Realism- and gameplay-related hardcode fixes for SH3.EXE [Archive] - Page 12

PapaKilo

11-17-11, 07:08 AM

I programmed them to be blind if I don't want them to attack.
Thus, they don't attack if I don't want it.
If they are ordered to attack, I give them back their visual sensors and they attack.

Seems to me that you have fun searching for weak points of my work?

What are your intentions behind that?

In the future I will restrict on responding to constructive comments.

My intentions is to make sure what you write is actualy working in the game, and how does it work.

As you let me understand that AI u-boats will be blind during daytime right ? Untill BDU gives an order to attack. So will they stay blind for convoy escorts too ? Because if what you said is right, that for wolfpack to attack BDU order to do so is required, what happens to those poor little sitting ducks of wolfpack that should be in visual contact of the enemy but are doomed to stay blind ?

Weak points is not an issue. It is more interesting to know how you managed to deal with them so they would not appear weird in the game.

urfisch

11-17-11, 07:13 AM

My intentions is to make sure what you write is actualy working in the game, and how does it work.

As you let me understand that AI u-boats will be blind during daytime right ? Untill BDU gives an order to attack. So will they stay blind for convoy escorts too ? Because if what you said is right, that for wolfpack to attack BDU order to do so is required, what happens to those poor little sitting ducks of wolfpack that should be in visual contact of the enemy but are doomed to stay blind ?

Weak points is not an issue. It is more interesting to know how you managed to deal with them.

i would prefer, you test this by yourself, papakilo. most of your questions can be answered by the mod itself.

:03:

PapaKilo

11-17-11, 07:19 AM

i would prefer, you test this by yourself, papakilo. most of your questions can be answered by the mod itself.

:03:

Don;t you think I would get more accurate picture of it and save loads of time, asking questions the author himself ? Cuz this fix is not an easy task to test I'm gonna go straight to questions that I'm interesting in, if nobody minds ?

h.sie

11-17-11, 07:22 AM

@Papakilo: I can move (beam) the sitting ducks to whereever I want and whenever I want. This information should be sufficient.

PapaKilo

11-17-11, 07:26 AM

@Papakilo: I can move (beam) the sitting ducks to whereever I want and whenever I want. This information should be sufficient.

I'm not sure I'm following it. I hope I'm not alone in this. But what do you mean by MOVING ? =] I kindly accept constructive answers as well you know :)

h.sie

11-17-11, 07:30 AM

I'm not sure I'm following it. I hope I'm not alone in this. But what do you mean by MOVING ? =] I kindly accept constructive answers as well you know :)

To move means to change the location of an object.

I assumed that you know what "to move" means.

I hope nobody is angry if I stop this discussion now, since it come to a level that I am not willing to tolerate.

Please, open your own "discussion thread".

PapaKilo

11-17-11, 07:33 AM

To move means to change the location of an object.

I assumed that you know what "to move" means.

if you could come up with the examples on how would that be possible in the campaign I wouldn't dare to ask you these kind of questions. But I bet you're not telling us everything that we should know.

So what are the weak points in this fix ? =]

oooohh, the author runs away from uncomfortable questions, I can understand that.. however it's not really inspiring, is it ?

What is he hiding ? Where's the trick :88)

h.sie

11-17-11, 07:45 AM

PapaKilo

11-17-11, 07:51 AM

The fix has indeed weak points and I hide something - Of course!

And there is not only 1 trick, there are several tricks.

But I won't tell what, because it would reduce people's fun playing with it.

If you want, find out the weak points by yourself. Good luck.

Ugly truth is better than a sweet lie ya know.

I'm not getting fun being fooled around to think it works perfect when it doesn't. Nobody here are willing to hang you up the ears for making weak points. But since they already ARE. What's the point hiding them ?

You can PM to me them all.

I swear it's gonna be for my personal soul rest only!

I hate bugs so I would like to know when or where to expect them. is it a big problem with that ? :shucks:

Common man, every supermod that was developed for SH3 has some bugs (they are listed in the manuals). Your work is no exception. Don't worry about the ratings, they are going to be just fine if you consider to be open with us :)

Worst case: If you are so anxious wether the announce of weak point publicly will have any impact on popularity, at least make an option available for personal interest on request by PM f.e.

You know it depends on people personality - what they want to know, and you should be flexible on options, no offence :)

urfisch

11-17-11, 08:26 AM

The fix has indeed weak points and I hide something - Of course!

And there is not only 1 trick, there are several tricks.

But I won't tell what, because it would reduce people's fun playing with it.

If you want, find out the weak points by yourself. Good luck.

right, h.sie.

this is nickpicking...finding the hair in the soup. i understand your point of view and i like the mod it is. surely it could be better, with diving boats, real attacks, etc.! no question. but that is not the point. it made something possible, we never dreamed of: combined attacks on a convoi.

thanks for that!

:salute:

@papakilo:
your questions are disturbing, dont you recognize? the author has written in several post before, the mod is far from perfect, it is a compromise! we all want to save time, but asking questions the way you do, does not save anything. it is just redundant and takes unneccessary time and energy to answer.

:stare:

seems you are just bored and too lazy to test the things you want to know in the mod itself. we are a community here, which respects each other. normally people know, where the line between discussion and disturbance/flaming is.

back to topic!

:know:

PapaKilo

11-17-11, 08:32 AM

Advocates are already here, how sweet :)

I think I already know what post is gonna be next:

"@Papakilo: You are one ungratefull nasty nitpicker, you want to compromise our person in faith!

How about you keep your mouth shut or we call a moderator on you! Shame on you, you don;t have a sence of community here!

Shut up or BEGONE!" :D

Jimbuna

11-17-11, 08:46 AM

Let us not resort to name calling or insults please.

Can we all simply get on together.

Thanking everyone for there cooperation.

PapaKilo

11-17-11, 08:51 AM

[

IT SAYS 0 mods found!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey little buddy, how old are you ? :)

Look what I have found for you: http://www.cdosabandonware.com/std_games_details.php?gameid=1692

Enjoy :)

Hitman

11-17-11, 09:02 AM

"What we need to change"

This reminds me my former boss. He also used the words "WE have to do" but he ment "YOU have to do".

Was your boss a woman? My wife does that all the time :har:

SquareSteelBar

11-17-11, 09:09 AM

Did you already threaten her with quitting your job? http://www8.pic-upload.de/17.11.11/wy94r7bnl77w.gif

Dani

11-17-11, 12:44 PM

First impressions on theTorpedo Failures Fix.

Played the torpedo mission in naval academy. Wind 2 m/s. Date is 15 June 1939.

Impact pistol.
Out of 5 torpedo fired, 2 hits and 3 went under the ship.
On reloading the mission several times similar results.:yeah:

Magnetic pistol
Every thing fired is a hit. I know that the sea state is perfect, but my my impression is that you should raise the failure rate for the magnetic pistol, at least for the until June '40 timeline and even for calmer sea state.
I think there should be a reason for the players to switch to impact pistol only, like the orders from BDU says.

Just my opinion.

Overall, great job! :salute:

andqui

11-17-11, 01:19 PM

I agree- both magnetic and impact torpedoes were affected by the same depth keeping errors, but magnetic pistols either did not work or prematured more often than impact pistols failed. I don't have the data right but I would be surprised if the opposite was the case.

LGN1

11-17-11, 02:50 PM

Hi,

if you look at the parameters posted by h.sie, you can see that for the magnetic pistol the dud rate is not much increased with respect to the stock rate. Since the stock failure rate strongly depends on the range and weather setting, it's difficult to compare the failure rates for the impact and magnetic pistol for a single weather setting.

Currently the parameters should give similar dud rates for the two pistols if one averages over all weather settings and firing ranges. This means that if you have the choice, you are better off with using magnetic pistols at low wind speed and short ranges. For longer ranges and bad weather the impact pistol is more reliable. However, in many situations the commanders had no choice.

This could be changed (partly) by using a wind-speed dependent p0 for the magnetic pistol.

Regards, LGN1

h.sie

11-19-11, 06:34 AM

@Dani, andqui: Thanks for your feedback. The weather of the Torpedo Trainings missions is very atypical for atlantic I guess, so please make your tests in more rough weather. Surely it is possible to ajust parameters, but I'll wait until we have more feedback/experiences.

In the meantime one can find Version V1.0c of the Torpedo Failure Fix on my mediafire page. No parameters have been changed since the first version, and thus no effect on gameplay.

Only hsie.act has been changed. It is much smaller now in size, and has better protection from errors. If you e.g. remove one of the necessary .bin files, the V1.0 would cause sh3 to crash in some situations, while V1.0c would simply prevent hsie.act from loading.

reaper7

11-19-11, 08:39 AM

h.sie

11-19-11, 08:43 AM

@reaper:

- what pistol do you use?
- what depth do you choose?

reaper7

11-19-11, 10:41 AM

@reaper:

- what pistol do you use?
- what depth do you choose?

Was using default settings just to test it was working:
So should be Magnetic and 4M depth.

Haven't tried any other settings yet. ;)

Letum

11-19-11, 03:59 PM

It's great to see some of SH3's oldest problems being solved. This has got me playing subsims again.

I don't suppose there is any remote chance of fixing the way aircraft do not spawn at high TC?

h.sie

11-21-11, 04:52 AM

@Letum: Hello :). If I find the appropriate code, I'll try to fix it.

Sepp von Ch.

11-22-11, 03:46 PM

Hello,

H.sie´s Torpedo Failures V1.0c for V16A3 (JSGME) mod should I activate after Supplement to V16A3 (JSGME) and O2-Gauges v2 mods?

h.sie

11-22-11, 04:14 PM

@Joseph: You only need to take care for the Mod order in case JSGME warns you about file conflicts. I think there are no file conflicts between these 2 mods and thus the order does not matter.

Sepp von Ch.

11-22-11, 08:44 PM

Letum

11-22-11, 09:57 PM

@h.sie: Thank you h.sie.

I have a big problem with your V16A3 patch.

I can´t get to work your AI U-Boats.

Can you please check my campaign file?

http://www.mediafire.com/?8d6pob383e427w8 AI U-Boats - [Unit 5696]-[Unit 5707] It is correct?

Test for the new messages was OK (LI reported Oxygen: 20 Percent etc.), but in the Wolfpack mission, I sail parallel with the convoy, I send a contact report (6 x! - convoy speed is always "0" - strange:hmmm:), but the BdU order only to attack:wah:

Please help me.

I can't get your link to work Josef.
The numbers may not be [Unit 5696]-[Unit 5707]. They should b a continuation of whatever the last number is.

Try the wolfpack mission more than once (and more than twice!). There is a random factor on the wolfpacks.

Schöneboom

11-22-11, 10:36 PM

Guten Abend, hsie,

I wonder if there is something in the .exe that has to do with how aircraft might drop bombs instead of depth charges? One change that would be very big, in my view, is for aircraft to drop wabos when the U-boat has submerged -- set for, let's say, 60 meters. Oh, Mensch... :o

Vielen Dank,
Wayne

Sepp von Ch.

11-23-11, 03:32 AM

Hello Letum, yes, I know.

you are right! Today I´ve started the mission again and all OK! I received immediatly a message from BdU "shadow the conovy"!

One more question. I downloaded V16A3 patch kit, per JSGME activated "Supplement to V16A3 (JSGME)", but in the right bottom corner of the games main menu I have "V1.6A4" Strange....

fitzcarraldo

11-23-11, 06:09 AM

Sepp von Ch.

11-23-11, 06:18 AM

Oh, yes, :smug:, I have activated Torpedo Failures V1.0c for V16A3 (JSGME).

Thank you very much fitzcarraldo!:salute:

When I will activate Stiebler´s Addon for Stiebler_Addon_for_V16A3, should I activate only the "Stiebler_Addon_for_V16A3" with patched sh3.exe or so per JSGME:

Supplement to V16A3 (JSGME)
Torpedo Failures V1.0c for V16A3 (JSGME)
Stiebler_Addon_for_V16A3

h.sie

11-23-11, 04:51 PM

New version V1.1 of the Torpedo Failure Fix available.

Changes compared to V1.0c:

Due to players request: Increased failure probability for magnetic pistol.

Cosmetic change: Version sticks at V16A3 (no more update to V16A4)

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.

Fix consists of a DLL named hsie.act and two 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.

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: 3%

Failure rate po for Magnetic pistol:
- until June'40: 15%
- until June'42: 10%
- after June'42: 2%

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

h.sie

11-23-11, 04:54 PM

@Joseph_Poschorsitz: Stiebler can give you better advise how to install his AddOn.

reaper7

11-23-11, 05:26 PM

Thanks for the update :up:

Fish In The Water

11-23-11, 06:14 PM

New version V1.1 of the Torpedo Failure Fix available.

Well done my friend, cheers! :Kaleun_Cheers:

Sepp von Ch.

11-24-11, 03:42 AM

Great, thank you for the new version!:up:

Victor Schutze

11-24-11, 12:47 PM

Thank you for a great mod H.sie! :rock:

urfisch

11-24-11, 02:47 PM

great!!! h.sie...nice work!

:yeah:

Robin40

11-24-11, 05:14 PM

Is Stiebler_Addon_for_V16A3. (Patch) to be activated over h.sie's Supplement to V16A3?

And when I activate V1.1 of the Torpedo Failure Fix, why is my version V16A3 and not V16A4?

h.sie

11-24-11, 05:47 PM

i cannot help you regarding stieblers addon, but you can activate the torpedo failures mod in any order, it does not matter. update to v16a4 only was cosmetic. thus i cancelled it. look at post 2787

Sepp von Ch.

11-29-11, 05:00 AM

And when I activate V1.1 of the Torpedo Failure Fix, why is my version V16A3 and not V16A4?

Read in red please :03:

New version V1.1 of the Torpedo Failure Fix available.

Changes compared to V1.0c:

Cosmetic change: Version sticks at V16A3 (no more update to V16A4)

Sepp von Ch.

11-29-11, 05:09 AM

New version V1.1 of the Torpedo Failure Fix available.

Oh, h.sie, this is a devilish update! With my little IIA U-Boat I managed in 1939 (4. Feindfahrt) to sink only 1 of the four spotted merchant ships (5 torpedoes, 3 dudes)!

I hate you for this realistic mod:Kaleun_Mad: :O:

No, no, really, thank you very much. SHIII got a whole new dimension, I prey now, that each my torpedo explode:D

Really thanks for this great job!:Kaleun_Applaud:

Sepp von Ch.

11-30-11, 09:04 AM

H.sie, please, can you upload on your site again the previous Torpedo Failure Fix 1.0?

This version 1.1 is uncredible hard for me. Two another patrols in 1939 with IIA boat and all torpedoes (10) are failure (perfect positions, magnetic or contact pistols, various depth) again and again too deep even in small waves...

Not surface runners, but all torpedoes runs too deep, even set up 1 or 2 m deep...

Whenever the surface is like glass, torpedoes runs too deep.
I like realistic torpedo failures, but I can´t even in small waves attack any ships. 100% torpedo failures in 2. Feindfahrten is for me unrealistic.

Please reupload previous version for me. Thanks!

dcb

11-30-11, 12:22 PM

1939 with IIA boat and all torpedoes (10) are failures (perfect positions, magnetic or contact pistols, various depth) again and again too deep even in small waves...

Not surface runners, but all torpedoes runs too deep, even set up 1 or 2 m deep...

Whenever the surface is like glass, torpedoes runs too deep.

Similar experience here. Is this an intended effect? Were torps really so faulty back then?

Sepp von Ch.

11-30-11, 01:09 PM

Faulty yes, but not so (check http://www.uboataces.com/articles-wooden-torpedoes.shtml ). Here, I can´t use any torpedo excepted the surface is like glass. And this is not correct.

h.sie

11-30-11, 03:17 PM

I used the Naval training mission in order to reproduce your problem but without success. All worked as intended. Time: 1939. Windspeed=2. TorpedoDepth = 1 and Impact pistol. I had about 20 - 30 % duds.

If you don't hit a ship that does not automatically mean that it was a dud :D

Anybody else having the same problems???

dcb

11-30-11, 04:56 PM

If you don't hit a ship that does not automatically mean that it was a dud :D

Actually, I must confess I play with the event cam on, so I actually saw the eels pass way under the target, despite setting them to something like 2 meters depth. But this is no problem with me. If things get really bad, I'll revert to the 1.0 version of the Torpedo Failure Fix.

h.sie and all other modders, thank you. Your effort makes SH3 better each day:salute:

reaper7

11-30-11, 05:09 PM

Sepp von Ch.

12-01-11, 04:20 AM

Actually, I must confess I play with the event cam on, so I actually saw the eels pass way under the target, despite setting them to something like 2 meters depth. But this is no problem with me. If things get really bad, I'll revert to the 1.0 version of the Torpedo Failure Fix.

h.sie and all other modders, thank you. Your effort makes SH3 better each day:salute:

1+

If you don't hit a ship that does not automatically mean that it was a dud :D

:-))))))))
http://s7.postimage.org/vpwdreeev/igmj885giw6.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/vpwdreeev/)

Can you h.sie please again upload the previous version 1.0?

h.sie

12-01-11, 04:53 AM

@Joseph: 2 Problems:

1) I havn't the V1.0 anymore. Maybe some other person has?

2) Even if you can find it somewhere:The JSGME version is only a temporary solution for testing purposes that won't be compatible to future patch versions V16B, because after testing and parameter fine-adjusting period, it will directly be implemented into the next hardcode patch V16B. That means: I have to restrict on ONE single version and one single parameter set that the majority of players prefers. V1.1. has been made due to some user requests, because dud rate was too low. I enlarged it a little bit, but surely not to 100%.

If you have a dud rate of 100%, there is definitely something wrong - either on my side or on your side.

DO OTHERS ALSO HAVE THE SAME PROBLEMS AS JOSEPH???

Robin40

12-01-11, 11:01 AM

wolpack attack
16 June 1941

bad sea state
magnetic pistol
1 hit
4 duds(?)
1 missed

good sea state
impact pistol
1 hit
0 duds
0 missed

Is it possible to have a message like "Torpedo is a dud"?

h.sie

12-01-11, 11:20 AM

@Robin: I'm not programming ATM.

PapaKilo

12-01-11, 02:34 PM

LGN1

12-04-11, 11:52 AM

Hi all,

I've tested h.sie's torpedo patch in campaign mode. I've shot 180 torpedoes with a magnetic pistol in 1939 and got 39 duds, i.e., roughly 22%. Taking the randomness into account, I think it works as intended.

Thanks again for the patch, h.sie :up:

Cheers, LGN1

don1reed

12-04-11, 01:38 PM

Excellent work h.sie and Steibler.

I play multi-games and your Mods work well with CCoM, WAC, LSH3, GWX, NYGM, and one I've concocted that I call Stiller Jager. Again, Bravo!

So much for the boast: "One torpedo, one ship."

I find myself using the Salvo option a lot more due to the duds and deep runners. I'm sure an intended consequence. I find myself very fortunate ending a patrol in my canoe with only one or two sinkings if any.

Contrary to popular belief, not all can be a Kretchmer.

On a final note, I use Hitman's Periscope mod on all games and I usually install it last due to some conflicts I've experienced.

:up:

max-peck

12-06-11, 03:49 AM

Hi. I've tried the wolfpack fix. However I'm not sure how should I send contact reports properly ? With course and speed info ? I think I know how to report speed of the convoy, I have to input it into my TDC dial, but how should I set it's course so the report wouldn't look like a bad joke ?

Yes you are correct. Use the TDC also to input the course of the convoy.

From page 1 of this thread:
'When you find a convoy, you should inform BDU about details. Thus, roughly estimate the convoy's course and speed and put these two values into the two TDC dials "Bearing" and "Speed" (German: Zielrichtung & Gegnerfahrt). If the convoy is heading north, set course to 0°, if it's heading east, set course to 90° and so on. Then, press 'M' key in order to send the contact report. You'll see these two values for course and speed in the contact report. '

PapaKilo

12-06-11, 08:56 AM

Rgt, thanks :yep:

Leitender

12-08-11, 12:31 PM

hi h.sie - thanks for your reply at MarineSims-Forum. Maybe better publish my testing results here:

Torpedotest 01.07.1939, Deutsche Bucht, Type VIIB

TI G7A torpedo, magnetic pistol (MZ)!, 4 torp salvo, salvo angle 0°, wind 15m/s!

Test, Speed, Torp Depth, Distance, Prematures

1. 44kn, 25m, 5000m, 3: 1´05, 1´10, 1´30min

2. 44kn, 25m, 5000m, 2: 1´20, 2´30

3. 44kn 25m 5000m 1: 1´55

4. 44kn 1m 5000m 4: 1´05, 1´20

5. 44kn 1m 5000m 3: 1´15 (2x), 1´27

6. 44kn 1m 5000m 3: 2´17, 3´30, 3´05

7. 40kn 1m 7500m 3: 2´40 (2x), 5´35

8. 40kn 1m 7500m 3: 0´37, 1´00, 3´25

9. 30kn 25m 12000m 4: 0´45, 4´30, 8´00, 12,10

10. 30kn 1m 12000m 1: 5´45

11. 30kn 1m 12000m 3: 2´30, 5´35

12. 30kn 25m 12000m 3: 3´25, 6´05, 9´00

In total: 33 of 48 torps were prematures within their max. range. This is a ratio of 69%! AND: This is stock behaviour!

Didn´t activate your torp failure mod yet. Impact pistol not tested yet. Will follow. Please compare these results to them at post #2595 from LGN1.

LGN1

12-08-11, 04:21 PM

Hi Leitender,

thanks for doing some more tests :up:

Just a few comments:

1.) The 44kn speed setting was not used on u-boats until middle of 1942, IIRC. I don't know whether it also holds for SH3, but in SH4 the failure rate depends on the speed setting. Therefore, I think one should exclude the 44kn setting from testing.

2.) At 15m/s wind speed and a running depth of 1m the torpedo should not even run 300m.

3.) I have the feeling that the distance at which a premature explosion happens is equally distributed, i.e., an equal percentage of torpedoes explodes at x meters and y meters. This is historically wrong because many torpedoes exploded right after the arming distance.

4.) Both historically and in SH3 most early-war shots were/are short-distance shots (<2000m). Thus, I think the premature explosions at distances greater than, let's say, 4000m are not really relevant.

Cheers, LGN1

PS: If you look at your 30kn results, there is only one premature explosion below 2000m and only three below 4000m, i.e., approx. 19%.

Leitender

12-09-11, 01:36 AM

Hi LGN1,

I´m glad if i can contribute something for the comunity. My first intention was to observe prematures at all, maybe their contribution or at least some dependencies, without concerning what kaleuns should learn from how to behave. The result is, there is an astonishing high percentage of prematures already simulated in stock version. As mentioned, tests with impact pistol will follow.

To answer your points: I didn´t know that the 44kn-setting was not used in early war times. Wasn´t it used because of operational order or was it a later introduced improvement? In the first case, not using this setting would falsify our ratio as i believe that the order followed the awareness of the prematures and wasn´t independent of them. Why else shouldn´t it be used? Finally, over all the ratio seems to be independent of the chosen speed, so it has no influence, whether we include or exclude this speed.

ad 2.: if this is the result of our research: I´ll agree. But first let´s take a look if this effect is implemented at all.

ad 3.: The times attached to the numbers of prematures above show imho a certain concentration at the first third or at least the first half. Maybe random, of course. But it confirms my feeling. The duration for a 5000m run at 44kn is approx. 4 min., for a 7500m run at 40kn approx. 6 min., and for a 12km run at 30kn 13 min. See when the torps exploded.

ad 4.: Same thing than before: The torps were constructed to reach that ranges, at least in threory. To reduce the max distance for a shot to, say, 2000m or less, is really a correct conclusion. But it´s a conclusion based on experiences made in the "green" ;)

ad your PS: Even with only 30kn i achieved a ratio of 11 of 16 (69%) which is exactly average. Hm. I agree that less velocity should maybe lead to more relieble behaviour. And, obviously, depth has no influence on ratio. Maybe too less tests. But what I would like to point out is that we mustn´t consider our experience and knowledge when we test the failure ratio included in the game. Analysis has to be done afterwards.

Btw, this answer isn´t meant to be a hard criticism of your post. I really appreciate your posts and your work for the com! So please continue with our controversial discussion! :yeah:

Greetings.

PapaKilo

12-09-11, 02:45 AM

Yes you are correct. Use the TDC also to input the course of the convoy.

From page 1 of this thread:
'When you find a convoy, you should inform BDU about details. Thus, roughly estimate the convoy's course and speed and put these two values into the two TDC dials "Bearing" and "Speed" (German: Zielrichtung & Gegnerfahrt). If the convoy is heading north, set course to 0°, if it's heading east, set course to 90° and so on. Then, press 'M' key in order to send the contact report. You'll see these two values for course and speed in the contact report. '

One more question. Before sending the contact report, should I leave TDC panel locked or unlocked after I set bearing and speed ? If I set bearing on the disk without turning the scope, the disk is reset after lock/unlock to the bearing the scope is left at.

max-peck

12-09-11, 04:11 AM

I'm not sure PapaKilo.

I've only just installed the Wolfpack addition (V163A), and haven't come across a convoy yet. I was just reposting the instructions I had seen at the start of the post :DL

I would assume that you leave it unlocked, or it snaps back to zero as you have said.

I'm going to have a little play in the Wolfpack single test mission that came with the mod. I'll get back to you with results.

PapaKilo

12-09-11, 04:59 AM

By the way I assume observation scope shouldn't be having effect on TDC bearing disk, only attack scope does right ?

LGN1

12-11-11, 03:33 PM

Hi Leitender,

thanks for your reply. From what I have found, it seems the fastest setting for the G7A torpedo was banned in March '40.

The torpedo failure fix has two main aims:

1.) To force the player to set the torpedo to a depth deep enough to avoid surface-runners.

2.) To have an average failure rate that corresponds with the historical failure rate no matter what the player does (the player should not benefit from knowledge that the commanders back then did not have). The failure rate from Nov. 1939 to April 1940 was considered to be 26% by the KM (all kind of failures: pre-mature explosions, propulsion problems,..., but no misses). For the magnetic pistol h.sie has a failure rate of 15% plus the pre-mature explosions already present in SH3. I don't think that the failure rate in SH3 averaged over all wind-speeds is much higher than 10%.

Cheers, LGN1

LGN1

12-11-11, 03:35 PM

By the way I assume observation scope shouldn't be having effect on TDC bearing disk, only attack scope does right ?

IIRC, that's wrong :hmmm: It's the last item you have used, i.e., it can be the UZO, the observation scope, or the attack scope.

Leitender

12-12-11, 04:47 AM

Hi LGN1,

Torpedotest 01.07.1939, Deutsche Bucht, Type VIIB

TI G7A torpedo, impact pistol (AZ)!, 4 torp salvo, salvo angle 0°, wind 15m/s!

Test, Speed, Torp Depth, Distance, Prematures: Time

1. 44kn, 25m, 5000m, 2: 0´55, 2´40

2. 44kn, 25m, 5000m, 1: 1´10

3. 44kn 25m 5000m 3: 0´25, 1´40, 2´01

4. 44kn 1m 5000m 2: 0´25, 1´05

5. 44kn 1m 5000m 1: 1´00

6. 44kn 1m 5000m 2: 0´55, 1´15

7. 40kn 1m 7500m 2: 1´23, 6´03

8. 40kn 1m 7500m 1: 0´50

9. 30kn 25m 12000m 2: 0´30, 6´55

10. 30kn 1m 12000m 1: 8´10

11. 30kn 1m 12000m 3: 1´18, 2´37, 10´30

12. 30kn 25m 12000m 1: 9´50

13. 30kn 25m 12000m 3: 6´20, 10´45, 12´00

Results:

1. 24/52 were failures, which ist a ratio of 46%!

2. It seems to me that, this time, the distribution of prematures was really random, with no concentration in the beginning, unlike the magnetic pistol fitted torps in my first test.

3. The test seems to confirm: Size, I mean depth doesn´t matter.

4. But pistol obviously does matter! 46% (AZ) vs. 69% (MZ).

Of course, these were only testings in worst (weather) case, but the results don´t stand in opposition to the reported 12% overall failure rate.

To come to your points:

Ad 1: depth-dependant failures are certainly historically correct, so h.sie´s improvement is very welcome, of course.

Ad 2: Like i supposed: Restriction in using the speed was result of the high failure rate. So we have to regard high speed failures as well.

What i still don´t know, is whether the dependency of pistol is historically accurate or not. I was always teached to use only impact pistol when in heavy seas. At least with stock behaviour this should be correct. With h.sies pistol-dependant added failure rate, this should lead to different results and thus to differant behaviour by the kaleuns. Is this historically correct?

Greetings

LGN1

12-12-11, 02:48 PM

Hi Leitender,

I was really surprised to see your report about premature explosions with the AZ pistol (because people here always claim that there are no premature explosions in this case and in fact, in SH4 there are no premature explosions with the AZ pistol). So, I tested it myself and didn't observe a single premature explosion with the AZ pistol :hmmm:

My suspicion is that your findings are due to the fact that you are firing a salvo. And indeed, if you choose the salvo mode, switch to AZ, and then switch back to single-shot mode, you will see that only torpedo number one is set to AZ. The rest is still MZ. That would also explain why you never saw four premature explosions, but only three.

Cheers, LGN1

PS: Concerning historical behavior: Early in the war u-boat commanders could not easily switch from AZ to MZ. In addition, there were many different orders what pistol to use,... so without further work the situation in SH3 will never be historically correct. Therefore, I think h.sie's torpedo fix with a similar failure rate of approx. 25% for AZ and MZ until after the invasion of Norway is the best we can have. If one pistol is more reliable, players will always use this pistol and obtain a failure rate that is lower than the historical one.

h.sie

12-12-11, 03:15 PM

Leitender

12-12-11, 04:04 PM

Hi LGN1 an h.sie,

I have to confess that i wasn´t aware of this - let´s say - bug, because in campaign-mode i use to check my settings several times - not so in the above test :oops:

I redo my test and will report!

Greetings.

Leitender

12-13-11, 03:30 AM

Hi LGN1,

i redid my second test with all torps manually set to impact pistol. And the result is: NOT ONE was a premature (test abandoned after 10th salvo: 0 of 40). You are completly right, this is a bug that at least i never recognised. Btw, speed and depth could be set for all torps together when in salvo status. But not pistol.

At least one usable result of the second test now is this: If 3 of 4 torps were magnetic and we have 24 failures, we got a ratio of 24 of 39, which is 61% of all magnetics. Less than in the first test, but enough to state that there are roughly one third prematures in bad sea when torps are equiped with magnetic pistol.

Conclusion

With no failures by using AZ at all, it is a new "feature" to introduce them for impacts. Even with a higher percentage for them than for the magnetics this mod should leave the kaleuns still more trusting in impacts than in magnetics. Without considering all the different orders, using the impact pistol in bad condition remains the recommended behaviour. I highly appreciate that and salute to h.sie´s und LGN1´s work.

Jaeger

12-13-11, 05:11 AM

You are completly right, this is a bug that at least i never recognised. Btw, speed and depth could be set for all torps together when in salvo status. But not pistol.

@h.sie, lgn1 and stiebler: would it be possible to fix this by a small hardcode fix?

i think lots of gamers do it wrong without knowing of the existence of this bug.

reaper7

12-13-11, 02:16 PM

I can confirm LGN1's finding: If you choose "salvo" and than switch to impact, only the 1st torpedo is an impact, all others are still magnetic.

It's a game bug.

One has to manually set all 4 torpedoes to impact one-by-one and then switch to salvo mode.

@h.sie, lgn1 and stiebler: would it be possible to fix this by a small hardcode fix?

i think lots of gamers do it wrong without knowing of the existence of this bug.

Never realized this existed myself :hmmm:.
This is fixable though, I could do it with external code - similar to the Torpedo AutoReload code I did.
But hopefully h.sie can do a hardcode fix (preferred) if needed I can supply the locations for the Torpedos selected in salvo Mode.
I have found these already - torps selected is in an cumulative format from binary xxxxxx. EG:
xxxxxx = Torp6,Torp5,Torp4,Torp3,Torp2,Torp1
Torp1 = 1
Torp2 = 2
Torp3 = 4
Torp4 = 8
Torp5 = 16
Torp6 = 32

So a value of 50 = 32+16+2 ==> Torps 1,5 and 6 are selected.

The Impact/Magnetic switching value H.sie already has so one only needs to code the routine to apply the relevant Impact-Magnetic value to the torps selected by the salvo mode address.
Hope that makes sense :O:

Jaeger

12-13-11, 03:23 PM

sounds good. i hope it is that easy it sounds. if you guys work as fast as you do atm, sh3 will be bugfree in a few month, because each new fix is easier to implement as the former one (you know the locations where to look and where to change the settings: in a few month, you lnow the whole code...)

greetz, Jaeger

h.sie

12-13-11, 04:01 PM

i've put it on my todo list - although - i have very little free time ATM.

@Leitender: Glad we got it sorted.

Jaeger

12-14-11, 06:27 AM

@h.sie: take your time. most important is, you have to have the interest and motivation in what you do. if you dont, dont do it. do it later, time will come!

smg13

12-17-11, 03:33 AM

Hello.
I am having some trouble with this mod. When I launch SH3 thru SH3 Commander, I can't get the new messages strings to work. For example, if I go underwater and wait for the CE to tell me "CE:20% oxygen", I get instead "CE: " and nothing else.

If I use the command to roll back SH3 Commander, and launch the game using SH3.exe without SH3 Commander (and whatever changes it makes), then I do get the new messages for oxygen, wolfpacks, ect.

I haven't tested more of the mod besides the lack of messages but I have the feeling everythign else in the mod stops working with SH3 Commander.

I also tried finding a solution already in the forum with no luck... am I the first one with this problem? Anyone has any suggestions? I am running SH3 with GWX 3.0 and, of course, SH3 Commander.

Thanks to the author of this mod, for it is wonderful! I hope I can get it running with SH3 Commander!

Thanks

smg13

12-17-11, 10:38 AM

I am still hoping someone can help...

I did a bit of exploring and I noticed that once you start a career with SH3 Commander, inside the Sh3 Commander folder in the SH3 installation a BACKUP folder is created. Once you load up SH3 trhu SH3 Commander in backups the en_menu.txt in the data/Menu folder. So there it is, SH3 Commander is probably making a new en_menu.txt.

The question is now, how to make SH3 Commander use a en_menu.txt with the new messages strings? Any ideas?
Thanks.

NitzerEbb

12-17-11, 04:09 PM

I took that from somewhere else (dont know from who it was) and made a little readme in my own directory. I will translate it. It solved my problem with the empty strings.

WICHTIG! für SH3 Commander-Nutzer: VOR dem erneuten Spielstart die vorhandene "de_menu.txt"-Datei im Backup-Order des Commanders löschen (oder auch hier die "neue" reinkopieren), da Dieser sonst die "alte" wieder in Euer Spielverzeichnis kopiert.

Important! To all who use SH3-Commander: Before you start the game, you should delete the "de_menu.txt" file in the backup directory from the commander (or you copy the "new" one and overwrite it), otherwise Commander will copy this backup file into your game directory.

smg13

12-17-11, 11:57 PM

I fixed it!

Thank you for the advise. I will follow it from now on. I wonder why SH3 Commander is doing a backup like that?

I manage to make the new message strings work with SH3 Commander. I rolled back the changes in SH3 Com, then I went to JSGME and turned off all the mods one by one. I was back to vanilla SH3, and then added again each mod one by one in JSGME, starting with GWX3, and finishing with V16A3 and Stiebler Add On for V16A3. And now it is working ok.

I am sure somewhere along the line I did not rollback SH3 Commander before activating a new mod or some file got messed up. But now it is working.

Well, hope this might help anyone else that might find themselves in the same situation. And thanks to the mod makers! Without them SH3 is a horrible game. But with them it is the best subsim ever.

Tigershark624

12-19-11, 04:22 AM

Since I added this mod I've noticed both my periscope views are elongated and stretched in ovals side-to-side. I tried searching the thread for this problem but came up empty. I'm using the MaGui 3.4 widescreen mod and tried the ds9widescreen fix, which didn't have any effect. Can anyone suggest how I can correct this? Thanks.

h.sie

12-19-11, 05:15 AM

Believe me, I did not program oval periscopes at all.

And since no-one except of you has this problem, this indicates that your problem is not related to my fixes. Re-try with a fresh install - surely mod salad.

I hope that in the future no one makes my fixes responsible for his non-working coffee-machine or heart pacemaker.

Missing Name

12-19-11, 02:10 PM

I hope that in the future no one makes my fixes responsible for his non-working coffee-machine or heart pacemaker.

My dog isn't eating his regular food. I think this mod might have caused some conflicts.

Just kidding... I'm reinstalling the game again, and of course this is the first mod to go back on. Many thanks for this great kit!

ryanwigginton

12-23-11, 04:05 AM

My dog isn't eating his regular food. I think this mod might have caused some conflicts.

:haha:

h.sie

12-23-11, 08:37 AM

Diesel Damages Alpha (for V16A3)

With this Fix you risk random diesel damages if you agonize your diesels with FLANK or FULL speed for longer time periods.

Definition: T50 is the time period which corresponds to a damage probability of 50%. T50 strongly depends on your diesels load.

1) Under normal conditions (no diesel damaged) we have:

FLANK speed : T50 = 2 hours
FULL speed: T50 = 14 hours
STANDARD speed: T50 = 100 days
(Lower speeds: T50 = endless.)

If a random damage occurs, the amount of the applied damage is randomly chosen between 10% and 60% (thus, a diesel will never be destroyed). In this case, the LI warns you to reduce your speed, because otherwise you risk a total loss of the diesel. As long as the diesel isn't completely repaired, the chance of successive damages dramatically rises, if you don't reduce your speed to one third or slow, as one can see below:

2) Damaged diesel condition:

FLANK speed : T50 = 30 min.
FULL speed: T50 = 45 min.
STANDARD speed: T50 = 3 hours
One third speed: T50 = 43 hours
Slow speed : T50 = endless

Under damaged diesel conditions, the amount of the added damage is randomly chosen between 30% and 100%, thus a diesel can completely be destroyed.

Fix can be found in JSGME ready format on my mediafire page (-> Hardcode fixes / Alpha testing) . It contains only a german de_menu.txt. English speakers should add a message like

4893=We must throttle the diesels, otherwise we risk a total loss!

to their en_menu.txt.

Note: I used new, effective assembler commands and I don't know whether they are accepted by older CPU's. So this fix in Alpha state can cause CTD in case the commands are unknown by your CPU. Please inform me about that.

Have a nice christmas time.

rowi58

12-23-11, 09:12 AM

Hi h.sie,

sounds very interesting. Merry Christmas to you and all subsimers.

http://www.gif-paradies.de/gifs/ereignisse/weihnachten/schlitten/schlitten_0046.gif

Greetings
rowi58

Sailor Steve

12-23-11, 09:56 AM

Beautiful! This is something long missing from the SH series, and welcome addition.

Obltn Strand

12-23-11, 10:51 AM

Every kids dream. Big and heavy chirstmas present.

Though faulty diesels can indicate that our old friend Bernand has moved to santa claus business.

Seriously, this is good addition to an already great package.

Hitman

12-23-11, 03:38 PM

One of the most annoying and ridiculous things in the game has been solved :yeah:

H.Sie, it's difficult to say with words how grateful we will be to you for all this work you are doing. You are making our nursened hobby, our interest and joy get so much better, and you are doing it for free, just because you apreciate it as much as us ... it's not just the mod, it's also the feeling of dedication from someone who shares our interests what is so much rewarding. Thanks for your advanced Xmas present :up:

Jimbuna

12-23-11, 04:28 PM

Nice one H http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

h.sie

12-23-11, 04:52 PM

Thanks, guys! Have a good and peaceful christmas!

urfisch

12-23-11, 06:25 PM

:o

and he cant let to experiment...nice one, h.sie! thanks for the new stuff. and happy christmas for you too!

Victor Schutze

12-23-11, 07:50 PM

It reminds me SH2! :arrgh!:

Thank you h.sie! :yeah:

Very nice and realistic long needed addition! :woot:

Robin40

12-24-11, 02:51 AM

Merry Xmas to h.sie:woot:

h.sie

12-24-11, 06:50 AM

Torpedo Pistol Switch BugFix V0.9 Alpha for V16A3 (JSGME)

Fix for a bug only some people noticed:

When you choose salvo, select multiple torpedoes and then change the pistol, not all pistols are changed.

This should be fixed now.

Fix can be found in JSGME ready format on my mediafire page (-> Hardcode fixes / Alpha testing).

Thanks to reaper for some helpful information.

Jaeger

12-24-11, 07:39 AM

brilliant h.sie, as usual. Frohe Weihnachten!

Hitman

12-24-11, 08:15 AM

Wow you are hyperactive before Xmas, me likes :yeah:

*Another bug hits the dust* :|\\:smug:

Fubar2Niner

12-24-11, 09:05 AM

@H.Sie

A quick question mate if you don't mind. I have just got round to trying to install this excellent looking piece of work, but am a tad confuzzled. I'm editing the Campaign_scr.mis file to include the AI-Subs for the WP mod.

It states in the readme to search for the last [unit] entry and then the last in my case [unit 5695] then find the last waypoint of the last unit. Here's my problem, the last unit I have has no waypoint, in fact the last several units have no waypoint.

[Unit 5693]
Name=Buoy_G1_FL#82
Class=Buoy_G1_FL
Type=105
Origin=Environmental
Side=0
Commander=0
CargoExt=-1
CargoInt=-1
CfgDate=19380101
DeleteOnLastWaypoint=true
DockedShip=false
GameEntryDate=19380101
GameEntryTime=0
GameExitDate=19451231
GameExitTime=0
EvolveFromEntryDate=false
Long=980246.000000
Lat=6422217.000000
Height=0.000000
Heading=0.000000
Speed=0.000000
CrewRating=3
DelayMin=0
ReportPosMin=-1
ReportPosProbability=100
RandStartRadius=0.000000
NextWP=0

[Unit 5694]
Name=GE War Freighter#2
Class=M35Hansa
Type=102
Origin=German
Side=0
Commander=0
CargoExt=13
CargoInt=0
CfgDate=19390101
DeleteOnLastWaypoint=true
DockedShip=true
GameEntryDate=19390825
GameEntryTime=0
GameExitDate=19400315
GameExitTime=0
EvolveFromEntryDate=false
Long=978516.000000
Lat=6421465.000000
Height=0.000000
Heading=142.495850
Speed=0.000000
CrewRating=3
DelayMin=0
ReportPosMin=-1
ReportPosProbability=100
RandStartRadius=0.000000
NextWP=0

[Unit 5695]
Name=GE Medium Hansa Combifreighter#3
Class=KMSSHansa
Type=102
Origin=German
Side=2
Commander=0
CargoExt=1
CargoInt=0
CfgDate=19380101
DeleteOnLastWaypoint=true
DockedShip=true
GameEntryDate=19400404
GameEntryTime=0
GameExitDate=19410101
GameExitTime=0
EvolveFromEntryDate=false
Long=978516.000000
Lat=6421465.000000
Height=0.000000
Heading=322.899689
Speed=0.000000
CrewRating=3
DelayMin=0
ReportPosMin=-1
ReportPosProbability=100
RandStartRadius=0.000000
NextWP=0

Should I just copy the 12 AI -UBoat files from your mod and paste them there at the end of this unit list?

Thanks for your help.

Best regards.

Fubar2Niner

h.sie

12-24-11, 10:09 AM

@Fubar:

1) Yes, if the last unit has no waypoints, place the AI-subs after the last unit.

2) Regarding your question via PM: My newest fixes with the .act and .bin files can be enabled in any order.

Fubar2Niner

12-24-11, 10:12 AM

@h.sie

I added the AI-Subs after changing their [Unit] numbers to the end of my unit list where indicated in previous post. I enabled the supplement mod at the end of my usual mod list. The problem I have now is when I launch the game thru commander my single mission list is full of errors ?? If I try to launch the game it crashes. Disable the mod and all is well, any ideas mate?

Best regards.

Fubar2Niner

Victor Schutze

12-24-11, 05:21 PM

h.sie,

I have a problem with the "Bad_Weather Fix v1.1 BETA.
I used the Mod Validator to check whether it was well installed:

It says: "data doesn't exist!" :hmmm:

I use JSGME to enable the mod. The folders are set up this way:

"Bad_Weather Fix v1.1 BETA" (folder)/"EnvSim.act"(144KB)

Is this correct? :06:

reaper7

12-24-11, 06:05 PM

Thank you h.sie for 2 more wonderful fixes for Sh3, it just keeps getting better.
Who needs Santa this Christmas with these excellent presents :yeah:.

And Merry Christmas :Kaleun_Party:

h.sie

12-25-11, 06:33 AM

@Victor_S: "data" folder is not required for hardcode fixes, thus you can ignore the warning

Fubar2Niner

12-25-11, 06:36 AM

@h.sie

Merry Christmas mate. Any insights as to the prob I'm having in my post above. post #2851 ?

Best regards.

Fubar2Niner

h.sie

12-25-11, 06:39 AM

SquareSteelBar

12-25-11, 06:55 AM

...I added the AI-Subs after changing their [Unit] numbers to the end of my unit list...Another option is to merge your Campaign_SRC.mis and h.sie's _Merge_with_Campaign_SCR.mis by MissionEditor.

Fubar2Niner

12-25-11, 07:09 AM

@Fubar: Because of christmas activities (and low time), let's try the following solution:

Plan A) Try again from the very beginning to create the Supplement mod. Doing this, read carefully the Readme.doc step by step. You surely missed something.

After that, first try without Sh3Cmdr. If that works, try with Sh3Cmdr.

Plan B) If Plan A still isn't successful: Send me your current

en_menu.txt
Campaign_SRC.mis
of your installation, after having activated ALL of your desired Mods. I'll do the job for you, but that can take 1-2 days.

Another option is to merge your Campaign_SRC.mis and h.sie's _Merge_with_Campaign_SCR.mis by MissionEditor.

Thank you both very much chaps. I'm sure you both have your hands full at the present. I'll have another try in a couple of days, have a great time over the holidays.

Best regards.

Fubar2Niner

Victor Schutze

12-25-11, 12:02 PM

@Victor_S: "data" folder is not required for hardcode fixes, thus you can ignore the warning

:up: :salute: :arrgh!:

Fubar2Niner

12-27-11, 09:59 AM

@h.sie

Hi mate, try as I might I cannot get this to work :oops:

I get this error when trying to launch from commander

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll293/fubar2niner/Commandererror.jpg

And a CTD when launching from the main sh3.exe, crash log as follows;

Problem signature:
Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
Application Name: sh3.exe
Application Version: 1.4.0.1
Application Timestamp: 42ae9b3e
Fault Module Name: MSVCR71.dll
Fault Module Version: 7.10.3052.4
Fault Module Timestamp: 3e561eac
Exception Code: c0000005
Exception Offset: 00002777
OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.1
Locale ID: 2057
Additional Information 1: cda8
Additional Information 2: cda8483c32154a9f3a892cb29fc2293d
Additional Information 3: 7e37
Additional Information 4: 7e37e074d90e8533915c18ce725512e6

I'm going to send my
en_menu.txt
Campaign_SRC.mis
as an attachment via PM if thats ok mate, I'll also send my de_menu.txt just in case. Really appreciate the help with this kaleun.

EDIT, PM doesn't seem to support attachments, can you pm an email or should I send via ftp or place on my gamefront acct? Sorry for any inconveniance kaleun :salute:

Best regards.

Fubar2Niner

h.sie

12-27-11, 10:03 AM

@Fubar:

Maybe easier to compress your 2 or 3 files into an archive (7z or rar) and then upload the file to somewhere and send me the link.

h.sie

Fubar2Niner

12-27-11, 10:07 AM

Will do, thanks very much h.sie :salute:

Best regards.

Fubar2Niner

h.sie

12-27-11, 10:12 AM

IMPORTANT: send me the most current versions of those files after having enabled all your desired JSGME mods......

Fubar2Niner

12-27-11, 10:22 AM

IMPORTANT: send me the most current versions of those files after having enabled all your desired JSGME mods......

All done mate.
Files on my ftp:

I have enabled perms for you to upload the new files there.

If you have problems mate I can place on gamefront. Really appreciate this, many, many thanks :rock:

Best regards.

Fubar2Niner

Robin40

12-27-11, 10:22 AM

I noticed that after a successful wolfpack attack the convoy loses all its escorts (3 events out of 3)

Is it realistic?

h.sie

12-27-11, 10:34 AM

@Fubar: Ok. I'll loook into it. Will take some time.

@Robin: No, surely not realistic. The Ai-subs tend to first attack the escorts, because they have lower distance. I could reduce this behaviour a little bit (sensor tweak - making subs blind for the leading escorts) but could not completely change it. The AI-subs are not very intelligent. Until now I found no better way. But according to my observations it happens not every time, only sometimes. 3 trials isn't representative. We have to live with that until I find a way to directly change the AI. This is one of the weak points I talked about.

Fubar2Niner

12-27-11, 10:44 AM

@h.sie

Take all the time you need mate, just appreciate you making the time to help :salute:

Best regards.

Fubar2Niner

dcb

12-27-11, 10:46 AM

Hi h.sie,

I tried to use both the Torpedo Failure Mod and Engine Damage Mod ontop of the V16A3 fix, and I have an error. If I load either of them via JSGME after V16A3, the game runs fine, but if I load them both after V16A3, I get an error box with the following message:

incompatible sh3.exe version found
hsie2.act not started
patches not applied

Once again, thank you for your fixes.

dcb

h.sie

12-27-11, 10:50 AM

@Fubar: You should not post account data in a public forum. I have the data, thus you can delete the password from the post.

@dcb: Will look into it this evening,.

Fubar2Niner

12-27-11, 11:16 AM

@Fubar: You should not post account data in a public forum. I have the data, thus you can delete the password from the post.

@h.sie

Appreciate the warning mate, however this acct has been created for you and this one use only. If you'd like a perm acct just nod and I'll pm the info. :salute:

Best regards.

Fubar2Niner

h.sie

12-27-11, 04:38 PM

@Fubar: Supplement Mod created, tested and uploaded. All worked well for me. Tested messages and presence of AI-Subs.

If you still have trouble, try without Sh3Cmdr. Maybe your Sh3Cmdr-Installation is corrupted?

h.sie

12-27-11, 04:46 PM

@dcb: It seems you used the old TorpedoFailures V1.0c Fix. This is replaced by V1.1 in the meantime, which does not cause these conflicts.

dcb

12-27-11, 11:32 PM

@dcb: It seems you used the old TorpedoFailures V1.0c Fix. This is replaced by V1.1 in the meantime, which does not cause these conflicts.

Thank you for your answer. Will move to Torp Fix V1.1:salute:

Leitender

12-28-11, 04:25 AM

Hi h.sie

With this Fix you risk random diesel damages if you agonize your diesels with FLANK or FULL speed for longer time periods.
May i ask you, if you have any historical information about such an effect? i never read about engine damage - because of long duration flank speed - and i know from a former panzermotor developer, that they tested every engine (and there were produced 250.000 engines during the war) for 48 hours at full power, before getting its ready for action status. And thus, to be honest, I don´t believe either that serious damage occured during flank speed. The engines had their safety factor, as well as the pressure hulls had their, and the engines were produced under reliability aspects, not under economic aspects, unlike a today´s Mercedes.

Surely, I read about engine damage. But the reason probably was a so-called water shock ("Wasserschlag"), when sea water attained to the combustion chamber resulting in a destroyed piston rod. This occured when the diesel engines were stopped too late after the boat submerged.

h.sie

12-28-11, 05:16 AM

@Leitender: I'm glad that someone posts some (positive intended) critical words to start a discussion.

Short answer: To be honest - No I have not, since normally I'm too lazy for historical research and thus rely on the historical knowledge of a well-assorted group of people. I nevertheless programmed this mod, because:

a) It is modelled in Sh2, and thus it seems to be not beside the point.

b) It was requested from 2 or 3 members from which I know they like historical accuracy (so I relied on their point of view).

c) I like this mod because I cannot believe that one can run both diesels at flank speed for hours without risking any problems.

One thing I definitely know: The higher the engines power, the higher the risk of a damage. The question is about quantities, that means: whether this risk is significant and relevant for gameplay.

Anyone is welcome to post some historical information that could help to adjust to quantities (damage probabilities).

The intention of this mod is not to model the damages. The intention is to let the Kaleun be careful with his engines.

h.sie

12-28-11, 05:38 AM

@Leitender: As you can see, the DieselDamages Fix comes with an .ini file that allows fine-adjusting the damage probabilities. This shows that this mod isn't finished (Alpha version) and perhaps needs some adjustment

Leitender

12-28-11, 06:25 AM

h.sie

you know that my posts are constructive meant and it is not my intention to criticise your work. To answer your points:

a) phew, too long ago to remember. I remember that for SH3 at least one "realistic" :DL former kaleun (Oesten, Hardegen?) was asked for his advice. Maybe due to him, long duration diesel damage was removed?

b) maybe these members may share their point of view?

c) of course you can run your diesels for hours and hours at flank. This was often done at least at early war by the kaleuns, when they overhauled a convoy out of sight to attack in a ahead position. If an engine is proved to be "fatigue endurable" (correct term? Searched in leo.org for it) you can run it with full power as long as you want. In this case, the limiting factor is - fuel.

Nor there is a damage dependancy at which power you run. The only limiting factor is rpm because of the mass inertia, so overrevving an engine causes damage to it. But every machinist knows that limit, either by manufacturer´s order, or by - experience. Nowaday´s engines have an automatic rev limiter, but I don´t know if the u-boat engines had one. IIRC the panzermotors had none.

Maybe there is another limiting factor: heat. I´m not sure if the cooling system was sufficient when the engines run very long at full power. But never read about such problems.

The intention of this mod is not to model the damages. The intention is to let the Kaleun be careful with his engines. But if i understand your mod correct, flank speed will cause damage within 2 hours at a 50% probability? This would prevent the above mentioned real tactics, wouldn´t it?

Hitman

12-28-11, 06:58 AM

It's true that engines in Panzers and UBoats were very different to a commercial automobile engine, first of all because it wasn't Aunt Mary who was driving them to go shopping, but a trained machinist -and in the case of uboats, supervised by an engineer.

So yes, they were durable items and well tested for extreme stress (And a frequently forgotten things is very telling: They used huge amounts of lubricating oil, which happens mainly in engines with large tolerances, designed for extreme stress), but at the same time and unlike engines for unexperienced users, they were very "open" in the way you could use them, meaning the machinist could adjust a huge amount of things and always squeeze a bit more depending on what he deemed safe. When your life depends on what you can extract from your engines, and you have qualified personal using them, it's only natural to do so.

Hence, it is my firm belief that you could actually damage an UBoat engine if you really were to use it beyond the limits of what is the maximal load attainable - and of course your machinist knows how to achieve that. Not necessarily catastrophic damage, but you could offset valves, camshaft and crankshaft, and also probably rods, causing vibrations that could end up in huge disaster.

We can discuss however if that "overload" corresponds to the current "Flank speed" in SH3, or if the factory specified "Flank Speed" was still safe and simply resulted in an unechonomic waste of fuel for 2 aditional knots, but since we have no other button to asign that overload-over-flank-speed, I guess this is the most practical solution. :up:

Sepp von Ch.

12-28-11, 07:27 AM

This Diesel Damages V0.9 for V16A3 mod overwrite de_menu.txt (Supplement to V16A3). Is this ok, I can ovewrite this de_menu.txt file?

h.sie

12-28-11, 07:34 AM

@Joseph: This mod is alpha and thus for testing and developing purposes only - not for playing. For testing, you can overwrite the menu file, but not for playing

Jaeger

12-28-11, 07:59 AM

one solution would be to generate a new state of speed after flank: overheat machine. flank would be possible for endless hours, but "overheat machine", which gives one or two extraknots, will risk to brake the machine. perhaps a switch can be added in the navigators menu "activate overheating (+2 knots"). this button could be combined with the rank of the navigator: it could only be available, when navigator has reached "leutnant" f.ex.

possible?

Greetz, Jaeger

Sepp von Ch.

12-28-11, 08:17 AM

OK, thank you for reply h.sie!:salute:

h.sie

12-28-11, 08:38 AM

@Jaeger: Good idea, but too much effort for me. Sorry. And it's not even necessary IMHO.

As Hitman said, it's a question of how we interpret "Flank" or in german "3 x Wahnsinnige". The german text shows very well that the LI is ordered to push the engines to their absolute maximum limit - and not to the factory guaranteed save speed limit.

Look into the Uboats cfg files where I also added the resulting speed in knots (kt) for VIIB in calm sea:

AllStop=0.00 (0 kt)
AheadSlow=0.26 (4 kt)
AheadOneThird=0.57 (10 kt)
AheadStandard=0.80 (14 kt)
AheadFull=0.94 (16 kt)
AheadFlank=1.00 (17 kt)

While there are significant differences (0.14 ... 0.26) between these Speed levels, there is only a little difference of 0.06 between FULL and FLANK. The resulting speed difference in knots between FULL and FLANK is small = 1 kt. Thus, FLANK cannot be intended as a new speed level for common use. It's a special reserve that should only be activated in very special situations. The small difference of 1 kt are these extra knots you (Jeager) are talking about.

SquareSteelBar

12-28-11, 09:22 AM

Herzlichen Glückwunsch zur Beförderung, Herr Admiral. :salute:

Leitender

12-28-11, 09:37 AM

All 5 Steps from "Ahead slow" ("Kleine Fahrt") to "Ahead flank" ("AK voraus") are regular manoeuvring orders. All this manoeuvres should work without fearing a permanent damage, if you ask me.

What hitman means is an emergency order called "3x Wahnsinnige", literally: "3x lunatic" This is not the same like "Ahead flank"! "3x lunetic" means ahead flank diesels (1.) + coupled electric engines running ahead flank (2.) + power beyond safety limits (3.!). In this case it could surely come to serious damage after a short time, but not in normal status. So I had the same idea like Jaeger creating a new emergency order: "3x lunatic". Diesels flank, electrics flank, large fuel consumption, battery consumption, some 1 or two knots higher speed, but overheating damage coming soon.

The other points mentioned by hitman, e.g. misuse, wrong settings etc. surely happened, but they didn´t happen time- or powerdependant. They occured randomly, like other malfunctions. This is well simulated by Jaeson Jones´ SH3-Commander.

While there are significant differences (0.14 ... 0.26) between these Speed levels, there is only a little difference of 0.06 between FULL and FLANK.h.sie

The differences are decreasing because of the water resistance is increasing by square.

Leitender

12-28-11, 09:48 AM

Oh, I see I did a heavy mistake. I mixed power and force (wrong translation). What I´m talking about is force, not power, sorry for that.

If you give a manoeuvring order to your engine compartment, you make the machinist change force, not power. "Power" ist a fix engine value which cannot be changed.

h.sie

12-28-11, 10:51 AM

@Leitender: These small damages applied with a certain probability should be interpreted as WARNING (engines running hot, we must be careful!), not as real damage.

Too much effort to add new GUI elements and code infrastructure for an additional maneuvring order.

What about enlarging the max. speed of the Uboats about 5%, so that it then drives 17kt at FULL speed instead of FLANK. And 18kt at FLANK. Only disadvantage: One regular speed order lost.

I understand your point and will think about it. Will take some time.

Hitman

12-28-11, 11:14 AM

The other points mentioned by hitman, e.g. misuse, wrong settings etc. surely happened, but they didn´t happen time- or powerdependant. They occured randomly, like other malfunctions.

They happened randomly but specially when overloading the engine. Any engine that is stressed beyond the ordinary limits will increase the failiure rate, that's why almost all automakers test them in the racingsport before and use the experience gained to develop their engines.

As I already said and H.Sie also agrees, the main problem is that we lack an extra button or telegraph order slot above flank to engage that "get-absolute-everything-out-of-this-chief-or-we-are-toast" status. So it's reasonable to use the flank speed as substitute, even at the price of losing one slot.

Jaeger

12-28-11, 11:47 AM

hitman, i agree and i can live with the status quo, BUT remember

you dont only lose one slot, you also lose, as leitender stated, one tactical point: the supplyconsumption. 3x wahnsinnige should consume fuel AND batterypower, flankspeed should only consume fuel. if you want to escape on surface by 3x wahnsinnige (and take that extra knot) and after some time you have to dive, your batterystatus should be low. atm, it is not. so this new slot will bring us a new tactical level. the question still stays: is this worth the high amount of work?

PapaKilo

12-28-11, 11:52 AM

The one extra knot IMO would be useless anyway and the cost of it - engine failure. none of the commanders or the u-boat crew ever wanted to make more troubles than there already was, if was any. Knowing that without engines the boat is doomed.

Leitender

12-28-11, 12:31 PM

The crewmembers and especially the machinists knew that with damaged propulsion they were lost at sea, so they certainly avoided overrevving or overloading the engines besides they were in an absolute devastating situation. I think we all agree about this.
We can argue about when and how often damage occured, but in my humble opinion the engines were very reliable. Remember that, though 70 years ago, even then the engineers had about 25 years or more of experience with developing u-boats and their propulsion. As they know, that survival of the crew, and, much more important, military value only maintained when in action-ready status, all efforts were te be done to gain reliable and secure propulsion engines.

In my personal archive i own photographs on which there are seen crankshafts of military engines wich were tested at a laboratory and on which tension lines were made visible. This was done to understand how the forces flew through the crankshaft and thus was a help for further development process. It was mid-30s. What I like to say is: Don´t underestimate the technological level of that time. The then engineers controled engine behaviour and i´m sure, permanent damage was not a significant item at all unless someone shows historical sources.

h.sie

I don´t want to force you to work, but your mod made me think about this item and doing some research. Long ago, there was a mod called "integrated orders" by a member called conus, IIRC. He changed some graphical orders belonging to the officer´s panel at the bottom in the left corner. Later it was integretad into GWX, I think 2.0, and here is a helpful description:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=103524

Maybe someone is able to add a further command for "3x lunatic" to the chief engineer´s emergency orders, or maybe replace a less used order, as stiebler did it with his surrender mod? In the commands.cfg-file there are some commands which perharps have no funktion yet, but they seem to refer to the sh3sim.act. And here ist the end of my experience.

So if i had to choose between "normal" Ahead flank without damage what I use very often and a replaced order for emergency, I would prefer to leave the commands as they are. But this is only my unauthoritative opinion.

greetings

don1reed

12-28-11, 01:27 PM

An interesting discussion, gentlemen.
Over at Uboat.net I discovered this nugget of info regarding US subs vs. German Uboats. Perhaps it may aid in your pro/con engine burnout arguments:

http://www.uboat.net/forums/read.php?20,59236,59248,quote=1

PapaKilo

12-28-11, 01:43 PM

I second Leitender. Seems the man knows what he's talking about.

Hitman

12-28-11, 02:05 PM

PapaKilo

12-28-11, 02:17 PM

I'm affraid if I gonna use that extra knot, I will trick my death, and death doesn't like to be cheated! Sounds like Final Destination 6 to me :haha:

Leitender

12-28-11, 02:30 PM

PapaKilo

I regret, i´m not an expert in subs at all. I just read some few things in books or the net. Regarding subs, i´m a theoreticician. My experience in sailing and shipping is limited more ore less to a ferry travel crossing lake Constance (But don´t mix it with "Riding the Lake Constance" :DL). I have some skills in technical engineering, but not especially in naval propulsion engines, so I have to adjust what I know about land-based propulsion engines to what we have here.

Hitman

This is what I read about evasive manoeuvres against corvette escorts. They run at about 15-16 Knots and the U-Boats were only slightly faster, so it took a long time to get a safe distance. During all this this time they were engaged by the corvette´s weapons, and though they didn´t dive (Werner, Iron coffins). But I didn´t read anything about engine damage. Did Hardegen talk about that?

don1reed

thank you, just started to read.

h.sie

12-28-11, 03:16 PM

I don't know whether this german source is reliable, but the writers sound competent:

http://www.binnenschifferforum.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-12444.html

The discussion is about type VII U-995. My quick & dirty translation:

Person 1:

Äußerste Kraft (Flank speed) means "go to the absolute maximum". For that purpose, the chief manually had to make some changes to the fuel injector using a scewdriver, what resulted in 10-15% more power, but only for a short time period of 15-30 minutes.

Person 2:

Äußerste Kraft (Flank speed) at higher RPM can only be chosen for a certain time, depending on the manufacturer documentation, e.g. 10% power boost for 10 minutes.

h.sie

12-28-11, 03:28 PM

In this Uboat lexicon:

http://home.arcor.de/roberto.roth/UBootlexikon.html

and

http://www.kbismarck.com/u-boot/ulexikon.htm

AK = Äußerste Kraft = FLANK Speed is a synonym for "3 x Wahnsinnige", where E-engines are coupled together with the diesels, and diesels are overcharged momentary.

Leitender

12-28-11, 05:04 PM

h.sie

"Ahead full" ("Große Fahrt") is the point within the engine characteristic map at which the efficency is maximised, and specific fuel consumption is minimised. Note: This is NOT the point of minimised total fuel consumption. But this is the step to choose for 95% of the time when at sea (In real life, not in SH3, because in SH3 this engine characteristic map is wrong imo, and therefore our choice is "one third" ("Langsame Fahrt") or even a little bit less! Watch for WB´s very nice fuel consumption mod).

Typically this point of maximum efficiency is a little bit beneath the point of maximum (tolerable) rotation speed. One step further, we achieve "Flank", what ist maximum tolerable force and according rpm. Maybe, but that depends on engine layout, this is the point of maximum power.

But it is NOT the order of combining all engines and to overload them. This meaning only exists for U-boats because only they could combine different engines. Maybe this is the reason why your quoted persons attach another meaning to 3x wahnsinnige, or, maybe, they just imitated this order. Others btw say that 3x determines the time of overload (3x15s=45s). This would fit to your linked posts. But that overload has to be ordered seperately, otherwise i don´t know how to order max force within safety limitations.

I know that german U-Boats suffered from a long list of lacks, failures and malfunctions. But I believe the propulsion was not part of this list.

don1reed

I read some interesting things about this comparison. E.g. US-Subs used indirect driving systems, where the diesel engines were not direktly fitted to the propeller shafts but propulsed electric engines which were in use all the time, submerged and under water. This is also called a Diesel-electric propulsion. I would have rate this system the more modern because of its higher total efficiency, but due to improved controling at the moment a combination of direct diesel and electric propulsion like in our old boats is state-of-technique (or, at least state-of-fashion). By the way, now it´s called "Hybrid" :DL

LGN1

12-28-11, 05:58 PM

Hi H.Sie,

nice work! I like the mod a lot!

@all:

Here is an old post from me containing two links with information about the diesels in the IXC:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1665214&postcount=1318

Unfortunately, the data does not help a lot because the max. speed for the different power settings is not given.

I guess that the present mod is even more controversial than the torpedo fix mod and it's even more difficult to come up with hard data. Therefore, I think it's up to everybody himself whether he thinks the mod is realistic or not. And since no one is forced to use it, everything is fine :DL

Cheers, LGN1

PS: I think a related problem is that players usually have much more fuel than in real-life and thus, they can use the highest speed setting much more than in real-life.

LGN1

12-28-11, 06:16 PM

h.sie

12-28-11, 07:32 PM

Ship Collision Damage Fix V0.9 Alpha

Collision with surface ships (being rammed by a destroyer) now results in a total loss of the Uboat or at least in a severe damage of the pressure hull (depending e.g. on mass, speed, and impact angle). Diving deep won't be possible after that.

Only SurfaceShip---PlayerUboat-Collisions are affected.

All other collisions (with shells, land, other objects and not related to the player Uboat) are not affected.

Fix can be found in JSGME ready format on my mediafire page (-> Hardcode fixes / Alpha testing) . It contains only a single Collisions.act file. Tested with V16A3, but should work with any version of Sh3.exe

h.sie

12-29-11, 04:30 AM

The ship collision damage mod only works on Win 32 Bit systems. Will fix this issue soon.

Fubar2Niner

12-29-11, 06:43 AM

@h.sie

Got the files you uploaded and they're working like a doozy. Can't say thank you enough for the help. You sir, are a gentleman of the first order :salute::salute:

Best regards.

Fubar2Niner

Leitender

12-29-11, 07:25 AM

Here is an old post from me containing two links with information about the diesels in the IXC:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...postcount=1318

Unfortunately, the data does not help a lot because the max. speed for the different power settings is not given.
Hi LGN1,

your linked post does help a a lot:

Please take a close look at the disk of the machine telegraph of U 505 (Type IXC) in Chicago:

http://www.ubootwaffe.net/u505/helmsman.jpg

and a then pay attention to the described steps of this display of the machine telegraph of U 995 (Type VIIC/41) in Laboe:

http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/display/14274711

Both have the same layout. We can see from up to down:

Äuß. Kraft__________Flank
Große Fahrt________Full
Halbe Fahrt________Standard
Langsame Fahrt_____OneThird
Kleine Fahrt________Slow
(voraus)___________(ahead)

Dieselmotor_________Dieselengine
Achtung___________Attention
Stop______________Halt ;)

Now we can assign the above telegraph steps zu your quoted power data:

Rating with Gas Turbine Supercharger

Load ___________HP RPM MEP(PSI) lb/HPhr-----according telegraph steps

Highest 1/2hr_____ 2470 490 125 .381

Highest 2hr_______2320 480 119 .376

Highest Continuous_2170 470 115 .372-------------> Flank (!)

3/4 Rated Power___1630 426 95 .361---------------> Full

1/2 Rated Power___1080 373 72 .357---------------> Standard

1/4 Rated Power___542 295 45 .381-----------------> oneThird

1/10 Rated Power___217 218 24 .436----------------> Slow

Highest Continuous__1550 470 82.4-----------------> flank back

This chart exactly confirms my thoughts:

"AK" ("Äußerste Kraft") = Flank = Highest continuous Load!

All other telegraph steps beneath AK are of course permant safe, too. But beyond AK we have two steps of overload, with only a small increase in power and RPM, but a very strong decrease in durability.

Btw, in this case, the maximum rating of 2170 hp at 470 rpm is called "nominal rating" ("Nennleistung") at "nominal rpm" ("Nenndrehzahl"). This is different to what i wrote in a former post, so the engine seems to be dimensioned for maximum power (now, it seems to be clear for me).

Well, if we have the maximum speed at flank, we can estimate the max speed in overload status. It was a common method of speed estimating to check the engines´ rpm. In real life there was a chart out of which this values could be read for each unique boat.

So, what is the speed (in normal conditions) at 470 rpm? If we talk about the difference of full and flank for a type VII-Boat, we´ll see an acceleration of 1 or 2 knots for a type VII boat. So my guess is for a rpm increasement from 470 to 480 resp. 490, the accelaration should be very slow, maybe 1/2 to max 1 knot!

So much effort for such a micro improvement, you may think? Again it is to be repeated that this little difference could let the boat survive or send it to the bottom of the sea. So of course it´s worth to do this effort.

Maybe anyone may do some engine tests with a IXC with Buchi-Charger and publish the values? So we can compare them to real values? But this is getting off topic.

Greetings

h.sie

12-29-11, 07:43 AM

Ship Collision Damage Fix V0.9.6 Alpha available (Bugfix)

It now works with Win 32 and 64 Bit.

For testing and developing purposes only.

Instructions for those who decided to test and help me:

Although I spent hours to make sure that only SurfaceShip--PlayerUboat collisions are affected, I cannot be 100% sure. Thus, I programmed the Watch-Officer so say "Ping" every time this Fix is active when a collision occurs (it enlarges the damage applied to the pressure-hull by a certain factor).

Test procedure: Trigger all possible types of collisions (shells, torpedoes, run on sea ground, collision with whale, iceberg and so on) and watch the game console. The Watch Officer should ONLY say "Ping" when the Player Uboat collides with an surface ship, but not in any other situation.

Thank you.

P.S. The final version of course won't have the "Ping" message.

Hitman

12-29-11, 07:58 AM

Thanks for your research Leitender. So we agree that there are indeed a series of safe and ordinary orders, and then a certain margin for the crew to overload the engines at their risk. This aditional margin was in real life above the "flank" telegraph order, and not represented in the telegraph itself, but probably simply requested by the commander to the chief engineer verbally.

I think it is possible with a reasonable effort for H.Sie to put an aditional status where extra power is injected in the engine and also increased chances of failiure happen (As already shown), the question is however to what command can this be tied - as creating new buttons or commands seems out of the question due to the complexity of doing it.

This is why H.Sie tied it to the flank speed order in the first place, and it is actually only natural to do so, as I can't think of any order that would be better replacing. Maybe someone else has a better suggestion for a replacement, considering what the dialog buttons of the chief engineer actually offer? Replacing a useless one with this "overload engines" could of course be the perfect solution. But which one can be let out with no harm to gameplay?

h.sie

12-29-11, 08:40 AM

@Fubar: Glad it works now. Please check out what you did wrong, to be able to do it by yourself in the future.

Fubar2Niner

12-29-11, 09:57 AM

@Fubar: Glad it works now. Please check out what you did wrong, to be able to do it by yourself in the future.

I crosschecked both the en_menu and the campaign.scr files, but to be honest I can't see any difference between the files you sent and those I tried previously. I did however delete all my previous careers and reinstalled commander ( small price to pay methinks )

Many thanks kaleun. :salute:

Best regards.

Fubar2Niner

Leitender

12-29-11, 10:32 AM

We know how to adjust existing commands in the appropriate cfg, we know how to create a button via menu.ini, but creating a completely new order was never done, if i´m informed correctly. So replacing an existing order by another indeed seems to be the only reasonable way at the moment. But in this case you lose an existing regular order, as Jaeger already mentioned.

For my personal playing experience i often use flank speed in critical situations, but i hardly use more than two orders for backwards movement: Backslow for manoeuvring in narrow harbours, and backemergency for - emergency. Perhaps we can use

backstandard=1.03

for 2 hours overload at 480 rpm without getting damage and

backfull=1.05

for 1/2 hour overload at 490 rpm (the values not checked yet). I must admit that this is not a really convincing solution, but i´ll give my own suggestion a try :DL Report about according values will follow.

btw. If the boat is equipped with a supercharger, this should be simulated by a factor of around 1.1 (found in basic.cfg) on top of each loadfactor. I think we have to take this into account, if we search for the critical value above which damage appear.

btw H.sie: Just saw you did a fix for the torpedo pistol bug. Unbelievable! Thank you very much! Will try as soon as possible and send a report.

LGN1

12-29-11, 11:04 AM

Hi,

as long as we don't know the max. speed with the different settings, it's pointless to discuss the power settings. Without the speed data we can always argue that the flank setting/speed is always safe.

Instead of using an existing button, one might change the flank-speed percentage in the u-boat's *.cfg file to, e.g., 0.95. The 'over-powered' mode might then be called by ordering the max. speed in the 'knots dial', not the 'speed-setting dial' :hmmm: But we still need to know what max. speed must be entered in the sim file.

Anyway, I'm not sure whether it's worth the effort. All that we want is a limit on running with max. speed (whatever we take as max. speed). By playing with the values in the u-boat's cfg file and the sim file, every player can adapt the mod (almost) completely to his liking.

Cheers, LGN1

h.sie

12-29-11, 11:57 AM

@Leitender, LGN1, Hitman et. al.

I have checked it in the debugger. we cannot set the relative speed (see Uboats .cfg file) to a value greater than 1.0. It must be in the interval [-1.0 ... +1.0]. Even if I force this value to be 1.1 with the debugger, the speed does not rise. there seem to be delimiters somewhere in the code.

(ok, this could be changed with coding, but I fear to break other things. so I won't touch this behaviour).

that means:

1) if we want to model an additional machine state (3x Wahnsinnige = diesel overloading) this must be connected with the relative speed value of 1.0.

2) if we want 10% extra speed at this overload state, we must enlarge the max. speed of the Uboat in the .sim file about 10%.

For the realisation/activation of this new "overload" state we have 2 ways:

A) The easy solution. Assign "diesel overloading" to FLANK speed on the machine telegraph. Relative speed value: 1.0. Drawback: We lose one regular speed level in the machine telegraph. Until this day I thought, FLANK is equal to diesel overloading. I have a private sound mod. When I choose FLANK, I hear the dramatic sound "Äußerste Kraft voraus, alles was drin ist, LI".

B) The hard solution: Add GUI elements, a new command and the necessary code infrastructure for a brandnew machine state "overload" with speed value 1.0. Reduce the relative speed values for the 5 speed levels in the Uboot.cfg file to values below 1.0. We don't lose a speed level, but I fear a huge amount of programming work for this extra machine state. Worth the effort?? In the next time I will only have spare free time. Unfortunately, this is my hobby, not my profession.

LGN1

12-29-11, 12:50 PM

Hi,

I did a quick test. I set the flank-speed value in the u-boat's cfg file to 0.5. As expected, I got only half the max. speed from the sim file when I ordered flank speed in-game. However, when I switched from the telegraph to the knotmeter and ordered 20 knots, I got the max. speed of approx. 18 knots.

So, I don't think it's necessary to create a new speed setting. It's enough to fix the max. speed value in the sim file to the max. possible speed and adjust the flank value in the cfg file to give the max. continuous speed. If the player wants to 'over-power' the diesel, he uses the knotmeter to order the max. speed. The only drawback is that there is no warning about the increased damage risk (this might be cured by changing the CE's answer when ordering a specific speed value, e.g., 20knots).

But still we need to know the max. speed with and without 'over-power'.

Cheers, LGN1

PS: Maybe it's a good idea to have just two failure probabilities. A very small one for speeds up to the flank setting and a larger one for speeds exceeding the flank setting.

Leitender

12-29-11, 01:49 PM

as long as we don't know the max. speed with the different settings, it's pointless to discuss the power settings.

Without the speed data we can always argue that the flank setting/speed is always safe.I´m sorry, but I can´t follow. As we don´t have a gear box, speed is constantly depending on turning rounds (leaving slippage constant). If we have the turning rounds, we have have the corresponding speed. Just tested it:

Type IXC, GWX 3.0 Single mission, normal weather conditions

load_______rpm_____ speed ___ratio _______engine properties______ratio
_________________________rpm/rpm_max ____(uboat9c.cfg) ___ rpm/speed

slow______ 150 ______ 5 _____ 0,3 _________ 0,28 ________________30

onethird___ 290 ______10 _____0,58 ________ 0,57 ________________29

standard___400 _______14 _____0,8 __________0,8 _______________ 29

full________470 _____~16-17 __0,94________ 0,94_______________ 28,5

flank_____ ~500_____ ~17-18 ___1___________ 1_________________ 28,5

Result:

1. ~ 29 rpm correspond to 1 knot (correspondence confirmed with another test)

2. engine properties within uboatxx.cfg correspond to rpm and thus to speed

According to the increase shown in the former real u-boat data chart (remember 470 rpm max, 480 rpm 2hrs, 490 rpm 1/2 hr) the corresponding engine properties are 1,02 resp. 1,03. which is an acceleration of only 0.3 to 0.5 knots #

Furthermore i fear that your suggestion of adjusting some percentage won´t work, because the charging parameter "Speedboost", found in basic.cfg should work for all load steps, not only for flank (like a supercharger does in real life!) Please be aware that load and speed are different form each other.

h.sie

To answer your meantime post: Adjusting speed is also possible via uboatxx.sim. via eng_speed AND eng_power!

(But I have some testing charts from long ago in mind, where fuel consumption was measured, dependant on if a supercharger was used or not. In the case of used supercharger, top speed also arised, IIRC. was that wrong?)

Next test: backstandard=1.03 Result: ~18kn. So it works, but side effect: Wrong indicator position. Not good.

Again LGN1

Possibly the best idea! Take my parameter for choosing the correct overload speed, and maybe we got it!

LGN1

12-29-11, 01:57 PM

Hi Leitender,

just a quick comment about the super-charger. GWX has deactivated the super-charger boost because all u-boats were equipped with it before the war started (according to the GWX manual). So we have to take care that the mod works with and without super-charger.

And we need to know whether the max. speed quoted in the literature is max. continuous speed or max speed.

Cheers, LGN1

LGN1

12-29-11, 04:47 PM

Hi Leitender,

as I understand you, the three quantities speed, RPM, and 'engine properties' all scale linearly. We know that max. continuous RPM is 470 and max. RPM 490, i.e., RPM is increased by 20/470 = 4%. Therefore, speed also increases by 4%. So, what is missing is either the max. continuous speed or max. speed.

For instance, if we know the max. continuous speed v_max,cont we can calculate the max. speed: v_max = v_max,cont*1.04. We can enter this value with RPM 490 in the sim file and set the Flank value in the cfg file to 0.96 (GWX value for Full is 0.94, i.e., pretty close to 0.96).

In H.Sie's mod it's enough to modify the speed dependence, i.e., scaling the probability with a speed factor that is close to 0 for values <=0.96 and then grows fast to 1 for a value of 1, e.g., speed^64 or speed^128 :hmmm:

Since the value for 'Full' is actually quite close to 0.96, players who don't like to change their sim and cfg files can just interpret 'Flank' as 'over-power' and 'Full' as max. continuous speed.

To summarize, I think it's enough if H.Sie modifies the speed dependence a bit and increases the probability so that T50 at speed=1 is reduced (maybe one hour :06:). Players who want to have a 'safe' Flank setting must adjust their cfg files.

Cheers, LGN1

PS: There is one issue I don't understand yet. If speed is determined only by RPM, where is the power difference between the two diesel configurations going? In the link I've posted, both diesels run at 490 RPM but the power output is quite different. Did they use different ship's screws?

Leitender

12-29-11, 06:34 PM

GWX has deactivated the super-charger boost because all u-boats were equipped with it before the war started (according to the GWX manual).I saw that too. Maybe due to h.sie´s finding above about the limitation of "engine properties" to "1", i.e. 100%, but not sure.

we need to know whether the max. speed quoted in the literature is max. continuous speed or max speed.It is common to name that max. speed under which secure operation is guaranteed.

the three quantities speed, RPM, and 'engine properties' all scale linearly.It seems to be so, though I was amazed, too. I thought that machine telegraph settings should correspond to load, not to rpm. But obviously...

So, what is missing is either the max. continuous speed or max. speed. i´m sure that "flank" is max continuous speed at 470 rpm. In literature there is named a value of 19.2 Knots or similar for type IX C (with supercharger, I think)

The reason why in my test the max speed was a little bit lower could be crew efficiency lower than 100% or other less important parameters.

(Don´t ask me why i came to 2% and 3% speed increase. This should be 2% and 4%)

If h.sie is right an we can´t "accelerate" the engines beyond 100%, we have to set max speed to 100%, which is max continuous speed * 1,04. That´s correct. But max continuous speed should set to flank.

If we set max speed to 19.2 Knots *1,04 = 20 Knots and then: aheadflank=0.96, we shoud get 19.2 Knots under normal conditions.

we also can adjust the .sim-setting of eng_rpm from 490 to 470. But force is set to 4400 bhp (!) instead of about 2500 hp in reality. With this value we also can change speed settings. Set realistic value of 2500 into .sim led to a lower max. speed. Set to 44.000 bhp (10x) led to higher max speed of 21 Knots, but much lower than expected (?).

If speed is determined only by RPM, where is the power difference between the two diesel configurations going? Speed ist not determined by RPM, but is a linear function of rpm. As mentioned above, I did a second test with real life values insert into .sim and this led to a factor of continuosly 31 rpm per Knot instead of 29 rpm per Knot. Not too much, but significant.

To answer your thought, I think that when the starboard engine is in battery loading status, this factor is reduced to somewhat of 50-60%.

At the end of the day i wonder if h.sie is able to program his damage probability dependant on this speed/rpm-factor. I assume that the functionality up to now depends on machine telgraph status, not on Knotmeter.

h.sie

12-29-11, 06:36 PM

I removed the delimiters in the code so that I could set reative speed = 1.1 = 110%.

Results:

Speed goes up from 17kt to 19kt. Fine.

But: RPM sank!!

Setting rel. speed = 2.0 lead to a speed of > 30knots and RPM=0 !!!)

It seems that RPM in game is for eye-candy only - for the propellers and gauges, it seems to have no physical meaning.

Unknown so far: Other weird side-effects.

This shows that with removing the (-1/+1) delimiters I have damaged an closed system of physical formulae. -> Better not touch it.

Only solution:

Max. relative speed = 1.0 must be interpreted as "overload".

Thus, in the next version of the Mod, rel. speed = 1.0 will be connected with an even higher damage probability, which results in T50% = 1h.

But all lower speeds (continuous speed levels) will have a extremely low (or zero) damage probability (provided both engines are undamaged).

The prize for the diesel damage mod is that we lose a slot for a continuous speed setting.

By the way: I, personally, don't lose that slot, since I always interpreted FLANK as machine overload.

As LGN1 wrote: People who use this mod and want FLANK to be a save speed setting, must assign it a relative speed value of e.g. 0.95. The resulting speed reduction could be compensated by increasing the max. speed in the .sim file accordingly. Those people have to activate the overload speed setting in the knots dial.

Leitender

12-29-11, 06:56 PM

Hi h.sie

thank you for your effort. With max overload speed = 1.0, reduced telgraph settings and LGN1´s "extra overload order" by setting the Knotmeter to its max value we should ride the boat. But is it possible to simulate damage at a relative speed value > 0.96?

h.sie

12-29-11, 07:06 PM

@Leitender:

In the current mod version, the damage probability per second is calculated as follows:

p0 = 1e-4 * RelativeSpeed^32

(provided both engines are undamaged). Thus, every speed setting has a damage probability, but due to the high exponent of 32 the probability drastically sinks for values below 1. Example:

For FLANK: p0 = 1e-4 * 1^32 = 1e-4 * 1
For FULL: p0 = 1e-4 * 0.94^32 = 1e-4 * 0.14
For STD: p0 = 1e-4 * 0.8^32 = 1e-4 * 0.0008

In the next version of the mod, I will use a higher exponent than 32, so that 1.0 will result in a high p0 and 0.95 will result in a very low p0.

Sailor Steve

12-29-11, 07:06 PM

If you make this work I can supply an extra voice. In SH2 it was possible to have the engines break down. It could happen any time at random, but was much more likely at Flank speed. If the engines were run at that speed for too long and trouble was eminent you would get a warning: "Engines are overheating, sir!" It's not the same as a warning about potential dangers, but it's the best I have on file. It would be easy for me to incorporate it into the Flank speed voice file.

Leitender

12-29-11, 07:15 PM

h.sie
I didn´t know that you programmed the damage speed-dependant. When i read your description of the mod i thought you made it telegraph-state- dependant. That´s why i asked.

But with this information overloading the engines via Knotmeter should work. That´s fine :salute:

h.sie

12-29-11, 07:16 PM

@SailorSteve: Would be great. Only problem: I have no experience to program / trigger new sound events. But maybe Stiebler knows (maybe he did that for his "smoke on the horizon" mod).

h.sie

12-29-11, 07:21 PM

@Leitender:

Yes, I use the telegraph setting because it is much easier and common for all Uboat types. I assume the Uboats absolute speed to be proportional to the telegraph setting.

This is true, as long as

- enough crew in the compartment
- fuel not empty
- engines undamaged.

I of course consider these exceptions in the code of my mod.

asanovic7

12-29-11, 07:34 PM

tested it.. didnt get the ai subs attack, better said didn't get the last order (attack).. individual atack recommended.. :( although, bdu said pack is comming and all, and then silence, and after 2 hrs again requested contact updates.. at 5 am the order from above individual attack recommended.. is that normal?

can someone tell me how does it look? submerged subs (wild wish) or?

can this stable version be used to play campaign? or it's still a test?

happy hollidays to all and cheers!

h.sie

12-29-11, 07:39 PM

@asanovic: This can happen from time to time. Maybe the weather was too bad for the wolfpack subs to come in time to the interception point.

Try again. there is a lot of randomness.

Important: If, after your 1st contact report, you get the order to shadow the convoy, you installed the mod correctly.

V16A3 is stable and can be used for camaign

asanovic7

12-29-11, 07:53 PM

hey... that was quick.. :)

tx for the reply. :D

watching over your work, it's cool.. although papilova hit you hard with comments :DDD its a game, not a simulator :)

cheers

asanovic7

12-29-11, 07:56 PM

oh and yes, sh3 still remains the best, keep up the modding :DD

Leitender

12-30-11, 03:01 AM

Yes, I use the telegraph setting because it is much easier and common for all Uboat types. I assume the Uboats absolute speed to be proportional to the telegraph setting.
h.sie

Did several tests:

Set aheadflank=0.96 und went to flank. Damage occured after

1. 2h

2. 25 Min.

immediatly ater warning. Reread your explanation: T50 does not mean that damage only occurs after 2hours of flank, so in principle it works as programmed. Damage also can occur instantly after ran flank.

Set aheadflank=0.5

1. ran flank: No damage after 9 hours

2. ran full: damage after 3,5h.

Hm. If this is the behaviour you all want to achieve, everything is alright with this mod. But this is not realistic in my eyes.

But to close conciliable: Torpedoswitchbugfix works as intended: Perfect! :salute:

h.sie

12-30-11, 04:11 AM

@Leitender:

The mod works with random numbers. Every second a random number is generated, and with a chance po a damage is applied. It is calculated for undamaged diesels:

po = 1e-4 * TelegraphSpeed^32

Due to the nature of random processes, T50 of course cannot be a fixed (predictable) time after that a damage occurs, it is much more the timespan after that the probablity of damage occurence is 50%. This is what I remember from some statistics lectures years ago. With a little mathematics one gets for T50

T50 = ln(0.5) / ln(1-po) in seconds.

For telegraph speed = 1.0 we have:
po = 1e-4
T50 = 6931 sec = 1.93 h

Thus, at rel. speed = 1.0, one of course cannot exactly predict when the damage occurs. But the chance is high. And if the first light damage occurs (which has NOT to be interpreted as damage, but much more as overheating, as a warning "we have to throttle the diesels now") the chance po rises about a factor of 4 to po = 4e-4 if you don't throttle the diesels immediately. And if you don't throttle, you risk a secondary damage, which I programmed to be severe, what can destroy the diesels.

I had to do it this way, because this way the state (overheated or not) of the diesels is indirectly stored in their damage counter AND IS SAVED IN THE SAVEGAME!!! Otherwise one could save/reload and the information/state of the diesels is lost.

I again have to say: I cannot offer a more sophisticated model. Only a simple model. We have to live with compromises.

But in the next version, I will drastically reduce po or even set po=0 for all continuous speed settings (rel. speed < 1.0) so that damage will only occur at relative speed = 1.0

h.sie

P.S. You say that my mod is not realistic. I agree to some extent. More I couldn't do with all the restrictions.

My question to you: How would you realise that mod in a more realistic way? Please consider, that the current state must be saved in a savegame.

Leitender

12-30-11, 06:22 AM

h.sie

I believe i understand what you did. You created a damage probability where p0 is Poisson-distributed and thus damage will occur with almost 100% probability the longer you run with full or flank. This is exactly what i deny for real engines. They were constructed permanent safe during regular action. Have you tried your mod ingame in long terms?

But the actual question was, whether we could use LGN1´s idea to set the knotmeter for speedmax=1, when aheadflank ist to be set to 0.96 to achieve a save propulsion when aheadflank and an unsafe, overload propulsion when set the knotmeter to its max. value.

As your algorithm calculates damage speed-dependant, and not telegraph-ORDER-dependant (that was the actual question, sorry for my unpreciseness), we will have a continuous increase of damage probability all over the speed bandwith, i.e. within all regular telegraph orders, and not a discrete calculation of damage probability dependant only on full or flank order. So LGN1´s idea won´t work up to now.

To be constructive, maybe one could set the duration T=T50+(0.5h./.2h) (from - to)

Or maybe we have to stretch the probability function to a speed limit of 0.96, below wich probability is nearly=0, an above which damage probability increases dramatically:

Set the speed limit to speed=0.96:

p0=1e-4*0.96^32
p0=2.7e-5

If we change your function to

p0=1e-4*speed^32-2.7e-5

this should lead to a damage probability<0 (possible?) for speed<0.96 if am right.

If it´s not possible to calculate with negative probabilities, maybe we can set

p0=0 for 0<speed<=0.96 and

p0=1e-4*speed^32-2.7e-5 for speed>0.96

What do you think?

Concernig your question about saveabilty: No idea how this works

h.sie

12-30-11, 06:49 AM

@Leitender:

negative probabilities are maybe relevant in quantum physics but not for our diesels. they are also not compatible to my intellectual capabilities.

As I already mentioned: In the next version we'll have damage probability ONLY for telegraph speed = 1.0 (overload).

All other speed settings will be secure/safe, because I will use a high exponent of >128 AND there is also a threshold value that sets insignificant values of p0 to zero. Look into the .ini file of the current mod. You see, that this threshold is already implemented, but its value must be adjusted.

Example for speed = 0.96:

po = 1e-4 * 0.96^128 = 5e-7

Threshold value: 1e-6

Since 5e-7 is < Threshold value, po will be set to 0.

So you can assign FLANK=0.96 in the cfg file and always have safe operation.

You can activate speed=1.0 only via LGN1's method and only then you get damages.

Thus, LGN1's idea does work with this mod.

What is wrong with this?

Leitender

12-30-11, 06:59 AM

Another way, (almost) same result. You´re the master and i´m glad to see how it works.

h.sie

12-30-11, 07:01 AM

I'm not the master, I'm the admiral (see below my avatar).

Leitender

12-30-11, 07:05 AM

negative probabilities are maybe relevant in quantum physics but not for our diesels. they are also not compatible to my intellectual capabilities.

:DL

The sky´s the limit. But not the bottom ;)

LGN1

12-30-11, 08:12 AM

Hi,

I think an exponent of 128 is fine. Players who do not want to mess with their sim and cfg files will have a safe Full setting and have to interpret the Flank setting as 'over-power' mode. Those who don't like this will have to mess with the sim and cfg file.

Personally, I also don't mind if there is a small chance for a diesel break-down at lower speed. No machine runs continuously forever without a chance of break-down. I guess in most cases such a random malfunction would not really matter because the chance that it happens in a combat situation is very low and you can just repair it. However, it would add to the immersion if your CE would report a damaged diesel during a patrol. Probably there was not a single patrol during the war with some kind of technical problems.

Cheers, LGN1

h.sie

12-30-11, 08:43 AM

It seems we have now found a compromise, so that I can start to program the next version of the diesel damages mod.

Any results from the Collision damages Mod?

LGN1

12-30-11, 09:08 AM

Ok, I've found some speed data in the original VIIC handbook from 1940 (speed is averaged over two settings: 'Schwimmzustand A' and 'B'):

KF: 180 RPM / 7.1kn
LF: 275 RPM / 10.1kn
HF: 340 RPM / 12.2kn
2xHF: 396 RPM / 14.3kn
GF: 435 RPM / 16.2kn
AK: 471 RPM / 17.6kn
3xAK: 480 RPM / 18.0kn

There is no speed setting with 490 RPM given, but in the chapter about the diesels 470/480/490 RPM are mentioned. At 490 RPM one would expect a speed of 18.3 - 18.4 kn.

h.sie

12-30-11, 09:25 AM

@LGN1: In the .sim file of the VIIC one can find:

max_speed=18.2

so this corresponds to 3xAk.

At windspeed = 0 it can even go 19knots.

It seems the max_speed in the .sim file (and thus rel. speed = 1.0) corresponds to 3xAK.

Hitman

12-30-11, 09:51 AM

I thought that machine telegraph settings should correspond to load, not to rpm.

And in real naval engines it certainly does (Well in land ones also, as you have a gas pedal or lever), sadly in Sh3 it isn't, due to obvious simplification of the program's code.

The key difference between a naval and a land engine is that naval moves screws working in a liquid environment while a land one works with wheels against a solid element (The ground). So, with naval engines one has to account for overreving when the screw goes out of the water in bad weather, and also with the fact that there are limits for the amount of turning speed vs. traction in the water. It is not uneasy to cause cavitation and lose forward impulse by making the screw turn harder than what it can "bite" on the water, same as when you burn rubber with a car.

Sailor Steve

12-30-11, 10:07 AM

@SailorSteve: Would be great. Only problem: I have no experience to program / trigger new sound events. But maybe Stiebler knows (maybe he did that for his "smoke on the horizon" mod).
No, I meant that I could just make a new speech file for the 'Ahead Flank' setting, so when you clicked on that setting you would hear the "Engines are overheating" speech. Not exactly accurate, but better than nothing.

Leitender

12-30-11, 10:36 AM

Also for type VIIC we can calculate average 26 rpm per Knot. I´m not sure if the engine configuration ist the same like in type IXC, from which the data earlier in this thread were. But at least, these data came from a supercharged engine.

Did anyone ever run his type VII-boat with 18.2 Knots? I think there must be a certain "dampness", e.g. crew efficiency or something like that.

Hitman

well explained. But as the boat reduces speed when turning or climbing, or when in heavy weather, i always thought, that telegraph´s setting represent load. But probably turning rounds are simply reduced to get this effect.

On the other side we have force and power values within .sim. Are they without any function? I thought i can change speed by altering force setting, but not sure anymore.

h.sie

12-30-11, 10:40 AM

My assumption regarding .sim settings:

max_speed = maximum speed possible under certain conditions.

eng_power : determines acceleration: how fast can max. speed be reached.

rpm: for eye-candy.

h.sie

12-30-11, 11:03 AM

LGN1

12-30-11, 11:30 AM

I don't think that 3xAK involves the electric engine :hmmm:

@Leitender: The data posted above for the VIIC is with super-charger.

Hitman

12-30-11, 04:23 PM

I've found the pointer to the battery supply. Thus, I could program a rapid reduction of battery supply during 3xWahnsinnige (1.0).

But then I should also consider what happens when battery is empty!?!?.
Reduce speed a little bit? Too detailed IMHO.

Yes, this all might easily get out of hand and become a programming hazard for you. That would of course be the most realistic solution, but if programming it becomes too much effort, I'd simply leave the adition of electric engines out and that's about it.

BTW there was another well known bug in SH3 regarding batteries, where once depleted you could actually continue running on them. I have no idea if this persists nowadays, and if it is still worth fixing or not.

h.sie

12-30-11, 04:49 PM

@Hitman: I've tested it: Underwater speed sinks with sinking battery charge. If charge = 0 then speed = 0. Ok, the interior lights are still burning, but that I don't mind.

Missing Name

12-30-11, 11:33 PM

Just a bit curious... why is ahead emergency labeled as 3xAK? I'm looking at "Type VII U-Boats" by Robert Stern and the "'unofficial' extra burst of power...could be achieved by hooking up the motors in drive mode. This was called 'Zweimal AK' (twice AK)." Wouldn't 2xAK or ZAK fit better, or did Stern mess something else up again?

Jaeger

12-31-11, 05:52 AM

From only observing this thread i think it was like this:

AK = flank = 100% of power without risk for long maneuvers like overhauling a convoy

2x AK = Overcharge the diesels for emergency purposes, only usable for a short period of time

3xAK ("Wahnsinnige" in german, slang of the uboat-men) = Overcharge the diesel and adding the electric engines for emergency purposes, only usable for a short period of time, battery consuming.

The Overcharging will bring 5 to 10% more speed, compared to flank.

does this sound right?

h.sie

12-31-11, 07:57 AM

yup, but due to the game restrictions (machine telegraph allows only max. 100% = 1.0) we can't drive at 105% or 110%. Thus, we have to do a simple scaling to:

- telegraph speed = 1.0 = 100% = 2 x AK (or 3 x AK) = OVERLOAD = RISK.

- telegraph speed = 0.95 = 95% = AK = FLANK = max. continuous speed. NO RISK.

This "loss" of 5-10% compared to real life values can be compensated by simply scaling the max_speed in the .sim file accordingly (if desired).

only important thing to know:

telegraph speed values between 0.98 and 1.0 will be considered as overload.

telegraph speed values below 0.98 are continuous speeds and will be 100% safe.

danasan

12-31-11, 10:54 AM

Regarding Type 21 as an example, taken from the very very detailed German wiki. The development of the Type 21 was rather good recorded:

Überwasser (surfaced):

15,37 kn (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoten_%28Einheit%29) (28,5 km/h) (Diesel)17,94 kn (33,2 km/h) (E-Motor) 18,08 kn (33,5 km/h) (E-Motor + Diesel)

Getaucht (while diving):

16,5 kn (30,6 km/h) (E-Motor)6,1 kn (11,3 km/h) (Schleichfahrt-E-Motor)10,42 kn (19,3 km/h) (bei Schnorchelfahrt)

(max. erreichte
Geschwindigkeiten auf U 3503, U 3506 bzw. U 3507)

I would read that as the absolute max "3x Wahnsinnige" speed

Leitender

12-31-11, 12:53 PM

LGN1

Your links from #1318 both contain this 470/480/490 rpm designation, where 470 is max continuous speed and its corresponding maximal power. The same in "M.Dv381" (common source: Tech. Manual for type VII). Maybe the data at the beginning of M.Dv 381 were experienced by trials.

Type VII had two MAN or GW (licence?) 6-cylinder engines M6V 40/46 with 1400/1500/1600 HP, wheras type IX boats had two MAN 9-cylindre engines M9V 40/46 with 2200/2300/2400 HP, at the rpm like the smaller type VII engines. Seems to me as if they were built in modules - 6 cylinders for the small boats, 9 cylinders for large ones.

Other characterstics were the same. Beyond, both type VII engines seemed to be charged by stock (and no, not by GWX ;)), either by so-called Buechi-Blower (former BBC, now ABB), or by MAN/GW (mechanical charger, compressor, also known as Roots-Blower).

I would recommend to set the max overload speed/rpm/force values into .sim and then reduce the telegraph setting for flank to 0.96 for each uboat.cfg. To maintain the distance, one could also reduce the value for full to e.g. 0.90 and for standard to, say, 0.75. This isn´t really hard to do.

h.sie

If i understand your last post right, every speed above 0.95 will risk damage? If so, many thanks for your continuous development of this mod. I really appreciate it.

And by the way

Guten Rutsch

Missing Name

12-31-11, 12:54 PM

Ah, thanks for clearing that up!

h.sie

12-31-11, 01:24 PM

@Leitender: No, when using my current parameters, the line between risk/no risk is about 0.97 / 0.98. Values below are absolutely safe ...... provided both diesels are undamaged. if at least one of them is damaged, things look completely different. then, only 1/3 or slow speed are safe.

Feierabend für heute. Guten Rutsch!

(partyevening for today. good gliding :DL)

Victor Schutze

12-31-11, 01:38 PM

:Kaleun_Los:

Guten rutsch und ein glückliches neues jahr, Kaleuns!

Hitman

12-31-11, 01:54 PM

Hals-und Beinbruch für 2012 an alle!!!! :arrgh!: :woot::Kaleun_Party::Kaleun_Salivating::Kaleun_Che ers:

h.sie

01-01-12, 08:28 AM

What about T50% = 1 hour for diesel overload? Or better 2 hours?

This 1 hour is the avg. value of the two values LGN1 or Leitender posted some time before

Highest 1/2hr_____ 2470 490 125 .381

Highest 2hr_______2320 480 119 .376

AND:

Could someone please translate the following 2 messages into military like english messages:

1) Wir müssen die Diesel drosseln, sonst droht Totalausfall

2) Jawoll, alles was drin ist...

Sailor Steve

01-01-12, 09:24 AM

1) If we don't cut power now, we're risking a breakdown!

2) Yes, sir, everything we've got! (or...wait for it...Aye, captain, give her all she's got!)

h.sie

01-01-12, 10:46 AM

Thanks, SS, happy new year to all!

rowi58

01-01-12, 11:04 AM

Hi h.sie,

to comment your secound question (Jawoll, alles was drin ist...). On that small minesweeper, i've served in the late 1970ies, when the order "All Engines Flank Ahead" was given, we repeated that order with:

- alle Maschinen allez, allez (french word "ALLEZ" instaed of "ALLE" ) or in English: "all engines allez, allez")

and reported, when the order was fullfild by our firemen
- alle Maschinen machen Umdrehungen für allez, allez (or in English:"all engines running allez, allez.")

But remember - it is the frensh word "ALLEZ". I like that order, but i think, it is a little bit confusesing for most of the user.

Greetings and a happay new year :woot:
rowi58

Victor Schutze

01-01-12, 11:48 AM

2) Yes Sir. Everything the engines got!

:06:

h.sie

01-01-12, 04:32 PM

@rowi, Victor: Thanks guys. Now I have more translations than needed. Hard to choose which I like most.

Leitender

01-01-12, 06:15 PM

partyevening for today. good glidingh.sie: Happy new year! We look in front and not behind. :DL

BTT

And if the first light damage occurs (which has NOT to be interpreted as damage,
You know, I use a great mod called "real repair fix" or something like that. This great modder increased repair duration for equipment 60 times! Last time i ran flank too long, it took 3 hours to get the diesels repaired (to tell the truth: It was only the starboard diesel: really great job, h.sie!)

But then I should also consider what happens when battery is empty!?!?.
Reduce speed a little bit? Too detailed IMHO. @Hitman: I've tested it: Underwater speed sinks with sinking battery charge. If charge = 0 then speed = 0.
Reduction of Battery power is well simulated as it isn´t decreasing continuously but regressive. But I never experienced a complete stop of my boat when batteries became fatigue. I could still travel with 1 or 2 Knots from America to Europe and vice versa.

What about T50% = 1 hour for diesel overload? Or better 2 hours?Why not? This T50 also includes an earler possible damage with speedsetting=3xAK and a little longer duration when you run with 2xAK.

Greetings

h.sie

01-01-12, 06:58 PM

New version 0.9.5 of the Diesel Damages Mod available

With this Mod you risk random diesel damages if you agonize your diesels with maximum speed.

The maximum possible machine telegraph value of 1.0 (see Uboats .cfg file for details) will now be interpreted as OVERLOAD of the diesels in order to get maximum speed out of them. If you order to overload your diesels, the LI will acknowledge "Alles was drin ist...." or "everything we've got!"

Used Shortcuts and colours:

MTS = Machine Telegraph speed. 0.0=stop and 1.0=maximum.
T50 = Timespan that corresponds with a damage probability of 50%

RED: Non-safe operation of diesels. High risk of damage.
YELLOW: Halfway safe operation of diesels. Low risk of damage.
GREEN: Safe operation. No risk of damage.

I) Under normal conditions (no diesel damaged) we have:

MTS = 1.0 : T50 = 1 hour (OVERLOAD)
MTS = 0.97 and below: Safe. No damage will occur.

If a random damage occurs, this should be interpreted as a warning. Thus, the LI warns you to reduce your speed, because otherwise you risk a total loss of the diesel. As long as the diesel isn't completely repaired, the chance of successive damages dramatically rises, if you don't reduce your speed to safe values (see below). The amount of the applied damage is randomly chosen between 1% and 60% (thus, a diesel will never be destroyed).

II) One damaged diesel:

MTS = 1.00 : T50 = 15 min. (OVERLOAD)
MTS = 0.95 : T50 = 40 min.
MTS = 0.90 : T50 = 2 hours
MTS = 0.80 : T50 = 20 hours
MTS = 0.70 and below: safe

III) Two damaged diesels:

MTS = 1.00 : T50 = 4 min. (OVERLOAD)
MTS = 0.90 : T50 = 10 min.
MTS = 0.80 : T50 = 30 min.
MTS = 0.70 : T50 = 2 hours
MTS = 0.60 : T50 = 10 hours
MTS = 0.50 : T50 = 60 hours
MTS = 0.40 and below: safe

Under damaged diesel conditions, the amount of the added damage is randomly chosen between 30% and 100%, thus a diesel can completely be destroyed.

If you want to use your FLANK slot on the machine telegraph for overload, just use normal values of your supermod, no changes are necessary:

FLANK = 1.0
FULL = 0.95
STD = 0.8

If you DON'T want to use your FLANK slot on the machine telegraph for overload, you can use the following values:

FLANK = 0.95
FULL = 0.90
STD = 0.8

and activate diesel overload by setting speed to maximum on the knots dial.

Mod can be found in JSGME ready format on my mediafire page (-> Hardcode fixes / Alpha testing) . It contains two text files with the LI messages. They should be merged with your en_menu.txt / de_menu.txt.

makman94

01-01-12, 07:10 PM

very nice and amazing progress H.Sie ! it is really enjoyable following this thread mate and no doubt about its importance !

.....
What about enlarging the max. speed of the Uboats about 5%, so that it then drives 17kt at FULL speed instead of FLANK. And 18kt at FLANK. Only disadvantage: One regular speed order lost.

.....

till the post i have read so far....this is the best 'solution' for a comfortable and less confusing gameplay ! players that want to go 'safe' will set at 'full' and the 'flank' set will be for this more 'troubled' extra power .

ps: was this managed ? or it is abandoned for a better solution ?

I removed the delimiters in the code so that I could set reative speed = 1.1 = 110%.

Results:

Speed goes up from 17kt to 19kt. Fine.

But: RPM sank!!

Setting rel. speed = 2.0 lead to a speed of > 30knots and RPM=0 !!!)

It seems that RPM in game is for eye-candy only - for the propellers and gauges, it seems to have no physical meaning.

.....

did you tried adjusting accordinally the 'max_speed' , 'max_forced' (don't know what this is...engine's torque maybe?) , 'eng_power' and 'eng_rpm' at NSS_UboatXX.sim file of the boat that you are using ?
(this 'max_speed' and 'eng_rpm' settings there may do the tric)

h.sie

01-01-12, 07:10 PM

I made 10 tests with the new Diesel Damages Fix, overloaded the diesels, set TC=32 and measured the game time , until the 1st damage occured:

Results:

1:03h
2:18h
0:04h
1:10h
1:45h
0:54h
0:21h
2:35h
3:45h
3:30h

These are good values I think.

@makman: No, I didn't try. I don't care about RPM.

h.sie

01-01-12, 07:31 PM

@Leitender/Hitman: You are right. Batteries never get emptied completely, although LI reports this. There still remains some charge and you can travel

Only if I force the charge to 0, the Uboat stands still.

Bug. -> Todo - List.

makman94

01-01-12, 07:41 PM

.....

@makman: No, I didn't try. I don't care about RPM.

to tell you the truth H.Sie...i also don't care about RPM ...just posted my thought as i was reading your post

i am reading now your last post about engines's damage fix and think i understand the progress so far .
so, you haven't 'enlarge' the max speed of boat but instead of that the 'flank' set (which leads to max speed) is considered as 'overpowered' and will start causing damages as the time passes... correct ?

question 1 : this 0:04 and 0:21 isn't it a little short time for getting the first damage ?

question 2 : or suggestion that i read somewhere, .... setting at cfg ,for example ,
AheadFull=0.98
AheadFlank=1.00
isn't a bad idea e? with AheadFull you are moving safe close to max speed and at AheadFlank you take this extra power for max speed which also leads to the 'troubles' . did i get it correct ?

h.sie

01-01-12, 07:51 PM

@makman: Yes, they are short. But others are longer, that's the nature of randomness. I think randomly occuring damages are not unrealistic. Why not have a failure 4 minutes after starting to overload the machine? Bad luck.

Programming a mod that considers something like a temperature rise of the machines and thus a rising damage probability with rising time would be much more complex. Even this simple approach wasn't easy to program.

If you want to use your FLANK slot on the telegraph for overload, just use normal supermod values, no changes are necessary:

FLANK = 1.0
FULL = 0.95
STD = 0.8

If you DON'T want to use your FLANK slot on the telegraph for overload, use those values:

FLANK = 0.95
FULL = 0.90
STD = 0.8

and activate overload by setting speed to maximum on the knots dial.

Leitender

01-01-12, 08:34 PM

h.sie

Thank you very much for your hard work. I also agree to your opinion, that the random occurancy of damage even at a short time periode isn´t unrealistic, after all this only happens when in emergency overload status.

Personally i was always amazed about this narrow distance between standard, full and flank (0.8/0.94/1, stock) whereas the lower levels were rather slow. So i choosed 0.70/0.90/0.96.

Bug. -> Todo - List. :yeah:

jean74

01-02-12, 03:50 AM

Dear H.sie,

I wish you an Happy New Year. I just want to Thank You very much for all your fantastic and very impressive work.

You give to SH3 a new incredible dimension !!!

Another time THANK YOU VERY MUCH and have many good things in 2012 for you and all your familly.

Best regards from France

Jean

h.sie

01-02-12, 04:01 AM

Hi Jean,

thank you very much! Best wishes also for you and your family!

Greetings from germany to france
H.Sie

h.sie

01-02-12, 07:34 AM

Battery Discharge Fix V0.5 Alpha for V16A3

(I like these quick fixes).

Until now, after the LI reported that the batteries are empty, you could continue to travel under water at about 1knots endlessly. The reason was a bug in sh3 that caused a little charge to remain in the battery. This fix drains this little charge, so that batteries are completely emptied and the Uboat stands still.

Mod only works with V16A3.

Mod can be found in JSGME ready format on my mediafire page (-> Hardcode fixes / Alpha testing). It contains a Sh3Sim.act that overwrites the Sh3Sim.act of V16A3.

h.sie

01-02-12, 07:56 AM

Fix overview (candidates for V16B)

In a german forum someone 'complained' that I produce Mods faster than people can test them. For those who lost the overview about my work of the last 2 weeks on the Mod candidates for V16B: Here an overview:

Diesel Damage Fix: Random damages when diesels are overloaded.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1813734&postcount=2964

(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1813734&postcount=2964)
Torpedo Failures: More failures for impact pistol torpedoes and dependency of failures on torpedo depth.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1479835&postcount=1

(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1479835&postcount=1)
TorpedoPistolSwitchBugFix: Now all pistols are set correctly in Salvo mode. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1809934&postcount=2846

(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1809934&postcount=2846)
Ship Collision Damages: Collision with surface ships now causes severe damage to the pressure hull. No more sinking destroyers by ramming them. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1811790&postcount=2902

(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1811790&postcount=2902)
Battery Discharge Fix: Battery now completely discharges. Uboat now has restricted submerged range. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1813903&postcount=2973

After a test period, these will be hardcoded into sh3.exe.

reaper7

01-02-12, 08:28 AM

Fix overview (candidates for V16B)

In a german forum someone 'complained' that I produce Mods faster than people can test them.

After a test period, these will be hardcoded into sh3.exe.

No complaints here :up: Thank you for all your fixes.

And Happy new Year. :woot:

Sailor Steve

01-02-12, 08:46 AM

@ h.sie, regarding the collision mod: Is this 'graded' according to the force of the collision? Will it have less effect if the collision is merely a 'sideswipe', in which the two ships glance off of each other, or will even touching a surface ship damage your pressure hull?

h.sie

01-02-12, 10:46 AM

@Sailor-Steve: The original code in Sh3Collisions.act considers a lot of relevant parameters, like the CollisionalObjects speed, mass, armor level, collision angle and so on, and I would be dumb if I replace it. But in my opinion, the overall impact on the Uboats pressure hull integrity (=hit points) is much too low.

It was possible to get rammed by an escort without getting damages to the hull, and thus still being able to dive deep. I often discovered the escort sink instead of the Uboat.

So I simply multplied the damage (= number of hitpoints) applied to the Uboat when a collision occurs by a constant factor X. Thus, the CollisionalObjects speed, mass, armor level and so on are still considered, but with more impact.

It is still possible to "touch" e.g. a surface ship or U-tanker at very low speeds and low angle, but you must be careful now.

Poul

01-02-12, 11:02 AM

Thank you for your great work! Reality is becoming more and more!

I have noticed another wrong action in SH3. The submarine can not fully come to the surface if not blown ballast! But in SH3 it is possible. This is not real! If compressed air is ended - the boat will remain at periscope depth for ever. It is interesting to you fix it?

Victor Schutze

01-02-12, 12:24 PM

Thank you for your efforts, h.sie! :up:

I still have to adjust to V16A torpedo failure add on though: 4 torpedoes on target out of 12. :doh:

h.sie

01-02-12, 02:02 PM

@Victor: Hope you know that the failure rate now also depends on the torpedoes depth!?!?

Set them to a depth 0.4 * Windspeed to make sure turbulences don't influence him. e.g. at windspeed=10m/s chose a depth of 0.4 x 10 = 4m or deeper, otherwise you risk a higher failure rate.

Leitender

01-02-12, 03:00 PM

Did the following tests:

GWX, Type VIIC, 1944, periscope depth. NSS...sim: range=59sm (=109km) at 4kn.

1. 02 with Stiebler´s settings (renwable+stored O2 times), partly rig for Silent running:

Aheadfull=7kn
Battery=50% after 1´20h, at 6kn
Battery=25% after 3´10h, at 4kn, distance=34,5km
Battery=10% after 9´25h, at 2kn, distance=65km
"Batteries are empty" after 24´38, at less than 1kn, distance=101km
"No oxygen anymore" after 112h, distance=170km.

2. O2 with h.sie´s recommendations (1+1), completly rig for Silent running AND Battery Discharge Fix:

Aheadfull=7kn
Battery=50% after 1´20h, at 6kn, distance=18km
Battery=25% after 3´10h, at 4kn, distance=34,6km
Battery=10% after 8´38h (!), at 2kn, distance=62km
"Batteries are empty" after 12,48h /!), at less than 1kn, distance=73km (!)
0kn after 17´08h, distance=77km
"No oxygen anymore" after 55,5h
Exitus after 58h.

Battery capacity seems to decrease stronger than in stock, and thus range is getting smaller, too. But i don´t know how range=59sm at 4kn was measured: if it was speed at the beginning or average speed. Either I´ll try again or... hm.

What we can state for sure is: The boat comes to a stop when submerged because range ist limited (no cheating anymore :D)- and battery ist the bigger problem than oxygen - like it was in real life.

h.sie

01-02-12, 03:11 PM

@Leitender: Thanks for your help.

The fact that you changed more than one parameter between your 2 tests makes the analysis a little bit complicated.

But your tests point me to one thing I didn't consider: The submerged range compared to the setting in the .sim file. I only focused on the total discharge of the battery and thus force the UBoat to stop moving. I could enlarge the submerged range if necessary, but for this some more research/tests must be done. IMHO a submerged range of X km at Y knots means that you should start your test with Y knots and not with flank speed and keep it constant as long as possible, since flank speed eventually empties the batteries in an non-economic way...

Leitender

01-02-12, 03:40 PM

h.sie

If battery capacity and oxygen supply are independant from each other, then... why not? I just checked how long one can run submerged with your fix, and if battery lasts longer than oxygen or vice versa. Not correct?

In my first test, i forgot to rig for silent running at the beginning, but that was not that important since oxygen lasts longer than battery. Just mentioned it to describe true circumstances.

IMHO a submerged range of X km at Y knots means that you should start your test with Y knots and not with flank speed, since this empties the batteries in an non-economic way... I agree. But it was not my aim to find out the maximum range. This could be done in further tests. I did that some time ago with stock values, but it is hard to determine where the limit for maximum range should be, if the boat continuously is moving with one Knot for all the time.

h.sie

01-02-12, 03:45 PM

even if i don't manage to enlarge the submerged range using my fix, it can easily be scaled up in the .sim file, if necessary.

Leitender

01-02-12, 03:55 PM

btw, poul

I have noticed another wrong action in SH3. The submarine can not fully come to the surface if not blown ballast! But in SH3 it is possible. This is not real! If compressed air is ended - the boat will remain at periscope depth for ever. It is interesting to you fix it? AFAIK the boats could surface without compressed air, but they were still in "diving status" unless the diving cells were emptied - either by diesels or by compressed air. This ist very well simulated by stock SH3. Check your compressed air dial when surfacing, and your draught/draft. The only problem we have in SH3 we can empty our CA reserve and though continuing to use it for surfacing.

h.sie

01-02-12, 04:24 PM

IIRC some months ago we came to the conclusion that there is no compressed air (CA) problem......

Edit: IIRC, if your CA supply is exhausted and you order to blow ballast, you only hear the sound "pffffffffff' , but your boat does not get any buoyancy from that action. But I'm not sure....must be tested. but not today

Gähn.

h.sie

01-02-12, 05:18 PM

If battery capacity and oxygen supply are independant from each other, then... why not? I just checked how long one can run submerged with your fix, and if battery lasts longer than oxygen or vice versa. Not correct?

If two effects A and B are independent from each other but do influence an certain effect C, then I would change only A or B at one time and keep the other one constant in order to investigate the influence of A on C (resp. of B on C).

But even for me as only the reader of your post (and not the researcher of the effects) it was a little bit hard to understand what you wanted to express.

The effect of Silent-Running? The effect of O2 settings?

But now, after re-reading it, I understand.

Kongo Otto

01-02-12, 05:20 PM

Thanks H.Sie for that outstanding work, you really put SH 3 into SH 3 - the next Generation.

:salute:

h.sie

01-02-12, 05:21 PM

Dankeschön!

Kongo Otto. Geiler Name. :DL

Kongo Otto

01-02-12, 05:24 PM

Dankeschön!

Kongo Otto. Geiler Name. :DL

Bitte.

Ja find ich auch! :D

Leitender

01-03-12, 02:39 AM

If two effects A and B are independent from each other but do influence an certain effect C, then I would change only A or B at one time and keep the other one constant in order to investigate the influence of A on C (resp. of B on C).h.sie

To be precise, there were even 4 variables checked in both tests: Oxygen (A), Battery (B), amount of Oxygen (choosable in stiebler´s or h.sie´s option selector) (D) and silent running (E). All have influence on diving time resp. underwater range (C). I merged them in both test (otherwise it would take too long to get all results):

1. Tested time limit of battery and time limit of oxygen, then compared both in each test. But neither can i recognise a dependancy nor a interdependancy between each other. Is there any?

2. Since diving time is limited by battery as shown in the second test with h.sie´s recommended oxygen factor, increasing the amount of oxygen will logically lead to no other result than to the batteries´ weakness as biggest problem.

3. Same with silent running: Even with not rig for silent running from the beginning, enough oxygen remained for the crew. The only question was if reduced oxygen amount and only partly rig for silent running would lead to another result in the 2. test. Here you´re right, but i saw this huge reserve of oxygen when the batteries were emptied so i thougt this wouldn´t turn the result into its opposite.

4. In fact i didnt´t use exactly Stiebler´s settings of renewable and bottle-stored oxygen but simply doubled both values to "2". Now we can see that "No oxygen anymore" was reported at double time (112h vs. 55,5h) than when both values were left to "1". The reason why i integrated this test was that i remembered the discussion between h.sie and stiebler about maximum amount of oxygen. Then i found yours arguments both convincing. But now i wanted to find out how the one´s or the other´s setting ist affected by "improved" battery behaviour.

Conclusion: Finally, the boat comes to a stop, when batteries are completly emptied. Fine. Besides, even with h.sie´s restricted amount of oxygen, the batteries remain the "problem child". Also fine. With this mod, submerged range seems to be reduced, but maybe another tester could confirm. If so, one could easily correct range in .sim via skwasjer´s great S3ditor.

I regret if i wrote down my results in a misunderstandable way. There was too much to tell :DL

Poul

01-03-12, 02:44 AM

btw, poul
AFAIK the boats could surface without compressed air, but they were still in "diving status" unless the diving cells were emptied - either by diesels or by compressed air.
Yes, certainly. But I mean extreme situations. For example: The stock of compressed air has come to an end. On a manometer - "0". Accumulators are discharged, therefore speed very small. Tanks of the main ballast are filled, the submarine has negative buoyancy. Or the submarine has zero buoyancy but doesn't move, because accumulators are completely discharged. Wise old man Archimedes speaks: "My friends! That the body has completely plunged into water, its weight should equal to weight of the water, which it has forced out!". We answer: "Yes! We have made it! But now at us the weight of a submarine is more than water weight." Then Archimedes speaks: "Good-by my friends! Happy journey on a bottom. Greetings to Poseidon!". But we can be directly be under a water surface mirror. We use horizontal rudders and our very small speed. But we can't make weight of a boat less than weight of water and to float up on a surface. We don't have compressed air to get rid of excess weight in ballast tanks. Archimedes maliciously giggles. Especially now in SH3 when dear h.sie realized the possibility of the Full discharge of batteries.

Leitender

01-03-12, 03:18 AM

Poul

Wonderful explanation :yeah: I made the same experience: Without propulsion and with compressed Air manometer dial showing "0" you are still able to surface, because the CA tank isn´t completly emptied, IIRC. We had this discussion some time ago in the german ubi-forum (unfortunatly the forum is down atm, so not possible to reread). It´s the same effect then neverending batteries. Maybe developer´s will?

h.sie

01-03-12, 03:55 AM

@Poul, Leitender: Already on the Todo-List.

But unfortunately, in the next time I'll have only spare free time for programming and also I'll mainly focus on visual sensors together with makman94.

Greetings to Kazakhstan!

jean74

01-03-12, 02:16 PM

Hi Mr H.sie

In your "todo-list" have you foreseen the possibility to have a thermal layer in SH3?

For me it would be a great improvement to randomize the ability of the destroyer to detect submarines?

Could it be done?!?

Best regards,

Jean

Victor Schutze

01-03-12, 05:01 PM

Kongo Otto

01-03-12, 07:52 PM

IIRC the U-Boots didnt had the technical capability to work with the Thermocline.
Then the next question is how deep is the thermocline in the North and South Atlantik, iirc it differs to the Pacifik.

h.sie

01-04-12, 02:04 AM

Correct, Thermal layers are not on the todo list, since SH3-Commender already models them.

urfisch

01-04-12, 05:53 AM

:)

What is on your todo-list?

h.sie

01-04-12, 01:43 PM

I have no access to it ATM, but I remember that it is overcrowded.

jean74

01-04-12, 02:08 PM

Correct, Thermal layers are not on the todo list, since SH3-Commender already models them.

Hi Mr H.sie,
Many thanks for your reply. I was hoping that you had included it in your "todo-list" because SH3 COMMANDER randomizes the value at each game launch (but not during the game). That's why I don't use SH3 COMMANDER.
But, all your improvements replace widely this lack. You are more passionate than me and your choices in modding SH3 are better than mine. Thank you for all your modifications in SH3. Keep up the good work :rock:.

@ Kongo Otto and Victor Schutze
Thank you for your replies and explanations,

Best regards,

Jean