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

[TheDarkWraith]

What do you mean with the rewrote of torpedo impact?
The efficiency of torpedo or the visual effects? :hmmm:

I had to rewrite the whole code dealing with checking/computing torpedo impact angle to unit. The old code was garbage - it appears many different people 'worked' on it as there was no agreement to what the values meant. The torpedo impact angle passed to the function was a SIN value and the function checking torpedo impact angle to values in the torpedo's sim file was using COS values....that's just one example. It was garbage is the only way to describe it :yep:

[TheDarkWraith]

I be able.. what needs to do/to edit? exactly?
I could to update stock and FX Update torpedoes .sim files.. and also magnetic detonators range 4m for stock and FX Update..

Follow my example screenshot posted a few posts back. Basically ANY value whose comments/notes say it is a percent or percentage HAS to be in the range 0.0-1.0. No 0-100 values for those! Make sense :06:

Notice the number of patches available just for torpedoes in the SHSim patch file :huh: You should be able to customize the realism/difficulty wanted quite easily dealing with torpedo failures :yep:

[volodya61]

Follow my example screenshot posted a few posts back. Basically ANY value whose comments/notes say it is a percent or percentage HAS to be in the range 0.0-1.0. No 0-100 values for those! Make sense :06:

I already was sorted out with this.. and now, after your explanations, it's absolutely clearly :up:

Notice the number of patches available just for torpedoes in the SHSim patch file :huh: You should be able to customize the realism/difficulty wanted quite easily dealing with torpedo failures :yep:

I wanted to keep percentages by default, as they were given by devs.. anyway, I'll edit the files and will post them here.. you could to check them if you want to.. :yep:

[Fifi]

On side note, opening torpedo file with S3D give of course same value as Goblin, but more understable for me using real percent values, instead of 0 to 1...
Same torp type opened with S3D as TDW picture above:
http://img4.hostingpics.net/thumbs/mini_254517Torpedosimfile.jpg (http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=254517Torpedosimfile.jpg)
Basically same stuff, but for noob like me, everytime i clic a value or a name in window, a description appears on bottom page :D
(to answer Volodya question of other thread)

[TheDarkWraith]

On side note, opening torpedo file with S3D give of course same value as Goblin, but more understable for me using real percent values, instead of 0 to 1...
Same torp type opened with S3D as TDW picture above:
http://img4.hostingpics.net/thumbs/mini_254517Torpedosimfile.jpg (http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=254517Torpedosimfile.jpg)
Basically same stuff, but for noob like me, everytime i clic a value or a name in window, a description appears on bottom page :D
(to answer Volodya question of other thread)

It doesn't matter what you use as long as the values written to the file are in the 0.0-1.0 range :up:

How is 0-1 not understandable? 0 = 0%, 1 = 100%, 0.5 = 50% (simple fractions)

[Fifi]

How is 0-1 not understandable? 0 = 0%, 1 = 100%, 0.5 = 50% (simple fractions)

Yes of course...but still 50% writen 50 is quicker understable than 0.5 :haha:
Nitpicking i admit :D
But remains the descriptions are very useful to me...!

Ok, installed your new version, and will see the changes :up:
The number of patches concerning torpedos are now impressive :o
You did a stunning job in very short time!
If all working as intented, it will be the more important generic patcher version ever to me :sunny:

[gap]

v1.0.86.0 released.

Great work! Thank you TDW :yeah:

The torpedoes sim file will need to be updated.

I be able.. what needs to do/to edit? exactly?

Volodya, I have a suggestion if you don't mind:

don't waste too much of your time on the torpedo failure settings. Just give them some generic values which we will use ad interim for testing the new patches by TDW. For the definitive values, we should wait for Rongel to adjust them; havig worked on this mod (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2011321&postcount=472), he is the one who knows more on the topic of torpedo malfunctions at various stages of the war, and hopefully he saved the raw data that his mod was based on in a safe place :03:


Basically same stuff, but for noob like me, everytime i clic a value or a name in window, a description appears on bottom page :D
(to answer Volodya question of other thread)

Fifi, I agree with you that S3d is still a valid tool (when needed, I use it myself), but the very same descriptions pointed by you are displayed by Goblin Editor. They are probably stored somewhere in the binary files. :yep:

[volodya61]

I just have looked into the files.. I am perplexed by some numbers by devs..
circle runner chance - 0.5.. is this mean 50%? throughout the whole war? or rather this mean - 0.5%, i.e. 1 circle runner by 200 torpedoes shots :06:

Gap!!! Are you here?!! :)
Have you historically accurate numbers? or Rongel only?

EDIT: oops.. :D you already answered on my question.. :)

[TheDarkWraith]

I just have looked into the files.. I am perplexed by some numbers by devs..
circle runner chance - 0.5.. is this mean 50%? throughout the whole war? or rather this mean - 0.5%, i.e. 1 circle runner by 200 torpedoes shots :06:

Yes that means 50% :huh: Look at the date range. You can specify certain dates for certain failures in the .sim file. That's why I said if you don't like the amount of failures you are having after applying the new patches then edit the torpedo's .sim file :) The new code will enforce what is in the torpedo's .sim file.

There are two failures you all have never seen since day one the game came out - depth keeping problems and gyro problems. You will definitely see them now though with the new patches.

[gap]

Gap!!! Are you here?!! :)
Have you historically accurate numbers? or Rongel only?

Rongel has been quiet lately, but I think we should send him a PM.

I am sure he will be as excited as the rest of us with the new possibilities disclosed by TDW. By the way, while working on his mod he had already reported how "weird" was dev's code:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2000760&postcount=376


There are two failures you all have never seen since day one the game came out - depth keeping problems and gyro problems. You will definitely see them now though with the new patches.

That's definitely good news... especially for the Allies :haha:

[Fifi]

Hum, first test with stock FX torp file and new patch:
Ennemy boat 1500m right in front of me 90° angle, speed 0 in 1942;
Fired 11 torpedos ---> no one hitted boat! :o (in fact 2 but were dud)
Tried magnetic position, impact position, slow speed, fast speed, medium speed, various depth...no chance.
Got about half circle ones, many premature explosions (even on circling ones for very first time!) and 2 DUD ones when hitting hull at 90°...:doh:
Think the % of defection in FX torp file has to be greatly reduced :yep:

[TheDarkWraith]

Hum, first test with stock FX torp file and new patch:
Ennemy boat 1500m right in front of me 90° angle, speed 0 in 1942;
Fired 11 torpedos ---> no one hitted boat! :o (in fact 2 but were dud)
Tried magnetic position, impact position, slow speed, fast speed, medium speed, various depth...no chance.
Got about half circle ones, many premature explosions (even on circling ones for very first time!) and 2 DUD ones when hitting hull at 90°...:doh:
Think the % of defection in FX torp file has to be greatly reduced :yep:

It's working good. I was just resuming work on the destroyed marks code and loaded up my test mission. Fired a salvo of 3 torpedoes at the NLL: first one had gyro problems and picked a course about 35 degrees to the left of where it should be heading. Second one was circle runner to the left. Third one was circle runner to the right and had depth keeping problems - went about 4m deeper than it should. That verifies new patches are working correctly :D Now time to disable them so I can continue development of the destroyed marks :yep:

[volodya61]

Yes that means 50% :huh: Look at the date range.

circle runner chance 50% for all torpedoes from 01/01/1938 to 31/12/1949 :hmmm:.. at least it's weird.. what else could we expected of the devs, though? :D

Rongel has been quiet lately, but I think we should send him a PM.

It would be fine :up:.. because I decided to stop to edit files until we will get reasonable numbers..

[gap]

It would be fine :up:.. because I decided to stop to edit files until we will get reasonable numbers..

Wise decision. Should I drop a note in Rongel's PM box, or you will do it yourself? :)

[Fifi]

It's working good.

Yes, it's working...but good...way too good! :haha:
Working this way, in career i should be able to sink...1 boat per patrol! (and using deck gun! :rotfl2:)

Looking at the different FX torp file % settings currently...and already found strange waves height settings for premature explosions...some are inversed, and some % seems way too high to me.

[gap]

Yes, it's working...but good...way too good! :haha:
Working this way, in career i should be able to sink...1 boat per patrol! (and using deck gun! :rotfl2:)

Looking at the different FX torp file % settings currently...and already found strange waves height settings for premature explosions...some are inversed, and some % seems way too high to me.

Fifi, this in not TDW's matter.

He has just given us the tool; now, setting more historical (or more user-friendly, according to everyone's taste) malfunction chances is on us :03:

[volodya61]

Wise decision. Should I drop a note in Rongel's PM box, or you will do it yourself? :)

Yes, please :).. send him a message with our last news :salute:

EDIT: I mean, you both have already discussed on this issue and would be better if you will write to him :03:

[gap]

Yes, please :).. send him a message with our last news :salute:

EDIT: I mean, you both have already discussed on this issue and would be better if you will write to him :03:

Done! :salute:

[Fifi]

Fifi, this in not TDW's matter.

He has just given us the tool; now, setting more historical (or more user-friendly, according to everyone's taste) malfunction chances is on us :03:

Ok, i understand now. He is doing "only" the big job, and you are doing the fine tune to adjust it to gameplay :up:
I always thought he was doing both :D:haha:

BTW, adjusting torp file, i think i solved my premature detonations in calm sea. I don't see them anymore as often as before.
I also had for first time some torpedo deviation :sunny:
Still to adjust dud torp hitting 90°, and circling ones way too often...

[Choum]

"Remove torpedo Dud reduce ability"

"Removes the increase torpedo max range ability"

"Remove the torpedo speed ability boost"

"Remove torpedo dud reduce ability"

This lines are to disable all abilities of the torpedo officer ?

[volodya61]

Done! :salute:

If Rongel is busy and has no time he could only give us the data and I can do all editing by myself :up:
and then he just will release the mod in a several versions (realistic, user-friendly, FX Update compatible, for stock, magnetic detonators increased range etc.)

[gap]

If Rongel is busy and has no time he could only give us the data and I can do all editing by myself :up:
and then he just will release the mod in a several versions (realistic, user-friendly, FX Update compatible, for stock, magnetic detonators increased range etc.)

Yes, I agree. Let's wait for his answer :)

[volodya61]

If someone need, here are modified torpedoes files for new torpedoes patches - http://www.mediafire.com/?hmna72gfv98lbrr

All dates and percentage values are left as is (by devs)..
I left a circle runner chance - 0.5% (not 50%), because I have looked into the Rongel's files - this setting everywhere in his files is 1%..

[TheDarkWraith]

Just about have a new patch ready :D

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=669&pictureid=6598

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=669&pictureid=6597

:|\\

[SkyBaron]

Yay! No more planes stuffed with explosives! :)

TDW should have been SH5's Project Manager when it was under development.... actually it still is! :haha:

[Tonci87]

Does the debris inherit the planes momentum or do they drop straitgh to the sea?

[Fifi]

If someone need, here are modified torpedoes files for new torpedoes patches - http://www.mediafire.com/?hmna72gfv98lbrr


Thanks for that! :up:
You mean all new torpedo patches can be activated now? (with old ones still present it's around 20 activated)

[TheDarkWraith]

Does the debris inherit the planes momentum or do they drop straitgh to the sea?

That is what I'm working on right now. Currently everything comes to all stop instantly and falls to the sea :shifty:

[Jace11]

Here to report a CTD associated with patcher, tracked down to the AI sub spawn crew voice or message box text.

Spent several hours narrowing this down out of many mods I have installed (I really wish this game gave some clues or dumps or something to help people track down crashes!!). Used single mission SM01 where U110 can be allowed to sink. With the patch enabled, it sinks and the game CTDs, but when the AI voice / message patch is disabled, it sinks, but you get the mission failed screen and no CTD.

This was 100% reproducible for me.

[TheDarkWraith]

Here to report a CTD associated with patcher, tracked down to the AI sub spawn crew voice or message box text.

Spent several hours narrowing this down out of many mods I have installed (I really wish this game gave some clues or dumps or something to help people track down crashes!!). Used single mission SM01 where U110 can be allowed to sink. With the patch enabled, it sinks and the game CTDs, but when the AI voice / message patch is disabled, it sinks, but you get the mission failed screen and no CTD.

This was 100% reproducible for me.

I will play that mission in the debugger and see what's going on :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

if anyone's curious to know why the airplanes are immediately deleted when they are destroyed it's because of two things:
1) when their engines have been damaged to some level then the unit is flagged for deletion
2) if unit is flagged for deletion and it's a unit type of airplane then immediately remove from game

Thus now that I figured out why they were removed I have a patch to fix it :D New version of patcher coming here soon so you all can test this out. It's not complete - it will just currently stop the airplanes from being immediately removed from the game when they are destroyed :salute:

[TheDarkWraith]

new patch for aircraft works awesome :rock: For the first time I damaged an aircraft to the point where it was unable to fly and instead of exploding it simply spiraled into the ocean and blew up when it impacted the water :D Finally :rock:

EDIT: the aircraft, debris, and any parts of the aircraft that 'fall off' keep their intertia now :D There is one anamoly that you will notice and it's not that big of a deal so I'm not going to dive into it: the pieces of the aircraft that 'fall off' still have the root object (the aircraft) as their parent. Thus if the root object rotates on any axis then the children will also rotate in relation to parent along with their own rotations. I could fix it but it's not really worth the time right now. Maybe later on when I have the majority of the patches I want to add to this game complete.

[Fifi]

Thanks for that! :up:
You mean all new torpedo patches can be activated now? (with old ones still present it's around 20 activated)

And what if we use your new torp file without the torp patches? :D:hmmm:

EDIT:
Tested by 2 times both your new files with my usual MS20 1942 mission, with all torp patches activated, and no one of my torp had issues that i could see, nor dud...
All were launched max speed with magnetic detonation.
Even the one i fired from stern hitted target at high open angle.
So i don't know if it's working as intented...all torp were working nice!

[volodya61]

And what if we use your new torp file without the torp patches? :D:hmmm:

I had not considered such variant :03:

EDIT:
Tested by 2 times both your new files with my usual MS20 1942 mission, with all torp patches activated, and no one of my torp had issues that i could see, nor dud...
All were launched max speed with magnetic detonation.
Even the one i fired from stern hitted target at high open angle.
So i don't know if it's working as intented...all torp were working nice!

What version are you using? I have checked it in campaign mode and in the single mission.. all failures are present.. even circle runner..
Perhaps your issue is that in 1942 were solved almost all the problems with detonators..

[Fifi]

What version are you using?

Latest patcher xx83...and version without the magnetic 3m (but the 3m is same result).
In patcher, every single patch about torpedos are activated.

Perhaps your issue is that in 1942 were solved almost all the problems with detonators..

Thought the same, but back in my 1939 career, fired few torps at boats, and no problems of any kind :hmm2:

[volodya61]

Thought the same, but back in my 1939 career, fired few torps at boats, and no problems of any kind :hmm2:

Don't know then.. all works fine for me.. especially the acute angles of incidence.. 0°-21° dud chance - 100%, 21°-50° dud chance 33%.. you should use only impact detonator..

[gap]

new patch for aircraft works awesome :rock:

oh yeah :sunny:

There is one anamoly that you will notice and it's not that big of a deal so I'm not going to dive into it: the pieces of the aircraft that 'fall off' still have the root object (the aircraft) as their parent. Thus if the root object rotates on any axis then the children will also rotate in relation to parent along with their own rotations.

What would be cool is if, after an explosion, subsequent debris were given a random momentum higher than parent's momentun, thus moving away from the plane.

I could fix it but it's not really worth the time right now. Maybe later on when I have the majority of the patches I want to add to this game complete.

I agree :03: :salute:

[gap]

@ Volodya

I almost forgot to say that I got an answer by Rongel: :03: :up:



...

Good to hear about TDW's new fixes. Yup, torpedo malfunction numbers propably need heavy adjustments. I could check into this, but can't promise exactly when, don't want to jump to the modding pit yet...

Thanks for letting me know, I'll get back to this! :salute:

[volodya61]

@ Volodya

I almost forgot to say that I got an answer by Rongel: :03: :up:

I see..
Anyway I already edited the files.. with the stock numbers so far..

[TheDarkWraith]

Here to report a CTD associated with patcher, tracked down to the AI sub spawn crew voice or message box text.

Spent several hours narrowing this down out of many mods I have installed (I really wish this game gave some clues or dumps or something to help people track down crashes!!). Used single mission SM01 where U110 can be allowed to sink. With the patch enabled, it sinks and the game CTDs, but when the AI voice / message patch is disabled, it sinks, but you get the mission failed screen and no CTD.

This was 100% reproducible for me.

This problem is fixed with new version posted at post #1

v1.0.87.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.87.0 Fixed possible CTD that could happen with the AI crew voice patch. Added a new patch to the SHSim.act that prevents destroyed aircraft from being immediately removed from the game

:|\\

[TheDarkWraith]

And what if we use your new torp file without the torp patches? :D:hmmm:

EDIT:
Tested by 2 times both your new files with my usual MS20 1942 mission, with all torp patches activated, and no one of my torp had issues that i could see, nor dud...
All were launched max speed with magnetic detonation.
Even the one i fired from stern hitted target at high open angle.
So i don't know if it's working as intented...all torp were working nice!

If you had magnetic detonators enabled then that's probably why. The torpedo never impacted the unit because the magnetic detonator sensed the magnetic field of the unit and detonated the torpedo first. Disable the magnetic detonators and try again.

Also if your values are incorrect in the torpedo's .sim file then the new patches will not work correctly. The new patches expect all values whose notes say value is percent or percentage to be in 0.0-1.0 values. The new code compares these values to random values in range 0.0-1.0. If the values in the torpedo's .sim file are in the 0-100 range then you will never have any failures.

[TheDarkWraith]

What would be cool is if, after an explosion, subsequent debris were given a random momentum higher than parent's momentun, thus moving away from the plane.

Sometimes you get an explosion, sometimes you don't (aircraft simply starts falling to the sea because it's engine lost power). When you do get an explosion some parts are thrown away from the unit. Try the new patch and see for yourself :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

"Remove torpedo Dud reduce ability"

"Removes the increase torpedo max range ability"

"Remove the torpedo speed ability boost"

"Remove torpedo dud reduce ability"

This lines are to disable all abilities of the torpedo officer ?

Basically yes. I'm assuming that these new patches correlate to those because the values they patch out were 1.0 (appears to be ability not enabled). Someone should try enabling those abilities and see if the new patches disable them :yep:

[TheDarkWraith]

Disabling the F7 Battlestations command opens all sub doors except one. The door between the cook and engine room compartments does not reopen. All other subdoors reopen.

I can click the door between the cook and engine room to open or close it using the mouse. Enabling the F7 Battlestations command closes all subdoors, including the door between the cook and engine room.

Sorry, TDW, I did not write about this sooner. It has been there for quite a few patch versions.

I saw the following: "starting with v1.0.39.0...........- Note: There are 2 doors I haven't got working correctly yet but all the others work excellent."

Perhaps it has been forgotten about or bigger issues to work on. Thanks everybody for working on the rudder and circle torpedo issues lately.

P.S. I, too, have seen auto TDC not working properly as stated in the last few days posts.

I'm at a stopping point on the development of the Destroyed marks patch and Carriers launching airplanes until I can find some code in the exe and act files that does what I'm looking for. Thus I'm now going back and looking over previous patches and fixing bugs/errors in them. This is on my list to look over again. Knowing what I know now I should be able to improve them considerably :yep:

[volodya61]

Also if your values are incorrect in the torpedo's .sim file then the new patches will not work correctly. The new patches expect all values whose notes say value is percent or percentage to be in 0.0-1.0 values. The new code compares these values to random values in range 0.0-1.0. If the values in the torpedo's .sim file are in the 0-100 range then you will never have any failures.

His values are correct.. he used my edited torpedoes .sim files here - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2050799&postcount=1773
all values in my files are within 0.0-1.0


@ Fifi

Try this one - http://rghost.ru/45766406
all values for TI and TII torpedoes were set to 0.9 (ie 90%)..

[Fifi]

@ Fifi

Try this one - http://rghost.ru/45766406
all values for TI and TII torpedoes were set to 0.9 (ie 90%)..

I will :up:

All my torp were set on magnetic though, as you said i should try only impact...
I thought magnetics were the ones with big failures in RL, that's why.
On other hand, make sens that only impact should be angle dud affected :yep:
So logically, when we have a target almost 90%, we'd better use impact...and when target is at bad angle, we 'd better use magnetic!

[Choum]

:woot: works great :yeah:

http://uppix.net/c/2/0/4b04f98bf2e4d1074411f136d8df6tt.jpg (http://uppix.net/c/2/0/4b04f98bf2e4d1074411f136d8df6.html)

[TheDarkWraith]

v1.0.88.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.88.0 Fixed CTD that happens when the Battlestations close/open doors patch is enabled and sub is near port

[TheDarkWraith]

I'm finding it quite difficult to fix the small 'problem' that the patch that prevents units from falling through the sea floor causes with the subnets. The problem is once the unit is 'destroyed' it's Commanders controller (this controller contains all the data about unit's type, classname, name, country, etc.) is destroyed also and set to a null pointer. Thus there's no way for me to get the unit's type (i.e. 102, 200, 303, etc.) to prevent the patch from 'working' on special units. I'm still looking for alternate ways but so far it doesn't look good :-?

[Tonci87]

v1.0.88.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.88.0 Fixed CTD that happens when the Battlestations close/open doors patch is enabled and sub is near port


Nice!

One little question inspired by Choums screenshot:
What happens if the plane, or it´s remains, fall on the sub?

The subnet issue is really most unfortunate. I guess other static objects won´t work properly too?

[TheDarkWraith]

One little question inspired by Choums screenshot:
What happens if the plane, or it´s remains, fall on the sub?

The subnet issue is really most unfortunate. I guess other static objects won´t work properly too?

You will get damaged :D

Static objects aren't affected. It's only game units that are. To get the mines and subnets working I created new 'units' for them. The game doesn't recognize units with a unit type >= 500 (which are the mines and subnets) so I had to find another solution for them :up:

Never give up hope. I just haven't found the existing code that will get me the data I'm looking for yet. More digging around to do :salute:

[Fifi]

@ Fifi

Try this one - http://rghost.ru/45766406
all values for TI and TII torpedoes were set to 0.9 (ie 90%)..

Ok, tested it with my 1942 test mission, and all torps were or circling or deviating :-? No one good to hit...
Tested with all torp speeds, and both impact/magnetic.
Seems those torp settings test are way too much! (as expected)
So i'll keep your first adjusted file, and see what's happening along my career.

[gap]

I'm finding it quite difficult to fix the small 'problem' that the patch that prevents units from falling through the sea floor causes with the subnets. The problem is once the unit is 'destroyed' it's Commanders controller (this controller contains all the data about unit's type, classname, name, country, etc.) is destroyed also and set to a null pointer. Thus there's no way for me to get the unit's type (i.e. 102, 200, 303, etc.) to prevent the patch from 'working' on special units. I'm still looking for alternate ways but so far it doesn't look good :-?


Never give up hope. I just haven't found the existing code that will get me the data I'm looking for yet. More digging around to do :salute:

Couldn't you use subnet/mine's unique Id instead of their UnitType to identify them? :hmm2:

[volodya61]

Ok, tested it with my 1942 test mission, and all torps were or circling or deviating :-? No one good to hit...
Tested with all torp speeds, and both impact/magnetic.
Seems those torp settings test are way too much! (as expected)
So i'll keep your first adjusted file, and see what's happening along my career.

I edited this file specifically for you :O:, so you can see that all the torpedoes patches work as intended within the 0.0-1.0 :up:

[Choum]

One small bug I found with the Battlestations close/open doors patch.

All door close with the F7 ability but when you disengage it, two door remain closed (the torpedo room one) and the one near the central and the bosco.

And this patch doesn't work on old savegame apparently (even with bunker save)

[Tonci87]

One small bug I found with the Battlestations close/open doors patch.

All door close with the F7 ability but when you disengage it, two door remain closed (the torpedo room one) and the one near the central and the bosco.


The engine room door can remain closed as far as I am concerned :D

[TheDarkWraith]

One small bug I found with the Battlestations close/open doors patch.

All door close with the F7 ability but when you disengage it, two door remain closed (the torpedo room one) and the one near the central and the bosco.

And this patch doesn't work on old savegame apparently (even with bunker save)

I checked over the code and every door asked to be closed is also being asked to be opened. There must be something wrong with the PortalSystem.act code then.

There's no reason this patch change wouldn't effect everything. It's part of the main game loop code and thus is always called/checked. The new code will not close/open doors if you are close to port. Go out to sea and try it again.

Working on fixing the problem with the TDC AOB/Speed dials patch currently :up:

[volodya61]

Working on fixing the problem with the TDC AOB/Speed dials patch currently :up:

:yeah: great..
also some people have difficulties with the Render Patches.. I mean changes for map rendering..

[TheDarkWraith]

:yeah: great..
also some people have difficulties with the Render Patches.. I mean changes for map rendering..

Which ones? And under what conditions? I need specifics to try and recreate the problem in the debugger to see what's going on

[volodya61]

Which ones? And under what conditions? I need specifics to try and recreate the problem in the debugger to see what's going on

Don't remember exactly.. I had read about somewhere in this thread..

[Fifi]

Working on fixing the problem with the TDC AOB/Speed dials patch currently :up:

Good news :up:
Render Patch seems to work fine here :-?

[TheDarkWraith]

Any doubts as to whether the SH5 code was based on SH3 code was put to rest when I found this:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=669&pictureid=6605

:nope:

[gap]

Any doubts as to whether the SH5 code was based on SH3 code was put to rest when I found this:

...



It follows that SH5 should be at least as good as its predecessor :O:

[mrmigz]

I just broke down and ordered the boxed game version bcuz of you TDW. Initially made the mistake of buying the steam version bcuz lets face it, modding this game is almost like being a sub captain with its constant tedious delicacies. :wah:

So If I can break down and spend the puny $10 ($5+shipping), so can anybody else. Its more than worth it after you fixed the crap out of this game. :yeah: You saved this game and its in my top 3 favs.

I know this has been beat to **** but its a shame you didnt develop this game or there isnt a silent hunter 6 in the making that you were a part of. I know you would have all sorts of ideas that I am just barely thinking of myself. take for example Full MP/SP crew intervention. So each crew position is crucial to the success of the ship and very detailed. actual torp/munitions loading procedures, a similar (Arma 2 A.C.R.E./A.C.E. Mod) communication system. the sweat of the wait and the cooperation of such a crew would make for an exciting exp.

The online community would explode. The engines are here to do such and from what I hear, engines like the "CryEngine" have been released to the public. :ping::ping: All I know is I wish I had the money to fund such a project. :wah::wah: Anyways TDW!

I know you've heard it all before. GREAT WORK AND THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!
Here's to seeing what other miracles you pull out of your hat proving how incompetent "college educated" programmers are.:salute:

[TheDarkWraith]

I know you've heard it all before. GREAT WORK AND THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!
Here's to seeing what other miracles you pull out of your hat proving how incompetent "college educated" programmers are.:salute:

Glad you're liking my work :salute: It's hard and very frustrating at times to reverse engineer something AND change it to do what you want but the self-satisfaction you get when it does do what you want is awesome :D

I have no degree, never set foot in any college either :cool: I received my training from the military and from reading books. Books teach me many things about things I'm interested in. I taught myself linear algebra (for the most part) from reading books (not for the faint of heart!)


v1.0.89.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.89.0 Fixed problem with the AOB and TDC dials patch. The problem was auto targeting could be messed up because of the patch.

:|\\

[Fifi]

v1.0.89.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.89.0 Fixed problem with the AOB and TDC dials patch. The problem was auto targeting could be messed up because of the patch.


:Kaleun_Party:

EDIT:
So, new computer weird thing now:
I tried new patch 089 after deactivating and then deleting old 087 one.
Launched my career save, and no more sounds in hydro...
Tried convoy AI merchant test, and no sounds in hydro...
Tried TDW torpedo tutorial test, and i could hear the liberty cargo!...

So i made inverse manip to get back patch 087, and all test missions get their hydro sound back!
Launched again my saved career, but still no sounds...
Will try to restart last career mission from bunker, and see what happens.
That's a real head braker!!...

RE EDIT: Finally made my sounds back with patcher 089. Nothing related to patcher itself though!
Something made a mess in the hydro sounds, will never know what...had to delete the 2 latest mods i tried in career - the bold SFX one and the RPM hydrophone merchants.

[TheDarkWraith]

RE EDIT: Finally made my sounds back with patcher 089. Nothing related to patcher itself though!
Something made a mess in the hydro sounds, will never know what...had to delete the 2 latest mods i tried in career - the bold SFX one and the RPM hydrophone merchants.

I haven't dove into Sound yet. I am though currently investigating how Sound is done in the game. I want to remove the background music noise when manning the hydro station :yep:

[Tonci87]

I haven't dove into Sound yet. I am though currently investigating how Sound is done in the game. I want to remove the background music noise when manning the hydro station :yep:


Anything to make the hydro more usefull is good. I currently don´t even bother to use it...

[TheDarkWraith]

Anything to make the hydro more usefull is good. I currently don´t even bother to use it...

Why don't you use it? With the broken hydro patch it works great :yep: I spend more time at the hydro station than I do on the scopes. Hear a contact, enable hydro follow target, and plan the attack all under water without exposing yourself on the surface or raising a scope :up:

[Tonci87]

Why don't you use it? With the broken hydro patch it works great :yep: I spend more time at the hydro station than I do on the scopes. Hear a contact, enable hydro follow target, and plan the attack all under water without exposing yourself on the surface or raising a scope :up:

Well I see it´s use, but I can´t identify my target, or judge it´s speed...

[gap]

Well I see it´s use, but I can´t identify my target, or judge it´s speed...

You actually can, by using this mod (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=204151) or by using this method (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=179137) :yep:

[volodya61]

a little test-report

Just tested Patcher's last changes..

1. No instant removal of destroyed aircraft from game - works well, just one little thing.. I think it more FX Update issue -

http://s19.postimg.org/9irmpdi4f/air1.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/9irmpdi4f/) . http://s19.postimg.org/dgewes4xr/air2.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/dgewes4xr/) . http://s19.postimg.org/86ej18a2n/air3.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/86ej18a2n/) . http://s19.postimg.org/g0f4mmhvj/air4.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/g0f4mmhvj/) . http://s19.postimg.org/4cl2s2sqn/air5.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/4cl2s2sqn/)

As you can see, the aircraft continues to burn when submerged..

2. Close/open sub doors on Battlestations activated/deactivated now works everywhere.. no more CTD in/near the home port..

3. TDC AOB and Speed dials fix works well.. just a small backlash/jitter of the torpedo solution line at ranges up to 2km..

PS: a small suggestion - maybe it makes sense to combine all the torpedo's patches in one patch.. by analogy with Map colors and Render patches.. what do you think?

[Tonci87]

You actually can, by using this mod (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=204151) or by using this method (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=179137) :yep:


I wonder why this mod isn´t in sobers Modlist? Any potential conflics?

[gap]

I wonder why this mod isn´t in sobers Modlist? Any potential conflics?

Macardigan (author of the mod), has reported CTD's using it in conjunction with OHII v 2.1 (but not with v 2.0).

Honestly I cannot see how the two mods would interfere with each other; moreover, the latest version of OH had anyway a lot of CTD issues which were fixed by a dedicated patch.

My suggestion is to give Macardigan's mod a try, and to report back if you notice anything wrong. :up:

On a side note, you don't need any mod for applying the four bearings method. When correctly applied, this method gives you enough information to calculate an accurate torpedo soultion :03:

[volodya61]

Honestly I cannot see how the two mods would interfere with each other; moreover, the latest version of OH had anyway a lot of CTD issues which were fixed by a dedicated patch.

I think it's the same mystical thing like CTD's when using Ship Inertia and when using OH v2.1 itself..

[Mikemike47]

I wonder why this mod isn´t in sobers Modlist? Any potential conflics?

As of this moment, sober's modlist does not have patch 2.

OHIIv2.1 test patch2 (http://www.4sync.com/archive/PSTJPK8x/OHIIv21_test_patch2_Full.html)

Although Trevally is working hard on OHII V2.2, others are still reporting CTDs since they missed the patch note. I'll send him a note.

Sending a PM to sober to update his modlist since some are still referring to CTDs.


Macardigan (author of the mod), has reported CTD's using it in conjunction with OHII v 2.1 (but not with v 2.0).

Honestly I cannot see how the two mods would interfere with each other; moreover, the latest version of OH had anyway a lot of CTD issues which were fixed by a dedicated patch.

My suggestion is to give Macardigan's mod a try, and to report back if you notice anything wrong. :up:

Patch needed to prevent CTD?
OHIIv2.1 test patch2 (http://www.4sync.com/archive/PSTJPK8x/OHIIv21_test_patch2_Full.html)

I think it's the same mystical thing like CTD's when using Ship Inertia and when using OH v2.1 itself..

[Rongel]

Sweet updates TDW!

Especially the non-dissappearing airplanes, that has been bugging me from the day one!

So I need to do again the torpedo malfunction values.... :doh: Well now it should be easier, no more testing and trying so much. Can't promise a date yet, I have a holiday from intense modding going on...

[gap]

I have a holiday from intense modding going on...

:haha:

I wish you a good continuation of your modding addition treatment Rongel, and keep us iformed if you happen to fall back into bad habits :D

[Tonci87]

As of this moment, sober's modlist does not have patch 2.

OHIIv2.1 test patch2 (http://www.4sync.com/archive/PSTJPK8x/OHIIv21_test_patch2_Full.html)

Although Trevally is working hard on OHII V2.2, others are still reporting CTDs since they missed the patch note. I'll send him a note.

Sending a PM to sober to update his modlist since some are still referring to CTDs.




Patch needed to prevent CTD?
OHIIv2.1 test patch2 (http://www.4sync.com/archive/PSTJPK8x/OHIIv21_test_patch2_Full.html)

I wasn´t refering to OH not beeing in Sobers List (OH is a must have mod) but this other hydrophone mod.

[Mikemike47]

I wasn´t refering to OH not beeing in Sobers List (OH is a must have mod) but this other hydrophone mod.

I know. All are related with possible same CTD.

Macardigan commented about Open Horizons II v2.1 CTDs on his website this mod (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=204151) from the *INCOMPATIBLE with Open Horizons II v2.1 (CTD) for now.

[Fifi]

I haven't dove into Sound yet. I am though currently investigating how Sound is done in the game. I want to remove the background music noise when manning the hydro station :yep:

An other great idea! :sunny:

Sounds in SH5 are...well...sometimes working nice sometimes not...depending what mod manipulation we have done before...even without mods conflicts...they seems very sensitive to new codes imported :-?
But i'm not expert! :D

[TheDarkWraith]

v1.0.90.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.90.0 Added a new patch - SHSound. It currently contains one patch to fix the bug of Python error being thrown when Menu.PlaySound() is called on an unrecognized (hard-coded) sound

[mrmigz]

Starting with v1.0.89.0 Fixed problem with the AOB and TDC dials patch. The problem was auto targeting could be messed up because of the patch.

:|\\[/QUOTE]

Will do as soon as my copy comes in the mail this friday :D Fresh install. Cant wait to actually play this with a working hydrophone, no CO2 issues or bugs & no more steam CTD conflicts.. uggghh. From what Ive read PC games will be all dwnloaded in the future which sucks in my opinion. "Control!":down: is what thats all about and Im sure I dont need to preach bout that here

Anyways Since Im a newb to these forums, do you have any guides to the best install a DVD ROM version? I have all of Stoianms mod list mods but I heard I have to patch the game b4 I do so. Will the Sh5.exe file here do all that b4 I mod? Thanks in advance "Capem" :D

please send me some links bcuz I want to respect your time. Migz out!:salute:

[Stew U-582]

I noticed after using the disable orbit function my campain progress
would no longer rise upon sinking ships. When I reenabled the orbit
functions in SH5.exe and SH_Nclient things returned to normal with the
progress bar registering progression, Is this function only intended for
people playing multiplayer on a home network or have I missed something.

The other question is it nescesary to disable / enable with the patcher
every time you change your mod loadout or does each patch affect only
1 file. eg TDW_SH5_Patches.s5p effects only SH5,exe.

PS
Thanks for your awsome work I paid $100 Australian for this game when
it first came out and felt ripped off. Thanks to You and other modders
its got to be a fantastic game. I hope UBI ofter you a job because they
need you , badly.

Stewy

[TheDarkWraith]

Anyways Since Im a newb to these forums, do you have any guides to the best install a DVD ROM version? I have all of Stoianms mod list mods but I heard I have to patch the game b4 I do so. Will the Sh5.exe file here do all that b4 I mod? Thanks in advance "Capem" :D

I would install game from DVD. Manually patch the game to v1.2 (don't rely on the Uplay browser to do it!). Make a backup of the entire \Silent Hunter V folder for safe keeping :03: Then patch game with my Generic Patcher. Then start installing whatever mods you want.



I decided that the background noise while sitting at hydrophone station has got to go! You are wearing headphones and thus background noise would be severely reduced. Good news is I finally isolated where all the music and background noise gets iterated over (and how to start/stop them playing). Now I just have to find the bit that is set when hydrophone station is manned then I can disable all the background noise when sitting at hydro station :D

[TheDarkWraith]

I noticed after using the disable orbit function my campain progress
would no longer rise upon sinking ships. When I reenabled the orbit
functions in SH5.exe and SH_Nclient things returned to normal with the
progress bar registering progression, Is this function only intended for
people playing multiplayer on a home network or have I missed something.

The other question is it nescesary to disable / enable with the patcher
every time you change your mod loadout or does each patch affect only
1 file. eg TDW_SH5_Patches.s5p effects only SH5,exe.

PS
Thanks for your awsome work I paid $100 Australian for this game when
it first came out and felt ripped off. Thanks to You and other modders
its got to be a fantastic game. I hope UBI ofter you a job because they
need you , badly.

Stewy

If you don't have your UPlay browser patched out then only enable the SHN_Client patches - don't enable any of the orbit listener patches for SH5.

You only need to disable/enable patches when you are using new version of the patcher. When you download new version then you should:
- before deleting old version:
-- disable all patches for every patch file
- delete old version
- enable patches wanted from new version

Each patch file (.s5p) corresponds to one game file (.act, .exe, etc.)

If you are just changing you mod loadout via JSGME there's no reason to disable any patches. Remember the Generic Patcher is physically altering whatever file it's patching. The change is permanent until you disable the patch.

You may ask why do you need to disable all patches before using new version of patcher? Simple: I may have moved code around and some patches may now exist in a different 'place'. When you go to load the patch file the Generic Patcher checks every patch in that patch file (if it's Verify flag is set) to verify that either the NewValue or OldValue exists at the Offset specified for the patch. If it can't find either then it will refuse to open that patch file and throw an error.

[Stew U-582]

Thanks for the info and incredibly quick reply I think it took about a few min.

Thanks again , all clear now.

[Fifi]

I decided that the background noise while sitting at hydrophone station has got to go! You are wearing headphones and thus background noise would be severely reduced. Good news is I finally isolated where all the music and background noise gets iterated over (and how to start/stop them playing). Now I just have to find the bit that is set when hydrophone station is manned then I can disable all the background noise when sitting at hydro station :D

Again very cool! :sunny:

If you don't have your UPlay browser patched out then only enable the SHN_Client patches - don't enable any of the orbit listener patches for SH5.

Don't understand what you call "Uplay patched out" :-?
I have Uplay adjusted for offline, and i activated only the SHN_Client patches. Is it right?
If i activate OrbitListner things, i don't have anymore the tonnage bar of OHII :hmmm:

[Trevally.]

Don't understand what you call "Uplay patched out" :-?

This is the word we can't say

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT1_creOFDgEVqqEtJBKyB7wyKRrz_SB SVXoaWjWxdnXp1qil1v

Way back when the game first came out - some player would come on here and ask for help. Their campaign bar did not file in.
The answer that they gat was always "BUY THE GAME" or "start your game using the ubi launcher"

:D

[volodya61]

This is the word we can't say

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT1_creOFDgEVqqEtJBKyB7wyKRrz_SB SVXoaWjWxdnXp1qil1v

:D

So, those who use "Uplay patched out" are outlaw :06: :)

[Trevally.]

:D

So, those who use "Uplay patched out" are outlaw :06: :)

:D
Im sure that if you are skilled enough then it is ok to do to your own what you will:doh:

If you are not so skilled - you may need to use some one elses skill on something that is not your own - so this is not ok:doh:

:O:

[BigWalleye]

[Redacted by poster.]

[Trevally.]

But what is wrong with using someone else's skill on what is your own? I use the patcher, which does exactly that, and it's OK - technically, legally, and morally. Why can I not have someone else's help to turn off the DRM on what I purchased and own? I'm not going to post the DRM-free copy on line. And if I did, I'd think it was illegal - and immoral - whether I removed the DRM or someone else did.

I am concerned that the answer is "Because Ubisoft says you can't." If so, how is that either morally or legally binding on anyone?

Wait a minute...
I was talking about a ".......... file"

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT1_creOFDgEVqqEtJBKyB7wyKRrz_SB SVXoaWjWxdnXp1qil1v

[volodya61]

Wait a minute...
..
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT1_creOFDgEVqqEtJBKyB7wyKRrz_SB SVXoaWjWxdnXp1qil1v

:har:

[BigWalleye]

[Redacted by poster.]

What I find here is an obnoxious form of corporate overreach that I would personally love to challenge. But this is not my forum. I am grateful to those who provide it, and will abide by their rules. I sincerely hope I have not made trouble for anyone.

[TheDarkWraith]

I do believe that a company might threaten, bully, and practice other forms of legal thuggery to discourage anyone from doing this, but even if successful, that won't make the DRM removal, or sharing the knowledge of how to do so, actually illegal.

company trying to threaten, bully, and practice other forms of legal thuggery (i.e. cease and desist orders) - Freedom of Speech constitutional right

Sharing knowledge of how to do something or providing something to legally modify end-users software - Freedom of Speech constitutional right

Talk about cracked exes has to stop because the owner of this forum really takes this seriously and will close threads that discuss any part of it. There is a HUGE difference between cracked exes and patched exes though. I really would like this thread to stay open :yep:

[gap]

@ BigWalleye

you got a PM :03:

[Choum]

Do you think it should be possible to link independant shaft to motor / speed animation like you did with propellers ?

Actually if you set both shaft speed to 15knots then left shaft to 1 knot.
Both diesel engine will run "at 15knot"

if you set both shaft speed to 1 knots then right shaft to 15 knot.
Both diesel engine will run "at 1 knot"

Looks like only the left shaft (or both) change the engine animation/sound (not the right one).

[Macardigan]

I know. All are related with possible same CTD.

Macardigan commented about Open Horizons II v2.1 CTDs on his website this mod (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=204151) from the *INCOMPATIBLE with Open Horizons II v2.1 (CTD) for now.


(google translation)

I'll try OHII v2.1 w/patch test ctd + RPM Hydrophone merchants 2.0 to check if it works fine.


In reference to the incompatibility of "mod RPM ..." with OHII v2.1: (without patch)
- Do not know why, but if the "OHII full 2.1" is installed and you happen to change the values ​​"eng_power" or "eng_rpm" within the for example: "data \ sea\ "ship name" \ xxxxx.sim" then when you start a campaign ... CTD!. always. * ATENTION: There CTD if if you install a mod that changes the values ​​of the vessels containing the default game. Nothing happens if you modify the values ​​of ships OHII v2.1 adds.
is curious.

ship_inertia change these values​​.
Hydrophone merchants RPM change these values​​.

* The curious thing is that the full OHII v2.1 does not modify any of these values ​​(inside .sim) of the vessels carrying the game by default.






------------en español para gap: que sabe----------------xD

En referencia a la incompatibilidad del "mod RPM..." con OHII v2.1:(without patch)
- No sé por qué, but si el "OHII full 2.1" está instalado y se te ocurre modificar los valores "eng_power" or "eng_rpm" dentro de por ejemplo: "data\sea\xxxx\xxxxx.sim" entonces cuando empiezas una campaña... CTD!!!. always. *ATENTION: Hay CTD si si instalas un mod que modifica los valores de los buques que contiene el juego por defecto. No pasa nada si modifica los valores de los buques que añade el OHII v2.1.
es curioso.

ship_inertia cambia estos valores.
RPM Hydrophone merchants cambia estos valores.

*Lo curioso del tema es que el OHII full v2.1 no modifica ninguno de estos valores (dentro del .sim) de los buques que lleva el juego por defecto. Si no que están modificados por el neuUis 7_3_0.

no se si me entiendes.

[Macardigan]

I would install game from DVD. Manually patch the game to v1.2 (don't rely on the Uplay browser to do it!). Make a backup of the entire \Silent Hunter V folder for safe keeping :03: Then patch game with my Generic Patcher. Then start installing whatever mods you want.


(google translation, sorry)
What I have to do to patch to version 1.2 manually???
You can download the patch from the internet??? where is it??
How do I prevent my u-play upgrade to 1.2??

how to patch the u-play??


good hunting.

[mrmigz]

Now I just have to find the bit that is set when hydrophone station is manned then I can disable all the background noise when sitting at hydro station :D[/QUOTE]

Nice :yeah: I just got it in the mail today. will do a fresh install this weekend after work n such. Thanks for the heads up again. I like your thinking. Especially the idea of complex dual engine management. all the possible evasion manuevers etc. As soon as I can I will support by donation. Little tight right now. :wah: But on a side note is this fresh install with "stoianm's mod list" make the destroyers actually behave agressively? Im having a problem with the DD just ignoring me during attack or or after. They just keep sailing on. occasionally searching. Is this bcuz of the steam crapiola version?

[mrmigz]

On a side note here is a video I made and a symphony I composed based on the story of this MOH achiever Pvt. Desmond T Doss.

I was thinking of writing some tracks for SH5 if anybody likes the qaulity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB5Cc_QpLKM

Enjoy. This guys story is truly amazing. Refused to carry a gun yet they ended up giving him the MOH. :salute:

[Mikemike47]

(google translation, sorry)
What I have to do to patch to version 1.2 manually???
You can download the patch from the internet???
How do I prevent my u-play upgrade to 1.2??

how to patch the u-play??

Version #s for SH5 and Uplay are not the same patch/version numbers.
Silent Hunter 5 patch, go to post #3 for links (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/571201-Patch-1-2-Details-Release-Date-May-11th-UPDATED)

If those links do not work for you, then search gamefront since I saw the SH5 patch link there a few days ago.

Uplay autoupdates itself, and updated about one month ago for me. Uplay is now version 2.1.9 through the autoupdater.
PM me with email address and I can send a Uplay installer later today. The Uplay installer does not give the version number in its' properties option. I downloaded it recently for me for backup purposes.

[TheDarkWraith]

Finally found where all the sounds get 'rendered' in the game code. This allowed me to see what sounds were enabled when you sit at the hydrostation. The ambient noise for the hydrostation is enabled AND the ambient noise for the torpedo room is enabled :o Why ambient noise for torpedo room? You have headphones on and the only sounds you will hear are the hydrophone ambient. I always wondered what that other noise was in the background of the hydrostation's ambient. Now it's time to disable that noise :D

[volodya61]

Finally found where all the sounds get 'rendered' in the game code. This allowed me to see what sounds were enabled when you sit at the hydrostation. The ambient noise for the hydrostation is enabled AND the ambient noise for the torpedo room is enabled :o Why ambient noise for torpedo room? You have headphones on and the only sounds you will hear are the hydrophone ambient. I always wondered what that other noise was in the background of the hydrostation's ambient. Now it's time to disable that noise :D

Yep.. that is strange.. that's why I have reduced a lot ambient torpedo room sound in my sh.sdl :)..

[TheDarkWraith]

Yep.. that is strange.. that's why I have reduced a lot ambient torpedo room sound in my sh.sdl :)..

Well you can verify me then. Replace the file \data\Sound\ambiance_Torpedo-room_Q with a blank one or one who's volume is so low you can't hear it. See if you hear a different 'sound' at hydrostation then. This will confirm my findings.

[volodya61]

Well you can verify me then. Replace the file \data\Sound\ambiance_Torpedo-room_Q with a blank one or one who's volume is so low you can't hear it. See if you hear a different 'sound' at hydrostation then. This will confirm my findings.

Your findings don't need confirmation or verification.. :yep:
I have noticed this long ago.. when I sat to the hydrophone then was greatly amplified torpedo room ambient noise.. and I had to reduce it to nearly 0 in the sh.sdl..

[Macardigan]

Finally found where all the sounds get 'rendered' in the game code. This allowed me to see what sounds were enabled when you sit at the hydrostation. The ambient noise for the hydrostation is enabled AND the ambient noise for the torpedo room is enabled :o Why ambient noise for torpedo room? You have headphones on and the only sounds you will hear are the hydrophone ambient. I always wondered what that other noise was in the background of the hydrostation's ambient. Now it's time to disable that noise :D

hi thedarkwraith,
(sorry, google translation)

I removed the annoying noise closing the door of forward torpedo room. Maybe it helps you in your research. :D It's a joke. I do not think this helps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahK4YelByDw (min1:10)





.greetings and thanks for all your mods.




.

[Bathrone]

Many thanks for the fixes in recent revisions. Tested, all is well and secured :salute:

[TheDarkWraith]

v1.0.91.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.91.0 Added a new patch to SH5.exe: Fixes torpedo room's ambient noise heard on hydrophone station. After enabling this patch the only sounds you will hear when manning the hydrophone station are: hydrophone ambient and any contacts

[Bathrone]

TDW I played around with the no travelling through ocean floor setting. This works, but in shallow waters it causes the game to behave very unrealistically with the ship going up into the air and doing all sorts of physically impossible feats because of it. Im going to turn it off.

[Fifi]

v1.0.91.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.91.0 Added a new patch to SH5.exe: Fixes torpedo room's ambient noise heard on hydrophone station. After enabling this patch the only sounds you will hear when manning the hydrophone station are: hydrophone ambient and any contacts

An other great step! :yeah:

[volodya61]

v1.0.91.0 released. See post #1

Thank you, sir :salute:

[Tonci87]

TDW I played around with the no travelling through ocean floor setting. This works, but in shallow waters it causes the game to behave very unrealistically with the ship going up into the air and doing all sorts of physically impossible feats because of it. Im going to turn it off.

Any chance to improve this TDW?

[TheDarkWraith]

TDW I played around with the no travelling through ocean floor setting. This works, but in shallow waters it causes the game to behave very unrealistically with the ship going up into the air and doing all sorts of physically impossible feats because of it. Im going to turn it off.

I don't consider that patch complete yet. It's more in discovery phase to see/understand how the game reacts to my changes. Thanks for the feedback on it. I'll try and see why this would happen with that patch enabled :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

Thank you, sir :salute:

Did you adjust your Ambient sounds back to normal in Sh.sdl now? There was a huge bug in the SH5 code that as soon as you stepped foot into the hydro station's area the ambient torpedo room sound was enabled (there is some occluder missing saying that a wall is there to muffle the sound). The patch just checks to see if you are manning the hydro station and if you are it mutes the torpedo room ambient sound. Soon as you leave the hydro station it un-mutes the torpedo room ambient sound :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

P.S: any news on the RPM/boat's speed curve, and about separate speed ratios for diesel/electric propulsions?

Yes. I'm learning how to use the game's FileManager to read/write files :up: Did you ever post the file that had all the subs headers and their new electric values? If so, can you post another link to it?

[gap]

Yes. I'm learning how to use the game's FileManager to read/write files :up: Did you ever post the file that had all the subs headers and their new electric values? If so, can you post another link to it?

Looking for them :salute:

[gap]

Looking for them :salute:

Okay, I think you can copy/paste the seettings contained in this post (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2043933&postcount=1683)

For forward speed orders I have listed two different sets of RPM ratios, based on the two sources I had available. Use one of them to your liking (there is no much difference among them anyway), or average them if you prefer.

They both refer to the type VII/C, but I suppose that for other Type VII boats, ratios would have been more or less the same.

[volodya61]

Did you adjust your Ambient sounds back to normal in Sh.sdl now? There was a huge bug in the SH5 code that as soon as you stepped foot into the hydro station's area the ambient torpedo room sound was enabled (there is some occluder missing saying that a wall is there to muffle the sound). The patch just checks to see if you are manning the hydro station and if you are it mutes the torpedo room ambient sound. Soon as you leave the hydro station it un-mutes the torpedo room ambient sound :up:

Not yet.. I didn't checked/tested last Patcher's version yet :)

[DrJones]

Hey TDW,

that is really a great peace of work here.

A lot of things wich made us all great headache are still solved now...looking forward which Errors can also be deleted by your work....

Keep up that good work :up::yeah:

by the way...did you still find the error why the command compute Solution to target still not working?

Best Regards

DrJones:salute:

[TheDarkWraith]

A lot of things wich made us all great headache are still solved now...looking forward which Errors can also be deleted by your work....

by the way...did you still find the error why the command compute Solution to target still not working?

Which errors/bugs are left to fix :06:

Command compute solution to target I never used so I never knew it was broke. I'll look into it :up:

[DrJones]

Which errors/bugs are left to fix :06:

Command compute solution to target I never used so I never knew it was broke. I'll look into it :up:

I ment we are still not in the end of the road...i think you now what i mean....

thank you that you will have a look on it...it has the same function as you Switch of tdc in the xo Dialog to Show up the solution of the target.


Best Regards

DrJones:salute:

[Fifi]

The patch just checks to see if you are manning the hydro station and if you are it mutes the torpedo room ambient sound. Soon as you leave the hydro station it un-mutes the torpedo room ambient sound :up:

It seems to work :up:
But still hear some annoying foot steps in background, even with Sober no footsteps mod (though this mod delete first person footsteps, not others)

[Bathrone]

I don't consider that patch complete yet. It's more in discovery phase to see/understand how the game reacts to my changes. Thanks for the feedback on it. I'll try and see why this would happen with that patch enabled :up:

My apologies TDW as I did not fully report the situation. The issue I encounted occured after disabling a merchant in shallow waters. Because your patch works to stop them going through the ocean floor, the ship goes pivots around the ocean floor and ping pongs up and down erratically. I think the original devs never wrote proper physics into it because by letting the ships go through the floor none of these scenarios exist in the game.

What your doing assembly is simply amazing and is a real showcase for what can be done in such a low level language

[Tonci87]

Well TDW you can easily spot the problems by looking at these screenshots

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2049258&postcount=1718

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2049259&postcount=1719

Screen 3&4 show some serious physic problems.

[TheDarkWraith]

v1.0.92.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.92.0 Added a new patch to the SH5.exe that randomizes the nearest visual contact's distance returned. This new patch will take your sub's crew veterency level into account.

If you're curious to know how the distance gets randomized:

(1.0 - (sub's crew veterency level / 4)) * random number in range (0.0-1.0) - this is var1

max % error (0.1 or 10%) * random number in range (0.0-1.0) - this is var2

var3 = var1 + var2

nearest contact visual distance * var3 = var4

random number rolled to see if var4 becomes a negative number or not

nearest contact visual distance + var4 = new nearest contact visual distance

As you can see from the formula the greater the distance the contact is away the larger the error in distance that can be reported

[Fifi]

:o:o...seems VERY interesting patch!! Just WOW!
Going to test it with latest OH :up:

[THE_MASK]

This games getting harder , i mean more realistic by the day :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

:o:o...seems VERY interesting patch!! Just WOW!
Going to test it with latest OH :up:

This games getting harder , i mean more realistic by the day :up:

No more precise distances to the hundreds of meter from the crew anymore when you ask for nearest visual contact :D That annoyed me to no end :shifty:

[Sjizzle]

this game will be very awesome with this patch :) nice job TDW:Kaleun_Cheers:

[EAF274 Johan]

What is meant precisely by the "kiddy factor" such as in "remove kiddy factor from torpedo premature chances"? It is not clear to me.

[TheDarkWraith]

What is meant precisely by the "kiddy factor" such as in "remove kiddy factor from torpedo premature chances"? It is not clear to me.

I call 'kiddy factors' any code that reduces the chances of failures and/or events from happening. Majority of the time these 'kiddy factors' severely reduce the chances of you encountering any type of failure and/or event. These 'kiddy factors' make the game gamey and take away from the realism :yep:


Just had the depth under keel command not work in a career game :huh: Now to see why it's not working anymore :D

[TheDarkWraith]

this game will be very awesome with this patch :) nice job TDW:Kaleun_Cheers:

Not yet. Still working on making it awesome :D

If anyone has any ideas on improving the latest patch (randomize nearest visual contact distance) don't be afraid to speak up. Do I need to make it 'harder'? Like say after a certain distance the crew only reports in 500m increments :hmmm:

[7thSeal]

If anyone has any ideas on improving the latest patch (randomize nearest visual contact distance) don't be afraid to speak up. Do I need to make it 'harder'? Like say after a certain distance the crew only reports in 500m increments :hmmm:

Only thing I can think of at the moment is if somehow fog and stormy weather can make it harder for the crew to give precise distance. I know you mentioned anything with weather being hard coded though and not sure if its feasible.

[TheDarkWraith]

Only thing I can think of at the moment is if somehow fog and stormy weather can make it harder for the crew to give precise distance. I know you mentioned anything with weather being hard coded though and not sure if its feasible.

That is a great idea! I've seen where EnvSim_act is asked for weather data. Now I just have to remember where I bookmarked that at :cool:

[7thSeal]

That is a great idea! I've seen where EnvSim_act is asked for weather data. Now I just have to remember where I bookmarked that at :cool:

Let 'er rip... :D

[TheDarkWraith]

Let 'er rip... :D

ok, I know how to get all the data related to fog, precipitation, clouds, wind heading, and wind speed. Now we need to define what conditions means crew cannot report nearest visual contact.

Fog - a certain fog level means no reporting? or different fog levels correspond to % error added? or ??

Precipitation - same as above

Clouds - same as above

Let's have a discussion :D

[7thSeal]

ok, I know how to get all the data related to fog, precipitation, clouds, wind heading, and wind speed. Now we need to define what conditions means crew cannot report nearest visual contact.

Fog - a certain fog level means no reporting? or different fog levels correspond to % error added? or ??

Precipitation - same as above

Clouds - same as above

Let's have a discussion :D

Well with sobers heavy fog you can't see crap in front of you and I believe it would add to the realism if crew responded the same. With stormy weather you still have slight distance of visibility but with heavy fog none really. Another thing to consider is night visibility. :)

[Fifi]

ok, I know how to get all the data related to fog...

Really?? Would it be possible to patch game for fog very ponctual happening, because days and days of same fog overcast isn't realistic at all :nope:

Fog - a certain fog level means no reporting? or different fog levels correspond to % error added? or ??

No reporting? ---> no please!
Furthermore, all players aren't using Sober best ever fog mod!
% error added? why not!
Precipitations? ---> maybe like for light fog, but anyway it's often precipitations + fog, ingame...don't even recall precipitations alone.
Clouds? I don't see why reducing visi for clouds :hmmm:

[7thSeal]

Really?? Would it be possible to patch game for fog very ponctual happening, because days and days of same fog overcast isn't realistic at all :nope:


No reporting? ---> no please!
Furthermore, all players aren't using Sober best ever fog mod!
% error added? why not!
Precipitations? ---> maybe like for light fog, but anyway it's often precipitations + fog, ingame...don't even recall precipitations alone.
Clouds? I don't see why reducing visi for clouds :hmmm:

Looks like fog will be the main factor and as you pointed out precipitation always includes fog. Light and medium fog seems to be the most common but how much % should it affect?

Night visuals would also be affected by mods as some of us use darker night mods so I'm not sure how that would determine % either.

[BigWalleye]

Distance (range) is usually judged by size and aspect ratio. Fog doesn't affect the perceived size, although it would make the aspect ratio harder to judge. Zeroth order, I'd think that fog would determine whether you could see something or not, but would not significantly impact the range estimate. You wouldn't expect a lookout to see a ship looming out of the fog 1000m away and judge that it was 5000m just because he didn't see it clearly. (Or perhaps you might - allow the first glimpse through the fog to be wildly inaccurate, just an impression of something there, then successive sightings much better.)

BTW, Dick O'Kane recounts numerous instances of completely erroneous range estimates (factor of 5 or more) in clear air under certain meteorological conditions common in the Sea of Ohkotsk.

[THE_MASK]

If i enable all the render patches i get a ctd on clicking on the navigation map icon .

[finchOU]

Distance (range) is usually judged by size and aspect ratio. Fog doesn't affect the perceived size, although it would make the aspect ratio harder to judge. Zeroth order, I'd think that fog would determine whether you could see something or not, but would not significantly impact the range estimate. You wouldn't expect a lookout to see a ship looming out of the fog 1000m away and judge that it was 5000m just because he didn't see it clearly. (Or perhaps you might - allow the first glimpse through the fog to be wildly inaccurate, just an impression of something there, then successive sightings much better.)

BTW, Dick O'Kane recounts numerous instances of completely erroneous range estimates (factor of 5 or more) in clear air under certain meteorological conditions common in the Sea of Ohkotsk.

I would think you'd have a visibility estimate during foggy conditions. Like I have 2 miles vis in this fog....or heavy fog..... less than 50 meters...etc. So if a ship appeared ...you'd have a decent guess based off of that ....and judging by the relative size of the ship.

I like the idea of less range accuracy at greater ranges...and would add to the realism for sure! Make you shadow a bit longer and take multiple readings.

[totalrain]

If i enable all the render patches i get a ctd on clicking on the navigation map icon .

For me it was Render patch 12, "Disables rendering of torpedo line", that caused the Nav Map and Mission selection CTD. All others are OK. This was with Patcher 1.0.83.

I have an nVidea GTX560 graphics card and AMD Phenom II X4 965 CPU.

Everything was working with OH2.1 Full + Patch 2 and your (Sobers) mod list. I didn't sink any Polish ships as it was heavy fog and I play at 100% + Real Nav and haven't had a chance continue with the Baltic Operations mission. I will try with OH2.2 and the latest Patcher when I get the time to play again.

[TheDarkWraith]

v1.0.93.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.93.0 Revised the randomize nearest visual contact patch. Now the patch takes weather into account (clouds, fog type, and precipitation type)

The weather parameters are accessed via a table of entries for each type. The data is contained in the patch file via variables. It's a number of types of the weather type X 2 table with data for each weather type (clouds, precipitation, and fog): columns are the available types for each weather type (none, medium, heavy, etc). The two rows are distance and percent error to add. If the visual contact's distance is >= distance then game will check the percent error to add. If percent error to add is < 0 then game says you do not see the visual contact. If percent error is >= 0 then this error is added to the current total error. If distance is < 0 then that tells the game to ignore this weather type. I'll detail what the stock values are for all the tables tomorrow.

If the game calculates that you cannot see a visual contact it will display a message in the messagebox denoting so. Message to display (menu entry) is a variable in the patch file. Currently I have it set to 1209 (No visual contact!)

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=669&pictureid=6621

[EAF274 Johan]

Another question: if I want to keep the special ability to reduce torpedo dud chances ("Remove torpedo dud reduce ability"), do I need to leave "Removes other reducing factor from torpedo dud chances" disabled, or can I enable it?

[TheDarkWraith]

Another question: if I want to keep the special ability to reduce torpedo dud chances ("Remove torpedo dud reduce ability"), do I need to leave "Removes other reducing factor from torpedo dud chances" disabled, or can I enable it?

You can enable it. That's why I made it a separate patch

[THE_MASK]

Tried to open the EXE with patch 93 . Randomise nearest visual contact distance . Change 2 . Reason . Bytes read does not equal bytes expected by patch .
Can anyone else get it to work ? Is it a problem on my end ?

[Echolot]

EXE with patch 93 . Randomise nearest visual contact distance . Change 2

No error here.

:salute:

[gap]

If anyone has any ideas on improving the latest patch (randomize nearest visual contact distance) don't be afraid to speak up...

something which I find annoying is that hydrophone estimated ranges (and now visual ranges) are totally random. Ask many ranges to closest target in a row, and you will get numbers as 10,700, 11,000, 10,800, 10,500, etc. which makes range reports to look totally silly.

I wonder if you could store somewhere the last range estimation, and the time that it was estimated at. Every time we ask for a range, your code should calculate elapsed time from the previous estimation. Let's define some variablen:

RE = new range estimation
RE0 = last stored range estimation
TE= time elapsed from the last stored range estimation
TE0 = minimum time for a new range estimation


if TE < TE0, or both target and U-boat are stationary, than output is RE0;

else, calculate RE:

if target is closing:

if RE < RE0, output is RE;
else, output is RE0;

if target is moving away:

if RE > RE0, output is RE;
else, output is RE0;




TE0 should be a function of target's speed and range: the slower the speed and the longer the range, the longer the time for estimated range to change. Variables are reset if closest target changes.

Another, probably easier method to do the same could be by comparing exact ranges. In this case the variables involved would be:

RE0 = last stored range estimation
R0 = exact range relative to the last stored range estimation
R = current range

if RE0 and R0 are empty variables (no previous contact estimations for current closest target), then calculate range estimations according to your current code. Else, new range estimation should be equal to:

RE0 * R / R0

What do you think? :)

ok, I know how to get all the data related to fog, precipitation, clouds, wind heading, and wind speed.


Any chance for this other idea to be implemented: :D

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1886488#post1886488

[BigWalleye]

Gap, that sounds like a good idea, although IMHO it sounds like a lot of coding work for a small gain in realism. You could also use a Kalman filter to converge the range estimates. :D "Course, I'm not doing the work, so I shouldn't complain. Would be nice to have.

Your linked post regarding degrading the quality of ship IDs I really want to second! Have longed for this. BTW, on American ships, at least, the skipper customarily viewed the target through the periscope and reported salient features to the identification party, which then made the call. Or the lookouts would report (after the fact) what features they had observed. Final ID was typically not done RT, and the ID party seldom saw the target. Simulating this accurately could get complex and seems to call for a completely new approach. But anything that makes the ID function less Godlike and more error-prone would be a big improvement. TDW, would you consider this for a future fix?

[volodya61]

Any chance for this other idea to be implemented: :D

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1886488#post1886488

Yeah, it would be just great if this idea will be implemented :yeah:

[gap]

Gap, that sounds like a good idea, although IMHO it sounds like a lot of coding work for a small gain in realism.

You are probably right about the complexity of coding it. But I wouldn't call it "a small gain in realism" as it would make the reporting officer to behave as a sentient being, instead of a stupid random numbers generator :D

[TheDarkWraith]

You are probably right about the complexity of coding it. But I wouldn't call it "a small gain in realism" as it would make the reporting officer to behave as a sentient being, instead of a stupid random numbers generator :D

What I'll add to the code is having it remember which unit the game used for the nearest visual contact distance. I'll also store the actual distance to the unit along with last random distance calculated. Then if player asks for nearest visual contact the code will check to see if the same unit is found, if so then it will check actual distance to see if it's changed some amount (I'll make that a variable in the patch file). If the distance changed >= variable amount then calculate new random distance. If distance changed < variable amount return last random distance calculated.

How's that? I don't want anything too complex. I just wanted something to get rid of the perfect range estimate every time you asked for nearest visual contact.

[Tonci87]

What I'll add to the code is having it remember which unit the game used for the nearest visual contact distance. I'll also store the actual distance to the unit along with last random distance calculated. Then if player asks for nearest visual contact the code will check to see if the same unit is found, if so then it will check actual distance to see if it's changed some amount (I'll make that a variable in the patch file). If the distance changed >= variable amount then calculate new random distance. If distance changed < variable amount return last random distance calculated.

How's that? I don't want anything too complex. I just wanted something to get rid of the perfect range estimate every time you asked for nearest visual contact.

That sounds good

[BigWalleye]

That sounds like an elegant solution - simple but effective.

[gap]

What I'll add to the code is having it remember which unit the game used for the nearest visual contact distance. I'll also store the actual distance to the unit along with last random distance calculated. Then if player asks for nearest visual contact the code will check to see if the same unit is found, if so then it will check actual distance to see if it's changed some amount (I'll make that a variable in the patch file). If the distance changed >= variable amount then calculate new random distance. If distance changed < variable amount return last random distance calculated.

How's that? I don't want anything too complex. I just wanted something to get rid of the perfect range estimate every time you asked for nearest visual contact.

That's perfect! :up:

P.S: can you do the same with the range to closest target estimated by the hydrophone operator?

[TheDarkWraith]

That's perfect! :up:

P.S: can you do the same with the range to closest target estimated by the hydrophone operator?

Should be able to :up:

I'm going to run out of variable space in my TDWData section soon :huh: I thought 0x2000 bytes would be plenty :shifty: New command strings are taking up much of the space.

[gap]

Should be able to :up:

:yeah:

I'm going to run out of variable space in my TDWData section soon :huh: I thought 0x2000 bytes would be plenty :shifty: New command strings are taking up much of the space.

Can you set a bigger variable space, or it would eat too much memory? :hmm2:

[TheDarkWraith]

Can you set a bigger variable space, or it would eat too much memory? :hmm2:

It's not a question of setting a bigger variable space but rather how many sections can one define in a exe (PE file)? I've added 3 additional sections to the SH5.exe: TDWData, TDWCode, and Updates. I'll need to add another section here soon just for strings but I'm not sure how many sections you are allowed to define in the PE format. I'll have to research that...If I can't add more sections then I'm forced to increase the size of my existing sections which means recalculating offsets for all the new functions I've added :dead: I don't have the luxury of the relocations section doing this for me because my code came after the source code was compiled. Kinda makes me want to learn how the relocations section works and how to add/manipulate it :hmmm:

[finchOU]

It's not a question of setting a bigger variable space but rather how many sections can one define in a exe (PE file)? I've added 3 additional sections to the SH5.exe: TDWData, TDWCode, and Updates. I'll need to add another section here soon just for strings but I'm not sure how many sections you are allowed to define in the PE format. I'll have to research that...If I can't add more sections then I'm forced to increase the size of my existing sections which means recalculating offsets for all the new functions I've added :dead: I don't have the luxury of the relocations section doing this for me because my code came after the source code was compiled. Kinda makes me want to learn how the relocations section works and how to add/manipulate it :hmmm:


you might as well be speaking Klingon :rotfl2: .....all this shows is how utterly clueless I am when it comes to computers. Are the files IN the computer?:06::haha:

[TheDarkWraith]

you might as well be speaking Klingon :rotfl2: .....all this shows is how utterly clueless I am when it comes to computers. Are the files IN the computer?:06::haha:

You should learn about computers. You can't get away from the fact that there's a computer (embedded CPU) in almost anything you use in society today. The more knowledge you have about them the better prepared you are for anything dealing with them :03:

[finchOU]

You should learn about computers. You can't get away from the fact that there's a computer (embedded CPU) in almost anything you use in society today. The more knowledge you have about them the better prepared you are for anything dealing with them :03:

I'm learning slowly.....then faster when stuff breaks/ is not working as advertised.

[SkyBaron]

v1.0.92.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.92.0 Added a new patch to the SH5.exe that randomizes the nearest visual contact's distance returned. This new patch will take your sub's crew veterency level into account.

Awesome! That always annoyed me. :) Can I make a suggestion since you're working with the "visual contact" part of the code? Would it be too complicated to turn off visual contacts until you leave port (ie. until the DOCK icon disappears)? It would avoid all the "ship spotted" messages from watching crew with X-Ray vision seeing through walls. :nope:

Thanks for all your work fixing the game! :salute:

[finchOU]

Awesome! That always annoyed me. :) Can I make a suggestion since you're working with the "visual contact" part of the code? Would it be too complicated to turn off visual contacts until you leave port (ie. until the DOCK icon disappears)? It would avoid all the "ship spotted" messages from watching crew with X-Ray vision seeing through walls. :nope:

Thanks for all your work fixing the game! :salute:


The only problem of that I would think would be a higher probability of collisions. :hmmm: I don't mind the harbor sequence as much....I actually take my time to enjoy the scenery while it lasts. Ships spotted does in/near port doesn't annoy me as it keeps my SA a bit higher in that critical phase of seamanship. :up: Now seeing through walls? that has been a problem as long as I can remember (or DD's trying to sail through walls. Or Lights shining through walls/buildings.

[TheDarkWraith]

You are probably right about the complexity of coding it. But I wouldn't call it "a small gain in realism" as it would make the reporting officer to behave as a sentient being, instead of a stupid random numbers generator :D

v1.0.94.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.94.0 Revised the randomize nearest visual contact patch again. Now the patch remembers the last unit it used for the command. If the unit is the same unit as last time and difference between distance to contact now and before < 500m (a variable in the patch file) then it returns last randomized distance else returns new randomized distance. If the unit is different than last unit then it returns a new random distance.

Now I'll look to see if I can do the same thing to the sonarman's command that's similar to this.

[TheDarkWraith]

Awesome! That always annoyed me. :) Can I make a suggestion since you're working with the "visual contact" part of the code? Would it be too complicated to turn off visual contacts until you leave port (ie. until the DOCK icon disappears)? It would avoid all the "ship spotted" messages from watching crew with X-Ray vision seeing through walls. :nope:

Thanks for all your work fixing the game! :salute:

It probably would be possible but I'm still figuring out all the menu item stuff in the code. I can find menu items, find their parents, grab some data from them (command associated with them, offsets, etc.) but I don't have them completely mapped out yet. Once I do then I have to figure out how the warning icons are made :up:

[Gillian81]

Question regarding patching.
Is it advisable to first disable al my mods, before patching, and then after patching enable all my mods again? Or doesn't it really matter?

Also do I still have to edit the menu.txt manually with the follwing:

Required menu.txt entries for versions >= v1.0.74.0:

Edit this line in your menu.txt file:
MaxStrings=11100

Add these to the end of your menu.txt file:

; Independent engine controls patch
10025=Shafts
10026=Click to enable/disable speed commands for the port shaft
10027=Click to enable/disable speed commands for the starboard shaft
; Contact report wolfpack patch
11000=Dispatching available submarines to your patrol area|Remain undetected and in a favorable position|Send status reports| |Bdu
11001=All available submarines have been dispatched to your patrol area
11002=Submarines in your area have received instructions to join your attack|Stay in front of contact/convoy, remain undetected, and send regular status reports| | |B.d.u
11003=Remain undetected and continue following contact/convoy|Available submarines are heading to your patrol area
11004=Attain favorable position and shadow contact/convoy until reinforcements arrive
; possible messages from Bdu when can not dispatch subs
11010=No boats are within your patrol area|Act as lone boat| |Bdu
11011=No support within range|Be more aggressive| |Bdu
11012=Contact report received|Act on own data| |BdU
11013=Be more aggressive!| |Bdu
11014=Attack contact| |Bdu
; Reports from dispatched subs
11020=Contact keeper continue to send bearing signals|Group act on own data|Take every opportunity to attack
11021=Convoy in sight|Signal bearing sent|Moving to attack port side
11022=I believe to have made contact with the convoy|Sending bearing signals|Act according to own data|Attacking at full speed
11023=Requesting bearing signal from contact keeper
11024=Beacon signals lie in the line of approach according to dead reckoning.|Attacking far side of convoy

[volodya61]

v1.0.94.0 released. See post #1
...
Now I'll look to see if I can do the same thing to the sonarman's command that's similar to this.

Thank you, sir :salute:

Sorry, I don't want to annoy you but.. what about Gap's question - can we hope to get rid of the perfect automatic ship recognition every time we asked our WO even at the night or with the heavy fog? :06:

Please :)

[volodya61]

Question regarding patching.
Is it advisable to first disable al my mods, before patching, and then after patching enable all my mods again? Or doesn't it really matter?

It doesn't matter..

Also do I still have to edit the menu.txt manually with the follwing:

If wolfpack patch is enabled then yes..

[Gillian81]

It doesn't matter..



If wolfpack patch is enabled then yes..

Thanks!:up:

[gap]

v1.0.94.0 released. See post #1

...

If the unit is the same unit as last time and difference between distance to contact now and before < 500m (a variable in the patch file) then it returns last randomized distance else returns new randomized distance.

Thank you TDW :up:

your work is very much appreciated here, but I have a little remark (hope you don't mind) :)
Is there any particular reason for your new code to compare the distance changed with the fixed value of 500 m, ? I liked more the method you had described yesterday, where distance changed was compared with variable amount (see quote below), because it would have made mathematically sure that consecuitive range estimations decreased for closing targets and increased for targets moving away. Moreover, it would have made range estimations to be recalculated more often for close targets (smaller variable amount) than for far ones, which seems pretty realistic to me :hmm2:

...If the distance changed >= variable amount then calculate new random distance. If distance changed < variable amount return last random distance calculated...



Sorry, I don't want to annoy you but.. what about Gap's question - can we hope to get rid of the perfect automatic ship recognition every time we asked our WO even at the night or with the heavy fog? :06:

Please :)

I got to second Volodya's seconding of my request... :O: :D

[TheDarkWraith]

Thank you TDW :up:

your work is very much appreciated here, but I have a little remark (hope you don't mind) :)
Is there any particular reason for your new code to compare the distance changed with the fixed value of 500 m, ? I liked more the method you had described yesterday, where distance changed was compared with variable amount (see quote below), because it would have made mathematically sure that consecuitive range estimations decreased for closing targets and increased for targets moving away. Moreover, it would have made range estimations to be recalculated more often for close targets (smaller variable amount) than for far ones, which seems pretty realistic to me :hmm2:

By variable amount I meant the variable's value as defined in the patch file. What I've coded in does what I meant: ABS(distance before - distance now) > variable defined in patch file then recalc random distance else return old random distance. This will ensure new random distances are calculated for closing or moving away contacts.

[gap]

By variable amount I meant the variable's value as defined in the patch file. What I've coded in does what I meant: ABS(distance before - distance now) > variable defined in patch file then recalc random distance else return old random distance. This will ensure new random distances are calculated for closing or moving away contacts.

Okay, sorry for misunderstanding you :up:

I didn't get that 500 m was just an example; I thought that it was a fixed variable (wich is a contradiction in terms) :O:

[TheDarkWraith]

Okay, sorry for misunderstanding you :up:

I didn't get that 500 m was just an example; I thought that it was a fixed variable (wich is a contradiction in terms) :O:

The variable in the patch file is a fixed amount: 500m. In programming terms a variable is some value in a program statement that can change. For example:
a + b = c. Those all can be considered variables for a program.

It's a variable because one can change it in the patch file to whatever they want (I guess you could consider it a constant since the code doesn't change the value read in). I have it defaulting to 500m.

What kind of calculation are you thinking about to make this variable ever changing in the game :06:

[gap]

What kind of calculation are you thinking about to make this variable ever changing in the game :06:

I think you are currently reading the maximum amount of randomization (i.e. maximum ± error) from an array of datas where weather, range, and crew experience are taken into account. Isn't it?

I thought it was quite logical comparing the distance changed for every consecutive range estimation with the aforementioned value multiplied by two: if the unit moved from its original position by a distance wich is lesser than the maximum error x 2, it wouldn't make sense re-estimating its range. If it travelled by a longer distance, then a new range estimation is calculated. The threshold of maximum error x 2, would ensure that the two ranges of error are not overlapping. On graph:

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/5781/rangeestimation.jpg

ME = maximum ± error in range estimation
P1 = previous position (first range estimation)
P2 = next position at which a new range estimation is calculated
RS1 = random space 1 (P1 ± ME)
RS2 = random space 2 (P2 ± ME)

In the worst case, the second range estimation would return the same randomized range as the first estimation (P1 + ME = P2 - ME), but not a smaller one (the ship is moving away).

[gap]

quick addition: my previous example supposed that maximum error didn't change from first to second range estimation, thus the threshold of 2 x maximum error. Nonetheless, we should take into account the fact that the maximum allowed amount of error can change, as consequence of the fact that our target is closing or moving away. A more general rule for deciding wether to calculate a new range estimation, or using the previous one should be:

if DC < ME1 + ME2 then return last randomized range, else calculate new estimation

were:

DC = distance changed
ME1 = maximum allowed error for the last randomized range
ME2 = current maximum allowed error

P.S: another cool feature, would be rounding the randomized ranges returned by the WO:

estimated ranges ≤ 10,000m rounded to the closest thousand (i.e: 11,000, 16,000, etc.)
estimated ranges > 10,000m and ≤ 1,000m ronded to the closest hundred (i.e. 1,500, 3,200, etc.)
estimated ranges > 1,000m rounded to the closest ten (i.e: 950, 580, etc.)

[Txema]

Gap, TheDarkWraith,

Very nice discussion and very nice patch for SH5.

Thank you !!! :woot:


Txema

[TheDarkWraith]

quick addition: my previous example supposed that maximum error didn't change from first to second range estimation, thus the threshold of 2 x maximum error. Nonetheless, we should take into account the fact that the maximum allowed amount of error can change, as consequence of the fact that our target is closing or moving away. A more general rule for deciding wether to calculate a new range estimation, or using the previous one should be:

if DC < ME1 + ME2 then return last randomized range, else calculate new estimation

were:

DC = distance changed
ME1 = maximum allowed error for the last randomized range
ME2 = current maximum allowed error

P.S: another cool feature, would be rounding the randomized ranges returned by the WO:

estimated ranges ≤ 10,000m rounded to the closest thousand (i.e: 11,000, 16,000, etc.)
estimated ranges > 10,000m and ≤ 1,000m ronded to the closest hundred (i.e. 1,500, 3,200, etc.)
estimated ranges > 1,000m rounded to the closest ten (i.e: 950, 580, etc.)

I think you're not understanding how the new code for this works:

player asks for nearest visual contact
code hooks into place in existing code before the new visual contact distance is displayed
code calculates new distance taking into account player sub's crew level, max error allowed, and weather data
code checks to see if player has asked for nearest visual contact before and existing code used current unit to get distance from
if current unit was used:
take old true distance and subtract new true distance
compare that result to variable (constant) defined in patch file (500m)
if before then return old random value calculated
if after then return new random value (distance) calculated above

if current unit wasn't used:
store pointer to current unit
store current unit's true distance
store current unit's random distance
return new random value (distance)

Now what you were suggesting about using error distance X 2 isn't going to work as you think. The reason being the error distance calculated can be any % of the true distance (+ or -). It all depends on what the max error % defined in patch file is AND what the table of values for the weather data is defined in the patch file. It's possible that this error % can be > 50% - it all depends on how the random numbers turn out and what the data defined in patch file is and what crew level the player has. That is why I set a variable (constant) in patch file to compare ABS(current true distance - previous true distance) to. If this result is > 500m then calculate new random distance. If <= 500m then return previous random distance. This way you are guaranteed to get a new random distance every 500m change in distance. This 500m can be changed to whatever value the player feels like via editing the patch file. I think 500m is reasonable and it doesn't make the code very complex.

Your 'another cool feature' idea would be very easy to implement. I'll update the code for this tonight. What I'll do is define 3 new variables in the patch file to handle this. That way the end-user can change when the rounding starts for each type (round to thousands, round to hundreds, and round to tens).

[gap]

I think you're not understanding how the new code for this works:

player asks for nearest visual contact
code hooks into place in existing code before the new visual contact distance is displayed
code calculates new distance taking into account player sub's crew level, max error allowed, and weather data
code checks to see if player has asked for nearest visual contact before and existing code used current unit to get distance from
if current unit was used:
take old true distance and subtract new true distance
compare that result to variable (constant) defined in patch file (500m)
if before then return old random value calculated
if after then return new random value (distance) calculated above

if current unit wasn't used:
store pointer to current unit
store current unit's true distance
store current unit's random distance
return new random value (distance)

That was clear enough :03:

Now what you were suggesting about using error distance X 2 isn't going to work as you think. The reason being the error distance calculated can be any % of the true distance (+ or -). It all depends on what the max error % defined in patch file is AND what the table of values for the weather data is defined in the patch file. It's possible that this error % can be > 50% - it all depends on how the random numbers turn out and what the data defined in patch file is and what crew level the player has.

This is also clear :yep:


That is why I set a variable (constant) in patch file to compare ABS(current true distance - previous true distance) to. If this result is > 500m then calculate new random distance. If <= 500m then return previous random distance. This way you are guaranteed to get a new random distance every 500m change in distance. This 500m can be changed to whatever value the player feels like via editing the patch file. I think 500m is reasonable and it doesn't make the code very complex.

Your 500m variable won't avoid the possibility of a second range estimation that is smaller than the first one, though the target is moving away, or conversely a bigger second range estimation for closing targets. This would be true for any max error (max error % defined in patch file x true distance) bigger than 250m, which -I suppose- would be a common result for long range targets. Notice that I am not saying that silly range reportings would necessarily happen (applied error can be much smaller than max error, again I am aware of it :03:), but you can't ignore the fact that there would be a chance of this happening as high as longer is target's range (bigger true distance), as worse are weather conditions and as worse is crew experience (bigger max error %, hence higher random chance of a big error % being applied).

Now try to imagine a closing target being report 5,000m away, then 5,100m away, then 4,400m, then again 4,600. The modifications to your code that I am suggesting would get rid of this chace, and would also make range estimations to be "adjusted" lesser frequently when the closest target is far away, when the fog is heavier, or when crew experience is low.

I hope you got my point this time. If not, I am sorry but with my limited English I can't explain it better than this :salute:


Your 'another cool feature' idea would be very easy to implement. I'll update the code for this tonight. What I'll do is define 3 new variables in the patch file to handle this. That way the end-user can change when the rounding starts for each type (round to thousands, round to hundreds, and round to tens).

Okay :up:

[gap]

v1.0.92.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.92.0 Added a new patch to the SH5.exe that randomizes the nearest visual contact's distance returned. This new patch will take your sub's crew veterency level into account.

If you're curious to know how the distance gets randomized:

(1.0 - (sub's crew veterency level / 4)) * random number in range (0.0-1.0) - this is var1

max % error (0.1 or 10%) * random number in range (0.0-1.0) - this is var2

var3 = var1 + var2

nearest contact visual distance * var3 = var4

random number rolled to see if var4 becomes a negative number or not

nearest contact visual distance + var4 = new nearest contact visual distance

As you can see from the formula the greater the distance the contact is away the larger the error in distance that can be reported

Just tested my "theory" with the numbers you have stated in the above post, but var1 multiplied by 0.1, so that perc error is ±20% in the worst case. I have put them on a spreadsheet with independent random functions for each variable.

For a veterancy level of 0, true ranges of 10,000, 9,500, 9,000, 8,500, 8,000 m, your functions returned the following results ("out of place" ranges in orange):

test#1: 9,185; 9,951; 8470; 9,160; 8,860
test#2: 9,044; 10,048; 9,801; 9,101; 8,649
test#3: 10,642; 8,268; 8,911; 8,927; 7,329
test#4: 10,778; 9,214; 8,850; 8,412; 8,402
test#5: 9,030; 8,773; 8,766; 8,598; 7,829

Indeed, I didn't select in any way the results, but I have just listed here the first 5 sets of numbers generated by the spreadsheet.

As you can see, there's a significant probability of illogical range estimations being generated :yep:

[BigWalleye]

TDW, when you can clear your inbox, I have a PM for you.

[Targor Avelany]

Just on a side note, as I'm not sure where else to put this:

recently was not able to switch the locations to launch the game: not sure where the UPlay takes the location of the sh5.exe anymore. Annoys the heck out of me, as I used to having 3 different folders specifically, so I have 1 to play, 1 to mess around/mod/test things and 1 with clear non-modded set up. Now, no matter what I change the settings in the registry to (either by had or with my little SH5 Switch or with TDW's Validator) it always launching the original installation.

Just extremely annoys me. So far, trying to trace it down is not working, as I am still figuring out the olydbg, so just decided to throw it out there.

p.s. matters not whether the TDW's patcher activated or not.

[Sartoris]

I've been out of the loop recently, so I don't entirely understand the latest changes. If I remember correctly, the aim of the v1.0.94.0 patch is to randomize the distance the game returns when you ask for range. Does this mean that the game gives you a completely random number (e.g. the ship is 5000 meters away, and the game says it's 14000 meters away), or is the number approximate (e.g. the game says it's 5000 meters away even though the ship is 5500 meters away)?

What I mean is, can the game be relied upon to give a range report that is somewhat accurate, or is it now wildly inaccurate to remove the annoying advantage of being given a precise report?

[gap]

I've been out of the loop recently, so I don't entirely understand the latest changes. If I remember correctly, the aim of the v1.0.94.0 patch is to randomize the distance the game returns when you ask for range. Does this mean that the game gives you a completely random number (e.g. the ship is 5000 meters away, and the game says it's 14000 meters away), or is the number approximate (e.g. the game says it's 5000 meters away even though the ship is 5500 meters away)?

What I mean is, can the game be relied upon to give a range report that is somewhat accurate, or is it now wildly inaccurate to remove the annoying advantage of being given a precise report?

The reported range is randomized by a percent of the true range (reported range = true range x (1 ± random percent). Max error percent vary depending on crew experience and weather state. In addition, in future there will be a customizable option for rounding the reported range to a multiple of an input number :salute:

[Sartoris]

The reported range is randomized by a percent of the true range (reported range = true range x (1 ± random percent). Max error percent vary depending on crew experience and weather state. In addition, in future there will be a customizable option for rounding the reported range to a multiple of an input number :salute:

Ah, thank you for clearing that up! :up: I think that's a great idea, can't wait to see TDW's next addition, they're really exciting stuff.

However, there's still one major problem that keeps bugging me when I play.

Almost 50% of the time, when I reload a game all the crew members go completely silent. The watch officer and the sonar man are mute, and I can never get them to resume speaking. I often have to restart the game to fix that bug. Is anyone else experiencing this? (I usually play with sober's mod list, just shortened a bit, and of course with all the patches, both official and unofficial).

[gap]

Almost 50% of the time, when I reload a game all the crew members go completely silent. The watch officer and the sonar man are mute, and I can never get them to resume speaking. I often have to restart the game to fix that bug. Is anyone else experiencing this? (I usually play with sober's mod list, just shortened a bit, and of course with all the patches, both official and unofficial).

Yes sounds, also ambient sounds, stopping to work use to happen to me too, but not necessarily after a game reload :hmmm:

[Sartoris]

This bug and the fact that destroyers blow themselves up with their own depth charges are the two things currently keeping me away from sh5. I really hope that the sound bug can be fixed.

[gap]

This bug and the fact that destroyers blow themselves up with their own depth charges are the two things currently keeping me away from sh5. I really hope that the sound bug can be fixed.

I don't know about the sound bug which also annoys me quite a lot, but I am sure that the issue of the destroyers... destroying themselves can be fixed with some compromise. Doing it is in my todo list for Historical Guns Specs, though I haven't a deadline for it :03:

[volodya61]

Yes sounds, also ambient sounds, stopping to work use to happen to me too, but not necessarily after a game reload :hmmm:
This bug and the fact that destroyers blow themselves up with their own depth charges are the two things currently keeping me away from sh5. I really hope that the sound bug can be fixed.

Just don't use TC 8192 guys :D

I'm usually use not more than 256 and haven't sound's issue :)

[gap]

Just don't use TC 8192 guys :D

I'm usually use not more than 256 and haven't sound's issue :)

yes, high TC levels are one of the causes :yep:

[Sartoris]

yes, high TC levels are one of the causes :yep:

I did not know that, thanks! I will try not to go over 256 in the future, though that just seems like a temporary solution before a proper bug fix.

[volodya61]

yes, high TC levels are one of the causes :yep:
I did not know that, thanks! I will try not to go over 256 in the future, though that just seems like a temporary solution before a proper bug fix.

My thought about this issue - at high TC levels game disables unnecessary at this point triggers (like sound triggers) and then 'forgets' to enable them back..

[Sartoris]

My thought about this issue - at high TC levels game disables unnecessary at this point triggers (like sound triggers) and then forgets to enable them back..

That is a good suggestion, hopefully TDW will be able to look into it further.:up:

[NeonsStyle]

Why not just provide a link to the patched SH5.exe file???

[volodya61]

Why not just provide a link to the patched SH5.exe file???

Because of the Copyright laws of any country..

[sidslotm]

I tried to do this mod but like others could not find 0x197A4A even with a search. I have been wondering if there are not slightly different versions of sh5.exe released over the years. In truth I suppose it must be there even if under a differing piece of code. Thanks TDW for the effort on this.

[gap]

I tried to do this mod but like others could not find 0x197A4A even with a search. I have been wondering if there are not slightly different versions of sh5.exe released over the years. In truth I suppose it must be there even if under a differing piece of code. Thanks TDW for the effort on this.

You don't need to patch the game manually anymore. Just download from post #1 the latest TDW's generic patcher which includes all the patches released so far, and use it for enabling your prefered patches.

See this tutorial by Trevally (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1926439#post1926439) on how to use the patcher. :up:

[Husksubsky]

A bit back to torpedo duds .I just updated to newest patch.
Fun with depth and gyro ..3 of 4 hit (august 1940) but 100 percent duds until I tested like 15 torps at perfect 90 degrees. Then I got an impact. Took away kiddy factor and no duds. enabled kiddy factor patch and took away topedo dud fixes, then 2 of 3 exploded. (one deep) perfect for me, but what did I do? I would think remove kiddy factor and dud fixes were linked somehow?
is there a link to what changes lies in the patches?:hmm2:
And would the rounded lower part of the merch have some effect on impact angle? I hit at 90 degree but since this was a small merch it went 3 metres deep and was round shaped.

[volodya61]

A bit back to torpedo duds .I just updated to newest patch.
Fun with depth and gyro ..3 of 4 hit (august 1940) but 100 percent duds until I tested like 15 torps at perfect 90 degrees. Then I got an impact. Took away kiddy factor and no duds. enabled kiddy factor patch and took away topedo dud fixes, then 2 of 3 exploded. (one deep) perfect for me, but what did I do? I would think remove kiddy factor and dud fixes were linked somehow?
is there a link to what changes lies in the patches?:hmm2:
And would the rounded lower part of the merch have some effect on impact angle? I hit at 90 degree but since this was a small merch it went 3 metres deep and was round shaped.

If you want the torpedoes patches to be enabled in the GenericPatcher then you need this - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2060599&postcount=832

[BigWalleye]

volodya61, I confess that I'm confused! What does this mod do? What do TDW's torpedo patches lack? Why are both needed? And would you and TDW consider getting together and including your files in the Patcher, if they are essential to its use?

[volodya61]

volodya61, I confess that I'm confused! What does this mod do? What do TDW's torpedo patches lack? Why are both needed?

Start from this post and further - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2049818&postcount=1746

And would you and TDW consider getting together and including your files in the Patcher, if they are essential to its use?

This question is not to me.. TDW asked for, I did it.. how to include my fixes to the Patcher's archive I don't know.. I'm not the author..

[BigWalleye]

Thank you for the clarification. This information needs to be disseminated. I'd guess a lot of people are using TDW's torpedo patches. I wonder how many know that they have to change the .sim file as well to get the correct behavior.

[sidslotm]

You don't need to patch the game manually anymore. Just download from post #1 the latest TDW's generic patcher which includes all the patches released so far, and use it for enabling your prefered patches.

See this tutorial by Trevally (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1926439#post1926439) on how to use the patcher. :up:

Thanks shipmate, I'll try this .

[gap]

Thanks shipmate, I'll try this .

my pleasure :salute:

[Macardigan]

Gap,

Con los parches activados del generic patcher, tú ves normal que de 6 torpedos.. 3 de impacto y 3 magneticos:

3 impactan contra el buque y no detonan, y los otros 3 detonen a medio camino.

?¿???¿?¿?¿?

tengo el ultimo generic patcher activado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
to all:

I have a doubt:

I launched 3 magnetic torpedoes against ships and the 3 have detonated prematurely.
Then I launched three torpedoes impact and 3 do not have detonated.

this is normal?

[Macardigan]

(google translation)

The patch for the distance of eye contact is fine.

an observation:

When you see that a vessel is approaching, the distance should be less every time you order a new distance. Not exact, but less. With the patch returns to report a greater distance than before even if the ship is approaching. It's just an observation to help improve the patch.

Thank you for the patch. Provides realism to the game.:yeah:



EDIT: Performing a patrol, the observer informs me a contact from the bridge of a submarine sighted 22 km. ... too far away to see, no??

greetings.

[gap]

Gap,

Con los parches activados del generic patcher, tú ves normal que de 6 torpedos.. 3 de impacto y 3 magneticos:

3 impactan contra el buque y no detonan, y los otros 3 detonen a medio camino.

?¿???¿?¿?¿?

tengo el ultimo generic patcher activado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
to all:

I have a doubt:

I launched 3 magnetic torpedoes against ships and the 3 have detonated prematurely.
Then I launched three torpedoes impact and 3 do not have detonated.

this is normal?

No, me parece "un pelín" demasiado. Tienes que preguntarle a Volodya...

No, it seems a bit too much. You should ask Volodya on it :03: :yep:

[Macardigan]

hi volodya,

I have a doubt:

I launched 3 magnetic torpedoes against ships and the 3 have detonated prematurely.
Then I launched three torpedoes impact and 3 do not have detonated.

this is normal?

[Macardigan]

gracias gap. :up:

[Macardigan]

I'm testing and all magnetic torpedoes detonated prematurely.

All Impact torpedoes fail. (not detonate)


?¿?¿?¿ i do not understand:-?

[TheDarkWraith]

I'm testing and all magnetic torpedoes detonated prematurely.

All Impact torpedoes fail. (not detonate)


?¿?¿?¿ i do not understand:-?

You need to revise your torpedoes.sim file so that it's values are all in 0.0-1.0 range. See here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2050799&postcount=1773

[TheDarkWraith]

I've been working on a new version of the Generic Patcher while I've been plane hopping. The new version will load all patch files it finds (.s5p). The tree displayed will then show all patch files at once. This will allow me to code in dependencies into the .s5p files to prevent CTDs from happening because one patch file relies on another patch file's patch to be enabled also.

There will be some other new features also built into the app :D

@volodya61: can you send me the revised torpedo .sim files you made or post a link to them?

[volodya61]

I have a doubt:
I launched 3 magnetic torpedoes against ships and the 3 have detonated prematurely.
Then I launched three torpedoes impact and 3 do not have detonated.

Have you enabled torpedo's patches in the Patcher?
If so, read this post, just a few posts earlier than yours - http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2061624&postcount=1951

@volodya61: can you send me the revised torpedo .sim files you made or post a link to them?

Yes, sure - http://www.mediafire.com/download/d4r6z49o00b4077/All_the_torpedoes_modified_for_torpedoe%27s_failur e_patches_%28GenericPatcher_add-on%29.7z

[gap]

I've been working on a new version of the Generic Patcher while I've been plane hopping. The new version will load all patch files it finds (.s5p). The tree displayed will then show all patch files at once. This will allow me to code in dependencies into the .s5p files to prevent CTDs from happening because one patch file relies on another patch file's patch to be enabled also.

There will be some other new features also built into the app :D

:woot:


@volodya61: can you send me the revised torpedo .sim files you made or post a link to them?

While we were waiting for you to show up, we decided to host the new torpedo failure settings in HistGunSpecs 1st page (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1935329&postcount=1) :up:

[Macardigan]

thanks volodya61.
thanks thedarkwraith.

torpedos work fine now.:up:

[TheDarkWraith]

Made some changes to how the Generic Patcher operates. I needed the ability to define dependencies so that a patch in one patch file can depend on a patch in the same patch file or another patch file. Thus the app needed to read in all patch files found when you click File-->Open. All the patch files (.s5p's) found in the same path as the executable's path will be loaded when File-->Open is clicked. Thus you will see something like the below:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=669&pictureid=6654

Now let's talk about the new entries. Each patch file has it's own unique name assigned to it inside the patch file. You will find the unique name in ()s right after the patch file's path node. Each Update and Patch gets it's own unique name also and can be found in ()s after it's name node. Each Patch has it's own Dependencies defined in the patch file. This can be found as a new node in the Patch's node called Dependencies. The Dependencies entries are defined as Patch file unique name.Patch unique name (i.e. sh5.co2_bug_fix). See below:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=669&pictureid=6655

At any time you can click File-->Check all dependencies to have the app verify all dependencies on all loaded patch files.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=669&pictureid=6656

If the app determines that some dependencies are not enabled then it will tell you. You will also see this dialog box when the app first starts or you click File-->Close and the app finds some dependencies not enabled.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=669&pictureid=6657

So this dialog box is telling me that patch file sh5's patch co2_bug_fix has the dependency patch file shsim patch co2_bug_fix not enabled (or some of it's changes are not enabled - Change 2 specifically according to the screenie above). If I click 'Yes' the app will automatically correct the problem (enable the patch and all changes of it).

The app will now also store the window size to the cfg file. Thus if you resize the window and close the app down when you restart the app the window size will be set to the last size.

The unique names for the patch files must be unique - no two patch files can have the same unique name. Patches within those patch files must have unique names also - no two patches can have the same unique name. It IS permissible for two or more patch files to have a patch with the same unique name (because they are referenced by patch file unique name.patch unique name)

More work to do on the app...

:|\\

[Bathrone]

Excellent :salute:

This is a great new setup to save hassles with bad configs setup by users between the patches thanks :yeah:

[TheDarkWraith]

Excellent :salute:

This is a great new setup to save hassles with bad configs setup by users between the patches thanks :yeah:

yes it should cut down on CTDs due to patches not enabled that should've been :yep:

[TheDarkWraith]

added tooltips to the treeview nodes now so you can tell if you can right click or double click to have the treenode do something.

Added a new entry to each Patch File's patch defined: Files=. This will let me define files needed for that patch. You will see a new treenode under the Patch aptly named Files=. If that node has files defined then double clicking that treenode will cause the file(s) defined to open using the application defined by your system for it's extension (i.e. .txt is usually Notepad, etc.)

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=669&pictureid=6658

Still more work to do...

[TheDarkWraith]

v1.0.100.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.100.0 Revised the Generic Patcher app to load all .s5p files found in the executable's path. Added tooltips to treenodes. Added new treenodes to Patches: Dependencies, Files, Pictures, and Notes. If any of these have entries in them be sure to double click them and read/copy them! The app now checks to ensure those Patches that are enabled and that have dependencies defined have the dependencies enabled.

[Bathrone]

Thanks again TDW

Feature request - a remove all command would be nice to save a bit of time between revision updates. I understand that we have to reset it all each time for the upgrade.

Potential bug - TDWFileUtils.dll in this package isnt as up to date as to the compile you did for New UIs. Same with the build date being behind for TDWUtils.dll. I suggest packaging the latest revision in any of your goodies New UIs, Patcher etc if you could make it modular so any specific mod only looked for its library functions in the dll code or some other DLL Hell avoidance strategy

[TheDarkWraith]

Thanks again TDW

Feature request - a remove all command would be nice to save a bit of time between revision updates. I understand that we have to reset it all each time for the upgrade.

Potential bug - TDWFileUtils.dll in this package isnt as up to date as to the compile you did for New UIs. Same with the build date being behind for TDWUtils.dll. I suggest packaging the latest revision in any of your goodies New UIs, Patcher etc if you could make it modular so any specific mod only looked for its library functions in the dll code or some other DLL Hell avoidance strategy

Feature request added:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=669&pictureid=6660

link at post #1 updated.

Potential bug is not a potential bug. Since I have the project's references set to those two files it always 'pulls in' the latest version.

The Backup and Restore functions have changed! Ensure to Backup your files first!!!!

[Fifi]

:Kaleun_Party: First to download! :haha:

Thanks for that, and for the "disable all patches" feature :up:
It was a pain each time to deactivate total stuff.

[TheDarkWraith]

:Kaleun_Party: First to download! :haha:

Thanks for that, and for the "disable all patches" feature :up:
It was a pain each time to deactivate total stuff.

I'm going to try and add a 'snapshot' feature. This would take a 'snapshot' of all the patches you have enabled so that you could disable all patches, install new version of Generic Patcher, then re-enable all previous patches via the snapshot.

Work begins...

[Fifi]

Like a kind of JSGME "task" feature where you can upload a mep list, i suppose.
Good idea :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

Like a kind of JSGME "task" feature where you can upload a mep list, i suppose.
Good idea :up:

Implemented :D

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=669&pictureid=6661

v1.0.102.0 released. See post #1

Starting with v1.0.102.0 You have the ability to create/restore snapshots. Snapshots are a snapshot of all the patch file's patches currently loaded.

Now with these snapshot files (.gps) you can share these among each other. The app will only restore those entries defined in the .gps file that are currently loaded by the app. This means if there are patches defined for a patch file that you do not have loaded nothing happens (the app ignores those entries in the .gps file) :D

The great thing about these .gps files is when I release a new version of the patcher you can:
- take a snapshot
- disable all patches
- enable new version of Generic Patcher
- restore from snapshot

Now all your patches that you had previously enabled with the old version are now enabled with the new version :rock:

I'm able to do this because each patch file, each patch, and each change of the patch is given a unique name :D

NOTE: the backup and restore features changed again! They are now saved to the \Backup folder of the patches folder (multiple patches folders can be defined - this keeps the app generic). Currently only the SH5 patches folder is defined but the end-user can define more if they want to use the Generic Patcher on other apps.

NOTE2: DO NOT DELETE the \MODS or the \Patches folders included with the app! These are required and needed by the app.

NOTE3: the first time you take a snapshot the app will create a \Snapshots folder in the executable file's path. This is the default location for all snapshot files. You are free to create snapshot files anywhere you please but it is preferred to create them in the \Snapshots folder.

[Fifi]

Very cool indeed! :salute:

[TheDarkWraith]

In the next version I'm going to try and code in 'language packs'. Just like SH5 uses the menu.txt file to get the strings needed I'm going to try and have the app do the same thing (referencing a file for the needed strings). This will allow the app to display the end-user's language on the screen :yep:

If I do manage to code this in then I'll need people to translate the English language pack into other languages.

[DrJones]

Hey Mate,

great work :up:

Keep up that....

by the way i mean the command wp_solution_to_target. but i think the command WP_Compute_solution is nearly the same

Best Regards

DrJones:salute:

[Sjizzle]

i have this error

http://attila-kevin.de/var/resizes/SH5-Error%27s/error.jpg?m=1369557767

[divingbluefrog]

Hi TDW,
I know i'm a little bit off subject, but if you can find a little time (:D) to add a new fix about CO2 level given by the app as being 10 times to high, and thus reduce the warning icon in UI to be triggerd at 5%, it will be a minor but long time annoying glitch erased for good!
This in relation with this thread :
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=204615

If not, I'm considering to make a mod that will do the trick.

[Fifi]

If I do manage to code this in then I'll need people to translate the English language pack into other languages.

I'll try then to translate things in French :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

i have this error

http://attila-kevin.de/var/resizes/SH5-Error%27s/error.jpg?m=1369557767

Redownload from post #1. I posted a new link that removes that file.

Hi TDW,
I know i'm a little bit off subject, but if you can find a little time (:D) to add a new fix about CO2 level given by the app as being 10 times to high, and thus reduce the warning icon in UI to be triggerd at 5%, it will be a minor but long time annoying glitch erased for good!
This in relation with this thread :
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=204615

If not, I'm considering to make a mod that will do the trick.

I'll check it out. I know where all the code for computing CO2 is done in the sh5.exe and shsim.act files :up:

[Echolot]

Hello TDW.

Many thanks for your work.

In the next version I'm going to try and code in 'language packs'. Just like SH5 uses the menu.txt file to get the strings needed I'm going to try and have the app do the same thing (referencing a file for the needed strings). This will allow the app to display the end-user's language on the screen :yep:

If I do manage to code this in then I'll need people to translate the English language pack into other languages.

Count me in for the german translation.

Would this be possible with your other apps too (like GR2 editor, sdl editor, options file viewer/editor, mod validator and so on)?

:salute:

Echolot.

[TheDarkWraith]

Count me in for the german translation.

Would this be possible with your other apps too (like GR2 editor, sdl editor, options file viewer/editor, mod validator and so on)?

If I can code it (which I probably can) I will over time convert all my apps to use language packs :up:

[Echolot]

If I can code it (which I probably can) I will over time convert all my apps to use language packs :up:

Very good news, thank you.

:Kaleun_Salivating:

[Sjizzle]

Redownload from post #1. I posted a new link that removes that file.


ty and u can count on me to translate Romania, Hungarian and German

PS. idk if it's necessary for RO or HU :)

[gap]

In the next version I'm going to try and code in 'language packs'.

...

If I do manage to code this in then I'll need people to translate the English language pack into other languages.

Count on me for the Italian translation :up:

[volodya61]

v1.0.100.0 released. See post #1
v1.0.102.0 released. See post #1

Thank you, sir :salute:

In the next version I'm going to try and code in 'language packs'. Just like SH5 uses the menu.txt file to get the strings needed I'm going to try and have the app do the same thing (referencing a file for the needed strings). This will allow the app to display the end-user's language on the screen :yep:

Well, you know what I want to say :D

[Mikemike47]

Hi TDW,
I know i'm a little bit off subject, but if you can find a little time (:D) to add a new fix about CO2 level .......

Redownload from post #1. I posted a new link that removes that file.
I'll check it out. I know where all the code for computing CO2 is done in the sh5.exe and shsim.act files :up:

I, too, have had a problem with CO2 levels, not the level amounts but not working at all with the multiple patches. I have not enabled the CO2 feature in at least 15 patch releases. Sober convinced me NOT to enable related CO2 patches. I know nothing about the speed of the levels such as divingblue frog has stated.

[TheDarkWraith]

I, too, have had a problem with CO2 levels, not the level amounts but not working at all with the multiple patches. I have not enabled the CO2 feature in at least 15 patch releases. Sober convinced me NOT to enable related CO2 patches. I know nothing about the speed of the levels such as divingblue frog has stated.

What problems are you having with the CO2 level patches? I don't have any problems with them and I have just about every patch I have made enabled :hmmm:

[calinho]

Menu.txt entries is required for sobers mod list?

[TheDarkWraith]

Menu.txt entries is required for sobers mod list?

If he's using v7.4.0 or later of my UIs mod they are already taken care of :up:

For each patch defined in a patch file (.s5p) there is a Files= line in the GUI treeview. If that line has something other than "None" then you should double click it to open it up. You should verify what the data says to ensure you have the correct setup :yep:

[calinho]

If he's using v7.4.0 or later of my UIs mod they are already taken care of :up:

For each patch defined in a patch file (.s5p) there is a Files= line in the GUI treeview. If that line has something other than "None" then you should double click it to open it up. You should verify what the data says to ensure you have the correct setup :yep:

Yes, i using v7.4.1 + current sobers mod

[TheDarkWraith]

I've noticed that some people are posting (in other forums) that once you unzip this package that you can discard the MODS and Patches and other folders included. This will cause problems!

In next version of this app I will add some code that will check for these folders and if they don't exist the app will refuse to run :D

[volodya61]

I've noticed that some people are posting that once you unzip this package that you can discard the MODS and Patches and other folders included. This will cause problems!

In next version of this app I will add some code that will check for these folders and if they don't exist the app will refuse to run :D

:D

These folder (MODS) was not required in the previous (up to v1.0.100) versions.. so, I removed it each time :03:

[TheDarkWraith]

:D

These folder (MODS) was not required in the previous (up to v1.0.100) versions.. so, I removed it each time :03:

Starting with v1.0.100.0 of the app I have placed files in the MODS folder that are referenced through the Files=, Pictures=, and Notes= of the patch files. Thus this folder is very important.

Your torpedo .sim files (actually just one zipped file) is referenced in this MODS folder by the shsim patch file :yep:

the patch files themselves now reside in Patches\patch folder (usually app name)
Backups are placed in Patches\patch folder (usually app name)\Backups

[TheDarkWraith]

any complaints/suggestions on the UI or operation of the Generic Patcher :06:

The only thing I have left to code in is giving the end-user the ability to edit the variables defined in the patch files.