Test Dive advice?

[Snestorm]

The newest of my installs seems to allow for deeper dives, than did it's predecesor. (Every version seems different in this respect).

Anybody have some advice on how to safely test when the boat is getting close to the maximum depth, without getting killed or trashing the boat?

[desirableroasted]

1) Once you get into the "orange" range, decrease your descent speed.

2) At some point, you will be told "We are taking damage!" At that point, hit the power and head up.

Despite the message, I've never actually taken any game-notable damage using this method.

BTW, remember that you can randomize crush depth in SHIII Commander, so that may account for seeming differences between installs.

[Obersteuermann]

I normally take the boat straight down to 180 metres (Type VII) and then go in 10 metre steps from there. No faster than 2 or 3 knots. As soon as she starts taking damage I hit A.K. and order 20 metres higher.

[reignofdeath]

I've actually taken my VII down to the red area many times, mind you just the tip of it at around 200 meters without any damage even after staying down for long periods of time.

[King_Zog]

I've actually taken my VII down to the red area many times, mind you just the tip of it at around 200 meters without any damage even after staying down for long periods of time.

With GWX in an undamaged VII you can make it down to about 220m. If you use sh3 commander with randomise crush depth enabled you can potentially go deeper (it's quite a fun option as it gives you a reason to make a 'test dive' eveytime you start a new patrol/load a save game).

I believe the later model type IXs can even peg/exceed the dial.

[Gargamel]

I usually pick a depth I want and then level off there, say 200m, or 220, depending on boat, then continue to dive from there. As mentioned, Wait till they screaming about damage, not just getting nervous about it. I have taken damage before, and it goes quick once you do.

Remember, DC's were historically capped (at least early) to 500ft depth. So if you hit 200m+, you can drive right under them, I think.

[Obersteuermann]

With GWX in an undamaged VII you can make it down to about 220m. If you use sh3 commander with randomise crush depth enabled you can potentially go deeper (it's quite a fun option as it gives you a reason to make a 'test dive' eveytime you start a new patrol/load a save game).

I believe the later model type IXs can even peg/exceed the dial.
My current boat (U-93, VIIC) will happily take 255 metres without problems! Must admit I chickened out at that point ...

[Kapt Z]

With GWX in an undamaged VII you can make it down to about 220m. If you use sh3 commander with randomise crush depth enabled you can potentially go deeper (it's quite a fun option as it gives you a reason to make a 'test dive' eveytime you start a new patrol/load a save game).

I believe the later model type IXs can even peg/exceed the dial.

Last night I did a single mission with a type VIIC and just hit 'D' at 4kts and waited to see when she collapsed. I thought it was a glitch or something because she just kept going down, down, down, down..... 200, 230, 260, 280, 300with no seriour damage!:doh: The gauges shattered and the lights flickered at some point in the high 200s, but the the end didn't come until 330m! :o

In career mode I would never have even tried to go near that depth.

[Jimbuna]

When testing depth ensure your tc is set at x1 or you may not be quick enough to react if you start taking a hit on your hull integrity.

[reignofdeath]

When testing depth ensure your tc is set at x1 or you may not be quick enough to react if you start taking a hit on your hull integrity.

Is the hull integrity slowly lost when you reach a certain point or does it drop rreally fast??

[Missing Name]

I've gone past crush depth a few times.

Of course, swiss cheese isn't exactly a good pressure hull.

[Salvadoreno]

now that we are on the tipic of test dives, with sh3 commander setting "mal+sab" on, what exactlly do u need to look for on test dives etc... Its a cool feature but I've never noticed a malfunction or sabotage.

[reignofdeath]

now that we are on the tipic of test dives, with sh3 commander setting "mal+sab" on, what exactlly do u need to look for on test dives etc... Its a cool feature but I've never noticed a malfunction or sabotage.

One thing is an uncontrolled dive (Dive plane sabatoge?), by this I mean when you dive, you keep diving, no saving her until you hit bottom. Which is why its good to do your first test dive in say... 100m ?? Another is a blurred periscope to simulate scope malfunction (At least I had both of those happen) Another I have heard of is fuel leakage, Ie. you use a lot more fuel than you would at your speed, and engine malfunctions / sabatoge where you dont get the full speed when your at ahead full.

Are there any Im missing folks??

[thebigJ_A]

Are those malfunction/sabotage things fixable at sea? Or do you have to go back to port? Do they add to time-in-port?

I've not turned them on (didn't think it was a good idea while I'm learning) so i haven't experienced them yet.

[Gargamel]

One thing is an uncontrolled dive (Dive plane sabatoge?), by this I mean when you dive, you keep diving, no saving her until you hit bottom.

Is this a sabotage thing? It's also a known bug too. Especially if you crash dive and don't reach your CD depth before changing depth orders. Your dive officer gets pissed and lets the boat sink.

I've also read that the Sab and malfunctions can cause more frequent CTD's, but don't quote me.

[Missing Name]

Looked through the SH3 files, found these commented bits of info. These are possible malfunctions related to diving and underwater maneuvering.

;Randomly increased dive time

;Frt/rear ratio edited- simulates trim control difficulties, boat slightly heavy at stern. Difficulty fine tuning depth at very slow speed.

;Randomizes level off depth from crash dive in meters indicative of stuck valves or manifolds controlling incoming water also possible jammed dive planes.

;Jammed or stuck dive planes.

;Maximum speed both surfaced and submerged reduced, surface and submerged ranges reduced, increased dive time, increased turn radius.

[desirableroasted]

now that we are on the tipic of test dives, with sh3 commander setting "mal+sab" on, what exactlly do u need to look for on test dives etc... Its a cool feature but I've never noticed a malfunction or sabotage.

Somewhere, someone said not to use the mal-sub setting when playing GWX3.0, so I don't use it any more.

But when I did, I followed this checklist:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=120501&highlight=stress+test

And yes, malfunctions were frequent enough to make it a good idea to check for them before getting too far out of port.

[Weiss Pinguin]

Did they give any reasons for not using malfunctions with 3.0? I haven't had any problems with it as far as I can tell :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

Is the hull integrity slowly lost when you reach a certain point or does it drop rreally fast??

It begins slow but sopeeds up as the hull integrity diminishes.

[Kapt Z]

Looked through the SH3 files, found these commented bits of info. These are possible malfunctions related to diving and underwater maneuvering.....

;Randomizes level off depth from crash dive in meters indicative of stuck valves or manifolds controlling incoming water also possible jammed dive planes.....



Happened to me on this patrol. Did a crash dive check as soon as depth permitted and instead of stopping around 70m+/- she just kept going. Manually got her to stop after 120m. Did several other crash dive tests and she would never stop on her own. Each time I had to manually order a depth. Figured it wasn't enough of a problem to turn back so we just kept going to our patrol area. Saved the game.

Loaded the save the next day and apparently the malfunction had been 'fixed'.

[Bakkels]

So this can happen when you check 'sabotage & malfunctions' in Commander? Hm, that's why I don't use that option anymore. The idea is cool, but only if it were somehow better incorporated ingame. You know, that your officer gives you some kind of warning or at the very least that he screams like a little girl when something goes wrong. :O:
I played with sabotage for a time, but when something malfunctioned, the lack of any reaction from the crew made it feel more like bug in the game than sabotage or malfunction. Kudo's to Jcones for the idea though, I know you can't just put all of that in the game, but it's not for me.

[maillemaker]

Is the hull integrity slowly lost when you reach a certain point or does it drop rreally fast??

My experience is once you start taking damage from depth it can snowball out of hand very quickly. Damage reduces hull integrity which instantly makes you more susceptible to depth damage which then causes more damage which reduces hull integrity and so on.

I don't think the game models the 500 ft cap on depth charges as I've had them rock my world at 200m.

Steve

[Jimbuna]

Malfunctions can be rectified but sabotage requires a return to base.

[LGN1]

Hi all,

just a few comments:

- Some malfunctions in SH3 Commander are implemented via hex-offsets in certain files. If you replace these files with a modded version, you run the risk that the offsets are wrong and you might get a CTD. Actually, it can be enough to open a file with Silent 3ditor and save it (it adds a header that changes the offset).

- Whenever you reload the game via SH3 Commander all malfunctions & sabotage effects are first removed and then new ones applied. So you might end up with the same effects, with other effects, or without any.

- I created quite a few different malfunction mods for myself and must agree with Bakkels that without proper integration in the game it's not good. It's really strange that, e.g., your diesel does not work and no one tells you. That's why I restricted myself to minor effects that are not critical (e.g., boat is 1-2 knots slower, diving time is a bit increased,...). In addition, I created a few critical malfunctions, however, for these you get a message (can be done via SH3 Commander's Random Folders)

- I think it's a pity that SH3 Commander's crush depth feature does not also randomizes the crush speed. The original idea behind this feature was that you do not know your max. diving depth (as in real life). However, as you all pointed out, you can quite easily find out your max. diving deep by testing. In my eyes this takes away all the excitement when you dive deep :D In my personal set-up I also randomize the crush speed so that it can happen that I have no chance to survive if I go too deep. Now I think twice when going below 200m :D I think that's much more realistic. Diving really deep should always have the risk of dying.

Cheers, LGN1

[maillemaker]

So this can happen when you check 'sabotage & malfunctions' in Commander? Hm, that's why I don't use that option anymore. The idea is cool, but only if it were somehow better incorporated ingame. You know, that your officer gives you some kind of warning or at the very least that he screams like a little girl when something goes wrong. :O:
I played with sabotage for a time, but when something malfunctioned, the lack of any reaction from the crew made it feel more like bug in the game than sabotage or malfunction. Kudo's to Jcones for the idea though, I know you can't just put all of that in the game, but it's not for me.

This is my feeling as well. If something goes wrong, someone should alert the captain.

Steve

[Salvadoreno]

Did they give any reasons for not using malfunctions with 3.0? I haven't had any problems with it as far as I can tell :hmmm:

I read the gwx 3.0 was fine with sab and mal but nygm was definately not

[Snestorm]

Thanks everybody. Some realy good tips.

[Snestorm]

1) Once you get into the "orange" range, decrease your descent speed.

2) At some point, you will be told "We are taking damage!" At that point, hit the power and head up.

Despite the message, I've never actually taken any game-notable damage using this method.

BTW, remember that you can randomize crush depth in SHIII Commander, so that may account for seeming differences between installs.

When the IIA went way deeper than expected, with no ill effects, I decided to recheck my favorite (IXB) again.

Unfortunately, the IXB seems unchanged.
Did it your way at ½ knot. It followed the same pattern as the last install's IXB, so at 171 I hit "E" and surfaced without damage.

With my previouse install I "popped" at 182.
The answer seems to lie between 171 and 182 for me so, I guess 165 will remain as my bottommost limit.

It was good advice. At ½ knot, it took 2 - 3 minutes to drop 1 meter, and on hitting "E" she came up like a cork.

[reignofdeath]

When the IIA went way deeper than expected, with no ill effects, I decided to recheck my favorite (IXB) again.

Unfortunately, the IXB seems unchanged.
Did it your way at ½ knot. It followed the same pattern as the last install's IXB, so at 171 I hit "E" and surfaced without damage.

With my previouse install I "popped" at 182.
The answer seems to lie between 171 and 182 for me so, I guess 165 will remain as my bottommost limit.

It was good advice. At ½ knot, it took 2 - 3 minutes to drop 1 meter, and on hitting "E" she came up like a cork.

Am I the only one who will hold the sub down around 200m without taking any serious damage?? This is in a Type VIIB too. However I don't dare to go past 215m or 220m because thats when it all seems to hit the fan for me.

[Jimbuna]

On a good day she'll do a little over 260.

[Gerald]

On a good day she'll do a little over 260. Why not now? This day is good enough..:stare:

[Jimbuna]

A little understanding of the files is a help but a fine balance must be found or a CTD ensues.

[Gerald]

A little understanding of the files is a help but a fine balance must be found or a CTD ensues. Are you sure? I have done 270 m in a IXC

[Jimbuna]

Are you sure? I have done 270 m in a IXC

Is the Pope a Catholic?

[Gerald]

Is the Pope a Catholic? Ask him if he responds so you will know the truth, :shifty:

[Jimbuna]

Ask him if he responds so you will know the truth, :shifty:

Righteoooooo in easy speeeeeek....


Is the Pope a Catholic?


Was in response to your question



Are you sure?


A commonly understood Brit (well in the UK anyway) response to mean "Yes", I worked on the files for more than a day or two or should that be years :03:

[Missing Name]

I hit 259m with my IXB on my newest campaign. I couldn't make it dive any deeper because that's where the dial stops...

[Jimbuna]

At that depth you will have to maintain propulsion/momentum because the pressure at that depth (even ingame) will mean you continue to sink...never trust in your dial when you go off the scale.

[Gerald]

Righteoooooo in easy speeeeeek....



Was in response to your question



A commonly understood Brit (well in the UK anyway) response to mean "Yes", I worked on the files for more than a day or two or should that be years :03: "I worked on the files for more than a day or two or should that be years" Jim! I have never questioned your opinion with regard to jobs, and what you do, I have a hard enough life as it is, without being able to say things as what you ask :cry:

[Jimbuna]

Well you've got me now....something very fundamental appears to have been lost in translation.

Best leave it at that, this thread is starting to get derailed :timeout:

[Missing Name]

At that depth you will have to maintain propulsion/momentum because the pressure at that depth (even ingame) will mean you continue to sink...never trust in your dial when you go off the scale.

I dunno... It seemed level at exactly 259. I couldn't make it go down to 260. I was going at 2 kn, if that matters.

[Jimbuna]

I dunno... It seemed level at exactly 259. I couldn't make it go down to 260. I was going at 2 kn, if that matters.

Possibly needed another knot or two but the boat will eventually reach a point where you feel there is an invisible force sucking you down...at least in GWX it did.

[reignofdeath]

Possibly needed another knot or two but the boat will eventually reach a point where you feel there is an invisible force sucking you down...at least in GWX it did.

Heck Ive had that happen way before 260. Ive had it happen to me at 200m where if I dont keep at least 1 or 2 knots, I start to sink ever so slowly.

[King_Zog]

Heck Ive had that happen way before 260. Ive had it happen to me at 200m where if I dont keep at least 1 or 2 knots, I start to sink ever so slowly.

Yes me too, although I don't always sink, sometimes the boat wants to go up rather than down. But this is more realistic no? I was under the impression that U-Boats could not hover at a certain depth and need a certain amount of forward motion to maintain depth. Although I can still hover at periscope depth while stopped with no problems, although that's fine by me.

[reignofdeath]

Yes me too, although I don't always sink, sometimes the boat wants to go up rather than down. But this is more realistic no? I was under the impression that U-Boats could not hover at a certain depth and need a certain amount of forward motion to maintain depth. Although I can still hover at periscope depth while stopped with no problems, although that's fine by me.

Well like he said it depends on your depth. The boat needs a positive bouyancy (Sp??) to float up and a negative one to float downward. At a certain depth mathematically there is no way that the boat could achieve even a neutral bouyancy to maintain depth, so all it will do without momentum is sink. The way I see it is each depth has a certain amount of bouyancy required to overcome it, more being required the further down you go because of the weight of all of the water on top of you. At least thats how it makes sense in my mind. :shucks: If anyone really knows why please do prove me wrong, I don't mind learning a new thing or two :yeah:

[King_Zog]

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

But I still doubt that a world war 2 era submarine would be able to hover at any depth. Without computerised aids to constantly monitor the boat's trim and accurately regulate the boat's ballast tanks I would think they would be constantly either rising or falling without forward motion. But perhaps I am underestimating the capabilites of a pre-computer dependant society.

[Gerald]

She can handle 270.

[Jimbuna]

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

But I still doubt that a world war 2 era submarine would be able to hover at any depth. Without computerised aids to constantly monitor the boat's trim and accurately regulate the boat's ballast tanks I would think they would be constantly either rising or falling without forward motion. But perhaps I am underestimating the capabilites of a pre-computer dependant society.

Then read #38, 43, 44 and 45.

[reignofdeath]

Then read #38, 43, 44 and 45.

So does this mean my explanation was actually somewhat right?? Heck I was just guessing on it really.:hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

So does this mean my explanation was actually somewhat right?? Heck I was just guessing on it really.:hmmm:

More or less...technology during WWII wasn't advanced enough to easily allow a submersible to 'hover'.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done but simply that it extremely difficult, especially when motionless.

[Sailor Steve]

And while it might be done it would require running the pumps to maintain trim, which is just as noisy as running the electric motors to move the boat. Purpose defeated.