[WIP] s-class mod

[Webster]

im going to try and do an s-class mod so that they will get more realistic fuel ranges and battery life.

i know there are issues with the s-class but i figured i would look to see if i can get lucky and figure out something to make them better.

one of the things i wanted to look at first is to understand how the s-boats fuel ranges work and what i can do about them.

i know the best optimum fuel economy for the fleetboats is 9.5 kts but what about the s-boats?

s-boats are smaller, slower and dont travel as fast so i assume they must have a different optimum fuel economy speed so can anyone tell me what that might be?

[VonHesse]

Pretty sure I read somewhere on here that it was 10.9 knots. Could be wrong, but it does seem to work for me. BTW, doesn't one of the supermods include a "range at current speed" button? TMO? Maybe RFB? Can't remember, but I know I've seen one somewhere. You could use that to find out, maybe.

Gonna keep an eye on this one, I'd like to know for sure too.:-?

[ETR3(SS)]

Post I made here http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1203537&postcount=19 is for stock s-boats. :up:

[VonHesse]

O.K. SUBSIM, in recognition of all the time and effort that WEBSTER and everyone else here has expended on behaf of noobs like myself, I have decided that it's high time that I find a way to give something back. I picked this particular challenge for several reasons: S-Boats rule, mods rule(who knew?), and SUBSIM rules them all. More specifically, though, because it fit into my own unique computer skill-set (modders read: skill-set=NULL). And so without further adoo:

My Method:
-disable all mods, verify stock with JSGME snapshot
-start new career, 1942, S-18, Brisbane(to run in friendly waters)
-enable limited fuel, start outside harbor
- mark start position w/max zoom, plot due East to South America and back, mark turn-around point
-save game
-return, use knotmeter to set speed as close to 1.5 knots as possible
-follow course,max TC, wait, wait, wait, wait, etc...
-consider out of gas when crew says so with 4% left
-measure from mark to mark(again, max zoom), add return trip when necessary
-record distance, load save game and repeat repeatedly, i.e 2.5 knots, 3.5 knots, 4.5 knots, etc, etc

My Madness(Findings):
1.5 knots = 4,439.7 nm
2.5 knots = 7,399.6 nm
3.5 knots = 10,919.4 nm
4.5 knots = 13,687.1 nm
5.5 knots = 16,863.0 nm
6.5 knots = 15,728.3 nm
7.5 knots = 11,723.6 nm
8.5 knots = 9,511.1 nm
9.5 knots = 7,950.4 nm
10.5 knots = 6,477.6 nm
11.5 knots = 5,651.0 nm
12.5 knots = 4,706.2 nm
13.5 knots = 4,277.0 nm
* for once, I'm thankful that that's as fast as she goes...

Note: I do hearby swear, on pain of banishment, that these statements and findings are true, honest, and accurate to the best of my ability. I've no interest in misleading this fine community.

Glad to finally be able to contribute, cheers,...:D..."-snap-"(sound of one's arm breaking from patting oneself on the back whilst falling into a boredom induced coma)...

[Webster]

that looks great thanks, but it only shows half knots.

from the list 5.5 knots = 16,863.0 nm is the best fuel economy but i am left to wonder if 5 or 6 kts might be better or worse than 5.5 kts

can you check those two? (5.0 and 6.0 kts)

[Webster]

Post I made here http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1203537&postcount=19 is for stock s-boats. :up:


if what VonHesse shows is correct then the numbers you are giving is not looking like the best fuel economy for s-boats so i must ask how you came to use these numbers and how certain are you these numbers you gave (9.5kts surfaced, 5kts submerged) are really correct?

[VonHesse]

Can do Sir. I'll refine the numbers when I get home from work. I set it at X.5 because when you set it directly on a number(3, for example) the crew replies with the next number down ( in this case "aye Sir, set speed 2 knots). I wasn't sure who to trust, the crew, or the dial. Anyways, I'll be back with those numbers this afternoon.

[Webster]

yea im pretty sure the game uses the wrong sound files but you can never be 100% certain

i dont think anyone ever bothered to do a mod to correct it or maybe its coded in

[ETR3(SS)]

if what VonHesse shows is correct then the numbers you are giving is not looking like the best fuel economy for s-boats so i must ask how you came to use these numbers and how certain are you these numbers you gave (9.5kts surfaced, 5kts submerged) are really correct?I took them directly from the sim file. I also assumed that our little s-boat would have the same confounding fuel efficiency problem that the other boats have at speeds less than 10kts. These new numbers may indeed be accurate, the s boat may not suffer from the same coding problem of the fleet boats. :hmmm:

[Webster]

well the fleet boats get the best fuel economy at roughly 50% (just below it actually) of the full speed so fleet boats get full speed of 20kts and the best fuel economy is at 9-9.5kts which is something like 47% of top speed.


i was expecting the s-boats to be about the same level of percentage (half of full speed) but i would not expect to see them use the same numbers as fleetboats because s-boats have top speed of only 13 kts stock or 14.5 if modded

a 9.5 kt speed is like 80% of the full speed which is ahead full setting for an s-boat

[epower]

In the individual submarine cfg files there are percentages associated with each throttle setting. If memory serves 0.45 is the most fuel efficient setting. I think most "Ahead standard" settings are 0.48 or so on Fleet boats.

For S-Boats "ahead 1/3" is often closer to the ideal 0.45. It's easy enough to assign 0.45 to a throttle setting.

Data/ Submarine/ NSS_Subname

Here's the link to the post of my fuel consumption test results in case you're interested.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=145318&highlight=epower

The real surprise was that fuel consumption is a constant from 0-0.45% throttle then rises significantly.

<S>

epower

[VonHesse]

@ WEBSTER - Quote: "that looks great thanks, but it only shows half knots." ...:o...oh, sweet irony...:har:

O.k. ran the set-up over again using the same save point, same procedures, accurate as possible. Additionally, I double checked some of my earlier numbers by bracketing 5 & 6 knots. Here's what I got this time:

4.5 knots = 13,668.8 nm
5.0 knots = 15,590.3 nm
5.5 knots = 16,960.3 nm
6.0 knots = 17,718.9 nm
6.5 knots = 15,644.9 nm

note: None of the numbers were exactly the same. I have no explaination for this, but it never exceeded +/- 0.5%. Chalk it up to human error, or the devil/angel Ubisoft, as you please.

And so, reminding me strangely of my days in the Army, after long hours -days even - of pouring over charts, plotting courses, and double checking calculations, I can firmly state with full confidence:

"Six, Sir. The answer is six."

[Webster]

In the individual submarine cfg files there are percentages associated with each throttle setting. If memory serves 0.45 is the most fuel efficient setting. I think most "Ahead standard" settings are 0.48 or so on Fleet boats.

For S-Boats "ahead 1/3" is often closer to the ideal 0.45. It's easy enough to assign 0.45 to a throttle setting.

Data/ Submarine/ NSS_Subname

Here's the link to the post of my fuel consumption test results in case you're interested.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=145318&highlight=epower

The real surprise was that fuel consumption is a constant from 0-0.45% throttle then rises significantly.

<S>

epower


many thanks for the info and i am not questioning the fuel for fleet boats as we all agree and there is ample evidence to support that the best fuel economy for "fleetboats" is a speed of 9-9.5 kts or power ratio of 45-48%


the thing that doesnt seam to have "ever" been tested is to confirm the s-boats or s-class subs also have the best fuel economy at this same 45-48% range.


because the s-boats have different top speeds they will certainly have a different speed setting for max efficiency and from the data provided by VonHesse it seams they do indeed have a different "sweet spot" of best fuel economy and this looks to be right in line with that 45-48% range you and others have found.


i am agreeing with you i think that that sweet spot will be the same 45-48% range but im waiting on VonHesse to get those numbers posted when he gets a chance. the reason is just like the strange pattern you saw with fleetboats i want to be sure there is no strange numbers seen that show a possible different pattern of fuel use for s-boats


i am hoping you can confirm what is the true number for fleet boats, is is 9 kts or 9.5 kts that gives the best fleetboat fuel economy? or is it more accurate to just use the 45% number as the setting?

[Webster]

@ WEBSTER - Quote: "that looks great thanks, but it only shows half knots." ...:o...oh, sweet irony...:har:

O.k. ran the set-up over again using the same save point, same procedures, accurate as possible. Additionally, I double checked some of my earlier numbers by bracketing 5 & 6 knots. Here's what I got this time:

4.5 knots = 13,668.8 nm
5.0 knots = 15,590.3 nm
5.5 knots = 16,960.3 nm
6.0 knots = 17,718.9 nm
6.5 knots = 15,644.9 nm

note: None of the numbers were exactly the same. I have no explaination for this, but it never exceeded +/- 0.5%. Chalk it up to human error, or the devil/angel Ubisoft, as you please.

And so, reminding me strangely of my days in the Army, after long hours -days even - of pouring over charts, plotting courses, and double checking calculations, I can firmly state with full confidence:

"Six, Sir. The answer is six."


thank you sir, 6 kts is the s-boats sweet spot for best fuel economy :salute: this is very usefull info for the community


would you mind running the test again with a fleetboat (balao or gato) and just check the 8.5kts, 9kts, 9.5kts, 10kts speeds to confirm weather the best setting is 9 or 9.5

[VonHesse]

@ WEBSTER: Not a problem, glad to be able to contribute. You're right, this is very useful information. Somehow, I've been running around all this time thinking that 11 knots was the best - wrong, wrong, wrong:oops:.

Hmm, methinks this is what I get for ignoring the golden rule: "Never Volunteer", ha, ha. However, since I did it to myself, I might as well finish the job. I'll run the scenario with a balao at the speeds you requested, and post it up this afternoon. :D

[epower]

Webster,

I've always gone with idea that it was the throttle setting of 0.45 that was most critical. Reason being that the power necessary to maintain a certain speed, be it 9 or 9.5 kts would vary considerably depending on the weather.

[Webster]

Webster,

I've always gone with idea that it was the throttle setting of 0.45 that was most critical. Reason being that the power necessary to maintain a certain speed, be it 9 or 9.5 kts would vary considerably depending on the weather.


yes, i agree but what im doing is once the speed is confirmed i can rerun tests at percentages testing 44.5%,45%,45.5%,46%,46.5% to fine tune the right speed to further narrow down to the precise percentage


i think just looking at one side (the percentage) is why there is two sets of numbers people claim is best, i have been told its 9 kts yet an equal number of people say no its 9.5 kts so by confirming the exact speed it will make both numbers firm with no more guessing.

the percentage can be used to "dial in" the correct speed and set that as ahead std but first it must be a certainty of just what is the perfect setting.

[VonHesse]

OK, sorry it took so long, but driving these boats around like this takes forever, even at max TC. First off, am I missing something here on this percentages thing you guys keep talking about? When you talk about running at 45% or 46%, is there a way in the game to actually set your engines like that, or are you doing the math based on top speed and setting it on the knotmeter?:hmmm::06:

This time out, I used a Gato out of Pearl in 42'. Set course S.E. to Tierra del Fuego and back using the same methods as before. Early on the numbers looked odd so I ended up double checking some of them. Here's what I got this time:
8.5 knots = 13,755.7 nm
9.0 knots = 14,355.4 nm & 14,342.8 nm
9.5 knots = 15,162.7 nm & 15,206.5 nm
10.0 knots = 14,978.4 nm & 15,002.5 nm
10.5 knots = 13,885.2 nm
That made me wonder what was between 9.5 and 10.0, so I set the dial (if you stare at it hard enough it disappears:o) as close as I could to 9.75 and got this:

9.75 knots = 15,526.5 nm

I'll let everyone else decide what all this means, but what jumps out at me is that S-boats have a LONGER range than Fleetboats!:doh:

S-18 max tested range = 17,718.9 nm @ 6 knots
Gato max tested range = 15,526.5 nm @ 9.75 knots

That's just one more advantage that S-boats have over Fleetboats:

-smallest profile/silhouette - great for the old run 'n gun!:rock:
-best shallow water capabilities - no harbor too shallow!:yeah:
-longest range - just takes twice as long, be patient:D
-um... :hmmm:

I'm sure I could go on, and on, but that's another topic. Cheers all!:D

Edit: Looking this thread over, I got to thinking that maybe the reason WEBSTER was looking for such tight numbers was for use in a mod. I see a problem. The needle fluctuates. Sometimes it's rock solid & sometimes it flutters as much as 1 knot slower. Because of that, the Gato's true "optimum speed" might really be 9.5 or 9.45 or 9.6. Who knows? (damn) In order to get the truly precise "optimum speed", I would have had to have timed each cycle on the stopwatch and calculate the average speed "through the water". I didn't. This is just the dial setting. (double damn)... don't say it... :(

[Rockin Robbins]

I believe that the reason S-boat fuel economy has never been discussed is.....well, I can think of a few actually:


We tend to operate our S-boats the same way as our fleet boats. Hit ahead standard and cruise on! I guess it turns out that was the right thing to do.
In the S-Boat, you're operating out of Cavite early in the war. You sure don't have to travel far to find targets so range never becomes a factor.
Then you don't carry enough torpedoes to have to travel far to use them up. Often I'll use them up on the way to my patrol area.

So operations habits, tons of targets and very few torpedoes cancel out the need for fuel.

In real life, one of the reasons for the bigger fleet boat was the limited range of S-Boats. Looks like SH4 missed the mark on that one, but due to the above makes very little difference to how we play the game.

I"m having a blast with my new S-Boat career. I never thought I would, but this is real fun!

[Webster]

I believe that the reason S-boat fuel economy has never been discussed is.....well, I can think of a few actually:


We tend to operate our S-boats the same way as our fleet boats. Hit ahead standard and cruise on! I guess it turns out that was the right thing to do.


i think you must have missread the data because this statement is wrong wrong wrong, tmo and rfb did fix the fleetboats correctly to use ahead std but not the s-boats. i think they intended the ahead 2/3 setting to be used because those numbers are giving you the correct speed of 6 kts.

actually what im seeing is that stock as well as all the big mods are not getting best fuel efficiency at ahead std for s-boats.

the rest of your points i agree with but the data collected here clearly shows the ahead std speeds found in stock and the big mods are for the fleet boats only and they are not the best settings for s-boats that get best fuel efficiency at 6 kts and therefor Not getting the best fuel efficiency at that ahead std setting.


ahead std:

the s-boat in stock and GFO at ahead std is doing 10 kts

the s-boat in RFB at ahead std is doing 9 kts

the s-boat in TMO at ahead std is doing somewhere between 8.5 and 9 kts


ahead 2/3:

the s-boat in stock and GFO at ahead 2/3 is doing 7 kts

the s-boat in RFB at ahead 2/3 is doing 6 kts

the s-boat in TMO at ahead 2/3 is doing 6 kts


so this clearly shows ahead std for s-boats is not the best setting for stock, GFO, TMO, or RFB and the TMO and RFB mods must have intended you to use ahead 2/3 in s-boats to get your best fuel efficiency and maximum range. (its the only thing that makes sense to me)



so my only question now is why? a hell of a lot of work went into RFB and TMO and there must be a good reason the percentages of speed ratios are so far off from the fleetboats but i keep thinking if ahead std is half speed for fleet boats then why shouldnt it be half speed for s-boats too?

i need to make changes to fix this in GFO so i think it would be best if i follow the pattern used in the stock game and i am thinking that the correct way to do it is to reduce s-boats ahead std speeds to 6.0 kts but if i do this then GFO will be very different in this way from what TMO and RFB did so i wish i understood why they did that because im sure there was a good reason for it.


the data here clearly shows for s-boats the best fuel efficiency is achived at a speed of 6 kts or ahead 2/3 and for fleet boats the best fuel efficiency is achived at a speed of 9.75 kts or ahead std.

i yield to your point that while all this info is good to have, but the unlimited range the s-boats now have means that you never run out so you never have to worry about the best fuel efficiency for s-boats, BUT my intention is to try and limit this range to something realistic and that will make fuel something you WILL have to consider and this would mean we need the data being collected.

[Highbury]

I believe that the reason S-boat fuel economy has never been discussed is.....well, I can think of a few actually:


We tend to operate our S-boats the same way as our fleet boats. Hit ahead standard and cruise on! I guess it turns out that was the right thing to do.
In the S-Boat, you're operating out of Cavite early in the war. You sure don't have to travel far to find targets so range never becomes a factor.
Then you don't carry enough torpedoes to have to travel far to use them up. Often I'll use them up on the way to my patrol area.

So operations habits, tons of targets and very few torpedoes cancel out the need for fuel.

In real life, one of the reasons for the bigger fleet boat was the limited range of S-Boats. Looks like SH4 missed the mark on that one, but due to the above makes very little difference to how we play the game.

I"m having a blast with my new S-Boat career. I never thought I would, but this is real fun!

+1

I have never done any hard math on it, but 6kts is what I generally travel at to conserve fuel. Like RR though, I am usually out of fish before the patrol area or not long after, leaving me sufficient fuel to cruise at Full back to base.

[Webster]

I have never done any hard math on it, but 6kts is what I generally travel at to conserve fuel.

well that was what i was pointing out, the current ahead std setting for s-boats in stock, GFO, TMO, or RFB is NOT 6 kts


so if you were to answer someones question of whats the setting for best fuel efficiency and maximum range then the answer is ahead std or 9.75 kts for the fleetboats and ahead 2/3 or 6.0 kts for the s-boats

[Ducimus]

Unfortunately i don't have alot of input to offer on S boats save this one little bit.

They are unique.


One thing that is not moddable in SH4, is the battery/engine multiplier.

Remember that SH4, is derived from SH3, inheirting some functionality from it. And in SH3, there's two nice little tidbits from the basic.cfg if memory serves me correctly:

Battery type, and engine superchargers.

Both, if i remember correctly placed a multiplyer on your batts and engines. Which varied the life of the battery, and speed/consumption of the engine.
( hypothetical example
Sargo battery = 1.03
Sboat battery = 1.45 )

In SH4 these are hardcoded, we can't touch them. Now while i haven't dug too deeply into the Sboats files for some time, ill wager that it has unique batteries and engines that are different from fleet boats, with said engines/batteries having an intrinsic mulitplier that , unfortunately, we can't get to..

As an aside, i say all that with the caveat that i haven't looked at the S boat, nor SH3 files in a very long time, so i could have that wrong.

[Wreford-Brown]

If SH4 uses the same setup as SH3 you can easily find the most economic speed from the .sim files.

Dig into the range in the .sim file, and whatever the range is set to there is a corresponding speed. This speed is the optimum speed for fuel economy as the SH3 engine will reduce your range if you go either side of that speed. Funnily enough, it's usually the speed give by a simple web search (e.g. if Range is given as X nmi @ y kts, y kts is the optimum speed.)

[Webster]

If SH4 uses the same setup as SH3 you can easily find the most economic speed from the .sim files.

Dig into the range in the .sim file, and whatever the range is set to there is a corresponding speed. This speed is the optimum speed for fuel economy as the SH3 engine will reduce your range if you go either side of that speed. Funnily enough, it's usually the speed give by a simple web search (e.g. if Range is given as X nmi @ y kts, y kts is the optimum speed.)


i looked into that but most were set at 2kts or 3kts when test showed it was really 6 kts and for surface speed they were all set at 10 kts when tests showed 9 or 9.5 was best so it was close but not in line with each other so its hard to predict results.


i thought i could just get away with a simple uniform text setting :damn:

[VonHesse]

Can't stand to leave a job done poorly, so I had another crack at the S-boat numbers using basically the same methods as before... only this time accounting for time:yep:. We already know the best range on a 96% fuel run was achieved with the knotmeter set at 6 knots, but now (hopefully) we know what "hull speed" will get you the furthest. It broke down like this:

Patrol 1:
12June(14:02) to 19Oct(11:45) = 3,0857.75 hours
Distance traveled: 17,620.3 nm
Average hull speed - 5.71 knots

Patrol 2:
12June(14:02) to 26Oct(21:34) = 3,273.51 hours
Distance traveled: 18,327.9 nm *(new best)
Average hull speed - 5.60 knots

Patrol 3:
12June(14:02) to 26Oct(21:40) = 3273.72 hours
Distance traveled: 17,806.8 nm
Average hull speed - 5.44 knots

I really think we got lucky and hit the nail on the head with Patrol 2. Not only does it show the best range yet, but if you average the three patrols, you get a speed of 5.62 knots. Pretty darn close, I'd say.:up:

[Webster]

well VonHesse the speed setting needs to be fixed first because the stock s-boat has 13 kts max speed and its supposed to be set at 14.5 kts so that will probably bring it up to that 5.75 - 6.0 kt number i think once this is corrected

if your up for it i'll let you test the mod to confirm the speeds and ranges when i finish it because i need someone else to confirm things are correct before i release the updated version of my better subs mod :up:

[VonHesse]

... "better subs mod"?... that sounds interesting...:D... Well sure WEBSTER, I'd be honored. Glad to be able to help. PM me any old time, I'll be around.

P.S. Hope they got your town put back together. Sure is pretty, but last time I stopped by, Rita had just given you folks a hurtin'. Cheers :salute:

[Webster]

i have an old mod where i adjusted the engine percentages for uniform speeds but i never made fuel efficiency or battery life part of it and thats what i want to do now as well as add in my sub draft height fixes mod so it truely is an all in one better subs mod that looks at the whole package.


as for the huricane, rita went to the west of me to the La. texas border but katrina came through here because i'm 15 miles west of new orleans.

we lost the back room and 1/4 of the roof and power was off for 18 days but the worst part was even after we got power back the internet was out for 2 more months after that :nope: so we were living like we were in the stone ages again lol.

[VonHesse]

That mod sounds nice. keep us updated. Especially on the draft height... I sure do likes raiding harbors!

Woops. Was there too. Bein from the west coast, all the towns were new to me. Pretty sure I saw a Laplace roadsign layin somewhere... thought that meant it was nearby...:rotfl2: but I was in N.O. for Katrina, Sulfur for Rita. Flew in on a C-130 :salute:

[Webster]

hey, after katrina i wouldnt be surprised if you saw our laplace sign in mississippi or even alabama lol :har:

check my mods page n you'll see my mods

[Rockin Robbins]

With the supermods we could be dealing with a TM legacy. This is TM befor TMO, and throttles were set for ahead slow being quietest speed, ahead 2/3 the most fuel economy. Somewhere in the conversion between TM and TMO, Ducimus got chummy with the evil RFB people who were championing ahead standard for best fuel economy.

This is just a guess, but I'll bet the fleet boat was changed but the S-boat left untouched, and I'll bet RFB used the TMO S-boat settings as their initial configuration. Of everyone associated with the RFB team, only AVG Warhawk spent a lot of time in S-boats at that time. It may have escaped scrutiny.

Well, since I had the incorrect throttle setting for the S-boat and it's still never been a problem for me, that shows that fuel range isn't a factor for S-boats. Can we call something "better" if it makes no changes in the way we play the game? I don't understand the need to produce a mod to change something that doesn't change anything......something like that.:O:

[Ducimus]

Entirely possible RR.

S boats, i'll admit, are the red headed step child of TMO. Whenever i apply changes to boats, they are the very LAST on my list, and some changes they haven't recieved at all because i ran out of time or patience. Seriously, after all the time TMO has been in existance, i think in 1.9 is when i finally got around to making the dive time on them more realistic.

There is however, something screwy with S boats in terms of throttle settings, and battery recharge times. Never spent the time to figure it out exactly.

[Rockin Robbins]

Well, once I get my video problems (bsod!) straightened out, I'm in December 1941 with my new TMO career, S-boatin' it and having a blast! These SH4 S-boats are brand new from the factory, not the absolute death traps the real things were. No amount of modding can fix that.

But my S-boat is a blast to run, and subject to the wimpy torpedo load is deadly and stealthy! I can get much closer in a surface attack than a fleet boat.

[sergei]

These SH4 S-boats are brand new from the factory, not the absolute death traps the real things were.

Yeah I'm with you on that one.
I recently read Pigboat 39 by Bobette Gugliotta. A fascinating book.
How they managed to managed to do war patrols, let alone sink ships (which they did!), whilst dealing with the myriad breakdowns, leaks etc. is just amazing.
Also in the game the Mark 10 torpedoes are the most reliable early war torp to use. Not so in real life. By the outbreak of war they were old and suspect at best.
Having to do a patrol in these conditions in a pigboat would really add to the game for me.
As you said, not possible unfortunately, given the constraints of the game.

[Webster]

i want to look into seeing if i can figure something out to make the s-boats act more in line with the numbers we should see from them in real life.

I know that i dont know as much as the guys that already looked into this (TMO & RFB) but maybe giving it a fresh look i might stumble accross something.

i am hoping some one out there has this data in your files somewhere and that you can help me with numbers proven to be accurate.

im not looking to do extensive research to educate myself on s-boat history and spend hours reading patrol logs so it would be of great help if someone who knows this stuff could just confirm the numbers i should be trying to achieve to make the s-boat in the game act more realistic.


i want to ask you if you know what these numbers really are in real life?

- what is the top speed surfaced they really got in real life (the game uses 13 kts but wikipedia says its 14.5 kts)

- what is the top speed they really got while submerged in real life (the game uses 9 kts but wikipedia says its 11 kts)

- what is the maximum range they got out of a full charge on batteries in real life

- what is the most efficient speed setting in real life that was normally used for maximum range on batteries

[sergei]

I'm guessing that the top speeds quoted in wiki would be for newly commissioned boats.
By WW2 most of the boats were nearly 20 years old, and I remember reading somewhere that they could not reach their theoretical top speed.
Damned if I can find the reference now.
I'll have a hunt around see if I can get some actual figures for you.

[Rockin Robbins]

Their top speed was somewhere around 12 knots OR NOT!

They sometimes could submerge without endangering their crews OR NOT!

They could reach a depth of approximately 200', or more if they imploded and killed their crew at 100'!

In short, every fact about the S-boats is canceled out by how damned old and unreliable they were, the single most important characteristic of the S-boat! That most important factor is not modeled in any way inside Silent Hunter 4, making tweaking any of the other characteristics a laughably ridiculous procedure, in every respect equal to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic instead of trying to evacuate passengers.

The S-boat just cannot be fixed. So let's just enjoy what we have, which is BIG fun!

(Rockin', you're talking to MODDERS! Modding is an irrational activity driven by uncontrollable desires, sort of like serial killing but sometimes less harmful. Please don't feed the bears! But if they wanna eat, you're NOT going to stop them by standing between them and their "food"....:D)

Fixed the Blue Screen of Death issue and that is worthy of a new thread, but not in the Mods category!

[Webster]

because all the records are for new boats just built and there arent any records of what the capabilities were by the time of their use in ww2 for the s-boats i figure i should just "make up" guestimated certain percentage to reduce the s-boats recorded specs by so that it properly represents their age and worn out status along with the older technology they had.

i was thinking the s-boat should have less of the hull strength, range, and battery life of what the data shows for the s-class boat to properly simulate the age and fatigue of these old outdated 20 yr old subs and i think that would maybe be about right?

my goal is to end this situation you describe where an s-boat is a do whatever you want and never worry about anything boat where you never run out of fuel or batteries so you dont have to conserve them.

i want the s-boat to be a boat where you need to "have to" worry about diving deep, fuel use, and batteries even more than you do the enemy.

@ RR "why mod the s-boat" you say, i say why NOT try to?

everyone also said the 50 cal was a hard coded thing you couldnt fix but it wasnt and someone came along and took a fresh new look at something lots of other modders worked on without success but he finally came up with the fix.

i have no delussions of being some smart guy who can figure it out but even a blind squirrel can find a nut now and then so maybe i can be the blind squirrel.

[AVGWarhawk]

It is worth a look with a fresh set of eyes. Let Webster do his thing. Like he said, every squirrel finds a nut sooner or later. Perhaps Webster can work up a great S boat mod that would be a reasonable facsimile of real worn, tired S boats. Personally the TDC needs to go. The boat needs to be more fragile and the speed needs to be degradated to show the age of these tubs. Plus, it will make life much more interesting for those that like to work their way up and really accomplish something using a sand shovel were a backhoe is needed. :up:

[VonHesse]

Go for it WEBSTER! Work your magic.:salute:

I've always preferred using the S-boats because it figured it would be more difficult, and therefore more exciting, with a weaker, slower sub. If you really want a good patrol, you've got use your fish wisely,and sparingly. Trying to cherry-pick just the heavies in the middle of the convoy is quite the challenge. That said, I'm all for making them even weaker. :up:

I agree they could stand to be a little bit slower, and I like the idea of weaker hulls, and a more realistic range (18,000nm is nuts!:doh:). A cursory reading of some of the different S-boats patrols on wikipedia made me think about another thing that would REALLY make them more realistic... breakdowns. I don't know the first thing about modding, so I'm just gonna put this out there, In all seriousness:

Is there any way to mod in unreliablity? Any way to give the S-boats say a 3% chance of minor equipment damage, and a 0.3% chance of critical equipment damage for every week on patrol? (just random numbers) or something like that?

Something like that, with your other proposed fixes would truly make the S-boats in SH4 more realistic. If they were that tough to "make a living" in, I bet more people would skipper them. Imagine putting your life on the line just by casting off...:D

BEWARE THE PIG OF DOOM!

[Webster]

Is there any way to mod in unreliablity?

sadly i dont think so, i think the game is missing the kind of random controller someone could use to do that


i once thought i had a solution, (caution, this idea came to me while drinking heavily) why not just make a worldwide minefield with very weak mines so you bump into one and it gives you very minor damage (simulated breakdown maybe?) but then the game would probably catch fire trying to generate millions of mines all the time :doh:

[VonHesse]

...OK, hmm... I'm only a little tipsy myself, but what about coating the sub in the same tiny mines and setting them to go off over time?...

Just takin your idea and running with it. Any easier?:hmmm:

[Webster]

...OK, hmm... I'm only a little tipsy myself, but what about coating the sub in the same tiny mines and setting them to go off over time?...

Just takin your idea and running with it. Any easier?:hmmm:


what would trigger them since we dont have time fuses as far as i know, and how to stop them all from going off with a depth charge :hmmm:

abyway that should be a whole thread to itself lol

[Webster]

i would like your ideas and/or opinions here guys: (not what a book says but what you think it should be)


what "should" the max range of fuel be for an s-boat at ahead flank and for ahead std?


what "should" the max time of battery life be for an s-boat at ahead flank and for ahead std?

[AVGWarhawk]

Change dive rate to 75-120 seconds. At 9 kts on the surface, 9500 NM. Add 1000nm for every kt reduced below 9kts. Remove 2000 nm for every kt above 9 kts. Make flank speed 12 kts tops. Battery life is two fold....they last long under water but take a long time to recharge. I would have the batteries last about 16 hours max total at say 1-2 kts. Batteries should be exhausted in 15 minutes at flank. Standard speed submerged battery life should be 6 hours. Just my personal opinion on the old battery technology these S class boats had. Boat should be very fragile. Enough were the player will not take any chances under any circumstances. In short, if a mouse in the galley farts the pressure in the boat increases and knocks out a few dents in the hull as a result.

[Bosje]

i'm probably ignorant but while reading all this, two thoughts occured to me:

-ahead standard gives better range than both ahead full and ahead 2/3, in any boat in both supermods as far as i know, do you guys really set speed within tens of knots manually? I always travel at 'ahead standard' and never run out of fuel. SHIFT G gives you 'max range at current speed' in TMO and i think also in RFB (or maybe that's just my own commands.cfg which I put on top) when Shift-G suggests things will get tight, i return to base. simple as that

-malfunctions and sabotage damage is possible with SH3 commander, why would it be impossible to make something similar for SH4?

again, I am probably ignorant but I didn't see these points raised when I read through the thread
so much for my 2 cents :)

[Webster]

in my first early attempts, this is what i have so far:


electric speeds - flank- 9 kts, full- 7 kts, std- 5 kts, 2/3- 3 kts, 1/3- 1 kt

diesel speeds - flank- 12 kts, full- 9 kts, std- 6 kts, 2/3- 4 kts, 1/3- 2 kts

diesel ranges - flank @ 12 kts= 6500-6750nm, ahead std @ 6 kts= 6100nm

electric ranges - flank @ 9 kts= batteries last 1hr and you can go 6nm, ahead std @ 5 kts= batteries last 3hr and you can go 14nm



damage & dive times - will be working on this later so i can get the other stuff right first

[AVGWarhawk]

Looks good Webster!

[sergei]

Are you thinking of tweaing the crush depth as well?
In TMO I can dive my S Boat to 300ft easily.
I've read that in reality getting to 200ft was a big deal.

[AVGWarhawk]

I did read the boat were capable 9500-10000 NM on full tanks. As you stated Webster this is a artistic license type deal on the S Class. I like what you have so far. IMO the boat really needs to a whore made of steel and when assigned your boat the eyes roll with sweat starting to pour off your forehead. Most of the skippers skulked away encounters at the beginning of the war in these S boats and for good reason. They were old school taught skippers. These skippers knew these boats were not ready for anything remotely close to a war.

[Webster]

Change dive rate to 75-120 seconds.

Make range at 9 kts on the surface, 9500 NM.

Make flank speed 12 kts tops.

have the batteries last about 16 hours max total at say 1-2 kts.

Batteries should be exhausted in 15 minutes at flank.

Standard speed submerged battery life should be 6 hours.

Boat should be very fragile. Enough were the player will not take any chances under any circumstances.


Based on your shopping list this is where im at:

Change dive rate to 75-120 seconds. <<< still unchanged from stock at this point, i need more info on how to measure this and time it


Make range at 9 kts on the surface, 9500 NM. <<<< flank speed @ 10 kts on surface has range of 11,000nm and std speed @ 6 kts on surface has range of 7,000nm

Make flank speed 12 kts tops. <<<< diesel - flank- 10 kts, full- 8 kts, std- 6 kts, 2/3- 4 kts, 1/3- 2 kts / electric - flank- 7 kts, full- 6 kts, std- 5 kts, 2/3- 3 kts, 1/3- 1 kt

Batteries should be exhausted in 15 minutes at flank. <<<< @ flank (7 kts) batteries last 22 minutes

Standard speed submerged battery life should be 6 hours. <<<< @ std (5 kts) batteries last 1hr

have the batteries last about 16 hours max total at say 1-2 kts. <<<< @ 1/3 (1 kt) batteries last 20.5 hrs

Boat should be very fragile. Enough were the player will not take any chances under any circumstances. <<<< armor level was reduced by 80% and the hull strength was reduced by 75% (this should be close to meeting the mouse fart test lol)

from "sergei" - Are you thinking of tweaing the crush depth as well? I reduced crush depth setting so in an undamaged sub you now crush at 150


NOTE: all the info shown in this post has changed somewhat, look below to post #65 for the changes i've made

[VonHesse]

You know what they say about opinions:D, but since you ask, here's mine. What about setting the speeds and whatnot to a set percentage of the "factory" parameters? Say 75-80% of new. I know they were old and worn, but they got regular Navy maintainence, and I doubt they would've been deployed if they were only 50% or so effective. For surface speeds and range, at 75%, that would be:

New:
Max speed: 14.5 knots
Max range: 4,300nm? @ 10 knots

Modded:
Max speed 11 knots
Max range 3,200nm? @ 7.5 knots

*the ? behind the range is because wiki gives it in miles. don't know if they meant nm, but I converted it from 5,000miles. also the game gets better range at lower speeds so an overall range might be around 5,000nm @ 5 knots.

Cool, that covers diesel range and speed, but battery range and endurance is harder. Couldn't find any hard numbers on that, only, reading from their logs they were capable of performing the standard daylight-submerged patrols. Makes me think your 12.5 hour duration is right on the mark. Certianly no more than 24 hours at 1 to 2 knots. Also, just a weird thought - the batteries would seem to be easy to maintain, i.e. yard them out and put new ones in during maintainence, and might not be as degraded as the rest of the boat. Even if that's not the case, old batteries shouldn't necessisarily mean slower speeds, just shorter duration. Makes me think of a max submerged speed of 10 knots as opposed to the original 11.

I know you said you would look at crush depth later if at all, but since I'm here, a test depth of 150ft and a crush depth of 200 feet would seem to be ideal. Basically, if there's any way to mod it in(don't know), it would be cool if when you pass crush depth, even just a little, you take damage much more quickly than in a fleetboat. Just an idea. :hmmm:

Well, I think thats all you were asking for opinion-wise, hope my input helps. One more thing though, and feel free to ignore it, but I noticed that at least 8 of the S-Class subs had an additional rear torpedo tube (S-11, 12, 13, 48, 49, 50, & 51). That's about 16% of the 51 made, and not entirely insignificant. Would make for a pretty cool upgrade...:up:

Anyways, just my $1.75 (been talkin awhile). Keep up the good work WEBSTER! Any improvement is still an improvement.:salute:

[Webster]

You know what they say about opinions:D, but since you ask, here's mine. What about setting the speeds and whatnot to a set percentage of the "factory" parameters? Say 75-80% of new. I know they were old and worn, but they got regular Navy maintainence, and I doubt they would've been deployed if they were only 50% or so effective. For surface speeds and range, at 75%, that would be:

New:
Max speed: 14.5 knots
Max range: 4,300nm? @ 10 knots

Modded:
Max speed 11 knots
Max range 3,200nm? @ 7.5 knots


speeds:
the shipyard specs that we see are just numbers on paper and the subs didnt really get to those speeds in real life. the 13 and 9 numbers the devs used are probably pretty close to the routine speeds they got when built and then you add wear and tear of worn out engines and degraded electric motors and i am inclined to believe AVGwarhawks numbers of 12 and 9 should be about right and they match what the devs were using so i went with a number 25% lower than those numbers hoping it would be more in line with the reality of the speeds the subs probably got when they were newer and still in good working condition so it should represent a sub in 75% of its prime operational condition.

ranges:
well if you look at the map and assume that you refuel at midway you are still an 8,000nm round trip to anywhere you would potentially be going in most cases and thats just to get there, make a u-turn and return to port so you need at least a range of 10,000nm for your boat to be of any use to you or its a one way trip. yes many bases were in closer ranges but im not trying to go to some unrealisticly short ranges because i want them to still be as realistic as i can keep them even though im guessing on most of this stuff.

boat conditions:
the s-boats were indeed floating wrecks left over from ww1 or built just after ww1 and they were in pretty bad shape no matter how much maintenence they did. they were bought by us from england as old ww1 surplus in exchange for for forgiving war debt and used mainly to save money on buying new boats and when the war started it was all we had left to use untill new boats could be built. it was more out of pure necessaty that they were used rather than any notion that they were in any kind of shape for war.

electrical:
yes the batteries could be replaced with new ones yes, but it was the electric engines that were the problem and not the batteries and those engines couldnt be changed because it was too much work, damn near the whole back of the sub had to be taken apart (easier to build a new sub)

crush depth:
rivets were rusted hull plates were weak and buckled, seals and seams leaked valves didnt seal right so they shouldnt be able to get anywhere near the rated test or crush depths. because of that i made the crush depth 150 so go to 150 and watch the hull damage gauge go 1, 2, 5, 11, 44, boom, death screen


I noticed that at least 8 of the S-Class subs had an additional rear torpedo tube

way beyond my ability

[VonHesse]

@ WEBSTER: "... watch the damage gauge go 1, 2, 5, 11, 44, boom, death screen" ...:o...:D:har:...Outstanding!:yeah:

Yeah, I only noticed your previous post after finishing mine. Everything sounds spot-on. Can't wait to see what you come up with.:arrgh!:

[Webster]

i'm probably ignorant but while reading all this, two thoughts occured to me:

-ahead standard gives better range than both ahead full and ahead 2/3, in any boat in both supermods as far as i know, do you guys really set speed within tens of knots manually? I always travel at 'ahead standard' and never run out of fuel. SHIFT G gives you 'max range at current speed' in TMO and i think also in RFB (or maybe that's just my own commands.cfg which I put on top) when Shift-G suggests things will get tight, i return to base. simple as that

-malfunctions and sabotage damage is possible with SH3 commander, why would it be impossible to make something similar for SH4?

again, I am probably ignorant but I didn't see these points raised when I read through the thread
so much for my 2 cents :)


- ahead standard gives better range than both ahead full and ahead 2/3, in any boat in both supermods as far as i know

this is only true for fleetboats, ahead 2/3 is the best fuel efficient setting for s-boats but because of the overly long ranges they have you can run at the most gas guzzling speeds and never run out.



- do you guys really set speed within tens of knots manually?

i dont, i just use the settings or in silent running i put in 1 or 2 kts manually



SHIFT G gives you 'max range at current speed' in TMO and i think also in RFB (or maybe that's just my own commands.cfg which I put on top)

this is your mods doing it, its not part of the stock game


-malfunctions and sabotage damage is possible with SH3 commander, why would it be impossible to make something similar for SH4?

there are some things in sh4 that are different enough from sh3 that things that worked in sh3 wont work in sh4 and i think SH3 commander might be one of those but i really dont know for sure. mainly because after all this time something like SH3 commander hasnt been made for sh4 makes me think its very possible you cant get anything like a SH3 commander mod to work for sh4. i do know there are many people want a SH4 commander to be built but i dont think the creater of SH3 commander wants to do it.




again, I am probably ignorant

please dont call yourself ignorant, someone may look at it as an invitation to think of you in that way and it invites those who are less mature to continue to call you that. so what if you dont know everything, none of us do :know:

[Radio]

A heavily weathered skin for the S-Boats wouldn't hurt either :D

[Webster]

A heavily weathered skin for the S-Boats wouldn't hurt either :D

thanks, thats a very good idea :up:

[Webster]

MOD UPDATE:

the first version of this mod i was working on had a major flaw in it where you could manually set the speeds much higher than it was supposed to go (the s-boat was able to do 24 kts lol) while this would help you escape i scrapped that formula because i want the s-boat to be realistic in every way possible.

since everything was built around that base formula it was necessary to start over from the beginning using a new formula and below you will see where the mod is at this point.



s-boat skin:

i took the lighter colored skins originally used for late war and i added a lot more rust to it so the lighter skin color shows the rust a whole lot better and shows more of the small dirty weathered looking details IMO. early and light war both use the same light colored rusty skin.


crush depth:

stock crush depth was at 200 ft, in my mod it is at 150 ft


hull strength:

my mod has it at 25% of stock hit points and about 45% of stock armor level.
(its very slightly stronger than the first version i did but a mouse fart will still be able to sink you)


dive speeds:

crash dive from 6 kts @ ahead std in stock was 20-22 seconds, my mod has it at 28-30 seconds

dive to periscope depth @ 10 kts in stock is 70 seconds to the level off point, my mod has it at 100 seconds


fuel range:

with my mod, flank gets 10 kts and has a range of 3,000 nm

with my mod, ahead std gets 6 kts and has a range of 7,500 nm

(wikipedia says s-boats, when built, got 5,000 nm @ 10 kts)


speed settings:

diesel - flank 10kts, ahead full 8 kts, ahead std 6kts, 2/3 4kts, 1/3 2kts

electric - flank 7kts, ahead full 6 kts, ahead std 4kts, 2/3 3kts, 1/3 1kts


batteries:

your speed slows as the battery runs low so it keeps extending the time based on the speed your going and not what speed it is set to.

tested at a full stop and submerged with a full battery charge, if you set speed to ahead flank and you will speed up to 7kts but after 7 minutes you slow to 6kts, after 12 minutes you slow to 5kts, after 20 minutes you slow to 4kts, after 29.5 minutes you slow to 3kts, at 54 minutes you slow to 2kts, after 47 minutes you slow to 1kt, and after 1 hour 34 minutes you get battery is discharged warning and the props stop turning.

the times are extended longer when you start at lower speeds but the pattern is the same, as speed slows the battery time is extended.


battery use by percentages:

@ ahead flank (7kts) - after 12 minutes your at 50% battery, after 29.5 minutes your at 25% battery, after 1 hour 20 minutes your at 10% battery, after 2 hour 40 minutes your at battery discharged warning

@ ahead std (5kts) - after 48 minutes your at 50% battery, after 1 hour 12 minutes your at 25% battery, after 2 hour 4 minutes your at 10% battery, after 3 hour 20 minutes your at battery discharged warning

@ ahead 1/3 (1kt) - after 11 hour 55 minutes your at 50% battery, after 17 hour 50 minutes your at 25% battery, after 21 hour 21 minutes your at 10% battery, after 22 hour 50 minutes your at battery discharged warning


battery charging:

now heres the great part, weather you start battery charging from the 10% charge warning or the battery discharged warning, in both cases it will now take a full 1 hour 15 minutes to recharge your batteries

[Webster]

im asking for your opinions, should i reduce the max fuel range down to 4,000 nm to 4,500 nm to be in line with what the wikipedia data says?

in real life they reportedly stretched the range to something like double that by filling the ballast tanks with diesel instead of seawater and carrying extra fuel to extend the ranges. if you assume thats what they are doing then where i have the ranges set at now would be about right if you assume that.

so should i keep it where it is now and assume they are filling the ballast tanks with diesel instead of seawater or reduce it down to the 4,500 to 5,000 nm range? both could be viewed as realistic and unrealistic at the same time :hmmm:

[vanjast]

I think that if they were leaving from Pearl or California, they'd fill the ballast tanks as there would have been 'no need' to dive for most of the trip.

I'd imagine operating from the Philipine area they would not have loaded extra fuel, due to the dangers involved.

Maybe a compromise of 125% of wiki's standard fuel load might be OK, or maybe have 2 types of S-boats - Short and Long range
:D

[Rockin Robbins]

Wow! This is going to change the whole S-Boat game in SH4 to make us afraid to even SEE an enemy!:D That's pretty authentic from everything I can learn. The stock boats are shiny new right out of the factory. You should PRAY to live long enough to be issued a fleet boat. And that shouldn't be enough much of the time. Looks like you're there.

You think Ducimus gets treated like a punching bag? Are YOU ever going to hear the complaints!:rotfl2:You can tell 'em it's my fault. I'll take the heat.:eek:

[Webster]

I think that if they were leaving from Pearl or California, they'd fill the ballast tanks as there would have been 'no need' to dive for most of the trip.

I'd imagine operating from the Philipine area they would not have loaded extra fuel, due to the dangers involved.

Maybe a compromise of 125% of wiki's standard fuel load might be OK, or maybe have 2 types of S-boats - Short and Long range
:D


yea maybe i'll do the 2 version thing :hmmm:

im rethinking the textures i have thou so i might do some more work there.

i like the black look and would prefer using it but it doesnt show rust very well :damn:

last night i finished a version that would have a flank speed range of 1,700 nm and an ahead std range of 4,600 nm which i think is is right on the money with a worn out banged up 20 yr old boat.

Wow! This is going to change the whole S-Boat game in SH4 to make us afraid to even SEE an enemy!:D

but i thought you didnt want me to do this mod? :O:

[vanjast]

but i thought you didnt want me to do this mod? :O:

:D I think RR is starting to see the reasons for keeping submerged during the daytime... :yeah:

[Webster]

:D I think RR is starting to see the reasons for keeping submerged during the daytime... :yeah:


yea, he was getting spoiled in his unlimited edition s-boat lol

[Rockin Robbins]

Nope, I'll still stay with surfaced at all times unless aircraft spotted. Had mod soup in my GFO installation and all subs were ghost subs with no crew. Boat went zero knots at ahead standard! Restoring now and will get a report on the new mod. I didn't see any purpose in making a mod to reduce the range because range never enters into the tactical picture anyway in the Asiatic Fleet. But the addition of all the other stuff makes for a really great mod. Did I say
BUMP!?

[AVGWarhawk]

I got to toy with it this weekend and she's now a real struggle. I got to skulk around hoping my arse was not detected. I have read a few books on these subs and life was not easy with them. Webster helped that along with this bit of tweaking. It is a lot of fun and on the other foot it sucks to watch the fat one steam away as your s-class sputters along with hopes of winning the war or just being able to surface after submerging.....:o

[AVGWarhawk]

It is fun RR. Makes the s more of a stuggle as it should be.

[Rockin Robbins]

Confirmed, 150' is death! The depth gauge reassuringly tells you that 150' is just test depth, but it lies. This rustbucket will take you to Davey Jones' locker if you dare go to 150'.

Now that I'm suitably afraid of this old rustbucket, it's time to provoke my Convoy from Hell's Asashio....

I remember reading a U-Boat veteran's assessment of the U-Who's demise. "Poor sucker only had 80 meters of depth. He had no chance of escape." Or something to that effect. That's 240' or so: a full 90' more than I have! We're gonna win the war with just this one submarine!!!!!:D

[Webster]

so i take it since you guys havent found any issues (unintended issues that is) then i take it you feel this is ready to be released as is?

[vanjast]

Webster.. here's a preliminary mileage pic on a normal S-Type

http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Pics/S-18_42.JPG

[VonHesse]

@ Rockin Robbins - I've found with this mod that the best depth for escape and evasion is actually periscope depth. Sometimes, I'll even push it up to 41ft. 150ft max depth is practically nothing at all, and at periscope depth you stand a decent chance of getting ABOVE the sonar cone. Just mind that you don't get run over - you will die... every time :har:

@ WEBSTER - Good to go, boss. Works like a charm(IMHO). "Pucker" factor - Engaged:rotfl2:

:up:and:salute:

[Rockin Robbins]

so i take it since you guys havent found any issues (unintended issues that is) then i take it you feel this is ready to be released as is?

Not once I wiped out my entire directory, shuffled the MODS folder off to the desktop, restored from my pristeen installation, pointed MultiSH4 to the correct directory, copied the mods back in, installed the s-boat mod and my TMOkeys (can't stand the standard keyboard layout....if I could remember it) and fired it up.

Presto! Crewmembers! Very helpful for testing purposes...:O:

Love the mod. I agree that periscope depth is the place to be. No issues with whatever I've done. This thing is a great reflection of reality. It WILL BE FRUSTRATING to play and I doubt that people will leave it installed all the time. But I sure won't be alone in living with it for awhile to get the putrid taste of reality!:rotfl2:

The S-boat is now real. What a tragedy!:D

[keltos01]

MOD UPDATE:







dive speeds:

crash dive from 6 kts @ ahead std in stock was 20-22 seconds, my mod has it at 28-30 seconds

dive to periscope depth @ 10 kts in stock is 70 seconds to the level off point, my mod has it at 100 seconds




can you tell me how you compute those speeds and what items I guess in the sim file, must be changed and how ?

I'd like to check the dive speed on my IJN boats

thanks

keltos

[Webster]

can you tell me how you compute those speeds and what items I guess in the sim file, must be changed and how ?

I'd like to check the dive speed on my IJN boats

thanks

keltos

PM sent :up:

[keltos01]

waiting on your pm

thanks !

keltos