View Full Version : Best Long range speed?
Pilot_76
11-30-11, 07:12 PM
Hello all,
Just to confirm that for best long range 2/3 standard propulsion is the best speed selection?
Depends on the boat. Gato will be best at 10 knots or so.
Ducimus
11-30-11, 08:17 PM
Depends if your running a mod, or not.
If vanilla. 2/3rds or about 9 to 10 knots.
If running a supermod, "ahead standard" might be the best long range speed.
Depends on what you mean by "best".
It's one speed i you mean "get there in a reasonable amount of time", and another if mean "get there with lots of fuel left over".
Click to set your speed at various points, and check to see how far you can go. Figure out what you want, either speed of fuel conservation, and travel at that speed.
Pilot_76
11-30-11, 09:52 PM
Can I trust what TMO's navigator says? By clicking on the Maximum range...I mean is it accurate? I saw that in 2/3 Standard Propulsion is the farthest mileage achieved...
I don't take it as gospel. But if you do it several times, you'll see several different ranges. Get a few of those ranges, and see where they fall in general. It's not perfect, but it's close enough. (And if you're counting on the navigator's report to get back home with half a gallon of diesel in the tank, you're probably not going to make it.)
Pilot_76
12-01-11, 11:32 AM
I'm currently with TMO 2.2. It does change the fuel figures doesn't it?
By the way, is there any indication in a file which reveals the fuel level in gallons /liters instead of percentage?
Ducimus
12-01-11, 12:20 PM
Can I trust what TMO's navigator says? By clicking on the Maximum range...I mean is it accurate? I saw that in 2/3 Standard Propulsion is the farthest mileage achieved...
And herein lays a problem with SH3, 4 and 5. Fuel usage doesn't scale so well. TMO was designed so you could go to your patrol areas at speeds the subs most accurately traveled in real life. In TMO ahead standard is the fastest economical speed for the fuel used. Yes you can putt putt around at 2/3rds, but you'd be taking advantage of a flaw in the game, and having two to three times the range you should have.
Personally, im starting to wish i didn't adjust speeds to be realistic at ahead standard. Regardless of what I had intended, everyones going to go around at 2/3rds and exploit the flaw in design. So, what the hell, "all ahead harbor speed at 2/3rds for teh win!"
Barkhorn1x
12-01-11, 01:10 PM
So, what the hell, "all ahead harbor speed at 2/3rds for teh win!"
Japs won't know what hit 'em, and hit 'em again, and again, and...
:yeah:
And herein lays a problem with SH3, 4 and 5. Fuel usage doesn't scale so well. TMO was designed so you could go to your patrol areas at speeds the subs most accurately traveled in real life. In TMO ahead standard is the fastest economical speed for the fuel used. Yes you can putt putt around at 2/3rds, but you'd be taking advantage of a flaw in the game, and having two to three times the range you should have.
Personally, im starting to wish i didn't adjust speeds to be realistic at ahead standard. Regardless of what I had intended, everyones going to go around at 2/3rds and exploit the flaw in design. So, what the hell, "all ahead harbor speed at 2/3rds for teh win!"
I know what you mean.
The whole fuel use-range issue bugs me (and not to forget battery capacity either), but what can be done about it really? Since the game uses a flat earth, the distances are off, and the weather never allows the wind speed to go above 15 m/s. These flaws seem to be unfixable. :cry:
Programming/design flaws aside, it doesn't take much time to do some speed runs to determine fuel consumption rates at various speeds. And to do the same for battery usage. It's a good way to stay busy during the voyage out to your assignment.
The results are useful, not only for predicting patrol range, but also being able to answer questions like whether I have the charge to try, while submerged at flank speed, to intercept a target. And then how much will I have left if the escorts start hassling me and I have to stay under.
I am currently pursuing the Midway task force, which I ran across while coming back from a patrol. I know how long I can go at flank speed before I have to give up and let them go.
I'm goin' down
12-01-11, 07:47 PM
Depends if your running a mod, or not.
If vanilla. 2/3rds or about 9 to 10 knots.
If running a supermod, "ahead standard" might be the best long range speed.
Everyone shut up and listen to a veteran. (I'll stick with Ducimus.)
Regardless of what I had intended, everyones going to go around at 2/3rds and exploit the flaw in design. So, what the hell, "all ahead harbor speed at 2/3rds for teh win!"
LOL...Well, if it makes you feel any better, I use Ahead Standard because that I've figured that is most historically accurate and try to not 'game' the game.
Oh, and thanks for TMO. I appreciate the hard work. :up:
Sailor Steve
12-01-11, 08:36 PM
Personally, im starting to wish i didn't adjust speeds to be realistic at ahead standard. Regardless of what I had intended, everyones going to go around at 2/3rds and exploit the flaw in design. So, what the hell, "all ahead harbor speed at 2/3rds for teh win!"
I went in and readjusted mine to match the original values. My thinking is that, at least for fleet boats, that "Ahead Standard" was the speed meant for cruising with the fleet, and the surface fleet standard cruise speed was 15 knots. I may be wrong of course, but I haven't seen any real numbers from people who served on diesel boats as to what speeds actually matched what settings.
Just my thinking, of course. :sunny:
Randomizer
12-01-11, 10:15 PM
... Personally, im starting to wish i didn't adjust speeds to be realistic at ahead standard. Regardless of what I had intended, everyones going to go around at 2/3rds and exploit the flaw in design. So, what the hell, "all ahead harbor speed at 2/3rds for teh win!"
Not everyone, in a TMO Fleet Boat I transit at Standard but once in the patrol area, cruise at 2/3. The theory is quickest practical time to get on station and then maximum time there since I'm not trying to get anywhere in particular.
Actually I think you nailed it.
Ducimus
12-02-11, 08:37 PM
I went in and readjusted mine to match the original values. My thinking is that, at least for fleet boats, that "Ahead Standard" was the speed meant for cruising with the fleet, and the surface fleet standard cruise speed was 15 knots. I may be wrong of course, but I haven't seen any real numbers from people who served on diesel boats as to what speeds actually matched what settings.
Just my thinking, of course. :sunny:
Well, I had a different rational behind the adjustment. I didn't have all boats cruising at 15 knots, only at what i could conjecture was "3 engine speed". Some patrol logs i have read indicate they cruised two and from their patrol areas at "3 engine speed". So what exactly is "3 engine speed"?
It was awhile ago, but what i think i did was rationalize that 1/3rd was probably 1 engine. 2/3rds two engines, standard 3 engines, ahead full being 4 engines.
At that point I think did a little math by taking the top speed of whatever boat i was looking at, and mulplied it by 0.75 (or 75% which i figured, was about 3 engines). I took that number and entered it into the range figures in the sim file. So instead of say, 11,000 @ 10 knots, i put 11,000 at 13.5 knots.
Of course that "11,000" figure is also subject to conjecture and debate because
a.) fuel ballasts (no hard numbers on that i could find as to capacity and range on this)
b.) The game world is anywhere between 20 %to 30% larger then it is in real life
So while i don't remember the exact figure for fuel i used, i know i took those two things into consideration.
So add that larger fuel allowance, to say @13.5 knots, and that's pretty much what i did. The intent was to have fuel efficiency at speeds greater then the typical 10 knots that everyone uses. I think that figure is often used because that's that everybody uses on uboats. For fleet boats, i dont think the 10 knot figure is correct.
Of course, you take my design there, and throttle it back to 2/3rs for long range cruising going too and from patrol area, and well, you get alot more then you should.
Sailor Steve
12-02-11, 11:01 PM
Good points, and I don't know the answers. I wish I did, and in this case the old saying "your guess is as good as mine" definitely applies. Your guess is probably better, as I don't remember when or why I came to the conclusion I did, and I probably trusted someone else's judgement. Life was so much easier with SH1 - teleport to your patrol zone with appropriate loss of fuel, teleport home when done. Unless you misjudged, in which case you just got a message: "Not enough fuel for return voyage".
:rotfl2: :dead:
And herein lays a problem with SH3, 4 and 5. Fuel usage doesn't scale so well. TMO was designed so you could go to your patrol areas at speeds the subs most accurately traveled in real life. In TMO ahead standard is the fastest economical speed for the fuel used. Yes you can putt putt around at 2/3rds, but you'd be taking advantage of a flaw in the game, and having two to three times the range you should have.
Personally, im starting to wish i didn't adjust speeds to be realistic at ahead standard. Regardless of what I had intended, everyones going to go around at 2/3rds and exploit the flaw in design. So, what the hell, "all ahead harbor speed at 2/3rds for teh win!"
I enjoy your hard work on TMO. One of the many reasons I use TMO is because of the speed setting and milage. I enjoy traveling the vast ocean at standard, and if needed slowing to 2/3. Just want to thank you again for all your hard work. I really enjoy it. Makes the game a challange and fun to play :salute:
I found this: http://americanhistory.si.edu/subs/history/subsbeforenuc/ww2/
It says the typical cruising speed for a "Balao" was around 10 kts.
I enjoy your hard work on TMO. One of the many reasons I use TMO is because of the speed setting and milage. I enjoy traveling the vast ocean at standard, and if needed slowing to 2/3. Just want to thank you again for all your hard work. I really enjoy it. Makes the game a challange and fun to play :salute:
I enjoy the fuel consumption at a more reasonable rate, as well. The other reason TMO is my flavor of choice is - I don't experience CTDs. RFB looks like a really interesting option but the ship ID book will cause a CTD if I try to look up the wrong ship (and so has attempts at periscope views .... probably from the same ship models). And ... it has that 'lucky if you make it to your first patrol area' fuel consumption. I wonder if the museum CTD is related to those.
But TMO has been CTD free. The Japanese destroyers are really a pain, though. They're psychic.
Ducimus
12-09-11, 12:38 PM
I found this: http://americanhistory.si.edu/subs/history/subsbeforenuc/ww2/
It says the typical cruising speed for a "Balao" was around 10 kts.
The problem with internet sources is they all copy from somewhere else. I've read most information you can find on the net. After you've read enough of it, you realize they all repeat themselves. The same can be said of Uboat sources as well.
Where the real dirt is, is in the patrol logs.
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/subreports.htm
Trouble with that is, what your looking for is not always easy to find, or worded in terms that implies something, but lacks some specifics for the purposes of technical data gathering.
Oh man, you were really "diving deep" into this to get all the information for your great mod.
I read several patrol logs which I found under that link you gave and it says in different occasions that speed was reduced to 8 to 10 knots in order to preserve fuel.
Ducimus
12-09-11, 01:06 PM
Oh man, you were really "diving deep" into this to get all the information for your great mod.
I read several patrol logs which I found under that link you gave and it says in different occasions that speed was reduced to 8 to 10 knots in order to preserve fuel.
Im sure it does. But in what context? Transiting to and from their assigned patrol area? Or just while in the patrol area? There's also others that cite different speeds. One critical thing to keep in mind is that US subs had to be at their assigned patrol area by a certain time period, and were due back from patrol by a certain time period. This would influence at what rate they would travel to and from patrol. At least, so my reading would indicate, but I could be mistaken.
In addition to patrol logs there's also first hand accounts and non fiction books. Honestly between all the sources, i couldn't quite pin it down to a brass tack. Another "what the hell was it?" question aside from best cruising speed is at what depth they could go before being crushed. From what i info i could find, it was greater then even the most ardent enthusiast would think.
It is totally correct what you say about being on time in a patrol area or especially to attack a convoy, they just wouldn't wait. All I say is that I read that IN ORDER TO PRESERVE FUEL speed was adjusted to 8-10 knots. So I assume that was only done when time and schedule would allow it but it still indicates a certain speed for most economical cruise.
Ducimus
12-09-11, 03:02 PM
Well, of course reducing speed will conserve fuel. That's a no brainer. For the purposes of SH4, what i was striving for was the fastest and most fuel efficient cruising speed for traversing long distances from point A to point B.
When I made the adjustment, i probably gave the player too much fuel, because i was accounting for fuel ballasts, and the flat map. When i released these changes I thought I had clearly said what the intention was, and figured i'd leave the "use as intended" or "Cheat your heart out" up to the players discretion. I reasoned that It wasn't my job to keep people from cheating.
Looking back on it now, that line of thought was entirely contractory to my previous position of "preventing the player from gaming the game". At this point, I find myself weary of being questioned about it. If I ever update TMO again, I think I will put it back to 10 knots seeings how:
a.) People like long cruises at 9-10 knots and are unable to grasp the idea that a 9-10 knot cruising speed isn't neccessarily true.
b.) People will always cheat when given the opportunity.
c.) My adjustment, though well intentioned and researched, just isn't going to work given the both A and B.
Sailor Steve
12-09-11, 05:52 PM
When I made the adjustment, i probably gave the player too much fuel, because i was accounting for fuel ballasts, and the flat map.
All laudable goals, which I fully support.
a.) People like long cruises at 9-10 knots and are unable to grasp the idea that a 9-10 knot cruising speed isn't neccessarily true.
b.) People will always cheat when given the opportunity.
c.) My adjustment, though well intentioned and researched, just isn't going to work given the both A and B.
As I said, I adjusted my own back to the original values. My personal choice, and I don't consider it cheating because I'm now forced to use what I thought were the proper cruising speeds.
You did the right thing for the right reasons. I just disagreed, and I admit I could well be wrong. Don't give up the fight. :sunny:
Not everyone, in a TMO Fleet Boat I transit at Standard but once in the patrol area, cruise at 2/3. The theory is quickest practical time to get on station and then maximum time there since I'm not trying to get anywhere in particular.
Actually I think you nailed it.
I do this too. I was thinking of time factors on the ingress to patrol area; Get there in reasonable time, then use 2/3 for the sweep or until you pick up a contact. Saves fuel, can spend longer in the various areas you need to patrol etc. In my head as I role play, it seems sensible to do.
What I was always unsure of when I first started playing SH4 was how long to patrol - how many weeks at sea is reasonable, as you have the ability to refit and not end your patrol, so in theory you could just continue to stay on the ocean indefinitely (damage not taken into account and I have not tried it), but the fleet boat histories I found over at U-Boat.net are usually just under two months or there abouts at sea, and very interesting too.
An example is this one:- http://uboat.net/allies/commanders/3165.html
I am no expert - I like the challenge the game offers as well as help my maths skills (...) and TMO and RSRD are the best mods I have used for SH4. So thanks for your hard work...
Ducimus
12-09-11, 07:01 PM
In regards to fuel and "allotted time", oh, believe me, I have thought of changing mission objectives to be something along the lines of:
"Reach designated area No later Then Day/Month/Year" or the mission is failed.
It would be realistic, and it would force the fuel usage as I had intended, but seriously, scripting that, and then testing it? It would be a scripting nightmare worse then the sea trials. I'd sooner play Russian roulette with a 45 auto.
Personally, I've always thought the fuel/range allotments in SH4 were too generous (even with the map distortion issues), mainly, because there is little hinderence due to the weather. Storms and heavy seas created problems in RL, but do not do so in game.
Of course, I have formed this opinion playing RFB. Is there much of a difference between TMO and RFB?
mobucks
12-11-11, 11:22 PM
In heavy chop your range will decrease. If I pour on the coal in nice weather I make 20-21 kts in TMO. Same setting in the worst seas the game has gives an average of 17kts. (17-18-17-16 on and so forth) AFAIK, the engines are still burning the same amount of fuel/hour.
In heavy chop your range will decrease. If I pour on the coal in nice weather I make 20-21 kts in TMO. Same setting in the worst seas the game has gives an average of 17kts. (17-18-17-16 on and so forth) AFAIK, the engines are still burning the same amount of fuel/hour.
That's not very much. When I was last playing (in a S-boat), the difference was less. I don't think I ever lost more than 2 knots in the worst weather. And I should add, the S-class were notorious for their poor seakeeping qualities. In SHCE, top speed for the S-class boats in heavy seas was about 4 knots!
Personally, I've always thought the fuel/range allotments in SH4 were too generous (even with the map distortion issues), mainly, because there is little hinderence due to the weather. Storms and heavy seas created problems in RL, but do not do so in game.
Of course, I have formed this opinion playing RFB. Is there much of a difference between TMO and RFB?
Huh. When I play RFB2, I won't have enough fuel to make it back from my first objective, consistantly. In TMO2.2, I always make it back from multiple objectives with reserve.
USS Drum
12-12-11, 11:27 AM
10 knots.
10 knots.
Any knots. Ahead 1/3, 2/3, standard (even tried full and flank to see if it was some sort of odd glitch favoring the absurd). This is with just plain RFB2 and RFB2 with other mods claiming compatibility with RFB2. Even then, it wasn't the holes in my fuel tanks that bothered me as much as the CTDs if I tried to look at the wrong ship model (eyes, scope or recognition manual). I recognize many fellow SubSimmers as enjoying RFB over other options. CTDs being common kills it for me. No evident practical option for fuel conservation would only be a continuing challenge.
Any knots. Ahead 1/3, 2/3, standard (even tried full and flank to see if it was some sort of odd glitch favoring the absurd). This is with just plain RFB2 and RFB2 with other mods claiming compatibility with RFB2. Even then, it wasn't the holes in my fuel tanks that bothered me as much as the CTDs if I tried to look at the wrong ship model (eyes, scope or recognition manual). I recognize many fellow SubSimmers as enjoying RFB over other options. CTDs being common kills it for me. No evident practical option for fuel conservation would only be a continuing challenge.
I don't experience any CTD's, neither with RFB nor TMO. You might have another problem with your PC.
If I set speed at just a little below 9 knots I can comfortably reach all the different areas and get back to home port, using RFB.
I don't experience any CTD's, neither with RFB nor TMO. You might have another problem with your PC.
If I set speed at just a little below 9 knots I can comfortably reach all the different areas and get back to home port, using RFB.
Regarding CTDs, I reckon the hardware is surely a factor to consider. That's why I generally keep it a personal project to figure out. Others playing who've never had my problems just proves it's most likely how my rather new Dell's wired or the combination of it and my vid card. The fuel use difference is a puzzlement, though. That's game (or mod) coding (actually settings) and it should behave the same if I haven't monkeyed with it. When I can actually dicker with the innards of the game/mod (ignorantly or not), I probably will. :03:
Huh. When I play RFB2, I won't have enough fuel to make it back from my first objective, consistantly. In TMO2.2, I always make it back from multiple objectives with reserve.
How are you using your fuel? I would go out in a S-18 class to my objective, at standard, find a good spot and wait. Next day, move over 20 to 40 nm and repeat. If air activity requires it, submerge during the day and run at minimum speed; no more than 2 knots. The idea is to find a shipping lane, and wait for the merchants to come to you; not try to sweep the entire Pacific Ocean. If you are cruising around morning, noon, and night, you will not have enough fuel - plain and simple.
I actually like this aspect of the game. It forces you to think a little and is realistic. Fuel/ Endurance was a significant issue, after all.
Any knots. Ahead 1/3, 2/3, standard (even tried full and flank to see if it was some sort of odd glitch favoring the absurd). This is with just plain RFB2 and RFB2 with other mods claiming compatibility with RFB2. Even then, it wasn't the holes in my fuel tanks that bothered me as much as the CTDs if I tried to look at the wrong ship model (eyes, scope or recognition manual). I recognize many fellow SubSimmers as enjoying RFB over other options. CTDs being common kills it for me. No evident practical option for fuel conservation would only be a continuing challenge.
I would try RFB without so many mods (RSRDC is ok). It sounds like you have some conflicts here. I've had very few CTD's with RFB. The main thing was the museum, which is a known issue with most of the mega-mods that add ships, if I'm not mistaken.
How are you using your fuel? I would go out in a S-18 class to my objective, at standard, find a good spot and wait. Next day, move over 20 to 40 nm and repeat. If air activity requires it, submerge during the day and run at minimum speed; no more than 2 knots. The idea is to find a shipping lane, and wait for the merchants to come to you; not try to sweep the entire Pacific Ocean. If you are cruising around morning, noon, and night, you will not have enough fuel - plain and simple.
I actually like this aspect of the game. It forces you to think a little and is realistic. Fuel/ Endurance was a significant issue, after all.
I would try RFB without so many mods (RSRDC is ok). It sounds like you have some conflicts here. I've had very few CTD's with RFB. The main thing was the museum, which is a known issue with most of the mega-mods that add ships, if I'm not mistaken.
With a 1942 start in a Tambor, based in Brisbane, I get an objective to patrol the Luzon Straights. I plot the straightest course I can to get there and travel ahead standard. I will be at less than half fuel capacity by the time I get on station. Retrying it at 2/3 or 1/3 yields the same result. This is running RFB2 alone or RFB with scope mods and such (no other mega in conjunction). The museum CTD is avoidable by .... well ... not using it. That I have no problem with. The other CTDs appear to be related to various ship models in the ONI ship recognition manual, bridge visual or periscope visual. I couldn't tell you if it's a ship model that my unique pc/vid card cannot render while it renders others just fine or if it's something my pc can't rectify in other ways.
The only reason I don't run RFB is because TMO doesn't cause the CTDs it does. What I've seen between the CTDs was most appealing (other than the odd fuel rate, which, like I said, I would have doggedly addressed).
With a 1942 start in a Tambor, based in Brisbane, I get an objective to patrol the Luzon Straights. I plot the straightest course I can to get there and travel ahead standard. I will be at less than half fuel capacity by the time I get on station. Retrying it at 2/3 or 1/3 yields the same result. This is running RFB2 alone or RFB with scope mods and such (no other mega in conjunction). The museum CTD is avoidable by .... well ... not using it. That I have no problem with. The other CTDs appear to be related to various ship models in the ONI ship recognition manual, bridge visual or periscope visual. I couldn't tell you if it's a ship model that my unique pc/vid card cannot render while it renders others just fine or if it's something my pc can't rectify in other ways.
To be honest, I really don't have any experience with the fleetboats, as I have often started/restarted careers in '41. But, this sure doesn't sound right. Also, I don't recall ever having rec. manual issues. Maybe someone can verify that the route you describe is doable. If you are not doing a lot of battery charging and are traveling at standard speed, you should have the spec cruising range; about 11,000 nm I would guess.
If would consider uninstalling all mods and reinstalling a new copy of RFB and RSRDC and trying again (without anything else to see where the problem is). When I first started with SH4 mods, I was using RFB and found I could not execute a normal dive in less than 5 or 6 minutes. Needless to say, this was not much fun. I couldn't understand why on earth, they would make any sub dive that slow. Finally, after suffering for weeks with this curse, I downloaded a fresh copy and started over. Problem solved. Files do get corrupted sometimes.
The rec manual thing sounds like the game maybe referencing a ship file that is missing, or is corrupted. That is just a guess.
Anyway, I can see why you're not thrilled with that kind of performance. Someone with better computer skills might have some ideas for you.
Arlo (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=212789)
OK, I looked up the Tambor class and see they are supposed to have a 11,000 nm range. I calculate the distance from Brisbane to Truk to Takao. This is probably somewhat greater than the route you would be taking, but is a reasonable approximation. The distance came out to 4,140 nm. So unless I've made some mistake, you should be able to get to and from your patrol zone and have over 2,000 nm endurance for maveuvering. This would be 50 days worth if you limited your cruising to 40 nm/ day.
If you like RFB otherwise, I would try to re-install or figure out what is "busted" in you mod set-up.
Hylander_1314
12-15-11, 06:10 AM
And herein lays a problem with SH3, 4 and 5. Fuel usage doesn't scale so well. TMO was designed so you could go to your patrol areas at speeds the subs most accurately traveled in real life. In TMO ahead standard is the fastest economical speed for the fuel used. Yes you can putt putt around at 2/3rds, but you'd be taking advantage of a flaw in the game, and having two to three times the range you should have.
Personally, im starting to wish i didn't adjust speeds to be realistic at ahead standard. Regardless of what I had intended, everyones going to go around at 2/3rds and exploit the flaw in design. So, what the hell, "all ahead harbor speed at 2/3rds for teh win!"
No,no, no! Thankyou for adjusting that! I like to get in and out of Empire waters as expeditiously as possible! Dealing with planes and all when one has plenty of ammo is one thing. When low or out of ammo is the tough part.
And travelling halfway 'round the world at harbor speed was agonnizing at best. Even with TC. Much nicer at 15 kts than 9 or 10 kts.
And it works great for those of us who don't have all the time in the world to devote to playing at a snail's pace.
Ducimus
12-17-11, 10:27 AM
I think ill be splitting the difference. I'm a master of extrapolation. :haha:
Arlo (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=212789)
OK, I looked up the Tambor class and see they are supposed to have a 11,000 nm range. I calculate the distance from Brisbane to Truk to Takao. This is probably somewhat greater than the route you would be taking, but is a reasonable approximation. The distance came out to 4,140 nm. So unless I've made some mistake, you should be able to get to and from your patrol zone and have over 2,000 nm endurance for maveuvering. This would be 50 days worth if you limited your cruising to 40 nm/ day.
If you like RFB otherwise, I would try to re-install or figure out what is "busted" in you mod set-up.
Thanks for the additional info. I'll experiment from scratch. :)
Ducimus
12-17-11, 02:59 PM
Ill post new info in a bit.
Ducimus
12-17-11, 06:10 PM
Ok, not sure where to post this, but this thread seems as good a spot as any since my brain has just turned to mush.
-------------------------------------
Regarding Point A to point B distances:
-------------------------------------
Real World Navigation
From the mouth of Pearl Harbor, to the mouth of Tokyo bay, the distance, in the real spherical world is 3,346 NM.
Game World Navigation
From the mouth of Pearl Harbor, to the mouth of Tokyo bay, the distance, in the virtual flat world is 4,129 NM.
The difference from Real to Game:
If you multiply the real world point A to point B distance of 3346 by 23% (0.234 to be exact), you get the result of 4128.964, which very closely match's the distance measured from the exact same two points in game.
Therefore, the game world is 23% larger then in real life.
-----------------
Regarding Fuel:
-----------------
Using the Gato class as a benchmark, the following is my best extrapolation based on all resources available to me. (meaning a whole lot of web and forum searching)
Standard Fuel Capacity:
Reputable sources agree that the original design for the Gato Class Submarine carried 94,400 gallons of fuel oil in it's oil tanks. The oft cited and accepted statistic for the resulting range of said 94,400 gallons of fuel oil is 11,000 NM @ 10 knots.
Extended Fuel Capacity:
Later on at a date i was unable to find, the original design of the Gato class was modified. Several ballast tanks were modified (http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/appendix/pages/figa-04.htm) so they could be used to carry fuel, further extending the fuel capacity of the Submarine. Sources agree to total fuel capacity being 116,000 gallons with fuel ballast tanks. (Henceforth referred to as "FBT")
Reiteration of Fuel capacity:
Nominal fuel carried: 94,400 gallons
Maximum fuel carried via FBT: 116,000 gallons
Total fuel extension over original design: 21,600 gallons.
Extrapolation:
- Of standard fuel capacity
If
commonly accepted figure of 11,000 NM @ 10 knots is accurate
Then
94,400 gallons divided by 11,000 NM = 8.58 gallons of fuel used per mile.
- Of Extended fuel capacity
Then if
8.58 Gallons of fuel is used per mile
8.58 divided by 21,600 gallon contained in the FBT = 2,541 NM
- Therefore:
11,000 NM + 2,541 NM = 13,541 NM. Or in other words, our Gato, could, in a real spherical world, travel a distance of 13,541 NM @ 10 knots
New Translation of Real world into Game world:
Increasing endurance, within scale of the game world.
If
Real world endurance 13,541 NM, multiplied by 23% map sized increase for flat map projection in game.
13,541 * 0.234 = 3,158.59
Or in other words, our gato's endurance with extended fuel should be 3,158.59 NM more to account for the flat map.
Then
Real world range with FBT ( 13,541 NM ) plus the 23% increase of distances (3,158.59), equals 16699.59.
or simply put, in game, a Gato should have 16,700 NM @ 10 knots.
-----------------------------------------------------
Problems with the game Engine and Historical accuracy
-----------------------------------------------------
Problem with Game Engine
Problem No1:
Diesel engine fuel efficiency is not modeled correctly, nor is it possible to alter it.
Problem No 2:
The game is hardcoded on how it handles fuel usage. Regardless of what you enter speed and range. It is, at it's heart, a Uboat sim. Certain aspects continue to reflect this. As fuel usage goes, this means:
a.) Going slower then 9 to 10 knots is always fuel inefficient.
b.)Going 9 to 10 knots is always, (approximately) 2.12 times more fuel efficient regardless of what specify, if above 10 knots.
Historical Problems when applied to the game engine:
- The game does not provide a method of putting X number of engines on battery recharge or propulsion.
- Fleet type submarines, were originally designed to run with the surface fleet. They were capable of cruising at speeds greater then 10 knots when surfaced. Various patrol reports and non fictional books and/or first hand accounts would collaborate this. Most patrol reports will cite entries such as "two engine speed" or "three engine speed".
A little known fact as it pertains to battery charging in game:
Battery recharge times will vary according to your surface speed. While the game provides no direct method of putting X number engines on the battery charge, it is implied.
Assuming the telegraph settings are modified as thus:
* Ahead 1/3rd is 25% of your engines
* Ahead 2/3rds is 50% of your engines
* Ahead standard is 75%
* Ahead Full is 90%
* Ahead Flank is 100%
For the purposes of fuel expenditure, surface cruising, and battery recharging, this means:
- at 1/3, you have 3 engines on the charge, and 1 on propulsion. This could be called, "one engine speed". Assuming a top speed of 20 knots, one engine speed is 5 knots.
- At 2/3rd, you have 2 engines on the charge, and 2 on propulsion. This could be called, "two engine speed". Assuming a top speed of 20 knots, two engine speed is 10 knots.
- at Standard, you have 1 engine on the charge, and 3 on propulsion. This could be called, "three engine speed". Assuming a top speed of 20 knots, three engine speed is 15 knots.
In the game, you will notice a direct correlation between, how long the battery takes to charge, and how fast your going on the surface.
-------------------------------------------
TMO Specific: New fuel settings in TMO 2.5:
------------------------------------------
Long story short, A picture is worth a 1000 words:
http://www.ducimus.net/sh415/new_fuel.jpg
The above picture, i feel is the best balance between how the game engine behaves, and historical concerns.
Explanation using Gato as an example.
Gato at 75% throttle (ahead standard) is 15 knots. For a Gato, this is 3 engine speed.
In the submarines .sim file, I will have specified 8700 NM @ 15 knots. If you examine that figure, that means you have 4,000 NM range. (round trip 8,000) If you leave pearl harbor at ahead standard, you'll get about as far as Lots wife and back, with a remaining 700 NM @ 15 knots for patrolling.
- If while on patrol, you reduce your speed to two engine speed, (2/3rds or 10 knots), that 700 NM distance becomes 1470 NM that you can allot to patrolling your general area. Now assuming you were to travel in a straight line, that distance is enough to get you from Lots wife, to the NW corner of Luzon.
OR,
- if your insistent on doing 2/3rds the whole way (Would you think outside the Uboat box already! :haha: ), you'll be getting about 18,400 NM range, which is a fudging of 1700 NM. Far from perfect, but far closer to the more realistic 16,700 NM then the current 29,000 NM your getting now im TMO 2.2
In TMO 2.2 I had adjusted the speed on the assumption of a standard cruising speed of 15 knots. Since actual cruising speeds varied, while cruising at 15 knots is realistic, cruising at 15 knots ALL THE TIME, is not realistic. Furthermore, expecting the player to cruise at Ahead standard all the time, knowing full well they can exploit the games hardcoded design, is also quite unrealistc. Those of you who are playing TMO 2.2 and cruising at two engine speed are quite familiar with the range boost I discussed earlier.
Whether 10 knots or 15, I want my boat to make it to it's assigned patrol sector and back to port (any allied port will do). ComSubPac says it can be done.
Fleet submarines were designed for a patrol endurance of 8 weeks (56 days). Endurance was limited by personnel, weapon, food and fuel consumption considerations. Most patrols were of 42 to 56 days duration. Three boats made patrols of 80 or more days; BLACKFISH (Sellars), THRESHER (Middleton), and GUITARRO (Dabney). http://www.hnsa.org/doc/subsinpacific.htm#pg3
(S'all I care about. Mission Dangerous is good. Mission Impossible, that's a Tom Cruise movie.) ;)
Ducimus,
Your reasoning seems sound here. :up:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.