[TEC] SH5.exe patches to fix bugs and add functionality

[TheDarkWraith]

:woot:

Since we are at it, have you checked the relation between engine RPMs and their maximum theoretical speed in game?

The knots / RPM gradient calculated by me should be about 0.0357-0.0375 for surface propulsion (both diesel and electric) and 0.0262-0.0280 for submerged propulsion. Most silent propulsion @ ca. 90 RPM.

See the following posts by me for further detail and info sources:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2043547&postcount=1672
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2043797&postcount=1677
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2043933&postcount=1683





Do you need airbases to have sensors attached? Did I get you correctly? If so, can't you simply assign the needed sensors to them? :hmm2:



v1.0.124.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.124.0 Added a new patch to the SH5.exe, SHSim.exe, and SimData.dll: Electric engine properties. This patch will add a new section to the sub's .cfg files named [ElectricEngineProperties]. It allows you to define the engine ratios for the electric engines. See the Notes= of the patch for more info and an example.


@gap - this will allow you to test your graphs and/or develop the correct electric engine ratios now :up:

For the airbases I will be looking into them in depth tomorrow to see what their capabilities are and whether they can use sensors or not.

[Sartoris]

Great to see another update!:woot:

@TDW:

As always, apologies if this has been discussed before. :)

Is there any chance that the randomized distance reported in the message box could be replaced with the words "long", "medium distance", "short distance" (or whatever the proper terminology might be)? The randomized number is a great idea, but is there perhaps a chance you might be able to make the sighting report more similar to the one from SH3/4?

[THE_MASK]

At least now , some aircraft carriers placed strategically in some enemy ports will give better defence .

[gap]

@gap - this will allow you to test your graphs and/or develop the correct electric engine ratios now :up:

There is not much space for conjecturing over engine ratios. They can be desumed directly from the sources that my graphs were based on (i.e. Admiralty measures carried on captured VIIC U-boat, and Kriegsmarine VIIC's manual). As it is natural, they report slightly different figures, but what matters is that if not identical, their numbers are fairly compatible with each other:

DIESEL PROPULSION RPM RATIO
__________________________________________________ ______
German British Average
SPEED ORDER source source
__________________________________________________ ______
AheadSlow 0.37 0.33 0.35
AheadOneThird 0.57 0.54 0.56
AheadStandard 0.71 0.64 0.68
AheadFull 0.91 0.97 0.94
AheadFlank 0.98 1.00 0.99
BackSlow -0.37 - -0.37
BackStandard -0.43 - -0.43
BackFull -0.52 - -0.52
BackEmergency -0.82 - -0.82


ELECTRIC PROPULSION RPM RATIO
__________________________________________________ ______
German British Average
SPEED ORDER source source
__________________________________________________ ______
AheadSlow 0.18 0.20 0.19
AheadOneThird 0.37 0.37 0.37
AheadStandard 0.53 0.53 0.53
AheadFull 0.83 0.78 0.81
AheadFlank 0.95 0.93 0.94
BackSlow -0.18 - -0.18
BackStandard -0.37 - -0.37
BackFull -0.53 - -0.53
BackEmergency -0.83 - -0.83


The above ratios were calculated over the RPMs reported for each speed order by the said sources, considering the maximum theoretical load for diesel and the electric propulsion equal to 485 and 300 RPM respectively. Indeed, we can discuss on which source must be considered more reliable, and on the correctness of the maximum loads I have used as reference. On this subject, the german document states 470, 480 and 490 RPMs respectively as "full load", "overload" and "maximum load", whereas no explicit mention is made about maximum electric load.

Knots / RPM gradients interpolated over data reported by each source are summarized below:

DIESEL
PROPULSION KNOTS/RPM RATIO
________________________________________
German British
Condition source source
________________________________________
Condition "A" 0.0374
Condition "B" 0.0366
Calm weather 0.0357


ELECTRIC
PROPULSION KNOTS/RPM RATIO
________________________________________
German British
Condition source source
________________________________________
surfaced 0.0375
submerged 0.0280 0.0262

As you can see, in general performances desumed from the German manual tend to be slightly better than the ones stated in the British report, so it is probable that they refer to new hulls / engines, while it is sure that British data are based on "old" boats.

[volodya61]

DIESEL PROPULSION RPM RATIO
.....
ELECTRIC PROPULSION RPM RATIO
.....


Thanks for this Gabriele :salute:

Can I use this data to modified my edited u-boats .cfg files? is it true?

(honestly, I'm already doing it right now :), just wanted to say thanks :))

[gap]

Can I use this data to modified my edited u-boats .cfg files? is it true?

Of course it is. Have I ever given you wrong information? :D :03:

[volodya61]

Of course it is. Have I ever given you wrong information? :D :03:

Let me think a little :hmmm:
No, so far.. but everything someday happens for the first time :haha:

[SU-33UB]

hoi do i need all previous TDW patchers ??

[volodya61]

hoi do i need all previous TDW patchers ??

No.. just download last version and enable patches you want.. all the patches are there, within the last version :yep:

[volodya61]

Hi TDW :salute:

Thanks for the new version..
And there is RUS manual for the next version - http://www.4sync.com/archive/FAuQqCHq/Generic_Patcher_manual_RUS__10.html

:salute:

[TheDarkWraith]

Since we are at it, have you checked the relation between engine RPMs and their maximum theoretical speed in game?

Do you need airbases to have sensors attached? Did I get you correctly? If so, can't you simply assign the needed sensors to them? :hmm2:

I located the function that takes ordered speed and calculates the sub's speed. It's some kind of formula that doesn't look familiar to me at all. The numbers being used look very strange :hmmm:

Yes it's a very simple measure to add sensors to them via their .sns file. The question is will the game recognize them? There are many strange things coded in SH5, this could be one of them. I tracked down why the type 500 units (subnets and minefields) aren't recognized by the game and it's because the game doesn't store a list of them (the devs coded it so the game reads the files in but does nothing with them). That is why the mission editor says platform x not found in platforms library :nope:

[gap]

I located the function that takes ordered speed and calculates the sub's speed. It's some kind of formula that doesn't look familiar to me at all. The numbers being used look very strange :hmmm:

can you report it here? :hmm2:

Yes it's a very simple measure to add sensors to them via their .sns file. The question is will the game recognize them? There are many strange things coded in SH5, this could be one of them.

Let's hope not :)

[TheDarkWraith]

I setup a single mission with an airbase, one victory cargo, and one VIIC sub (me). Hit a bookmark in the code where it iterates over all the units in the game. I was thrilled to see that the there were 3 units in the list (all 3 I had defined in the single mission) and upon investigating the second one (the airbase) I saw it was missing a pointer in one of it's memory addresses (it's a pointer to a type of Commanders controller). Without this pointer it will never use any sensors it has (any of them defined in the .sns file) and it will probably never fire any weapons given to it in it's .eqp file because this controller is missing (this controller is responsible for detecting contacts). I opened up it's .dat file and sure enough there is no commander controller specified in the .dat file. That explains why this pointer is missing :D

I let the game continue running till it hit the bookmark for checking for airstrikes. This is where I'm at currently and seeing if I can make the airbase spawn aircraft based on units in the area within a certain radius of the airbase having a contact. If the unit within the radius of the airbase has a contact then I'm going to try and make the airbase spawn a unit to investigate the contact.

[gap]

...I opened up it's .dat file and sure enough there is no commander controller specified in the .dat file. That explains why this pointer is missing :D

Have you tried giving the airbase an unit_CostalDefense controller in its sim file? :hmmm:

[TheDarkWraith]

Have you tried giving the airbase an unit_CostalDefense controller in its sim file? :hmmm:

No need to. That would just eat up memory (think how many airbases are defined in the game :dead:) and there is a LOT of memory eaten up by each commanders controller (over 200 bytes each + bytes for the support stuff it creates)

I've come up with a clever solution! When the game checks for airstrikes it iterates over all the units and finds those units with airgroups defined. Every unit it finds that has an airgroup is added to a list. Then that list is iterated over and each item of that list is checked to every unit in the game:
- comparing sides
- comparing distances between them
If they meet the parameters then the game unit is added to the unit with airgroup's defined list of units to do airstrike against.

Then the unit with airgroup list of unit's to do airstrikes against is iterated over and airstrikes commence.

I'm inserting some code in here that will check to see if unit with airgroup is an airbase. If so then each game unit to commence airstrike on will be checked against all units in game to see if any of them have this unit as a contact. If so then each one will be checked to see if it radioed about it's contact (random number). If the game finds it did radio about it's contact then an airstrike will commence on the unit (plane(s) will be spawned from the airbase and given the waypoint of the unit). If not then the normal airstrike will be done (which spawns a unit in a random location around the contact and gives it random waypoints). Elegant, simple, and brilliant if I do say so myself :D

[Sartoris]

Can't wait to test this out! :yeah::rock:

[THE_MASK]

Re: sending a scout plane . IN sh4 Uboat missions you click on an air base icon and that brings up the waypoint pen . Click the nav map to place a waypoint on the navmap and a plane travels to that spot and patrolls an area i guess . Everytime you click on the air base it shows the scout plane waypoint and you can change the planes waypoint . I can see the planes icon on the map updated every so often as it heads to its destination . If i click on the planes icon it shows up the planes type , course , speed . If i click a patrol location that is too far away a message will say not enough fuel to reach the waypoint for the scout plane . Message display when new scout sent or scout changes course . Now i am not sure what the waypont is for . The scout plane goes in the general direction of the waypoint i created but goes randomly around it . In the mission editor there is a german plane called a shipborne searchplane . What does RevealEnemyConvoys in the special abilities in SH5 do ?

[TheDarkWraith]

Can't wait to test this out! :yeah::rock:

I already have been :D

All the code changes/additions were made and I began testing. I setup a single mission with a small airbase, a victory cargo, and a VIIC. I let the victory cargo detect me. When he did he radioed it in and sure enough the small airbase dispatched 3 fighters towards me :rock:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=755&pictureid=6809

A little more tweaking to do and I'll be releasing new version of the Generic Patcher.

[gap]

Re: sending a scout plane . IN sh4 Uboat missions you click on an air base icon and that brings up the waypoint pen . Click the nav map to place a waypoint on the navmap and a plane travels to that spot and patrolls an area i guess . Everytime you click on the air base it shows the scout plane waypoint and you can change the position of it by left clicking the navmap until the plane reaches its destination i guess . I can see the planes icon on the map updated every so often as it heads to its destination .

so the game let's you to control air patrols? :hmm2:


A little more tweaking to do and I'll be releasing new version of the Generic Patcher.

:yeah:

@ TDW (offtopic)

when you asked for ideas for possible new fixes, I forgot to ask you this: can you investigate on why some unit types don't use their armament when docked, whereas other types do it? :03:

[TheDarkWraith]

@ TDW (offtopic)

when you asked for ideas for possible new fixes, I forgot to ask you this: can you investigate on why some unit types don't use their armament when docked, whereas other types do it? :03:

I actually just found the bit denoting DockedShip a few days ago. I'll add it to my list (but it's not high priority)

[volodya61]

+1 to the Gap's offtopic - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2049384&postcount=2062

[Fifi]

so the game let's you to control air patrols? :hmm2:


Well, in SH4 sure! Not in SH5 (yet :D), but we have ingame same second pencil (red one if i recall correctly) to pick up friendly planes on friendly airbase and give them one waypoint to patrol, and show on map what they discovered...but of course it's not working...left over from SH4 i think...maybe one day TDW with his great capacities could make it work again :sunny:

[TheDarkWraith]

v1.0.125.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.125.0 Revised the Carriers spawning aircraft patch. The revision lets airbases spawn aircraft. Units that detect a contact and within the reach of an airbase will radio to the airbase asking for air assistance. If the airbase agrees it will dispatch units to investigate/attack the unit's contact


Next I'm working on any unit that receives damage from a shell or torpedo and is within reach of an airbase will radio to the airbase asking for air assistance. If the airbase agrees it will spawn aircraft to give assistance to the unit who radioed in.

:|\\

[chun]

Hi TDW
Thanks for the new version..:yeah:

[TheDarkWraith]

just some FYI on the airbases spawning aircraft: there is a 70% chance that they will spawn aircraft when asked. It's a variable in my patch file.

Also be sure to check out the Files= and Notes= of that patch. I included a single mission for testing the airbases spawning aircraft. To use the mission load it up and don't do anything. Go to external cam and head over to the land NW of your sub. Once the victory cargo detects you he will radio for air assistance. If granted the aircraft will spawn from the airbase (not visible) on that land.

[Fifi]

Also be sure to check out the Files= and Notes=

What do you mean exactly by that? :-?

[TheDarkWraith]

What do you mean exactly by that? :-?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=755&pictureid=6810

[TheDarkWraith]

@ TDW (offtopic)

when you asked for ideas for possible new fixes, I forgot to ask you this: can you investigate on why some unit types don't use their armament when docked, whereas other types do it? :03:

+1 to the Gap's offtopic - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2049384&postcount=2062

I need a single mission that shows this happening so I can watch it in the debugger to see what's gong on. Who can throw one together?

[volodya61]

v1.0.125.0 released. See post #1

Thank you, sir :salute:

[gap]

I need a single mission that shows this happening so I can watch it in the debugger to see what's gong on. Who can throw one together?

This is my smoke screen concept test mod:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2063274&postcount=74

It contains two destroyers, one of them docked. For my purposes I removed their guns, so their only armament are a couple of "smoke screen guns" each (the docked destroyer won't use them). If you prefer, you can convert them back into normal destroyers by deleting all the unneeded files from the mod, except the mission files indeed. :03:

[TheDarkWraith]

can you report it here? :hmm2:

For electric engines this is how the game calculates theoretical maximum speed for given bell:

XMM registers can be thought of floating point registers for this discussion
My sub was a VIIC. I asked for a forward bell (ahead slow - 1). I was submerged thus using electric engines. Engine ratios patch disabled.

XMM0 set to 0.0
load 1.0 into XMM2
load value into XMM1 dealing with current engine type in use (for electrics this is 3.913995)
multiply XMM1 by ordered bell (engine ratio asked for)
load XMM1 into XMM0
add XMM2 to XMM0
divide XMM0 by engine type in use value (for electrics this is 559500.0)
multiply XMM0 by engine type in use value (for electrics this is 7432.328)
multiply XMM0 by XMM1
multiply XMM0 by XMM1
raise XMM0 to the power of 0.3333333 (XMM0^0.333333)
multiply XMM0 by engine type in use value (for electrics this was 30.99133)

XMM0 contains theoretical maximum speed for ordered bell (for this it was 7.56) for that engine (done for each engine)

Actual speed attained ~ 1.5 knots

I'll post a reverse bell on electrics in next post

[TheDarkWraith]

Reverse bell on electrics. Dead back slow - 1:

XMM0 set to 0.0
load 1.0 into XMM2
load value into XMM1 dealing with current engine type in use (for electrics this is 3.913995)
multiply XMM1 by ordered bell (engine ratio asked for)
load -1.0 into XMM3
load XMM1 into XMM0
change sign of XMM0
add XMM2 to XMM0
divide XMM0 by engine type in use value (for electrics this is 559500.0)
multiply XMM0 by engine type in use value (for electrics this is 7432.328)
multiply XMM0 by XMM1
multiply XMM0 by XMM1
raise XMM0 to the power of 0.3333333 (XMM0^0.333333)
multiply XMM0 by engine type in use value (for electrics this was 30.99133)
multiply XMM0 by -1.0
XMM0 contains theoretical maximum speed for ordered bell (for this it was 7.56) for that engine (done for each engine)

Actual speed attained ~ 1.5 knots

[gap]

For electric engines this is how the game calculates theoretical maximum speed for given bell

Reverse bell on electrics. Dead back slow - 1:

Thank you TDW, I am converting your routines into formulas, and putting them on a graph :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

Thank you TDW, I am converting your routines into formulas, and putting them on a graph :up:

I'll have diesel values here in a bit. Just found an error in the engine ratios patch that affects AI subs battery capacity. Loading new version currently.

[TheDarkWraith]

v1.0.126.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.126.0 Revised the Engine ratios patch to fix bug of AI sub's battery capacity being incorrectly reported to the game

[Sjizzle]

v1.0.126.0 released.

Thanks TDW :)

[TheDarkWraith]

For diesel engines this is how the game calculates theoretical maximum speed for given bell:

XMM registers can be thought of floating point registers for this discussion
My sub was a VIIC. I asked for a forward bell (ahead slow - 1). I was surfaced thus using diesel engines. Engine ratios patch disabled.

XMM0 set to 0.0
load 1.0 into XMM2
load value into XMM1 dealing with current engine type in use (for diesels this is 8.857989)
multiply XMM1 by ordered bell (engine ratio asked for)
load XMM1 into XMM0
add XMM2 to XMM0
divide XMM0 by engine type in use value (for diesels this is 2387200.0)
multiply XMM0 by engine type in use value (for diesels this is 3086.243)
multiply XMM0 by XMM1
multiply XMM0 by XMM1
raise XMM0 to the power of 0.3333333 (XMM0^0.333333)
multiply XMM0 by engine type in use value (for diesels this was 30.99133)

XMM0 contains theoretical maximum speed for ordered bell (for this it was 11.26) for that engine (done for each engine)

Actual speed attained ~ 3.25 knots

Maybe the value in XMM0 is not theoretical maximum speed but rather RPM :hmmm:

EDIT: can't be RPM because I went to external cam and the props are turning way faster than 11 RPM...

[gap]

So here's the graph of the functions you have just described:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/1687/xlxj.jpg

As you can see, their curves are pretty similar, and they resemble a "flattened" sigmoid. I have some doubts about the last diesel constant you have stated though:

(for diesels this was 30.99133)

as it would be identical to the corresponding electric constant, and for a bell ratio of 0.20 (AheadSlow), it gives an XMM0 value of 6.94 instead of 11.26; on the contrary, the electric XMM0 value returned by your constant is 7.56, as espected.

Something to note about the other constants:

(3,913995+1)*7432,328*(3,913995)^2/559500≈(8,857989+1)*3086,243*(8,857989)^2/2387200≈1

Constants apart, what is weird about those routines is the absence of max_speed sim file setting as a parameter, and the big difference between the XMM0 values returned by them and actual speeds attained :hmmm:

[TheDarkWraith]

as it would be identical to the corresponding electric constant, and for a bell ratio of 0.20 (AheadSlow), it gives an XMM0 value of 6.94 instead of 11.26; on the contrary, the electric XMM0 value returned by your constant is 7.56, as espected.

I double checked that last constant for electric and diesels and it's the same.

You have to remember that I gave the function that does this calculation it's name. I have no clue whether the name I gave it corresponds to it's true meaning or is just a wild guess. I do know that it works with the engine ratio selected and the final value is used in the engines to determine speed of the sub. I haven't traced down where the actual max speed of the unit (as defined in .dat file) is used yet. When I do it will probably unlock the remaining mysteries about how speed is calculated.

[gap]

I double checked that last constant for electric and diesels and it's the same.

Okay, I will check the formula for errors on my part :up:

I haven't traced down where the actual max speed of the unit (as defined in .dat file) is used yet. When I do it will probably unlock the remaining mysteries about how speed is calculated.

I see. Let us know if you stumble upon any juicy piece of information re. this subject :03:

[gap]

v1.0.125.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.125.0 Revised the Carriers spawning aircraft patch. The revision lets airbases spawn aircraft. Units that detect a contact and within the reach of an airbase will radio to the airbase asking for air assistance. If the airbase agrees it will dispatch units to investigate/attack the unit's contact


Next I'm working on any unit that receives damage from a shell or torpedo and is within reach of an airbase will radio to the airbase asking for air assistance. If the airbase agrees it will spawn aircraft to give assistance to the unit who radioed in.

:|\\

Will land-based aircraft be affected by random delay, as the ones spawned by carriers? Being potentially able to sink our target before she can call in for reinforcements would be nice.

On a side note, I have noticed that among the special damage zone types, there are "Radio" and "Command Deck" categories. I wonder if at least one of them can be connected with destructible radio equipments (i.e. when they are destroyed, their parent unit isn't able to comm with other units or airfield), though I suspect that they are only meant for use with playable units. :hmmm:

Things in the pipeline:

...

Any other ideas :06:

You have opened a Pandora's box here... :D

In short: what about reviving the old idea of U-boat equipments suffering random damage from misuse / prolonged use?

[Savoyz]

Thank you, TDW sir :salute:

[TheDarkWraith]

Will land-based aircraft be affected by random delay, as the ones spawned by carriers? Being potentially able to sink our target before she can call in for reinforcements would be nice.

On a side note, I have noticed that among the special damage zone types, there are "Radio" and "Command Deck" categories. I wonder if at least one of them can be connected with destructible radio equipments (i.e. when they are destroyed, their parent unit isn't able to comm with other units or airfield), though I suspect that they are only meant for use with playable units. :hmmm:

You have opened a Pandora's box here... :D

In short: what about reviving the old idea of U-boat equipments suffering random damage from misuse / prolonged use?

Land based aircraft are subject to the random delay (max of 91.0 seconds). Plus there is a % chance airbase can't dispatch units (70% chance they can). I can't really widen this 91.0 seconds because when ANY unit detects a contact the ignore logic steps bit is set which forces the game to check for airstrikes when the current 91.0 seconds interval is up.

I've thought about checking for zones related to Radio and Command Deck and seeing if they are damaged or destroyed in regards to being able to radio for help. If they were damaged or destroyed then obviously unit can't radio for help :hmmm:

Random damage from misuse/prolonged use is on my list. Haven't located the damages yet...

I just realized while playing a campaign that my radio operator radioed for assistance when I spotted a ship. A friendly airbase was nearby so they dispatched aircraft. The aircraft destroyed my target before I had a chance to attack it. Not sure if I like my radio operator radioing for assistance without being asked :hmmm: Thoughts?

[gap]

Land based aircraft are subject to the random delay (max of 91.0 seconds). Plus there is a % chance airbase can't dispatch units (70% chance they can). I can't really widen this 91.0 seconds because when ANY unit detects a contact the ignore logic steps bit is set which forces the game to check for airstrikes when the current 91.0 seconds interval is up.

Can't you instead update the logic steps counter: i.e. when an unit detects a contact, you set a new random variable that must be equal or lesser than the current logic step and equal or lesser than a preset value (for making sure that delay isn't too long), the you load the new variable as current logic step :hmm2:


I've thought about checking for zones related to Radio and Command Deck and seeing if they are damaged or destroyed in regards to being able to radio for help. If they were damaged or destroyed then obviously unit can't radio for help :hmmm:

So it worked? :06:


Random damage from misuse/prolonged use is on my list. Haven't located the damages yet...

:up:


I just realized while playing a campaign that my radio operator radioed for assistance when I spotted a ship. A friendly airbase was nearby so they dispatched aircraft. The aircraft destroyed my target before I had a chance to attack it. Not sure if I like my radio operator radioing for assistance without being asked :hmmm: Thoughts?

I agree. Two solutions come to my mind: either make the automatic eneny reporting optional (if possible, through a command button of your UI mod), or get rid of the zealous radio officer at all :03:

[TheDarkWraith]

I don't have the ability to radio for assistance tied to zones at all. I just might have to add it :cool: This would make strategic placement of deck gun shells paramount :yep:

[gap]

I don't have the ability to radio for assistance tied to zones at all. I just might have to add it :cool: This would make strategic placement of deck gun shells paramount :yep:

That's it! Just what I had in mind :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

I'm going to remove the ability of the player's sub's radio operator from being able to radio for assistance without command from the patch.

Now I really like the idea of tying the ability to radio for assistance to the command deck and radio zones. Before I start coding that we need to check if every unit (ship,sub,air, and possibly land) has the command deck and radio zones and if not they need to be added. We also need to ensure they are in the correct places on the unit. Who wants to take this on :06:
Once I know someone is spearheading this I'll start coding it :up:

This will be perfect for next patch that I already started working on also!!!

[gap]

I'm going to remove the ability of the player's sub's radio operator from being able to radio for assistance without command from the patch.

Now I really like the idea of tying the ability to radio for assistance to the command deck and radio zones. Before I start coding that we need to check if every unit (ship,sub,air, and possibly land) has the command deck and radio zones and if not they need to be added. We also need to ensure they are in the correct places on the unit. Who wants to take this on :06:
Once I know someone is spearheading this I'll start coding it :up:

I just had a look into an half dozen of units. Warships have just basic zones on them, and merchant ships reworked by you are missing the said zones, at least the ones that I have checked so far.

If you want, I can take a deeper look into other units tomorrow. Adding the missing command deck / radio zones shouldn't be a big deal :up:

PS: should we set new zones for our purposes, or can we use yet existing zone definitions? If yes, which one(s)?

[TheDarkWraith]

Can't you instead update the logic steps counter: i.e. when an unit detects a contact, you set a new random variable that must be equal or lesser than the current logic step and equal or lesser than a preset value (for making sure that delay isn't too long), the you load the new variable as current logic step :hmm2:

What I can do is this:
take current logic steps counter value and multiply by random number (0.0-1.0 range). Compare that result to a minimum and maximum value. Adjust accordingly. What should I set the minimum and maximum values to :06: This will be used when ANY unit detects a contact (to force the game to check for airstrikes quicker). One exception is aircraft. I do not let them set the ignore logic steps bit because when they are spawned they will more than likely detect a contact and this would cause the game to check for airstrikes again resulting in more aircraft being spawned etc. etc. This is why aircraft are not allowed to set the ignore logic steps bit.

[TheDarkWraith]

I just had a look into an half dozen of units. Warships have just basic zones on them, and merchant ships reworked by you are missing the said zones, at least the ones that I have checked so far.

If you want, I can take a deeper look into other units tomorrow. Adding the missing command deck / radio zones shouldn't be a big deal :up:

PS: should we set new zones for our purposes, or can we use yet existing zone definitions? If yes, which one(s)?

If we are creating new zones for the command room and radio we should make new zones for them :yep: IIRC FX_Update already has a zone for the command room.

We also need to define the damage level (in 0.0-1.0 %) for each when they are not allowed to radio for assistance. I need these values to start coding this :D

FX_Update:

216=DistressFlareWarship
217=DistressFlareMerchant

Ok, I was incorrect. I called them something different.


Stock zones:
11=Command deck
14=Antennae
15=Mast
19=NavDeck
32=CommandRoom
42=CommunicationsRoom
50=LRRadio
207=UbtComRoom
208=UbtRadioRoom
212=CmdRoomNP

all these zones above look like great candidates!

[gap]

What I can do is this:
take current logic steps counter value and multiply by random number (0.0-1.0 range). Compare that result to a minimum and maximum value. Adjust accordingly. What should I set the minimum and maximum values to :06: This will be used when ANY unit detects a contact (to force the game to check for airstrikes quicker).

You said that a logic step lasts 91 seconds. I would say that a good interval would be between 1 and 4 logic steps, i.e. 1.5 - 6 minutes. A delay longer than this wouldn't make much sense imo :hmmm:


One exception is aircraft. I do not let them set the ignore logic steps bit because when they are spawned they will more than likely detect a contact and this would cause the game to check for airstrikes again resulting in more aircraft being spawned etc. etc. This is why aircraft are not allowed to set the ignore logic steps bit.

In other words, aircraft must wait for the whole logic steps cycle before calling for reinforcements? That sounds rasonable :yep:

[TheDarkWraith]

You said that a logic step lasts 91 seconds. I would say that a good interval would be between 1 and 4 logic steps, i.e. 1.5 - 6 minutes. A delay longer than this wouldn't make much sense imo :hmmm:



In other words, aircraft must wait for the whole logic steps cycle before calling for reinforcements? That sounds rasonable :yep:

1 and 4 it is :up:

A caveat to the aircraft is say an aircraft is spawned. A few seconds later a unit in the game detects a contact. Because this unit detected a contact the ignore logic steps bit is set and thus when the current 91.0 second interval is up game will check for airstrikes again. There was no real easy way to code this :shifty:

[gap]

We also need to define the damage level (in 0.0-1.0 %) for each when they are not allowed to radio for assistance. I need these values to start coding this :D

It depends on how many HP we will assign to them...

By the way, should we make disabling them by a lucky flakgun shot possible? :arrgh!:


Ok, I was incorrect. I called them something different.


Stock zones:
11=Command deck
14=Antennae
15=Mast
19=NavDeck
32=CommandRoom
42=CommunicationsRoom
50=LRRadio
207=UbtComRoom
208=UbtRadioRoom
212=CmdRoomNP

all these zones above look like great candidates!

Going by the name, zones # 207 and 208 might be already in use on U-boats. All the remaining zones make for excellent candidates :yeah:

[TheDarkWraith]

It depends on how many HP we will assign to them...

By the way, should we make disabling them by a lucky flakgun shot possible? :arrgh!:

Damage is damage, doesn't matter how it's done :up:

IIRC I can read the damage level of the zone (in 0.0-1.0 range) thus it doesn't matter how many HPs you give them. All I care about is what damage level do we say can't be used for each zone?

Pick the zones you want to use and give me the damage level unit cannot radio for assistance for each and I'll work my magic

[gap]

Damage is damage, doesn't matter how it's done :up:

Yes, and in theory we could gut the ocean with a tea spoon :DL


IIRC I can read the damage level of the zone (in 0.0-1.0 range) thus it doesn't matter how many HPs you give them. All I care about is what damage level do we say can't be used for each zone?

What I meant is, how many HP's do we want radio equipment to eat, before it stops working? Once we decide it, we can set accordingly zone's overall HP and damage threshold that will disable the radio. :03:


Pick the zones you want to use and give me the damage level unit cannot radio for assistance for each and I'll work my magic

What about 14=Antennae and 42=CommunicationsRoom (we should make sure that they are not used on U-boats though)? Whichever of them reaches the desired damage, let's say 50%, prevents the ship from radioing other units. If an unit got two antennas or two communication rooms, they both need to be damaged/destroyed. Do you like it?

[TheDarkWraith]

What about 14=Antennae and 42=CommunicationsRoom (we should make sure that they are not used on U-boats though)? Whichever of them reaches the desired damage, let's say 50%, prevents the ship from radioing other units. If an unit got two antennas or two communication rooms, they both need to be damaged/destroyed. Do you like it?

Keep the number of each to 1 if possible. I'll see how the code comes out with multiple numbers of a zone. If it becomes too complex then I won't do it. I'll have it just check for one of each zone type. For know it's a go with multiple numbers of a zone.

I'll make the damage a variable in the patch file so it's easy to change. Actually what I'll do is let us define a damage level for each zone type :yep:

I'll do even better! I'll let us define the zones and the damage to each zone in the patch file. That way nothing is hard-coded.

[gap]

Keep the number of each to 1 if possible. I'll see how the code comes out with multiple numbers of a zone. If it becomes too complex then I won't do it. I'll have it just check for one of each zone type. For know it's a go with multiple numbers of a zone.

I'll make the damage a variable in the patch file so it's easy to change. Actually what I'll do is let us define a damage level for each zone type :yep:

I'll do even better! I'll let us define the zones and the damage to each zone in the patch file. That way nothing is hard-coded.

Okay, tomorrow I will start adding CommunicationsRoom and, wherever possible, Antennae (one of each) to all the ships :up:

[THE_MASK]

How hard would it be to make something work like an indicator for enemy harbors . All the info for what ports they were in is here . I just need something able to be put in the campaign with the mission editor 2 . Any ideas . Some kind of sensor that can alert nearby vessels and aircraft to my subs presence . A floating mine would do .
http://indicatorloops.com/loops.htm

[gap]

How hard would it be to make something work like an indicator for enemy harbors . All the info for what ports they were in is here . I just need something able to be put in the campaign with the mission editor 2 . Any ideas . Some kind of sensor that can alert nearby vessels and aircraft to my subs presence . A floating mine would do .
http://indicatorloops.com/loops.htm

Hi Sober, your idea is good, and the website you have pointed got plenty of precious information. :up:

I am still of the idea that one or more lines of stripped down subs (or, even better, semi-submerged ships) equipped with an omnidirectional sonar, is just what we need in order to implement your idea. I can be wrong, but I am confident that a tiny, submerged, motionless, silent object in the ocean will easily pass unobserved to our sensors, while still being able to detect us or other foe units.

The only precondition that we need to check, is AI sonars to still work without the sonar sound controller that usually is coupled with them, since, for obvious reasons, we don't want to hear our dummy indicator loops while they are pinging us. :hmmm:

[Vanilla]

I double checked that last constant for electric and diesels and it's the same.

You have to remember that I gave the function that does this calculation it's name. I have no clue whether the name I gave it corresponds to it's true meaning or is just a wild guess. I do know that it works with the engine ratio selected and the final value is used in the engines to determine speed of the sub. I haven't traced down where the actual max speed of the unit (as defined in .dat file) is used yet. When I do it will probably unlock the remaining mysteries about how speed is calculated.

Okay, I will check the formula for errors on my part :up:



I see. Let us know if you stumble upon any juicy piece of information re. this subject :03:

We've came accross this algorithm previously, and as far as I remember TDW experimented with it the result being that it affected RPM if different constants are plugged into it but it did not change speed much. Here is the link (and read further on!): http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2032170#post2032170

[gap]

We've came accross this algorithm previously, and as far as I remember TDW experimented with it the result being that it affected RPM if different constants are plugged into it but it did not change speed much. Here is the link (and read further on!): http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2032170#post2032170

Oh thanks, now that you tell me about it, I remember that discussion. :up:

The main problem with the discussed algorithm, is that we don't know yet what is the meaning of its output (max theoretical speed probably, but why so high?) and how it contributes to the final speed... not to mention the fact that there should be a linear relation between engine rpm ratio and output speed :hmmm:

[gap]

Currently working on the new radio zones. I have just finished editing armed merchant cruiser's zon files + Appalachian zon file. Some of them got a CommunicationsRoom and an Antennae zone, and some others just a CommunicationsRoom zone.

Now I will start working on the battleships, though I doubt we will ever engage them on surface :hmm2:

[Fifi]

Now I will start working on the battleships, though I doubt we will ever engage them on surface :hmm2:

Who knows? :D

[TheDarkWraith]

Currently working on the new radio zones. I have just finished editing armed merchant cruiser's zon files + Appalachian zon file. Some of them got a CommunicationsRoom and an Antennae zone, and some others just a CommunicationsRoom zone.

Now I will start working on the battleships, though I doubt we will ever engage them on surface :hmm2:

The patch is going to work as follows:
if it doesn't find the zone then it says that zone exists

This is needed for those units that may be added to the game and the person making the unit doesn't know about these new zones

[TheDarkWraith]

v1.0.127.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.127.0 Added a new patch to the SH5.exe: Max dive depth for messagebox. This patch will have the navigator report the max dive depth possible for the sub's current position and current depth when asking for depth under keel as an entry in the messagebox

See here for in-game footage: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2082008&postcount=13

[Savoyz]

>Max dive depth for messagebox.

kewl ! thanks TDW :salute:

[volodya61]

v1.0.127.0 released. See post #1

Thanks :salute:

There is RUS manual for the next version - http://www.4sync.com/archive/JNVw0MQ5/Generic_Patcher_manual_RUS__10.html

[SU-33UB]

hello do you have install the TDW patcher over an clean SH5 1.2 game whitout any mods installed ?

greets from SU-33UB

ps i have tried to install the patcher bud got problem after problem and dont no how to fix it 1 of them is that my sub have no torpedo layout :wah::hmmm:

[Sartoris]

v1.0.127.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.127.0 Added a new patch to the SH5.exe: Max dive depth for messagebox. This patch will have the navigator report the max dive depth possible for the sub's current position and current depth when asking for depth under keel as an entry in the messagebox

See here for in-game footage: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2082008&postcount=13

Thank you! :woot::salute:

[volodya61]

hello do you have install the TDW patcher over an clean SH5 1.2 game whitout any mods installed ?..

You are able to use the patcher with the files of 1.2.0 version of the game only..
About installed mods.. it doesn't matter..

[SU-33UB]

oke thnx then i reinstall my game i got only CTD's

[SU-33UB]

and what about the missing torpedo layout ?

[Sjizzle]

after i was detected by aircraft destroyers looking to kill me :yeah:

http://attila-kevin.de/var/resizes/Magui-Interface-Mods/Magui.jpg?m=1373471044

[Sjizzle]

v1.0.127.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.127.0 Added a new patch to the SH5.exe: Max dive depth for messagebox. This patch will have the navigator report the max dive depth possible for the sub's current position and current depth when asking for depth under keel as an entry in the messagebox

See here for in-game footage: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2082008&postcount=13

that patch doesnt work with magui interface atlest for me :/\\!!
@ Fifi it's work for u with magui interface ?
http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/d409/x18xsur60gytz02fg.jpg

[gap]

that patch doesnt work with magui interface atlest for me :/\\!!
@ Fifi it's work for u with magui interface ?
http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/d409/x18xsur60gytz02fg.jpg

Looks like you haven't edited Magui's menu.txt with the new line yet: :hmm2:


I made this a new entry in the menu.txt file:
4724=Max dive depth is %.0f %s, captain!

Awesome!
It's working in CSP Magui too!
Just had to add the 4724 line as above...in french for me :D
Thanks for this new addition :up:

[Sjizzle]

thx gap sometimes somebody must kick my a** to be more carefull :har:

[SU-33UB]

is it needit to patch shsound.act ,simdate.dll and sh_Nclient.dll ??

greets SU-33UB

[volodya61]

and what about the missing torpedo layout ?

I can't understand what you mean :hmmm:

is it needit to patch shsound.act ,simdate.dll and sh_Nclient.dll ??

If you need those patches then yes..

[SU-33UB]

hoi (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=289741)volodya61 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=289741)
about the missing torpedo layout its fixed now and sorry it was not layout bud
loadout my mistake :)
i have reinstall sh5 up to 1.2 and instal the latest NET framework update
so its work fine for now

thnx for the quick respons :salute:

greets SU-33UB

[gap]

The patch is going to work as follows:
if it doesn't find the zone then it says that zone exists

This is needed for those units that may be added to the game and the person making the unit doesn't know about these new zones

Found a possible source of problems:

the antennae zone definition is already in use on the "cabin" subset of the North Carolina battleship. Maybe it got special properties that we don't want to feature on every sigle ship in game? :hmm2:

[gap]

Found a possible source of problems:

the antennae zone definition is already in use on the "cabin" subset of the North Carolina battleship. Maybe it got special properties that we don't want to feature on every sigle ship in game? :hmm2:

Just found another case of "suspect" zone usage with the Roayal Oak (Royal Sovereign):

cabin => Antennae
mast => LRRadio

[TheDarkWraith]

Found a possible source of problems:

the antennae zone definition is already in use on the "cabin" subset of the North Carolina battleship. Maybe it got special properties that we don't want to feature on every sigle ship in game? :hmm2:

Just found another case of "suspect" zone usage with the Roayal Oak (Royal Sovereign):

cabin => Antennae
mast => LRRadio

Don't understand :06:

I finished rewriting the code yesterday so that it can accept two additional parameters: check human playable and do not check for radio. Now just have to code the checking for radio function.

[gap]

Don't understand :06:

I finished rewriting the code yesterday so that it can accept two additional parameters: check human playable and do not check for radio. Now just have to code the checking for radio function.

What don't you understand?

I am currently adding new damage boxes to each ship in game, using the CommunicationsRoom and, optionally (when I find anything vaguely resembling an aerial), the Antennae zone definitions. Maximum one of each type per ship, as we had planned. Yet, today I have discovered that the Antennae zone is already in use on the radar turrets of at least two ships (i.e. the North Carolina and the Royal Sovereign class battleships), whereas so far we had thought that it was just a leftover.

Now my doubts:

- Since the game is already employing the Antennae zone definition, which is a special one by the way (Category=Radio), can't assigning it to a wider range of ships than initially planned by devs, have any sort of side effect? I mean: can't we suspect that the zone got some special properties attached to it that might be indesiderable in some cases?

- The said zone is currently set to destructible=Yes, which makes sense given its use by stock game, on radar turrets. Nonetheless, I was planning to change it to undestructible for a simple reason: radio antennas that I assigned the zone definition to, are often part of wider structures (masts, or even ship's hull) which we don't want to disappear from game when the Antennae zone is destroyed (= HP zeroed).

So: should I change the antenna damage box to another zone type? What do you suggest? :hmm2:

EDIT: found two more boxes using the "Antennae" zone: Graf Spee's after mast + radar turret and Hood's fore castle top section.

[TheDarkWraith]

however you want to handle it. Probably adding new zone is best.

The code I'm making reads the zones and damage levels for each zone from the patch file so it doesn't matter to me.


Revised the Carriers/Airbases spawning aircraft code so that it now checks to see if unit is human playable (thus eliminating bug of player's overzealous radioman calling out for assistance without being ordered to when player detects a contact) and when the bit is set denoting adjust logic steps value it's value is adjusted to some value between a min and max value defined in the patch file (currently 1 and 4).

A stub check for radio function has been added (currently returns 1 to caller) that ultimately will contain the code for checking to see if unit has a radio and if the radio is operational. This code will be used in the Carriers/Airbases spawning units patch (to see if unit radioed for air assistance or not) and for an upcoming patch that will make harbor raiding much more difficult :D

[THE_MASK]

Oh yeah :up: More difficult harbor raids .

[gap]

however you want to handle it. Probably adding new zone is best.

Yes, I will do so :up:

I have a few doubts about zone damage that you or someone else might have an answer to:

- if a damage box is entirely included within a bigger box, is a shell penetrating the big box able to damage the small one as well?

- if the answer to the previous question is yes, is all the damage suffered by the bix box propagating "by default" to the second box, or rather the small box needs to be in the trajectory of the projectile (and within its min/max radius) in order to suffer damage?

- if the big box has an high AP value, and the shell doesn't penetrate it, will it have a shielding effect on the smaller box?

[gap]

Yes, I will do so :up:

What about the following new zone definitions?

[RadioRoom]
Multiplier=1.000000
Flotability=0.000000
HitPoints=30
Destructible=No
Armor Level=-1
Critic Flotation=0.300000
Critical=No
Effect1=#sink_bubbles, 1
Effect2=BAZA_FX_FocFum_mic, 50
Effect3=BAZA_FX_Explozie_mica, 100
Effect4=BAZA_FX_Splinter_fire, 100
Effect5=BAZA_FX_scantei_explozie,100
FloodingTime=59.999996
CargoType=None

[RadioTransmitAntenna]
Multiplier=1.000000
Flotability=0.000000
HitPoints=8
Destructible=No
Armor Level=-1
Critic Flotation=0.300000
Critical=No
FloodingTime=59.999996
CargoType=None

[RadioReceiverAntenna]
Multiplier=1.000000
Flotability=0.000000
HitPoints=8
Destructible=No
Armor Level=-1
Critic Flotation=0.300000
Critical=No
FloodingTime=59.999996
CargoType=None


RadioReceiverAntenna won't be used atm, but I have added it anyway just in case of further developments of the patch :03:

[TheDarkWraith]

I have a few doubts about zone damage that you or someone else might have an answer to:

- if a damage box is entirely included within a bigger box, is a shell penetrating the big box able to damage the small one as well?

- if the answer to the previous question is yes, is all the damage suffered by the bix box propagating "by default" to the second box, or rather the small box needs to be in the trajectory of the projectile (and within its min/max radius) in order to suffer damage?

- if the big box has an high AP value, and the shell doesn't penetrate it, will it have a shielding effect on the smaller box?

1) yes
2) small box has to be in min/max radius
3) yes - small box will incur no damage (if patch enabled for reducing AP value then the box will suffer AP damage)

[TheDarkWraith]

v1.0.128.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.128.0 Revised the Carriers/Airbases spawning airplanes patch: fixed bug of player's radioman asking for air assistance when never told so, fixed bug of carriers/airbases using incorrect % chance of spawning units when they have no contacts and/or no units have contact passed to them, revised the code so that I can use whether unit has a radio or not (for determining if unit radioed for assistance and whether units/airbases received that message). Currently this determine if has radio function returns 1 (unit has radio and is operational). I have to code it in yet. When unit asks for air assistance the logic steps value is now set to a random value between 1 and 4 (defined in patch file).

[volodya61]

v1.0.128.0 released. See post #1

Thank you sir :salute:

EDIT: As I can see, there aren't new 'Change' folders in the Carriers patch.. am I correct?

[TheDarkWraith]

Thank you sir :salute:

EDIT: As I can see, there aren't new 'Change' folders in the Carriers patch.. am I correct?

Nothing new/removed. Just code revised and shuffled around :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

Next patch that will be coming out here soon will deal with units taking damage and radioing for assistance (when they have no contact). This is needed for harbor raiding as currently you may torpedo a unit and all the escorts and warships around the unit do nothing :nope: This upcoming patch will make them react and come over to the unit that took damage and investigate. The patch will be very experimental and I will be releasing test versions of it for testing before final release. Expect a test version tomorrow :salute:

[THE_MASK]

Applied the TDW_GenericPatcher_v_1_0_127_0 and enabled the electric engine ratios . Dived and then went to flank speed . Surfaced and then went to all stop but the sub keeps going at flank . Full reverse or other speeds only decrease speed by 1 knot . Do i have to enable some cfg file or something ?

[SU-33UB]

maybe dont use independend engine control it was working for me

[gap]

1) yes
2) small box has to be in min/max radius
3) yes - small box will incur no damage (if patch enabled for reducing AP value then the box will suffer AP damage)

Excellent, I see that SH5's impact/damage model is quite accurate. :up:

The only thing I am missing (not related to the patch we are currently working on though), is ballistic range and impact angle to be taken into account for shell damage calculations.

[TheDarkWraith]

Excellent, I see that SH5's impact/damage model is quite accurate. :up:

The only thing I am missing (not related to the patch we are currently working on though), is ballistic range and impact angle to be taken into account for shell damage calculations.

The game is not that sophisticated. Ballistic range and impact angle are not taken into account when calculating damage. All that matters is point of impact, AP of zone, AP of object hitting the zone, min/max radius, and MinEF and MaxEF.

[TheDarkWraith]

Applied the TDW_GenericPatcher_v_1_0_127_0 and enabled the electric engine ratios . Dived and then went to flank speed . Surfaced and then went to all stop but the sub keeps going at flank . Full reverse or other speeds only decrease speed by 1 knot . Do i have to enable some cfg file or something ?

No you don't have to do anything to the cfg file. I tried every possible combination of diving/surfacing/changing bells and I couldn't reproduce your problem. Sounds like you have a corrupt sh5.exe somehow :hmmm:

[gap]

The game is not that sophisticated. Ballistic range and impact angle are not taken into account when calculating damage. All that matters is point of impact, AP of zone, AP of object hitting the zone, min/max radius, and MinEF and MaxEF.

Nevermind, the damage model sucks :-? :D

I had just a moment of euphoria due to your answer to my last question (AP and possibility of a zone to protect a lesser armored zone behind it), as it suited an idea I had about gun shields :03:

[TheDarkWraith]

Nevermind, the damage model sucks :-? :D

I had just a moment of euphoria due to your answer to my last question (AP and possibility of a zone to protect a lesser armored zone behind it), as it suited an idea I had about gun shields :03:


If Penetration is successful: (else skip to 5)
4. Apply ED at point of impact, and skip to end; armor is ignored for penetrated object and all compartments inside it.
5. penetration was not successful:
6. apply explosion blast damage in impact point. Armor is considered as follows – for all objects in MaxRange, ED (corrected for range) is compared to 4 * A. If ED is greater, it is applied, to the object.

Came from a document I got from Dan

[TheDarkWraith]

A small tidbit of info: the function that calculates the signal strength of where the hydrophone needle is does not let it calculate signal strength for type 104 units. Wonder why :hmmm:

[gap]

If Penetration is successful: (else skip to 5)
4. Apply ED at point of impact, and skip to end; armor is ignored for penetrated object and all compartments inside it.
5. penetration was not successful:
6. apply explosion blast damage in impact point. Armor is considered as follows – for all objects in MaxRange, ED (corrected for range) is compared to 4 * A. If ED is greater, it is applied, to the object.

Came from a document I got from Dan


How is ED calcuated? And what is the "A" parameter (the one multiplied by 4 and compared with ED)? :06:

[TheDarkWraith]

How is ED calcuated? And what is the "A" parameter (the one multiplied by 4 and compared with ED)? :06:

Instead of the currently four values governing damages (AmmoDamageInfo – Hitpoints, ArmorLevel, MinRadius, MaxRadius) we need a little more

AP – Armor Penetration
MinEF – Explosive Damage Factor – the HitPoints of old ;)
MaxEF -
MinRange – as before, for calculating the damage done through explosion
MaxRange – as before, for calculating the damage done through explosion
In the calculus below, we may also use the value “A”, being the armor value of the considered object.

A projectile will deal damage:

Explosive damage (ED) – damage done by the explosion

ED = random (MinEF, MaxEF); will be modified for range as before.

Steps to check damage dealt by a projectile

projectile hits object O in part P
Penetration check

Penetration roll:

k = 0.2 – subject to change
x = random (-k;+k)
Pen = AP * [1 + x]
Pen > = A results in penetration


If Penetration is successful: (else skip to 5)
4. Apply ED at point of impact, and skip to end; armor is ignored for penetrated object and all compartments inside it.
5. penetration was not successful:
6. apply explosion blast damage in impact point. Armor is considered as follows – for all objects in MaxRange, ED (corrected for range) is compared to 4 * A. If ED is greater, it is applied, to the object.

[SU-33UB]

hello

I use the latest TDW patcher it works fine for now
bud i cant go surface after dive i order my boot to 50 meters bud he is sinking deeper and deeper even i order to flank ahead
what can be the problem my mod list is this

NewUIs_TDC_7_4_0_ByTheDarkWraith
AI_Crew_Damage_Control_Revised_Zones_cfg_Based_On_ FX_Update_By_TheDarkWraith
FX Update torpedoes - MagDet range 3m (modified for torpedoes failure patches)
FX_Update_0_0_21_ByTheDarkWraith
IRAI_0_0_39_ByTheDarkWraith
IRAI_0_0_39_Inertia_Damage
OPEN HORIZONS II_full v2.2
OH II Minefield map for TDWs Ui
Sobers Terrain fix for OH2 V2.2
TDW_Mines_Subnets_Detectable_in_hydro (OH II )
All sounds included
Harbour_Mod_by_HanSolo78_reworked_for_OHIIv2.2_by_ Trevally
d3d_antilag101
Real Environment - Revision_3
Krupp leveling + moral fix + torp fix
SM_Carrier_Aircraft_Testing
Generic Patcher v1.0.128.0

[Sjizzle]

hello

I use the latest TDW patcher it works fine for now
bud i cant go surface after dive i order my boot to 50 meters bud he is sinking deeper and deeper even i order to flank ahead
what can be the problem my mod list is this

NewUIs_TDC_7_4_0_ByTheDarkWraith
AI_Crew_Damage_Control_Revised_Zones_cfg_Based_On_ FX_Update_By_TheDarkWraith
FX Update torpedoes - MagDet range 3m (modified for torpedoes failure patches)
FX_Update_0_0_21_ByTheDarkWraith
IRAI_0_0_39_ByTheDarkWraith
IRAI_0_0_39_Inertia_Damage
OPEN HORIZONS II_full v2.2
OH II Minefield map for TDWs Ui
Sobers Terrain fix for OH2 V2.2
TDW_Mines_Subnets_Detectable_in_hydro (OH II )
All sounds included
Harbour_Mod_by_HanSolo78_reworked_for_OHIIv2.2_by_ Trevally
d3d_antilag101
Real Environment - Revision_3
Krupp leveling + moral fix + torp fix
SM_Carrier_Aircraft_Testing
Generic Patcher v1.0.128.0

first of all d3d_antilag101 and Generic Patcher v1.0.128.0 arent a mod
copy the all files from d3d_antilag in SH5 main folder.
Use TDW generic patcher als stand alone cos the genericpatcher it's a application not a mod.
now your mod list isnt in right order.
take a look on this thread for mod list order
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=190656

[TheDarkWraith]

would there be any use/benefit from running electric engines instead of the diesels on the surface :06:

[Fifi]

would there be any use/benefit from running electric engines instead of the diesels on the surface :06:

Only benefit could be to run electrics together with diesels for short speed boost (at least it's said in the loading screens - don't know if it is true)

[TheDarkWraith]

Only benefit could be to run electrics together with diesels for short speed boost (at least it's said in the loading screens - don't know if it is true)

Unfortunately the way they (devs) coded the engines it's either diesels or electrics - can't do both :shifty: I was hoping to be able to implement this but it's not going to be possible.

Still might implement letting player decide to use electrics on the surface though :hmmm: Could be useful when diesels are damaged or :06:

[THE_MASK]

You mentioned something about making it harder to raid enemy ports . Say i blow up a ship . It would be good if the chance was 100% alert nearby units . But 75% by ship or 25% by plane if nearby units in port .

[Fifi]

Still might implement letting player decide to use electrics on the surface though :hmmm: Could be useful when diesels are damaged or :06:

In real, i think they could run electrics on surface, so why not have this ingame?
Furthermore, could be helpfull when running out of diesel close to harbor...:D...and of course if diesel are damaged!

[gap]

ED = random (MinEF, MaxEF); will be modified for range as before.

I wonder what this random function used for explosive damage calculation looks like :hmmm:

k = 0.2 – subject to change
x = random (-k;+k)
Pen = AP * [1 + x]
Pen > = A results in penetration

I suppose that the "k" constant in the above formula is the Penetration Threshold global parameter (Zones.cfg). Curiously, it looks like SH4 used a slightly more complicated penetration formula than SH5:

Armor Penetration = (random number between 1-PT and 1+PT)*Shell AP + HP/ALF where
PT = Penetration Threshold. This is defined in the zones.cfg in the [Global Params] section and is 20% for RFB
Shell AP = the shell AP setting in the AmmoDamageInfo controller of the shells.ZON
HP = a random number between the minimum and maximum HP setting in the AmmoDamageInfo controller of the shells.ZON
ALF = Armor Leveling Factor. This is defined in the zones.cfg in the [Global Params] section and is 4 for RFB

source:
http://forum.kickinbak.com/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=1378#p15344

If we have to believe the above source, a random number between Min and Max effect (from shell's sim file settings) is divided by the Armor Level Factor (Zones.cfg) and added to shell's AP, for penetration calculation. Apparently, in SH5 this formula has been splitted in two parts:


direct impact damage: only AP and Penetration Threshold are considered for armor penetration (Pen = AP * [1 + random (-k;+k)])

blast damage: only ED (i.e. a random function of shell's Min/Max effect and range) and a factor "4", are considered for armor penetration (Pen = ED / 4)


Based on the SH4 frormula, I suspect that this "4" factor mentioned by Dan is coming from the Armor Level Factor :hmm2:

Unfortunately the way they (devs) coded the engines it's either diesels or electrics - can't do both :shifty: I was hoping to be able to implement this but it's not going to be possible.

:-?

Still might implement letting player decide to use electrics on the surface though :hmmm: Could be useful when diesels are damaged or :06:

Yes indeed and it would come in handy also when we are running short of fuel.

Talking about it, please note that on surface electric engine's output should be similar to the one of diesel propulsion (i.e. identical rpm/speed gradient) :yep:
I hope that you can mimic this fact in game.

[tonschk]

Still might implement letting player decide to use electrics on the surface though :hmmm: Could be useful when diesels are damaged or :06:

:sunny::yeah::salute::up::woot:

[Gryffon300]

Sorry if this is not the way to do it, but I have a request/suggestion. Your excellent "Unit damage from smoke and/or fires" mod that is usable now for SH 3, 4 and 5, is largely unknown over in SH 4 (especially among newer players), because there is neither a thread about it in the Mods workshop, nor is it uploaded to the Gameplay mods for SH 4 (or 3? - I haven't looked).

If its not a total pain, do you think you could maybe put a thread or arrange to have it uploaded to the appropriate download spots?

Just a suggestion - I think more SH 4 players should know about your excellent work.

Thanks

Respect

Gryffon.

[TheDarkWraith]

I rewrote the broken hydrophone patch because my knowledge has grown of the game :D Pointers that I had no idea what they were before I now know. This has finally led me to figure out why the hydrophone was really broken: it's because the pointer comparing going on isn't correct. The game code was comparing the contact the hydro needle has to a list of possible contacts. This is good. What isn't good is the pointer they are using for the contacts (from the list of possible contacts). They need to go 2 levels up (parent of parent) of the contact then do the comparison.

With the new broken hydrophone patch you will not see unknown when the hydro needle is pointing at the rear of the sub anymore :rock: Furthermore I now know why subs are never shown in the hydro box's Type. I plan on letting subs be able to be detected on hydro station also now :up:

[volodya61]

I rewrote the broken hydrophone patch because my knowledge has grown of the game :D Pointers that I had no idea what they were before I now know. This has finally led me to figure out why the hydrophone was really broken: it's because the pointer comparing going on isn't correct. The game code was comparing the contact the hydro needle has to a list of possible contacts. This is good. What isn't good is the pointer they are using for the contacts (from the list of possible contacts). They need to go 2 levels up (parent of parent) of the contact then do the comparison.

With the new broken hydrophone patch you will not see unknown when the hydro needle is pointing at the rear of the sub anymore :rock: Furthermore I now know why subs are never shown in the hydro box's Type. I plan on letting subs be able to be detected on hydro station also now :up:

Great news, TDW :up:

[Fifi]

Great news, TDW :up:

Yes! I agree!
A real chance for us he is here :rock:

[TheDarkWraith]

Yes indeed and it would come in handy also when we are running short of fuel.

Talking about it, please note that on surface electric engine's output should be similar to the one of diesel propulsion (i.e. identical rpm/speed gradient) :yep:
I hope that you can mimic this fact in game.

Code for letting you choose to run electric engines on the surface has been added to SHSim :rock: It works great. Once the electric engines are engaged on the surface the diesels shutdown, their animation stops, diesels sound stops and electric engines noise is heard :D

Now just have to add a new command to the game (sh5.exe) so you can 'ask' for electric engines when surfaced.

The electric engine's ratios will be that for the electric engines. You are running electric engines if you ask for them. I don't see how the electric engines ratios should be the diesels when surfaced.

[gap]

Code for letting you choose to run electric engines on the surface has been added to SHSim :rock:

:yeah:

The electric engine's ratios will be that for the electric engines. You are running electric engines if you ask for them. I don't see how the electric engines ratios should be the diesels when surfaced.

You misunderstood my previous post. Engine ratios for electric propulsion shouldn't change from underwater to surface, indeed. What should change on surface is the gradient of the rpm/speed graph. Look at the below graph, which was drawn using real data:

http://imageshack.us/a/img526/8962/rpmspeeds2.jpg

Both the blue lines refer to diesel propulsion, under various conditions. As you can see there is a little difference among them. Not so for the red lines: Electric max (light red line) refers to electric propulsion on surface and it is considerably steeper than Electric max (dark red line, i.e. electric propulsion submerged), having a gradient practically identical to the one of the diesel propulsion. This was probably due to the extra attrition caused by superstructure and guns during submerged navigation, absent on surface.

In game, if possible, you should replace electric propulsion's max speed set in U-boat's sim file with the following calculation (only for surfaced electric propulsion):

Er * Ds / Dr

where:

Er = Electric Engine_rpm
Ds = Diesel Max_speed
Dr = Diesel Engine_rpm

[TheDarkWraith]

Ahead flank surfaced using electric engines yields ~ 10 knots speed currently. I think that's pretty accurate and no changes are required.

[gap]

Ahead flank surfaced using electric engines yields a little over 10 knots speed currently. I think that's pretty accurate and no changes are required.

Okay, it should be about 11 knots, which is pretty close to the speed you have measured in game. What about ahead flank submerged?

[volodya61]

So.. it's time to eat my own words said about using electric engines on the surface :03: :)

[TheDarkWraith]

Okay, it should be about 11 knots, which is pretty close to the speed you have measured in game. What about ahead flank submerged?

ahead flank submerged is ~ 7.5 knots on electric engines.

This running electric engines on surface is pretty neat!

I was testing switching from diesels to electrics and back while surfaced to ensure battery recharge would kick in and it did. I'm going to make a patch that will inhibit this automatic battery recharge (sometimes you need the extra speed - when battery recharge is active you're maximum speed is slower since that prop is idle)

One thing I have noticed is when you use the electric motors on the surface the battery doesn't drain as fast (compared to same bell submerged). This means the game is modeling drag (and thus power required) for the electrics :D

[gap]

ahead flank submerged is ~ 7.5 knots on electric engines.

:up:


One thing I have noticed is when you use the electric motors on the surface the battery doesn't drain as fast (compared to same bell submerged). This means the game is modeling drag (and thus power required) for the electrics :D

Yes, max speed increasing from submerged to surface navigation is another evidence of it. Better than expected :yeah:

Similarly, using submerged diesel propulsion (with the schnorkel) should increase fuel consumption and decrease max speed. Has anyone ever noticed it? :hmm2:

[volodya61]

..Similarly, using submerged diesel propulsion (with the schnorkel) should increase fuel consumption and decrease max speed. Has anyone ever noticed it? :hmm2:

Yes.. it's exactly so..

...when battery recharge is active you're maximum speed is slower since that prop is idle...

At the beginning of my experience with SH5 I noticed one thing - VIIB is a very odd sub.. maximum speed isn't reduced during battery recharge.. at all.. and one more, I already told you about this, independent engine control on this sub is mirrored in relation to other subs, I mean VIIA and VIIC.. left button for the starboard engine and right button for the port engine..

EDIT: perhaps some issues with the model of this sub..

[Fifi]

:up:
Yes, max speed increasing from submerged to surface navigation is another evidence of it. Better than expected :yeah:


So that would explain why sub is going faster backward when submerged...drag of deck gun...
But then game is wrong...because they forgot the winter garden (rear cunning tower beeing widest than front tower)

[TheDarkWraith]

At the beginning of my experience with SH5 I noticed one thing - VIIB is a very odd sub.. maximum speed isn't reduced during battery recharge.. at all.. and one more, I already told you about this, independent engine control on this sub is mirrored in relation to other subs, I mean VIIA and VIIC.. left button for the starboard engine and right button for the port engine..

EDIT: perhaps some issues with the model of this sub..

In regards to independent engine controls, which subs are backwards in regards to the buttons for the shafts?

[gap]

So that would explain why sub is going faster backward when submerged...drag of deck gun...
But then game is wrong...because they forgot the winter garden (rear cunning tower beeing widest than front tower)

It makes sense. :yep:

Guns and conning towers got up/down, front/rear and left/right "additional drag coefficient" settings which we could play with for rebalancing ahead/astern speeds. Yet, your theory doesn't explain why rpm/speed outputs are not aligned along a straight line, as it should be (see graph @ post #2372) :hmmm:

[volodya61]

In regards to independent engine controls, which subs are backwards in regards to the buttons for the shafts?

For the types VIIA, VIIC, VIIC/41 - both buttons work as expected, left for the port shaft, right for the starboard shaft..
For the type VIIB buttons are mirrored/backwards/inversely, left for the starboard shaft, right for the port shaft..

And during battery recharge flank speed for VIIB is as in normal state - 17-18 knots..

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1931693&postcount=9314

[rolandslaw]

Gents:

It is obvious to me you gents are so far ahead of my level in understanding modding etc., it is remarkable.

I would be very content for the time being if someone could help me to specifically get the hydrophones to allow me to hear the target props turning:<)

I have Equipment update 1.4; EUF 1.4 patch1; EUF hot fix, EUF .03, Fix Update 0_21 ; Mighty Fine Crew 1.21; More Crew Command dial (MCCD) 1.04, NewUI 74 (Main); NEWUI no snorkel; Jin,..map tool; NEWUI captools alpha; WWIILintrface by Naught; REM 1.2; REM hydro player moot surface; Reworked Moral and Abiities 1.1;

I could not hear audio from hydro with no hydro ptch .... i removed and tried again... again nada ...

I am using the historicl mission used in TEC tutotial on 96% difficulty. I tried at 11 meters and at 19 meter...

I have copies of several of your mods list and have tried... with no luck.

I now understand ... or will after I read all 180 posts the generic patching program...hopefully in this lifetime:<)

Please..,., just provide simple instructions to enable human prop audio... I want to try the new mod using prop rpm to get speed><)

Thank you...

Rol

[gap]

For the types VIIA, VIIC, VIIC/41 - both buttons work as expected, left for the port shaft, right for the starboard shaft..
For the type VIIB buttons are mirrored/backwards/inversely, left for the starboard shaft, right for the port shaft..

And during battery recharge flank speed for VIIB is as in normal state - 17-18 knots..

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1931693&postcount=9314

Well spotted :up:

[gap]

I would be very content for the time being if someone could help me to specifically get the hydrophones to allow me to hear the target props turning:<)

Hi Rol,
try enabling TDW's hydrophone patch and report back if it still doesn't work.

Refer to the following threads for instructions on how to use the patcher: :up:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1926439#post1926439
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2080306#post2080306

[Fifi]

Gents:

It is obvious to me you gents are so far ahead of my level in understanding modding etc., it is remarkable.

I would be very content for the time being if someone could help me to specifically get the hydrophones to allow me to hear the target props turning:<)

I have Equipment update 1.4; EUF 1.4 patch1; EUF hot fix, EUF .03, Fix Update 0_21 ; Mighty Fine Crew 1.21; More Crew Command dial (MCCD) 1.04, NewUI 74 (Main); NEWUI no snorkel; Jin,..map tool; NEWUI captools alpha; WWIILintrface by Naught; REM 1.2; REM hydro player moot surface; Reworked Moral and Abiities 1.1;

I could not hear audio from hydro with no hydro ptch .... i removed and tried again... again nada ...

I am using the historicl mission used in TEC tutotial on 96% difficulty. I tried at 11 meters and at 19 meter...

I have copies of several of your mods list and have tried... with no luck.

I now understand ... or will after I read all 180 posts the generic patching program...hopefully in this lifetime:<)

Please..,., just provide simple instructions to enable human prop audio... I want to try the new mod using prop rpm to get speed><)

Thank you...

Rol

Roland, we are aware of your issue...but for my side, i really can't help as i don't see why it could come from.
In other threads we tried to figure out but obviously without result...
If others guys don't answer, that's because they don't have soluce :shifty:

[volodya61]

Well spotted :up:

It was spotted nine months ago.. :03:
Some female mammals during this time are hatching completely finished/ready children.. :D

[gap]

Roland, we are aware of your issue...but for my side, i really can't help as i don't see why it could come from.
In other threads we tried to figure out but obviously without result...
If others guys don't answer, that's because they don't have soluce :shifty:

Exactly, we are groping in the dark here. Try following my suggestion. If it doesn't work and no one else comes with a better idea, I am afraid you are left witth no other option than doing a clean install of the game. :yep:

P.S: are you always testing the hydrophone in the same historical mission? :hmmm:

[gap]

It was spotted nine months ago.. :03:
Some female mammals during this time are hatching completely finished/ready children.. :D

Congratulations: today you have delivered a full term bug report :D :woot:

[Gryffon300]

So that would explain why sub is going faster backward when submerged...drag of deck gun...
But then game is wrong...because they forgot the winter garden (rear cunning tower beeing widest than front tower)

Yes, the bits hanging off the hull, their shape and orientation, would be one problem, but, all else being equal, the same shaft revolutions ahead and astern should always result in a slower 'astern' speed, owing to the profile of the props which are optimised for 'forward' (to avoid cavitation etc). I haven't looked closely at historic props, but prop designs were always high tech, closely guarded and (as far as I know) always had different 'leading' and 'trailing' edges (regarding the forward edge as the 'leader').

For whatever it's worth...

Gryff

[TheDarkWraith]

@Sober - I have found something that could cause the error you reported. The fix will be available in next version.

The next version is going to be a major revision. I've done a lot of code shuffling and additions and I hope for no errors. Fixed a lot of problems where AI subs and AI units could be 'interfering' with player's sub's ordered speed/throttle/shafts. Revised the broken hydrophone patch. Added a new patch that allows you to run electric engines while surfaced. Work still continues on the next version.

The important thing with the next version if you will have to use clean, stock files for all the patches. Failure to do so will result in CTDs. Reason is I've added/removed Updates for the files and this requires clean, unmodified, stock files.

[THE_MASK]

Waiting for the next patch :up: Do you mean apply the patch to clean unmodded game and then apply the mods ?

[Fifi]

@Sober - I have found something that could cause the error you reported. The fix will be available in next version.

The next version is going to be a major revision. I've done a lot of code shuffling and additions and I hope for no errors. Fixed a lot of problems where AI subs and AI units could be 'interfering' with player's sub's ordered speed/throttle/shafts. Revised the broken hydrophone patch. Added a new patch that allows you to run electric engines while surfaced. Work still continues on the next version.

The important thing with the next version if you will have to use clean, stock files for all the patches. Failure to do so will result in CTDs. Reason is I've added/removed Updates for the files and this requires clean, unmodified, stock files.

Sounds like you said, a major update! :yeah:
Can"t wait for it :D

What clean files exactly?

[TheDarkWraith]

Waiting for the next patch :up: Do you mean apply the patch to clean unmodded game and then apply the mods ?

don't care about the mods. All the files have to be original SH5 v1.2 files (stock, unmodified, un-patched files). The only exception to this is if you have a 'fixed' SH5.exe. This file is the only exception.

[THE_MASK]

don't care about the mods. All the files have to be original SH5 v1.2 files (stock, unmodified, un-patched files). The only exception to this is if you have a 'fixed' SH5.exe. This file is the only exception.I will do a new install of SH5 before i patch then .

[Sjizzle]

i think i will do the same :D

[gap]

I will do a new install of SH5 before i patch then .

i think i will do the same :D

I think only a fresh copy of the act files is required; no need to reinstall the game all the way :hmmm:

[volodya61]

d...All the files have to be original SH5 v1.2 files (stock, unmodified, un-patched files). The only exception to this is if you have a 'fixed' SH5.exe. This file is the only exception.

If I understood correctly, unpatched files but with increased size (TDWdata + TDWcode) won't work with the new version.. correct?
If so, I should reinstall the game because I have only backup files in the Patcher's folder :hmmm:

[gap]

If I understood correctly, unpatched files but with increased size (TDWdata + TDWcode) won't work with the new version.. correct?
If so, I should reinstall the game because I have only backup files in the Patcher's folder :hmmm:

If you want, I have clean backups of the exe, act and dll files needed by the patcher. I guess I cannot upload them here for copyright infringement reasons but, if you still need for them, just drom me a PM and I will send them to you privately :03:

[volodya61]

If you want, I have clean backups of the exe, act and dll files needed by the patcher. I guess I cannot upload them here for copyright infringement reasons but, if you still need for them, just drom me a PM and I will send them to you privately :03:

Thanks :up:
I'll send you PM if the new Patcher's version won't work with my backup (increased) files.. .act and .dll only.. .exe is the exception as TDW mentioned :)

[TheDarkWraith]

The Generic Patcher must be able to install/build all the new sections in all the files again (except for the sh5.exe). That is why clean, stock, unmodified files are needed. The sh5.exe must have all patches disabled before using upcoming new version.

[volodya61]

The Generic Patcher must be able to install/build all the new sections in all the files again (except for the sh5.exe). That is why clean, stock, unmodified files are needed. The sh5.exe must have all patches disabled before using upcoming new version.

Thanks TDW, it's now enough clearly :up:

[rolandslaw]

Gap and gents:

I am working with the patcher... located a newer version.. latest .... and will today include the additional files required to be patched.... I finally realized u only need to take it down to SH5 level and the patcher will find the files ....

I hope to test this evening...

Thank you all for your suggestions... I am looking forward to testing new hydrophone techniques ./...

Rol

[TheDarkWraith]

Gap and gents:

I am working with the patcher... located a newer version.. latest .... and will today include the additional files required to be patched.... I finally realized u only need to take it down to SH5 level and the patcher will find the files ....

I hope to test this evening...

Thank you all for your suggestions... I am looking forward to testing new hydrophone techniques ./...

Rol

The broken hydrophone patch is vastly improved in next upcoming version. The hydrophone itself is much more improved also

[Sjizzle]

The broken hydrophone patch is vastly improved in next upcoming version. The hydrophone itself is much more improved also

:up:

[rolandslaw]

Gap and FiFI:

Printed out the instructions for the latest generic patcher... followed carefully.. installed at end of mod list .... using the sgme mod installer....only after carefully checking my work.... after selecting the last historical mission for practice on hydro... ctd:<!

I noticed and printed FIFI, Gap's and several others mod lists regarding the placement of this mod i created... one had it as the first and the others as the last in the list?

I will remove every mod and start only with this new mod..... see if it is the new mod created using the generic patcher.

I love the utilities you gents developed... talented...

Rol

[Sjizzle]

Gap and FiFI:

Printed out the instructions for the latest generic patcher... followed carefully.. installed at end of mod list ....

Rol

do not enable the GenericPatcher with JGSME use it stand allone
TDW's GenericPatcher it's a application not a mod !!!

take a look here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=205620) how to use the GenericPatcher

[rolandslaw]

Fifi and Gap:

Tried removing all mods and only installed new generic mod just created...

after game loads after selection of historical mission.... ctd

AFTER installing one mod at a time on the 19th of July... I again have it working... but no human audio at hydrophone station of prop cvitation... see post # 26 at Workshop How to use TDW genetic patcher for Beginners. also... be mindful TDW has posted his test version of the nxt patcher which will improve the hydrophone....

Got it to work per my mod list and procedure post... at Workshop.... above:<) I want you all to see what works and what mod is causing CTD after using the last patcher:<)

Added 7/21/13 edit: I just realized I have only 6 gigs of DDR 3 mb ram:<) That may explain why the DynamiEnv mods .. I had 4 or 5... would cause ctd after installing after Steel Viking?

Thanks for help.

Rol

[Sjizzle]

read my post above

[Fifi]

do not enable the GenericPatcher with JGSME use it stand allone
TDW's GenericPatcher it's a application not a mod !!!

take a look here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=205620) how to use the GenericPatcher


:agree::up:

[volodya61]

@ TDW

Here is a new version of Generic Patcher manual RUS (1.0.100 - 1.0.128) - http://www.4sync.com/archive/Dd179C_B/Generic_Patcher_manual_RUS__10.html

I've slightly changed instructions due to the last changes (the need of stock, unmodified, unpatched files and so on)..

[gap]

@ TDW

... and here are the ship damage zone tweaks required by the upcoming radio damage patch:

http://www.mediafire.com/?qj37aa1fak7w39d

All the files based on the latest version of Fx Updates. Tweaks featured:

Zones.cfg

Added three new zonde definitions: 235=RadioRoom, 236=RadioTransmitAntenna, and 237=RadioReceiverAntenna (the latter added just in case of possible future developments of your radio damage patch); please note that included in the file are some other new zones, not pertinent to the said patch and not affecting FX update's normal functionalities, but required by the ship cargo mod proposed by Rongel which I started working on.


New zone settings (if needed, feel free to adjust them):

[RadioRoom]
Multiplier=1.000000
Flotability=0.000000
HitPoints=30
Destructible=No
Armor Level=-1
Critic Flotation=0.300000
Critical=No
Effect1=#sink_bubbles, 1
Effect2=BAZA_FX_FocFum_mic, 50
Effect3=BAZA_FX_Explozie_mica, 100
Effect4=BAZA_FX_Splinter_fire, 100
Effect5=BAZA_FX_scantei_explozie,100
FloodingTime=59.999996
CargoType=None

[RadioTransmitAntenna]
Multiplier=1.000000
Flotability=0.000000
HitPoints=8
Destructible=No
Armor Level=3
Critic Flotation=0.300000
Critical=No
FloodingTime=59.999996
CargoType=None

[RadioReceiverAntenna]
Multiplier=1.000000
Flotability=0.000000
HitPoints=8
Destructible=No
Armor Level=3
Critic Flotation=0.300000
Critical=No
FloodingTime=59.999996
CargoType=None


Ship *.zon files:

Added one RadioRoom damage box to each stock ship, and one RadioTransmitAntenna to some ships.
Some of the existing boxes of few ships slightly moved/resized, in order to make better space for the new boxes.
Added additional collision spheres to some ships, when required for the new damage boxes to take damge.
Added collision spheres and damage boxes to the masts of several battleships which were missing them, for making their masts destructible.
For most ships, mast boxes linked to the appropriate non-parent wire objects, so to make wires to be destroyed when masts are destroyed.


If you agree with the above changes, I suggest you to include them into the next FX Update's version, so to keep full compatibility among your mod and my tweaks of it.

Once your patch is ready and tested, I will start adding the needed boxes to OH's ships :up:

[THE_MASK]

Fifi and Gap:

Tried removing all mods and only installed new generic mod just created...

after game loads after selection of historical mission.... ctd

RolHave you enabled every patch in the EXE patcher ?

[rolandslaw]

Gents:

I was improperly installing by using it with JSMGE. Should I leave it in the left side of Mod enabler? It is there now and I just reinstalled most of my mods .... your mod list but shorter in number... and the game works fine again but no humane hydro sound.

I left out IRAI, Steel Vikings mod and patch, and DynEVl, Equatools.

Sjizzle... thanks for pointing out my obvious error:<)

1. When using the generic patcher in each subfile where u could change from false to true.... i selected everyone of them? could this be a problem?

2. the patcher "TDW_GenericPatcher v1.0.128.0 is in the left column of the gen Mod enabler... is this ok?

3. How is it enabled? Or, having made the elections using the patcher the five files are already changed? Now realizing the nature of the program.... I would think they are already modified?

I limited the mod list to:

Equipment Upgrade fixs 1,4, patch 1, patch 1 hot fix, fix eq upgrade Sober 9, EUF Fix by he Beast. Fix Update by ,21 vt TDW, Mighty Fine Crew, Reworked Moral and Abilities, MCCD, NewUI 7.4.2, NightVision,No snorkel Exhaust, Jimmadrids map tools, Radcaptools alpha, Rem, Rem mute for TDW , Torp speed abilities command Key 1.03

Thanks again...


Rol

[TheDarkWraith]

@ TDW

... and here are the ship damage zone tweaks required by the upcoming radio damage patch:

http://www.mediafire.com/?qj37aa1fak7w39d

All the files based on the latest version of Fx Updates. Tweaks featured:


Zones.cfg

Added three new zonde definitions: 235=RadioRoom, 236=RadioTransmitAntenna, and 237=RadioReceiverAntenna (the latter added just in case of possible future developments of your radio damage patch); please note that included in the file are some other new zones, not pertinent to the said patch and not affecting FX update's normal functionalities, but required by the ship cargo mod proposed by Rongel which I started working on.

New zone settings (if needed, feel free to adjust them):

[RadioRoom]
Multiplier=1.000000
Flotability=0.000000
HitPoints=30
Destructible=No
Armor Level=-1
Critic Flotation=0.300000
Critical=No
Effect1=#sink_bubbles, 1
Effect2=BAZA_FX_FocFum_mic, 50
Effect3=BAZA_FX_Explozie_mica, 100
Effect4=BAZA_FX_Splinter_fire, 100
Effect5=BAZA_FX_scantei_explozie,100
FloodingTime=59.999996
CargoType=None

[RadioTransmitAntenna]
Multiplier=1.000000
Flotability=0.000000
HitPoints=8
Destructible=No
Armor Level=3
Critic Flotation=0.300000
Critical=No
FloodingTime=59.999996
CargoType=None

[RadioReceiverAntenna]
Multiplier=1.000000
Flotability=0.000000
HitPoints=8
Destructible=No
Armor Level=3
Critic Flotation=0.300000
Critical=No
FloodingTime=59.999996
CargoType=None



Ship *.zon files:

Added one RadioRoom damage box to each stock ship, and one RadioTransmitAntenna to some ships.
Some of the existing boxes of few ships slightly moved/resized, in order to make better space for the new boxes.
Added additional collision spheres to some ships, when required for the new damage boxes to take damge.
Added collision spheres and damage boxes to the masts of several battleships which were missing them, for making their masts destructible.
For most ships, mast boxes linked to the appropriate non-parent wire objects, so to make wires to be destroyed when masts are destroyed.

If you agree with the above changes, I suggest you to include them into the next FX Update's version, so to keep full compatibility among your mod and my tweaks of it.

Once your patch is ready and tested, I will start adding the needed boxes to OH's ships :up:

I actually need a couple of ships and a test mission to test the code out :yep:

[tonschk]

Thank you TheDarkWraith :sunny::Dfor develop and improve this application :yeah:

[Sjizzle]

Gents:

I was improperly installing by using it with JSMGE. Should I leave it in the left side of Mod enabler? It is there now and I just reinstalled most of my mods .... your mod list but shorter in number... and the game works fine again but no humane hydro sound.

I left out IRAI, Steel Vikings mod and patch, and DynEVl, Equatools.

Sjizzle... thanks for pointing out my obvious error:<)

1. When using the generic patcher in each subfile where u could change from false to true.... i selected everyone of them? could this be a problem?

2. the patcher "TDW_GenericPatcher v1.0.128.0 is in the left column of the gen Mod enabler... is this ok?

3. How is it enabled? Or, having made the elections using the patcher the five files are already changed? Now realizing the nature of the program.... I would think they are already modified?

I limited the mod list to:

Equipment Upgrade fixs 1,4, patch 1, patch 1 hot fix, fix eq upgrade Sober 9, EUF Fix by he Beast. Fix Update by ,21 vt TDW, Mighty Fine Crew, Reworked Moral and Abilities, MCCD, NewUI 7.4.2, NightVision,No snorkel Exhaust, Jimmadrids map tools, Radcaptools alpha, Rem, Rem mute for TDW , Torp speed abilities command Key 1.03

Thanks again...


Rol


townload this (http://www.mediafire.com/download/13ip55vvs4ydo9m/TDW.gps) .gps file and use it :

if u don't know how to restor a snapshot take a look here

http://attila-kevin.de/var/resizes/TDW-GenricPatcher/tdw10.jpg?m=1373133948

[Gryffon300]

Hi TDW, this is a post I have up over in SH4, but I thought it unlikely you would encounter it, so I'm hoping for an opinion here...

OK, I have a strong suspicion that there is something wrong. I know I'm Pretty Terrific, but I've just had a 218,433 ton mission! Bragging rights seem a little tarnished if one suspects one is being given an unfair advantage.

I'm running at 85%, or occasionally 75% realism if I want some shots (but DON'T use external camera for anything other than screen shots). Here is my current Mod line-up (in this order):
TMO 2.5
RSRDC TMO V502
RSRDC V5xx Patch1
1.5 OTC 031312 for RSRDC v502
OTC Gato Sonar Bearing Fix
Less Plankton 1.2
LST TMO v2
TDW Ship Plane Fire Damage v1 4 SH3
Websters Real Lifeboats Fix for v1.5

(I'm also intending playing with adding TMO17 19 Different Smoke. I have ensured that the data file in each folder is only one level down - no 'nested' duplicate folders.)

Now, here is my "problem". On this latest cruise (a new Balao, Jan-Feb 1943), I took out a Fleet Carrier with two torps. "Lucky", I thought. Then went on to a bunch of solo merchants with gun, and the last one I had to add a torp to finish him off as I'd run out of ammo. No worries. But THEN, I intercepted the best task force I have ever seen. BBs; FCs; HCs; LCs and a bunch of DDs.

It was a hairy engagement, with me initially positioned at 90 degrees in the middle of the 4 columns so I could fire fore and aft. I elected to assign only two torps to each of 5 targets in the initial round. I expected to get one, maybe, but really, I was only expecting to be able to slow them down so I could take them out later once re-loaded.

In this extended engagement (including a 125 nm chase, through 3 re-positionings to intercept ahead of the fleeing TF that did two 90 degree course changes before finally getting at the remaining Kongo), I launched 22 torps, for 18 impacts and 4 misses (AND NO DUDS OR PREMIS!! - that's another thing - what happened to the dud scenario?? OK 50% was probably silly, but this seems a tad low...)

So, Shokaku FC; Kongo BB; Hiyo FC; Hiyo FC; Kuma LC; Kongo BB for 178,998 tons ALL on two torps each (except the last Kongo, and that was unnecessary, as I was tired and couldn't be bothered with another long chase to try and do a single fore and aft shot to try and get one of the Takao Heavies.)

Now, I know the instruction manuals suggest up to 10 torps for a BB - not bad, but maybe a tad OTT, even if realistic, but justifiable. BUT, all those BBs and FCs consistently on only 2 torps each? I know I'm good, but I'm not that good. Something is off.



The only suggestion I have had is the possibility that the fire damage mod may be the issue. Comments? (Other than, "What's your beef, you Lucky Bastard?" I know: there's just no pleasing some people....) Recommendations?

Gryff

PS, on re-reading this post, I sounded like a wuss to myself, so went back and re-ran the last engagement, altering the attack profile. This time, I put a rear into the Kongo on a perfect side-on at 2,000 for a straight shot followed by an intended forward shot after a flank turn to come to bear. The Kongo, in the interim, had slowed from 16 to six knots (ONE ONE TORP to the guts! - no spread angle). I had contemplated waiting to see what would happen, so had paralleled, but the damage control boys must have been doing a good job, because speed increased up through to 8 knots, so, I nosed over and put in the coup de grace.

THEN, I had two forwards to take out the Takao passing at 3,000 at 30 knots. So, I'm afraid I'm now up to a total gross tonnage of 234,303. Bizarre, but kinda nice....

[Sjizzle]

Oops here it's sh5 section not sh4

[Gryffon300]

Oops here it's sh5 section not sh4

Quite aware of that, but as this mod is available for SH3, 4 and 5, but nowhere obvious to raise this in the SH4 threads, as there is not even a thread, I didn't feel like I had much of an alternative, hence the explanation/apology in the introduction.

Cheers
Gryff

[Sjizzle]

no offence m8 but TDW genericpatcher it's not a mod and it's only made for SH5 ....TDW's Genericpatcher it's a aplication ....

[Gryffon300]

no offence m8 but TDW genericpatcher it's not a mod and it's only made for SH5 ....TDW's Genericpatcher it's a aplication ....

Whatever. Tell me where I CAN post the question for the author of the mod and I'll happily leave you alone.

G

[Mikemike47]

Whatever. Tell me where I CAN post the question for the author of the mod and I'll happily leave you alone.
TMO 2.5
RSRDC TMO V502
RSRDC V5xx Patch1
1.5 OTC 031312 for RSRDC v502
OTC Gato Sonar Bearing Fix
Less Plankton 1.2
LST TMO v2
TDW Ship Plane Fire Damage v1 4 SH3
Websters Real Lifeboats Fix for v1.5
Try the SH4 fleet boat mods section. Is "TDW Ship Plane Fire Damage v1 4 SH3" for SH3 not SH4?

[gap]

I actually need a couple of ships...

You got plenty of them :03:


...and a test mission to test the code out :yep:

If you are busy with other stuff, I can create the test mission. For ease of testing, should I remove armaments from the guinea pig ships? :hmm2:

[Mikemike47]

@TDW:
I think it would be great idea to add another help link to the bottom of post #1, under the "How to use the patcher app:" section. Many newbies are asking questions. The additional link may reduce the number of posts asking for help in various threads, too.

How to USE TDW GenericPatcher for Beginer (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=205620)

Another post on different thread asking for help example (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2085882&postcount=3565)

[Gryffon300]

Try the SH4 fleet boat mods section. Is "TDW Ship Plane Fire Damage v1 4 SH3" for SH3 not SH4?

I'm really sorry we are having such a communication problem - I thought I was being very clear. As I have said multiple times now, the author of the Mod (The DarkWraith), has "ported the mod"across all three of SH3, 4 and 5, but HAS NOT put a thread of any kind in SH4 Fleet Boats Mods or anywhere else in SH4.

I get that he is not interested in working on or developing SH4 mods, but I didn't expect there would be such dismissive antagonism toward us pathetic non-SH5 losers. The fact that I, like others, have been active in all versions of the franchise since SH1, means that SH5 is an inevitable progression for me, largely due to the excellent work of TDW to 'fix' it. That fact that he has done equally terrific work for previous versions, and made some work cross-version is apparently not at all understood here. You guys in '5' seem a little insular, to say the least. Apparently, no-one here gives a damn about an issue from a fellow traveller. It's OK. I get it. Message recieved and understood. Nice to know where we stand. I'll leave you to your naval fluff.

I'm not having a go at you mikemike - at least you attempted to be helpful. It's just 'the vibe' over here that is cold and very unwelcoming. Have a look at all my posts. Either completely ignored or, like yours, makes assumptions that I had already made clear did not apply.

[gap]

Hi Gryffon :salute:

seeing that the discussion is reaching a deadlock, and that TDW is delaying his answers, I thought I would have a go at it myself. Please read below.

I'm really sorry we are having such a communication problem - I thought I was being very clear. As I have said multiple times now, the author of the Mod (The DarkWraith), has "ported the mod"across all three of SH3, 4 and 5, but HAS NOT put a thread of any kind in SH4 Fleet Boats Mods or anywhere else in SH4.

As far as I can understand, the mod that you are talking about is a porting of FX Update to SH4, so the FX Update thread would be the best place to discuss your report.

Anyway, having read it carefully, I would say the best solution would be increasing drastically batlleship hit points. For sure SH5 needs a general AP/HP rebalance. I feel that dev's settings are too generic, and don't reflect the actual "strenghts" of each hull/fuselage; HP's in particular are too low, giving the game a too arcadey damage handling. I don't know much about SH4 settings, but it is likely that it got the same problems.


I get that he is not interested in working on or developing SH4 mods, but I didn't expect there would be such dismissive antagonism toward us pathetic non-SH5 losers. The fact that I, like others, have been active in all versions of the franchise since SH1, means that SH5 is an inevitable progression for me, largely due to the excellent work of TDW to 'fix' it. That fact that he has done equally terrific work for previous versions, and made some work cross-version is apparently not at all understood here. You guys in '5' seem a little insular, to say the least. Apparently, no-one here gives a damn about an issue from a fellow traveller. It's OK. I get it. Message recieved and understood. Nice to know where we stand. I'll leave you to your naval fluff.

Not at all, we SH5 players are aware tha "our" game owes obviously a lot to SHIII/IV, both in terms of vanilla code and of third party mods/units which were ported to the newest version of the game. Though not playing them, I myself am highly interested into any new development made on SH5's predecessors, and I read about them as often as possible. I usually don't post in the SHIII/IV sections as I don't have a direct experience of these games, and too many of my assertions about them should be taken with a picnh of salt. Yet, in the past I have timely informed cocerned SHIII/IV modders when I thought that something new had been discovered on SH5 that could apply to its older brothers, and the few mods I have released are available for being ported to them, if possible.

I am talking mostly for my part indeed, but I am sure that many SH5 modders/players could subscribe the above assertions without thinking it twice. :yep:


I'm not having a go at you mikemike - at least you attempted to be helpful. It's just 'the vibe' over here that is cold and very unwelcoming. Have a look at all my posts. Either completely ignored or, like yours, makes assumptions that I had already made clear did not apply.

I am really sorry that you had such a bad feeling, but please read again the first row of your report: it was addressed straight to TDW, so it is obvious that you expected a tecnical answer by him and only by him. Other members just pointed politely that your post was off topic here, as they were unaware that the discussed mod has not a specific thread in the SH4 section. :03:

[Mikemike47]

@gap. Thanks for your input. Now I do not have to write as much. Same thoughts here.

Here is my current Mod line-up (in this order):
TMO 2.5
RSRDC TMO V502
RSRDC V5xx Patch1
1.5 OTC 031312 for RSRDC v502
OTC Gato Sonar Bearing Fix
Less Plankton 1.2
LST TMO v2
TDW Ship Plane Fire Damage v1 4 SH3
Websters Real Lifeboats Fix for v1.5

The only suggestion I have had is the possibility that the fire damage mod may be the issue.

Proof of fire damage and caused by TDW Ship Plane Fire Damage v1 4 SH3? TDW may not play all of the other mods. Did you inform him somehow that the fire damage mod does not overwrite any files above it? (From my memory) Screenshots or written data for TDW to evaluate? Use SH4 validator or JSGME validator and provide that information?

Did you put all the information on your post to the TDW Ship Plane Fire Damage v1 4 SH3 (SH4) thread? PM TDW?

Try the SH4 fleet boat mods section. Is "TDW Ship Plane Fire Damage v1 4 SH3" for SH3 not SH4?

I have played SH2, SH3 and SH4. I have gotten much help when I asked, due to the wonderful world of the internet and fellow subsimmers, when I was consumed with playing SH3 and SH4. I think I just started playing SH5 12-18 months ago. I have gotten as much help here on SH5, too.

As I have said multiple times now, the author of the Mod (The DarkWraith), has "ported the mod"across all three of SH3, 4 and 5, but HAS NOT put a thread of any kind in SH4 Fleet Boats Mods or anywhere else in SH4.

Of course TDW posted some threads somehow on SH3 or SH4. Maybe someone else added the download links. How would we know otherwise about TDW Ship Plane Fire Damage v1 4 SH3 or something like DC Water Disturbances mod? At least, he was helping SH3 or SH4 to make the games better.

TDW has stated somewhere that he can not dedicate alot his time to SH3 or SH4; or does not want to. He wants to work on SH5 for his own reasons and we are grateful for that. He explained his reasons somewhere.

[TheDarkWraith]

@TDW:
I think it would be great idea to add another help link to the bottom of post #1, under the "How to use the patcher app:" section. Many newbies are asking questions. The additional link may reduce the number of posts asking for help in various threads, too.

How to USE TDW GenericPatcher for Beginer (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=205620)

Another post on different thread asking for help example (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2085882&postcount=3565)




Added to bottom of post #1 :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

Sorry if this is not the way to do it, but I have a request/suggestion. Your excellent "Unit damage from smoke and/or fires" mod that is usable now for SH 3, 4 and 5, is largely unknown over in SH 4 (especially among newer players), because there is neither a thread about it in the Mods workshop, nor is it uploaded to the Gameplay mods for SH 4 (or 3? - I haven't looked).

If its not a total pain, do you think you could maybe put a thread or arrange to have it uploaded to the appropriate download spots?

Doing a forum search you will find it:
My depth charge water disturbances for SH4: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=181540
My Ship damage from fires for SH4: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=180920

I also made those for SH3 and doing a forum search will find them.

[TheDarkWraith]

The only suggestion I have had is the possibility that the fire damage mod may be the issue. Comments?

More than likely damage and flooding is spreading throughout the ship due to the ship damage from fires mod. You can tweak the damage from the fires of the mod by editing the .dat file of the mod:

Small_Fire_DC
Large_fire_DC

You'll want to edit their AmmoDamageInfo controllers and change the MinEF, MaxEF, AP, MinRadius, and MaxRadius. The MinEF and MaxEF determine ultimately how many HPs the zones in the path of the fire incur damage.

You can also change the time of how often the damage from the fires is called by playing with the values in the Small_fire_damage and Large_fire_damage ParticleGenerators.

[TheDarkWraith]

At least, he was helping SH3 or SH4 to make the games better.

TDW has stated somewhere that he can not dedicate alot his time to SH3 or SH4; or does not want to. He wants to work on SH5 for his own reasons and we are grateful for that. He explained his reasons somewhere.

I modded SH3 but under a different forum name. I produced many mods for SH3, probably the most notable being the SH4 effects for SH3 mod and my live AI ships mod. There were many good ones I made for SH3.

SH3/4 are outdated engines. They don't even come close to the possibilities we have with SH5. When SH5 came out everybody dismissed it as junk. Yes, it was junk as delivered and even with the first patch from Ubi. If you were to 'take a look under the hood' though you'd see the possibilities that SH5 has. It's pretty amazing actually. I'm just beginning to tap into it's possibilities with my Generic Patcher :D

[TheDarkWraith]

Time for an update. I had some severe limitations with my 'infrastructure' that I had coded into SH5 with my Generic Patcher. I could not easily add additional timers or commands to the game. Thus something had to be done about it.

I basically rewrote my entire infrastructure and framework to make it behave like a plug-in architecture. With a plug-in architecture it's very easy to add additions, add new code, etc. to the supporting framework. And I have accomplished this (totally coded in assembly!) :rock:

With my new framework and architecture adding new timers, code for the new timers, adding new commands to the game, new code for those new commands, etc. is just a simple matter of telling the framework where to find the new code and 'plugging-in' the offsets needed so the framework can find the needed strings and code. The other great thing about my new architecture and framework is expandability and scalability. I'm no longer 'hard-coded' to certain things, I am free to do whatever my mind comes up with. If other people decide to add new items/commands/etc. to the game via assembly they can use my plug-in architecture to easily add their new additions. If one could view the code I wrote for all of this as a painting it would be the Mona Lisa.

Currently I have added six new commands to the game:

Independent engine controls:
Both_engines_for_speed
Port_engine_only
Stbd_engine_only

Electric engines on surface:
Enable_electrics_surfaced
Disable_electrics_surfaced
Toggle_electrics_surfaced

Currently these commands can only be accessed by using the script engine the devs included with the game. By using this command:

Game.SubmarineCommands.ExecuteCommand()

You can invoke the new commands above. Here is an example:

Game.SubmarineCommands.ExecuteCommand( "Toggle_electrics_surfaced" )


I'll be releasing a test version here very soon so you all can test all the changes. I've been testing it for the last 2 days and haven't noticed any problems. I'm hoping for none but to think I wrote 100% perfect code would be foolish thinking (it hardly ever happens!). Thus by releasing a test version there will be many people testing the new framework and architecture for bugs/CTDs.

One thing you will notice is the addition of a new section to the SH5.exe: TDWMisc. This new section basically contains all the new command strings but I've made it readable, writable, and executable so that it's very flexible and can be used as I see fit.

The next version of the Generic Patcher has two new groups added to the sh5.exe: Hydrophone and Advanced Users. Currently the two patches dealing with the hydrophone are grouped under the Hydrophone group. Those functions I see fit for advanced users have been placed under the Advanced Users group (Orbit listener patches, Render patches, and some others). This should make it really easy for newbies to quit enabling every single patch since they don't care to read/investigate the patches (Files= and Notes=). If one enables the patches under Advanced Users they do it under their own risk.

I've added the Advanced Users group to other patch files as necessary/needed.

[Sartoris]

Thank you for your hard work, TDW! Can't wait to give it a try.:woot::up::yeah:

[TheDarkWraith]

In addition to the new electric engines on surface patch there will be two additional new patches:
- CO2 rate increase on battlestations (causes CO2 level to increase faster when battlestations enabled)
- Disable automatic battery recharge (disables the game's automatic switching to battery recharge when surfacing)

The broken hydrophone patch was rewritten to kill the bug of unknown being shown when the hydrophone needle was placed anywhere near aft end of sub. Now you will be able to hear hydrophone contacts in the aft area of the sub (if your hydrophone installed on the sub supports it).
I'm adding some new code to the hydrophone that will allow it to show Environmental and Submarine in addition to Merchant, Warship, and Unknown. I'm pretty sure a hydrophone operator can distinguish submarines and environmentals from all the others :yep:

There might be some other new patches included in next version. Depends on time...


I revised many of the patches that could have interference with AI subs to avoid this interference. Previously the AI subs could be influencing whether the player's sub was surfaced, submerged, or was able to change speeds of each shaft (from a code aspect)

The carriers/airbases spawning aircraft patch was revised to add new min/max limits for the logic steps value when the bit was set denoting logic steps needed to be adjusted (currently min=1 and max=4). It was also revised to prevent the player's overzealous radio operator from radioing for assistance without permission. I also added two new arguments passed to all the functions dealing with carriers/airbases spawning aircraft: is human playable and do not check for radio. These let the functions test for whether the unit asking for assistance is human playable (and if so returns to caller) and whether the unit can send/receive radio (currently not fully coded - returns 1 back to callee denoting radio is operational).

[Fifi]

If one could view the code I wrote for all of this as a painting it would be the Mona Lisa

:haha: :yeah: :rock:

[gap]

Excellent news, TDW. Thank you for your hard work :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

It was time to test all the new code and new additions to my UIs mod. Result: Success :D

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=526&pictureid=6819

As you can see I've added a new order: Electric engines only. You can see that I clicked the icon, the crew shutdown the diesels and engaged the electric motors (message in messagebox). You can also see that I'm still surfaced but now running on electrics.

What I need from those of you who are graphically inclined: I need a new icon for the electric engines only. I would like the new icon added to my UIs mod's \data\Menu\Gui\Layout\Orders4.dds. You'll notice that there are 3 colors in this DDS. The icon needs to be placed in each color. It's pretty self-explanatory when you open the dds file in Photoshop or the likes.

Had one slight 'hiccup' in my code. I was clicking the electric engines icon but it wasn't changing color. This means it was not getting any feedback from the game that an order was given. Here's how the game works: in the script code if you use the Game.SubmarineCommands.ExecuteCommand() command the command is parsed by a function. It checks to see if it's a valid command. Valid commands are commands hard-coded into the sh5.exe. If it's a valid command then the game executes the code for the command and then tells all the scripts that the command was executed. Obviously my new command didn't exist in the sh5.exe so it was flagged as invalid command and passed to default handler. Default handler doesn't do crap with them so I hooked into it and added new code that will process 'new' commands added to the game (my plug-in architecture and framework). All that new code works flawlessly EXCEPT for the fact that it doesn't do any hand-shaking with the script code. I had to go back and add the hand-shaking so that when the new command is executed the very last thing the new code does is tell all the scripts that the new command was executed. Now with the hand-shaking in place the new electric engines icon got it's feedback from the game and changed to the yellow-orange color.

The tooltip for the new icon is a new menu entry: 1005
This means it can easily be changed to whatever I finally decide to call it.

[THE_MASK]

If someone could just put an E on the icon , maybe . I would but i dont know how .
http://i40.tinypic.com/2w5ue6t.jpg

[TheDarkWraith]

If someone could just put an E on the icon , maybe . I would but i dont know how .

I have the photoshop skills to do this. Great idea. Simple and elegant :yeah:

[Fifi]

Yes, great idea Sober :up:
If you can't do it, let me know.

[Tonci87]

Or a little flash :hmm2:

[tonschk]

Currently I have added six new commands to the game:

Independent engine controls:
Both_engines_for_speed
Port_engine_only
Stbd_engine_only

Electric engines on surface:
Enable_electrics_surfaced
Disable_electrics_surfaced
Toggle_electrics_surfaced

Currently these commands can only be accessed by using the script engine the devs included with the game. By using this command:

Game.SubmarineCommands.ExecuteCommand()



:D:woot::salute::up::yeah::sunny::rock::woot::D:sa lute::sunny:

[naights]

http://www.mediafire.com/view/1vepdn9dp9nrww8/Electric.png

[gap]

Hi TDW,

in case you are still interested, I have prepared two possible electric propulsion icons; one was inspired by sober, but with a lower case italic "e", whereas the other one diplays the symbol internationally used for denoting electric motors:

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/5265/bxyv.png

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/100/j52.png

P.S: I have just seen the button proposed by naights, which is also good :up:

[vdr1981]

TY for hour hard work TDW!

[gap]

One last option, inspired by naights' icon:

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/8223/xh6p.png

[TheDarkWraith]

One last option, inspired by naights' icon:

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/8223/xh6p.png

Like it :yeah: Have a download link?

Just finishing up the last of the new hydrophone code. Once that is complete and I finalize the new electrics only icon I'll be releasing the test version.

[gap]

Like it :yeah: Have a download link?

Here's the updated Orders4.dds ready for use :up:

http://www.mediafire.com/?m02qu7dlq98pmvq

[Tonci87]

One last option, inspired by naights' icon:

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/8223/xh6p.png


I like it too!

[TheDarkWraith]

I am releasing a test version of the upcoming new version of the Generic Patcher. Currently it's at v1.0.134.0 but that is sure to increase before I officially release it.

This is a major update. Major as in architecturally everything has changed (code wise for the patches). This means there is a possibility of CTDs and strange things happening. I have been testing it for the last 3 days and haven't had any CTDs or strange happenings. That is not to say it's perfect - there are probably some hidden bugs I haven't found yet. Thus by letting you all test it also you can help me find the bugs (if there are any).

In order to use this test version you have to have clean, unmodified, unpatched, stock files. If you do not have them then you'll have to follow the procedure below. If you do have them you can skip the procedure below.

For those who do not have clean, unmodified, unpatched, stock files (or those of you who have 'special' files) you'll have a little work to do before being able to use this test version. Here's what you have to do:
- you need previous version of the Generic Patcher
- open up the Generic Patcher folder and navigate to the \Patches\SH5 folder
- You'll need to do this to every single .s5p file in there:
-- open up the .s5p file using notepad
-- scroll down till you see the UPDATES headers. Here is what you're looking for:

[UPDATE 1]
Name=Fixes the Year entry being written over in the DestroyedUnits.ini file for each [Unit_x] entry
UniqueName=Update_1
Pictures=
Notes=
Offset=0x1AAEE0
Length=0x5
OldValue=686C027400
NewValue=6884996F00
Prompt=0
Verify=1
ShowInUpdates=1
Editable=0
[ENDUPDATE 1]

-- now in every single [UPDATE x] block change the Editable=0 to Editable=1
-- save the file
-- do this to every single .s5p file (NOTE: some files do not have any [UPDATE x] blocks)
- once you have changed all the [UPDATE x] headers to Editable=1 in every .s5p file open up the previous version of the Generic Patcher
- expand every patch file node and expand the Updates node
- for every update in the Updates node double click the Enabled to disable the update
- do this for every update node in the Updates of every patch file node
- if you fail to do this or do this incorrectly you will CTD when using this test version of the Generic Patcher or any version after this when trying to play the game. GUARANTEED

For those of you with clean, unmodified, unpatched files (or those of you who followed the procedure above) you may now use this test version or any version released after it.

test version 1.0.141.0 available here: http://www.mediafire.com/?ndq117y5qk9szbt

NOTE: be sure to check the Files= and Notes= entries OF EVERY PATCH! Failure to do so will result in diminished functionality of the patch.

I'm still working on some of the patches. Everything is stable and can be enabled that you want to use. The new hydro contact types patch is functional but not yet complete.

In order to test the electrics engines while surfaced patch you'll need to use the test version of my UIs mods: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2087480&postcount=10475

[Sjizzle]

ty tdw :up:

[volodya61]

Hi TDW :salute:

One question.. I have all the files are clean, unmodified, unpatched.. except the .exe.. .exe is also clean, unmodified, unpatched but it's 'fixed' by Vit-ty (you know what I mean).. should I make the procedure on TDW_SH5_Patches.s5p and on other patch files?

[TheDarkWraith]

Hi TDW :salute:

One question.. I have all the files are clean, unmodified, unpatched.. except the .exe.. .exe is also clean, unmodified, unpatched but it's 'fixed' by Vit-ty (you know what I mean).. should I make the procedure on TDW_SH5_Patches.s5p and on other patch files?

You have to follow the procedure then for the SH5.exe only (meaning you have to edit the TDW_SH5_Patches.s5p file)



I just fixed hydrophone station not showing Submarine in the hydro box when the needle is over a submarine contact. The devs really screwed the pooch on this one. I swear the more I dive into this game the more I see discontinuity between things. It's like some people decided this should be the way and some people decided no it should be this way. They never agreed on anything :nope: The reason the subs were screwed up is they were never doing their checks on the parent object - they were doing the checks on the audible sound child of the parent object. The comparison always failed :nope: At least it was easy to fix :D

[TheDarkWraith]

Just testing the finished hydro contacts patch code. I made a test mission with 2 enemy subs. Hydro operator reported 2 contacts short distance closing. Jumped on hydro station to see what they were:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=755&pictureid=6821

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=755&pictureid=6822

well what do you know, 2 submarines :rock:

As soon as I update the sh5 patch file with the finished code I'll post a new link to the test version.

[volodya61]

Just testing the finished hydro contacts patch code. I made a test mission with 2 enemy subs. Hydro operator reported 2 contacts short distance closing. Jumped on hydro station to see what they were:
...
well what do you know, 2 submarines :rock:
As soon as I update the sh5 patch file with the finished code I'll post a new link to the test version.

Wow :yeah:

I thought I'd never see message like this :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

Wow :yeah:

I thought I'd never see message like this :up:

I coded in the ability to 'hear' environmentals also (dolphins, whales, etc.). They will show Environmental in the box :up:

[THE_MASK]

I notice that in the patcher advanced users section for the exe there isnt a yellow warning if i enable something in the render patches etc . The warning is in the render section but not on the above advanced users section . My current campaign loads and i am testing the latest patcher with new Ui test 7 . cheers .

[TheDarkWraith]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=755&pictureid=6823

See where my mouse cursor is in the above screenie? When the hydro needle is on a contact click that arrow to see all the types the game now recognizes with my new code :up:


test version 1.0.135.0 released. See here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2086626&postcount=2450

If you already followed the directions before with test version 1.0.134.0 you do not need to follow them again. You are safe to just go ahead and use this new test version.

As always disable ALL previous patches before using new version.

You'll notice that with test version 1.0.135.0 there is a new group in the sh5.exe patch: EXPERIMENTAL. If you want to test it please do. Try to see if you can hear environmentals (merchant, and other environmentals) on the hydro station with it enabled. The reason it's experimental is because it may CTD. So far it hasn't on me but I'm not 100% sure of this one. If it does CTD tell me which unit you were trying to hear. These are the environmentals you should be able to hear (class types):
Type110=Environmental
Type203=Environmental


The electric engines while surfaced patch I'm still working on. I'm adding a delay between the switching of the engine types. Currently after you ask for electric engines on surface there is a small delay (1-2 seconds) and then it instantly switches over to electrics/diesels. The whole time during that 1-2 second delay you hear the previous engine type's noise still. I want it to completely shutdown down the previous engine type, delay for switching to next type, then start the next engine type. That is what I'm trying to code in now.

[TheDarkWraith]

I notice that in the patcher advanced users section for the exe there isnt a yellow warning if i enable something in the render patches etc . The warning is in the render section but not on the above advanced users section . My current campaign loads and i am testing the latest patcher with new Ui test 7 . cheers .

good catch :up: I'll look into it.

[volodya61]

test version 1.0.135.0 released. See here:..

I just started writing a manual for the v134 and here is the need to rewrite.. :D

[TheDarkWraith]

I notice that in the patcher advanced users section for the exe there isnt a yellow warning if i enable something in the render patches etc . The warning is in the render section but not on the above advanced users section . My current campaign loads and i am testing the latest patcher with new Ui test 7 . cheers .

Fixed. Test release version updated to v1.0.136.0 :up:

[THE_MASK]

Everything working like clockwork in mid campaign apart from Trevally trying to kill me by sending me to Abergele to insert a spy .

[rolandslaw]

The broken hydrophone patch is vastly improved in next upcoming version. The hydrophone itself is much more improved also

That is great news... I posted my latest mod list ... I tested the latest patcher against every mod ... see my post ...ADDED 07/21/13 ....at Workshop How to use TDW generic Patcher for Beginners... number 26 in thread.

Thank u for all your work..

Rol

[tonschk]

Thank you very much :yeah: TheDarkWraith :up::rock::sunny:

[Fifi]

Thank you Black Magic for v1.0.136.0 :Kaleun_Applaud:

Everything seems fine so far, hydro station is much better :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

[volodya61]

@ TDW

As you may have guessed :03:
Here is Generic Patcher manual RUS (1.0.134 test - 1.0.137 test) - http://www.4sync.com/archive/pR79jhU-/Generic_Patcher_manual_RUS__10.html

[TheDarkWraith]

How would you all like the ability to use the scope to measure vertical angles? Could be very useful for real navigation. I think I found a way to use the stadimeter (modified by some code of mine) to do this :D

[THE_MASK]

Using
TDW_GenericPatcher_v_1_0_136_0
NewUIs_TDC_7_5_0_TheDarkWraith_Test_Version7
NewUIs_TDC_7_5_0_Real_Navigation_Test_Version7
I enabled the new hydro contact types patch and warships showed up in the hydro list . Then i enabled the Experimental new hydro contact tyoes . All i got in the box was a dot where the warship type should be . I then disabled all thepatches . Then i reverted to the unmodified EXE and enabled only the new hydro contact types patch and not the experimental . Still the same , only a dot appears where Warship , merchant etc should be . I can scroll thru by clicking on the orange triangle while on a contact and Environmental shows up but not warship etc .

[TheDarkWraith]

Using
TDW_GenericPatcher_v_1_0_136_0
NewUIs_TDC_7_5_0_TheDarkWraith_Test_Version7
NewUIs_TDC_7_5_0_Real_Navigation_Test_Version7
I enabled the new hydro contact types patch and warships showed up in the hydro list . Then i enabled the Experimental new hydro contact tyoes . All i got in the box was a dot where the warship type should be . I then disabled all thepatches . Then i reverted to the unmodified EXE and enabled only the new hydro contact types patch and not the experimental . Still the same , only a dot appears where Warship , merchant etc should be . I can scroll thru by clicking on the orange triangle while on a contact and Environmental shows up but not warship etc .

Good catch :yeah: I knew there had to be at least one bug in all this new code. At least I know why it's happening:

;820=Unknown
;821=Warship
;822=Merchant
;823=Submarine
;824=Aircraft
825=Land

; sh5.exe patch by TDW - allows texts for units to display in hydrophone box when real navigation enabled
826=Unknown
827=Warship
828=Merchant
829=Submarine

notice the ;s in front of 820,821,822,823, and 824? Those are what are hard coded to be used in the hydro box. Those are commented out when real nav is enabled. I'll update the code to use 826,827,828, and 829 :up:



EDIT:

test version v1.0.137.0 released to fix this bug reported by sober. You can find it here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2086626&postcount=2450

If you already followed the directions before with test version 1.0.134.0 you do not need to follow them again. You are safe to just go ahead and use this new test version.

As always disable ALL previous patches before using new version.

[TheDarkWraith]

so far it looks like we'll be able to use the scopes (and possibly the UZO) as a sextant. I'm modifying the stadimeter code so that it will turn into a sextant :D

[Fifi]

TDW, using v1.0.137.0, all is fine except "submarine" is not showing in the hydro notepad...i have "unknown" "merchant" or "warship" as intented though :hmmm:

I have added the required lines in Magui menu text:
826=Unknown
827=Warship
828=Merchant
829=Submarine
...and have still the following lines without any ";":
820=Unknown
821=Warship
822=Merchant
823=Submarine
824=Aircraft
825=Land

Any idea to get the "submarine" showing on notepad, or is it because of Magui? :-?

PS: activating the Experimental patch or not, is the same...and commenting out the lines 820 to 825 give no changes...

EDIT: i'm using your sub exhaust single mission to test the submarine hydro contact. Maybe it's not good?
In others single missions, when i hear a contact and i mouse over the orange triangle, i can see all kind of contacts, even the new ones: merchant, warship, submarine, environmental, unknown...so i don't understand.

[THE_MASK]

OT , seen anything on torpedo external reserves . We shouldnt be allowed to dive when torps are being unloaded . One day you might find a fix for this .
http://i43.tinypic.com/312kapx.jpg

[TheDarkWraith]

TDW, using v1.0.137.0, all is fine except "submarine" is not showing in the hydro notepad...i have "unknown" "merchant" or "warship" as intented though :hmmm:

If you spot the submarine for the first time while submerged then it will show unknown (unless you see it visually with your scope). If you first detect the submarine through visual means and then detect it via hydro while submerged it will say submarine. This is true of any unit in the game. I didn't change the code for this because I like the idea of it.

[Fifi]

If you spot the submarine for the first time while submerged then it will show unknown (unless you see it visually with your scope). If you first detect the submarine through visual means and then detect it via hydro while submerged it will say submarine. This is true of any unit in the game. I didn't change the code for this because I like the idea of it.

Yeah, but i have nothing at all for submarine in any case...just the little dot...though i can hear the sub...
Other than that, warships, merchants, and unknown are showing very fine :hmm2:

[TheDarkWraith]

Yeah, but i have nothing at all for submarine in any case...just the little dot...though i can hear the sub...
Other than that, warships, merchants, and unknown are showing very fine :hmm2:

Send me your test mission so I can try it out

[Fifi]

It's your mission! The sub exhaust one...
Anyway right now i can't, cause i'm going out in few minutes for sailing the whole day searching for whales...:rock:

[Sartoris]

Love the idea of the sextant, TDW! :yeah::rock:

[Sjizzle]

so far it looks like we'll be able to use the scopes (and possibly the UZO) as a sextant. I'm modifying the stadimeter code so that it will turn into a sextant :D

awesome ... :sunny:

and btw TDW can u make the radio messages and the Journal to look something like this

http://attila-kevin.de/var/resizes/Silent-Hunter-5/kriegmarine%20form%20template.jpg?m=1370719483

[Sartoris]

awesome ... :sunny:

and btw TDW can u make the radio messages and the Journal to look something like this

http://attila-kevin.de/var/resizes/Silent-Hunter-5/kriegmarine%20form%20template.jpg?m=1370719483

This is a great idea, it would really bring a lot of flavor to the game.:up:

[TheDarkWraith]

All the code is finished for using the stadimeter as a sextant. I went to test it in game:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=755&pictureid=6828

Seems to me the angle is greater than 8.95 degrees :hmmm:

What I did was add 3 new commands to the game:

Enable_Sextant
Disable_Sextant
and Sextant_angle

Sextant_angle is not a command the user calls. Instead the game calls it passing the angle calculated between the two green lines to all the scripts. Thus it's easy to intercept in the scripts (Param1Float) and grab the angle.

How this all works:

First, in order to use the stadimeter as a sextant you have to have the TDC on. Next you have to bring up the sextant window. In my UIs mod click the Navigator to bring up his orders bar. Then click the Sextant to display the Sextant window. Next place the green line on the horizon. Then you have to enable the stadimeter as sextant (call the Enable_Sextant command). You do this in my UIs mod by pressing the Enable sextant button. If you decide you do not want to use the sextant simply press the Disable sextant to return stadimeter to normal (which calls the Disable_Sextant command). Then press the stadimeter button to use the sextant (in my UIs mod press the stadimeter button located above the TDC Range dial). Then move the green line to the position in the sky you want to take a reading on. The angle is automatically updated in the Sextant box for you (in my UIs mod). Once done taking you reading simply click the scope screen (just like you do with the stadimeter) to stop using the sextant. You do not need to click the Disable sextant button after this, the game automatically clears the bit for you.

We need to figure out the math required to get this angle value correct. All I did was grab the value that the game calculates and would show in the old torpedo box (think back SH3).


EDIT:

added another new command to the game:

Stadimeter_active

This command is not called by the player. It is called by the game. When the stadimeter goes active the game will call this command passing 1 in Param1 (goes out to all the scripts). When the stadimeter is no longer active the game will call this command passing 0 in Param1 (goes out to all the scripts). Very useful for many things!

[Sartoris]

Excuse me for spamming this thred with my enthusiasm, but holy cow that sounds awesome!:D

TDW, you are steadily turning this once-broken game into a true gem.:woot:

[TheDarkWraith]

Excuse me for spamming this thred with my enthusiasm, but holy cow that sounds awesome!:D

TDW, you are steadily turning this once-broken game into a true gem.:woot:

The game has unlimited potential. It just needs a little TLC and time :yep: I'm having a blast turning it into what it should've been on release day.

[TheDarkWraith]

The new upcoming patch for stadimeter used as sextant just gives you an angle. You then have to take that angle and use star charts and other info to figure out your position.

[THE_MASK]

The new upcoming patch for stadimeter used as sextant just gives you an angle. You then have to take that angle and use star charts and other info to figure out your position.OK , i see . So someone should do an ingame tutorial then . Using the TDW tutorial scripts .

[TheDarkWraith]

I think a screenshot will help explain where I'm pulling this angle value from:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=755&pictureid=6829

Circled in red is the angle val. Yes this is an SH3 screenshot but it's the same code for the stadimeter in SH5. I'm reading this value in the game code and passing it out to all the scripts via the new command. The script file takes the value passed and displays it in the sextant window. Now surely this value means something to somebody :hmmm: I haven't been able to figure out if the value is correct or not when using the stadimeter as a sextant. To me the angle looks incorrect.

I'll have a new test version available here soon so you all can play around with it.

[rolandslaw]

The broken hydrophone patch is vastly improved in next upcoming version. The hydrophone itself is much more improved also

TheDarkWraith:

Thank u for our reply. I am including a reference herein of my post at Workshop/How to Use TDW GenericPatcher for the Beginner at number 26 posted on the 19th of this month. I wanted to let u c where I have a conflict between the patched files and two mods..... It might help you find the reason why some of us are not getting human sound at hydrophone station.

There is a post in a thread... somewhere ... I can not locate which explains how to use the hydrophone with a 3 min 15 sec time to compute the speed of target.... any idea where?

Rol

[TheDarkWraith]

TheDarkWraith:

Thank u for our reply. I am including a reference herein of my post at Workshop/How to Use TDW GenericPatcher for the Beginner at number 26 posted on the 19th of this month. I wanted to let u c where I have a conflict between the patched files and two mods..... It might help you find the reason why some of us are not getting human sound at hydrophone station.

There is a post in a thread... somewhere ... I can not locate which explains how to use the hydrophone with a 3 min 15 sec time to compute the speed of target.... any idea where?

Rol

I have to have something that I can test on my own computer using the debugger or I'll never be able to help you. You have to give me specifics and some way to reproduce what you're experiencing.

[Sjizzle]

The new upcoming patch for stadimeter used as sextant just gives you an angle. You then have to take that angle and use star charts and other info to figure out your position.

I have just made the new part from my charts mod with all star charts ...waiting for your release.

[TheDarkWraith]

test version 1.0.139.0 released. See here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2086626&postcount=2450

If you already followed the directions from test version 1.0.134.0 you do not need to do them again. You are safe to just go ahead and use this new test version.

@Fifi - AI subs problem fixed. You should be able to hear all subs now on the hydrophone and it should show Submarine for them all.


I'm really questioning the angle val when using the stadimeter as a sextant. To me the angle val looks way too small. I am no expert in celestial navigation though and it may be correct. By letting you all test this you can tell me yes, no, or better yet if no why the value is wrong.

[Sjizzle]

part 4 from my charts it's released this part have star charts

[Fifi]

test version 1.0.139.0 released. See here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2086626&postcount=2450

@Fifi - AI subs problem fixed. You should be able to hear all subs now on the hydrophone and it should show Submarine for them all.


I'm back after a stunning whales watching...:O:
Thank you so much TDW. Will test it tomorrow first hour :up:

[volodya61]

@ TDW

Generic Patcher manual RUS (1.0.134 test - 1.0.139 test) - http://www.4sync.com/archive/C5Ht54IA/Generic_Patcher_manual_RUS__10.html

[gap]

A few remarks RE. your sextant/stadimeter implementation.

- It has been noted several times that SH5's celestial sphere is not so accurate to allow accurate position measurements. This is not to say that you should give up your idea, but I think this fact had to be mentioned in order to avoid wrong interpretations of the test results :03:

- If possible, I would make the sextant only accessible from UZO or (better) totally independent from existing scopes (though you migh need for their code in order to implement it). In any case, it should be only available in the conning tower station.

- If you manage to unlink the sextant from other scopes, using a dedicated custom mask for it would be a good idea.

- For obvious reasons, unliking the sextant from the need to switch the TDC on would be another good idea but, as you didn't implement it, I guess it is not possible :hmm2:

[tonschk]

TDW, you are steadily turning this once-broken game into a true gem.:woot:

:salute::up::yeah::sunny::rock::D

[TheDarkWraith]

A few remarks RE. your sextant/stadimeter implementation.

- It has been noted several times that SH5's celestial sphere is not so accurate to allow accurate position measurements. This is not to say that you should give up your idea, but I think this fact had to be mentioned in order to avoid wrong interpretations of the test results :03:

I don't think that is a correct statement. It was noted in SH3 that it's celestial sphere is very accurate. Since this game is based on the same code then it's sphere should be just as accurate.

See here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2077581&postcount=57

EDIT: just looking over that post has turned the light bulb on. I think the angle value is actually how many vertical graduations on the scope display...

[TheDarkWraith]

Just verified that the angle value IS the number of vertical graduation marks on the scopes. Now I have something to work with :D I know where in the code it's creating this number so time to do a little investigating...

[gap]

I don't think that is a correct statement.

Of course I hope to be wrong :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

I do and I don't understand how the game it computing this angle val. Maybe someone can shed some light here. What is the degree spacing between the vertical graduation marks on the obs scope? And the most important question, how do you know this :06: I need these key bits of information to track down where the game is calculating this so I can grab the calculated number and multiply it by the angle val to get the true angle.

[gap]

I do and I don't understand how the game it computing this angle val. Maybe someone can shed some light here. What is the degree spacing between the vertical graduation marks on the obs scope? And the most important question, how do you know this :06: I need these key bits of information to track down where the game is calculating this so I can grab the calculated number and multiply it by the angle val to get the true angle.

I don't know, but it might be related with the "angular angle" setting of the obs scope camera. :hmmm:

This number may vary from a scope mod to another. This is why I suggested you to set a new "virtual" scope for sextant usage...

[Sjizzle]

now i will test ....
i have this Star Charts from my telescope and will see if the angel it's good or nope :)

i will try to follow this tutorial to calculate my position http://onboardintelligence.com/CelestialNav/Celnav1.aspx

http://attila-kevin.de/var/resizes/TDW-charts/IMAG0170.jpg?m=1374432113

[TheDarkWraith]

The angle val is the number of vertical graduations on the scope. I'm trying to figure out what each vertical separation mark is in degrees currently.

I see the ticker tape for the vertical graduations has 40 marks on it (from periscope dds file). I don't understand what the AngularAngle means for the camera when viewing in Goblin. It has something to do with FOV that's for sure but what? If I can figure out how all the AngularAngle and ticker tape goes together then I can code something to return the true angle. I can read all the camera parameters in memory so that's no issue.

[Sjizzle]

i can't finde that sextan option in your latest TDW ui test version :hmmm:

[TheDarkWraith]

i can't finde that sextan option in your latest TDW ui test version :hmmm:

Click Navigator to bring up his order bar. Click the sextant icon.

[TheDarkWraith]

@Sjizzle - see here in regards to sextant:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2087781&postcount=61
and
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2087819&postcount=63

If you can take a reading and tell me what the angle val was and what the real value should be I could write some calibration code :yep: