Adding to the RFB Mod - The other topic!!

[vanjast]

As suggested by the RFB people - Maybe we can make this the sideline topic to RFB, where people can suggest solutions and discuss perceived problems with RFB.

Fire away :arrgh!: ye swabs.

[Bosje]

rofl, fair enough

Something i've always wondered but never came round to asking:
Which is the preferred soundmod?

in my current fresh install with only RFB, rsrd and a killflag skin, I get these slight sound 'issues':

-crash dive command is absent, apart from the 'yes sir, dive, dive'
-creaking at shallow depths seems 'cut off': short creak which breaks off before it seemed to end
-is there any way at all to change the shouting in the 'YES SIR! AHEAD FLANK!' when simply in visual range of the enemy? that guy makes me jumpy

i am currently lost in my many mod folders and i wondered if anyone had a good soundmod suggestion, cheers

[Rockin Robbins]

Great job, vanjast!:up:

Coming soon to a cinema near you!
Subnuclear Cutie! (http://files.filefront.com/Subnuclear+Cutie00027z/;12375314;/fileinfo.html) The movie.

Subnuclear Cutie the Mod comes later. First, some parameters: the subnuclear cutie has a speed of 30 knots. It is more maneuverable than the standard cutie to partially compensate for the higher speed, with the result that turning radius is slightly larger than stock. Explosive impulse is the same as the Subnuclear Mark 14, 5,000 to 50,000 hitpoints. This means it will skeletenize an aircraft carrier. Unfortunately it bounces some smaller merchies right out of the water. Tough toenails!

First watch the movie and you'll want it. Now, the reason the mod isn't out yet. All the torpedo data is in the same file. If you're already using the Subnuclear Mark 14 and load up the Subnuclear Cutie you lose the Mark 14. I can do one or the other or both. My inclination right now is to release the Mark 14 and Cutie as a package. If you want stock torpedoes on board, you can load up Mark 23s or 18s.

If you want the subnuclear cutie separately, I could issue that also. So I'm looking for info. How would you like this thing packaged? Then I'll release it tonight. The subnuclear cutie, like the rest of the line, is a blast! Literally.

[AVGWarhawk]

rofl, fair enough

Something i've always wondered but never came round to asking:
Which is the preferred soundmod?

in my current fresh install with only RFB, rsrd and a killflag skin, I get these slight sound 'issues':

-crash dive command is absent, apart from the 'yes sir, dive, dive'
-creaking at shallow depths seems 'cut off': short creak which breaks off before it seemed to end
-is there any way at all to change the shouting in the 'YES SIR! AHEAD FLANK!' when simply in visual range of the enemy? that guy makes me jumpy

i am currently lost in my many mod folders and i wondered if anyone had a good soundmod suggestion, cheers

Just a note on shallow depth creaking. The subs did not creak at shallow depth. They did not start creaking until about 250 t0 300 feet deep. This information gotten from two who served on these subs. You will note, there is one creak noise at PS depth just for effect. Also, the sound files are strange in SH4. You only have so long for a sound to play before it cuts off. If you create a file longer than what is given, the sound will not play at all. RFB used to have that stupid U571 crashdive sequence. Dreadfully awful. I would prefer silence then listen to that bad actor.

[Bosje]

oh i agree on the u571 soundbite, it's horrible

but I had an old installation of 1.5 which has seen many mods come and go, for messing around purposes. i cleaned that up and put rfb on it yesterday with RUIM stupidly on top. some or other sound mod has been part of that install at some point and i presume the copy is soiled with remnants or somthing

but i liked it, lol. the orders were speaken more slowly than on RFB and when i ordered a crash dive they guy simply said: Yes sir, crash dive! -dive, dive! (and the horn)

my best guess is that it's from some ROW soundmod or maybe even stock. anyone know?

[AVGWarhawk]

I will tell you I searched the internet for other sounds and it is awfully tough to find some decent sounds concerning subs. I did find a 2 minute run of interior noises from a ferry. I liked it alot and changed the sound file name to make it work in SH4. Dropped it in and it played nicely. Just a suggestion, search the internet for sounds and play around with them. You might suprise yourself! Memo: save the original file in case your new files screws up the game. :know:

[Bosje]

that vid was very entertaining, Rockin Robbins :)

is that still the old TMOplot V1.0?

[Gorshkov]

Well, I do not think some nuclear torpedoes are that solution we need to overcome RFB sinking model flaws. I think the good idea is to change a bit Webster's mod because it is too simplistic. I mean all torps have the same hit points value which isn't realistic. We should increase their power by identical value (+25% for example) but taken into account stock damage values by each torpedo type. It would be easy do accomplish using S3D editor.

[Bosje]

avgwarhawk: thanks

so 2 questions:
-in the sound folder there's Submarine_crashdive_Int and Submarine_crashdive_Int3
are those played in sequence and can I simply stick another sound file in there with the name Submarine_crashdive_Int2? or is that just asking for trouble?

-can anyone please help me to get the obstructions back in the binocular view?
that was the first feature of RFB I ever noticed when I switched over from TMO and I instantly loved it, even if it's only a small eyecandy thing. I miss it dearly

[gAiNiAc]

rofl, fair enough

Something i've always wondered but never came round to asking:
Which is the preferred soundmod?




The sound in ROW, which comes with Kriller2's PE are just fine.....Has that not been ported to RFB along with PE?

[AVGWarhawk]

rofl, fair enough

Something i've always wondered but never came round to asking:
Which is the preferred soundmod?



The sound in ROW, which comes with Kriller2's PE are just fine.....Has that not been ported to RFB along with PE?

LukeFF was a contributor of the original ROW sound mod if I'm not mistaken. So, some of ROW original came along for the ride in RFB.

[AVGWarhawk]

avgwarhawk: thanks

so 2 questions:
-in the sound folder there's Submarine_crashdive_Int and Submarine_crashdive_Int3
are those played in sequence and can I simply stick another sound file in there with the name Submarine_crashdive_Int2? or is that just asking for trouble?

-can anyone please help me to get the obstructions back in the binocular view?
that was the first feature of RFB I ever noticed when I switched over from TMO and I instantly loved it, even if it's only a small eyecandy thing. I miss it dearly


You need .OGG or .wav files. This are the ones I hunted down. I just change the name of my new found files to the exact name of the file I wanted to replace in the game. So, I found some klaxon, interior and even some boom sounds from under the water that I liked better then the DC sound in game. I then changed these to the exact name found inside the games sound file. I saved a copy of the original in case it got buggered. Drop in your new sound file inside the sound file folder, it will prompt to overwrite. Click yes. All set. I did one file at a time so in case it screwed up, retracing my steps would be easy and just drop the original back in.

Binoc view. Been asking for that view back as well. I got no clout I guess:-?

[Orion2012]

Binoc view. Been asking for that view back as well. I got no clout I guess:-?

To get the objects back in the binocular view, edit the clipping distance in the cameras.dat file for the binocular. (its under the cameraparams for the binocular node.)

Mine currently says 5.0, so entire progressively smaller numbers until you find one you like.

[AVGWarhawk]

Binoc view. Been asking for that view back as well. I got no clout I guess:-?
To get the objects back in the binocular view, edit the clipping distance in the cameras.dat file for the binocular. (its under the cameraparams for the binocular node.)

Mine currently says 5.0, so entire progressively smaller numbers until you find one you like.


Cool, I will check it out. I loved that camera because you had to run to the side to see around the sail apparatus.

[Rockin Robbins]

that vid was very entertaining, Rockin Robbins :)

is that still the old TMOplot V1.0?

Yes, that's the state of the art so far. Orion2012 is working on getting it fully TMO compliant. I noticed I had no sonar spikes there either and I don't know why. It didn't matter for the demo movie.

I liked how the skeleton of the ship kept moving under power. That was hilarious and self-limiting comedy.

The subnuclear cutie is a lot of fun to use because you don't have to be perfectly accurate in firing it. If you miss by too far it can and will blast right on by because of its higher speed than a regular cutie. When it connects, its a lot of fun to see the destruction.

I don't make my subnuclear line for normal career play. They're just to have fun with when you take a break. :up:

[Bosje]

Binoc view. Been asking for that view back as well. I got no clout I guess:-?
To get the objects back in the binocular view, edit the clipping distance in the cameras.dat file for the binocular. (its under the cameraparams for the binocular node.)

Mine currently says 5.0, so entire progressively smaller numbers until you find one you like.

that's what Luke said but that's also what I'm having no luck with

I downloaded the editor and found a cameras.dat.txt file thing, the editor said 'clipping distance uploaded' but nothing happened ingame.

most importantly: when doing stuff like that to game files I am prone to wreck things

this is a pathetic thing to ask but if one of you could do me up with a tiny modlet that fixes it... that would be grand :oops:

[Rockin Robbins]

Bosje, AVG, here is your Obstructed Binocular Mod (http://files.filefront.com/220+RFB+Obstructed+Binocuod7z/;12394998;/fileinfo.html). It is compatible only with the present RFB patch. If the patch changes, this will overwrite any camera changes in the new patch and the Obstructed Binocular Mod will have to be rewritten. I have no desire to screw up RFB.

This mod has absolutely no effect but to obstruct the binocular view.

[Bosje]

:o
nice!

cheers mate

[Kruger]

I think that not all of the sounds from ROW were ported in RFB. Myself feeling the need for some additional sounds, I installed ROW sounds (last version) over RFB, and I was very happy with the result. Basically, I think got the sound pack that is also present in TMO. Or almost the same.

The damage model in RFB takes in account only the flooding of the ships, or also the health points ?

[Bosje]

ROW sound effect v_9
is that the one? it's nice but i wondered if there were some other sounds which are compatible. i got lost when i tried messing around with the sounds in the numbered folders in ...sounds/speech.

ships only sink by flooding, according to the manual. hitpoints are set up so that nothing can actually destroy a ship, i believe. except of course the subnuclear weapons :)

[Sardaukar67]

Is there a mod to remove that annoying deck gun sight out of the way in RFB, when I want to aim at close range ? It prohibits seeing the tarket ship properly and the red crosshairs. I know it's ahostorical..but if I am close, I want to aim over "iron sights" to hit waterline...:p

[Kruger]

Is there a way for me to tweak the HP of ships ? I'd like to play with it and find a value to my convenience.

[vanjast]

Is there a mod to remove that annoying deck gun sight out of the way in RFB, when I want to aim at close range ? It prohibits seeing the tarket ship properly and the red crosshairs. I know it's ahostorical..but if I am close, I want to aim over "iron sights" to hit waterline...:p
One way of finding this out, is to look at the JSGME backup files (in the MODS hidden folders). I think that extended eyepiece is an embedded DDS file so might take a bit longer to find.
I'll be changing this too. First to find it shouts out aloud :lol:, as well as halving the Deck gun reload time

[Gorshkov]

Is there a way for me to tweak the HP of ships ? I'd like to play with it and find a value to my convenience.

Now all ships in RFBeta have HP value set at 4400 points as I remember correctly. That means some other guy must change them himself all accordingly to reasonable level.

[Rockin Robbins]

Beware! There is a bunch of hardwired stuff with the deck gun settings and changes sometimes don't work out as intended. Still, if you work with a JSGME enabled file you can't hurt anything. Two modders have already delved into deck gun settings and quit in disgust. I confine myself to trivial stuff.

If you find out anything really cool I'm really interested.

[Sledgehammer427]

in reply to the soundmods, i have a sound mod that works with slightly less powerful sound cards, i am putting the finishing touches on it, and it combines a few great sound mods.
i still have to ask the creators of the mods, but it looks to be great.

[tater]

Is there a way for me to tweak the HP of ships ? I'd like to play with it and find a value to my convenience.

Now all ships in RFBeta have HP value set at 4400 points as I remember correctly. That means some other guy must change them himself all accordingly to reasonable level.

If you spent the amount of time in S3D that you have whining and "demanding" that the RFB guys alter their DM, you'd already have the mod done.

It's not rocket science, it just takes WORK.

tater

[Gorshkov]

First I do not ask persons from RFBeta team or their supporters to make those changes. I am sure there are also other modders who can create supermods without such unrealistic sinking mechanics as yours. As I have read in your thread latest patch introduced some ghost-torpedoes which flow through ship's hull or dissappear just before hit. Also after deck gun hits merchant can accelerate and fire back. It is probably top secret RFBeta mod add-on called "Q-ship surprise" as I suppose. Yes, both "improvments" are amazing ideas how to raise your damage model to unimaginable levels! Nobel Prize guaranteed! :)

Second now we are not in your thread or on your private forum but in a separate RFBeta "overhaul" thread on free Subsim forum so do not try to enforce here your "wonderful sinking ideas" as sole truth and verbally attack persons with different point of view like your guru did!

[Rockin Robbins]

Another blank post! It keeps happening...:rotfl:

[Gorshkov]

Well, RFBeta guys told me they want proofs. Here you are quite good proof of increasing German torpedo power during the war. I have found on Uboat.net data about Liberty-class merchants sank. Let's take into account 1942 and 1945 annual losses because they are almost equal quantitatively and that way we can get effectivenesses of German torps with very different warheads. So in 1942 period 15 Libertys was sunk as follows: six with 1 torp, six with 2 torps and two with 3 three torps. Also some of sunken ships were finally shelled. In contrast during 1945 period 13 Libertys was sunk but twelve with 1 torp and only one with 3 torps, no 2 torp hits were reported and no gunfire, either. In sum we have clear picture that in 1942 Germans used 27 torps to sink 15 Liberty ships but in 1945 only 15 torps could sink 13 such ships. These values give us about 1.8 torpedo per sunken ship ratio in 1942 but only 1.15 such ratio in 1945. Thus German torps were almost 60% more effective against large merchants like Liberty in 1945 than in 1942!

[Bosje]

hmz i just browsed around the game sound files. this is probably a very old topic but how come i never heard all those sounds in the game?
'can't man the deck gun sir, sea is too rough'
'yes sir, dive planes set for shallow dive'

??

@sledgehammer: thats interesting, what kind of soundfiles are you looking at?

[vanjast]

As much as we don't like to listen to others coz they say things we don't want to hear, it's a good idea to listen anyway, and look beyond the tit-for-tat verbal abuse.

We might learn something and maybe we'll start being nice to each other... again :lol:
:know:

[Fincuan]

These values give us about 1.8 torpedo per sunken ship ratio in 1942 but only 1.15 such ratio in 1945. Thus German torps were almost 60% more effective against lagre merchants like Liberty in 1945 than in 1942!

That looks certainly interesting and a good start, but you're forgetting something: ships that were hit but not sunk. There were quite a few of those, and if we want a realistic representation of the hitting power those too need to be taken into account.

[Kruger]

As much as we don't like to listen to others coz they say things we don't want to hear, it's a good idea to listen anyway, and look beyond the tit-for-tat verbal abuse.

We might learn something and maybe we'll start being nice to each other... again :lol:
:know:

:hmm: Very good pointed

[Sledgehammer427]

@Bosje, its Poul_sound, ROW soundmod, Kosh's Stealthy Sub (v 1.22) and Ultimate Soundmod.
it's basically a copy and paste deal of my entire sound folder (you would have gotten a whole bunch of crazy 1980's metal in your gramaphone.thank heavens i remembered that.)
but this is what i need...
if one of you really charitable modders out there can help me,
i need the speech folder for SHIV, the WHOLE thing.
what happened was i was playing u-boat side one day, and i loaded up spax's speech pack, and the power went out at my house, right when it was finishing up. so now it's permanently installed into my speech folder. every now and then, i hear a german order when im on a fleet boat.:damn:
so if somebody would be kind enough to load up the entire unmodded speech folder, i would be very thankful (ironically enough, thanksgiving is next week)

[Gorshkov]

These values give us about 1.8 torpedo per sunken ship ratio in 1942 but only 1.15 such ratio in 1945. Thus German torps were almost 60% more effective against lagre merchants like Liberty in 1945 than in 1942!
That looks certainly interesting and a good start, but you're forgetting something: ships that were hit but not sunk. There were quite a few of those, and if we want a realistic representation of the hitting power those too need to be taken into account.
Yet they were quickly judged as TOTAL LOSS because of enormous damage and mostly sank after few hours. In one case torpedo was able to create 18 m x 6 m hole on the port side and 6 m x 6 m hole on the starboard side. As for 7500 tons merchant and one torpedo hit it is enough to say German torps were more powerful in 1945 than in 1942. Besides I excluded from this comparison one very strange example from 1942, because I could not believe it, when Liberty ship was torpedoed FIVE TIMES and broke in two. Later U-boot surfaced and sank both parts with gunfire.

Yet if you wish I can add this oddity into comparison chart and we will get that German torpedo sinking efficiency was 75% better in 1945 than in 1942!

I probably means that German torpedoes warhead's weight was about 260-300 kg (T-I and T-II early models) at the war's beginning and 350-380 kg (T-III late models) close to the war's end. It would be somewhere between British Mark-VIII and Japanese Type 95 torps of the same calibre.

[tater]

One, I have nothing to do with RFB, try again.

Two, that is indeed some data to work with. I'm not sure what it has to do with Fleet Boats, it sounds like U-boats to me (I've not even looked at the u-boats in 1.5, lol, and never plan to).

As fincuan said, you need the number hit and not sunk.

For example, 6 sank with one torpedo. 6 with 2, and 2 with 3. Some unknown number were also fired upon with the DG. None f the ships sunk with 1 fish, PLUS the DG count as 1 torp. Without the DG data it's meaningless for the '42 time frame. In addition, what if 6 Liberty ships were sunk with 1, but only 25% of those actually hit with one sank? Same for the 2 hit sinkings, though maybe fewer survived that number.

The critical data needed is the number of sinkings with X hits as a function of the number of ships hit by that number in total.

Your 1945 data of 12 sunk with 1 fish seems on the surface to prove torpedo improvements (which there certainly were), but it might simply be that there were far more Liberty ships around. As a result, many more than 13 attacks might have been made. So while 12 were apparently sunk with 1 fish, how many were HIT by one fish, and got away?

Need the data.

Your claim that torpedo efficiency was 75% better is flat out wrong. In 1942, those hit with 2 MIGHT have been sunk with just 1. Perhaps 2 hit in a spread, but one was enough. Who knows. The critical information is how many were hit by X fish and DID NOT SINK, not how many were sunk with N fish.

[Fincuan]

Tater, uboat.net lists(or at least tries to) all attacks on allied merchants where hits were scored, regardless of the end result. I didn't go and don't intend to go through all that, but starting with Liberty ships in 1942 I got a figure of 2,21 torpedos and 10,88 DG rounds per sunk ship, where "sunk" is either sunk on the spot or returned to a port but declared a total loss. On top of that four ships were hit by an unknown number of DG rounds and two were damaged by aerial bombs before being torpedoed. Several were hit by both aerial and u-boat torpedos.

Many interesting stories there, for example one ship was torpedoed by a He-115, then by a British sub in the same convou, until a u-boat arrived on the scene and sunk it.

[tater]

Looks like of US ships hit, 22% survived overall (they for some odd reason count "total losses" with the sunk ships. That is not relevant here, they either sank, or they got someplace safe and were then written off. The "t." entries should be considered "d." entries.

52 out of 139 attacks on Liberty ships survived, regardless of the number of fish/DG/etc. That's 37.4%.

It's really hard to get the base data of hits on that site though.

Assuming that the rough % is like the 42 data, 50% of those sunk were 1 fish, but nearly 40% hit by 1 fish didn't sink. So a 60% chance of a sinking with 1 fish, and a higher chance with 2. Liberty Ships were not very tough as I recall, however. They were meant to be cheap and fast to build, not hard to sink.

[Fincuan]

Yep the only way to get hit data is to go through the narratives, quite a task. :yep:

I counted the ships that were written off as sunk, total loss, basically because they were removed from their duty - they wouldn't transport a thing anymore. That's the big picture anyway. As you know SH4 doesn't simulate this in any way, the ship either sinks on the spot or survives and that's it.

edit: In 1942 there's one ship that was, or at least most of it, towed to a friendly port and declared a total loss. Adjusted with this the figures for that year's Libertys would be 2,33 torpedos and 11,56 DG rounds/sunk ship.

[tater]

For the purposes of SH, all that matters is "does the target sail out of range of the sub, yes or no?"

SH also has no ability for the AI to take another ship in tow, etc. So I think I'd err in the DM slightly in favor of survival of ships.

Another useful stat to get from that list (a ton of work to read) would be the spreads as a function of target. Seems that in most narratives there I just scanned, that 3 was a common spread. I'm sure many who play u-boats cling to a minority of skipper who might have used fewer fish per attack, but the absurdly high tonnages sunk in SH belie the reality of those tactics. I say the same for the Fleet Types. If you want to play realistically, role play a little. Act like they really acted as much as you can. That means that for many targets, if it's good enough to shoot at at all, shoot at least 3 fish.

A CV? Shoot ALL of the forward tubes just at the CV. Ditto for any large warship, actually.

Yeah, you'll waste torps, but that's because it's way too easy in game.

It's important to remember that assuming you act like a real skipper, you'll fire 3 fish, for example. In RL, maybe 1 hits, and the target sinks more often than not. In game, if you fire 3, the chances of ALL hitting are considerably better than RL. It doesn't matter in the least if it REQUIRES 2 to sink the target, since the end results PER SPREAD are the same as RL. True, the number of HITS to sink in that case would be double reality, but the end result of identical RL and game attacks would be the same. 3 fish fired, one target sunk.

It's only for stat-whores that it gets to be a problem, in other words. Realism requires a certain responsibility on the part of the player to act realistically themselves. If the DM makes it trivial to sink 90% of merchants with 1 fish, you'll find that most players will come home with 18-21 sinkings per patrol (0.9*torpedo_load). If they behave realistically, they would sink 1/3 that number.

A long time ago, there was some discussion of IJN ASW capability as it related to TM. TM had the japs dialed up ASW wise. Some folks rightly pointed out the real weakness of IJN ASW. At first I agreed, since I am well read on the (global) failure of IJN ASW doctrine. But as I thought more, I realized that it was a strategic more than an individual failure. Reading patrol reports about ASW prosecutions, they were, while for the most part ultimately ineffective (the boat survived), decently executed. They also did their primary job of holding the sub down (and slow) while the targets got away. How does this relate to TM and the game? Because in the stock game ASW was simultaneously overdone (the wrong escorts and way too many), and ineffective. Not in the RL way, but in a way that made the ASW simply more targets. TM forced the player to behave in a realistic way, even though the capability of individual escorts was better than reality.

That is critical. Like it or not, player quickly learns implicitly what he can and cannot do, and does what he can. If ships can be sunk with 1 fish and he knows it, he will do so since it is easier in game than RL.

tater

[Gorshkov]

1. I excluded from 1942 data ships partially damaged by aerial attacks as not suitable for comparison.

2. I counted TOTAL LOSS ships as destroyed i.e. sank because as Fincuan pointed out there is no possibility in SH4 to simulate TOTAL LOSS.

3. I do not take into account number of torpedo fired, missed etc. I am only interested in increasing of German torpedoes damage power in 1942 and 1945 periods. Thus summary analysis of number of attacks, salvo size is senseless here. Identically summary data for all Liberty ships in 1942-1945. Otherwise you cannot see the trend.

4. I refer only to U-boats in SH4 ver. 1.5. If you do not play them at all this discussion is a wasting of time for you.

[Bosje]

what i would like to know though: when uboats.net talk about torpedoes fired per ship, does that include duds and poorly aimed shots?
for the damage model discussion, you would need to know the number of properly exploding torpedoes which resulted in the captain assuming he had dealt a serious blow to his target, particularly in the pacific theatre.

i mean: if some statistic says 'it took 2.35 torpedoes to sink the average ship' it doesnt tell you anything at all, does it?

with the patch, I find the damage model to result in excellent gameplay and that's what we are all here for in the end, right?

[Fincuan]

With RFB I've actually been forced to use the "three at minimum"-rule with Fleet boats. I'm just starting a u-boat career so we'll see how that goes. Especially early war you can count on one of them malfunctioning in one way or another, and one hit doesn't guarantee a kill or even stopped ship, so three is a good amount. If I fire it's only when the data I've gathered and the distance to target allow me to aim all torpedoes to hit, so no spreads to account for observation errors etc. Anything like a CV, hell yeah all the forward tubes and maybe even the rear ones too if there's time to turn around, especially in boats with only four forward tubes. A target like that is way too valuable to let go.

[Fincuan]

what i would like to know though: when uboats.net talk about torpedoes fired per ship, does that include duds and poorly aimed shots?
for the damage model discussion, you would need to know the number of properly exploding torpedoes which resulted in the captain assuming he had dealt a serious blow to his target, particularly in the pacific theatre.

i mean: if some statistic says 'it took 2.35 torpedoes to sink the average ship' it doesnt tell you anything at all, does it?

Duds and misses are mentionted in the narrative if the information has been available. The number of shots per ship figures above aren't directly from uboat.net, they the result of me going through the narratives and noting the number of torpedoes that hit the ship and functioned correctly. In quite a few narratives there were mentions of duds, but I didn't account for them in any way. One ship was even completely punctured by dud: the torpedo entered from one side and travelled through the ship without exploding, exiting on the other side. Imagine sitting there and drinking your evening tea when a torpedo enters through the wall and flies across the room :o

[Gorshkov]

what i would like to know though: when uboats.net talk about torpedoes fired per ship, does that include duds and poorly aimed shots?
for the damage model discussion, you would need to know the number of properly exploding torpedoes which resulted in the captain assuming he had dealt a serious blow to his target, particularly in the pacific theatre.

i mean: if some statistic says 'it took 2.35 torpedoes to sink the average ship' it doesnt tell you anything at all, does it?

with the patch, I find the damage model to result in excellent gameplay and that's what we are all here for in the end, right?
Yes, description of each ship on U-boat.net gives info about number of fired and missed torps, dudes, and thus exploded fishes which actually sank ship. That is great in their data! That is why I refer only to exploded fishes and that is why you get this 2 torps per sunken ship in 1942 and 1.15 torp in 1945 as actually hit and exploded torps.

However there is really hard to acquire all precise data because you have to read and properly count all 139 incidents...only for Liberty-class of course! :(

As for reality in playing U-boats in SH4/UBM with more effective torps there must be Options Menu set correctly i.e. dudes ON, manual targeting and situation awareness OFF. So player has to fire more torps in salvo to achieve higher probability of hit but each German torp should be more powerful regardless of that! Moreover keep in mind that German skipper often did not fired salvo at single ship but against ships in convoy using LUT and FAT torps. Therefore they needed more powerful torpedoes because they anticipated only one hit per ship!

[DeepIron]

With RFB I've actually been forced to use the "three at minimum"-rule.Interestingly, according to Friedman and postwar analysis of US torpedo attacks against Japanese shipping. the average number of torpedoes in a salvo was 3 per attack. So your average is well, average.

Reference cited: "US Submarines through 1945" Norman Friedman page 243

[vanjast]

Imagine sitting there and drinking your evening tea when a torpedo enters through the wall and flies across the room :o


Bangggg... whoooshhh.... Bangggg..
Ed looks into his teacup.. "Phil you booger - you've put Rum in my tea again"
:arrgh!:

[tater]

1. I excluded from 1942 data ships partially damaged by aerial attacks as not suitable for comparison.

Right.

2. I counted TOTAL LOSS ships as destroyed i.e. sank because as Fincuan pointed out there is no possibility in SH4 to simulate TOTAL LOSS.

WRONG.

If they did not sink, they did not sink. Those are DAMAGED, not sunk. We already have too much information in game, in RL they'd only know it was sunk if they saw it with their own eyes, or heard it (assumption of sinking based on sonar, not as good as seeing). For the game this is all that matters, if it gets out of visual range on the surface, it should count as not sunk, even if it sank 1 minute after going out of view.

A good analogy is fighter pilots. Many planes landed with extreme damage, and were not even useful for parts ever again. None the less, they were not shot down, and should not count as kills in the least.

3. I do not take into account number of torpedo fired, missed etc. I am only interested in increasing of German torpedoes damage power in 1942 and 1945 periods. Thus summary analysis of number of attacks, salvo size is senseless here. Identically summary data for all Liberty ships in 1942-1945. Otherwise you cannot see the trend.

The number of hits per sinking tells you nothing. A ship hit by 3 in a spread might have sunk with just 1 fish, it was possibly "overkilled." Same with 2 fish. What matters is the number sunk as a function of the number of hits (including damages).

You also need to remove any where the DG was used (or add one torpedo to the number actually used). Coup de grâce count as fish required, too.

Made up numbers follow:
Say there are 50 attacks on a class of target. 25 are hit with 1 torp. 15 are hit with 2, and 5 are hit with three. Of those attacks where 1 fish hit, 10 do not sink. Of those where 2 hit, 2 do not sink. Of the 5 hit with 3 fish, ALL sink.

We now know that 60% of the ships in class hit by 1 torpedo actually sank. 87% of those hit with 2 sank, and 100% of those hit with 3 sank.

For game purposes, you'd start looking at a decent number of your attacks, and seeing how many it takes in comparison.

4. I refer only to U-boats in SH4 ver. 1.5. If you do not play them at all this discussion is a wasting of time for you.

You'd have better results with a better attitude. If you feel the German torpedo (whatever model) is weak, then demonstrate that is the case. Simple as that. I've not said you were right or wrong, just that I cannot tell based on the data you present. That's all anyone said, or asked for. You think it needs changing, do the footwork and prove it. There are limited Liberty ship attacks in RL, and you could easily enter the appropriate data from that site into a spreadsheet and really get the numbers, then compare to RFB using German subs.

However there is really hard to acquire all precise data because you have to read and properly count all 139 incidents...only for Liberty-class of course!

Yet you are asking the RFB guys to do this work—because in order to make it accurate, that's what must be done. It's not that they refuse to work on it, it's that they are being "demanded" to do all that work. Otherwise anyone can post, "X is too weak, you need to set it to 1.87653432412 times X." Well, that doesn't help, then it could still be wrong when done. They need DATA, not anecdote.

[Gorshkov]

1. TOTAL LOSS means sunken shik in SH4 reality. That is all.

2. If you refer to several hits as overkill in general you are WRONG! You can speak about overkill if torps in salvo hit ship almost simultaneously. Yet if U-boat skipper fired fishes one after another because he could see ship was not sinking there is no overkill at all.

3. RFBeta team should have done this work itself before starting to implement unrealistic sinking model. Now it seems this sinking model has not something in common with reality. Therefore other folks have to do the dirty statistical job for RFBeta team at least for German side!

OK, I leave you now until tomorrow.

Bye! :|\\

[Fincuan]

3. RFBeta team should have done this work itself before starting to implement unrealistic sinking model. Now it seems this sinking model has not something in common with reality. Therefore other folks have to do the dirty statistical job for RFBeta team at least for German side! |\\

What exactly is the problem here? The statistics gathered from uboat.net are pretty much in line with the RFB damage model, at least what comes to Liberty ships in 1942. Late war, no idea. Haven't looked at the statistics nor tried RFB at that time period.

[tater]

1. TOTAL LOSS means sunken shik in SH4 reality. That is all.

Totally wrong. Read the narratives. Many "total loss" ships made it to harbor, and it was decided not to repair them. NOT SUNK.

They decide to beach the ship, and it never sinks, nor do they later refloat her. NOT SUNK (the AI is too stupid to look for an island to beach on).

Total loss is not sunk, and doesn't count any more than aircraft destroyed on the ground are "kills" for fighter pilots.

2. If you refer to several hits as overkill in general you are WRONG! You can speak about overkill if torps in salvo hit ship almost simultaneously. Yet if U-boat skipper fired fishes one after another because he could see ship was not sinking there is no overkill at all.

In general you can say nothing at all. I said that you could not tell if it was overkill or not unless the narrative says so. In the case of USN data, the best data has a table of fired/hits, and no narrative, so there is no way to tell there, either. That is FACT. If the narrative (assuming one exists) says a spread of 3, and 2 hit, then they are effectively simultaneous, and perhaps one would have been enough, and there is no possible way to ever know. If the 2d fish was X minutes or hours later, then you probably (not certainly unless it was a long time later) know that the shot was required.

YOU say things with certainty, I do not say anything is certain unless it is demonstrably so.

3. RFBeta team should have done this work itself before starting to implement unrealistic sinking model. Now it seems this sinking model has not something in common with reality. Therefore other folks have to do the dirty statistical job for RFBeta team at least for German side!


Should have? Wow, I've managed to not use the ignore feature on SS ever, and I'm this close to doing so (I wrote off your idiotic "demand" post as not understanding english). RFB is a MOD. It's made by regular people, this is not their job, time spent is taken from RL time. Real FLEET BOAT's primary function (I presume) is accurate FLEET BOAT campaigns. The fact that it works at all with U-boats is icing on the cake, IMO. If the team is composed of FLEET BOAT folks (people who have an interest in USN submarines), and not u-boat aficionados, then someone who has such an interest should volunteer to help them, OR SHUT THE **** UP.

I cannot say it more plainly than that.


OK, I leave you now until tomorrow.

Bye! :|\\


Where's that link RR posted?

tater

[Bosje]

is there another can of worms we can open? this one got a little bit stale

like the submarine damage model. (and this is actually a serious question)
personally i was thinking about something which allows the sub to sit at the bottom without being slowly crunched to death.
I took a shell hit the other day which resulted in uncontrollable flooding, which was going to kill me either way (and which is fine, serves me right for allowing destroyers to shoot at me).

but it got me thinking: what if you take some mediocre damage which still causes flooding. wouldnt it be nice to let the boat ground itself at 200 feet while you spend a day doing repairs, so you can try to blow the remaining air and come back up once all repairable stuff is sorted? (as seen in SH3 for example)
this is currently not possible in RFB. (at least, when i hit the ground i spent an hour receiving continous damage reports and repair reports, until the entire boat was completely wrecked by hitting the bottom over and over again

[AVGWarhawk]

is there another can of worms we can open? this one got a little bit stale

like the submarine damage model. (and this is actually a serious question)
personally i was thinking about something which allows the sub to sit at the bottom without being slowly crunched to death.
I took a shell hit the other day which resulted in uncontrollable flooding, which was going to kill me either way (and which is fine, serves me right for allowing destroyers to shoot at me).

but it got me thinking: what if you take some mediocre damage which still causes flooding. wouldnt it be nice to let the boat ground itself at 200 feet while you spend a day doing repairs, so you can try to blow the remaining air and come back up once all repairable stuff is sorted? (as seen in SH3 for example)
this is currently not possible in RFB. (at least, when i hit the ground i spent an hour receiving continous damage reports and repair reports, until the entire boat was completely wrecked by hitting the bottom over and over again
Stock issue and I'm not sure if can be corrected. I do recall some discussion about this a while back. I think it was concluded that it is hard coded.

[Wilcke]

is there another can of worms we can open? this one got a little bit stale

like the submarine damage model. (and this is actually a serious question)
personally i was thinking about something which allows the sub to sit at the bottom without being slowly crunched to death.
I took a shell hit the other day which resulted in uncontrollable flooding, which was going to kill me either way (and which is fine, serves me right for allowing destroyers to shoot at me).

but it got me thinking: what if you take some mediocre damage which still causes flooding. wouldnt it be nice to let the boat ground itself at 200 feet while you spend a day doing repairs, so you can try to blow the remaining air and come back up once all repairable stuff is sorted? (as seen in SH3 for example)
this is currently not possible in RFB. (at least, when i hit the ground i spent an hour receiving continous damage reports and repair reports, until the entire boat was completely wrecked by hitting the bottom over and over again
I believe there is a seafloor mod for SH4 ( I could be full of it!!!) somewhere in this part of the forum. Someone may come along with a link or try the search which may work or not. My 2 cents after 2 years with SH4 and long time with RFB and TMO, if I have minimal damage and flooding and am able to make 2-3 knots I am still in the game although evading the DD's or aircraft. Never found the need to stay on the bottom. But, realize that I really want folks to enjoy this sim their way. That is why modding came about.

Happy Hunting!

[lurker_hlb3]

Where's that link RR posted?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=230646

[Rockin Robbins]

Where's that link RR posted?

tater Add Gorshkov to your ignore list (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=230646)

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/lol-045.gifhttp://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/lotsa_greenguys.gifhttp://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/roflmao.gifhttp://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/smileys/Partay.gif

I'm off to obstruct a TBT...

[AVGWarhawk]

All right gents, let Gorshkov post. Right, wrong or lack of understanding. He is entitled to post. Use the forum tools as suggested.

Gorshkov, as per PM, constructive conversation goes further then negative posting constantly. I see you are very adamant in pointing out RFB flaws. If you have the answer to the flaws, please post them up. You stated NGYM as a sinking mod is awful. That is fine. You are entitled to your opinion. However, stating once is enough. Again, if you have a better alternative, present it to the community. If not, end your opinion here on it. You have successfully diverted yet another thread in your conquest to put down the free work you are being critical of. This is an add to RFB thread. Not a torpedo statistics thread. If you want to start one of those, feel free to post in the general SH4 forum.

[Gorshkov]

HOG ISLAND FREIGHTER (5000 tons) CASE STUDY 1941-1943:


- 21 May, 1941: 1 torp + 30 rounds
- 19 Oct, 1941: 1 torp
- 15 Dec, 1941: 1 torp
- 15 Feb, 1942: 1+2 torps
- 20 Feb, 1942: 1+2 torps
- 3 Mar, 1942: 2+1 torps
- 5 Mar, 1942: 1 torp
- 7 Mar, 1942: 56 rounds+1 torp
- 9 Mar, 1942: 1 torp
- 5 Apr, 1942: 1+1 torps
-12 Apr, 1942: 2 torps
- 20 Apr, 1942: 1+1 torps + 5 rounds
- 21 Apr, 1942: 1+1 torps
- 5 May, 1942: 1 torp
- 18 May, 1942: 1 torp
- 19 May, 1942: 1+1 torp
- 24 May, 1942: 1 torp
- 15 Jun, 1942: 1+1 torp
- 7 Jul, 1942: 1 torp + 60 rounds
- 26 Jul, 1942: 2 torps
- 13 Aug, 1942: 1 torp
- 9 Oct, 1942: 1 torp
- 13 Nov, 1942: 1 torp
- 9 Jan, 1943: 1 torp
- 25 Jan, 1943: 1 + 1 torps
- 23 Feb, 1943: 1+1 torps
- 4 Mar, 1943: 2 torps
- 5 Mar, 1943: 1 torp + friendly DD fire at dead wreck

All in all 28 ships of this type were sunk only by U-Boats using 44 torpedoes which gives us 1.57 torpedo per sunken ship ratio. Note that in this period German torps were less powerful than in SH4+UBM time period (1943-1945).

PS. Nomenclature X + Y torps means X and Y amount of torps fired simultaneously one after another until ship finally sank.

@tater: Yes! "Demand", "should have" and "**** up"! Everything is all right with my English. That's for your convenience. :)

@AWG: I feel RFBeta is trying to appropriate another thread on this forum. Very bad!

[Rockin Robbins]

New update. The Obstructed Binocular Mod is now the Obstructed Bino and TBT Mod (http://files.filefront.com/220+RFB+Obstructed+Bino+TBT7z/;12413279;/fileinfo.html). Thanks AVGWarhawk for kicking me in the 'nads to get me to notice that it needed doing. Thank you Gorshkov for making me disgusted enough to actually do some work. Thank you tater for your amazing comment to Gorshkov, which made me think I might better be working on something than arguing.

Now everything blocks the binoculars and the TBT. You see what a real captain would see. Not tested on U-Boats. Works on submarines only to the best of my knowledge.:ping:

Warning! This mod is only to be used with RFB_v1.52_Patch_111108. If the patch is updated this mod must also be updated not to break RFB.

[skwasjer]

:huh:

RR, infected by the mod-virus, no? :rotfl:

[Rockin Robbins]

No, infected by S3D and doing just minor tweaks, nothing earthshaking. Without S3D I'd be playing SH4 with X-ray vision! Now when I should be looking at the target, I'm stuck with an eyeful of the lookout's butt. Why didn't I take on that all-female crew when I had the chance? :damn:

THIS is improving the game?:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[Carotio]

Why didn't I take on that all-female crew when I had the chance? :damn: THIS is improving the game?:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

:hmm:
being fond of the opposite sex, I must say exchanging the male crew entirely with a female ditto would be a HUGE enhancement of the game.

I remember I once got a mod for Return to Castle Wolfenstein, which removed the clothes of the nazi super female soldiers, quite funny.
I'm beginning to consider trying to do some crew model modding :rock: :rotfl:

[AVGWarhawk]

New update. The Obstructed Binocular Mod is now the Obstructed Bino and TBT Mod (http://files.filefront.com/220+RFB+Obstructed+Bino+TBT7z/;12413279;/fileinfo.html). Thanks AVGWarhawk for kicking me in the 'nads to get me to notice that it needed doing. Thank you Gorshkov for making me disgusted enough to actually do some work. Thank you tater for your amazing comment to Gorshkov, which made me think I might better be working on something than arguing.

Now everything blocks the binoculars and the TBT. You see what a real captain would see. Not tested on U-Boats. Works on submarines only to the best of my knowledge.:ping:

Warning! This mod is only to be used with RFB_v1.52_Patch_111108. If the patch is updated this mod must also be updated not to break RFB.

Off for a download. Thanks for blocking my view. However, this would not work if we were in a movie theater. :rotfl:

[LukeFF]

New update. The Obstructed Binocular Mod is now the Obstructed Bino and TBT Mod (http://files.filefront.com/220+RFB+Obstructed+Bino+TBT7z/;12413279;/fileinfo.html).

Just realize the fleet subs were eventually fitted with two TBTS (one facing forward, the other aft), so blocking the view on the TBT when viewing aft is not entirely realistic.

BTW, I do plan on adding this second TBT in a future RFB release. The TBT pedestal is already there, and adding in the actual object is very easy.

[AVGWarhawk]

New update. The Obstructed Binocular Mod is now the Obstructed Bino and TBT Mod (http://files.filefront.com/220+RFB+Obstructed+Bino+TBT7z/;12413279;/fileinfo.html).

Just realize the fleet subs were eventually fitted with two TBTS (one facing forward, the other aft), so blocking the view on the TBT when viewing aft is not entirely realistic.

BTW, I do plan on adding this second TBT in a future RFB release. The TBT pedestal is already there, and adding in the actual object is very easy.

Now that sounds like a wonderful plan :D :rock:

[AVGWarhawk]

HOG ISLAND FREIGHTER (5000 tons) CASE STUDY 1941-1943:


- 21 May, 1941: 1 torp + 30 rounds
- 19 Oct, 1941: 1 torp
- 15 Dec, 1941: 1 torp
- 15 Feb, 1942: 1+2 torps
- 20 Feb, 1942: 1+2 torps
- 3 Mar, 1942: 2+1 torps
- 5 Mar, 1942: 1 torp
- 7 Mar, 1942: 56 rounds+1 torp
- 9 Mar, 1942: 1 torp
- 5 Apr, 1942: 1+1 torps
-12 Apr, 1942: 2 torps
- 20 Apr, 1942: 1+1 torps + 5 rounds
- 21 Apr, 1942: 1+1 torps
- 5 May, 1942: 1 torp
- 18 May, 1942: 1 torp
- 19 May, 1942: 1+1 torp
- 24 May, 1942: 1 torp
- 15 Jun, 1942: 1+1 torp
- 7 Jul, 1942: 1 torp + 60 rounds
- 26 Jul, 1942: 2 torps
- 13 Aug, 1942: 1 torp
- 9 Oct, 1942: 1 torp
- 13 Nov, 1942: 1 torp
- 9 Jan, 1943: 1 torp
- 25 Jan, 1943: 1 + 1 torps
- 23 Feb, 1943: 1+1 torps
- 4 Mar, 1943: 2 torps
- 5 Mar, 1943: 1 torp + friendly DD fire at dead wreck

All in all 28 ships of this type were sunk only by U-Boats using 44 torpedoes which gives us 1.57 torpedo per sunken ship ratio. Note that in this period German torps were less powerful than in SH4+UBM time period (1943-1945).

PS. Nomenclature X + Y torps means X and Y amount of torps fired simultaneously one after another until ship finally sank.

@tater: Yes! "Demand", "should have" and "**** up"! Everything is all right with my English. That's for your convenience. :)

@AWG: I feel RFBeta is trying to appropriate another thread on this forum. Very bad!

Here in lies the question, just what is it you are attempting to accomplish? This is a change to the RFB mod thread. If you are looking for a change, create one for your game. Looks like you have satisfied yourself with 1+1 and 1 1/2 torpedos to sink a ship. 1/2 torpedoes just seems odd in my book. At any rate, go get S3D editor and make stronger torps.

[Rockin Robbins]

Why didn't I take on that all-female crew when I had the chance? :damn: THIS is improving the game?:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
:hmm:
being fond of the opposite sex, I must say exchanging the male crew entirely with a female ditto would be a HUGE enhancement of the game.

I remember I once got a mod for Return to Castle Wolfenstein, which removed the clothes of the nazi super female soldiers, quite funny.
I'm beginning to consider trying to do some crew model modding :rock: :rotfl:

I DEMAND that Gorshov produce an all female crew mod (his choice of uniforms or lack of. Remember, due to the crippled economies of the world we are saving cloth.) by 3 pm Saturday afternoon.

[Bosje]

so... when i noticed mikhayl's sh3 mod for seabed repairs and thought this might be easily made possible in SH4.... i was slightly underestimating things?
too bad
as for the obstructed tbt: :rock: nice work, RR sir!

personally, i wouldnt mind a playmate-of-the-month-mod where miss july comes round to treat my crew to a little dancing :rotfl:

[Gorshkov]

LIBERTY-CLASS (7500 tons) SUMMARY DATA 1942, 1944, 1945

I researched Uboat.net data about all submarine attacks on these ships aside of 1943 period. Here you are summary results:

- 1942: 17 attacks resulted 1 damaged ship by 1 torp each and 16 destroyed* ships by 34 torpedoes which means 2.1 torp per destroyed ship.

- 1944: 32 attacks caused 4 damaged ships by 1 torp each and 28 destroyed ships by 39 torpedoes which gives 1.4 torp per destroyed ship.

- 1945: 17 attacks resulted 3 damaged ships by 1 torp each and 14 destroyed by 17 torps. That means 1.2 torp per destroyed ship.

*destroyed - sunken or declared "total loss". There were 19 ships judged as "total loss" of which 9 were succesfully towed to port for scrap, 1 could reach port herself and 9 sank during towing or were intentionally destroyed being unable to tow.

I think that picture is clear. German torpedoes destructive potential against large merchants raised by 66% in 1944 and by 75% in 1945 as compared with 1942!

Now I propose to change RFB name to RFB-UU = "Real Fleet Boat - Unrealistic U-boat"! :rotfl:

[Gorshkov]

I DEMAND that Gorshov produce an all female crew mod (his choice of uniforms or lack of. Remember, due to the crippled economies of the world we are saving cloth.) by 3 pm Saturday afternoon.
If you can prove that Fleet Boats were manned by nudie bimbettes in reality, I'll think about it! I would call this mod RNB. :up:

[Rockin Robbins]

Did Gorshkov say he's working on the female crew mod? Or is he still talking about irrelevant U-Boat stuff? Real Fleet Boat. Say it three times. Now, just the last two words: Fleet Boat, Fleet Boat, Fleet Boat. The RFB crew cares little about U-Boats, beyond allowing them to be played along with the fleet boats, as intended by Ubi.

They believe that deactivating the U-Boats (as some other mods have said they will do to fleet boats) would be contrary to the intentions of Ubi and would constitute harm to their property. The RFB team is committed not to do harm to Ubi or the developers of SH4 by causing portions of their game not to work. However, improving the performance or realism of U-Boats is a VERY secondary concern to the RFB crew. I can't see that changing unless some U-Boat enthusiasts join the RFB crew and contribute.

Criticism and taunting is not contribution. You have to get along with people to work with them, and that appears not to be Gorshkov's agenda. His agenda has been strictly negative. Were a fleet boat enthusiast to do this in the ATO forum, he would have been slapped in the brig and fed moldy bread with mosquito larva infested water by now. :yep: The mods here have been muchas merciful!

Therefore I have blocked him and I urge all others to block him as well. I have placed shortcuts for a one-click block elsewhere in this and the RFB thread. I is a shame that one so enthusiastic about the U-Boat war chooses to misuse whatever talent he may possess. Maybe the Gray Wolves would welcome him into their GWX4 project. If you're interested, Gorshkov, contact Privateer. I sincerely recommend that Gorshkov find some positive way to contribute to the community.

[Gorshkov]

OK! Let's say the record straight: RFB mod cares only about reality on US side! That is very good you have already acknowledged that. I simply thought this mod in current version improves reality in entire SH4 game because it is intended to install only over SH4 ver. 1.5 (UBM) as RFB team pointed out in manual.

So now is also good time to tell players not to play U-boats in RFB because their torpedo power is a complete derision under new sinking model. Moreover I researched up to now more than two hundreds of U-boat.net ship sinking data and I am sure that even stock sinking model is not real in modeling late-war German torps power as opposed to US torps.

Thus finally it is very good idea to create mod similar to Webster's mod but with individual torpedo's type damage points tuning. I'll try to create it myself if I run S3D editor because now this program wants some DirectX 9.0c re-installation or upgrade and unfortunately torpedo.zon file is not text file...

[AVGWarhawk]

OK! Let's say the record straight: RFB mod cares only about reality on US side! That is very good you have already acknowledged that. I simply thought this mod in current version improves reality in entire SH4 game because it is intended to install only over SH4 ver. 1.5 (UBM) as RFB team pointed out in manual.

So now is also good time to tell players not to play U-boats in RFB because their torpedo power is a complete derision under new sinking model. Moreover I researched up to now more than two hundreds of U-boat.net ship sinking data and I am sure that even stock sinking model is not real in modeling late-war German torps power as opposed to US torps.

Thus finally it is very good idea to create mod similar to Webster's mod but with individual torpedo's type damage points tuning. I'll try to create it myself if I run S3D editor because now this program wants some DirectX 9.0c re-installation or upgrade and unfortunately torpedo.zon file is not text file...

Gorshkov...it is RFB..Real Fleet Boat. Not RUB...that was for SH3:D. Go get'em:up: Hey, at least you got a good study of the U's on Uboat.net! Get S3D and make the Uboats as you wish!!

[Orion2012]

New update. The Obstructed Binocular Mod is now the Obstructed Bino and TBT Mod (http://files.filefront.com/220+RFB+Obstructed+Bino+TBT7z/;12413279;/fileinfo.html).

RR, I'm assuming your changing the clipping distance?

If so, it may be worth point out that the flickering issue may be worse with a low "clipping value".

[AVGWarhawk]

New update. The Obstructed Binocular Mod is now the Obstructed Bino and TBT Mod (http://files.filefront.com/220+RFB+Obstructed+Bino+TBT7z/;12413279;/fileinfo.html).
RR, I'm assuming your changing the clipping distance?

If so, it may be worth point out that the flickering issue may be worse with a low "clipping value".

I was made aware that the flicker might come back. I have not seen it yet. I can live with the flicker until LukeFF sets up the rear TBT and can somehow clip the front TBT. :D I play 100% and this obstruction of view really adds to the 100% experience.

[tater]

RR, I have something positive to contribute to your mod demands:

http://videodetective.com/photos/039/001676_2.jpg

http://www.carygrant.net/fotogallery/operationpetticoat/op-200.jpg

http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes2/pettycoat163.jpeg

http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes2/pettycoat231.jpeg

[Wilcke]

so... when i noticed mikhayl's sh3 mod for seabed repairs and thought this might be easily made possible in SH4.... i was slightly underestimating things?
too bad
as for the obstructed tbt: :rock: nice work, RR sir!

personally, i wouldnt mind a playmate-of-the-month-mod where miss july comes round to treat my crew to a little dancing :rotfl:

Bosje,

So its for SH3, well C$%&! I was hoping it might have been made for SH4. Well, its highly possible that we can make this SH4 compatible. I can take a peek and if it won't keep me up to late I will try it of course with Mikhayl's blessing and he gets full credit.

Are you signing up for the playmates? If so go for it...

Happy Hunting!

[Rockin Robbins]

I would appreciate any reports of flickering returning with the obstruction mod. I'm not sure what a fix might look like and it may just be something we have to decide what we want more, realistic fields of view with flickering or x-ray vision and no flickering.

[gAiNiAc]

rofl, fair enough

Something i've always wondered but never came round to asking:
Which is the preferred soundmod?



The sound in ROW, which comes with Kriller2's PE are just fine.....Has that not been ported to RFB along with PE?

LukeFF was a contributor of the original ROW sound mod if I'm not mistaken. So, some of ROW original came along for the ride in RFB.

Just an FYI, I've applied ROW sounds over RFB 1.52 and it seems to be working without a hitch......

[Rockin Robbins]

Bosje,

So its for SH3, well C$%&! I was hoping it might have been made for SH4. Well, its highly possible that we can make this SH4 compatible. I can take a peek and if it won't keep me up to late I will try it of course with Mikhayl's blessing and he gets full credit.

Are you signing up for the playmates? If so go for it...

Happy Hunting!

Mikhayl's one U-Boat guy who's done a lot of great work for SH4 in both theaters. He reminds me of Leovampire in his attitude and I salute him.:up:

[gAiNiAc]

every now and then, i hear a german order when im on a fleet boat.:damn:


I guess nobody told you.....That's the "Spy" mod!!!! :arrgh!:

[Orion2012]

New update. The Obstructed Binocular Mod is now the Obstructed Bino and TBT Mod (http://files.filefront.com/220+RFB+Obstructed+Bino+TBT7z/;12413279;/fileinfo.html).
RR, I'm assuming your changing the clipping distance?

If so, it may be worth point out that the flickering issue may be worse with a low "clipping value".
I was made aware that the flicker might come back. I have not seen it yet. I can live with the flicker until LukeFF sets up the rear TBT and can somehow clip the front TBT. :D I play 100% and this obstruction of view really adds to the 100% experience.

Agreed. Hope my previous post was construed as rude or impolite, I just wanted to let everyone else who didn't see the post over at the RFB forum.

Sorry if it seemed impolite.

[Bosje]

after running patrols in 1.52, running patrols after the patch and running around with RR's modlet, the only flickering i ever saw was one weird bridge on one ship, with the patch

so i'm completely unfussed about it at this point. and i agree with AVGWarhawk that it is a wonderful addition to playing it as real as possible

as for the seabed repair thing: i understand that it's a difficult issue, if anyone gets anywhere with it, i'll be very happy to hear about it

*salutes the entire community*
:smug:

[AVGWarhawk]

New update. The Obstructed Binocular Mod is now the Obstructed Bino and TBT Mod (http://files.filefront.com/220+RFB+Obstructed+Bino+TBT7z/;12413279;/fileinfo.html).
RR, I'm assuming your changing the clipping distance?

If so, it may be worth point out that the flickering issue may be worse with a low "clipping value".
I was made aware that the flicker might come back. I have not seen it yet. I can live with the flicker until LukeFF sets up the rear TBT and can somehow clip the front TBT. :D I play 100% and this obstruction of view really adds to the 100% experience.
Agreed. Hope my previous post was construed as rude or impolite, I just wanted to let everyone else who didn't see the post over at the RFB forum.

Sorry if it seemed impolite.

Not at all sir. Hey, I found out Luke is going to add the stern TBT as a result of this:D:rock::up:. So, I use this until then:sunny:

[Rockin Robbins]

For once my meddling is going to result in a change to the official mod! I got shot down in flames with Orion's TMOplot, my TMOkeys has been ignored (except for a couple hundred black market downloads:cool:), my subnuclear weapons series has been scorned by the RFB Team, but now I am victorious!:rotfl:

What was that quote? It was around here somewhere..... Oh, yeah, here it is.......

"This is my last territorial demand!" 'dolph just before rolling the tanks into Czechoslovakia.

[vanjast]

I've made a few adjustments to the Deckgun.. This should be available soon on BTS (http://www.bts-mods.com/) as soon as Cowboys put it up.

Main Readme extract:

RFB_v1.52_Patch_111608 file adjustments
---------------------------------------

Some minor mod adjustments on the RFB_v1.52_Patch_111608 files - I've tested them and all looks OK. The adjustments are minimal, so I don't expect any problem.

MODS
====
1) DeckGun3Zoom - Current RFB give 2 zoom levels 1x and 10x - It looks crappy. This mod give 3 zoom levels - 1x, 4x & 6x

2) DeckGunPos - Adjust the gunner position so you have a clear view when in 1x zoom. Also put you on the right hand side.

3) DeckGunReloadHalf - DeckGun reload time reduced to half current RFB.
4) DeckGunReloadThird - DeckGun reload time reduced to third current RFB.
5) DeckGunReloadQuarter - DeckGun reload time reduced to quarter current RFB.

You can load 1) & 2) together (they replace different files), Plus either 1 of 3), 4) or 5) - (another set of different files)
:up:

Yep it's JSGME compatible.. just plonk the files into the MODS folder and install over the RFB Patch

Also in the reload files, I've increased the Gun Transverse (left/right) and Elevation (up/down) rates, to make more sense. :)

[gAiNiAc]

I've made a few adjustments to the Deckgun.. This should be available soon on BTS (http://www.bts-mods.com/) as soon as Cowboys put it up.

Main Readme extract:

RFB_v1.52_Patch_111608 file adjustments
---------------------------------------

Some minor mod adjustments on the RFB_v1.52_Patch_111608 files - I've tested them and all looks OK. The adjustments are minimal, so I don't expect any problem.

MODS
====
1) DeckGun3Zoom - Current RFB give 2 zoom levels 1x and 10x - It looks crappy. This mod give 3 zoom levels - 1x, 4x & 6x

2) DeckGunPos - Adjust the gunner position so you have a clear view when in 1x zoom. Also put you on the right hand side.

3) DeckGunReloadHalf - DeckGun reload time reduced to half current RFB.
4) DeckGunReloadThird - DeckGun reload time reduced to third current RFB.
5) DeckGunReloadQuarter - DeckGun reload time reduced to quarter current RFB.

You can load 1) & 2) together (they replace different files), Plus either 1 of 3), 4) or 5) - (another set of different files)
:up:

Yep it's JSGME compatible.. just plonk the files into the MODS folder and install over the RFB Patch

Also in the reload files, I've increased the Gun Transverse (left/right) and Elevation (up/down) rates, to make more sense. :)

Excellent mod sir!

[AVGWarhawk]

Did you get the patch?

[vanjast]

Did you get the patch?
This one.... RFB_v1.52_Patch_111608 ?

[LukeFF]

However, improving the performance or realism of U-Boats is a VERY secondary concern to the RFB crew. I can't see that changing unless some U-Boat enthusiasts join the RFB crew and contribute.
Actually, I've spent a fair bit of money on U-boat reference books and time researching all the technical details of the different bits of U-boat equipment modeled in SH4. :D The reason U-boats take a back seat to the fleet subs in RFB is because only two U-boats are officially modeled in 1.5, and one of those never even made it to an operational flotilla. :D The attention to detail put into the U-boats, though they play a small role in SH4 v1.5, is just as equal as that put into the fleet boats, no matter what certain people from eastern Europe would have you to believe. ;)

[LukeFF]

So now is also good time to tell players not to play U-boats in RFB because their torpedo power is a complete derision under new sinking model. Moreover I researched up to now more than two hundreds of U-boat.net ship sinking data and I am sure that even stock sinking model is not real in modeling late-war German torps power as opposed to US torps.
Okay wiseguy, here's your homework assignment: prove to me, in no uncertain terms, the chemical compound comprising late-war (or any part of the war, for that matter) German torpedo warheads was greater than that of the standard American torpedo warhead, which was 600 pounds of torpex (all of the torpedoes in RFB, save the Mark 10, Mark 16, and Mark 27 are modeled to that standard). Prove me that, and I'll see to it the torpedo power of the German torpedoes is adjusted for RFB.

Ooh, and look, I have links to back up my statement about American torpedo warheads!:

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/torpedo/part5.htm#pg275

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/torpedomk18/index.htm#pg4

Heck, I'll even give you a hint and a head start. The boys at Danger in the Deep give the following data for German warhead composition:

Early War: hexanite = 60% trinitrotoluene + 40% hexanitrodyphenilamine
Mid-Late War: SW18 = 50% TNT, 24% HND, 15% Aluminium; SW36 = 67% THT, 8% HND, 25% aluminium, SW39 = 45% TNT, 5% HND, 30% amonium nitrate + 20% aluminium, and SW39a = 50% TNT, 10% HND, 5% amonium nitrate, 35% aluminium

Ball's in your court.

[AVGWarhawk]

Hey, that is not my quote Luke :rotfl: I care about as much about warhead TNT as about as much as just how much tea is in China:rotfl: :D

[Bosje]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=144205

is that shark compatible with RFB and if so, do you mind if I suggest that it gets added to a future patch please?

cheers

[vanjast]

Correct Scope and obs scope scaling done plus another exciting addition
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=994882#post994882

:D

[LukeFF]

Hey, that is not my quote Luke :rotfl: I care about as much about warhead TNT as about as much as just how much tea is in China:rotfl: :D

Oops! Sorry about that. :88)