Bugs and Howlers that have to be fixed before release

[Kaleun_Endrass]

After watching the trailer back and forth I noticed something I saw in SH3 and SH4 that must get fixed with SH5: The uboat´s propellers turn in the wrong direction!!! :damn: Come on devs, it´s just an inversion of the algebraic sign. :know: Also the sausages and bananas swung from left to right inverted. So please fix these things.

Btw, the bulkhead from the gallery to the diesel room opens to the wrong compartment.
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7829/sh5gallery.jpg

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/3905/u995gallery.jpg
:arrgh!:

[Sailor Steve]

I agree that the compartments need to be correct, but I always have problems with the propellor complaint, mainly because I consider it a bug that you can go outside and look at the propellors at all.

[FIREWALL]

And the rivets are all wrong. :DL

[Kaleun_Endrass]

I don´t care about rivets or the color of valve #347 but a propeller turning in the wrong direction is like a car racing game with the virtual steering wheel turning the opposite direction that I steer.

[elanaiba]

No, its not, in the sense that it doesn't affect the way you steer your sub in the game - unlike the driving game in your analogy.

Still, details are important. And the doors... good catch. We'll try to fix those.

[The General]

elanaiba,

I sense you're a little peeved at people giving you hassle about trivial stuff like Propellors turning in the wrong direction, or planes that attack routinely, every 30 secs (On 2048 T.C.), even if you're out of range! I mean, it's not like SH3 & 4 were full of bugs and prematurely released is it? ....Oh no...wait a minute :hmmm:

[THE_MASK]

OMG , get the sausages and bananas right :O: The bananas are curving the wrong way and i dont like the way the susages swing .

[Takeda Shingen]

I see that we are now complaining preemtively.

[elanaiba]

elanaiba,

I sense you're a little peeved at people giving you hassle about trivial stuff like Propellors turning in the wrong direction, or planes that attack routinely, every 30 secs (On 2048 T.C.), even if you're out of range! I mean, it's not like SH3 & 4 were full of bugs and prematurely released is it? ....Oh no...wait a minute :hmmm:

Nope, I'm not peeved :) Re-read my post above.

I admit that details are important. Game breaking bugs are more important. Propellers turning the wrong way are the former, rather than the latter.

[JScones]

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7829/sh5gallery.jpg


Am I the only one that sees George Harrison here?

[Takeda Shingen]

Am I the only one that sees George Harrison here?

Actually, Tony Shalhoub is what came to my mind.

[Kaleun_Endrass]

I see that we are now complaining preemtively.
I just give hints so the devs can fix tiny and easy things.

[Wulfmann]

Hmmmm, within a few weeks of getting SH3 I was playing 100% so have never seen what direction the screws turned for well over 4 years now.

I can see how those that play this as a game might find that annoying while those of us simulating being a "real" kaleun don't care.

Sorry, couldn't resist the condescending arrogance this allowed:rotfl2:

Wulfmann

[LiveGoat]

To me he looks like Harry Dean Stanton.

[Navarre]

Certainly these are smaller bugs, but if in an "all-new-code" game already the same bugs are done as in the predecessor, then Ubi has not learn from anything. Then we will have again the transparent crews on deck, the sun which is visible through object, ... :down:

[mookiemookie]

Certainly these are smaller bugs, but if in an "all-new-code" game already the same bugs are done as in the predecessor, then Ubi has not learn from anything. Then we will have again the transparent crews on deck, the sun which is visible through object, ... :down:

Exhibit "A" of Takeda's "preemptively complaining"

Give it a rest and wait for it to be released before b*tching. :roll:

[Platapus]

Sometimes I wonder if it would not be better if game developers kept their development efforts a secret and just release when done.

Don't give the customers a chance to bitch until they at least have seen the game.

[Torplexed]

Sometimes I wonder if it would not be better if game developers kept their development efforts a secret and just release when done.

Don't give the customers a chance to bitch until they at least have seen the game.

You mean...gasp...like they did before the internet became so ubiquitous? :D I can remember when all the preview you got for a title was a few column inches in a gaming magazine, if you even found that.

[Akula4745]

You mean...gasp...like they did before the internet became so ubiquitous? :D I can remember when all the preview you got for a title was a few column inches in a gaming magazine, if you even found that.

Yeah... and even that got me excited about a favored release! Seriously tho... give the man a break and hold the b*tching till after the game is released. Preemptive complaining my butt.

[Takeda Shingen]

I just give hints so the devs can fix tiny and easy things.

'Come on devs, it's just an inversion of the algebraic sign' is not a hint, it is a complaint. A complaint, mind you, about a game that is probably, at best, a beta, and certainly has not been released.

I would echo Mookie, Platapus and Torplexed in my longing for the good old days, when people waited until they had the game in hand before griping about it.

[Torplexed]

Yeah... and even that got me excited about a favored release!

Yeah, all it used to take was a half page colored ad to get me excited about a coming release. Nowadays, between a deluge of screen shots, developer blogs, forum feeding frenzies and YouTube video walk-throughs I almost feel like I've already played a game before I even own it. :D

[Kaleun_Endrass]

'Come on devs, it's just an inversion of the algebraic sign' is not a hint, it is a complaint.
As long as there are no dirty words it´s not a complaint.
I know that the game is in development but a howler known since SH3 could be fixed by now, you don´t think? That are no beta mistakes.
people waited until they had the game in hand before griping about it.I wrote that with the propellers back in 2005 in the german SH3 ubi-forum AFTER having my copy bought and installed.
Yeah, all it used to take was a half page colored ad to get me excited about a coming release.I remember those moments when Wing Commander 3 or Tie Fighter were announced and previewed by a big german games magazine...

[FIREWALL]

Let's hope UBI learned a little something from the past mistakes but ... nobody has the game so why post complaints about something that hasn't happened yet.


And IF it has more bugs than a New York flop hose.... You'll buy it anyways. :har:

[Takeda Shingen]

As long as there are no dirty words it´s not a complaint.

I disagree. That there is no foul language means that I don't have to moderate you, but does not exclude the possiblity of complaint. Still this is semantics, and you are well within the bounds of acceptable behavior, even if I disagree with your stance.

I'm a nuke simmer at heart. I grew up playing the Fast Attack, 688(i), Sub Command and Dangerous Waters line of simulations. Historical submarine simulations were, for me, an acquired taste, and one made of necessity. It is certainly true that the submarine simulation world is one of feast and famine. The feast is on the historical side. You guys get a new sim about every two years. The modern simulation market is, for all intents and purposes, dead. To add insult to injury, each historical simulation is, upon its release, the pinacle of naval combat simulators, with graphics and features only dreamed of in previous installments.

Case in point: SHIII and DW. Both were released around the same time. SHIII was the greatest submarine simulation we had ever seen. In fact, we had never seen anything like it before. Here you were with a fully dynamic campaign, on a boat with magnificent ocean physics and a detailed environment that would make one drool all over his keyboard. To boot, it had not only a three-dimentional crew, but one that you could interact with. DW, by comparison, ran off the old Fleet Command engine, which brings back memories of good old Fleet Command math:

I had 12 Tomcats. Nine of them suffered catastrophic engine failure right off the catapult, leaving me with 3 Tomcats which were, due to their inadequate numbers, promptly basted out of the sky by enemy SAMs. I now have zero Tomcats.

The point is that DW was dated upon its release, and has signaled the end of the modern sim line for the forseeable future, while the historical sims have the latest bells and whistles. SHV looks to be another SHIII in terms of giant leaps forward. The Dev Team looks to be giving us just about everything the community wanted, setting up yet another sumptuous banquet for the historical sim players. It simply baffles me to read complaints about screw direction when the other side of the community is stuck back in the 90's. I suppose that it is simply a matter of perspective. We'd take the wrong screws.

[nattydread]

Sometimes I wonder if it would not be better if game developers kept their development efforts a secret and just release when done.

Don't give the customers a chance to bitch until they at least have seen the game.

I sincerley believe SHIII/IV was as great as they were because of our input...because the Devs came to us early on.

All great relationships and the fruits they produce require honest and constructive critisim...to shy away from critique is to encourage the lose of potential.

Only a fool thinks they know it all.

Never be afraid to put the fruits of your labor up to scrutiny...especially by your consumer base.

If you are truly confident in what you do and your ability to do it, you'll embrace your consumer base's scrutiny because you'll be confident in your ability to make use of that scrutiny to produce an even better product.


Lets be honest, even the smallest(yet correct) nit-pick cant be deemed invalid or un-justified. Tackling an accurate and genuine nit-pick will only make for a better product. Whenever a nit-pick is frowned upon its due to a personal judgement of perceived value in time and resources required to tackle the nit-pick...its really not an indication of the validity of the nit-pick(even though we tend treat it that way).

If the nit-pick is accurate and genuine, respect it, giev credit to the nit-pick when its due. Dont be-little the nit-pick or the nit-picker. All we can do(technically it really boils down to the devs call) is make a judgement of weither the resources are avialable to address it with respect to everything else that needs to be done. But whenever possible, every nit-pick should be addressed...for it can only make the overall product better, even if by only the smallest margin.

[FIREWALL]

Let's hope UBI learned a little something from the past mistakes but ... nobody has the game so why post complaints about something that hasn't happened yet.


And IF it has more bugs than a New York flop hose.... You'll buy it anyways. :har:


bump

[Akula4745]

Yeah, all it used to take was a half page colored ad to get me excited about a coming release. Nowadays, between a deluge of screen shots, developer blogs, forum feeding frenzies and YouTube video walk-throughs I almost feel like I've already played a game before I even own it. :D

Yes... its not the same as "discovering" a truly "new" (read as unknown) game...

[Reaves]

I think it's ok to ask the devs to be mindful of certain things in the previous games that annoyed you.

Sun shinning through objects
Crew being see through
Eyes becoming hollow
Soup being cold

If they are not fixed it's not the end of the world, i'll still love the game.

I'm sure elanaiba is a big boy and won't get upset that someone asks Ubi to be mindful of a few historical quirks.

Now stop bashing each other and add some constructive comments.

[PL_Andrev]

Still, details are important. And the doors... good catch. We'll try to fix those.

For you as dev member:

Please remember that bugs in game are two kinds: light and important.
These details are "light" or "very very light"...

I want to show you "important bugs" know in SH3 or SH4 which high crashed a playablity (this is not type like banana's shape):

1) Decoys work at periscope depth, when destroyers are attacking
2) When main cargo ship is destroying, sometime the escort ship is main ship in convoy. After that the convoy rotates as escorts...
3) In multiplayer mode when player's sub is destroyed on surface or when surfacing... this sub is attacked all time by escort but is undestroyable and unsinkable...

Of course this is only three examples... and they are more important than "banana's shape"...

[Stormfly]

...would understand hints from the community about making a simulation (game or not) more realistic and exciting, as help for free (maybe also a bit of additional quality management if correct information provided).

The developer at the end is responsible to make a business compilant descision. From my view, those informations or hints should be aviable as early as possible to prevent against possible changes in the end of a design phase or additional consume of planed resources for additional bugfixing after release, which maybe producing additional costs.

...we are allready at the end of the design phase, maybe this kind of help comes a bit late to be efficient, on the other hand... i think until now, every SH titel was a commercial success, so i look forward to version 5 and 6:yeah:

[Seeadler]

If the community only responds to such matters after the release, then it's too late. In Germany we say: "then the child has already fallen into the well":03:

[quad5]

Hi all! :salute: Sorry for my english.
I many times lifted this problem!:damn::damn::damn::hmmm:
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1580/silenthunter5.th.jpg (http://img23.imageshack.us/i/silenthunter5.jpg/)

It is necessary to correct! The deck at the bridge should be made more low!

Here is how was actually:yep:
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/253/89135889.th.jpg (http://img687.imageshack.us/i/89135889.jpg/)

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4921/7c2i.th.jpg (http://img130.imageshack.us/i/7c2i.jpg/)

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/83/7c3b.th.jpg (http://img193.imageshack.us/i/7c3b.jpg/)

[TDK1044]

Am I the only one that sees George Harrison here?


What!!!!! Don't the Devs know that he wasn't even born until 1943!!!! Come on Ubisoft. What kind of research is that? Did someone tell him that the propellers are turning in the wrong direction? maybe that's why he looks confused.

Wait...of course he's there. A Beatle is a bug isn't it....if you spell it differently and make it's legs go in the right direction. Don't let him near the soup! :DL

[LukeFF]

elanaiba,

Something caught my eye in the promo video with the captain walking through the ship, and I just want to make sure it's how you guys really intend it to be: as the captain walks by the radio shack, one can see both one man at the sonar display and one in the radio/radar room. Nothing wrong there, of course.

My concern is that, will the watch system represent the "Port and Starboard" system of which I wrote you about some time ago (over at Submarine Sim Central)? In other words, will one watch be on duty at one time and the other off-duty? If so, then having two men in the radio shack on duty at one time would be perfectly fine, as typically U-boats carried 4 radiomen in their crew complement. Otherwise, using the American 3-watch system would lead to problems not only with the radioman complement but also all other aspects of the crew rosters as well.

[Ducimus]

Thread subject:
Bugs and Howlers that have to be fixed before release

Assuming SH5 is being built upon SH4, or at the least, code from SH4 is being reused in SH5, then my response is:

1.) Log book doesn't keep accurate info. Save file data doesn't write correctly, translating to all ships being sunk on a singular date.

2.) Sub physics underwater is screwy. When depth excedes 183 meters, submarine trim is FUBAR. (oddly, Crash speed is a factor here, was this intentional?)

3.) Storm conditions for wind in submarine cfg file do not effect the crew. In other words, if you cite a storm condition being in existance at a windspeed of 9 MPS, expecting the crew to don their wet weather gear - they will not.

4.) Damage zones for watch crew and deck guns needs to be reworked so that crew is not injured while submerged.

5.) Something's wonky with all crew messages that involved interaction with the exterior of the submarine. This includes:
* depth under keel vocalizations
* We're under attack sir!
* Depth charges in the water! (glaring oversight dev's)
* We've been spotted sir! (though this one could go away, it's just an example of a similar theme in missing functionality)

6.) Need an entirely new aircraft spawning/patrol subroutine.

7.) AI subroutines should be re examined. Between SH3 and SH4, something is not quite right. Can't quite place it.

8.) A return of Local time AND base time. (yes im that anal) :P


In addition to the above fixes, i would suggest the following in order to enhance the simulation aspects:


a.) Adding a boyancy model to player submarines. Either a slight positive boyancy, or a negative one. Submarines in WW2 did not sit motionless with their screws completely stopped and maintain depth for very long.

b.) Not using a singular 9KM AI_Visual sensor for all units in the game. Use multiple ones varying on unit type.

c.) Fix the issue of depth charges ignoring their max depth settings. This will allow historical depth charge detonation depths instead of the 300 meter behavior.

d.) Allow the battery mulitplier to be accessible and not hard coded

e.) Return of IsSurfaced and IsSubmerged submarine states. While on this subject, fix the uboat state of having just sunk a target so the crew cheers when a ship is sunk, not at every individual torpedo hit.

f.) Independant drive of port and starboard propulsion.


Im sure i can think of more, but those are the big ticket items off the top of my head.

[LukeFF]

5.) Something's wonky with all crew messages that involved interaction with the exterior of the submarine. This includes:
* depth under keel vocalizations
* We're under attack sir!
* Depth charges in the water! (glaring oversight dev's)
* We've been spotted sir! (though this one could go away, it's just an example of a similar theme in missing functionality)

Lets' face it, there are a lot of problems with audio messages in SH4. To add to the above problematic messages:


Man the deck gun
Man the AA gun
Secure the deck gun
Secure the AA gun
Crash Dive

All of the above, save for the last one, are related to the infamous "yes sir, yes sir, yes sir" audio bug.

Might be more that I'm not thinking about at the moment.

[Ducimus]

the infamous "yes sir, yes sir, yes sir" audio bug.


That one we fixed. The rest im unsure of, didn't want to spend more time in the graph files, but the "yes sir yes sir yes sir" but we identified, replicated, and fixed.

[Turbografx]

Nope, I'm not peeved :) Re-read my post above.

I admit that details are important. Game breaking bugs are more important. Propellers turning the wrong way are the former, rather than the latter.



While that's true, this is an issue that was brought up (regularly) back when SH4 was released so it's understandable that people think it's high time it was fixed.

[Sailor Steve]

3.) Storm conditions for wind in submarine cfg file do not effect the crew. In other words, if you cite a storm condition being in existance at a windspeed of 9 MPS, expecting the crew to don their wet weather gear - they will not.
It also needs to be separated from the guns being manned. That part should be tied in to the visual somehow - if water is washing over the gun, then that gun can't be manned. Not a bug, I know, but still a problem.

I think another one that should go away is "We've been spotted, sir!" The lookout would have no way of knowing that, unless the target ship turns toward you, and then he's more likely to report that.

8.) A return of Local time AND base time. (yes im that anal) :P
:rock:

Or perhaps do away with base time and substitute GMT. When you're in base that is local time.

a.) Adding a boyancy model to player submarines. Either a slight positive boyancy, or a negative one. Submarines in WW2 did not sit motionless with their screws completely stopped and maintain depth for very long.
Or do it the way AOD did - tie it into the pumps being run, so if you're silent running you have to either live with the depth changes or live with making a lot of noise.

I'm pretty sure that you meant for your bouyance model to be variable - one time it's positive, another time it's negative, and very ocassionally it's perfect for five minutes - but I though I'd make sure.

I'd like to see "Yes, sir!" go away altogether. When an order is given, the man recieving it repeats the order, and that's it.

I would also like to see the Chief reporting the depth the way they really did it. Nobody is going to waste time saying "Current depth one, two, zero." He's going to say "One hundred twenty meters!" They put that in with a patch, so of course they didn't have the time or facility to add whole new voice routines. But now they do.

Also when you're inside the boat you shouldn't hear everything going on on the bridge. If a ship is sighted you should hear one man call down "Ship spotted!" You should then go to the bridge and be able to ask the Watch Officer "Where away?", and have him reply with the bearing and range.

[Ducimus]

You know, if people prioriitize stupid little minute like prop rotation or the position on the splash guard on the forward portion of a conning tower being two inchs too high or too low, then these same people need realize something and ask themselves a question.

They need to realize that developers time and resources is not infinate. They have to prioritize what to fix and what to put on a back burner. Point blank, you people are overly focused on visual appearance. So the question you need to ask yourselves is this:

Do i want a game that looks absolutely stunning, but who's mechanics are lack luster, broken, or shallow; or do i want a game that looks decent, with mechanics that are great, functional, and has at least some depth or complexity to it?

[Webster]

You know, if people prioriitize stupid little minute like prop rotation or the position on the splash guard on the forward portion of a conning tower being two inchs too high or too low, then these same people need realize something and ask themselves a question.

They need to realize that developers time and resources is not infinate. They have to prioritize what to fix and what to put on a back burner. Point blank, you people are overly focused on visual appearance. So the question you need to ask yourselves is this:

Do i want a game that looks absolutely stunning, but who's mechanics are lack luster, broken, or shallow; or do i want a game that looks decent, with mechanics that are great, functional, and has at least some depth or complexity to it?

the very point that never seams to get through to most people :salute:

when you bring your car to the mechanic do you tell him about the loose ash tray or about the loose wheel causing vibration when you drive?

tell the devs 20 things they need to fix and maybe, just maybe, they can pick one or two and try to do something about it. now fill that list with 18 items of eye candy BS that might be important but dont effect game play then have only two things on the list that DO effect game play and think about the odds on wether the game play issue is going to be looked at because they are only 2 out of 20 things listed as complaints.

they respond to what gets the most complaints and not always what the most logical choice of whats most important to fix.

[mookiemookie]

Point blank, you people are overly focused on visual appearance. So the question you need to ask yourselves is this:

Do i want a game that looks absolutely stunning, but who's mechanics are lack luster, broken, or shallow; or do i want a game that looks decent, with mechanics that are great, functional, and has at least some depth or complexity to it?

You hit the nail on the head there. Who gives a flip if the propellers turn backwards? It has absolutely zero effect on gameplay. You're not even supposed to see them anyways.

[Gerald]

Am I the only one that sees George Harrison here?

perhaps other member are also there

[THE_MASK]

The games not even out yet :88)

[LukeFF]

That one we fixed. The rest im unsure of, didn't want to spend more time in the graph files, but the "yes sir yes sir yes sir" but we identified, replicated, and fixed.

I must've missed it, then. :88)

[Alex]

@ Elanaiba : The water animation that we see from 00:56 to 1:00 (that currently looks much like the SH4 one with TC increased) reminded me of an old bug I noticed in SH4, even with all patches applied. It's a relatively minor one, but still... I think it's worth being mentioned.
SH4 handles TC much better than SH3 does. So I must say it's been a pleasure to travel the world at TC x8192 in SH4. But. I remember to have seen the cloud animation not reacting accordingly to high TC drops (such as when you're on the navigation map at TC x1024 and switch to external cam without dropping the TC to x1 before clicking F11). Just wanted to let you know this detail before it's too late ;), though I don't have the slightest idea whether it's still fixable at this time :06:...

:hmm2:

[Malmer]

There must be some quirks, glitches, bugs we love in the old games... that definitely should reappear in SHV, just for the sake of consistency!


:yeah:

[sharkbit]

You know, if people prioriitize stupid little minute like prop rotation or the position on the splash guard on the forward portion of a conning tower being two inchs too high or too low, then these same people need realize something and ask themselves a question.

They need to realize that developers time and resources is not infinate. They have to prioritize what to fix and what to put on a back burner. Point blank, you people are overly focused on visual appearance. So the question you need to ask yourselves is this:

Do i want a game that looks absolutely stunning, but who's mechanics are lack luster, broken, or shallow; or do i want a game that looks decent, with mechanics that are great, functional, and has at least some depth or complexity to it?

Exactly! :yeah:
I like a little eye candy now and then, but I want a great, functional simulation, even it means the propellers don't spin the right way.

The game is not even released yet and people are whining.:nope:

:)

[karamazovnew]

Every time I see you say "elanaiba" in post about bugs, I can't stop laughing. It literally means "Goddamnit" :))

Goddamnit that thing needs to be fixed :haha:

[Lord Justice]

The game is not even released yet and people are whining.:nope:

Here Here, controversy inevitable! tolerence more credible? :)

[mookiemookie]

Every time I see you say "elanaiba" in post about bugs, I can't stop laughing. It literally means "Goddamnit" :))

Goddamnit that thing needs to be fixed :haha:you are aware Mr. Elanaiba is the lead designer of SH3/SH4/SH5, no? :)

[karamazovnew]

you are aware Mr. Elanaiba is the lead designer of SH3/SH4/SH5, no? :)

If you mean mr. Dan Dumitrescu, yes I am aware of that. I am also aware that the Lead Game designer for SH3 was Tiberius Astianax Lazar. :D

[mookiemookie]

If you mean mr. Dan Dumitrescu, yes I am aware of that. I am also aware that the Lead Game designer for SH3 was Tiberius Astianax Lazar. :D

Heh, I guess I'm ascribing Dan a greater job title in that case, but he's still one of the big dogs in the Silent Hunter series development.

[elanaiba]

One of them but not the only one would be correct. Just because Tiberius left the company will not erase everything that he has done for Silent Hunter and Ubisoft Romania. Likewise, there's other guys who did lots of work.

And he kinda is the one that brought me in the company - he was the lead of SH3 and I was a designer with another company, looking to be a part of the "real thing" ;)

[karamazovnew]

One of them but not the only one would be correct. Just because Tiberius left the company will not erase everything that he has done for Silent Hunter and Ubisoft Romania. Likewise, there's other guys who did lots of work.

And he kinda is the one that brought me in the company - he was the lead of SH3 and I was a designer with another company, looking to be a part of the "real thing" ;)

I've only read the credits. In any creative team it's impossible to keep account on who came with what. We have no idea who to thank for some SH3 features who to blame for some SH4 features and who to beg for SH5 features. But, in the end, there can be only one wielding the Lead Throne. Tell us, is it comfy?

[PL_Andrev]

It is the shadow. I'm sure.
But where is the source of light?

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/9194/sh51.jpg

[Webster]

It is the shadow. I'm sure.
But where is the source of light?

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/9194/sh51.jpg

that image is just after sunset and as the sun sinks the shadows went up into the sky as thou the sun was still shining from under water. they lasted untill it got too dark to see them any more.

i posted about it in the video release thread

[coasterdigi]

Yep, it looks like that image takes place sometime before the end of civil twilight.

[mookiemookie]

Looks like smoke from the ships to me.

[PL_Andrev]

Looks like smoke from the ships to me.

See this moment at "3D engine demostration" on HD youtube:
Available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzRKczpszSM

[Reece]

I took a close look at the video & I agree with mookiemookie, looks like the ships smoke!:hmmm:

[Kaleun_Endrass]

looks like the ships smoke!:hmmm:
It's definitely smoke from the funnel. One can get confused by the HDR effects that merge with the smoke. But when it's pitch black then there are no HDR effects any longer and you can see it's smoke.

But I found a small bug in the last video. At 1:44/1:45 when the ship (looks like a corvette) is sinking a sailor appears as a static object sinking with the ship in a weird kind of way. Actually he is moving through the hull... maybe it's an easter egg and they put Davy Jones in.
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/2036/vlcsnap3377370.jpg

[karamazovnew]

I
But I found a small bug in the last video. At 1:44/1:45 when the ship (looks like a corvette) is sinking a sailor appears as a static object sinking with the ship in a weird kind of way. Actually he is moving through the hull... maybe it's an easter egg and they put Davy Jones in.

Sailor: "Must... brbrg... finish... bragrbhrhb... painting this... agrbrgrg... or tha captain will be... grhegrbhbaahgrbhrghrb...." :dead:

[Reece]

maybe it's an easter egg and they put Davy Jones in.No it's a bug like you'd expect to find in SHIV!!:-?

[PL_Andrev]

Kaleun Endras.. You just can't stop analyzing that video over the magnification glass do you ? =]

Bug's analysing is very important!
How many bugs are found by fans in new SH5, not released yet?
Almost 10? More?
:yeah:

But right - he should put image at standard res and show the bug...
:know:

[Sailor Steve]

You can see a sailor outside a sinking ship! (or even coming through the hull)

The rocks are too big!

The propellors turn the wrong way!




As far as I'm concerned, the biggest bug is having an external view at all! That's the truly unrealistic part.

[Webster]

I took a close look at the video & I agree with mookiemookie, looks like the ships smoke!:hmmm:

watch the video clip again from 1.00 to 1.10 and look above the smoke to see the shadow effect / light ray we are talking about as the shadow starts around 2-3 o'clock position and sweeps over to the 9-10 o'clock position on the horizon and sweep skyward like the hand on a clock going counter clockwise all while the smoke from the ship stays steady


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzRKczpszSM

[codmander]

1. can fire a torp without a crewman in the torpedo room
2.can lock on targets with scope even though you cant see target
3 weather
4.more of a middle ground AI destoyers ((either really stupid or super deadly))
5.radio reports just for your u boat.((your orders))
6.GIBRALTAR IN CARREER
7.GPS map room
8.time compression and target ID ((you can tell an enemy ship from nuetral/freindly just through tc))

Just some things I' ve notced about sh3 maybe fix em aye?:up:

[VirtualVikingX]

I think you can fix #8 with SH3 Commander, if I am not mistaken. Otherwise good points.

[FIREWALL]

I think the dreaded word "hardcoded" come in to play here.

GWX and other modders have fixed or did alot of work arounds.

I have no doubt in my mind that more than a few talented members have went into SH-3 and did some fixes they can NEVER post here. :yep:

[Sgtmonkeynads]

" fixes they can NEVER post here ."

Can I have an example? Or is just the mention verboten?

[Jimbuna]

I think the dreaded word "hardcoded" come in to play here.

GWX and other modders have fixed or did alot of work arounds.

I have no doubt in my mind that more than a few talented members have went into SH-3 and did some fixes they can NEVER post here. :yep:

I wouldn't know what you mean :hmmm:


http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/6305/liaranimatedanimationli.gif

[Sailor Steve]

1. can fire a torp without a crewman in the torpedo room
Torpedoes weren't fired from the torpedo room, they were fired by pressing a button in the control room. Otherwise it would take so long to pass the order to the torpedo room that the eel would never hit the target. You only needed crew in the torpedo room to reload them. Kind of like the gun crew on a battleship.

2.can lock on targets with scope even though you cant see target
Fixed in most of the supermods, as far as I know. But you're right, there ought to be a limit to distance and conditions in which you can lock on. Likewise a limit to the same for WE identifying target for you.

3 weather
True, SH3's weather-sticking problem is pretty bad. If you've read the thread on things that they say have been addressed, SH5 should have dynamic weather fronts, location-related weather and water-and-sky colors based on location as well.

4.more of a middle ground AI destoyers ((either really stupid or super deadly))
I hope so. We'll see.

5.radio reports just for your u boat.((your orders))[quote]
Fixed in SH4.

[quote]6.GIBRALTAR IN CARREER
They talk about weather in the Med, so it should be there. We hope.

7.GPS map room
I assume you mean SH3 has it and it shouldn't. I disagree. I think SH5 should have real-life navigation, half-and-half (for us dummies who like to pretend but aren't very good at it) and GPS - all as options.

8.time compression and target ID ((you can tell an enemy ship from nuetral/freindly just through tc))
I've never noticed that. Hmm...

[Sailor Steve]

I think the dreaded word "hardcoded" come in to play here.

GWX and other modders have fixed or did alot of work arounds.
But Codmander was addressing the fact that those things shouldn't have to me modded. Hopefully SH5 will address all those complaints, and more.

Though I do have to wonder why he didn't post this in the already-existing 'Bugs and Howlers' thread.

[Webster]

Though I do have to wonder why he didn't post this in the already-existing 'Bugs and Howlers' thread.


it is NOW :salute:

[codmander]

intresting about destroyers seems to me if they got a contac they or at least I ((if i was running a destroyer))) would try and maintain contac for dropping depth charges ...seems in current sh3 once AI pings u boat it returns to the same spot instead of tryin to re-contac uboat but whatever I know things are hard to get perfect but thats one thing thats pretty crucial I think the brits found the u boats ((when sumerged))but were just setting dc's to shallow 300pounders earlier
ps--sorry about wrong place to post.. somethings I posted are small things but isnt it the small things that keep a player into sim? personally cant wait to get sh5 never did get sh4 so I am defiantly ready for a new sim :)

[Sailor Steve]

Been playing SH4 Atlantic with Op Monsun, and while this isn't a big howler it's purely annoying the heck out of me.

I love that you can do 96 hours in your assigned area and then request a reasignment. What I don't love is that the message comes instantly; I mean the very moment that you send your report in.

Yes, radio waves can get just about anywhere before you can blink, but they have to decode your message, get it to BdU, He needs to make a decision, that message needs to be coded and sent by telegraph key. Even if he already knows where he's going to send you next that return message should take half-an-hour to an hour to reach you, if not longer.

A small gripe, but a gripe just the same.

[karamazovnew]

What I don't love is that the message comes instantly; I mean the very moment that you send your report in.


Good catch. Also, in SH4, when you report a convoy, you instantly receive a new objective even though the message itself only comes back after a few minutes. :hmmm:

[Shiplord]

The Kriegsmarine also measures in SM not in KM as in the last video

[karamazovnew]

The Kriegsmarine also measures in SM not in KM as in the last video

Miles are only useful in the context of real navigation, as one mean nautical (or sea) mile is equal to 1 minute arc of latitude making for easier calculations and estimation. Otherwise, using kilometers is much easier to use for land lobbers.:arrgh!:. I wonder if they'll implement an imperial measurement as in SH4...

[Sailor Steve]

Now that I'm playing SH3 and SH4 again, another minor annoyance has popped up. Minor, but it drives me crazy.

I can hear the periscope raising and lowering, but only from withing the periscope views. How come I can see the observation scope going up and down but can't hear it even though I'm standing right next to it. Does the sound come from the eyepiece? I don't think so.

[Webster]

Now that I'm playing SH3 and SH4 again, another minor annoyance has popped up. Minor, but it drives me crazy.

I can hear the periscope raising and lowering, but only from withing the periscope views. How come I can see the observation scope going up and down but can't hear it even though I'm standing right next to it. Does the sound come from the eyepiece? I don't think so.


i suspect it either wasnt assigned a sound or maybe it is supposed to share the periscope sound but didnt have the link set right in the file

[Jimbuna]

Now that I'm playing SH3 and SH4 again, another minor annoyance has popped up. Minor, but it drives me crazy.

I can hear the periscope raising and lowering, but only from withing the periscope views. How come I can see the observation scope going up and down but can't hear it even though I'm standing right next to it. Does the sound come from the eyepiece? I don't think so.

A similar annoyance to me is the faint sound of your torpedo doors opening and closing when listening from within compared to a far louder sound when in external view, irrespective of whether your boat is submerged or surfaced.

[capthelm]

i think the prop animation is a optical illusion , ever noticed for example a cars wheel going fast>?, seams as if its spinning backward when looking at it.

i think this is what they are trying to implemented into the sim, but i dont think those big screws on uboats turned that fast to start to create that effect.

[Steeltrap]

I'm starting to suspect that some people have bugs up thier arses which no amount of modding will remove....

:har:

But while we're on the 'things we hate' theme (that is what this is about, isn't it?).....

SD (air-search) radar in SH4 gave range AND bearing. This is incorrect. SD was non-directional A-scope the duration of the war.

THAT is an example of a killer bug detail when it comes to my enjoyment; maybe I'm just as anal as everyone else..... (besides which I really disliked SH4 as it contained a LOT of what I felt to be terrible errors/glitches/nonsense).

Cheers all!

[Buddahaid]

Yup, range only.

SD-A, SD-1, SD-2, and SD-3 Long Wave Search for Submarines

http://www.history.navy.mil/pics/radar-p23.jpg
SD-2 on Submarine

DESCRIPTION AND USES: Long-wave aircraft warning sets. SD-a, SD-1, and SD-2 are installed on submarines and give range only. SD-3, for small auxiliaries, supplies range and bearing. All sets are equipped with "A" scopes, and have provisions for IFF (identification) connections.

PERFORMANCE: SD-a, SD-1 and SD-2, with antenna at 40' above water, have a reliable maximum range of 15 miles on medium bombers at 10,000' altitude. SD-3, with antenna at 80 ft. has a reliable maximum range of 25 miles on a medium bomber at 10,000'. Range accuracy is ± 500 yards. Bearing accuracy of SD-3 is ± 10°.

TRANSPORTABILITY: There is no standard packing procedure for SD-a. SD-1 is packed in 20 units, SD-2 in 17, and SD-3 in 23. The heaviest package for each of these sets is 417 lbs. When crated SD-1 weighs 2036 lbs; SD-2, 1318 lbs; SD-3, 2548 lbs.

INSTALLATION: The number of components and approximate total weight of each set are: SD-a -- 8 units, 500 lbs; SD-1 -- 6 units, 800 lbs; SD-2 -- 8 units, 550 lbs; SD-3 -- 9 units, 700 lbs. In each set the transmitter is the heaviest unit, weighing 300 lbs. Antenna assembly of SD-a, SD-1 and SD-2 weighs 34 lbs; of SD-3, 78 lbs. They should be mounted as high as possible above the water.

PERSONNEL: Each set requires one operator per shift.

POWER: For SD-a, SD-1, and SD-2, the primary power required is 115 volts, 60 cycles, 1130 watts. SD-3 requires 1277 watts.

[Steiger]

It could be possible that because of recording framerates that the screws give the illusion of running the opposite direction, like when watching the wheels of a car rotate backwards on TV.

Just saying.

[Sailor Steve]

No. Even at the slowest speed it's obvious that the screws are indeed turning the wrong way.

Personally I don't care, as I think it's silly to complain about something being wrong when the very means of seeing it is unrealistic as well. I also feel this way about torpedo damage and sea floors.

That said, I'm a sucker for external views myself and do look a the cool damage in SH4. Also, even though I disagree, they do have a point: If you're going to go to the trouble of doing something that obviously took a major amount of your time to make, why not make sure it works the way it's supposed to?

[Steeltrap]

No. Even at the slowest speed it's obvious that the screws are indeed turning the wrong way.

Personally I don't care, as I think it's silly to complain about something being wrong when the very means of seeing it is unrealistic as well. I also feel this way about torpedo damage and sea floors.

That said, I'm a sucker for external views myself and do look a the cool damage in SH4. Also, even though I disagree, they do have a point: If you're going to go to the trouble of doing something that obviously took a major amount of your time to make, why not make sure it works the way it's supposed to?

Pretty sensible attitude for most questions re bugs/realism etc. IMO.

Hang on...Sailor Steve...sensible...AAARRGHHH!!!!

:D

[JScones]

No. Even at the slowest speed it's obvious that the screws are indeed turning the wrong way.

Personally I don't care, as I think it's silly to complain about something being wrong when the very means of seeing it is unrealistic as well. I also feel this way about torpedo damage and sea floors.

That said, I'm a sucker for external views myself and do look a the cool damage in SH4. Also, even though I disagree, they do have a point: If you're going to go to the trouble of doing something that obviously took a major amount of your time to make, why not make sure it works the way it's supposed to?
Whilst it is humourously ironic in the sense that this is one bug that the "realism setting right of centre" players don't seem to overly care about, don't forget the Museum view. Isn't that where the problem was first found in SH3?

But yeah, it should be right. Besides, we're not talking some complex buoyancy physics, just the direction in which a few objects turn.

Certainly it would take more effort and time to fix the "cutting board and sink" problem that Dan commented on in the Gamervision preview (I posted a link in another thread) than correcting the direction in which the screws turn.

More proof about where the focus and attention is with SH5...

[quad5]

Hi all! :salute: Sorry for my english.
I many times lifted this problem!:damn::damn::damn::hmmm:
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1580/silenthunter5.th.jpg (http://img23.imageshack.us/i/silenthunter5.jpg/)

It is necessary to correct! The deck at the bridge should be made more low!

Here is how was actually:yep:
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/253/89135889.th.jpg (http://img687.imageshack.us/i/89135889.jpg/)

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4921/7c2i.th.jpg (http://img130.imageshack.us/i/7c2i.jpg/)

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/83/7c3b.th.jpg (http://img193.imageshack.us/i/7c3b.jpg/)


I cannot understand, why UBI cannot make correct model of a uboat?:damn::shifty:
I cannot understand, why UBI till now have not invited to work Tomi_099?:up::yep:
I cannot understand, why Tomi_099 can, and gamedesigners UBI cannot?
I do not wish to pay UBI for such boat, but I am ready to pay for tremendous work Tomi_099!

Can UBI it is necessary to take lessons of skill at Tomi_099?!!:yep::yep::rock:

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/9681/37039543.jpg (http://img269.imageshack.us/i/37039543.jpg/)http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/37039543.jpg/1/w1280.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img269/37039543.jpg/1/)

I love your work!

[psykopatsak]

To my dear Quad5::stare:

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n257/biggles_92/Overkill.jpg

[PL_Andrev]

Tomi_099 has unlimited hour budget and unlimited deadline... and it is a reason why his work is so perfect.
Thanks Tomi_099 for your work...

[danasan]

Yeah, Thanks Tomi_099 for your work...

Quote:

Tomi_099 has unlimited hour budget and unlimited deadline... and it is a reason why his work is so perfect

/Quote

And a lot of passion as well!

It is State Of The Art anyway

[JScones]

Torpedoes weren't fired from the torpedo room, they were fired by pressing a button in the control room.
This reminded me. I've seen a few documentaries that include period footage showing torpedoes being fired by pulling down on a lever, not pressing a button.

Does anyone know for sure whether buttons were pressed or levers were pulled to fire torpedoes (and pls, no "SH3/Das Boot uses buttons so it must be right" responses)? :hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

Good question. No idea.

The American documents on the British-captured U-570 go into detail on the TDC, but say nothing about the firing mechanism, except for the one on the UZO:

A small lever on the starboard side of the pedestal of the mounting was stated by the ship's gunner to be a torpedo firing lever for firing bow tubes from the bridge.
http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-570ONIReport.htm

The British document also goes into detail about how the firing mechanisms work, but nothing I could find on how they were actually actuated.

I've looked around for pictures of the torpedo firing controls but couldn't find any on short notice. Hopefully someone will turn some up.

[PL_Andrev]

Why on all UBI films and screenshots there are no crew on conning tower?

[TarJak]

Why on all UBI films and screenshots there are no crew on conning tower?'Cos in the version they took the shots from the crew had not been implemented?

[Navarre]

Tomi_099 has unlimited hour budget and unlimited deadline... and it is a reason why his work is so perfect.
And he can use millions of polygones to detail his reference models.
A 3D designer who created the content for a particular game is limited in the number of polygons used by the game engine.

[Jimbuna]

Why on all UBI films and screenshots there are no crew on conning tower?

'Cos in the version they took the shots from the crew had not been implemented?

Either that or someones just discovered the first major bug :DL

[Catfish]

Please disregard this post and go to the "Bugs and Howlers" thread - thanks !



Hello,

just ran about some bugs in SH3 and 4:

1. Lights shining through things
2. Destroyers hearing U-boats through land masses, and then going directly at them beaching their ships
3. Destroyers detecting U-boats running silent at Periscope depth by sonar - THIS IS WRONG
(the sonar used would not actively detect subs at pd even in 1945, or only if the sub is 10 meters in front of the bow. The waves within the sonar cone do not travel parallel to the water surface ! ! Gawd, read some books and don't listen to propaganda lol)
4. Realistic diving depths down to and below 220 meters without flickering lights and automatically increasing damage
5. When batteries in german U-boats were loaded, BOTH propellors would still turn, since the dynamoes were just clutched to the spinning shafts - resulting in a slightly reduced top speed but both props turning.
Maybe give the user more control - it was certainly possible to stop one shaft completely, and charge the batteries with the resp. Diesel, if seldomly done.
The type IXD had some special silent running electric engines with belt drive, along with special smaller Diesels (that were not the boat's main propulsion Diesels) for charging the batteries at minimum Diesel spent.
6. Please model the electronic warfare gizzmoes right - detecting device with the right detection antenna, that is.
- In that context: Make all active radar ("Funkmess") devices being able to turn off against detection

Thanks for reading and greetings,
Catfish

[JU_88]

I think 1) is fixed, (check the engine demo vid to see what I mean)

[Sailor Steve]

3. Destroyers detecting U-boats running silent at Periscope depth by sonar - THIS IS WRONG
(the sonar used would not actively detect subs at pd even in 1945, or only if the sub is 10 meters in front of the bow. The waves within the sonar cone do not travel parallel to the water surface ! ! Gawd, read some books and don't listen to propaganda lol)
So it is your contention that the best possibility of escape for a submarine was to stay at periscope depth and run silent? Do you have any evidence for this ever being tried and working? Why then the common advice "run silent, run deep"?

Active sonar may or may not sense submarines at periscope depth, but active sonar does not depend on how much noise the submarine is making. Can hydrophones not detect a submarine at a depth of 45-65 feet?

You say "read some books". Which ones? Specific quotes, please.

Also, why a new thread for this and not a post in the existing 'Bugs and Howlers' thread?

[Sailor Steve]

Jim, did you fall asleep on the 'Submit Reply' button again?
:rotfl2:

[Jimbuna]

Jim, did you fall asleep on the 'Submit Reply' button again?
:rotfl2:

Didn't you know...I've taken up tap dancing again :DL

The truth is I've three 1/700 kits here but my paint and tools supplier is awaiting stock deliveries :yawn:

[Catfish]

Hello,

i did not associate the "bugs and Howlers" thread with proposals for SH5, i'm seldomly here, sorry ;)

"..
So it is your contention that the best possibility of escape for a submarine was to stay at periscope depth and run silent?
.."

Regarding Active Sonar: in anything but calm seas, yes. But even in calm seas the possibility of being detected by active sonar is quite low, at least until the very late 1940ies. No protruding sonar dome sending waves upwards, or at least parallel to the water surface. This would require a deep-positioned sonar much below the keel, or in a drop-shaped bow which was not commonly used before the 1950ies.

" ...Active sonar may or may not sense submarines at periscope depth, but active sonar does not depend on how much noise the submarine is making. ..."

The only possibility for a detection at pd is a reflective layer under the current keel depth of the sub, indirectly showing an echo, or maybe a sub with a big (!) draught. The common advice "run silent run deep" will not help you against an alerted destroyer using active sonar, as long as there is no stratified temperature and/or density layer.

"... Can hydrophones not detect a submarine at a depth of 45-65 feet?
..."

Detection at PD via acoustics and hydrophone is certainly possible, but remember surface noise below all but perfectly clear water surfaces, and add this to a boat running silent at PD. You say detection was possible at 45-65 feet (i think it's more deep than that), but even a large IXB/C/D type will be only at a pd keel depth of 12 meters, which is appx. 36 feet, and thus almost undetectable if it is not directly (less than) 20 feet ahead of the active sonar/hunter.

" ... You say "read some books". Which ones? Specific quotes, please. ..."

Some of the older U-boat games like "Wolfpack" and "Das Boot" did indeed model this right, even if they were not too exact in other respect :D. In Wolfpack it was even mentioned in the readme or so i think ..

Real Examples:
The deeper-drafting russian Dieselboats of the cold war were undetectable in the shallow baltic, even with all their noise and more modern surface-ship sonar and acoustic equipment. No bluewater conditions in shallow waters at all here, even if the ground would theoretically serve as a reflector for sonar waves.

Erich Topp often said and wrote that he almost never dived to below 30 meters (appx. 92 feet) in his whole career, even in the open atlantic. He also stated that it was much more secure to stay at very low depths like PD because of the weaknesses of the allied ASDIC (early sonar), the sloping detection cone and surface noise down to some 30-to 40 meters (as he said) in a mildly moved sea.

Then there is a book from the early 1960ies printed in then-East Germany (which was back then an ally of Russia, until 1989), translated "U-Boats, U-boat war and detection". There is some very detailed stuff about sub detection in blue- and brownwater conditions, along with a thorough - if indirect :D - guide for (Russian) submarines to evade detection in the time before 1970, written by and from a surface hunter's view.
There is even a description why deeply-positioned sonar array did not find low-diving submarines until 1970, due to the reflecting water surface of almost clear and mirror-like water surfaces.
This is part of what i read, there is also some stuff in various french (e.g. Peillard) and german (wartime) publications of different U-boat commanders, like Lueth, Topp, and others.
There is also a description of evading by doing exactly this in the book "Sharks and little fish", but this is a novel (if from a witness), also a film from the 1950ies.

My post was not meant to attack someone, but let's remain realistic. Like one of those SH3 advisors (former Kapitaenleutnant Oesten) said "i would not have stood a chance if reality would have been as hard as it is modelled in the sim" ;)
Staying at PD was a well-used tactic, even if Hedgehog and other random firing devices made it increasingly difficult for U-boats to survive.

Greetings,
Catfish



Please disregard this post and go to the "Bugs and Howlers" thread - thanks !

[Catfish]

:salute:
Hello,

just ran about some bugs in SH3 and 4:

1. Lights shining through things

2. Destroyers hearing U-boats through land masses, and then going directly at them beaching their ships

3. Destroyers detecting U-boats running silent at Periscope depth by sonar - THIS IS WRONG
(the sonar used would not actively detect subs at pd even in 1945, or only if the sub is 10 meters in front of the bow. The waves within the sonar cone do not travel parallel to the water surface ! ! Gawd, read some books and don't listen to propaganda lol)

4. Realistic diving depths down to and below 220 meters without flickering lights and automatically increasing damage

5. When batteries in german U-boats were loaded, BOTH propellors would still turn, since the dynamoes were just clutched to the spinning shafts - resulting in a slightly reduced top speed but both props turning.
Maybe give the user more control - it was certainly possible to stop one shaft completely, and charge the batteries with the resp. Diesel, if seldomly done.
The type IXD had some special silent running electric engines with belt drive, along with special smaller Diesels (that were not the boat's main propulsion Diesels) for charging the batteries at minimum Diesel spent.

6. Please model the electronic warfare gizzmoes right - detecting device with the right detection antenna or different really-used combinations, that is.
- In that context: Pleas make all active radar ("Funkmess") devices being able to turn off against detection, and also model it that is really not be found by radio emission if turned off ;)



Posted by Sailor Steve:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfish http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1233886#post1233886)
3. Destroyers detecting U-boats running silent at Periscope depth by sonar - THIS IS WRONG
(the sonar used would not actively detect subs at pd even in 1945, or only if the sub is 10 meters in front of the bow. The waves within the sonar cone do not travel parallel to the water surface ! ! Gawd, read some books and don't listen to propaganda lol)

So it is your contention that the best possibility of escape for a submarine was to stay at periscope depth and run silent? Do you have any evidence for this ever being tried and working? Why then the common advice "run silent, run deep"?

Active sonar may or may not sense submarines at periscope depth, but active sonar does not depend on how much noise the submarine is making. Can hydrophones not detect a submarine at a depth of 45-65 feet?

You say "read some books". Which ones? Specific quotes, please.

Also, why a new thread for this and not a post in the existing 'Bugs and Howlers' thread?
__________________
"I've a little wet home in a trench, where the rainstorms continually drench. There's a dead cow nearby, her feet aimed at the sky; and she gives off a terrible stench.

Underneath, in the place of a floor, there's a mass of wet mud and some straw. But with shells dropping there, there's no place to compare with my little wet home in the trench."

-WW1 British poem




and answer:

Hello,

i did not associate the "bugs and Howlers" thread with proposals for SH5, i'm seldomly here, sorry ;)

"..
So it is your contention that the best possibility of escape for a submarine was to stay at periscope depth and run silent?
.."

Regarding Active Sonar: in anything but calm seas, yes. But even in calm seas the possibility of being detected by active sonar is quite low, at least until the very late 1940ies. No protruding sonar dome sending waves upwards, or at least parallel to the water surface. This would require a deep-positioned sonar much below the keel, or in a drop-shaped bow which was not commonly used before the 1950ies.

" ...Active sonar may or may not sense submarines at periscope depth, but active sonar does not depend on how much noise the submarine is making. ..."

The only possibility for a detection at pd is a reflective layer under the current keel depth of the sub, indirectly showing an echo, or maybe a sub with a big (!) draught. The common advice "run silent run deep" will not help you against an alerted destroyer using active sonar, as long as there is no stratified temperature and/or density layer.

"... Can hydrophones not detect a submarine at a depth of 45-65 feet?
..."

Detection at PD via acoustics and hydrophone is certainly possible, but remember surface noise below all but perfectly clear water surfaces, and add this to a boat running silent at PD. You say detection was possible at 45-65 feet (i think it's more deep than that), but even a large IXB/C/D type will be only at a pd keel depth of 12 meters, which is appx. 36 feet, and thus almost undetectable if it is not directly (less than) 20 feet ahead of the active sonar/hunter.

" ... You say "read some books". Which ones? Specific quotes, please. ..."

Some of the older U-boat games like "Wolfpack" and "Das Boot" did indeed model this right, even if they were not too exact in other respect :D. In Wolfpack it was even mentioned in the readme or so i think ..

Real Examples:
The deeper-drafting russian Dieselboats of the cold war were undetectable in the shallow baltic, even with all their noise and more modern surface-ship sonar and acoustic equipment. No bluewater conditions in shallow waters at all here, even if the ground would theoretically serve as a reflector for sonar waves.

Erich Topp often said and wrote that he almost never dived to below 30 meters (appx. 92 feet) in his whole career, even in the open atlantic. He also stated that it was much more secure to stay at very low depths like PD because of the weaknesses of the allied ASDIC (early sonar), the sloping detection cone and surface noise down to some 30-to 40 meters (as he said) in a mildly moved sea.

Then there is a book from the early 1960ies printed in then-East Germany (which was back then an ally of Russia, until 1989), translated "U-Boats, U-boat war and detection". There is some very detailed stuff about sub detection in blue- and brownwater conditions, along with a thorough - if indirect :D - guide for (Russian) submarines to evade detection in the time before 1970, written by and from a surface hunter's view.
There is even a description why deeply-positioned sonar array did not find low-diving submarines until 1970, due to the reflecting water surface of almost clear and mirror-like water surfaces.
This is part of what i read, there is also some stuff in various french (e.g. Peillard) and german (wartime) publications of different U-boat commanders, like Lueth, Topp, and others.
There is also a description of evading by doing exactly this in the book "Sharks and little fish", but this is a novel (if from a witness), also a film from the 1950ies.

My post was not meant to attack someone, but let's remain realistic. Like one of those SH3 advisors (former Kapitaenleutnant Oesten) said "i would not have stood a chance if reality would have been as hard as it is modelled in the sim" ;)
Staying at PD was a well-used tactic, even if Hedgehog and other random firing devices made it increasingly difficult for U-boats to survive.

Greetings,
Catfish


Thanks for reading and greetings,
Catfish

[Snestorm]

Maybe you should watch this Erik Topp interview.
At 5:00 he begins speaking about depth.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&hl=en&v=IYlk0YUaxPU

[karamazovnew]

Catfish, you're right in some ways, but the kind of weather that would impact escort sensors would also make a torpedo attack impossible. In very rough weather, the biggest problem of the sensors wouldn't be wave relfections but that their platform is bouncing off like a cork (and so do you). Convoys regarded rough weather as a shield against subs.

However in normal waters here's what happens:

When surfaced:
- they can spot you visually or with radar
- they can't ping you
- they can't hear you (they can but their equipment will be overwhelmed by background noise since you make the same noise frequency as the convoy background noise and their own speed)

When at PD:
- they can spot you periscope and planes can see you if overhead.
- they can ping you (yeap, they can)
- they can hear you perfectly (because the noise you make is now of a higher frequency, amplified by contrast by the waves themselves)

When deep:
- they can ping you but at some angles the thermal layers will throw them off. They will either think you're not there, or they'll think you're somewhere else (further or closer but on the same bearing). However, when right on top of you (I mean close), their precision increases dramatically. Once an escort is DC close to you, you're in for the ride.
- they can hear you, thermal layers having no effect on bearings. But the sound waves become lower so, in effect, you can use more speed (silent running now makes you invisible to them)

So as you can see, you're most vulnerable at PD and your best bet is to go as deep as possible every time. The main reason they never went too deep was that most captains went deeper when the DC were in the water. Being at crush depth doesn't give you many options, plus, any dent in the pressure hull would kill you.

[Nisgeis]

Sometimes I wonder if it would not be better if game developers kept their development efforts a secret and just release when done.

Don't give the customers a chance to bitch until they at least have seen the game.

If that had happened, then SH3 would have been released with a SH2 mission style campaign instead of a dynamic one, so it's not all bad.

[Shiplord]

The 144Q Type (1942) of ASDIC sonar had the Q attachment. It was an additional Asdic set which required separate transmitting and receiving equipment suitably inter- connected with the main set. The Q oscillator was projected a fan shaped beam that was narrower in the horizontal plane than the main Asdic beam but sufficiently wide in the vertical plane to receive echoes at any angle from the horizontal to 45 degrees below horizontal.
The Q beam was transmitted through a window in the bottom fore part of the dome.

http://jproc.ca/sari/asdic_patterns_b.jpg

[Catfish]

Hello,

i will not give up yet :D

Regarding the interview: Good example what can go wrong when certain passages are drawn out of context - Topp mostly complained about his commander and described his actions, and even if Topp himself dived to 100 meters when he was in command, he did that seldomly. At least that is what you can find in almost all books of the time, when Topp is quoted.

Karamazovnew, you wrote:

" ... the kind of weather that would impact escort sensors would also make a torpedo attack impossible. In very rough weather, the biggest problem of the sensors wouldn't be wave relfections but that their platform is bouncing off like a cork (and so do you). Convoys regarded rough weather as a shield against subs. ..."

In very rough weather torpedo attacks were not possible, and certainly hampered U-boats as well as their hunters. But there are a lot of witness reports saying that convoys were attacked in all but very very rough weather, if mostly surfaced, and at night. In the beginning of the war escorts were not prepared to fight surfaced U-boats, ASDIC was pretty useless against surfaced targets and radar was not yet available for all escort ships. As well most DEs and Flower class corvettes were slower than surfaced U-boats. The boats would outmanoeuver them and then just go in for the convoy.
Surfaced boats were almost unvisible at night, if for their backwash, but even this was often unnoticed in all but mirrorlike seas. Topp's interview is a good example (wher he states that a very close destroyer suddenly broke off - he had not even seen them. There are lots of other reports where destroyers did not see a boat being right in front of them at distances of less than 50 meters.
You are certainly right in that - in a real storm - a dived boat would be unhearable but also not able to attack anything.


" ...
However in normal waters here's what happens:
When surfaced:
- they can spot you visually or with radar
- they can't ping you
- they can't hear you (they can but their equipment will be overwhelmed by background noise since you make the same noise frequency as the convoy background noise and their own speed)
..."

Surfaced:

In normal water and at daylight "they" can certainly see you, if you are near enough. But U-boats would spot surface silhouettes from steamers and destroyers much earlier than vice versa, be it at daylight or at night. U-boat men have reported they ran around destroyers without being seen, surfaced and at night.
ASDIC is pretty useless against surface targets, right.
They cannot hear you in or around a convoy (hidden by the general state of noise) as you said.
They can only detect you surfaced at night when the sea is calm and you are going too fast (reflecting backwash) or if hey have radar, which most indeed had not in the early years. And also you have to be within their radar detection range, which was some 4500 meters at first, well below visual range even at night. Additionally the sea has to have less than 2-meter high waves, hiding the sail. A third problem is that the boat vanished from the radar screen when they came close, within a radius of less than some 900 meters the radar was virtually blind.

" ...
When at PD:
- they can spot you periscope and planes can see you if overhead.
..."

Not in the english channel, the North Sea, or the Atlantic - maybe in the Pacific, on a clear day, or in the Carribean. Lots of boats remained undetected at PD near the US coast, with planes directly crossing their course, sometimes even observed by the boat's observation scope (Hardegen and others).

" ... - they can ping you (yeap, they can) ..."
I say no - they can ping you, but they will never get an echo which will reveal anything, at PD. Or as i said only indirectly by a density/temperature layer below the sub's keel, reflecting the waves back to the surface, and hitting the submerged boat. Only then a well-trained sonar crew will sometimes be able to "see" the boat. But a sub at PD could not even always be found by active sonar in the 1950ies.

"...
- they can hear you perfectly (because the noise you make is now of a higher frequency, amplified by contrast by the waves themselves)
..."

Yes, if you are running with more than a hundred revolutions, or cavitating at much "higher" speeds. But this higher-pitched "whine" is then more a harmonic frequency of the electric engines transferred through the hull, than noise from the propellors.
Some type IXC and all type Ds had special belt-driven noiseless electric engines for silent running, which could not be heard. Similar engines were installed in the XXI type boats for slow manouevering.

"...
When deep:
- they can ping you but at some angles the thermal layers will throw them off. They will either think you're not there, or they'll think you're somewhere else (further or closer but on the same bearing). However, when right on top of you (I mean close), their precision increases dramatically. Once an escort is DC close to you, you're in for the ride.
- they can hear you, thermal layers having no effect on bearings. But the sound waves become lower so, in effect, you can use more speed (silent running now makes you invisible to them)
..."

You are basically right, however really following a dived sub is not so easy in real circumstances, and anything but ideal conditions, and it was even more difficult in WW2 with the "ASDIC". What i have read is that the destroyer became blind when the "ahead sonar cone" was leaving the submerged boat - if the boat then made some evasive action not even at full speed and at 45 degrees, the charges would not do much damage - aditionally the charges needed time to sink, and the deeper you are the less effective a dc becomes due to the greater water pressure.


__________________
" ... Couldn't upload an image so just imagine an heroic scene with a submarine sailing into the setting sun. ..."

Done. :up:

Greetings,
Catfish

[karamazovnew]

i will not give up yet :D
Catfish

Finishing blow, I surrender :salute:. You certainly know a lot more than I thought. Come to think of it, this must be why carpet bombing (i mean depth charging) was effective, to force the PD'd sub to dive :hmmm:.

[Sailor Steve]

and even if Topp himself dived to 100 meters when he was in command, he did that seldomly. At least that is what you can find in almost all books of the time, when Topp is quoted.
Please give an exact quote. Three or more would be nice, especially when you say "almost all books of the time". That is not a reference, or proof - it's just you saying it.

I can see the possibility of being at periscope depth during your own attack, as that's where you have to be. But once they know roughly where you are they have the advantage. Submarines being attacked are safer under the sonar cone than hoping to possibly be above it. In the picture you provided, which I've posted many times myself, notice that the 'Q' cone doesn't seem to provide any leeway, at least not 50 feet worth.

Again, I would ask for definitive evidence that submarine captains considered that the most effective tactic and used it regularly.

[Catfish]

Hello,

thanks for your answers and comments ;)

@Karamasovnew: No need to surrender - please i do not want to fight anyone. It is just my opinion, made up by some 50+ books i read about U-boats - and some of them are partially wrong as one finds out over time. And I have almost no idea about US Diesel subs.
The carpet-bombing of supposed U-boat positions was a random but well-suited method. As soon as the U-boats were forced to dive deep, they were not really a threat anymore, and could be held down by repeated real or mock attacks, while the convoy was leaving the position.

P.S. i am really enjoying this SH4 interface, thanks again for the thorough description of what to do to not spoil the target solution :salute:


@Sailor Steve:
The thing is certainly much more complex than we discussed here. Measures against U-boats were certainly top secret back then, and also not made public immediately after the war.
The U-boat commanders along with their "uncle" Doenitz could only speculate about what the allies had invented, and why the boats suffererd increasing losses. Most U-boats were detected by HuffDuff and the breaking of the german naval codebooks, due to the break into the german naval code at Bletchley Park, polish Enigma machines brought to England before the war, and captured codebooks, along with the 4-wheeled Enigma and the break into the new "Triton" code - even if it took 11 months to break it.

So when U-boats made it back in late 1943 it was not exactly known why they survived, and what other unlucky vanished boats had done (or not done) to perish. Doenitz sent out at least 4 older "aces" only to find out what kind of technology the allies were using. The later airborn centimeter-radar was considered as impossible by german naval scientists as being to heavy for an installation in planes. They were wrong, and instead they assumed spies, which led to some paranoia.
The british, on the other hand, had a hard time not to give away their secret of having broken the code and reading most of the radio traffic, also using the short "Tabu" signals for triangulation and finding the U-boat's positions. Therefore it was not regarded as practical to sink as much U-boats as it would have been possible, since Germany would have immediately known there was something wrong and would have again changed the codes, or even worse the techniques of coding.

So when Topp survived with his usually low-diving method it was at first not clear whether this was pure luck, or a working "countermeasure" against a kind of sonar which was not known in german naval circles. Other U-boat commanders did not follow Topp's advice, and survived, others did not. Only an analysis after the war with a comparison of the different Asdic types and wavelengths would shed some light on this.
Several crews reported different sounds, from pings (seldom) and all other kinds of noise to sounds of sand being thrown against the hull, and the suposed frequencies of the allied Asdic types was then "reconstructed" from those reports.
The coating of U-boats would also have been a working countermeasure, but there were problems with the glue, and a severe lack of rubber, or "Ersatz" coating material, so not all boats were coated with "Alberich".

So one cannot find any evidence that Topp or others knew which kind and capability of enemy sonar, or better Asdic, was used; and would have been able to exactly tell WHY this probably had worked. All was based on supposition, and trial and error.


But Steve i admit you got me cornered here - first i di not find the book "U-Boot und U-Boot-Jagd" which states that subs at PD were hard to detect even in the 1960ies, and then i certainly did not find Topp's original quote so quickly.
It is not so easy to find certain information, because all those books have no real index ... statements from commanders are often quoted in other context without a real connection to the title of the chapters, so it is hard to find. It is just that i remember Topp and his 30 meters because i found this very astonishing myself at first.
But i know where to search, may take a while though :-?

Greetings,
Catfish

[karamazovnew]

@Karamasovnew: No need to surrender - please i do not want to fight anyone.

It was more of a "I surrender to your wealth of knowledge". You sure explained some things better than I could've done.

What I meant by the carpet bombing was that after reading about escort tactics I asked myself "At what depth would they drop those? Probably periscope depth because that's where a sub woulb be during an attack". Now it makes sense that uboat commanders would get spooked and dive. Not only would they need to stop their attack, they would also come into ASDIC range. At first I didn't think subs would be safe from ASDIC at PD and they probably weren't later in the war with new techs. But your info convinced me and it also looks to be a fantastic tactic opener.

I've done a bit of tweaking of sensors in SH4 but I don't understand how the nodes are linked. But it certainly is possible to mimic a correct behavior. If sensors can be layered, we could do pretty much anything with them. I bet we could get some damn good sensors in SH5, even if it requires a small mod. :D

[Turbografx]

Accurate sensor behavior would be pretty cool!

[Sailor Steve]

But i know where to search, may take a while though :-?
That's cool. I like to give direct references, and I like to demand them, but I can wait. I'm curious to find out what's out there, and certainly willing to learn something new.:sunny:

[Catfish]

Hello,

to add three more wishes for SH5:

1. Make the sim as stable as possible - please no CTDs (can lead to a real hate towards sims lol). This was not an issue with SH3, but (if only at first) with SH4.

2. Make the game level save and load processes more stable. Please no "SHx encountered a problem and has to be terminated" after 7 minutes of loading time. As well please make all the save games workable in a way that each saved game can be loaded separately without screwing up the others (later ones), regardless of order or time.

3. AHEM, what about TIDES - Low tide, and flow ? Difference of 15 meters in the english channel ...


Thanks for listening and greetings,
Catfish

[PL_Andrev]

New SH5 bug detected.

Are you remember the bug of distance view in SH3? Ships are observed at the border of eye-view are seen as closer than when observed directly straight (at centre of view):
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/7605/screenhunter233.jpg


The error due to incorrect calculation of the distance:
The triangle illustrates the scope of visibility in SH3.
# Image 1: Looking straight ahead: a ship beyond the limits of visibility - outside of triangle (ship invisible now)
# Image 2: Target is near border of display view, but inside the triangle: (now is visible for player).
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9442/bugzt.png


And now this same bug is detected on SH5 - is still existed.
This is captured screenshot representing the sub's visibility in SH5 (white triangle = triangle drawn above):
http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/4598/sh34.jpg

Salut!
:salute:

[Matyas]

I found the discussion between Catfish and the others really interesting. I would like to ask whether it was a working tactic for an U-boot to dive near the seafloor and use the concealing effect of the sonar waves from the Asdic bouncing back from the seafloor and hiding the U-boot?

[Steeltrap]

I found the discussion between Catfish and the others really interesting. I would like to ask whether it was a working tactic for an U-boot to dive near the seafloor and use the concealing effect of the sonar waves from the Asdic bouncing back from the seafloor and hiding the U-boot?

My understanding is that in real life it could be, depending in part on the nature of the sea floor at that point (Peter Cremer describes such an example near the northern entrance to the Irish sea in his book). Much of the action occurred in depths where the sea floor was far too deep to matter.

The sim has never modelled this AFAIK. Another thing it has never done adequately is model the fact that a DC attack churned the sea to the point that there was a minute or two of ASDIC ineffectiveness, something an experienced kaleun could use to his advantage.

[Sailor Steve]

I found the discussion between Catfish and the others really interesting. I would like to ask whether it was a working tactic for an U-boot to dive near the seafloor and use the concealing effect of the sonar waves from the Asdic bouncing back from the seafloor and hiding the U-boot?
The American S-38 penetrated Lingyan Gulf and attacked Japanese shipping in shallow water. Three times she lay on the bottom, once at 80 feet (24 meters), once at 180 feet and again at 85 feet. The 80-foot stint lasted 12 hours. Her survival seems due to two factors:

1) The sonar could not distinguish between the submarine and the bottom.

2) The sandy bottom absorbed the majority of the blast from the depth charges.

No Silent Hunter game allows this. Aces Of The Deep did. Of course in AOTD you could get stuck in the mud. I lost one boat and crew to that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_S-38_(SS-143)