Searchlight?

[GT182]

Is there a way to do a mod so when you're shelling a Merchant you can shoot out that darn searchlight? I've sunk a couple Merchants at night and shot right at where the light is. It never goes out until just before the ship sinks. And yeah, they were shooting back, and you can hear their shells hitting the Uboat.

[Webster]

same deal with sh4, i think you need to make the mount destroyable since the object itself isnt.

i wish all the guns and searchlights were destroyable but they arent

not sure what would be involved in fixing it but i imagine every ship would need to be fixed one at a time and no one wants to do the work it would take

[gap]

Ship equipments got their zon file (data/Library/ShipParts/guns_radars_01.zon), therefore in theory they should get damage, or they were conceived by devs to do so :yep:

I see two possible problems though:

- DMG_Col_ etc. collision models are missing from the GR2 file. I have no idea wether they are required or not for making equipments and guns destructible as they are for main units :06: but i guess so. We should ask TDW if his GR2 editor at its current state can be able to add those models :hmmm:

- Some equipments, including reflectors, have not their box defined in the zon file.

If someone wants to test it, I can add a box around them to see what is going to happen in game. :salute:

[TheDarkWraith]

From the SHCollisions.act file nothing will be considered for collision unless it has a DMG_col node (barring torpedoes/shells/DC - anything that has a weapon controller on it)

[GT182]

Gap, if you want to set it up as a mod I can give it a try. Thanks.

[gap]

From the SHCollisions.act file nothing will be considered for collision unless it has a DMG_col node (barring torpedoes/shells/DC - anything that has a weapon controller on it)

Okay, thank you TDW :)
Could you look then into guns_radars_01.GR2 and see if your GR2 editor can deal with the missing collision models?

Gap, if you want to set it up as a mod I can give it a try. Thanks.

Adding missing zone boxes is a quick and needed fix, that I could do in 5 minutes with Goblin Editor. Nevetheless, as you can see from TDW's post, it would be perfeclty pointless without a collision model to wich zones are applied: adding those models to the GR2 file is the first step.

As usual, at the time being we can only wait for an answer by TDW! :D

[TheDarkWraith]

Currently the GR2 Editor/Viewer cannot add/remove meshes to/from a GR2 file. I haven't coded that part in yet :) It can't even clone GR2 meshes as I haven't coded that in yet either.

[gap]

Currently the GR2 Editor/Viewer cannot add/remove meshes to/from a GR2 file. I haven't coded that part in yet :) It can't even clone GR2 meshes as I haven't coded that in yet either.

Okay, thank you again TDW,

I am following any further development of your GR2 Editor/Viewer with big interest.

I guess that in this case just cloning the existing meshes should be enough. Let's hope that this feature will be impelemented in one of your next releases :)

[TheDarkWraith]

the reflector (Searchlight) has a wpn_Searchlight controller on it. Therefore you should be able to add a zone (box) and collision sphere(s) to it so it can be destroyed :yep:

[gap]

the reflector (Searchlight) has a wpn_Searchlight controller on it. Therefore you should be able to add a zone (box) and collision sphere(s) to it so it can be destroyed :yep:

I think I am a bit confused... do you mean that any object having a weapon controller on it doesn't require a DMG_col node for taking damage :06:
just a zone box and collision sphere are enough? :hmmm:

[TheDarkWraith]

I think I am a bit confused... do you mean that any object having a weapon controller on it doesn't require a DMG_col node for taking damage :06:
just a zone box and collision sphere are enough? :hmmm:

From what I interpret in the SHCollisions.act file yes :yep:

[gap]

From what I interpret in the SHCollisions.act file yes :yep:

If so, a patch for indestructible searchlights is on the way :up:

[GT182]

If so, a patch for indestructible searchlights is on the way :up:

You mean destructible I hope. ;)

[gap]

You mean destructible I hope. ;)

Yep, I was meaning a patch for addresing indestructible searchlights... :oops: blame it on my broken english. It is ready by the way. I wanted to uplod it tomorrow, but since we are both here I will do it in a few minutes...

[gap]

Here it is:

http://www.mediafire.com/?3qzxyk71fkjbhe6

It is based on IRAI for compatibility with TDW's mods. Changes done:

guns_radars_01.zon:
-added a SH3ZonesCtrl to reflector_base object, with a box set as WeaponsLight and a collision sphere centered on the reflector (though I am not sure that the latter is actually needed).

This is the core part of the mod.

guns_radars_01.sim:
-changed searchlight's beam color from full white to violet to reflect the spectrum of carbon arc lamps that WWII reflectors were based on;
-changed serchlight range from 200 mt to half a mile (the stock figure seemed a bit too short to me);
-adjusted attenuation parameters to reflect the new range.

Those changes are a bonus by me. You can remove the sim file from the mod if you don't like my settings, or you can give me your suggestions for improving them.

The mod comes with an historical mission based as well on TDW's torpedo tutorial mission. Just surface, get closer to the merchant and start fire for making her to turn on her searchlights. I was able to switch off one of them the hard way :arrgh!:, with one well aimed shot (at close range) :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

The mod comes with an historical mission based as well on TDW's torpedo tutorial mission. Just surface, get closer to the merchant and start fire for making her to turn on her searchlights. I was able to switch off one of them the hard way :arrgh!:, with one well aimed shot (at close range) :up:

So it worked? Hot damn! I did interpret what I decoded in that function in the SHCollisions.act file correctly :rock: You have no idea how happy that makes me! For one the amount of pointers I had to decode not to mention the code itself I had to decode and figure out what it was doing was HUGE :dead:

[Trevally.]

Here it is:

http://www.mediafire.com/?3qzxyk71fkjbhe6

It is based on IRAI for compatibility with TDW's mods. Changes done:

guns_radars_01.zon:
-added a SH3ZonesCtrl to reflector_base object, with a box set as WeaponsLight and a collision sphere centered on the reflector (though I am not sure that the latter is actually needed).

This is the core part of the mod.

guns_radars_01.sim:
-changed searchlight's beam color from full white to violet to reflect the spectrum of carbon arc lamps that WWII reflectors were based on;
-changed serchlight range from 200 mt to half a mile (the stock figure seemed a bit too short to me);
-adjusted attenuation parameters to reflect the new range.

Those changes are a bonus by me. You can remove the sim file from the mod if you don't like my settings, or you can give me your suggestions for improving them.

The mod comes with an historical mission based as well on TDW's torpedo tutorial mission. Just surface, get closer to the merchant and start fire for making her to turn on her searchlights. I was able to switch off one of them the hard way :arrgh!:, with one well aimed shot (at close range) :up:

So it worked? Hot damn! I did interpret what I decoded in that function in the SHCollisions.act file correctly :rock: You have no idea how happy that makes me! For one the amount of pointers I had to decode not to mention the code itself I had to decode and figure out what it was doing was HUGE :dead:

Well done guys:woot:
:sunny:

[gap]

So it worked? Hot damn! I did interpret what I decoded in that function in the SHCollisions.act file correctly :rock: You have no idea how happy that makes me! For one the amount of pointers I had to decode not to mention the code itself I had to decode and figure out what it was doing was HUGE :dead:

Yep, it worked TDW, thank you very much for your precious suggestions! :yeah:

Let's wait for reports by other forum members now, just for making sure that the changes made don't have any undesired side effect. I will look for other equipments/armaments that may need the same fix in the meanwhile.

Needless to say that you should feel free to merge this little mod with possible new releases of IRAI/ FX Updates. I think there is no point in having a multitude of little mods that have to be done compatible with your ones, every time you make a change to one of the shared files. :)

Well done guys:woot:
:sunny:

Thank you Trev :)

[TheDarkWraith]

Yep, it worked TDW, thank you very much for your precious suggestions! :yeah:

Let's wait for reports by other forum members now, just for making sure that the changes made don't have any undesired side effect. I will look for other equipments/armaments that may need the same fix in the meanwhile.

I'm pretty sure all the guns are missing boxes and spheres.
Let me tell you why you need the spheres as you were questioning that some posts ago. The game uses the spheres for broad collision test. If a collision test passes the broad test then it checks for collision against bounding boxes (a much more computational endeavor). If it passes that test then it checks every item's DMG_col node for collision (except if it has a weapon controller on it - then it uses the bounding box computed from the object). It's a 3 tiered approach for testing collisions. Testing for intersection with a sphere is a not so computationally intensive endeavor (it's cheap).

I see you like dabbling in the files and trying/testing things...I can give you something to keep you busy for awhile if you're interested. It involves testing some ideas dealing with the flooding model and zones (boxes) :yep:

[gap]

I'm pretty sure all the guns are missing boxes and spheres.

I have checked it today. Only two guns with a wpn controller are missing their box. I can only think that devs oversighted them. All of them are missing collision spheres though. This is why I thought that collision spheres are not needed with the guns.

Let me tell you why you need the spheres as you were questioning that some posts ago. The game uses the spheres for broad collision test. If a collision test passes the broad test then it checks for collision against bounding boxes (a much more computational endeavor). If it passes that test then it checks every item's DMG_col node for collision (except if it has a weapon controller on it - then it uses the bounding box computed from the object). It's a 3 tiered approach for testing collisions. Testing for intersection with a sphere is a not so computationally intensive endeavor (it's cheap).

Okay thanks. I'm about to test your theory in game. If you are correct, I shouldn't be able to destroy any deck gun as I did with the searchlights.

I see you like dabbling in the files and trying/testing things...I can give you something to keep you busy for awhile if you're interested. It involves testing some ideas dealing with the flooding model and zones (boxes) :yep:

I tend to be a lazy tester, hate the long loading times, but please tell me: I am glad to help you if I can :up:


P.S: has anyone tested the searchlight patch other than me? I am curious to know if it is working also for you guys as it did with me :)

[volodya61]

P.S: has anyone tested the searchlight patch other than me? I am curious to know if it is working also for you guys as it did with me :)
I promise, I'll try it tonight :D

[gap]

I promise, I'll try it tonight :D

There's not hurry Volodya. Thanks for your support anyway :salute:

[volodya61]

There's not hurry Volodya. Thanks for your support anyway :salute:
I wanted to try at once but I had problems with the new version of the TDW patcher.

:salute:

[gap]

I wanted to try at once but I had problems with the new version of the TDW patcher.

:salute:

Yes, I noticed it from the other thread. I am sorry man, but I am sure that there is going to be a solution for you problem :up:


Okay thanks. I'm about to test your theory in game. If you are correct, I shouldn't be able to destroy any deck gun as I did with the searchlights.

TDW,
I am just back fro an in game testing session. I was able to tear up a single barrel Oerlikon 20 mm cannon, with no need to give it a collision sphere. :yep:

In relation to your detailed description on how the game is calculating impacts, the question is: by adding the missing shperes, are we going to alleviate our CPU from having to calculate impacts directly from gun's boxes? :hmmm:

On a side note: as they are currently set in zones.cfg, light guns and searchlights can be currently destroyed with a single shell. Hitting them from long or even from medium distance is quite a challenging task anyway. If you think that getting rid of them is still too easy, their armor level/hit points can be slightly increased.
For you to know, these ones are the settings used for both heavy and light guns:

[WeaponsHeavy]
Category=Heavy Weapons
Multiplier=1.000000
Flotability=0.000000
HitPoints=40
Destructible=No
Armor Level=-1
Critic Flotation=0.300000
Critical=No
FloodingTime=59.999996
CargoType=None

[WeaponsLight]
Category=Light Weapons
Multiplier=1.000000
Flotability=0.000000
HitPoints=9
Destructible=Yes
Effect1=BAZA_FX_Explozie_mica, 100
Effect2=BAZA_FX_Splinter_fire, 100
Effect3=BAZA_FX_scantei_explozie,100
Armor Level=5
Critic Flotation=0.300000
Critical=No
FloodingTime=59.999996
CargoType=None


Let me know what do you think guys.

[Rongel]

P.S: has anyone tested the searchlight patch other than me? I am curious to know if it is working also for you guys as it did with me :)

Nice work Gap!

I did a quick test, and I think once I managed to blast it off! I have all sorts of deckgun modifications so it wasn't easy to hit, i was maybe 500 m from the ship and got lucky. So I aimed at the lights, boom, lights went off, but the ship was still alive and kicking. Looks like it works :up: I wonder if you dim the lights with the AA-gun? Would be a lot easier!

[TheDarkWraith]

You don't have to use the pre-defined entries in the zones.cfg file. You can define your own! I made new ones for FX_Update and you can too. It's very easy to do. Simply add the new name to the top of the zones.cfg file in numerical order (the next number in the list). Then define your zone entry (AP, HPs, crash depth, etc.). Then reference your new zone in the .zon file :up:

[TheDarkWraith]

Now if you want to get really fancy play with the ObjectRemains controller :yep: This barely used, if any, controller replaces the original object with a new object when the item is destroyed (HPs are 0). You can find this controller in Goblin under SHCollisions :up:

[gap]

Nice work Gap!

I did a quick test, and I think once I managed to blast it off! I have all sorts of deckgun modifications so it wasn't easy to hit, i was maybe 500 m from the ship and got lucky. So I aimed at the lights, boom, lights went off, but the ship was still alive and kicking. Looks like it works :up: I wonder if you dim the lights with the AA-gun? Would be a lot easier!

I am glad that you enjoyed the patch mate! :up:
So if I am interpreting correctly your post, it wasn't that easy to tear up those reflectors, isn't it? Besides this, have you noticed the changes in beam range, and the new UV neon glow effect? :sunny:

You don't have to use the pre-defined entries in the zones.cfg file. You can define your own! I made new ones for FX_Update and you can too. It's very easy to do. Simply add the new name to the top of the zones.cfg file in numerical order (the next number in the list). Then define your zone entry (AP, HPs, crash depth, etc.). Then reference your new zone in the .zon file :up:

Yes I knew it, but thank you for the reminder TDW :D
In theory we could have as many zones as we want. One for each gun, or even one for each part of each gun and for each compartment of every ship. The hard part though is collecting detailed information on armour, strenght of materials used, etc, and icreasing the number of possible zones for giving them random numbers is a pointless exercise... :wah:

Now if you want to get really fancy play with the ObjectRemains controller :yep: This barely used, if any, controller replaces the original object with a new object when the item is destroyed (HPs are 0). You can find this controller in Goblin under SHCollisions :up:

That is a good piece of information!

:Kaleun_Salivating:

I will put myself at work, but I would need for some "wrecked gun models" that we are currently missing in game.
I guess that these models don't need to be in GR2 format. Linking a dat object would be okay, isn't it?
Anyway being able to export the "unbroken" meshes from the GR2 file would help a lot... can we expect you GR2 Reader/Editor to be able doing it anytime soon? :D

[GT182]

Just got back... been off launching a Mig-21 and L-39. Our usual Sunday morning "Church of the Holy Jet" routine. :D

I didn't see the download last night Gap but I do have it now. I'm still out on Patrol so I hope this will be able to be enabled and work properly while I'm still at sea. I'm going to try it anyway, but if it doean't as soon as I RTB and redeploy I'll let you know how it goes. Off to see how it goes.

Thanks for this mod. :salute:

[gap]

Just got back... been off launching a Mig-21 and L-39. Our usual Sunday morning "Church of the Holy Jet" routine. :D

I didn't see the download last night Gap but I do have it now. I'm still out on Patrol so I hope this will be able to be enabled and work properly while I'm still at sea. I'm going to try it anyway, but if not asa soon as I RTB and redelpoy I'l let you know how it goes. Thanks for this mod. :salute:

I think you can enable it any time, since it doesn't change any file affecting the campaign.
There is asingle mission included in the patch anyway, so you don't need to test it in campaign :up:

[GT182]

I tested it. I nailed the deck it was on with HE rounds but it still didn't go out. It seems to me that if an HE round hit even close by in real life everything with in a certain radius would be destroyed. So you would not necessarily need a direct hit. Can you lower the levels a bit more?

Armor Level=-1 to -3 for WeaponsHeavy
Armor Level=5 to 3 or 2 for WeaponsLight.

This might help simulate hitting close by with the heavy weapons to destroy it. And killing the crew with the light weapons. If that's possible for either weapon. But on the other hand it might possibly make sinking a ship too easy. Not sure if there would be a happy medium.

Also I see in SH5 the searchlights don't move like they did in SH3. They've got you in their light as soon as they come on, where in SH3 they moved around looking for you as it would be in real life. Is there a reason for this in SH5?

[Trevally.]

Also I see in SH5 the searchlights don't move like they did in SH3. They've got you in their light as soon as they come on, where in SH3 they moved around looking for you as it would be in real life. Is there a reason for this in SH5?

The lights in SH5 will point to where they are looking.
You can see this best when you dive and two or more search lights cross beams where they think you are.

If the lights are on you - the they are looking at you

[TheDarkWraith]

I will put myself at work, but I would need for some "wrecked gun models" that we are currently missing in game.
I guess that these models don't need to be in GR2 format. Linking a dat object would be okay, isn't it?
Anyway being able to export the "unbroken" meshes from the GR2 file would help a lot... can we expect you GR2 Reader/Editor to be able doing it anytime soon? :D

The GR2 Editor/Viewer has been able to take a GR2 file and export all it's materials and meshes for some time now :up:

All the ObjectRemains controller asks for is a name using Goblin (ID if using hex editor) so I don't see any reason why using a DAT object would be a problem. Try it and see :yep: I would do these things but I'm so deep in the exe and act files (and having way too much fun!) that I can't stop :D

[TheDarkWraith]

Armor Level=-1 to -3 for WeaponsHeavy
Armor Level=5 to 3 or 2 for WeaponsLight.

You probably don't understand what the negative numbers mean so I'll explain. First, increasing a negative number results in a HIGHER end value. When the game enounters a negative number for AP it takes the parent object's AP and multiplies it by the absolute value of the negative number. If that parent object itself is a negative number then it keeps going up the chain till it finds one that isn't. If it doesn't find one that isn't a negative number, not sure what happens (haven't tried that while watching with debugger) :hmmm: Anyways, so let's say a zone has a -1 for AP. The parent object has an AP of 15 (usual for subs). This means the AP of the zone is ABS(-1)*Parent AP = 1 * 15 = 15. If you make the negative number more negative: ABS(-2) * 15 = 2 * 15 = 30!

I actually exploit this fact with one of the patches. If the zone encounters damage then I subtract some from it's AP value. I.e.: zone has -1 for AP value. Zone takes some damage. I reduce the AP value by, let's say, 0.22 so it's new AP is -0.78 :cool:

[GT182]

Thanks for the explanation TDW, I think I understand what you're getting at. I'm by far the least understanding of computer programing of just about anyone here on SS. ;) And seeing I'm not a modder with no idea of waht I'd be doing, I don't think I'd give it a try changing any of the values. I'll leave that to GAP, you, or someone else that knows what they're doing. ;)

I can live with whats been done so far. :salute:

[The General]

Also I see in SH5 the searchlights don't move like they did in SH3. They've got you in their light as soon as they come on, where in SH3 they moved around looking for you as it would be in real life. Is there a reason for this in SH5?
The lights in SH5 will point to where they are looking.
You can see this best when you dive and two or more search lights cross beams where they think you are.

If the lights are on you - the they are looking at youI think he's right in that Searchlights just don't look as good as they did in SH3. The beams are not as visible as they should be, especially in fog. There seems to be a problem with light-sources in general in SH5. When a ship is engulfed in flames, it doesn't seem to generate much light on the surface of the water, or light-up the surrounding area. If your Sub is close by, it should be illuminated with an orange glow. In my opinion, it's part of the game the Devs never got 'round to finishing.

[gap]

The GR2 Editor/Viewer has been able to take a GR2 file and export all it's materials and meshes for some time now :up:

Okay thanks TDW, time for me to get my hands on your little gem :D

All the ObjectRemains controller asks for is a name using Goblin (ID if using hex editor) so I don't see any reason why using a DAT object would be a problem. Try it and see :yep: I would do these things but I'm so deep in the exe and act files (and having way too much fun!) that I can't stop :D

So far I've carried out two tests:

in one of them I assigned an ObjectRemains controller to the searchlight, placing it onto guns_radars_01.zon. I made the controller to point to another object within guns_radars_01.GR2.

For the second test I tried to point to an external object, contained in a dat file I had put into the Library folder.

In both cases I used the name of the object (well, the name of its main node) as reference, and in both cases I failed miserably: after ripping off the searchlight nothing showed up in its place :hmmm:

[TheDarkWraith]

in one of them I assigned an ObjectRemains controller to the searchlight, placing it onto guns_radars_01.zon. I made the controller to point to another object within guns_radars_01.GR2.

That controller shouldn't be placed in a .zon file. Game is picky where controllers can be located. Try placing it in the .sim or create a .val file for it or an .fx file for it.

[gap]

That controller shouldn't be placed in a .zon file. Game is picky where controllers can be located. Try placing it in the .sim or create a .val file for it or an .fx file for it.

Okay thanks, trying to do it right now! :up:

[gap]

It seems to me that if an HE round hit even close by in real life everything with in a certain radius would be destroyed. So you would not necessarily need a direct hit. Can you lower the levels a bit more?

Two considerations:

1. I don't know how the game calculates impact/damage from rounds, but if the method used resembles the one used for torpedoes, every box within a certain radius from the impact should have a probability of getting damaged, though not being directly hit.

2. If you are using Fx Updates, wildfires caused by HE shells should spread on deck, damaging everything around them. I am not sure though if ship equipment is affected by those fires like ship compartments are.

[TheDarkWraith]

Two considerations:

1. I don't know how the game calculates impact/damage from rounds, but if the method used resembles the one used for torpedoes, every box within a certain radius from the impact should have a probability of getting damaged, though not being directly hit.

2. If you are using Fx Updates, wildfires caused by HE shells should spread on deck, damaging everything around them. I am not sure though if ship equipment is affected by those fires like ship compartments are.

The MinRadius and MaxRadius defined in the AmmoDamageInfo control the 'splash damage'

[gap]

Also I see in SH5 the searchlights don't move like they did in SH3. They've got you in their light as soon as they come on, where in SH3 they moved around looking for you as it would be in real life. Is there a reason for this in SH5?

The lights in SH5 will point to where they are looking.
You can see this best when you dive and two or more search lights cross beams where they think you are.

If the lights are on you - the they are looking at you

During my tests (with IRAI enabled), searchlights swept around until they did find me. For it to be possible you have to be within their radius. In stock game this radius was set to 200 mt, but I increased it to 800 mt. Once they catch you, they follow you until you get out of their range, or until you dive. At this point, as stated by Trevally, for some time they will search you, eventually pointing at where they think you are.

I think he's right in that Searchlights just don't look as good as they did in SH3. The beams are not as visible as they should be, especially in fog.

There are two parameters under SearchLightEffect controller for modifying beam's luminosity over distance. I didn't play too much with those parameters, but I am sure that they can be finetuned for getting a better visual effect.

[gap]

The MinRadius and MaxRadius defined in the AmmoDamageInfo control the 'splash damage'

Thank you for the clarification TDW :)
In oder words it means that you don't have to hit exactly an object for damaging it, isn't it?

About Fx Updates: is damage by spreading fires affecting equipment's HP?

P.S: tried placing the ObjectRemains controller in the sim file, but still nothing. I will try right now with val or fx files.

[TheDarkWraith]

Thank you for the clarification TDW :)
In oder words it means that you don't have to hit exactly an object for damaging it, isn't it?

About Fx Updates: is damage by spreading fires affecting equipment's HP?

P.S: tried placing the ObjectRemains controller in the sim file, but still nothing. I will try right now with val or fx files.

It's affecting anything that has a zone (box) defined with it.

[gap]

It's affecting anything that has a zone (box) defined with it.

Cool :up:

so answering to GT182: serchlights can be damaged and eventually destroyed by both "splash effect" and wildfires, even not hitting them directly. :yep:

[gap]

P.S: tried placing the ObjectRemains controller in the sim file, but still nothing. I will try right now with val or fx files.

val test failed either, only one more chance left :hmmm: :-?

Anyway look at what I was able to do: :rock:

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3150/sh5img20120821025458.jpg

Don't ask me how (probably due to fires by your Fx updates, because I don't remember I had hit that searchlight) the reflector went ripped off, leaving its base alone. This is exactly the final result I wanted to attain with the ObjectRemains controller, though I am sure it was not its merit in this case, since for testing I had set a gun to show instead of the searchlight.

Notice that only the base got a wpn controller, a box and a collision sphere, so I was expecting not to be able to smash off the reflector alone, without its parent object. But I made base's box and sphere big enough to surround the reflector as well, and I gave them the reflector as linked object. I wonder if those settings have anything to do with the outcome you can see from my screenshot :hmm2:

[TheDarkWraith]

Notice that only the base got a wpn controller, a box and a collision sphere, so I was expecting not to be able to smash off the reflector alone, without its parent object. But I made base's box and sphere big enough to surround the reflector as well, and I gave them the reflector as linked object. I wonder if those settings have anything to do with the outcome you can see from my screenshot :hmm2:

I would say because the box and sphere surrounded both items they were included for collisions. Plus the reflector is a child of the base so that probably has something to do with it. Now why the reflector disappeared is a mystery to me....try something: do that same test but remove the ObjectRemains controller from the base and see if the same result happens. I have a hunch it won't :hmmm:

[gap]

I would say because the box and sphere surrounded both items they were included for collisions. Plus the reflector is a child of the base so that probably has something to do with it. Now why the reflector disappeared is a mystery to me....try something: do that same test but remove the ObjectRemains controller from the base and see if the same result happens. I have a hunch it won't :hmmm:

Difficult to verify it in a single test: ObjectRemains or not, by aiming directly at the searchlight the most likely outcome is smashing off everything...
Anyway how do you think that that controller can be related to the disappeared reflector since:

a) ObjectRemains was assigned to the base;
b) it was set to show a completely different object, and not a reflector-less base :hmm2:

[TheDarkWraith]

Difficult to verify it in a single test: ObjectRemains or not, by aiming directly at the searchlight the most likely outcome is smashing off everything...
Anyway how do you think that that controller can be related to the disappeared reflector since:

a) ObjectRemains was assigned to the base;
b) it was set to show a completely different object, and not a reflector-less base :hmm2:

I was just curious to know what the outcome of it was that's all. Everyone's still trying to figure out all the little intracacies of this game :yep:

[gap]

I was just curious to know what the outcome of it was that's all. Everyone's still trying to figure out all the little intracacies of this game :yep:

Okay, I thought there was a special reason behind your curiosity, like something you had half discovered during your debugging activity.

I will keep on my tests on this subject anyway, and I'll keep you informed about them :salute:

[The General]

There are two parameters under SearchLightEffect controller for modifying beam's luminosity over distance. I didn't play too much with those parameters, but I am sure that they can be finetuned for getting a better visual effect.Ok, thanks gap. Can you tell me which folder SearchLightEffect is in and I'll have a fiddle? With the paramteres I mean :D

[gap]

Ok, thanks gap. Can you tell me which folder SearchLightEffect is in and I'll have a fiddle? With the paramteres I mean :D

data/Library/ShipParts/guns_radars_01.sim

Under SearchLightEffect controller, Atenuation group, there are two parameters called A and B. Light intensity at any given distance from the reflector is calculated as:

Light intensity = 1 / (A + B*<distance>)

Try to match the visual beam's luminosity with the Range parameter, found within the same controller. Based on sparse information on common naval reflector ranges I've found on the web, I have set it to 800 mt (stock setting was: 200 mt), but you might want to further finetune it.

Within the same controller there are two other parameters for adjusting beams color (I've set it to a shade of violet) and cone angle.

Another controller you might want to fiddle with is WaterReflection, found in the same sim file, though I don't fully understand all of its parameters.

Keep us informed on any progress you will be doing! :up:

EDIT: beam's shape and gradient transition (from bright to dark) could be affected as well by two dds textures found in data/Textures/TNormal/tex: raza_reflector_1.dds and raza_reflector_2.dds. To fully understand them you should look at their alpha channel.

[The General]

@gap

I had a look at the file you're referring to and it's in code. Should I be using some sort of editing software?

[TheDarkWraith]

@gap - just had a thought come to mind as to why the ObjectRemains controller is not working for you. The zones(s) you have chosen for the searchlight, do they have this entry:
Destructible=Yes

If not, try choosing zone(s) or make new zones where this is set to yes.

[gap]

@gap - just had a thought come to mind as to why the ObjectRemains controller is not working for you. The zones(s) you have chosen for the searchlight, do they have this entry:
Destructible=Yes

If not, try choosing zone(s) or make new zones where this is set to yes.

Yes it occurred to me as well that that parameter had to be relevant for the correct functioning of ObjectRemains... too bad neither leaving it set to "yes" nor changing it to "no" made the trick. :hmm2:
We have still another chance though, since I haven't tried yet placing the controller in an fx file. Currently I am not at home, and I have not my laptop with me, but I'll carry out this test once back home, before the next week end.

Let's keep in touch :up:

@gap

I had a look at the file you're referring to and it's in code. Should I be using some sort of editing software?

Yes The General, the software is GoblinEditor. Use it for opening the GR2 file with the same name as the sim file you want to edit, and merge then the sim file itself.

If you are not familiar with Goblin Editor, refer to this quick tutorial for its basics and don't hesitate to ask for help on the forum :)

[tonschk]

Thank you :sunny: Gap :yeah: for this mod. :salute:

[The General]

Yes The General, the software is GoblinEditor. Use it for opening the GR2 file with the same name as the sim file you want to edit, and merge then the sim file itself.

If you are not familiar with Goblin Editor, refer to this quick tutorial for its basics and don't hesitate to ask for help on the forum :)http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/5643/10338624.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/10338624.jpg/)

You're right, i am not at all familiar :o Am I on the right track? Before I got to this stage, I had the searchlight beam highlighted in green, but when I tried to edit it, this window would pop up and the 3D model would change to bombs :doh: Are those supposed to be colors in the right-hand column? Why are they shades of grey?

If I can only achieve one simple thing, it would be to increase the brightness of the beam. Just to make them show up a little better in-game.

[gap]

You're right, i am not at all familiar :o Am I on the right track? Before I got to this stage, I had the searchlight beam hghlighted in green, but when I tried to edit it, this window would pop up and the 3D model would change to bombs :doh: Are those supposed to be colors in the right-hand column? Why are they shades of grey?

It seems you didn't merge the sim file you want to edit. Have a look to 'the idiots guide to
Goblin Editor' to understand what I mean. It is stickied in the f:up:irst page of this forum. I am sorry no to be able to give you more support than this but I am curently writing from my mobile. I will be able to provide you with more detail in 24h.

Thank you :sunny: Gap :yeah: for this mod. :salute:

Thank you to tonschk for your enthousiasm and for your continuos support :-)
And don't forget that TDW and people who reported the bug share the merit for this little fix :yep:

[robbythesub]

Here it is:

http://www.mediafire.com/?3qzxyk71fkjbhe6

It is based on IRAI for compatibility with TDW's mods. Changes done:

guns_radars_01.zon:
-added a SH3ZonesCtrl to reflector_base object, with a box set as WeaponsLight and a collision sphere centered on the reflector (though I am not sure that the latter is actually needed).

This is the core part of the mod.

guns_radars_01.sim:
-changed searchlight's beam color from full white to violet to reflect the spectrum of carbon arc lamps that WWII reflectors were based on;
-changed serchlight range from 200 mt to half a mile (the stock figure seemed a bit too short to me);
-adjusted attenuation parameters to reflect the new range.

Those changes are a bonus by me. You can remove the sim file from the mod if you don't like my settings, or you can give me your suggestions for improving them.

The mod comes with an historical mission based as well on TDW's torpedo tutorial mission. Just surface, get closer to the merchant and start fire for making her to turn on her searchlights. I was able to switch off one of them the hard way :arrgh!:, with one well aimed shot (at close range) :up:

Gap- when I click on the link above to this mod, I get a virus warning alert (not got a virus, just trying to link me to another site no doubt)- do you know about this?

[TheBeast]

Gap- when I click on the link above to this mod, I get a virus warning alert (not got a virus, just trying to link me to another site no doubt)- do you know about this?
The Virus Alert is from bad Advertisement (Banner Ad) or Ad Pop-up on the page.

I get this warning some times but not every time as well.

[GT182]

DO NOT save this to your computer as it is a piece of malware from some east European country. Usually Russia. It wants you to buy the product. Sometimes these will automatically self install. Once installed you cannot use what you already have for antivirus software, or defrag your computer. It can also lock up your computer and you won't be able to even shut it down.

This has happened to me a couple of times and is no fun at all to get rid of. I couldn't even use Microsoft Security Essential to get rid of it. Not even using Add/Remove in your Control Panel will get rid of it. The only way to get rid of it is to do a System Restore to an previous date. Then run your antivirus software to get it all out.

[gap]

The Virus Alert is from bad Advertisement (Banner Ad) or Ad Pop-up on the page.

I get this warning some times but not every time as well.

It happens every so often to me as well when downloading stuff from mediafire. My antivirus (nod32) prevents a popup windows of my browser from loading, and I get an alert. But this doesn't prevent the regular download from being downloaded, and I've never had any annoyance other than having to close manually the blocked window.

DO NOT save this to your computer as it is a piece of malware from some east European country. Usually Russia. It wants you to buy the product. Sometimes these will automatically self install. Once installed you cannot use what you already have for antivirus software, or defrag your computer. It can also lock up your computer and you won't be able to even shut it down.

This has happened to me a couple of times and is no fun at all to get rid of. I couldn't even use Microsoft Security Essential to get rid of it. Not even using Add/Remove in your Control Panel will get rid of it. The only way to get rid of it is to do a System Restore to an previous date. Then run your antivirus software to get it all out.

:o
so this is where that window is redirecting?

I am sorry guys. Since many subsim members are using medifire for hosting their files, I was thinking that it was a reliable site. Do you know any good alternative to it, that allows for free memberships without removing temporarily inactive downloads? :hmm2:

[BIGREG]

I am sorry guys. Since many subsim members are using medifire for hosting their files, I was thinking that it was a reliable site. Do you know any good alternative to it, that allows for free memberships without removing temporarily inactive downloads? :hmm2:

Hi :salute:

For me : Dropbox https://www.dropbox.com/ (2 GO free)

[gap]

A few days ago I've found this site:

http://www.navweaps.com/

It provides detailed information on common naval weapons from 1880 to today. So far I've found data on the following specs:

- Main countries using a given gun, (including its variants);
- Year (month in some cases) that the gun came in service for each country that used it;
- Main ship classes equipped with that gun (with information on the variant used);
- Rate of fire (cyclic and approximate practical rate);
- Ammunition used and shell specs for each country;
- Muzzle velocity for each kind of ammunition;
- Gun's range at different elevations (for some of the shells used);
- Historical ammunition stowage per gun;
- Elevation and train angles;
- Elevation and train rates;
- Gun's recoil.

I think there are more datas here than we can accomodate in the limited SH5 balistic model. Besides this, for some guns are provided as well figures on shielding/harmor of the gun, harmor penetration for some of the shells used by it (as a function of distance from target and angle of inpact), and rough information on gun's dispersion.

Anyone interested in a SH5 guns/DC overhaul mod? :D

[gap]

Hi :salute:

For me : Dropbox https://www.dropbox.com/ (2 GO free)

Thank you BIGREG :up:
any other suggestion?

[Trevally.]

I am sorry guys. Since many subsim members are using medifire for hosting their files, I was thinking that it was a reliable site. Do you know any good alternative to it, that allows for free memberships without removing temporarily inactive downloads? :hmm2:

I use gamefront for main mods and rapidshare for throw away mods (tests etc) and think thinking of switching to medifire - perhaps I won't.

I always have issues downloading mods from medifire - takes about 10 goes having to type in some weird word "scramble my brain" etc just to try again. With the usual "download failed - do you want to try again":doh:

[gap]

I use gamefront for main mods and rapidshare for throw away mods (tests etc) and think thinking of switching to medifire - perhaps I won't.

I always have issues downloading mods from medifire - takes about 10 goes having to type in some weird word "scramble my brain" etc just to try again. With the usual "download failed - do you want to try again":doh:

Thank you too Trevally! :)

Problem with gamefront is that it got strict rules on "unactive downloads". It is quite boring having to reupload every so often mods that haven't been downloaded for a while. Indeed, this is not a big deal with very popular mods like OHII or NewUIs. The same goes for rapidshare.

On the other hand, I have never had big issues downloading from mediafire. Usually, when the "download failed" message pops up it doesn't take to me more than a second attempt for getting the file. If not, doing right click on the download button and selecting "save target as" does the trick. ;)

As for dropbox, suggested by BIGREG, my only concern is its limited storage size: I've still a huge emblems mod and an as big EIAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ente_Italiano_per_le_Audizioni_Radiofoniche) radio mod cooking on my HD, and I wish all my mods to be stored in the same space. :)

[BIGREG]

Here i have found this one with 15 GO free : http://www.4sync.com/

edit : the latter was not free

[gap]

Here i have found this one with 15 GO free : http://www.4sync.com/
and this one seems to be unlimited :hmmm: : http://www.justcloud.com/

Thank you again BIGREG, I'll give them a try! :yeah:

[Trevally.]

Review for justcloud:hmmm:
http://download.cnet.com/Just-Cloud/3000-18500_4-75692723.html

Free clouds reviews etc
http://download.cnet.com/windows/online-storage-data-backup/?filter=licenseName%3D%22Free%22%7C&filterName=licenseName%3DFree%7C&rpp=&sort=

[gap]

Review for justcloud:hmmm:
http://download.cnet.com/Just-Cloud/3000-18500_4-75692723.html

Free clouds reviews etc
http://download.cnet.com/windows/online-storage-data-backup/?filter=licenseName%3D%22Free%22%7C&filterName=licenseName%3DFree%7C&rpp=&sort=


It requires the installation of an external software. I thought it was fully online :hmm2:

[BIGREG]

other this one with 5 GO free : https://www.box.com/pricing/ ditto for this one : https://www.ccloud.com/ other this one : https://drive.google.com/start#home
and an other : http://www.idrive.com/?p=jason_keeley
It requires the installation of an external software. I thought it was fully online :hmm2:
Yes for the identification and to make a folder ,but the files stay online :yep:

[GT182]

Gap, it's not MediaFire's fault. They need to be contacted and run their antivirus software, or make sure their ads are safe. As long as this one doesn't selfinstall it's not that harmful. You can close it out. Actually, this is the first time I've seen this pop up on MediaFire. Ususally MF is on top of things.

[Trevally.]

Here i have found this one with 15 GO free : http://www.4sync.com/


I have just signed up for and started using this one:up:

[gap]

A few days ago I've found this site:

http://www.navweaps.com/

It provides detailed information on common naval weapons from 1880 to today. So far I've found data on the following specs:

- Main countries using a given gun, (including its variants);
- Year (month in some cases) that the gun came in service for each country that used it;
- Main ship classes equipped with that gun (with information on the variant used);
- Rate of fire (cyclic and approximate practical rate);
- Ammunition used and shell specs for each country;
- Muzzle velocity for each kind of ammunition;
- Gun's range at different elevations (for some of the shells used);
- Historical ammunition stowage per gun;
- Elevation and train angles;
- Elevation and train rates;
- Gun's recoil.

I think there are more datas here than we can accomodate in the limited SH5 balistic model. Besides this, for some guns are provided as well figures on shielding/harmor of the gun, harmor penetration for some of the shells used by it (as a function of distance from target and angle of inpact), and rough information on gun's dispersion.

Anyone interested in a SH5 guns/DC overhaul mod? :D

Noone :06:

Do you guys mean that there is another mod around here, dealing with historical guns specs?

Yet I clearly rememeber recent complaints about unrelistically accurate enemy gun's aim, incorrect min and max ranges, shells doing too much or too little damage, etc :hmmm:

[Rongel]

Okay, this is really off-topic but here goes!



Anyone interested in a SH5 guns/DC overhaul mod

Noone :06:

Do you guys mean that there is another mod around here, dealing with historical guns specs?

Yet I clearly rememeber recent complaints about unrelistically accurate enemy gun's aim, incorrect min and max ranges, shells doing too much or too little damage, etc :hmmm:

I think that is a very good idea gap! There are many mods that change the torpedo damage/deck gun specs and so on, but they are all scattered around and many of them outdated. Ddrgn's U-boat Historical Specifications was the most complete package, but it seems outdated too.

I think we really need one mod that has torpedo damage/deck gun damage/torpedo dud values/DC damage/AI ship spotting values combined and made to resemble realistic values. It isn't even very hard to do modding-wise, just change some values to .cfg and .sim files. More challenging is to test the values and gather the historical data. Also there is ofcourse some compatability issues ahead, but I think some solution can be found.

SH 5 is come a long way from the release, and is almost a new game now, but still most of the captains are sailing with the stock values and sinking whole convoys with the deck gun! nonono....

One example from my previous patrol. I spotted a large unescorted convoy and got in to perfect attack position. It was night and a medium fog. The attack went well (too well infact, I had forgotten to activate my dud value mod, so there were no duds, stock value is 1 %!) and I sunk three ships. I was feeling brave and surfaced to continue the hunt. So spotted the convoy again and opened fire with my deck gun. Ships turned on the lights and the closest ships to me spotted me. Some of the merchants had cannons, but didn't open fire because they couldn't spot me even with the deck gun blazing away all the time. So I sunk three big freighters before my ammo depleted. I'm guessing that kind of situation isn't very realistic. The AI night/fog visual values seem to be too high, the merchants should have seen my deck gun firing and responded to it. And what I have understood is that the deck gun was used only against small vessels...

I'm pretty busy now, but if there is interest in this and other people joining the cause too, I think I could find some time for it... Shouldn't have said that.... :/\\!!

[THE_MASK]

Lets see how you go with this mod then . I read on the net (everythings true :O:) that there was no elevation on the deck guns :yep:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=3521

also if you play with my mod list intact on 100% with all the TDW patches enabled there is no way it is easy . Nights are realistacally dark IE on a dark night you cannot see where the horison meets the sea . lets see you work out what ship it is , and the flag . No crew spotting from scopes , pitch black , no under water views from the scopes , no external camera .

[gap]

Okay, this is really off-topic but here goes!

My bad :D


I think that is a very good idea gap! There are many mods that change the torpedo damage/deck gun specs and so on, but they are all scattered around and many of them outdated. Ddrgn's U-boat Historical Specifications was the most complete package, but it seems outdated too.

Besides being outdated, U-boat Historical Specifications deals only with U-boat's equipment and specs. My idea is to completely rebalance general specs/used equipment/armament's specs/armour level/used shell's penetrations of every single submarine/naval/air unit, in order to make them to reflect historical figures as closely as possible.


I think we really need one mod that has torpedo damage/deck gun damage/torpedo dud values/DC damage/AI ship spotting values combined and made to resemble realistic values.


It isn't even very hard to do modding-wise, just change some values to .cfg and .sim files. More challenging is to test the values and gather the historical data. Also there is ofcourse some compatability issues ahead, but I think some solution can be found.

I agree :yep:


I'm pretty busy now, but if there is interest in this and other people joining the cause too, I think I could find some time for it... Shouldn't have said that.... :/\\!!

I've already started collecting information. Get in touch with me whenever you want.

Lets see how you go with this mod then .
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=3521


downloaded it, thanks :up:

I read on the net (everythings true :O:) that there was no elevation on the deck guns :yep:

Where did you read it sober? :o
How would they aim if elevation is fixed :06:

[volodya61]

@ Gap and Rongel

If you guys are going to create it, it will be a big step forward! :yeah:

:salute:

[Rongel]

I've already started collecting information. Get in touch with me whenever you want.



I could start checking at the torpedo sim settings (also dud values). Maybe later their actual damage. I have been now looking at uboataces.com and uboat.net, if somebody knows more good sites, please tell. :)

I think that the modifications should be made keeping in mind TDW's works and patches. For example, some torpedo malfunctions can be enabled with the patcher.

[volodya61]

...I think that the modifications should be made keeping in mind TDW's works and patches. For example, some torpedo malfunctions can be enabled with the patcher.

And don't forget about .sim changes in the
Magnetic detonators set to 4m for all torpedoes that use magnetic detonators

Please

Thanks :salute:

[gap]

I could start checking at the torpedo sim settings (also dud values). Maybe later their actual damage. I have been now looking at uboataces.com and uboat.net, if somebody knows more good sites, please tell. :)

talking about torpedo failures, you can dig precious information from this essay:
http://eaglescholar.georgiasouthern.edu:8080/jspui/bitstream/10518/3627/1/Wright_David_H_201005_MA.pdf

Not exactly a quick reading, but it is the most complete document on the subject I was able to find so far. :up:

[Rongel]

talking about torpedo failures, you can dig precious information from this essay:
http://eaglescholar.georgiasouthern.edu:8080/jspui/bitstream/10518/3627/1/Wright_David_H_201005_MA.pdf

Not exactly a quick reading, but it is the most complete document on the subject I was able to find so far. :up:

Wow, that seems like an interesting read (for example, captains almost never used full speed in the first torpedo types as it caused malfunctions)!

But now the real world has caught up with me again, so i'm out of the picture for week or so. I have already done quite a lot of dud tests and not suprisingly found out that it is not as easy as it might seem. The angles defined in the .sim file have somewhat complicated mechanic, and probably don't work fully. And it seems that .dat ships calculate them in a different way compared to GR2 ships. But testing goes on!

[gap]

Wow, that seems like an interesting read (for example, captains almost never used full speed in the first torpedo types as it caused malfunctions)!

:up:

But now the real world has caught up with me again, so i'm out of the picture for week or so.

take your time mate!

I have already done quite a lot of dud tests and not suprisingly found out that it is not as easy as it might seem. The angles defined in the .sim file have somewhat complicated mechanic, and probably don't work fully. And it seems that .dat ships calculate them in a different way compared to GR2 ships. But testing goes on!

yes, we need a lot of testing. Even having correct historical figures doesn't help if we don't "convert" them to SH5 format somehow. :yep:
I hope we can disturb TDW on some settings and on the units/maths behind them :hmm2:

[GT182]

Gap, I reinstalled SH5, and your searchlight mod among others yesterday. It works! :D

[gap]

Gap, I reinstalled SH5, and your searchlight mod among others yesterday. It works! :D

Glad to know that you got it working:up:

@TheGeneral

Did you manage to improve serchlight's beam?