Mk 24 FIDO

[igorlikespike]

Hello!

Is there any mod that incorporates the mk 24 fido aerial torpedo. I know that GWX Gold programmers decided not to replicate it , which is a pity because it would really be fun in avoiding getting hit/sunk by one of the most dangerous ASW weapons. Could Zaunkonig /Falke torps be replicated in some kind tfor allied use?

[Sailor Steve]

The main reason it hasn't been done is that it wouldn't be fun at all. An airplane is coming. You dive. Then you're told you are dead. You don't see it coming, you don't hear it coming because you don't expect it. It's like hitting a mine in the game. It doesn't tell you why you died, just that you died.

[Jimbuna]

SPLASH, BANG...GOODBYE!!

[Ducimus]

I don't remember if SH3 has all the "variables" to play with in the SIM file for torpedo's as SH4 does, but assuming you had enough to play with, you could make them very finicky and only detonate under ideal, hard to obtain circumstances. According to the wiki on it (yeah i know, i know), the Mark 24 only had a 22% success rate. (which is almost 1 in 4 of them working, but it's not like it was a sure fire uboat killer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_24_Mine

[Hitman]

But in SH3 there is no AI for air dropped torpedo :88) Is it possible to have the Ai drop it as a DC or bomb and still work as a homing torpedo? (Though it will be launched too close)

[Ducimus]

But in SH3 there is no AI for air dropped torpedo :88)

:damn: Oh well. Nevermind, though id be surprised if someone around here couldn't mod it in. I know Air dropped torpedoes work in SH4, though the AI's aim is crappy, and the torpedo's aren't homing. On that note, I think someone modded that and got homing to work, though im not sure, i only saw reference to it a long time ago. So I can't say for sure.

[Sailor Steve]

According to the wiki on it (yeah i know, i know), the Mark 24 only had a 22% success rate. (which is almost 1 in 4 of them working, but it's not like it was a sure fire uboat killer)
The problem I see with that is, it doesn't matter if they work or not. If they don't work the u-boat crew would never know. If it did work the u-boat crew would never know. Well, you'd know you died, but probably not why.

[Hellraiser]

YES! You would know if you were listening on hydrophones.....torpedoes are audible even at long range thru hydrophones.

It's actually kind of eerie to listen to....a hum and a wail at the same time.

Anyone ever listened to your own torpedoes running hot?? :yeah:

I personally would love to see the MK24 modeled....would add some bone- cracking suspense IMO.

[Sailor Steve]

YES! You would know if you were listening on hydrophones...
Your example of running hot and true works because the soundman is specifically listening to his own torpedoes for abnormalities. If the soundman is listening in the right direction he might hear a FIDO coming. Of course if it's running true it will be the last thing he ever hears. My point was that being killed by a wandering monster you can't do anything about is not fun.

[Hellraiser]

My point was that being killed by a wandering monster you can't do anything about is not fun.

Just like in real life ....eh? :salute:

Life & death on a U-Boat was swift and ugly....and without pity or remorse. Not unlike a tree that falls in the forest...with no-one around.

Why would a player interested in realism and historical fact hide from such a feature?

If you get under quick enough...Fido won't get you....hesitate and....BOOOM!

[U-Falke]

But what if I stop the engines, or drop a decoy, what happens?

[Ducimus]

The problem I see with that is, it doesn't matter if they work or not. If they don't work the u-boat crew would never know. If it did work the u-boat crew would never know. Well, you'd know you died, but probably not why.


My counterpoint to that is the majority of people who play any SH title, are eye candy whores. Most people have the external camera on half the time anyway. Barring that, event camera would pick it up too when the airplane attacked.

edit: It also occurs to me that one could give this homing torpedo a unique splash sound when it hits the water, and make it audible to the player. Similar as to what was done in SH4 for depth charges.

[igorlikespike]

Just like in real life ....eh? :salute:

Life & death on a U-Boat was swift and ugly....and without pity or remorse. Not unlike a tree that falls in the forest...with no-one around.

Why would a player interested in realism and historical fact hide from such a feature?

If you get under quick enough...Fido won't get you....hesitate and....BOOOM!


Woohoo!
I never thought that this question would raise so many responses. Nice! :DL

I know that it is not fun to get killed by something you do not see as Sailor Steve and jimbuna said, but if we all want to be as close to realism as possible, then we should at least try to model this serious threat to u-boats after March 1943. I guess that from the gameplay point of view it is far more fun to be playing the "Happy days" campaign in 1940 and early 1942, than the period after March 1943. with all the advanced ASW capabilities, but being an u-boat ace in the "tough period" is something all of us are trying to be.

I accept the Ducimus criticism of using the event camera. Of all the options, this is the ONLY ONE i am using (97% realistic), so from now on, in campaigns, I am swiching this option off permanently. But correct me if I'm wrong, the hedgehog dc pattern doesn't make enough sound for my sonarman to pick up, unlike normal DC (dc in the water sir). So, if you get hit by a hedgehog dc and not using event camera, you will not know what hit you, THE SAME as you wouldn't know if a fido homed on your u-boat.
My only wish is that i would have the same modding abilities as some oy ou guys so that i could mod the fido mysef instead of just talking about it.

[Sailor Steve]

Just like in real life ....eh? :salute:

Life & death on a U-Boat was swift and ugly....and without pity or remorse. Not unlike a tree that falls in the forest...with no-one around.
I was just explaining why it hasn't been done. It was discussed long ago and the main reason it went knowhere is that realism is good, and hedgehogs are cool, but even dying from a mine is not so cool when you can't see it or do anything about it. I wouldn't mind it at all if the game was programmed to tell you how and why you died. Of course I could argue that sometimes people die in traffic accidents while on the way to work. Would you want that in the game? On the other hand, I'm just teasing. Of course there's nothing wrong with the idea, and any objections are purely my own.

Why would a player interested in realism and historical fact hide from such a feature?
The logical extension of that argument is to ask why a player interested in realism and historical fact would start a new career after he died in the game. The realistic thing would be to put it away and never play it again, or at least not for a year.

My counterpoint to that is the majority of people who play any SH title, are eye candy whores. Most people have the external camera on half the time anyway. Barring that, event camera would pick it up too when the airplane attacked.
Good point. I use the external camera, but not the event camera. And of course any mod is optional, so no one would actually have to use it.

edit: It also occurs to me that one could give this homing torpedo a unique splash sound when it hits the water, and make it audible to the player. Similar as to what was done in SH4 for depth charges.
That's a good idea too. :sunny:

[igorlikespike]

I was just explaining why it hasn't been done. It was discussed long ago and the main reason it went knowhere is that realism is good, and hedgehogs are cool, but even dying from a mine is not so cool when you can't see it or do anything about it. I wouldn't mind it at all if the game was programmed to tell you how and why you died. Of course I could argue that sometimes people die in traffic accidents while on the way to work. Would you want that in the game? On the other hand, I'm just teasing. Of course there's nothing wrong with the idea, and any objections are purely my own.


The logical extension of that argument is to ask why a player interested in realism and historical fact would start a new career after he died in the game. The realistic thing would be to put it away and never play it again, or at least not for a year.


Good point. I use the external camera, but not the event camera. And of course any mod is optional, so no one would actually have to use it.


That's a good idea too. :sunny:

I agree with you on that it wolud be fair to the players that the game program tells them what were they killed by. I figure that fido would be JGSME enabled, so If one got tired of getting killed, one would simply turn it of.

But when you mention mines - in GWX 3.0 they are included and the only advice the mod programers give you to counter them is to stay away from minefilelds. I know that approacning &attacking a port is a very risky business primarily because of mines so I seldom try it. And according to the GWX 3.o manual the minefield barrier on the eastern English coast is simulated, though I never got killed by it, even when travelling at periscpe depth - depth that mines were specificaly set so as to kill u-boats. Even if you hit a mine you do not always get killed straight away-i tried it deliberately. And according to the figures quoted below, firing a fido did not always result in a straight u-boat kill, some boats were only damaged by it.

[andqui]

If someone implements a working representation of a Fido it would be really cool. Of course it would be optional- if it's no fun being killed by one, then don't use it, or just simply stay away from the mid-Atlantic after 1943. The "what the hell just hit me" factor would be just like if you run into a mine- I've only done that once, but it didn't suddenly make the entire game "no fun" just because I wasn't explicitly told it was a mine. Sh!t happens to uboats. I honestly don't see the difference between getting abruptly sunk by the depth charges you didn't hear, the hedgehog out of nowhere, or the sudden fido while escaping from aircraft, and within the limitations of the game there's no reason not to add a fido if we already have other things that can quickly sink us when we don't expect it. I can't look it up, but there weren't that many Fido attacks in the war- so it would still be a bit of a rarity.

[igorlikespike]

If someone implements a working representation of a Fido it would be really cool. Of course it would be optional- if it's no fun being killed by one, then don't use it, or just simply stay away from the mid-Atlantic after 1943. The "what the hell just hit me" factor would be just like if you run into a mine- I've only done that once, but it didn't suddenly make the entire game "no fun" just because I wasn't explicitly told it was a mine. Sh!t happens to uboats. I honestly don't see the difference between getting abruptly sunk by the depth charges you didn't hear, the hedgehog out of nowhere, or the sudden fido while escaping from aircraft, and within the limitations of the game there's no reason not to add a fido if we already have other things that can quickly sink us when we don't expect it. I can't look it up, but there weren't that many Fido attacks in the war- so it would still be a bit of a rarity.

Totally agree with you.

[Fish In The Water]

And according to the GWX 3.o manual the minefield barrier on the eastern English coast is simulated, though I never got killed by it, even when travelling at periscpe depth - depth that mines were specificaly set so as to kill u-boats.

Same here. I zig-zag in and out of there on a regular basis and never hit bupkis. Seems much ado about nothing. :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

But when you mention mines - in GWX 3.0 they are included and the only advice the mod programers give you to counter them is to stay away from minefilelds. I know that approacning &attacking a port is a very risky business primarily because of mines so I seldom try it. And according to the GWX 3.o manual the minefield barrier on the eastern English coast is simulated, though I never got killed by it, even when travelling at periscpe depth - depth that mines were specificaly set so as to kill u-boats.


http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/7156/minesh.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/20/minesh.jpg/)

[igorlikespike]

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/7156/minesh.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/20/minesh.jpg/)

Wow! So many minefields but I never seem to get into one! will have to play more I guess. Thanks for info Jimbuna:)

[Stiebler]

The old 'Aces of the Deep' U-boat simulation had a fairly good model of an aircraft-launched homing torpedo.

When it was dropped, the hydrophone operator would shout to the player a warning to the effect of: 'Sound of torpedo in water!' (something like that).

You could avoid being hit, as in real-life, just by going slow ahead with silent-running. The real Allied (American, to give the credit for the invention) homing torpedo was rather insensitive to noise. However, in order to take the necessary precautions against the torpedo, you first had to know that!

I think the real problem with the aerial homing torpedo, as a mod, is that there seems to be no mechanism in SH3 to operate it. The talented Racerboy (now known as TDW) spent some time on the problem in SH3 a year or two ago, but ultimately without success.

Stiebler.

[Jimbuna]

Wow! So many minefields but I never seem to get into one! will have to play more I guess. Thanks for info Jimbuna:)

That is from a late war campaign layer...the earlier you are the less there are.

[Fish In The Water]

Wow! So many minefields but I never seem to get into one!

It looks impressive, but they don't seem to go boom. Unless of course we've got the magic touch! :D

[Jimbuna]

It looks impressive, but they don't seem to go boom. Unless of course we've got the magic touch! :D

It'll be magic sure enough if you touch one :DL

[Fish In The Water]

It'll be magic sure enough if you touch one :DL

I've been trying, but for some reason they just don't like me. :O:

[Jimbuna]

I've been trying, but for some reason they just don't like me. :O:

If I'm to be totally honest I think I've only hit one once and that was during a storm so it could well have been the pitching motion that took me that few extra metres and into contact.

[igorlikespike]

The old 'Aces of the Deep' U-boat simulation had a fairly good model of an aircraft-launched homing torpedo.

When it was dropped, the hydrophone operator would shout to the player a warning to the effect of: 'Sound of torpedo in water!' (something like that).

You could avoid being hit, as in real-life, just by going slow ahead with silent-running. The real Allied (American, to give the credit for the invention) homing torpedo was rather insensitive to noise. However, in order to take the necessary precautions against the torpedo, you first had to know that!


Nice. so i guess if the old sims had thefido homing torpedo, why should't the best U boat sim in the world have it?

I think the real problem with the aerial homing torpedo, as a mod, is that there seems to be no mechanism in SH3 to operate it. The talented Racerboy (now known as TDW) spent some time on the problem in SH3 a year or two ago, but ultimately without success.

Stiebler.[/QUOTE]

That is a pity. :wah:

[USS Drum]

It would be easy to avoid it, just shut off your engines.

[iambecomelife]

Back to the practicality argument, as opposed to whether it would be fun or not: it is entirely possible to generate the torpedo itself using Silent Hunter III's water interaction controller. You can literally spawn any ingame object from any vehicle if you use S3ditor. Getting the appropriate initial velocity and homing attributes would be the difficult thing. Because of how gravity is modeled in SH3 it's quite likely that the torpedo would sink to the ocean floor after launch.

One possibility might be using the unguided aircraft rockets from GWX and attaching a homing attribute to them. Attaching this attribute to projectiles is quite easy for Silent Hunter 4. Not so sure about SH3.

[igorlikespike]

Back to the practicality argument, as opposed to whether it would be fun or not: it is entirely possible to generate the torpedo itself using Silent Hunter III's water interaction controller. You can literally spawn any ingame object from any vehicle if you use S3ditor. Getting the appropriate initial velocity and homing attributes would be the difficult thing. Because of how gravity is modeled in SH3 it's quite likely that the torpedo would sink to the ocean floor after launch.

One possibility might be using the unguided aircraft rockets from GWX and attaching a homing attribute to them. Attaching this attribute to projectiles is quite easy for Silent Hunter 4. Not so sure about SH3.

Interesting! I have S3 editor but I do not know yet how to use it. you mention water interaction controller- is that another program like S3editor?. Sorry if my questions may seem to be a bit on the dumb side, but I have never programmed anything. It is unfortunate when one has ideas, but doesnt know how to make them work.

[Captain Nemo]

If I'm to be totally honest I think I've only hit one once and that was during a storm so it could well have been the pitching motion that took me that few extra metres and into contact.

This seems to imply you can only hit a mine when submerged, is that true?

Nemo

[CCIP]

This seems to imply you can only hit a mine when submerged, is that true?

Nemo

Not quite. All minefields in SHIII have settings for maximum/minimum depth that they cover. Anti-submarine minefields are laid against submerged subs. In fact the very idea behind those fields is to allow light patrol ships (and aircraft) to patrol freely above the mines, forcing subs to submerge.

But there are other mine barriers in SHIII. For example the mines that some mods include outside of bases are near the surface and will kill you if you try to sail over them.

[Jimbuna]

Not quite. All minefields in SHIII have settings for maximum/minimum depth that they cover. Anti-submarine minefields are laid against submerged subs. In fact the very idea behind those fields is to allow light patrol ships (and aircraft) to patrol freely above the mines, forcing subs to submerge.

But there are other mine barriers in SHIII. For example the mines that some mods include outside of bases are near the surface and will kill you if you try to sail over them.

Precisely :yep:

[Captain Nemo]

Not quite. All minefields in SHIII have settings for maximum/minimum depth that they cover. Anti-submarine minefields are laid against submerged subs. In fact the very idea behind those fields is to allow light patrol ships (and aircraft) to patrol freely above the mines, forcing subs to submerge.

But there are other mine barriers in SHIII. For example the mines that some mods include outside of bases are near the surface and will kill you if you try to sail over them.

Thank you for the clarification on the mines point:up:.

Nemo

[Jimbuna]

Have you tried pressing Ctrl whilst turning your mouse wheel to adjust the size?

[igorlikespike]

Not quite. All minefields in SHIII have settings for maximum/minimum depth that they cover. Anti-submarine minefields are laid against submerged subs. In fact the very idea behind those fields is to allow light patrol ships (and aircraft) to patrol freely above the mines, forcing subs to submerge.

But there are other mine barriers in SHIII. For example the mines that some mods include outside of bases are near the surface and will kill you if you try to sail over them.


I think the minimum depth for anti sub mines in SH III is set too deep- it has to be set at the periscope depth (12m) or 20 m below the surface at most. This is probably why most players when sailing around UK do not report them, because they usually travell at periscope /schnorchel depth or on surface. If you want to know just how frustrating tackling minefields can be try SH IV mod Battfe for the Baltic. There are so many mines, that I never broke out from the Gulf of Finland into the Baltic.

[Fish In The Water]

I think the minimum depth for anti sub mines in SH III is set too deep...This is probably why most players when sailing around UK do not report them, because they usually travell at periscope /schnorchel depth or on surface.

You may well be on to something there as the non-reporting of minefields does seem an all too common issue. :yep:

[Madox58]

You don't get reporting because the thread usually starts with......
WTH? I was here blah blah blah and so on.
Then goes into.........
I was all of a sudden dead!
Followed quickly by........
bitch bitch bitch.

[igorlikespike]

You may well be on to something there as the non-reporting of minefields does seem an all too common issue. :yep:

I checked the campaignSCR.files on SH3 Mission editor yesterday and the mines WERE at the correct depth and of course their historical positions! I really admire the GWX team for their thorough job! :know: Now I think the problem is in minefield/mines density ... In battle for the baltic SH4 mod, minefields are pretty dense, so wichever route you take, you are bound to hit one sooner or later.

I even crated a minor minefield myself. Now if I could ONLY get to model a working MK24 Fido, that would be superb!! (considering my meagre computer/modding skils, this is a mission impossible:damn:)

[Fish In The Water]

I checked the campaignSCR.files on SH3 Mission editor yesterday and the mines WERE at the correct depth and of course their historical positions! I really admire the GWX team for their thorough job! :know: Now I think the problem is in minefield/mines density ...

So everything is great but there's still a problem? :hmmm: Not sure I'm following you on this one mate. Perhaps best to simply adjust to your liking and enjoy the game. :sunny:

[igorlikespike]

So everything is great but there's still a problem? :hmmm: Not sure I'm following you on this one mate. Perhaps best to simply adjust to your liking and enjoy the game. :sunny:

What I am saying is that after checking, it is not the depth at fault but the mine density. E.G. if you have two mines on 5km radius, you have to be very unlucky to run into one. As for adjusting the minefield density in SH3 editor, it immediately responds that you have to change the mission objectives, even triggers etc.etc., so that I rather not mess with that, as I do not want to compromise the whole SH3 campaign.

To conclude - minefield locations in SH3 are historically correctly represented, it is the small amount of mines that is the cause of very few mine reladed uboat sinkings in game. if you want/can you can remedy that. For further info on effecitveness of defensive UK minefields visit www.naval-history.net/xGM-Ops-Minelaying.htm (http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Ops-Minelaying.htm)

[Madox58]

I checked the campaignSCR.files on SH3 Mission editor yesterday and the mines WERE at the correct depth and of course their historical positions! I really admire the GWX team for their thorough job!
We had some 'insider' information that I'm still not sure is available to the general public.
:hmmm:

[andqui]

Any suggestions on what the density should be?

[Jimbuna]

We had some 'insider' information that I'm still not sure is available to the general public.
:hmmm:

The charts were compiled by Admiralty intelligence officers in the 1950s. The only known copy is held by the Royal Naval Library in Portsmouth Dockyard,

[igorlikespike]

Any suggestions on what the density should be?

Depends on the radius you choose in the SH editor, but I would go for at least 10 mines in 1km radius. When checking the values for the baltic mods where mine warfare really comes into its own, the values were like 55 or 60 per km and I tell you - those minefields are absolutely deadly.

[igorlikespike]

The charts were compiled by Admiralty intelligence officers in the 1950s. The only known copy is held by the Royal Naval Library in Portsmouth Dockyard,

Grade for finished homework: A+++ !:know:

[andqui]

I went throught the GWX SCR campaign file and looked at the minefields- most of the harbor defenses had respectable densities of 50-100 mines per sq km, but the "formidable" mine barrages like the Eastern Barrage, the Scotland-Faroe barage, Dover barrages, and the Celtic sea barrage were only something like 1-10 mines per sq km. For example, at the end of the ordinance list, the "1944" minefields, which overlap the eastern barrage, have densities of only .2 mines per sq km. What were the GWX devs trying to accomplish with such a low value?

Is this value realistic? If not, was it kept low for computer performance? The way it is now, you have to be unlucky to hit a mine while going through the channel, whereas you should have to be lucky to get through. I've bumped up the large minefields to densities to around 25-35 per sq km and will see is that causes any performance issues. Should the values be set even higher? What would be most realistic?

thanks

[Jimbuna]

If every time you sailed through a minefiels and were destroyed the outcry would be the opposite.

The minefields were populated with a balnce of realism and playability in mind.

It is easy enough making them more dense...ME will do it.

[andqui]

Yes, ok-

But I'm trying to figure out what values would be realistic. Then I can try it to see if it is playable. Right now I'm just looking for some guidelines as to what the densities of the big minefields should be, and what was intended by using a .2 mines per sq km minefield, so I can replicate that intent with a more realistic density.

[Jimbuna]

Yes, ok-

But I'm trying to figure out what values would be realistic. Then I can try it to see if it is playable. Right now I'm just looking for some guidelines as to what the densities of the big minefields should be, and what was intended by using a .2 mines per sq km minefield, so I can replicate that intent with a more realistic density.

I doubt anyone could be all that accurate or definitive then because mines drifted and broke free every day.

The Admiralty charts we have show positioning/location but not numbers.

[andqui]

OK- I set the Eastern Barrage to 35, and the '44 Eastern Barrage to 15. Sound reasonable? Was the Eastern Barrage supposed to be almost inpenetrable?

[Jimbuna]

More or less but there were gaps/navigation channels which were regularly 'swept' to keep them clear.

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4602/a2eastcoastq.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/221/a2eastcoastq.jpg/)

[igorlikespike]

OK- I set the Eastern Barrage to 35, and the '44 Eastern Barrage to 15. Sound reasonable? Was the Eastern Barrage supposed to be almost inpenetrable?

Did you have any trouble saving the settings, like adjusting mission objectives, triggers, events ... ?

[andqui]

I don't believe that SH3 has triggers, so I don't exactly know what you're talking about. I opened the SCR campaign file with the mission editor, found the minefields, increased their density, and then saved it, no problem.

[igorlikespike]

I don't believe that SH3 has triggers, so I don't exactly know what you're talking about. I opened the SCR campaign file with the mission editor, found the minefields, increased their density, and then saved it, no problem.

When trying to save new settings, SH3 Editopr replies with: "Errors found when validating mission. Please see the mission validation window and solve them before saving."

[Jimbuna]

When trying to save new settings, SH3 Editopr replies with: "Errors found when validating mission. Please see the mission validation window and solve them before saving."

The validation failure should bring up a list of tasks you need to resolve before it will allow validation.

[igorlikespike]

The validation failure should bring up a list of tasks you need to resolve before it will allow validation.

Indeed it does, but what do I write in these parameters as not to disrupt the whole GWX campaign the negative way? BTW is there any link explaining the basic procedures in SH editor "for dummies" ;)?

[andqui]

If the mission error finds errors, I think something might already be wrong with your GWX campaign file.

[Jimbuna]

Indeed it does, but what do I write in these parameters as not to disrupt the whole GWX campaign the negative way? BTW is there any link explaining the basic procedures in SH editor "for dummies" ;)?

Go into your GWX Documentation file and you'll find a ME pdf instruction file there.

[GT182]

I was in this thread earlier today and looking at the website that has the map Jim has posted on gaps in the navagation channels. While on that site I was hit again by an antivirus software installer. Name is - XP Antivirus 2012. This is an updated version of that last one i was hit with. You DO NOT know you have it until it pops up. You cannot get rid of it, your antivirus software and your OS firewall will shutdown. It even stops Microsoft Security Essentials from running. It will also get by your router's firewall. Not your fault Jim, but I had to give you guys a heads-up on this. This thing is very nasty and can do a lot of damage to your computer.

The only way I was able to get rid of it is by System Restore. Yeah, power up and tap F8 continuousely to get into Safe Mode. But here's the hitch. You MUST log in as the Administrator. If you try any other way to log in this malware will not let you go to System Restore. By using Admin you will go directly to System Restore. Run SR and this crap will be taken out of the loop and your computer will run ok once again.

Info from another website:
XP Antivirus 2012 is actually a nasty PC infection that utilizes a harmful Trojan and is a rogue security application that is intent on stealing as much of your hard earned money as XP Antivirus 2012 can.Some other common symptoms that manifest from a rogueware/trojan infection are:

- Installs itself without user knowledge or permission.
- Connects to the Internet without user permission.
- Annoying fake pop-up alerts.
- Installs other types of adware and spyware without user permission.
- A dramatic decrease in overall PC functionality.
- Remains constantly running in the background.If XP Antivirus 2012 is left to corrupt your PC registry, XP Antivirus 2012 may leave your PC vulnerable, unsafe, and unprotected, and if not treated as soon as possible, XP Antivirus 2012 has the ability to result in a complete collapse of your PC system.
To check your computer for XP Antivirus 2012, download SpyHunter Spyware Detection Tool.
SpyHunter spyware detection tool is only a scanner meant to assist you in detecting XP Antivirus 2012 and other threats. If you detect the presence of XP Antivirus 2012 on your PC, you have the opportunity to purchase the SpyHunter removal tool to remove any traces of XP Antivirus 2012.

And lastly this from a friend:
[QUOTE]Details on getting rid of it.
not free- http://www.enigmasoftware.com/products/spyhunter/
Free- http://download.cnet.com/Ad-Aware-Free-Internet-Security/3000-8022_4-10045910.html
http://www.wiki-security.com/wiki/Parasite/XPAntivirus2012/
Also I suggested you guys get and run sandboxie to protect yourselves from any malware -virus crap.It's so easy to use and install even the wife uses it.Basically it locks down you're PC as u browser the net.It works with Firefox,Chrome and internet exploder!Programs are run in a "sandbox" and can't infect you're pc that way.I love it.It's free 2.
http://www.sandboxie.com/

The Sandboxie program is free from here.... http://www.sandboxie.com/index.php?DownloadSandboxie Click on the Sandboxie box on the right. I'm using it now and I'm having no problems with IE8. Hope it does as they say it will.

Ok... Back on Topic.

[igorlikespike]

Go into your GWX Documentation file and you'll find a ME pdf instruction file there.

Thanks, how silly of me not to have noticed it earlier.:oops:

[igorlikespike]

If the mission error finds errors, I think something might already be wrong with your GWX campaign file.

I hope not .... (Oh dear God no, please not!:timeout:)

[Jimbuna]

Thanks for the warning GT, fortunately I've never visited the site because I have all the maps saved to HD :yep:

[Jimbuna]

Thanks, how silly of me not to have noticed it earlier.:oops:

Your Welcome :sunny:

[GT182]

No problem Jim. I don't remember who had the link posted but I don't think it was you. I've found out that System restore woun't get rid of it but only hides it.

Info from another site that is also watching this:
Combofix, MBAM and Spybot should get rid of that... System restore will not get rid of the malware because it tends to hide in the system restore files..

Get combofix at bleeping computer, only from their site because anywhere else it is probably malicious.
get MBAM from download.com (Full Scan)
get Spybot from their site or download.com

I run all three from safe mode with networking, combofix is an awesome program and is totally free.

I like to run a program called CCleaner, also at download.com, to delete junk files and registry errors.

And whatever you do, do not give that 2012 program your credit card number... I have talked to so many people that have its unreal. The program is designed mainly to get your credit card and then lock you out of your PC.

[igorlikespike]

Back to the practicality argument, as opposed to whether it would be fun or not: it is entirely possible to generate the torpedo itself using Silent Hunter III's water interaction controller. You can literally spawn any ingame object from any vehicle if you use S3ditor. Getting the appropriate initial velocity and homing attributes would be the difficult thing. Because of how gravity is modeled in SH3 it's quite likely that the torpedo would sink to the ocean floor after launch.

One possibility might be using the unguided aircraft rockets from GWX and attaching a homing attribute to them. Attaching this attribute to projectiles is quite easy for Silent Hunter 4. Not so sure about SH3.

I checked my SH3 for ordnance, but the rockets seem to be missing - when using SH3 editor the only type of ordnance I can use are bombs. Does anoyone of you have the same problem? In the GWX manual there are two kinds of rockets mentioned 3 inch and 5inch 'Holy Moses'. Was anyone of you ever on the recieving end of them?