Minor GWX discrepencies?

[Subtype Zero]

I was digging around some of the data/Sea folders and noticed some minor discrepencies between the .cfg, .log, and .sim files. More specifically, these files did not always match in terms of such things as ships' displacement, draft, mast height, and max speed. What effect might these discrepencies have in game play, if any, and do these represent errors or intentional manupulation of the files by the GWX team for gameplay and debugging purposes? If these are errors, I am willing to go ahead and make the corrections and release them as a mod, if not...nevermind!

In any event, I would like to add my thanks to the GWX team for their tireless efforts in adding so much to the SH3 franchise! :rock:

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Jesus Christ man, are you nutz to open a thread like this?

Quick, edit it and erase it all... and pray to lord that they don't see this thread... :lol:

[NGT]

Hello everybody

The .log files plays zero importance for the game. Mostly, they are here just for information.

The .cfg files for ships, U-boot, and airplanes are fine if the values are bigger than in .sim files.

For example: if the .cfg file says max speed 30 kn and the .sim file says 20 kn, definitely the max speed is 20 kn.
But, if the value in .cfg file is 18 kn, perhaps you have only 18 kn max speed.

In GWX, all the values for crash depth are 500 m. inside all .cfg files for U-boot. But the .sim file for each one is different, all time lower than 500 m, so no problem.

Is easier to insert high values in .cfg files and forgot them, and after you have only the .sim files to mod as you like.


In my humble opinion, of course.

[Madox58]

Alot of the units were built by different people.
We didn't check each and everything in thier files.
If the units did not cause problems dureing the extensive testing?
We left well enuff alone.
You can always change the values and see what happens.

I'd be kind of interested in your results.
:yep:

[Subtype Zero]

Jesus Christ man, are you nutz to open a thread like this?

Quick, edit it and erase it all... and pray to lord that they don't see this thread... :lol: LOL. Oh, I doubt there is any harm in asking a couple of teeny questions! Right? RIGHT? :doh: :dead:

[Subtype Zero]

NGT--
Thanks for the reponse. Yeah, I gathered the .log files didn't do too much. From what I can tell, they are for the museum only and do not have any effect upon gameplay.

The .cfg files for ships, U-boot, and airplanes are fine if the values are bigger than in .sim files.

For example: if the .cfg file says max speed 30 kn and the .sim file says 20 kn, definitely the max speed is 20 kn. But, if the value in .cfg file is 18 kn, perhaps you have only 18 kn max speed.

Is easier to insert high values in .cfg files and forgot them, and after you have only the .sim files to mod as you like. Interesting information about the relationship between the .cfg and .sim files. However, I noticed that if you alter the .cfg files, the changes will show up in the Recognition manual. So, if you raise the .cfg speed value to a high value, the speed in the recognition manual will reflect the inaccurate higher speed, potentially misleading players. Same for mast height, draft, etc.

Incidentally, I tried removing/renaming the .cfg files of "duplicate" ship entries in the Recognition manual, along with removing the sil.tga files, but the game did not like that very much!:cry: Seems you have to have a .cfg file.

[Madox58]

No harm at all Mate.
:p

It's when the thread turns to finger pointing and bad mouthing
that causes all the crazyness.


As I said, We did not build each and every unit.
We did not check units that caused no troubles during testing.
Can they be better?
You tell me.
Everyone has a different Idea how things should work.
We went one way, other go other ways.
No harm, no foul as I see it.

[Subtype Zero]

Privateer--
I don't know what Phillip_Thompsen was worried about? You seem nice enough to me! ;)
Alot of the units were built by different people.
We didn't check each and everything in thier files.
If the units did not cause problems dureing the extensive testing?
We left well enuff alone.
You can always change the values and see what happens. Everything you say makes a lot of sense. No sense fiddling with something that is working, as is.

OTOH, nothing ventured, nothing gained. :D At a minimum, changing the .log and .cfg files so they are consistent shouldn't have any impact on game play. The .sim files are another bucket of fish, however!

Actually, what I thought about doing was changing the .cfg and .log files to more accurately reflect the hex values in the .sim files. For example, if the recognition manual (via the .cfg file) tells you the draft of a tramp steamer is 6.8, but the .sim file says 6.2, might this result in some misses due to torpedos going under the hull?

[Madox58]

For the most part?
No, the unit works from the cfg mostly.
I say mostly because,
If the sim says 0 draught and cfg says 6.5?
You may get a variation of the 'Sinking Ship Bug'
If they are close? They seem to work ok for the most part.

You MAY get weird behaviours from time to time but,
it was that way in real life also.

Some ships just sank!
Others broke down.
Same with aircraft.
They did crash from time to time
with no action seen.

If the slight misperfections in some files cause the same
actions from time to time?
I'm all for them.
As long as we can not consistantly get the same problems
the majority of the time.

[Schwuppes]

Philipp_Thomsen has been acting weird lately... I think he still hasn't fully recovered from the subsim breakdown last week... :rotfl:

[Madox58]

You sure it's an act?
;)
:rotfl:

[Subtype Zero]

Ah, so are you saying that if the .cfg and .sim files are identical that there will be a decrease in variablity in ship behavior? Also, do you have an opinion about the .sim files that have ships with 0 displacement or 0 draft? What if I replaced these values with the correct ones?

[Madox58]

I'd say,
there is a VERY good possibility that to perfect every file
of every unit,
you may remove a variable that offers a some what realistic
question on unit actions.

I can not say for sure oneway or the other.
that's why I say,
If you want to adjust them all?
Go for it!!
I'd be very interested to see the end results!
(And I don't have to do squat!)

I, myself do not want perfectly acting units.
Perfectly acting units are predictable.
It's the odd actions you can not predict that
make for some exciting moments.


And as for units with the 0/0 settings?
Check if the putonwater is set to 1
They are perfect candidates for the 'Sinking Ship Bug'
in one form or the other.

Again, if they were not caught in testing?
We did not adjust them.

We adjusted, tested, and tweaked over 2500 files!
If you look at the total number of files in SH3 with GWX 2.x?
Then check how many files were adjusted before 2.X?
You start getting a little sick wondering where all your time went!!
LOL

[Subtype Zero]

I agree. I would not want to have perfectly predictable behavior, either. I guess the question is, how sure can we be that this will be the effect if the numbers are set the same? Only way to find out is through testing--most likely extensive testing. Grrr. :x I'm willing to try, but I'm only a one man team--and not a supermans at that! :D

[Madox58]

That's why we did not adjust all 200+ ships to a set standard.
Trouble units were adjusted when found during testing.
And We had a fantastic group of testers!!!!

If just one tester reported a weird thing?
All of them went after it to see if it was repeatable!!
And at times we are talking WEEKS of testing!!
Just to hunt down one units flaws!

Did we catch them all?
I doubt it.
But you'll be hard pressed to find the ones that did slip by.

Take 1.03 and test those units against 2.0 in all areas and you'll see
the Man Hours put into them!!
:huh: