Realism- and gameplay-related hardcode fixes for SH3.EXE [Archive] - Page 11

h.sie

10-30-11, 02:08 PM

Depth Charger

10-30-11, 04:26 PM

POLL:
Do we need to reduce the chance of lost messages or not?

H.Sie

I think we are OK to keep as is. Messages might get lost but they don't break anything or affect your chase. Just keep on going until you get the next message.

The only time it can affect the game is if the final attack order is late but you can use your noodle to cope with that.

This adds to the confusion and that's what I like about your and Stiebler's patch. It adds to the realism and so does this.

Kindest

DC

h.sie

10-30-11, 05:09 PM

@Robin40: I sent you my email address. Please send me your savegame so that I can reproduce the CTD. Let us continue the whole bug searching procedure via PM or email, since that is not of interest for the others and would spam this thread.

fitzcarraldo

10-30-11, 05:48 PM

@Fitzcarraldo: OK, I could reproduce your problem related with M.E.P v3!

There is no problem neither with M.E.P. v3 nor with the Wolfpack Mod.

Reason for the problem:

Wolfpack Mod needs approx 2-3 game minutes to read in the scripted AI-Wolfs (See savegame rules in 1st post of this thread). If you send a contact report BEFORE the AI-Wolfs are read in, the BDU does not have any available Wolf and thus orders to attack alone. In a 16km environment, it takes more than 3 minutes until convoy comes in visible range, but in a 20km environment, convoy is visible immediately after game load. If you then send a report, no Wolfs are available and you'll be ordered to attack alone.

In the next version, I'll change the Wolfpack mission and enlarge the initial distance to the convoy so that this problem won't occur.

Sorry that I at first didn't believe you!

Great!!! I read in this thread about "no problems" with MEPv3, but - it´s not a problem at all - the 20k environment "impulse me" to send the contact report at first sight of the convoy! There are some seconds of loading the mission, and the convoy is sighted.

Now I´ll make the contact report 3-4 minutes (or more), from the convoy sighted. I post the feedback tomorrow, securely.

Thanks for the support, and the testing: it´s the way of discover the problems.

Regards.

Fitzcarraldo :salute:

Stiebler

10-31-11, 12:13 PM

Regarding Lost BdU messages:

I think the current situation is OK.
Lost messages are a nuisance, but not very serious.

Stiebler.

Rubini

10-31-11, 05:27 PM

Hi h.sie,

After (only) two sessions using the single wolfpack mission i have some comments and questions.
Hopes that all the (long) list below can be usefull in make this brilliant mod yet better.:DL
First of all, all runned ok, without problems or ctds; in the two sessions I get wolfpack attacks, the amount of lost messages was small (perhaps 25-30%). I runned it on a self made big mod :DL...I mean, a very heavy modded stock installation!

-Below Some questions/comments (excuse me if some of the below are already replied here):

1.For 8km players isn´t that easy to shadowing for long time without being detected sometimes...then you must dive an go out...finishing losing contact for some times.

2.So, seems that when I lose contact for some time (more than a hour) the BDU was "reseted"...is this true or just a wrong feel?:hmmm: By this reason (I think) in one session the wolf pack attack started almost in morning, the sky was already lighted...

3. If it can be reseted it´s possible to try another pack after have received the message "attack alone" just trying to lose contact for some hours and then restabilishing contact with convoy and BDU?:hmmm:

4.Do I need to actualize&send the heading and speed in all my hour by hour contact reports?

5.I take some time to realise exactly how to send the heading direction for the convoy - needs to use the TDC bearing dial as a true bearing in manual mode...it´s really easy as soon as you figure out-...i´m commenting this because could be usefull for other players.

6.After i received the message that the pack is mounted and saying about radio silence in how many time I can expect the pack to start it´s attack? (I don´t received any message after that, so I just noticed the attack by the convoy/escort maneuvers...)

7.I know that you ask to not use the external view...well, sorry I used it.:D...And seems that the Ai wolf units are so much hard to destroy, hijaking the escorts for so much time...it´s to be this way? Perhaps making then a bit less hard to destroy could be better to mimitize the RL wolf attacks situation? What happens if some of the Ai wolf units sink? We will have less wolf packs allowed?

8. In the same line, we have limits to ask for/be allowed for wolf packs in the same patrol?

9. And a last one: my entire crew went in fatigue because i stay so much time in real time/small TC (max 32x)...so speaking in playability, any idea on what we can adjust to avoid this (fatigue) issue or we will have to use a no fatigue mod at once?:06:

Thanks again for this awesome mod, Sh3 forever!

Rubini.

h.sie

10-31-11, 06:27 PM

Hi Rubini,

thanks for your kind words. To answer your questions:

1) This mod wasn't intended to be easy! For real kaleuns, shadowing a convoy surely also wasn't easy. With Stieblers contact fix, shadowing now isn't that hard anymore, at least in a 16km environment. Surely you'll get some more experience by playing and shadowing. Or, use the "Less contact reports" option. Makes things much easier. Or, what about trying a 16km environment? On the other hand: If you had 2 wolfpack attacks in 2 missions, it seems to me that the Mod isn't hard enough.

2) You are wrong. Only for Time between messages > 3h you get a penalty (chance rises that wolfs won't assemble).

An attack in the morning is possible but not likely. Example: BDU decides to allow to attack at 5:30 (still dark), but attack itself occurs some time later, in the meantime sun rises. Would take some effort to prevent this. I decided not to do that. So we also have some attacks in the morning.

3) If you lost a contact, you can re-establish it, even after 6 hours. No problem. But chance rises, that it's too late for the wolfs to assemble. Depends on the time between your messages (and the random numbers chosen for that decision).

If you are once ordered to attack alone, then this situation will stay constant for some days.

4) Course and speed are not always needed by the BDU. But since you don't know when it's needed and when not, you should always send an estimation, at least of the course. Speed isn't that important, just set it to 4 - 8 knots for a standard convoy.

5) Documentation about that can be found in the 1st post of this thread.

6) This isn't a fixed time. According to my observations between 1/2 and 2 hours. Wolfpack attacks were not perfectly coordinated.

7) External camera not supported. The AI-Subs are not intended to be realistic. ONLY the damage done to the convoy was intended to be halfway realistic. If I make the AI-Subs weaker, they won't cause that amount of damage to the convoy. I like it as it is, but feel free to reduce the hitpoints and armor level in the .zon files of the AI-Subs. If one Wolf sinks, that does not affect anything important in the future.

8) There are more than 2 attacks possible per patrol.

9) I have no other idea than the following: Play with NO_FATIGUE. (Or, maybe, modify your fatigue model so that your crew doesn't starve during a chase).

Greetings,
H.Sie

Rubini

11-01-11, 07:51 AM

H.sie,

Thanks by the reply, it was very usefull for my final management and use of the mod.

- OK, i can see that the AI uboats units needs a compromise due sh3 limitations,
- I adjusted my fatigue settings,
- And I need to say: the way that you made the mod is just terrific, it give to the wolfpack a totally realistic atmosphere, the shadowing and the contact with BDU are perfect, I'm trying to imagine how you inject a so good code on the .exe, it's just amazing!

Late yesterday at night having all that new features/fixes from this mod working so well, I found a convoy into my campaign, get a successfull wolfpack and then resupply at a U-tanker (with this mod too), ...wow...SH3 is really my best game! It's a very solid game! Kudos to you and Stiebler!:up:
BDU insist in give you two a medal, a golden one!:rock::rock::rock:

PS: about the lost messages frequency: for my taste it's ok, perhaps a small adjust based on the war time like you said previously could be enough.

h.sie

11-01-11, 08:42 AM

Hi Rubini,

I am glad you like the mod, despite his weak points - since I hesitate very much to touch & change it again. I must admit that I'm tired of wolfpacks coding and that I've come to my personal limits now - regarding code complexity and time effort.

The wolfpack mod seems to work stable in principle and my only work left to do for V16A is to find out, whether a reported CTD is caused by my code or not. If so, I'll fix that bug.

Maybe for V16B, I'll do some fine-adjustments for the wolfpacks, like reducing the chance of lost messages depending on time period and so on.

In the meantime: Happy hunting!

H.Sie

urfisch

11-01-11, 11:12 AM

you´ve done great stuff and a revolutionary improvement to the game and for the community here, h.sie. everybody can be grateful for this. i guess many, if not all (me incl.), never exspected such a mod to come.

:sunny:

so: have a break, have a ship sunk!

:up:

SquareSteelBar

11-01-11, 12:09 PM

...have a ship sunk!...It's your part, jimbuna: ...

Flyingsub

11-01-11, 04:47 PM

H.Si. The mod is running well in the WAC mod I just installed. Thanks again for all the hard work......Now get out of those wet rags and take a rest:salute:

h.sie

11-02-11, 05:29 AM

@ALL_TESTERS:

What is your opinion about the current synchronisation of the attack?
In the current solution, the time between

- BDU orders wolfspack attack and
- the start of the attack

varies between about 30 minutes and 2 hours. This morning I had an idea for an additional and better(?) synchronization mechanism: As soon as one of the Wolfs visually detects one ship of the convoy, it could trigger a message "Wolfpack leader @ all Uboats: Konvoi sighted. Prepare for attack" or similar. The attack itself will begin about 5-10 minutes after this message.

My personal opinion:

- Advantage: Better synchronization of attack. More foolproof.

- Disadvantage: Some uncertainty will get lost, because after 2-3 missions, you'll know that 5 minutes after that message the attack will begin.

Hmmmmmmm?

Opinions welcome.

Stiebler

11-02-11, 05:34 AM

As far as one of the Wolfs visually detects one ship of the convoy, it could send a message "Konvoi sighted. Starting attack".

That would be both useful to the player and completely realistic - U-boats did make signals to say they had gained contact. (How else would BdU know when to signal the attack should start?).

Stiebler.

PapaKilo

11-02-11, 05:53 AM

That would be both useful to the player and completely realistic - U-boats did make signals to say they had gained contact. (How else would BdU know when to signal the attack should start?).

Stiebler.

Not exactly, BDU could collect a group of wolfpack, by daily position reports of all u-boats. After the very first u-boat spots a convoy it has to send course,speed and current location of the convoy as well as approximet number of ships. Then BDU announces which u-boats are the participants of the wolfpack, BDU sets an interception point and time (by given info of shadowing u-boat) so that the farest u-boat could reach it in time before the whole battle begins. Adjustmens of the interception point changed if the convoy changed it's course, self explanatory. If any u-boat could not make it in time to reach the point (due to technical problems or so) it had to report this to BDU.

Note: There was no order from BDU to attack now or not now, but there was approximent time and location where the massacre should start.

h.sie

11-02-11, 06:01 AM

@PapaKilo: You talk about the process of shadowing, wolfpack assembly and interception. This is not in the focus here.

I assume that all Uboats already are near the convoy.

What I am talking about is only the synchronization of the attack itself.

In the game we have up to 2 hours to wait until attack begins, after BDU has ordered to attack.

This is what I want to change.

PapaKilo

11-02-11, 06:09 AM

@PapaKilo: You describe the process of the wolfpack assembly and interception. This is not in the focus here.

Here I assume that Uboats already are near the convoy. What I am talking about is only the synchronization of the attack itself.

Synchronization of attack could be done only at night and before DDs gets radar system.

Say the boats are in position to strike the convoy. To give the order to attack one of the boat has to be leading one and has to be on surface to send radio signals to begin the battle..

But usualy the signal to start a battle was a first torpedo hit explosion..

PapaKilo

11-02-11, 06:14 AM

h.sie

11-02-11, 06:43 AM

Sorry, I'm not following the idea.

Why is there we have to wait 2 hours ? :-?

Obviously, you didn't play the mod. Those who played the mod will surely know what I'm talking about: Currently, it is possible that the first torpedo explodes 2 hours after BDU orders to attack. This is what some people don't like.

JeromeHeretic

11-02-11, 08:28 AM

In the game we have up to 2 hours to wait until attack begins, after BDU has ordered to attack.

IMHO random time between 10 minutes and one hour can look realistic.

Hitman

11-02-11, 10:37 AM

The order to attack implies that BdU is satisfied with the amount of Uboats who have made contact with the convoy and are following it, not necessarily already in shooting position. They might be as much as 30 kms away, trailing the smoke plumes in daylight and doing the overhaul maneuver.

Moreover, it is important to understand that in naval warfare things are quite slower than in land warfare. This is not pretended to be some kind of infantry or chivalry attack, but instead a situation where a concentration of firepower is assembled against a concentration of defences by a distant command who can't see what is happening. From my point of view, considering both what I have readed and what is to be concluded from th UKH, BDU would simply ensure that enought uboats have established contact and were in situation to maneuver into attack (Which could take several hours) and then release them all for the action, specially the shadower. I think that it is fair to say that, except by pure coincidence, most uboats will not be ready to pull the trigger until some time has passed and instead they will need to do more or less long positioning maneuvers.

Hence, any modification of your work that either times exactly the 1st torpedo attack or implies a very short interval until all uboats attack after BDU releases them, would IMHO not be in the correct direction. No matter if the players like it or not, this can't be a sudden coordinated artillery attack, but instead a loose concentration of independently acting units in a certain area.

h.sie

11-02-11, 10:48 AM

Rubini

11-02-11, 11:58 AM

After have playead the game and wolfpack a lot these days I should like to say that I like more and more what and how you made it. It´s very atmospheric as it is now. And looking at Hitmann and Papakilo info seems that it´s in the right realistic way. It is also very playable.

Perhaps you could add to the last message (or one more just for the shadowing uboat - the player) saying that he must stay very tunned from that moment until (waiting) the first torpedo hit and then starting also his (the player) attack. For playability side perhaps the amount of time could be minimum of 30min and the max 1h30min. I guess this will be very reasonable to not go to the unrealistic side too much and mantaining clear directions for the player. My 2 cents.

reaper7

11-02-11, 01:26 PM

I think the way it is now is the best :up: That uncertainty of when things are going to kick of - do I have to to correct my position for a better one, or set up quickly to be ready to fire.

Rubini

11-02-11, 01:53 PM

Ops...i needed to exit the game just to say the below. Sorry for the bit OT on what you are needing at the moment, h.sie. No need to reply, we all knows that you have working so much on this project. But i can´t close my mouth, the advances that you achieve are incredible.

- With wolpack mod h.sie opened the pandora box again. See:

1. You managed to put an Ai unit into the game and in a specific location that is guided by the RND (it´s not scripted), which works correctly and can be saved.

2. you managed to put inteligence on BDU radio messages. This is one of the more important achievements until now. BDU now can reply you in a absolutelly coordenated, inteligent and controlable way!!

These two facts opens a new horizon for new "gameplay" enhancement mods. Some days ago i just suggested some ones like resupply on demand, confirmation prior to be allowed to ressuply, emergence repairs on mid somewhere, new coordenates to patrol after complete your mission, etc.

So, I just can hope that you take a rest and come here again with batteries full to work another day and so on! I will be honored to help you making some hard work if needed.:up:

Salute, SH3 fellows!

PapaKilo

11-02-11, 01:59 PM

But even if they had the possibility to communicate among Uboats: Would they do that in that specific situation? I ask, because radiowaves could warn the convoy.....

http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Tech-HFDF.htm

This was the main pre-radar threat to all u-boats that used radio transmitters for communication.

Another question is: Were the germans aware of this technology Allies used to track their radio signal bearings ?

Some interesting comments on how it worked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYGvAm8MMvQ

Randomizer

11-02-11, 03:01 PM

... But even if they had the possibility to communicate among Uboats: Would they do that in that specific situation? I ask, because radiowaves could warn the convoy.....
First off, I really have to salute you and all involved in your modding effort. Some of the results are nothing short of brilliant so thanks for your efforts.

Even without Allied ship borne HFDF (which the German's greatly under-estimated), U-Boats generally only communicated with each other by radio rarely and only in very special situations. There were rare occasions where captains in visual range would try and coordinate operations using flags, lamps or loud-hailers but they were unusual.

During the wolfpacking era, the German submarines lacked VHF voice radio (RT for Radio Telephone) and relied solely on High Frequency WT (Wireless Telegraphy) This meant the radio operator had to encode the transmission on Enigma and transmit using Morse code and so since HF works best at long distances, it was essentially useless to communicate with other boats in a convoy battle. The delays involved made real time coordination between boats impractical. Wireless operators would take in and decode messages addressed to other boats and the Captain could build a plot based on the signals and his own observations and act accordingly but he would almost never communicate directly with another boat in the same pack using radio.

The Type IX was originally designed as a command boat for wolfpack type operations but the communications problems were never solved and early in the war, command was determined to be best exercised remotely from BdU. U-Boat captains in the North Atlantic were generally on a very short HF leash during the time of the wolfpack.

Your mod facilitates this very nicely. Thanks again.

urfisch

11-02-11, 03:51 PM

Thanks, Hitman, sounds very plausible. Do you (or anybody else) know whether there was some communication between the UBoats in order to co-ordinate a collective attack? (I remember to have read something about a "wolfpack leader")?

But even if they had the possibility to communicate among Uboats: Would they do that in that specific situation? I ask, because radiowaves could warn the convoy.....

as i said...the book "feindfahrten"...by wolfgang hirschfeld is a helpful source. there was a "wolfpack-leader". the boat, which spotted the convoy sent (if possible!) once a day a message with convoy navigation data (speed, direction) to the bdu and all other boats. after spotting a convoy and the notification via radio, the boat was the leader and had to send a homesignal. the bdu coordinated the attack and send a message to the other boats nearby to head to the convoy and follow the homesignal of the regarding u-boat commander.

this is all coordination which was possible. as to randomizer. all messages where encoded. so the messages where to be as short as possible. and later in war, the radio was used not more than needed.

Rubini

11-02-11, 05:22 PM

I just took a look at uboat.net about wolfpacks and surprisingly they were much more frequent than i thought. Even in 1944 they had a lot of them.
here: http://www.uboat.net/ops/wolfpacks/

So, seems that BDU and/or the uboats itself have found a way to mount the packs in reasonable amount despite the difficults involved.:hmmm:

makman94

11-03-11, 08:29 AM

.... the advances that you achieve are incredible....

more or less ...the whole meaning is exactly in these few words !
the new age at sh3 real modding has allready started when this thread was opened and thanks to H.Sie ,LGN1 ,Stiebler and all involved this game started getting challenging and interesting.
executables are the ...future for all those that 'dreaming' more a simulator than a kid's game and judging from the guys's progress here...we can't even think what is coming...

all the best to moders here,
congratulations

Hitman

11-03-11, 10:22 AM

Do you (or anybody else) know whether there was some communication between the UBoats in order to co-ordinate a collective attack? (I remember to have read something about a "wolfpack leader")?

I have readed about cases where, early in the war, some uboats met at sea near a convoy and discussed the attack (Kretschmer, Prien, etc), but then each boat departed and conducted it separately in the same night. The was no radio comms, however, but instead signals to meet and then talk personally with a megaphone.

As the war progressed, the convoy battles expanded to several days because the uboats were many and well scattered around. So it happened that a contact holder shadowed and sent beacon signals to some uboats ordered by BDU to get closer, then those uboats attack that night and at the next day a new set of boats arrived, and BdU relieved from the task of shadowing the original contact boat and allowed him to attack.

As I said, I have never ever seen an instance where the opening of fire was coordinated. The only thing that was done by Bdu is sometimes to hold the attack until more uboats had gathered, and then authorize them to attack on that night.

As Randomizer said, the IXs were originally designed as wolfpack command stations at sea, but then BdU preferred to mantain control due to possible operational problems.

h.sie

11-03-11, 11:35 AM

Thank you very much for these useful and plausible comments. I won't include a better attack synchronisation.

slipper

11-03-11, 05:44 PM

Hsie

Great mod mate, unfortunately I cannot get any messages to show. I am running the latest wolfpack mod and have tried reinstalling the mod a few times but with the same results.

For any of the new messages I get a get a blank message with no text. For example when bdu send me a message following a contact report I recieve the message but there is no descriptive text, the same for the chief engineer with the oxygen levels, does anyone please have any ideas?

Thanks for any help

Slipper

Dani

11-03-11, 06:08 PM

h.sie

11-04-11, 02:02 AM

@Dani: I was able to program random torpedo failures (took less than one hour). I like these quick-fixes.

When the user presses the fire-button, the torpedo data is copied from the TDC dials into the torpedo itself. With a certain probability p (failure rate), I can change the depth of the eel to, say, 25 meters, in order to simulate a failure.

Currently, I can make p dependent on the date/time and on the windspeed, but not on torpedo type.

The questions are now:

1) how to chose p = f(time, windspeed).

2) is a dependency on torpedo type also necessary?

PapaKilo

11-04-11, 02:13 AM

Random torpedo failures ?

Like failure to launch torpedo ? I believe this is not another dud torpedo failure you have in mind ? :hmmm:

h.sie

11-04-11, 02:27 AM

SquareSteelBar

11-04-11, 03:14 AM

There's is already a dud torp option in 'Reality Adjustments' - what's the difference?

h.sie

11-04-11, 03:20 AM

@SSB: AFAIK the failure rates of that option are too low. As you can see in the post #2539, Uboats were quasi disarmed in the early time due to massive failures.

slipper

11-04-11, 06:47 AM

When you unzip the V16A3 patch kit there are 2 text files called "_Append_to_en_menu " and "_Append_to_de_menu".
You must copy the text from these files and paste them at the end of the last line in en_menu and de_menu in you're main SH3 installation.

Or, you can read the readme document that came with the patch kit. It's all explained better there.

Yeah thanks for that, i am aware of the readme, i have followed it to the letter three times now but still do not recieve messages. This is my mod loadout

LifeBoats&Debris_v4
IIa Tuneup
GWX_DFa-Flag&Pens_2010
FM30_UpDown_final
DD_OH_V3.09_20091209162038
FM_NewInterior_V1.0
Conning Tower open Hatch TestFMfood
Depthcharge Shake v2.01
Merchant_Fleet_Mod_3.2
MFM-v3-US+UK_Skins19390901
Ricks_GWX_Rec_Man_Final
Urfischs_ModStrike_Beta1
Waterstream+Exhaust Combi V2.3 for GWX3
New Uboat Guns 1.2
M.E.P v3
MEP v3 VisualSensors for gwx3
SH-5 Water for GWX 3.0 V0.8 20 Km Atlantic campaign (default)
OLC_DasBoot_Green
OLC's Modified Searchlight Beams for GWX3
Torpedo damage Final ver2.0
Foam
WAC4.1 SubPen_animated_18.02.2010
Combat Radio Frequency
Flags_enlighten
Unofficial_rockets_fix_GWX3.0
No continuous 'Ship spotted' V1.2 for GWX3+Rubinis RocketFix
Rapt0r's Das Boot Interior
Rapt0r's Das Boot Skin
Rapt0r's Instruments V3.5 [Without Red Circle]
b25_ConningTower_Mid
Wooden_Lifeboats_Mod_1.1
Subphones
GWX 3 Wilhemshafen,St Naz,Schluese and xtra ships V6
WB's GWX campaign with VonDos' ships v2.7
GWX - Merged Campaign
TMTv2+ThomsensShips v4.4 for GWX3+Xtra ships
WB - TMT fix
Q Ship mod for GWX3 - Reloaded
GWX3 - VM Plotting Mod 2 (hard)
Aces' Multimod compatability fix release v1.3 public beta
Hitman_Beta_GUI_GWX3_1.0
Aces' Multimod compatability fix Hitman GUI add on
Aces' St. Nazaire Sub Pens v2 for Wilhelmshafen,St Naz. Schleuse and xtra ships v5
ImprovedMalloy'sRuler
Raptors Atmospheric Sound Package
DBSM
Rapt0r's DBSM Addon
SH3MoonMod
BritishAsdicMkIFinal
b25_Louder_Diesels_Louder
Internal U-Boat Sound Effect
Alternate Torpedo Hit
Undersea_Mod_Reworked
Kiel Map Detail
TiefeMkI(German)
Real Depth Charge
High RPM
GWX3 - 02.UBA RT Fatigue x032 (MostRealistic)
Red Night Filter
SH4 Maptools for SH3-Stock
Mine by TP
Evan82's Uniforms II
The Elite U-Boat Crew Uniform II
The Captain Uniform II
Lutzow's Officers - SET6
Hunter's Moon
hsMachineTelegraphGer v0.1 alpha
Extreme Wet Weather Gear Mod
Destroyers&Corvette
DasBootSehrohr
Knotspeed
Remove Searchlights from Merchants
Remove Searchlights from Warships
Walrus by TP
TorpedoTubesFfireFinal vGW
Compatibility Remove SL from Merchants+WBs ExtraShipsV2.4
Compatibility Remove SL from Warships+WBs ExtraShipsV2.4
TheDarkWraith_Ship_Plane_Fire_Damage_v1_4_SH3
FlatSunFix for M.E.P v3
SH-5 Water for GWX 3.0 V0.8 20 Km Atlantic campaign (default)trial
sobers 3d waves
O2-Gauges v2
Supplement to V16A3 (JSGME)

when i add the Supplement to V16A3 (JSGME) it overwrites the following

"Campaign_SCR.mis" has already been altered by the "GWX 3 Wilhemshafen,St Naz,Schluese and xtra ships V6" mod.
"Campaign_SCR.mis" has already been altered by the "WB's GWX campaign with VonDos' ships v2.7" mod.
"Campaign_SCR.mis" has already been altered by the "GWX - Merged Campaign" mod.
"de_menu.txt" has already been altered by the "GWX_DFa-Flag&Pens_2010" mod.
"de_menu.txt" has already been altered by the "GWX3 - VM Plotting Mod 2 (hard)" mod.
"de_menu.txt" has already been altered by the "Hitman_Beta_GUI_GWX3_1.0" mod.
"en_menu.txt" has already been altered by the "GWX_DFa-Flag&Pens_2010" mod.
"en_menu.txt" has already been altered by the "GWX3 - VM Plotting Mod 2 (hard)" mod.

but as i have already copied and updated the en_menu.txt, de_menu.txt and Campaign_SCR.mis with the Supplement to V16A3 mod i would not have thought this would be a problem.

The game is trying to generate reports, for example for the oxygen i just get

CE:

with no message, and for the Bdu reports, i receive a message from them but with no content.

Its really bugging me as it appears to be not implementing the new messages in the en_menu.txt and de_menu.txt for some reason, even though they are in place.

I am also using SH3Cmdr to run the game.

any help appreciated

regards

slipper

Rhodes

11-04-11, 07:48 AM

and for the Bdu reports, i receive a message from them but with no content.
slipper

Got the same situation. I "posted" it here but I think it was lost in the thread.

"Got two situation to report:
1: When sending a patrol report, the reply come back blank. Just "From: BDU, To U-297" but to message to read. Got that 2 times. Since I have WB's Mid-Patrol Radio Orders mod in sh3 commander, I'm thinking that it may some conflit with this but only after I finish my patrol I can disable the mod and see.

2: I lost the sounds of "new message received" when geting one. Can be because of the fixes for SH3?"

h.sie

11-04-11, 07:54 AM

@slipper: Things are very simple: If you receive empty messages, the new messages required for the fixes, didn't find their way into your sh3-installation.

Since it works well for many people (who installed it correctly), it seems that you did something wrong during the installation process.

EDIT: Please make a test without Sh3Cmdr. Maybe it overwrites the messages???

I apologize that at the moment I cannot offer an easy installation process that everyone can handle.

@Rhodes:

Sorry, it seems I missed you earlier post!

1) Yes, try that out. Make a test without SH3CMdr.

2) Maybe related with the "War news mod"? Try again with "War news" disabled.

slipper

11-04-11, 08:50 AM

h.sie

11-04-11, 08:52 AM

@slipper: Good to know. This problem can surely be solved by using correct / adapted configuration files for Sh3-Cmdr - but this is out of the area of my expertise.

Robin40

11-04-11, 09:23 AM

Hsie

Thanks for that, it is indeed Sh3Cmdr that is causing a problem. Have not had time to test fully, but all appears to be fine, many thanks for that.

The strange thing is that in all my Sh3Cmdr folder i cannot find anything that appears to affect the en_menu.txt or de_menu.txt, is anyone else using SH3Cmdr with this fix without a problem? would be interested to hear what settings they have, will disable war reports and try again.

A real shame as SH3cmdr is a must have mod for me aswell.

regards

slipper

using SH3_Commander with no problem

career oprtions set to ON

simulate a realisc career length
simulate realistic crew transfers
randomize number of days spent in base
use real ship names in patrol logs
randomize gramophone tracks

andqui

11-04-11, 10:05 AM

No failure to launch torpedo. But functional failure. There were a lot during the early years of war.

See here (unfortunately in german):

http://www.u-boot-archiv.de/krieg/boote_ohne_waffe.html

- premature detonations
- depth maintaining problems
- no explosion on impact

Doenitz wrote in his war diary, that the Uboats were quasi without weapons (in the early time of war)

For a while, rudewarrior and I have been working on a mod that gives the uboat captain an accurate set of standing orders for each date in the was, such as where and when one can attack neutrals. There were many standing orders dealing with how to make the problematic torpedoes more reliable, especially early in the war. As for now, many of these orders are for immersion only, and the only thing we really can do is use LGN's torpedo depth mod to randomize the torpedo depth error at the start of the game, dependent on the date.

If a hardcode fix that would fix this is in the works, we have data as to what types of torpedo failures should occur. Maybe some collaboration would we possible? What are you able to code for? Here are some examples of what would be nice to simulate (these are just going by memory, there are definetely more, like impact fuse failures):

1. All german torpedoes have depth problems up until around May 1940, and from then until May 1942 about half of the torpedoes should run deeper than set
2. Magnetic fusing is almost useless up until around December 1942, due to both premature explosions and failures to detonate at all. There already are prematures in the game, but they don't occur often enough at all
3. Around Norway magnetic torpedoes should be completely useless and regularly premature or fail to explode until Dec 1942

These are the type of things we are seeking to add in the game- do you think that it is possible? I don't have the data in front of me now, so I'm going by memory on the above examples, but some failures are location dependent, some failures are dependent on the type of torpedo, some failures are date-dependent, and some are dependent on all three. If you think this is possible to code, we can give you more data.

Rhodes

11-04-11, 10:30 AM

2) Maybe related with the "War news mod"? Try again with "War news" disabled.

I do not use that mod! :DL I will try to play today if I have some time and see what I get about the messages.

h.sie

11-04-11, 10:34 AM

@andqui: Thanks for your offer and the information.

I am able to:

- Simulate random torpedo failures by randomly setting the torpedo depth to 25m - depending on time and windspeed. This is the same principle as LGN1's mod does, but more flexible.

Maybe, I am also able to:

- Simulate random torpedo failures (set depth = 25m) depending on torpedo type.

What surely won't be possible:

- Trigger a premature detonation of a torpedo.

That means: I don't plan to model all possible failures (premature explosion, no explosion, depth error) in detail. Instead, I'll use only one type of failure to represent all possible failures. Most important is the effect on gameplay and tonnage.

I am personally only interested to program a coarse model of torpedo failures, but not every detail (at June, 17th 1941 in the South of Norway there were 2 prematures and 1 depth problem, but at June, 18th........)

LGN1 currently researches failure rate depending on year, but he'll surely be interested in your data.

LGN1

11-04-11, 11:44 AM

Hi,

as I've already mentioned in Stiebler's thread, I don't think it's a good idea to model all the different failure types. Doing so would require a lot of work and would also be, in some sense, useless. It would be useless because you cannot mod the commander's ignorance of the failure's root back in WW2.

For instance, today we know that the torpedoes ran deeper than set. If you know this you simply set your torpedo as close to the surface as possible in SH3 and (in most cases) your problem is solved. The same holds for the influence of the impact angle. We know that if it is too large we will have a dud. Therefore, we only launch torpedoes which will have an impact angle close to 90°. And since we know that the premature detonation probability in SH3 increases with the range, we try to get as close as possible. As a consequence, we have hardly any torpedo failures in SH3.

In order to change this very unrealistic situation, I think it's enough if a torpedo does not work with a certain probability depending on the date (no matter what the player does). This can be easily simulated by setting the depth to, let's say 20m.

The big question is how the probability should be chosen. Since players' opinions (and preferences :DL) probably vary a lot (and this issue also has a large impact on the game-play) it's good if we can discuss the probability before any work is done. Here is my suggestion:

September 1939 - April 1940: p=25%
(the failure rate from November '39 to March '40 was 26%. See page 83 in the document posted here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//showthread.php?p=1717607&langid=1)

April 1940 - June 1940: p=35% (or 25% :hmmm:)
(the failure rate during the invasion of Norway was considered higher than before. However, opinions vary whether this is really true.)

June 1940 - June 1942: p=10%
(maybe (if possible and depending how hard to implement) with an additional probability that the torpedo runs 1-3m deeper than set).

June 1942 - : p=0%

I would not take the u-boat's position and the sea state into account.

It would be great if others could also make suggestions!

Cheers, LGN1

Depth Charger

11-04-11, 12:19 PM

@ Slipper and Rhodes

I think that WB's mid patrol orders might be a hassle for you. I removed it and also did a clean install of SH3 Cmndr which seem to sort things for me.

Have already past hints at H.Sie that it would be really nice if we could get Patrol Orders but I don't know if it is feasible and they are getting millions of requests now...

Kindest and hope this helps

DC

Sailor Steve

11-04-11, 12:22 PM

Excellent points, LGN1, and probably the best way to do it. It doesn't make much sense to use a so-called "realistic" problem and then leave the player a way to skate around it, other than to just turn off that function.

Dani

11-04-11, 12:32 PM

@h.sie

@Dani: I was able to program random torpedo failures (took less than one hour). I like these quick-fixes.

This is GREAT news.:rock:

September 1939 - April 1940: p=25%
(the failure rate from November '39 to March '40 was 26%. See page 83 in the document posted here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//sho...17607&langid=1)

April 1940 - June 1940: p=35% (or 25% )
(the failure rate during the invasion of Norway was considered higher than before. However, opinions vary whether this is really true.)

June 1940 - June 1942: p=10%
(maybe (if possible and depending how hard to implement) with an additional probability that the torpedo runs 1-3m deeper than set).

June 1942 - : p=0%

:agree:

Hitman

11-04-11, 12:33 PM

I agree with you in principle, LGN1, however I'd like to point out some things:

1) It is to be taken utmost care to ensure that the failiures modelled do not add to those already programmed by the original game/modder. Since the only ones hardcoded till now were related to sea-state and pistol, I suppose that what you have in mind is that the hardcode fix should simply overrides both those with whatever probabilities you set.

2) The problem is that by doing so, the rate of failiures would be the same when using, f.e. magnetic or impact pistol, and when shooting in bad or good weather, which is not realistic. That should be adressed IMHO as follows:

a) In bad weather, there shall always be increased possibilities of failiure, no matter what pistol or depth is used.

b) The player should have a desire to use the magnetic pistol, even if it might prove more faulty. Setting the same dud rate for pistol and impact would accomplish this, because if facing the same odds, the player will always prefer to have a chance to "break the back" of the target with an impact below the keel.

For instance, today we know that the torpedoes ran deeper than set. If you know this you simply set your torpedo as close to the surface as possible in SH3 and (in most cases) your problem is solved.

Not so if you program the depth variation at random and exclude the pistol from triggering if the torpedo is less than 1 metres deep. That would simulate "porpoising torpedoes" quite well. Since tha player knows anything can happen, he will set the correct depth and pray the torpedo doesn't malfunction.

The same holds for the influence of the impact angle. We know that if it is too large we will have a dud. Therefore, we only launch torpedoes which will have an impact angle close to 90°. And since we know that the premature detonation probability in SH3 increases with the range, we try to get as close as possible.

Real Kaleuns were well aware of both those two points, so no need to adress them specifically.

andqui

11-04-11, 12:55 PM

One thing to keep in mind is that for stretches of the war- such as after the Norway campaign until Dec 1942- uboats were ordered not to use magnetic fuses on the torpedoes at all because they were faulty, and torpedoes in that time used impact. So during this time, the only error affecting torpedoes was a known depth problem that showed up in approximately half the torpedoes due to an air pressure problem in the depth-keeping mechanism. If a uboat tries a magnetic shot until Dec 1942, it should have a very high chance of failure, but after May 1940 the impact fuses should reliably work with a bit of depth variance.

So while it might not be possible or wise to simulate all the failures, I don't think a blanket % would be a good idea either.

Schöneboom

11-04-11, 02:34 PM

Guten Tag,

Re the speculation about interference from SH3 Cmdr -- it's vital, I think, with Vista & Win7 systems, that both SH3 and SH3 Cmdr be installed to folders outside Program Files. Also, check the boxes for WinXP Compatibility Mode & "run as administrator" for SH3, JSGSME, & SH3 Cmdr. (forgive me if this is already universal knowledge)

I recently made the mistake of installing in Program Files and found the game would run (H.sie's version + GWX + SH3 Cmdr) but it wasn't quite right in certain details. I'm reinstalling to a new folder tonight, crossing fingers & toes.

Gute Jagd!

h.sie

11-04-11, 03:10 PM

@Hitman:

a) I agree. I also think wave height dependency should be added. Easy to do.

b) The torpedo failure effect that I program is different from the already existing mechanism (premature explosion), thus, it is *added* to the existing mechanism, is does not replace it. Magnetic and impact will have the same failure rate, thus, the player will have the desire to use magnetic. So we also agree in this point, I think. Right?

Not so if you program the depth variation at random and exclude the pistol from triggering if the torpedo is less than 1 metres deep. That would simulate "porpoising torpedoes" quite well. Since tha player knows anything can happen, he will set the correct depth and pray the torpedo doesn't malfunction.

I see no advantage in that idea, except from more assembler lines necessary to code it :). In my (and LGN1's) solution, the player also sets the correct depth, prays that the torpedo works well, and the result is (with a certain chance p) a wrong depth, resulting in no ship damaged. You only see a difference between your and our solution, if you use the event camera and follow the torpedo. Is it really important which depth the torpedo has? Not in my opinion. The most important thing is that no ship has been sunk.

Guys, please remember that my options are restricted. I cannot program all I / we want (even if that may look different after the wolfpacks). Thus, I can offer compromises (which are hoprfully better than the current situation), but I cannot offer perfect solutions - not without SDK.

PapaKilo

11-04-11, 03:23 PM

@SSB: AFAIK the failure rates of that option are too low. As you can see in the post #2539, Uboats were quasi disarmed in the early time due to massive failures.

I like your work, but on the other hand I wouldn;t want to see it overdone.

In early war there was indeed high number of dud that reached about 50% of all torpedoes malfunctions (dud, premature explosions, depth keeping problems)

However this quantity in percentage was taken from all the subs at the time, so you shouldn't overstrech it more then it is already.

BTW, are we done with wolfpack option already ?

P.S. aren;t there anything else that should be fixed regading gameplay ? Say sonar guy takes position on dive and leaves it when boat brakes the surface ? Etc, etc..

h.sie

11-04-11, 03:29 PM

@PapaKilo: LGN1 suggests 25% failure rate.

BTW, are we done with wolfpack option already ?

I don't understand. What do you mean?

PapaKilo

11-04-11, 03:41 PM

@PapaKilo: LGN1 suggests 25% failure rate.

BTW, are we done with wolfpack option already ?

I don't understand. What do you mean?

I don't know why you always rely mostly on LGN1 as your history facts adviser. But from what I've seen in documentry movies, there was a phrase I still remmember: German Unterseeboot navy suffered from malfunctions of torpedoes that reached up to 50% in total.

If you want I can try to dig this documentry out for u..

Regardinig wolfpack mod I ment to ask, is it stable already ?

I'm asking this because we had a long time discussing about wolfpacks here and suddenly u jumped to another topic regarding torpedo failures ?

Kind of unexpected :shucks:

If you got tired and wouldn't mind to take some rest, we all appreciate that :)

Or else you might end up like toasted cutout one day :)

Hitman

11-04-11, 03:55 PM

I don't know why you always rely mostly on LGN1 as your history facts adviser. But from what I've seen in documentry movies, there was a phrase I still remmember: German Unterseeboot navy suffered from malfunctions of torpedoes that reached up to 50% in total.

If you want I can try to dig this documentry out for u..

I have here in the shelf one of the most reliable sources, Blair's U-Boat War and nowhere do I see support for such a high failiure figure as a 50%. A TV documentary, with all respect, is not necessarily a reliable sources in such details, so I agree with LGN1 essentially :yep:.

I see no advantage in that idea, except from more assembler lines necessary to code it :). In my (and LGN1's) solution, the player also sets the correct depth, prays that the torpedo works well, and the result is (with a certain chance p) a wrong depth, resulting in no ship damaged. You only see a difference between your and our solution, if you use the event camera and follow the torpedo. Is it really important which depth the torpedo has? Not in my opinion. The most important thing is that no ship has been sunk.

If the end result is the same regarding player's attitude towards the shot, then I agree completely with you :salute:

Hitman

11-04-11, 03:57 PM

PapaKilo

11-04-11, 04:01 PM

I have here in the shelf one of the most reliable sources, Blair's U-Boat War

Soo.. what makes you think it is the most reliable source ? This particular one ?

h.sie

11-04-11, 04:12 PM

PapaKilo wrote: I don't know why you always rely mostly on LGN1 as your history facts adviser.

I rely on LGN1, because:

- We speak the same native language, this makes critical discussions much easier. English words, especially written from non-english speakers, I have to read multiple times in order to guess what they mean.

- He tends to work reliable, his arguments are funded, and his research isn't shallow. These are characteristics not easy to find (speaking from almost 20 years experience of work in science & research). And - very big advantage: He often has the same opinion than me, what makes discussions much easier.

BUT: I also rely on (and appreciate) other peoples knowledge (Stiebler, Hitman, and others!). Exactly this is the reason why I decided to post here about my current work. Otherwise I could have done it alone via PM with LGN1.

---

I took the 25% failure rate from LGN1 not as the absolute truth, but much more in order to demonstrate that I don't plan to overdo it, as you suspected. Now you come with 50%.....don't overdo!

Yes, please, try to dig out that document.

Wolfpack is for now finished. It is still beta, but seems to be stable. One guy with a long mod list had a CTD, but it is not clear whether the CTD was caused by my code. I still wait for some response from him. In the past, 97% of the CTD were caused by corrupt installations / mod salad.

After having read all these different opinions regarding torpedo failures, I indeed came to the conclusion that a rest would be adviseable. I thought, this would be an easy relaxed fix, but turns out to be very complex. This is not what I wanted.

PapaKilo

11-04-11, 04:19 PM

Yes, please, try to dig out that document. I decided to post here about my current work in order to get other peoples opinions / knowledge.

Ok jus't don't expect it to come right away, I have a bunch of ww2 naval documentry archive, and I deffinetly can't remember on which one that was said.

LGN1

11-04-11, 04:25 PM

@PapaKilo: Please read the document posted in the thread I linked above. There is the original number from the German Navy. It is 26% for the period I mentioned. If you have other numbers, please let us know the sources. I've read several books/sources and nowhere found a number close to 50%. Doenitz himself speaks of 40%.

@Hitman: Thanks for your comments. Concerning your number

1) From my experience the in-game probability is close to zero if you stick to some basic rules. Therefore, it does not matter if the new probability is added on top of the present probabilities. In addition, if people don't like the addition they can switch of the realistic torpedo failure option in SH3.

2) As said in 1) I would simply add the new probability. In addition, as far as I know commanders had only sometimes the opportunity to choose the pistol type (because of technical constraints and BDU orders). So, the question which pistol the commander would prefer to use is somehow difficult to answer. Anyway, please make a suggestion for the failure rate depending on the sea state. What we need are values for the probability.

Although real Kaleuns were well aware of the impact angle issue (from what date on were they aware?), the failure rate was 26%.

Cheers, LGN1

PapaKilo

11-04-11, 04:47 PM

Found it, my luck :)

The documentry is named: "Kriegsmarine 1914-1945" the fact mentioned in around 38 min. out of 1:21:19
German title: "Die Geschichte der Deutschen Kriegsmarine 1914-1945 "

One of the facts:
November 1939: One u-boat attacked HMS Nelson on board which was Prime Minister W.C.
U-boat fired 3 torpedoes to HMS Nelson, all three hit the target but none of them exploaded.

What consequences it could have to British Admiralty, leaves us guessing..

reaper7

11-04-11, 05:21 PM

Hi H.sie, I think that 25% would be the better choice. Any higher could start taking away from the enjoyment of the sim.

h.sie

11-04-11, 05:34 PM

@PapaKilo: Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't have this documentation.

@reaper: agree, 25% seems to be a good starting point for the early time.

PapaKilo

11-04-11, 05:42 PM

Hi H.sie, I think that 25% would be the better choice. Any higher could start taking away from the enjoyment of the sim.

I'm not sure wether we speak on the same frequency here. Let it be 25% or 50%, but that was a value in total torpedo count which got malfunctions. Now calculate the %, that YOUR - 1 boat will actually get from that % of total.

However, I believe there will be no accurate calculation or prediction in game to mirror this event in the game realisticly.

Moreover we already have dud torps, do you guys realy think we should try messing more with it, like there isn't more important things to try to fix in game ?

I already mentioned IMO analogical fix for sonar guy that has already been made for WO.

But all I get for answer is silence and superduper plans for other things which asks the debatable attention, which as I think is not so important. :hmmm:

PapaKilo

11-04-11, 05:49 PM

@PapaKilo: Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't have this documentation.

Well You may ask me to send it over to you, or upload it from where you could pick it up.

However I feel we all believe in things we want to believe in first place :)

slipper

11-04-11, 05:59 PM

Depth Charger and Rhodes

Thanks very much for your suggestions, i removed WB's mid patrol orders, and went back to default SH3Cmdr still no luck, the only way i can play this mod is without using SH3Cmdr at the moment. I will try and reinstall it tomorrowto see if that helps out.

Would be interested to know if it is definately Wb's orders causing this conflict and wether it can be fixed, so we may have both

Thanks again

slipper

h.sie

11-04-11, 06:09 PM

PapaKilo wrote: Moreover we already have dud torps, do you guys realy think we should try messing more with it, like there isn't more important things to try to fix in game ? I already mentioned IMO analogical fix for sonar guy that has already been made for WO. But all I get for answer is silence and superduper plans for other things which asks the debatable attention, which as I think is not so important.

@PapaKilo: I exclusively program Mods I am interested in, that means: Mods which I personally consider as being important FOR ME. And I allow myself to announce modding plans as it suits my personal taste. Why not? Maybe you see things wrong: Although I worked hard here for more than 2 years, it's not my job and I have no duty here at all. It's voluntary, my hobby and free time. I share my work with those who like it. Those who don't like it, should not use it, or only activate the fixes they like. I also consider the opinions of others - to a certain extent. And: I also follow mod requests from others - as long as I am personally interested. If I don't follow a mod request, it's simply because I am not interested (or, it's not on top of my ToDo-List). This might be sad for some, but I want to spend my free time only with things I like. This must be possible without anyone being angry about me. Things would be completely different, if I had taken money from you for my work, or if I were UBI customer support.

Thanks for understanding!
H.Sie

Dani

11-04-11, 06:14 PM

reaper7

11-04-11, 06:16 PM

I'm not sure wether we speak on the same frequency here. Let it be 25% or 50%, but that was a value in total torpedo count which got malfunctions. Now calculate the %, that YOUR - 1 boat will actually get from that % of total.

However, I believe there will be no accurate calculation or prediction in game to mirror this event in the game realisticly.

Moreover we already have dud torps, do you guys realy think we should try messing more with it, like there isn't more important things to try to fix in game ?

I already mentioned IMO analogical fix for sonar guy that has already been made for WO.

But all I get for answer is silence and superduper plans for other things which asks the debatable attention, which as I think is not so important. :hmmm:

Yes but the figure H.sie needs in the percentage of faulty torps in the players boat not the number of torps faulty among all uboats - hence a random between 0% to 25% is a good figure.

What I would like to see is a higher percentage of duds for Firing solutions that use Fast90 and Impact only to get around the stock dud system.
Would be easy to monitor if torp is set to 90deg and gyro is set to 0deg and hence add another 10% chance that it will be a dud to encourage solutions that have a gyroangle not equal to 90deg.
After all The Impact angle of the Torp can still be 90deg for perfect shots :up:

The sonar guy fix would also be a nice addition to the fixes, and I'm sure h.sie has added this to the list, but from coding myself - i know these things take time and what appear to be simple fixes can be nightmares to bring to fruition.

h.sie

11-04-11, 06:48 PM

@reaper: No I haven't put it to my todo-list, because I don't know where the problem is. Seems to be a cosmetical one, right? If so, I'll put it to my list. Priority level: High!

---
Available priority levels are: 1) Extremely high, 2) Very, very, high, 3) Very high and 4) High

reaper7

11-04-11, 07:59 PM

Available priority levels are: 1) Extremely high, 2) Very, very, high, 3) Very high and 4) High

:har:

PapaKilo

11-05-11, 01:22 AM

PapaKilo

11-05-11, 01:43 AM

What I would like to see is a higher percentage of duds for Firing solutions that use Fast90 and Impact only to get around the stock dud system.
Would be easy to monitor if torp is set to 90deg and gyro is set to 0deg and hence add another 10% chance that it will be a dud to encourage solutions that have a gyroangle not equal to 90deg.
After all The Impact angle of the Torp can still be 90deg for perfect shots :up:

:hmmm: Read this part 5 times and couldn't get the logical mind flow.

90deg is 90deg if it IS a 90deg for real. It doesn't make sense how you get the angle - by fast 90 method or by calculating TDC with tools.

The fair angle of torpedo with impact pistol and detonation to the target is 80-110 deg.

At least with GWX, probability of dud torps are pretty good adjusted. In early war you can make a perfect TDC solution with briliant 90deg runto the target, and all you see is the torp bounces of the ships hull and sinks :)

PapaKilo

11-05-11, 02:39 AM

@PapaKilo

I don't get it?
Why are you so against implementing torpedo failures?
I'm not counting the torpedo duds from the game itself, because there not good executed in the game.
I don't remember anyone, in this thread, attacking any of h.sie's previous fixes before.

I agree there are many things to pay attention to, but....sonar guy?

Since the hydrophone doesn't work anyway on surface, this would be a pure cosmetic change.

And BTW there's already a fix for your problem. An easy one.
You can move him yourself.

I'm against it because I find this fix to become useless FOR ME personaly. I'm satisfied with dud torpedoes as it is at the moment. It's not always the dud that screws everything, it's also a faulty TDC solution I sometimes make that makes torpedo to miss. Perhaps this fix will add more chalenge to the game for those who still uses auto-targeting feature.
So basicly after a wolfpack fix, nothing more interesting to wait for as far as I can see ATM :)

==================================================
Sonar guy on/off station fix, Sonar guy takes his postition on "surface cruise"
WO stands still (not moving) on bridge after nearest contact report request,
Ships do not react to premature explosions of the torps,
Destroyers are deaf to music of gramophone and echolot/sonar ping,
Ships and player u-boat Buoyancy and Agility.
==================================================

Could any of these fit into your extreemly important to-do list H.Sie ? :)

Robin40

11-05-11, 03:43 AM

@h.sie

I wish to thank you also in the forum for having spent your time on the bug I posted

It was a corrupted save file andi it was my fault

Go on in your work:up:

Hitman

11-05-11, 05:05 AM

Soo.. what makes you think it is the most reliable source ? This particular one ?

Are you joking? :88)

Hitman

11-05-11, 05:20 AM

@Hitman: Thanks for your comments. Concerning your number

1) From my experience the in-game probability is close to zero if you stick to some basic rules. Therefore, it does not matter if the new probability is added on top of the present probabilities. In addition, if people don't like the addition they can switch of the realistic torpedo failure option in SH3.

2) As said in 1) I would simply add the new probability. In addition, as far as I know commanders had only sometimes the opportunity to choose the pistol type (because of technical constraints and BDU orders). So, the question which pistol the commander would prefer to use is somehow difficult to answer. Anyway, please make a suggestion for the failure rate depending on the sea state. What we need are values for the probability.

Although real Kaleuns were well aware of the impact angle issue (from what date on were they aware?), the failure rate was 26%.

The impact angle issue was known from the very beginning, because torpedo designers were well aware of it. In the US Navy more or less the opposite happened, doctrine called for 90º shots as best chance of pistol triggering, but commanders discovered by chance doing forced shots that it actually worked better at a steep angle (The reason being the needle bent in a harder impact, as it happens in a perpendicular collision, and didn't trigger the exploder). So, impact pistols were designed with 90º shots in mind and that was standard doctrine.

Regarding the pistol set, Stiebler will be able to tell that better than me, but IIRC you could not change it once in the tube. So yes, commanders would normally not have a lot of margin to switch such settings, as torpedoes would normally be preloaded and prepared with whatever pistol the standing orders said.

Regarding sea state, the influence it has in the succesful torpedo attack is felt in several areas:

1) Depth keeping issues. The torpedoes travel at high speed and have small finns/rudders, so they will have difficulties keeping depth.

2) Course keeping issues. For the same reasons as above, plus the shorter travel of the internal gyro compass stabilizator (Due to the confined area) they might easily veer off course.

3) Detonation issues. The torpedo might impact at weird angles against the ship's hull because the hull is curved and also moving up and down plus rolling due to heavy seas.

So, the first thing to consider is if some of those effects are already included in the already existing failiure rates. In that regard, note that the 26% failiure rate you have pointed out might very well include already torpedoes that malfunctioned due to being shot in heavier seas!

Then, you must ensure that the proportion of this effects increases with windspeed (I think H-Sie has repeatedly said that tying something to that parameter is not difficult for him, so that is a good thing).

The proportions are difficult to tell, but should go from absolute zero influence in calm seas, to a very high one in storms (75-85%). I have readed several accounts of uboats meeting a juicy target in a storm, and both looking at each other harmlessly due to the inability of the uboat to make an effective shot. (F.e. H.W. Schulz in his biography, "Über dem nassen Abgrund").

It is also important to note that the failiure curve would not rise linearly, but instead climb steeply up as weather worsens.

h.sie

11-05-11, 05:30 AM

@Robin40: Glad to know. Thus, V16A3 seems to be very stable, but will remain in beta state for some time.

@PapaKilo: If you are against a torpedo fix, just don't use it. There are others (including myself) who want that fix. If you are not interested, please let those who are interested, continue the discussion about that topic. Thanks.

Regarding your mod requests:

Sonar guy on/off station fix, Sonar guy takes his postition on "surface cruise": Can be done with one mouseclick. Eye-candy.

WO stands still (not moving) on bridge after nearest contact report request: Eye-candy. This is a job for an animation expert. Out of the area of my expertise.

Ships do not react to premature explosions of the torps, Destroyers are deaf to music of gramophone and echolot/sonar ping: Interesting, already on my list for a long time, but I fear I cannot fix it, since sensors are complex, hard to understand and hard to fix (for me).

Ships and player u-boat Buoyancy and Agility. Also already on my list.

By the way: My 1WO-Automove-Mod also is pure eye-candy. I made it only to see if it is possible for me. It's not an important fix, since the player can do it with one mouseclick.

reaper7

11-05-11, 05:59 AM

:hmmm: Read this part 5 times and couldn't get the logical mind flow.

90deg is 90deg if it IS a 90deg for real. It doesn't make sense how you get the angle - by fast 90 method or by calculating TDC with tools.

The fair angle of torpedo with impact pistol and detonation to the target is 80-110 deg.

At least with GWX, probability of dud torps are pretty good adjusted. In early war you can make a perfect TDC solution with briliant 90deg runto the target, and all you see is the torp bounces of the ships hull and sinks :)

Sorry noticed the error in my sentence - should have read as:
Would be easy to monitor if torp is set to 90deg and gyro is set to 0deg and hence add another 10% chance that it will be a dud to encourage solutions that have a gyroangle not equal to 0deg
Thats what happens when you don't proof read :D

So in other words add a 10% chance that Torpedo may be a dud if using the Fast90 technique thereby increasing the dud probability from max25% to max35%.
This would neutralize the current method of getting around the stock Torpedo Dud system.

LGN1

11-05-11, 06:16 AM

Hi,

I don't fully agree that the WO and a sonar guy fix are at the same level. Yes, in both cases you can solve the problem with a few mouse clicks, but you have to move the WO in order to have a correctly working watch on the conning tower. You do not have to do anything with the sonar guy to have a correctly working hydrophone. In this sense, the WO fix is more crucial.

Anyway, concerning the torpedo failures:

As I've written in post #2551 players' opinions and preferences concerning torpedo failures are quite different. But still we don't have any suggestions for the probability (except Papakilo's suggestion of zero). Just general comments along the lines 'take this into account...', '...should be higher for...' and so on. I know I repeat myself, but please offer hard numbers. We know what h.sie can do and offers to do, so please offer hard numbers that fit into his scheme. If you don't like the scheme or have a more detailed scheme then it's fine, but it does not really help at the moment.

Cheers, LGN1

h.sie

11-05-11, 06:22 AM

h.sie

11-05-11, 06:43 AM

The problem is now to represent a system of complex interdependencies using a simple algorithm.

Thus, I

- have to restrict on essential factors but

- have to neglect inessential factors.

It is impossible to represent the complexity of the real situation during the war. I can only offer a coarse approximation - as always.

reaper7

11-05-11, 07:32 AM

@reaper:

1) Could you please explain (in simple words) the stock Torpedo Dud system? I havn't played much, but I don't remember to ever have had a dud......except from those resulting in a too low impact angle (angle between torpedo course and ship course).

2) Also, please explain, why the method of calculating the solution should influence the failure rate. You should know that I never seriously learned manual targeting, and from my beginners view, the only important angle (regarding failures) seems to be the impact angle (I meant the angle between torpedo and ship course).
H.Sie

Hi mate as I understand it the stock dud system basically only has 2 types:
1. Premature detonation - ok
2. Impact Angle - Generally Torpedo hits with Impact angles greater than 90+/-15deg have a chance to be duds to model the pin not being pushed on impact. Again the Hull of the ship plays a vital part to this angle if hit to low in the hull (The rounded part even from 90deg the impact angle is greater then 90deg due to the curve).

The problem is that this is easily avoidable by the player.
One just needs to set up for a Fast90 Attack and set the torps to low depths.
So torpedo has a gyro of 0deg and AOB is 90deg and depth is set low to hit just under the waterline. Hence dud rate will be close to 0.

If you look at nearly all sh3 videos on youtube attacks are using this method. Yes quick and easy with minimal solution required but the same old attack over and over again with piratically zero dud rate :nope:.

By applying an extra chance of dud rate to this attack type it will increase the rate of duds from stock 0% to a max35% using your code
(That is if you settle for a max25% - so standard across the board 25% and an extra 10% chance if using fast90).
This extra 10% would model the Pin bending when hitting a target at 90deg due to increased force when hitting using this technique.
And finally we may see more players starting to use there TDC's to work out full firing solutions that require all parameters of the Torpedo setup.

So it would be a tradeoff:
Fast90 (AOB=90) attack (minimum solution) - more chance of a dud
AOB not equal to 90 attack (Full solution) - less chance of dud

h.sie

11-05-11, 08:43 AM

LGN1

11-05-11, 09:15 AM

Hi,

just a few comments:

- the crucial parameter is the impact angle. The gyro angle doesn't matter. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether you use the fast 90° method and shoot with a gyro angle of zero or use the TDC and have a non-zero gyro angle, but 90° impact angle.

- Hitman has written that the real commanders knew about the impact angle issue. Thus, I think it's not required to change anything about it in SH3 (they knew it, we know it, and we both try/tried to avoid it).

- I know that the US torpedoes had an increased failure rate at 90° impact. However, I've never read about a similar issue with German torpedoes.

- The probability for a premature detonation is much too low in SH3.

- As I've said previously, I think we should have a quite high failure rate no matter what the player does. That's how it was back then for the commanders and I think it will provide the main feeling they felt in the beginning of the war: frustration.

Cheers, LGN1

reaper7

11-05-11, 10:10 AM

@reaper: Thanks for your input (and congrats for successfully solving the reload issue).

It seems I have to do a course in manual targeting before I fully can understand your words.

This extra 10% would model the Pin bending when hitting a target at 90deg due to increased force when hitting using this technique.

I never heard about the fact that 90 degree angle increases the risk of a dud. Until now I thought an angle of 90 degree is desireable. Where can I read details about that?

And even if there really is an issue with 90 degree: I cannot measure the impact angle, I can only analyse the AOB setting in the TDC, which isn't equal to the impact angle.

????

Thanks Mate, still some more work to get it nailed down and working 100%.
Impact Angle is not required just the GyroAngle. I can mail you the Memory locations of these variable if you wish.
So this value can be read and if it = 0 then add another 10% chance of dud to equation. :)

Hi,

just a few comments:

- the crucial parameter is the impact angle. The gyro angle doesn't matter. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether you use the fast 90° method and shoot with a gyro angle of zero or use the TDC and have a non-zero gyro angle, but 90° impact angle.

- Hitman has written that the real commanders knew about the impact angle issue. Thus, I think it's not required to change anything about it in SH3 (they knew it, we know it, and we both try/tried to avoid it).

- I know that the US torpedoes had an increased failure rate at 90° impact. However, I've never read about a similar issue with German torpedoes.

- The probability for a premature detonation is much too low in SH3.

- As I've said previously, I think we should have a quite high failure rate no matter what the player does. That's how it was back then for the commanders and I think it will provide the main feeling they felt in the beginning of the war: frustration.

Cheers, LGN1

Hi LGN1, yes the Impact angle is the critical one - but I stated the gyroangle as this is one we are all use in Sh3 and when using the 90°.
Beside when using this technique Both gyroangle and Impactangle are going to be 0degrees.

Stock Sh3 does not have an impact angle dail, I have programed a fully working impact Angle dial for SH3 for the forthcoming U-boot_HAHD Mod though and hence why I'm suggesting this extra 10% for gyro=0deg solutions ;).
As it will give more reason to set up solutions where ImpactAngle = 90deg while GyroAngle is not = 90deg :D

Thanks for the info on the Us torps suffering from the 90deg Impact. I had read that some time ago and had it in my mind it was German Torps that suffered this fault :up:

Agreed that we should have a higher torpedo dud rate, I suggested that 25% max should be used for the formula.
Just would like to see the extra 10% on top of the 25% for gyro=0deg shots to give more Incentive to the player to try more Solution orientated shots than what Fast90 attacks use.

h.sie

11-05-11, 11:46 AM

@reaper7: I already have re-engineered a pointer to the gyro-angle dial value, so no need. Thanks anyway.

In order to get things sorted:

1) Impact angle is a cruical value for dud torpedoes. So far I understood.

2) But AFAIK dud torpedoes caused by wrong impact angle are already modeled in sh3. So why consider it twice??

3) Your answer to 2) might be: In order to motivate the player to do a full solution instead of a fast one, by giving a penalty for fast solutions.

4) My question now is: Is a fast solution cheating?

My 2 counter-arguments to your possible 2 answers are as follows:

4a) If a fast solution is cheating -> "Let people cheat, if they want to cheat. It's not worth my effort to simulate/model a reaction/penalty for cheating".

4b) If a fast solution is not cheating -> "Players should benefit from their fast firing solution instead of being penalised".

In total, I have no good feeling to consider the gyro-angle for calculating the failure-rate.

If I make the failure rate dependent on time with a probalility of max. 25% and ADDITIONALLY consider the windspeed with a max. probalility of 50% for 15m/s, we have p=75% in total. That's enough I think and people will be glad to have a torpedo hit in 1941 at 15m/s.

LGN1

11-05-11, 11:53 AM

@reaper: I don't understand why you want to have an incentive for not using a gyro angle of 0° :06: Historically, commanders wanted to have a gyro angle as close to 0° as possible because a) range hardly matters b) low chance of pistol failure c) lower chance of torpedo steering trouble.

@all:

I have carried out some tests concerning premature detonations in SH3. I shot 50 torpedoes (TI, Aug. '39) with a depth setting of 4m, speed 40 knots, magnetic pistol, and 15m/s wind. Here's what I got:

3 torpedoes exploded < 1000m
9 torpedoes exploded between 1000m and 1500m
7 torpedoes exploded between 1500m and 2000m
(for larger distances I did not care anymore)

So, it seems the premature detonation rate is actually not that low. However, for ranges below 1000m it is quite low (in real-life it seems most premature detonation happened at short ranges after fusing :hmmm:).

Therefore, I suggest to reduce the probability from 25% to 20% early in the war (until June 1940) and then afterwards until June '42 to 5-10%.

Cheers, LGN1

PS: Maybe 15% for wind < 10 m/s and 25% for stronger wind :hmmm:

LGN1

11-05-11, 12:05 PM

...
2) But AFAIK dud torpedoes caused by wrong impact angle are already modeled in sh3. So why consider it twice??

...

4) My question now is: Is a fast solution cheating?

...

If I make the failure rate dependent on time with a probalility of max. 25% and ADDITIONALLY consider the windspeed with a max. probalility of 50% for 15m/s, we have p=75% in total. That's enough I think and people will be glad to have a torpedo hit in 1941 at 15m/s.

Hi h.sie,

dud torpedoes because of a bad impact angle are already modeled in SH3 (quite well if you ask me).

The fast 90° attack is no cheating! In most situations it's the smartest thing you can do.

I agree that stormy weather makes things worse, however, I'm not sure how much. If you take a look at the document about the torpedo crisis you'll see that it never mentions specifically the weather.

Cheers, LGN1

Here's the link to the document:

http://eaglescholar.georgiasouthern.edu:8080/jspui/bitstream/10518/3627/1/Wright_David_H_201005_MA.pdf

It gives a very good impression of how complex the real-life situation was.

reaper7

11-05-11, 12:52 PM

@reaper7: I already have re-engineered a pointer to the gyro-angle dial value, so no need. Thanks anyway.

In total, I have no good feeling to consider the gyro-angle for calculating the failure-rate.

If I make the failure rate dependent on time with a probalility of max. 25% and ADDITIONALLY consider the windspeed with a max. probalility of 50% for 15m/s, we have p=75% in total. That's enough I think and people will be glad to have a torpedo hit in 1941 at 15m/s.

Hi Mate, no problem (If you need info on Impact Angle Calculation let me know.
I've a working formula done and working. :up:

@reaper: I don't understand why you want to have an incentive for not using a gyro angle of 0° :06: Historically, commanders wanted to have a gyro angle as close to 0° as possible because a) range hardly matters b) low chance of pistol failure c) lower chance of torpedo steering trouble.

@Both, I guess the real reason why I was pushing for this is due to all the real footage I've seen on U-Boat operations, none I've seen show An Impact on a Target that look like they used a Fast90 attack.
All footage have the Target with an AOB greater or less than 90deg on Impact - whereas if it was a fast90 attack than AOB would have to be 90deg port or 90deg starboard when viewed from the scope at Impact.
Maybe this technique wasn't known to German U-boat operators at that time.

But yes I get your point that its not really cheating so why penalize the player.
And I for one will be happy with any way you Implement this, I'm just a gluten for punishment (Don't like things easy :D).
Cheers Guys, Appreciate all your doing for Sh3. :up:

h.sie

11-05-11, 01:43 PM

@LGN1: Thanks for that interesting document. Havn't read it yet completely, but it is about the Torpedocrisis until 1942, which mainly is caused by technical problems, not by the weather. So I'm not surprised that weather is not mentioned, since weather isn't the cause for the crisis. The influence of the weather on torpedo failures is a different problem. I'm also not sure about quantities, but, as Hitman says, it's surely not a linear dependency.

Hitman

11-05-11, 01:47 PM

To put specific percetages of failiure for each issue, we have currently:

- Player error when calculating solutions: That doesn't need to be implemented, and I personally would not even take it into account. A player that does manual targeting correctly excludes that error, and one that is learning, well, is learning and must accept that in real life they would not have given an UBoat to someone like that :O:

- Prematures: Already in the game, with the results that LGN reported. Unless we can modify its behaviour, it's a given and will not enter in our calculations except for detracting the percentage it already means.

- Magnetic pistol failiure: This is set in the torpedo files, so H.Sie doesn't really need to do anything about it as it is already moddable.

- Impact pistol failiure: Same as previous

- Angle of impact too acute: Same as previous

Now this is H.Sie's territory:

- Torpedo mechanical depth keeping issues: It is well known that torpedo depth keeping mechanism failed until 1942, when the issue was discovered and fixed. It should add a 25% chance of the torpedo going down as implemented by H-Sie. Reason: The failiure appeared in part owing to torpedo maintenance and air pressure in its depth keeping mechanism after the Uboat submerging deep (As the pressure in the boat builds up, the torpedo mechanism would become discompensated as it was not built for such high external pressures). So it would not happen in boats that only had done routine dives for trimming and would instead happen more in boats that had dived deeper.

- Torpedo course alteration, porpoising, etc, due to heavy seas: This would all be packed together in the single effect of the torpedo going down as implemented by H-Sie, according to following table:

Windspeed 0 = 0%
Windspeed 5-7 = 5%
Windspeed 7-12= 15 %
Windspeed 12-15 = 75%

Ideally this should also be incremented as the set torpedo depth diminishes, meaning:

Depth 0-3 metres = 100% chance of the previous Windspeed random parameter effectively acting on the torpedo
Depth 4-8 metres = 75% chance of the previous Windspeed random parameter effectively acting on the torpedo
Depth 9-15 metres = 50% chance of the previous Windspeed random parameter effectively acting on the torpedo
Depth 16-Maximum metres = 25% chance of the previous Windspeed random parameter effectively acting on the torpedo

Reason: The deeper the torpedo, the less chances of the surface sea state acting upon it

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

To sum up we will add an ADITIONAL (To what the game or moders already put into the pistol and prematures) margin of failiure that goes from:

Minimum 25% aditional failiure rate due to faulty depth keeping mechanism (Until 1942)

Maximum 100% aditional failiure rate in heavy seas, low depth torpedo.

In between, many combinations are possible, but all of them are not in the hands of the player except those real Kaleuns already knew -like not shooting with too acute angles, not setting the torpedo too shallow in rough seas, etc.

How does this all sound? :hmmm:

LGN1

11-05-11, 01:55 PM

Hi Hitman,

just a quick comment: As far as I know the only implemented malfunctions in SH3 are premature detonations for the magnetic pistol and the discussed impact angle issue. Magnetic pistol failure is not implemented and cannot be modded without touching hard-code, I think. It's different for SH4 where you can set the parameters in the torpedo.sim files. Are you confusing SH3 and 4?

Cheers, LGN1

@h.sie: Weather is mentioned quite a few times (e.g., Doenitz trying to blame the weather for the failures when the pistol was changed,...). The problem is that we do not know exactly how often a certain malfunction happened (propulsion problem, pistol problem,...) and how it was influenced by weather. Certainly it's not linear, but what is it? And do we really need it?

reaper7

11-05-11, 01:56 PM

Windspeed 0 = 0%
Windspeed 5-7 = 5%
Windspeed 7-12= 15 %
Windspeed 12-15 = 75%

Ideally this should also be incremented as the set torpedo depth diminishes, meaning:

Depth 0-3 metres = 100% chance of the previous Windspeed random parameter effectively acting on the torpedo
Depth 4-8 metres = 75% chance of the previous Windspeed random parameter effectively acting on the torpedo
Depth 9-15 metres = 50% chance of the previous Windspeed random parameter effectively acting on the torpedo
Depth 16-Maximum metres = 25% chance of the previous Windspeed random parameter effectively acting on the torpedo

Reason: The deeper the torpedo, the less chances of the surface sea state acting upon it

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

To sum up we will add an ADITIONAL (To what the game or moders already put into the pistol and prematures) margin of failiure that goes from:

Minimum 25% aditional failiure rate due to faulty depth keeping mechanism (Until 1942)

Maximum 100% aditional failiure rate in heavy seas, low depth torpedo.

How does this all sound? :hmmm:

:sign_yeah: Sounds good to me :salute:

h.sie

11-05-11, 02:00 PM

@Hitman: :yeah:Good point to consider the torpedo depth when calculating weather dependency.

I think about to rename the thread into

Masochism- and gameplay- related hardcode fixes.

@LGN1: I would say we need storm dependency, but this is assumption not knowledge.

-> Facts needed!

LGN1

11-05-11, 02:04 PM

@Hitman: I like your approach, but I think the numbers are too high. I would tune the parameters that (assuming an equal weather distribution) you get a failure rate of approx. 20-25% up to June '40 and then less until mid '42. I think the failure rate dropped considerably after the invasion of Norway. I would also avoid a failure rate of 100%.

Maybe let's try to first agree upon the weather-independent probability on which the weather part is added?

SquareSteelBar

11-05-11, 02:08 PM

...I think about to rename the thread into

Masochism- and gameplay- related hardcode fixes...Some Sadism items would be much appreciated... :smug:

h.sie

11-05-11, 02:10 PM

@LGN1 & Hitman: Guys, "fight" about the quantities, while I'm now looking a movie.

LGN1

11-05-11, 02:17 PM

Just a quick estimate:

Most of the time in SH3 you have a wind speed > 12m/s and most of the time you shoot torpedoes with a depth of < 15m. In this situation the failure probability is

0.25 + 0.75*0.5 = 62.5% failure rate in quite common situations :o

I really think the 0.75 is over-kill.

Regards, LGN1

reaper7

11-05-11, 02:17 PM

Not sure everyone is on the same page when it comes to percentages.

What I mean is when a figure is mentioned eg 25% is it:

25 % of torpedoes carried will be duds
a random numder between 0% and 25% carried will be duds

Just wondering as both the same figure but different dud amounts :hmmm:

Just we should agree on which we use in discussion so as not to confuse.

Depth Charger

11-05-11, 03:08 PM

Would be interested to know if it is definately Wb's orders causing this conflict and wether it can be fixed, so we may have both

Thanks again

slipper[/QUOTE]

Cant say for sure but it changes the way sh3 sends radio messages and so it has a high chance of conflicting with the wolfpack and radio message parts of h.sie's mod and so I took it out.

kindest

dc

Depth Charger

11-05-11, 05:22 PM

@ H.Sie

Just a short note to apologize in advance for cursing both you and LGN for the dud torpedoes...

As it is, I am already struggling enough out there with manual targeting and using this patch. Last night I lost a bitter and desperate battle against 2 destroyers because of your repair fix.

You are already killing me, and now you going to make my torpedoes bounce off the ship as well?

Well that's just cruel and so I thought it best to get my apology in up front because I am definitely not going to think or say any pleasant when it happens... Then again, I will never play the game again without it either and it sounds like an excellent addition to your folks patch... :)

Shout if you need any help from us testing...

DC

h.sie

11-05-11, 06:11 PM

@reaper: If I talk about failure probability p=25%, I mean that (in average) 25 of 100 torpedoes will be duds. If I remember correctly, this is the mathematical definition of probability.

@all: WB's mod and my hardcode fixes use different ways to manipulate messages. There is surely a way to make both compatible. WB's mod used SH3-Cmdr, right?

@LGN1: It's easier for me to program a continuous dependency function on windspeed instead of the discrete windspeed bands Hitman proposed, so that we get a lower failure rate for 12m/s than for 15m/s. The dependency on torpedo depth will also be a continuous function instead of discrete depth bands. Tomorrow I'll think about the character of these functions, and than we'll surely find a consensus regarding the quantities/parameters.

Gähn!

h.sie

11-06-11, 07:10 AM

Considering the posts above, I created an analytical formula for the torpedo failure rate p, which considers:

1) The failure rate p_crisis, resulting from the torpedo crisis until 1942
2) The failure rate p_wind, resulting from waveheight + torpedo depth

The resulting failure rate p is the sum of both components (to make calculations simple):

p = p_crisis + p_wind

This failure rate p is added on top of the already modelled torpedo failures (premature explosion, dud because of bad impact angle).

-----

For p_crisis I set

p_crisis = {

20%: until June 40

10%: until June 42

0%: else

}

These values are lower than the proposed 25%, since there are already some premature detonations modelled in sh3.

-----

For p_wind I set

p_wind = 50% * (Windspeed)^2 / 225 * (25m - TorpedoDepth) * 4/100

That means: Under worst conditions (windspeed=15m/s, torpedo depth = 0), wind can cause a maximum failure rate of p_wind_max = 50%. If windspeed sinks, p_wind drastically (sqarish) sinks below 50%. The deeper the torpedo, the lower the failure rate. This additionally motivates the player to use magnetic pistol.

Some Examples for failure rates in different situations:

1) Worst case (June 40, Wind 15m/s, TorpedoDepth=1m)

p = 20% + 50% * 1 * 0,96 = 68%

2) LGN1's situation in post #2606 (June40, Wind=12, TorpedoDepth=9)

p = 20% + 50% * 0,64 * 0,64 = 40%

3) After the crisis: (July 42, Wind = 7m/s, TorpedoDepth = 9)

P = 0% + 50% * 0,22 * 0,64 = 7%

4) Quasi best case (July 43, Wind = 1, TorpedoDepth = 12)

P = 0% + 50% * 0,005 * 0,52 = 0,1%

I noone disagrees, I'll implement the formula above into the forthcoming "More torpedo failures" Mod.

LGN1

11-06-11, 07:46 AM

Hi h.sie,

thanks for your post. I have to examine your equations closer before commenting further on them.

Just a bit more food for thoughts concerning weather effects:

Here you can find a table that provides a rough connection between wave height and wind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_scale

As you can see at 8m/s wind speed you get a wave height of 1-2m. Furthermore:

Wind speed: Wave height:

8 - 11m/s ............ 2-3m
11-14m/s ............ 3-4m
14-17m/s ............ 4-5.5m

Wave turbulences will go deeper, but I guess they are quickly damped (maybe on a length of 1m :06:). Torpedoes set at a depth shallower than the above values should have a dud probability of close to 100% (surface runners). For torpedo depths below the values above + 1m I would set the probability close to 0% (the wind speed related probability).

Regards, LGN1

SquareSteelBar

11-06-11, 07:50 AM

Approved http://www8.pic-upload.de/06.11.11/xmahaowjr661.jpg

:salute:

h.sie

11-06-11, 08:06 AM

@LGN1: Thanks for that table, but comparison with real windspeeds is difficult.

We have to consider, that our in-game windspeed of 15m/s is the maximum possible (worst case), while in reality, 15m/s is moderate.

Thus, in my opinion, the influence of in-game windspeed must be boosted compared to real weather.

So you prefer a "digital" solution:

If torpedo breaks water surface => Dud rate factor = 1,0
If not => Dud rate factor = 0,0

----

I cannot believe that 1m below a rough water surface the turbulences are completely damped.

LGN1

11-06-11, 08:14 AM

I agree, h.sie.

But if you want to interpret 15m/s wind in-game with x m/s wind in real-life the question arises whether x m/s in nature are as common as 15m/s in SH3.

Breaking the surface is certainly not the only factor. Turbulences below the surface lead to forces on the torpedo which the steering mechanism has to correct. The higher the forces the more problematic it becomes. However, I think these turbulences are damped quite fast.

What might be a good idea is not to have a true digital solution / step function, but a 'Fermi distribution':

p = 1 / ( exp( (TD-f(WS)) / width) + 1 )

with TD: torpedo depth, f(WS) a function of the windspeed (according to the numbers above a linear function works quite well), and width a parameter that determines how fast the probability drops from 100% to 0% (simulating the turbulence layer).

Edit: The turbulences are certainly not completely damped after 1m, however, a torpedo is also quite heavy.

h.sie

11-06-11, 08:26 AM

I'll check whether that could be approximated by the Boltzmann-distribution, in order to make programming easier.

Or, much easier....a linear function. But Boltzmann sounds more interesting.

LGN1

11-06-11, 08:36 AM

You should be able to approximate it with a Boltzmann-distribution (for high temperatures the Fermi-distribution is well approximated by the Boltzmann-distribution), but in our case you will have a problem with the plateau for torpedo depths shallower than the wave height. This you might circumvent by using a piece-wise defined function, e.g.,

100% for TD >= WH
Boltzmann-distribution for TD < WH

h.sie

11-06-11, 08:49 AM

I was 50% joking / 50% serious. I think we are creating a very coarse model with many unknown factors. If we would now use sophisticated formulae this would be inappropriate since it suggests an accuracy that is not really given. Piecewise-Linear functions are surely sufficient.

My formula in post #2611 was simple and intentionally not physically-based, because that is too sophisticated IMHO. It was my mathematical description of the consensus between Hitman's and your (LGN1) suggestions.

But I'm open for better formula.....especially for the torpedo-depth-term

LGN1

11-06-11, 08:58 AM

I agree completely (but I thought you prefer a smooth, analytical function). I think the best would be:

p = 1 ...................................for TD < 0.3*WS
P = 1-(TD - 0.3*WS)/width .....for 0.3*WS < TD < 0.3*WS+width
p = 0 ...................................for TD > 0.3*WS+width

tekai

11-06-11, 08:59 AM

just a short comment about gameplay without any further fixes on torpedoe duds:

I'm actually playing my 6th -whole war- career, now I'm in june '44. I'm always using manual targeting and trying to hit targets at an angle of nearly 90 degrees, fire distance between 500 - 2000m. I never had a patrol without torpedoe duds, worst attack was in dec 1939, when I attacked a "Renown" with a type II U-boat and none of my 3 launched torpedoes exploded.

My experiences with duds in stock sh3 so far:
9/39-6/40 - 20-30% - best 16% - worst 66%
7/40-6/42 - 15-25% - best 14% - worst 43%
later - 10-20% - best 9% - worst 26%

So, who means the numbers of duds are too small in stock sh3? In most comments I read here it's pointed out as a fact that nearly every shot is a hit - I cannot agree with this.

I think gameplay is alreday well balanced, especially when you use manual targeting and it's possible that some of your shots miss their targets . It's already hard to hit under bad weather conditions (difficult to set the correct values for the TDC depending of limits of optics and a great chance that torpdoes hit the targets over waterline or running too deep) and please remember that not every hitted unit is sinking later or loosing speed.

What I don't like is that it's not important which pistol you use, especially when the Kriegsmarine had the most problems with magnetic pistols during invasion of Norway. So I would like to have a fix with only small changes on the numbers of duds, but great changes on pistol type your are using.

Greetz

LGN1

11-06-11, 09:21 AM

Hi tekai,

thanks for your input :up: I guess you are always using the magnetic pistol, aren't you? Because if you use the contact pistol and set the torpedo depth to 2 or 3 meters you should not see any duds in SH3 (except of misses because of manual targeting, but that does not count as a torpedo failure).

My test suggests a failure rate of 6% for a range <1000m and a failure rate of 30% for a range of 1000-2000m early in the war. This is indeed quite high, however, I think it's effictively still too low because especially early in the war you can shoot from quite short distances and therefore obtain a failure rate around 6% (or 0% if are using the contact pistol). BTW, NYGM improves the whole situation a bit by forcing you to use the magnetic pistol :up:

Cheers, LGN1

PS: On a related note, I don't remember ever reading a thread in the SH3 section of subsim about too many torpedo failures in SH3. However, if you go to the SH4 section, you will see quite a few :D And if you read the historical accounts from the US skippers and the German commanders the situation was quite similar back then. So, I think that either SH4 or SH3 must be off quite a bit.

h.sie

11-06-11, 09:24 AM

@tekai:

Thanks for that comment. It shows that you are satisfied with the current situation, but I know at least 4 guys who would like more duds, and for those I program that mod. It is not intended to make all happy. Those who are happy with the current situation, should disable this mod in the OptionsSelector.

Regarding torpedo pistol: Unfortunately, until now I was not able to analyse the individual pistol setting of each torpedo, thus, ATM I cannot fulfil your wish, even if it makes sense to me.

LGN1

11-06-11, 09:28 AM

NYGM locks the pistol type via the dials.cfg file to magnetic. However, some people don't like that because in this case you have to use the magnetic pistol even when it was banned officially (and you can make 'magnetic' shots from bad angles although it was not possible historically).

h.sie

11-06-11, 10:09 AM

Hi LGN1,

I agree, a term describing influence of torpedo depth as follows

p = 1 ...................................for TD < A*WS
P = 1-(TD - A*WS)/width .....for A*WS < TD < A*WS+width
p = 0 ...................................for TD > A *WS+width

is more realistic than my initial linear term.

Interval 1: Torpedo breaks water surface. 100% dud.

Interval 2: Torpedo not breaking surface, but affected by turbulences, depending on torpedo depth.

Interval 3: Torpedo too deep. Not affected. 0% dud.

Now we need to talk about the parameters A and width. Maybe A=0,3 is a good one, but width?

h.sie

11-06-11, 10:31 AM

Hmm, if magnetic pistol already has that high dud rates, it will be overkill, if we program additional duds. Seems we need to differ between the pistols, but ATM I cannot find where the pistol setting is stored for each torpedo.

tekai

11-06-11, 10:42 AM

@hsie
It was not intended to critizise your work in a bad way, I only wanted to give a few numbers from my experiences with stock settings of sh3, as explained in my first sentence.
So please go on with your mod!
BTW, there's no reason why I should'nt test it, when it's ready.
Regarding torpedoe pistols: I gave you no order to change something in the way I would prefer it, I only pointed out what could be improved some day by anyone.

Seems we need to differ between the pistols
This is exactly what I meant in my last post.

@LGN1
I'm using contact pistol in about 80-85% of my attacks , but I have duds enabled in my settings - and as you can see - these are the results I got. Torpedoe depth is depending of the ship I want to attack, the deeper the hit the greater the chance the hidden unit begins to sink or looses speed. So normally I set the depth at about 5-7m, for great tankers I take 7-9m.

Greetz

LGN1

11-06-11, 11:26 AM

Hi h.sie,

maybe it's a good idea to make a small modification and include the constant probability in the equation:

p = 1 ............................................for TD < A*WS
P = 1 - (1-p0)/width*(TD - A*WS) .....for A*WS < TD < A*WS+width
p = p0 ...........................................for TD > A *WS+width

So, we need values for A, width, and p0(until June '40, June '42, and rest).

A = 0.3 seems fine from looking at the numbers I've posted before. A good value for the width might be 2m :06:

Furthermore, I suggest:

p0(9.'39 - 6.'40): 15%
p0(6.'40 - 6.'42): 8%
p0(6.'42 - ): 0%

What I like a lot about this approach is

a) The player must take the weather into account when attacking ships and setting the torpedo depth.
b) In bad weather the player might not be able to attack a ship at all if it's too small. This adds to the frustration :D
c) It encourages players to use the magnetic pistol because with this you can set a deeper torpedo depth. Since using the magnetic pistol increases the failure rate due to the already existing premature explosion, I have reduced p0 a bit.

Regards, LGN1

@tekai: If you are using the contact pistol the failures must be because of the impact angle. If you set the depth too deep, the torpedo hits the curved part of the ship's hull and therefore, the impact angle is no longer 90°. In this case it's important to keep in mind that you are dealing with a three-dimensional problem. In general, the impact angle is the angle between the torpedo and the normal of the hull surface (i.e., the direction perpendicular to the hull) where the torpedo hits.

h.sie

11-06-11, 11:29 AM

@tekai: Your comment was understood as being 100% constructive. And my reply was 100% without anger - tried to be factual.

When I say "don't use this mod" - this is neutral and without negative emotions. Preferences are different.

But the guys who want the higher dud rates are also experienced players, and according to their experiences dud rates are too low. So we have 2 different opinions and 2 different options: Enable or disable this mod.

Your input is welcome!

h.sie

11-06-11, 11:41 AM

reaper7

11-06-11, 11:51 AM

Hi h.sie,

maybe it's a good idea to make a small modification and include the constant probability in the equation:

p = 1 ............................................for TD < A*WS
P = 1 - (1-p0)/width*(TD - A*WS) .....for A*WS < TD < A*WS+width
p = p0 ...........................................for TD > A *WS+width

So, we need values for A, width, and p0(until June '40, June '42, and rest).

A = 0.3 seems fine from looking at the numbers I've posted before. A good value for the width might be 2m :06:

Furthermore, I suggest:

p0(9.'39 - 6.'40): 15%
p0(6.'40 - 6.'42): 8%
p0(6.'42 - ): 0%

What I like a lot about this approach is

a) The player must take the weather into account when attacking ships and setting the torpedo depth.
b) In bad weather the player might not be able to attack a ship at all if it's too small. This adds to the frustration :D
c) It encourages players to use the magnetic pistol because with this you can set a deeper torpedo depth. Since using the magnetic pistol increases the failure rate due to the already existing premature explosion, I have reduced p0 a bit.

Regards, LGN1

Like the look and sound of those calculations :up:

Regarding torpedo pistol: Unfortunately, until now I was not able to analyse the individual pistol setting of each torpedo, thus, ATM I cannot fulfil your wish, even if it makes sense to me.

Hi Mate I think I came across that Value before, I have a load of these saved for a Project I'm working on - I know where the Main I/M switch Value is Stored.
Don't think I have the state per torpedo saved but can find it easy enough.
I know that Torpedo selected is stored as a int value so if all 6 tubes selected = 63 This in Binary = 11111. And if only tube 3 is selected then value = 000100 or Int = 4.
Most likely this is the same storage method for Mag/Impact contact settings for each torp so 1=Magnetic 0=Impact.
That would mean a value of 100101 = 37 would be Torp 6,2 and 1 are set for Magnetic.
I'll load up sh3 and run some checks to confirm this - If this is the case I'll supply you the code and memory address to access these variable :up:

PapaKilo

11-06-11, 11:54 AM

But the guys who want the higher dud rates are also experienced players, and according to their experiences dud rates are too low.
Your input is welcome!

Excuse me ? Did you just called me a noob in SH3 ? :haha:

I'm with this game for 6 years and counting and I went through fire and hell improving my skills, knowledge, tactics, etc. :shucks: This would probably make me an experienced player as well, but I never complained about dud rates are being too low. I literally ENJOY the view of explosion of the torpedo and then watching the ship sinking if I made everything right in TDC. Thus I'm getting full emotional pack of dissapointment when the torp goes dud even with perfect angle and TDC. Even if it was my last torpedo that went dud and I have to watch the ship passing by and we can not stop him. This was life and this is already in the game. No need to fix anything that is not broken.

Experienced players are usually bored, because they know how the game works, so they want to mess with their boredom playing SH3 by looking for some fresh new play feelings, which could re-triger their bored interest towards SH3 with fresh updates.

So if the experienced player thinks he does too much of tonnage, it doesn't mean he has to make his life complicating in game with something that would directly influence the gameplay by making it too complicated like more duds, more bad weather, more malfunctions etc etc.

If this is the exitement for experienced players as you say to come back with as little as possible tonnage sunken due to "bad luck" factor then of course I can't make you think otherwise :)

And Yes the fix like this is becoming some sort of masoschizm, which I think is just a fruit of simple boredom that came from too experienced players looking for new sense.

h.sie

11-06-11, 11:57 AM

LGN1

11-06-11, 12:07 PM

@LGN1: In your formula you assume a linear dependency between windspeed and waveheight. Is that applicable? From my "feeling" I'd say that the dependency is of higher order than 1. This can surely be found somewhere....

At least this source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_scale suggests a roughly linear dependency in the area of interest to us.

h.sie

11-06-11, 12:19 PM

reaper7

11-06-11, 12:20 PM

@reaper: If we are really talking about the individual settings for the torpedoes and not about the pistol switch, your finding could be very helpful, because we then could differ between A and M pistol and give them individual failure rates....

Well did my test, and even better I found Individual Memory locations for each Torpedo Tube for Impact/Magnetic.
And yes these are the values for the Torpedoes not the current switch position.
Float value = 12702.00098 Or displayed as byte value = 1 (Depending on variable type used)
Float value = 12702 Or displayed as byte value = 0

Now just need to Trace there DMA address and Pointers then use this to find that code and Memory address for ollydebug :up:

Will post the results once I get this done for you mate. :up:

Edit: Darn there not Fixed but temp values - I'll keep searching

LGN1

11-06-11, 12:50 PM

@LGN1: Great. Linear dependency means easy programming. But when calculating wave height from windspeed, we should use a different factor than your table uses, since in-game 15m/s is storm, while in reality 15m/s is moderate.

Hi h.sie,

as I've already written I'm reluctant to interpret the in-game wind speed differently because I think that storms are not as common as 15m/s wind speed in SH3 is. I think stronger winds are just missing in SH3 and you cannot fix this by interpreting 15m/s as a real storm. Such a procedure screws up the whole weather model.

In addition, with a factor of 0.3 we already have a minimum torpedo depth of 4.5m at 15 m/s. Take into account the 2m width and you end up with 6.5m. There are already quite a few ships in SH3 that you cannot attack anymore with the contact pistol setting at this depth. Maybe it's possible to increase the factor a bit, but if you increase it too much, players will hardly be able to attack any ships at 15m/s. And I think this is not realistic.

In my opinion, 15m/s wind should make things more complicated, but shouldn't be a show-stopper.

Regards, LGN1

reaper7

11-06-11, 01:07 PM

Hi H.Sie here is the First One, I'll wait till you confirm this is Ok before I trace the remaining 4.
Not sure If 212F2CEC is fixed memory location but code push below may be sufficient for your use.

004B6808 8850 24 MOV BYTE PTR DS:[EAX+24],DL
DL=01
DS:[212F2CEC]=00 or 01 (Impact or Magnetic)

h.sie

11-06-11, 01:32 PM

reaper7

11-06-11, 01:41 PM

@reaper: Thanks very much. Please don't put too much time & effort into it, since the information you provided is completely sufficient for me to continue. I anyhow would re-engineer it myself, since I tend to trust noone.

Great finding.

Ok that one is just for Torpedo 1, you sure you don't need the rest - if you can find them from that one, that's great :up:.

Glad to be of assistance, any addition I can make to yours and stieblers work is time well spent :salute:

h.sie

11-06-11, 01:46 PM

@LGN1. I agree. I think I shall put some values into your formula and see what failure rates result from that. This will make judging easier. But your formula looks very promising, since it approximates real physical behaviour, while my formula was only the mathematical description of the consensus between Hitmans and your data.

Due to reaper's finding its very likely that we are now able to differ between different pistols settings, thus, we could choose different values for p0, depending on pistol setting.

LGN1

11-06-11, 01:52 PM

Hi h.sie,

using a factor of 0.33 the difference between a linear fit and the values given in the link are below 3/4m (up to a wind speed of 20m/s). If one assumes that 15m/s in SH3 correspond to 20m/s one could use a factor of 0.33*20/15=0.44 :06: Maybe randomize it between 0.3 and 0.45 :D Just kidding. I don't think it's that crucial which one chooses.

Concerning the pistol switch: Supposing you will figure out how to determine it (I'm pretty sure you will :DL), how do you plan to take it into account? Via p0, i.e., make p0 pistol-dependent?

EDIT: Cross-post. Question already answered. Thanks!

Cheers, LGN1

h.sie

11-06-11, 02:02 PM

I thought to make p0 for magnetic smaller, since magnetic already has more duds/failures.

Phew.

This was a hard day. No programming. Only writing.

LGN1

11-06-11, 05:41 PM

Hi,

I just realized that we can get a deeper insight into the devs work by looking at the SH4 files! For SH4 you can access all the values for the German torpedoes in the torpedo.sim file. I guess some parameters are not present in SH3, but in general the SH4 file should provide a good idea about the torpedo failure chances in SH3!

Cheers, LGN1

h.sie

11-06-11, 06:03 PM

should we take the dev's work as reference?

slipper

11-06-11, 06:13 PM

Hi all,

Still not sure if wolfpacks are working for me as intended.

With my original setup playing through SH3Cmdr, i did not recieve any of the messages in the new en_menu.txt as mentioned above, i did however when sending a convoy contact report have the convoys speed and course displayed in my contact report.

The situatuion i have now,( i have re-installed SH3Cmdr, but the results are the same with or without it) is that the new messages are now showing, and i can send and recieve messages to Bdu fine. However in my sent contact report i have.

convoy course: xx
convoy speed: xx

so i have two x's appearing for both course and speed and not the numerical values i set on the bearing and speed dials. Will this make a difference?

I have tried the single mission about 6 times now, and i have not yet had a wolfpack attack order. I have recieved the messages below

; BDU orders to attack alone
4863=Full freedom of manoeuvre granted.
4864=Individual attack recommended.
4865=Attack at discretion.
4866=Attack on your own. Good luck.

; BDU responses on 1st contact report
4867=Good work! Maintain contact. Homing signals every hour.
4868=You are the contact holder. Transmit hourly. Other boats on way.
4869=Curb your impatience! Support is on way. Hourly transmissions needed.
4870=At last a convoy! Stick with it until pack arrives. Request hourly updates.

; BDU responses on 2nd and later contact reports
4871=Signal received. Continue hourly transmission.
4872=Signal acknowledged. Continue holding contact.
4873=Good work. Hourly transmissions needed.
4874=Continue holding contact.
4875=Shadow the convoy. Transmit hourly.
4876=Signal received. Hold contact. Good luck.
4877=Hold contact. Beware of escorts.
4878=Contact report received. Hourly transmissions needed.
4879=Pack is on the way. Homing signals every hour.
4880=Other boats are on the way. Continue hourly transmission.

sometimes up to about 5 or 6 reports but then i finally recieve one of the messages below

4863=Full freedom of manoeuvre granted.
4864=Individual attack recommended.
4865=Attack at discretion.
4866=Attack on your own. Good luck.

am i just unlucky so far? or is this a problem with my convoy contact reports showing xx for course and speed and therefore no targetting information is available for the wolfpack?

Any help appreciated

regards

slipper

LGN1

11-06-11, 06:14 PM

I don't think that's a good idea because they do not penalize shallow torpedo depths (which in reality would not be possible because this would result in surface runners). In addition, they don't include the fact that real commanders did not know about the problem's roots. I think the main advantage of looking at the SH4 file is that one understands the current model. For instance, the file clearly shows that you can have a failure rate of close to zero by using the impact pistol in SH4. And it helps us to estimate the premature rate for the magnetic pistol :up:

h.sie

11-07-11, 03:12 AM

@slipper:

1) First, during bug searching, please always try without SH3-Cmdr.

2) Please look into your en_menu.txt and search for the entries responsible for

convoy course: xx
convoy speed: xx

Your GUI mod surely has added some 'xx' to these lines. Please change these lines back to their initial state.

3) Since you are at least once ordered to shadow the convoy, the AI-Subs are installed correctly. Seems you had bad luck.

4) Thus, activate the easy option "Wolfp Less contact" option. Then, an attack should occur earlier and more often.

Hope, this helps.

slipper

11-07-11, 04:55 AM

hsie

Thanks mate, yeah i did disable SH3Cmdr, but was getting the same results with or without it, sorry i probably did not make this clear.

Thanks for the advice

2) Please look into your en_menu.txt and search for the entries responsible for

convoy course: xx
convoy speed: xx

Your GUI mod surely has added some 'xx' to these lines. Please change these lines back to their initial state.

i have found the entries 4195 for en_menu.txt and de_menu.txt and they do both indeed read xx, as i do not have backups of these files would someone please be kind enough to let me know what the correct entries should be?

many thanks

slipper

slipper

11-07-11, 06:07 AM

update to the above

i changed the following entry in en_menu.txt

4195=Contact Reported. %s %s , %s , Course xx, Speed xx KTS!

to

4195=Contact Reported. %s %s , %s , Course %s, Speed %d KTS!

but i still get

convoy course xx
convoy speed xx

when i send a contact report, this is running sh3.exe and not sh3Cmdr

i checked settings in en_menu.txt after game and they have not changed back, ie they are still

4195=Contact Reported. %s %s , %s , Course %s, Speed %d KTS!

Will this afect wolfpacks making contact? or is it just cosmetic?

thanks slipper

h.sie

11-07-11, 06:22 AM

it is for your information only and should not affect the movement of the wolfs.

but I advise to anyhow search and eliminate that issue.

Rubini

11-07-11, 07:08 AM

H.sie,

Some comments/doubts yet about wolfpack.

With wolfpack installed my "contact reports messages" will now only "work" for wolfpacks?
I mean, if I'm at english channel 1942, near brest, and find some ships, small convoys, I then try a contact report.

Prior to wolfpack, sometimes, i had german air raid over the ships by the german airbases in france. But now seems that I don't have more the message reported (don't appears on my messages sent page) and then, no more air raids.

Is it to be this way or can be something wrong at my end? Or in others words - will the wolfpack mod alter totally the way that contact report messages are handle by the game?:06:

slipper

11-07-11, 07:12 AM

Thanks hsie, i will keep trying to find the problem, if not though i can live with it as long as i get your excellent wolfpacks working. :)

Funny thing is, if i switch to German language i get course and speed displayed as it should be, unfortunately i do not speak German.

Cheers mate

slipper

h.sie

11-07-11, 07:19 AM

that shows that there is definitely something wrong with your en_menu.txt

search for more 'xx' in it, maybe you changed the wrong entries....

h.sie

11-07-11, 07:21 AM

Rubini

11-07-11, 08:29 AM

@Rubini:

I ADDED my code to the existing code without deleting anything. Thus, it does not change the behaviour of aircraft in game. you still risk of being detected and can order some help from german aircraft.

but I didn't test that. any experiences from others?

h.sie
OK! Good to know that to make wolfpack you achieve to mantain also the stock behaviour on the contact messages issue. I will look better (more playing time in carrer mode) to have a real felling on this issue and will post more feedback later. SH3 have a lot of things almost randomized. I'm not using SH3Cmdr just for info.

Anyhow:
- if I send a contact report (single ship or convoy) without that directions (heading&speed) the game will also process it like the stock game or this will make bdu confuse because the new code that is waiting for that directions info?

- with wolf pack installed can I only send a message per hour now even if I can't have a intention to use wolfpack but call for aerial help for example? (near land, near german air bases)

Excuse me for the insistent questions but the idea is to know better and well how the wolfpack code works to make better observations on the mod behaviour and then, also, better feedbacks!:up:

h.sie

11-07-11, 09:09 AM

@Rubini:

You can always send hourly now, independent from your intentions.

The wolfpacks mod and the stock code will act in parallel without knowing about each other. that means: if you send a contact report - and both aircraft and wolfs are available - both will be sent to the convoy. BUT: there are no wolfs near land and there isn't aircraft far from land, AFAIK.

I don't know whether the aircraft needs the correct course and speed of the convoy or this was only cosmetic. thus, I recommend to put in course and speed every time.

h.sie

Hitman

11-07-11, 09:28 AM

as I've already written I'm reluctant to interpret the in-game wind speed differently because I think that storms are not as common as 15m/s wind speed in SH3 is. I think stronger winds are just missing in SH3 and you cannot fix this by interpreting 15m/s as a real storm. Such a procedure screws up the whole weather model.

In addition, with a factor of 0.3 we already have a minimum torpedo depth of 4.5m at 15 m/s. Take into account the 2m width and you end up with 6.5m. There are already quite a few ships in SH3 that you cannot attack anymore with the contact pistol setting at this depth. Maybe it's possible to increase the factor a bit, but if you increase it too much, players will hardly be able to attack any ships at 15m/s. And I think this is not realistic.

In my opinion, 15m/s wind should make things more complicated, but shouldn't be a show-stopper.

You have a point there, but the problem is that there are actually situations where it is impossible at all to shoot torpedoes, and they were rather frequent in the horrible weather of the North Atlantic/North Sea and Arctic. So I would consider seriously making torpedo shooting impossible with 15 m/s at least. The issue about that wind being too frequent with SH3, is something that IMHO is to be adressed with the weather fix by H.Sie and Stiebler.

Regarding the relation between wind speed (i.e. wave heigth) and torpedo failiure because of steering off course/failing to keep depth (Be it sinking or porpoising), ideally the parameter for the torpedo "failing" should be represented by a tridimensional steering off course (Letf/right/up/down) instead of just sinking to 25m when a certain chance happens. Why? Because that is how in real life worked as the sea would push the torpedo in any random direction from where it wouldn't be able to recover correct course, and the consequences are well different. If the torpedo just sinks to 25m when the trigger failiure programmed actuates, then the result can only be a total miss. However, in the other case the torpedo which is steered off course or off set depth, can: a) Impact on the same target but other area, b) Miss the target and hit another left or right, c) Miss the target below and hit another with more draft, d) Hit the target higher/lower and cause different amount of damage.

Of course, I understand that this might be simply too complicated for H.Sie to program, but it certainly would be worth to add two variables that linearly increase with windspeed for a) Steering off course left or right X degrees (Even fully circling, as that failiure also happened to german torpedoes sometimes) and b) Changing depth X metres.

That is as far as weather state goes, and on top of that we would add the variable for pre-1942 depth-keeping-fix. This one is constant until the torpedoes were fixed, whereas the weather variable will only of course happen when the bad weather influences the torpedoes.

h.sie

11-07-11, 11:37 AM

@Hitman:

Yes, it will model 2 parts - independent from each other:

- Duds due to Torpedo crisis until 1942 AND
- Duds due to Windspeed/waveheight and Torpedo-depth settings.

Regarding windspeed/waveheight we have now 2 very different views: You say 15m/s should be interpreted as maximum storm that makes torpedo shooting impossible, while LGN1 has the opinion, that 15m/s should be treated as moderate gale (according to the beaufort scale), which only makes torpedo shooting more difficult but not impossible. I think I'll do a compromise. Hmm.....

When I talk about duds or failure rates, I see it from the outcome regarding damage and sinkings. To keep things simple, I define for my mod: "When a ship is damaged, the torpedo is no dud".

Ok, that is not always true. But: These 4 very special cases a), b), c) and d) you are talking about (torpedo jumped out of the water surface, lost his course and luckily hit a different ship) are rare exceptions and have all in common, that still a ship has been damaged/sunk, what means - according to my definition: it was no dud.

Let's say your 4 very special cases occur with a chance of 1%. I can now statistically consider these cases by simply reducing the dud rate about 1%. The outcome and the gameplay balance are the same. Only one thing is missing: The eye-candy! You don't see the torpedo jumping out of the water and luckily sink a different ship. I must admit: I don't have time to model such an effect. In my opinion it is sufficient to model a dud by simply setting his depth to 25m.

- Let's say, the current state of the game is 70%.
- I offer to push it to 85%.
- 110% isn't possible !!!

Greetings,
h.sie

Hitman

11-07-11, 01:38 PM

Regarding windspeed/waveheight we have now 2 very different views: You say 15m/s should be interpreted as maximum storm that makes torpedo shooting impossible, while LGN1 has the opinion, that 15m/s should be treated as moderate gale (according to the beaufort scale), which only makes torpedo shooting more difficult but not impossible. I think I'll do a compromise. Hmm.....

I think both LGN1 and me actually think the same, i.e. 15 m/s is as much as you get in SH3, so it must correspond to a gale. But LGN points out rightfully that 15 m/s winds are more frequent in the game than gales in the real world, so treating them as such could probably exaggerate the effects.

I personally think that the excessive 15 m/s winds must be taken care of with the weather fix, not with compensating the torpedoes duds. Even if the duds are only increased to the max with just 15 and not even 14 m/s, it is important that the gale situation prevents the player absolutely from shooting, as it was in real life. It is not just accurate, but also dynamic, as the player will have to act depending on the sea state observed, just as real Kaleuns did.

Ok, that is not always true. But: These 4 very special cases a), b), c) and d) you are talking about (torpedo jumped out of the water surface, lost his course and luckily hit a different ship) are rare exceptions and have all in common, that still a ship has been damaged/sunk, what means - according to my definition: it was no dud.

Let's say your 4 very special cases occur with a chance of 1%. I can now statistically consider these cases by simply reducing the dud rate about 1%. The outcome and the gameplay balance are the same. Only one thing is missing: The eye-candy! You don't see the torpedo jumping out of the water and luckily sink a different ship. I must admit: I don't have time to model such an effect. In my opinion it is sufficient to model a dud by simply setting his depth to 25m.

Understood. As indicated in my previous post, I only said it to reflect what would be the absolutely perfect model, as a guideline, but I already was aware that the tiem and exhaustion constraints in you prevent it :up:

LGN1

11-07-11, 02:48 PM

I know there were situations when u-boats could not use their torpedoes because of the weather. But I have no idea how often that happened. And I think qualitative statements like 'often' do not really help us.

Considering that you only use impact pistols from June '40 onwards until June '42 (historically correct), you will practically not be able to attack ships with a draft above 7-8m at 15m/s. If you look at the drafts of the ships in SH3 you can see that you will not be able to attack many ships (I guess more than 50% and no escorts at all). I think this is fine enough.

Having a 100% failure rate at 15m/s will just lead to the situation that most players will simply TC until better weather arrives. Since you find enough targets in SH3 this is faster than following a target and hoping for better weather.

Regards, LGN1

Hitman

11-07-11, 03:07 PM

I know there were situations when u-boats could not use their torpedoes because of the weather. But I have no idea how often that happened. And I think qualitative statements like 'often' does not really help us.

Unless we manage to get the statistics for the real weather in the north atlantic during the whole war, it is obvious that we will not be able to put precise numbers. The winters of 1940-1942 were regarded as some of the worst ever seen in the century, with terrific gales that precluded most naval (And air) action over the north sea and north atlantic largely for any medium to small boats. Destroyers struggled on convoys, and corvettes were sometimes sunk by the appaling weather.

If you want more precise figures based on the impression after reading about it, I can say that up to 25% of operations was hindered on the worst months of the winter. Is that an exact? No, of course it is an average of many considerations, locations and situations, but it is seldom to see a patrol record where the uboat was not badly affected by the horrible weather when trying to conduct an attack. If the 15 m/s winds occur in the game in 25% of the winter season, then I guess the results should be deemed correct. If not, then the weather fix might be revised, but I really think it is not logic to exclude a situation that we positively know was realistic, and happened like that. Note that you are just arguing about the weather frequency, not about the reality of the inability to shoot straight in gales.

Do we really want the player to be able to shoot effectively when he is seeing on the bridge mountanious seas, lightning, and the uboat bow jumping like mad up and down and left and right? Really? Nobody would ever believe that a 1 ton torpedo with 30 cms fins on the tail and travelling at 30-45 knots could steer straight through that, and that kills inmersion, realism, etc. Think that weather happens too much in SH3? Well, let's fix it, it's already done -just reduce the chances of such extreme weather even more! But trying to solve that by acting upon the torpedoes basing on statistics is, in my opinion, not a good solution. Because it is no consolation for the serious player who shoots a torpedo in good weather and fails, to know that this compensates when he shoots in appaling weather and hits!

Having a 100% failure rate at 15m/s will just lead to the situation that most players will simply TC until better weather arrives. Since you find enough targets in SH3 this is faster than following a target and hoping for better weather.

That's actually what the Kaleuns did, they almost always lost the contact due to simply not being able to keep up with it in the gales.

LGN1

11-07-11, 03:20 PM

Hi Hitman,

I see your point, but I think the weather in SH3 is just too poorly implemented to be used as a realistic constraint with such a strong impact. And really fixing the weather, IMHO, is impossible.

I guess in the present case I prefer to neglect this issue because it draws too much attention on the bad weather system and in effect, it just removes the 15m/s wind setting from the game-play. Because in this case at 15m/s there is not much you can do, but wait for better weather.

Regards, LGN1

h.sie

11-07-11, 03:42 PM

@Hitman: Have you tried my Weather Fix - Forte version? It reduces bad weather stronger than the standard version. Or, have you already tried Stieblers approach?

LGN1

11-07-11, 04:20 PM

I suggest the following model for the torpedo-failure probability:

p = 1 ............................................for TD < A*WS (--> surface runners always result in a dud)
P = 1 - (1-p0)/width*(TD - A*WS) .....for A*WS < TD < A*WS+width
p = p0 ...........................................for TD > A *WS+width

with the paramters p0, width, and A (TD is the torpedo's running depth set by the player and WS the wind speed).

For torpedoes with impact pistol I suggest:

A = 0.3333 (--> players can quickly calculate the wave height from the wind speed by dividing by 3)
width = 2m
p0 = 0.25 before June '40 and 0.1 afterwards until June '42

For torpedoes with magnetic pistol I suggest:
A = 0.3333 (--> players can quickly calculate the wave height from the wind speed by dividing by 3)
width = 2m
p0 = 0.05 until June '42

A major effect of this model is that you have to take the sea state into account when firing. A shallow torpedo depth is no longer possible if there is some wind. This will mainly affect the use of the impact pistol.

For players using only the magnetic pistol not much changes. If the torpedo depth is set deep enough, only an additional failure probability of 5% is added to the in-game premature failure rate.

In general, the model should result in a failure rate of roughly 25% until June '40 for both pistols. Using the impact pistol from then on (the magnetic was banned then), one should get a failure rate of roughly 10%.

For strong winds the player will not be able to attack ships with shallow draft (especially with the impact pistol).

Regards, LGN1

reaper7

11-07-11, 04:34 PM

Sounds good, +1 :D

h.sie

11-07-11, 04:35 PM

would it make sense to disable magnetic from a certain time on

LGN1

11-07-11, 04:44 PM

would it make sense to disable magnetic from a certain time on

This can be done via the dials.cfg. Therefore, I would not do it, but leave it to the player himself how he wants it. I think it's always the best to leave as many choices as possible.

reaper7

11-07-11, 05:16 PM

would it make sense to disable magnetic from a certain time on

Maybe you could add a message in the Dialogue box something like 'Are you sure, BDU have restricted the use of Magnetic switches at this time' or something along them lines, whenver Magnetic is selected during that time frame.

Hitman

11-07-11, 05:38 PM

a message in the Dialogue box something like 'Are you sure, BDU have restricted the use of Magnetic switches at this time'

and add upon confirmation of switching pistol "I will have to report this to the Gestapo when we return, Herr Kaleun :stare:"

:har:

h.sie

11-08-11, 02:20 AM

@Hitman: It would be important for me to know whether your experiences result from playing with stock weather or from playing with my bad weather fix? the forte version drastically reduces 15m/s

Hitman

11-08-11, 08:28 AM

With your bad weather fix, normal version.

But I have played very little lately, have not much free time :nope:

LGN1

11-08-11, 05:24 PM

Hi Hitman,

I thought again about limiting the use of torpedoes to wind speeds below 15m/s or some other value. I really think this would not be a good idea because whenever you encounter 15m/s wind there is nothing you can do in SH3. As a consequence, you will just TC until the wind decreases. And since patrols in SH3 are practically not limited in time, nothing has changed in SH3. You've skipped a few days, but your crew is still fine, you still have the torpedoes you had before the storm, maybe a bit less fuel (if you've not stopped your engines). There is no impact on the player's behavior, except that he has to TC from time to time to skip the storm.

In fact, the only thing that has really changed is the player's time. To quote Pink Floyd's song Time: 'the sun/SH3 is the same in a relative way, but you're older, shorter of breath and one day closer to death' :D (ok, also in SH3 you are one day closer to death :rotfl2:)

In contrast, if you have a high failure rate at 15m/s you can still try to attack and maybe you are lucky and sink something :yep: And if not, it's still more interesting than skipping 15m/s periods via TC.

Cheers, LGN1

h.sie

11-09-11, 04:18 PM

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/78c72f5adc1af029a57571fad51afa2b8dc38c8ef51ea7a48a 76074eccbeaa456g.jpg

This image shows how LGN1's model works.

The Depth D1 is determined by the windspeed-dependent waveheight. D1 can be calculated:

D1 = Windspeed / 3.

Torpedoes above D1 are surface runners and lead to a failure probability of p = 100% (see red part of the diagram).

Water below Depth = D2 is assumed to be calm. Torpedos below D2 will have a low failure probability of p = po. The value of po depends on the time (torpedo crisis until 1942) and the pistol chosen (magnetic/impact).

The area between the depths D1 and D2 is the area of turbolences. Here, the failure probability sinks linear with rising depth from p=100% at Depth = D1 to the small value of p=po at Depth = D2.

h.sie

11-09-11, 04:40 PM

@LGN1: Looking at the diagram above, I think, that the amount (thickness D2-D1) of the turbolences should be made waveheight-dependent and not constant.

For example, I cannot believe that at windspeed 0 m/s and no waves at all, we have turbulences in 2m depth.

And at high storms, the area of turbulences surely is thicker than 2m.

Thus, I would use the following values:

D1 = 0.333 * WindSpeed
D2 = (0.5 .... 0.666) * WindSpeed

LGN1

11-09-11, 05:03 PM

Hi h.sie,

thanks for the picture. I think it nicely explains the model :up:

Unfortunately, I made a mistake :oops: The wave height is not the amplitude, but the difference between the maximum and minimum value. Therefore, we have to use half of the wave height (this is only an approximation since water waves are asymmetric. The question is also what is the reference for the torpedo depth :hmmm:. I think we have to include these unknowns in the 'turbulence layer' part).

Edit: I agree with your previous post. So, we would have:

D1 = WindSpeed / 6
D2 = WindSpeed / 3

Regards, LGN1

h.sie

11-09-11, 05:33 PM

@LGN1: At windspeed = 15 we'll have D1 = 2,5m and D2 = 5m.

This will have only low effect on gameplay. Too low IMHO.

LGN1

11-09-11, 05:41 PM

Just some additional information:

In remark 78.) of the submarine commander's handbook is written (http://www.hnsa.org/doc/uboat/index.htm): (http://www.hnsa.org/doc/uboat/index.htm%29:)

a) as regards the underwater use of torpedoes: as soon as the underwater steering gear can no longer be controlled at periscope depth. In the case of small submarines, the dividing line will be sea No. 5 or 6, for medium and large boats, sea No. 6 or 7, approximately.
b) As regards the surface use of torpedoes: the dividing line in this case is reached in somewhat less rough conditions than apply to the underwater use of torpedoes, on account of the unfavorable influence of the rough sea on the maneuverability of the vessel on the surface.

Sea state 6 has 4-6m wave height. This should roughly correspond to 14-17 m/s wind speed. So it seems that at all wind speeds in SH3 one should be able to use torpedoes.

And here is an order from Dönitz:

1). Torpedoes steer up to 2 meters [deeper] than set. Therefore depth setting is 2 meters less than targets draught, although because of the danger of surface runners not shallower than 3 meters, 4 meters in strong Atlantic waves.

LGN1

11-09-11, 05:45 PM

With a safe setting of 5m you will not be able to attack any small ship / escort with the impact pistol. And we still have p0 even below D2.

I think we have two components in the mod: 1.) the torpedo failure rate and 2.) enforcing the minimum depth setting because of surface runners. These two aspects are linked, but only until a certain depth is set.

h.sie

11-09-11, 06:07 PM

Maybe I should look into EnvSim.act again. The weather generator algorithm creates windspeeds up to 30m/s, but these are limited to 15m/s later in the code. The devs surely had to fix that because of weird side-effects (ships sinking from waves and so on).

Stiebler

11-10-11, 04:11 AM

@H.sie:
Maybe I should look into EnvSim.act again. The weather generator algorithm creates windspeeds up to 30m/s, but these are limited to 15m/s later in the code. The devs surely had to fix that because of weird side-effects (ships sinking from waves and so on).
Easily fixed: allow the SH3 code to use its current internal values, but double the internal value when it is reported to the player.

Stiebler.

h.sie

11-10-11, 04:16 AM

@Stiebler: I intended to simply nop out the limitation commands....

Stiebler

11-10-11, 06:34 AM

@H.sie:
But won't that mean that the 'weird side-effects' return?

Stiebler.

h.sie

11-10-11, 06:36 AM

@H.sie:
But won't that mean that the 'weird side-effects' return?
Stiebler.

Yes, I think so, but I'm curious what happens with real 30m/s. CTD?

What was the intention behind your idea? Only to display a windspeed multiplied with 2 (30 instead of 15)?

Stiebler

11-10-11, 07:12 AM

@H.sie,
What was the intention behind your idea? Only to display a windspeed multiplied with 2 (30 instead of 15)? Yes, nice and simple. A magical illusion without effort, that would rebalance storm effects in SH3 with the wind speeds needed in real life to create them.

(Also, you have PM, for a revised Options Selector.)

Stiebler.

Hitman

11-10-11, 10:19 AM

In the end, the windspeed is something similar to what happens with the environment: We can't force the game to render up to 50 kms, but are instead limited to 20km. So we either pretend that in all the war there was never a better visibility ... or scale down all the world (sensors, convoy size, etc) to fit in those 20kms.

The solution proposed by Stiebler is in that line, we just update the messages, "scaling" in them what the game provides to a real world size. That is also the reason why I insisted in not being able to shoot torpedoes with 15 m/s winds, as those are the equivalents to real world 30 m/s winds.

I'd however also be curious to see what happens with those 30 m/s winds. Considering that the wave size is in the scene.dat and can be tweaked with Silent Editor, we know that in fact the sea state you will see is independent from the wind (You can put 30 cms waves for the 15 m/s winds and you will get storms with flat seas!), so my bet is that what will happens is mainly that we will see the clouds travelling in the sky at ridiculous speeds (They seem already quite fast with 15 m/s winds). Maybe that's what the Devs wanted to avoid, but trying can't do any harm and who knows what we might discover! :up:

LGN1

11-10-11, 02:52 PM

Just for curiosity: Why do you think that the wind speed in SH3 should be higher :06: It seems to me that the wave height at 15m/s in SH3 is not too far off from what you would expect in nature at 15m/s wind :hmmm:

Maybe the Devs just neglected storms because it's really difficult to create a good representation of the waves in a storm (has SH5 high storm waves?) and from a game-play point of view there's not much to do during a storm.

BTW, if I remember correctly many people wanted to have the extended periods of heavy fog/low visibility reduced because there is nothing you can do in these periods. I guess a real storm would just be the same.

Regards, LGN1

h.sie

11-11-11, 11:40 AM

h.sie

11-11-11, 11:53 AM

Regarding the Torpedo failures

- Due to reapers tip, I can now access the pistol settings of the torpedoes. Thus, we can give impact pistol a higher failure rate than magnetic during the torpedo crisis time.

- I can model duds by either setting depth to 25m or randomly changing the torpedoe's course.

But I stopped programming, since I don't know how to interpret windspeed 15m/s. Hitman and LGN1 have different opinions, and I cannot decide which I like more and which I should implement:

Hitman: 15m/s is highest possible windspeed in game and thus should make firing torpedes nearly impossible.

LGN1: No storms simulated in sh3. According to the beaufort scale, 15m/s is a moderat gale and causes a wave amplitude of about 2,5m and thus only insignificantly affects torpedes.

I want tp program according to the current interpretation of 15m/s. Or: How do the different Supermods interpret 15m/s (e.g. regarding gameplay / sensors efficiency)? As storm or a moderate gale?

In situations like this - where I don't have an own opinion-, I like to ask others about their view.

What do you think???

Hitman

11-11-11, 12:31 PM

Just think of it this way: When I'm in the bridge on a SH3 storm of 15 m/s, is it believable that I can shoot torpedoes which can steer correctly their course in those conditions? I think no.

But LGN1 has a point in his reflections, so I guess we can actually arrive to a happy medium term: A high rate of failiure by steering off course, but not an absolute failiure as I suggested.

I would propose a chance of up to 75% veering of course for shallowest running torpedoes, and descending to a mere 25% the closer you get to the maximum depth you can put in the torpedo. What do you think LGN1? :up:

Anvart

11-11-11, 12:50 PM

Wave height (m) as a function of wind speed (m/sec) and of the length of the dispersal of the wave (km).

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/8320/waveheight.gif

LGN1

11-12-11, 01:50 PM

@LGN1: If in reality windspeeds higher than 15m/s are possible, it's natural in my opinion to also have those in the sim, regardless of the question whether the player likes this or not. I cannot follow your argument, that higher windspeeds are not of interest, because the player won't be able to shoot torpedoes and thus would use high TC until wind slows down.

Are you really sure that waveheight in the Beaufort scale is peak-to-peak and not the amplitude??

I removed the limitation code and thus had a windspeed variable of 30m/s, but this had no effect on waveheight. Seems there are more limitations somewhere. More investigation necessary, but not now.

@Anvart: Thanks for the data.

@all:
I think that storms are not modeled in any way in SH3 (probably because they do not add much to the game-play and require a completely new wave-mechanics (much longer wave length, not just scaled wave heights)). And I think it's a bad idea to implement storms afterwards by some adjustments. I'm also not convinced that the weather model is good. The only effect it has is that you hunt ships in different weather conditions.

I would like to have a better weather model with storms,... but in this case one should also have better storm waves,... anyway, it's just my opinion.

Concerning wave height, see e.g.,:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_height

Since we are trying to model different failures with the same mechanism, I would choose the wrong depth to achieve the effect. It has the advantage that you can't see/observe it on the attack map (if playing with map updates).

Cheers, LGN1

Depth Charger

11-12-11, 08:14 PM

Gentlemen.

It's all about scale, scale, scale, I say!

H.Sie is right - Odds of wind effect are too low in LGN's model and would only affect the smallest of ships. But we want this to be a bit more painful and so it should also impact ship sizes up to and including the mediums when the w/s is >= 15 m/s. Medium drafts run to a depth of about under 9 metres and so we need to extend the failure thresholds to that depth. (Max D1=3.5 and max d2=7 after adjusting for torpedo depth error of 2 meters)

LGN's excellent model however of calculating D1 and D2 easily by windspeed is also critical to player usability in that they can easily calculate the impact just by looking at the indicated windspeed. (D1/6 & D2/3 = 2.5m and 5m in his models.)

Anvart's chart seems to go up to about 20 m/s and it's also a nice round number that works with LGN's model and we can achieve the desired indicated w/s by using Stiebler's excellent idea to simply adjust the indicated/displayed wind speed by multiplying the stock speeds by 4/3's...

2 examples on a simple linear model with 1 to 20 indicated w/s on the x axis versus 3.5/7 wave height/affected depth on the y axis -

SH3 w/s = 7.5 and indicated w/s = 10 then D1=1.75 & D2=3.5
SH3 w/s = 15 and indicated w/s = 20 then D1=3.5 & D2=7

In the first scenario where the weather is not too bad, small ships are out but for some mediums and above I can still use an impact pistol.

In the second, I can only use impact pistols on the really heavy stuff where the draught is greater then 9 meters but I still got quite a bit I can choose from. (d2 plus 2m torpedo depth adjustment.) Anything smaller is magnetic or waits for better weather as LGN says...

This would make it easy for challenged folks like me to have a chance in that I can rapidly translate the impact of wave height by dividing the indicated w/s by 2 and multiplying it by 7 when checking against the target's draft. (Given that I use IABL's cargo mod, this is going to be a tall order when trying to identify the exact ship I am facing in a storm.)

It's not quite right but with a bit of magic from H.Sie, it might get us to our goal of forcing the player to either adapt his pistol or face failure...

Hope this helps. :)

DC

PS - On another point, is their any way to link the choice of a magnetic pistol during the emergency so as to possibly dock negative reputation points if we choose to use the magnetic pistol in defiance of orders? That would be beautiful if it then failed as well. I could go insane if that happened... :)

andqui

11-12-11, 10:35 PM

It seems the mediafire link in h.sie's signature is dead- can anyone confirm this? It's returning a 404 error for me.

Buck_O

11-12-11, 10:58 PM

andqui
yes, I agree its a dead link... maybe h.sie is working on an upgrade... thus the dead link..:hmmm:

Hitman

11-13-11, 04:15 AM

@Depth Charger: That is a well thought proposal :up: It would certainly be a reasonable solution :rock:

h.sie

11-13-11, 08:06 AM

I also like the compromise from DepthCharger: Treating 15m/s windspeed as 20m/s regarding torpedo failures.

The impact of LGN1's values on gameplay are so weak, that it's IMHO not worth the programming effort.

But scaling up the reported windspeed by a factor of 4/3 and display 20m/s instead of 15m/s???
I don't know if that's a good idea???

I've found the code for the 1WO weather report and could scale the reported windspeed up by a factor of 4/3, BUT I fear to do this, because sh3 internally still works with windspeeds from 0 to 15.

I don't like screwing up this......could cause confusion regarding the storm-condition settings....

Hm????????

Question: Does the windspeed occur in other places than weather report which I would have to consider (captains diary / status log or similar) or is the weather report the only place where windspeed is displyed to the player?

Ops, my mediafire page is down. The files are still there if I login to my account with my password, but for others my site is not accessible. Do I need to upgrade to pro-version?

Depth Charger

11-13-11, 09:04 AM

Question: Does the windspeed occur in other places than weather report which I would have to consider (captains diary / status log or similar) or is the weather report the only place where windspeed is displyed to the player?

I cant think of anywhere else that we see it.

In my mind, we would be leaving the stock SH3 wind speed range from 0 to 15 unchanged. Only the message displayed to the user from the W/O would have the 4/3's applied to it...

Edit - Also your failure calcs would do the same ie -

stock w/s * 4/3 * 3.5 = D1
stock w/s * 4/3 * 7.0 = D2

Or is that not possible?

h.sie

11-13-11, 09:49 AM

@DC: Yes, that is possible, already found the appropriate code. Easy to fix. But then we would have to differ between internal and external windspeed. I fear a certain percentage of the players will be overstrained with that solution.

I personally like that idea and would use it together with the wave height factor 1,5 from SH3-Commander.

Edit on your edit: For the failure calcs I'll always use internal windspeed (0-15), thus it does not matter whether we scale external windspeed or not.

LGN1

11-13-11, 11:21 AM

...
But we want this to be a bit more painful and so it should also impact ship sizes up to and including the mediums when the w/s is >= 15 m/s.

I don't think that the idea should be to just make it more painful without any historical evidence. If that is the case, I agree with Papakilo that the mod is not a good idea.

The impact of LGN1's values on gameplay are so weak, that it's IMHO not worth the programming effort.

Well, h.sie, in this case I would say it's better not to code it than to change things just to have an impact. Just keep the higher failure rate without the dependency on torpedo depth and wind speed.

There are enough other things to improve...

Cheers, LGN1

PS: Dönitz mentions 4m in case of bad weather in the Atlantic. If you add the 2m from the deeper running torpedo it's 6m. I don't know any indication that commanders had to shoot torpedoes deeper than 6m.

Depth Charger

11-13-11, 01:26 PM

PS: Dönitz mentions 4m in case of bad weather in the Atlantic. If you add the 2m from the deeper running torpedo it's 6m. I don't know any indication that commanders had to shoot torpedoes deeper than 6m.

There are enough other things to improve...

Hold on LGN, this is some inspired stuff you got going here. :)

How about if we dial it back to 6 then? That would still impact quite a few ships in a storm situation...

It wont be perfect, but it would be close which is all I can ever think we will get to in SH3.

Currently, anything before 1943 is like a turkey shoot in SH3 and this would up the challenge for all of us in a great way and whilst not quite accurate, it would deliver some form of the torpedo crises into our campaigns and make the earlier years a challenge again.

If 6 doesn't do it for you, would half a dozen suffice???

LGN1

11-13-11, 02:39 PM

Hi Depth Charger,

from what I've read I think that below a torpedo depth of roughly 6m the wind speed / wave height should have no influence anymore on the torpedo failure rate, i.e., we get our standard torpedo failure rate p0 (probably for higher waves the torpedoes could also not be shot anymore, see the submarine commander's handbook).

Let's say we want to play it save and set the running depth to 6m. Now if you take the curved hull and the changing draft of the ship (due to the waves) into account, I think that in the period between June '40 and middle of '42 (when only the contact pistol was used) you cannot attack ships with a draft of roughly 8m. Looking into the recognition manual, I can see quite a few ships that can't be attacked anymore at 15m/s wind speed (in-game).

And don't forget, even below D2 we have the generic failure rate p0.

To cut a long story short, your proposal of 6m at 15m/s wind sounds fine :yep:

Regards, LGN1

Depth Charger

11-13-11, 04:14 PM

@LGN

Excellent! Let's hope H.Sie on board too.

BTW - Downloaded your campaign layers the other day. Huge improvement and much appreciated.

DC

h.sie

11-13-11, 04:15 PM

So we have:
D1 = 0.2 * Windspeed
D2 = 0.4 * Windspeed
????

Currently I try out a new interesting patching technique (new means: new for me):

Coding the patch code into a library hsie.act, which applies the patch code when sh3.exe loads all .act files. The library hsie.act then can simply be enabled using JSGME. This has 2 advantages:

1) Testing is easier, no sh3.exe patching required

2) New main updates (V16B, V16C ..) can be published in a lower frequency, what makes Stiebler's life easier for adapting his Addon to my current version.

After the testing period, the new Fixes finally will directly go hardcoded into sh3.exe.

urfisch

11-14-11, 03:55 AM

hey hsie.

your mediafire page is gone!...did you notice that?

:06:

h.sie

11-14-11, 04:02 AM

hey hsie.

your mediafire page is gone!...did you notice that?

:06:

Yes, I noticed that, but I hoped this would be a temporary problem. I still can login with my password and see my files, but sharing does not work anymore. There has been a huge amount of downloads from my page. Maybe they want to force me to change to the commercial PRO version?

Is there any other free and recommendable file hoster available ?

Plissken_04

11-14-11, 04:10 AM

Yes, I noticed that, but I hoped this would be a temporary problem. I still can login with my password and see my files, but sharing does not work anymore. There has been a huge amount of downloads from my page. Maybe they want to force me to change to the commercial PRO version?

Is there any other free and recommendable file hoster available ?

Hi h.sie,

your Mods are available on my FTP Server too.

Use this Link:

ftp://hartmuthaas.no-ip.org/Volume_2/Sharing/SH3COMMUNITYMODS/H.SIE/

Username & Password in my Signature!!!

So Long

Maik

urfisch

11-14-11, 04:17 AM

hey plissken.

your mod archives are that worthful, you should consider a save on dvd of all these mods and send one pair to neal.

thanks for sharing!!!

:up:

h.sie

11-14-11, 04:18 AM

@Plissken: Thanks :)

Plissken_04

11-14-11, 04:23 AM

hey plissken.

your mod archives are that worthful, you should consider a save on dvd of all these mods and send one pair to neal.

thanks for sharing!!!

:up:

@urfisch

don't worry,i have a copy of all collected mods on a second external HDD,so if the HDD in the NAS get broken,i can put a new one in it and copy the Mod Files from the external Drive on the FTP Server again :up:

So Long

Maik

SquareSteelBar

11-14-11, 04:52 AM

...Is there any other free and recommendable file hoster available ?I often use this one:

http://www.file-upload.net/

h.sie

11-14-11, 05:17 AM

@SSB: Thanks. Does it allow folder structures and browsing ?

SquareSteelBar

11-14-11, 05:50 AM

@SSB: Thanks. Does it allow folder structures and browsing ?Not sure but I think so... :hmmm:

http://www.file-upload.net/to-members.html

SquareSteelBar

11-14-11, 07:36 AM

Did you read this?

If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact the Web site administrator to alert them that the link is incorrectly formatted.

Maybe something went wrong at MF since ther're many old pages still working:

http://www.mediafire.com/?6rhfuwwauex3t

http://www.mediafire.com/?ywt17bpdocbdb#0,1

http://www.mediafire.com/Magic1111

http://www.mediafire.com/?q21knoy83xc4b

http://www.mediafire.com/?hq3o9o0gftq97

I think you should contact the MF admins...

Magic1111

11-14-11, 08:00 AM

@ h.sie, urfisch & SSB

Please read my Post here: http://www.marinesims.de/wbb2/thread.php?postid=237640#post237640 !

Can someone of you translate in english please and post this here on SubSim? My english to explain that is too bad...:oops:

Best regards,
Magic

h.sie

11-14-11, 11:32 AM

Thanks very much, Magic1111. I already planned to change the filehoster.....

LGN1

11-14-11, 02:44 PM

@LGN

Excellent! Let's hope H.Sie on board too.

BTW - Downloaded your campaign layers the other day. Huge improvement and much appreciated.

DC

Thanks for the feed-back! If you have any suggestions for improving the layer, please let me know.

Just a few days ago I reworked the layer to add another zigzag pattern with legs of approx. 200km on top of the short zigzag pattern. The idea is to make shadowing a convoy with h.sie's wolfpacks more challenging.

I've read that it was common that convoys changed their course in the morning and evening hours to make shadowing harder. Since I cannot synchronize the course change with the time, I've just added the 200km zigzag pattern.

So we have:
D1 = 0.2 * Windspeed
D2 = 0.4 * Windspeed
????

Hi h.sie,

this looks fine. Maybe 0.25=1/4 instead of 0.2 in order to force the player to choose a minimum torpedo depth close to 4m at 15m/s :hmmm:

Any comments on my suggestion for p0?

(p0 = 0.25 before June '40 and 0.1 afterwards until June '42 for the impact pistol. p0 = 0.05 for the magnetic pistol until June '42)

Regards, LGN1

h.sie

11-14-11, 05:21 PM

dariocapcro

11-14-11, 06:08 PM

Speaking of realism in the SH 3 plotted course and driving, in bad weather, submariners did not know where they are, there is a kind of mod?

dariocapcro

11-14-11, 06:11 PM

... and why there is no able to use electric motors on the surface?

Letum

11-14-11, 09:37 PM

Looks like the DL link is down.

Magic1111

11-15-11, 05:01 AM

Looks like the DL link is down.

For me h.sie´s MediaFire Page work...! Please try again!

Best regards,
Magic

LGN1

11-15-11, 02:09 PM

Cool, I could put the whole Torpedo failure code into a special library file named hsie.act and two small binary files, which I can offer as JSGME-Mod. No patching necessary for testing this fix. Only thing left to do: Parameter fine-adjustment.

Hi h.sie,

does that mean that you can now provide a fix via a .act file and players can enable/disable the fix via JSGME, i.e., an option selector is no longer required because selecting different fixes can be done via JSGME?

Cheers, LGN1

h.sie

11-15-11, 03:14 PM

Hi LGN1,

yes, that could be a consequence. In principle, I can now offer all my code in one or more .act files, which could be enabled / disabled using JSGME, without OptionsSelector.

BUT:

1) Coding directly into sh3.exe is much easier for me.

2) Coding directly into sh3.exe is less risky regarding stability.

Thus, I'll stick at the current patching system including OptionsSelector, but from now on I can provide new fixes in .act files (for JSGME) for testing purposes, without the need to offer a new patch-kit for every single new fix I publish. This will lower the frequency of new major updates (V16B, V16C), but will make testing and development easier. A new major update will then contain all new and well-tested fixes that have been developed since the last major update.

h.sie

11-15-11, 03:50 PM

Torpedo Failures Fix V1.0 Beta available

Features:
- models torpedo crisis until 1942
- models duds resulting from too shallow torpedo depth settings.

Notes:
- Install via JSGME.
- Only compatible to sh3.exe V16A3.
- Updates V16A3 to V16A4

Fix consists of a DLL named hsie.act and three binary files containing the code for the torpedo failures. On game load, when sh3.exe loads hsie.act, the code will be automatically applied to sh3.exe.

Download here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?4rnx2kb6leneg3f

Failure model: LGN1
Programming: h.sie
Credits to reaper7 (for his important code finding).

The image below shows how torpedo failure rates are calculated:

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/e5b52aad9993cd65b3c8b57b353cb38bc27819c1dd61bd4d1d 85d674d5848efe6g.jpg

The Depth D1 is the windspeed-dependent wave amplitude.
D1 can be calculated:

D1 = 0.25 * Windspeed = Windspeed / 4

Torpedoes above D1 are surface runners and lead to a failure probability of p = 98% (see red part of the diagram).

The depth D2 can be calculated:

D2 = 0.4 * Windspeed = 4 * Windspeed / 10

Water below Depth = D2 is assumed to be calm. Torpedos below D2 will have a low failure probability of p = po. The value of po depends on the time (torpedo crisis until 1942) and the pistol chosen (magnetic/impact). Details see below.

The area between the depths D1 and D2 is the area of turbolences. Here, the failure probability sinks linear with rising depth from p=98% at Depth = D1 to the small value of p=po at Depth = D2.

Failure rate po for Impact pistol:
- until June'40: 25%
- until June'42: 10%
- after June'42: 2%

Failure rate po for Magnetic pistol:
- until June'40: 7%
- until June'42: 5%
- after June'42: 1%

The torpedo failures caused by this fix are ADDED to the already existing failures, resulting from bad impact angle etc.

The fix models a failure by simply setting the torpedo depth to 25m.
http://www.mediafire.com/i/?q99adby0s1btwn5

Fish In The Water

11-15-11, 03:56 PM

A very interesting technique. Quite the innovation, thank you and congrats on the creativity! :salute:

reaper7

11-15-11, 04:19 PM

Torpedo Failures Fix V1.0 Beta available

On game load, when sh3.exe loads hsie.act, the code will be automatically applied to sh3.exe.

Confirmed that code is being read into Sh3. Sh3 is reading as V1.6A4 in Game Menu.
Going to test Torpedoes now :up:

EDIT: Working ok, Got 2 out of 4 deep runners in 12 meter/sec winds :up:.

h.sie

11-15-11, 05:30 PM

Thanks, reaper. Good to know it works. Do you have 64 or 32 Bit Windows?

urfisch

11-15-11, 05:51 PM

Using the wolfpack mod and i am very satisfied til know. Really great work! Thanks a lot!

:yeah:

During the game, i came back to my favorite modding topic of the last month: water. I created some nice looking new stuff. But i came across an old question, which always was impossible to answer...foam beeing created, also on low windspeeds.

;)

I saw the data, in the sh3.exe or the env.act file. There the foam is defined and rendered onto the water.

What do you think, H.Sie...is it big work to change the parameters, so also on low wind we can have (maybe a certain) foam?

:06:

Robin40

11-16-11, 12:38 AM

@h.sie
may this patch be applied to existing career saved games?

dariocapcro

11-16-11, 06:58 AM

h.sie

11-16-11, 11:29 AM

@urfisch: Thank you. Glad you like it. I must admit that sea foam is currently not on top of my todo-list.

@Robin40: Can be enabled anytime.

@dariocapro: Try to switch off map contacts in the realism options menu. If I remember correctly, you then have to navigate manually. But that is not in the area of my expertise.

SquareSteelBar

11-16-11, 12:17 PM

Hello everyone, I do not know whether there is a mod handmade navigation, total realism in mapping the course, in bad times of the German submariners did not know where they are, and made me who can explain how can I make changes to the game, it's about 3 sh:salute:Try vanjast's RealNavMod:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=113975&highlight=real+navigation

DL:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1631163&postcount=128

h.sie

11-16-11, 01:27 PM

I think V16A3 can be considered as stable.

Added reaper7 to the credits list of the Torpedo Failures Fix - for his code finding that allows me to differ between magnetic and impact pistol.

Also added FaderBerg to the credits list of the Wolfpack Mod - for his information that allowed me to store the current state of the convoy hunt into a savegame.

reaper7

11-16-11, 02:32 PM

Thanks, reaper. Good to know it works. Do you have 64 or 32 Bit Windows?

Hi Mate did the test on 32bit Windows 7. Have 64bit Windows 7 on my laptop if you need testing on that platform. :up:

Had an idea today regarding a way to get torpedoes to detonate before hitting a target to simulate Contact Failure duds in bad weather etc.
Using the same ideas you used in the wolfpack Mod it should be possible to create a non destructible Transparent object (Like a wall ;)) that can be spawned into the torpedo path at the distance away from the sub that you wish to simulate the failure.
The Torp would impact on the object and explode, alerting enemy units and giving the visual explosion and waterstream on-screen.
Then transport the object back to original co-ordinates. Is this possible or even worth doing ???

Ps. Thank you for the Credit - Glad I could help.