for a while. Likely the next manual revision to come out will be for 1.53, which is a way's off.

[Sledgehammer427]

well, i guess this is RFB related, so i am going to post here, since the UBM forum is well...dead pretty much. here is what i posted
problem is

there is no more walter turbine.

this is what sets this sub apart from being a deckgunless, sterntubeless IXD2

where did the button go, and how do i get it back?

EDIT: the button is still in the HUD layout, but it is obviously not included anymore



i hope you guys on the RFB team can help me out, because i got the XVIII to have a little fun, and do 28 kt attack runs on convoys (call it a venting measure)

help?

[MDV_4life]

Question;
Do you have to start your campaign all over if I disable RFB 1.51 & enable 1.52?

And i've came across something weird yesterday, a bug i guess...

I attacked a single ship, a troop transport ship if i remember it right.

I fired 3 torps at it and all 3 hit, and i'm deffinitly sure that was way enough to sink it. Then i suddenly see the interior of that ship. Like the inside out :-?

And suddenly it disappears ...

I reloaded my save several times and it happened every time.

Does any one every encountered this?

[chris455]

Luke,
Great job on RFB 1.52!
Question:
One of the things I would like to see in a future release of RFB would be for the Japanese "Maru" names to be reflected in the captains log, instead of the stock ship names.
i.e.,
"2/10/42. SHIP SUNK. KAMIKAWA MARU, 5,280 tons"
Is this possible?

[haz]

I just wanted to say thank you to all who make this mod.I enjoy it very much.I dont get far but it fun.I keep sinking myself wrong key etc.I have severe ms and it helps keep my mind on things.keep up the good work.everything in life has it flaws its the way it is.again thank you.

[Quagmire]

You may be interested in this (2nd post on page): http://forum.kickinbak.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1091&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=40

Thanks for the link to that forum. I didn't even know it existed. Browsing there is like a window into the modders mind.

By the way, here is a question for you. When a compartment is critically flooded (say the after torpedo room) does that mean that the compartment is completely flooded? I would guess not since the crew is in there repairing it.

But it begs the question, can a compartment become flooded to the point where the crew drowns if you dont get them out of there?
.

[msalama]

This I think is a bit strange:

http://koti.welho.com/msalama/RFB_Screen_12-11-2008.JPG

See that small merchant some 1000-2000yds away at my bearing 45 or so? I fired 2 torpedos at him, got one hit and then decided to give chase because he didn't sink straight away. OK, as you can observe my watch can't see him and he apparently doesn't see us either, but as soon as we changed course and went some 1000yrds _away_ from him both my crew and him saw each other just fine. I just wonder what might've caused that :hmm:

I'm running RFB v1.52 and RSRDC v3.96.

[AVGWarhawk]

This I think is a bit strange:

http://koti.welho.com/msalama/RFB_Screen_12-11-2008.JPG

See that small merchant some 1000-2000yds away at my bearing 45 or so? I fired 2 torpedos at him, got one hit and then decided to give chase because he didn't sink straight away. OK, as you can observe my watch can't see him and he apparently doesn't see us either, but as soon as we changed course and went some 1000yrds _away_ from him both my crew and him see each other just fine. I just wonder what might've caused that :hmm:

I'm running RFB v1.52 and RSRDC v3.96.

A patch is in the works for this I believe.

[Orion2012]

This I think is a bit strange:
See that small merchant some 1000-2000yds away at my bearing 45 or so? I fired 2 torpedos at him, got one hit and then decided to give chase because he didn't sink straight away. OK, as you can observe my watch can't see him and he apparently doesn't see us either, but as soon as we changed course and went some 1000yrds _away_ from him both my crew and him saw each other just fine. I just wonder what might've caused that :hmm:

I'm running RFB v1.52 and RSRDC v3.96.
The issue is being looked into like AVG stated. The bug is in the stock game and "magnified" by the visual sensor in RFB. Please see the manual for more information.

[Observer]

By the way, here is a question for you. When a compartment is critically flooded (say the after torpedo room) does that mean that the compartment is completely flooded? I would guess not since the crew is in there repairing it. Yes, the compartment is completely flooded. Do remember that the compartment and crew management are an abstraction.

But it begs the question, can a compartment become flooded to the point where the crew drowns if you dont get them out of there?
.This is the way SH3 worked. In fact when the compartment flooded, the game ended. This is no longer true in SH4. The crew will not drown when the compartment floods completely.

[<Jason>]

im going to repost this: hopefully it can get answered:

i have run into my first bit of trouble with real fleet boat.

i was doing the torpedo training mission and i cant hit a thing. :lol: actually i take it back, i hit it once, ill explain now.....

all my shots end up 20yards to the left of the right moving target.

Which part of the parascope should i put at the bottom of the target? i hit it once because i had the spread so far right. and it was on my 3rd attempt of the tutorial mission. im doing everything the same way ive always done.

help :oops:

[LukeFF]

i hope you guys on the RFB team can help me out, because i got the XVIII to have a little fun, and do 28 kt attack runs on convoys (call it a venting measure)
As the XVIII never even made it to the training stage and has the exact same external and internal model as the XXI, we decided to "convert" it to Type XXI performance specs. The conversion is not totally complete (for instance, the correct boat numbers have yet to be inputted) but will be in the future. A Type XVIII with the Walter Turbine and all just doesn't fit into RFB's definition of realism at all.

[LukeFF]

Luke,
Great job on RFB 1.52!
Question:
One of the things I would like to see in a future release of RFB would be for the Japanese "Maru" names to be reflected in the captains log, instead of the stock ship names.
i.e.,
"2/10/42. SHIP SUNK. KAMIKAWA MARU, 5,280 tons"
Is this possible?
I wish it was, but it's just not possible:
Some Japanese merchants are also employed by other nations, so it would look odd to see "xxxx Maru sunk" show up in a U-boat log. :doh:
As it stands, the game uses the name of the ship class in the Names.cfg file for your sinking log. To get the name of each Maru in the game (most Japanese merchants modeled were a multiple-ship class) would require extensive cloning of almost every merchant ship in order to get this to work right. It's just too much work for too little results and would wreak havoc with mods like RSRDC. Not to mention, in reality most American submarine commanders could not pinpoint the name of a ship targeted unless it was a prominent, previously-identified ship, such as a carrier or heavy cruiser. Logs from the time for merchants sunk are fairly generic, such as "5000-ton freighter" or "2500-ton tanker."

[Arclight]

im going to repost this: hopefully it can get answered:

i have run into my first bit of trouble with real fleet boat.

i was doing the torpedo training mission and i cant hit a thing. :lol: actually i take it back, i hit it once, ill explain now.....

all my shots end up 20yards to the left of the right moving target.

Which part of the parascope should i put at the bottom of the target? i hit it once because i had the spread so far right. and it was on my 3rd attempt of the tutorial mission. im doing everything the same way ive always done.

help :oops:It might be because of the "fog of war" effect; not all the data in the recog. manual was a 100% accurate, so as a result any measurements you make with the stadimeter could give you a range that is off by a sizeable margin.

I tried measuring the distance on a Shokaku carrier with the stadimeter (measuring the height of the flightdeck as the manual instructed) and got a range that was off by as much as 60%.

You could try measuring on the nav map and inputting that, or ping for range (although the latter is not advisable against warships).

I think it's either that or you forgot to open your tubes. :lol: ;)

[LukeFF]

Question;
Do you have to start your campaign all over if I disable RFB 1.51 & enable 1.52?

And i've came across something weird yesterday, a bug i guess...

I attacked a single ship, a troop transport ship if i remember it right.

I fired 3 torps at it and all 3 hit, and i'm deffinitly sure that was way enough to sink it. Then i suddenly see the interior of that ship. Like the inside out :-?

And suddenly it disappears ...

I reloaded my save several times and it happened every time.

Does any one every encountered this?

Yes, you need to re-start your campaign if you disable 1.51 and enable 1.52. Also note that only the current version of RSRDC works with 1.52.

[msalama]

Thanks for the info guys. Yup, obviously the same issue, i.e. you naturally can't lock onto something you can't see... S!

[LukeFF]

i was doing the torpedo training mission and i cant hit a thing. :lol: actually i take it back, i hit it once, ill explain now.....

all my shots end up 20yards to the left of the right moving target.

Which part of the parascope should i put at the bottom of the target? i hit it once because i had the spread so far right. and it was on my 3rd attempt of the tutorial mission. im doing everything the same way ive always done.

You don't need to place the periscope in any particular position on the target. Just make sure the placement of the top part follows the rules stated in both the recognition manual and the RFB manual. As Arclight states, do note that the "mast heights" are directly derived from the data known to the Allies, so you may get a range result that is far off the mark. However, with the torpedo training mission, I've found the "mast height" (actually the top of the funnel) to be pretty accurate. This shows in this particular case the Allies had good intelligence data on the Mogami class.

[vanjast]

all my shots end up 20yards to the left of the right moving target.

What I've found with TDC data, is that if you can get you target speed right, range matters very little (except the max range of the torp of course), when firing a spread of 2+ torps. Naturally the closer your target the more accurate you'll be.
:D

[Bosje]

cant find anything said about this at first glance, so I thought you might want to know about this: (although it's obviously priority number 20039447 on the list)

missing textures and upside down/reverse gauges and switches in the gato control room

(several dials and switches on the starboard side: mbt gauges and a switch to the front side. also, when you walk around the steering wheel there is a ladder up to a hatch, where a repair crew guy stands when active. if you look from that position back into the control room, the wall is missing. Weird as the wall is there just fine when you look at it from the starting position in the control room.)

anyway, just in case anyone cares. (never noticed this before, could even be a stock issue. i dunno. I just noticed it when i took a tour through my boat during some test dives.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7769/dialsze2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
*giggle*, the gauge says 'snot'
-
February 1943, USS Sunfish (Gato class)

I'm starting to become a huge fan of this mod
Yesterday I had a fascinating night South East off a very busy Cape San Agustin where a new radar contact kept showing up as I was lining up on a target. 5 ships crossed through my area of operations during the course of a 5 hour engagement. I was in real time throughout the engagement because there was so much to keep an eye on :)

a most intense and interesting experience; a threatening green/purple stormy sky loomed above me, thunder rolled across the strait during the evening while the sea was still quite calm. A storm was about to erupt and it looked absolutely stunning. Duds and the damage model resulted in only 2 sinkings. Tonnage for the entire patrol was 19000 which is not bad while realistically modest, I guess.

But: I now have the impression that 1 torpedo will not sink anything at all within a reasonable timeframe and with the added issue of maintaining speed I am resorting to full spreads of at least 4 torpedoes on anything over 2000 tons. Usually resulting in either 3-4 duds or 3-4 hits. I have not seen anything above 2000 tons go down on 1 hit and I have seen numerous bigger ships not going down after 2 or 3 hits, which seems to just contradict anything I ever read about the Battle in the Atlantic. Do you guys actually have US logs full of 4000+ ton ships not sinking after being struck?

My patrol log is of course realistically modest and my patrol is full of supposedly realististic frustration, on balance I am really enjoying the challenge so this is not even a complaint. The satisfaction of actually seeing a ship go down is that much greater which is a huge plus for any mod :)
It's just a simple question: Despite being a lot of masochist-flavoured fun, is this actually realistic?

On an interesting side note, I have found that the best way to prevent duds is by hitting the ship's hull at an angle between 50 and 60 degrees, with the torpedo set for magnetic/impact. All my beautiful 80-90 degree impact shots failed to detonate. Isn't that weird? (february 1943) I thought the chances of duds were supposed to increase on smaller angles? I know about the firing pins getting bent on right angles but I thought that was for German torpedoes, maybe I have my stats the wrong way round.

[MDV_4life]

Question;
Do you have to start your campaign all over if I disable RFB 1.51 & enable 1.52?

And i've came across something weird yesterday, a bug i guess...

I attacked a single ship, a troop transport ship if i remember it right.

I fired 3 torps at it and all 3 hit, and i'm deffinitly sure that was way enough to sink it. Then i suddenly see the interior of that ship. Like the inside out :-?

And suddenly it disappears ...

I reloaded my save several times and it happened every time.

Does any one every encountered this?
Yes, you need to re-start your campaign if you disable 1.51 and enable 1.52. Also note that only the current version of RSRDC works with 1.52.
I don't use RSRDC.
Thanks for the repley

[<Jason>]

thanks for the info guys.

1) i do open the doors :p

2) ill try the funnel for the mogami.

3) i am using the training mission so its always the same speed and distance time after time.

thanks again :up:

[MDV_4life]

thanks for the info guys.

1) i do open the doors :p

2) ill try the funnel for the mogami.

3) i am using the training mission so its always the same speed and distance time after time.

thanks again :up:
It's only a matter of time. I'm sure that in a month or waaaaay less you will not even have to think what you have to do next :up:

In the recognition manual is the point where you have to lower you stadiometer pointed with a red stripe, isn't it?

Just indenify the ship correctly, what ain't gonna be a problem in the training and look at the 'mast' heights and do your thing.

Make sure your AOB and specially speed is correct and update your range one last time before shooting to make sure.

And let's give me a hint. Don't try the automatic shooting.
You will give up on the game just because it's just not fun anymore when hitting a target ( wich should give a :D feeling )

Remember that even we didn't know how to hit a thing when we started. Don't give up and experiment with some mods so you'll love the game it's full 100%. But for now, practice.

Good luck ! ;)

[AVGWarhawk]

thanks for the info guys.

1) i do open the doors :p

2) ill try the funnel for the mogami.

3) i am using the training mission so its always the same speed and distance time after time.

thanks again :up:
It's only a matter of time. I'm sure that in a month or waaaaay less you will not even have to think what you have to do next :up:

In the recognition manual is the point where you have to lower you stadiometer pointed with a red stripe, isn't it?

Just indenify the ship correctly, what ain't gonna be a problem in the training and look at the 'mast' heights and do your thing.

Make sure your AOB and specially speed is correct and update your range one last time before shooting to make sure.

And let's give me a hint. Don't try the automatic shooting.
You will give up on the game just because it's just not fun anymore when hitting a target ( wich should give a :D feeling )

Remember that even we didn't know how to hit a thing when we started. Don't give up and experiment with some mods so you'll love the game it's full 100%. But for now, practice.

Good luck ! ;)

MDV is right on this. Go for the manual solution. Once you figure it out, it is very satisfying to get your kill. The biggest thing is identifying the ship correctly. Make at least 3 good observations and update you TDC with every observation. Get within 1500 yards before you let the torps go.

[<Jason>]

i am on manual targeting. before downloading real fleet boat, i could sink em' with no problem.

i will keep trying and ill check the recog manual and look for the red line. that might be the problem.

thanks chaps! :up:

[Gorshkov]

I play now SH4 with RFB 1.52 and RSRD mods. In the first German training mission on IXD2 U-boat I have observed strange issue. My U-boat was detected being submerged by enemy merchant which started to shot at me with deck gun! I must add I was closing to her submerged at periscope depth all the time for several kilometeres.

So how she could detect me visually???

[LukeFF]

cant find anything said about this at first glance, so I thought you might want to know about this: (although it's obviously priority number 20039447 on the list)

missing textures and upside down/reverse gauges and switches in the gato control room

(several dials and switches on the starboard side: mbt gauges and a switch to the front side. also, when you walk around the steering wheel there is a ladder up to a hatch, where a repair crew guy stands when active. if you look from that position back into the control room, the wall is missing. Weird as the wall is there just fine when you look at it from the starting position in the control room.)

anyway, just in case anyone cares. (never noticed this before, could even be a stock issue. i dunno. I just noticed it when i took a tour through my boat during some test dives.

They are stock issues. It might be possible to fix the reversed gauges, though it likely will take a lot of work.

[LukeFF]

On an interesting side note, I have found that the best way to prevent duds is by hitting the ship's hull at an angle between 50 and 60 degrees, with the torpedo set for magnetic/impact. All my beautiful 80-90 degree impact shots failed to detonate. Isn't that weird? (february 1943) I thought the chances of duds were supposed to increase on smaller angles? I know about the firing pins getting bent on right angles but I thought that was for German torpedoes, maybe I have my stats the wrong way round.

The German torpedo duds had the opposite problem of the American ones: any hit at less than a 20-degree angle was almost certain to be a dud. The Mark 14, on the other hand, was almost always a dud with a hit at or near 90 degrees. (In 1943, the USS Tinosa fired something like 10 torpedoes at a stationary tanker, at a near 90-degree angle, and all were observed to be duds. A short time later, Lockwood's test of dropping torpedoes at a 90-degree angle from a height of 100 feet resulted in every one of them being duds). The original contact firing pin fitted to the Mark 14 was simply a very bad design.

[Bosje]

ah right, that was it :)

ok, only 60 degree shots from now on, cheers :)

[399nkov]

Don't give on the 90 degree shot completely. Things get better as you move along in your career, 1944.

[MDV_4life]

i am on manual targeting. before downloading real fleet boat, i could sink em' with no problem.

i will keep trying and ill check the recog manual and look for the red line. that might be the problem.

thanks chaps! :up:
I have to notice that you will see that red line when you activate RFB.
And if you find the plotting map is to hard ( because it changes with RFB ) then search for the EZ Plot V1.0, but it's your choice.

I downloaded RFB 1.52 yesterdag and i noticed that i couldn't walk around in my sub anymore. (F2) But i can on the conning tower. Is this a bug or is it a change with this version?



Questin apart from RFB;

Whenever i try to play the sub XVIII , my game crashes to desktop.
I think this issue can be caused by UBM mission pack or Z_Enable XVIII In carreer start mod.

I don't want to disable them because if i have to reinstall them i have a bunch of others to be re-activated :shifty:

[Bosje]

huh? i find that the red lines are gone from the recognition manual in RFB 1.52 and the walking around is actually better than i ever saw it

prolly got some files screwed up there

[AVGWarhawk]

huh? i find that the red lines are gone from the recognition manual in RFB 1.52 and the walking around is actually better than i ever saw it

prolly got some files screwed up there
The red lines are in fact gone. Three easy points of reference, stack, flight deck or mast is all that is needed to be remember.

[MDV_4life]

huh? i find that the red lines are gone from the recognition manual in RFB 1.52 and the walking around is actually better than i ever saw it

prolly got some files screwed up there
The red lines are in fact gone. Three easy points of reference, stack, flight deck or mast is all that is needed to be remember.
So it's back like the stock game?? The reference points is the heighist point of the ship??

And I got a new problem.
Maybe it's caused by RFB but i'm not sure.

I have this mod that gives you the option to start a new campaign with the XVIII sub type. It works but all the crew is lazy !! :o
http://i309.photobucket.com/albums/kk389/MDV_4life/NOTATBATTLESTATION.jpg
Look at the green bar that repressents activity in a compartement. They are empty. They only begin working when i press the ' all man to battlestation'.

Help please !!:shifty:

[AVGWarhawk]

@MDV. Merchants: mast height. Warships: smoke stack and aircraft carriers: flight decks. Same as they used in the ONI manual. Not sure about the German side problem you are having. I have not played the German subs yet.

[punkmaster98]

on the american side am i only supossed to have 2 men in the torpedo room? i only have two men for each watch.

[Orion2012]

on the american side am i only supossed to have 2 men in the torpedo room? i only have two men for each watch.

Yes, only two.

[LukeFF]

on the american side am i only supossed to have 2 men in the torpedo room? i only have two men for each watch.
The requirement for American subs was to have a minimum of one torpedoman petty officer on duty every watch. During regular watch hours, the "only" duty the torpedomen had was routine maintenance of the torpedoes (typically one a day), so you don't need your full complement of torpedomen to carry out a task like that. When General Quarters is called, the six torpedomen assigned to the forward compartment is more than enough to reload the tubes quickly and safely.

My procedure is to keep my most experienced torpedomen in the forward torpedo room, since that's where the majority of the torpedoes are fired from. If the situation permits, I'll temporarily assign a couple of the more experienced men to the aft compartment to help with any reloads there.

[Bosje]

hey guys, was wondering about the damage model. A large old split took 3 torpedoes, under both masts and under the funnel. at 10-15 feet depth. I shadowed her for a while to see how things would turn out. Normally I don't have the patience and I'm still annoyed with the ships running away so I give em more shots to work around the system, but this time I decided to shadow her

she was limping away at 5 knots on a random zigzag but after a while she went back on course. 28 hours and a couple of course changes later she was still going strong at a 7 knots and I went in to finish her off with 2 more torpedoes at 25-30 feet depth and that did the trick, she sank 75 miles away from the initial firing position.

I was a bit disappointed by the very limited effect of my 3 shots which I thought were rather good. Are my shots not aimed well, was I simply unlucky or did you guys test this and did you consider 3 torpedoes not enough to sink a 7k ton ship?

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/9576/damagemodag0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/damagemodag0.jpg/1/w1024.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img91/damagemodag0.jpg/1/)

[Gorshkov]

Well, it seems new RFB sinking model repeats buggy GWX's sad history in this area... :down:

Finally understand that merchant ships were not built to sustain such massive torpedo damage!

[sckallst]

I've found large old splits are tough targets, even with good hit distribution.

I think the damage model is fine. The quibble I have is with the ship remaining underway in many instances, but that is being tweaked for the next update.

Three plus some limited deck gun work will take down a good sized target like the LOS. Helps if she is dead in the water. I don't know if this observaation is correct, but having taken down three LOS in my current RFB career, I think have the torps hit at some differenet depths helps as well. At least not having them all hit so deep seemed to speed up the sinking process with this particular ship. I've never seen two torps alone do the job, but I needed four only one time.


Unrelated question:

Anyone using the air layer mod with this release of RFB? There is a yet unanswered question in the air layer thread about compatibility.

[Bosje]

Well, i was just trying to give feedback. realism is the aim of this mod and it seems to fail here, that's all

[banjo]

Pssst, (whispering) try Webster's torpedo mod. Don't tell anyone I said to.

[Gorshkov]

Is this torpedo mod compatible with RFB and where I can find it?

However I still do not understand one thing here: yet WW2 merchants did not have self-isolated compartments which means flooding cannot be limited to one compartment!

[banjo]

Webster's torpedo mods are compatible with RFB 1.52 (latest version). They are available for download in this forum. Sorry, don't have the link. Do a search and I'm sure you will find them.

[Gorshkov]

OK, I have tested this mod with RFB and I must admit it is worth considering as an emergency RFB sinking model upgrade! I think Webster's torpedo mod ver. 1 increasing torpedo power by 25% is good enough for both US and German torpedoes. For instance I launched one Mk-10 torpedo which is the least capable US weapon in SH4 aside of passive sonar Mk-27 fish at Small Old Split Freighter (2427 tons) and she sunk in 15 minutes after hit. It seems that more powerful torpedoes can destroy two to three neighbor compartments per one hit.

[banjo]

Happy hunting!

[Gorshkov]

After some tests with RFB+Webster's torpedo mod ver. 1 (+25% more powerful torps) using attached test mission I must report that if we divide merchants for three tonnage classes situation looks as follows:

- ships with tonnage under 2500 tons sink after one torpedo hit in the middle of hull

- ships with tonnage between 2500 and 5000 tons should sink after two hits

- ships in 5000-10000 tons range sinks after three hits

Of course all hits are scored in equal torpedoes spread angle. Additionally I must notice that all merchants aside of one sunk in quite short time period i.e. 30-60 minutes. Yet general rule is: the larger ship, the longer sinking time! I also tried to sink surface combatants and they sink exactly as noted in Webster's mode readme file what is obvious because warships still possess stock sinking mechanics. That is why I do not recommend you to use versions 2 (+35% more torpedo power) and 3 (+50% accordingly) of this torpedo mod because I guess many people will be unsatisfied with too low torpedo hits needed to sink warships. However it is possible that more powerful torpedoes can reduce amount of hits necessary to sink merchants. We simply have to wait for future RFB version with all naval platforms "equipped" with NYGM sinking mod.

***EDIT***

WTF??? I told you earlier that something is screwed up with U-boats detection in RFB! I wanted to play German test mission and all US warships started to shot at my U-boat being at periscope depth. There is no way to play because my sub started to get hits immediately! I guess US warships visual sensors are too good or so...try yourselves!

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, i was just trying to give feedback. realism is the aim of this mod and it seems to fail here, that's all

Still a work in progress Bosje:up: Last night I hit the fattest tanker the game has to offer directly in the middle with two torps. She went down in about two minutes. Odd indeed with your experience with this particular ship. Look for further tweeks. Little do you know, letting the RFB team know about particular ships and problems you are experiencing is a good thing because they can go back and look at it. Keep up constructive observations and opinions, in the long run they help out in the end.

[Bosje]

yup, that's what I was aiming at

i'm not in any way trying to flame this mod, I love it. if even one of my comments help to improve it further, i'll be happy as a clam

[AVGWarhawk]

yup, that's what I was aiming at

i'm not in any way trying to flame this mod, I love it. if even one of my comments help to improve it further, i'll be happy as a clam

Just remember that it is a game made up of 0 and 1 all melded together to form submarines in the water. The modders can only go so far in the files and sometimes the reality of the file structure limits things in the game. Such is life and we learn to adjust and enjoy what does work great:D More to come with RFB I assure you. In the mean time, I'm having a blast with what I got.

I will tell you what sucked when I played last night. The tanker post I mentioned above.... my actual target was a troop transport. I sent 3 torps out hit the transport with either duds or under-ran the ship. :damn: She was alerted by then and hauled butt away from me. Lucky there was fat tanker following and I was able to pop two torps off and sink the bugger. All was not lost. :D I slunk away from the three DD headed my way.:o

[MDV_4life]

yup, that's what I was aiming at

i'm not in any way trying to flame this mod, I love it. if even one of my comments help to improve it further, i'll be happy as a clam
Just remember that it is a game made up of 0 and 1 all melded together to form submarines in the water. The modders can only go so far in the files and sometimes the reality of the file structure limits things in the game. Such is life and we learn to adjust and enjoy what does work great:D More to come with RFB I assure you. In the mean time, I'm having a blast with what I got.

I will tell you what sucked when I played last night. The tanker post I mentioned above.... my actual target was a troop transport. I sent 3 torps out hit the transport with either duds or under-ran the ship. :damn: She was alerted by then and hauled butt away from me. Lucky there was fat tanker following and I was able to pop two torps off and sink the bugger. All was not lost. :D I slunk away from the three DD headed my way.:o
As much as the modders are trying to perfect these mods, there will be always bugs that has to be fixed. They have a fultime job, most of them and they don't nessescary have to do these things. We should be them very thankfull for putthing their time into this wich i appreciate very much :up:

I just came across a 3D torpedo room in progress, so I must say the modders are doing there best. It looks great :D

IMO, Silent Hunter rulleez.

And me ofcourse :rotfl:

[Orion2012]

Well, i was just trying to give feedback. realism is the aim of this mod and it seems to fail here, that's all
Still a work in progress Bosje:up: Last night I hit the fattest tanker the game has to offer directly in the middle with two torps. She went down in about two minutes. Odd indeed with your experience with this particular ship. Look for further tweeks. Little do you know, letting the RFB team know about particular ships and problems you are experiencing is a good thing because they can go back and look at it. Keep up constructive observations and opinions, in the long run they help out in the end.

I assume you mean a T3??

I had the same this morning. I think maybe its registering shots in the middle of the ship as flooding large compartments. Mine sank almost straight down very fast. I'd say 2-4 minutes.

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, i was just trying to give feedback. realism is the aim of this mod and it seems to fail here, that's all
Still a work in progress Bosje:up: Last night I hit the fattest tanker the game has to offer directly in the middle with two torps. She went down in about two minutes. Odd indeed with your experience with this particular ship. Look for further tweeks. Little do you know, letting the RFB team know about particular ships and problems you are experiencing is a good thing because they can go back and look at it. Keep up constructive observations and opinions, in the long run they help out in the end.

I assume you mean a T3??

I had the same this morning. I think maybe its registering shots in the middle of the ship as flooding large compartments. Mine sank almost straight down very fast. I'd say 2-4 minutes.


Yeah, T3. The holds were breeched by two torps and she was done for. :D

[MDV_4life]

Well, i was just trying to give feedback. realism is the aim of this mod and it seems to fail here, that's all
Still a work in progress Bosje:up: Last night I hit the fattest tanker the game has to offer directly in the middle with two torps. She went down in about two minutes. Odd indeed with your experience with this particular ship. Look for further tweeks. Little do you know, letting the RFB team know about particular ships and problems you are experiencing is a good thing because they can go back and look at it. Keep up constructive observations and opinions, in the long run they help out in the end.
I assume you mean a T3??

I had the same this morning. I think maybe its registering shots in the middle of the ship as flooding large compartments. Mine sank almost straight down very fast. I'd say 2-4 minutes.
For a T3 you best go with two shots.
One beneeth the funnel for the fuel compartements and one in the middle to finish it.

[Gorshkov]

Webster's torpedo mod ver. 2 is as effective as ver. 1 in sinking merchants. I did not notice much difference in amount of torps needed to sink ships or their sinking time. However with ver. 3 you can sink every merchant with not more than two torps but unfortunately in this version Japan battleships can be sunk with two torps which is very unrealistic.

Well, in sum I have chosen ver. 2 as a very well balanced solution for RFB.

[MDV_4life]

Torpedo mod ver. 2 is effective similarly to ver. 1 as for merchants with new sinking model. I did not notice much difference in amount of torps needed to sink ships or sinking time. However with ver. 3 you can sink every merchant with not more than two torps but unfrotunately in this version Japan battleships can be sunk with two torps which is very unrealistic.

Well, in sum I have chosen ver. 2 as a very well balanced solution for RFB.Gorshkov, can you give me a link of the torp mods?

Is it this one we're speaking about.. Webster's torpedo mod..

cheers

[Sledgehammer427]

i sank a pair of large modern tankers (the ones that have a speed of 19 knots)

and it took all but one of my 6 tubes...that mother was the HARDEST thing i ever had to sink (other than that troop transport, someone should suggest the japanese to use STEEL crates:hmm: )

[MDV_4life]

i sank a pair of large modern tankers (the ones that have a speed of 19 knots)

and it took all but one of my 6 tubes...that mother was the HARDEST thing i ever had to sink (other than that troop transport, someone should suggest the japanese to use STEEL crates:hmm: )
Those speed monsters can be a pain in the ass :yep:

[Bosje]

just hit me that i have not yet seen an aircraft in RFB 1.52. not even after spending a 2 week grid patrol off tokyo bay and bungo straits, are they really that rare?

sinkings: how is the running away fix coming along?

cheers

[AVGWarhawk]

just hit me that i have not yet seen an aircraft in RFB 1.52. not even after spending a 2 week grid patrol off tokyo bay and bungo straits, are they really that rare?

sinkings: how is the running away fix coming along?

cheers

I experience much the same in the early war. It does get heavier later on and you start to detect more when you have the radar to do so. They are out there and will find you sooner or later. :o Also, if you are lucky and in port at the right time, air raids will start. No kidding. One player posted he was in port ready to set sail and mass of Japanese aircraft raided his port. Tell me that was not a cool experience:D

[MDV_4life]

just hit me that i have not yet seen an aircraft in RFB 1.52. not even after spending a 2 week grid patrol off tokyo bay and bungo straits, are they really that rare?

sinkings: how is the running away fix coming along?

cheers
I experience much the same in the early war. It does get heavier later on and you start to detect more when you have the radar to do so. They are out there and will find you sooner or later. :o Also, if you are lucky and in port at the right time, air raids will start. No kidding. One player posted he was in port ready to set sail and mass of Japanese aircraft raided his port. Tell me that was not a cool experience:D
I would love to experience that too, i would give those Japanese planes a hard time :yep:

[Bosje]

i'm in spring 1943 with SD radar always on, no contacts in the 4 patrols to date

airraids are in SH3 too, i was recently sailing out of Bergen (also in 1943) in my DiD story career when a flight of lancasters spoilt the party, complete hell. never mind shooting back, just run for your life!

[MDV_4life]

i'm in spring 1943 with SD radar always on, no contacts in the 4 patrols to date

airraids are in SH3 too, i was recently sailing out of Bergen (also in 1943) in my DiD story career when a flight of lancasters spoilt the party, complete hell. never mind shooting back, just run for your life!
Run for your life when you finally have a chance of using those AA guns??
Naaaaah :rotfl:

[Fish40]

Current patrol: April/44 off Formosa. Had at least two encounters with AC. Didn't stick around to fight. Hit the deep in a hurry:yep:

[MDV_4life]

Current patrol: April/44 off Formosa. Had at least two encounters with AC. Didn't stick around to fight. Hit the deep in a hurry:yep:If i were you i would save my progress and fight those planes.
In the worst cenario , you can always load your save again AND have another great experience :up:

[sckallst]

I've had the same lack of air contacts to date, bosje. (Early Nov 42 for me) I've got the improved SDworking , but only plane I spotted was near Hong Kong on last patrol before my Porpoise class got rebased from Perth to Midway.

BTW, I wasn't trying knock down your previous post. I agree that those large splits are harder to sink than first assumed. Given my usual bad luck, I've just assumed that somehow the randomizing functions with torp damage are working against me. :D

My latest victim I spied at long range and ID'd as another LOS. Given teh excellent visibility and my initial quick plotting, I figured I'd try to track him all the way in on sonar and then give him four tubes using the O'Kane method, so as to avoid my scope being spotted any earlier than necessary. Turns out he was just a little guy, but I gave him four tubes from my new Gato anyway. Poor guy erupted like Vesuvius, and two bow squared off the front of the ship nicely. No life boats spotted.

[AVGWarhawk]

Current patrol: April/44 off Formosa. Had at least two encounters with AC. Didn't stick around to fight. Hit the deep in a hurry:yep:

If I'm not mistaken, Ducimus who created the mod that allowed aircraft to spot you at 150 feet deep, gave permission to use this mod in RFB. Therefore, if an aircraft is in the vacinity, he can spot and bomb you when you are submerged. An evil but necessary mod because the planes could see your sub at those depths in the clear water of the Pacific:o

[LukeFF]

After some tests with RFB+Webster's torpedo mod ver. 1 (+25% more powerful torps) using attached test mission I must report that if we divide merchants for three tonnage classes situation looks as follows:

- ships with tonnage under 2500 tons sink after one torpedo hit in the middle of hull

- ships with tonnage between 2500 and 5000 tons should sink after two hits

- ships in 5000-10000 tons range sinks after three hits
I can do all of that in RFB without having to install a mod that increases the power of the torpedoes, in bad weather and on moonless nights, so what's your issue?

And let me just come out here and say this: NO, WEBSTER'S torpedo power mod is NOT compatible with RFB. You are only screwing up the damage model that we have worked very, very hard on these past months. If a bug arises with a particular ship or feature (like it has been), then by all means, let us know. Just complaining, however, that this ship damage mod sucks and repeats the old errors of other mods does nothing to help improve the mod.

[Sardaukar67]

Problem is that RFB Natural Sinking Model seems to be bit ahistorical. Ships did often sink because of loss of balance, not flooding per se (IMHO). That is well-documented as is number of exploding torpedo hits to achieve sinking.

Now, hits to same compartment do not help at all, while in reality, they'd cause critical results quite often, up to breaking ship in two.

Something like

http://www.combinedfleet.com/shoksinknotes.htm

It often takes me 6 exploding hits to sing large freighter...which is way above historical numbers. I try to be constructive, instead of griping, tho. There obviously was large amount of work that went towards this mod and generally I have been very happy with it.

[Bosje]

ok, I guess the tanker sinkings mentioned above are 'critical hits' then?

I've seen ships settle down and sink neatly in anywhere from 30 minutes to +/- 3 hours but I've never seen something go down within minutes, even if secondary explosions resulted from the torpedo impact

Anything which did not go down was seen to settle with a certain list and speed, keeping that up for hours and hours until I went in to finish them off (28 hours being the longest I shadowed a ship for so far)

I'll go and do a clean multi-installation with a 1 torpedo-1 ship captain and I'll try to come up with documented results. So far I've done my sinkings by spreading 3 torpedoes, most patrol reports I read so far seem to talk about spreads of 3, with 1 or 2 fish striking home and resulting sinking noises.

reposted questions:
-What is the news on the running away patch?
-And I noticed something about clipping distance in the new patch, does that mean we get everything rendered in the binoc view again? I'd love that

[Orion2012]

Problem is that RFB Natural Sinking Model seems to be bit ahistorical. Ships did often sink because of loss of balance, not flooding per se (IMHO). That is well-documented as is number of exploding torpedo hits to achieve sinking.

Now, hits to same compartment do not help at all, while in reality, they'd cause critical results quite often, up to breaking ship in two.

Something like

http://www.combinedfleet.com/shoksinknotes.htm

It often takes me 6 exploding hits to sing large freighter...which is way above historical numbers. I try to be constructive, instead of griping, tho. There obviously was large amount of work that went towards this mod and generally I have been very happy with it.
It does mention her being ripped apart after explosions from the magazine. It also says her bow was in the water and she began taking on water from the forward elevator. If that was the case the deck had to be below or extremely low in the water. If she did rupture at this point it , in my opinion, it would have been more likely blamed on structural strains caused by the lifting of the stern from the water and/or weakened steel due to the burning oil, and aviation fuel, not to mention the thousands of pounds of ordinance that was on board.

Just trying to say the majority of ships sunk would have been caused by the loss of neutral buoyancy due to the intake of water. Also worth pointing out that in this case the bow going down first may have cause the Shokaku to driver herself into the water if she was accelerating to evade.

[Gorshkov]

Gorshkov, can you give me a link of the torp mods?

Is it this one we're speaking about.. Webster's torpedo mod..
Here you are direct links. Try and choose in your personal taste:

http://files.filefront.com/WEBSTERs+Improved+US+Torpedo/;11081582;/fileinfo.html

http://files.filefront.com/WEBSTERs+Improved+GE+Torpedo/;11081574;/fileinfo.html

@LukeFF: Of course above mod is not compatible with RFB but sorry I do not think it is reasonable to sink merchants with 5-6 torps as other skippers reported here. I know it is artificial and unrealistic fix but unless you do not improve RFB's sinking mechanics many players will use Webster's concept. Naturally we can discuss Websters+RFB issue in separate thread if this thread is warped in RFB Team opinion by including such discussion.

[kwbgjh2]

I am really ok with the RFB mod. In my youth i red many u-boat adventures of the kriegsmarine and nowadays i read about the fleet boats on wikipedia.

The main thing is that even none of the german asses reached the sucess of their WW1 pendants. The sucess of Lothar von Arnauld de la Perière, who sunk 194 Merchants with 453.716 tons in 14 patrols was never reached again.
So most patrols of WW2 were just a combination of boredom and stress.

Many people here seem to have forgotten that the american sucess of submarines which crippled the japanese merchant navy so heavy was a product of the outstanding number of subs after end of 1943 and not of single SUPER CREWS who sunk 25 ships per patrol.

But.. something in the new damage model is a little strange to me, too.
Today i picked up a single "Small Old Split Freighter". Targetting with Dick O'Kane i fired 2 fish, both impact. From the first second i was sure he must go done.
After getting hit he accellareted from 8 knots to 12 knots. When i was sure that he got no deck gun i surfaced. When he noticed me he turned into large right hand bend. I did the same on his starboard side.

It was like a corral in an old Western. Seddlers on the inside, natives outside.:rotfl:

After 20 min (for which i used tc) i started a little practise with the deck gun. 40 rounds fired, 20 by me 20 by AI crew. I won the competition because i got 16 hits, the ai only 12.;)

So we revolved each other for another 15 mins and than he sunk.

So far i know i HAVE TO SEE the sinking of the ship for getting the credits. I am really not proud of my absolute unrealistic and silly behavior :oops::oops:

But what could i do ? To slow to follow under water. So let him go without credits ?!

[MDV_4life]

I am really ok with the RFB mod. In my youth i red many u-boat adventures of the kriegsmarine and nowadays i read about the fleet boats on wikipedia.

The main thing is that even none of the german asses reached the sucess of their WW1 pendants. The sucess of Lothar von Arnauld de la Perière, who sunk 194 Merchants with 453.716 tons in 14 patrols was never reached again.
So most patrols of WW2 were just a combination of boredom and stress.

Many people here seem to have forgotten that the american sucess of submarines which crippled the japanese merchant navy so heavy was a product of the outstanding number of subs after end of 1943 and not of single SUPER CREWS who sunk 25 ships per patrol.

But.. something in the new damage model is a little strange to me, too.
Today i picked up a single "Small Old Split Freighter". Targetting with Dick O'Kane i fired 2 fish, both impact. From the first second i was sure he must go done.
After getting hit he accellareted from 8 knots to 12 knots. When i was sure that he got no deck gun i surfaced. When he noticed me he turned into large right hand bend. I did the same on his starboard side.

It was like a corral in an old Western. Seddlers on the inside, natives outside.:rotfl:

After 20 min (for which i used tc) i started a little practise with the deck gun. 40 rounds fired, 20 by me 20 by AI crew. I won the competition because i got 16 hits, the ai only 12.;)

So we revolved each other for another 15 mins and than he sunk.

So far i know i HAVE TO SEE the sinking of the ship for getting the credits. I am really not proud of my absolute unrealistic and silly behavior :oops::oops:

But what could i do ? To slow to follow under water. So let him go without credits ?!.
I know it sucks when you don't get credits when it's because of your acting that he sunk ( when have to leave the ship because maybe there are some Destroyers are heading your way :o )

I also play an online shooter and you can bleed to death if you don't get help from a medic. I would love to see that the one who hurt him the most, would get the credits , but that's something I cannot change anything about. It's the modders who have to make this things happen. So all we can do is bother them ... :yep: :roll:

[tater]

kwbgjh2, in RL, there were many times they only "got credit" because they reported they herd breaking up noises, or secondary explosions, etc. "Heard" because they were held down by escorts. In some cases they got credit, others they did not. Sometimes they got credit, and postwar records show them to be wrong.

The game has no fog of war in this regard. It would be cool to see a sub sim that has credit separated from the actual results.

tater

[Bosje]

it's gonna be hard to come up with a way to recreate the real patrol tonnage, sure

even with RSRD i'm still having an easy time finding targets for all my torpedoes.
As a workaround, the damage model does serve its purpose to limit your kills but it's just too frustrating to see them sail off at 10 knots. unsatisfying even if it makes your end result realistic, lol.

silly, really. the only thing i can think of is an increased INaccuracy on your shots, to make you miss 2 shots out of a spread of 3. that one shot which is on target can then fail for any number of further reasons. that's how they did not have the good old 25 kill patrols in the real deal, from what i've read.

Still, it doesnt stop me getting grumpy when I see a ship not going down after hitting it. and more grumpy to see it run away from me. anyone else agree with this observation? would there be support for a bigger random torpedo inaccuracy or for some way of making your plot turn out wrong perhaps?

i doubt if the coding allows for a way to misjudge the target on the map but then again, i can't be bothered to entirely turn off the map updates. stupid me

[Gorshkov]

Well, I have tested RFB+Webster mods and I have gathered additional infos. So I report it to you:

- because in current RFB mod version only merchants have NYGM sinking model it is necessary to choose proper Webster mod version to find good equilibrium between sinking warships and merchants. That is why I must recommend ver. 1 of this mod because unfortunately ver. 2 is also too effective in sinking warships. I am sure if we get all ships with new sinking model in the future RFB version it will be good idea to switch to ver. 2!

- yet even with ver. 1 it is possible to sink merchants with small amount of torps. I was able to sink even ship above 5000 tons displacement with two torps but you have to get very precise hits! In short two hits must be placed near each other and both close to ship's aft or bow. Look at below screen-shot to see what I mean. That way merchants sink quite fast (15-30 minutes, sometimes a bit longer) not because of flooding but due to loosing of balance! That is a key factor to overcome flaws associated with new sinking model. Of course this task is challenging because it requires precise targeting but that is exactly what most of us wants in such sim!


http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/4339/sh4exe2kf1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Two close hits near aft and 7000 tons merchant sunk after 15 minutes!

[banjo]

I just completed a career in RFB 1.52. Started in mid 1942. Seventeen patrols. Sunk dozens of ships per usual, but didn't see a warship until late 1944 then encountered some I'd say about four different times. Interestingly, I didn't see a Jap a/c until March of 1945. I wanted to try out my twin 20 mm and the 40mm so stayed on the surface as an experiment. Was promptly sunk. As always when using RSRDC ships get very scarce starting in 1944.

[banjo]

I mispoke a few pages back when I said Webster's torpedo mods are compatible with RFB. For that I apologize. What I should have said was that mod works with RFB, i.e., doesn't cause it to crash, at least on my system. However, as LukeFF pointed out, by using it you upset the authentic sinking mechanics so carefully crafted by the RFB modders. Having tried it both ways, I am going back to the un-modded RFB.

[Bosje]

yes, best to leave the mod unmodded at this point, lol

i'll be interested to see what the patch brings

[DeepIron]

Frankly, I'd like to see you guys take your torpedo and deck gun modding discussion to it's own thread. The object of the RFB thread is to discuss RFB, to answer questions about RFB, and get feedback on RFB.

If you want to talk about someone else's mods to RFB, please do us all the courtesy and start your own separate thread and leave this one uncluttered. It seems to me that a very few people who use RFB find fault with it and these "how to "fix the torpedo" and "how to fix the deck gun" mods are NOT contributory to RFB overall.

In short, if you want to discuss someone else's mods to RFB, go somewhere else and leave this thread to it's original purpose.:shifty:

[Gorshkov]

yes, best to leave the mod unmodded at this point, lol

i'll be interested to see what the patch brings
I hope all ships with new sinking model which means switching to Webster's mod ver. 2 at least for me! ;)

***EDIT***

I have playtested RFB+Webster mods again and I must add that under-keel detonation is here probably more effective. For example I sunk above 9000 tons passenger liner with two torps using this method and mentioned above targeting procedure. I feel these two mods combined gave us the most realistic sinking model in all SH3 and SH4 stock and modded games versions! :up:

[kwbgjh2]

kwbgjh2, in RL, there were many times they only "got credit" because they reported they herd breaking up noises, or secondary explosions, etc. "Heard" because they were held down by escorts. In some cases they got credit, others they did not. Sometimes they got credit, and postwar records show them to be wrong.

The game has no fog of war in this regard. It would be cool to see a sub sim that has credit separated from the actual results.

tater
Tater, i know that-- same procedure in kriegsmarine as in USNavy. But what i want to know: What shall i do? Since the knew damage model i never had a instant sinking. I must confess that i am to dumb for the stadimeter. :damn: I am using the manual targetting since i was able to assume the Dick O'Kane method teached by RockinRobbins' tutorial.

I dont know anything about firing at the funnel when not on automatic targetting. I can fire only up to six fish. Most the time i have no duds even dud torpedoes is setted. Maybe its because my max fire distances is 800 yards.

Back to my question: Lets say i fire 6 torpedoes (like i always do on ships > 4000 tons) and i have 6 impacts. What would a WW2 captain have done ?? Go away ?! If i do so so... i would never get anything, because the minimum sinking time of all ships i hit before was > 2 hrs game time. My problem would not be getting some times credits and sometimes not... :doh: :doh:

I fear the day when i see the first big aim guarded by DD. In my first 9 months of the new carreer i only got on single merchants.

[Gorshkov]

Back to my question: Lets say i fire 6 torpedoes (like i always do on ships > 4000 tons) and i have 6 impacts. What would a WW2 captain have done ?? Go away ?! If i do so so... i would never get anything, because the minimum sinking time of all ships i hit before was > 2 hrs game time. My problem would not be getting some times credits and sometimes not... :doh: :doh:

I fear the day when i see the first big aim guarded by DD. In my first 9 months of the new carreer i only got on single merchants.
So therefore we need more powerful torpedoes in RFB mod because they cause more damage which means faster flooding and finally reduction of sinking time two to fourfold! Otherwise there is no way to wait two hours close to hit merchant especially if she can go away in convoy on high speed.

@LukeFF: Check if some merchants do not have too big draft values. I fired several times torps set at influence detonator and exactly specific draft value but they flew under ship with no explosion. For example:

- Medium Old European Composite: ONI draft 7,6 m but real draft 5 m
- Small Passenger Carrier: ONI draft 5,2 m but real draft 4 m

[Bosje]

gorshkov: torpedoes are prone to running too deep, its a torpedo failure which is modeled into the game

[DeepIron]

So therefore we need more powerful torpedoes in RFB mod because they cause more damage which means faster flooding and finally reduction of sinking time two to fourfold! Otherwise there is no way to wait two hours close to hit merchant especially if she can go away in convoy on high speed.
Please note the following:
1. In RL in the Pacifc theatre, ships could take from minutes to hours to sink. Often, US subs didn't get to "stick around" and were credited with sinkings AFTER the war. That how it was...
2. Magnetic detonators were unreliable in the Pacific due to changes in the Pacific magnetic fields vs the Atlantic in which ONLY A SINGLE TESTING of the magnetic exploders were conducted by NavBuOrd. Many Pacific fleet skippers ordered the magnetic detonators disabled.
3. The ship acceleration model is being examined by the RFB TEAM. It is a work in progress and a known issue from the stock game.

You have webster's mods... be satisfied with them. It's highly doubtful that the RFB TEAM will overhaul the torpedo damage model any further.

[IronPerch]

During my last patrol i hit Medium Modern Composite Freighter with my last three torpedoes (bow and stern hits, under the masts, magnetic detonations, but way above the max. Draft). She kept going round 7 - 10 knot even when flooded to the deck level. After few hour of shadowing she was still doing fine so i decided to finnish her with the deck gun... but, i ran out of ammo before anything happened (hull shots, below waterline, close range). In that point i was so frustrated (well simulated...) that i decided ruin my career by ramming her with my boat, to see is it possible to sink her without anykind of ammunition... didn't help. She must have been loaded with the kork or ping-pong balls... Finally i decided to head back to port. I allmost made it but the game crashed (has happened only twice before with different mods than RFB...). :damn: :damn: :damn:

A sad story....Anyway i noticed that my boat didn't take anykind of damage while i was ramming the Medium Modern Composite Freighter and listening the colision sound. Was this somekind of "momentary lapse of reason" that finally leaded to game crash or "bug" in (fleet)boats damage model?

[Gorshkov]

1. In reality this is correct but it is possible with SH4 game engine to be credited with kill without being close during ship's sinking? If no, we are deprived of large parts of credit which WW2 skippers were granted.

2. OK, but this magnetic detonator malfunctions are also active in RFB mod without dude torpedoes selected in game options? If so, I will use only contact detonators and torpedo depth set at 3 meters all the time.

PS. Of course increasing torpedo power has not to be in the RFB designers scope. All depends on how good sinking mechanism will be. Simply if ships sink too long or after unrealistic number of hits, some people will use "software accelerators" to fix this issue. Other guys can feel well with RFB sinking model and will use "stock RFB".

[Gorshkov]

In that point i was so frustrated (well simulated...) that i decided ruin my career by ramming her with my boat, to see is it possible to sink her without anykind of ammunition... didn't help. She must have been loaded with the kork or ping-pong balls... Finally i decided to head back to port. I allmost made it but the game crashed (has happened only twice before with different mods than RFB...). :damn: :damn: :damn:

A sad story....
Certainly sad! If you are really frustrated try Webster's mod version 3 (for hardcore users!). I am sure you will be happy all the time! One torpedo hit destroys about half of ship's compartments. No way any junk could escape several hours at 10 knots! :rotfl:

Additionally type XXI U-boat still missing Walter propulsion control. Yet the worse is I cannot fix this problem by replacing HUD.dds file that taken from Trigger Maru mod. It was possible in previous RFB version.

A sad story...

[Rockin Robbins]

Folks, the RFB people have passed judgment on your ideas of more destructive torpedoes. They break RFB. I suggest you take your irrelevant discussion elsewhere into your own thread.

For better or worse, RFB is what its creators say it is. Please make room for those who appreciate these people's hard work. In Observer's damage thread alone there were over 475 messages during exhaustive testing of the damage models. These people know what they're doing and are very good at it.

If you just want to blow stuff up, don't use half-measures. Load up my Subnuclear Weapons and go to town!

[LukeFF]

The patch for 1.52 is complete and has been uploaded to the server. See the first link in this thread for details.

Fixes:

Fixes a problem with the ship damage model where ships would continue to steam on with hits to the machinery spaces.
Fixes some minor issues with the submarine damage model.
Fixes a problem where the Hog Island freighter would catch fire in heavy seas.
Fixes the problem with flashing/flickering textures in the periscope and deck gun views.
Adds in a couple of missing textures from the PE4 mod.
Corrects the starting date for the acquisition of SJ-1 radar.
Corrected max gyro angle on the Mark 10 torpedo to 90 degrees.Changes:

Adjusted the ammo count on the 5"/25 deck gun to 75 rounds.
Removed the hull integrity indicator from the damage report page.
Adjusted the default deck guns for all American subs.
Some adjustments made to the visual spotting behavior for the player's submarine.
"Return to Plotted Course" and "Recognition Manual" commands can now be accessed from any view.
New sound for the wind in heavy seas.

[LukeFF]

Well, I have tested RFB+Webster mods and I have gathered additional infos. So I report it to you:

- because in current RFB mod version only merchants have NYGM sinking model it is necessary to choose proper Webster mod version to find good equilibrium between sinking warships and merchants. That is why I must recommend ver. 1 of this mod because unfortunately ver. 2 is also too effective in sinking warships. I am sure if we get all ships with new sinking model in the future RFB version it will be good idea to switch to ver. 2!

- yet even with ver. 1 it is possible to sink merchants with small amount of torps. I was able to sink even ship above 5000 tons displacement with two torps but you have to get very precise hits! In short two hits must be placed near each other and both close to ship's aft or bow. Look at below screen-shot to see what I mean. That way merchants sink quite fast (15-30 minutes, sometimes a bit longer) not because of flooding but due to loosing of balance! That is a key factor to overcome flaws associated with new sinking model. Of course this task is challenging because it requires precise targeting but that is exactly what most of us wants in such sim!

Go take this subject somewhere else if you want to talk about using RFB with a mod that perverts the damage model of RFB. Unless you have spent hundreds (yes, hundreds) of hours testing every single merchant ship with a wide variety of torpedo hit locations as we have done, you cannot possibly know how much effort has gone into this part of the mod to this date. Now, if you want to back up your claims with proven historical data, then by all means do so in this thread. That is the only way you can persuade us that something is not right with the mod and needs to be changed.

[Schultzy]

Wow, that was quick work with the patch. Great, thanks a lot!

Off to DL. :)

[Kruger]

Luke, chill out man. I think you're overreacting. Is this still a free forum, or is it RFB forum ?

[CobraDriver]

Excellent job with this mod, I love the thing but am I missing something about rigging for depth charges?

The manual says the OOD's should be moved to the open position in the con and that the player must manually rig for depth charges. So I have moved the guys to their location....and now what am I supposed to do to rig for DC's? A button to push, key command, something?

Or is this just a move the guys and it happens automatically kind-a-thing?

Anyhow, thanx for the efforts and any help with this dilemna.

CD

[kwbgjh2]

@LukeFF and the complete RFB Team !

:sunny::sunny::sunny: This patch was all i needed. Downloading and installing it in a minute an then out for next patrol. Radar contact to a single merchant. Later identified as "Small Old Tanker". Everything was prepared for the perfect shot.
Suddenly he decided to change course from 238 to 270. To late for any changes. I fired four fish at him. 2 impacts at the stern, 2 missed.

With free camera i discovered that he had a big hole underwater and the screw was blown away.
And then a dream turned into reality. Maybe up to 2-3 min at all, the tanker lost his complete acceleration, lost his power and there he stood like a lame duck just drifted by the real calm pacific. WOW !!!

No need to tell what happend then.

:arrgh!:

Big thx to all your RFB Modders !!!

[Bosje]

D/L
:up:

[Fish40]

Excellent job with this mod, I love the thing but am I missing something about rigging for depth charges?

The manual says the OOD's should be moved to the open position in the con and that the player must manually rig for depth charges. So I have moved the guys to their location....and now what am I supposed to do to rig for DC's? A button to push, key command, something?

Or is this just a move the guys and it happens automatically kind-a-thing?

Anyhow, thanx for the efforts and any help with this dilemna.

CD


AFAIK, moveing the officers to the CT, and the bridgecrew to Hogan's Alley is all that's needed. If you leave them in position while submerged with an attack from escorts, they are vulnerable to DC attack even though they seem to be safe and sound below decks.

[CobraDriver]

Thanx for the response on that one Fish, now I have another one for ya.

My RFB 1.52 102408 works great and when I tried to patch it with this latest 111608 now after the mission loading screen and just prior to "shipping off" it crashes.

I'm installing the patch with JSGME and have no other mods installed except for 102408 and this one which is the patch.

Thx again

CD

[Bosje]

i had a crash to desktop when i tried to reload a savegame on patrol

after unloading the mods and reloading them with the patch it's probably no surprise that the save was messed up :)

loading a save while in port went fine though, if you have a port save you should be ok :)

[Gorshkov]

Luke, chill out man. I think you're overreacting. Is this still a free forum, or is it RFB forum ?

Of course Luke overreacted. I am sure this is still free forum. Specialized RFB forum exists somewhere else.

[Fincuan]

This is the RFB thread however, so it would be simply polite to take the discussions on other mods to other threads.

What comes to the damage model, personally I haven't found much problems with it. The only thing I can think of is ships going on and on and on with hits in screws(completely removed them once without any effect) or machinery spaces, but even that is should be taken care of by the patch.

Good job RFB team :up:

[Bosje]

the patch runs smoothly :up:
but the binoc view is still unobstructed. this is not in the patch, then. Am i the only one who wants the crew and boat to be in the way of the view? if so, can anyone help me fix the clipping distance for myself? I can't get it done and i'd hate to mess it up

cheers

[kwbgjh2]

This is the screen for a thing i always waited for. I never could beleave that the explosion of so much torpex had any influence on the propulsion of a freighter neither in stock game nor in any mod.

RFB this is really great. :up::up::up:

Fired 4 torpedoes at this guy, all hits, and my sonar officer told me:


http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/1063/lostyo2.jpg (http://img388.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lostyo2.jpg)


:lol::lol::lol: From the first moment i knew he would not escape anymore. Next lame duck !!

Greetings, kwbgjh2

[Rockin Robbins]

Removed the hull integrity indicator from the damage report page.

WOW! I've been waiting for this since SH4UBM came out! I've always hated that thing...:up:

[Rockin Robbins]

Luke, chill out man. I think you're overreacting. Is this still a free forum, or is it RFB forum ?
This is the RFB thread in a free forum. As such Luke calls the shots on what belongs here. He has decided the RFB thread is not a place to advertise other mods that break RFB. That's reasonable. Start a new thread. There's nothing wrong with what your're doing, just where you're doing it.

And my Subnuclear Weapons break it worse than anybody's, so don't paint me as an RFB goon.:arrgh!:

[vanjast]

Start a new thread. There's nothing wrong with what your're doing, just where you're doing it.
Made a topic over here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=144527) just for that... kinda quiet at the moment :cool:

[Kruger]

Luke, chill out man. I think you're overreacting. Is this still a free forum, or is it RFB forum ?
This is the RFB thread in a free forum. As such Luke calls the shots on what belongs here. He has decided the RFB thread is not a place to advertise other mods that break RFB. That's reasonable. Start a new thread. There's nothing wrong with what your're doing, just where you're doing it.

And my Subnuclear Weapons break it worse than anybody's, so don't paint me as an RFB goon.:arrgh!:


I get it. This attitude is :down:. No matter, I wasn't going to hang around much anymore.

If sharing opinions on how mods combine is something so bad that some people overreact in such a way, then excuse me for being.

[Bosje]

2:30 -medium old european composite, 3 premature detonations on first salvo, sent a fourth fast runner after her with magnetic switched off, it struck between the funnel and the aft mast

target seen to have a slight list, maintaining 6,5 knots. shadowed for well over an hour and lined up again (target had resumed a straight course by then)

3:55 -2 more shots on impact trigger, both hits. one struck near the forward mast, the other struck just behind the funnel.

target seen to be on fire and stopped dead in the water.

4:15 -target sunk

@RFB team: thank you :rock:

[Gorshkov]

I am also disappointed with overreacting persons. Thus Webster's mod is only an ad hoc remedy for bad in my view sinking model.

As for new patch: this is good that steaming up ships with destroyed machinery are gone but what about amount of torps to sink merchant and sinking times? Kwbgjh2 is now amazed because he was able to sink small merchant with FOUR torps. It is very sad... :-?

[banjo]

RFB Team--great work! Thanks for the patch! D/l now.

[tater]

Luke, chill out man. I think you're overreacting. Is this still a free forum, or is it RFB forum ?

As fincuan said, this is not the RFB FORUM, but it is, indeed, the RFB THREAD.

If the RFB guys want to keep this one thread "on topic," it seems like it would be common courtesy to indulge them.

<S>

tater

[tater]

I am also disappointed with overreacting persons. Thus Webster's mod is only an ad hoc remedy for bad in my view sinking model.

As for new patch: this is good that steaming up ships with destroyed machinery are gone but what about amount of torps to sink merchant and sinking times? Kwbgjh2 is now amazed because he was able to sink small merchant with FOUR torps. It is very sad... :-?

Damage models are perhaps one of, if not the most complex thing to mess around with in this game engine. They interact with all weapons systems, even collisions. They need to be tested vs torpedoes, which at least have a limited range of stock damage values, as well as all the surface combatant weapons, bombs, etc. They also need to be balanced vs attacks on other subs in such a way that player subs are not impossible to sink, nor too easy to sink.

In short, a gigantic can of worms. Every single change requires hours of back and forth, in and out of the game from the desktop.

Statistical analysis of actual sinkings—target ship tonnage and type, number of torpedo hits, and end result—are the only data that would be really useful to calibrate the DM vs RL sinkings.

All the RFB guys have ever asked for it to put suggestions regarding such technical changes into that context—WHAT WAS THE REAL LIFE DATA?

Ditto for the (endless) Deck Gun debates. Again, how many rounds fired, how many hit, and in what time frame. RL log data, not navweaps stats on ROF, but actual combat logs, "X rounds expended for Y hits in Z minutes at TARGET, target afire and sinking."

I'm not on the RFB team, and I cannot speak for them, but I am confident that real life data will always be cheerfully absorbed by them.

So you have a problem, fine. Present it as "It takes me X hits to sink Y tons, when JNAC data clearly shows that the median number of hits for 1942 is in fact Y."

Course you have to pour through the data, which is, well, work. Might even be a decent % of the work the RFB guys would do on the damage model in a night or two. ;)

Help more, whine less.

<S>

tater

[Kruger]

Who has the data ? In it's absence, we have to consider common sense rules. For example, common sense dictates that a sampan should be blasted to hell with one torp, not continue to float just because it has maybe two compartments, and one of them is enough to provide buoyancy. How many documented cases of destroyers surviving one hit exist ?

Let's pass to tankers, floating bombs usually (documented). In RFB they're like tanks.

I set-up a single mission with practically every type of ship present in this game, and did a shooting gallery.

Tugs are like rocks. Sampans are real armed fortresses. A small merchant doesn't bother if you hit it in the same place with 3 torps. Are you telling me this is real ? :doh: In reality if you hit a ship in the same place, the damage increases, it will most likely break in half.

So is it bad that RFB introduced the new damage model ? Not at all. But it's exaggerated.

[ancient46]

Within the limitations of the SH4 engine, the RFB team has adjusted the game to produce what their hours of research has shown to be historical. They have modeled the merchant ships and torpedoes to sink a ship in a manner that reflects what they are able to find out how it actually happened during the war.

I can understand Luke's frustration with a discussion in this thread that endorses changing the Mod to undo all the work they put in to building it. It is appropriate move the torpedo discussion to another thread since the Team has stated that modding the torpedo damage defeats the aim of their work. He spends a lot of time reading this thread to help people and problems to fix.

I was not happy with the difference in sinking that this Mod at first. It went against the way I was used to doing things. However now I think it is just fine since I learned to shoot better. Luke and the team really did explain in the manual and in this thread how to sink ships. His tips have made me a better captain and now I have ships that sink in a short time if my target solution is correct. If it is not then I chase her down and shoot again. The new damage model was not what I was used to, but the old dog has learned some new tricks and likes it just fine.

[AVGWarhawk]

Who has the data ? In it's absence, we have to consider common sense rules. For example, common sense dictates that a sampan should be blasted to hell with one torp, not continue to float just because it has maybe two compartments, and one of them is enough to provide buoyancy. How many documented cases of destroyers surviving one hit exist ?

Let's pass to tankers, floating bombs usually (documented). In RFB they're like tanks.

I set-up a single mission with practically every type of ship present in this game, and did a shooting gallery.

Tugs are like rocks. Sampans are real armed fortresses. A small merchant doesn't bother if you hit it in the same place with 3 torps. Are you telling me this is real ? :doh: In reality if you hit a ship in the same place, the damage increases, it will most likely break in half.

So is it bad that RFB introduced the new damage model ? Not at all. But it's exaggerated.
I sunk a T-3 tanker with two torps. Furthermore, fire is just eyecandy and not secondary damage producer. I hit a small tanker in the bow and it plowed the sea at 4 knots. I just about had it sunk with my cannon at 15 shots before the DD found me the fog. Never had an issue with the Sanpans. A few cannon shots and there done. Most still float because they are wood. I have no issues with the damage mod. I will sink T-3 all day with this mod:D BTW, common sense would dictate you do not use a torp for a lowly sampan!

I truly recommend a fresh install of SH4 and then a fresh install of RFB followed by the last RFB patch. Heck I was missing some camera views with the new RFB and only got them after a fresh install of SH4.

[Gorshkov]

Who has the data ? In it's absence, we have to consider common sense rules. For example, common sense dictates that a sampan should be blasted to hell with one torp, not continue to float just because it has maybe two compartments, and one of them is enough to provide buoyancy. How many documented cases of destroyers surviving one hit exist ?

Let's pass to tankers, floating bombs usually (documented). In RFB they're like tanks.

I set-up a single mission with practically every type of ship present in this game, and did a shooting gallery.

Tugs are like rocks. Sampans are real armed fortresses. A small merchant doesn't bother if you hit it in the same place with 3 torps. Are you telling me this is real ? :doh: In reality if you hit a ship in the same place, the damage increases, it will most likely break in half.

So is it bad that RFB introduced the new damage model ? Not at all. But it's exaggerated.
I fully support your opinions! :up:

All in all I am even close to acknowledge that stock SH4 sinking/torpedo damage model, yet primitive, is not so bad. I simply think that SH3/SH4 game engine warps all efforts aimed at introducing complicated or realistic sinking models. That is why we get all these idiotic artifacts during playing as a result. Remember FLYING sampan after torpedo hit in previous RFB version...I suppose only Silent Hunter 4 developers could introduce advanced sinking mechanics properly... :damn:

[Rockin Robbins]

Who has the data ? In it's absence, we have to consider common sense rules. For example, common sense dictates that a sampan should be blasted to hell with one torp, not continue to float just because it has maybe two compartments, and one of them is enough to provide buoyancy. How many documented cases of destroyers surviving one hit exist ?

Let's pass to tankers, floating bombs usually (documented). In RFB they're like tanks.

I set-up a single mission with practically every type of ship present in this game, and did a shooting gallery.

Tugs are like rocks. Sampans are real armed fortresses. A small merchant doesn't bother if you hit it in the same place with 3 torps. Are you telling me this is real ? :doh: In reality if you hit a ship in the same place, the damage increases, it will most likely break in half.

So is it bad that RFB introduced the new damage model ? Not at all. But it's exaggerated.
Kruger, your first statement disqualifies you as a credible source of what is reasonable because it is a bald statement that you have no data.

I can tell you based on data you're wrong on tankers. You're wrong on sampans. You're wrong on ships breaking in half.

As you know, the RFB damage model does not include warships yet and you are just blowing smoke in that area. You know RFB didn't touch destroyer damage models yet. But you persist in misrepresenting the situation anyway.

Credible people with the data you claim doesn't exist (you didn't even look for it) are analyzing real data. Credible people have already put MONTHS of work into this. Where's your hard work? Where's your data? Where's your help? There is none, there is none, there is none.

Mod the game to your heart's content. I suggest my subnuclear weapons and be done with it. No sense in leaving any doubt whether the target should have sunk.

Your concerns have been heard and discounted. Repeating them just brands you a troublemaker. The RFB team cheerfully awaits all real data that will help them refine any aspect of the game.

[Nisgeis]

Who has the data ? In it's absence, we have to consider common sense rules. For example, common sense dictates that a sampan should be blasted to hell with one torp, not continue to float just because it has maybe two compartments, and one of them is enough to provide buoyancy. How many documented cases of destroyers surviving one hit exist ?

Let's pass to tankers, floating bombs usually (documented). In RFB they're like tanks.

I set-up a single mission with practically every type of ship present in this game, and did a shooting gallery.

Tugs are like rocks. Sampans are real armed fortresses. A small merchant doesn't bother if you hit it in the same place with 3 torps. Are you telling me this is real ? :doh: In reality if you hit a ship in the same place, the damage increases, it will most likely break in half.

So is it bad that RFB introduced the new damage model ? Not at all. But it's exaggerated.

There are lots of resources on the web for sinkings. Many web sites associated with fleet boats have the individual boat's war patrol reports on them, sometimes reproduced as a scan and sometimes reproduced as searchable text.

There are also a few websites that reproduce, in searchable text, fleet submarine manuals. Then there's the naval mission to Japan, which discusses technical details of battle damage and all things Japanese. There are lots of resources available, all for free. It's important to note though, that when doing research, one must always be careful to understand the source of a piece of information and the impact that has on the information.

Rest assured that if accurate historical evidence is presented, as this is 'Real Fleet Boat', if less torpedoes were required historically to do the job than currently modelled, then I'm sure it will be adjusted to match reality, that is to say history. It's a time consuming process to research things and although the argument may have merit, it has not been presented with a basis. Present an argument based on referencable facts and I'm sure you'll get more air time. My own understanding of certain things would have suffered considerably, if I'd never been challened on certain points.

[Gorshkov]

Kruger, your first statement disqualifies you as a credible source of what is reasonable because it is a bald statement that you have no data.
I can tell you based on data you're wrong on tankers. You're wrong on sampans. You're wrong on ships breaking in half.

Credible people with the data you claim doesn't exist (you didn't even look for it) are analyzing real data. Credible people have already put MONTHS of work into this. Where's your hard work? Where's your data? Where's your help? There is none, there is none, there is none.
Here you are your "real" data: in SH4 game modded with RFB mod! :down:


Your concerns have been heard and discounted. Repeating them just brands you a troublemaker.
Really? Not only Krueger has "hallucinations"... :rotfl:

Rest assured that, as this is 'Real Fleet Boat', if less torpedoes were required historically to do the job than currently modelled, then it will be adjusted to match reality, that is to say history.
If so huge amount of torps had been needed to sink merchants in reality during WW2, submarine warfare would have been forbidden as completely senseless and Doenitz had been sent to mental hospital at best, I am sure!

I sunk a T-3 tanker with two torps.
Was that some subnukes borrowed from Robbins? ;)

[Rockin Robbins]

Kruger, your first statement disqualifies you as a credible source of what is reasonable because it is a bald statement that you have no data.
I can tell you based on data you're wrong on tankers. You're wrong on sampans. You're wrong on ships breaking in half.

Credible people with the data you claim doesn't exist (you didn't even look for it) are analyzing real data. Credible people have already put MONTHS of work into this. Where's your hard work? Where's your data? Where's your help? There is none, there is none, there is none.
Here you are your "real" data: in SH4 game modded with RFB mod! :down:


Your concerns have been heard and discounted. Repeating them just brands you a troublemaker.
Really? Not only Krueger has hallucinations... :rotfl:

Rest assured that, as this is 'Real Fleet Boat', if less torpedoes were required historically to do the job than currently modelled, then it will be adjusted to match reality, that is to say history.
If so huge amount of torps had been needed to sink merchants in reality during WW2, submarine warfare would have been forbidden as completely senseless and Doenitz had been sent to mental hospital at best, I am sure!

I'm sorry. I'm looking for something to respond to here and I am unable to find anything. Doenitz is not even a part of the discussion. Again, best to take it to another thread. The RFB people have work to do and can't waste time responding to irrelevancies.

[Fincuan]

You make lots of claims Gorshkov. Do you have any data to support them?

[AVGWarhawk]

Kruger, your first statement disqualifies you as a credible source of what is reasonable because it is a bald statement that you have no data.
I can tell you based on data you're wrong on tankers. You're wrong on sampans. You're wrong on ships breaking in half.

Credible people with the data you claim doesn't exist (you didn't even look for it) are analyzing real data. Credible people have already put MONTHS of work into this. Where's your hard work? Where's your data? Where's your help? There is none, there is none, there is none.
Here you are your "real" data: in SH4 game modded with RFB mod! :down:


Your concerns have been heard and discounted. Repeating them just brands you a troublemaker.
Really? Not only Krueger has "hallucinations"... :rotfl:

Rest assured that, as this is 'Real Fleet Boat', if less torpedoes were required historically to do the job than currently modelled, then it will be adjusted to match reality, that is to say history.
If so huge amount of torps had been needed to sink merchants in reality during WW2, submarine warfare would have been forbidden as completely senseless and Doenitz had been sent to mental hospital at best, I am sure!

I really recommend a complete and fresh reinstall of the game. It cured some issues I was having with textures and missing features for RFB that made a world of difference. Again, I sunk a T-3 with two torps us RFB. Apparently you missed that part of my posts. So, instead of taking the time to fire back at everyone, use the time to reinstall the game and the RFB mod. Really man, it did wonders for my game and it works as advertised.

[Gorshkov]

You make lots of claims Gorshkov. Do you have any data to support them?
I don not need those because I am not an idiot! I rather ask if you have some credible data about T3 tanker not being sunk after SIX torpedo hits???

Hell, I will reinstall my game and check this myself! Anyway I wonder using JGSME can mess with game installation.

[Fincuan]

You're now starting to sound awfully like Subman. Do you have data to support your claims or not?

[AVGWarhawk]

You make lots of claims Gorshkov. Do you have any data to support them?
I don not need those because I am not idiot! I rather ask if you have some credible data about T3 tanker not sunk after SIX torpedo hits???

DUUUUDDDEEEEE..........read my posts. You can sink the T-3 with two torps. I have using RFB. Myself and one other stated it can be done. Mine only worked after a re-install of the game and adding RFB. Stop firing back and look at your game and not the mod. Handfull of others are having no issue yet two are. The odds are, your game needs a reinstall so it works correctly.

[Wilcke]

...and to further add fuel to the fire as the Anti-Shipping war continued in the Pacific the Silent Service' statistics for torpedoes used per sinking went up for '44 and '45 due to the end of the torpedo shortage and restrictive orders on one torpedo per ship. So many skippers were firing all six forward tubes at targets just to make sure.

So you kind of have to work that into how you historically play the game versus skimping on the torpedoes. Remember as a simulated skipper you are privy to much history on the tech and disposition side of the PTO and how the IJN carried out their side of things.

Playing SH4 with RFB brings about a very melancholy feel to the whole experience punctuated by short times of intense preparation for a tactical approach, plotting and development of a feasible and high percentage of hit fire control solution. The actual firing of the torpedo is anti-climactic at best when all goes well. That is not to often. The depth charge attacks are just sheer terror and agony.

I don't post a lot about how I play the sim. I have read quite a lot to capture the feel of what it was like and try to emulate the experience.

Sorry I drone on.

[tater]

Let's pass to tankers, floating bombs usually (documented). In RFB they're like tanks.

I set-up a single mission with practically every type of ship present in this game, and did a shooting gallery.

Tugs are like rocks. Sampans are real armed fortresses. A small merchant doesn't bother if you hit it in the same place with 3 torps. Are you telling me this is real ? :doh: In reality if you hit a ship in the same place, the damage increases, it will most likely break in half.

So is it bad that RFB introduced the new damage model ? Not at all. But it's exaggerated.

The data is out there, Alden's book (Naval Institute Press) lists every single submarine attack with lat/long, fish fired, hits, claimed results, claimed tonnage, and actual tonnage and results (even names of targets) in most cases. It's just a LOT of work to sort through it, then compare the ships to ONI-208J (trust me ;) )

Breaking in half seems quite rare, actually.

Regarding tankers, they were actually quite hard to bring down in RL. I checked vs most of the war (to end of 44), and 0% of attacks that hit with 1 torpedo sank an AO/XAO of the size we have in SH4 (Nippon Maru). Looks like Nippon should go down about 2/3 of the time with 2-3 hits, and get away safe the other 1/3 (based on RL).

Now, if you add in tankers we DON'T have, above 10k, things get far different. It starts taking whole spreads assuming all fish hit to take down a big tanker. Since Nippon has to fill in for others, I suppose she should be a little harder than RL to sink. Note also that a great number of tanker claims were grossly overclaimed in terms of size. The japs used many small tankers that looked just like larger units, but were under 2k tons.

How many documented cases of destroyers surviving one hit exist ?

Good question.

39 confirmed sunk (various hits in spreads, so who knows if it took 1 or 2+)
9 survived 1 hit.
3 survied 2 hits.
1 survived FOUR hits (a Matsu DE, no less)

So a fair bet is that around 1/3 should survive 1 hit.

[Gorshkov]

You're now starting to sound awfully like Subman. Do you have data to support your claims or not?

OK, I have "'battleship T3" in the game, also Sardaukar67 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=230047) has "battleship freigher" in his game. - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=988642&postcount=1940. Maybe Subman also had another unexpected "battleship", too?

OK, we both may have messed game installations. Otherwise I wait for your real data about six torps needed to sink those ships because I do not believe my CPU goes mad during RFB play!

So a fair bet is that around 1/3 should survive 1 hit.

I am sure less than 25%, buddy!

(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=988642&postcount=1940)

[AVGWarhawk]

You're now starting to sound awfully like Subman. Do you have data to support your claims or not?

OK, I have "'battleship T3" in the game, also Sardaukar67 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=230047) has "battleship freigher" in his game. - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=988642&postcount=1940. Maybe Subman also had another unexpected "battleship", too?

OK, we both may have messed game installations. Otherwise I wait for your real data about six torps needed to sink those ships because I do not believe my CPU goes mad during RFB play!

So a fair bet is that around 1/3 should survive 1 hit.
I am sure less than 25%, buddy!

(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=988642&postcount=1940)


My game installation was screwed. Once reinstalled. Everything worked fine. Again, 2 torps in the midsection of a T-3 and she went down in about 3 minutes. Using RFB and RSRD. Nothing more.

[Bosje]

The data is out there, Alden's book (Naval Institute Press) lists every single submarine attack with lat/long, fish fired, hits, claimed results, claimed tonnage, and actual tonnage and results (even names of targets) in most cases. It's just a LOT of work to sort through it, then compare the ships to ONI-208J (trust me ;) )

Breaking in half seems quite rare, actually.

Regarding tankers, they were actually quite hard to bring down in RL. I checked vs most of the war (to end of 44), and 0% of attacks that hit with 1 torpedo sank an AO/XAO of the size we have in SH4 (Nippon Maru). Looks like Nippon should go down about 2/3 of the time with 2-3 hits, and get away safe the other 1/3 (based on RL).

Now, if you add in tankers we DON'T have, above 10k, things get far different. It starts taking whole spreads assuming all fish hit to take down a big tanker. Since Nippon has to fill in for others, I suppose she should be a little harder than RL to sink. Note also that a great number of tanker claims were grossly overclaimed in terms of size. The japs used many small tankers that looked just like larger units, but were under 2k tons.

How many documented cases of destroyers surviving one hit exist ?
Good question.

39 confirmed sunk (various hits in spreads, so who knows if it took 1 or 2+)
9 survived 1 hit.
3 survied 2 hits.
1 survived FOUR hits (a Matsu DE, no less)

So a fair bet is that around 1/3 should survive 1 hit.

If that is the data, then I apologize for any moaning I did myself. I was simply under the impression that my non-sinking targets were off the scale, a frustration further aggravated by them sailing away.

So far, my three sinkings with the patch seem to suggest that the sailing away bit is nicely fixed. so well done on that :up:

The one thing I can not understand is this: my 2 supposedly accurate books and my handful of other books (fact-based fiction) about the Atlantic side of things are all full of ships going down from a torpedo hit. With those books in mind I was getting a nice 'realistic' feeling from SH3 GWX2.1. I can only assume that more people had this experience and that's where the last few pages of bitching come from.

only bringing this up as an aside, the point being that it all looked terribly wrong. From now on I will assume that it is, in fact, terribly right.

shutting up now on this topic and moving on to my other questions, lol

i'll repeat that i am meanwhile having a blast with RFB 1.52 :arrgh!: