Has the simulation been improved at all?

[Kapitanleutnant]

So, just off the top of my head, here are some features that I think would constitute an improvement over the previous games:

1: Aircraft Carriers being able to launch their planes.

2: Surface vessels having realistic physics (mass and inertia) so that they no longer accelerate to 30 knots in 10 seconds and turn on a dime.

3: Destroyers and torpedo boats being able to fire torpedoes.

Have any of these things been implemented in SH5? I'm sure other people can think of their own examples of improvements that would make a real difference.

[Gunnodayak]

Stay chill, don't be a dreamer. The answer to all your questions is "no". But I understand you, you are probably thinking you are at subsim. I thought that myself as well a long time. Regarding SH5 forum, we both are now at subRPG or subshooter, if you like. If you want some trace of simulation, my advice is to visit SH III forums.

[elanaiba]

1. Aircraft carriers have launched aircraft since SH4, you just don't see that in 3D. No change there.

2. No big changes there until now

3. No, but AI submarines are now able to shoot torpedoes. Thats new.

[Drifter]

1. Aircraft carriers have launched aircraft since SH4, you just don't see that in 3D. No change there.

2. No big changes there until now

3. No, but AI submarines are now able to shoot torpedoes. Thats new.

Hello. In the other thread, could you please clarify on what can and cannot be scripted in Sh5. Thank you. :cool:

[vickers03]

2: Surface vessels having realistic physics (mass and inertia) so that they no longer accelerate to 30 knots in 10 seconds and turn on a dime.
i'm wondering why this hasn't been touched, there
are mods already for this in sh4.

[elanaiba]

I'm not the best person to answer those questions so I'll try to get some of the programming guys lurking around to answer those questions. I suspect they're already on it.

[elanaiba]

i'm wondering why this hasn't been touched, there
are mods already for this in sh4.

I mean touch them in a real, engine changing way.

[walsh2509]

2: Surface vessels having realistic physics (mass and inertia) so that they no longer accelerate to 30 knots in 10 seconds and turn on a dime.



That's the one I want to know about , in 3 and 4 all ships could turn through 10 deg in the same amount of seconds. There was a mod out but it I think was only for Navy ships not Merchants or only some Merchants.

[vickers03]

sounds like they have been improved and more is
planned:up:

[AVGWarhawk]

I would think just the over all availablity to walk the boat is an improvement! I looked at pictures of ports that look excellent. Word on the street is the campaign editor is the best seen yet. :up:

[Sailor Steve]

2: Surface vessels having realistic physics (mass and inertia) so that they no longer accelerate to 30 knots in 10 seconds and turn on a dime.
No one has mentioned that the u-boats in the game were also guilty of this same bad behaviour.



That's the one I want to know about , in 3 and 4 all ships could turn through 10 deg in the same amount of seconds. There was a mod out but it I think was only for Navy ships not Merchants or only some Merchants.
Well, a Fletcher class destroyer could accelerate to 15 knots in the first minute. The problem is that they do it in the game in just a couple of seconds.

As for turning, the old 1906 battleship HMS Dreadnought could turn 90 degrees in the first 60 seconds, finally settling into a full turn rate of about 140 degrees per minute. Of course she lost a lot of speed doing it, and could only do that when travelling at her full 21 knots.

A Fletcher class DD was one of the worst-turning destroyers of the war, having only one rudder, but a smaller destroyer or corvette could turn quite rapidly - in the vicinity of 270 degrees per minute at full speed. At 12 knots - the maximum available for good sonar work - the turn rate was much worse.

But you are correct where the merchants are concerned: They start, stop and turn much too quickly in the game.

I'm hoping SH5 is better, or at least modable.

[OakGroove]

In my book, a title deserving the prefix simulation, should have focus on faithfully recreating operation and function of RL Hardware and environments. Anything else is bonus. Visuals do contribute to realism, but are no substitute for simulation. In this regard there`s not much available to pass judgement on.

I would be interested in how sophisticated the "Vorhalterechner" (TDC) is recreated, as well as GHG (Sonar) operation and capabilities/ limitations. Optics, weapons and munitions - how do they rate when put against RL operation and data. Being the teeth, eyes and ears of a WW2 submarine, these should receive some extra love.

Just prior to release of "Operation Failpoint - Sleazy Dragon" by CM, an alleged former Dev made a forum entry about the title being more of a realistic "walking simulation", than a "milsim" (i do not like that word anyway). People were booing him, of course - but eventually it turned out he was on target with that assessment.

[msxyz]

Are thermal layers implemented correctly this time?

In SH3/SH4, no matter how deep I dived, the destryers were always able to pinpoint my location exactly through the sonar.

What about depth charges? They generate a thick cover of tiny bubbles that blinds the attackers for a reasonable time. Has this effect been implemented correctly?

All the time I played SH3 (and SH4) I had the impression the destroyers crews were watching my sub with a free mode camera :shifty:

[Sone7]

Are thermal layers implemented correctly this time?

In SH3/SH4, no matter how deep I dived, the destryers were always able to pinpoint my location exactly through the sonar.

What about depth charges? They generate a thick cover of tiny bubbles that blinds the attackers for a reasonable time. Has this effect been implemented correctly?

All the time I played SH3 (and SH4) I had the impression the destroyers crews were watching my sub with a free mode camera :shifty:

Exactly.. any news?
Also, do ships' engines disturb DDs' hydrophone? I mean, when they're between our sub and the escort, is it possible that Tommies loose track of you? Or - in the same fashion - do not spot a sub pursuing convoy?
And in the end: sinking ships; can u hear it via hydrophone?

[Sone7]

Any thoughts on that??

[msxyz]

Any thoughts on that??


Either people are too busy playing or they didn't notice any change from SH3/4, which is sad :down:

A submarine simulation should be almost like a stealth game. You pick up the right approach to your target evading the escort, fire your torpedoes and dive back to cover as fast as possible before the escorts throw depth charges at your last known position. Back in ww2 any sub crusing at slow speed under 120-150 meters of water was as good as inivisible. Sonar or not.

That's why the allies invested a lot in acustic torpedoes and buoys. That's why hunter ships covered search patterns for 48hrs around the area where a sub was last seen or detected.

The only way to catch them was when they had to surface for recharge and before they dived too deep...

[tater]

1. Aircraft carriers have launched aircraft since SH4, you just don't see that in 3D. No change there.

2. No big changes there until now

3. No, but AI submarines are now able to shoot torpedoes. Thats new.


Regarding number 1, not they don't conduct proper air operations. While I'm fine with AI aircraft on ships as an abstraction at some level, in SH4, it's best to literally turn that functionality off, or seriously curtail it.

The "airstike" paradigm in SH is such that once detected, the planes will swarm all over the place. In some limited circumstances---like escort carriers in the ATO---this behavior is not awful since the raison d'etre for CVEs in the ATO was to attack submarines. In general, however, ship based aircraft did NOT funtion with that as their sole purpose. So maybe 1-2 planes fly ASW watch, and if detected, virtually no more would be launched. Planes were instead (other than a few on CAP) held and launch ALL AT ONCE for an airstrike (rare).

As a result, you should at most see 1-2 planes above a CV, except during the CV's actual use as a CV, when virtually all planes would be aloft---but NONE would be attacking subs, since they'd be flying off to attack their REAL target far away. The CAP might still spot a sub (their eytes would be looking for PLANES, however, this would be VERY unlikely) in rare cases.

Bottom line is that for CVE escorted convoys, the SH airstrike paradigm is acceptable if properly modded, but for all other CV operations, it's best almost entirely removed for even a hint of realism.

Also, air o0ps are not at all realistic in general from an AI POV.

Having a couple planes aloft on ASW patrol or CAP is fine, but if the CV(E/L) needed to launch MORE planes, it would have to spot the new planes, then turn into the wind, and do the same to recover. That's a major failing, IMO.

With proper ship simulation, a CV caught launching or recovering aircraft would be steaming at a constant speed and NOT zig-zagging. An easy target. At virtually all other times it would be ZZing (as ALL ships should be doing (not independently, either, convoys should ZZ as a group)).

[Adlerson]

Are thermal layers implemented correctly this time?

In SH3/SH4, no matter how deep I dived, the destryers were always able to pinpoint my location exactly through the sonar.

What about depth charges? They generate a thick cover of tiny bubbles that blinds the attackers for a reasonable time. Has this effect been implemented correctly?

All the time I played SH3 (and SH4) I had the impression the destroyers crews were watching my sub with a free mode camera :shifty:

For me personally this has been the single biggest shortcoming in the previous games, and it's sad if it still hasn't been addressed.
Until we're given the real tools they had back then (Ie, being able to hide in and because of the aforementioned effects) SH will be nothing more than a glorified shoot'em'up.

[GermanGS]

The biggest realism changes (my oppinion)

1. After i have attacked an unprotected convoy, 6 destroyers showed up to aid the convoy, they came out of the port next to convoy, it took them 3 hours to travel, Also aircraft showed up, and were dropping bombs at me when i was at the perescope depth in very still clear water, that was not the same in the rough seas.

2. Pericope des not follow target.

3. I think that new sending to tdc info it more realistic.

4. Ships sink realistically, i have torped a merchant in its bow, which broke off, with 2 torps, then i shot anouther, next to the broken off bow, and it was still afloat. It had to take anouther torp in to the aft, so the air bouble would burst and ship finally sank. BTW It took 3 hours to sink.

5. Have to actually walk to stations adds realizm all on its own. i didntg think so in the begining, but after i played, i felt that that feature made the game more realistic.

[LiveGoat]

This is why I love Stormfly's extended free cam mod for SH3.


5. Have to actually walk to stations adds realizm all on its own. i didntg think so in the begining, but after i played, i felt that that feature made the game more realistic.

[FIREWALL]

Stay chill, don't be a dreamer. The answer to all your questions is "no". But I understand you, you are probably thinking you are at subsim. I thought that myself as well a long time. Regarding SH5 forum, we both are now at subRPG or subshooter, if you like. If you want some trace of simulation, my advice is to visit SH III forums.

Thank You Gunnodayak :salute: My sentiments exactly. :yep: