Accuracy of sub ranges

[Archive1]

Although the surfaced range of each sub appears to conform to historical numbers, it seems to me that in the sim the subs do not actually demonstrate a real range.

As an example: if one leaves Midway, runs surfaced only during night hours at ahead 1/3, dives appropriately from dawn to dusk, it takes almost 60% of fuel to reach the Truk area. There is no way to carry out the assigned mission with the fuel left and return to Midway. Certainly one would be in bad shape if one headed for the "off Japan" icon first...you'd be out of fuel and too far from a seconday base to refuel. From Truk one can get to an Australian or a nearby base to refuel and then return to the patrol. But historically US subs could go from Midway to the hunting grounds off Japan, remain on station a couple of weeks, and return to Midway without refueling. It seems something is wrong.

In GWX it was determined that the 'flat' sim map demanded abnormal fuel requirements from the real world amounts and the sub ranges were adjusted accordingly - I believe increased by about 20%.

My question: should the ranges in SH4 be similarly adjusted? I have looked at the "sub surfaced ranges" with S3D but cannot adjust the range as was possible in SH3 because the surfaced range number (as well as the submerged range number) cannot be 'opened' with S3d and edited. Yes one can select 'unlimited fuel' as a setup option, but I do not want to make that rather crude 'arcade' selection.

Any ideas anyone? Am I way off base here?

[claybirdd]

U.S. subs ran on the surface a LARGE majority of the time. unless avaoiding a detected aircraft or preparing for an attack.

[Orion2012]

Optimum Fuel isn't ahead 1/3 its around 9.5 knts.

Recharging batteries uses the same amount of fuel as running ahead flank.

[Archive1]

Thanks for the reply.

As I recall from reading patrol reports from US WWII, a sub's standard orders were to submerge at dawn and surface at night except for times when speed was critical. Maybe I remember incorrectly.

I will try the 9.5 knts. I do know that 'Ahead 2/3' was often more economical in SH3. I did not know that battery recharge was so fuel inefficient; maybe that's why the German subs did it at reduced speed by taking one prop off line. However, battery recharge is only part of the total submerged time.

But my two questions remain unanswered:

1. Has SH4 taken into consideration the conversion of great circle distances when the globe is presented as a flat map in the sim? And the further north you go the disparity increases.

2. How can one edit for each sub the *.val, *.sim, *.zon files with S3B if one cannot 'select' or 'open' the item one wants to edit? For example: surfaced range, submerged range or for that matter speed, draft etc, etc.

[Webster]

U.S. subs ran on the surface a LARGE majority of the time. unless avaoiding a detected aircraft or preparing for an attack.

not true, japan ruled the skies in the pacific for quite a while so subs would never stay on the surface during the day untill way late in the war when japans air power was non existant, if even then.

archive1 is correct, a sub's standard orders were to submerge at dawn and surface only at night except for times when speed was critical or the situation dictated otherwise.

as to your question, yes the devs spent time to try and get the sim to run as close to realistic experiences as best they could but i would not go as far as to say documented results are in line with what you actually get in the game, but i think it is quite close.

you may be right about needing a tweak but lets see how the thread goes.

i personally think people are having so much fun modding things with the game that people havent been actually spending enough time endlessly playing it to work out all the small things that are not right.

[claybirdd]

my apolgies I have been corrected.:oops: I always thought they only surfaced at dawn when near enemy land masses with potential airfields.

[Orion2012]

Thanks for the reply.

As I recall from reading patrol reports from US WWII, a sub's standard orders were to submerge at dawn and surface at night except for times when speed was critical. Maybe I remember incorrectly.

I will try the 9.5 knts. I do know that 'Ahead 2/3' was often more economical in SH3. I did not know that battery recharge was so fuel inefficient; maybe that's why the German subs did it at reduced speed by taking one prop off line. However, battery recharge is only part of the total submerged time.

But my two questions remain unanswered:

1. Has SH4 taken into consideration the conversion of great circle distances when the globe is presented as a flat map in the sim? And the further north you go the disparity increases.

2. How can one edit for each sub the *.val, *.sim, *.zon files with S3B if one cannot 'select' or 'open' the item one wants to edit? For example: surfaced range, submerged range or for that matter speed, draft etc, etc.

No, were still dealing with a flat map and a flat game world.

I'm not sure I follow you in regards to S3D, I've never had a problem editing anything from the visual sensors to the MBT flood Time.

[Orion2012]

Thanks for the reply.

As I recall from reading patrol reports from US WWII, a sub's standard orders were to submerge at dawn and surface at night except for times when speed was critical. Maybe I remember incorrectly.

I will try the 9.5 knts. I do know that 'Ahead 2/3' was often more economical in SH3. I did not know that battery recharge was so fuel inefficient; maybe that's why the German subs did it at reduced speed by taking one prop off line. However, battery recharge is only part of the total submerged time.

But my two questions remain unanswered:

1. Has SH4 taken into consideration the conversion of great circle distances when the globe is presented as a flat map in the sim? And the further north you go the disparity increases.

2. How can one edit for each sub the *.val, *.sim, *.zon files with S3B if one cannot 'select' or 'open' the item one wants to edit? For example: surfaced range, submerged range or for that matter speed, draft etc, etc.

No, were still dealing with a flat map and a flat game world.

I'm not sure I follow you in regards to S3D, I've never had a problem editing anything from the visual sensors to the MBT flood Time.

[vanjast]

Using RFB1.5, I've never had a problem with fuel..
My settings: (from Pearl via Midway)
- 100% reality
- ~10 knots on surface, 1-2 knots submerged
- I only start submerging during the day from west of ~140 east (I think it is).
- Arrive off Okinawa with 75% fuel, leave Japan when at 25% fuel.
- On station, I scan areas during the day submerged - monitoring sonar.
At night ~10 knots on the surface until dawn, submerge and scan again.
If I feel I'm in a 'good' area, I cruise around in circles at 1 knot on the surface at night.

- On day contacts, p-scope depth - If I'm in a good position Attack, else 'tag' it till sunset then chase it on the surface. If it's going to fast I just leave it.

This method I've found gives me plensh time on station.
:up:

[gAiNiAc]

Just an FYI.........

I've never read anywhere that US subs had standing orders to submerge at dawn and surface at dusk.

US subs transitted on the surface to and from patrol areas.

[doulos05]

Just an FYI.........

I've never read anywhere that US subs had standing orders to submerge at dawn and surface at dusk.

US subs transitted on the surface to and from patrol areas.

The war reports I have read specifically mention thinks like:

1115: SD Radar reports aerial contact, dove to periscope depth
1130: Surfaced
1213: Airplane spotted, identified as Betty. Dove to 120 ft. Splashes heard, no damage
1230: Surfaced
1243: Airplane Spotted. Dove to periscope depth. In order to reduce crew fatigue, we will spend the remainder of the day submerged. Made rotations for 3 knots.

That seems to indicate that, regardless of standard doctrine, US Sub skippers did run their boats on the surface during the day. Given the presence of SD radar, there's really no reason not to, since you will detect the plane 15-20 nm or more from your position, giving you plenty of time to go as deep as you like. While under a lot of air traffic, they probably would have run submerged during the day, I'd think they spent as long as possible on the surface making 9.5 knots.

[Rockin Robbins]

I inject my standard reply regarding running submerged all day. If you wanted to be relieved of command you did that. If you wanted to remain a sub captain you ran surfaced every second you could. Submarine stealth was an offensive weapon, not a device to hide from the enemy or render comfort for the crew. Read Fluckey's observations on Admiral Lockwood's views in Thunder Below. A huge percentage of captains were removed from command for non-performance. Lockwood did not tolerate shirkers.

Anyone interested can do a search for my posts on the subject. A World War II submarine is a surface ship that can submerge occasionally when it is absolutely necessary. Any other use of the machine will cause you to sink fewer targets, cost you too much fuel and cause the Admiral to carve you some new orfices if he allows you to keep your boat.

[vanjast]

:lol:
Then again some US admirals of ww2 were known to have funny ideas of war... like not providing escorts for tankers on the eastern seaboard - The Second Happy Time

I wonder what they would have done, if you submerged during the day, racked up the tonnage coz you could hear a target on sonar at longer ranges than the radar, and survived the whole war... Actually they still would have relieved you, coz you proved them wrong :rotfl:

[gAiNiAc]

:lol:


I wonder what they would have done, if you submerged during the day, racked up the tonnage coz you could hear a target on sonar at longer ranges than the radar

You wouldn't be able to intercept targets remaining submerged. No speed or endurance.

[gAiNiAc]

I inject my standard reply regarding running submerged all day. If you wanted to be relieved of command you did that. If you wanted to remain a sub captain you ran surfaced every second you could. Submarine stealth was an offensive weapon, not a device to hide from the enemy or render comfort for the crew. Read Fluckey's observations on Admiral Lockwood's views in Thunder Below. A huge percentage of captains were removed from command for non-performance. Lockwood did not tolerate shirkers.

Anyone interested can do a search for my posts on the subject. A World War II submarine is a surface ship that can submerge occasionally when it is absolutely necessary. Any other use of the machine will cause you to sink fewer targets, cost you too much fuel and cause the Admiral to carve you some new orfices if he allows you to keep your boat.

:yep:

I've read all of Fluckey and O'Kanes stuff, as well as "Silent Service". No mention of standing orders to submerge during the day. The Pacific is far too vast. The Japanese never had air superiority over the Pacific nor did they have a large scale coordinated ASW effort like the aliies in the ATO.

[Sailor Steve]

U.S. subs ran on the surface a LARGE majority of the time. unless avaoiding a detected aircraft or preparing for an attack.

not true, japan ruled the skies in the pacific for quite a while so subs would never stay on the surface during the day untill way late in the war when japans air power was non existant, if even then.
True, but I think "a LARGE majority of the time" includes transit time, which ate up a lot of fuel. And once they had effective radar I believe they did stay surfaced as much as that tool allowed.

[Nisgeis]

Paraphrased from 'Silent Victory' by Clay Blair Jr.

The boats went out with orders to proceed with extreme caution, as no one knew what the Japanese technology was like and there were also likely to be subs on route. When within 500 miles of an air base, they were to remain submerged in daytime. Nights they were to run on only one enginer to conserve fuel. They were only meant to use one or two torpedoes per target, as there was a shortage of them.

After the first patrols were completed, there were various criticisms of the patrols. They took too long to get on station, as they were too cautious and dived too often. One skipper was criticised for following pre war doctrine of a sonar only attack and it was suggested that it should have been a night periscope attack, or even a surface night attack. I tihnk, but don't recall where I saw it, that the Gudgeon's first patrol lasted 51 days and only 12 were spent submerged.

These comments, called endorsements were added to patrol reports and were circulated to all sub skippers and this was the way that current policy was published - as criticism or encouragement of actions on patrol. It was clear to those who received the reports that the current policy had drastically changed in a very short period of time.

[Webster]

so when on station in patrol areas controled by the enemy they were covert and when in transit to another location i would imagine they traveled openly on the surface.

but what about the question about the rate of stock fuel consumption in game?

someone said they used RFB and it was ok but didnt RFB reduce fuel consumption for accuracy?

[Bosje]

lol i just finished a thread about what i presume to know of surface operations on both sides of the world, my books tell me that RR is quite correct in that your boat is a surface torpedo attack boat with the option to dive if needed

on the other hand it seems that Dutch boats operating out of Gibraltar spent their days at periscope depth while ambushing Italian freighters off the coast, recharging on the surface at night. And the same Dutch boats operating between the archipelagos in the Pacific did the same thing. Makes sense of course: submerge during the day when near land, since any sunbather could easily see you. but to actually get there you'll just run on the surface and you dive whenever the planes are sighted. same for U-boots as far as I know.

[Rockin Robbins]

Nisgeis shows clearly the evolution of sub strategy during the war. Upon his succession to command, Admiral Lockwood ended up replacing close to 50% of submarine commanders for being too timid. Right after that he had to take the additional step of lowering the maximum age for commanding a sub, as a pattern emerged of the more timid ones being older and less teachable.

Admiral Fluckey didn't develop his philosphophy in a vacuum. He was commander of the Barb, most decorated boat and crew of the war. He did not start his career until March of 1944 and most boats were returning to base empty handed, lifeguard duty being the big thing then. Fluckey developed new techniques that netted him huge victories.

The yo-yo strategy was the cornerstone if his technique. He was on the surface at all times. When a lookout sighted a plane he didn't immediately submerge. He observed the plane to determine whether it was likely to bother him or not. A large proportion of the time, he would merely slow down to reduce wake and continue. Fluckey was serious about the submarine being a surface boat that had the ability to submerge when absolutely necessary. When forced to submerge his question was, Why should I not surface NOW?" Finding targets was a mathermatical probability directly proportional to the number of square miles of ocean surface searched. Every square mile not covered meant fewer Japanese ships on the bottom.

When he succeeded Lockwood as Admiral, what do you think became the official fleetwide policy?:arrgh!:

[gAiNiAc]

so when on station in patrol areas controled by the enemy they were covert?

When on station they remained surfaced to search only diving if absolutely necessary.

Remaining submerged for the duration of the day was unique to the German ATO because of allied absolute air superiority and ASW methods.

The Japanese never had absolute air superiority over the Pacific nor did they exercise a coordinated strategic ASW effort.

[gAiNiAc]

but what about the question about the rate of stock fuel consumption in game?

someone said they used RFB and it was ok but didnt RFB reduce fuel consumption for accuracy?


I don't know about fuel consumption accuracy, but I never run out!

[SteamWake]

but what about the question about the rate of stock fuel consumption in game?

someone said they used RFB and it was ok but didnt RFB reduce fuel consumption for accuracy?


I don't know about fuel consumption accuracy, but I never run out!

It altered the default speed for 'ahead full' to around 10 knots so better fuel effeciency. I still find I get better milage by setting it at 9.5 knots but thats nit picking.

As to the "running submerged in daylight hours" I dont know about official doctrine but the 'vanilla' version of this game forces you into that posture due to the incessant air patrols.

Modded versions are much better in this aspect and now with rFB+RSRD in my install I probably spend 95% of my time on the surface. Only diving for those fast moving contacts and attack approaches.

I have not as yet ended up short on fuel to get back but Its been very very close a couple of times. :rock:

[Nisgeis]

Does anyone know how much fuel they actually start with? Can you see how many gallons you have?

[Archive1]

Quite a conversation going, with much experience and wisdom expressed. I believe, as one might expect, strategy changed as the war progressed and experience increased. I do recall that the attrition rate for commanders was high in the early years or even months because they had been 'trained' to be cautious and were overcautious during the early times, but that the real world of combat required more aggressive actions. So I guess Robbins position is the more probable. With commanders running surfaced in clearly 'safe' waters for speed and running combinations of surface and submerged in hazardous waters.

I have found that a surface speed of 9 to 9.5 knots is the most economical and that one can go a long way surfaced at that speed. I have yet to complete that entire patrol so cannot determine if the range will turn out to be adequate. There used to be a way to have displayed "Maximum distance at present speed." but I haven't determined how to do that here. Only get distance to next waypoint or something.

Orion2012 - Interesting. I can open the *.val and *.sim etc files but I cannot edit anything on the opened screen. Used to do so with GWX in SH3 without any problem, to adjust draft, wakes etc, but cannot figure out what I'm doing wrong here. Probably me, not the program. Maybe have to query the developer (name escapes me at present). Has anyone put together any tweak files for each sub so miniTweaker can be used? I think that question was asked a long time ago by someone, but I don't recall the answer.

Appreciate all the discussion.

[cgjimeneza]

Dick O`kane states that he returned from a patrol with 2,000 gallons out of 110,000 he had to begin with.


PS: I left "Take her Down" at the office, will recheck the data tomorrow

[Webster]

well i may be in the minority opinion here but there is no way in hell your gonna make me believe patroling on the surface in the south china sea was Standard Operating Proceedure.

yes the stock game does have way too many planes but in real life there was a continued air presence over japanese held territory in the pacific. not to the extent the stock game does but they did have a big air force and they used it.

now after the coral sea "turkey shoot" then i can yeild to your scenario of subs that never submerge because then there was little japanese airforce left to do anything.

[LukeFF]

well i may be in the minority opinion here but there is no way in hell your gonna make me believe patroling on the surface in the south china sea was Standard Operating Proceedure.

Read the patrol histories of some of these subs, and you'll see that was exactly the case.

[LukeFF]

Does anyone know how much fuel they actually start with? Can you see how many gallons you have?

No, it's simply the percentage of fuel remaining that the game tells the player.

[LukeFF]

someone said they used RFB and it was ok but didnt RFB reduce fuel consumption for accuracy?
For all subs we use the stated value that gave the best balance of fuel economy and speed, which was 11,000 miles at 10 knots for the fleet subs (except the Tench Class, which had a higher range). As such, Ahead Standard will give the player the best fuel economy, bottom line. A player can easily complete a 4+ week patrol in RFB by simply using Ahead Standard to transit to and from their assigned patrol areas and using the higher speed settings only when speed and time is of the essence.

[vanjast]

Finding targets was a mathermatical probability directly proportional to the number of square miles of ocean surface searched. Every square mile not covered meant fewer Japanese ships on the bottom.

Ultimately proven by the code breakers that this method had a minor effect, as there were not enough boats to cover the whole ocean, whereas knowing where the convoys would be at a certain time, proved to be the 'weapon' of choice. Thus allowing a commander to lay in wait (submerged of course). ;)

[Archive1]

LukeFF: I appreciate the information for the RFB boat - most helpful for those using that mod. For those inmersed in the TMO/RSRD mods there still remain questions regarding range. We'll have to see how it works out as people try to complete assigned patrols, using a speed setting of 9 to 10 knts, as time moves along.

Webster: to some extent I agree with you and I need to explore my references to see what I can find, but I do suspect that while COMSUBPAC tried to set SOP for subs, the commander on site had to modify those as he wanted/needed to. That ability - to individually alter SOP - is what was so clearly an advantage for the US in the Pacific theater. Well, indivudual initiative was/is the same powerful advantage for the US military even as we speak.

[Nisgeis]

Does anyone know how much fuel they actually start with? Can you see how many gallons you have?

No, it's simply the percentage of fuel remaining that the game tells the player.

I see, so increases in fuel range throughout the war are not modelled? It's just this sub goes x miles at y speed? Hmmm... Oh well.

[keltos01]

a pity... Japanese boats had modifications late in the war changing the engines for less powerfull ones but with increased range... thus reflecting a change in tactics..

keltos

[Rockin Robbins]

Finding targets was a mathermatical probability directly proportional to the number of square miles of ocean surface searched. Every square mile not covered meant fewer Japanese ships on the bottom.
Ultimately proven by the code breakers that this method had a minor effect, as there were not enough boats to cover the whole ocean, whereas knowing where the convoys would be at a certain time, proved to be the 'weapon' of choice. Thus allowing a commander to lay in wait (submerged of course). ;)
A fine observation for those rare times when other circumstances made a counter strategy useful, but 95% of the time they were developing targets on their own and maybe 5% in pursuit of an Ultra target.

If you were correct, sinkings would have been more uniformly distributed among boats. In fact, a few boats with bolder search strategies dominated the fleet in the last year of the war, especially including Barb with Admiral Fluckey. Search as I've laid out was almost alone responsible for producing the most decorated boat and crew of the war. Fluckey's promotion to Admiral Lockwood's job afterwards tends to lend credence to my conclusions.

The code breakers didn't know anything about submarine strategy. They were just experts in interception and interpretation of enemy communications. Their information was often sketchy, imprecise or wrong. When they were right the typical run to the required position had to be on the surface WFO to a location not quite possible to reach in time.

If they DID arrive on time, they would, of course, slow down. But submerging would be a terrible strategy if you're expecting a convoy headed your way. Your first means of detection would be your radar. To use that you would at least have to be at radar depth. Then you have to be ready for extended evasion after the attack. This demands full batteries that you would not have if you lurk submerged waiting for them to appear. In the game you can hover at zero speed. A real sub couldn't do that under normal circumstances. In any event, waiting submerged any longer than absolutely necessary would severely handicap your chances of success in attack and/or surviving the encounter.

[vanjast]

Agreed there are different ways to drive a boat, car, aeroplane..

An interesting book - The Emperors Codes.. tells a different story.

In the Pacific, this sketchy info, was privvy only to certain people, cos the rest were a bunch of prudes, having the 'abilty without much effort to give the game away'. In fact there was so much of this info available, mostly ignored by some brass, cos they were still enstoned in WW1 tactics. It seems only a few brass had the forsight to use this info, while the rest 'played political games', to the detriment of countless ordinary soldiers.

:know:

[Bosje]

is it not true that on all sides, they were reluctant to use intelligence to direct their operational boats because they feared it would make the enemy aware of the fact that the codes had indeed been broken?

i remember reading something about the British Admiralty deliberately NOT rerouting some convoys to make the germans think that enigma was still secure. (not that they were happy to sacrifice their merchants but they only rerouted convoys based on information which could have also been acquired through other means than enigma code breaking. something like that, anyway)

[SteamWake]

Does anyone know how much fuel they actually start with? Can you see how many gallons you have?

As described above you start out with 100%. Its not measured in gallons.

My drop dead 'bingo' fuel to return of course varies on where I am and what year of the war (tenders nearby) but typically hovers somewhere around 33%.

[LukeFF]

I see, so increases in fuel range throughout the war are not modelled? It's just this sub goes x miles at y speed? Hmmm... Oh well.

Yep, that's how it's done. It's a shame, because all of the fleet subs ultimately had their range increased as the war went on.

[gAiNiAc]

well i may be in the minority opinion here but there is no way in hell your gonna make me believe patroling on the surface in the south china sea was Standard Operating Proceedure.



We'll, I'm not talking about opinion here......read the patrol histories as others have mentioned. It's fact. I'll say it again, the Japanese did not exercise strategic air superiority as any sort of doctrine in the Pacific. The land air force supported the army. It was primarily used as a tactical instrument.

Start Here:

http://www.amazon.com/United-States-Submarine-Operations-World/dp/0870217313/ref=pd_sim_b_13

http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Victory-Submarine-Against-Japan/dp/155750217X

[vanjast]

i remember reading something about the British Admiralty deliberately NOT rerouting some convoys to make the germans think that enigma was still secure. (not that they were happy to sacrifice their merchants but they only rerouted convoys based on information which could have also been acquired through other means than enigma code breaking. something like that, anyway) It's true that they sacrificed a convoy or 2 to keep the cover, but what they did do, as you mentioned above, with the cracked info, they'd send a reconnaisance plane out.
The purpose of this rec plane - to be spotted by the enemy task force or convoy - transmit like crazy on their radio, then hi-tail it home... Thus making the enemy think that they were spotted by these means. MEANWHILE there was a 'hit-squad waiting down the road' already. Further still the US Navy knew the destinations of the convoy/forces, so could arrange pre-recons backed up by the 'hit squad'.

Essentially the IJN was doomed to failure, as all their codes were cracked. The IJN25 code proved to be the most difficult and changed every 6 months or so. BUT it was cracked via the weaker codes as there was a heirarchy of code transmissions, as the message which started with IJN25 filtered their way down to the weaker codes, and so the code breakers built up a code base. - A very interesting book it is - based on recently unclassified info.

The book gives and example of the code and the mathmatical method of cracking it - A lot of maths (mainly statistics :) ) was used, and also 'gut feel' of their enemy, which they developed over time.
Wiki has a good starting point with all this info...
:)

[Archive1]

May I bring this thread back to the other half of the original issues I brought up since this is related to sub ranges...and in this case to ones ability to modify those built in ranges?

"I can open the *.val and *.sim etc files but I cannot edit anything on the opened screen. Used to do so with GWX in SH3 without any problem, to adjust draft, wakes etc, but cannot figure out what I'm doing wrong here. Probably me, not the program. Maybe have to query the developer (name escapes me at present). Has anyone put together any tweak files for each sub so miniTweaker can be used? I think that question was asked a long time ago by someone, but I don't recall the answer."

I still cannot open and modify the *.val, etc files using S3D as I could in SH3. Anybody have an answer?

[Webster]

May I bring this thread back to the other half of the original issues I brought up since this is related to sub ranges...and in this case to ones ability to modify those built in ranges?

"I can open the *.val and *.sim etc files but I cannot edit anything on the opened screen. Used to do so with GWX in SH3 without any problem, to adjust draft, wakes etc, but cannot figure out what I'm doing wrong here. Probably me, not the program. Maybe have to query the developer (name escapes me at present). Has anyone put together any tweak files for each sub so miniTweaker can be used? I think that question was asked a long time ago by someone, but I don't recall the answer."

I still cannot open and modify the *.val, etc files using S3D as I could in SH3. Anybody have an answer?

here you go: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=119571

post there and you get all the info and instruction you need, if that dont do it then PM the creator of it "skwasjer" he will personally help you for sure but hes a busy man so it may be a day or so.

[vanjast]

I still cannot open and modify the *.val, etc files using S3D as I could in SH3. Anybody have an answer? Do you mean, you cannot 'see the files' in the File Open dialog box - This might have something to do with the File of Type list at the bottom, or they do not open in S3D when you click on them, in the dialog box.

An alternative is to open S3D and Drag-n-Drop a file from the game folder onto S3D window, and see what happens !
:)

[Rip]

Does anyone know how much fuel they actually start with? Can you see how many gallons you have?
No, it's simply the percentage of fuel remaining that the game tells the player.

This is one of the things I brought up in the "what would you like" session at the 2008 subsim meeting. I would like gallons as well. Actually I would like an entire captain's midnight report. If I knew the gallons then I could perform calculation on mpg for every speed and anticipate the fuel required to make various transits at faster speeds. Sometimes I want to make a fast run to somewhere but never know if I will make it impossible to complete my return trip.

[Archive1]

Webster: Yes, my friend, you gave me the contact "skwasjer". Will try to ask him. No hurry for any reply from him. I may just have to go to the link you provide. See my further explanation below. BTW: I think regarding ranges you and I are in close agreement. But maybe it's not the time or place to engage in too much argument.

vanjast: I mispoke perhaps. I can 'open' all the *.val, *.sim, *.zon, etc, files. I am just unable to modify them. That is, I can 'highlight' a file, such as surface range, but I cannot change the value, ie, I do not get the editing "I" moving icon inserted in the line of numerals that indicate the programmed range and so cannot insert different values (am I clear at what I'm trying to say here?).

[vanjast]

:up:

[difool2]

The "surface vs. submerged" thing depends on your typical detection radius in both states. Before radar, and in visibility conditions which are moderate or worse, relying on your hydrophones is probably a better bet. With radar and/or a crystal clear atmosphere, staying on the surface is a better strategy.

In the game, what does this mean? Well, we end up with some really good radars on the US boats as the war progresses, and their ranges are upwards of 20-30,000 yards. Hydrophones in SH3 at least had a 32,000 meter range, while with the proper mods you would get 16K visibility (only a measly 8K in vanilla), so in that sim staying under will find you more targets. Historically tho I don't think the WW2 hydrophones that both the Allies and the Axis had would have had anything close to a 32K range, and in clear conditions in good sunlight you might see masts at 24K+ yards (as indeed you did in good old SH1). I recall several encounters in that big book on the Pacific sub war that I read where the stated range on the 'phones was a mere 5,000 or 10,000 yards, and that can be affected by a whole host of factors (sea state, to name one).

Thus in either sim underwater searches are viable options, more viable than in real life because of how the dev team simplified underwater sonic conditions (there's no convergence zones here, for ex.). But radar gives you the edge when surfaced, if it is available and won't vector the enemy onto your position.

[vanjast]

One must always remember that Radar is line-of-sight and probably had a max range of 15Km for surface objects, whereas for air objects it is the limit of it's detectors.
There is a note somewhere that on a good day a UBoat hydrophone operator could hear a single ship at a range of ~15km, but a whole convoy anywhere between 50-100Km.
Radar definitely helps in poor visibility weather, and spotting a/c, but for surface objects I'd rely more on hydrophone.

Before anyone goes into a spin - I speak from experience (qualified military Radar Engineer (airborne/navy) , plus other airborne and navy systems ). Now I'm just generally overqualified for what I do....:damn:
:up:
A little edit:
"Radar is line-of-sight" => that is for the high frequency stuff (small aerials) carried on the subs.
"Over the Horizon" stuff is for aerials bigger than a sub itself. :)

[peabody]

vanjast: I mispoke perhaps. I can 'open' all the *.val, *.sim, *.zon, etc, files. I am just unable to modify them. That is, I can 'highlight' a file, such as surface range, but I cannot change the value, ie, I do not get the editing "I" moving icon inserted in the line of numerals that indicate the programmed range and so cannot insert different values (am I clear at what I'm trying to say here?).

You do know the values are changed at the bottom of the page and not on the highlighted item itself, right? There is a 'value' box. Don't want to sound insulting but I don't know how much you use it.
If you don't get the I in the 'value' box try a right click and select all, then type in what you want and it will replace what is there.
As for why the 'I' is not showing I don't know. Maybe a re-intall? Or have you tried the delete and backspace to see if maybe the 'I' is the same color as the background, but it actually there?
Just some ideas, until you get an answer for someone that actually knows what he is talking about.:rotfl:

Peabody

[LukeFF]

Before anyone goes into a spin - I speak from experience (qualified military Radar Engineer (airborne/navy) , plus other airborne and navy systems ). Now I'm just generally overqualified for what I do....:damn:
:up:
A little edit:
"Radar is line-of-sight" => that is for the high frequency stuff (small aerials) carried on the subs.
"Over the Horizon" stuff is for aerials bigger than a sub itself. :)

Good explanation there. WWII radar was what is known as "pulse radar." Like active sonar pinging for a target, pulse radar constantly sends out a "ping" looking for an object, hence why this type of radar is "line of sight."

[vanjast]

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

The UK invention that made portable radar a reality. Although radar was already known to both sides, the equipment was still massive and non portable. This UK invention (wiki-link) and the USA's WW2 productivity capabilities was one of the main technological contributors to 'vinning ze Var' :D

Read somewhere that the 'Brits' were against donating one of these to the Americans (Allies WW2 Technological Exchange Agreement), but Winston Churchill over-ruled them, and in a 'return convoy' a small box not much bigger than a shoe box, travelled on a ship with tight security. It was said that the Americans were 'blown away' when they saw the device - and very soon miniature portable radar sets appeared on most military 'vehicles'.

Essentially all high powered radar systems are 'pulsed', or they'd pop within a second. Nowdays there are many types of radar, using the microchip to do signal conditioning, etc to pick out the relevant info from the mess.
Most radars use a single frequency (limitations of the magnetron) where the frequency has known effects in the atmosphere
- High frequency is absorbed more readily and has shorter effective range, and better target definition. Smaller aerials, more line of site operation.
- Lower Frequency stuff has longer ranges and is 'bent'/'bounced' by the atmosphere so has the capability to look over the horizon. It has poorer target definition. Larger aerials.

You can see the 'similarities/opposites' in Sonar where a high frequency ping is 'bent' more easily than a lower frequency at greater depths or through thermal layers. Modern day sonars also use a 'Chirp' method, which is just a range of frequencies transmitted (Frequency sweep). To get anything intelligable from this, one needs processing power of DSP microchips of something similar.

My short story this morning... :rotfl: