Deck Gun Viewport Camera to be destabilized in GWX 2.1

[Kpt. Lehmann]

For the release of GWX 1.0 we detabilized the laser guided aim of the player U-boat AI crew using the deck gun.

Following the release of GWX 2.1, direct usage of the deck gun by the player is now destabilized effectively destroying the uber-accuracy when used by the player.

Warning... arcade players will HATE this modification. It will become default GWX material and no optional mod to remove it will be included with the GWX 2.1 update.

This change should help knock the incessant deck gun debating on its head. Reload times, rate-of-fire, and potential damage debates won't matter much when you have hell just hitting the target. Indeed, your AI crew (even though they are not very accurate due to their own previously existing destabilization coding) will be much more effective than your own manning of the deck gun.

Ammunition expenditure should go up... and early war "uber tonnage deck gun patrols" should be lessened as a result.

MP4 video download... deck gun viewport destabilzation:

http://rapidshare.com/files/93102094/deck_gun_camera.7z.html

Way to go Privateer! Another game limitation smashed.:rock:

(Theoretically, I guess we should destabilize the UZO as well... but methinks even the hardest of the hardcore guys may want to lynch us for that one.)

[3Jane]

This is the zoomed view/range fiders for the deck gun, just to check. As for the UZO, that should be destabalised as well. If the bridge is moving, the master-sight should move as well. :p

[Kpt. Lehmann]

This is the zoomed view/range fiders for the deck gun, just to check. As for the UZO, that should be destabalised as well. If the bridge is moving, the master-sight should move as well. :p

Just to clarify. All zoom levels for the deck gun are affected. The camera destabilization is more evident with each zoom level.

[Dowly]

Good call, El Kapitan & the team. :up:

[FIREWALL]

I live fo this. :smug:

[Sailor Steve]

Just watched it.

Brilliant!:rock:

[FIREWALL]

Hi S.S. Good Morning. :sunny: It's 3:30 am here I guess were both up early.:up:

[Sailor Steve]

Yep, 4:32 now here in Salt Lake. I went to bed early, and was awakened just after midnight by my two roommates crashing things in the front hall. Seems one of them found a 40" TV advertised online for free, and they made a 60-mile round trip to get it.

I loaded up SH3 for a late dinner, and then came here for dessert.

[Letum]

Could you turn stabilization ON for the attack scope?
This would be historical as it had a device to stabilise the image.

[Madox58]

I can't view the video.
Is it V1 or V2?
:doh:

[Boris]

Could you turn stabilization ON for the attack scope?
This would be historical as it had a device to stabilise the image.

That option will still be in the realism menu... right? Why is this a realism option anyway?

[Letum]

Could you turn stabilization ON for the attack scope?
This would be historical as it had a device to stabilise the image.
That option will still be in the realism menu... right? Why is this a realism option anyway?

because the SH3 devs wrongly assumed there was no stabilisation device.

[FIREWALL]

Sounds like your roommates scored bigtime :D

[Erich Topp]

Well, do you want to have your leg cutted instead of curing your kneel one day?)) I guess not. In reality ships could take 70-80 shell hits to sink. Hits. Not shots. Reducing "killing shot" probability didn't removes the split problem at all. And why? 'cause of "hollywood effects"? Eyes-candy of flying debris? Bah.
Good news, anyway)) More work to do after release for tweaking mod.
Problems are in the heads first, in the mods second. Damn, it's so hard to lower damage radius? Few mins in the tweaker program. "Hollywood effects" is more important, yeah?

[Meridian]

Sorry, doesn't seem that realistic to me.....

I've always hung bernard by the throat from the end of the barrel so it doesn't move as much. :rotfl:

Nice job guys.

[Oberon]

Good work guys, and I've always loved using the Deck gun! :up:

[danlisa]

Good job guys.:up:

Now, destabalize the UZO. You know you want to.

Well, do you want to have your leg cutted instead of curing your kneel one day?)) I guess not. In reality ships could take 70-80 shell hits to sink. Hits. Not shots. Reducing "killing shot" probability didn't removes the split problem at all. And why? 'cause of "hollywood effects"? Eyes-candy of flying debris? Bah.

Good news, anyway)) More work to do after release for tweaking mod.
Problems are in the heads first, in the mods second.
:roll: Jeez, You don't quit do you!

Make your choice:

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s64/danlisa_photo/Attention.png

[Erich Topp]

)) It's easier to quit someone, than to speak your arguments? Sure. I forget. GWX team is always right)) I am not breaking forum rules I guess. Discussing thread topic - new "feature". I agree that's nice to have destabilized optics for DG. But i don't agree that this is "splitting problem" salvation. Where my logic is wrong? Oh, I forgot again, every logic, which differs from yours, is wrong. Sorry, mate))

[Sailor Steve]

I don't think the problem is whether the GWX team is right or wrong, and I don't think I could be accused of defending them, since I just complained about part of the mod in another thread. The problem people have is that you don't suggest changes; you insist that you are right and they should listen, and if they disagree you become rude and mean. If they have the arrogance to give their side of the argument, you strongly announce that they think they can never be wrong and because of that they are even more wrong.

This is a good example. Instead of saying you still think they should make the guns weaker, you immediately start ranting about cutting legs off and 'Hollywood effects'. If you were more polite, more people might listen. Nobody wants to hear someone walk into a room and start screaming at people, and nobody wants to read it, either.

[nikbear]

For the release of GWX 1.0 we detabilized the laser guided aim of the player U-boat AI crew using the deck gun.

Following the release of GWX 2.1, direct usage of the deck gun by the player is now destabilized effectively destroying the uber-accuracy when used by the player.

Warning... arcade players will HATE this modification. It will become default GWX material and no optional mod to remove it will be included with the GWX 2.1 update.

This change should help knock the incessant deck gun debating on its head. Reload times, rate-of-fire, and potential damage debates won't matter much when you have hell just hitting the target. Indeed, your AI crew (even though they are not very accurate due to their own previously existing destabilization coding) will be much more effective than your own manning of the deck gun.

Ammunition expenditure should go up... and early war "uber tonnage deck gun patrols" should be lessened as a result.

MP4 video download... deck gun viewport destabilzation:

http://rapidshare.com/files/93102094/deck_gun_camera.7z.html

Way to go Privateer! Another game limitation smashed.:rock:

(Theoretically, I guess we should destabilize the UZO as well... but methinks even the hardest of the hardcore guys may want to lynch us for that one.)

If we are going down the realism route,could the ability to use the (destabilized)deck gun in the rain be included in the update,or is that going to far;) It troubles me that the devs seem to be driven by a small minority's unrealistic patrol results,rather than considering the vast majority of players.why not make this an option and cater for all,rather than making it default and risk alienating the more casual or less advanced player all because of a small minority's foolish bragging.
Not everyone has the time or inclination to make this game a way of life,by its very nature they want to play GWX and see all the beauty and wealth of things that have been created and SINK things,its a game!after all,and games are meant to be enjoyed:up: people like my missus who have enough trouble getting out of the harbour are going to stand next to no-chance of sinking something at this rate:nope:

[irish1958]

I have a few comments.
To destabilize the UZO, have tow (sic) gin and tonics. It works every time and you don't have to change the game files to do it. And no optional addon either.
For wives and young children, use SHIII vanilla and set the realism to Zero. Also a year or so ago, there was a children's mod to use to make the game a whole lot easier of those of us who are reality challanged.
It's a game; use it to enjoy! :lol::lol::lol:

[Dowly]

))Where my logic is wrong? Oh, I forgot again, every logic, which differs from yours, is wrong. Sorry, mate))
...

[Jimbuna]

Nice one privateer http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

I see the local asylum is still missing one attendee http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/crazyeyes.gif

[Wolfehunter]

Ok I'm putting my ten cents in. I like using the deck gun. But I support GWX 2.0 in there modification. I believe GWX is trying to make this game as realistic as possible within the game limitations.

But I have one complaint... They should put a warning sign saying.. Some might experiance nausia and vomiting due to long exposure firing the deck gun.:doh: :roll:

:lol: Come on team get with the picture...:rotfl:

[Pisces]

When I watch that video I see the crosshairs stall a bit during rolling up an down. Since no shots seem to be fired I guess it is not because of recoil. Is this part of the destabilising behaviour or is it due to frame-skipping or something.

[onelifecrisis]

(Theoretically, I guess we should destabilize the UZO as well... but methinks even the hardest of the hardcore guys may want to lynch us for that one.)

I've been trying to work out how to do just that! If you know how, please tell! :yep: :D

[Kpt. Lehmann]

When I watch that video I see the crosshairs stall a bit during rolling up an down. Since no shots seem to be fired I guess it is not because of recoil. Is this part of the destabilising behaviour or is it due to frame-skipping or something.

The "stalling" you refer to in the video is not related to FPS matters. It is in part, a side effect of elevation tolerance coding that may need to remain unchanged, as well as being part of the destabilization modification. Unfortunately, the 'bumping' may remain in the final release. (Otherwise the deck gun may fail to fire at all when manned by the AI crew.)

@OLC. I'll talk with Privateer and see what shakes out. Beware though that destabilizing the UZO will make manual targetting absolute holy hell.:lol:

[onelifecrisis]

@OLC. I'll talk with Privateer and see what shakes out.

Please do! It would be a great addition to the OLC GUI mod! I tried to do it but I'm a novice at hex editing. :oops: I thought the "Tight" setting might do it but it had no effect. :(

[Julius Caesar]

For the release of GWX 1.0 we detabilized the laser guided aim of the player U-boat AI crew using the deck gun.

Following the release of GWX 2.1, direct usage of the deck gun by the player is now destabilized effectively destroying the uber-accuracy when used by the player.


Nice! :up:

[Erich Topp]

Yes, and this people, calling other "idiots" and "noobs" in every post, speak about politeness. Typical western double-standard morale. Ok.

Well, what do you think about not using optics for DG? On distances less than 800 meters, which is most effective for DG fire, anyone can aim without optics. And your "magic shaking effect" will have no matter to the gameplay and shells power will became problem again.
Second one - as i understand, moving of crosshair is synchronized with deck gun up&down move, with small "freeze" in position, where AI will fire a shot. So actually it shouldn't make harder to aim. We will try, of course... when it will be released.

Playing non-realistic way? It should be realistic or not, if someone wish to invent rules of playing for himself, he better goes to play table RPG card games. There are "rules". Here is the gameplay, which allows something or not. Reducing of shells' damage radius will fit realism setting for everyone - who use manual DG targeting, or who doesn't. Because it affects HIT. Not SHOT effectiveness. Maybe it's needed to affect both for maximal realism effect.

Beware though that destabilizing the UZO will make manual targetting absolute holy hell

Yeah, if you don't freeze time compression to zero. Range-meter works fine with 0 compression, and no stabilization needed at all)))

I like the idea of removing stabilization. I just don't think this is fitable fix for ship splitting problem. Not only me was writing about this. And damn...how improved targeting is connected with reload times? (not speaking about reload time & rate of fire, which for manual-loading gun is just the same).

[Pisces]

When I watch that video I see the crosshairs stall a bit during rolling up an down. Since no shots seem to be fired I guess it is not because of recoil. Is this part of the destabilising behaviour or is it due to frame-skipping or something.

The "stalling" you refer to in the video is not related to FPS matters. It is in part, a side effect of elevation tolerance coding that may need to remain unchanged, as well as being part of the destabilization modification. Unfortunately, the 'bumping' may remain in the final release. (Otherwise the deck gun may fail to fire at all when manned by the AI crew.)If this is an unwanted side-effect, please provide an explanation (like in the updated manual) of how this stalling occurs in the motion. Or when this is to be expected in the rolling cycle. It seems to be regular. So we know when not to fire if this stall is about to occur.

[bracer]

Beware though that destabilizing the UZO will make manual targetting absolute holy hell.:lol:

Hey Kpt.
Just wondering if this will be like using the attackperi on the surface, since the periscope is not stabilized? If it isn't worse than using the periscope in rough weather then I would also vote for a destabilized UZO!
Regarding the deck gun, looking forward to your changes!!
As always, appreciate and respect the work you guys do for SH3, and the greatest thing is that you guys give it for free to the community.
/Bracer

[Ivan Putski]

I like the idea myself, having fired from a ship I know exactly how unstable a deck gun can be. If you notice films of U-Boats sinking ships with the deck gun you`ll see most are very close to their target, and the target was usually stopped. These are mostly early war films, as the merchants became armed, the deck guns were`nt used very often, they were eventually removed for the same reason, and to save weight.

[bigboywooly]

Aye
Will stop the duelling with escort ships at extreme ranges

:oops: yes I have done it
:rotfl:

[onelifecrisis]

And anyway people who want to exploit some game weaknesses will always find a way, asking for more game realism won't help if the player doesn't act "realistically".

I don't see how that matters one way or the other. If some players want to get around it, let them. For those of us that do want to play realistic (and GWX is described by its makers as a "realism mod") the destabilised deck gun is a good thing. :rock:

[Erich Topp]

because no matter how realistic a game is, it's still a game.

You are wise man, Mikhayl. Now we just need to explain it to someone who is not so polite as me and you. It's a game)) After all. Even if you spent two years of your life on it. I spent also a lot of time on game modding. Feel tired now, not more. Sic transit gloria mundis. Every "great" modder should remember it.


act realistically.


I am shooting DG in ship from 500 meters distance. Am I acting in non-realistic manner? Why manning deck gun is not realistic? It couldn't be manned at all? Maybe I wish to play not as captain?)) One matter if you play realistic, and another when 88mm shell split a ship. In "lucky" shot. Simple bug, simple fix. They didn't do it just because of "keeping face". "Oh, some dirty user advices us.. Never, never be done!".

raiding harbours while eating pizzas and so on

Damn, you did it too?))))))

U-boat commanders didn't browse the .zon files of the brit ships to find out their weak spots back then, did they

I didn't browse zon files too. I just shot under the superstructure, and it splits on two. You just need to aim underwater) And most times without any optics at all) I guess weak-spots of ships was known to German commanders.

[Madox58]

GWX is a Mod.
We built it with more hours spent doing so then you can imagine!
While running businesses that kept us away from our families for
weeks on end!
Working the whole time.
(7 days a week, 14 hours a day infact.)
THEN work on GWX for 4 to 6 hours A DAY.
We built it our way.
Play it our way or fix the things you don't like.
Don't ask for help.
You blew any chance of that way back.
Learn to do it yourself.
I learned how to Screw it up for you,
You learn to fix it!
R.C.

[onelifecrisis]

Yes, and this people, calling other "idiots" and "noobs" in every post, speak about politeness. Typical western double-standard morale. Ok.

Now we just need to explain it to someone who is not so polite as me and you. It's a game)) After all. Even if you spent two years of your life on it. I spent also a lot of time on game modding. Feel tired now, not more. Sic transit gloria mundis. Every "great" modder should remember it.

Might I ask that you either name names and spit out whatever it is you're trying to say or otherwise drop the preaching?

[Erich Topp]

The problem would be that you're rather lucky : I broke ships in half so rarely that when it happens I'm rather happy with it.

The problem would be, that 88 shell cannot split the ship at all. If it didn't hit, for example, coal bunkers (coal dust is pretty explosive). But when I split ship in GWX there's no explosion at all.

Privateer: Blah-blah-blah... But I will have the right to say what I think. That's honest, at least. I know what modding are, there is no one with the gun over your head to force you making mods. You enjoy yourself making it, so stop crying how poor you are. I spent 5 years modding myself, for another game, of course. I know all the kitchen, don't worry. There is always a point, where interests and hobby became a matter of feeling yourself "important" and "great". But this is illusion..not more.


Anyway, I don't know precisely how it works but I guess you could try to change the "critical=yes" to "critical=no" in the zones.cfg ?


Hm. For keel parameter? I didn't change nothing in original mod zones.cfg.



Might I ask that you either name names and spit out whatever it is you're trying to say or otherwise drop the preaching?


ORCS Team, Operation Flashpoint Mods, Sir. 2002-2007, 26 releases. Use google. Modding is the same everywhere. Dirty business, yeah?)

[Madox58]

@OLC
Amen Brother!!!
:up:

[Penelope_Grey]

You know... I broke my right arm in two places... and yet... that causes me less pain than the deck gun does Erich Topp.:shifty:

[onelifecrisis]

Might I ask that you either name names and spit out whatever it is you're trying to say or otherwise drop the preaching?


ORCS Team, Operation Flashpoint Mods, Sir. 2002-2007, 26 releases. Use google.

I didn't mean name a mod :roll:

[Erich Topp]

I broke my right arm in two places...

Which part of GWX mod have you done? This may explain a lot for us. Straight hands required for a good deck gun shooting)))



I didn't mean name a mod


I am not so big in English. Explain what do you want to hear?

PS: I guess we became offtopic. We should discuss deck gun, not poor old Erich Topp and his GWX friends relationship.


meant the opposite, some ship areas have that critical value, I guess that's what makes possible to blow them up with a single hit


Maybe you're right. But when I reduced damage radius of 88He twice, splits disappeared. All is simple, you see. Sophisticated decisions produce sophisticated bugs.

[harzfeld]

Not to mention icy weather or in freezing places from north of Canada to Soviet. I noticed a deck gun was heavy covered with ice in one of WW2 films. How could they operated it, or to be able to walk on slippery deck?

[Madox58]

Remember what I told you about what a cast is good for Pen?
:rotfl:
NOW!!!
:rotfl:

[Erich Topp]

Thanks for constructive talk, Mikhayl. We better met in your great S-boot mod thread to talk about further game improvement)). I think that's enough for GWX team nerves today. They need to work over some more fresh bugs in 2.1, so we should leave them in peace. There is something interesting to speak... but this will be totally wrong to think, that someone can listen constructive critics. Good night to all.

[Madox58]

@Dowly

I'm thinking of your last PM to me.
:rotfl:

[Steel_Tomb]

If your going to destabalize the uzo/scopes etc how are we going to do manual targeting using the OCL or whatever its called mod? In the tutorial it says without a stable thing its like...um...f**king hard. Is GWX 2.1 going to accomodate users of this mod? Or are we just going to have an even harder time aiming at ships?

[Madox58]

Now do you REALLY believe we'd hit you like that?
;)

[onelifecrisis]

Don't worry, nobody is talking about destabilising the scopes. :)

Just the deck gun (and in OLC GUI the UZO too hopefully, but lets discuss that in the OLC GUI thread).

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Well, in actuality... it doesn't make much sense to destabilize one scope/viewport... only to leave the others as is in GWX.

Destabilizing the UZO is becoming more attractive by the minute.

Besides, it gives our favorite hecklers something else to piss and moan and bitch and complain about.:up:

:hmm:

All I can see are the positives for both GWX default settings AND OLC's mod. Collectively, the different destabilization measures amount to a significant breakthrough, IMHO.

[onelifecrisis]

@KL

Deck gun destabilised: :rock:

UZO sounds like a can of worms to me. For normal (i.e. non-OLC) GWX I think that destabilising the UZO would be a problem because it has a stadimeter. Making people use their crew for deck gunning is one thing, but making them use their (stabilised via realism options) attack scope instead of the (destabilised by GWX) UZO is another. :hmm:

Makes no diff to me personally but I think complaints from others (about the UZO) might have some justification. :hmm:

Just my 2p.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

OLC, since you are online, I've got a couple of Q's for you. Can you come to GWX TS for a few minutes?

[Wreford-Brown]

GWX has always been a reality mod, and people are free to use it if they wish. No-one is forcing anyone to upgrade to 2.1. The GWX team has put a lot of work into improving SH3 and are kind enough to share it with the gaming community for free!

If people don't want a destabilised sighting system on the deck gun they can choose to stay with GWX 2.0. Don't lose sight of the fact that GWX 2.0 is an outstanding free mod. For those who want to improve the realism, upgrade to 2.1.

It's our choice how we want to improve our own SH3 experience. Make your choice, and let's leave the team who put the time and effort into making the mod to change it as they see fit.

[Jimbuna]

Okay...now the moons gone back in....time for a group hug http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/grouphug5.gif

http://www.itsnature.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfmoon.jpg

[Wilcke]

Okay...now the moons gone back in....time for a group hug http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/grouphug5.gif

http://www.itsnature.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfmoon.jpg'

Now thats cute!

[Sailor Steve]

http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/grouphug5.gif

That reminds me of the band and crowds on the docks in SH3 - even when I'm not there they keep right on playing and cheering, 24/7. I know that's the only way they could get it to work, but it still creeps me out sometimes.

So do all those smileys.

[nikbear]

I fail to see why the inclusion of A destabilised gun and UZO can't be left to an option in the mods folder for GWX2.1,that way keeping everybody happy,In fact why not just do it as an option and announce it only when its released,then these disagreements wouldn't boil over into slanging matches:nope: I always thought the maxim for SubSim/SH3 was variety,choice and options to talior the gaming experiance to how the player wants,and that GWX was the pinnacle of that,I hope that isn't going to change:up:

[Jimbuna]

Smileys!...on the dockside :o How come I've never noticed em before :hmm:

[Penelope_Grey]

Remember what I told you about what a cast is good for Pen?
:rotfl:
NOW!!!
:rotfl:

I do indeed remember! I can't even get disqualified for wrapping barbed wire round it. :rotfl:

[Boris]

I fail to see why the inclusion of A destabilised gun and UZO can't be left to an option in the mods folder for GWX2.1,that way keeping everybody happy,In fact why not just do it as an option and announce it only when its released,then these disagreements wouldn't boil over into slanging matches:nope: I always thought the maxim for SubSim/SH3 was variety,choice and options to talior the gaming experiance to how the player wants,and that GWX was the pinnacle of that,I hope that isn't going to change:up:

Because the GWX team are a bunch of arrogant snobs with a superiority complex that through their pompous arrogance want to arrogantly force their warped and incredibly subjective opinion of realism onto every single SH3 player, making everyone play their way, and only their way, and what they "think" is realistic, out of sheer arrogance. :yep:

[Dowly]

I fail to see why the inclusion of A destabilised gun and UZO can't be left to an option in the mods folder for GWX2.1,that way keeping everybody happy,In fact why not just do it as an option and announce it only when its released,then these disagreements wouldn't boil over into slanging matches:nope: I always thought the maxim for SubSim/SH3 was variety,choice and options to talior the gaming experiance to how the player wants,and that GWX was the pinnacle of that,I hope that isn't going to change:up:
Because the GWX team are a bunch of arrogant snobs with a superiority complex that through their pompous arrogance want to arrogantly force their warped and incredibly subjective opinion of realism onto every single SH3 player, making everyone play their way, and only their way, and what they "think" is realistic, out of sheer arrogance. :yep:

:rotfl::rotfl:

[donw]

Boris...You are terribly out of line!

..want to arrogantly force
Who in the hell is forcing ANYBODY to use the Mod??????

"making everyone play their way, and only their way, and what they "think" is realistic,

AGAIN! How are they making anybody do anything???

If you don't like it...DON"T USE IT ...and shut up! :damn:

[nikbear]

I fail to see why the inclusion of A destabilised gun and UZO can't be left to an option in the mods folder for GWX2.1,that way keeping everybody happy,In fact why not just do it as an option and announce it only when its released,then these disagreements wouldn't boil over into slanging matches:nope: I always thought the maxim for SubSim/SH3 was variety,choice and options to talior the gaming experiance to how the player wants,and that GWX was the pinnacle of that,I hope that isn't going to change:up:

Because the GWX team are a bunch of arrogant snobs with a superiority complex that through their pompous arrogance want to arrogantly force their warped and incredibly subjective opinion of realism onto every single SH3 player, making everyone play their way, and only their way, and what they "think" is realistic, out of sheer arrogance. :yep:

Its that kind of comment I was hoping to avoid:nope: :nope: :nope: If you'd taken time to read my post you'd see I didn't want this disscussion to degenerate into a slanging match:down: ,but a sensible thread about the merits of both sets of opinions,keep it civil please:yep:

[danlisa]

LOL @ Boris

I've got to be honest, I can't tell if you are being 100% serious.;)

I can usually 'read' peoples tone of post and you have made many funny/sarcastic posts in the past. I hope this is one of those because you are one of the luckier ones and know only too well the amount of work required to produce GWX.

A good friend said to me (you know who you are):

The environment that we have worked in, and the responsibility we've assumed is rather crushing. What amazes me, is how the community expectations are never sated...........thanks to people like you, who shared the road with us for so long. (shortened);)

This sums up the work you & many others have done very nicely and if your post was not ment in jest, I would ask you to consider the hours of work you put in and the pride you took when it went public.:yep: The team feels no differently than you did.

[Jimbuna]

Boris just demonstrated that internet isn't the best way to communicate humor :rotfl:
Easy guys :up:

I've pondered over the post dor a few hours now http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/621/thinkbigsw1.gif .....and my money is on Boris being cool http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/2108/thumbsupkc7.gif
I'm going for the humorous interpretation http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/crazyeyes.gif

[Boris]

Yeah, just to clarify... I was serious :stare:












No, not really :lol:

[danlisa]

:rotfl: You know KL's just had kittens.:rotfl:

[nikbear]

Yeah, just to clarify... I was serious :stare:












No, not really :lol:

Thank god for that:rotfl: ;) :up:

[Kpt. Lehmann]

:rotfl: You know KL's just had kittens.:rotfl:

BLASPHEMY!!! :stare:

I had WOLF PUPPIES!!! :lol:

<kittens?... BAH!>

:rotfl:

[Jimbuna]

:rotfl: You know KL's just had kittens.:rotfl:

BLASPHEMY!!! :stare:

I had WOLF PUPPIES!!! :lol:

<kittens?... BAH!>

:rotfl:

.....and in a few years they'll look something like this http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/whistle.gif http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/bubblegum2.gif

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/7827/50976qn6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[rulle34]

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Madox58]

Yes Jim, they will.
But to remain anonymous they'll be dressed like this.

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n12/privateer_2006/duck.jpg

:rotfl:

[Faamecanic]

Good show with the idea of making the deck gun "less uber"... I did run across this interesting book and the use of the deck gun IRL to sink a tanker in the Carribiean on a patrol. This was during a ...ahem...discussion I was having with Beery and others on his low fire rate with RuB. But I think it applies here showing that 1) yes the deck gun WAS used to sink boats (but only in ideal conditions. 2) it took MANY rounds to sink one boat.

****************

The book is "U-Boat War Patrol" The Hidden Photographic Diary of U 564 ISBN: 1-85367-575-X. Got it from amazon.com and it is a GREAT book. Its like Iron Coffins with 400+ pics. of the actual war Patrol

U564 was a Type VII-C under the command of Reinhard 'Teddy' Suhren.

The incident I was referring to starts on page 150 - 157.

U564 engaged a Large Tanker (8,176tons) with its last pair of torpedos. One hit, but the other got hung up in the tube (hot running!) due to damage to the external torpedo door linkage being bent by a Depth Charge attack earlier.

Teddy surfaced the Uboat and waited for the lifeboats with 39 sailors and 2 British gunners to get clear of the tanker. They then commenced firing on the tanker. This was approx. in August 1940.

From the book (pp. 156-157)

"Within the hull, the ammunition was broken out of its store beneath the decking next to the commander's cabin, unloaded from each individual metal container and passed laboriously by hand through the conning tower hatch and out to the waiting gun crew. As each round slid down the small chute that folded down from the conning towers front, it was taken and held in readiness for use by the two loaders on hand for the task.

Over the next twenty five minutes, fifty shells streaked across the narrow gap that seperated the two vessels, thirty five of them impacting on the Vardaas..

So.... it seems this Type VII-C with a experienced crew could fire 2 shells a minute, with a 70% hit rate.

Now...back to the 60 seconds between shells in RuB... I still feel that realisitic. Here is why. First U 564 had a crew that had all worked together for at least 4 patrols. This was VERY unusual. Most crews rotated frequently. There were only THREE people on U564 that had not been on 4 patrols together (1 Officer Engineer in trianing, 1 photographer, 1 seaman).

Realistically we would never have a combined crew that would have worked with eachother this long. Especially in the latter years (1942 and out).

Just thought you guys would like to know what at least one primary source says... that a 2 shell per min rate wouldnt be unrealistic. But not likely. Im sure there are other primary sources out there that say something different.

[Madox58]

Interpretating data from reports and documents
is one thing.
Liveing it is another.
Reports and documents are data which can be,
and often is, contorted to prove a given point of view.

I've fought Helmet Laws in Ohio and other States for 20+ years.
I've read EVERY study, EVERY document, EVERY report put out.
By those documents and studies and reports?
I DIED 20 years ago!!!
All my friends are brain dead.
The Motorcycle industry does not exist!

So much for "Facts"
:roll:

[JCWolf]

Interpretating data from reports and documents
is one thing.
Liveing it is another.
Reports and documents are data which can be,
and often is, contorted to prove a given point of view.

I've fought Helmet Laws in Ohio and other States for 20+ years.
I've read EVERY study, EVERY document, EVERY report put out.
By those documents and studies and reports?
I DIED 20 years ago!!!
All my friends are brain dead.
The Motorcycle industry does not exist!

So much for "Facts"
:roll:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
You got to Love this guy !

[i_b_spectre]

...All my friends are brain dead.:roll:
I have a few like that myself. One of them would be dead right now if he hadn't been wearing his brain bucket when his bike went down. Just another piece of data :lol:.

[i_b_spectre]

Is the destabilization of the deck gun in any way tied to the sea state or is it just going to flop around even on glassy days? I understand making it less uber, but I'm hoping it won't be useless. Numerous uboat crews used them to devastating effect off the U.S. coast during Operation Drumbeat according to Homer Hickham in Torpedo Junction.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

It is tied to the sea state and moves accordingly. Though there is still a fair amount of movement in calm seas as one would expect when viewing a magnified image.

[Pablo]

Good show with the idea of making the deck gun "less uber"... I did run across this interesting book and the use of the deck gun IRL to sink a tanker in the Carribiean on a patrol. This was during a ...ahem...discussion I was having with Beery and others on his low fire rate with RuB. But I think it applies here showing that 1) yes the deck gun WAS used to sink boats (but only in ideal conditions. 2) it took MANY rounds to sink one boat.

****************

The book is "U-Boat War Patrol" The Hidden Photographic Diary of U 564 ISBN: 1-85367-575-X. Got it from amazon.com and it is a GREAT book. Its like Iron Coffins with 400+ pics. of the actual war Patrol

U564 was a Type VII-C under the command of Reinhard 'Teddy' Suhren.

The incident I was referring to starts on page 150 - 157.

U564 engaged a Large Tanker (8,176tons) with its last pair of torpedos. One hit, but the other got hung up in the tube (hot running!) due to damage to the external torpedo door linkage being bent by a Depth Charge attack earlier.

Teddy surfaced the Uboat and waited for the lifeboats with 39 sailors and 2 British gunners to get clear of the tanker. They then commenced firing on the tanker. This was approx. in August 1940.

From the book (pp. 156-157)

"Within the hull, the ammunition was broken out of its store beneath the decking next to the commander's cabin, unloaded from each individual metal container and passed laboriously by hand through the conning tower hatch and out to the waiting gun crew. As each round slid down the small chute that folded down from the conning towers front, it was taken and held in readiness for use by the two loaders on hand for the task.

Over the next twenty five minutes, fifty shells streaked across the narrow gap that seperated the two vessels, thirty five of them impacting on the Vardaas..

So.... it seems this Type VII-C with a experienced crew could fire 2 shells a minute, with a 70% hit rate.

Now...back to the 60 seconds between shells in RuB... I still feel that realisitic. Here is why. First U 564 had a crew that had all worked together for at least 4 patrols. This was VERY unusual. Most crews rotated frequently. There were only THREE people on U564 that had not been on 4 patrols together (1 Officer Engineer in trianing, 1 photographer, 1 seaman).

Realistically we would never have a combined crew that would have worked with eachother this long. Especially in the latter years (1942 and out).

Just thought you guys would like to know what at least one primary source says... that a 2 shell per min rate wouldnt be unrealistic. But not likely. Im sure there are other primary sources out there that say something different. Hi!

Thank you for pointing that source out; we have assembled a fairly extensive research library during the course of developing GWX, and I recommend reading Teddy Suhren's book, Teddy Suhren: Ace of Aces in addition to Patterson's U-boat War Patrol book. You are correct in assuming there is a wide range of reported rates of fire; unfortunately, the U-boat war diaries aren't always clear as to why the guns fired at the rate they did: in the example from Patterson's book, you don't know whether the rate of fire was constrained by the speed at which ammunition was handed up through the conning tower and sent down to the deck gun; if the sea state only allowed the gun to aim properly twice per minute; if the gunners would fire a few rounds, gauge the effect, fire a few more rounds, gauge the effect, etc.; or a combination of all three.

Beery's "Real U-boat" (RUb) mod reduced the reload rate to try to emulate the effects of historically reported rates of fire; however, there are numerous citations in the literature, as well as archival footage of U-boat deck guns in action, that indicate the deck gun rate of fire was on the order of 12-15 rounds per minute in good conditions, with ammunition ready at-hand for loading, and if the gun was fired as soon as a new round was loaded. The 88mm and 105mm deck guns were, after all, a "quick firing" gun, so constraining the reload rate of the deck gun to that of the muzzle-loading cannon of a 19th century ship-of-the-line seemed unsatisfactory to us - especially to GWX team members who had served in the field artillery.

We have therefore tried to arrive at the same effect (closer to historically reported results) by destabilizing the gun, as we expect the effect of the destabilization will prompt players to lower the rate of fire themselves as they wait for the motion of the U-boat to bring the gun to bear. We also expect a large number of missed shots, even at close range, as Suhren reported in U-564. Furthermore, the sinking rates of ships in GWX is generally slower than in stock Silent Hunter III or RuB, so that firing a few rounds rapidly, gauging the effect, and then firing a few more rounds rapidly is a reasonable course of action.

It will clearly be in the U-boat commander's best interest to use gunnery only in good weather (to reduce destabilization effects), to use gunnery only against targets that cannot shoot back (since ships are better gunnery platforms than U-boats), and to be within a few hundred yards of a target (to reduce the effect of aiming errors): all of which are tactics recommended in the wartime U-boat Commander's Handbook.

All-in-all, we think this is a better solution in terms of U-boat simulation because it presents you with more of the same factors that affected real-life U-boat commanders (and gunners) and allows you the freedom to choose from among the same choices faced by historical commanders. If you pick the historical course of action, it should be because it is the best decision you can make in circumstances that are as close as we can make them to the historical event, rather than because we arbitrarily forced you do do something that way. We can't always give you a choice since we cannot change the game engine, but in this case I think it will work out well.

Pablo

[d@rk51d3]

It is tied to the sea state and moves accordingly. Though there is still a fair amount of movement in calm seas as one would expect when viewing a magnified image.


That has eased my apprehension. Thank you KL.:up:

[Madox58]

By all accounts I've read?
I guess GWX doesn't tamp the powder down before the DG fires?
That may account for the rapid rate of fire.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Good show with the idea of making the deck gun "less uber"... I did run across this interesting book and the use of the deck gun IRL to sink a tanker in the Carribiean on a patrol. This was during a ...ahem...discussion I was having with Beery and others on his low fire rate with RuB. But I think it applies here showing that 1) yes the deck gun WAS used to sink boats (but only in ideal conditions. 2) it took MANY rounds to sink one boat.

****************

The book is "U-Boat War Patrol" The Hidden Photographic Diary of U 564 ISBN: 1-85367-575-X. Got it from amazon.com and it is a GREAT book. Its like Iron Coffins with 400+ pics. of the actual war Patrol

U564 was a Type VII-C under the command of Reinhard 'Teddy' Suhren.

The incident I was referring to starts on page 150 - 157.

U564 engaged a Large Tanker (8,176tons) with its last pair of torpedos. One hit, but the other got hung up in the tube (hot running!) due to damage to the external torpedo door linkage being bent by a Depth Charge attack earlier.

Teddy surfaced the Uboat and waited for the lifeboats with 39 sailors and 2 British gunners to get clear of the tanker. They then commenced firing on the tanker. This was approx. in August 1940.

From the book (pp. 156-157)

"Within the hull, the ammunition was broken out of its store beneath the decking next to the commander's cabin, unloaded from each individual metal container and passed laboriously by hand through the conning tower hatch and out to the waiting gun crew. As each round slid down the small chute that folded down from the conning towers front, it was taken and held in readiness for use by the two loaders on hand for the task.

Over the next twenty five minutes, fifty shells streaked across the narrow gap that seperated the two vessels, thirty five of them impacting on the Vardaas..

So.... it seems this Type VII-C with a experienced crew could fire 2 shells a minute, with a 70% hit rate.

Now...back to the 60 seconds between shells in RuB... I still feel that realisitic. Here is why. First U 564 had a crew that had all worked together for at least 4 patrols. This was VERY unusual. Most crews rotated frequently. There were only THREE people on U564 that had not been on 4 patrols together (1 Officer Engineer in trianing, 1 photographer, 1 seaman).

Realistically we would never have a combined crew that would have worked with eachother this long. Especially in the latter years (1942 and out).

Just thought you guys would like to know what at least one primary source says... that a 2 shell per min rate wouldnt be unrealistic. But not likely. Im sure there are other primary sources out there that say something different. Hi!

Thank you for pointing that source out; we have assembled a fairly extensive research library during the course of developing GWX, and I recommend reading Teddy Suhren's book, Teddy Suhren: Ace of Aces in addition to Patterson's U-boat War Patrol book. You are correct in assuming there is a wide range of reported rates of fire; unfortunately, the U-boat war diaries aren't always clear as to why the guns fired at the rate they did: in the example from Patterson's book, you don't know whether the rate of fire was constrained by the speed at which ammunition was handed up through the conning tower and sent down to the deck gun; if the sea state only allowed the gun to aim properly twice per minute; if the gunners would fire a few rounds, gauge the effect, fire a few more rounds, gauge the effect, etc.; or a combination of all three.

Beery's "Real U-boat" (RUb) mod reduced the reload rate to try to emulate the effects of historically reported rates of fire; however, there are numerous citations in the literature, as well as archival footage of U-boat deck guns in action, that indicate the deck gun rate of fire was on the order of 12-15 rounds per minute in good conditions, with ammunition ready at-hand for loading, and if the gun was fired as soon as a new round was loaded. The 88mm and 105mm deck guns were, after all, a "quick firing" gun, so constraining the reload rate of the deck gun to that of the muzzle-loading cannon of a 19th ship-of-the-line seemed unsatisfactory to us - especially to GWX team members who had served in the field artillery.

We have therefore tried to arrive at the same effect (closer to historically reported results) by destabilizing the gun, as we expect the effect of the destabilization will prompt players to lower the rate of fire themselves as they wait for the motion of the U-boat to bring the gun to bear. We also expect a large number of missed shots, even at close range, as Suhren reported in U-564. Furthermore, the sinking rates of ships in GWX is generally slower than in stock Silent Hunter III or RuB, so that firing a few rounds rapidly, gauging the effect, and then firing a few more rounds rapidly is a reasonable course of action.

It will clearly be in the U-boat commander's best interest to use gunnery only in good weather (to reduce destabilization effects), to use gunnery only against targets that cannot shoot back (since ships are better gunnery platforms than U-boats), and to be within a few hundred yards of a target (to reduce the effect of aiming errors): all of which are tactics recommended in the wartime U-boat Commander's Handbook.

All-in-all, we think this is a better solution in terms of U-boat simulation because it presents you with more of the same factors that affected real-life U-boat commanders (and gunners) and allows you the freedom to choose from among the same choices faced by historical commanders. If you pick the historical course of action, it should be because it is the best decision you can make in circumstances that are as close as we can make them to the historical event, rather than because we arbitrarily forced you do do something that way. We can't always give you a choice since we cannot change the game engine, but in this case I think it will work out well.

Pablo

To add to Pablo's statement, the player can continue to have the AI crew do the shooting as always... which will likely produce better accuracy as opposed to direct usage by the player.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

I fail to see why the inclusion of A destabilised gun and UZO can't be left to an option in the mods folder for GWX2.1,that way keeping everybody happy,In fact why not just do it as an option and announce it only when its released,then these disagreements wouldn't boil over into slanging matches:nope:

...because including an option for everything under the sun would be counterproductive to producing a historically minded package and would confuse users even moreso than they are already.

...because it would add to user support demands. BELIEVE ME! You don't have to think about such things... but we must. The volume of queries/questions and user-created problems that the GWX team has addressed over time and will continue to address is massive. No matter how well we write the instructions, no matter how user-friendly we make an installer, and no matter how many times we preach "RTFM!!!" people will still make installation mistakes.

...whether it is your dislike of this element (even though you've yet to try it:shifty: ) or someone else's dislike of some other element in GWX... there is no panacea or magic bullet that we can produce to make every user 100% happy.

I always thought the maxim for SubSim/SH3 was variety,choice and options to talior the gaming experiance to how the player wants,and that GWX was the pinnacle of that,I hope that isn't going to change:up:

That remains absolutely true for Subsim. Diversity is alive and well at Subsim. That diversity is what allowed GWX to come into existence and improve over time. We (the GWX Dev Team) have always decided how we would build GWX and the direction that it takes. It is a representation of what we felt was needed to further simulate the U-boat war. If you don't like what we do, you can either change it for yourself or you can use some other mod package! Mate, you can get angry all you like... but your statement implying that GWX somehow dictates what people do to their installations to suit their individual play styles, has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. It is entirely unreasonable for users to expect us (the GWX Dev team) to release an option for every conceivable wish.

Getting angry at us for the way we interpret matters concerning realism, modification methodology etc... changes nothing. At the end of the day...those who do the hard work of building GWX, make the final decisions concerning its implimentation and content. That is only fair.

[nikbear]

Thank you for clearing that up,For the record I'm not getting angry,far from it, its your mod and and you can do what you like with it;) I'm just concerned that it seem to be increasingly aimed towards a more hardcore type of player while the more casual player is left behind,new players might find it alot harder to start with when they first download the latest GWX,but I'm sure you've taken this into consideration, so be it:up:

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Thank you for clearing that up,For the record I'm not getting angry,far from it, its your mod and and you can do what you like with it;) I'm just concerned that it seem to be increasingly aimed towards a more hardcore type of player while the more casual player is left behind,new players might find it alot harder to start with when they first download the latest GWX,but I'm sure you've taken this into consideration, so be it:up:

No worries.

We've been pushing casual players out of their comfort zones since the original Grey Wolves project began. What many don't realize is that all that cool eye and ear candy... really serves a dual role to be the "sugar that helps the medicine go down." (Those aircraft for example... look really cool... but they can lay a world of hurt on you.)

One thing we've noticed is a trend amongst new users since the release of 2.0 (and before for that matter) that come to Subsim straight away asking about available mods and tend to install GWX over SH3 without ever playing stock SH3 at all! Therefore they have no idea what was missing from the game... and no idea what has been added or changed. GWX modifications certainly don't harm those individuals. (Hence many of the "GWX Bug" threads that appear... that have absolutely nothing to do with GWX!) Infact, in some ways... they have the advantage of not learning "bad habits" and erroneous impressions that can be garnered by playing stock SH3.

I'm not downing new users here... they are simply/naturally unaware of about three years of modding evolution that has transpired here in these forums... and are sometimes the most demanding users as a result.

Secondarily, I'm sure that you've seen other modders/users working to remove elements of GWX that irritate them as fast as they are able to do so. (The contact tails for example.)

It is far easier to deconstruct than it is to make forward progress anyway. I have no doubt that within days (maybe even hours or minutes) after the release of 2.1... that somebody will post a mod that removes this GWX feature.

However you cut it though, no one is harmed by our modifications or a lack of choice.

Besides, the way we see it... a "shock to the system" is an awesome thing. For as long as we work on the GWX project... that will always be what we aim for.

[bertle]

Interpretating data from reports and documents
is one thing.
Liveing it is another.
Reports and documents are data which can be,
and often is, contorted to prove a given point of view.

I've fought Helmet Laws in Ohio and other States for 20+ years.
I've read EVERY study, EVERY document, EVERY report put out.
By those documents and studies and reports?
I DIED 20 years ago!!!
All my friends are brain dead.
The Motorcycle industry does not exist!

So much for "Facts"
:roll:
You'd have to be pretty brain dead to think using a helmet on a motorbike was a bad idea. The problem with bikers is when they're being cocky and something goes wrong they don't usually learn from their mistakes. They're dead from decapitation or degloving.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Interpretating data from reports and documents
is one thing.
Liveing it is another.
Reports and documents are data which can be,
and often is, contorted to prove a given point of view.

I've fought Helmet Laws in Ohio and other States for 20+ years.
I've read EVERY study, EVERY document, EVERY report put out.
By those documents and studies and reports?
I DIED 20 years ago!!!
All my friends are brain dead.
The Motorcycle industry does not exist!

So much for "Facts"
:roll:
You'd have to be pretty brain dead to think using a helmet on a motorbike was a bad idea. The problem with bikers is when they're being cocky and something goes wrong they don't usually learn from their mistakes. They're dead from decapitation or degloving.

Believe me... I've already read him the riot act. It boils down to the fact that Privateer has freedom of choice and does not wish to be 'legislated' into wearing his helmet. Privateer has also earned the right more than most... to have that freedom of choice.

<As an aside, degloving doesn't normally kill. Its messy, painful, and reconstruction/rehabilitation is long and difficult... but is generally surviveable.>

I know nothing of statistics, and am only qualified to speak regarding my own experiences with serious motorcycle accidents... but I will not.

Back to the topic at hand... SH3 users certainly have freedom of choice when it comes to which mods they prefer. This topic has wandered all over the place and has generated much controversy over an element that no one (outside the GWX team) has yet to even bother using before slagging it.

U-boats did not have inertially stabilized weapons. Anything we can do to disrupt "modern day" weapon behavior in SH3... is an improvement to the overall simulation.

Removing the stabilization of the deck gun viewport removes a gratuitous advantage, and a crutch that some have used to achieve outlandish tonnage hauls.

It sounds harsh to some I am sure... but in the end... it really is a good thing.

[Sailor Steve]

Interpretating data from reports and documents
is one thing.
Liveing it is another.
Reports and documents are data which can be,
and often is, contorted to prove a given point of view.

I've fought Helmet Laws in Ohio and other States for 20+ years.
I've read EVERY study, EVERY document, EVERY report put out.
By those documents and studies and reports?
I DIED 20 years ago!!!
All my friends are brain dead.
The Motorcycle industry does not exist!

So much for "Facts"
:roll:
You'd have to be pretty brain dead to think using a helmet on a motorbike was a bad idea. The problem with bikers is when they're being cocky and something goes wrong they don't usually learn from their mistakes. They're dead from decapitation or degloving.
This is starting to move toward General Topics territory, but since it's here I'll address it.

I've been riding for 41 years now, and I agree: you have to be an idiot to ride without a helmet. That said, Privateer wasn't addressing helmets, he was addressing helmet laws. I neither know nor care how he rides. If we were friends I might drive him crazy telling him he should wear one (assuming that he doesn't). But I stand with him 100% against the arrogance of people who pass laws "for your own good". You preach about the "problem" with bikers being "cocky". Is it your place to tell us how to live? I say the same thing to seat belt laws: If you want to protect my children from my stupidity, go ahead. If you want to try to force me to protect myself, go to hell.

Oh, and I always wear a seatbelt, too.

[Sailor Steve]

Oops; I got so excited I didn't even notice Lehman had alread posted his feelings on this.

As he said, back to the topic. I always defended Beery's reload times, even while I didn't use them myself.:oops: I thought that his intentions were good, if off the mark, and I got tired of people attacking him out of hand, just as I disagree with some of GWX's decisions, but defend them as well. One of the things I always said was "Until you figure out a way to make the deck gun act historically as to firing problems, don't keep arguing for a realistic reload time that ignores changing sea conditions!"

Well, it looks like that's happening now, and I'm as excited as a cat that's found the whole mouse tribe in one place. I'm looking forward to this one.

[Madox58]

A. Didn't mean to start a Helmet Debate.
B. I do wear a helmet, when I feel like it. Even ordered one to match my Triumph.
C. I believe in "Educate, Don't Legislate!"
D. I'm not a Cockey Biker. I'm actually kinda quite and laid back. (Most of the time)
E. Now I'm really gonna go after the deck guns!!
:rotfl: :rotfl:

[Faamecanic]

All-in-all, we think this is a better solution in terms of U-boat simulation because it presents you with more of the same factors that affected real-life U-boat commanders (and gunners) and allows you the freedom to choose from among the same choices faced by historical commanders. If you pick the historical course of action, it should be because it is the best decision you can make in circumstances that are as close as we can make them to the historical event, rather than because we arbitrarily forced you do do something that way. We can't always give you a choice since we cannot change the game engine, but in this case I think it will work out well.

Pablo

Couldnt agree more...the compromises that the GWX team has made given the limitations of this being a game engine vs. real life always represent exactly that..a compromise.

I didnt know Teddy shuren wrote his own book...I will definately look that up being as I am become quite the U-boat war history buff these past few years.

You guys have done an excellent job, GWX sure has saved SH3 for me because without GWX I would have stopped playing SH3 a long time ago, and I have yet to re-load SH4 after being very disappointed with it. :up:

[Faamecanic]

[
Removing the stabilization of the deck gun viewport removes a gratuitous advantage, and a crutch that some have used to achieve outlandish tonnage hauls.

It sounds harsh to some I am sure... but in the end... it really is a good thing.

Amen to that.... I remember in Stock SH3 getting 70,000+ ton patrols consistantly, and was a member of the 100k ton club a few times. How boring!!!

With GWX 2.0 and my IXB Im LUCKY to have a 50,000 ton patrol, and even that I feel is too much. When the greatest Uboat aces were LUCKY in the EARLY part of the UBoat war to get more than 12,000 tons... you can bet its still too easy if you are consistantly getting that.

I would be happy if in a patrol I was able to bag 2-3 ships... as this would have been a REAL accomplishment, especially in the later war.

[Faamecanic]

To add to Pablo's statement, the player can continue to have the AI crew do the shooting as always... which will likely produce better accuracy as opposed to direct usage by the player.

Thats scarry as the gun crew on my boat is lead by BERNARD :lol: and is just as likely to put a 88mm shell through my deck as he is that juicy merchants :yep:

Seriously that is cool.... I always wanted a reason to rely on my crew vs. me always shooting.

[d@rk51d3]

To add to Pablo's statement, the player can continue to have the AI crew do the shooting as always... which will likely produce better accuracy as opposed to direct usage by the player.

Thats scarry as the gun crew on my boat is lead by BERNARD :lol: and is just as likely to put a 88mm shell through my deck as he is that juicy merchants :yep:

Seriously that is cool.... I always wanted a reason to rely on my crew vs. me always shooting.

Same here.:yep: