[WIP] IRAI (Intelligent Random AI)

[volodya61]

:yep:

Running our AA guns test mission with IRAI 0.39, the Hurricane never dropped its bombs, even if heavily damaged. Only once, when it was flying at low altitude directly over the sub (a failed kamikaze attack?), something fell down in the water, not far from us. But I suspect that it was just debris, because the plane had just been hit, and the sub didn't suffer any damage. :hmm2:
So, in the custom mission and in the campaign the results were the same..
I hope TDW will read these messages :salute:

[gap]

So, in the custom mission and in the campaign the results were the same..
I hope TDW will read these messages :salute:

We will remind him of it, when we will see him online ;)

[7thSeal]

During campaign I got strafed on two separate occasions but never bombed. I do notice that once I dive and they loose contact they go about their merry way and not circle until they run out of fuel. Positive reaction there.

One odd thing I noticed is that when I attacked a convoy of nine which had a single escort. I sunk one and blew the prop off another and usually the convoy would just leave the disabled behind. But with this attack they would begin to leave but then turn around and come back to the disabled ship.

They kept repeating this while the destroyer was looking for me and even he eventually just stopped and remained in one spot. I kept picking off the ships as they would return until I eventually ran out of torpedoes. I waited for them to leave so I could surface and finish off the disabled ship with deck gun. Six hours later they were still running around in circles and returning to the ship while the destroyer remained idle.

I eventually left the area to go refit.

[V13dweller]

What you ask can be probably done by increasing AI hydrophone's MinElevation. :yep:
For most (or all) of the hydrophones it is set to 80 deg. Changing this setting to 85-90 deg should be enough to make hydrophones deaf against surfaced submarines. The only downside is that they probably wouldn't pick surface targets either. In order to make ships detectable on hydrophone by other ships, we should decrease the height of their hyd soundsource :hmm2:How exactly, can I do this?

[gap]

How exactly, can I do this?


Open AI_Sensors.GR2 in Goblin.
Merge AI_Sensors.sim.
Look for the available hydrophones. Expanding any obj_Sensor controller you will easily recognise what kind of sensors it belongs to, from its 'Type' property. In our case it must be '2- HYDROPHONE'
Change MinElevation from 80 to 90


By doing so, you will make AI hydrophones deaf to any unit whose detectable soundsource is shallower than their own depth, usually between 3 and 5 m for destroyers.

[V13dweller]

Ugh, where is the Ai sensor.sim? I typed in th file name, but I get nothing.

[gap]

Ugh, where is the Ai sensor.sim? I typed in th file name, but I get nothing.

data/Library

AI_Sensors with the underscore :03:

[V13dweller]

Ok, thanks.

[redline202]

Hello all.

Just want to say thanks to TDW for all the hard work here, and the others!

However, here is my problem. Ships are blowing their butts off with DC and they are loving it, especially in rough sea :) (IRAI_0_0_39_ByTheDarkWraith)
So far i have figure out that DC_barrels.ZON, MaxRadius is the one to blame.
Everything above 10, and sooner or later they gonna start popping by DC.
With MaxRadius of 10 or less they are good, but there is no challenge at all...
With that setting ... a ship need to trow a DC right into me to get some damage, and damage is really weird...
I have replaced their DC's with a DCThrower strategy in Ship-Weapons.aix.
It's working, but it's not a real thing...:/\\!!

Has anyone got an idea how a ship can be immune to DC splash but not to a torpedoes?.
Sorry if my english is bad

Thanks!

[Sartoris]

Hello all.

Just want to say thanks to TDW for all the hard work here, and the others!

However, here is my problem. Ships are blowing their butts off with DC and they are loving it, especially in rough sea :) (IRAI_0_0_39_ByTheDarkWraith)
So far i have figure out that DC_barrels.ZON, MaxRadius is the one to blame.
Everything above 10, and sooner or later they gonna start popping by DC.
With MaxRadius of 10 or less they are good, but there is no challenge at all...
With that setting ... a ship need to trow a DC right into me to get some damage, and damage is really weird...
I have replaced their DC's with a DCThrower strategy in Ship-Weapons.aix.
It's working, but it's not a real thing...:/\\!!

Has anyone got an idea how a ship can be immune to DC splash but not to a torpedoes?.
Sorry if my english is bad

Thanks!

I agree with this, the destroyers get hurt by DCs very often, and it completely ruins the challenge. Whenever I look above the water, I see destroyers burning as they hunt for me. It's ridiculous.

[redline202]

I agree with this, the destroyers get hurt by DCs very often, and it completely ruins the challenge. Whenever I look above the water, I see destroyers burning as they hunt for me. It's ridiculous.

Try to set DC_barrels.ZON MinRadius = 5 and MaxRadius = 10.
Destroyers should never get damaged by their own DC now.
But they will need to trow a DC right on top of you to do some minimal damage,
not to mention you can totally relax under 165 meters below.
No real challenge there, at least not for me :arrgh!:

I would very much like to hear TDWs opinion about this problem.
Thanks!

[jensen.dkk]

if i enable irai 0039, my game closes everytime a plane strafes me. is this a known thing ? and how do i fix it ?

[Rongel]

This might be discussed earlier, but here goes anyway...

When I attack a convoy and they spot me or are alerted by a torpedo explosion, all the ships start to make evasive manuevers and slow down to 5 knots. But by slowing down, they are much more easier targets, and if there is no escorts, I can spend the day by picking them up with like flowers in a meadow (:D). Common sense says that the ships would hit full speed and get away from the danger. What was the historical method in these situations?

So is it possible to get the ships increase speed rather than slow down? Is there a technical restriction with this, some hard coded weird algorithm, or is this behaviour historically accurate?

[gap]

So is it possible to get the ships increase speed rather than slow down? Is there a technical restriction with this, some hard coded weird algorithm, or is this behaviour historically accurate?

Nice point :yep:

Personally I would expect a merchant ship to suddenly decrease her speed only after spotting a torpedo which presumably will hit her near the bow. In any other case max speed and frequent course changes seem to me a better startegy.

[vlad29]

The task was also to keep on the convoy order, and thus the speed of individual ship was limited by order speed. The ship lines of the order were making antisub maneuvering, but the general bearing (course) of the order was keeping the same. Thats all of tactics of merchants - all as one, all 'sheeps' together, those who get back and lost - often became the victims of 'wolves' and 'condors'.:salute:

[volodya61]

Hi TheDarkWraith!

I see you're 'almost' online and I decide to remind you about couple of issues..

With the new version (0.39) planes became absolutely safe.. they don't drop bombs.. they almost no shoot.. and I never seen this
Airplanes will also call off the fight if they incur too much damage. If damage is too great to an airplane they will kamikaze.
as you mentioned in the first post..

also please take a look at the redline202's posts and Rongel's post above..

Thank you :salute:

[gap]

With the new version (0.39) planes became absolutely safe.. they don't drop bombs.. they almost no shoot.. and I never seen this
as you mentioned in the first post..


yes please! :)


also please take a look at the redline202's posts and Rongel's post above..

as for redline202's post, though not strictly related with guns, I think this is something we could deal with in our Histrorical Guns Specs mod :yep:

[THE_MASK]

The couple of planes i have encountered in the campaign so far with the latest IRAI have done a couple of recon flights over my sub . Then come in on a gun run using there cannons .

[redline202]

yes please! :)



as for redline202's post, though not strictly related with guns, I think this is something we could deal with in our Histrorical Guns Specs mod :yep:

Hi gap, im not sure what do you mean by saying "I think this is something we could deal with in our Histrorical Guns Specs mod"?
I have that great mod but it doesn't help regarding problem with escorts taking damage by DCs.
Thanks for looking into this matter.

Anyway i have solved that problem.
But i think it's not much realistic...regarding escorts armor and i had to change torpedo and deck gun damage too..but all in all it's working. :yep:
Maybe sometimes game play needs to be little bit above realism especially in SH5 :)

[gap]

Hi gap, im not sure what do you mean by saying "I think this is something we could deal with in our Histrorical Guns Specs mod"?
I have that great mod but it doesn't help regarding problem with escorts taking damage by DCs.
Thanks for looking into this matter.

Anyway i have solved that problem.
But i think it's not much realistic...regarding escorts armor and i had to change torpedo and deck gun damage too..but all in all it's working. :yep:
Maybe sometimes game play needs to be little bit above realism especially in SH5 :)

Hi redline

I was thinking of playing with detroyer's armor, just as you did.

But I had in mind also DC_Barrels.zon settings and detonate_depth, explosion_range and explosion_impulse settings in DC_barrels.sim file.

It is a matter of finding a good balance among them. Nothing to do with IRAI :yep:

[TheDarkWraith]

IRAI changed all those. The stock DCs were pathetic.

Playing with armor will screw with torpedo impacts and magnetic detonations and the damage from them.

[gap]

IRAI changed all those. The stock DCs were pathetic.

I ignored it. In this case you might want to look in the problem reported redline...

Playing with armor will screw with torpedo impacts and magnetic detonations and the damage from them.

Indeed, ship armors and damages done by torpedoes/depth charges/bombs/shells should be addressed organically, and preferably with the same mod. :yep:

[GT182]

Personally I would expect a merchant ship to suddenly decrease her speed only after spotting a torpedo which presumably will hit her near the bow. In any other case max speed and frequent course changes seem to me a better startegy.

The escorts will reduce their speed if they detect a torpedo coming at them. So don't mess with that in any changes you make, if it's possible.

For the merchants, max speed and frequent course changes would be a better startegy. But only if you can keep them from running into one another. That used to happened in SH3 a lot.

[TheDarkWraith]

The escorts will reduce their speed if they detect a torpedo coming at them. So don't mess with that in any changes you make, if it's possible.

For the merchants, max speed and frequent course changes would be a better startegy. But only if you can keep them from running into one another. That used to happened in SH3 a lot.

We have no control over how the AI uses evasive maneuvers when a torpedo is spotted. There is one function that takes care of it and I have no control over it :nope: Same thing with the AI collision detection. No control.

[ologuy]

The main file seems to be no longer downloadable.

[THE_MASK]

Link on first page no longer available . Unable to download this mod .

[volodya61]

Link on first page no longer available . Unable to download this mod .

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2015300&postcount=9774

[Trevally.]

DOWNLOAD (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=3866)

:up:

[Gungho]

I'm not sure if it was this mod, or a combo of it and OHII lite, but I watched a destroyer v destroyer encounter off Brest last night. 5 UK vs 2 German. Lots of dodging and weaving, and combined with Sobers smokescreen mod on the wrecks, very pretty.

Also enjoyed some 'entertaining' attacks from both aircraft and escorts...they be a bit more cunning and nasty in my game now.

Thanks muchly...

[sidslotm]

Thanks TDW for another super mod, I recon we owe you a night out :up: well done.

[keysersoze]

TDW,

I have been collecting technical information for gap's historical gun specs. mod and have stumbled across some good diagrams and descriptions of destroyer depth charge practices. In particular, I have information about the procedure/timing involved in dropping five, ten, and fourteen depth charge patterns with stern rails and K-guns.

Would it be possible to mod destroyers to drop depth charges in a pre-set pattern? Secondly, would it be possible to drop different types of depth charges (with different properties like sink rate, lethality radius, etc) from the same destroyer? This last part would be necessary for the larger patterns, since they used a combination of Mk. VIIs (3 m/sec sink rate) and Mk. VII Heavies (5.1 m/sec sink rate) to create a three dimensional, diamond-shaped kill zone.

To give you an idea what I mean, here is a standard timing sequence for a ten depth charge pattern from one source:

1 x Mk. VII Heavy from stern rails
- 3 second pause -
2 x Mk. VII Heavy from forward throwers, 1 x Mk. VII from stern rails
- 8 second pause -
2 x Mk. VII from aft throwers, 1 x Mk. VII Heavy from stern rails
- pause [still trying to work out exactly how long for this last pause] -
1 x Mk. VII Heavy and 2 x Mk. VII from stern rails

Do you think this sort of thing would be possible and worth looking into?

Thanks for any help you can provide.

[TheDarkWraith]

TDW,

I have been collecting technical information for gap's historical gun specs. mod and have stumbled across some good diagrams and descriptions of destroyer depth charge practices. In particular, I have information about the procedure/timing involved in dropping five, ten, and fourteen depth charge patterns with stern rails and K-guns.

Would it be possible to mod destroyers to drop depth charges in a pre-set pattern? Secondly, would it be possible to drop different types of depth charges (with different properties like sink rate, lethality radius, etc) from the same destroyer? This last part would be necessary for the larger patterns, since they used a combination of Mk. VIIs (3 m/sec sink rate) and Mk. VII Heavies (5.1 m/sec sink rate) to create a three dimensional, diamond-shaped kill zone.

To give you an idea what I mean, here is a standard timing sequence for a ten depth charge pattern from one source:

1 x Mk. VII Heavy from stern rails
- 3 second pause -
2 x Mk. VII Heavy from forward throwers, 1 x Mk. VII from stern rails
- 8 second pause -
2 x Mk. VII from aft throwers, 1 x Mk. VII Heavy from stern rails
- pause [still trying to work out exactly how long for this last pause] -
1 x Mk. VII Heavy and 2 x Mk. VII from stern rails

Do you think this sort of thing would be possible and worth looking into?

Thanks for any help you can provide.

The only thing we can do when it comes to firing DCs it to tell the game start firing DC throwers and/or start dropping DCs. That's it. Well we can also tell them to stop firing them also. I can control what distance from the target they start and stop firing them (can be different for each - DC thrower and DC).

As far as adding new DCs that would be very easy to do. Just simply make new ones in the associated files. In order to throw a mix you would need to add new DC nodes to the ship so that it has different kinds of DCs.

[gap]

As far as adding new DCs that would be very easy to do. Just simply make new ones in the associated files.

Not that simple, because (unlike shells) dc barrels are GR2 objects. Until when your editor will be able to add new objects into GR2 files, I think we are left with the two options of duplicating the existing DC_barrels.GR2, or using dat format DC barrels from SHIII. I hope that at least one of these methods can work.


In order to throw a mix you would need to add new DC nodes to the ship so that it has different kinds of DCs.

This is not the original idea by keysersoze, if I got it correctly. I think what he was looking to achieve is the same DC throwers/rack to use intelligently different DC models.
As far I can see from their controller, assigning each thrower more than one type of ammo is feasible. Too bad, based on your answers, the AI wouldn't manage them as desired :-?

[keysersoze]

The only thing we can do when it comes to firing DCs it to tell the game start firing DC throwers and/or start dropping DCs. That's it. Well we can also tell them to stop firing them also. I can control what distance from the target they start and stop firing them (can be different for each - DC thrower and DC).

Thanks for the response. Would it be possible to use a series of alternating start/stop commands to simulate a pattern? For example, having the destroyer start dropping from stern racks, then stop, then start shooting DCs from throwers, then stop, then back to stern racks, etc.

I'm sure this is much more complicated than it sounds, if not impossible, but I figured I may as well ask.

[keysersoze]

This is not the original idea by keysersoze, if I got it correctly. I think what he was looking to achieve is the same DC throwers/rack to use intelligently different DC models.
As far I can see from their controller, assigning each thrower more than one type of ammo is feasible. Too bad, based on your answers, the AI wouldn't manage them as desired :-?

Yep, this is what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear in my original post.

[gap]

Yep, this is what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear in my original post.

You weren't: I was just summing up, and I started my sentence with a "if I got it correctly" just in case I had missed anything (which often happens) :)

[Troutish]

I have a question about this:

"NOTE: because of the new features of fatigue and crew watch rotations for the ship AI it is recommended to leave all the difficulty levels at 1.0
"

does this mean the campaign difficulty? should it be set to low? this setting unfortunately means all contacts appear on the nav map

Troutish

[gap]

does this mean the campaign difficulty? should it be set to low? this setting unfortunately means all contacts appear on the nav map

No, this is relative to IRAI own settings. Open data\Scripts\AI\init.aix in notepad if, despite TDW's advise, you want to edit them. :03:

[Fifi]

this setting unfortunately means all contacts appear on the nav map


Hi Troutish,
No nothing to do with contacts displayed on map.
Difficulty settings you're talking about are AI reaction related only.
To get rid of map contacts, or you check this option in game option tab, or you desable visual/hydro/radar contacts in TAI/nav map options, or you use TDW add-on mods to tweek them as you desire...

Difficulty settings you're refering can be lowered a bit. Because ennemy AI destroyers are way too accurate imo, and by this way unbeatable and unescapable (don't even know if those are english words :haha:)
I found my below settings more playable (furthermore at war begining):

################## Difficulty parameters ###########
# Note: difficulty is in range 0.0 - 1.0 with 0.0 being no difficulty (sensor doesn't exist)
# for non-merchants
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.85;
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;
HYDROPHONE_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.60;
HYDROPHONE_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 0.85;
RADAR_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.85;
RADAR_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;
SONAR_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.60;
SONAR_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 0.85;

[Troutish]

so i can just edit these in the cfg file, right?


Hi Troutish,
No nothing to do with contacts displayed on map.
Difficulty settings you're talking about are AI reaction related only.
To get rid of map contacts, or you check this option in game option tab, or you desable visual/hydro/radar contacts in TAI/nav map options, or you use TDW add-on mods to tweek them as you desire...

Difficulty settings you're refering can be lowered a bit. Because ennemy AI destroyers are way too accurate imo, and by this way unbeatable and unescapable (don't even know if those are english words :haha:)
I found my below settings more playable (furthermore at war begining):

################## Difficulty parameters ###########
# Note: difficulty is in range 0.0 - 1.0 with 0.0 being no difficulty (sensor doesn't exist)
# for non-merchants
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.85;
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;
HYDROPHONE_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.60;
HYDROPHONE_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 0.85;
RADAR_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.85;
RADAR_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;
SONAR_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.60;
SONAR_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 0.85;

[Troutish]

Having read a fair bit about uboat tactics, im suprised that its so hard in SH5 to do surface attacks without being spotted. i know about controlling my speed and profile, but i would like to make surface attacks, and avoiding escorts on the surface (pre radar) easier.

these are the values I edit, right?

VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.85;
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;

and they only would effect merchants and escorts, NOT my AI crews ability to spot surface contacts, right? and I lower the numbers, right?

thanks

[TheDarkWraith]

Having read a fair bit about uboat tactics, im suprised that its so hard in SH5 to do surface attacks without being spotted. i know about controlling my speed and profile, but i would like to make surface attacks, and avoiding escorts on the surface (pre radar) easier.

these are the values I edit, right?

VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.85;
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;

and they only would effect merchants and escorts, NOT my AI crews ability to spot surface contacts, right? and I lower the numbers, right?

thanks


There are seperate difficulty settings for merchant and warships. You need to adjust both of those values for each one. Lower numbers means they have a harder time detecting you.

Your AI crews ability to spot surface contacts will not be affected by these changes.

[Troutish]

Thanks!

Love your mods btw.

One more question, im on an early war patrol (spring 1940), ive completed my mission and sunk two ships. im only 1 week on patrol and yet crew morale is half or lower! I assume (like in the old SH days) that this hurts performance. Im especially concerned about the watch crew, since even on 64tc some enemy ships have gotten REAL close and ive had no warning.

are these values configuralbe?

[TheDarkWraith]

Thanks!

Love your mods btw.

One more question, im on an early war patrol (spring 1940), ive completed my mission and sunk two ships. im only 1 week on patrol and yet crew morale is half or lower! I assume (like in the old SH days) that this hurts performance. Im especially concerned about the watch crew, since even on 64tc some enemy ships have gotten REAL close and ive had no warning.

are these values configuralbe?

IRAI has no control over your crew.

Do you have my crew wakeup patch installed (Generic patcher app)?

[gap]

Hi TDW, can you please have a look at this issue regarding the latest IRAI version?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2014362&postcount=2016

When you get time for it, indeed. I remind you of it because apparently you haven't ever noticed our reports on this matter. An since we are at it... what about keysersoze's question at post #2034? :03:

:salute:

[Troutish]

no, where do i get it and what does it do? is there a problem with "sleeping" crew?

IRAI has no control over your crew.

Do you have my crew wakeup patch installed (Generic patcher app)?

[Troutish]

wait, I have your patcher app 10 74 0 but i cant see what is in it to wake up crew

no, where do i get it and what does it do? is there a problem with "sleeping" crew?

[Troutish]

Hey guys,

how would I modify this file to increase my crews ability to see ships at night and in fog?

----------------

; Edited by TheDarkWraith for IRAI_0_0_39
; Edited on 1/20/2013 @ 1700

;Submarine player sensors detection parameters
[SensorParameters]
;Visual.
Visual range factor=0.30 ;[>=0] was 0.5, decreased by 25%
Visual fog factor=0.75 ;[>=0]
Visual light factor=1 ;[>=0]
Visual waves factor=0.65 ;[>=0] was 0.8, decreased by 25%
Visual speed factor=0 ;[>=0]
Visual aspect=0.9 ;[>=0]
Visual enemy speed=0.2 ;[>=0]
Visual noise factor=0 ;[>=0]
Visual sensor height factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Visual already tracking modifier=600 ;[detection probability modifier], most accurate, once a contact is detected it will lose it very hard
Visual decay time=250 ;[>0] already tracking bonus decay, in seconds
Visual uses crew efficiency=false ;[true or false]

[gap]

Hey guys,

how would I modify this file to increase my crews ability to see ships at night and in fog?

----------------

; Edited by TheDarkWraith for IRAI_0_0_39
; Edited on 1/20/2013 @ 1700

;Submarine player sensors detection parameters
[SensorParameters]
;Visual.
Visual range factor=0.30 ;[>=0] was 0.5, decreased by 25%
Visual fog factor=0.75 ;[>=0]
Visual light factor=1 ;[>=0]
Visual waves factor=0.65 ;[>=0] was 0.8, decreased by 25%
Visual speed factor=0 ;[>=0]
Visual aspect=0.9 ;[>=0]
Visual enemy speed=0.2 ;[>=0]
Visual noise factor=0 ;[>=0]
Visual sensor height factor=0.5 ;[>=0]
Visual already tracking modifier=600 ;[detection probability modifier], most accurate, once a contact is detected it will lose it very hard
Visual decay time=250 ;[>0] already tracking bonus decay, in seconds
Visual uses crew efficiency=false ;[true or false]

Never messed with those parameters, but I would guess that decreasing 'Visual fog factor' and 'Visual light factor' should make the trick :hmm2:

[V13dweller]

I am very glad about this new patch about the Starshells, Because before, I manually deleted the Starshell Ammunition from the ships guns individually.

[gap]

Yesterday I have finally experienced a bomb dropping using IRAI v 0.0.39. This denies my suspects that the latest IRAI version could prevent planes from using their bomb loadouts. Still, the frequency of bomb attacks is extremely reduced, compared to the previous versions. :hmm2:

[Trevally.]

Yesterday I have finally experienced a bomb dropping using IRAI v 0.0.39. This denies my suspects that the latest IRAI version could prevent planes from using their bomb loadouts. Still, the frequency of bomb attacks is extremely reduced, compared to the previous versions. :hmm2:

Was the aeroplane who tried to kill you from an airport or spawned by mission script:hmmm:

[gap]

Was the aeroplane who tried to kill you from an airport or spawned by mission script:hmmm:

single mission :yep:

the airplane was an Hurricane Mk.I with crew rating set to 2 (it is competent, IIRC)

PS: I will try and see if changing crew rating will make any difference

[finchOU]

Don't know if this has been asked but ....can an escort not see you but see your wake/where you've been? I had this escort seemingly know where I was even tho he didn't engage me (at least at first).....I was at full flank tail on about 30 degrees off his bow (AOB) to the right. I kept checking right to try and get out of his path....but he seemingly he keeps checking with me like he can see my path I cut through the water......but again he doesn't engage me until pretty close (inside) 1500 meters.

So is this correct? and if so....do I need to slow down = less wake/path when I check turn? Thought this was interesting!

[Captain73]

Hi All :salute:
British driver refuses to drop bombs! What's the problem?
(mod IRAI_0_0_39_ByTheDarkWraith)
I went back to IRAI_0_0_37_ByTheDarkWraith!

http://i5.pixs.ru/thumbs/9/0/3/4jpg812891_7191807_7578903.jpg (http://pixs.ru/showimage/4jpg812891_7191807_7578903.jpg)

http://i5.pixs.ru/thumbs/9/8/8/5jpg153550_2087442_7578988.jpg (http://pixs.ru/showimage/5jpg153550_2087442_7578988.jpg)

http://i5.pixs.ru/thumbs/9/9/7/6jpg629548_4795047_7578997.jpg (http://pixs.ru/showimage/6jpg629548_4795047_7578997.jpg)

[Captain73]

Here's more .... Planes fly past! :o

http://i5.pixs.ru/thumbs/6/0/6/SH5Img2013_2861347_7677606.jpg (http://pixs.ru/showimage/SH5Img2013_2861347_7677606.jpg)

[SkyBaron]

Would it be possible to script destroyers to accelerate before dropping DCs so they don't get their sterns blown up? This was standard behavior in SH3/4 and doesn't seem to be present in SH5.

[Mikemike47]

Would it be possible to script destroyers to accelerate before dropping DCs so they don't get their sterns blown up? This was standard behavior in SH3/4 and doesn't seem to be present in SH5.

Someone released a mod to stop that in the last few days. Sorry I do not remember the name or time to research it now. Search for destroyer, DC or depth charge. The author mentioned blast radius of 50 and 60.

Destroyers destroying themselves (Or something like that) (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203425)

V13dweller's Depth charge range fix download link (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=4033)

[SkyBaron]

Someone released a mod to stop that in the last few days. Sorry I do not remember the name or time to research it now. Search for destroyer, DC or depth charge. The author mentioned blast radius of 50 and 60.

Hi Mikemike47, yes I tried that mod, it helps but the problem is still happening. Mainly when the sub is not very deep, since the DD doesn't accelerates when dropping DCs there's no time for it to get far from the explosion. And to add insult to injury, :/\\!! after the DD is damaged it keeps going in a straight line dropping DCs like crazy. It seems the damages mess up its sensors or something.

[Cybermat47]

Just wondering, would it be possible to actually give enemy submarines some intelligence? Because they're no different from stock.

[gap]

Just wondering, would it be possible to actually give enemy submarines some intelligence? Because they're no different from stock.

:o

Have you tested sub AI with and without IRAI? Many are convinced of the contrary.

As a matter of fact IRAI has greatly inproved sub's intelligence, but you need to understand that there are limits to what can be done with it. Look at IRAI's changelog in the first page, to see what is possible to do with it and what not, and which improvements over stock sub behaviour have been already achieved by TDW. :03:

[volodya61]

Just tested torpedoes at Scapa and again noticed one thing -

Why have battleships able to fire at a sub when their status - docked?
Why can't destroyers do the same when docked? What's the difference?
When destroyer is docked and sub is surfaced I'm able to shoot it out of the deck-gun, AA guns.. even of the personal captain's Lyuger-Parabellum.. :nope:
Sometimes it's annoying.. would be fine to solve this issue..

[Cybermat47]

:o

Have you tested sub AI with and without IRAI? Many are convinced of the contrary.

As a matter of fact IRAI has greatly inproved sub's intelligence, but you need to understand that there are limits to what can be done with it. Look at IRAI's changelog in the first page, to see what is possible to do with it and what not, and which improvements over stock sub behaviour have been already achieved by TDW. :03:

The U-boats are fine, but not the allied subs. They never fire torpedoes.

[Jace11]

question regarding AI aircraft loadouts...

I've been looking at loadout .cfgs and .eqps and also the bombs.sim dat and zons. I noticed a possible discrepancy present in stock and this mod. Bomb names the library files are Bomb100kg Bomb250kg and Bomb500kg but in many aircraft eqp files the links are Bomb100kg Bomb_250kg Bomb_500kg, would this typo render the heavier loadouts useless.???

[Sartoris]

TDW, do you have any news about fixing destroyers that blow themselves up with their own depth charges? It seems to me like this is one of the most important AI bugs right now.

[Mikemike47]

TDW, do you have any news about fixing destroyers that blow themselves up with their own depth charges? It seems to me like this is one of the most important AI bugs right now.

@ TDW, Background information
Destroyers destroying themselves (Or something like that) (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203425)

V13dweller's Depth charge range fix download link (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=4033)

[TheDarkWraith]

TDW, do you have any news about fixing destroyers that blow themselves up with their own depth charges? It seems to me like this is one of the most important AI bugs right now.

I know why it happens but there's currently no easy fix to it. Reducing the range of the DCs then makes the DCs unrealistic as you (player's sub) has a very low chance of incurring any damage from them. I set the range to a high value so that you would incur damage from them.

[Tonci87]

Maybe make them check if it is appropriate to use DCs based on speed and depht?

[TheDarkWraith]

Maybe make them check if it is appropriate to use DCs based on speed and depht?

That's already in IRAI. In order for a ship to fire DCs they have to have a contact > 4m in depth and their speed has to be > 2knots. I had these values higher and then people complained ships never threw DCs. You can't win.

[Sartoris]

That's already in IRAI. In order for a ship to fire DCs they have to have a contact > 4m in depth and their speed has to be > 2knots. I had these values higher and then people complained ships never threw DCs. You can't win.

That certainly sounds difficult to solve. Do you know how this was dealt with in SH4 or SH3? I don't remember this happening in the previous games...:hmmm:

[gap]

That's already in IRAI. In order for a ship to fire DCs they have to have a contact > 4m in depth and their speed has to be > 2knots. I had these values higher and then people complained ships never threw DCs. You can't win.

Maybe increasing a bit min speed and DC's detonating depth, and decreasing a little bit DC's range? :hmm2:

Thinking out loud, another workaround would be assigning new damage zones to destroyer bows, and setting their armor higher than the maximum armour that DC's can penetrate or, if possible, reducing DC's armor penetration to the minimum needed for them to still damage the soft submarine hull at their maximum range...

[Fifi]

To me, escort AI is enough strong and not really a game problem anymore (except for launching DC)
But i have a little request about merchant AI:
- it would be very welcome if they could escape sub opposite direction full speed, as it was probably in RL when a U-Boot attacked, cause actually they tend to slow down for a while before heading other direction (mainly in convoy state)...and they never accelerate! They remains very nice targets :D
Logical behavior should be ahead full in any direction and zig-zagging :yep:
They tend to be back original heading direction too fast also.
It's sometimes a real killing party when non escorted:
http://img15.hostingpics.net/thumbs/mini_754889Massacre.jpg (http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=754889Massacre.jpg)
http://img15.hostingpics.net/thumbs/mini_659023Massacre2.jpg (http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=659023Massacre2.jpg)

EDIT: forgot to say i'm also using Sober deck gun mod...when to much wind, gun becomes almost useless (and it's good thing) but when sea is calm...like above...

[dcb]

But i have a little request about merchant AI:
- it would be very welcome if they could escape sub opposite direction full speed, as it was probably in RL when a U-Boot attacked, cause actually they tend to slow down for a while before heading other direction (mainly in convoy state)...and they never accelerate! They remains very nice targets

That's what I noticed too, and it's a major game breaker IMO. When I attack a convoy (with latest IRAI installed, always), instead of running away at full speed, merchant ships slow down and become sitting ducks, while all the escorts are busy chasing me.
IRL, the convoy would have run away at full speed, while a limited number of destroyers (never the full complement) would have attempted to keep the Uboat down until the convoy was beyond reach.

[johan_d]

and the area should become hot, destroyers, task forces etc should home in to the location if they are in the vincinity, like lets say 200 km ?
maybe they can patrol after the attack the area (a big area) ?

[Fregattenkapitän]

Very nice mod,

This mod actually lets you think twice before attacking a destroyer.
In the stock game attacking a destroyer is no big problem, and even when you are spotted by one of them they are not a big threath.
Your really need avoid any destroyer's you see
even in convoy or the HK groups. I was testing this mod when i was attacking a HK group of 4 destroyers from the Tribal class.

I really got pinned, they dropped a tons of depth charge's
and they even called in for help, 5 destroyer came to the help.
With a total of 9 destroyer pinning me down, i had no chance of surviving.




IRAI is a very decent mode for realisme.

[TheDarkWraith]

things will get really interesting once I finish the carriers spawning aircraft patch for the game.

Here's how the game works in regards to carriers and airbases (land):

A timer is checked to see if it's time to spawn airgroup units. If it's time:
game goes through every unit in the game and compares the distance from them to the carrier/airbase to a fixed value. If the distance is within the fixed value the game will spawn an airgroup unit. The airgroup unit is given random starting position and random waypoints.

My patch changes the code in the above so that if the unit is a carrier and the carrier has the unit as a contact then an airgroup unit is spawned. It's starting position is the carrier. It's given a waypoint of the contact's current position and another waypoint as the carrier's current position. This means the unit will head directly to the contact and once done return to the carrier position (when it spawned the aircraft). The unit is free to engage other contacts if it detects them (a la IRAI) before arriving at unit's position or when returning to the carrier.

I could make it really complex and update the airgroup unit's carrier's waypoint with the carrier's current position so that the unit will always return to the carrier's current position but decided it wasn't worth the time and code. Instead I set the altitude to a ridiculously high value so you'll never see it disappear from the game :D

I've been working on this patch for over 4 months and the end is near :D

[gap]

things will get really interesting once I finish the carriers spawning aircraft patch for the game.

Cool :up:

On a slightly unrelated note: is loadout type of aircraft affecting their AI routines? I need to know it for my tests on the new B-25 that I am still working on :03:

[TheDarkWraith]

Cool :up:

On a slightly unrelated note: is loadout type of aircraft affecting their AI routines? I need to know it for my tests on the new B-25 that I am still working on :03:

From what I've seen in the code (so far and what I have decoded) no. What determines a unit's AI routines is the type of unit (i.e. 102, 300, 200, etc.) and of course the AI code (IRAI). The AI code will determine whether it does bomb runs, torpedo run, etc.

[gap]

From what I've seen in the code (so far and what I have decoded) no.

so, what is the use of this "type" entry in planes cfg file?


What determines a unit's AI routines is the type of unit (i.e. 102, 300, 200, etc.) and of course the AI code (IRAI). The AI code will determine whether it does bomb runs, torpedo run, etc.

I have a problem with the B-25 bomber: in single mission she only fires a few shots of her front guns before dropping her bombs, (or during her first attack run, I don't remember exactly right now). Then, no matter how much rounds are left, she won't fire them again (even though guns keep tracking the target) and she keeps circling around my U-boat forever.

I have tried increasing gun's training/elevation range, and improving plane's handling, but with no apparent result. UnitType is set to 301. :hmmm:

[TheDarkWraith]

so, what is the use of this "type" entry in planes cfg file?




I have a problem with the B-25 bomber: in single mission she only fires a few shots of her front guns before dropping her bombs, (or during her first attack run, I don't remember exactly right now). Then, no matter how much rounds are left, she won't fire them again (even though guns keep tracking the target) and she keeps circling around my U-boat forever.

I have tried increasing gun's training/elevation range, and improving plane's handling, but with no apparent result. UnitType is set to 301. :hmmm:

You'd have to send me the unit and the test mission you are using so I can see what's going on using the debugger.

[gap]

You'd have to send me the unit and the test mission you are using so I can see what's going on using the debugger.

Here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?b9qhrzwdsz8cj5w

only one of the frontal guns and the dorsal turret got a gun controller, but at the moment I am more concerned about the frontal gun (just ignore the turret). Launch any of the single missions included.

I have also noticed that the bomber got problems dropping its torpedo. No matter how low I set the minimum height, in many cases the plane starts circling, loosing altitude and falling down in the water before she can fire her fish. In other cases, the B-25 manages to achieve a good firing position, but the torpedo moves backward (:o) as it inherited a reversed momentum from the plane, and when it finally touches the water, it falls down to the seabed and explodes. :hmmm:

[TheDarkWraith]

I have also noticed that the bomber got problems dropping its torpedo. No matter how low I set the minimum height, in many cases the plane starts circling, loosing altitude and falling down in the water before she can fire her fish. In other cases, the B-25 manages to achieve a good firing position, but the torpedo moves backward (:o) as it inherited a reversed momentum from the plane, and when it finally touches the water, it falls down to the seabed and explodes. :hmmm:

Try setting the maximum speed of the unit to a larger value in it's .cfg file.

The torpedo problem is a sign of hitting a collision sphere or box on the unit. Lower the torpedo's hardpoint (do a drastic lowering) and see if it doesn't cure the problem. There is a minimum distance (arming distance - 300m) the torpedo must travel before it's able to detonate. If the torpedo 'hits' something before this 300m then it acts like a dud (which is what you are seeing).

[vanjast]

I have a problem with the B-25 bomber: in single mission she only fires a few shots of her front guns before dropping her bombs, (or during her first attack run, I don't remember exactly right now). Then, no matter how much rounds are left, she won't fire them again (even though guns keep tracking the target) and she keeps circling around my U-boat forever.:hmmm:

Maybe it's modeled 'correctly' where the plane circles out of gun range while calling a destroyer in (that's if this tactic is really modeled).
If you dive, maybe it might attack again - try this.

IIRC.. it was rare for a bomber to attack a U-boat more than once, unless they were sure they had done some good damage - an aircraft is very vulnerable.. especially in the middle of the ocean. All attacks, if possible, were based on tracking and surprise - after the first attack is was generally suicidal to attack again.

[gap]

Try setting the maximum speed of the unit to a larger value in it's .cfg file.

The torpedo problem is a sign of hitting a collision sphere or box on the unit. Lower the torpedo's hardpoint (do a drastic lowering) and see if it doesn't cure the problem. There is a minimum distance (arming distance - 300m) the torpedo must travel before it's able to detonate. If the torpedo 'hits' something before this 300m then it acts like a dud (which is what you are seeing).

Okay, I will do as you are suggesting I will let you know :up:

On your end, please keep me informed on anything wrong you may find about the gun issue. :)

Maybe it's modeled 'correctly' where the plane circles out of gun range while calling a destroyer in (that's if this tactic is really modeled).
If you dive, maybe it might attack again - try this.

No, as per IRAI settings, planes keep diving on their target until the last gun round. Or forever, if for some reason they can't fire their weapons. :-?

IIRC.. it was rare for a bomber to attack a U-boat more than once, unless they were sure they had done some good damage - an aircraft is very vulnerable.. especially in the middle of the ocean. All attacks, if possible, were based on tracking and surprise - after the first attack is was generally suicidal to attack again.

I agree. A while back I suggested TDW to make planes to end their attack once they drop their bombs. Unfortunately, there are many limitations to what can be done with aircraft AI.

[TheDarkWraith]

I agree. A while back I suggested TDW to make planes to end their attack once they drop their bombs. Unfortunately, there are many limitations to what can be done with aircraft AI.

That is how IRAI used to be. People complained so I changed it. Here's the problem: say said plane attacks another unit and drops it bombs. That unit submerges and hides. Plane continues on waypoints. Plane encounters another enemy unit. If IRAI is setup so that planes don't attack anymore if they have no bombs or torpedoes then said plane continues on with it's waypoints. Here in is where people complained airplanes never attack. What is the plane has no bombs or torpedoes from the start? Then it never attacks anything.

[gap]

That is how IRAI used to be. People complained so I changed it. Here's the problem: say said plane attacks another unit and drops it bombs. That unit submerges and hides. Plane continues on waypoints. Plane encounters another enemy unit. If IRAI is setup so that planes don't attack anymore if they have no bombs or torpedoes then said plane continues on with it's waypoints. Here in is where people complained airplanes never attack. What is the plane has no bombs or torpedoes from the start? Then it never attacks anything.

I wasn't suggesting that IRAI settings are wrong; I was rather pointing that they are a forced compromise between contrasting needs. I have a good example, taken from my research on the B-25:

- dorsal and tail turrets an waist guns where obviously meant for self defense rather than as attack armament. Even in game, I doubt that planes will ever get the chance to fire them against a vessel. Therefore, with current IRAI settings bombers will hang around forever, unless they get the chance to fire their remaining bullets against another plane, they get destroyed, or their target(s) is sunk by another unit. This would be a good reason for making them to cease their attack once they fired their last bomb / depth charge / torpedo.

- the same B-25 was issued in a series of strafing versions, that had guns as their main or sole armament. If you make IRAI to ignore gun ammo for deciding if a plane will attack or leave, strafing planes would be totally pointless in game...

so, what is the best solution? I wish AI strategies were more elastic, but unfortunately they are not and, as you noted many times, there insn't much that you can do for it :hmm2:

EDIT: if only you could make the game to read current loadout Type from file, and to adopt different AI strategies depending on it and on UnitType...

[TheDarkWraith]

EDIT: if only you could make the game to read current loadout Type from file, and to adopt different AI strategies depending on it and on UnitType...

The AI DLLs I haven't even dove into yet. Still concentrating on the main files: sh5.exe, shcollisions.act, shsim.act, simdata.act, shcontrollers.act, and enginemission acts/dlls

[gap]

You'd have to send me the unit and the test mission you are using so I can see what's going on using the debugger.

Hi TDW, any news on the B-25? :)

[TheDarkWraith]

Hi TDW, any news on the B-25? :)

not yet. Been coding/testing new plug-in framework/architecture for SH5 via Generic Patcher.

[gap]

not yet. Been coding/testing new plug-in framework/architecture for SH5 via Generic Patcher.

Okay, no problem. Tomorrow I will resume my work on the plane. Check what happens with her guns please, whenever you get time :up:

[gap]

Try setting the maximum speed of the unit to a larger value in it's .cfg file.

What is the difference between the two max speed set in aircraft cfg and sim files? For stock planes, their values often don't match. Simple error by devs or they are so for a reason? :hmmm:

[TheDarkWraith]

What is the difference between the two max speed set in aircraft cfg and sim files? For stock planes, their values often don't match. Simple error by devs or they are so for a reason? :hmmm:

When viewing the object in memory it always has the max speed specified in .cfg file. So it appears .sim file is a default value and the cfg file can override the defaults.

[gap]

When viewing the object in memory it always has the max speed specified in .cfg file. So it appears .sim file is a default value and the cfg file can override the defaults.

Good to know :up:

I suppose this is also valid for ship speeds. If so, by properly editing cfg files we can adjust class variants specs (for duplicated unit definions).

Maybe the max speed stored in sim file is used, together with max force and max rpm, for torque calculation :hmmm:

P.S: even after having increased B-25's max speed, force and rpm, and decreased drag, I cannot get the bomber to use her gun properly; she only performs some very short and erratic gun bursts before dropping her bomb load, and then nothing :shifty:

[Serge65]

Hi TDW!
I have a suggestion for IRAI, see PM.

[gap]

Hi TDW!
I have a suggestion for IRAI, see PM.

Is it a secret feature? :03:

[Serge65]

No, but TDW writes:Copyright notice:
The code changes made to this file are the intellectual property of TheDarkWraith and may not be used, modified, or duplicated in whole,
or in part, without the express written permission of TheDarkWraith. The code changes made to this file may not be used in any commercial
application of any form without the express written permission of TheDarkWraith

[gap]

No, but TDW writes:Copyright notice:
The code changes made to this file are the intellectual property of TheDarkWraith and may not be used, modified, or duplicated in whole,
or in part, without the express written permission of TheDarkWraith. The code changes made to this file may not be used in any commercial
application of any form without the express written permission of TheDarkWraith

How does it apply to a simple suggestion? :06:

[Serge65]

I changed a few files. Maybe I was reinsured, but the author can write amendments.

[TheDarkWraith]

I changed a few files. Maybe I was reinsured, but the author can write amendments.

Post up your proposed changes and let's have a discussion :yep:

[gap]

I changed a few files. Maybe I was reinsured, but the author can write amendments.

I see now :up:

yet I think there's a big difference between stealing someone else's work, and proposing some improvements (as you are doing) to what keeps being intellectual property of TDW :yep:

Post up your proposed changes and let's have a discussion :yep:

Q.E.D. :)

[Serge65]

Modified files here: http://yadi.sk/d/OYKBNjBmAn94u

[volodya61]

Did anyone open up and look into Serge65's files?
I wasn't able to find any lines with DDs speed as explained in the readme :hmmm:

[Serge65]

Changes in the file Ship-weapons.aix not worth attention, anyone can customize to your liking, I was interested in the behavior of AI-airplanes and AI-submarines.
I did a lot of testing missions and:
1. I not could create a situation where !CanFollowWaypoint () = TRUE.
2. I do not understand, (UNITUNKNOWN), what is it?
My test mission.
Precondition:
AI-VIIC and Sunderland with DC-bombs on a collision course;
AI-submarine submerged, the aircraft drops bombs, 3 minutes and follows the waypoints, and later disappears from the game;
AI-VIIC submarine detects contact (UNITUNKNOWN) and attacks him, but no one was there! What is this? Contact (UNITUNKNOWN) is approximately where the contact was made with Sunderland.
3. My test mission.
Precondition:
A convoy of merchant ships and the "wolfpack", the distance is more than 12,000 m.
"Wolfpack" detects contact, attack mode, moves to a point where was contact detected, but the convoy is no longer there...
GetContactSpeed() almost always returns 0 (1 out of 10 times returned the speed contacts)
In the submerged AI-submarine do not receive any information about the target position. Checked, hydrophone sensors(any AI or GHG) at submerged and periscope sensors (atack_periscop_wire) at periscope depth return 0.
Only LOOKOUT on the surface returns 1.

I almost did not change anything, I just deleted the useless strategy, everything else is left as it was.

[Serge65]

Try this single mission, and see the difference in an attack the "wolfpack": http://yadi.sk/d/J88ZQ_CT7Lbzz
After contact with the convoy to all stop engines and observe the actions of AI-submarines with an external camera.
You can use the time compression.
a) First time use the original file Sub.aix of IRAI_37-39 or my from post 2101.
b) The second time, use the attached file Sub.aix. I recommend to disable the firing of the deck guns or use a file attached Ship-Weapons.aix. Do not forget backup files.
Files sensorvisualsub.sim and NSS_Uboat7b_AI.sns applied for compatibility. Do not forget backup files.
If in the AI-submarine work hydrophone and periscope sensors...:/\\!!
In the AI-submarines no soundman.

[Serge65]

Did anyone open up and look into Serge65's files?
I wasn't able to find any lines with DDs speed as explained in the readme :hmmm:
It's very simple: the file Ship-weapons, strategies DC, strategy DC(ship), strategy DCRacks(Ship)

[SnipersHunter]

Hello TDW if i download the Patch_1 the Folder in the .rar file have the same name than the folder in the rar. of the not Patch_1 version. Both have the name
IRAI_0_0_39ByTheDarkWraith.
What should i do now?

[Echolot]

Hello SnipersHunter.

Rename the folder IRAI_0_0_39_ByTheDarkWraith_Patch_1.zip\IRAI_0_0_3 9_ByTheDarkWraith\ to IRAI_0_0_39_ByTheDarkWraith_Patch1 or patch the IRAI_0_0_39_ByTheDarkWraith (original mod) with the patch before you activate the mod.

:salute:

[gap]

Hello TDW if i download the Patch_1 the Folder in the .rar file have the same name than the folder in the rar. of the not Patch_1 version. Both have the name
IRAI_0_0_39ByTheDarkWraith.
What should i do now?

Extract both of them in the MODS folder and let explorer to overwrite the file(s) of the main mod with the patched ones :03:

[SnipersHunter]

Thanks Echolot and Gap

[gap]

Thanks Echolot and Gap

ops... double answer :D

[lesec74]

hello,

how can i adjust the IRAI, to have destroyers less "agressive", I'm in 1940 and they detect me like if they have radar!!
thanks for answers and sorry for my english:salute:

[Echolot]

how can i adjust the IRAIHi lesec74.

You could try:

Disable the mod. Open IRAI_0_0_39_ByTheDarkWraith\data\Scripts\AI\init.a ix with notepad. Search for:

###################### Difficulty parameters ####################
# Note: difficulty is in range 0.0 - 1.0 with 0.0 being no difficulty (sensor doesn't exist)
# for non-merchants
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.85;
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;
HYDROPHONE_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.85;
HYDROPHONE_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;
RADAR_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.85;
RADAR_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;
SONAR_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.85;
SONAR_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;
# for merchants
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MIN = 0.85;
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MAX = 1.0;
HYDROPHONE_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MIN = 0.85;
HYDROPHONE_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MAX = 1.0;
RADAR_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MIN = 0.85;
RADAR_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MAX = 1.0;
SONAR_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MIN = 0.85;
SONAR_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MAX = 1.0;Lower the values to fit your taste. The game will choose randomly between min and max. Save the file. Enable the mod.

Regards.

Echol:salute:t.

[lesec74]

Hi lesec74.

You could try:

Disable the mod. Open IRAI_0_0_39_ByTheDarkWraith\data\Scripts\AI\init.a ix with notepad. Search for:

Lower the values to fit your taste. The game will choose randomly between min and max. Save the file. Enable the mod.

Regards.

Echol:salute:t.
many thanks

[lionn77]

SH3 (GWX) sets DC explosion radius at 34 metres and they are still quite effective so the 40m radius of stock SH5 isn't a bad compromise. Increasing min DC depth to let's say 40 m in order to enable an escort to run away is another option.:up:

[THE_MASK]

AAAAARRRGGGGHHHHHHH
1 week in real time to find something to hit in north western approaches .
1 miss and 5 duds .

[Serge65]

Current bugs/CTDs/errors/etc:

- sub AI doesn't fire cannons (looking for solution)


For the experiment, i changed controller from "cmdr_AISubmarine" to "cmdr_AIShip" in **.sim file AI sub, AI-sub was firing deck guns (AI88mmUDeckGun_High) but stopped moving and submerge. AA-guns do not shoot. I think the reason for non-working sensors and guns AI-Submarines in cmdr_AISubmarine controller. But I do not know how to fix it, need help TDW in theme "SH5.exe patches to fix bugs and add functionality".

[GaetVa]

Hello all,

Perhaps someone can help me as i din't found answer in the thread
(i read the last 50 pages of the thread, but didn't found my answer)

I did a single mission with a convoy (with 2 destroyers) for the allies and a scoot airplane, and 2 sub AI wolfpack and a surface combat force for the axis.

I have waypoints for all the group units.

my problem is :
The scoot airplane from axis detect the convoy. But nor the wolfpack and nor the surface combat force go to the convoys. The convoy is out of radar of the axis taskforces (both wolfpack and surface ship) but this forces are not too far away from the convoy.

I thought that any ships would react to ennemy forces even if detected
by another unit (in my case a scoot airplane).

Pehaps the fact that the wolfpack and surface ships have waypoints ?

But in my mission, i need they have waypoints...

If someone can help !
Thanks a lot !

[Aktungbby]

Welcome aboard GaetVa:Kaleun_Salute:stay in this thread ; a more technically proficient savant will assist. Have you modded for more proficient AI yet!

[gap]

As the title says:

recently I have set a custom mission where a couple of 'small coastal guns' (which I had purposedly put in the British roster) are facing a number of Stuka bombers, result: guns and planes are ignoring each other, even though my crew keeps reporting the presence of "coastal defences", and guns' location is shown on the TAI map.

I digged into coastal gun's files, and everything looks okay. The sim file got _unit, cmdr_, wpn_Cannon and ob_Sensor controllers, and controller settings seem correct. I then had a look into the AI scripts folder, and I was surprised not to find any reference to land units. :hmmm:

Out of curiosity: has anyone ever seen coastal guns doing their job?

[Mikemike47]

my crew keeps reporting the presence of "coastal defences", and guns' location is shown on the TAI map.

has anyone ever seen coastal guns doing their job?No, I haven't either. I had coastal defenses reported by crew in Scapa flow and using OH II v 2.2 or v2.1, but no gun activity.

I do remember that coastal defenses was reported by crew in SH4, and the AI guns were firing at me and even damaged sub; never in SH5 can I recall it happening correctly.

[gap]

No, I haven't either. I had coastal defenses reported by crew in Scapa flow and using OH II v 2.2 or v2.1, but no gun activity.

I do remember that coastal defenses was reported by crew in SH4, and the AI guns were firing at me and even damaged sub; never in SH5 can I recall it happening correctly.

Thank you for the precious information, Mike. It is probably time to have a look into SHIV, since you are reporting that its coastal guns worked as supposed. Unfortunately I know nothing about AI scripting. I only wish TDW was around :-?

[Serge65]

Thank you for the precious information, Mike. It is probably time to have a look into SHIV, since you are reporting that its coastal guns worked as supposed. Unfortunately I know nothing about AI scripting. I only wish TDW was around :-?

It's not in the AI scripts. In the decompiled files SHSim.act (SH4) and SHim.act (SH5) there is a difference in the controllers cmdr_AICostal Defense.

[gap]

It's not in the AI scripts. In the decompiled files SHSim.act (SH4) and SHim.act (SH5) there is a difference in the controllers cmdr_AICostal Defense.

Thank you very much Serge. Hope tha someone (you all know who I have in mind :O:), will fix this feature one day :up:

[Serge65]

If the tanker is stalking you, change: data\Scripts\AI\Ship-Waypoint

strategy WaypointsCNFW(Ship)
precond
{
!Ship:CanFollowWaypoint()
}
action
{
Ship:Goto(0.7,false); ----> Ship:Goto(0.7,true);
Ship:SetThrottle(0.7);
}
}

and everything will be fine!:up:

[gap]

If the tanker is stalking you

Do you mean the bug where the supply ship that we have just refitted from starts following us, ramming our boat if we don't move away quickly enough? :hmm2:

[Serge65]

Do you mean the bug where the supply ship that we have just refitted from starts following us, ramming our boat if we don't move away quickly enough? :hmm2:

Yes. Tanker chased me up the coast of the United States. I stopped the game and began to search for an error.

[Raven_2012]

I am using IRAI_0_0_39 and I enabled SubFlags_0_0_8_byTheDarkWraith. It wants to overwrite these files:
NSS_Uboat7a_AI.eqp
NSS_Uboat7a_U30.eqp
NSS_Uboat7b_AI.eqp
NSS_Uboat7b_U99.eqp
NSS_Uboat7c_AI.eqp
NSS_Uboat7c_U552.eqp
NSS_Uboat7c4_AI.eqp

What do these files do and would there be problems if the get overwritten?

I have IRAI_0_0_31 and I can run the SubFlag mod without it wanting to overwrite anything.

[gap]

Up
(in case TDW gets time to look into this issue too during his short staying at home :D)

Seeing one day some land-to-sea, land-to-air and air-to-air action in SH5 would be so nice...


recently I have set a custom mission where a couple of 'small coastal guns' (which I had purposedly put in the British roster) are facing a number of Stuka bombers, result: guns and planes are ignoring each other, even though my crew keeps reporting the presence of "coastal defences", and guns' location is shown on the TAI map.

I digged into coastal gun's files, and everything looks okay. The sim file got _unit, cmdr_, wpn_Cannon and ob_Sensor controllers, and controller settings seem correct. I then had a look into the AI scripts folder, and I was surprised not to find any reference to land units. :hmmm:

Out of curiosity: has anyone ever seen coastal guns doing their job?

No, I haven't either. I had coastal defenses reported by crew in Scapa flow and using OH II v 2.2 or v2.1, but no gun activity.

I do remember that coastal defenses was reported by crew in SH4, and the AI guns were firing at me and even damaged sub; never in SH5 can I recall it happening correctly.

It's not in the AI scripts. In the decompiled files SHSim.act (SH4) and SHim.act (SH5) there is a difference in the controllers cmdr_AICostal Defense.

[TheDarkWraith]

Up
(in case TDW gets time to look into this issue too during his short staying at home :D)

Seeing one day some land-to-sea, land-to-air and air-to-air action in SH5 would be so nice...

Land-to-sea and land-to-air: the controller for the land units is totally fubar. I can get them to track targets but they will not fire (or rotate their guns if they have them). I suspect it's because there are no .aix files for them. But the exe doesn't define any commands or an .aix file for them! Like I said totally fubar :nope:

Air-to-air: the exe forbids any air to air combat. It won't let air units track another air unit. This can be changed though :yep:

[gap]

Land-to-sea and land-to-air: the controller for the land units is totally fubar. I can get them to track targets but they will not fire (or rotate their guns if they have them). I suspect it's because there are no .aix files for them. But the exe doesn't define any commands or an .aix file for them! Like I said totally fubar :nope:

In SHIII & IV they were reportedly working. Any hope that they can be fixed one day? They are an important part of the game, especially since when the air raid ctd issue has misteritously been ironed out :-?

Air-to-air: the exe forbids any air to air combat. It won't let air units track another air unit. This can be changed though :yep:


:up:
I thought this was the hardest part, due to the dumbed-down aircaft AI

On a side note: is there any hope that we can make stationary air units not to crash on soil (they do, no matter their mass(max speed settings in sim and cfg files). That would allow blimp esorts for convoys and collisionable barrage balloons

[TheDarkWraith]

In SHIII & IV they were reportedly working. Any hope that they can be fixed one day? They are an important part of the game, especially since when the air raid ctd issue has misteritously been ironed out :-?

On a side note: is there any hope that we can make stationary air units not to crash on soil (they do, no matter their mass(max speed settings in sim and cfg files). That would allow blimp esorts for convoys and collisionable barrage balloons

Getting the land units to work is going to take a lot of time. I don't know if I have the skill/time to fix this one. I've been working on it on/off for about a year now already.

Look at how the blimps were done in SH3. I think it was Privateer who managed to find a way to get blimps to not crash into the ground. I could be wrong though.

[gap]

Getting the land units to work is going to take a lot of time. I don't know if I have the skill/time to fix this one. I've been working on it on/off for about a year now already.

Okay. Unfortunately the game doesn't let us to put sea units on land, otherwise dummy boats equipped with coastal guns would have been a possible workaround...

Look at how the blimps were done in SH3. I think it was Privateer who managed to find a way to get blimps to not crash into the ground. I could be wrong though.

I think Uekel and Trevally have tried importing GWX blimps, but whatever was the trick deviced by privateer, it didn't work in SH5 :hmmm:

[Trevally.]

I think Uekel and Trevally have tried importing GWX blimps, but whatever was the trick deviced by privateer, it didn't work in SH5 :hmmm:

Yes - Uekel and I tried for some time to add these. Always ended in unit crashing into the sea (sometimes after many loop the loops:D)

I am not sure what privateer did to make them work - we did not ask and thus did not try

[gap]

Yes - Uekel and I tried for some time to add these. Always ended in unit crashing into the sea (sometimes after many loop the loops:D)

I am not sure what privateer did to make them work - we did not ask and thus did not try

If you imported the unit from GWX, it is likely that you also imported privateer's "tricky settings" (unless they are elsewhere than within the blimp files) :hmm2:

[Raven_2012]

With the IRAI_0_0_39_ByTheDarkWraith_Patch_1 I still get the red flares, is that normal?

Even though IRAI_0_0_39_ByTheDarkWraith_Patch_1 stutters a little after a good kill, I don't get CTD like when I use SH5_Starshells_patch mod.

I tried testing out SH5_Starshells_patch and I get some CTD after some kills.

[TheDarkWraith]

Seeing one day some land-to-sea, land-to-air and air-to-air action in SH5 would be so nice...

Air-To-Air combat is working :D Another first for the Silent Hunter series :up: Just doing some final testing currently...

It involves a new patch for the SHSim.act file and a new version of IRAI to support air-to-air combat.

[gap]

Air-To-Air combat is working :D Another first for the Silent Hunter series :up: Just doing some final testing currently...

It involves a new patch for the SHSim.act file and a new version of IRAI to support air-to-air combat.

:o

Speechless :D

[gap]

Any anticipation on your upcoming patch/IRAI version? :D

I wonder how you are going to handle the complexity of dogfights, given the dumbed-down AI of SH aircraft...

[TheDarkWraith]

Any anticipation on your upcoming patch/IRAI version? :D

I wonder how you are going to handle the complexity of dogfights, given the dumbed-down AI of SH aircraft...

Will be releasing today the new patch and new IRAI version. I'm currently having fun watching the dogfights :D

Right now a torpedo bomber is giving a fighter a run for it's money. The torpedo bomber is relentless and the fighter has a hard time getting off any shots...

I have included a new single mission for air-to-air combat that has the two planes mentioned above in it.

[TheDarkWraith]

fighter finally gave up and bugged out. That was awesome :yeah:

[vdr1981]

fighter finally gave up and bugged out. That was awesome :yeah:

Very nice and TY TDW, should we expect any changes in zones.cfg file?

[TheDarkWraith]

Very nice and TY TDW, should we expect any changes in zones.cfg file?

no changes. Only changes in IRAI are to the AIX files.

[vdr1981]

no changes. Only changes in IRAI are to the AIX files.

Good, we shouldn't expect any compatibility issues then...:up:

EDIT:
Dooohh, I thought this is FXU thread...:doh: :D

[gap]

Will be releasing today the new patch and new IRAI version. I'm currently having fun watching the dogfights :D

Right now a torpedo bomber is giving a fighter a run for it's money. The torpedo bomber is relentless and the fighter has a hard time getting off any shots...

I have included a new single mission for air-to-air combat that has the two planes mentioned above in it.

fighter finally gave up and bugged out. That was awesome :yeah:

That's awesome, but shouldn't the action be reversed (the fighter attacking and the torpedo bomber evading)? :D

Will aircraft behaviour (towards other aircraft) vary based on unit type?

[toetoez]

Yeaaah .....:rock: very good job :yeah:

[TheDarkWraith]

That's awesome, but shouldn't the action be reversed (the fighter attacking and the torpedo bomber evading)? :D

Will aircraft behaviour (towards other aircraft) vary based on unit type?

It's totally random. Either aircraft can bug out if they want or stay and fight.

The fighter was attacking at first but then decided to bug out :D If an aircraft receives too much damage it will bug out.

[tonschk]

:woot::up::yeah::rock:


If an aircraft receives too much damage it will bug out.

[THE_MASK]

Regarding the Players submarine gunner crew never able to hit aircraft with AA . Someone said that in SH4 you had to do a gun training drill before the AI was competent enough to hit Planes . Maybe this is left over from SH4 in the SH5 exe . Or maybe something completely different . My AI always shoots lower than the planes . Someone once said the size of the world in the scene.dat makes a difference . Any ideas .

[TheDarkWraith]

Regarding the Players submarine gunner crew never able to hit aircraft with AA . Someone said that in SH4 you had to do a gun training drill before the AI was competent enough to hit Planes . Maybe this is left over from SH4 in the SH5 exe . Or maybe something completely different . My AI always shoots lower than the planes . Someone once said the size of the world in the scene.dat makes a difference . Any ideas .

I posted a fix for this some time ago :up:

[THE_MASK]

I posted a fix for this some time ago :up:Ok :hmm2:

[Trevally.]

Air-To-Air combat is working :D Another first for the Silent Hunter series :up: Just doing some final testing currently...

It involves a new patch for the SHSim.act file and a new version of IRAI to support air-to-air combat.

Great work:yeah:

If the AI can now see aeroplanes, can spotting enemy planes from you deck crew now trigger the Luftwaffe to launch planes from the nearest air bases if in range - just like with ships?
Or can we send contact report?

On another note - did you see this fix for the refuel bug that caused the supply ship to try and ram you?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2155824&postcount=2124

:salute:

[gap]

It's totally random. Either aircraft can bug out if they want or stay and fight.

Imo bombers and patrol aircraft should never try to engage enemy planes, (especially fighters) but keep on their route and/or point to their best surface target, if any. Indeed when a foe is within the range of their flexible guns, they should take the opportunity to down it while taking evasive maneuvers.

A basic defense strategy for a group of bombers under attack, would be looking for friendly aircraft and staying as close as possible to each other.

For other common attack/defense dogfight maneuvers (provided that there is an easy way to implement them in game), see the following links please:

The "Corkscrew" maneuver (http://www.429sqn.ca/acmem.htm)
Basic fighter maneuvers
Air combat manoeuvring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_combat_maneuvering)

The fighter was attacking at first but then decided to bug out :D If an aircraft receives too much damage it will bug out.

Cool! :up:

[gap]

Regarding the Players submarine gunner crew never able to hit aircraft with AA...

Have you ever tried the U-boat gun tweaks by me and Volodya? :03:


If the AI can now see aeroplanes, can spotting enemy planes from you deck crew now trigger the Luftwaffe to launch planes from the nearest air bases if in range - just like with ships?
Or can we send contact report?

excellent idea :up:

[THE_MASK]

Have you ever tried the U-boat gun tweaks by me and Volodya? :03:



excellent idea :up:Does the player AI hit the planes ? Where are the files again ?

[TheDarkWraith]

v 0.0.41 released. See post #1

v0.0.40 - removed the ability of ships to fire starshells due to severe game bug that causes them not to fire guns that have fired starshells
v0.0.41 - removed kamikaze tactics for airplanes added by v0.0.39 and revised some of the airplane tactics. Added support for Generic Patcher's Air-To-Air combat patch so aircraft can target and engage other aircraft. Changed how subs handle unknown contacts. Changed damage amount to subs before they are forced to follow waypoints.

Fixed problem with planes not dropping their bombs also.

You need to have the Air-To-Air combat patch enabled in the Generic Patcher for the SHSim file in order for aircraft to target and engage other aircraft along with this new version of IRAI.

There is a new single mission called Air-To-Air combat. Play that mission to see the new patch in action.

Remember if you like this mod or the mod-maker then show your support by nominating in the best of subsim :up:

[gap]

Does the player AI hit the planes ?

Yes, they do. Their aim is even too accurate now :yep:

Where are the files again ?

The mod was never finished (my bad) but except for some minor aspects it is fully working and a while back Volodya has released a beta version of it. I need to look for its link. I will post it when I am back home :salute:

[THE_MASK]

v 0.0.41 released. See post #1

v0.0.40 - removed the ability of ships to fire starshells due to severe game bug that causes them not to fire guns that have fired starshells
v0.0.41 - removed kamikaze tactics for airplanes added by v0.0.39 and revised some of the airplane tactics. Added support for Generic Patcher's Air-To-Air combat patch so aircraft can target and engage other aircraft. Changed how subs handle unknown contacts. Changed damage amount to subs before they are forced to follow waypoints.

Fixed problem with planes not dropping their bombs also.

You need to have the Air-To-Air combat patch enabled in the Generic Patcher for the SHSim file in order for aircraft to target and engage other aircraft along with this new version of IRAI.

There is a new single mission called Air-To-Air combat. Play that mission to see the new patch in action.

Remember if you like this mod or the mod-maker then show your support by nominating in the best of subsim :up:Put that in your sig :03:

[tonschk]

:salute::yeah::up:

v 0.0.41 released. See post #1


Remember if you like this mod or the mod-maker then show your support by nominating in the best of subsim :up:

[gap]

v 0.0.41 released. See post #1

Thank you very much TDW :salute:


v0.0.41 - removed kamikaze tactics for airplanes added by v0.0.39 and revised some of the airplane tactics.

...

Fixed problem with planes not dropping their bombs also.


What was the problem with the kamikaze tactics? Was it related with the issue of airplanes not dropping bombs?


Added support for Generic Patcher's Air-To-Air combat patch so aircraft can target and engage other aircraft.

Are multile targets allowed, or each aircraft will aim its fexible guns against one target at each given time, no matter how many enemies are in range? In other words: has anyone tested if bombers under attack can fire their turrets against nearby enemy planes?


Changed how subs handle unknown contacts.

It is? :)


Remember if you like this mod or the mod-maker then show your support by nominating in the best of subsim :up:

There is a simple reason for many of us not voting you during the last "Best of Subsim" poll. An excellent reason (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1791496&postcount=1) actually :03: but be sure that the next year will be your turn :up:

Does the player AI hit the planes ? Where are the files again ?

Reworked U-boat Guns (incomplete version) (http://www.4sync.com/archive/ln2oGDgK/Reworked_U-boat_Guns__incomple.html)

I think that a slightly revised version of it is already included in "The Wolves of Steel" megamod :yep:

[TheDarkWraith]

What was the problem with the kamikaze tactics? Was it related with the issue of airplanes not dropping bombs?



Are multile targets allowed, or each aircraft will aim its fexible guns against one target at each given time, no matter how many enemies are in range? In other words: has anyone tested if bombers under attack can fire their turrets against nearby enemy planes?

Yes and no for issue of not dropping bombs. It's better to have those tactics removed.

The SH5 game engine only allows each game unit to engage one unit at a time. The game engine keeps a list of all units the unit has detected by it's sensors but only allows the unit to engage one of those at a time. In the unit's structure in memory there is only one 'slot' to put the pointer to the unit it's engaging. The game engine was not designed to allow unit's to engage multiple targets at once. Trying to change it to allow units to engage multiple targets at once would be a total nightmare :down: I need source code in order to do this one.

[gap]

We rely on you TDW, I am 99% sure that one day you will fix at least the (now) useless coastal guns :)

As for the multi unit tracking problem, I think this something we can live with, but have you checked that aircraft under attack can track their pursuer wth their rear/waist/ventral turrets?

Most of the stock aircraft turrets are broken, but I can provide you with a bomber whose turrets are set correctly (during my tests they tracked sea targets). :yep:

[TheDarkWraith]

As for the multi unit tracking problem, I think this something we can live with, but have you checked that aircraft under attack can track their pursuer wth their rear/waist/ventral turrets?

Most of the stock aircraft turrets are broken, but I can provide you with a bomber whose turrets are set correctly (during my tests they tracked sea targets). :yep:

I haven't dove into how the weapons choose their target yet (haven't found the code for it yet). But I'm almost 99% certain that all the weapons of a unit will use the contact the unit is engaging since in the hierarchy the unit object is at the top with everything related to it under it and the unit currently being engaged is a pointer contained in the unit object. Furthermore since weapons are controllers and controllers are 'attached' to the object they belong to they (controllers) base everything they do off the pointer from the object they are attached to.

Like I said though I haven't found the code that controls the weapons yet so it's all pure speculation.

[gap]

I haven't dove into how the weapons choose their target yet (haven't found the code for it yet). But I'm almost 99% certain that all the weapons of a unit will use the contact the unit is engaging since in the hierarchy the unit object is at the top with everything related to it under it and the unit currently being engaged is a pointer contained in the unit object. Furthermore since weapons are controllers and controllers are 'attached' to the object they belong to they (controllers) base everything they do off the pointer from the object they are attached to.

Like I said though I haven't found the code that controls the weapons yet so it's all pure speculation.

Makes sense to me. The one doubt I have is: are engagements bi-univocal in game? In other words: if an unit is attacked, does it aumatically lock its guns on the attacker? This is probably of secondary importance for surface engagements, but crucial for aircraft turrets to be used correctly during dogfights :hmm2:

[TheDarkWraith]

Makes sense to me. The one doubt I have is: are engagements bi-univocal in game? In other words: if an unit is attacked, does it aumatically lock its guns on the attacker? This is probably of secondary importance for surface engagements, but crucial for aircraft turrets to be used correctly during dogfights :hmm2:

Didn't see anything in SHCollisions.act or SH5.exe that says once unit takes damage from something then lock onto that unit. The game engine is pretty simple in how it determines the unit a unit is tracking/engaging:
- derive list of active game units (some units can be excluded from this list)
- iterate over list of active game units derived:
-- iterate over all sensors of the current unit
--- iterate over all active game units derived for each sensor to see if sensor detects it
--- if sensor detects it then add to list of detected units

Check all detected units to see which one was detected the 'strongest'. Place pointer to this unit in unit's contact detected 'slot'.

[gap]

Didn't see anything in SHCollisions.act or SH5.exe that says once unit takes damage from something then lock onto that unit. The game engine is pretty simple in how it determines the unit a unit is tracking/engaging:
- derive list of active game units (some units can be excluded from this list)
- iterate over list of active game units derived:
-- iterate over all sensors of the current unit
--- iterate over all active game units derived for each sensor to see if sensor detects it
--- if sensor detects it then add to list of detected units

Check all detected units to see which one was detected the 'strongest'. Place pointer to this unit in unit's contact detected 'slot'.

If an unit can detect more than one target with its sensor, how will it decide which one to attack? The closest one maybe? Any idea?

[THE_MASK]

German taskforce incurring heavy damage against 2 polish DDs .
Using the latest sobers mega mod list including these mods . No ctds
FX_Update_0_0_22_ByTheDarkWraith
NewUIs_TDC_7_5_0_ByTheDarkWraith
OPEN HORIZONS II v2.4
SM_Wounded_Unit_Radioing
All the latest patches
http://i61.tinypic.com/1zxwg3q.jpg

[gap]

On an unrelated note: there's something I always wanted to ask you, but I never did. Let's say that (while using your ship radio patch) our u-boat is detected by a radio-equipped unit, and that it calls in for reinforcements. I already know that assisting units, on turn, must have fuctional radio equipment and they must be within a "Lost contact" travel time (at their max speed) for them to react. But what if there is an airfield/carrier in the vicinity? Do aircraft spawn from them based on "lost contact time", or rather they max range is taken into account (or both of them)?


Using the latest sobers mega mod list including these mods . No ctds]

:up:

[TheDarkWraith]

If an unit can detect more than one target with its sensor, how will it decide which one to attack? The closest one maybe? Any idea?

The one with the highest signal strength (not necessarily the closest one either)

On an unrelated note: there's something I always wanted to ask you, but I never did. Let's say that (while using your ship radio patch) our u-boat is detected by a radio-equipped unit, and that it calls in for reinforcements. I already know that assisting units, on turn, must have fuctional radio equipment and they must be within a "Lost contact" travel time (at their max speed) for them to react. But what if there is an airfield/carrier in the vicinity? Do aircraft spawn from them based on "lost contact time", or rather they max range is taken into account (or both of them)?

My patch says if unit detects contact then set the check airstrike timer to 1 (thus will cause check for airstrikes on next game loop iteration). When the game checks for airstrikes it will iterate over all the game units and if any game unit has the current game unit as a contact then the game will see if it can launch an airstrike on that game unit. So the game takes the max range of the airbase or carrier into account.

[gap]

The one with the highest signal strength (not necessarily the closest one either)

I see. So for aircraft to "see" their attackers and return fire, we should at least give them a visual range as wide as the train/elevation of their turrets.

One last question (sorry for bothering you with so many questions at once :)). Do you think it possible to give an unit more than a visual sensor, and to link some of its sensors to the barrels of its guns? This way aircraft would always look at the direction their guns are currently pointing to (+/- sensor's range in degrees), and if a turret is destroyed, the plane will become blind at some angles :hmmm:


So the game takes the max range of the airbase or carrier into account.

Is it the max range of its/her aircraft? (to the best of my knowledge airbases and carriers don't have any range setting).

[TheDarkWraith]

I see. So for aircraft to "see" their attackers and return fire, we should at least give them a visual range as wide as the train/elevation of their turrets.

One last question (sorry for bothering you with so many questions at once :)). Do you think it possible to give an unit more than a visual sensor, and to link some of its sensors to the barrels of its guns? This way aircraft would always look at the direction their guns are currently pointing to (+/- sensor's range in degrees), and if a turret is destroyed, the plane will become blind at some angles :hmmm:

Is it the max range of its/her aircraft? (to the best of my knowledge airbases and carriers don't have any range setting).

The AI_Visual sensor and my AI_Visual sensor in my uboat_sensors file covers a sphere as large as the max range. Think of the max range of a visual sensor as the radius of a sphere. Wherever that sensor is located on the object defines that center of that sphere. This assumes the min and max elevations are set to a maximum value.

You can define certain bearings that the sensor can only 'see'. It's a property of the sensor (SensitivitySectors).

The game iterates over a maximum of 16 sensors for each unit object. Whether you can define more than one type of sensor (visual, radar, etc.) for each unit object I'm not sure. I'd have to watch it in debugger to see if game recognized more than 1 type of certain sensor per unit object. Same goes for attaching sensors to gun barrels and such.

Max range of the aircraft stationed at the airbase/carrier.

[TheDarkWraith]

I just discovered I have an error in my units must use radio patch. It's not an error per se but rather almost all units are not being checked as to whether they can receive radio :huh:

I just learned a whole lot about how game deals with contacts today. Let's say unit detects a new contact with it's sensors. If unit previously had no contact detected then the game engine will iterate over all the game units defined to give ONE of them that is the same side (axis, allies, or neutral) the same contact (it's actually the first one it finds in the list). Note I said ONE of them. I thought it iterated over all and gave all with the same side the contact but I was wrong.

If the iterated unit receiving the contact is game unit type <= 4 or a 10 or a 11 then it's radio was being checked else it's radio is NOT being checked. I am updating the units must use radio patch to correct this.

I'm also developing a way to have the game engine while iterating over all the game units for the same side to give each one of them the contact instead of giving it to only one (the first one it finds).

[gap]

The AI_Visual sensor and my AI_Visual sensor in my uboat_sensors file covers a sphere as large as the max range. Think of the max range of a visual sensor as the radius of a sphere. Wherever that sensor is located on the object defines that center of that sphere. This assumes the min and max elevations are set to a maximum value.

You can define certain bearings that the sensor can only 'see'. It's a property of the sensor (SensitivitySectors).

Yep, I know. You can even set a sensitivity factor for each arc. This is of little use for ship visual sensors: with many watchmen supposedly on deck, and looking at every direction at any given time, your 360x360 deg AI_visual is fairly suited to surface units. Nonetheless, detection arc settings have (at least in theory) an interesting application with aircraft, whose visual awareness should be limited by the cramped space onboard, and by the exiguous crew complement. If possible, my idea was to equip planes with a visual sensor for each crewman (each sensor with a limited detection arc, and reduced sensitivity at its extreme ends). If the sensors are linked to objects with indivdual damage boxes, destroying the box would "kill" the virtual watchman connected with it, thus reducing airplane's visual :know:

There is a "but" though. If, during an air-to-air or or air-to-sea angagement, a plane with partial visual coverage temporarily loses contact with her current target (due to a sharp turn, for instance), will she forget about the opponent? :hmm2:


The game iterates over a maximum of 16 sensors for each unit object.

Good to know :up:


Whether you can define more than one type of sensor (visual, radar, etc.) for each unit object I'm not sure. I'd have to watch it in debugger to see if game recognized more than 1 type of certain sensor per unit object. Same goes for attaching sensors to gun barrels and such.

Could you please check it? :)

[gap]

Let's say unit detects a new contact with it's sensors. If unit previously had no contact detected then the game engine will iterate over all the game units defined to give ONE of them that is the same side (axis, allies, or neutral) the same contact (it's actually the first one it finds in the list)

...

If the iterated unit receiving the contact is game unit type <= 4 or a 10 or a 11 then it's radio was being checked else it's radio is NOT being checked. I am updating the units must use radio patch to correct this.

I'm also developing a way to have the game engine while iterating over all the game units for the same side to give each one of them the contact instead of giving it to only one (the first one it finds).

Well spotted! I suppose that fixing that, would drastically increase the difficulty in game. I wonder what devs had in mind :hmmm:

[TheDarkWraith]

Well spotted! I suppose that fixing that, would drastically increase the difficulty in game. I wonder what devs had in mind :hmmm:

I constantly ask myself that same question as I'm looking over the code in the debugger :nope:

[THE_MASK]

I constantly ask myself that same question as I'm looking over the code in the debugger :nope:I guess the dev team didn't have the resources or time to finish the game by some deadline . Last ditch effort gave us some limited modding tools . Still the best submarine game now :yep:

[Tonci87]

Yep, I know. You can even set a sensitivity factor for each arc. This is of little use for ship visual sensors: with many watchmen supposedly on deck, and looking at every direction at any given time, your 360x360 deg AI_visual is fairly suited to surface units.

That is kind of wrong. Think about nighttime engagements and searchlights. Naturally they should have a very high sensitivity inside the area the searchlight illuminates.

[gap]

That is kind of wrong. Think about nighttime engagements and searchlights. Naturally they should have a very high sensitivity inside the area the searchlight illuminates.

They do indeed, but I am probably missing your point. What is wrong in the statement you quoted? :hmm2:

[gap]

@ TDW

as already pointed by Trevally, have you already seen the following IRAI-related posts by Serge65?

If the tanker is stalking you, change: data\Scripts\AI\Ship-Waypoint

strategy WaypointsCNFW(Ship)
precond
{
!Ship:CanFollowWaypoint()
}
action
{
Ship:Goto(0.7,false); ----> Ship:Goto(0.7,true);
Ship:SetThrottle(0.7);
}
}

and everything will be fine!:up:


By the way, found another bug. In my game, when resupply, there was not a tanker, there was a submarine (7C_AI). She was not rammed me, she ran and I could not catch up. In Sub-Navigate.aix file, in sub-strategies NavigateCNFPNEP, need to change the line: Sub Dive(0.0, false) to Ship: Goto (0.7, true). (In IRAI_0_0_41 it is associated with sub-attack.aix file and I do not know how it will work).

QUOTE - # have ship zig-zag it's course. Yes, I know, but without waypoints - it circulation.

NOTE: My little fix "For IRAI" is now fully compatible with IRAI_0_0_41.

[GaetVa]

Hello,

Perhaps someone can answer my question. It seems that IRAI is running
only if the player is sub is not far away ennemies units. I mean, if
the player is sub is for instance at a distance of 200 km of 2 Taks forces
(which are ennemies), this 2 taks forces, even if they are closed themselves.

I make the test in the wolfpack mission, if i put my submarine at a distance of 200 km for instance, nothing happens between the merchant and the submarines, if i let my submarine closed enough, the combat arises.

Is there a solution for this ?

[GaetVa]

Just to precise, to verify it, i created a trigger for the merchants classes destroyed and an event of this trigger sending a message when the merchant class is destroyed.

So when i am closed to the submarines / merchants, i received message, if i am far away from submarines / merchants, i have no message, so i presume it happen nothing if the player submarine is at a long range from the IA units.

[TheDarkWraith]

Hello,

Perhaps someone can answer my question. It seems that IRAI is running
only if the player is sub is not far away ennemies units. I mean, if
the player is sub is for instance at a distance of 200 km of 2 Taks forces
(which are ennemies), this 2 taks forces, even if they are closed themselves.

I make the test in the wolfpack mission, if i put my submarine at a distance of 200 km for instance, nothing happens between the merchant and the submarines, if i let my submarine closed enough, the combat arises.

Is there a solution for this ?

I don't understand the perceived problem you are trying to convey :06: Maybe you or someone else can clarify it?

[TheDarkWraith]

@ TDW

as already pointed by Trevally, have you already seen the following IRAI-related posts by Serge65?

Yes I did and I made the change in IRAI 41. This 'fix' makes absolutely no sense. Setting the false to true just says that the unit will now zig-zag instead of going in a straight line. I don't see how this fixes anything other than making the unit zig-zag. I'm fairly certain it was just coincidence that this change fixed any problem.

[GaetVa]

Hello TDW,

what i mean : is AI combat arises even if the player sub is not closed
to AI ships. For instance, imagine that 2 ennemies ships are closed enough
but my sub is far away this 2 ships (about 200 km). Are this 2 ennemies ships will fight even if they are not in my line of sight ?

or my submarine need to be closed enough to this ships to make them engaging each other ?

[TheDarkWraith]

Hello TDW,

what i mean : is AI combat arises even if the player sub is not closed
to AI ships. For instance, imagine that 2 ennemies ships are closed enough
but my sub is far away this 2 ships (about 200 km). Are this 2 ennemies ships will fight even if they are not in my line of sight ?

or my submarine need to be closed enough to this ships to make them engaging each other ?

I'm inclined to say yes they will. Every game unit is an autonomous unit unless it belongs to a group. But then again I'm also inclined to say they won't because they are out of rendering range :hmmm: When units are out of rendering range a completely different set of routines are used to update all the game units (the MissionEngine.dll is responsible for this). I don't recall seeing anything in MissionEngine.dll responsible for combat - it mainly just updates unit's position. I never saw it call into SHSim.act (which is responsible for combat for the most part) so I would have to say that combat doesn't exist outside of the rendering range.

[GaetVa]

Ok ok thanks TDW.

I thought it could be interresting in a campaign that for instance a friendly uboat encounter a convoy, it attacks him, making more sense to the reality of the campaign (the uboat could send a message saying he is attacking a convoy or saying he is under attack to his allied units).

But you must be right as i tried it in the single mission wolfpacks you put in your irai mod. Nothing seems happening when the uboat is at a long range from the supposed fight.

[gap]

Yes I did and I made the change in IRAI 41. This 'fix' makes absolutely no sense. Setting the false to true just says that the unit will now zig-zag instead of going in a straight line. I don't see how this fixes anything other than making the unit zig-zag. I'm fairly certain it was just coincidence that this change fixed any problem.

I see. Thanks for answering.

Ok ok thanks TDW.

I thought it could be interresting in a campaign that for instance a friendly uboat encounter a convoy, it attacks him, making more sense to the reality of the campaign (the uboat could send a message saying he is attacking a convoy or saying he is under attack to his allied units).

But you must be right as i tried it in the single mission wolfpacks you put in your irai mod. Nothing seems happening when the uboat is at a long range from the supposed fight.

Your idea is interesting. :up:

It would add a lot to the immersion of the game. Also, coupled with the concept of "unique units" (this is one of the main differences among SH5 and its predecessors), it would render the campaign "dynamic" in the true sense of the therm.

Its implementation is unlikely though. The last word about it is on TDW indeed, but I think that it would require a complete rewrite of the library mentioned by the same TDW, not to mention the extra work tha the CPU should do for keeping track of all the potential AI-to-AI engagements in campaign. :hmmm:

[THE_MASK]

I can only scrape up 30fps in Kiel now with just a few units . Imagine my computers surprise when it has to do this for a 200klm radius .

[TheDarkWraith]

Your idea is interesting. :up:

It would add a lot to the immersion of the game. Also, coupled with the concept of "unique units" (this is one of the main differences among SH5 and its predecessors), it would render the campaign "dynamic" in the true sense of the therm.

Its implementation is unlikely though. The last word about it is on TDW indeed, but I think that it would require a complete rewrite of the library mentioned by the same TDW, not to mention the extra work tha the CPU should do for keeping track of all the potential AI-to-AI engagements in campaign. :hmmm:

Should be simple to implement as it should just involve telling the game the new rendering distance to use. I have a feeling it will severely tax the end-users system though. I'll look into playing around with it :up:

[gap]

Should be simple to implement as it should just involve telling the game the new rendering distance to use. I have a feeling it will severely tax the end-users system though. I'll look into playing around with it :up:

This is the point: simply increasing the rendering distance would be too much for our machines to handle it. It that was possible, it would be better checking if enemy units are getting within combat range, and rolling dices for deciding the outcome (yes, like Risk!) :hmm2:

[GaetVa]

@TDW

hopes your too tests could be successfull !! it will be really something (in my mind) really interreting, and as gap said, with unique ships features (as you can put unique ship for any class and add names boats for each of them), it would be possible to know which ships has been sunked, and even how many tonnage has been sank by axis for a given month, year).

It would give a lot of immersion to the campaigns.

Anyway, thanks to you to have a look about this :up:

@gap

yes, a very good idea in case it takes too much consuming cpu time.

[Serge65]

Yes I did and I made the change in IRAI 41. This 'fix' makes absolutely no sense. Setting the false to true just says that the unit will now zig-zag instead of going in a straight line. I don't see how this fixes anything other than making the unit zig-zag. I'm fairly certain it was just coincidence that this change fixed any problem.

Not sure! This 'fix' solves the possibility of resupply without ramming and chase. I do not argue, maybe, there is also other decision. It was simple the first which has arrived in me mind, and it leads to result.

[Serge65]

It's not in the AI scripts. In the decompiled files SHSim.act (SH4) and SHim.act (SH5) there is a difference in the controllers cmdr_AICostal Defense.

Land-to-sea and land-to-air: the controller for the land units is totally fubar. I can get them to track targets but they will not fire (or rotate their guns if they have them). I suspect it's because there are no .aix files for them. But the exe doesn't define any commands or an .aix file for them! Like I said totally fubar :nope:

Air-to-air: the exe forbids any air to air combat. It won't let air units track another air unit. This can be changed though :yep:
And yet, I was right when he said that the problem in SHSim.act. I studied in the old days assembler for 8-bit processors, programmed ROM, and I had a table of codes. Now I do not want to reinvent the wheel if TDW already invented it.

[TheDarkWraith]

And yet, I was right when he said that the problem in SHSim.act. I studied in the old days assembler for 8-bit processors, programmed ROM, and I had a table of codes. Now I do not want to reinvent the wheel if TDW already invented it.

There is a patch available so that air units can engage other air units. The 400 series of units will not able to able to ever fire guns due to too many pointers missing and their cmdr_ controller was not coded to fire weapons (missing AI routines).

[gap]

The 400 series of units will not able to able to ever fire guns due to too many pointers missing and their cmdr_ controller was not coded to fire weapons (missing AI routines).

TDW, as I have already asked before, could you at least make coastal guns and other land units collisionable and detectable by other AI units? Ship and planes currently ignore them (tested before the release of your last patch). I see some interesting applications in making them susceptible to enemy attacks, even though they obviously wouldn't be able to return fire :03:

[gap]

The AI is too accurate at long distances with there guns...

All I know on the topic is written down here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2183377&postcount=385).

In the past I have looked into AI scripts, but I couldn't find anything dealing with gun accuracy. I wonder how AI unit's veterancy comes into the picture. :hmmm:

[GaetVa]

Hello TDW,

I just want to ask you if you make some tests
about having AI vs AI combat when AI ships are a range greater that the
render range from sub player. (we spoke about that in the IRAI topic some weeks ago). Is it the render range from player subs which said that combat will occur ?

If yes, is there an easy way to modify this render range ?

Thanks a lot for your answer !
GaetVa

[TheDarkWraith]

Hello TDW,

I just want to ask you if you make some tests
about having AI vs AI combat when AI ships are a range greater that the
render range from sub player. (we spoke about that in the IRAI topic some weeks ago). Is it the render range from player subs which said that combat will occur ?

If yes, is there an easy way to modify this render range ?

Thanks a lot for your answer !
GaetVa

See here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2190423&postcount=3070

[GaetVa]

Incredible TDW !!!!

Going to test this evening !!!

:up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up::u p:


Really, thanks a lot !!!!! :salute:

[TheDarkWraith]

Going to test this evening !!!

What was the result of your testing? What did you have the additional render distance set to?

[GaetVa]

Hello TDW,

In fact i teste d it in the mission you provide with wolfpacks.

But seems i did something wrong :

I put a very large value in the code14 entry in the patch file.
(i put 99 on the value you put replacing the 2 first zero value, as
i don't know how to convert a decimal value into DWORD value. Search on google but nothing really speaking about a possible conversion...)

my sub was at a distance of several thousands kilometers :rotfl2:
(to know if something happens between the AI subs and the merchants
i added some triggers sending radio message when a ship of a particular class is sunk. but nothing appears).

Perhaps there is a limit of maximum render distance you can't go through ? or perhaps the value i put is not good ?

other try i did is to join to the AI submarine and tried with next unit camera every 10 mn to see if the camera go on this AI units with the distance from them decreasing (but not finished my tests,i think i was at a distance of 1000 kilometers or above
when i finished yesterday).

GaetVa

[TheDarkWraith]

Hello TDW,

In fact i teste d it in the mission you provide with wolfpacks.

But seems i did something wrong :

I put a very large value in the code14 entry in the patch file.
(i put 99 on the value you put replacing the 2 first zero value, as
i don't know how to convert a decimal value into DWORD value. Search on google but nothing really speaking about a possible conversion...)

Use this handy little app for converting a 32 bit float to hex: http://www.mediafire.com/download/jg4xhr3rlrpbz6t/FloatConvert.zip

The hex value you get from this you have to reverse in the patch file. i.e.: 50000.0 to hex is 47435000 but you have to enter it into the patch file as 00504347

As far as trying to use the camera buttons for ranges > 35000.0m from player's unit those won't work. I haven't figured out why yet. You have to go to external cam and move the camera to what you want to see for those large distances.

[GaetVa]

Ok TDW, understood !! :yeah:

Trying this evening !!

Thanks again :up:

[GaetVa]

Hello TDW

So tried it in the wolfpacks scenarios (with a range of 999 km in sh5.exe, and a AI ships and subs from a range of 900 km of my sub) : work like a charm :)

I tried range at about 4000 km and above, seems there is a limitation
of maximum range, as i can't make them work at this distance (perhaps more than 1000 km as i didn't tried this range)

I understood anyway that this kind of range can't be used in a campaign !
(or you need to remove at least all port traffic !)

[TheDarkWraith]

Hello TDW

So tried it in the wolfpacks scenarios (with a range of 999 km in sh5.exe, and a AI ships and subs from a range of 900 km of my sub) : work like a charm :)

I tried range at about 4000 km and above, seems there is a limitation
of maximum range, as i can't make them work at this distance (perhaps more than 1000 km as i didn't tried this range)

I understood anyway that this kind of range can't be used in a campaign !
(or you need to remove at least all port traffic !)

That is excellent news! What were your FPS (Shift+F8) values with the different additional rendering distances? What were all the values you tried for the additional rendering distances? Did you try these additional rendering distances just in single missions or in campaigns also?

I'm working on changing the whole mechanics of the game currently. I'm working on making every unit in the game an active unit instead of the way I described how the game currently does it. Basically what I'm doing is getting rid of this radius from player's sub limitation. This will make the campaign a truly dynamic one as everything is interacting/reacting to everything else at every moment in time :D

[GaetVa]

TDW,

I didn't verify fps, but i had no lag. but the test i did was in a scenario
with few units (the one you added concerning wolfpacks with addition of some AI subs, so perhaps 15-20 ships)

i have just made a try before sleeping with the campaign, but was unplayable with this range (1000 km). i tried on Open horizons campaign (happy days).

Note that i play on a 2012 laptop (not a bad graphical card) with graphics option at maximum (i used the wolfes megapatch) and even without the render patch, i am at about 12 fps when in port (but not really a problem for me). After that, i am usually at 20-25 fps (which is ok for me).

Concerning other rendered distances i tried in scenario 10 000 km, and after 4000 km (but nothing happens). I will make a try with 3000 km, 2000 km and 1000 km until i can have something happening.
(in fact the try i did which is running fine is not 1000 km but 999 999 meters and this is running fine). I will try 1000 km if 3000 and 2000 km are not running as perhaps it could be a limitation less than 1000 km ?


If you can do what you are speaking about rid of this radius from the player sub, it will be like :o no more like this :rotfl2:, no in fact :woot: :ping: :rock::ping::woot:!!

But anyway many thanks for the great job you already it !!

Even if for now for campaign will be hard to have a big range, already for scenarios, it becomes really interresting to do some really historical scenarios (i am thinking for instance of scenarios for artic convoys, like PQ17 with planes attacking first following by sub attacks, and even later with german ships attacking like Tirpitz and Admiral Hipper). With this render patch, this kind of things becomes possible.

[TheDarkWraith]

Even if for now for campaign will be hard to have a big range, already for scenarios, it becomes really interresting to do some really historical scenarios (i am thinking for instance of scenarios for artic convoys, like PQ17 with planes attacking first following by sub attacks, and even later with german ships attacking like Tirpitz and Admiral Hipper). With this render patch, this kind of things becomes possible.

If I can pull off what I'm trying to do it will allow all kinds of neat things with the game that weren't possible before. One neat thing will be wounded units would stay wounded. No more go outside of render distance, disappear, miraculously heal to 100%, then respawn again once inside the current render distance. That right there annoys me to no end :shifty: Plus you would get credit for units that died way out of your site because they would never be removed from the game until they actually died :yep:

[GaetVa]

TDW,

hope you can do what you want to do ! will be awesome !!

I make some others tries, so seems i was in the mistake, as there is
no limit (you can put 10 000 km in the patch if you want).

Don't know why i never received radio message in the scenario saying
merchants have been sunk when i did my tests :hmmm:

I tried in the campaign with a distance of 750 km (i remove all traffic from
ports to test it, and some others traffics, as i have not a very good computer configuration).

All was running ok until i got sunked by some ennemies ships
near Cherbourg.... (i am not very good...). So my test ended at this time.

Just another word : before that i trying with a distance of 1500 kilometers, but what i found strange
it is that i was at 25-30 fps, and dropped at 0 in 1 seconds. no intermediate FPS. It is like there is
an array of ships, and suddenly you go through this limit. (as i am sure in one second you can't have
20 new 3D rendered ships which will drop FPS like this).

[TheDarkWraith]

hope you can do what you want to do ! will be awesome !!

Just another word : before that i trying with a distance of 1500 kilometers, but what i found strange
it is that i was at 25-30 fps, and dropped at 0 in 1 seconds. no intermediate FPS. It is like there is
an array of ships, and suddenly you go through this limit. (as i am sure in one second you can't have
20 new 3D rendered ships which will drop FPS like this).

Someone with an average system should try it out and report what they find with your distances. My system just chews it up and spits it out and says is that all you got? I have high FPS even with ridiculous rendering distances.

A problem I have noted using very large rendering distances is the units are not 'updated' with the latest equipment. Since when using very large rendering distances the units are active (3D units) and not inactive (2D units). This means their equipment and loadouts are what they were when the unit originally spawned. With short rendering distances units aren't spawned until the player's sub is close to them and thus they have the 'latest' equipment and loadouts :shifty:

[vladimir bondarenko]

Dear TheDarkWraith, and whether it is possible to combine somehow fashions of SubFlags_0_0_8_byTheDarkWraith and IRAI_0_0_41_ByTheDarkWraith

[gap]

A problem I have noted using very large rendering distances is the units are not 'updated' with the latest equipment. Since when using very large rendering distances the units are active (3D units) and not inactive (2D units). This means their equipment and loadouts are what they were when the unit originally spawned. With short rendering distances units aren't spawned until the player's sub is close to them and thus they have the 'latest' equipment and loadouts :shifty:

I don't see it as a problem: if an unit spawned before her equipment upgrade date, it means that she was out at sea in the meanwhile, and that she couldn't be upgraded anyway. Only units setting sails (i.e. spawning in game) after the upgrade date should be fitted with their latest equipmens. :hmm2:

[vdr1981]

I'm wondering, why airplanes are so scrimpy when it comes to dropping bombs on target?:hmmm: It looks like they always prefer to use their guns but then they're easy target for AA guns...

[Ross59]

Hi TDW
If you are using my Ship's Inertia mod then you'll want to update IRAI with this: http://www.mediafire.com/?r6mxk65jaxmb9fu
This will allow the maximum speed of the unit to be dictated by damage incurred. Enabling this without my Ship's interia mod installed will cause the ship's to instantly slow down when they are damaged.
Whare can I find your Ships Inertia mod, and the link to the file download seems to be broken
Thanks
Ross

[Katze]

Hi TDW

Whare can I find your Ships Inertia mod, and the link to the file download seems to be broken
Thanks
Ross

TDW_Ship_Inertia_1_1_0 link: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=196657

And the IRAI_0_0_41_Inertia_Damage mod is included in the IRAI_0_0_41_ByTheDarkWraith zip file (you'll find it in the MODS folder inside the zip along with the main mod )

install them in JSGME as:
TDW_Ship_Inertia_1_1_0
IRAI_0_0_41_ByTheDarkWraith
IRAI_0_0_41_Inertia_Damage

[Ross59]

Thanks Katze :yeah:

[vdr1981]

A friend of mine was "probing" Royal Airforce near southwest coast of England...

http://s6.postimg.org/yzwf2juy9/SH5_Img_2014_01_26_00_15_53.jpg

It would be really nice if planes AI become a little bit more "determent" in the next IRAI update...:up:

[TheDarkWraith]

A friend of mine was "probing" Royal Airforce near southwest coast of England...

It would be really nice if planes AI become a little bit more "determent" in the next IRAI update...:up:

Is that the air-to-air combat patch in action? :D
Unfortunately the plane AI is the worst of all the game's AI. There isn't much hope for improving it :-?

[vdr1981]

Is that the air-to-air combat patch in action? :D
Unfortunately the plane AI is the worst of all the game's AI. There isn't much hope for improving it :-?

I see...Tnx for info!:up:

[vdr1981]

I'm getting really tired of escorts sensors uber-sensitivity...:nope:
I'm constantly being detected in some impossible situations, like while I'm siting 30 meters below being silent like hole in the water, just to realize that nearby destroyer (approx 800m away) has suddenly being alerted about my presence...:o
I don't need to say anything about surface engagement...It's just impossible...

Has anyone ever experimented with following values from init.aix file? Maybe there's hidden solution for the problem?
# Note: difficulty is in range 0.0 - 1.0 with 0.0 being no difficulty (sensor doesn't exist)
# for non-merchants
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.85;
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;
HYDROPHONE_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.85;
HYDROPHONE_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;
RADAR_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.85;
RADAR_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;
SONAR_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.85;
SONAR_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;
# for merchants
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MIN = 0.85;
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MAX = 1.0;
HYDROPHONE_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MIN = 0.85;
HYDROPHONE_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MAX = 1.0;
RADAR_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MIN = 0.85;
RADAR_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MAX = 1.0;
SONAR_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MIN = 0.85;
SONAR_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MAX = 1.0;

[THE_MASK]

I was thinking something like these values . Would require a campaign restart afaik .
# for non-merchants
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.5;
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;
HYDROPHONE_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.5;
HYDROPHONE_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;
RADAR_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.85;
RADAR_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;
SONAR_DIFFICULTY_MIN = 0.85;
SONAR_DIFFICULTY_MAX = 1.0;
# for merchants
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MIN = 0.5;
VISUAL_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MAX = 1.0;
HYDROPHONE_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MIN = 0.85;
HYDROPHONE_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MAX = 1.0;
RADAR_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MIN = 0.85;
RADAR_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MAX = 1.0;
SONAR_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MIN = 0.85;
SONAR_DIFFICULTY_MERCHANT_MAX = 1.0;

[Sartoris]

I agree, the destroyers can be too perceptive at times, although it is my impression that TDW wanted to make it a hardcore experience, which makes the mod a success when viewed from that perspective. Of course, this means that you need to take a completely different approach to the game, and NEVER get spotted, because once you do, you're pretty much dead. Which then means attacking from a range of at least 5000 meters, and avoiding the fast 90 approach, as stoianm suggests in one of his tutorial videos.

Sober's suggestion is something that I'll definitely try out on my next campaign restart, which will happen quite soon, so I'll report my impressions.

I remember playing the Operation Monsun mod for SH4 (don't have much experience with vanilla) and the destroyers in that game were much easier to escape from, while presenting a challenge at the same time. Is there a way to check how the parameters sober mentions were set in SH4 so we could try using those in SH5? If that's at all possible, of course...

[ZygfrydDeLowe]

[...] Would require a campaign restart afaik .

Are you sure about that? I also had a severe case of uber-destroyers when I tried to do the Scapa Flow mission. Even when silent on 30-50 meters (en route to Scapa) in a heavy storm they just started to converge on me once (I assume) I crossed a certain distance threshold.

So I lowered some settings (0,5 to 0,9) I think and it seem to work, after loading of the game I was able to sneak by them more easily - but I might be mistaken, since it wasn't a test in the same conditions.

Right now I have visual and hydro sensitivity set to 0,65 - 0,95 for non-merchants. But they still sometimes present the described type of behaviour.

Also - is there automatic distance threshold when the unit is alerted about your presence? Because going at night close to some escorts trigger them to turn on search lights and "play" siren/alarm sound.

[Defiance]

Hehe,

I love it as it is

Nowt like damage all around and your nerves are shot and the batteries are draining faster than water through a sieve :yeah:

With rsd and real u boat performance it's a rush when you let yourself get seen :)

I just play the sim, know basics about subs, but i try to do what a captain would in rl i think, main thing, daylight is deadly on surface especially close to land

Keep batts charged, take time and think 'what if' and check horizon (pardon the pun) like your life depends on it hehe

Bear in mind i am still at the opening stages of career, and i realize things get way tougher (maybe i'll want to tone things down then lol)

Just keeps getting better and better for me with more realism

(just been homing in on a darn whale, first i've seen so far, now i'll know what not to home in soujnd-wise for the future :haha:

[gap]

Is there a way to check how the parameters sober mentions were set in SH4 so we could try using those in SH5? If that's at all possible, of course...

I don't think so. If memory serves me well, those AI difficulty configurable settings were introduced by TDW. There should be nothing like that in any SH4 mod, unless it includes an SH4 version of IRAI

Also - is there automatic distance threshold when the unit is alerted about your presence? Because going at night close to some escorts trigger them to turn on search lights and "play" siren/alarm sound.

Being dictated by AI sensor's range settings, that distance should depend on the sensors that the pursuing units are equipped with and on a number of environmental factors which may affect the sensitivity of those sensors.

[Sartoris]

How long do DDs search for you once they manage to latch onto you?

I often experience hours and hours of evasion after an attack, and the escorts tend to search for me even after the entire convoy they're "protecting" has vanished from sight long ago.:har:

It just strikes me as unrealistic that every escort would abandon their convoy in the hopes of finding little old me, and then dedicating tens of hours to this process. Yes, it makes it really difficult to stay alive because the escorts basically force you to surface eventually due to CO2, but it doesn't really make for fun gameplay when the game boils down to evading ten escorts for dozens of hours because they're able to locate me with pinpoint accuracy even when I'm at 150 meters, silent running and standing perfectly still...

[Sartoris]

Just had another one of those "supernaturally observant escorts" moments. I sneaked my way between two columns of a convoy and successfully torpedoed one ship and damaged another. Dropped down to 150 meters, silent running, ahead slow. I'm hoping to get lost among all the merchants. But nope. All the escorts immediately beeline towards my exact position, and one depth charge later I'm dead. No search patterns, nothing. The escorts immediately know where I am, no matter what I do. I know that it would be wiser to attack the convoy from the outside, but even in such cases the escorts never spend too much time before locating me. I'd really appreciate it if someone could share some ideas on evasive tactics.

[THE_MASK]

Just had another one of those "supernaturally observant escorts" moments. I sneaked my way between two columns of a convoy and successfully torpedoed one ship and damaged another. Dropped down to 150 meters, silent running, ahead slow. I'm hoping to get lost among all the merchants. But nope. All the escorts immediately beeline towards my exact position, and one depth charge later I'm dead. No search patterns, nothing. The escorts immediately know where I am, no matter what I do. I know that it would be wiser to attack the convoy from the outside, but even in such cases the escorts never spend too much time before locating me. I'd really appreciate it if someone could share some ideas on evasive tactics.Try my mega mod and start a new career . Tell me what you think . It has some IRAI tweaks .

[Sartoris]

Try my mega mod and start a new career . Tell me what you think . It has some IRAI tweaks .

I'm currently using the Wolves of Steel mega mod, and I'd like to keep using it, so I'd be really grateful if you could tell me how to tweak IRAI to match your own mod. I assume it entails changing some numbers that affect the escorts' sensors?

[7Infanterie19]

How long do DDs search for you once they manage to latch onto you?

I often experience hours and hours of evasion after an attack, and the escorts tend to search for me even after the entire convoy they're "protecting" has vanished from sight long ago.:har:

It just strikes me as unrealistic that every escort would abandon their convoy in the hopes of finding little old me, and then dedicating tens of hours to this process. Yes, it makes it really difficult to stay alive because the escorts basically force you to surface eventually due to CO2, but it doesn't really make for fun gameplay when the game boils down to evading ten escorts for dozens of hours because they're able to locate me with pinpoint accuracy even when I'm at 150 meters, silent running and standing perfectly still...

I'm still just getting started with a new campaign after doing all my upgrades and resolving my CTDs, so I haven't encountered anything yet and don't know if things are with or worse with the upgrades.

With the previous versions, if I did TC higher than 2 or 4, escorts would zero in on my like that as well - frustrating to say the least:o. I would often end up going deep like you did, but shutting down my engines and going silent. That was one of the only methods for me that would have them eventually leave. I read lately that people go to 1 knot, then scoot out. I plan to try that on my first encounter.

As for them hanging around unrealistically, I thought it odd as well until I started reading Iron Coffins. Ironically, yesterday I read this: "Nine hours passed, and the escorts were still throwing their cans." followed later by "But as the day came to an end, the three escorts turned away and sped after their convoy." So apparently not unrealistic after all. :up:


I'm currently using the Wolves of Steel mega mod, and I'd like to keep using it, so I'd be really grateful if you could tell me how to tweak IRAI to match your own mod. I assume it entails changing some numbers that affect the escorts' sensors?

Check ZygfrydDeLowe's post above regarding some tweaks. Somewhere in this thread there is discussion about toning down these uber abilities that the escorts have. You'll have to search the thread manually or maybe someone can pipe in directly as to the file and the section that needs to be edited, because I'm not sure where that info is at the moment. :hmmm:

[Sartoris]

I'm still just getting started with a new campaign after doing all my upgrades and resolving my CTDs, so I haven't encountered anything yet and don't know if things are with or worse with the upgrades.

With the previous versions, if I did TC higher than 2 or 4, escorts would zero in on my like that as well - frustrating to say the least:o. I would often end up going deep like you did, but shutting down my engines and going silent. That was one of the only methods for me that would have them eventually leave. I read lately that people go to 1 knot, then scoot out. I plan to try that on my first encounter.

As for them hanging around unrealistically, I thought it odd as well until I started reading Iron Coffins. Ironically, yesterday I read this: "Nine hours passed, and the escorts were still throwing their cans." followed later by "But as the day came to an end, the three escorts turned away and sped after their convoy." So apparently not unrealistic after all. :up:




Check ZygfrydDeLowe's post above regarding some tweaks. Somewhere in this thread there is discussion about toning down these uber abilities that the escorts have. You'll have to search the thread manually or maybe someone can pipe in directly as to the file and the section that needs to be edited, because I'm not sure where that info is at the moment. :hmmm:

Appreciate the insight, I guess then that the fact the escorts hang around so long isn't as unrealistic as I thought.:up:

Do share your experiences with escorts once you play more with your new campaign, I'd really like to hear if the tactic of going deep and remaining silent works for you. The last time I attacked a convoy from the inside that tactic failed miserably...:dead:

[7Infanterie19]

Will do Sartoris! :up:

From reading that book, I'm amazed at how those captains did a lot of surface attacks and maneuvered between the waves within less (sometimes a lot less) than 2000-4000 m of escorts AND managed to sink multiple targets before speeding off and not getting noticed, or charging full into the middle of the convoy and submerging afterwards to ease evasion. Fascinating stuff! I'm really enjoying this book, btw. I think I remember stumbling on some discussions in the forums about these tactics not being so easy to mirror in the game.

[Sartoris]

Will do Sartoris! :up:

From reading that book, I'm amazed at how those captains did a lot of surface attacks and maneuvered between the waves within less (sometimes a lot less) than 2000-4000 m of escorts AND managed to sink multiple targets before speeding off and not getting noticed, or charging full into the middle of the convoy and submerging afterwards to ease evasion. Fascinating stuff! I'm really enjoying this book, btw. I think I remember stumbling on some discussions in the forums about these tactics not being so easy to mirror in the game.

Cool, I'll try to find a copy of that book, sound like fascinating reading material!

[7Infanterie19]

Whoa! :huh:

It's only early September 1939 in OHII v2.5. As I got close to the English coast after sunrise, planes suddenly pounced all over me out of nowhere, causing huge damage (I imagine it would probably be worse if I had RSD installed). My crew only spotted them at maybe 3000 or 4000 m away, so I didn't even have time to dive fast enough. This was with TC 32 or 64, IIRC, and with my settings set to drop TC to zero with a plane sighting.

I thought it was a glitch or something , so I reloaded my save to test things out a few times at different TC, speeds and direction. It's like the planes are just waiting for us like a cat sitting by the mouse hole. My watch crew doesn't see them quick enough anymore.
"Uhh, hello! Put out your cigs, stop listening to your iPods :Kaleun_Party: and watch the skies, damnit!" :Kaleun_Binocular:
Even with low or no TC, I'd get whacked on most of my tests. Man, it's insane. With campaigns in older mod versions, I remember thinking "ok, better kick butt now, because once air cover ramps up in later years, it's going to be no picnic", but now "early years" is the new "later years". I can't even begin to imagine how much harder it will be in later years - if I'm still alive to make it that far. :hmmm:

I remember my watch crew spotting planes much earlier before the upgrades of IRAI, UIs, FX, and OHII, giving me time to submerge at least. With earlier versions, if I wanted to, I had the choice of fighting back with the flak gun or not, but I'm not brave - or foolish - enough to try that anymore. I guess I'll be selling my flak gun on eBay since it's of no use to me now, and I'll be replacing my "Man the flak guns" command with "ALLLLLAAAAARRRRRRMMMMMMM!" :eek:

Is this fast - and highly accurate - plane behaviour related to the latest IRAI or another of those mods or the combination thereof?

Isn't it too early in the war to be encountering this reaction from the Allies?

At what distance should the watch crew be able to see planes on a day with zero precip and zero fog?

How do you guys feel about these settings - too much or just right?

I know Defiance loves it:

Hehe, I love it as it is ....

... daylight is deadly on surface especially close to land



:o

[THEBERBSTER]

EBCW has now become a very dangerous area on the surface.

I have played this a few times but have never experienced the aggressiveness with the new mods.

I dare not go over TC4 during the day or you are taking a big chance of suddenly being straffed.

I have been twice so far, luckily only 2% damage as I was able to react to some degree.

I thought it was safe late evening 21.00 but there were still patrols about often in pairs.

I think I remember Sober commenting about this fairly recently.

Keeps you on your toes, Oh boy.

Peter

[7Infanterie19]

If EBCW is this dangerous in 1939, I wonder how it will be on the other side (cringe :o). IMO, I still think it's too soon in the war to be experiencing this, though. If my watch crew would spot aircraft like they did before, I would probably think differently, but like this, I just don't know.

I agree about late evening. I figured that it's still a gamble heading out when the icon is still evening-red and not night-blue yet. The problem with all this is that there's not enough time to recharge batteries at night. Rolling at 2 knots submerged during the day eats 50% of my batteries (in less than 8 hours). In one of the loading screens, I read that a VII can go on batteries for 36 hours at 2 knots, which means that I seem to be getting less than 25% of that :hmmm:. I'm going to probably have to either lower my speed to 1 knot or just sit there (which will be boring, of course). How do you handle that, Peter?

Keeps you on your toes, Oh boy.

lol .. I'll try, but considering that I stubbed one of them during a crash dive, it's gonna be tough for a while! :D

[THEBERBSTER]

To say daytime now is difficult is an understatement.

When I played before there was a channel into the Tyne with a few escorts that were quite easy to get around.

Not now both the ports Blyth and Tyne are right on the coast.

I never realized this as I came down from Scapa thinking I could use the same tactic.

I was spotted by an escort but I dived and went 2 knots and started a full rudder manoeuver.

When I looked through the Periscope there were 7 escorts that had been patrolling off the coast line coming after me.

There was also a MTB charging around on fire.

After several hours of Silent Routine and stop starting I managed to shake the escorts off.

Needed a lot of patience.

As it was now 20.00 I plotted a new course to the patrol area when at 21.00 at TC4 I was suddenly straffed.

It was quite dark and the only thing I can think of is that the fighter just got lucky as it was heading directly at me.

I am in the patrol grid and my TC will be around 2 to 4 max during the day as I am a reasonable distance off the coast I should get better warning at this distance.

I will only dive if I have to during the day.

At night I will dive and use the hydro every 2 hours.

I agree that if this the offensive performance now at this stage of the war, then I think we could be in for a real pasting in the months to come.

All I have found in the patrol area so far is 90 tons.

I only hope the likelihood of further sustained injury is going to be worth the end result.

Peter

[7Infanterie19]

To say daytime now is difficult is an understatement.

Holy smokes! I was actually going to say that in my previous post.

So they DID move ports!! I thought I was seeing things. I have a screenshot of the old map that I use to mark the shipping lanes that I find. I noticed that some of the ports didn't align properly with the new version and just figured it was some graphic anomaly.

I was also surprised to see the massive escort activity around Blyth and Tyne the other day and knew, aside from those mad pilots, that this isn't a pleasant country drive anymore.

I'm going to give your tactics a try .. well, aside from getting chased by 7 escorts and an MTB. hehehe :D

[Defiance]

Well i'm back onto baltic operations

I swear i could do this mission in my sleep now lol

Fresh w7 install, new mod list (working a treat) new gpu so been testing drivers (r9 290x gpu, latest 14.6 beta seems very stable for me now)

But before all the changes, i happened across a convoy someways off that area but i got around 1/3 to 1/2 of my tonnage before having to start afresh, just keep looking and hopefully you'll find some decent targets

Per the strafing, damn those fighters, i think my engineers running out of periscope lenses lol, he seems to be fixing them daily :haha:

Just imagine in rl, no wonder they had binocs glued to their hands hehe

[THE_MASK]

Any british air space is really dangerous now with the latest patcher and mods . If you stay on the surface all the time than you wont last long . I think escort groupings are way too close .

[dcb]

Any british air space is really dangerous now with the latest patcher and mods . If you stay on the surface all the time than you wont last long . I think escort groupings are way too close .

I have nothing against ramping up the difficulty level of the game. Nevertheless, after reading all these comments about early years being a killer now, I have a few questions:

Is this real? Is this how it happened in reality? Then why did they call this period 'the happy times'?

If this is how it happened, then we should live with it and develop adequate tactics. If not, then why making the life of the kaleun harder than it was?

[7Infanterie19]

I like your post, dcb. :yeah:

It's what I have been thinking as well.

The "Happy Times" period will be a misnomer (although "Happy Times" didn't actually begin until the next summer). For me, considering the first mission ECW (which in OHII is now the second mission) is Sept 1939, it doesn't play well with my logic that the Allies are already full on ready for us. Perhaps if those planes were recon only, and in fewer numbers or less frequent, I might understand, but they seem to be hard core hunter killers (in perfect weather) right off the bat, almost a year before BoB even happened.

You asked "Is this how it happened in reality, grandpa?"
On uboat.net's "U-boat-successes against aircraft" page http://uboat.net/history/aircraft_losses.htm, the first paragraph says "In the beginning of the war U-boats had little to fear from allied aircraft. Only 2 U-boats were lost to aircraft during 1939-1941 but in 1942 alone 31 boats were lost to them. A sign of things to come".

Well, aircraft is what I'm fearing the most at the moment! :o

If this is the way it will be with the OHII/TDWUIs/IRAI combo now, then I wholeheartedly agree that (if we don't have any choice) we'll have to develop new tactics and readjust the way we play the early years (let alone the later years), accepting the fact that we'll lose a bit of "historical accuracy" (and I use that term loosely).

I also support the idea of ramping up difficulty levels, but with all good tweaking, we need to find that "sweet spot" (which albeit will be different for everyone), and stop there while also trying to maintain historical timelines and accuracy as best we can, since that is what OHII has always tried to do for us. Tweaking doesn't always mean ramping up, but is ramping down as well. If the hardcore players still want more ramping up (gulp! :huh:), then maybe two versions of these mods can be made - if possible: Regular and Hardcore, so that the less-than-hardcore players or newbies don't shy away from the new versions of these mods. Just a suggestion (from a less-than-hardcore player).:salute:

If we do leave it the way it is or keep ramping it up, then maybe we should consider changing the name of "Coastal Waters" to "Get Ready Because Happy Times Will Not Be A Walk In The Park Like We Thought" .. hehehehe! :D

[laurencius]

Intelligent Random AI (IRAI) is amazing! I was hunting down a minelayer and a destroyer near Danzing as part of the Open Horizons II first campaign. I was able to catch the destroyer by surprise and sunk it. The minelayer took evasive action and maneuvered for a bit. I was surprised when the minelayer came to a full stop.

I wait a few minutes, but the minelayer just stays still. I found it weird that it would just sit there, but I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth, so I maneuvered to close range, 90 degrees of her port side, and line up what I thought was a beautiful torpedo shot.

I pop out my battle periscope one more time and confirm that the minelayer is still sitting there. I fire the torpedo off, but the minelayer was waiting for me to do just that! The minelayer's engines kicked in, ahead flank speed, spotlights all over my position, tracers and rounds all about. My torpedo misses. The minelayer's guns find their mark. Periscope damage, hull damage, engine damage, two officers injured, and the minelayer is coming straight for me!

I ordered the crash dive, but it was too late. The minelayer rammed my boat and delivered the fatal blow.

As we sank to our final repose at the bottom of Danzig Bay, I laughed realizing that I had just been played.

It was the most thrilling fun that I've had playing SH5 so far! :yeah:

[Defiance]

Hiya's,

Yeah that initial mission is a blast as you really are odds-on to being intercepted by those two ships

I tell you what adds immersion for me ............

Submarine's .sim&cfg (modified for engine ratio + independent control patches).7z
Real U-Boat Performance - Type VII v1.4
Reworked U-boat Guns (incomplete version)

Coupled with eye candy deck sprays, makes for a thrilling time

I have now done baltic/scapa/eastern british coast, and now doing the northern british one, lots of space n depth so actually i would like an encounter or two, what i guess i'm saying is, the baltic mission seems to initially make iria seem overdone, until you get longer haul missions with pretty tedious and boring routines

Still altering mods so not using real nav again until i'm 100% sure i've got the game how i like it, but real nav adds another depth to it

:salute:

[7Infanterie19]

laurencius - nice one! Sometimes the most thrilling engagements are those where we end up at the bottom of the sea. :arrgh!:

Defiance - I'm also trying to make sure everything is stable before I move to decks awash, independent controls and ratios. Patching them was causing me grief, so later on, I need to figure out what I may or may not be doing wrong in that process. For now, I at least get decks awash through voice commands, but the boat still runs electrics when I do it.

You said: Submarine's .sim&cfg (modified for engine ratio + independent control patches).7z. Is that through the patcher or did you do some modifications yourself? :hmmm:

Real Nav: One day for me as well - maybe! ;)

[Defiance]

Be easier if i copy/paste mod sequence

The last mods listed are there as i've added them today, they are fine where they are as only overwrite what their supposed to, but once i rtb i'll edit mep to place them better, eg : the impurity patch will be moved up to the dynenv area

Accurate German Flags
DynEnv v2.9 - 1. Main Mod
DynEnv v2.9 - 4.a Camera Filters - Realistic Colors
DynEnv v2.9 - 5.d Ambient Settings - Brighter Nights
DynEnv v2.9 - 8.b Wave Mechanics - Gale
DynEnv v2.9 - 10.I Seafloor (high resolution)
DynEnv v2.9 - 11.a.I Sea Plants - Atlantic Kelp Forests (high resolution)
(Impurity patch will go here)
SteelViking's Interior Mod V1.2
SteelViking's Interior Mod V1.2.2 Patch
sobers best ever fog V27 SH5
Small_trees_SH5_V1
sobers more trees SH5
SH5_7A_Conning_Fix
Fix clock rear torpedo room VIIA
Fuel Gauge WoGaDi_SteelViking's Interior
Equipment_Upgrades_Fix_v1_4_byTheBeast
Equipment_Upgrades_Fix_v1_4_Patch_1
#Equipment_Upgrades_Fix_v1_4_Patch_1_HotFix
Equipment_Upgrades_Fix_v1_4_Patch_1 (available by date) V9 by sober
NOZAURIO'S SKIN (Standar No Emblem) v-1.1.0
MightyFine Crew Mod 1.2.1 Alt w beards
Speech fixes and additions (german version)
FX_Update_0_0_22_ByTheDarkWraith
FX_Update_0_0_22_Torpedoes (modified for torpedoes failure patches)
NewUIs_TDC_7_5_0_ByTheDarkWraith
NewUIs_TDC_7_5_0_New_radio_messages_German
NewUIs_TDC_7_5_0_No_Snorkel_Exhaust_Smoke
NewUIs_TDC_7_5_0_RadCapTools_0_2_alpha
NewUIs_TDC_7_5_0_Das_Boot_Crew_Mod_by_Illyustrator
TDW_No_contact_shapes_or_colors_dashed_contact_lin e_1_1_0
IRAI_0_0_41_ByTheDarkWraith
Large Optics for TDW UI
Large Optics for TDW UI 16 by 9
Submarine's .sim&cfg (modified for engine ratio + independent control patches).7z
Real U-Boat Performance - Type VII v1.4
Sjizzle's - Charts for NewUIs part 1_07.06.2013
Sjizzle's - Charts for NewUIs part 2_07.06.2013
Sjizzle's - Charts for NewUIs part 3_24.06.2013
Sjizzle's - Charts for NewUIs part 4_20.07.2013
Sjizzle's - MarineQuadrat Charts for NewUIs v. 0.00.2
R.E.M_by_Xrundel_TheBeast_1.2
Cerberus62 Corrected Depth Charge Projector 1.0
OPEN HORIZONS II v2.5
OH II v2.5 Grid Request fix Patch SH5
R.S.D. - Reworked Submarine Damage v5.7 by vdr1981_Main mod
R.S.D. & R.E.M. - GHG Hydrophone add-on (no hyd on surface)
R.S.D. v5.7 - German Patch
TDC Graphics by Naights v1.0
Trevally Harbour & Kiel Canal Pilot v3.1
sobers no footstep sound mod SH5 V2
EQuaTool 01.01 by AvM - Large Style
gap - HD 1 deg Scope Bearing v 1.0
Moon_light_mod V6 SH5
Reboot's Water Drips 1.1
Reworked U-boat Guns (incomplete version)
Silent Seagulls
Grossdeutscher Rundfunk
WHF-FUC_We Have Flooding-Flooding Under Control_Fix
Popular German Music From The 30s
Messervy_s_gramophone_pack1
sobers No bullet trasers SH5
sobers NO water drops V1
MadMaxs_SH5_Subdiesel (mono) v2
gap - destructible searchlights test 1
Radio Paris French Music Full Version 1.2
3D_Deck_Splash_FX_v1_0_0_byTheBeast
Pascal-sh5-Crew-Uniforms-Updated
Shadow Improvement Mod
TDW Round Fire Button v12 by Torpedo
DynEnv v2.9 - No Underwater Impurity Patch

The subs sim n config i kindly got linked to me in a pm

I will pm it asap i scoff a late sunday dinner ;)

Drawback is with real u boat and this rsd and alike, a new career start required, but heck, aint the baltic mission fun lol

:salute:

[THEBERBSTER]

Hi Def

R.S.D. - Reworked Submarine Damage v5.7 by vdr1981_Main mod

Is this a bit of a cheat mod on the mod above lessening the impact of R.S.D. flooding?

WHF-FUC_We Have Flooding-Flooding Under Control_Fix

Peter

[Defiance]

Hiya Peter,

Edit : It's just i guess a blank recording, it's just a silent sound mod basically, so nothing but a standalone mod in its own right

It stops the annoying repeating of the 'we have flooding' repeating time n time again lol

Like as if you need to be told 10 times your up the creek with leaks lol

:salute:

[THEBERBSTER]

Thanks for the explanation:up:

[7Infanterie19]

Hi Def

He said HI-DEF. hehehehehehehe :haha:


Drawback is with real u boat and this rsd and alike, a new career start required, but heck, aint the baltic mission fun lol

:salute:

No way man! I ain't goin' back there! No way! UhUh! I still wake up in the middle of the night when my dreams CTD. :timeout:

Seriously, I'll have to wait to install that after I finish the campaign .. (really? finish the campaign? me? lol) or have to do an upgrade or a clean up that forces me to start again. Besides, I just got out of Scapa Flow and don't want to go back (even though it was too easy :hmmm:)

I will pm it asap i scoff a late sunday dinner ;)


:) .. haven't heard that in a while .. :)

[Defiance]

I have nightmares of baltic missions, like groundhog day for me hehe

I have two rott pups, not so much pups now, kaiser is 10mth and roxy is 11mth'ish (long story but i gave her a home so no exact dob but from previous bitches she's 11mth give or take a fortnight)

They're the reason for me scoffing a late sunday roast

Got sidetracked early am, was gonna have breakfast but didn't, walked em along canal and a river, got back famished, so hence did a late sunday dinner

Roast pork loin 4 veg ect, we all enjoyed it grrrrrrrr lol

Ohh one thing that creases me up, when i'm in the interior of sub, kaiser gets so protective he likes to bark deeply at the officers lmao

If only i had a vidcorder

[THEBERBSTER]

Hi again Def

I had just done Kiel Canal Outbound when I saw this in your mod soup. TDC Graphics by Naights v1.0.

Looked it up and really liked it so put it in my soup but have had to do the Kiel Canal Outbound again (yawn).

Peter