VIIA awful depth keeping!!

[gimpy117]

what? are my planesmen drunk? why is my boat constantly sinking? why does it travel with a nose up attitude at 120 meters?

anybody else notice this? i was at silent running around about 100 meters and i sunk to 120 before i had to order up 3 knots to rise :damn:

not to mention i get the old "sh4 wallow" where the submarine refuses to dive

[Blue-Casket]

Mine can't keep depth either.

[tater]

To be fair it would be a feature if magical depth-keeping was gone.

[oscar19681]

To be fair it would be a feature if magical depth-keeping was gone.

Yeah but to keep depth at 3 knots? unrealistic.

[mookiemookie]

To be fair it would be a feature if magical depth-keeping was gone.

I agree, but the problem here is past a certain point you have to travel at fairly high underwater speed in order to maintain depth.

[NZsnowman]

I believe the real Type VIIA was very hard to keep at depth. You have to keep the boat above 3.5 kt. I believe it was one of the reasons why they update to the B version

[ncorpuz34]

are you running Capthelm's Improved Atlantic Wave MOD by any chance?

[Ablemaster]

yeh i go past 100m and even flank speed [ i mean extreme speed ] dont hold it for me.

[alexradu89]

yep same here, but i find it actually fun seeing the submarine sink all by itself slowly at 0 knots (or small speed), but in reality it was probably the same thing, I mean come on, it shouldn't be easy to keep such a submarine leveled

[AVGWarhawk]

To be fair it would be a feature if magical depth-keeping was gone.


Yes or you planemen need more experience! :03:

[sergei]

I agree it's nice to see the end of the magic hovering stationary U Boat.
However it seems a touch too harsh at the moment.

Surely 2 knots of forward motion coupled with judicious use of the trim tanks should be enough to hold a given depth?

I'm not sure if AVG Warhawk was joking or serious, but I wouldn't be surprised if it does have something to do with crew morale or experience.

EDIT: By the way, I have been seeing this behavior in stock.

[gimpy117]

are you running Capthelm's Improved Atlantic Wave MOD by any chance?

I was i turned it off...ill check

[derblaueClaus]

Surely 2 knots of forward motion coupled with judicious use of the trim tanks should be enough to hold a given depth?

As far as I know they needed roughly a speed of 3 Knots to hold it on one level. But good to hear that feature made it in. Found it was too easy in the previous titels...order 0 Knots and you were not trackbleany more.

[sergei]

As far as I know they needed roughly a speed of 3 Knots to hold it on one level.

OK, I stand corrected derblaueClaus. Thanks for the info :up:
That's about right then, because I find 3 knots is about what I need to maintain a level depth.

[AVGWarhawk]

I agree it's nice to see the end of the magic hovering stationary U Boat.
However it seems a touch too harsh at the moment.

Surely 2 knots of forward motion coupled with judicious use of the trim tanks should be enough to hold a given depth?

I'm not sure if AVG Warhawk was joking or serious, but I wouldn't be surprised if it does have something to do with crew morale or experience.



I believe it does. For example...my hydrophone guy has no experience. He does not listen. When asked he says he can not do that right now! WTH? I'm told he needs more points to add for experience.

[Will-Rommel]

It's very annoying that the boat sink like a rock this way.

[Faamecanic]

Wait.... saying a submarine cannot stay afloat unless it is doing 3.5 kts is stupid.... I doubt very seriously all these subs are doing 3.5 kts

http://blog.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/graphics/uboat_copyright_echo.jpg

Or these...
http://www.uboataces.com/images/bunker-st-nazaire.jpg

EDIT: Oh I see...you guys are already at depth not on the surface :)

But even submerged even all but the most incompetent planeman/engineer could keep a steady trim on the U-boat. If you read "Iron coffins" THAT is the example of an incompetent engineer near the end of the war....

[Ducimus]

/popcorn.

You guys don't know the half of it yet. Go go gadget legacy issues introduced with SH4.

Go ahead and take a 7c to a shad over 200 meters, and tell about the depth keeping. Hell, use the uboat tweaks i posted a few days ago, thati'll increase your crush depth so you can really see the problem. Meanwhile, I'll be sitting right here with my popcorn, waiting for the fireworks to go off.

[Will-Rommel]

/popcorn.

You guys don't know the half of it yet. Go go gadget legacy issues introduced with SH4.

Go ahead and take a 7c to a shad over 200 meters, and tell about the depth keeping. Hell, use the uboat tweaks i posted a few days ago, thati'll increase your crush depth so you can really see the problem. Meanwhile, I'll be sitting right here with my popcorn, waiting for the fireworks to go off.

I don't know what this mean but it sure sounds pissing. :stare:

[Faamecanic]

LOL Duc...

Nothing like not fixing issues borne from SH3 even.... LMAO.

[derblaueClaus]

But even submerged even all but the most incompetent planeman/engineer could keep a steady trim on the U-boat. If you read "Iron coffins" THAT is the example of an incompetent engineer near the end of the war....
Your're right about the surface. That was not the problem.
But keep the boat steady underwater was very difficult. In theory it was absolutly possible to keep the boat in ine depth even without making one knot. But in reality things look different. Every shift of weight, from a fired torpedo to man who changes his position inside the boat had to be exactly counterflooded by the LI. Just imagine the boat balancing on one of your fingertips. That ist the behaviour of an U-Boat underwater. One little divergense in you calculated flooding and the boat wents down or goes up. Sure, the Li did that exact calculation at the beginning of every day, factoring the use of diesel, water etc. into this. (Well exact is the wrong word here. Should be as exact as it was possible ;) ) Wich become quite complicated if you think about that diesel and drinking-water has another density that the salt-water.Not to mention food and other things used up. But when the day went on more of it was used of course. And there maybe they shot some torpedes before diving. Considerating that exact calculation of the quantity of salt-water you need to flood aganist in seconds is just impossible. How did they keep the boat in balance then ? Right, guessing and planesmen. But to get the planes working you need speed. The more inaccurate your calculation is, the more you need. So if you had an good LI and you had to dive right after he got his calculation finished maybe then it would have been possible to steady the boat with one knot. Maybe.....

[Bryll]

My issues with this "feature", if it is one, is that even if the boat was very difficult to keep trim, I'd imagine the planesman and the other guys would still correct it to match what the Captain ordered.

So instead of just constantly sinking to crush depth without so much as 'boo', they'd be correcting - and you'd simply get imprecise depth (planing up and down to keep within 5M or so of the target depth).

[jdkbph]

Is there no "difficulty setting" which would allow you to turn off the crew moral or skill leveling features

JD

[Frederf]

Precise depthkeeping like holding periscope depth at 0 kts? Agreed that is realistically not going to happen. You typically run periscope depth as slightly heavy so that you have to plane up to your intended depth. This way in case of any mistake or lack of speed you drop instead of broach.

However gross depthkeeping in a +/-20m window? That should be accomplished ably by buoyancy and ballast control only. It might be messy, taking a lot of compressed air and bouncing up and down as the crew balances and adjusts constantly but runaway uncontrollable sinking? Please.

Why would more speed for planing be required as depth increases? I know the hull contracts lowering buoyancy but that's why the crew compensates with a little more positive buoyancy. It looks like a simple model coded by UBI to make reasonable near-surface behavior but no one bothered to test to see the behavior become ridiculous as depth increases.

[Ducimus]

It looks like a simple model coded by UBI to make reasonable near-surface behavior but no one bothered to test to see the behavior become ridiculous as depth increases.

http://members.arstechnica.com/x/freeman/homer-eating-popcorn-small-c7873.jpg

Ohh, i think he noticed!

Acutally though, from what i noticed its fine tell around 200 meters. I'ts like the game reachs a cutoff point and goes, "Ok tahts it, i give up on trim" Although i didn't test the 7A. In SH4, this cutoff point was 600 feet, or 183 meters. Few noticed it back then, but i did when testing thick skinned boats like the balao or tench class.

I was working on it (http://forum.kickinbak.com/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=1885) for a little while, but gave up on it. This issuue came up in Sh4, and wasn't REALLY noticed since players would rarely be forced to go that deep. I did however, and i knew any uboat mod would have to face it sooner or later. I think the devs knew about it because in the CFG file they have max depth listed as 200 meters accross all boats except the 7B. For some reason that one was all different.

Long story short, if this bug is indeed behaving how i think it is (IE. like it did in SH4, you'd better hope not), your max depth is going to be limited to 200 meters or your going to lose control of the boat. You'll have 3 options. Flank speed, blow ballast, or crush.

[Frederf]

If their some coefficient for how much buoyancy is lost per depth unit? Is this hardcoded behavior? This isn't the UBI devs using the "Type 21" compartment theft workaround that modders first thought up is it?

I mean, what's proper behavior if you were writing the code from scratch? Would there be a static negative buoyancy fraction with crew-skill-based random fluctuation or God-forbid, player control?

[Nufsed]

http://members.arstechnica.com/x/freeman/homer-eating-popcorn-small-c7873.jpg

Ohh, i think he noticed!


Acutally though, from what i noticed its fine tell around 200 meters. I'ts like the game reachs a cutoff point and goes, "Ok tahts it, i give up on trim" Although i didn't test the 7A. In SH4, this cutoff point was 600 feet, or 183 meters. Few noticed it back then, but i did when testing thick skinned boats like the balao or tench class.

I was working on it (http://forum.kickinbak.com/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=1885) for a little while, but gave up on it. This issuue came up in Sh4, and wasn't REALLY noticed since players would rarely be forced to go that deep. I did however, and i knew any uboat mod would have to face it sooner or later. I think the devs knew about it because in the CFG file they have max depth listed as 200 meters accross all boats except the 7B. For some reason that one was all different.

Long story short, if this bug is indeed behaving how i think it is (IE. like it did in SH4, you'd better hope not), your max depth is going to be limited to 200 meters or your going to lose control of the boat. You'll have 3 options. Flank speed, blow ballast, or crush.

Hi Ducimas, it looks like it's the later, I had to blow balast and go to flank speed, regained control at about 4o metres. I will say it makes dodging destroyers "much" more interesting i.e. you can't just leave the boat at 150 metres and go off to make a cup of tea!!:arrgh!:

[Gilbou]

The deeper you go, the most weight is acting on the submarine since you have water not only all around but pressing from all above. As you go deeper, you must increasing buoyancy to control rate of descend.

There is limit. Once tanks are filled with air and it is not enough to rise, all you can do to rise is use diving planes and crank up engines.

Most subs never go below the point where with ballasts fill of air they need to use engines to go up.

All modern subs use engines and dive planes with neutral buoyancy to rise and dive. Tanks are only used for emergency and when very close to periscope or surface. The ship is brought to level then tanks are used.